Evaluation of Minimum Flexural

Reinforcement in Design of Reinforced

Concrete Beams

H. E. Nagesh and G. Appa Rao

Abstract Reinforced concrete (RC) beams are generally designed with different
percentages of flexural tension reinforcement depending on the capacity require-
ments. The amount of reinforcement provided affects the crack propagation and
failure mechanism in RC beams. This paper presents discussion on the minimum
tension reinforcement requirement in code provisions for RC beams. Models based
on fracture mechanics to evaluate minimum flexural reinforcement are also
reviewed. Experimental study has been undertaken to understand the effect of size
on the behaviour of lightly RC beams. This paper outlines how the present code
provisions can be improved by applying fracture mechanics principles for the
design of RC beams. Fracture mechanics approach for design of RC structures
considers the energy requirements for crack growth and size effect. It also enables
rational procedure to evaluate the optimum amount of steel reinforcement, which
ensures safe designs by taking the effect of size and other influencing parameters.

Keywords Fracture mechanics
Minimum reinforcement
Lightly reinforced

Abbreviations
As,min (qmin) Minimum area of steel
As Area of steel
b Breadth of beam
d or h Effective depth of beam
d′ Clear cover
D Overall depth of beam
Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete
Es Modulus of elasticity of steel

H. E. Nagesh
G. Appa Rao (&)

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai 600036, India
e-mail: [email protected]
H. E. Nagesh
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 145

A. Rama Mohan Rao and K. Ramanjaneyulu (eds.), Recent Advances in Structural
Engineering, Volume 1, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 11,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0362-3_12
146 H. E. Nagesh and G. Appa Rao

fck Characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete

f′c Cylinder compressive strength of concrete
ft Tensile strength of concrete
fr Modulus of rupture
fy Yield strength of steel
KIc Critical stress intensity factor in mode I
MCR Moment of crack propagation
My Moment at steel yielding
Np Brittleness number
FPZ Fracture process zone
FCM Fictitious crack model
LEFM Linear elastic fracture mechanics
NLFM Non-linear fracture mechanics

1 Introduction

Concrete beams are reinforced with steel in tension zone to bear tensile stresses.
The amount of reinforcement provided governs the behaviour and failure mecha-
nism in reinforced concrete (RC) beams. The failure may be of steel yielding
followed by concrete crushing in case of under-reinforced and crushing of concrete
in over-reinforced beams. While designing of RC beams, minimum ductility must
be ensured to perform satisfactorily. This can be achieved by providing an adequate
amount of tensile reinforcement. If the beam is provided with an insufficient
quantity of steel than required, the failure tends to change to brittle. Minimum
reinforcement in RC beams should avoid brittle failure and must ensure adequate
warning before failure.

2 Behaviour of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Beams

For an RC beam to exhibit stable response, the beam must be provided with
adequate amount of tension reinforcement. Suppose if the beam is provided with
less area of steel than required, then it leads to brittle failure. This leads to instability
in the overall response. Before concrete cracking, the load deflection response of
plain concrete beam and an RC beam is same as shown in Fig. 1. If the ultimate
strength developed with the provided reinforcement is less than the flexural
cracking strength, then the later determines the hyper-strength ðq\qmin Þ. This
creates instantaneous crack growth and in turn causes brittle failure when tested
Evaluation of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement … 147

Fig. 1 Behaviour of lightly

reinforced concrete beam

under load control. Hence, a certain amount of minimum tension reinforcement is

required for ductile behaviour ðq [ qmin Þ. Figure 1 also shows the transition from
brittle to ductile with increase in tension reinforcement.

3 Code Provisions

The provisions in the present codes of practice are mainly based on serviceability
and strength aspects. Many codes of practice specify empirical formulae, without
theoretical background, for estimating minimum reinforcement. Such code provi-
sions mostly incorporate compressive strength of concrete and yield strength of
steel reinforcement as parameters. They neglect the non-linear behaviour of con-
crete in tension, toughness of concrete, and bond strength, which provides the
conservative design. Moreover, mechanical behaviour of RC beams not only
depends on material properties but also on the size as well. The condition for
evaluation of minimum reinforcement is that the beam should not fail immediately
upon concrete cracking. To achieve this condition, the ultimate capacity (Mu) of an
RC beam should be greater than its cracking moment (Mcr).

Mu  Mcr ð1Þ

Evaluation of flexural cracking strength of concrete beams in flexure is vital

because many code provisions provide tension reinforcement relatively more than
what is required for cracking strength. Code provisions use modulus of rupture to
evaluate the cracking stress in beams. But full-scale specimens have lower cracking
flexural strength than that of modulus of rupture [1]. The code provisions for
providing minimum tension reinforcement in RC beams are given in Table 3. The
equation for evaluating minimum and maximum tension reinforcement, and com-
mentary or remarks for codes are also given in Table 3.
148 H. E. Nagesh and G. Appa Rao

4 Need for Fracture Mechanics-Based Design

Direct tension testing of concrete involves complex procedures. So split cylinder

tests are used to get tensile strength of concrete. The uniaxial tensile strength of
concrete is always much less than the flexural cracking strength of concrete.
Suppose if concrete is considered as brittle material, soon after the extreme tension
fibres reaches uniaxial tensile strength, it should fail instantaneously. But concrete
is a quasi-brittle material due to its tension softening property. It can transfer stress
across crack faces. This property can be modelled using non-linear fracture
mechanics models (NLFM). Fictitious crack and cohesive crack models are able to
include this quasi-brittle nature of concrete.
In the conventional design methodology, tests on cylinder compression, modulus
of rupture and split tensile tests are used to characterize concrete properties.
These properties of concrete alone cannot characterize its complete behaviour.
Hence, the post-cracking behaviour of concrete such as fracture softening has to be
well understood. The formation of fracture process zone (FPZ) ahead of crack tip
affects the crack initiation and propagation in concrete beams. The application of
fracture mechanics principles is necessary to study the crack growth and fracture
behaviour in concrete. Fracture mechanics principles are applied to study the
behaviour of lightly RC beams because of its sensitivity to the fracture of tension
reinforcement. The models based on fracture mechanics principles are given in
Table 4. It can be noticed that the minimum reinforcement is found to be a function
of depth of beam.

5 Experimental Programme

An experimental programme was undertaken to study size effect on the behaviour

of lightly RC beams in flexure. The beams are provided with 0.25% tension rein-
forcement. The material properties are given in Table 1. Three geometrically
similar specimens were cast with depth ranging from 150 to 600 mm. The span of
the beams is six times the depth. The width of the beam was maintained constant
150 mm. Specimen designations and dimensions are given in Table 2. All three
specimens were cast with the same concrete mix. Potable water was used for mixing
of concrete. All specimens were cured for 28 days before testing. Mix design for
concrete includes 400 kg/m3 of 53 grade ordinary Portland cement (OPC) with
water–cement ratio of 0.39. Fine aggregate with a content 736 kg/m3 and coarse
aggregate 10 mm graded with 1100 kg/m3. The fracture energy (Gf) was obtained
according to the test procedure given in the RILEM standard.
Linearly variable differential transformer (LVDT) was placed to record mid-span
deflections and crack mouth opening displacements (CMOD).
Evaluation of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement … 149

Table 1 Material properties Material property Results

Compressive strength of concrete cube 60.7 MPa
Specific gravity of cement 3.14
Grade of cement 53 OPC
Fracture energy of concrete 97.2 N/m
Specific gravity of fine aggregate 2.78
Specific gravity of coarse aggregate 2.70
Yield strength of reinforcing steel 547 MPa
Ultimate strength of reinforcing steel 634 MPa

Table 2 Beam dimensions Beam designation Depth (mm) Span (mm)

SB 150 900
MB 300 1800
LB 600 3600

6 Monotonic Testing

All beams were tested under three-point bending and actual set-up is shown in
Fig. 2. Testing was carried out using actuator of 1000 kN capacity at Indian
Institute of Technology Madras. The beams were loaded with displacement control
up to failure. All beams failed by fracture of reinforcing steel bars. The load–
deflection response is discussed in the results and discussions.

Fig. 2 Monotonic test set-up

 150

Table 3 Code provisions for minimum and maximum tension reinforcement in beams
Codes Minimum reinforcement Maximum Remarks/provisions Equation
reinforcement number
pffiffiffi
ACI 318-14 [2] 0:25 fc0 Net tensile strain in To prevent sudden failure (2)
As;min ¼ fy bw d
extreme tensile steel moment of reinforced cracked section > moment of unreinforced
 0.005 concrete section
IS 456-2000 [3] As 0.04 bD Strength of concrete was not considered (3)
bd ¼ 0:85
fy

AASHTO Mr = 1.2Mcr – To avoid brittle failure, the amount of reinforcement is enough to (4)
LRFD-07 [4] for RC structures develop a factored flexural resistance, Mr, equal to the lesser of at
Mr = 1.33Mcr least 1.2 times the cracking moment
for prestressed concrete
EUROCODE-2 As ¼ 0:26ffyctm bd 0.04 Ac Considers mean tensile strength (fctm) of concrete as governing (5)
[5] parameter
 pffiffiffi c 700
Canada code 0:2 fc0 d \ 700 þ fy
Grade of concrete as well as grade of steel is accounted (6)
[6] (CSA As ¼ fy  bw h
A23.3-04) For T- sections
As ¼ 0:004  ðb  bw Þds
pffiffiffi0 0
New Zealand f fc þ 10 Both grade of concrete and grade of steel are considered (7)
As ¼ 4fyc  bw d 6fy \0:025
[7] (NZS
3101-06)
D2 ft
Australia code As ¼ 0:22  bw d – Tensile strength of concrete and yield strength of steel are (8)
d fy
(AS 3600-01) considered as governing parameters
[8]
British 0.24 = 100As/bw h for fy 0.04 bD Based on the grade of steel only, concrete strength not been taken (9)
Standards [9] = 250 N/mm2 in to account
BS 8110 (1997) 0.13 = 100As/bw h for fy
= 460 N/mm2
H. E. Nagesh and G. Appa Rao
Table 4 Models based on fracture mechanics principles to evaluate minimum reinforcement in beams
Authors Equation Remarks Equation
number
pffiffiffi
Bosco et al. fy D Ast Used brittleness number (10)
Np ¼ KIC A
[10]
Bosco et al. qmin ¼ f KpICffiffiDffi ð0:1 þ 0:0023fc Þ Based on bridged crack model (LEFM) (11)
y
[11]
0:82
Baluch et al. 1:9134KIC Model based on LEFM (12)
qmin ¼ f 0:9922
[12] y ð1:72:6CDs Þ
Gerstle et al. qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1=2 Used fictitious crack model (13)
[13] qmin ¼ EECs 0:0081 þ 0:0148 Efct Dwc  0:09 Unstable crack propagation
Increases with depth
!
Hawkins 0 Based on cohesive crack model (14)
Evaluation of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement …

1 ft D
Hjorselet [14] qmin ¼ 0:18305 1 þ 0
4:6Df fy ðDCs Þ
0:85 þ Ec w t
1
 1
Ruiz et al. [15] Effective slip model (15)
1 þ 0:85 þ 2:3D
l1
n
qmin ¼
0
6ð1Cs =DÞ fy l½ðD=l1 Þ1=4 3:61Cs =l1 
f
t
0:7
 
Shehata et al. 0:67 qmin [ M=bd ðd  0:5bxÞfy \qbal (16)
fck ð1 þ 1:5ð100h ÞÞ
[16] qmin ¼ 0:05 fy h 0:7
ð100Þ
4000D 
 1:14 
Appa Rao et al. fc Equation based on limiting crack width CODcr (17)
qmin ¼ 100D fy0:57
[17] Increases with depth
0:3
Carpinteri [18] r0:70
u KIC Np;L ¼ 0:267s0:7 Derived equation of lower limit for ductile (18)
As;min ¼ 0:267 ry bh0:85
response from numerical simulations
151
152 H. E. Nagesh and G. Appa Rao

7 Results and Discussions

7.1 Load–Deflection Response

The load versus mid-span deflection response of the small, medium and beams are
shown in Fig. 4. LVDT was used to get mid-span deflection. In the initial stage up
to concrete cracking, the deflection was observed to be small with high stiffness. At
peak loading, the crack starts to propagate from cover towards tension reinforce-
ment. Once the crack begins to propagate, the reduction in stiffness can be noticed
with increase in deflections. As the crack crosses the tension steel reinforcement,
steel being in elastic state arrests crack growth, thus demanding an extra force for
crack propagation across reinforcement. This causes steel pull-out and slip simul-
taneously. Hence, the peak and near post peak P-d response controlled by steel
ratio, bond-slip properties and the cover. All the three beams failed due to rupture of
tension reinforcement. Figure 3 shows ductile response with excessive deforma-
tions before final failure for all beams. In case of large beam (LB), the spalling of
concrete cover at ultimate loading caused excessive deflection of beams; this
behaviour is reflected in Fig. 4. This behaviour can also be noticed in Fig. 3.

7.2 Strain Localization

All beams tested predominantly failed due to single crack originating from the
centre of beam. As the tensile stress in the concrete exceeds the tensile strength of
concrete, the gradual reduction in the tension stress (tension softening) takes place.
Due to single crack formation, the strain gets localized causing increased crack
widths until rupture of tensile reinforcement. The horizontal strain in percentage
measured using digital image correlation (DIC) for large beam is shown in Fig. 3.

7.3 Size Effect on Flexural Cracking Strength

It has been observed that as the depth of the beam increases, the flexural cracking
strength decreases. This behaviour is expected because the volume of concrete in
tension is relatively more, and the probability of increase in the volume of voids and
imperfections is also more. Figure 5 shows that flexural cracking strength is
inversely proportional to size.
Evaluation of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement … 153

Fig. 3 Horizontal strain (%) showing strain localization

Fig. 4 Load versus

deflection

Fig. 5 Flexural cracking

strength

7.4 Comparison of Equations

The comparison of equations existing in code provisions (Table 3) and equations

proposed by researchers (Table 4) for evaluating minimum tension reinforcement in
RC beams is shown in Fig. 6. It is observed that the codes provision equation is
independent of beam depth. Whereas few models proposed by Hawkins et al.,
Baluch et al. and Shehata et al. clearly show the size-dependent variation in the
minimum reinforcement. But the present experimental studies and the literature
suggest that the lightly RC beams responses are size-dependent.
154 H. E. Nagesh and G. Appa Rao

ACI 318-14 [2]

1.00%
IS 456-2000 [3]
0.90%
EUROCODE-2
0.80% [5]
CSA A23.3-04 [6]
0.70%
NZS 3101-06 [7]
0.60%
ρmin

0.50% AS3600-2009 [8]

0.40% BS8110-1997 [9]

0.30% Shehata et al [16]

0.20% Appa Rao et al

[17]
0.10% Gerstle et al [13]
0.00% Hawkins and
0 200 400 600 800 1000 Hjorselet [14]
Depth (mm)

Fig. 6 Comparison of equations

8 Conclusions

It can be concluded that the code provisions for minimum tension reinforcement are
based on material properties such as concrete compressive strength, yield strength
of steel and cracking stress. However, it has been observed from the present
experimental studies that flexural cracking strength is size-dependent. Flexural
cracking strength is inversely proportional to depth of beam. Many researchers also
proposed equations which recommend that minimum reinforcement should be
size-dependent. The response of the beams changes with size; hence, it should be
incorporated properly. The behaviour of concrete in tension, crack initiation and
crack propagation, and FPZ, size-dependent response of concrete are well under-
stood using fracture mechanics studies. Hence, fracture mechanics-based design
enables rational approach ensuring safe design with the optimum amount of
reinforcement.

References

1. Shioya, T., Iguro, M., Nojiri, Y., Akiyama, H., & Okada, T. (1989). Shear strength of large
reinforced concrete beams. In Fracture Mechanics: Application to Concrete, SP118 (p. 309).
Detroit: American Concrete Institute.
2. ACI-318-14. (2014). Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.
3. IS 456:2000. (2000). Plain and reinforced concrete—Codes of practice.
4. AASHTO. (2007). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials.
5. Eurocode 2: 1992. (2002). Design of concrete structures—Part 1: General rules and rules for
buildings.
6. CAN/CSA-A23.3-04. (2004). Design of concrete structures.
7. NZS 3101: Part 1: 2006. (2006). Concrete structures standard.
Evaluation of Minimum Flexural Reinforcement … 155

8. AS3600. (2009). Concrete structures.

9. BS 8110-97. (1997). Structural use of concrete Part 1: Code of practice for design and
construction.
10. Bosco, C., Carpinteri, A., & Debernardi, P. G. (1990). Minimum reinforcement in
high-strength concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 116(2), 427–437.
11. Bosco, C., & Carpinteri, A. (1992). Fracture mechanics evaluation on minimum reinforce-
ment in concrete. In A. Carpinteri (Ed.), Application of fracture mechanics to reinforced
concrete (pp. 347–377). Italy: Elsevier App Head Science.
12. Baluch, M., Azad, A., & Ashmawi, W. (1992). Fracture mechanics application to reinforced
concrete members in flexure. In A. Carpinteri (Ed.), Applications of fracture mechanics to
reinforced concrete (pp. 413–436). London: Elsevier Applied Science.
13. Gerstle, W. H., Partha, P. D., Prasad, N. N. V., Rahulkumar, P., & Xie, M. (1992). Crack
growth in flexural members a fracture mechanics approach. ACI Structural Journal, 89(6),
617–625.
14. Hawkins, N., & Hjorsetet, K. (1992). Minimum reinforcement requirement for concrete
flexural members. In A. Carpinteri (Ed.), Applications of fracture mechanics to reinforced
concrete (pp. 37–412). London: Elsevier.
15. Ruiz, G., Elices, M., & Planas, J. (1997). Size effect and bond-slip dependence of lightly
reinforced concrete beams. In A. Carpinteri (Ed.), Minimum reinforcement in concrete
members (24). ESIS Publication.
16. Shehata, I. A. E. M., Shehata, L. C. D., & Gracia, S. L. G. (2003, Jan–Feb). Minimum steel
ratios in reinforced concrete beams made of concrete with different strengths—Theoretical
approach. Materials and Structures, 36, 3–11.
17. Rao, G. A., Aravind, J., & Eligehausen, R. (2007). Evaluation of minimum flexural
reinforcement in RC beams using fictitious crack approach. JoSE, 34(4), 277–283.
18. Carpinteri, A., Corrado, M., & Ventura, G. (2013). Failure mode scaling transitions in RC
beams in flexure: Tensile, shearing, and crushing. In FraMCoS-8, Spain.