TR 49-High Strength Concrete

- a [oon 49 re Design guidance for high strength concrete Report of a Concrete Society Working Party JDETR MaDesign guidance for high strength concrete Concrete Society Technical Report No. 49 ISBN 0 946691 649 Further copies of this publication, information about other Concrete Society publications ‘and membership of The Concrete Society may be obtained from: ‘The Concrete Society, 3 Eatongate, 112 Windsor Road, Slough, Berkshire, SL1 2JA, UK Tel: 01753 693313, Fax: 01753 692333, E-mail: concsoe@concrete.ora.uk, hitp:www.conerete.org.uk All rights reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded of reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner, Enquiries should be addressed to The Conerete Society. The recommendations contained herein are intended only as a general guide and, before being used in connection with any report or specification, they should be reviewed with regard to the full circumstances of such use. Accordingly, although every care has been taken in the preparation of this report, no liability for negligence or otherwise can be accepted by The Concrete Society, the members of its working partes, its servants ot agents, Concrete Society publications are subject to revision from time to time and readers should ensure that they are in possession ofthe latest version.Concrete Society Technical Report 49 DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE Report of a Working Party of the Design Group of The Concrete Society The Conerete SocietyPREFACE This Technical Report is intended for use by engineers familiar with the design of concrete structures using normal strength conerete but who have little or no experience of high strength concrete. It is intended to provide safe design guidance, based on the best available information, especially in the areas not fully covered by the current codes of practice BS 8110 and BS 5400. ‘The Report is in three parts: Part One Introduction Part Two Design guidance Part Three Supporting information on design using high strength concrete In addition, an Appendix examines the work carried out in Brite EuRam Project $480 ‘Economic design and construction with high strength concrete” and discusses in detail the approaches being taken in different codes of practice tothe introduction of high strength concrete. It includes proposed extensions to BS 8110 which are in line with European thinking. This has been achieved through the examination of existing and draft codes, recent research reports and the results of the project. This report deals mainly with high strength concrete (C60 to C100) made with dense aggregates. Where information is available, design guidance for the use of high strength lightweight concrete (Grade C50 to C80) has also been given. As well as design guidance, recommendations for the successful production and placing of high strength concrete are given. Some example mix designs are also included ‘The work of preparing the Report was partly funded by the Partners in Technology scheme of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. MEMBERS OF THE WORKING PARTY B. K. Bardhan-Roy BE, CEng, FICE, FlStructE (Convenor) (Jan Bobrowski and Partners) Prof. J. L. Clarke MA, PhD, CEng, MICE, MIStructE (The Concrete Society, formerly Sir William Halcrow and Partners) R. Whittle CEng, MA(Cantab), MICE (Ove Arup and Partners)CONTENTS PREFACE Page ii List of Figures wi List of Tables vil List of Design Charts viii PART ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 1 INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF OF THE WORKING PARTY 2 2. PRODUCTION OF HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE, 5 2.1 General 5 2.2. Materials 22.1 Cements 222 Aggregates 22:3 Admixtures 224 Additives 23° Mix design 1 23.1 Proportioning 23.2 Strength 233 Workability 2.4 Production 8 24.1 Mixing 242 Transport 243 Placing 2.44 Production control PART TWO: DESIGN GUIDANCE “1 3. DESIGN AND DETAILING 2 3.1 Design and detailing: reinforced conerete 12 3.11 Cover for durabil Cover as fire protection Flexural design Shear Deflection Column design Minimum reinforcement Size and pitch of links in columns Bond and anchorage 10. Material properties 1 Shrinkage 12 Creep 3.2. Design and detailing: prestressed concrete 16 3.2.1 Axial and flexural tensile strength 3.2.2 Transmission length 3.3. Column design charts, 7 33.1 Introduction 3.3.2 Example 1: Rectangular column, 333 Example 2: Circular column 33.4 — Design charts Design guidance for high strength concrete iiiPART THREE: SUPPORTING INFORMATION ON DESIGN USING HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE 4 4 42 43 44 5 Sa 32 53 54 35 56 6 6.1 62 63 qa 72 13 74 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 FLEXURAL DESIGN Analysis of structures Stress-strain diagrams for high strength concrete 4.2.1 Ductility of high strength conerete members 4.2.2 Idealised stress-strain diagram for design Redistribution of moments Flexural design recommendations SHEAR RESISTANCE OF BEAMS ‘Summary Research on high strength beams in shear Comparison with predictions based on British codes 5.3.1 Normal weight conerete 53.2 Lightweight aggregate concrete Minimum shear reinforcement Conclusions Comparisons with Eurocode 2 COLUMN DESIGN Axially loaded columns 6.1.1” Assessment of load capacity 6.1.2 Effects of confinement steel columns 62.1 Column design with (nominal moment) 62.2 Column design with significant moments ‘Transmission of column loads through floors DETAILING RULES Introduction Minimum tension reinforcement Minimum shear reinforcement and pitch of links in columns MATERIAL PROPERTIES ‘Axial and flexural tensile strength Modulus of elasticity 82.1 Normal weight concrete 822 _ Lightweight concrete Shrinkage Creep Bond and anchorage ‘Transmission length Fatigue Durability Fire resistance 65 66 07 1 1 n 2 n 4 9 9 80 33 86 87 89 89 89. 90 o 2 92 94 96 7 7 98 99 99 100 Concrete Society Technical Report 49APPENDIX A HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE IN CODES OF PRACTICE 101 Al INTRODUCTION 102 A2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR DESIGN 103 A2.1 Cubefylinder relationship 103 A2.2 Tensile strength 103 A2.3 Modulus of elasticity 104 A2.4 Creep and shrinkage 105 A3_ ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES FOR BENDING AND AXIAL FORCE 106 A3.1 Conerete compressive stress-strain relationship 106 A3.2 Axial load/moment interaction la Ad ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES FOR SHEAR 122 ‘Ad.1 Shear resistance without shear reinforcement 122 ‘A4,1.1 Comparison of BS 8110 with other codes ~ Preparation of charts ‘4.1.2 Comments on charts A4.1 to A4.9 A4.13 Proposed extension to BS 8110 clauses ‘4.2 Maximum shear resistance from crushing 130 ‘A4.3 Minimum shear reinforcement 130 AS PUNCHING SHEAR 133 ‘AS.1 Comparison of BS 8110 with other codes 133 A5.2 Comments on charts 139 6 DEFLECTION 153 AT DETAILING 153 AT Introduction 153 72. Bond 153 73. Anchorage and lapping 154 A7.4 Proposed rules 15s AT5 Charts, 155 A7.6 Minimum reinforeement for structural members 160 A7.7 Minimum size and spacing of transverse bars 163 APPENDIX B FURTHER RESEARCH 164 BI INTRODUCTION 164 B2 RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS 164 APPENDIX C REFERENCES 165 Design guidance for high strength concrete yList of Figures Page 1. Moment vs curvature for HSC and normal strength concrete 14 2. Modification factor vs M/bd®, for a service stress of 307 N/mm? (f= 460 Nimm?) 15 3. Position of dg in a rectangular column 18 4. Rectangular column reinforcement arrangement 19 5. Column moment/axial load chart for f, = 85 N/mm? and d/h = 0.8, used t0 establish 1), a /DIE 19 6. Column moment/axial load chart for f, = 85 N/mm? and d/h = 0.8, used to establish M, yu /6M? 20 7. Plot of ultimate M,~M, 21 8. Circular column reinforcement arrangement 2 9. Column moment/axial load chart for f, = 100 N/mm? and hh = 0.8, used to establish Mag. /h 2 10. Typical stress-strain diagram of high strength concrete (measured on 150 mm diameter x 300 mm long eylinders) 67 11. Complete compressive stress-strain curves (cylinder strengths) 68 12, Stress-strain curves of concrete specimens under triaxial compression (confining stress = a, = 1S N/mm) 68 13. Increase of ductility of HSC with lateral reinforcement 69 14, Idealised stress-strain diagram for high strength concrete 70 15. Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength (beams without stirrups) 5 16. Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength (beams with stirrups) 5 17. Ratio of shear stress vs shear span/depth ratio (beams without stirrups) 75 18. Ratio of shear stress vs % steel area (beams without stirrups) 16 19. Ratio of shear stress vs shear span/depth ratio (beams with stirrups) 76 20. Ratio of shear stress vs % steel area (beams with stirrups) 16 21. Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength (beams without stirrups) 1 22. Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength (beams with stirrups) B 23. Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength (LWAC) 8 24, Minimum shear stress to be resisted by transverse steel 9 25. Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength, from Eurocode 2 (beams without stirrups, ¥,= I and shear span/effective dept 81 26 Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength, from Eurocode 2 (beams with stirrups, y= I and shear span/effective depth = 3) 81 27 Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength, from Eurocode 2 (beams without stirrups, y,=" 1.5 and shear span/effective depth = 2.5) 82 28. Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength, from Eurocode 2 (beams with stirrups, y= 1.5 and shear span/effective depth = 2.5) 82 29. Definition of geometric parameters for confined concrete 85 30. Minimum area of tension reinforcement 90 31. Minimum shear reinforcement 1 32. Comparison of concrete tensile strength 104 33 Comparison of £-modulus between EC2 and BS 8110 105 34. Comparison of creep coefficient between MC90 and BS 8110 (proposed) 10s 35. Comparison of shrinkage strain between MC90 and BS 8110 (proposed) after 30 years 106 36. Proposed concrete compression stress block for BS 8110 HSC 108 37. Effect of proposed stress block for f= 75 N/mm? 109 Concrete Society Technical Report 4938. 39, 40. 41 42. 43. 44, 45. 10. . 12. 13. 14, Effect of proposed stress block for £, = 95 N/mm? Effect of proposed stress block for f, = 115 N/mm? ‘Comparison of proposed stress block with other codes for £,=35 Nimm* Comparison of proposed stress block with other codes for fey = 55 N/mm? ‘Comparison of proposed stress block with other codes for fog = 75 Némm? Comparison of proposed stress block with other codes, for f= 95 Nimm? Comparison of proposed stress block with other codes for f= 115 Nim? Comparison of maximum equivalent compressive stress it of Tables Specimen mix designs for 90 and 100 N/mm? concrete (normal weight concrete) Specimen mix design for high strength lightweight aggregate conerete Flexural tensile strength for high strength concrete class 2 design (extension of Table 4.1 of BS 8110 and Table 24 of BS 5400) Design hypothetical tensile stresses for high strength concrete (extension of Table 4.2 of BS 8110 and Table 25 of BS 5400) Requirements in EC2 for minimum shear provision versus actual strength of columns with nominal ity ‘Comparison between f, calculated using the ACI report and that proposed in this report Flexural tensile strength for high strength concrete class 2 design (extension of Table 4.1 of BS 8110 and Table 24 of BS 5400) Design hypothetical tensile stresses for high strength concrete (extension of Table 4.2 of BS 8110 and Table 25 of BS 5400) ‘Comparison of E values Effect of type of aggregate on modulus of elasticity (from MC 90) Chart proper Chart parameters Values of K for different combinations of c,/c, 109 0 0 Mm mW 2 112 113 Page 7 7 9 87 93 93 95 104 123, 133, 136 Design guidance for high strength concrete viiList of Design Charts Axial load/moment charts for rectangular columns ath cS 0.78 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 60 | Chaat | Chat32 | Chat3.3 | Chart34 | Char3.s Page 24 | Page 24 | Page2s | Page2s | Page 26 65 | Chare3.6 | chat3.7 | chan3.8 | Chara | Char3.10 Page26_| Page27 | Page27 | Page28 | Page 28 79 | Chart3.11 | Chart 3.12 | Chart 3.13 | Chart 3.14 | Chart 3.15 Page 29 | Page26 | Page30_| Page30 | Page 3! Chart 3.16 | Chart 3.17 | Chart 3.18 | Chart 3.19 | Chart 3.20 cs Page3!_| Page32_| Page 32_| Page33_| Page 33 go | Chart3.21 | Chart 3.22 | Chart 3.23 | Chart 3.24 | Chart 3.25 Page 34_| Page 34 | Page3s | Page3S | Page 36 ag | Chare3.26 | Chart3.27 | Chart 3.28 | Chart 3.29 | Chart 3.30 Page36_| Page 37 | Pages? | Page38 | Page 38 99 | Chart 3.31 | Chart 332 | Chart 3.33 | Chart 3.34 | Chart 3.35 Page 39_| Page39 | Pageso | Page 40 | Page4i 9g | Chart 3.36 | Chart3.37 | Chart 3.38 | Chart 3.39 | Chart 3.40 Page4!_| Pages? | Pages? | Page43 | Page 43 Chart 3.41 | Chart 3.42 | Chart 3.43 | Chart 3.44 | Chart 3.45 Page 44 | Pagedd | Pageds | Pages | Page 46 100 Axial load/moment charts for circular columns ah fe 06 07 08 09 a Char3.46 | Chart 3.47 | Char3.48° | Chart 3.49 Page47 | Page 47 Page48__| Page 48 & Chart 3.50 | Chart 3.51 | Char3.s2 | Chart 3.53 Page49 | Page 49 Page50_| Page 50 5 Chart 3.54 | Chart 3.55 | Char3.s6 | Chart 3.57 Page 51 Page 51 Page 5? | Page 32 5 Chart 3.58 | Chare3.s9 | Chart 3.60 | Chart 3.61 Page 53 Page 53 Page $4_| Page 54 an Chart 3.62. | Chart 3.63 | Char3.64 | Chart 3.65 Pogess | Page 55 Page56_| Page 56 a Chart 3.66 | Chart 3.67 | Chare3.68 | Chart 3.69 Pages? | Page 57 Pages8__| Page 58 5 Chart 3.70 | Chart 3.71 | Chare3.72. | Chart 3.73, Page 59 | Page 59 Page 60_| Page 60 = Chart3.74 | Chart 3.75 | Chart 3.76 | Chart 3.77 Page 61 Page 61 Page62_| Page 62 fo Chat3.78 | Chart3.79 [Cha 3.80 | Chart 3.81 Page 63 Page 63 Page 64 | _Page 64 viii Concrete Society Technical Report 49PART ONE INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction and brief of the Working Party 2 Production of high strength concrete1 INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF OF THE WORKING PARTY For the purposes of this Report, High Strength Concrete (HSC) is defined as ‘concrete with a specified characteristic cube strength between 60 and 100 Nimm?. Although higher strengths have been achieved and used, the design recommendations in the Report are restricted to the upper limit of 100 N/mm?. Concrete strengths are quoted as cube strengths, unless stated otherwise. ‘The Report is divided into three main parts and an appendix which examines European work on high strength concrete. This introduction (Part One) covers briefly, and in general terms, the material and production technology of high strength conerete and also lists the ingredients — the types of cement, cement replacements or other additions, aggregates (coarse and fine), water and admixtures — which are commonly used. Some mix designs with normal and lightweight aggregates for producing high strength concrete are included (Tables | and 2). ‘These are by no means ‘standard mixes’, but examples of mixes used in practice and obtained by trial. Concrete with a characteristic strength of 60 N/mm! is quite frequently used in the United Kingdom in the precast industry where both normal weight and lightwe aggregates are consistently used to produce such a strength without much difficulty. In in-situ construction, on the other hand, 50 N/mm? concrete is generally considered high strength by UK ready-mixed conerete suppliers, although there are instances of application of higher strength concrete. In a full-scale trial, carried out by the British Cement Association in 1989, four ready-mixed concrete suppliers in London successfully supplied C80 (80 N/mm”) and higher grade mixes using locally available materials. Strength levels of 80 to 100 N/mm? and even higher are being used for both precast and in-situ work in the USA, France, Norway and some other countries. A number of major projects in the UK were planned in the 1990s using C80 to C100 concrete, but were postponed or abandoned, owing to the prevailing economic conditions. In a redevelopment project at Ashford Hospital in Middlesex, about 350 m of C80 concrete were poured in-situ on a trial basis. The high strength concrete was placed in columns, beams, slabs, walls and lift shafts of the three- storey framed building although there was no design requirement for it. The intention of the trial was to examine the practical application of high strength conerete on site. Concrete was supplied by a ready mixed concrete company using normal dry batch production. ‘The columns for the redevelopment of Taikoo Shing City Plaza in Hong Kong were cast in concrete of 100 N/mm? characteristic strength and the same grade was used in both horizontal and vertical structure of a second revent Hong Kong development designed to an extended BS 8110. The main applications for high strength in-situ concrete construction appear to be in offshore structures, columns for tall buildings, long-span bridges and other highway structures. In precast concrete, application are mainly in prestressed ‘elements. The specified concrete strength (cylinder) for in-situ columns in the 44- ‘storey Pacific First Centre at Seattle was 115 N/mm? or about 125 N/mm? (cube). Concrete Society Technical Report 49‘The characteristic 28-day strength of prestressed lightweight concrete cantilever roof beams at the Milburn Stand, at Newcastle United Football Club is 70 N/mm’. ‘The advantages of using high strength concrete can be summarised as follows: + Reduction in size of compression elements and/or the amount of longitudinal reinforcement required, + Reduction in the time for removal of formwork and propping. + Reduction in deflection of beams and slabs, for the following reasons: increase in elastic modulus reduction in creep and shrinkage increase in allowable prestress increase in cracking moment (from increase in tension strength) increase of bond with reinforcement. + Allows reduction in cover to reinforcement for the same durability or an increase in durability for the same cover. To produce high strength no dramatic change in the composition of concrete is necessary. The basic ingredients are the same as for production of concrete in the normal strength range, although addition of additions and admixtures often helps to achieve the result relatively easily. The most important requirements are, however, high quality materials and good control over the production and placing processes, including compaction and curing. With the increase in the use of high strength concrete, and in view of the fact that such strength levels are beyond the scope of UK codes of practice (BS 8110” and BS 5400) in many respects, some design guidance on its structural application is considered necessary. Design methodology, including the design parameters and equations in the current standards (BS 8110 and BS 5400), are mainly based on previous experience, tests and surveys of structures or structural elements where the material strength was rarely more than 40 N/mm? and these may therefore not be fully relevant to the new developments. For this reason the Design Group of The Concrete Society set up a working party in 1991 to examine and review the scope for application for various design provisions in BS 8110 (and also in BS 5400) to structures made with high strength concrete and to formulate suitable state-of-the- art design guidance for areas where the existing provisions appear inadequate or need updating. ‘The Design Group’s brief to the Working Party was as follows: “As the use of high strength concrete (f.,~ 60 Nimm? or above) is on the increase, design guidance for its structural application is considered necessary especially in the areas not fully covered by the current codes of practice BS 8110 or BS 5400, as the case may be. In particular the working party will examine, review and recommend on the following points: + Application of the idealised stress-strain diagram in the current codes (and hence the design procedures) for the design of high strength concrete structural members, flexural as well as axially loaded ones, with or without any special provision for detailing. + Suitability of applying BS 8110 (or BS 5400) provisions for shear resistance Design guidance for high strength concrete 3With or without modification, in particular to limitation on concrete strength and/or reinforcement ratio in the equation for design concrete shear stress. + Recommendations for suitable values and tensile strength, as well as specific ereep, shrinkage and other design parameters, in the light of available experimental results or other relevant information. ‘+ Identifying areas in which code requirements are not specifically linked to concrete strength, such as minimum reinforcement percentages or span/depth ratio, but which may need to be modified for high strength concrete. ‘+ Identifying areas requiring further research.” ‘The Working Party was required, in particular, to examine the following aspects in detail (a) flexural design, (b) shear resistance, (©) design of axially loaded members with or without bending, (@) principles of detailing with special reference to the requirement of the ‘minimum percentage of reinforcement, (©) evaluation of appropriate values for modulus of elasticity, tensile strength, ‘modulus of rupture, creep, shrinkage and other physical properties influencing design and analysis. This Report has been prepared to assist engineers to extend the use of BS 8110 for coneretes with strengths up to 100 N/mm’. It has not been formally submitted to BSI Committee B525/2, which is responsible for BS 8110, but it is hoped that the recommendations in the Report will assist the Committee in future considerations of the use of high strength concrete in the code of practice. Concrete Society Technical Report 492 PRODUCTION OF HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE 2.1 GENERAL The methods and technology for producing high strength concrete (HSC) are not basically different from those required for concrete of low to medium grade except that the emphasis on quality control is pethaps greater with HSC. Features of the main ingredients required are discussed briefly in the next section. The mix design and production processes are then discussed in general terms together with the control necessary at different stages. ‘Some examples of mix designs which have successfully produced HSC and which have been used in actual construction, both in normal weight and lightweight concrete, are included by way of illustration (see Tables | and 2). 2.2 MATERIALS 2.2.1 Cements HSC can be produced with all of the cements and cement replacements normally available in the UK, including Portland cement, sulfate-resisting Portland cement, and combinations with pulverised fuel ash and ground granulated blastfurnace slag, It is not essential to specify Portland cement class 52.5 (previously rapid hardening Portland cement). High early strength cements should preferably be avoided as a rapid rise in hydration temperature may cause problems of (internal) cracks or micro-cracks. 22.2 Aggregates HSC can be produced with a wide range of aggregates, but smooth and/or rounded aggregates may tend to exhibit aggregate bond failure at a relatively low strength. Crushed rock aggregates, of 10 to 20 mm size, which are not too angular and elongated, should preferably be used. However, it has been found that bond to a small particle of aggregate is greater than to a large particle and for that reason smaller size aggregates (say 10 to 17 mm) tend to give better results. Fine sands should be avoided, particularly those with high absorption. The aggregates used in lightweight HSC in the UK are mainly Lytag and Liapor (which are imported), although Pellite and Granulex can also be used. (Note: Lytag, Liapor, Pellite and Granulex are trade names.) 2.2.3 Admixtures Superplasticisers should be used to achieve maximum water reduction, although plasticisers may be adequate for lower strength HSC (C60 to C70). Unless resistance to freezing and thawing is an over-riding consideration, air- entraining agents should not be used, as the voids formed tend to reduce the strength Design guidance for high strength concrete 5of the concrete. If air entraining is essential, then air contents should be set at lower levels than those used for normal strength range concrete", A low-alkali superplasticiser with secondary retarding effects usually provides the best results. 2.2.4 Additives Silica fume (microsilica) can be used to enhance the strength at high levels (C80 and above), but is not needed generally at the lower end (C60 to C80), To facilitate handling, silica fume is often blended into @ slury with superplasticisers, or supplied as a densified powder. Table 1: Specimen mix designs for 90 and 100 N/mm? normal weight concrete. Constituents Grade90 | Grade100 | Grade 100 Mix 1 Mix? Binder (kg/m) PC 330 310 295 GGBs 220 205 200 Microsilica (Emsac S00S) _ 80 80 (MS:water = 50:50) Superplasticiser (kg/m) 66 R uw (Rhebuild 716 SPA) Fine aggregates (kg/m) sis 530 525 (natural flint river sand, zone 2/3) Coarse aggregates (kg/m) (crushed limestone) 10 mm single-size 370 385 375 20 mm single-size 850 910 865 Water (li) 159 83 96 Slump (mm) 120 8 as (after 40 min) | (after 35 min) | (after 30 min) Flow table (mm) 420-480 (340) 420-480 Total free water (li) (including 0.65 « SPA + 0.5 x 163 131 43 Emsac 5008) Free water/binder ratio 03 0.235 027 Strength (N/mm?) 28 days (100 mm cubes) 955 13 18s 56 days (100 mm cubes) ug ee 123 Plastic density (kg/m) 2450 2515 2440 Concrete Society Technical Report 492.3. MIX DESIGN 2.3.1 Proportioning The basie proportioning of an HSC mix follows the same method as for low or strength conerete, with the objective of producing a cohesive mix with minimum voids. This can be done by theoretical calculations or subjective laboratory trials. 2.3.2. Strength The basic strength to water/cement ratio relationships used for producing normal strength concrete are equally valid when applied to HSC, except that the target water/cement ratio should be in the range 0.30-0.35 or even lower. It is essential to ensure full compaction at these levels. A higher ultimate strength can be obtained by designing a mix with a low initial strength gain, by the use of retarders, and/or cementitious additions. This is partially due to avoidance of micro-cracking associated with high thermal gradients. This effect can be facilitated if strength compliance is measured at 56 instead of 28 days. ‘Table 2: Specimen mix designs for high strength lightweight aggregate concrete. Constituents Mix without Mix with microsilica microsilica Binder (ko/m’) Pc 600 520 Microsilica (Emsac 1000 WR*) - 66 Superplasticiser (li) (Cormix SP!) 25 - Fine aggregate (kg/m?) (zone 2) 345 405 Lytag aggregate (kg/m?) 12 mm 695 ns Total aggregate/binder ratio 1.3 1.93 Coarse/fine aggregate ratio 2.01 1.79 Water (li) 170 Free water (li) 252 Slump (mm) 50 = Flow table (mm) 480 0.42 035 assuming 12% absorption by Lytag 0.28 Strength (N/mm?) specified 70 80 achieved (cninimum) 699 82 Plastic density (kg/m?) 1950 1975 * A blend of $0% aqueous microslica slurry and melamine formaldehyde superplasticisers Design guidance for high strength concrete aIncreasing the cement content may not always produce higher strength. Above certain levels it may have little effect. An optimum amount of total cementitious ‘material usually appears to be between 450 and 550 kg/m’ ®. 2.33 Workability HSC mixes tend to be very cohesive and a concrete with a measured slump of ‘50: mm may be difficult to place. As HSC is likely to be used in heavily reinforced sections, a higher workability, typically 100 mm, should be specified if honey- combing is to be avoided. Sometimes high frequency vibration or phased vibration (low frequency followed by high frequency) may be useful. 2.4 PRODUCTION 24.1 Mixing There are no specific requirements for mixing of HSC, although a forced-action mixer may provide a marginally better performance than a free-fall mixer. 242 Transport When superplasticisers are used, concrete tends to lose workability rapidly. HSC containing such materials must therefore be transported, placed and finished before they lose their effect. Many modern superplasticisers can retain reasonable workability for a period of about 100 minutes, but care is still needed, particularly on projects where ready-mixed concrete delivery trucks have long journey times. Often, in order to avoid drastic decreases in slump and resultant difficulty in placing, superplasticisers are only partly mixed on batching, the balance being added on site prior to pouring. 24,3 Placing Because of the cohesive nature of HSC, crazing can occur if impermeable formwork is used, e.g, steel or glass reinforced plastic. The use of ply forms can alleviate this problem. High strength concrete can be successfully placed using skips or concrete pumps. 2.4.4 Production control ‘The same production and quality control techniques for normal strength concrete should also be applied to HSC. For HSC the importance of strict control over material quality as well as over the production and execution processes cannot be over-emphasized. In general, production control should include not only correct batching and mixing of ingredients, bbut also regular inspection and checking of the production equipment, e.g. the weighing and gauging equipment, mixers and control apparatus. With ready-mixed concrete supply, this control should extend to transport and delivery conditions as well, Concrete Society Technical Report 49‘The main activities for controlling quality on site are placing, compaction, curing, and surface finishing, Site experience indicates that more compaction is normally needed for high strength concrete with high workability than for normal strength concrete of similar slump. As the loss of workability is more rapid, prompt finishing also becomes essential. Particular attention needs to be given to vibration at boun- daries of individual loads to avoid “pour lines’. To avoid plastic shrinkage, the finished concrete surface needs to be covered rapidly with water-retaining curing agents. As the quality of the structure with HSC is the main objective, itis essential that, in addition to the above, the accuracy of the formwork and the fixing details of the reinforcement and/or prestressing steel should also form part of the control activities. It is also desirable to assess the in-situ strength of the concrete in the actual structure by some non-destructive methods (such as hammer tests or ultrasonic pulse velocity measurements) for comparison with compliance cube test results, 10 ‘establish that no significant difference exists between the two sets of results. It should be borne in mind that factors which have only a second-order effect at lower strength levels may become of major importance at higher levels, Design guidance for high strength concrete 910 Concrete Society Technical Report 49PART TWO DESIGN GUIDANCE 3. Design and detailing3. DESIGN AND DETAILING This section summarises the significant changes that should be made to the clauses of BS 8110'” when designing with high strength concrete. Similar changes should ‘be made to the equivalent clauses in BS 5400, but these have not been considered in detail. Reinforced concrete is considered in Section 3.1, and prestressed concrete in Section 3.2. Column moment/axial load charts can be found in Section 3.3. 3.1. DESIGN AND DETAILING: REINFORCED CONCRETE. 3.1.1 Cover for durability From the point of view of durability it should be possible to reduce the covers to the steel in high strength concrete from those which are specified in Table 3.3 of BS 8110 for relatively low strength concretes. However, there is at present insufficient experimental evidence to substantiate any changes. Hence it is recommended that the covers appropriate to C50 concrete in BS 8110 should be used for higher grades. See also Section 8.8 of this report. 3.4.2 Cover as fire protection No changes to the current cover requirements are recommended. However, there are areas of concern about the behaviour of some high strength coneretes in fire, Further information is given in Section 8.9. 3.41.3 Flexural design ‘The principles of analysis in BS 8110, including the li can be applied in design using high strength concrete. its of moment redistribution Design methodology based on the idealised short-term stress-strain (uniaxial) diagram in BS 8110 also applies, except that the maximum ultimate strain limit of the diagram is modified by the following equations: Forf, < 60. N/mm? BS 8110 stress block is applicable Forf, > 60 N/mm? &, = 0.0035 — (f,,— 60)/50000 If &,, < strain at the tangent point then the stress is reduced accordingly. Ultimate strain decreases with increase in the grade of concrete. The simplified design procedure based on a rectangular stress-block may also be acceptable with the same limitations on strain. ‘Some longitudinal and transverse reinforcement should be provided in the compression zone, as discussed and recommended in the detailing rules in Section 7. 2 Concrete Society Technical Report 493.4.4 Shear The design approach for shear in BS 8110 is unchanged apart from the following: Clause 3.4.5.2 Delete 5 N/mm? and replace by 8 N/mm. Table3.7 Delete 5 N/mm? and replace by 8 N/mm? Delete 0.4 Némm in Note 2 and replace by 0.4 Nimn? or 04 (407°, whichever is the greater. Table 3.8 Delete “should not be taken as greater than 3” in Note 2 and replace by “should not be taken as greater than 6”. Delete “greater than 40” and replace by “greater than 100”. Clause 3.4.5.8 Delete 5 N/mm? and replace by 8 N/mm’. Equation 5 Delete 0.4 N/mm? and replace by 0.4 Nimm? or 0.4 (f,,/40)"3, whichever is the greater. Clause 3.4.5.12 Delete $ N/mm? and replace by 8 N/mm’. 3.5 Deflection ‘The Brite EuRam Project PRS480 assumed that the detailed procedure set out in ‘Appendix 4 in the draft ENV 1992-1-1: 1992 (hereinafter referred to as EC2) is as applicable for high strength concrete as for normal strength concrete. This procedure is almost identical to the method in the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990" Appendix 4 of EC2 makes allowance for reduced creep effects with increase in conerete strength as described in Section A2.4 of this report. The basic span/effective depth ratios given in Tables 3.9 and 3.10 of BS 8110: Part | do not take account of the effect of increased concrete strength. The calculation method given in BS 8110: Part 2 takes account of the elastic modulus, F,, and shrinkage and creep coefficients but fixes the value of tension stiffening to 1 N/mm’ in the short term and 0.55 N/mm’ in the long term. In order to modify Tables 3.9 and 3.10 of BS 8110 it is proposed that the E value is calculated in accordance with equation 17 of BS 8110: Part 2. The creep coefficient for high strength conerete, @.., should be adjusted such that: Prac = ¥UAO! (f., + 10)] x a It is assumed that Table 3.9 of BS 8110 is based on f,,= 35 N/mm?and a creep value of 2. This agrees reasonably well with Appendix 4 of EC2 using the following values; RH 80%, section depth 300 mm, time of applying the load 14 days. These values correspond to the floors of a building exposed to the weather for several months of its initial life. ‘The expression used to determine the shrinkage coefficient has been adapted from Equation (2.1-76) in Model Code 1990" y= [200+ 45 (6—f,/ 13)] x 10° Q) is also assumed that the permanent load/total load ratio for Table 3.9 is 0.75. Design guidance for high strength concrete B‘A more important advantage that can be gained from the use of high strength conerete in controlling deflections arises from its higher tensile strength, and hence the higher cracking moment. Figure 1 shows how this affects the moment/curvature behaviour. In order to take advantage of the change of properties, tension stiffening should be considered. ‘The method used to adapt Table 3.10 of BS 8110: Part 1 follows that given for calculating mid-span deflection given in Clause 3.7 of BS 8110: Part 2. Values of curvature were calculated assuming tension stiffening in accordance with the ICE Technical Note 372‘. The tension strength of concrete was assumed to be 0.45 Vf (see BS 8110, C1 4,3.5.2 (b)). High strength concrete Cracking e moment * “Normal strength concrete MOMENT ewse Wuse CURVATURE, 4Ir Figure 1: Moment vs curvature for high strength and normal strength concrete. The K values given in Table 3.1 of BS 8110: Part 2, and hence the modification factors calculated, are conservative since they are based on the stiffness values at the most cracked position of the beam or cantilever. Figure 2 provides an extension to Table 3.10 for a service stress of 307 N/mm? (f, = 460 N/mm*), showing values of the modification factor plotted against M/bd” for conerete strengths from f., = 20 to 100 Nimm’. It should be noted that if the beam or slab is restrained in such a way that it cracks significantly under strain loading (e.g. shrinkage or temperature) this modification factor may not be conservative. For this reason the value of span/effective depth ratio should not be taken as greater than 45. 3.1.6 Column design The analysis and design of columns may follow the current provisions of BS 8110 or BS $400. The design charts given in BS 8110: Part 3°"” do not apply to HSC, and the charts in Section 3.3 of this report should be used. For information on the effects of confinement steel on the compressive strength refer to Section 6.1.2. 4 Concrete Society Technical Report 49MODIFICATION FACTOR Mibd? Figure 2: Modification factor vs M/s fora service stress of 307 N/m? (f, = 460 Nimn). 34.7 Minimum reinforcement (a) Beams and slabs BS 8110, C13.12.5.3. The minimum reinforcement, for f, = 460 N/mm, should be increased for f., > 40 N/mm?, such that: 0.13 < 1004/4, > [0.13 x (f,/ 407] @) BS 8110, C13.4.5. 40 Nim, such thi ‘The minimum reinforcement should be increased for f., > 4B, 5 (Ay! 8, * 0.95 f) 2 [0.4 b, x (Fq/ 407] @) (>) Columns BS 8110, Cl 3.12.53. The minimum compression reinforcement should be increased for f.,> 60 N/mm’, such that: 0.4 5 100 Ay nin! Ae 2 [0.4 +0.01(f,-60)] ©) (© Walls BS 8110, C13.12.7.4. The minimum horizontal reinforcement, for f,= 460 N/mm’, should be increased for f.,> 60 N/mm’, such that: 0.25 < 1004,/4, > [0.25 x (fy/ 409] © Design guidance for high strength concrete 153.1.8 Size and pitch of links in columns Link spacing should not be more than 10 times the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement and should be ribbed bars of minimum diameter 10 mm. 3.9 Bond and anchorage The ultimate anchorage bond stress is obtained from the equation: Sou = 05 BS)” Mm for concrete grade > C60, subject to a maximum value of (f.,)°* being 17.8, corresponding to f, = 75 Nimm’. The values of the bond coefficient, fin Table 3.26 of BS 8110 remain unchanged. For high strength lightweight conerete the anchorage bond stress obtained by equation 49 of BS 8110 should be reduced by 20%, 3.1.10 Material properties The material properties of high strength concrete are strongly influenced by the aggregates used. Further information is given in Appendix Section A2.3. 3.1.11 Shrinkage ‘The ultimate shrinkage strain given in BS 8110 (100 x 10 for UK outdoor ‘exposure and 300 10° for indoor exposure) and also in BS 5400, for medium- ‘grade concrete, should be used. See also Appendix Section A2.4 for further details ‘on shrinkage. For high strength lightweight concrete the final shrinkage may be taken as 300 to 400 * 10° for indoor exposure. 3.1.12 Creep The creep coefficients given in BS 8110: Part 2 (Figure 7.1) may be reduced by 20%, unless the age at loading is less than 24 hours. See Section A2.4 for further details on creep. For high strength lightweight concrete the specific creep strain value of 70 x 10% may be taken (refer to Appendix A2.4). 3.2 DESIGN AND DETAILING: PRESTRESSED CONCRETE 3.2.1 Axial and flexural tensile strength The values in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 of BS 8110 can be extended to cover high strength concrete, as detailed in Tables 3 and 4 (and repeated as Tables 8 and 9 in Section 8) of this report. For sections deeper than 400 mm, the values in Table $ should be reduced by the factors given in Table 4.3 of BS 8110 (Table 26 of BS 5400). See Section 8.1 for design recommendations on a class 3 basis. 16 Conerete Society Technical Report 49‘Table 3: Design flexural tensile strength (N/mm) for high strength concrete class 2 design (extension of Table 4.1 of BS 8110 and Table 24 of BS 5400). Type of prestressed Concrete grade (Nimm?) aed 6o | 7 | 80 | 90 | 100 Pre-tensioned conerete 3s | 39 | 43 | 46 | so Post-tensioned concrete | 28 | 3.1 | 33 | 36 | 40 Note: This table is repeated as Table 8 in Section 8 Table 4: Design hypothetical tensile stresses (Nimm?) for high strength concrete (extension of Table 4.2 of BS 8110 and Table 25 of BS 5400). Limiting Conerete grade (Nimm") Group crack width (mm) 60 | 7 | 80 | 90 | 100 Pre-tensioned tendons ou 52 | s9 | 64 | 68 | 73 and grouted post- ost 57 | 63 | 70 | 74 | 80 tensioned tendons 0. 61 | 67 | 75 | 80 | 86 0.25" 66 | 71 | 81 | 86 | 93 Pre-tensioned tendons ou 63 | 70 | 77 | 82 | 88 distributed in tensile os" 69 | 75 | 84 | 89 | 96 zone and positioned 0. 74 | 80 | 90 | 96 | 103 close tothe face of the 02s" so | si | 97 | 103 | 10 concrete Notes: (1) In BS $400 only. (2) InBS 8110 only. (3) This table is repeated as Table 9 in Section 8. 3.2.2. Transmission length Transmission length, Z, of prestressing wire and strands is obtained from: L, = K,* diameter of the tendon * f2* @) where K, is a coefficient which is 240 for ordinary strands (up to 15 mm nominal diameter) 260 for super strands (up to 15 mm nominal diameter) 300 for drawn strands (up to 15 mm nominal diameter) The value of K, for prestressing wires remains as in BS 8110. 3.3. COLUMN DESIGN CHARTS 33.1 Introduction Eighty column design charts (Nos. 3.1-3.81) have been prepared for concrete strengths from C60 to C100 in steps of $ N/mm? and reinforcement ratios between 0.1 and 1%, For rectangular sections, values of d/h have been chosen from 0.75 to 0.95 in steps of 0.05, and for circular columns, values of h,/h between 0.6 and 0.9 in steps of 0.1. For all charts f, is 460 N/mm’, Design guidance for high strength concrete ”‘The centre line of the reinforcement is shown on a diagram for each graph. For the rectangular sections it is assumed that all the reinforcement is distributed sym- ‘metrically over the length of the two centre lines. For the circular sections a specific practical arrangement of bars has been chosen to fit the conditions of the chart. ‘The charts have been prepared taking account of the concrete displaced by the reinforcement. The calculation of Ny for the K value is based on the extreme compressive strain in the conerete, equal to its ultimate strain, and the extreme strain in the reinforcement, equal to its yield strain, 460/(1.05 « 200,000) = 0.00219. For situations where significant reinforcement is placed in the sides of a rectangular column a conservative approach is to calculate an effective value of d, dr, for the reinforcement in the least compressed half of the column as shown in Figure 3. This value should be used with the charts assuming the full value of 4,.. oo of] | 6 | fel le be | e eo; | + e CControd of bars in half section Figure osition of dyin a rectangular column. ‘Two examples follow, for both a rectangular and a circular column, illustrating how the column charts are to be used, 3.3.2. Example 1: rectangular column Rectangular column: 800 x 350 mm, f, Reinforcement: 12T25s (3 on the short side, 5 on the long side, see Figure 4) ‘Nominal cover: 30 mm, link diameter: 10 mm Loading: Axial load, N Moment, M, Moment, M, 100 4,/bh = 100 x 12 x 25? n/(4 x 350 x 800) = 2.10 Nibh = 10000 x 1000/(350 x 800) = 35.71 Nim? Na 0.45 x 85 x 800 < 350 + (460/1.05—0.45 x 85) x 12 x 25/4 = 13 065 283 N = 13 065 283/(800 x 350) = 47 Nimm? a = 800-30-10-25/2 = 747.5 mm 18 Concrete Society Technical Report 49dg = [3747.5 +2.» (747.5 + 800/22 +1 x 40/6 = 631.7 mm deglh Moh 631.7/800 = 0.79 500 x 1000/(350 x 800°) = 2.23 N/mm? From the chart for f, = 85 N/mm, d/h = 0.8 (reproduced in Figure 5): Mg ux/BI = 3.4. Nim? 173.75 s73.78 Figure 4: Rectangular column reinforcement arrangement, fey = 85 Nimm? ‘Axial Load/ bh (Nimm*) dh = 0.8 45 67 8 8 OM 2 Mt 1 204 34 Moment / bh? (Nimm?) Figure 5: Column momenvaxial load chart for f., = 85 N/mm? and da = establish M, y/0H’. 8, used 10 Design guidance for high strength concrete 9In the y-direction: a = 350-30-10-25/2 = 297.5 mm dq = (5% 297.5+1 «1756 = 27.1 mm dgih_ = 277.1350 = 0.79 M lbh? 200 x 1000/80 x 3507) = 2.04 Nim? From the chart for f,, = 85 N/mm?, d/h = 0.8 (reproduced as Figure 6) Joi = 3.4 Nimm? Myon’ fey = 85 Nimm? ‘Axial Load / bh (Nimm?) ee ns 0 o 4 tale 6 6 7 8 9 0 1 4 18 16 223 34 Moment / bh? (Nimm?) Figure 6: Column moment/axial load chart for f.,= 85 Nmm? and d/h = 0.8, used to establish My, ya,/K?, Biaxial bending: (a) Check to BS 8110 Clause 3.8.4.5: N/ bhf., = 10000000/(350 800 = 85) = 0.42 From Table 3.22 of BS 8110: B 0.53 — (0.53 - 0.42) x 0.02/0.1 = 0.51 Mlb’ = 500 1000/631.7 = 792 KN M,/b" = 200 1000/277.1 = 722 kN M,Jh' > M,(b’ hence use equation 40: M,—— = 500 +0.51 x 200 x 631.7/277.1 = 732 KNm Muna = 3.4 * 350 8007/1000000 = 762 KNm (> 732kNm) OK 20 Concrete Society Technical Report 49(b) Check: Result from analysis (OASYS - ADSEC) Applied axial force: 10 000 kN Applied moment: ¥(500? + 200°) ‘Moment of resistance from ADS! 538 kNm = $97 kNm as shown in Figure 7. It should be noted that this solution is an exact solution for the given configuration and thus cannot be compared directly with the simplified method to BS 8110. Ultimate Mx - My : Axial Load 10 000 kN fy=480NImm? ——fou= 85 Nimm* Y = Moment (km) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 ° © 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 X - Moment (kNm) Figure 7: Plot of ultimate M,- M,. 3.3.3. Example 2: circular column Circular column: 750 mm diameter, f4, = 100 N/mm? Reinforcement: 12732 (see Figure 8), nominal cover: 25 mm, link diameter: 12 mm Loading: Axial load, N = 15 000 KN Moment, M = 1500 kNm h = 750-2 x (32/2 +25 + 12) = 644 hh 644/750 = 0.86 100 44. /h? = 100 x 12 x 327/750? = 2.2 Ni = 15000 x 100/750? = 26.7 Nimm? MiB = 1500 100/750? = 3.6 N/mm? From the chart for, = 100 Nimm? and h,/ = 0.8 (reproduced as Figure 9. Note that the chart for h,/h = 0.9 is less conservative) Design guidance for high strength concrete 2Figure 8: Circular column reinforcement arrangement. For Nh? = 26.7 N/mm? Mgy/h? = 3.7 Nimm? Mou = 3.7 * 750°/1000 000 = 1561 KNm, Greater than M = 1500 kNm applied, hence OK. ‘Axial Load / HY (Nimm?) + 2 3 '« 5 6 7 8 9 0 M 37 Moment / bh? (Nimm?) Figure 9: Column moment/axial load chart for f., = 100 N/mm? and h,/h = 0.8, used to establish Miyg,/t?. (@) Check: Result from analysis (OASYS - ADSEC) Applied axial force: 15.000 kN Applied moment: 1500 kKNm ‘Moment of resistance from ADSEC: 1531 kNm. ‘The result from reading the chart is within 2% of the correct value. 22 Concrete Society Technical Report 493.3.4 Design charts Axial load/moment charts for rectangular columns dh ie 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 go | Chart. | Chart'32 | Cha | Chart3.4 | Char3.s Page 24 | Page24 | Page25 | Page 25 | Page 26 gs | Chart3.6 | Chat3.7 | Chat3.8 | Chart3.9 | Chart 3.10 Page 26 | Page27 | Page27 | Page 28 | Page 28 49 | Chare3.11 | Chare3.i2 | Chart3.13 ] Chart 3.14 | Chart 3.15 Page 29 | Page26 | Page30 | Page 30 | Page 31 ys | Chart 3.16 | Chart3.17 | Chart 3.18 | Chart3.19 | Chart 3.20 Page 3! | Page32 | Page32? | Page33_| Page 33 go | Chart 3.21 | Chart 3.22 | Chart3.23 | Chart 3.24 | Chart 3.25 Page 34 | Page34 | Page 3s | Page3s | Page 36 as | Chare3.26 | Chart3.27 | Chart3.28 | Chart 3.29 | Chart 3.30 Page 36_| Page37 | Page37 | Page 3s | Page 38 go | Chart 3.31 | Chart 3.32 ] Chart 3.33 | Chart 3.34 | Chart 3.35 Page 39 | Page39 | Pageso | Page4o | Page 4! gs | Chart 3.36 | Chart 3.37 | Chart 3.38 | Chart 3.39 | Chart 3.40 Page 4! | Page42 | Paged2 | Page43 | Page 43 roo | Chart 3.1 | Chart 3.42 | Charr3.43 | Chart3.44 | Chart 3.45, Page +4 | Pages4 | Page4s | Page 4s | Page 46 ‘Axial load/moment charts for cireular columns, ah a 06 7 08 09 a Chart3.46 | Chart3.47 | Chart3.48 | Chart 3.49 Page 47 Page 47 Page 48 Page 48 ie Chart 3.50 | Chart3.si | Chart3.s2 | Chart 3.53 Page 49 Page 49 Page 50 Page 50 5 Chart 3.54 | Chart3.ss | Chart3.s6 | Chart 3.57 Page 51 Page St Page 52 Page 52 a ‘Chart 3.58 | Chart3.59 | Chart3.60 | Chart3.61 Page 53 Page 53 Page 54 Page 54 5 Chart 3.62 | Chart 3.63 | Chart 3.64 | Char 3.65 Page 55 Page 55 Page 56 Page 56 a Chart 3.66 | Chart 3.67 | Chart 3.68 | Chart 3.69 Page 57 Page 57 Page 58 Page 58 fa Chart 3.70 | Chart 3.71 | Chart 3.72. | Chart 3.73 Page 59 Page 59 Page 60 Page 60 8 Chart 3.74 | Chart 3.75 | Chart 3.76 | Chart 3.77 Page 61 Page 61 Page 62 Page 62 i Chart3.78 | Chart3.79 | Chart3.80 | Chart3.81 Page 63 Page 63 Page 64 Page 64 Design guidance for high strength concrete 23Chart 3.1 fou = 60 Nimm? Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 14 12 13 Chart 3.2 fou = 60 N/mm? Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) oO 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fe 8 penetra ee eee Moment / bh? (Nimm?) 4 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.3 f., = 60 Nimm? d/h = 0.85 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) |] Contre ine of reinforcement 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 joment / bh? (N/mm?) zy Chart 3.4 fey = 60 N/mm? d/h = 0.90 ‘Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) 70 7 = 30 20 10 0 0 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 25= 0.95 fey = 60 Nimm? d/h Axial Load / bh (Nimm?) Chart 3.5 Q.6 |_| | Contra tine’of reinforcement 0123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) =0.75 f., = 65 N/mm? d/h Chart 3.6 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) itgeatt2 et) 10 5 6 7 B 9 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) 4 Concrete Society Technical Report 49 26Chart 3.7 f., = 65 Nimm? Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) d/h = 0.80 i a o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.8 fou = 65 N/mm? d/h = 0.85 o12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 7=0.90 f.. = 65 N/mm? d/h Chart 3.9 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) 23.4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 Moment / bh? (Nimm?) = 0.95 fy = 65 Nimm? d/h Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) Chart 3.10 Centre line of reinforcement 012 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Concrete Society Technical Report 49 28Chart 3.11 fou = 70 Nimm? d/h = 0.75 Axial Load / bh (Nimm?) 0 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 eee 12° 130 «14 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.12 fou = 70 Nimm? d/h = 0.80 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) ‘held bn Centre tne ‘of reinforcement 0 1 Fs 3°04 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 29Chart 3.13 fou = 70 N/mm? dh = 0.85 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.14 fou = 70 Nimm? d/h = 0.90 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) 5 { i 0 12 3.4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) 30 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.15 fy = 70 N/mm? dih = 0.95 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) 0123 4 5 6 7 B 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.16 fou = 75 N/mm? d/h = 0.75 Axial Load / bh (Nimm?) KS {in = 06h} ial oO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (11 12 13 14 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 31Chart 3.17 fou = 75 Nimm? Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) d/h = 0.80 oO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 «13 «14 «15 16 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.18 fey = 75 Nimm? dih = 0.85 Axial Load / bh (Nimm?) Lot [MiN= 0.06n) Moment / bh? (N/mm?) 32 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.19 f.y = 75 Nimm? dih = 0.90 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) Ce tere Let 012 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.20 fy = 75 Nimm? d/h = 0.95 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) : et ° att a 012 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength conerete 33Chart 3.21 f., = 80 N/mm? Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) dih = 0.75 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 eee erent Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.22 fou = 80 N/mm? Axial Load / bh (Nimm?) alata 0 41 2 3 4 5 6 7 8B 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) a Conerete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.23 f,, = 80 N/mm? d/h = 0.85 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) 80 012 3 4 5 6 7 8 Y 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.24 fy = 80 N/mm? d/h = 0.90 Axial Load / bh (Nimm?) 012 3 4 5 6 7 8B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Moment / bh? (N/mm_) Design guidance for high strength concrete 35Chart 3.25 f.4 = 80 Nimm? d/h = 0.95. Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) Peal 9 LEE ; i 0 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.26 fey = 85 N/mm? d/h = 0.75 Axial Load / bh (Nimm?) oO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 611 12° 130 (14 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) 36 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.27 fy = 85 N/mm? d/h = 0.80 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) 6 7 8 9 10 1 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.28 fou = 85 N/mm? d/h = 0.85 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) 80 70 40 30 20 10 0 012 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 37Chart 3.29 fog = 85 N/mm? d/h = 0.90 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) 0 , < 0 12 3:4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.30 fou = 85 N/mm? Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) d/h = 0.95 45 67 B 9 1011 12 13 1: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) 38 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.31 fou = 90 N/mm? d/h = 0.75 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) 7 8 Face ree reer rene reeenTE ane it / bh? (N/mm?) Bo 5 Mom: Chart 3.32 f., = 90 Nimm? d/h = 0.80 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 39Chart 3.33 fey = 90 Nimm? d/h = 0.85 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) 0 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.34 fou = 90 N/mm? d/h = 0.90 ‘Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) o 012 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) 40 Concrete Society Technical Report 49f.y = 90 N/mm? Chart 3.35 d/h = 0.95 Axial Load /bh (N/mm?) A re a ET I 0123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.36 fey = 95 Nimm? d/h = 0.75 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) oe A, 3 line of reinforcement 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10° «14 12°13 «14 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 4Chart 3.37 fou = 95 Nimm? d/h = 0.80 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) 80 1 2 3 4 5 amar 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.38 f., = 95 Nimm? d/h = 0.85 Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) 0 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) a2 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.39 fey = 95 Nimm? dih = 0.90 Axial Load / bh (Nimm?) 0123 4 5 6 7 B 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.40 f,, = 95 Nimm? Axial Load / bh (Nimm/) dih = 0.95 0 ae 012 3 4 5 6 7 B @ 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 8Chart 3.41 f.y = 100 N/mm? Axial Load / bh (N/imm*) d/h = 0.75 Chart 3.42 fy = 100 N/mm? d/h = 0.80 7 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.43 fou = 100 Nimm? Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) d/h = 0.85 012 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Chart 3.44 f,, = 100 Nimm? Axial Load / bh (N/mm?) d/h = 0.90 ao Po eh t 1 7 > +, o7, 0 i ; 0123 4 5 6 7 B O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 45Chart 3.45 fy = 100 Nimm? d/h = 0.95 Moment / bh? (N/mm?) 46 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.46 fou = 60 N/mm? Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) hJh = 0.6 Oo 1 2 4 5 Moment / h® (N/mm?) Chart 3.47 f.y = 60 N/mm? Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) hJh = 0.7 4 5 6 7 8 9 Moment / h® (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete aChart 3.48 f,, = 60 Nimm? Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) hgh = 0.8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Moment / h® (N/mm?) Chart 3.49 f,4 = 60 Nimm? ‘Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) hjh=0.9 u 6 7 8 9 10 1112 Moment / h? (N/mm?) 48 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.50 fou = 65 Nimm? Axial Load / h? (Nimm?) hth = 0.6 Moment / h? (N/mm?) Chart 3.51 fou = . Mons Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) ae 60 4 5 Moment / h? (Nimm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete ”Chart 3.52 fo. = 65 Nimm? ‘Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) hyh= 0.8 4 5 6 7 +8 8 Moment / h® (N/mm?) Chart 3.53 f,, = 65 Nimm? Axial Load / h’ (Nimm?) hJh = 0.9 5 6 7 8 Moment / h® (N/mm?) 50 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.54 f= 70 Nimm? ‘Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) 60 hh = 0.6 4 5 6 Moment / h® (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete SIChart 3.56 fou = 70 Nimm? Axial Load /h? (Nimm?) hyfh = 0. 60 — 4 5 6 7 9 10 4 Moment / h® (N/mm?) Chart 3.57 fou = 70 N/mm? hh = 0.9 Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) 60 T . = Z 10) ta 5 6 7 8 Moment / h® (N/mm?) Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.58 fou = 75 Nimm? Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) hh = 0.6 Chart 3.59 ,,= 75 Nimm? Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) hJh = 0.7 * | —— yy: 6 Moment / h? (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 53Chart 3.60 fou = 75 Nimm? Axial Load / h? (Nimm?) h,fh = 0.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Moment / h® (N/mm?) Chart 3.61 fou = 75 Nimm? hJh = 0.9 ‘Axial Load / h? (Nimm?) TP ih 5 6 7 8 9 10 cit 12 Moment /h® (N/mm?) 5 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.62 fey = 80 N/mm? hh = 0.6 Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Moment / h? (N/mm?) Chart 3.63 f,4 = 80 Nimm? ; 2 hjh =0.7 Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) 3 4 6 Moment /h® (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 55Chart 3.64 fou = 80 N/mm? hh = 0.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Moment / h? (N/mm?) Chart 3.65 fou = 80 N/mm? Axial Load / h? (Nimm?) hyn = 0.9 5 6 7 Moment / h? (N/mm?) 56 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.66 fy = 85 Nimm? hh = 0.6 Axial Load / h? (Nimm?) Contre tne ofreiiforcemant = Moment / h® (N/mm?) Chart 3.67 fy = 85 Nimm? Axial Load /h? (N/mm?) hyh =0.7 4 5 6 Moment / h? (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 57Chart 3.68 Axial Load / h? (Nimm?) fey = 85 Nimm? hh = 0.8 Chart 3.69 Axial Load / h? (N/imm?) 4 5 6 7 Moment /h® (N/mm?) fa = 85 Nimm? hJh = 0.9 5 6 7 8 Moment / h® (N/mm?) 58 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.70 fey = 90 Nimm? hy oO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Moment / h® (Nimm?) Chart 3.71 fa, = 90 Nimm? Axial Load / h? (MPa) hyfh = 0.7 3 4 5 6 Moment / h? (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 59Chart 3.72 Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) or fy = 90 N/mm? hjh =0.8 Chart 3.73 Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) 4 5 6 7 Moment /h® (N/mm?) fou = 90 N/mm? hJh = 0.9 6 7 8 7h? (N/mm?) 5 Moment 0 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.74 fey = 95 Nimm? hh = 0.6 Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) Se. 4 5 Moment / h? (N/mm?) Chart 3.75 fou = 95 N/mm? =0.7 ‘Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) hgh 70 4 5 6 7 8 9 Moment / h® (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 61Chart 3.76 fey = 95 N/mm? Axial Load / h? (Nimm2) hh = 0.8 Chart 3.77 fou = 95 Nimm? Axial Load / h? (Nimm?) hh = 0.9 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart 3.78 fou = 100 Nimm? 2 hJh = 0.6 Axial Load / h” (N/mm?) 70 -— - - Chart 3.79 fey = 100 Nimm? Axial Load / h? (N/mm?) hh = 0.7 Design guidance for high strength concrete 63Chart 3.80 fou = 100 Nimm? 2 hJh = 0.8 Axial Load / h” (N/mm?) Chart 3.81 fou = 100 N/mm? 2 hh = 0.9 Axial Load / h” (N/mm?) 10 > : Moment / h? (N/mm?) Concrete Society Technical Report 49PART THREE SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR DESIGN USING HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE Flexural design Shear resistance of beams Column design Detailing rules on oO a a Material properties4 FLEXURAL DESIGN 4.1. ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES The analysis may follow the principles in Section 2.5.2 of BS 8110" or Section 4.4 of BS 5400. The recommendations in Sections 3.2 and 4.2 of BS 8110 for reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete structures, respectively, and in Sections 5.2 and 6.2 of BS 5400, may also apply to high strength concrete elements, subject to the following comments on the extent of redistribution of bending moments. The redistribution of moments in a member at the plastic stage depends on its rotational capacity, which in turn is influenced by the ductility of the member. From observations of the stress-strain diagram of high strength conerete in uniaxial compression (see Section 4.2.1) its reduced ductility relative to that of low or medium strength normal weight concrete is apparent. On that basis, itis commonly assumed that the rotational capacity of a structural member with high strength conerete is reduced, affecting the extent of redistribution of moment at the plastic stage. However, research and experience indicate that in the case of an under-reinforced concrete member, where failure is governed by yielding of the steel, the rotational capacity is mainly governed by the stress-strain curve of the steel rather than that of concrete. So in such circumstances, the rotational capacity of a high strength conerete member is unlikely to be any different from that of a normal strength concrete member provided that the steel has sufficient ductility, In an over-reinforced section, on the other hand, because of the shape of the uniaxial stress-strain diagram, a decrease in the ductility (and hence the rotational capacity) of a member with high strength concrete (compared to that of normal strength concrete) is usually assumed. However, with confinement reinforcement, such as compression steel and closed links, the ductility of high strength concrete is greatly improved"? (see Section 4.2.1). In practice, therefore, a properly detailed high strength concrete element, even with an over-reinforced section, will have enough ductility. In light of the above, it is recommended that the limit of moment redistribution given in clause 3.2.2 (for reinforced concrete) and 4.2.3 (for prestressed concrete) of BS 8110 may be applied to high strength concrete members. ‘The full extent of redistribution in accordance with clause 3.2.2 of BS 8110 can be taken when the ductility of reinforcement is such that its strain is not less than 5% at the peak stress. BS 8110 suggests a reduction (by 10%) in the limit of redistribution of moment in the case of prestressed concrete. The reason for the reduction in the limit is perhaps a combination of the following: (a) ductility of prestressing steel is generally lower than that of the reinforcement, (b) higher grade concrete used in prestressed concrete is generally considered to be less ductile, and (©) omission of ‘secondary moment’ (due to reactions induced by prestressing forces), in the assessment of ultimate moment for continuous or similar statically indeterminate structures. 66 Concrete Society Technical Report 49BS 5400 requires checks to be made on the rotation capacity which should not exceed 0.015. 4.2 STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE ial compression ‘Some typical stress-strain curves of high strength concrete in uni are shown in Figures 10 and 11 Figure 10 is reproduced from the FIP-CEB State of the Art Report on High Strength Concrete and is based on measurements taken on 150 mm-diameter, 300 mm- long cylinders of high strength normal weight concrete. Figure 11 is compiled from the similar report by ACI Committee 363°. ‘The ascending part of the curves shows a linear relationship up to a very high percentage (80-95%) of the peak stress which appears to occur within the strain range 0.30 to 0.40% in the case of Figure 10 and 0.25 to 0.30% in the case of Figure 11. ‘The descending part of the curves shows a steep drop (the higher the strength the steeper is the line, tending towards vertical). It appears that the strain corresponding to the peak (maximum) stress increases with increase in the concrete strength, whereas the ultimate strain (fracture strain) decreases with higher strength. It is to be noted, however, that the descending part of the curve may not be a true reflection of actual conditions and may generally underestimate the strain capacity of high strength concrete. The post-peak part of the stress-strain curve, to an extent, is a function of the stiffness of the testing machine and it may be possible to record much higher strains than shown in Figures 10 and 11 by using special testing techniques with adequate stiffness of the testing machine“. 120 /\ /\ J\ = crrcondersd sea tne e J/\\ Paes eotowed te ee 15% Condensed sca fume Imes?) g 5 oor oF ope STRAIN (%) Figure 10: Typical stress-strain diagram of high strength concrete (measured on 150 mim diameter * 300 mm long cylinders), from (12). Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete 07STRESS (ksi) To. ie © STRAIN (%) Figure 11: Complete compressive stress-strain curves (cylinder strengths), from (13). 42.1. Duetility of high strength concrete members Figures 10 and 11 indicate clearly a lack of ductility of high strength concrete in uniaxial compression. In practice, however, a reinforced or prestressed concrete structure is seldom subjected to uniaxial compression. The longitudinal or transverse reinforcement in the compression zone induces sufficient confining stresses to set up a triaxial stress field, and under triaxial compression all concrete — high strength, medium strength or low strength ~ shows enough ductility to reduce the possibility of brittle and explosive failure. According to Clarke and Pomeroy“, even quite modest confining stresses that are imposed either deliberately or as a consequence of passive restraint from the rein forcing steel can affect both the compressive stress and its apparent ductility. Figure 12, taken from reference 15, shows the stress-strain diagram for concrete specimens under triaxial compression with various degrees of confining stresses. It is apparent that with the increase in the level of confining stress, the ductility as well as strength (peak stress) of the concrete increases. Figure 13, reproduced from Bjerkeli et al." confirms the same point, as do similar tests on compression members in a Bos 8 3 so g Aastra # orm as 8 ate 7 (©) 28 days g S amr z ° os 10 +5 20 5 30 [AXIAL STRAIN (%) Figure 12: Stress-strain curves for concrete specimens under triaxial compression, from (15). (Numbers on curves indicate level of confining stress in Nimm?.) Conerete Society Technical Report 49PLAIN CONCRETE. 3.1% LATERAL ‘2, = Failure stress in reinforced concrete REINFORCEMENT 1, = Fallure stress of plan concrete, ad : ae aaa = Strain in reinforced conerate z ‘a= Stain of plain concrote fa eeser # o2 fog = 91. Nim? GROSS SECTION - RECTANGULAR, o 1234 BS RELATIVE STRAIN. dtc» Figure 13: Increase of ductility of HSC with lateral reinforcement, from (16). different parts of the world. Though flexural members have not particularly been tested for this purpose, researchers!" none the less conclude that the provision of reinforcement in the compression zone of a flexural member increases its ductility in the same way and thus its rotation capacity. Apart from providing reinforcement, the use of fibres enhances the ductility” of cconerete including high strength concrete, Other parameters, for example the geometric configuration and the type of aggregates, also influence the extent of the increase in ductility. ‘The maximum strain of confined concrete can be evaluated from the following simplified equation”, 6, = 0,003 + 0.02 bil +0.2 p, 0) where ¢, = ultimate (fracture) strain of concrete 5 = width of the beam or shorter side of the column 1 distance between the critical section and the point of contraflexure ina member 2, = ratio of volume of confinement steel including compression steel to total volume of the concrete core yield strength of confining steel in N/mm? the confining steel 4h ‘The third term on the right-hand side can be replaced for further refinement by the expression (0.01 2,f,)" In view of the above, the design methodology based on the idealised short-term (uniaxial) stress-strain diagram, accepted in the Codes for normal strength conerete, can be safely applied to high strength concrete. The stress-strain diagrams, however, may need minor modification to allow for reduced ultimate strain for conerete grades above 60. The proposed idealised stress-strain diagrams of concrete grade 60 to 115 have been shown in Appendix A of this report. In order that ductile behaviour is ensured at the ultimate limit state, it is recommended that some longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, even if it is nominal, should be provided in the compression zone. This approach also applies to flexural design of structural members using high strength lightweight concrete, Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete 0Jn beams, the requirements for minimum shear reinforcement should in most cases ensure an adequate amount of confinement in the compression zone. For slabs, the amount of reinforcement in the compression zone should not be less than the minimum amount of reinforcement required in the tension zone. High strength recast floor units, such as hollow-core units, should not usually be used without a structural concrete topping having the required minimum amount of reinforce- ‘ment, unless sufficient top steel is provided in the unit itself. Jn situations in which the minimum amounts of reinforcement outlined above are ‘tot provided, redistribution should not be used, nor the yield line analysis method. Section 7 (Detailing rules) gives more guidance in respect of the minimum steel quantity to be used. 42.2 Idealised stressst gram for design 4.2.2.1 Concrete ‘The idealised short-term design stress-strain diagram, given in Figure 2.1 of BS 8110 (and also Figure | of BS 5400) (Parabolic-rectangular) for normal strength conerete can be used for high strength concrete with a modification concerning the limit ultimate strain as shown below: For fi, < 60 N/mm? BS 8110 stress block is applicable For f > 60 Nimm? &,= 0.0035 ~ (f,,— 60)/50000 If &, < strain at the tangent point then the stress is reduced accordingly. The alternative idealised stress-strain curve (triangular-rectangular), which is shown in Figure 14, also merits consideration. References 13 and 21 put forward similar suggestions for design stress-strain curves for high strength concrete. As the experimental work shows the ascending part of the stress-strain curve to be more linear for high strength concrete, a bilinear curve may be a more appropriate approximation for the design work. 100 Curve from Fig 8 (fay = 85 Nim!) & STRESS (Nimm) Go0T 0.002 6.003 0.004 01005 STRAIN Figure 14: Typical idealised stress-strain diagram for high strength concrete, 70 Concrete Society Technical Report 494.2.2.2 Steel For idealised short-term stress-strain curves for reinforcement and prestressing steel, Figures 2.2 and 2.3 respectively in BS 8110 (or Figures 2 and 3 in BS $400) may be taken for design. 4.3. REDISTRIBUTION OF MOMENTS The rules given in Clause 3.2.2 of BS 8110 apply, except that, as the ultimate strength of concrete increases, the ultimate strain reduces. This in turn reduces the neutral axis depth beyond which no moment redistribution should be permitted. Condition 2 of Clause 3.2.2.1 should be modified such that x < (By-04) di(0.6 + 0.0014/e,.) (10) where &, is as modified by the equation in Section A3.1 of this report. 4.4 FLEXURAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ‘The section should preferably be designed such that the failure results from yielding of steel, although this may not always be possible. ‘The method of calculation on the basis of the parabolic-rectangular stress-strain diagram, as modified in Appendix A of this report, or the simplified rectangular stress block, as given in BS 8110 (Clause 3.4.4) or in BS 5400 (Clause 5.3.2.3) can bbe applied. (In BS 5400, the simplified rectangular stress block is allowed when the redistribution is not more than 10% of the maximum and the uniform concrete stress is limited to 0.4, for full depth up to the neutral axis.) When the alternative stress-strain curve is used, all assumptions in Clause 3.4.4.1 of BS 8110 may be followed, except that the compression in the concrete will be derived from the bilinear curve shown in Figure 14. The influence of compressive stress distribution (i.e. parabolic, bilinear, uniform) is relatively insignificant on the flexural strength of an under-reinforced beam. However, for an over-reinforced beam where the depth of compression zone increases, it can be important. Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete a5 SHEAR RESISTANCE OF BEAMS 5.1. SUMMARY A review of published data on the shear strength of reinforced high strength concrete beams with and without shear reinforcement was conducted. Eleven series of beam tests were reviewed, 107 beams without shear reinforcement and 38 beams with shear reinforcement. The concrete compressive strength, f,, based on cubes, varied between 53 and 147 N/mm? shear span/depth ratio between I and 6, and the quantity of shear reinforcement, A,,/s, between 0.237 and 6.23 mm. The ultimate shear strength of each beam was compared with the shear strength predicted using the provisions of BS 8110" and BS 5400: Part 4°), In addition some comparisons ‘were made with the draft Eurocode 2, Results from the test data indicate that the equation given in BS 8110 and in BS 5400 for the design shear stress can be applied to higher strength concrete (f,, > 40 N/mm). A number of the papers suggest that the minimum shear reinforcement needs to increase as the concrete compressive strength increases: a possible approach is proposed below. 5.2 RESEARCH ON HIGH STRENGTH BEAMS IN SHEAR In the work reviewed below, all concrete strengths are based on cubes. The ratio of cylinder strength to cube strength is assumed to be 85%. Work by Mphonde and Frantz at the University of Connecticut included tests of a series of beams with and without web reinforcement with concrete strength ranging from 25 to 117 N/mm’. All beams had the same steel reinforcement of 3.6% and were tested with shear spans of 1.5, 2.5 and 3.6 times the effective depth, Their results were compared with the ACI equation in shear and it was found that the ‘method was unconservative for high strength concrete. Hence they developed an alternative expression, which represented more accurately the predicted ultimate shear capacity, Thorenfeldt and Drangsholt “ tested 28 reinforced concrete beams all without links. Normal and lightweight aggregate concretes were used with compressive strength ranging from 62 to 104 N/mm?, Longitudinal steel percentage varied between 1.8 and 3.2 and the shear span/depth ratio between 2.3 and 4, They concluded that the use of normal density concrete with increasing strength above 80 N/mm? might result in decreased ultimate shear strength, although this conclusion is not very clear from their test results ‘Sakaguchi et al. tested six beams with web reinforcement. The compressive strength varied between 104 and 108 N/mm? with a constant longitudinal steel percentage of 1.42 and constant shear span/depth ratio of 1. The web reinforcement, A,,/s, varied between 0.375 and 3.55 mm. They found that the ACI equation for shear under-estimated the ultimate shear capacity of beams having low web reinforcement. 2 Concrete Society Technical Report 49The tests by Roller and Russell ® considered concrete strengths between 85 and 147 Nimm? with longitudinal steel percentage from 1.59 to 6.7. Two values of the shear span/depth ratio of 2.5 and 3.0 were used. The quantity of shear reinforcement (A,,/s), provided in the beams ranged between 0.26 and 6.23 mm. It was concluded that, for members subjected to shear and flexure only, the ACI code provisions over-estimate the nominal shear strength provided by the concrete when the cylinder compressive strength is greater than 117 Nimm?. Results also indicated that for high strength conerete members, the minimum quantity of shear reinforcement specified in the ACI report needs to increase as the compressive strength increases. ‘The adequacy of the minimum shear reinforcement for high strength concrete beams given in the ACI provision was investigated by Johnson and Ramirez”, Eight beams, designed to fail in shear, were tested with concrete strengths in the range of 43 to 85 N/mm? and with web reinforcement, 4,,/s, in the range 0.237 to 0.475 mm, designed to fail in shear, were tested. The steel percentage and the shear span/depth ratio were kept constant. From the evaluation of the results, they concluded that the overall reserve shear strength after diagonal tension cracking diminished with the increases in concrete strength for beams with minimum amounts of shear reinforcement. Levi and Marro® tested seven reinforced concrete beams all with links, with compressive strengths between 30 and 70 Nimm?. The stee! percentage varied between 6.08 and 9.4 with constant shear span/depth ratio of 4.04. The web reinforcement, Ags, varied between 1 and 1,508 mm, Bernhardt and Fynboe tested 27 reinforced concrete beams made of high strength concrete with strengths between 104 and 123 N/mm, 11 beams out of 27 failed in shear. The shear span/depth ratio and the steel percentage varied between 2.35 and 3.44, and 2.46 and 5.23, respectively. The range of web reinforcement for beams failed in shear varied between 0.67 and 1.01 mm. It was stated that the steel percentage, shear reinforcement and shear span influence the shear capacities for high strength concrete beams in a similar way as for ordinary conerete, Ahmad, Khaloo and Povedo™ tested 36 reinforced concrete beams, all without shear reinforcement, with concrete strengths of 79, 82 and 85 N/mm®. The longitudinal steel percentage varied between 1.8 and 6.6 and the shear span/depth ratio between I and 4, They found that the ACI method in shear was unconservative and developed a new expression for shear prediction, including the effects of shear span/depth ratio and steel reinforcement. Elzanaty et al. reported the results of an experimental investigation into the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams made using concrete with compressive strength ranging from 34 to 93 N/mm? A total of 18 beams were tested, 15 without shear reinforcement and 3 with shear reinforcement in the form of vertical stirrups. In addition to concrete strength, other variables, including longitudinal steel percentage (from 0.6 to 3.3) and shear span/depth ratio (from 2 to 6) were considered. Test results were compared with strength predicted using the equation in the ACI code. They concluded that for beams without web reinforcement, the ACI method over-estimates the shear strength by 10 to 30%, particularly for high concrete strength and relatively low longitudinal steel ratio. For beams with web reinforce- ‘ment, all test strengths exceeded those predicted by the ACI equation, regardless of the concrete strength. Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete 23Clarke” tested 12 beams with concrete strengths between 83 and 94 N/mm. Two longitudinal steel percentages of 1.8 and 2.6 were used and all were tested on a shear span of three times the effective depth. From the evaluation of his results and other available data, he concluded that the equation given in BS 8110 and BS 5400, for the design shear stress, may be extended to take account of the higher strength. He also tested a series of beams with and without web reinforcement, made of lightweight aggregate, with compressive strengths up to 60.4 N/mm’. The longitudinal steel percentage and the shear/span depth ratio were kept constant for all beams. The amount of web reinforcement, 4,,/s, for beams failed in shear were 0.113 and 0.45 mm. On the basis of these results and those of other workers, he concluded that, for lightweight aggregate beams with links, the 0.8 reduction factor for shear given in BS 8110 is unnecessary, whereas for beams without links, he suggested a reduction factor of 0.9. 5.3 COMPARISON WITH PREDICTIONS BASED ON BRITISH CODES 5.3.1 Normal weight concrete ‘The two codes, BS 5400 and BS 8110, use the same approach for the design of ‘members in shear with the exception of the factor which takes account of the depth. Both have increased shear resistance for shallow members, the critical depth being 400 mm in BS 8110 and 500 mm in BS 5400. For members deeper than 500 mm, BS 5400 uses the same depth factor as for shallow members to give a reduced shear capacity. This reaches a limiting value of 0.7 at 2 m depth The failure loads given in the various papers have been compared with the predicted Values from BS 8110, with the following assumptions: (a) In the calculation of the concrete contribution in shear, no limit on the conerete strength (limit in BS 8110 of 40 N/mm?) and on the longitudinal steel percentage (limit in BS 8110 of 3%) were considered, (b) For loads closer to supports than 3d, the nominal concrete shear strength was multiplied by 3d/a. (c) The factor of safety for both concrete and steel is 1. (d) The cylinder strength is 85% of the cube strength. ‘The resulting ratios of actual to predicted shear strength are plotted in Figures 15 to 20. Figure 15 shows the ratios for beams without stirrups. It may be seen that there is a high scatter of results, the ratio varying between about 0.6 and 2.6, with the average being about 1.5. It would appear that this average is not significantly affected by the concrete strength. Similarly Figure 16 shows the comparison for ‘beams with stirrups. The ratios now range from about 0.75 to 1.6 with a mean of slightly above 1.0. Because of the complexity of the BS 8110 equation it is necessary to look at the influence of the different variables in turn, to assess their effect on the ratios of actual to predicted shear strength, The ratios plotted against the shear span to depth ratio (Figure 17), indicate an increased shear strength at short shear spans. This suggests that the approach adopted to assess the increased shear capacity near a support is still quite m Concrete Society Technical Report 49RATIO. OF SHEAR STRENGTH [Vies/Ve} acTuAL / PREDICTED 2s x CUBE STRENGTH (Wann) Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength (beams without stirrups). os. ee 0 w 100 10 0 (CUBE STRENGTH (8/0!) Figure 16: Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength (beams with stirrups). ACTUAL / PREDICTED 2 15 x * os SHEAR SPAN/ DEPTH RATIO Figure 17: Ratio of shear stress vs shear span/depth ratio (beams without stirrups). Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete 75ACTUAL PREDICTED os. STEEL AREA Figure 18: Ratio of shear stress vs steel area % (beams without stirrups). acTuat/Preotcteo 1s Sa 7% 7 33 t vs SHEAR SPAN / DEPTH RATIO Figure 19: Ratio of shear stress vs shear span/depth ratio (beams with stirrups). acTUaL/ PREDICTED STEEL AREA atio of shear stress vs steel area % (beams with stirrups). 76 Concrete Society Technical Report 49conservative. The lowest results have been obtained with a shear span of 6, as expected. Generally, at that shear span to depth ratio, failure is more likely to be in flexure rather than shear, Figure 18 shows the effect of the percentage of longitudinal steel on the ratio. It may be seen that there is no obvious trend with increasing steel area and it certainly does not suggest that the limit of 3% in the code has any validity. Figure 19 shows the effect of shear span on beams with stirrups. This suggests a slight increase in the ratio with increasing shear span to depth ratio beyond about 3. Similarly, Figure 20 shows that the ratio increases slightly, for beams with stirrups, with increasing main steel percentage and, once again, the 3% limit would not appear to be justified. ‘There is insufficient information on the effect of section depth on the shear capacity of high strength beams. The conclusions are assumed to be equally valid for BS 5400: there is only very limited experimental justification for the reduction factor even for normal strength concrete, Figures 21 and 22 compare the actual strengths with the design values using the BS 8110 equation incorporating material safety factors, but with no limit on either the concrete strength or on the area of the main steel. The material safety factor for steel (1.15) is from the 1985 version of BS 8110, rather than from the 1997 version, which quotes the slightly lower figure of 1.05. However, this change does not make any significant difference to the conclusions. The Handbook to BS 8110” compares the code predictions with test results for normal concrete strengths. Figure 13.12 of the Handbook, shows that the actual strengths are generally significantly above the design values, ranging up to 1.7 times, but some are slightly below. For loads close to the supports, Figure H3.16 of the Handbook shows that the code predictions are very much a lower bound to experimental results. At span:depth ratios between about 1.5 and 2.5, the experimental results are up to 5 times the code values. Figures 21 and 22 show differences of the same order between actual and designed values for the high strength concrete and therefore demonstrate that the BS 8110 equations are equally valid for high strength concrete and for higher percentages of main reinforcement. However, because of the lack of data with very high strengths and very large steel areas it is proposed that some limits should be retained, at 100 N/mm? and 6% respectively. at Xe 3 x Ha, z rer x i a be Vea co eS wo we 5 CUBE STRENGTH (N/mal) Figure 21: Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength (beams without stirrups). Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete ”ACTUAL? DESIGN CUBE STRENGTH (N/m?) Figure 22: Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength (beams with stirrups). There are insufficient data available to look at the validity of the limiting value of 0.8 Vy applied to the maximum shear. However, analysis of test results suggests that this value is valid for concrete cube strengths up to 100 N/mm®. The limit of 5'Nimm should be raised to 8 N/mm, being equivalent to a concrete cube strength of 100 N/mm:. This is an area that needs further investigation, 5.3.2 Lightweight aggregate concrete ‘There is very limited information on the behaviour of high strength lightweight aggregate beams in shear. Figure 23 shows the comparison with the predicted shear strength for cube strengths between 50 and 70 Nimm®. These suggest that, for these higher strengths, the code approach is valid, and that the 0.8 reduction factor for lightweight concrete is probably not necessary. ACTUAL / DESIGN CUBE STRENGTH (N/me } Figure 23: Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength (LWAC). 78 Concrete Society Technical Report 495.4 MINIMUM SHEAR REINFORCEMENT The minimum shear reinforcement is provided to ensure that any shear crack that may form due to an accidental overload, is controlled. ‘A number of authors suggest that logically the minimum shear reinforcement should be increased with higher strengths of concrete but give no clear guidance. They also indicate a smaller margin between first cracking and failure, which again suggests that more minimum shear reinforcement should be provided. The ACI code requires 4 minimum shear provision of 0.34 N/mm? for strengths up to about 80 N/mm? (cube). At this point it jumps to 0.69 N/mm®, steadily increasing to 1.03 N/mm? for a concrete strength of 120 N/mm (cube). Similarly, EC2 has a steadily increasing requirement as shown in Table 5. ‘Table $: Requirements in EC2 for minimum shear provision. Concrete grade Shear stress (Nim) 15-28 032 30-45 048 50~60 06 The requirements are shown in Figure 24 where they are compared with the 0.4 Nimm specified for all grades in BS 8110. In the absence of experimental data and further guidance it is proposed that the quantity of minimum shear reinforcement should increase with the concrete grade above C40, to cater for a shear stress equal to 0.4 (f,/40)" one MINIMUM TRANSVERSE STEEL AREA (Apy) REQUIRED = "== E a £ where b= width of beam - Zos ‘8, = spacing of links 8 4, = Yield stross of stood 3 okeuior 3 3 € BS 6110 2 02) ck t €c2 ° 20 0 30 a 700 (CUBE STRENGTH (Nim) Figure 24: Minimum shear stress to be resisted by transverse steel. 5.5 CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the available data it is concluded that the approach for the design of beams in shear given in BS 8110 is equally valid for high strength concrete, with the following modifications to the clauses: Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete 79Clause 3.4.5.2 Replace 5 N/mm? by 8 Nimm?, Table3.7 Replace S N/mm? by 8 Nimm?, Replace 0.4 N/mm? in Note 2 by 0.4 N/mm? or 0.4 ( £,/40)*, whichever is the greater. Table38 Replace “should not be taken as greater than 3” in Note 2 by “should not be taken as greater than 6”. Replace “greater than 40” by “greater than 100”, Clause 3.4.5.8 Replace 5 N/mm? by 8 Nimm?, Equation 5 Replace 0.4 N/mm? by 0.4 N/mm? or 0.4 (f,./40)*, whichever is the greater. Clause 3.4.5.12 Replace 5 N/mm? by 8 Nimm?, For lightweight aggregate beams (BS 8110: Part 2: Section 5) the 0.8 factor should be removed. Similar modifications should be made to the clauses in BS $400 but the additional 0.4 N/mm? shear capacity for designed links should be increased to 0.4 (f,/40)". As noted in Section 6, the tensile strength of concrete - both axial and flexural ~ hhas been based on a function of (/,.)* and not of Vf, in this report. For consistency, therefore, it is recommended that the limiting value of axial tensile strength (/,) in equation 54 in BS 8110 (equation 28 in BS 5400) should be taken as 0.14 (7. )", instead of 0.24 Vf,,. This is obtained by applying the material safety factor 1.5 to conerete cube strength in the equation for the lower bound value of axial tensile strength in Section 8. For lightweight aggregate concrete, the limiting value should be taken as f,=0.11 (f4.)”. 5.6 COMPARISONS WITH EUROCODE 2 ‘The Eurocode expression for the shear capacity of the concrete section without shear reinforcement is: v 7(1.2+404,/bd) bd ay where 7 is a linear function of the concrete strength, and is tabulated in the code for concrete strengths (cube) up to 60 N/mm?. Values for higher strengths have been found by extrapolation. A partial safety factor of 1.5 is included. A,/bd should not exceed 0.02. The capacity of the shear reinforcement is calculated as in BS 8110 (but reduced slightly, by a factor of 0.9) and is again added to the capacity of the concrete section. As before, the ratios of the actual to the predicted shear strengths without partial safety factors have been calculated. Figure 25 shows the ratios for beams without stirrups. In the range of cube strengths from 40 to 80 N/mm? the average value is about 0.8 but with a scatter from 1.4 down to as low as 0.4. Above 80 N/mm? the average value falls rapidly. Taken overall, the figure shows a steady downward trend with increasing concrete strength. 80 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Figure 26 shows a similar downward trend, with the average values being about 1.0 at 40 N/mm? and about 0.5 at 140 Nimm?. ‘ “ ry 2 oa ye 3 a} - ny a ie pry a oe. Fi eu : 7 gk on, xx pe pe oe ie Ed . "e wo owe ery ve (CUBE STRENGTH N/a! | Figure 25: Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength, from Eurocode 2 (beams without stirrups, 7_= 1 and shear spanieffective depth =). Bois ay ok os: * 0 = fo & % we Wo we CUBE STRENGTH (N/a) Figure 26: Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength, from Eurocode 2 (beams with stirrups, Y%n™ 1 and shear spanleffective depth = 3). Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete 8Figures 27 and 28 compare the actual strengths divided by the design values for different cube strength. They show that EC2 gives safe values up to about 60 N/mm?, the highest strength specified in Table 4.8 (of EC2) which lists values of the basic design shear strength, but is significantly unsafe above that level. It ‘would appear that the design approach should be amended. 2 as ACTUAL/ DESIGN “o o 0 700 cy xo CUBE STRENGTH (N/mm?) Figure 27: Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength, from Eurocode 2 (beams without stirrups, Y= 1.5 and shear spanleffective depth = 2.5). ACTUAL/ DESIGN rs o 0 “0 oa 10 CUBE STRENGTH (N/m) Figure 28: Ratio of shear stress vs cube strength, from Eurocode 2 (beams with stirrups, 5 and shear span/effective depth = 2.5). Conerete Society Technical Report 496 COLUMN DESIGN 6.1 AXIALLY LOADED COLUMNS 6.1.1 Assessment of load capacity In the range of low to medium strength concretes (ie. < C60), the ultimate capacity ofa reinforced concrete column, subjected to truly axial load, is assessed by calculating individually the strength of the concrete section based on the peak stress (failure) in compression and of the reinforcement on the basis of yield strength (compression) and adding both the contributions. The theory behind this “direct addition law’ can be summarised as follows: Under loading when the column strain is such that both steel and concrete are in the elastic state, the load shared by each component is proportional to the respective cross-sectional areas and the values of elastic moduli. At around 0.1% strain, the stress-strain curve of low to medium grade conerete shows a distinct non linearity (semi-clastic condition) while the stee! is still in the elastic state. Consequently the reinforcement starts to pick up the larger share of the loading than in the elastic stage in order that the strain in both components remains equal. As the strain further increases with loading and reaches close to 0.2% the concrete approaches its maximum stress (peak stress). The slope of the concrete curve becomes virtually zero indicating the onset of plastic flow. At about the same strain, Grade 460 steel also reaches its yield and the state of plastic deformation. Thus both conerete and stee! attain their respective maximum stress. It is to be noted that steel, with higher yield strain than that of concrete at the maximum stress, will not increase the capacity, as columns fail almost immediately after the concrete strain at ultimate stress is reached Tests "-"® confirm that the ‘direct addition law’ is also valid for a reinforced concrete column with high strength concrete. In this case, with increase in the axial load, the steel actually yields first, throwing a larger proportion of the subsequent load onto the concrete section. At a strain level between 0.2 and 0.3%, concrete also reaches the plastic stage. Both components then start sharing the load to the capacity of each, based on the respective ultimate strength (0.67 f,, for conerete and J, for reinforcement) and cross-sectional areas. ‘The conerete stress at failure is usually assumed to be 0.67 f,, oF 0.85 fy. Thus, the strength of a reinforced conerete column under a truly axial load can be predicted as: = f A,(0.67 fu) + AA, (12) Fe z ' ultimate capacity of the column fu = cube strength of the concrete yield stress of steel reinforcement in compression area of concrete (nett) area of embedded stee! Ps " Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete 83However, it should be noted that some test results indicate the ‘failure stress" in concrete can be nearer to 0.75 f,, than 0.67 f,,, i. about 0.95 f,)'"'", In BS 8110" (and also in BS $400°) the ultimate capacity of a reinforced column is expressed by the equation: Na = 045 f.4,+0.95 Ay (3) This equation is no different from Equation 12 above, except that it is modified by application of the partial safety factors (y,) of 1.5 and 1.05 for concrete and steel respectively. 6.1.2 Effects of confinement steel Unless a more precise study is made, the following equations may be used to ‘estimate the increased characteristic strength and strain under triaxial axisymmetri- cal conditions: Forfa, < 60 Nimm?, the value of fin BS 8110 Figure 2.1 is replaced by fa, a: faut = foy® V425 04,04 yy) for yy < 0.1 (14) Sones Fou* (ILI25 + 6, 0, yd) for a, @, Gg > 0.1 (15) £2, Which is the transition strain between the parabolic and rectangular parts, 24 « 104 V (fa / 7a), is replaced by: Caer = 2A IO*V LaF) ® Sareea)? 16) For f., > 60 Nimm?, the parameters f.,,€,, and é,, are replaced by: one = Sax* (1415, 0% Oy) an Bae = BAX faust SP ct) act = byt 0.05 0, 4, og ag) where a, depends on the arrangement of links in the cross-section. @, = | — 8/31 where 1 is the total number of tied bars (see Figure 29); for circular columns @, = 1 «@, depends on the spacing of links. For rectangular columns and circular columns with spiral reinforcement, a, = 1 — 5 / 2b,, where s is the width of the link (see Figure 27); for circular columns with circular links a= (I —s/2b,). 2g, the design volumetric ratio of confining reinforcement, = Wee! We ee * Soa) where 7, sam is the volume of closed links or cross-ties W, cis the volume of confined concrete ya am 18 the design yield stress of transverse reinforcement. For the purposes of this expression f. ams iS not taken as greater than 420 N/mm? and f., is the design strength of unconfined concrete. ‘The concrete in the cover zone should be assumed to have failed at strains greater 84 Concrete Society Technical Report 49than e,,. Ifadvantage is taken of the increased strength of confined concrete then the cover concrete should be disregarded, unless specific measures are taken to keep it in place e.g, by encasing a circular column in a thin stee! tube. The resulting axial resistance may, therefore, be less than that obtained disregarding the confining steel, Bae 44 Pall, | _ bal 73}. 4 TT | ‘Area of each link = A, soy a = 1-83n & = 1-83n 1-8 <4) = 1288 12) = 033 078 a = (1-056 6,)* (1 -055/6,) = (1-055) «(1-056 5) Weg = 2A, vamlBex + BoM]! Wey = [4.6TA, vay (Bey t Be! [ex beyS) * So wae [be bey8) * Fares! Fell be J ‘rea ofeach i a1 1 @ = (1-050) (1-058) ad = (Ay eam RBM IA)EIS * fou waalfes Agus RA V(TIAE 5 * fs! fos = AAs ars) “Be * Sass! Ses = GA, rans) IBS * So ans! fos Figure 29: Definition of geometric parameters for confined concrete. Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete 856.2 MOMENTS AND AXIAL FORCES IN COLUMNS. 6.2.1 Column design with minimum eccentricity (nominal moment) In practice, concrete columns seldom support truly axial loads. Owing to construc- tional imperfections, non-uniformity and dimensional tolerances, the actual cen- ‘roidal axis of the column does not generally coincide with the geometric axis of the cross-section, where the load is applied. As a result, some eccentricity builds up between the column and the load axis with a consequent bending moment in the column. A bending moment may also result from the frame action developed by the rigidity inherent at the beam and column junction (or slab and column junction), ‘even when the axial force in the column is assumed to have been transferred by the ‘beam or slab which is considered simply supported. In view of the above, BS 8110 and BS 3400 require that all columns should be designed with an appropriate amount of moment in conjunction with the axial load. ‘The magnitude of the moment should not be less than that produced by considering the design ultimate axial load as acting at a minimum eccentricity (e,j,) of 0.05 times the overall dimension of the column in the plane of the bending considered, ‘oF 20 mm, whichever is less. BS 8110 gives the following equation (i.e. equation 38) for the ultimate strength of a short column with nominal eccentricity applied to it: N= 0A fA +08 AGL, (20) ‘The equation contains an allowance for material safety factors of 1.5 and 1.05 for concrete and steel respectively. ‘The equation can be applied to the design of a reinforced concrete column using high strength concrete, both normal and lightweight, when the column is not subjected to a significant moment (i.e. column with the nominal eccentricity). Clarke and Adams‘ carried out tests on reinforced concrete columns to verify if the ultimate strength of columns with nominal eccentricity, predicted by equation 38 of BS 8110, applies to similarly-loaded, high strength concrete columns. Eight 250 mm-square columns were tested. Six were reinforced with eight 20 mm- diameter high tensile bars (f = 490 N/mm?), the other two with eight 16 mm- diameter high tensile bars (f, = 600 N/mm?). Concrete strength was 60 Nimm? for the lightweight concrete and varied from 103 to 123 N/mm? for the normal weight concrete columns. All columns were set in the test rig with a nominal eccentricity of 20 mm, The eccentricity was slightly more than the minimum required by the code of practice (i.e. 0.05 ¥ 250 = 12.5 mm). Table 6 shows the actual test failure loads, together with the predicted ultimate strength in accordance with the code BS 8110 equation. For comparison, the BS 8110 equation has been amended (by removing material safety factors) as follows: N (amended) = 0.60 4. fay 0.84 4, f, ay Concrete Society Technical Report 49‘Table 6: Predicted versus actual strength of columns with nominal eccentricity. Strength of Failure load (tonnes) Column material Remarks fa* ty toBS8i10 | Actual @Nimm’) | (Nimm?) (m=) {in test) 1 60 490 330 340 | Lytag We 2 60 490 330 420 | Lytag LWC 3 103, 490 491 450 Nw 4 103, 490 491 480 NWwC 5 123, 490 566 600 Nwc 6 123, 490 566 $30 NW 7 19 600 527 370 NW 8 19 600 327 360 NWC * fuisthe mean strength of 100 mm cubes atthe time of testing and not the characteristic strength. The calculated (to BS 8110) failure load would no doubt, be lower ifthe characteristic strength of conerete was used 6.2.2 Column design with significant moments The columns in monolithic frames, in braced structural systems, in beam and column construction and in flat slab construction, usually have significant moments as well as axial forces and/or shears. In the case of slender columns, additional moments induced by deflection at the ultimate limit state develop. Whether the columns are in high strength or normal strength concrete the analysis and design may follow the current provisions of BS 8110 (or BS 5400). The effective length of a column, slendemess ratio and slenderness ratio limit (the demarcation line between short and long columns) may be taken as for normal strength concrete given in the code of practice, although for high strength concrete they may be slightly on the conservative side because of the enhanced elastic modulus values. The safety of reinforced conerete columns under combined bending and axial load is checked by an axial load-bending moment interaction diagram. The profile of this diagram depends on the stress-strain curves assumed in the design for concrete and steel. 6.3 TRANSMISSION OF COLUMN LOADS THROUGH FLOORS ‘The use of HSC in columns alone can lead to problems at the junctions with floors, if the strength of the concrete in the floors is less than about 0.7 that of the concrete in the columns. If it i less, there is some likelihood of failure of the floor concrete, as found by Bianchini, Woods and Kesler. To ensure against over-stressing the conerete both ACI3 18 and CAN3-A23.3 © make similar provisions. Where the concrete strength in the column does not exceed the strength of the concrete in the slab by more than 1.4, no special precautions need to be taken. In this case the resistance of the column should be based on the lower value of ‘concrete strength unless one of the following methods is adopted (account may be taken of the confinement effects of the reinforcement within the depth of the floor): Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete 37(a) () Place concrete of the strength specified in the column, in the floor at the column location. The top surface of this conerete should extend 600 mm into the floor from the face of the column. The conerete should be well integrated with the floor concrete. This requires careful coordination of the concrete deliveries and possible use of retarders. In some cases, additional inspection services will be required when this procedure is used. It is important that the higher strength concrete in the region of the column is placed before the lower strength concrete in the remainder of the floor, to prevent accidental placing of the lower strength concrete in the column area, It is the designers responsibility to indicate on the drawings where the high and lower strength concretes are to be placed, Where the floor depth is greater than $00 mm, the high workability of the conerete may cause difficulties in achieving @ level top surface without extending the concrete far into the floor area. Temporary stop ends between the top and bottom mats of reinforcement are likely to be difficult to fix and remove. They should not be specified unless it is ensured that the shear resistance of the floor is not impaired. Confinement reinforcement, specified within the depth of floor at 600 mm from the column face, could provide sufficient support for the wet concrete. For intemal columns laterally supported on four sides, the resistance of the column may be based on an assumed concrete strength in the column joint, equal to 75% of the column concrete strength plus 35% of the concrete strength of the floor. 88 Conerete Society Technical Report 497 DETAILING RULES 7.1 INTRODUCTION BS 8110\” detailing rules are based on concrete strengths of up to 50 N/mm?, For shear a further limitation is given of 40 N/mm®. This section examines the draft of EC2 (ENV 1992-1-1)" and the Norwegian Code, NS3473, which allow the use of higher strength concrete and provide appropriate limitation to the detailing rules as the strength of concrete increases. Proposals are made for extending the BS 8110 rules up to concrete strengths of 100 N/mm? (cube strength). 7.2 MINIMUM TENSION REINFORCEMENT ‘Values for minimum tension reinforcement are given in Table 3.25 of BS 8110. The Handbook states that they are based on the tensile strength of concrete such that the concrete tension force just before cracking can be resisted by the reinforcement [just after cracking, The tensile strength of concrete is based on the function Vf, according to BS 8110. This differs from that given in EC2 which bases the tensile strength on the function ( f )®. In order to set sensible rules for high strength conerete it is proposed to base the tensile strength on the EC2 principles. This will then avoid a further change when EC2 is adopted in favour of BS 8110. It is also proposed to base the minimum area of reinforcement on the mean value of the tensile strength, fi, This is not in accordance with the State of the Art Report on High Strength Concrete by the CEB-FIP Working Group on HSC“, which suggests using the upper characteristic tensile value, «(fu.o9s)- However, the comments within that report suggest that f,,, may be more appropriate. Since the minimum percentage rule should be considered as a serviceability requirement, it is reasonable to adopt the mean value of tensile strength. The Norwegian Code for concrete, NS 3473 °®, extends the range of concrete strength up to cube strengths of 105 Nimm?, It provides means of comparing extensions of the use of the formulae given in EC2. ‘The minimum area of reinforcement for slabs and beams is giver and 18.3.2 respectively of NS 3473: Clauses 18.1.3 Slabs: A, > 025k, AS! fa 22) Beams: 4, > 035k, DAS! Sa 3) where , = 1.5—A/h, > 1.0 istotal depth of cross-section in metres a 1.0m Jy = tensile strength of concrete Jn = characteristic strength of reinforcement The values of f, do not correspond with those giver between fay and fooos- C2. They lie somewhere Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete 89Figure 30 compares values of minimum tension reinforcement required by BS 8110, C2 and NS 3473 (slabs and beams) for reinforcement grade 460. NS 3473 appears to be very conservative. The proposed values of minimum tension reinforcement for HSC are also shown in the figure by a firm line. This proposed line (extension to BS 8110), is based on the factor 0.0013 (f,/40)* which appears logical and agrees well with BS 8110 and EC2. This rule, 0.0013 ( f,,/40)*, should apply to all values in the upper part of Table 3.25 of BS 8110. Coun stRENGT Onn) Figure 30: Minimum area of tension reinforcement. 7.3. MINIMUM SHEAR REINFORCEMENT ‘The minimum shear reinforcement required in BS 8110 is given by the expression: Agls, > 04 b,/0.95f, (24) for f = 460.N/mm®, 4,,/s, = 0.0009 5, g 250 Nimm?, 4,,/s, = 0.0017 b, EC2 provides a table of minimum values which depend on both conerete and steel strengths. NS 3473 provides that the following expression: Ag! = 02 bfx fa @5) Figure 31 shows the comparison between the three codes for f, = 460 N/mm’. ‘The proposed extension to BS 8110 for higher grade concrete, in Figure 31, is based ona factor of 0.4 (f,, /40)*. Concrete Society Technical Report 490.003 85.8110 E02 — Proposed —— Nssa73 0.002 — s a 040i 409 001 ° 26 o eo %0 100 Teo (CUBE STRENGTH (Nimm’) Figure 31: Minimum shear reinforcement. 7.4 SIZE AND PITCH OF LINKS IN COLUMNS NS 3473 introduces more stringent detailing rules for concrete strengths exceeding f<= 60 Nimm®. The spacing of links should be reduced to not more than 10 times the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement and the links should be ribbed bars with a nominal size of at least 10 mm. It is proposed that the provision of NS 3473 may be taken for grade C60 to C100 concrete with the exception that bars may be of plain mild steel (f = 250 Nimm?). Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete a8 MATERIAL PROPERTIES 8.1 AXIAL AND FLEXURAL TENSILE STRENGTH It was stated in Section 6 that the axial tensile strength of concrete (and therefore also the modulus of rupture) will be a function of (f.,)*and not of the square root of the cube strength (f,.) as given in BS 8110. This is in accordance with the principles in EC2 as well as CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. The suggested axial tensile strength (mean) of concrete is given by f= 027(f,)" (with both f and f,, in N/mm?) (26) This equation agrees with CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 when the concrete eylinder strength (f,) is assumed to be 0.85% of the concrete cube strength. The tensile strength of concrete is more variable than its compressive strength. Generally, lower and upper bound values of axial tensile strength (f,) may be taken a 0.18 (f,,)" and 0.36 (f,,)* respectively. The modulus of rupture (ie. flexural tensile strength) f, can be taken as 1.50 times the mean f, So Fa(the modulus of rupture) = 0.40 (f,.)* en In the ACI State of the Art Report “ the modulus of rupture of high strength concrete is related by the equation: tn or fy 0.94 Vy) 28) 0.86 Vf, 29) if the ratio of cylinder to cube strength of concrete is assumed to be 0.85. ‘A comparison between the values of fy tained by applying the equation in the ACI State of the Art Report is given in Table 7. Table 7: Comparison between value of f, proposed and calculated using the ACI report Concrete cube Values of fy strength (Nim?) Proposed | ACI State of the Art Report 50 54 61 60 61 67 70 68 72 80 13 17 90 80 82 100 86 86 92 Concrete Society Technical Report 49For air-cured lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC) the modulus of rupture may be taken as 75% of the values for the respective grade of normal weight concrete (up to C80), although at the lower end (i.e. between C50 and C60) this may be expected to be nearer to 80%. For moist-cured LWAC the modulus of rupture may be nearer 95% of the values in Table 7°”. Table 7 gives the basic values of fy for different grades of high strength concrete. For design applications, these values where appropriate, need to be modified by the introduction of the material safety factor (7,,) and/or by an additional factor to take account of the depth of the section, since the depth of a section can significantly affect the flexural tensile strength of concrete, It should also be noted that provision of well distributed steel in a concrete element may enhance its modulus of rupture value by nearly 25%“. In the light of the above, it is concluded that the values in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 of BS 8110: Part 1” (Tables 21 and 25 of BS 5400: Part 4®) can be reliably extended to cover the entire range of conerete grades in this report, for serviceability limit state design as class 2 or class 3 prestressed members. ‘The recommended values for C60 to C100 concrete are given in Tables 8 and 9, of this report for class 2 and class 3 design respectively. ‘Table 8: Design flexural tensile strength (N/mm) for high strength concrete class 2 design (extension of Table 4.1 of BS 8110 and Table 24 of BS 5400). ‘Type of prestressed Concrete grade (N/mm?) member oo | 7 | 80 | 9% | 100 Pre-tensioned concrete 3s | 39 | 43 | 46 | so Postensioned concrete | 28 | 31 | 33 | 36 | 40 Note: This table is repeated as Table 3 in Section 3. Table 9: Design hypothetical tensile stresses (N/mm?) for high strength concrete (extension of Table 4.2 of BS 8110 and Table 25 of BS 5400). Limiting Conerete grade (Nimm’) Group crack width (am) oo | 7 | 80 | 90 | 100 Pre-ensioned tendons ot s2 | s9 | 64 | 68 | 73 and grouted post- ous! s7 | 63 | 70 | 74 | 80 tensioned tendons oF o1 | 67 | 75 | 80 | 86 0.25" 66 | 71 | 81 | 86 | 93 Pre-tensioned tendons on 63 | 70 | 77 | 82 | 88 distributed in tensile ous! 69 | 75 | 84 | 89 | 96 zone and positioned 02 714 | 80 | 90 | 96 | 103 close to the face of the 02s so | a1 | 97 | 103 [110 concrete Notes: (1) In BS $400 only 2) InBS 8110 only (3) This table is repeated as Table 4 in Section 3. Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete 93The limiting stresses may be expressed as 0.23 (/.,)* for pre-tensioned members and 0.18 (,) for post-tensioned members. Both include a material safety factor of 1.5 for concrete. The values in Table 8 can be enhanced for each grade up to a limit of three quarters of the modulus of rupture, corresponding to the appearance of first cracks, assessed from representative performance tests. It is essential that where such increase is used, the stress in the concrete due to prestress after losses should be at least 10 N/mm: (compression) as required by BS 8110. BS 5400 does not permit such enhancement, though there is no valid reason for that, The values in Table 9 are for section depths up to 400 mm. For deeper sections the values should be reduced by factors as given in Table 4.3 of BS 8110 (Table 26 of BS 5400: Part 4), Further increase in the limit of hypothetical tensile stress by putting additional reinforcement close to the tension faces of concrete, as permitted in clause 4.3.4 3(c) of BS 8110, can also apply in the case of high strength concrete. Because of its simplicity, the serviceability limit state design of a ‘class 3° structure on the basis of hypothetical tensile stresses, has some attraction to the designers, But this simplified approach should be used with caution, especially in the design of primary members Siriaksom and Naaman'*” showed that the magnitude of nominal (hypothetical) tensile stress may vary by a wide margin to cause the same crack width in different elements of equal concrete strength. The formation of cracks, as ‘well as the width of eracks depends on many factors including the geometry of the cross-section, For the same concrete strength, the limiting value of hypothetical tensile stress corresponding to a particular crack width may be appreciably lower in the ease of a rectangular or hollow-core slab than for a double-tee section. In view of the above it will be advisable that in the design of important structures ‘on a ‘class 3” basis (i.e. as a partially prestressed member) the check for crack width should also be carried out. However, it should be recognised that the formulae for prediction of crack widths are also approximate; widely divergent results may be obtained for the same section with the same amount of reinforcement and/or prestressing stee! and under the same stress level, when a different formula (e.g. in BS 8110 or in the CEB-FIP Model Code 90) is applied. 8.2 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY 8.2.1 Normal weight concrete In BS 8110; Part 2, the mean modulus of elasticity of concrete is given by the equation: E = 20+02f, G0) where £ is in KN/mm? and f,, = characteristic concrete cube strength in N/mm?, Although the above equation is intended only for concrete grades covered by BS 8110 (i.e. up to C60), itis considered equally valid also for concrete cube strengths above 60 N/mm? 94 Concrete Society Technical Report 49‘There are some international codes and standards where specific recommendations with regard to E values of high strength concrete have been given. E values, according to those codes and standards, have been compared with the results obtained by the equation of BS 8110: Part 2 as shown in Table 10. In making the comparison, it has been assumed that: Soy = 0.85 fo, and p = 2400 kg/m* (density of concrete). ‘The following international codes and standards have been examined: (@) Norwegian Standard NS 3473 E value in this standard is given by E = 95 (fy? GD where f= characteristic cylinder strength of concrete in N/mm?, E is in kN/mm?, (b) ACT State of the Art Report 198 E value in this standard is given by E. = [3.32 fy)* +69] x (9/2346)! (32) where E is in kN/mm? and p in kg/m? This equation is intended for concrete up to f,,.= 83 N/mm? (©) CEB/FIP Model Code 90 E value in this standard is given by E = 10% +8)* @3) where £ is in N/mm? and f,, = characteristic cylinder strength in N/mm? If the mean cylinder strength (i.€. finea) is known, then B= (foaan)” * 10. Table 10: Comparison of E values. Cube | BS8110 | NS3473 | ACT - State of | CEB/FIP Model | Finnish code strength the art report | Code90 | Rak Mk B48 (N/mm?) Urs 83 | ys 80Nimm’) | supplement ‘Nimm?) | E, values shown draft (E, = 0856) 60 32 30.9 31.66 33.1 387 70 34 32.4 33.60 346 387 80 36 337 35.50 36.0 387 90 38 349 371s 373° 38.7 100 40 36.0 38.80" 38.5" 387 ‘Note: *Conerete strength just above the upper limit of f up to which the equation is valid Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete 95However, for elastic analysis and design, E, value should be taken as given by E, = 0.85 E G4) This equation is intended for concrete up to f,y= 80 N/mm? (@) Finnish Code: Rak Mk B4‘®? Evalue is constant for concrete cube strength over 60 Nimm? and equals 38.7 kN/mm?. Tests at the British Cement Association by Clarke and Adams on high strength concrete"? show that the mean E value obtained by tests (on cylinder specimens to BS 1881: Part 121: 1983”) are 5 to 15% higher than those predicted by the BS8110 equation as shown below: 1. Concrete cube strength at testing = 103 Nimm? Eng 47 kN/mm? (mean) E (to BS 8110) 41 kNémm? i.e. Egy iS 14.63% higher 2. Conerete cube strength at testin Eve E (to BS 8110) i.e. Egy is 4.5% higher. 123 N/mm? 47 kN/mm? 45 kN/mm? 3. Conerete cube strength at testing = 136 N/mm? Eee 53 KN/mm? E (to BS 8110) = AT kN/mm? ive. Ey, is 12. 8% higher. 8.2.2 Lightweight concrete ‘The E value for lightweight concrete may be obtained by multiplying the E value of the ‘normal weight concrete for the particular grade by a factor equal to (p, / 2400), where is the air dry density of lightweight aggregate concrete in kg/m’, 8.3 SHRINKAGE Shrinkage of concrete depends on the volume of water in the mix ~ the higher the volume of water the higher is the drying shrinkage. Usually water content is reduced in a high strength concrete mix by the addition of additives and/or an admixture such as a superplasticizer. As a result, a reduction in the ultimate shrinkage strain of high strength concrete relative to low to medium grade concrete is expected. However, research information is not sufficient to predict reliably the extent of such reduction, which also is influenced by the shrinkage characteristics of the aggregates and by the curing regime, including ambient temperature and relative humidity condition, It is therefore suggested that, in the absence of more reliable information, the current ultimate shrinkage strain given in BS 8110 (100 x 10° for UK outdoor exposure and 300 * 10° for indoor exposure) and also in BS 5400, for medium- grade concrete should be accepted in the design for high strength concrete. Concrete Society Technical Report 49Tests suggest that due to rapid rate of hydration a high proportion of the final shrinkage can be expected in the early period'"®. Even in tests on sealed concrete specimens, it has been observed that over 30% of total shrinkage is generally developed within seven days of exposure. See also Section A2.4. For high strength lightweight concrete the final shrinkage may be taken as 300 to 400 * 10° for indoor exposure. 8.4 CREEP The final specific creep (creep strain per unit stress) is less for high strength concrete than in low to medium grade concrete. Experimental results on test specimens with concrete strengths of 60 to 70 N/mm! (cylinder strength) under sealed conditions indicate that the creep coefficient of high strength concrete is about 50 to 75% of that of normal strength range concrete under similar stress to strength ratio", ‘Naaman and Hamza‘ found that “Everything else being equal, the time dependent stress loss in the prestressing steel generally decreases with an increase in the concrete compressive strength. Up to a 10% decrease was observed when fy, varied from 41 to 69 Nimm®.” Since, of the two time-dependent factors, shrinkage is virtually the same for both normal range and high strength concrete, it is obviously the reduced specific creep which results in the decrease of “losses” with the increase in the concrete strength. Considering the above, it is recommended that, in the absence of any more satisfactory evidence the creep coefficients given in BS 8110: Part 2 (Figure 7.1) may be reduced by 20% for application in the equation, unless the age at loading is less than 24 hours. For high strength concrete the creep increases linearly with the applied stress up to a stress to strength ratio of about 0.60 (for normal strength concrete, this ratio is about 0.45)". With a higher ratio, a larger creep strain (non-linear) may be expected. Like shrinkage, the initial rate of creep is high in high strength concrete relative to normal strength concrete. See also Section A2.4, For high strength lightweight conerete, the specific creep strain value of 70 « 10 may be taken for design purposes in the absence of more reliable information. 8.5 BOND AND ANCHORAGE The bond stress between conerete and embedded reinforcement depends mainly on: (a) The level of stress in steel. (b) Relative displacement between concrete and steel. (©) Conorete strength. (d)__ Bond properties (including surface condition of steel). (©) Position and orientation of bars during casting. Other factors remaining constant, it can be expected that the higher the strength of the concrete the higher will be the bond stress. However, experimental results are Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete 7to0 limited to allow one to quantify reliably the actual enhancement in bond stress with increase in concrete strength. Until more reliable test data are available, it is proposed that clauses 3.12.8.3 and 3.12.8.4 (for ‘design anchorage bond stress’ and ‘values for design ultimate anchorage bond stress” respectively) of BS 8110: Part | may be used for high strength concrete. However, as bond stress is a function of tensile strength of concrete which in this document is related to (/,)* instead of Vf.» equation 49 of BS 8110 (Clause 3.12.8.4) should be modified for consistency a8 follows: fu = 05 BU) for concrete grade > C60 G5) ‘The maximum value of (/,)* will be limited to 17.8 corresponding to f,,= 75 Nimm?. The values of the bond coefficient () in Table 3.26 of BS 8110 remain unchanged. For high strength lightweight ageregate concrete the value of anchorage bond stress obtained by equation 49 of BS 8110 (with modification as suggested) should be reduced by 20%, unless there is more reliable information available. Tests on low to medium grade concrete, both in normal weight and lightweight concrete, show that for the same compressive strength the bond strength of LWAC is generally of the same order as that of normal weight concrete “® — although instances of lower bond strength with LWAC have also been observed, especially with deformed bars. 8.6 TRANSMISSION LENGTH ‘Transmission length depends primarily on the conerete strength at transfer and the residual force in the tendon at the time, The residual force in the tendon is generally taken as the initial prestress reduced by the losses due to the appropriate extent of relaxation and the elastic shortening. In the context of transmission length, high strength concrete has little special significance as such, since regardless of the actual grade of concrete, the strength at transfer is most unlikely to exceed 60 N/mm’. In BS 8110: Part 1, the transfer length is expressed by the equation: l= Kdlvf, (36) transfer (or transmission) length a coefficient dependent on the type of tendon nominal diameter of the tendon concrete strength (cube) at transfer If, to be consistent with other sections of this report, the function Vf, is replaced by Ua)*, then the equation will be modified as: 1, = Kd/053(f,)* 0) In BS 8110, the values of K, for different types of strands are given as: K, = 240 forordinary strand and super strand, = 360. for drawn strands (dyform) Concrete Society Technical Report 49Within the same nominal diameter, the area of strands varies with the type (e.g. for 12,7 mm diameter (nominal) the area is 92 mm? for ordinary strand, 100 mm? for super strand and 112 mm? for drawn strand). Similarly the strength (and hence the level of stressing) of strands may also be different, being 1770 N/mm? for ordinary strand and 1860 Nimm? for super or drawn strands. The values of the coefficient in BS 8110 therefore require some modification to predict transfer length of tendons with different types of strands more accurately and, with that view in mind, the following values of K, in equation 60 (of that code) or in the modified equation shown above are suggested: For ordinary strands (nominal diameter 9.5, 12.7 and 15 mm) K, = 240 For super strands (nominal diameter 9.5, 12.7 and 15 mm) K, = 260 For drawn strands (nominal diameter 12.7 and 15mm) —_K, = 300 The above values have been obtained on the basis of American tests“ and assuming that the strands will be initially stressed to 70 to 75% of the ultimate and the loss of prestress at the time of transfer is of the order of 10% ‘The values of K, for prestressing wires may remain as in BS 8110. It should be noted that a shorter transfer length is generally more critical, when the stresses in the concrete section near the end due to prestress and self-weight are checked. For checking the shear or flexural strength under loading, on the other hand, a longer transfer length will be more critical. For that reason it is further suggested that the transmission length obtained by the above equation (with modified K, value) may be reduced or increased by 10% for applying, in those two distinct design conditions. ‘There is very little information about the transfer length in lightweight aggregate conerete. Tests at the Building Research Establishment “® with medium strength range LWAC (, = 35 to 50 Nimm?), using foamed slag, sintered pulverised fuel ash (pfa) and expanded clay aggregate, indicated that the transmission length in LWAC was not substantially different from that in normal weight concrete of equal strength, However, since this is a function of the ‘bond stress’, which for LWAC is generally taken as lower than that of NWC, it is proposed that the value of transmission length, obtained by the aforementioned equation should be increased by 10% for lightweight aggregate concrete. 8.7 FATIGUE Research and tests have shown that the fatigue properties of high strength concrete do not differ significantly from those of normal strength concrete provided the percentage of fluctuating stress levels (not the actual stress) remains the same in respect of the static ultimate strength. 8.8 DURABILITY Because of the lower water content in the mix design and a higher degree of compaction, curing and overall quality control, high strength concrete is usually more dense and cohesive and thus more impermeable to liquid and gases than low to medium strength concrete. As a consequence the carbonation process takes longer to reach the steel level and hence make the steel susceptible to corrosion. Design guidance for the use of high strength concrete 9Even after carbonation, the propagation of the rusting process of steel in high strength concrete tends to be slow as the permeation of oxygen and moisture i considerably reduced. Durability of HSC is, therefore, much enhanced and provided that the ingredients are free from deleterious chemicals, the resistance to chemical attack is also greatly improved, compared to normal strength concrete. From the point of view of durability, it should be possible to reduce the covers to the steel from those specified in Table 3.3 of BS 8110 for relatively low strength concretes. However, there is at present insufficient experimental evidence to substantiate any changes. Hence itis recommended that the covers appropriate to C50 concrete in BS $110 should be used for higher grades. However, individual circumstances should be considered including the fire resistance and adhesion between steel and concrete, before reducing the cover to the steel. 8.9 FIRE RESISTANCE Ina completed structure where the conerete elements are sufficiently dry such that ‘moisture content is less than 3% by volume, spalling is less likely to occur and the fire resistance of members with high strength concrete should then be as good as, if not better than, that of low to medium grade concrete, other conditions remaining the same, In normal strength range concrete, it usually takes 9 to 12 months to attain the level of moisture content mentioned above, ‘When the moisture content is higher than 3% by volume, HSC members are more susceptible to spalling, possibly explosive spalling, in fire. HSC is less permeable than normal concrete, so vapour and pore pressure due to heat near the surface builds up quickly, and spalling (local breakdown and removal of surface material) ‘occurs as soon as the pressure exceeds the tensile capacity of the concrete. It has been found that the risk of spalling can be reduced by the addition of polypropylene or steel fibres to the concrete. Polypropylene fibres have been found to be particularly effective, although the mechanism by which they prevent spalling is not well understood. Under fire conditions the fibres will melt, but it has been suggested that they form voids or micro-cracks in the concrete which effectively relieve the pressure from the expanding moisture. Steel fibres provide some reinforcement to the outer skin of the conerete, tying it into the main body of the member and again limiting spalling. In addition, the behaviour of high strength cconerete in fire is particularly influenced by the choice of aggregate. 100 Concrete Society Technical Report 49APPENDICES APPENDIX A HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE IN CODES OF PRACTICE At A2 AZ AA AS AS AT Introduction Material properties for design Ultimate limit states for bending and axial force Ultimate limit states for shear Punching shear Deflection Detailing provisions APPENDIX B FURTHER RESEARCH APPENDIX C REFERENCESAPPENDIX A HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE IN CODES OF PRACTICE A1 INTRODUCTION This Appendix is intended to supplement the work carried out by the Concrete Society Working Party on High Strength Concrete. It specifically examines the reports from the Brite EuRam Project PR5480, ‘Economic Design and Construc- tion with High Strength Concrete’. Apart from Ove Arup & Partners, the main Partners of PR5480 were Taywood Engineering Ltd, SINTEF, Dragados Y Con- strucciones, CUR and Hollandsche Beton Group. The associated partners were Pioneer Concrete Ltd, VTT, Beton Son B.V., Smals and TU-Delft University. ‘The proposed extensions for BS 8110 in this report are chosen to be in line with the philosophy of European thinking. The proposed extensions to the rules of Euro- code 2° given in the reports of Task 3 of Brite EuRam 5480 are largely based on recommendations of the Joint CEB-FIP Working Group on High Strength Conerete/ High Performance Concrete. They consider the use of structural concrete with a cylinder strength, f,, from 50 up to 100 N/mm:. This has been achieved by gathering information from existing and draft codes, recent research reports, the results of Task 2 of Brite EuRam $480 and the results of new research that have been made available during the project. This report also takes account of the amendments in the 1997 (second edition) of BS 8110" in which the material partial factor for stee! reinforcement was reduced from 1.15 to 1.05, It also takes account of the latest recommendations for the conversion factor from cylinder to cube strength proposed by CEN/TC229/WG4"™ and takes account of a proposal for further rationalisation. The Codes of Practice that have been considered include: Eurocode 2, ENV 1992-1-1 CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 British Standard BS 8110°” Norwegian Standard NS3473 (Norway) ‘Netherlands Standard NEN6720°? American Concrete Institute Building Code ACI 318° Canadian Standards Association CAN3-A23.3°” Comparisons and proposals are made for the following topics: tensile strength modulus of elasticity concrete compressive stress-strain relationship flexure and compression shear and punching shear deflection anchorage ‘minimum reinforcement. 102 Concrete Society Technical Report 49A2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR DESIGN A2.1 CUBE/CYLINDER RELATIONSHIP Recent proposals from CEN/TC229/WG4' confirm that the ratio between cube and cylinder strength has been modified for cylinder strengths above 50 N/mm, ‘This differs from the values given in ENV1992-1-3 (EC2 Part 1.3) “ and the commentary to CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (MC90)". In order to be able to ‘express the conversion in algebraic form a further slight amendment is adopted here such that the value of cube strength is the minimum of 1.25 times the value of cylinder strength or cylinder strength plus 15 N/mm. A2.2 TENSILE STRENGTH Report 2.2 of Task Group 2 of PR5480 provides guidance on the evaluation of the tensile strength of high strength concrete. It recommends a method for determining the tensile strength using a direct tensile test in addition to the more common ‘method of the tensile splitting test. It confirms that the ratio of direct tensile test to tensile splitting testis 0.9 as given in MC90 and EC2 (f, = 0.9 fa.) It recom mends for the latter that, for HSC, only eylinders with a diameter of 150 mm should be used together with the test procedure in accordance with ISO 4108-1980, ‘The report cautions against extrapolating formulae in existing codes for use with HSC, as most of them overestimate the tensile strength of concrete. ‘The mean tensile strength of concrete is given in Equation 3.2 of EC2: Fern = 03 fa” It is proposed that this is for higher values of f, Som = 0.58 Vf, ‘The relationship between fa 00s» fuuo0s aNd fig, remain unchanged. valid up to a value of f, = 55 Nimm? (f, = 70 N/mm), but should be modified as follows: ‘The minimum value of tensile strength in BS 8110” is 0.24 1.5 Vf,,=0.36 Vf. Its assumed that the mean tensile strength can be obtained using the same relati as EC2. Hence f., for BS 8110, is 0.36 Vf,,/0.7. It is proposed that this jonship is extended for HSC. It should be noted that this proposal has not been adopted by The Concrete Society Working Party for this report. This is considered reasonable in that it is not yet clear what relationship the final version of EC2 will adopt. Figure 32 compares fq for EC2 (ENV), the proposed extension to EC2, the proposed extension to BS 8110 according to this appendix and the proposed extension to BS 8110 according to Section 8.1 of this report. Design guidance for high strength concrete 103‘Appendix C2 Prop ae ee Cone Soe E ae ga z EC2ENV i — ‘00a a BO ao Figure 32: Comparison of concrete tensile strength. 2.3 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY Report 2.2 of PRS480 recommends the use of ISO 6784-1982 standard for the determination of the static modulus of elasticity in compression. The report confirms that the method given in MC90®, Clause 2.1.4.2, is appropriate for the use of HSC. This gives values of £,, the tangent modulus for concretes made of quartzite aggregates, for concrete cylinder strengths up to 80 N/mm?. For other types of aggregates, E may be calculated by multiplying E, by a factor arg from Table 2.1.5 of MC90 (Table 6 of Report 2.2). In order to take full account of the differences in aggregate stiffness, direct measurement of E,, is recommended. It is proposed that the method given in EC2, which is of the same form as that in 'MC90, is extended to include strengths of f, up to 80 N/mm’. For higher strengths it is recommended that E,, should be determined by testing. Testing of the specific conerete may be omitted if test values from a similar concrete with similar composition of paste and similar aggregates are known, Testing should be in accordance with the method given in ISO 6784, £.,, in EC2 is intended to represent the mean value of the secant modulus of elasticity, and is defined between concrete stress points 0 and 0.4 f, as given in Figure 3.1 of EC2. Itis also proposed that Table 2.1.5 of MC90 (which is reproduced in Table 11) is cluded to take account of different types of aggregate. This should only be used in situations where the effect of aggregate has not been determined by testing. The basis of determining E, 2. in BS 8110: Part 2° is given in equation 17. It is proposed that this be extended to cover HSC. Figure 33 compares the values of EC2 and BS 8110. Table 1: Effect of ype of aggregate on modulus of elasticity from MCI). Agaregate type % Basalt, dense limestone aggregates 12 Quartzitc aggregates 10 Limestone aggregates 09 Sandstone aggregates 07 104 Concrete Society Technical Report 49| ] ato E ol eae | 3 | ec2P9p | Sas + So | 3 | | ase1soProp.| | 5 | | | Be 3 | asf 17] eC | | | o 10 20-90 49 5060 70 80 90 100 110 120 fo (Wmm?) Figure 33: Comparison of E-modulus between EC? and BS 8110. 2.4 CREEP AND SHRINKAGE ‘The 1994 report by SINTEF, Design Guide, Report 1.1 - Commentary to NS3473, shows, through test results, how specific creep reduces with increasing concrete compressive strength. It explains that the creep coefficients, according to the present version of NS3473, are empirical and calibrated on the basis of laboratory tests. The report also compares NS3473 and MC90. The methods given for calculating the creep coefficient in MC90 and Appendix A.1.1.2 of EC2 are almost identical. Although they are a little less conservative than NS3473, the difference is less than 10%. It was thus proposed to extend the method given in EC2 up to 100 N/mm? (cylinder strength). BS 8110 does not provide a method for adapting the creep coefficient in respect to the strength of concrete. It is assumed that the information given in Figure 7.1 of Part 2. of BS 8110 is based on a conerete cube strength of 30 N/mm?. The modification factor related to concrete strength given in MC90 is based on cylinder strength. It is proposed that this should be modified to be based on cube strength and adopted for BS 8110 for use with HSC. The factor becomes ¥ [40 /(f., + 10) Figure 34 compares the results of this proposal for BS 8110 with MC90. The treatment of shrinkage in MC90 is also almost identical to that of Appendix AL.L3 of EC2, Table 3.4 of EC2 is derived from the equations in Appendix A1.1.3 and appears to be based on a value of f,= 24 N/mm’, BS 8110 appears to be less conservative than either of the above and typically the shrinkage coefficient given in Section 7.4 of BS 8110: Part 2 represents a cube strength of about 70 N/mm? calculated to MC90. It is proposed that the reduction in shrinkage coefficient for BS 8110 should be less than that for MC90 to compensate for the above. The following expression is adapted from Equation (2.1-76) given in MC90. 6 eon) — (200 + 45(6 —f,/13)]10°% (40) Figure 35 shows the comparison of this proposal for shrinkage after 30 years. Design guidance for high strength concrete 10535 Tt 2Achu =150 RH = 60% 10 25 - Mcso Bs8110 16 1 20 90 40 60 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fa, (N/mm?) Figure 34: Comparison of creep coefficient between MC90 and BS 8110 (proposed). f2Aclu=150 RH = 50% ‘SHRINKAGE STRAIN © 2 2 ¢e eeeemaseuctele ° x & 60 80 © 100120140 f., (Nimm?) Figure 35: Comparison of shrinkage strain between MC90 and BS 8110 (proposed) after 30 years. 106 Concrete Society Technical Report 49A3 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES FOR BENDING AND AXIAL FORCE A3.1 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP ‘The method proposed in PR5480 for the extension of EC2 was based on the bilinear diagram (Figure 4.3 of EC2). The proposal was as follows: For fy < 50 N/mm?, the method followed that in EC2 using the bi-linear stress-strain diagram for concrete. The resulting resistance was very similar to that given by CEB-FIP Model Code™. For fa > 50 N/mm? the same principles were followed but the values of a, the transition strain (given as — 0.00135 in EC2), and the ultimate strain, ¢, (given as = 0.0035 in EC2), depended on the concrete strength. For fy < 50 N/mm?: a = 085 transition strai ultimate strain = 0.00135 0.0035 For $0 Nimm? < fg < 100 N/mm: a = 10.008 fy transition strai ultimate strain = 0.00085 - 0.00001 fy = 0.0045 + 0.00002 fi, These values were chosen so that the area under the bi-linear stress-strain curve and its centroid corresponded closely with those from the general stress-strain diagram in NS3473. The derived ultimate strain was slightly modified so that it corresponded to the value in EC2, — 0.0035, for f, = 50 N/mm, The behaviour of high strength concrete under uniaxial compressive loading was considered in Report 2.4 of PRS480 on ‘Concrete brittleness’ In order to follow the above principles for the extension of BS 81110 for HSC it is proposed that the ultimate concrete compressive strain should reduce with increased concrete strength as follows: Forf, < 60 N/mm? BS 8110 stress block is applicable For fy > 60 N/mm? fq = 0.0035 ~ (fu, ~ 60)/50000 If e,, < strain at the tangent point then the stress is reduced accordingly. Figure 36 shows how this stress block changes with increase in concrete strength, Figures 37, 38 and 39 compare the effect of this proposal with the existing stress block of BS 8110 on the moment/axial load resistance of a circular column for , = 75,95 and 115 Nimm?. Design guidance for high strength concrete 107Figures 40 to 44 compare the stress-strain relations for each of the codes considered. They include for f,, = 35, 55, 75, 95 and 115 N/mm?, Figure 45 compares the maximum equivalent compressive stress for each code as the concrete strength increases. This has been carried out as follows: BS 8110 (and proposed extension): Mc90; 1NS3473 ACI 318: EC2 Prop NEN6720: CAN3-A23.3: 0.67 fa! (eX regen) FY Year) Valid up to fi, = 80 Nimm? where ais constant = 0.85 Fen! (Le Veer) where f., = 0.56 f,, + 2.8 Nimm? Fat 3) * B! Yeccuin fax! (Ye* Yrcgun) where above f, = 50 Nimm?, @ = 10.003 f,, hI Teague) where above f= 65Nimm’, a = (785—f,)/ 1000 ®t 3) * B! Yeeaan where 0.67 < @ > 0.0015 x (f,+3) ULTIMATE DESIGN STRESS (Nim?) - 0 comes cont —-— 2.0015 0.002 0.0028 0.003 0.0028 0.004 ULTIMATE STRAIN Figure 36: Proposed concrete compression stress block for BS 8110 HSC. 108 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Axial Load / Bending Moment diagram Comparison Circular colurnn: f= 460 Nimm?,f,,= 75 N/mm? AXIAL COMPRESSION / h? (Nimm) ese aes aes |e | sl BENDING MOMENT /h? (Nim?) 1% Rein. 1% Rein. 4% Rein. 4% Rein. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist. Figure 37: Effect of proposed stress block for fu. = ‘Axial Load / Bending Moment diagram Comparison “EE LE BENDING MOMENT /h? (Nim) | 1% Rein. 1% Rein. 4% Rein. 4% Rein. Prop. Exist. Prop. Exist Figure 38: Effect of proposed stress block for f.,= 95 Nin. Design guidance for high strength concrete 109AXIAL COMPRESSION 7h (Nimm®) a a o os 1 15228 3 05 4 45 8 85 6 BENDING MOMENT /h? (Nimm) Prop. Exist. Prop. Figure 39: Effect of proposed stress block for fg ‘STRESS (Nimm’) »,——_f @ fey or equivalent Axial Load / Bending Moment diagram Comparison Circular column: f,= 460 Nim? f,,= 115 Nimm? 1%Rein. . 4% Rein Exist. 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 STRAIN ACIBI8NEN6720 CAN3A233 BSEILOProp. EC2Prop. MCI990/EC2 NS3473, Figure 40: Comparison of proposed stress block with other codes for f., = 35 N/mm. 110 Concrete Society Technical Report 49STRESS (Nimm?) so 61 foy oF equivalent : o 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003) 0.004 STRAIN BSB110Prop. EC2Prop. MC1990/EC2 NS3473 ACISI8-—NEN6720 CAN3A233 - ae Figure 41: Comparison of proposed stress block with other codes for f,, = 55 N/mm’. STRESS (Nimm#) 1+ © fey oF equivalent 0.000 0.001 0.902 0.003 0.004 STRAIN SB110Prop. EC2Prop. MCI990/EC2 NS3473 ACI318NEN6720 CAN3A233 eee 75 Nima. Figure 42: Comparison of proposed stress block with other codes for f, Design guidance for high strength concrete WwSTRESS (Nimm’) a _ @ fay or equivalent 0 a H | 4 0.000) 0.001 0.003 ‘STRAIN 0.004 BS8110Prop. EC2Prop. MC1990/EC2 NS3473 ACI318.—NEN6720. CAN3A233 Figure 43: Comparison of proposed stress block with other codes for f., = 95 N/mm. ‘STRESS (Nimm’) 100 —_—— —_— BS8110Prop. EC2Prop. MCI990/EC2 NS3473 ACI3I8NEN6720 CAN3A233 a Figure 44: Comparison of proposed stress Block with other codes for f= 115 N/mm’. 12 Concrete Society Technical Report 49MAXIMUM EQUIVALENT STRESS (N/mm?) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fay (Nim?) BS8110Prop MC90 NS3473 ACI318 EC2Prop NEN6720 CAN3A23.3 Sewer Figure 45: Comparison of maximum equivalent compressive stress, Design guidance for high strength concrete 1B3.2 AXIAL LOAD / MOMENT INTERACTION Resistance values calculated using the proposed clauses extending BS 8110 are ‘compared with those of the codes noted in the introduction of this report. The resistance values are expressed using charts of axial force against bending moment. Since the various codes are used with different load factors, the charts are expressed in terms of unfactored forces and moments. An average load factor has been used. assuming that the live load accounts for one third of the total. Although the charts give values of axial force for low moments, most of the codes prescribe a minimum moment, related either to the column cross-sectional dimensions or its height. A line corresponding to eccentricities of 4/20 is included on each of the charts. Five concrete strengths have been considered: f,, = 35, 55, 75, 95 and 115 N/mm’. A pair of charts for circular sections has been produced for each of these concrete strengths. The first chart of each pair (Charts A3.1, A3.3, A3.5, A3.7 and A3.9) corresponds to a column with 1% reinforcement (the minimum requirement in some codes), while the second chart (Charts A3.2, A3.4, A3.6, A3.8 and A3.10) corresponds to a fairly heavily reinforced column with 4% reinforcement. The sections represented by these charts would usually have a significant axial force. Charts with 1% steel are based on 16 bars and those with 4% steel are based on 25 bars, all bars spaced uniformly. The section is divided into 50 equal height segments, each assumed to have a uniform stress calculated at the segment’s centroid. The following material and geometric properties apply to all of them: Characteristic yield strength of steel = 460 N/mm? Ultimate strain in steel 0.01 hh 08 All charts make allowance for the area of concrete displaced by steel. (@) _ CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (Parabolic-rectangular diagram, equation 62-1) For f < 50 N/mm? this method is identical to that given in Eurocode 2 using the parabolic-rectangular diagram given in Figure 4.2 of EC2. As f, increases above 50 N/mm?, MC90 reduces the ultimate compressive strain. The charts show the resistance calculated according to MC9OP and not EC2. EC2 does not claim to be valid above f, = 50 N/mm?, nor MC9OP above f,, = 80 N/mm? Average load factor = (2 « 1.35+1.5)/3 = 14 Both MC90 and EC2 inerease all moments in slender columns by considering an which depends on the column height and the number of columns. A rectangular stress-strain relation (MC9OR) is also given in Model Code 1990 for which there are no restrictions on concrete strength. Both the ultimate strain and the proportion of the concrete strength which can be used in design reduce with concrete strength. However it gives much lower resistance than other relations and appears to be too conservative for economic design. Increasing the concrete strength from f = 75 to 100 N/mm? increases the axial resistance of columns with 1% m4 Conerete Society Technical Report 49reinforcement by under 10%. (In fact increasing f, above 116 N/mm? actually reduces the resistance calculated using MC9OR.) itis thought that this relation is primarily for use in strut-and-tie models. (b) British Standard BS 8110 (Parabolic-rectangular diagram, Figure 2.1) ‘The highest strength concrete referred to in BS 8110 is f,, = 60 N/mm? (equivalent to f= 48 Nimm’) although there is no clause stating that this is the limit. Average load factor = (2 « 1.4+1.6)/3 = 1.47 ‘A minimum eccentricity of 0.05 times the overall dimension of the column in the plane of bending considered, but not more than 20 mm, is to be taken. (©) _ Norwegian Standard NS3473 (General stress-strain diagram, clause 113.1) Although there are no restrictions on the stress-strain diagram, the relation is a funetion of the concrete elastic modulus and plateau strain, For conerete with fa, > 75 ‘Nimm’ these are to be determined by testing the actual concrete otherwise expressions given in the code may be used. 1NS3473 gives two sets of material partial safety factors. The standard set is for use ‘when tolerances on the cross-sectional and positional dimensions are not allowed for in the design. The set in brackets is for use when allowance has been speci cally made for these tolerances. The standard material factors have been used in preparing the charts Average load factor = (2 « 1.2 + 1.6)/3 = 1.33 A minimum eccentricity of the larger of 20 mm or 1/30 of the cross-sectional dimension in the direction of the eccentricity is to be taken. ‘Note that NS3473, alone among the codes considered, reduces the elastic stresses in the steel by the material partial safety factor. (@) Netherlands Standard NEN6720" and CUR recommendation 37 for High Strength Concrete The highest strength concrete to be used with the recommendations is f{, = 105 Nimm* (equivalent to f, = 90 N/mm), The charts however extrapolate the expressions for use with f= 115 Nim? Average load factor = (2 « 1.2+1.5)/3 = 13 (© American Concrete Institute ACI 318 (Rectangular stress block) In ACI 318 the required concrete strength, f , is used. There is a 1% probability that the average of three consecutive tests will be below this specified strength and 1% probability that an individual result will be more than 500 psi below it. The other codes all define the concrete strength as the value below which 5% of all possible test results would be expected to fall. To compensate for this different definition //is taken as f+ 3 Nimm*, Design guidance for high strength concrete usThere are no restrictions on the concrete strength in the code. The recommended stress block is rectangular but its form depends on the concrete strength. For concrete with f, > 55 N/mm? the centroid of the block is similar to that resulting from a linear elastic stress-strain relation, For the plots it is assumed that the members have tie rather than spiral reinforce- ‘ment for which a greater resistance would be obtained. Average load factor = (2x 1.4+1.7)/3 = 1.5 There is no restriction on minimum moment, although the axial resistance is restricted to 80% of the nominal strength to allow for nominal eccentricities. However, the commentary states that this reduction approximates to an eccentricity of 0.1, and that this eccentricity may be used as an alternative to the 80% restriction, ‘The transition in capacity reduction factor from 0.9 to 0.7 (0.75 if spiral rather than tie reinforcement), as the limiting material changes from concrete to steel, can result ina ‘kink’ in the resistance plot around the balance point. (© Canadian Standards Association CAN3-A23.3°" (March 1994 draft) (Equivalent rectangular concrete stress distribution, clause 10.1.7) In CAN3-A23.3 the specified concrete strength, /, is used. This is si ACI 318. /:will therefore be taken as f+ 3 Nimm?, lar tof Jin ‘The recommended stress block is rectangular but its form depends on the concrete strength. The draft code states that a concrete stress of a, ff can be assumed to be uniformly distributed over an equivalent compression zone bounded by edges of the cross section and a straight line located parallel to the neutral axis at a distance = fic from the fibre of maximum compressive strain. The factors a, and , are given by: @ = 0.85-0.0015/! > 0.67 By, = 097-0.0025f 2 0.67 The limits are reached when f= 120 N/mm? which implies that the draft code may be used up to at least f= 117 N/mm:, With this strength concrete the centroid of the block is similar to that resulting from a linear elastic stress-strain relation. For the plots it is assumed that the members have tie rather than spiral reinforcement for which a greater resistance would be obtained. Average load factor = (2 « 1.25 + 1.5)/3 = 1.33 ‘There is no restriction on minimum moment, although the axial resistance is rstrie- ted to 80% of the nominal strength. 116 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A3.1 1% Reinforcement fey = 35 N/mm? Axial load /h?(N/mm?) 20 BS8110Prop. EC2/MC90 a NS3473, ACI318 10 — EC2Prop. NEN6720 5 CAN3A23.3. o 5 Moment / h°(N/mm?) Chart A3.2 4% Reinforcement fou = 35 N/mm? ‘Axial load /h?(Nimm?) BS8110Prop. EC2/MC90 NS3473, ACI318 EC2Prop. NEN6720 CANSA23.3. oO Os 1 15 2 25 3 3.5 4 Moment /h? (Nimm? ) Design guidance for high strength concrete 17Chart A3.3 ‘Axial load / h?(N/mm?) 1% Reinforcement —_ fy = 55 N/mm? BS8110Prop. Ec2/Mcs0 NS3473, ACI318 EC2Prop. NEN6720 CANSA23.3 05 1 15 2 25 3 Moment / h3(Nimm?) Chart A3.4 4% Reinforcement —f,y = 55 N/mm? Axial load /h?(Nimm?) BS8110Prop. Ec2Mc90 NS3473, EC2Prop. NEN6720 CAN3A23.3 Moment / h® (N/mm?) us. Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A3.5 1% Reinforcement —f.y = 75 N/mm? Axial load /h?(N/mm?) 3 BS8110Prop. 30 EC2/MC90 25 NS3473 ~ roan EC2Prop. 15 NEN6720 10 fae CAN3A23.3. o of 1 15002 25 Moment / h?(N/mm?) Chart A3.6 4% Reinforcement Axial load / h?(N/imm?) 0 1 2 3 Moment / h? (N/mm?) fou = 75 Nimm? BS8110Prop. Ec2Mc90 NS3473, Aci318 EC2Prop. NEN6720 CAN3A23.3, Design guidance for high strength concrete nyChart A3.7 1% Reinforcement —f.y = 95 N/mm? ‘Axial load / h?(Nimm?) a BS8110Prop. EC2/MC90_ 30 20 EC2Prop. NEN6720 10 --- CAN3A23.3 0 05 1 #145 2 25 3 35 4 Moment / h? (Nimm?) Chart A3.8 4% Reinforcement fey = 95 N/mm? Axial load /h?(N/mm?) BS8110Prop, Ec2Mc90 NS3473 ACI318 EC2Prop. NEN6720 CAN3A23.3 ° 1 2 3 4 5 Moment / h? (N/mm?) 120 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A3.9 jal load / h2(N/mm?) 1% Reinforcement fey = 115 N/mm? BS8110Prop. Ec2mcs0 NS3473 ACI318 EC2Prop. NEN6720 CAN3AZ3,3 o 05 1 #15 2 25 3 35 4 Moment / h* (N/mm?) Chart A3.10 4% Reinforcement fou = 115 N/mm? ‘Axial load / h2(N/mm?) Co BS8110Prop. 50 EC2Mc80 40 NS3473 Aci318 30 a EC2Prop. 20 = NEN6720 10 ieee CAN3A23.3 : — “10 -20 0 1 2 3 5 Moment / h? (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 2A4 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES FOR SHEAR A4.1 SHEAR RESISTANCE WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCEMENT A4.1.1 Comparison of BS 8110 with other codes — Preparation of charts ‘The shear resistance of various beams with represent ratios has been calculated using: sizes and reinforcement British Standard 8110" Eurocode 2 Proposed Extension (PRS480)° CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 Norwegian Standard 3473°% ‘American Conerete Institute Building Code 318°. The resistance calculated using the proposed clauses extent with high strength concrete is also shown. 1g BS 8110 for use A set of charts, Ad.1 to A4.9, shows the shear resistance of beams without shear links, against the concrete strength, For all codes the resistance is proportional to the width of the member, which has therefore been taken as 1 m. The comparisons also hold for a 1 m width of slab. However, because many of the codes contain a factor which depends on the thick- ness of the section, the resistances have been calculated for a specific effective depth. ‘Since the various codes are used with different load factors, the charts are expressed in terms of unfactored shear forces. An average load factor has been used assuming that the live load accounts for one third of the total The resistance has been calculated for characteristic cube strengths in the range 15 Nimm? < f,, < 115 N/mm?, The values for the area of anchored tension steel p (%6), and effective depth d (mm), are as shown in Table 12. The following material and geometric properties apply to all plots: Jf, = characteristic yield strength of steel = 460 N/mm? hh = overall depth of section = 1000 mm d= effective depth of section = 900 mm z= section lever arm 810mm Minimum width of section over effective depth = 1000 mm. ‘The other properties are applied as below: Sg = characteristic cube strength (N/mm?) = area of anchored tension steel (%) 122 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Table f : Chart properties. Chart | Area ofanchored | Effective number steel p (%) depth (mm) AAI 2! 250 Ad 1 250 A43 4 250 Aad 025 800 A4S 1 800 A46 4 800 AAT 25 2500 Ads 1 2500 A49. 4 2500 ‘The shear resistance has been calculated using the following codes: @ — Bssi10" ‘The highest strength concrete to be used in expressions for shear is currently limited tof, =40 N/mm? (equivalent to f, = 32 N/mm), Average load factor = (2 « 14+ 1.6)/3 = 1.47 () _Eurocode 2. PR5480 proposed extension to EC2° Although there are large variations in the code resistance of sections without links, PRS480 proposed not to modify the expression for Vea, in EC2. However, following the recommendations of Report 2.2" of Task 2 it proposed that the value of eq should be limited to 0.51 Nimm, corresponding to f, = 55 Nimm’ (f, = 70 Nim). Charts A4.1 to A4.9 show that this expression gives a resistance of between 60% and 90% of that given by NS3473 Average load factor = (2* 1.35+1.5)/3 = 14 (©) CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, MC90 The provisions for shear design in MC90 are based on the ‘variable strut inclination’ model. There is however a ‘standard’ method for slabs without shear reinforcement (equation 6.4-8) and this is included in the charts. For beams with a short shear span there is a similar expression for checking the serviceability; the values are however 25% higher. The use of these expressions is limited to conerete with fa < 50 N/mm’, Average load factor = (2 1.35 +1.5)/3 = 14 (@) Norwegian Standard, NS3473° Although there are no restrictions on the concrete strength, there is no increase in fa» sed in the simplified (‘standard”) method, for fue] > 85 N/mm? (f lelinder] >70. N/mm). NS3473 gives two sets of material partial safety factors. The standard set is for use when tolerances in the cross-sectional and positional dimensions are not allowed Design guidance for high strength concrete 123for in the design. The set in brackets is for use when allowance has been specit cally made for these tolerances. The standard material factors have been used in preparing the charts. Average load factor = (2 12+ 1.6)/3 = 1.33 (©) American Concrete Institute ACI 318 (Rectangular stress block) In ACI 318 the required concrete strength, fis used. There is a 1% probability that the average of three consecutive tests will be below this specified strength and 1% probability that an individual result will be more than 500 psi below it. The other codes all define the concrete strength as the value below which 5% of all possible test results would be expected to fall. To compensate for this different definition, f is taken as f, +3 Nimm?. ‘The value of Vf is restricted to 100 psi. This means that there is no increase in shear resistance for fa > 66 N/mm? (f.,= 81 Nimm?). Average load factor = (2 1.4+1.7)/3 = 1.5 ‘A4.1.2 Comments on Charts Ad.1 to A4.9 There is a large variation between codes in the concrete strength beyond which there is no increase in the shear resistance. MC90 limits the value of f, in its Vea, expression to 50 Nimm? (/,, = 62.5 N/mm?), the commentary stating that above this value the resistance depends upon the characteristics of the aggregate. However, 1NS3473 gives increasing values of resistance up to f(cylinder) = 75 Nimm? (f,, = 90. Nimm*), The upper limit of f, = 40 N/mm? in BS 81 10 is certainly too conservative, ‘There are significant variations in the effect of the depth factor and area of anchored tension steel. ‘Taken together these variations result in the most optimistic code giving a resistance which is more than twice that given by the most pessimistic code for the same section depth, reinforcement ratio and concrete strength, A4.1.3. Proposed extension to BS 8110 clauses. The highest strength concrete to be used in expressions for v, is currently limited to f= 40 Nimm*. It is proposed that this limit should be increased to 100 N/mm? for beams (as proposed by the Working Party) and for slabs to 70 N/mm? . This corresponds reasonably well with the limit proposed by PRS480 for the extension to EC2. Charts A4.1 to A4.9 show that this proposal gives shear resistance values of between 0.6 and 0.7 compared with those of NS3473 ‘except for lightly reinforced sections and deep sections. 124 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A4.1_ Shear strength - no links As/bd = 0.0025 d= 250mm ‘Shear strength (Nimm?) 0.2 BS8110Prop 0.18 — BS8110 0.16 Bae NS3473, 0.146 Dee — 0.12 Mc90 04 ao Tle i EC2Prop. 0.08 4— ° | | ACI318 0.06 ~ oe 0.04 | | | 0.02 +7 fap ° | | 10 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 feu (Nimm2) Chart A4.2 Shear strength - no links As/bd = 0.01 d= 250mm ‘Shear strength (N/mm?) BS8110Prop BS8110 NS3473, Mc90 EC2Prop. ACI318 =e 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fay(Nimm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 125Chart A4.3_ Shear strength - no links As/bd = 0.04 d= 250mm Shear strength (N/mm? ) 0.34 0.32 = 03 + 0.28 0.26 7 0.24 |§—* t + 0.22 a Sr pesa = 0.2 — > — 0.18 = i 0.16 ~ 0.14 0.12 P= on 0.08 | ~ 0.06 ' =>] BS8110Prop Bs8110 - ACI318. 0.02 4. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8 90 100 110 120 fx (Nimm?) Chart A4.4 Shear strength - no links As/bd = 0.0025 d= 800mm Shear strength (N/mm? ) 0.65 0.6 | - 0.55 05 0.45 04 0.35 0.3 0.25 02 0.15 o1 0.05 BS8110Prop Bs8110 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 126 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A4.5 Shear strength - no links As/bd = 0.01 d =800mm Shear strength (N/mm? ) 0.65 BS8110Prop_ 0.6 _ 0.55 BS8110 os) NS3473, 0.45 - - 04 Mcs0 0.35 |} ep ee ooo Oe 03 eos 0.25 ACI318 02 J 0.15 0.4 0.05 ' tH 5 I 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fou (Nimm?) Chart A4.6 Shear strength - no links Asibd = 0.04 d= 800mm ‘Shear strength (N/mm? ) 09 BS8110Prop ee Bs8110 O7 ~~ NS3473 0.6 | I | na MC90, 0.5 PT OT Ett EC2Prop. 04 neces ACI318 0.3 K 0.2 On ° 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 f {N/mm 9 Design guidance for high strength concrete 127Chart A4.7 Shear strength - no links As/bd = 0.0025 d=2500mm ‘Shear strength (N/m? ) 2 18 16 14 1.2 BS8110Prop BS8110 Ns3473 1 08 06 0.4 02 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 fos (Nimm?) Chart A4.8 Shear strength - no links As/bd = 0.01 d= 2500mm ‘Shear strength (N/mm? ) 2 1.8 16 120 BS8110Prop Bs8110 14 NS3473 Mc90 EC2Prop. ACI318 ss 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 fou(Nimm?) 120 128 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A4.9 Shear strength - no links Asibd = 0.04 d =2500mm Shear strength (Nimn? ) oe T BS8110Prop 26 | — - = i Bs8110 NS3473 cao | acisia 3 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 feu (N/mm?) 129 Design guidance for high strength concreteA4.2 MAXIMUM SHEAR RESISTANCE FROM CRUSHING Chart A4.10 compares the shear resistance based on the crushing strength of the concrete. The expressions for this given in BS 8110 and ACI 318 are based on the effective depth. The expressions given in the other codes are all based on the lever arm. Chart A4.10 is based on effective depth and in order to make a sensible comparison the values from the other codes, based on lever arm, have been multiplied by 0.9. However, both BS 8110 and ACI 318 give very conservative values of the crushing resistance as neither code was written to be used with higher strength concretes. It is generally believed that the expression for shear crushing (0.8 vf.) in BS 8110 may be used above this limit as it becomes more conservative with higher strengths. Of the other codes, it will be seen that EC2 gives a significantly higher crushing resistance than MC90 and NS3473 when f, > 50 N/mm? (f,, >62.5 N/mm). The proposed extension to EC2 in PR5480 modifies the shear crushing resistance, Vea, for f,,> 40 N/mm! This is similar to that in MC9O. In EC2 the minimum value of vis 0.5; however, the values of the equivalent expression, 0.6 (1 ~ f,/250), in MC90 are 0.48 for f= 50 Nimm’, 0.42 for fy = 75 N/mm? and 0.36 for f= 100 Nimm*. The proposed expression, 0.6 —f,,/400, corresponds well to MC90 and becomes increasingly conservative compared to NS3473 as f,, increases. This is shown in Chart A4.10. Proposed extension to BS 8110 clauses Itis proposed that the limit on maximum shear resistance of 5 N/mm to 8 Nim? A4.3 MINIMUM SHEAR REINFORCEMENT Charts A4.11 and A4.12 compare the minimum area of shear reinforcement required in each of the codes considered for two grades of steel. They consider conerete strengths in the range 15 Némm? « f., < 115 N/mm, The steel strengths assumed are f, = 250 and 460 N/mm? The proposed minimum ratio of shear reinforcement for EC2 given in PRS480 is based on the ratio of the characteristic value of ty (in Vzq,) to the characteristic value of the steel strength, f,. The values of tq for f, 2 55 N/mm? correspond to the proposals of PR5480 following the recommendations of Report 2.2 of Task 2 of PRS480. The results correspond quite well with the values tabulated in EC2 (for its limited range of concrete strengths) and is slightly conservative compared with NS3473, Proposed extension to BS 8110 clauses ‘The proposed extension for minimum reinforcement in BS 8110 is to increase it in a similar way to that proposed for the EC2 extension for concrete strengths above }0 Nimm’, by the factor (f, /40?°. The minimum ratio of shear reinforcement although not so conservative as NS3473 and MC90 increases in a similar fashion with increase of concrete strength. 130 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A10 Shear Crushing Strength (based on effective depth) Shear strength (N/mm?) BS8110Prop BS8110 NS3473 EcaProp. ACI318 =e 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 feu(Némm?) Chart A4.11 Minimum shear reinforcement f, = 250 N/mm? Min. shear rein. (Avs /ty 8) 0.005 Tl...) Ld BS8110Prop 0.0045 4 a ar BS8110 0.004 —-- 0.0035 0.003 }- 0.0025 EC2Prop. .002 ACI318 0.0015 =~ 0.001 0.0005 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Design guidance for high strength concrete 131Chart A4.12 Minimum shear reinforcement f, = 460 N/mm? Min, shear rein. (Av /by 8) 0.0025 BS8110Prop BS8110 0.002 --- NS3473 0.0015 0.001 0.0005, 100 110 120 132 Concrete Society Technical Report 49A5 PUNCHING SHEAR AS.1 COMPARISON OF BS 8110 WITH OTHER CODES Punching shear resistances have been calculated for representative geometries and nforcement ratios using the following codes: British Standard 8110” Eurocode 2 Proposed Extension (PR5480)"° CEB-FIP Model Code 1990" ‘Norwegian Standard NS3473° American Concrete Institute Building Code ACI 318°) Canadian Standards Association CAN3-A23.3.°? The resistance values calculated using the proposed clauses extending BS 8110 for use with high strength concrete are also shown. These are expressed using charts of effective shear force against concrete strength (Charts AS.1 0 AS.16). Since the various codes are to be used with different load factors, the charts are expressed in terms of unfactored forces and moments. An average load factor has been used assuming that the live load accounts for one third of the total Charts AS.1 to A5.8 compare the tension strength in punching shear. Charts A5.9 to AS.16 compare the maximum compression strength in punching shear. Table 13 shows the chosen dimensions of slab and column for each chart together with the tension reinforcement in the slab over the column, ‘Table 13: Chart parameters. Chart stab | Column | Bar | Bar | Cover | Reinforcement number | depth | size | size | spacing | (mm) | at column (eum) | (mm) | (mm) |_(mmy 5) AS1,AS9 | 150 150 16 | 200 15 0.67 AS2,A5.10 | 150 | 250 16 | 150 Is 0.89 AS3, ASL | 175 175 16 | 200 1s 057 ASA, ASI2 | 175 | 250 16 | 150 Is 077 ASS, A513 | 200 175 16 | 200 20 0.50 As6,A5.14 | 200 | 300 | 20 | 200 20 0.78, AS.T.AS.15 | 250 175 16 | 200 20 0.40 As8,A5.16 | 250 | 300 | 20 | 200 20 0.63 (@) BS 8110” Effective shes BS 8110 for force. An effective shear force is calculated using equation 25 in ternal columns. Veq/V, may be taken as 1.15 for intemal columns. Average load factor = (2 1.4+1.6)/3 = 1.47 Design guidance for high strength concrete 133Critical perimeter. The critical perimeter for punching is located 1.5 d from the face ofthe loaded area or column. The shape of the perimeter is assumed to be rectangular Shear resistance without shear reinforcement. The shear resistance without shear reinforcement, v., is given by the expression: = 0.79 [100.4,/ (b,d)}"°(400/ a)!" (f/ 25)! 7, where 2, is the length of perimeter considered 100 4,/(b,) should not be taken as greater than 3 nor less than 0.15, 400/d should not exceed 1, the value of f., should not be taken greater than 40, the value of 7a is taken as 1.25. ‘When perimeters closer than 1.5 dto the loaded area are checked, v, may be increased by a factor 1.5 d/a,, where a, is the distance from the edge of the loaded area to the perimeter considered. Maximum punching shear resistance. The provisions for maximum punching shear depend on the crushing strength of the concrete. This is checked at the face of the loaded area. The shear stress at this location should not exceed 5 N/mm? or 0.8 Vifu, whichever is the lesser (this includes an allowance for 7, of 1.25). Shear resistance with shear reinforcement. The punching shear resistance with shear reinforcement assumes the use of links. Other methods should be justified separately. If v, < v <2 v, shear reinforcement may be provided in accordance with the following equations, provided the slab depth exceeds 200 mr Fory < 1.6 v3 BAysin a 2 (vv) ud /(0.95 f,.) For 16y, <¥ < 2y: EA, sin @ 2 5(0.7 vv.) ud /(0.95 f,) where J, is the characteristic strength of shear reinforcement % A,, is the area of shear reinforcement is the angle between the shear reinforcement and the plane of the slab ¥ Asin a should not be taken as less than 0.4 ud /(0.95 f,) (b) Proposed extension to BS 8110 The increase in normal tension shear resistance for slabs proposed in Appendix ‘A4.1 of this report appears to be valid for punching shear. It is therefore proposed ‘hat the tension shear strength limitation given in BS 8110 should be extended to a value equivalent to f., = 70 N/mm?. This is similar to the limitation imposed in MC90, a value equivalent to f, = 50 Némm? (f,, = 63 Nimm?) The increase in maximum shear resistance proposed in Appendix A4.2 is also valid for punching shear. It is proposed that the limit of 5 N/mm: be removed. BB Concrete Society Technical Report 49(©) Eurocode 2 Effective shear force. An effective shear force is calculated using Equation 4.50. The value of f in that equation may be taken as 1.15 for internal columns. Critical perimeter. The critical perimeter for punching is located 1.5 d from the face of the loaded area or column. In consequence the shape of the perimeter for rectangular columns has rounded comers. Where the aspect ratio of the sides of the column are greater than 2, it is assumed that the punching resistance is concentrated at the comers. Shear resistance without shear reinforcement. The shear resistance without shear reinforcement is as for beams, depending on the tensile strength of concrete, fae os .7 x 0.3 x f2"), the effective depth (m) of the slab, (1.6—d)) 2 1.0 and the tension steel, (1.2 + 40 p,). No limitations are given concerning the width of slab over which the ratio of reinforcement should be taken. In slabs, where the tension reinforcement is concentrated at the column, an unsafe value could be assumed Maximum punching shear resistance. The maximum punching shear resistance with shear reinforcement, V gq. is expressed as a multiple of the resistance of an otherwise similar slab without shear reinforcement: Vea = 1.6 ¥pa There does not appear to be a rational explanation for this. Furthermore it does not relate to the maximum compressive strength of the conerete (ie. crushing) and tests by Regan‘ and Taylor show that itis unsafe for small loaded areas. Shear resistance with shear reinforcement. The punching shear resistance with shear reinforcement, a5, is equal to the sum of the concrete shear resistance, Vpa1. and the shear reinforcement resistance, E.4,,,f. in afu. No limitation is given to the stress in the shear reinforcement. This may not be safe for shear reinforcement with Sy, > 350 Nimmn?, since large strains may prevent V gg; , V pay and V gas from being, achieved. (@) Proposed extension to EC2 by PRS480° EC2 confuses the behaviour of punching shear with that for the shear resistance of beams and slabs on line supports. This is particularly so where it specifies the d design of shear reinforcement. MC90 is both clearer and more consistent in approach and is supported by tests carried out independently by SINTEF™. ‘The method given in EC2 for calculating the maximum shear capacity does not appear to be supported by a clear logic or model of the behaviour. The maximum shear capacity of the other codes is related to the crushing strength of the concrete at the column face (or d/2 from the column face for ACI 318 and CAN3-A23.3) which is considered more reasonable. PR5480 proposes that the EC2 punching shear clauses are replaced by the method ven in MC90 both for normal and high strength concrete, except that the method given in EC? for calculating the maximum design compressive stress be retained, as modified in the report for Sub-task 3.1 of PRS480. Design guidance for high strength concrete 135PR5480 proposes to adopt MC90’s approach to calculating the effective applied design shear force, together with the EC2 simple coefficient method stating the appropriate limitations. Charts AS.17 to A5.25 compare the simplified approach given in MC90 with the coefficients given in BS 8110 and EC2 for internal, edge and corner columns. (©) CEB-FIP Model Code 190°? Effective shear force. An effective shear stress is calculated using Equation 6.4-15 The ratio of Fagg / Fy = 1+ Ku My! W, Fg where 17; is a parameter of the control perimeter. For a rectangular column W, may be taken as: CPD + +4 eget 6d +2 mdeeey Kis a coefficient dependent on the ratio of column dimensions c, parallel to and c, perpendicular to the eccentricity M/F... Values of K may be obtained from Table 14. Table 14: Values of K for different combinations of ¢,/¢, ele | 05 10 2.0 23.0 K | oas 06 07 08 Average load factor = (2 « 1.35 + 1.5)/3 14 Critical perimeter. The critical perimeter for punching is located 2 d from the face of the loaded area or column, In consequence the shape of the perimeter for rectangular columns has rounded comers. Shear resistance without shear reinforcement. The shear resistance without shear reinforcement, T,,, is given by the expression: Tag = 0.12 €( 100 pf)!” where £ = 1+¥(200/d) e VPA) In each direction the ratio, p, should be calculated for a width equal to the side dimension of the column plus 3 d to either side of it. Maximum punching shear resistance. The provisions for maximum punching shear, Fy, depend on the crushing strength of cracked conerete, fun taken at the perimeter of the loaded area: Fg = od 05 fox) where fan = 06 (I~ fa! 250) fg Shear resistance with shear reinforcement. The punching shear resistance with shear reinforcement is equal to the sum of 0.75 of the concrete shear resistance without shear reinforcement and the shear reinforcement resistance, 1.5 dn. fSiN 15. fi limited to 300 Nimm?. This limitation may take into account the large 136 Concrete Society Technical Report 49strains which occur as the concrete cracks in shear but before the maximum concrete shear resistance is reached. () NS3473E°" Effective shear force. An effective shear force may calculated using Clause 12.3.5,5. The value of Vigs/ Vz for rectangular internal columns may be taken as 143 u (My! Vg) / 8(6 +2 dy Average load factor = (2 « 1.2+1.6)/3 = 1.33 Critical perimeter. The critical perimeter, b,,, for punching is located d from the face of the loaded area or column. The shape of the perimeter is minimised by straight sides. Hence for a rectangular column a rectangular perimeter is assumed. Shear resistance without shear reinforcement. The shear punching resistance without shear reinforcement, ¥.., is given by the expression: Veg = 0.33 [fat yA (Vb.d)] bud, 5 0.66 fb, dk, where k, = 100 Nimm? A, is the cross-sectional area of properly anchored reinforcement on the tension side, k, is set to 1.5 ~d/d, but not greater than 1.4 nor less than 1.0 (d, = 1.0m). Maximum punching shear resistance. The maximum punching shear depends on the crushing strength of cracked conerete, f., taken at the perimeter of the loaded area: Veg < OAS fgbyt where z may be taken as 0.9 Shear resistance with shear reinforcement. The punching shear resistance with shear reinforcement is equal to the sum of the concrete shear resistance without shear reinforcement, with k, set to 1, and the shear reinforcement resistance, Vig Vig = Say 2 (1 + cot a) sin ais where fiz and 4,, are the design stress and area of the shear reinforcement ‘is the angle between shear reinforcement and the longitudinal axis. (e) ACI318° In ACI 318 the required concrete strength, f; , is used. There is a 1% probability that the average of three consecutive tests will be below this specified strength and 1% probability that an individual result will be more than 500 psi below it. The other codes all define the concrete strength as the value below which 5% of all possible test results would be expected to fall. To compensate for this different definition, f! is taken as f, + 3 Nimny, Effective shear force. An effective shear force may be calculated using Clause 11.1261, The value of V.a-/V for rectangular internal columns may be taken as Design guidance for high strength concrete 1371+ 3 Bo(Mya/Vus)/ 8 (c + d)’, Where Viger is the effective design shear force, Vig is the maximum design shear force (ftom moment eccentricity), M,, is the design unbalanced moment and c is the column dimension assuming a square column. Average load factor 2x14412)/3 = 15 Critical perimeter. The critical perimeter for punching, b,, is located d/2 from the face of the loaded area or column, For a rectangular column a rectangular perimeter may be assumed, Shear resistance without shear reinforcement. The shear punching resistance without shear reinforcement, V., is the least of: @) Ko= Q+4/ PK bod where £. the ratio of long side to short side of the column (b) Ve = (ad/by + 2)Vfz bod where @, is 40 for interior columns, 30 for edge columns, and 20 for comer columns. © V, = 4¥fibod where f,, is the cylinder strength of concrete (psi) Maximum punching shear resistance. The limiting punching shear resistance of the concrete component is 2 Vf; by d and the limit to the total punching shear resistance, including shear reinforcement, is 6 Vf. byd. Shear resistance with shear reinforcement. The punching shear resistance with vertical shear reinforcement is equal to the sum of the concrete shear resistance without shear reinforcement and the shear reinforcement resistance, V, Y= fA,dls where f, and A, are the design stress and area of the shear reinforcement within a distance s, respectively. Where shear reinforcement consists of a single group of parallel bars: Ves IV floyd ‘Where shear reinforcement consists of a series of groups of parallel bars: Vis BV fbyd (e) CAN3-A23.307 Effective shear force. An effective shear force may be calculated in the same way as for ACI 318 (see above). The value of Vijer/V,, for rectangular internal columns may be taken as 1 +3 by (Mjg/Vaq)/ 8 (cd). 138 Concrete Society Technical Report 49‘Average load factor = (2 « 1.25 + 1.5)/3 = 133 Critical perimeter. The critical perimeter, by, for punching is located d/2 from the face of the loaded area or column. For a rectangular column a rectangular perimeter may be assumed. Shear resistance without shear reinforcement. The shear punching resistance without shear reinforcement, V,, is the least of: Ve = (1+2/P)0.2 $V f; byd but not greater than 0.4 PVF. bod where is the ratio of long side to short side of the column ‘J. is the cylinder strength of concrete Maximum punching shear resistance. The factored punching shear resistance, V, (© V, + ¥,), shall not be greater than 0.6 .Vf.byd. The limiting punching shear resistance of the concrete component is 0.2 &.Vf" Byd. Shear resistance with shear reinforcement. The punching shear resistance with vertical shear reinforcement is equal to the sum of the concrete shear resistance without shear reinforcement and the shear reinforcement resistance, V,. Where vertical shear reinforcement consists of a single group of parallel bars Y= bh Ads where f, and A, are the design stress and area of the shear reinforcement within a distance s, respectively. 5.2 COMMENTS ON CHARTS (a) Charts AS.1 to A5.8. Punching shear: tensile strength ‘There is a large discrepancy between the codes for normal strength conerete, One important contribution to this is the difference in definition of the control perimeter between the codes. This is reflected by the greatest differences in resistance values occurring for small column sizes combined with thin slabs. The differences reduce with increase of concrete compressive strength, largely due to an imposed cut off level applied by each code. (b) Charts A5.9 to A5.16. Punching shear: compressive strength ‘There is a large discrepancy in punching compressive resistance between the codes for all values of compressive strength. It should be noted that there is, however, general agreement between the codes for the value of maximum ultimate design compressive stress (see Appendix A4). The main differences in punching compressive resistance between the codes arise from the following: (a) _ differences in how the maximum compressive stress is applied, (b) differences in position and length of the control perimeter, (©) _ differences in calculating the effective shear force due to eccentric load, (@)_ the use of lever arm in NS3473 compared with d in MC90. Design guidance for high strength concrete 139Chart A5.1 Punching: Tension strength Col. =150 h =150 Bar size = 16mm_ Bar spacing = 200 mm Cover = 15mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) a TTB S81 10P rop Bs8110 140 oe = SRS Ec2 CAFS ED | 120 i ~| mcs0 ere === 4 > ; N3473E Z as ACI318 : oe CAN3A23.3 80 — EC2Prop. g | aa ea tt 2 30 40 50 60 70 80 9 100 110 120 fou(N/mm?) Chart A5.2 Punching: Tension strength Col. =250 h =150 Bar size = 16mm _ Bar spacing= 150mm Cover = 15mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) 240 7 BS8110Prop | lo} — 220 aa = Bs8110 oe 200 Ec2 -6- 180 =f = == == Mc90 (aot — 160 , N3473E 140 | xp — : acist | > 120 t ~—— CAN3A23.3, 100 + EC2P ¢ | ” 80, 80 90 ©6100 110 120 2 30 40 «450 60 70 fes(N/mm?) 140 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A5.3 Punching: Tension strength Col. =175 h =175 Bar size = 16 mm_ Bar spacing = 200 mm Cover = 15 mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) 240 r BS8110Prop 20 3set10 > 200 Ec2 -¢- 180 SS See M90 160 . : N3473E rere 140 ——- ACI318 t : 120 (CAN3A23.3 eae 100 — E02Prop. g | — 2 30 40 50 6 70 80 90 100 110 120 fox(Nimm?) Chart A5.4 Punching: Tension strength Col. =250 h =175 Bar size= 16mm _ Bar spacing = 150 mm Cover = 15 mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) 350 BS8110Prop | Bs8110 300 | | pe Ec2 | ~o- 250 | Mc90 T = eea-e t-te N3473E, — -+- 200 4 ACI318 Ke ae + | CANSA23.3 190 | pet | _| _— , x EC2Prop. g | —_— 100 Ls 20 30 440 «50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fos(Nimm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete MiChart A5.5 Punching: Tension strength Col. =175 h =200 Bar size=16mm_ Bar spacing= 200mm Cover = 20 mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) 200 lease aren ee eee BS8110Prop Bs8110 oC 250 Ec2 aoe Mcgo mpaet tote eae 200 N3473E ane ACI318 > 150 CAN3A23.3 — EC2Prop. g —— 100 —-— __| 20 30 40 «50 6070 8080 100 110-120 feu(Nimm?) Chart A5.6 Punching: Tension strength Col. =300 h =200 Bar size = 20 mm_Bar spacing = 200 mm_ Cover = 20 mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) =) —] 2884 0Prep 400 - 2) asat10 i = EC2 350 -¢- Mc90 300 ee N3473E 250 ea o7 | ACI318 200 a t ae ee | CANSA23.3 | | ence 150 T EC2Prop. 100 70 80 90 100 110 120 fox(N/mm?) 182 Conerete Society Technical Report 49Chart A5.7 Punching: Tension strength Col. =175 h =250 Bar size = 16 mm_Bar spacing = 200 mm _ Cover = 20 mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) 500 BS8110Prop 450 Bs8110 oe Ec2 400 -o- Mc90 350 =a N3473E 300 -+- Aci3i8 250 a CAN3A23.3 — 200 EC2Prop. 150 2 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fox(N/mm?) Chart A5.8 Punching: Tension strength Col. =300 h =250 Bar size = 20 mm_ Bar spacing = 200 mm Cover = 20 mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) ay BS8110Prop Bs8110 600 Ec2 -¢- Mc90 N3473E ar ACI318 > CAN3A23.3 = EC2Prop. 400 |- 300 20 30 «40 «5060 80 90 100 110 120 70 fosN/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 143Chart A5.9 Punching: Tension strength Col. =150 h =150 Bar size = 16 mm _Bar spacing = 200 mm Cover = 15 mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) 500 BS8110Prop 2 Bsat10 400 aw 3 ar Ec2 a -¢- 300 Mc90 N3473E = ~ ACI318 evans CAN3A23.3 100 — EC2Prop. fi eae ___| 20 30 «40 «50 «660 670 680 )6 90) 100 110 120 fex(Nimm?) Chart A5.10 Punching: Tension strength Col. =250 h =150 Bar size =16mm_ Bar spacing = 150mm Cover = 15mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) 1,000 ] BS8110Prop BS8110 o Ec2 oe ‘C90 N3473E, pees ACI318 se CAN3A23.3 ~~ EC2Prop. i Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A5.11 Punching: Tension strength Col. =175 h =175 Bar size = 16 mm_Bar spacing = 200 mm_ Cover = 15 mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) oe T LL BS8110Prop 700 = BS8110 be a 600 Z Ec2 at -¢- i + 500 te nce + 400 Z or 300 a s = i 200 : - ST 1 a pict i,t} ti} 20 30 «40 «450 60 670 680 §6=690 100 110120 fos(N/mm?) Chart A5.12 Punching: Tension strength Col. =250 h =175 Bar size = 16 mm Bar spacing = 150 mm Cover = 15mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) 1,200 ia eedeasl TT )].d)sfdtd BS8110Prop | I BS8110 4,000 : ae Ec2 800 -o- Mca0 600 N3473E =e ACI318 400 3 CAN3A23.3 200 | fl - 20 30 40 50 60 70 8 90 100 110 120 fas(Nimm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete M45Chart A5.13 Punching: Tension strength Col. =175 h =200 Bar size = 16 mm_Bar spacing = 200 mm_ Cover = 20 mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) 1,000 fT TTT 800 BS8110Prop BS8110 Ec2 -6- Mc90 600 400 N3473E, -+- ACI318 =e CAN3A23.3 200 0 20 30 «40 Chart A5.14 Punching: Tension strength Col. Bar size = 20 mm_ Bar spacing = 200 mm_ Cover = 20 mm 50 60 Effective shear force (kN) (working) 70 80 fe(N/mm?) 90 100 110 — EC2Prop. 120 =300 h =200 1,600 —T] 888110Prop 1,400 pai Bs8110 ae oe 1,200 T i zee act -e- 1,000 ae Mc90 * ere ye 800 = N34735 a+ | -+- 600 |——; Zz ACI318 pan 400 T CAN3A23.3, | | —— 200 ca 7 EC2Prop. o +L 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 ©6120 fou (N/mm ?) 146 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A5.15 Punching: Tension strength Col. =175 h =250 Bar size = 16mm _ Bar spacing = 200 mm Cover = 20 mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) 1,200 BS8110Prop Bs8110 1,000 |— Ec2 800 600 ACI318 vans CAN3A23.3 ee 400 eH 200 + — | | EC2Prop. | | == 0 J 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fo, (N/mm?) Chart A5.16 Punching: Tension strength Col. =300 h =250 Bar size = 20 mm_ Bar spacing = 200 mm Cover = 20 mm Effective shear force (kN) (working) 2,000 IT TATT_BS81 10Pr0p | Bs8110 oe - ec2 -6- } of cso | | + CAN3A23.3. — EC2Prop. oO 2 30 40 «450 60 70 8 90 100 110 120 fou (N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 7Chart A5.17 Effective shear force : Internal columns Range of coulmn size (C1..), C1/C2 = 0.5 Veft / Vt 1.25 = | 1.2 a T 6260 BS8110: VeliVt= 1.15 Ee VSsevSe = 15 115 We ros a os cos one emo 4.4 -- ooh SY - SSS 1 | | 0 100 200 300 400 600 600 700 800 Effective depth (mm) Chart A5.18 Effective shear force : Internal columns Range of coulmn size (C1..), C1/C2 = 1.0 Veff / Vt 1.35 —- e150 13 e250 1.25 . 1 ——— ! 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Effective depth (mm) 148 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A5.19 Effective shear force : Internal columns Range of coulmn size (C1..), C1/C2 = 2.0 Veff / Vt 15 14 13 12 14 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Effective depth (mm) Chart A5.20 Effective shear force : Edge columns Range of coulmn size (C1..), C1/C2 = 0.5 Veff / Vt 35 7 25 ° 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Effective depth (mm) Design guidance for high strength concrete 149Chart A5.21 Effective shear force : Edge columns Range of coulmn size (C1..), C1/C2 = 1.0 Veff / Vt 22 lize Lcef | 18 | - e400 \ 1.6 ‘Simplified : 800 BSB110: VoRvt= 1.4 900 C2: VSdetVSd= 14 14 We a WH x 12 —= ; | | oO 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Effective depth (mm) Chart A5.22 Effective shear force : Edge columns Range of coulmn size (C1..), C1/C2 = 2.0 Veff / Vt 16 15 ‘Simplified : —f— S810: VoRIVt= 1.4 | £02: VEdelvsd= 1.4 14 *—* KK 3 *K—} 1.3 1.2 14 — r — 1 — : oO 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Effective depth (mm) 150 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A5.23 Effective shear force : Corner columns Range of coulmn size (C1..), C1/C2 = 0.5 Veff / Vt 55 s{- 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 05 0 100 200 300 500 600 700 800 Effective depth (mm) Chart A5.24 Effective shear force : Edge columns Range of coulmn size (C1..), C1/C2 = 1.0 Veff / Vt 4 35 3 25 aa £02} VSdetvsd 515. x 05 o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Effective depth (mm) Design guidance for high strength concrete 151Chart A5.25 Effective shear force : Corner columns Range of coulmn size (C1..), C1/C2 = 2.0 Veff / Vt 3a 25 15 os ‘Simplified: BS8110: VortVt = 1.25 — EC2: VSdetVSd= 1.5 x= 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Effective depth (mm) 152 Concrete Society Technical Report 49A6 DEFLECTION PR5480 assumed that the detailed procedures set out in Appendix 4 of EC2 are as applicable for high strength concrete as for normal strengths. This is almost identical to the method given in MC90. Appendix 4 of EC2 makes allowance for reduced creep effects with increase in concrete strength as described in Appendix 24 of this report. Also refer to Section 3.1. A7 DETAILING A7.1 INTRODUCTION Many of the detailing provisions of BS 8110 are suitable for high strength as well as normal strength concrete. Further rules are required for the following: bond anchorage and lapping minimum reinforcement for structural members minimum size and spacing of transverse bars. Each of these is discussed in tum and proposed code clauses are given at the end. Minimum shear reinforcement for beams is considered in Appendix Ad and is ‘omitted from this section, Compression splices are not considered in this section since they occur mainly in columns and are greatly affected by confinement reinforcement. Report 3.3 of PR5480 considers this aspect in more detail, A7.2 BOND The ultimate bond stress is largely dependent on the tensile strength of concrete. Report 2.2 of Task 2 of PRS480 provides guidance on the evaluation of tensile strength of HSC. This has provided the basis for the proposals given in PRS480. Report 2.2 cautions against extrapolating formulae in existing codes for use with HSC as most of them overestimate the tensile strength of concrete. This is discussed at more length in Appendix A2.1 of this report. The value of ultimate bond stress for high bond bars, fj in EC2 is given in Equation 5.2 as: Sra = 2.25 fassoos) Ye Design guidance for high strength concrete 153Report 2.2 recommends that f,, be limited to a value corresponding to fy = 35 N/mm? (f,, = 70 Nimm?). Accordingly, PRS480 proposed that Equation 5.2 is valid up to a value corresponding to f, = 55 Nimm (f.,= 70 N/mm). Above this value f,, should remain constant Research in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln “ suggests that, for concrete strengths of £, = 100 N/mm: the bond conditions for high bond bars in the upper parts of beams and slabs are at least as good as that in the lower part of the section. For this reason PRS480 proposes that the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘poor’ bond conditions defined in Clause 5.2.1 of EC2 is reduced to zero between f., = 80 and 100 N/mm?. Similarly it is proposed that the condition given in Clause 3.12.8.13(a) of BS 8110 be reduced from 1.4 to | between f., = 95 and 115 Nimm. 7.3 ANCHORAGE AND LAPPING ‘A comparison of the following codes has been carried out: British Standard BS 8110 Eurocode 2 Proposed Extension (PR5480)"" CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 Norwegian Standard NS3473 . American Conerete Institute Building Code ACI 318° The rules given in MC90 and EC2, although expressed differently, are almost identical, but MC90 allows their use up to f= 80 N/mm’ (f.,= 95 Nimm?).. (@ BS8110 This code takes account of the following parameters: (1) Bar size, steel strength and bond strength Q) Cover (3) Bar spacing (4) Good and bad bond conditions (5) Plain and high bond bars (6) Minimum anchorage length (7) Equation of Aya /A, por (8) Percentage of reinforcement being lapped (®) Bundled bars. It does not have special rules for bars with a diameter greater than 32 mm. (b) EC2 and MC90 ‘These codes take account of the above parameters and also: (10) Straight or curved bars in tension (11) Confinement by transverse reinforcement (12) Confinement by transverse pressure. ‘These codes do not permit the anchorage of straight bars with a diameter greater than 32 mm. In the absence of transverse compression, transverse reinforcement is 154 Concrete Society Technical Report 49required in the anchorage zones of beams and slabs, which is additional to any shear reinforcement, Surface reinforcement is required to ensure crack control. (©) NS3473 This code takes account of the parameters listed above except (10). In addition it takes account of: (13) Longitudinal tolerance for the position of the end of the bar (14) The requirement for the minimum reinforcement to be spliced for its full capacity. (@_ Act318 This code takes account of the parameters from (1) to (12) listed except (10). A7.4 PROPOSED RULES The use of HSC requires modification to the anchorage and splice lengths due to changes in bond stress described earlier in this section and the greater need to prevent splitting of the concrete with the use of deformed bars‘. It is proposed that the design bond stress for high bond bars in BS 8110 be limited to that equivalent t0,f,,= 100 Nimm?, It is also proposed that for f,,> 95 N/mm? transverse reinforcement, perpendicular to the plane of the anchored or spliced bars should be provided where the ultimate applied bond stress exceeds 0.75 f.. This should be in the form of sausage links or U-bars fully anchored into the section. (The minimum total area of this reinforcement should be in accordance with Clause 5.2.3.3 (2) of EC2.) A7.5 CHARTS Charts A7.1 to A7.9 show the tension anchorage length for bars in the bottom of the section plotted against f., for a range of beam and slab configurations. Similar rules apply for bars in the top of the section but extra anchorage length is required by all the codes considered. The factor is expressed differently in each code and is 1.3 for ‘ACI 318 and 1.4 for the other codes. Charts A7.1 to A7.3 are for beams with bar diameters of 16, 25 and 40 mm, and with covers of 35, 35 and 45 mm, respectively. They all assume a spacing of 100 mm. f, is taken as 460 N/mm: and high bond bars are assumed. The transverse reinforcement is assumed to lie outside the main reinforcement, so providing some resistance to splitting. Since the rules are expressed differently in each code there are significant jumps in the relationship between codes. The ACI 318 rules step from being the least conservative for bar diameters not greater than 35 mm to being the most conservative for larger bars. The proposal lies between the extreme values of the codes compared. Charts A7.4 to A7.9 are for slabs with bar diameters of 12, 20 and 32 mm with a constant cover of 20 mm. The spacing of bars for Charts A7.4, A7.6 and A7.8 is 150 mm and for Charts A7.5, A7.7 and A7.9 it is 300 mm. Although transverse reinforcement is shown it is in the inner layer, which is considered to be normal practice in the UK, and does not contribute to the resistance to splitting. As for beams there is a wide discrepancy between the codes compared and the proposed rules lie between the extremes. Design guidance for high strength concrete 155Chart A7.1 Anchorage length - beams Bar dia. = 16 mm Spacing = 100 mm Cover = 35 mm Rein. type = Deformed, Type 2 Trans. rein= 8mm Spacing = 300mm Anchorage length (mm) 1200 BS8110Prop NS3473 Mc90 1000 EC2Prop. | | ! 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fau(Nimm? ) Chart A7.2 Anchorage length - beams Bar dia. = 25 mm Spacing = 100 mm Cover = 35 mm Rein. type = Deformed, Type 2 Trans. rein=10mm Spacing = 300mm Anchorage length (mm) BS8110Prop Ns3473 Mcgo EC2Prop. ACI318 3 I 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fax(N/mm? ) 156 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A7.3 Anchorage length - beams Bar dia. = 40 mm Spacing = 100 mm Cover = 45 mm Rein. type = Deformed, Type 2. Trans. rein= 16mm Spacing = 200mm Anchorage length (mm) 6000 5500 k- 5000 4500 BS8110Prop NS3473 mca0 EC2Prop. Aci318 2 30 40 60 60 70 8 90 100 110 120 f..(N/mm? ) Chart A7.4 Anchorage length - slabs Bar dia. = 12 mm Spacing = 150 mm Cover = 20 mm Rein. type = Deformed, Type 2 Trans. rein =10mm Spacing = 300mm Anchorage length (mm) oy BS8110Prop 800 — " Ns3473, 700 --- Meso 600 _ 500 EC2Prop. 400 ACI318 300 200 100 oO 2 30 40 50 60 70 8 90 100 110 120 a{N/mm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 157Chart A7.5 Anchorage length - slabs Bar dia. = 12 mm Spacing = 300 mm Gover = 20 mm Rein. type = Deformed, Type 2 Trans. rein= 10mm _ Spacing = 300mm Anchorage length (mm) 900 ,——— BS8110Prop 800 + —— | Ns3473 ACI318 2 30 40 450 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 f {N/mm ?) Chart A7.6 Anchorage length - slabs Bar dia. = 20 mm Spacing = 150 mm Cover = 20 mm Rein. type = Deformed, Type 2 Trans. rein=10mm Spacing = 300mm Anchorage length (mm) 1800 BS8110Prop 1600 [ =a 1400 fi pinta 1200 “ 1000 EC2Prop. 800 ACI318. 600 |} eee fo 400 | — 200 0 | 20 30 40 «450 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fax(N/mm?) 158 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A7.7 Anchorage length - slabs Bar dia. = 20 mm Spacing = 300 mm Cover = 20 mm Rein. type = Deformed, Type 2 Trans. rein= 10mm Spacing = 300mm Anchorage length (mm) 1600 BS8110Prop NS3473 1400 PS 1200 1000 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fs(N/imm?) Chart A7.8 Anchorage length - slabs Bar dia. = 32 mm Spacing = 150 mm Cover = 20 mm Rein. type = Deformed, Type 2 Trans. rein=10mm Spacing = 300mm Anchorage length (mm) 000 BS8110Prop | nso Mcg0 EC2Prop. o 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fa(N/imm?) Design guidance for high strength concrete 159Chart A7.9 Anchorage length - slabs Bar dia. = 32mm Spacing = 300 mm Cover = 20 mm Rein. type = Deformed, Type 2 Trans. rein= 10mm Spacing = 300mm Anchorage length (mm) 4000 BS8110Prop NS3473 Mcgo 3500 3000 2500 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fau(Nimm?) A7.6 MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT FOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS: (@) Columns Chart A7.10 shows a comparison between the codes considered, The values plotted for MC90 are as provided in the commentary. The EC2 plot is given by Equation 5.13 of Clause 5.4.1.2.1: Agni = 0.15 Nyy tha # 0.003 A, where it is has been assumed that N,, is 0.75 times the maximum compressive resistance of the concrete alone. The EC2 plot lies between the extremes of the other codes and PRS480 proposed no alteration to Equation 5.13. BS 8110 requires a minimum of 0.4% compression reinforcement. It is proposed that this be increased for values of f,, above 60 Nimm’ such that, 04 < 100 Ag. win dee = 0440.01 (f,~ 60). 160 Concrete Society Technical Report 49(0) Beams Chart A7.11 shows a comparison between the codes considered. It is assumed that EC2 is valid up tof, = 50 N/mm?, Above this value PR5480 proposed that the ‘minimum ratio be multiplied by a factor equal to fy/4.1, where fq, is the modified value proposed in Chapter 2 of Report 3.1 of PR5480. ‘The EC2 proposed plot lies between the extremes of the other codes and appears to bbe reasonable. BS 8110 requires a minimum of 0.13% tension reinforcement in rectangular sections. It is proposed that this be increased for values of f,, above 60 N/mm’ such that 0.13 < 100A,/A, > 0.13 « (0.36 Vf,/0.7)/4 where 0.36 V7., represents fan, Although Chart A7.11 shows that BS 8110 provides less minimum reinforcement than other codes (except MC90), this is the case for both normal and high strength concrete. © Walls The minimum vertical reinforcement for walls is not considered to be a function of the strength of the concrete and it is proposed that the value for normal strength concrete is satisfactory for HSC. Chart A7.12 shows a comparison between the codes considered for the minimum horizontal reinforcement, It is assumed that EC2 is valid up to f,~ 50 N/mm?, Above this value PR5480 proposed that the minimum ratio be multiplied by a factor equal to f/4.1 where f, is the modified value proposed in Chapter 2 of Report 3.1 of PRS480, ‘The EC2 Proposed plot lies between the extremes of the other codes and appears to be reasonable. BS 8110 requires a minimum of 0.25% tension reinforcement in rectangular sections. It is proposed that this be increased for values of f, above 60 N/mm: such that 0.25 < 100.4,/A, 2 0.25 x (0.36 VF,10.7)/4, Chart A7.12 shows that this proposal lies between the extremes of the other codes and appears to be reasonable. Design guidance for high strength concrete 161Chart A7.10 Columns - minimum reinforcement fy = 460 N/mm, TO0AS IA. : BS8110prop 25 Bs8110 = NS3473E 2 ACI318 wd Mc90 os 1 EC2Prop. ae 05 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 «110 «120 f.,(N/mm?) Chart A7.11 Beams - minimum reinforcement fy = 460 Nimn? 100A, /A. 04 7 al eeee ia &S8110prop ad BS8110 [tT 3 03 top to NS3473E + oe acist8 cs jr Mcg0 aes cu EC2Prop. O41 0.05 T ole LI lJ 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fou(N/mm?) 162 Concrete Society Technical Report 49Chart A7.12 Walls - minimum reinforcement fy = 460 N/mm? 100A, /A. a BS8110prop 0.35 [| | 0.3 |- 0.25 }- 02 0.15 0.05 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 f.. (N/mm?) AT.7 MINIMUM SIZE AND SPACING OF TRANSVERSE BARS. Research at the University of Westminster on full size columns suggests that the nominal transverse reinforcement should be increased. NS3473 incorporates such a rule. PR5480 proposed to reduce the spacing and increase the minimum size of transverse bar for fy, > 50 Nimm? (f,,> 62.5 N/mm?) in EC2 as follows: (1) The maximum spacing of links should then be reduced to the least of + ten times the diameter of its smallest longitudinal compression bar, + the least dimension of the section, or + 200mm. (2) The minimum diameter of links should be increased to 10 mm or one quarter of the maximum diameter of the longitudinal bars, whichever is greater. It is proposed that the extension to BS 8110 should follow the same rule for concrete strengths above j., = 60 N/mm’, Design guidance for high strength concrete 163APPENDIX B FURTHER RESEARCH B1 INTRODUCTION Research on properties and structural performance of materials is necessary for continued improvement and refinement of both the design and the construction process using these materials, so that their application can be made in the most efficient and competitive way. For high strength concrete, although sufficient information is available to enable its large-scale use in the design and construction of structures, research in particular areas is needed for better understanding of its behaviour in use, leading ultimately to more streamlined and economic application with a greater degree of reliability. Research requirements, listed below, are divided into three categories on the basis of the order of priority. ‘The requirements are for both normal weight and lightweight aggregate concrete. B2 RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS Category 1: high priority (@)__ The behaviour of slender columns with particular emphasis on instability and the effect of links on the ductility. (b) Punching of high strength concrete slabs. (©) Rotation capacity of reinforced as well as prestressed sections. (@) The effect of fire. Category 2: medium priority (a) Bond anchorage and laps. (6) Minimum reinforcement requirement. (©) _ Shear stresses in beams with emphasis on the minimum shear reinforcement requirement. (4) Creep and shrinkage. (©) Determination of the characteristic stress-block (idealised stress-strain curve for design) for flexure. (Fatigue in compression and in tension. Category 3: low priority (a) Deflection criteria and span/depth ratio. (b) Relationship between in-situ strength of a structure and the strength of standard control specimens. (©) Tensile strength, modulus of elasticity and impact resistance ete. 164 Concrete Society Technical Report 49APPENDIX C REFERENCES 13 14, 15, 17. . FIP-CEB, High strength concrete. State of the Art Re BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 8110: Structural use of concrete, Part 1: 1997 Code of practice for design and construction. 120 pp. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 5400 Steel, concrete and composite bridges: Part 4: 1990. Code of practice for design of concrete bridges. 61 pp. RMC GROUP. High strength concrete. Readymix technical information, October 1991 MURPHY, M. (Readymix Concrete Technical Series). Private communi jon. PRICE, W. P. (Messrs Sandberg, formerly Taywood Engineering) Private com- munication, BRITE EURAM Project $480 Economic design and construction with high strength conerete. Contract No. BRE2CT 92 0230. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. ENV 1992 -1-1:1992. Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures, Part 1, General rules and rules for building (and UK ‘National Application Document). European Committee for Standardisation, BSI, 254 pp. CEB-FIP Model code for concrete structures, 1990. Comité Euro-Intemational du Beton. Thomas Telford, London, 1993. Bulletin d’Information No. 213/214. 437 pp. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 8110: Structural use of concrete Part 2: 1985 Code of practice for special circumstances. 52 pp. SCOTT, R. H. The short-term moment-curvature relationship for reinforced concrete beams. ICE Proceedings, Pact 2, Vol. 75 December 1983, pp. 725-34. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 8110 Structural use of concrete Part 3: 1985, Design charts for singly reinforced beams, doubly reinforced beams and rectangular columns. W12pp. Information No. 197, FIP State of the Art Report SR 90/1, London, 1990. 61 pp. ACI Committee 363, State-of-the-Art Report on High Strength Concrete, ACI Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 81..No. 4, July-August 1984, pp. 364-411. NAWY, E. G. and BALAGURU, P. N. High strength concrete. Handbook of Structural Concrete, Kong, F.K. et al. (Ed). Pitman Books Limited, London, 1983. CLARKE, J. L. and POMEROY, C. D. Concrete opportunities for the structural engineer (a review of modified concrete for use in structure). The Structural Engineer, Volume 63A, No.2, February 1985. pp. 45-53. BJERKELI, L. et al. Deformation properties and ductility of high strength concrete. High strength concrete. Hester, W. T. (Ed.) Proceedings of 2nd International ‘Symposium, Berkeley, May 1990, Detroit, ACI, 1990, ACI SP-121. pp. 215ff. TAERWE, L. Brittleness versus ductility of high strength concrete. Siructural Engineering International, Vol. 1, No. 4, November 1991. pp. 40-S. Design guidance for high strength concrete 16519, a 22, 2. 24, 28. 21, 28. 29. 30. 31. 32, 33. 34. SWAMY, R. N. High strength concrete - material properties and structural behaviour. High strength concrete. Russell, H. G. (Ed.). SP-87. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1985. pp. 119-46. CORLEY, W. G. Rotational capacity of reinforced concrete beams, Journal Struc tural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 91, No. 5, 5 October 1966. KAAR, P. H. and CORLEY, W. G. Properties of confined concrete for design of earthquake resistant structures, Proceeding 6th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Delhi, January 1977. Annale de l Institut Technique du Batiment et des Travaux Public, No. $02, March- April 1992. MPHONDE, A. G. and FRANTZ, G. C. Shear strength of high strength reinforced concrete beams, University of Connecticut Report CE84-157, June 1984. 260 pp. THORENFELDT, E. and DRANGSHOLT, G. Shear capacity of reinforced high- strength concrete beams. (ACI Committee 363). SP-121. Hester, W T (Ed). High strength concrete, Second Int. Symposium, May 1990, Berkeley. Detroit, ACI, 1990, pp. 129-54. SAKAGUCHI, N., eal, Shear strength of high-strength concrete members. Hester, W.T. (Ed.), High strength concrete, Second International Symposium, May 1990, Berkeley, California, USA, Detroit, ACI, 1990. SP-121. pp. 129-54 ROLLER, J. J. and RUSSELL, H. G. Shear strength of high-strength concrete ‘beams with web reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 87, No. 2, March- April 1990, pp. 191-8. JOHNSON, M. and RAMIREZ, J. A. Minimum shear reinforcement in beams with high strength concrete, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 86, No. 4, July-August 1989. pp. 376-82. LEVI, F. and MARRO, P. Shear tests up to failure of beams with normal and high strength concrete, Design aspects of high strengih concrete, CEB Bulletin 4¢'Information No. 193, CEB, Lausanne, 1989. pp 13-23. BERNHARDT, C. J. and FYNBOE, C. C. High strength concrete beams. Nordic Concrete Research Publication No.5, Nordic Conerete Federation, Oslo, 1986. pp. 19-26, AHMAD, S. M. et al. Shear capacity of reinforced high- strength conerete beams, ACI Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 83, No.2, March-April 1986, pp. 297-308. ELZANATY, A. H. et al. Shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams using high- sirength concrete. ACI Jowrnal, Proc., Vol. 83, No. 2, March-April 1986. pp. 290-6. CLARKE, J. L. Shear capacity of high-strength conerete beams. Concrete, Journal of The Concrete Society, Vol. 21, No. 3, March 1987. pp. 24-6. CLARKE, J. L. Shear strength of lightweight aggregate concrete beams: Design to BS 8110. Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 39, No, 141, December 1987. pp. 208-13, ROWE, R. E. ef al. Handbook to BS 8110, 1985, Structural use of concrete, Palladian Publications, London 1987, 206 pp. (Available from E & FN Spon) CLARKE, J. L. and ADAMS, M. A. High strength concrete columns. British Cement Association, Crowthome, April 1988 (Confidential Report: unpublished). 166 Concrete Society Technical Report 4935. 36, 37, 38, 39. 41 42. 43, 44. 4s, 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 31 52. 3 BIANCHINI, A. C., et al. Effect of floor conerete strength on column strength. ACT Journal, Proc., Vol. 56, No. 11, May 1960. pp. 1149-69. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-89) and Commentary (ACI 318R-89). ACT, Detroit, 1989. CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION. CAN3-A23.3. Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings. CSA, March 1994 draft. Norwegian Council for Building Standardisation. NS 3473, 4th Edn: 1992. Conerete Structures: Design Rules. (English translation) NBR, 1992. Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte (FIP) Manual of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete, 2nd Ean. Surrey University Press, Glasgow, 1983 ). ABELES, P. W. and BARDHAN-ROY, B. K. Presiressed Concrete Designer's Handbook, 3rd Edn. Palladian Publications, London, 1981. 556 pp. (Available from E & FN Spon), NAAMAN, A. E. ef al. Serviceability based design of partially prestressed beams. art 2, Computerised design and evaluation of major parameters. PCT Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3, May-June 1979. Finnish Code for concrete structures, Rak MK B34. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 1881 Testing concrete Pt 121: 1983. Method for determination of static modulus of elasticity in compression. 8 pp. NGAB, S. et al. Shrinkage and creep of high strength concrete. ACI Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 78, No. 4, July-August 1981. pp. 255-61. NAAMAN, A. E. and HAMZA, A. M, Prestress losses in partially prestressed high strength concrete. PCI Journal, Vol. 38, No. 3, May/June 1993. pp, 98-114 INSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS and THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. Guide to the structural use of lightweight aggregate concrete. Institution of Structural Engineers, 1987. 58 pp. MITCHELL, D. ef al. Influence of High strength conerete on transfer and development length of pre-tensioning strand. PCI Journal, Vol. 38, No.3, May/June 1993. pp. 52-66, BATE, S.C. C. The transmission length of 0.5" diameter strand in prestressed concrete, Garston, BRE Note No. D726, January 1961 INSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS and THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. Design and detailing of concrete structures for fire resistance, Institution of Structural Engineers, April 1978, 59 pp. COMITE EUROPEEN DE NORMALISATION. TC229/WG4 (Unpublished). CIVIELTECHNISCH CENTRUM UITVOERING RESEARCH EN REGEL- GENING. CUR Recommendation 37, High Strength Concrete: Supplementary regulations to NEN 6720 (VBC 1990), NEN 5950 (VBT 1986), NEN 6722 (VBU 1988) (English translation). CUR, 1993, COMITE EUROPEEN DE NORMALISATION. ENV1992-1-3 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures, Part 1. General rules and rules for buildings. European Standard 1992. BRITE EURAM Project 5480 Task 2, Report 2.2: Tensile Strength and E-Modulus May 1994, Design guidance for high strength concrete 16754, 55. 56. 37. 58. 59, 61. 62. 6. 1S0 4108: Concrete - Determination of tensile spitting strength of test specimens. First Edn. 1980-02-15. ISO 6784-1982. Concrete - Determination of static-modulus of elasticity in compression. SINTEF Structures and Concrete: STF70 A94043. to High Strength Concrete Phase 3: SPI - Design Guide, Report 1.1 - Commentary NS3473. SINTER, ‘Trondheim, Norway, April 1994. BRITE EURAM Project 5480 Task 2, Report 2.4: Concrete Britleness, June 1994. REGAN, P. E., Symmetric punching of reinforced conerete slabs, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 38, No. 136, September 1986. pp. 115-28. ‘TAYLOR, H. P. J. Some tests on the effect of edge restraint on the punching shear in reinforced concrete slabs, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 17, No. 55, March 1965. pp. 39-44, ). SINTEF Structures and concrete: STF70 A93082. High Strength concrete: SP2- Plates and Shells, Report 2.3. Punching shear capacity of reinforced concrete slabs. July 1993. BRITE EURAM Project 5480 Task 3. Report 3.3. Structural Performance and Designs: Frame Ductility. July 1995. AZIZINAMINI, A. and RUSSELL, H. G. Design criteria for tension splices in high-strength concrete. Utilization of High-Strength Concrete, Proc. Third Inth Symposium, Lillehammer, 1993. Holand, I. and Sellevold, E. (Eds). Norwegian Concrete Association, 1993. pp. 99-106. AL-HUSSAINI, A. ef al. The behaviour of HSC columns under axial load. Utilization of High-Strength Concrete, Proc., Third Intl Symposium, Lillehammer, 1993. Holand, I. and Sellevold, E. (Eds). Norwegian Concrete Association, 1993. pp. 83-90. 168 Concrete Society Technical Report 49THE CONCRETE SOCIETY Founded in 1966, The Concrete Society brings together all those with an interest in concrete to promote excellence in its design, construction and appearance, to encourage new ideas and innovations and to exchange knowledge and experience across all disciplines. TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE ‘The Concrete Society is a centre of excellence for technical development of concrete, producing state of the att reports, recommendations and practical guides, and initiating and undertaking R&D where appropriate ‘The Technical Executive Committee and its supporting specialist {groups and working partes carry out the work of the Centre, with the help of the Technical Manager and his staff. The Centre collaborates with other overseas Concrete Societies in mutually beneficial programmes of technical development. CONFERENCES AND EXHIBITIONS ‘The Society organises national and international conferences and exhibitions including DTI-supported Joint Venture exhibitions at major international events worldwide. The Society's annual ‘Concrete Day’ is a major national event in the calendar of the «onstruction industry. CONCRETE All members receive each issue of CONCRETE, the Societys ‘monthly journal, with up-to-date information on all aspects of concrete including design, materials, construction techniques, quality control, equipment, maintenance and repaic, MEMBERSHIP Group Membership is for firms, partnerships, government departments, local authorities, educational establishments etc Personal Membership gives Concrete Society benefits to individuals. REGIONS && CLUBS ‘The Society is organised into 22 regions and clubs which arrange ‘programmes of technical and social events in thet area, AS wel as all the technical benefits, the Society provides an ideal social forum, for members to make valuable business and personal contacts CONCRETE ADVISORY SERVICE ‘The Concrete Advisory Service provides prompt impartial technical advice on concrete and related matters to subscribing members. The regionally based advisory staff are all Chartered Engineers and have wide experience in all aspects ofthe use of concrete and of providing appropriate advice Staff of subscribing group members can tap into this vast reservoir of information on materials, technology and practice. As well as, telephone advice, visits to members’ offices oF sites to discuss technical matters or solve problems can be arranged, Reports can be provided where applicable AWARDS. ‘Awards to ensure tha excellence in concrete is publicly acknowledged are made annually for completed buildings, civil engineering structures and mature structures, ENTITLEMENT TO USE DESIGNATORY LETTERS. Members who have appropriate knowledge and experience may apply for the qualifying grades‘ Member’ (MCS) and Fellow’ (FCS). SCV OaaaMsy ait NORTH OF ENGLAND Deryk Simpson & SCOTLAND. Bolton John Plimmer York SOUTH OF ‘Maldywn Enoch ENGLAND, WALES Cardiff ‘& NORTHERN IRELAND George Barnbrook Romsey Dick Roberts Guildford ‘Tel: (01942) 815546 Fax: (01942) 842533 Tel (01937) 834827 Fax: (01937) 835499 Tek (01443) 237210 Fax: (01443) 237271 “Tek (01794) 324455 Fax: (01794) 324325 Tel: (01428) 725269 Fax: (01428) 727894 ‘The Concrete Society, No 3 Eatongate, 112 Windsor Road, Slough, SL1 2A. Tel: 01753 693 313 Fax: 01753 692 333, E-mail: concsoc@concrete.org. uk, http://www.concrete.org.ukeen Design guidance for high strength concrete Report of a Concrete Society Working Party ‘This Report provides design guidance for the structural application of high strength ‘concrete especially in the areas not fully covered by the current codes of practice BBS 8110 and BS 5400. For the purpose ofthis Report high strength concrete is defined as having a specified characteristic cube strength between 60 and 100 N/mn®. High strength concrete made with dense aggregates is mainly dealt with. Where information is available, design guidance for the use of high strength lightweight concrete (Grade (€50 to C80) has also been given. ‘As well as design guidance, recommendations for the successful production and placing of high ‘strength concrete are given. Some example mix designs are also induded. ‘The Report includes recommendations on: ‘© application of the idealised stress-strain diagram in the current codes © suitability of applying the code provisions for shear resistance with or without modification © suitable £ values, tensile strength, specific cep, shrinkage and other design parameters © minimum reinforcement percentages and span/depth ratios © areas of further research ‘An appendix supplements the firs three parts, and examines the work carted out in Brite EuRam Project 5480 ‘Economic design and construction with high strength concrete. it indudes proposed extensions to BS 8110 which are inline with European thinking. This has been achieved through the examination of existing and draft codes, recent research reports and the results of the project ‘The work of preparing the Report was party funded by the Partners in Technology scheme of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. ISBN 0 946691 649 ‘THE CONCRETE SOCIETY 1 Eatongate, 112 Windsor Road, Slough, SLI 234, UK Tek: +44 (O)1753 693513, Faxc +44 (0)1755 692353 ‘tpy Awe.concreteorg.uk

TR 49-High Strength Concrete

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TR 49-High Strength Concrete

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen