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 62
62
3.2.3 Fatigue firmed through a series of spliced-bar beam tests and pull-out
tests, respectively. "Proof test" spliced-bar beam specimens,
Two large-scale proof tests conducted as part of this study having development lengths that were shorter than those
and a review of available published data demonstrate that required by the present specifications equations (with all
presently accepted values for the fatigue or "endurance" limit appropriate reduction factors applied), were tested. All devel-
for reinforcing steel are applicable, and likely conservative, oped bar stresses exceeding fy and approaching the ultimate bar
when applied to higher strength bars. Additionally, it is shown capacity, fu, prior to the splice slipping and in one case bar frac-
that fatigue considerations will rarely affect the design of typi- ture. Tests of hooked bar anchorage resulted in bar rupture
cal reinforced-concrete members having fy 100 ksi. outside of the anchorage region with very little slip clearly indi-
cating the efficacy of the hooked bar development require-
3.2.4 Shear ments in the specifications. Significantly, it is recommended
that development, splice, and anchorage regions be provided
Five largescale, reinforced-concrete beams and four with cover and confining reinforcement--based on current
AASHTO Type I prestressed girders were tested to evaluate design requirements--when high-strength bars are used.
the performance of high-strength A1035 steel as shear re- Existing equations for development where no confinement is
inforcement in comparison to that of the commonly used present are demonstrated to be unconservative. The presence
A615 steel. Test specimens were designed using the specifica- of confining reinforcement effectively mitigates potential split-
tions' approach of summing concrete and steel contributions ting failures and results in suitably conservative development,
to shear resistance (i.e., Vc + Vs). All beams exhibited good per- splice, and anchorage capacities.
formance with little difference noted between the behavior of
spans reinforced with A1035 or A615 transverse steel. The use
of current specifications procedures for calculating shear 3.2.8 Serviceability--Deflections
capacity were found to be acceptable for values of shear rein- and Crack Widths
forcement yield fy 100 ksi. A fundamental issue in using A1035 or any other high-
strength reinforcing steel is that the stress at service load
3.2.5 Shear Friction ( fs ; assumed to be on the order of 0.6fy) is expected to be greater
than when conventional Grade 60 steel is used. Conse-
A series of eight direct push-off (shear proof) tests of "cold quently, the service-load reinforcing strains (i.e., s = fs/Es)
construction joint" interfaces reinforced with either A1035 or are greater than those for conventional Grade 60 steel. The
A615 bars demonstrated that current specifications require- large strains affect deflection and crack widths at service loads.
ments for such joints are adequate. Significantly, the restric- Based on the results of the flexural tests conducted in this study,
tion that fy be limited to 60 ksi when calculating shear friction deflections and crack widths at service load levels were evalu-
capacity must be maintained regardless of the reinforcing steel ated. Both metrics of serviceability were found to be within
used. This limit is, in fact, calibrated to limit strain (and, there- presently accepted limits and were predictable using current
fore, interface crack opening) to ensure adequate aggregate specifications provisions. A limitation on service-level stresses
interlock capacity across the interface and is, hence, a function of fs 60 ksi is recommended; this is consistent with the
of steel modulus rather than strength. As noted, steel modu- recommendation that fy 100 ksi.
lus does not vary with reinforcing bar grade.
3.3 Recommended Research
3.2.6 Compression
The following topics associated with the adoption of
Analytical parametric studies were performed to examine high-strength reinforcing steel and steel grades having no
behavior of columns reinforced with A1035 longitudinal and discernable yield plateau have been identified as requiring
transverse reinforcement. Results indicate the current specifi- further study.
cations requirements for both longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement design in compression members are applicable
3.3.1 Application in Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4
for fy 100 ksi.
The present study did not address seismic applications and
is, therefore, limited in its application to Seismic Zone 1. In
3.2.7 Bond and Development
bridge structures, the seismic effects on single- and multiple-
The applicability of current specification requirements for column piers are most significant. The design of these elements
straight bar and hooked bar development lengths was con- would potentially benefit from the use of higher strength re-
