Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
The demand for high-performance reinforcing materials
has been increasing over the past few years to combat
unnecessary repair costs, which are estimated to exceed
billions of dollars a year in the U.S.1,2 Extensive research
has been conducted in the past few years to evaluate the
materials characteristics of different types of high-performance
steel. Nevertheless, the resulting impact on existing building
codes is sparse in relation to the effort put into research. The
lack of information regarding the behavior of concrete
members reinforced with this type of material prevents
design engineers from using the full strength of the material.
Different types of high-performance reinforcing bars are
currently being examined by different research institutions
and universities worldwide for various structural engineering
applications. By metallurgically modifying the microstructure
of the steel, the bars are less susceptible to corrosion
compared with conventional steel and have a yield strength
that is almost twice that of conventional steel. Several
demonstration projects including bridge decks, airport
control towers, bridge piers, and high-rise condominiums
have been constructed successfully using high-strength
steel.2 Nevertheless, in most of these applications, the highstrength bars have been used by direct substitution of the
amount required for conventional steel and, thus, neglecting
the benefits of the higher yield strength of the material. It has
been recently reported that the higher yield strength of the
material could strongly influence the shear behavior, ultimate
load-carrying capacity, and mode of failure of concrete beams
reinforced with this type of material.3 The use of highperformance steel reinforcement in concrete footings and
mat foundations has an emergent potential to increase
longevity and, therefore, lead to substantial savings in the
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008
173
Materials
High-strength steelA commercially available highperformance steel known as microcomposite multistructural
formable (MMFX) steel, which conforms to ASTM
A1035,13 was selected for this study. Tension coupons were
tested according to ASTM A37014 to determine the material
characteristics of the bars. Typical stress-strain behavior of
the MMFX bars compared with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi)
steel bars is shown in Fig. 1. The high-strength steel bars
exhibited a linear stress-strain relationship up to a stress
level of 690 MPa (100 ksi), followed by a nonlinear behavior
up to failure without a well-defined yield point. According to
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Test specimens
Six large-size concrete beams were constructed and
loaded to failure under concentrated load acting at midspan.
The main variables included in the study are the a/d, concrete
compressive strength, and the type and amount of the longitudinal steel reinforcement. All the beams had identical nominal
cross-sectional dimensions of 460 x 915 mm (18 x 36 in.) with
Table 1Details of test specimens
Group A
Group B
Group C
Specimen
G-1.9-51
M-1.9-51
G-1.9-38
M-1.9-38
G-2.7-32
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.7
G-2.7-32
2.7
51 (7400)
51 (7400)
38 (5500)
38 (5500)
32 (4650)
32 (4650)
G*
G*
G*
0.72
0.44
0.72
0.44
0.72
0.44
0.36
0.22
0.36
0.22
0.36
0.22
670 (150)
670 (150)
670 (150)
670 (150)
445 (100)
445 (100)
871 (195)
1560 (350)
753 (170)
1364 (306)
552 (124)
638 (143)
1103 (248)
1917 (431)
1103 (248)
1418 (319)
690 (155)
690 (155)
0.8
0.81
0.68
0.96
0.80
0.92
174
175
176
Crack pattern
For all specimens, flexural cracks were first initiated under
the applied load. With further increase of load, new flexural
cracks formed in the shear spans and curved toward the
loading area. The first diagonal shear crack was observed at
the same load level for identical specimens regardless of the
type of reinforcement. For specimens reinforced with
Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel with an a/d of 1.9, the first
diagonal shear crack was observed at a load level equivalent to
80% of the ultimate load. A similar crack was observed at a
load level of approximately 45% of the ultimate load for the
beams reinforced with high-strength steel. Such a phenomenon
demonstrates the reserved capacity for these beams and
provides adequate warning prior to shear failure. Figure 8(a)
depicts a typical crack pattern at the initiation of diagonal
shear cracks for Specimens M-1.9-51 and M-2.7-32, reinforced
with high-strength steel and having a/d of 1.9 and 2.7, respectively. Diagonal cracking loads for all the specimens are given
in Table 1. The width of the major diagonal shear crack for
different specimens is shown in Fig. 8(b). The figure clearly
shows that the major diagonal shear crack in the beams
reinforced with high-strength steel was almost three times
wider than that observed in identical beams reinforced with
Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel before failure. This is attributed
to the reduced reinforcement ratio used for high-strength steel.
Failure mode
Beams reinforced with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel
Diagonal tension failure was observed for the three concrete
beams reinforced with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel. Failure
occurred due to extension of the diagonal shear crack rapidly
toward the load point shortly after its initiation. Strain
measurements at the bottom of the concrete beams at
midspan implied that yielding of the conventional steel
reinforcement governed the failure mode. A separate
nonlinear finite element study16 confirmed the observed
behavior and indicated yielding of the longitudinal conventional
reinforcement at the location of shear cracks, as shown in
Fig. 9 for Specimen G-1.9-51. Upon yielding of the longitudinal
steel reinforcement at the location of a shear crack, the
section was no longer capable of resisting any additional
increase in load and the concrete beams failed abruptly in
shear. Detailed information about the finite element modeling
is reported elsewhere.16
(1)
tension tie, and thus enabled the beams to resist more load
until crushing of the diagonal strut occurred;
5. A significant reserve in strength was observed for beams
reinforced with high-strength steel after diagonal cracking.
Failure was due to crushing of the diagonal concrete strut at
much higher loads compared with beams reinforced with
conventional steel; and
6. The ACI 318-05 simplified expression for the shear
contribution of concrete is unconservative for large-size concrete
beams without web reinforcement. The expression needs to
account for the size effect and the reinforcement characteristics.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the donation of the materials provided by
MMFX Technologies Corp., CA. Special thanks are extended to A. Hosny,
E. Thorup, and J. Atkinson at the Constructed Facilities Laboratory for their
valuable help during the experimental program.
REFERENCES
1. Reis, H.; Ervin, B. L.; Kuchma, D. A.; and Bernhard, J. T., Estimation of
Corrosion Damage in Steel Reinforced Mortar Using Guided Waves,
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, V. 127, No. 3, 2005, pp. 255-261.
2. Darwin, D.; Browning, J.; Nguyen, T. V.; and Locke, C., Mechanical
and Corrosion Properties of a High-Strength, High Chromium Reinforcing
Steel for Concrete, SM Report No. 66, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
KS, 2002, 106 pp.
3. Seliem, H.; Hosny, A.; Dwairi, H.; and Rizkalla, S., Shear Behavior of
Concrete Beams Reinforced with MMFX Steel Without Web Reinforcement,
Report No. IS-06-08, Constructed Facilities Laboratory, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC, 2006, 21 pp.
4. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 430 pp.
5. Commission of the European Communities, Design of Concrete
Structures. Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Eurocode 2, 2003,
330 pp.
6. DIN 1045-1, Deutsche Norm, Concrete, Reinforced and Prestressed
Concrete StructuresPart 1: Design, Normenausschuss Bauwesen
(NABau) im DIN Deutsches Institut fur Normung e. V. Beuth Verlag,
Berlin, Germany, 2001, pp. 1-48.
7. Hawkins, N. M.; Kuchma, D. A.; Mast, R. F.; and Reineck, K.,
Simplified Shear Design of Structural Concrete Members, NCHRP
Report 549, Washington, DC, 2005, 54 pp.
8. Kani, G. N. J., How Safe are Our Large Reinforced Concrete
Beams? ACI Structural Journal, V. 64, No. 4, Apr. 1967, pp. 128-141.
9. Baant, Z. P., and Yu. Q., Designing Against Size Effect on Shear
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups: Formulation,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 12, 2005, pp. 1877-1885.
10. Sherwood, E. G.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P., Evaluation of
Shear Design Methods for Large, Lightly-Reinforced Concrete Beams,
Proceedings of the Advances in Engineering Structures, Mechanics and
Construction, ON, Canada, 2006, pp. 153-164.
11. Duthinh, D., Senstivity of Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
and Prestressed Concrete Beams to Shear Friction and Concrete Softening
According to Modified Compression Field Theory, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug. 1999, pp. 495-508.
12. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326, Shear and Diagonal Tension,
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 59, No. 1-3, Jan.-Mar., 1962, pp. 1-30, 277-344,
and 352-396.
13. ASTM A1035-07, Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain,
Low Carbon, Chromium, Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007, 5 pp.
14. ASTM A370-07, Standard Test Methods and Definitions for
Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2007, 47 pp.
15. ASTM A615-06, Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain
Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2006, 6 pp.
16. Hassan, T., Behavior of Concrete Deep Beams Reinforced with
High Strength Steel, Ain Shams Scientific Bulletin, V. 41, No. 3, 2007,
pp. 109-127.
17. Concrete Innovation Appraisal Services, (CIAS), Structural Design
Criteria for High-Strength MMFX Microcomposite Reinforcing Bars,
CIAS Report: 04-1, 2004, 34 pp.
179