Structures 34 (2021) 589–603

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Flexural response of stainless steel reinforced concrete beam

Khondaker Sakil Ahmed *, Md Ahsan Habib, Md Farhan Asef
Department of Civil Engineering, Military Institute of Science and Technology (MIST), Dhaka, Bangladesh

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Stainless steel (SS) is gaining popularity as a reinforcement of structural elements in many countries, primarily
Stainless steel due to its enhanced corrosion resistance, improved performance against fire, and resilient behavior. This paper
Flexural behavior investigates the flexural response of concrete beams reinforced with plain stainless steel rebars. Considering
Four point bending test
variations in two concrete strength and three reinforcement ratios, this experimental program included a total of
Failure mode
Reinforcement ratio
eight SS and four conventional mild steel (MS) reinforced concrete beams under four points bending test. The
Debonding experimental results of SS reinforced beams of each category are presented in terms of force–displacement
relation, failure pattern, beam deformation, and force-strain response. The experimental results suggest that the
moment capacity of concrete beams can be improved by applying SS rebars when a low reinforcement ratio is
used. Apart from common flexural and shear failure, rebar debonding failure at the beam ends was observed in
SS reinforced beams. The ratios of experimental cracking moment capacity to the code recommended value are
found in a range of 1 ± 0.3 for SS reinforced beams. The ultimate moment capacity of SS reinforced beams is
observed 12–36% smaller than the code recommended capacity. The overall outcome of this study allows the
engineers to think and apply SS as an alternative to MS as reinforcement of concrete beams.

1. Introduction
Till now, reinforced concrete structures have been the most popular
choice of civil and structural engineers. They are by far considered the
most successful construction materials because of their versatility,
robustness, economic feasibility, and durability. Besides concrete,
reinforcement bars are the most decisive component of concrete struc­
tures. As reinforcement of RC structures, conventional carbon steels are
still dominating the construction industry. However, the major draw­
back of RC structures, especially in aggressive environmental conditions
is the corrosion of the carbon steel rebars, which is also the key reason
for overall structural deterioration [1–3]. Corrosion-induced damages
potentially threaten the load-carrying capacity and the stiffness of the
member due to the reduction in rebar area, loss of bond between rebars
and adjacent concrete, and cracking or spalling of concrete [4]. It has
also been reported that with the progressive corrosion of reinforcement,
the time-dependent deflection increases under sustained loading con­
ditions [5]. High-strength steel (HSS) rebars (a nominal strength of 550
MPa or higher) have already been introduced to improve the perfor­
mance of concrete structures [6,7]. Recent studies suggested that HSS
rebars allow higher bond strength in the cases of ultra-high performance
concrete (UHPC) [8] and concrete with post-installed rebars [9].
Though there are some conventional methods to prevent corrosion such
as cathodic protection, application of epoxy coating over the rebars, use
of galvanized reinforcements, and waterproofing of the casting concrete
[10–14], corrosion of conventional steel (regardless of strength) is still a
problem to be resolved, and a good strategy to overcome the problem
can be the replacement of the conventional carbon steels by inert
reinforcements.
In the last two decades, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) has gained
the attraction of researchers due to its satisfactory non-corrodible
behavior [15–19]. Though FRPs have a strong resistance against
corrosion, they generally fail in a brittle manner and also they possess
nearly a linear elastic behavior until rupture, which is a critical issue to
be resolved before they are applied for structural purposes. As corrosion-
resistant reinforcements, aluminum alloys and shape memory alloys
(SMA) have also gained the attraction of researchers. A research study
on the flexural performance of aluminum alloy bars in concrete beams
showed that they can be utilized as reinforcements in concrete beams
[20]. However, for the same reinforcement ratios of aluminum alloy and
conventional carbon steel reinforcements, the poor bond between
aluminum alloy bars with low ductility and concrete resulted in about
34% loss of the ultimate capacity of aluminum alloy reinforced concrete
beams. SMA beams have been reported [21] to sustain strength and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: drksa@ce.mist.ac.bd (K.S. Ahmed).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.08.019
Received 6 April 2021; Received in revised form 31 July 2021; Accepted 5 August 2021
Available online 14 August 2021
2352-0124/© 2021 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K.S. Ahmed et al. Structures 34 (2021) 589–603

ductility compared to conventional steel beams. However, SMA showed of SS reinforced concrete beams. SS is comparatively new in a country
reduced stiffness and could not achieve a greater energy dissipation like Bangladesh. Few local industries like Steeltech-BD are promoting SS
capacity compared to conventional steel, particularly under reversed as reinforcement of concrete structures. However, currently, SS grade
cyclic loading [22]. 201 is the only available with a smooth finish product. In this study,
Stainless steel supports a wide variety of applications from the locally available SS reinforced concrete beams are investigated to get a
perspective of aesthetics to structural stability [23–25]. Stainless steel is preliminary understanding about their flexural performance. To the best
generally characterized by its superior inelastic behavior between the of the author’s knowledge, this research work is the first detailed
proof stress and the ultimate tensile stress, excellent toughness, ductility experimental investigation to evaluate the flexural behavior of concrete
at low temperature, and a degree of anisotropy [26–28]. Studies show beams reinforced with plain SS rebars of 200 series.
that stainless steels have much higher corrosion resistance compared to
ordinary carbon steels [29–32] and superior strength and stiffness 3. Properties of Stainless-Steel grade 201
retention at elevated temperatures [33]. In a study on the corrosion
behavior of three low-cost and low nickel content stainless steels, it was Stainless steel is an alloy consisting of different basic elements that
reported that the samples remained in a passive state even under the control the microstructure of the alloy. Based on the composition of
highest chloride contamination level (corresponding to 5% Cl-) [26]. alloying elements, stainless steel can be classified into five categories,
Stainless steel also showed the best performance against corrosion namely, Austenitic, Ferritic, Martensitic, Duplex, and precipitation
amongst several tested galvanized reinforcing bars [34]. A detailed hardening (PH). The austenitic and the duplex type of stainless steel are
study reported that hot rolled austenitic and duplex stainless steels have of interest for structural application since the rest of the types do not
approximately three times higher ductility than ordinary carbon steel provide an expected level of structural performance. Duplex stainless
[35]. steels have a combined austenitic and ferritic microstructure. Despite
The main factor restricting the commercial application of stainless having similar alloying elements as the austenitic, they show higher
steel is its comparatively higher manufacturing cost. Depending on the yield strength and greater corrosion and cracking resistance. Stainless
nickel and the molybdenum content, its price typically varies from 4 ~ 9 steel usually contains more than 10.5% chromium and <1.5% carbon
times higher than conventional carbon steels [36]. Despite this, the use that make this alloy corrosion-resistant. Among different grades,
of stainless steel can significantly reduce the overall cost of structures by austenitic steel is used for 70% of global production as it contains 8–13%
reducing corrosion-induced maintenance cost, which also can ensure the nickel which makes this SS more ductile (Gardner, 2005) [27]. However,
durability of the structure. Cramer et al. (2002) reported that the local industries of Bangladesh manufacture quite different stainless-steel
application of SS may increase the total project cost by only 10%, grades compare to that of the neighboring countries. The chemical
whereas the cumulative maintenance cost may get reduced by 50% composition of the local SS rebar is presented in Table 1. The chemical
during the service life of the structure [30]. Stainless steel is expected to composition of the stainless steel reflects that such properties and pro­
show different hysteretic behavior than conventional steel used as portions of ingredients fall in 200 series of SS i.e., grade 201.
reinforcement in structures. There is established evidence of the appli­ To investigate the mechanical properties of this local stainless-steel
cability of stainless steel in seismic design due to its higher value of rebar, tensile strength tests are conducted on some rebar samples with
ductility over mild steel [37]. Therefore, depending on the importance different diameters using the universal testing machine as shown in
of a structure, seismic vulnerability, and corrosion in aggressive envi­ Fig. 1. The failure mode of the samples suggested that there is clear
ronments, the use of stainless steel can be an excellent solution for necking at the failure section of the rebars. The typical mechanical
ensuring the safety, durability, and serviceability of the structure. behavior of stainless steel grade 201 (SS201) is presented in Fig. 2. The
Developing ductility in a structure is one of the prime concerns of a characteristics of stress–strain properties suggested that there is no clear
structural engineer to ensure adequate dissipation of energy during a yield point of the SS rebars. The mechanical properties of SS rebars
seismic event. The higher ductility of stainless steels can also impart to indicated that they have higher ductility and elongation but compara­
higher rotational capacities of the cross-sections at plastic hinge zones tively low stiffness in the elastic regimes comparing to that of the MS
and thereby enabling the member to dissipate more energy. Recently,
Rabi et al. (2019) analyzed the flexural performance of SS reinforced Table 1
beams where they developed a numerical technique to predict the Chemical composition of the stainless steel [35].
flexural capacity of the concrete beams [38]. However, there is a lack of
Name of the Alloy Composition of alloys (Weight, %)
research particularly experimental results to understand the reinforcing
potential of SS in the concrete beam. Since stainless steel is a complex Carbon (C) 0.0918
Silicon (Si) 0.25
alloy, this paper first takes an attempt to investigate stainless steel as
Manganese (Mn) 09.70
reinforcement of concrete beam experimentally. This paper aims to Phosphorus (P) 0.0415
investigate the flexural response of SS reinforced concrete beams. An Sulfur (S) <0.0005
experimental program that includes eight SS and four control mild steel Nickel (Ni) 1.47
reinforced concrete beams is performed under static conditions. The Chromium (Cr) 13.92
Copper (Cu) 0.997
primary variables of the beams were the reinforcement ratio and con­ Nitrogen (N) 0.101
crete strength. Interesting outcomes of this study are presented in terms Iron (Fe) 74.07
of load–displacement relationship, cracking patterns, failure modes, Molybdenum (Mo) 0.0125
rebar strains, and code-comparison. Aluminum (Al) 0.0030
Cobalt (Co) 0.134
Niobium (Nb) 0.0091
2. Research significance Titanium (Ti) 0.0034
Vanadium (V) 0.0961
This experimental study aims to determine the flexural response of Tungsten (W) 0.0186
Lead (Pb)
concrete beams reinforced with plain stainless-steel grade 201 rebars. <0.0050
Tin (Sn) 0.0083
The chemical composition and bond strength of the SS 201 grade rebars Boron (B) 0.0010
in concrete have been addressed recently by the author [39]. Though Calcium (Ca) 0.0007
few studies are conducted on SS as reinforcement of concrete beams Selenium (Se) 0.0110
[38,40] they are mostly on analytical models and none of them con­ Antimony (Sb) 0.0061
Tantalum (Ta) 0.0541
ducted comprehensive experiments to investigate the flexural behavior

590
K.S. Ahmed et al.
Fig. 1. Test setup for tensile strength and failure modes of the SS samples.
Fig. 2. Typical mechanical properties of the 201 grade plain stainless-steel
rebar [35].
rebars.
4. Experimental program
An experimental program has been designed to conduct four points
static bending test of twelve simply supported beams having rectangular
cross-sections following the guidelines of ACI 318-14 [41]. The varying
parameters were the longitudinal bottom reinforcement and the con­
crete strength of the beams.
4.1. Specimen details
The length of the specimens was 1500 mm with a cross-section of
150 mm × 200 mm (W × D). The cross-sectional detail of all beam
specimens has been illustrated in Fig. 3. Concrete covers for beams were
Fig. 3. Cross-sections of the specimens.
591
Structures 34 (2021) 589–603
25 mm for a single layer of reinforcement and 37.5 mm for beams having
two layers of reinforcement. The specimen’s details have been summa­
rized in Table 2. Shear reinforcements were provided in such a tech­
nique that the flexural failure of the beams governs over other failure
modes. In a view to preventing shear failure, 4.5 mm dia mild steel bars
with a spacing of 75 mm and 100 mm were used as stirrups for the shear
span region and the constant moment region, respectively for all the
twelve specimens. The naming of each specimen in Table 2 was per­
formed according to the type of their tensile reinforcement used (MS =
Mild Steel, SS = Stainless Steel), percentage of tensile reinforcement
ratio, ρ = As/ bd (Low, L, ρ = 0.59%; Medium, M, ρ = 1.2%; Medium, M’,
ρ = 1.3%; High, H, ρ = 1.6%; Very high, H’, ρ = 2.32%) and the relative
concrete strength between specimens having the same reinforcement
ratio. 1 and 2 are for target concrete strength 45 MPa and 55 MPa,
respectively. The term ‘low reinforcement ratio’ is set based on the
minimum tensile steel ratio for flexural member which is 0.25 ×√fc’/fy
as per ACI-318 guideline and 0.26 ×√fc’/fy as per Eurocode 2, resulting
in a reinforcement ratio of 0.35 to 0.4%. fc’ and fy are the compressive
strength of concrete and yield strength of steel, respectively. For the
convenient application of rebars inside the beam, 2 nos 10 mm dia re­
bars are designed here as bottom rebars of SSL-1 that result in a rein­
forcement ratio of 0.59%. Subsequently, other reinforcement ratios are
selected by increasing the number of rebars (10 mm or 12 mm dia re­
bars). Specimens with a very high reinforcement ratio also follow the
limit of code-specified maximum allowable reinforcement (4% as per
Eurocode 2 or maximum tensile steel strain of 0.005 as per ACI318).
4.2. Material properties
4.2.1. CS & SS rebars
The tensile test of the rebars was carried out with three samples for
each rebar diameter following the guidelines of ASTM E8/E8M [42].
K.S. Ahmed et al. Structures 34 (2021) 589–603

Table 2
Composition of the local stainless steel.
Specimen b × h (mm) d (mm) ρ (%) Bottom reinforcement Top reinforcement Stirrup Concrete strength fcu (MPa)

At Midspan At support

MSL-1 150 × 200 175 0.59 2φ10 2φ10 φ4.5@100 φ4.5@75 48

MSL-2 150 × 200 175 0.59 2φ10 2φ10 φ4.5@100 φ4.5@75 54
MSH-1 150 × 200 162.5 1.60 5φ10 2φ10 φ4.5@100 φ4.5@75 45
MSH-2 150 × 200 162.5 1.60 5φ10 2φ10 φ4.5@100 φ4.5@75 52
SSL-1 150 × 200 175 0.59 2φ10 2φ10 φ4.5@100 φ4.5@75 47
SSL-2 150 × 200 175 0.59 2φ10 2φ10 φ4.5@100 φ4.5@75 60
SSM-1 150 × 200 175 1.2 4φ10 2φ10 φ4.5@100 φ4.5@75 46
SSM-2 150 × 200 175 1.2 4φ10 2φ10 φ4.5@100 φ4.5@75 57
SSM’-2 150 × 200 175 1.3 3φ12 2φ10 φ4.5@100 φ4.5@75 54
SSH-1 150 × 200 162.5 1.6 5φ10 2φ10 φ4.5@100 φ4.5@75 45
SSH-2 150 × 200 162.5 1.6 5φ10 2φ10 φ4.5@100 φ4.5@75 56
SSH’-1 150 × 200 162.5 2.32 5φ12 2φ10 φ4.5@100 φ4.5@75 48

The mechanical properties of SS and MS rebars used in the beam spec­
imens are presented in Table 3. As can be seen from the table, 500 W
deformed carbon steel was used for reference beams in which the yield
and ultimate strength of the rebar were close to 530 MPa and 710 MPa,
respectively. The ultimate to yield strength ratio of the MS rebars was
1.33 that ensures a standard ductility of the rebars. The modulus of
elasticity of the MS rebar was found 200 GPa. The yield and ultimate
strength of stainless steel 201-grade rebars were found higher than those
of conventional MS rebars. SS201 grade provided a yield and ultimate
strength of 880 MPa and 1110 MPa, respectively. Both ultimate strength
and strain at that point of the SS rebars are higher than that of the
conventional carbon steel. The modulus of elasticity of SS rebars was
observed to be in a range of 182–184 GPa.
4.2.2. Concrete
Concrete mixing was performed manually for the casting of the
specimens. Concrete mix-design was accomplished for two concrete
grades name 45 MPa and 55 MPa. Three concrete cylinder samples (100
mm × 150 mm) were prepared from the concrete mix of each beam
specimen and tested as per ASTM standard C192/C192M [43] to
determine the compressive strength of the concrete. Ordinary Portland
Cement (CEM I) with a specific gravity of 3.0–3.10 was used as binding
material for all concrete casting conforming to the requirement of ASTM
C150 [44]. Locally acquired well-graded coarse sand of the best quality
(locally named as Sylhet sand) was used as fine aggregate with a Fine­
ness Modulus (F.M) of 2.5 or greater and a specific gravity of 2.60.
Natural crushed stone chips having a maximum size of 19 mm and a
specific gravity of 2.64. In the mix design process, the water-cement
ratio was kept to 0.35 and 0.38 for 55 MPa and 45 MPa concrete,
respectively. The concrete strength of each beam specimen was deter­
mined from the average compressive strength of three concrete cylinder
samples as presented in Table 2.
4.3. Test Setup, loading procedure, instrumentation, and data acquisition
The clear span of all beam specimens was kept to be 1200 mm being
rested on rigid supports at the two ends. The schematic view of the test
setup has been presented in Fig. 4. After casting and curing, the beams
were cleaned and washed with white paint before draw grid lines on the
vertical plane to understand the crack propagation and failure modes.
Rebars at the mid-span of the specimens (both in tension and
compression zone) were instrumented with electrical resistance strain
gauges to observe the load–strain response of the rebars. Four nos of
strain gauges are fixed at the bottom rebars to account for the tensile
strain of the rebars where two strain gauges are placed at the top rebars
to account for the compressive strain of the bars. Deflections at the
midspan and the locations of the concentrated loads were accounted
using three Linear Voltage Displacement Transducers (LVDTs) of
maximum gauge length of 100 mm with a precision of 1/100th of mm.
Two concentrated loads were applied at 400 mm distances from both
the support ends. The formwork for beam specimens, installation of
strain gauges, curing of the beam, whitewashing, data acquisition sys­
tem and actual setup of the beam are shown in Fig. 5. The loading on the
beams was executed using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM) of
1000kN capacity, following a displacement-controlled procedure with a
loading rate of 2 mm per minute. The cracks were marked and the
corresponding loads were recorded during the test period. The loading
actuator, strain gauges, and LVDT were connected to a 20-channel data
acquisition system to record the uninterrupted data. During the test
period, a team was cautious to observe the first crack, the loading was
paused and the crack width was measured with the help of a hand-held
microscope. The crack propagation was observed visually and clear lines
were drawn on both sides of each beam. Subsequently, loads on the
cracking points were recorded on the datasheet.
5. Results and analysis
5.1. Load-deflection behavior
Figure 6 shows the experimental load–deflection characteristics of
the tested beams. It is evident from the graphs that apparently, load vs
deflection curves of all test specimens start with a steep straight slope
until the formation of the 1st crack on the bottom surface of the beam
specimens. However, the slopes of the curves gradually decrease from
that point with the increasing number of cracks that propagate upwards
until the tensile rebars reach their yield point. Afterward, the specimens
show significantly high deformation with a slight increase in load up to
the yield point when the beams reach their ultimate capacity and fail
due to concrete crushing at the compression zone. Therefore, the load-
deformation curve for MS reinforced beams can be approximated as a

Table 3
Mechanical properties of steel and Stainless-Steel bars.
Diameter Mild Steel bar (MS) Stainless Steel bar (SS)
(mm)
Yield Ultimate Modulus of Nominal yield Strain Ɛ0.2 Ultimate Strain Ɛua Modulus of
strength fy strength fu elasticity Es strength f0.2 corresponding to f0.2 strength fuss corresponding to fss elasticity Ess
(MPa) (MPa) (GPa) MPa (%) (MPa) (%) (GPa)

12 527 709 200 887 0.461 1015 13.58 182

10 592 713 200 889 0.449 1110 20.0 184

592
K.S. Ahmed et al. Structures 34 (2021) 589–603

Fig. 4. Experimental test setup.

Fig. 5. Photographs of tests specimen preparation (a) Test specimens’ formworks, (b) Strain gauge fixing, (c) Curing of specimen (d) Specimen ready for testing, (e)
Data logger setup and (f) General view of the test setup.

593
K.S. Ahmed et al. Structures 34 (2021) 589–603

80 100
70 90
80
60
70
Load, kN

Load, kN
50 60
40 50
30 40
MSL-1 30
20 MSL-2
20
10 SSL-1
10 SSL-2
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40
Displacement, mm Displacement, mm

(a) (b)
200 180
180 160
160 140
140 120

Load, kN
Load, kN

120 100
100
SSL-1 80 SSL-2
80
60 SSM-2
60 SSM-1
40 SSH-1
40 SSM'-2

20 SSH'-1
20 SSH-2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60
Displacement, mm Displacement, mm

(c) (d)
180 180
160 160
140 140
120 120
Load, kN
Load, kN

100 100
80 80
60 60
40 SSH-1 40 MSH-2

20 MSH-1 20 SSH-2

0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40
Displacement, mm Displacement, mm

(e) (f)
Fig. 6. Load-deflection characteristics of the tested beams.

typical tri-linear curve whereas the curve is apparently bi-linear for SS
reinforced beams without showing any clear yield point.
Figure 6(a) shows the flexural behavior of MSL-1 and SSL-1 speci­
mens which were cast with the same concrete mix with the sole variable
of different types of tensile rebars (MS & SS). The MSL-1 and SSL-1, both
containing a reinforcement ratio of 0.59% start with the same initial
slope i.e., nearly the equal initial stiffness. However, after the formation
of the 1st tensile crack, the SSL-1 shows slightly more declination of the
stiffness compared to that of MSL-1. In a comparison of the load-carrying
capacity, the SS reinforced beam shows a higher yield and ultimate
strength than that of the beam containing MS rebars. Fig. 6(b) shows the
comparative load–deflection characteristics of the beams designated as
MSL-2 and SSL-2. Those two beams contained the same reinforcement
ratio of 0.59% with a target concrete strength of 55 MPa. In this com­
bination, the higher strength of the concrete rendered a decrease in the
steepness of the slope for the beam containing SS rebar indicating a
lower flexural stiffness compared to the MSL-2 beam.
Figure 6(c) and (d) present the load–deflection behavior of the
specimens reinforced with SS rebars of varying reinforcement ratios for
the target concrete strength of 45 MPa and 55 MPa, respectively.
Experimental results show similar flexural behavior in both of the con­
crete mixes i.e. increasing both the flexural stiffness and ultimate ca­
pacity of the beams with the increase of the reinforcement ratio. The
stiffness of the beam increases as the reinforcement increases up to the
medium reinforcement. However, the deformability of SS reinforced
beams decreases as the reinforcement ratio increase for both concrete
grades. The figures also show that the initial stiffness (before the 1st
crack) of SS rebars is nearly equal and consistent for a medium to high
reinforcement ratio, particularly for the higher concrete grade (55 MPa).
It is also important to highlight that the load-carrying capacity increases
significantly for low to medium reinforcement which is nearly constant
for high to very high reinforcement ratio.
Comparisons in terms of load–deflection behavior of beams with
high and very high reinforcement ratios of MS and SS are presented in
Fig. 6(e) and (f). The beams reinforced with MS (MSH-1, MSH-2)
exhibited higher flexural stiffness however, comparatively lower

594
K.S. Ahmed et al. Structures 34 (2021) 589–603

ultimate strength than the beams reinforced with SS rebars. When
higher reinforcement ratios were used, the specimens having SS rebars
were found to be failing with a higher yield but comparatively smaller
ultimate deformation. This attribute may be explained as at the high
reinforcement ratio, concrete crushing occurs before rebar yielding at a
relatively lower ultimate deformation.
5.2. Cracking pattern and failure modes
Figure 7 shows the crack patterns of all tested beams with their
schematic illustrations. As the load was imposed on the beams, cracks
began to form and gradually increased on the constant moment area of
the beams. For reinforcement ratios 0.59% and 1.60%, it can be seen

Fig. 7. Crack patterns and failure modes of the tested beams.

595
K.S. Ahmed et al. Structures 34 (2021) 589–603

Fig. 7. (continued).

from the tested beams that the specimens with SS rebars exhibited fewer
cracks development compared to the MS reinforced beam containing the
same rebar percentage. The least number of cracks was observed on the
specimen designated SSL-2 which has SS rebar of the lowest reinforce­
ment ratio but higher concrete strength. After reaching the apparent
yielding of the beams, the number of cracks started to increase more in
flexural zones until the concrete fails due to crushing that further
extended to the shear zones.
Four different types of failures were observed from the tested spec­
imens which were presented in Table 4. They are flexural failures by
concrete crushing, shear failure with major shear cracks at shear span;
combined shear and flexural failure, and combined flexure-bond failure
(reinforcement debonding failure at the support). The failure modes
showed that ductile flexural failure was dominant in the SS reinforced
beams and mostly occurred for a low reinforcement ratio. It is important
to highlight that some specimens reinforced with SS showed bond fail­
ure at the beam ends where rebars were hooked. The reinforcement
debonding failure at the beam ends was observed for SS reinforced
beams for the medium reinforcement ratio. This can be described by the
fact that beams with a medium reinforcement ratio (1.2%) contained
more closely spaced rebars than the low reinforcement ratio. As a result,
those plain rebars are surrounded by less amount of concrete that

Table 4
Test results.
Specimen Load, kN Moment Capacity Midspan deflection, mm Ratio Failure
ID mode

Cracking, Yielding, Ultimate, Mcr(KN- Mu(KN- Yielding, Ultimate, Failure, Load Pu/ Displacement
Pcr Py Pu m) m) Δy Δu Δmax Py
Δu/ Δmax/
Δy Δy

MSL-1 17.40 46.34 63.35 3.48 12.67 4.77 11.37 35.86 1.37 2.38 7.52 Flexural
MSL-2 5.5 44.6 62.42 1.1 12.484 3.88 13.5 37.20 1.4 3.48 9.59 Flexural-
Shear
MSH-1 20.14 136 146.9 4.028 29.38 7.32 9.56 27.61 1.08 1.31 3.77 Flexural
MSH-2 25.3 144.8 154.8 5.06 30.96 8.23 11.12 35.37 1.07 1.35 4.30 Flexural
SSL-1 15.83 53.83 72.42 3.166 14.484 7.35 18.77 39.67 1.35 2.55 5.40 Flexural
SSL-2 21.04 71.44 91.95 4.208 18.39 15.12 24.80 25.01 1.29 1.64 1.65 Flexural
SSM-1 11.67 83.74 124.13 2.334 24.826 7.21 14.04 27.59 1.48 1.95 3.83 Flexural-
Bond
SSM-2 18.48 120.70 146.71 3.696 29.342 12.19 18.73 29.13 1.22 1.54 2.39 Flexural
SSM’-2 23.05 117.54 154.73 4.61 30.946 10.61 18.97 26.57 1.32 1.79 2.50 Flexural-
Bond
SSH-1 23.28 119.23 159 4.656 31.8 11.46 14.168 19.34 1.33 1.24 1.69 Shear
SSH-2 24.96 137.45 155.8 4.992 31.16 13.86 16.74 19.93 1.13 1.21 1.44 Flexural
SSH’-1 27.71 144.04 172.73 5.542 34.546 12.18 13.12 26.87 1.20 1.08 2.21 Shear

596
K.S. Ahmed et al. Structures 34 (2021) 589–603

ultimately results in premature bond failure. Concrete crushing at the
mid-span of the beam was observed for the beam with a high rein­
forcement ratio. This behavior can be attributed to the fact that for a
high reinforcement ratio, the bottom of the beams was reinforced with a
greater number of rebars in multiple rows that share the bending-
induced tension at the bottom and subsequently top concrete crushes
before rebar yielding.
5.3. Comparison between MS and SS reinforced beams
In a view to comparing the features of MS and SS reinforced beams,
results of all tested beams are summarized in a tabular form as presented
in Table 4. For all reinforcement ratios, the value of ultimate moment
capacity (Muexp) increased for the SS reinforced beams compared to that
of the MS reinforced beams with the same steel ratio (r) and the dif­
ferences are higher for low reinforced beams. For example, the Muexp of
MSL-1 and SSL-1 was 12.67 kN-m and 14.48 kN-m, respectively which is
a 14.3% increase for SS rebars. Similarly, SSL-2, SSH-1, and SSH-2 show
47.3%, 8.2%, and 0.6% increase in Muexp compared to that of the MSL-2,
MSH-1, and MSH-2, respectively. This increment was expected because
the mechanical strength of SS rebars is higher than the MS rebars though
the increment is not in a linear pattern.
It is also observed from the table that the displacements at yield and
ultimate points of SS reinforced beams are comparatively larger than
those of the beams with MS rebars. Maximum displacement at the beam
yield for SS reinforced beam was observed to be 15.12 mm for SSL-2

Distance (m) Distance (m)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0 0
Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)
-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15 20 kN
20 kN
40 kN
40 kN
60 kN
-20 60 kN
-20 Max. Load
Max. Load

(a) SSL-1 (b) MSL-1

Distance (m) Distance (m)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0 0

-5 -5
Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20
20 kN
40 kN 20 kN
-25 -25 40 kN
80 kN
120 kN 60 kN
-30 Max. Load -30 Max. Load

(c) SSL-2 (d) MSL-2

Distance (m)
Distance (m)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0 0

-5
Deflection (mm)

Deflection(mm)

-5

-10
-10
20 kN
-15 40 kN 20 KN
-15 40 kN
80 kN
120 kN 80 kN
-20 Max. Load 120 kN
-20 Max. Load

(e) SSH-1 (f) MSH-1

Fig. 8. Load-deformation characteristics of the beams.

597
K.S. Ahmed et al. Structures 34 (2021) 589–603

Distance (m) Distance (m)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Deflection (mm) 0 0

Deflection (mm)
-5 -5

-10 -10

20 kN 20 kN
-15 -15
40 kN 40 kN
80 kN 80 kN
120 kN -20 120 kN
-20
Max. Load Max. Load

(g) SSH-2 (h) MSH-2

Distance (m) Distance (m)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0 0

-5
Deflection(mm)
Deflection(mm)

-5

-10
-10

-15
-15 20 kN 20 kN
40 kN 40 kN
80 kN -20 80 kN
-20 120 kN 120 kN
Max. Load Max. Load

(i) SSM-1 (j) SSM-2

Distance (m) Distance (m)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0 0

-5
Deflection (mm)

-5
Deflection (mm)

-10 -10

-15 20 kN
-15 20 kN
40 kN
40 kN
80 kN 80 kN
120 kN -20 120 kN
-20 Max. Load
Max. Load

(k) SSM’-2 (l) SSH’-1

Fig. 8. (continued).

which was 3.88 mm for MSL-2. The corresponding displacements at
ultimate loads were 24.80 mm and 13.5 mm, respectively. This behavior
may be explained by the fact that SS rebars possess higher deformability
and lower stiffness that results in larger yield and ultimate displace­
ments of their beams. Besides, the plain rebars may experience prema­
ture debonding along the length of the rebars which results in higher
yield and ultimate displacement for SS reinforced beams.
5.4. Beam deformation and load–strain relation
Figure 8 summarizes deformations of all the beam specimens from
the experiments. It is evident from the figures that the ultimate defor­
mation of the SS reinforced beam is significantly higher than that of the
CS considering the same steel ratio (r) and concrete strength(f’c ). As an
example, for a lower value of r, the maximum beam deformation of
beam SSL-1 is nearly 50% higher than that obtained from MSL-1. On the
other hand, pre-crack beam deformation of both SS and MS beams were
approximately equal though SS shows a little higher deformation. This
can be explained by the fact that the overall stiffness of SS reinforced
beams is smaller than that of the MS. It is also important to highlight that
the beam deformation is even higher than the other failure types
particularly when beam end debonding occurred, as observed for SSM’-
2.
Figure 9 demonstrates the load–strain responses of all twelve beam
specimens. A total of six strain gauges were installed in the top and
bottom rebars of all the beam specimens. Strain gauges no-1 and 2 were

598
K.S. Ahmed et al. Structures 34 (2021) 589–603

60 (a) SSH-2 80 (b) MSH-2

SG-6
50 70
SG-5
SG-4 60
40
SG-2 50
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
SG-1 30 40
20 30
SG-4
10 SG-3 20
SG-2 10
0 SG-1
-0.015 -0.005 0.005 0.015 0
Strain (mm/mm) -0.08 -0.03 0.02 0.07
Strain (mm/mm)
(a) (b)

60 (c) SSH-1 160 (d) MSH-1

50 140
120
40
100

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

30 80
SG-6
SG-5 20 60
SG-4 SG-4
SG-3 10 SG-3 40
SG-2 SG-2 20
SG-1 0 SG-1
-0.013 -0.008 -0.003 0.002 0.007 0.012 0
-0.25 -0.15 -0.05 0.05 0.15 0.25
Strain (mm/mm) Strain (mm/mm)
(c) (d)

140 (e) SSM-2 160 (f) SSM'-2

120 140
100 120
100
Load (kN)

80
Load (kN)

SG-5 60 SG-5 80
SG-4 SG-4 60
SG-3 40
SG-2 SG-3 40
SG-1 20 SG-2
20
0 SG-1
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0
Strain (mm/mm) -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Strain (mm/mm)
(e) (f)
Fig. 9. Load - strain behavior of the SS reinforced beam.

fixed at the top rebars, accounting for the compressive strain. The
remaining strain gauges no-3, 4, 5, and 6 were placed at the bottom
rebars to determine the tensile strain corresponding to the applied load.
It can be seen from the figures that the strains in SS rebars were higher
than that of the MS rebars for all beam specimens. This can be described
by the fact that SS rebars possess lower stiffness that ultimately reduces
the bending stiffness of the corresponding beams. In addition, poor
mechanical interlocking of SS rebars arises from its plain nature also
increases the rebar strain in the case of SS rebars. It is suggested to
investigate deformed SS rebars in concrete beams to understand strain
properties more clearly.
5.5. Analytical comparison with existing codes
The cracking moment was calculated from the load applied at the
first crack. The crack was detected with a visual inspection of the tested
beams using a high-resolution camera and was later checked from the
slope-deflection behavior of the beams. The cracking moments obtained
from the tests were compared with the theoretical cracking moments
obtained from three different established codes.
5.5.1. Cracking moment
The cracking moment capacity of beam specimens as per ACI 318
[45] guideline may be presented as follows:
Ig
Mcrtheo = fr (1)
yt
√̅̅̅̅̅̅
Where, rupture stress, fr = 0.62λ f’c for normal weight concrete; The
value of λ is usually equal to 1 for normal-density concrete as used in this
study; yt is the distance between extreme tension fiber and neutral axis
of the cross-section and Ig is the second moment of area after neglecting
the rebars.
Canadian Standard Association CSA [46] recommends the following
equation for the cracking moment capacity of the beam specimens:

599
K.S. Ahmed et al. Structures 34 (2021) 589–603

100 (g) SSL-2 70 (h) MSL-2

80 60
50
Load (kN) 60

Load (kN)
40
SG-6 40
SG-5 30
SG-4
SG-3 20 SG-3 20
SG-2 SG-2
SG-1 10
0 SG-1
-0.015 -0.005 0.005 0.015 0
Strain (mm/mm) -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Strain (mm/mm)
(g) (h)

80 (i) SSL-1 70 (j) MSL-1

70 60
60
50
50
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
40
40
30 30
SG-4
SG-3 SG-4 20
20
SG-2 SG-3
10 SG-2 10
SG-1
0 SG-1
0
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Strain (mm/mm) -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
Strain (mm/mm)
(i) (j)

140 (f) SSM-1 60 (c) SSH-1

120
50
100
40
80
Load (kN)

SG-6
Load (kN)

SG-5 30
60 SG-5
SG-4
SG-4
SG-3 40 SG-3 20
SG-2 SG-2
SG-1 20 10
SG-1
0
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0
-0.013 -0.008 -0.003 0.002 0.007 0.012
Strain (mm/mm)
Strain (mm/mm)
(k) (l)
Fig. 9. (continued).

Ig
Mcrtheo = fr
yt
√̅̅̅̅̅̅
Where fr = 0.6µ f’c and µ = 1 for normal density concrete; 0.85 for
concrete of semi low density.
As per EC2 [47], the cracking moment capacity of the reinforced
concrete beam may be written as,
Iu
Mcr (theo) = fctm
(h − xu )
Where, the term fctm is the average tensile strength of concrete that may
be given as = 0.3fck0.67 can be approximated from the concrete cylinder
strength, Iu is the moment of area of the uncracked transformed section,
xu is the distance from the neutral axis to the extreme top fiber of the
section, and h is the height of the beam section.
Based on the three different guidelines, the cracking moments of all
beam specimens are compared in terms of the ratio of experimental
value to theoretical prediction as presented in Fig. 10. The figure shows
that all twelve tested beams show a similar agreement with the three
(2)
different codes. It is observed from the comparison that the ratio of
experimental to theoretical cracking moment for the beams reinforced
with MS is within the range of 1 ± 0.2, which may be the acceptable
range as per the respective codes with the sole exception of MSL-2.
Therefore, the results reflect the acceptable conformity between the
theoretical results of those codes and experimental data. As for the
beams with SS as the main rebar, the highest deviation from the code
(3) was observed on SSM-1, which showed nearly 40% less than the code
recommended cracking moment capacity. All other beams with SS re­
bars showed that the ratios of experimental to theoretical cracking
moment capacity were found within the range of 1 ± 0.3. This can be
considered as good conformity to the codes’ prediction as there are no
specific guidelines for the application of SS rebars.
5.5.2. Ultimate moment capacity
The ultimate moment capacity (Mult) of the tested beams is estimated
from the ultimate loads obtained from the load–deflection curves and
they are compared with the theoretical moments (Mtheo) capacity, as

600
K.S. Ahmed et al. Structures 34 (2021) 589–603

ACI 318(2014) CSA 2004 EC2 2005

1.4

1.2

Mcrexp/Mcrtheo 1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
MSL-1 MSL-2 MSH-1 MSH-2 SSL-1 SSL-2 SSM-1 SSM-2 SSM’-2 SSH-1 SSH-2 SSH’-1

Fig. 10. Cracking moment comparison with established codes.

recommended by CSA, ACI318, and EC2. All design codes follow the
ρf ff
similar concept of a stress block with a recommended width of αf’c and a Mu = ρf ff bd2 (1− (5)
height of βc where f’c compressive strength of concrete, a is defined as 2α1 fc’
the stress block parameters and b is the width of the beam. α = 0.85–0.0015f’c ≥ 0.67
The ultimate moment capacity of tested beam specimens as per ACI β = 0.97–0.0025f’c ≥ 0.67
318 [45] guideline may be presented as follows As per EC2 [47]:
ρs = Abds ; α=0.85
(6)
′
η(α) = 1.0 for fc ≤ 50 MPa
ρs fs
Mu = ρs fs bd2 (1 − ) (4)
2 × α1 fc’ ′
fc − 50
(7)
′
η(α) = 1 − for 50 < fc ≤ 70 MPa
If steel yields 200
fs =fy
(8)
′
λ(β) = 0.8 for fc ≤ 50 MPa
β = 0.85 forf’c ≤ 28 MPa
β = 0.85–0.05(f’c -28)/7 ≥ 0.65 forf’c > 28 MPa ( ′ )
fc − 50
Eqns. (6) to (9) present the recommended values of stress block pa­ (9)
′
λ(β) = 0.8 − for 50 < fc ≤ 70 MPa
400
rameters as per the specific design codes.
As per CSA [46] The nominal flexural strength of the beam is considered to be
A
ρf =bdf α = 0.85–0.0015fc’ ⩾0.67 reached at the extreme fiber of compression zone with the maximum
strain limit of 0.003 in ACI318 whereas the CSA and EC2 specify an

ACI 318(2014) CSA 2004 EC2 2005

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00
Muexp/Mutheo

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
MSL-1 MSL-2 MSH-1 MSH-2 SSL-1 SSL-2 SSM-1 SSM-2 SSM’-2 SSH-1 SSH-2 SSH’-1

Fig. 11. Ultimate moment comparison with established codes.

601
K.S. Ahmed et al.
ultimate concrete strain of 0.0035.
Figure 11 reports the ratio of ultimate experimental moment ca­
pacity to the ultimate moment capacity recommended by the above-
mentioned codes. The comparison reveals that the experimental ulti­
mate moment capacity for MS reinforced beams is 20–30% greater than
the predicted moment capacity obtained from the established codes.
This difference may arise from the fluctuation of design concrete and
steel strength from the actual strength. However, for the beams con­
taining SS as the main rebar, the ratio of the moment capacity was found
to be in the range of 0.64–0.88 i.e. less than the codes’ prescribed values.
The lowest deviation was observed for the beam designated as SSH-1
which was 12% less than the codes’ recommended moment capacity
whereas the highest deviation was detected to be 36% for SSM-1.
6. Conclusions
In this study, the flexural response of concrete beams reinforced with
plain stainless-steel grade 201 bars was investigated using static four-
point bending tests. Based on the experimental results and compari­
sons of well-established codes, the key findings of this study are as
follows:
a. Mechanical properties of SS rebars show that the yield and ultimate
strength of the SS rebars are observed to be approximately 880 and
1110 MPa, respectively which are higher than that of the conven­
tional carbon steel rebars. However, the modulus of elasticity of SS is
approximately 182 MPa which is smaller than the MS rebars. SS
rebars show higher deformability than MS rebars.
b. The load–deflection relationships of all control beams (MS) can be
approximated as typical tri-linear curves. However, the behavior of
SS reinforced beams are non-linear which can be approximated as bi-
linear as they directly reached the ultimate capacity after the first
crack initiation. No clear yield point was observed for SS reinforced
beam specimens.
c. With a relatively low rebar percentage (0.59%), SSL-1 and SSL-2
showed 14.3% and 47.3% higher load carrying capacity than that
of the MSL-1 and MSL-2, respectively. However, the ultimate load of
both SS and MS reinforced beams was found nearly equal at the high
reinforcement ratio though the tensile strength of SS is much higher
than the MS rebars. Therefore, it can be concluded that the SS
reinforced beam shows improved performance at a low steel ratio.
d. The mode of failure was mostly observed as a flexural failure, ductile
in nature which is evident from the significant straining of rein­
forcement followed by crushing of concrete in the compression zone.
This may be described by the fact that SS rebars inherit lower stiff­
ness that produces larger elastic deformation and hence low ultimate
capacity is found by crushing the compression zone. For a high steel
ratio, concrete crushing happens without observing any yielding of
SS rebars. Bond failures at the beam ends were observed only for SS
reinforced beams particularly when a medium reinforcement ratio
was used. Concrete crushing and shear failures were observed for the
beams with a high reinforcement ratio. No SS rebar failure was
observed in any case of a flexural test of the beams.
e. The reinforcement ratio influences both the cracking and ultimate
moment capacity of SS reinforced beams, not exactly in a similar way
as it usually happens in conventional MS reinforced beams. As the
reinforcement ratio (r) was increased, both cracking and ultimate
moment carrying capacity also increased up to the medium rein­
forcement ratio (1.2%). However, for a high reinforcement ratio, the
ultimate capacity of the SS beam is nearly the same as the medium
reinforced beams i.e. no further improvement. Similar evidence was
observed for the initial stiffness (before the 1st crack) of SS rein­
forced beams. The initial stiffness was observed nearly equal and
consistent for a medium to high reinforcement ratio, particularly for
the higher concrete grade (55 MPa).
602
Structures 34 (2021) 589–603
f. Beam displacements at the yield and ultimate load were observed to
be larger for SS reinforced beams and the behavior is more signifi­
cant at a low rebar percentage. Load-strain responses of the tensile
rebars also confirm that strains in SS rebars are comparatively higher
than MS rebars. The maximum difference is observed in a compari­
son of SSL-2 and MSL-2 where SSL-2 showed 83% higher ultimate
displacement than that of the MSL-2. However, the beam de­
formations at ultimate load as well as the differences with the control
beams were observed to be decreased as the reinforcement ratio
increases in the beams.
g. The cracking and ultimate moment capacity of the tested beams were
compared with ACI 318-14, CSA-2004, and EC-2005. A comparison
between observed and code-recommended cracking moments
showed that the ratios of experimental to theoretical cracking
moment capacity for SS reinforced beams were within the range of 1
± 0.3 (except SSM-1) where the control beams fall in the range of 1
± 0.2. Though stainless steel shows higher deformability and good
performance in a low reinforcement ratio, the ratio of experimental
to code-prescribed ultimate moment capacity is in the range of
0.64–0.88 i.e. approximately 12–36% smaller than recommended
values. This may happen primarily due to its low elastic stiffness,
lower gripping, and possible slippage along the length of the rebar
before their yielding. As a future study, it is planned to investigate
the shear and flexural response of concrete beams reinforced with
deformed SS rebars.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge test facilities provided by the
Department of Civil Engineering of MIST and BUET. The authors also
acknowledge the supports of the lab technicians during the experimental
program and also the SS rebar supplier, Steeltech-BD. The first author
would like to acknowledge the contribution of Asst Prof. (on leave)
Kamrul Islam, MIST for his concept, effort and knowledge sharing. The
authors also thank undergraduate student, Md Kamrul Reza and Mirza
Mohaimenul Anam for their assistances with the lab work. Last but not
the least, the authors gratefully acknowledge the research fund provided
by MIST.
References
[1] Gao J, Wu J, Li J, Zhao X. Monitoring of corrosion in reinforced concrete structure
using Bragg grating sensing. NDT E Int 2011;44(2):202–5.
[2] Ormellese M, Berra M, Bolzoni F, Pastore T. Corrosion inhibitors for chlorides
induced corrosion in reinforced concrete structures. Cem Concr Res 2006;36(3):
536–47.
[3] Ormellese M, Bolzoni F, Lazzari L, Pedeferri P. Effect of corrosion inhibitors on the
initiation of chloride-induced corrosion on reinforced concrete structures. 2008;59
(2):98-106.
[4] Huang R, Yang CC. Condition assessment of reinforced concrete beams relative to
reinforcement corrosion. Cem Concr Compos 1997;19(2):131–7.
[5] Ballim Y, Reid JC, Kemp AR. Deflection of RC beams under simultaneous load and
steel corrosion. Mag Concr Res 2001;53(3):171–81.
[6] Alavi-Dehkordi S, Mostofinejad D. Behavior of concrete columns reinforced with
high-strength steel rebars under eccentric loading. Mater Struct 2018;51(6):145.
[7] Aldabagh S, Alam M.S. High-strength steel reinforcement (ASTM A1035/A1035M
Grade 690): state-of-the-art review. 2020;146(8):03120003.
[8] Khaksefidi S, Ghalehnovi M, de Brito J. Bond behaviour of high-strength steel
rebars in normal (NSC) and ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC). J Build Eng
2021;33:101592.
[9] Ahmed KS, Shahjalal Md, Siddique TA, Keng AK. Bond strength of post-installed
high strength deformed rebar in concrete. Case Stud Constr Mater 2021;15:e00581.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00581.
[10] Hildebrand H, Schwenk W. Einflußeiner Verzinkung auf die Korrosion von mit
Zementmörtel beschichtetem Stahl in NaCl-Lösung. Mater Corros 1986;37(4):
163–9.
K.S. Ahmed et al.
[11] Ramirez E, González JA, Bautista A. The protective efficiency of galvanizing
against corrosion of steel in mortar and in Ca(OH)2 saturated solutions containing
chlorides. Cem Concr Res 1996;26(10):1525–36.
[12] Erdoğdu Ş, Bremner TW, Kondratova IL. Accelerated testing of plain and epoxy-
coated reinforcement in simulated seawater and chloride solutions. Cem Concr Res
2001;31(6):861–7.
[13] Webb NC. Cathodic protection of reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater 1992;6
(3):179–83.
[14] Bertolini L, Bolzoni F, Pedeferri P, Lazzari L, Pastore T. Cathodic protection and
cathodic preventionin concrete: principles and applications. J Appl Electrochem
1998;28(12):1321–31.
[15] Vijay P, GangaRao HV. Bending behavior and deformability of glass fiber-
reinforced polymer reinforced concrete members. Struct J 2001;98(6):834–42.
[16] Habeeb MN, Ashour AF. Flexural behavior of continuous GFRP reinforced concrete
beams. J Compos Constr 2008;12(2):115–24.
[17] Abdalla HA. Evaluation of deflection in concrete members reinforced with fibre
reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. Compos Struct 2002;56(1):63–71.
[18] Issa MS, Metwally IM, Elzeiny SM. Influence of fibers on flexural behavior and
ductility of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP rebars. Eng Struct 2011;33(5):
1754–63.
[19] Rasheed HA, Nayal R, Melhem H. Response prediction of concrete beams
reinforced with FRP bars. Compos Struct 2004;65(2):193–204.
[20] Xing G, Ozbulut OE. Flexural performance of concrete beams reinforced with
aluminum alloy bars. Eng Struct 2016;126:53–65.
[21] Abdulridha A, Palermo D, Foo S, Vecchio FJ. Behavior and modeling of superelastic
shape memory alloy reinforced concrete beams. Eng Struct 2013;49:893–904.
[22] Saiidi MS, Sadrossadat-Zadeh M, Ayoub C, Itani A. Pilot study of behavior of
concrete beams reinforced with shape memory alloys. J Mater Civ Eng 2007;19(6):
454–61.
[23] Baddoo NR. Stainless steel in construction: a review of research, applications,
challenges and opportunities. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64(11):1199–206.
[24] Corradi M, Di Schino A, Borri A, Rufini R. A review of the use of stainless steel for
masonry repair and reinforcement. Constr Build Mater 2018;181:335–46.
[25] Rossi B. Discussion on the use of stainless steel in constructions in view of
sustainability. Thin-Walled Struct 2014;83:182–9.
[26] Gedge G. Structural uses of stainless steel — buildings and civil engineering.
J Constr Steel Res 2008;64(11):1194–8.
[27] Gardner L. The use of stainless steel in structures. 2005;7(2):45-55.
[28] Farzana K, Ahmed K. Performance based seismic analysis of stainless steel
reinforced concrete bridge pier using damping ductility relationship, International
Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE 2020), Chittagong,
Bangladesh 2020.
[29] Duarte R, Castela A, Neves R, Freire L, Montemor M. Corrosion behavior of
stainless steel rebars embedded in concrete: an electrochemical impedance
spectroscopy study. Electrochim Acta 2014;124:218–24.
603
Structures 34 (2021) 589–603
[30] Cramer SD, Covino BS, Bullard SJ, Holcomb GR, Russell JH, Nelson FJ, et al.
Corrosion prevention and remediation strategies for reinforced concrete coastal
bridges. Cem Concr Compos 2002;24(1):101–17.
[31] Ping Gu, Elliott S, Beaudoin JJ, Arsenault B. Corrosion resistance of stainless steel
in chloride contaminated concrete. Cem Concr Res 1996;26(8):1151–6.
[32] Gardner L. Stability and design of stainless steel structures – Review and outlook.
Thin-Walled Struct 2019;141:208–16.
[33] Gardner L, Baddoo NR. Fire testing and design of stainless steel structures. J Constr
Steel Res 2006;62(6):532–43.
[34] Saraswathy V, Song H-W. Performance of galvanized and stainless steel rebars in
concrete under macrocell corrosion conditions. Mater Corros 2005;56(10):685–91.
[35] Medina E, Medina JM, Cobo A, Bastidas DM. Evaluation of mechanical and
structural behavior of austenitic and duplex stainless steel reinforcements. Constr
Build Mater 2015;78:1–7.
[36] García-Alonso MC, Escudero ML, Miranda JM, Vega MI, Capilla F, Correia MJ,
et al. Corrosion behaviour of new stainless steels reinforcing bars embedded in
concrete. Cem Concr Res 2007;37(10):1463–71.
[37] Farzana K, Ahmed K. Performance based seismic analysis of stainless steel
reinforced concrete bridge pier using damping ductility relationship, IABSE-JSCE
Joint Conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering-IV Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2020,
pp. 115-122.
[38] Rabi M, Cashell KA, Shamass R. Flexural analysis and design of stainless steel
reinforced concrete beams. Eng Struct 2019;198:109432.
[39] Islam K, Billah AM, Chowdhury MMI, Ahmed KS. Exploratory study on bond
behavior of plain and sand coated stainless steel rebars in concrete, Structures,
Elsevier, 2020, pp. 2365-2378.
[40] Li Q, Guo W, Liu C, Kuang Y, Geng H. Experimental and theoretical studies on
flexural performance of stainless steel reinforced concrete beams. Adv Civ Eng
2020;2020:4048750.
[41] Institute AC. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318–14): an
ACI Standard: Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318R–14), an ACI Report. American Concrete Institute 2012.
[42] ASTM E8/E8M-13a. Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic
Materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2013.
[43] ASTM C192/C192M—16a. standard practice for making and curing concrete test
specimens in the laboratory. ASTM; 2016. p. 4–9.
[44] ASTM C150. Standard specification for Portland cement. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM;
2001.
[45] ACI Committee. Standardization, Building code requirements for structural
concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary. American Concrete Institute; 2008.
[46] Canadian Standards Association. Design of concrete structures (CSA A23. 3-04).
CSA; 2004.
[47] 1-1: 2004 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures, General Rules for Buildings
(1992) 1992-3.