ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 105-S53
Flexural Strength Design of Concrete Beams Reinforced
with High-Strength Steel Bars
by Robert F. Mast, Mina Dawood, Sami H. Rizkalla, and Paul Zia
This paper presents a methodology for the flexural strength design
of concrete beams reinforced with high-strength reinforcing steel
that conforms to the requirements of ASTM A1035-07. The design
method is based on simple analysis techniques that satisfy
fundamental principles of equilibrium and compatibility. Strain
limits for tension-controlled sections and compression-controlled
sections are proposed that are consistent with the approach of the
current and past ACI 318 Codes. The proposed method is
compared with experimental results previously reported by others.
The application of the proposed method is demonstrated by a
numerical design example.
Keywords: flexure; flexural design; high-strength reinforcement; high-
strength steel; reinforcing bars; strength design.
INTRODUCTION
Recently, high-strength steel reinforcement conforming to
ASTM A1035-071 has been developed. The stress-strain
characteristics of the reinforcement are quite different from
conventional Grade 60 (400 MPa) steel reinforcement. The
new steel is considerably stronger than conventional
reinforcing steel and lacks a well-defined yield point. There
are several practical advantages to using this new high-
strength material, including reduction of congestion in
heavily reinforced members, improved concrete placement,
savings in the cost of labor, reduction of construction time
and, in some cases, enhanced resistance to corrosion.
Research on the use of high-strength steel as reinforcement
for reinforced concrete members has been ongoing for some
time. The flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced
with high-strength reinforcing bars has been investigated
experimentally by a number of researchers.2-4 The available
research indicates that, when properly designed, beams
reinforced with high-strength reinforcing bars will achieve
similar strength characteristics to beams reinforced with
conventional steel reinforcements.
Other research has indicated that high-strength reinforcing
bars can be effectively used as a replacement for conventional
steel reinforcing bars for typical reinforced concrete bridge
decks.5 The research indicates that, due to the use of high-
strength steel reinforcing bars, the required steel area can be
reduced by up to 33% while maintaining comparable
behavior to bridge decks reinforced with conventional Grade 60
(400 MPa) steel. Detailing requirements, including the
strength of bent bars and bond characteristics, have also
been investigated5 and additional research is ongoing at
several universities.
In addition to the ongoing research in this field, the recent
publication of ASTM A1035-071 that outlines structural
specifications for low-carbon and chromium steel bars
further facilitates the use of high-strength steel as reinforcing
for concrete structures. The standard specifies two grades of
570
TECHNICAL PAPER
high-strength steel: Grade 100 and 120 (690 and 830 MPa).
It cautions designers, however, that current design requirements
limit the allowable design strength of reinforcements to 80 ksi
(550 MPa). This limitation prevents engineers from fully
using the enhanced strength characteristics of these materials
and therefore represents a practical obstacle to the transfer of
the technology to the engineering community.
To lift the 80 ksi (550 MPa) yield strength limitation of the
current ACI 318 Code, a design methodology is proposed
based on accepted engineering principles and analysis
techniques. The proposed design methodology demonstrates
that the flexural strength of members reinforced with high-
strength steel will be comparable with the flexural strength of
members designed according to the current design provisions.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This paper presents a design methodology, in similar
format to the current ACI 318 provisions, for the flexural
strength design of concrete beams reinforced with ASTM
A1035-071 Grade 100 (690 MPa) steel bars. The discussion
is limited to reinforcing bars having stress-strain characteristics
that are similar to the high-strength steel commercially
known as MMFX; however, the proposed design concept is
valid for any high-strength steel that does not exhibit a distinct
yield plateau. The proposed tension-controlled strain limits
ensure that the strain, curvature, and deflection deformability
ratios of beams designed according to the proposed method-
ology are comparable to the ratios for beams designed
according to current and previous ACI 318 provisions. The
proposed method will enable the designers to take full
advantage of high-strength steel bars as reinforcement for
concrete structures.
CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH-STRENGTH
REINFORCING STEELS
A number of high-strength reinforcing steels are currently
available for the design and construction of reinforced
concrete flexural members. The typical stress-strain relationships
of several different high-strength reinforcing steels are
presented in Fig. 1(a), along with the stress-strain relationship of
conventional Grade 60 (400 MPa) steel for comparison. As seen
in the figure, the stress-strain curve of typical high-strength
steel is characterized by an initial linear portion followed by
a nonlinear section. The absence of a distinct yield plateau is
characteristic of most high-strength steel. Despite the lack of
a well-defined yield point, most high-strength reinforcing
ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 4, September-October 2008.
MS No. M-2006-491.R2 received November 14, 2007, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the July-
August 2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2009.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008
ACI Honorary Member Robert F. Mast is a Past President and Past Chairman of
BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., Seattle, WA, where he continues to serve as a
Senior Principal. He is a Past President of ACI and a member of ACI Committees
314, Simplified Design of Concrete Buildings; 318, Structural Concrete Building
Code; 376, Concrete Structures for Refrigerated Liquified Gas Containment; TAC
Technology Transfer Committee; and the Concrete Research Council. He authored the
Unified Design Provisions, which were incorporated in the 2002 and later editions of
the ACI 318 Code.

ACI member Mina Dawood is a PhD Candidate at North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. He received his BSc from the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB,
Canada, in 2003 and his MS from North Carolina State University in 2005.

Sami H. Rizkalla, FACI, is a Distinguished Professor of Civil and Construction

Engineering in the Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering,
North Carolina State University. He is the Director of the Constructed Facilities
Laboratory and NSF I/UCRC in Repair of Structures and Bridges at North Carolina
State University. He is a member of ACI Committees 118, Use of Computers;
440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 423,
Prestressed Concrete, and 550, Precast Concrete Structures; and E803, Faculty
Network Coordinating Committee.

ACI Honorary Member Paul Zia is a Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at

North Carolina State University. He is an ACI Past President and is Chair of
ITG-6, High-Strength Steel Bars. He is a member of ACI Committees 363, High-
Strength Concrete; 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; Joint ACI-
ASCE Committees 423, Prestressed Concrete, and 445, Shear and Torsion; and the
Concrete Research Council.

steels are capable of achieving ultimate strain values up to

0.05 or higher.
Several equations have been proposed to represent the
actual stress-strain behavior of high-strength reinforcing
steels in tension.6,7 As shown in Fig. 1(b), the stress-strain
relationship of one specific type of reinforcing steel
conforming to ASTM A1035-07,1 known as MMFX steel,
can be approximately represented by the following equation

Fig. 1(a) Material characteristics of high-strength

29, 000 s ( ksi ) s 0.00241
fs = 0.345
170 ------------------------------ ( ksi ) 0.00241 < s < 0.060
s + 0.00104
200, 000 s ( MPa ) s 0.00241
fs = 2.379
1172 ------------------------------ ( MPa ) 0.00241 < s < 0.060
s + 0.00104
where fs is the stress in the steel and s is the corresponding
strain. This equation was developed following the same
format of the equation adopted by PCI to represent the stress-
strain curve of the prestressing strand that exhibits a similar
trend of the stress-strain curve to that of MMFX steel.8 The
PCI stress-strain equation for prestressing steel beyond the
proportional limit is of the form
B Based on current design practice, the design of a flexural
f s = A --------------
s + C
The same form of the equation was used and the
constants A, B, and C were adjusted to closely match the
measured stress-strain curve of MMFX steel. The tensile
stress-strain curve represented by Eq. (1) will be used for
analysis in this paper.
The current ACI 318 Code limits the maximum allowable
yield strength of steel reinforcement to 80 ksi (550 MPa). To
use the high-strength properties of the reinforcing steel more
reinforcing steel; and (b) existing and proposed limitations
(1) and material models.
fully, a simplified elastic-plastic relationship has been
proposed for design purposes.9 The simplified model
consists of an initial linear-elastic portion with an elastic
modulus of 29,000 ksi (200,000 MPa) followed by a
perfectly plastic yield plateau with a yield strength of 100 ksi
(690 MPa), as shown in Fig. 1(b). The discussion presented in
this paper and the proposed increase in the allowable yield
strength limit are recommended for high-strength steel
reinforcing bars in tension only. When high-performance
reinforcing bars are used as compression reinforcement, the
current ACI limitation of 80 ksi (550 MPa) should be maintained
because the stress in the steel is controlled by the maximum
compressive strain of 0.003 used for concrete in design.
BASIS OF CURRENT DESIGN PRACTICE
(2)
member should take into account the overall behavior of the
member throughout the service range and up to the nominal
capacity of the member. Beginning with the ACI 318-6310
Code, flexural members were required to have reinforcement
ratios not greater than 75% of the balanced reinforcement
ratio b. By 1993, this criterion had been in use for 30 years,
and the behavior of flexural members was judged to be
satisfactory. The current criterion based on tensile strain in
the reinforcement was selected to provide similar behavior to
that experienced under the 0.75b criterion.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008 571


Fig. 2Deflection of a prestressed concrete fender pile.
Desirable behavior for flexural members
In the design of reinforced concrete flexural members, to
apply the higher resistance factor of 0.9, a member should
exhibit desirable behavior. At service load, small deflections
and minimal cracking are desired. At higher loads, however,
the member should exhibit large deflections and/or excessive
cracking to provide warning before reaching nominal
strength. Both deflection and cracking are primarily a function of
steel strain near the tension face of the member.
In general, desirable behavior of a member is related to
ductility. Whereas there are many definitions of ductility,
they all typically relate to yielding or inelastic deformation.
When lower strength reinforcing materials are used, the only
way to obtain high strains near the tension face at nominal
strength is to ensure yielding of the tension steel. With high-
strength materials, this is no longer necessary. Figure 2
shows the test of a prestressed concrete fender pile designed
to absorb energy of impacting ships. The pile was purposely
designed so that the prestressing strand would not yield at the
deformation shown. So, by most definitions, it has no
ductility; but it certainly can undergo large deflection and
cracking prior to failure.
The ductility ratios, the ratios of strain, curvature, or
deflection at ultimate to the corresponding values at yield,
are not the only measure of desirable behavior. Instead, the
ratio of nominal strength behavior to service load behavior,
otherwise referred to hereafter as the deformability ratio,
may also be a suitable indicator. The larger this ratio, the
larger the spread between the behavior at service load and
the behavior at nominal strength. A similar approach was
previously recommended for the design of concrete beams
reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) materials.11
Because FRP materials do not yield, the ductility ratio is not
an appropriate indicator of desirable behavior. Rather, to
assess the adequacy of a member, the ratio of energy dissipation
at ultimate conditions to energy dissipation at serviceability
limits are considered. In this paper, similar deformability
ratios are considered and expressed in terms of the strain
ratio, the curvature ratio, and the deflection ratio.
572
It should be noted that this principle does not apply to the
special case of energy dissipation in seismic resisting frames.
Most typical flexural members are loaded monotonically and
are expected to reach nominal strength no more than once.
The proposed flexural strength design methodology is not
intended for structures required to resist high seismic loads.
Past and present ACI 318 Code requirements
Ultimate strength design (now called strength design) was
introduced in the ACI 318 Code in 1963.10 For flexural
members, the maximum reinforcement ratio was limited to
0.75 of the balanced reinforcement ratio b. The purpose of
this requirement was to ensure that the member would be
under-reinforced such that the reinforcement would yield
before the concrete reached its limiting strain of 0.003 prior
to failure. This requirement remained essentially in effect
from 1963 to 1999.
In the 1995 ACI 318 Code,12 an alternative requirement
was introduced in Appendix B. Rather than limiting the
maximum reinforcement ratio , a minimum strain level in
the reinforcement at nominal strength was required for the
use of the high factor of 0.9 for flexure. A tension-controlled
section was defined as a cross section in which the net tensile
strain in the extreme tension steel at nominal strength was greater
than or equal to 0.005. For tension-controlled sections, a factor
of 0.9 was used. If the steel strain at nominal strength was less
than 0.005, a reduced factor was used to account for the less
desirable behavior of these sections. Compression-controlled
sections are defined as having steel strains at nominal strength at
or below the yield strain of the reinforcement. For
compression-controlled sections, the factor for compression
was used. For sections with steel strains between the
aforementioned two limits, the factor was determined by
linear interpolation between the factor for compression and
the factor for tension. In the 2002 ACI 318 Code,13 these
requirements were moved to the main body of the code,
replacing the former limit on for flexural members.
The background information on the development of these
limits has been provided by Mast.14 Whereas the tension-
controlled strain limit of 0.005 was developed from studies
of the behavior of members reinforced with Grade 60 (400 MPa)
steel, it was also permitted to be used with Grade 75 (520 MPa)
steel reinforcement.
ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION
The objective of the following analytical investigation was
to assess the adequacy of the proposed 100 ksi (690 MPa)
material model and to establish acceptable strain limits for
tension-controlled sections and compression-controlled
sections reinforced with high-strength steel. The behavior of
beams was studied at nominal strength and at the service
level. The section behavior was determined by using a
cracked section analysis that satisfied equilibrium and
compatibility. At nominal strength, the ACI Code rectangular
stress block was used. Elastic stress distribution was considered
under service load condition. Between these two limits, a
trapezoidal stress block for concrete was used consisting of
an initial linear portion with an elastic modulus equal to
57,000 f c psi (4730 f c MPa) up to a stress of 0.85fc
followed by a plastic plateau. The details of the analysis are
shown schematically in Fig. 3.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008
Table 1Comparison of beam capacity for
different reinforcing steel material models
Reinforcing steel Moment capacity, Increase Reserved capacity,
material model kip-ft (kN-m) of capacity, % kip-ft (kN-m)
Grade 60
327 (443)
(400 MPa) steel
Actual behavior 639 (867) 95 0 (0)
Simplified 100 ksi
524 (711) 60 115 (156)
(690 MPa) model
80 ksi (550 MPa)
427 (579) 31 212 (288) Fig. 3Sectional analysis procedure.
limitation

Nominal strength analysis

The nominal moment capacity of a rectangular, singly
reinforced concrete section was considered for a number of
different reinforcement ratios using a cracked section analysis.
A concrete compressive strength of 6500 psi (45 MPa) was
considered with an ultimate strain of 0.003 at the extreme
compression face of the concrete. The stress level in the
reinforcement was calculated using three different material
models to represent the behavior of the high-strength steel
reinforcement. The actual behavior of the reinforcing steel,
as defined in Eq. (1), the current ACI limitation of 80 ksi
(550 MPa), and the proposed 100 ksi (690 MPa) simplified
model were each considered in the analysis.
Figure 4 shows the relationship between the nominal
moment capacity of the section and the reinforcement ratio
for each of the three steel material models under consideration.
The nominal moment capacity of sections reinforced with
conventional Grade 60 (400 MPa) reinforcement is also
shown for comparison purposes. Also plotted in the figure
are test results of several beams that were reinforced with
high-strength steel reinforcing bars and were tested at the
Florida DOT2 and at the University of North Florida.3
The experimental results are in good agreement with the
analysis that considered the actual behavior of the high-
strength reinforcing steel.
The balanced reinforcement ratios b were calculated as
3.95%, 2.60%, and 1.85% for the sections using the Grade 60
(400 MPa), 80 ksi (550 MPa), and 100 ksi (690 MPa) material
models, respectively. Figure 4 indicates that, for a given
reinforcement ratio greater than 3.95%, the calculated
nominal moment capacity of the section was equal for all of
the different material models because failure of the heavily
reinforced sections was governed by crushing of the concrete
prior to yielding of the reinforcing steel. For a reinforcement
ratio less than 3.95%, the models with the higher yield
strengths typically predicted higher nominal moment capacities.
For sections reinforced with a reinforcement ratio less than
1.75%, which represents the majority of typical reinforced
concrete beams, use of the 100 ksi (690 MPa) model typically
underpredicted the nominal moment capacity of the section
as compared with the actual behavior. Conversely, for
reinforcement ratios from 1.75 to 2.7%, use of the 100 ksi
(690 MPa) limitation slightly overpredicted the capacity
of the section. The analysis indicates, however, that this
difference is on the order of only 2.5%, which is insignificant
for design purposes.
To investigate the adequacy of the various proposed material
models, the nominal moment capacity of an example beam
was considered. The example beam had a width b of 12 in.
(305 mm), an effective depth d of 24 in. (610 mm), and a
reinforcement ratio of 1%. The calculated nominal
moment capacity of the section, Mn, is given in Table 1 for
Fig. 4Nominal moment capacity as a function of reinforcing
ratio.
the three different high-strength material models and also for
conventional Grade 60 (400 MPa) reinforcement.
Table 1 indicates that, for the example beam, using high-
strength reinforcing steel would result in an increase of the
moment capacity of 95% when compared with the beam
using the conventional Grade 60 (400 MPa) reinforcement.
For the same section, if the ACI limitation of 80 ksi (550 MPa)
is imposed, the increase of the moment capacity would be
only 31% over the moment capacity of the section reinforced
with Grade 60 (400 MPa) steel. When compared with the
actual behavior, however, there is a reserved capacity of
212 kip-ft (288 kN-m), which corresponds to 33% of the
nominal capacity of the member. If the simplified 100 ksi
(690 MPa) model is used, the increase of the moment
capacity would be 60% over the capacity of the section
reinforced with conventional steel. The actual reserved
capacity is 18% of the nominal capacity when compared
with the actual behavior. This demonstrates that the design
using the proposed simplified model results in more efficient
use of the high-strength characteristics of the steel than the
current 80 ksi (550 MPa) limitation while still providing a
significant reserved capacity as compared with the actual
capacity of the reinforced section.
Moment-curvature analysis
To establish suitable design limits for tension-controlled
and compression-controlled sections, a moment-curvature
analysis was conducted to investigate the limits of desirable
behavior based on current design practice. A total of eight
concrete beams were considered in the analysis. Three of the

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008 573

Fig. 5Behavior of beam designed according to ACI 318-9915
and previous: (a) moment curvature; and (b) moment deflection.
beams were designed according to ACI 318 Code requirements
using conventional reinforcing steel. For each of the beams,
the strain, curvature, and deflection deformability ratios
were considered to evaluate the limits of desirable behavior.
The remaining five beams were reinforced with high-strength
reinforcement and the deformability ratios were also considered.
The example beams all consisted of a 12 x 30 in. (305 x
760 mm) cross section with a simple span of 40 ft (12,200 mm).
The depth to the reinforcement from the top of the section
was 28 in. (710 mm) in all cases. A concrete strength of 5000 psi
(34 MPa) was assumed, but for the beams reinforced with
high-strength steel, concrete strengths from 4000 to
10,000 psi (28 to 69 MPa) were considered.
Behavior based on ACI 318-9915 and previous Codes
Using ACI 318-9915 and previous Codes, the beam was
designed at the 0.75b limit with a reinforcing steel area of
8.45 in.2 (5450 mm 2). Based on a load factor of 1.5 and a
resistance factor of 0.9, the service load was taken to be 0.6 times
the calculated nominal strength of the member. The calculated
service moment and corresponding steel tension stress were
577 kip-ft (783 kN-m) and 34 ksi (234 MPa), respectively.
Figure 5(a) shows a moment-curvature diagram for a
beam at the reinforcement limit of 0.75b, as permitted by
the ACI 318 Codes prior to 2002. The behavior was almost
bilinear, with the break point occurring very close to a steel stress
equal to fy. The curvature at nominal strength was 3.03 times that
at service load ( ratio). The net tensile strain of the steel at
nominal strength was 2.87 times that at service load ( ratio).
Figure 5(b) shows the moment-deflection relationship for a
uniformly loaded beam. There is only a small amount of
574
Fig. 6Behavior of beam designed according to ACI 318-0213
and later: (a) moment curvature; and (b) moment deflection.
additional deflection after yielding because the flat-top shape of
the moment-curvature diagram causes yielding to occur only
over a short length of the beam near midspan. The deflection at
nominal strength is 1.95 times that at service load ( ratio).
Behavior based on ACI 318-0213 and later Codes
Flexural members at the current reinforcement limits for
tension-controlled sections given in ACI 318-0213 and later
Codes were examined to form a basis for what is currently
acceptable behavior. Sections reinforced with Grade 60
(400 MPa) and Grade 75 (520 MPa) steel were considered.
The service load was assumed to be 2/3 of nominal strength
based on an average load factor equal to 1.35 and a resistance
factor equal to 0.9. For the example beam reinforced with
Grade 60 (400 MPa) steel, the limiting area of tension
reinforcing steel was calculated as 7.14 in.2 (4610 mm 2).
The corresponding service moment and tension stress in the
steel were 560 kip-ft (759 kN-m) and 39 ksi (239 MPa),
respectively. When considering Grade 75 (520 MPa) steel,
the corresponding area of reinforcement, service moment,
and stress in the steel were 5.71 in.2 (3680 mm 2), 559 kip-ft
(758 kN-m), and 48 ksi (330 MPa), respectively.
Figure 6(a) shows a moment-curvature diagram for beams
at the net tensile strain limit of 0.005 for tension-controlled
sections. The behavior is almost bilinear, with the break
point occurring very close to a steel stress equal to fy. For
Grade 75 (520 MPa) steel, the curvature at nominal strength
was 2.92 times that at service load ( ratio). The net tensile
strain of the steel at nominal strength was 2.98 times that at
service load ( ratio). Figure 6(b) shows the moment-deflection
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008
relationship for a uniformly loaded beam. The deflection at high-strength reinforcing steel. The bilinear elastic-plastic
nominal strength was 1.74 times that at service load ( ratio). model simplifies hand calculations and permits the use of
conventional software for reinforced concrete design.
Behavior with high-strength reinforcing steel For a given section at the tension-controlled strain limit of
To evaluate behavior, it is necessary to use a good 0.0066, the actual steel stress in the reinforcement is
approximation of the true stress-strain characteristics of approximately 125 ksi (862 MPa) at the nominal moment
high-strength steel, as given in Eq. (1). Strain compatibility strength of the beam, whereas the assumed steel stress in the
studies indicate that using a tension-controlled strain limit of simplified method is 100 ksi (690 MPa). To compensate for
0.0066 for beams reinforced with high-strength steel the difference, the calculated neutral axis depth (and the
produce behavior characteristics comparable with beams tension-controlled strain limit) must be adjusted when using
reinforced with Grade 60 (400 MPa) and Grade 75 (520 MPa) the simplified method. Using a tension-controlled strain
steel under the ACI 318 Code. Table 2 compares the strain
ratios, the curvature ratios, and the deflection ratios for
the 12 x 30 in. (305 x 760 mm) beams reinforced with
Grades 60 (400 MPa), 75 (520 MPa), and high-strength
steel reinforcement. In this analysis, Eq. (1) was used to
represent the stress-strain characteristics of the high-strength
reinforcement steel. The ratios are comparable when the
tension-controlled strain limit is taken as 0.0066 for the
beams reinforced with high-strength steel for the various
concrete strengths considered in the analysis. The corresponding
area of reinforcement for each of the example beams are also
provided in the table for reference purposes.
Figure 7(a) shows the moment-curvature relationship for a
beam reinforced with high-strength steel at the tension-
controlled strain limit of 0.0066 and a concrete strength fc of
5000 psi (34 MPa). Equation (1) was used to represent the
stress-strain relationship of the reinforcing steel in this
example. Figure 7(b) shows the moment-deflection rela-
tionship for a uniformly loaded beam reinforced with high-
strength steel. The corresponding curves for beams with
conventional reinforcement from Fig. 5 and 6 are also shown
in Fig. 7 for comparison purposes. It should be noted that the
absolute deflections are greater using the higher strength
steel, and this needs to be accounted for by appropriately
designing the depth of the member. Due to the higher tension
strain in the high-strength reinforcement under service
loading conditions, the beams may exhibit higher crack widths
than those reinforced with conventional steel. Previous testing,4
however, indicates that the measured crack width under service
loading conditions is only slightly larger than the acceptable
crack widths for beams reinforced with conventional steel.
Considering that some high-strength steel also exhibits reduced
corrosion rates under severe environmental conditions,5 the
slightly increased crack widths may be justified provided it is
not objectionable from the aesthetics point of view.

CRITERIA FOR SIMPLIFIED DESIGN METHOD Fig. 7Behavior of beam designed with high-strength
The simplified design method uses the simplified 100 ksi reinforcing steel: (a) moment curvature; and (b) moment
(690 MPa) material model to describe the behavior of the deflection.

Table 2Results of moment-curvature analysis

Area of steel, Steel stress at service,
ACI 318 Code Criterion Steel type in.2 (mm2) ksi (MPa) fc, ksi (MPa) ratio ratio ratio
1963 10
to 1999 15 = 0.75 b Grade 60 (400 MPa) 8.45 (5450) 34 (234) 5 (34) 2.87 3.03 1.95
200213 and 200512 t = 0.005 Grade 60 (400 MPa) 7.14 (4610) 39 (269) 5 (34) 3.71 3.44 1.81
2002 13
and 2005 12 t = 0.005 Grade 75 (520 MPa) 5.71 (3680) 48 (331) 5 (34) 2.98 2.92 1.74
Proposed t = 0.0066 High-strength 2.43 (1570) 67 (462) 4 (28) 2.85 2.96 2.47
Proposed t = 0.0066 High-strength 2.86 (1850) 67 (462) 5 (34) 2.92 3.01 2.51
Proposed t = 0.0066 High-strength 3.21 (2070) 67 (462) 6 (41) 3.10 3.09 2.57
Proposed t = 0.0066 High-strength 3.71 (2390) 67 (462) 8 (55) 3.44 3.34 2.75
Proposed t = 0.0066 High-strength 4.64 (2920) 67 (462) 10 (69) 3.33 3.19 2.66

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008 575

 limit of 0.009 in the simplified method produces essentially
the same result as using the 0.0066 strain limit in the more exact
method, as demonstrated in Table 3. That is, for a given
section designed at the tension-controlled strain limit of 0.0066
using the actual behavior of the high-strength reinforcing
steel, analysis of the section using the simplified 100 ksi
(690 MPa) model yields a corresponding strain of 0.009.
Therefore, it is proposed that the simplified design method
should use the idealized 100 ksi (690 MPa) material model with
a corresponding tension-controlled strain limit of 0.009.
Flexural members should normally be designed as
tension-controlled members, but the compression-controlled
strain limit should also be defined for flexural members
subjected to compression. A compression-controlled strain
limit of 0.004 is proposed. To verify that beams designed at
the proposed compression-controlled strain limit exhibit
elastic behavior under service loading conditions, several
example beams were considered. The dimensions of the
example beams were the same as those described previously.
Several concrete compressive strengths, ranging from 4 to
10 ksi (28 to 69 MPa) were considered and a load factor of
1.35 was used. The corresponding service load level, based
on a reduction factor of 0.65 was 48% of the calculated
nominal strength using the simplified design method. For all
of the beams considered, the calculated strain in the tension
reinforcement at the service load level was between 60 and 70%
of the proportional limit strain of the high-strength steel.
The proposed strain limit was twice that for Grade 60
(400 MPa) steel, and it lead to a simple equation for in the
transition region between tension and compression
controlled sections
= 0.45 + 50 t 0.004 < t < 0.009
Fig. 8Proposed variation of resistance factor for the
simplified design procedure.
Table 3Comparison of design methods
Tension-controlled strain limit
Neutral axis depth c
Stress block depth a = 1c
Compressive force C
0.85fc (0.31251d)b/125 (in.2)
Steel area As = C/fs
0.85fc (0.31251d)b/862 (mm2)
Reinforcement ratio = As/bd
576
The proposed variation of the resistance factor is presented
in Fig. 8. To help prevent compression-controlled failure, high-
strength or conventional compression reinforcement can be
provided. If high-strength compression steel is used, however,
the ACI yield strength limit of 80 ksi (550 MPa) should
be maintained for the compression bars.
DESIGN EXAMPLE
To illustrate the simplified design method, the behavior of
an example beam was evaluated using the proposed simplified
design method. The example beam had a width b of 12 in.
(305 mm) and a section depth h of 18 in. (460 mm). The
section was reinforced with three No. 6 high-strength steel
reinforcing bars located 15 in. (400 mm) from the top of the
section. Two additional No. 4 Grade 60 (400 MPa) steel
reinforcing bars were provided in the compression zone
2-1/4 in. (60 mm) from the top surface of the beam. The
beam had a span of 15 ft (4570 mm) and was loaded in four-
point bending with a constant moment region of 3 ft (915 mm).
The concrete compressive strength was 7250 psi (50 MPa).
The example beam was also fabricated and tested in a
previous study.4
The nominal strength of the example beam was calculated
using the simplified method. Assuming that the steel had
yielded at nominal strength, the tension force T in the steel
reinforcement would be 132.5 kips (590 kN). Using the ACI
rectangular stress block, the calculated neutral axis depth c
was 2.6 in. (66 mm). The corresponding strain at the level of
the tension reinforcement t was 0.015, which was above the
proposed tension-controlled strain limit of 0.009. The
calculated nominal moment capacity of the section Mn was
162 kip-ft (220 kN-m), which corresponded to an applied
load of 54 kips (240 kN). The nominal strength of the
(3) example beam, calculated using the proposed simplified
design procedure, was 30% lower than the measured nominal
capacity of the tested beam. After applying a reduction factor
of 0.9, the calculated ultimate strength of the beam was 49 kips
(220 kN).
Based on an average load factor of 1.35, the service load
level for the example beam was 35 kips (157 kN). The reported
crack width for the tested beam at this load level was 0.02 in.
(0.5 mm),4 which was minimal and demonstrated the
desirable behavior of the beam under service loading conditions.
The calculated ultimate strength and service load levels for
the example beam are presented in Fig. 9 relative to the
measured load-deflection behavior of the beam. The figure
also presents the predicted load-deflection relationship using
the actual behavior of the high-strength steel, Eq. (1), and the
simplified model. The figure shows that the predicted
behavior using the actual material properties closely matches
the measured behavior. The calculated ratios of strain ,
curvature , and deflection , for the example beam, using
Actual behavior Simplified method
0.0066 0.009
0.3125d 0.25d
0.31251d 0.251d
0.85fc ab 0.85fc ab
0.85fc (0.251d)b/100 (in.2)
0.85fc (0.251d)b/689 (mm2)
0.002125fc 1 0.002125fc 1
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

Fig. 9Measured and predicted load-deflection behavior
of the example beam.
Table 4Calculated deformability ratios
for example beam
Ratio Value
Strain, s /n 6.18
Curvature, s /n 5.37
Deflection, s /n 2.94
the actual behavior of the reinforcing steel, are presented in
Table 4. All of these ratios exceed the limits for acceptable
behavior according to currently accepted design practice.
This design example demonstrates that the proposed simplified
design procedure is conservative and consistent with
currently accepted design practice.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper proposes a simplified method for flexural
design of concrete beams reinforced with high-strength steel
reinforcements. The design of the beams may be based on an
idealized elastic-plastic material model, with an elastic
modulus of 29,000 ksi (200,000 MPa) and yield strength of
100 ksi (690 MPa) to represent the stress-strain behavior of
the reinforcing steel. Based on this model and current limitations
for acceptable behavior, flexural members should be
designed using the following criteria
Tension-controlled sections: = 0.9 t 0.009
Compression-controlled sections: = 0.65 t 0.004
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008
Transition zone sections: = 0.45 + 50t 0.004 < t < 0.009
Flexural members designed using the simplified design
method and the aforementioned criteria will have comparable
flexural strength characteristics with members designed
according to current ACI 318 requirements using conventional
Grade 60 (400 MPa) and Grade 75 (520 MPa) reinforcing steel.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The preparation of the paper is based on the results of a number of
research projects sponsored by MMFX Technologies whose support is
gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. ASTM A1035, Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain, Low-
Carbon, Chromium, Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007, 5 pp.
2. Ansley, M. H., Investigation into the Structural Performance of
MMFX Reinforcing, 2002, http://www.mmfxsteel.com/technical_resources/
Default.asp.
3. Malhas, F. A., Preliminary Experimental Investigation of the Flexural
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using MMFX Steel, University
of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL, 2002, http://www.mmfxsteel.com/
technical_resources/Default.asp.
4. Yotakhong, P., Flexural Performance of MMFX Reinforcing Rebars
in Concrete Structures, masters thesis, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC, 2003.
5. Seliem, H. M. A., Behavior of Concrete Bridges Reinforced with
High-Performance Steel Reinforcing Bars, doctoral dissertation, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2007, http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/
theses/available/etd-05042007-174633/unrestricted/etd.pdf.
6. Vijay, V. S.; GangaRao, H. V. S.; and Prachasaree, W., Bending
Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with MMFX Steel Bars, WVU
College of Engineering, Morgantown, WV, 2002, http://www.mmfxsteel.com/
technical_resources/Default.asp.
7. Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., Prestressed Concrete Structures,
Response Publications, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1997, 766 pp.
8. Martin, L. D., and Perry, C. J., eds., PCI Design Handbook, sixth
edition, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 2004, 728 pp.
9. Mast, R. F., Memorandum: Simplified Strength Design of Flexural
Members Using MMFX Steel, Jan. 2007, 8 pp.
10. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-63), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 1963, 144 pp.
11. Vijay, P. V., and GangaRao, H. V. S., Bending Behavior and
Deformability of Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete
Members, ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2001, pp. 834-842.
12. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1995, 391 pp.
13. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002, 443 pp.
14. Mast, R. F., Unified Design Provisions for Reinforced and
Prestressed Concrete Flexural and Compression Members, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 89, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1992, pp. 185-199.
15. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999, 369 pp.
577