International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01
Nonlinear Analysis of RC Beam for Different Shear Reinforcement
Patterns by Finite Element Analysis
I. Saifullah1*, M.A. Hossain2, S.M.K.Uddin3, M.R.A. Khan4 and M.A. Amin5
1,2,3
Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology (KUET), Khulna-9203,
Bangladesh, email: saifullah0201113@yahoo.com*
4,5
Undergraduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology
(KUET), Khulna-9203, Bangladesh.
Abstract- Several methods have been utilized to
study the response of concrete structural
components. Experimental based testing has been
widely used as a means to analyze individual
elements and the effects of concrete strength under
loading. The use of finite element analysis to study
these components has also been used. This paper
focuses on the behavior of reinforced concrete
beam for different pattern of shear reinforcement to
evaluate the effective shear reinforcement pattern
and also compare the variation in behavior of
reinforced concrete beam for with and without
shear reinforcement with a simulation. To carry out
the analysis, six 3D beams without and with
different patterns of shear reinforcement is built
using comprehensive computer software ANSYS
10 © 2005 SAS IP, Inc package. The static non
linear analysis is done to find out ultimate capacity,
formation of first crack and its distance from
support, initiation of diagonal crack and its distance
from support. Load deflection response was also
closely observed and compared with the result from
theoretical calculation. From close observation of
analyses results it was found that all types of web
reinforcements were almost same effective for
static loading condition.
Keywords: ANSYS, shear reinforcement, finite
element analysis, diagonal crack
I. INTRODUCTION
Concrete structural components exist in buildings and
bridges in different forms. Understanding the
response of these components during loading is
crucial to the development of an overall efficient and
safe structure. Different methods have been utilized to
study the response of structural components.
Experimental based testing has been widely used as
a means to analyze individual elements and the
effects of concrete strength under loading. While
this is a method that produces real life response, it is
extremely time consuming, and the use of materials
can be quite costly. The use of finite element analysis
to study these components has also been used.
Unfortunately, early attempts to accomplish this
were also very time consuming and in feasible using
existing software and hardware.
1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS
86
When a simple beam is loaded, bending moments and
shear forces develop along the beam. To carry the loads
safely, the beam must be designed for both type of
forces. Flexural design is considered first to establish
the dimensions of the beam section and the main
reinforcement needed. The beam is then designed for
shear. If shear reinforcement is not provided, shear
failure may occur. Shear failure is characterized by
small deflections and lack of ductility, giving little or
no warning before failure [1]. On the other hand,
flexural failure is characterized by a gradual increase in
deflection and cracking, thus giving warning before
total failure. This is due to ACI Code limitation on
flexure reinforcement. The Design for shear must
ensure that shear failure does not occur before flexural
failure [1]. The use of FEA has been the preferred
method to study the behavior of concrete (for economic
reasons). With the advent of sophisticated numerical
tools for analysis like the finite element method (FEM),
it has become possible to model the complex behavior
of reinforced concrete beams [2].
In recent years, however, the use of finite element analysis
has increased due to progressing knowledge and
capabilities of computer software and hardware. It has
now become the choice method to analyze concrete
structural components. The use of computer software to,
model these elements are much faster, and extremely cost-
effective. To fully understand the capabilities of finite
element computer software, one must look back to
experimental data and simple analysis. Data obtained
from a finite element analysis package is not useful unless
the necessary steps are taken to understand what is
happening within the model that is created using the
software. Also, executing the necessary checks along the
way is key to make sure that what is being output by the
computer software is valid. By understanding the use of
finite element packages, more efficient and better
analyses can be made to fully understand the response of
individual structural components and their contribution
to a structure as a whole. This paper focuses on the
behavior of reinforced concrete beam for different
pattern of shear reinforcement to evaluate the effective
shear reinforcement pattern and also compare the
variation in behavior of reinforced concrete beam for
with and without shear reinforcement with a
simulation.
IJENS
 International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 87

II. SCOPE The model is capable of predicting failure for concrete

This study is focuses on the numerical simulation
technique of 3D approach of beams of without and
with shear reinforcement of different patterns and
also a simulation and compared with another group
experimental and analytical data. This 3D
approach is extensible with making variation on
loading and support condition and is a basis for the
evaluation of the topics of interest for future study
includes providing the principles and guidelines to
aid in the optimization in a easier manner. The
paper may also provide low laborious procedure
for modeling of versatile RCC like structure.
materials. Both cracking and crushing failure modes are
accounted for. The two input strength parameters i.e.,
ultimate uniaxial tensile and compressive strengths are
needed to define a failure surface for the concrete.
Consequently, a criterion for failure of the concrete due to
a multiaxial stress state can be calculated (William and
Warnke 1975). A three-dimensional failure surface for
concrete is shown in Figure 2.

III. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

A. CRACKS IN CONCRETE MODEL

Concrete crack plots were created at different load
levels to examine the different types of cracking that
occurred within the concrete as shown in Figure 1.
The different types of concrete failure that can occur
are flexural cracks, compression failure (crushing),
and diagonal tension cracks. Flexural cracks (Figure
1a) form vertically up the beam. Compression
failures (Figure 1b) are shown as circles. Diagonal Figure 2: 3-D failure surface for concrete (William and
tension cracks (Figure 1c) form diagonally up the Warnke 1975)
beam towards the loading that is applied. Crack
develops in concrete element when the concrete C. Finite Element Modeling of Steel Reinforcement
element stress exceeds modulus of rupture of
Tavarez (2001) discusses three techniques that exist to
concrete (tensile strength of concrete). Crash
model steel reinforcement in finite element models for
develops in concrete element when the concrete
reinforced concrete is shown in figure 3: the discrete
element stress exceeds compressive crashing strength
model, the embedded model, and the smeared model.
of concrete. This study indicates that the use of a
finite element program to model experimental data is
viable and the results that are obtained can indeed
model reinforced concrete beam behavior reasonably
well.

Figure 1: Typical Cracking Signs in Finite Element

Models: a) Flexural Cracks, b) Compressive Cracks,
c) Diagonal Tensile Cracks (Kachlakev, et al. 2001)

B. FAILURE CRITERIA FOR CONCRETE

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 88

Figure 3: Models for Reinforcement in Reinforced (in/in) (psi)

Concrete (Tavarez 2001): (a) discrete; (b) Point 1 0.00049931 1800
embedded; and (c) smeared Point 2 0.00065 2158.06
Point 3 0.00080 2552.24
Point 4 0.001 2996.43
Point 5 0.0012 3347.11
D. ANSYS FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
Point 6 0.0014 3609.99
Table 1 – Element Types for Working Model Point 7 0.0016 3794.94
Point 8 0.0018 3913.71
Material Type ANSYS Element
Point 9 0.002 3978.22
Concrete Solid65 Point 10 0.0022 3999.57
Steel Plates and Point 11 0.002219 4000
Solid45
Supports Point 12 0.003 4000
Steel Reinforcement Link8

Concrete
E. REAL CONSTANTS ShrCf-Op 0.3
The real constants for this model are shown in Table ShrCf-Cl 1
2. Note that individual elements contain different UnTensSt 474.34
real constants. No real constant set exists for the UnCompSt -1
Solid65 element. BiCompSt 0
Table 2. Real constant for model HydroPs 0
BiCompSt 0
UnTensSt 0
TenCrFac 0
F. MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Parameters needed to define the material models
Linear Isotropic
can be found in Table 3.
Solid45

Table 3. Material Models for the Calibration Model 29,000,000

EX
2 psi
PRXY 0.3
Material

Element
Number
Model

Type

Material Properties
Linear Isotropic
29,000,000
EX
psi
Link8

Linear Isotropic PRXY 0.3

3
Solid65

EX 3604974.865
1 PRXY 0.25 Bilinear Isotropic
Yield Stress 60,000 psi
Multilinear Isotropic Tangent
2,900 psi
Strain Stress Modulus

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 89

The Solid65 element requires linear isotropic and

multi-linear isotropic material properties to (2)
properly model concrete. The multi-linear isotropic
material uses the von Mises failure criterion along
with the Willam and Warnke (1975) model to
define the failure of the concrete. EX is the
(3)
modulus of elasticity of the concrete (Ec), and
PRXY is the Poisson’s ratio (µ). The modulus of
elasticity was based on the equation,
(4)
Ec = 57000√f’c (1)
with a value of f’c equal to 4,000 psi. Poisson’s
Where;
ratio was assumed to be 0.25. The compressive
uniaxial stress-strain relationship for the concrete f = stress at any strain ε, psi
model was obtained using the following equations ε = strain at stress f
to compute the multi-linear isotropic stress-strain = strain at the ultimate compressive strength, f’c
The multi-linear isotropic stress-strain implemented
requires the first point if the curve to be defined by the
Constant

Element

user. It might satisfy Hook’s Law;

Type
Real

set

Constants
(5)
for Rebar 1

for Rebar 2

for Rebar 3
Constants

Constants

Constants
Real

Real

Real

The multi-linear curve is used to help with convergence

of the nonlinear solution algorithm.
Orientation Orientation Volume Material
Ratio Number

0 0 0
Solid65

1 0 0 0
Angle

0 0 0
Angle

0 0 0

Figure 4. Uniaxial Stress-Strain Curve

(in./in.) Area, (in )
Strain sectional
2
Cross-

1.0 Figure 4 shows the stress-strain relationship used for

Solid45

this study and is based on work done by Kachlakev,et

2 al. (2001). MacGregor Nonlinear model curve Point 1,
Initial

defined as ' 0.45 fc’ is calculated in the linear range

0 (Equation 4). Other points are calculated from Equation
2 with ε0 obtained from Equation 3.Last point is defined
at f’c and ε0=0.003 in./in. indicating traditional
Area (in2)
sectional
Cross-

crushing strain for unconfined concrete.

0.11
Link8

3
(in./in.)
Strain
Initial

curve for the concrete (MacGregor 1992)

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01
Figure 5: Idealized Stress-Strain Curve of
Reinforcing Steel
G. MODELING
Figure 6. Typical Beam Dimensions
Figure 7. Quarter Beam for Model
1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS
90
Figure 8. Different types of shear reinforcements
Fi
gure 9. Reinforcement Detailing for Beam Model
F
igure 10. Mesh of the Concrete, Steel Plate and Steel
Support
Link8 elements were used to create the flexural and shear
reinforcement. Only half of the stirrup is modeled because of
the symmetry of the beam. Figure 10 illustrates that the rebar
shares the same nodes at the points that it intersects the shear
stirrups. The element type number, material number, and real
constant set number for the calibration model were set for
each mesh as shown in Table 4.
IJENS
 International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 91

Figure 13. Reinforcement Configuration and Meshing

for Type 2
Figure 11. Reinforcement Configuration and
Meshing for Type 1
Table 4. Mesh Attributes for the model
Constant
Material
Element

Number
Model

Type
Parts

Real

Set

Concrete Beam 1 1 1
Steel Plate 2 2 N/A
Steel Support 2 2 N/A
Longitudinal
3 3 2
Reinforcement
Figure 14. Reinforcement Configuration and Meshing for
Shear
3 3 3 Type 3
Reinforcement

Figure 12. Reinforcement Configuration and Figure 15. Reinforcement Configuration and Meshing for
Meshing for without shear reinforcement Type 4

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 92

Figure 18. Load-Deflection curve comparison of

ANSYS and Backouse (1997) [2]
Figure 16. Different Patterns of Shear Reinforcement The graph of present analysis of Wolanoski’s thesis is
in ANSYS given bellow:

III. ANALYTICAL STUDY

For this purpose it is eventual to compare the develop

model with an existing one. And here this simulation
was made by using the data given by ‘Anthony J.
Wolanoski B.S.’ in his thesis paper [2]. Where, he
used following specification-
1. Beam size – The width and height
of beam were 10 in. and 18 in respectively
2. Clear span length – 15 ft
3. Area of steel – 0.93 in.2
4. Yield Stress of Steel, fy = 60,000
psi
5. 28-days Compressive Strength of
Concrete, f’c = 4800 psi Figure 19. Load-Deflection Curve after simulation
The detail of Wolanoski’s beam and also the beam
for simulation is given below: The comparison of Wolanoski’s analysis and present
analysis are given in table.

Table 5.Comparison between Anthony J.Wolanoski

analysis and present study by ANSYS

Figure 17. Reinforcement Detailing of Wolanoski’s

Beam

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 93

Steel Stress (psi)

Reinforcement

Deflection (in)
Tension Fiber

cracking (lb)
Load at First
Stress (psi)

Centerline
Extreme
Model
calculation
Anthony J. Wolanoski
From thesis paper of

Manual

0.0529
3024

5118
530
B.S. [2]

(b) Initiation of Diagonal Tension crack (load 20423 lb)

ANSYS

0.0534
2840

5216
536
Simulated
ANSYS
Present

2843.8

0.0534
study

5212
525

A. CRACK DEVELOPED IN THE (c) Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57533 lb)

CONCRETE BEAMS

At first the crack is formed in the concrete beams

because of flexural stress. For the increasing of
loads the diagonal tension crack is initiated after
the formation of 1st crack. The crack increase with
the increase of loads and the steel stress reach to its
yielding stress. The failure of concrete beams also
observes by the formation of crack which is shown
in figures 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24.

(d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 61615 lb)

Figure 20 (a),(b),(c)&(d). Represents Cracks Formation

in Beam of present study for Without Shear
Reinforcement in different stages during the application
of load

(a) 1st Crack of the Concrete Model (load 9686 lb)

(a) 1st Crack of the Concrete Model (load 9658 lb)

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 94

(b) Initiation of Diagonal Tension crack (load 23048 lb) (b) Initiation of Diagonal Tension crack (load 19949 lb)

(c) Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57898 lb) (c) Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57450 lb)

(d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 62020 lb) (d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 61852 lb)

Figure 21: (a),(b),(c)&(d) represents Cracks Figure 22: (a),(b),(c)&(d) represents Cracks Formation
Formation in Beam of present study for Shear in Beam of present study for Shear Reinforcement
Reinforcement Type 1 in different stages during the Type 2 in different stages during the application of load
application of load

(a) 1st Crack of the Concrete Model (load 9646 lb) (a) 1st Crack of the Concrete Model (load 9657 lb)

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 95

(b) Initiation of Diagonal Tension crack (load (b) Initiation of Diagonal Tension crack (load 20313 lb)
17453 lb)

(c) Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57576 lb) (c) Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57451 lb)

(d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 61964 lbs)

(d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 61880 lb)
Figure 23: (a),(b)(c)&(d) represents Cracks
Formation in Beam of present study for Shear
Reinforcement Type 3 in different stages during the
application of load
Figure 24: (a),(b),(c)&(d) represents Cracks Formation
in Beam of present study for Shear Reinforcement
Type 4 in different stages during the application of load
B. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE

(a) 1st Crack of the Concrete Model (load 9658 lb)

Figure 25: Combined Load-Deflection Curve for

Different patterns of shear Reinforcement

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 96

Load-Deflection Curve is linear with a sharp slope

up to 9,000-10,000 lb. Within this load first Table 7. Comparison between theoretical Calculation
cracking occur. The graph changes its nature after and ANSYS
first cracking i.e. its slope is changed continuously.
This is due to change in crack depth with the load

Crack (flexure
increment. The location of initiation of the diagonal

Load at First
Reinforcing

Steel Stress

Deflection
(main bar)

Centerline
tension cracking of concrete in curves is in between

crack)
(psi)

(in.)

(lb)
the 1st cracking loads and steel yielding loads. This
crack is observed from concrete cracks and

Model
crushing plots which is within 17400 lb to 23050
lb. The cracks & curves were observed and the data
from cracks & curves were listed as tabular form in

Calculation

Calculation

Calculation
*H Manual
* Manual
*Manual

ANSYS

ANSYS

ANSYS
results.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 6. Crack formation and distance of crack from

Reinforcement
Without Shear
support and deflection at failure loads on the basis of

0.054786
2788.0
analysis

9686
tension crack
Initiation of
diagonal

Deflection at Failure (in.)

1st crack
Load at Failure (lb)

Type 1

2788.4

0.0547

9658
Type
Distance from

2772.34

0.05394
Distance from

9445.5
0.054751
support (in.)

support (in.)
Loads (lb)

Type 2

2788.5
Load (lb)

9646
0.054750
Type 3

2788.6

9657
Without shear
reinforcement

20423

61616
9686

2.31
78

51

0.054748
Type 4

2788.5

9658

Table 8. Formation of 1st Crack and Respective

Type 1

4.0340
23048

62020
9658

75

33

Deflection & Steel Stress in Finite Element Analysis

Steel Stress (psi)
Deflection (in.)
Load at First
Type 2

3.3885

Reinforcing
19949

61852

Centerline
9646

Crack (lb)
82.5

42

Model
Type 3

3.6879
17453

61880
75.75
9657

37.5

Without Shear
9686 0.056181 2859.0
Reinforcement
Type 1 9658 0.064117 3870.0
Type 4

3.4608
20313

61964
9658

75

36

Type 2 9646 0.057770 3077.0

Type 3 9657 0.058253 3138.3

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 97

Type 4 9658 0.062322 3651.1 got the results as follows:

Table 10. 1st crack formation distance from support
(without shear reinforcement) [7]
Table 9. Flexural Steel Stress on the basis of
analysis
Distance from
1st Crack Formation
Support
yielding of steel
yielding of steel

Loads on beam

Loads on beam
Steel Stress at

Steel Stress at
at yielding of

at failure (lb)
Deflection at

Without shear

failure (psi)
0.413L

steel (lb)
Model

reinforcement
(psi)

(in.)

Type 1 0.396L
Type 2 0.437L

Type 3 0.401L
*Theoretical
calculation

60000

57703

Type 4 0.396L
-

- From present analysis:

Table 11: 1st crack formation distance from support for
this analysis
Without shear
reinforcement

0.858350
60009

57533

60108

62020

B. COMMENTS ON RESULTS
• Initiation of diagonal tension crack occurs in
Type 1 at larger loads in compare to others.
• For the beam without shear reinforcement
diagonal tension crack initiates at larger
0.91714
Type 1

distance from support with compared to

60010

57898

60143

62020

others.
• The ultimate load carrying capacity is larger
for Type 1 with respect to other types and also
showing large deflection for its better ductile
0.829578
Type 2

60004

57450

60163

61852

property.
• Theoretical calculation and ANSYS analysis
give almost same results for steel stressing at
1st crack.
• At steel yielding the steel stress is almost same
0.884736

to the theoretical value. These data was

Type 3

60010

57576

60114

61880

collected from ANSYS output after analysis.

• Steel stress at failure is maximizing for Type 2
shear reinforcement. These data was collected
from ANSYS output after analysis.
•
0.855752

Compare with another group, the behavior of

Type 4

60004

57451

60128

61964

1st crack formation, is found satisfactory level.

• From combined load deflection curve, the 1st
cracking point and the steel yielding point for
with and without different patterns of shear
A. COMPARISON reinforcement are almost same.

From another thesis group [7] performing on V. CONCLUSION

“Experimental and Analytical Investigation of
Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam” The project emanated with an aim to find out the
ultimate load carrying capacity of beams of without and
1st Crack Formation Distance from Support with different patterns of shear reinforcements and also
find out the different behaviors of beams for different
stages of loading. The project is expected to generate
Lab Test 0.421L reasonable solutions of focused problem defined under
some parametric condition. Initially some parameters
ANSYS 0.414L are chosen for these beams by analysis with finite
element method. The ultimate load carrying capacity is
1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS
IJENS
 International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 98

then determined by without considering and [8]. Willam,K. J. and Warnke, E. P.

considering different patterns of shear
reinforcement with a constant flexural
reinforcement. After completing the analysis
curves are drawn for without and with different
patterns of shear reinforcement, to find out various
parameters (1st crack formation in beams, initiation
of diagonal cracks, failure load etc.) for finding
effective shear reinforcement pattern for beam to
this loading condition. Also a simulation and
comparison to another group is done to the
satisfactory use of finite element modeling in
structural components. The following conclusion
can be stated based on the evaluation of the
analyses:
• ANSYS 3D concrete element is very good
concerning the flexural and shear crack
development but poor concerning the
crushing state. However this deficiency
could be easily removed by employing a
certain multi-linear plasticity options
available in ANSYS.
(1975), “Constitutive models for the triaxial behavior
of concrete”, Proceedings of the International Assoc.
for Bridge and Structural Engineering , vol 19, pp. 1-
30.
[9]. Murdock, L. J., Brook, K. M. and Dewar, J. D.,
“Concrete: Materials and Practice”, 6th Edition,
Edward Arnold, London, 1991
[10]. American Concrete Institute, “Material and
General Properties of Concrete”, ACI Manual of
Concrete Practice, part 1, 1996
[11]. Tavarez, F.A., (2001), “Simulation of Behavior of
Composite Grid Reinforced Concrete Beams Using
Explicit Finite Element Methods,” Master’s Thesis,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison,
Wisconsin.

• From close observation of analyses results

it can be concluded that all types of web
reinforcements are almost same effective
for static loading condition.

VI. REFERENCES

[1]. Nilson, Arthur H.; Darwin, David; Dolan

Charles W., 2006 “Design Of Concrete Structures”,
McGraw-Hill, 13th Edition.
[2]. Wolanski, Anthony J., B.S., 2004, “Flexure
Behavior of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete
Beams Using Finite Element Analysis”, Faculty of
Graduate School, Marquette University,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May.
[3]. SAS (2005) ANSYS 10 Finite Element
Analysis System, SAS IP, Inc.
[4]. Hossain, M. Nadim, 1998, “Structural
Concrete; Theory & Design”, Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
[5]. Nakasone, Y., Yoshimoto, S., Stolarski, T. A.,
2006, “ENGINEERING ANALYSIS WITH
ANSYS SOFTWARE”, ELSEVIER, 1st Published.
[6]. Kachlakev, D.; Miller, T.; Yim, S., May, 2001,
“Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete
Structures Strengthened With FRP Laminates”,
California Polytechnic State University, San Lius
Obispo, CA and Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR for Oregon Department of
Transportation, May.
[7]. Nasir-Uz-Zaman, M, Sohel Rana, M, 2009
“Experimental And Analytical Investigation of
Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam”,
Undergraduate Thesis Report, Department of Civil
Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering and
Technology, Khulna, April.

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS

IJENS