See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262056061

Flexural Strength Design Criteria for Concrete Beams Reinforced with High-
Strength Steel Strands

Article  in  Advances in Structural Engineering · October 2012

DOI: 10.1260/1369-4332.15.10.1781

CITATIONS READS

7 2,842

2 authors:

Eray Baran Tugba Arsava

Middle East Technical University University of Massachusetts Lowell
29 PUBLICATIONS   323 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   155 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tugba Arsava on 11 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Flexural Strength Design Criteria for Concrete Beams
Reinforced with High-Strength Steel Strands

Eray Baran1,* and Tugba Arsava2

1Department of Civil Engineering, Atilim University, Ankara, Turkey
2University of Massachusetts Lowell, Massachusetts, USA

(Received: 2 August 2011; Received revised form: 10 December 2011; Accepted: 20 February 2012)

Abstract: This paper summarizes the result of a study investigating the flexural
behavior of concrete beams reinforced with high-strength prestressing strands.
Thirteen concrete beams reinforced with either conventional reinforcing bars or high-
strength strands were fabricated and load tested in the experimental part of the study.
No distinct difference was detected between the experimentally obtained cracking
patterns of the two groups of beams. For the same reinforcement amount, beams
reinforced with high-strength strands exhibited slightly smaller service stiffness than
those reinforced with conventional reinforcing bars. A comparison of the measured
and numerically predicted response of beam specimens indicated that the cracking
load, peak load, and the deformation capacity of concrete beams can be accurately
determined by a sectional analysis procedure for both types of reinforcement. The
level of ductility present in concrete beams reinforced with high-strength strands is
evaluated using the parameter called “displacement deformability ratio.” Using the
numerically determined maximum reinforcement limits for concrete beams reinforced
with high-strength strands, an expression was proposed to be used at the design stage.

Key words: prestressing strand, high-strength reinforcement, reinforced concrete, flexural ductility.

1. INTRODUCTION strain behavior of a typical prestressing strand from that

Using high-strength steel strands as main reinforcement
in concrete flexural members can provide significant
benefits in certain cases due to the superior mechanical
properties of the strands. On example of such a
potential benefit would be through using the
prestressing strand pieces that are leftover during the
production of prestressed concrete structural members.
Even though there is such a potential, the structural
behavior of concrete flexural members reinforced with
untensioned prestressing strands has not been studied
thoroughly to date. Because of the manufacturing
process and the chemical composition of the materials
used, prestressing strands have different mechanical
properties than conventional reinforcing bars. The
most significant properties that separate the stress-
of conventional reinforcing steel bars are their
relatively high tensile strength and the lack of a definite
yield point, as seen in stress-strain curves in Figure 1.
Because of these fundamental differences in their
stress-strain behaviors, the procedures provided in the
current structural design codes for the design of
concrete flexural members reinforced with
conventional steel reinforcing bars can not be directly
applied when high-strength strands are used as
reinforcement. Designing the flexural reinforcement in
a concrete member following the procedures available
in the current design codes and then simply substituting
the conventional reinforcing bars with untensioned
prestressing strands may negatively affect the structural
performance and put the safety of these members at

*Corresponding author. Email address: ebaran@atilim.edu.tr; Fax: +90-312-586-8091; Tel: +90-312-586-8778.

Associate Editor: J.G. Dai.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 10 2012 1781

 Flexural Strength Design Criteria for Concrete Beams Reinforced with High-Strength Steel Strands

2000 conventional rebars and prestressing strands used in

each specimen and the corresponding reinforcement
1600 Prestressing strand
ratio values are given in Table 1. The table also includes
Conventional rebar the reinforcement ratios corresponding to the balanced
Stress, MPa

1200 condition, which is defined as the condition of the

800
400
0 assumed yield strength value of 1700 MPa was used to
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Strain
Figure 1. Material behaviors for conventional reinforcing steel bars
and high-strength steel strands
risk. The research explained in this paper aims at
investigating the behavior of concrete flexural
members reinforced with high-strength strands and
developing guidelines to be followed for proper design
of such members.
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The differences in the behavior of concrete flexural
members reinforced with conventional reinforcing bars
and untensioned prestressing strands were investigated
through an experimental analysis integrated with
analytical studies.
2.1. Experimental Study
Experimental part of the study included load testing of
thirteen reinforced concrete beam specimens, seven of
which had conventional reinforcing bars as tension
reinforcement while the remaining six were reinforced
with untensioned prestressing strands. The amount of
simultaneous yielding of reinforcement as the concrete
strain in extreme compression fiber reaches a strain of
0.003. The balanced reinforcement ratios for beam
specimens reinforced with conventional rebars are
based on measured yield strength of the rebars, while an
0.05 compute the balanced reinforcement ratio for specimens
reinforced with strands. A detailed discussion of using
this assumed value of yield strength for strands to
calculate the flexural response of concrete beams is
presented in the following sections.
The beam dimensions together with the reinforcement
layout are given in Figure 2. The beams had 180 × 250 mm
rectangular cross section with a clear span length between
the two supports of 3300 mm and a constant moment
length between the two loading points of 500 mm. The
ends of the conventional reinforcing bars and strands
were 90-degree hooked inside the beams in order to
improve the anchorage to concrete.
The beam specimens were fabricated at Atilim
University Structural Mechanics Laboratory using a
concrete mix design that had a target compressive
strength of 30 MPa, and were cured under wet burlap
until the day of load testing. The concrete compressive
strength measured at the day of load testing for each beam
is given in Table 2. Beam specimens were instrumented
with displacement transducers prior to load testing. The
beams tested earlier in the experimental phase were
instrumented with three displacement transducers, two of
which were placed at beam supports and the third one at
the midspan. The transducers placed at the supports did

Table 1. Flexural reinforcement types and amounts used in test specimens

Reinf. Reinf. Balanced

Reinf. Reinf. area ratio reinf. ratio
Specimen type amount (mm2) (%) (%)
S-55 High strength 1- 3/8 inch φ 55 0.14 0.33
S-99 steel strand 1- 1/2 inch φ 99 0.26 0.32
S-110 2- 3/8 inch φ 110 0.29 0.33
S-197 2- 1/2 inch φ 197 0.52 0.34
S-296 3- 1/2 inch φ 296 0.78 0.34
S-428 3- 0.6 inch φ 428 1.13 0.35
C-079 Conventional steel 1-φ10 79 0.21 2.43
C-113 reinforcing bar 1-φ12 113 0.30 2.52
C-154 1-φ14 154 0.41 2.43
C-201 1-φ16 201 0.53 2.56
C-308 2-φ14 308 0.81 2.30
C-402 2-φ16 402 1.06 2.42
C-603 3-φ16 603 1.60 2.51

1782 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 10 2012

Eray Baran and Tugba Arsava

2.2. Analytical Studies

Flexural behavior of concrete beam sections reinforced
with either conventional reinforcing bars or high strength
steel strands was studied analytically through sectional
analyses using strain compatibility principles. A computer
code utilizing internal force equilibrium and strain
compatibility between steel reinforcement and the
surrounding concrete was developed for this purpose.
Nonlinear stress-strain material models were incorporated
in the code. The model used for conventional steel
reinforcement was based on the measurements from the
P/2 P/2
B A tension tests performed on different size reinforcing bars,
while theoretical expressions were used for the stress-
strain behavior of steel strands (PCI 1999) and the
1400 mm 500 mm 1400 mm
3500 mm concrete (Collins and Mitchell 1991). The load versus
180 mm 180 mm
Strand or conventional steel reinf. displacement behavior of beam specimens obtained
250 mm

See Table 1 for amount and size of reinf. 250 mm

Section A-A
Figure 2. Test setup and specimen dimensions
not indicate any appreciable support displacement during
loading; therefore these transducers were eliminated in
the following tests.
The setup shown in Figure 2 was used for load
testing of beam specimens. The loading was applied
with a 30 kN capacity hydraulic cylinder which had a
load cell, a swivel head, and a load spreader beam
attached at the end. The beams were supported at the
two ends on steel rollers. Steel rollers and neoprene
pads were also provided between the specimen and the
load spreader beam at loading points. During the tests,
load was increased continuously until the failure of
beams, which was evident by crushing of concrete near
the top surface. During load testing, measurements from
the load cell and the displacement transducers were
continuously monitored and stored.
numerically using the sectional analyses was compared to
Section B-B the experimentally determined behavior to evaluate the
accuracy of the numerical analysis procedure. The
numerical analysis code was then used in a parametric
study to investigate the flexural behavior of concrete
sections with different parameters, such as cross section
dimensions, concrete strength, and reinforcement amount.
3. RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
3.1. Cracking and Failure Patterns
During load testing, beam specimens were visually
inspected to monitor crack initiation and growth. No
distinct difference was detected between the cracking
patterns of beams reinforced with conventional
reinforcing bars and high-strength strands. For both group
of beams, cracking started in the constant moment region
in the form of flexural cracking and then spread towards
the beam ends as the loading continued. Fewer and wider
cracks were observed on beams with relatively small
amount of reinforcement, and the number of cracks was
observed to increase with the reinforcement amount.

Table 2. Measured load capacities of test specimens

Concrete Cracking Peak Maximum

Specimen strength (MPa) load (kN) load (kN) deflection (mm)
S-55 31.4 6.7 24.4 90
S-99 31.4 6.7 44.6 77
S-110 29.5 6.2 50.0 70
S-197 32.7 6.0 72.2 55
S-296 32.6 6.4 80.0 51
S-428 33.5 6.1 90.9 39
C-79 32.0 6.5 11.8 >110
C-113 34.3 6.5 18.5 >110
C-154 33.8 6.2 25.4 107
C-201 37.8 6.1 31.6 104
C-308 31.4 6.4 47.9 91
C-402 35.0 6.5 58.1 56
C-603 36.7 6.1 81.4 40

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 10 2012 1783

 Flexural Strength Design Criteria for Concrete Beams Reinforced with High-Strength Steel Strands

Pictures of beams with conventional reinforcing bars and As evident in Figure 3, beams with relatively small
high-strength strands showing the cracking patterns at the amount of reinforcement had residual deflections after the
end of load testing are given in Figures 3(a) and 3(b), removal of loading. The reason for the residual deflections
respectively. Crushing of concrete in top part of the is the flexural cracks remaining unclosed in beams with
beams, which was common to both group of beams, can small amounts of reinforcement, whereas the cracks in
also be seen in the figure. beams with relatively large amount of reinforcement were
hardly visible after unloading. The residual deflections in
(a) beams reinforced with high-strength strands were
observed to be smaller than those with conventional
ρ/ρb = 0.09
reinforcing bars. It is believed that there are two reasons
for this observation. The first reason is that the beams
reinforced with strands were subjected to lower maximum
ρ/ρb = 0.12
midspan deflection values during load tests than the beam
specimens reinforced with conventional reinforcing bars.
The second reason is due to the difference in stress-strain
ρ/ρb = 0.17
behavior of conventional reinforcing bars and high
strength strands. Due to characteristics of their stress-
strain behavior, tensile strain in strands remained
ρ/ρb = 0.21
relatively smaller than the strain in conventional rebars.
As a result of small or no plastic strain in the strands,
residual deformations of beam specimens reinforced with
ρ/ρb = 0.35
strands were observed to be smaller than beam specimens
reinforced with conventional reinforcing bars.

ρ/ρb = 0.44 3.2. Load-Deflection Behavior

A comparison of the relation between the applied load
and the measured midspan deflection of beam
ρ/ρb = 0.64 specimens is given in Figure 4. The measured load and
displacement response of the beams are also
summarized in Table 2. For both group of beams, the
increase in the reinforcement amount resulted in an
(b) increase in the peak load and a decrease in the maximum
ρ/ρb = 0.43 deflection. It should be mentioned here that for beam
specimens C-79 and C-113, loading was halted when
the stroke capacity of the hydraulic cylinder was
ρ/ρb = 0.82 reached. Therefore, the maximum deflection for these
beams could not be determined.
The load corresponding to the flexural crack
ρ/ρb = 0.87 initiation on each beam specimen was extracted from
the load versus midspan deflection curve, and these
values are presented in Table 2. The crack initiation load
ρ/ρb = 1.52
was taken as the value of the applied load corresponding
to the point where the slope of the initial portion of the
load-deflection curve changed. The experimentally
ρ/ρb = 2.30 determined flexural crack initiation loads was
independent of the type and amount of reinforcement
inside the beams. For the beams reinforced with
conventional reinforcing bars, the crack initiation load
ρ/ρb = 3.24
had a mean value of 6.35 kN and a coefficient of
variation of 4.7%. In the case of the crack initiation load
Figure 3. Cracking pattern on specimens: (a) specimens reinforced of the beams reinforced with prestressing strands, the
with conventional rebars; (b) specimens reinforced with high- mean value and the coefficient of variation was 6.32 kN
strength strands (cracks were highlighted on specimens) and 3.0%, respectively.

1784 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 10 2012

Eray Baran and Tugba Arsava

(a) (b)
100 100 ρ/ρb = 3.24
ρ/ρb = 0.64 ρ/ρb = 2.30
80 80
ρ/ρb = 1.52
Total load, kN

Total load, kN
60 ρ/ρb = 0.44 60
ρ/ρb = 0.87
ρ/ρb = 0.35
ρ/ρb = 0.82
40 40
ρ/ρb = 0.21
ρ/ρb = 0.17 ρ/ρb = 0.43
20 ρ/ρb = 0.12 20
ρ/ρb = 0.09
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Midspan deflection, mm Midspan deflection, mm

Figure 4. Load versus midspan deflection behavior of specimens: (a) specimens reinforced with conventional rebars; (b) specimens
reinforced with high-strength strands

The effect of the type of reinforcement inside the 60

beams (conventional reinforcing bars or high-strength Conventional rebar
strands) on the measured load versus midspan deflection High-strength strand
50
curves became pronounced following the flexural crack
initiation. For beams reinforced with conventional 40
(M/bd2 fc ) /ρ

rebars the load versus midspan curve remained linear

until the yielding of reinforcement. After the initiation 30
of yielding in the reinforcement, the load resisting
capability of these beams remained almost unchanged 20
until the failure, which was evident by crushing of
concrete in the top part of the beams. Because the high- 10
strength strands used as reinforcement in the second
group of beam specimens lack of a definite yield point, 0
the measured load versus midspan deflection curves for 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
these beams did not either indicate a definite yield load. Reinforcement ratio, %

Figure 5. Relation between reinforcement efficiency and amount

3.3. Reinforcement Efficiency
Because of the differences in the stress-strain behavior
of conventional reinforcing steel rebars and high-
strength steel strands, the relation between the flexural
capacity and the amount of reinforcement for beams
reinforced with these two types of steel was also
different. In order to quantify this difference, a
parameter called “reinforcement efficiency” was used.
The reinforcement efficiency for each beam was
determined as the ratio of the normalized moment
capacity (M/bd 2fc) to the reinforcement ratio used in the
beam. The relation between reinforcement efficiency
values and the amount of reinforcement for both groups
of beam specimens is shown in Figure 5. Reinforcement
efficiency in beams with conventional reinforcing bars
was almost independent of the amount of reinforcement
used in the beams. This means that as the reinforcement
amount in the beams is increased, the flexural capacity
also increases with the same order. The plot in Figure 5
also shows that the beams with strands had higher
reinforcement efficiency values as compared to those
of reinforcement
with rebars, and that the efficiency of strand
reinforcement decreased with increasing reinforcement
ratio. The reason for such a trend is the fact that the
ultimate behavior of the beams is controlled by the
reinforcement for small reinforcement ratio values,
while concrete becomes the controlling material as the
reinforcement ratio gets relatively high. Once the
ultimate behavior of the beam is controlled by concrete,
the flexural capacity of the member does not increase
with the same order as the reinforcement amount. It
should also be mentioned here that a decrease in
reinforcement efficiency would also be observed for
beams with conventional rebar if higher reinforcement
ratio values were used in these specimens.
3.4. Service Stiffness
Relation between the stiffness and the amount of
reinforcement used in beam specimens was studied to

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 10 2012 1785

 Flexural Strength Design Criteria for Concrete Beams Reinforced with High-Strength Steel Strands

4.0 cross section of beams when high-strength strands are

Conventional rebar used as reinforcement.
High-strength strand

4. RESULTS OF ANALYTICAL STUDIES

Service stiffness, kN/mm

3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Reinforcement ratio, %
Figure 6. Relation between service stiffness and
amount of reinforcement
identify possible differences between the deformation
characteristics of beams reinforced with conventional
rebars and high-strength strands under service loads.
Variation of the service stiffness with the amount of
reinforcement for both groups of beam specimens is
shown in Figure 6. The service stiffness values were
determined as the slope of the load-deflection curve
following the initiation of flexural cracking. As seen,
the type of reinforcement did not have an influence on
the overall trend between the measured service stiffness
and the reinforcement ratio. However, the plots indicate
4.1. Verification of Analytically Determined
Flexural Response
The analytically determined load-deflection behavior of
beam specimens reinforced with conventional rebars and
strands is given in Figure 7 together with the measured
response. A comparison of the plots indicates that the
cracking and peak loads as well as the deformation
capacity of the beams were accurately determined by the
numerical sectional analysis for both reinforcement
1.6
types. The close agreement between the predicted and
the measured response is due to the use of realistic
nonlinear material models in the analytical procedure.
4.2. Assessment of Moment Capacity of
Sections Reinforced with High-Strength
Strands
In order to investigate the change in flexural capacity in
relation to the amount of conventional steel rebars and
high-strength strands, the cross section used for beam
(a)
35
Measured
30 response
25
Predicted
Load, kN

20 response
that for the same reinforcement ratio, a beam would
15
have a slightly smaller stiffness if it is reinforced with
high-strength strands than conventional rebars. This will 10
result in for beams reinforced with high strength strands 5
Specimen C-201
to show slightly larger deflection than for beams with 0
conventional rebars under the same level of service 0 30 60 90 120
load. The reason for the beams reinforced with high- Midspan deflection, mm
strength strands exhibiting slightly smaller service (b)
stiffness values than those reinforced with conventional 50
Predicted
rebars with the approximately same reinforcement ratio response
40
can be attributed to a minimal level of slip of the strands
inside the concrete. As explained earlier, the ends of the Measured
Load, kN

30 response
strands and rebars were 90-degree hooked to improve
the anchorage of their ends inside the concrete. 20
It should be noted that the service load level for a
beam reinforced with high-strength strands is expected 10
to be higher than that for a beam with the same amount Specimen S-99
of conventional rebars. As a result, the service 0
0 30 60 90
deflection of a beam reinforced with high-strength
Midspan deflection, mm
strands may be significantly larger than the service
deflection of a similar beam with the same Figure 7. Measured and predicted response: (a) beam reinforced
reinforcement ratio but reinforced with conventional with conventional rebars; (b) beam reinforced with
rebars. This point should be considered in sizing the high-strength strands

1786 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 10 2012

Eray Baran and Tugba Arsava

specimens (180 × 250 mm rectangular cross section with b εc

a concrete compressive strength of 30 MPa) was analyzed
with varying reinforcement ratios. The results are plotted
in Figure 8. The plots show the moment capacity values
from three methods. The circles on the plot indicate
the measured moment capacity of the test specimens. The
curves labeled “strain compatibility” represent the
moment capacity values determined from the sectional
analyses using the actual nonlinear material models. The
curves labeled “rectangular stress block” show the
capacities predicted by the procedure outlined in the ACI
Building Code (1999, 2008). In this procedure, the actual
nonlinear concrete stress distribution is replaced by an
equivalent rectangular stress block as indicated in Figure 9,
and the steel reinforcement is assumed to have a perfectly
elastic and plastic stress-strain behavior.
Figure 8(a) shows the variation of moment capacity
with the amount of conventional steel reinforcing bars.
The agreement between the moment capacities
determined by three methods indicates the accuracy of
code procedure in predicting the flexural capacity of
concrete beam sections with different reinforcement
ratios.
(a)
0.4
Strain compatibility
Rectangular stress block
0.3 Measured
M/(bd 2 fc)
a = β 1c
c σc Fc = 0.85 fc ba
N.A.
d
εs σs Fs = As σs
Beam Strain Stress Rectangular stress
cross section distribution distribution block idealization
Figure 9. Determination of flexural capacity using rectangular
stress block for concrete
The relation between the moment capacity of beam
sections reinforced with high-strength strands and the
reinforcement ratio is shown in Figure 8(b). The graph
provides a comparison of the moment capacities
predicted by the code procedure with those determined
experimentally and from a nonlinear sectional analysis.
When calculating the moment capacity according to the
code procedure, the actual stress-strain behavior of
high-strength strands was idealized as indicated in
Figure 10. The idealized stress-strain behavior has a
perfectly elastic and plastic bilinear relation with a
modulus of elasticity of 200.000 MPa and a “yield”
strength of 1700 MPa. As evident in Figure 8(b), the
moment capacity of beam sections reinforced with high-
strength strands can be predicted accurately for a wide
range of reinforcement ratio values following the
procedure used in most structural design codes as long
as an idealized stress-strain behavior is utilized.

0.2
4.3. Assessment of Ductility of Beams
Reinforced with High-Strength Strands
0.1 Ductility is a measure of the ability of a structural
member to undergo inelastic deformation and absorb
0 energy. From this respect, it is an index of the
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 deformability of the members. In the most general form,
Reinforcement ratio, %

(b)
0.4 2000

0.3 1600
M/(bd 2 fc)

Stress, MPa

1200
0.2

800
0.1 Strain compatibility
Rectangular stress block
Measured 400
Theoretical
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Idealized
0
Reinforcement ratio, % 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Strain
Figure 8. Variation of moment capacity with reinforcement ratio:
(a) section reinforced with conventional rebars; (b) section Figure 10. Idealized stress-strain behavior adopted for high-
reinforced with high-strength strands strength strand

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 10 2012 1787

 Flexural Strength Design Criteria for Concrete Beams Reinforced with High-Strength Steel Strands
ductility can be described as the relation between the
behavior of the member at ultimate state to that at the
initiation of the yielding of reinforcement. Even though
such definition of ductility is valid for concrete beams
reinforced with conventional steel rebars, which exhibits
a well-defined yield point, it can not be applied to beams
reinforced with high-strength strands. Because of the
characteristics of the stress-strain behavior of high-
strength strands, the condition of the initiation of
yielding in the reinforcement becomes irrelevant.
Therefore, a new parameter has to be used in order to
quantify the deformability of concrete beams reinforced
with high-strength strands. The approach used in this
study to quantify the deformability of beams is based on
the so-called “deformability ratio,” which is defined as
the ratio of the ultimate state behavior to the service state
behavior. Similar approaches were used previously by
other researchers for the assessment of concrete beams
reinforced with high-strength steel rebars and fiber-
reinforced polymer bars (Vijay and GangaRao 2001; Wu
2006; Au and Du 2008; Mast et al. 2008). In this study,
the service load level for beams was defined as 60% of
the ultimate load. This level of service load is in
accordance with the values determined by previous
researchers considering the load and resistance factors
specified by design codes (Wu 2006; Mast et al. 2008).
Ductility and deformability of a reinforced concrete
beam can be expressed in terms of several parameters,
most common of which are curvature, rotation, and
displacement. Displacement ductility factor (µd) (Eqn 1)
and the displacement deformability ratio (δd) (Eqn 2)
were used in this study for the assessment of the
ductility of concrete beams reinforced with high-
strength strands in relation to those reinforced with
conventional rebars.
∆max
µd =
∆y
where ∆max is the maximum midspan deflection and ∆y
is the midspan deflection of the beam at yielding of
reinforcement, respectively.
∆max
δd =
∆s
where ∆s is the midspan deflection of the beam at
service load level.
The variation of the displacement ductility factor and
displacement deformability ratio with the amount of
conventional steel rebars for a beam having variables used
in the test specimens (330 cm clear span, 180 × 250 mm
1788
rectangular cross section, and 30 MPa concrete
compressive strength) are shown in Figure 11. The
displacement ductility and displacement deformability
values determined using the measured load-deflection
behavior of the beam specimens are also plotted. The
figure clearly shows the match between the numerically
predicted and experimentally determined displacement
ductility and displacement deformability values. Also
evident in the figure is the agreement between the
displacement ductility factor and the displacement
deformability ratio parameters. Even though the values are
different, the variation of these two parameters with the
amount of reinforcement has the same trend and the two
curves show similar behavior. This observation leads to
the fact that the displacement deformability ratio can be
used for the assessment of the ductility level present in
concrete beams reinforced with high-strength strands.
The relation between the displacement deformability
ratio and the amount of reinforcement for a beam
reinforced with high-strength strands is presented in
Figure 12. The experimentally determined deformability
ratio values are in agreement with the numerically
70
Ductility,µd (Deformability,δ d)
Predicted displacement ductility factor
60
Measured displacement ductility factor
50 Predicted displacement deformability ratio
Measured displacement deformability ratio
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Reinforcement ratio, %
Figure 11. Relation between ductility and reinforcement ratio for
(1) beams reinforced with conventional rebars
6
Predicted displacement deformability ratio
Measured displacement deformability ratio
Deformability, δ d
(2)
2
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Reinforcement ratio, %
Figure 12. Relation between deformability and reinforcement ratio
for beams reinforced with high-strength strands
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 10 2012
Eray Baran and Tugba Arsava

predicted values. Moreover, when the plot of the
variation of displacement deformability ratio shown in
this figure is compared to that shown in Figure 11 for
the case of conventional rebars, it is seen that the two
types of reinforcement produced similar behavior.
4.3.1. Analytical determination of maximum
reinforcement limits for beams
reinforced with high-strength strands
Limiting the amount of tension reinforcement is
accepted by several researchers and design codes as a
method of providing a certain level of ductility in
reinforced concrete members (ACI 1999; Lee and Pan
2003; Kassoul and Bougara 2010; Yang et al. 2010).
Therefore, to avoid non-ductile failure, the ACI
Building Code has provisions regarding the amount of
tensile reinforcement. Prior to the 2002 edition of the
Code, this provision was in the form of directly limiting
the maximum value of the tensile reinforcement ratio to
75% of the reinforcement ratio corresponding to the
balanced condition (ACI 1999). A new approach was
adopted in the more current editions of the code, such
that the value of the net tensile strain in the extreme
tension steel at ultimate capacity, εt , of a flexural
member was limited to 0.004 (ACI 2008). In the
commentary part of the Code, it is stated that limiting
the maximum net tensile strain of the extreme tensile
steel to a value of 0.004 has the same effect as limiting
the tensile reinforcement ratio to about the same value
as in the editions of the Code prior to 2002. The current
version of the ACI Code also specifies different strength
reduction factor, φ, depending on the value of net tensile
strain in extreme tensile steel at ultimate capacity of a
beam. The value of φ factor is given as 0.65 and 0.90,
respectively for net tensile strain values of 0.002 and
0.005. A linear interpolation is suggested for net tensile
strain values between 0.002 and 0.005. Considering that
the net tensile strain in extreme tensile steel at ultimate
capacity of flexural members can not be less than 0.004,
it can be stated that the strength reduction factor for
reinforced concrete flexural members varies between
0.81 and 0.90.
As the numerical analysis indicated that using high
strength strands and conventional rebars results in
similar behavior between the displacement
deformability ratio and the amount of reinforcement, the
maximum reinforcement ratio that is specified by the
ACI Code for concrete sections reinforced with
conventional rebars is used in this study to form a basis
for the maximum reinforcement amount that should be
allowed for concrete sections reinforced with high-
strength strands.
Results of a parametric study investigating the
maximum reinforcement limits for high-strength strands
are given in Table 3. In this study, five different
rectangular beam cross sections were considered with

Table 3. Determination of maximum reinforcement ratio for sections reinforced with high-strength strands

Beam reinforced with Beam reinforced with

Section Section Concrete conventional rebar high-strength strand
width depth strength ρb ρ max Ductility, Deformability, Deformability, ρ max (ρ max)predicted
(mm) (mm) (MPa) (%) (%) µ d ∆max/∆y δ d ∆max/∆s δ d ∆max/∆s (%) (%)
180 210 20 2,15 1,61 1,9 3,4 3,4 0,16 0,17
30 2,97 2,23 1,5 3,1 3,1 0,23 0,24
40 3,62 2,72 1,5 2,9 2,9 0,32 0,30
50 4,09 3,07 1,5 2,8 2,8 0,37 0,33
200 350 20 2,15 1,61 1,6 3,4 3,4 0,16 0,17
30 2,97 2,23 1,5 3,0 3,0 0,24 0,24
40 3,62 2,72 1,5 2,8 2,8 0,31 0,30
50 4,09 3,07 1,5 2,7 2,7 0,35 0,33
250 450 20 2,15 1,61 1,6 3,4 3,4 0,16 0,17
30 2,97 2,23 1,6 3,1 3,1 0,23 0,24
40 3,62 2,72 1,5 2,8 2,8 0,30 0,30
50 4,09 3,07 1,5 2,7 2,7 0,35 0,33
300 550 20 2,15 1,61 1,6 3,4 3,4 0,14 0,17
30 2,97 2,23 1,5 3,0 3,0 0,25 0,24
40 3,62 2,72 1,5 2,8 2,8 0,30 0,30
50 4,09 3,07 1,5 2,7 2,7 0,35 0,33
400 650 20 2,15 1,61 1,6 3,4 3,4 0,16 0,17
30 2,97 2,23 1,5 3,1 3,1 0,23 0,24
40 3,62 2,72 1,5 2,8 2,8 0,32 0,30
50 4,09 3,07 1,5 2,7 2,7 0,32 0,33

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 10 2012 1789

 Flexural Strength Design Criteria for Concrete Beams Reinforced with High-Strength Steel Strands

four different concrete compressive strength values. For Beam reinforced with conventional rebars
10
each combination of cross section and concrete

Ductility,deformability
Displacement ductility factor
compressive strength, the beam was analyzed under 8 Displacement deformability ratio
varying amount of reinforcement for both reinforcement 6
types and the corresponding load versus midspan 4
deflection behaviors were determined. For beams δ d = 3.0
µd = 1.5 2
reinforced with conventional rebars, the maximum
0
reinforcement ratio ρmax was calculated using Eqn 3 as 1 1.5 2 2.5
suggested by the ACI Code. Reinforcement ratio, % ρ
max = 2.23%

ρmax = 0.75ρb (3)

Beam reinforced with high-strength strands
10
Displacement deformability ratio
where ρb is the reinforcement ratio corresponding to the 8

Deformability,δ d
balanced condition. 6
The displacement ductility factor and displacement
4
deformability ratio values corresponding to the δ d = 3.0
2
calculated maximum reinforcement ratios were
0
identified using the numerically determined load versus 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
midspan deflection behavior of beams reinforced with Reinforcement ratio, % ρ = 0.23%
conventional rebars. These displacement ductility factor max

and displacement deformability ratio values represent
the minimum values allowed by the ACI Code for
concrete sections reinforced with conventional rebars. It
is considered that a concrete beam reinforced with high-
strength strands should have a displacement
deformability ratio of at least the minimum value
allowed by the ACI Code for a similar beam reinforced
with conventional rebars. Based on this consideration,
the reinforcement ratio values corresponding to these
minimum displacement deformability ratios were
determined for beams reinforced with high-strength
strands using the numerically determined load versus
midspan deflection curves. These values represent the
maximum reinforcement amounts for beams reinforced
with high-strength strands such that the corresponding
displacement deformability ratios would be similar to
those allowed by the ACI Code for beams reinforced
with conventional rebars. The procedure of determining
the maximum reinforcement ratios for beams reinforced
with high-strength strands is explained graphically in
Figure 13.
4.3.2. Procedure to predict maximum
reinforcement limits for beams
reinforced with high-strength strands
As mentioned previously, ACI Building Code (1999)
limits the maximum amount of tension reinforcement to
75% of the reinforcement ratio corresponding to the
balanced condition in order to guarantee a certain level
of ductility for reinforced concrete beams. A similar
approach was adopted in this study to develop an
expression to predict the maximum reinforcement ratio
for beams reinforced with high-strength strands.
Figure 13. Determination of maximum reinforcement ratio for
beams reinforced with high-strength strands (300 × 550 mm beam
cross section, 30 MPa concrete compressive strength)
The reinforcement ratio corresponding to the
balanced condition can be determined considering the
equilibrium of internal tensile and compressive forces:
0.85 fc cb (4)
ρb = β1
fy d
where fc is the concrete compressive strength, fy is the
yield strength of reinforcement, and β1 is the factor
relating the depth of equivalent rectangular
compressive stress block to neutral axis depth, as
specified by the ACI Code. The ratio of c b /d in
this expression is determined using the strain
compatibility principle at the condition of balanced
reinforcement:
cb 0.003Es (5)
=
d 0.003Es + f y
where Es is the modulus of elasticity for reinforcing
steel.
As mentioned earlier, using the idealized stress-strain
behavior shown in Figure 10 resulted in an accurate
prediction of the moment capacity of beam sections
reinforced with high-strength strands. Therefore, the
same idealized stress-strain behavior was used to predict
the maximum reinforcement ratio. In this case, the
modulus of elasticity and the yield strength values are

1790 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 10 2012

Eray Baran and Tugba Arsava
0.40
( ρ max) determined, %
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20
(ρ max) predicted, %
Figure 14. Comparison of determined and predicted maximum
reinforcement ratios
taken as 200.000 MPa and 1700 MPa, respectively, and
Eqn 4 takes the following form:
β1 fc
( ρb )strand =
7700
Limiting the maximum reinforcement to 75% of the
reinforcement ratio corresponding to the balanced
condition as accepted by the ACI Building Code, the
maximum reinforcement ratio for beams reinforced with
high-strength strands becomes:
( ρmax )strand = 0.75 ( ρb )strand
The maximum reinforcement ratio values predicted
by Eqn 7 for beams reinforced with high-strength
strands are presented in Table 3. As seen, the maximum
reinforcement ratio values determined using Eqn 7 are
in close agreement with those determined using the
procedure explained in Figure 13. The agreement
between the maximum reinforcement ratio values
determined using these two methods is also graphically
shown in Figure 14.
5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with
high-strength strands was investigated through an
experimental study integrated with numerical analyses.
Experimental results indicated that for both group of
beams, the increase in the reinforcement amount
resulted in an increase in the peak load and a decrease in
the maximum midspan deflection, as expected. For
beam specimens reinforced with conventional
reinforcing bars, the flexural capacity was observed to
increase with the same order as the reinforcement
amount. Flexural capacity of the beams reinforced with
strands had higher rate of change for relatively small
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 10 2012
values of reinforcement ratio and the rate of change of
the flexural capacity decreased with increasing
reinforcement ratio.
The experimentally determined flexural crack
initiation load of the beam specimens was independent
of the type and amount of reinforcement inside the
beams. No distinct difference was detected between the
cracking patterns of the two groups of beams. Load
versus midspan deflection behavior of beam specimens
0.30 0.40
reinforced with conventional reinforcing bars was
observed to remain linear until the yielding of
reinforcement, after which the load resisting capability
remained almost unchanged until the failure. For the
case of beam specimens reinforced with high-strength
strands, the load-deflection behavior did not indicate a
definite yield load value. Test results also indicated that
for the same reinforcement amount, beams reinforced
with high-strength strands have slightly smaller service
stiffness than those reinforced with conventional
(6) reinforcing bars.
A comparison of the measured and numerically
predicted response of beam specimens indicated that the
cracking load, peak load, and the deformation capacity
of concrete beams can be accurately determined by the
sectional analysis procedure for both types of
reinforcement. Further numerical results using an
idealized stress-strain behavior for high-strength strands
indicated that the moment capacity of concrete beam
(7) sections reinforced with high-strength strands can be
predicted accurately for a wide range of reinforcement
ratio values following the procedure used in most
structural design codes.
The level of ductility present in concrete beams
reinforced with high-strength strands is evaluated using
the parameter called “displacement deformability ratio.”
Displacement deformability ratio is defined as the ratio
of the response at ultimate state to that under service
load level. The maximum reinforcement limits to be
used for concrete beams reinforced with high-strength
strands were determined using the criteria that these
beams should have a displacement deformability ratio
of at least the minimum value allowed by the ACI Code
for similar beams reinforced with conventional
reinforcing bars. Using the numerically determined
maximum reinforcement limits for concrete beams
reinforced with high-strength strands, an expression was
proposed be used at the design stage. The form of the
proposed expression is similar to the maximum
reinforcement ratio limit available in the ACI code for
concrete beams reinforced with conventional rebars,
such that the maximum reinforcement ratio is limited to
75% of the value corresponding to the balanced
condition.
1791
 Flexural Strength Design Criteria for Concrete Beams Reinforced with High-Strength Steel Strands
The validity of the proposed methods to determine
the moment capacity and maximum reinforcement limit
for concrete beams reinforced with high-strength
strands was investigated only for rectangular sections.
Therefore, behavior of beams with other types of cross
sections has to be studied to investigate whether the
methods explained in this paper can be extrapolated for
those cases.
The maximum reinforcement limits recommended
for concrete beams reinforced with high-strength
strands is to be used only in non-seismic applications.
Additional limits and restrictions have to be imposed on
ductility of concrete beams to be used as part of seismic
load resisting systems in structures.
As the service load level for a beam reinforced with
high-strength strands is expected to be higher than that
for a beam with the same amount of conventional
rebars, the service deflection of a beam reinforced with
high-strength strands may be significantly larger than
the service deflection of a similar beam with the same
reinforcement ratio but reinforced with conventional
rebars. This point should be considered by the designer
in sizing the cross section of beams when high-strength
strands are used as reinforcement. It should also be
mentioned that, due to longer development length of
strands as compared to conventional rebars, special
attention must be paid when strands are lap spliced in
concrete beams.
Finally, it should be mentioned that the current
provisions in the ACI Code limits the usable yield
strength of non-prestressed tension reinforcement in
concrete beams to 550 MPa. Based on this limitation,
the flexural design approach explained in this paper is
not applicable according to the current ACI Code.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was funded by Atilim University under
grant number ATU BAP 2009-02. This financial
support is gratefully acknowledged. The material
support provided by Yalimkiska Construction, Inc. is
also acknowledged.
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318 (1999). Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (318-99) and Commentary (318R-99),
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan,
USA.
ACI Committee 318 (2008). Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (318-08) and Commentary (318R-08),
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA.
1792
View publication stats
Au, F.T.K. and Du, J.S. (2008). “Deformability of concrete beams
with unbonded FRP tendons”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 30,
No. 12, pp. 3764–3770.
Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D. (1991). Prestressed Concrete
Structures, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
Kassoul, A. and Bougara, A. (2010). “Maximum ratio of
longitudinal tensile reinforcement in high strength doubly
reinforced concrete beams designed according to Eurocode 8”,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp. 3206–3213.
Lee, T.K. and Pan, A.D.E. (2003). “Estimating the relationship
between tension reinforcement and ductility of reinforced
concrete beam sections”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 25, No. 8,
pp. 1057–1067.
Mast, R.F., Dawood, M., Rizkalla, S.H. and Zia, P. (2008). “Flexural
strength design of concrete beams reinforced with high-strength
steel bars”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 105, No. 5, pp. 570–577.
PCI (1999). PCI Design Handbook, 5th Edition, Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Vijay, P.V. and GangaRao, H.V.S. (2001). “Bending behavior and
deformability of glass fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced concrete
members”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, No. 6, pp. 834–842.
Wu, Z. (2006). Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Members under
Pure Flexure and Axial-Flexural Loadings, Master Thesis, North
Carolina State University, North Carolina, USA.
Yang, I.H., John, C. and Kim, B.S. (2010). “Structural behavior of
ultra high performance concrete beams subjected to bending”,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 32, No. 11, pp. 3478–3487.
NOTATION
b width of beam cross section
cb neutral axis depth corresponding to balanced
condition
d distance from extreme compression fiber to
centroid of reinforcement
Es elasticity modulus for reinforcement
fc concrete compressive strength
fy yield strength of reinforcement
β1 factor relating the depth of equivalent rectangular
stress block to neutral axis depth
δd displacement deformability ratio
∆max maximum midspan deflection
∆s midspan deflection at service load level
∆y midspan deflection at yielding of reinforcement
εt net tensile strain in extreme tension steel at
ultimate capacity
φ strength reduction factor
µd displacement ductility factor
ρ reinforcement ratio
ρb balanced reinforcement ratio
ρmax maximum reinforcement ratio
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 10 2012