Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Wassim M. Ghannoum
University of Texas at San Antonio
2- Structural Issues
Stiffness
Strain compatibility
Bar demands
Detailing
Material Issues
Stress Strain Behavior
MMFX
Micro-alloying
Quenching
Grade 60
Fracture elongation?
Yield plateau?
Stress Strain Behavior
MMFX
Quenching
Micro-alloying
Grade 60
MMFX Micro-alloying
Quenching
Design Standards
do not allow HSRB
Mills do not
produce HSRB
Research cannot
be performed on
HSRB
Slavin, C.M., Ghannoum,W.M., "Defining Structurally Acceptable Properties of High-Strength Steel Bars
through Material and Column Testing, PART I: MATERIAL TESTING REPORT," (05-14), Charles
Pankow Foundation, pp. 135, August 2015.
Experimental Program
Compare low-cycle fatigue behavior of HSRB and grade 60 bars
Grades
60; A-706
80; A-706 Clear-Spans
100; “Ductile” 4db
5db
Bar Sizes 6db
#5 - Transverse
#8 - Longitudinal Loading Protocols:
#11 - Longitudinal 2 per bar size
±2% and +4%, -1%
Manufacturing Techniques ±2% and +4%, 0%
Microalloying with
Vanadium
Quenching and
Tempering
Typical Test
Grade 80 HSRB
1. Large variability in performance of grade 80 bars
1. Some samples performed much better than grade 60
2. Others much worse (~50% of cycles to failure of grade 60)
3. Specifically A706 bars performed much worse
GOOD PREFORMANCE
• Almost identical behavior for CS60 and CS80
• Both specimens sustained shear and axial failures at large drifts and
remained stable up to a drift ratio of 5.5%
Series 1 Global Results
CS 100
Test Stopped +11.5%
Series 1 Bar Demands
Longitudinal bars
HSRB may need better low-cycle fatigue performance than grade 60 bars
Series 2 Overview
• Maximize strain demands in the bars
• Investigate three main types of HSRB being produced in US
CH100 CL100
CM100 CH60
Series 2 Strain Demands
Mean tension strain in longitudinal bars at critical section (normalized by section effective depth d)
• Complex behavior
• Directly comparable tests CL100 and CH100 indicate influence of T/Y ratio
• A1035 bars behave differently
Series 2 Conclusions
Overall similar and good seismic behavior for all four columns
regardless of steel type and grade
Strain demands in longitudinal bar related to
Axial load
Bar strength
Bar T/Y ratio
Shear stress
Advisory Committee
Dominic Kelley, Ron Klemencic, Andy Taylor, Loring Wyllie
Beam 1 – Grade 100 T/Y = 1.18 Beam 2 – Grade 100 T/Y = 1.30
60
40
-20
-40
Bar Bends
Gravity Beams
Shear Walls
Anchorage and Bond
Coupling Beams
Performance of HSRB
Bends
Objective
Quantify residual capacities of bends and
recommend bend diameters for HSRB
Zhao, S.D., Ghannoum, W.M., "Setting Bar-Bending Requirements for High-Strength Steel Bars,"
(01-15), Charles Pankow Foundation, pp. 92, July 2016.
Test Matrix
Grade 60
3 to 5 Longitudinal 6.0 6.0
6 to 8 6.0 6.0
11 8.0 8.0
ASTM A615
6 to 8 6.0 6.0
9 to 11 8.0 8.0
3 to 5 Transverse 4.0 5.0
Grade 80
* these bend ratios result in higher than 5% probabilities of failing the yield stress objective,
which is deemed acceptable for A615 ties
Option 2: HSRB match Gr60 bend performance
Bar Size βACI βRecom
3 to 5 Transverse 4.0 4.0
Grade 60
3 to 5 Longitudinal 6.0 6.0
6 to 8 6.0 6.0
11 8.0 8.0
ASTM A615
6 to 8 6.0 6.0
9 to 11 8.0 8.0
3 to 5 Transverse 4.0 5.0
Grade 80
Will revisit bend diameters for HSRB when results are out
(~end of 2017)
GRAVITY BEAMS
Series 2
Series 1
Series 1: et = 0.034
Series 1 – Load-Deflection
80
60
40
Load [k]
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Deflection [in.]
1GBH60 (1.66) 1GBL100 (1.18) 1GBH100 (1.26)
Series 2 – Explore behavior near lower limits of et
ey + 0.002 ? 2ey
Series 2 – High rfy
Failure
GRAVITY BEAMS
AISHWARYA Y. PURANAM
SANTIAGO PUJOL
Maximum Reinforcement in Beams
What εt is needed in beams with high-strength steel?
Tests of Continuous Beams with conventional and high-strength longitudinal reinforcement
f’c= 4500 psi
fy= 60 ksi, 100 ksi, 120 ksi Designed so that net tensile strain is ~0.005
Series 1 Cross-Section: 18 in. x 30 in. at concrete strain of 0.003
Series 2 Cross-Section: 14 in. x 20 in.
Tests completed so far
Support Mid-span
11 #8 Gr. 60 Bars
Series 1: 30 in.
BEAM 60
Series 1:
BEAM 120
3 #8 Gr.120 Bars
Test results so far
16
15
14
13
12
Applied Load, w (kip/ft)
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2 Beam 60
1
Beam 120
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Rotation at Mid-span (%)
WALLS
High-Strength Steel Bars in RC Walls:
Influence of Mechanical Properties of Steel
on Deformation Capacity
Principal Investigators
Andrés Lepage
Rémy Lequesne Graduate Students
Mohammad S. Huq
Alex Weber-Kamin
Shahedreen Ameen
Project Participants
Charles Pankow Foundation (RGA #06-14)
The University of Kansas (Dept. of CEAE)
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI, M. Mota)
CMC - Arizona: J. Selzer
NUCOR - Seattle: E. Nissen
Harris Rebar - Kansas City: P. Fosnough, M. King, J. Meddings
20
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Strain
Tests
Completed
T1 and T3
(October 2015)
T3 T2 and T4
(June 2016)
T1
Wall Cross Section
T1 T2, T3, T4
Shear vs. Drift Ratio
Bar
fracture
#4
#6
Bar
fracture
Bar #6
fracture
(1) No. 4 bars in T2 had the lowest T/Y ratio of all bars.
Measured T/Y was 1.14