0% found this document useful (0 votes)
193 views4 pages

Updates: High Strength Reinforcement For Seismic Applications in ACI 318-19

Structuremag

Uploaded by

neve08
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
193 views4 pages

Updates: High Strength Reinforcement For Seismic Applications in ACI 318-19

Structuremag

Uploaded by

neve08
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

code UPDATES

High Strength Reinforcement for Seismic


Applications in ACI 318-19
By Rahul Sharma, S.E., Kion Nemati, P.E., Jakub Valigura, Ph.D., Nate Warner, P.E., and Catherine Chen, S.E.

A s buildings get taller, bigger, and are required to resist higher seismic forces, the amount of reinforcement needed
becomes impractical. Even if theoretical sizes can be calculated, it may be impossible to construct tightly spaced rebar
cages or congested joint connections. Using higher strength reinforcement is a natural solution to this problem. Research
on the use of high-strength reinforcement (HSR) began in the late 1950s. The outcome of this research first appeared in
ACI 318-71, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, which allowed limited use of reinforcement with a higher
grade than 60 ksi. However, the maximum yield strength of reinforcement in elements resisting seismic loads was limited
to 60 ksi. This restriction remained in the building code until recently due to a lack of data on cyclically loaded members
with HSR. The main expected advantage of HSR over conventional reinforcement (CR) is a lower volume of reinforcement
material in construction, resulting in lower construction time and costs (Price et al. 2013). In 2014, two reports identified
experimental tests required and provisions of ACI 318 that would need to be updated to allow the use of HSR in seismic
applications (ATC 2014; NIST 2014). Later, extensive research answered many of the identified gaps (the online version of
this article includes a summary of this research). This article introduces changes in ACI 318-19 related to the use of HSR
and presents considerations engineers should be cautious of before specifying HSR.
use two equations to calculate development and lap lengths. Those two
Changes Related to HSR in ACI 318-19 equations remain largely the same except for an added reinforcement
In response to the research, ACI 318-19 introduces significant changes grade multiplier (ψg) that is equal to 1.0 for Grade 60, 1.15 for Grade
allowing more applications of HSR in concrete buildings. ACI 318-19 80, and 1.3 for Grade 100; Example 1 illustrates splice length calcula-
was released in July 2019 and will likely be referenced in the 2021 tion according to ACI 318-19 with f´c = 6 ksi. Also note that, for lap
IBC. Reinforcement in special lateral force resisting systems, which splices of HSR, the code now requires a minimum amount of splice
were previously limited to Grade 60 for flexural, axial, and shear confinement provided by transverse reinforcement along the splice.
reinforcement, can now use up to Grade 80 or Grade 100 depend-
Example 1. Splice Length Calculation
ing on the application. Additionally, various gravity elements, which
were previously limited to Grade 80, are now extended to Grade 100. Ls (#11, Grade 60, 6 ksi) = 6’-0”*; best case** = 3’-7”
Refer to Table 1 for a summary of major reinforcement grade changes Ls (#11, Grade 80, 6 ksi) = 6’-0” x (80 ksi/60 ksi) x (1.15)
from ACI 318-14 to ACI 318-19. = 9’-3”*; best case** = 6’-6”
Ls (#11, Grade 100, 6 ksi) = 6’-0” x (100 ksi/60 ksi) x (1.3)
Reinforcement Specification Requirements
= 13’-0”*; best case** = 7’-9”
These revisions occurred without the introduction of new ASTM *Use of equation in Table 25.4.2.3 (traditionally used by structural
specifications for HSR. Despite this, the adoption of higher grades was engineers for most typical conditions without epoxy coating)
not independent of new refinements to rebar manufacturing. The ACI **Best case refers to the upper limit where (cb + Ktr)/db = 2.5, in con-
318 Committee chose to address these refinements directly in the code, junction with Eq. 25.4.2.4a
in Chapter 20, by setting requirements for smoother bar deformation The minimum amount of longitudinal reinforcement for flexural
profiles, various minimum strength ratios, and minimum elongations members is inversely proportional to reinforcement yield strength
before fracture. For ASTM A706, the requirement on deformation and hence is lower for HSR than for CR. However, 80 ksi is the
profiles calls for “the radius at the base of each deformation… be at least maximum yield strength permitted to be used in equations in 9.6.1.2,
1.5 times the height of the deformation.” This requirement is intended equating minimum reinforcement areas for Grade 80 and Grade 100.
to avoid low-cycle fatigue cracks at these locations along the bar and For special structural walls, the minimum reinforcement area follows
improve the number of half-cycles to fracture. These new provisions the same pattern, except the steel yield strength is not limited in this
apply to ASTM A706 Grade 60 reinforcing as well. calculation (18.10.2.4). The maximum longitudinal reinforcement
ratio in special moment frame beams is lowered to 0.02 for Grade
Detailing Enhancements
80 reinforcement (18.6.3.1).
Perhaps the most significant changes to designing with HSR relate to Tighter transverse tie spacing is required for seismic systems using
detailing requirements. In past versions of the code, engineers could HSR to inhibit longitudinal bar buckling under higher axial stresses.
continued on next page
APRIL 2020 9
Table 1. Changes in use of reinforcement grades between ACI 318-19 and ACI 318-14.

ACI318-19 ACI318-14
Maximum fy or fyt permitted Maximum fy or fyt permitted
Usage Application for design calculations, psi for design calculations, psi
Flexure; axial force; shrinkage
80,000 60,000
and temperature Special Moment Frames
Flexure; axial force; shrinkage
100,000 60,000
and temperature Special Structural Walls (2)
Flexure; axial force; shrinkage Other
and temperature examples: gravity columns, slabs, beams, 100,000 80,000
foundations, etc. (3)
Shear Special Moment Frames (4)(8) 80,000 60,000
Shear Special Structural Walls (5)(8) 100,000 60,000
Regions designed using Other (except longitudinal ties)
60,000 60,000
strut-and-tie method examples: strut reinforcement, etc. (6)(7)
Reference: ACI 318-19 Table 20.2.2.4(a)-Nonprestressed deformed reinforcement
1. Refer to ACI 318-19 Table 20.2.2.4(a) for a complete list of applications and limitations.
2. All components of special structural walls, including coupling beams and wall piers.
3. Longitudinal reinforcement with fy > 80,000 psi is not permitted for intermediate moment frames and ordinary moment frames resisting earthquake demands.
4. Shear reinforcement in this application includes stirrups, ties, hoops, and spirals in special moment frames.
5. Shear reinforcement in this application includes all transverse reinforcement in special structural walls, coupling beams, wall piers, and diagonal bars in coupling beams.
6. Note that this does not apply to confined regions within strut-and-tie designs.
7. Note that ACI 318-19 now has a section dedicated to seismic applications of the strut-and-tie method.
8. Shear friction applications are limited to an fy = 60,000psi.

The maximum spacing in the plastic hinge region is decreased to 5db • Engineers should continue to use fy of 60 ksi in their calcula-
for Grade 80 in special moment frames (18.6.4.4 and 18.7.5.3), and tions for shear friction. Shear friction may begin to govern
to 5db and 4db for Grade 80 and Grade 100, respectively, for special designs as the total area of longitudinal reinforcement is
shear walls boundary elements (Table 18.10.6.5(b)). reduced with HSR. Correspondingly, greater attention should
Additionally, stricter limitations exist for the use of mechanical splices be paid to roughening construction practices if shear friction
of HSR in seismic applications and should be considered early in the becomes critical in the design.
design process (18.2.7.2). Headed bar provisions (25.4.4.1) have seen • Larger crack widths correspond to HSR yielding. This may
multiple changes, one of which directly applies to HSR. The previous adversely affect certain serviceability criteria, such as steel
limitation of fy to 60 ksi for the use of standard class HA headed bars corrosion.
has now been removed, opening its application to HSR. • From experience with HSR, it is the authors’ opinion that all
HSR should be very clearly marked to distinguish it from typi-
Stiffness Considerations
cal reinforcement on a job site; a common solution is the use
HSR allows for proportionally less area of steel to resist the same of spray paint.
strength demands as traditional reinforcement. This economy can • Diagonal coupling beams, challenging to construct and
result in a decrease in member stiffness, which should be considered. typically heavily congested, could reduce diagonal reinforce-
Most notably, this decrease is evident in minimum 2-way slab thickness ment congestion through the use of HSR up to Grade 100.
limitations for which deflections need not be calculated; the minimum A secondary benefit is the production of a more favorable
thickness limitation for 2-way slabs using Grade 80 reinforcement is tie angle in the member, which will more efficiently use the
approximately 10% and 20% larger than when using Grade 60 and diagonal reinforcement; this benefit is most pronounced
Grade 40, respectively (Table 8.3.1.1). with shallow diagonal coupling beams (Figure 1). In this
For lateral analysis, this consideration is not explicitly addressed by example, the beam on the left achieves a more efficient tie
decreased modifiers for effective section stiffness
in first-order linear analyses (Table 6.6.3.1.1(a)).
However, some decreased stiffness has been
shown in research studies. Engineers concerned
with capturing this reduction more precisely
could do so by using the alternative moment
of inertia equations from Table 6.6.3.1.1(b).

Important Considerations
While there are many benefits to using HSR,
there are times when the engineer should be
cautious about specifying it. Below is a partial
list of considerations that the authors believe
engineers may face during design. Figure 1. Comparison of similar diagonal coupling beams with the same shear capacity.

10 STRUCTURE magazine
angle to resist shear than the beam on the right, resulting
in a reduction of bars to just 12 total in the Gr. 80 design.
Conclusion
This is more substantial than reducing the Gr. 60 design by For many years, using HSR in seismic applications has been restricted
the ratio of stresses, 60ksi/80ksi, which would have pro- due to a lack of test data. However, a push from the structural engi-
duced 15 total bars. neering community has led to recent studies which alleviate the
• Mechanical couplers are not permitted in plastic hinge zones restriction on HSR in ACI 318-19. This article summarizes the
utilizing HSR; the code commentary permits the EOR to over- research, changes in ACI 318, and various considerations that come
ride this if provided with adequate product data. with using HSR, mostly in seismic design applications. Changes in
• Caution should be exercised where the use of HSR indirectly the ACI 318-19 include, among others, larger lap splice lengths for
reduces redundancy of reinforcement. An example would be HSR, lower minimum longitudinal reinforcement limits, tighter
chord or collector reinforcement taken from 2 bars (total) transverse reinforcement spacing, and reduced stiffness of
down to 1 bar, thereby reducing the redundancy of that ele- elements with HSR. The authors of this article would like to
ment if there was a bar defect or splice failure. acknowledge and thank Noah Macias for editing this article.■
• Compression members utilizing HSR can attract and sustain
higher demands. As a result, buckling becomes a critical The online version of this article contains insights into research
consideration. Although columns typically come to mind on the material specification of HSR and detailed references.
in this application, ends of slender shear walls can also be Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
of concern, especially those of asymmetric T- or L-type
Rahul Sharma is a Project Engineer with Hohbach-Lewin, Inc located in
configurations.
Palo Alto, CA. (rsharma@hohbach-lewin.com)
• In general, anchorage and force transfer should be of more
Kion Nemati is an Engineer with Arup’s Structural Group in San Francisco,
concern now that higher bar stresses are being transferred.
CA. (kion.nemati@arup.com)
Anchorage or bond failures are more brittle and could pre-
Jakub Valigura is a Design Engineer with KPFF Consulting Engineers in San
clude an intended ductile mechanism. An example of this
Francisco, CA. (jakub.valigura@kpff.com)
would be inadequate tie development within nodal zones of
Nate Warner is an Engineer with Arup’s Structural Group in San Francisco,
strut and tie models.
CA. (nate.warner@arup.com)
• The engineer should check with suppliers on the availability of
Catherine Chen is an Engineer with Arup’s Structural Group in San
HSR. Manufacturers may have size limitations on various bar Francisco, CA. (catherine.chen@arup.com)
configurations.

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

Aegis developed Ultra-Span trusses ®

with a proprietary shape that brings your


building the strongest Cold-Formed Steel
on the market.
• 100% non-combustible Prime Steel
COLD-FORMED STEEL - ROOF • WALL • FLOOR • Does not warp, shrink, split or twist
with age
• Aegis
Resistant
hastoa insects, mold shape
proprietary and rotthat
• brings
Wide variety of sizes and configurations
your building the strongest
• Cold-Formed
Industry leading estimating
Steel on theand design
market.
software
• 100% non-combustible Prime Steel
• Does not warp, shrink, split or twist
with age
• Resistant to insects, mold and rot
• Wide variety of sizes and
configurations
• Industry leading estimating and design
software
314-851-2200
www.aegismetalframing.com

APRIL 2020 11
loading. The study showed that the stiffness of buildings with
Research – online only HSR decreased, resulting in larger drifts (increases of about 20%
Research on material specifications for HSR suggested a T/Y (tensile- for moment frames and 10% for shear walls). Further, the study
to-yield strength) minimum limit of approximately 1.2, and minimum concluded that limiting the tie spacing to 5db for HSR offsets their
uniform elongation (coinciding to tensile strength) exceeding 6% lower T/Y (usually 1.2 for HSR vs. 1.3 for CR) and produces simi-
(WJE 2015). These limits were imposed to promote desirable ele- lar probabilities of bar fracture and risk of collapse under MCER
ment behavior during seismic events. Slavin and Ghannoum (2015) motions with respect to CR.
investigated the low-cycle fatigue performance of A706 and A615 Large-scale testing included column testing, beam testing, T-wall
HSR through a series of bare bar tests. In these tests, pairs of HSR testing, and an ongoing investigation on foundation mats. Sokoli et.
and conventional reinforcement (CR) bars were tested under identical al (2016) tested columns with CR and HSR under lateral loading.
conditions for direct comparison. The tests showed that HSR per- The columns with HSR performed adequately for seismic use, with
formed worse due to fatigue, with an average number of half-cycles bar fracture occurring at a drift ratio of 5.5%. To and Moehle (2017)
to failure for HSR being 91% of that for CR. Sokoli et al. (2019) performed tests of beams with CR and HSR with different T/Y for
performed a comprehensive bare bar study of HSR and observed HSR (1.18, 1.30, and A1035 without specific T/Y) and found that
almost no buckling when the clear length of HSR was 4db or less, and the rotational capacity of beams with HSR is comparable to those with
that HSR manufactured by quenching and tempering withstand, in CR. However, the HSR experienced higher strain localization and
general, a more significant number of half-cycles to fracture than other bar slip. Their follow-up computational study on a 20-story moment
manufacturing processes. Both of these studies observed a large varia- frame found that the current procedure (ACI 318-14) produces,
tion in results between manufacturers and manufacturing processes. in some cases, unconservative results for column shear forces, and
In light of different low-cycle fatigue performance of HSR and proposed an alternative procedure. Four T-shaped shear walls were
CR, Zhong and Deierlein (2019) performed an analytical study tested by Huq et al. (2018), using CR and HSR with varying T/Y.
of the behavior of 4- and 20-story special moment frames and 8- The tests showed that walls with T/Y > 1.2 and uniform elongation
and 42-story shear wall systems with CR and HSR under seismic > 6% developed similar drift capacity as walls with CR.

References – online only


ATC 115, (2014). Roadmap for the Use of High-Strength Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete Design, ATC-115 Report,
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, 197 pp.
Huq, M.S., Weber-Kamin, A.S., Ameen, S., Lequesne, R.D., Lepage, A. (2018). High-Strength Steel Bars in Earthquake-Resistant T-Shaped
Concrete Walls, SM Report No. 128, The University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, KS, 129pp.
NIST (2014). Use of High-Strength Reinforcement in Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures, GCR 14-917-30, Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, California, 231 pp.
Price, P.R., Fields, D., Lowes, L.N. (2013). The Impact of High-Strength Reinforcing Steel on Current Design Practice, Research Grant
Agreement #01-13, Charles Pankow Foundation, Vancouver, WA, 219pp.
Slavin, C.M., Ghannoum, W.M. (2015). Defining Structurally Acceptable Properties of High- Strength Steel Bars through Material
and Column Testing, Part I: Material Testing Report, Research Grant Agreement #05-14, Charles Pankow Foundation,
Vancouver, WA, 135pp.
Sokoli, D., Limantono, A., Ghannoum, W.M. (2016). Defining Structurally Acceptable Properties of High-Strength Steel Bars through
Material and Column Testing–Part II: Column Testing Report, Research Grant Agreement #05-14, Charles Pankow Foundation,
Vancouver, WA, 214 pp.
Sokoli, D., Hogsett, G., Limantono, A.A., Suselo, A., Al-Tarafany, d., Rodgers, S., Ghannoum, W.M. (2019). Acceptable Elongations
and Low-Cycle Fatigue Performance for High-Strength Reinforcing Bars, Research Grant Agreement #03-16, Charles Pankow
Foundation, Vancouver, WA, 213pp.
To, D.V., Moehle, J.P. (2017). Seismic Performance Characterization of Beams with High-Strength Reinforcement, Research Grant
Agreement #04-14, Charles Pankow Foundation, Vancouver, WA, 140 pp.
WJE (2015). Proposed Specification for Deformed Steel Bars with Controlled Ductile Properties for Concrete Reinforcement, Research Grant
Agreement #03-14, Charles Pankow Foundation, Vancouver, WA, 47pp.
Zhong, K., Deierlein G.G. (2019). Low-Cycle Fatigue Effects on the Seismic Performance of Concrete Frame and Wall Systems with High
Strength Reinforcing Steel, Research Grant Agreement #02-16, Charles Pankow Foundation, Vancouver, WA, 175pp.

APRIL 2020 12

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy