Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2015
ACI
STRUCTURAL J O U R N A L
Publishing Services
Manager
Discussion is welcomed for all materials published in this issue and will appear ten months from
Barry M. Bergin 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
Editors private response. ACI Standards published in ACI Journals for public comment have discussion due
Carl R. Bischof dates printed with the Standard.
Tiesha Elam Annual index published online at http://concrete.org/Publications/ACIStructuralJournal.
Kaitlyn Hinman ACI Structural Journal
Kelli R. Slayden Copyright 2015 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. Publica-
tion office: 38800 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills, MI 48331. Periodicals postage paid at Farmington, MI, and
at additional mailing offices. Subscription rates: $166 per year (U.S. and possessions), $175 (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: +1.248.848.3700. Fac-
simile (FAX): +1.248.848.3701. Website: http://www.concrete.org.
Loading protocol
The CLT load profiles for the normalweight girders are
shown in Fig. 4(a) and those for the lightweight girders are
shown in Fig. 4(b). Damage levels as determined through
the deviation-from-linearity index, as described previously,
combined with visual observations of cracking are shown
in the same figures. The resulting load-versus-displacement
behavior is shown in Fig. 5 and resulting cracking patterns
are shown in Fig. 6 (at 67% and 57% of nominal capacity Pn
for normalweight and lightweight specimens, respectively,
and also at the conclusion of the CLT loading protocols).
The loading profile was developed based on the calculated
nominal capacity of the normalweight girder specimens. A
Fig. 2: Photograph and cross-section details (after Barrios total test load (maximum load applied) of 160 kip (712 kN)
and Ziehl [2012]). was selected, which is approximately 73% of the measured
Fig. 4Loading profiles (after Barrios and Ziehl [2011]). (Note: 1 kip = 4.45 kN.)
Fig. 10Structural integrity loops and damage thresholds (after Barrios and Ziehl [2012]). (Note: 1 kip = 4.4 kN.)
For the normalweight girder specimens, the arc of damage increases steadily after Loadset 7 and follows a closely linear
AD (Fig. 12(c)) provides a more consistent damage repre- pattern for the same load range (Fig. 13(b)). The scatter
sentation than either linear distance (Fig. 12(a)) or angular observed at Loadset 5 for the normalweight specimens and
measure (Fig. 12(b)) alone. The linear descriptor grows at Loadset 7 for the lightweight specimens in both the linear
faster at lower levels of damage (between Loadsets 3 and 5) and the angular descriptors is reduced for the resulting AD, as
while the angular measure is more sensitive to damage in the shown in Fig. 12(c) and 13(c). This supports combining the
intermediate and heavy damage zones. linear and angular descriptors, resulting in the proposed AD
For the lightweight specimens, the linear distance descriptor descriptor, to increase the reliability of assessment. One key
from the reference point (Loadset 5) increases rapidly up to characteristic of the AD descriptor is that it estimates dete-
the theoretical minor-intermediate threshold corresponding rioration of the member through a single numerical param-
to Loadset 7 (Fig 13(a)). At that point, the linear distance eter, thereby facilitating a comparison of damage levels in
measurement increases at a reduced rate for a wide range of differing members.
the load value (62% to 87% of nominal capacity). This leads
to the observation that the linear distance descriptor is more Proposed assessment method within minor
effective within the minor damage zone, while the angular damage zone, GIPAE
measure descriptor is more sensitive to damage within To take advantage of the sensitivity of AE, a new damage
the intermediate and heavy damage zones. This descriptor criterion that is specifically focused on the minor damage
P PO
= 0.001 + 0.145 T (3)
Pmi PO
P PO
= 0.001 + 0.035 T (4)
Pmi PO
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Portions of this work were sponsored by the South Carolina Department
of Transportation and the ACI Concrete Research Council and their financial
support is greatly appreciated. Portions were performed under the support
of the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Technology Innovation Program, Cooperative Agreement
Number 70NANB9H9007, and their support is likewise appreciated.
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 2011, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 503 pp.
ACI Committee 437, 2007, Load Tests of Concrete Structures: Methods,
Magnitude, Protocols, and Acceptance Criteria (ACI 437.1R-07), Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 38 pp.
ACI Committee 437, 2012, Code Requirements for Load Testing of
Existing Concrete Structures and Commentary (ACI 437-12) (ACI Provi-
sional Standard), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 34 pp.
ASTM E1316-13d, 2013, Standard Terminology for Nondestructive
Examinations, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 38 pp.
Barrios, F., 2010, Acoustic Emission Techniques and Cyclic Load
Testing for Integrity Evaluation of Self-Consolidating Normal and Light-
weight Prestressed Concrete Girders, PhD dissertation, Department of
Fig. 14Values at damage detection. Civil Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Barrios, F., and Ziehl, P., 2011, Effect of Loading Pattern on the
good nor bad, but in some cases, it may be beneficial and Acoustic Emission Evaluation of Prestressed Concrete Girders, Journal of
desirable to avoid damage caused by the load test itself. The Acoustic Emission, V. 29, pp. 42-56.
Barrios, F., and Ziehl, P., 2012, Cyclic Load Testing for Integrity Eval-
GIPAE method reduces the load required for damage detec- uation of Prestressed Concrete Girders, ACI Structural Journal, V. 109,
tion to approximately 50% of nominal capacity Pn in the No.5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 615-623.
lightweight girder specimens and 52% of nominal capacity Colombo, S.; Forde, M.; Main, I.; and Shigeishi, M., 2005, Predicting
the Ultimate Bending Capacity of Concrete Beams from the Relaxation
in the normalweight girder specimens. These values are Ratio Analysis of AE Signals, Construction and Building Materials, V.
comparable to the calculated cracking load (47% of Pn for 19, No. 10, pp. 746-754. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.06.004
the lightweight specimens and 48% of Pn for the normal- Galati, N.; Nanni, A.; Tumialan, J. G.; and Ziehl, P. H., 2008, In-Situ
Evaluation of Two Concrete Slab Systems. I: Load Determination and
weight specimens). It is possible that the approach could be Loading Procedure, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
tailored to further reduce load magnitude by decreasing the V.22, No. 4, pp. 207-216. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2008)22:4(207)
AE threshold and/or installing a denser array of sensors. JSNDI, 2000, Recommended Practice for In Situ Monitoring of
Concrete Structures by Acoustic Emission, NDIS 2421, Japanese Society
for Nondestructive Inspection, Tokyo, Japan, 6 pp.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Liu, Z., and Ziehl, P., 2009, Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Beam
One new damage descriptorthe arc of damage ADand Specimens with Acoustic Emission and Cyclic Load Test Methods, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 3, May-June, pp. 288-299.
one proposed damage criterionGIPAEhave been devel- Ohtsu, M.; Uchida, M.; Okamoto, T.; and Yuyama, S., 2002, Damage
oped based on data from flexural testing of six full-scale Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Beams Qualified by Acoustic Emis-
prestressed girder specimens. Both are based on AE data. sion, ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 411-417.
Ridge, A., and Ziehl, P., 2006, Nondestructive Evaluation of Strength-
The arc of damage addresses changes in AE behavior that ened Reinforced Concrete Beams: Cyclic Load Test and Acoustic Emission
are related to differing damage states and is applicable to Methods, ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 832-841.
minor, intermediate, and heavy damage states. The GIPAE Xu, J., 2008, Nondestructive Evaluation of Prestressed Concrete
Structures by Means of Acoustic Emission Monitoring, PhD dissertation,
criterion incorporates mechanical properties of the member Department of Civil Engineering, University of Auburn, Auburn, AL.
and is specifically targeted to the transition between minor Xu, J.; Barnes, R.; and Ziehl, P., 2013, Evaluation of Prestressed
to intermediate damage, thereby using the high sensitivity of Concrete Beams Based on Acoustic Emission Parameters, Materials Eval-
uation, V. 71, No. 2, pp. 176-185.
AE for crack initiation and extension. This may be applicable Ziehl, P.; Galati, N.; Nanni, A.; and Tumialan, J., 2008, In Situ Evalua-
for prestressed applications, particularly for cases where it is tion of Two Concrete Slab Systems. II: Evaluation Criteria and Outcomes,
desired to minimize damage due to the load-testing proce- Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, V. 22, No. 4, pp.
217-227. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2008)22:4(217)
dure itself. For further research, results from field testing Ziehl, P. H.; Engelhardt, M.; Fowler, T. J.; Ulloa, F. V.; Medlock, R.D.;
of prestressed girders are desirable for refinement of the and Schell, E., 2009a, Design and Field Evaluation of a Hybrid FRP/
methods described. Reinforced Concrete Bridge Superstructure System, Journal of Bridge
Engineering, ASCE, V. 14, No. 5, pp. 309-318. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
BE.1943-5592.0000002
AUTHOR BIOS Ziehl, P.; Rizos, D.; Caicedo, J.; Barrios, F.; Howard, R.; and Colmorgan,
Francisco Barrios is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil A., 2009b, Investigation of the Performance and Benefits of Lightweight
Engineering at Universidad del Magdalena, Santa Marta, Colombia. He SCC Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girders and SCC Materials, Final Report
received his BS from the Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia; submitted to the South Carolina Department of Transportation, 182 pp.
his MS from Tulane University, New Orleans, LA; and his PhD from the Ziehl, P.; Rizos, D.; Caicedo, J.; Colmorgan, A.; Howard, R.; and Barrios,
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. His research interests include F., 2010, Investigation of the Performance and Benefits of Self-Consoli-
structural health monitoring, damage diagnosis, load testing, and nonlinear dating Concrete for Prestressed Bridge Girders, Final Report submitted to
computer modeling of concrete structures. the South Carolina Department of Transportation, 212 pp.
This paper deals with the analytical proof of the equivalence gular solid section with four-corner reinforcement and the
between the relative biaxial bending resistance of a rectangular ultimate bending moments and axial force of an equivalent
solid reinforced concrete section and the biaxial bending resis- square cross section of unit length-side is also provided in
tance of the transformed solid square section of unit-length side. Cedolin et al.3
Similar proofs are also derived for rectangular hollow sections.
The results of the analytical proof show that the relative biaxial
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
bending resistance of a rectangular solid section is identical to the
biaxial bending resistance of the transformed square solid section This research deals with the development of a new
of unit-length side. These results only occur when the concrete approach for the analytical proof of the equivalence between
fiber and reinforcing bar coordinates in the transformed section the related biaxial bending resistances of rectangular solid
are in conformity with the transformation that maps the rectan- and hollow sections, and biaxial bending resistances of the
gular section into a square cross section of unit-length side. The transformed square solid and hollow sections of unit-length
concrete and steel stresses in the transformed section comply with sides. The proposed method: 1) covers a wider range of
the resulting stress transformation and the area of reinforcement reinforced concrete sections with arbitrary reinforcement
in the transformed section must comply with the resulting area arrangement; and 2) facilitates the calculations of biaxial
transformation. The proof also shows the equivalence in rectan- interaction diagrams because it allows the use of a single
gular hollow sections, provided that similar transformation-related
valueunityas strength input data for the design strengths
conditions are met.
of all classes of concrete, and the use of unit side lengths as
Keywords: analysis; biaxial bending; cross section; hollow sections; geometric input data representing all rectangular solid and
homogeneous transformation; solid sections; transformed sections; unit- hollow sections.
side length.
Equivalence between relative biaxial bending
INTRODUCTION resistance of rectangular section and biaxial
The results of cross-section analysis1,2 show that the relative bending resistance of transformed square cross
biaxial bending resistance of a rectangular solid section is iden- section of unit-length side
tical to the biaxial bending resistance of the transformed square Biaxial interaction diagrams for solid rectangular cross
cross section of unit-length side, provided that: 1) the concrete section made of reinforced concrete are presented as load
fiber and reinforcing bar coordinates in the transformed section contours with the design normal force and biaxial bending
are in conformity with the transformation that maps the rect- resistance expressed in non-dimensional form as
angular section into a square cross section of unit-length side;
2) the concrete and steel stresses in the transformed section N Rd
comply with the resulting stress transformation; and 3) the area Rd = (1)
f cd b h
of reinforcement in the transformed section comply with the
resulting area transformation. The results of cross-section anal-
ysis1,2 also show the equivalence between the relative biaxial M Rd y
Rd y = (2)
bending resistance of a rectangular hollow section and the f cd b h 2
biaxial bending resistance of the transformed square hollow
cross section of unit-length side, provided that similar transfor- M Rd z
mation related conditions are met. Rd z = (3)
While comparisons of cross-section analysis results have f cd h b 2
shown the equivalence, analytical proof for its justification
is hardly available in the literature. More recently, however, where Rd, Rd y, and Rd z are the relative values of the
Cedolin et al.3 used the square cross section of unit-length combined design axial load and biaxial bending resistance
side to calculate interaction diagrams for load eccentricities of the rectangular cross section; NRd, MRd y, and MRd z are the
along axes parallel to the axes of symmetry and to a diag-
onal of a solid rectangular cross section for the derivation of ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 1, January-February 2015.
MS No. S-2012-395.R3, doi: 10.14359/51687295, received April 2, 2014, and
approximate analytical expressions of the moment contours reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2015, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
based on the ACI 318-05.4 Analytical proof of the equiva- obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors
lence between the dimensionless expressions for the rectan- 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.
Fig. 2(a) Rectangular hollow section; and (b) square hollow section of unit-length side.
= q3 = 1. Finally, it can be concluded that the relative values of Other invariant variables under the transformation include
the combined design axial force and biaxial bending resistance geometric reinforcement ratio , mechanical reinforcement
of a rectangular section is equal to the combined design axial ratio , combined related design axial force and biaxial
force and biaxial bending resistance of a square cross section of bending resistance (Rd, Rd y, Rd z), and strains of corre-
unit-length side that satisfies the transformation requirements sponding fibers in the original and transformed sections.
described prevously and associated transformations that will be The proof of invariance of each variable will be discussed in
described in more detail in the following sections. subsequent sections.
Rectangular hollow cross sectionsFigures 2(a) and (b)
Coordinate transformation show the actual rectangular hollow section with uniformly
Rectangular solid cross sectionsPreviously it was shown distributed reinforcement along the edges and the trans-
that a homogeneous linear transformation with two-way dila- formed square hollow section of unit-length side, respec-
tion of factors (1/b) and (1/h) along the y- and z-axes, respec- tively. The latter is determined using the transformation
tively, transforms a rectangular cross section into an equivalent described in the following.
square cross section of unit-length side. The transforma- Biaxial interaction diagrams for hollow rectangular cross
tion was represented by the transformation matrix shown in section made of reinforced concrete are presented in nondi-
Eq.(15). The matrix is referred to as coordinate transforma- mensional form as
tion matrix to emphasize its use in the determination of the
coordinates of any desired point such as corner concrete fibers N Rd
Rd = (22)
and reinforcing bar locations in the transformed sections. f cd a b h
As an example, the transformation matrix is used in
Eq. (20) and (21) to map corner concrete fiber and rein-
M Rd y
forcing bar coordinates in the first quadrant of the original Rd y = (23)
cross section (Fig. 1(a)), to the images in the equivalent f cd a b h 2
square cross section of unit length-side (Fig. 1(b)).
M Rd z
1/b 0 b / 2 0.5 Rd z = (24)
0 1/h h / 2 = 0.5 (20) f cd a h b 2
where is the fraction of the solid part of the cross section,
1 b 0 (b / 2) b 0.5 (b /b) which will be referred to as solidity ratio in short and the
0 1 h (h / 2) h = 0.5 (h /h) (21) definitions of other variables are as in Eq. (1) to (3).
The relative values of the combined design axial force and
biaxial moment resistance of the transformed section are
The term homogeneous is used to indicate that the
determined using the expressions in Eq. (25) to (27).
origin is an invariant point under the transformation.
T N Rd TRd z = Rd z (55)
N Rd = = Rd (47)
f cd b h
Therefore, the assumption that the relative values of the
combined axial force and biaxial bending resistance is
T
M Rd y
M Rd y = = Rd y (48) invariant under the transformation is valid, and the deriva-
f cd b h 2 tions based on this assumption are appropriate.
Further, the geometric reinforcement ratio in the trans-
T
M Rd z formed section is
M Rd z = = Rd z (49)
f cd h b 2
AsT
rT = (56)
bT hT
Ac a b h
Equation (60) indicates that is also invariant under the AcT = = = a (63)
transformation. bh bh
Finally, from Eq. (39), (56), (59), and (60)
The solidity ratio T in the transformed section is
f cd
AsT = (61)
f yd AcT a a
aT = T T
= T T = = a (64)
b h b h 11
Equation (61) gives the transformed area of steel in the square
cross section of unit-length side in terms of the mechanical Therefore the solidity ratio is invariant under the
reinforcement ratio , the design compressive strength of transformation.
the concrete, and yield strength of the reinforcement in the Similarly, because the transformation conditions in
original cross section. This same amount of concrete area is Eq.(31) to (33) have caused the transformation of the design
to be deducted if the analysis would be based on net cross compressive strength into 1/, the transformation factor for
section. Usually, analysis is based on gross cross sections, as stresses in concrete and reinforcement is 1/( fcd). As a
the use of net cross sections does not affect the result signifi- result, the stress-strain relationships of concrete and rein-
cantly. The effect of the displaced amount of concrete on forcing steel in the original hollow section are transformed
the cross section capacity may, however, be significant if the into the stress-strain relationships of concrete and rein-
high strength of concrete is used, requiring analysis on the forcing steel in the transformed section, as shown in Fig. 5(a)
basis of net cross section.6,7 and (b). In particular, the transformed design yield strength
T
The transformed area of reinforcement, As , can also be of reinforcement, f ydT , is given by Eq. (65).
expressed in terms of the transformed design yield strength
f yd
of reinforcement, f ydT , as f ydT = (65)
(a fcd )
AsT = (62)
f ydT Following the same argument that led to Eq. (40) to (42)
in the solid sections and noting the stress transformations in
Additional analytical advantage can be gained by setting hollow sections described previously, Eq. (44) to (46) take
the form
f ydT = 1, because it allows the direct substitution of the rein-
forcement data by the mechanical reinforcement ratio . It is 1
T 1
N Rd = c d + Asi si (66)
to be noted that this is not a consequence of the transforma-
(a fcd ) b h i
1 1 1 As
T
M Rd z = yd + Asi si ysi (68) rT = = r (76)
(a fcd ) b b h c
a b h
Equations (66) to (68) result in Eq. (69) to (71) after Equation (76) indicates that the geometric reinforcement
following the same argument as in the solid cross sections. ratio is invariant under the transformation.
Similarly, the mechanical reinforcement ratio in the trans-
T N Rd formed section is
N Rd = = Rd (69)
a f cd b h
f ydT
T = rT (77)
M Rd y f cdT
T
M Rd y = = Rd y (70)
a f cd b h 2
Substituting f cdT = 1 a
M Rd z
T
M Rd z = = Rd z (71) T = T T f ydT (78)
a f cd h b 2
Substituting further for T and f ydT from Eq. (76) and (65)
Because
f yd
T = r = (79)
NT N RdT
f cd
TRd = T T Rd T T = = N T (72)
f cd a b h (1 a ) a 11 Rd
Equation (79) indicates that is also invariant under the
T T
M Rd y M Rd y
transformation. Finally, from Eq. (65), (75), (78), and (79)
TRd y = = T
= M Rd y (73)
T T
f a b h T
( ) T 2 (1 a ) a 112
cd f cd
AsT = a (80)
T T f yd
T
M Rd z M Rd z T
= = = M Rd z (74)
( ) (1 a) a 11
Rd z
T T T T 2 2
f a h b
cd Equation (80) gives the transformed area of steel in the
square hollow section of unit-length side in terms of the
T
it follows that Rd = Rd, Rd y= Rd y, and Rd z = Rd z. There- solidity ratio, mechanical reinforcement ratio , design
T T
fore, the assumption that the relative values of the combined compressive strength of the concrete, and yield strength of
axial force and biaxial bending resistance is invariant under the reinforcement in the original rectangular hollow section.
the transformation is valid, and the derivations based on this This same amount of concrete area is to be deducted in the
assumption are appropriate. transformed section if the analysis would be based on net
The geometric reinforcement ratio in the transformed cross section.6,7
T
section is The transformed area of reinforcement, As , can also be
expressed in terms of the transformed design yield strength
AsT of reinforcement, f ydT , as
rT = (75)
a bT hT
Objective evaluation of the capacity of a bridge to carry self- Table 1Test matrix
weight and traffic loads after an earthquake is essential for a
Specimen designation Ductility target Test sequences
safe and timely reopening of the bridge. The ability of a bridge
to function depends directly on the remaining capacity of the Base0 0 Axial
bridge columns to carry gravity and lateral loads. An experimental Base15 1.5 Lateral and axial
study on models of modern circular reinforced concrete bridge
columns was performed to investigate the relationship between Base30 3.0 Lateral and axial
earthquake-induced damage in bridge columns and the capacity Base45 4.5 Lateral and axial
of the columns to carry axial load in a damaged condition. The
earthquake-like damage was induced in the column specimens in bridge columns used in modern bridges in California. In
bidirectional, quasi-static, lateral load tests. The damaged column this paper, the outcomes of the quasi-static cyclic part of
specimens were then recentered to eliminate the residual drifts the experimental program are presented. In the first stage of
and tested in compression to failure to evaluate their remaining
the quasi-static testing procedure, three column specimens
axial load strength. It was found that well-confined modern bridge
columns lose approximately 20% of their axial load capacity after
were tested by applying a bidirectional quasi-static incre-
sustaining displacement ductility demands of 4.5. mental lateral displacement protocol with circular orbits of
displacement up to the predetermined displacement ductility
Keywords: axial tests; earthquake; post-earthquake lateral stiffness; quasi- targets of 1.5, 3, and 4.5. In the second stage of the testing
static tests; reinforced concrete. procedure, an undamaged column specimen and the three
damaged specimens with no permanent drifts were subjected
INTRODUCTION to a monotonically increasing axial force up to failure. The
Modern highway bridges in California designed using specimens are listed in Table 1. These results support eval-
the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria1 (SDC) are expected uations of post-earthquake traffic load capacities of bridges
not to collapse during both frequent and rare earthquake with well-confined reinforced concrete columns.
events. Currently, design provisions aimed at preventing
structural collapse are supported by numerous experimental RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
data points and calibrated computer models.2,3 However, Reliable evaluation of the capacity of a bridge to carry
there is no evidence that the bridge systems were tested for self-weight and traffic loads is essential for a safe and timely
the remaining traffic load capacity after some damage was re-opening of the bridge after an earthquake. Columns of
induced under lateral loading. Still, attempts were made modern California bridges are designed to develop signif-
toward analytical evaluation of the ability of a highway icant flexural deformation ductility without shear failure
overpass bridge4 or bridge columns5 to carry traffic load and prevent bridge collapse. An experimental and analytical
after an earthquake. Due to the lack of the validated quan- evaluation of earthquake-damaged modern bridge columns
titative guidelines for estimating the remaining traffic is used to quantify their axial load capacity and to develop
load-carrying capacity of bridges after an earthquake, bridge reliable models for objective evaluation of the ability of a
inspectors and maintenance engineers provide an estimate modern bridge to perform as intended after an earthquake:
of the capacity of the bridge to function based on qualita- continue to safely carry traffic load.
tive observations, with each judgment founded on personal
experience. Such subjective evaluation can be significantly EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
improved if a model to provide a quantitative estimate of the Ketchum et al.7 developed a series of highway overpass
remaining load-carrying capacity of bridge columns after an bridges designed in accordance with the Caltrans SDC1
earthquake was developed and calibrated. in a recent PEER Center study. Bridge Type 11 (shown in
A combined experimental and analytical research program Fig. 1)typical for tall overpass bridgeswas chosen as a
was performed to investigate the relationship between prototype for this experimental study. The bridge is a five-
earthquake-induced damage in reinforced concrete bridge
columns and the capacity of the columns in such damaged ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 1, January-February 2015.
MS No. S-2013-075.R1, doi: 10.14359/51687296, received March 5, 2014, and
condition.6 This program comprised one axial load test, three reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2015, American Concrete
quasi-static cyclic tests, and two hybrid model earthquake Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors
response simulations on scaled models of typical circular 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.
Test setup
In the first phase of the test, lateral and axial loads were
Fig. 4Bidirectional displacement pattern. applied at the top of the column. The lateral displace-
ment pattern was applied using the two servo-controlled
The magnitudes of displacement demand increments for hydraulic actuators, as shown in Fig. 5. An axial load of
the quasi-static tests were defined following the recom- 100 kip (445 kN), equal to 10% of the columns nominal
mendations in ACI 374.1-0513 and SAC/BD-00/1014 for axial load capacity, was applied through a spreader beam
a major far-field earthquake event. For the Base45 spec- using pressure jacks and post-tensioning rods placed on
imen, the increments in the magnitude of the displacement each side of the column (Fig. 5). Spherical hinges (three-
ductility were: 0.08, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.5. The dimensional swivels) were provided at both ends of the rods
pre-yield displacement levels include: a displacement level to avoid bending of the rods during circular motion of the
prior to cracking; two levels between cracking and yielding; column top in the horizontal plane. A hinge connection (two-
and a level approximately corresponding to the first yield dimensional hinge) was placed between the spreader beam
of the longitudinal reinforcement. After the yield level, and the column such that the spreader beam remained hori-
the displacement ductility magnitude of each subsequent zontal in the plane of the rods during lateral motion of the
primary cycle is 1.25 to 1.5 times larger than its predecessor column to avoid buckling of the rods. Geometry of the axial
to provide data of the damage accumulation. The selected load application apparatus was monitored throughout the test
two-cycle displacement pattern provides data on specimen in order to subtract the horizontal components of the force in
strength degradation due to sustained displacement demand. the post-tensioned rods from the forces applied by the actua-
After yielding, each primary displacement ductility demand tors and compute the actual lateral resistance of the column.
level was followed by a small displacement level equal to In the second phase of the test, the three laterally damaged
one-third of the previous primary displacement level to eval- column specimens and one undamaged column specimen
uate specimen stiffness degradation. The displacement histo- were compressed axially to induce axial failure in the
ries for the Base15 and Base30 specimens were obtained by columns. A compression-tension axial load machine with a
scaling the displacement history for the Base45 specimen by capacity of 1814 tonnes (4 million lb) and a constant rate of
0.3 and 0.6, respectively. This way, the number of primary loading was used to accomplish this (Fig. 6). Longitudinal
cycles in the loading history was the same for all tests to reinforcement strain measurements were used to evaluate
maintain similitude with respect to the duration and number presence of bending moment in the specimens during the
of excursions imposed by real ground motions. Displace- axial load test based on which the extent of geometric imper-
ment ductility levels of primary cycles for the three lateral fections was estimated.
displacement tests are given in Table 3. After completing the
cycles at the target displacement ductility level, the speci- ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION
mens are cycled through a series of small deformation cycles The experimental results, the hysteretic curves from quasi-
decreasing in magnitude to zero to eliminate residual lateral static tests, and the axial force-deformation responses from
forces and deformations and recenter the specimens. This the compression tests were numerically simulated using the
was necessary for the subsequent axial load capacity tests on force-based fiber beam-column element15 of OpenSees.9
damaged specimens. The force-based beam-column element is a line element
The lateral deformation tests were conducted with the discretized using the Gauss-Lobatto integration scheme
column specimen under a constant axial load equal to 10% with the integration points at the ends of the element and
of the column nominal axial load capacity. This axial load along the element length. Fiber cross sections are assigned
magnitude is consistent with typical bridge column gravity to the integration points. The cross sections of the element
load magnitudes, and slightly larger than the gravity load are represented as assemblages of longitudinally oriented,
magnitude in the columns of the prototype bridge. unidirectional steel and concrete fibers. Each material in the
cross section has a uniaxial stress-strain relation assigned
with such earthquake damage are likely to require repairs 3.0 0.54 0.52
such as epoxy injection into the plastic hinge cracks and 4.5 0.44
coverpatching.
The target displacement ductility demand imposed on spec- Phase 2: Axial load tests
imen Base45 (4.5) slightly exceeds the Caltrans SDC design The experimentally measured and numerically simulated
target (4.0). This specimen experienced extensive yielding of axial force-deformation curves for one undamaged and
the reinforcing steel, spalling of the concrete cover, as well three damaged specimens are shown in Fig. 11. Because the
as a crushing and reduction in volume of the concrete core tests are performed using a force-controlled compression
in the plastic hinge region. First yielding of a reinforcing machine, the axial force-displacement relationships are real-
bar occurred at a displacement corresponding to nominal istic up to the peak force point. The experimental and analyt-
displacement ductility of 0.75. The specimen response was ical axial load strengths, the remaining axial strength after
highly nonlinear (Fig. 10(c)), with the expected gradual stiff- damage was induced during the Phase 1 of lateral deforma-
ness degradation and gradual strength increase. Based on tion tests, and the errors in predicting the axial strengths are
the crack distribution along the height of the column during summarized in Table 7.
the test, the column was divided into three regions: 1) the Testing of the Base0 column specimen was performed
plastic hinge region (the bottom 12 in. [305 mm] of column); to establish the axial strength of an undamaged column
2) the intermediate region (12 in. [305 mm] of the column specimen: it was 1459 kip (6490 kN). The axial failure
next to the plastic hinge region); and 3) the elastic region resulted from the formation of the shear failure plane in the
(the top 40 in. [1.02 m] of the column). In the plastic hinge bottom half of the Base0 specimen column (Fig. 11(a)). The
region, the distance between the cracks was 3 in. (76 mm) analytical model predicted the axial strength of the undam-
on average, and the maximum width of the cracks during aged specimen to be 1446 kip (6434 kN) (error is 0.9%).
the test was approximately 1/8 in. (3.2mm). Very exten- An equally accurate prediction of the axial strength can be
sive spalling of concrete and a reduction in volume of the achieved using Eq. (2)
concrete core were observed. In the intermediate region, the
distance between the cracks was 4in. (102mm) on average, Po = fcc (Aeff Ast) + fy Ast (2)
with the widths of the cracks less than 1/16 in. (1.6 mm). In
the elastic region, the distance between the cracks was 6 in. if Manders equations19 are used to calculate the area of the
(152 mm) on average, with the widths of the cracks less than confined core Aeff and the compressive strength of confined
1/32 in. (0.8 mm). Such column damage would be classified concrete fcc, based on measured strengths of plain concrete,
into Damage State 2 (defined by Mackie et al.20), requiring reinforcing bars, and spiral. Using Eq. (2), the axial strength
significant repairs but not requiring replacement. of the column specimen, Po, is estimated to be 1455 kip
To analyze bridges for an aftershock, it is important to (6472 kN), resulting in the ratio of estimated to measured
know effective stiffness keff of bridge columns after the main strength (Po/Pm) of 0.997. However, if confinement of the
shock. This stiffness is computed using the response data column is not accounted for and the axial strength is calcu-
measured during the small-displacement test cycles that lated following Eq. (3) (per ACI 31821 and Caltrans BDS22)
followed the primary cycles. It represents the tangent slope
at zero force of force-displacement curve for the small- Pn = 0.85 [0.85 fc (Ag Ast) + fy Ast] (3)
displacement test cycles. The effective stiffness at yield
keff,y of tested columns, representing the slope of force- The estimated axial strength of the column is significantly
displacement curve between origin and the point designating smaller than the measured axial strength (Pn/Pm = 0.57).
the first reinforcing bar yield, is used as a reference to measure The remaining axial load strength of the Base15 column
stiffness degradation during the quasi-static tests. The ratio specimen was 1137 kip (5057 kN)78% of the original
of column effective stiffness over column stiffness at yield axial strength. Longitudinal reinforcement strain measure-
keff/keff,y is given in Table 6 for each specimen. The effec- ments during the axial load tests indicated a bending moment
tive stiffness of the damaged column decreases such that, at corresponding to a lateral drift of approximately 1%. A post-
displacement ductility level of 4.5, it is approximately half test inspection of the specimen indicated that the specimen
that of the effective stiffness of the same column at yield. was not accurately leveled when it was installed for axial
load testing. The resulting second-order bending moment
and the corresponding shear caused a shear crack in the top
Fig. 11Axial force-displacement relationships and state of specimens after axial load tests: (a) Base0; (b) Base15; (c) Base30;
and (d) Base45.
INTRODUCTION
High-strength steel and concrete have gained increasing
attention recently in reinforced concrete (RC) buildings due
to the need to limit the size of lower-story columns in high-
rise buildings to increase available floor area. Moreover, the
use of high-strength steel reduces reinforcement congestion
in the plastic hinge regions in seismic design. With recent
advancements in material production technology in Taiwan,
deformed reinforcement SD685 with a specified yield
strength of 685 MPa (100,000 psi) for longitudinal reinforce-
ment (Fig. 1(a)), deformed reinforcement SD785 with spec-
ified yield strength of 785 MPa (114,000 psi) for transverse
reinforcement (Fig. 1(b)), and high-strength concrete with Fig. 1High-strength reinforcement: (a) SD685; and (b)
a specified compressive strength of 100 MPa (14,500 psi) SD785. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
are commercially available. The SD685 reinforcement has
(60,900psi) (ACI 318-11, 11.4.2). Moreover, concrete
a lower and upper limit on actual yield strength685 and
compressive strength for shear design of columns is limited
785 MPa (100,000 and 114,000 psi), respectivelyand a
to 70 MPa (10,000 psi) (ACI 318-11, 11.1.2). Note that this
minimum ratio of actual ultimate strength to actual yield
limit can be removed for beams with the minimum web rein-
strength1.25, conforming to the ACI 318 seismic design
forcement (ACI 318-11, 11.1.2.1), but not for columns.
provisions.1 It also has a lower limit of 0.014 on the strain
The purposes of the yield strength limit in the design of
corresponding to a stress equal to the upper limit of yield
shear reinforcement are to control diagonal crack width
strength (ensuring a sufficient yield plateau), and a lower limit
and to ensure bar yielding before shear failure.2 Lee et al.,2
of 0.1 on elongation (Fig. 1(a)). The SD785 has requirements
who tested 27 beams with fyt of 379 to 750 MPa (55,000
on minimum yield strength and ultimate strength785and
to 109,000 psi), concluded that maximum crack width and
930 MPa (114,000 and 135,000psi), respectivelyand a
fyt are not strongly correlated. Test results for 87 beams
lower limit of 0.08 on elongation (Fig. 1(b)).
Such high-strength materials, when used in columns ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 1, January-February 2015.
for shear design, are not allowed by the ACI 318 Code1 MS No. S-2013-134.R1, doi: 10.14359/51686822, was received September 8,
2013, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2015, American
to use their full strengths. The yield strength of deformed Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless
reinforcing bars for shear design is limited to 420 MPa 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.
with fyt ranging from 484 to 1454 MPa (70,000 to 211,000 columns with material strengths higher than the code limits.
psi)2-4 indicated that beams may fail in shear before shear Based on the study results, a modification is proposed for
reinforcement yielding when fyt is very high; for example, the detailed shear-strength equation of the ACI 318 Code for
fyt = 1454 MPa (211,000 psi), or when used with normal- high-strength columns.
strength concrete, for example, fyt 700 MPa (102,000 psi)
with fc< 40 MPa (5800 psi). Test results for 42 columns EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
with fyt ranging from 846 to 1447 MPa (123,000 to 210,000
psi)3-5 showed that only a few columns had shear failure Specimen design
after shear reinforcement yielding. This suggests that a stress Eight large-scale columns with a clear height of 1800mm
limit should be imposed for shear reinforcement in columns. (70.87 in.) and a square cross section of 600 x 600 mm
The limit on fc in the ACI 318 Code is due to a lack (23.62 x 23.62 in.) were tested. Table 1 and Fig. 2 show
of test data and practical experience with fc 70 MPa column design details. The columns were designed to have
(10,000psi).1 In total, 42 beams specimens3,6-9 without elastic shear failure; that is, shear failure before longitu-
shear reinforcement and with high-strength concrete with dinal reinforcement yielding. The columns were reinforced
fc of 72.8 to 104.2 MPa (10,600 to 15,000 psi) were found with D32 (No. 10) longitudinal reinforcement and with D13
in literature. The ACI 318 simplified (Eq. (11-3)) and (No.4) transverse reinforcement. Each transverse rein-
detailed (Eq.(11-5)) shear-strength equations overestimated forcement layer consisted of a closed hoop with 135-degree
measured diagonal cracking strength for two and four speci- hook anchorage and a tie along each principal direction
mens, respectively. The overestimation was generally within with 90-degree hook at one end and 135-degree hook at the
10%. When one considers measured ultimate shear strength, other end. The clear cover to the outer edge of the trans-
only the shear strength of one specimen was overestimated. verse reinforcement was 40 mm (1.57 in.). The SD685
In total, 35 column specimens3,5,10,11 that were designed with high-strength deformed bars were used for the longitudinal
high-strength concrete with fc of 73.5 to 130 MPa (10,700to reinforcement and had specified and actual yield strengths of
19,000 psi) and were reported with diagonal cracking 685 and 735MPa (100,000 and 106,600 psi), respectively.
strength were found in literature. Most test results were The SD785 high-strength deformed bars were used for the
not evaluated using the ACI 318 shear-strength equations. transverse reinforcement and had specified and actual yield
Moreover, most specimens were small. By testing eight strengths of 785 and 862 MPa (114,000 and 125,000 psi),
large columns, the objectives of this study are to examine respectively. Three study variablesaxial load, concrete
the following: the shear behavior of the columns under low compressive strength, and amount of transverse reinforce-
axial load with the high-strength steel and concrete materials mentwere examined. Two levels of axial load ratios10%
mentioned previously; the strains of shear reinforcement at (Column A series) and 20% (Column B series)were exam-
peak column shear; and the applicability of ACI 318 concrete ined. The axial load ratio is the ratio of applied axial load to
shear-strength equations for high-strength columns. fcAg. The value of fc was obtained from the average of three
150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.) concrete cylinders. Two levels of
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE fcs70 and 100 MPa (10,000 and 14,500 psi)were inves-
The use of high-strength materials can decrease the size tigated. Two levels of transverse reinforcement spacing
of lower-story columns in high-rise buildings, increasing 450 and 260 mm (17.72 and 10.24 in.)were studied. Note
available floor area. Additionally, this can also decrease that actual axial load ratios applied for Specimens B-1 and
the consumption of aggregate and steel, promoting envi- B-2 were 15% and 18%, respectively, due to the inclusion of
ronmental sustainability. By testing eight large-scale, high- relatively low cylinder-strength test results, which were later
strength concrete columns and by examining test data of eliminated when determining actual concrete compressive
43high-strength columns, this research studied the applica- strength.
bility of shear-strength equations in the ACI 318 Code on
Fig. 5Hysteretic behavior of specimens with 10% axial load ratio: (a) A-1; (b) A-2; (c) A-3; and (d) A-4.
Fig. 7Crack pattern at the peak applied load for specimens: (a) A-1; (b) A-2; (c) A-3 (d) A-4 (e) B-1; (f) B-2; (g) B-3; and
(h) B-4.
and by comparing those of Columns B-3 and B-4 to those tively. Thus, if transverse reinforcement exceeding that in
of Columns B-1 and B-2. Based on the strain measurement this study is provided, transverse reinforcement may achieve
of longitudinal reinforcement, when longitudinal reinforce- yielding at shear failure before longitudinal reinforcement
ment of Column A and B series reached yielding, drifts were yielding (Fig. 11).
predicted to be approximately 1.6% and 1.85%, respec-
Fig. 10Damage distribution at the end of test: (a) A-1; (b) A-2; (c) A-3 (d) A-4 (e) B-1; (f) B-2; (g) B-3; and (h) B-4.
Experimental shear strength provided by transverse rein- the peak of Vc_test, leading to more brittle behavior. Note that
forcement (Vs_test) was calculated using Eq. (1). In Eq. (1), the peak of Vtest may not coincide with the peak of Vc_test
st was determined by the stress-drift relationships (Fig. 11), (Columns A-3 and B-3) (Fig. 12).
and was determined by measuring crack angle (Fig. 8).
Experimental shear strength provided by concrete (Vc_test) Effect of concrete compressive strength
was calculated using Eq. (2). Two conditions were consid- Figure 13 shows a representative relationship between
ered when calculating Vs_test and Vc_test: diagonal cracking column drift and Vs_test, Vc_test, and Vtest to illustrate the
and ultimate conditions. The diagonal cracking condition is effect of compressive strength. Test results for Columns
defined as when a diagonal shear crack first appears. The A-3 and A-4 with actual concrete compressive strength of
ultimate condition corresponds to peak applied shear. 97 and 107MPa (14,000 and 15,500 psi), respectively, are
compared. Although the two columns were designed with
Av st d a difference in concrete compressive strength of 30 MPa
Vs _ test = cot q (1)
s (4400 psi), the actual difference was only 10 MPa (1500 psi)
(Table 1). No significant difference in behavior existed with
Vc_test = Vtest Vs_test (2) such a difference in concrete compressive strength (Fig. 13).
Fig. 11Stress of shear reinforcement. Fig. 13Drift ratio versus applied shear of Specimens A-3
and A-4.
and (5) are detailed equations for Vc, but should not be taken
greater than Eq. (6). Equation (7) defines Vs.
Nu
Vc = 0.17 1 + fcbw d (MPa)
13.8 Ag
(3)
Nu
Vc = 2 1 + fcbw d (psi)
2000 Ag
V d
Vc = 0.16 fc + 17rw u bw d (MPa)
Mm
(4)
Fig. 12Shear strength development of Specimens A-3 and V d
B-3. Vc = 1.9 fc + 2500rw u bw d (psi)
Mm
after the peak of Vc_test, thus increasing the peak of Vtest and
the stress in the transverse reinforcement at the peak of Vtest.
M m = Mu N u
( 4h d ) (5)
EXAMINATION OF ACI 318 SHEAR- 8
STRENGTHEQUATIONS
According to the ACI 318 Code,1 nominal shear strength 0.29 N u
Vn is contributed by two components: shear strength provided Vc = 0.29 fcbw d 1 + (MPa)
Ag
by concrete (Vc) and shear strength provided by shear rein- (6)
forcement (Vs). In the ACI 318 Code, Eq. (3) is the simplified Nu
equation for Vc when axial compression exists. Equations (4) Vc = 3.5 fcbw d 1 + (pssi)
500 Ag
1.6 N u
Vc = 0.29 fcbw d 1 + (MPa)
fcbw d
or equal to (9)
0.133 N u
Fig. 14Drift ratio versus applied shear of Specimens A-1 Vc = 3.5 fcbw d 1 + (psi)
and A-3. fcbw d
Mu is taken as moment at distance d from the section of
maximum moment when the ratio of shear span to effective For simplicity, a constant value of 0.29 (MPa) (0.002[psi])
depth is greater than 2, or moment at the center of shear replaced 1.6/fc (MPa) (0.133/fc [psi]), which corresponds
span when the ratio of shear span to effective depth is less to fc equal to approximately 30 MPa (4400 psi). With this
than 2.12 simplification and by approximating bwd as Ag, Eq. (9)
becomes Eq. (6). The simplification that sets fc equal to
Av f yt d 30MPa (4400 psi) in 1.6/fc (MPa) (0.133/fc [psi]) over-
Vs = (7)
estimates mathematically the shear strength of members
s
with fc exceeding 30 MPa (4400 psi). The degree of over-
estimation increases as fc increases and can be as high as
The ACI concrete shear-strength equations were derived
28% for the case of 20% axial load ratio and fc = 100 MPa
based on shear corresponding to diagonal cracking12 even
(14,500 psi), which are design parameters for Columns B-2
though they are defined as nominal concrete shear strength
and B-4.
in the ACI Code. The experimental concrete shear strength
To assess the applicability of Eq. (6) for columns with
at the diagonal cracking and at the ultimate shear condition
fc 70 MPa (10,000 psi), a test database of 43 high-strength
(peak applied load) are compared to shear strength predicted
columns from this study and literature3,5,10,11 was estab-
by the ACI simplified (Eq. (3)) and detailed (Eq. (4) to (6))
lished (Table 4). The database includes only columns with fc
concrete shear-strength equations (Table 3). In the calcula-
70 MPa (10,000 psi) and with data for diagonal cracking
tion using detailed equations, the values of Mm in Eq. (5)
strength available. The values of Mm (Eq. (5)) for all 43
for all columns are negative, meaning that normal tensile
columns are negative. Therefore, the shear strength of the
stress due to moment effect is small, and diagonal cracking
columns is governed by Eq. (6), not Eq. (4), for the detailed
strength should be governed by Eq. (6). Note that when using
shear-strength calculation. The eighth column in Table 4
Eq. (3) to (6), the ACI limit on fc ( 70 MPa [10,000 psi])
shows the outcome of comparing the measured diagonal
for concrete shear strength was removed. Results of compar-
cracking strength to predictions by Eq. (3). Predictions are
ison show that Eq. (3) yields conservative predictions for all
conservative for all columns. On the other hand, predictions
columns. Equation (6) does not yield conservative estimates
by Eq. (6) for 23 columns are not conservative (ninth column
of diagonal cracking strength for all columns. Even for ulti-
in Table 4). If Eq. (9) is used instead of Eq. (6), the number
mate shear strength, Eq. (6) results are not conservative for
of unconservative results is reduced to 6 (tenth column in
all columns. This is discussed further in later paragraphs. For
Table 4).
shear strength provided by steel reinforcement, Eq. (7) does
To investigate the applicability of using ft(max)/F2 equal
not yield conservative results for all columns (last column in
to 0.29fc (MPa) (3.5fc [psi]) in Eq. (8) for high-strength
Table 3). This is expected, as stress in transverse reinforce-
columns, the values of ft(max)/F2 for all the 43 columns
ment was far from yield at the ultimate condition (Table 2).
were back-calculated by substituting the measured diag-
As stated previously, if a higher amount of transverse rein-
onal cracking strength for Vc in Eq. (8) and solving for
forcement than that used in this study is provided, transverse
ft(max)/F2. Figure 15 shows calculation results (data points
reinforcement stress at the ultimate condition may be further
bounded by dashed lines). Because the Mm values for all
increased. Further study is needed to examine transverse
columns are negative, an infinity value was assumed for
reinforcement stress when the amount of transverse rein-
the horizontal coordinate of the data points of the columns
forcement is higher than that used in this research.
in Fig. 15. Columns from different studies were separated
Equation (6) is based on Eq. (8),12 which was derived
into different groups in Fig. 15 for comparison. Compar-
based on principal tensile stress at diagonal cracking with an
ison of the distribution of the column data points and that
assumption that neglects tensile stress due to moment effect.
of the beam data points against the horizontal dashed line
reveals that ft(max)/F2 equal to 0.29fc (MPa) (3.5fc [psi])
shear strength upper-bound equation (Eq. (6)) produced Eq. (9) was used instead of Eq. (6), the number of columns
unconservative predictions of diagonal cracking strength with unconservative prediction was reduced to 6. Further-
for 23 columns, including all columns tested in this study. If more, because the difference between diagonal cracking
INTRODUCTION
While continuous reinforced concrete deep beams, such as
the transfer girder shown in Fig. 1(a), perform more critical
load-carrying functions than slender beams, their safety is
more difficult to assess. Shear forces in such members are
more sensitive to differential settlement of footings and
because longitudinal strains vary nonlinearly over beam
depth, traditional design procedures for slender beams are
not appropriate. The ACI Building Code1 suggests that
either the nonlinear distribution of longitudinal strains be
taken into account or that strut-and-tie models be used.
While finite element programs, such as VecTor2,2 which
was used to produce Fig. 1(b), account both for nonlinear
distributions of strain and nonlinear material response
and can predict both failure loads and deformations, their
use requires considerable engineering time and expertise.
Strut-and-tie models (Fig.1(c)), on the other hand, by Fig. 1Modeling of transfer girder.
approximating regions of high compressive stress in concrete
and high tensile stress in reinforcement, can usually provide top longitudinal reinforcement, the average tensile strain in
conservative estimates of strength after a few relatively simple the bottom reinforcement, and the vertical deformation of the
calculations. As these models concentrate on statics, they do critical loading zone (CLZ). This three-parameter kinematic
not provide accurate assessments of deformation patterns theory (3PKT) is an extension to the two-parameter
close to failure and post-peak behavior. This also applies kinematic theory (2PKT) proposed by Mihaylov at el.5,6
for most analytical models for deep beams in the literature3 for simply supported deep beams. With a relatively small
with exceptions focusing entirely on deformation capacity.4 number of hand calculations, the 3PKT can be used to
Information on ultimate deformations can be critical in, for determine the shear failure load, crack widths, deformed
example, evaluating the safety of transfer girders damaged shape, and support reactions (accounting for differential
by earthquakes or by large differentialsettlements. settlements) of a continuous deep beam near failure. As part
It is the purpose of this paper to present a kinematic
model (Fig. 1(d)) capable of predicting both strength and ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 1, January-February 2015.
MS No. S-2013-150.R1, doi: 10.14359/51687180, was received March 24, 2014,
deformation patterns near failure of reinforced concrete and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2015, American
continuous deep beams. Within each shear span this model Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless
permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
uses just three parameters: the average tensile strain in the 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.
failure but the regions near the loads displayed only small as if it was 1/25 of the span. It can be seen that at LS5 the
transversestrains. deformations are primarily flexural, curving down under the
Apart from giving information on crack patterns, crack loads and up over the central support. At LS7, significant
widths, and crack slips, Fig. 5 also provides detailed shear deformations caused by the diagonal crack can be seen
measured displacement patterns at four load stages. These in the east span near the inner edge of the central support.
deformed shapes were calculated from the readings of the By LS9, these shear deformations had greatly increased due
demountable displacement transducers7 and are magnified to the opening and slipping of the critical diagonal crack.
so that for each diagram the maximum beam deflection plots As these large displacements developed, the east part of
Fig. 93PKT for deep beams under single- and double-curvature bending.17
52 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2015
10 times larger than those at LS7 but the deformation From Eq. (14), the shear carried by the critical loading
patterns, which are scaled to the same maximum deflection, zone, VCLZ, is calculated as 346 kN (77.9 kip). The shear
look very similar. At maximum shear in the west inner span, carried across the crack interface, Vci, depends on the crack
LS11, the shear deformations near the top face by the load are width, which from Eq. (12) is 2.07 mm (0.081 in.), resulting
prominent. By this stage, the east span had been reinforced in a Vci value from Eq. (16) of 164 kN (36.9 kip). Applying
with external clamps, which required removal of the LVDTs the dowel action expression, Eq. (15), separately to the four
measuring the kinematic parameters required for calculating 25M bars and the one 35M bar and summing the resistances
the predicted deformation pattern. gives a Vd value of 45 kN (10.1 kip). The final shear-strength
From Fig. 5, it can be seen that if the three kinematic component, Vs, depends on the strain in the stirrups, which
parameters for each shear span are known, then the complete is calculated from Eq. (13) to be 3.11 103. As this exceeds
deformed shape of continuous deep beams can be determined the yield strain, the effective stirrups are at yield stress and so
with reasonable accuracy. The three equations in Box 1 of they resist a shear of 490 x 606, which is 297 kN (66.8kip).
Fig. 9 enable the three kinematic parameters for a shear The calculated shear resistance against failure on this critical
span to be calculated from the end moments and geometric crack is thus 346 + 164 + 45 + 297 = 852 kN (192 kip).
properties of the shear span. The transverse displacement of Because the calculated resistance agrees closely with the
the critical loading zone at shear failure, Dc, is calculated initial estimate, this value can be taken as converged.
as in the 2PKT for single curvature6 but with an additional The equations in Fig. 9 have been formulated for the case
coefficient kc. This coefficient accounts for the decreased where the diagonal crack at the inner edge of the bottom
deformation capacity of the CLZ due to the tensile strains support is opening at failure. To check whether this crack is
et2,min in the top reinforcement. This compression softening indeed critical, calculations need to be also performed for the
effect8 does not occur in members under single curvature case where the diagonal crack at the inner face of the top load
because in such members the top zone remains uncracked. In opens at failure. That is, the CLZ will now be at the bottom
Eq. (3), e1 is the principal tensile strain in the CLZ estimated support while the dowel action in the longitudinal bars will
from compatibility of deformations. now occur near the top load. The effective length of the support
lb2e resisting the shear is 150 mm (5.91 in.) and the critical
CALCULATION OF SHEAR STRENGTH crack thus goes from the center of the supporting column to
The shear strength of a deep beam can be predicted when the inner face of the upper column, which gives an angle a1
equations for the degrees of freedom of the kinematic model of 36.4 degrees. This small change in slope causes the dowel
are combined with equations for geometry of the model, length for the 25M bars to change to 216mm (8.50in.) but
equations for compatibility of deformations, and constitutive does not change the dowel length for the 35M bar. Using the
relationships for the components of shear resistance (refer reduced effective bearing length and the weighted average
to Fig. 9). The derivation of the basic equations has been dowel length of 231 mm (9.09in.), the calculated value for Av
discussed in detail elsewhere.6 The procedure will be from Eq. (7) increases to 620mm2(0.961 in.2).
illustrated by giving the key steps required to calculate the If the initial estimate of the shear resistance is again taken
shear resistance of beam CDB1 assuming that Vint/P has as 850 kN (191 kip), then the calculated strains in the top
the measured value at east span shear failure of 0.619. The and bottom reinforcing bars will stay the same. However,
effective length of load, lb1e, transmitting shear to the inner as the CLZ is now at the bottom, it is the minimum strain
shear span (refer to Eq. (4)) is 186 mm (7.32 in.) and hence in the bottom bars, 0.75 1.505 103, which governs the
the angle, a1, of the critical crack going from the inner face compression softening factor kc, giving it a value of 0.744.
of the support to this zero shear location is 35.8 degrees. The This smaller value combined with the smaller effective
dowel length, lk, for the 25M bars from Eq. (5) is 220mm bearing length means that Dc is reduced to 1.59mm
(8.7 in.), while for the 35M bar, it is 260 mm (10.2 in.). The (0.063in.) and VCLZ is reduced to 254 kN (57kip). The
final geometric term required is the effective area of the calculated crack width, 1.43mm (0.056in.), due to the
stirrups in the shear span, which from Eq. (7), is 606 mm2 opening of the critical crack near the inner face of the
(0.939 in.2) if a weighted average of 233 mm (9.17 in.) is top loading area, is a function of Dc and of the minimum
used for the reinforcing bar dowel length. strain in the top bars (0.75 1.048103). The resulting
Shear-strength calculations commence with an estimate value of Vci is 221 kN (49.8kip). The dowel action
of the shear failure loadfor example, 850 kN (191 kip). component, Vd, which has a value of 55 kN (12.3 kip), is
At this load, M1 = 889 kNm (656 ft-kip) and the average also a function of the minimum strain in the top bars. The
strain in the bottom longitudinal reinforcement from Eq. (1) stirrup component, Vs, on the other hand, is a function of
is 1.505 103. The moment M2 = 619 kNm (457 ft-kip) and the average strain in the top bars (1.048 103) and has a
the average strain in the top reinforcement from Eq. (2) is value of 266 kN (59.9kip). The calculated shear resistance
1.048 103. The minimum strains, near the support for the against opening of the diagonal crack at the inner face of
bottom bars and near the load for the top, are taken as 75% of the load is thus 254 + 221+55+266 = 796 kN (179kip).
these values. From the minimum tensile top bar strain near Repeating the calculations for an estimated failure shear of
the load and the angle of the critical crack, the compression 800 kN (180kip) gives a calculated resistance of 802 kN
softening factor, kc, is calculated as 0.840 and then Dc from (180kip), which can be taken as the converged value. This
Eq. (3) is 2.27 mm (0.089 in.). is the predicted critical failure shear for the member, as it is
approximately 6% smaller than the shear required to open
D s = (e t ,2 avg a cot a + D c )
+ (e t ,2 avg e t ,1avg )aext cot a e t ,1avg aext cot a ext (18)
If there is no differential settlement of the supports, then
Ds should be zero. If there is differential settlement, then Ds
is equal to the settlement of the exterior supports minus the
settlement of the central support.
The procedure to calculate the distribution ratio Vint/P
starts with an estimate for this ratio. For example, the elastic
value of 0.675 could be chosen. The predicted shear strength
and the three kinematic parameters for the chosen ratio are
then calculated as explained in the previous section. For the
0.675 ratio, the predicted shear strength is 828 kN (186 kip),
et1,avg is 1.146 103, et2,avg is 1.343 103, and Dc is 1.76 mm
(0.069 in.). Substituting the values of the three kinematic
parameters into Eq. (18) gives
A study of existing research shows a need for an investigation of programs to determine if the anchor heads have been proven
the bond properties of anchorage systems for glass fiber-reinforced to develop at least 1.67 times the required design strength
polymer (GFRP) bars including mechanical anchor heads and within the given length.
bends. In this research program, the standard pullout test proce- Bends in GFRP reinforcement are also used for reducing
dure was modified, which improved testing efficiency, accommo-
the required development length as well as in stirrups used
dated bent bar tests, and reduced the variability of concrete prop-
as shear reinforcement. The strength at these bends has
erties across test specimens. Based on this experimental work
consisting of a total of 72 specimens, it was concluded that the been reported to be approximately 30 to 60% of the ulti-
surface profile of GFRP bars influences only the post-peak phase mate tensile strength of the straight portion of the bars (Imjai
of the bond stress-slip curve. It was also found that GFRP bars with etal. 2007; Ahmed et al. 2010). This reduced strength is due
anchor heads still require a considerable bonded length to develop to the bearing action of the concrete on the bend inducing
the bars full strength. The bend strengths were determined to be normal stresses in the weak lateral direction of the bars,
between 58 and 80% of the strength of the straight portion of the and due to the longitudinal fibers becoming kinked along
same bar in the specimens from three GFRP manufacturers. The the interior radius of the bend, reducing their load-carrying
straight bar embedment length required to develop full strength of capacity (Ahmed et al. 2010). Results from the research on
bent bar was found to be approximately five times the bar diameter the behavior of various anchorage types would allow engi-
for all bar types tested.
neers to be more confident when designing with this rela-
Keywords: anchor; bend; bond; glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) tively new and always evolving reinforcing material.
bars; polymers; reinforced concrete.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
INTRODUCTION While there have been a multitude of studies recently
Glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcing bars published on the bond properties of GFRP bars, there is a
have been introduced as a lightweight, corrosion-resistant gap in the literature with respect to the behavior of different
material which offers a viable replacement for traditional anchorage types, such as headed and bent bars, and their
steel reinforcing bars, especially when the structures are relative benefits over straight bars. Because no codified
located in aggressive environments such as coastal regions standards for GFRP manufacturing are in place, great vari-
and those subjected to deicing salts. Extensive experimental ations in the mechanical properties and surface profiles of
work is needed in order to develop reliable and rational the available GFRP bars exist. This research addresses these
guidelines for design if GFRP is to be widely accepted as a issues and presents results from an extensive study on the
practical construction material. One property of importance bond and anchorage of GFRP bar products from different
is the bond between the GFRP bars and the surrounding manufacturers tested in a similar manner and under the same
concrete. This property is crucial, as it has a major effect conditions. Performance of straight bars, headed bars, and
on the structural performance of a member with regards to bent bars is discussed and resistance of each type of anchor
cracking, deformability, internal damping, and instability in is investigated.
concrete structures (Gambarova et al. 1998).
To develop the required design strength of the bars EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
in tension, it is common practice to introduce mechan- To minimize the risk of splitting failure in the concrete
ical anchor heads at the ends of straight bars in reinforced cylinders, a slab layout was adopted for the traditional direct
concrete structures when the available space is limited. In tension pullout test (DTPT) (fib 2000), of anchors. A total of
recent years, great improvements have been made in the 72 bond specimens of various anchorage types and bonded
manufacturing of GFRP reinforcement with the current lengths were embedded in six concrete slabs each measuring
bars having a much higher ultimate strength and stiffness 2400 x 1200 x 320 mm (94.5 x 47.2 x 12.6 in.). The test
than the bars of previous generations. With these greater parameters included the surface profile based on the type of
strengths come much longer required development lengths,
further increasing the need for anchor heads. Due to the lack ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 1, January-February 2015.
of standards for the manufacturing of these anchor heads, MS No. S-2013-180.R3, doi:10.14359/51687042, was received January 16, 2014,
and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2015, American
the current Canadian design code for FRP bars, CSA S806- Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless
permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
12, requires that engineers check the results from research 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.
N
= (1)
pdb lembed
Fig. 5Strain distribution along bonded length results from VecTor 2 model of: (a) straight (C-S-10) and headed (C-H-10)
bars; and (b) bent bars.
[2-3/4 in.]) from the average displacement measured by for the bent bars shows that the strains are small in the first
the three LVDTs. Bar slip at the free end is calculated by bend and quickly dissipate to zero beyond that point.
subtracting the elongation of the bar along the debonded
length and the bonded length from the loaded end slip using Experimental results
the data collected by the strain gauges. Because the strain In the discussion of the results for all 72 pullout specimens
gauges only measured the strain at the midpoint of the in this paper, the following nomenclature for the specimens
bonded length, the strain near the free end had to be extrapo- is used:
lated using the results from an analytical model of the pullout The first letter indicates the bar type. The next letter indi-
tests that was created using finite element analysis (FEA) cates the anchorage type, where S is straight, H is headed,
software (Vecchio and Wong 2002). A detailed description and B is bent. The first number indicates the ratio of bonded
of the steps used to create this model can be found elsewhere length to bar diameter of 0, 5, or 10. The next number indi-
(Vint 2012). The strain distribution predicted by the model cates the test number of the specimens within a group of
along the bonded length for the straight, headed and bent three specimens, where the third specimen has the strain
bars can be found in Fig. 5 for Bar Type C with bonded gauges along the bonded length. The last number denotes the
lengths of 10db. It can be seen that the strain at the free end concrete batch number. As an example, A-S-10-1-2 desig-
of the straight bar is nearly zero, which is consistent with nates a bond test specimen of Bar Type A with a straight
the existing literature that states free end strain is theoreti- anchorage type and a bonded length of 10 times the bar
cally zero. The difference between the theoretical and exper- diameter. It is the first of the three specimens in that group
imental results could be due to the inaccuracy of the strain and was in the second batch of concrete.
gauges. The anchor head does an effective job of transferring Straight barsResults for the straight bars with no end
the strains to the free end, producing a more constant strain anchorage showed that as the embedment length increased
distribution along the bonded length. The strain distribution from 5db to 10db the peak average bond stress, 2, decreased.
This trend is consistent with the available literature, indi-
15.9 5 50.6 (11.38) 255 (37.0) 0.346 12.67 (1.838) 1.738 (0.068) 0.420 (0.0165)
A
(0.626) 10 78.7 (17.69) 396 (57.4) 0.537 9.85 (1.429) 2.99 (0.118) 0.692 (0.027)
15.9 5 62.3 (14.01) 314 (45.5) 0.246 15.59 (2.26) 1.410 (0.056) 0.656 (0.026)
B
(0.626) 10 104.8 (23.6) 528 (76.6) 0.413 13.12 (1.903) 1.919 (0.076) 0.352 (0.0139)
16 5 50.9 (11.44) 253 (36.7) 0.206 12.65 (1.835) 1.565 (0.062) 0.551 (0.022)
C
(0.630) 10 90.2 (20.3) 449 (65.1) 0.365 11.22 (1.627) 1.970 (0.078) 0.357 (0.0141)
Fig. 8Typical bar stress-slip relationship for headed bars: (a) Bar Type B; and (b) Bar Type C.
(14.5 to 21.8 ksi) in the two types of bars. A bonded length of
10db only adds approximately 200 MPa (29.0 ksi) bar stress.
While both headed Bar Type B and C were able to
develop similar peak ultimate average bond stresses, their
bond stress-slip reponses varied in the post-peak phase just
like their straight bar behaviors. This is due to the different
manufacturing processes that are used for each bar type.
For Bar Type B, the anchor head is attached to a specially
prepared surface which consists of O-rings spaced every
5mm (0.2 in.) (Drouin 2012). Whereas for Bar Type C,
the anchor head is attached directly to the 16 mm (5/8 in.)
GFRP bar. It can be seen from the bond stress-slip curve
of both headed bar types (Fig. 8) that the behavior of the
anchor head for Bar Type B has multiple peaks and valleys,
while the failure of headed Bar Type C was mostly singular
as the stress drops significantly only once. The same failure
mode was observed for the Bar Type B headed bars for all
bonded lengths. Multiple loud bangs were observed (O-rings
failing) in Bar Type B headed specimens with no bonded
length. The peak and valley behavior seems to be due to the Fig. 9Failed headed bar specimen in concrete cylinder
load sharing mechanism in these specimens and requires with anchor head intact.
furtherinvestigation. the concrete slabs. Note that the photo shown in Fig. 9 is
Due to the high ultimate strength of the bars tested, the from a bond test series in which the bars were embedded in
bonded length required to develop the full strength of the concrete cylinders (Vint 2012). While it was relatively more
GFRP bars would be relatively large. All headed bars at all manageable to cut cylinders to investigate failed bars, the
bonded lengths failed by pullout of the bar from the head failure modes of similar specimens in the two series were
connection as seen in Fig. 9, where the unruptured bar pulled found to be identical. The mechanical anchor heads are
out of the anchor head, which remained intact and inside required to develop at least 1.67 times the required level
Analytical modeling of bond-slip relationship From the experimental stress-slip curves for the three
The modified Bertero-Eligehausen-Popov, m-BEP, model bar types shown in Fig. 7, it can be seen that the post-peak
similar to that used by Cosenza et al. (1997), Gambarova et response varies depending on the bar type. As mentioned
al. (1998), Focacci et al. (2000), and Kadam (2006) was used previously, this difference is due to each bar types surface
to develop a constitutive bond stress-slip (-s) relationship profile. The soft wave shape seen in Fig. 16(a) can be
for the straight bars (Fig. 15). This model can be divided into attributed to the undulations found on the surface of
two or three parts: the ascending branch up to the peak stress; BarTypeA, which remain as the bar is pulled out. The steep
the descending branch after the peak stress; and a constant decrease in bond stress seen in Fig. 16(b) is due to the brittle
stress, 3. The equations used for the different branches can bond failure due to the shearing off of the sand coating
on BarType B. Finally, the initial post-peak response of
BarType C was also brittle due to the shearing off of the
concrete between the bars ribs. However, in this case, higher
and more constant residual stresses were observed due to the
more uniform friction plane.
Due to these varying post-peak responses, different
descending branch shapes were used in the analysis for the
three bar types. For Bar Types A and C, a linear decreasing
branch with a slope of p 2/s2 was observed and can be
modeled using (2) in Fig. 15, where p is the unknown
parameter that is solved by using linear regression of the
experimental results. Bar Type B had a nonlinear post-peak
response that can be modeled using (3) in Fig. 15, where
2 is determined using nonlinear regression techniques. The
constant residual stress, 3, was observed for Bar Type C and
was calibrated using a reduction factor, , that was solved
using the experimental results.
The values for known parameters 2 and s2 and unknown
parameters 1, p, 2, and can be found in Table 5. A compar-
Fig. 12Peak bar stress with increasing bonded length. ison of the analytical curves and experimental results for each
Fig. 13Typical bar stress-slip relationship for bent bars with all bonded lengths, for Bar Types (a) A; (b) B; and (c) C.
1
(q) = cos q (1)
2
f y
Fig. 1Original assumptions and proposals for OCD suggested Rs = (4)
lim
by Li et al.15: (a) definition of contact units; (b) contact stress
direction for contact unit; (c) histogram of contact direction;
and (d) elasto-plastic model for contact compressive stress. f y = 13.7 f c1/ 3 (5)
Fig. 3Comparison of OCD model with experimental results reported by Paulay and Loeber3: (a) test specimens; and (b)
shear stress versus shear displacement. (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
p2
var = E q 2 = 2 (18)
4
Knowing var for NSC, Eq. (16) can be described and plotted
easily. Similarly, var for HSC can be derived as follows
q
2
5
(q) = exp 21 var = 0.48 (19)
6 p
Fig. 5Comparison between proposed model for distri-
bution of contact units inclinations for NSC and HSC and
Equation (16) for NSC, HSC, and the original CDF are plotted CDF suggested by Li et al. 15
and compared in Fig. 5. The figure reveals that by increasing
the strength of concrete fc, var is decreased. The original
CDF and the proposed equation for NSC (Eq.(16)) are rela-
tively close. The original CDF has higher values, almost
along 90 degrees || 30 degrees, but Eq.(16) has higher
values, between || and 30 degrees. This means that Eq. (16)
has a lower contribution in 90 degrees || 30 degrees
than the original CDF. But Eq. (19) has different values
for all inclinations. It can be seen that the corresponding
curve has higher values between || < 30 degrees. In fact,
the probabilistic contribution of horizontal surfaces is more
than the vertical units. This states that the crack surface
has a smoother surface than NSC because it has a smaller
var (Eq.(19)). It can be concluded that any kind of surface Fig. 6Variation of F2(Gmax) with respect to . (Note:
geometry is described by a simple NDF. 1mm = 0.039 in.)
Effect of maximum aggregate sizeDue to the roughness
of the crack faces, stress can be transferred from concrete F2(Gmax) = [1 (, )] (22)
to concrete. This mechanism is based upon the fact that in
NSC, the aggregates have a much higher strength than the where controls the contribution of maximum aggre-
matrix material.1 Therefore, a crack runs through the matrix gate size in the stress-transfer capabilities of cracked
and along the interface between aggregates and cement concrete (Eq. (21) and (22)). In fact, provides a family
paste. As a consequence, the stiff aggregates cause the crack of descending curves for F2 depending on the values of
surfaces to roughen. Decreasing the maximum aggregate size (Fig. 6). A linearly decreasing relationship is obtained in the
makes crack profiles smoother, as in HSC, and subsequently particular case of = 0. Figure 6 shows the variation of
reduces the shear transfer capability. An experimental study F2(Gmax) versus Gmax. For Gmax > 15 mm (0.6 in.), there is
carried out by Thom22 stated that shear strength provided no reduction in F2(Gmax) because the experimental results
by the aggregate interlocking increased to some extent with showed no differences; but for Gmax < 15 mm (0.6 in.) and
increasing maximum aggregate size. Experimental results according to , different kinds of variation and reduction
reported by Li et al.15 as well as Wattar23 expressed that there will be obtained. Proposing a unique formulation for
are no noticeable differences in crack profiles for specimens requires the proper and sufficient experimental data.
with aggregate sizes of 15 and 25 mm (0.6 and 1.0 in.). Effect of crack width (loading path)Experimental
Thus, it seems that for Gmax < 15 mm (0.6 in.) and NSC, the studies have shown that the amount of shear transfer across
original CDF should be modified. Equation (22) expresses cracks directly depends on crack width. Also, applied
the reduction of stress-transfer capability due to the size of normal stress can be regarded as an external restraint to
coarse aggregates adjust the corresponding crack width and have a reasonable
effect on shear transfer capability. Figure 7 shows a typical
Gmax trend of shear stress versus slip response with the probable
= (20)
15 sequence of occurrence of the different mechanisms. The
relative participation of these mechanisms depends on crack
width. Figures7(a) and (b) indicate that for a larger initial
exp(a )
( , a ) = 1
crack width, a lower shear strength will be expected, and
(21)
1 + exp ( a ) 1
the participation of the first zone in Fig. 7(b) grows conse-
quently. In fact, for a wider crack width, there will be fewer
DOWEL ACTION
= [1 exp(W)]0 (26) Moradi et al.17 proposed a macroscale model to simulate
dowel behavior of crossing bar across cracks. The proposed
model is established based on the experimental program and
t
dW cr = d d + d W cr = dW cr dt (27) the available experimental results. The model formulation is
0 based on the beam on elastic foundation (BEF) theory and
extended to the beam on inelastic foundation (BIF) theory
var by proposing a consistent formula for subgrade springs. The
= F4 (a ) = exp( a W cr ) (28) effect of concrete cover splitting as well as the effect of axial
var 0
stress of deformed bars is considered.17 Herein, the model is
adopted to express the dowel behavior of bars under different
Equation (28) determines the variation of initial stan- loading paths. More details are available in Reference 17.
dard deviation based on work dissipation during loading.
Figure8(c) shows the variation of the standard deviation STRESS-TRANSFER MECHANISM ACROSS RC
with respect to Wcr and Fig. 8(d) explains the effect of the CRACKS AND INTERFACES
standard deviation variation on the proposed NDF (Eq.(16)) To simulate the behavior of different kinds of RC cracks,
qualitatively. As can be seen, loading causes a reduction in interfaces, and construction joints, reliable constitutive
the initial standard deviation and the corresponding NDF models are necessary. As the shear displacement applies at
becomes narrower, which means that the crack surface the crack plane, roughness of crack surface tends to widen
asperities deteriorate. the crack width (dilatancy). This crack opening increases
Now, knowing all terms, Eq. (13) can be rewritten as the axial stress of the bar Asss, while shear displacement
causes flexure effect in the bar. The overall stress state in
(q, f c , Gmax , , a ) = var reinforcing bar and surrounding concrete governs the crack
exp ( a )
opening and slip, which can control the stress transfer across
1 1 the crack plane. The proposed procedure for finding crack
1 + (exp( a ) 1) (29) stresses and openings starts by satisfying the equilibrium
1 (Eq. (30)) normal to the crack (Fig. 9). So for any given
exp exp( aW cr )
50
shear displacement, the unknown stresses and crack opening
can be determined in an iterative way (Fig. 10). Figure 9
shows the schematic behavior and stress-transfer mecha-
Equation (29) shows the complete and final form of the nism of a single RC crack subjected to shear force V, due to
proposed modified CDF applied at the framework of the
s = s ( S , d ) (32)
= 2; = c(2S) (33)
s = s(S, ) (36)
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
Systematic and extensive experimental verification is
conducted for clarifying the versatility of the proposed
model and assumptions. In first part, the proposed model
for aggregate interlock mechanism is compared with some
experimental works under different loading paths. Then the
Fig. 10Flowchart of computing shear transfer across stress-transfer behavior of a single crack is examined by
crack plane. some experimental studies considering aggregate interlock
which a relative shear displacement, , results. To determine and dowel action mechanisms. Comparisons are shown in
the shear transfer across the crack plane, the equilibrium of the framework of shear stress-shear displacement predic-
stresses at a crack can be written as tions as well as the ultimate shear strength of RC cracks.
Also, the contribution of the aforementioned mechanisms
against the applied shear is determined for different rein-
N
= + r s (30) forcement ratios and bar diameters.
Ac
Aggregate interlock
where is the reinforcement ratio; and N is externally To verify the proposed and the suggesting assumptions, the
applied force defined positive in compression. In fact, by experimental and the computed transferred stress provided
means of equilibrium (Eq. (30)), it can be computed as by aggregate interlock mechanisms under different kinds of
normal force due to aggregate interlock and the axial bar loading paths are compared. Paulay and Loeber3 performed
stress s . tests on precracked pushoff-type specimens. The upper part
Normal stress of concrete (due to dilatancy) and bar axial of the specimens could slide along the shear plane of the
stress (due to transverse displacement and axial slip) is lower part, which was fixed. The comparison of the analysis
asfollows and the experimental results are shown in Fig. 11(a) for
Sagaseta and PL3 8.0 0.123 550 53.1 3.52 5.55 5.52 0.99
Vollum PL4 8.0 0.12 550 53.1 4.68 7.1 7.55 1.06
PG2 8.0 0.273 550 31.7 2.31 3.67 4.06 1.11
PG3 8.0 0.081 550 31.7 3.52 4.91 4.67 0.95
Average 1.04
Coefficient of
7.45%
variation
Eight prestressed T-shaped beams were tested using the cyclic concrete (RC) structures as opposed to prestressed concrete
load test (CLT) method as proposed by ACI 437-12 followed by (PC) structures,4,8,9 a type of RC where the reinforcing steel
the ACI318-11 monotonic (24-hour) load test method. The objec- is used in active fashion.
tive of the study is to assess the ability of these methods to eval- This paper describes load tests conducted on eight
uate damage in prestressed concrete (PC) beams. The test matrix
prestressed T-shaped beams. The CLT (ACI 437-12)7 was
included both pristine beams (subjected to no prior loading) as
performed first followed by the ACI 318-115 monotonic
well as beams that were cracked and artificially predamaged using
accelerated corrosion techniques, impressed current, and wet/dry load test. Five specimens were precracked and predamaged
cycles, prior to load testing. Deflections, crack widths, and slipping using impressed current or wet/dry cycles to simulate the
of the prestressing strands were recorded during the load tests. The behavior of deteriorating structures and the effect of corro-
load at which the monotonic test was conducted was chosen to be sion, common in coastal areas or where deicing salts are
greater than the service load of Class U PC members, which does used, on the results of the load tests. The results are used to
not allow cracking. This ensured that at the time of the monotonic assess the sensitivity of monotonic (24-hour) load test and
load test the specimens were significantly damaged. However, the CLT methods to structural damage. It was shown that the
acceptance criteria associated with this test methodology were monotonic load test method failed to identify damage in the
still met. Only one index in the CLT acceptance criteria (deviation specimens while the deviation from linearity index of the
from linearity) identified the condition of the specimens. The devi-
CLT was more sensitive to damage. In uncracked (pristine)
ation from linearity index is found to correlate to the opening and
specimens, the criterion of the deviation from linearity index
widening of cracks.
is not met when the transition from uncracked to cracked
Keywords: corrosion; cyclic load test (CLT); monotonic (24-hour) load condition takes place; thus, permanent damage occurs in
test; prestressed concrete (PC). the specimen. A modification to the current deviation from
linearity acceptance criterion is proposed for the evaluation
INTRODUCTION of PC flexural members.
The economy of developed countries is heavily reliant
on the built infrastructure, and the deterioration of concrete RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
buildings and bridges is a major concern to both owners and This study aims to evaluate the performance of current load
users. A gap exists between the annual investment needed testing methods when used on PC flexural members. Results
to improve the conditions of the U.S. infrastructure and the indicate that the monotonic (24-hour) load test prescribed
amount currently spent.1 Proper assessment of the integrity by ACI 318-115 is not suitable for condition assessment of
of concrete structures is key to help owners to efficiently PC members. The deviation from linearity index of the CLT
prioritize maintenance. method yields better results; however, the current accep-
If the integrity of a structure is in question, load tests may tance limits of this index may be associated with permanent
be used for condition assessment.2-4 The American Concrete damage in the tested members. This study proposes a modi-
Institute (ACI) addresses two methods of load testing: 1)a fication to the current CLT acceptance criteria for the case of
monotonic (24-hour) load testing per ACI 318-115; and PC flexural members.
2) cyclic load test (CLT) per ACI 437.1R-07.6 Currently, the
CLT method is available as a provisional standard under the LOAD TESTING METHODS
leadership of ACI Committee 437.7 The two documents (that Monotonic load test
is, ACI 318-11 and ACI 437-12) have different condition This method is described in Chapter 20 of ACI 318-115
assessment criteria based on the load-deflection response. and has been used for decades. The structure is loaded for
It is noted that the applicability of the monotonic load test 24 hours and deflections are monitored and recorded
on modern structures may be questioned, as its acceptance continuously or intermittently during the test. The load
criteria are consistent with design principles and material magnitude of the test is determined using Section 20.3.2 of
properties used in the 1920s.4,6 The CLT method is fairly
recent; therefore, more data is needed to assess the ability ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 1, January-February 2015.
of this method to determine the condition of in-service MS No. S-2013-236.R1, doi: 10.14359/51687181, received March 14, 2014, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2015, American Concrete
structures. Furthermore, most of the research conducted on Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
both load testing methods dealt with passively reinforced 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.
ACI318-11,5 where the applied load is slightly less than the test.7-13 The test includes a series of load sets where each load
required strength (80 to 90% of the required strength) and is set includes two load cycles with similar load magnitude,
considered appropriate compared to load combinations and Load CyclesA and B, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The maximum
strength reduction factors. The structure passes the test if the load is applied in five load steps with a minimum load hold
measured deflections satisfy either Eq. (1a) or (1b) time at each step. These steps are applied in both the loading
and unloading phases. The evaluation criteria are based on
lt2 three indexes: 1) repeatability; 2) permanency ratio; and 3)
D1 (1a) deviation from linearity.6 These indexes are calculated using
20, 000 h
load and deflection measurements. Figure 1 shows a sche-
matic for calculating the CLT parameters.6
D1
Dr (1b) 1. RepeatabilityThis parameter represents the ratio
4 between deflections in two subsequent load cycles (Eq. (2)),
where the residual deflection (D rcycle) is subtracted from the
In Eq. (1a) and (1b), 1 (in.) is the maximum deflection maximum deflection (D cycle 6
max ) in each cycle. This parameter
recorded during the 24-hour load hold; lt (in.) is the free span 6
was included in ACI 437.1R-07 but is not included in
of the member under load test; h (in.) is the overall height of ACI437-12.7 It is included in this paper for completeness.
the member; and r (in.) is the residual deflection measured The repeatability criterion is not met if the index is less
following load removal (r is the difference between initial than95%6
deflections, measured not more than 1 hour before the test,
and final deflections, after load removal). The final response D max
B
D rB
of the structure should be measured 24 hours after load Repeatability = 100% (2)
D max
A
D rA
removal. If the measured response does not satisfy either
equation, the test may be repeated no sooner than 72hours
from the removal of the test load. The structure passes the 2. Permanency ratioThe calculation of this parameter
repeated test if Eq. (1c) is satisfied where r2 (in.) and 2 was modified in ACI 437-12.7 In Eq. (3a), permanency ratio
(in.) are the residual deflection and maximum deflection Ipr is calculated for each load set using the two load cycles
measured during the repeated test.5 included in the load set where Ipi (Eq. (3b)) and Ip(i+1)
(Eq.(3c)) are the permanency indexes; D ir and D (ri +1) are the
D2 residual deflections; and D imax and D (max
i +1)
are the maximum
Dr 2 (1c)
5 deflections during the i-th and (i + 1)-th cycles, respectively
(first and second load cycles of a particular load set). The
The objective of the method is to assess the ability of the permanency ratio criterion is not met if the index
structure to sustain a load level near the required strength. exceeds50%7
The test method has three notable drawbacks: 1) the long
duration (24 hours + 24 hours); 2) the significant damage that I p (i +1)
can be imparted to the structure; and 3) it serves primarily as Permanency ratio ( I pr ) = 100% (3a)
I pi
a proof test, with limited ability to assess the condition of the
structure under investigation. D ir
I pi = (3b)
D imax
Cyclic load test (CLT)
This method is described in ACI 437.1R-076
D r(i +1)
and ACI437-12.7 The method was proposed by I p (i +1) = i +1)
(3c)
ACICommittee437 as an alternative to the monotonic load D (max
i t 55.827
Mass loss = (5)
2 96, 487
Table 2Applied load levels for each specimen as percentage of ultimate capacity Pu
Loadset 1 Loadset 2 Loadset 3 Loadset 4 Loadset 5 Loadset 6 Loadset 7
Specimen Cycle 1, 2 Cycle 3,4 Cycle 5, 6 Cycle 7, 8 Cycle 9, 10 Cycle 11, 12 Cycle 13, 14
Final failure load
Theoretical load level 0.75Ps Ps Pcr 0.60Pn 0.70Pn 0.80Pn 0.90Pn Pu, kN
U1 0.24 0.32 0.50 0.61 0.71 0.81 0.88 103.7
U2 0.25 0.32 0.52 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 113.9
U3 0.24 0.32 0.52 0.61 0.70 0.80 0.89 113.9
C1-0.4 0.20 0.27 0.48 0.52 0.69 0.77 0.87 101.0
C2-0.4 0.20 0.26 0.48 0.52 0.69 0.78 0.87 100.3
C3-0.4 0.26 0.35 0.64 0.69 0.81 0.92 NA 76.5
C4-0.4 0.18 0.24 0.45 0.48 0.72 0.81 0.90 89.8
C5-0.8* 0.29 0.33 0.43 0.49 0.54 0.78 0.89 89.9
*
Specimen had additional load set (load set 8) with load = 0.95Pu.
Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN; NA is not available.
Table 4Failure mode deflection increased significantly, almost doubling its value,
resulting in a considerable decrease in the load-deflection
Maximum deflec- Residual deflec- slope in this cycle as compared to the reference slope.
Specimen tion, mm (in.) tion, mm (in.) Failure mode
For the cracked specimens, deviation from linearity crite-
U1 46.5 (1.83) NA Strand rupture rion was not met at a load magnitude ranging from 0.45 to 0.52
U2 103.6 (4.08) 46.2 (1.82) Excessive deflection of the ultimate capacity, excluding Specimen C3-0.4, which
U3 93.2 (3.67) 38.6 (1.52) Excessive deflection failed prematurely due to concrete spalling. If compared to
uncracked (pristine) specimens, cracked specimens did not
C1-0.4 86.1 (3.39) 40.9 (1.61) Excessive deflection
meet this criterion at a lower percentage of the ultimate
C2-0.4 78.8 (3.09) 39.1 (1.54) Excessive deflection load. This is attributed to the presence of cracks in these
C3-0.4 90.9 (3.58) NA Concrete spalling specimens, which caused nonlinear behavior to initiate at a
C4-0.4 66.5 (2.62) 30.9 (1.22) Excessive deflection
lower level of load compared to uncracked (pristine) speci-
mens. This is opposite to the case of passively RC members,
C5-0.8 48.5 (1.91) NA Strand rupture
where it is expected that the deviation from linearity index
Note: NA is not available. will not be met at a higher level of load in cracked speci-
mens if compared to uncracked specimens. Figure 7 shows
available in ElBatanouny.16 The maximum load achieved
the load-deflection relationship for Specimen C1-0.4, repre-
during the test in all specimens was near 0.9Pu (Table 2).
senting the typical behavior of cracked specimens. The spec-
As shown in Table 5, the repeatability index did not fail for
imen exhibited signs of significant damage at Cycles 5 and
any of the specimens. For all specimens, 88% of the load
6; however, deviation from linearity criterion was not met
sets conducted had a repeatability index exceeding 100%,
at Cycles 7 and 8. Further deviation from the initial slope
which indicates that they are far from failing the index (only
showed that nonlinearity increased with the increase of load
seven load sets of the 56 had a value between 95 and 100%,
magnitude through the remainder of the cycles.
and none had a value below 95%). Four specimens did not
meet the permanency ratio criterion toward the end of the
Monotonic load test
test at a load of 77% of ultimate capacity Pu, which shows
In all specimens, the CLT was performed first followed
that the acceptance criterion of this parameter is not sensi-
by the monotonic (24-hour) load test. The residual deflec-
tive to damage. The only index that was capable of assessing
tion was measured prior to commencing the monotonic test
damage in all the specimens was deviation from linearity. By
and the residual deflection criterion per ACI 437-127 was
definition, deviation from linearity measures the deviation
checked; then the load was applied for 24 hours. The residual
in the load-deflection slope from a reference slope calcu-
deflection prior to the monotonic load test was not included
lated at the beginning of the test in the linear portion of the
in the calculation of the acceptance criteria to simulate field
load-deflection plot. Therefore, the index can capture signif-
conditions where the residual deflection is not necessarily
icant changes in the slope attributed to damage such as that
known. The final residual deflection was measured 24 hours
caused by yielding, slippage of the reinforcement, and crack
after removal of the load. A summary of the results from the
opening or widening.
monotonic load test is shown in Table 3. The load magni-
The different initial conditions, cracked or uncracked,
tude varied in the specimens with a range of 69 to 88%
of the specimens affected the load at which the specimens
of measured ultimate capacity Pu. All specimens did not
did not meet the deviation from linearity criterion. For the
meet the first evaluation criterion (Eq. (1a)) and passed the
uncracked specimens (U1, U2, and U3), the acceptance
second evaluation criterion (Eq. (1b)). Therefore, the perfor-
criterion was not met when cracking occurred at a load
mance of all specimens was found to be satisfactory per
magnitude equal to 70% of ultimate capacity (Pu). This is
ACI 318-11.5 It is noted that the load magnitude applied
highlighted in Fig. 6, showing the load-deflection relation of
during the 24-hour load test significantly exceeded the
Specimen U1, which represents a typical plot for uncracked
service load level for PC members, Class U.5 During the
(pristine) specimens. During the last step in Cycle 9, the
monotonic load test the specimens were noticeably cracked
The behavior of fibrous concrete containing conventional steel tions where the concrete stress reaches its tensile strength. In
reinforcement under axial tension is analyzed. The current study plain RC (without fibers), as the tensile force increases, new
reveals that, while distances between cracks in plain concrete are cracks, of similar width, develop midway between existing
equal, this is not the case for fibrous concrete. It is shown that cracks (subject to strength variation along the concrete
the crack patterns in conventionally reinforced concrete with and
bar). Furthermore, all uncracked segments are of the same
without fibers are qualitatively different, even when distribution
length.19 This results from the fact that, at relatively small
of fibers is uniform. The paper proposes a model for the behavior
of a reinforced fibrous concrete bar subjected to increasing axial tensile strains, the residual tensile stresses in the cracked
tension load. The model was verified against experimental results concrete are relatively small. In fibrous concrete, however,
from two different sources. Based on the proposed model, an algo- fibers cause considerable residual stresses across the cracked
rithm is presented to calculate the tensile forces that cause cracking cross sections, which affect the cracking process.7,21
and to determine the intervals between the cracks. The bond between the conventional steel and fibrous
concrete is another important factor in the cracking process.
Keywords: cracking pattern; fibrous reinforced concrete; tensile behavior. Some of the existing models assume constant bond stress
along the reinforcing bar,22 which lead to a simplified analyt-
INTRODUCTION ical solution. Yet, the bond-slip relation is more complex
The use of fibers in reinforced concrete (RC) elements has and is commonly assumed to be nonlinear. Models that
become more widespread in recent decades. Furthermore, apply such a nonlinear relation require the development
in the past decade, consideration has been paid in modern of a numerical crack analysis procedure.6,7,19,21 For small
codes to the mechanical properties of fibrous concrete used steel-concrete slip values (as in the initial phase of cracking
in structural design.1,2 Fibers have been studied for their use when transverse cracks are already developed but are still
in structural membersfor example, as part of the shear relatively narrow), the bond stress may be assumed to be a
reinforcement.3-5 Under tension, they affect crack width, linear function, which enables an analytical solution.
spacing, and pattern.6 Therefore, tension stiffening, which is This paper proposes a simplified model for the behavior
an essential characteristic of reinforced concrete, is enhanced of a reinforced fibrous concrete bar while increasing axial
by the presence of fibers that can bridge cracked cross tension load. The model predicts the loads that cause new
sections.7 Fiber action of this kind leads to additional advan- cracks to develop as well as the distances between the cracks
tages of using them in concrete mixturesnamely, improved at various stages of loading. Note that this phase of the
crack control8 and increased material toughness.9-11 cracking process (crack initiation) occurs within the elastic
Improved crack control has been observed in tension range of the material behavior. Initiation of a crack can be
elements containing both steel fibers and conventional predicted by using a tensile strength criterion, while further
steel reinforcing bars at service load, at which thin and propagation of existing cracks can be handled with fracture
closely spaced cracks were reported.12-14 Researchers also mechanics criteria. The current paper deals with the basic
noted that, interestingly, at ultimate load, only one or two problem that refers to the first phase of crack initiation that
cracks widened more than the others. A similar phenom- precedes the phase of crack propagation, which is out of the
enon of localization was also observed in flexural tests of scope of this paper.
beam specimens.15,16 One reason for this phenomenon is
fiber distribution,17,18 which causes a crack pattern in tensile RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
reinforced fiber-reinforced concrete (R/FRC7) elements8 that A simplified model is proposed for the assessment of
is different from the relatively uniform pattern in plain RC crack distribution in an RC tensile prismatic bar containing
tension bars.19 Any attempt to explain this phenomenon of fibers. The model refers to the cracking phase, during which
non-uniform crack distribution should be based on a proper cracks are relatively narrowthat is, up to the yield of
model of the tensile behavior of fibrous reinforced concrete. reinforcing bar in any one of the cracks. An analytical solu-
This paper presents such a model.
The behavior of an RC bar subjected to axial tension is
ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 1, January-February 2015.
controlled by the steel-concrete bond, the reinforcement MS No. S-2013-290.R2, doi: 10.14359/51687298, received May 25, 2014, and
ratio, and the concrete tensile strength. The behavior of reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2015, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
R/FRC tensile bars depends also on the fiber type and content, obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journals date if the discussion
especially in the post-peak range.1,20 Cracks develop at loca- is received within four months of the papers print publication.
= = (1)
c 0 Ac Ac
Ac d c dx = 0
(2)
rAc d s + dx = 0
Fig. 3Equilibrium in differential segment. where is the reinforcement ratio (As/Ac); is the bond
stress; and s is the steel tension stress. The following rela-
tion is enabled using a linear bond-slip relation during this tions are valid for small deformations
phase. This simplified approach enables one to calculate the
entire distribution of distances between cracks that develop duc du
in the tensile prismatic bar, while most models refer only to c = Ec ; s = nEc s (3)
dx dx
the average, minimum, or maximum crack spacing. In spite
of the simplified approach, the model yields predictions that where us and uc are, respectively, the steel and concrete
are in good agreement with experimental results. displacements at the steel-concrete interface; Ec is the
Youngs modulus of fibrous concrete; and n = Es/Ec (where
PROBLEM DEFINITION Es is the Youngs modulus of steel). Additionally, for small
Consider a R/FRC specimen, a long bar of RC that values of steel-concrete slip w (as in the initial phase of
contains fibers that is subjected to tension force T applied cracking when transverse cracks are already developed but
at the ends of the reinforcing bar (refer to Fig. 1). This work are still relatively narrow), bond stress is assumed to be the
refers to the cracking phase, during which crack widths are following linear function
relatively smallthat is, before yielding of the reinforcing
bar in any of the cracks. The cross-sectional areas of the = Aw (4)
concrete and steel reinforcing bar are Ac and As, respectively,
and the total perimeter of the steel-concrete interface is where
(note that in the case of a single reinforcing bar with a diam-
eter , As is equal to 2/4 and = ). This study deals with w = us uc (5)
conventional reinforcement ratiosthat is, As << Ac. It is
also assumed that the fiber content is not very high and, thus, The minus sign in Eq. (4) conforms to the sign agreement
the fibrous concrete is characterized by post-peak softening according to Fig. 3. Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (2) and
after cement matrix cracking.1 summing the result yields
Due to the strain distribution along the concrete cross
section, the tension stress in the uncracked concrete is gener- d 2 uc d 2 us
ally non-uniformthat is, c*(r) = c0 f(r), where r is the + nr = 0 (6)
dx 2 dx 2
distance from the longitudinal x-axis and c0 is the stress at
the reinforcing bar/concrete interface (refer to Fig. 2).
Equations (5) and (6) yield the following relations between
Similar to the approach presented in fib Bulletin 10,23 this
the second derivatives of the displacements and w
research used in the following derivation a uniform stress,
Substituting Eq. (17) and (18) into Eq. (7) and integrating It should be noted that under external tension force T,
once yields the concrete and steel strains both concrete and steel stresses at the ends of the element
(x = Lc/2) must be non-negative. This leads to the evident
+ condition on the residual stresses at the cracked cross
duc ( f f ) sinh(x)
= sections, 0 f T/Ac. In addition, residual stresses at the
dx 2 Ec L cracked cross sections, f, must be lower than the tensile
sinh c
2 strength of the fibrous concrete fct, yielding the following,
+f + f T 1 cosh(x) final requirement
+ + D1
2 Ec Ec Ac nr + 1 Lc
cosh T
2
(19) 0 f min , f ct (23)
+
A
c
dus 1 ( f f ) sinh(x)
=
dx nr 2 Ec L CRACKING PROCESS
sinh c
2 For an idealized representation of the material, as the
external load T increases, the maximum stress within the
1 f + f 1 cosh(x)
+
T
+ D2 concrete, c,MAX, increases as well and a crack develops
nr 2 Ec Ec Ac nr + 1 Lc when (and if) c,MAX reaches the concrete tensile strength
cosh
2 fct. The RC bar specimen is divided by the first crack into
two uncracked segments (Fig. 5(a)) and with the increase
where D1 and D2 are constants of integration. According to
in T, this cracking process continues within each of the
Eq. (14), the boundary conditions for the left-hand side of
two uncracked segments, whereby each occurrence k of
the segment are
c,MAX=fct corresponds to 2k uncracked segments and 2k 1
cracks (for example, refer to Fig. 5(b) for k = 2). Higher
= f ct
Zeroing the first derivative of c (Eq. (22)) leads to the
2 Ac ( nr + 1) L
following expression for the location of the maximum cosh c
concrete stress x* (according to the local coordinate system 2
[Fig. 4 and 6])
Note that the condition dc/dx = Ec(d2uc/dx2) = 0 is satisfied
for cross sections for which x = x*. This condition, together
1 B with Eq. (6) and (8), imply that for cross section x = x*, the
x* ( Lc ) = arctanh (24)
Lc bond stress between the concrete and the steel is zero.
tanh 2 Therefore, there is no slip in this cross sectionthat is, w(x*)
= 0, and the strains in the concrete and in the steel are equal.
The well-known rule of mixtures26 may therefore be applied,
where
and the concrete stress at x = x* is equal to (T/Ac)(1/(nr + 1)).
It follows that a crack can exist only when
+f f
B= (25)
2T T Ac(n + 1)fct (28)
+f f
Ac ( nr + 1)
It further follows that Eq. (23) may be rewritten as follows
If |x (Lc)| > Lc/2, the maximum of the function of c
*
(Eq.(22)) occurs outside the segment and the function 0 f fct (29)
inside the segment is monotonic and less than fct (Eq. (23)).
Hence, only Lc/2 x*(Lc) Lc/2 is relevant for the case of Substituting x* from Eq. (24) into Eq. (27) yields the
further cracking. This range of x*(Lc) and Eq. (24) yield the following implicit equation for T at cracking
following condition for the segment length for which further
cracking is possible L L
tanh 2 c B 2 = C sinh c (30)
2 2
Lc
2
arctanh ( B ) (26) where B is given in Eq. (25) and C is given by
L L
( )
tanh 4 c 1 + B 2 C 2 tanh 2 c + B 2 = 0 (32)
2 2
Measured on 100 mm (3.93 in.) cubes that were wet-cured for 7 days.
||
Measured on 70 x 70 x 280 mm (2.76 x 2.76 x 11.02 in.) prisms.
Notes: 1 kg/m3 = 0.0624 lb/ft3; 1 MPa = 145 psi.
This paper presents the experimental results of nine large-scale be neglected in the axial load capacity of columns. They
circular concrete columns reinforced with longitudinal and trans- also stated that the relatively lower compressive strength and
verse glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars. These specimens stiffness of GFRP bars will make FRP-reinforced concrete
were tested under lateral cyclic quasi-static loading while simulta- columns susceptible to instability. Based on tests on eight
neously subjected to constant axial load. Based on the measured
columns under concentric axial loads, of which five were
hysteretic loops of moment-versus-curvature and shear-versus-tip
longitudinally and transversely reinforced with GFRP,
deflection relationships, a series of parameters related to ductility,
energy dissipation capacity, and flexural strength are used to eval- Tobbi et al.4 concluded that GFRP bars can be used as main
uate the seismic behavior of each column. The results showed reinforcement in columns provided that closely spaced
that concrete columns reinforced with GFRP bars and spirals transverse reinforcement is used. Based on the sectional
can behave in a manner that has stable post-peak response and analysis of GFRP-reinforced columns with a longitudinal
achieve high levels of deformability. The results indicate that, as reinforcement ratio no less than 3%, Choo et al.5 concluded
a relatively new material with excellent corrosion resistance and that no balance point exists in the axial load-moment inter-
high strength-weight ratio, GFRP bars can be successfully used as action curves and that the flexural strength tends to increase
internal reinforcement in ductile concrete columns. monotonically with the decrease of axial load. Sharbatdar
and Saatcioglu6 tested square columns reinforced with FRP
Keywords: concrete column; ductility; experiment; GFRP reinforcement;
seismic resistance; strength. bars under axial and lateral load. They concluded that FRP-
reinforced columns under 30% of their axial capacity can
INTRODUCTION develop 2 to 3% lateral drift ratios. Aside from this study, exper-
A considerable amount of work has been done on the imental work on GFRP-reinforced circular columns subjected
behavior of steel-reinforced concrete columns. Appropri- to combined axial, shear and flexural loads, especially under
ately designed lateral confinement, such as the use of closely cyclic loads simulating seismic forces, is almostnonexistent.
spaced transverse steel reinforcement, externally bonded The experimental study reported here is part of an
steel jackets, or fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wrapping, ongoing comprehensive research program at the University
have proven to significantly improve the ductility, energy of Toronto, in which full-scale square and circular concrete
dissipation capacity and flexural strength of steel-reinforced columns are tested under simulated seismic load in the same
concrete columns under seismic loading. manner to provide comparable results to investigate different
The corrosion of steelespecially the lateral reinforcement variables and design parameters (refer to References 7 and
in structureshas cost billions of dollars in infrastructure repair 8). The variables include column types, steel configura-
in North America. It is estimated that $3.6 trillion are needed tion, concrete strength, axial load level, and amounts of
by 2020 to alleviate potential problems in civil infrastructure.1 steel and FRP confinement. This paper describes the results
Approximately one in nine bridges in the United States are rated from nine large-scale circular concrete columns internally
as structurally deficient, requiring about $20.5 billion annually reinforced with longitudinal GFRP bars and transverse GFRP
to eliminate the bridge deficient backlog by 2028. As a relatively spirals. A series of parameters related to curvature ductility,
new material with excellent corrosion resistance and a high displacement ductility, energy dissipation capacity, and
strength-weight ratio, internal glass fiber-reinforced polymer flexural strength are used to evaluate the seismic behavior
(GFRP) reinforcement is considered a feasible and sustainable ofcolumns.
alternative to steel reinforcement for future infrastructure. A
number of studies have been carried out on GFRP-reinforced RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
concrete members subjected to flexure and shear. However, Available research on the behavior of columns internally
only a few experimental studies have been reported on GFRP- reinforced with longitudinal and lateral GFRP reinforce-
reinforced concrete columns. Alsayed et al.2 reported that ment is very limited. Information on their response under
replacing longitudinal steel reinforcement with GFRP bars large lateral cyclic displacements is almost nonexistent.
of the same volumetric ratio resulted in a 13% reduction in
the axial load capacity of columns. De Luca et al.3 reported ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 1, January-February 2015.
MS No. S-2013-309.R1, doi: 10.14359/51687227, received April 25, 2014, and
that at low longitudinal reinforcement ratios, the response reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2015, American Concrete
of GFRP-reinforced columns is very similar to that of steel- Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors
reinforced columns and the contribution of GFRP bars can 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.
These values do not represent ultimate stress and strain. The test was terminated due to slippage of bars in coupler.
Fig. 4GFRP coupon test (tension), left to right: 12 mm (0.47 in.) Type B-SP before and failure; and 12 mm (0.47 in.) Type
C-SP before and failure, left to right: Bar Type B with free length of 275 mm (10.8 in.) before and after failure; and Bar Type
C with free length of 160 mm (6.3 in.) before and after failure.
Fig. 6Location of strain gauges on GFRP bars and spiral. (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
properties obtained from the tests on a minimum of three The test frame is shown in Fig. 8. Two hinges permitted each
samples of each type of steel bar are presented in Table 4. end of the specimen to rotate freely in plane and kept the
axial load path constant throughout testing. Even though the
Instrumentation cantilever length of concrete columns was 1473 mm (58in.),
To monitor the deformation of GFRP reinforcement this test setup resulted in an actual shear span of 1841 mm
in each specimen during testing, 18 strain gauges were (72.5 in.) measured from the center of the right hinge to
installed on the longitudinal bars and six on the spirals the column-stub interfacethat is, from the zero moment
three on each of the two turns adjacent to the stub faceas section to the maximum moment section of columns.
shown schematically in Fig. 6. Ten linear variable differen- Each specimen was strictly aligned before testing, so that
tial transformers (LVDTs) were installed on one side of the its center line coincided with the action line of axial load. At
column and light-emitting diode (LED) targets were used the beginning of each test, the predetermined axial load was
on the other side to measure deformation of the concrete firstly applied to the specimen and kept constant throughout
core in the potential plastic-hinge region. The LVDTs were testing. The lateral cyclic excursions were then applied in a
mounted on the threaded rods installed inside the columns displacement-control mode following the specified deflec-
before concrete casting to measure the inelastic deformation tion regime shown in Fig. 9 until the column collapsed under
of core concrete. Three LEDs were mounted on a stationary the constant axial load.
location and were used as reference, while 14 targets were
placed on each specimen. In addition to the linear strains, the TEST OBSERVATIONS
LED targets provided three-dimensional movements at each All columns behaved almost elastically during the first
location. The lateral deflection along each specimen was two lateral load cycles. Flexural cracks appeared on top
measured by six LVDTs. The instrumentation is displayed and bottom faces of the column in the testing region during
in Fig. 7. the third cycle. For columns under an axial load of 0.42Po,
surface cracks in the longitudinal direction appeared prior
Testing procedure to flexural cracks close to the column-stub interface. Cover
Each column was tested under a constant axial load and spalling for the majority of specimens initiated during the
quasi-static lateral cyclic displacement excursions. The fourth lateral cycle. For well-confined columns, cover
axial load was applied by a hydraulic jack with a capacity spalling was delayed by a few cycles, while for columns with
of 10,000 kN (2250 kip), while the cyclic lateral loading a higher axial load, complete cover deterioration occurred
was applied using an actuator with a 1000 kN (225 kip) load before the eighth cycle. In general, columns showed a very
capacity and approximately 100 mm (4 in.) stroke capacity. stable response with large deformability (Table 5). For
Bond Strength of Spliced Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement. Paper by Ali Cihan Pay, Erdem Canbay,
and Robert J. Frosch
Discussion by Jos R. Mart-Vargas
Professor, ICITECH, Institute of Concrete Science and Technology, Universitat Politcnica de Valncia, Valncia, Spain
The discussed paper presents an interesting experi- (324 to 427 MPa), whereas modulus of elasticity ranges
mental study on the bond behavior of unconfined tension from 7300 to 18,500 ksi (50.3 to 127.6 GPa). Then, normal-
lap-spliced reinforcement. Steel-reinforced concrete beams ized reinforcement stresses increase by 32%, whereas
and reinforced beams with ber-reinforced polymer (FRP) modulus of elasticity increases by 154%. It is true that the
barsglass FRP and carbon FRPwere tested to provide effect is linear in terms of the normalized reinforcement
additional experimental data for a better understanding of stresses. However, as bar size and splice length do not vary
the bond strength between FRP and concrete. and the hypothesis of uniform distribution of bond stresses
Variables such as splice length, surface condition, modulus along splice length is assumed, additional information based
of elasticity, axial rigidity, and bar casting position on bond on reinforcement deformation is needed to know the effect
strength were considered. The authors should be complimented on average bond stress. This is because one same normal-
for producing a detailed paper with comprehensive informa- ized reinforcement stress can be offered from two different
tion. This is acknowledged by the discusser, who would like to moduli of elasticity if different bar deformations are devel-
offer the following comments and questions for their consid- oped which, in turn, may generate distinct bond-stress rela-
eration and response, mainly about some aspects included in tionships based on distinct reinforcement-to-concrete slips.
the Bond Strength section and the corresponding conclusions. Regarding the effect of the axial rigidity of reinforcement on
The authors conclude that bond strength depends on splice bond strength, the discusser believes that the same reasoning
length, the modulus of elasticity of reinforcement, and the axial provided in the previous paragraph based on modulus of
rigidity of reinforcement, among other factors. These conclu- elasticity is applicable, which is included in axial rigidity
sions are supported by Fig. 6 to 10, as follows: (a) Fig. 6 (for together with the nominal cross-sectional area of the bar, and
No. 5 bars) and 7 (for No. 8 bars) depict the effect of splice is more complex in this case given the potential differences
length on bond strength; (b) Fig. 8 depicts the effect of modulus in normalized reinforcement stresses and deformations due to
of elasticity on bond strength; and (c) Fig. 9 (for No. 5 bars) both modulus of elasticity and area parameters.
and 10 (for No. 8 bars) depict the effect of axial rigidity on bond
strength. As stated by the authors, bond strength rises nonlin- AUTHORS CLOSURE
early with increasing splice length, and linearly as the modulus The authors would like to thank the discusser for his
of elasticity and/or the axial rigidity increase. However, despite thoughtful comments. Unfortunately, it appears that there
the values being normalized by the fourth root of concrete was confusion regarding the use of the term bond strength.
compressive strength to eliminate the effect of variations in The authors used the term bond strength consistent with
concrete strength, these figures present the computed reinforce- the terminology commonly used in the field and consistent
ment stress reached at failure ftest instead of average bond stress with that used by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 408, Bond and
avg. Therefore, it seems that some conclusions should corre- Development of Steel Reinforcement. In ACI 408R-03, Bond
spond to reinforcement stress rather than to bond strength. and Development of Straight Reinforcing Bars in Tension, it
By way of example, for the glass-sand coated case in is stated that the term bond strength represents the maximum
Fig. 6, normalized reinforcement stresses approximately bond force that may be sustained by a bar. The term bond
range from 30 to 50 ksi (207 to 345 MPa), whereas splice force represents the force that tends to move a reinforcing bar
length ranges from 12 to 54 in. (305 to 1372 mm). Then parallel to its length with respect to the surrounding concrete.
normalized reinforcement stresses increase by 67%, whereas Therefore, in the paper, when it was commented that the
splice length increases by 350%. It is true that the effect is bond strength increased, it was referring to the total force
nonlinear. However, as bar size does not vary and the hypoth- or total stress resisted by the bar, not the average bond stress.
esis of uniform distribution of bond stresses along splice As discussed for Fig. 6, the normalized reinforcement stress
length is assumed, this implies that the average bond stress at failure increases as the splice length increases. Therefore,
is lower for the longer splice length case. In other words, considering the aforementioned terminology, it was concluded
normalized reinforcement stress at failure increases when that the bond strength increases as splice length increases. It
splice length becomes longer, but bond strength decreases. If is agreed that the average bond stress (Table 2 provides the
the discusser is right, this conclusion is the opposite of that values) decreases as the splice length increases due to the
reached by the authors. The same interpretation can be made nonlinear relationship of bond force to splice length.
for the remaining cases included in Fig. 6 and 7. As discussed for Fig. 8 through 10, the bond strength
Regarding the effect of the modulus of elasticity of the increases linearly with increasing modulus of elasticity
reinforcement on bond strength (Fig. 8, No. 5 bars), one can and increasing axial rigidity. In these cases, both the bond
interpret that for one same deformation, a greater reinforce- strength (bar stress or force) as well as the average bond
ment stress results for a higher modulus of elasticity. By way stress increase considering that the bar surface area and
of example for the fabric texture case in Fig. 8, normalized splice length are identical for the cases compared. Even in
reinforcement stresses approximately range from 47 to 62 ksi the case of the steel bar with the hole, the surface area of the
Behavior of Epoxy-Injected Diagonally Cracked Full-Scale Reinforced Concrete Girders. Paper by MatthewT.
Smith, Daniel A. Howell, Mary Ann T. Triska, and Christopher Higgins
Discussion by William L. Gamble
FACI, Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
This paper is an important contribution to the literature on minimum shear reinforcement ratios are somewhat larger but
repair of reinforced concrete girders. However, I am not sure still much smaller than that used in the test specimens.
that the test specimens were very representative of 1950s A lower shear steel ratio would have led to larger, less well-
details. The shear reinforcement is quite heavy compared to controlled cracks and would have been more typical of the 1950s.
at least some examples. Stirrups spaced at d/2 would also have been more representative.
Gamble (1984) describes a reinforced concrete deck girder The bridge in Gamble (1984) needs a little additional
(RCDG) bridge that was built in 1957 and suffered major distress comment herein. It had a significant problem with concrete
in 1967, followed by partial girder replacement and epoxy strength in the span that failed, but had significant shear
injection. The bridge had been designed by the 1953 AASHTO cracking in other spans with adequate concrete strengths.
Spec (AASHTO 1953) and the provisions of that specification It was designed as a rigid frame structure with integral
are at least partially responsible for the distress. abutments, and as such apparently developed signifi-
The allowable service load shear stresses under cant axial tensions due to restrained shrinkage in spite of
the 1953 AASHTO specification were extremely high, expansion joints in two locations. The bridge was one of
compared to any current standard. The allowable value of approximately 85 similar designs (with different numbers of
vc was equal to 0.04fc', with no limit on concrete strength. spans, locations of expansion joints, and foundation details),
The specified fc' = 4000 psi (27.6 MPa), so the service load and approximately half of these had experienced significant
shear stress assigned to the concrete was 120 psi (0.83 MPa). cracking requiring repairs by 2002 (personal communica-
Shear reinforcement was required only when this stress was tion; Gamble [2002]). None of the other similar structures
exceeded, and the maximum shear stresses in this bridge had significantly deficient concrete strengths, so it must be
were slightly less than the allowable value. Any current concluded that the combination of very high shear stresses
Code will assign a shear stress somewhat less than this assigned to the concrete in conjunction with axial tensions
value, applied to factored loads rather than service loads, from restrained shrinkage led to the distress.
and this change combined with other restrictions will lead to
shear reinforcement in nearly all reinforced concrete beams. REFERENCES
In addition, the 1953 AASHTO specification had almost no AASHTO, 1953, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, sixth
edition, American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington,
minimum limits on shear reinforcement. There was no minimum DC, 328 pp.
shear steel ratio Av/bws. There was no maximum spacing limit ACI Committee 318, 1951, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
such as the 24 in. (600 mm) now commonly observed, and the Concrete (ACI 318-51), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 63 pp.
d/2 limit in current codes was invoked only when shear reinforce- ACI Committee 318, 1956, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
ment was required. ACI 318-51 (ACI Committee 318 1951) was Concrete (ACI 318-56), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 77 pp.
Gamble, W. L., 1984, Bridge Evaluation Yields Valuable Lessons,
essentially similar with respect to shear design. Concrete International, V. 6, No. 6, June, pp. 68-74.
These defects were addressed in the first AASHTO Strength Personal communication from W. D. Gamble, deceased, 2002.
Design Provisions, but were not addressed in the Working
Stress Design provisions until the 1974 Interim Specs. AUTHORS CLOSURE
ACI318-56 (ACI Committee 318 1956) had a partial fix to The authors would like to thank the discusser for his
this set of problems, with a major revision in the 1963 Code. thoughtful comments and for reading our paper. These allow
The test specimens had a shear steel ratio of approxi- us to provide additional detail regarding the design consid-
mately 0.0024. The lowest shear steel ratio in the structure erations for our specimens that could not be reported in the
in Gamble (1984), which did not require shear reinforcement original paper due to space constraints.
by 1953 AASHTO requirements, was approximately 0.00035, The issues related to what many would consider a shear
and the highest approximately 0.0007. ACI 318-56 required problem for 1950s-era RCDGs are several. We respectfully
a minimum shear steel ratio of 0.0015 (when web reinforce- submit Table 3, which highlights the relevant changes in the
ment was required), and current ACI Codes and the last AASHTO 1944, 1949, and 1953 standards from the period
AASHTO non-LRFD spec require a minimum of 0.00125 for considered. In addition, the AASHTO allowable stress for the
Grade 40 steel and 0.00083 for Grade 60 steel. The LRFD transverse reinforcing steel changed from 16 ksi (110 MPa)
Table 3Comparison of relevant AASHTO-specified concrete shear and bond stresses, noting changes
occurring around 1950
Allowable shear stress in concrete, psi Allowable bond stress (straight), psi
With web reinforcement Without web reinforcement Structural or intermediate grade
Longitudinal bars not Longitudinal bars Longitudinal bars not Longitudinal bars
Design specification and year anchored anchored anchored anchored
AASHTO 1944 0.046fc 0.06fc 0.02fc 0.03fc 0.033fc(max 100)
AASHTO 1949 0.046fc 0.06fc 0.02fc 0.03fc 0.05fc(max 150)
AASHTO 1953 0.075fc 0.075fc 0.02fc 0.03fc 0.10fc(max 350)
Note: 1 psi = 6.89 kPa.
ADDRESS________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TELEPHONE_________________________________________________________________ FAX_________________________________________________________________________
QUESTIONS?
E-mail any questions to Journals.Manuscripts@concrete.org.
ACI
STRUCTURAL
J O U R N A L
J O U R N