FAST AND EASY CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION USING INNOVATIVE STEEL REINFORCEMENT

Mohammad Shamsai1, and Halil Sezen2 ABSTRACT A new reinforcement system, Prefabricated Cage System (PCS), is proposed to perform the function of longitudinal and transverse steel in reinforced concrete members. PCS is made from a solid steel tube or plate acting as transverse and longitudinal steel connected monolithically. PCS reinforcement eliminates some of the weaknesses and detailing problems inherent in traditional rebar reinforced concrete construction resulting in easier, more reliable, and faster construction. The confinement provided by PCS is investigated by comparing the results from 6 small-scale column tests. The specimens were tested by axially loading the concrete core. The effects of PCS tube thickness, and the width and height of transverse and longitudinal steel on the provided confinement and displacement capacity are investigated. Test results show that PCS provides higher confinement capacity than similar rebar reinforcement. KEY WORDS: steel reinforcement, high strength concrete, confinement, columns. INTRODUCTION The combination of concrete, as a relatively cheap material with ability to resist high compression, and steel as a material with high tensile strength has made reinforced concrete a very common compound for structural and nonstructural members. Regular rebar reinforced concrete, concrete-filled tubular (CFT) system, steel-concrete composite system, and welded wire fabric system are examples of such combinations in structural members (Figure 1). The CFT and the steel-concrete composite system have been widely and increasingly used in recent decades. A new steel reinforcement system that can be used to reinforce concrete members is proposed (Figure 1-e). The proposed Prefabricated Cage System (PCS) is expected to perform as an integral system performing the functions of both the longitudinal reinforcement and the lateral reinforcement. PCS can be a good substitute for the existing reinforcement systems in reinforced concrete structural members especially in beams and columns. In PCS the longitudinal and the lateral reinforcement are connected monolithically and are made from one solid steel plate or tube. The vertical continuous stripes perform the role of the longitudinal reinforcements while the horizontal rectangular or circular shaped
Ph.D. student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, 470 Hitchcock Hall, The Ohio State University, OH 43210-1275, Phone +1 614-946-2376 shamsai.2@osu.edu 2 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, 470 Hitchcock Hall, The Ohio State University, OH 43210-1275, Phone +1 614-292-1338 sezen.1@osu.edu
1

stripes act as the transverse reinforcement. Since the proposed cage system is prefabricated, total construction time can be reduced significantly. Different PCS reinforcements with different wall thicknesses and opening dimensions can be fabricated to provide reinforcement with different longitudinal and transverse strength and ductility capacities. In order to fabricate PCS, a steel plate with some uniformly distributed rectangular openings in rows and columns over the plate can be rolled to a cylinder or box shape and be welded at the edge. Instead of using plate, the openings can also be provided on a steel tube to eliminate the bending and welding procedure. The openings can be provided on the steel plate or tube either by punching or cutting methods such as laser cutting, plasma cutting, flame cutting, milling, and abrasive jet cutting.

Figure 1: Reinforcement systems: a) welded wire fabric, b) rebar reinforced system, c) composite sections, d) CFT system, and e) proposed PCS More than one PCS reinforcements can also be placed concentrically in a column member if higher amount of reinforcement ratios are required (Figure 2). In this case the size and spacing of the openings of the two PCS reinforcement can be different to provide the strongest bonding between the concrete and the PCS cages. The openings on PCS do not necessarily have to be the same size. The opening dimensions and spacing can vary over the height of a column. Larger openings can be used near the mid-height of the column where usually less transverse reinforcement is required. In general, the opening dimensions can be gradually changed to have smaller openings with less spacing near the top and bottom of the column where flexural demand is higher under lateral loads.

Figure 2: Concentrically placed PCS in reinforced concrete column. PCS can also be used as longitudinal and transverse reinforcement for reinforcing concrete beams (Figure 3). The shape, dimensions, and spacing of the opening can be changed depending on the amount of desired longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. PCS automatically provides a doubly reinforced section along the beam length resulting in a larger flexural capacity. The PCS longitudinal stripes playing the role of the longitudinal reinforcement at top and bottom of the beam are at a greater distance from each other (height of the beam minus cover (Figure 5-b)) in comparison to a beam reinforced with rebar (height of the beam minus cover and transverse reinforcement (Figure 5-c)), resulting in a higher flexural strength. Especially in structures where the total beam height is limited by architectural reasons PCS can be a better alternative as it will have a larger effective depth.

Figure 3: PCS used in RC beams. SOME ADVANTAGES OF PCS OVER CONVENTIONAL STEEL REBAR 1- Construction: PCS may be an excellent alternative to conventional rebar reinforced system for easier, more reliable, and faster construction. PCS can easily be placed in the formwork before casting concrete. The rebar reinforced system requires some workmanship for rebar cutting, bending and forming the cage. In some cases, especially in special moment

resisting frames, it may be extremely difficult to assemble the rebar reinforced cage because of stringent special detailing requirements given in code standards [1]. In some projects such as bridge construction in areas with heavy traffic, the project completion time can be extremely important. PCS can easily be placed inside the formwork before concrete casting as no additional work for forming the reinforcement cage on-site is required. As the PCS reinforcement is prefabricated, it has higher quality control than the rebar system, where on-site workmanship is required and therefore is subjected to inaccuracy. Also in rebar reinforced system construction, there is always a possibility of having problems with detailing, such as non-conforming or non-uniform stirrup spacing, because of poor workmanship during the fabrication of steel cage or construction. 2- Cost: The cost related to the reinforcement can be viewed from two perspectives, the production cost of the reinforcement and the construction cost for placing the reinforcement before casting concrete. Production of standard steel profiles and rebar is relatively easy and cheap. Production of PCS requires additional procedures, and therefore will be more costly than standard profiles. However, mass production of such reinforcement can decrease the production cost. The construction of PCS is much easier and faster than the rebar system resulting in much lower construction cost. Although the production cost of PCS may be more than the production cost of regular rebar reinforcing system; the total cost may be lower due to its lower construction cost. 3- Concrete confinement: Hollow steel tubes in CFT provide the highest amount of confinement for the concrete core especially when the wall thickness is not too small. PCS provides a considerable amount of confinement for the concrete core inside the steel cage as it is more like a steel tube. The confinement provided by the rebar system can be considerable only when it is heavily reinforced by transverse reinforcement with small spacing and 135 degree hooks. EXPERIMENTAL TESTS The objective of this study was to better understand the confinement capacity of PCS and to compare it with the confinement provided by other reinforcement systems. This research was motivated by the lack of information on how to predict or model the behavior of concrete confined by PCS as the geometry and properties of the longitudinal and transverse steel in rebar reinforcement and PCS are quite different. As part of this research, the effects of plate thickness of PCS steel, and the width and height of longitudinal and transverse steel on confinement and displacement capacity were investigated. A total of 6 specimens (Figure 4) were constructed and tested to investigate the confinement provided by PCS and to compare it with the confinement provided by tube and rebar reinforcement. The specimens were tested by applying the compression force only on the concrete core. The specimens had 152 mm 152 mm (6 in. 6 in.) cross-sections with 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) clear cover, and height of 457 mm (18 in.). The specimens specifications and cross-sections are shown in Table 1 and Figure 5.

Figure 4: Reinforcements for specimens C8P1/8, C8P3/16, C8R, CT1/8, C8P1/8DL, and C8P1/8DW.

Figure 5: Specimen cross-sections for testing confinement (a) CFT, (b) PCS, (c) rebar reinforced system. Table 1: Test specimen specifications
Specimen # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Specimen name C8P1/8 C8P3/16 C8R CT1/8 C8P1/8DL C8P1/8DW Reinforcement PCS PCS Rebar Tube PCS PCS Plate thickness (mm) 3.18 4.76 8#4 3.18 3.18 3.18 # of openings on each side 2 2 2 0 2 2 Opening dimensions (mmmm) 16.328.2 28.731.5 16.353.8 32.528.2 Width of long. reinf. at corners (mm) 26.9 21.3 4#4 26.9 18.8 Width of long. reinf. in middle (mm) 40.6 27.2 4#4 127 40.6 24.4 Width of the openings (mm) 16.3 28.7 0 16.3 32.5 Height of the transverse reinf. (mm) 9.9 6.6 (1/4)@ 38mm 22.4 9.9

In specimen names: following the letter C, the number 8 indicates the number of longitudinal steel stripes or bars; P, R, and T represent PCS, Rebar, and Tube (CFT) specimens; 1/8, and 3/16 in. are the thickness of the steel plate used in PCS specimens; DL represents double opening length; and DW double opening width. The transverse reinforcement for the rebar reinforced specimen included closed square hoops with 135degree end hooks without cross-ties. The amount of transverse reinforcement satisfies the minimum seismic detailing requirements provided in the ACI 318 Building Code [1]. The average measured compressive concrete cylinder strength was 66 MPa (9.5 ksi) on the day of testing. The specimens and cylinders were taken out of the molds one day after casting. They were all cured inside water tank for 13 days and placed outside at room temperature until the testing date. PCS reinforcement was made of Standard Grade-B steel tubes manufactured according to ASTM A500-93 specifications, and the openings were cut by laser. The rebar used in RC specimens were Grade-40 steel. The properties of the reinforcements were obtained from steel coupons tests. The measured average yield stress and average ultimate stress for the steel tubes/PCS were 379 MPa (55 ksi) and 448 MPa (65 ksi), respectively. The average yield stress and ultimate stress were 448 MPa (65 ksi) and 689 MPa (100 ksi) for the longitudinal rebar, and 586 MPa (85 ksi) and 689 MPa (100 ksi) for the transverse reinforcement used in the rebar reinforced specimen, respectively. TEST RESULTS The overall behavior of all specimens was very similar. Typically, the specimens behave elastically until almost the peak strength is reached. The cracking usually starts suddenly near the corners either at the top or bottom of the specimen usually within 25% of the maximum strength before the maximum strength is reached. After the peak strength is reached, a small load drop is observed. In most cases, this small load drop is followed by a plateau or gradual decrease in load resistance. Following this plateau, the axial strength suddenly drops as much as 1/3 to 2/5 of the peak strength. This drop usually happens at a displacement of 3.8 to 4.3 mm. The residual strength after this drop decreases gradually until the end of test. The severity and rate of the residual strength decrease changed at each longitudinal reinforcement buckling and transverse steel fracture. The measured axial load and displacement values at critical stages are presented in Table 2. As a typical example, the behavior of Specimen C8P1/8DL is evaluated in this paper. This specimen had virtually no cracks and behaved elastically until it reached an axial strength of 890 kN, less than 14 percent of the peak strength, 1032 kN (Figure 6 and Table 2). The cracks extended from top to bottom close to the corners of the specimen (Figure 7-a). The expansion of the cracks resulted in a sudden cover failure under a load of 1010 kN by cover spalling on all four sides of the specimen. The buckling of the longitudinal stripes was initiated under 565 kN axial load at two locations (Figure 7-b). The buckling of the longitudinal stripes was continued until a load of 503 kN, when the transverse stripe first fractured (Figure 7-c). This can be distinguished as the small load drop at 48.5 mm displacement in the load-displacement diagram. The damaged specimen at the end of loading is shown in Figure 7-d.

Table 2: Load and displacement values at critical points

Specimen Name C8P1/8 C8P3/16 C8R CT1/8 C8P1/8DL C8P1/8DW First cracking Disp. load (mm) (kN) 1.52 867 1.02 623 1.52 778 1.78 890 1.52 756
1200 1000 800 P (kN) 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 (mm) 40 50 60

Peak Cover Strength Residual strength failure drop strength Disp. load Disp. load Disp. load Disp. load (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) 2.54 1183 2.79 1165 4.32 1161 4.32 672 2.79 1125 3.05 1103 4.32 1090 4.57 667 1.78 832 2.03 814 3.05 805 3.3 400 2.54 1108 - 2.79 1068 4.57 912 2.79 1032 3.05 1010 3.81 970 4.06 649 2.54 1068 3.30 907 3.81 854 4.06 672

Long. steel buckling Disp. load (mm) (kN) 11.7 556 6.10 618 4.57 912 10.2 565 10.2 547

Transverse fracture Disp. load (mm) (kN) 22.9 476 48.5 503 52.1 400

C8P1/8DL first cracking max strength cover failure load drop residual long buckling trans fracture

Figure 6: Axial load-displacement diagram for specimen C8P1/8DL.

Figure 7: a) cover cracking, b) initiation of longitudinal steel buckling, c) transverse steel fracture, and d) final failure of specimen C8P1/8DL.

1) Specimens C8P1/8 (1), C8P3/16 (2), and C8R (3) The confinement provided by PCS (Specimens C8P1/8 (1) and C8P3/16 (2)) is compared with the confinement provided by regular rebar reinforced system (Specimen C8R (3)). The specimens number is given in parenthesis after the specimens name. These three specimens have the same amount of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement.
1400 1200 1000 P (kN) 800 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 (mm) 20 25 30

C8P1/8 (1) C8P3/16 (2) C8R (3)

Figure 8: Axial load-displacement diagrams for specimens C8P1/8 (1), C8P3/16 (2), and C8R (3). The measured axial loaddisplacement diagrams (Figure 8) show that the PCS confined specimens are capable of resisting much larger loads (approximately 40% higher) than the rebar confined specimen. The two PCS reinforced specimens performed similarly; however, C8P1/8 with thinner plate and smaller windows, performed slightly better than C8P3/16. This is due to the reason that C8P1/8 with smaller openings is closer in form to the tube confined specimen. The initial stiffness of the specimens is almost the same. The plateau following the maximum strength is similar in all three specimens. All specimens show a similar strength drop of about 450 kN and plateau after the drop in the residual strength section, up to the end of the loading. 2) Specimens C8P1/8 (1), CT1/8 (4), C8P1/8DL (5), and C8P1/8DW (6) The effect of the opening dimensions on confinement are investigated by comparing the behavior of these four specimens. The plate thickness is 3.18 mm (1/8 in.) in all these specimens, while the opening dimensions vary (Figure 4). The effects of doubling the height of the windows (C8P1/8DL), and doubling the width of the windows (C8P1/8DW) are also investigated and compared to the CFT specimen, with no openings (CT1/8). The recorded load-displacement diagrams of the specimens are compared in Figure 9-a. Figure 9-b shows the relation up to a displacement of 8 mm. All specimens have a similar elastic stiffness; however, specimen C8P1/8 is slightly stronger. All specimens reach their maximum capacity at a displacement of 2.42.5 mm. The constant load plateau following the maximum strength seems to be smaller for specimens C8P1/8DL and C8P1/8DW compared to specimen C8P1/8. Specimens C8P1/8DL and C8P1/8DW perform similarly, indicating that the

confinement of the core-concrete decreases when the opening dimensions increase. C8P1/8DL and C8P1/8DW have the same opening area. Therefore it can be concluded that the confinement effect will be the same whether the length of the openings is increased or the width of the windows is increased. Specimens C8P1/8DL and C8P1/8DW have the same amount of strength drop and less than the strength drop for C8P1/8. This indicates that the strength drop seems to be smaller in specimens with larger opening areas. Also, C8P1/8DW shows a more gradual strength drop compared to that of C8P1/8DL, where the drop is more sudden.
1400 1200 1000 P (kN) 800 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 (mm) 25 30 35 40 C8P1/8 (1) CT1/8 (4) C8P1/8DL (5) C8P1/8DW (6)
P (kN) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 1 2 3 4 (mm) 5 6 7 8 C8P1/8 (1) CT1/8 (4) C8P1/8DL (5) C8P1/8DW (6)

Figure 9: Axial load-displacement relations: a) total, b) up to 8 mm displacement for specimens C8P1/8, CT1/8, C8P1/8DL, and C8P1/8DW. The specimens confined by PCS perform similar to the specimen confined by tube before cover failure, indicating that with small opening dimensions, the initial confinement of PCS will be pretty much the same as tubular system. However, the difference can be observed after the sudden strength drop in specimens with high strength concrete, where PCS seems to provide less confinement compared to the tube. The difference in the provided confinement after the peak is expected to be less in specimens with normal strength concrete, where a sudden drop in the strength is not expected. CONCLUSIONS A new reinforcing system, PCS, is introduced with the following advantages over regular rebar reinforced system. PCS has: 1) higher confinement capacity resulting in higher strength and displacement capacity; 2) easy to place cage with no steel congestion; 3) perfectly uniform transverse steel spacing; 4) lower construction cost as it eliminates the labor cost associated with cutting, bending and tying reinforcing bars, and 5) integral transverse and longitudinal reinforcement capable of developing certain transfer mechanisms that the rebar system cannot develop or only develops under small loads. Test results have shown that PCS provides much better concrete confinement than rebar reinforcement system. The confinement provided by PCS is better than the confinement provided by conventional rebar, and less than the confinement provided by tube. The confinement is more affected by the opening dimensions and less affected by the tube thickness. The confinement capacity decreases as the opening dimensions increase. The

confinement effect is the same whether the length of the openings is increased or the width of the windows is increased. The final failure of PCS specimens was almost always followed by the fracture of transverse steel. In this study, the amount of transverse PCS steel was limited by the transverse steel area of equivalent rebar reinforced columns. However, the transverse steel fraction in PCS specimens can be easily prevented by increasing the thickness of the steel tube or depth of transverse steel. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research is patent pending, and was supported by the National Science Foundation under Award number CMS-0355321. This support is greatly acknowledged. REFERENCES ACI 318. 2002. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (ACI 318R-02), ACI Committee 318, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.

10