ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 88-522
Effect of Loading Type on the Effective Moment of Inertia of
Reinforced Concrete Beams
by Rajeh Z. AI-Zaid, Abdulrahman H. AI-Shaikh, and Mustafa M. Abu-Hussein
The deflection of cracked reinforced concrete beams tested under
various types of loading is investigated and the effect of the type of
loading on their effective moment of inertia is discussed. Four types
of loading were considered in this study, which include: midspan and
third-point concentrated loads, uniformly distributed load, and a
combination of a midspan concentrated and uniformly distributed
load. The value of the effective moment of inertia was found to be
significantly affected by the type of loading used. Therefore, to ac-
count for such an effect, a newly developed model for estimating the
effective moment of inertia of cracked reinforced concrete beams un-
der any type of symmetrical loading is proposed.
Keywords: beams (supports); deflection; load-deflection curve; loads (forces);
moments of inertia; reinforced concrete.
Deflections of reinforced concrete flexural members
were the focus of several research activities for many
years and, as a result, various methods have been pro-
posed for predicting them under both short- and long-
term loadings. 1-4 The main factors affecting the short-
term deflection of a beam are the span length and end
constraints, magnitude and distribution of load, mate-
rial and sectional properties, and the amount and ex-
tent of cracks. Therefore, the proposed models usually
give the deflection as a function of these factors. Of
prime importance in the determination of the deflec-
tion of beams is the calculation of the moment of iner-
tia I of the beam, since its value changes along the span
length from Ig for uncracked sections to Icr for the fully
or severely cracked sections. Branson2 developed a well-
known expression for the average effective moment of
inertia I. over the entire length of a simply supported,
uniformly loaded, rectangular or T-beam in the form
(1)
which can be applied when M. > Me,; otherwise I. =
Ig. This equation has been adopted by the ACI Build-
ing Code5 since 1971. It can be seen from Eq. (1), how-
184
TECHNICAL PAPER
ever, that the only load parameter included is the max-
imum moment M. at which I, is estimated. This means
that the effective moment of inertia is the same for all
identical beams loaded to the same level of moment,
regardless of the type of loading applied. The validity
of this statement is discussed in this paper by studying
the effect of three types of loading: namely, midspan
and third-point concentrated and uniformly distributed
loads on the value of I •. A suggested simple modifica-
tion to Eq. (1) to account for the effect of type of load-
ing is presented. In addition, a more generalized model
to calculate the effective moment of inertia of simple
rectangular and T-beams is proposed. The new pro-
posed model accounts for the effect of the loading type
by considering the variations in the cracked length Lc,
for each type of loading.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The experimental work related to the effect of type
of loading on the value of the effective moment of in-
ertia of cracked reinforced concrete beams indicates the
need to include such an effect in the calculations of the
I. values.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Specimen and material details
All test beams had the same 200 mm square cross
section, with a simply supported clear span of 2500 mm
and a reinforcement ratio of 0.4pb. Two 16 mm diame-
ter Grade 60 deformed steel bars were used as tension
reinforcement. Shear reinforcement was provided by 6
mm diameter steel stirrups located at 70 mm center to
center. In addition, one 10 mm diameter bar was em-
ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No.2, March-Aprill991.
Received Feb. 12, 1990, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright© 1991, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the January-February 1992 ACI
Structural Journal if received by Sept. I, 1991.
ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1991
Rajeh Z. Al·Zaid is an assistant professor of civil engineering at King Saud
University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He received his BSc from King Saud Uni-
versity and MS and PhD from The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. His
current research is in the instantaneous and time-dependent behavior of ordi-
nary reinforced and partially prestressed concrete members with composite and
noncomposite sections.
Abdulrahman H. Al-Shaikh is an assistant professor of civil engineering at King
Saud University. He received his BSc in 1982 from King Saud University, MSc
in 1983 from Stanford University, Stanford, Calif, and PhD in 1987 from the
Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London. His pres-
ent research interest is in the concrete material behavior, repair, and renova-
tion of existing structures.
Mustafa M. Abu-Hussein is a graduate student in the civil engineering depart-
ment at King Saud University. He received his BSc from King Abdui-Aziz Uni-
versity, Jeddah, and MS from King Saud University.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Tables 1 through 3 summarize the experimental re-
sults along with the relevant computed parameters. The
results presented in these tables involved the following
computations:
a. The measured deflections are the average values
for two identically loaded beams.
b. The cracking load for each type of loading was
obtained from the average load-deflection curve of two
identically loaded beams.
c. The values of the effective moment of inertia were
determined experimentally from the measured deflec-
tions using the well-known elastic deflection formula
expressed as

ployed as an anchor bar at the top of each beam. Four kM.V

identical pairs of beams were cast in the horizontal po-
sition using a ready-mixed concrete made with ordinary
portland cement and a mazimum aggregate size of 10
mm. Mix proportions were 1:1.8:3.4 with a water-ce-
ment ratio of 0.56 and a design characteristic strength
of 34 MPa. Beams were then cured in the laboratory
under damp burlap for 27 days and tested 1 day later.
Five control cylinders (152 x 305 mm) were also cast
from each batch, cured under conditions similar to the
corresponding beams, and tested at the age of 28 days.
Loading and instrumentation details
Four different types of loading were applied, which
included midspan and third-point concentrated loads,
uniformly distributed, and a combination of midspan
concentrated and uniformly distributed loads. The lat-
ter type of loading was considered a typical example of
actually loaded beams for which a midspan concen-
trated load might exist beside the uniform dead weight
of the beam. All beams were loaded in a 200 ton ca-
pacity testing machine at a constant strain rate. The
deflection at midspan of the beam was measured using
two dial gages with 0.01-mm accuracy. The strains in
both tension and compression reinforcement were also
measured using electrical resistance strain gages. 6
Iexp = EcA (2)
where k is a constant which depends on the type of
loading and end conditions (e.g., k = Xs and X2 for
simply supported beams loaded by uniformly distrib-
uted and midspan-concentrated loads, respectively).
A typical experimental load-deflection curve is shown
in Fig. 1, while Fig. 2 shows the moment-curvature re-
lationships of the tested beams.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Fig. 3 shows the variation of the experimental effec-
tive moment of inertia for the differently loaded beams
at different moment levels. It can be clearly seen from
this figure that, for the same moment level, a larger
value of I. is obtained for beams loaded at midspan
compared to that for beams loaded at third-points or
by uniformly distributed load, with a difference of
about 12 and 20 percent, respectively. Therefore, to ac-
count for such variation in the I. value for differently
loaded beams, two forms of solution are proposed. In
the first solution, the same general form used by the
ACI Building Code,S Eq. (1), is adopted with different
values of the power m for each of the three types of
loading used. The values of the unknown power m are

Table 1 -Test results and analysis of Beams B1·U and 82-U

M, I""'!I, I up!I.,
Total load, L" ..:l, I,_.p·, Eq. (2) m,, m', Eq. (1), Eq. (3), I""'!I.,
kN M" L mm x 10' mm' Eq. (4) Eq. (6) m = 3 m1 = 2.8 Eq. (5)
17.65 1.11 0.32 1.28 9861 4.34 0.89 0.92 0.90 0.99
19.53 1.23 0.44 1.67 8399 3.52 0.80 0.94 0.92 0.99
21.65 1.36 0.51 2.10 7347 3.22 0.69 0.97 0.94 0.98
23.53 1.48 0.57 2.50 6732 3.01 0.65 1.00 0.96 0.99
25.42 1.60 0.61 2.90 6287 2.86 0.61 1.03 0.99 0.99
27.54 1.73 0.65 3.33 5896 2.76 0.58 1.05 1.01 1.00
31.30 1.98 0.70 4.13 5434 2.58 0.53 1.08 1.04 1.01
35.30 2.22 0.74 5.01 5036 2.56 0.46 1.08 1.04 1.01
39.30 2.47 0.77 5.90 4754 2.55 0.40 1.07 1.04 1.00
43.07 2.72 0.79 6.73 4585 2.50 0.36 1.07 1.05 1.00
47.07 2.96 0.81 7.55 4458 2.46 0.34 1.07 1.05 1.00
51.07 3.21 0.83 8.36 4362 2.43 0.33 1.07 1.05 1.01
54.84 3.46 0.84 9.17 4283 2.40 0.30 1.06 1.05 1.00
58.84 3.70 0.85 10,07 4178 2.47 0.25 1.05 1.03 0.99
f: = 38.2 MPa (5.5 ksi); E, = 29,634 MPa (4300 ksi); /" = 38.0 x 10' mm' (91.3 in.'); and M" = 5.2 kN/m (45.73
in./kips), as obtained from the average load-deflection curve.

ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1991 185

 Table 2 - Test results and analysis of Beams B3·C and B4·C
M, f.w//,., /""'//,.,
Total load, L"
- A, /"""'' Eq. (2) m,, m', Eq. (1), Eq. (3), /up//,.,
kN M" L rnrn X 10' rnrn' Eq. (4) Eq. (6) m=3 m, = 1.8 Eq. (5)
9.80 l.l5 0.13 1.05 10,258 2.79 0.55 Co2 0.91 0.88
11.77 1.38 0.28 1.50 8617 2.12 0.55 l.l6 0.94 0.90
13.73 1.61 0.38 1.95 7733 1.86 0.55 1.27 0.99 0.95
15.69 1.84 0.46 2.50 6894 1.85 0.51 1.29 0.99 0.97
17.65 2.07 0.52 3.05 6357 1.81 0.48 1.30 1.00 1.00
19.61 2.30 0.57 3.68 5854 1.84 0.43 1.28 0.99 1.00
21.57 2.53 0.60 4.23 5602 1.79 0.41 1.28 1.00 1.01
23.53 2.76 0.64 4.77 5420 1.75 0.42 1.27 1.02 1.04
25.50 2.99 0.67 5.40 5186 1.76 0.39 1.25 1.01 1.04
27.46 3.22 0.69 6.03 5002 1.77 0.36 1.22 1.01 1.03
31.38 3.68 0.73 7.31 4715 1.80 0.32 l.l8 1.00 1.03
35.30 4.14 0.76 8.47 4578 1.76 0.31 l.l6 1.01 1.04
J: = 38.2 MPa (5.5 ksi); E, = 29,634 MPa (4300 ksi); /" = 38.0 x 10' mm' (91.3 in.'); and M" = 5.3 kN/m (47.2
in./kips), as obtained from the average load-deflection curve.

Table 3 - Test results and analysis of Beams BS·T and B6·T

M, fa//,., fu/f,.,
Total load, - L"
- A, /up'' Eq. (2) m, m', Eq. (1), Eq. (3), fu/f,.,
kN M" L rnrn x 10' rnrn' Eq. (4) Eq. (6) m = 3 m,= 2.3 Eq. (5)
11.77 1.09 0.39 l.l2 9831 5.31 1.06 0.88 0.85 1.06
13.73 1.27 0.48 1.48 8680 2.80 0.98 1.03 0.93 1.09
15.69 1.45 0.54 1.87 7953 2.24 0.93 l.l5 1.01 l.l2
17.65 1.64 0.59 2.48 6660 2.43 0.68 l.l2 0.97 1.04
19.61 1.82 0.63 2.91 6306 2.23 0.66 l.l7 1.02 1.06
21.57 2.00 0.67 3.53 5719 2.31 0.56 l.l5 1.00 1.03
25.50 2.36 0.72 4.61 5175 2.26 0.47 l.l4 1.01 1.03
29.42 2.73 0.76 5.65 4872 2.18 0.43 l.l4 1.03 1.03
33.34 3.09 0.78 6.83 4568 2.23 0.34 l.l1 1.01 1.01
37.26 3.45 0.81 7.78 4482 2.13 0.35 l.l1 1.03 1.03
4l.l9 3.82 0.83 8.69 4435 2.02 0.37 l.l2 1.05 1.04
45.ll 4.18 0.84 9.92 4255 2.13 0.28 1.08 1.02 1.02
J: = 38.2 MPa (5.5 ksi); E, = 29,634 MPa (4300 ksi); /" = 38.0 x 10' mm' (91.3 in.'); and M" = 4.5 kN/m (39.92
in./kips); as obtained from the average load-deflection curve.

to be determined experimentally. This solution is given
in the form
where
m m 1 for uniformly distributed loading
= son.2 The variation of m with the M.IMer ratio is plot-
m = m 2 for third-point loading
m = m 3 for midspan-concentrated loading
The values of m 2 and m3 are expected to be less than
m 1 , since the values of I. for these two cases of loading
are larger than that of uniformly distributed load, as
seen in Fig. 3. The values of the power m were evalu-
ated from Eq. (2) and (3) as
(4)
tables. The estimated I. values using Eq. (1) showed a
good agreement with the experimental values Iexp ob-
tained under uniformly distributed load in the load
level range of 1.5 < M.l Mer < 4.0 (Table 1). How-
ever, the value of the power m decreases rapidly from
about 4.3 to 3.0 in the range of M/Mer between 1.0 and
1.5. This observation explains why Eq. (1) overesti-
mates the I. values in this range, as mentioned by Bran-
ted in Fig 4. This figure shows that for a load level
greater than 1.5 Mcro the reduction in the values of the
power m is very small. Average values of 2.8, 2.3, and
1.8 for m 1, m 2 , and m3 , respectively, appear to be ap-
propriate, and therefore are suggested for this range.
These values of m 1, m 2 , and m3 were used in Eq. (3) to
predict I. over the range of loading greater than 1.5 Mer
for the differently loaded beams with a very good ac-
curacy, as shown in Tables 1 through 3. For load levels
less than 1.5 Mer it was observed that the same power
can be used, but the computed values of I. should be
reduced by about 10 percent.

log ( Mer)
M.
The I. values predicted by Eq. (1) with m = 3 are
calculated at the different levels of M/ Mer and com-
pared with the experimental values shown in Tables 1
through 3. The values of the powers m~> m2 , and m3 to
be used in Eq. (3) for the different types of loading
were also calculated using Eq. (4) and listed in the same
186
Effect of the cracked length on 1. value
The variation of I. values for the differently loaded
beams can be physically explained by the difference in
the cracked length Ler under each type of loading. The
cracked length is defined as the beam segment over
which the working moment exceeds the cracking mo-
ment Men which can be easily determined using the
fundamentals of structural analysis. This difference can
ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1991
 50 11500

40
9500
-
~

--a--
Mid-span load
Third-points load
Uniform load

... a
30
a
=
..... 7500
z ~
~
~
20 .....
..,. 5500
.$1

....
! 10

3500 +----.---.----..--~--.---.---....--,---~--"T--1
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Deflection ( mm )
Fig. 3- Variation of the experimental effective mo-
ment of inertia with the level and type of loading
Fig. 1-Average load-deflection curve for Beams Bl-U
and B2-U
6~----------------------------------~

8~========~----------,
- Third-poiniS load
-
--o-
Mid-span load
Uniform load
5 --
--- Uniform load
Third-points load
Mid-span load
6
4

a
3

2
2

2 3 4 5 6 7
0~--~--~----~--~---T----~--~--~
0 100 200 300 400 Ma 1M cr

-1 -5
(mm xlO ) Fig. 4-Variation of the power m with M.IMc, ratio
and type of loading
Fig. 2-Typical moment-curvature relationships for the
tested beams 1.0 -r------------------------------------,
be clearly seen in Fig. 5, which shows a plot of the 0.8
Le/L ratio versus M.l Me, ratio for the three types of ~
loading used in this study. The figure reveals that, at ...u 0.6
..:I
the same M/Me, ratio, the cracked length of the beam - Unifonn losd
0.4 - Third-pointsload
under midspan concentrated load is less than that un-
- Mid-spsnload
der uniform or third-point load, hence leading to a
0.2
greater effective moment of inertia I •. The preceding
discussion suggests development of a more generalized
0.0
model for the estimation of I. which takes into account 0 2 3 4 5 6 7
both the severity of crack propagation as well as the
extension of cracking along the beam. The cracked
length ratio Le,l L in additon to the M.l Me, ratio is Fig. 5-Theoretical variation of the cracked length ra-
thought to be a proper parameter to be included and, tio with the level and type of loading
therefore, the proposed model is given in the form
which satisfies the limiting values of I. = Ig when Le, =
zero, and I. approaches Ie, when Le, covers almost the
(5) full span L of the beam. The values of the power m'
for all types of loading were determined using the ex-
ACI Structural Journal I March-April1991 187
 1.2

1.0
..,II
II 300

0.8 "'""~

0.6 200
·e ~
CIJ

0.4 s;
.!i!
...t 100
~
0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Mer IMa
Computed Ie , (xlo6 mm4 )

Fig. 6-Variation of the power m 1 with Mc/M. ratio

for the various types of loading Fig. 8-Comparison of experimental I. for beams
available in literature with computed I. using Eq. (5)

The values of power m 1 obtained using Eq. (6) for

the beams tested in this study are also listed in Tables 1
through 3, from which a variation in the m 1 was then
plotted against Me/ Ma ratio, as shown in Fig. 6, from
which the value of the power m 1 can be determined ap-
proximately as

ml (7)
...E 12000
E

... 10000 Using this power, Eq. (5) was found to predict I, for all
....
0

.!!. types with a very good accuracy (Tables 1 through 3) .

8000
To further evaluate the accuracy of the proposed
6000
models, both Eq. (3) and Eq. (5) were used to calculate
·"' I, for the beams tested under combined midspan con-
!
•.E centrated and uniformly distributed loading. The re-
=
{,)
6000 8000 10000 12000
sults are shown in Table 4, which also indicate a very
12000
good accuracy. In this table, the power mused in Eq.
(3) is the weighted power based on the ratio of the
10000 maximum moments caused by midspan concentrated
and uniformly distributed loads applied individually.
8000
Furthermore, a comparison of the experimental and
8000 computed I, values for all the types of loading used is
presented in Fig. 7, which also depicts the accuracy of
each model.

Comparison with previous results

Fig. 7-Comparison of the experimental and computed The accuracy of the proposed models was also inves-
I. values for the tested beams using the different mod- tigated using test results available in literature. Com-
els parisons were made with the results reported of twelve
pairs of beams with rectangular sections7 and six beams
perimental results as follows with T -sections• tested under uniformly distributed
loads. These results are reproduced in Table 5, along
with the relevant computed parameters. The experi-
ml mental I, values calculated from the reported test re-
(6)
sults are plotted in Fig. 8 against the computed values,
using Eq. (5). As can be seen, 95 percent of the data
points lie within the ± 15 percent limits, indicating the
188 ACI Structural Journal I March-April1991
 Table 4 - Comparison of test results of Beams B·7·CU and B·8·CU with
proposed models
w, M. [up I' Eq. l<XPII,., [up/[,., l<XPII,.,
Total load, p" kN/ - L" ~. (2) Eq. (1),_ Eq. (3), Eq. (5),
kN kN m M" L mm x 10' mm' m= 3 m* = 2.0 m.'
11.77 8.09 1.47 1.28 0.244 1.47 8650 1.02 0.89 0.84
15.69 10.79 1.96 1.70 0.453 2.57 6597 1.10 0.91 0.88
19.61 13.48 2.45 2.13 0.571 3.70 5728 1.14 0.93 0.92
23.53 16.18 2.94 2.55 0.647 4.6 5529 1.19 1.00 1.00
27.46 18.88 3.43 2.98 0.70 5.63 5270 1.19 1.03 1.03
33.34 22.92 4.17 3.62 0.755 7.22 4990 1.16 1.04 1.04
37.26 25.61 4.66 4.04 0.782 8.27 4869 1.15 1.05 1.05
41.18 28.31 5.15 4.47 0.803 9.30 4785 1.14 1.05 1.05
45.11 31.01 5.64 4.89 0.821 10.40 4687 1.12 1.05 1.05
49.03 33.70 6.13 5.32 0.836 11.33 4676 1.13 1.06 1.06
. . 1.8 {M/M.) + 2.8
•m the we1ghted power =
IS .
(M/M.) + I
1: = 31.4 MPa {4.5 ksi); E, = 26,840 MPa {3892 ksi); /" = 40.9 x 10' mm' {98.26 in.'); and M" = 4.9 kN/m {43.39
in./kips), as obtained from the average load-deflection curve.

Table 5 - Comparison of the proposed models with previous results

Beam [up ~. T,., Eq. (3) I,., Eq. (5)
designation x1 c{!·mm' xlO'mm x 10' mm mm MjM x 10' mm' [up/[, x 10' mm' 'I~I.
["
Reference
G. W. Washa
and P. G.
Fluck' A1, A4 4795 3039 3405 13.5 0.41 3180 1.07 3213 1.06
A2, AS 4795 2872 2909 15.8 0.41 3026 0.96 3063 0.95
A3, A6 4795 2764 2693 17.( 0.41 2926 0.92 2968 0.91
B1, B4 1066 420 558 ~3.~ 0.44 483 1.15 495 1.12
B2,B5
B3,B6
1066
1066
416
408
520
491 ~~-S
6.~
0.44
0.44
479
475
1.08
1.03
491
487
1.06
1.00
C1, C4 520 296 308 ~0.1 0.40 312 0.98 316 0.97
C2, C5 520 285 286 ~3.~ 0.40 304 0.94 308 0.93
C3,C6 520 274 260 ~7.8 0.40 291 0.88 380 0.87
01,04 520 296 394 ll.S 0.42 315 1.25 322 1.23
02,05 520 285 331 14.~ 0.42 305 1.08 310 1.07
03,06 520 274 264 17.8 0.42 296 0.90 300 0.88
W. W. Yuand
G. Winter' A 4795 1915 1923 34.( 0.26 1981 0.97 2023 0.95
B 4795 1998 2123 ~1.5 0.25 2052 1.03 2094 1.01
c 4795 2040 2210 ~0. 0.26 2098 1.05 2139 1.03
0 4795 3413 3705 ~2.3 0.16 3430 1.08 3455 1.07
E 4795 1769 2248 12.9 0.30 1877 1.20 1931 1.16
F 1440 633 674 ~5.9 0.21 645 1.05 654 1.03

*L" =~I_ M".

L M.

accuracy of the model. Eq. (3) also predicts the experi-
mental data with similar accuracy, as can be seen from
Table 5.
Effect of reinforcement ratio
As would be expected, the value of I. will be affected
by the reinforcement ratio p, especially for heavily re-
inforced concrete members. This effect is currently be-
ing investigated in relation to the proposed models in a
research program at King Saud University. The prelim-
inary results indicate that, for moment levels greater
than 1.5 Mcro the power m is inversely proportional to
the reinforcement ratio, while the power m 1 appeared
to be directly proportional to it. Full results will be
presented in future publications.
CONCLUSIONS
The work described in this paper was concerned with
the effect of the type of loading on the deflection re-
sponse of cracked reinforced concrete beams. The fol-
lowing conclusions can be drawn:
1. Both the type and level of loading affect the esti-
mation of the effective moment of inertia of cracked
ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1991
reinforced concrete beams.
2. At the same level of moment, the effective mo-
ment of inertia for beams loaded at midspan was found
to be about 20 percent more than that for beams sub-
jected to uniformly distributed load.
3. Under all types of loading, the power min Eq. (3)
decreases with the increase in the Mal Mer ratio, partic-
ularly in the range of moment less than 1.5 Mer'
4. The values of the power in Eq. (3) are suggested
as 2.8, 2.3, and 1.8 for m 1, m 2 , and m 3, respectively.
5. The new proposed model Eq. (5), with the power
m 1 = Me/ Ma, can be used to estimate I. for normally
reinforced concrete beams under different types of
loading with a very good accuracy.
NOTATION
modulus of elasticity of concrete
compressive strength of concrete
modulus of rupture of concrete
moment of inertia of the cracked transformed reinforced
concrete section
I, effective moment of inertia of the cracked reinforced con-
crete beam
[up experimental value of I,
189
I, moment of inertia of the gross concrete section 2. Branson, D. E., "Instantaneous and Time-Dependent Deflec-
L length of beam span tions of Simple and Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams," HPR
Lcr theoretical cracked length of the beam Report No. 7, Part 1, Alabama Highway Department, Bureau of
M. maximum service load moment acting on the beam Public Roads, Aug. 1963 (1965), pp. 1-78.
M, maximum moment due to a central point load 3. Corley, William G., and Sozen, Mete A., "Time-Dependent
M" cracking moment of beam = f · I,ly, Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Beams," ACI JoURNAL Proceed-
Mw maximum moment due to a uniformly distributed load ings V. 63, No. 3, Mar. 1966, pp. 373-386.
P, concentrated load 4. ACI Committee 435, "Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Flex-
y, distance from neutral axis to the extremely tensioned fiber ural Members," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 63, No.6, June 1966,
..1 maximum deflection pp. 637-674 .
p reinforcement ratio S. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
P. reinforcement ratio producing a balanced condition forced Concrete (ACI 318-71)," American Concrete Institute, De-
.P curvature at midspan section troit, 1971, 78 pp .
6. Abu-Hussein, M. M., "Effective Moment of Inertia of Cracked
REFERENCES Reinforced Concrete Beams under Different Types of Loading,"
l. Yu, Wei-Wen, and Winter, George, "Instantaneous and Long- Master thesis, King Saud University, June 1989, 116 pp.
Time Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Beams under Working 7. Washa, G. W., and Fluck, P. G., "Effect of Compressive Re-
Loads," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 57, No. 1, July 1960, pp. 29- inforcement on the Plastic Flow of Reinforced Concrete Beams,"
50. ACI JoURNAL, Proceedings V. 49, No. 8, Oct. 1952, pp. 89-108.

190 ACI Structural Journal I March-April1991