R. Prabhakara, K. U. Muthu, and R.

Meenakshi

ALLOWABLE SPAN/DEPTH RATIO FOR HIGH STRENGTH

CONCRETE BEAMS

R. Prabhakara, K. U. Muthu*, and R. Meenakshi

Department of Civil Engineering,
M S Ramaiah Institute of Technology, Bangalore, India

1. INTRODUCTION
Deflection is an important serviceability limit state to be satisfied in the design of concrete structures. In recent
times, high strength concrete and steel have been used widely in construction. This has resulted in the design of beams
of smaller depths, which may undergo greater deflections. This has been investigated in references [1–12].
Basically, there are two approaches used in the design offices: viz. (1) control of deflection approach; and (2)
computation of deflections approach. In the first approach, span to effective depth ratios are specified in the codes of
practices to control the deflections. Control is obtained by providing a suitable effective depth of the beam which is
obtained based on support conditions, span, area and type of tension reinforcement, area of compression reinforcement,
and flanges for flanged beams. An important parameter, i.e. ratio of sustained load to total load (ws/w) on the beam
which influences the creep deflections does not find a place in several cases. A few researchers have incorporated this
effect [13, 14]. The control approach is preferred by many due to its simplicity. However, several investigators [10, 13,
15–18] pointed out the discrepancies and disparities. Recently Scanlon and Lee [19] proposed a unified span to depth
ratio equation for control of deflections in one and two way concrete construction. The above method requires further
examination with respect to the high strength concrete beams and slabs.
An attempt has been made in the present study to obtain the span–to effective–depth ratio for singly–reinforced and
doubly–reinforced high–strength concrete beams. The method is based on ACI 318-05 and the effect of the ratio of the
sustained load to total load and the breadth of the beam has been included in the analysis. A total of 747 singly–
reinforced beams and 263 doubly–reinforced beams were used in developing the proposed equation. Design charts are
presented for ready use.

* Address for correspondence

Professor and Head, Dept. of Civil Engg, MSRIT, Bangalore 560054, India
Tel: +91-080-23600822
Fax: +91-080-23603124
E–mail: kumuthu@rediffmail.com
Key words: beams, cracked inertia, deflection, high strength concrete, serviceability, ultimate strength

Paper Received 12 August 2005; Revised 3 October 2006; Accepted 18 March 2007

October 2007 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 32, Number 2B 349
 R. Prabhakara, K. U. Muthu, and R. Meenakshi

1. 1. Proposed Method for Singly Reinforced Beams

Figure 1 (a) shows the cross section of a singly reinforced beam. The short-term deflection is computed as

αw l 4
δs = , (1)
Ec Ie
where δs = short term deflection
α = elastic deflection coefficient ( = 5/384) for a simply supported beams subjected to a uniformly distributed
load,
l = span of the beam
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete (= 4730 √fc’)
Ie = effective moment of inertia as per ACI 318-05 [6].

d'

Asc

d D d D

Ast Ast

b b
(a)
a) Singly Reinforced Beam (b)
a) Doubly Reinforced Beam

Figure 1. Sectional details of rectangular beams

1. 2. Effective Moment of Inertia: Ie

The effective moment of inertia is specified as

I e = I cr + I ( g − I cr )(M cr M a )3 (2)

where Ig and Icr are the gross and the cracked moment of inertia of the section, Mcr and Ma are the cracking moment and
actual moment respectively.
3
b D
I g = (3)
1 2

The cracked moment of inertia is expressed as

I cr = k 1 b d 3 (4)

where
X 3
k1 = + m ρ (1 − X ) 2
3 (4 a)

350 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 32, Number 2B October 2007
 R. Prabhakara, K. U. Muthu, and R. Meenakshi

The value of the modulus of elasticity of steel is taken as 200 GPa and the total depth is taken as 1.1 times the effective
depth d :
bd 3
I gr = 1.331 (5)
12
1. 3. Cracking Moment : Mcr
The cracking moment is calculated using the flexural formula as
Ig
M cr = f r (6)
yt
Where fr is the modulus of rupture taken as;

f r = 0.62 f c' (7)

And yt is the distance from the centroidal axis and Ig is the gross moment of inertia of the section. Taking yt as half of the
total depth and

M c r = 0 .1 2 5 b d 2 f c' (8)
1. 4. Service Load Moment : Ms
The ultimate moment of resistance of the section given as
Ast f y
M u = 0.9Ast d f y (1 − 0.59 ) (9)
b d f c'
Assuming the partial safety factor as 1.5 , the moment at the service loads is taken as
Mu
Ms = (10)
1.5
Substituting the expression for Icr from Equation (4) and Ig from Equation (5) in Equation (2). The effective moment
of inertia function is expressed as:

Ie = k 2bd 3 (11)
where
M cr 3
k 2 = [k 1 + (0.111 − k 1 )( ) ] . (12)
Ms
The values of k2 depends on k1, Mcr , and Ms. These quantities in turn depends on the mechanical properties of the
materials viz. modulus of elasticity of concrete and steel respectively, sectional properties viz. breadth , effective depth of
the beam, steel ratio and strength properties of concrete, and yield stress of steel. Hence, the computation of k2 is quite
involved and is evaluated in the subsequent sections.
1.5. Shrinkage and Creep Deflections
The additional long-term deflection (δl) due to shrinkage and creep is given by
λαw s l 4
δl = (13)
Ec I e

where λ = long time multiplier for sustained loads;

ws = sustained load
ξ
λ= (14)
1 + 50 ρ '

where ξ = time dependent factor taken as 2.0 and ρ ' = compression steel ratio.
A
ρ ' = sc (15)
bd
where Asc is the area of compression steel

October 2007 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 32, Number 2B 351
 R. Prabhakara, K. U. Muthu, and R. Meenakshi

1.6. Total Defection: δt

The short-term deflections were computed for eighty high-strength concrete beams reported in the literature. This
include nine different investigations. Table 1 gives the ratio of calculated to experimental deflections at service loads

Table 1. Ratio of Calculated to Experimental Deflection at Service Load for High Strength Concrete Beams

δ (cal)/δ(exp)
No. of
Sl.No Author fc' IS 456 ACI 318 CEB-FIP Nayak et.al.
beams
MPa Mean CV Mean CV Mean CV Mean CV

1 Lakshmikantha [20] 20 40-100 1.38 23.3 1.35 22.6 1.63 30.2 1.4 25.4

2 Anima [21] 4 45-60 1.22 8.9 1.16 8.7 0.76 8.6 1.29 9.3

3 Ko & Kim [22] 8 65-80 1.14 9.7 1.02 21.6 1.36 13.1 1.15 15.5
4 Keith E Leslie [ 23] 3 70-80 1.32 11.4 1.31 9.0 1.41 13.5 1.31 15.5
5 Wafa & Ashour [23] 3 75-90 1.36 18.5 1.28 13.5 1.76 25.1 1.13 21.3
6 Ghosh [25 ] 4 >100 1.36 20.7 1.29 23.5 1.77 12.2 1.19 17.5

7 Sarkar [26] 12 75-110 1.12 16.6 1.13 15.8 1.3 19.7 1.11 17.9
8 Ahmad & Barkar [27] 5 60-80 1.09 25.6 1.09 26.7 1.59 34.2 1.1 24.8
9 Bernardo & Lopes [28] 18 65-85 1.19 24.4 1.21 22.4 1.22 23.1 1.26 22.3
10 Ahmad & Batts [29] 3 65-90 1.41 27.6 1.00 14.4 1.56 10.6 0.99 27.5
Total No. of beams = 80 1.24 22.0 1.2 21.9 1.42 29.1 1.24 22.9

It is noted that the best average ratio of calculated to experimental deflections is 1.2 with the least coefficient of
variation of 21.9. Hence, a multiplier constant was introduced to ACI 318-02 and, assuming the same trend exists for
additional long term deflections also, the total deflection is estimated as.
δ t = 1.2 (δ s + δ l ) . (16)

1.7. Limiting Span to Effective Depth Ratio: (l/d)

The total deflection is limited to a target value of (l/250) and is equated as

l ⎡ αw l 4 λαw s l 4 ⎤
= 1.2 ⎢ + ⎥ (17)
3
250 ⎢⎣ E c k 2bd E c k 2bd 3 ⎥⎦

substituting the values of α and λ for long term deflections (vide equations (1) and (19))
0.33 0.33
⎛ l ⎞⎛ w ⎞ ⎧⎪ k2 ⎫⎪
⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎟ =⎨ ⎬ (18)
⎝ d ⎠ ⎜⎝ bE c ⎠ ⎩⎪ 3.906(1 + 2 w s w ⎭⎪

1.8. Evaluation of k2
The constant k2 is dependent on ρ, fy and fc’. The values of k2 was calculated for the following variations.
(1) The cylinder compressive strength was varied from 40 to 100 Mpa in increments of 10 Mpa.
(2) The steel ratio is varied from ρmin to ρmax and the values are taken as

352 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 32, Number 2B October 2007
 R. Prabhakara, K. U. Muthu, and R. Meenakshi

f 'c
ρ min = (19)
fy

and ρmax = 0.75ρb (20)

where ρb =
(
0.85β f c' f y 600 ) (21)
600 + f y

and β = 0.85 for f c' ≤ 27.58 Mpa (21a)

β = 0.85 – 0.0073 ( f c' – 27.6) ≥ 0.65

for f c' > 27.58 Mpa (21b)

where ρmin, ρb, and ρmax are the minimum, balanced and maximum steel ratios of tension reinforcement. The
computed values of k2 are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Variation of k2 with ρ for singly reinforced beams

The statistical best fit line was drawn and the regression line is
k 2 = 1.96 ρ + 0.02 (22)

and the correlation coefficient was 0.94. The above equation holds good for 0.006 ≤ ρ ≤ 0.04.

1.9. Computation of (l/d) Ratios

The limiting span to effective depth ratio for singly reinforced rectangular beam can be calculated as follows. The
value of k2 is calculated using Equation (22) for the designed steel ratio. Substituting the values of modulus of elasticity
of concrete, breadth of beam, and the ratio sustained load to service load in Equation (18) and the (l/d) ratio can be
obtained for a calculated service load w. Alternatively, a graphical representation is made from Equation (18) and is
shown in Figure 3. While using the design chart (vide Figure 3 ) , the units for l and b are in mm, w in kN/m2 and fc’ in
MPa.

October 2007 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 32, Number 2B 353
 R. Prabhakara, K. U. Muthu, and R. Meenakshi

Design chart for singly reinforced beam

p=0.0025 p=0.005
0.28
p=0.0075 p=0.01

0.26
p=0.0125 p=0.015
p=0.0175 p=0.02
0.24
p=0.0225 p=0.025
L/d*(w/bEc)**0.33

0.22 p=0.0275 p=0.03

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

ws/w

Figure 3. Design chart for singly reinforced beams

1.10. Doubly Reinforced Beams

The proposed method for singly reinforced beams is extended to doubly reinforced beams ( beams with compression
reinforcement). Figure 1(b) shows the cross section of a doubly reinforced beam. The neutral axis factor X(=x/d) for
doubly reinforced beam can be written as,

X = x ( d ) = −{m ρ + (m −1)ρ '} + ( m ρ + (m −1)ρ ')2 + 2( m ρ + (m −1)ρ 'd ' d ) . (23)

The cracked moment of inertia about the neutral axis is taken as,
⎡ ⎛
2⎤
⎢ 2 d' ⎞ ⎥
I cr = bd 3 ⎢ X 3 / 3 + m ρ (1 − X ) + ( m − 1) ρ ' ⎜ x − ⎟ ⎥ (24)
⎜ d ⎟
⎢ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥⎦ .
⎣

Equation (24) reduces to Equation (4) for singly reinforced beam when ρ′ = 0. The value of the ultimate moment Mu
for doubly reinforced beam was obtained using the sectional analysis. As both tensile steel and compression steel ratios
contribute to the sectional properties of the cross section, the total steel ratio ρt is denoted as,
ρt = ρ + ρ ' . (25)

A total of 263 doubly reinforced beam sections were obtained by various combinations of compression steel ratios
and tensile steel ratios. The total combination of steel ratios vary from 0.005 to 0.04. The concrete grades of 50 to 100
Mpa were used. The two grades of steel 415 and 500 Mpa were considered in addition to the above variables.

354 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 32, Number 2B October 2007
 R. Prabhakara, K. U. Muthu, and R. Meenakshi

Figure 4. Variation of k2 with ρ for doubly reinforced beams

The effective moment of inertia is thus expressed in a simplified form as
k 2 = 2.1ρt + 0.009 (26)

The above equation holds for 0.005≤ ρt ≤ 0.04 was used to determine the effective moment of inertia of doubly
reinforced beams ( vide Equation (11) and (18)).

Design Chart for doubly reinforced beams

p=0.0075
0.3
p=0.0135
0.28
p=0.021
0.26
p=0.036
0.24
p=0.0285
l/d(w/bEc)**0.33

0.22

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

ws/w

Figure 5. Design chart for doubly reinforced beams

October 2007 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 32, Number 2B 355
 R. Prabhakara, K. U. Muthu, and R. Meenakshi

1.11. Comparison of Effective Depth Values

The effective depths were determined using the proposed method for a typical singly reinforced beam of 6 metres
and subjected to a service load of 10 kN/m. the breadth of the beam was taken as 230mm. M50 grade concrete and Fe415
steel was considered. The effective depths obtained are compared with the effective depths computed from the rupture
limit state and deflection limit state as per ACI 318-05. Table 2 gives the comparison of the same.
Table 2. Comparison of Effective Depths (mm) for a Singly Reinforced Beam
ACI Proposed method for ws/w of
ρt Strength Deflection
limit limit 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
0.25 460.6 375 417.74 456.73 489.35 515.11 539.45
0.5 327.7 375 391.48 428.18 456.73 482.46 503.75
0.75 269.3 375 370.32 403.00 430.88 456.73 479.09
1 234.7 375 354.97 380.61 412.71 436.37 456.73
1.25 211.3 375 342.55 370.32 396.01 417.74 439.16
1.5 194.1 375 326.24 360.58 382.74 403.00 422.90
1.75 180.9 375 311.41 346.01 370.32 391.48 410.24
2 170.4 375 301.80 342.55 358.69 378.51 398.31
Data: b = 230mm, l=6000mm, w =10KN/m, M50 and Fe415
It is inferred that for low percentage of steel and for low ratio of sustained to service loads, the effective depths
obtained from rupture limit governs the design. On the other hand, for HSC beams with the higher percentage of steel
and higher ratio of sustained load to service load, the effective depths obtained from the code being less, would not be
sufficient to limit the deflection to permissible values. Hence for such cases of singly reinforced HSC beams, the
effective depths would have to be increased to the values calculated by the proposed method. A similar computation was
done for a typical doubly reinforced beam of breadth 230mm , span being 8m and a service load of 30 kN/m. Concrete
grade M50 and steel grade Fe415 considered. The results in Table 3 show that the existing codal provisions of ACI 318-
05 gives lesser effective depth , while the proposed method requires more effective depth to satisfy the deflection limit.
Table 3. Comparison of Effective Depths (mm) for a Doubly Reinforced Beam
ρt ρc ρ =ρt+ρc ACI Proposed method for ws/w of
Strength Deflection 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
limit limit
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
0.8 0.549 1.35 470.7 500.00 681.9 740.8 791.5 836.4 876.8
1.176 0.92 2.1 385.1 500.00 606.6 659.1 704.2 744.1 780.1
1.55 1.29 2.85 337.5 500.00 556.5 604.6 646.0 682.6 715.7
1.92 1.67 3.6 306.9 500.00 519.8 564.7 603.4 637.6 668.4
Data: b = 230mm, l=8000mm, w =30KN/m, M50 and Fe415.
2. CONCLUSIONS
1. A method is proposed to obtain the effective depth of singly reinforced and doubly reinforced high strength
concrete beams using the modified ACI318-05 procedure; by incorporating the effect of ratio of sustained load
to the service load.
2. The design charts are presented for ready use and a comparison has been made between the effective depths
obtained by the proposed method and those from the strength limit and deflection limit of ACI 318-05.
3. The present study shows that the effective depths obtained by ACI 318-05 are found to be inadequate to satisfy a
limiting deflection of span/250 viz. singly reinforced beams with higher percentage of steel subjected to higher
ratio of sustained to service load ( vide Table 1) and in case of doubly reinforced beams the proposed method
shows that effective depths larger than those obtained from strength and deflection limit as per ACI318-05
provisions are required for higher percentage of steel and various proportions of sustained to service loads.

356 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 32, Number 2B October 2007
 R. Prabhakara, K. U. Muthu, and R. Meenakshi

NOTATION
Asc , Ast Area of compression and tension steel Ms Service load moment
As Area of steel Mu Ultimate moment of resistance
b Breadth of the beam w Intensity of load
d Effective depth to the center of tensile reinforcement ws Intensity of sustained load
D Total depth of beam X Neutral axis factor
d′ Effective cover to the compression steel yt Distance from centroidal axis furthest fibre
Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete (4730 √fc′) α Elastic deflection coefficient
Es Modulus of elasticity of steel β Constant
fc ′ Cylinder compressive strength of concrete δ Central deflection
fr Modulus of rupture of concrete δr Short term deflection
fy Yield strength of steel δl Additional long term deflection
Icr Cracked moment of inertia of the section ρ Tensile steel ratio (=Ast/bd)
Ie Effective moment of inertia of the section ρb Balanced steel ratio
Ig Gross moment of inertia of the section ρt Total tensile steel ratio (=ρ+ρ′)
k1, k2 Constants in Equation (10) and (16) respectively ρmin Minimum steel ratio
l Span length
ρmax Maximum steel ratio
m Modular ratio
ρ′ Compression steel ratio (=Asc /bd)
Ma Actual moment
λ Long time multiplier for sustained loads
Mcr Cracking moment
ξ Time dependent factor

REFERENCES
[1] P. Desayi and R. Balaji , “Reliability Of Singly And Doubly Reinforced Concrete Beams Designed According To IS
456–1978 with Respect To Limit State Of Deflection”, National Seminar on Recent Trends in Structural Analysis and
Design, 1987, p. 41.
[2] S. Teng and D. E. Branson, “Initial And Time Dependent Deformation of Progressively Cracking Nonprestressed and
Partially Prestressed Concrete Beams”, ACI Structural Journal, 88 (1993), pp. 480–488.
[3] B. Massicotte, A. E. Elwi, and J. G. Macgregor, “Tension-Stiffening Model for Planar R C Members”, ASCE Journal
of Structural Engineering, 116 (1990), pp. 3039–3059.
[4] R. Z. Al-Zaid, A. H. Al-Shaikh, and M.M.Abu-Hussein, “Effect of Loading Type on the Effective Moment of Inertia of
R C Beams”, ACI Structural Journal, 88 (1991), p. 184–190.
[5] A. Ghali, “Deflections of R C Members: A Critical Review”, ACI Structural Journal, 90 (1993), pp. 364–373.
[6] ACI Committee 435, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI318-05 and Commentary 318)”.
Farmington Hills, Michigan: American Concrete Institute 2005.
[7] CSA, “Design of Concrete Structures”, CSA Standard 123.3-04. Rexdale (Toronto), Ontario: CSA, 2004.
[8] A. G. Sheriff and W. H. Dilger, “Critical Review of CSA A23.3-94 Deflection Prediction for Normal and High Strength
Concrete Beams”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25 (1998), pp. 474–489.
[9] CEB FIP, “CEB FIP Model Code (MC-90)”, Comité Euro International du Beton (CEB). London: Thomas Telford,
1993.

October 2007 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 32, Number 2B 357
 R. Prabhakara, K. U. Muthu, and R. Meenakshi

[10] R. I. Gilbert, “Deflection Calculation for RC Structures–Why We Sometimes Get It Wrong”, ACI Structural Journal,
96 (1999), pp. 1027–1032.
[11] S. K. Nayak and D. Menon, “Improved Procedure for Estimating Short-Term Deflections in RC Slabs”, Indian
Concrete Journal, August 2004, pp. 19–25.
[12] Peter H. Bischoff, “Re-Evaluation of Deflection Prediction for Concrete Beams Reinforced with Steel and Fiber
Reinforced Polymer Bars”, Journal of Structural Engineering , ASCE , May 2005, pp. pp. 752–767
[13] B. V. Rangan, “Control of Deflection by Allowable Span–Depth Ratios”, ACI Journal, 79 (1982), p. 372.
[14] P. Desayi, K. U. Muthu, and K. Amarnath, “Deflection Control of Doubly Reinforced beams”, International Journal of
Structures, 9 (1989), pp. 43–57.
[15] J. S. Grossman, “Simplified Computations for Effective Moment of Inertia , Ie, and Minimum Thickness to Avoid
Deflection Computations”, ACI Structural Journal , 78 (1981), pp. 423–439.
[16] K. Y. Chang and S. J. Hwang “Practical Estimation of Two-Way Slab Deflections”, ACI Structural Journal, 101
(1996), pp. 150–159.
[17] B. S. Choi and A. Scanlon. “Monte Carlo Simulation of Immediate and Time-Dependent Deflections of Reinforced
Concrete Beams and Slabs”, ACI Structural Journal, 101 (1985), pp. 633–641.
[18] K. B. Bondy, “ACI Code Deflection Requirements – Time for a Change?”, Serviceability of Concrete , SP225 eds., F.
Barth, R. Frosch, H. Nassif, and A. Scanlon. Farmington Hills, Michigan: American Concrete Institute, pp.133–145.
[19] S. Andrew and H. L. Young, “Unified Span-to-Depth Ratio Equation for Nonprestressed Concrete Beams and Slabs”,
ACI Structural Journal, 103 (2006), pp. 142–148.
[20] B. A. Lakshmikantha, “Experimental Investigations on High Performance Concrete Beams”, M. Tech. Thesis, M.S.
Ramaiah Institute of Technology, 2004.
[21] Anima, “Flexural Behaviour of High Strength Concrete Beams”, M. Tech. Thesis, M.S. Ramaiah Institute of
Technology, 2002.
[22] M. Y. Ko, S. W. Kim, and J. K. Kim, “Experimental Study on the Plastic Rotation Capacity of Reinforced HSC
Beams”, Magazine of Concrete Research, 2001.
[23] K. E. Leslie, K. S. Rajagopalan, and N. J. Everard, “Flexural Behaviour of HSC Beams”, ACI Journal , 1976, pp. 517–
521.
[24] F. F. Wafa and S. A. Ashour, “Minimum Flexural Reinforcements of HSC Beams”, SP 172-30, 1996.
[25] S. W. Shin, S. Gosh, and J. Moreno, “Flexural Ductility of Ultra High Strength Concrete Members”, ACI Structural
Journal, 1989, pp. 394–400.
[26] S. S. Adwan and J. G. L. Munday, “High Strength Concrete: An Investigation of the Flexural Behaviour of HSC
Beams”, Structural Engineering, 75 (1997), pp. 155–121.
[27] S. H. Ahmad and R. Barker, “Flexural Behavior of Reinforced High-Strength Lightweight Concrete Beams”, ACI
Structural Journal, 88 (1991), pp. 69–77.
[28] L. F. A. Bernardo and S. M. R. Lopes, “Flexural Ductility of High Strength Concrete Beams”, Structural Concrete,
4(2003), pp. 135–152.
[29] S. H. Ahmad and B. Jamie, “Flexural Behavior of Doubly Reinforced High Strength Lightweight Concrete Beams with
Web Reinforcement”, ACI Structural Journal, 88(3) (1991), pp. 351–358.

358 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 32, Number 2B October 2007