Jy toe Journal of the STRUCTURAL DIVISION Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers FLEXURAL MEMBERS WITH CONFINED CONCRETE By Dudley Charles Kent’ and Robert Park? INTRODUCTION In the limit design of reinforcedconcrete frames itis necessary toconsider the ductility available from members in the post-elastic range when determining the distributions of bending moments throughout the frame which could be used indesign. Also, in countries subjected to earthquakes it is important that struc- tures are capable of deforming ina ductile manner when in the post-elastic range under the action of severe seismic motions. The satisfactory behavior of frames at the ultimate load for both of these aspects is dependent on the shape of the moment-curvature curves for the members, If the compression zone of aconcrete beam or columnis confined by closely spaced steel stirrup ties, hoops or spirals the ductility of the concrete is en- hanced and large ultimate curvatures may be reached. Tests reported by Base and Read (3), Betero and Felippa (4), Nawy, Denesiand Grosko (17) and others have indicated qualitatively the beneficial effect of suchconfining steel. Baker (1), Corley (11), Soliman and Yu (26), Blume, Newmark and Corning (7) and others have proposed methods for estimating the ultimate moment and curva- ture taking the action of confining reinforcement into account, However there has been little attempt made to trace theoretically the moment-curvature re- lationships of flexural members with confined compression zones in the range - of far advanced curvatures. Existing experimental evidence for the compressive stress-strain curve for concrete confined by transverse steel hoopsor spirals is examined herein and used to determine the properties of the compressive stress block of flex- ural members with confined concrete at various strain levels. The stress block parameters so found are used to determine the moment-curvature char- Note,—Discussionopenuntil December 1, 1971. To extend the closing date one month, a written request must be filed with the Executive Director, ASCE. This paper is part of the copyrighted Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American So- ciety of Civil Engineers, Vol. 97,No. ST7, July, 1971. Manuscript was submitted for re- view for possible publication on November 12, 1970. ) Programmer Analyst, Systems and Programmes Ltd, Lower Hutt, New Zealand. 2 Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. 1969ST FL. AUR. Mbk.nBERo 1971 Confined Concrete.—Concrete whichis restrained in the directions at right angles to the applied stress will be referred to as confined concrete, Active confinement is when the transverse stress is from some externally applied ac- Hon, for example anaxially loaded cylinder subjected to lateral fluid pressure. The tests conducted by Richart, Brandtzaeg and Brown (19) on test specimens with lateral fluid pressure showed that both the strength and ductility of the concrete are greatly increased by such pressure. In practice concrete may be confined by transverse reinforcement in the form of closely spaced steel spirals or hoops. Such confinement is passive. At low levels of axial concrete stress the transverse reinforcement is hardly stressed and thus the concrete is unconfined. The concrete becomes confined when at stresses approaching the uniaxial strength it commences to increase in volume due to progressive internal fracturing and bears out against the transverse reinforcement which then applies a confining reaction to the con- crete. Tests by many investigators in the past, e.g., (4,10,20,21,24,26), have shown that such confinement canconsiderably improve the stress-strain char- acteristics of concrete once the concrete reaches the stage of commencing to increase in volume. However, the tests showed that rectangular or square 0 (a)chan's Curve(10) (D) Sotime (C) Roy & Soren's Curve(21) FIG. 2.—-SOME SUGGESTED STRESS-STRAIN CURVES FOR CONCRETE CONFINED BY RECTANGULAR HOOPS hoops do not confine the concrete as effectively as circular spirals, This is because theconfining reaction canonly be applied in the corner regions of the hoops since the bending resistance of the transverse steel between the corners is insufficient to restrain the expansion of the concrete along the whole length of bar. Therefore, the concrete is only effectively confined in the corner and central regions of the cross section and a disruption of aconsiderable portion of the core area occurs. Nevertheless, rectangular hoops do produce a sig- nificant increase in the ductility of the concrete core as a whole. Some stress-strain curves proposed for concrete confined by rectangular hoops are shown in Fig, 2, In Chan’s (10) trilinear curve range OAB approx- imates the curve for unconfined concrete and slope BC depends on the lateral confinement. The curve of Soliman and Yu (26) consists of a parabola and two straight lines, Values for the stresses and strains at the critical points were related to theproperties found from tests on eccentrically loaded prisms. Roy and Sozen (21) conducted tests on axially loaded prisms and suggested that the descending branch of the stress-strain curve could be replaced by a straight line, The strain at 50 % of maximum stress on the falling branch €,,, was lin- early related to the volumetric ratio of the transverse steel. It is also of in-1977 - €,70.002 —€, sou 500 "206 fe FIG. 3.—PROPOSED STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP FOR UNCONFINED OR CON- FINED CONCRETE 7 7 | | | .007 t 2 al | i: | Tested at slow loading rate § | | | §.008 aoe : | = ° x | 3.005 = i+ 5 | g | ° 004 3 i a” 1 \ .003 - 2000-~~—~«3000~=~«K000~=S«SO-=S=S*S*«*S 70006000 £, Maximum Stress (p31) source ~ @ Blanks & McHenry =Concentrically loaded cylinders (5) © US.Bureau Reciam.: : “R) + Hognestad et al =Eccentrically loaded prisms (13) ere aL inatytical as) * Brock =Concentrically loaded prisms (8) x Bertero & Felippa = é 4 w FIG, 4,-FALLING BRANCH PROPERTY OF UNCONFINED CONCRETEsh FueXURKAL MEMBERS 1973 terest to note that the tests of Roy and Sozen indicated that confinement by rectangular hoops did not increase theconcrete strength. Other investigators, e.8., Chan (10), Soliman and Yu (26), Bertero and Felippa (4), and Riisch and Stockl (24,27), however, have observed an increase in strength due to closely spaced rectangular hoops, Proposed Stress-Strain Curve for Unconfined and Confined Concrete,—On the basis of the existing experimental evidence it is Proposed that the curve shown in Fig. 3 gives a good representation of the stress-strain relationship for unconfined or confined concrete. The proposed curve combines many of the features of previously proposed curves, The features of the assumed curve are as follows, Region AB.—The ascending portion of the curve will be represented by a Second degree parabola, in common with Hognestad (12) and others, For con- crete with confining steel this assumes that such steel has no effect on the shape of this part of the curve. This isa reasonable assumption because many investigators, e.g., (13), have shown that lateral strains which would cause the hoops tobe significantly stressed occur only when the maximum concrete stress is almost reached. MLE LIN ey hoop . fa) a WM, SPalied Wh. concrete Tn FIG, 5.—EFFICIENCY OF CONFINING REINFORCEMENT Tt will also be assumed that the maximum flexural stress reached by both unconfined and confined concrete is the same and that this stress is the cyl- inder strength /2, i.e.,# = 1 in Fig. 1. The following reasons are listed for this: 1. The f¢' = 0.857 used by Hognestad (12) was based on column tests. 2. Examination of the test results obtained by Hognestad, etal, (13) oncom- Pression zones with a strain gradient shows that k, = 1 appears to fit their experimental results for /é > 2,500 psi justas well as their empirical expres. sion which gives &, in the range 0.92 to 0.97, S. On the basis of the observations of Sturman, Shah,and Winter (28) onthe effect of strain gradient the use of k, = 1 is conservative. 4. There is evidence to show that confining steel in the form of rectangular hoops may cause an increase in strength, but as this increase in strength may be small [in Roy and Sozen’s tests (21) it was found to be zero] it will be as- sumed conservatively that #, = 1 in all cases.wT4 duly, «271 ore TABLE 1,—PROPERTIES OF CONFINED a Gioes Ser in Hoops jpecimen section, pounds anil number | 6" xd", — | per square aeccr Number a in inches inch Tninches | bunched | sotney am (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (7) Soliman 2 4x6 3,660 3/16 1 8 amd Yu 3 4x6 3,980 3/16 1 6 (26) 4 4x6 3,460 3/16 1 4 10 4x6 3,190 5/18 1 4 16 4x6 3,840 3/16 1 2 Roy and Al 5x5 3,080 va 1 2 Sezen A2 5x5 2,980 1/4 1 2 (2m) A3 5x5 3,700 W/4 1 2 BL 5x5 3,480 1/4 2 4 B2 5x5 3,480 V4 2 4 B3 5x5 3,370 V4 2 4 cl 5x5 3,320 3/8 1 4 c2 5x5 3,440 3/8 1 4 c3 5x5 3,390 3/8 1 4 DL 5x5 3,150 1/4 3 6 D2 5x5 3,200 4 3 6 D3 5x5 3,380 1/4 3 6 El 5x5 3,330 1/4 4 8 E2 5x5 3,410 1/4 4 8 E3 5x5 3,460 A 4 8 5x Ss Bertero and | 3x3 8,600 3/16 1 2-1/2 Felippa (4) | 4-1/4 x 4-1/4 8,600 3/16 1 1-1/2 1,800 3/16 1 2-1/2 Note: For tests of Soliman and Yu (26): Specimens were eccentrically loaded with the 3, 4and 10, and 0.7 in. for specimen 16. f, = 51,700 and 47,100 psi for 3/16 in, diam and For tests of Roy and Sozen (21): Specimens were axially loaded. Cover to hoops was zero {mens without longitudinal steel are analyzed. For tests of Bertero and Felippa (+): Spec- the maximum stress reached by the specimens. Only specimens without longitudinal steel ‘The strain at maximum stress will be assumed to be €, = 0.002. This is acommonly accepted assumption for unconfined concrete. Confinement and the presence of a strain gradient may increase the strain at maximum stress but as Uuig may be accompanied by a smail increase in stress the actual stress- straun curve will pass close to the assumed point. Therefore for region AB in which ¢, = 0.002. Region BC.—The falling branch of the curve will be assumed to be linear and its slope will be specified by determining the strain when the concrete stress has fallen to 0.5 of maximum stress, as suggested by Roy and Sozen7 ~LE RAL wEMbLoRS 1975 CONCRETE TEST SPECIMENS ” an/s | prvor7s | A/2g fe Sow €soh (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) 0.0035 | 0.475 0.00242 0.46 0.0074 | 0.0039 | 0.0035 0.0046 0.633 0.00366 0.48 0.0096 | 0.0037 | 0.0059 0.0069 0.950 0.00672 0.46 0.0121 0.0040 0.0081 0.0171 0,925 0.01643, 0.45 0.0147 | 0.0043 | 0.0104 0.0187 1.300 0.02130 0.26 0.0152 0.0038 0.0114 0.0207 2.375 0.0319 0.45 0.038 0.0044 0.0336 0.0207 | 2.375 0.0319 0.45 0.019 0.0045 | 0.0145 0.0207 2.375 0.0319 0.45 0.031 0.0039 | 0.0271 0.0207 1.188 0.0226 0.45 0.024 0.0040 | 0.0200 0.0207 1,188 0.0226 0.45 0.020 0.0040 | . 0.0160 0.0207 1.188 0.0226 0.45 0.022 0.0041 | 0.0179 0.0239 1.156 0.0257 0.428 0.023 0.0042 | 0.0188 0.0239 1.156 0.0257 0.428 0.028 0.0040 0.0240 0.0239 1,156 0.0287 0.428 0.021 0.0041 0.0169 0.0207 0.792 0.0184 0.45 0.027 0.0043 | 0.0227 0.0207 0.792 0.0184 0.45 0.018 0.0043 | 0.0137 0.0207 0.792 0.0184 0.45 0.018 0.0041 0.0139 0.0207 0.594 0.0160 0.45 0.008 0.0041 0.0089 0.0207 0.594 0.0160 0.45 0.017 0.0041 0.0129 0.0207 0.594 0.0160 0.45 0.014 0.0040 | 0.0100 0.0157 1.13 0.0167 0.44 0.0075 | 0.0027 | 0.0048 0.0181 271 0.0298 0.48 0.0191 | 0.0027 | 0.0164 0.0109 1.63 0.0140 0.48 0.0097 | 0.0027 | 0.0070 Teutral axis held near tension side of specimen. Cover to hoops was zero for specimens 2, $/16 in, diam hoops, respectively. /¢ in table {s the 12 in, x 6 in diam cylinder strength. fy was about 50,000 pst. f2 in table is the 12 in. x 6 in, diam cylinder strength, Only spec- Gnens were axially loaded. Cover to hoops was zero. A432 bars were used. /¢ in table is are analyzed. (21). The results of other investigators will be used to determine the slope of this part of the curve. Tt is well known that for unconfined concrete the slope of the falling branch increases rapidly with increase in concrete strength. Fig. 4 shows a plot of the maximum stress, f{, and the strain at 0.5/3 on the falling branch for un- confined concrete, €.9y, obtained from the results of anumber of investigators. Where cylinder strengths were not quoted it was assumed that the prism strength equaled the cylinder strength. For short-term loading rates the experimental points conform reasonably closely to = (2) inwhich ft is expressed in pounds per square inch, The implication of this rela~1976 July, 19/1 ST 7 tionship is thata truly dimensionless plot of f,/ft versus €, cannot be achieved because high strength concretes have considerably lower values for €yoy, i.e. they are more brittle. Note that a slow rate of loading tends to lift the falling branch, as shown by Riisch (23), and thus results in larger values for €y9y,. For concrete confined by rectangular hoops the slope of the falling branch is reduced, and the following variablesare relevant: (1) Cross-sectional area of hoop bar A‘; (2) center to center spacing of hoops, s; (3) ratio of hoop spac- ing to minimum dimension of the confined core, s/b'' in which b"" 5 d""; (4) ratio of hoop bar diameter to core dimensions, D/b' and D/d''; (8) hoop yield stress, fy; (6) longitudinal reinforcement content; (7) strength of concrete, 2; (8) strain gradient, and (9) rate of loading. The effect of the first and sec- ond variables are usually expressed by the volumetric ratio of confining hoops: 20" + aN A's BRATS OT be htatsamestimass noun snoci setae in which 5" and d'' = the width and depth of the confined core, respectively. The significance of the third variable is shown in Fig. 5. The confinement of concrete between hoops relies on the arching action developed between the hoops. Clearly the confinement in Fig. 5(b) is better than that in Fig. 5(a), al- though the volumetric ratio may be thesame for both cases. Because the core area of the confined concrete will be considered to be that area of concrete within the outside dimensions of the hoops it is clear that a large s/b"' ratio will lead toa smaller mean concrete stressover the corearea. Thus the s/b"" ratio is a means of expressing the efficiency of various arrangements of hoops with thesame p''. The hoop diameter D willalso havean effect on the efficiency of confinement by rectangular hoops. If the hoops have a small D/b''or D/d"' ratio they will act merely as ties between the corners because the flexural stiffness of the hoop bar will be so small that the hoops will bow outwards rather than laterally restrain the concrete in the regions between the corners. With large D/b'' and D/d'* ratios the area of effective confinement will become larger. However, no attempt will be made to take hoop diameter into account herein because there is very little experimental data available and it is con- sidered that the relative sizes of D, b"', andd"' of practical sections are such that the confinement of the hoops will be mainly in the corners. At first sight it may appear that the hoop yield stress will be an important variable as it indicates the limit of the available confining force. However, there is no guar- antee that the hoops willreach the yield stress, for exampleas in Ref. 5: Thus, although itis commonly assumed that fy isan important parameter, this study willmake no such assumption. Also, some studies have included the longitudinal reinforcement content in the quantity p'', for example Corley (11), but this study will conservatively only consider confinement from the hoop steel. The effect of concrete strength is taken into account in Eq. 2 for €,,, and the ef- fect of strain gradient will be examined in the derivation to follow. This study will only apply to short-term loading, Experimental results from the tests of Soliman and Yu (26), Roy and Sozen (21) and Bertero and Felippa (4) are shown analyzed in Table 1. In the calcu- lation of ¢,o- it was assumed that by the time the strain ¢.9¢ is reached all the concrete outside the core has spalled away. On this basis, if the maximum load carried by a specimen is P,,, the maximum stress will be Py, /A,g, and when the stress in the concrete coreis reduced to 50 “> of the maximum stress the load on the specimen is given byST7 FLEXURAL MEMBERS 1977 TABLE 2.—Z VALUES Féin pounds per square inch b/s o” ~ 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 (1) (2) (3) (4) (8) (6) (7) 0.5 0.01 200 300 400 500 600 0.01 64 12 76 79 81 0.02 38 41 42 43 44 0.03 27 28 29 30 30 0.75 0.01 56 él 65 67 68 0.02 32 34 35 36 36 0.03 23 4 24 24 25 1.00 0.0L 50 55 87 59 60 0.02 29 30 31 31 32 0.03 20 au 21 21 21 1.25 0.01 46 50 52 53 54 0.02 26 27 28 28 28 0.03 18 19 19 19 19 1.50 0.01, 43 46 48 49 50 0.02 24 25 25 26 26 0.03 1T 17 17 18 18 1.75 0.01 40 43 45 46 46 0.02 22 23 24 24 24 0.03 15 16 16 16 16 2.00 0.01 38 41 42 43 44 0.02 21 22 22 23 23 0.03 15 15 15 15 15 aoe @ Soliman & Yu (26) | { Roy & Sozen(21) x Garter & Felippa(4) , | 0.03 ®son oo2 | o.01 7 J 0 05 FIG. 6.—INFLUENCE OF HOOPS ON FALLING BRANCH OF STRESS-STRAIN CURVE FOR CONFINED CONCRETE191. . Jury, 19.4 ey Py = 0.5 SA Eq. 4 was used to determine the load when the stress had reduced to 50 % of the maximum stress in the above tests and enabled the values shown in Table 1 for the strain €,,, corresponding to this stress to be obtained from the pub- lished load-strain and stress-strain curves. Unfortunately only five of the 15 stress-strain curves published by Soliman and Yu could be analyzed because the others were not continued to high enough strain levels to allow €y¢ to be estimated. The strain €, shown in Table 1 was calculated using Eq. 2. A measure of the additional strain at 50 % of the maximum stress on the falling branch is then given by Cigfy = Cigg = Gogg wes mae pew etm eet et ee (5) and these values are also tabulated. Values for p'' and b''/s are also shown in the table. To relate €,., top'' and b''/s the data were subjected to a least squares analysis. In view of the scatter of experimental results it was con- sidered that fitting a complicated expression was unwarranted and the simple expression proposed was can sap (Uy inwhich a, and a, wereconstants tobe determined from the least squares anal- ysis. The possible values of a, considered were 1, 2, 3 and 4 because it was evident that 6''/s was not the major variable. The analyses gave a, = 0.73 and a, = 2 as the best fit with a standard deviation for €,., of 0.0048. The stan- dard deviations obtained with the best values for a, with a, = 1 and 3 were 0.0061 and 0.0049, respectively. Fig. 6 shows €.,, plotted against p''VO"/s. Considerable scatter of the experimental results is evident, even for supposedly identical specimens such as the groups of three of Roy and Sozen. The following expression was finally chosen to represent the relationship within the range of experimental evidence: €soh stony fait + Note that the effect of strain gradient is not marked in Fig. 6 and therefore has been ignored in Eq. 7. Examination of the coordinates of points on the line shows that the equation for the falling branch BC of Fig, 3 may be written as fe=fe(l- Zleg- el ...e- ; 0.5 in which Z = ———"—___ son + Esou ~ & Eo = 0.002, and €,., and €,o,are given by Eq, Tand 2, respectively. Table 2 shows the Z values calculated from Eq. 9 for a variety of concrete strengths, 6""/s ratios and p" values. It is apparent that more tests arenecessary in the future to enable account to be taken of more variables in Eq. 7 and toprovide more data for statistical analysis. Region CD.—It will be assumed that the concrete can sustain astress of 0.2 Fé from €é9¢ to infinity (see Fig. 3). This has been assumed previously byST I SUR 1Mi BE lod Yamashiro and Siess (29), and Barnard (2) has shown that concrete can sustain some stress at indefinitely large strains. Failure of the member will occur before the concrete strain becomes unrealistic. Fig. 7 shows the influence of steel hoops on the stress-strain curve of con- crete with acylinder strength of 3,500 psi when 5'"/s = 1 as given by the pro- posed stress-strain relationship. It is evident that there is a great improvement in the falling branch behavior for small contents of hoops, but that the im- provement becomes progressively less significant as more hoops are added, fe 3500 psi o 0.004 a008 012 C016 to FIG. 7.—INFLUENCE OF VOLUME OF HOOPS ON STRESS-STRAIN CURVE FOR CONCRETE WHEN 5''/s = 1 AND fé = 3,500 PSI Som fo | 16.7 | 7a.5 | —> 125| 1,240 | 1.304 1.034/ 16.4 | 26.6 | 30.3 225| 1,222 | 1.270 | 0.966 | 16.0 18.3 | 23,7 0.10 | 1.0 | 0.0902 /0.002023; 25} 1.280 | 1.650) —b | 17.4 |atna | —> 125] 1.270 | 1.530 | 1.210] 17.2 | 40.6 | 46.0 225) 1.250 | 1.470 | 1.160/ 17.0 | 32.9 | 35.9 0.20 |o 0.1687 |0.002470] 25} 1.065 | —a | o,850/ 6.65 | -= | 29.60 125} 1.050 | —® | 0,812} 6.25 | -a | 9.74 225 1,035 = 0.777 | 5.85 eal 7.43 0.20 / 0.25} 0.1719 |0.002387/ 25] 1.064 | 1.146/ 0.919] 8.85 | 29.80| 66.40 125} 1.058 | —a | 0.839/ 8.32 | —a | 14.27 225 1.048 -2 0.805| 7.80 —* | 10.28 { 0.20 | 0.50] 0.1742 |0.002324| 25} 1.110 | 1.345] 1.072] 11.61 | 41.50 /306.00 | | 125} 1.092 | 1.075 | 0.871] 11.40 | 15.76/ 18.80 225| 1.065 | —® | 0,794/ 11.07 0.20 | 1.00] 0.1767 0.002124] 25/ 1.192 | 1.690] —» | 14.50 125/ 1.185 | 1.398 | 1.115] 14.36 225| 1.175 | 1.341] 1.071) 14.23 0.30 | 0 0.2427 |0.002875} 25] 1.043 | —a | 0,836] 3.81 | 125| 1.021 | 1.033 | 0.808| 3.57 225| 0.997 | 1.028] 0.780} 3.34 0.30 0.25 0.2518 0.002673] 25| 1.056 ~ 0.842| 5,29 125| 1.040 | 1.049 | 0.836] 4.96 225| 1.029 | 1.048 | 0.832| 4.66 | 0.30 | 0.50| 0.2572 0.002503! 25| 1.059 | 1.201] 0.961| 7.94 125| 1.056 | 1.058| 0.844] 7.47 225/ 1.048 | 1.056] 0.825} 7.00 0.2637 |0.002347) 25} 1.150 | 1.700] => | 12.41 125| 4.142 1,312 | 1,053 | 12.34 225| 1.135 | 1.269 | .0.955 | 12.25 0.30 | 0.50.-7 a wEX UAL .dMBu dS 1985 TABLE 4,—CONTINUED (1) | (2) (3) (4) | (5) (8) (7) | (9) | (10) | (a1) 0.40 |0 0.3100 0.003333) 25) 1.021 ose] 246] 2 | 5,25 125| 0.992 0.812} 2.31 | 1.70] 2158 225| 0.960 0.773 2.16 | 1.00] 2.42 0.40 | 0.25/ 0.3304 |0,002805} 25] 1.031 0.822} 3.65 | —a | 20,90 125/ 1.017 | 1.024] 0,815] 3.43 | 2.52] 5.60 225) 0,985 | 1.019] 0.800/ 3.22] 1.48) 4.22 0.40 | 0.50] 0.3392 /0.002650/ 25] 1.051 | 1.131 | 0.904] 5.64 | 58,00 /261.00 125| 1.043 | 1.050] 0.834) 5.34] 3.90| 10.39 225/ 1.037 | 1.048 | 0.820} 5.01 | 2.31| 7.34 0.40 | 1.0 | 0.3504 |o.002406) 25) 1.125 | 1.711 | nate 107.30] —> 125] 1.120 | 1.263 | 0.996) 11.70 | 18.51] 23.80 225 1.114 | 1.224 9.982] 11,61 | 16.17] 19.83 *Maximum moment occurs at crushing.. bFails by tension steel fracture. may cause an increase in the moment capacity. The curves of Fig. 10 show that the presence of confining steel makes little difference to moderately rein- forced beams (for example, p= 1.25 %) and to more heavily reinforced beams with high compression steel contents (for example, p = 2.5 q, p' = 1.25 % or p = 3.75%, p' = 2.50%). However with high tension steel contents and low compression steel contents the effect is significant (for example, p = 3.75 %, p' 20). 7 Comparison of Theory With Experiment.—Very few authors have published experimentally obtained moment-curvature results in sufficient detail to sub- ject the theory to a rigorous test. However Mattock (16), has reported some beam tests in detail and these are shown compared with the writers’ theory and with Mattock’s theory in Fig. 11. It can be seen that the writers’ theory predicts low moment capacities for beams Cl, C2, C3, C4, CSand C6 at large curvatures, This may be due to the fact that these beams were tested with a central point load and that the resulting confinement afforded the compressed concrete could have delayed the spalling of the concrete and enabled the beams tocarry anincreased moment at large strains. The writers’ theory compares well with beams C2A and CSA and these were both subjected totwo point loading giving aconstant moment region with no additional concrete confinement. For the seven beams tested by Mattock with two point loading, the average ratio of maximum theoretical moment to maximum experimental moment was 0.97 by Mattock’s theory. Maximum and Ultimate Moments and Curvatures.—Frequently the terms maximum and ultimate are used synonymously. This may be reasonable in con- siderations of strength when only the greatest loading capacity is of interest. However, when considering the capacity of sections {or plastic rotation a dis- tinction must be made between these two terms because many sections havea considerable capacity for plastic rotation beyond the peak of the moment-cur- vature curve. Therefore the commonly specified maximum values (for example, based on a concrete strain in the extreme compression fiber of 0.003) do not givea true indication of the ductility of the section beyond maximum moment. This point is of importance in seismic design where the energy absorption by