ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 105-S53

TECHNICAL PAPER

Flexural Strength Design of Concrete Beams Reinforced with High-Strength Steel Bars
by Robert F. Mast, Mina Dawood, Sami H. Rizkalla, and Paul Zia
This paper presents a methodology for the flexural strength design of concrete beams reinforced with high-strength reinforcing steel that conforms to the requirements of ASTM A1035-07. The design method is based on simple analysis techniques that satisfy fundamental principles of equilibrium and compatibility. Strain limits for tension-controlled sections and compression-controlled sections are proposed that are consistent with the approach of the current and past ACI 318 Codes. The proposed method is compared with experimental results previously reported by others. The application of the proposed method is demonstrated by a numerical design example.
Keywords: flexure; flexural design; high-strength reinforcement; highstrength steel; reinforcing bars; strength design.

high-strength steel: Grade 100 and 120 (690 and 830 MPa). It cautions designers, however, that current design requirements limit the allowable design strength of reinforcements to 80 ksi (550 MPa). This limitation prevents engineers from fully using the enhanced strength characteristics of these materials and therefore represents a practical obstacle to the transfer of the technology to the engineering community. To lift the 80 ksi (550 MPa) yield strength limitation of the current ACI 318 Code, a design methodology is proposed based on accepted engineering principles and analysis techniques. The proposed design methodology demonstrates that the flexural strength of members reinforced with highstrength steel will be comparable with the flexural strength of members designed according to the current design provisions. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE This paper presents a design methodology, in similar format to the current ACI 318 provisions, for the flexural strength design of concrete beams reinforced with ASTM A1035-071 Grade 100 (690 MPa) steel bars. The discussion is limited to reinforcing bars having stress-strain characteristics that are similar to the high-strength steel commercially known as MMFX; however, the proposed design concept is valid for any high-strength steel that does not exhibit a distinct yield plateau. The proposed tension-controlled strain limits ensure that the strain, curvature, and deflection deformability ratios of beams designed according to the proposed methodology are comparable to the ratios for beams designed according to current and previous ACI 318 provisions. The proposed method will enable the designers to take full advantage of high-strength steel bars as reinforcement for concrete structures. CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH-STRENGTH REINFORCING STEELS A number of high-strength reinforcing steels are currently available for the design and construction of reinforced concrete flexural members. The typical stress-strain relationships of several different high-strength reinforcing steels are presented in Fig. 1(a), along with the stress-strain relationship of conventional Grade 60 (400 MPa) steel for comparison. As seen in the figure, the stress-strain curve of typical high-strength steel is characterized by an initial linear portion followed by a nonlinear section. The absence of a distinct yield plateau is characteristic of most high-strength steel. Despite the lack of a well-defined yield point, most high-strength reinforcing
ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 4, September-October 2008. MS No. M-2006-491.R2 received November 14, 2007, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the JulyAugust 2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2009.

INTRODUCTION Recently, high-strength steel reinforcement conforming to ASTM A1035-071 has been developed. The stress-strain characteristics of the reinforcement are quite different from conventional Grade 60 (400 MPa) steel reinforcement. The new steel is considerably stronger than conventional reinforcing steel and lacks a well-defined yield point. There are several practical advantages to using this new highstrength material, including reduction of congestion in heavily reinforced members, improved concrete placement, savings in the cost of labor, reduction of construction time and, in some cases, enhanced resistance to corrosion. Research on the use of high-strength steel as reinforcement for reinforced concrete members has been ongoing for some time. The flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with high-strength reinforcing bars has been investigated experimentally by a number of researchers.2-4 The available research indicates that, when properly designed, beams reinforced with high-strength reinforcing bars will achieve similar strength characteristics to beams reinforced with conventional steel reinforcements. Other research has indicated that high-strength reinforcing bars can be effectively used as a replacement for conventional steel reinforcing bars for typical reinforced concrete bridge decks.5 The research indicates that, due to the use of highstrength steel reinforcing bars, the required steel area can be reduced by up to 33% while maintaining comparable behavior to bridge decks reinforced with conventional Grade 60 (400 MPa) steel. Detailing requirements, including the strength of bent bars and bond characteristics, have also been investigated5 and additional research is ongoing at several universities. In addition to the ongoing research in this field, the recent publication of ASTM A1035-071 that outlines structural specifications for low-carbon and chromium steel bars further facilitates the use of high-strength steel as reinforcing for concrete structures. The standard specifies two grades of 570

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

ACI Honorary Member Robert F. Mast is a Past President and Past Chairman of BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., Seattle, WA, where he continues to serve as a Senior Principal. He is a Past President of ACI and a member of ACI Committees 314, Simplified Design of Concrete Buildings; 318, Structural Concrete Building Code; 376, Concrete Structures for Refrigerated Liquified Gas Containment; TAC Technology Transfer Committee; and the Concrete Research Council. He authored the Unified Design Provisions, which were incorporated in the 2002 and later editions of the ACI 318 Code. ACI member Mina Dawood is a PhD Candidate at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. He received his BSc from the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, in 2003 and his MS from North Carolina State University in 2005. Sami H. Rizkalla, FACI, is a Distinguished Professor of Civil and Construction Engineering in the Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University. He is the Director of the Constructed Facilities Laboratory and NSF I/UCRC in Repair of Structures and Bridges at North Carolina State University. He is a member of ACI Committees 118, Use of Computers; 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 423, Prestressed Concrete, and 550, Precast Concrete Structures; and E803, Faculty Network Coordinating Committee. ACI Honorary Member Paul Zia is a Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at North Carolina State University. He is an ACI Past President and is Chair of ITG-6, High-Strength Steel Bars. He is a member of ACI Committees 363, HighStrength Concrete; 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; Joint ACIASCE Committees 423, Prestressed Concrete, and 445, Shear and Torsion; and the Concrete Research Council.

steels are capable of achieving ultimate strain values up to 0.05 or higher. Several equations have been proposed to represent the actual stress-strain behavior of high-strength reinforcing steels in tension.6,7 As shown in Fig. 1(b), the stress-strain relationship of one specific type of reinforcing steel conforming to ASTM A1035-07,1 known as MMFX steel, can be approximately represented by the following equation 29, 000 s ( ksi ) s 0.00241 (1) fs = 0.345 170 ----------------------------- ( ksi ) 0.00241 < s < 0.060 s + 0.00104 200, 000 s ( MPa ) s 0.00241 fs = 2.379 1172 ----------------------------- ( MPa ) 0.00241 < s < 0.060 s + 0.00104 where fs is the stress in the steel and s is the corresponding strain. This equation was developed following the same format of the equation adopted by PCI to represent the stressstrain curve of the prestressing strand that exhibits a similar trend of the stress-strain curve to that of MMFX steel.8 The PCI stress-strain equation for prestressing steel beyond the proportional limit is of the form B f s = A -------------s + C (2) Fig. 1(a) Material characteristics of high-strength reinforcing steel; and (b) existing and proposed limitations and material models. fully, a simplified elastic-plastic relationship has been proposed for design purposes.9 The simplified model consists of an initial linear-elastic portion with an elastic modulus of 29,000 ksi (200,000 MPa) followed by a perfectly plastic yield plateau with a yield strength of 100 ksi (690 MPa), as shown in Fig. 1(b). The discussion presented in this paper and the proposed increase in the allowable yield strength limit are recommended for high-strength steel reinforcing bars in tension only. When high-performance reinforcing bars are used as compression reinforcement, the current ACI limitation of 80 ksi (550 MPa) should be maintained because the stress in the steel is controlled by the maximum compressive strain of 0.003 used for concrete in design. BASIS OF CURRENT DESIGN PRACTICE Based on current design practice, the design of a flexural member should take into account the overall behavior of the member throughout the service range and up to the nominal capacity of the member. Beginning with the ACI 318-6310 Code, flexural members were required to have reinforcement ratios not greater than 75% of the balanced reinforcement ratio b. By 1993, this criterion had been in use for 30 years, and the behavior of flexural members was judged to be satisfactory. The current criterion based on tensile strain in the reinforcement was selected to provide similar behavior to that experienced under the 0.75b criterion. 571

The same form of the equation was used and the constants A, B, and C were adjusted to closely match the measured stress-strain curve of MMFX steel. The tensile stress-strain curve represented by Eq. (1) will be used for analysis in this paper. The current ACI 318 Code limits the maximum allowable yield strength of steel reinforcement to 80 ksi (550 MPa). To use the high-strength properties of the reinforcing steel more ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

It should be noted that this principle does not apply to the special case of energy dissipation in seismic resisting frames. Most typical flexural members are loaded monotonically and are expected to reach nominal strength no more than once. The proposed flexural strength design methodology is not intended for structures required to resist high seismic loads. Past and present ACI 318 Code requirements Ultimate strength design (now called strength design) was introduced in the ACI 318 Code in 1963.10 For flexural members, the maximum reinforcement ratio was limited to 0.75 of the balanced reinforcement ratio b. The purpose of this requirement was to ensure that the member would be under-reinforced such that the reinforcement would yield before the concrete reached its limiting strain of 0.003 prior to failure. This requirement remained essentially in effect from 1963 to 1999. In the 1995 ACI 318 Code,12 an alternative requirement was introduced in Appendix B. Rather than limiting the maximum reinforcement ratio , a minimum strain level in the reinforcement at nominal strength was required for the use of the high factor of 0.9 for flexure. A tension-controlled section was defined as a cross section in which the net tensile strain in the extreme tension steel at nominal strength was greater than or equal to 0.005. For tension-controlled sections, a factor of 0.9 was used. If the steel strain at nominal strength was less than 0.005, a reduced factor was used to account for the less desirable behavior of these sections. Compression-controlled sections are defined as having steel strains at nominal strength at or below the yield strain of the reinforcement. For compression-controlled sections, the factor for compression was used. For sections with steel strains between the aforementioned two limits, the factor was determined by linear interpolation between the factor for compression and the factor for tension. In the 2002 ACI 318 Code,13 these requirements were moved to the main body of the code, replacing the former limit on for flexural members. The background information on the development of these limits has been provided by Mast.14 Whereas the tensioncontrolled strain limit of 0.005 was developed from studies of the behavior of members reinforced with Grade 60 (400 MPa) steel, it was also permitted to be used with Grade 75 (520 MPa) steel reinforcement. ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION The objective of the following analytical investigation was to assess the adequacy of the proposed 100 ksi (690 MPa) material model and to establish acceptable strain limits for tension-controlled sections and compression-controlled sections reinforced with high-strength steel. The behavior of beams was studied at nominal strength and at the service level. The section behavior was determined by using a cracked section analysis that satisfied equilibrium and compatibility. At nominal strength, the ACI Code rectangular stress block was used. Elastic stress distribution was considered under service load condition. Between these two limits, a trapezoidal stress block for concrete was used consisting of an initial linear portion with an elastic modulus equal to 57,000 f c psi (4730 f c MPa) up to a stress of 0.85fc followed by a plastic plateau. The details of the analysis are shown schematically in Fig. 3. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

Fig. 2Deflection of a prestressed concrete fender pile.

Desirable behavior for flexural members In the design of reinforced concrete flexural members, to apply the higher resistance factor of 0.9, a member should exhibit desirable behavior. At service load, small deflections and minimal cracking are desired. At higher loads, however, the member should exhibit large deflections and/or excessive cracking to provide warning before reaching nominal strength. Both deflection and cracking are primarily a function of steel strain near the tension face of the member. In general, desirable behavior of a member is related to ductility. Whereas there are many definitions of ductility, they all typically relate to yielding or inelastic deformation. When lower strength reinforcing materials are used, the only way to obtain high strains near the tension face at nominal strength is to ensure yielding of the tension steel. With highstrength materials, this is no longer necessary. Figure 2 shows the test of a prestressed concrete fender pile designed to absorb energy of impacting ships. The pile was purposely designed so that the prestressing strand would not yield at the deformation shown. So, by most definitions, it has no ductility; but it certainly can undergo large deflection and cracking prior to failure. The ductility ratios, the ratios of strain, curvature, or deflection at ultimate to the corresponding values at yield, are not the only measure of desirable behavior. Instead, the ratio of nominal strength behavior to service load behavior, otherwise referred to hereafter as the deformability ratio, may also be a suitable indicator. The larger this ratio, the larger the spread between the behavior at service load and the behavior at nominal strength. A similar approach was previously recommended for the design of concrete beams reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) materials.11 Because FRP materials do not yield, the ductility ratio is not an appropriate indicator of desirable behavior. Rather, to assess the adequacy of a member, the ratio of energy dissipation at ultimate conditions to energy dissipation at serviceability limits are considered. In this paper, similar deformability ratios are considered and expressed in terms of the strain ratio, the curvature ratio, and the deflection ratio. 572

Table 1Comparison of beam capacity for different reinforcing steel material models
Reinforcing steel material model Grade 60 (400 MPa) steel Actual behavior Simplified 100 ksi (690 MPa) model 80 ksi (550 MPa) limitation Moment capacity, Increase Reserved capacity, kip-ft (kN-m) of capacity, % kip-ft (kN-m) 327 (443) 639 (867) 524 (711) 427 (579) 95 60 31 0 (0) 115 (156) 212 (288)

Fig. 3Sectional analysis procedure.

Nominal strength analysis The nominal moment capacity of a rectangular, singly reinforced concrete section was considered for a number of different reinforcement ratios using a cracked section analysis. A concrete compressive strength of 6500 psi (45 MPa) was considered with an ultimate strain of 0.003 at the extreme compression face of the concrete. The stress level in the reinforcement was calculated using three different material models to represent the behavior of the high-strength steel reinforcement. The actual behavior of the reinforcing steel, as defined in Eq. (1), the current ACI limitation of 80 ksi (550 MPa), and the proposed 100 ksi (690 MPa) simplified model were each considered in the analysis. Figure 4 shows the relationship between the nominal moment capacity of the section and the reinforcement ratio for each of the three steel material models under consideration. The nominal moment capacity of sections reinforced with conventional Grade 60 (400 MPa) reinforcement is also shown for comparison purposes. Also plotted in the figure are test results of several beams that were reinforced with high-strength steel reinforcing bars and were tested at the Florida DOT2 and at the University of North Florida.3 The experimental results are in good agreement with the analysis that considered the actual behavior of the highstrength reinforcing steel. The balanced reinforcement ratios b were calculated as 3.95%, 2.60%, and 1.85% for the sections using the Grade 60 (400 MPa), 80 ksi (550 MPa), and 100 ksi (690 MPa) material models, respectively. Figure 4 indicates that, for a given reinforcement ratio greater than 3.95%, the calculated nominal moment capacity of the section was equal for all of the different material models because failure of the heavily reinforced sections was governed by crushing of the concrete prior to yielding of the reinforcing steel. For a reinforcement ratio less than 3.95%, the models with the higher yield strengths typically predicted higher nominal moment capacities. For sections reinforced with a reinforcement ratio less than 1.75%, which represents the majority of typical reinforced concrete beams, use of the 100 ksi (690 MPa) model typically underpredicted the nominal moment capacity of the section as compared with the actual behavior. Conversely, for reinforcement ratios from 1.75 to 2.7%, use of the 100 ksi (690 MPa) limitation slightly overpredicted the capacity of the section. The analysis indicates, however, that this difference is on the order of only 2.5%, which is insignificant for design purposes. To investigate the adequacy of the various proposed material models, the nominal moment capacity of an example beam was considered. The example beam had a width b of 12 in. (305 mm), an effective depth d of 24 in. (610 mm), and a reinforcement ratio of 1%. The calculated nominal moment capacity of the section, Mn, is given in Table 1 for ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

Fig. 4Nominal moment capacity as a function of reinforcing ratio. the three different high-strength material models and also for conventional Grade 60 (400 MPa) reinforcement. Table 1 indicates that, for the example beam, using highstrength reinforcing steel would result in an increase of the moment capacity of 95% when compared with the beam using the conventional Grade 60 (400 MPa) reinforcement. For the same section, if the ACI limitation of 80 ksi (550 MPa) is imposed, the increase of the moment capacity would be only 31% over the moment capacity of the section reinforced with Grade 60 (400 MPa) steel. When compared with the actual behavior, however, there is a reserved capacity of 212 kip-ft (288 kN-m), which corresponds to 33% of the nominal capacity of the member. If the simplified 100 ksi (690 MPa) model is used, the increase of the moment capacity would be 60% over the capacity of the section reinforced with conventional steel. The actual reserved capacity is 18% of the nominal capacity when compared with the actual behavior. This demonstrates that the design using the proposed simplified model results in more efficient use of the high-strength characteristics of the steel than the current 80 ksi (550 MPa) limitation while still providing a significant reserved capacity as compared with the actual capacity of the reinforced section. Moment-curvature analysis To establish suitable design limits for tension-controlled and compression-controlled sections, a moment-curvature analysis was conducted to investigate the limits of desirable behavior based on current design practice. A total of eight concrete beams were considered in the analysis. Three of the 573

Fig. 5Behavior of beam designed according to ACI 318-9915 and previous: (a) moment curvature; and (b) moment deflection. beams were designed according to ACI 318 Code requirements using conventional reinforcing steel. For each of the beams, the strain, curvature, and deflection deformability ratios were considered to evaluate the limits of desirable behavior. The remaining five beams were reinforced with high-strength reinforcement and the deformability ratios were also considered. The example beams all consisted of a 12 x 30 in. (305 x 760 mm) cross section with a simple span of 40 ft (12,200 mm). The depth to the reinforcement from the top of the section was 28 in. (710 mm) in all cases. A concrete strength of 5000 psi (34 MPa) was assumed, but for the beams reinforced with high-strength steel, concrete strengths from 4000 to 10,000 psi (28 to 69 MPa) were considered. Behavior based on ACI 318-9915 and previous Codes Using ACI 318-9915 and previous Codes, the beam was designed at the 0.75b limit with a reinforcing steel area of 8.45 in.2 (5450 mm 2). Based on a load factor of 1.5 and a resistance factor of 0.9, the service load was taken to be 0.6 times the calculated nominal strength of the member. The calculated service moment and corresponding steel tension stress were 577 kip-ft (783 kN-m) and 34 ksi (234 MPa), respectively. Figure 5(a) shows a moment-curvature diagram for a beam at the reinforcement limit of 0.75b, as permitted by the ACI 318 Codes prior to 2002. The behavior was almost bilinear, with the break point occurring very close to a steel stress equal to fy. The curvature at nominal strength was 3.03 times that at service load ( ratio). The net tensile strain of the steel at nominal strength was 2.87 times that at service load ( ratio). Figure 5(b) shows the moment-deflection relationship for a uniformly loaded beam. There is only a small amount of 574

Fig. 6Behavior of beam designed according to ACI 318-0213 and later: (a) moment curvature; and (b) moment deflection. additional deflection after yielding because the flat-top shape of the moment-curvature diagram causes yielding to occur only over a short length of the beam near midspan. The deflection at nominal strength is 1.95 times that at service load ( ratio). Behavior based on ACI 318-0213 and later Codes Flexural members at the current reinforcement limits for tension-controlled sections given in ACI 318-0213 and later Codes were examined to form a basis for what is currently acceptable behavior. Sections reinforced with Grade 60 (400 MPa) and Grade 75 (520 MPa) steel were considered. The service load was assumed to be 2/3 of nominal strength based on an average load factor equal to 1.35 and a resistance factor equal to 0.9. For the example beam reinforced with Grade 60 (400 MPa) steel, the limiting area of tension reinforcing steel was calculated as 7.14 in.2 (4610 mm 2). The corresponding service moment and tension stress in the steel were 560 kip-ft (759 kN-m) and 39 ksi (239 MPa), respectively. When considering Grade 75 (520 MPa) steel, the corresponding area of reinforcement, service moment, and stress in the steel were 5.71 in.2 (3680 mm 2), 559 kip-ft (758 kN-m), and 48 ksi (330 MPa), respectively. Figure 6(a) shows a moment-curvature diagram for beams at the net tensile strain limit of 0.005 for tension-controlled sections. The behavior is almost bilinear, with the break point occurring very close to a steel stress equal to fy. For Grade 75 (520 MPa) steel, the curvature at nominal strength was 2.92 times that at service load ( ratio). The net tensile strain of the steel at nominal strength was 2.98 times that at service load ( ratio). Figure 6(b) shows the moment-deflection ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

relationship for a uniformly loaded beam. The deflection at nominal strength was 1.74 times that at service load ( ratio). Behavior with high-strength reinforcing steel To evaluate behavior, it is necessary to use a good approximation of the true stress-strain characteristics of high-strength steel, as given in Eq. (1). Strain compatibility studies indicate that using a tension-controlled strain limit of 0.0066 for beams reinforced with high-strength steel produce behavior characteristics comparable with beams reinforced with Grade 60 (400 MPa) and Grade 75 (520 MPa) steel under the ACI 318 Code. Table 2 compares the strain ratios, the curvature ratios, and the deflection ratios for the 12 x 30 in. (305 x 760 mm) beams reinforced with Grades 60 (400 MPa), 75 (520 MPa), and high-strength steel reinforcement. In this analysis, Eq. (1) was used to represent the stress-strain characteristics of the high-strength reinforcement steel. The ratios are comparable when the tension-controlled strain limit is taken as 0.0066 for the beams reinforced with high-strength steel for the various concrete strengths considered in the analysis. The corresponding area of reinforcement for each of the example beams are also provided in the table for reference purposes. Figure 7(a) shows the moment-curvature relationship for a beam reinforced with high-strength steel at the tensioncontrolled strain limit of 0.0066 and a concrete strength fc of 5000 psi (34 MPa). Equation (1) was used to represent the stress-strain relationship of the reinforcing steel in this example. Figure 7(b) shows the moment-deflection relationship for a uniformly loaded beam reinforced with highstrength steel. The corresponding curves for beams with conventional reinforcement from Fig. 5 and 6 are also shown in Fig. 7 for comparison purposes. It should be noted that the absolute deflections are greater using the higher strength steel, and this needs to be accounted for by appropriately designing the depth of the member. Due to the higher tension strain in the high-strength reinforcement under service loading conditions, the beams may exhibit higher crack widths than those reinforced with conventional steel. Previous testing,4 however, indicates that the measured crack width under service loading conditions is only slightly larger than the acceptable crack widths for beams reinforced with conventional steel. Considering that some high-strength steel also exhibits reduced corrosion rates under severe environmental conditions,5 the slightly increased crack widths may be justified provided it is not objectionable from the aesthetics point of view. CRITERIA FOR SIMPLIFIED DESIGN METHOD The simplified design method uses the simplified 100 ksi (690 MPa) material model to describe the behavior of the Table 2Results of moment-curvature analysis
ACI 318 Code 1963
10

high-strength reinforcing steel. The bilinear elastic-plastic model simplifies hand calculations and permits the use of conventional software for reinforced concrete design. For a given section at the tension-controlled strain limit of 0.0066, the actual steel stress in the reinforcement is approximately 125 ksi (862 MPa) at the nominal moment strength of the beam, whereas the assumed steel stress in the simplified method is 100 ksi (690 MPa). To compensate for the difference, the calculated neutral axis depth (and the tension-controlled strain limit) must be adjusted when using the simplified method. Using a tension-controlled strain

Fig. 7Behavior of beam designed with high-strength reinforcing steel: (a) moment curvature; and (b) moment deflection.

Criterion = 0.75 b t = 0.005 t = 0.005 t = 0.0066 t = 0.0066 t = 0.0066 t = 0.0066 t = 0.0066

Steel type Grade 60 (400 MPa) Grade 60 (400 MPa) Grade 75 (520 MPa) High-strength High-strength High-strength High-strength High-strength

Area of steel, in.2 (mm2) 8.45 (5450) 7.14 (4610) 5.71 (3680) 2.43 (1570) 2.86 (1850) 3.21 (2070) 3.71 (2390) 4.64 (2920)

Steel stress at service, ksi (MPa) 34 (234) 39 (269) 48 (331) 67 (462) 67 (462) 67 (462) 67 (462) 67 (462)

fc, ksi (MPa) 5 (34) 5 (34) 5 (34) 4 (28) 5 (34) 6 (41) 8 (55) 10 (69)

ratio 2.87 3.71 2.98 2.85 2.92 3.10 3.44 3.33

ratio 3.03 3.44 2.92 2.96 3.01 3.09 3.34 3.19

ratio 1.95 1.81 1.74 2.47 2.51 2.57 2.75 2.66

to 1999

15

200213 and 200512 2002

13

and 2005

12

Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

575

limit of 0.009 in the simplified method produces essentially the same result as using the 0.0066 strain limit in the more exact method, as demonstrated in Table 3. That is, for a given section designed at the tension-controlled strain limit of 0.0066 using the actual behavior of the high-strength reinforcing steel, analysis of the section using the simplified 100 ksi (690 MPa) model yields a corresponding strain of 0.009. Therefore, it is proposed that the simplified design method should use the idealized 100 ksi (690 MPa) material model with a corresponding tension-controlled strain limit of 0.009. Flexural members should normally be designed as tension-controlled members, but the compression-controlled strain limit should also be defined for flexural members subjected to compression. A compression-controlled strain limit of 0.004 is proposed. To verify that beams designed at the proposed compression-controlled strain limit exhibit elastic behavior under service loading conditions, several example beams were considered. The dimensions of the example beams were the same as those described previously. Several concrete compressive strengths, ranging from 4 to 10 ksi (28 to 69 MPa) were considered and a load factor of 1.35 was used. The corresponding service load level, based on a reduction factor of 0.65 was 48% of the calculated nominal strength using the simplified design method. For all of the beams considered, the calculated strain in the tension reinforcement at the service load level was between 60 and 70% of the proportional limit strain of the high-strength steel. The proposed strain limit was twice that for Grade 60 (400 MPa) steel, and it lead to a simple equation for in the transition region between tension and compression controlled sections = 0.45 + 50 t 0.004 < t < 0.009 (3)

The proposed variation of the resistance factor is presented in Fig. 8. To help prevent compression-controlled failure, highstrength or conventional compression reinforcement can be provided. If high-strength compression steel is used, however, the ACI yield strength limit of 80 ksi (550 MPa) should be maintained for the compression bars. DESIGN EXAMPLE To illustrate the simplified design method, the behavior of an example beam was evaluated using the proposed simplified design method. The example beam had a width b of 12 in. (305 mm) and a section depth h of 18 in. (460 mm). The section was reinforced with three No. 6 high-strength steel reinforcing bars located 15 in. (400 mm) from the top of the section. Two additional No. 4 Grade 60 (400 MPa) steel reinforcing bars were provided in the compression zone 2-1/4 in. (60 mm) from the top surface of the beam. The beam had a span of 15 ft (4570 mm) and was loaded in fourpoint bending with a constant moment region of 3 ft (915 mm). The concrete compressive strength was 7250 psi (50 MPa). The example beam was also fabricated and tested in a previous study.4 The nominal strength of the example beam was calculated using the simplified method. Assuming that the steel had yielded at nominal strength, the tension force T in the steel reinforcement would be 132.5 kips (590 kN). Using the ACI rectangular stress block, the calculated neutral axis depth c was 2.6 in. (66 mm). The corresponding strain at the level of the tension reinforcement t was 0.015, which was above the proposed tension-controlled strain limit of 0.009. The calculated nominal moment capacity of the section Mn was 162 kip-ft (220 kN-m), which corresponded to an applied load of 54 kips (240 kN). The nominal strength of the example beam, calculated using the proposed simplified design procedure, was 30% lower than the measured nominal capacity of the tested beam. After applying a reduction factor of 0.9, the calculated ultimate strength of the beam was 49 kips (220 kN). Based on an average load factor of 1.35, the service load level for the example beam was 35 kips (157 kN). The reported crack width for the tested beam at this load level was 0.02 in. (0.5 mm),4 which was minimal and demonstrated the desirable behavior of the beam under service loading conditions. The calculated ultimate strength and service load levels for the example beam are presented in Fig. 9 relative to the measured load-deflection behavior of the beam. The figure also presents the predicted load-deflection relationship using the actual behavior of the high-strength steel, Eq. (1), and the simplified model. The figure shows that the predicted behavior using the actual material properties closely matches the measured behavior. The calculated ratios of strain , curvature , and deflection , for the example beam, using

Fig. 8Proposed variation of resistance factor for the simplified design procedure. Table 3Comparison of design methods

Actual behavior Tension-controlled strain limit Neutral axis depth c Stress block depth a = 1c Compressive force C Steel area As = C/fs Reinforcement ratio = As/bd 0.0066 0.3125d 0.31251d 0.85fc ab 0.85fc (0.31251d)b/125 (in.2) 0.85fc (0.31251d)b/862 (mm2) 0.002125fc 1

Simplified method 0.009 0.25d 0.251d 0.85fc ab 0.85fc (0.251d)b/100 (in.2) 0.85fc (0.251d)b/689 (mm2) 0.002125fc 1

576

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

Transition zone sections: = 0.45 + 50t 0.004 < t < 0.009 Flexural members designed using the simplified design method and the aforementioned criteria will have comparable flexural strength characteristics with members designed according to current ACI 318 requirements using conventional Grade 60 (400 MPa) and Grade 75 (520 MPa) reinforcing steel. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The preparation of the paper is based on the results of a number of research projects sponsored by MMFX Technologies whose support is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. ASTM A1035, Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain, LowCarbon, Chromium, Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007, 5 pp. 2. Ansley, M. H., Investigation into the Structural Performance of MMFX Reinforcing, 2002, http://www.mmfxsteel.com/technical_resources/ Default.asp. 3. Malhas, F. A., Preliminary Experimental Investigation of the Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using MMFX Steel, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL, 2002, http://www.mmfxsteel.com/ technical_resources/Default.asp. 4. Yotakhong, P., Flexural Performance of MMFX Reinforcing Rebars in Concrete Structures, masters thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2003. 5. Seliem, H. M. A., Behavior of Concrete Bridges Reinforced with High-Performance Steel Reinforcing Bars, doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2007, http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/ theses/available/etd-05042007-174633/unrestricted/etd.pdf. 6. Vijay, V. S.; GangaRao, H. V. S.; and Prachasaree, W., Bending Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with MMFX Steel Bars, WVU College of Engineering, Morgantown, WV, 2002, http://www.mmfxsteel.com/ technical_resources/Default.asp. 7. Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., Prestressed Concrete Structures, Response Publications, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1997, 766 pp. 8. Martin, L. D., and Perry, C. J., eds., PCI Design Handbook, sixth edition, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 2004, 728 pp. 9. Mast, R. F., Memorandum: Simplified Strength Design of Flexural Members Using MMFX Steel, Jan. 2007, 8 pp. 10. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1963, 144 pp. 11. Vijay, P. V., and GangaRao, H. V. S., Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members, ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2001, pp. 834-842. 12. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1995, 391 pp. 13. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002, 443 pp. 14. Mast, R. F., Unified Design Provisions for Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Flexural and Compression Members, ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1992, pp. 185-199. 15. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999, 369 pp.

Fig. 9Measured and predicted load-deflection behavior of the example beam. Table 4Calculated deformability ratios for example beam
Ratio Strain, s /n Curvature, s /n Deflection, s /n Value 6.18 5.37 2.94

the actual behavior of the reinforcing steel, are presented in Table 4. All of these ratios exceed the limits for acceptable behavior according to currently accepted design practice. This design example demonstrates that the proposed simplified design procedure is conservative and consistent with currently accepted design practice. CONCLUSIONS This paper proposes a simplified method for flexural design of concrete beams reinforced with high-strength steel reinforcements. The design of the beams may be based on an idealized elastic-plastic material model, with an elastic modulus of 29,000 ksi (200,000 MPa) and yield strength of 100 ksi (690 MPa) to represent the stress-strain behavior of the reinforcing steel. Based on this model and current limitations for acceptable behavior, flexural members should be designed using the following criteria Tension-controlled sections: = 0.9 t 0.009

Compression-controlled sections: = 0.65 t 0.004

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

577