ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 99-S38
On Evaluation of Rotation Capacity for Reinforced
Concrete Beams
by Pier Giorgio Debernardi and Maurizio Taliano
In the nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete (RC) structures,
the behavior in the plastic range has a notable importance. The
modeling, however, is very complex and depends on many factors.
Furthermore, the experimental results are rather scattered. This
paper presents a simplified procedure that, on the basis of a wide
experimental investigation on RC beams and with some hypotheses
confirmed in literature, takes into account the aspects that emerged
in the experimental investigation and which significantly influence
the structural behavior, and in particular, the curvature: the influ-
ence of the height of the compression zone on the ultimate concrete
strain; the tension-stiffening in the plastic range; and the influence
of shear on the extension of plastic zone. Integration of the mean
curvatures along the beams yields plastic rotation values that are
in good agreement with the experimental results. In particular, as
confirmed by other researchers, a size effect on the rotation capac-
ity is observed: it leads to a diminution of the plastic rotation with
an increase of the height of the beams which have the same per-
centage of tensile reinforcement.
Keywords: capacity; curvature; reinforced concrete.
INTRODUCTION
Considering the nonlinear behavior of materials, espe-
cially the plastic range, makes for a more realistic modeling of
structural behavior, which in turn makes it possible to take
fuller advantage of the bearing capacity of a structure.1 This
also yields considerable economic advantages in the design
of redundant structures,2,3 especially in the presence of
different combinations and arrangements of the actions and
imposed deformations due to temperature variations and
settlements of the supports.
Within this framework, special importance should be given
to the role played by structural ductility, which gives rise to
strains in the plastic range with no decrease in bearing capacity.
The theoretical assessment of this property, however, is
quite complex because it depends on many mutually correlated
factors.4 This is also borne out by the considerable scatter in
test results.5-12 In members subjected primarily to bending,
ductility can be mainly associated to the plastic rotation
capacity. In European standards,13,14 it is considered to
depend only on the type of steel and position of the neutral
axis at the ultimate limit state (x/d ratio between the depth
of the compressed zone and effective depth). In particular,
the influence of steel is defined in terms of elongation capacity
εsu and through the ultimate strength to yielding strength
ratio ft / fy.
The plastic rotation of reinforced concrete (RC) members
can be estimated on the basis of the distribution of the mean
curvature along the plastic zone. In this case as well, it
proves necessary to take into account several aspects of
structural behavior that have not yet been fully explained:
the performance of concrete in compression, in particular,
the effect of the section size on the ultimate strain (scale
360
TECHNICAL PAPER
effect); the bond between steel and the concrete when the
steel is in the plastic range (tension-stiffening effect); and the
influence of shear.
The most frequently used models to predict the plastic rota-
tion capacity of RC beams are based on commonly accepted
assumptions: plane sections remain plane; suitable constitu-
tive laws are defined for concrete, steel, and bond; mean cur-
vatures are determined as a function of the acting moment by
setting the equilibrium and compatibility conditions; and
mean curvatures in the plastic zones are integrated in rela-
tion to the shift in the moment diagram to consider the lattice-
like behavior that is caused by shear load effects.
The proposed design method follows these stages with the
aim of checking the validity of the theoretical assumptions
versus the test results obtained from a specially conducted
experimental campaign.12 In spite of the considerable degree
of variability of the test results, the theoretical prediction
seems to supply satisfactory results, even for the most con-
troversial aspects, such as the influence of the scale effect on
plastic rotation. No account is taken for the confinement effect
of the stirrups due to the low web reinforcement ratio, and
the behavior of the structure at the softening stage is also
disregarded by halting the analysis when the maximum moment
is reached in accordance with the previously mentioned
ductility concept. From the test results, at this stage concrete
and bond are, in fact, severely damaged, resulting in the
detachment of the material and instability of the compression
bars. Therefore, it would be pointless to take this stage into
account for structural design purposes.
Before carrying out a systematic comparison between
test and theoretical results, let us briefly describe the ex-
perimental program.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Taking into account the nonlinear behavior of materials,
especially considering the benefits in the plastic range, allows
for a more realistic modeling of the structural behavior and
the carrying capacity of a structure. This also leads to consid-
erable economic advantages in the design of redundant
structures, especially in the presence of different combina-
tions of actions and imposed deformations due to temperature
variations and support settlements.
In the plastic range, however, modeling is very complex
and depends on many factors. On the basis of a wide exper-
imental investigation on reinforced concrete beams, this
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 3, May-June 2002.
MS No. 01-120 received April 3, 2001 and reviewed under Institute publication pol-
icies. Copyright © 2002, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion will be published in the March-April 2003 ACI Structural Journal
if received by November 1, 2002.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002

Pier Giorgio Debernardi is an associate professor of reinforced and prestressed con-
crete structures at the Politecnico di Torino, Italy. His research interests include
experimental and theoretical aspects of reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete
structures in service and at the ultimate limit state.
Maurizio Taliano is a researcher in the Department of Structural Engineering,
Politecnico di Torino, where he received his PhD. His research interests include anal-
ysis and design of reinforced concrete structures.
study presents a simplified procedure that takes into account
the aspects that emerged during the experimental investiga-
tion and that significantly influence the structural behavior:
the influence of the height of the compression zone on the
ultimate concrete strain; tension-stiffening in the plastic range;
and the influence of shear on the extension of the plastic zone.
TESTING PROGRAM
The testing program was conducted on 22 simply supported
RC beams. To reduce the variability of the involved parameters,
the following aspects were kept constant: beam slenderness
(length-to-depth, L/H = 10) and height-to-base ratio (H/B = 2)
so as to proportionally increase the dimensions of the mem-
bers, type of reinforcing steel (12 mm diameter normal
ductility13 bars), and type of concrete.
The following main variables were assumed: depth of
the section; tension reinforcement ratio; and two different
loading conditions.
Table 1 shows the geometric characteristics of the beams and
the relative reinforcement (c and c' define the position of the
tension and compression reinforcements centroids, respec-
tively, while ρ is the percentage of tension reinforcement).
The testing setup is given in Fig. 1. Load Condition 1 was
chosen to simulate the behavior that occurs close to an internal
support of continuous beams, while Load Condition 2 is the one
that happens along the span between two points of zero moment.
Materials
The reinforcing bars were produced by hot rolling through
a Tempcore process. They displayed the following charac-
teristics, as determined from 20 specimens:
fym = yield stress: 587 ± 24 N/mm2;
ftm = failure stress: 672 ± 19 N/mm2; and
εsu = strain at peak load as evaluated in the failure zone:
7.00%.
The concrete, produced with aggregate of up to 15 mm in
diameter, had a mean cylinder compressive strength fcm = 27.7
N/mm,2 mean tensile strength fctm = 3 N/mm2 as determined
Fig. 1—Testing schemes and loading conditions. Position of measuring instruments.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002
through splitting tests, and secant elasticity modulus Ecm =
22 kN/mm.2
Testing method
The simply supported beams were loaded by means of two
MTS hydraulic actuators with 1000, 500, and 200 kN peak
load capacity.
The instrumentation included the load cell and actuator
displacement transducer, five vertical displacement transducers,
and 10 linear potentiometers for measuring the strains at the
top and bottom side of the beam. The length of each extensomer
was equal to the height of the beam.
Displacement-controlled tests were performed by impos-
ing an increase in deflection of 0.01 to 0.03 mm/s up to the
yielding of the reinforcement and 0.02 to 0.06 mm/s in the
plastic range. The tests were carried beyond peak load until
failure. Measurements were acquired every 15 s with the aid
of a computer.
DETERMINATION OF MEAN CURVATURE AND
COMPARISON WITH TEST RESULTS
In the cracked zones, the curvature varies from one point
to another, even in the presence of constant load effects,
mainly due to the steel-concrete bond. Accordingly, it is
common practice to refer to a mean curvature that can be
estimated on the basis of the strains in the cracked section.
According to this method, Model Code 199013 supplies a
mathematical formula that is in good agreement with the
results up to steel yielding.
In the presence of an acting bending moment M, a curvature
of φ1 in the uncracked section, and of φ2 in the cracked sec-
tion, are obtained. The mean curvature φm results are:
for uncracked members
φm = φ 1 (1)
for cracked members
M
φ m = φ 2 – ( φ 2r – φ 1r )β b  ------r (2)
 M
where
φ1r , φ2r = curvatures induced by the cracking moment Mr
acting on the uncracked and cracked section,
respectively;
361
 Table 1—Characteristics of specimens
Tension Compression Stirrups diameter/spacing,
Beam B, mm H, mm L, mm reinforcement reinforcement ρ, % c, mm c′, mm mm/mm
T1A1
100 200 2000 1Ø12 1Ø8 0.56 24 22 Ø6/150
T1A3
T2A1
100 200 2000 2Ø12 2Ø8 1.13 24 22 Ø6/150
T2A3
T3A1
100 200 2000 3Ø12 2Ø8 1.70 24 22 Ø6/150
T3A3
T4A1
T4A3 200 400 4000 2Ø12 2Ø10 0.28 35 45 Ø6/200

T5A1
200 400 4000 4Ø12 2Ø10 0.56 35 45 Ø6/200
T5A3
T6A1 200 400 4000 8Ø12 2Ø10 1.13 40 45 Ø6/200
T6A3
T7A1
T7A3 200 400 4000 12Ø12 2Ø10 1.70 50 45 Ø6/200

T8A1
300 600 6000 2Ø12 2Ø12 0.13 35 70 Ø6/150
T8A3
T9A1 300 600 6000 4Ø12 2Ø12 0.25 35 70 Ø6/150
T9A3
T10A1
300 600 6000 9Ø12 2Ø12 0.56 35 70 Ø6/150
T10A3
T11A1
300 600 6000 18Ø12 2Ø12 1.13 35 70 Ø6/150
T11A3

βb = β1β2;
= β1 characterizes the bond quality of the rein-
forcing bars, equal to 1 for high bond bar; and
β2 represents the influence of the deviation or the
repetition of loading, equal to 0.8 at first loading.
Equation (1) is valid up to the steel yielding moment My.
In the plastic range, that is, until the ultimate moment Mu (My
≤ M ≤ Mu) is reached, the mean curvature modelling method
proposed in Model Code 1990 is not sufficiently accurate, as
it supplies much lower values than the experimental results. It is
therefore necessary to face the problem of correctly evaluating
the mean plastic curvature on the basis of test results.
Due to the scatter in the test data, the proposed theoretical
design process is based on simplified assumptions aimed at Fig. 2—Ultimate concrete strain ε cu versus height of
primarily considering the macroscopic aspects of the behavior compression zone x in beams with failure on concrete side.
starting from stresses and strains in the cracked section.
At incipient failure (M = Mu), the following assumptions
high-strength concrete beams, other researchers16 do not
are made: plane sections remain plane; the ultimate strain is
agree with these findings.
reached in steel εsu (failure on steel side) or in concrete εcu
Figure 2 shows the evolution of mean strain in the failure
(failure on concrete side); the ultimate concrete strain εcu is
zone εcu, determined by a strain gage of a length equal to the
considered to be scale-dependent: a correlation between εcu height H of the section, as a function of the height of the
and the height x of the compression zone of the section is compression zone x, for the specimens whose failure did not
evaluated on the basis of tests results; a stress-block model entail the fracture of tension reinforcement.
of a height 0.8x with concrete stress fcm to evaluate the com- The equation of the interpolating curve of the test results
pression resultant; a bilinear stress-strain diagram for steel is therefore
with an inclined top branch between the fym and ftm stresses;
and the tension-stiffening effect is also taken into consider- – 0.44
ation in the determination of the mean curvature. ε cu = – 0.047 ⋅ x (3)

Scale effect on concrete strain
From the experimental investigation, the results showed
that the strain in the extreme fibre of concrete in compression
varies, for the maximum resisting moment, as a function of
the height of the compression zone. This assumption, already
formulated by Baker3 and more recently by Hillerborg15 and
Bigaj and Walraven,5 was confirmed by the results of this
experimental investigation. Basing their conclusions on
experimental data on simply supported, under-reinforced,
despite the appreciable degree of scatter, this curve re-
flects the influence of the scale effect on the ultimate
concrete strain.
Determination of curvature for ultimate moment
The calculation is based on an iterative procedure aimed
at finding the deformation that satisfies both the equilibrium
equations and the following conditions concerning strains in
the reinforcement s and in the concrete c.

362 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002

 If failure occurs through failure of the tension reinforcement
ε s, max = ε su
ε c, max ≤ ε cu ( x )
if failure occurs through crushing of the concrete in compression
ε s, max ≤ ε su
ε c, max = ε cu ( x )
In the latter case, it proves necessary to take into account
the correlation between the ultimate concrete strain εcu
and the height of the compression zone.
Having identified the deformations that correspond to the
maximum moment Mu obtained from the equilibrium to
rotation of the stress resultants, it is possible to calculate the
curvature of the cracked section from the following expression:
ε s, max – ε c, max
φ u = ----------------------------------
d
where d is the effective height of the section.
Influence of tension-stiffening in plastic range
From the test results, it is legitimate to assume a linear
relationship exists between the moment and the mean cur-
vature in the plastic range.
Having determined the theoretical curvatures in section:
φy,c for the yielding moment My,c, and φu,c for the maximum
moment Mu,c, the slope of the plastic linear branch is
M u, c – M y , c
k c, sec = ---------------------------
- (9)
φ u, c – φ y , c
These values, however, neglect the tension-stiffening effect
produced by the concrete-steel bond on the deformability of
the tension chord. It was found, in fact, that the bond con-
tributes to a reduction of the deformability of the tension
chord with no further variation in the strength of the section,
which means that the slope increases due to the tension-
stiffening effect.
The available test results make it possible to evaluate the
slope ke,m of the mean curvature-moment diagram in the
plastic range through the following formula
M u, e – M y , e
k e, m = ---------------------------
- (10)
φ u, e – φ y , e
and to determine the ratio α between the slope of the experi-
mental linear branch and that of the theoretical linear
branch in the generic section
k e, m
α = --------------
- (11)
k c, sec
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Fig. 3—α coefficient versus tension reinforcement percentage ρ.
The variation of α as a function of the tension reinforcement
percentage ρ = As /bH, is shown in Fig. 3. From the interpola-
tion of the test results, one obtains
1
α = 1 + --------------- (12)
1000 ρ
From an examination of Fig. 3, it can be inferred that the
(8) tension-stiffening effect becomes significant only for low
reinforcement percentages.
Finally, on the basis of the assumed constitutive laws,
the moment-mean curvature diagrams up to the maximum
moment are obtained. The slope of the plastic linear branch is
k c, m = α k c, sec (13)
that is, the α parameter appears as the coefficient that should
be applied to the slope that is determined on section kc,sec to
obtain slope k c,m relative to the mean behavior of the
member. The plastic branch is therefore between the
points with coordinates (φ y,m, My,c ), (φu,m, Mu,c ), where
My,c and Mu,c are theoretical moments obtained in the section
by means equilibrium conditions. φy,m is given by Eq.(1)
for M = My,c and φu,m through the following equation
φ u, m = φ y, m + ( M u, c – M y, c ) ⁄ ( α k c, sec ) (14)
Comparison between theoretical and experimental
mean curvatures
From the test results, it proved possible to plot the mo-
ment-mean curvature diagrams up to failure.
The experimental mean curvature is determined on the
basis of the εtop and εbottom strains measured by strain gages
arranged near the top and bottom levels, respectively (the
strain gage pairs considered, 6-11, 7-12, 8-13, are those at
which plastic strains have taken place).
The distance between the strain gages is d = 0.8H; the
experimental mean curvature, as determined from a strain
gage of length H, is
ε bottom – ε top
φ m = ------------------------------
- (15)
0.8H
The corresponding moment is evaluated at the mid-
point of the gage length and takes into account the dead
weight of the beam, the weight of the testing equipment,
363
Table 2—Comparison between yielding moment, maximum moment and respective mean curvature values
obtained experimentally and theoretically
Beam H, mm ρ,% φy,e, m–1 My,e, kNm φu,e, m–1 Mu,e, kNm φm,y, m–1 My,c, kNm φm,u, m–1 Mu,c, kNm
T1A1 200 0.57 0.031 10.8 0.440 12.0 0.024 10.5 0.364 12.2
T1A3 200 0.57 0.045 12.3 0.508 13.6 0.024 10.5 0.364 12.2
T2A1 200 1.13 0.024 21.8 0.322 23.6 0.027 20.2 0.228 22.4
T2A3 200 1.13 0.045 22.2 0.356 23.6 0.027 20.2 0.228 22.4
T3A1 200 1.70 0.040 32.0 0.111 32.1 0.032 29.0 0.108 30.6
T3A3 200 1.70 0.035 32.3 0.080 32.5 0.032 29.0 0.108 30.6
T4A1 400 0.28 — 39.3 — 58.3 0.009 44.8 0.162 53.8
T4A3 400 0.28 0.007 41.5 0.169 59.8 0.009 44.8 0.162 53.8
T5A1 400 0.57 0.014 90.5 0.201 105.0 0.011 87.0 0.125 98.3
T5A3 400 0.57 0.013 95.3 0.199 107.5 0.011 87.0 0.125 98.3
T6A1 400 1.13 0.015 182.7 0.051 192.4 0.014 163.5 0.056 173.4
T6A3 400 1.13 0.012 174.5 0.047 182.0 0.014 163.5 0.056 173.4
T7A1 400 1.70 0.016 194.4 0.023 212.8 0.017 221.9 0.030 230.7
T7A3 400 1.70 0.018 201.5 0.024 221.6 0.017 221.9 0.030 230.7
T8A1 600 0.13 0.005 79.8 0.046 91.6 0.003 71.2 0.077 90.3
T8A3 600 0.13 0.004 82.2 0.045 93.9 0.003 71.2 0.077 90.3
T9A1 600 0.25 — 152.0 — 173.1 0.006 139.4 0.099 168.2
T9A3 600 0.25 0.007 162.5 0.095 182.7 0.006 139.4 0.099 168.2
T10A1 600 0.57 0.008 298.0 0.058 320.8 0.007 303.1 0.064 336.9
T10A3 600 0.57 0.008 311.1 0.058 330.4 0.007 303.1 0.064 336.9
T11A1 600 1.13 0.012 544.2 0.027 551.5 0.009 560.9 0.029 588.9
T11A3 600 1.13 0.012 565.1 0.025 576.0 0.009 560.9 0.029 588.9

Fig. 4—Moment-curvature diagrams in two loading condi- Fig. 5—Moment-curvature diagrams in two loading condi-
tions and for various beams with height H = 200 mm. tions and for various beams with height H = 400 mm.

and the applied load, with the latter being considered to
be distributed at half the depth of the beam according to
a diffusion pattern at 45 degrees from the transfer plate.
Table 2 lists the values of the theoretical mean curva-
tures, determined through the procedure described in the
previous section, and the values of the experimental curva-
tures for the yielding moment and the maximum moment.
Figure 4, 5, and 6 show a comparison between the exper-
imental (solid lines) and theoretical (dotted lines) mean
curvatures, determined in the Measuring Ranges 2, 3, and
4 (Fig. 1); the values of the yielding moment and the max-
imum moment in the midsection are identified by means of
solid square indicators.
THEORETICAL DETERMINATION OF PLASTIC
ROTATION AND COMPARISON WITH TEST RESULTS
In literature, plastic rotation is defined in different
ways.2, 8, 9, 17-20
In this paper, plastic rotation is obtained by integration,
along the plastic zone Lp (where the stress in the tension
reinforcement is higher than the yield limit of the steel), of the
difference between the mean curvature φm and the curvature
obtained at the yield limit of steel φm,y, according to13
θp =
∫ ( φm – φm, y ) dz (16)
Lp

In the experimental diagrams, it is possible to observe

the softening stage in beam behavior, a stage that is over- Hereafter, the plastic rotation is determined for the maxi-
looked in the theoretical determination. mum moment, and the softening stage is disregarded.

364 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002

 Table 3—Plastic rotation at peak load
Plastic rotation
Experimental Theoretical
Loading
Beam condition θp,c, rad θp,defl, rad θp,theor, rad
T1A1 1 0.105 0.102 0.103
T1A3 2 0.145 0.140 0.147
T2A1 1 0.125 0.130 0.065
T2A3 2 0.077 0.076 0.070
T3A1 1 0.028 0.030 0.024
T3A3 2 0.012 0.014 0.020
T4A1 1 — — —
T4A3 2 0.202 0.165 0.146
T5A1 1 0.114 0.112 0.064
Fig. 6—Moment-curvature diagrams in two loading condi-
T5A3 2 0.119 0.094 0.079
tions and for various beams with height H = 600 mm.
T6A1 1 0.022 0.027 0.028
T6A3 2 0.014 0.016 0.019
T7A1 1 0.003 0.008 0.012
T7A3 2 0.008 0.013 0.004
T8A1 1 0.045 0.047 0.080
T8A3 2 0.093 0.083 0.122
T9A1 1 — — —
T9A3 2 0.081 0.079 0.055
T10A1 1 0.036 0.039 0.047
T10A3 2 0.039 0.043 0.044
T11A1 1 0.009 0.011 0.020
T11A3 2 0.008 0.011 0.011

A
V c =  0.066 + 8.257 -----s- f cm bd ≤ 0.1655 f cm bd (18)
 bd

Fig. 7—Theoretical-versus-experimental plastic rotation.
The extension of the plastic zone Lp is primarily affected
by the moment gradient, the ft /fy reinforcement ratio, and the
increase in the stress in the tension reinforcement due to the
lattice-like behavior induced by the presence of shear.21, 22
The latter influence is taken into account by shifting the
moment diagram by the quantity
The share of shear carried by the lattice Vs therefore corre-
sponds to the acting shear V after subtracting Vc
V s = V – V c if V > V c , (19)
if V < Vc instead, Vs = 0 is assumed.
By taking into account the yielding of the stirrups that
cross very large cracks, from the lattice model, one finds

0.9d
a 1 = ---------- ( cot θ – cot ϕ ) (17) A sw
s -zf cot θ
V s = ------- (20)
s yw

where
ϕ = inclination of the stirrup reinforcement, for vertical
stirrups α = 90°;
θ = compression strut inclination; and
d = effective beam depth.
The procedure that should be adopted for the determina-
tion of θ is now examined. Shear strength can be considered
as the sum of a share due to the lattice-like behavior Vs, and
a share Vc carried by different favorable effects. Under incipient
failure conditions, since the interlock effect is reduced by the
presence of large cracks caused by the yielding of the longi-
tudinal reinforcement, the dowel effect is considered to be
prevalent; according to Rajagopalan and Ferguson23 the
dowel effect, as well as the tensile strength of the concrete,
can be evaluated with the following expression (fcm in [N/mm2])
from which, having set the internal lever arm z = 0.9 d we obtain
Vz s
θ = arc cot -----------------
- ≥ 18.4 ° (21)
A sw zf yw
where the lower limit is set according to Reference 13, espe-
cially when V < Vc cracks are vertical (θ = 90°).
Comparison between theoretical and experimental
plastic rotations
Plastic rotation was determined experimentally by integrating
the mean curvatures in the plastic zone after subtracting the
mean curvature determined at the time the steel yields, and
thus obtaining θp,e. Because the extension of the plastic zone

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002 365

 Fig. 8—Moment-plastic rotation diagrams in two loading conditions and for various
beams with height H = 200 mm.

Fig. 9—Moment-plastic rotation diagrams in two loading conditions and for various
beams with height H = 400 mm.

Fig. 10—Moment-plastic rotation diagrams in two loading conditions and for various
beams with height H = 600 mm.

around the midspan is limited, the plastic rotation can also be
calculated with good approximation through the expression
( δ max – δ y )
θ p, defl = 4 -------------------------- (22)
1 which plastic rotation was seen to decrease with increasing
where δmax is the midspan deflection for the maximum moment
and δy is the midspan deflection for the yielding moment.
As shown in Table 3 and Fig. 7, the results of the two
calculation methods are in good agreement as well as with
the theoretical results obtained with the previously described
procedure taking into account the high scattering of the
plastic rotation, as confirmed in literature.7,11
Figure 8, 9, and 10 show a comparison between theoretical
(dotted lines) and experimental (solid lines) plastic rotation
curves for the various beams with different heights.
Influence of reinforcement percentage on
plastic rotation
In literature, there is a marked tendency to represent the
plastic rotation as a function of the reinforcement percentage
or, in an equivalent manner, as a function of the x/d ratio
between the height of the compression zone at the ultimate
limit state and the effective depth. Both Model Code 199013
and Eurocode 214 agree on these indications but do not take
into account the height of the section. The evolution of the
experimental curves is similar to that of the earlier codes in
x/d ratios. For high reinforcement percentages, and therefore
also for high values of x/d, failure in fact occurs through the
crushing of concrete in compression with reduced strains in
the plastic range.
Figure 11 compares the test results with the theoretical
values for the three series of beams of different depths.
Scale effect
The previously determined theoretical and experimental
results make it possible to ascertain the influence of the beam
depth on the plastic rotation. In Fig. 12, these values are given as
a function of H for constant values of percentage reinforcement.
The diagrams that illustrate the test results clearly show
the influence of the scale effect that results in a decrease in
the plastic rotation with an increase in the beam depth.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the theoretical design
procedure described in the previous paragraphs takes into

366 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002

Fig. 11—Plastic rotation as function of x/d (solid lines:
experimental values; dotted lines: theoretical values).

account this important effect and is therefore innovative with

respect to the traditional formulation.

CONCLUSIONS
The aim of this investigation was to provide a simplified cal-
culation method for the determination of the behavior of RC
beams subjected to bending and shear in the plastic range. The
theoretical results have been systematically compared with the
test results obtained on 22 beams reinforced with high-ductility
steel (ft /fy = 672/587 = 1.14, and εu =7.00%). These beams were
characterized by three different depths, four different longitudi-
nal reinforcement percentages, and two loading conditions.
The comparison was mostly based on the mean curvature
and plastic rotation for increasing load levels up to peak load.
In particular, the determination of the mean curvature
takes into account the scale effect on concrete strains
(Eq. (3)) and the influence of tension-stiffening in the plastic
range (Eq. (12) and (14)). The parameters relating to these
aspects have been estimated from experimental results. Theo-
retical results are found to be in good agreement with the test
results if the great scatter in the results that is generally
observed in the plastic range is taken into account.
The determination of plastic rotation is based on the integra-
tion of the mean curvature in the plastic zone (Eq. (16)) whose
extension is affected by shear behavior (Eq. (17) to (21)). The
results confirm the correlation between plastic rotation and the
Fig. 12—Plastic rotation as function of H for constant
reinforcement percentages (solid lines: experimental values;
dotted lines: theoretical values).
height of the section. If the reinforcement percentage is the
same, plastic rotation decreases with an increase of depth.
The possibility of assessing the structural behavior of
RC beams in the plastic range, through a theoretical proce-
dure, without using predetermined plastic rotation values,
represents a significant advantage and improvement of the
results of nonlinear design.
NOTATION
As = area of longitudinal tensile reinforcement
Asw = area of shear reinforcement
c' = distance of centroids of compression reinforcement to nearest
side of section

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002 367

c = distance of centroids of tension reinforcement to nearest side 2. Baker, A. L. L., and Amarakone, A. M. N., “Inelastic Hyperstatic Frames
of section Analysis,” Proceedings of the International Symposium of Flexural Mechanics
d = effective depth of section of Reinforced Concrete, SP-12, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Ecm = mean value of secant modulus of elasticity of concrete Hills, Mich., Nov. 1964, pp. 85-142.
fcm = mean value of cylinder compressive strength of concrete 3. Baker, A. L. L., “Calcul des structures hyperstatiques par la méthode
fctm = mean value of tensile strength of concrete simplifiée bilineaire de la charge ultime,” Récommendations Internationales
ft /fy = failure-to-yield stress ratio of steel du CEB, Tome III—Structures Hyperstatiques, AITEC, Roma, 1972,
ftm = mean value of tensile strength of reinforcing steel pp. 219-312.
fym = mean value of yield strength of reinforcing steel 4. Eligehausen, R., and Langer, P., “Rotation Capacity of Plastic Hinges
fyw = mean value of yield strength of shear reinforcement and Allowable Degree of Moment Redistribution,” CEB Bulletin
H = height of beam d’information, No. 178, Lausanne, Switzerland, May 1987, pp. 93-102.
kc,m = slope of plastic linear branch in theoretical moment-mean cur- 5. Bigaj, A., and Walraven, J. C., “Size Effect on Rotational Capacity of
vature diagram Plastic Hinges in Reinforced Concrete Beams,” CEB Bulletin d'Information,
kc,sec = slope of plastic linear branch in theoretical moment-curvature No. 218, 1993, pp. 7-23.
diagram of section 6. Bigaj, A. J., “Structural Dependence of Rotation Capacity of Plastic
kexp,m = slope of experimental moment-mean curvature diagram in Hinges in R.C. Beams and Slabs,” PhD thesis, University of Technology,
plastic range Delft, Sept. 1999.
L = length of beam 7. Mattock, A. H., “Rotational Capacity of Hinging Regions in Reinforced
Lp = length of plastic zone Concrete Beams,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Flex-
M = bending moment ural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, SP-12, American Concrete Insti-
Mr = cracking moment tute, Farmington Hills, Mich., Nov. 1964, pp. 143-181.
Mu = ultimate moment 8. Corley, W. G., “Rotational Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams,”
Mu,c = theoretical ultimate moment Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Oct. 1966, V. 92, pp.121-146.
Mu,e = experimental ultimate moment 9. Siviero, E., “Rotation Capacity of Monodimensional Members in
My = moment at yield limit of steel Structural Concrete,” CEB Bulletin d’information, No. 105, Lausanne, Feb.
My,c = theoretical moment at yield limit of steel 1974, pp. 206-222.
My,e = experimental moment at yield limit of steel 10. Cosenza, E.; Greco, C.; and Pecce, M., “Rotazioni Plastiche e Duttilità
s = stirrups spacing Richieste Nelle Travi Continue in C.A.,” L’Industria Italiana del Cemento,
V = acting shear in plastic zone Gennaio 1990, pp. 52-60.
Vc = shear strength carried by different favorable effects 11. CEB Commission 2, “Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Structures,”
Vs = shear strength due to lattice-like behavior Synthesis Report and Individual Contributions, CEB Bulletin d'Information,
x = depth of compression zone No. 242, May 1998.
z = lever arm of internal forces 12. Bosco, C., and Debernardi, P. G., “Experimental Investigation on the
φ1 = curvature in uncracked section Ultimate Rotational Capacity of R.C. Beams,” Atti Dipartimento di Ingegneria
φ1r, φ2r = curvatures induced by cracking moment Mr acting on uncracked Strutturale, Politecnico di Torino, No. 36, June 1992.
and cracked section, respectively 13. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, “CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete
φ2 = curvature in cracked section Structures,” Comité Euro-International du Béton, Bulletin No. 213/214,
φm = theoretical mean curvature Lausanne, May 1993.
φm,y = theoretical mean curvature at yield limit of steel 14. ENV 1992−1−1, Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures: Part 1,
φm,u = theoretical mean curvature at ultimate state General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Dec. 1991.
φy,c = theoretical curvature in section for yielding moment My,c 15. Hillerborg, A., “Fracture Mechanics Concepts Applied to Moment
φy,e = experimental curvature for yielding moment My,e Capacity and Rotational Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Engi-
φu = curvature for maximum moment Mu neering Fracture Mechanics, V. 35, No. 1/2/3, 1990, pp. 233-240.
φu,c = theoretical curvature in section for maximum moment Mu,c 16. Alca, N.; Alexander, S. D. B.; and MacGregor, J. G., “Effect of Size
φu,e = experimental curvature for maximum moment Mu,e on Flexural Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural
α = coefficient obtained from experimental and theoretical results Journal, V. 94, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1997, pp. 59-67.
βb = bond factor 17. Cohn, M. Z., “Rotation Compatibility in the Limit Design of Reinforced
β1 = coefficient that characterizes bond properties of reinforcement Concrete Continuous Beams,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on
β2 = coefficient that takes account of duration and nature of loading Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, SP-12, American Concrete
δmax = experimental midspan deflection for maximum moment Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., Nov. 1964, pp. 359-381.
δy = experimental midspan deflection for yielding moment 18. Corradi, L.; De Donato, O.; and Maier, G., “Inelastic Analysis of
εbottom = experimental mean strain near bottom of section Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, V. 100,
ST9, Sept. 1974, pp. 1925-1941.
εc,max = maximum strain in extreme fiber of concrete in compression
19. Macchi, G., “Ductility Condition for Simplified Design without Check
εcu = ultimate strain of concrete
of Compatibility,” Report to CEB Commission XI, Innsbruck, Austria, 1974.
εs,max = maximum strain in tension reinforcement
20. Somes, N. F., “Moment Rotation Characteristics of Prestressed Concrete
εsu = elongation of reinforcing steel at maximum load
Members,” Technical Report, Cement and Concrete Association, Sept. 1966.
εtop = experimental mean strain near top of section
21. König, G., and Pommerening, D., “Redistribution Capacity of
ϕ = inclination of stirrup reinforcement, for vertical stirrups ϕ = 90°
Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Structures,” CEB Bulletin d'Information,
ρ = tension reinforcement percentage ρ = As /bH
No. 239, May 1997, pp. 29-68.
θ = compression strut inclination
22. Graubner, C. A., “Rotation Capacity and Moment Redistribution in
θp = plastic rotation capacity
Hyperstatic Reinforced Concrete Beams, CEB Bulletin d'Information,
θp, defl = plastic rotation capacity calculated from experimental deflections
No. 239, May 1997, pp. 69-95.
θp, e = experimental plastic rotation capacity
23. Rajagopalan, K. S., and Ferguson, P. N., “Exploratory Shear Tests
θp, theor= theoretical plastic rotation capacity
Emphasizing Percentage of Longitudinal Steel,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceed-
ings V. 65, No. 8, Aug. 1968, pp. 634-638.
REFERENCES 24. Bosco, C.; Carpinteri, A.; and Debernardi, P. G. “Scale-Effect on
1. Macchi, G., “Limit-States Design of Statically Indeterminate Plastic Rotational Capacity of R.C. Beams,” First International Confer-
Structures Composed of Linear Members,” Costruzioni in cemento ence on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures, Breckenridge, Colo.,
armato, Studi e rendiconti, V. 6, 1969. June 1992, pp. 735-740.

368 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002