1 views

Uploaded by Ingrid Irreño Palomo

aci

save

- Hecko Etter 2017
- Report - Learings from anchor line failures 2010-2014.pdf
- Mektek vs Kbh
- Tutorial 2 SOM
- LECTURE-4
- 18.IJAREM-B313
- 2014.Barton, N. and Grimstad, E.forty Years Q System Norway Fjellsprengnings Eknik NFF Oslo
- Tutorial 1 SOM
- 04 Rock Mass Classification
- Palmstrom on NATM
- arbetsterapi_detdubehoverveta_spanska
- Anexo X - Memorial de Calculo - Superestrutura e Infraestrutura.pdf
- ResumodeResistenciadosMateriaisII.pdf
- Estudiosdelainteraccinentreelrevestimientoprimarioyelsecundariodetneles
- art02
- Effect of TBM Advance in the Structural Response of Segmental Tunnel Lining
- ACI-ASJ_113-S16.pdf
- Efecto Del Avance de La Tuneladora en La Respuesta Estructural Del Revestimiento de Dovelas Para Tuneles
- Lecture-4-SF-and-BM-Full-Page.pdf
- Strand7 Student Version Application
- Evaluation of the Effect of Axial Load on the Structural Behavior of Segmentes Tunnels
- Snap Through of Large Shield Driven Tunnels
- chap3.pdf
- 000129419
- Design Philosophy of Concrete Lining for Tunnels
- An Equivalent Beam Model for the Analysis of Tunnel-building Interaction
- 1-s2.0-S1365160915001203-main
- Design of Concrete Structures for Durability
- Comportamiento Resistente de Revestimientos de Tunel de Anillos de Dovelas Prefabricadas de Hormigon
- STAL9781614996569-1603
- S04L07 Fritz-Gruebl Dds
- A modified solution of radial subgrade modulus dor a circular tunnel in elastic ground.pdf
- 276222595-Tunel-Falso-San-Pablo.pdf
- An investigation into the behavior of jointed tunnel Lining.pdf
- An investigation into the behavior of jointed tunnel Lining.pdf
- Comportamiento Estructural de Juntas Entre Dovelas de Concreto Prefabricado Para Tuneles
- An Improved Numerical Model of Shield Tunnel With Doublçe Lining and Its Applications
- _vii-00094.01.en__102.1-r-247_wtc2012_singapore-_2012
- TWGroeneweg-ShielddriventunnelsinUHSC

You are on page 1of 16

Title No. 113-S16

**Defining Yield Strength for Nonprestressed Reinforcing Steel
**

by Conrad Paulson, Jeffrey M. Rautenberg, Scott K. Graham, and David Darwin

Analytical strengths of reinforced concrete beams and columns more recently, Grade 80 (550) being available for general

based on reinforcing steel stress-strain curves with and without use, and Grade 100 (690) being permitted for specific appli-

a sharp yield plateau and the nonlinear stress-strain behavior of cations (ACI Committee 318 2014). Like the lower-strength

concrete are compared with strengths calculated in accordance steels, much of the higher-strength reinforcement exhibits

with the ACI Building Code to determine the feasibility of using

sharply yielding behavior, like that shown in Fig. 1(a). An

the 0.2% offset method to define the yield strength of reinforcing

important fraction of steel now on the market, however, does

steel. Comparisons include steel yield strengths of 60,000 and

80,000 psi (420 and 550 MPa) and concrete compressive strengths not exhibit a sharp yield point, but rather what is referred

of 5000, 8000, and 12,000 psi (34, 55, and 83 MPa). For beams with to as a roundhouse (RH) stress-strain curve, such as illus-

reinforcement ratios below three-fourths of the balanced ratio, the trated in Fig. 1(b), or gradual strain hardening, as shown in

stress-strain curves based on the 0.2% offset method produce analyt- Fig. 1(c).*

ical strengths greater than or equal to those corresponding to the If reinforcing steel exhibits a well-defined yield point, ASTM

provisions of the ACI Code. For columns with total reinforcement specifications (ASTM A615-14, A706-14, and A996-14a)

ratios of 1 or 2%, the lowest ratio of analytical to Code-calculated permit yield strength to be determined using the halt-of-the-

strength for reinforcement with yield strength defined based the 0.2% force method, in which an increasing force is applied to the

offset method is 97%. The ratio drops with increasing reinforcement tensile test specimen at the uniform rate and the load is recorded

ratio, with the lowest value, 93%, occurring at total reinforcement

at which the force hesitates, as represented by Fig. 1(a).

ratios of 6 to 8%. The lower ratios occur for combinations of moment

For reinforcing steel that does not exhibit a well-defined

and axial load where the strength reduction factor is 0.65 for tied

columns and 0.75 for spirally reinforced columns, thus maintaining yield point, the yield strength has historically been determined

an adequate margin of safety. The results justify use of the 0.2% as the stress achieved at a given extension under load (EUL),

offset method to define the yield strength of reinforcing steel. as illustrated in Fig. 1(c). Since 1976, ASTM specifications

have required the yield strength of reinforcing steel without

Keywords: beams; building codes; columns; reinforced concrete; rein- a well-defined yield point be based on EUL values of 0.35%

forcing steel; specifications; strain; stress; strength. or 0.5% (ASTM 615-76a), with a value of 0.5% EUL applied

for Grade 40 (280) and sometimes Grade 60 (420), and, more

INTRODUCTION recently, 0.35% EUL for Grade 60 (420) and higher. Between

Generations of structural engineers have proportioned 1971 and 2008, the ACI Code had no extension requirements

reinforced concrete beams and columns using Whitney’s for Grades 40 and 60 reinforcement but applied a 0.35% EUL

(1937) model, which represents reinforcing steel as an elastic- requirement to Grades 75 and 80 (520 and 550).

perfectly plastic material in both tension and compression. At the same time the reinforcing steel industry was imple-

First adopted as an alternative method of design in the menting the EUL yield measurement criteria just described,

1956 ACI Building Code (ACI Committee 318 1956) and much of the rest of the steel industry adopted an alternate

ultimately as the main method of design in the 1971 ACI method for establishing yield strength known as the offset

Building Code (ACI Committee 318 1971), Whitney’s method (OM) in which yield strength is taken as the stress

model, with its equivalent stress block to represent the at which a material exhibits a specified limiting deviation

nonlinear stress-strain response of concrete in compres- from proportionality of stress to strain. To determine yield

sion, is the standard for the design of reinforced concrete strength by the offset method, it is necessary to obtain a

sections in the United States and in many other countries. stress-strain curve with distinct initial modulus elasticity.

The assumption of elastic-perfectly plastic behavior for On a stress-strain diagram, such as shown in Fig. 1(b), strain

steel, based on a sharply yielding material was, at the time Om, equal to the specified value of the offset, is used to draw

Whitney developed his model, highly realistic and reflected line mn parallel to the initial modulus line OA to locate the

in reinforcing steel specifications (ASTM A15-35). Over the point r—the intersection of mn with the stress-strain curve.

years, however, methods of producing steel and the strength

of the reinforcement have changed so that Grade 40 (280) *

Based on test results from approximately 200 samples tested by Wiss, Janney, Elstner

(yield strength fy = 40,000 psi [280 MPa]) reinforcement, Associates, Inc., laboratories between 2003 and 2013, this fraction is thought to be on

the order of 5% of the total volume of reinforcing steel produced in the United States.

with its classic, sharply yielding stress-strain behavior,

which was commonly used 50 years ago, now represents

only a small portion of the reinforcing steel market. ACI Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 1, January-February 2016.

For many years, Grade 60 (420) (fy = 60,000 psi [420 MPa]) MS No. S-2015-101, doi: 10.14359/51688199, received April 2, 2015, and reviewed

under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2016, American Concrete Institute.

reinforcement has been standard for reinforced concrete All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from

the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will

construction in the United States, with Grade 75 (520) and, be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion is received within

four months of the paper’s print publication.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2016 169

an offset of 0. consideration was limited to reinforcing steel steel products (other than concrete reinforcing steel) in the strengths that are currently permitted by ACI 318 for main United States. ACI 318-14 also permits the use behavior) and the potential for adoption in the 2014 ACI of stainless steel bars and wire.5% was used for METHODOLOGY Grade 60 (420) reinforcement and EUL at a strain of 0. the 0. The results of that study. specified yield strengths ranging from 40. A996-14a. † Report of Ad Hoc Group on Reinforcement. The corresponding stress Ry is defined as the yield strength. 2) ACI Committee 318† as being equivalent to the strain at an analytical strengths based on reinforcing steel with a realistic offset of 0. research to evaluate the diately after rolling. resulted in the additional require. Grade 40 (280) steel was not included must also meet the specified yield strength at 0. performance is bracketed by Grades 60 and 80 (420 and 550).000 to 80.000 psi (280 to 550 MPa). however. 170 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2016 .000 to 80. A706-14. Because the values were standard for many years in ASTM specifications.2% strain. by ACI 318 for longitudinal nonprestressed reinforcement in ment that Grade 60 (420) and higher strength reinforcement beams and columns. and 3) the code-calculated design strengths (capacity-reduction factor times nominal strength [ϕ × nominal]). and that Grade 80 (550) (ASTM A615-09 and A706-09). A1035-14).35% The objective of the research was to assess the influence was used for Grade 80 (550) reinforcement. Yield strengths used for analysis An offset of 0.2% offset method has simplified the ASTM specifications for reinforcing bars and Yield measurement methods brought the specifications in line with those used in the rest In the study. March 8. unpublished. EUL at a strain of 0.000 psi (420 to 550 MPa). strength. From this group.1% for fy of 75. A955-14. 1967. and carbon steel wire as longitudinal safety of fully converting to the 0. reduced initial moduli of elasticity and. reduced initial modulus was also included in the study.Fig. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Grades 60 and 80 (420 and 550) were selected for study based In 2009. both EUL and OM were used to define yield of the steel industry. 1967. ACI Committee 318 on Standard Building Code. In addition to of stress-strain curve shape and the method of determining the industry-adopted offset of 0. Specifications for these prod- OM) was undertaken. that Grade 60 (420) is the most cations for reinforcing steels that were not sharply yielding commonly specified reinforcing steel. the effect of a forcing bar standards (ASTM A615-14.000 psi. Histor- and comparing the calculated strengths with: 1) nominal ically. final report. Coiled bars exhibit the 0. thus. ASTM A615 and ASTM A706. This was accomplished and 550) reinforcement to provide a more complete picture by analyzing a range of beam and column cross sections of member performance as a function of offset.2% nonprestressed reinforcement. 1—Stress-strain diagrams showing methods of yield strength determination. reported ucts employ minimum specified yield strengths in the range in this paper. draft report.2% offset method became the sole on the reasoning that these grades are manufactured under both method for establishing the yield point in ASTM specifi. April 10.1% yield strength of reinforcing steel on the computed strength strain was also evaluated for both Grades 60 and 80 (420 of reinforced concrete sections.2% has been used for many years for most In this study. served as the justification for the adoption of of 60.35 EUL because it nearly always has a sharply yielding stress-strain (ASTM A615-09b and A706-09b)—a requirement that was curve. Use of the 0.2% offset method (0.2% offset method in ACI 318-14 and all ASTM rein. while Grade 75 (520) steel was not included because its felt to be largely untenable by the reinforcing steel industry. bars that are coiled imme- Code (ACI Committee 318 2014). Feedback from ACI represents the upper limit of specified yield strength permitted Committee 318. the 0. With the presumptive wider application of high-strength In addition to straight reinforcing bars with grades in the reinforcing steels (and accompanying nonlinear stress-strain 40 to 80 (280 to 550) range.35% EUL strain requirement was selected by strengths calculated following the provisions of ACI 318.† elastic-plastic-strain-hardening stress-strain curve similar to that of a material with a sharp yielding behavior. reinforcement—that is.

were selected to develop elastic-perfectly plastic stress-strain relationship without exactly the specified yield strength when yield is measured strain hardening. illustrating various relationship characterization ranging from 1 to 8% (the range permitted by ACI 318) were categories. followed (200 GPa) at strains less than the yield strength and perfectly by strain hardening. 3—Representative actual reinforcing steel stress-strain reinforcement ratios based on the gross area of the column. 2(b) and 2(c). 2—Cross sections of members used in analyses: (a) beam. five repre.000 psi (420 and 550 MPa). The two higher concrete strengths suffix following RH represents the initial tangent modulus are representative of higher-strength concretes as used in for the elastic portion. RKSH (rounded knee with strain hard. The hardening) with an initially elastic curve with strain hard. described next. EPSH (elastic-plastic with strain hard. a compressive strength of 5000 psi (34. 3 were narrowed.6. Reinforcement stress-strain relationships The analytical stress-strain curves used in the study were Normalized relationships selected to match those observed in practice for both straight Based on the general shapes of actual stress-strain curves. ening that has a nearly constant slope once yielding has EPSH—The EPSH stress-strain relationship has a sharp begun. Flexural reinforcement ratios ρ ranging from 0 to 6% were used to cover both tension- controlled (reinforcement yields) and compression- controlled (reinforcement remains elastic) beams. PARAMETRIC STUDY Member cross sections and material strengths Both beams and columns were used to determine the effect of stress-strain curve shape and the method of defining yield strength on calculated member capacity for reinforcing steel yield strengths of 60.000 and 80. the relationships shown in was used to fully ground the results. ship provides an upper bound and various RH relationships and γ = 0. economical. which upon straight- ρg between 1 and 2%. thus. provide lower bounds. Columns with ρg of 4% or larger are ening has residual stresses through the cross section causing normally considered to be heavily reinforced and.8. with an initial elastic modulus of 29 × 106 psi stress-strain curve followed by a yield plateau. less one side of the reinforcing bar to yield before the other. (b) square column with γ = 0. itly normalized and in accord with assumptions included ening) with an initially elastic curve with a “rounded knee” in ACI 318. 55. Concrete strengths of 5000.6. use in the analytical strength calculations. 8000.000 psi (34. individual “normalized” relationships were developed for tive stress-strain curves. along with a value of the senting an initially elastic curve followed by a curvilinear ratio of the dimension of the column core to the dimension of transition to continuous yielding. Figure 3 illustrates representa. the RKSH and GYSH relationships were not included in the study. and coiled reinforcing steel.Fig. 2(a)) had concrete strengths of 5000 and 8000 psi (34 and 55 MPa). Rectangular columns with Fig. repre. analyzed. which is an idealized stress-strain curves. The full range of reinforcement ratios. as shown in Fig. and RH 29. yield at fy and includes strain hardening behavior.4 MPa). The normalized sentations were considered: CODE. The initial ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2016 171 . Most practical columns have reinforcement ratios 21 representing coiled reinforcement.8. Square and rectangular (width equal to one-half depth) columns. curves. with RH 22 and RH practice. GYSH (gradually yielding with strain plastic with a stress equal to fy for strains beyond yield. CODE relationship does not include strain hardening.8. according to each of the measurement methods. Considering that the EPSH relation- ρg = 1 and 2%. 2(d). The beams (Fig. (c) rectangular column with γ = 0. The two-digit numerical the gross section γ = 0. and (d) rectangular column with γ = 0. and 12. ρg. ening) with a yield plateau of significant length followed CODE—The CODE stress-strain relationship is implic- by strain hardening. RH 22. however. in units of 106 psi. as shown in Fig. For the analytical investigation. and RH 21 (roundhouse). respectively. and 83 MPa) were used. were also analyzed. As shown in the figure. The results for beams with a balanced reinforcement ratio ρb (simultaneous yielding of steel and crushing of concrete) are specifically identified. with Fig.

0. 6. ε = s +α s (2) E E fy In Fig. 100. followed by strain hard- ening beginning at a strain of 1. fs is stress in the reinforcement.5% EUL. and 0.000 psi [420 or 550 MPa]).1% and 0. 6% for Grade 80 [550]). (Note: 1 ksi = 6.1% OM. curves (Grade 60 [420] 0.895 MPa. (Note: 1 ksi = 6.000 or 80.) elastic modulus is 29 × 106 psi (200 GPa) followed by a perfectly plastic yield plateau at fy.35% EUL. 1988. 172 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2016 . as shown in Fig. 0. and α and n are parameters RH 29 curves are shown in Fig.000 psi [690 MPa] for Grade 80 [550]). ACI Committee 0.2% offset). It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.2% offset and 0. For each grade and type of steel.concrete. 6—Normalized stress-strain relationships for RH 29 (taken to be 1.‡ The dots indicate n the intersection of the stress-strain curves with the value of fy f fy f at the strain used to for the different measurement methods. 5 and the where E is modulus of elasticity.2% offset and 0.0%). (1) ε −ε ( ) f s = f u − f u − f y su ε su − ε sh (1) where ε is strain in the reinforcement. sion (Hognestad 1951.Fig.5% RH—The normalized relationships for the RH curves are EUL and Grade 80 [550] 0. Nilson et al. 4 Concrete stress-strain relationships for coiled Grade 60 (420) reinforcement.895 MPa. 5—Normalized CODE specified (solid lines) and EPSH (lighter-weight lines) and resulting normalized stress-strain (dashed lines) stress-strain relationships (Grades 60 and 80 relationships (heavyweight lines) (Grade 60 [420] coiled [420 and 550]).1% offset.895 MPa. 6.Osgood (1943) relationship. εsu is strain at development of tensile strength (taken to be 9% for Grade 60 [420].2% OM. a representative sampling though with a reduced initial slope. curves are similar in appearance to those shown in Fig. The parameter α is Several stress-strain relationships to represent actual selected so that the stress-strain curve develops the specified nonlinear stress-strain behavior of concrete in compres- value of fy at the desired strain (0. fy is specified yield strength (60. 2010) were evaluated using a sensi- so that the shape of the curve generated by Eq. Mander et al. fu is specified tensile strength (90. (Note: 1 ksi = 6.000 psi [620 MPa] for Grade 60 [420]. of actual stress-strain curves was plotted along with the Ramberg-Osgood equation.org/publications in PDF format. The parameters describing the RH curves used in this study ‡ The Appendix is available at www. EUL). the three dots (left to right) represent 0.) Eq. The RH 22 and RH 21 that depend on the desired shape of the stress-strain curve. and the constant n is selected 408 2003. (2) serves as tivity analysis to ensure that the concrete model selected a reasonable lower-bound to the actual stress-strain curves. 4. 4—Example of representative actual stress-strain curves Fig.5% EUL. for example.1% and 0.) bar reinforcement). (2) are presented in Table A.1 in Appendix A. appended to the online version of the published paper. and εsh is strain at onset of strain hardening Fig. or 0.0% following the relation- ship shown in Eq. The CODE and EPSH stress- strain curves used in the study are shown in Fig.35% represented using the Ramberg.

the strength according to ACI 318-14 is calculated by assuming that the steel is Fig. “actual” sectional strength computations. fs is stress in longitudinal reinforcement.max = 0. Janney. in the case of columns.85 layer of reinforcing steel at the calculated nominal strength for fc′ ≤ 4000 psi (28 MPa). and different values of neutral axis depth c analysis are presented by Wiss. 2(b) through strains in the concrete are permitted to exceed 0.895 MPa. 0.85fc′bβ1c (4) by the concrete is determined by integration of the stress profile calculated based on the strains in the concrete using where b is width of the section. (4) the bar follows one of the nonlinear stress-strain relation- ships shown in Table 1. the design flexural and. the stress-strain relationships shown in Fig.85 f c′bβ1c (6) i i for the concrete are given in Table A.85fc′(Ag – Ast) + Ast fy] (7) computed based on an equivalent rectangular stress block using Eq. and 12. In the calculation. 7 include realistic softening calculate the strength of the beams. For these the limiting compressive strain in the concrete is set to 0. fc′ is compressive strength of Analytical “actual” strength concrete. and c is distance from extreme compression fiber The analytical “actual” strength of a section is computed to the neutral axis. (7) Beams—Following Chapter 22 of ACI 318-14. For calculation bility. design axial strengths are computed by multi- where As is cross-sectional area of longitudinal tension rein.80[0. the extreme fiber strain in compression is 0.65 for fc′ between 4000 and 8000 psi (28 and 56 MPa).003 because 2(d)) is calculated based on the same assumptions used to the relationships shown in Fig. β1 = 0.max permitted “Code” member strength by the Code is given by Eq. Eq. (Note: 1000 psi = 1 ksi = thereafter. based on its location within the cross section. the nominal flexural strengths Mn of the beams (Fig. Elstner Associates are computed so that. The digitized stress-strain relationships ns ∑ i =1 As f s + Pn = 0. according to Code provi- 6. The nominal flexural of the concrete—that is. it is assumed of the section using Eq. For tied columns. 7—Concrete stress-strain curves used for analyses for linearly elastic until the yield strength is reached and plastic fc′ = 5000. Asi is the area of the i-th layer of longitudinal rein- forcement. The compression force contributed Asfs = 0. The stress in the reinforcement fs equals by assuming that plane sections remain plane and that the εsEs until the yield strength fy is reached and then fs = fy forces acting on the section are in equilibrium.85 and 0. d is reduction factor ϕ. (6) is satisfied. plying the nominal strengths by the appropriate strength- forcement. The stress-strain curves described by Nilson et al. di is the distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of the i-th layer of longitudinal reinforcement.003. Each rein- thereafter. 8000. (3) where Ast is total cross-sectional area of longitudinal rein- forcement. compressive Columns—The strength of the columns (Fig. which ranges between 0.65 as distance from the extreme compression fiber in the concrete a function of the net tensile strain in the extreme tensile to centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement. assuming that strain varies linearly through the depth of the force contributed by a reinforcing bar. establishing moment equilibrium about the centroid of the section using Eq. (2010) were selected and those used for the analysis are illustrated in Fig. Ast = ∑ in=s 1[ Asi f si ]. (2013). ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2016 173 . 7. (ACI Committee 318 2014). for a given nominal axial strength Pn.85 f c′bβ1c − 1 (5) 2 2 2 where ns is the number of layers of longitudinal reinforce- ment. and Ag is gross cross-sectional β c area of the section = bh. Full details of the the concrete. The depth of the neutral axis c is computed by forcing bar is treated as a discrete element.) sions. As is the case of the beams. (5) h h β c M n = ∑ in=s 1 Asi f si di − + 0. 2(a)) are Pn.90 and 0.65 for fc′ ≥ 8000 psi (56 MPa). varying linearly between 0. decreasing stress with increasing strength Mn of columns at a given axial load is computed by strain for strains that exceed the strain corresponding to the maximum stress in the concrete stress-strain relationship. and h is overall depth of the section. M n = As f s d − 1 (3) 2 Under Code criteria. with its strain satisfying the conditions of equilibrium and strain compati.003 for was appropriate for the overall analysis.2 in Appendix A. 7.000 psi. the maximum axial load Pn. fsi is stress in the i-th layer of longitudinal rein- forcement. In accordance with ACI 318-14.

8. range from 0 to 6%. For ρmin < ρ ≤ 0.2% 0.3% for Grades 60 strain. all normalized reinforcement stress-strain relationships. The analytical strengths computed for the cross sections the Code-calculated nominal and design sectional strengths using one of the gradually yielding (roundhouse) stress.000 psi (420 MPa). COMPARISONS Benchmark strengths The strengths computed for the beams and columns shown in Fig. are compared with three strengths that are treated as benchmarks: 1.0 than the code-calculated nominal strength. The ratio of the analyt- ment that has a gradually yielding stress-strain relationship. Nominal strength of the cross section (Mn or Mn and Pn) computed according to Code-permitted assumptions (using the CODE stress-strain relationship). (Note: 1000 psi = 6.) Because the stress in the EPSH relationship equals or exceeds the stress in the CODE relationship for the same flexural sections (nominally 0.000 psi). This analytical strength is used as a benchmark because the EPSH stress-strain behavior is consistent with that assumed in the Code with the addition of realistic strain hardening. and ratios less than 1. Whether the nominal strength of a section with RH steel nominal strength is significantly less than 1.Table 1—Normalized stress-strain relationships for reinforcement Yield measurement method Yield strength of Observed yield Offset method at 0. 2. ical strength to the Code nominal strength gives the relative Comparing an RH analytical strength with the benchmark strength ratio. beams with reinforcement ratios greater istic concrete stress-strain relationship was used for EPSH than 0. using the reinforcement stress-strain relationships shown in Table 1. and ρb members” and “CODE members” in which the EPSH is the balanced reinforcement ratio for a singly-reinforced relationship provides the lower strength are due to differ.895 MPa.0. The relative value of the analytical strength to the (includes the ϕ-factor) can be used to assess the margin of Code-calculated design strength. providing an assessment safety provided by the section.000 N/A EPSH RH 22 RH 22 RH 22 Note: 1000 psi = 6. along with the analytical strengths of interest (EPSH best estimate of the strength of a member with reinforce.2 MPa) and fy = 60. whether for straight bars (EPHS Beams and RH 29) or coiled bars (RH 22 and RH 21). psi point offset offset load (EUL) load (EUL) CODE RH 29 RH 29 80. the other 174 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2016 . in practice. Further examination of with reinforcement ratios between ρmin and 0. 2. however. RH 22.0 repre- strengths demonstrates: sent analytical sectional strengths that are higher than the 1.000 RH 29 N/A EPSH RH 21 RH 21 CODE RH 29 RH 29 RH 29 60. beam. and as a result.895 MPa. analytical strengths that equal or exceed the corresponding In this discussion. Using this figure. Analytical strength of the cross section computed assuming the EPSH stress-strain relationship for the reinforcing steel.35% extension under 0. An example of used for CODE members.75ρb. are shown for the full range of reinforcement ratios ρ eval- strain relationships (RH 29. or RH 21) represent the uated. because.5% extension under reinforcement fy. of the “margin of safety” provided by the section with the Results—The results for the beams are summarized in realistic stress-strain relationship. The narrower range of reinforcement ratios is selected ences related to the concrete stress representation. 8—Representative flexural strength versus reinforce- 3. Design strength of the cross section (ϕMn or ϕMn and ment ratios for beams (fc′ = 8000 psi and fy = 60. the comparisons for beams is illustrated in Fig. If a 2. where the results (WJE 2013) reveals that. relative to the analyt- ρmin is the minimum reinforcement required by ACI 318 for ical results provided by the EPSH relationship. and various RH stress-strain curves). consideration is limited to beams Code-calculated nominal strength. Relative strength ratios greater than 1. Whether the analytical prediction is stronger or weaker Code-calculated nominal strengths. a comparison is greater than or less than the same member with EPSH steel.75ρb are economically inefficient and often imprac- members and the equivalent rectangular stress block was tical. ρ. which represents a beam with material strengths of fc′ = 8000 psi Roundhouse curves (55. produce The reinforcement ratios for beams. A real. represent analytical sectional strengths that are lower. ϕPn) computed according to Code-permitted assumptions. between the analytical strength and the Code design strength 3. Table 2.75ρb. respectively). are seldom specified.4% and 0. Fig.1% Offset method at 0. any comparisons between the strength of “EPSH and 80 [420 and 550] reinforcement.

895 MPa.3% < ρ < 1.35% EUL 1. psi Reinforcement ratio range of interest* Reinforcement stress-strain relationship Range of strength ratio relative to CODE† EPSH 1.0 to 1.1% Offset.0 to 1.4 CODE 1. (Note: 1000 psi = 6. Note: 1000 psi = 6.3 8000 0.3 CODE 1. The relative strength ratio is set equal to the analytical strength results corresponding to the EPSH.3 RH 22-0. RH 29-0. e = M/P. M = 0) provides the constant effective permitted by ACI 318).0 to 1.3 RH 29-0.2% Offset 1.35% EUL 1.5 RH 21-0.1 to 1.1 to 1.1% Offset 1.1 to 1. P-M curve where strengths are most noticeably different fy = 60.0 EPSH 1. A quantitative assessment for a constant effective eccen- tricity. normalized stress-strain relationships produce analytical strengths that are at least equal to and often exceed the corre- sponding EPSH analytical strength.000 EPSH 1.max (maximum nominal axial strength and the origin (P = 0.0 * Range approximately from ρmin to 0. includes the point of maximum moment Mn on the nominal Code-calculated Pn-Mn interaction curve.4 RH 21-0.4% < ρ < 3. Fig.0 to 1.2% Offset 1.4 8000 0.0 to 1. Columns For columns.0 to 1.75ρb.1 to 1. and RH 29-0.5% EUL 1.2% Offset 1.3 RH 21-0.1% Offset 1.0 to 1.1 to 1.2% Offset.000 EPSH 1.3 RH 29-0.Table 2—Summary of results for parametric study of beams fy.1 RH 29-0. psi fc′. which represents a square column with reinforcement evenly distributed around the perimeter with material strengths fc′ = 8000 psi (55 MPa) and fy = 60.0 to 1.0 to 1.0 60.) The point on the Code-based nominal strength Pn-Mn curve tricity e is used to find the intersection with the analytical is used to define the eccentricity for comparisons with the Pn-Mn curves.4 RH 22-0.1% Offset 1. † Ratio of analytically predicted sectional strength to Code-calculated nominal strength.0 to 1.0 80.4% < ρ < 2.895 MPa. A qualitative assessment where the moment Mn is maximum nominal moment on the Code-calculated curve greatest for P = Pn.0 to 1.1 to 1.2% Offset 1.1% Offset 1.0 to 1.4 RH 29-0.5% RH 22-0. the relative strengths are assessed at three locations on the axial load-bending moment (P-M) interac- tion curves.3 CODE 1. RH ratio of analytical strength to Code-calculated strength (a 29-0.3% < ρ < 2. and a total reinforcement ratio based on the gross column cross-sectional area.5% EUL comparison can be made based on either Pn or Mn).000 psi (420 MPa).0 to 1.0 to 1.4 RH 29-0.2% Offset 1.0 to 1.2% Offset 1.1 to 1.2 RH 29-0.1% Offset 1.3 RH 21-0.3 RH 22-0.4 RH 22-0.2% Offset 1.1% Offset 1.0 to 1.4 RH 29-0.1 to 1.0 to 1.4 RH 29-0. stress-strain curves.2 RH 29-0. as shown in Fig. The line passing through the point of 2. rather than quantita- eccentricity e for use in the comparison. The same eccen- ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2016 175 . 1.5% EUL 1.0 to 1.5% RH 22-0.3 5000 0.000 psi. and ρg = 4%) illustrating where relative for the various reinforcement stress-strain relationships.2% Offset 1. 9.2 5000 0.0 to 1. strengths are evaluated.0 to 1.3% RH 29-0.4 RH 29-0.7% RH 29-0.3 CODE 1.0 to 1.0 to 1. A qualitative.5% EUL 1.1% Offset 1.5% EUL 1. 9—Representative column axial load-bending moment This load case is selected because it is in this region of the interaction diagram (square column with fc′ = 8000 psi.1% Offset 1. ρg = 4%.

94 0.08 1.93 0.95 0.00 1.00 1.97 0.97 EPSH 0. defining yield strength in reinforcing steel.98 0.96 0.97 0.97 0. for the rectangular columns are presented in Tables A.00 1.97 0.96 RH 29-0.01 1.96 0.92 0.94 0.000 RH 29-0.95 0.99 0.00 1.00 1.97 0.95 0.00 0.00 1.2% Offset 0.00 1.97 0.01 0.00 1.96 0.95 0.000 psi (83 MPa) and ρg = 1 or 2% are at least 0.93 RH 29-0.02 1.97 80.95 5000 RH 29-0.00 RH 29-0.95 0.99 0.00 1.895 MPa.99 0.93 CODE 1.06 1.96 0.35% EUL 1.07 1.93 0.00 EPSH 1. that are at least 99% and 102%.98 0.04 1.99 0.95 0. Because the key goal of this study was to deter.98 0.93 0.95 0.2% Offset 0.00 1.00 RH 29-0.1% Offset 1.99 0.93 0.98 0.99 EPSH 1.98 0.00 1.00 1.95 0.03 1.1% Offset 0.04 1.95 0.99 0. of the corre- with 8% being the maximum value of ρg permitted by the sponding Code-calculated nominal strength.97 0.96 0.95 0.00 1.99 0.96 0.00 1.92 0.94 0.98 0. For the columns with fc′ = 5000 and 8000 psi (34 and Results—Reinforcement ratios ρg = 1 and 2% are repre.96 0. psi fc′.01 0. The relative strength ratios for the columns with fc′ = ment is not considered for columns because the common 12.93 0. those results are shown in this paper (Table 3). reaching values at ρg = 8% of 0.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.000 RH 29-0.07 1.99 0.000 psi (420 MPa) with that follows emphasizes comparisons with analytical results fc′ = 5000 and 8000 psi (34 and 55 MPa) and fy = 80.94 0.00 1.97 0.95 0.08 1.00 0.1% Offset 1.00 1.98 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.94 0.02 1.96 0.00 1.98 0.96 0.00 1.06 1.93 and 0.00 1.4 in Appendix A.92 0.02 1.96 0.95 0. calculate sectional strength.97 0.97 0.97 0. psi strain relationship Strength ratio relative to CODE Strength ratio relative to EPSH EPSH 1.99 0.07 1.98 0.00 1.93 0.06 1.00 1.97 0.99 0. The relative ACI Code. respectively.97 0.04 1. The lowest relative strength ratio for any of the combinations used in 176 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2016 .00 1.00 1.05 1.97 0.01 1.00 1.96 0.00 1.00 RH 29-0.94 0.99 0. Because the the choice of reinforcement stress-strain relationship used to square columns provide the lowest relative strength ratios.8.03 1.91 0.99 0.96 12.2% Offset 1.95 0.95 0.97 0. evaluation is made for this loading condition because Tables 3.00 1.98 1.98 0.2% Offset 1.96 RH 29-0.5% EUL 1. the discussion 0.98 0.0.97 0.98 0.06 1.00 1.03 1.000 psi for the RH steel stress-strain curves representing this method (550 MPa) with fc′ = 5000 and 8000 psi (34 and 552 MPa).00 0.01 1.96.01 1. 6 (19).00 RH 29-0.00 0.00 1. Columns with ρg = stress-strain relationships produce analytical strengths 3 to 8% are less common and are generally less economical.96 1.2% Offset 1.02 1.99 0.97 0.99 0.95 0.1% Offset 0.92 0.00 1. tive.92 0.90 CODE 1.6.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.3 and cantly less than 1.4). of maximum nominal bending capacity Mn on the interaction 3.99 0.00 1.93 0.99 0.97 0.94 0.2% drop progressively with mine the feasibility of adopting the 0.92 0. respectively.94 0.01 1.00 1.00 EPSH 1.00 1.94 0.00 1.8) Longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρg Longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρg 1% 2% 3% 4% 6% 8% 1% 2% 3% 4% 6% 8% Reinforcement stress- fy. The rectangular columns with λ = 0.00 1.96 0.94 CODE 1.03 1.03 1.97 0.93 0.4 summarize the relative strengths at the strength results are little affected by the choice of rein. 55 MPa) and ρg = 1 or 2%.94 0. rectangular columns with strength of columns under pure bending is little affected by λ = 0.01 0.97 12.98 0.00 1.99 0.98 0.98 0.000 8000 RH 29-0.35% EUL 1.98 0.96 0.000 8000 RH 29-0.98 0.94 0.00 1.97 0.96 0.98 0. the RH 29-0.2% offset method for increasing ρg.97 0.95 0.98 0.03 1.00 1. the eccentricity e = M/P (refer to Fig.00 1.99 0.95 0. 0.93 0.99 0.00 1.Table 3—Summary of results for square columns (γ = 0.99 0.1% Offset 1.95 0.01 0.04 1. safety to be assessed.96 0.93 0.05 1.92 RH 29-0.94 0. all of the non-CODE stress-strain relationships.97 0.1% Offset 1.00 1.97 60. and A.00 1.99 0.00 1.00 1.99 0.03 1.94 0.6 strength and the Code design strength allows the margin of provide the highest ratios (Table A.99 1.00 1. The results As for beams.02 1.93 0.2%).96 0.92 CODE 1.99 0.02 1.00 1. as observed for beams.01 1.05 1.96 0.95 0.99 0.00 RH 29-0.01 1.00 0.00 1.03 1.98 0.93.99 1.99 0.98 0.97 0.00 1.02 1.96 0.95 0.01 1.95 0.00 1.01 0.00 1.98 0.98 0.00 1.96 0. for fy = 60.06 1.98 0.97 0.96 RH 29-0.2% Offset 1.97 0.97 0. the for square columns with λ = 0.00 0.97 for maximum size of coiled bars is No.99 0.00 1.00 1.98 0.01 Note: 1000 psi = 6.96 0.99 0.00 1.97 0. Coiled reinforce.96 0.00 1.94 0.98 0.97 0. a comparison between the analytical A.93 0.06 1.95 0.02 0.00 1.8.01 0.00 1.99 0.06 1.00 1.97 0.96 0.35% EUL 0.98 0. in cases where the strength ratio is signifi.00 1.00 1.00 0. and rectangular columns with λ = 0.06 1.96 0.97 0.00 1.97 0.96 0.07 1.97 0.96 0.92 CODE 1. for defining yield strength (RH 29-0.01 1.3. strength ratios for RH 29-0.00 0.98 0.93 0.99 0.00 1.98 0.96 0. 9) that include the point forcement stress-strain relationship.97 0.95.97 0. A.99 1.93 CODE 1.00 1.96 0.00 1.97 0.03 1.98 0.01 1.01 1.99 1.96 5000 RH 29-0. An assessment based on Mn for P = 0 (zero applied axial curve calculated in accordance with ACI 318-14 (CODE) load) also demonstrates that.03 1.97 0.00 1.2% and EPSH sentative of most columns in practice.97 EPSH 0.97 0.97 0.00 RH 29-0.5% EUL 0.93 0.5% EUL 1.94 RH 29-0.95 0.97 0.

including those based on the sentations of the nonlinear stress-strain behavior of concrete EPSH relationship.3.2% offset yield strength. always for columns with ρg = 6 or 8%.65 or 0.75 for spiral columns. to represent higher-strength concretes. A. Based on these observations. however. a proposal to measure yield When comparing the strengths provided by the various stress. it is clear that beams with prac- An examination of the Pn-Mn interaction curves reveals that tical quantities of longitudinal reinforcement have analytical the lower relative strengths occur only for combinations of strengths that are always in excess of the Code-calculated moment and axial load where the strength-reduction factor nominal strength. is less concerning and A.65 for tied provided by the EPSH relationship. be impractical (and rarely used). suggesting that the Code-permitted equiv. The “worst-case” ratio columns and 0. stress block. analytical strengths bars exhibit gradual yielding. including those reinforced with RH rein- ϕ is compression-controlled.2% offset method was submitted for strain relationships for reinforcement.4 and 55. a result considered An examination of the results for columns with concrete by ACI Committee 318 as providing an adequate margin of strengths fc′ = 5000 and 8000 psi (34 and 55 MPa) indicates safety. The goal of the comparisons was to different reinforcement stress-strain curves and methods determine the feasibility of using the 0.35 and 0.2%. that the majority of the sections with gradually yielding (RH) the EPSH stress-strain relationships (combined with realistic reinforcement normalized to the 0.20 times the specified yield strength (Bournonville et al.99.75. of defining yield strength.2% offset yield strength concrete stress-strain curve) produce relative strength ratios have analytical strengths that are at least 99% of the corre- of 0. moment Mn is a maximum for P = Pn. (92%) corresponds to a single instance that involves a square Considering the comparisons and also observing that: 1) column with ρg = 8%. The exceptions occur only for concrete strength fc′ = 0. fc′ = 5000 psi (34 MPa). and 12. Flexural reinforcement ratios ranged from 0 to DISCUSSION 6% per beams.000 psi (420 and 550 MPa) and concrete compressive ρg = 6 and 8%. 8000.7 MPa).2% offset method in ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2016 177 .65 for tied columns be as high as 7% under a load regime for which the Code- and 0. columns that are often considered to by others (Ibrahim and MacGregor 1997). 9.65 for tied forcement normalized to the 0.000 psi (82. elastic-plastic stress-strain curve and equivalent concrete For columns with applied axial load P = 0 (Fig.1 and 0. were compared with strengths obtained using an idealized with a minimum value of 95% (WJE 2013). For columns with fc′ = 12. and 5000.000 psi less than 2% of all stress-strain curves for straight reinforcing (420 MPa). that is. This observation has been noted ratio ρ = 8%. which produce minimum relative strengths strengths of 5000 and 8000 psi (34 and 55 MPa) for beams of approximately 95%. the analytical strengths. columns and 0. strength ratios as low as Comparisons of column strengths with those provided by 93% are obtained when the 0. where yield strengths were defined based on an offset of ships. sponding Code-calculated nominal strength. Considering further that the Code-permitted equivalent stress block may provide an the average yield strength of reinforcement ranges from 1. With a few exceptions. whether EPSH or RH. The ination of the interaction curves indicates that the EPSH steel stress-strain curves used to calculate the analytical stress-strain relationship consistently provides analytical strengths included an elastic-plastic strain-hardening curve strengths that are essentially identical to the Code-calculated and gradually yielding curves with yield strengths defined nominal strengths (WJE 2013).06 unconservative representation of column strength when used to 1.000 psi with and without a sharp yield plateau and realistic repre- (83 MPa). and 83 MPa) for columns. For fc′ = 12. For columns with ρg = 1 or 2%.2% offset method is used to the EPSH relationship (also summarized in Tables 3. For columns alent stress block may provide a slightly unconservative with any of the three concrete strengths with longitudinal representation of column strength when used to represent reinforcement at or near the Code-permitted maximum higher-strength concretes. columns with concrete strengths fc′ = 5000 and 8000 psi SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS (34.the analysis is 93%.2% and extension under RH stress-strain relationships provide sectional strengths load of 0. ratios ρg of 1 and 2%. Again. The analyses included steel yield strengths of 60. with one exception. 6 (19 mm). 55. This case. consideration by ACI Committee 318 and subsequently little difference is observed for columns with reinforcement approved by the committee for adoption in ACI 318-14. and total reinforcement ratios ranged from As demonstrated by the comparisons for beams with 1 to 8% for columns. and fy = 60.5%. the based on offset values of 0.75 for spiral columns. define yield strength. exam.000 and 5000 psi (34 MPa) at the relatively high reinforcement ratios 80.2% stress-strain relationships because the region of the interaction diagram where this provide strengths that range from 92 to 100% of the strength occurs coincides with the region in which ϕ = 0. these lower relative size of coiled bars is No.000 psi (34. strength using the 0. 9).75 for spiral columns. and 2) coiled reinforcement for RH 29-0. This again suggests that that specified ϕ-factor is 0. are below the Code-calculated strengths. resulting in ϕ = 0. the probability is strengths occur under combinations of moment and axial load extremely low that the analytical sectional strength loss will where the strength-reduction factor ϕ = 0.max is illustrated in Fig.2 MPa) and longitudinal reinforcement ratios Analytical strengths of reinforced concrete beams and ρg ≤ 4% produce strengths in excess of the Code-calculated columns incorporating reinforcing steel stress-strain curves nominal strength (WJE 2013).4) show that the RH-0.2% equal or exceed 95% of that provided by the is not used for columns because the common maximum EPSH stress-strain relationship. reinforced concrete columns will continue to possess An analysis of the interaction curves where the bending an ample margin of safety. 2004).97 to 0. as permitted by the ACI Building Code. Comparisons were emphasized that equal or exceed the Code-calculated and EPSH relation. Regardless of the stress-strain relation- ship.

” SL Report of ACI Committee 374. 224. Cracking. (Structural Concrete Building Code). and MacGregor.” ASTM Inter- a member of ACI Subcommittees 318-B. Environmental. Ackers Distinguished Nilson. 1943. strengths of 5000 and 8000 psi (34 and 55 MPa) and total ACI Committee 408.000 psi (83 MPa).. 1997. office of Wiss. 78 pp. Mechanical Rein. At this combination of ACI Committee 318. PA.” WJE No. served as project advisor. “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. IN. ACI Rectangular Stress Block for High-Strength Concrete.. C. Use of the 0. PA. 2010. Elstner Associates. Anchorage and Reinforcement national. 8. He is a member of the Mechanical Properties and Weight of Reinforcing Bars. “Design of Reinforced Concrete Members under Shear and Torsion. MI. and 439.. Shear and Torsion.2% offset method (93%) occurs at total reinforcement and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. ASCE. 14th edition. Elstner Associates. 2009. M. The lowest ratio ASTM A615-76a. in all cases. West Conshohocken. 2009. “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain of analytical to Code-calculated strength for columns Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. “Building Code Requirements for Struc- bending moment and axial load. Inc. Subcommittee 318-B. Darwin. 3. PA. H. 2004.. Dec. 13 pp. “Standard Specification for Deformed adequate margin of safety. Washington. and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. “Standard Specification for Low-Alloy Committees 215.” ASTM Interna- tional. No. 519 pp. IL. mill certificate tensile properties. West Lafayette. W. Steel Reinforcement. A. thus maintaining an ASTM A615/A615M-14. Janney. West Conshohocken. M. “Statistical Analysis University. S. Elstner Associates. 2014. “Building Code Requirements for Rein- that equal or exceed the corresponding Code-calculated forced Concrete (ACI 318-56). West Conshohocken. 3.. 7 pp.. 1. Structures. “Standard Specification for Deformed ment ratios combined with a concrete compressive strength and Plain. 94. Wiss. 1935. occur under combinations of moment and axial load where ASTM A615/A615M-09b. 178 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2016 . 194 pp. PA. 399. Bond and Development of Steel Reinforcement. “Building Code Requirements for Rein- forced Concrete (ACI 318-71).5% extension-under-load methods ACKNOWLEDGMENTS to define the yield strength of concrete steel reinforcement. Flexure or Combined Flexure and Direct Compression. Farmington nominal strengths. Reinforcement (Structural Concrete Building Code). PA. “Standard Specification for Deformed the 0. 1951. Urbana. Fracture Mechanics of Concrete. forcing Bar Anchorages and Splices. Chromium. West Consho- structural and seismic engineering for existing structures of all types. ASTM A615/A615M-09. and 439. 902. W. Hills. He is a member of ACI Committees 222. He is a member of ACI Ibrahim. D. “Bond and Development of Straight Rein- reinforcement ratios of 1 or 2% exhibit little impact of the forcing Bars in Tension (ACI 408R-03). J. West Conshohocken. The The comparisons demonstrate that: Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) coordinated the collection of 1. 6 pp. He is Past Chair of ACI ASTM A706/A706M-14. ASTM A955/A955M-14. Aug. McGraw-Hill. and Dolan. KS. 1976. Dec. and 318-R. His research interests include load Mander. 0. and Osgood. Whitney.. 49 pp. 6 pp. “Determination of Yield Strength for Nonprestressed Steel Reinforcement.” ASTM International. 483-498. between 2004 and 2011. ASTM A706/A706M-09b. E.-Feb. MI. 445.” Journal of Structural and in the field. PA. Corrosion of Curves by Three Parameters. Lawrence. H. H. pp. MI. 74 pp.” ASTM International. V.. Graham is a Senior Associate in the Chicago. 2014. 2014.. Farmington Hills.2% offset method to define the yield strength ASTM A706/A706M-09. He national. tectural Engineering at the University of Kansas. Inc. (WJE). KS. Fatigue of Concrete.. Bond and Development of Steel Reinforcement. and Archi. 5 pp. realistic stress. and a Past Ramberg. Inc.. office of Wiss. is a Principal in the Los Angeles (Pasadena). 2013. West Conshohocken. 2013.place of the 0. 2003. Dahnke. C. and 446. Elstner Associates. office of Wiss.” American Concrete Institute. 1988. Farmington Hills. No. CA. strain curves representing both sharply yielding and grad- ually yielding reinforcement produce analytical strengths REFERENCES ACI Committee 318.” Technical Note No. “Specification for Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. 2009. University of Kansas Center for Research. Janney. and Joint ACI-ASCE DC. The relative strengths ASTM A15-35. drop as the reinforcement ratio increases.” American Concrete Institute. “Standard Specification for Rail-Steel ACI member Jeffrey M. maximum nominal bending capacity. Illinois Engineering Experiment Station. 2014.” ASTM International.” ASTM Inter- Conrad Paulson. At the same reinforce. 1956.. columns with compressive tural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14). 1971. “Deformed and Plain Stainless-Steel ment (Structural Concrete Building Code). No. and Darwin. 103 pp. 6 pp. University of ACI member Scott K. MI. B. pp..” ASTM Interna- ratios of 6 to 8%. 33. 6 pp. Jan. West Conshohocken. received his BSCE. “A Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in Reinforced Concrete Members. and Axle-Steel Deformed Bars for Concrete Reinforcement.” ACI Structural Steel Reinforcement. Design of Concrete Professor and Chair of the Department of Civil. PA.” ASTM Interna- the strength reduction factor is 0. Rautenberg is an Associate III in the San Fran.. Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforce- of 12. “Standard Specification for Low-Alloy of gradually yielding reinforcing steel is safe and realistic. stress-strain relationship selected. Low-Carbon. Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. 7 pp. PA. National Bureau of Standards. Janney. and ACI Subcommittee 408-A.. 2. 1937. doi: 10. For columns.” American Concrete Institute. the analytical strengths are at least ment. the greatest sensitivity of column strength ACI Committee 318. 40-48. 114. MSCE. and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445. West Conshohocken.” American Concrete Institute. 6 pp. J.75 for spirally reinforced columns. “Standard Specification for Low-Alloy AUTHOR BIOS Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. PA. and Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. FACI. G. Janney. 2014. Anchorage and Committee for Aeronautics.” ASTM Inter- cisco (Emeryville). Buildings.65 for tied columns and tional.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804) ACI Honorary Member David Darwin is the Deane E. G. PA.4171. Priestley. CA. R. 2009. N. ASTM A996/A996M-14a. R. Mar. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete 04-1. Journal. D. hocken. 5 pp. Inc. This research was funded by the Charles Pankow Foundation.35% and 0. V. 795 pp. H.. and Park.” Bulletin Series No. 2014. Klein of Wiss.” ACI Journal Proceedings.. Farmington to steel stress-strain curve shape occurs at the point of Hills. J. Hognestad. 97% of the Code-calculated strength. West Conshohocken. “Modification of the Committees 408. Committees 408. Lawrence.. Engineering. and PhD in structural engineering from Purdue Bournonville. “Theoret- testing of many structural components or systems both in the laboratory ical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete. PA. pp. J..” ASTM Inter- national. For the practical range of reinforcement ratios in beams industry-recorded stress-strain curves and granted access to a database of (below three-fourths of the balanced ratio). His research interests include Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. Janney. 28 pp.. New York. IL. ASTM A1035/A1035M-14. national. V. 1804-1826. the lower relative strengths tional. West Conshohocken. National Advisory Metals in Concrete.” ASTM International. West containing reinforcement with yield strength defined based Conshohocken. High-Strength Reinforce. Elstner Associates. “Description of Stress-Strain President of ACI. Inc.

5% EUL 29.000 0.1% Offset 22.000 0.2% Offset 21.2% Offset 22.1—Parameters describing roundhouse (RH) curves fy.000 0.000 RH 22-0. ksi α(fy /E) n RH 29-0.00200 10 RH 22-0.000 RH 29-0.00100 10 RH 29-0.00074 9 RH 29-0.000 0.00200 9 RH 21-0.5% EUL 22. APPENDIX A Table A.2% Offset 29.1% Offset 29.1% Offset 29.35% EUL 29.000 0.2% Offset 29.00200 10 RH 29-0.00293 10 60.00100 10 RH 22-0.000 0.1% Offset 21.000 0. psi Reinforcement Stress-Strain Relationship E.000 0.00227 10 RH 29-0.00100 9 80.000 0.00200 8 .000 0.000 0.00100 8 RH 21-0.

00150 7.00050 2.970 0.530 0. 𝒇′𝒄 5.800 0.00250 11.750 0.00200 5.00300 6.540 0.790 0.340 0.500 0.630 0.00200 9.000 0.210 0.00225 7.00225 10.870 0.00025 1.00100 4.600 0.000 0.00125 6.00275 7. psi Strain Stress.00075 3.00125 4.00100 5.680 0.00225 4.450 0.340 0.660 0.00250 4. psi Strain Stress.860 0.00300 .00150 4.810 0.520 0.2—Digitized stress-strain relationships for concrete Concrete compressive strength.390 0.410 0.300 0.870 0.540 0.000 0. psi Strain 0 0.00300 12.00200 7.410 0.00050 2.00075 3.00100 3.00294 2.00000 0 0.00175 4.000 0.620 0.000 psi 12.640 0.00250 8.00175 7.00075 3.00125 5.00325 5.00275 11.950 0.410 0.00025 1.000 psi Stress.Table A.970 0.00000 0 0.00275 3.00025 1.970 0.00325 11.860 0.000 psi 8.00175 8.00000 970 0.320 0.970 0.00150 6.00050 2.

00325 0 0.00360 11.00360 .2.00351 0 0.080 0.970 0.00440 8.00338 0 0.190 0.

3—Summary of results for rectangular column sections (= 0.97 0.00 1.02 1.94 1.98 0.00 1. g fy.93 0.06 1.01 1.97 0.03 1.00 1.03 1.98 0.2% Offset 1.94 0.00 1.95 0.00 .97 0. psi 𝒇′𝒄 . g Reinforcement Ratio.94 0.00 1.94 0.05 1.00 1.97 0.00 1.95 0.92 CODE 1.00 1.00 1.94 0.2% Offset 1.95 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.97 0.97 0.94 0.03 1.00 1.99 0.96 0.96 EPSH 0.08 1.06 1.05 1.96 0.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.06 1.97 0.98 0.94 0.00 RH 29-0.98 0.96 12.01 1.96 1.02 0.96 5.8) Longitudinal Longitudinal Reinforcement Reinforcement Ratio.96 0.93 0.98 0.00 1.00 1.94 0.00 0.98 0.000 8.93 0.97 0.00 0.92 0.02 1.03 1.04 1.94 RH 29-0.97 0.07 1.01 1.000 RH 29-0.98 0.05 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.93 0.03 1.94 0.98 0.03 1.92 CODE 1.97 0.99 0.95 0.1% Offset 0.96 60.07 1.00 0.94 0.98 0.95 0.00 1. psi Stress-Strain 1% 2% 3% 4% 6% 8% 1% 2% 3% 4% 6% 8% Relationship Strength Ratio Relative to Strength Ratio Relative to CODE EPSH EPSH 1.99 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.00 1.95 0.99 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.5% EUL 1.07 1.98 0.00 1.98 0.93 0.00 0.00 1.96 0.03 1.000 RH 29-0.03 0.00 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.00 1.1% Offset 1.97 0.98 1.97 0.97 0.000 RH 29-0.00 1. Table A.96 0.00 0.5% EUL 1.00 1.00 1.97 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.00 1.00 RH 29-0.95 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.00 1.93 0.5% EUL 0.06 1.01 1.05 1.96 0.93 0.97 0.93 0.00 1.1% Offset 1.99 EPSH 1.00 1.00 1.00 RH 29-0.00 1.95 0.00 1.94 RH 29-0.96 0.94 0.94 RH 29-0.95 0.93 CODE 1.01 0.00 1.99 0.92 0.2% Offset 0.

01 1.00 0.96 5.00 1.98 1.97 0.01 0.97 0.00 1.00 1.96 0.97 80.98 0.35% EUL 1.01 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.06 1.96 RH 29-0.98 0.95 CODE 1.2% Offset 0.00 1.00 1.96 0.97 0.00 RH 29-0.00 0.97 0.1% Offset 0.97 0.93 CODE 1.93 0.00 1.97 0.98 0.99 0.02 1.98 0.99 0.000 8.00 0.98 0.00 1.99 0.96 1.96 0.97 0.97 0.00 1.94 0.00 1.96 0.96 0.96 0.99 0.99 0.000 RH 29-0.35% EUL 1.99 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.00 1.94 0.00 EPSH 1.99 0.97 0.95 0.06 1.93 0.06 1.00 1.96 0.97 0.00 1.04 1.00 1.98 0.97 0.99 0.00 1.2% Offset 1.96 0.94 0.99 1.00 0.00 RH 29-0.99 0.97 0.98 0.00 0.02 .99 0.98 0.99 0.00 1.99 0.97 0.02 1.04 1.97 RH 29-0.00 1.2% Offset 1.96 RH 29-0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.1% Offset 1. EPSH 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.02 0.04 1.98 0.99 0.96 0.00 1.98 0.96 0.06 1.99 0.00 0.99 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.03 1.05 1.97 0.97 EPSH 0.02 1.94 0.00 1.00 1.03 1.95 0.00 1.02 1.000 RH 29-0.95 0.01 1.35% EUL 0.06 1.00 1.1% Offset 1.00 RH 29-0.06 1.96 0.95 0.97 0.99 0.02 1.96 0.00 1.00 1.96 0.00 1.96 0.00 1.93 1.96 0.07 1.97 0.97 0.00 1.98 0.98 0.00 1.97 0.00 1.03 0.95 1.97 12.07 1.000 RH 29-0.07 1.00 0.94 CODE 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.99 0.03 1.95 0.98 0.00 1.98 0.94 0.00 1.00 1.

05 1.03 1. g Reinforcement Ratio.04 1.99 RH 29-0.06 1.00 0 Offset 1.96 Offset CODE .96 RH 29-0.000 1.98 5.97 0 Offset 1.1% 1.99 0.2% 60.35% 1.00 0.00 0.000 1. g 𝒇′𝒄 .05 1.1% 80.96 EUL CODE EPSH RH 29-0.00 RH 29-0.02 1.04 1.00 RH 29-0.05 1.95 0.00 0. Table A.00 Offset 1.06 1.00 1.04 1.2% 1.04 1.00 1. psi t Stress-Strain 1% 2% 1% 2% psi Relationship Strength Ratio Relative to Strength Ratio Relative to CODE EPSH EPSH RH 29-0.00 5.06 1.00 0.00 1.5% 1.01 1.04 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 EUL 1.00 0.6) Longitudinal Longitudinal Reinforcemen Reinforcement Ratio. fy.4—Summary of results for rectangular column sections (= 0.95 0.00 0.

- Hecko Etter 2017Uploaded byFABIAN FIENGO
- Report - Learings from anchor line failures 2010-2014.pdfUploaded byPedroNetto
- Mektek vs KbhUploaded byYogie Maradona
- Tutorial 2 SOMUploaded byIamzura Abdullah
- LECTURE-4Uploaded byElvisyuri
- 18.IJAREM-B313Uploaded byRakshith R Salian
- 2014.Barton, N. and Grimstad, E.forty Years Q System Norway Fjellsprengnings Eknik NFF OsloUploaded byGabrenogue
- Tutorial 1 SOMUploaded byIamzura Abdullah
- 04 Rock Mass ClassificationUploaded byDewin Alexander A L
- Palmstrom on NATMUploaded byPavlos Vardoulakis

- arbetsterapi_detdubehoverveta_spanskaUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- Anexo X - Memorial de Calculo - Superestrutura e Infraestrutura.pdfUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- ResumodeResistenciadosMateriaisII.pdfUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- EstudiosdelainteraccinentreelrevestimientoprimarioyelsecundariodetnelesUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- art02Uploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- Effect of TBM Advance in the Structural Response of Segmental Tunnel LiningUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- ACI-ASJ_113-S16.pdfUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- Efecto Del Avance de La Tuneladora en La Respuesta Estructural Del Revestimiento de Dovelas Para TunelesUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- Lecture-4-SF-and-BM-Full-Page.pdfUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- Strand7 Student Version ApplicationUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- Evaluation of the Effect of Axial Load on the Structural Behavior of Segmentes TunnelsUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- Snap Through of Large Shield Driven TunnelsUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- chap3.pdfUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- 000129419Uploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- Design Philosophy of Concrete Lining for TunnelsUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- An Equivalent Beam Model for the Analysis of Tunnel-building InteractionUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- 1-s2.0-S1365160915001203-mainUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- Design of Concrete Structures for DurabilityUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- Comportamiento Resistente de Revestimientos de Tunel de Anillos de Dovelas Prefabricadas de HormigonUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- STAL9781614996569-1603Uploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- S04L07 Fritz-Gruebl DdsUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- A modified solution of radial subgrade modulus dor a circular tunnel in elastic ground.pdfUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- 276222595-Tunel-Falso-San-Pablo.pdfUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- An investigation into the behavior of jointed tunnel Lining.pdfUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- An investigation into the behavior of jointed tunnel Lining.pdfUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- Comportamiento Estructural de Juntas Entre Dovelas de Concreto Prefabricado Para TunelesUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- An Improved Numerical Model of Shield Tunnel With Doublçe Lining and Its ApplicationsUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- _vii-00094.01.en__102.1-r-247_wtc2012_singapore-_2012Uploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo
- TWGroeneweg-ShielddriventunnelsinUHSCUploaded byIngrid Irreño Palomo