National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

NCHRP Report 679: Design of Concrete Structures Using High-Strength Steel Reinforcement (2011)
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)

Citation Manager

Russell, Henry G, Miller, Richard A, Harries, Kent A, Shahrooz, Bahram M, Transportation Research Board. "2.3.5 Summary and Recommendations." NCHRP Report 679: Design of Concrete Structures Using High-Strength Steel Reinforcement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
25
bottomleft bottomright
Page
25
Front Matter (R1-R10)
Summary (1-4)
1.1 Introduction (5-5)
1.3.1 Mechanical Properties of A1035 Reinforcing Steel (6-6)
1.3.2 Tension Properties of A1035 Reinforcing Steel (7-7)
1.3.3 Flexural Reinforcement (8-8)
1.3.4 Shear Reinforcement (9-9)
1.3.6 Bond and Development (10-10)
1.3.7 Serviceability Considerations (11-12)
1.3.8 Corrosion Performance of Reinforcing Steel Grades (13-13)
1.4 Survey of Use of High-Strength Steel Reinforcement in Bridge Structures (14-14)
1.4.2 Reported Use of A1035 Reinforcing Steel in Highway Bridge Infrastructure (15-15)
2.2.1 ASTM A1035 Reinforcing Steel (16-17)
2.3.1 Flexural Resistance (18-20)
2.3.2 Tension-Controlled and Compression-Controlled Strain Limits for High-Strength ASTM A1035 Reinforcing Bars (21-22)
2.3.4 Experimental Evaluation (23-24)
2.3.5 Summary and Recommendations (25-25)
2.4 Fatigue Performance of High-Strength Reinforcing Steel (26-26)
2.4.2 Effect of High-Strength Steel on the AASHTO Fatigue Provisions (27-27)
2.4.3 Fatigue of Slabs (AASHTO LRFD Section 9) (28-28)
2.4.4 Fatigue Test Specimens (29-29)
2.4.5 Summary of Fatigue Tests and Conclusions (30-31)
2.5.2 Experimental Evaluation (32-36)
2.6 Shear Friction (37-37)
2.6.1 Experimental Program (38-39)
2.6.2 Experimental Results (40-42)
2.7 Compression Members (43-43)
2.7.1 Column Capacity (44-44)
2.7.2 Spacing of Spiral Reinforcement (45-47)
2.8.1 Splice Development (48-49)
2.8.2 Hook Anchorage (50-54)
2.9 Serviceability Considerations (55-55)
2.9.1 Deflections of Flexural Members (56-56)
2.9.2 Crack Widths (57-57)
2.9.3 Summary and Conclusions (58-58)
3.1.3 Proposed Changes to Section 9 of the LRFD Specifications (59-60)
3.2.2 Flexure (61-61)
3.3.1 Application in Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4 (62-62)
3.3.5 Control of Flexural Cracking and Corrosion (63-63)
References (64-67)
Notation (68-71)
Appendices (72-72)
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications (73-73)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 25
25 Table 14. Ratio of measured to computed capacities. Method Specimen fy = 100 ksi Mast Eq. Ramberg-Osgood F1 1.47 1.12 1.07 F2 1.31 1.11 1.08 F3 1.54 1.08 1.01 F4 1.37 1.08 1.02 F5 1.35 1.19 1.14 F6 1.44 1.06 0.991 clearly demonstrate that the specimens reached and exceeded the target strains. Figure 8. Crack patterns and curvature in Specimen F4 Two strain gages were bonded to the concrete surface at the immediately prior to failure. midspan (i.e., in the constant moment region) to measure the compressive strain. The average strain was used to assess the performance of the specimens. The ratio of the peak strain to the target design strain is summarized in Table 15. The specimens developed a strain of at least 1.9 times larger than their target values prior to failure. At failure, the con- crete strain (tabulated in Table 15) ranged from 0.0025 to 0.0039 with an average value of 0.0033. The selection of a maximum concrete strain of 0.003 in a compatibility analysis of members reinforced with high-strength A1035 is rational. 2.3.5 Summary and Recommendations Considering the magnitudes of the strains in the longitu- dinal bars and concrete, the specimens performed adequately and met the design objective. The proposed strain limits of t = 0.008 or higher for tension-controlled behavior and t = (a) Specimens F1, F2, F3 0.004 for compression-controlled are appropriate. Moreover, well-established strain compatibility analysis techniques can (b) Specimens F4, F5, and F6 Figure 9. Load--midspan deflection. Figure 10. Measured and computed load-deflection relationships.