ACI JOURNAL
Title no. 83-3
Stress-Strain Relationship for Reinforced Concrete in Tension
by Domingo J. Carreira and Kuang-Han Chu
A stress-strain relationship to represent the overall behavior of rein-
forced concrete in tension, which includes the combined effects of
cracking and slippage at cracks along the reinforcement is proposed.
The serpentine curve previously used for the compression stress-strain
relationship is also used in tension with parameters that are physi-
cally significant. These parameters can be determined experimentally
from reinforced concrete prismatic specimens or estimated from pro-
posed empirical relationships. The effects of the testing procedures,
gage length, shrinkage, reinforcement, test specimen characteristics,
cracking, and concrete strength and extensibility on the stress-strain
diagrams for plain and reinforced concrete in tension are discussed.
Keywords: cracking (fracturing); extensibility; reinforced concrete; shrinkage;
slippage; stress-strain relationships; tensile strength; tension; tension tests.
The shape of the concrete stress-strain diagram in
tension depends heavily on the testing procedure used.
When plain concrete is tested in direct tension, using a
testing machine in which the strain rate cannot be con-
trolled, a linear diagram with a brittle failure is usually
obtained.
Experiments have shown that if the strain rate is
controlled, the stress-strain diagram of plain concrete in
tension is nonlinear and has well-defined ascending and
descending branches. The diagram is also influenced by
shrinkage, microcracking, and reinforcement. Testing
of plain and reinforced concrete beams confirms the
existence of the complete nonlinear stress-strain dia-
gram in tension.
A stress-strain relationship is proposed for rein-
forced concrete in tension which is similar to the rela-
tionship for compression proposed in Reference 1. The
use of the same type of stress-strain relationship for
plain concrete in compression and tension has been
proposed in Reference 2.
Nonlinear stress-strain diagrams in tension have been
used in finite element analysis of slabs. Concrete tensile
strength was needed to better fit the analytical results to
the experimental data from reinforced concrete slabs.
PROPOSED STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP IN
TENSION
The same general form of the serpentine curve used
for the complete stress-strain relationship in compres-
ACI JOURNAL I January-February 1986
TECHNICAL PAPER
sian in Reference 1 is also proposed for the average
stress-strain diagram of reinforced concrete in tension
fr = {3 (EIE;)
(1)
fr' {3-1+(EIE,')i3
fr the stress corresponding to the strain E
=
fr' the point of maximum stress, considered as the
=
tensile strength
t,' = the strain corresponding to the maximum stress
fr'
{3 = a parameter that depends on the shape of the
stress-strain diagram
The average diagram represents the overall or resul-
tant behavior of concrete in tension restrained by the
steel reinforcement. By a suitable choice of parameters
in Eq. (1), the combined effects of cracking, slippage,
and bond along the reinforcement may be included.
The experimental determination of parameters fr',
E/, and {3 presents more difficulties than determining
the corresponding parameters in compression. Recom-
mended design values for parameters fr' , E/, and {3 are
discussed in view of the available test data for concrete
in tension.
PLAIN CONCRETE IN TENSION, INFLUENCE OF
TESTING PROCEDURE
The term tensile strength and the stress-strain rela-
tionship in tension have no absolute meanings, but
must be expressed in terms of the specific test proce-
dure used. 3 Three kinds of tests have been used for
plain concrete testing: the direct tension test, the beam
test, and the splitting test. Among the three methods of
testing, the results from both the beam and splitting
tests are based on the elastic theory. Therefore, only the
direct tension test can provide the complete stress-strain
diagram in tension beyond the elastic behavior. How-
ever, most of the testing machines cannot absorb the
energy released when the load on the specimen begins
Received June 7, 1984, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright© 1986, 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 November-December 1986
ACI JOURNAL if received by Aug. I, 1986.
21

A CI member Domingo J. Carreira is an engineering specialist in the Structural
Project Division of Sargent & Lundy in Chicago, 1/1. He is involved in the de-
sign and construction of nuclear and fossil power plants. Dr. Carreira is a
member and past chairman of ACI Committee 209, Creep and Shrinkage in
Concrete; a member of ACI Committee 301, Specifications for Structural Con-
crete; and also a member of the Subcommittee of Nuclear Accreditation of the
ACI 3591ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
ACI member Kuan-Han Chu is Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering at the
1//inois Institute of Technology (liT) in Chicago. He was employed with the
firms of Ammann & Whitney and D. B. Steinman in New York, N.Y., before
joining liT in 1956. Dr. Chu has published numerous articles in various tech-
nical journals.
to decline. It was therefore concluded that concrete in
tension behaves linearly almost to its tensile capacity
without any significant descending branch or strain-
weakening portion of the stress-strain diagram. Never-
theless, the nonlinear behavior of plain concrete in ten-
sion has been observed experimentally.
Hughes and Chapman 2 and Evans and Marathe 4 have
used modified testing machines to obtain stress-strain
diagrams in tension with ascending and descending
branches similar to those obtained in compression.
Specimen failure in both the ordinary and the modified
testing machines is caused by one crack propagating
across the entire cross section and separating the speci-
mens into two parts. The stress-strain diagrams from
plain concrete specimens are strongly affected by the
location of the crack with respect to the gage length.
INFLUENCE OF SHRINKAGE
A long curing period by immersing the specimen in
water prior to testing causes a more uniform strain dis-
tribution in the specimen because swelling offsets the
effects of the autogenous and drying shrinkage. If test
specimens are allowed to dry, however, the moisture
migration to the surface causes transient nonlinear
strain gradients across the thickness of the specimen.
Differential shrinkage strains produce tensile stresses at
the surfaces and compressive stresses toward the cen-
ter. These tensile stresses cause microcracking.
When tensile stress is applied to a dried specimen,
shrinkage cracks propagate toward the interior of the
specimen. This results in an average tensile strength
lower than that of saturated specimens.
The main factor affecting the test results when
shrinkage is present is the location of the zero stress
and strain reference point. Fulwood 5 showed the effect
of drying and wetting on the modulus of rupture. By
immersing 4 x 4 x 20 in. plain concrete beams in water
for 1 hr before testing and by testing them when wet,
the modulus of rupture increased from 5 to 54 percent
more than that of similar specimens cured in water up
to 7 days and allowed to dry until testing by third-point
beam loading at 28 days.
Ledbetter and Thompson6 were able to measure the
shrinkage- or swelling-induced stresses in the concrete
caused by the presence of steel reinforcement. Their test
specimens consisted of a thick-walled steel tube en-
cased in a 6 x 24-in. cylinder of concrete. The steel tube
served to internally restrain the shrinkage, measure
strains, and apply the tensile load to the concrete.
22
It was observed trom the external 10a0 versus steel
strain diagram that, after the initial crack, the reduced
concrete section carried some load even at strains sev-
eral times that of the one corresponding with the initial
crack. When the load was removed to approximately
one-half the initial crack load, the unloading line was
parallel to the steel-tube load-elongation line. The hor-
izontal displacement of the unloading diagram was
caused mainly by the restrained shrinkage. After fur-
ther unloading, the diagram curved away from the line
parallel to the steel-tube line, which resulted in addi-
tional residual strain. This additional strain is due to
the crack not closing completely because: (1) broken
particles are displaced on the fracture surface, (2) early
shrinkage strain gradients are nonlinear and shrinkage
stresses are relieved after cracking, and (3) residual
creep strain is also present.
TESTING OF REINFORCED CONCRETE IN
DIRECT TENSION
Two types of specimens have been used to test rein-
forced concrete in tension: the direct tensile and the
flexural test specimens. To define the concrete stress-
strain relationship in tension, the direct tensile test
specimens are of special interest. Most reinforced con-
crete direct tension test specimens consist of one rein-
forcing bar centrally cast in a concrete prism. 7- 11 Speci-
mens with multiple reinforcing bars have them sym-
metrically arranged along the concrete prism. 7•12 Speci-
mens are stressed by applying the load at the ends of
the protruding bars. The load applied to the bars is
partially transferred to the concrete by bond along the
development length at the ends of the prism.
The elongation measured on the concrete prisms in-
cludes the reinforcement and concrete elongations as
well as the slippage at the bar-concrete discontinuities.
For uncracked specimens, discontinuities are located at
both ends of the concrete prisms. For cracked speci-
mens, discontinuities are also at both sides of each pri-
mary crack as defined by Broms 7 and described by
Goto 8 and Illston and Stevens. 13
Elongations measured within the development length
from the prism ends include the slippage caused by the
stress transfer. Elongations measured at least one de-
velopment length away from the prism ends can be used
to determine the average stress-strain relationship of
reinforced concrete. The minimum length of the con-
crete prism should be twice the development length 14
plus three to four times the minimum cross-sectional
dimension 7 to include at least three primary crack sys-
tems within the gage length. Elongations measured
from this gage length will represent the initially un-
cracked portion of the stress-strain diagram as well as
the complete diagram while cracking progresses.
Elongations measured within the development length
from the specimen ends do not represent the ascending
branch and the peak strength portion of the stress-
strain diagram because there is slippage at the ends of
the uncracked specimens included.
ACI JOURNAL I January-February 1986
 EFFECT OF INTERNAL CRACKS
Broms 7 tested 37 reinforced concrete direct tension
specimens and 10 flexural specimens and measured the
crack widths at reinforcement stresses up to 69.7 and
66.6 ksi, respectively. He advanced the notion that
cracks initiate close to the reinforcement and that crack
lengths are governed by the spacing between two adja-
cent cracks. On this basis, the crack length will de-
crease linearly with decreasing crack spacing. Broms
also defined the mechanisms of crack formation in
which primary cracks and secondary cracks will de-
velop as cracking progresses (depending on the stress
level and the reinforcement geometry).
Goto 8 tested one deformed bar direct tensile speci-
men and reached the following conclusions:
1. Shortly after the formation of primary cracks,
small internal cracks are formed around the deformed
bars.
2. Secondary cracks do not appear at the concrete
surface.
3. Internal cracks on both sides of the primary cracks
form cones with their apexes near the bar lugs and with
their bases generally directed toward the nearest pri-
mary cracks.
4. Internal cracks started at a stress level lower than
14 ksi shortly after primary cracks formed.
5. Internal cracks are influenced by the geometrical
characteristics of the reinforcing bar deformations.
6. Along the portion of the bars on which internal
cracks occur, the adhesion between steel and concrete
is lost. Therefore, the bond mechanism depends on the
bearing of the concrete cones against the lugs of the
bar.
7. Complete relaxation of the external tensile load,
after formation of internal cracks, does not return the
stress in the reinforcement embedded in concrete to
zero, even at primary crack locations.
Illston and Stevens 13 used the research data reported
in Reference 9 to confirm most of Goto's findings.
They also found that concrete surrounding the rein-
forcing bar is often strained well beyond its tensile ca-
pacity and that a loss of bond adhesion may occur over
a considerable length of the reinforcing bar, regardless
of the type of steel used.
Illston and Stevens did not agree with Goto's conclu-
sion that the lugs are generally responsible for the ini-
tiation of cracking or that the cracks necessarily coin-
cide with the lugs. They also pointed out that the pat-
tern of internal cracking development is not affected to
any considerable degree by the geometry of the lugs.
These findings show the existence of a multiple crack
pattern in reinforced concrete under tension, whereas
one single crack causes the failure of plain concrete
specimens. Therefore, the overall behavior of rein-
forced concrete in tension depends on the restraining
action of the steel reinforcement, on crack propaga-
tion, and on the formation of a system of primary
cracks and secondary internal cracks around and along
the bars.
ACI JOURNAL I January-February 1986
BOND·SLIP RELATIONSHIP AND TENSION
STIFFENING
Two approaches to crack and bond analysis have
been used: (1) the bond-slip relationship and (2) ten-
sion stiffening by concrete. Analysis of data in Refer-
ences 11 and 12, in light of the discussion on testing
reinforced concrete in tension, shows that both bond-
slip and tension stiffening by concrete are different as-
pects of the reinforced concrete response in tension.
Bond-slip relationship
The bond-slip relationship for finite element analysis
was introduced by Nilson 15 in 1968. To model the bond
between steel and concrete, he used closely spaced dis-
crete spring linkages connecting the steel elements with
the adjacent concrete elements. The properties of these
spring linkages were defined by the local bond-slip
curves he derived. Also, the model included provisions
for the changing internal topology caused by cracking
for the concrete nonlinear behavior in compression and
for the bond nonlinearity.
In considering the calculated steel displacements ver-
sus the stress in the steel, Nilson arrived at the concept
of "tension stiffening by concrete" some years before
the first experimental results were reported. In 1971,
Nilson 10 tested a steel bar centrally located along the 18-
in. length of a 6 x 6 in. concrete block cross section.
Bond-slip was calculated from the difference in the bar
and concrete displacements at locations along their in-
terface referenced to a transverse plane.
Houde and Mirza 11 conducted an extensive testing
program to study the bond-slip relationship. A total of
62 direct tension specimens and 6 beam-end specimens
were tested. Specimens were reinforced with a single
bar, size No.4, 6, and 8. Fig. 1 shows the applied stress
versus total elongation of No. 4 bars concentrically
embedded in 16 in. long concrete prisms tested by
Houde and Mirza. 11
Tension stiffening by concrete
When reinforcing bars embedded in concrete are
stressed in tension, the stress-elongation diagram shows
that the concrete assists the reinforcement in carrying
the tensile force, even after severe cracking has devel-
oped. The concrete contribution is called tension stiff-
ening by concrete or simply tension stiffening.
Experimental data on tension stiffening are limited.
References 11 and 12 report the only available data on
tests performed on direct tensile specimens reinforced
with commercial deformed bars.
The curves in Fig. 2 show the stress applied to the re-
inforcement fs versus the average strain. 12
AVERAGE TENSILE STRESS-STRAIN
DIAGRAMS FROM TEST DATA
If the effect of slippage at specimen ends is ex-
cluded and an average strain compatibility is assumed
along the gage length, the contribution of the concrete
up to the yield of the bar is given by Eq. (4) in terms of
23
 Total elongation on a 400-mm gage (mm)
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
70
Transformed member elongation
(6 X Sin.)

60
400

50 .,
·;;; Q.
::E
"".,.; 300
.,
..
.c
40 ..
.c

= =
2
. Series No. 14
..
2

..,~ ~
30 No.4 bar (12.7mm) 200
lcf = 6.81 ksi (46.9 MPa) ..,
.! .!
Q. Q.
Q. Q.
20
"' Free bar elongation
100
"'

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Total elongation on 16-inch gage (10· 3 in.)

Fig. 1-Applied steel stress versus total elongation from axially loaded
tensile specimens in Reference 11

For the average strain compatibility

I
500 (3)

therefore

400 0.6 j, (4)

where
~
::E
::.. reinforcement and concrete strain, respec-
.,
~ 300
:;; tively
..
.c ~
..
.c
average strain (measured elongation divided
0.4 2
=
....
2 ...... by the gage length)
,..
I reinforcement elastic modulus
~ I
.!! reinforcement and concrete cross-sectional
:¥ 200
I
I
a.c. area, respectively
c.c. ct
I
ct
1 I_ 236 in. _ 1 As/Ac
1 r-- (6000 mm) ~
the externally applied load to the reinforce-
I
1 pb-1
1
X

r 1
X 1-pb 0.2
ment
100
I k- I + ~ I ____.f stress externally applied to the reinforce-
I 'm =.:.1/1 ment
I
j, average tensile stress in the concrete
I I= 138 in.(3500 mm)
I

10 15 20 25 30
Eq. (4) assumes the direct tensile specimens are
stressed by applying the load AJs to the reinforcement.
For a given elongation Em, the concrete contribution
in the average sense j, may be found as the difference
Fig. 2-Tensi/e stress-strain diagrams for axially loaded between the stress externally applied to the reinforce-
test specimens, showing the tension stiffening by con- ment and the average stress in the embedded portion of
crete, from Reference 12
the reinforcement ( 1s - Em Es), multiplied by the steel
ratio p. Oncef is known, the concrete stress-strain dia-
the average tensile stress. For equilibrium and neglect- gram can be plotted as in Fig. 3 and 4.
ing the effect of the concrete area displaced by the re- When Eq. (4) is applied to the data in Reference 11,
inforcement the stress-strain relationship obtained is not unique. For
example, the peak stress and initial slope differ for each
(2) curve because the 16 in. long concrete prism used barely
24 ACI JOURNAL I January-February 1986
satisfies twice the development length of the No. 4 bar Table 1 - Characteristics of the tensile test
for the concrete strength of 6.81 ksi as shown in Fig. 1. specimens in Reference 12
Also, the cracking characteristics of the specimens are Number of Diameter, Wire p E, f,',, t j,' I

Specimen bars mm size* X 100 MPa

''
MPa MPa
strongly influenced by the thickness of the concrete
cover and by the effective tension area of the concrete VI 20 6 W4.5 0.375 204,966 7.65 1.00
V2 10 8 W8 0.333 204,966 8.88 0.87
surrounding the tension reinforcement. For the No. 6 V3 20 8 W8 0.666 202,800 10.20 1.26
and 8 bars, also used in Reference 11, the difference V4 30 8 W8 0.987 204,966 8.98 1.00
between twice the required development length and the *Approximate ASTM A82 Wire Size number.
'Cube compressive strength.
16 in. long specimen is even greater. Measured elonga- 'Tensile strength from plain concrete test specimens.
tions mainly correspond to the slippage at the ends of 1.0 ksi = 0.145 MPa; I in. = 25.4 mm.

the concrete prism. Overlapping of development lengths

prevents the transfer of high tensile stress in concrete.
Table 2 - Fitted parameters from stress-strain
This behavior is expected because specimens in Refer- data in Reference 12 by Eq. (1)
ence 11 were intended to study the bond-slip relation- g'1 ' •
f,'' !/'
ship. Specimen MPa psi v'Psi E/ (3
In some cases, however, the curves shown may cor-
VI 0.935 136 4.35 0.00016 1.45
respond to the response of precracked specimens with V2 0.82 119 3.31 0.00025 1.80
one primary crack system, as illustrated in Fig. 3 for V3 1.15 167 4.33 0.00025 1.95
V4 1.20 174 4.82 0.00015 1.70
data from test series No. 23 in Reference 11.
Rotasy, Koch, and Leonhardt 12 reported the stress- *Tensile strength in terms of g( .Jj; (psi).
1.0 ksi = 0.145 MPa.
strain curves from long direct tension specimens of
lightweight aggregate concrete. Dimensions of the con-
crete prisms were 300 x 500 x 6000 mm (12 x 19.7 x 236
0.3
in.). Elongation was measured on a gage length of 3500 0
mm (138 in.) centered with the specimens. 0.04
Series No. 23
The tensile stress in concrete was computed, using No.6 bars (19mm)
t(; 4.2 ksi (29MPa)
0 0
Eq. (4), and the stress-strain diagrams were fitted to
0
Eq. (1). The characteristics of the specimens in Refer- ~ 0.2

::i
ence 12 are summarized in Table 1. The resulting pa-
rameters f: , c; , and {3 are shown in Table 2. Fig. 4 .
~

shows a typical diagram. ~ (3 ° 1.6

.!!
lj;;. 0.29 ksi
Crack patterns for each test specimen show uniform ~ 0.1 Ej ;;. 0.00018 0
u
cracking away from the ends of the specimens. By
0.01
eliminating the effect of end slippage on the measured
elongations (that is, using the center 138 in. out of the
236 in. long specimens), the concept of the overall de-
10 15 20
formation compatibility and therefore the average Average strain x 10· 4
strain Em can be applied to the interpretation of these
tests.
Because reinforcement was closely spaced and the Fig. 3-Tensile stress-strain diagram for test series No.
concrete cover to the center of the bars was 30 mm 23 in Reference 11

Specimen V1
~ 1.0 0.15
:::;; (3 ~ 1.45
f't ~ 1.0 MPa
{ t' t = 0.00016
::
~
.! 0.10 .!
·;;; ·;;;
c: c:
"'
; 0.5
~ Direct tension test diagrams
..
~

~
"c:0 I from plain concrete prisms
"c:
u 0.05 8

10 15 20
Average strain (x 10· 4 )

Fig. 4-Tensi/e stress-strain diagram for test Specimen VI in Reference 12

ACI JOURNAL I January-February 1986 25
 100'~--.---.------,----r---,.------.-----.
80
; 500 ~
~
J:J
~ 60
E 400 ~
0 E
~
~
..,
~ ..,
c.
<
Q.
10 15 20 25 30
Average strain x 10· 14
Fig. 5-As-measured stress-strain diagram for the con-
crete and reinforcement of Specimen VI in Reference
12
(about I ~6 in.), the restraining effect of the reinforce-
ment on the propagation of shrinkage cracks was more
effective than that for the test specimens in Reference
I1. However, these tests were not totally free from the
effect of shrinkage, as evident in Fig. 4.13 and 4.I4 of
Reference 12. In these figures, the stress-strain curve of
the specimens intercepts the reinforcing bar stress-strain
curve below its yield stress. This shrinkage effect was
discussed by Ledbetter and Thompson. 6
Fig. 5 shows the as-measured stress-strain diagram
for Specimen VI in Reference I2. The zigzag line is
produced by the stress losses under constant elonga-
tion. Each time a new crack was observed at the con-
crete surface, elongation was sustained during its mea-
surement. Measured stress dropped because the stress
that causes crack propagation is less than the stress that
initiates cracking. After cracking stabilizes, the load
would further decrease due to concrete relaxation at
constant strain. Upon further straining, the load will
recover to the previous load level.
For loads increasing monotonically or remaining
constant, the stress-strain diagram should be a smooth
curve. The curve for Specimen VI in Fig. 4 corre-
sponds with the upper points of the zigzag lines in Fig.
5.
If unloading takes place at points on the stress-strain
diagram beyond the initial cracking, a residual
compression stress results in the concrete and residual
tension stress results in the reinforcement, as shown by
Points B and D in Fig. 5. Upon reloading above the
previous load level, the diagram will continue to be the
same as though no unloading had occurred, as shown
by Points A and C in Fig. 5.
STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP USED IN
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
Stress-strain diagrams for concrete in tension, in-
cluding a descending branch, have been used in layered
discrete element analysis.
A saw-toothed diagram for the descending branch
was first used by Scalon and Murray. 16 For the un-
cracked ascending branch, the modulus of elasticity in
26
700 tension was taken as that for compression Ec. A straight
line with a slope of Ec reaches the tensile strength j,'
with the corresponding strain at first cracking Ecr· Then
it drops vertically to a certain fraction of/,' and as-
:1! cends again with a smaller slope (0.3 Ec) until it reaches
g a strain of 2. 7 Em with a corresponding new peak stress
lower than/,'. The process repeats with decreasing
£
300 ~ slopes and peak stresses as strains increase up to 10 Ecr·
Lin and Scordelis 17 used a stress-strain diagram with
~
200 'E. a linear ascending branch of slope Ec until it reached
~
J,' and corresponding Ecr· Then stress decreased gradu-
100 ally to zero at a strain of 10 Ecr·
Gilbert and W arner 18 also used a piecewise linear dia-
35 gram. Their diagram consists of a straight line with a
slope of Ec that reaches fi and Em then drops vertically
to 0.6 f!. From this point it descends in a straight line
to 0.4 /,' at 4 Ecr· Again, it descends in a straight line of
a smaller slope to a zero stress at 10 Ecr· The descending
branch was adjusted to reflect the position of each layer
relative to the reinforcement. Similarly, they also ad-
justed the diagrams in References I6 and I7.
Gilbert and Warner 18 used other piecewise linear
stress-strain relationships modifying the tensile rein-
forcement stress-strain diagram in cracked concrete.
Velbo and Ghali 19 used bilinear and trilinear piece-
wise stress-strain relationships for concrete in tension.
Their independent variables are the modulus of rupture
f, and the modulus of elasticity Ec.
In the two bilinear relationships, the ascending
branch is a straight line with a slope of Ec up to f,. In
one case, the descending branch has a slope of
- I 00/ En which is almost a vertical drop to zero stress.
In the other bilinear case, the descending branch has a
slope of - E/5 to zero stress.
In the trilinear relationship, the ascending branch has
a slope of 0. 75 Ec and reaches a peak at 0.9 J,. It then
changes to a slope of - E/2 until 0.45 f,; from there it
changes to - E/20 until it reaches zero stress. Velbo
and GhalP 9 found that the last case with f: = 4.0 ksi
correlated best with the slabs tested by Lanschow and
So zen and Cardenas.
Despite the differences between the diagrams used,
calculated deflections compare well with the slab test
data. This is because diagrams with a reasonable de-
scending branch significantly improve the accuracy of
calculated deflections over that of deflections from
diagrams in which concrete contribution in tension is
neglected or a complete unloading is assumed after the
tensile strength is reached.
In view of the test results in References 7, 8, and I1
through 13, it can be concluded that the average stress-
strain diagrams obtained from long reinforced concrete
specimens more closely represent the behavior of the
reinforced concrete in tension than"the stress-strain
diagrams based on plain concrete tests.
DESIGN PARAMETERS TO BE USED WITH THE
PROPOSED EQUATION
The design parameters recommended apply to rein-
forced concrete in tension.
ACI JOURNAL I January-February 1986
Estimating tensile strength
The direct tensile strength of plain concrete is con-
servatively given in Reference 20 by the following
equation
(5)
where an average value of g 1 "" YJ may be used, w is
the concrete unit weight in lb/ft\ and J: is the com-
pressive strength in psi (g 1 = 0.0069 for win kg/m 3 and
J: in MPa). For normal weight concrete use J: ""
4../J[, for J: in psi (0.33../J[ in MPa). The characteris-
tics of the test specimens and testing conditions in the
tests by Houde and Mirza 11 did not allow the develop-
ment of a tensile strength higher than 3.4../J[ in psi
(0.28../J[ in MPa). For lightweight concrete, an average
value of/,' = 4.2../J[ in psi (0.35../J[ in MPa) is shown
in Table 2.
The modulus of rupture f, is defined in Reference 20
by using g2 , instead of g 1 as in Eq. (5), with values of g2
varying from 0.60 to 1.0 for f, in psi (0.012 to 0.021 in
MPa). The ACI 318 Building Code 14 adopted a value of
J: = 7.5../J[ in psi (0.62JJ: in MPa) for normal weight
concrete.
For deflection calculations, if the previous loading
and concrete environment are unknown, an average
value of g 1 from 0.45 to 0.55 may be used in Eq. (5)
when estimating/,' in psi (0.0093 to 0.0114 in MPa).
For w = 145 lb/ftl (2323 kg/m 3), this results in/,' =
5.2 to 5.5JJ: in psi (0.43 to 0.46JJ: in MPa). These
values may be as high as 7.5 to 12.0JJ: in psi (0.62 to
1.0JJ: in MPa) if drying shrinkage is prevented by
keeping the test specimens in a saturated air environ-
ment and if precompression or no tensile loading is ap-
plied prior to testing. They may be as low as 2.5 to
3 .OJ!: in psi (0.21 to 0.25../J[ in MPa) if specimens are
precracked prior to testing.
Estimating the value of e,'
The values for E; in Table 2 varied from 0.00015 to
0.00025 for lightweight concrete and were approxi-
mately 0.00018 for normal weight concrete in Fig. 3.
The higher values of E; obtained from other data in
Reference 11 are markedly affected by slippage.
Seiss and Abbasi 21 used a value of E; = 0.0002,
which is v;o of the strain corresponding to the peak
stress used for stress-strain relationship in compres-
sion. For the stress-strain diagram in tension, they used
a parabola for the ascending branch with sudden un-
loading after reaching the peak stress/,' at E/ = 0.0002.
In the case of an initially uncracked section in flex-
ure, the value of E/ may be assumed such that the ini-
tial slopes of the tension and compression diagrams at
the surface of zero strain are the same. The assumption
implies that E/ = f,' E/f: if {3 is assumed the same in
compression and in tension.
For the response of previously cracked sections in di-
rect tension, E/ may be assumed as the maximum strain
that the concrete had experienced. For flexural compu-
tations it may be assumed as Xo of E; in compression.
ACI JOURNAL I January-February 1986
This may result in different initial slopes for the ten-
sion and compression stress-strain diagrams if {3 is
taken as the same for both.
Estimating 13 in tension
For the data in Reference 12, {3 varies from 1.45 to
1.95. When procedures in Reference 1 are applied to
this data, the predicted {3 varies from 1. 56 to 2.1. This
finding suggests that for the initially uncracked con-
crete, {3 is the same for the tension and the compression
diagrams.
The fitted values of {3 for data in Reference 11 are
systematically lower than the predicted ones. For ex-
ample, {3 = 1.6 in Fig. 3, while the predicted {3 varies
from 1.8 to 2.26. The lower value of {3 may be attrib-
uted to slippage at both ends of the uncracked test
specimen. This slippage results in a behavior similar to
that of initially cracked concrete.
Since in most service load calculations in flexure the
stress-strain diagrams in compression and in tension are
equally needed and tension test data are very limited,
especially in cracked concrete, it may be convenient to
assume the same value of {3 for the tension diagram as
for compression.
CONCLUSIONS
The behavior of reinforced concrete in tension de-
pends on the restraining action of the reinforcement on
the crack propagation, on the formation of a complex
system of external and internal cracks around and
along the bars, on the strength and extensibility of the
concrete itself, and on the effect of shrinkage.
The tensile strength of concrete specimens allowed to
dry prior to testing is lower than that of test specimens
kept saturated. Drying shrinkage provides sources of
crack growth in preference to those of the tensile
stresses produced by externally applied loads.
The test results and their reproducibility are affected
by size, shape, and reinforcement of a tensile speci-
men; the gage length; the strain rate; and the strain and
stress measuring devices. Gage length needs to be long
enough to include the effect of several primary crack
systems and far enough from the specimen ends to
avoid the effect of reinforcement slippage at the ends of
the specimen. The gage line should be at least one de-
velopment length from the ends of the specimen.
Stress-strain relationships for concrete in tension, in-
cluding a descending branch, have been used in finite
element analysis. These relationships are based on plain
concrete testing data and on how well analytical solu-
tions fit the experimental load-deflection data from
reinforced concrete slabs.
For deflection calculations of reinforced concrete
members, the average stress-strain diagram in tension
using Eq. (1) is recommended. The average stress-strain
diagram represents the overall behavior of the rein-
forced concrete in tension. It includes the combined ef-
fects of cracking and slippage at cracks along the rein-
forcement.
27
 Total load removal from cracked reinforced concrete
will result in time-dependent residual stresses and
strains. The residual compressive stress in the concrete
and the residual tensile stress in the reinforcement are
in equilibrium with each other after unloading. Stress-
strain diagrams for subsequent loadings are strongly
affected by the residual stresses and strains. Unfortu-
nately, few data are available on these diagrams.
Research is needed with long specimens for concrete
strength, steel ratios, and reinforcement details most
commonly used in reinforced concrete construction to
better define the parameters in Eq. (1) and the effects
of loading and unloading. In absence of test data, the
following parameters may be used for deflection calcu-
lations.
The values for J,' may be assumed as defined by Eq.
(5) or as/,' = 7 .5../J[ in psi (0.62../J[ in MPa) for un-
cracked sections. Depending on the degree of flexural
cracking,/; may be assumed between 3.5 and 4.5Jl[ in
psi (0.29 to 0. 37 .jJ[ in MPa).
For uncracked sections, the value of E: may be as-
sumed as /,' E: I J: if {3 is assumed to be the same for
compression and tension. For cracked concrete sections
in flexure, E/ may be taken as Xo of E:. Values of E:
and {3 for concrete in compression are defined in Ref-
erence 1.
REFERENCES
I. Carreira, Domingo J., and Chu, Kuang-Han, "Stress-Strain
Relationship for Plain Concrete in Compression," ACI JouRNAL,
Proceedings V. 82, No.6, Nov.-Dec. 1985, pp. 797-804.
2. Hughes, B. P., and Chapman, G. P., "The Deformation of
Concrete and Microconcrete in Compression and Tension with Par-
ticular Reference to Aggregate Size," Magazine of Concrete Re-
search (London), V. 18, No. 54, Mar. 1966, pp. 19-24.
3. McNeely, D. J., and Lash, S. D., "Tensile Strength of Con-
crete," ACI JoURNAL, Proceedings V. 60, No.6, June 1963, pp. 751-
761.
4. Evans, R. H., and Marathe, M.S., "Microcracking and Stress-
Strain Curves for Concrete in Tension," Materials and Structures,
Research and Testing (RILEM, Paris), V. 1, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1968,
pp. 61-64.
5. Fulwood, A. F., Discussion of "Tensile Strength of Concrete"
by D. J. McNeely and S. D. Lash, ACI JoURNAL, Proceedings V. 60,
No. 12, Dec. 1963, pp. 1885-1886.
6. Ledbetter, W. B., and Thompson, J. Neils, "A Technique for
Evaluation of Tensile and Volume Change Characteristics of Struc-
28
tural Lightweight Concrete," Proceedings, ASTM, V. 65, 1965, pp.
712-726.
7. Broms, Bengt B., "Stress Distribution in Reinforced Concrete
Members with Tension Cracks," ACI JoURNAL, Proceedings V. 62,
No. 9, Sept. 1965, pp. 1095-1108.
8. Goto, Yukimasa, "Cracks Formed in Concrete Around De-
formed Tension Bars," ACI JoURNAL, Proceedings, V. 68, No. 4,
Apr. 1971, pp. 244-251.
9. Base, G. D.; Read, G. B.; Beeby, A. W.; and Taylor, H. P. J.,
"An Investigation of Crack Control Characteristics of Various Types
of Bar in Reinforced Concrete Beams," Research Report No. 18, Part
1, Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1966, 44 pp.
10. Nilson, Arthur H., "Internal Measurement of Bond Slip," ACI
JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 69, No.7, July 1972, pp. 439-441.
11. Houde, J., and Mirza, M.S., "A Study of Bond Stress-Slip
Relationships in Reinforced Concrete," Structural Research Series
No. 72-8, Department of Civil Engineering, McGill University, Mon-
treal, Apr. 1972, 124 pp.
12. Rostasy, Ferdinand S.; Koch, Rainer; and Leonhardt, Fritz,
"Regarding Minimum Reinforcement Against Pressure on Exterior
Walls of Reinforced Lightweight Concrete (Zur Mindestbewehrung
fiir Zwang von Aussenwanden aus Stahlleichtbeton)," Bulletin No.
267, Deutscher Ausschuss fiir Stahlbeton, Berlin, 1976, pp. 5-83.
13. Ills ton, J. M., and Stevens, R. F., Discussion of "Cracks
Formed in Concrete Around Deformed Tension Bars" by Yukimasa
Goto, ACI JoURNAL, Proceedings V. 61, No. 10, Oct. 1971, pp. 798-
799.
14. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete (ACI 318-83)," American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, 1983, 111 pp.
15. Nilson, Arthur H., "Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Con-
crete by the Finite Element Method," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V.
65, No.9, Sept. 1968, pp. 757-766.
16. Scanlon, Andrew, and Murray, David W., "Time-Dependent
Reinforced Concrete Slab Deflections," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 100,
ST9, Sept. 1974, pp. 1911-1924.
17. Lin, Cheng-Shung, and Scordelis, Alexander C., "Nonlinear
Analysis of RC Shells of General Form," Proceedings, ASCE, V.
101, ST3, Mar. 1975, pp. 523-538.
18. Gilbert, R. Ian, and Warner, Robert F., "Tension Stiffening in
Reinforced Concrete Slabs," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 104, ST12, Dec.
1978, pp. 1885-1900.
19. Vebo, Ake, and Ghali, Amin, "Moment-Curvature Relation of
Reinforced Concrete Slabs," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 103, ST3, Mar.
1977, pp. 515-531.
20. ACI Committee 209, "Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and
Temperature Effects in Concrete Structures (ACI 209R-82)," Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1982, 92 pp.
21. Siess, C. P., and Abbasi, A. F., "Test of Reinforced Concrete
Beams with Cadweld Reinforcing Bar Splices," for ERICO Prod-
ucts, Inc., Cleveland, University of Illinois, Urbana, Jan. 1967, 93
pp.
ACI JOURNAL I January-February 1986