Concrete Institute of Australia (2001) Conference Proceedings

Utilisation Of Ductility Of 500 Mpa Steel Reinforcement In

Reinforced-Concrete Structures Designed To AS 3600:2001
M. Patrick1 , M.D. Turner2 and R.F. Warner3
1
University of Western Sydney, 2Steel Reinforcement Institute of Australia, 3University of Adelaide
Synopsis. Publication of a new Australian/New Zealand Standard for steel reinforcing materials AS/NZS 4671 and
an accompanying revision of AS 3600 has increased interest in the influence of reinforcement ductility on the
behaviour of reinforced-concrete structures.
A working group of Standards Australia Committee BD-002 has researched and reported on the effects of
reinforcement ductility. The research findings, and the various changes that have resulted to AS 3600, are
summarised in the paper.
The development of both Standards has necessarily been intertwined. Through a collaborative process, the Ductility
Working Group has developed design rules appropriate to the low-ductility and normal-ductility reinforcing steels
that can be produced in Australia. In order to avoid undue design penalties, the new reinforcement Standard
provides for a significant improvement in performance of low ductility steels, which are used primarily in mesh
manufacture. Main reinforcing bars must be manufactured from normal ductility steels. As a result of the working
group's recommendations, changes have been, made to AS 3600 with regard to structural analysis, design for
strength, and construction requirements. Physical testing and computer simulations have verified these changes.
The research also confirms similar clauses in Eurocode 2 and Euronorm material specifications.
The research findings show that the new design rules for 500 MPa reinforcing steels in AS 3600 can be used with
confidence. Ongoing studies by the Working Group may see further improvements to AS 4671 and AS 3600.

1.0 Introduction
A nominal characteristic yield stress of 500 MPa has been adopted as a standard for the production of Australian
reinforcing steels. Two main ductility classifications (Classes L and N for Low and Normal ductility, respectively)
define minimum acceptable values for the uniform elongation (strain at peak stress) and tensile-to-yield-stress ratio of
the reinforcement.
In developing new design provisions for the use of 500 MPa steel reinforcement described in the Concrete Structures
Standard AS 3600 [1], Standards Australia Working Group BD-002-01-Ductility (Ductility Working Group) undertook
its experimental and analytical studies of the overload behaviour of concrete beams and slabs. Initial results led to new
restrictions being applied to the use of reinforcing mesh, and resulted in Amendment No. 1 to AS 3600 [2]. Australian
reinforcing mesh manufacturers have also improved the ductility of the steel in response to BD-002’s findings and in
preparation for compliance with the new reinforcement Standard. Some of the latest results of the ongoing investigation
have led to new changes being incorporated in AS 3600, and therefore have potentially significant implications for
design engineers. The changes are contained in a new edition of AS 3600 [3].
The findings of the research work undertaken by the Ductility Working Group and the changes to AS 3600 are
summarised in the paper.

2.0 The Importance Of Steel Ductility

Ductility is the ability of a material, or a member, or a complete structural system, to undergo large deformations at high
overload. Good ductility is highly desirable in concrete structures, and various clauses in AS 3600 are designed to
ensure that adequate ductility levels are achieved in practice. The large deformations that occur in a ductile,
indeterminate structure at high overload allow significant redistribution of the internal actions to occur, so that the full
potential load-carrying capacity can be achieved, without premature failure. Good ductility also allows the structure to
accept, without loss of strength or undue distress, the large imposed deformations, which frequently occur as the result
of external effects such as foundation movement, and internal effects such as shrinkage and temperature gradients.
Thus, a ductile structure can accommodate not only the simplifying and sometimes inadequate assumptions of the
design engineer, but also unforeseen adverse events during its working life.
To ensure good ductility of the overall structure, it is necessary to provide the individual members with adequate local
ductility in their highly stressed regions, and this in turn can usually be achieved by providing judicious amounts of
ductile steel reinforcement in critical cross regions. The basic design objective underlying the ductility clauses in AS
3600 is to ensure that the ductility available (i.e. the ductility provided by the designer) in each local high-moment
region of the structure is greater than the ductility required by the structure (i.e. the "ductility demand") under design
ultimate load conditions.
The ductility demand in a critical high-moment region of a structure depends on the degree of moment redistribution
that will take place as the collapse load is approached, and this in turn depends on a range of factors including the
moment capacity of critical regions, the load patterns and the support conditions (including the likelihood of foundation
movement).
Generally speaking, the ductility available in a high-moment region of a beam or slab depends on the quantity and
arrangement of the reinforcing steel and its properties. For example, highly-reinforced regions can fail by premature

605
 Concrete Institute of Australia (2001) Conference Proceedings

crushing of the compressive concrete and have low ductility. Upper limits are therefore imposed by AS 3600 on the
value of the neutral axis parameter at ultimate load, ku. The limits depend on the ductility demand, as reflected by the
amount of moment redistribution assumed by the designer. This is now a well-accepted design approach, the
background to which is described elsewhere [4], and is also consistent with overseas design practice, e.g. [5,6].
Premature failure might also occur by fracture of the reinforcing steel in reinforced regions, particularly if L class
reinforcement has been used and the moment capacity is less than the cracking moment. Additional design constraints
were introduced into Amendment No. 1 of AS 3600 to account for the detrimental effect that mesh manufactured from
low-ductility, cold-reduced reinforcing steel can have on the ductility of critical regions. This, too, is consistent with
overseas design practice [5,6]. When mesh is used as main longitudinal reinforcement, the load-carrying capacity can
be reduced through premature fracture of the steel, which prevents a complete plastic hinge mechanism from forming.
Amendment No. 1 does not permit flexural members incorporating mesh produced from low-ductility, cold-reduced
reinforcing steel to be designed either elastically or plastically assuming (negative) moment redistribution because, for a
given level of steel ductility, the magnitude of this reduction increases primarily with the amount of negative or
downwards moment redistribution (see Fig. 1).
Additional consideration also needs to be given to other ductility issues when developing general design rules involving
the use of low-ductility reinforcing steel. For
example, some designers consider warning of
imminent failure by large deflections
important [8,9,10]. In addition, robustness may
be necessary to withstand unforeseen local
impact or accidental loading, or the effects of
imposed deformations (e.g. due to
temperature, support settlement, etc.) not
normally taken into account in design
calculations for buildings.
The requirements defining the minimum
ductility of reinforcing steels for use in AS
3600 were revised. In this process, due
consideration was given to the challenge being
faced by Australian reinforcing mesh
manufacturers to improve the ductility of the L
Class steel.

3.0 Australian 500 Mpa Reinforcing Steels

The new joint Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4671 [11] for reinforcing steels is the result of a revision and
amalgamation of AS 1302-1991 [12], AS 1303- 1991 [13], AS 1304-1991 [14] and similar New Zealand Standards. The
Standard also drew heavily on overseas standards including preliminary Euronorm Standard PrENV 10080 [15],
because deformed bar and mesh with a lower characteristic yield strength of 500 MPa have been available in Europe
since 1982.
From the Australian perspective, a primary objective of the joint Standard is to provide a single specification of material
requirements for steel bars, wire and mesh, intended for use in reinforced concrete, independent of method of
manufacture. The new 500 MPa steels have replaced deformed bars to AS 1302 (400Y); wire to AS 1303 (450W) and
welded-wire mesh to AS 1304 (450F). Two ductility classes are defined for Australian conditions and are distinguished
by the letters ‘L’ (low) and ‘N’ (normal), placed immediately after the strength-grade number, e.g. 500L.
The mechanical properties of 500 MPa, Class L and Class N reinforcing steels specified in AS/NZS 4671 are shown in
Table 1. In particular SRIA member manufacturers of mesh have already achieved the minimum ductility requirements
for Class L material specified in Table 1. The Standards Australia Concrete Structures Committee BD-002 has
requested that the tensile-to-yield-stress ratio, Rm/Re, and uniform elongation, Agt, be as high as practicable, and have
accepted the minimum values of 1.03 and 1.5% as shown.
Designers should note that upper limits have been placed on yield stress. This is important when making design
assumptions on collapse modes, particularly in seismic design when Class N steel is used.

Table 1. Mechanical Properties Required of Class L and Class N Steels

Property 500L 500N

Nominal Diameter, mm 5 to 16 10 to 40
Characteristic Yield Rek.L 500 500
Stress MPa Rek.U 750 650
Tensile-to-yield stress Ratio Rm/Re 1.03 1.08
Uniform Elongation Agt (%) 1.5 5.0

606
 Concrete Institute of Australia (2001) Conference Proceedings

4.0 Work Of The Ductility Working Group

4.1 Beam Tests and Computer Simulations - AS 3600, Amendment No. 1
Amendment No. 1 of AS 3600 was issued in August 1996. The main purpose of the amendment was to distinguish
between the use of hot-rolled deformed bars, and fabric manufactured from cold-reduced wire, as main reinforcement.
This distinction came about on account of the significant difference in ductility of the two types of steel, and was
investigated by the Ductility Working Group [7,16].
A survey of the tensile properties of reinforcing steels produced in Australia at the time, by a number of mesh
manufacturers, showed that cold-reduced steel could sometimes have very low ductility, with a uniform elongation of
less than one per cent and a tensile-to-yield-stress ratio only slightly above unity. These low ductility steels were also
characterized by yield stresses in excess of 700Mpa.
Amendment No. 1 draws attention to the potential problems caused by this lack of ductility. It places restrictions on
using mesh in structures designed either elastically with moment redistribution (Clause 7.6.8 of AS 3600) or plastically
(Clause 7.9.1). In addition, the amendment confirms that cold-reduced bar is not to be used as a substitute for either
hot-rolled bar or cold-reduced mesh reinforcement.
Tests on three full-scale continuous beams (see Fig 2) and computer simulations were used to investigate the effect of
limited steel ductility on the load-carrying capacity of various
reinforced-concrete members. Approximately 100 simulations
were conducted on one-way slabs, bandbeams and normal
rectangular beams. All members had a single span, with either
both ends built in or with one end built in and the other
pinned. These were chosen to represent, approximately, the
conditions in inner and outer spans of continuous members.
Both uniformly-distributed and point loading conditions were
studied. The members were designed using various
percentages of negative and positive moment redistribution (a
negative redistribution is a reduction in the negative support
moment). The computations were undertaken using a
computer simulation program developed and validated against
test data by Wong and Warner [30, 31].
The results showed that for all simulations with -15% and -
30% moment redistribution, the maximum value of uniform
elongation of the steel required to form a full plastic hinge
mechanism was 2.5% and 3.5%, respectively. For zero design
moment redistribution, the reduction in load-carrying capacity
did not exceed 2% when the uniform elongation of the steel
was limited to 1.5%. However, designs incorporating 30%
negative-moment redistribution recorded up to a 15%
reduction in load-carrying capacity with a 1.5% uniform
elongation. While both of these latter results support the case
for Amendment No. 1, including the uniform elongation
limits in AS/NZS 4671 for both Class L and N steels (Table Figure 2 - Full-scale structural test of reinforced-
1), the work was clearly limited in scope, and a more detailed concrete beam with low ductility reinforcement
investigation of multi-span situations was warranted.

4.2 Additional Computer Simulations - AS 3600:2001

4.2.1 General
In an extension of the work performed to prepare Amendment 1, additional computer simulations were undertaken of
multi-span one-way slabs and bandbeam floors with the purpose of studying the ductility demand associated with
support settlement. As will be seen below, the safety of continuous members with limited ductility can be significantly
impaired if no consideration is given in design to imposed deformations. Simulations were also carried out to
investigate the effects of different assumptions of member stiffness, and more generally the adequacy of the methods of
analysis treated in Section 7 of AS 3600 when Class L mesh is used as main reinforcement.

4.2.2 Imposed Deformations - Support Settlement

Limits on differential settlements for normal structures measured between adjacent supports are typically between
span/150 and span/2000, depending on the form of construction, type of cladding and limit-state of concern [19,20,21].
The design action effects induced in building structures due to imposed deformations such as support settlement are not
usually calculated in detail when these deformations are expected to be maintained within the expected limits. The
structure is assumed to be sufficiently ductile to withstand these effects without a significant reduction in load-carrying
capacity. While this is a valid assumption when normal-ductility reinforcement is used (Class N steel in Table 1) and
the existing design provisions of AS 3600 are applied, the current study reveals that the load-carrying capacity of
practically proportioned members incorporating low-ductility reinforcement (Class L in Table 1) can be significantly
reduced.

607
 Concrete Institute of Australia (2001) Conference Proceedings

Hossain and Stewart [22] report cases where total deflections of reinforced-concrete floors were of the order of
span/100, and that even larger deflections can occur in structures prior to occupants becoming alarmed. However,
many design Standards such as AS 3600 suggest a total deflection limit of span/250 for a structure to remain
serviceable, while differential deflections of this magnitude can also be expected [23,24].
Computer simulations were performed on two-span reinforced-concrete slabs, simply-supported at one end and built-in
at the other (thus simulating a multi-span situation). For each simulation, the internal support was settled by a
nominated amount resulting in a pre-
loading of the slab prior to the
commencement of live loading. The
results of runs performed on lightly-
reinforced slabs incorporating normal-
and low-ductility reinforcement were
compared on the basis of load-carrying
capacity. The resulting reduction in load-
carrying capacity is shown in Fig. 3 as a
function of support settlement, for two 6-
metre spanning slabs incorporating low-
ductility reinforcement in accordance with
Table 1. In both of the corresponding
normal-ductility runs (omitted from Fig.
3), negligible reduction in load-carrying Figure 3 - Reduction in load-carrying capacity due to support settlement
capacity was recorded for the same for a 2-span beam incorporating Class L reinforcement
magnitude of support settlement. The
results in Figure 3 indicate that a
differential settlement equal to the total deflection limit of span/250 (=24 mm) reduces the load-carrying capacity by up
to 13%. Similarly, a differential settlement of span/150 (=40 mm) reduces the load-carrying capacity by up to 16%.
These are significant reductions, and should not be ignored in design.

4.2.3 Modelling of Member Stiffness, Applied Loads and Support Conditions

Typical engineering approximations for member stiffness, applied loads and support conditions were investigated for
practical ranges of one-way slabs and bandbeam floors. In the first instance, a series of multi-span beams and slabs was
designed in accordance with the Simplified Method of Structural Analysis defined in Clause 7.2 of AS 3600, and then
analysed using the computer simulation program. The most extreme situations possible were examined with the
maximum allowable ratios of longer-to-shorter-span and live-to-dead-load. In all of the cases examined, a complete
plastic mechanism had effectively formed for Class L steel conforming to Table 1, thus indicating that Class L
reinforcing steel can be used as main reinforcement in members designed in accordance with Clause 7.2, subject to the
previous qualification concerning the effect of support settlement.
In a parallel study, a series of more complex multi-span beams and slabs was designed in accordance with the Linear
Elastic Analysis Method defined in Clause 7.6 of AS 3600. In accordance with Amendment No. 1, moment
redistribution was not permitted since it was assumed that Class L steel (mesh) was being used.
Members with non-prismatic cross-sections, large adjacent span ratios, and supporting point loads were included in the
analysis. Some of the results of this study have been reported elsewhere [25]. The study did not produce any results less
favourable than the initial study described for Amendment No. 1., viz. maximum reduction of 2% on the full plastic
mechanism load.
When considering a bandbeam floor, elastic finite element
analysis shows that when the bandbeams are relatively
stiff in relation to the slab, one-way action can be assumed
and the design action effects at any transverse cross-
section of the slab can be derived assuming column
supports (see Fig. 4(a)). However, as should be expected,
significant two-way action can occur as the bandbeams
become less stiff relative to the slab. In this case, the slab
should be considered to form column- and middle-strips.
Currently, the steel reinforcement in reinforced-concrete
bandbeam floors is often being designed without due
consideration for this effect. For example, many designers
simply assume that the slab is built-in at the bandbeam
junction irrespective of the relative proportions. The
bending moments resulting from such an assumption can
Figure 4 - Models for the calculation of design action
vary significantly from those obtained from an accurate
effects in bandbeam structures
analysis, in which case the integrity of the structural
design relies heavily on the ability of critical regions to
redistribute moments. While this can occur in members

608
 Concrete Institute of Australia (2001) Conference Proceedings

with under-reinforced cross-sections incorporating normal-ductility reinforcement, computer simulations of typical

bandbeam floors with low-ductility reinforcement as specified in Table 1 have shown that they can experience a
significant reduction in load-carrying capacity (more than 10%) on account of this incorrect modelling assumption.
Although no general recommendations have been developed at this stage, it is prudent for designers to assess which of
the support conditions shown in Fig. 4 is the more appropriate (noting that Fig. 4(b) gives results close to assuming the
slab is built-in at the bandbeam junction), particularly if low-ductility reinforcement is specified.

4.3 Other Ductility-Related Design Issues

4.3.1 General
The opportunity has been taken with the new edition to change certain other design provisions in AS 3600 where
system ductility is an issue.

4.3.2 Minimum Reinforcement of Critical Cross-Sections

It has been a requirement of Clause 8.1.4.1 of AS 3600:1994 that the nominal moment capacity or strength in bending
after cracking, Muo, equals or exceeds 1.2 times the cracking moment, Mcr. in all critical regions of a continuous beam
(or one-way slab) This has determined the minimum amount of flexural tensile reinforcement at critical cross-sections
in either positive or negative bending. This is a ductility provision: the intention being to prevent fracture of the steel
and sudden collapse at cracking [26,27]; and is a particular issue with conservative loading. It has applies to both
ductility classes of steel.
In AS 3600:2001 the requirement that the minimum nominal strength in bending, (Muo)min, at a cross-section 1.2 times
'
the cracking moment, or more precisely, 1.2 times the moment required to cause a flexural tensile stress of f cf in the
extreme concrete fibre, is written as follows:

Muo min
1.2 Zf cf' (1)

where Z is the section modulus of the uncracked cross-section referred to the extreme tensile fibre at which cracking
'
occurs, and f cf is the characteristic flexural tensile strength of concrete (see Clause 6.1.1.2 of AS 3600). It should be
noted that Eq. 1 gives the same value (an upper bound) as previously for the cracking moment, Mcr, except that Mcr has
been redefined in AS 3600:2001 to account for the effect of concrete shrinkage (which results in a lesser value than
given by Eq. 1, and is relevant to design for deflection control).
The principle of designing against sudden collapse has been reviewed elsewhere [28,29]. In the case of a continuous
− −
beam or one-way slab, the onset of cracking due to negative bending at an interior support where M uo ( M uo ) min
+
will not result in sudden failure in an adjacent span, if the positive moment capacity, M uo , at the critical cross-section
within the span is sufficient to safely carry the additional positive bending moment after redistribution. Therefore, it
may not be necessary to satisfy Eq. 1 at all critical sections of an indeterminate one-way member.
Clause 8.1.4.1 of AS 3600:2001 has been changed to recognise this situation which allows significantly less top-face
reinforcement to be placed in stocky continuous beams and one-way slabs, provided that cracking is not an issue, such
as for carpeted floors, fully enclosed within a building where relatively wide cracks can be tolerated. This can lead to
economic benefits when the amount of bottom-face reinforcement is dictated by factors other than the strength of the
final element.
A practical example of this occurring is when a permanent steel [29] or precast concrete formwork system is used in the
construction of composite slabs.
When appropriate, consideration should be given to the increased possibility of unsatisfactory crack control in
continuous members with cross-sections where M uo Muo .
min
Consideration also needs to be given to the possible difference in performance when Class L steel is used compared
with Class N steel. If Class L reinforcement is used in negative moment regions and M uo Muo , whereby
min
theoretically only one crack will form in each support region, then the rotation capacity of these regions will be
relatively limited. Therefore, it is considered necessary that M uo Muo if Class L reinforcement is used.
min
Otherwise, the contribution to strength of the Class L reinforcement in the negative moment region should be ignored,
and the slab is only considered to be continuous under serviceability conditions.
It will assist designers to know that for a rectangular, reinforced concrete member, if Muo is approximated as 0.9dAstfsy
2
and Muo min
1.2Zf cf' 0.2bD2 f cf' , then the requirement is satisfied if Ast /bd '
0.22 D / d f cf / f sy .

4.3.3 Earthquake Resistance

While AS 4671 provides for a third, Class E steel (seismic grade), the generally low seismicity in Australia usually can
be accounted for by using Class N steel and the provisions of Appendix A of AS 3600. Class L steel should not be used

609
 Concrete Institute of Australia (2001) Conference Proceedings

as the main reinforcement in the moment-resisting frames of reinforced-concrete buildings.

5.0 AS 3600 Ductility Design Provisions

It follows from the discussion above that AS 3600:2001, requires the following new restrictions to apply with regard to
the use of Class L mesh reinforcement:
a) Moment redistribution will not be permitted in concrete members being designed for strength unless verified by
analysis. In any case, special consideration needs to be given to the redistribution that may occur due to load-
independent effects such as relative foundation movements and flexible supports (Clause 7.6.8).
b) Plastic methods of analysis are unlikely to be applicable (Clause 7.9.1).
c) The normal minimum bending strength requirement will apply to the design of continuous beams (and one-way
slabs) incorporating negative moment regions with Class L steel (Clause 8.1.4.1). However it will be possible to
ignore this requirement if it can be demonstrated that the onset of cracking will not lead to sudden collapse. With
Class L steel as main reinforcement in the negative moment regions, this will require the spans concerned to be
designed as simply-supported for strength.
d) Class L reinforcement cannot be used as flexural reinforcement in moment-resisting frames of reinforced concrete
structures subject to seismic actions (Paragraph A12).
e) Particular consideration needs to be given to the effects of moment redistribution when predicting the fire-
resistance period for structural adequacy of continuous beams and slabs (Clause 5.9).

6.0 Conclusions
The use of low-ductility steel in lightly reinforced, concrete flexural members may reduce the load-carrying capacity
below that corresponding to a complete plastic hinge mechanism. This is due to the possibility of premature fracture of
the steel reinforcement. Amendment No. 1 of AS 3600 therefore restricted the use of moment redistribution in design,
including limiting the use of plastic analysis, for Class L steel. Reinforcing mesh is the only form of low-ductility steel
that can be used as main reinforcement, according to AS 3600. The ductility of this type of steel has been recently
improved through industry initiatives in Australia, and mesh will continue to find use in some slab applications, as well
as residential slab-on-ground construction and pavements.
The new edition of AS 3600 also deals with ductility-related issues, with further advice and restrictions applying to the
use of low-ductility (Class L) reinforcement in cases involving support settlement, design against sudden collapse, two-
way acting bandbeam floors, fire resistance and earthquake resistance.
The background and details of the ductility clauses in the new edition of AS 3600 have been explained in this paper.
While the research findings of the Ductility Working Group show that the new design rules for 500 MPa reinforcing
steels can be used with confidence, its work is ongoing. Matters currently under consideration include the ductility of
members with prestress, size effects, and the implications of introducing a third high-ductility category for reinforcing
steels.

7.0 Acknowledgements
The work reported herein has been conducted with the assistance and support of OneSteel Reinforcing Products, the
Steel Reinforcement Institute of Australia and members of the Ductility Working Group. Dr K W Wong provided
valuable assistance in the running of the computer simulations while at the University of Adelaide.

8.0 References
1. Standards Australia, “Concrete Structures”, Australian Standard AS 3600:1994(now superseded).
2. Standards Australia, “Amendment No.1 to AS 3600-1994”, AS 3600/Amdt 1, August 1996.
3. Standards Australia, “Concrete Structures”, Australian Standard AS 3600:2001
4. Warner, R.F. and Yeo, M. F., “Collapse Behaviour of Concrete Structures with Limited Ductility”, Research Report No R-61,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Adelaide, 1984.
5. British Standards Institution, “Eurocode 2 - Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1 General Rules and Rules for Buildings”, DD
ENV 1992-1-1: 1992, May, 1992.
6. Comite Euro-International du Beton, “CEB-FIP Model Code 1990”, Thomas Telford, 1993.
7. Patrick, M., “Use of High-Strength Reinforcement in Concrete Structures – Design Implications”, Seminar Proceedings, Munro
Centre for Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, 20 November 1997.
8. Comite Euro-International du Beton, “CEB-FIP Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Synthesis Report and Individual
Contributions”, Bulletin 242, May 1998.
9. Beeby, A.W., “Ductility in Reinforced Concrete: Why is it Needed and How is it Achieved?”, The Structural Engineer, 75(18),
September 1997, pp. 311-318.
10. Beeby, A.W., “Discussion - Ductility in Reinforced Concrete: Why is it Needed and How is it Achieved?”, The Structural
Engineer, 76(9), May 1998, pp. 180-183.
11. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand “Steel Reinforcing Materials”, AS/NZS 4671:2001.
12. Standards Australia, “Steel Reinforcing Bars for Concrete”, AS 1302:1991.
13. Standards Australia, “Steel Reinforcing Wire for Concrete”, AS 1303:1991.
14. Standards Australia, “Welded Wire Reinforcing Fabric for Concrete”, AS 1304:1991.
15. PrENV 10080:1995 “Steel for the Reinforcement of Concrete…”, European Committee for Standardisation, TC19/SC 1.
16. Patrick, M., Akbarshahi, E. and Warner, R.F., “Ductility Limits for the Design of Concrete Structures Containing High-
Strength, Low-Elongation Steel Reinforcement”, Proc. Concrete 97 Conference, Concrete Institute of Australia, May, 1997, pp.

610
 Concrete Institute of Australia (2001) Conference Proceedings

509-517.
17. Akbarshahi, E., “Computer Simulation Study of Continuous Flexural Members containing High-Strength, Low-Elongation
Steels”, Dept. Civil & Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Adelaide, April 1997.
18. Akbarshahi, E., “Computer Simulation Study of Continuous Flexural Members containing High-Strength, Low-Elongation
Steels, Supplementary Report to BHP Research”, Dept. Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Adelaide, May,
1997.
19. Standards Australia, “Residential Slabs and Footings – Construction”, AS 2870:1999.
20. ENV 1993 Eurocode 1, “Basis of design and actions on structures”, Sixth Draft, European Committee for Standardisation,
TC250, 1993.
21. ENV 1993 Eurocode 7, “Geotechnical Design”, 4th and Final Draft, European Committee for Standardisation, TC250/SC 7,
1993.
22. Hossain, N.B. and Stewart, M.G., “How Realistic are the Allowable Deflection Limits”, Proc. Australasian Structural
Engineering. Conference (ASEC98), October 1998, pp. 419-424.
23. Skempton, A.W. and MacDonald, D.H., “The Allowable Settlement of Buildings”, Proc. Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 5,
No. 3, London, December 1956.
24. Polshin, D.E. and Tokar, R.A.. “Maximum Allowable Non-Uniform Settlement of Structures”, Proc. 4th Int. Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1957, pp. 402-405.
25. Akbarshahi, E., “Computer Simulation Study of Continuous Beams Containing High-Strength Steel Reinforcement”, Dept. of
Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Adelaide, October 1997.
26. Warner, R.F., Rangan, B.V., Hall, A.S. and Faulkes, K.A., “Concrete Structures”, Longman, 1998.
27. Walsh, P., “Use of the Australian Standard for Concrete Structures”, Inkata Press, 1988.
28. Beeby, A.W. and Narayanan, R.S., “Designers’ Handbook to Eurocode 2, Part 1.1: Design of Concrete Structures”, Thomas
Telford, London, 1995.
29. OneSteel Market Mills, “Design of Composite Slabs for Strength”, Design Booklet DB3.1 (Ed 2.0), OneSteel Composite
Structures Design Manual, Version 1.0, Feb 2001.
30. Wong, K.W., Yeo, M.F. and Warner, R.F., “Non-linear Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Frames”, Civil Engineering
Transactions, Institution of Engineers, Australia, Vol. CE 30, No. 2, 1988.
31. Wong, K.W. and Warner, R.F., “Non-linear Analysis of Concrete Frames using a Direct Stiffness Line Element Approach”,
Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1999.

611