THE 7th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

"CIVIL ENGINEERING - SCIENCE AND PRACTICE"

GNP 2020 – Kolašin, Montenegro, 10-14 March 2020

Igor Gjorgjiev1, Borjan Petreski2

THE EFFECT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DESIGNED AND

BUILT-IN REINFORCING STEEL

Summary
The European codes of practice require the usage of B500 reinforcing steel material in the
phase of construction for compliance with the design methodology. On the other hand, some of
the countries in the Balkan region still use standards that are based on design with the RA
400/500 reinforcement. However, due to the prevalence of the B500 reinforcement on the
market, the structures that are designed with RA 400/500 material end up being constructed
with B500 reinforcing steel. The effect that this inconsistency has on the response of the cross-
sections is discussed in this paper.
For the need of demonstrating the consequences of the different properties of steel materials
used in the building sector, sophisticated software package for cross-sectional calculation is
used. The software is implemented for obtaining the interaction curves and moment-curvature
relations of the evaluated cross-section. In these calculations, the concrete part of the cross-
section remains unchanged, while the reinforcing steel is varied as described. Then, a case-
study cross-section is chosen, and the external forces determined. In order to demonstrate the
influence these different materials have, three separate cases are considered for presenting.
Firstly, the chosen cross-section is designed and constructed with the RA 400/500 reinforcing
steel used widely in the codes prior to Eurocode 2. Then, the cross-section is designed with the
B500B reinforcing steel, recommended for use in the seismic prone areas according to
Eurocode 8. Finally, the last case is the most common situation in the practical structural
engineering in the region and it is the main idea of this study. Hereby, the cross-section is
designed with the RA 400/500 reinforcing steel, but the built-in material is B500B, found
commonly on the stock market. The results obtained from these analyses are presented and
discussed afterwards.
Key words
Reinforcing steel, cross-section, design, capacity, ductility

1
Assoc. Prof. PhD, Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology, Skopje, North Macedonia,
igorg@iziis.ukim.edu.mk
2
Assist. MSc, Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology, Skopje, North Macedonia,
borjan@iziis.ukim.edu.mk

87
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

1. INTRODUCTION

The implementation of the European codes of practice is a prerequisite for applying the
latest developments in the structural engineering in Europe. As for the latest scientific
improvements and production and manufacturing advancements, the Eurocode sets the trends for
the building industry. The newest findings are applied through very frequent revisions of the code
while the quality of the concrete and reinforcing steel is prescribed after thorough investigations of
the behaviour of the material. That is why most of the material manufacturers use Eurocode 2 [1]
recommendations for the quality of the materials supplied to the construction sites.
There are very few countries in Europe that use older codes in practice. Even though these
codes are quite sophisticated as well, the industry in general, is following the Eurocode suggestions
regarding the material production. This practice is accepted by the countries that do not use the
European legislative yet, but there have not been any studies that evaluate the implications of it.
The main difference is found to occur within the reinforcing steel manufacturing. Namely, the
Eurocodes prescribe the B500 steel material for reinforcement of the concrete sections. The older
codes, on the other hand, mainly utilize the RA 400/500 reinforcing steel for calculation of the
reinforced concrete elements. Thus, there are inconsistencies in the yield strength of the both
material that reflect on inconsistencies between the designed and the built-in reinforcement in the
structures. Such irregularities can affect both the capacity and the ductility of a cross-section and
the differences are presented in this paper. A case study cross-section is selected and designed with
RA 400/500 and B500B reinforcing steel in order to present the difference in the behaviour. Then
another case when the structure is designed with RA 400/500 but constructed with B500B steel is
shown, too. In the end, summarized results are displayed and conclusion for the future of this
practice is drawn.

2. MOMENT-CURVATURE AND CAPACITY CALCULATION

Theoretically, the behaviour of the reinforcing steel material is represented through an

elasto-plastic stress-strain relationship curve. Its constituent parts include a linear elastic region,
yielding phenomenon resulting in perfectly plastic behaviour and strain hardening to further and
maximum deformation. However, the codes in practice assume simplified material diagrams for the
need of practical application and propose elastic-perfectly plastic constitutive law for the
reinforcing steel defined by a bilinear diagram (Figure 1).
Its characteristic parameters are the yield strength – fy, the typical strain values of εy and εu
(where εu is the characteristic strain of reinforcement at maximum load and εy is the yielding strain)
and the design value of the modulus of elasticity – Es.
The variance between the different steel materials considered in this study is in the yield
strength parameter and the elastic modulus. Namely, the yield strength of the B500B reinforcing
steel is 500 MPa while the yield strength of the RA 400-500 is 400 MPa, resulting in a 25%
difference. Additionally, the calculation value of the elastic modulus of the B500B reinforcement is
200 GPa and the value of the elastic modulus of RA 400/500 is 210 GPa. These parameters are
affecting the design, capacity calculation and moment-curvature obtaining equations and therefore
are very significant for addressing the problem.

88
 GNP 2 0 2 0

Figure 1. Bilinear steel material diagram

Benefitting sophisticated meshing technique and two separate stress integration procedures
along with the updatable material behaviour relationships, the capacity of the concrete cross-
section is obtained. It is then advanced to determine the exact reinforcement required for an
arbitrary reinforced concrete cross-section to withstand the predefined external forces (biaxial
bending moments and axial forces) acting on it. For that purpose, an innovative design algorithm is
implemented in a program package written in C++ and C#, developed by the authors [2].
The moment-curvature relationships of a section are highly important in order to assess the
ductility of the element, the amount of the possible redistribution of stresses and its resistance
against dynamic loading. Considering the ultimate limit state of the section, it is defined as the
failure strain when any of the components comprising the section reaches its own ultimate state.
Whether it is the ultimate compressive strain of the concrete, the ultimate compressive strain when
the whole section is under compression or the ultimate tensile strain in the reinforcement. The
derivation of uniaxial moment–curvature curves for a given axial force in the context of the present
methodology is straightforward. Firstly, the uniaxial direction i.e. the neutral axis orientation is
selected and a series of section integrations for linearly incrementing values of curvature are
performed. As a result, the corresponding moment is plotted against the curvature value. It should
be noted that the above process is stopped when a predefined ultimate strain is reached [3].

3. CASE STUDY

In order to demonstrate the previously described inconsistency between the designed and
built-in reinforcing steel within reinforced concrete cross-sections, a characteristic cross-section
subjected to biaxial bending and axial force is defined. The cross-section width and height are 40
cm and 60 cm respectively. The external forces are defined from static analysis of a sample
structure and their values are N=-576.12 kN (compression), Mx=246.48 kNm and My=142.31
kNm. It is assumed that the reinforcement is distributed equally and symmetrically along the four
sides of the cross-section. Then, the calculations considering design with RA 400/500 and B500B
reinforcing steel are performed in order to present the difference in the behaviour. Afterwards,

89
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

another case when the structure is designed with RA 400/500, but the built-in material is B500B
steel, is shown, too. The cross-section modelled in the specialized software, showing the
reinforcement distribution and meshing is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Meshed cross-section model for design

3.1. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WITH RA 400/500

Firstly, the chosen cross-section is designed with the RA 400/500 reinforcing steel used
widely in the codes prior to Eurocode 2. The design reinforcement value is evaluated at 26.96 cm2
with strains in the steel and concrete at εS=6.47 ‰ and εC=-3.5 ‰, respectively. Thus, the adopted
reinforcement is 8Ø21 mm bars with a total reinforcement area of 27.7 cm2. After the obtaining of
the design reinforcement, there are sufficiently enough parameters for the calculation of the
capacity and moment-curvature of the cross-section.
The construction of the failure surface for a chosen section depends on the cross-section
shape, the amount of the steel reinforcement, its particular distribution across the section and a
certain strain state [4]. Then, by integration of the boundary condition equations, the plane failure
surface with the ultimate bending moment and axial force capacity can be constructed. Repeating
the integration for a chosen finite number of strain conditions, in order for the description of the
entire section capacity, from pure axial compression to pure axial tension, the limit values of the
corresponding bending moments and axial forces are obtained, whose graphical representation is
the diagram of interaction M–N. However, unlike the interaction diagrams in the case of uniaxial
bending, the biaxial bending diagrams normally demand spatial representation which substantially
increases their practical application. Thus, by evaluating the interaction diagrams at various angles
of the neutral axis, a series of diagrams is created to form the interaction surface, Figure 3. Each
point on this surface represents one particular set of axial load and bending about the major axes, x

90
 GNP 2 0 2 0

and y. It is generated using equators obtained as Mx - My interaction curves for varying levels of
axial force, meridians matching different bending angles α = tan-1 (Mx/My) or meridians relating to
the neutral axis angle θ ≠ α.

Figure 3. 3D failure surface of the cross-section

The possible redistributions of bending moment, shear force and axial load that could be
used in design of statically indeterminate structures depend on the ductility of the members at the
critical sections [5]. Even though, the yield curvature of the section is quite straightforwardly
obtained from the strain profiles and the yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement, it is very
important to obtain correctly the ultimate limit state from the ultimate strain profiles in several
angles. Namely, the M-φ surface exhibits peaks in the capacity when the neutral axis position
corresponds with the main orthogonal axes (x and y) of the rectangular cross-section or at angles of
0° and 90° while every other neutral axis position results in smaller ductility, Figure 4.

Figure 4. Moment-curvature diagram of the cross-section at 0° (left) and 90° (right)

According to the moment curvature calculations of the cross-section at three angles, 0°, 30°
and 90°, its ductility varies between 4.12, 2.36 and 4.24 respectively. Also, the yield moment

91
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

capacity is estimated at the three angles and corresponding values are 272 kNm, 277 kNm and 421
kNm. These values are afterwards compared with the values obtained from the calculations in the
following two cases.

3.2. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WITH B500B

Then, the cross-section is designed with the B500B reinforcing steel, recommended for use
in the seismic prone areas according to Eurocode 8 [6]. The design reinforcement value for this
case is evaluated at 21.77 cm2 with strains in the steel and concrete at εS=6.45 ‰ and εC=-3.5 ‰,
respectively. Thus, the adopted reinforcement is 8Ø19 mm bars with a total reinforcement area of
22.68 cm2.
The evaluated interaction curve at the design axial load of -576.12 kN (compression) is
presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Interaction curve of the cross-section for N=-576.12 kN (compression)

Subsequently, the ductility of the cross section is calculated and the values at the same three
angles considered (0°, 30° and 90°) are 3.23, 1.93 and 3.43. The yield moment values are also
evaluated, and their values are 272 kNm, 277 kNm and 422 kNm.
It is observed from these results that while the values of the yielding moments are preserved
and remain unchanged, the values of the ductility have slightly decreased, and the cross-section has
become more brittle in every direction considered.

3.3. DESIGN WITH RA 400/500, CONSTRUCTION WITH B500B

The last case is the most common situation in the practical structural engineering in the
region and it is the main idea of this study. Hereby, the cross-section is designed with the RA
400/500 reinforcing steel, but the built-in material is B500B, found commonly on the stock market.
The design reinforcement value for this case is evaluated at 29.96 cm2 with strains in the steel and

92
 GNP 2 0 2 0

concrete at εS=6.47 ‰ and εC=-3.5 ‰, respectively. However, the adopted reinforcement is 8Ø21
mm B500B bars with a total reinforcement area of 27.70 cm2. Hence, the reinforcement needed for
satisfying the moment demand is met but the material is different from the designed one. In this
case, the cross section is statically solved but its properties regarding ductility are modified.
The interaction and moment-curvature diagrams for neutral axis angle at 0° regarding this
cross-section, compared with the previous cases, are presented in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Interaction curve and moment-curvature diagram at 0° of the cross-section (red)

compared with case 1 (black) and case 2 (blue)

The ductility of the cross section is estimated again and the values at the same three angles
considered (0°, 30° and 90°) are 2.99, 1.82 and 3.15. The yield moment values are also evaluated,
and their values are 308 kNm, 312 kNm and 480 kNm. In this last case it is observed that the
yielding moment of the cross-section is greatly improved knowing that the yielding value of the
built-in steel is higher than the design value. However, the ductility of the cross-section is
decreased meaning that built-in reinforcement reduced the cross-section’s capacity of post-elastic
deformation.

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

A comparison arising from an ongoing problem in the structural engineering field was
portrayed in this study. Using a new methodology for calculation of M-N capacity and ductility of
arbitrary cross-sections subjected to axial load and biaxial bending, several cases were examined.
The comparison presented in the case study are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, below.
It is observed from the results that the main parameters defining the behaviour of the cross-
section, such as the capacity and ductility, can be greatly affected by a small inconsistency in the
design and construction process. In the beginning, this inconsistency seems rather negligible but
after a thorough study and involvement in the process, it appears very significant. Mainly, the
difference is detected when considering the ductility of the cross-section. In the case of designing
the section with RA 400/500, but constructing it with B500B, the ductility is reduced by as much
as 30%. When considering that the local ductility is a governing parameter in Eurocode 8, it means
that the particular section might not satisfy the minimum requirements for design and construction.

93
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

On the other hand, the capacity when observing this case is increased by 12-14%. That is why the
practising engineers might say it is on the safe side. However, in seismic prone regions, the design
philosophy relies on energy absorption and the ductility is its pillar.
Table 1. Summary of results at angle 0°
Yield Yield Ultimate
Reinforcement Reinforcement
curvature moment curvature Ductility
type area [cm2]
[rad/m] [kNm] [rad/m]
RA400 27.7 0.009913 271.99 0.040851 4.12
B500B 22.7 0.012147 272.06 0.039195 3.23
B500B 27.7 0.012351 308.37 0.036912 2.99
Table 2. Summary of results at angle 90°
Yield Yield Ultimate
Reinforcement Reinforcement
curvature moment curvature Ductility
type area [cm2]
[rad/m] [kNm] [rad/m]
RA400 27.7 0.006418 420.79 0.02723 4.24
B500B 22.7 0.007884 422.33 0.02702 3.43
B500B 27.7 0.008001 479.83 0.025193 3.15
Other aspect is the cost of the material for designing the structure. One might suggest that
following the design and construction with the B500B reinforcing steel, the material savings for
longitudinal steel are about 20% compared to the other two cases. However, when considering the
amount of reinforcement needed for satisfying the ductility demands in seismic regions, the
longitudinal reinforcement might be negligible. Namely, for a column height of 3.0 m, longitudinal
reinforcement as calculated and sufficient amount of stirrups, the total savings in material in the
columns are around 7%.

LITERATURE

[1] CEN: "Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings
(EN 1992-1-1)", European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2004
[2] I. Gjorgjiev, B. Petreski: "Optimized Design and M-phi Diagram Construction for Biaxially Loaded
Elements", 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece, 18-21 June
2018
[3] V. K. Papanikolaou: "Analysis of arbitrary composite sections in biaxial bending and axial load",
Computers & Structures, 98-99: 33-54, 2012
[4] M. Sfakianakis: "Biaxial bending with axial force of reinforced, composite and repaired concrete
sections of arbitrary shape by fiber model and computer graphics", Advances in Engineering
Software, 33(4): 227-242, 2002
[5] R. Park, T. Paulay: "Reinforced Concrete Structures", John Wiley & Sons, 1975
[6] CEN: "Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic
Actions and Rules for Buildings (EN 1998-1)", European Committee for Standardization, Brussels,
2004

94