Concrete Institute of Australia (2001) Conference Proceedings

The Impact of 500 MPA Reinforcement on the Ductility of

Concrete Structures – Revision of AS3600
R. I. Gilbert, BE Hon 1, PhD UNSW, FIEAust, CPEng
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales

Synopsis:
The relatively low uniform elongation of 500 MPa steel reinforcement has significant implications in the design and
behaviour of reinforced concrete structures, particularly with regard to ductility. Fracture of the tensile steel will be the
common failure mechanism in many under-reinforced beams and slabs and the usual assumptions made in ultimate
strength design and analysis are in question. The ability of structures to redistribute internal actions at the ultimate limit
state will be compromised. This paper addresses some of these design problems, their impact on current practice and
design methodologies, and some recent and relevant changes to AS3600.
Key Words: Ductility, high strength steel reinforcement, moment redistribution, reinforced concrete, ultimate
strength design, uniform elongation.

1. Introduction
Steel reinforcement with characteristic yield stress of 500MPa is now in the Australian market place and will soon be the
only conventional reinforcement available. This steel has higher strength but significantly lower ductility than 400 MPa
tempcore bars. A new Australian Standard for reinforcing steel (AS/NZS4671) has been introduced in 2001 with the
specification of 500 MPa reinforcement covered for the first time. It has replaced the existing Standards AS1302, AS1303
and AS1304. Also issued in 2001 is a revision of AS3600, incorporating Amendment 1 (issued in 1996) and Amendment 2
(issued for public comment in 1999), to accommodate the use of 500 MPa steel in the design of concrete structures.
The proposed new Standards classify 500 MPa reinforcement according to its ductility, Class L (low ductility) and Class N
(normal ductility). Class L steel includes cold worked wires and welded wire mesh. Class N steel includes hot rolled
deformed bar. The mechanical properties of the new steels, specified by characteristic values, are summarised in Table 1.
Re is the yield stress, with Rek.L and Rek.U being the lower and upper characteristic values; Rm is the tensile strength; and su
is the uniform elongation or the strain corresponding to maximum stress (just prior to the onset of necking).

Table 1 Characteristic mechanical properties of 500 MPa reinforcement.

Property 500 L 500N
Nominal diameters (mm) 5 - 16 10 - 40
Characteristic Yield stress (MPa): Rek.L 500 500
Rek.U 750 650
Tensile to Yield stress ratio: Rm/Re 1.03 1.08
Uniform Elongation: su 0.015 0.05

AS1302, AS1303 and AS1304 did not specify any limits on su. For 400 MPa bars, with su in excess of 0.10, this did
not impose any difficulties. However, for some of the brittle welded wire meshes used in structures, with su an order of
magnitude less than this, the lack of attention to the ductility of reinforcing steel was a major concern. The alarmingly
small values of su of some commonly used meshes are now formally recognised and endorsed as Class L
reinforcement. The formal endorsement of brittle steel (500L) for use in concrete structures, albeit with certain
limitations, is a backward step. It is a great pity that Standards Australia has bowed to pressure to permit the use of this
inadequate reinforcing material.
The relatively low value of su of the new steel has very significant implications in the analysis and design of concrete
structures, particularly with regard to ductility. The failure mechanism of under-reinforced flexural members may
change, with ultimate curvatures often being governed by tensile steel fracture, rather than failure of the concrete in the
compressive zone. This applies not only when Class L steel is used, but also in some cases for Class N steel (when su is
0.05). The amount of moment redistribution permitted in AS3600 may no longer be appropriate and plastic design
techniques may no longer apply. Indeed, even elastic analysis techniques may not be applicable at the ultimate limit
states, when using Class L steels. Concrete structures are non-linear and inelastic, and must possess some ductility if the
actual distribution of internal actions is to redistribute towards the elastic distribution. This minimum ductility may not
be available for members containing Class L steel.
Some of these design implications have been addressed in the recent revision of the Australian Standard AS3600, with
varying degrees of success, but designers need to be fully aware of the potential problems associated with the use of the
new reinforcement. This paper outlines some of these problems, their impact on current practice and design
methodologies, and some relevant recent amendments to AS3600.

597
 Concrete Institute of Australia (2001) Conference Proceedings

2. Ductility of Under-Reinforced Sections in Bending

In the analysis and design of concrete structures at the ultimate limit states, many of the universally accepted theories
and design procedures are founded on the important assumption that individual cross-sections possess some degree of
ductility. It is common practice to assume an idealised elastic-plastic stress-strain relationship for the reinforcement,
with the steel stress after yielding being maintained at fsy irrespective of how large the steel strain becomes. AS3600
and most other concrete codes are based on this assumption. When using hot-rolled bars, with su in excess of 10%, this
assumption is quite reasonable. However, for 500 MPa steel, especially Class L, this is not the case. Fracture of the
steel becomes a common failure mode, particularly in under-reinforced members. The failure mode will be brittle
(sudden) and at curvatures far less than predicted by current ultimate strength design theory.
Consider the flexural behaviour of the under-reinforced T-sections of Fig 1. Three different areas of tensile steel (Ast) are
considered. The moment-curvature response of each section is plotted in Fig 2. It is assumed that for the steel fsy = 500 MPa
and su = 0.15. On each curve, the point corresponding to failure of the concrete in the compressive zone (ie. a strain of 0.003
at the extreme compressive fibre) is shown. This is the point according to AS3600 (and ultimate strength theory) at which the
ultimate moment Mu and the ultimate curvature u are reached. As expected, Mu is almost directly proportional to Ast and u
(and hence ductility) decreases as Ast increases. The steel strain at all points on each curve is much less than su .
2000
200

f'c = 40 MPa; f'cf = 3.8 MPa

720 Ec = 30 GPa; Es = 200 GPa
600 fsy = 500 MPa

Ast = 1800 mm2

= 3600 mm2
= 7200 mm2
400
Figure 1 Typical T-Section in pure bending.
Also shown on each curve are the points corresponding to a tensile steel strain of 0.015 and 0.05 ( su for Class L and
Class N steel, respectively). If steel with su = 0.015 or 0.05 is used, the curves terminate at or near these points when
fracture of the steel occurs. The peak or ultimate moments is not affected appreciably, but the ultimate curvature (the
usual indicator of ductility) is reduced dramatically for low Ast.

Mu (concrete failure)
2500

s = 0.015 s = 0.05

Ast = 7200 mm2

2000

Moment
(kNm)
Mu (concrete failure)
1500
Ast = 3600 mm2

s = 0.015 s = 0.05
1000
Mu (concrete failure)
Ast = 1800 mm2

500 s = 0.015 s = 0.05 s = 0.01

Curvature (x 10-6 mm-1)

0
0 50 100 150

598
 Concrete Institute of Australia (2001) Conference Proceedings

Figure 2 Moment vs Curvature for T-Sections shown in Fig 1

When using Class L steel, the curvature at failure of each section is governed by fracture of the steel and is almost
independent of Ast (curvature at failure actually increasing slightly as Ast increases).
Graphs of ultimate curvature ( u) versus Ast for the cross-section of Fig 1 are shown in Fig 3. The solid curve depicts u
when the extreme fibre concrete compressive strain governs failure, while the dashed curves show the situation when
Class L ( su = 0.015) and Class N ( su = 0.05) steels are employed. Where the dashed curves deviate from the solid
curve, failure of the tensile steel occurs prior to compressive failure of the concrete. The concept of under-reinforced
sections necessarily providing ductility is no longer valid. Tensile steel fracture will almost always be the failure mode
when using Class L steel and will often be the failure mode when using Class N steel (if su is at or near the minimum
specified value of 0.05).
It is difficult to agree with the claims of the manufacturers and promoters of 500 MPa steel that the acceptance and
endorsement of this relatively brittle steel is a progressive advancement for the reinforced concrete industry. Benefits
resulting from the increased strength are outweighed by the problems created by the reduced ductility.

Curvature (x10-6 mm-1)

200

150
Concrete failure ( o = 0.003)

100
st = 0.05

50
st = 0.015

0
0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000
Ast (mm2)
Figure 3 Ultimate Curvature versus tensile steel area for section in Fig 1.

3. Ductility – A Fundamental Design Requirement

Reinforced concrete structures are non-linear and inelastic. Stiffness reduces considerably when cracking occurs and,
after cracking, stiffness depends on the quantity and location of the reinforcement. The stiffness of a r.c. element varies
from location to location depending on the extent of cracking and the reinforcement layout. In addition, the stiffness of
a particular cross-section or region is time-dependent. The relative stiffness between cracked and uncracked regions
changes with time due to creep, even when the steel quantities are the same. In addition, restraint to shrinkage and
shrinkage warping can induce quite significant internal actions in r.c. structures, as can other imposed deformations
such as support settlements and temperature changes and gradients. All these factors cause the actual distribution of
internal actions in an indeterminate structure to deviate from that assumed in an elastic analysis.
Despite these difficulties, AS3600 permits design using an elastic analysis based on gross section properties. This is
reasonable provided the critical regions possess sufficient ductility to enable the actual distribution of actions to
redistribute towards the calculated elastic distribution assumed in design. It is not at all certain, that some critical
regions reinforced with Class L steel will have the necessary ductility.
When designing continuous members, designers often take advantage of moment redistribution, with AS3600
permitting the increase or decrease of the elastically determined peak negative moments, provided equilibrium is
maintained and the peak negative moment regions are sufficiently ductile to allow the necessary rotation to occur.
Simplified rules are specified when Class N steel is used, with the peak negative moments varied by up to 30%
depending on the ultimate curvature at the peak moment regions. Of course, the actual amount of redistribution
required as the ultimate load is approached may be larger (or smaller) than this, because the elastic peak moment and
the actual peak moment are unlikely to be the same.The Standard also permits the use of plastic methods, such as yield
line design, for slabs if Class N reinforcement is used. In yield line design, the fundamental assumption is that the yield
lines possess enough rotational capacity to allow a collapse mechanism to develop. The designer is more or less free to
decide the ratio of negative to positive yield line capacity and, frequently, it is advantageous to select a relatively low
ratio to reduce the required quantity of top steel. Of course, this is only possible if the critical sections are very ductile.
One of the great advantages when designing indeterminate r.c. structures for strength is the lack of need to accurately
determine the distribution of internal actions, provided individual cross-sections are ductile and equilibrium is satisfied.
With adequate ductility, the designer can be sure that the distribution of actions at the ultimate limit state will be the

599
 Concrete Institute of Australia (2001) Conference Proceedings

same as that assumed in design. With the introduction of 500 MPa steel (particularly Class L with su = 0.015), this is
no longer the case. When fracture of the steel becomes the failure mode of a critical section, the ability of the structure
to find the desired design load path may be lost. Consider the following examples.

3.1 Example 1
Consider an internal, 6 m, fixed-ended span of a lightly loaded continuous one-way slab of overall depth 200 mm. The
slab is subjected to a uniformly distributed dead load, w. The material properties are f'c = 40 MPa; f'cf = 3.8 MPa; Ec =
25000 MPa; Es = 200000 MPa; fsy = 500 MPa. The main tensile reinforcement in the bottom of the slab is 400 mm2/m
throughout the span at an effective depth of 170 mm and the main tensile reinforcement at the continuous supports is
400 mm2/m at a depth of 30 mm below the top surface of the slab. The critical sections at each support and at midspan
just comply with the minimum strength requirement of AS3600 (i.e. the ultimate moment capacity Mu exceeds 1.2 times
the cracking moment, Mcr).
For this slab, at each critical section, the moment required to produce an extreme fibre concrete tensile stress of 3.8
MPa on the uncracked section is Mcr = 26.1 kNm/m. If the load on the slab is gradually applied, the negative moment at
each support before cracking is wL2/12 and the positive moment at midspan is wL2/24. Cracking will first occur at the
supports when the moment reaches -26.1 kNm/m and, soon after, the moment corresponding to first yield of the tensile
steel at the supports (Msy = -32.0 kNm/m) will be reached. At this load level, the section at midspan is uncracked and
the bending moment diagram is shown as the dashed curve in Fig 4. Further increases of load will result in a very slight
increase in moment at the support accompanied by large rotation and an increase in moment at midspan. Cracking
occurs at midspan when the moment reaches Mcr and, eventually, the bottom steel at midspan will yield when the
moment reaches Msy. The moment diagram at this load level is shown as the solid curve in Fig 4. This load level will
only be reached if the section at the support has sufficient rotational capacity to allow the necessary change of curvature
at midspan. In this example, assuming a hinge length at each support equal to d = 170mm, the change of curvature
necessary at each support is s = 199 x 10-6 mm-1.
w

L = 6m

symm

-30
-20 first yield at support
-10
Moment 0
(kNm/m) +10
+20
+30
first yield at midspan

Figure 4 Bending moment diagrams for fixed ended slab.

The moment-curvature relationship for the critical sections is plotted in Fig 5. If Class L steel is used the plot would
terminate at a curvature of 95.5 x 10-6 mm-1 (when the strain in the tensile steel reaches su = 0.015). If Class N steel is
used (with su = 0.05) the plot would terminate at a curvature of 308 x 10-6 mm-1. When the uniform elongation of the
steel is greater than about 0.07, the ultimate curvature is controlled by failure of the compressive concrete and equals
391 x 10-6 mm-1.

600
 Concrete Institute of Australia (2001) Conference Proceedings

Moment (kNm) Mu = 33.4 kNm/m (concrete failure)

30

20 s

10 su = 0.015 su = 0.05

0
17.8 95.5 216 308 391
Curvature (x10-6 mm-1)
Figure 5 Moment -curvature relationship for critical sections of fixed ended slab.

It is evident from Fig 5, that when using Class L steels, the rotation at the supports necessary to develop the yield
moment at midspan cannot occur. Fracture of the steel at the supports will initiate a sudden failure of the span, probably
when cracking at midspan occurs. When Class N steel is used sufficient rotational capacity is available to develop Msy
at midspan, but insufficient rotational capacity is available to develop the ultimate moment Mu at midspan. The use of
Class L steel in this, or for that matter any, reinforced concrete structure is extremely unwise.

3.2 Example 2
Consider the two-span, one-way slab of Fig 6a subjected to a uniform load and supported by girders at A, B and C, as
shown. If an elastic analysis (based on gross section dimensions) is undertaken assuming rigid supports (ie. girders A,
B and C do not deflect), the bending moment diagram for the slab is shown as the solid line in Fig 6b, where MB = -
wL2/8. The slab load resisted by the girder at B is 3.33 times that resisted by the girders at A (and C). If the deflection
of the girder at B is vB greater than that at A and C, then the negative moment at B decreases by 3EIvB /L2 (where EI is
the flexural rigidity of the slab) and the bending moment diagram for the slab is shown as the dashed curve in Fig 6b.
Depending on the stiffness of the slab and the stiffness of the supporting girders, the value of the moment at B could
well be positive and the positive span moment of the slab may exceed wL2/8. For example, if L = 3000 mm, w = 20
kN/m2, and the slab is 150 mm thick (with E = 28000 MPa), the moment at B assuming vB = 0 (and assuming gross
cross-sectional properties) is MB = -wL2/8 = -22.5 kNm/m. If vB = 10 mm, then the change in moment at B resulting
from differential support deflection is 3EIvB /L2 = 26.25 kNm/m. The moment at B is therefore -22.5 + 26.25 =
+3.75kNm/m.

A B C

RA RB RC
L L
(a) One-way slab and beam system.
MB
Rigid supports
Flexible supports

(b) Bending moment diagrams for the slab

Figure 6 Effect of support settlement on bending moment distribution.

If the slab cross-sections are ductile (and contain tensile steel with a su in excess of 0.1), it is quite reasonable to ignore
the differential deflection of the supporting girders and to design the slab for the solid bending moment diagram of Fig
6a. This is often what is done in practice. When the cross-section is non-ductile, such an approach is not safe. For the
example considered above, an enormous redistribution of moments is necessary if the solid elastic bending moment is

601
 Concrete Institute of Australia (2001) Conference Proceedings

used for the design of the slab. It may not even be safely possible to adopt such an approach when using class N steel
with a uniform elongation as low as 0.05. The days of designers blissfully designing structures to satisfy equilibrium,
and relying on ductility, may be at an end, and should be at an end, if brittle 500 MPa steel reinforcement is used.

4. Ductility – Amendments in AS3600-2001

In formally recognising 500 MPa reinforcement, several amendments have been made in the latest revision of AS3600
in an attempt to recognise the reduced ductility of Class L reinforcement.

4.1 Clause 1.1 Scope and Application

This important clause outlining the applicability of the Standard has been revised to specifically address (for the first
time) the type of reinforcement to be used. The revised clause states that Class N reinforcement can be used, without
restriction, in all applications referred to in the Standard. The clause also states that Class L reinforcement shall not be
used in any situation where the reinforcement, or member, is expected to undergo large deformation under strength
limit state conditions. This should be interpreted as meaning that Class L reinforcement should not be used in any
flexural member (beam or slab) since large deformations are always expected in such members at the strength limit
state.

4.2 Clause 6.2 Properties of Reinforcement

This clause has been rewritten to incorporate the properties of 500 MPa reinforcement as specified in AS/NZS4671.
Significantly, AS3600 does not even mention a third class of high ductility reinforcement (Class E with su exceeding
10%) specified in the Reinforcement Standard for use in New Zealand. It appears that only in earthquake prone New
Zealand is ductile reinforcement necessary.

4.3 Clause 7.6.5 Stiffness

The existing clause states that for the calculation of the relative stiffness of members any reasonable assumption may be
made and applied consistently throughout the analysis. The amendment is more specific and confirms that for the
analysis of structures at either the serviceability or strength limit states an estimate of the stiffness of each member may
be based on either the dimensions of the uncracked (gross) cross-sections or other reasonable assumptions which better
represent conditions at the limit state being considered, provided that these assumptions are applied consistently
throughout the analysis.
Structural analysis is often undertaken using elastic analysis and assuming uncracked cross-sectional properties. The
question has arisen whether or not this is a “reasonable assumption” given that at service loads cracking, creep and
shrinkage can reduce the cross-sectional stiffness and result in a significant variation of stiffness from region to region
in a structure. Of course, at the strength limit state, the stiffness is greatly different to that based on gross section
properties. This amendment confirms that elastic (gross section) analysis is acceptable, provided adjustments are made
to the predicted in-service deformations to include non-linear material effects. Such an analysis is also acceptable for
strength design, provided the structure is ductile. Ductility is the fundamental requirement that enables structural
engineers to use what is often a very bad estimate of member stiffness in their determination of internal actions.
As has been demonstrated in the previous sections of this paper, the necessary ductility may not be available when
Class L steels are used.
4.4 Clause 7.6.8 Moment redistribution in reinforced concrete members
for strength design
This clause has been rewritten. It states that in design calculations for the strength of statically indeterminate reinforced
concrete members, the elastically determined bending moments at any interior support may be reduced or increased by
redistribution, provided an analysis is undertaken to show that there is adequate rotation capacity in critical moment
regions to allow the assumed distribution of bending moments to be achieved. Such an analysis shall take into account
the stress-strain curve of the steel reinforcement assuming for analysis purposes that fracture of the reinforcement
occurs at su. Of course, static equilibrium of the structure after redistribution of the moments must be maintained and
the properties of the concrete assumed in the analysis should be as defined in Clause 6.1.
The clause also states that special consideration shall be given to the detrimental effect that significant relative
foundation movements can have on the strength of continuous beams and slabs incorporating Ductility Class L
reinforcing steel (low ductility) as the main reinforcement. The Standard also suggests that when Class L reinforcement
is used, moment redistribution shall not be permitted unless an analysis is undertaken to show that there is adequate
rotational capacity in critical moment regions. It is here implied that the elastic moment distribution is somehow the
correct one, which of course is not true.
In this clause, the Standard contradicts the requirements of Clause 1.1, where Class L reinforcement is not permitted for
the main reinforcement in continuous beams and slabs (as in such members large deformations are expected at the
strength limit states).

560
 Concrete Institute of Australia (2001) Conference Proceedings

4.5 Clause 7.9 Plastic Methods of Analysis for Slabs

Plastic methods of analysis based on lower bound or yield line theory may be used for the analysis for strength of one-
way and two-way slabs, provided Ductility Class N reinforcement is used throughout.
4.5 Clause 8.1 Strength of Beams in Bending
Sub-clauses of Clause 8.1 have been revised and other parts still need to be. The idea that the ultimate strength in
bending (or combined bending and axial force) occurs when the extreme compressive fibre reaches a strain of 0.003 is
a nonsense, if the steel fractures at much smaller curvatures. It has already been demonstrated that in many situations
when using Class L, and even Class N, reinforcement, steel fracture occurs well before the compressive concrete strain
approaches 0.003.
Although Clause 8.1.2 has not been revised, a proposal was made to Standards Committee BD2 to revise Clauses
8.1.2.1 and 8.1.2.2 by including the additional condition/assumption that the strain in the tensile reinforcement does not
exceed su. This proposal was not accepted.

5. Conclusions
The relatively low uniform elongation of 500 MPa steel reinforcement (particularly Class L reinforcement) has
significant implications in the design of reinforced concrete structures, particularly with regard to ductility. The
necessary ability of structures to redistributed moments as the ultimate load is approached may be significantly
compromised; plastic design techniques may no longer apply; and the failure mechanisms of elements may change
significantly. It has been shown that for the design of flexural members, it is unwise to use Class L reinforcement in
any circumstances. Structures reinforced with Class L steel may not even have the ductility to justify the use of elastic
analysis.
Some of these design implications have been addressed in the recent revision of AS3600 (with varying degrees of
success), and the changes relating to the impact of 500 MPa steel have been discussed.
The introduction of 500MPa steel, with the low minimum uniform elongations currently specified, has been forced on
the industry and is a backward step. If the minimum uniform elongation of Class L and Class N steels were 0.03 and
0.10, respectively, (rather than 0.015 and 0.05), then the concerns related to ductility would disappear and the latest
revision of AS3600 with regard to ductility would be appropriate.
The disadvantages associated with the move to 500 MPa steel are many and far outweigh the benefits currently being
promoted by the steel reinforcement industry.

6. References
1. AS3600-2001, Australian Standard for Concrete Structures, Standards Australia, Sydney, (AS3600-1994, incorporating
Amendment 1 (issued in 1996) and Amendment 2 (issued for public comment in 1999)(2001).
2. AS/NZS4671 - 2001, Australian/New Zealand Standard - Steel Reinforcing Materials, Standards Australia and Standards
New Zealand, 2001.

561