Concrete Construction
Design of high-strength concrete
members: state-of-the-art
Priyan Mendis
University of Melbourne, Australia
Summary
The advancement of material technology and
production has led to higher grades of concrete
strengths. In recent years a marked increase in
the use of high-strength concrete (compressive
strength, f c0 4 50 MPa) has been evident in
construction projects around the world.
High-strength concrete (HSC) offers significantly
better structural engineering properties, such as
higher compressive and tensile strengths, higher
stiffness, better durability, compared with
conventional normal-strength concrete (NSC).
Many structures built now have at least some
components constructed with HSC. However, to
a large extent, practice has preceded theory with
constitutive equations simply being extrapolated
to higher strengths. The main concern regarding
the use of HS Concrete is the reduction in
ductility with the increase in compressive
strength observed under uniaxial compression.
Past research has shown that members made of
HSC exhibit, in some instances, different failure
mechanisms, and simply extrapolating models
Key words: high-strength concrete; engineering properties; fire design; shear; columns; impact resistance
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15 (DOI: 10.1002/pse.138)
1 Introduction
The advancement of materials technology and
production methods has led to the development of
higher grades of concrete strengths. The use of
high-strength concrete (HSC) elements for structures
has proven most popular, with economy, superior
strength, stiffness and durability being the major
reasons for its popularity. With future advances in
concrete technology, the definition of HSC will
undoubtedly change, however for the purposes of this
paper, it is considered to be concrete with a 28-day
characteristic compressive strength of at least 50 MPa.
Presently, concretes with strengths more than 50 MPa
are used in many buildings, bridges and other
projects around the world[1–10]. Some columns in high-
rise buildings have been constructed with up to
130 MPa concrete. New applications of HSC have
Published online 24 February 2003
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
and equations meant for NSC to HSC may lead to
unsafe designs. Major codes of practice around
the world are still based on experimental and
theoretical results derived from investigations on
NSC. Individual design rules codified in any of the
national and international design codes need to
be experimentally verified and categorized with a
view to taking further action. In some instances
structural designers are unable to take full
advantage of the material because of insufficient
information.
Recent developments in design and
performance of HSC members, especially the
papers published within the last two or three
years are presented in this paper. The paper
covers the topics of engineering properties, fire
design, flexural members, shear and torsion, bond
and anchorage, HSC columns, transmission of
HSC column loads through weaker slabs, walls,
impact resistance and seismic design of HSC
structures.
been introduced recently[11, 12]. This trend will
continue in the future, and many other new
applications will be developed. Very-high-strength
concrete can be produced by conventional production
procedures. Quality control is an essential part of the
production of HSC, hence full collaboration between
the material and ready-mixed concrete suppliers,
engineers and builders is required for the effective
application of this valuable product. Guidelines to
facilitate the proper evaluation of HSC through
quality control and testing have been published by the
ACI 363 Committee on High-Strength Concrete[13].
HSC will normally consist of not only Portland
cement, aggregates and water, but also
superplasticizers and supplementary cementitious
material[14].
A significant cost saving can be achieved by
utilizing HSC because member sizes can be
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15
2 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION

reduced[7]. A summary of typical applications of HSC
in recently constructed infrastructure and advantages
offered in design and construction by application of
HSC is presented in a book published by the author
recently[15].
HSC is structurally a different material, and
extrapolating the design rules intended for NSC to
(HSC), fc0 450 MPa, is not appropriate. These rules
may not always be conservative when applied to
HSC, owing to the variations in fracture modes,
microstructure and the differences brought about by
various additives, such as silica fume, fly ash, slag,
superplasticizers, etc. Therefore the empirical design
rules originally intended for NSC need to be
re-evaluated. The main concern regarding the use of
HSC is the reduction in ductility with the increase in
compressive strength observed under uniaxial
compression. This issue is addressed later in this
paper. The main purpose of this paper is to review
and present the latest developments in the design and
performance of HSC members. Especially the
published papers within last two or three years are
evaluated. The details given in the published state-of-
the-art reports and list of references[16–18] are not
repeated here. Although some research projects
reviewed in this paper are based on earlier editions of
a code of practice (e.g. ACI 318–1995 instead of the
recent version AC 318–2002), the recent version is
quoted (e.g. ACI 318–02), if no modifications to that
particular clause are included in the recent version. If
that particular clause is modified in the recent version
(e.g. clauses relevant to shear in ACI 318–02), it will be
highlighted.
1.1 CODES OF PRACTICE
Individual design rules given in national and
international design codes need to be experimentally
verified and categorized with a view to taking further
action. Although interest in HSC has been around for
some time (since the 1970 s) and a number of research
projects have been undertaken, some design issues are
still not fully addressed. There is also a need to
consolidate the knowledge and make it readily
available to the practitioners for whom the research
was intended. A summary of major codes of practice,
including the allowable concrete strengths and
comments on proposed extensions to cover HSC, is
presented in Table 1.
2 Engineering Properties
General performance characteristics and micro- and
macromechanics of (HSC)/high-performance
concrete (HPC) are described in detail by Nawy[35].
There are non-structural benefits of using HSC, for
example the improved durability of the material
which is a result of reduced porosity and the use of
high-quality materials. Baoyu et al.[36] found that, for
approximately 50% increase in strength, resistance to
freezing-thawing was increased by 10 times,
impermeability by 6–15 times, resistance to
carbonation increased by over 5 times, resistance to
chloride ion penetration by over 10 times, protection
of rebar from corrosion of chlorides by 50 times and
resistance to abrasion erosion by 0.5–2.5 times.
The most comprehensive study reported in the
recent literature on long-term properties of HSC
incorporating supplementary materials is reported by
Malhotra et al.[37]. This paper presents the results of
tests performed on the compressive strength of HSC/
HPC at ages up to 10 years, the modulus of elasticity
after 2, 4, and 10 years, and the carbonation depth and
the resistance of concrete to chloride ion penetration

Table 1 Summary of codes of practice

Code Year (latest) Country Maximum strength Notes
(MPa)
.......................................................................................................................................................
ACI 318[19] 2002 USA Not specified Some limitations for specific clauses on
bond (70 MPa). Restrictions on shear
removed in 2002 version. Some pro-
posed extensions are described in[20,21]
EC 2[22] 1992 Europe 60 (cube) Some extensions proposed by PR
50 (cylinder) 5480[23] to cover HSC
BS 8110[24] 1997 UK 60 (cube) Extensions proposed by Concrete
50 (cylinder) Society Working Group[25]
CEB-FIP MC[26] 1990 International 80 (cylinder) Extensions proposed[27]
DIN 1045[28] 2001 Germany 115 (200 cube)
100 (cylinder)
AS 3600[29] 2001 Australia 65 (cylinder) Extensions up to 100 MPa proposed[15]
NZS 3101[30] 1995, new version New Zealand 70 (cylinder, ductile) Only ductile design is allowed in earth-
by end of 2002 100 (non-ductile) quake resistant structures
NS 3473[31] 1998 Norway 105 (100 cube) Changes described in[32]
94 (cylinder)
CSA 23.3[33] 2001 Canada 50 (ductile) Some of the important aspects for HSC
80 (non-ductile) explained in[34]
.......................................................................................................................................................

Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15

after 10 years. The tests were performed on drilled
cores taken from the structural test elements
simulating concrete columns. In addition, the
compressive strength of cylinders cured in a moist
room and in the field, as well as the compressive
strength of drilled cores taken from the structural
elements (walls) at ages up to 4 years was determined.
After 10 years, the compressive strength of the cores
drilled from the column elements of the control
Portland cement concrete and concrete incorporating
various supplementary cementing materials was
measured. The highest strength was obtained for the
high-volume fly ash concrete followed by the control
Portland cement concrete, slag concrete, silica fume
concrete, and concrete incorporating a combination of
slag and silica fume, in that order. Even though the
high-volume fly ash concrete at ages up to 28 days
had lower strength (49.9 MPa) than the other
concretes, it attained the highest strength gain of more
than 120% between 28 days and 10 years. On the
contrary, the concrete incorporating 12% silica fume
had the highest compressive strength (75.8 MPa) at
ages up to 28 days, but it had a strength gain of only
18% beyond that age. In general, the moduli of
elasticity of the moist- and field-cured cylinders and
the cores taken from the column elements were
similar. For the cores drilled from the column
elements, the fly ash concrete had the highest
E-modulus at all three ages of 2, 4, and 10 years. The
experimentally determined E-moduli ranged from 83
to 116% of the values calculated according to ACI 318.
In tests performed in accordance with ASTM C 1202
(C1202-97 Standard Test Method for Electrical
Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion
Penetration), the charge passed through all the
concretes at 10 years was less than 1000 C, indicating
very high resistance of the concretes to chloride ion
penetration. After 10 years of outdoor exposure, the
depth of carbonation in all the concretes was
negligible.
A comprehensive study to document the effects of
mix materials, proportions, curing conditions, age and
test procedures on the compressive strength, modulus
of elasticity, modulus of rupture and splitting tensile
strength is described by Mokhtarzadeh & French[38].
Approximately 150 mixes totalling over 7000
specimens were cast over a period of three years in
this study. They
pffiffiffi found that the ACI 318 equation
Ec ¼ 0:43r1:5 fc0 overestimates the measured
modulus of elasticity. Mendis[15] proposed that the
following modification to the ACI 318 equation
is appropriate to predict the elastic modulus
of all grades of NSC and HSC concretes
(up to 100 MPa) with various types of
aggregates:
qffiffiffiffi
Ec ¼ 0:43Zr1:5 fc0
where Z ¼ 1:1
0:002 fc0 41:0
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE MEMBERS 3
The term Z has the value of 1 for NSC and is less than
1 for HSC. This formula was derived by calibrating
experimental results and comparing them with the
widely used Carrasquillo et al.[39] formula
recommended by the ACI 363 Committee[17] and also
included in the New Zealand and Canadian Codes:
 qffiffiffiffi   r 1:5
c
Ec ¼ 3320 fc0 þ 6900
2320
Mokhtarzadeh & French[38] found that the data
obtained for modulus ofprupture
ffiffiffiffi ranged between the
ACI 318 value fcf0 ¼ 0:62 fc0p and
ffiffiffiffi ACI 363
recommendations fcf0 ¼ 0:94 fc0 . They also found that
the splitting tensile strength
pffiffiffiffi also ranged between the
ACI 318 value fcf0 ¼ 0:50 fc0p and
ffiffiffiffi ACI 363
recommendations fcf0 ¼ 0:59 fc0 . Their tests covered
concrete with compressive strengths up to about
95 MPa.It was shown by Kovler et al.[40] that the tensile
and compressive strength obtained is higher for HSC
with higher silica fume (SF) contents. However, the
ratio of tensile to compressive strength decreased with
increase in SF.
The behaviour of HSC specimens up to 103 MPa
subjected to uniaxial tension has been investigated by
Li & Ansari[41]. They showed that the higher-
compressive-strength concretes exhibited larger
fracture energies and lower characteristic lengths.
Knowledge of the elastic properties (e.g. modulus
of elasticity) of concrete at young ages is very useful
for designers, especially from a serviceability point of
view. Poisson’s ratio was found to decrease sharply to
reach a value of 0.14 (from about 0.2) at a very young
age of 10–20 h, and then increased to approximately
0.24 after 7 days[42].
2.1 SHRINKAGE AND CREEP IN HSC
2.1.1 Shrinkage
Shrinkage in concrete consists of three distinct
components: plastic shrinkage; autogenous shrinkage;
and drying shrinkage. Most codes and procedures do
not differentiate between the three types of shrinkage.
Empirical procedures laid out in most codes
determine only the total shrinkage at the end of a
stipulated time or design period.
For HSC, which is expected to be produced with
low w/cm (water/cementitious) ratios and better
aggregates, the total shrinkage should decrease in
comparison with NSC specimens. The cementitious
component includes the weight of cement and other
pozzolonic admixtures such as fly ash, silica fume,
rice-husk ash, etc. Because of the high paste content in
HSC, autogenous shrinkage due to self-dessication is
expected to be higher, and in some cases doubled[43].
However, since the specimens contain very little
water, the drying shrinkage will be significantly
reduced. All experimental results point to the fact that
the total shrinkage values for HSC specimens are less
than those obtained for NSC specimens[44].
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15
4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
Although several potential benefits, such as
improved surface abrasion resistance, reduced
chloride penetrability, and improved resistance to
freezing and thawing damage are associated with the
use of HSC, these mixtures may exhibit increased
sensitivity to early shrinkage cracking, owing to the
increased autogenous shrinkage component[40,45].
Weiss et al.[45] showed that a shrinkage-reducing
admixture (SRA) may be used to decrease the
potential for early shrinkage cracking in HSC, while
sustaining the advantageous mechanical and
durability properties associated with HSC.
Sato et al.[46] found that, at early age, the autogenous
shrinkage strains develop more rapidly in concrete
without any admixtures and in concrete containing
silica fume, than in concrete containing blast-furnace
slag. The final autogenous shrinkage strains in
concrete containing blast-furnace slag were largest,
and were smallest in concrete without admixtures.
Convenient nomograms for use by practising
engineers for the prediction of both early-age strength
and shrinkage properties of HSC, have been
developed by Kovler et al.[40].
Persson[47] outlined experimental laboratory and
field studies on creep and shrinkage of young or
mature HSC/HPC with strengths ranging from 69 to
112 MPa, carried out between 1991 and 1999. For this
purpose, about 400 cylinders made of eight mix
compositions of HPC were studied in the laboratory.
The results and analyses of the laboratory studies
showed a large influence of the maturity and of the
mix composition of the HPC on the measured creep.
The creep coefficient of HPC was smaller than in
normal concrete (see next section). In contrast,
shrinkage of HPC was somewhat larger than in
normal concrete, owing to the large autogenous
shrinkage component. The results obtained in the
laboratory were correlated to field tests on 27 beams.
The results in the field (for 10–200 days after casting)
coincided well with the results in the laboratory
studies.
Kojima et al.[48] used three w. cm ratios (0.2, 0.3, 0.5)
and three levels of silica fume replacement ratios[0,
7.5 and 15%] to determine the shrinkage
characteristics of HSC. The autogenous shrinkage
strain increased both in its amount and its percentage
of the total shrinkage strain with the decrease of w/
cm ratio. Almost the same total shrinkage strain (sum
of autogenous and drying) was observed after about
one year in the specimens independent of the mixture
proportions of concrete, the curing method or its
period.
2.1.2 Creep
Creep decreases with an increase in strength of
concrete. Thus, it is expected and experiments
confirm that HSC creeps to a lesser degree than
NSC[44,49]. A resulting advantage is that higher
proportions of the maximum stress can be endured by
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
HSC for similar values of specific creep. A reduction
in w/cm ratio in the HSC mix will lead to a reduction
in creep.
It must be noted that the creep coefficients for
concretes of varying strengths depend on many
factors other than the compressive strength. They are
mix components and proportions, w/cm ratio,
supplementary cementitious materials and other
additives. The effects of ultrafine ground granulated
blast-furnace slag (GGBS) and silica fume (SF) on
creep and drying shrinkage of HPC were compared
and the mechanism was analysed by Li & Yao[50].
Ultrafine GGBS and SF will greatly increase the
amount of C–S–H gel hydrates and the density of
hardened cement paste, which make concrete stronger
and more resistant to deformation caused by force
applied on it. Under the same test conditions (e.g.
same load applied on specimens), the amount of creep
and drying shrinkage of concrete will decrease greatly
with the addition of GGBS and SF[50].
Modifications to the ACI 209 guidelines[51] on creep
and shrinkage have been recommended by
Mokhtarzadeh & French[52] based on tests of over 250
specimens.
2.2 STRESS STRAIN MODELS
The stress-strain behaviour of HSC differs from that of
NSC as shown in Fig. 1. The reasons for the variance
in behaviour are as follows:
* For HSC, the stress–strain curve remains
approximately linear up to the the ultimate stress.
The internal microcracking that occurs in concrete
as load is applied is delayed until a large
proportion of the ultimate load is reached.
Therefore the elastic response to compression is
extended;
Fig. 1 Some typical uniaxial stress–strain relationships for
concrete
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15

* the strain at the peak stress increases with strength;
* the post-peak branch becomes steeper as the
strength increases (or reduced ductility). The
extensive ductility exhibited by lower strength
concretes beyond maximum stress, caused by the
spreading of microcracks which form an
interconnected network with large redundancies to
dissipate the energy is not observed in HSC;
* the typical ultimate compressive strain decreases as
the strength increases;
* the typical fracture surface of an ordinary concrete
is rough. The fracture occurs along the aggregate-
matrix interface; the aggregates are not broken. For
HSC, a typical fracture surface is smooth and the
cracks pass without any discontinuity through both
the matrix and aggregates. The fracture mode of
HSC is brittle compared with that of NSC.
It is important to know the details of stress-strain
relationships of HSC in order to determine the
full-range behaviour of HSC members. Various
stress–strain relationships for both unconfined and
confined HSC under uniaxial compression and
triaxial compression have been proposed in the
literature[53–58].
3 Fire resistance
Fire resistance of concrete members is normally
accomplished by structural adequacy and insulation
for a specified fire resistance period. Several
researchers have concluded that with the exception of
spalling, which is defined as the detachment of pieces
of concrete when a concrete member is exposed to
fire, there is no apparent reason to treat HSC
differently from lower-strength concrete. Spalling can
take place, as shown in Fig. 2, over the whole surface
area of a member or in localized areas. The dense
cement paste prevents moisture from escaping at
elevated temperatures, thus developing a pressure
build-up which cause spalling. The pieces can be large
Fig. 2 Behaviour of HSC in fire[59]
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE MEMBERS 5
or small, and detachment can either occur explosively
or pieces may dislodge and subsequently fall. The risk
of spalling is higher in HSC, for the following reasons:
* low permeability of HSC retains the moisture
inside the concrete, resulting in a high moisture
content being present for prolonged periods;
* low porosity of HSC creates higher pore pressure;
* HSC tends to be subject to higher compressive
stresses than lower-strength concrete.
In 1996, a comprehensive experimental and
analytical investigation was conducted at NIST on
fire performance of HSC. The key findings and a
literature review are given elsewhere[60,61]. Some tests
reviewed by Phan[60] have shown explosive spalling
of HSC, while others have reported no difference from
the behaviour of NSC. Of ten materials test
programmes reviewed, with nine of ten tests
conducted on unstressed specimens, five reported
explosive spalling. Of five element test programmes
reviewed, three reported spalling. Also, it was
observed that explosive spalling does not occur for
every specimen tested under identical conditions. The
reported temperature range when explosive spalling
occurred was 300–6508C. Concretes with dense pastes
resulting from the addition of silica fume were more
susceptible to explosive spalling. HSC made with
lightweight aggregate appeared to be more prone to
explosive spalling than HSC made of normal-weight
aggregate concretes.
Chan et al.[62] showed that moisture content and
strength are the two main factors governing explosive
thermal spalling of concrete. They investigated the
spalling of 100-mm cube specimens with strengths
ranging from 47 to 128 MPa under ISO Standard Fire.
The moisture content (mc) had a dominant influence
on spalling frequency. For fc0 560 MPa there was no
spalling even with the concrete fully saturated
(mc ¼ 100%). The higher the mc, the greater the
spalling frequency. The threshold values of mc at
spalling for 78, 115 and 128 MPa concrete were 88, 63
and 63% respectively. Spalling in all their specimens
occurred between 480–5008C. Also, HSC specimens
heated at rapid heating rates, such as hydrocarbon fire
which occurred in the World Trade Center collapse on
11 September 2001, and larger specimens are more
prone to spalling than specimens heated at lower rates
and of smaller size. A recent study to highlight
spalling of HSC columns under rapidly increasing
temperatures is reported by Ali et al.[63]. They tested
18 columns under four loading levels and two heating
rates. Among the 18 columns tested under different
loads and heating intensities, 17 columns suffered
various types of spalling. Interestingly they found that
increasing the loading level did not increase the
probability of concrete spalling, both under high and
low heating regimes. Low heating rates minimized
the risk of explosive spalling.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15
6 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
Polypropylene (PP) fibres can be used to prevent
spalling[59,64,65,66]. PP melts at about 1708C, which
is lower than the spalling temperatures[66]. When
melted and partially absorbed by the cement
matrix, the fibres leave a pathway for gas. This results
in the reduction of pore pressure, and hence
reduces the risk of spalling. However the length of
fibres is very important. Short fibres, combined
with a high fibre content may give adverse spalling
effects.
According to the review by Phan[60], the material
properties of HSC vary differently with temperature
compared with those of NSC. The differences are
more pronounced in the temperature range of
between 258C to about 4008C, where higher strength
concretes have higher rates of strength loss than
lower-strength concretes. HSC showed a 15–20% loss
of compressive strength, whereas the NSC showed no
such strength loss. These differences between NSC
and HSC become less significant at temperatures
above 4008C. Compressive strengths of HSC at 8008C
decrease to about 30% of the original room
temperature strengths. The difference between the
compressive strength–temperature relationships of
normal-weight and lightweight aggregate HSC
appears to be insignificant, based on the limited
amount of existing test data. HSC mixtures with silica
fume have higher compressive strength loss with
increasing temperatures than HSC mixtures without
silica fume. The compressive failure of HSC is more
brittle than NSC at temperatures up to 3008C.
With further increase in temperature, specimens
exhibit a more gradual failure mode. The tensile
strength–temperature relationships decrease similarly
and almost linearly with temperature for HSC
and NSC.
Phan & Carino[67], by considering several
experimental results on mechanical properties of
concrete when exposed to rapid heating as in a fire,
showed that Eurocode provisions and the CEB design
curves are unsafe for HSC. They also measured the
elastic modulus and compressive strength of HSC by
heating 100  200 mm cylinders at 58C/min to
temperatures of up to 6008C. The properties were
measured at elevated temperatures as well as after
cooling to room temperature. Results indicated that
losses in relative strength due to high-temperature
exposure were affected by the test condition (i.e. at
elevated temperatures or after cooling to room
temperature) and w/cm ratio. Measurements of
temperature histories in the cylinders revealed
complex behaviour, believed to be linked to heat-
induced transformations and transport of free and
chemically combined water. They also found that the
presence of silica fume did not appear to have a
significant effect. Recently, Phan & Carino[68] reported
a study on effects of test conditions and mixture
proportions on behavior of HSC exposed to high
temperatures.
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Residual strengths are important to assess the
performance of a structure after a fire. In residual
strength tests, the specimens are subjected to elevated
temperatures, and the stresses are applied only after
cooling to a particular temperature. An analytical
model for the residual stress–strain relationship for
uniaxially loaded HSC (fc0 ¼ 70 MPa) after a single
thermal cycle up to 9008C, was empirically developed
by Wu et al.[69]. Gowripalan et al.[70] showed that
ultrasonic pulse velocity seems to be useful in
assessing the damage of HSC due to high
temperatures. Chan et al.[71] found that the variation of
pore structure after exposure to high temperature,
including porosity and pore size distribution could be
used to indicate the degradation of mechanical
properties of HSC/HPC subjected to high
temperature. They developed a model to predict the
relationship between porosity after exposure to high
temperature and the strength.
Hoff et al.[72] studied the residual strength of
concrete with strengths ranging from 49 MPa (NSC) to
83 (HSC) MPa, under a heating regime associated
with a hydrocarbon fire. Interestingly they found a
slight improvement in residual strength of HSC at
2008C (3928F) exposure compared with 1008C (2128F).
However at exposures of 3008C (5728F) or higher,
there was a significant loss of strength. At these
higher temperatures, the residual strength of HSC
was not significantly different from that of NSC. At
exposure temperatures of 9008C (16528F), all the
concretes (NSC and HSC) had no structural integrity.
There are only a few studies reported recently on
the structural behaviour of HSC members subjected to
fire. Meda et al.[73] studied the ultimate behaviour of
three different HSC square sections, at high
temperature and after cooling, subjected to an
eccentric axial force and to several fire durations.
They concluded that HSC sections are more
temperature sensitive than NSC sections, however the
difference was not significant. Ongah et al.[74]
developed a method using an incremental solution
procedure to find the fire resistance period of HSC
slender walls. In this method, for each time step
during fire exposure, equilibrium is sought between
the external load and internal resistance and
deflection of the wall. A finite difference scheme was
employed to calculate wall deflections. The
incremental procedure is repeated until equilibrium
of the wall cannot be maintained, thus indicating
structural collapse of the wall.
4 Flexural members
4.1 DEFLECTIONS
By using HSC, smaller cross-sections with reduced
dead load and longer spans can be designed[75]. For
the smaller cross-sectional members, excessive
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15

deflections may become a problem. The ACI state-of-
the-art report for HSC[17] recommends the use of the
Branson’s formula for calculating the effective
moment of inertia. However, Lambotte & Taerwe[76]
suggested that the exponent of Mcr/Ms may be
greater than 3 for HSC beams.
As the creep coefficient is lower than that of NSC,
the long-term deflections of HSC beams should be
significantly less than those of NSC elements. This
means that the predicted long-term deflection using
the code methods will be higher than the actual
values. However, the effect of compression steel in
reducing the long-term deflection in beams is less for
HSC[77], which is not accounted for in the code
formulae. The long-term multipliers used to modify
the short-term deflections to predict the long-term
deflections should be developed using the
aforementioned factors. Mendis[15] has suggested a
revised formula for the long-term deflections of HSC
by considering these factors. Ghali & Azarnejad[78]
showed the influence of varying fc0 (up to 100 MPa) on
the predicted deflections. Their analysis procedure
was verified by comparisons of predicted deflections
with published experimental data. Sherif & Dilger[79]
used test data from the literature to assess the
calculation methods suggested by the codes, EC 2[22]
and CSA A23.3[33], for NSC and HSC beams. These
methods are the effective moment of inertia approach,
the mean curvature approach, and the bilinear
method. They concluded that these methods,
originally developed for NSC beams, are valid for
HSC beams. They also found that the CSA approach
for calculating the long-term deflections overestimates
the ratio of long-term to initial deflections. Choi &
Scanlon[80] have demonstrated, through Monte Carlo
simulation techniques, some differences between the
variability of deflections in beams made with NSC
and HSC. This is due to the uncertainties associated
with NSC and HSC material properties (i.e. modulus
of elasticity, modulus of rupture and creep coefficient
used in the calculation of beam deflections)
characterized by different probability distribution
functions.
4.2 DUCTILITY
Despite HSC being a more brittle material, HSC
flexural members exhibit greater ductility, owing to
shallower neutral axis depths. This has been
experimentally verified by Pendyala et al.[81] and Lin
& Lee[82]. Therefore, the same moment redistribution
factors can be maintained for HSC flexural members.
However Shehata et al.[83] demonstrated the reduction
of rotation capacity due to bond slip of both HSC and
NSC beams. Pecce & Fabrocino[84], by testing beams
up to 95 MPa, showed that, with respect to nonlinear
design of continuous beams, the allowable plastic
rotation capacities given in CEB[26] and EC 2[22] codes
are acceptable for HSC.
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE MEMBERS 7
5 Rectangular stress block model
The equivalent rectangular stress block (RSB) has
been the key concept behind the development of the
codified, simple ultimate strength theory. Ultimate
strength design of members subjected to axial load
and bending is usually carried out with the RSB.
Presently, most codes for concrete structures,
including ACI 318[19], fix the value of a equal to 0.85,
and vary the value of b between 0.85 and 0.65 for
concrete strengths between 28 and 50 MPa (Fig. 3.)
As mentioned earlier in Section 2.2, the unconfined
stress–strain curves for NSC and HSC vary
significantly. Therefore the equivalent RSB parameters
need to be appropriately modified for HSC, especially
for members subject to an axial load component.
These modifications require both a and b to vary with
concrete strengths. These values can be derived by
considering a triangular stress–strain relationship at
very high strengths (100 MPa) and keeping the
present stress block in ACI 318 up to 60 MPa[15]. It
must be noted that the ultimate moment capacity of
flexural members is relatively insensitive to the stress
block model. However the calculation of available
ductility of different cross-sections in both flexural
members and columns is affected by the selected RSB
parameters. By comparing various stress blocks
available in the literature for HSC and the present ACI
318 model, Stewart and Attard[85] found that the
column capacity in primary compression failure is
also significantly affected by the choice of the stress
block model.
6 Shear resistance
There is a concern amongst researchers and designers
that HSC may not be strong in shear, as some of the
mechanisms that function to resist shear, notably the
aggregate interlock mechanism, may be absent.
The shear resistance of reinforced concrete beams is
dependent on the tensile strength of the members. In
HSC, where the difference in strength of the concrete
matrix and the aggregates is comparatively less than
in NSC, the fracture planes are relatively smooth[86,87].
The smooth fracture planes reduce the shear
αf′c
MNA = Cdn(1-β/2)
βdn
dn C = αf′c.βdn.b
NA
Fig. 3 Rectangular stress block
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15
8 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
resistance of concrete by reducing the aggregate
interlock between the fracture surfaces. Pendyala and
Mendis[86], through a comprehensive experimental
and analytical investigation, concluded that when
current code provisions to determine the concrete
component of shear resistance are extrapolated for
HSC, the safety margins for structural design are
reduced. Kong & Rangan[88] have reported tests on 48
HSC beams (fc0 up to 89 MPa) under combined
bending moment and shear. They compared the shear
design provisions contained in the Australian
Standard, ACI 318, Canadian Standard, and Eurocode
with the test results. On average ACI, 318
underestimated the experimental results by 80%.
However the coefficient of variation was 41%. Similar
results were obtained for other codes. A
comprehensive review of shear design of HSC beams
is given elsewhere[87].
Although the restriction of the maximum shear
strength (69 MPa) in ACI 318 is removed, some
clauses relevant to shear need attention. (Note: the
minimum shear reinforcement requirements have
been
p ffiffiffiffi revised in ACI 318–02. It is proportional to
fc0 , thus requiring more shear reinforcement for
higher strengths.) Several extensions have been
proposed recently so that the shear friction clauses in
ACI 318 can be applied to the full range of concrete
strengths[89–91].
6.1 PUNCHING SHEAR
The use of HSC can improve the punching shear
resistance, allowing higher forces to be transferred
through the slab–column connection[92–95]. This is due
to the increase in tensile strength in HSC. However
none of the studies investigated the reduction of shear
transfer across the smoother fracture planes in HSC
specimens when subjected to punching shear. This
aspect needs further investigation. Various studies on
punching shear capacity of HSC slab have been
reviewed by Ngo[95]. It was shown that the present
provisions on punching shear in some codes, such as
AS 3600 and EC 2, are applicable up to 100 MPa.
6.2 TORSION
Studies on torsion of HSC beams are very limited. To
study the effect of HSC on the torsional behavior of
reinforced concrete (RC) beams, nine full-size beams
were tested by Koutchoukali & Belarbi[96], under pure
torsion. The main parameters in this study were
concrete strength (up to 95 MPa) and amount of
reinforcement. The amount of reinforcement varied
from less than the minimum to the so-called balanced
condition (when expected crushing of concrete occurs
at the same time as yield of steel). With the intention
of keeping the inclination of the concrete struts
approximately equal to 458, equal percentages of
reinforcement were provided in the transverse and
longitudinal directions. Results indicated that the
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
minimum amount of reinforcement defined in ACI
318 is inadequate for equilibrium torsion of high
strength RC beams, and a new expression was
proposed. This was confirmed by Fang et al. [97] in
another study conducted on strength and ductility of
HSC beams with minimum torsion reinforcement.
Koutchoukali & Belarbi[96] found that the torsional
capacity of under-reinforced beams is independent of
concrete strength, and the amount of longitudinal
reinforcement was more effective in controlling crack
width than the amount of transverse reinforcement.
7 Bond and anchorage
As illustrated in Fig. 4, the bond stresses in NSC are
typically assumed to be relatively uniform. The bond
stresses in HSC are relatively nonuniform, and follow
a triangular pattern, with peak stresses at the splice,
gradually decreasing towards the end[98].
Mendis & French[99] used the results of a series of
tests on HSC, reported in the literature, from six
research studies, including a study at University of
Minnesota to review the existing recommendations in
ACI 318 for design of splices and anchorage of
reinforcement. It was shown that ACI 318 equations
may be unconservative for some cases beyond
62 MPa. Azizanamini et al.[100] found that adequate
ductility can be achieved by using a minimum splice
length, as defined by ACI 318 for beams without
transverse reinforcement, plus a minimum quantity of
transverse reinforcement over the tension
development/lap splice length with an area equal to
50% of the area of the bars being developed/spliced.
Modifications to current design criteria in ACI 318
have been suggested that will allow removal of the
limit on the compressive strength of 69 MPa.Yerlici &
Özturan[101] found that the bond strength increased
with increasing concrete strength, cover thickness,
and amount of web reinforcement, while it decreased
with increasing bar size. They have also suggested an
empirical expression to cover HSC. Zuo & Darwin[102]
found that the splice strength of bars confined by
transverse reinforcement increases with an increase in
relative rib area and bar diameter for HSC up to
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4 Idealized bond stress distribution in: (a) NSC; and (b) HSC
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15

108 MPa.The use of stronger coarse aggregate resulted
in an increase in splice strength for bars both with and
without confining reinforcement. They also found that
for splices confined by transverse reinforcement, the
higher the quantity of coarse aggregate, the greater
the contribution of transverse reinforcement to splice
strength.
8 Design of HSC columns
HSC is an extremely cost-effective material for the
construction of columns. In addition to reducing
column sizes and producing a more durable material,
HSC reduces the cost of formwork.
The extrapolation of code formulae valid for NSC to
concrete compressive strengths greater than 50 MPa is
a common design procedure, however it does raise
some concerns. One particular concern is the
application of this approach to the design of HSC
columns loaded predominantly axially, where it has
been shown that there is an apparent lack of ductile
behaviour when stirrups are provided in accordance
with the present codes of practice.
There are some codes of practice which cover HSC
(see Table 1) and a state-of-the-art report on HSC
columns (ACI 441[103]). However, these codes and the
report do not provide simple and adequate rules to
design HSC columns and calculate the stirrup
spacings to satisfy ductility requirements.
Mendis et al.[104] suggested a method for the design
of HSC columns in terms of the required spacing of
lateral reinforcement in order to provide a similar
level of ductility that an equivalent column
constructed with normal strength concrete would
possess. They showed that in order to achieve this,
important concepts need to be addressed, such as the
choice of measure of ductile behaviour and a realistic
HSC stress–strain model, as well as limiting factors
such as longitudinal steel buckling and lateral steel
fracture. It was shown that both buckling of
longitudinal steel and hoop fracture will not demand
a reduction in spacing of lateral ties with increase in
compressive strength of concrete. Mendis[15] has
suggested a simple method to extend the present
rules in ACI 318 and AS 3600 for spacing of stirrups in
HSC columns, which includes the axial load level as a
parameter. Légeron & Paultre[105] have also
emphasized the need to include the axial load level in
code requirements for confinement reinforcement.
Bayrak & Sheikh[106] and Razvi & Saaticioglu[107,108]
have also reported recent studies on confinement of
HSC columns.
Liu et al.[109] and Foster[110] have studied the cover
spalling prior to a section reaching its squash load.
They showed that the longitudinal reinforcement is at
yield at the spalling load, while the tie steel is not at
yield at the point of cover spalling. After cover
spalling, microcracking of the core leads to expansion
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE MEMBERS 9
of the core and activation of the confinement provided
by the ties.
Paultre et al.[111] showed that, at constant volumetric
ratio of confinement reinforcement and constant level
of axial compression, concrete strength significantly
influences the flexural behavior of HSC columns.
They also showed that, in some cases, high-yield-
strength reinforcement may be used to effectively
confine HSC while reducing the volumetric ratio of
lateral transverse reinforcement. The test results from
this research programme and others indicate that the
confinement reinforcement requirements of the ACI
318 and New Zealand Codes are not directly
applicable to columns confined with high-yield-
strength steel.
Lee & Son[112] have investigated the failure and
strength of HSC columns subjected to eccentric loads
to verify the basic design rules used in practice.
8.1 SLENDER COLUMNS
While the strength of a short column is governed
solely by the strength of its cross section, the strength
of a slender column is strongly influenced by its
effective length. In most cases, the use of HSC in
columns enables the use of smaller cross-sections,
with the implication that slenderness effects are
enhanced. This outcome means that consideration
and evaluation of slenderness effects in HSC columns
is more critical than in NSC columns.
Claeson & Gylltoft[113] found that HSC slender
columns subjected to short-term loading displayed
less ductility and more sudden failures than the NSC
columns. Furthermore, the tests conducted indicated
that the structural behaviour of HSC is favourable
under sustained loading, i.e. the HSC column
exhibited less tendency to creep, and could sustain the
axial load without much increase in deformation for a
longer period of time.
Mendis[114] reviewed the applicability of the
existing moment magnification method given in ACI
and Australian codes to cover the slenderness effects
in high-strength columns up to 100 MPa. From
comparison with experimental results, he showed that
the moment magnification method suggested in ACI
318 and AS 3600, combined with an interaction
diagram derived using a suitable equivalent stress
block [see Section 5], is suitable for HSC columns up
to 100 MPa. Generally ACI formulae gave better
predictions for the calculation of the EI value,
compared with the AS 3600 formula.
Chuang et al.[115] showed that generally, EC 2 is
more conservative than BS 8110 for slender HSC and
NSC columns. While both codes tend to give smaller
safety margins for column capacity as eccentricity
increases, BS 8110 could be unconservative for large
eccentricities for both NSC and HSC walls. Both codes
appear to be more conservative for slender columns of
higher-strength concrete.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15
10
9 Transmission of HSC column loads
through weaker slabs
For economic reasons, columns in multi-storey
reinforced concrete buildings are often built with
HSC, whereas slabs are built with concrete of weaker
strength. In the preferred method of construction, the
columns are first cast up to the soffit of the slab they
will support, then the slab concrete is cast, continuous
through the columns. This process is repeated until
the last floor is cast. As a result, the axial load that is
transmitted from a column above the floor must pass
through a layer of weaker concrete before reaching the
column below the floor. A design question arises as to
what concrete compressive strength should be used in
the design of the column and the ways of improving
the performance of the joint. Some buildings have
already been designed without considering this
problem. The limited amount of experimental studies
conducted on transmission of HSC column loads
through lower-strength slabs are reviewed
elsewhere[15]. The recommendations in ACI 318
are based on tests conducted by Bianchini et al.[116] in
1960s. Ospina & Alexander[117] have conducted a
comprehensive study on transmission of axial loads
of HSC interior columns through weaker slabs,
and have suggested modifications to the ACI 318
recommendations. They developed an equation for
effective strength of columns based on the ratio of
minimum column dimension (h) to slab thickness (c),
and concluded that the present rules are
unconservative for large h/c ratios. Although
these modifications are not included, the ratio of
column concrete strength to slab concrete strength
for design is limited to 2.5 in the recent version of
ACI 318.
HSC column–NSC slab joints in corner columns are
critical because of the absence of confinement from
the outside slab. The results of a study conducted
by Portella[118] revealed no distinguishable difference
in behaviour between sandwich columns (without
the surrounding slab) and corner columns. Portella[118]
and Lee[119] have suggested formulae to design
HSC corner columns intersecting a layer of weaker
slab, by conducting experimental work and also a
theoretical formulation, using a brick–mortar analogy.
McHarg et al.[120] have demonstrated the beneficial
effects of concentrating the slab reinforcement near
the column and of using fibre-reinforced concrete
in transmission of HSC column loads through
NSC slabs.
10 HSC walls
The increased acceptance of tilt-up and other types of
precast structures and a trend towards reinforced
concrete core walls in high-rise buildings is the reason
for the recent popularity in the use of load-bearing
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
reinforced HSC walls. The use of thinner HSC walls
not only reduce the cost, but also increase the net
lettable space of a building. Some comparisons are
given elsewhere[15]. Fragomeni & Mendis[121]
presented an overview of testing undertaken to
determine the axial load capacity of NSC and HSC
walls. They concluded that modifications to the ACI
318 code wall design equation may be required when
HSC is used. According to the ACI 318 equation, a
particular percentage increase in concrete strength
will result in the same percentage increase in wall
strength. The experimental results indicated that a
40% increase in concrete strength (from 50 to 80 MPa)
results in a much smaller percentage increase (25%) in
wall strength. Gupta & Rangan[122] tested eight HSC
concrete walls under in-plane axial (kept constant
during the test) and horizontal loads. The predicted
values for shear strength, based on modified
compression field theory, showed good correlation
with the test strengths. Sanjayan & Maheswaran[123]
found that, in HSC walls (up to 96 MPa), simply
supported along side edges and subjected to eccentric
loading, the failure modes were similar to the classical
two-way buckling of plates, but the walls also
exhibited a torsional failure mode near the
corners. However, the authors could not determine
the predominant type of failure mode from the
observations. The test set-up may also
have contributed to the torsional failure in the
specimens.
11 Impact resistance
Responding to the threat of terrorist attacks around
the world, structural engineers are seeking new
methods of assessment and prevention of damage to
high-risk facilities. It is becoming a topic of great
interest in both civilian and military applications.
After the 11 September 2001 event, a great deal of
concern has been raised by building owners and
tenants regarding the vulnerability of structures
under extreme conditions, such as severe blast or
impact. With better engineering properties compared
with NSC, HSC is an obvious choice to improve the
resistance of structures under these types of loads.
The problem of NSC structural concrete under
impulsive loadings has been studied by several
researchers[124–131]. It has been found that concrete
strength is highly sensitive to loading rate, especially
in the cases of blast or high-velocity impact. Concrete
exhibits an enigmatic phenomenon of increased
resistance when it is loaded at very high rate. While
the dynamic stiffness does not change very much
compared with the static stiffness, the stresses that are
sustained for a certain period under dynamic
conditions may reach values that are remarkably
higher than the static compressive strength. Strength
magnification factors as high as four in compression
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15

and up to six in tension for strain rates in the range of
102–103/s have been reported[132, 133]. The rate
dependence of concrete has been found to be more
significant at higher strain rates.
Research on the behaviour of HSC members under
severe impulsive loading (blast, impact, shock) is very
limited. Recently Ngo & Mendis[134] assessed a tall
building with HSC elements under extreme loadings
such as blast and light-aircraft impact. They
considered the beneficial effects, such as extra
compressive strength and shear strength in HSC, and
also the deficiencies, such as the reduced ductility in
columns, and identified several weaknesses in design
and detailing, which may cause progressive collapse
in these structures.
12 Seismic design of HSC structures
There are a number of advantages of using HSC in
earthquake-resistant structures. Concrete structures
are inherently heavy, and hence have the potential to
induce substantial inertial forces. HSC members will
have the distinct advantage of reducing these inertial
loads due to the reduction in member sizes. Higher
elastic modulus will reduce the drift due to lateral
load. Despite HSC being a more brittle material,
flexural members made with HSC exhibit greater
rotational ductility, due to shallower neutral axis
depths (see Section 4.2). In seismic design, a beam
mechanism is preferred to a column sideways
mechanism. The formation of beam hinges is assured
by having a strong column–weak beam system.
Therefore, higher rotational ductilities of HSC can be
an advantage in frames.
There are other benefits in using HSC, such as
improved shear capacity of columns, and stronger
beam–column joints[135]. In a beam–column joint, a bar
may be stressed to yield in tension on one side of the
joint core, and to yield in compression on the other
side. In order to reduce the amount of slip due to this
significant change in force, the ratio of the bar
diameter to the column depth is limited[30]. Larger bar
diameters are allowed within a HSCp joint
ffiffiffiffi to transfer
bond as this ratio is proportional to fc0 HSC can be
an attractive option to reduce member sizes in
secondary frames not resisting earthquake loads.
These frames will attract significantly reduced forces,
owing to the increase in flexibility.
With increasing concrete compressive strength, the
section sizes in columns can be effectively reduced.
This reduces the flexural capacities of the columns
framing into a joint, which in turn may change the
response from extensive beam hingeing to extensive
column hingeing. Greater detailing may be needed in
such potential column plastic hinge regions[131].
There are several papers[136], on the behaviour of
HSC elements subjected to seismic loading. Other
recent papers are briefly reviewed here.
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE MEMBERS 11
Li et al.[137] developed a stress–strain relationship
for confined HSC loaded at a high strain rate
(comparable with seismic loading) and compared it
with the relationship based on tests conducted at low
strain rates. They conducted full-scale tests of HSC
columns with varying axial load, transverse
reinforcement ratio and concrete strength to find the
hysteretic response under reversed cyclic loading.
Saatcioglu & Baingo[138] investigated
experimentally the performance of circular HSC
columns under simulated seismic loading. The results
indicated that the deformability of HSC columns can
be improved significantly through confinement. Yan
& Martirossyan[139] found that model columns with
transverse reinforcement designed following the
seismic provisions of ACI 318 code developed
sufficient ductility, with displacement ductility factors
equal to or exceeding 6.0. Martirossyan & Yan[140]
investigated the flexural–shear behaviour of HSC
short columns, which was a common failure mode for
many columns in recent earthquakes. Six short
columns (height/depth ratio 4, fc0 between 76–83 MPa)
were tested up to a displacement ductility level of 8,
under constant axial load and cyclic shear (in double
curvature). Plastic hinges formed at top and bottom
ends which contributed to the significant ductility of
the columns. Assa & Nishiyama[141] presented an
analytical method for prediction of the load–flexural
deformation curve of HSC columns subjected to
simulated seismic loading. The method is based on a
finite element approach which allows for the
spreading of inelasticity along the member. The effect
of the configuration of transverse steel and the
presence of strain gradient on confinement
effectiveness is considered by introducing two
confinement effectiveness factors in the stress–strain
model of confined HSC. The influence of the
difference between plastic hinge length assumed in
the analysis and the gauge length used in the
measurement of stress–strain relations of concrete is
also considered in the analysis. Laogan & Elnashai[142]
designed and detailed 10 buildings of 24 storeys
according to modern seismic codes. They found that
significant member reductions may be achieved by
using HSC.
Saatcioglu & Razvi[143] have developed a
displacement-based design procedure for
confinement of earthquake-resistant concrete
columns. Both NSC and HSC columns with circular
and square cross-sections were included. Improved
design expressions were developed for column
confinement utilizing both the current design
criterion, which is based on column axial
deformability, and the recommended design criterion,
which is based on lateral deformability as expressed
by column drift ratio. Xiao and Yun[144] found that the
hysteretic behavior and ultimate deformability of high
strength concrete columns were significantly
influenced by the amount and details of transverse
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15
12
reinforcement in the potential plastic hinge regions of
the column, as well as by the axial load level. On the
basis of a large number of data from tests, an
extensive study was conducted by Beolchini et al.[145]
in order to investigate the assessment of earthquake
damage in HSC columns. Nagaii and Otani[146]
studied the nonlinear hysteretic load-deformation
relationship of HSC beams.
13 Concluding Remarks
Many structures built now have at least some
components constructed with high strength concrete
(HSC). Recent developments in design and
performance of HSC members, especially the papers
published within last 2–3 years are presented in this
paper. Despite the benefits of using HSC, some
structural engineers are reluctant to use this material,
owing to the lack of provisions in the design
standards. Major codes of practice around the world
are still based on experimental and theoretical results
derived from investigations on normal-strength
concrete (NSC). Many code committees and working
groups are presently meeting to update the existing
codes. Extrapolating these design rules intended for
NSC to HSC, 505fc0 5100 MPa, is not appropriate.
HSC is structurally a different material and rules
applicable to NSC are not always conservative when
applied to HSC. Owing to the variations in fracture
modes, microstructure and the differences brought
about by various additives, such as silica fume, fly
ash, superplasticizers, etc., the empirical design
rules originally intended for concrete strengths
fc0 550 MPa, need to be reevaluated.
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge the contributions of my
graduate students Tuan Ngo, Gideon Kusuma,
Amarjit Singh, Mukesh Soni, Robby Ongah, Narayan
Baidya, Denny Teo, Massoud Sofi and Tahmina
Hossain, who assisted in researching the literature
for the review. Special thanks to Tuan Ngo and
Amarjit Singh for their assistance in formatting the
document.
References
[1] Russell H. Structural design considerations and applications, In: Shah SP
& Ahmad SH. (eds.) High Performance Concretes and Applications. London: Edward
Arnold. 1994.
[2] Malier Y, (ed.) High Performance Concrete}From Material to
Structure. London: E&FN Spon. 1994.
[3] CEB. Bulletin 222. Application of High performance concrete. Lausanne:
CEB. 1994.
[4] Mendis PA & Pendyala R. High strength/high performance concrete
in Australia: design and Applications. Proceedings of the 4th World Conference
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
on Utilization of High strength/High performance Concrete. Paris, May 1996:
1581–1590.
[5] Chang PK, Hwang CL & Peng YN. Application of high performance
concrete to high-rise building in Taiwan: Advances in Structural Engineerin, 2001: 4(2):
65–74.
[6] French C, Mokhtarzadeh A, Ahlborn T & Leon R. High strength
concrete applications to prestressed bridge girders. Construction and Building Materials
1998: 12(2–3): 105–113.
[7] Persson BSM, Johansson AG & Johansson PS. Prefabrication with
HSC. Concrete International 1999: 21(9): 58–62.
[8] Charles HT, Hamdan M, Udom H, Leonard MJ & Hashimah H.
The Petronas Twin Towers and high performance concrete. ACI 1999: SP-172.
[9] Tadros MK, Huo X, Ma ZJ & Baishya M. Structural design of high
performance concrete bridges. ACI 2000: SP–189.
[10] Breitenbuecher R. Developments and applications of high perfor-
mance concrete. Materials and Structure. 1998: 31(207): 209–215.
[11] Beck RA. High performance columns with 17% steel-to-concrete Ratio.
Concrete International 1999: 21(4): 51–54.
[12] Donnaes P. High speed train bridge over the Rhone river. Concrete
International 2000: 22(4): 49–50.
[13] ACI Committee 363. Guide to Quality Control and Testing of High
strength Concrete, ACI 363.2R 1998
[14] Aitcin PC. High performance Concrete. London E & FN Spon,
1998.
[15] Mendis P. Design of High strength Concrete Members: State-of-the-Art. EA
Publishers Ltd., 2001. (http://www.engaust.directone.com.au/epublications.html).
[16] CEB-FIP. State-of-the-art report on high strength concrete, 90/1/1.
Bulletin d’Information 197, 1990.
[17] ACI Committee 363. State of the Art Report on High Strength Concrete
(ACI 363R-92), American Concrete Institute: 1992.
[18] Mokhtarzadeh A & French C. Bibliography on high strength
concrete. PCI Journal 2000: 38(3): 130–137.
[19] ACI 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary. American Concrete Institute. 2002.
[20] Ghosh SK. Provisions in US Codes related to high strength concrete: In
Azzizinamini A, Darwin D & French C (eds). High Strength Concrete}First International
Conference, Proceedings, United Engineering Foundation Conference, Hawaii, 1997. ASCE,
1999: 568–581.
[21] Ali M & White R. On extending ACI 318 to High strength Concrete: In
Azzizinamini, A, Darwin D & French C. (eds.). High strength Concrete-First International
Conference, Proceedings, United Engineering Foundation Conference, Hawaii, 1997,
published by ASCE, 1999: 554: 567.
[22] Eurocode 2. Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1. General Rules and Rules
for Buildings. 1992.
[23] BRITE EURAM Project 5480. Economic design and construction
with high strength concrete-draft (continuous upgrade).
[24] BS8110. Structural Use of Concrete, Part 1}Code of Practice for
Design and Construction London: British Standards Institution 1997.
[25] Concrete Society. Design Guidance for High Strength Concrete, TR 49.
UK, 1998.
[26] CEB-FIP. Model Code 1990. London: Thomas Telford 1993.
[27] Holand I. HSC in Model Code 90. Proceedings of the 5th World
Conference on Utilization of High strength/High performance Concrete, Norway, 1999:
362–367.
[28] German Code. DIN 1045-4: Concrete, Reinforced and Prestressed
Concrete Structures, Part 1: 2001.
[29] AS 3600. Concrete Structures. Australian Standard, Sydney: Standards
Association of Australia 2001.
[30] NZS 3101. New Zealand Concrete Structures Standard. New Zealand
Standards Association. 1995.
[31] NS 3473E. Concrete Structures: Design Rules. Norwegian Council for
Building Standardisation. 1992.
[32] Thorenfeldt E. High strength/high performance concrete in the
Norwegian Code NS3473-1998. Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Utilization
of High Strength/High Performance Concrete. Norway, 1999: 656–666.
[33] CSA 23.1. Design of Concrete Structures. Ontario: Canadian Standards
Association. 2001.
[34] Mitchell D. High strength Concrete: design issues in the Canadian
Code. Provisions in US Codes related to high strength concrete: In: Azzizinamini A,
Darwin D & French C (eds). High Strength Concrete–First International Conference,
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15

Proceedings, United Engineering Foundation Conference, Hawaii, 1997. ASCE, 1999:
582–595.
[35] Nawy E. Fundamentals of High Performance Concrete. 2nd edn. New York
Wiley. 2001.
[36] Baoyu L, Guoliang S & Yuebo C. Studies on high performance
concrete and its application. ACI 1999: SP-172.
[37] Malhotra VM, Zhang MH, Read PH & Ryell J. Long-term
mechanical properties and durability characteristics of high strength/high perfor-
mance concrete incorporating supplementary cementing materials under outdoor
exposure conditions. ACI Materials Journal 2000: 97(5): 518–525.
[38] Mokhtarzadeh A & French C. Mechanical properties of high strength
concrete with consideration for precast applications. ACI Materials Journal 2000:
97(2): 136–147.
[39] Carrasquillo RL, Slate FO & Nilson AH. Microcracking and
behaviour of high strength concrete subjected to short term loading. ACI Structural
Journal 1981: 78(3): 179–186.
[40] Kovler K, Schamban I, Igarashi SI & Bentur A. Prediction of
strength and shrinkage for early age high performance concrete. ACI 2000: SP-189.
[41] Li Q & Ansari F. High strength concrete in uniaxial tension. ACI
Materials Journal 2000: 97(1): 49–57.
[42] Mesbah HA, Lachemi M & A.ıtcin PC. Determination of elastic
properties of high performance concrete at early ages. ACI Materials Journal 2002:
99(1): 37–41.
[43] De Larrard F & Malier Y. Engineering properties of very high
performance concretes. In: Malier Y (ed.) High Performance Concrete}From Material
to Structure. London: E&FN Spon; 1994: 85–114.
[44] Huo X. Structural design of high performance concrete bridge beams.
Transportation Research Record, 5th International Bridge Engineering Conference, 2000:
2: 171–178.
[45] Weiss WJ, Yang W & Shah SP. Factors influencing durability and
early age cracking in high strength concrete structures. ACI 2000: SP189.
[46] Sato R, Xu Ming & Yang Y. Stresses of high strength concrete
due to autogenous shrinkage combined with hydration heat of cement. ACI 1999:
SP-172.
[47] Persson B. Correlating laboratory and field tests of creep in high
performance concrete Cement and Concrete Research 2001: 31(3): 389–395.
[48] Kojima T, Takagi K & Horikawa S. Study on shrinkage character-
istics of high strength silica fume concrete. ACI 2001: SP-199.
[49] Setunge S & Padovan C. Early creep, shrinkage in high performance
concrete in arid environments. Proceedings, at Concrete 97, Concrete Institute of
Australia, Adelaide, 1997; 37–43.
[50] Li J & Yao Y. A study on creep and drying shrinkage of high
performance concrete.Cement and Concrete Research 2001: 31(8): 1203–1206.
[51] ACI 209. Report on Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage and Temperature Effects
in Concrete Structures: 1992.
[52] Mokhtarzadeh A & French C. Time-dependent properties of high
strength concrete with consideration for precast applications. ACI Materials Journal
2000: 97(3): 263–271.
[53] Van Gysel A & Taerwe L. Analytical formulation of the complete
stress-strain curve for high strength concrete. Materials and Structures 1996: 29:
529–533.
[54] Shehata IAEM. Stress–strain curve for the design of high strength
concrete elements. Materials and Structure 2000: 33: 411–418.
[55] Mendis P, Pendyala R & Setunge S. Stress–strain model to predict
the full-range moment curvature behaviour of high strength concrete sections.
Magazine of Concrete Research 2000: 52(4): 227–234.
[56] Candappa DP, Setunge S & Sanjayan JG. Stress versus strain
relationship of high strength concrete under high lateral confinement. Cement and
Concrete Research 1999: 29(12): 1977–1982.
[57] Li Q & Ansari F. Mechanics of damage and constitutive relationships
for high strength concrete in triaxial compression. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
1999: 125(1): 1–10.
[58] Li B, Park R & Tanaka H. Stress-strain behavior of high strength
concrete confined by ultra-high and normal-strength transverse reinforcements.
ACI Structural Journal 2001: 98(3): 395–406.
[59] Breitenbucker R. HSC C105 with increased fire resistance due to
polypropylene fibres. Proceedings of the 4th Conference Utilisation of High Strength/High
Performance Concrete, Paris, 1996: 571–577.
[60] Phan LT. Fire Performance of High Strength Concrete: A Report of the State-
of-the-Art. 5934: Gaithersburg, MD, N IST. 1996.
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE MEMBERS 13
[61] NIST. Special Publication 919, Proceedings of International Workshop on Fire
Performance of High Strength Concrete. Phan LT, Carino N, Duthinh D &
Garboczi E.(eds). Gaithersburg MD NIST. 1997.
[62] Chan SYN, Peng GF & Anson M. Fire behavior of high performance
concrete made with silica fume at various moisture contents. ACI Materials Journal
1999: 96(3): 405–411.
[63] Ali FA, Connor O & Abu-Tair D. Explosive spalling of high strength
concrete columns in fire. Magazine of Concrete Research 2001: 53(3): 197–204.
[64] Bentz DP. Fibers, percolation, and spalling of high performance
concrete. ACI Materials Journal 2000: 97(3): 351–359.
[65] Kodur V. Fiber reinforced concrete for enhancing structural fire
resistance of columns. ACI 1999: SP-182.
[66] Kalifa P, Chéné G & Gallé C. High-temperature behaviour of HPC
with polypropylene fibres From spalling to microstructure. Cement and Concrete
Research 2001: 31(10): 1487–1499.
[67] Phan LT & Carino NJ. Review of mechanical properties of
HSC at elevated temperature. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 1998: 10(1):
58–64.
[68] Phan LT & Carino NJ. Effects of test conditions and mixture
proportions on behavior of high strength concrete exposed to high temperatures.
ACI Materials Journal 2002: 99(1): 54–66.
[69] Wu B, Su XP, Li H & Yuan J. Effect of high temperature on residual
mechanical properties of confined and unconfined high strength concrete. ACI
Materials Journal 2002: 99(4): 399–407.
[70] Gowripalan N, Salonga P & Dolden C. Residual strength of high
performance concrete subjected to high temperatures. ACI 1999: SP-172.
[71] Chan YN, Luo X & Sun W. Compressive strength and pore structure
of high performance concrete after exposure to high temperature up to 8008.
Cement and Concrete Research 2000: 30(2): 247–251.
[72] Hoff GC, Bilodeau A & Malhotra VM. Elevated temperature effects
on HSC residual strength. Concrete International 2000: 22(4): 41–47.
[73] Meda A, Gambarova PG & Bonomi M. High performance concrete
in fire-exposed reinforced concrete Sections. ACI Structural Journal 2002: 99(3):
277–287.
[74] Ongah R, Mendis P & Sanjayan J. Fire performance of high strength
reinforced concrete walls. Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Conference on the
Mechanics of Structures and Materials, Gold Coast, Australia, June 2002. Paper available
at http://www.civag.unimelb.edu.au/seeg/aptes
[75] Mendis P, Nicholls S & Duffield C. Optimum use of high
performance concrete in prestressed concrete super-T bridge beams. PCI Journal
2000: 45(3): 56–65.
[76] Lambottee H & Taerwe LR. Deflection and cracking of high strength
concrete beams and slabs. Proceedings of the High Strength Concrete. 2nd International
Symposium, California, ACI 1990; SP-121.
[77] Paulson K, Nilson AH & Hover KC. Long-term deflection of high
strength concrete beams. ACI Materials Journal 1991: 88(2): 197–206.
[78] Ghali A & Azarnejad A. Deflection prediction of members of any
concrete strength. ACI Structural Journal 1999: 96(5): 807–816.
[79] Sherif AG & Dilger W. Critical review of CSA A23.3-94 deflection
prediction for normal and high strength concrete beams. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering 1998: 25(3): 474–489.
[80] Choi BS & Scanlon A. Comparison of beam deflection variability in
members using high strength concrete and normal strength concrete. ACI 2001:
SP-203.
[81] Pendyala R, Mendis P & Patnaikuni I. Full-range behavior of
high strength concrete flexural members: comparison of ductility parameters
of high and normal-strength concrete members. ACI Structural Journal 1996: 93(1):
30–35.
[82] Lin CH & Lee FS. Ductility of high performance concrete beams
with high strength lateral reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal 2001: 98(4):
600–608.
[83] Shehata IAEM, Ventorini LA & Shehata LCD. Bond influence on
rotation capacity of high strength and normal strength beams. ACI 1999: SP-186.
[84] Pecce M & Fabrocino G. Plastic rotation capacity of beams in normal
and high performance concrete. ACI Structural Journal 1999: 96(3): 290–296.
[85] Stewart M & Attard M. Reliability and model accuracy for high
strength concrete column design. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1999:
125(3): 290–300.
[86] Pendyala RS & Mendis P. Experimental study on shear strength of
high strength concrete beams. ACI Structural Journal 2000: 97(4): 564–571.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15
14
[87] Duthinh D & Carino N. Shear Design of High Strength Concrete Beams: A
Review of the State-of-the-Art. 5870: Gaithersburg MD Nis. 1996.
[88] Kong PL & Rangan BV. Shear strength of high performance concrete
beams. ACI Structural Journal 1998: 95(6): 677–688.
[89] Mattock AH. Shear friction and high strength concrete. ACI Structural
Journal 2001: 98(1): 50–59.
[90] Loov RE & Peng L. Strength of high strength concrete-ACI 318-95
versus shear friction. ACI 2000: SP-189.
[91] Kahn LF & Michell AD. Shear friction tests with high strength
concrete. ACI Structural Journal 2002: 99(1): 98–103.
[92] Ramdane KE. Punching shear of high performance concrete slabs.
Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Utilization of High Strength/High
Performance Concrete, Paris, 1996: 1015–1026.
[93] Hallgren M & Kinnunen S. Increase of punching shear capacity by
using high strength concrete. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on
Utilization of High Strength/High Performance Concrete, Paris, 1996: 1037–1046.
[94] Megally S & Ghali. Punching of concrete slabs due to column moment
transfer. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2000: 126(2): 180–189.
[95] Ngo T. Punching shear resistance of high strength concrete slab.
Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 2001: 1(1): 52–59. http://www.ejse.org.
[96] Koutchoukali NE & Belarbi A. Torsion of high strength reinforced
concrete beams and minimum reinforcement requirement. ACI Structural Journal
2001: 98(4): 462–469.
[97] Fang I, Shiau J & Young W. The strength and ductility of HSC beams
with minimum torsion reinforcement, Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on
Utilization of High strength/High performance Concrete. Norway, 1999: 262:271.
[98] Azizinamini A, Stark M, Roller J & Ghosh SK. Bond Performance
of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in high strength concrete. ACI Structural Journal 1993:
90(5): 554–561.
[99] Mendis P & French C. Bond strength of reinforcement in high strength
concrete. Advances in Structural Engineering 2000: 3(3): 245–253.
[100] Azizinamini A, Darwin D, Eligehausen R, Pavel R & Ghosh SK.
Proposed Modifications to ACI 318-95 tension development and lap splice for high
strength concrete. ACI Structural Journal 1999: 96(6): 922–926.
[101] Yerlici VA & Özturan T. Factors affecting anchorage bond strength in
high performance concrete. ACI Structural Journal 2000: 97(3): 499–507.
[102] Zuo J & Darwin D. Splice strength of conventional and high relative rib
area bars in normal and high strength concrete. ACI Structural Journal 2000: 97(4):
630–641.
[103] ACI Committee 441. Reinforced Concrete Columns. State of the Art
Report: High Strength Concrete Columns. American Concrete Institute, 1997.
[104] Mendis PA, Kovacic D & Setunge S. Basis for design of lateral
reinforcement for high strength concrete columns. Structural Engineering and
Mechanics Journal 2000: 9(6): 589–600.
[105] Légeron F & Paultre P. Behavior of high strength concrete columns
under cyclic flexure and constant axial load. ACI Structural Journal 2000: 97(4):
591–601.
[106] Bayrak O & Sheikh SA. Confinement reinforcement design
considerations for ductile HSC columns. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1998:
124(9): 999–1010.
[107] Saatcioglu M & Razvi SR. High strength concrete columns with
square sections under concentric compression. Journal of Structural Engineering
ASCE) 1998: 124(12): 1438–1447.
[108] Razvi S & Saatcioglu M. Confinement model for high strength
concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1999: 125(3): 281–288.
[109] Liu J, Foster SJ & Attard MM. Strength of tied high strength concrete
columns loaded in concentric compression. ACI Structural Journal 2000: 97(1):
149–156.
[110] Foster SJ. On behavior of high strength concrete columns: cover
spalling, steel fibers, and ductility. ACI Structural Journal 2001: 98(4): 583–589.
[111] Paultre P, Légeron F & Mongeau D. Influence of concrete strength
and transverse reinforcement yield strength on behavior of high strength concrete
columns. ACI Structural Journal 2001: 98(4): 490–501.
[112] Lee JH & Son HS. Failure and strength of high strength concrete
columns subjected to eccentric loads. ACI Structural Journal 2000: 97(1): 75–85.
[113] Claeson C & Gylltoft K. Slender concrete columns subjected to
sustained, short-term eccentric loading. ACI Structural Journal 2000: 97(1):
45–52.
[114] Mendis PA. Behavior of slender high strength concrete columns. ACI
Structural Journal 2000: 97(6): 895–901.
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
[115] Chuang PH, Kong SK & Kong FK. Slender columns in high strength
concrete and normal strength concrete: BS 8110 and EC 2 compared. Structural
Engineer 2000: 78(23–24): 34–41.
[116] Bianchini AC, Woods RE & Kesler CE. Effect of floor concrete
strength on column strength. ACI Journal 1960: 31(11): 1149–1169.
[117] Ospina CE & Alexander SDB. Transmission of interior concrete
column loads through floors. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1998: 124(6):
602–610.
[118] Portella J. Transmission of high strength concrete corner column loads
through weaker slabs. MEng Thesis. University of Melbourne. 2002.
[119] Lee SC. Effect of slab thickness and column rectangularity on
transmission of high strength concrete corner column loads through weaker slabs.
MEng Thesis. University of Melbourne. 2001.
[120] McHarg PJ, Cook WD, Mitchell D & Yoon YS. Improved
transmission of high strength concrete column loads through normal strength
concrete slabs. ACI Structural Journal 2000: 97(1): 157–165.
[121] Fragomeni S & Mendis PA. Applicability of current ACI 318 wall
design formula for high strength concrete walls. Advances in Structural Engineering
1999: 2(2): 103–108.
[122] Gupta A & Rangan BV. High strength concrete (HSC) structural walls.
ACI Structural Journal 1998: 95(2): 194–204.
[123] Sanjayan JG & Maheswaran T. Load capacity of slender high
strength concrete walls with side supports. ACI Structural Journal 1999: 96(4):
571–576.
[124] Otani RK & Krauthammer T. Assessment of reinforcing details for
blast containment structures. ACI Structural Journal 1997: 94(2): 124–32.
[125] Krauthammer T. Recent structural dynamic research with precision
impact tests, Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Interaction of the Effects
of Munitions with Structures McLean, VA, 1997:1109–1116.
[126] Weerheijm J. Prediction of dynamic tensile strength, concrete and blast
effects. ACI 1998: SP-175.
[127] Zeng S, Haussler CU & Eibl J. New approach to strain rate sensitivity
of concrete in compression. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1999: 25(12):
1403–1410.
[128] Jensen J &Tomaszewicz A. Impact Resistance of Fibre Reinforced High
Strength Concrete Slabs. SINTEF Report STF22, 1997.
[129] Dancygier AN. Rear face damage of normal and high–strength
concrete elements caused by hard projectile impact. ACI Structural Journal 1998:
95(3): 291–304.
[130] Ross CA, Tedesco J & Kuennen ST. Effects of strain rate on
concrete strength. ACI Materials Journal 1995: 92(1): 37–47.
[131] Grote DL, Park SW & Zhou M. Dynamic behavior of concrete at
high strain rates and pressure: I. Experimental characterization, and II. Numerical
simulation. Journal of Impact Engineering 2001: 25: 869–910.
[132] Ross CA, Thompson PY & Tedesco J. Split–Hopkinson pressure–
bar tests on concrete and mortar in tension and compression. ACI Materials Journal:
1989: 86(5): 475–81.
[133] Weerheijm J. Prediction of dynamic tensile strength, concrete and blast
effects. ACI 1998: SP-175.
[134] Ngo T & Mendis P. Assessment of tall buildings under blast loading,
aircraft impact. Proceedings of IABSE Conference, September 2002, Melbourne (CD).
Paper available at http://www.civag.unimelb.edu.au/seeg/aptes/
[135] Mendis PA & Panagapoulous C. Application of high strength
concrete in seismic regions. Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 2000: Paper 0809 (CD only).
[136] French C & Kreger M (eds.). High strength concrete in seismic
regions. ACI SP-176. 1998.
[137] Li B, Park R & Tanaka H. Constitutive behavior of high strength
concrete under dynamic loads. ACI Structural Journal 2000: 97(4): 619–629.
[138] Saatcioglu M & Baingo D. Circular high strength concrete columns
under simulated seismic loading. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1999: 125(3):
272–280.
[139] Yan X & Martirossyan A. Seismic performance of high strength
concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1998: 124(3):
241–251.
[140] Martirossyan A & Yan X. Flexural-shear behavior of high strength
concrete short columns. Earthquake Spectra 2001: 17(4): 679–695.
[141] Assa B & Nishiyama M. Prediction of load-displacement curve of high
strength concrete columns under simulated seismic loading. ACI Structural Journal
1998: 95(5): 547–557.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15

[142] Laogan BT & Elnashai AS. Structural performance and economics of
tall high strength RC buildings in seismic regions. Structural Design of Tall Buildings
1999: 8(3): 171–204.
[143] Saatcioglu M & Razvi SR. Displacement-based design of reinforced
concrete columns for confinement. ACI Structural Journal 2002: 99(1): 3–11.
[144] Xiao Y & Yun HW. Experimental studies on full-scale high strength
concrete columns. ACI Structural Journal 2002: 99(2): 199–207.
Priyan Mendis
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Melbourne
Parkville, 3052 Victoria
Australia
E: mail: p.mendis@civag.unimelb.edu.au
Copyright & 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE MEMBERS 15
[145] Beolchini GC, Galeoia D, Giammatteo MM & Zulli M.
Seismic behavior of high strength RC columns. Proceedings of the 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 2000: Paper 0593
(CD).
[146] Nagaii S & Otani S. Hysteresis characteristics of high strength
reinforced concrete beams. Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 2000: Paper 0680 (CD only).
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2003; 5:1–15