materials
Article
Prediction of Deflection of Reinforced Concrete Beams
Considering Shear Effect
Sang-Woo Kim 1 and Kil-Hee Kim 2, *






Citation: Kim, S.-W.; Kim, K.-H.
Prediction of Deflection of Reinforced
Concrete Beams Considering Shear
Effect. Materials 2021, 14, 6684.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14216684
Academic Editor: Chang-Geun Cho
Received: 17 September 2021
Accepted: 2 November 2021
Published: 5 November 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Materials 2021, 14, 6684. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14216684
1 Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental System Engineering Graduate School,
Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Korea; swkim91@skku.edu
2 Department of Architectural Engineering & Urban System Engineering, Kongju National University,
Cheonan 31080, Korea
* Correspondence: kimkh@kongju.ac.kr
Abstract: This paper proposes a method to evaluate the effect of shear on the deflection of reinforced
concrete (RC) beams. The deflection of RC beams due to the effects of flexural and shear cracks
shows different results from those obtained from the elastic theory. The effect of shear on deflection
was compared and analyzed in this study, on the basis of experimental results and elastic theory
using the virtual work method. The shear effect on the deflection of RC beams by elastic theory
was extremely small. However, experimental results showed a difference of over 40% from the
results predicted by elasticity theory. In this study, a new method was developed to reasonably
predict the deflection of flexure-critical RC beams using the deflection incremental coefficient due to
shear. The proposed method was compared with the existing experimental results obtained from the
literature for verification. As a result of the comparison, the deflection obtained using ACI 318-19
underestimated the actual deflection by approximately 33%, whereas the deflection obtained by the
proposed method predicted the experimental results relatively accurately.
Keywords: shear effect; deflection; effective moment of inertia; flexure; RC beams
1. Introduction
Many structural codes consider the deflection of structures in terms of safety and
serviceability. Safety ensures that no casualties result from structural collapse. For this, it is
necessary to provide sufficient time for people to identify deformations, such as deflection
of the structure and to evacuate before destruction. Meanwhile, the serviceability of a
structure is intended to avoid inconvenience to users, and the structural standards limit it
to prevent excessive vibration or deflection. For safety purposes, it is conservative for the
analytical result of deflection in the ultimate state to be smaller than the actual deflection
of structural members. In contrast, for the purpose of serviceability, it is conservative
for the analytical result to be larger than the actual deflection of structural members in a
service load.
The actual deflection of structural members using non-cracking materials, such as steel
structures, is not significantly different from the deflection calculated based on the general
elastic theory. However, in the case of using a material that can crack even under a service
load, such as reinforced concrete (RC) structures, the flexural stiffness and deflection are
different from those predicted by elastic theory because of the effect of cracking.
In 1965, Branson [1] proposed an equation for the effective moment of inertia of RC
beams using cracking and yield moments. The Branson equation was reflected in the ACI
building code from 1971 [2] to 2018 [3] because the deflection of the structural member can
be easily calculated by substituting it into the elastic deflection equations. Bischoff [4,5]
reported that the Branson equation deviated significantly from the experimental results for
the deflection of RC beams with a tensile reinforcement ratio of less than 1%. Scanlon and
Bischoff [6] studied the effect of shrinkage restraint cracking and loading history, and ACI
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials
Materials 2021, 14, 6684 2 of 13

318-19 [7] modified the equation for the effective moment of inertia based on the research
results reported by Bischoff et al.
Figure 1 shows the typical load-deflection behavior of flexure-critical RC beams that
failed in flexure. As shown in Figure 1, the beam members are generally subjected to bend-
ing and shear. In the pure bending region , 1 only flexural deformation occurs, whereas in
region 2 where both flexure and shear exist, both flexural and shear deformations occur.
After cracking by an external load, the RC members exhibit a different behavior from
that described by the elastic theory. Several researchers, including Branson and Bischoff,
have conducted studies to evaluate the effect of cracks on flexural stiffness. Similarly,
when a shear crack occurs in an RC beam, the deformation is concentrated in the crack,
showing different characteristics from the deformation according to the general elastic
theory. However, most studies on deflection have focused on flexure based on elastic
theory, which implies that shear does not have a significant effect.

Figure 1. Typical load-deflection behavior of flexure-critical RC beams.

Recently, Kim et al. [8] experimentally separated and evaluated the effects of flexure
and shear on deflection by conducting flexural tests of simply supported flexure-critical
RC beams subjected to concentrated loads. Their results indicated that the deflection
calculated using ACI 318-19 was similar to the deflection caused by flexure. Furthermore,
it was reported that the total deflection reached a maximum of approximately 1.6 times
the measured pure flexural deflection. In this study, a new method is developed for a
more accurate evaluation of the deflection of flexure-critical RC beams considering the
shear effect.

2. Review of Previous Study

2.1. Effect of Shear on Deflection of Flexure-Critical RC Beams
Kim et al. [8] experimentally evaluated the effect of shear on the deflection of flexure-
critical RC beams. As shown in Figure 2, the deflection at the mid-span of the beam
can be obtained using (1) a linear variable differential transducer (LVDT) and (2) strain
gauges attached to the mid-span of the beam. The values measured from the strain gauges
were used to evaluate the deflection due to flexure (flexural deflection) using the moment-
curvature relationship and elastic deflection formula, as detailed in Section 3.2. Because the
deflection of RC beams is affected by flexure and shear, the deflection due to shear (shear
1deflection) can be obtained by subtracting the flexural deflection from the total deflection.
Materials 2021,14,
Materials2021, 14,6684
x FOR PEER REVIEW 33of
of13
13

P/2 P/2

c
Strain gauges
Flexural deflection
M
Total deflection from strain gauges I
 Ec
from LVDT
s

Figure 2. Flexural
Figure 2. Flexural and
and total
total deflections
deflections of
of an
an RC
RC beam.
beam.

The
The experimental
experimental results
results showed
showed that
thatthe
theshear
shearand andtension
tensionsteel
steelbars
barshad
hadnonosignifi-
signif-
cant effect on the shear deflection of flexure-critical RC beams when the shear
icant effect on the shear deflection of flexure-critical RC beams when the shear reinforce-reinforcement
satisfied the ACI
ment satisfied thebuilding code. code.
ACI building However, it was
However, confirmed
it was that that
confirmed the effect of shear
the effect on
of shear
deflection increased as the shear span-to-depth ratio decreased. In addition,
on deflection increased as the shear span-to-depth ratio decreased. In addition, the devi- the deviation
between the deflection
ation between calculated
the deflection using using
calculated the current ACI code
the current ACI[7]
codeand[7]
theand
experimental
the experi-
deflection measured from LVDT increased as the shear-to-depth ratio
mental deflection measured from LVDT increased as the shear-to-depth ratio decreased, decreased, and the
actual deflection was also underestimated. In this study, a new method
and the actual deflection was also underestimated. In this study, a new method to predict to predict the
deflection of flexure-critical RC beams is proposed based on the results
the deflection of flexure-critical RC beams is proposed based on the results of a previous of a previous
study
study [8,9]
[8,9] that
that experimentally
experimentally evaluated
evaluated the
the effect
effect ofof shear
shear on
on the
the deflection
deflection ofof RC
RC beams.
beams.
2.2. Experimental Program
2.2. Experimental Program
Table 1 shows the details and results of the specimens tested in the previous study [8,9].
Table
The test 1 shows
variables the the
were details
shearand results of theratio
span-to-depth specimens tested
and shear in the previous
capacity ratio Vshearstudy [8,9]..
/Vf lexure
The
It test variables
should be noted were theshear
that the shearreinforcement
span-to-depthhadratio
noand shear
effect on capacity
the shearratio Vshear / Vwhen
deflection flexure
. It
should
the shearbecapacity
noted thatwasthe shear than
greater reinforcement hadcapacity.
the flexural no effectThe
on the shear deflection
specimens classifiedwhen into
the shear
three capacity
groups was to
according greater thanspan-to-depth
the shear the flexural capacity. The
ratio: 2.5, 3.0,specimens
and 4.0. Inclassified
the nameinto of
three
the groups according
specimens, B6 indicatesto the
thatshear span-to-depth
the tension ratio:ratio
reinforcement 2.5, 3.0, andof4.0.
is 60% theIn the name
balanced steel of
the specimens,
ratio B6 reinforced
for the singly indicates that the tension reinforcement ratio is 60% of the balanced
section.
steel ratio for the singly reinforced section.
Table 1. Details of Specimens and Experimental Results at Flexural Yield [8,9].
Table 1. Details of Specimens and Experimental Results at Flexural Yield [8,9].
Tension
a/d Vshear Py,exp. ∆t,exp.
Tension
Specimens
(d/l)a/d
Rebar Shear Rebar Vshear
Vflexure Py,exp
(kN)
. (mm)
t ,exp .
Specimens (Comp.)
Rebar Shear Rebar
(d/l) V flexure (kN) (mm)
B6-2.5a (Comp.) D10@95 mm 1.1 451.6 11.9
2.5
B6-2.5b
B6-2.5a D10@70mm
D10@95 mm 1.4
1.1 446.8
451.6 11.5
11.9
(0.156)
B6-2.5c 2.5 D10@55 mm 1.7 467.0 11.4
B6-2.5b D10@70 mm 1.4 446.8 11.5
B6-3.0a (0.156) 3-D22 D10@120 mm 1.1 382.2 15.2
B6-2.5c 3.0 D10@55
B6-3.0b (2-D16) D10@90mm mm 1.7
1.4 467.0
373.5 11.4
14.6
(0.135)
B6-3.0c
B6-3.0a D10@70 mm
D10@120 1.7
1.1 372.3
382.2 14.2
15.2
3.0 3-D22
B6-4.0a
B6-3.0b D10@180mm
D10@90 mm 1.1
1.4 275.1
373.5 19.8
14.6
4.0
(0.135) (2-D16)
B6-4.0b
B6-3.0c D10@130
D10@70 mm mm 1.4
1.7 268.7
372.3 20.1
14.2
(0.106)
B6-4.0c D10@100 mm 1.7 274.1 19.9
B6-4.0a D10@180 mm 1.1 275.1 19.8
Note: a—shear span, d—effective
4.0 depth, l—clear span of specimens, Vshear and Vf lexure —nominal shear and
B6-4.0b
flexural D10@130
strengths calculated by ACI 318-14, respectively, Py,exp.mm 1.4 at flexural
—applied load 268.7 20.1—total
yield, and ∆t,exp.
(0.106)
deflection measured
B6-4.0c from LVDT installed at the mid-span of
D10@100 mm the beam specimens.
1.7 274.1 19.9
Note: a–shear span, d–effective depth, l–clear span of specimens, Vshear and V flexure –nominal shear
Type I Portland cement, blast furnace slag powder, and fly ash were used to prepare
and flexural strengths calculated by ACI 318-14, respectively, Py ,exp. –applied load at flexural yield,
ready-mixed concrete. The blast furnace slag powder and fly ash constituted 15.2% and
and  ,exp . –total deflection measured from LVDT installed at the mid-span of the beam specimens.
17.9%, t respectively, of the total binder. A water binder ratio of 53.6% and an air-entraining
agent, which formed 0.6% of the total binder, were used to obtain the target strength and
Type I of
workability Portland cement,
the concrete. Theblast furnace
slump of theslag powder,
concrete wasand
150fly
mm.ashThe
were used to
crushed prepare
limestone
ready-mixed
used as coarseconcrete.
aggregates The
hadblast furnace slag
a maximum size powder
of 25 mmand
andfly ash constituted
a specific gravity of15.2% and
2.61. The
17.9%, respectively, of the total binder. A water binder ratio
washed sand used as fine aggregates had a specific gravity of 2.59. of 53.6% and an air-entraining
agent, which formed 0.6% of the total binder, were used to obtain the target strength and
 workabilityof
workability ofthe
theconcrete.
concrete.The Theslump
slumpof ofthe
theconcrete
concretewas was150150mm.
mm.The Thecrushed
crushedlimeston
limeston
used as
used as coarse
coarse aggregates
aggregates had had aa maximum
maximum size size ofof 25
25 mm
mm andand aa specific
specific gravity
gravity of of 2.61
2.6
Materials 2021, 14, 6684 4 of 13
The washed sand used as fine aggregates had
The washed sand used as fine aggregates had a specific gravity of 2.59. a specific gravity of 2.59.
The average
The averagecompressive
compressivestrength strengthand and thethe elastic
elasticmodulus
modulus of of the
the concrete
concrete was was 26.
26
MPaand
MPa and1.71.7××10 104 MPa,
4 MPa,respectively.
respectively.In In addition,an anaverage
averageof of4.14.1MPaMPawas wasobtained
obtainedaa
a The average
result of the compressive
test of the modulusstrengthof andaddition,
rupture theaccording
elastic modulus
to ASTM of the
C78 concrete
[10]. D22 was
(387.1 mm
a result
26.8 MPa ofandthe1.7test
× of 10the modulus
4 MPa, of rupture
respectively. according
In addition, an to ASTMofC78
average 4.1 [10].
MPa D22was (387.1
ob- mm
was used
was used forfor tension
tension reinforcement,
reinforcement, and and the the strength
strength and and strain
strain at at yield
yield were
were 543.4MP
tained as a result of the test of the modulus of rupture according to ASTM C78 [10]. D22543.4MP
and
(387.1 0.00304,
2
and 0.00304,
mm ) was respectively,
respectively,
used for tension as a result
as a result of the tension
of the tension
reinforcement, and the test.
test. For compression
For compression
strength and strain atand and
yield shearrein
shear rei
forcement,
were 543.4MPa
forcement, D16
D16 and and
and D10were
0.00304,
D10 were respectively
respectively, used,
as a result
respectively used, andtension
of and
the therespective
the respective yieldstrengths
test. For compression
yield strengthswer we
546.5
and MPa
shear
546.5 MPa and 322.0
reinforcement,
and 322.0 MPa. MPa.
D16 and D10 were respectively used, and the respective yield
As
strengths shown
were 546.5in
As shown in Figure Figure
MPa and3,3, theMPa.
322.0
the cross-sectional width,
cross-sectional width, depth,
depth, andand effective
effective depth
depth of of th
th
As shown
specimens werein Figure
200 3, the
mm, cross-sectional
400 mm, and 350width,
mm, depth, and effective
respectively. The depth of the
distance between th
specimens were 200 mm, 400 mm, and 350 mm, respectively. The distance between th
specimens were 200
loading points
points was mm, 500400mm,mm,and and four-point
350 mm, respectively.
loading was Theapplied
was distanceto between the
the specimens.
specimens.
loading
loading points was was 500 500
mm, mm,
and and four-point
four-point loadingloading
was applied applied
to the to the
specimens. To gaug TT
measure
measurethe the
the curvature
curvature of the
of the specimen
specimen and the
andstrain strain
the strain of the materials, wire strain
measure curvature of the specimen and the of the of the materials,
materials, wire strain wire strain gauge
gauges
were attached
wereattached
attached to the tension and compression reinforcing bars and to the concrete extrem
were to to
thethe tension
tension andand compression
compression reinforcing
reinforcing bars and bars andconcrete
to the to the concrete
extreme extrem
compression
compressionfiber
compression
fiber
fiber located
located
located
at
at at
the
thethe
mid-span
mid-span
mid-span
of the
of the
of the
specimen.
specimen.
specimen. As As
As
shown
shown
shown in Figure
in Figure
in Figure
4, a un
4, a 4, a un
versal testing
universal
versal testing machine
testingmachine
machine (UTM) (UTM)with
(UTM) with
with aa capacity
capacity
a capacity of 2000
of 2000
of 2000
kN was kNused
kN wasfor
was used for loading,
loading,
used for loading,
and a and and
LVDT
LVDT
LVDTwere were
were installed
installed
installed at
at the the
bottom
at the bottom
bottom of the
of theofspecimens specimens
the specimens to
to measure measure the
the mid-span
to measure mid-span
deflection.
the mid-span deflection
deflection

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)

(c)
(c)
Figure
Figure
Figure 3.
3.3. Details
Details
Details oftypical
of of typical
typical specimens
specimens [8,9]:
[8,9]:[8,9]:
specimens (a)B6-2.5b;
B6-2.5b;
(a) B6-2.5b;
(a) (b)B6-3.0b;
B6-3.0b;
(b) B6-3.0b;
(b) (c)B6-4.0b
(c) B6-4.0b
(c) B6-4.0b
(unit: (unit:mm).
mm).
(unit: mm).

Figure 4. View of test setup of a specimen tested in the previous study [8,9].
Figure4.4.View
View
Figure of of
testtest setup
setup of aof a specimen
specimen testedtested
in the in the previous
previous study [8,9].
study [8,9].
Materials 2021, 14, 6684 5 of 13

3. Evaluation of Shear Effect on Deflection of RC Beams

3.1. Elastic Analysis
In this section, the shear effect on the beam deflection is evaluated using the virtual
work method. The deflection of the beam varies according to the loading type and the
boundary conditions. When the magnitude of the load is the same, the simple support
rather than the fixed support, as well as the concentrated load closer to the mid-span rather
than the uniformly distributed load, causes larger deflection. As shown in Figure 2, the
deflection of the beam is affected by flexure and shear, and the total deflection ∆t of the
mid-span of the beam is calculated using the virtual work method as follows:

Mm Vv
Z Z
∆t = ∆ f + ∆s = dx + χ dx (1)
EI GA
where ∆ f and ∆s are the deflections due to flexure and shear, respectively, M and V are the
bending moment and shear force, respectively, m and v are the moment and shear force
induced by virtual work, respectively, E is the elastic modulus, I is the moment of inertia, χ
is the factor according to cross-sectional type (1.2 for rectangular), G is the shear modulus of
elasticity (=E/2(1 + ν)), ν is the Poisson’s ratio, and A is the cross-sectional area. The first
and second terms of Equation (1) mean deflection due to flexure and shear, respectively.
For a simply supported beam, the total deflection at the mid-span of the beam can be
calculated using Equation (1) for the case of a four-point load and a uniformly distributed
load as follows:
Pa χPa
∆t = (3l 2 − 4a) + (for four-point load) (2)
48EI 2GA

5wl 4 χwl 2
∆t = + (for uniform load) (3)
384EI 8GA
where P and w are the concentrated and uniform loads, respectively. The first term of
Equations (2) and (3) is the deflection due to flexure, and the second term is the one due
to shear.
By substituting the characteristics of RC beams with a rectangular cross-section, that
is, ν = 0.16, G = 0.43Ec , E = Ec , I = bh3 /12, A = bh, and d ≈ 0.9h, into Equations (2) and
(3), and by generalizing the deflection, the following equation is derived:
"  2 #
d
∆t = ∆ f 1 + Cs (4)
l

where Cs is the factor dependent on the loading type. Cs is 3.4 for the central concentrated
load and 2.8 for the uniformly distributed load. As shown in Equation (4), the effect of
shear on the deflection in the elastic theory is proportional to the square of d/l.
Figure 5 shows the ∆t /∆ f value of Equation (4) according to the change in d/l. ∆t /∆ f
is the ratio of the total deflection to the flexural deflection of the beam. As the ratio ∆t /∆ f
increases, the effect of shear on deflection increases. In the case of d/l ≤ 0.1, there is little
difference in the effect of shear by the load pattern. Even if d/l is increased to 0.25, as
shown in Figure 5, the difference between two load patterns is only 3.2%. However, as d/l
increases to 0.25, the ∆t /∆ f ratio is approximately 1.2, confirming that the shear deflection
is approximately 20% of the flexural deflection, where d/l = 0.25 corresponds to a/d = 2.0
for beams subjected to a central concentrated load. The ratio ∆t /∆ f at d/l = 0.125 with
a/d = 4.0 is approximately 1.05, meaning that the shear deflection is as small as approxi-
mately 5% of the flexural deflection.
Materials 2021,14,
Materials2021, 14,6684
x FOR PEER REVIEW 66ofof1313

1.40
3-point load
Uniform load
1.30
2
d 

t/ f
1  3.4  
1.20 l 3.2%

1.10 2
d 
1  2.8  
l
1.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
d/l
Figure5.5.Calculation
Figure CalculationResults
Resultsof
ofElastic
ElasticAnalysis
Analysisusing
usingEquation
Equation(4).
(4).

In
Ingeneral,
general,the
thedeflection
deflectionof ofRC
RCbeams
beamstends
tendstotobe becalculated
calculatedbybyignoring
ignoringthe
theeffect
effectofof
shear
shear based on elastic theory. However, in recent design trends, the use of long-spanRC
based on elastic theory. However, in recent design trends, the use of long-span RC
beams
beamswith large d/l
with large d / is
l increasing. Thus,
is increasing. Thus,it it
is is
very
veryimportant
importanttotoconsider
considerthe
theamount
amountofof
deflection
deflectiondue
dueto toshear.
shear.InInaddition,
addition,cracks,
cracks,which
whicharearecharacteristics
characteristicsof
ofRC
RCstructures,
structures,are
are
not reflected in Equation (4) and may differ from the actual characteristics. In particular,
not reflected in Equation (4) and may differ from the actual characteristics. In particular,
shear cracks of RC members not only occur at an inclined angle but can also induce larger
shear cracks of RC members not only occur at an inclined angle but can also induce larger
deflection because the deformation after cracking is concentrated in the cracks. In the next
deflection because the deformation after cracking is concentrated in the cracks. In the next
section, the experimental evaluation of the deflections due to flexure and shear and their
section, the experimental evaluation of the deflections due to flexure and shear and their
comparison with the theoretical values are detailed.
comparison with the theoretical values are detailed.
3.2. Experimental Approach
3.2. Experimental Approach
Figure 2 shows the method used to measure the deflection due to flexure and shear.
Figure 2 deflection
The mid-span shows theof method
the RCused
beamtomeasured
measure thefromdeflection
the LVDTdue to flexure
indicates and shear.
the combined
The mid-span deflection of the RC beam measured from the
deflection of flexure and shear, as shown in Figure 1. On the other hand, theLVDT indicates the combined
strains
deflection of flexure and shear, as shown in Figure 1. On the other
measured from the strain gauges attached to the mid-span of the RC beam is used hand, the strains meas-to
ured from the strain gauges attached to the mid-span of the RC beam
obtain the flexural deflection using the curvature of the section, moment of inertia, andis used to obtain the
flexural
elastic deflection
deflection using theTable
equation. curvature of thethe
2 indicates section, moment and
experimental of inertia, and results
analytical elastic de-
of
flection equation.
specimens Table
at the first yield2of
indicates the experimental
tension reinforcement. Theand analytical results
experimental resultsforof deflection
specimens
at the
are ∆t,exp.
firstmeasured
yield of tension
from thereinforcement.
LVDT installed Theatexperimental
the mid-span results
of thefor deflection
beam specimensare and
t ,exp.
∆measured
f ,exp. obtained
from using
the LVDTthe attached
installedstrain
at thegauges at the
mid-span ofmid-span
the beamof and The
the specimens.
specimens f ,exp.
coefficient of variation (COV) in Table 2 is the standard deviation divided by the mean
obtained using the attached strain gauges at the mid-span of the specimens. The coeffi-
value of predicted results.
cient of variation (COV) in Table 2 is the standard deviation divided by the mean value of
predicted results.
Table 2. Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results at Flexural Yield.

Table 2. Comparison of Experimental

Experimental Results ACI 318-14 and Analytical Results at Flexural ACI
Yield.
318-19
Specimens ∆t,exp.Experimental
∆f,exp. Results∆t,exp. ∆f,exp. ∆f,exp.
∆t,exp. ∆t,exp.
ACI 318-14 ∆t,exp. ∆t,exp.
ACI 318-19
(mm) (mm) ∆f,exp. ∆y,ACI ∆t,Eq.(4) ∆y,ACI ∆y,ACI ∆t,Eq.(4) ∆y,ACI
Specimens    t ,exp .  t ,exp .  t , exp .  f ,exp .  t ,exp .  t , exp .  f ,exp .
B6-2.5a 11.9 t ,exp . 7.6 f ,exp .
1.57 1.55 1.45 0.99 1.56 1.46 1.00
B6-2.5b 11.5 (mm) 7.7 (mm) 1.49  f ,exp . 1.50 y , ACI  t , Eq .( 4 )
1.40  y , ACI
1.00  y , ACI
1.51  t , Eq .( 4 )
1.41 1.01
y , ACI

B6-2.5c
B6-2.5a 11.4 11.9 8.0 7.6 1.43 1.57 1.49 1.55 1.391.45 1.04
0.99 1.49
1.56 1.40
1.46 1.05
1.00
B6-3.0a 15.2 10.0 1.52 1.51 1.44 1.00 1.52 1.45 1.00
B6-2.5b
B6-3.0b 14.6 11.5 10.0 7.7 1.46 1.49 1.45 1.50 1.381.40 1.00
1.00 1.51
1.46 1.41
1.39 1.01
1.00
B6-3.0c
B6-2.5c 14.2 11.4 10.1 8.0 1.41 1.43 1.41 1.49 1.341.39 1.01
1.04 1.42
1.49 1.35
1.40 1.01
1.05
B6-4.0a 19.8 14.7 1.35 1.26 1.22 0.94 1.27 1.23 0.94
B6-3.0a 15.2 10.0 1.52 1.51 1.44 1.00 1.52 1.45 1.00
B6-4.0b 20.1 16.1 1.25 1.28 1.24 1.03 1.29 1.24 1.03
B6-3.0b
B6-4.0c 19.9 14.6 14.9 10.0 1.34 1.46 1.27 1.45 1.231.38 1.00
0.95 1.46
1.27 1.39
1.23 1.00
0.95
B6-3.0c Mean 14.2 10.1 1.42 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.341.34 0.99
1.01 1.42
1.42 1.35
1.35 1.00
1.01
COV(%) 7.0 8.2 6.9 3.4 8.2 6.9 3.4
B6-4.0a 19.8 14.7 1.35 1.26 1.22 0.94 1.27 1.23 0.94
Note: ∆ f ,exp. —flexural deflection calculated from the curvature relationships using the attached strain gauges, ∆y,ACI —yield deflection
B6-4.0b using ACI20.1
calculated building code,16.1 1.25 deflection
and ∆t,Eq.(4) —total 1.28
calculated1.24 1.03
using Equation (4). 1.29 1.24 1.03
B6-4.0c 19.9 14.9 1.34 1.27 1.23 0.95 1.27 1.23 0.95
 COV(%) 7.0 8.2 6.9 3.4 8.2 6.9 3.4
Note:  f,exp. –flexural deflection calculated from the curvature relationships using the attached strain gauges,  y , ACI –yield
deflection calculated using ACI building code, and  t , Eq .(4) –total deflection calculated using Equation (4).

Materials 2021, 14, 6684 7 of 13

The flexural deflection  f ,exp. can be obtained using the following equations:

My
 f ,exp.  (3l 2  4a 2 ) (5)
The flexural deflection ∆ f ,exp. can be 24 obtained
Ec I e,exp. using the following equations:

My  M y 2
I e, exp.
∆ f ,exp. = 2 (6)
24Ec Ie,exp. Ec(3lexp. − 4a ) (5)

c  s
exp.  M (7)
Ie,exp. = dy (6)
Ec ϕexp.
where M y is the yield moment, I e, exp. is the effective moment of inertia obtained from
εc + εs
the curvature relationship of the section ϕexp.at = the position
d where deflection is considered, (7) exp.

is the curvature
where obtained
My is the yield from Ithe
moment, attached
e,exp. is the strain
effective gauges,
moment  cofis the strain
inertia of the
obtained concrete
from the
extreme compression
curvature relationshipfiber,
of theand  s isatthe
section thestrain
positionof tension
where reinforcement.
deflection is considered, ϕexp.
is the Substituting
curvature obtained
Equationfrom(6) the
intoattached
Equation strain
(5), gauges, ε c is therelationship
the following strain of thecan
concrete
be ob-
extreme
tained: compression fiber, and ε s is the strain of tension reinforcement.
Substituting Equation (6) into Equation (5), the following relationship can be obtained:
exp.
 f,exp. ϕexp. (32l 2  4a22 ) (8)
∆ f ,exp. = 24E(c3l − 4a ) (8)
24Ec
Equation (8) indicates that  f,exp. is determined by the curvature obtained from the
Equation (8) indicates that ∆ f ,exp. is determined by the curvature obtained from the
strain gauges depended on the flexural
strain gauges depended on the flexural deformation. deformation. As shown
As shown in Table
in Table 2, as
2, as the the span-
shear shear
span-to-depth ratio decreases from 4.0 to 2.5, the ratio of total deflection to
to-depth ratio decreases from 4.0 to 2.5, the ratio of total deflection to flexural deflection flexural deflec-
tion increases
increases fromto1.31
from 1.31 1.49toon1.49 on average.
average. This implies
This implies that thethat thedeflection
shear shear deflection corre-
corresponds
sponds to 31% to 49% of the flexural deflection. In other words, as the shear
to 31% to 49% of the flexural deflection. In other words, as the shear span-to-depth ratio span-to-depth
ratio decreases,
decreases, the effect
the effect of shear
of shear increases,
increases, and theanddifference
the difference
betweenbetween the total
the total deflec-
deflection
tionflexural
and and flexural deflection
deflection also increases.
also increases. As shown
As shown in Figure
in Figure 6, shear
6, the the shear effect
effect measured
measured in
in the
the experiment
experiment was was 26.7–40.2%
26.7–40.2% higher
higher than
than that
that calculatedby
calculated bythe
thevirtual
virtualwork
workmethod.
method.
Thisis
This is because that
thatthe
theinclined
inclinedcracks
cracks caused
caused byby
shear in RC
shear in beams
RC beamsinduced greater
induced shear
greater
deformation.
shear deformation.

1.80
Analytical
Experimental
1.60
B6-2.5
M ean values B6-3.0
 t/f

1.40
B6-4.0
40.2%
38.6%
1.20
26.7%
Elastic theory

1.00
0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16
d/l
Figure6.6.Comparison
Figure Comparisonbetween
betweenexperimental
experimentaland
andelastic
elasticanalytical
analyticalresults
resultsatatflexural
flexuralyield.
yield.

4. Prediction of Deflection of Flexure-Critical RC Beams

4.1. ACI Provisions
The ACI 318 committee recommends that the deflection of RC beams under service
loads can be calculated using the effective moment of inertia considering crack characteris-
tics. The effective moment of inertia Ie is used to calculate the deflection by substituting it
into the elastic deflection equation as shown in Equation (5). In the ACI 318 building code,
the Branson equation was used up to ACI 318-14 [3]; however, the Bischoff equation was
used in ACI 318-19 [7].
"  #
Mcr 3 Mcr 3
  
Ie,ACI = Ig + 1 − Icr (for ACI 318 − 14) (9)
Ma Ma
Materials 2021, 14, 6684 8 of 13

Icr
Ie,ACI =  2   (for ACI 318 − 19) (10)
(2/3) Mcr Icr
1− Ma 1− Ig

Table 2 presents the analytical results on the deflection at flexural yield using
Equations (9) and (10). As shown in Table 2, there is little difference between the an-
alytical results of ACI 318-14 and ACI 318-19. This is because the difference between
the two formulas occurs when the tension reinforcement ratio is less than 1% [5]. ∆y,ACI ,
the analytical result obtained by substituting Ie,ACI of Equation (10) instead of Ie,exp. in
Equation (5), significantly underestimated the LVDT deflection ∆t,exp. with an average
of 1.42. Underestimating the real deflection is undesirable in terms of the serviceability
of structures.
The deflection using Equation (4) derived from the virtual work method and the LVDT
deflection ∆t,exp. obtained from the experiment are compared in Table 2. As shown in
Table 2, ACI 318-19 still considerably underestimated the experimental results with an
average of 1.35. In contrast, ∆y,ACI calculated using ACI 318-19 almost coincided with
∆ f ,exp. experimentally obtained using Equations (5)–(7) with an average of 1.00. This
implies that the analytical method using the elastic deflection equation and the effective
moment of inertia proposed by the ACI 318 code can predict well the flexural deflection of
RC beams but not the total deflection, considering both the flexural and shear effects. The
deflection due to shear deformation of RC beams is larger than that in the elastic theory,
whereas studies considering the shear effect are insufficient. Therefore, a new evaluation
method considering the effect of shear on the deflection is required.

4.2. Calculation Method Considering Shear Effect on Deflection of RC Beams

The total deflection of RC beams can be expressed by the following equation which
multiplies the flexural deflection by an incremental factor:

∆t = αs ∆ f (11)

where αs is the incremental factor considering shear effect. The ∆ f can be obtained using
the method recommended by ACI 318-19.
Figure 7 shows the ratio ∆t,exp. /∆ f ,exp. according to d/l presented in Table 2. The
circular mark indicates the test result for each of the nine specimens, and the square mark
indicates the average value for each series of specimens. Furthermore, ∆t,exp. /∆ f ,exp. is the
ratio of the total deflection to the flexural deflection of RC beams. This ratio has the same
meaning as αs in Equation (11) and is an incremental value of deflection due to the effect of
shear. The results of the regression analysis using the least-squares method for the mean
values of the experimental results for each series are shown as a dotted line in Figure 7.
Considering practicality, the deflection incremental factor αs can be proposed as follows:
 
d
αs = 0.5 ln + 2.45 (12)
l

where 1.0 ≤ αs ≤ 1.65.

4.3. Verification of Proposed Method

In this study, a total of 60 existing experimental results [9,11–24] were collected from
the literature to verify the proposed method using the deflection incremental factor αs .
Table 3 shows the details of the collected data and the comparison results between the
experimental and analytical results. The collected specimens were simply supported
beams subjected to four-point load and failed in flexure before the shear reinforcement
yielded. The beams had a concrete compressive strength of 20.3–58.0 MPa, a beam width
of 140–400 mm, a beam height of 250–600 mm, a shear span-to-depth ratio of 2.3–7.1, a
d/l of 0.066–0.156, a yield strength of the tension steel bar of 379.7–543.4 MPa, a tension
 Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13

Materials 2021, 14, 6684 9 of 13

d 
 s  0.5ln    2.45 (12)
  l
reinforcement ratio of 0.004 to 0.03 (=0.15–0.78ρb ), and ρb is the balanced reinforcement
where
ratio of a1.0  s 
singly 1.65 .
reinforced section.

1.80
Test results (each specimen)
Test results (mean values)
1.60
/  f, exp.
y = 0.5ln(x) + 2.45
1.40
t, exp.

y = 0.509ln(x) + 2.46
1.20


(R2 = 0.967 for mean values)

1.00
0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16
d/l
Figure7.7.Regression
Figure Regressionanalysis
analysisof
ofexperimental
experimentalresults.
results.

4.3. Verification of Proposed Method

Table 3. Comparison of Observed and Predicted Results of Flexure-Critical RC Beams Reported in the Literature.
In this study, a total of 60 existing experimental results [9,11–24] were collected from
∆y,exp.  s .
0
the bliterature hto verify a/d
the proposed Py,exp.using ∆the
Ref. Specimens fc d/l method y,exp.deflection
Py,exp. incremental
∆y,exp.
∆y,ACI
factor
∆y,pro.
(MPa) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) Py,ACI
Table 3 shows the details of the collected data and the comparison results between the
4B4-0.5(0) 41.0 140
experimental 260 4.0
and analytical 0.106 The106.4
results. collected 7.9 specimens 0.98were simply
1.25 0.94
supported
4B4-0.5(10) 41.0 140 260 4.0 0.106 113.1 10.4 1.04 1.66 1.25
11 4B4-0.7(10) 41.0 beams
140 subjected
260 to four-point
4.0 load
0.106 and failed
143.8 in flexure
10.6 before
0.97the shear1.49 reinforcement
1.12
4B4-0.7(5) 41.0 yielded.
140 The 260
beams had 4.0a concrete
0.106compressive
146.1 strength11.2 of 20.3–58.0
0.98 MPa,
1.59 a beam1.20width
R1 38.2 of 140–400
200 mm,
300 a beam 2.3height 0.149
of 250–600111.0mm, a shear 4.7 span-to-depth
1.25 ratio
1.42 of 2.3–7.1,
0.94 a
R2 37.5 d /200 300
l of 0.066–0.156, 2.3
a yield 0.147 of the185.0
strength tension steel5.0 bar of1.33
379.7–543.4 1.31MPa, a 0.88
tension
R3 37.3 200 300 2.5 0.139 340.0 5.7 1.10 1.17 0.80
12 R4 37.0 reinforcement
200 300ratio of 0.004
2.3 to 0.03
0.149(=0.15–0.78 5.0  b is the
189.0  b ), and 1.44 balanced1.34 reinforcement
0.90
R5 39.1 200of a singly
ratio 300 reinforced
2.3 section.0.147 308.0 5.7 1.50 1.39 0.93
R6 40.7 200 300 2.4 0.142 495.0 6.1 1.07 1.17 0.80
13 A2113. Comparison
Table 42.8 of Observed
250 and400
Predicted 3.4
Results of0.105 440.5 RC Beams
Flexure-Critical 15.5 Reported
0.94 in the Literature.
1.20 0.91
1 33.1 150 300 3.8 0.094 100.3 15.4 1.04 1.35 1.07
14 2 52.5 fc' b 300 h150 4.1 0.086 Py ,exp .
170.3  y,exp .
17.6 Py ,exp .
0.99  y ,exp .
1.26  y ,exp .
1.03
Ref. Specimens a/d d/l
BG0 46.7 (MPa) 200 (mm) 350 (mm) 4.0 0.103 (kN)
222.3 (mm)
13.1 Py , ACI
0.98  y , ACI
1.36  y , pro .
1.03
BG30
4B4-0.5(0) 58.0 41.0 200 140 350 260 4.0 4.0 0.103
0.106 222.2
106.4 12.87.9 0.97
0.98 1.36
1.25 1.03
0.94
15
BG50 53.1 200 350 4.0 0.103 216.8 12.5 0.95 1.31 1.00
4B4-0.5(10)
BG70 45.2
41.0 200 140 350 260 4.0
4.0 0.106
0.103
113.1
241.5
10.4
14.1
1.04
1.06
1.66
1.46
1.25
1.11
11
4B4-0.7(10) 41.0 140 260 4.0 0.106 143.8 10.6 0.97 1.49 1.12
AN24-0.3 32.4 200 300 4.0 0.101 112.3 12.7 1.03 1.48 1.13
16 4B4-0.7(5) 41.0 140
AN24-0.5 32.4 200 300 260 4.0 4.0 0.106
0.101 146.1
168.9 11.2
16.2 0.98
1.04 1.59
1.73 1.20
1.33
17 F-AN
R1 31.7
38.2 200
200 350
300 4.0
2.3 0.149
0.103
111.0
149.2 12.2
4.7 1.25
1.01
1.42
1.43
0.94
1.09
R2 37.5 200 300 2.3 0.147 185.0 5.0 1.33 1.31 0.88
B6-2.5a 26.8 200 400 2.5 0.156 451.6 11.9 1.01 1.56 1.03
12 B6-2.5bR3 26.8 37.3 200 200 400 300 2.5 2.5 0.139
0.156 340.0
446.8 11.55.7 1.10
1.00 1.17
1.51 0.80
0.99
B6-2.5cR4 26.8 37.0 200 200 400 300 2.5 2.3 0.149
0.156 189.0
467 11.45.0 1.44
1.05 1.34
1.49 0.90
0.98
B6-3.0aR5 26.8 39.1 200 200 400 300 3.0 2.3 0.135
0.147 382.2
308.0 15.25.7 1.04
1.50 1.52
1.39 1.05
0.93
B6-3.0b 26.8 200 400 3.0 0.135 373.5 14.6 1.00 1.46 1.01
B6-3.0cR6 26.8 40.7 200 200 400 300 3.0 2.4 0.142
0.135 495.0
372.3 14.26.1 1.07
1.00 1.17
1.42 0.80
0.98
9
13 A211
B6-4.0a 26.8 42.8 200 250 400 400 4.0 3.4 0.105
0.106 440.5
275.1 19.815.5 0.94
0.99 1.20
1.27 0.91
0.95
B6-4.0b 1 26.8 33.1 200 150 400 300 4.0 3.8 0.106
0.094 268.7
100.3 20.115.4 0.96
1.04 1.29
1.35 0.97
1.07
14 B6-4.0c 26.8 200 400 4.0 0.106 274.1 19.9 0.98 1.27 0.96
B3-2.5a 2 26.8 52.5 200 150 400 300 2.5 4.1 0.086
0.156 170.3
285.3 9.917.6 0.99
0.94 1.26
1.44 1.03
0.95
BG0
B3-2.5b 26.8 46.7 200 200 400 350 2.5 4.0 0.103
0.156 222.3
299.7 9.813.1 0.98
0.99 1.36
1.42 1.03
0.94
B3-2.5c
BG30 26.8 58.0 200 200 400 350 2.5 4.0 0.156
0.103 296.1
222.2 9.512.8 0.97
0.97 1.39
1.36 0.91
1.03
18
15 ANBG50 20.3 53.1 300 200 300 350 3.2 0.132 173.3 6.612.5 1.10 1.39 0.97
4.0 0.103 216.8 0.95 1.31 1.00
BFO1BG70 50.0 45.2 200 200 350 350 4.1 4.0 0.103
0.102 241.5
183.0 14.514.1 1.06
0.92 1.46
1.31 1.11
1.00
BFO2 50.0 32.4 200 200 350 300 4.1 0.101 252.0 14.2 1.00 1.24 0.95
1916 AN24-0.3 4.0 0.101 112.3 12.7 1.03 1.48 1.13
BFO3 41.7 200 350 4.1 0.102 190.0 13.5 0.96 1.19 0.91
BFO4 41.7 200 350 4.1 0.101 244.0 14.4 0.97 1.23 0.94
Materials 2021, 14, 6684 10 of 13

Table 3. Cont.
0
fc b h Py,exp. ∆y,exp. Py,exp. ∆y,exp. ∆y,exp.
Ref. Specimens a/d d/l ∆y,ACI ∆y,pro.
(MPa) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) Py,ACI

B-R0.75-A0 37.0 400 600 5.1 0.088 649.1 27.6 0.88 1.17 0.95
20 BFS4-A0 26.8 400 600 5.1 0.088 581.0 32.6 0.91 1.51 1.23
BFS5-A0 31.5 400 600 5.1 0.088 619.8 35.9 0.99 1.62 1.32
G-X13 28.0 250 350 4.5 0.070 86.3 21.4 0.95 1.07 0.96
G-X16 28.0 250 350 4.5 0.070 173.1 31.0 0.93 1.25 1.11
G-X19 28.0 250 350 4.5 0.070 130.1 26.7 0.86 1.20 1.07
G-X25 28.0 250 350 4.5 0.070 155.3 27.9 0.85 1.16 1.03
G-Y13 28.0 250 350 4.8 0.066 77.2 21.2 0.91 0.99 0.91
21 G-Y19 28.0 250 350 4.8 0.066 113.2 24.9 0.81 1.03 0.95
G-Y25 28.0 250 350 4.8 0.066 142.7 29.8 0.84 1.14 1.05
SN-0 41.1 250 350 7.1 0.070 123.0 21.8 0.87 1.14 1.01
SN-1 41.1 250 350 4.5 0.070 187.0 27.6 0.84 1.11 0.99
SN-2 41.1 250 350 3.2 0.070 269.0 29.0 0.86 1.09 0.97
N-10-3 20.6 200 300 3.7 0.113 47.6 5.8 1.02 1.06 0.78
N-13-2 20.6 200 300 3.7 0.113 63.8 7.6 1.09 1.25 0.92
N-13-3 20.6 200 300 3.7 0.113 92.1 8.2 1.07 1.24 0.91
N-16-2 20.6 200 300 3.7 0.113 95.1 9.5 1.09 1.46 1.08
22 H-10-3 41.3 200 300 3.7 0.113 48.2 5.9 1.02 1.19 0.88
H-13-2 41.3 200 300 3.7 0.113 65.2 7.7 1.10 1.37 1.01
H-13-3 41.3 200 300 3.7 0.113 95.0 8.6 1.09 1.39 1.02
H-16-2 41.3 200 300 3.7 0.113 96.5 8.1 1.09 1.33 0.98
23 Control 31.3 200 300 4.0 0.087 46.7 12.5 1.10 1.39 1.13
24 F0 22.8 150 250 3.5 0.095 69.4 9.4 0.88 1.27 0.99
Mean 1.01 1.33 1.00
COV 12.6% 12.2% 11.1%
Note: strength of concrete, h—depth of RC beams, ∆y,exp. —experimental total deflection at flexural yield, Py,ACI —yield
f c0 —compressive
load calculated using ACI code, and ∆y,pro. —total deflection obtained using proposed method.

Figure 8 shows the effect of the test variables on the deflection at the yield moment of
the collected beams. Figure 8a shows the effect of d/l on the experimental results. As d/l
increases, the tendency to decrease the deflection at flexural yield is clear. However, the
characteristics of the concrete and tension reinforcement have little effect on the experimen-
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 13
tal results, as shown in Figure 8b,c. As shown in Equations (2)–(4), d/l directly affects the
deflection, whereas the material properties affect both the load capacity and moment of
inertia. In other words, it is not easy to directly evaluate the effect of material properties on
properties on deflection
deflection from from the results
the experimental experimental resultstest
with various with various test
variables. The variables. The ef-
effect of material
fect of material
properties properties
on the deflectiononofthe
RCdeflection of RC further
beams requires beams requires
study. further study.

50 50 50

40 40 40
 y, exp. (mm)
 y, exp. (mm)
 y, exp. (mm)

30 30 30

20 20 20

10 10 10

0 0 0
0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0 20 40 60 80 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

d(a)
/l Compressive
(b) strength of concrete (c) Tension steel ratio

Figure 8. Effect
Figure 8. Effect of
of test
test variables
variables on
on deflection
deflection at
at flexural
flexural yield: (a) d/l
yield: (a) d/l ratio;
ratio; (b)
(b) concrete
concrete compressive
compressive strength;
strength; (c)
(c) tension
tension
steel
steel ratio.
ratio.

The load Py,ACI in

The load Table 3 was calculated using the theory of the sectional analysis
Py , ACI in Table 3 was calculated using the theory of the sectional analysis
of RC beams [25] and ACI 318-19 [7]. As shown in Table 3, the analytical results for the
of RCload
yield beams [25]
of 60 and ACI were
specimens 318-19
in [7].
good Asagreement
shown in with
Tablethe
3, experimental
the analyticalresults
resultswith
for the
an
yield load of 60 specimens were in good agreement with the experimental results with an
average of 1.01 and a COV of 12.6%. In contrast, the predicted result of ACI 318-19 for the
yield deflection  y ,exp . was 1.33 on average, which considerably underestimated the ex-
perimental results. This is similar to the prediction results for the previous experimental
results in Section 4.1.
 Figure 8. Effect of test variables on deflection at flexural yield: (a) d/l ratio; (b) concrete compressive strength; (c) tension
steel ratio.

The load Py , ACI in Table 3 was calculated using the theory of the sectional analysis
Materials 2021, 14, 6684 of RC beams [25] and ACI 318-19 [7]. As shown in Table 3, the analytical results for 11 of
the13
yield load of 60 specimens were in good agreement with the experimental results with an
average of 1.01 and a COV of 12.6%. In contrast, the predicted result of ACI 318-19 for the
yield deflection  y ,exp . was 1.33 on average, which considerably underestimated the ex-
average of 1.01 and a COV of 12.6%. In contrast, the predicted result of ACI 318-19 for
perimental results. This
the yield deflection is similar
∆y,exp. was 1.33 to on
theaverage,
prediction results
which for the previous
considerably experimental
underestimated the
results in Section
experimental 4.1. This is similar to the prediction results for the previous experimental
results.
In particular,
results Figure 9a, which shows the  y , exp. /  y , ACI for yield deflection, indicates
in Section 4.1.
In particular,
the ACI 318-19 method Figure 9a, which shows
underestimates thethe ∆y,exp. /∆y,ACI
experimental for yield
results moredeflection, indicates
as d / l increases.
the ACI
This 318-19the
is because method underestimates
ACI 318-19 the experimental
method considers results more
only the deflection dueastod/l increases.
flexure. FigureThis
9b
is because
shows the ACI
the results of 318-19 method
predicting considers only
the experimental the deflection
results due to (11)
using Equations flexure.
and Figure
(12) pro-9b
showsinthe
posed thisresults
study.ofFigure
predicting the experimental
9b indicates that, when theresults using method
proposed Equations (11) and
is used, (12)
the col-
proposed
lected in this study.
experimental resultsFigure
can be9b indicates
predicted that, when
relatively wellthe proposed
without beingmethod is used,
greatly affected
the collected experimental results can be predicted relatively well without
by d / l . In particular, as shown in Table 3, the analytical results using the proposed being greatly
affected by d/l. In particular, as shown in Table 3, the analytical results
method accurately predicted the experimental results for yield deflection with an average using the proposed
method
of 1.0 and accurately
a COV ofpredicted the experimental
11.1%. Therefore, resultsmethod
the proposed for yieldcan
deflection
be used with an average
to improve the
of 1.0 and
existing a COV ofmethod
calculation 11.1%. that
Therefore, theonly
considers proposed method
the effect can beincluding
of flexure, used to improve
the currentthe
existing calculation
ACI building code. method that considers only the effect of flexure, including the current
ACI building code.
2.0 2.0
 y, exp. /  y, ACI

 y, exp. /  y, pro.
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5
Mean: 1.33 Mean: 1.00
COV: 12.2% COV: 11.1%
0.0 0.0
0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18
d/l d/l
(a) (b)
Figure9.
Figure Predictionresults
9.Prediction resultsof
of analytical
analytical methods
methods on
on deflection
deflection at
at flexural
flexural yield:
yield: (a)
(a) ACI
ACI 318-19;
318-19; (b)
(b) Proposed
Proposed method.

5. Conclusions
In this paper, a method for calculating the deflection of flexure-critical RC beams
considering the effect of shear was proposed. The deflection incremental coefficient con-
sidering shear effect was proposed based on an analysis of the experimental results. The
following conclusions were drawn by comparing the experimental and analytical results:
1. The shear deflection of RC beams calculated from the elastic bending theory underes-
timated the real shear deflection by up to approximately 40% as d/l increased. This is
because the crack characteristics of the RC structure were not reflected in the elastic
bending theory. An analytical method that considers the effect of shear on deflection
should be used to reasonably predict the deflection of RC beams;
2. The ACI 318-19, which calculates the deflection using the effective moment of inertia,
was found to significantly underestimate the real total deflection of RC beams. Fur-
thermore, the tendency to underestimate increased as d/l increased. Meanwhile, the
deflection calculated using ACI 318-19 was very similar to the flexural deflection of
RC beams measured from strain gauges with an average of 1.0;
3. In this study, the deflection incremental coefficient considering shear effect and a
method for calculating the deflection of RC beams were devised. The proposed
deflection incremental coefficient was applied to the flexural deflection calculated
using ACI 318-19 to evaluate the total deflection of the RC beams. By comparing
the experimental and analytical results, the proposed method using the deflection
incremental coefficient predicted the real total deflection of RC beams well with an
average of 1.0 and a COV of 11.1%.
Materials 2021, 14, 6684 12 of 13

Author Contributions: S.-W.K. and K.-H.K. conceived and performed the experiments and ana-
lyzed the data and wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Priority Research Centers Program through the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) founded by the Ministry of Education (2019R1A6A1A03032988);
this research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF) founded by the Ministry of Education (2018R1A2B3001656).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Branson, D.E. Instantaneous and Time-Dependent Deflections on Simple and Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams; HPR Report No. 7,
Part 1; Alabama Highway Department: Alabama, USA, 1965; pp. 1–78.
2. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-71); American Concrete Institute: Farmington
Hills, MI, USA, 1971; p. 78.
3. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318M-14) and Commentary (ACI 318RM-14); American
Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2015; p. 519.
4. Bischoff, P.H. Reevaluation of deflection prediction for concrete beams reinforced with steel and fiber-reinforced polymer bars. J.
Struct. Eng. 2005, 131, 752–767. [CrossRef]
5. Bischoff, P.H. Comparison of existing approaches for computing deflection of reinforced concrete. ACI Struct. J. 2020, 117, 231–240.
[CrossRef]
6. Scanlon, A.; Bischoff, P.H. Shrinkage restraint and loading history effects on deflections of flexural members. ACI Struct. J. 2008,
105, 498–506.
7. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19); American
Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2019; p. 623.
8. Kim, S.-W.; Han, D.-S.; Kim, K.-H. Evaluation of shear effect on deflection of RC beams. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7690. [CrossRef]
9. Han, D.-S. Evaluation of the Influence of Shear on Deflection of Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Combined Bending and
Shear. Master’s Thesis, Kongju National University, Cheonan, Korea, 2014; p. 53.
10. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C78/C78—16: Standard Test. Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete. Using
Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading; ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016; p. 4.
11. Jang, I.-Y.; Park, H.-G.; Kim, Y.-G.; Kim, S.-S.; Kim, J.-H. Flexural behavior of high-strength concrete beams confined with stirrups
in pure bending zone. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2009, 3, 39–45. [CrossRef]
12. Mansor, A.A.; Mohammed, A.S.; Salman, W.D. Effect of longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio on deflection and ductility in
reinforced concrete beams. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 888, 012008. [CrossRef]
13. Rashie, M.A.; Mansur, M.A. Reinforced high-strength concrete beams in flexure. ACI Struct. J. 2005, 102, 462–471.
14. Sin, L.H.; Huan, W.T.; Islam, M.R.; Mansu, M.A. Reinforced lightweight concrete beams in flexure. ACI Struct. J. 2011, 108, 3–12.
15. Kim, S.-W.; Jeong, C.-Y.; Lee, J.-S.; Kim, K.-H. Applicability of ground granulated blast-furnace slag for precast concrete beams
subjected to bending moment. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2014, 13, 633–639. [CrossRef]
16. Kim, S.-W.; Lee, Y.-J.; Lee, Y.-H.; Kim, K.-H. Flexural performance of reinforced high-strength concrete beams with EAF oxidizing
slag aggregates. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2016, 15, 589–596. [CrossRef]
17. Kim, S.-W.; Lee, Y.-J.; Kim, K.-H. Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams with electric arc furnace slag aggregates. J. Asian
Archit. Build. Eng. 2012, 11, 133–138. [CrossRef]
18. Kim, K.-H.; Ryu, D.-H.; Kim, S.-W.; Lim, J.-Y.; Lee, J.-M.; Lee, Y.-J. Experimental study on flexural behavior of RC beams with
electric arc furnace oxidizing slag aggregates. J. Archit. Inst. Korea 2009, 25, 27–34.
19. Lee, N.-K.; Hwang, H.-Z.; Park, H.-G. Flexural performance of activated hwangtoh concrete beam. J. Korea Concr. Inst. 2010, 22,
567–574. [CrossRef]
20. Song, S.-H.; Choi, K.-S.; You, Y.-C.; Kim, K.-H.; Yun, H.-D. Flexural behavior of reinforced recycled aggregate concrete beams. J.
Korea Concr. Inst. 2009, 21, 431–439. [CrossRef]
21. Lee, S.-B. A Study on the Behavior of Deflections and Cracking of Reinforced Concrete Beams for Serviceability Assessment.
Ph.D. Thesis, Inha University, Incheon, Korea, 2010; p. 118.
22. Lee, I.-J. Experimental Study on Short-Term Deflection of Reinforced Concrete Beams. Master’s Thesis, Sungkyunkwan University,
Suwon, Korea, 2009; p. 58.
23. Jung, W.-T.; Park, Y.-H.; Park, J.-S.; Kim, C.-Y. Strengthening effect of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with NSM CFRP
reinforcements and various reinforcement details. J. Korea Concr. Inst. 2011, 23, 781–790. [CrossRef]
Materials 2021, 14, 6684 13 of 13

24. Park, S.-Y. Flexural strengthening effect of RC Beams bonded with carbon FRP sheets. KSCE J. Civil. Environ. Eng. Res. 2001, 21,
997–1005.
25. Park, R.; Paulay, T. Reinforced Concrete Structures; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1975; p. 769.