r_
j
ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 90-S 15
Effect of Reinforcement Ratio on the Effective Moment of
Inertia of Reinforced Concrete Beams
by Abdulrahman H. AI-Shaikh and Rajeh Z. AI-Zaid
The effective moment of inertia of cracked rectangular reinforced concrete
beams with different reinforcement ratios under a midspan concentrated
load was evaluated experimentally from their immediate deflections. Com-
parison of the test results with values obtained using the ACI Building Code
equation of the effective moment of inertia showed a noticeable difference,
especially for heavily reinforced sections. This difference was accounted for
by modifying the exponent in the effective moment of inertia equation. The
effect of using the moment of inertia of the uncracked transformed section
in the computation of the effective moment of inertia was also discussed. In
addition, the effect of the reinforcement ratio was incorporated in a recently
developed model which estimates the effective moment of inertia of rein-
forced concrete beams under any type of symmetrical loading by consid-
ering the variation in the beam's cracked length.
Keywords: beams (supports): deflection; moment of inertia; reinforced concrete;
reinforcement ratio.
In 1963, the effective moment equation was presented by
Branson' in the form
where m = 3 when Ma ~Mer; otherwise/,= / 8 • This equation
has been adopted by the ACI Building Code2 since 1971.
Many authors have shown that the /, procedure is the best
among the commonly accepted methods. 3-5 Other studies have
established more simplified equations. Grossman6 proposed
the following relationships
!.:._ = (Mer ) 2 =:::; l.O if ( Ma) =:::; 1.6 (2a)
lg Ma Mer
!.:._ = 0.1(~) if ( Ma) > 1.6
(2b)
lg Mer Mer
A lower bound for le/18 of 0.35 was suggested. Another
simple equation was proposed by Rang an7 as
fe = kbd 3 (3)
where
k = 0.1955-,JnP ::::; 0.111 ifnp > 0.045
k =0.0019/np ::::; 0.067 if np ::::; 0.045
144
' j
TECHNICAL PAPER
p = reinforcement ratio
n = modular ratio
Although Eq. (3) recognizes the effect of the reinforcement
ratio p, it neglects the other important parameters such as the
load level which is represented by the MaiMer ratio, and the
moment of inertia of the cracked section fer- Eq. (1) has the
advantage of considering these parameters; however, the ef-
fect of the reinforcement ratio on the/, values obtained using
Eq. (1) still needs to be quantified experimentally. Further-
more, ACI Committee 435 8 recommended the use of It in-
stead of / 8 in Eq. (1), especially for heavily reinforced con-
crete beams.
The effect of both p and the use of It in Eq. (1) is investi-
gated in this paper using three different reinforcement ratios.
The effect of p on the values of /, computed using a model
recently proposed by the authors9 is also investigated, and a
modified version of the model is presented.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The present research quantifies the effect of the reinforce-
ment ratio on the values of the effective moment of inertia of
cracked reinforced concrete beams and suggests simple pro-
cedures to account for this effect.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Specimen and material details
The experimental work consisted of casting and testing a
total of 18 (9 identical pairs) simply supported reinforced con-
crete beams under midspan concentrated loads. Two beam
cross-sectional dimensions and three reinforcement ratios cor-
responding to lightly, normally, and heavily reinforced sec-
tions were used. Beams were cast in steel molds using six
concrete batches, of three beams each, according to the
ACJ Structural Journal, V. 90, No.2, March-April 1993.
Received Nov. 16, 1991, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright
© 1993, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies
unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion will
be published in the January-February 1994 A CJ Structural Journal if received by Sept.
I, 1993. .
ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1993

AC/ member Abdulrahnum H. AI-Shaikh is an assistant professor ofcivil engineering
at King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He received his BSC from King Saud
University, MScfrom Stanford University, Stanford, California, and PhD from the Im-
perial College of Science, Medicine and Technology, University of London, U.K. His
present research interests are concrete material behavior and repair and renovation
of existing structures.
Jl4ieh Z. Al-Zaid is an assistant professor of civil engineering at King Saud Univer-
sity in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He received his BSc from King Saud University and MS
and PhD from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. His current research interest is
instantaneous and time-dependent behavior of ordinary reitiforced and partially pre-
stressed concrete members with composite and noncomposite sections.
casting program shown in Table 1. Shear reinforcement was
provided by 6-mm diameter steel stirrups located at 70 mm
center to center. One concrete mix with a design character-
istic strength of 34 MPa, water-cement ratio (w/c) of 0.56,
maximum aggregate size of 10 mm, and proportions of 1 : 1.8
: 3.4 was used throughout. Mixing was performed in a ro-
tating mixer. Beams were demolded after 24 hr from casting,
covered with wet burlap, and stored under laboratory condi-
tions for 28 days. In addition, three 102-mm cubes and three
152 x 305-mm cylinders were cast from each batch and tested
in compression after a water-curing period of 28 days.
Loading and instrumentation details
All beams had a clear span of 2500 mm and were tested
under midspan concentrated loads in a 200-ton universal
testing machine. Typical cross section and loaded-beam ele-
vation are shown in Fig. (1). The beams' central deflections
were measured using a linear voltage displacement transducer
(LVDT), while the applied load was measured via a 20-ton
load cell. The load cell and transducer readings were recorded
kMaL2
Iexp =--- (4)
Ec!l.
where Ec =4730 .ffl MPa and k is a constant which depends
on the load distribution and beam's end restraints (k = 1/12
for simply supported beams under a midspan concentrated
load). The ratio of the beam's self-weight moment to applied
moment is between 3 and 6 percent and, therefore, is ne-
glected. Typical load-deflection curves for beams with dif-
ferent reinforcement ratios are shown in Fig. 2, from which
the variation in the beams' flexural rigidity with p can be ob-
served easily.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
The variation of the effective moment of inertia I, with the
load level for heavily and lightly reinforced sections is pre-
sented in Fig. 3. A total of six heavily reinforced beams and
seven lightly reinforced beams were used in producing this
figure. The effect of p on the I, values for MaiMer values
greater than 1.5 can be depicted easily from this figure, with
the heavily reinforced sections recording higher I, values as
compared to the lightly (and normally) reinforced sections at
the same load level. This can also be seen from Tables 2
through 6 with the lightly and normally reinforced beams
recording I, values of about 50 and 70 percent, respectively,
of those recorded by the heavily reinforced beams. A com-
parison of the experimental results with Eq. (1) (with m =3)
is also presented in Tables 2 through 6, from which the dif-
ference can be seen clearly (an average of 30 percent for
heavily reinforced sections). However, this difference de-
creases with the reduction in the reinforcement ratio reaching
p

nt"·-
automatically using a minicomputer and data acquisition
system capable of measuring to a sensitivity of 0.001 mm.

l1]111111111111111111n1
~ lUl
Test results
Typical test results are presented in Tables 2 through 4. In . 2500

these tables, the experimental values of the moment of inertia

Iexp were calculated from the measured deflections using the Fig. 1 - Typical cross section and loaded beam elevation
elastic deflection formula in the form (dimensions in mm)

Table 1 - Specimen details

Batch no. Specimen Section dimensions, mm p, percent Reinforcement fc',MPa
B-L-3 0.8 2~12
1 B-N-1 200x200 1.4 2~16 31
B-H-4 2 3~16

B-L-5 0.8 2~12

2 B-N-2 200x 200 1.4 ~16 36
B-H-6 2 3~16

B-L-8 0.8 2~14

3 B-N-9 200x 240 1.4 2~18 33
B-H-10 2 3~18

B-L-11 0.8 ~14

4 B-N-12 200x 240 1.4 2~18 33
B-H-13 2 3~18

B-L-14 200x200 0.8 2~12

5 B-L-15 200x 240 0.8 2~14 35
B-H-16 200x 240 2 3~18

B-L-17 200x 200 0.8 2~12

6 B-L-18 200x 240 0.8 2~14 36
·B-H-19 200x 240 2 3~18
I m = 39.37m.; and I MPa = 145 pst.

ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1993 145

 Table 2 - Test results and analysis for Beam B-L-11 (p = 0.8 percent)
fexp

fexp Iexp I, '

Eq. (6),
I, I,
Total load, -Ma- -La L\.,mm Iexp 1()4 mm4 m'!
Eq. (1), Eq. (1), m'=0.66M"'
kN Ma * L X mt m=3 m=2.3 Ma
10.97 1.35 0.26 0.81 16,049 1.63 0.70 1.30 1.14 1.17
12.70 1.57 0.36 1.16 13,073 1.80 0.58 1.34 1.14 1.15
14.29 1.76 0.43 1.71 9972 2.29 0.38 1.19 1.00 1.00
16.36 2.02 0.50 2.30 8461 2.38 0.30 1.16 0.98 0.97
18.64 2.30 0.57 2.93 7596 2.36 0.26 1.16 0.98 0.98
20.13 2.49 0.60 3.34 7175 2.36 024 1.15 0.98 0.97
22.51 2.78 0.64 3.96 6776 2.31 0.22 1.14 1.00 0.98
27.52 3.40 0.71 5.44 6036 2.40 0.16 1.09 0.98 0.97
32.73 4.04 0.75 6.94 5621 2.52 0.11 1.05 0.97 0.95
35.27 4.35 0.77 7.66 5492 2.58 0.09 1.04 0.96 0.95
*Ma IS the expenmental cracking moment evaluated from the load -deflectiOn curve.
tm =log [(/,xp -la)l(lg- la)]/log (Mc/Ma).
lm' =log [(I,- lap)l(l,- la)]/log (Lc,/L).

Table 3- Test results and analysis for Beam B-N-12 (p = 1.4 percent)
fexp

lexp lexp I-
Eq. (6),
I, I, '
Total1oad, -Ma -La L\.,mm Iexp X 1()4 mm4 m'
Eq. (1), Eq. (1), m' = 1.10 Ma
Ma
kN Ma L m m=3 m= 1.9
17.22 1.15 0.13 1.07 19,157 2.05 0.68 1.09 0.99 0.92
20.06 1.34 0.25 1.48 16,165 1.97 0.60 1.17 0.99 0.90
24.35 1.62 0.38 2.11 13,787 1.82 0.56 1.26 1.02 0.93
28.02 1.87 0.46 2.81 11,893 1.96 0.45 1.23 0.99 0.91
31.39 2.09 0.52 3.31 11,311 1.84 0.45 1.26 1.01 0.95
34.88 2.33 0.57 3.95 10,520 1.87 0.41 1.23 1.01 0.96
40.09 2.67 0.63 4.77 10,017 1.78 0.41 1.24 1.03 1.00
45.69 3.05 0.67 5.75 9469 1.77 0.38 1.21 1.03 1.01
51.86 3.46 0.71 6.73 9192 1.70 0.38 1.20 1.05 1.03
57.39 3.83 0.74 7.63 8968 1.66 0.38 1.19 1.06 1.05
I kN = 0.2248 kips.

Table 4 - Test results and analysis for Beam B-H-13 (p = 2 percent)

lexp

Iexp lexp Iexp I, '

Eq. (6),
I, I, I,
Total load, -Ma -
La Eq. (1),* Eq. (1), Eq. (1), m'=l.64 Ma
kN Mer L L\.,mm Iexp X 104 mm4 m m' m=3 m=3 m= 1.4 Ma
16.43 1.29 0.22 0.96 20,497 0.84 0.96 1.22 1.29 0.93 0.97
19.62 1.54 0.35 1.25 18,670 0.92 1.06 1.35 1.40 1.10 1.00
23.81 1.86 0.46 1.70 16,717 1.03 0.98 1.39 1.42 1.09 1.03
29.18 2.28 0.56 2.35 14,807 1.16 0.84 1.35 1.37 1.07 1.04
36.06 2.82 0.65 3.27 13,149 1.29 0.69 1.27 1.28 1.03 1.04
40.55 3.18 0.69 3.85 12,568 1.32 0.65 1.24 1.25 1.02 1.05
44.70 3.50 0.71 4.31 12,364 1.28 0.67 1.23 1.24 1.03 1.06
50.68 3.97 0.75 5.04 11,989 1.27 0.66 1.21 1.21 1.03 1.07
55.74 4.36 0.77 5.68 11,693 1.28 0.63 1.19 1.19 1.03 1.07
60.60 4.75 0.79 6.32 11,430 1.30 0.60 1.17 1.17 1.02 1.07
*Usmg /, mstead of 1,.

an average value of about 12 percent for lightly reinforced
sections. The values of the exponent min Eq. (1) were cal-
culated for each of the tested beams using Eq. ( 1) and (4) and
are listed in Tables 2 through 4. The m values varied from
about 1.8 up to 2.5 for the lightly reinforced beams in the
range of 1.5 <MaiMer< 4.0, while for the heavily reinforced
sections m varied from about 0.9 up to 1.3. The variation of
m with MaiMer is also presented graphically in Fig. 4, which
indicates that the exponent m is inversely proportional to the
reinforcement ratio p. The m value of 1.8 suggested in Ref-
erence 9 for normally reinforced beams subjected to central
concentrated loads is also shown by a straight dashed line in
this figure. As can be seen, this value is somewhere in be-
tween the m values for the heavily and lightly reinforced
beams. Several approaches could be used to incorporate the
146
effect of p in Eq. ( 1); however, to keep the form of the equa-
tion with the minimum modification, the incorporation of the
effect of the reinforcement ratio in the exponent m is sug-
gested. To do this, an average m value for each p was obtained
and plotted as shown in Fig. 5. A straight line fit was then
performed, giving the following equation
m=3-0.8 p (5)
The m values obtained from Eq. (5) for the reinforcement
ratios used in this study were 2.3, 1.9, and 1.4 for lightly, nor-
mally, and heavily reinforced sections, respectively. These
values were then used along with Eq. (1) to calculate I. for
the various beams, and typical results are also listed in Tables
2 through 6, from which the improved accuracy of the mod-
ified model is reflected clearly, especially for MaiMer > 1.5.
ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1993•
 Table 5- Analysis of test results for beams with
low reinforcement ratio
a. Beam B-L-17
80

--
·-
B·H-13
B-N-9
B-L-11

Iexp Iexp
Iexp
I.
. z
60

Eq. (6), !!
I, ' I, '
Ma
Total load,
kN
-Mrr -Lcr
L
Eq. (1),
m=3
Eq. (1),
m=2.3
m'=0.66Mer
Mn
1
s
40

13.18 1.88 0.47 1.04 0.87 0.87

14.33 2.05 0.51 1.07 0.90 0.89
20
15.58 2.23 0.55 1.09 0.91 0.90
16.85 2.41 0.58 1.13 0.96 0.93
19.85 2.84 0.65 1.18 1.03 1.01
22.00 3.14 0.68 1.23 1.08 1.05
23.39 3.34 0.70 1.24 1.11 1.08 04---~---r--~----r---~--~--~--~
25.04 3.58 0.72 1.24 1.12 1.09 0 2 4 6 8
deftecdoa (mm)
b. Beam B-L-18
Fig. 2 - Typical load-deflection curves for beams with dif-

Iexp Iexp
Iexp
I,
. ferent reinforcement ratios
Eq. (6),

I•
I. ' I, '
M. Lcr
Total load, -Mer Eq. (1), Eq. (1), m'=0.66Mer p=2-. I
kN L m=3 m=2.3 Mn o p=O.B!II J
10.42 1.30 0.23 0.98 0.87 0.90
12.26 1.53 0.35 0.99 0.85 0.86
15.32 1.91 0.48 1.15 0.96 0.96
20.91 2.61 0.62 1.25 1.07 1.06
24.86
28.20
33.07
3.11
3.52
4.13
0.68
0.72
0.76
1.17
1.16
1.10
1.03
1.04
1.02
1.02
1.03
1.00
.. •
....
35.33 4.42 0.77 1.09 1.01 0.99
0.4
•
.::
Table 6 - Analysis of test results for beams with 0.2

high reinforcement ratio

a. Beam B-H-6
0.0 +----..---.---.....---,..--~--"T""--.---r-- ........---1

Iexp Iexp
Iexp
I,
. 1 2 3
MaiMer
4 5 6

Eq. (6),
I. I, Fig. 3- Variation ofie/18 with MaiMer/or beams with dif-
M.
Total load,
kN
-Mrr -Lcr
L
Eq. (I),*
m=3
Eq. (1),
m=1.4
m' =1. 64 Mer
Mn
ferent reinforcement ratios
7.03 1.76 0.43 1.51 1.12 1.03
8.67 2.17 0.54 1.40 1.03 0.99
10.96 2.74 0.64 1.37 1.03 1.05
12.99 3.25 0.69 1.32 1.03 1.06
15.52 3.88 0.74 1.23 1.00 1.04
16.73 4.18 0.76 1.21 0.99 1.04 where the cracked length Lcr is defined as the beam segment
18.98 4.75 0.79 1.13 0.95 1.00
21.03 5.26 0.81 1.10 0.94 1.00 over which the working moment exceeds the cracking mo-
*Usmg I, mstead of I 8 • ment Mer· This model takes into account the severity of crack
propagation, as well as the extension of cracking along the
b. Beam B-H-10 beam. The experimental values of the exponent m' were cal-
culated using Eq. (4) and (6) and are listed in Tables 2 through
Iexp
. 4 and plotted against Mer!Ma in Fig. 6. In the previous study,9
Iexp
I.
. Iexp
I, '
I.
Eq. (6), the exponent m' was determined approximately as m' =
Ma Lcr Me..IMa for normally reinforced sections. However, Fig. 6
Total load,
kN
-Mrr -L Eq. (1),*
m=3
Eq. (1),
m= 1.4
m' =1.64 Mer
Mn shows that the m'values for the heavily reinforced sections
13.86 1.31 0.24 1.15 1.01 0.91 lie above the equality line, while the m 'values corresponding
15.38 1.45 0.31 1.23 1.03 0.93
19.55 1.84 0.46 1.32 1.04 0.98 to the lightly reinforced sections lie below the equality line,
24.95 2.32 0.57 1.28 1.01 0.99 which indicates that the exponent m 'is directly proportional
29.50 2.78 0.64 1.25 1.01 1.01
34.18 3.22 0.69 1.22 1.01 1.04 to the reinforcement ratio. Therefore, to incorporate the ef-
39.00 3.68 0.73 1.18 0.99 1.03 fect of pin Eq. (6), the exponent m' was related to the Mer!Ma
45.12 4.26 0.77 1.16 1.00 1.05
•Usmg I, mstead of I 8 •
ratio as

m' = f3 Mer (7)

Effect of reinforcement ratio on the Lcr model
A general model, which accounts for all types of symmet-
.ricalloading, was proposed in an earlier investigation9 to cal-
culate the effective moment of inertia of simply supported
rectangular or T-beams in the form
ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1993
Ma
An average value of the coefficient pwas computed for each
p and plotted against pin Fig. 5. A straight line was fitted to
the data points resulting in the following equation
147
 4~---------------------r======;, 1.4r-;::::======;-----------71
• p=2.0%
-- p= 1.4'.11> 1.2
• p=2'll>
-··· p= 1.4%

. . . . . .
. ...··..··..··..··••···
..··••···

.. .
OCb
0 p=0.8'.11>

..·'•• ,...,. •.•••...··,...·

0 0 0 0 0 p=0.8'.11>
3 0 0
?,o8~0 0 0 0 1.0
0 0 JIG
cP6 oo oo m o 0
cP Oo ~ o§ 0.8

........I I ...... _._ .......

. .
.. fiJ ....
~'o

.
El

~
....;,t'.. . -··<'
2 'i!Ooj.o
El ---•------!-~1.-ll.o--------~=!.·! ______ _
0.6

. • •• . .
•••• 0
...1111111111•
~.:1114' • ,.... .. • jill • • • • • .,. ••-···· Cb 0 0

.....
-~.
0.4 • •ifo o.p
• ~-tflo~o o 0 0
oo o o
°
0.2
•••• •"
.. •••
0 .pO
oO'l» -

••-·· tP
o+---~~~-T---r-,~---T--~--,---~~ 0.0 -¥--.---.---~-r-.......-~~.....--.--T--r--.--T----....-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
MaiMer Mcr/Ma

Fig 4- Variation ofm with MaiMer for different reinforce- Fig. 6- Variation ofm' with McriMafor different rein-
ment ratios forcement ratios

2 Based on the test results, the following conclusion can be
, for use In Eqs. (7)
0.0 0.5 1.0
p ...
Fig. 5- Variation ofm and f3 with the reinforcement ratio
/3= 0.8 p
The values of~ were evaluated using Eq. (8) as 0.66, 1.1 0,
and 1.64 for the lightly, normally, and heavily reinforced sec-
tions used in this study, respectively. The effective moment
of inertia was calculated using Eq. (6) with the corresponding
exponents. The results are also listed in Tables 2 through 6,
from which the good accuracy of the model can be observed.
Effect of using It
To further study the effect of the various parameters on the
theoretical I. values, the moment of inertia of the uncracked
transformed section I, was calculated for each of the heavily
reinforced beams and used in Eq. (1) instead of I 8 with the
exponent m = 3. Comparison of the obtained effective mo-
ment of inertia values with those calculated using I 8 showed
no noticeable difference in the I.xp!I. ratio, as can be seen in
Table 4. Therefore, the use of I, in Eq. (1) for such sections
will not sufficiently consider the effect of the reinforcement
ratio. This effect was incorporated efficiently in Eq. ( 1) when
the suggested modification to the exponent m was applied.
CONCLUSIONS
The effect of the reinforcement ratio on the effective mo-
ment of inertia of cracked reinforced concrete beams under
midspan concentrated loads was investigated experimentally.
drawn:
1. The values of the effective moment of inertia obtained
using Eq. (1) with m = 3 are shown to be affected by there-
inforcement ratio p. At the same load level, it was observed
that the effective moment of inertia for lightly reinforced
and (6) beams was approximately 55 percent of that for heavily re-
inforced beams.
2. The suggested simple modification of Eq. (1), namely
1.5 2.0 2.5
the use of Eq. (5) to incorporate the effect of the reinforce-
ment ratio, resulted in a very good accuracy.
3. A new model to estimate I. is proposed as shown by Eq.
(6), where the exponent m' is calculated from Eq. (7) and (8).
This model also resulted in good accuracy.
4. The use of the moment of inertia of the uncracked trans-
formed section I, in Eq. (1) instead of the moment of inertia
(8)
of the gross section I 8 for heavily reinforced sections did not
significantly improve the estimation of I •. Hence, it will not
incorporate efficiently the effect of the reinforcement ratio.
NEEDED RESEARCH
The results reported in this paper are related to simply sup-
ported beams with rectangualr sections. More tests are needed
to investigate the applicability of the proposed models for T-
sections and continuous beams.
CONVERSION FACTORS
l mm = 0.039 in
1 m = 39.37 in.
1 MPa = 145 psi
NOTATION
b = beam width
d = beam effective depth
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete

148 ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1993

f'c ·=compressive strength of concrete 3. Beeby, A.W., "Short-Term Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Mem-
I,·· = moment of inertia of the cracked transformed reinforced concrete bers," Technical Report No. TRA-408, Cement and Concrete Association,
section London, Mar. 1968.
I, = effective moment of inertia of the cracked reinforced concrete beam 4. Nawy, E. G., and Hung, P. T.,"Crack and Deflection Control of Pre-
I,"" = experimental value of I, tensioned Prestressed Beams," Journal, Prestressed Concrete Institute, V.
I1 = moment of inertia of the gross concrete section 22, No.3, May-June 1977, pp. 30-47.
L = length of beam span
5. Sakai, K., and Kakuta, Y., "Moment Curvature Relationships of Rein-
Lc, = theoretical cracked length of the beam
forced Concrete Members Subjected to Combined Bending and Axial Force,"
M. = maximum service load moment acting on the beam
ACI JOURNAL Proceedings V. 77, No.3, May-June 1980, pp.189-194.
Mer = cracking moment of beam
.:1 = maximum deflection 6. Grossman, J. S. "Simplified Computations for Effective moment ofln-
p = reinforcement ratio teria I, and Minimum Thickness to Avoid Deflection Computations," ACI
m =exponent for use in Eq. (1) JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 78, No.6, Nov-Dec 1981, pp. 423-439.
m' =exponent for use in Eq. (6) 7. Rangan, B.V., ''Control of Beam Deflections by Allowable Span-Depth
Ratios," ACI JoURNAL Proceedings V. 79, No.5, Sept.-Oct. 1982, pp. 372-
REFERENCES 377.
I. Branson D. E., "Instantaneous and Time-Dependent Deflections of
8. ACI Committee 435, "Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Flexural
Simple and Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams," HPR Report No. 7
Members," ACI JoURNAL, Proceedings V. 63, No.6, June 1966, pp. 637-674.
Part 1, Alabama Highway Department/U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, Aug.
1%3/1965,78 pp. 9. AI-Zaid, R. Z.; Al-Shaikh, A. H.; and Abu-Hussein, M. M. "Effect of
2. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Loading Type on the Effective Moment of Inertia of·Reinforced Concrete
Concrete (ACI318-71)," American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1971,78 pp. Beams," ACI SiructuralJoumal, V. 88,No. 2,Mar.-Apr. 1991, pp. 184-190.

ACI Structural Journal I March-April 1993 149