0% found this document useful (0 votes)
21 views6 pages

Strength Design of Reinf Concrete Columns - EDR - 55

This report discusses the strength design of reinforced concrete columns as per ACI 318-05, detailing the evolution of design methods from working stress design to unified design provisions. It highlights the impact of strain-based strength-reduction factors on column design and provides comparisons of design strengths based on different code provisions. The report includes terminology definitions, interaction diagrams, and manual calculations to illustrate the application of unified design principles.

Uploaded by

alberto rosado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
21 views6 pages

Strength Design of Reinf Concrete Columns - EDR - 55

This report discusses the strength design of reinforced concrete columns as per ACI 318-05, detailing the evolution of design methods from working stress design to unified design provisions. It highlights the impact of strain-based strength-reduction factors on column design and provides comparisons of design strengths based on different code provisions. The report includes terminology definitions, interaction diagrams, and manual calculations to illustrate the application of unified design principles.

Uploaded by

alberto rosado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6
ENGINEERING DATA REPORT NUMBER 55 CRSI Strength Design of Reinforced Concrete Columns by ACI 318-05 [A SERVIOE OF THE CONORETE REINFOROING STEEL INSTITUTE {855 N. Plim Grove Rl, Schaumburg, lina 60173-4758 Introduction Strength design made its debut in the 1956 ACI Builcing Code. Section 601 on Design Methods stat- ed: “...design of reinforced concrete members shall ‘be made with reference to allowable stresses... in other words, the provision referenced. the working stress design (NSD) method; or “The ultimate strength method of design may be used for the design of reinforced conerete members”. The latter provision referenced a footnote which stated: “For ready refer- ence see appendix to this code for an abstract of the report of the ACIASCE joint committee on ultimate strength design.” In the 1963 Code, the provisions for ultimate strength design (USD) and working stress design were presented on a parallel or an equivalent basis. Section ‘901 on Design Methods permitted the use of either WSD (Part IV-A) or USD (Part IV-B) Wide-sweeping changes were adopted in the 1971 Code. Among the major changes, strength design was included in the boxy of the code while the provisions for working stress design were relegated to an appencix Unified design provisions for flexure, and for axial load combined with flexure, were adopted in an’ appendix of the 1999 Code. In the 2002 edition of the code, as well as in the current 2005 Code, the unified provisions are included in the bady of the code. The former strength design | provisions for flexure and combined bending and axial load, which emerged in the 1956 Code, are now pre: ‘sented in an appendix of the 2005 Code. The provi sions for working stress design were deleted from the 2002 Code. ‘As the word “unified” implies, the unified design provisions are intended to “unify” the design of rein forced concrete and prestressed concrete structural members. The unified design provisions, which are strain-based, have an impact on strength-reduction factors, on the maximum reinforcement limits for flex ural members, and on moment redistribution. This report presents the basics of the unified design provisions as applied to column design. ‘Augmenting the ciscussion is an example which com- ppares the design strength of a column based on the Unified design provisions versus the design strength ‘based on the former strength design provisions. Terminology Terms used in defining or describing the unified design provisions are tension-controlled section, compression-controlled section, and transition region. These terms refer to “extreme tension rein- forcement”, which is the layer of tension reinforcement ina cross section ofa structural member that is locat- {ed the farthest from the compression surface or fbr. Rater to Fig, 1 forthe folowing discussion. oP, ‘54% = 1002 (660) OM, Fig. 1 - Tension, Compression, and Transition Regions: ‘Across-section of a structural member is classified as tension-controlled when the tensile strain, &, in the extreme tension reinforcement is at least 0.005. For this case, the strength-reduction factor, ¢, for tlex= ure is 0.90, ‘Across-section of a structural member is classified as compression-controlled when the tensile strain, &,, in the extreme tension reinforcement is /,/E, oF less. For Grade 60 reinforcing bars (with a minimum yield strength, f,, equal 1o 60,000 psi), the Cade per- mits taking the limit j,/E, as 0.002 rather than 60,000/29 x 10* = 0.00207. (© Copyright 2005 by the Concrete Reinforcing Stet intitute For a compression-controlled section, the strength-reduction factor, , iS dependent on the type of transverse reinforcement: ¢ = 0.70 for columns with spiral reinforcement and ¢ = 0.65 for tied columns, ‘The range of values of &, between 0.002 and (0.005 defines the transition region. In the transition region, the strength-reduction factor, 4, varies between 0.90 and 0.70 or 0.85. Strain-Based Strength-Reduction Factor ¢ Referring to Fig. 2, as e, varies between 0.002 and 0.005 in the transition region, the following expression for @, based on e; can be formed: Tens. (2) f+ Comp. (-) Strains Fig. 2 General Strain Diagram Be_ 81+ Be end 8) + B= B(d/e) £, = 8: (d/)- c= B(d/e—1) = 0.008 lae~ 1) For the general case, when &, < fi/E,, equals comps When &; > 0.008, @ equals drers. Within the ‘ransition region where e; varies between fy/E, and 0.005, for a given &, Er fils O Geamp + Wns Goons) oa Ey For Grade 60 reinforcing bars in a tied column with dconp = 0.65, this formula can be simplified to $= 0.483 + 83.393e,. For Grade 60 reinforcing bars in a spiral column ‘with dconp = 0.70, this formula can be simpitied to $= 0.567 + 66.667¢, Reinforced Concrete Column Interaction Diagrams ‘Since the aim of this report is to apply the unified design provisions to column design, common design tool is the interaction diagram — a plot of dlsign axial load strengths versus design moment strengths. In the CRSY Design Handbook, key interac tion points are tabulated for square, eectanguiar, and round reinforced columns for various concrete strengths and reinforcing bar arrangements AA typical interaction diagram contains a transition zone where a compression-controlled section must ‘gradually convert to a tension-controled section. This transition zone is also where the strength-reduction factor, ¢, needs to be adiusted accordingly. In past ‘ACI 318 Codes, this transition zone began at a point ‘where the design axial load strength was the smaller of: (1) 0.1fe'Ag, and (2) Pp at the balanced strain con- ition. The transition zone ended at the point of zero design axial load strength. Within this zone, 6 was in- carly adjusted from a value of 0.70 (for tied columns) toa vale of 0.90. Table 1 - Column Interation Values - 1999 ACI Code ‘Maxdesign | Zero tensile 15,000 psi tensile] 30,000psi | 60,000 psi O1f’Ay | Zev design axial axialload | suessin—_ |stess inexteme | tensile stess in | tensile stress in 628 | Youd strengt strength | extreme ——_jtensionbars, | extreme tension | extreme tension tension bars, [25% f bars, Sof | bars, 50%, 0%, Balance Point oat, | os | att | om | ale ay | oP, | ate aM, ol, 2296 | 5.198 | 1.884 | 8543 | 1.535 | 10534] 1.203 | 12.008 | 624 | 14570 | 216 | 1,763) 0 | 18,619 Pisin kips, iM is in inch-kips ‘Table 2 Column Interation Values ~ 2005 ACI Code Max design | Zero tensile ]15,000 pst tensile | 30.000 psi 60.000 psi ]%)=0.008 in | Zeno design axial axial Toad” | stessin— |siessinexteme | ensilestess in | tensilesresin | extreie tension | load stength strength. | exteme [tension bars, | extreme tension | extreme tension | bars tension bars, 25%, bars, 50% jars, 509% Of Balance Point oP. | oma | oP, | atm | om | ove | or. | orm | o. | ote | or | ame | om | on | ana | 4sae | 749 | 7932 | 142s | 9ze2 | air 579 | 13529 | ars | i790] 0 | reser @P, is in kips, AM, is in inch-kips. Column Interaction Table— Iecompert Reaves nip 8. a nabroobae. 1 vation is: The design strength of the column, based on 999 ACI Code ‘the 2005 Code, is less than the design strength based en ii Berea ie: “a oe it vee ot ‘on the former strength design provisions. This obser- ints on the interaction cag values, vation is correct because of the smaller values of the Deen on tes 18 ae ae Ot Wn 16 SO. strength-reduction factors in the 2005 Code (except short” column with f= 4000 pi the column isin: for “pure flexure when e, > 0.005: then @ = 0.0 in forced with 10-#18 Grade 60 (j= 60,000 ps) rein- ott bodes}, forcing bars with 5 bars in each of the two long faces. Note that dcanp = 0.70 and that the point "0.1 fi'49" is ‘The curves in Fig. 3, however, depict only a part of tabulated, the overall design requirements. In the 2005 Code, the load factors and load combinations are based on Column Interaction Table— ASCE 7. Let's consider gravity loads only, and in par- Senet Serbs ace! lad combination, ores Table 2s the inleracton table forthe same column qhenath of U ="1220-4-1.85, i the 1900 Goce, the as in Table 1, but the values of dP, and oM, are based required strength was U= 1.40 + 1.7L. " ‘on ACI 318-05. Note that don = 0.65 and that the . ” point “e, = 0.005” is tabulated. Thus, in the 2005 Code, the required strength or FORE ISR ti OMS TARAS “demand! is also smaller than the required strength in 2, ie, the interaction diagrams, are plotted in Figure 3. the 1998 Code. 2.800 20m 300 z, (to ca 2 {2008 code| 8 0 ° ° 5000 000 za Fig. 3- Example Column interation Diagrams oo A! i i t «J Fig. 4 ~ Example Column Calculations ~ “2, Manual Calculations Manual calculations of the 6P, and @M, values for the “e; = 0.005" point for the second column example (2005 Code) folow. Refer to Fig. 4 Rearranging the earlier formula: dle= (@, + Bd/ee cd _ 0.008 (26.872) (e+e) ~ (0.005 + 0.008) Notice that for those rows of reinforcing bars where dy < J ¢, which is 0.85 (10.077) = 8.565 in., the steel stress must be reduced by 0.85 fy. 1. First (top) row of bars: hy = 3.129 in, B51 = 8 lis ~ dle = 0.003 (3.129 - 10.077) / 10.077 = -0.00207 fal = 844 Ey = 0.00207 (29,000) = ~60 ksi Fur = as Ap + 0.85 fe'Ay 60 (6) + 0.85 (4) 8 = ~453 kips iy ldyy ~ W12) 453 (3.129 - 90/2) = 6,378 in.-kips 0.005" point 2. Second row of bars: dj = 8.129 + 5.936 = 9.605 in. 22,9 = 0.008 (9.605 - 10.077) / 10.077 = 0.0003 Jaz = -0.0008 (29,000) = -8.7 ksi Fo=-87 8) 70 kips 70 (9.065 - 30/2) = 413 in.-kips 3. Third row of bars: 4,3 = 9.129 + 2 (6.996) = 16 in. {8,5 = 0.008 (15 ~ 10.077) / 10.077 = 0.00147 fis = 0.00147 (29,000) = 42.63 ksi Fg = 42.83 (8) = 841 Kips. 41 (15 ~ 30/2) = 0 in.-kips 4. Fourth row of bars: yg = 3.129 + 3 6.936) = 20.936 in, ‘8,4 = 0.008 (20.936 - 10.077) / 10.07 = 0.00328 _fus = 0.00328 (29,000) = 98.67 > 60 80 f,; = 60 ksi Fg = 60 (8) = 480 kips Myq = 480 (20.936 ~ 30/2) = 2,850 in.-kips ——— SSsSSSsSSSSSSSSSSSSs 5. Fifth (bottom) row of bars: d,s = 8.129 + 4 (6.936) = 26.878 in, ‘8,5 = 0,008 (26.873 ~ 10.077) / 10.077 = 0.005 Ff,s = 0.005 (29,000) = 145 > 60 80 fy; = 60 ksi Fs = 60 (8) = 480 kips Mas = 480 (26.878 ~ 80/2) = 6,699 in.-kips 6. Concrete compression zon 0.85 (f') (0) b = 0.85 (4) 0.85 (10.077) 18 = 524 kips Me (@el2— h/2) 524 (0.85 (10.077) / 2 - 30/2) 5.616 inkijps oP, 90 [C+ Fel = 0.90 [-524 ~ 453 - 70 + 841 + 480 + 480) 229 ios ~ -228 in Table 2 (My = 0.90 [Me + Mul = 0.90 [5,616 + 5,875 + 413 +0 + 2,850 + 5,699] = 17,958 in--Kips = 17,960 in Table 2 For this example, a negative (tensile) value of the design axial load strength resulted at the “e, = 0.005" point. This is not always the case. It was observed that the oP, value for this point decreases as the reintorve- ment ratio, p, increases. When the reinforcement ratio exceeds a certain value, the 4, value becomes neg- ative. Closing Comments Tis report has desorbed the basis of the strain- related strength-reduction factor (0) in the unifed design provisions of the current ACI 318 Code and its effect on reinforced concrete colurmns. Included in this report isa comparison of columa interaction ia- ‘grams, caleuiated using both the untied design provi- sions and the former strength design provisions. The results ofthe comparison ilustrate the effect of the smaller strength-teduction factors in the 2005 ode. Resources "ACI Building Code Requirements of the 20th Century CD-ROM", American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2004, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 3189-05), American Concrete Institut. RSI Design Handbook 2002, Concrete Reinforcing Stoo! Institute, Schaumburg, Il., 2002. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-02), American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va., 2002 Soft Metric Reinforcing Bars It is important for readers of this document to be aware of current industry practice regarding soft met- Fic reinforcing bars. The term “soft metric” is used in the context of bar sizes and bar size designations. “Soft metric conversion” means describing the nomi- nal dimensions of inch-pound reinforcing bars in terms of metric units, but not physically changing the bar sizes, In 1997, producers of reinforcing bars (the steal mills) began to phase in the production of soft metric bars. Within a few years, the shift to exclusive produc tion of soft metric reinforcing bars was essentially achioved. Virtually all reinforcing bars currently pro- duced in the USA are soft metric. The steel mils’ ini- tiative of soft metric conversion enables the industry 10 furnish the same reinforcing bars to inch-pound con- struction projects as well as to metric construction projects, and eliminates the need for the steel mills and fabricators to maintain a dual inventory. Thus, USA-produced reinforcing bars furnished to any con- struction project most likely will be soft metric. Designations of Bar Sizes. The sizes of soft metric reinforcing bers are physically the same as the corre- sponding sizes of inch-pound bars. Soft metric bar sizes, which are designated #10, #13, #16, and so on, ‘correspond to inch-pound bar sizes #3, #4, #5, and 30 on, The metric bar designations are simply a re- labeling of the inch-pound bar designations. The fol- lowing table shows the one-to-one correspondence of the soft metric bar sizes to the inch-pound bar sizes. Soft Metric Bar Inch-Pound Bar Size Designation Size Designation #10 #3 #13 #4 #16 45 #19 #6 #22 a7 #25 #8 #29 49 #32 #10 #36 #1 #43 #14 487 #18 Minimum Yield Strengths or Grades. Virtualy all stee! mills in the USA are currently producing reinforc- ing bars to meet the metric requirements for tensile properties in the ASTM specifications. Minimum yield strengths in metric units are 280, 350, 420 and 520 MPa (megapascais), which are equivalent to 40,000, 50,000, 60,000 and 75,000 psi, respectively. Metric Grade 420 is the counterpart of standard Grade 60. Bar Marking, Soft metric reinforcing bars are required to be identified with the Producer's mill designation, bar size, type of steel, and minimum yield strength or grade. For example, consider the marking require- ments for a #25, Grade 420 metric bar, which is the counterpart of an inch-pound #8, Grade 60 ber. Regarding the bar size and grade, the ASTM specifi- cations require the number "25" to be rolled onto the surface of the metric bar to indicate its size. For iden- tifying or designating the yield strength or grade, the ASTM specifications provide an option. A mill can ‘choose to roll a "4" (the frst digit in the grade number) ‘onto the bar, or roll an additional longitudinal rib or {grade line to indicate Grade 420. Chapter 1 in the CRS| Manual of Standard Practice includes a detailed presentation of the inch-pound ‘and metric requirements in the ASTM specifications for reinforcing bars. Appendix A in the Manual shows the bar marks used by USA producers to identity Grade 420 soft metric bars. More information about soft metric reinforcing bars, is also provided in Engineering Data Report No. 42, “Using Soft Metric Reinforcing Bars in Non-Metric Construction Projects”. EDR No. 42 can be found on CRSI's Website at www.crsior CRSI Website Readers of this report are also encouraged to visit the CRSI Website for: * Descriptions of CAS! publications and software, and ordering information ‘Institute documents available for downloading * Technical information on epoxy-coated reinforo- ing bars ‘Technical information on continuously reinforced conerete pavement ‘+ Membership in CRSI and member web links ‘© General information on the CRS! Foundation * Information on the CRS! Design Awards compe- tition CONCRETE REINFORCING STEEL INSTITUTE CRSI 933 N. Plum Grove Road, Schaumburg, Illinois 60173-4758 Phone: 847/517-1200 Fax: 847/517-1206 www.crsi.org “Ths pba ited fr eu ol press compsterto eatin sgiicane an enttons it contents an who wl aor espns rhe appleaton et he mater conta, Te Cree Femirong Stl ate rapa tw evgang mtoal se amar of oration ard evel, Saclams ‘ry anda espera or aplcaion he sate princes rr he azuray te sores oer an imteral dovloped yo et IF PG oso raat Pred n USA.

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