Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2
MARCH-APRIL 2014
ACI
STRUCTURAL
J O U R N A L
CONTENTS
Board of Direction
President
Anne M. Ellis
Vice Presidents
William E. Rushing Jr.
Sharon L. Wood
Directors
Neal S. Anderson
Khaled Awad
Roger J. Becker
Dean A. Browning
Jeffrey W. Coleman
Robert J. Frosch
James R. Harris
Cecil L. Jones
Cary S. Kopczynski
Steven H. Kosmatka
Kevin A. MacDonald
David M. Suchorski
Past President Board Members
James K. Wight
Kenneth C. Hover
Florian G. Barth
Executive Vice President
Ron Burg
Staff
235
Web Crushing Capacity of High-Strength Concrete Structural
Walls: Experimental Study, by Rigoberto Burgueo, Xuejian Liu, and
EricM.Hines
247 Response of Precast Prestressed Concrete Circular Tanks Retaining
Heated Liquids, by Michael J. Minehane and Brian D. ORourke
257 Bond Strength of Spliced Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement,
by Ali Cihan Pay, Erdem Canbay, and Robert J. Frosch
267 Flexural Behavior and Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams with
Multiple Transverse Openings, by Bengi Aykac, Sabahattin Aykac, Ilker
Kalkan, Berk Dundar, and Husnu Can
279
Experimental Assessment of Inadequately Detailed Reinforced
Concrete Wall Components, by Adane Gebreyohaness, Charles Clifton,
John Butterworth, and Jason Ingham
291 Behavior of Epoxy-Injected Diagonally Cracked Full-Scale Reinforced
Concrete Girders, by Matthew T. Smith, Daniel A. Howell, MaryAnn T.
Triska, and Christopher Higgins
303 High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns under
Bidirectional Cyclic Loading, by Ady Aviram, Bozidar Stojadinovic, and
Gustavo J. Parra-Montesinos
313 Analysis of Early-Age Thermal and Shrinkage Stresses in Reinforced
Concrete Walls, by Barbara Klemczak and Agnieszka Knoppik-Wrbel
323 Effects of Casting Position and Bar Shape on Bond of Plain Bars, by
Montserrat Sekulovic MacLean and Lisa R. Feldman
331
Performance of Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Doweled Jointed
Plain Concrete Pavement under Static and Cyclic Loadings, by Brahim
Benmokrane, Ehab A. Ahmed, Mathieu Montaigu, and Denis Thebeau
343 Nonlinear Static Analysis of Flat Slab Floors with Grid Model, by
Dario Coronelli and Guglielmo Corti
353 Effect of Steel Stirrups on Shear Resistance Gain Due to Externally
Bonded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Strips andSheets, by Amir Mofidi
and Omar Chaallal
363 Punching of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs with Double-Headed
Shear Reinforcement, by Maurcio P. Ferreira, Guilherme S. Melo,
PaulE. Regan, and Robert L. Vollum
375 Behavior of Concentrically Loaded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Columns with Varying Reinforcement Types and
Ratios, by Hany Tobbi, Ahmed Sabry Farghaly, and Brahim Benmokrane
Staff Engineers
Matthew R. Senecal
Gregory M. Zeisler
Jerzy Z. Zemajtis
Publishing Services
Manager
Barry M. Bergin
Editors
Carl R. Bischof
Kaitlyn Hinman
Ashley Poirier
Kelli R. Slayden
Editorial Assistant
Tiesha Elam
Discussion is welcomed for all materials published in this issue and will appear ten months from
this journals date if the discussion is received within four months of the papers print publication.
Discussion of material received after specified dates will be considered individually for publication or
private response. ACI Standards published in ACI Journals for public comment have discussion due
dates printed with the Standard.
Annual index published online at http://concrete.org/Publications/ACIStructuralJournal.
ACI Structural Journal
Copyright 2014 American Concrete Institute. Printed in the United States of America.
The ACI Structural Journal (ISSN 0889-3241) is published bimonthly by the American Concrete Institute. Publication office: 38800 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills, MI 48331. Periodicals postage paid at Farmington, MI, and
at additional mailing offices. Subscription rates: $161 per year (U.S. and possessions), $170 (elsewhere), payable in
advance. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: ACI Structural Journal, 38800 Country Club Drive, Farmington
Hills, MI 48331.
Canadian GST: R 1226213149.
Direct correspondence to 38800 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills, MI 48331. Telephone: 248.848.3700.
Website: http://www.concrete.org.
233
460
462
Reviewers in 2013
MEETINGS
2014
MARCH
19-21ICRI 2014 Spring Convention,
Reno, NV, www.icri.org/Events/2014_
Spring/conv_home.asp
22ASA Spring 2014 Committee
Meetings, Reno, NV, www.shotcrete.org
MARCH/APRIL
30-2ACPA 2014 Convention,
Indianapolis, IN, http://convention.myacpa.
org/indy2014/
Permission is granted by the American Concrete Institute for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright
Clearance Center (CCC) to photocopy any article contained herein for a fee of $3.00 per copy of the article. Payments
should be sent directly to the Copyright Clearance Center, 21 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. ISSN 0889-3241/98
$3.00. Copying done for other than personal or internal reference use without the express written permission of the
American Concrete Institute is prohibited. Requests for special permission or bulk copying should be addressed to the
Managing Editor, ACI Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute.
The Institute is not responsible for statements or opinions expressed in its publications. Institute publications are not able
to, nor intend to, supplant individual training, responsibility, or judgment of the user, or the supplier, of the information
presented.
Papers appearing in the ACI Structural Journal are reviewed according to the Institutes Publication Policy by individuals
expert in the subject area of the papers.
234
Contributions to
ACI Structural Journal
The ACI Structural Journal is an open
forum on concrete technology and papers
related to this field are always welcome.
All material submitted for possible publication must meet the requirements of
the American Concrete Institute Publication Policy and Author Guidelines
and Submission Procedures. Prospective
authors should request a copy of the Policy
and Guidelines from ACI or visit ACIs
website at www.concrete.org prior to
submitting contributions.
Papers reporting research must include
a statement indicating the significance of
the research.
The Institute reserves the right to return,
without review, contributions not meeting
the requirements of the Publication Policy.
All materials conforming to the Policy
requirements will be reviewed for editorial
quality and technical content, and every
effort will be made to put all acceptable
papers into the information channel.
However, potentially good papers may be
returned to authors when it is not possible
to publish them in a reasonable time.
Discussion
All technical material appearing in the
ACI Structural Journal may be discussed.
If the deadline indicated on the contents
page is observed, discussion can appear
in the designated issue. Discussion should
be complete and ready for publication,
including finished, reproducible illustrations. Discussion must be confined to the
scope of the paper and meet the ACI Publication Policy.
Follow the style of the current issue.
Be brief1800 words of double spaced,
typewritten copy, including illustrations
and tables, is maximum. Count illustrations
and tables as 300 words each and submit
them on individual sheets. As an approximation, 1 page of text is about 300 words.
Submit one original typescript on 8-1/2 x
11 plain white paper, use 1 in. margins,
and include two good quality copies of the
entire discussion. References should be
complete. Do not repeat references cited
in original paper; cite them by original
number. Closures responding to a single
discussion should not exceed 1800-word
equivalents in length, and to multiple
discussions, approximately one half of
the combined lengths of all discussions.
Closures are published together with
the discussions.
Discuss the paper, not some new or
outside work on the same subject. Use
references wherever possible instead of
repeating available information.
Discussion offered for publication should
offer some benefit to the general reader.
Discussion which does not meet this
requirement will be returned or referred to
the author for private reply.
Send manuscripts to:
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aci
Send discussions to:
Journals.Manuscripts@concrete.org
TECHNICAL PAPER
possibility because they have observed deformed configurations in the inelastic range that could undermine the benefits
of increased concrete strength. The work described herein
represents an attempt to answer this question experimentally
and thereby establish limits for the future analytical prediction
of web crushing failures. This experimental program proceeded
with the intention of testing the following two hypotheses:
1. Web crushing strength increases in proportion to fc as long
as the struts are not damaged. Hence, transformation from an
elastic web crushing failure to an inelastic web crushing failure
can be achieved simply by increasing the concrete strength; and
2. Damage to struts caused by cyclic loading and inelastic
deformations can limit web crushing strength independently
of fc. Hence, increases in fc may not lead to proportional
increases in ductility capacity.
The experimental program designed to test these two
hypotheses consisted of two sets of four structural walls with
a range of concrete strengths. One set of walls was tested
cyclically, and the other set was tested monotonically.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Elastic and inelastic web crushing failures were consistently achieved in a series of large-scale structural wall
tests designed to study the relationship between concrete
compressive strength and web crushing strength of thinwebbed members. The results of these tests validate both the
dependence of web crushing capacity on fc and the significant degradation of web crushing capacity experienced for
a range of concrete strengths under cyclic loading in the
inelastic range. Physical insight developed from observations and measurements of these tests provides a firm foundation for establishing the limits of thin-webbed reinforced
concrete member design. Consistency of the test results indicates that it may be possible to design thin-webbed elements
to experience significant inelastic deformations before
failing in shear, opening up new possibilities for acceptable
ductile failure modes of reinforced concrete members.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past 50 years, web crushing capacity of reinforced
concrete members has emerged as a primary design concern in
three distinct contexts: gravity loading of thin-webbed beams in
the 1960s,1-4 seismic loading of structural walls with confined
boundary elements in the 1970s,5-9 and seismic loading of
hollow bridge piers with confined corner elements in the
1990s.10-13 In each context, motivation to design lightweight
members based on physical insight led to large-scale structural testing programs that discovered web crushing capacities significantly in excess of the average shear stress limits
recommended by ACI-318.14 Researchers in charge of these
testing programs have repeatedly emphasized the importance
of understanding shear behavior in terms of diagonal tension
and diagonal compression instead of average shear stresses.
While diagonal compression demands depend on member
geometry and reinforcement, diagonal compression capacities
depend on the size and strength of the most heavily loaded
struts. Previous research programs established consensus
regarding the linear dependence of web crushing capacity on
concrete compressive strength fc and web thickness. Limits
on the value of fc itself, however, were not evaluated. Could
the web crushing capacity of a 30 MPa wall be increased by
a factor of four simply by increasing the concrete strength to
120 MPa? Seismic researchers have hesitated to endorse this
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
235
Fig. 1Elastic and inelastic shear web crushing: (a) definition of elastic and inelastic web crushing failure modes and critical
regions in wall; (b) free body diagrams used for assessing flexure-shear web crushing capacity of structural wall with confined
boundary elements13; and (c) schematic of strut degradation due to cyclic loading.
to the compressive strength of concrete itself, resulting in
average shear stresses an order of magnitude higher than
the prevailing provisions.15 It was during this work that the
term web crushing was conceived, and a case was made
to consider diagonal compression capacity independently of
average shear stresses. Work in the 1970s, 1980s, and early
1990s on structural walls with confined boundary elements
under seismic loads emphasized the dependence of web
crushing capacity on inelastic deformation and the realignment of cracks in the web crushing region, but recommended
assessment of web crushing capacity in terms of average
shear stresses.9,16 Among these works, the effect of concrete
strength on web crushing capacity was witnessed through
the tests by the Portland Cement Association (PCA)7,9 in the
mid-1970s on walls with boundary elements. Wall B6 with
a concrete compressive strength of 22 MPa (3165 psi) failed
in web crushing at significantly lower deformation capacity
than Wall B7 with a concrete compressive strength of
49MPa (7155 psi). No further high-strength concrete (HSC)
structural walls were tested, however. Work in the late 1990s
and early 2000s on hollow bridge piers with confined corner
elements clearly distinguished between elastic web crushing
and inelastic web crushing, and tied the assessment of
inelastic web crushing to the development of the plastic hinge
region,12 emphasizing the interaction of inelastic flexure and
shear behavior in this zone.13 The physically based method
of assessment by Hines and Seible13 recognized the focus
on principal stresses from the 1960s research, accounted for
inelastic deformations, and allowed accurate assessment of
cross sections with various relations between depth of web
and depth of boundary elements. A review of the model is
provided as follows; however, for a detailed description of
the model, the reader should refer to Reference 13.
The approach to web crushing capacity by Hines and
Seible13 is based on the assessment of capacity and demand
236
NCs
kfcsin s cos s
N Ds
(1)
A f
jd v yv + f1t w
s
fs = tan 1
2 T Tyav
jd
1
= tan L
pr
(2)
NCfs = kfct w Rd
N Dfs =
(3)
T
f1 st w sin fs
cos fs
(4)
The related variables are determined from a moment-curvature analysis of the cross section and the strut geometry,
as shown in Fig. 1(b). The concrete compressive strength
softening factor k is calculated according to the modified
compression field theory17 with a simplified approach for
determining the principal tensile strain 1. It should be noted
that while the model has no explicit limit on fc, its prediction quality for HSC is uncertain because the available test
data for calibration of the model was from tests of normalstrength concrete (NSC) walls.
ACI 318-1114 does not reflect the direct dependence of web
crushing capacity on fc, but rather defines the expression in
Eq. (1) as 0.83fc (MPa) (10fc [psi]), although fc is a
quantity commonly related to concrete tensile strength and
diagonal tension failures. A maximum value of 0.69MPa
(100 psi) is adopted by the code because of the lack of test
data and practical experience with concrete strengths more
than 69 MPa (10,000 psi).
The proportional increase of web crushing capacity with
fc implied by Eq. (3) indicates the potential of achieving
a ductile force-displacement response in structural walls
even if ultimately limited by web crushing. Figure 2 shows
simulated force-displacement responses for structural walls
with heavily reinforced boundary elements12 along with
web crushing predictions. Curves for walls with concrete
compressive strengths varying from 34 to 138 MPa (5 to
20ksi) are shown. The web-crushing capacity envelopes
after Hines and Seible13 and the ACI Code14 limits are also
plotted. It can be seen that force-deformation response of
the walls is only slightly affected by the increased concrete
compressive strength. The Hines and Seible model, however,
predict the web crushing capacity to increase dramatically
with an increase of concrete strength. The ACI limit is
clearly conservative and independent of the inelastic deformations in the wall. The Hines and Seible model implies that
a 34 MPa (5 ksi) wall would fail by web crushing at the onset
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
237
M05C
M05M
M10C
M10M
M15C
M15M
M20C*
M20M
Bar
Size
Spacing,
mm
fy,
MPa
fu,
MPa
sh
Esh, MPa
M1
M25
4 bars
524
11,034
M2
M22
4 bars
448
672
0.0026
11,262
M10
127
445
692
0.0083
7759
M10
102
445
692
0.0083
7759
M10
76
459
703
0.0075
7759
M1
M25
4 bars
464
697
0.0096
8966
M2
M22
4 bars
448
672
0.0094
8966
M10
127
476
746
0.0060
8966
M10
102
476
746
0.0060
8966
M10
76
545
730
0.0050
7586
M19
12 bars
439
705
0.0078
8966
M10
127
481
759
0.0054
9655
M10
102
481
759
0.0054
9655
M10
102
503
756
0.0030
7931
M1
M25
4 bars
586
2759
M2
M22
4 bars
421
630
0.0093
8621
M10
127
478
748
0.0060
10,690
M10
102
478
748
0.0060
10,690
M10
76
510
656
0.0072
5517
M1
M25
4 bars
451
703
0.0054
9310
M2
M22
4 bars
446
699
0.0060
8966
M10
127
438
703
0.0043
8793
M10
76 , 102
438
703
0.0043
8793
M10
76
443
717
0.0037
8621
M15C
0.0528
0.0147
0.0357
0.0183
0.0556
0.0147
0.0237
0.0244
All others
0.0556
0.0147
0.0237
0.0244
Material properties
The HSC for this research was attained with traditional
mixture constituents following examples from commercially available mixtures.18 Compressive, tensile, and flexural strengths were assessed through standard testing, and
the values at the day of testing for all walls are provided in
Table 3. Table 1 lists the properties for the steel reinforcement with reference to the nomenclature noted in Fig. 3. The
properties given in Table 1 are average values from three
tensile tests on 457 mm (18 in.) long segments for each of
the reinforcement bars.
238
ft, MPa
fr, MPa
Test
unit
Design
fc, MPa
M05C
34
46.0
1.37
3.25
0.207
5.49
0.0897
M05M
34
38.9
1.23
3.55
0.0966
5.37
0.0551
M10C
69
56.4
1.86
4.50
0.331
6.57
0.221
M10M
69
84.0
1.37
5.54
0.490
7.33
0.669
M15C
103
102
1.01
5.70
0.441
9.01
0.559
M15M
103
111
4.99
6.17
0.910
0.935
1.08
M20C
138
131
3.01
6.19
0.400
11.5
0.359
M20M
138
115
2.55
5.96
0.172
10.2
0.593
Fy,
kN
578
576
583
618
586
644
576
572
y,
mm
17.6
18.5
18.4
15.8
15.7
16.2
13.5
15.2
Fy,
kN
842
836
723
745
731
816
809
803
y,
mm
25.7
26.9
22.9
19.1
19.6
20.6
19.1
21.3
OBSERVATIONS
Common behavior
Common behavior observed on all test units is described
herein. No cracking was observed up to 0.25Fy. At 0.5Fy,
flexural cracking in the boundary elements and diagonal
shear cracking in the webs appeared. At 0.75Fy, elastic shear
cracking developed throughout the entire web. The HSC
walls developed a denser pattern of flexural and shear cracks
than the NSC walls. With increasing displacement ductility
crack density increased and the active cracks became wider.
Overall, shear crack spacing in the HSC walls was much
smaller than for the NSC walls. Even though diagonal shear
cracking under tension does not control the capacity of the
walls, it defines the height and width of the struts, and thus
affects the strut capacities. Strut capacity is also affected by
crack width, which dictates shear slip behavior at the crack
interface. Finally, relatively larger cover concrete spalling
on the compression boundary element was observed on the
HSC walls. Nonetheless, the heavily confined boundary
elements had no problem resisting the compression force.
239
Fig. 6Damage and failure patterns in wall bottom third region (850 mm [33.5 in.]).
sustaining two full cycles at =4. Comparison of inelastic
deformation capacity in terms of displacement ductility is
adequate because the ideal yield displacement for all walls
did not vary greatly, as shown in Table 4. The ductile behavior
displayed by Walls M15C and M20C shows that these units
preserved the high stiffness and lateral load-carrying capacity
characteristic of structural walls, mostly provided by the web,
while benefiting from the inelastic deformation capacity of
column flexural hinges at the boundary elements. Finally,
the energy dissipation capacity, as judged by the area of the
hysteresis loops, is also notably increased solely due to the
increase of the concrete compressive strength.
Inelastic behavior characteristics
According to Eq. (2) the length of the plastic hinge region
Lpr is directly proportional to the angle of the flexural-shear
cracking, and hence the force demand on the critical inelastic
strut. The spread of plasticity can be taken as the length over
which plastic curvatures exceed the yield curvature from an
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
idealized bilinear moment-curvature response.19 The curvature profiles of the M10 and M20 walls are shown in Fig.9.
For cyclic loaded test units that failed at low to medium
ductility levels, the curvature distribution along the height
was almost linear until failure. For monotonic loaded test
units that failed at a high ductility level, the plastic rotation
was mainly concentrated within 300 mm (12 in.) from the
bottom of the wall. It can be seen, however, that the spread
of plasticity is very similar at equal displacement ductility
levels for both monotonic and cyclic loaded walls. The curvature distributions provide local-level evidence of the significant inelastic flexural deformations sustained by the walls.
Furthermore, the observed fanning crack pattern (Fig.6) and
the essentially linear distribution of plastic curvatures along
the plastic hinge region (with the linearity only disturbed by
boundary effects at the footing) suggests that Eq. (4) can be
used to assess the demand on the critical inelastic strut.
Table 5 shows the separate contribution of flexure and
shear effects to the displacement at the wall top for the cycli241
Fig. 7Degradation of inelastic struts for M20C wall during ductility 4 cycling: (a) view of wall bottom third region (850 mm
[33.5 in.]); and (b) close-up view of wall web.
Fig. 8Hysteretic force-displacement response of cyclic tests. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
cally tested units at the first positive peak of each ductility
level. The flexure-induced displacement f at the top of
the wall was calculated by adding the contribution of individual sectional rotations. The top wall displacement due to
shear s was calculated by summing the shear deformations
measured on the two wall segments (Fig. 5). From the data
in Table 5 it can be confirmed that the shear displacements
are linearly related to the flexural displacements.12 For the
eight tested walls,18 the average ratio of shear to flexural
displacements was 0.23, with a standard deviation of 0.04.
Figure 10 shows the average shear stress versus shear strain
hysteretic response of Wall M20C in the bottom and top wall
segments. The shear deformations were mainly concentrated
in the bottom wall segment (1016 mm [40 in.] from the base),
which is where the plastic hinge region develops. It can be
seen that the average shear stresses considerably exceeded
the ACI limits. This observation applies to all walls because
they had similar levels of lateral load resistance.
To provide further insight and quantitative information on
the performance of the tested walls, Fig. 11 provides a brief
overview of average strain demands at mid-depth on the wall
242
web. Shown in Fig. 11(c) are longitudinal strain profiles for the
M20 walls, which have a linear variation along the height (with
disturbance near the footing). The strains were calculated using
the displacement transducers along both sides of the boundary
elements (Fig. 5). The profiles are consistent with the moment
gradient on the wall. It can be further observed that the strain
profiles for both M20 walls are essentially the same at equal
displacement ductility demands. This was consistent for the
other three wall sets, supporting the evidence of equal flexural
demands on monotonic and cyclic tests.
Principal strains in the wall web were estimated from consideration of a whole wall segment (web and boundary elements)
through Mohrs circle with the measured longitudinal strains,
the measured average shear strains (Fig. 5), and neglecting the
transverse strains (due to the presence of the heavily reinforced
boundary elements). Principal strain values calculated this way
at the web mid-depth are shown in Fig. 11(b) against displacement ductility for all walls. Except for some deviations for
the M05 walls, the average principal strains were equal for all
walls at the same displacement ductility level.
Fig. 9Average curvature strain profiles for: (a) M10 walls; and (b) M20 walls.
Fig. 10Average shear stress-strain response of: (a) bottom; and (b) top segments of Wall M20C.
Monotonic versus cyclic loading
A comparison of the force-displacement envelopes of
the cyclic and monotonic tests is shown in Fig. 12. It is
clear that higher fc resulted in higher inelastic deformation
capacity. The force-deformation response of the walls, up
to their respective deformation limit, is considered to have
been essentially the same, with minor differences due to: a)
variations in fc; b) longitudinal reinforcement differences
for Wall M15C (Fig. 3); c) earlier spalling in the compression toe for Wall M20C; and d) reduction of the effective
concrete compressive strength due to more severe cracking
for the cyclically loaded walls.
The increase in deformation capacity, however, was not
directly proportional to fc, particularly for the cyclic loaded
walls. The monotonic and cyclic deformation capacities of
the M05 walls were essentially the same (Fig. 12(a)). The
response was similar because both walls failed close to
the elastic range, and only minimal cycling was done on
WallM05C. The responses of the other walls show that
while increased concrete strength leads to larger deformation capacity, cyclic loading curtails this improvement.
The deformation capacity reduction of the cyclically tested
walls is attributed to the damage of the flexure-shear struts
from cyclic loading, which reduces their capacity to transfer
load from the tension to the compression boundary element.
This effect is best seen by observing the responses for the M15
walls in Fig. 12(c). The effect was not as clearly captured for
the M10 walls (Fig. 12(b)) because fc for M10C was lower
than that for M10M. Nonetheless, given the response of Wall
M15C, it can be expected that if fc for Wall M10C had been
closer to the design target, its deformation capacity would
have been increased, and the cyclic and monotonic envelopes
would have been similar to those obtained for the M15 walls.
Comparison of the M20 wall response envelopes indicates a
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
Displacement
M05C
M10C
M15C
M20C
f, mm
18.5
18.0
14.5
14.5
s, mm
5.08
6.10
3.53
3.30
f, mm
28.4
27.7
22.6
23.1
s, mm
7.62
7.87
4.83
4.57
f, mm
30.5
30.7
s, mm
6.60
6.60
f, mm
47.0
47.0
s, mm
9.40
9.91
f, mm
62.5
62.0
s, mm
13.2
15.5
244
Fig. 12Comparison of force-displacement envelopes for cyclic and monotonic tests: (a) M05; (b) M10; (c) M15; and (d)M20.
(Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.)
Fig. 13Average compression softening factor k versus: (a) normalized maximum shear distortion in plastic region; and
(b)concrete compressive strength.
Table 6Comparison of web crushing capacities with models
ACI 31814
Experiment
Test unit
u, mm
Fu, kN
u, mm
Fu, kN
Difference, %
u, mm
Fu, kN
Difference, %
M05C
45.0
803
8.64
342
81
48.5
821
M05M
45.0
855
8.13
322
82
26.9
725
40
M10C
42.7
751
8.38
387
80
64.3
751
51
M10M
130
900
9.91
478
92
101
853
22
M15C
78.7
819
10.2
497
87
128
889
62
M15M
133
934
11.7
542
91
160
966
20
M20C
76.5
815
14.0
589
82
M20M
189
923
13.2
553
93
Flexure
196
992
Av
d
Esh
Fu
Fy
Fy
f1
fc
fu
fy
fyv
jd
k
Lpr
NCfs
NCs
NDfs
NDs
R
S
T
Tyav
tw
u
y
T
1
sh
y
fs
s
h
l
n
s
246
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
NOTATION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research described in this paper was carried out under funding from
the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CMS-0530634. The
authors thank the staff and students of MSUs Civil Infrastructure Laboratory, where the reported work was conducted.
REFERENCES
1. Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., The Stuttgart Shear Tests 1961,
Transaction No. 111, Cement and Concrete Association, London, UK, 1961,
134 pp.
2. Mattock, A. H., and Kaar, P., Precast-Prestressed Concrete Bridges,
4, Shear Tests of Continuous Girders, Journal, Portland Cement Association Research and Development Labs, V. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1961, pp. 19-46.
3. Robinson, J. R., Essais a leffort trenchant de pouters a ame mince en
bton arm, Annales des Ponts et Chausses, Mar.-Apr. 1961, pp. 226-255.
4. Placas, A., and Reagan, P. E., Shear Failure of Reinforced Concrete
Beams, ACI Journal, V. 68, No. 10, Oct. 1971, pp. 763-773.
5. Wang, T. Y.; Bertero, V. V.; and Popov, E. P., Hysteretic Behavior
of Reinforced Concrete Framed Walls, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center Report 75/23, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA,
Dec. 1975, 367pp.
6. Oesterle, R. G.; Fiorato, A. E.; Johal, L. S.; Carpenter, J. E.; Russell,
H. G.; and Corley, W. G., Earthquake Resistant Structural WallsTests
of Isolated Walls, NSF Report GI-43880, Portland Cement Association,
Skokie, IL, 1976, 315 pp.
7. Oesterle, R. G.; Ariztizabal-Ochoa, J. D.; Fiorato, A. E.; Russell,
H.G.; and Corley, W. G., Earthquake Resistant Structural WallsTests
of Isolated Walls, Phase II, NSF Report ENV77-15333, Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, IL, 1979, 331 pp.
8. Vallenas, J. M.; Bertero, V. V.; and Popov, E. P., Hysteretic
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls, Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report 79/20, University of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA, 1979, 234 pp.
9. Oesterle, R. G.; Fiorato, A. E.; and Corley, W. G., Web Crushing
of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls, ACI Journal, V. 81, No. 3,
May-June 1984, pp. 231-241.
10. Hines, E. M.; Seible, F.; and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Performance of Hollow Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Piers with Highly-Confined Corner ElementsPhase I: Flexural Tests, and Phase II: Shear Tests,
Structural Systems Research Project Report 1999/15, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 1999, 266 pp.
11. Hines, E. M.; Dazio, A.; and Seible, F., Seismic Performance of
Hollow Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Piers with Highly-Confined Corner
ElementsPhase III: Web Crushing Tests, Structural Systems Research Project
Report 2001/27, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 2001, 239 pp.
12. Hines, E. M.; Restrepo, J. I.; and Seible, F., Force-Displacement
Characterization of Well Confined Bridge Piers, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 101, No. 4, July-Aug. 2004, pp. 537-548.
13. Hines, E. M., and Seible, F., Web Crushing of Hollow Rectangular Bridge
Piers, ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 4, July-Aug. 2004, pp.569-579.
14. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
15. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-63), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 1963, 144 pp.
16. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, Wiley Interscience, New York, 1992, 768 pp.
17. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., The Modified Compression-Field
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI
Journal, V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
18. Liu, X.; Burgueo, R.; Egleston, E.; and Hines, E. M., Inelastic Web
Crushing Performance Limits of High-Strength-Concrete Structural Wall
Single wall Test Program, Report No. CEE-RR2009/03, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI, 2009, 281 pp.
19. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; and Calvi, G. M., Seismic Design and
Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1996, 686 pp.
20. Liu, X., Inelastic Web Crushing Performance Limits of HighStrength-Concrete Structural Walls, PhD dissertation, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI, 2010, 215 pp.
21. Tasdemir, M. A.; Tasdemir, C.; Akyuz, S.; Jefferson, A. D.; Lydon,
F. D.; and Barr, B. I. G., Evaluation of Strains at Peak Stresses in Concrete:
A Three-Phase Composite Model Approach, Cement and Concrete
Composites, V. 20, 1998, pp. 301-318.
22. Collins, M. P., Toward a Rational Theory for RC Members in
Shear, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 104, No. ST4, Apr. 1978, pp. 649-666.
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
The significance of thermal effects on concrete reservoir
walls for ambient conditions is long established. An early
study by Priestley1 determined that temperature gradients of
30C (54F) through the wall thickness can exist in warm
climates when the effects of solar radiation are considered.
Priestley1 demonstrated that the resulting tensile stresses
were large enough to overcome the residual compression,
and cracking would inevitably occur. Ghali and Elliott2
developed closed-form solutions for the thermal analysis
of elastic tank walls with varying base restraint and that
are free at the top. Through numerical examples, it was
shown that a gradient of 30C (54F) through the wall
thickness was sufficient to cause cracking. This supported
Priestleys1 proposal that the design should be based on a
serviceability criterion of limiting crack widths rather than
a limiting tensile stress. Although modern design standards
require that thermal effects are considered for the serviceability limit state, few provide guidance for the analysis of
such effects. Pioneering design codes with regard to this
are NZS31063 and AS3735,4 which provide design tables,
originally derived by Priestley,1 to calculate hoop forces and
vertical moments for tank walls free at the top and either
free-sliding, pinned, or fixed at the base.
The studies reviewed were exclusively applicable to tank
walls free at the top. As thermal storage tanks require a roof,
the associated radial restraint at the top of the wall alters
the internal force distribution. Moreover, the magnitude of
the internal forces resulting from the thermal expansion of
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
247
Material property
Value
Poissons ratio
0.2
1.5 (10.4)
900 (0.21)
8.33 (1.47)
Fig. 4Deformed contour of stresses and associated internal force distribution for comparison with Priestley1 (in MPa). (Note:
1 MPa = 145 psi.)
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
249
EN 1992-1-1
0.45fck
BS 8007
0.41fck (0.33fcu)
PCI
0.45fck
NZS 3106
0.40fck
Fig. 5Verification of modeling procedure with Priestley,1 Ghali and Elliott,2 and Vitharana and Priestley.24 (Note: 1 m =
3.28ft; 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 kN/m = 5.71 kip/in.; 1 kNm/m = 0.225 kip-ft/ft.)
Fig. 6Finite element model showing deformed contour of hoop stresses (in MPa). (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
250
Fig. 8Compressive hoop forces with increasing temperature. (Note: 1 kN/m = 5.71 kip/in.; 1F = 1.8C + 32.)
Fig. 7Compressive hoop stresses with increasing temperature. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1F = 1.8C + 32.)
critical loading condition that the circumferential post-tensioning is designed to cater for. Figure 8 includes the tensile
force distribution resulting from hydrostatic loading derived
using the beam-on-elastic foundation analogy.
Vertical prestressing
The vertical bending moment distribution arising from
hydrostatic and thermally induced loading is given in
Fig. 9. To establish an approximate upper limit on the
vertical moments, a cracking moment was calculated from
the following equation
I
M cr = ( ft + fmax )
t / 2
(1)
Fig. 9Vertical bending moments with increasing temperature. (Note: 1 kNm/m = 0.225 kip-ft/ft; 1F = 1.8C + 32).
Influence of creep on thermal response
The magnitude of strain-induced effects such as thermal,
creep, and shrinkage stresses at a given time is directly
proportional to the concrete modulus of elasticity at that
time. As such, realistic values of the modulus of elasticity
251
Ecm
1 + f ( , to )
(2)
252
Fig. 11Influence of creep on concrete modulus of elasticity in accordance with EN 1992-1-1.25 (Note: 1 GPa =
143.7ksi.)
tension-stiffening effects and, depending on the wall thickness and reinforcement ratio, can result in load-reduction
factors exceeding 0.5. An experimental study by Vitharana
et al.28 investigated the moment-curvature response of reinforced concrete wall elements subject to applied and thermal
loading. The study concluded that the ACI 31829 Branson
formulation and the CEB-FIP MC7830 formulation provided
upper and lower bounds, respectively, for the experimentally observed moment-curvature responses. Vitharana et
al.28 also proposed a modified Branson equation that showed
good agreement with test results for wall elements subject to
a simultaneous axial force and flexural moment.
BUCKLING ANALYSIS
It has been established that thermal loading subjects
restrained tank walls to significant combined axial compression and bending. Because precast prestressed concrete tanks
are essentially shell structures, buckling stability should to
be addressed. For relatively stiff structures, linear eigenvalue buckling analysis is a technique that can be applied to
approximate the maximum load that can be sustained prior
to structural instability or collapse. The underlying assumptions of a linear eigenvalue buckling analysis are that the
linear stiffness matrix remains unchanged prior to buckling and the stress stiffness matrix is a multiple of its initial
value. Accordingly, provided the prebuckling displacements
have an insignificant influence on the structural response, the
technique can be used effectively to predict the load at which
a structure becomes unstable.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
Fig. 12Buckled shape of cylindrical shell restrained at its ends and subject to thermally induced combined axial compression
and bending.
Commercial finite element software was used to carry out
the linear eigenvalue buckling analysis. The three-dimensional (3-D) models comprised thick shell elements. The
thermally induced compressive hoop forces and vertical
bending moments, derived from the axisymmetric modeling,
were simulated using a combination of internal stress-strain
loading and externally applied radial pressure loading. The
applied loading includes a partial safety factor of 1.55 for
persistent thermal actions in accordance with EN 199031 and
EN 1991-1-5.32 For plate or shell structures, it is prudent to
include an initial geometric imperfection, as the buckling
load is often sensitive to any deviation from the true geometry. Bradshaw33 made efforts to measure concrete cylindrical shells in the field and concluded that imperfections
were observed to be as large as the shell thickness. Therefore, for the current study, an initial geometric imperfection
of the order of magnitude of the shell thickness was adopted
and was represented as out-of-roundness.
The mode of buckling obtained from the finite element
analysis is given in Fig. 12, with the same mode observed for
all tank sizes. The buckled shape displays the characteristic
sinusoidal buckle waves consistent with Koiters34 classical
linearized shell buckling theory. The mode shape is sinusoidal both axially and circumferentially.
Figure 13 presents the eigenvalues extracted from the
finite element study for various average temperatures and
H2/Dt ratios. The eigenvalues, l, are ratios of the buckling
load to the applied load. An eigenvalue equal to unity indicates that structural instability or buckling has occurred.
The lowest eigenvalue extracted from the buckling analysis
was 2.52. Thus, the ultimate limit state of buckling was not
reached for the temperature range considered.
FREE-SLIDING CONDITION
Theoretically, for a free-sliding condition, an average
temperature across the concrete section does not induce
any additional stresses. For a gradient experienced across
the wall thickness, however, associated hoop and vertical
bending stresses develop. Figure 14 is an example for a freesliding wall subject to a temperature distribution resulting
from the storage of heated liquids. The inside and outside
temperatures are taken as 95 and 80C (171 and 144F),
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
253
NOTATION
D = diameter
Ec,eff = effective or age-adjusted concrete modulus of
elasticity
Ecm = secant concrete modulus of elasticity
fck = concrete compressive cylinder strength
fcu = concrete compressive cube strength
fmax = maximum concentric precompression
stress required to eliminate tensile stresses
ft = concrete tensile strength
H = wall height
I = second moment of area
Mcr = cracking moment
R = radius
T = wall thickness
x = height from base of wall
f(,t0) = final creep coefficient
l = eigenvalue
REFERENCES
254
19. Kagami, H.; Okuno, T.; and Yamane, S., Properties of Concrete
Exposed to Sustained Elevated Temperatures, Third International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Paper H1/5, London,
UK, 1975, pp. 1-10.
20. Haddad, R. J.; Al-Saleh, R. J.; and Al-Akhras, N. M., Effect of
Elevated Temperature on Bond between Steel Reinforcement and Fibre
Reinforced Concrete, Fire Safety Journal, V. 43, 2008, pp. 334-343.
21. Chiang, C., and Tsai, C., Time-Temperature Analysis of Bond
Strength of a Rebar after Fire Exposure, Cement and Concrete Research,
V. 33, 2003, pp. 1651-1654.
22. Baant, Z. P., and Kaplan, M. F., Concrete at High Temperature:
Material Properties and Mathematical Models, Longman Group Limited,
England, 1996, 424 pp.
23. Huang, Z., Modeling the Bond between Concrete and Reinforcing
Steel in a Fire, Engineering Structures, V. 32, 2010, pp. 3660-3669.
24. Vitharana, N. D., and Priestley, M. J., Significance of
Temperature-Induced Loadings on Concrete Cylindrical Reservoir Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, July-Aug. 1999,
pp. 737-749.
25. EN 1992-1-1, Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1: General Rules
and Rules for Buildings, Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
255
NOTES:
256
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement can
provide an alternative solution for structures susceptible to
corrosion and where low electric conductivity or magnetic
transparency is required. FRP bars, however, are anisotropic,
have different physical and mechanical properties than that
of steel reinforcement, and remain linear-elastic until failure.
The modulus of elasticity of glass and aramid FRP bars are
approximately one-fifth that of steel. Although carbon FRP
(CFRP) bars have a higher modulus than glass FRP (GFRP)
bars, their modulus is approximately two-thirds that of steel
reinforcing bars. Consequently, design procedures used for
steel reinforced members are not necessarily applicable for
FRP reinforced structures.
Because the physical and mechanical properties of FRP
bars are different from those of steel reinforcement, especially the surface deformation and the modulus of elasticity
of the reinforcement, the bond behavior of FRP reinforced
concrete specimens is expected to be quite different than
that of steel reinforced specimens. An early study on the
first generation of FRP reinforcement by Fish (1992) made
this fact apparent. The difference in bond strength on
modern FRP reinforcement is clearly evident from the tests
completed by Mosley et al. (2008), which found that glass
(GFRP) and aramid (AFRP) bars achieved approximately
50% of the stress developed by steel reinforcement for the
same bar size and splice length. Based on these tests, among
others, provisions for the development and splices of FRP
reinforcement were developed (Wambeke and Shield 2006)
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
257
L, ft (m)
LV, ft (m)
LM, ft (m)
12, 18, 24
(305, 457, 610)
13.5 (4.11)
3 (0.91)
6 (1.83)
36 (914)
18 (5.49)
3.75 (1.14)
9 (2.74)
54 (1372)
18 (5.49)
3.75 (1.14)
8.5 (2.59)
II
III
IV
Bar size Ls, in. (mm) Casting position Test age, days Ptest, kip (kN) ftest, ksi (MPa) avg, psi (MPa)
Specimen
Bar type
Deformation
B-S1-8-18
Steel
Deformed
No. 8
18 (457)
Top
28
33.0 (147)
40.8 (281)
570 (3.93)
B-PG-8-18
Glass
Sand-coated
No. 8
18 (457)
Top
29
24.1 (107)
27.9 (192)
390 (2.69)
B-HG-8-18
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 8
18 (457)
Top
31
20.5 (91.2)
23.7 (163)
332 (2.29)
B-HG1-5-18
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 5
18 (457)
Top
32
14.2 (63.2)
40.7 (281)
357 (2.46)
B-HGO-5-18
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 5
18 (457)
Top
35
11.5 (51.2)
32.9 (227)
289 (1.99)
B-PG-5-18
Glass
Sand-coated
No. 5
18 (457)
Top
36
16.5 (73.4)
47.3 (326)
415 (2.86)
B-S1-5-18
Steel
Deformed
No. 5
18 (457)
Top
37
24.1 (107)
72.2 (498)
633 (4.36)
B-HC-5-18
Carbon
Fabric texture
No. 5
18 (457)
Top
38
19.9 (88.5)
58.8 (405)
515 (3.55)
B-HC-5-12
Carbon
Fabric texture
No. 5
12 (305)
Top
28
15.1 (67.2)
44.5 (307)
585 (4.03)
B-S1-8-36
Steel
Deformed
No. 8
36 (914)
Top
31
37.1 (165)
57.2 (394)
400 (2.76)
B-PG-8-36
Glass
Sand-coated
No. 8
36 (914)
Top
32
19.9 (88.5)
28.9 (199)
202 (1.39)
B-HG-8-36
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 8
36 (914)
Top
34
21.0 (93.4)
30.4 (210)
212 (1.46)
B-HG1-5-36
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 5
36 (914)
Top
35
12.4 (55.2)
44.3 (305)
194 (1.34)
B-HGO-5-36
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 5
36 (914)
Top
38
13.3 (59.2)
47.5 (328)
208 (1.43)
B-PG-5-36
Glass
Sand-coated
No. 5
36 (914)
Top
40
13.9 (61.8)
49.9 (344)
219 (1.51)
B-HC-5-36
Carbon
Fabric texture
No. 5
36 (914)
Top
42
22.9 (102)
84.6 (583)
371 (2.56)
B-S2-8-12
Steel
Hollow
Deformed
No. 8
12 (305)
Top
133
18.1 (80.5)
29.7 (205)
465 (3.21)
B-S1-8-12
Steel
Deformed
No. 8
12 (305)
Top
130
21.9 (97.4)
27.3 (188)
571 (3.94)
B-PG-8-12
Glass
Sand-coated
No. 8
12 (305)
Top
104
17.1 (76.1)
20.0 (138)
418 (2.88)
B-HG-8-12
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 8
12 (305)
Top
106
14.0 (62.3)
16.3 (112)
341 (2.35)
B-S1-8-12b
Steel
Deformed
No. 8
12 (305)
Bottom
111
21.2 (94.3)
26.3 (181)
551 (3.80)
B-HG-8-12b
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 8
12 (305)
Bottom
124
14.5 (64.5)
16.9 (117)
354 (2.44)
B-PG-8-12b
Glass
Sand-coated
No. 8
12 (305)
Bottom
126
15.8 (70.3)
18.4 (127)
385 (2.65)
B-S2-5-24
Steel
Deformed
No. 5
24 (610)
Top
129
23.5 (105)
70.9* (489)
467 (3.22)
B-HC-5-24
Carbon
Fabric texture
No. 5
24 (610)
Top
132
21.9 (97.4)
64.7 (446)
426 (2.94)
B-PC-5-24
Carbon
Sand-coated
No. 5
24 (610)
Top
139
24.1 (107)
71.8 (495)
472 (3.25)
B-HG1-5-24
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 5
24 (610)
Top
142
13.6 (60.5)
39.0 (269)
256 (1.77)
B-HG2-5-24
Glass
Fabric texture
No. 5
24 (610)
Top
148
16.5 (73.4)
47.6 (328)
313 (2.16)
B-PG-5-24
Glass
Sand-coated
No. 5
24 (610)
Top
153
16.7 (74.3)
48.0 (331)
316 (2.18)
B-HG1-5-24b
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 5
24 (610)
Bottom
155
14.7 (65.4)
42.2 (291)
277 (1.91)
B-PG-5-24b
Glass
Sand-coated
No. 5
24 (610)
Bottom
161
17.7 (78.7)
50.8 (350)
334 (2.30)
B-HG1-5-12
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 5
12 (305)
Top
156
9.5 (42.3)
27.4 (189)
361 (2.49)
B-PG-5-12
Glass
Sand-coated
No. 5
12 (305)
Top
160
10.6 (47.2)
30.4 (210)
400 (2.76)
B-HG-8-24
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 8
24 (610)
Top
161
20.8 (92.5)
24.1 (166)
253 (1.74)
B-HG-8-54
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 8
54 (1372)
Top
175
22.8 (101)
33.0 (228)
154 (1.06)
B-HG1-5-54
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 5
54 (1372)
Top
177
14.1 (62.7)
50.4 (347)
148 (1.02)
B-PG-5-54
Glass
Sand-coated
No. 5
54 (1372)
Top
181
14.1 (62.7)
50.6 (349)
148 (1.02)
B-HC-5-54
Carbon
Fabric texture
No. 5
54 (1372)
Top
183
22.9 (102)
85.0 (586)
249 (1.72)
B-HG1-5-12b
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 5
12 (305)
Bottom
162
12.1 (53.8)
34.8 (240)
458 (3.16)
B-PG-5-12b
Glass
Sand-coated
No. 5
12 (305)
Bottom
164
13.6 (60.5)
39.0 (269)
514 (3.54)
Glass
Sand and
wrapped
No. 8
24 (610)
Bottom
169
23.0 (102)
26.7 (184)
280 (1.93)
B-HG-8-24b
Reinforcement yielded.
259
Producer
Producer 1
Glass
No. 5
Designation
Surface deformation
HGO
5800 (40.0)
71 (490)
HG1
6400 (44.1)
98 (676)
HG2
Fabric texture
7300 (50.3)
115 (793)
No. 8
HG
5700 (39.3)
76 (524)
No. 5
PG
Sand
6400 (44.1)
89 (614)
No. 8
PG
Sand
6200 (42.7)
76 (524)
Producer 1
No. 5
HC
Fabric texture
18500 (127.6)
129 (889)
Producer 2
No. 5
PC
Sand
21700 (149.6)
Producer 2
Carbon
Bar size
No. 8
260
Designation
Bar type
fy, ksi
(MPa)
fu, ksi
(MPa)
S1
Deformed
75 (517)
95 (655)
S2
Deformed
60 (414)
100 (689)
S1
Deformed
76 (524)
97 (669)
S2
Hollow
deformed
76 (524)
97 (669)
Concrete
The same mixture proportion was used for all test series.
The concrete used a coarse aggregate consisting of river
gravel with a 0.75 in. (19 mm) maximum aggregate size.
Batch weights and slump for each series are provided in
Table 5. Concrete compressive and splitting tensile strengths
were obtained from the average of three 6 x 12 in. (152 x
305mm) cylinders, and are also provided in Table 5.
Concrete material tests were timed with the testing program
such that results were obtained on the first, middle, and
last day of specimen testing for each series. The concrete
strengths reported are the average over the days of testing
for each test series. As noted in Table 2, which provides the
concrete age on the day of testing, specimens in each series
were tested within a fairly short timeframe. Therefore, the
variation of concrete strengths from the average during the
duration of testing was within 3% for each series. Across all
series, concrete compressive strength varied from 4010 to
5470 psi (27.7 to 37.7 MPa), even though the same concrete
mixture was ordered.
CONSTRUCTION
Specimens in each series were cast at the same time from
the same batch of concrete. The concrete was placed in
the forms in two layers, and each layer was vibrated using
mechanical vibrators. The beams were screeded, and the
surface was finished with a magnesium float. The beams
were covered with wet burlap, and plastic sheets were placed
on top of the burlap to prevent moisture loss before final set.
For each series, cylinders were cast simultaneously with the
beams. The cylinders were consolidated, cured, and stored
in the same manner as the test specimens.
Series I
Series II
Series III
Series IV
Series V
425 (252)
430 (255)
429 (255)
430 (255)
428 (254)
1651 (980)
1591 (944)
1611 (956)
1550 (920)
1609 (955)
1847 (1096)
1849 (1097)
1842 (1093)
1850 (1098)
1842 (1093)
163 (97)
145 (86)
196 (116)
240 (142)
184 (109)
1.1 (43)
1.1 (43)
8.7 (336)
7.8 (302)
6.5 (251)
1.5 (58)
6.4 (247)
4 (102)
5 (127)
5.5 (140)
3 (76)
4.5 (114)
5260 (36.3)
5470 (37.7)
4010 (27.7)
4640 (32.0)
4170 (28.8)
590 (4.07)
520 (3.58)
380 (2.62)
440 (3.03)
430 (2.96)
Casting position
Ratio, top/bottom
Top
30.4 (210)
Bottom
39.0 (269)
Top
27.4 (189)
Bottom
34.8 (240)
Top
48.0 (331)
Bottom
50.8 (350)
Top
39.0 (269)
Bottom
42.2 (291)
Top
20.0 (138)
Bottom
18.4 (127)
Top
16.3 (112)
Bottom
16.9 (117)
Top
27.3 (188)
Bottom
26.3 (181)
Top
24.1 (166)
Bottom
26.7 (184)
Splice length
Bar type
PG
12 in.
(305 mm)
HG1
No. 5
PG
24 in.
(610 mm)
HG1
PG
12 in.
(305 mm)
HG
No. 8
S1
24 in.
(610 mm)
HG
Average
0.78
0.79
0.94
0.92
1.09
0.96
1.04
0.90
0.93
bars, and one was attached to the outer reinforcing bar. The
strains measured with strain gauges and strains calculated
based on flexural theory agreed well; therefore, no strain
gauges were installed on the FRP reinforcing bars for the
remaining series. Strain gauges, however, were installed on
all steel reinforced specimens where there was a possibility
of yielding the reinforcement.
STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR
Specimens with the same beam width and shear span in
a given series cracked at approximately the same load. The
stiffness of the specimens was approximately the same up to
the cracking load. Flexural cracks usually first occurred at the
support or simultaneously at the support and in the constant
moment region. As loading increased, further cracks formed
within the constant moment region, shear span, and splice
region. All specimens failed in a brittle side-splitting mode
in the splice region. Two different types of side splitting
were observed during failure. In the first type, the concrete
261
262
and wrapped bars for No. 5 (15.9 mm) glass bars can be seen
in Fig. 6. For this bar size, the results of the sand-coated bars
and the wrapped and sand-coated bars were similar, with
the sand-coated bars reaching slightly higher bond stresses
than the wrapped and sand-coated bars except for the 54in.
(1372 mm) splice specimens, which failed at approximately
the same stress. In addition to these commercially available
reinforcing bars, No. 5 (15.9 mm) fabric texture glass bars
were specifically produced for this test program to evaluate
the effect of the bar surface. This bar type was tested using a
24 in. (610 mm) splice (B-HG2-5-24) and reached a normalized stress of 45.9 ksi (316 MPa), which is essentially the
same as that achieved with the companion sand-coated bar
(46.3 ksi [319 MPa] for B-PG-5-24). Therefore, GFRP bars
with a fabric surface texture that is considerably smoother
were capable of reaching stresses as high as the sand-coated
GFRP bar. In considering the No. 8 (25.4 mm) bar reinforced
specimens (Fig. 7), the same trend is apparent where the
sand-coated bars provided similar bond stresses to the sand
and wrapped bars. Slightly higher bond stresses were developed with the sand-coated bars for the shorter splices, with
approximately the same stress for the longer 36 in. (914 mm)
splice. Overall, the sand-coated GFRP bars were observed
to reach slightly higher stresses for the shorter splice lengths
among the deformation types tested in the experimental
program. Considering the minor differences in test results
and the variations expected in bond tests, however, the variations in surface deformation produced little difference in
bond strength.
Splice length
The influence of splice length on bond strength was evaluated among specimens with the same bar size and surface
type for splice lengths ranging from 12 to 54 in. (305 to
1372mm), and is presented in Fig. 6 for the No. 5 (15.9mm)
specimens and Fig. 7 for the No. 8 (25.4 mm) specimens.
Best-fit power trend lines are also provided to illustrate the
trends of the data. As shown, bar stresses reached at failure
increase as the splice length increases. The effectiveness
of increasing the splice, however, decreases as the length
increases, as evidenced by the decreasing slope. In addition, the slope of the curve, which indicates the strength
gain provided by increasing the splice length, is different
for each reinforcement type. The strength gain for the steel
and carbon bars as the splice length increases is significantly
greater than that for the glass bars. For example, doubling
the splice length of the No. 5 (15.9 mm) glass bars from
18to 36 in. (457 to 914 mm) increased the stress by only 6%,
while the same increase in splice length for the carbon bars
resulted in a 43% increase in bar stress. In previous studies,
the influence of splice length for steel (Canbay and Frosch
2005) and short FRP splices (Mosley et al. 2008) was found
to be proportional to the square root; therefore, increasing
the splice length from 18 to 36 in. (457 to 914 mm) results in
a 41% increase in bar stress. While the square root is reasonable for the carbon bars, it significantly overestimates the
increase for the glass reinforcement, and is not appropriate.
Based on these results, the effect of splice length on the
ultimate stress reached by the reinforcement appears to be
a function of the modulus of the elasticity of the reinforcement. The benefits of an increase in splice length decrease
as the modulus of elasticity is decreased. As previously
discussed, the bar stress at failure increases as the modulus
of elasticity increases.
Surface deformation
Three types of surface deformations induced on GFRP
bars were tested to evaluate the effect of surface deformation
on splice strength. A comparison of sand-coated versus sand
Modulus of elasticity
The effect of the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement was investigated among the specimens having the
same surface deformation and bar size. Figure 8 shows
the normalized bar stress versus modulus of elasticity
for No.5 (15.9 mm) bars with a 24 in. (610 mm) splice.
Although two different surface deformations are considered, the data points follow a linear trend as the modulus of
elasticity increases. Clearly, the modulus of elasticity of the
reinforcement has a significant influence on the bond strength
of the reinforcement, with bond strength increasing as the
modulusincreases.
263
Fig. 12Comparison
No.5GFRP.
of
strength
calculations
of
Fig. 13Comparison
No.8GFRP.
of
strength
calculations
of
fc
l
C le
C
13.6 e +
3.5 (1)
+ 340 where
a
db db db
db
266
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was conducted at both the Karl H. Kettelhut Structural Engineering Laboratory and Bowen Laboratory for Large Scale Research at
Purdue University, and was made possible under the sponsorship of the
Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) through the Joint Transportation Research Program
(JTRP) Project No. SPR-2491. Their support is gratefully acknowledged.
Thanks are extended to Hughes Brothers Inc. and Pultrall Inc. for providing
the FRP reinforcing bars used in this experimental program.
REFERENCES
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Ducts and pipes associated with the mechanical, electrical, and sewer systems in a building are usually located
underneath the floor beams, resulting in a considerable
loss in the usable floor height. Passage of these ducts and
pipes through web openings in floor beams offers an effective way to utilize the entire floor height, providing a more
economic and compact design. Nevertheless, the presence
of opening(s) in a reinforced concrete (RC) beam reduces
its load-carrying capacity and increases its service-load
deflections. The studies on concrete beams with transverse
openings in the literature focused on providing these beams
with strengths and rigidities comparable to their solid counterparts by proper reinforcement detailing. In this way, the
negative effects of the stress concentrations around the
openings could be eliminated, the load-carrying capacities
increased, and the deflections decreased.
Different types of services, including cooling and ventilation systems, power and sewer systems, and technology
and communication services, need to be effectively located
and distributed within structures. The presence of multiple
openings in a beam is needed to accommodate several pipes
and ducts related to various services. Steel beams with
multiple web openings (cellular beams) are commonly used
for this reason. In this study, the presence of multiple openings in RC beams was considered to improve the design of
RCstructures.
In an extensive experimental study on continuous RC
beams with a large rectangular opening, Mansur et al. (1991)
established that the failure of these beams is generally related
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
267
Beam
Opening
Amount of
longitudinal
reinforcement
Stirrups
in posts
Diagonal
reinforcement
Concrete
batch
RBn
No
Moderate
No
No
RBb
No
High
No
No
RRxn
Square
Moderate
No
Yes
RRxcn
Square
Moderate
Yes
Yes
RRxb
Square
High
No
Yes
RRxcb
Square
High
Yes
Yes
RCb
Circular
High
No
No
RCcb
Circular
High
Yes
No
RCxb
Circular
High
No
Yes
RCxcb
Circular
High
Yes
Yes
Test specimens
A total of 10 rectangular RC beams, each 150 mm
(5.9in.) wide, 400 mm (15.7 in.) deep, and 4.0 m (13.1 ft)
long, were tested. Four specimens had 200 x 200 mm (7.9x
7.9in.) square openings, and four specimens had 200 mm
(7.9in.) circular openings. The reinforcement details of
the beams are illustrated in Fig. 1 and 2. In terms of flexural reinforcement ratios, the beams denoted with letter n
were moderately reinforced (tension reinforcement ratio rt =
0.0078), and the beams denoted with letter b were heavily
reinforced (rt = 0.014). The letter x in the specimen names
corresponds to the presence of 10 nonprestressed cables
spiraling around openings (Fig. 3), and c corresponds to
short stirrups in posts in longitudinal direction (Table 1).
Material properties
Table 2 tabulates the compressive strength of concrete of
each specimen on the test day obtained from 150 x 300 mm
(6 x 12 in.) cylinder tests. The mean values and standard
deviations of these material tests are tabulated in Table 2
together with the number of material tests. The mean values
and standard deviations of the yield and tensile strengths of
the S420 reinforcing bars and the number of samples for
each bar size are tabulated in Table 2.
Test setup and procedure
A 200 kN (45 kip) capacity steel frame was used for the
tests. The load, applied by a hydraulic cylinder and measured
by an electronic load cell, was equally distributed to four
loading points by main and secondary spreader beams
(Fig.4). In this way, the simply supported beams were
loaded at two points, each located at a distance of 300mm
(11.8 in.) from midspan, and two points, each located at a
distance of 1200 mm (47.2 in.) from midspan. Six-point
bending was adopted instead of four-point bending to more
closely simulate the moment distribution in a beam subjected
to uniform distributed loading, which is the most common
loading condition in real practice. The midspan vertical
deflection, the support settlements, and the distortions in
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
Material test
Mean
Standard
deviation
RBn
26.8 (3.9)
3.8 (0.6)
RBb
33.9 (4.9)
2.8 (0.4)
RRxn
27.2 (3.9)
4.5 (0.6)
No. of tests
Mean
Standard
deviation
No. of tests
Mean
Standard
deviation
No. of tests
RRxcn
26.3 (3.8)
3.5 (0.5)
RRxb
27.9 (4.0)
1.4 (0.2)
RRxcb
24.8 (3.6)
5.8 (0.8)
RCb
27.8 (4.0)
2.7 (0.4)
RCcb
29.2 (4.2)
2.0 (0.3)
RCxb
28.3 (4.1)
3.6 (0.5)
RCxcb
26.1 (3.8)
6.1 (0.9)
10 bars
476.0 (69.0)
10.2 (1.5)
695.7 (100.9)
6.8(1.0)
12 bars
550.5 (79.8)
3.6 (0.5)
646.0 (93.7)
3.3 (0.5)
Fig. 2Reinforcement details of specimens with openings. (Note: All dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
openings were measured with the help of linear variable
displacement transducers (LVDTs). The load and deflection
measurements were recorded by a data acquisition system.
The beams were loaded up to failure, and the cracks were
marked and the crack widths measured.
FAILURE MODES AND THEORETICAL EQUATIONS
Failure modes of reinforced concrete beams
withopenings
Beam- and frame-type shear and web crushing failures
are the three common types of shear failure in RC beams
with openings. In beam-type failure (Fig. 5(a)), a single
crack extending through the entire depth results in failure.
This diagonal crack is assumed to pass through the center
of opening. The frame-type shear failure (Fig. 5(b)) takes
place when two distinct cracks form in the top and bottom
chords, and one of the chords fails due to this cracking. Web
Av f yv
s
( dv do ) + Ad f yd sin a
(1)
270
.
0
12
+
b dv
Vn =
V d
+0.846 w f yv
(2)
100 As
k p = 0.82
b d
w =
0.23
(3)
Av + Ad (sin a + cos a )
b dv
(4)
Beam
Failure mode
Test Pex
RBn
Beam-type flexural
163.8 (36.8)
164.7 (37.0)
160.5 (36.1)
0.99
1.02
59.4 (2.3)
RBb
Beam-type flexural
245.8 (55.2)
291.7 (65.6)
289.0 (65.0)
0.84
0.85
95.6 (3.8)
RRxn
Vierendeel truss
156.4 (35.2)
159.6 (35.9)
156.9 (35.3)
0.98
1.00
62.5 (2.5)
RRxcn
Beam-type flexural
169.3 (38.1)
159.6 (35.9)
156.9 (35.3)
1.06
1.08
62.5 (2.5)
RRxb
Vierendeel truss
232.2 (52.2)
288.8 (64.9)
286.8 (64.5)
0.80
0.81
94.2 (3.7)
RRxcb
Web crushing
255.1 (57.3)
288.8 (64.9)
286.8 (64.5)
0.88
0.89
94.2 (3.7)
RCb
Diagonal tension
269.3 (60.5)
288.8 (64.9)
286.8 (64.5)
0.93
0.94
94.2 (3.7)
RCcb
Beam-type flexural
272.3 (61.2)
288.8 (64.9)
286.8 (64.5)
0.94
0.95
94.2 (3.7)
RCxb
Beam-type flexural
278.5 (62.6)
289.3 (65.0)
287.2 (64.6)
0.96
0.97
93.3 (3.7)
RCxcb
Beam-type flexural
284.1 (63.9)
289.3 (65.0)
287.2 (64.6)
0.98
0.99
93.3 (3.7)
fc b ( d do )
(5)
Vut (Vub ) = Vu
At ( Ab )
At + Ab
(6)
ACI Committee 318 (2005) PACI Pex/Pan Pex/PACI Neutral axis depth, mm (in.)
Nb = Nt =
Mm
z
(7)
where Nt and Nb are the axial forces in the top and bottom
chords, respectively; Mm is the bending moment at the section
272
Frame-type failure
Top chord
Vn, kN (kip)
Bottom chord
Beam
ACI
AIJ
Vu, kN (kip)
Vnt, kN (kip)
Vut, kN (kip)
Vnb, kN (kip)
Vub, kN (kip)
RBn
168.7 (37.9)
81.9 (20.6)
RBb
165.7 (37.2)
122.9 (27.6)
RRxn
242.8 (54.6)
141.9 (31.9)
78.2 (17.6)
86.8 (19.5)
39.1 (8.8)
86.8 (19.5)
39.1 (8.8)
RRxcn
242.8 (54.6)
141.9 (31.9)
84.7 (19.0)
86.8 (19.5)
42.3 (9.5)
86.8 (19.5)
42.3 (9.5)
RRxb
257.8 (58.0)
141.8 (31.9)
116.1 (26.1)
94.2 (21.2)
58.1 (13.1)
94.2 (21.2)
58.1 (13.1)
RRxcb
257.8 (58.0)
141.8 (31.9)
127.6 (28.7)
94.2 (21.2)
63.7 (14.3)
94.2 (21.2)
63.7 (14.3)
RCb
147.2 (33.1)
90.0 (20.2)
134.6 (30.2)
38.9 (8.7)
67.3 (15.1)
38.9 (8.7)
67.3 (15.1)
RCcb
147.2 (33.1)
90.0 (20.2)
136.2 (30.6)
38.9 (8.7)
68.1 (15.3)
38.9 (8.7)
68.1 (15.3)
RCxb
257.9 (58.0)
142.1 (31.9)
139.3 (31.3)
94.3 (21.2)
69.6 (15.6)
94.3 (21.2)
69.6 (15.6)
RCxcb
257.9 (58.0)
142.1 (31.9)
142.1 (31.9)
94.3 (21.2)
71.0 (16.0)
94.3 (21.2)
71.0 (16.0)
Fig. 7(a) Cracking patterns of specimens at failure; and (b) load-deflection curves of specimens.
Nevertheless, both the chords and the entire beam were
subjected to shear forces above their maximum allowable
shear forces calculated from Eq. (5), which caused crushing
of concrete between the diagonals. Table 6 indicates that
RRxb, RCb, RCcb, RCxb, and RCxcb were also prone to
web crushing because the shear forces at failure exceeded
the maximum allowable shear forces. None of these beams,
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
Absolute
Rigidity
Relative
Absolute,
kN/mm (kip/in.)
Relative
RBn
17.8
1.00
10.12 (57.8)
1.00
RRxn
10.7
0.60
5.77 (32.9)
0.57
RRxcn
8.4
0.47
5.87 (33.5)
0.58
RBb
6.4
1.00
12.05 (68.8)
1.00
RRxb
5.6
0.88
8.86 (50.6)
0.74
RRxcb
1.0
0.16
8.62 (49.2)
0.72
RCb
6.1
0.95
8.87 (50.6)
0.74
RCcb
9.5
1.48
9.32 (53.2)
0.77
RCxb
7.8
1.22
10.80 (61.7)
0.90
RCxcb
8.1
1.27
11.03 (63.0)
0.92
Frame-type failure
(chord members)
Beam
(Vu)max, kN
(kip)
Vu, kN (kip)
(Vut)max, kN
(kip)
Vut, kN (kip)
RBn
248.0 (55.8)
81.9 (20.6)
RBb
235.3 (52.9)
122.9 (27.6)
RRxn
105.0 (23.6)
78.2 (17.6)
55.2 (12.4)
39.1 (8.8)
RRxcn
105.0 (23.6)
84.7 (19.0)
55.2 (12.4)
42.3 (9.5)
RRxb
106.4 (23.9)
116.1 (26.1)
54.8 (12.3)
58.1 (13.1)
RRxcb
106.4 (23.9)
127.6 (28.7)
54.8 (12.3)
63.7 (14.3)
RCb
106.4 (23.9)
134.6 (30.2)
54.8 (12.3)
67.3 (15.1)
RCcb
106.4 (23.9)
136.2 (30.6)
54.8 (12.3)
68.1 (15.3)
RCxb
107.1 (24.1)
139.3 (31.3)
55.2 (12.4)
69.6 (15.6)
RCxcb
107.1 (24.1)
142.1 (31.9)
55.2 (12.4)
71.0 (16.0)
nology Institute in 1967; his MS from Tulane University, New Orleans, LA,
in 1977; and his PhD from Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey, in 1983.
His research interests include behavior of strengthened reinforced concrete
beams under repetitive loading and the behavior of strengthened reinforced
concrete columns.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Ab
Ad
At
Av
do
dv
=
=
=
=
=
=
fyd
fyv
z
a
=
=
=
=
r t
NOTATION
REFERENCES
277
NOTES:
278
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete (RC) buildings constructed prior to
the 1970s in New Zealand and other seismically active countries were not designed and detailed to undergo a ductile
mode of failure.1,2 Poor performance of this class of buildings has been observed in earthquakes occurring in many
countries around the world, such as Chile in 1985,3 Turkey
in 1999,4 Chile in 2010,5 and New Zealand in 2011.6 During
the recent 2010/2011 Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence, this class of buildings performed poorly
and in some cases collapsed catastrophically. Christchurch
City Council Building Safety Evaluation statistics indicate
that 60% of the pre-1970 RC buildings in Christchurch
were deemed suitable for restricted access only or were
unsafe after the 6.3 magnitude Christchurch earthquake on
February 22, 2011, which claimed 181 lives.7 The majority
of the fatalities were attributed to the collapse of two RC
buildingsthe PGC building and the CTV building, which
were constructed in 1963 and 1986, respectively.8 The PGC
building had RC stair/lift core walls that had similar reinforcing bar configurations to the walls discussed herein, and
the poor performance of the singly and lightly reinforced
walls led to the collapse of the building.9
Previous research attention has primarily been directed
toward the structural components of pre-1970 RC frame
buildings, principally inadequately detailed columns and
beam-column joints, owing to the clear seismic risk in
this class of buildings that these structural components
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
279
lw, mm
h, mm
t, mm
M/Vlw
Compressive
axial load, kN
WPS1
1300
1750
150
1.35
200
WPS2
1300
1750
230
1. 35
300
WPS3
1300
2400
150
0.92
WPS4
1300
2400
230
0.92
WPS5
1300
2400
150
0.92
WPS6
1300
2400
230
0.92
WPS7
1300
2400
150
0.92
200
WPS8
1300
2400
230
0.92
300
WPS9
1300
2400
150
0.92
200
WPS10
1300
2400
230
0.92
300
WSS1
1000
1600
150
0.8
WSS2
1000
1600
230
0.8
Ten of the test specimens (WPS1 to WPS10) were replicated wall piers and the remaining two test specimens
(WSS1 and WSS2) were replicated coupling beams. Eight
of the wall piers (WPS3 to WPS10) and both of the coupling
beams had boundary reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 1. In
four of the wall piers (WPS5 to WPS8), the longitudinal
reinforcing bars were spliced near the base of the wall piers,
whereas in the remaining test specimens, the longitudinal
reinforcing bars were continuous and were anchored outside
the wall piers.
During construction of the test specimens, a concrete
compressive strength of 21 MPa (3.0 ksi) was specified to reflect the average strength determined from core
samples extracted from the case study building. In addition,
Grade300 (fy = 300 MPa [43.5 ksi]) plain reinforcing bars
were planned to be used, as this grade is close to the strength
of the nominal Grade 240/250 reinforcing bars used during
the era of construction of the building. Some of the reinforcing bars used, however, were incorrectly supplied as
Grade 500 (fy = 500 MPa [72.5 ksi]). This error was identified only after the testing program was completed. Generally, Grade 500 bars have a shorter yield plateau, rupture at
lower strain levels, require longer development lengths, and
are more likely to buckle than Grade 300 bars. However,
reinforcement grade did not significantly affect the behavior
of the test specimens, apart from the apparent influence on
wall strength. Material properties of the test specimens are
summarized in Table 2.
Test setup and instrumentation
The first two wall piers (WPS1 and WPS2) were tested as
vertical cantilevers (refer to Fig. 2(a)), while the remaining
eight wall piers (WPS3 to WPS10) and the coupling beams
(WSS1 and WSS2) were subjected to double bending using
a steel loading beam mounted on and anchored to the top
RC blocks (refer to Fig. 2(b)). As shown in Fig. 2(c), the
coupling beams were rotated and tested in a vertical orientation. The double bending loading condition was represenACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
281
Longitudinal reinforcement
splices
Boundary reinforcement
Test
specimen
fc
MPa
Al, At,
mm
fy, fyt,
MPa
fult,
MPa
l, %
t, %
Ab, mm
fy, MPa
fult, MPa
Splice
lb, 10, mm
lb, 12,
mm
WPS1
18.4
10
530
667
0.20
0.18
No
WPS2
20.9
10
300
429
0.13
0.12
No
WPS3
19.6
10
351
488
0.20
0.17
412
388
555
No
WPS4
16.2
10
351
488
0.13
0.11
412
305
436
No
WPS5
29.4
10
348
487
0.20
0.17
412
516
662
Yes
305
457
WPS6
24.8
10
348
487
0.13
0.11
412
516
662
Yes
305
457
WPS7
21.3
10
344
456
0.20
0.17
412
305
438
Yes
305
457
WPS8
22.5
10
344
456
0.13
0.11
412
305
438
Yes
305
457
WPS9
20.2
10
490
631
0.20
0.17
412
301
433
No
WPS10
19.3
10
490
631
0.13
0.11
412
301
433
No
WSS1
18.7
10
351
472
0.21
0.20
412
321
426
No
WSS2
21.4
10
351
472
0.14
0.13
412
321
426
No
VTest, kN
Drift at VTest, %
Vn,SF*, kN
Vn,S, kN
Vn,F, kN
VTest/Vn,SF
VTest/Vn,S
VTest/Vn,F
WPS1
162
0.96
616
395
151
0.26
0.41
1.07
WPS2
174
0.66
647
513
167
0.27
0.34
1.04
WPS3
159
0.43
404
389
147
0.39
0.41
1.08
WPS4
149
0.20
404
455
148
0.37
0.33
1.01
WPS5
199
0.35
536
424
195
0.37
0.47
1.02
WPS6
194
0.44
536
508
197
0.36
0.38
0.98
WPS7
231
0.36
662
391
233
0.35
0.59
0.99
WPS8
271
0.5
802
492
278
0.34
0.55
0.97
WPS9
260
0.36
740
478
259
0.35
0.54
1.00
WPS10
308
0.21
880
564
310
0.35
0.55
0.99
WSS1
160
0.09
361
320
149
0.44
0.50
1.07
WSS2
150
0.04
361
417
151
0.42
0.36
0.99
Average
0.36
0.45
1.02
Standard deviation
0.05
0.09
0.04
Nominal flexural capacity according to ACI 318-11 and assuming splices would develop yield strength of spliced bars.
285
286
Vn = Acv (a c fc + t f yt )
(1)
10 reinforcing bars
*
12 reinforcing bars
fs/fy
fs/fy
fs/fy*
fs/fy
WPS5
0.51
0.80
0.44
0.73
WPS6
0.51
0.80
0.44
0.73
WPS7
0.51
0.80
0.77
1.00
WPS8
0.51
0.80
0.77
1.00
fy
ld = 1.3
1.1l fc
t e s l
db
cb + K tr
d
b
(3)
f y 420
0.071 f y db ,
ld =
(4)
fs = (lb/ld)fy fy (5)
Table 5Measured and calculated strengths of test specimens with spliced longitudinal reinforcement
Test specimen
VTest, kN
Vn,F-A/S*, kN
Vn,F-PS, kN
Vn,F, kN
VTest/Vn,F-A/S
VTest/Vn,F-PS
VTest/Vn,F
WPS5
199
91
129
195
2.14
1.51
1.02
WPS6
194
91
144
197
2.16
1.37
0.98
WPS7
231
181
208
233
1.29
1.12
0.99
WPS8
271
234
262
278
1.19
1.06
0.97
Average
1.70
1.27
0.99
Standard deviation
0.46
0.18
0.02
Nominal flexural capacity according to ACI 318-11 and assuming splices would develop yield strength of spliced bars.
Fig. 7Normalized maximum bond stresses that developed between spliced bars and surrounding concrete.
of their yield strengths, which were calculated assuming
that the lap splices would develop the yield strengths of the
spliced bars, but the provided splice lengths were approximately 67% of that required by ASCE/SEI 41-06.
Because Eq. (5) was found to be excessively conservative, the provided splice lengths used in the study reported
herein were also compared with those implied by a proposed
supplement26 to ASCE/SEI 41-06. The proposed equation,
which is a modified version of Eq. (5) and based on the work
of Cho and Pincheira,24 is
l
fs = 1.25 b
ld
u=
f s db
4ld
(7)
0.67
fy fy
(6)
288
u=
1 1 1.1 fc cb + K tr
2 4 t e s l db
(8)
seismic behavior of RC walls constructed before the introduction of seismic design requirements in the New Zealand
Standard Model Building By-law.14 The results of the experimental tests were evaluated and compared with current
assessment provisions.
Based on the study presented herein, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. The lateral-force-carrying capacity of lightly reinforced
existing walls is limited by their flexural strength. Owing to
the low quantity of reinforcing bars provided, yielding of
the longitudinal reinforcing bars dictates the strength of this
wall type.
2. The strength and the stiffness of this type of wall
degrade rapidly and significantly. The walls have limited
energy dissipation capacity, principally due to the provision
of few longitudinal reinforcing bars. In addition, the walls
suffer from a lack of transverse confinement reinforcement
to contain concrete in compression zones and to prevent
longitudinal reinforcing bars from buckling.
3. During testing, the wall pier specimens having no axial
load exhibited cracks that were wide during low-level drift
cycles, but the cracks, which were located near the supports,
closed up and appeared inconspicuous after the tests were
completed, with longitudinal reinforcement that had previously yielded in tension hidden in the cracks. This type of
crack could easily be overlooked and the walls may appear
intact during post-earthquake inspections, even if the stiffness and the strength of the walls deteriorated significantly.
4. From peak stresses measured during testing, it was
shown that the provisions contained in ASCE/SEI 41-06
significantly underestimate the maximum stresses that can
be developed by plain round reinforcing bar lap splices. The
relatively recent recommendations of a proposed supplement to ASCE/SEI 41-06 also underestimate the maximum
stresses that can be developed, but to a lesser extent.
5. During testing, the lap splices were able to develop bond
stresses that were significantly higher than the maximum
possible bond stresses implied by ASCE/SEI 41-06. Further
research is recommended, as the provisions of ASCE/SEI
41-06 for required splice lengths of plain round reinforcing
bars are based on studies conducted for deformed bars. The
provisions are excessively conservative and potentially lead
to unnecessary or expensive seismic retrofitting solutions.
The provisions also lead to the potential for overlooking the
danger of existing walls failing in shear during an earthquake,
before the actual strength of the tension splices isexceeded.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
AUTHOR BIOS
289
Ab
Ac
Acv
Al
A t
Avf
cb
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
db =
fc =
fs
=
fult =
fy
=
fyt =
hw =
Ktr =
l
=
lb
=
ld
=
lw =
M/Vlw =
N* =
u
=
Vn =
VTest =
Vu =
=
=
l =
t
e
s
t
=
=
=
NOTATION
REFERENCES
290
TECHNICAL PAPER
291
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test specimens
Five laboratory specimens were constructed and tested
to characterize the behavior and capacity of 1950s vintage
reinforced concrete deck girders with diagonal cracks after
being injected with epoxy resin. Previous work by Higgins et
al. (2004) identified standard details, materials, and proportions used in 1950s vintage bridge construction. Specimens
in the current study used an inverted-T (IT) configuration
to place the deck in flexural tension. This arrangement is
representative of negative moment in high-shear locations
near continuous supports such as piers and bent caps. Each
specimen had the following geometry: 1219 mm (48 in.)
overall height, a stem width of 356 mm (14 in.), and a flange
of 152 mm (6 in.) thick by 914 mm (36 in.) wide. Member
proportions and reinforcing steel are illustrated in Fig. 1. The
292
28.5 (4130)
3.2 (460) at
28-day
2-EC
36.2 (5250)
2.8 (410)
3-ED
28.3 (4104)
2.6 (377)
4-EL
29.5 (4279)
2.6 (377)
5-EA
35.4 (5141)
2.8 (410)
1-C
350 (50.7)
544 (78.9)
477 (69.2)
712 (103)
492 (71.4)
741 (107)
484 (70.2)
728 (106)
473 (68.6)
694 (101)
492 (71.3)
741 (108)
357 (51.8)
570 (82.7)
VINITIAL, kN (kip)
VAPP, kN (kip)
VDL, kN (kip)
VR2K, kN (kip)
VEXP/VR2K
Failure mode
1-C
N/A
902 (203)
16.9 (3.80)
919 (207)
952 (214)
0.97
Shear-compression
2-EC
723 (162)
983 (221)
20.3 (4.56)
1001 (225)
983 (221)
1.02
Shear-compression
3-ED
778 (175)
992 (223)
17.2 (3.87)
1009 (227)
965 (217)
1.05
Shear-compression
4-EL
778 (175)
1046 (235)
16.7 (3.75)
1063 (239)
947 (213)
1.12
Shear-compression
5-EA
778 (175)
1112 (250)
18.4 (4.14)
1130 (254)
943 (212)
1.20
Shear-compression
VEXP, kN (kip)
Mean
1.07
Coefficient of variation
0.08
Fig. 5Control and post-injection shear-diagonal displacement response recorded near centerline of specimens.
sequences are shown in Fig. 6. The locations of diagonal
cracks that were epoxy-injected are also shown in Fig. 6.
Diagonal cracks that were injected did not reopen during
post-injection tests. Instead, new cracks formed adjacent to
the injected cracks and propagated at similar angles. Non-repaired cracks propagated along the original paths.
The applied loads required to reinitiate diagonal cracking
are shown in Fig. 7. The load required to reinitiate diagonal
cracking was determined from the applied shear magnitude
at the moment the stirrup strain showed an abrupt increase.
The pre- and post-injection diagonal cracking shears were
compared with the precrack diagonal cracking shear on the
abscissa and the post-injection cracking shear serving on
the ordinate. Solid symbols represent stirrup strain gauges
located near injected diagonal cracks, while hollow symbols
represent stirrup strain gauges located away from injected
diagonal cracks, as described in the next section. Injected
diagonal cracks required higher applied shear than the original specimen to produce strains in the stirrups due to new
diagonal cracking. Data above the reference line show that
larger shear loads were required, while points below the line
required smaller loads to propagate or reinitiate diagonal
cracking. Non-injected cracks typically behaved similarly
to the baseline tests, where stirrup strains began increasing
immediately upon application of applied shear.
296
Reinforcement strains
The largest relative influences of epoxy injection were
seen in the individual stirrup strains, but these effects were
highly influenced by the proximity of injected diagonal
cracks to the embedded strain gauge locations. Strain gauges
located near diagonal cracks that were injected had lower
strains after injection at similar shear magnitude. Strain
gauges located between diagonal cracks or far from cracks
that were not injected displayed relatively little change. This
behavior was observed for all injected specimens. Diagonal
cracks were considered to be near the stirrup strain gauge
if the vertical distance that the crack crossed the stirrup with
the strain gauge was within the AASHTO-LRFD (AASHTO
2005) calculated development length of the Grade 300 No.13
(Grade 40, No. 4) stirrup (203 mm [8 in.]). An example of
strains measured for a stirrup located near a diagonal crack
and a stirrup located at a distance greater than the development length from a diagonal crack is shown in Fig. 8.
The strain behavior depicted in Fig. 9 shows the baseline
and post-injection stirrup strains at the maximum service
load range. In the figure, the baseline strains serving as the
abscissa are plotted against the post-injection strains on
the ordinate. Solid symbols represent stirrup strain gauges
located near injected diagonal cracks, while hollow symbols
represent stirrup strain gauges located away from injected
diagonal cracks, as defined previously. The dashed referACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
Fig. 6Crack pattern locations on east face of specimens. Figure includes precracking, epoxy-injected cracks, post-injection
cracks, and final failure crack.
ence line marks the boundary between improved and unimproved behavior. Points above the line had higher strains
at the same service load after injection, whereas the points
below the line had lower strains after injection. Most stirrup
strains near injected diagonal cracks showed significantly
reduced strains after injection, whereas uninjected regions
were generally unaffected.
Fig. 8Applied shear-stirrup strain behavior for Specimen 3-ED. Strain gauges located near: (a) injected diagonal cracks;
and (b) uninjected diagonal cracks.
298
AUTHOR BIOS
fc
fct
fu
fy
VAPP
VDL
NOTATION
=
=
=
=
=
=
REFERENCES
301
NOTES:
302
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Numerous cast-in-place and precast reinforced concrete
structures suffered significant damage or collapse during
historical and recent earthquakes, primarily due to deficient
structural design. Code-mandated reinforcement detailing
required for critical bridge and building members to ensure
adequate seismic behavior often leads to substantial reinforcement congestion and construction difficulties. Therefore, it is not surprising that many recent research efforts
have been directed to the development and implementation of innovative materials in new structures for improved
seismic performance while simplifying the required
reinforcementdetailing.
Fiber-reinforced concretes that exhibit a tensile strain-hardening behavior are now possible with the use of relatively low
fiber-volume fractions Vf (in the range of 1.5 to 2.0%). These
tensile strain-hardening materials are typically referred to as
high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (HPFRC). In
addition to their tensile strain capacity, which often exceeds
0.5%, HPFRCs exhibit a compression response that resembles that of well-confined concrete. Hooked and twisted
steel fibers, as well as ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene fibers, are among the fiber types investigated for use
in earthquake-resistant construction.1 When used in structural elements subjected to large displacement reversals,
HPFRCs enable significant deformation capacity with superior damage tolerance compared with geometrically identical, well-detailed reinforced concrete members.1-5 Further,
substantial reductions in transverse reinforcement required
for confinement and shear resistance have been possible in
elements subjected to large shear stress reversals.1 There is
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
303
S1: HPFRC
S2: HPFRC
BC: Plain
Longitudinal reinforcement
12 No. 4/13M
1.2%
Debonding sleeves
Dowels, L = 250 mm
(10 in.), 250 mm (10 in.) above base
Transverse reinforcement
0.75%
0.75%
1.5%
60
49
49
304
Table 2Nominal ductility level used at each cycle of displacement history, defined with respect to BC
column yield displacement
Cycle
Nominal ductility
Cycle
Nominal ductility
NA
10
NA
11
NA
12
4.5
13
1.5
0.33
14
6.25
1.5
15
0.5
16
17
0.67
18
12.5
Fig. 1Reinforcement detailing of HPFRC specimens. (Note: Dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
and post-tensioned rods tensioned through hydraulic jacks.
This load is typically used to represent the average dead and
service live loads carried by typical column bents of overpass bridges in California.
Test setup and instrumentation
The bidirectional quasi-static cyclic testing of the two
HPFRC column specimens was carried out. The lateral and
gravity load test setup is shown in Fig. 3. The lateral load
was applied using two horizontal servo-controlled hydraulic
actuators at an initial angle of 90 degrees with respect to
each other reacting against a rigid frame. The actuators were
attached to the column top using a steel jacket. The actuator
commands were computed to follow the circular load pattern
considering actual actuator elongations.
The HPFRC specimen instrumentation scheme comprised
internal and external instruments. Strain gauges were
installed on longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
to trace the strain history at various locations along the
column height and to correlate internal strains to observed
damage, such as bar buckling and fracture. Five levels of
linear displacement potentiometers were placed on two stiff
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
Fig. 3(a) Plan; and (b) elevation views of experimental setup for HPFRC column specimens.
Table 3Reinforcing steel mechanical properties
Parameter
Specification
Dowel reinforcement
11
Spiral reinforcement
ASTM A8212
ASTM A706
ASTM A706
Size
No. 4/13M
No. 4/13M
W3.5
Elastic modulus Es
Yield stress Fy
Ultimate stress Fu
0.25 to 1.33
Yield strength determined using 0.2% offset line parallel to corresponding elastic modulus.
306
TEST RESULTS
The damage progress in the HPFRC and BC specimens
throughout the loading history is shown in Table 6. The
HPFRC specimens, particularly Specimen S1, exhibited
enhanced damage tolerance compared with the geometrically identical plain concrete Specimen BC. Both HPFRC
columns behaved elastically up to a drift ratio of approximately 1.3% (nominal ductility = 1.5 based on first yielding
of Specimen BC). The actual ductility of the tested HPFRC
columns a is, therefore, two-thirds that of the BC column.
The HPFRC specimens developed relatively similar damage
states as the reference BC specimen, but at higher displacement levels. For example, damage observed in Specimens
S1 and S2 at 3.9% drift ratio ( = 4.5) was smaller than that
in Specimen BC, as seen in Table 6. Large portions of the
BC column cover had already spalled off at this displaceTable 4Fiber-reinforced concrete mixture
quantities
Item
Value
w/c
0.45
Cement
Water
Fibers
Note: Specified 28-day compressive strength: 34.5 MPa (5.0 ksi); slump: 140 mm
(5.5 in.); 1 yd3 = 0.765 m3; 1 lb = 0.45 kg.
Parameter
11 days
28 days
49 days
60 days
Obtained indirectly from linear interpolation of test results performed on other days.
307
S2: HPFRC
Test terminated.
Test terminated.
308
Fig. 4Force-deformation response of HPFRC and BC specimens: (a) total shear stress versus total drift; and (b) shear stress
ratio versus total drift.
The S2 column, on the other hand, developed a primary
crack at a height of 250 mm (10 in.) above the foundation at
the cutoff point of the dowel bars, resulting in a concentration of deformation and damage in that region with limited
spreading of the plastic deformation zone towards the base
of the column. The extent of the BC column plastic deformation zone was estimated at 300 mm (12 in.), equivalent to
3/4 of the column diameter.6
Force-displacement response
The force-deformation response of the HPFRC and BC
specimens is shown in Fig. 4. Only the primary cycles corresponding to the nominal ductility level of 1 and higher are
shown. The deformation axis is expressed in terms of resultant drift ratio (displacement of the column top divided by
the distance between the top of the column base to the actuator axes). The force axis is expressed in terms of resultant
shear stress (Fig. 4(a)) and shear stress ratio (Fig. 4(b)). The
resultant shear stress was calculated as the resultant shear
force applied by the two actuators divided by the effective
area in shear, defined by Caltrans SDC8 as 0.8 times the gross
area of the column. The shear stress ratio was obtained by
dividing the total shear force in the column by the assumed
nominal shear strength provided by the transverse steel reinforcement at yielding Vs, calculated according to Caltrans
SDC8 as follows
Vs =
Av f yh D
s
(1)
309
Fig. 5(a) Shear force-displacement envelope; and (b) lateral stiffness degradation versus nominal displacement ductility (or
drift) demand.
Fig. 6Curvature profiles from experiments for: (a) S1; (b) S2; and (c) BC.
height. Profiles of these curvatures for all three specimens
are shown in Fig. 6.
The significant difference in the length of the plastic
deformation zones among these three specimens, discussed
previously and evident in Fig. 6, shows that it is possible
to design and detail the longitudinal reinforcement of an
HPFRC column to achieve a highly desirable spreading of
plastic deformation. In particular, the addition of dowel reinforcement elevated the center of the plastic hinge zone from
the column base, thus providing more space for its spreading.
Debonding of the dowel reinforcement (thus avoiding termination of dowels within the plastic hinge) in the column of
Specimen S1 allowed for very effective spreading of bar
yielding along the column height and formation of several
flexural cracks in the plastic hinge region. The less successful
detail used in Specimen S2, on the other hand, shows that
there are significant unexplored opportunities to develop
improved designs to ensure adequate spread of yielding in
310
Fig. 7Curvature profiles for calibrated plastic hinge model of Column S1: (a) formulation; and (b) results for different
displacement ductility demands of HPFRC columns.
an average uniform bond stress ub acting on the surface of
the dowel reinforcement along a length measured from the
bar termination point to the section at which first yielding
occurred, and the yield strength of the bar. It is important
to note that dowel bar yielding occurred after substantial cracking occurred around the cover of the HPFRC
specimens. The resulting peak average bond stress ub was
10.2MPa (1.5 ksi), which can be rewritten in terms of the
unconfined HPFRC compressive strength results obtained
from cylinder tests, fc,FRC = 47.3 MPa (6.86 ksi). The degradation of bond stress with increasing bar inelastic strains
could not be evaluated due to lack of data. Thus, the peak
bond stress for reinforcing bar strains not exceeding the yield
strain was approximately ub,max = 1.5 fc, FRC , MPa (ub,max =
18 fc, FRC , psi). This value is significantly higher than bond
strengths reported in the literature for regular concrete16 of
1.0fc, MPa (12fc, psi) and 0.5fc, MPa (6fc, psi) for
deformed bars at slip values smaller and larger than the slip
measured at bar yield strain, respectively. These measurements thus indicate that reinforcement development lengths
in HPFRC columns could be shorter than those in conventional concrete columns. Similar conclusions were established in recent studies.9 Conservative development lengths
for conventional concrete, however, should be used for
HPFRC until more test data on the subject become available.
CALIBRATED HPFRC COLUMN MODELS
An idealized curvature profile for columns with reinforcement detailing similar to that used in Specimen S1 is
shown in Fig. 7. Based on the curvature distribution shown
in Fig.6(a), the length of the plastic hinge zone Lp was set at
400 mm (16 in.), equal to the column diameter. The middle
of the plastic hinge was centered at approximately the middle
of the debonded region of the column dowel bars, by setting
the distance between the column base and the bottom of the
plastic hinge zone, hLP, to 150 mm (6 in.). The yield curvatures y,Top and y,Bottom were defined at a height of 560 and
150 mm (22 and 6 in.) above the column base (top and bottom
ends of the plastic hinge zone), respectively. These yield
curvatures were computed using moment-curvature analyses
of the corresponding cross sections with different longitudinal reinforcement details. For displacements beyond first
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
312
REFERENCES
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
The cause of thermal and shrinkage stresses arising
in early-age concrete are the volume changes due to the
temperature and moisture variations during the hardening
process. The variations of concrete temperature during
curing are the result of the exothermic nature of the chemical
reaction between cement and water. In structural elements
with thin sections, the generated heat dissipates quickly, and
causes no problem. In thicker sections, the internal temperature can reach a significant level. Furthermore, due to the
poor thermal conductivity of concrete, high temperature
gradients may occur between the interior and the surface of
thick structural elements. Concrete curing is also accompanied by moisture exchange with the environment in conditions of variable temperatures. The loss of water through
evaporation at the surface of the element results in shrinkage,
which is classified as an external drying shrinkage. There
is also internal drying resulting from the reduction in material volume as water is consumed by hydration, which is
classified as autogenous shrinkage. Additionally, the chemical shrinkage is also distinguished, which occurs because
the volume of hydration products is less than the original
volume of cement and water.
The volume changes due to the temperature and moisture
variations have consequences in arising stresses in a concrete
element. Two natures of these stresses can be distinguished:
self-induced stresses and restraint stresses.
The self-induced stresses are related to internal restraints
of the structure, resulting from nonuniform volume changes
in a cross section. In internally restrained elements, during
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
313
Fig. 1(a) Temperature; (b) thermal stresses; (c) moisture content; and (d) shrinkage stress development in time for externally
restrained concrete wall.10
observed in RC walls. Correct prediction and counteracting
negative effects of these stresses is of great importance to
ensure the desired service life and function of structures. It
is particularly important in structures such as tanks, which
require a solid concrete that prevents water leakage. This
article studies distribution of the discussed stresses in RC
walls with different dimensions. The contribution of self-induced and restrained stresses to the total induced stresses is
also investigated.
DEVELOPMENT OF THERMAL AND SHRINKAGE
STRESSES
Two main phases can be distinguished when observing
a temperature change in time during the concrete curing
process (Fig. 1(a)): a phase of concrete temperature increase
(self-heating), and a cooling phase of the element down to
the temperature of the surrounding air. In the first phase,
the wall extends being opposed by the foundation, which
results in the formation of compressive stresses (Fig. 1(b)),
usually within the first 1 to 3 days. As soon as the maximum
self-heating temperature is reached, the wall begins to cool
down, which takes another few days, restrained by a cooled
foundation. This leads to development of tensile stresses in
the wall (Fig. 1(b)). In case of moisture migration, a monotonic moisture removal from the wall is observed (Fig. 1(c)).
The resulting stresses are tensile stresses in the whole curing
process (Fig. 1(d)).
It should be noted that the graphs in Fig. 1 are shown only
for illustration of the phenomena that arise in the discussed
RC walls. In fact, the values of generated temperature and
the loss of moisture will be different in each point of the wall
according to the temperature and moisture exchange with
environment. Similarly, the values of generated stresses vary
in particular areas of the wall due to the different thermal
and shrinkage strains, as well as due to the different level of
the restraint of the wall in the foundation, which is changing
314
Fig. 2Distribution of thermal-shrinkage stresses in right half of reinforced concrete wall in: (a) heating phase; and (b)
cooling phase.
315
, W/mK (Btu/sftF)
Specific heat
0.95 (0.227)
Density of concrete
, kg/m (lb/ft )
2400 (149.80)
p, W/m2K (Btu/ft2sF)
Heat of hydration*
According to equation Q (T , t ) = Q e
ate0 ,5
Moisture fields
Coefficient of water-cement
proportionality
K, m3/J (ft3/Btu)
p, m/s (ft/s)
at the free edges of the wall and within the contact surface
between the wall and the foundation. A final geometry of the
wall with a mesh of finite elements for one exemplary wall
is presented in Fig. 4.
It was assumed that the analyzed wall was made of the
following concrete mixture: cement CEM I 42.5R 375 kg/m3
(23.41 lb/ft3), water 170 L/m3 (10.61 lb/ft3), and aggregate
(granite) 1868 kg/m3 (116.60 lb/ft3). Thermal and moisture
coefficients necessary for calculations were set in Table 1.
The development of mechanical properties in time was
assumed according to CEB-FIP MC90.18 The final values
for 28-day concrete were assumed as follows: compressive strength fcm = 35 MPa (5.08 ksi), tensile strength fctm =
3.0MPa (0.44 ksi), and modulus of elasticity Ecm = 32.0 GPa
(4.64 Mpsi). It was also assumed that the foundation was
erected earlier and had hardened, so the material properties
were taken as for 28-day concrete, with the same final values
as the wall. Environmental and technological conditions
were taken as: ambient temperature 20C (68F), initial
temperature of fresh concrete mixture 20C (68F), wooden
formwork of 1.8 cm (0.71 in) plywood on the side surfaces,
and foil protection of the top surface. It was also assumed
that formwork was removed 28 days after concrete casting.
Thermal and shrinkage stresses
First, the temperature and moisture development in
time was determined. Figure 5 presents a juxtaposition of
temperature and moisture content development diagrams for
two areas in the walls (Fig. 4) with different dimensions.
Although the character of both temperature and moisture
content are independent of the dimensions of the wall, their
magnitudes depend directly on these dimensions. Only the
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
Fig. 6Case of uniform distribution of: (a) temperature; (b) moisture; (c) thermal; and (d) shrinkage stress distribution at
height of wall in midspan cross section after 18.3 days.
and moisture content vary in different zones of the wall, as
do the resulting stresses. Figure 7 shows thermal (Fig. 7(c))
and shrinkage (Fig. 7(d)) stress distribution at the height of
the wall in its interior taking into account the real (nonuniform) temperature and moisture content distribution. It is
also noted that temperature and moisture content difference
at the thickness of the wall leads to stress diversification in
the internal and near-surface areas (Fig. 7(e) and (f)). It can
be observed that the length of the wall influences the occurring stresses as much as its thickness in such a way that the
length determines the character of stress distribution, while
the thickness determines the maximum values of stresses.
It should be emphasized that considering real distribution
of temperature and moisture the maximum stresses, and
consequently the highest cracking risk, is observed at some
distance above the joint, which complies with observations
in References 4, 9, and 10.
The observation diagrams in Fig. 8 were prepared to
present coupled thermal-shrinkage stress distribution in
318
Fig. 7Stress distribution at height of wall in midspan cross section after 18.3 days under assumption of real (nonuniform)
distribution of: (a) temperature and (b) moisture content in wall; (c) thermal and (d) shrinkage stresses in the interior of the
wall; and (e) thermal and (f) shrinkage stress in interior and on surface of 20 m (65.6 ft) long wall.
of temperature in the wall, while in Fig. 7 and 8, the real,
nonuniform distribution of temperature is taken into account.
It accounts for the visible differences in the obtained stress
distribution, especially in thermal stress near the joint.
In this case, the self-induced stress arises in the wall due
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
319
Fig. 8Coupled thermal-shrinkage stress distribution at height of wall in midspan cross section after 18.3 days under assumption of real (nonuniform) temperature and moisture content distribution in wall: (a) total stress in interior of wall; and (b)
stresses in interior and on surface of 20 m (65.6 ft) long wall.
320
Fig. 10(a) Self-induced and (b) total stress distribution at height of 20 m (65.6 ft) long, 70 cm (2.3 ft) thick wall in midspan
cross section in heating (ph_I) and cooling (ph_II) phase.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper was done as a part of a research Project N N506 043440 entitled, Numerical Prediction of Cracking Risk and Methods of Its Reduction
in Massive Concrete Structures, funded by the Polish National Science
Centre. The co-author of the paper, Agnieszka Knoppik-Wrbel, is a
scholar under the Project SWIFT, co-financed by the European Union under
the European Social Fund.
REFERENCES
322
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Recently published works highlight case studies of
historic reinforced concrete structures with plain reinforcement,1 and reviews of structural inventories include many
structures with reinforcing bar details and types that do not
meet current requirements.2 Many concrete structures with
plain reinforcement have reached an age where they require
remediation,3,4 and so it is crucial for forensic engineers to
have an understanding of their behavior and capacity. Of
particular note, ACI Committee 562, organized in 2004, has
a goal of developing a code and commentary for the evaluation, repair, and rehabilitation of existing concrete structures, and will likely need to include provisions for the bond
evaluation of plain reinforcement.
Plain reinforcement does not possess lugs or other surface
deformations, and cannot transfer bond forces by mechanical interlock. Instead, bond is transferred through adhesion between the concrete and the reinforcement before slip
occurs, and by wedging of small particles that break free
from the concrete upon slip.5 Moreover, both plain square
and round bars have been used to reinforce concrete structures,6 though only round bars were included in Abrams
historic study.5 The extent of void formations beneath
top-cast round and square bars due to the upward migration of water and mortar that occurs during concrete placement operations, and differences in concrete consolidation
around the two bar shapes, might cause different relationships between the required lap splice length and the depth
of concrete cast under the bar. Plain bars may also be more
affected by casting position than deformed bars because the
adhesion component of bond is a more dominant factor in
the transfer of bond force for plain bars.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
This paper presents the design and results of an experimental program to evaluate the effects of casting position
and bar shape on plain steel bars longitudinally cast in lap
splice specimens.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Both round and square plain steel reinforcing bars are
regularly encountered in historical structures, and criteria for
assessing their bond strength are necessary. The results of
an experimental investigation of lap splice specimens reinforced with plain bars are presented to evaluate the effects
of bar shape and casting position on bond behavior. Such
knowledge will aid in the development of bond provisions
for the evaluation of concrete structures reinforced with
plain steel bars.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
The description of the specimens, materials, and test setup
are similar to those described by Hassan and Feldman,7 but
are briefly described herein for comprehensiveness. Figure
1 shows the cross sections, elevation, and plan view for
the 25 specimens in this study. Ten of the specimens, as
identified in Table 1, were originally reported by Hassan
and Feldman.7 All specimens had identical cross-sectional
dimensions and span lengths. Figure 1(a) and (b) show the
cross section of specimens with the round or square longitudinal reinforcement cast in the bottom and top positions,
respectively. These cross sections show that the cover was
held constant at 50 mm (2 in.) regardless of the size of the
longitudinal reinforcing bars used in the various specimens.
Earlier works2,8 suggested that the bond strength of plain
reinforcement is independent of concrete cover because
these bars lack mechanical interlock with the surrounding
concrete; thus, the likelihood of a splitting failure is reduced.
Specimens cast with top reinforcement were inverted before
testing such that Fig. 1(c) shows the elevation of all specimens as tested, including the span length, loading, and
reinforcing steel arrangement. The shear span-depth ratio,
a/d, was approximately equal to 3.94 for all specimens.
Figure1(d) shows a plan view of the specimens and illustrates the arrangement of the spliced longitudinal bars.
All specimens were designed to fail in bond, and had lap
splice lengths Ls ranging from 12.8 to 32.1 times the longitudinal bar diameter for round bars or the side face dimenACI Structural Journal, Vol. 111, No. 2, March-April 2014.
MS No. S-2012-097.R1, doi:10.14359.51686524, was received August 3, 2012, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2014, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journals date if the discussion
is received within four months of the papers print publication.
323
Specimen
identification*
Splice length
as a function of
bar size
(Ls/db)
Concrete
compressive
strength fc,
MPa (psi)
Bar surface
roughness Ry,
m
( 103 in.)
Maximum
normalized
load, Pmax/fc,
kN/MPa
(lb/psi)
19l-305
16.1
17.4 (2520)
9.54 (0.376)
8.50 (159)
18.0 (337)
29.1 (544)
4.98 (93.0)
0.96 (17.9)
21.6
17.4 (2520)
9.67 (0.381)
9.14 (171)
18.0 (337)
29.1 (544)
7.72 (144)
2.33 (43.5)
18.7 (2710)
9.86 (0.388)
9.58 (179)
17.5 (327)
28.4 (530)
10.5 (196)
3.71 (69.2)
21.0 (3040)
9.44 (0.372)
17.8 (332)
16.7 (311)
27.1 (507)
13.9 (259)
5.36 (100)
23.7 (3440)
8.88 (0.350)
16.2 (302)
28.1 (524)
45.0 (840)
12.5 (233)
4.12 (76.9)
24.0 (3480)
8.43 (0.332)
18.4 (343)
27.7 (518)
44.5 (831)
16.1 (300)
5.74 (107)
22.8 (3310)
8.71 (0.343)
20.6 (384)
28.5 (532)
45.6 (851)
19.8 (370)
7.52 (140)
19l-410
19l-510
19l-610
25l-410
25l-510
25l-610
26.8
32.1
16.4
20.4
24.4
Neglecting
strain
hardening of
reinforcement
Including strain
hardening of
reinforcement
CEB-FIP
Model Code
1990
Draft CEB-FIP
Model Code
2010
25l-410
16.4
27.1 (3930)
9.19 (0.362)
6.55 (122)
28.1 (524)
42.2 (788)
8.39 (157)
0.91 (17.0)
25l-510
20.4
28.0 (4060)
9.09 (0.358)
4.69 (87.5)
27.7 (517)
41.7 (778)
11.1 (207)
1.76 (32.8)
25l-610
24.4
35.8 (5190)
9.21 (0.362)
7.07 (132)
25.1 (468)
38.0 (710)
14.8 (276)
2.91 (54.3)
32l-410
12.8
19.8 (2870)
9.92 (0.390)
15.6 (291)
44.5 (827)
63.2 (1180)
14.1 (263)
4.43 (82.7)
32l-610
19.1
19.8 (2870)
9.72 (0.383)
25.1 (468)
44.3 (827)
63.2 (1180)
22.1 (412)
7.94 (148)
32l-810
25.3
15.8 (2290)
10.1 (0.398)
31.8 (594)
46.9 (876)
64.0 (1190)
28.0 (523)
10.9 (203)
16.4
25.5 (3700)
8.79 (0.346)
16.1 (300)
38.3 (714)
55.3 (1030)
14.8 (276)
4.85 (90.5)
25.0 (3620)
8.83 (0.348)
20.0 (373)
38.3 (714)
55.2 (1031)
18.6 (347)
6.50 (121)
28.1 (4080)
8.86 (0.349)
26.8 (500)
36.6 (684)
53.4 (996)
22.9 (427)
8.24 (154)
33.0 (4790)
9.06 (0.357)
8.97 (167)
31.3 (585)
50.2 (937)
10.5 (196)
1.47 (27.4)
33.5 (4860)
9.17 (0.361)
11.2 (209)
31.1 (581)
49.9 (932)
13.6 (254)
2.37 (44.2)
33.0 (4790)
9.16 (0.361)
12.2 (228)
31.3 (585)
50.2 (937)
16.6 (310)
3.26 (60.8)
25.5 (3700)
9.36 (0.368)
17.4 (325)
50.6 (944)
73.7 (1380)
17.3 (323)
5.69 (106)
25.5 (3700)
9.24 (0.364)
20.1 (375)
50.8 (948)
74.0 (1380)
26.6 (496)
9.63 (180)
26.9 (3900)
9.17 (0.361)
28.3 (528)
49.5 (924)
72.9 (1360)
35.6 (664)
13.4 (250)
27.5 (4000)
9.29 (0.366)
12.6 (235)
49.4 (922)
73.0 (1360)
11.6 (216)
1.66 (31.0)
9.52 (0.375)
14.3 (267)
50.4 (941)
73.8 (1380)
17.9 (334)
3.54 (66.1)
9.34 (0.368)
16.2 (302)
50.4 (941)
73.8 (1380)
24.5 (457)
5.50 (103)
25n-410
25n-510
25n-610
25n-410
25n-510
25n-610
32n-410
32n-610
32n-810
32n-410
20.4
24.4
16.4
20.4
24.4
12.8
19.1
25.3
12.8
32n-610
19.1
26.2 (3800)
32n-810
25.3
26.2 (3800)
First number in specimen identification represents nominal diameter for round bars or side face dimension for square bars. Solid circle (l) or square (n) identifies shape of longitudinal reinforcement. Number following hyphen denotes lap splice length, in millimeters, with an up arrow () showing that longitudinal bars were cast in top position, and down
arrow () showing that bars were cast in bottom position.
Fig. 1Splice specimen geometry: (a) cross section for specimens with bottom-cast longitudinal reinforcement; (b) cross
section for specimens with top-cast reinforcement; (c) elevation; and (d) plan view. (Note: Dimensions are given in mm [in.].)
325
19l
326 (47.3)
355 (51.5)
520 (75.4)
203 (29,400)
25l
322 (46.7)
346 (50.2)
534 (77.4)
196 (28,400)
25l
340 (49.3)
364 (52.8)
522 (75.7)
243 (35,200)
32l
318 (46.1)
348 (50.5)
504 (73.1)
204 (29,600)
25n
357 (51.8)
381 (55.2)
544 (78.9)
192 (27,800)
25n
325 (47.1)
349 (50.6)
542 (78.6)
207 (30,000)
320 (46.4)
343 (49.7)
527 (76.4)
196 (28,400)
would be governed by bond between the longitudinal reinforcement and the surrounding concrete.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Table 1 shows the observed maximum loads attained
by the specimens and those predicted assuming yielding
of the reinforcement, both neglecting and including strain
hardening, and predicted loads based on average bond
stress provisions for plain reinforcement included in the
CEB-FIP Model Code 199014 and the CEB-FIP draft Model
Code 2010.15 The predicted loads have been reduced by the
weight of the spreader beam and the specimen self-weight to
allow for a direct comparison with the maximum loads that
were recorded during testing. All reported loads have been
normalized by the square root of the concrete compressive
strength given that a previous work8 showed that it is valid
for plain reinforcement and is consistent with familiar equations for deformed bars.
The specimens are identified by mark numbers that include
two numbers and associated symbols separated by a hyphen.
The first number represents the nominal diameter for round
bars or the nominal side face dimensions for square bars db,
in millimeters, used to longitudinally reinforce the specimens. A solid circle (l) or square (n) following this number
identifies the shape of the longitudinal reinforcement. The
number following the hyphen denotes the lap splice length
Ls in millimeters, with an up arrow () showing that the
longitudinal bars were cast in the top position (Fig. 1(b)),
or a down arrow () showing that the bars were cast in the
bottom position (Fig. 1(a)).
Table 1 shows that the maximum normalized load reported
for Specimen 25l-510 was only 72% that of Specimen 25l-410, a specimen cast from the same batch of
concrete. This result was considered suspect because specimens with longer splice lengths should be able to resist higher
loads when all other variables are held constant. Removal
of the concrete surrounding the longitudinal reinforcement
was completed for Specimen 25l-510 following testing;
however, no voids were identified that would have impaired
the bond between the reinforcement and the surrounding
concrete. This specimen therefore could not be identified as
a physical outlier, and is included in the regression analysis
as will be presented in a subsequent section.
Table 1 shows that all but Specimen 19l-610 failed at
loads well below those predicted using the flexural resistance procedures in ACI 318-1116 with resistance factors set
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
uave = 12 3 fctd
(1)
0.5
(2)
db, EQ =
4 db 2
(3)
The bar size factor 3 in Eq. (1) and (2) was therefore
calculated assuming db = db,EQ for the case of specimens
longitudinally reinforced with square bars.
The predicted maximum normalized loads for all specimens tested were then calculated assuming a linear strain
distribution along the height of the specimen and the stress
versus strain distribution for the concrete as obtained from
companion specimens tested in conjunction with each
splice specimen. The neutral axis location was established
from cracked transformed section properties because all
specimens failed in bond, and, with the exception of Specimen19l-610, at loads well below those predicted based
on yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement.
Figure 3(a) shows the ratio of the test-to-predicted
maximum loads based on the CEB-FIP Model Code 199014
provisions, Pmax/(Pmax)CEB,1990, for all specimens. Values of
Pmax/(Pmax)CEB,1990 > 1.0 suggest that the predicted values
are conservative, whereas values of Pmax/(Pmax)CEB,1990<1
suggest that the same values are unconservative. The average
Pmax/(Pmax)CEB,1990 for all specimens with bottom-cast round
bars is equal to 1.2, and so suggests that the CEB-FIP Model
Code 199014 provisions reasonably and conservatively
capture the bond behavior of these bars. The same code
provisions, however, do not appear to capture the behavior of
specimens with bottom- (average Pmax/(Pmax)CEB,1990 = 0.98)
or top-cast square bars (average Pmax/(Pmax)CEB,1990 = 0.83),
or specimens reinforced with top-cast round bars (average
Pmax/(Pmax)CEB,1990 = 0.56).
Figure 3(b) shows that the ratio of the test-to-predicted
loads based on the CEB-FIP draft Model Code 201015
provisions, Pmax/(Pmax)CEB,2010, for all specimens. All values
of Pmax/(Pmax)CEB,2010 exceed 2.0, which suggests that the
CEB-FIP draft Model Code 201015 provisions are overly
conservative. Figure 3(b) does suggest that these provisions
are also more conservative when estimating the capacity of
specimens cast with the longitudinal reinforcement in the
top position, and that the provisions tend to be more conservative for specimens with shorter lap splice lengths for both
bar shapes and casting positions.
Top casting effects
Figure 4 shows the ratio of the maximum normalized
loads for each pair of specimens for which the same size,
shape, and lap splice length were provided for longitudinal
reinforcement, but with this reinforcement cast in the top
position for one specimen, and cast in the bottom position
for the other specimen. Figure 4 shows that all specimens
with top cast reinforcement failed at loads well below those
for bottom cast reinforcement, with a resulting average
ratio of the normalized maximum loads equal to 0.51. The
results of this limited investigation suggest that square reinforcement, with an average ratio of 0.60, is less sensitive to
casting position than round bars, with a resulting average
ratio of 0.33. Furthermore, the larger square reinforcing bar
size, db = 32 mm (1.25 in.), used to longitudinally reinforce
the specimens, appears to be less sensitive to casting position than the smaller square bars with db = 25 mm (1 in.).
Current American16 and Canadian20 code provisions for
reinforced concrete require a 30% increase in development
327
328
fc
= 9.38 10 5 Ls db Ry +
Ls
(0.24 + 0.15kb 0.50kc ) (4)
db
where Ls is the lap splice length, in mm; db is the longitudinal bar size, in mm, reported as the measured bar diameter for round bars or the measured side face dimension
for square bars; Ry is the surface roughness of the longitudinal reinforcement, in m; kb is an indicator variable for
the shape of the longitudinal bars, and is equal to zero for
round bars and 1 for square bars; and kc is an indicator variable for the casting position of the longitudinal reinforcement, and is equal to 0 if the bars are cast in the bottom
position (Fig. 1(a)), and 1 if the bars were cast in the top
position (Fig. 1(b)). The root mean square error for Eq. (4) is
2.91kN/MPa (54.3 lb/psi).
Using an equivalent round diameter db,EQ, as described
by Eq. (3), results in the following predictive equation that
allows for the elimination of the indicator variable kb
Pmax
fc
(5)
where db,EQ is the diameter for round bars and the equivalent round diameter of square bars. The resulting root-meansquare error of 3.01 kN/MPa (56.2 lb/psi) for Eq.(5)
is similar to that reported for Eq. (4), and suggests that
using the equivalent round diameter for plain square bars
isreasonable.
Results of a previous investigation8 have shown that the
average surface roughness, Ry = 9.26 m, for the 25 specimens included in the regression analysis is a lower bound for
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
Fig. 5Comparison of recorded normalized maximum loads to those predicted empirically using Eq. (6) for: (a) specimens
cast with round longitudinal bars; and (b) specimens cast with square longitudinal bars.
that of historical bars. Furthermore, the analysis presented in
the previous section suggests that multipliers of 0.3 and 0.6
for round and square longitudinal bars, respectively, reasonably capture the reduction in bond resistance provided by
bars in the top cast position. The following simplified predictive normalized maximum load equation therefore results
Pmax
fc
(6)
All specimens failed due to bond loss between the longitudinal reinforcement and the surrounding concrete;
Square longitudinal bars may be evaluated by calculating their equivalent round diameter, based on equal
cross-sectional areas of the actual square reinforcing bar
and the equivalent round bar;
Predictions of the maximum applied load based on
CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 provisions for bond reasonably and conservatively capture the behavior of specimens
with bottom cast round bars, but do not appear to capture
the behavior of specimens with bottom- or top-cast square
bars or specimens with top-cast round bars;
Maximum load predictions based on the CEB-FIP draft
Model Code 2010 provisions for bond are overly conservative for all combinations of bar shapes and casting positions;
Square bars appear to be less sensitive to casting position than round bars. Top cast factors of 0.3 and 0.6 for
round and square bars, respectively, reasonably capture
the reductions in bond resistance based on the range of
parameters evaluated in this study; and
A regression analysis of the specimens shows that a
linear and proportional relationship for maximum load
as a function of lap splice length, casting position, and
equivalent diameter provides a best fit for the test data.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
AUTHOR BIOS
330
=
=
=
NOTATION
shear span
effective depth of reinforced splice specimens
diameter for round bars or side face dimension for
square bars
db,EQ
=
equivalent diameter for square bars
E s
=
modulus of elasticity of reinforcement
fc
=
concrete compressive strength
fck
= characteristic value of cylinder compressive
strength of concrete
fctd
=
design value of concrete tensile strength
fu
=
ultimate strength of reinforcement
fyd
=
dynamic yield strength of reinforcement
fys
=
static yield strength of reinforcement
kb
=
indicator variable for bar shape
kc
=
indicator variable for casting position
Ls
=
spliced length of longitudinal reinforcing bars
P
=
applied load
Pmax
=
maximum applied load
(Pmax)CEB,1990
= maximum applied load predicted using CEB-FIP
Model Code 1990 provisions
(Pmax)CEB,2010
=
maximum applied load predicted using CEB-FIP
draft Model Code 2010 provisions
R y
=
bar surface roughness
uave
=
average bond stress
c
=
partial factor for concrete compressive strength
1
= factor to describe reinforcing type
a
d
db
2
3
4
t
l, n
,
=
=
=
=
=
=
REFERENCES
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Jointed plain-concrete pavements (JPCPs) are commonly
constructed with contraction joints to accommodate slab
movements due to temperature and moisture variations
(Ioannides and Korovesis 1992). The joints may either be
longitudinal, parallel to traffic, or transverse, perpendicular
to traffic. Transverse joints are placed at regular intervals,
creating discontinuities in the pavement and forming a series
of slabs. Load transfer within a series of concrete slabs takes
place across these joints. Thus, an effective load-transfer
device should be present to transfer the loads between adjacent slabs (Porter 2005).
Dowel bars are installed at the transverse joints of the
concrete slabs to reduce the deflections and stresses at
the joints while transferring the traffic load from one slab
to the adjacent slab (Westergaard 1928). In addition, the
dowel-bar system works well with both narrow and wide
joints (Maitra et al. 2009). The load-transfer efficiency of
a joint is assessed by joint effectiveness E, as specified by
the American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA 1991).
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
E = 2 u ( l + u ) 100 (1)
331
34.9
Mechanical properties
GFRP dowel diameter, mm
34.9
38.1
Fiber type
Glass E-type
38.1
184 2
173 3
Resin type
61 0
54 2
Fiber content, %
80.7
80.6
1210 50
1077 61
Cure ratio, %
100
100
50.3 0.5
51.6 0.8
Tg, oC
124
123
Moisture uptake, %
0.06
0.07
Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 GPa = 145 ksi; C = 5/9(F 32).
Phase
Loading scheme
333
Fig. 2Test setup: (a) overall view; and (b) loading plate and linear variable displacement transducers.
Table 3Summary of test results
Cracking and failure loads of jointed pavement prototypes
Phase
Load at
Steel, 28.6 mm
GFRP, 34.9 mm
GFRP, 38.1 mm
I
Static
Cracking, kN (kip)
140.7 (31.6)
100.0 (22.5)
124.8 (28.1)
Failure, kN (kip)
506.6 (113.9)
460.0 (103.4)
478.0 (107.5)
II
Cyclic
Cracking, kN (kip)
250 (56.2)
178 (40.0)
145 (32.6)
Failure, kN (kip)
622 (139.8)
526 (118.2)
413 (92.8)
GFRP, 34.9 mm
GFRP, 38.1 mm
Phase
Load type
E, %
LTE, %
E, %
LTE, %
E, %
I
Static
First loading
86
75
89
81
95
Reloading
65
45
64
47
74
II
Cyclic
First loading
95
90
95
90
96
After cycling
92
85
93
87
95
Fig. 3Cracking at failure of Phase I prototypes: (a) 28.6 mm steel dowels; (b) 34.9 mm GFRP dowels; and (c) 38.1 mm GFRP
dowels. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Fig. 4Results of Phase I prototypes (static testing up to 200 kN): (a) joint effectiveness; (b) load-transfer efficiency; and
(c)relative deflection. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
Joint effectiveness E and load-transfer efficiency LTE
Eand LTE were calculated using the deflection measurements recorded by the two LVDTs placed on the unloaded
and loaded sides of the joint. Table 3 gives the calculated E
and LTE at service load (40 kN [9 kip]) for the tested JPCP
prototypes with steel and GFRP dowels. All tested prototypes showed E and LTE higher than 75 and 60%, respectively, which meets ACPA (1991) requirements.
Both GFRP dowel diameters (34.9 and 38.1 mm [1.38and
1.50 in.]) displayed E and LTE higher than the 28.6 mm
diameter (1.13 in.) steel dowels. The 34.9 mm (1.38 in.)
diameter GFRP dowels showed E of 89% and LTE of 81%,
while the 38.1 mm (1.50 in.) diameter GFRP dowels showed
E of 95% and LTE of 92%. The values in Table 3 reveal that
using 34.9 mm (1.38 in.) diameter GFRP dowels instead of
28.6 mm diameter (1.13 in.) steel dowels increased E and
LTE by 9 and 8%, respectively. On the other hand, replacing
28.6 mm diameter (1.13 in.) steel dowels with 38.1 mm
diameter (1.50 in.) GFRP dowels increased E and LTE by
10 and 23%, respectively. In addition, E and LTE values
revealed that the behavior of the jointed pavement with
34.9 mm (1.38 in.) diameter GFRP dowels was almost the
same as that with 28.6 mm (1.13 in.) diameter steel dowels.
Furthermore, Table 3 shows that reloading the specimens
after cracking during the initial loading phase (200 kN
[45kip]) yielded very low E and LTE because of the cracks.
The 38.1 mm (1.50 in.) diameter GFRP dowels evidenced
joint effectiveness E of 74%, which is very close to 75%, as
provided for by ACPA (1991). Therefore, JPCP stability and
performance is dependent on the slabs remaining uncracked
to achieve efficient joints.
E and LTE were plotted against applied load in Fig. 4(a)
and (b). It should be mentioned that LTE corresponding to
E = 75% was 60%. Figure 4(a) and (b) demonstrate that,
after an initial loading interval till about 50 kN (11.24 kip), E
and LTE stabilized. Besides, there was no significant differACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
Fig. 5Cracking at failure of Phase II prototypes: (a) 28.6 mm steel dowels; (b) 34.9 mm GFRP dowels; and (c) 38.1 mm
GFRP dowels. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
of the 34.9 and 38.1 mm (1.38 and 1.50 in.) GFRP dowels
were 1.41 and 0.62 times that of the 28.6 mm (1.13 in.) steel
dowels, respectively. After the service load, the difference
between the relative deflections of the 28.6 mm (1.13 in.)
steel dowel and 34.9 mm (1.38 in.) GFRP dowels decreased.
At approximately 70 kN (15.7 kip), the difference between
the two prototypes was less than 0.1 mm (0.004 in.). On the
other hand, the relative deflection of the 38.1 mm (1.50 in.)
GFRP dowels was very small compared with that of the
28.6mm (1.13 in.) epoxy-coated steel dowels.
Cyclic testing (Phase II)
Cracking and failureThe three prototypes with steel
and GFRP dowels did not experience any cracking after
1,000,000 cycles at 40 kN (9 kip) (between 10 and 50 kN
[2.25 and 11.24 kip]). Thus, using durable dowel bars in
jointed pavements will yield efficient joints with extended
service life under service load. This confirms the findings
of the static testing (Phase I): JPCP efficiency will not be
altered as long as the concrete does not crack.
After 1,000,000 cycles, the three prototypes were retested
under monotonic load up to failure. Table 3 lists the cracking
and failure loads. The cracking load of the prototypes in
Phase II was higher than those in the Phase I prototypes. The
cyclic testing of the three prototypes affected the subgrade
base, and resulted in very high compaction. That, in turn,
affected the cracking loads of the test prototypes. Similarly,
the failure loads in Phase II were also higher than those in
Phase I, except for the prototype with 38.1 mm (1.50 in.)
GFRP dowels, which showed 413 kN (92.9 kip) compared
with 478 kN (107.4 kip) in Phase I (static testing).
Table 3 shows that the prototype with 28.6 mm (1.13in.)
epoxy-coated dowels experienced the highest cracking
load among the tested prototypes. The prototypes with
34.9 and 38.1 mm (1.38 and 1.50 in.) GFRP dowels had
cracking loads of 71 and 58% of that of the prototype with
steel dowels. As with Phase I prototypes, the first cracks
appeared at the joints at the level of the dowel bars, and then
extended to the surface. Compared with Phase I, Phase II
prototypes showed more cracks at failure, except in the case
of the 38.1 mm (1.50 in.) GFRP-doweled prototype, which
showed one major crack. The cracks led to the splitting of
concrete around the dowels before failure, which occurred
due to shear failure of the loaded slabs past dowel length.
The 28.6 mm (1.13 in.) steel-doweled prototype failed at
622kN (139.8 kip). The prototypes with 34.9 and 38.1mm
336
Fig. 6Results of Phase II prototypes (cyclic loading) at 40 kN: (a) joint effectiveness; (b) load-transfer efficiency. (Note:
1mm = 0.0394 in; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
steel dowels; 3) determine the relative deflection for a joint
with GFRP dowels; 4) determine the required diameter and
spacing for GFRP dowels; and 5) check the bearing stresses.
This design procedure is summarized as follows.
When a load is applied to the edge of a slab, a portion of the
load is transferred to the adjacent slab through the dowels by
shear. Tabatabie et al. (1979) suggested that only the dowels
located within a distance of lr from the load point contributes
to transferring the load (Fig. 7(a)), where lr is the radius of
relative stiffness as defined in Eq. (3) by Westergaard (1925)
lr = 4 Ec h3 12 1 2 k (3)
Pt =
(4)
Yoder and Witczak (1975) reported that a 5 to 10% reduction in load transfer occurred due to the formation of voids
beneath the dowels at the joint face. Accordingly, a design
load transfer of 45% of the applied wheel load is recommended. Thus, the design load transfer Pd is calculated from
Eq. (5) as a function of the applied wheel load Pw
Pd = 0.45Pw (5)
Considering the schematic shown in Fig. 7(b), the relative deflection between the jointed slabs is calculated from
Eq.(6), neglecting the deflection due to the slope and flexure
along the joint width
= 2yo + (6)
yo =
Pt
(2 + b z ) such that L > 2.0
4 b3 E I
(7a)
b = 4 Kb 4 EI (7b)
= lPt z AG (8)
338
Reference
steel
Alternative 1
GFRP
Alternative 2
GFRP
Alternative 3
GFRP
Dowel diameter b, mm
28.6
31.8
34.9
38.1
642.42
794.23
956.62
1140.09
32,842
50,197
72,824
103,436
200,000
52,600
50,300
51,600
78,000
3300
3300
3300
Dowel length L, mm
457
457
457
457
Dowel spacing s, mm
305
305
305
305
48
48
48
48
32,909
32,909
32,909
32,909
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Pavement thickness h, mm
254
254
254
254
110
110
110
110
407.17
407.17
407.17
407.17
19
19
19
19
808
808
808
808
Number of dowels
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
18
18
18
18
9.63
9.63
9.63
9.63
0.026
0.033
0.031
0.029
5.90
7.60
7.17
6.67
Pt
(2 + b z ) , mm
4 b3 E I
0.053
0.065
0.055
0.046
l Pt z
, mm
AG
0.004
0.078
0.064
0.054
= 2yo + , mm
0.110
0.208
0.175
0.147
b = Kyo, MPa
21.63
26.51
22.47
18.84
63.54
63.49
63.44
63.39
b GFRP/b steel
1.23
1.04
0.71
GFRP/ steel
1.88
1.58
1.33
Joint width z, mm
Design
lr =
b=
Ec h 3
12 1 2 k
, mm
Kb
, mm1
4E I
fb =
(4 b) fc , MPa
3
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 mm2 = 0.00155 in.2; 1 N/mm3 = 0.2714 kip/in.3; 1 MPa/m = 0.0442 ksi/ft; 1 mm1 = 25.4 in.1
339
38.1 mm (1.38 and 1.50 in.) GFRP dowels were 2.5 and 3.1
times the service load (40 kN [9 kip]), respectively;
3. Under the static testing in Phase I, the pavement prototype with 28.6 mm (1.13 in.) steel dowels and those with
34.9 and 38.1 mm (1.38 and 1.50 in.) GFRP dowels showed
similar crack patterns and modes of failure. The capacities of
the three prototypes were 506.6, 460.0, and 478.0 kN (113.9,
103.4, and 107.5 kip), respectively;
4. Under the cyclic testing in Phase II, the prototypes
resisted 1 million cycles at service load without cracking.
Thus, providing durable dowel bars capable of withstanding
the environmental conditions and deterioration will yield
pavements with extended service lives;
5. Phase II produced higher cracking and ultimate loads
compared with Phase I. The results were similar for joint
effectiveness E and load-transfer efficiency LTE. This can
be accounted for by excessive compaction resulting from
prototype cyclic testing, which tended to increase joint
effectiveness;
6. The pavement prototypes with GFRP dowels (34.9 and
38.1 mm [1.38 and 1.50 in.]) showed joint effectiveness E
and load-transfer efficiency LTE similar to or higher than
that of the prototypes with steel dowels (28.6 mm [1.13 in.]);
7. Achieving stability and good performance in the
GFRP-doweled JPCP requires that slabs remain uncracked
to enable achieving efficient joints and maintain efficient
load transfer;
8. Considering the tested material and setup configuration, the 34.9 mm (1.38 in.) diameter GFRP dowels behaved
very similarly to the 28.6 mm (1.13 in.) diameter steel
dowels. Thus, the 34.9 mm (1.38 in.) GFRP dowels may be
viable alternatives to the 28.6 mm (1.13 in.) epoxy-coated
steel dowels subjected to the same loading and boundary
conditions. The test design also indicates that the 34.9 mm
(1.38in.) GFRP dowels could be direct alternatives to the
28.6 mm epoxy-coated steel dowels; and
9. The field application showed similar LTE values for of
the 38.1 mm (1.50 in.) GFRP dowels and 34.9 mm (1.38in.)
steel dowels in real service conditions. The steel- and
GFRP-doweled slabs had average LTEs of 87.9 1.8% and
Fig. 9In-place falling-weight deflectometer (FWD) test (Hwy 15, Mirabel, QC, Canada): (a) schematic; and (b) in-place test.
340
AUTHOR BIOS
REFERENCES
341
NOTES:
342
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete slabs, supported by columns and
walls, are among the most common structures for floors, and
their diffusion is continuously increasing all over the world.
Their use is advantageous for speed in construction, the
possibility to realize flat intrados without beams, and their
low thickness in relation to the span.
One of the leading aspects in slab design is to guarantee
adequate punching shear resistance of slab-column connections when the structure is subjected to both gravity and
seismic loads. A wide variety of literature is available on
this topic, with code provisions accompanied by several
constructions in seismic zones.1
A grid model was previously developed and validated for
the nonlinear behavior of flat slab-column connections.2 The
grid is composed by linear beam finite elements; the inelastic
response of the structure is concentrated in nonlinear point
hinges. A model2 has been proposed for static pushover
analyses that permit evaluation of flexural, torsional, and
shear internal forces and moments in the whole plate structure, with particular attention to the state of slab-column
joints. The description of their nonlinear behavior allows
evaluation of the whole slab structural response up to failure.
In particular, it is possible to assess the safety of connections with respect to punching and structural deformability,
in terms of interstory drift ratio under lateral loads.
The aim of this paper is to show the efficiency of the model2
for flat slab floors under gravity and horizontal loads. The
grid model2 was used to simulate the experimental tests on
a scaled model of a flat-plate structure.3 A rather demanding
case study, including structural irregularity and the effects of
biaxial loading, was chosen.
The test slab consists of a rectangular floor with 16slabcolumn joints under gravity and biaxial cyclic quasi-static
horizontal loading increased up to failure. Due to the
different column cross sections and slab reinforcement, the
structure is symmetric in one direction and nonsymmetric in
the orthogonal direction.
The experimental response showed significant effects of
the biaxial loading.3 The maximum connection moments
were reached at 4% drift in the north-south (N-S) direction,
whereas in the east-west (E-W) direction, for most connections, the maximum moments were recorded at 2% drift and
punching failures occurred for drifts at approximately 3%.
Following this, the test was stopped. Biaxial loading effects
have also been documented in tests on connections,4 with
a reduction of drift capacity in both directions with respect
to the case of uniaxial loading. This effect has also been
measured in connections with rectangular cross sections of
the column.5,6
The first section of the paper briefly describes the experimental tests.3 The second section presents the setup of the
grid model; in particular, the definition of the grid geometry, nonlinear hinges, and loads applied. In the third section,
results of nonlinear analyses under gravity and lateral loads
are shown and compared with experimental results.3 The
conclusions assess the adequacy of the modeling of the
global response and of the individual connections, with
attention given to prediction of the ultimate load and drift
capacity, and the failure modes.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
A grid model developed for slab-column connections is
validated for the pushover analysis of a flat slab floor tested
experimentally under gravity and cyclic lateral loading. The
performance for a nonsymmetrical geometry is studied,
with four different types of column cross sections arranged
nonsymmetrically with respect to one principal direction of
the plan; the reinforcement layout varies accordingly. The
approximation of the slab behavior with biaxial load cycles
of increasing amplitude up to failure is investigated, with a
strong damage accumulation effect. The results corroborate
the potential of the model for design and analysis of existing
flat slab structures.
343
Fig. 1Geometry of test slab, plan view, in. (cm); positions of slab column connections (letters A through D and
numbers 1 through 4).3
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The tests regard the scaled model of a flat-plate structure
subjected to gravity and lateral loads designed following
ACI 318-83.3 The prototype slab represents a portion of a
typical flat-plate floor of an intermediate story of a multistory office building. The slab has three bays in each direction, and a 203 mm (8 in.) thickness. The bay widths are
6.86and 4.57 m (22.5 and 15 ft) for long and short directions, respectively. The story height is 3.05 m (10 ft).
The scaled model (Fig. 1) used for the experimental
study has dimensions equal to 40% of those of the prototype. The length of each bay is 2.74 and 1.83 m (108 and
72 in.) for the long and short directions, respectively. The
slab is 81 mm (3.2 in.) thick. Columns extend above and
below the slab. The column stubs above the slab were 0.3m
(12 in.) long, and their purpose was to anchor the column
longitudinal reinforcement and to provide continuity of the
columns themselves through the floor; the inferior columns
stubs were 1.46 m (4.8 ft) long with pinned connections at
the extremities.
Four different column cross-sectional shapes were used
to collect data related to the effects of column rectangularity on the structural response: rectangular columns with
an aspect ratio of 2:1 in the east half of the floor and square
columns in the west half. With this layout, the structure is
symmetric about the floor centerline along the long direction
and nonsymmetric in the orthogonal direction.
The concrete had a mean cylinder compressive strength
of 21.8 MPa (3160 psi). The self-weight of the slab was
1.9 kN/m2 (40 lb/ft2), corresponding to 23.6 kN/m3
(150 lb/ft3). Slab longitudinal reinforcement (Appendix A*)
was made of No. 2 deformed bars with cross-sectional area
Al = 32 mm2 (0.05 in.2) ( = 6.4 mm [0.25 in.]), with fy =
462.6MPa (67.1 ksi). The layout of the reinforcement reflects
the changes in the cross sections of the columns (AppendixA).
No transverse reinforcement was used for the slab.
*
Appendixes are available at www.concrete.org/publications in PDF format,
appended to the online version of the published paper. It is also available in hard copy
from ACI headquarters for a fee equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the
time of the request.
344
Fig. 8Comparison between numerical and experimental moment-rotation curve of Connection C3 for: (a) N-S; and (b)E-W
directions. Positive drifts S and W. Experimental envelope up to connection strength. Experimental E-W 4% drift cycles,
including cycles beyond failure.
cross-section shapes, with the nonsymmetry highlighted in
the description of the structure.
Figure 2 shows the experimental crack pattern at failure
with the slab numerical deformed shape and the nonlinear
hinges activated in the elements for the W loading direction.
The most damaged zonesthat is, where hinges are beyond
yieldingare those around connections corresponding to
the experimental damage. A more detailed analysis of the
prediction of damage is carried out as follows.
Punching failure of a connection is reached after the
formation of a shear hinge, when the torsion capacity at
the sides of the connection is exceeded. In the analyses
presented herein, the structure reached failure with punching
in part of the connections; several others were very close
to this stage. This reflects the experimental behavior where
failure occurred with punching occurring in several connections within a short interval of time.3
Unbalanced moment versus rotation envelopes
ofconnections
The behaviors of each connection obtained numerically and experimentally3 were compared. The test report3
provides unbalanced moment-rotation envelopes for each
joint up to the drift corresponding to connection strength
for both the loading directions. Experimental cycles for the
E-W 4% drift test are also presented, including the cycles
beyond failure. For the model, the moments were obtained
by the product of the numerical base shear and the column
height3; rotations are an output of the analysis in the nodes
connecting the slab and columns. The behavior of connections depends on their position (internal, edge, and corner)
and the direction of loading (N-S and E-W).
The figures in the following show examples of the comparison of numerical and experimental moment-rotation curves
of connections, representative of three different typology
of joints, discussed previously: the interior Connection C3
(Fig. 8 and 9), the lateral Connection D3 loaded parallel to
the free edge (Fig. 10 and 11), and the corner Connection A4
(Fig. 12 and 13).
348
Fig. 9State of hinges around column of Connection C3 for N-S (left) and E-W (right) loading at ultimate drift. Experimental
crack pattern on top surface after punching (with line surrounding damaged zone).
Fig. 10Comparison between numerical and experimental moment-rotation envelope of Connection D3 for: (a) N-S; and
(b)E-W direction. Positive drifts S and W. Experimental envelope up to connection strength. Experimental E-W 4% drift cycles,
including cycles beyond failure.
Summing up, the model provides a good approximation
of the experimental behavior for the N-S direction, where
the biaxial loading effects were lower. In the E-W direction,
the strength and ultimate drift capacity were affected by the
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
349
CONCLUSIONS
A grid model has been set up to reproduce the nonlinear
response of a flat slab structure subjected to gravity and lateral
cyclic loading. Experimental tests carried out on a scaled
model were analyzed. The slab was tested under gravity and
lateral biaxial cyclic loading. Both principal directions were
loaded alternatively, with a sequence of cycles of increasing
amplitude. Nonlinear static analyses under gravity loads
have been performed, followed by pushover analyses under
horizontal loads in the two principal directions of the slab on
the numerical model.
The model is efficient in showing several aspects of the
response of the test slab considered:
1. The experimental global behavior is approximated
differently in the two orthogonal directions of biaxial
loading: the pushover curves in N-S directions are very close
to the experimental in terms of path, maximum load, and
maximum drift; for the E-W direction, a numerical overestimation of lateral load and drift is detected that is due to
the experimental degradation of the test slab due to biaxial
cyclic loading.
2. The model captures the ultimate drift capacity of the
test slab in both N and S directions, the first loaded up to 4%
drift. The drift capacity in the E and W direction is overestimated by the model, predicting a maximum drift close to
4% in both E and W directions against experimental values
close to 2%.
3. Experimental moment-rotation curves of internal
connection are well approximated by numerical curves for
the N-S loading direction; for the E-W direction, an overestimation of load and drift capacity is detected. A similar result
is obtained for lateral connections loaded parallel to the free
edge. The difference is attributed to the slab degradation
observed experimentally, due to the damage accumulation
with biaxial loading.
4. For lateral connections loaded perpendicular to the
free edge and corner connections, the numerical analysis is
less accurate for both the N-S and E-W directions. In the
Fig. 12Comparison between the numerical and experimental moment-rotation envelope of joints A4 for: (a) N-S, and
(b)E-W direction. Positive drifts S and W. Experimental envelope up to connection strength. Experimental E-W 4% drift
cycles, including cycles beyond failure.
350
Guglielmo Corti is a Civil Engineer. He received his MSc in civil engineering from Politecnico di Milano in 2010. His research interests include
design of reinforced concrete structures.
c
d
J
Mtu
Mtuo
Mu
Vc
Vg
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Vu =
vc =
vn =
vus =
vus,red =
u
n
u
u
uo
=
=
=
=
=
NOTATION
column side
slab average effective depth
polar moment of inertia at sides of connection
reduced torsion capacity (with interaction effects)
torsion capacity without interaction effects
flexural capacity
punching shear capacity of flat slab-column connection
shear force transferred between slab and column under gravity
loads
shear force at capacity of critical sections
concrete shear strength, ACI 318-059
shear strength, ACI 318-059
eccentric shear strength at the sides of connection
reduced eccentric shear strength, by interaction with flexure and
shear
ultimate curvature
maximum flexural stress in concrete, compression
inelastic shear strain corresponding to shear capacity
reduced twist angle at maximum torque (with interaction effects)
twist angle at maximum torque
REFERENCES
351
NOTES:
352
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, shear strengthening of reinforced concrete
(RC) beams with externally bonded (EB) fiber-reinforced
polymer (FRP) material has attracted attention and has been
studied by several researchers (Uji 1992; Chaallal et al.
1998; Triantafillou 1998; Khalifa et al. 1998; Bousselham
and Chaallal 2004; Chaallal et al. 2011; Mofidi and Chaallal
2011a,b). These experimental and analytical studies have
provided valuable insights and results. Several questions,
however, still linger in the area of shear strengthening of
RC beams with FRP composites (Bousselham and Chaallal
2004; Mofidi and Chaallal 2011a).
For instance, a comparison between the experimental shear
resistance due to FRP and the values predicted by the analytical models used in existing codes and guidelines shows that
major aspects of shear strengthening with FRP material are
still not captured by the predictive models used in the codes
and guidelines (Bousselham and Chaallal 2008; Mofidi and
Chaallal 2011a). This is mainly because the calculated shear
contribution of FRP according to the codes and guidelines
does not account for the effect of certain parameters that
have experimentally been found to have a major influence
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
353
Resistance
due to
concrete,
kN
Resistance due
to steel, kN
Resistance due
to CFRP, kN
Gain due to
CFRP, %
Deflection at
loading point,
mm
Specimen
FRP type
wf /sf
Load at
rupture,
kN
NR-NF
122.7
81.2
81.2
0.0
0.0
2.6
NR-ST-LF
Strips
87.5/175
203.1
134.5
81.2
0.0
53.3
66
6.2
NR-ST-HF
Strips
87.5/125
227.3
150.6
81.2
0.0
69.3
85
7.2
NR-SH
Sheet
181.2
120.0
81.2
0.0
38.7
48
4.2
HR-NF
350.6
232.2
81.2
151.0
0.0
11.9
HR-ST-LF
Strips
87.5/175
372.5
246.7
81.2
151.0
14.5
15.9
HR-ST-HF
Strips
87.5/125
383.4
253.9
81.2
151.0
21.7
15.7
HR-SH
Sheet
378.3
250.6
81.2
151.0
18.4
15.2
MR-NF
294.0
194.7
96.2
98.5
11.2
MR-SH
Sheet
335.2
222.0
96.2
98.5
27.3
14
11.3
Fig. 1Test setup configuration: (a) cross section of tested RC beams; and (b) side view of loading configuration. (Note:1mm=
0.0394 in.)
SH (for SHeet), and the specimens strengthened with FRP
strips (strip width = 87.5 mm = 3-7/16 in.) were labeled ST
(for STrips). Specimens strengthened with narrowly spaced
FRP strips (spacing equal to 125 mm [5 in.]) were labeled
HF (for Heavily strengthened with FRP), whereas the specimens strengthened with widely spaced strips (spacing
equal to 175 mm [6 7/8 in.]) were labeled LF (for Lightly
strengthened with FRP). Series NR (Not Reinforced with
transverse steel) consisted of specimens with no internal
transverse steel reinforcement (that is, no stirrups). Series
HR (Heavily Reinforced with transverse steel) and MR
(Moderately Reinforced with transverse steel) contained
specimens with internal transverse steel stirrups spaced
at s = d/2 and s =3d/4, respectively, where d = 350 mm
(13-3/4in.) represents the effective depth of the cross section
of the beam. Therefore, for instance, Specimen NR-ST-HF
featured a beam with no transverse steel retrofitted using
CFRP strips spaced at 125mm (5 in.). The specimen details
are provided in Table1, together with the identification
codes used hereafter.
Description of specimens
The T-beams were 4520 mm (14 ft, 10 in.) long, and their
T-sections had overall dimensions of 508 x 406 mm (20 x
16 in.). The width of the web and the thickness of the flange
were 152 and 102 mm (6 and 4 in.), respectively (Fig. 1(a)
and (b)). It should be noted that the web of the strengthened
beams is chamfered at the outer corners. The longitudinal
steel reinforcement consisted of four 25M bars (diameter
354
25.2 mm [1 in.], area 500 mm2 [0.78 in.2]) laid in two layers
at the bottom, and six 10M bars (diameter 10.3 mm [ 0.4 in.],
area 100 mm2 [0.16 in.2]) laid in one layer at the top. The
bottom bars were anchored at the support with 90-degree
hooks to prevent premature anchorage failure. The internal
steel stirrups (where applicable) were 8 mm (5/16 in.) in
diameter (area 50 mm2 [0.08 in.2]).
To apply the EB FRP sheets and strips to the RC specimens, the following steps were implemented: 1) the area
of the specimens where the CFRP sheets and strips was to
be epoxy-bonded was sand-blasted to remove any surface
cement paste and to round off the beam edges; 2) the specimen corners were chamfered to provide a radius of 12.7mm
(0.5 in.) to avoid stress concentration in the FRP sheets
during the tests; 3) residues were removed using compressed
air; and 4) layers of U-shaped CFRP sheets and strips were
glued to the bottom and lateral faces of the RC beam using a
two-component epoxy resin.
Materials
A commercially available concrete delivered to the
structural laboratory by a local supplier was used in this
project. The average 28-day concrete compressive strength
was 25MPa (3626 psi), which is very close to the average
compressive strength of 27 MPa (3916 psi) obtained
during the tests. It should be noted that the specimens of
the MR series were cast using a different concrete batch,
the compressive strength of which was 35 MPa (5076 psi).
Deflection response
Figure 5 compares the deflection response for RC beams
without transverse steel reinforcement. It reveals that the
NR-SH and NR-ST-HF specimens exhibited slightly greater
overall stiffness than the other beams. Specimen NR-ST-HF
exhibited the highest deflection at the loading point and a
higher maximum load at failure than the other specimens
(Fig. 5). The beams strengthened with FRP strips exhibited
more deformability than the beams strengthened with FRP
sheets. This occurred mainly because in RC beams strengthened with FRP strips, local FRP debonding did not result
in a complete debonding failure. Each local strip-debonding
event resulted in a drop in the load-carrying capacity of the
beam (Fig. 5), but the load continued to increase as the cracks
propagated in the RC beams web, engaging the unloaded
CFRP strips in their path. In specimens strengthened with
FRP strips, and unlike beams strengthened with FRP sheets,
local debonding of FRP cannot propagate from one FRP
strip to the next. Therefore, using FRP strips results in a
more progressive type of failure, and a sudden and brittle
failure is prevented.
Figure 6 shows the load versus maximum deflection
curves for RC beams with transverse steel reinforcement.
It reveals that each of the specimens in Series HR and MR
exhibited an overall stiffness relatively similar to that of the
other beams. The maximum load at failure and the maximum
deflection attained at the loading point for each specimen
are provided in Table 1. Specimen HR-ST-HF reached the
highest maximum load at failure. Meanwhile, the HR-ST-LF
and HR-SH specimens exhibited a slightly higher deflection at the loading point than the other strengthened and
unstrengthened specimens (Table 1). It should be mentioned
that in Table 1, the shear contributions of concrete and steel
were calculated based on the measured experimental results
for the control beams.
Strain analysis
This part of the study investigated the behavior of CFRP
and transverse steel during loading of the specimens. As
mentioned previously, extensive instrumentation for strain
monitoring was carefully planned and implemented to
provide the data needed to gain a better understanding of
the effect of transverse steel on the contribution of FRP to
355
Fig. 3Location of strain gauges on transverse steel reinforcement and FRP sheets/strips. Positions of strain gauges on FRP
sheets/strips are identical in specimens strengthened with similar FRP strengthening configurations.
the shear resistance of RC beams retrofitted in shear with
EB FRP.
CFRP strainThe distribution of the maximum strains
attained in the CFRP is shown in Fig. 7 for all strengthened
test specimens. It should be noted that these strain values are
the maximum measured values, but not necessarily the absolute maximum values, experienced by the CFRP U-jackets.
The two values may differ in cases where the strain gauges
did not intercept the main cracks. From Fig. 7, the following
observations can be made:
1. All curves presented in these figures show that the
CFRP did not contribute to load-carrying capacity in the
initial stage of loading.
2. For specimens of Series NR, the measured strains were
greater for specimens strengthened with FRP strips than for
similar beams strengthened with FRP sheets.
3. For the beams strengthened with a layer of FRP sheet
(NR-SH, MR-SH, and HR-SH), the maximum strain in the
CFRP increased as the amount of transverse reinforcement
was increased. In fact, for Specimen HR-SH, the maximum
strain attained by the FRP sheet was approximately 48%
of the ultimate strain value, whereas the corresponding
356
Fig. 4Failure mode and multiline cracking pattern of strengthened specimens: (a) NR-ST-HF; (b) NR-SH; (c) HR-ST-LF;
and (d) HR-ST-HF after failure.
verse steel yields at ultimate strain for RC beams strengthened in shear with EB FRP.
Figure 8 shows that addition of EB FRP did not result in a
decrease of transverse steel strain. For all the specimens with
transverse steel, the steel yielded well before the RC beam
reached ultimate failure. Therefore, it can be concluded that
at the ultimate state the contribution of internal steel stirrups to shear resistance was not affected by the addition of
357
Fig. 7Load versus strain in FRP for all strengthened specimens. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
externally bonded FRP. It follows that the shear contribution of internal steel reinforcement Vs should be calculated
using the same formula for both FRP-strengthened and
unstrengthened RC beams, which confirms the assumptions
of the design guidelines (ACI 440.2R-08; CSA S806-02;
Oehlers et al. 2008).
These results are not in agreement with those based on
finite-element simulations reported by Chen et al. (2010,
2012); these researchers found that for RC beams strengthened in shear with FRP, the internal steel stirrups did not
reach the yield point. Based on their finite-element model,
they concluded that the yield strength of the internal steel
stirrups in such strengthened RC beams cannot be fully used.
The models by Chen et al. (2010, 2012) were originally
generated based on a single crack failure pattern assumption. Single crack failure pattern was adopted by most design
models to simplify the calculation and design of strengthening FRP sheets and strips. Experimental observations,
however, clearly show that for RC beams strengthened with
EB FRP, the cracking pattern on the FRP-concrete interface
is rather distributed (Mofidi and Chaallal 2011a). Eventually,
the distributed cracks at the concrete cover merge together at
the concrete core to form one major shear crack at ultimate.
Therefore, it is believed that assuming a single crack pattern
is overly simplistic when considering such a precise finite
element modeling tool. Considering the fact that the crack
width plays a governing role in the Chen et al. (2010, 2012)
models, the discrepancies between the results produced by
Chen et al. (2010, 2012) models and the experimental results
are to be expected.
358
(1)
Vs = As Es e s ,i (2)
V f = 2 E f t f (wi e f ,i ) (3)
where Ef is the elastic modulus of the CFRP; tf is the thickness of the CFRP; f,i is the measured strain in the CFRP
corresponding to instrumented section i in the failure zone;
and wi is the tributary width of the strengthening FRP strips
intercepted by the major shear crack, where the CFRP strain
f,i is assumed constant. The CFRP strengthening width
represents the portion of the CFRP that effectively contributes to shear resistance.
Figure 9 shows the experimental evolution under
increasing load of the contributions to the shear resistance
of the two components (Vs and Vf) for Specimens HR-NF,
HR-ST-LF, HR-ST-HF, and HR-SH. The specimens shown
in this figure had the same degree of transverse steel reinforcement (highly reinforced), but were strengthened using
different amounts of externally bonded FRP strips and sheet.
The behavior of the transverse steel under increasing load
exhibited a similar pattern for both the unstrengthened beam
(HR-NF) and the beams retrofitted with different amounts
of EB FRP strips and sheet (HR-ST-LF, HR-ST-HF, and
HR-SH). This result indicates that strengthening of RC
beams with EB FRP does not alter the behavior of internal
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
Specimen
Vfexp
Vf cal
by ACI
440.2R
(2008)
NR-ST-LF
53.3
20.5
32.5
43.7
NR-ST-HF
69.3
28.6
39.8
37.9
NR-SH
38.7
40.9
45.9
35.5
HR-ST-LF
14.5
20.5
32.5
7.3
HR-ST-HF
21.7
28.6
39.8
8.3
HR-SH
18.4
40.9
45.9
10.2
27.3
44.1
50.7
14.4
0.04
0.03
0.81
MR-SH
Vf cal
by HB 305
(2008)
Vf cal
by Mofidi
and
Chaallal
(2011a)
Notes: Vfexp is experimental shear resistance due to FRP; Vfcal is calculated shear
resistance due to FRP (not factored); 1 kN = 0.225 kip.
w fe =
0.6
f E f + s E s
df
359
w fe =
0.43
d f for side bonded
f E f + s E s
(5)
kc =
w fe
0.6
=
df
f E f + s E s
w fe
0.43
=
df
f E f + s E s
for U-jackets
(6)
(7)
k k k L
fc
e fe = c L f eff e = 0.31kc kL k f
e fu (8)
tf Ef
tf Ef
if l 1
1
kL =
(
2
l
)
l
if l < 1
l=
Lmax
Le
(9)
where
Lmax
df
for U-jackets
sin b
=
df
2 sin b
kf =
wf 1
1+
sf 2
wf 1
1
sf 2
(10)
(11)
360
the test results. Figure 11 shows that the Mofidi and Chaallal
(2011a) model predicted the experimental shear contribution
of FRP (R2 = 0.81) with a high level of accuracy. The ACI
440.2R-08 and HB 305-08 models produced low coefficients
of determination (0.04 and 0.03, respectively). In general,
current design guidelines models (including ACI 440.2R-08
and HB 305-08) fail to consider the effect of the transverse
steel (Mofidi and Chaallal 2011a,b). Therefore, they may
predict conservative results for beams without transverse
steel reinforcement. In contrast, current design guidelines
models may overestimate the shear contribution of FRP
for the specimens with transverse steel reinforcement and
hence, the shear resistance. Such unconservative results are
exemplified in the results predicted by ACI 440.2R-08 and
HB 305-08 for Specimens HR-ST-LF, HR-ST-HF, HR-SH,
MR-SH in the current study. The presence of the transverse
steel has a significant effect on the shear resistance of RC
beams strengthened with FRP, and therefore, should ultimately be considered in design models.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation involving 10 tests on RC T-beams strengthened
in shear with EB FRP strips and sheets. The effects of
the following parameters were studied: 1) the CFRP ratio
(that is, the spacing of the CFRP strips); 2) the presence or
absence of transverse steel; 3) the transverse steel ratio (that
is, the spacing between the stirrups); and 4) the use of CFRP
strips versus CFRP sheets. The following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. The addition of internal transverse steel reinforcement
resulted in a significant decrease in the gain due to FRP for
all the strengthened specimens.
2. For all test specimens with transverse steel reinforcement, the steel yielded before the specimen failed. The
presence of externally bonded FRP for shear retrofit did
not cause a significant decrease in transverse steel strain.
Overall, the contribution of steel stirrups to shear resistance
was not adversely affected by the addition of FRP.
3. Comparison of the resistance predicted by the
ACI440.2R-08 (ACI Committee 440 2008), HB 305-08
(Oehlers et al. 2008), and Mofidi and Chaallal (2011a)
models with test results showed that the guidelines failed to
capture the influence of transverse steel on the shear contribution of FRP. The model proposed by Mofidi and Chaallal
(2011a) showed a better correlation with experimental
results than the guidelines mentioned.
4. The maximum measured strain values in CFRP strips,
and hence the gain in shear strength due to CFRP strips,
were significantly greater than for CFRP continuous sheets.
In addition, the maximum deflection was slightly greater for
beams retrofitted with CFRP strips than for beams strengthened with continuous CFRP sheets.
5. In all the specimens strengthened with FRP strips, the
maximum attained FRP strain was greater than 5000 . It
follows that the ACI 440.2R-08 limit for maximum FRP
Amir Mofidi is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics of McGill University, Montreal, QC,
Canada. He received his PhD from University of Quebec, cole de Technologie Suprieure, Montreal, QC, Canada. His research interests include
the use of fiber-reinforced polymer composites for strengthening and retrofitting of concrete structures.
Omar Chaallal, FACI, is a Professor of construction engineering,
University of Quebec, cole de Technologie Suprieure. He is a member
of ACI Committee 440, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement. His
research interests include experimental and analytical research on the use
of fiber-reinforced polymer composites for reinforcement and repair of
concrete structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 440, 2008, Guide for the Design and Construction of
Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures
(440.2R-08), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 76 pp.
Bousselham, A., and Chaallal, O., 2004, Shear-Strengthening Reinforced Concrete Beams with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer: Assessment of
Influencing Parameters and Required Research, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 101, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 219-227.
Bousselham, A., and Chaallal, O., 2008, Mechanisms of Shear Resistance of Concrete Beams Strengthened in Shear with Externally Bonded
FRP, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 12, No. 5,
pp.499-512.
Chaallal, O.; Mofidi, A.; Benmokrane, B.; and Neale, K., 2011,
Embedded Through-Section FRP Rod Method for Shear Strengthening
of RC Beams: Performance and Comparison with Existing Techniques,
Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 15, No. 3, pp. 374-383.
Chaallal, O.; Nollet, M. J.; and Perraton, D., 1998, Strengthening
of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Externally Bonded Fiber-Reinforced-Plastic Plates: Design Guidelines for Shear and Flexure, Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 25, No. 4, pp. 692-704.
Chen, G. M.; Teng, J. G.; and Chen, J. F., 2012, Shear Strength Model
for FRP-Strengthened RC Beams with Adverse FRP-Steel Interaction,
Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000313.
Chen, G. M.; Teng, J. G.; Chen, J. F.; and Rosenboom, O. A., 2010,
Interaction between Steel Stirrups and Shear-Strengthening FRP Strips in
RC Beams, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 14, No. 5,
pp. 498-509.
Khalifa, A.; Gold, W. J.; Nanni, A.; and Aziz, A., 1998, Contribution
of Externally Bonded FRP to Shear Capacity of RC Flexural Members,
Journal of Composites for Construction, V. 2, No. 4, pp. 195-203.
Mofidi, A., and Chaallal, O., 2011a, Shear Strengthening of RC Beams
with Epoxy-Bonded FRPInfluencing Factors and Conceptual Debonding
Model, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 15, No. 1,
pp.62-74.
Mofidi, A., and Chaallal, O., 2011b, Shear Strengthening of RC Beams
with Externally Bonded FRP Composites: Effect of Strip-Width to StripSpacing Ratio, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 15,
No.5, pp. 732-742.
Oehlers, D. J.; Seracino, R.; and Smith, S. T., 2008, Design Guideline
for RC Structures Retrofitted with FRP and Metal Plates: Beams and Slabs,
HB 305-2008, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia, 73 pp.
Triantafillou, T. C., 1998, Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Using Epoxy-Bonded FRP Composites, ACI Structural Journal,
V.95, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. pp. 107-115.
Uji, K., 1992, Improving Shear Capacity of Existing Reinforced
Concrete Members by Applying Carbon Fiber Sheets, Transactions of the
Japan Concrete Institute, V. 14, pp. 253-266.
361
NOTES:
362
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
There is no generally accepted theoretical treatment of
punching, and design is based on empirical methods given in
codes of practice. While there is similarity between them in
terms of general approach, there are considerable differences
in their assumptions and the resulting equations, which leads
to uncertainties about their reliability.
A further cause of uncertainty is the wide variety of types
of shear reinforcement, such as stirrups of various forms,
bent-up bars, welded fabric, and stud systems. Comparisons
of design equations with the results of tests using different
types of shear reinforcement can result in a wide scatter,
while comparisons of slabs with only one type are often
limited by the restricted data available.
This paper presents the results of tests1 of slabs with
double-headed studs as shear reinforcement, followed by
a short review of the design methods of ACI 318,2 Eurocode2 (EC2),3 and the critical shear crack theory (CSCT) of
Muttoni et al.,4,5 which is the basis of the punching clauses
of the fib Model Code 2010 draft.6 The results of the present
tests and of others on slabs with double-headed shear reinforcement are then compared with the three design methods.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
There are considerable differences between the design
methods for punching in ACI 318, EC2, and the CSCT.
The primary objective of the experimental study described
in this paper was to assess the realism of the assumptions
underlying these design methods. The principal variables in
the test series were the sizes and spacings of the studs, and
the size and shape of the columns. Extensive measurements
were made of slab rotations and strains in the concrete, and
flexural and shear reinforcement. Comparisons between
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
363
The main variables were the shape and size of the column,
the amount and distribution of the shear reinforcement, and
some details of the main reinforcement.
The concrete was made with ordinary portland cement,
natural sand, and crushed limestone aggregate with a
maximum size of 9.5 mm (3/8 in.). The concrete strength
was determined from 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.) control cylinders that were tested at the same time as the slabs.
The arrangement of flexural reinforcement was basically
the same in all but two of the specimens (Slabs C5 and C6).
The general arrangement of the upper tension reinforcement
was 16 mm (No. 5) bars with fy = 540 MPa (78 ksi) and
Es = 213 GPa (30,893 ksi) at spacings of 100 mm (4 in.)
in the outer layer and 90 mm (3.54 in.) in the inner layer,
providing almost equal flexural resistances in two directions.
The bottom reinforcement was 8 mm (0.315 in.) bars positioned directly below alternate top bars. At the edges, each
top bar was lapped with a 12.5 mm (No. 4) hair-pin shaped
bar with 500 mm (20 in.) horizontal legs. Only minor adjustments to this arrangement were needed to avoid clashes with
shear reinforcement.
In Slab C5, the tension reinforcement in the central parts
of the widths was increased to 20 mm (No. 6) bars with fy =
544 MPa (79 ksi) and Es = 208 GPa (30,168 ksi) and that in
the outer parts was decreased, to obtain a higher reinforcement ratio near the column without significantly altering the
flexural capacity. The details of this slab are shown in Fig.2.
As the failures of some of slabs appeared to be influenced
by crushing of the soffit near the column, Slab C6 was
provided with compression reinforcement comprised of four
16.0 mm (No. 5) bars through the column in each direction,
and 12.5 mm (No. 4) bars below all the top bars in the rest
of the width.
The shear reinforcement was double-headed studs made
of deformed 10 mm (No. 3) bars with fyw = 535 MPa (78 ksi)
and Es = 211 GPa (30,603 ksi), or 12.5 mm (No. 4) bars with
fyw = 518 MPa (75 ksi) and Es = 204 GPa (29,588 ksi). The
heads, with diameters three times the bar size, were welded
to the shanks, and the completed studs were spot-welded to
nonstructural carrier rails, which were 10 mm (3/8 in.) wide
and 3.2 mm (1/8 in.) thick. The shear reinforcement was
positioned from above, with the carrier rails sitting on the
upper tension bars either directly or via cross rails.
Tests of studs, in which the loading was applied via the
heads, showed that the welds between the heads and shanks
were able to develop the full strengths of the bars with
ductile failures away from the welds.
In all but one of the slabs, the lines of studs ran outward
from the columns along equally spaced radial lines (radial
arrangement). The exception was Slab C4, where a cruciform arrangement was used. Typical details are shown in
Fig. 3. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of all slabs.
TEST RESULTS
Deflections and rotations
Deflections of the top surfaces of the slabs were measured
along their centerlines by dial gauges mounted from frames
spanning over the slabs and supported on the laboratory
364
d, mm (in.)
,%
Studs
so, mm (in.)
sr, mm (in.)
C1
270 (10.6)
143 (5.6)
1.48
47.8 (6.9)
10 10.0 x 6
70 (2.8)
100 (3.9)
C2
360 (14.2)
140 (5.5)
1.52
46.9 (6.8)
10 10.0 x 6
70 (2.8)
100 (3.9)
C3
450 (17.7)
142 (5.6)
1.49
48.9 (7.1)
10 10.0 x 6
70 (2.8)
100 (3.9)
C4
360 (14.2)
140 (5.5)
1.52
47.9 (6.9)
12 10.0 x 6
70 (2.8)
100 (3.9)
C5
360 (14.2)
140 (5.5)
2.00
49.7 (7.2)
10 10.0 x 6
70 (2.8)
100 (3.9)
C6
360 (14.2)
143 (5.6)
1.48
48.6 (7.0)
10 10.0 x 6
70 (2.8)
100 (3.9)
C7
360 (14.2)
144 (5.7)
1.47
49.0 (7.1)
10 10.0 x 7
55 (2.2)
80 (3.1)
C8
360 (14.2)
144 (5.7)
1.47
48.1 (7.0)
12 10.0 x 6
70 (2.8)
100 (3.9)
S1
300 (11.8)
145 (5.7)
1.46
48.3 (7.0)
12 10.0 x 2
70 (2.8)
100 (3.9)
S2
300 (11.8)
143 (5.6)
1.48
49.4 (7.2)
12 10.0 x 4
70 (2.8)
100 (3.9)
S5
300 (11.8)
143 (5.6)
1.48
50.5 (7.3)
S7
300 (11.8)
143 (5.6)
1.48
48.9 (7.1)
12 12.5 x 4
70 (2.8)
100 (3.9)
Calculated as
x y . In all slabs except C5, reinforcement distributed uniformly across widths. For C5, 2.00% is ratio in central (c + 6d), and 1.56% is ratio for full width.
c,max ,
ry , mm (in.)
Vu, kN (kip)
Failure mode
C1
2.66
450 (17.7)
535 (77.6)
317 (46.0)
137 (19.9)
858 (192.9)
In
C2
2.81
550 (21.7)
530 (76.9)
235 (34.1)
121 (17.5)
956 (214.9)
In
C3
2.54
625 (24.6)
511 (74.1)
362 (52.5)
189 (27.4)
1077 (242.1)
In
C4
||
770 (30.3)
535 (77.6)
461 (66.8)
297 (43.1)
1122 (252.2)
In
2.28
C5
3.24
490 (19.3)
504 (73.1)
264 (38.3)
160 (23.2)
1117 (251.1)
In
C6
3.20
750 (29.5)
479 (69.5)
421 (61.0)
474 (68.7)
1078 (242.3)
In
C7
3.14
540 (21.3)
386 (56.0)
419 (60.8)
167 (24.2)
1110 (249.5)
In
C8
3.14
660 (26.0)
535 (77.6)
436 (63.2)
179 (26.0)
1059 (238.1)
In
S1
2.37
560 (22.0)
535 (77.6)
473 (68.6)
1021 (229.5)
Out
S2
2.15
570 (22.4)
535 (77.6)
514 (74.5)
216 (31.3)
1127 (253.4)
In
S5
1.47
130 (5.1)
779 (175.1)
S7
2.67
600 (23.6)
238 (34.5)
285 (41.3)
137 (19.9)
1197 (269.1)
Out
c,max is maximum tangential strain of concrete (measured 20 mm from columns in C1 to C4, S1 and S2, and 40 mm from columns in C5 to C8 and S7). For slab Type S, strains
measured on centerlines.
*
||
Measured at 0.85Vu.
368
d
Asw f yw with fyw 414 MPa (60,000 psi) (3)
sr
VR,out = 1
6
VR,max = 2
3
VR,max = 1
2
fc uout d (4)
fc u1 d if sr 0.5d (5a)
EC2-04
k = 1 + 200 / d 2
ACI 318-08
As double-headed studs are not considered explicitly, the
equations used herein are those for studs with heads at their
top ends and bottom anchorages provided by welds to structural rails
fc
u d (12)
VR,max = 0.3 fc 1
250 o
VR,c = 1
3
fc u1 d (1)
VR,s = 1.5
(7)
d
Asw f yw,ef (9)
sr
369
0.75uout dv fc
1 + 15d / (16 + dg )
(18)
r fy V 2
= 1.5 s
d Es V flex (13)
370
VR,c =
1 + 15d / (16 + dg )
(15)
where si is the stress in the i-th perimeter of shear reinforcement which is related to the width of the critical shear crack,
where it crosses the shear reinforcement.5 The summations
Asw and Aswsi() are for all the shear reinforcement
within a distance d from the column.
The CSCT average method is intended to give approximately mean strengths. In it, the stresses in studs at different
distances (d) from the column are calculated assuming that
the width of the critical shear crack increases linearly, from
zero at the slab soffit to the width corresponding to a slab
rotation and a crack opening angle of 0.5, at the level
of the tension reinforcement. The stress in a stud is then
obtained by equating the vertical component of the crack
opening to the elongation of the stud for a given stress at
the crack.
COMPARISONS OF TESTS AND CALCULATIONS
General
Experimental strengths from the present tests and from
others reported in the literature have been compared with
resistances calculated by the three methods described previously. The shear reinforcement in the tests by Regan,7 Regan
and Samadian,8 Beutel,9 and Birkle10 was double-headed
studs made from either deformed or plain round bars. In the
tests by Gomes and Regan,11 it was slices of steel I-beams
with the flanges acting as anchorages. The shear reinforcement was positioned radially unless noted as ACI type in
Table A1 in Appendix A.
The calculations of punching resistances were made using
the expressions given previously, with their limits generally
respected. Exceptions to this were as follows.
For ACI 318 and EC2, the limits on so/d and sr/d were
given a little tolerance. Values of sr/d up to 0.8 were treated
as acceptable, and for EC2 the lower limit so/d < 0.3 was
waived with values going down to 0.24. EC2 does not
envisage the use of plain round shear reinforcement, but this
has been ignored, and lower limits on d for the use of shear
reinforcement were ignored. (The least effective depth in the
tests used was 124 mm [4.9 in.] in six slabs by Birkle.10)
The CSCT shear strengths were calculated using slab
rotations calculated with Eq. (13), in which Vflex was calculated with Eq. (14). The stresses in the shear reinforcement
were calculated in accordance with the recommendations in
(5). The resulting slab rotations were slightly greater than
the measured slab rotations, as illustrated in Fig. 5. The
predicted shear strengths typically increase by less than 5%
for the slabs tested in this program if measured rotations are
used instead of calculated rotations. For the CSCT, there
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
ACI 318
EC2
CSCT
EC2
ACI 318
Mean
EC2
COV
143 (5.6)
1.48
1.30
159 (6.3)
159 (6.3)
1.27
1.27
1.16
1.20
1.20
1.24
1.10
0.89
0.92
1.30
1.12
0.88
1.11
0.94
0.78
1.10
1.02
0.86
0.96
0.93
0.78
Mean
1.16
0.99
1.04
0.93
Coefficient of variation
0.13
0.15
0.12
0.11
Birkle10
1.53
1.29
1.10
Mean
COV
1.47
0.148
1.56
0.100
1.06
Beutel
1.72
0.093
0.160
1.23
0.108
0.087
1.05
0.102
0.087
1.16
0.101
0.081
1.28
0.083
0.105
1.06
0.050
0.136
1.16
0.121
1.34
1.76
0.134
1.28
Birkle
1.35
0.185
1.20
124 (4.9)
190 (7.5)
260 (10.2)
11
11
0.96
1.01
1
7
10
COV
Ferreira1
Ferreira1
S5
Mean
CSCT
10
1.09
Total
45
1.56
0.162
1.19
ACI 318 and EC2 are basically empirical, but the CSCT
claims a rational basis. Unfortunately, its modeling of slab
deformations is incorrect. The rotation is predicted satisfactorily by Eq. (13), but, as can be seen from Fig. 4, it is not
divided equally into movements at the column face and in a
shear crack. In addition, the surfaces at which failure occurs
are not at 45 degrees to the slab plane, but have variable
geometries. Refer to the section entitled, Ultimate loads
and modes of failure.
In nine tests by Ferreira1 and five by Birkle,10 EC2 predicts
outside failures for slabs that actually failed in the shear-reinforced zones. Its predictions of failure modes in the other
series are generally good. The main cause of the problem
seems to be the overestimation of VR,cs. For the slabs by
Ferreira,1 the mean Vu/VR,cs is 0.98, and the coefficient of
variation is 0.061. For Birkles tests,10 the corresponding
figures are 0.88 and 0.101, but would be improved if the
four slabs with so/d less than 0.3 were excluded. The situation could be improved by either a reduction of VR,c or by
interpreting the codes expression for the design value of the
stud stress (fywd,ef) as not requiring a safety factor so long as
fywd,ef is less than fyw/1.15that is, by taking fyw,ef as (250 +
0.25d) fyw.
The EC2 predictions of VR,out for slabs with radial arrangements of shear reinforcement are generally satisfactory,
though perhaps over-conservative for the slabs by Gomes
and Regan.11 In these slabs, the 0.64d widths of the I-beam
flanges reduced the clear tangential spacing of the shear
reinforcement. This could be allowed for, and would make
Vu/VR,out for these tests similar to those for other series.
The strength of Ferreiras1 Slab C4 with an ACI cross
arrangement of studs which failed inside is predicted very
conservatively with Vu/VR,out = 1.69. For Birkles10 slabs with
the ACI layout, which failed outside, the strengths are well
predicted with Vu/VR,out = 1.21. Slab C4 was unrealistic in
relation to EC2 design because it had six perimeters of studs,
while the same strength would be calculated for a slab with
two perimeters of studs. The performance of C4 is in marked
371
372
ACI member Maurcio P. Ferreira is a Lecturer at the Federal University of Para, Belem, Brazil. He received his PhD from the University of
Braslia, Braslia, Brazil, in 2010. His research interests include ultimate
shear design, strut and tie, and nonlinear finite element modeling.
ACI member Guilherme S. Melo is an Associate Professor at the University of Brasilia, where he was Head of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. He is a member of ACI Committees 440, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear
and Torsion. His research interests include punching and post-punching of
flat plates, the use of fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) in concrete structures,
and strengthening and rehabilitation of structures.
ACI member Paul E. Regan is a Professor Emeritus at the University of
Westminster, London, UK, where he was Head of Architecture and Engineering. He was Chair of the European Concrete Committee (CEB) commission on member design. His research interests include member design in
both reinforced and prestressed concrete, with particular emphasis on
problems of punching, shear, and torsion.
ACI member Robert L. Vollum is a Reader in concrete structures at Imperial College London, London, UK, where he also received his MSc and PhD.
His research interests include design for shear, strut-and-tie modeling, and
design for the serviceability limit states of deflection and cracking.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Asw =
NOTATION
=
=
=
=
REFERENCES
373
APPENDIX A
Table A1Comparison between theoretical and experimental results
Birkle10
Beutel9
Regan and
Samadian8
Regan7
Ferreira1
Author
Slab
No.
C1
Column
size, mm
270
C
d,
mm
143
, %
1.48
fy,
MPa
540
fc,
MPa
48
Shear reinforcement
fyw,
s o,
sr,
Studs
MPa mm
mm
10 f10.0 x 6 535
70
100
stmax,
mm
436
Vu,
kN
858
Failure
mode
In
Vu/
Vflex
0.72
C2
360
140
1.52
540
47
10 f10.0 x 6
535
70
100
464
956
In
0.78
1.27
Max
1.11
Out
1.12
In
C3
450
142
1.49
540
49
10 f10.0 x 6
535
70
100
491
1077
In
0.82
1.21
Out
1.20
Out
1.15
In
Out
C4*
360
140
1.52
540
48
12 f10.0 x 6
535
70
100
900
1122
In
0.92
1.47
Max
1.69
Out
1.50
C5
360
140
2.00
544
50
10 f10.0 x 6
535
70
100
464
1118
In
0.88
1.44
Max
1.16
Out
1.29
In
C6
360
143
1.48
540
49
10 f10.0 x 6
535
70
100
464
1078
In
0.86
1.36
Max
1.19
Out
1.24
In
Out
C7
360
144
1.47
540
49
10 f10.0 x 7
535
55
80
442
1110
In
0.88
1.39
Max
1.21
Out
1.09
C8
360
144
1.47
540
48
12 f10.0 x 6
535
70
100
388
1059
In
0.84
1.34
Max
1.03
Out
1.14
In
S1
300
145
1.46
540
48
12 f10.0 x 2
535
70
100
177
1022
Out
0.80
1.71
In
1.36
Out
1.37
Out
S2
300
143
1.48
540
49
12 f10.0 x 4
535
70
100
280
1128
In
0.89
1.77
Out
1.12
Out
1.24
Out
S5
300
143
1.48
540
50
779
0.61
1.30
1.20
1.24
S7
300
143
1.48
540
49
12 f12.5 x 4
518
70
100
280
1197
Out
0.94
1.88
Out
1.19
Out
1.32
Out
300
150
1.45
550
33
10 f10.0 x 4
550
80
120
390
881
0.79
1.45
Out
1.02
Out
1.06
In
300
150
1.76
550
30
12 f10.0 x 6
550
60
100
390
1141
0.88
1.71
Out
1.13
Out
1.11
Out
300
150
1.76
550
26
10 f12.0 x 5
550
60
120
455
1038
0.83
1.73
Out
1.22
Out
1.09
Out
240
160
1.65
550
62
12 f12.0 x 5
550
80
120
352
1268
0.88
1.61
Max
0.88
Out
1.12
In
240
150
1.75
550
42
12 f10.0 x 5
550
75
120
349
1074
0.83
1.81
Max
1.04
In
1.24
In
R3
200
160
1.26
670
33
8 f12.0 x 4
442
80
120
413
850
Out
0.63
1.44
Out
1.04
Out
0.90
Out
R4
200
160
1.26
670
39
8 f12.0 x 6
442
80
80
444
950
Out
0.69
1.39
Out
1.10
Out
0.93
Out
A1
200
160
1.64
570
37
8 f10.0 x 6
519
80
80
444
1000
Out
0.67
1.50
Out
1.08
Out
0.98
Out
A2
200
160
1.64
570
43
8 f10.0 x 4
519
80
120
413
950
In
0.62
1.42
Out
1.03
In
1.00
In
Z1
200
250
0.80
890
25
12 f14.0 x 5
580
100
200
518
1323
Max
0.41
1.50
Max
1.26
Max
0.96
In
Z2
200
250
0.80
890
26
12 f14.0 x 5
580
88
200
511
1442
Max
0.44
1.59
Max
1.30
Max
1.08
In
Z3
200
250
0.80
890
24
12 f14.0 x 5
580
95
188
487
1616
Max
0.50
1.86
Max
1.57
Max
1.20
In
Z4
200
250
0.80
890
32
12 f14.0 x 5
580
88
175
459
1646
Max
0.49
1.66
Max
1.27
Max
1.18
In
Z5
263
250
1.25
562
28
12 f16.0 x 5
544
94
188
505
2024
Max
0.41
1.90
Max
1.31
Max
1.28
In
Z6
200
250
1.25
562
37
12 f16.0 x 5
544
94
188
489
1954
Max
0.39
1.81
Max
1.31
Max
1.23
In
P
200
159
1.27
680
40
560
0.40
1.16
0.94
1.00
1a
200
159
1.27
680
41
587
0.41
1.20
0.98
1.03
2*
200
153
1.32
680
34
8 f6.0 x 2
430
80
80
255
693
In
0.53
1.64
In
1.26
In
1.12
Out
3*
200
158
1.27
670
39
8 f6.9 x 2
430
80
80
255
773
In
0.57
1.64
In
1.21
In
1.20
Out
4*
200
159
1.27
670
32
8 f8.0 x 3
430
80
80
368
853
Out
0.64
1.98
In
1.27
Out
1.26
Out
5*
200
159
1.27
670
35
8 f10.0 x 4
430
80
80
481
853
Out
0.63
1.77
Out
1.24
Out
1.13
Out
200
159
1.27
670
37
8 f10.0 x 4
430
80
80
323
1040
Out
0.76
2.07
Out
1.23
Out
1.34
Out
200
159
1.27
670
34
8 f12.0 x 5
430
80
80
385
1120
Out
0.83
2.02
Out
1.38
Out
1.38
Out
200
159
1.27
670
34
8 f12.0 x 6
430
80
80
447
1200
Out
0.89
1.90
Out
1.48
Out
1.38
Out
200
159
1.27
670
40
8 f12.2 x 9
430
80
80
425
1227
0.89
1.31
Out
1.09
Out
1.26
Max
10
200
154
1.31
670
35
8 f6.0 x 5
430
80
80
385
800
In
0.61
1.58
In
1.28
In
1.33
In
11
200
154
1.31
670
35
8 f6.9 x 5
430
80
80
385
907
In
0.70
1.68
Out
1.31
In
1.42
In
250
124
1.53
488
36
483
0.56
1.30
1.11
1.10
2*
250
124
1.53
488
29
8 f9.5 x 6
393
45
90
721
574
In
0.68
1.24
Out
1.19
Out
1.08
Out
250
124
1.53
488
32
8 9.5 x 6
393
45
90
495
572
In
0.67
1.10
Out
1.12
Out
1.02
In
4*
250
124
1.53
488
38
8 9.5 x 5
465
30
60
403
636
Out
0.73
1.67
In
1.21
Out
1.09
Out
5*
250
124
1.53
488
36
8 9.5 x 5
465
30
60
403
624
Out
0.72
1.67
In
1.21
Out
1.09
Out
250
124
1.53
488
33
8 9.5 x 5
465
30
60
330
615
Out
0.72
1.67
Out
1.18
Out
1.04
Out
300
190
1.29
531
35
825
0.49
1.12
0.94
1.02
8*
300
190
1.29
531
35
8 9.5 x 5
460
50
100
658
1050
In
0.62
1.29
Out
0.98
Out
0.97
In
9*
300
190
1.29
531
35
8 9.5 x 6
460
75
150
1188
1091
In
0.64
1.28
In
1.06
In
1.15
In
10*
350
260
1.10
524
31
1046
0.40
0.88
0.78
0.86
11*
350
260
1.10
524
30
8 12.7 x 5
409
65
130
856
1620
In
0.63
1.24
Out
1.00
Out
1.02
In
12*
350
S 260 1.10 524
34
8 12.7 x 6
409
95
195
1541 1520
In
0.58 1.03
In
0.90 Out 1.08
In
ACI stud layout.
Notes: Vu includes self-weight; Vflex is approximate yield-line capacity from Eq. (14).
Shear reinforcement: In References 1 and 7: deformed studs, 3 heads, so as given for all lines; in Reference 8, slabs R, plain studs, 2.5 heads, Slabs A deformed studs, 2.5
heads, so as given for orthogonal lines, so = 40 mm for diagonal lines; in Reference 9, deformed studs, 3 heads, so as given for all lines; in Reference 11, I-beam slices, flange
breath 102 mm, web breath 4.7 mm. values in the table are equivalent diameters giving the same areas as the actual web sections. so as given for orthogonal lines, so = 40 mm for
diagonal lines; in Reference 10, plain studs with 3.2 heads, so as given for all lines. Birkles Slabs 5 and 6 had 7 perimeters of studs. The outer two, with sr = d, have been ignored.
Aggregate (maximum size and type): In Reference 1, 9.5 mm crushed limestone. In References, 7, 8, 9, and 11, 20 mm gravel. In Reference 10, Slabs 1-614 mm; Slabs
7-1220 mm, type unknown.
Failure modes: P is punching of slabs without shear reinforcement, In = failure inside shear reinforced zone (VR,cs), Out = failure outside shear reinforced zone (VR,out); Max =
inclined compression failure of concrete close to column (VR,max); in Reference 7 and Slab 9 of Reference 10, the concrete soffit around the column crushed and spalled due to
tangential compression, the spalling extended and at failure there was inclined cracking starting at the end of the spalled area.
1 mm = 0.03937 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 MPa = 145 psi.
*
374
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
The deterioration of infrastructure owing to corrosion of
steel reinforcement is one of the major challenges facing the
construction industry. The use of reinforcement with fiberreinforced polymer (FRP) composite materials in concrete
structures subjected to severe environmental exposure has
been growing to overcome the common problems caused by
corrosion of steel reinforcement (ACI Committee 440 2007;
Federation Internationale de Bton 2007). Recent advances
in polymer technology have led to the development of the
latest generation FRP reinforcing bars (ACI Committee 440
2007). These corrosion-resistant bars have shown promise
as a way to further protect bridges and public infrastructure
from the devastating effects of corrosion. With standards
ACI 440.6M (ACI Committee 440 2008) and CSA S807
(2010) and bars being produced of the highest quality, FRP
bars are emerging as a realistic and cost-effective reinforcement alternative to traditional steel for concrete structures
under severe environmental conditions. Steel bars cannot,
however, simply be replaced with FRP bars due to various
differences in the mechanical and bond properties of the
two materials (Nanni 1993; ISIS Canada Research Network
2007) and the greater variation of material properties for
FRP reinforcing products.
375
Fig. 1(a) and (b) C-shaped; and (c) closed transverse reinforcement.
Group
fc, Pa
(ksi)
Longitudinal reinforcement
Transverse reinforcement
Ties
spacing,
mm (in.)
v x Ef,
GPa
Designation
Material
Designation
Material
Ties
configuration
P-0-00-0
G-1c-120-1.9
120 (4.7)
0.96
120 (4.7)
1.28
80 (3.2)
1.92
Specimen
G-3c-120-1.9
33 (4.8)
G-3c-80-1.9
G-1-120-1.9
120 (4.7)
1.18
G-3-120-1.9
120 (4.7)
1.58
G-1-120-1.0
4 No. 4 + 4 No. 5
(12.7; 15.9 mm)
120 (4.7)
1.18
G-1-120-0.8
35 (5.1)
G-1-120-1.0S
4 M15 + 4 M10
C-1-120-1.0S
4 M15 + 4 M10
No. 3C-1-67-1.0S
4 M15 + 4 M10
No. 3C-3-80-1.0S
12 M10
C-1-80-1.0S
4 M15 + 4 M10
C-1-60-1.0S
4 M15 + 4 M10
C-3-80-1.0S
27 (3.9)
GFRP
No. 3C-1-67-1.6
C-3-120-1.0S
GFRP
CFRP
Steel
G-1-80-1.0S
4 M15 + 4 M10
G-3-120-1.0S
12 M10
G-3-80-1.0S
12 M10
120 (4.7)
1.18
67 (2.6)
2.87
GFRP
120 (4.7)
1.18
CFRP
120 (4.7)
3.04
67 (2.6)
2.87
80 (3.2)
3.20
80 (3.2)
4.56
60 (2.4)
6.08
120 (3.2)
4.05
80 (3.2)
6.08
80 (3.2)
1.78
120 (4.7)
1.58
80 (3.2)
2.37
CFRP
CFRP
12 M10
12 M10
1
CFRP
GFRP
Bundled bars.
Notes: P is plain concrete; G is GFRP; C is CFRP; (1; 3) = Stirrup configuration; c is C shaped legs assembly; (120; 80; 67; 60) is stirrup spacing, mm; (0.8; 1.0; 1.9) is longitudinal reinforcement ratio; S is steel longitudinal bars.
Materials
The columns were cast vertically using normalweight
ready mixed concrete with a target 28-day concrete compressive strength of 30 MPa (4.4 ksi). The columns were cured
for 7 days, after which the specimens were left in the laboratory at ambient temperature for at least three more weeks
before testing. The concrete compressive strength used for
analysis was based on the average values of tests performed
on at least five 150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.) cylinders for each
concrete batch under displacement control standard rate of
0.01 mm/s (3.9 104 in./s) (Table 1). Grade 60 steel reinforcing bars were used as longitudinal reinforcement for
specific specimens. Table 2 provided the tensile properties
of Grade 60 steel bars.
The longitudinal reinforcement for the exclusively FRPreinforced columns was (1) No. 12.7 mm (No. 4) straight
CFRP bars, and (2) No. 15.9 mm (No. 5) and 19.1 mm (No.6)
GFRP straight bars. The tensile properties of longitudinal FRP
and steel bars were determined by performing the B.2 test
method according to ACI 440.3R (ACI Committee 440 2004)
as reported in Table 2. Bent bars of 12.7 mm (No. 4) GFRP
and 9.5 mm (No. 3) and 12.7 mm (No. 4) CFRP were used
as transverse reinforcements. The ultimate tensile strength
ffu and modulus of elasticity Ef for the straight portions of
the transverse reinforcements were determined according
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
Ef, GPa
(ksi)
ffu, MPa
(ksi)
12.7 (0.5)
127
(0.19)
46.3
(6715)
1040
(151)
2.25
No. 5
GFRP
15.9 (0.62)
199
(0.31)
48.2
(6990)
751
(109)
1.56
No. 6
GFRP
19.1 (0.75)
284
(0.44)
47.6
(6904)
728
(106)
1.53
No. 4
CFRP
12.7 (0.5)
127
(0.19)
137
(19,870)
1902
(276)
1.38
Steel M10
11.3 (0.44)
100
(0.15)
200
(29,000)
fy = 450
(65)
y = 0.2
Steel M15
16.0 (0.62)
200
(0.31)
200
(29,000)
fy = 460
(66)
y = 0.2
Bar type
db, mm (in.)
No. 4
GFRP
f, %
f, %
ffu,bend,
MPa (ksi)
ffu,bend/
ffu
1.05
614 (89)
0.46
1.03
700 (101)
0.51
No. 4 GFRP
962 (139)
52 (7542)
1.85
500 (72)
0.52
C-shaped
No. 4 GFRP
640 (92)
44 (6382)
1.45
400 (58)
0.62
Bar type
ffu, MPa
(ksi)
Bend portion
380
Fig. 8Failure mode of columns reinforced longitudinally and transversely with FRP.
Fig. 9Failure mode of columns reinforced longitudinally with steel and transversely with FRP.
tudinal steel bars consistently buckled (Fig. 9(a) and (b)).
In addition, cross-tie rupture was observed for columns
with Configuration 3, (Fig. 9(c)), while failure was due to
excessive bars buckling and substantial decrease in bearing
capacity in columns with Configuration 1 transverse reinforcements. Moreover, excessive buckling of the longitudinal bars in columns induced openings in the GFRP transverse reinforcements, as shown in Fig. 9(b). Opening (albeit
minor) was also observed with transverse CFRP reinforcement at 80 and 60 mm (3.2 and 2.4 in.) spacing.
Failure due to transverse reinforcement rupture was
experienced in columns transversely reinforced with CFRP
No.9.5 mm (No. 3) with both Configurations 1 and 3
(Fig.10). Even Column No. 3C-1-67-1.6 experienced transverse reinforcement rupture after the longitudinal CFRP
bars experienced crushing.
Parametric investigation
Parametric investigation was carried out to study the
strength mechanism and performance based on stress-strain
relationship for the tested columns. The investigated parameters included transverse reinforcement shape, material,
spacing and diameter (No. 9.5 and 12.7 mm [No. 3 and
No.4]), longitudinal reinforcement ratio, longitudinal reinforcement material and confining volumetric stiffness.
To compare the strength behavior of columns cast from
different concrete batches, the stress values c were normalized to the cylinder compressive strength fc of the batch.
Therefore, the stress response c along the test for each
column was divided by the concrete compressive cylinder
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
PExp, kN (lbf)
Pn, kN (lbf)
Pn/PExp
Pc, kN (lbf)
PLongi, kN (lbf)
G-1-120-0.8
127,132 (197)
3900 (876,755)
3899 (876,530)
1.00
3782 (850,227)
117 (26,303)
G-1-120-1.0
128,803 (200)
4212 (946,895)
3995 (898,111)
0.95
3832 (861,468)
163 (36,644)
Column
G-1-120-1.9
125,528 (194)
4297 (966,004)
4048 (910,027)
0.94
3734 (839,437)
314 (70,590)
G-1-120-1.0S
124,642 (193)
4272 (960,384)
4260 (957,686)
1.00
3708 (833,592)
552 (124,094)
127,688 (198)
5159 (1,159,789)
4714 (1,059,749)
0.91
3799 (854,049)
919 (206,599)
No. 3C-1-67-1.0S
125,340 (194)
4660 (1,047,610)
4281 (962,407)
0.92
3729 (838,312)
552 (124,094)
G-3-120-1.9
125,734 (195)
4615 (1,037,493)
4086 (918,569)
0.89
3741 (841,010)
345 (77,559)
C-1-120-1.0S
128,922 (200)
4584 (1,030,524)
4387 (986,237)
0.96
3835 (862,142)
552 (124,094)
No. 3C-1-67-1.6
35 (5.07)
nally with FRP or steel bars according to Eq. (2) and (1),
respectively. The results showed that nominal compressive
capacity predictions Pn were conservative and very close to
experimental results, with Pn/PExp ratios varying from 0.89
to 1.00. It is important to note that when Pn differs from
one specimen to another, the load carried by the concrete
remained similar in all the columns. In other words, the
difference in Pn is primarily due to the longitudinal reinforcement ratio and material, not to concrete strength.
Effect of transverse reinforcement
The transverse reinforcement restrains the expansion of
the concrete core in the column subjected to compressive
load and delays its failure. Accordingly, the compressive
performance of concrete columns depends strongly on the
transverse reinforcement efficiency. Figure 13 shows the
stress-strain curves of the columns reinforced with different
transverse reinforcement layouts to investigate the effect of
transverse reinforcement configuration, spacing, material,
diameter, and confining volumetric stiffness. The stress383
8. The presented study showed the applicability of exclusively reinforcing the columns with FRP and subjected to
concentric load. Further research elaboration is necessary
to investigate the behavior of FRP reinforced columns
loaded laterally or subjected to load combination (axially
andlaterally).
AUTHOR BIOS
Hany Tobbi is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada. He
received his BSc from the University of Mentouri, Constantine, Algeria, and
his MSc from the University of Claude Bernard, Lyon, France. His research
interests include structural analysis, design, and testing of concrete structures reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymers.
Ahmed Sabry Farghaly is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of
Civil Engineering at the University of Sherbrooke, and Associate Professor
in the Department of Civil Engineering, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt.
His research interests include nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete
structures, and behavior of structural concrete reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymers.
Brahim Benmokrane, FACI, is an NSERC Research Chair in FRP Reinforcement for Concrete Infrastructures and Tier-1 Canada Research Chair
Professor in Advanced Composite Materials for Civil Structures in the
Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Sherbrooke. He is a
member of ACI Committee 440, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their special thanks and gratitude to the
Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC),
the Fonds qubcois de la recherche sur la nature et les technologies
(FQRNT), the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (FCI), and the technical
staff of the structural lab in the Department of Civil Engineering at the
University of Sherbrooke.
REFERENCES
CSA S807, 2010, Specification for Fibre-Reinforced Polymers, Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 44 pp.
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P., 1994, High Strength Concrete Columns
Confined by Rectangular Ties, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 120, No. 3, Mar., pp. 783-804.
Federation Internationale de Bton (FIB), 2007, FRP Reinforcement in
RC Structures, Task Group 9.3, Lausanne, Switzerland, 157 pp.
Harries, K. A., and Kharel, G., 2003, Experimental Investigation of the
Behavior of Variably Confined Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research,
V. 33, pp. 873-880.
ISIS Canada Research Network, 2007, Reinforcing Concrete Structures
with Fibre Reinforced Polymers, ISIS Design Manual No. 3, ISIS Canada
Research Network, 151 pp.
Mander, J. B.; Preistley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., 1988a, Theoretical
Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, pp. 1804-1826.
Mander, J. B.; Preistley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., 1988b, Observed
Stress-Strain Behaviour of Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, pp. 1827-1849.
Nanni, A., 1993, Flexural Behavior and Design of RC Members Using
FRP Reinforcement, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 119,
No. 11, pp. 3344-3359.
Pultrall, Inc., 2009, V-ROD Composite Reinforcing Rods Technical Data
Sheet, Thetford Mines, Canada, www.pultrall.com.
Richart, F. E.; Brandtzaeg, A.; and Brown, R. L., 1928, A Study of
the Failure of Concrete under Combined Compressive Stresses, Bulletin
No.185, Engineering Experimental Station, University of Illinois, Urbana,
IL, 104 pp.
Richart, F. E.; Brandtzaeg, A.; and Brown, R. L., 1929, The Failure of
Plain and Spirally Reinforced Concrete in Compression, Bulletin No. 190,
Engineering Experimental Station, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 74 pp.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R., 1992, Strength and Ductility of
Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 118,
No. 6, pp. 1590-1607.
Saatcioglu, M.; Salamat, A. H.; and Razvi, S. R., 1995, Confined
Columns under Eccentric Loading, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 121, No. 11, pp. 1547-1556.
Sheikh, S. A., 1982, A Comparative Study of Confinement Models,
ACI Journal, V. 79, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 296-306.
Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M., 1980, Strength and Ductility of Tied
Concrete Columns, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 106,
No.5, pp. 1079-1112.
Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M., 1982, Analytical Model for Concrete
Confinement in Tied Columns, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
V. 108, No. 12, pp. 2703-2722.
Teng, J. G.; Chen, J. F.; Smith, S. T.; and Lam, L., 2002, FRP Strengthened RC Structures, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Hoboken, NJ, 266 pp.
Tobbi, H.; Farghaly, A. S.; and Benmokrane, B., 2012, Concrete
Columns Reinforced Longitudinally and Transversally with GFRP Bars,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 551-558.
Watson, S.; Zahn, F. A.; and Park, R., 1994, Confining Reinforcement
for Concrete Columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 120,
No. 6, pp. 1798-1824.
385
NOTES:
386
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Many bridges in the Unites States are approaching the
end of their design life, and some bridges are showing signs
of aging and damage such as corrosion of steel reinforcement, large cracks, and missing concrete cover. Damage to
concrete cover and internal steel prestressing tendons can
occur when large vehicles attempt to pass under a bridge
without adequate clearance. Vehicular impact can fracture
the concrete cover, expose the internal steel prestressing
tendons, and/or sever all or part of the outer steel prestressing
tendons. Even if the tendons are not severed, removal of the
protective concrete cover accelerates the corrosion process.
Additionally, cracking from overloading or fatigue could
facilitate corrosion of internal steel prestressing tendons.
Damage to internal steel prestressing tendons decreases flexural capacity, and bridges exhibiting these symptoms could
be in critical need of replacement, repair, or strengthening.
Typically, girder replacement is expensive, time
consuming, and disruptive; therefore, repair or retrofit is often
the preferred option. One system used for repair applications
is external post-tensioning. This repair method not only
restores flexural capacity, but can also mitigate the demands
of an increase in service load and help with serviceability
considerations such as deflection. Thus, external post-tensioning is an excellent option for repairing concrete bridge
girders with damage to internal steel prestressing tendons.
Traditionally, external post-tensioning has been implemented with high-strength steel tendons because of low
material cost, material availability, and ease of installation.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
387
Material properties
The materials used in this research are typical of construction in the United States. All steel reinforcing bars used in the
fabrication of the specimens had a nominal tensile strength
Fig. 2Reinforcement layout for Specimens P2, RP1, and RP3. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.305 m.)
388
2
1
(1)
a, in. (mm)
RP1 (repaired)
155 (1069)
2.51 (63.8)
0.393 (254)
1.63 (41.4)
220 (298)
PR3 (repaired)
162 (1117)
2.22 (56.4)
0.306 (197)
1.44 (36.6)
196 (266)
d
f p _ CFRP = f pe _ CFRP + u ECFRP e cu CFRP 1
cu
(2)
(3)
B + B2 4 AC
2A
A = 0.85 fcbb1
(4a)
u =
A
0.21
+ 0.04 CFRP int + 0.04
L / dCFRP
ACFRP tot
(5)
de _ CFRP = dCFRP Rd
(6)
L
S
0.19 d 1.0
Rd = 1.14 0.005
L
dCFRP
(7)
with the deviator spacing Sd equal to the span L for specimens in this research because no deviators were used. For
the case of specimens in this research, the value of Rd is
0.895. The predicted ultimate CFRP tendon stresses from
Eq. (2) using the alternative strain reduction factor from
Eq. (5) are 135 and 138 ksi (931 and 951 MPa) for Specimens RP1 and RP3, respectively. Similar to the results from
the application of the strain reduction factor of Eq. (3), these
predictions are conservative. A comparison of the applicability of the two strain reduction factors can be made when
considering the actual and predicted ultimate CFRP tendon
stresses for Specimens RP1 and RP3. The measured CFRP
tendon stresses, the predicted, and the error are shown in
Table 2. Although both strain reduction factors produced
393
Specimen
Error in prediction
from Eq. (3), %
Error in prediction
from Eq. (5), %
RP1 (repaired)
169 (1163)
155 (1069)
135 (931)
18
PR3 (repaired)
183 (1263)
162 (1120)
11
138 (951)
24
Mu = Aps f ps d ps + As f y d
2
2
(8)
4 Mu
(L s)
(9)
Specimen
Theoretical
ultimate load
from Eq. (3),
kip (kN)
Ratio of
experimental
to theoretical
ultimate load
P2 (control)
104 (463)
73 (325)
1.42
RP1 (repaired)
112 (498)
79 (351)
1.42
PR3 (repaired)
102 (454)
70 (311)
1.46
NOTATION
AUTHOR BIOS
precast and prestressed concrete buildings and bridges, and the application
of fiber-reinforced polymer composites.
Lawrence D. Reaveley is a Professor and former Department Chair of
Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Utah. He received
his bachelors and MS degrees from the University of Utah, and his PhD
from the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. His research interests include structural dynamics, with an emphasis on earthquake engineering and seismic rehabilitation.
REFERENCES
395
NOTES:
396
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this study is to gain greater understanding of the interaction of reinforcement and concrete in
tension. The analysis models used have been kept as simple
as possible; the approach has been limited to pure elastic
behavior, and an assumed internal cracking pattern, based
on the work by Goto,1 has been adopted (rather than use
a nonlinear finite analysis software based on, for instance,
a smeared cracking approach where cracks are predicted
regions of damaged material with degraded properties). This
keeps difficulties in interpretation to a minimum, though it
is recognized that concrete does not necessarily behave in a
perfectly elastic manner.
Use of elastic modeling, where the cracks being studied are
open, is not so unreasonable as might be thought by some.
Extensive data obtained by Scott and Gill2 and Beeby and
Scott3-5 suggest that much of the behavior revealed during
tension tests is close to what would be expected from an
assumption of elastic-brittle behavior for concrete in tension.
This is effectively what will be assumed in thestudy.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
In reinforced concrete, the interaction between reinforcement in tension and the surrounding concrete is still not
fully understood. Two internal failure mechanisms, pure slip
and internal cracking, form the basis of three approaches
that exist in the codes to model the tension zone behavior
under service loads. The models presented in this investigation are based only on Gotos internal cracking mechanism.
These models predict the experimental behavior of tension
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
397
400
tions implicitly assume that this shear deformation is negligible. The analyses show that this is not so; the elastic shear
deformation of the concrete in the analyses reported herein
accounts for around two thirds of the crack width. Had other
material factors, such as creep or inelasticity of the concrete
in tension, been taken into account in the analyses, the shear
deformations and their contribution to the crack widths
would have been even greater. This substantial contribution
of the shear deformation of the cover concrete seems inescapable, and suggests that any approach to the prediction of
crack widths that ignore this are fundamentallyflawed.
In the second analysis, the output from the model with
internal cracks generally agreed with the experimental
data, where comparisons could be made. This suggests
that the internal cracking model of behavior can provide
a good model of cracking behavior. It does not prove that
the mechanism accommodating excess tensile strains above
those which the concrete can support in tension is internal
cracking; it shows that it is a viable alternative to the bondslip model, and should not be dismissed.
The analyses carried out are somewhat limited, and can be
considered to make a prima facie case for the reasonableness
of the internal cracking model rather than a fully developed
analytical study. Some of the more obvious limitations of the
model are given as follows.
Circular cross sections are analysed, not square or rectangular ones. Due to difficulties in manufacture, very
few circular specimens have been made and tested;
thus, it is not possible to compare the analytical results
rigorously with test results that are almost all from specimens with square or rectangular cross sections.
Location and size of internal cracks is somewhat arbitrary. As mentioned in a previous section, no attempt has
been made to refine the form of the internal cracking.
From the existing experimental evidence, the pattern
assumed seems reasonable, but it cannot be said to be
rigorously justified.
Rib pattern. By its nature, the axisymmetric analysis
assumes that the ribs are perpendicular to the bar axis
and extend round the full circumference of the bar.
This is not normally so for modern ribbed bars, where
the ribs tend to be staggered. There is also frequently
DISCUSSION
Elastic analyses
Two basic analyses have been described in this paper.
In the first, the concrete is considered to remain elastic
and uncracked, and complete bond is assumed between the
reinforcement and the concrete. In the second, a pattern of
internal cracking has been assumed, based on the findings
of Goto.1 In neither of the analyses is any form of bond-slip
relationship assumed; thus, bond-slip can have no influence
on the results obtained.
In the first analysis (without internal cracking), it was
expected that the predicted crack widths would be less than
obtained experimentally, and this proved to be the case.
Nevertheless, the analyses were not trivial, and the results
illustrate a significant point that has commonly been ignored.
If a shear stress is applied to a material, then shear strains
and displacements occur. Bond stress is simply a shear
stress, and therefore, the concrete surrounding a bar in the
region of a crack undergoes shear deformations. Though this
has not been shown to be explicitly stated, the classical theories of cracking that lie behind many crack prediction equaACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
403
5% values of w/e
Specimen
b/a
b/a
Z2
80
76
113
1.48
174
203
1.17
Z6
130
104
171
1.64
253
354
1.40
Z7
180
91
254
2.79
231
535
2.32
Z9
230
101
259
2.56
282
580
2.06
Notes: B, a, and b, are in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; w/e is average crack width/average
surface strain.
w = kffcte/tr (2)
404
405
REFERENCES
406
13. Base, G. D.; Beeby, A. W.; Read, J. B.; and Taylor, H. P. J., An
Investigation of the Crack Control Characteristics of Various Types of Bar
in Reinforced Concrete Beams, Research Report 18, Cement and Concrete
Association, London, UK, Dec. 1966, 31 pp.
14. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
15. BS8110-2, Structural Use of ConcretePart 2: Code of Practice for
Special Circumstances, British Standards Institution, BSI Milton Keynes,
London, UK, 1985, 62 pp.
16. Beeby, A. W., An Investigation of Cracking in Slabs Spanning One
Way, Technical Report TRA 433, Cement and Concrete Association, Apr.
1970.
17. Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures Part 1-1: General
Rules and Rules for Buildings, CEN, EN 1992-1-1, Brussels, Belgium,
2004, 225 pp.
18. CEB-FIP, CEB-FIP Model Code (1990), Bulletin dinformation
No. 213/214, Comit Euro-Internationale du Bton (CEB), Lausanne, Switzerland, 1993, 437 pp.
19. Broms, B. B., Crack Width and Crack Spacing in Reinforced
Concrete Members, ACI Journal, V. 62, No. 10, Oct. 1965, pp. 1237-1256.
20. Broms, B. B., and Lutz, L. A., Effects of Arrangement of Reinforcement on Crack Width and Spacing of Reinforced Concrete Members, ACI
Journal, V. 62, No. 11, Nov. 1965, pp. 1395-1410.
21. Gergely, P., and Lutz, L. A., Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members, Causes, Mechanism, and Control of
Cracking in Concrete, SP-20, R. E. Philleo, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1968, pp. 87-117.
22. Beeby, A. W., An Investigation of Cracking in the Side Faces of
Beams, Technical Report 42.466, Cement and Concrete Association, Dec.
1971, 11 pp.
23. Beeby, A. W., A Study of Cracking in Reinforced Concrete
Members Subjected to Pure Tension, Technical Report 42.468, Cement
and Concrete Association, June 1972, 25 pp.
24. Beeby, A. W., The Prediction of Crack Widths in Hardened
Concrete, The Structural Engineer, V. 57A, No. 1. Jan. 1979, pp. 9-17.
25. Ferry-Borges, J., Cracking and Deformability of Reinforced
Concrete Beams, V. 26, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering. Zurich, Switzerland, 1966, pp. 75-95.
26. CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures, Bulletin dinformation No. 125, Comit Euro-International du Beton, Paris, France, Apr.
1978, 460 pp.
TECHNICAL PAPER
) (1)
where
fs = Eses fy (3)
dp c
e ps = e pe + e ce + e cu
c
e ce =
(4)
2
1 Aps fse Aps fse e
+
Ec Ac
Ig
(5)
d c
e s = e cu
c
(6)
d f c
e bi e fd
e f = e cu
c
(7)
fc
0.9e fu
nf Ef t f
(8)
e fd = 0.41
c=
Aps f ps + As fs + A f ( f f = E f e f )
a1 fc b1b
(9)
407
c
e c = e fd + e bi
df c
(10)
4 e c e c
6 e c 2 e c
(11)
3e c e c (e c )2
3b1 (e c )2
(12)
b1 =
a1 =
408
dp
c
e ps = e pe + f ps N p e cu
N p (e cu e ce ) (13)
La
La
where
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
20.7
Np =
+ 10.5 n p + + 10.5n p
f
(14)
in which c is the neutral axis depth at the section under consideration; ce is calculated using Eq. (5) by neglecting the effect
of the secondary moment due to prestressing in continuous
members; La is the total length of tendons between anchorages; Np (Eq. (14)) is a parameter that combines the effect
of member continuity and type of applied load; f = for a
single concentrated load, 3.0 for two-third point loads, and
6.0 for uniform load application, respectively; np+, np are the
number of positive and negative plastic hinges, respectively,
that develop in the process of forming a collapse mechanism; and ps is a stress-reduction factor taken equal to 0.7.
Note that because the live load in buildings and bridges is
seldom a concentrated load, and also because the dead load
is uniformly distributed, the multiplier (20.7/f + 10.5) of the
positive number of plastic hinge(s) np+ can always be set
equal to 14.0 to correspond to uniform load application.6
Equations (13) and (14) were developed with the perspective that the calculation of the stress in unbonded tendons
at ultimate in continuous members differs from one critical
section to another. That is, the stress at a critical section
depends on the pattern of applied load and the consequent collapse mechanism that would potentially develop
for producing the maximum factored design moment at
that section. For the hypothetical case of Fig. 1, in which
collapse mechanisms are assumed to form in all spans:
np1+ = 2.0, np2 = 2.0, and np3+ = 2.0. In actual design,
however, the numbers of plastic hinges np+ and np are
obtained from the collapse mechanisms that develop when
loading the minimum number of spans for producing
maximum moment at the section under consideration. For
instance, in simply supported members, one span is loaded,
and hence np+ = 1.0, np = 0.0, and Np = 14.0. For continuous
members, collapse mechanisms (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) in
Fig. 2, and corresponding values of Np are recommended6
for computing the tendon stress fps and the nominal moment
capacity at the maximum positive moment section in exterior spans; negative moment section at the interior support
of a two-span member; maximum positive moment section
in interior spans; negative moment section at the first interior support; and negative moment section at the remaining
interior supports of members with more than two spans,
respectively.
PROPOSED APPROACH FOR COMPUTING MN IN
FRP STRENGTHENED UNBONDED MEMBERS
Using Eq. (13) but neglecting the precompression strain
ce due to its minor effect on the tendon stress in unbonded
members, particularly when compared with bonded
members, and considering that the flexural strength may
be controlled by FRP failure at which c cu (Fig. 1), the
following expression is recommended for computing the
strain ps in unbonded tendons of FRP-strengthened simply
Fig. 2Loading pattern and corresponding values of continuity parameter Np for continuous members.
supported or continuous members at nominal flexural
strength
dp c
e ps = e pe + f ps N p e c
La
(15)
f ps = fse +
f ps N p E ps e c
c
1 0.95 f py
La / d p d p
(16)
409
B + B2 + 4 AC
2A
(18)
where
A = 0.85b1 fcb +
f ps N p Aps E ps e cu
La
(19a)
f ps N p E ps e cu d p
B = Aps fse +
+ As f y A f E f (e cu + e bi )
La
(19b)
C = AfEfecudf (19c)
d c
410
(20a)
(20b)
c
f = 0.65 + 0.25 2.73 4.55 for
de
(20c)
0.38 c / de 0.6
( Aps f ps d p + As fs d + A f E f e f d f )
Aps f ps + As fs + A f E f e f
(21)
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Twenty-four unbonded post-tensioned specimens were
tested to evaluate their nominal flexural strength before and
after FRP strengthening. An additional six bonded posttensioned and six RC specimens were also tested for
comparison. All 36 specimens were simply supported over
a 3.0m (9.84 ft) span. Dimensions and reinforcement layout
are given in Fig. 3. Eighteen of the specimens had a 150mm
(5.9 in.) wide by 250 mm (9.8 in.) deep cross section and
a span-depth ratio (depth to center of tension steel) of 15,
representing beam members, and the remaining 18 had
a 360 mm (14.2 in.) wide by 120 mm (4.7 in.) deep cross
section and a span-depth ratio of 35, simulating one-way
slab members. The specimen designation, along with areas
and depths of reinforcement and other pertinent details
and design properties, are summarized in Table 1. The test
parameters included, in addition to the span-depth ratio of
the member, area of internal prestressed reinforcement for
the PC specimens or area of ordinary tension reinforcement
for the RC specimens; area of external FRP reinforcement;
and tendon profile. Two tendon profiles were selected for
each set of specimens: one horizontal and one parabolic.
In the specimens designation provided in Table 1, the first
letter U stands for unbounded, B for bonded, and R for reinforced. The second letter B stands for beam, while S stands
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
Fig. 3Typical dimensions and reinforcement details of the beam and slab specimens. (Note: dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
for slab. The numbers 1 and 2 following the second letter
designate two different levels of PS or RS areas or ratios.
Letters H and P designate horizontal and parabolic tendon
profile, respectively, and F1 and F2 denote two different
levels (areas or layers) of external FRP reinforcement. The
parabolic tendon profile in all beam and slab specimens had
zero eccentricity at the support.
The prestressing reinforcement consisted of seven-wire
strands having 7.9 and 9.5 mm (5/16 and 3/8 in.) diameter,
with an area of 37.5 and 52.0 mm2 (0.058 and 0.08 in.2),
and actual ultimate strength fpu of 1958 and 1978 MPa (284
and 287 ksi), respectively. Generated from coupon tests, the
actual stress-strain (fps ps) behavior of the two sizes of the
prestressing steel were best reproduced using the following
relationship7
f ps = E ps e ps Q +
1Q
1/ N
E e N
1 + ps ps
Kf py
(22)
Reinforcing steel
FRP
Beam
Unbonded post-tensioned
Av
fy,
MPa
Af,
mm2
(nf)
fc,
MPa
8 at 150
560
42
220
8 at 150
612
150 (1)
36
2 (8 mm)
220
8 at 150
612
300 (2)
36
815
2 (8 mm)
220
8 at 150
560
42
200
971
2 (8 mm)
220
8 at 150
612
150 (1)
36
1 (5/16 in.)
200
781
2 (8 mm)
220
8 at 150
612
300 (2)
37
Horizontal
2 (3/8 in.)
200
778
2 (8 mm)
220
2 (8 mm)
8 at 150
560
42
UB2-H-F1
Horizontal
2 (3/8 in.)
200
924
2 (8 mm)
220
2 (8 mm)
8 at 150
612
150 (1)
36
UB2-H-F2
Horizontal
2 (3/8 in.)
200
896
2 (8 mm)
220
2 (8 mm)
8 at 150
612
300 (2)
37
UB2-P
Parabolic
2 (3/8 in.)
200
836
2 (8 mm)
220
2 (8 mm)
8 at 150
560
42
UB2-P-F1
Parabolic
2 (3/8 in.)
200
936
2 (8 mm)
220
2 (8 mm)
8 at 150
612
150 (1)
36
UB2-P-F2
Parabolic
2 (3/8 in.)
200
923
2 (8 mm)
220
2 (8 mm)
8 at 150
612
300 (2)
37
US1-H
Horizontal
2 (5/16 in.)
85
927
2 (8 mm)
92.5
560
42
US1-H-F1
Horizontal
2 (5/16 in.)
85
917
2 (8 mm)
92.5
612
150 (1)
36
US1-H-F2
Horizontal
2 (5/16 in.)
85
964
2 (8 mm)
92.5
612
300 (1)
36
d,mm
As,
top
2 (8 mm)
220
962
2 (8 mm)
200
963
1 (5/16 in.)
200
Parabolic
1 (5/16 in.)
UB1-P-F2
Parabolic
UB2-H
Specimen
label
Tendon
profile
Aps
UB1-H
Horizontal
UB1-H-F1
dp, mm
fse,
MPa
As,
bottom
1 (5/16 in.)
200
813
Horizontal
1 (5/16 in.)
200
UB1-H-F2
Horizontal
1 (5/16 in.)
UB1-P
Parabolic
UB1-P-F1
Slab
Beam
Slab
Bonded post-tensioned
Beam
Slab
Reinforced concrete
US1-P
Parabolic
2 (5/16 in.)
85
886
2 (8 mm)
98.5
560
42
US1-P-F1
Parabolic
2 (5/16 in.)
85
949
2 (8 mm)
98.5
612
150 (1)
36
US1-P-F2
Parabolic
2 (5/16 in.)
85
971
2 (8 mm)
98.5
612
300 (1)
37
US2-H
Horizontal
3 (3/8 in.)
85
804
2 (8 mm)
92.5
560
42
US2-H-F1
Horizontal
3 (3/8 in.)
85
912
2 (8 mm)
92.5
612
150 (1)
36
US2-H-F2
Horizontal
3 (3/8 in.)
85
858
2 (8 mm)
92.5
612
300 (1)
37
US2-P
Parabolic
3 (3/8 in.)
85
831
2 (8 mm)
98.5
560
42
US2-P-F1
Parabolic
3 (3/8 in.)
85
921
2 (8 mm)
98.5
612
150 (1)
36
US2-P-F2
Parabolic
3 (3/8 in.)
85
916
2 (8 mm)
98.5
612
300 (1)
37
BB2-P
Parabolic
2 (3/8 in.)
200
884
2 (6 mm)
220
2 (6 mm)
8 at 150
37
BB2-P-F1
Parabolic
2 (3/8 in.)
200
894
2 (6 mm)
220
2 (6 mm)
8 at 150
150 (1)
37
BB2-P-F2
Parabolic
2 (3/8 in.)
200
885
2 (6 mm)
220
2 (6 mm)
8 at 150
300 (2)
37
BS2-P
Parabolic
3 (3/8 in.)
85
970
2 (8 mm)
98.5
37
BS2-P-F1
Parabolic
3 (3/8 in.)
85
915
2 (8 mm)
98.5
150 (1)
37
BS2-P-F2
Parabolic
3 (3/8 in.)
85
892
2 (8 mm)
98.5
300 (1)
37
RB2
2 (16 mm)
220
8 at 100
530
37
RB2-F1
2 (16 mm)
220
8 at 100
530
150 (1)
37
RB2-F2
2 (16 mm)
220
8 at 100
674
300 (2)
37
RS2
4 (12 mm)
100
555
37
RS2-F1
4 (12 mm)
100
555
150 (1)
37
RS2-F2
4 (12 mm)
100
624
300 (1)
37
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 mm2 = 0.0016 in.2.
414
FRP Strain f
fps (MPa)
Mode of failure
Exp./
Exp./
Exp. Analysis Analysis Exp. Analysis Analysis
Specimen
Exp.
Exp.
UB1-H
42.3
64
1567
1253
1.25
UB1-H-F1
66.9
31
1303
1250
1.04
7122
UB1-H-F2
86.9
33
1223
1290
0.95
UB1-P
46.8
81
1669
1255
UB1-P-F1
66.3
35
1413
1259
Experiment
Analysis
Exp.
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
26.4
20.8
1.27
7948*
0.90
FRP debonding
FRP debonding
41.8
46.5
0.90
5378
5620*
0.96
FRP debonding
FRP debonding
54.3
55.6
0.98
1.33
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
29.3
20.8
1.41
1.12
4556
7948*
0.57
FRP debonding
FRP debonding
41.4
46.5
0.89
UB1-P-F2
89.0
36
1102
1098
1.00
5604
5698
0.98
FRP debonding
FRP debonding
55.6
55.2
1.01
UB2-H
63.6
43
1246
1205
1.03
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
39.8
35.3
1.13
UB2-H-F1
80.8
26
1163
1230
0.95
6934
7949*
0.87
Partial rupture +
partial debonding
FRP debonding
50.5
60.4
0.84
UB2-H-F2 104.8
31
1122
1239
0.91
5329
5698*
0.94
FRP debonding
FRP debonding
65.5
68.9
0.95
UB2-P
75.2
88
1598
1260
1.27
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
47.0
36.3
1.29
UB2-P-F1
93.6
37
1339
1244
1.08
5393
7948*
0.68
FRP debonding +
concrete crushing
FRP debonding
58.5
60.6
0.97
UB2-P-F2 101.2
30
1223
1270
0.96
4285
5698*
0.75
FRP debonding
FRP debonding
63.3
69.3
0.91
62
1211
1106
1.09
US1-H
22.7
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
14.2
11.5
1.23
1.05
FRP rupture
FRP debonding
21.4
23.3
0.92
US1-H-F1
34.3
63
1195
1033
1.16
8309
7948
US1-H-F2
43.0
66
1152
1112
1.04
6074
6490
0.94
Partial rupture +
partial debonding
Concrete crushing
26.9
30.1
0.89
US1-P
21.3
100
1413
1066
1.33
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
13.3
11.6
1.15
US1-P-F1
34.5
68
1177
1065
1.11
5770
7948*
0.73
FRP debonding
FRP debonding
21.6
23.8
0.91
US1-P-F2
48.1
75
1165
1117
1.04
6280
6580
0.95
FRP rupture +
concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
30.1
30.8
0.97
US2-H
35.1
87
1227
966
1.27
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
21.9
16.3
1.34
US2-H-F1
42.6
62
1039
6277
6758
0.93
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
+ partial debonding
26.6
26.4
1.01
US2-H-F2
57.2
75
1065
972
1.10
5517
5551
0.99
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
35.8
31.6
1.13
US2-P
36.9
66
1105
992
1.11
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
23.1
17.0
1.36
US2-P-F1
47.6
68
1146
1047
1.09
7554
6731
1.12
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
29.8
26.9
1.11
US2-P-F2
59.8
67
1136
1029
1.10
5570
5429
1.03
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
37.4
32.1
1.16
BB2-P
63.4
44
1738
1737
1.00
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
39.6
34.2
1.16
BB2-P-F1
87.0
35
1710
1682
1.02
5906
7027
0.84
FRP rupture
Concrete crushing
54.4
53.6
1.01
BB2-P-F2 107.8
30
1680
1591
1.06
4781
5523*
0.87
FRP debonding
FRP debonding
67.4
63.1
1.07
BS2-P
33.9
71
1662
1687
0.99
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
21.2
21.4
0.99
BS2-P-F1
44.3
67
1702
1556
1.09
7834
6000
1.31
Concrete crushing
27.7
28.1
0.98
BS2-P-F2
59.7
70
1429
1435
1.00
5701
5045
1.13
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
37.3
32.2
1.16
RB2
72.5
46
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
45.3
42.5
1.07
RB2-F1
98.6
35
7608
6740
1.13
FRP rupture
Concrete crushing
61.6
62.0
0.99
RB2-F2
110.8
33
5003
4177
1.20
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
69.3
73.4
0.94
RS2
37.0
77
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
23.1
22.7
1.02
RS2-F1
48.5
60
6863
FRP rupture
Concrete crushing
30.3
32.2
0.94
RS2-F2
66.7
77
5834
4660
1.25
FRP rupture
Concrete crushing
41.7
36.6
1.14
415
REFERENCES
418
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Force in a prestressing strand is transferred to concrete
by bond in the case of pretensioned prestressed concrete
members.1 At prestress transfer, the prestressing strand
tends to shorten, the concrete around the prestressing strand
shortens as the prestressing force is applied to it, and the
prestressing strand that is bonded to the concrete shortens
with it. Consequently, prestress loss due to the elastic shortening of concrete occurs in the central zone of the member.
At the member ends, the prestressing strand force varies from
zero to the effective prestressing force along the distance
defined as transfer length2 (Fig. 1).
Both bond strength and transfer length depend on several
factors, such as concrete strength at prestress transfer, initial
strand stress, concrete cover, prestress transfer method,
strand geometry, and strand surface condition,3 and bond
strength improves when a confining stress is applied.4,5
Average bond stress along the transfer length has been
characterized as being proportional to the square root of
the concrete compressive strength given the influence
of the elastic modulus of the concrete that surrounds the
prestressing strand.6
A short transfer length results in higher stresses and
risk of cracking near member ends, and a long transfer
length shortens the available member length to resist the
bending moment and shear.6 As the transfer length is an
important parameter in the design exercise,6,7 bond performance is assumed essential for an adequate response of
pretensioned prestressed concrete applications, and quality
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
419
843 (500)
624 (370)
674 (400)
0.3
0.45
0.5
1674 (993)
1637 (971)
1645 (976)
1468 (871)
1448 (859)
1443 (856)
1.7
Polycarboxylate ether polymers
1.4
Modified polycarboxylic ethers
0.1
Modified polycarboxylic ethers
Concrete compressive
strength, ksi (MPa)
(%)
Type
12 hours
5.8 (40)
24 hours
7.5 (52)
4.6 (32)
3.5 (24)
48 hours
8.4 (58)
5.2 (36)
4.2 (29)
28 days
12.3 (85)
7.3 (50)
6.3 (43)
Caracterizar la Adherencia mediante Destesado y Arrancamiento; in English: Test to Characterize the Bond by
Release and Pull-Out) test method,17 the research herein
analyzes the specimen cross section size-effect on strand
bond and concrete strains at prestress transfer. Three
different concrete mixture designs applicable to the precast
prestressed concrete members industry, in combination with
three different specimen cross sections, have been tested.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This research provides information on how specimen
cross section size-effect influences strand bond behavior and
concrete strains at prestress transfer. This paper analyzes
series of tests conducted on pretensioned prestressed
concrete prismatic specimens using a testing technique
based on bond behavior analysis by measuring prestressing
strand force. The tests provide data on concrete strains,
transfer length, effective prestressing force, bond stress,
and concrete modulus of elasticity. A coefficient to account
for the specimen cross section size-effect on the concrete
modulus of elasticity is proposed. The experimental results
have been compared with predictions from ACI 318-112 and
fib Model Code 2010.9
EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
An experimental program was conducted and the ECADA
test method17 was used. The method allows for the analysis
of bond behavior by the sequential reproduction of the
prestress transfer and the anchorage of prestressing strands
on the same specimen. A series of specimens with different
embedment lengths is required to determine both transfer
and development lengths25,26 by means of the ECADA
test method. Its feasibility has been verified for both shorttime27,28 and long-term analyses.29,30 In this work, only
the transfer length test results and analyses at prestress
transfer were included. Complementarily, several specimens were also instrumented to obtain longitudinal concrete
surfacestrains.
Materials
Three concrete mixtures applicable for the precast
prestressed concrete industry with different compressive
420
12
24
48
A-80-12 (1350)
A-60-48 (1350)
422
Pes = P0 P = P0 p Ep Ap (1)
Pe
4
3 f Lt
(2)
P0
1
e ci =
1 + n Eci Ac
P0
E p Ap
e ci
or Eci =
(3)
Ac
Transfer length
Figure 9 provides the transferred prestressing forces
versus the embedment lengths for the complete B-100-48
series. All the test specimens with embedment lengths
equal to or longer than 650 mm (25.6 in.) present similar Pi
values and are, therefore, equal to the effective prestressing
force Pe. In contrast, all the test specimens with embedment lengths shorter than 650 mm (25.6 in.) present lower
Pi values. Therefore, the transfer length determined by the
ECADA test method can be affirmed as 650 mm (25.6 in.)
in this case.
Figure 10 shows the transfer length obtained from
concrete strains (directly [two values are depicted when
the ascendent branch length is unclear] and by 95% AMS)
and from prestressing strand forces. Specimens have been
ordered by concrete mixture by increasing cross section size
and concrete age at prestress transfer.
As observed in Fig. 10, the transfer lengths in the specimens made with Concrete C are longer than those in the specimens made with Concrete B which, in turn, are longer than
the transfer lengths in the specimens made with Concrete
A: C-100-48/B-100-48, C-100-24/B-100-24/A-100-24,
C-80-48/B-80-48, B-80-24/A-80-24, and B-60-48/A-60-48.
Generally, transfer length values also reduce when concrete
age at prestress transfer increases: A-60-24/A-60-48,
A-80-12/A-80-24, A-100-12/A-100-24, B-80-24/B-80-48,
and C-100-24/C-100-48, except for B-100-24/B-100-48.
Besides, similar transfer lengths are obtained for the 100 x
424
f
= 19, 400 cm
10
1/ 3
425
28 0.5
bcc (t ) = exp s 1 (Eq. 5.1 51)9 (6)
t
426
Experimental
Specimen
Eci
Ec28_s
Ec28_ref
Ec28_s
Eci
A-60-24
13,790
21,180
40,498
20,848
20,707
13,481
A-60-48
16,205
21,317
40,759
20,848
20,707
15,741
A-80-12
11,221
21,458
35,062
24,230
12,670
A-80-24
15,820
24,299
39,703
24,230
15,775
A-100-12
16,718
31,971
44,342
28,741
28,546
14,927
A-100-24
18,219
27,984
38,812
28,741
28,546
18,585
B-60-48
12,296
16,175
30,927
17,190
17,350
13,189
B-80-24
13,146
20,191
32,992
20,116
20,302
13,218
Ec28_m
39,863
Ec28_s
24,396
24,396
39,592
B-80-48
16,037
21,095
34,470
20,302
15,434
B-100-24
16,002
24,578
34,088
23,698
23,918
15,572
B-100-48
17,465
22,975
31,865
23,698
23,918
18,183
C-80-48
15,366
20,213
33,027
19,320
19,307
14,677
C-100-24
14,742
22,643
31,405
22,745
14,809
C-100-48
16,594
21,828
30,275
22,745
17,291
32,868
31,569
20,116
Ec28
22,761
22,761
33,174
31,547
427
428
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this research has been provided by the Spanish Ministry of
Education and Science, the Ministry of Science and Innovation, and ERDF
(Projects BIA2006-05521 and BIA2009-12722).
REFERENCES
19. Guyon, Y., Bton Prcontrainte. tude Thorique et Exprimentale, Ed. Eyrolles, Paris, France, 1953, 711 pp.
20. Balzs, G., Transfer Length of Prestressing Strand as a Function of
Draw-in and Inicial Prestress, PCI Journal, V. 38, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1993,
pp. 86-93.
21. Mart-Vargas, J. R.; Arbelez, C. A.; Serna-Ros, P.; and Castro-Bugallo, C., Reliability of Transfer Length Estimation from Strand End Slip,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-Aug. 2007, pp. 487-494.
22. Mahmoud, Z. I.; Rizkalla, S. H.; and Zaghloul, E. R., Transfer
and Development Lengths of Carbon Fiber Reinforcement Polymers
Prestressing Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 4,
July-Aug. 1999, pp. 594-602.
23. Caro, L. A.; Mart-Vargas, J. R.; and Serna, P., Prestress Losses
Evaluation in Prestressed Concrete Prismatic Specimens, Engineering
Structures, V. 48, 2013, pp. 704-715.
24. Deatherage, J. H.; Burdette, E.; and Chew, C. K., Development
Length and Lateral Spacing Requirements of Prestressing Strand for
Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girders, PCI Journal, V. 39, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.
1994, pp. 70-83.
25. Mart-Vargas, J. R.; Arbelez, C. A.; Serna-Ros, P.; Fernndez-Prada,
M. A.; and Miguel-Sosa, P. F., Transfer and Development Lengths of
Concentrically Prestressed Concrete, PCI Journal, V. 51, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.
2006, pp. 74-85.
26. Mart-Vargas, J. R.; Serna, P.; and Hale, W. M., Strand Bond Performance in Prestressed Concrete Accounting for Bond Slip, Engineering
Structures, V. 51, 2013, pp. 236-244.
27. Mart-Vargas, J. R.; Serna-Ros, P.; Arbelez, C. A.; and Rigueira-Victor, J. W., Bond Behaviour of Self-Compacting Concrete in Transmission and Anchorage, Materiales de Construccin, V. 56, No. 284,
2006, pp. 27-42.
28. Mart-Vargas, J. R.; Serna, P.; Navarro-Gregori, J.; and Bonet, J. L.,
Effects of Concrete Composition on Transmission Length of Prestressing
Strands, Construction & Building Materials, V. 27, 2012, pp. 350-356.
29. Mart-Vargas, J. R.; Caro, L.; and Serna, P., Experimental Technique
for Measuring the Long-Term Transfer Length in Prestressed Concrete,
Strain, V. 49, 2013, pp. 125-134.
429
NOTES:
430
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Reinforced and prestressed concrete members are typically designed with a minimum quantity of flexural reinforcement. Steel reinforcement ensures that the postcracking flexural capacity of the section is greater than the
cracking moment Mcr, which is typically defined as the
moment necessary to cause the maximum flexural tensile
stress to exceed the modulus of rupture of the concrete. If a
beam with insufficient reinforcement cracks, then the reinforcement will rupture immediately following crack formation; the resulting failure mode, being sudden and brittle, is
undesirable and dangerous. Consequently, minimum reinforcement requirements have life-safety implications.
Both AASHTO LRFD (AASHTO 2007) and ACI 318-11
(ACI Committee 318 2011) design specifications have
minimum reinforcement requirements. ACI 318-11 has separate provisions for nonprestressed and prestressed concrete.
The current nonprestressed provisions do not explicitly
consider cracking moment, while the prestressed provisions
require the direct calculation of cracking moment. This is
true in the AASHTO LRFD as well. The AASHTO LRFD,
however, applies to both prestressed and nonprestressed
concrete. Although both design specifications aim to ensure
that flexural members contain a sufficient quantity of reinforcement so that the post-cracking flexural capacity is at
least equal to the cracking moment of the concrete section,
the method of implementation has been somewhat different.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
431
Mr 1.2Mcr (3)
As,min =
432
3 fc
fy
bw d 200bw d / f y (2)
Mr 1.33Mu (4)
where Mu is the factored moment of the applicable load
combination.
The cracking moment is determined using Eq. (5)
S
M cr = Sc ( fr + fcpe ) M dnc c 1 Sc fr (5)
S
nc
Fig. 1Results from parametric study of current ACI provisions (ONeill and Hamilton 2009).
where the difference between the two curves for SB in negative bending is much greater than that between the hollow
core curves or the Florida bulb-tee curves. Consequently,
as the amount of prestressing steel increases, the cracking
moment increases at a faster rate than the moment capacity
due to the overriding effect of the relatively large tension
zone in sections such as the SB.
The use of 7.5fc psi (0.62fc MPa) versus 11.7fc
psi (0.97fc MPa) was also investigated by ONeill and
Hamilton (2009) in a series of prestressed girder and pile
laboratory tests. It was found that the girder cracking stresses
ranged from approximately 6fc psi (0.5fc MPa) to 14fc
psi (1.2fc MPa). In cases with low amounts of prestressing
steel, however, the cracking stress ranged from 6.1fc psi
(0.5fc MPa) to 7.6fc psi (0.63fc MPa). As the minimum
steel requirement usually controls the steel quantity when the
section is larger than required for strength, and the amount
of prestressing steel required is similarly small, the use of
7.5fc psi (0.62fc MPa) as an estimate of the modulus
of rupture is justified. Minimum reinforcement requirements for nonprestressed sections do not change with the
selected quantity of reinforcement. The authors believe that
a more rational approach would be for nonprestressed and
prestressed concrete to have a single unique minimum reinforcement requirement for each section. This requires direct
calculation of the cracking moment using only section and
material properties, as will be shown in the following section
with the derivation of a minimum reinforcementequation.
PROPOSED MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT
PROVISIONS
Leonhardt (1964) proposed a minimum steel requirement for prestressed concrete based on providing sufficient
steel area to resist net tensile concrete stresses that occur
just before cracking. His approach takes advantage of the
prestressing steels tensile capacity between the effective
prestressed state (State I) and the ultimate state at flexural
capacity (State II) without explicit consideration of the
cracking moment to determine the minimum prestressing
steel required. It is applicable to both nonprestressed and
433
fr I
(7)
yt
I
(8)
yt
I
yt
1
M dec = Aps fse
A + e I
(10)
Ay
t final
transfer
7.5 fcI
yt
I
yt
1
+ Aps fse
+ e I
(12)
Ayt final A
transfer
9 fcI
I
yt
1
+ 0.8dAs f y
Aps 0.8 f ps d p fse
+ e I
yt
Ayt final A
transfer
(13)
9 fc
y
y
1
(14)
0.8 t
+e t
f d f
I final ps p se A
I transfer
11.25 fcI
df y yt
(15)
sections:
moment
Fig. 9Prestressed composite sections: proposed and ACI
minimums.
437
438
SUMMARY
The derivation and parametric studies described in this
paper provide a direct and unified method of determining
minimum steel requirements for both nonprestressed reinforced and prestressed sections. For composite prestressed
sections, the moment capacity provided by the area of steel
determined with the proposed minimum always exceeds
1.2Mcr. While the proposed method requires more steel
for composite prestressed sections than the ACI 318-11
minimum reinforcement provision, the difference is negligible when considering the steel typically provided for
design. For nonprestressed sections, the proposed method
results in a consistent moment capacity of 1.6Mcr, regardless of the section shape. Noncomposite prestressed sections
have a consistent moment capacity of 1.17Mcr. The proposed
method has several advantages for a designer; it is independent of the cracking moment and explicitly calculated.
AUTHOR BIOS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank C. ONeill for her contributions to this
paper and the Florida Department of Transportation for providing funding
that supported this work.
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
NOTATION
Mdnc =
REFERENCES
439
APPENDIX A
f = 0.9
Area, in.2
Mn, kip-ft
Mcr, kip-ft
fMn/Mcr
2.448
1067.9
629.4
1.53
0.924
411.0
309.5
1.20
ACI min
0.931
414.1
311.0
1.20
Table 18X8
2.750
532.4
506.4
0.95
0.481
214.6
165.6
1.17
0.520
230.3
171.3
1.21
0.510
47.2
30.7
1.39
0.314
30.1
23.2
1.17
ACI min
0.339
32.3
24.2
1.20
Table 6X6
0.510
70.2
48.6
1.30
e, in.
Table 8X16
12DT30
28IT24
Prop min
Prop min
10
2.73
ACI min
Table 6X6
6 in. hollow core
Prop min
Prop min
1.5
0.382
53.6
41.1
1.17
ACI min
0.405
56.4
42.3
1.20
Table 4X8
0.612
110.7
77.3
1.29
0.467
85.7
65.8
1.17
Prop min
1.5
1.5
ACI min
0.499
91.2
68.3
1.20
Table 7X6
0.595
135.1
97.1
1.25
0.502
114.2
87.6
1.17
0.535
121.1
90.8
1.20
7.350
3157.8
4162.0
0.68
1.309
1284.4
990.0
1.17
ACI min
1.405
1373.1
1028.7
1.20
Typical
7.490
11403.3
6704.2
1.53
Prop min
1.5
ACI min
Typical
AASHTO Type IV
FBT78
Box girder
Prop min
Prop min
2.237
3453.8
2611.8
1.19
ACI min
2.290
3533.6
2649.7
1.20
Typical
65.290
209444.4
173166.7
1.09
45.148
147777.8
115096.7
1.16
51.100
166235.6
124574.2
1.20
Prop min
6.75
ACI min
Notes: 1 in. = 2.54 cm; 1 in.2 = 6.45 cm2; 1 kip-ft = 1.36 kN-m.
APPENDIX B
f = 0.9
MS 10ST48
MS 28IT60
MS 12X12
MS 12X36
MS 12X72
Area, in.2
Mn, kip-ft
Mcr, kip-ft
fMn/Mcr
1.2Mcr
1.310
281.1
210.8
1.20
prop min
1.838
393.3
210.8
1.68
1.358
291.4
210.8
1.24
1.2Mcr
2.895
763.2
570.7
1.20
prop min
3.932
1024.4
570.7
1.62
4.619
1194.4
570.7
1.88
1.2Mcr
0.310
15.2
11.4
1.20
prop min
0.416
20.7
11.4
1.63
0.389
18.8
11.4
1.48
1.2Mcr
0.820
138.0
102.4
1.21
prop min
1.122
187.6
102.4
1.65
1.300
215.6
102.4
1.89
1.2Mcr
1.580
544.4
409.8
1.20
prop min
2.188
750.9
409.8
1.65
2.666
911.7
409.8
2.00
Notes: 1 in. = 2.54 cm; 1 in.2 = 6.45 cm2; 1 kip-ft = 1.36 kN-m.
440
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
There are many design formulas for predicting the
behavior of reinforced concrete column behavior. Many of
these formulas depend on estimating the lateral confinement.
The lateral ties providing confinement are usually assumed
to be at yield when a column reaches its peak load-carrying
capacity. For reinforced high-strength concrete columns,
the confinement ties are generally not at yield at the peak
column load-carrying capacity. Therefore, this implies that
formulas which rely on the confining ties to be at yield are
not applicable. To overcome this problem, the lateral expansion of the confined column core can be related to the stress
in the confining ties, which can then be used to predict the
core confinement. The reinforcing ties are assumed to be
fully bonded to the concrete, with no sliding or slippage
occurring during the loading of the column. The lateral
deformation of the concrete and the confining reinforcement
cage or fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wrap is then taken
as equal and related to axial strain in the column core. The
lateral strain relationship has been used in the prediction of
the confinement level for columns confined by reinforcement cages by Cusson and Paultre1 and Ahmad and Shah,2
and FRP wraps by Talaat and Mosalam3 and Lokuge et al.4
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
To predict the lateral expansion of axially loaded concrete,
a lateral strain-versus-axial strain relationship is needed.
Baseline experimental data on measured lateral strain from
uniaxial and triaxial loaded concrete are limited to a few
research publications such as Candappa et al.,5 Hurlbut,6
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
441
Fig. 1Typical: (a) lateral strain; and (b) volumetric strain diagrams for concrete subjected to increasing levels of confinement. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
localization is present, however, the lateral strains obtained
from the changes in oil volume and the strains obtained from
strain measurement devices are drastically different.
Lateral strain results are presented as either a set of axial
stress-versus-axial strain and axial stress-versus-lateral
strain or volumetric strain-versus-axial strain diagrams
(Fig.1). If volumetric strains are used to obtain the lateral
strain, the obtained lateral strain is an average strain for the
whole specimen. Consider, for example, the situation where a
specimen under confinement and axial compression is loaded
past the peak and reaches a residual axial load level after
softening. If a localized shear band has formed, the applied
axial displacements from the loading machine only impose
a sliding displacement on the specimen. This displacement
does not represent any change of specimen volume, but corresponds to sliding across the shear band. In this case, the actual
change in volume is zero, but the plastic strain or permanent
displacement across the whole specimen is not zero. If LVDTs
are used across the fractured zone, a displacement will be
measured, and a plastic or irrecoverable strain estimated.
Analytical models by Lokuge et al.4 and Binici13
Lateral strain versus axial strain models developed by
Lokuge et al.4 and Binici13 are presented as follows, and
are later compared with some experimental results. These
two models are analytical models for the total lateral strain,
and are functions of the axial strain. The model proposed by
Lokuge et al.4 is defined by
a e
vi e e1
e e0
=
(1)
e 0 e a
>
e
e
1
e
0
f
e 0 = e c 1 + (17 0.06 fc) r (fc in MPa; 1 MP
Pa = 145 psi) (3)
fc
= s
e ee 2
s = l ( l e ) exp
ee =
e > ee
(5)
f
f
f
fc 0.1 1 + 9.9 r 0.9 r + r
fc
fc
fc
4750 fc
l = p +
442
e ee
where
a
(4)
1
fr
f + 0.85
c
(6)
e0 ee
l p
ln
l 0
Fig. 2Comparison of Jamet et al.8 test results with: (a) Binici13; and (b) Lokuge et al.4 models. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1
mm = 0.0394 in.)
Herein, p is the ratio of lateral strain to the axial strain at
the peak stress and assumed to be 0.5, l is the largest secant
ratio, and 0 is the axial strain at the peak stress defined by
f
f
1 + 9.9 r + r 0.8 10 6
fc fc
(7)
Fig. 3Comparison of Willam et al.14 test results with: (a) Binici13; and (b) Lokuge et al.4 models. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi;
1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Fig. 4Comparison of Smith15 test results with: (a) Binici13; and (b) Lokuge et al.4 models. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm =
0.0394 in.)
levels and concrete strengths, and to incorporate size effect
issues.
PROPOSED LATERAL STRAIN MODEL
ev
e = e0
= e 0 + 2 e 0 = 0 (8)
0 = 0/0 = 0.5
(9)
f
f
f
f
= b e e . r e0 0 e . r
Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
(11)
f
f
e + e 0 e 0 + e 0
Ec
Ec
f
f
= b e e0 0
Ec
Ec
(12)
ff
+
(13)
4 2
The plastic strain rate acting on the shear failure plane can
be decomposed vectorially into a plastic normal strain rate,
and a plastic shear strain rate. Incorporating a nonassociated
flow rule, the relationship between the normal and shear
plastic strain rates is
tan ( ) =
e np
e sp
(14)
e p tan ( )
=
e p
tan ()
(15)
For concrete, the value of the dilatancy angle is approximately 13 degrees.21 The Mohr Coulomb failure surface
angle (before softening) is usually approximately 30 degrees,
which results in a shear plane failure angle of approximately
60 degrees. Using Eq. (15), the ratio of the plastic lateral
strain rate to the plastic axial strain rate is then roughly
0.58. The ratio of the plastic lateral strain rate to the plastic
axial strain rate approximates the definition of the parameter
defined by Eq. (10). The experimentally measured expansion rate, as reflected by the parameter shown in Fig.8, for
the uniaxial, low confinement case, or both, is much greater
than predicted by assuming a shear plane failure and a Mohr
Coulomb failure surface. The estimate based on Eq.(15)
assumed the plastic strain dilatancy angle and the friction
angle to be constant during softening, while it is known
that these parameters change. When the load reduces to a
446
e p
= 1
e p
(16)
c
b
f
a r + 1
fc
a = 65e
0.015 fc
0.5;
; b = 1.5 e
0.02 fc
D
c = 4 h hd ; c = 2
h
f
f
e = pr e
E
Ec
f pr e f
e =
+ A1 ( e )
Ec
Ec
e = f + b e f e f0 + e + f0
e
0
0 0
e
Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
e e pr
e pr < e e 0
(18)
e > e0
e =
Ec
Ec
e e pr
e e pr
exp a
e
e
f pr e . f
f pr e f0 o
e o e pr
pr
e =
+ 0 e 0
Ec
Ec
exp(a )
Ec
Ec
e = e f + b e f e f0 + e + e f0
0
0 0
Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
e pr < e e 0
e > e0
f w pc + e d hd f
e = e0 0 +
+ E
Ec
h
h > hd
f w pc
+ ed +
e = e0 0 +
Ec h
Ec
h hd
(21)
f0 f
r (1 + k ) f0 f0 fresidual
2 kG ft
0.8
fresidual f f0 (22)
e e pr
(19)
w pc = ( e e 0 ) hr +
( f0 f ) h
Ec
e d hr (24)
Substituting Eq. (21) into (19) for the case of > 0, one
obtains
e = e .
w pc + e d hd
f0
f
+ b.
+ 0 e 0 + e E
Ec
h
w pc
f
f
e = e . + b.
+ ed + 0 e0 + e 0
Ec
Ec
h > hd
(25)
h hd
Using Eq. (24), Eq. (25) can be rewritten to give the lateral
strain for the post-peak region as:
e = e
h ( f f ) hr
f
h h
+ b (e e0 ) r + 0
ed r d
h h
Ec
h
Ec
h
+0 e0 + e
f0
Ec
f0
Ec
h hd and e > e 0
(26)
hr ( f0 f ) hr
f
hr
e d 1
e = e
+ b (e e0 ) +
h
Ec
h
Ec
h
+0 e0 + e
Figures 12 to 15 show a comparison of the proposed model
with test results presented in Candappa et al.,5 Hurlbut,6 Imran
and Pantazopoulou,7 Jamet et al.,8 and Smith.15 Generally,
the proposed model makes very good predictions giving the
correct trends, and, in most cases, reasonable estimates of
the lateral strain. These comparisons demonstrate the capability of the proposed model in modelling a wide range of
compressive strengths and confining pressures. Figures 16
and 17 show comparisons of the new analytical model with
uniaxial compression tests involving specimens of different
dimensional aspect ratios. The tests of Lee and Willam,9
who tested cylindrical specimens in uniaxial condition with
different heights of 137.2, 91.44, and 45.72 mm (5.4, 3.6,
and 1.8 in.) and a diameter of 76.2 mm (3 in.), have already
been mentioned. Figure 16 shows the comparison with Lee
and Willam9 results. Although the match is only fair, the new
model has the correct trend that shows larger lateral strains
for the specimens with the smallest height. Van Mier,27 a
pioneer in the work of strain softening and size effect issues,
also presented experimental lateral strain versus axial strain
results for prisms with a square cross section of 100 x
100mm (4 x 4 in.) and heights of 50, 100, and 200 mm (2, 4,
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
450
A1()
a
b
c
D
Ec
f
f0
fc
fpr
fr
fresidual
Gft
h
hd
hr
k
r
NOTATION
REFERENCES
1. Cusson, D., and Paultre, P., Stress-Strain Model for Confined HighStrength Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 121,
1995, p.468.
2. Ahmad, S., and Shah, S., Stress-Strain Curves of Concrete Confined
by Spiral Reinforcement, ACI Journal, V. 79, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1982,
pp. 484-490.
3. Talaat, M., and Mosalam, K., Computational Modeling of Progressive Collapse in Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures, PEER Report
2007/10, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, 2008, 308 pp.
4. Lokuge, W.; Sanjayan, J.; and Setunge, S., Stress-Strain Model for
Laterally Confined Concrete, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
V. 17, No. 6, 2005, pp. 607-616.
5. Candappa, D.; Sanjayan, J.; and Setunge, S., Complete Triaxial
Stress-Strain Curves of High-Strength Concrete, Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, V. 13, No. 3, 2001, pp. 209-215.
6. Hurlbut, B., Experimental and Computational Investigation of
Strain-Softening in Concrete, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 1985,
256 pp.
7. Imran, I., and Pantazopoulou, S., Experimental Study of Plain
Concrete under Triaxial Stress, ACI Materials Journal, V. 93, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec. 1996, pp. 589-601.
8. Jamet, P.; Millard, A.; and Nahas, G., Triaxial Behaviour of
Micro-Concrete Complete Stress-Strain Curves for Confining Pressures
Ranging from 0 to 100 MPa, RILEM-CEB International Conference:
Concrete under Multiaxial Conditions, V. 1, May 1984, pp. 133-140.
APPENDIX A
The proposed lateral strain model continuity and boundary
conditions are detailed here. To define A1() used in Eq. (18),
the following continuity conditions need to be satisfied. The
lateral strains at the transition points between the elastic phase
and the nonlinear hardening phase, and the nonlinear hardening phase and at the peak stress, need to be equal, hence:
f pr e f0
e =
+ A1 ( e 0 )
Ec
Ec
e = e0
A1 ( e 0 ) = e p0
e f0
f0
f0
pr
+
+
=
e
b
e
p
0
0
0
Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
(A2)
The slopes at these transition points also need to be equal,
therefore
de
= e
e
d
Ec
e = e pr
de = e
de
Ec
dA1 ( e )
=0
d e e = e pr
dA1 ( e )
+
d e e = e pr
df
= e
d e e = e pr
df
d e e = e pr
(A3)
0
dA1 ( e )
de
e df
=
+
e
e
e
d
E
d
d
e = e0
e = e0
c
dA ( e )
1
=
d e e = e0
dA1 ( e )
h
0
0
e = e0
=b
d e e = e0
hr
e df
df
+ b 1
Ec d e e = e 0
Ec d e e = e 0
h
e
d
=b
=
de
hr
hr hr df
+ 1
e
h
h
E
d
e = e0
(A4)
A form for the function A1(), which allows the continuity
conditions to be satisfied, is
2
e e pr
e e pr
e e exp a e e
o
o
pr
pr
(A5)
A1 ( e ) = e p = e p0
exp(a )
with defined as
h
b h
r
a=
e e pr 2 (A6)
e p0 o
e f pr
f
e = r
Ec
Ec
e = e pr
A1 (e pr ) = 0
f
e
pr
r
e = E E + A1 (e pr )
c
(A1)
451
NOTES:
452
DISCUSSION
Disc. 110-S31/From the May-June 2013 ACI Structural Journal, p. 404.
Cyclic Loading Test for Beam-Column Connection with Prefabricated Reinforcing Bar Details. Paper by
Tae-Sung Eom, Jin-Aha Song, Hong-Gun Park, Hyoung-Seop Kim, and Chang-Nam Lee
Discussion by Yun Liu and Dun Wang
Lecturer, College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Zinjiang University, Urumqi, China; ACI member, PhD candidate, Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster
Reduction, School of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
REFERENCES
AUTHORS CLOSURE
The authors would like to thank the discussers for their
interest in the paper and the informative discussion. The
authors response to the five comments is presented as
follows.
1. In the proposed prefabricated reinforcing bar construction method (PRC method), tag welding is used for the
connection between the transverse D13 bars and longitudinal D25 and D22 bars. However, as shown in Fig. 5, the
amount of tag welding is relatively small, when compared
to the area of the longitudinal bars. Thus, the adverse effect
of tag welding on the longitudinal bars was expected to be
minimal. As presented in the conclusion No. 5 of the paper,
in this test, the bar tag welding did not have detrimental
effects on the structural performance of the specimens.
The authors performed direct tension tests on the D25 bars
that had a tag welding joint to a transverse D13 bar at the
center (refer to Fig. 15). The results showed that two
D25 bars were fractured away from the weld joints, but the
third specimen failed near the weld joint. Note that the elongation capacities at rupture were much greater than 4%.
A material test for the steel used in the bar couplers
was not performed. The yield and tensile strengths provided
by the manufacturer were fy = 751 MPa (109 ksi) and fu =
760 MPa (110 ksi), which were much greater than those of
the D22 and D25 bars. The couplers used in this test are
commercial products, and the mechanical properties were
proved elsewhere. However, in this test, reinforcing bar slip
occurred due to the loosened threads of the coupler in Specimens PRC1. Thus, attention should be paid to the coupler
splice.
The headed bars used in the test were different from the
conventional one specified in the design code. As shown
in Fig. 4, the beam flexural bars in the exterior joint were
anchored to the steel band plate by nuts and washers. Because
the steel band plate provides additional bearing capacity for
bar anchorage, the headed bars were expected to be safe. In
this test, failure did not occur in the headed bars.
454
Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Walls for Seismic Design of Low-Rise Housing. Paper by Julian
Carrillo and Sergio M. Alcocer
Discussion by Dun Wang and Xilin Lu
ACI member, PhD candidate, Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster Reduction, School of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghi China; Professor,
Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster Reduction, School of Civil Engineering, Tongji University.
456
AUTHORS CLOSURE
The authors acknowledge the interest of discussers in
the paper. Indeed, shear strength of concrete members is
still an issue where the development of a unified approach
is needed. Studies, both experimental and analytical,
contribute to providing data, evidence, and reflections on the
phenomenon. Our research was aimed at developing simple
design tools that could be used in practice. The following are
comments based on discussers items:
1. The model developed in our research recognizes that
factors hh,v, a1, and a2 do depend on wall ductility or wall
drift. The model discussed in the paper is applicable to drifts
associated with peak strength (pp. 418 and 422). The model
developed also recognizes the contribution of vertical web
reinforcement to wall shear strength (pp. 420-422). In fact,
strains measured in the vertical web bars or steel wires during
tests were mainly associated to the uniform distribution of
inclined cracks on the wall web. It was confirmed that, as
specified by ACI 318,1 a minimum amount of web vertical
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
14. Gerges, N., and Gergess, A. N., Implication of Increased Live Loads
on the Design of Precast Concrete Bridge Girders, PCI Journal, V. 57,
No. 4, Fall 2012, pp. 78-95.
15. Caro, L. A.; Mart-Vargas, J. R.; and Serna, P., Prestress Losses
Evaluation in Prestressed Concrete Prismatic Specimens, Engineering
Structures, V. 48, 2013, pp. 704-715.
16. Mart-Vargas, J. R.; Serna-Ros, P.; Arbelez, C. A.; and RigueiraVictor, J. W., Bond Behaviour of Self-Compacting Concrete in
Transmission and Anchorage, Materiales de Construccin, V. 56, No. 284,
2006, pp. 27-42.
17. Mart-Vargas, J. R.; Serna-Ros, P.; Fernndez-Prada, M. A.; MiguelSosa, P. F.; and Arbelez, C. A., Test Method for Determination of the
Transmission and Anchorage Lengths in Prestressed Reinforcement,
Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 58, No. 1, 2006, pp. 21-29.
18. Mart-Vargas, J. R.; Caro, L.; and Serna, P., Experimental Technique
for Measuring the Long-Term Transfer Length in Prestressed Concrete,
Strain, V. 49, 2013, pp. 125-134.
19. Mart-Vargas, J. R.; Arbelez, C. A.; Serna-Ros, P.; Navarro-Gregori,
J.; and Pallars-Rubio, L., Analytical Model for Transfer Length Prediction
458
AUTHORS CLOSURE
The authors would like to thank the discusser for his
interest, insightful discussion, and thoughtful observations
on the presented research paper. The beam cross section of
the bridge model was inspired by the Taylor Bridge built
over Assiniboine River in the Parish of Headingley, Manitoba, Canada. The five-span AASHTO-type bridge with
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) was built in 1997 and has
a span length of 31.25 m (102.53 ft) with a depth of 1.8 m
(5.9 ft) and a 200 mm (7.87 in.) thick composite deck.3 The
prestressed beams for the Taylor Bridge are spaced at 1.8 m
(5.9 ft) with a bottom flange width of 660 mm (25.98 in.). The
span-depth ratio of the tested control beam and bridge model
beams were based on the AASHTO1 Table 2.5.2.6.3.1 traditional minimum depths. For a simple span length of 12.141 m
(39.833 ft), the composite depth required for a prestressed
concrete precast I-beam is 0.045 times the spans length
that is, 0.045 12.5 m = 0.563 m (1.847 ft). The modeled
beam cross section had an approximate scale factor of
1/3.6 for an AASHTO Type IV beam. The true scale model
of the AASHTO Type IV beam has narrower web and depth
and it would have posed difficulties in placing concrete,
vibrating, and compacting; therefore, the web width and
depth were adjusted for the beam models based on the
constructibility in the laboratory setting.30 A similar adjustment was made in bottom flange width to accommodate
minimum spacing of the carbon fiber-reinforced polymer
(CFRP) reinforcement and clear cover requirements. All
such modifications done in the AASHTO Type IV beam for
suiting laboratory setup are clear from the dimensions given
in Fig. 1 to 3. Because of these modifications, the presented
beam cross section is not exactly a true scaled version of
the AASHTO Type IV beam in terms of geometric properties; nevertheless, the cross section does closely represent it.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014
459
460
factor. In general, a Vf of 0.5% is found to be an upper limit for the production of SCC. A greater Vf can hinder the self-consolidatingcharacteristics.
For the assessment of the passing ability of FR-SCC, a modified J-ring
setup containing six or eight bars instead of 16 bars is proposed. The
passing ability of FR-SCC can be expressed as the ratio of diameter:height
at the center of the J-ring test. The passing ability can also be evaluated
using the L-box with a single bar instead of three bars.
A superworkable concrete (SWC) requiring low consolidation energy
can still be produced with a Vf of 0.75% when a viscosity-modifying
admixture is incorporated to prevent segregation and blockage. For the
tested fiber types, the average residual strength (ARS) in flexure is shown
to increase with Vf. Steel fibers exhibited the highest ARS value.
111-M14Effect of Misalignment on Pulloff Test Results:
Numerical and Experimental Assessments
by Luc Courard, Benot Bissonnette, Andrzej Garbacz, Alexander
Vaysburd, Kurt von Fay, Grzegorj Moczulski, and Maxim Morency
The successful application of a concrete repair system is often evaluated through pulloff testing. For such in-place quality control (QC) testing,
the inherent risk of misalignment might affect the recorded value and
eventually make a difference in the acceptance of the work. The issue of
eccentricity in pulloff testing has been ignored in field practice because it
is seen as an academic issue. This paper presents the results of a project
intended to quantify the effect of misalignment on pulloff tensile strength
evaluation and provide a basis for improving QC specifications if necessary. The test program consisted first of an analytical evaluation of the
problem through two-dimensional finite element modeling simulations and,
in a second phase, in laboratory experiments in which the test variables
were the misalignment angle (0, 2, and 4 degrees) and the coring depth
(15 and 30 mm [0.6 and 1.2 in.]). It was found that calculations provide
a conservative but realistic lower bound limit for evaluating the influence
of misalignment upon pulloff test results: a 2-degree misalignment can
be expected to yield a pulloff strength reduction of 7 to 9%, respectively,
for 15 and 30 mm (0.6 and 1.2 in.) coring depths, and the corresponding
decrease resulting from a 4-degree misalignment reaches between 13 and
16%. From a practical standpoint, the results generated in this study indicate
that when specifying a pulloff strength limit in the field, the value should
be increased (probable order of magnitude: 15%) to take into account the
potential reduction due to testing misalignment.
111-M15Strength and Microstructure of Mortar Containing
Nanosilica at High Temperature
by Rahel Kh. Ibrahim, R. Hamid, and M. R. Taha
The effect of high temperature on the mechanical properties and microstructure of nanosilica-incorporated mortars has been studied. Results show
that the incorporation of nanosilica increases both compressive and flexural strengths significantly at both ambient and after a 2-hour exposure to
752F (400C) temperatures; the strengths increase with the increase of
nanosilica content. A significant decrease in strength was recorded for all
control and nanosilica-incorporated mortar specimens after a 2-hour exposure to 1292F (700C) heat; however, nanosilica-incorporated specimens
show higher residual strength than those without nanosilica. Microstructural analysis shows that nanosilica reduces the calcium hydroxide crystals
to produce more calcium silicate hydrate, the process that contributes to
the strength and the residual strength of the material. In addition, the material exhibits a stable structure state up to 842F (450C), while exposure to
higher temperatures results in a decomposition of hydration products.
461
REVIEWERS IN 2013
In 2013, the individuals listed on these pages served as technical reviewers of papers offered for publication
in ACI periodicals. A special thank you to them for their voluntary assistance in helping ACI maintain
the high quality of its publication program.
azniewska-Piekarczyk, Beata
Silesian University of Technology
Rybnik, Poland
Aamidala, Hari Shankar
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Herndon, VA
Abdalla, Hany
College of Technological Studies
Shuwaikh, Kuwait
Abdel-Fattah, Hisham
University of Sharjah
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Abdelgader, Hakim
Tripoli University
Tripoli, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Abdelrahman, Amr
Heliopolis, Egypt
Abo-Shadi, Nagi
Robert Englekirk, Inc.
Santa Ana, CA
Abou-Zeid, Mohamed
American University in Cairo
Cairo, Egypt
Abu Yosef, Ali
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX
Achillopoulou, Dimitra
Democritus University of Thrace
Xanthi, Greece
Acun, Bora
University of Houston
Houston, TX
Adebar, Perry
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Adhikary, Bimal
Austin, TX
Agarwal, Pankaj
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India
Aggelis, Dimitrios
University of Ioannina
Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece
Agustiningtyas, Rudi
Ministry of Public Works
Bandung, Indonesia
Ahmadi, Jamal
University of Science and Technology
Tehran, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Ahmadi Nedushan, Behrooz
Yazd University
Yazd, Yazd, Islamic Republic of Iran
Ahmed, Ayub
Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani
Pilani, Rajasthan, India
462
Ahmed, Ehab
University of Sherbrooke
Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
Aidoo, John
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Terre Haute, IN
Aire, Carlos
National Autonomous University of Mexico
Mexico City, DF, Mexico
Akakin, Tumer
Turkish Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Istanbul, Turkey
Akbari, Reza
University of Tehran
Tehran, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Akcay, Burcu
Kocaeli University
Kocaeli, Turkey
Akiyama, Mitsuyoshi
Waseda University
Tokyo, Japan
Akkaya, Yilmaz
Istanbul Technical University
Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey
Alam, A.K.M. Jahangir
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Alam, M. Shahria
The University of British Columbia
Kelowna, BC, Canada
Alam, Mahbub
Stamford University Bangladesh
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Al-Attar, Tareq
University of Technology
Baghdad, Iraq
Al-Azzawi, Adel
Nahrain University
Baghdad, Iraq
Albahttiti, Mohammed
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS
Albuquerque, Albria
Federal Center of Technological Education of Mato Grosso
Cuiab, Mato Grosso, Brazil
Al-Chaar, Ghassan
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Champaign, IL
Alcocer, Sergio
Institute of Engineering, UNAM
Mexico City, DF, Mexico
Aldajah, Saud
United Arab Emirates University
Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates
Aldea, Corina-Maria
St. Catharines, ON, Canada
Alexander, Scott
UMA Engineering, Ltd.
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Ali, Nisreen
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Ali, Samia
University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore
Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan
Aljewifi, Hana
The University of Cergy-Pontoise
Cergy-Pontosie Cedex, France
Alkhairi, Fadi
Arabtech Jardaneh
Amman, Jordan
Alkhrdaji, Tarek
Structural Group
Hanover, MD
Allahdadi, Hamidreza
Bangalore, India
Al-Manaseer, Akthem
San Jose State University
San Jose, CA
Al-Martini, Samer
University of Western Ontario
London, ON, Canada
Al-Qaisy, Wissam
Safe Mix Ready Concrete
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Alqam, Maha
The University of Jordan
Amman, Jordan
Alsiwat, Jaber
Saudi Consulting Services
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Aly, Aly Mousaad
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA
Amani Dashlejeh, Asghar
Tehran, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Anania, Laura
University of Catania
Catania, Italy
Andersson, Ronny
Hollviken, Sweden
Andrade, Jairo
Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul
Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Andriolo, Francisco
Andriolo Ito Engenharia SC Ltda
So Carlos, So Paulo, Brazil
Ansari, Abdul Aziz
Quaid-e-Awam Engineering University
Nawabshah, Sindh, Pakistan
Aqel, Mohammad
King Saud University
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Aragn, Sergio
Holcim (Costa Rica)
San Rafael, Alajuela, Costa Rica
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Aravinthan, Thiru
University of Southern Queensland
Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
Arisoy, Bengi
Ege University
Izmir, Turkey
Aristizabal-Ochoa, Jose
National University
Medellin, Antioquia, Colombia
Armwood, Catherine
University of Nebraska
Omaha, NE
Asaad, Diler
Gaziantep University
Gaziantep, Turkey
Asamoto, Shingo
Saitama University
Saitama, Saitama, Japan
Aslani, Farhad
University of Technology, Sydney
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Assaad, Joseph
Notre Dame University
Beirut, Lebanon
Atamturktur, Sez
Clemson University
Clemson, SC
Athanasopoulou, Adamantia
AKMI Metropolitan College
Xalandri, Greece
Attaalla, Sayed
ADR Engineering, Inc.
Mission Hills, CA
Aviram, Ady
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.
San Francisco, CA
Awati, Mahesh
B.L.D.E.A.s College of Engineering & Technology, Bijapur
Bijapur, Karnataka, India
Awida, Tarek
KEO International Consultants
Kuwait
Ayano, Toshiki
Okayama University
Okayama, Japan
Aydin, Abdulkadir Cuneyt
Ataturk University
Erzurum, Turkey
Aydin, Ertug
European University of Lefke
Nicosia, Turkey
Aydn, Serdar
Dokuz Eylul University
Izmir, Turkey
Aykac, Sabahattin
Gazi University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture
Ankara, Turkey
Azad, Abul
King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
463
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Aziz, Omar
University of Salahaddin
Erbil, Iraq
Babafemi, Adewumi
Obafemi Awolowo University
Ile-ife, Nigeria
Bacinskas, Darius
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Vilnius, Lithuania
Badger, Christian
Bates Engineering, Inc.
Lakewood, CO
Bae, Sungjin
Bechtel Corporation
Frederick, MD
Bai, Shaoliang
Chongqing University
Chonqqing, China
Bai, Yongtao
Kyoto University
Kyoto, Japan
Bakhshi, Mehdi
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ
Balaguru, P.
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
Piscataway, NJ
Balouch, Sana
University of Dundee
Dundee, UK
Banibayat, Pouya
New York, NY
Banic, Davor
Civil Engineering Institute of Croatia
Zagreb, Croatia
Baran, Eray
Atilim University
Ankara, Turkey
Barbosa, Maria
Federal University of Juiz de Fora
Juiz De Fora, Brazil
Barroso de Aguiar, Jose
University of Minho
Guimaraes, Portugal
Bartos, Peter
University of the West of Scotland - Paisley
Paisley, Scotland, UK
Bashandy, Alaa
Menofiya University
Shibin El-Kom, Egypt
Batson, Gordon
Clarkson University
Potsdam, NY
Bayrak, Oguzhan
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX
Bayraktar, Alemdar
Trabzon, Turkey
464
Bayuaji, Ridho
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
Perak, Malaysia
Beddar, Miloud
Msila University
Msila, Algeria
Bediako, Mark
CSIR - Building and Road Research Institute
Kumasi, Ghana
Bedirhanoglu, Idris
Dicle University
Diyarbakir, Turkey
Behnoud, Ali
Iran University of Science and Technology
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Belleri, Andrea
University of Bergamo
Dalmine, Italy
Benboudjema, Farid
Ecole normale suprieure de Cachan
Cachan, France
Benliang, Liang
Shanghai, China
Bennett, Richard
The University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN
Bentz, Dale
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD
Berry, Michael
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT
Beygi, Morteza
Mazandaran University
Babol, Mazandaran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Bharati, Raj
National Institute of Technology Calicut
Calicut, Kerala, India
Bhargava, Kapilesh
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Bhattacharjee, Bishwajit
Indian Institute Of Technology, Delhi
New Delhi, India
Bhatti, Abdul
National University of Sciences and Technology
Islamabad, Pakistan
Bilcik, Juraj
Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava
Bratislava, Slovakia
Bilek, Vlastimil
ZPSV a.s.
Brno, Czech Republic
Bilir, Turhan
Blent Ecevit University
Zonguldak, Turkey
Billah, Abu Hena
The University of British Columbia
Kelowna, BC, Canada
Bimschas, Martin
Regensdorf, Switzerland
Bindiganavile, Vivek
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Biolzi, Luigi
Politecnico di Milano
Milan, Italy
Birely, Anna
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
Birkle, Gerd
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
Calgary, AB, Canada
Bisschop, Jan
University of Oslo
Oslo, Norway
Blair, Bruce
Lafarge North America
Herndon, VA
Bobko, Christopher
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
Bochicchio, Victor
Hamon Custodis
Somerville, NJ
Bondar, Dali
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Bondy, Kenneth
Consulting Structural Engineer
West Hills, CA
Boshoff, William
Stellenbosch University
Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa
Boulfiza, Moh
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Bousias, Stathis
University of Patras
Patras, Greece
Bradberry, Timothy
TxDOT Bridge Division
Austin, TX
Braestrup, Mikael
Ramboll Hannemann and Hojlund A/S
Virum, Denmark
Brand, Alexander
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL
Brena, Sergio
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA
Brewe, Jared
CTLGroup
Skokie, IL
Bui, Van
BASF Admixtures, Inc.
Cleveland, OH
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Burak, Burcu
Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi
Ankara, Turkey
Burdette, Edwin
University Of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN
Byard, Benjamin
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Chattanooga, TN
Calixto, Jos
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Campione, Giuseppe
Universita Palermo
Palermo, Italy
Canbay, Erdem
Middle East Technical University
Ankara, Cankaya, Turkey
Cano Barrita, Prisciliano
Instituto Politcnico Nacional/CIIDIR Unidad Oaxaca
Oaxaca, Oaxaca, Mexico
Canpolat, Fethullah
Yildiz Technical University
Istanbul, Turkey
Capozucca, Roberto
Faculty of Engineering
Ancona, Italy
Carino, Nicholas
Chagrin Falls, OH
Carreira, Domingo
Chicago, IL
Carrillo, Julian
Universidad Militar Nueva Granada (UMNG)
Bogot, D.C., Colombia
Carvalho, Alessandra
Pontifical Catholic University of Gois (PUC-Gois)
Goinia, Gois, Brazil
Castles, Bryan
Western Technologies, Inc.
Phoenix, AZ
Castro, Javier
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
Santiago, Chile
Catoia, Bruna
Federal University of So Carlos (UFSCar)
So Carlos, So Paulo, Brazil
Cattaneo, Sara
Politecnico di Milano
Milan, Italy
Cedolin, Luigi
Politecnico di Milano
Milano, Italy
Cetisli, Fatih
Firat University
Elazig, Turkey
Chai, Hwa Kian
Tobishima Corporation
Noda, Chiba, Japan
465
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Chakraborty, Arun
Bengal Engineering and Science University
Howrah, West Bengal, India
Chang, Jeremy
Holmes Fire & Safety
Christchurch, New Zealand
Chastre, Carlos
FCT/UNL
Lisbon, Portugal
Chaudhry, Asif
Geoscience Advance Research Laboratories
Islamabad, Pakistan
Chawla, Komal
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
Kota, India
Chen, Chun-Tao
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
Taipei, Taiwan
Chen, Hua-Peng
The University of Greenwich
Chatham, Kent, UK
Chen, Qi
Boral Materials Technology
San Antonio, TX
Chen, Shiming
Tongji University
Shanghai, China
Chen, Wei
Wuhan University of Technology
Wuhan, HuBei, China
Chen, Xi
Shanghai, China
Cheng, Min-Yuan
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
Taipei, Taiwan
Chi, Maochieh
WuFeng University
Chiayi County, Taiwan
Chiaia, Bernardino
Politecnico di Torino
Torino, Piedmont, Italy
Chiang, Chih-Hung
Chaoyang University of Technology
Wufong, Taichung, Taiwan
Chindaprasirt, Prinya
Khon Kaen University
Khon Kaen, Thailand
Chiorino, Mario
Politecnico di Torino
Torino, Italy
Cho, Chang-Geun
Chosun University
Gwangju, Republic of Korea
Cho, Jae-Yeol
Seoul National University
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Cho, Soon-Ho
Gwangju University
Gwangju, Republic of Korea
466
Choi, Bong-Seob
Chungwoon University
Hongseong-Gun, Republic of Korea
Choi, Eunsoo
Hongik University
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Choi, Kyoung-Kyu
Soongsil University
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Choi, Sejin
University of California, Berkeley
Albany, CA
Chompreda, Praveen
Mahidol University
Nakornpathom, Thailand
Choong, Kokkeong
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Pulau Pinang, Seberang Perai Selatan, Malaysia
Chorzepa, Migeum
Park Ridge, IL
Chowdhury, Subrato
Ultra Tech Cement, Ltd.
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Chun, Sung-Chul
Mokpo National University
Mooan-gun, Republic of Korea
Chung, Deborah
State University of New York
Buffalo, NY
Chung, Jae
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
Chung, Lan
Dankook University
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Claisse, Peter
Coventry University
Coventry, UK
Cleary, Douglas
Rowan University
Glassboro, NJ
Clendenen, Joseph
Pleasant Hill, IL
Cobo, Alfonso
Polytechnic University of Madrid
Madrid, Spain
Coelho, Jano
AltoQi Informatica
Florianopolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil
Colombo, Matteo
Politecnico di Milano
Lecco, Italy
Conley, Christopher
United States Military Academy
West Point, NY
Cordova, Carlos
La Paz, Bolivia
Coronelli, Dario
Politecnico di Milano
Milano, Italy
Corral, Ramn
Universidad Autnoma de Sinaloa
Los Mochis, Sinaloa, Mexico
Correal, Juan
Arcon Structural Engineers, Inc.
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
Cortes, Douglas
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM
Criswell, Marvin
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO
Cueto, Jorge
Universidad de La Salle
Bogota, Colombia
D. L., Venkatesh Babu
Kumaraguru College of Technology
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Dang, Canh
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR
Das, Sreekanta
University of Windsor
Windsor, ON, Canada
Daye, Marwan
Intima International Co., Ltd.
Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia
de Brito, Jorge
IST/TUL
Lisbon, Portugal
de Frutos, Jose
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid
Madrid, Spain
De Rooij, Mario
TNO
Delft, the Netherlands
Deb, Arghya
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Kharagpur, West Bengal, India
Degtyarev, Vitaliy
Columbia, SC
Dehn, Frank
University of Leipzig
Leipzig, Germany
Delalibera, Rodrigo
University of So Paulo
So Carlos, So Paulo, Brazil
Delatte, Norbert
Cleveland State University
Broadview Heights, OH
Demir, Ali
Celal Bayar University
Manisa, Turkey
Demir, Serhat
Blacksea Technical University
Trabzon, Turkey
Den Uijl, Joop
Delft University of Technology
Delft, the Netherlands
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Deng, Yaohua
Iowa State University
Ames, IA
Detwiler, Rachel
Braun Intertec Corporation
Minneapolis, MN
Devries, Richard
Milwaukee School of Engineering
Milwaukee, WI
Dhanasekar, Manicka
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Dhonde, Hemant
University of Houston
Houston, TX
Di Ludovico, Marco
University of Naples Federico II
Naples, Italy
Dias, WPS
University of Moratuwa
Moratuwa, Sri Lanka
Diaz Loya, Eleazar
Louisiana Tech University
Ruston, LA
Dilger, Walter
University of Calgary
Calgary, AB, Canada
Ding, Yining
Dalian, China
Diniz, Sofia Maria
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
Be lo Horizonte, Brazil
Do, Jeongyun
Kunsan National University
Kunsan, Jeonbuk, Republic of Korea
Dodd, Larry
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Orange, CA
Dogan, Unal
Istanbul Technical University
Istanbul, Turkey
Dolan, Charles
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY
Dongell, Jonathan
Pebble Technologies
Scottsdale, AZ
Dongxu, Li
Nanjing University of Technology
Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
Dontchev, Dimitar
University of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy
Sofia, Bulgaria
Dragunsky, Boris
Universal Construction Testing, Ltd.
Highland Park, IL
Du, Jinsheng
Beijing Jiao Tong University
Beijing, China
467
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Du, Lianxiang
The University of Alabama at Birmingham
Birmingham, AL
Du, Yingang
Anglia Ruskin University
Chelmsford, UK
Dubey, Ashish
United States Gypsum Corp
Libertyville, IL
Dutta, Anjan
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
Guwahati, Assam, India
Dutton, John
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Eid, Rami
University of Sherbrooke
Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
El Ragaby, Amr
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Elamin, Anwar
University of Nyala
Khartoum, Sudan
El-Ariss, Bilal
United Arab Emirates University
Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
Elbahar, Mohamed
Ken Okamoto & Associates: Structural Engineering
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
ElBatanouny, Mohamed
University of South Carolina
West Columbia, SC
Eldarwish, Aly
Alexandria, Egypt
El-Dash, Karim
College of Technological Studies
Kuwait, Kuwait
El-Dieb, Amr
Ain Shams University
Abbasia, Cairo, Egypt
El-Hawary, Moetaz
Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research
Safat, Kuwait
Elkady, Hala
National Research Centre (NRC)
Giza, Egypt
El-Maaddawy, Tamer
United Arab Emirates University
Al-Ain, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Elmenshawi, Abdelsamie
University of Calgary
Calgary, AB, Canada
El-Metwally, Salah
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Honolulu, HI
Elnady, Mohamed
Mississauga, ON, Canada
El-Refaie, Sameh
El-Gama City, Mataria, Cairo, Egypt
468
El-Salakawy, Ehab
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Elsayed, Tarek
Cairo, Egypt
Emamy Farvashany, Firooz
Perthpolis Pty, Ltd.
Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Eom, Tae-Sung
Catholic University of Daegu
Kyeongsan-si, Republic of Korea
Erdem, T.
Izmir Institute of Technology
Izmir, Turkey
Ergn, Ali
Afyon Kocatepe University
Afyonkarahsar, Turkey
Evangelista, Lus
Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Lisboa
Lisbon, Portugal
Fafitis, Apostolos
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ
Fanella, David
Klein and Hoffman
Chicago, IL
Fantilli, Alessandro
Politecnico di Torino
Torino, Italy
Faraji, Mahdi
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Fardis, Michael
Patras, Greece
Farghaly, Ahmed
University of Sherbrooke
Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
Faria, Duarte
Faculdade de Cincias e Tecnologia
Caparica-Lisbon, Portugal
Farrow, William
Lebanon, NJ
Farzam, Masood
Structural Engineering
Tabriz, Islamic Republic of Iran
Fenollera, Maria
Universidade de Vigo
Vigo, Spain
Ferguson, Bruce
University of Georgia
Athens, GA
Fernndez Montes, David
Madrid, Spain
Fernndez Ruiz, Miguel
Ecole Polytechnique Federale De Lausanne
Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland
Ferrara, Liberato
Politecnico di Milano
Milan, Italy
Ferrier, E.
Universit Claude Bernard Lyon 1
Villerubanne, France
Folino, Paula
University of Buenos Aires
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Foster, Stephen
University of New South Wales
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Fouad, Fouad
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Birmingham, AL
Fradua, Martin
Feld, Kaminetzky & Cohen, P.C.
Jericho, NY
Francois, Buyle-Bodin
University of Lille
Villeneuve dAscq, France
Fuchs, Werner
University of Stuttgart
Stuttgart, Germany
Furlong, Richard
Austin, TX
G., Dhinakaran
Sastra University
Thanjavur, India
Gabrijel, Ivan
University of Zagreb
Zagreb, Croatia
Galati, Nestore
Structural Group, Inc.
Elkridge, MD
Gallegos Mejia, Luis
Fundacion Padre Arrupe de El Salvador
Soyapango, San Salvador, El Salvador
Gamble, William
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL
Ganesan, N.
National Institute of Technology
Calicut, India
Garboczi, Edward
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD
Garcez, Estela
Universidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel)
Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Garcia-Taengua, Emilio
Universidad Politecnica de Valencia
Valencia, Spain
Gardoni, Paolo
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL
Gayarre, Fernando
Gijon, Spain
Gayed, Ramez
University of Calgary
Calgary, AB, Canada
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Gesund, Hans
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY
Ghafari, Nima
Laval University
Quebec, QC, Canada
Giaccio, Craig
AECOM
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Giancaspro, James
University of Miami
Coral Gables, FL
Gilbert, Raymond
The University of New South Wales
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Girgin, Canan
Yildiz Technical University
Istanbul, Turkey
Gisario, Annamaria
Sapienza Universit di Roma
Rome, Italy
Gnaedinger, John
Con-Cure Corporation
Chesterfield, MO
Goel, Rajeev
CSIR - Central Road Research Institute
Delhi, India
Goel, Savita
Whitlock Dalrymple Poston & Associates
New York, NY
Gke, H. Sleyman
Gazi University
Ankara, Turkey
Gongxun, Wang
Hunan University of Science and Technology
Xiangtan, China
Gonzales Garcia, Luis Alberto
Lagging SA
Lima, Peru
Gonzlez-Valle, Enrique
Madrid, Spain
Grandic, Davor
University of Rijeka
Rijeka, Croatia
Grattan-Bellew, P.
Materials & Petrographic Research G-B Inc.
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Greene, Thomas
W. R. Grace & Co.
Houston, TX
Gribniak, Viktor
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Vilnius, Lithuania
Gu, Xiang-Lin
Tongji University
Shanghai, China
Guadagnini, Maurizio
The University of Shefifeld
Sheffield, UK
469
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Guan, Garfield
University of Cambridge
Cambridge, UK
Guimaraes, Giuseppe
Pontificia Universidade Catlica do Rio de Janeiro
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Gneyisi, Erhan
Gaziantep University
Gaziantep, Turkey
Guo, Guohui
Overland Park, KS
Guo, Liping
Southeast University
Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
Guo, Zixiong
Huaqiao University
Quanzhou, Fujian, China
Gupta, Ajay
M.B.M. Engineering College
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
Gupta, Pawan
Post-Tensioning Institute
Phoenix, AZ
Haach, Vladimir
University of So Paulo
So Carlos, So Paulo, Brazil
Habbaba, Ahmad
Technische Universitt Mnchen
Garching, Germany
Haddad, Gilbert
SNC-Lavalin, Inc.
St. Laurent, QC, Canada
Haddadin, Laith
United Nations
New York, NY
Hadi, Muhammad
University of Wollongong
Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Hadje-Ghaffari, Hossain
John A. Martin & Associates
Los Angeles, CA
Hagenberger, Michael
Valparaiso University
Valparaiso, IN
Hamid, Roszilah
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Hamilton, Trey
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
Hansen, Will
Brighton, MI
Harajli, Mohamed
American University of Beirut
Beirut, Lebanon
Harbec, David
University of Sherbrooke
Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
470
Harris, Devin
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA
Harris, G Terry
Green Cove Springs, FL
Harris, Nathan
Menlo Park, CA
Hashemi, Shervin
Seoul National University
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Hassan, Assem
Toronto, ON, Canada
Hassan, Maan
University of Technology
Baghdad, Iraq
Hassan, Wael
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
He, Xiaobing
Chongqing Jiaotong University
Chongqing, China
He, Zhiqi
Southeast University
Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
Heinzmann, Daniel
Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts
Horw, Switzerland
Henry, Richard
University of Auckland
Auckland, New Zealand
Himawan, Aris
Singapore, Singapore
Hindi, Riyadh
Saint Louis University
St. Louis, MO
Hoehler, Matthew
Encinitas, CA
Holschemacher, Klaus
HTWK Leipzig
Leipzig, Germany
Hong, Sung-Gul
Seoul National University
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Hooton, R. Doug
University of Toronto
Toronto, ON, Canada
Hossain, Khandaker
Ryerson University
Toronto, ON, Canada
Hossain, Tanvir
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA
Hosseini, Ardalan
Isfahan University of Technology (IUT)
Isfahan, Islamic Republic of Iran
Hoult, Neil
Toronto, ON, Canada
Hover, Kenneth
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
Hrynyk, Trevor
University of Toronto
Toronto, ON, Canada
Hsu, Thomas
University of Houston
Houston, TX
Hu, Jiong
Texas State University-San Marcos
San Marcos, TX
Hu, Nan
Tsinghua University
Beijing, China
Huang, Chang-Wei
Chung Yuan Christian University
Chung Li, Taiwan
Huang, Jianwei
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Edwardsville, IL
Huang, Xiaobao
GM-WFG/GM-N American Project Center
Warren, MI
Huang, Yishuo
Chaoyang University of Technology
Wufeng, Taichung, Taiwan
Huang, Zhaohui
Brunel University
London, UK
Hubbell, David
Toronto, ON, Canada
Hueste, Mary Beth
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
Hulsey, J.
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK
Hung, Chung-Chan
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Husain, Mohamed
Zagazig University
Zagazig, Egypt
Husem, Metin
Karadeniz Technical University
Trabzon, Turkey
Hussain, Raja
King Saud University
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Hussein, Amgad
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. Johns, NL, Canada
Hwang, Chao-Lung
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
Taipei, Taiwan
Ibell, Tim
University of Bath
Bath, UK
Ibrahim, Amer
Baquba, Iraq
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Ibrahim, Hisham
Buckland and Taylor, Ltd.
North Vancouver, BC, Canada
Ichinose, Toshikatsu
Nagoya Institute of Technology
Nagoya, Japan
Ideker, Jason
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR
Ince, Ragip
Firat University
Elazig, Turkey
Ipek, Sleyman
Gaziantep University
Gaziantep, Turkey
Irassar, Edgardo
Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos
Aires (UNCPBA)
Olavarria, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Islam, Md.
Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology (CUET)
Chittagong, Bangladesh
Issa, Mohsen
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, IL
Izquierdo-Encarnacin, Jose
Porticus
San Juan, PR
Jaari, Asaad
Dera, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Jaeger, Thomas
Baenziger Partner AG
Chur, Switzerland
Jain, Mohit
Nirma University
Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Jain, Shashank
Delhi Technological University (DTU)
New Delhi, India
Jamshidi, Masoud
Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC)
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Jang, Seung Yup
Korea Railroad Research Institute
Uiwang, Gyongggi-do, Republic of Korea
Jansen, Daniel
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA
Jau, Wen-Chen
National Chiao Tung University (NCTU)
Hsinchu, Taiwan
Jawaheri Zadeh, Hany
Miami, FL
Jayapalan, Amal
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
Jeng, Chyuan-Hwan
National Chi Nan University-Taiwan
Puli, Nantou, Taiwan
471
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Jensen, Elin
Lawrence Technological University
Southfield, MI
Jeon, Se-Jin
Ajou University
Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
Jiang, Jiabiao
W. R. Grace (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
Singapore
Jirsa, James
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX
Jozic, Draan
Universty of Split
Split, Croatia
Kabele, Petr
Czech Technical University in Prague
Praha 6, Czech Republic
Kagaya, Makoto
Akita, Japan
Kalkan, Ilker
Krkkale University
Krkkale, Turkey
Kan, Yu-Cheng
Chaoyang University of Technology
Taichung County, Taiwan
Kanakubo, Toshiyuki
University of Tsukuba
Tsukuba, Japan
Kandasami, Siva
Bristol, UK
Kang, Thomas
Seoul National University
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Kankam, Charles
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology
Kumasi, Ghana
Kansara, Kunal
University of Bath
Bath, UK
Kantarao, Velidandi
Central Road Research Institute
New Delhi, Delhi, India
Karahan, Okan
Erciyes University
Erciyes, Turkey
Karayannis, Christos
Democritus University of Thrace
Xanthi, Greece
Karbasi Arani, Kamyar
University of Naples Federico II
Napoli, Italy
Kawamura, Mitsunori
Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan
Kazemi, Mohammad
Sharif University of Technology
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Kazemi, Sadegh
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB, Canada
472
Kenai, Said
Universit de Blida
Blida, Algeria
Kevern, John
University of Missouri-Kansas City
Kansas City, MO
Khan, Mohammad
King Saud University
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Kheder, Ghazi
University of Al Mustansiriya
Baghdad, Iraq
Khennane, Amar
Australian Defense Force Academy, University of New South
Wales (AFDA, UNSW)
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
Khuntia, Madh
DuKane Precast Inc.
Naperville, IL
Kianoush, M. Reza
Ryerson University
Toronto, ON, Canada
Kilic, Sami
Bogazici University
Istanbul, Turkey
Kim, Jae Hong
UNIST
Ulsan, Republic of Korea
Kim, Jang Hoon
Ajou University
Suwon, Republic of Korea
Kim, Yail
University of Colorado Denver
Denver, CO
Kirgiz, Mehmet
Hacettepe University
Ankara, Turkey
Kishi, Norimitsu
Muroran Institute of Technology
Muroran, Japan
Kisicek, Tomislav
University of Zagreb
Zagreb, Croatia
Klemencic, Ronald
Magnusson Klemencic Associates
Seattle, WA
Ko, Lesley Suz-Chung
Holcim Group Support, Ltd.
Holderbank, AG, Switzerland
Koehler, Eric
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX
Koenders, Eddy A. B.
Delft University of Technology
Delft, the Netherlands
Kotsovos, Gerasimos
National Technical University of Athens
Athens, Greece
Kotsovos, Michael
Athens, Greece
Krem, Slamah
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Krstulovic-Opara, Neven
ExxonMobil Development Company
Houston, TX
Kumar, Pardeep
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
Kumar, Rakesh
Central Road Research Institute
Delhi, India
Kumar, Vinod
Steel Authority of India Limited
Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
Kunieda, Minoru
Nagoya University
Nagoya, Japan
Kunnath, Sashi
University of California, Davis
Davis, CA
Kupwade-Patil, Kunal
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA
Kurtis, Kimberly
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
Kusbiantoro, Andri
Universiti Malaysia Pahang
Gambang, Pahang, Malaysia
Kwan, Albert
The University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong, China
Kwan, Wai Hoe
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia
La Tegola, Antonio
University of Lecce
Lecce, Italy
LaFave, James
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Champaign, IL
Lai, Jianzhong
Nanjing University of Science and Technology
Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
Larbi, Kacimi
University of Sciences and Technology of Oran
Oran, Oran, Algeria
Laskar, Aminul
National Institute of Technology
Silchar, Assam, India
Laterza, Michelangelo
University of Basilicata
Potenza, Italy
Law, David
RMIT University
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Lawler, John
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
Northbrook, IL
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Lee, Chadon
Chung-Ang University
Ansung, Kyungki-do, Republic of Korea
Lee, Chung-Sheng
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA
Lee, Deuck Hang
University of Seoul
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Lee, Douglas
Douglas D. Lee & Associates
Fort Worth, TX
Lee, Heui Hwang
Arup
San Francisco, CA
Lee, Hung-Jen
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology
Douliu, Yunlin, Taiwan
Lee, Jaeman
Kyoto University
Kyoto, Japan
Lee, Jung-Yoon
Sung Kyun Kwan University
Suwon, Republic of Korea
Lee, Nam Ho
SNC-Lavalin Nuclear Inc.
Oakville, ON, Canada
Lee, Seong-Cheol
KEPCO International Graduate School (KINGS)
Ulsan, Republic of Korea
Lee, Seung-Chang
Samsung C&T Corporation
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Lee, Yoon-Si
Bradley University
Peoria, IL
Lee, Young Hak
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Leiva Fernndez, Carlos
University of Seville
Seville, Andalucia, Spain
Leo Braxtan, Nicole
New York, NY
Lequesne, Remy
University of Kansas
Madison, KS
Leutbecher, Torsten
Universitt Kassel
Kassel, Germany
Li, Fumin
China University of Mining and Technology
Xuzhou, Jiangsu, China
Li, Wei
Wenzhou University
Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China
Lignola, Gian Piero
University of Naples
Naples, Italy
473
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Lima, Maria Cristina
Federal University of Uberlndia
Uberlandia, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Lin, Wei-Ting
Institute of Nuclear Energy Research
Taoyuan, Taiwan
Lin, Yiching
National Chung-Hsing Univ
Taichung, Taiwan
Liu, Shuhua
Wuhan University
Wuhan, HuBei, China
Liu, Yanbo
Florida Department of Transportation-State Materials Office
Gainesville, FL
Lizarazo Marriaga, Juan
Coventry University
Coventry, UK
Londhe, Rajesh
Government College of Engineering Aurangabad
Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
Long, Adrian
Queens University
Belfast, Ireland
Loo, Yew-Chaye
Gold Coast, Australia
Loper, James
Jacobs Facilities, Inc.
Arlington, VA
Lopes, Anne
Furnas Centrais Eltricas S/A
Aparecida De Goiania, Goias, Brazil
Lopes, Sergio
University of Coimbra
Coimbra, Portugal
Lpez-Almansa, Francisco
Technical University of Catalonia
Barcelona, Spain
Lounis, Zoubir
National Research Council
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Lubell, Adam
Read Jones Christoffersen, Ltd.
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Ludovit, Nad
Alfa 04
Kosice, Slovakia
Luo, Baifu
Harbin, China
Lushnikova, Nataliya
National University of Water Management and Nature
ResourcesUse
Rivne, Ukraine
Ma, Zhongguo
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN
MacDougall, Colin
Kingston, ON, Canada
474
Machida, Atsuhiko
Saitama University
Saitama, Japan
Macht, Jrgen
Kirchdorf, Austria
Maekawa, Koichi
University of Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan
Magliulo, Gennaro
University of Naples Federico II
Naples, Italy
Magureanu, Cornelia
Technical University of Cluj Napoca
Cluj Napoca, Cluj, Romania
Mahboub, Kamyar
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY
Mahfouz, Ibrahim
Cairo, Egypt
Malik, Adnan
University of New South Wales
Sydney, Australia
Mancio, Mauricio
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
Mander, John
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
Manso, Juan
University of Burgos
Burgos, Castilla-Len, Spain
Marikunte, Shashi
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL
Martinelli, Enzo
University of Salerno
Fisciano, Italy
Mart-Vargas, Jos
Universitat Politcnica de Valncia
Valencia, Valencia, Spain
Maruyama, Ippei
Nagoya University
Nagoya, Aichi, Japan
Maslehuddin, Mohammed
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Matamoros, Adolfo
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS
Mathew, George
Cochin University of Science and Technology
Cochin, Kerala, India
Matsagar, Vasant
Lawrence Technological University
Southfield, MI
Matta, Fabio
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC
Maximos, Hany
Pharos University in Alexandria
Alexandria, Egypt
Mbessa, Michel
University of Yaound I - ENSP
Yaound, Center, Cameroon
McCabe, Steven
Lawrence, KS
McCall, W.
Concrete Engineering Consultants
Charlotte, NC
McCarter, John
Heriot Watt University
Edinburgh, UK
McDonald, David
USG Corporation
Libertyville, IL
McLeod, Heather
Kansas Department of Transportation
Topeka, KS
Meda, Alberto
University of Bergamo
Bergamo, Italy
Medallah, Khaled
Saudi Aramco IKPMS
Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia
Meddah, Seddik
Kingston University London
Kingston, London, UK
Mehanny, Sameh
Cairo University
Cairo, Egypt
Meinheit, Donald
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
Chicago, IL
Meininger, Richard
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center-FHWA
Columbia, MD
Mejia, Luis Gonzalo
LGM & Cia
Medellin, Colombia
Melchers, Robert
The University of Newcastle
Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
Melo, Jos
University of Aveiro
Aveiro, Portugal
Meng, Tao
Institution of Building Materials
Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
Menon, Devdas
Indian Institute of Technology
Chennai, Tamilnadu, India
Mermerdas , Kasm
Hasan Kalyoncu University
Gaziantep, Turkey
Meshgin, Pania
University of Colorado Boulder
Boulder, CO
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Mezhov, Alexander
Moscow State University of Civil Engineering
Moscow, Russian Federation
Milestone, Neil
Callaghan Innovation
Lower Hutt, New Zealand
Minelli, Fausto
University of Brescia
Brescia, Brescia, Italy
Mishra, Laxmi
Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
Mlynarczyk, Alexandar
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
Princeton Junction, NJ
Mohamad, Gihad
University of Extremo Sul Catarinense - UNESC
Alegrete, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Mohamed, Ashraf
Alexandria University
Alexandria, Egypt
Mohamed, Nayera
Assiut University
Assiut, Egypt
Mohammed, Tarek
University of Asia Pacific
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Montejo, Luis
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
Moradian, Masoud
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK
Moreno Jnior, Armando
Unicamp
Campinas, So Paulo, Brazil
Moretti, Marina
University of Thessaly
Athens, Greece
Moriconi, Giacomo
Technical University of Marche
Ancona, Italy
Morley, Christopher
Cambridge University
Cambridge, UK
Moser, Robert
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Vicksburg, MS
Mostofinejad, Davood
Isfahan University of Technology
Isfahan, Isfahan, Islamic Republic of Iran
Motaref, Sarira
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT
Mubin, Sajjad
University of Engineering and Technology
Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan
Mulaveesala, Ravibabu
Indian Institute of Information Technology
Jabalpur, India
475
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Munoz, Jose
Federal Highway Administration
McLean, VA
Muttoni, Aurelio
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Lausanne, Switzerland
Nabavi, Esrafil
Rezvanshahr, Guilan, Islamic Republic of Iran
Nafie, Amr
Cairo, Egypt
Naish, David
California State University, Fullerton
Fullerton, CA
Najimi, Meysam
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Las Vegas, NV
Nakamura, Hikaru
Nagoya University
Nagoya, Aichi, Japan
Narayanan, Pannirselvam
VIT University
Vellore, Tamilnadu, India
Narayanan, Subramanian
Gaithersburg, MD
Nassif, Hani
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Piscataway, NJ
Negrutiu, Camelia
Technical University of Cluj Napoca
Cluj Napoca, Cluj, Romania
Neves, Lus
University of Coimbra
Coimbra, Portugal
Ng, Ernesto
Maveang, S.A.
Panama, Panama
Ng, Pui Lam
The University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Nichols, John
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
Nimityongskul, Pichai
Asian Institute of Technology
Pathumthani, Thailand
Nkinamubanzi, Pierre-Claver
Institute for Research in Construction
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Nokken, Michelle
Concordia University
Montreal, QC, Canada
Noor, Munaz
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Noshiravani, Talayeh
cole polytechnique fdrale de Lausanne (EPFL)
Lausanne, Switzerland
Novak, Lawrence
Portland Cement Association
Skokie, IL
476
Nowak, Andrzej
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE
Nwaubani, Sunny Onyebuchi
Anglia Ruskin University
Chelmsford, UK
OConnor, Arthur
O C Engineering
Reno, NV
Offenberg, Matthew
Rinker Materials
Orlando, FL
Oh, Byung
Seoul National University
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Okeil, Ayman
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA
Olanitori, Lekan
The Federal University of Technology Akure
Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria
Orakcal, Kutay
Bogazici University
Istanbul, Turkey
Orr, John
University of Bath
Bath, UK
Orta, Luis
Instituto Tecnolgico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey
(ITESM)
Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico
Ortega, J.
University of Alacant
Alacant, Alicante, Spain
Otieno, Mike
University of Cape Town
Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa
Otsuki, Nobuaki
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Tokyo, Japan
Ousalem, Hassane
Takenaka Corporation - Research and Development Institute
Inzai, Chiba, Japan
Ozbay, Erdogan
Iskenderun, Hatay, Turkey
Ozden, Sevket
Kocaeli Universitesi
Kocaeli, Turkey
Ozturan, Turan
Bogazici University
Istanbul, Turkey
Ozturk, Ali
Dokuz Eylul University
Izmir, Buca, Turkey
P S, Ambily
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)
Chennai, Tamilnadu, India
Pacheco, Alexandre
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Page, Adrian
University of Newcastle
Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
Palmisano, Fabrizio
Politecnico di Bari
Bari, Italy
Pan, Wang Fook
SEGi University
Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
Pantazopoulou, Stavroula
Demokritus University of Thrace
Xanthi, Greece
Pape, Torill
University of Newcastle
Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
Parghi, Anant
The University of British Columbia
Kelowna, BC, Canada
Park, Honggun
Seoul National University
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Parsekian, Guilherme
Federal University of So Carlos
So Carlos, So Paulo, Brazil
Patel, Raj
CeraTech, Inc.
Baltimore, MD
Pauletta, Margherita
University of Udine
Tavagnacco, Udine, Italy
Paulotto, Carlo
Acciona S.A.
Alcobendas, Spain
Pavlikova, Milena
CTU in Prague
Prague, Czech Republic
Pellegrino, Carlo
University of Padova
Padova, Italy
Peng, Cao
Harbin Institute of Technology
Harbin, Heilongjiang, China
Peng, Jianxin
Institute of Bridge Engineering
Changsha, Hunan, China
Perez, Gustavo
Universidad Nacional de Tucumn
Yerba Buena, Tucumn, Argentina
Perez Caldentey, Alejandro
Universidad Politcnica de Madrid
Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Persson, Bertil
Bara, Sweden
Pessiki, Stephen
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA
Phillippi, Don
Diamond Pacific
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Pirayeh Gar, Shobeir
Houston, TX
Polak, Marianna
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Potter, William
Florida Department of Transportation
Tallahassee, FL
Pourazin, Khashaiar
International Institute of Earthquake Engineering
Seismology (IIEES)
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Prakash, M. N.
J.N.N. College of Engineering
Shimoga, Karnataka, India
Prasittisopin, Lapyote
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR
Proske, Tilo
Technische Universitt Darmstadt
Darmstadt, Germany
Prota, Andrea
University of Naples
Naples, Italy
Provis, John
University of Melbourne
Victoria, Australia
Prusinski, Jan
Slag Cement Association
Sugar Land, TX
Pujol, Santiago
Berkeley, CA
Puthenpurayil Thankappan, Santhosh
Granite Construction Company
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Putra Jaya, Ramadhansyah
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Skudai, Malaysia
Qasrawi, Hisham
The Hashemite University
Zarqa, Jordan
Qiu, Bin
Xian University of Architecture & Technology
Xian, China
Rafi, Muhammad
NED University of Engineering and Technology
Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan
Ragueneau, Frederic
Ecole normale suprieure de Cachan (ENS Cachan)
Cachan, France
Rahal, Khaldoun
Kuwait University
Safat, Kuwait
Rajamane, N. P.
SRM University
Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu, India
Ramamurthy, K.
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Chennai, Tamilnadu, India
and
477
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Ramaswamy, Ananth
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore, Karnataka, India
Ramos, Antnio
Faculdade de Cincias e Tecnologia
Monte de Caparica, Portugal
Rangan, Vijaya
Curtin University of Technology
Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Rao, Hanchate
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University
Engineering
Anantapur, India
Rao, Sarella
National Institute of Technology
Warangal, Andhra Pradesh, India
Raoof, Mohammed
Loughborough University
Loughborough, UK
Rautenberg, Jeffrey
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
Emeryville, CA
Ray, Indrajit
Purdue University Calumet
Hammond, IN
Razaqpur, A. Ghani
McMaster University
Hamilton, ON, Canada
Regan, Paul
Trigram
London, UK
Reiterman, Roy
Roy H. Reiterman, P.E., and Associates
Troy, MI
Ren, Xiaodan
Shanghai, China
Richardson, James
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL
Riding, Kyle
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS
Rinaldi, Zila
University of Rome Tor Vergata
Rome, Italy
Rizk, Emad
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. Johns, NL, Canada
Rizwan, Syed Ali
University of Engineering and Technology
Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan
Roberts, Lawrence
Grace Construction Products
Cambridge, MA
Robery, Peter
Halcrow Group Ltd.
Solihull, West Midlands, UK
478
College
of
Rodrigues, Conrado
Federal Centre for Technological Education in Minas Gerais
(CEFET-MG)
Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Rodrigues, Publio
LPE Engenharia e Consultoria
So Paulo, Brazil
Rodriguez, Mario
National University of Mexico
Mexico City, DF, Mexico
Roh, Hwasung
Chonbuk National University
Jeonju, Republic of Korea
Rosenboom, Owen
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Rteil, Ahmad
University of British Columbia
Kelowna, BC, Canada
Russell, Henry
Henry G. Russell, Inc.
Glenview, IL
S. A., Jaffer Sathik
CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Center
Chennai, Tamilnadu, India
Saatci, Selcuk
Izmir Institute of Technology
Izmir, Turkey
Sabouni, Faisal
Architectural Consulting Group
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Sadeghi Pouya, Homayoon
Coventry University
Coventry, UK
Saedi, Houman
Tabiat Modares University
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Safan, Mohamed
Menoufia University
Shebeen El-Koom, Menoufia, Egypt
Safi, Brahim
University of Boumerdes
Boumerdes, Algeria
Sagaseta, Juan
University of Surrey
Guildford, Surrey, UK
Sagues, Alberto
University of South Florida
Tampa, FL
Sahamitmongkol, Raktipong
CONTEC; Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology,
Thammasat University; MTEC
Pathumthani, Thailand
Sahmaran, Mustafa
Gazi University
Ankara, Turkey
Sahoo, Dipak
Cochin University of Science and Technology
Cochin, Kerala, India
Saito, Shigehiko
University of Yamanashi
Kofu, Japan
Sajedi, Fathollah
Universiti Malaya
Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Malaysia
Saka, Mehmet
Middle East Technical University
Ankara, Turkey
Sakai, Etsuo
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Ichikawa-shi, Japan
Saleem, Muhammad
Florida International University
Miami, FL
Salem, Hamed
Cairo University
Giza, Egypt
Sallam, Hossam El-Din
Zagazig University
Zagazig, Sharkia, Egypt
Snchez, Isidro
University of Alicante
Alicante, Alicante, Spain
Sanchez, Leandro
So Paulo, Brazil
Sant, Gaurav
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA
Saqan, Elias
American University in Dubai
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Sarker, Prabir
Curtin University of Technology
Bentley, Western Australia, Australia
Sato, Ryoichi
Hiroshima University
Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan
Sato, Yuichi
Kyoto University
Kyoto, Japan
Scanlon, Andrew
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
Schindler, Anton
Auburn University
Auburn, AL
Schwetz, Paulete
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Semaan, Hassnaa
Ottawa Hills, OH
Sener, Siddik
Gazi University
Ankara, Turkey
Sengul, Ozkan
Istanbul Technical University
Istanbul, Turkey
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Sennour, Larbi
Consulting Engineers Group
San Antonio, TX
Serna-Ros, Pedro
Universitat Politcnica de Valncia
Valencia, Spain
Serrano, Miguel
University of Oviedo
Gijon, Spain
Shafigh, Payam
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Shafiq, Nasir
Universiti Teknologi Petronas
Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia
Shah, Santosh
Dharmsinh Desai University
Nadiad, Gujarat, India
Shah, Surendra
Northwestern University
Evanston, IL
Shahnewaz, Md
University of British Columbia Okanagan
Kelowna, BC, Canada
Shannag, M. Jamal
King Saud University
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Shao, Yixin
McGill University
Montreal, QC, Canada
Shariq, Mohd
Civil Engineering
Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India
Sharma, Akanshu
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Shayan, Ahmad
ARRB Group
Vermont South, Victoria, Australia
Shehata, Medhat
Ryerson University
Toronto, ON, Canada
Sheikh, Shamim
University of Toronto
Toronto, ON, Canada
Sherman, Matthew
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Melrose, MA
Sherwood, Edward
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Shi, Xianming
Bozeman, MT
Shi, Xudong
Tsinghua University
Beijing, China
Shield, Carol
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
479
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Shing, Pui-Shum
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA
Shivali, Ram
Central Soil and Materials Research Station
New Delhi, India
Shrive, Nigel
University of Calgary
Calgary, AB, Canada
Shukla, Abhilash
Jaypee University of Information Technology
Waknaghat, Himachal Pradesh, India
Sideris, Kosmas
Democritus University of Thrace
Xanthi, Greece
Sigrist, Viktor
Hamburg University of Technology
Hamburg, Germany
Sihotang, Fransiscus
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
(NTUST)
Taipei City, Taiwan
Silfwerbrand, Johan
Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute
Stockholm, Sweden
Singh, Harvinder
Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College
Ludhiana, Punjab, India
Sivey, Paul
Sivey Enterprises
Hilliard, OH
Skazlic, Marijan
University of Zagreb
Zagreb, Croatia
Smith, Scott
Southern Cross University
Lismore, New South Wales, Australia
Smyl, Danny
United States Marine Corps
Quantico, VA
Sneed, Lesley
Missouri University of Science and Technology
Rolla, MO
So, Hyoung-Seok
Seonam University
Namwon, Republic of Korea
Soejoso, Mia
Hiroshima University
Saijo, Japan
Soltani, Amir
Purdue University Calumet
Hammond, IN
Soltanzadeh, Fatemeh
Engineering and Technology
Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India
Sonebi, Mohammed
Queens University Belfast
Belfast, UK
480
Song, Kai
Building Materials
Dalian, China
Sossou, Gnida
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
(KNUST)
Kumasi, Ghana
Souza, Rafael
Universidade Estadual de Maring
Maring, Paran, Brazil
Sylev, Altug
Yeditepe University
Istanbul, Turkey
Sozen, Mete
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
Spadea, Giuseppe
University of Calabria
Arcavacata di Rende, Cosenza, Italy
Spinella, Nino
University of Messina
Messina, Italy
Spyridis, Panagiotis
Institute for Structural Engineering
Vienna, Austria
Sreekala, R.
Structural Engineering Research Centre
Chennai, Tamilnadu, India
Stanton, John
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
Stein, Boris
Twining Laboratories
Long Beach, CA
Steuck, Kyle
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
Sudhahar, Sridevi
United Institute of Technology
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Sujjavanich, Suvimol
Kasetsart University
Bangkok, Thailand
Sullivan, Patrick
Sullivan and Associates
Rickmansworth, UK
Sun, Shaoyun
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL
Ta, Binh
University of Civil Engineering
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Tabatabai, Habib
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI
Tadayon, Mohammad Hosein
University of Tehran
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Tadayon, Mohsen
Iranian Concrete Institute
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Tadros, Maher
e.construct.USA, LLC
Omaha, NE
Tae, Ghi ho
Leader Industrial Co.
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Taghaddos, Hosein
PCL Industrial Management Inc.
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Tahmasebinia, Faham
University of Wollongong
Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Takahashi, Susumu
Nagoya Institute of Technology
Nagoya, Japan
Tan, Kefeng
Southwest University of Science and Technology
Sichuan, China
Tan, Kiang Hwee
National University of Singapore
Singapore, Singapore
Tanacan, Leyla
Istanbul, Yesilkoy, Turkey
Tanesi, Jussara
Federal Highway Administration-SaLUT
Vienna, VA
Tang, Chao-Wei
Cheng-Shiu University
Niaosong District, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan
Tangtermsirikul, Somnuk
Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology
Patumthani, Thailand
Tank, Tejenadr
Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University
Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
Tankut, Tugrul
Middle East Technical University
Ankara, Turkey
Tanner, Jennifer
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY
Tantary, Manzoor
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India
Tapan, Mcip
Yuzuncu Yil University
Van, Turkey
Tasdemir, Mehmet
Istanbul Technical University
Istanbul, Turkey
Tassios, Theodosios
Athens, Greece
Tastani, S.P
Demokritus University of Thrace
Xanthi, Greece
Tavares, Maria
State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Tavio
Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology (ITS)
Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia
Tegos, Ioannis
Salonica, Greece
Tehrani, Fariborz
California State University, Fresno
Fresno, CA
Thermou, Georgia
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Thessaloniki, Greece
Thiagarajan, Ganesh
University of Missouri-Kansas City
Kansas City, MO
Thokchom, Suresh
Manipur Institute of Technology
Imphal, India
Thomas, Adam
Europoles GmbH & Co.
Neumarkt, Germany
Thompson, Phillip
Palm Desert, CA
Thorne, A.
Center of Engineering Materials and Structures
Guilford, Surrey, UK
Tian, Ying
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Las Vegas, NV
Tiberti, Giuseppe
University of Brescia
Brescia, Italy
Tito, Jorge
University of Houston-Downtown
Houston, TX
Tixier, Raphael
Western Technologies Inc.
Phoenix, AZ
Tjhin, Tjen
Buckland & Taylor Ltd
North Vancouver, BC, Canada
Tobolski, Matthew
San Diego, CA
Tokgoz, Serkan
Mersin University
Mersin, Turkey
Tolentino, Evandro
Centro Federal de Educao Tecnolgica de Minas Gerais
Timteo, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Topu, Ilker
Eskisehir Osmangazi University
Eskisehir, Turkey
Torrenti, Jean-Michel
Chevilly Larue, France
Torres-Acosta, Andres
Universidad Marista de Quertaro
Quertaro, Mexico
Tosun, Kamile
Dokuz Eyll University
Izmir, Turkey
481
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Toufigh, Vahab
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
Trautwein, Leandro
Federal University of ABC
So Paulo, Brazil
Triantafillou, Thanasis
University of Patras
Patras, Greece
Tsonos, Alexander
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Thessaloniki, Greece
Tsubaki, Tatsuya
Yokohama National University
Yokohama, Japan
Tuchscherer, Robin
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ
Tureyen, Ahmet
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
Birmingham, MI
Turgut, Paki
Harran University
Sanliurfa, Turkey
Turk, A. Murat
Istanbul Kultur University
Istanbul, Turkey
Tutikian, Bernardo
Unisinos
Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Unterweger, Andreas
Institute for Structural Engineering
Vienna, Austria
Uygunoglu, Tayfun
Afyon Kocatepe University
Afyonkarahisar, Turkey
Vakilly, Sedigheh
Isfahan, Islamic Republic of Iran
Varum, Humberto
University of Aveiro
Aveiro, Portugal
Vaz Rodrigues, Rui
cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne (EPFL)
Lausanne, VD, Switzerland
Vazquez-Herrero, Cristina
Universidade da Corua
La Corua, Spain
Veen, Cornelis
Delft University of Technology
Delft, the Netherlands
Velzquez Rodrguez, Sergio
Universidad Panamericana
Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico
Velu, Saraswathy
Central Electro Chemical Research Institute
Karaikudi, Tamil Nadu, India
Vichit-Vadakan, Wilasa
CTLGroup
Skokie, IL
482
Vimonsatit, Vanissorn
Curtin University
Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Vintzileou, Elizabeth
National Technical University of Athens
Athens, Greece
Vitaliani, Renato
University of Padua
Padua, Italy
Viviani, Marco
Haute Ecole dIngnierie et de Gestion du Canton de Vaud
(HEIG-VD)
Yverdon les Bains, Switzerland
Vogel, Thomas
Institute of Structural Engineering
Zurich, Switzerland
Vollum, Robert
Imperial College London
London, UK
Volz, Jeffery
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
Vosooghi, Ashkan
AECOM
Sacramento, CA
Wagh, Prabhanjan
College of Engineering, Pune
Satara, Maharashtra, India
Waldron, Christopher
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Birmingham, AL
Wan, David
Old Castle Precast, Inc.
South Bethlehem, NY
Wang, Chang-Qing
Tongji University
Shanghai, China
Wang, Chong
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Wang, Huanzi
San Jose, CA
Wang, Junyan
National University of Singapore
Singapore
Wang, Kejin
Iowa State University
Ames, IA
Wehbe, Nadim
South Dakota State University
Brookings, SD
Wei, Ya
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Wei-Jian, Yi
Changsha, China
Weiss, Charles
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and
Development Center
Vicksburg, MS
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Weiss, Jason
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
Wen, Ziyun
South China University of Technology
Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
Werner, Anne
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Edwardsville, IL
Weyers, Richard
Blacksburg, VA
Wheat, Harovel
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX
Wheeler, Andrew
University Of Western Sydney
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Wilson, William
Universit de Sherbrooke
Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
Windisch, Andor
Karlsfeld, Germany
Won, Moon
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX
Wong, Hong
Imperial College London
London, UK
Wong, Sook-Fun
Nanyang Technological University
Singapore
Wood, Richard
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA
Woyciechowski, Piotr
Warsaw University of Technology
Warsaw, Poland
Wu, Chenglin
Missouri University of Science and Technology
Rolla, MO
Wu, Hui
Beijing, China
Wu, Hwai-Chung
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI
Xia, Zuming
Grand Prairie, TX
Xiang, Tianyu
Chengdu, Sichuan, China
Xiangguo, Wu
Harbin Institute of Technology
Harbin, Heilongjiang, China
Xiao, Feipeng
Clemson University
Clemson, SC
Xiao, Yan
Hunan University
Changsha, Hunan, China
Xingyi, Zhu
Hangzhou, China
Xin-hua, Cai
Wuhan University
Wuhan, HuBei, China
Xu, Aimin
ARRB Group
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Xuan, D.X.
Delft University of Technology
Delft, the Netherlands
Yahia, Ammar
Universit de Sherbrooke
Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
Yakoub, Haisam
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Yan, Libo
University of Auckland
Auckland, New Zealand
Yang, KuoChen
National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology
Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Yang, Xinbao
Olathe, KS
Yang, Yanan
Pitt & Sherry
South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Yang, Zhifu
Middle Tennessee State University
Murfreesboro, TN
Yassein, Mohamed
Doha, Qatar
Yatagan, Serkan
Istanbul Technical University
Istanbul, Turkey
Yazc, Semsi
Ege University
Izmir, Turkey
Yehia, Sherif
American University of Sharjah
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Yen, Peter
Bechtel National, Inc.
San Francisco, CA
Yerramala, Amarnath
Dundee University
Dundee, Scotland, UK
Yigiter, Huseyin
Dokuz Eyll University
Izmir, Turkey
Yildirim, Hakki
Istanbul, Turkey
Yoon, Young-Soo
Korea University
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Yost, Joseph
Villanova University
Villanova, PA
Youkhanna, Kanaan
University of Dohuk
Duhok, Iraq
483
REVIEWERS IN 2013
Young-sun, Kim
Tokyo University of Science
Noda-Shi, Chiba, Japan
Youssef, Maged
University of Western Ontario
London, ON, Canada
Yu, Baolin
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Yuan, Jiqiu
PSI; Federal Highway Administration Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Center
McLean, VA
Yksel, Isa
Bursa Technical University
Bursa, Turkey
Zahedi, Farshad
Babol Noshirvani University of Technology
Babol, Mazandaran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Zaki, Adel
SNC-Lavalin
Montreal, QC, Canada
Zanuy, Carlos
Universidad Politcnica de Madrid
Madrid, Spain
Zatar, Wael
West Virginia University Institute of Technology
Montgomery, WV
Zerbino, Raul
La Plata, Argentina
Zeris, Christos
National Technical University of Athens
Zografou, Greece
Zhang, Jieying
National Research Council Canada
Ottawa, ON, Canada
484
Zhang, Jun
Tsinghua University
Beijing, China
Zhang, Peng
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
Karlsruhe, Germany
Zhang, Wei Ping
Tongji University
Shanghai, China
Zhang, Xiaogang
Shenzhen University
Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
Zhang, Xiaoxin
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
Ciudad Real, Spain
Zhang, Yamei
Southeast University
Nanjing, China
Zheng, Herbert
Gammon Construction Limited
Hong Kong
Zheng, Jianjun
Zhejiang University of Technology
Hangzhou, China
Zhou, Wei
Harbin Institute of Technology
Harbin, China
Zhu, Han
TianJin University
TianJin, China
Ziehl, Paul
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC
Zilch, Konrad
Technische Universitt Mnchen
Munich, Germany
FIRST NAME ______________________________________ MIDDLE INITIAL ___________ LAST NAME (SURNAME) ______________________________________________________
ADDRESS _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Categories of membership
Please select the desired category of membership and submit the appropriate dues described below.
Design
Materials
Production
Construction
Testing
Repair
Owner
Management
Consultant
Engineer
Architect
Contractor
Technical Specialist
Quality Control
Inspector
Craftsman
Sales & Marketing
Association
Employee
Government
Employee
Researcher
Educator
Student
Other __________
Payment
Fees
Included Subscriptions
CHECK NUMBER
Membership dues
Additional subscriptions
ACCOUNT NUMBER
EXPIRATION DATE
Code: CI
NOTES:
486
1. Go to: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aci;
2. Click on Create Account in the upper right-hand corner; and
3. Enter your E-mail/Name, Address, User ID and Password, and
Area(s) of Expertise.
QUESTIONS?
Introducing
ACI
STRUCTURAL
J O U R N A L
J O U R N