TP3

Portland State University
PDXScholar
Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses
Spring 6-6-2018
Flexural Strength, Ductility, and Serviceability of Beams that

Contain High-Strength Steel Reinforcement and High-Grade
Concrete
Anas Yosefani
Let us know how access to this document benefits you.

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds
Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons
Recommended Citation
Yosefani, Anas, "Flexural Strength, Ductility, and Serviceability of Beams that Contain High-Strength Steel Reinforcement and High-
Grade Concrete" (2018). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4402.
10.15760/etd.6286
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized
administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Flexural Strength, Ductility, and Serviceability of Beams that Contain High-Strength
Steel Reinforcement and High-Grade Concrete
by
Anas Yosefani
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Dissertation Committee:
Franz Rad, Chair
Peter Dusicka
Thomas Schumacher
Hormoz Zareh

2018
© 2018 Anas Yosefani
Abstract
Utilizing the higher capacity steel in design can provide additional advantages to the
concrete construction industry including a reduction of congestion, improved concrete
placement, reduction in the required reinforcement and cross sections which would lead
to savings in materials, shipping, and placement costs. Using high-strength reinforcement
is expected to impact the design provisions of ACI 318 code and other related codes.
The Applied Technology Council (ATC-115) report “Roadmap for the Use of High-
Strength Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete Design” has identified key design issues
that are affected by the use of high-strength reinforcement. Also, ACI ITG-6, “Design
Guide for the Use of ASTM A1035 Grade 100 Steel Bars for Structural Concrete” and
NCHRP Report 679, “Design of Concrete Structures Using High-Strength Steel
Reinforcement” have made progress towards identifying how code provisions in ACI 318
and AASHTO could be changed to incorporate high-strength reinforcement.
The current research aims to provide a closer investigation of the behavior of beams
reinforced with high-strength steel bars (including ASTM A615 Grade 100 and ASTM
A1035 Grades 100 and 120) and high-strength concrete up to 12000 psi. Focus of the
research is on key design issues including: ductility, stiffness, deflection, and cracking.
The research includes an extensive review of current literature, an analytical study and
conforming experimental tests, and is directed to provide a number of recommendations
and design guidelines for design of beams reinforced with high-strength concrete and
high-strength steel. Topics investigated include: strain limits (tension-controlled and
compression-controlled, and minimum strain in steel); possible change for strength

i
reduction factor equation for transition zone (ϕ); evaluation of the minimum
reinforcement ratio (ρmin); recommendations regarding limiting the maximum stress for
the high-strength reinforcement; and prediction of deflection and crack width at service
load levels. Moreover, this research includes long-term deflection test of a beam made
with high grade concrete and high-strength steel under sustained load for twelve months
to evaluate the creep deflection and to insure the appropriateness of the current ACI 318
time-dependent factor, λ, which does not consider the yield strength of reinforcement and
the concrete grade.
ii
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, praises and thanks to God for His blessing throughout this research
work and for granting me the capability to complete it successfully. I would like to
express the deepest appreciation to my advisor and committee chair Dr. Franz Rad, for
his thoughtful guidance, encouragement, and persistent help throughout my PhD journey.
Moreover, I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Peter Dusicka, Dr. Thomas
Schumacher, and Dr. Hormoz Zareh for their time reviewing my dissertation and for their
valuable comments and suggestions. I would also like to acknowledge the Higher
Committee of Education Development in Iraq (HCED) for sponsoring my PhD program
at Portland State University. My gratitude also goes to Cascade Steel Rolling Mills Inc.
for donating the reinforcing bars used in this research. My sincere thanks also go to Dr.
William Wood and Mr. Robert Turpin for their help with manufacturing and installing
the loading frame for the long-term deflection test at OMSI lab. I would also like extend
my thanks to Mr. Tom Bennett for his help with the instrumentation setup of the
experiments. Special thanks to my friends of the graduate students who helped a lot with
the experiment part of this research, especially Hayder Al-Khafaji, Hosam Al-Azzawi,
Ali Hafiz, Anwer Mohammed, Wisam Aules, Yasir Saeed, Aqeel Al-Bahadily, Salih
Mahmood, Naowar Al-Abbas, and Ranj Rafeeq. Finally, I would like to thank my parents
and siblings for their prayers, and supporting me spiritually throughout my life. Most
importantly, I wish to thank my loving and supportive wife, Rana, and my three
wonderful children, Lourd, Lara, and Andrew. My parents, wife, children are the most
important people in my world and I dedicate this dissertation to them.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 General Overview ................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Research Significance .......................................................................................... 2
1.3 Research Objectives ............................................................................................. 4
1.4 Expected Contribution.......................................................................................... 6
1.5 Dissertation Outline.............................................................................................. 7
Chapter Two: Background Information .............................................................................. 9
2.1 High-Strength Reinforcement (HSR) ................................................................... 9
2.1.1 HSR Type ASTM A615 Gr. 100 vs. ASTM A1035 Gr. 100 and 120 Tensile
Properties .................................................................................................................. 10
2.1.2 ASTM Specifications for Defining Yield Strength of the Reinforcing Bars
11
2.1.3 Uniform Strain vs. Total Strain of the Reinforcing Bars ............................ 13
2.2 High-Strength Concrete (HSC) .......................................................................... 14
iv
2.3 Stress-Strain Curves for Unconfined Concrete in Compression ........................ 15
2.4 Rectangular Stress Block for Concrete .............................................................. 19
2.5 Reinforcement Ratio Limit vs. Strain Limits ..................................................... 20
2.6 Minimum Flexural Reinforcement ..................................................................... 22
2.7 Serviceability of Beams ..................................................................................... 23
2.7.1 Short-Term Deflection (Immediate Deflection) ......................................... 24
2.7.2 Flexural Cracking........................................................................................ 26
2.7.3 Long-Term Deflection (Time-Dependent Deflection)................................ 27
Chapter Three: Literature Review .................................................................................... 30
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 30
3.2 Flexural Behavior of Beams Made with High-Strength Reinforcement (HSR) 30
3.3 Flexural Behavior of Beams Made with High-Strength Concrete (HSC).......... 38
3.4 Deflection at Service Load Level ....................................................................... 42
3.4.1 Immediate Deflection of Beams Reinforced with HSR .............................. 42
3.4.2 Long-Term Deflection of HSC Beams ....................................................... 44
3.5 Flexural Crack Widths and Crack Control of Beams Reinforced with HSR ..... 47
Chapter Four: Theoretical Investigation of Load-Deflection Response ........................... 49
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 49
4.2 Nonlinear Flexural Analysis .............................................................................. 49
v
4.2.1 Moment-Curvature Response ..................................................................... 50
4.2.2 Modeling the Stress-Strain Relationship for Concrete and Reinforcing Steel
52
4.2.3 Load-deflection Response ........................................................................... 54
4.3 Verification of the Analytical Model ................................................................. 57
4.4 Flexural Behavior of Beams Made with HSC and HSR .................................... 60
Chapter Five: Experimental Assessment of Beams Made with HSC & HSR .................. 63
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 63
5.2 Materials Properties............................................................................................ 64
5.2.1 Concrete ...................................................................................................... 64
5.2.2 Reinforcing Steel ........................................................................................ 69
5.3 Design of the Specimens .................................................................................... 74
5.4 Specimens Fabrication ....................................................................................... 78
5.5 Instrumentation and Test Setup .......................................................................... 82
5.5.1 Installation of Strain Gauges ....................................................................... 82
5.5.2 Flexural Test Setup and Instrumentation .................................................... 85
5.5.3 Long-Term Deflection Test Setup .............................................................. 86
5.6 Beams Flexural Test Results and Discussion..................................................... 89
5.6.1 Load-Deflection Behavior of Test Beams .................................................. 89
vi
5.6.2 Discussion of Results ................................................................................ 105
5.7 Long-Term Deflection Test Results and Discussion........................................ 115
Chapter Six: A Parametric Study on the Key Design Issues with HSR and HSC .......... 118
6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 118
6.2 Flexural Strength and Ductility ........................................................................ 119
6.2.1 Reinforcement Ratio Limit ....................................................................... 120
6.2.2 Tension Reinforcement Strain Limits ....................................................... 123
6.3 Minimum Reinforcement Ratio ....................................................................... 132
6.4 Effect of Using Simplified Elastic-Plastic vs. Actual Roundhouse Stress-Strain
for HSR Type A1035 on Flexural Design of Beams .................................................. 138
6.5 Flexural Design with HSR, Limiting the Maximum Stress ............................. 141
6.6 Design Flexural Strength vs. Reinforcement Ratio Charts for HSR ................ 144
6.7 Short-Term Deflection at Service Load Level ................................................. 146
Chapter Seven: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Future Research .. 162
7.1 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................... 162
7.1.1 Strength and Ductility ............................................................................... 162
7.1.2 Minimum Reinforcement Ratio ................................................................ 164
7.1.3 Cracking Behavior .................................................................................... 164
7.1.4 Deflection Under Service Load ................................................................ 165
vii
7.2 Recommendations for Future Research (Keep the sentence structure parallel)166
References ....................................................................................................................... 167
Appendix A: MATLAB Coding to Predict Load-Deflection Behavior.......................... 172
Appendix B: Design Charts for Beams Reinforced with HSR and Based on Materials
Typical Stress-Strain Behavior ....................................................................................... 177
Appendix C: Service Load Level Evaluation ................................................................. 191
viii
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Tensile properties requirements ...................................................................... 12
Table 2-2: Existing stress-strain models for HSC (Shafiq et al., 2014) ............................ 18
Table 3-1: Tests information (Ansley, 2002) .................................................................... 31
Table 3-2: Comparison of design methods (Mast et al., 2008) ......................................... 34
Table 3-3: Test Matrix (Eltahawy et al., 2009) ................................................................. 36
Table 3-4: Test Specimens and Results (Shahrooz et al., 2010) ....................................... 38
Table 3-5: Comparison of experimental and calculated deflections at service load levels
(Soltani 2010).................................................................................................................... 44
Table 3-6: Typical creep parameters (Nilson et al., 2010) ............................................... 47
Table 4-1: Typical reinforcement stress-strain parameters used in the analytical
investigation ...................................................................................................................... 53
Table 4-2: Details of the selected beams from the literature to verify the analystical model
........................................................................................................................................... 57
Table 4-3: Effect of using HSC for beams reinforced with HSR ..................................... 60
Table 5-1: Concrete mixture proportions .......................................................................... 65
Table 5-2: Modulus of rupture of concrete prisms ........................................................... 69
Table 5-3: Reinforcement tensile test results summary .................................................... 70
Table 5-4: Experimental test matrix ................................................................................. 76
Table 5-5: Test beams experimental flexural test results summary................................ 100
Table 5-6: Prediction of maximum crack width for test beams at service load level ..... 103
Table 5-7: Prediction of maximum deflection at service load level for the test beams .. 104
ix
Table 5-8: Comparison of predicted and measured time-dependent beam deflections .. 116
Table 6-1: Summary of reinforcement ratio limit based on ρ=0.75ρ b ............................ 121
Table 6-2: Comparable strain limits based on curvature ductility (µ = φ u/φy) ............... 130
Table 6-3: Comparable strain limits based on energy absorption (µ = Area under P-Δ) 130
Table 6-4: Comparison of minimum strain limits for HSR from different approaches.. 130
Table 6-5: Comparison of ρmin for A615 Grade 60 ......................................................... 134
Table 6-6: Comparison of ρmin for A615 & A1035 Grade 100 ....................................... 134
Table 6-7: Comparison of ρmin for A1035 Grade 120..................................................... 134
Table 6-8: Comparison of εu at ρmin for A615 Grade 60 ................................................. 136
Table 6-9: Comparison of εu at ρmin for A615 Grade 100 ............................................... 136
Table 6-10: Comparison of εu at ρmin for A1035 Grade 100 ........................................... 137
Table 6-11: Comparison of εu at ρmin for A1035 Grade 120 ........................................... 137
Table 6-12: Comparison of using elastic-plastic model vs. actual roundhouse to model
A1035-100 reinforcement on moment capacity and curvature ductility ........................ 139
Table 6-13: Allowable stress in prestressed reinforcement for f'c = 4000 psi ................ 143
Table 6-14: Allowable stress in prestressed reinforcement for f'c = 12000 psi .............. 143
Table 6-15: Comparison of analytical and calculated deflections at service load level for
beams reinforced with A615 grade 100 .......................................................................... 150
beams reinforced with A1035 grade 100 ........................................................................ 151
beams reinforced with A1035 grade 120 ........................................................................ 152
x
Table 6-18: Modified immediate deflections calculated using the suggested modified
Bischoff effective moment of inertia for beams reinforced with A615 grade 100 ......... 159
Bischoff effective moment of inertia for beams reinforced with A1035 grade 100 ....... 160
Bischoff effective moment of inertia for beams reinforced with A1035 grade 120 ....... 161
xi
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Representative stress-strain relationships for Grade 60, Grade 80, and Grade
100 reinforcement (adopted from NIST, 2014) ................................................................ 10
Figure 2-2: Determination of yield strength by offset method ......................................... 12
Figure 2-3: Uniform strain vs. total strain (NIST GCR 14-917-30) ................................. 14
Figure 2-4: Carreira and Chu (1985) concrete stress-strain model ................................... 17
Figure 2-5: Typical compressive stress-strain curves for normal weight concrete (Nilson
et al., 2010) ....................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2-6: Stress and strain distribution across beam depth: (a) beam cross-section;
(b)strains; (c) actual stress block; (d) assumed equivalent stress block (Nawy, 2010) .... 19
Figure 2-7: Strength reduction factor, ϕ, based on strain limit approach ......................... 21
Figure 2-8: Beam load-deflection and moment-deflection relationships (Nawy, 2010) .. 25
Figure 2-9: ACI 318 multipliers for long-term deflection ................................................ 28
Figure 3-1: Design guidelines for the design with MMFX reinforcement (Dawood et al.
2004) ................................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 3-2: Sectional analysis procedure (Mast et al. 2008) ............................................ 33
Figure 3-3: Proposed variation of resistance factor ϕ (Mast et al. 2008).......................... 35
Figure 3-4: Strain limits for the design with MMFX reinforcement (Eltahawy et al. 2009)
........................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 3-5: Effect of f’c on displacement ductility, µd (Ashour, 2000) ........................... 39
Figure 3-6: Beam ductility as influenced by concrete strength: (a) test data; and (b)
analytical values (Rashid, 2005) ....................................................................................... 41
xii
Figure 3-7: Creep and shrinkage deflection of beams (Paulson et al., 1991) ................... 46
Figure 4-1: Cracked section analysis ................................................................................ 52
Figure 4-2: Typical stress-strain curves for reinforcing bars ............................................ 54
Figure 4-3: Calculation of the mid-span deflection based on the numerical integration for
the curvature diagram ....................................................................................................... 56
Figure 4-4: Comparison of experimental beams results of Ansley (2002) and analytical
model results ..................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 4-5: Comparison of experimental beams results of Yutakhong (2003) and
analytical model results..................................................................................................... 58
Figure 4-6: Comparison of experimental beams results of Shahrooz et al. (2010) and
analytical model results..................................................................................................... 59
Figure 4-7: Behavior of beam designed with NSC & grade 60 steel vs. beams designed
with HSC & HSR (A615-100 & A1035-100)................................................................... 61
Figure 5-1: Cylinder compression stress-strain test set up ............................................... 66
Figure 5-2: Experimental stress-strain curves of plain concrete ....................................... 67
Figure 5-3: Plain concrete modulus of rupture test set up ................................................ 68
Figure 5-4: Reinforcement tensile stress-strain test set up ............................................... 70
Figure 5-5: Tension stress-strain test results for rebar type A615 grade 60 ..................... 71
Figure 5-6: Tension stress-strain test results for rebar type A615 grade 100 ................... 72
Figure 5-7: Tension stress-strain test results for rebar type A1035 grade 120 ................. 73
Figure 5-8: Tension stress-strain test results for no.2 wire used for shear reinforcement 74
Figure 5-9: Experimental program test beams details ...................................................... 77
xiii
Figure 5-10: Specimens fabrication .................................................................................. 79
Figure 5-11: Concrete mixing and casting process of the specimens ............................... 80
Figure 5-12: Specimens moist curing ............................................................................... 81
Figure 5-13: Installation steps of concrete strain gauges .................................................. 83
Figure 5-14: Installation steps of reinforcement strain gauges ......................................... 84
Figure 5-15: Flexural test set-up and instrumentations..................................................... 85
Figure 5-16: Typical flexural test setup of reinforced concrete beam specimens ............ 86
Figure 5-17: Schematic drawing for the test setup of the long-term deflection ............... 87
Figure 5-18: Fabrication of the loading frame for flexural long-term deflection test ...... 88
Figure 5-19: Experimental results of beam 5/A615-60 (1.1%) ........................................ 90
Figure 5-20: Experimental results of beam 8/A615-100 (0.62%) .................................... 91
Figure 5-21: Experimental results of beam 8/A1035-120 (0.41%) .................................. 92
Figure 5-22: Experimental results of beam 13/A615-100 (0.62%) .................................. 93
Figure 5-23: Experimental results of beam 11/A1035-120 (0.41%) ................................ 94
Figure 5-24: Experimental results of beam 5/A615-60 (2.29%) ...................................... 95
Figure 5-27: Crack pattern and failure mode of the first group of the test beams .......... 101
Figure 5-28: Crack pattern and failure mode of the second group of the test beams ..... 102
Figure 5-29: Load-deflection response of tested beams ................................................. 113
Figure 5-30: Stress level in the tension reinforcement at service loading state for the
tested beams reinforced with steel type A1035 Grade 120............................................. 114
xiv
Figure 5-31: Time-dependent deflection of beam 14/A1035-120 (0.41%) .................... 115
Figure 5-32: Crack pattern and maximum crack width measurement of the beam
14/A1035-120 (0.41%) tested under long-term period ................................................... 117
14/A1035-120 (0.41%) tested under long-term period ................................................... 117
Figure 6-1: Moment-curvature responses for beams reinforced with conventional grade
60 steel and HSR based on 𝜌 = 0.75𝜌𝑏 ......................................................................... 122
Figure 6-2: M-ϕ response for a beam with f'c =4000 psi & Grade 60 steel with ρ = 0.0195
......................................................................................................................................... 125
Figure 6-3: Effect of ρ on the moment capacity and tension reinforcement strain......... 125
Figure 6-4: HSR comparable tension-control strain limits based on curvature ductility 126
Figure 6-5: HSR comparable tension-control strain limits based on energy absorption
(area under P-Δ) .............................................................................................................. 127
Figure 6-6: HSR comparable minimum strain limits based on curvature ductility ........ 128
Figure 6-7: HSR comparable minimum strain limits based on energy absorption (area
under P-Δ) ....................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 6-8: Relationship between strength reduction factor, ϕ, and strain limits ........... 131
Figure 6-9: Comparison of ρmin for A615 Grade 60 ....................................................... 135
Figure 6-10: Comparison of ρmin for A615 & A1035 Grade 100 ................................... 135
Figure 6-11: Comparison of ρmin for A1035 Grade 120 ................................................. 136
Figure 6-12: Effect of using simplified elastic-plastic model to idealize the behavior of
A1035 reinforcement on moment capacity and curvature ductility................................ 140
xv
Figure 6-13: Flexural design chart for beams with f'c =8000 psi & reinforced with A1035
grade 100 rebar ............................................................................................................... 145
grade 100 rebar ............................................................................................................... 145
grade 120 rebar ............................................................................................................... 146
From the moment-curvature analysis, the immediate deflection at service load is
extracted from the load-deflection relationship when the load is equal to 60% of the
maximum load. The cross section of the beams is assumed 6 in. x10 in. with a simple
span of 8 ft., and the reinforcement ratio is varied from 𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑛 to 𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑥. Figure 6-16
shows the relationship between ρ and Mcr/Ma ratio for the example beam. ................... 148
Figure 6-17: Relationship between ρ and Mcr/Ma ratio for an example beam ................ 149
Figure 6-18: Immediate deflection prediction using M-ϕ analysis and Ie method for beams
reinforced with A615 grade 100 rebar ............................................................................ 153
reinforced with A1035 grade 100 rebar .......................................................................... 154
reinforced with A1035 grade 120 rebar .......................................................................... 155
Figure 6-21: Relationship between immediate deflection calculated using M-ϕ analysis
and Ie of Bischoff method for beams reinforced with HSR ............................................ 158
xvi
1 Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 General Overview
For many years, the design of reinforced concrete in the United States was dominated by
the use of reinforcing steel of Grades 40 and 60 that have a well-defined yield strength
and yield plateau. Design for flexural members with higher strength reinforcement has
been permitted in the current ACI 318-14 code but is limited to 80 ksi for non-seismic
systems. The limits to the yield strength are mainly related to the prescribed limit on the
concrete ultimate strain of 0.003, and to the control of crack widths at service level loads.
Crack width is related to the strain developed in the tension reinforcement and
consequently to the steel stress at the service load. Therefore, the limit to the steel stress
is needed to prevent the cracks from affecting the serviceability of the structure.
However, recent improvements in concrete properties have made it possible to use
reinforcements of higher strength.
Currently, high-strength reinforcement (HSR) with yield strength exceeding 80 ksi is
commercially available in the United States up to Grade 120. It is expected that utilizing
the higher capacity steel in design can provide additional advantages to the concrete
construction industry including reduction of congestion in heavily reinforced members,
improved concrete placement, potential reduction in the amount of reinforcement needed
for design and reducing member cross sections which would lead to savings in materials,
shipping, and placement costs. Moreover, using high-strength concrete (HSC) coupled
with HSR is expected to result in more efficient structural designs, longer spans,
shallower sections, and higher load-carrying capacities.
1
High-Strength Concrete (HSC) can be obtained by minimizing the water–cement ratio
with the aid of superplasticizers, and by carefully selecting reasonable doses and types of
pozzolanic admixtures such as silica fume. Currently, HSC can be produced up to a
strength of 20 ksi.
In spite of the fact that many advantages are expected in using high strength steel,
ductility is expected to be reduced due to the potential lowering of the steel strain at
failure. Therefore, using high-strength reinforcement is expected to impact the design
provisions of ACI 318 and other codes related to reinforced concrete structures.
However, combining HSR with HSC may improve the reduction in the ductility when
using HSR. Based on the current code provisions, and if everything else remains the
same, it can be analytically shown that an increase in concrete strength leads to higher
ductility. Therefore, this study is focusing on the use of both high strength materials.
1.2 Research Significance
There are many issues associated with the use of high-strength reinforcement that need to
be addressed, and many sections of the ACI 318 code may require new or revised
provisions in order to incorporate the use of high-strength reinforcement. The Applied
Technology Council (ATC-115) report 2014 “Roadmap for the use of high-strength
reinforcement in reinforced concrete design”, identified the key design issues that are
affected by the use of high-strength reinforcement, which are related to the provisions of
strength and ductility, serviceability, reinforcement limits, analysis, detailing, and seismic
systems. Also, documents such as the ACI ITG-6, “Design Guide for the Use of ASTM
2
A1035 Grade 100 Steel Bars for Structural Concrete” (ACI, 2010a) and the NCHRP
Report 679, “Design of Concrete Structures Using High-Strength Steel Reinforcement”
(Shahrooz et al., 2011) have made progress towards identifying how some code
provisions in ACI 318 and AASHTO could be changed to incorporate high-strength
reinforcement. However, a challenge for the design process will involve integration of
high-strength reinforcement into concrete structures in ways that optimize and fully
utilize the higher yield strength of the bars. Therefore, further research is needed to better
understand the effects of using higher strength reinforcement in concrete members and to
provide answers for the identified key design issues.
This research represents a closer investigation of the ductility and the behavior of beams
made with different grades of concrete (4000 psi – 12000 psi), and reinforced with
different types and grades of HSR, which include ASTM A615 Grade 100 and ASTM
A1035 Grades 100 and 120. The research focus is on the key design issues related to the
use of high-strength steel bars as flexural reinforcement for beams that contain normal
strength concrete (NSC) and high strength concrete (HSC). Analytical and experimental
studies will be conducted to investigate and overcome the deficiencies in the existing
knowledge base, and to support an update to ACI 318 to incorporate the use of
reinforcement in excess of 80 ksi.
3
1.3 Research Objectives
The flexural behavior of concrete beams that contain a range of concrete capacities and
are reinforced with high-strength steel reinforcement will be investigated analytically and
experimentally.
The analytical study is intended to address the following issues:
1. Investigate the strength and ductility of flexural concrete beams reinforced with
two different types of high-strength reinforcement that has a defined yield stress
and yield plateau (A615 grade 100), as well as other types without well-defined
yield stress and lack for yield plateau (A1035 grades 100 & 120), and those made
with a range of concrete strengths (4000 to 12000 psi).
2. Based on ductility requirement, evaluate the previous approach of ACI 318 to
determine the maximum reinforcement ratio as a fraction of the balanced ratio
(ρmax = 0.75ρb) versus the current approach that is based on tensile reinforcement
strain limits (tension-controlled strain limit, minimum tensile strain limit, and
compression-controlled strain limit) for beams reinforced with HRS. Depending
on the grade and the shape of the stress-strain relationship for high-strength
reinforcement, ACI Code strain limits may need to be modified.
3. Explore the possible revisions to the strength reduction factors for flexural beams
reinforced with HSR. This critical ratio is required to protect against sudden
collapse of flexural members in the event of loading beyond the cracking
moment.
4
4. Evaluate the minimum reinforcement ratio for the use of high-strength
reinforcement. This study will attempt to determine the minimum flexural
reinforcement required to provide an acceptable ratio of cracked section flexural
strength to “gross” uncracked section strength in beams with high-strength
reinforcement.
5. Evaluate whether the traditional ACI 318 design assumption of using a simplified
elastic-plastic stress-strain relationship for modeling the reinforcement is adequate
when using high-strength reinforcement type A1035 that lacks the well-defined
yield point and yield plateau.
6. Evaluate the current ACI 318 provisions for predicting the deflection at service
load level when beams are designed using HSC & HSR.
7. Explore the effectiveness of combining high-strength concrete (HSC) with high-
strength reinforcement (HSR) for flexural beams through comparing the design
with the current practice.
The experimental testing will be performed to determine the load-deflection behavior of
the beams made with high-strength concrete and reinforced with high-strength
reinforcement grades 100 & 120. The tests will consider the actual tensile-to-yield
strength ratios and elongations that are likely to be achieved in the production of high-
strength reinforcement. The experimental tests are mainly to confirm the results of the
analytical studies. Tests will attempt to:
 Track bar elongations and concrete strains as the beam is loaded to failure.
5
 Track deflections at service load levels, as well as near failure.
 Observe the cracking behavior and evaluate the crack width.
Moreover, the experimental program included an investigation of the long-term
deflection of a beam made with HSC (14000 psi) and HSR (A1035 grade 120) to
evaluate the current ACI 318 time-dependent factor (λ) for the use of both high strength
materials as the current factor does not take into account the yield strength of
reinforcement and the concrete grade.
1.4 Expected Contribution
This research represents a broader study for the use of high-strength bars as a flexural
reinforcement in RC beams. It will compromise of a range of steel and concrete grades,
and it is expected to contribute in providing further study to allow the general use of steel
reinforcement in excess of Grade 80 for gravity load applications, and ultimately,
encouraging the integration of high-strength reinforcing steel into the ACI 318 code and
other building codes. The main contributions can be summarized in the following points:
a) Evaluating analytically and experimentally the use of steel that conforms to
ASTM 1035 Grade 120 bars as a flexural reinforcement for concrete beams.
b) Evaluating analytically and experimentally the use of the new bar type ASTM
A615 Grade 100 and compare the behavior with beams reinforced with bars type
ASTM A1035 Grade 100.
6
c) Evaluating the current ACI 318 design provisions regarding strain limits, flexural
strength, ductility, and service load deflection prediction for beams reinforced
with high-strength bars and provide recommendations for changes, if necessary.
d) Propose a new approach for determining the minimum reinforcement ratio for the
use of HSR based on the minimum ultimate uniform strain (εu) that can be
achieved by the high-strength reinforcement.
e) Evaluating experimentally the effectiveness of coupling high-strength concrete
with high-strength reinforcement on the flexural behavior of beams.
f) Evaluating experimentally the long-term (creep) deflection of a beam made with
HSC and HSR.
1.5 Dissertation Outline
This dissertation consists of six chapters, as following:
Chapter One presents a general overview, significance, objectives, and the expected
contribution of the research.
Chapter Two gives a background information about the materials and the parameters
studied in this research, and the current provisions of the ACI 318 code that are related to
the flexural behavior and serviceability of the reinforced concrete beams.
Chapter Three presents a review about the available research in the literature that is
related to the use of high-strength reinforcement and high-strength concrete for beams in
flexure.
7
Chapter Four discusses the creation of a computer model to predict the flexural
behavior of concrete beams of different concrete strengths and reinforced with Grade 60
as well as high-strength reinforcing bars. Also, this chapter includes a theoretical
investigation for beams made with HSC & HSR.
Chapter Five presents an experimental program conducted to validate the theoretical
results, and to compare the design using the current practice that includes the use of
normal-strength concrete and conventional grade 60 steel versus the design using high
strength materials.
Chapter Six summarizes the results of a parametric study on the key design issues with
HSR and HSC for the objective of developing guidelines for design that are compatible
with current practice.
Chapter Seven summarizes the observations and conclusions drawn based on both the
analytical and the experimental results of this research.
8
2 Chapter Two: Background Information
2.1 High-Strength Reinforcement (HSR)
The terminology high-strength reinforcement (HSR) is used for the bars that have a
defined yield strength of 75 ksi and higher. A number of high-strength reinforcing steels
are currently available in the United States such as ASTM A1035 Grades 100 & 120,
ASTM A615 Grades 75, 80 & 100, ASTM A706 Grade 80, SAS 670 Grade 97. As
shown in Figure 2-1, three distinct shapes of stress-strain relationships for high-strength
reinforcing steels are possible:
(1) A rounded curve (designated as S1) defined by a gradual reduction in stiffness that
becomes nonlinear before reaching a yield strength that is defined by the 0.2% offset
method, followed by gradual softening until the tensile strength is reached (also called a
“roundhouse” curve).
(2) A curve defined by two segments (designated as S2) consisting of linear-elastic
behavior to the yield strength, followed by linear strain hardening behavior until the
tensile strength is reached.
(3) A curve defined by three segments (designated as S3) consisting of linear-elastic
behavior to a well-defined yield strength, a relatively flat yield plateau, and a rounded
strain-hardening region.
Different stress-strain relationships are expected to impact the force-displacement
behavior of reinforced concrete beams in different ways including strain limits, flexural
9
strength and corresponding maximum deflection, and the spread of plasticity as the beam
is loaded monotonically to failure (ductility).
Figure 2-1: Representative stress-strain relationships for Grade 60, Grade 80, and
Grade 100 reinforcement (adopted from NIST, 2014)
2.1.1 HSR Type ASTM A615 Gr. 100 vs. ASTM A1035 Gr. 100 and 120 Tensile
Properties
Two types of HSR bars are investigated in this research, ASTM A615 Grade 100 and
ASTM A1035 Grades 100 and 120. ASTM A1035 reinforcing steel is characterized by a
low carbon content (maximum of 0.15%) and a high chromium content (minimum 8%
and maximum 10.9%), which results in a much higher tensile strength than ASTM A615
steel, however, the maximum strain that can be achieved before rupture is lower than that
of ASTM A615. The stress-strain curve for HSR bar type A615 mostly contains a well-
defined yield point and yield plateau up to the onset of rounded strain hardening segment,
10
while HSR type A1035 exhibits a roundhouse stress-strain behavior, as shown in Figure
2-1.
2.1.2 ASTM Specifications for Defining Yield Strength of the Reinforcing Bars
ASTM specifications require that the yield strength of the reinforcing bars shall be
determined by the drop or halt of the gauge of the tensile testing machine when the steel
tested has a sharp-knee or well-defined yield point. However, for the steel that lacks for a
well-defined yield point, all ASTM reinforcing bar standards in 2014 and later required
that the yield strength shall be determined by the 0.2% offset method described in ASTM
A370 and shown here in Figure 2-2. First, a strain is located on the strain axis 0.002
in./in. from the origin, then a line is drawn from that point parallel to the initial linear
portion of the stress-strain curve. The point where this line intersects the stress-strain
curve is defined as fy. A study in 2016 about defining yield strength for the non-
prestressed reinforcement (Paulson et al., 2016) supported that the use of the 0.2% offset
method to define the yield strength for reinforcement of roundhouse stress-strain curves
is safe and realistic.
ASTM specifications also require that the reinforcing bars must satisfy the minimum
tensile properties for each bar type and size, as specified in Table 2-1.
11
Figure 2-2: Determination of yield strength by offset method
Table 2-1: Tensile properties requirements

Steel Type – Grade A615-60 A615-100 A1035-100 A1035-120
Minimum tensile strength, psi 90,000 115,000 150,000 150,000
Minimum yield strength, psi 60,000 100,000 100,000 120,000
Minimum elongation in 8”, %
Bar Designation No.

3 through 6 9 7 7 7
7, 8 8 7 7 7
9 through 18 7 7 7 7
12
2.1.3 Uniform Strain vs. Total Strain of the Reinforcing Bars
Uniform strain or elongation (𝜀 ) is defined as the largest elongation in the bar for which
the tensile strains are uniform throughout the length of the bar, and this generally occurs
before the onset of necking. The uniform elongation can be measured experimentally for
the tensile test of a rebar by first marking the rebar every two inches along the length
between the machine grips. After the rebar fractures, then 𝜀 is the change in the length
of an 8-inch gauge distance between any two gauge marks that are away from necking
and fracture zone. The term ε is useful in seismic design.
Total strain (𝜀 ) is defined as the total elongation over a prescribed gauge length (8 in.)
that extends across the fracture of a bar (the ends of the fractured bar should fit together
to measure the distance between the gauge marks). 𝜀 is useful for monotonic load
design. Figure 2-3 depicts both the uniform and the total strains.
For strains larger than 𝜀 , the strain becomes localized around the necking zone and the
other portions of the bar that are sufficiently away from the necking zone gradually stop
elongating. As the bar necks down, its cross-sectional area decreases to be less than the
original area making the apparent stress in the bar decrease as the stress is calculated
based on the original cross-sectional area. This stress-strain curve is called the
engineering curve and not a true stress-strain. If the stress-strain curve is plotted in terms
of true stress and true strain, the stress will continue to increase until failure.
13
Figure 2-3: Uniform strain vs. total strain (NIST GCR 14-917-30)
2.2 High-Strength Concrete (HSC)
According to the American Concrete Institute (ACI), high strength concrete is defined as
concrete that is over 6000 psi compressive strength. Nowadays, HSC is being widely
used all over the world in different applications such as high-rise buildings and long span
bridges. The use of HSC in structures would result in both technical and economic
advantages. It is usually produced using high strength aggregate, cement, and water, with
the addition of mineral and chemical admixtures. Generally, superplasticizers or high-
range water-reducer admixtures are used as the chemical admixtures, and Silica fume, fly
ash, ground slag, and slag cement are used as mineral admixtures. ACI 211.4R-08
presents a guide for selecting mixture proportions and optimizing these mixture
14
proportions on the basis of trial batches. Concrete mixtures for HSC typically contain 600
to 850 lb/yd3 of cementitious materials plus 5% to 15% silica fume by weight of cement
with a w/cm as low as 0.2. Silica fume increases the concrete strength largely because it
increases the strength of the bond between the aggregate particles and the cement paste,
and reduces the permeability. The use of the mineral admixtures will improve the
strength, however, it will increase the water demand. Therefore to maintain the desired
w/cm ratio, water-reducing admixtures, high-range water-reducing admixtures, or both
should be used to obtain the required workability as they help in dispersing cement
particles. Many trial batches are often required to obtain the required HSC properties.
2.3 Stress-Strain Curves for Unconfined Concrete in Compression
Knowledge of concrete stress-strain relationship is essential for developing analysis and
design terms of concrete structures. The stress-strain curve of concrete under uniaxial
compression load is highly affected by the testing conditions used and varies depending
on many factors, among which are: (a) strength of concrete, (b) confinement, (c) rate of
loading, and (d) different mix proportions and material properties. Therefore, defining
just one valid curve for each concrete strength is not possible. Typical stress-strain curves
of various strengths are shown in Figure 2-5. All stress-strain curves have an ascending
part that reaches maximum stress at a strain between 0.0015 and 0.003 followed by a
descending branch. Frequently, an axially tested concrete cylinder fails explosively at the
point of maximum stress and the descending branch of the curve may not be captured.
15
The strain at maximum stress, εo, increases as the concrete strength increases, while the
maximum strain, εcu, decreases with an increase in concrete strength.
A complete stress-strain curve for concrete is necessary for the nonlinear analysis of
structural members. To describe the behavior of unconfined concrete, many models have
been proposed by researchers for both normal and high strength concretes. Some research
suggested two different equations to model the ascending and the descending branches,
while others proposed only one equation to simulate the entire curve. In 2014, Shafiq et
al. conducted a study to assess different predictive models for HSC available in the
literature. Table 2-2 is adopted from Shafiq et al. (2014) study to show some of the
existing stress-strain models for HSC.
For the purpose of this research, Carreira and Chu (1985) model is deemed appropriate
for nonlinear analysis to model the concrete behavior in compression because of its
applicability for both normal and high strength concrete as shown in Figure 2-4.
𝑓 =𝑓 …………. (Carreira and Chu equation)
where: 𝛽 = (material parameter)
( ) .
𝐸 = + 0.006343 (Initial tangent modulus of elasticity)
( )
𝜀 = (1680 + 0.04895 𝑓 (𝑝𝑠𝑖)) × 10 (Strain corresponding to the peak compressive

strength of plain concrete)
16
Figure 2-4: Carreira and Chu (1985) concrete stress-strain model
Figure 2-5: Typical compressive stress-strain curves for normal weight concrete
(Nilson et al., 2010)
17
Table 2-2: Existing stress-strain models for HSC (Shafiq et al., 2014)
18
2.4 Rectangular Stress Block for Concrete
The actual stress-strain of concrete in compression has a parabolic shape as shown in
Figure 2-5, and it is known that the real stress distribution of a concrete section in the
compression zone is the same as the stress-strain curve in compression. However in
design, it is time consuming to find the area and the centroid of the parabolic distribution
of the compression stress. Whitney proposed an equivalent rectangular stress block to
make the calculations of the flexural strength easier without an excessive loss of
accuracy. The equivalent stress block is derived such that both the area under the actual
stress distribution and the centroid of this area correspond closely to those of the
rectangular stress block. ACI 318 has adopted the use of the stress block for the design of
reinforced concrete elements with no stated limit on the concrete strength. However, the
limit is specified by ACI 318 for a maximum allowable strain of 0.003 in/in based on
exhaustive experimental tests. Figure 2-6, shows the stress and strain distribution across
beam depth.
Figure 2-6: Stress and strain distribution across beam depth: (a) beam cross-section;
(b)strains; (c) actual stress block; (d) assumed equivalent stress block (Nawy, 2010)
19
2.5 Reinforcement Ratio Limit vs. Strain Limits
For many years, in the design of flexural members, the maximum reinforcement ratio was
limited to 0.75 ρb for ductility purposes. This maximum reinforcement ratio assures that
the reinforcement yields before the concrete crushes so that a member shows visible
warnings such as obvious deflection and cracks before it fails. In 2002, the ACI 318 code
introduced a new approach for designing concrete members under flexure that depends
on the outmost tensile reinforcement layer strain limits. This approach was due to the
attempts to find a unified design approach for both reinforced and prestressed concrete
flexural and compression members. Three strain limit zones were introduced: Tension-
controlled, transition-zone, and compression-controlled beam sections. The concrete
sections for which εt < εty, such as column sections, are classified as compression-
controlled sections. A strain value of 0.005 in./in. is required for tension-controlled beam
sections. This value is approximately 2.5 times the yield strain of about 0.002 for ASTM
A615 Grade 60 reinforcement, and is higher than what was required in ACI 318 prior to
2002.
ACI 318 code also requires for flexural members that the minimum strain in the
reinforcement should not be less than 0.004 in./in. This limit determines the maximum
reinforcement ratio based on the new approach. Figure 2-7 shows the current strain limits
of the ACI 318 code (that correspond to the use of grade 60 reinforcing steel) along with
the strength reduction factor.
20
To compare the reinforcement ratio approach with the strain limit approach in terms of
ρmax from the strain compatibility and section equilibrium, the following equation is
obtained for ρ:
0.85𝛽 𝑓 𝜀
𝜌=
𝑓 𝜀 +𝜀
In order to find 𝜌 in Grade 60 steel, substitute 𝜀 = 0.003 and 𝜀 = 𝜀 = 0.00207 in
the above equation. Then to find 𝜌 , substitute 𝜀 = 0.003 and 𝜀 = 0.004. Dividing
𝜌 over 𝜌 yields to: 𝜌 ≈ 0.72𝜌 , which is slightly less than 0.75𝜌 based on ACI
318 prior to 2002. Therefore, the new approach should lead to a slightly better ductility.
Figure 2-7: Strength reduction factor, ϕ, based on strain limit approach
21
2.6 Minimum Flexural Reinforcement
In beams, minimum reinforcement is usually required when sections are larger than
required for strength, such as for architectural or other reasons. The minimum flexural
reinforcement is provided to avoid sudden and brittle failure in case of accidental
overload, or additional tensile forces due to shrinkage, temperature, or creep. The concept
of providing minimum reinforcement is to assure that the strength of the member
(computed using cracked section analysis) is greater than the corresponding strength of
an unreinforced concrete section (computed using modulus of rupture, fr) to prevent a
sudden and brittle failure. The current provision of ACI 318 code for minimum
reinforcement ratio is written in terms of geometric and material properties of the section.
For rectangular beam section, 𝜌 is determined using the following equation:
3 𝑓 200
𝜌 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 ,
𝑓𝑦 𝑓𝑦
The term, , was derived by equating the ultimate strength of the section without
reinforcement to the ultimate strength of the section with reinforcement and solving for
𝜌 (ACI 318-63). While the term, , is derived from equating the design flexural
capacity, ∅𝑀 , to the cracking capacity, 𝑀 and solving for 𝜌 , then the resulted
constant was rounded up to 3 to provide a margin of safety, ∅𝑀 ⁄𝑀 , (ACI 318-95). A
parametric study conducted by Seguirant et al. (2010) demonstrated the variability of the
safety margin provided by the ACI 318 𝜌 for non-prestressed rectangular sections
22
from slightly under-conservative to extremely over-conservative (∅𝑀 ⁄𝑀 =1.42 to
3.19).
Although the current equation for ACI 318 𝜌 already addresses reinforcement with
variable yield strength, its application to the use of HSR of different stress-strain shapes
and grades needs to be verified. The ATC-115 (2014) stated that the current ACI 318
provision of 𝜌 for prestressed members (∅𝑀 ⁄𝑀 = 1.2) inherently includes and
considers HSR in the limit state. Therefore in this research, a study on 𝜌 for beams
made with HSR is included to examine the applicability of the current ACI 318
provisions for non-prestressed and prestressed members on those beams, and to propose
new requirements when they provide more-consistent results than existing provisions.
2.7 Serviceability of Beams
When designing a reinforced concrete beam, the designer must ensure that it is both safe
and serviceable. Serviceability means that the member should satisfy its intended
function throughout its working life. Serviceability consideration is making reliable
predictions for the instantaneous and time-dependent deflections and crack widths. Both
excessive deflection and crack width can affect the serviceability negatively, for this
reason building codes, including ACI 318, specify limits for deflections and crack widths
at service load level. Serviceability problems may become more prevalent with the use of
higher strength materials as they lead to smaller sections and/or less amount of
reinforcement.
23
2.7.1 Short-Term Deflection (Immediate Deflection)
The load-deflection relationship of a reinforced concrete beam is idealized to be
composed of three regions prior to failure: Pre-cracking stage, post-cracking stage, and
post-serviceability cracking stage (steel yield), as shown in Figure 2-8.
In the pre-cracking stage, the flexural stiffness (EI) can be estimated using a modulus of
elasticity of concrete (𝐸 = 57000 𝑓 ) and the transformed moment of inertia (Igt) or the
gross moment of inertia (Ig). This stage ends at the initiation of the first crack. Then the
post-cracking stage starts in which the flexural cracks develop, and the contribution of
concrete in tension zone reduces substantially, which in turn decreases the beam stiffness.
The stiffness at this stage is estimated as (EcIcr) as indicated in Figure 2-8. However, only
portions of the beam are cracked, and the uncracked segments still have a higher degree
of stiffness. The actual stiffness of the beam lies between (EcIg) and (EcIcr). The ACI code
uses the effective moment of inertia (Ie) to account for the reduced stiffness (EcIe) at this
stage. At the last stage, the member stiffness will decrease considerably due to extensive
cracking. As the load increases, the cracks will continue to open until the maximum
compressive strain in the concrete is reached leading to a total crushing of the concrete in
the maximum moment region, then possibly followed by rupture of reinforcement. For
the serviceability limit state, the ACI 318 code specifies service load deflection control
limits as a fraction of the member span to maintain serviceability of the structure.
To predict deflections at service load level, ACI 318-14 uses the effective moment of
inertia Ie (equation 24.2.3.5a) with the elastic beam deflection equations. However, the
use of high-strength bars would result in lower reinforcement ratios, and for low
24
reinforcement ratios it has been shown (Bischoff, 2007) that Eq. 24.2.3.5a overestimates
the stiffness, and as a result underestimates the deflection. A different expression may be
needed to compute Ie when using high-strength reinforcement. The equation developed by
Bischoff (2007) has been shown to provide accurate results with low reinforcement ratios
(ρ < 1%) for beams reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer bars (FRP), however, the
application of Bischoff’s equation needs to be verified for the use of the higher strength
reinforcement.
𝑀 𝑀
𝐼 = 𝐼 + 1− 𝐼 ≤𝐼 … … … 𝐴𝐶𝐼 318 − 14 𝐸𝑞. (24.2.3.5𝑎)
𝑀 𝑀
𝐼
𝐼 = ≤𝐼 … … … 𝐵𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑓𝑓 (2007) 𝐸𝑞𝑎𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝐼 𝑀
1− 1−
𝐼 𝑀
where: 𝑀 = and 𝑓 = 7.5 𝑓
Figure 2-8: Beam load-deflection and moment-deflection relationships (Nawy, 2010)
25
2.7.2 Flexural Cracking
It is well known that concrete is weak in tension and it cracks at an early stage of its
loading history. Cracking can contribute to the deterioration of concrete surface and
corrosion of the reinforcement. Therefore, it is important to predict and control the crack
widths to prevent cracking from affecting the serviceability performance under long-term
loading. Crack width is a function of steel strain and consequently steel stress, therefore,
the stress in the reinforcement needs to be limited to some extent to control cracking. The
ACI 318 code prior to 1999 adopted Gergely-Lutz’s (1968) approach, known as the “z-
factor approach”, to estimate crack widths. This approach was based on a statistical
evaluation of experimental cracking data. However, it was found that with the use of
thicker covers, the z-factor method became unworkable. In 1999, ACI 318 adopted a
simplified version of the approach proposed by Frosch (1999, 2001), which is based on a
physical model for cracking. Based on the physical model, the equation for calculating
maximum crack width is:
𝑠
𝑤 = 2𝜀 𝛽 𝑑 +
2
Where: wc = limiting crack width, in
β = 1.0 + 0.08 dc
dc = bottom cover measured from the center of lowest bar, in
s = maximum permissible bar spacing, in
26
The ACI 318 version of the Frosch equation prescribes spacing limits for longitudinal
reinforcing bars, thereby indirectly controls cracks width, as shown in the following
equation:
, ,
𝑠 ≤ 15 − 2.5𝑑 ≤ 12 (fs in psi)
ACI 318 implicitly assumes a maximum crack width of 0.018 in.
2.7.3 Long-Term Deflection (Time-Dependent Deflection)
Long-term deflection under a sustained load also needs to be evaluated as part of the
serviceability limit state by checking to make sure its value also satisfies the maximum
permissible limits specified by the building design codes. The additional increasing
deflection under sustained load with time is mainly caused by the creep, shrinkage, and
temperature strains, however, the calculation of these strains is a complex process. For
more practical solution, the additional deflection from long-term loading is often based
on an empirical approach. The ACI 318 procedure to calculate the time-dependent
deflection due to the combined effects of creep and shrinkage is based on computing the
short-term deflection and taking some multiple of this initial value to calculate the
additional deflection (𝜆 ∆ ). The total deflection can then be determined by adding the
two:
∆ =∆ +𝜆∆
The multiplier, 𝜆, is calculated from the following equation: 𝜆=
27
where: ξ = time dependent factor from Figure 2-9
ξ = 1 for three months, 1.2 for six months, 1.4 for twelve months, or 2 for five years or
more.
Figure 2-9: ACI 318 multipliers for long-term deflection
Research has shown that high strength concrete members exhibit significantly less
sustained load deflections than low strength concrete members (Luebkeman et al,
1985; Nilson, 1985). This behavior is mainly due to lower creep strain characteristics.
Studies have shown that a modifier, μ, can be used to account satisfactorily for HSC,
leading to the following simplified equation:
𝜇𝜉
𝜆=
1 + 50 𝜇 𝜌
where: 0.7 ≤ μ = 1.3 - 0.00005f’c ≤ 1.0.
However, according to the ACI 435R-95 report, more data are needed, particularly for
concrete strengths between 9000 to 12,000 psi and beyond before a definitive statement
28
can be made. Moreover, the appropriateness of the use of time dependent factor, λ, needs
to be verified for the use of high-strength reinforcement because of the potential use of
lower reinforcement ratio that can lead to higher curvatures, and result in higher overall
creep deflections.
29
3 Chapter Three: Literature Review
3.1 Introduction
Recently, the use of high-strength reinforcing steel in concrete construction is gaining
more interest for the benefits that it can add to concrete industry. High-strength steel
rebar is now available with deferent types and grades, and each type is good for specific
applications depending on its mechanical properties. For instance, some types are good
for gravity applications (A615 and A1035) and other are good for seismic application
(A706). Research on the use of high-strength steel as reinforcement for concrete
members has been ongoing for some time, and the flexural behavior of concrete beams
reinforced with high-strength reinforcing bars has been investigated by a number of
researchers. Most of the available research papers are mainly focused on the use of the
Micro-Composite Multi-Structural Formable reinforcing steel, commercially known as
MMFX, which is a type of high-strength reinforcement that meets or exceeds the
requirement of ASTM A1035 with the normal strength concrete. In this chapter, relevant
literature related to the aspects investigated in this research is presented including:
Flexural behavior of beams reinforced with high-strength steel, flexural behavior of
beams made with high-strength concrete, immediate and long-term deflections at service
load levels, crack width, and minimum reinforcement ratio.
3.2 Flexural Behavior of Beams Made with High-Strength Reinforcement (HSR)
Ansley (2002) investigated the possibility of substituting Grade 60 reinforcing with
MMFX bars for concrete beams. The study included experimental program on a series of
30
four beam tests to compare the behavior of MMFX bars with that of Grade 60 bars. Each
test series consisted of two similar beams except in the reinforcing type. Table 3-1
summarizes the experimental program details. Examining the test results, it was
concluded that MMFX led to a higher strength capacity. However, when utilizing the
MMFX reinforcing additional consideration should be given to the detailing because of
its higher strength and the lack of a well-defined yield stress.
Table 3-1: Tests information (Ansley, 2002)
Dawood et al. (2004) conducted an analytical study on the behavior of high-strength bars
(MMFX) as a flexural reinforcement for concrete beams, and proposed a design guideline
represented by a design chart for a common range of concrete strengths used for design
(3000, 5000, 8000 psi). The analysis was conducted using a cracked section analysis, and
aimed to represent the behavior of the MMFX bars. Three models of stress-strain for the
high-strength bars were examined: (1) the actual behavior (2) elastic-plastic behavior
with Es = 29,000 ksi and fy = 100 ksi (3) elastic-plastic behavior with a yield strength of
80 ksi. The relationship between the moment capacity and the reinforcement ratio for
each of the three models were compared, and it was shown that using the actual stress-
strain behavior for MMFX could closely approximate the experimental behavior
31
conducted by others, while both models 2 and 3 significantly underestimated the flexural
strength of the beams. Moreover, the elastic-plastic model may result in inaccurate failure
mode and inaccurate prediction of ductility. Therefore, the actual behavior of MMFX
bars was used to establish the design chart shown in Figure 3-1a. It was also indicated
that sections reinforced with MMFX steel exhibit significantly lower ductility than the
sections reinforced with Grade 60 steel for the same reinforcement ratio. New strain
limits for designs with MMFX bars were proposed to ensure sufficient ductility prior to
failure, Figure 3-1b.
Figure 3-1: Design guidelines for the design with MMFX reinforcement
(Dawood et al. 2004)
32
Mast et al. (2008) presented a methodology for the flexural strength design of concrete
beams reinforced with high-strength steel bars (MMFX) conforming ASTM A1035-07. A
simplified elastic-plastic stress-strain relationship with elastic modulus of 29000 ksi and
yield strength of 100 ksi was proposed for the high-strength steel bars to simplify the
design. In the research, it was also proposed to increase the allowable yield strength for
the tension steel only, and to maintain the current ACI limitation of 80 ksi for
compression steel because the strain of the compression steel is controlled by the ACI
limitation for the maximum strain in concrete of 0.003. An analytical investigation was
performed to assess the adequacy of the proposed 100 ksi yield stress using cracked
section analysis satisfying section equilibrium and strain compatibility at both service and
nominal levels, as shown in Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-2: Sectional analysis procedure (Mast et al. 2008)
Three different models to represent the high-strength steel behavior were examined to
validate the proposed bilinear model: (1) the actual behavior of the reinforcing steel, (2)
elastic-perfectly plastic behavior with the current ACI limitation of f y = 80 ksi, (3) the
proposed simplified model (elastic-perfectly plastic behavior with f y = 100 ksi). It was
33
shown that the proposed model under predicts the nominal moment capacity when  is
less than 1.75% (which is the typical reinforcement ratio for the majority of beams), and
over predicts the capacity when  is between 1.75% and 2.7%.
Also in this research, eight concrete beams of 12”30” cross section, 28” effective depth,
and 40’ span were considered for the moment-curvature analysis to establish suitable
design limits for tension-controlled and compression controlled sections. The results
showed that when using high-strength reinforcement represented by the actual behavior
that the tension-controlled limit of 0.0066 gives comparable deformability ratios (strain,
curvature, and deflection ratios) to that when using Grade 60 steel. However, when using
the proposed bilinear behavior to represent the high-strength steel, the tension-controlled
strain limit was increased to 0.009 in order to get the same deformability ratios. The
compression-controlled strain limit for the beams designed at compression-strain limit
was proposed to be limited to 0.004 to insure the beams exhibit elastic behavior under
service loading conditions. The comparison of design methods is summarized in Table
3-2 and the proposed variation of resistance factor  for the proposed simplified design
procedure is shown in Figure 3-3.
Table 3-2: Comparison of design methods (Mast et al., 2008)
Actual behavior Simplified method

Tension-controlled strain 0.0066 0.009
Neutral axis depth c 0.3125d 0.25d
Stress block depth a = β1c 0.3125β1d 0.25β1d
Compressive force C 0.85f’cab 0.85f’cab
Steel area As = C/fs 0.85f’c (0.3125β1d)b/125 (in2) 0.85f’c (0.25β1d)b/100 (in2)
Reinforcement ratio ρ = As/bd 0.002125 f’c β1 0.002125 f’c β1
34
Figure 3-3: Proposed variation of resistance factor ϕ (Mast et al. 2008)
Eltahawy et al. (2009) examined the mechanical characteristics of the high-strength
reinforcing bars (MMFX), and evaluated their corrosion resistance and their structural
performance as the main flexural reinforcement. The mechanical characteristics for the
MMFX bars are represented by modulus of elasticity (Es), and the strain and strength at
yield, ultimate, and failure were tested and compared to that of the conventional steel bars
for a set of three different bar sizes. The stress-strain behaviors for both MMFX and
conventional steel bars were examined before and after the exposure to wet/dry cycles for
one year to study the effect of corrosion. It was found that the MMFX bars have a high
corrosion resistance; the measured decrease in the yield strength using 0.2% offset
method was less than 10% compared to about 20% decrease for conventional steel. The
structural performance of MMFX bars as the main reinforcement was evaluated through
experimental and analytical study. A total of eight T-beams were designed so that the
reinforcement ratio satisfies the minimum and maximum values of ECP-07 (Egyptian
building code) and ACI 318-05 provisions. The varying parameters of the eight beams
35
were the type of reinforcement, reinforcement ratio, and concrete compressive strength,
as indicated in
Table 3-3. The resulted failure mode of the tested beams are also included in table 3-3.
The experimental tests showed that all beams with MMFX reinforcement exhibited a
comparable ductile flexural failure and higher ultimate strength compared to the beams
with conventional reinforcement. The analytical study to predict the behavior of the
concrete beams reinforced with MMFX was conducted using strain compatibility and the
section equilibrium approach to obtain the moment-curvature relationships and determine
the mid-span deflections. Based on the results of the analytical study, the researchers
proposed new strain limits for the design with MMFX bars as shown in Figure 3-4, and
recommended that the minimum reinforcement ratio to be used with MMFX is 0.0067 to
prevent rupture of the reinforcement.
Table 3-3: Test Matrix (Eltahawy et al., 2009)

Beam Label Steel Type ρ f’c, psi Experimental Failure Mode
XC1-1 MMFX 0.0026 (2 #4) 3,553 Rupture of tensile reinforcement
XC1-2 MMFX 0.0046 (2 #5) 3,553 Rupture of tensile reinforcement
XC1-3 MMFX 0.0065 (2 #6) 3,118 Tension-controlled failure
XC1-4 MMFX 0.013 (4 #6) 3,481 Shear failure
SC1-1 40/60 0.0026 (2 #4) 3,771 Tension-controlled failure
SC1-3 40/60 0.0065 (2 #6) 3,771 Tension-controlled failure
36
Figure 3-4: Strain limits for the design with MMFX reinforcement (Eltahawy et al. 2009)
Shahrooz et al. (2010) presented a study on concrete members reinforced with high-
strength bars that lack the well-defined yield stress. The focus of the study was on the
determination of flexural capacity and strain limits for tension-controlled and
compression-controlled failure modes. The study included both theoretical analysis and
experimental tests. In the theoretical study, different models for the high-strength
reinforcing stress-strain relationship were examined for the purpose of finding an
acceptable method to predict the flexural capacity of the members designed with high-
strength reinforcement. The models they examined were:
 Elastic-perfectly plastic with yield stress found from 0.2% offset method
 Elastic-perfectly plastic with yield stress corresponds to 0.0035 strain
 Elastic-perfectly plastic with yield stress corresponds to 0.005 strain
 Actual stress-strain behavior
37
The analytical results considering the elastic-perfectly plastic models with yield stress
corresponding to either of the three methods showed conservative flexural capacity for
the range of reinforcement ratios and concrete compressive strength encountered in
practice. The recommended strain limits for the members reinforced with ASTM A1035
steel are:
εt ≥ 0.008 for tension-controlled failure and
εt ≤ 0.004 for compression-controlled failure.
The experimental program included testing three flexural beams of 12 in. x 16 in. cross
section and 20 ft simple span with the average concrete compressive strength of 13.3 ksi.
The tested beams with high-strength steel showed adequate ductility compared to those
reinforced with conventional steel. The test variables and results are summarized in Table
3-4.
Table 3-4: Test Specimens and Results (Shahrooz et al., 2010)
Measured/Predicted
Specimen ρ Target
Comment Elastic-perfectly Actual behavior
Label (A1035) εt
plastic, fy based on (Ramberg-
strain = 0.0035 Osgood function)
F1 0.0128 0.008 Tension controlled 1.47 1.07
F2 0.0183 0.006 Transition 1.31 1.08

Tension controlled
F3 0.00784 0.0115 1.54 1.01
with small ρ
3.3 Flexural Behavior of Beams Made with High-Strength Concrete (HSC)
Ashour (2000) investigated the effect of concrete compressive strength and
reinforcement ratio on the load-deflection behavior, and displacement ductility of

38
reinforced concrete beams made with high strength concrete. Nine beams were tested
experimentally with different compressive strengths (6900, 11300, and 14800 psi) and
different tensile reinforcement ratios (1.18, 1.77, and 2.37%). The results showed that for
the same reinforcement ratio, the displacement ductility increases slightly as the concrete
compressive strength (f’c) increases to some limit and thereafter decreases as f’c increases,
as shown in Figure 3-5.
Figure 3-5: Effect of f’c on displacement ductility, µd (Ashour, 2000)
Three important parameters that control the serviceability and deflection calculation were
evaluated experimentally and compared with the theoretical values. These parameters
are: Cracking moment (Mcr), modulus of elasticity (Ec), and cracked moment of inertia
(Icr). It was found that the experimental Mcr is about 50 to 60% of the theoretical Mcr
calculated using the modus of rupture value (fr). Therefore, it was concluded that the
modulus of rupture is not a true indicator for the cracking moment. Also, the
experimental Icr is about 75 to 93% of the theoretical Icr. Because of the overestimation of
these critical parameters for the deflection at service load levels, the previously proposed
39
formula in the literature for the estimation of the effective moment of inertia was
modified to consider the effect of reinforcement ratio and concrete compressive strength,
as the following formula:
𝑀 𝑀
𝐼 = 𝐼 + 1− 𝐼
𝑀 𝑀
Where:
.
𝑚 = 3 − 0.8𝜌 , (where f’c > 4786.25 psi)
𝑀 = maximum bending moment
𝐼 = moment of inertia of uncracked transformed section
Rashid et al. (2005) tested sixteen reinforced high-strength concrete beams under flexure
to investigate the effect of concrete compressive strength, ratio of tensile and
compressive reinforcements, and spacing of lateral ties on ductility. The used concrete
compressive strength ranged from 5800 to 18000 psi. Particular emphasis was given to
the issues of deflection at service load and ductility. It was shown that the use of ACI
Code expressions for fr and Ec leads to highly unconservative predictions for the
deflection at service load, and the effect of shrinkage of concrete and the resulting creep
effect, which modify both Ec and Mcr, should be included for reasonable predictions. To
include the effect of shrinkage of concrete, a reduced tensile strength of concrete equal to
fr - fsh (fsh is the shrinkage-induced tension stress at the extreme fiber) should be used in
the calculations of Mcr; and to include the effect of the resulting creep, a reduced
40
modulus, 𝐸 = , along with the gross section properties should be used. Regarding the
influence of concrete strength on ductility, it was shown that keeping everything else the
same, an increase in concrete strength, but up to certain level (f’c ≈ 15000 psi), leads to
higher ductility. Thereafter, any increase in f’c leads to decrease in ductility, as shown in
Figure 3-6. Moreover, it was observed that the maximum crack width at service load
increased as f’c is increased.
Figure 3-6: Beam ductility as influenced by concrete strength: (a) test data; and
(b) analytical values (Rashid, 2005)
41
Sharifi et al (2014) performed an experimental study on the flexural behavior of heavily
reinforced beams made with high-strength concrete. Six beams were tested with three
different steel ratios: 4.81%, 5.38%, and 6.8%. The compressive strength ranged from
9,700 to 11,280 psi. Based on the obtained results, it was found that the prediction of the
ultimate moment of the tested beams using the classical ACI 318-11 code provisions
were in good agreement with the tests results. However, the prediction for the deflection
at service load level (ultimate load divided by a factor of 1.7) using ACI 318-11 code
provisions for serviceability requirements was found to underestimate the deflection of
high-strength concrete beams at service load. The researchers indicated that the use of
ACI 318-11 code expressions for fr and Ec leads to highly unconservative predictions for
deflection at service load. It was also shown that the theoretical cracking moment Mcr,
and the cracked moment of inertia Icr are greater than the experimental values of these
two parameters for the use of high-strength concrete.
3.4 Deflection at Service Load Level
3.4.1 Immediate Deflection of Beams Reinforced with HSR
Soltani (2010) evaluated the immediate deflection of reinforced concrete beams made
with high-strength concrete and high-strength steel reinforcement type ASTM A1035
Grade 100. The results of six beams tested at the University of Cincinnati as part of the
NCHRP 12-77 study (Shahrooz et al. 2010) were used for the comparison. The
evaluation included comparing the experimental midspan deflection results at service
load levels with the AASHTO’s approach to predict the deflection using the effective
42
modulus of elasticity, Ie. The service load levels considered in this study were at steel
stress equal to 36, 60, and 72 ksi, which are corresponding to 0.6 fy for steel Grades 60,
100, and 120 steels respectively. The effective moment of inertia was calculated using
Branson’s and Bischoff’s equations.
𝐼 = 𝐼 + 1− 𝐼 ≤𝐼 (Branson’s Equation, 1963)
𝐼 = ≤𝐼 (Bischoff’s Equation, 2005 & 2007)
The results of this study are summarized in Table 3-5. It was shown that both Branson’s
and Bischoff’s formulations yielded to very similar results for the tested specimens, and
both underestimated the deflection by an average ratio of calculated to experimental
deflection of (0.487). However, it was indicated that Bischoff’s approach may be applied
to for any type of elastic reinforcing material because it is based on fundamental
mechanics and not empirical calibration for only mild steel as Branson’s Equation.
43
Table 3-5: Comparison of experimental and calculated deflections at service load levels
(Soltani 2010)
Deflection (in)
Beam and bar stress f’c (ksi) fy (0.2%) ρ Ma (k-in)
experimental Branson Bischoff
calculated calc/exp calculated calc/exp
F1 @ 36 ksi 12.9 130.2 1.2% 899.1 0.582 0.372 0.639 0.365 0.627
F1 @ 60 ksi 12.9 130.2 1.2% 1319.8 1.145 0.6 0.524 0.59 0.515
F1 @ 72 ksi 12.9 130.2 1.2% 1554.4 1.4 0.723 0.517 0.713 0.509
F2 @ 36 ksi 12.9 121.8 1.6% 1041.7 0.527 0.318 0.604 0.312 0.592
F2 @ 60 ksi 12.9 121.8 1.6% 1730.2 1.145 0.567 0.496 0.561 0.49
F2 @ 72 ksi 12.9 121.8 1.6% 2087.2 1.45 0.695 0.479 0.689 0.476
F3 @ 36 ksi 12.9 130.2 0.7% 648.5 0.527 0.27 0.513 0.288 0.547
F3 @ 60 ksi 12.9 130.2 0.7% 903.5 0.855 0.479 0.56 0.483 0.565
F3 @ 72 ksi 12.9 130.2 0.7% 1102.4 1.182 0.633 0.536 0.629 0.533
F4 @ 36 ksi 16.5 129.2 1.6% 896.5 0.625 0.286 0.458 0.28 0.448
F4 @ 60 ksi 16.5 129.2 1.6% 1406.5 1.146 0.501 0.437 0.492 0.429
F4 @ 72 ksi 16.5 129.2 1.6% 1651.3 1.354 0.601 0.444 0.592 0.437
F5 @ 36 ksi 16.3 134.4 2.3% 1315.4 0.688 0.33 0.48 0.326 0.474
F5 @ 60 ksi 16.3 134.4 2.3% 2098.2 1.271 0.551 0.434 0.547 0.431
F5 @ 72 ksi 16.3 134.4 2.3% 2519.0 1.583 0.669 0.423 0.666 0.421
F6 @ 36 ksi 16.9 129.2 1.2% 569.2 0.458 0.156 0.341 0.166 0.363
F6 @ 60 ksi 16.9 129.2 1.2% 1012.9 0.938 0.429 0.458 0.424 0.453
F6 @ 72 ksi 16.9 129.2 1.2% 1242.4 1.229 0. 0.456 0.552 0.449
3.4.2 Long-Term Deflection of HSC Beams
Paulson et al. (1991) conducted a study on the long-term deflection of high-strength
concrete beams. The study intended to provide an experimental basis for improved
equations for predicting long-term deflections of high-strength concrete beams with
tensile reinforcement, and with or without compression reinforcement. Three different
concrete grades were included in this study: 6000, 10000, and 12000 psi. One 4 x 16 in.
concrete cylinder of each strength was tested under sustained load of approximately 45%
of its strength to determine the creep coefficient through the relationship between the
44
measured strains with time. Nine beams, all of the same cross section (5” x 10”), same
span (18 feet), and same amount of tension steel (2-#5 bars, ρ=1.5%), were divided into
three groups of different concrete compressive strength. Within each group, the
compression steel was varied: As’ = zero, As’ = ½ As, and As’ = As. All of the beams
were tested under sustained load for twelve months. Initial elastic deflections were
measured for the nine tested beams and compared with the calculated values using the
effective moment of inertia Ie of the ACI 318 Code. The comparison indicated that the
ratio of predicted/measured deflections ranged from 0.79 to 0.89, and that this ratio did
not depend on concrete strength or the presence of the compression reinforcement. The
main conclusion of this research was that long-term deflections can be reduced
significantly either through use of compression reinforcement or high-strength concrete
and the use of both is redundant. Also, the prediction of long-term deflection for high-
strength concrete beams can be greatly improved by using the authors’ proposed
multiplier through modifying ACI Building Code multiplier:
.
𝜆= (𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝜇 = 1.4 − , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 0.4 ≤ 𝜇 ≤ 1.0)
. . ,
The results of the long-term deflections for the tested beams are shown in Figure 3-7.
45
Figure 3-7: Creep and shrinkage deflection of beams (Paulson et al., 1991)
Muhaisin (2012) conducted a theoretical study to propose a new form to calculate the
long-term deflection coefficient, λ, for reinforced concrete beams made with normal and
high strength concretes. The proposed form considered concrete compressive strength,
compressive steel ratio, cross section dimensions, and span length. The author compared
the results from the proposed form with experimental results of other researchers, and a
good agreement was obtained. After validating the new form, a parametric study was
performed to examine the effect of f’c, ρ’/ρ, and span/cross section perimeter ratio on
long-term deflection. Among the conclusions drawn, the long-term deflections are highly
reduced by increasing f’c (the long-term deflection is reduced by about 50% when f’c is
increased from 2,900 to 14,500 psi). In addition, the effectiveness of using compression
steel to reduce the long-term deflection is much less when high-strength concrete is used
due to low creep coefficient. The proposed form equation is shown below:
Δ total = (1 + λ) Δ instantaneous
Where:
46
.
𝜆 = 2.7 × 𝛼 × 𝛼 × 𝐶 × .
, 𝛼 = 0.7 + ≤ 1.0 , 𝛼 =
× ×
Ccu: ultimate creep coefficient from Table 3-6 or the best fit equation for the table values
𝐶 = 4.1 − 0.05𝑓 + 0.00022𝑓
α1: Factor to take the effect of span to perimeter ratio
α2: Factor to take the effect of compressive steel
f’c: Concrete compressive strength (MPa)
T: Time of loading (months)
Ρ: Perimeter of the cross section (mm)
L: Span length (mm)
Table 3-6: Typical creep parameters (Nilson et al., 2010)
Compressive strength, f’c, MPa (psi) Creep coefficient, Ccu
21 (3000) 3.1
28 (4000) 2.9
41 (6000) 2.4
55 (8000) 2.0
69 (10000) 1.6
83 (12000) 1.4
3.5 Flexural Crack Widths and Crack Control of Beams Reinforced with HSR
Harries et al. (2012) presented a study of flexural crack widths at service load levels
(i.e., 0.6fy) for beams reinforced with high-strength ASTM 1035 reinforcing steel.
AASHTO (2007) provisions for crack control were evaluated for a series of flexural
47
beams with reinforcement ratios between 0.007 and 0.023, and for loads corresponding to
longitudinal reinforcing bar stresses of 36, 60, and 72 ksi for steel having f y = 60, 100,
120 ksi respectively. The average measured crack widths were found to be below the
AASHTO limits for Class 1 and Class 2 exposure. It was concluded that the
conservativeness of the AASHTO crack control provisions allows extending them to
higher service level stresses associated with the use of high-strength reinforcing bars.
Moreover, the application of the provisions must be limited to steel strains up to the
proportional limit where the stress-strain relationship is linear and Es = 29000 ksi.
48
4 Chapter Four: Theoretical Investigation of Load-Deflection Response
4.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the creation of a computer model to predict the flexural behavior
of concrete beams of different concrete strengths ranging from normal to high strength (4
ksi to 12 ksi), and reinforced with conventional as well as high-strength bars of two
different stress-strain behaviors (A615 Grade100 & A1035 Grades 100 and 120).
Different stress-strain relationships are expected to impact the force-displacement
behavior of reinforced concrete beams in different ways including strain limits, flexural
strength and corresponding maximum deflection as the beam is loaded monotonically to
failure.
4.2 Nonlinear Flexural Analysis
To predict the flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams, an analytical computer
program was written by the author using MATLAB software. It is based on strain
compatibility and the section equilibrium approach and utilizes concrete and
reinforcement stress-strain relationships to obtain moment-curvature relationship at the
mid-span section. The model performs numerical integration for the moment-curvature
relationship to obtain load-deflection behavior for the mid-span section (critical section).
49
4.2.1 Moment-Curvature Response
Un-cracked and cracked section analysis is conducted using a MATLAB coding
developed to determine the moment curvature behavior before and after cracking with the
following assumptions:
1. Plane sections remain plane after loading.
2. Reinforcing bars are fully bonded with concrete and no slippage is permitted.
3. No tension stiffening is considered after the initiation of the first crack, i.e. the
tensile stress in concrete is assumed equal zero.
4. The strains are uniform over the section width and the section is only subjected to
axial strains.
5. Failure is assumed to occur when either the concrete or the reinforcement reaches
its ultimate strain.
The following steps are used for the determination of the moment-curvature response:
1. A strain at the extreme compression fiber of the concrete section is increased
incrementally from zero to εcu. The maximum strain in concrete is taken as 0.003
to be consistent with ACI 318 requirement.
2. For each increment, the strain compatibility and section equilibrium are applied to
determine the neutral axis depth, c, as shown in Figure 4-1. All the variables are
set in terms of c. (T + Cc = 0)
50
3. The concrete compression force, Cc, is determined from integrating the Carreira
and Chu (1985) stress-strain equation:
𝐶 = ∫ 𝑓 . 𝑏. 𝑑𝑧 , where: 𝑑𝑧 = 𝑑𝜀
. .
𝐶 = ∫ 𝑑𝜀
4. The tension force in the steel, T, is calculated from the product of area of steel by
the stress in the steel, which is determined from the equations shown in section
4.2.2.
5. The moment capacity of the section, Mn, is determined by summing the moment
of Cc and T forces around the neutral axis:
𝑀 = 𝑇. (𝑑 − 𝑐) + ∫ 𝑓 . 𝑏. 𝑧. 𝑑𝑧, where: 𝑧 = 𝜀
6. The curvature is determined as: 𝜑=
7. A new increment for εc is applied, and the steps from 2 to 6 are repeated for each
increment until either εcu or εsu is reached.
51
Figure 4-1: Cracked section analysis
4.2.2 Modeling the Stress-Strain Relationship for Concrete and Reinforcing Steel
Concrete behavior is modeled using Carreira and Chu (1985) stress-strain equation
mentioned in section 2.3 for both normal and high strength concretes. Reinforcing steel is
modeled using different formulas found from the literature to best fit the typical stress-
strain behavior for each steel grade and type, as shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2.
A615 Grade 60: A curve defined by three segments (designated as S3)
𝑓 = 29000 ∗ 𝜀 for 0 ≤ 𝜀 ≤ 𝜀 (0.002)
𝑓 = 𝑓 (60 𝑘𝑠𝑖) for 𝜀 ≤ 𝜀 ≤ 𝜀 (0.0055)
𝑓 =𝑓 + 𝑓 −𝑓 for 𝜀 ≤ 𝜀 ≤ 𝜀 (0.05), 𝑓 = 90𝑘𝑠𝑖
A615 Grade 100: A curve defined by three segments (designated as S3)
𝑓 = 29000 ∗ 𝜀 for 0 ≤ 𝜀 ≤ 𝜀 (0.003448)
52
𝑓 = 𝑓 (60 𝑘𝑠𝑖) for 𝜀 ≤ 𝜀 ≤ 𝜀 (0.014)
𝑓 =𝑓 1.5 − 0.5 for 𝜀 ≤ 𝜀 ≤ 𝜀 (0.05)
A1035 Grades 100 & 120: A rounded curve (designated as S1)
𝑓 = 29000 ∗ 𝜀 𝐴 + ≤𝑓
[ ( ) ]
𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐴 = 0, 𝐵 = 165, 𝐶 = 1.5 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒 100
𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐴 = 0, 𝐵 = 165, 𝐶 = 1.841 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒 120
(A, B, and C are calibrated to best fit the typical curve for Grade 100 & 120)
Table 4-1: Typical reinforcement stress-strain parameters used in the analytical

investigation
Reinforcement Type fy (ksi) fu (ksi) εy εsh εsu fu/fy

A615-60 60 90 0.00207 0.0055 0.05 1.5
A615-100 100 148 0.00345 0.014 0.05 1.48
A1035-100 100 171 0.005 - 0.05 1.71
A1035-120 120 174 0.006 - 0.05 1.45
53
Figure 4-2: Typical stress-strain curves for reinforcing bars
4.2.3 Load-deflection Response
The load-deflection response for the beams is determined at the midspan section as it
represent the maximum deflection along the beam span. The load results are determined
directly from the moment value for each εc increment. The corresponding deflection then
is determined from the numerical integration of the curvature distribution up to the mid-
span. The numerical integration is performed according to the following equation:
𝜑 𝑥 +𝜑 𝑥
∆= ∆𝑥
2
Where:
∆= Deflection at mid-span section

54
𝑥 = Distance from the support to point 𝑥
𝑥 = Distance from the support to point 𝑥
𝜑 = Curvature corresponding to 𝑥
𝜑 = Curvature corresponding to 𝑥
∆𝑥 = 𝑥 −𝑥
In the following a brief description of the process given for the case of beam with 2-point
loading. The number of divisions from the support to the point load was a variable at
each moment stage and was determined according to the following procedure: 1) moment
at the point load was increased sequentially 30 times, from 1 to 30 stages of loading, 2)
this was accomplished by increasing the concrete strain εc from 0 to 0.003 with an
increment of 1x10-4 for the maximum moment section, which is at the point load, 3) for
each εc the corresponding curvature and moment were determined, which defined the
stage of loading for that particular εc , 4) the distance from the support to the position of
the point load was divided into (n-1) divisions where n = number of the sequence, i.e.,
1,2,3,4,…n, 5) the moment and curvature between point load and mid-span were kept
constant.
This process continues until concrete strain reaches 0.003, which occurs at sequence =
30, which defines the ultimate section capacity. In this ultimate loading stage the number
of divisions was n - 1 = 30 -1 = 29 between the support and the point load, which
represented a high level of accuracy of the variation in the curvature. Then the area of
each division was calculated as a trapezoidal area and the distance from the centroid of
55
each area to the support was determined. To determine the deflection at any stage of
moment, the moment area method was applied, i.e., the deflection is equal to the
summation of the moments of incremental areas about the support point, which consists
of the area from the support to the mid-span.
Figure 4-3 illustrates the numerical integration for the curvature diagram to calculate the
mid-span deflection for a simply supported beam.
The accuracy of the calculated load-deflection response is verified with experimental
results for beams tested by others as discussed in the following section.
P /2 P /2
M i+ 1
M i
M o m e n t D ia g r a m
xi
x i+ 1
 xi
 i+ 1
i
C u r v a tu r e D ia g r a m
i
Figure 4-3: Calculation of the mid-span deflection based on the numerical

integration for the curvature diagram
56
4.3 Verification of the Analytical Model
To validate the written program and to verify its accuracy, eight of the experimentally
tested beams by other researchers were modeled. The verification contained beams of
different concrete capacities and reinforced with both conventional Grade 60 steel and
high-strength reinforcement. All beams were tested under two-point load configuration.
Table 4-2 presents the beams dimensions, details, and properties of materials. The best fit
for the actual tensile test stress-strain results of the reinforcement rather than the typical
representative curves were used for modeling the reinforcing bars.
Table 4-2: Details of the selected beams from the literature to verify the analystical model
Reference bxh d Ln a* f’c fy

Steel type ρ
(designation) (in.) (in.) (ft) (ft) (psi) (ksi)
Ansley, 2002 A615 12 x 18 16.125 14 10 0.00455 6,683 60
(Test 1) (2-#6)
Ansley, 2002 A1035 12 x 18 16.125 14 10 0.00455 6,683 135
(Test 1) (MMFX) (2-#6)
Yutakhong, 2003 A615 12 x 18 15.625 16 6 0.00704 5000 60
(B1) (3-#6)
Yutakhong, 2003 A1035 12 x 18 15.625 16 6 0.00469 6000 123
(B2) (MMFX) (2-#6)
Yutakhong, 2003 A1035 12 x 18 15.625 16 6 0.00704 6000 123
(B3) (MMFX) (3-#6)
Shahrooz et al., 2010 A1035 12 x 16 12.125 20 8.25 0.0126 12,900 130.2
(F1) (MMFX) (6-#5)
Shahrooz et al., 2010 A1035 12 x 16 12 20 8.25 0.018 12,900 121.8
(F2) (MMFX) (6-#6)
Shahrooz et al., 2010 A1035 12 x 16 13.1875 20 8.25 0.0078 12,900 130.2
(F3) (MMFX) (4-#5)
* a is the distance from support to the location of the point load
57
The results of the analytical load-deflection are shown in Figure 4-4 to Figure 4-6 and
reflect very good agreement with the experimental results.
Figure 4-4: Comparison of experimental beams results of Ansley (2002) and

analytical model results
Figure 4-5: Comparison of experimental beams results of Yutakhong (2003) and

analytical model results
58
Figure 4-6: Comparison of experimental beams results of Shahrooz et al. (2010)
and analytical model results
The load-deflection response can show the ductility of the section as determined by the
ratio of the curvature at maximum load to the curvature at yielding of the reinforcement
(μ = ϕu/ϕy). Also, the area under the load-deflection curve may be considered to examine
the energy absorption, which is another indication of ductility. These properties, as well
as other important issues related to flexural behavior of beams that contain HSR and HSC
are further discussed in Chapter 6.
59
4.4 Flexural Behavior of Beams Made with HSC and HSR
In this section, a study is conducted to compare the design of beams reinforced with HSR
with varying concrete compressive strength (4000, 8000, and 12000 psi). An example
beam that has a 6 in. x 10 in. cross-section and 8 ft span is first designed with 4000 psi
concrete strength and Grade 60 steel with a reinforcement ratio of ½ ρmax (control beam),
which represents a reasonable (average) ratio of reinforcement for beams designed with
conventional Grade 60 steel. Then the same beam is designed for the same moment
capacity with HSR and various concrete strengths to compare the design with the current
practice, and to investigate the effect of increasing concrete strength on ductility and
deflection at service load. Two point-loads are applied on third points of the beam’s span.
The summary of the results is given in Table 4-3 and Figure 4-7.
Table 4-3: Effect of using HSC for beams reinforced with HSR
μ2=Area Under Δservice

Steel Type- f'c Mn
ρ εs μ1=ϕu/ϕy P-Δ load
Grade (ksi) (k.ft)
(k.ft) (in.)
A615-60
4 0.0111 24.7 0.0093 3.87 1.72 0.25
(control beam)
A615-100 4 0.0076 24.7 0.0093 2.54 1.70 0.34
A615-100 8 0.0067 24.7 0.0207 5.63 3.46 0.35
A615-100 12 0.0057 24.8 0.0306 8.48 4.66 0.39
A1035-100 4 0.0057 24.6 0.0093 1.93 1.47 0.51
A1035-100 8 0.0045 24.7 0.0207 4.02 3.11 0.65
A1035-100 12 0.0042 24.5 0.0310 6.46 4.63 0.69
60
Figure 4-7: Behavior of beam designed with NSC & grade 60 steel vs.
beams designed with HSC & HSR (A615-100 & A1035-100)
The results of this study indicated that the use of high-strength concrete will significantly
improve the deformation capacity of the beams as they will have a lesser area of steel,
higher bar tensile strain, more curvature, and hence, improved ductility. However, the
reduction in the required area of steel for design will reduce the member stiffness, which
in turn will result in more deflection at service load level. Therefore, serviceability
considerations are more likely to control the design of members made with HSC & HSR
61
than members made with normal strength concrete (NSC) and reinforced with Grade 60
reinforcement.
This study was chosen for experimental investigation in chapter five to compare the
flexural behavior (load-midspan deflection, ductility, deflection at service load level and
near failure, and crack widths at service load level) of beams made with conventional
materials versus that of beams made with high strength materials for the same load
capacity.
62
5 Chapter Five: Experimental Assessment of Beams Made with HSC & HSR
5.1 Introduction
The main objective of the experimental tests is to investigate the flexural behavior of
concrete beams made with high grade concrete up to 14000 psi and reinforced with high-
strength reinforcement of two different types where one has a well-defined yield point
and yield plateau (A615 Grade 100) and the other has a roundhouse curve (A1035 Grade
120). The second main objective is to confirm the results of the analytical study. The
third is to compare the design of beams made with HSC and HSR with the design using
normal strength concrete and conventional Grade 60 rebar. A total of eight beams were
designed, tested, and evaluated under short term monotonic loading, and one beam was
tested under constant long-term loading. The tests tracked bar elongations and concrete
strains as the beams were loaded to failure, tracked deflections at service load levels, as
well as near failure, and observed the cracking behavior and maximum crack width. This
chapter presents the details of the tested beams, materials properties, and description of
instrumentation, tests setup, and the experimental tests results and discussion.
63
5.2 Materials Properties
5.2.1 Concrete
Four different target strengths of concrete (5000, 8000, 10000, 12000) were designed for
and prepared in the laboratory to use in this research. ACI 211.1-91 was followed as a
guideline for the mix proportions of normal-strength concrete (5000 psi) that was used
for the control beams. ACI 211.4R-08 was used as a guideline for selecting the
proportions for the high-strength concrete that was used for the beams reinforced with
high-strength steel bars. Silica Fume was used as a cementitious material for the batch of
target strength 12000 psi to improve the strength, and superplasticizer was added to the
low water/cementitious ratio to increase the workability of the material. For all of the
four target strengths, and before casting the beams, several trial batches were mixed and
cast in ASTM standard cylinders (6 in. x 12 in. for normal strength concrete and 4 in. x 8
in. for high-strength concrete) and tested after 28 days to assure that they developed the
required compressive strengths. However, when preparing a large sized cast for beam B5
with a target strength of 12000 psi, the mixture was not workable compared to the trial
batch. Therefore, water was added to improve the workability, which led to a reduction of
strength compared to the targeted beam. This problem was solved for the other beams
(B4, B8, and B9) of the same target strength of 12000 psi through using a mixer with a
faster mixing speed, which helped the superplasticizer to react faster and improve the
workability without adding additional water. A sufficient mixing time was allowed to
produce a uniform and homogenous concrete.
64
The coarse aggregates (CA) used were pea gravel with a maximum size of 3/8 in. Natural
river sand was used as fine aggregates (FA). The cement (C) was Type I/II. Both 100 %
pure densified silica fume (SF) and a powder superplasticizer (SP) were added to the
mixture of target strength 12000 psi as a percentage by weight of cement. Table 5-1
illustrates the mix proportions used in the experimental program.
Table 5-1: Concrete mixture proportions

Mixture Proportions (lb/ft3)
Beam Target W/C or Slump
No. f’c (psi) W/(C+SF) (in.)
CA FA C SF W SP
B1&
5000 45.68 60.19 25.02 - 11.35 - 0.45 3.5
B6
B2 &
8000 65.98 37 34.95 - 11.52 - 0.33 3.5
B3
B7 10000 65.98 37 34.95 - 10.61 - 0.3 2.5
B5 12000 65.98 23.88 42.47 7.49 12.92 0.45 0.26 5
B4, B8,
12000 65.98 23.88 42.47 7.49 11.14 0.45 0.22 3.5
& B9
5.2.1.1 Concrete Cylinder Compression Test
At least two concrete cylinders were tested at 28 days to check the design strength as
required by ASTM standards, and at least three cylinders were tested to obtain the
compressive strength at the time of testing of the specimens. The cylinders were cast and
moist cured for 28 days with the beams in the laboratory. Also, one cylinder for each
specimen was tested for stress-strain using a hand-controlled hydraulic load, a
compressometer with two Leaner Variable Displacement Transducers (LVDT), and

65
gauge length of 6 in. as shown in Figure 5-1. The load was measured using a pressure
sensor, and then converted to stress by dividing over the cross-sectional area of the
cylinder. The strain was calculated by dividing the LVDTs readings by the gage length.
Figure 5-2 presents the test results compared to the Carreira and Chu equation. As it can
be seen, only the ascending branch of the stress-strain curve up to the maximum load was
captured as the descending branch needs a special technique to capture, especially with
high-strength concrete, which is more brittle than the normal strength concrete. Also, the
cylinder brakes (explodes) suddenly and it is hard to control the applied load manually.
Figure 5-1: Cylinder compression stress-strain test set up
66
LVDT 1
LVDT 2
Figure 5-2: Experimental stress-strain curves of plain concrete
67
5.2.1.2 Modulus of Rupture of Concrete (Flexural Strength)
Three concrete prisms (6 in. x 6 in. x 18 in.) were cast with each beam to determine the
experimental modulus of rupture (fr) in terms of average value. ASTM C78 was followed
for test guidance. The prisms were placed in the testing frame, oriented in such a way that
the specimen was turned on its side with respect to its molded position. Figure 5-3 shows
the test setup, and Table 5-2 presents the experimental results and the values using ACI
318 equation of modulus of rupture (𝑓 = 7.5 𝑓 , psi). Comparing the two, ACI 318
equation overestimates fr. The experimental modulus of rupture is calculated after
determining the breaking load (P) as following:
.
𝑓 =
.
𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒: 𝑀= ; 𝐶= ; 𝐼= ; (𝑏 = ℎ = 6") & (𝐿 = 18")
After substituting the above parameters: 𝑓 =
Figure 5-3: Plain concrete modulus of rupture test set up
68
Table 5-2: Modulus of rupture of concrete prisms
Beam No. f’c, psi fr experimental, psi fr ACI 318, psi fr experimental / fr ACI 318
B1 5,600 444.6 561.2 0.79
B2 8,100 622.5 670.8 0.93
B3 8,100 666.3 670.8 0.99
B4 13,500 623.6 871.4 0.72
B5 11,100 550.6 786.6 0.70
B6 5,800 510.0 571.2 0.89
B7 10,700 518.3 775.8 0.67
B8 14,300 731.4 896.9 0.82
B9 14,600 726.5 908.1 0.80
5.2.2 Reinforcing Steel
ASTM A615 Grades 60 and 100, and ASTM A1035 Grade 120 reinforcing steel of bar
sizes no. 3 & 4 were provided by Cascade Steel Rolling Mills Inc.
(www.cascadesteel.com) and were used as longitudinal tension reinforcement in the
construction of the specimens. No. 2 smooth wire was used to make stirrups for shear
reinforcement. Tension tests were performed according to ASTM A370-15 to determine
the stress-strain characteristics of the reinforcing bars. Two coupons of 30 in. length for
each bar type and size were tested as shown in Figure 5-4. A clip-on extensometer was
used to record the elongation in the bar. However, the extensometer was removed before
the expected failure load was reached to protect it from any possible damage, and hence,
the failure strain was not recorded. The summary of the reinforcement tension tests is
given in Table 5-3, and the measured stress-strain curves are presented in Figure 5-5 to
Figure 5-8.
69
Table 5-3: Reinforcement tensile test results summary
Yield Strength Tensile Strength Elongation in 8”
Steel Type Bar Size
(ksi) (ksi) (%)
71.9 111.0 13.5

#3
71.2 110.8 15.0
A615-60
70.4 108.0 13.5
#4
68.6 108.0 13.0
121.4 147.5 17.0

#3
121.6 147.5 10.0
A615-100
117.0 149.3 11.0
#4
117.1 149.1 11.0
154.0* 188.6 7.0

#3
151.8* 189.8 6.5
A1035-120
137.2* 169.2 7.5
#4
136.1* 172.6 7.5
58.3 74.2 21.0

Smooth wire #2
57.4 74.8 17.5
* 0.2% offset method
Figure 5-4: Reinforcement tensile stress-strain test set up

70
Figure 5-5: Tension stress-strain test results for rebar type A615 grade 60
71
72
73
Figure 5-8: Tension stress-strain test results for no.2 wire used for shear
reinforcement
5.3 Design of the Specimens
All specimens were designed to fit the capacity of the loading frame; therefore, a third-
scale modeling was used to simulate the typical field behavior of a concrete beam. All the
tested beams were 6 in. wide x 10 in. deep, and were tested over an 8-ft simple span in a
four-point loading arrangement that had a constant moment region of 32 in. Two control
beams were designed with 5000 psi concrete and Grade 60 steel with a reinforcement
ratio equal to ½ρmax and ρmax to observe and assess the flexural performance when these
two beams are designed using HSC and HSR.
74
The beams tested under short-term monotonic loading were categorized into two groups.
The first group consisted of five beams including the control beam that was designed for
½ρmax (ρ ≈ 1%), which represents most cases encountered in practice. Four beams were
designed to achieve approximately the same load carrying capacity of the control beam
using different combinations of HSC and HSR. In designing the beams with HSR, the
steel stress at LRFD load level was assumed as fu, i.e., the ultimate stress.
The provided area of steel of two beams in the first group, beam 8/A1035-120 (0.42%)
and beam 11/A1035-120 (0.42%), was slightly less than what was required by design to
achieve the same loading capacity of the control beam due to bar size limitation. The
required area of steel is 0.253 in2, therefore, 2 -#3 bars were used to provide a slightly
less area of steel equal to 0.22 in2. Thus, the load carrying capacity is slightly less than
that of the control beam.
In the same way, the second group consisted of a control beam designed for ρ max (ρ ≈
2%), and two beams were designed with HSC and HSR for approximately the same
loading capacity. In addition to these two groups, one beam that was designed with HSC
& HSR was tested under a long-term sustained load. The details of the tested beams are
presented in Table 5-4 and Figure 5-9.
The beams were designated according to their concrete compressive strength,
reinforcement type, grade, and ratio. For example, beam “10/A1035-120 (0.74%)” has a
concrete nominal compressive strength equal to 10 ksi and is reinforced with rebar type
A1035, which satisfies the requirement for Grade 120 bars with a reinforcement ratio of
0.74%.
75
In order to verify the accuracy of the written MATLAB code with the tested beams, the
actual stress-strain curves obtained from rebar coupons tensile test were modeled and
used for the beams’ design to determine the required reinforcement ratios that give the
same load capacity as the control beams. To prevent the possibility of shear failure in the
beams, #2 Grade 60 stirrups were provided throughout the span, as shown in Figure 5-9.
All beams were singly-reinforced, and two #2 Grade 60 smooth wire were used in the
compression zone of the section for framing purposes.
Table 5-4: Experimental test matrix

Beam Beam f’c, psi Steel Type Bottom ρ fy, ksi Loading
No. Designation Reinf. Type
B1 5/A615-60 5,600 A615-60 3-#4 0.011 69.5 Short-term
(control)
(1.1%) (½
8/A615-100 ρ )
B2 8,100 A615-100 3-#3 0.0062 121.5 Short-term
(0.62%)
8/A1035-120
B3 8,100 A1035-120 2-#3 0.0041 152.9 Short-term
(0.41%)
13/A615-100
B4 13,500 A615-100 3-#3 0.0062 121.5 Short-term
(0.62%)
11/A1035-120
B5 11,100 A1035-120 2-#3 0.0041 152.9 Short-term
(0.41%)
B6 5/A615-60 5,800 A615-60 5-#4 + 1-#3 0.0229 69.5 Short-term
(2.29%) (ρmax)
(control)
10/A1035-120
B7 10,700 A1035-120 2-#4 0.0074 136.7 Short-term
(0.74%)
14/A1035-120
B8 14,300 A1035-120 2-#4 0.0074 136.7 Short-term
(0.74%)
B9 14/A1035-120 14,600 A1035-120 2-#3 0.0041 152.9 Long-term

(0.41%)
76
Group 1, Beams are designed to carry the same load of the control beam 5/A615-60 (12 max )
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

2-#2 wire 2-#2 wire 2-#2 wire 2-#2 wire 2-#2 wire
8.75 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81

10 10 10 10 10
3-#4 3-#3 2-#3 3-#3 2-#3
3.2
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

6 6 6 6 6
5/A615-60 8/A615-100 8/A1035-120 13/A615-100 11/A1035-120
Group 2, Beams are designed to carry the same load of the control beam 5/A615-60 ( max
)
0.75 0.75 0.75
0.75 0.75 0.75

2-#2 wire 2-#2 wire 2-#2 wire
7.25
8.06 8.750
9 9
5-#4
10 10 10
1-#3
2-#4 2-#4
C.G. 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5

6 6 6
5/A615-60 10/A1035-120 14/A1035-120
Long-term loading
0.75
0.75
2-#2 wire
8.81
10
2-#3
0.75
6
14/A1035-120
32
#2 @ 4" o.c. #2 @ 2.5" o.c.
6 96 6
Figure 5-9: Experimental program test beams details
77
5.4 Specimens Fabrication
All beams were fabricated and constructed at the South Greenhouse Laboratory at
Portland State University. Framing lumber pieces of 1½ in. thickness were used to make
the formwork. The stirrups were formed in the laboratory with the proper dimensions
using a hand-made steel wire bender, and then the reinforcing cage was assembled
according to the specimen design. The longitudinal HRS were hooked to 90 o to prevent
any possible debonding between the reinforcement and the concrete. Then the formwork
was oiled to simplify removal efforts, and the reinforcement cage was placed in the form
on plastic chairs to provide the required cover. Then the form was moved to the casting
place.
Concrete was mixed in the laboratory, and the slump test was performed to check the
workability of the mixture before pouring the concrete in the beam form and its ancillary
cylinders and prisms. A vibrator was used for compaction and to let the concrete fill the
gaps. Twenty-four hours after casting the specimens, the form sides were removed, and
the specimens were covered with wet burlap and plastic sheets for moist curing for 28
days. Figure 5-10 to Figure 5-12 illustrate the fabrication, casting, and curing process of
the beams.
78
Figure 5-10: Specimens fabrication
79
Figure 5-11: Concrete mixing and casting process of the specimens
80
Figure 5-12: Specimens moist curing
81
5.5 Instrumentation and Test Setup
5.5.1 Installation of Strain Gauges
Strain gauges were used to measure the strains in the concrete and the reinforcement in
the constant moment zone (location of maximum stresses) of the beams span subjected to
two-point loading during the flexural tests of the beams. In order to measure the strain in
the concrete, three pre-wired strain gauges (PL-120-11-1L) of 120 mm (4.7 in.) gauge
length were installed on the side face and close to the top edge of each beam to measure
the compression strain in the concrete. The strain gauges for the concrete were ordered
from Texas Measurement (www.straingage.com). The installation process started by
grinding the concrete surface, cleaning it, and covering it with a very thin layer of epoxy
to fill in the voids. The thin layer of epoxy was ground down using sand paper to get a
leveled smooth surface, and the strain gauge was installed using a special adhesive.
Figure 5-13 shows the installation steps.
For reinforcement, pre-wired strain gauges (KFH-20-120-C1-11L1M2R) of 20 mm
(0.787 in.), were ordered from OMEGA Engineering Inc. (www.omega.com), and
installed on each of the bottom longitudinal reinforcing bars to measure the tension strain
in the reinforcement within the constant moment zone. The process of installing the strain
gauges on the steel bars was also started by grinding the surface of the bar at the desired
point in order to get a leveled smooth surface, and then installing the strain gauge. After
that, the strain gauge was glued to the bar using a special adhesive recommended by the
manufacture. Duct-tape was wrapped around the strain gauge to protect it from any
82
damage during the casting process of the specimens. The process of placing the strain
gauges is illustrated in Figure 5-14.
Figure 5-13: Installation steps of concrete strain gauges
83
Figure 5-14: Installation steps of reinforcement strain gauges
84
5.5.2 Flexural Test Setup and Instrumentation
The flexural test for the beams was performed by using a self-sustained load frame
because the floor of the laboratory is not a rigid floor. The beam was placed on the frame
bed, and the load that was applied to the beam was transferred to the load frame through
two steel straps. All beams were simply supported on the frame bed. The load was
applied using a hydraulic cylinder of 50 kips capacity. To measure the applied load, a 100
kips load cell was placed between the hydraulic cylinder and the distributer steel beam
that was used to distribute the central load into two-point load. An 8-inch stroke linear
variable differential transformer (LVDT) was used to measure the mid-span deflection.
Figure 5-15 and Figure 5-16 illustrate the typical beam flexural test setup. All beams
were tested under monotonic incrementally increased load up to the failure of the
specimens. The data from the load cell, central LVDT, and strain gauges were recorded
to the computer using a data acquisition system (DATAQ USB data loggers and Signal
Conditioning Amplifier boxes).
50-kip Hydraulic Cylinder
8" Stroke LVDT
W-Section 100-kip Load Cell

Distributor Beam
Reinforced Concrete
Beam Specimen
32"
8'
9'
Figure 5-15: Flexural test set-up and instrumentations
85
Figure 5-16: Typical flexural test setup of reinforced concrete beam specimens
5.5.3 Long-Term Deflection Test Setup
The experimental program included the investigation of one beam made with high-
strength concrete (f’c = 14600 psi) and reinforced with high-strength reinforcement type
A1035 Grade 120 with reinforcement ratio of 0.41% to evaluate the long-term deflection
factor (λ) of the current ACI 318 code. This study required designing a load frame that
could be used to apply a constant sustained load. A mechanical loading frame was
designed by the author to perform a long-term flexural test for simply supported
reinforced concrete beams, as illustrated in Figure 5-17. The test was performed at the
86
Mechanical Engineering lab at PSU. The load was applied using hanging weights, and an
aluminum beam was used as a lever arm to magnify the load by ten times applied at the
midpoint of the spreader beam. In order to place the reinforced concrete specimen and to
transfer the load within the loading frame, a base beam of the HSS steel section was
added to the loading frame. The beam specimen was oriented with the tension side up as
the load was applied upward. To assure no loading transferred to the beam before
applying the required sustained load, the weight of the loading system parts was
subtracted by placing an equivalent weight to the other side of the pivot point of the lever
arm to satisfy the equilibrium condition. The midspan deflection was monitored using an
electronic dial gauge with 0.001 in. precision. The applied sustained load (13.8 kip) was
about 60% of the failure load. Figure 5-17 shows the schematic drawing for the long-term
deflection test loading frame, and Figure 5-18 shows some of the fabrication work done
for the modification of the loading frame.
Figure 5-17: Schematic drawing for the test setup of the long-term deflection
87
Figure 5-18: Fabrication of the loading frame for flexural long-term deflection test
88
5.6 Beams Flexural Test Results and Discussion
All eight beams were tested under a monotonic two-point load until failure. The load
versus midspan deflection behavior, strain in concrete at the top fiber, and strain in the
reinforcing bars were recorded. The cracking behavior was observed, and the maximum
crack width at service load level (60% of the maximum load) was measured using a crack
width gauge. The predicted behaviors and the expected capacities were computed using
the MATLB code created by the author, which was based on a strain compatibility and
section equilibrium concept, and that utilized the actual stress-strain curves.
The test beams were divided into two groups based on the design load capacity. The first
group included five beams: A control beam that was designed with conventional
materials (NSC and Grade 60 steel) with a reinforcement ratio ≈ 1%, which represented a
common or average case in practice; and four beams made of two different types of HSC
and HSR (A615-100 and A1035-120), and designed to achieve the same load carrying
capacity as the control beam. The second group included three beams: A control beam
made with NSC and Grade 60 steel bars and designed with maximum reinforcement ratio
permissible by ACI, ρ ≈ 2%; and two beams made with HSC and HSR type A1035-120.
The objective was to compare the behavior of beams using conventional materials with
those using the combination of high strength materials.
5.6.1 Load-Deflection Behavior of Test Beams
The experimental load-deflection behaviors along with the predicted theoretical
behaviors for each beam are shown in Figure 5-19a to Figure 5-26a. The strain in the
concrete at the top fibers and the strain in the tension reinforcement were also recorded
89
during the tests and plotted versus the applied load and compared with the results of the
computer model, as illustrated in Figure 5-19 b and c through Figure 5-26 b and c.
a) Load-midspan deflection
b) Load-concrete strain
c) Load-steel strain
Figure 5-19: Experimental results of beam 5/A615-60 (1.1%)
90
91
92
93
94
B6: Beam 5/A615-60 (2.29%)

35
30
25
S1
Load, kip
20 S2
15 S3
S4
10
S5
5 Computer Model
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Strain in steel, in/in
95
96
97
For all beams, the predicted analytical load-deflection responses showed a very good
agreement with the experimental results, which gives more validity for the written
MATLAB code.
It can be noted that for all of the tested specimens reinforced with steel type A615, which
has well-defined yield strength and yield plateau, the load-deflection responses started
with a linear part until the first crack occurred. The load-deflection responses were then
followed by another linear behavior with a reduction in the beam stiffness due to the
formation of more cracks until the yielding of tension reinforcement occurred. The latter
event was associated with a considerable reduction in the beam stiffness. No more cracks
were formed after yielding, however, the existing cracks widened and became deeper due
to the shifting of the neutral axis toward the compression face. The specimens continued
to maintain the applied load up to failure, which occurred due to the crushing of the
concrete near the point load locations.
For the specimens that were reinforced with steel type A1035, the load-deflection
responses also started with a linear behavior until the first crack occurred, then a gradual
reduction in the stiffness occurred and continued until failure. Two of the tested
specimens, beam 8/A1035-120 (0.41%) and beam 11/A1035-120 (0.41%), failed due to
the rupture of the reinforcement. This type of failure is undesirable, and it could be
attributed to the low uniform strain (𝜀 = 0.0208) observed from the tensile test of #3
A1035 Grade 120 bars. Therefore, a minimum allowable uniform strain should be
specified for each HSR type to prevent the failure due to reinforcement rapture. However,
all test beams reinforced with HSR bars were under-reinforced, therefore, the yielding of
98
tensile reinforcement occurred before the crushing of concrete. This was true for all
except the two beams reinforced with #3 A1035 Grade 120 bars, that failed due to rupture
of reinforcement.
The maximum recorded strain in the reinforcement for each specimen was compared with
the obtained target strains for tension-controlled sections for each type. For all the tested
specimens, the target strains were satisfied which attested to the ductile behavior of the
beams. The summary of the results is given in Table 5-5.
99
Table 5-5: Test beams experimental flexural test results summary
Load Max. Max Target εs Ductility

Beam Deflection Deflection
carrying recorded recorded for Failure
designatio at max at yield Area under
capacity strain in strain in tension- max/y type
n load (in) (in) P- (up to
(kips) concrete steel controlled
max load)
5/A615-60 23.8 0.0034 0.0136 0.005 1.60 0.41 3.9 30.5 Tension-
(1.1%) controlled
8/A615- 23.5 0.0024 0.023** 0.0079 1.74 0.55 3.16 31.69 Tension-
100 controlled
(0.62%) Tension-
controlled
followed by
8/A1035- rupture of
120 21.2* 0.0015 0.012 0.012 1.87 0.88 2.13 27.34 reinf. when
(0.41%) kept loading
100
after
concrete
crushed
13/A615- 25.4 0.0025 0.023** 0.0079 1.90 0.42 4.45 36.65 Tension-
100 controlled
(0.62%)
11/A1035- Rupture of
120 22.2* 0.0023 0.023** 0.012 1.67 0.72 2.32 23.79 reinf. before
(0.41%) crushing of
concrete
5/A615-60 33.1 0.0033 0.0107 0.005 0.8 0.36 2.22 17.23 Tension-
(2.29%) controlled
10/A1035- 33.5 0.0028 0.0146 0.0079 1.46 0.79 1.85 32.5 Tension-
120 controlled
(0.74%)
14/A1035- 35.9 0.0023 0.023** 0.012 1.89 0.73 2.58 46.89 Tension-
120 controlled
* Area of(0.74%)
steel provided is slightly less than that required by design to achieve same load carrying capacity of the control beam
** Strain gauge reading limit
Figure 5-27 and Figure 5-28, show the crack pattern and failure mode for each test beam.
Beam 5/A615-60 (1.1%)

(Control Beam)
Beam 8/A615-100 (0.62%)
Beam 8/A1035-120 (0.41%)
Beam 13/A615-100 (0.62%)
Beam 11/A1035-120 (0.41%)
Figure 5-27: Crack pattern and failure mode of the first group of the test beams
101
Beam 5/A615-60 (2.29%)
(Control Beam)
Beam 10/A1035-120 (0.74%)
Beam 14/A1035-120 (0.74%)
Figure 5-28: Crack pattern and failure mode of the second group of the test beams
102
The maximum crack width for each specimen was measured at the service load level,
which was assumed to be 60% of the maximum load. For analytical evaluation, the
results were compared with Frosch’s (1999) expression for crack width prediction, which
is the basis of the current ACI 318 code for limiting crack width. The predictions of
maximum crack width for test beams at service loads are presented in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6: Prediction of maximum crack width for test beams at service load level
Calculated
Service fs at Maximum
Max εs at crack width
load service measured Weq./W
Beam designation load service using
(0.6*Max load crack exp.
(kips) load Frosch’s Eq.,
load) (ksi) width (in)
1999 (in)
58.18
5/A615-60 (1.1%) 23.8 14.28 0.0022 0.0073 0.0068 0.93
(0.83fy)
8/A615-100 101
23.5 14.1 0.0033 0.011 0.01 0.91
(0.62%) (0.83fy)
8/A1035-120 137
21.2 12.72 0.0053 0.018 0.023 1.28
(0.41%) (0.89fy)
13/A615-100 121.6
25.4 15.24 0.0042 0.0134 0.0127 0.95
(0.62%) (1.0fy)
11/A1035-120 148
22.2 13.32 0.0064 0.021 0.028 1.33
(0.41%) (0.96fy)
57.7
5/A615-60 (2.29%) 33.1 19.86 0.0021 0.0055 0.0053 0.97
(0.83fy)
10/A1035-120 111.7
33.5 20.1 0.0042 0.0158 0.0152 0.96
(0.74%) (0.81fy)
14/A1035-120 116.5
35.9 21.54 0.0047 0.0167 0.0183 1.10
(0.74%) (0.85fy)
103
Additionally, the prediction of the deflection at the service load level was also evaluated
for the taking into consideration the effective moment of inertia specified by the current
ACI 318 code (Branson’s equation), and the expression of Bischoff. Moreover, the
deflection resulting from the moment-curvature analysis was included for comparison, as
shown in Table 5-7.
Table 5-7: Prediction of maximum deflection at service load level for the test beams
fs at Calculated deflection (in)

Service
Beam service Δexp. Δ1/Δ Δ2/Δ Δ3/Δ
load
designation load (in) Ie1 Ie2 M-φ exp. exp. exp.
(kips)
(ksi) (Branson) (Bischoff) analysis
5/A615-60 58.18
14.28 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.27 1.00 0.96 1.00
(1.1%) (0.83fy)
8/A615-
101
100 14.1 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.41 0.93 0.95 1.00
(0.83fy)
(0.62%)
8/A1035-
137
120 12.72 0.61 0.44 0.48 0.57 0.72 0.79 0.93
(0.89fy)
(0.41%)
13/A615-
121.6
100 15.24 0.44 0.36 0.39 0.41 0.82 0.89 0.93
(1.0fy)
(0.62%)
11/A1035-
148
120 13.32 0.69 0.41 0.48 0.59 0.59 0.70 0.86
(0.96fy)
(0.41%)
5/A615-60 57.7
19.86 0.32 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.94 0.94 0.94
(2.29%) (0.83fy)
10/A1035-
111.7
120 20.1 0.54 0.45 0.46 0.51 0.83 0.85 0.94
(0.81fy)
(0.74%)
14/A1035-
116.5
120 21.54 0.60 0.47 0.47 0.54 0.78 0.78 0.90
(0.85fy)
(0.74%)
104
5.6.2 Discussion of Results
To evaluate the flexural behavior of the tested beams made with HSC and HSR, beams’
behavior and results were compared in terms of ductility, maximum crack width at the
service load level, and service load deflection.
5.6.2.1 Ductility
The ductility of the test beams was defined based on a deflection index rather than a
curvature index, as the midspan deflection was monitored continuously during the tests.
Two ductility definitions were explored here: Deflection ductility index μ d, which is
defined as the ratio of the maximum deflection of the beam to the deflection at yielding
of the longitudinal tensile reinforcement (Δu/Δy), and the energy dissipation index, which
is defined as the area under the load-deflection curve up to maximum load.
From Table 5-5 showed the results of ductility for beam 8/A615-100 (0.62%) with the
control beam 5/A615-60 (1.1%). It can be noted that the deflection ductility index and the
energy dissipation index for beam 8/A615-100 (0.62%) is about 81% and 103%
respectively of that of the control beam. The ductility of this beam was considered
comparable to that of the control beam, however, theoretically the ductility for beam
8/A615-100 (0.62%) was expected to be even higher. The reason for less ductility could
be attributed to the mechanical properties of high-strength concrete, which tends to be
more sensitive to “load-control” testing procedure, i.e., the ultimate strain may not have
reached 0.003 or higher. The maximum recorded strain in the concrete for beam 8/A615-
105
100 (0.62%) was 0.0024. It has been shown by many researchers that the ultimate
concrete strain of HSC varies from 0.002 to 0.004.
When the same beam 8/A615-100 (0.62%) was made with a higher concrete strength,
which is represented by the behavior of beam 13/A615-100 (0.62%), the ductility was
significantly increased and exceeded that of the control beam 5/A615-60 (1.1%) by about
114% and 120% for the deflection ductility index and the energy dissipation index
respectively, even though the maximum recorded concrete strain (0.0025) was also less
than 0.003. Therefore, increasing the concrete strength resulted in increasing the ductility
within the range considered as it will allow for more stress to be induced in the
reinforcement. This observation can also be made with the second group of beams. The
ductility of beams 10/A1035-120 (0.47%) and 14/A1035-120 (0.74%) showed
comparable ductility to that of the control beam 5/A615-60 (2.29%). The deflection
ductility indexes for beams 10/A1035-120 (0.47%) and 14/A1035-120 (0.47%) compared
to that of the control beam 5/A615-60 (2.29%) were 83% and 116% respectively, and the
energy dissipation indices compared to that of the control beam 5/A615-60 (2.29%) were
188% and 272% respectively. This shows the effectiveness of coupling HSR with HSC
for beams designed to improve flexural ductility. Once again, it can be noted that the
ductility increased with increasing the concrete strength. The maximum recorded strain in
concrete was also less than 0.003. The strain of 0.0028 and 0.0023 was the maximum
recorded strain for beam 10/A1035-120 (0.47%) and beam 14/A1035-120 (0.74%)
respectively.
106
Two of the tested beams, however, did not exhibit the desired ductility. Those were beam
8/A1035-120 (0.41%) and beam 11/A1035-120 (0.41%). They failed due to the rupture
of their reinforcement. The reason for that could be attributed to the mechanical
properties of the reinforcement used for these two beams, which had a low maximum
uniform strain of only 0.0208. This caused the reinforcement to rupture before the
concrete crushed.
On the other hand, the strain in the tension reinforcement for all the tested beams
exceeded the determined target strains for minimum required ductility, as illustrated in
Table 5-5. Furthermore, well before failure, all beams made with HSC and HSR showed
visual signs of a ductile behavior by showing a noticeable deflection and a series of
extensive cracks. In tested beams, there was no evidence of lack of visible ductility when
using HSC in beams with HSR.
Finally, it can be also seen from the results of ductility of the first group of the tested
beams (Table 5-4) that use of high strength reinforcement with a defined yield strength
and yield plateau (A615 Grade 100) would result in a higher ductility than that of the
beams reinforced with high strength reinforcement of a roundhouse behavior (A1035
Grade 120). However, the saving in the reinforcement amount was greater with the use of
HSR type A1035.
5.6.2.2 Crack Pattern and Maximum Crack Width
All beams failed in flexure as they were designed to do. The first cracks started at the
constant moment region and continued to propagate as the applied load was increased.
107
Cracks then started to appear outside of the constant moment region. At high load levels
no more flexural cracks were formed, but the existing cracks continued to widen as the
beams increasingly deflected, and a few diagonal flexural shear cracks started in the
constant shear regions. For the second group of beams, shear cracks began to appear at a
45-degree angle near the supports at approximately 80% of the ultimate loads. All tested
beams in the first and second groups showed a similar crack pattern, as shown in Figure
5-27 and Figure 5-28.
To assess the effect of designing beams with HSC and HSR, crack widths were measured
during the tests and the maximum crack widths at service load levels were compared with
that of the control beams, as summarized in Figure 5-27 and Figure 5-28, show the crack
pattern and failure mode for each test beam.
108
Table 5-6. It may be observed from the results that the crack widths were wider for the
beams made with HSC and HSR as compared to the beams made with conventional
materials. The reason is that crack width is a function of steel strain and consequently
steel stress, and clearly, the stress in the reinforcement at service load level was higher
when using HSR.
For beams of same reinforcement type and same reinforcement ratio, the results indicated
that the maximum crack width increases as the concrete strength increased. This is
basically due to the higher stress level at service load for beams with higher concrete
strength.
Most importantly, the measured crack widths for all tested beams with HSR under service
load level were within the generally acceptable maximum crack width of 0.018 in.
(Harries et at., 2012) except for beam 11/A1035-120 (0.41%), where the maximum
measured crack width was 0.021 in. Moreover, the considered service load level of 60%
of the ultimate load (based on fu) for all tested beams resulted in stress level in the
reinforcement that was higher than 0.67f y, as prescribed by ACI 318 code for
conventional steel.
In this study, crack width prediction using Frosch’s expression (section 2.7.2) was also
evaluated as shown in Figure 5-27 and Figure 5-28, show the crack pattern and failure
mode for each test beam.
109
Table 5-6. The results of the maximum crack width prediction agreed very well with the
measured ones. The ratio of the predicted to the measured maximum crack width for all
beams were within 10% error except for beam 8/A1035-120 (0.41%) and beam
11/A1035-120 (0.41%) where the error was within 25%. The reason could be due to the
fact that the stress in the reinforcement exceeded the stress-strain curve proportional limit
(i.e., εs=fs/Es) of the reinforcement, and Frosch’s expression was derived for
reinforcement stress within the proportional limit.
5.6.2.3 Immediate Deflection at Service Load Level
To evaluate the implication of designing beams with HSC and HSR on the immediate
deflection at service loading state, the results of the load-deflection behaviors of the
tested beams were plotted together for each group as shown in Figure 5-29. It may be
seen that the stiffness of the beams made with HSC and HSR was reduced compared to
that of the control beams made with conventional materials. The reason is that the design
110
with high-strength materials required less area of steel to satisfy the design capacity.
Thus, the serviceability limit states are more often the critical design consideration when
using high strength materials in reinforced concrete beams. Therefore, reliable models for
estimating the deflection at service level are essential. The elastic method of beams was
used to predict the deflection at the service load level by utilizing the effective moment of
inertia expressions of both Branson and Bischoff to account for the member stiffness. The
midspan deflections using the elastic beam method and associated with the applied two-
point loading are calculated as:
𝑀
∆= (3𝐿 − 4𝑎 ),
24 𝐸 𝐼
where a = Distance between the support and the point load
As shown in Table 5-7, the use of both Ie expressions gives a very close estimation for
the deflection of the control beams, and for the beams with HSR type A615 that have a
defined yield stress and yield plateau. For the beams made with HSR type A1035 of the
roundhouse behavior, the use of the elastic method utilizing both Ie expressions
underestimated the deflection. For the beams reinforced with HSR type A1035, the
comparison of measured initial deflections with predictions based on elastic method
given in Table 5-7, indicated that the ratio of predicted to measured deflections ranged
from 0.59 to 0.83 using Branson’s expression and 0.7 to 0.85 using Bischoff’s
expression. Therefore, the use of Bischoff’s expression of the effective moment of inertia
resulted in better predictions for the initial deflection of beams.
111
Moreover, for beams 8/A1035-120 (0.41%) and 11/A1035-120 (0.41%), which have very
low reinforcement ratio (ρ=0.41%), use of Bischoff’s expression gives better deflection
predictions than Branson’s, as illustrated in Table 5-7. Both expressions gave the same
deflection predictions for beams 10/A1035-120 (0.74%) and 10/A1035-120 (0.74%) of
higher reinforcement ratio (ρ=0.74%).
The explanation for the underestimation for the deflection of the beams reinforced with
HSR type A1035-120 of the roundhouse behavior is that the elastic method for deflection
prediction works well only for the service load level that leads to a stress in the tension
reinforcement within the linear elastic part of its stress-strain curve. In this study, the
service load resulted in a stress in the reinforcement that exceeded the proportional limit
(i.e. the linear part of the stress-strain curve) as shown in Figure 5-30.
For conventional steel, service load stress is normally estimated as about .67f y because
the design capacity is based on fy. However, this was not the case with the beams made
with HSR because their design was based on the ultimate stress fu not fy. As a result, the
service load stress the linear part of the stress-strain curve.
112
a) Experimental load-deflection results of the 1st group
beams
b) Experimental load-deflection results of the 2nd group

beams
Figure 5-29: Load-deflection response of tested beams
113
a) ρ = 0.41%
b) ρ = 0.74%
Figure 5-30: Stress level in the tension reinforcement at service loading state for the
tested beams reinforced with steel type A1035 Grade 120
114
5.7 Long-Term Deflection Test Results and Discussion
As stated earlier, this study is intended to evaluate the long-term deflection behavior, and
to check the validity of using the time-dependent multiplier λ of the current ACI 318-14
(section 24.2.4.1.1) for beams made with HSC and HSR. Although only one beam was
tested in this study, the results are considered as a starting point for more detailed future
studies. The beam was subjected to a sustained load of 13.8 kips for twelve months. The
load was applied using weights that were hung using a forklift. The initial immediate
deflection reading of 0.756 in. was recorded immediately after applying the load. Then
deflection reading was recorded every day for the first two weeks, every two days for the
first three months, once a week for the first six months, and once every two to three
weeks to the end of testing. The results of deflection vs. time are shown in Figure 5-31.
Figure 5-31: Time-dependent deflection of beam 14/A1035-120 (0.41%)
115
The long-term deflection was predicted using the ACI 318 long-term multiplier λ, which
does not consider the concrete strength; the proposed multiplier by Paulson et al. (1991)
that considers the lower creep of high-strength concrete; and the multiplier presented by
Muhaisin (2012) to calculate the long-term deflection for reinforced concrete beams
made with normal or high strength concrete, as summarized in Table 5-8.
Table 5-8: Comparison of predicted and measured time-dependent beam deflections
Experimental immediate deflection = 0.756 in.
Time Experimental ACI 318-14 Paulson et al. (1991) Muhaisin (2012)

since long-term
loading deflection λ ΔL-T ΔL-T/Δexp. λ ΔL-T ΔL-T/Δexp. λ ΔL-T ΔL-T/Δexp.
3 months 0.952 1.0 1.512 1.59 0.40 1.058 1.11 0.32 0.998 1.05
6 months 0.994 1.2 1.663 1.67 0.48 1.119 1.13 0.38 1.043 1.05
12 months 1.003 1.4 1.814 1.81 0.56 1.179 1.18 0.46 1.104 1.10
Deflection measurements taken over a twelve month period allowed for the assessment of
the ACI 318-14 time-dependent multiplier. As it can be seen from Table 5-8, ACI 318-14
overestimated the long-term deflection by about 1.6. The reason is because ACI 318 does
not take into account the concrete strength. As shown by many researchers, high-strength
concrete has lower creep over time than the normal strength concrete does. Therefore, the
use of Paulson et al. (1991) and Muhaisin’s (2012) long-term multipliers have shown
improved predictions for the deflection as they considered the influence of the concrete
strength in their modified multiplier. Based on the results of the tested beam, the
116
modified multiplier proposed by Muhaisin (2012) showed the closest prediction for the
long-term deflection.
The maximum crack width was also measured. All of the cracks formed once the load
was applied, and the maximum crack width was 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) and remained the same
until the end of the testing time. Figure 5-32 shows the crack pattern and the maximum
crack width measurement.
Max crack width = 0.5”
14/A1035-120 (0.41%) tested under long-term period
117
6 Chapter Six: A Parametric Study on the Key Design Issues with HSR and HSC
6.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the key design issues that are related to the flexural design of
concrete beams of different concrete strengths ranging from normal to high strength (4
ksi to 12 ksi), and reinforced with high-strength bars of two different stress-strain
behaviors (A615 Grade100 & A1035 Grades 100 and 120). Different stress-strain
relationships are expected to impact the force-displacement behavior of reinforced
concrete beams in different ways including strain limits, flexural strength and the
corresponding maximum deflection, and the spread of plasticity as the beam is loaded
monotonically to failure. The key design issues discussed here include: Strength,
ductility, strain limits and strength reduction factor, maximum and minimum
reinforcement ratio, stiffness and immediate deflection prediction.
A parametric study is carried out using the verified MATLAB coding written by the
author to address the issues related to the flexural design of concrete beams made with
HSC and HSR, and to establish design guidelines related to maximum and minimum
reinforcement ratio, strength reduction factor, service load level deflection prediction,
and crack widths prediction.
It is well known that design of flexural members is based on achieving a ductile behavior
to avoid the undesirable brittle failure. The term ductility is defined as the ability of the
member to sustain deformation beyond its elastic limit while maintaining a reasonable
load carrying capacity before total collapse. The ductility can be measured through strain,
curvature, displacement, rotation, or energy absorption depending on the type of material

118
or member. In this study, the curvature ductility and the energy absorption of beams
reinforced with conventional Grade 60 steel are used as a reference for comparison. The
curvature ductility can be defined as the ratio of the curvature at the ultimate load to the
curvature at yielding of the reinforcement, μ = φ u/φy. As a second measure of ductility,
the energy absorption is determined by the area under the load-deflection response up to
the ultimate load. The variables throughout the parametric study are:
 Concrete compression strength, f’c (4000, 8000, 12000 psi)
 Reinforcement type and grade: A615-60, A615-100, A1035-100, and A1035-120
 Reinforcement ratio, ρ
6.2 Flexural Strength and Ductility
The current design provisions for computing flexural strength are applicable to
conventional steel and need adjustment for application to the beams with high-strength
reinforcement due to the difference in the stress-strain behavior, which impacts the load-
deflection response. In earlier editions of ACI 318 code, provisions for flexural members
required a reinforcement ratio not greater than 75 percent of the balanced reinforcement
ratio (𝜌 ≤ 0.75𝜌 ). This criterion was in use and judged satisfactory for several
decades until 1995 when a new approach based on tension reinforcement strain limits
was introduced. The strain limits requirement was moved to the body of ACI 318 code in
2002, and replaced the former limit on the reinforcement ratio (0.75𝜌 ). Both approaches
are studied for the use of HSR in the following sections.
119
6.2.1 Reinforcement Ratio Limit
In earlier ACI codes, for flexural members the maximum ratio of reinforcement was
limited to 75% of the balance ratio (𝜌 ≤ 0.75𝜌 ) so that the reinforcement yields
before the concrete crushes to provide a minimum acceptable level of ductile behavior
and to avoid sudden failure of members. The balance ratio is determined when the
reinforcement reaches its yield strain at the same time the concrete reaches its maximum
“permissible” strain of 0.003. For the high-strength reinforcements that lack a well-
defined yield strength, the 0.2% offset method was considered to define the yield stress
and the corresponding yield strain in the reinforcement. Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2 show
the typical stress-strain curves used in the analysis and their mechanical properties.
The concrete ultimate strain, 𝜀 , was taken equal to 0.003, as prescribed by ACI.
An assumed simply supported beam of 10 x 20 inches cross-section and effective depth
of 17.5 inches is used for the analysis with different concrete strengths and reinforcement
type and grade. The beam is subjected to two-point loading at third points of its span of
fifteen feet. The amount of steel was varied until the balanced condition is satisfied.
Then, the ¾ fraction was applied to determine the maximum reinforcement ratio and the
corresponding strain in the tension reinforcement for each case. Table 6-1 shows
𝜌 ,𝜌 , and the strain in the tension steel when 𝜌 = 𝜌 for beams of various f’c and
steel type and grade.
120
Table 6-1: Summary of reinforcement ratio limit based on ρ=0.75ρ b
fy εy f'c ρb 0.75 ρb εs (𝜌 = 0.75𝜌 )

4 0.0308 0.0231
A615-60 60 0.00207 8 0.0560 0.0420 0.0038
12 0.0787 0.0590
4 0.0146 0.0110
A615-100 100 0.0034 8 0.0264 0.0198 0.0056
12 0.0370 0.0278
4 0.0117 0.0088
A1035-100 100 0.005 8 0.0213 0.0160 0.0064
12 0.0299 0.0224
4 0.0087 0.0065
A1035-120 120 0.006 8 0.0158 0.0118 0.0077
12 0.0221 0.0166
Figure 6-1 shows the moment-curvature responses for the maximum reinforcement ratio
(𝜌 ≤ 0.75𝜌 ) condition. It can be observed that for beams with the same f’c, the
moment corresponding to ρmax condition is less as the reinforcement yield stress
increases. This is because the amount of steel required is less, which leads to a higher
strain in steel and shallower depth of the compression zone of the section and therefore
less moment.
121
Figure 6-1: Moment-curvature responses for beams reinforced with
conventional grade 60 steel and HSR based on 𝜌 = 0.75𝜌
122
6.2.2 Tension Reinforcement Strain Limits
In 1995, the ACI 318 code introduced a new requirement based on a minimum strain in
the tension reinforcement at nominal strength rather than limiting the maximum
reinforcement ratio for beams. Based on the new approach the member behavior is
classified as tension-controlled, compression-controlled, or in the transition zone based
on the strain in the tension reinforcement at nominal strength. Depending on the member
classification, a strength reduction factor, ϕ, is applied as a factor of safety to determine
the design strength. For sections considered as tension-controlled, a minimum strain of
0.005 in the extreme tension steel at nominal moment is required to use a ϕ factor of 0.90.
Compression-controlled sections are defined as those sections having strain in extreme
tension steel at or below the yield strain at nominal strength. The current steel strain limit
of 0.002 (the simplification of Grade 60 yield strain of 0.00207) defining the upper bound
of compression-controlled behavior. As these sections will not show a desirable ductile
behavior, they are penalized with a lower ϕ factor of 0.65. For sections in the transition
region, the strength reduction factor varies linearly. Flexural members should normally
be designed as tension-controlled members, however, ACI 318-02 proposed a minimum
allowable strain in tension reinforcement equal to 0.004, and that determines the
maximum reinforcement ratio in this approach.
The above-mentioned strain limits (0.002, 0.004 and 0.005) were proposed for Grade 60
reinforcing steel. Therefore, an adjustment is required for the use of high-strength
reinforcement. It seems reasonable to assume that the adjustment of the strain limits
should be based on ductility requirements to obtain the same, or nearly the same,
123
desirable ductile behavior of flexural members designed with Grade 60 reinforcement.
Hence, in this study the ductility (curvature ductility and area under load-deflection
curve) was determined for beams with Grade 60 when the strain at nominal strength is
equal to 0.005, 0.004, and 0.00207. Then the obtained ductility values were used as
benchmarks to determine the corresponding comparable tension-controlled strain limits,
minimum strains, and compression-strain limits for HSR.
As an example, the reinforcement ratio (ρ) was varied for a beam (10 in. x 20 in. and L =
15 ft) made with f’c of 4000 psi and Grade 60 steel and subjected to a two-point loading
at the third points of its span to determine ρ corresponding to ε s of 0.005, as shown in
Figure 6-3. Next, from the M-ϕ response, the curvature ductility that corresponds to ε s =
0.005 was determined, shown in Figure 6-2. In Figure 6-3, the curvature ductility factor μ
= φu/φy = 0.000457/0.000215 = 2.12. The obtained curvature ductility (2.12) was used as
a benchmark to determine the corresponding comparable tension-controlled strain limits
for HSR. This approach was followed to determine the comparable strain limits for both
types of HSR based on both curvature ductility and energy absorption (area under load-
deflection), as shown in Figure 6-4 to Figure 6-7. The determined comparable strain
limits are summarized in Table 6-2 and Table 6-3.
124
Figure 6-3: Effect of ρ on the moment capacity and tension reinforcement strain
Figure 6-2: M-ϕ response for a beam with f'c =4000 psi & Grade 60 steel with ρ = 0.0195
125
Figure 6-4: HSR comparable tension-control strain limits based on curvature ductility
126
Figure 6-5: HSR comparable tension-control strain limits based on energy absorption
(area under P-Δ)
127
Figure 6-6: HSR comparable minimum strain limits based on curvature ductility
128
Figure 6-7: HSR comparable minimum strain limits based on energy absorption
(area under P-Δ)
129
Table 6-2: Comparable strain limits based on curvature ductility (µ = φ u/φy)
Strain limit A615-60 A615-100 A1035-100 A1035-120
Tension-Controlled 0.005 0.0079 0.01 0.012
Minimum for flexural members 0.004 0.0064 0.008 0.01
Compression-Controlled 0.00207 0.00345 0.005 0.006
Table 6-3: Comparable strain limits based on energy absorption (µ = Area under P-Δ)
Strain limit A615-60 A615-100 A1035-100 A1035-120
Tension-Controlled 0.005 0.0068 0.011 0.011
Minimum for flexural members 0.004 0.0056 0.008 0.008
Compression-Controlled 0.00207 0.00206 0.0017 0.0018
The results of minimum strain limits (𝜀 .) in tension reinforcement resulted from the
study in Section 6.2.1 and the current section are compared, as illustrated in Table 6-4.
Table 6-2 and Table 6-3 show that the comparable strain limits for HSR using curvature
ductility are higher than those by using the area under the load-deflection curve to define
the ductility. Also, the same observation can be made comparing the minimum strain
limits in Table 6-4 using three different approaches. Therefore, using curvature ductility
criterion requires a higher level of strain for design, which should result in more ductility
for the member.
Table 6-4: Comparison of minimum strain limits for HSR from different approaches
𝜀 . (𝜌 = 0.75𝜌 ) 𝜀 . (𝜇 = ∅ /∅ ) 𝜀 . (μ = area under P-Δ)
A615-100 0.0056 0.0064 0.0056
A1035-100 0.0064 0.008 0.008
A1035-120 0.0077 0.01 0.008
130
For HSR to be consistence with ACI 318, the strength resistance factors of 0.9 and 0.65
are adopted when using tension-controlled and compression-controlled members
respectively. The revised variation of the resistance factor, ϕ, for each HSR based on
curvature ductility are shown graphically in Figure 6-8.
Figure 6-8: Relationship between strength reduction factor, ϕ, and strain limits
131
From this study, it is also evident that HSR type A615 Grade 100 with distinctive yield
strength and yield plateau requires less strain in reinforcement to achieve ductility
comparable to conventional steel than HSR type A1035 Grade 100, which has a
roundhouse shape without a well-defined yield strength.
Moreover, Figure 6-4 to Figure 6-7 demonstrate that the concrete compressive strength
has no apparent effect on the required strain limits in the reinforcement.
6.3 Minimum Reinforcement Ratio
The current minimum reinforcement ratio, 𝜌 , of the ACI 318 for reinforced concrete
flexural members are intended to provide flexural moment capacity exceeds the cracking
moment of the section to protect against the sudden collapse in cases of loading beyond
cracking moment. The current equation considers concrete of different grades and
reinforcement with variable yield strength (𝜌 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 , ). However, the
applicability of this equation has not been verified for the use of high-strength
reinforcement. The ATC-115 report in 2014 suggested that this equation could be
eliminated, and ρmin could be determined so that the design moment capacity is 120% of
the cracked moment (∅𝑀 = 1.2𝑀 ).
This study consists of flexural section analyses with HSR to identify 𝜌 corresponding
to ∅𝑀 = 1.2𝑀 . The results are compared with the current ACI 318 equation used to
determine 𝜌 for reinforced concrete flexural members, that is based on ∅𝑀 ≈
132
1.5𝑀 . The following variables were included in the study: (1) ratio of reinforcement
depth to beam depth (d/h); (2) concrete compressive strength; and (3) HSR type and
grade. With minimum amount of reinforcement in concrete sections, the strain in the
reinforcement is expected to be large. HSR has a lower maximum tensile strain 𝜀
compared to the conventional Grade 60 steel. A summary of the material properties of
HSR steel type A1035 available in the literature given by National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) report 679 (2011) shows the average 𝜀 to be equal to
0.049. Therefore, the maximum strain in the HSR when ∅𝑀 = 1.2𝑀 needs to be
checked to make sure the steel doesn’t reach a critical point that the reinforcement
rupture may occur before the concrete fails.
As an example, a beam of 12 in. x 24 in. dimensions and span equal to 24 ft. was used in
this study with varying d/h ratio (0.8 - 0.95) and varying f’c (4000 – 12000) and steel
type. In order to compare the ρmin. using ACI318 equation with that using ∅𝑀 = 1.2𝑀 ,
the stress in all types of the reinforcement investigated was limited to their yielding stress
(i.e. elastic-plastic model was used). However, to check the strain in the steel, the actual
representative stress-strain curves were used with the same ρ determined from the
previous step.
The resulting ρmin values are given in Table 6-5 through Table 6-7 and shown graphically
in Figure 6-9 through Figure 6-11. As shown in the tables and figures, the current ACI
318 equation gives higher results for ρmin for all the investigated reinforcing steels
because it is based on ∅𝑀 ≈ 1.5𝑀 . More importantly, using ∅𝑀 = 1.2𝑀 to
compute ρmin results in high strains in the reinforcement (greater than 𝜀 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 =
133
0.049 in./in.) that may not be achieved by the HSR properties, as shown in Table 6-8 to
Table 6-9. The higher strains using ∅𝑀 = 1.2𝑀 are due to the reduced amount of steel
than that using ACI 318 equation. Therefore, it is recommended to use the ACI 318
equation for HSR too as the resulted strain levels are less than 0.049.
Table 6-5: Comparison of ρmin for A615 Grade 60
d/h 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 ACI 318

f'c ρ (when φMn/Mcr=1.2) ρ = max (3 √f'c/fy, 200/fy)
4000 0.00281 0.00249 0.00221 0.00198 0.00333
8000 0.00395 0.00349 0.00311 0.00279 0.00447
12000 0.00482 0.00427 0.0038 0.00341 0.00548
Table 6-6: Comparison of ρmin for A615 & A1035 Grade 100
d/h 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 ACI 318

4000 0.00169 0.00149 0.00133 0.00119 0.00200
8000 0.00238 0.00210 0.00187 0.00168 0.00268
12000 0.00290 0.00256 0.00229 0.00205 0.00329
Table 6-7: Comparison of ρmin for A1035 Grade 120
d/h 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 ACI 318

4000 0.00141 0.00124 0.00111 0.00099 0.00167
8000 0.00199 0.00175 0.00156 0.00140 0.00224
12000 0.00241 0.00214 0.00190 0.00171 0.00274
134
Figure 6-9: Comparison of ρmin for A615 Grade 60
Figure 6-10: Comparison of ρmin for A615 & A1035 Grade 100
135
Figure 6-11: Comparison of ρmin for A1035 Grade 120
Table 6-8: Comparison of εu at ρmin for A615 Grade 60
d/h 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 ACI 318

f'c εu (when φMn/Mcr=1.2) εu
4000 0.053 0.060 0.068 0.076 0.044
8000 0.069 0.078 0.088 0.099 0.061
12000 0.080 0.090 0.102 0.114 0.070
d/h 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 ACI 318

4000 0.0431 0.0478 0.0526 0.0577 0.032
8000 0.0534 0.0593 0.0652 0.0715 0.041
12000 0.06 0.0665 0.0730 0.0801 0.046
136
d/h 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 ACI 318

4000 0.030 0.034 0.038 0.043 0.026
8000 0.039 0.044 0.050 0.056 0.035
12000 0.045 0.051 0.057 0.064 0.040
d/h 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 ACI 318

4000 0.036 0.041 0.046 0.051 0.030
8000 0.046 0.053 0.060 0.067 0.041
12000 0.054 0.061 0.069 0.077 0.047
137
6.4 Effect of Using Simplified Elastic-Plastic vs. Actual Roundhouse Stress-Strain
for HSR Type A1035 on Flexural Design of Beams
The use of the simplified elastic-plastic stress-strain in the analysis and the design of
reinforced concrete beams is accepted for a reinforcement that has a well-defined yield
stress and yield plateau. In order to evaluate the consequences on the flexural design, the
simplified elastic-plastic stress-strain is used to idealize the behavior of high-strength
reinforcement type A1035 that has a roundhouse stress-strain. An example beam with a 6
in. x 10 in. cross-section with a concrete compressive strength of 8000 psi and reinforced
with A1035 Grade 100 rebar is used to perform this evaluation.
The simplified elastic-plastic stress-strain curve has an elastic portion with a steel
modulus (Es) of 29,000,000 psi, and perfectly plastic behavior after reaching fy equal to
100,000 psi. The actual behavior is represented by the equation that represents the typical
behavior of A1035 Grade 100 reinforcement bars mentioned in section 4.2.2.
The values of the moment capacity (Mn/bd2) and curvature ductility (ϕu/ϕy) resulted from
using both models are compared and given in Table 6-12, and shown graphically in
Figure 6-12. For the example beam, the comparison indicates that using the simplified
elastic-plastic model would result in underestimation for the moment capacity by 20% to
40% for the reinforcement ratio ranging from ρmax to ρmin respectively. Furthermore, the
use of the simplified model would result in an inaccurate overestimation for the ductility
by about two times the ductility when using the actual nonlinear model, and it will
incorrectly suggest that the section exhibits sufficient warning prior to failure. Therefore,
138
a representative actual stress-strain relationship for HSR type A1035 should be specified
for optimum and safe design.
Table 6-12: Comparison of using elastic-plastic model vs. actual roundhouse to model
A1035-100 reinforcement on moment capacity and curvature ductility
Simplified elastic-plastic Actual roundhouse stress-
stress-strain strain
RS=Mn/bd2 RA=Mn/bd2
ρ μS = ϕu/ϕy μA = ϕu/ϕy RS/RA μS/μA
(psi) (psi)
0.00189 186.5 24.2 318.0 10.0 0.59 2.4
0.003 293.7 15.7 483.7 6.0 0.61 2.6
0.004 388.9 10.1 619.7 4.7 0.63 2.1
0.005 482.6 7.9 743.6 3.9 0.65 2.0
0.006 575.0 6.4 856.6 3.3 0.67 1.9
0.007 666.0 5.4 959.5 2.6 0.69 2.0
0.008 755.5 5.0 1053.7 2.3 0.72 2.1
0.009 843.7 4.3 1139.9 2.1 0.74 2.0
0.01 930.5 3.7 1219.2 1.9 0.76 1.9
0.0117 1074.9 3.0 1340.4 1.8 0.80 1.7
139
Figure 6-12: Effect of using simplified elastic-plastic model to idealize the behavior of
A1035 reinforcement on moment capacity and curvature ductility
140
6.5 Flexural Design with HSR, Limiting the Maximum Stress
In flexural design, the design strength should be greater than the LRFD factored load and
is expressed as follows:
ϕMn ≥ Mu, where Mn is the nominal flexural resistance; Mu is the factored moment at the
section.
In the current ACI 318 specifications, ρmax can be derived based on the minimum strain
limit. Moreover, there is a distinction of compression and tension-controlled section
based on the strain in the extreme tension steel. To penalize for the undesirable behavior
of compression-controlled sections, a lower value of strength reduction factor (ϕ) is
assigned to “compression-controlled” sections compared to “tension-controlled” sections.
Between these two strain limits (transition zone), the strength factor ϕ used for strength
computation varies linearly with the strain in the extreme tension steel.
In this research for HSR, new comparable strain limits to that of Grade 60 steel were
determined based on ductility, as described in Figure 6-8.
For HSR type A615 Grade 100 with distinct yield stress and yield plateau, a simplified
elastic-plastic stress-strain curve can be used in design (with a yield stress, fy, equal to
100 ksi and modulus of elasticity, Es, equal to 29000 ksi) so that the extra reserved
capacity, represented by the strain hardening, is not accounted for in design to provide
safety and to assure that the reinforcement will not rupture. This process would be
comparable and similar to the current practice used for Grade 60 reinforcement.
141
For HSR type A1035 Grades 100 & 120 that have a roundhouse behavior, it was shown
that using a simplified elastic-plastic stress-strain relationship in design is not
recommended as it would overestimate the ductility by a factor of two. Therefore, in
order to provide a reserved capacity with the use of the actual roundhouse curve, it seems
reasonable to limit the stress, similar to what is commonly used in flexural design of
prestressed concrete members. ACI 318 code prescribes the values for the maximum
permissible stress in prestressed reinforcement, fps, using the following equation:
𝛾 𝑓 𝑑 𝑓
𝑓 =𝑓 1− 𝜌 + (𝜌 − 𝜌 )
𝛽 𝑓 𝑑 𝑓
Assuming only prestressed reinforcement is used, this equation reduces to:
𝑓 =𝑓 1− 𝜌 , where:
fpu = is the specified tensile strength of prestressing reinforcement
ρp = prestressed reinforcement ratio
𝛽 = 0.85 − 0.05(𝑓 − 4000) ≥ 0.65, 𝑓 𝑖𝑛 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑠𝑖
γp = factor used for type of prestressing reinforcement
fpy/fpu γp
≥ 0.80 0.55
≥ 0.85 0.40
≥ 0.90 0.28
This equation was applied for a range of ρp of 0.0005 to 0.004, and f’c of 4000 psi to
12000 psi. The results are summarized in Table 6-13 and Table 6-14.
142
Table 6-13: Allowable stress in prestressed reinforcement for f'c = 4000 psi
fpu f'c ρp γp β1 fps fps/fpu

0.0005 0.55 0.85 264.1 0.98
0.001 0.55 0.85 258.2 0.96
0.002 0.55 0.85 246.4 0.91
0.003 0.55 0.85 234.6 0.87
0.004 0.55 0.85 222.8 0.83
0.0005 0.4 0.85 265.7 0.98
0.001 0.4 0.85 261.4 0.97
270 4000 0.002 0.4 0.85 252.8 0.95
0.003 0.4 0.85 244.3 0.91
0.004 0.4 0.85 235.7 0.87
0.0005 0.28 0.85 267.0 0.99
0.001 0.28 0.85 264.0 0.98
0.002 0.28 0.85 258.0 0.96
0.003 0.28 0.85 252.0 0.93
0.004 0.28 0.85 246.0 0.91
average 0.93
Table 6-14: Allowable stress in prestressed reinforcement for f'c = 12000 psi
fpu f'c ρp γp β1 fps fps/fpu
0.0005 0.55 0.65 267.4 0.990
0.001 0.55 0.65 264.9 0.981
0.002 0.55 0.65 259.7 0.962
0.003 0.55 0.65 254.6 0.943
0.004 0.55 0.65 249.4 0.924
0.0005 0.4 0.65 268.1 0.993
0.001 0.4 0.65 266.3 0.986
270 12000 0.002 0.4 0.65 262.5 0.972
0.003 0.4 0.65 258.8 0.958
0.004 0.4 0.65 255.0 0.945
0.0005 0.28 0.65 268.7 0.995
0.001 0.28 0.65 267.4 0.990
0.002 0.28 0.65 264.8 0.981
0.003 0.28 0.65 262.1 0.971
0.004 0.28 0.65 259.5 0.961
average 0.97
143
The average values of fps/fpu ratio are 0.93 and 0.97 for f’c of 4000 psi to 12000 psi
respectively.
Using the results of this study as a guide, for design purposes, it seems reasonable to limit
the LRFD level design stress for HSR type A1035 to 0.90f u.
6.6 Design Flexural Strength vs. Reinforcement Ratio Charts for HSR
To facilitate the design with high-strength reinforcement, nominal flexural strengths are
determined for variable reinforcement ratios and variable concrete strengths, then the
resistance factors (Figure 6-8) are applied to the nominal strength of sections reinforced
with HSR to develop the design charts, as shown in Figure 6-14 through Figure 6-15. The
minimum reinforcement ratios based on 𝜀 = 0.05 as proposed in the previous section
are presented in the charts for information purposes. The actual behavior of the materials
is used for developing the design charts. The charts can be used to determine the
reinforcement ratio for a given moment, Mu, and a selected section dimensions, b x d, or
they can be used to account for the design strength for a given reinforced section. A set of
design charts for beams with HSR and f’c range of 4000 psi to 12000 psi are shown in
Appendix B.
144
Figure 6-14: Flexural design chart for beams with f'c =8000 psi & reinforced with
A615 grade 100 rebar
145
6.7 Short-Term Deflection at Service Load Level
Deflection is an important performance criterion that needs to be checked to insure the
structure remains serviceable under specified loading conditions. In load and resistance
factor design (LRFD) approach, a deflection check follows the strength design. In this
section, an analytical study is conducted to predict the deflections at service load level for
flexural beams made with variable concrete strengths (4, 8, and 12 ksi) and that are
reinforced with high-strength reinforcement of two different types (A615-100, A1035-
100 & 120) to investigate the appropriateness of the current method used to predict
deflection at service level for the use of HSR. Deflections are calculated using a moment-
curvature analysis that considers the actual stress-strain relationships of the concrete and
146
the reinforcement, and then are compared with the current approach to predict a
deflection that utilizes the elastic beam deflection equations and the effective moment of
inertia of the section. The effective moment of inertia is calculated using two formulas:
Branson equation and Bischoff equation discussed in section 2.7.1. The beams are
assumed simply supported and subjected to uniformly distributed load. Service load to
LRFD level load is expressed as the following equation:
𝑤 𝐷+𝐿
=
𝑤 (1.2𝐷 + 1.6𝐿)
∅
A parametric study of this ratio is shown in Appendix C. The study indicates that for
reinforced concrete beams, ws/ wn is generally about 60% to 63% for common range of
loads. For simplicity, the magnitude of service load used in this study was taken as 60%
of the nominal LRFD level capacity. The deflection of simply supported reinforced
concrete beams subjected to uniformly distributed load using the elastic method can be
expressed as the following equation:
5𝑤𝐿
∆=
384𝐸 𝐼
Where,
w = The applied service load
L = Clear span length
Ec = Concrete elastic modulus (𝐸 = 57000 𝑓 , where 𝑓 is in psi unites)
Ie = Effective moment of inertia of the section
𝑀
𝐼 =𝐼 + 𝐼 −𝐼 ≤𝐼 … … … 𝐴𝐶𝐼 318 − 14 𝐸𝑞. (24.2.3.5𝑎)
𝑀
147
𝐼
𝐼 = ≤𝐼 … … … 𝐵𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑓𝑓 (2007)𝐸𝑞𝑎𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝐼 𝑀
1− 1−
𝐼 𝑀
.
Mcr = cracking moment 𝑀 =
ℎ
𝑦 =
2
𝑓 = 7.5 𝑓
𝑏. ℎ
𝐼 =
12
𝑏. 𝑐
𝐼 = + 𝑛. 𝐴 (𝑑 − 𝑐)
3
. ( . ) . . . .
c = depth of the neutral axis of the cracked section 𝑐 =
𝑛=
From the moment-curvature analysis, the immediate deflection at service load is
extracted from the load-deflection relationship when the load is equal to 60% of the
maximum load. The cross section of the beams is assumed 6 in. x10 in. with a simple
span of 8 ft., and the reinforcement ratio is varied from 𝜌 to 𝜌 . Figure 6-16 shows
the relationship between ρ and Mcr/Ma ratio for the example beam.
148
Figure 6-17: Relationship between ρ and Mcr/Ma ratio for an example beam
The results of comparing the immediate service load deflection using the moment-
curvature analysis that represents the most accurate behavior with the elastic method
using effective moment inertia for beams of different concrete capacities and reinforced
with HSR are summarized in Table 6-15 through Table 6-17, and shown graphically in
Figure 6-18 through Figure 6-20.
149
beams reinforced with A615 grade 100
f'c εs (at wservice fs Δi (M-ϕ Δi Δi Δi Branson/Δi Δi Bischoff/Δi

ρ
(ksi) failure) (k/ft) service/fy analysis) Branson Bischoff (M-ϕ analysis) (M-ϕ analysis)
0.0012 0.05 0.520 0.89 0.294 0.031 0.061 0.10 0.21

0.0015 0.0418 0.616 0.85 0.286 0.057 0.151 0.20 0.53
0.0017 0.0378 0.674 0.82 0.281 0.076 0.184 0.27 0.66
0.002 0.0333 0.755 0.79 0.273 0.107 0.215 0.39 0.79
0.0025 0.0280 0.879 0.74 0.262 0.156 0.241 0.59 0.92
4 0.003 0.0243 0.993 0.70 0.253 0.194 0.254 0.76 1.00
0.004 0.0194 1.199 0.64 0.241 0.237 0.262 0.99 1.09
0.005 0.0157 1.417 0.61 0.237 0.263 0.270 1.11 1.14
0.006 0.0126 1.676 0.61 0.243 0.285 0.285 1.17 1.17
0.008 0.0087 2.169 0.60 0.253 0.306 0.302 1.21 1.19
0.01 0.0064 2.630 0.59 0.261 0.317 0.313 1.21 1.20
0.0022 0.05 0.953 0.90 0.308 0.077 0.198 0.25 0.64
0.003 0.0388 1.203 0.84 0.292 0.150 0.261 0.51 0.89
0.004 0.0310 1.470 0.77 0.279 0.220 0.285 0.79 1.02
0.005 0.0260 1.709 0.73 0.268 0.259 0.293 0.97 1.09
0.006 0.0226 1.929 0.69 0.260 0.279 0.294 1.07 1.13
8 0.008 0.0180 2.329 0.63 0.248 0.291 0.292 1.18 1.18
0.01 0.0140 2.826 0.62 0.252 0.308 0.304 1.22 1.21
0.012 0.0112 3.341 0.61 0.259 0.320 0.317 1.24 1.22
0.014 0.0092 3.839 0.61 0.264 0.330 0.326 1.25 1.23
0.016 0.0076 4.320 0.60 0.270 0.337 0.334 1.25 1.24
0.0181 0.0064 4.806 0.60 0.275 0.343 0.341 1.25 1.24
0.003 0.05 1.308 0.91 0.310 0.110 0.242 0.36 0.78
0.004 0.0404 1.629 0.85 0.301 0.190 0.289 0.63 0.96
0.005 0.0339 1.908 0.80 0.291 0.245 0.305 0.84 1.05
0.006 0.0294 2.162 0.76 0.282 0.277 0.310 0.98 1.10
0.007 0.0261 2.398 0.73 0.275 0.295 0.312 1.07 1.13
12 0.008 0.0235 2.621 0.70 0.269 0.304 0.311 1.13 1.16
0.009 0.0214 2.833 0.68 0.264 0.308 0.310 1.17 1.18
0.01 0.0197 3.037 0.66 0.259 0.309 0.309 1.19 1.19
0.019 0.0096 5.253 0.62 0.273 0.342 0.339 1.25 1.24
0.021 0.0084 5.746 0.61 0.277 0.348 0.345 1.26 1.25
0.0255 0.0064 6.813 0.60 0.286 0.360 0.358 1.26 1.25
150
ρ
0.00103 0.05 0.526 1.04 0.480 0.032 0.075 0.07 0.16

0.00125 0.0409 0.628 1.03 0.478 0.061 0.188 0.13 0.39
0.0015 0.0340 0.741 1.02 0.473 0.106 0.261 0.22 0.55
0.002 0.0255 0.952 0.99 0.463 0.207 0.333 0.45 0.72
4 0.0025 0.0204 1.147 0.96 0.451 0.287 0.364 0.64 0.81

0.003 0.0171 1.325 0.93 0.437 0.335 0.377 0.77 0.86
0.004 0.0130 1.638 0.87 0.413 0.374 0.384 0.90 0.93
0.005 0.0105 1.905 0.82 0.390 0.379 0.380 0.97 0.97
0.006 0.0089 2.133 0.77 0.370 0.374 0.371 1.01 1.00
0.0067 0.008 2.274 0.74 0.357 0.368 0.365 1.03 1.02
0.00187 0.05 0.956 1.05 0.490 0.079 0.228 0.16 0.47
0.0025 0.0372 1.248 1.03 0.486 0.175 0.325 0.36 0.67
0.003 0.0310 1.469 1.01 0.481 0.250 0.363 0.52 0.75
0.004 0.0233 1.882 0.98 0.469 0.351 0.399 0.75 0.85
0.005 0.0187 2.259 0.95 0.455 0.395 0.413 0.87 0.91
8
0.006 0.0156 2.602 0.92 0.441 0.413 0.418 0.94 0.95
0.007 0.0135 2.915 0.89 0.428 0.418 0.417 0.98 0.98
0.008 0.0119 3.200 0.86 0.415 0.418 0.415 1.01 1.00
0.009 0.0106 3.463 0.83 0.403 0.415 0.411 1.03 1.02
0.0123 0.008 4.190 0.74 0.368 0.397 0.394 1.08 1.07
0.00262 0.05 1.342 1.05 0.498 0.122 0.287 0.25 0.58
0.003 0.0435 1.521 1.04 0.496 0.174 0.328 0.35 0.66
0.004 0.0326 1.973 1.02 0.490 0.295 0.386 0.60 0.79
0.005 0.0261 2.399 1.00 0.483 0.369 0.412 0.76 0.85
0.006 0.0217 2.798 0.98 0.474 0.408 0.426 0.86 0.90
0.007 0.0187 3.172 0.96 0.465 0.426 0.432 0.92 0.93
12 0.008 0.0164 3.522 0.93 0.455 0.435 0.435 0.95 0.96
0.009 0.0146 3.849 0.91 0.446 0.438 0.436 0.98 0.98
0.01 0.0132 4.157 0.89 0.436 0.438 0.434 1.00 1.00
0.012 0.0112 4.716 0.85 0.419 0.434 0.430 1.04 1.03
0.014 0.00968 5.212 0.81 0.402 0.427 0.423 1.06 1.05
0.016 0.00858 5.655 0.77 0.388 0.419 0.416 1.08 1.07
0.01728 0.0080 5.914 0.75 0.379 0.414 0.411 1.09 1.08
151
ρ
0.00102 0.05 0.526 0.88 0.431 0.032 0.075 0.07 0.17

0.00125 0.0403 0.637 0.87 0.433 0.065 0.198 0.15 0.46
0.0015 0.0333 0.755 0.87 0.435 0.113 0.273 0.26 0.63
0.002 0.0247 0.980 0.85 0.434 0.222 0.349 0.51 0.80
4
0.0025 0.0196 1.188 0.83 0.429 0.307 0.382 0.72 0.89
0.003 0.01625 1.380 0.81 0.421 0.358 0.397 0.85 0.94
0.004 0.0122 1.716 0.76 0.404 0.396 0.405 0.98 1.00
0.0049 0.01 1.972 0.72 0.387 0.401 0.401 1.04 1.04
0.00188 0.05 0.970 0.88 0.442 0.083 0.237 0.19 0.54
0.002 0.0461 1.029 0.88 0.443 0.101 0.263 0.23 0.59
0.0025 0.0365 1.270 0.88 0.445 0.184 0.335 0.41 0.75
0.003 0.0302 1.503 0.87 0.445 0.264 0.375 0.59 0.84
0.004 0.0224 1.943 0.85 0.442 0.369 0.415 0.84 0.94
8
0.005 0.0178 2.347 0.82 0.436 0.416 0.432 0.96 0.99
0.006 0.0148 2.716 0.80 0.428 0.435 0.438 1.02 1.02
0.007 0.01268 3.051 0.78 0.418 0.440 0.439 1.05 1.05
0.008 0.0111 3.356 0.75 0.408 0.440 0.436 1.08 1.07
0.009 0.01 3.633 0.73 0.398 0.436 0.432 1.10 1.09
0.0026 0.05 1.343 0.9 0.447 0.123 0.290 0.27 0.65
0.003 0.0430 1.540 0.9 0.451 0.180 0.335 0.40 0.74
0.0035 0.0366 1.780 0.9 0.452 0.249 0.372 0.55 0.82
0.004 0.0318 2.015 0.9 0.454 0.308 0.397 0.68 0.88
0.005 0.0252 2.467 0.9 0.453 0.386 0.427 0.85 0.94
0.006 0.0209 2.894 0.8 0.450 0.426 0.443 0.95 0.98
12
0.007 0.0178 3.296 0.8 0.446 0.446 0.451 1.00 1.01
0.008 0.0155 3.672 0.8 0.440 0.456 0.455 1.04 1.03
0.009 0.0138 4.025 0.8 0.434 0.460 0.457 1.06 1.05
0.01 0.0124 4.354 0.8 0.427 0.460 0.456 1.08 1.07
0.011 0.0113 4.661 0.8 0.420 0.459 0.455 1.09 1.08
0.012 0.01 4.949 0.7 0.413 0.456 0.452 1.11 1.09
152
Figure 6-18: Immediate deflection prediction using M-ϕ analysis and Ie
method for beams reinforced with A615 grade 100 rebar
153
154
155
It is clear that from comparing the results of deflections from the moment-curvature
analysis with the use of elastic method and effective moment of inertia that the elastic
method resulted in either an underestimation for the deflection for very low
reinforcement ratios or an overestimation for reinforcement ratios close to 𝜌 of each
HSR examined here. However, the use of Bischoff’s equation to calculate Ie gives better
results than Branson’s equation.
The elastic method is giving very low amount of deflections with very low reinforcement
ratios because the Mcr/Ma ratio is increasing when the reinforcement ratio is decreasing
that leads to a high Ie and as a result to a low deflection. The relationship between ρ and
Mcr/Ma ratio is shown in Figure 6-17.
In this investigation, a modification factor, K, based on a regression analysis for
deflections using Bischoff’s equation is suggested to be applied to Bischoff’s effective
moment of inertia to improve the prediction of deflections for beams reinforced with
HSR.
The relationships between the immediate deflection calculated using M-ϕ analysis and Ie
of Bischoff method for different reinforcement ratios for beams with HSR and concrete
strengths from 4000 psi to 12000 psi are shown in Figure 6-22 along with the best fit
curves for each HSR type. However, the modification factor resulting from the
Polynomial regression analysis using the least squares method led to a cumbersome
equation, shown on the graphs. Therefore, it seemed reasonable to use a simpler
Ramberg–Osgood equation to determine the modification factor (K) to adjust the
effective moment of inertia as following:

156
∆
𝐼 =𝐾×𝐼 (i.e. ∆ = )
Where,
𝐾 = 𝐴+ 𝐷 × 𝜌, 𝜌 = reinforcement ratio
( × )
Where the value of the coefficients A, B, C, and D for each reinforcement type were
determined as follows:
A615-100 A1035-100 A1035-120
A 0.009 0.03 0.035

B 300 320 330
C 3 3 4
D 360 310 330
Figure 6-21 shows that the Polynomial regression analysis and K-factor modification
equation give virtually the same results.
The comparison of the modified immediate deflections calculated using the modified
Bischoff effective moment of inertia are given in Table 6-18 through Table 6-20. The
results of modified deflections showed a very good agreement with the deflections
resulted from the moment-curvature analysis with the average of ( Δi Bischoff modified/Δi M-ϕ analysis)
equal to 0.99. Thus, the use of the modification factor with Bischoff’s expression of the
effective moment of inertia will give a better prediction for the immediate deflections of
the beams reinforced with HSR.
157
Figure 6-22: Relationship between immediate deflection calculated using M-ϕ
analysis and Ie of Bischoff method for beams reinforced with HSR
158
Bischoff effective moment of inertia for beams reinforced with A615 grade 100
Δi
f'c (ksi) ρ Δi M-ϕ analysis K Δi Bischoff modified Δi Bischoff modified/Δi M-ϕ analysis
Bischoff
0.0012 0.294 0.061 0.43 0.142 0.48

0.0015 0.286 0.151 0.52 0.288 1.01
0.0017 0.281 0.184 0.59 0.314 1.12
0.002 0.273 0.215 0.67 0.319 1.17
0.0025 0.262 0.241 0.80 0.301 1.15
4 0.003 0.253 0.254 0.90 0.281 1.11
0.004 0.241 0.262 1.03 0.253 1.05
0.005 0.237 0.270 1.11 0.244 1.03
0.006 0.243 0.285 1.15 0.248 1.02
0.008 0.253 0.302 1.19 0.255 1.01
0.01 0.261 0.313 1.21 0.259 0.99
0.0022 0.308 0.198 0.73 0.272 0.88
0.003 0.292 0.261 0.90 0.289 0.99
0.004 0.279 0.285 1.03 0.276 0.99
0.005 0.268 0.293 1.11 0.264 0.99
0.006 0.260 0.294 1.15 0.256 0.99
8 0.008 0.248 0.292 1.19 0.246 0.99
0.01 0.252 0.304 1.21 0.252 1.00
0.012 0.259 0.317 1.22 0.259 1.00
0.014 0.264 0.326 1.23 0.265 1.00
0.016 0.270 0.334 1.24 0.270 1.00
0.0181 0.275 0.341 1.25 0.273 1.00
0.003 0.310 0.242 0.90 0.269 0.87
0.004 0.301 0.289 1.03 0.279 0.93
0.005 0.291 0.305 1.11 0.275 0.95
0.006 0.282 0.310 1.15 0.271 0.96
0.007 0.275 0.312 1.17 0.266 0.97
12 0.008 0.269 0.311 1.19 0.262 0.98
0.009 0.264 0.310 1.20 0.259 0.98
0.01 0.259 0.309 1.21 0.256 0.99
0.019 0.273 0.339 1.25 0.271 1.00
0.021 0.277 0.345 1.26 0.275 0.99
0.0255 0.286 0.358 1.27 0.281 0.99
159
Δi M-ϕ
f'c (ksi) ρ Δi Bischoff K Δi Bischoff modified Δi Bischoff modified/Δi M-ϕ analysis
analysis
0.00103 0.480 0.075 0.32 0.239 0.50
0.00125 0.478 0.188 0.38 0.495 1.04
0.0015 0.473 0.261 0.45 0.581 1.23
0.002 0.463 0.333 0.58 0.579 1.25
0.0025 0.451 0.364 0.68 0.536 1.19
4
0.003 0.437 0.377 0.76 0.498 1.14
0.004 0.413 0.384 0.86 0.445 1.08
0.005 0.390 0.380 0.92 0.413 1.06
0.006 0.370 0.371 0.95 0.389 1.05
0.0067 0.357 0.365 0.97 0.375 1.05
0.00187 0.490 0.228 0.54 0.419 0.86
0.0025 0.486 0.325 0.68 0.479 0.99
0.003 0.481 0.363 0.76 0.478 1.00
0.004 0.469 0.399 0.86 0.463 0.99
0.005 0.455 0.413 0.92 0.449 0.99
8
0.006 0.441 0.418 0.95 0.437 0.99
0.007 0.428 0.417 0.98 0.427 1.00
0.008 0.415 0.415 1.00 0.416 1.00
0.009 0.403 0.411 1.01 0.406 1.01
0.0123 0.368 0.394 1.05 0.375 1.02
0.00262 0.498 0.287 0.70 0.410 0.82
0.003 0.496 0.328 0.76 0.432 0.87
0.004 0.490 0.386 0.86 0.447 0.91
0.005 0.483 0.412 0.92 0.448 0.93
0.006 0.474 0.426 0.95 0.446 0.94
0.007 0.465 0.432 0.98 0.442 0.95
12 0.008 0.455 0.435 1.00 0.437 0.96
0.009 0.446 0.436 1.01 0.431 0.97
0.01 0.436 0.434 1.02 0.425 0.97
0.012 0.419 0.430 1.05 0.411 0.98
0.014 0.402 0.423 1.07 0.397 0.99
0.016 0.388 0.416 1.09 0.383 0.99
0.01728 0.379 0.411 1.10 0.374 0.99
160
Δi M-ϕ Δi
f'c (ksi) Ρ K Δi Bischoff modified Δi Bischoff modified/Δi M-ϕ analysis
analysis Bischoff
0.00102 0.431 0.075 0.34 0.225 0.52

0.00125 0.433 0.198 0.41 0.483 1.12
0.0015 0.435 0.273 0.49 0.560 1.29
0.002 0.434 0.349 0.63 0.551 1.27
4
0.0025 0.429 0.382 0.75 0.507 1.18
0.003 0.421 0.397 0.84 0.472 1.12
0.004 0.404 0.405 0.94 0.429 1.06
0.0049 0.387 0.401 0.99 0.405 1.05
0.00188 0.442 0.237 0.60 0.394 0.89
0.002 0.443 0.263 0.63 0.415 0.94
0.0025 0.445 0.335 0.75 0.445 1.00
0.003 0.445 0.375 0.84 0.446 1.00
0.004 0.442 0.415 0.94 0.439 0.99
8
0.005 0.436 0.432 0.99 0.435 1.00
0.006 0.428 0.438 1.02 0.430 1.00
0.007 0.418 0.439 1.04 0.423 1.01
0.008 0.408 0.436 1.05 0.415 1.02
0.009 0.398 0.432 1.07 0.405 1.02
0.0026 0.447 0.290 0.77 0.375 0.84
0.003 0.451 0.335 0.84 0.398 0.88
0.0035 0.452 0.372 0.90 0.412 0.91
0.004 0.454 0.397 0.94 0.420 0.93
0.005 0.453 0.427 0.99 0.430 0.95
0.006 0.450 0.443 1.02 0.434 0.97
12
0.007 0.446 0.451 1.04 0.435 0.98
0.008 0.440 0.455 1.05 0.433 0.98
0.009 0.434 0.457 1.07 0.429 0.99
0.01 0.427 0.456 1.08 0.423 0.99
0.011 0.420 0.455 1.09 0.417 0.99
0.012 0.413 0.452 1.10 0.410 0.99
161
7. Chapter Seven: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Future
Research
7.1 Summary and Conclusions
Based on the results of the analytical and experimental studies of this research, the
following observations and conclusions are made:
7.1.1 Strength and Ductility
1. For beams designed with HSR tension-controlled, minimum strain, and
compression-controlled strain limits of the current ACI 318 code need to be
modified so that these limits would provide ductility comparable to the members
reinforced with Grade 60 steel. Curvature ductility and energy absorption,
represented by the area under the load-deflection, were considered for
comparisons of ductility. Curvature ductility index resulted in higher strain limits,
which should lead to a higher ductility in the members. Therefore, the obtained
strain limits based on curvature ductility (summarized in Table 6-2) are
recommended for design with HSR.
2. Following the current approach of ACI 318 code for determining the strength
reduction factor ϕ, strength reduction factors for the investigated HSR are created
based on comparable strain limits, as shown in Figure 6-8.
3. Different stress-strain shapes of the reinforced steels can lead to a different
calibration for the strain limits needed for the design of flexural members.
Therefore, a typical representative stress-strain relationship should be specified
for each HSR for design purposes.
162
4. Because HSR type A615 Grade 100 has a distinct yield point and yield plateau, a
simplified elastic-plastic stress-strain comparable to Grade 60 steel is
recommended for design with fy = 100 ksi.
5. For HSR type A1035 Grades 100 & 120 that have a roundhouse stress-strain
relationship, the use of elastic-plastic stress-strain underestimates the moment
capacity and inaccurately predicts the ductility. For design purposes, using the
representative stress-strain relationships are recommended, in conjunction with
limiting the stress to about 0.90 of the ultimate stress.
6. For all the tested beams made with HSC and HSR, the maximum recorded strain
in the tension reinforcement (εs) satisfied and exceeded the target minimum strain
(εs min) for flexural members with HSR determined from the parametric study,
which attests to ductile behavior. Moreover, near ultimate loads, all beams
showed good crack distribution, visible crack openings and curvature. These are
considered visual signs that attest to ductile behavior.
7. The analytical study and the experimental verification showed that HSRs studied
in this investigation (A615-100, A1035-100, and A1035-120) are more efficient
when coupled with the use of HSC. For each reinforcement type, for the same
beam section and design moment capacity, the ductility of beams increased as the
concrete strength increased up to the studied strength of 12000 psi (as shown in
Table 4-3 and Table 5-5).
8. Beams reinforced with HSR A615 Grade 100 were more comparable in ductility
and serviceability to beams made with Grade 60 steel, than beams reinforced with
163
HSR A1035. However, in terms of cost saving, beams reinforced with HSR type
A1035 required less steel to achieve the same design strength.
7.1.2 Minimum Reinforcement Ratio
The minimum reinforcement ratio (ρmin) for the use of HSR was studied in this
research for the goal of providing a minimum amount of steel with a reasonable
margin of safety between first cracking and flexural failure (∅𝑀 /𝑀 ). The
current ACI 318 equation was compared with the results of the approach
suggested by the ATC-115, 2014 report (∅𝑀 = 1.2𝑀 ). ACI 318 equation for
ρmin resulted in higher amount of steel. However, ∅𝑀 = 1.2𝑀 approach
resulted in higher strains in the reinforcement that may not be achievable by the
properties of HSR. It is recommended to extend the use of ACI 318 equation to
beams with HSR.
7.1.3 Cracking Behavior
1. Based on the results of flexural tests (Table 5-6), crack widths at service load
levels were predictable using the current ACI 318 provisions and were found to
be within presently acceptable limits.
2. Crack widths could be estimated accurately using Frosch’s equation. This
suggests that the current ACI 318 code approach for controlling crack width can
be extended to beams with HSR.
164
7.1.4 Deflection Under Service Load
1. A fundamental advantage in using HSR is that the amount of steel required for
design is reduced considerably. However, this reduction results in higher stresses,
and consequently higher strains in tension reinforcement at the service load level,
as compared to conventional steel. Larger strains adversely affect deflection and
crack width. Therefore, serviceability requirements are more likely to be the
controlling limit states for design with HSR.
2. Moreover, a significant discrepancy between the actual deflection and the
deflection predicted using the elastic method was observed when the stress in
HSR exceeds the proportional limit, as shown in Table 5-7 for beams reinforced
with HSR type A1035. Therefore, it is recommended to limit the stress for HSR in
design to about 0.90 of the ultimate stress so that the service-level stresses will be
within the elastic part.
3. Based on the analytical results for the prediction of the immediate deflection at
service load level, use of Bischoff’s equation to calculate Ie showed better
predictions with very low reinforcement ratios than Branson’s equation.
Bischoff’s equation is recommended for deflection calculations with use of HSR.
Additionally, the proposed modification factor K discussed in section 6.7 can be
applied to Bischoff’s Ie for better results.
4. From the long-term deflection test results, it was observed that the current ACI
318 multiplier, λ, over predicted the long-term deflection for the tested beam
made with HSC and HSR, as high-strength concrete has a lower creep factor. The
165
modified multiplier proposed by Muhaisin (2012), which takes into account the
concrete strength showed the closest prediction, hence is a likely potential for use
with beams made with HSC and HSR.
7.2 Recommendations for Future Research (Keep the sentence structure parallel)
1. Test more beams made with HSC and HSR to provide additional data to fully
validate and expand the findings of the current study.
2. Expand the current study to include beams made with concrete strength beyond
14000 psi to investigate ductility and serviceability of the beams with HSR.
3. Examine experimentally and theoretically the flexural behavior of beams made
with HSC and HSR under cyclic loading.
4. Expand the experimental long-term deflection study for beams made with HSR
(A615 Grade 100 and A1035 Grades 100 & 120) with different concrete strengths
and reinforcement ratios.
5. Explore the application of coupling HSC and HSR to other related topics, e.g.
shear strength of beams and axial capacity of columns.
166
References
ACI 211.1-91. (1991). Standard practice for selecting proportions for normal,
heavyweight, and mass concrete. ACI Committee 211, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI 211.4R-08. (2008). Guide for selecting proportions for High-Strength Concrete
using Portland cement and other cementitious materials. ACI Committee 211,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI 318-14. (2014). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary. ACI Committee 318, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI .
ACI 435R-95. (1995). Control of deflection in concrete structures. ACI Committee 435,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI ITG-6R-10. (2010). Design guide for the use of ASTM A1035/A1035M Grade 100
(690) steel bars for structural concrete. ACI Innovation Task Group 6, ACI
Committee 93, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Ansley, M. H. (2002). Structures Design. Retrieved from Florida Department of
Transportation:
http://www.fdot.gov/structures/structuresresearchcenter/Final%20Reports/2002-
01%20Investigation%20Into%20the%20Structural%20Performance%20of%20M
MFX%20Reinforcing.pdf
Ashour, S. A. (2000, May). Effect of compressive strength and tensile reinforcement ratio
on flexural behavior of high-strength concrete beams. Engineering Structures,
22(5), 413-423. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(98)00135-7
ASTM A1035/A1035M - 15. (2015). Standard specification for deformed and plain,
Low-Carbon, Chromium, steel bars for concrete reinforcement. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. Retrieved from www.astm.org
ASTM A370 - 15. (2015). Standard test methods and definitions for mechanical testing
of steel products. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. Retrieved from
www.astm.org
ASTM A615 / A615M - 15. (2015). Standard specification for deformed and plain
Carbon-Steel bars for concrete reinforcement. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International. Retrieved from www.astm.org
ASTM C39 / C39M - 15. (2015). Standard test method for compressive strength of
cylindrical concrete specimens. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Retrieved from www.astm.org
167
ASTM C469 / C469M - 14. (2014). Standard test method for Static Modulus of Elasticity
and Poisson’s Ratio of concrete in compression. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
ASTM C78 / C78M - 15. (2015). Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete
(using simple beam with third-point loading). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
ATC-115. (2014). Roadmap for the use of high-strength reinforcement in reinforced
concrete design. Applied Technology Council. Redwood City, California: Charles
Pankow Foundation.
Ayub, T., Shafiq, N., & Nuruddin, M. (2014). Stress-strain response of high strength
concrete and application of the existing models. Journal of Applied Sciences,
Engineering and Technology, 8(10), 1174-1190.
Bischoff, P. H. (2005, May). Reevaluation of deflection prediction for concrete beams
reinforced with steel and fiber reinforced polymer bars. Journal of structural
engineering, 131(5), 752-767. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:5(752)
Bischoff, P. H. (2007, January-Februay). Deflection calculation of FRP reinforced
concrete beams based on modifications to the existing Branson equation. Journal
of composites for construction, 11(1), 4-14. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0268(2007)11:1(4)
Branson, D. E. (1965). Instantaneous and time-dependent deflections of simple and
continuous reinforced concrete beams. HPR Report No. 7, Part 1, Alabama
Highway Department, Bureau of Public Roads (Dept. of Civil Engineering and
Auburn Research Foundation, Auburn Univ., Aug. 1963), Alabama.
Brenkus, N. R., & Hamilton, H. R. (2014, March-April). Proposed minimum steel
provisions for prestressed and nonprestressed reinforced sections. ACI Structural
Journal, 111(2), 431-440.
Carreira, D. J., & Chu, K.-H. (1985). Stress-strain relationship for plain concrete in
compression. ACI Journal, 82(6), 797-804.
Dawood, M., Seliem, H., Hassan, T., & Rizkalla, S. (2004). Design guidelines for
concrete beams reinforced with MMFX microcomposite reinforcing bars.
International Conference on Future Vision and Challenges for Urban
Development. Cairo.
Eltahawy, R., Hassan, T., Abd El-Wahed, O. H., & Rizkalla, S. H. (2009). Flexural
behavior of concrete beams reinforced with high strength steel reinforcing bars.
Thirteen International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering.
Cairo - Egypt.
168
Frosch, R. J. (1999, May-June). Another look at cracking and crack control in reinforced
concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 96(3), 437-442.
Frosch, R. J. (2001). Flexural crack control in reinforced concrete. Special Publication,
204, 135-153.
Gross, S. P., Yost, J. R., & Kevgas, G. J. (2001). Time-Dependent Behavior of Normal
and High Strength Concrete Beams Reinforced with GFRP Bars under Sustained
Loads. International Conference on High Performance Materials in Bridges and
Buildings, (pp. 451-462). Hawaii.
Harries, K. A., Shahrooz, B. M., & Soltani, A. (2012, September-October). Flexural
crack widths in concrete girders with high-strength reinforcement. Journal of
bridge engineering, 17(5), 804-812.
Kalkan, I. (2013, January). Deflection prediction for reinforced concrete beams through
different effective moment of inertia expressions. International Journal of
Engineering Research and Development, 5(1).
Lu, Z.-H., & Zhao, Y.-G. (2010, Nov.). Empirical stress-strain model for unconfined
high-strength concrete under uniaxial compression. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, ASCE, 1181-1186.
Luebkaman, C. H., Nilson, A. H., & Slate, F. O. (1985). Sustained load deflection of high
strength concrete beams. Dept. of Structural Engineering, Cornell University.
Mast, R. F., Dawood, M., Rizkalla, S. H., & Zia, P. (2008, September-October). Flexural
strength design of concrete beams reinforced with high-strength steel bars. ACI
Structural Journal, 570-577.
Muhaisin, M. H. (2012). Long-term deflections for normal and high-strength reinforced
concrete beams. Journal of Babylon University, Engineering Sciences, 20(1), 46-
62.
Nawy, E. G. (2010). Reinforced Concrete: A Fundamental Approach (6th ed.). New
Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
NCHRP Report 679. (2011). Design of concrete structures using high-strength steel
reinforcement. Washington, D.C.: National Cooperative Highway Research
Program.
Nilson, A. (1985). Design implications of current research on high strength concrete.
American Concrete Institute, Special Publication, 87, 85-117.
Nilson, A. H., Darwin, D., & Dolan, C. W. (2010). Design of concrete structures (14th
ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
169
NIST. (2014). Use of high-strength reinforcement in earthquake-resistant concrete
structures. Prepared by NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the
Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in
Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Orozco, C. E. (2015). Strain limits vs. reinforcement ratio limits - A collection of new
and old formulas for the design of reinforced concrete sections. Case Studies in
Structural Engineering, 4, 1-13.
Paulson, C., Rautenberg, J. M., Graham, S. K., & Darwin, D. (2016, January-February).
Defining yield strength for nonprestressed reinforcing steel. ACI Structural
Journal, 113(1), 169-178.
Paulson, K. A., Nilson, A. H., & Hover, K. C. (1991, March-April). Long-term deflection
of high-strength concrete beams. ACI Materials Journal, 88(2), 197-206.
Rashid, M. A., & Mansur, M. A. (2005, May-June). Reinforced high-strength concrete
beams in flexure. ACI Structural Journal, 102(3), 462-471.
Seguirant, S. J., Brice, R., & Khaleghi, B. (2010). Making sense of minimum flexural
reinforcement requirements for reinforced concrete members. PCI Journal, 64-85.
Shafiq, N., Ayub, T., & Nuruddin, M. (2014). Predictive stress-strain models for high
strength concrete subjected to uniaxial compression. Applied Mechanics and
Materials, 567, 476-481.
Shahrooz, B. M., Reis, J. M., Wells, E. L., Miller, R., Harries, K. A., & Russell, H. G.
(2010). Flexural behavior and design with high-strength bars and bars without a
well-defined yield point. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board(2172), 103-111.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2172-12
Sharifi, Y., & Maghsoudi, A. A. (2014, March 1). An experimental study on the flexural
behavior of heavily steel reinforced beams with high-strength concrete. Frontiers
of Structural and Civil Engineering, 8(1), 46-56. doi:10.1007/s11709-014-0237-y
Soltani, A. (2010). Deflection control for serviceability of reinforced concrete. In Bond
and serviceability characterization of concrete reinforced with high strength steel
(pp. 69-83). Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Wee, T. H., Chin, M. S., & Mansur, M. A. (1996, May). Stress-strain relationship of
high-strength concrete in comression. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
70-76.
170
Whitney, C. S. (1937, March-April). Design of reinforced concrete members under
flexure and combined flexure and direct compression. ACI Journal, 33, 483-498.
Yutakhong, P. (2003). Flexural performance of MMFX reinforcing bars in concrete
structures. (Master’s Thesis, North Carolina State University, 2003).
171
Appendix A: MATLAB Coding to Predict Load-Deflection Behavior
% Moment-Curvature & Load-Deflection Analyses for Rectangular Concrete

Beam
% Reinforced with A1035 Grade 100 Steel and Loaded with * _uniformly
distributed Load_ *
clear all; clc;
%%
Input Data
%section input
h=10; % in
b=6; % in
d=0.9*h; % in
L=8; % ft
%a=1/3; % a*L is the distance of P/2 from support
% concrete input
fcc=12; % ksi
eo=(1680+7.1*fcc*1000/145.0377)*10^-6;
ecu=0.003;
fr=7.5*sqrt(fcc*1000); % psi
Ec=57000*sqrt(fcc*1000); % psi
Eit=((fcc*1000/145.0377)/eo)*((24.82/(fcc*1000/145.0377))+0.92)*145.037
7; % psi
beta=1/(1-(fcc*1000/(eo*Eit)));
% MMFX steel input

Rho = 0.01728;
As=Rho*(b*d); % sq inches
Es=29000; % ksi
fy=100; % ksi
ey=0.005;
esu=0.05;
AA=0.001; % Ramberg-Osgood Parameter A
BB=165; % Ramberg-Osgood Parameter B
CC=1.5; % Ramberg-Osgood Parameter C
%% Moment-Curvature Analysis
i=0;
for ec=0:0.0001:ecu
i=i+1;
%%
% Uncracked Section Analysis
nn = Es*1000/Ec;
ybar =((b*h^2/2)+(nn-1)*(As*d))/((b*h)+(nn-1)*(As));
I =(b*h^3/12)+(b*h*(ybar-h/2)^2)+((nn-1)*As*(d-ybar)^2);
et =(h-ybar)*ec/ybar;
es =(d-ybar)*ec/ybar;
fs = 29000*es*(AA+(1-AA)/(1+(BB*es)^CC)^(1/CC));
ft=Ec*et; % psi
if ft <= fr
M(i)=(ft*I/(h-ybar))/12000;
phi(i)= ec/ybar;
172
else
%%
% Cracked Section Analysis
syms x ecz; %define the compression depth as a variable
%concrete force
Cc=(fcc*b*x/ec)*int((beta*(ecz/eo)/(beta-
1+(ecz/eo)^(beta))),ecz,0,ec);
%Determine Compression Zone Depth (es1<=esu && es<=esu)

eqn=Cc-((29000*ec*((d/x)-1)*(AA+(1-AA)/(1+(BB*ec*((d/x)-
1))^CC)^(1/CC)))*As)==0; %(Compression - Tension = 0)
c = vpasolve(eqn,x,1);
Mconc=b*(c/ec)^2*int((fcc*(beta*(ecz/eo)/(beta-
1+(ecz/eo)^(beta)))*ecz),ecz,0,ec);
%check the strain in steel

es = ec*((d/c)-1);
if es<=esu
fs=29000*es*(AA+(1-AA)/(1+(BB*es)^CC)^(1/CC));
Ms=fs*As*(d-c);
M(i)=(Mconc+Ms)/12;
phi(i)=ec/c;
if es <= ey
phi_yield = phi(i);
M_yield = M(i);
end
end
end
ees(i) = es;
fss(i) = fs;
end
%%
% Moment VS Curvature
R= [phi',M'];
MM = R(end,2)*12000/(b*d^2); % psi
x= R(:,1);
y=R(:,2);
subplot (2,1,1)
plot (x,y);
xlabel ('Curvature, rad/in', 'fontsize', 15);
ylabel ('Moment, k.ft', 'fontsize', 15);
set (gca, 'fontsize', 15);
title ('Moment-Curvature', 'fontsize', 15);
%% Section Ductility
for i=2:length(x);
A_M_phi(i-1)=(x(i)-x(i-1))*(y(i)+y(i-1))/2;
end
Curvature_Ductility=sum(A_M_phi); % k.ft
Section_Ductility = phi(i)/phi_yield;
173
%%
Load-Deflection Analysis
%P_yield = 2*M_yield/(a*L);
w_yield = 8*M_yield/(L^2);
Curvature = R(:,1)';
%P=2*R(:,2)/(a*L);
w = 8*R(:,2)/(L^2);
for i=2:length(Curvature);
%Dx=a*L*12/(i-1);
Dx=0.5*L*12/(i-1);
for n=1:i;
x_dist(n)=(n-1)*Dx;
end
for j=2:i;
xx=[x_dist(j-1),x_dist(j)];
yy=[Curvature(j-1),Curvature(j)];
A(j-1)=trapz(xx,yy);
xbar(j-1)=(x_dist(j)-x_dist(j-1))/2+(((x_dist(j)-x_dist(j-
1))/6)*((Curvature(j)-Curvature(j-1))/(Curvature(j)+Curvature(j-1))));
MA(j-1)=A(j-1)*(xbar(j-1)+(j-2)*Dx);
end
%D(i)=sum(MA)+((0.5*L-a*L)*144*Curvature(i))*(0.5*L-(0.5*(0.5*L-
a*L)));
D(i)=sum(MA);
end
%R2=[D',P]; % Deflection VS Load
R2=[D',w]; % Deflection VS Load
DD = R2(end,1)/(L*12); % Defl/Span ratio
x1= R2(:,1);
y1= R2(:,2);
%index = find(y1==P_yield);
index = find(y1==w_yield);
D_yield = x1(index);
subplot(2,1,2)
plot (x1,y1);
xlabel ('Deflection, in', 'fontsize', 15);
ylabel ('Load, kip/ft', 'fontsize', 15);
set (gca, 'fontsize', 15);
title ('Load-Deflection', 'fontsize', 15);
%% Member Ductility
for i=2:length(x1);
A_P_D(i-1)=(x1(i)-x1(i-1))*(y1(i)+y1(i-1))/2;
end
Deflection_Ductility=sum(A_P_D)/12; % k.ft
Member_Ductility = D(i)/D_yield;
%%
Deflection at service load
x2 = R2(:,1); % Deflection vector
y2 = R2(:,2); % Load vector
x3 = fss; % stress in tension steel vector
w_s = 0.6*w(end); % total service load (assuming DL = LL/3)

174
wd_s = 0.25*w_s; % service dead load (assuming DL = LL/3)
wL_s = 0.75*w_s; % service live load (assuming DL = LL/3)
wL_sus = 0.3*wL_s; % sustained portion of LL (assuming LL sus = 30% of
LL)
wL_add = wL_s - wL_sus; % additional LL
fs_s = interp1(y2, x3, w_s); % strain in tension steel at service load
level
Def_w_s = interp1(y2, x2, w_s); % immediate deflection due to DL+LL

Def_wd_s = interp1 (y2, x2, wd_s); % immediate deflection due to DL
Def_wL_s = Def_w_s - Def_wd_s; % immediate deflection due to LL
Def_w_sus = interp1 (y2, x2, wd_s+wL_sus); % immediate deflection due
to sustained load
Def_wL_sus = Def_w_sus - Def_wd_s; % immediate deflection due to
sustained LL
Def_wL_add = Def_wL_s - Def_wL_sus; % immediate deflection due to
additional LL
Def_LT = Def_wL_add + 2*(Def_w_sus); % Long-term deflection (assuming
DL+ 30% LL is sustained)
%%
ACI Rho balance, Rho min, Rho max
if fcc <= 4;
Beta1 = 0.85;
else
Beta1 = max(0.85-0.05*(fcc-4),0.65);
end
Rho_min = max(3*(fcc*1000)^0.5/(fy*1000),200/(fy*1000));
Rho_balance = (0.85*Beta1*fcc/fy)*(87000/(87000+fy*1000));
Rho_max = 0.75*Rho_balance;
%%
% ACI-318 Immediate deflection
ycr = ((-nn*As)+ sqrt((nn*As)^2+2*nn*As*b*d))/b; % in

Icr = (b*ycr^3/3)+nn*As*(d-ycr)^2; % in^4 (cracked section)
Ig = b*h^3/12; % in^4
Mcr = (2*fr*Ig/h)/12000; % k.ft
Ma = 0.6*R(end,2); % k.ft (Moment at service load level = 0.6 Mn
assuming DL = LL/3)
wa = 8*Ma/(L^2); % k/ft
if Mcr > Ma;

Ie1 = Ig;
Ie2 = Ig;
else
Ie1 = Icr+(Ig-Icr)*(Mcr/Ma)^3; % I effective using Branson's Eq.
Ie2 = Icr/(1-(1-Icr/Ig)*(Mcr/Ma)^2); % I effective using Bischoff's Eq.
% Def1 = Ma*12*(3*(L*12)^2-4*(a*L*12)^2)/(24*Ec*Ie1/1000); % in
Immediate deflection estimation using Ie1 (two-point load)
% Def2 = Ma*12*(3*(L*12)^2-4*(a*L*12)^2)/(24*Ec*Ie2/1000); % in
Immediate deflection estimation using Ie2 (two-point load)
end
175
Def1 = 5*(wa*1000/12)*(L*12)^4/(384*Ec*Ie1); % in Immediate
deflection estimation using Ie1 (distributed load)
Def2 = 5*(wa*1000/12)*(L*12)^4/(384*Ec*Ie2); % in Immediate
deflection estimation using Ie1 (distributed load)
%%
OUTPUT
Results(1,2)=Rho;
Results(2,2)=Section_Ductility; % Phi_u/Phi_y
Results(3,2)=Member_Ductility; % Def_u/Def_y
Results(4,2)=Curvature_Ductility; % area under moment curvature
Results(5,2)=Deflection_Ductility; % area under load deflection
Results(6,2)=es; % strain in tension steel at failure
Results(7,2)=MM; % Mn/bd^2
Results(8,2)=DD; % Defl/Span ratio
Results(9:39,1:2)=R; % Moment-curvature
Results(41:71,1:2)=R2; % Load-deflection
Results2(1,1)=fcc;
Results2(1,2)=Rho;
Results2(1,3)=es; % strain in tension steel at failure
Results2(1,4)=w_s; % Total service load
Results2(1,5)=fs_s; % stress in tension steel at service load level
Results2(1,6)=Def_w_s; % Immediate deflection due to DL+LL
Results2(1,7)=Def1; % Immediate deflection estimation using Ie1
(Branson's Eq.)
(Bischoff's Eq.)
Results2(1,9)=Def_wL_s; % Immediate deflection due to LL
Results2(1,10)=L*12/180; % ACI 318 deflection limit (L/180)
Results2(1,12)=Def_LT; % Long-term deflection (assuming DL+ 30% LL is
sustained)
Results3(1,1)=Rho;
Results3(1,2)=es;
Results3(1,3)=w_s;
Results3(1,4)=fs_s/fy;
Results3(1,5)=Def_w_s; % Immediate deflection due to DL+LL
(Branson's Eq.)
(Bischoff's Eq.)
176
Appendix B: Design Charts for Beams Reinforced with HSR and Based on
Materials Typical Stress-Strain Behavior
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
Appendix C: Service Load Level Evaluation
Service load level was evaluated as a ratio of the LRFD load level, i.e, w u / φ. This ratio
is denoted by (ws/wn). In order to determine the ratio of ws/wn, the ratio of live load to
dead load (L/D) was varied from 0.5 to 4.0. The following equation was applied to
determine ws/wn:
= = Service Load Level/(1/φ) LRFD Load Level

[ . . ]
Where: k = L/D and φ = 0.9
The two extreme L/D ratios of 0.5 and 4.0 can be described as an example of 8 in. thick
flat plate (self-weight = 100 psf) supporting a live load of 50 psf and 400 psf respectively.
These combinations are very unlikely to occur in real practice. Ratio of L/D from 1.5 to
2.5 seem to have a higher probability of occurrence in practice, which lead to w s/wn
between 0.63 to 0.61 respectively, as shown in the figure below.
In this research, for simplicity, the service load level was assumed to be 60% of the
nominal LRFD level load.

191

TP3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TP3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TP3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Portland State University

Flexural Strength, Ductility, and Serviceability of Beams that

Let us know how access to this document benefits you.

Steel Reinforcement and High-Grade Concrete

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Portland State University

concrete construction industry including a reduction of congestion, improved concrete

to savings in materials, shipping, and placement costs. Using high-strength reinforcement

NCHRP Report 679, “Design of Concrete Structures Using High-Strength Steel

and AASHTO could be changed to incorporate high-strength reinforcement.

conforming experimental tests, and is directed to provide a number of recommendations

high-strength steel. Topics investigated include: strain limits (tension-controlled and

compression-controlled, and minimum strain in steel); possible change for strength

the concrete grade.

Committee of Education Development in Iraq (HCED) for sponsoring my PhD program

important people in my world and I dedicate this dissertation to them.

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii

Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1

1.1 General Overview ................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Research Significance .......................................................................................... 2

1.3 Research Objectives ............................................................................................. 4

1.4 Expected Contribution.......................................................................................... 6

1.5 Dissertation Outline.............................................................................................. 7

Chapter Two: Background Information .............................................................................. 9

2.1 High-Strength Reinforcement (HSR) ................................................................... 9

2.2 High-Strength Concrete (HSC) .......................................................................... 14

2.4 Rectangular Stress Block for Concrete .............................................................. 19

2.5 Reinforcement Ratio Limit vs. Strain Limits ..................................................... 20

2.6 Minimum Flexural Reinforcement ..................................................................... 22

2.7 Serviceability of Beams ..................................................................................... 23

2.7.1 Short-Term Deflection (Immediate Deflection) ......................................... 24

2.7.2 Flexural Cracking........................................................................................ 26

2.7.3 Long-Term Deflection (Time-Dependent Deflection)................................ 27

Chapter Three: Literature Review .................................................................................... 30

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 30

3.2 Flexural Behavior of Beams Made with High-Strength Reinforcement (HSR) 30

3.3 Flexural Behavior of Beams Made with High-Strength Concrete (HSC).......... 38

3.4 Deflection at Service Load Level ....................................................................... 42

3.4.1 Immediate Deflection of Beams Reinforced with HSR .............................. 42

3.4.2 Long-Term Deflection of HSC Beams ....................................................... 44

Chapter Four: Theoretical Investigation of Load-Deflection Response ........................... 49

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 49

4.2 Nonlinear Flexural Analysis .............................................................................. 49

4.2.3 Load-deflection Response ........................................................................... 54

4.3 Verification of the Analytical Model ................................................................. 57

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 63

5.2 Materials Properties............................................................................................ 64

5.2.1 Concrete ...................................................................................................... 64

5.2.2 Reinforcing Steel ........................................................................................ 69

5.3 Design of the Specimens .................................................................................... 74

5.4 Specimens Fabrication ....................................................................................... 78

5.5 Instrumentation and Test Setup .......................................................................... 82

5.5.1 Installation of Strain Gauges ....................................................................... 82

5.5.2 Flexural Test Setup and Instrumentation .................................................... 85

5.5.3 Long-Term Deflection Test Setup .............................................................. 86

5.6 Beams Flexural Test Results and Discussion..................................................... 89

5.6.1 Load-Deflection Behavior of Test Beams .................................................. 89

5.7 Long-Term Deflection Test Results and Discussion........................................ 115

6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 118