Tite no. 94-838 Unified Minimum Flexural Ri forcement Requirements for Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Members re menrs Aor ganar ina he fe of ‘let pied cute mnt nh ea ‘geomet ur rs wih ot of rete Tecoma of craig mtn ree ree re ds eins or eet en aoe po ‘ine C8 1 et Cae ome Scene ba of ‘en new fd formas a rtm cepa pad fr min fe fore fered ode. ‘eet emeioe nentes Tuono bl nt sete (fn pase sn taped noon fs ord [Co fre med couch od me to Ti coos ink eo oF 1—1TRODUCTION “This sty of minimum reinforcement eqiremens in lnfoced and presreued concrete members was undeaken ‘sith he porpoe of simplifying, and ote extet feasible Unifying the minimum enforcement requirement for bo ‘enforced and prestressed conor. “The opening paragraph ofthe ACI 318-71 commentary to section 105 follows “Section 10.5.1 concerned with beams, hich os tectualor other reason, a much larger in erst section than requed by sent consieratons. With very small infrcement ratios, te computed bending momenta i fereed conerse tstion ecomes Tes than that of the comesponding plain concrete section computed frm is ‘modus of rp, Fale in sch case suite sodden. In segard wo this commentary sugetion of possible su en Nexural file of reitored (or pesvesed) concrete members itis fist noted that there aren publised reports of sch les in bllings ox bilge, and the author ae 40 year. Second the possiblity of sede flre of rei Fever prestesiedesural member observed ied norber of cases in aboaory tess, hasbeen sociated with Toads which were a substantl mil othe design he ‘ore lads calculated on the bai ofthe reiforcement a ‘he members. According). theres orice tobe no bass In vesearch ov experiance to sugest at sadn fre of sossyunder-enfrced pesuesed or nopeestessed es Sal members wil oecurat the design loading asain ‘ithe enforcement inthe member ‘Under the ACI Bailing Code, flxial members ae de slanedo support fatred legal loads ror Mode! Busing Coes) as cracked reinforced or prestessed concrete se ns: Misr reinforcement requirments Based on the cracking moment represent an alter leading stu related to the legally specified loading The loading related tothe cracking moments oly functor of ection geome try and concrete steagth for reinforce concrete ember For presen concrete member, the racking oad sso function ofthe amount of prestessedelafocenent adits Iocan ‘The aerative loading based on the aking momen y ‘ba large mute ofthe ely specifi loading For cantea Raa Ran emacs hr fer smc Soe di teste hcp levered contention reinforced coneee Teams wih fe Aang intern, the leang esuling fom cracking o> Ina tims be mre hn hry times ply pe fed oaing The ACI Bung Coe laces a upper inion the aot of edna treme reer 10 sy racking mcnentloaing requirements by scxpng tein ‘red cnc sedion with ae ofa enorsemert ft Teast onesird presen eqied by ays (Secon 1083s accpng pressed members ser an Aexurl strenght swith ere (Section 883). Moweve. ths paper lusts ta the Sacremey between throne nde tinct or nnpresreselnered eon {ie set adh facta of wo psd or preted Concrete rt tsa ost. Reviw of wacarch on minima eforcment requ eats for noprestessed renfred concrete members ‘als thao sain hardening ofthe reidorement the ici of srssly underscnforced memes usually ex eds the design capacity byafito of bout S10 175 (he ‘io 9) While stan hardening ioe seal consi Cred desig of onpresese letra members, ico ‘SSrel spose to ne stirring nth respect o proportioning of minimem reinfecemet ores Soctted wi the eacking moment which a much higher ‘han design a flor grossly undereinfreet members) Review ofeach on prsiesaedconretemenbers with ‘cys nfrsment rains ees tht sf ad pacly atte tine of erating was observedony on member, ‘th ntondd tendons witout soplementay bonded rein, Torcement Although none ofthe members wih unbonded tendon whet os of ad capaci th time of Cruking fied in sun ter, sen flr might have ken place ina iid umber of ass he tex a teen conducted using a presse conoled ahr han Sin ond Toding devi Gn which case the fad trod nt hive been reduced atthe tne of cracking). Be favor OF members eines aly with untonded endo tas not bxnof practical elevancesnce publeaton of ACL 31871 which equi we of supplementary bond re Fexcementinssch members Ines of members conning bonded tendons and suplementry boned reinforce ‘men no los of lad apacty was observed ate tie of Seng Wik ed iu refer ‘one or post teosioned, sgn hao foes oad opacity ws obese a the ime of ercking nos of 33 tended postesioned members with enfacemeat ratios Sow ar pecet Applian of the minimum reinforcement poisons of Sexton 1883 of ACI3I8-95 bated op |2eimes the cracking Toad result in linger minima reinfercement requirements the eel of presires increases. Since the cracking Fad is ‘lready a multiple ofthe design lod for prosly under ein. forced members, we ofthe 1.2 fatron the cracking load is comidered 1 be unwarranted. any ease this provision i ptculrly unfortunate for continuous pst-ensioned mer tes which often have rts with very high esd compres tive sess t sevice loud, with comesponding high cracking loads Resear on prestressed concrete members does net suppor the concept that minim lex enorcerent ‘qements shoud be increase in propio o nceases in the level of preatres. This paper demonsate hat hs cm ‘cept can becimiated fom ACT miaimum enforcement fquements with safety against the possibly of sien flexor fre. Parhermore, ths paper presents essen Uunied minimum reinforces provisions for nope ‘tres and preesed flexural members ‘2--REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS TESTS ‘OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS" ‘Thee Beams, esgntedN.1, 2, apd N3, wee tested in the referenced series wih versal prceniage of tason ‘eiforcomen anda relavely high concrete stength. The teams were 6 inches wide and 12 inches daep Bosnis N-1 ‘nd 2 contained one Number 3 Grade 40 rebar, and Bea [N-contined one Number 4 Grae Oot. The stengthof the eebr was 70 ksi The Universi of Minos eport ds casing these ess slates: "The bear were designed in such ‘naner dat the esi reinforcement would be sesed UP {oor beyond is yield pont when irae called upon tres "he loa corespondig othe load causing caching.” ‘A comparison ofthe est capacity andthe factored load ca pacity ofthe tee beams in accordance with ACE 318-89 Presenedin Table I-A grapicl pesematon ofthe este fue i comparison withthe ACI 318-89 capacities of the teams is presented in Fg 1 (Fg. 25 rom the Univesity of lige est ep). Te moment capacity of beams Nand 12 indicts that he ull oF al sain hardening of he stel was developed. Inthe case of beam 3, fall stain renin didnot develop det ond failure While thee Beams dl not fil suddenly at he tw of cracking the tures might have Bee sen ithe est ma thine had ben sich ht he load wasnt edced atthe ine bf eracking (oad conrlled rater han stain contd est Ing device). The cracking loads for bears NI and N2 were, respectively 189 and 24 tines the design factored load pemied by ACT 318.89 onthe bass of the enforcement Table 1comparison of test capacity and factored Toad ee cee Beams accordance wilt mersieees sae TOCprovided. The probability of loasings of these nips of {Sign ond in ing itint rom member in ab ‘oratory testing machine) i considered to Bevery Femote Forttely fr most flexural members, concern abou even such emote posites of sudea fare canbe eliminated with reasonbleeeonoy by vse ofa imple equation for ‘minimum flexural enforcement Tn surry these dhe est beans stat tha fal sain hardening can be anise in gros under enfred no. prestesied etangular beans. For hs exon, sch eas in rely provide eserve (nt considered in design factors of sly withrefreneto dep ou in acardance wih he loa f,/f,- Fore grades of eiafrcement commonly sed Forex embers thes tio ae a fe Ws, 3--REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS TESTS ‘ON PRESTRESSED CONCRETE MEMBERS, General review of tosis ‘Among the polar eset sources in the early devel ‘opment of presresed covert ecology ithe US, were ‘so reports pblsed bythe University of ios: "Stength ‘in Fexare of Bonded and Unbondd Preresied Concrete Beams by J, Warwara, August 1957 and “Stegth and Behavior in Flevure of Prestressed Concrete Beams.” by J arwarek, M. Sozen, and C.D. Sis, Sepemer 1960 (Toes reports were the basis for University of Minos Eng ering Experiment Staion Beletin 46s, by J. Warwar, IM. Soten, and C. .Siss, 1962, whichis moe geerally ‘viable in technical ibearies) A too eleven simple pa Beas (9-1 span) with nom inal dimensions of b= in, andi [2 in, were tested atthe Universty of line under the work reported ia te August 195 report ln eference his discussion of minimum ex tual enforcement requirement, he most sigan specs neni ths seis asthe prezosioned beam 33 which had no siplementary bonded reinforcement and a venfrce ent rat, pin etceat) for de pestesing steel of 0.166, ‘The value of MyM, for this simple beam was 161. The minimum p value for prestesso Beams proposed in this Study is 0.200 (ste Section 8). ‘Testo simple span prestessed beams ofthe same span and sonia diension or se forthe tet diacssed above fe referenced inthe Sep. 1960 repo. The eleven Beans tested in Re. 2 are coded in the test ta css inthis ‘port Ine native sommy on the ests i epr he last puraprph 63 follows: "If a Bonded or an usbonded ‘eam simply soported ofits varios erica sections re reinforced nthe same proprio othe asc moments for ‘posible condion of loaing, itis desirable that MoM & teach ection in nde avoid sn flr immediate Iy aftr racking. This sets atom iit onthe min ‘imum amcunt of risercement aration tthe shape and size ofthe beam, the guality ofthe concrete, and he level of presres. Simplysuppored brome [emphasis added) foe ‘which (88) sot aiid are quite undesiable Because failure may cctewitoet any warning, I should be noted shat (1) may be ssid by ineeasing he amount of sp plemenary reinforcement as well asthe amount of pr Stressedrenforement” (One olth 2 beams scsi in Ref 3 an uboded beam with 90 Sead einfrermen (ented as OUS4034) ad a ‘tio fs My essared values of 196. As she case with all ess it ths seis designated "OU." his beam dos not ‘comply with te minimom bonded reinforcement requ ‘enh OLACISISfor members wth bonded tendons (Min Imm tended reinforcement provision for memes ih tinted tendons wee fit included in ACI 3TE1 and ‘ain unchanged for one-way memers this dt) Detection behavior Review af measured and computed mispan defection for the 82 ests repre in Ret 3 discloses that none of the om fied witout ample warning deletion The ages fata of AFAUAC occured in the most igh reinforced teams. However, all of these tat were conducted with ‘ta ctl devices. The failares of some of the sn Tonded seams which lst oad capacity atthe time of rack ‘ng might ave been sudden if a load conuoled testing vice a een oe Lan presresed tt specimens with bonded eeaforce mentee alow ae 0.101 and .107 perce increased ater {rocking and there wan natin al ay member ih ‘luge mount of reinforcement woud fal suenly ony Toad witout large amount of warsingdeeion portioning of test specimens with respect to appliec toads iscsi important o note that the reinforcement of the Univesity of ios tet beams was not proportioned ia referent ny standard forthe load ator required der ‘he appled loads. Beans with yatious amounts of bonded or ‘umbonde enforcement nee simpy este read the bavi was reportod. In ts coatnt the foad-eetion ‘curves fr tests nloding beam OUS4.034 are presented in Fig. 2 (hig. 4 from te Univesity of lini por). Bea OU 084 had ratio oF MyM of 096 ‘The fctred ive loud capacity of Beam OUS4 034 bated ‘on sess in unbonded tendons specified by equation 26-7) (of ACI 818-63 (when the cracking load criteria was ino duced) as computed to be 395 kis. The factored live Toed capacity of Beam OU34 034 based on stress nthe un ‘onde tendons specified by Equation (18-4) of ACI 318-89 war computed to be 476 kips. The capciy of Beam OU34.034 inthe est wat found to be 6.604 ips. The ‘ato of est capacity 1 code capacity factored liv oad for this team e167 based on ACT 31863, and 139 based on ‘ACI 316-89, as shown on Fig. 2. This esl indictes that ‘bears inthis test eis with the eas satisfactory bela Joe with espct to the cracking moment provided 2 so stantial margin of safety ith respect oJeally spectied Toads fr the member. In reality, Beam OU.34038 could ot hae been legal axe in 1989 since it id no contin ‘he minimum bonded nonprestessed reinforcement spe Fd since ACL 318-7).wiass afi iss ee ner ofa tafioref. | 2 3 468 6 7 8 8 OH eB Detection at Midepen In inches Fig. !Load ection diagrams for Univesity of Minos beam svesN! ‘Boan] Cuba oa4~] ead losd/eactfored' per ipsa «f1'39 © os Ey 1s Mitapan Dernection-intos Fig, 2Loa-dpection curves for beams of series OU3#Location of reinforcement in unbonded members ‘without bonded reinforeement "The average Wd rato forthe 26 beams tested withoot bonded reinforcement (vinta “OU" in Appendix B) sway 158 and the values ange from 1.44 01.73. The Mad ‘ales for he 33 boned "OB" post esioned member av raped 139, and ranged fom 1.2610 181 For the unbended "OU beams, he average as 759m, and forthe bonded “OW beams, the average d was 863 inches. Since the re ute enforcement is a funtion ofthe ale ofthe tho sguaed the locaton of reifercemen ith "OB" beans With bonded presressd ste was 13 times more eetive than the reinforcement inthe “OU” beams with unbonded presessing tel, This considered bea contin a toro the undesirable oad dfietion behave (0s a oad ‘aguity a the tine of caching) of afew a te gh cin forced "OU" beams, ‘Summary of observations on University of iinols teats of prestressed members. ‘nthe fai ie above dass, the fllowing obser ‘ations are considered o Be imporant points with ference {0 thir dresson on minimum reiferement requements for prestessd concrete member: No Tos of load eapity a he ime of cracking was ob Served or any beam with bonded prestesed or non re Sesed reinforcement None ofthe Beas filed without large warning dfs ons, However, iis acknowledged that sudden fare right have oecared im few bears with an unbonded tendon and m0 supplementary bonded reinforcement if Toad controled testing device ha heen wed 3. Theunbonded beam with heleat stator ratio of My ‘M (OUS4.034 had 3 et capcity of 1.67 ines thee pocitycalulted (permite) on the basis of Equation (6-7) af ACT 18-63, and 1.39 mes the capaci cle Tne on hess of Equation (18-4) of ACI S189. Ths ‘ea hal 0 supplementary bode enforcement 4. Te tests donot spport concerns abot sudden ile of fresressed members with bonded retessed reinforce- Ment tos alow ae 0.101 perent The Nd ratio sed for members with uboded tendons snack of supplementary bonded reinforcement connb- ‘ted othe len siisfctory loa-dfletion Behavior of Tiphly reser unbonded members atthe time of cracking BACKGROUND ON ACI 316 MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS ‘The minim equrement for resessed conerte were fst induced ia Section 2609 ofthe 1963 Code (Seton IRR in more recent edition ofthe Code). The language af Seton 240 was a follows “() The total amount of prestressed and unrestresse e inforcement shal be guste develop an ultimate ead in Alexa at es 1.2 tes the ereking ond caltisted on he ‘ass of modules of ptr of 7.84 “his code provision appears ores the resus ofthe Universty of lions test of presressed concrete memes cused inthe previous Section ofthis repr. This the First explicit statement inthe cove eating reiforcement re _quremeats tothe crckng load calculated o the basis fhe Todos of rape: Minimom reinforcement requirements forreinfrced concree exp based on cracking moment ‘or ceacking load were not intodoced unt ACT I8-95, Athetime othe University of io eof pestessed members dircssed sove and in ACL SIB-3, thre were 0 {de provisions egunng minimum amouns of bonded re {forcement tobe wed in member wth unbonded tendons, Minimaim bonged enforcement requirement fo embers ‘with unbondedfendens were inuoduced In ACT 318-71 In Section fof hie rep wl be shown tha the minim bonded reaforcemartrequiemens for members With un bonded tendons are comparabie to the minimum reinforce sent rquiemeats for reafoced concrete members ia Sevion 1D. of ACISIE95. Te the 1983 code, at upper init on the ara of rn forcement required Seton L883 war ntoctce permit ting a waiver ofthe L2 tines cracking load regent or ‘amber with shearand fexral strength a as ice ht required by Section 92." An upper imitof reinforcement “at Teast one bird greater than regured by analysis" has ap pared Section 10.5 since ACK 318-63, [5—-REVIEW OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CeB-FPp MODEL CODE FOR CONCRETE STRUCTURES ‘Te think and foo eons of the CED. FIP Model Code for Concrete Stractaet* contain simple, unified provisions forthe inimom rea lnisnareinforcsmen fren forced concrete and prestressed conree. These reque mens are follows or reinfored cones members: “922—BEAMS 92.2.1—Longtinareiforsment ‘A minioum aes of longitudinal bonded reinforcement ‘hook be provid to avo brite fire n case of wn foreseen lon of concrete tne strength. Commentary (Nees) ‘Wa speci stud snot eared out this respec the ‘area of longtudna ene bonded reinforcement 10 ded shouldbe teat then gual: = 0.0015 yar tect grades 400 (8.000 psi and $500 7250p) = 0.025 frst! gra $20 (31,900 pi whereby se aerag witha the concrete zone in ‘na T-beam if be neveral xis in he UES is focaed in ‘the flange the with of he later not tbe ita ‘count in evaluating, In the thet ofthe CEB-FIP Mose! Code (1978). ‘he 00015bq iter also applied to merbes reinforced ‘with pressing sels. The notes 10 the 1978 CEB-FIP ‘Mosel Cae on sb states that the minim enforcement reguiements for beans alo apis wo slabs Comparison of te 0.0013hd criteria fo the ess ofthe University of Ming test data for pestesod beams de- cased in Section 3 reveals that all members with this mount of bonded xinforcement had satisfactory mares between the measured vales of Mf, nd MaComparison ofthe minimum renfrcesent requirements ofthe CE FIP recommendations nd ACI 18-95 for IS infrce conerete beam design i presented nthe following section ofthis repo. 6—COMPARISON OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT "REQUIREMENTS FOR EXAMPLE REINFORCED. ‘CONCRETE BEAM DESIGNS ‘To peovie basso comparison of minimum reafore- ment provisions for now-prestessed members, 15 designs Sere prepare of varus applications, follows “Thee simple spa beams with paso 9, 15, and 20. 2. Five conleverT-eams with section depths ranging fom 2 sin 5. Five simple span Tears with th same section prope thes athe canever Tsbeams 4, Two rectangular cantlevers wit depts of 12 aod 36 in. Tn the process of preparation ofthese reiforced concrete beam designs, tas noted hat the CEB-FP imum ren forcement equvemeat appeared tbe deficient in some ex ¢s, For this reason, the propsed unified. ACK minimm ‘enforcement quirement (lor concrete svength of 400 si was increased about" dove te CEB-FP value, =- baling i the following eqaton Anan = 0.0206 The pater by was sein fee o be CEB-AP pre 1 sip he esaion posse “oinese heen senath, 0020 die ye Suresh nf wa aed oe ego ne Acran = 0.000092 7 bd ‘The shove equation reflect the ue of Grade nfo: ‘ment As dacused in een atle sain hardening can considered to he uly developed for reinforced coneee members with p'< 0253p, To uclde the rnfocemxat strength, the equation is mated by 90,00, the tense "tong of Grade 6 reinforcement, nd, esl stegth of winfrcemend is aded as a denominator tthe eatin: fe, Arn = nase Asa conservative approximation th equation sounded otto provide the following equation proposed for we 27 ACE ‘Toble 3 presenta comparison of minimum siforcemnt requienents wing the CED-FIPetera with wed wih or Dpthe ACTSI8.98 ete, andthe proposed ACL ete fr “Table $—Comparison of minimum reinforcement Fequirements: Example reinforced concrete beam designs Grade 60 reinforcement. The “proposed ACT” enforcement ates in Tables 3 and 4 are based on the equation = 0100032 FF bat “The we ofthe generalize, unified equation. Ji an = OSE. ‘would provide percent mre minimum seinfrcement han the vals shown in Tables 3 and “Table presents the resus of capsity calculations per- foxmed with compute program using ao linear mater properties. Considering ditional capcity availabe de 0 stain hardening, the proposed ACT equation values for mi- immu enforcement ae shown in Table 4 provide saislctry aio oF My My O My for each ofthe 15 designs. [Note that very high set sins are obtained inal ass ex: cept a few ofthe T-bam catilever designs with biherTable Example design capris conedringnatnar mae propertes and ain hardening an | Si app. | Ace “EN leo | see [Pie aera [ous ata ett pae te feeb {ior fi or “Patter atari sor Cpe tas ama aap ans Hess isomer ae ee ie Pipe tae tiie i iar Cate aise t Fae aoe ie Cig Cie Ca | tat ete ota eat atte to Pa oi [ awe for oer et) $a0—| ae ae ta mt T—CONSIDERATION OF CRACKING MOMENT IN ‘TERMS OF APPLIED LIVE LOAD Minimum enforcement requirments for prestressed ele mens are expressed in Socton [88.3 0 ACL 31899 in terms ‘ofthe cracking oud (actly 1.2 tmes the eacking Tou), Minas reinforcemeat equim or renfreed onset rmemers may ao be expressed intr th cackng load Inconsast othe legally specif ladgs inthe moeel ult ng odes, the cracking lea re independent te apis ‘ion, and are related only 1 the emer strength a the seston properties of the member under consideration. The racking loadsa also uneltd tothe strength requirements of Section 9. For pestesied concrete member the rocking oats ar fare complicated the abt vale of wervice eae stress selecte bythe designer byte eaive san lenis, and bythe selected tendon of ‘Asan ilsration of the ference between ely spec fied loads nd cracking loads, Table 5 resents theres ‘of 50 pl ive load required to pratuce cracking on thee inforced concrete beam design exanplssicusedin Se Yin 7. These ate assumed tobe simple spun beams with “amilever atone ed Concrete suength is taken st 4000 pi The ange ofthese multiples ofthe 80 pa lve load for aegatve moment (17 3i)rasesa question aso whether its resonable to consider the cracking moment of T-bean in design when he fangs isintension In any cas, cis apparent from these miles ‘hat the designe lop forthe eowsos of Seton 10.3 ‘of ACT 31895 in propononing reinforcement for these ‘Teams rater than the ankont required By the cracking ood This wil be the ase with mest T-heam designs with the flange in tension. Accordingly, for Teams the min mam enforcement reiremets of Seton 1053 of ACL 318.95 wl in armaoety of cases, requ that al enfrce- ‘ment be increased 1 the amount reqied by analysis ‘This comparison indicates haus of eaking loa crack ing moment cons the design of routine members, and is ot ested ro "members which for architectural o thet reasons, are much larger in eross section than seid by i ST Tea Wl A he TORT re Table 6 Multiples of 50 pt lve load required to produce crac ing in Beam ex Si Tepe reg WT Pe 3 strength consdoation” as nds in the Commentary © Section 105.1 in ACI 318-89, As disuse in the tion of his epot on he review of [ACL 318.95 Section 10.5, Seton 10 appears orequie renfrcemrat a least othr prea tan required frm analysis avery secon (postive an negtive) whenever ‘he requrenens of Section 105-1 and 1.5.2 are waived, ‘Section 105.3 does not say specifi tht ony the Mange reinforcemen need o be ineresed one-hit! when he re ‘quirements Seton 1052s waved ‘Noe thal T-beams ate cracked under pote dead oad ‘moment in ost ass Fo: ily reinforod T beans under postive manent, vibe cracking and deflection would ne ‘ssa esl under smal values of sperimposed londng. '8-COMPARISON OF REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 10.5 OF ACI 916-95, ‘WITH SECTION 18.8.2 OF ACI 310-69 Rectangular sections “The mininury bonded reinforcement for rectangular se ins with bonded tendons reqited by Section 18.9.2 can boexpresedas 0.002. Nott this vale exceed the ba se proposed minimum reinforcement equation in Section 6 (6100202 by he aio of hd. For member depths of 1 to ‘fee, width of 6 in anda dimension of ahs rom he bot of te section othe centerline ofthe elnercement Section 188.2 canbe compared with the minimunn renfexcerent requirements of a follows "A ited by Table 6, the proposed ACLnified equ io fina enercereat (0.020 bya) neal ident cl o Section 89.2, provides sulin reisfrcement 10 Tess he eracking moment of the lain covert secon (vith safety margin in rectangular mem pesresed trivoabonded tendons, The ference between ACI 318-95 Fesuiements for rectangular sections and Secion 1892 (or Proposed ACI nifid equremens) resus eimai fom the iacursy involved inthe us ofthe single valu of 32 the muir in Equation (10-3) in ACT 318-95 for bot rectangular sections and Teams withthe Cane i com pression. A mutipier of about i suiciem to sais the racking moment equirement for rectangular ston For ember ith urbonded tendon nd span depth ratio of 5 or less, te ACI 318-89 sess in uabonded tx hone 3 desi loads = 600 ps take Gye = far 10000 «34 imp, Based on p= 20012, the increas of ses from service load 0 desig Toad fora concrete sent of 500 ps is 51/67 pi Estimating the Sues in he unboned tendons at ‘service na of 060 f= 162,00 ps, the stress neeas at de- Sign lod x 32 percent. The combination of bonded rcn- forcenent suet to provide a margin against the cracking Joad ofthe plain concrete seston, anda 32 pact increase Inthe ses nthe unbonded tendons after racking obv0ws- |y pondes a member with substantial maria epacity reltiv tthe racking oad Teams ‘ cnparison of bonded enforcement reuirements for sir ster of T-beams with unbodd tenons based 00 Section 18.912 andthe requirements of ACL 31895 is pe seme in Tables 7 and 8. These tabulations ae bas on he folowing parameters and tei: fo = ep ia (05.01.20 (elosest value) slabwidth = 16 where = sb ticks 4 0044, where A = are of hat pt of te " ross section between the flexural tension face and ceter of gravity of gross section, “Tabe8 indicts thatthe bonded reinforcenet provided ty 1892 foe Theams ie approximately og to te in mom amount required by ACI 518-98 for ron prestressed ‘bean In view of theses increase in unbonded tendons from mrvieo desig oud a dseused in eerence rect Angular setons above, T-beam enforced with anbonded tendors, and bonded reinforcement in acordnce wih Sec- tion 1592, provide sustantalmursios of sty agaist the ‘racking moment, In hs regan, T-beams vith unbooded ‘endovs withthe ange in tesion provide the ll Me, cpa ‘iy, whereas the minimum reinforemen for conventionally reinforced Teams withthe Mange in tension is ony r= ‘Table 6—Comparison of reinforcement provided by Section 18.2 and minimum reinforcement Feulres by ACI 318-95 for rectangular sections est jean | te oo ‘Table 7—T.boam section properties for Tomparatve designe Sm |e | Pit [age ge ete Be ae Ea i ae Hi ‘Table 8—Cemparison of Section 18.92 Teinforcoment requirements for T-beams with ACI 18-85. aga a rerT6 357 — senyoe Comte conete_ toe oe He) ae] ta} rr quired to provide 1, My, A indicated by eitored con free Team exarpes with the flange in tension (Section 6) the 1, M, reinforcement requirements ar much less than the Mf, séinforcement equrement, and wil teefore be bse for ost designs. Accordingly, T-beans with ur bonded tends wil be th only T- beams designed in csr ance with ACL3I8 cde provisions with both positive aad egntive moment capacity in exces ofthe cracks moment Conclusions ‘nthe ha ofthe above discussion, th bond enforce mca egurenens of Sexton 1492 for resample Beas fn Tear wih ubonded tndoas equals or exceeds he tnd einfrcerent eid to resist the cracking nome ofthe plan coneret ection with a marino sft. Tn cn junction with he capacity provided by anode endo tondod presresed membert despned in accrdance wih ‘ACLS eegurementinberenty provide a satcory mae in of fleira capacity beyond ih cracking moment. 9—REVEW OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PRECAST, PRESTRESSED ‘CONCRETE ELEMENTS. Development of general equation for minimum ‘eintorgoment for pretensioned members and Bonded posttenstonee members “Cimporive ses of minum enforcement rei ments for nnpresiressed members sb well a for pre ‘one meters and bonded pest tensioned menbers inthis ‘report ae tae on te following equation:om0»,d As for nonpesesed member he fonts maybe gon colnet che he once sent by dividing by the ‘Square oot of 4000 sad sing follows ve = 0.000082 [77 by “Tse comparative sues iste that this equation pro es satisfactory minim reinforcement values fr mom ‘bes enforced with 270 ks stand owever, 250i tnd may sl be used in some cases for pretnsioned member, ‘nd bars wih tensile stength of 150s to 160 sl te some. times used for bonded postenionel members, Stand with tensile sent of 300s alo valle, To make the pro posed minimum enforcement equation for mesnbers with bonded pesessing see apical othe range of cin foycemen strengths avaiable the oqution i malig by 270000, fy the deneinato. Ths provides As nthe case ofthe formula for nonpresessed members, the formula proposed for considers for members with bonded prestressed seiaercement inthe ACI Codes ound odupe The change ofthe mupie from £46410 9.0jnceases the ‘mii reiaoreement percent ave the values tbl «fr preensioned and bonded post-enskoned member easing the tabulated safety earns with respec to the cracking moment by 4 percent Minimum reinforcement requirements for pretensioned double ee “Alcona the proposed 0.00082 [7 minum focement cites the sanded dae esse feat eto of PCI Handook sad Table 9. Fer positive manent the range of $/fy to 113 138 te faa s cone ar nada ate fa. tr the geo Mi 1.8 In gener te wea sf pesesing tel essa om he stove sgution ap froumty equal ores ane sales Sand ae {town orth oul we seston inte Pt Hand. Ac Coming doubles will tbe ed with ah aout of Teinforenet a salt obtain Nom the roped [ACL equation. However, iis ape atthe posed uation provides an adequate anrt of riafocmen fret ule ate ine of acing As shown nip 3, IB ain of say etween yay fer he TOD TS scton nsease a be vale fp ingeats svete po ved minim value Te sue ane ease Fi. Application of propoed minim reinforcement entra prea ODT ec Table 8—Minimum reinforcement requirements for precast double tees, ~Foiversne [Rare Ia Sue eet om iors ware rat Store one pe pare ete ‘aid when the moun of pressing ie icrested above ‘he minimum value foe oe standard yecast sections ‘As discussed in previous setons of this report its wot ‘economically Teuible or reasonable to pombe reinforce ‘ment fr the cracking moment for Tetons with he Range ‘tension, Fortes easons, enforcement fr cnilevered“Tsetons is based on the amount eqied provide capa: ity of 133M, Since Tetons and oer cailevered ye st ston re more often enforced or nepalive moet by use of defonned reinforcement ate than presresing Stel is proposed dhl precast cantilevers ave capacity (f T33My Review of Table 10 reveals that very small mount of nonpresuesed reinforcement stil he 133M, ‘eauitemen Accordingly, thee is lite economic penal Involved in providing 132M, capacity for precast sections. Minimum reinforcement requirements fo other ‘Standard precast sections. ia “Te euler of application of the 0.000032 7 bya ein ‘um einforcement ceria standard precast sections in the PCI Handbook, other than doble tes, strated in “Table 10, Te proposed mia amount of prestressed inforeement s est han the minim snouts shown athe PPC Hanaook inal at one case (F98 in Table 10) The val tes of Uf te all argc han 10. Due tothe sallow pik and smal valve of, forbolow core products, value of}, eq to neal of the section wis arbitrary pro posed fr use Egontion (18-6) foe hollow core prods Iso for shape ad inverted T-shaped ledger beans he ange or T widh wos ured in eseuing the iim re twforement vale Table 10. Conclusions Tn summary. the minum reinforcement of standard poe cst seston defected in Tables 9 and 0s considered 0 te sasfatry, The final form of he equation proposed for the ACI Code fe pretensioned member and past ensioned embers with bonded enforcement (as discussed in prev ‘vs sections) provides 4 percent more capacity tha the val tes in Tables 9 and 10. Additional safety is provided in amilevers shove te 133M, values de to stain hardening tf bonded deformed reinforcement 10—REVIEW OF MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT ‘REQUIREMENTS FOR POST-TENSIONED MEMBERS WITH BONDED TENDONS. Jn Seton 9, an equi i developed for be minima wou of preressing tel in preeasioned members and postterstoned member with bonded tendons. Asinthe case [St pctensioned member, comparison of minimum Bonded reinorerent for banded osttensioned members inthis ‘Sst are Based onthe esation: Banu = 0.00022, ]F2 For S00 ps concrete, this formula provides a enforce net tio of 0.226 perce “Te esearch on pot enone beams atthe Unvesiy f lois evened in Section 3 demons he! posttrsoned tens with bonded tendon and eaereren ras sow 8 (101 and 0.107 peceincresed afer rng. There as 0 Tos of lad capacity a the me of cacing for any ofthe 67 teams with bonded pestesting Soe! or boned einercement inthe Usivernty of nos ets The wa so a substan ltmount fdfeston fer cracking foal ofthese beans. On “Table 10—Minimum reinforcement requirements {or standard precast sections ce [epost [a | saat aso] 7st ‘Stocmanmmnoceenstenct ‘Table 11—University of llinls tests of bonded posttensioned membrs wit low Fenforeement me ewer | FR | me | te ovat aur —[ ae} at coe [ae | — aoe she bss his reser he ropsed ACT tn ti tho ecgaar eas Take pois asuaray of ght is mt Univesity of Mies of Bonded ‘etn pst ensined meres with ow eafrceet ‘wal ch ower thn he rpossd 0296 perce). “Te eae of ppt of he OO00IS2 yd ne sin to four rctngulr bonded mst tensioned beans and ‘wo bonied postensone beans (all une posite mo ten) we prsesedin Table 12. erat of 9 fre ‘Reng beams range om 370047, andhe ats MUM forthe bears ars Sand 115. Cone enh ‘so pa and 270000 pi sven wire, relaxation Sond woe ed fortes cranes “Theat pos tensioning fore equ in the Tes examples in Tale 12 were mo larger th the minor Snfreenet povided by he popes AC etn. For Example tbe dein poston force was 728473 Thaw compre 242,190 pied byte proposed ACL txon fr minimum reinforcement. For Example $32,‘Table 12—Comparison of proposed ACI minimum reinforcement and eracking moment for post. tensioned beams with bonded reinforcement eT scat | sae | nt he design pos esioning force was 338,70 fb 8 compared ‘0 187,960 Ib provided by the proposed ACI equation. Ex ample 552 was fora T-beam wih unbonded tendons. so boned rebar was povided in accordance wih Section 18.9.2. Asin the ease of peca, pretension ecto the mount of post-eaioning ts se in protic design wl enrally be much reat hn the minima anount of ee ‘etrmined by the propored ACL euion 's discussed in previous sections of hs report, it snot ‘considered economy Teanibe to provide inforement ‘or the racking momento tail deterinale poston sloned T-beams with boaed tendons when te fange isn tension, As inthe ease of precast prestesedT-beus is ‘ropoed that reinforcement fr ssl determinant pos ‘ensioned, bonded T Sens ith he lang n son bed. Slane for 133M, 11— COMPARISON OF miNIMUM, REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR, REINFORCED CONCRETE FLAT PLATES AND PRESTRESSED FLAT PLATES. Enisng Secuon 108-3 (ACI 18-8) andthe revision of this section in Seton 1054 of ACT SI8-89 ste: “Tor stra slabs of uniform thickness nium ate at ‘maximum spacing of einorcement nthe dtection of te ‘pan shal be as eques for shrinkage and fermpertre ¢onding 07.12" The commentary to Section 10.53 states “The minimum reinforcement egured for slabs is some: what less than shat required Tor beams since tn vero ‘would be distbuted lately an sudden faire woul be tes ikl." bint ACLASCE Commitee 42's pot, Recommend tions for Concrete Members Presered with Unbonded Tendons. 1983 and 1989 eons," Section 33.2 Limits for Reinforcement iaclade the following recommendation and discussion concerning application of Seton 188. 0 two-way posetesioned sysers with untonded tendons 132—Limits for reinforcement: tis eecommended that Commitee 318 waive the reuitement of Section 1883 of ACI 318 fora total amount of prestessed td nonprestessed reinforcement sufficient 10 develop 12 times the cracking load for tworway postiensioned 8 ‘ems with unbonded tendons. Due to the recy lites amount and extent of the iil ercking inthe negative moment region near column of two-nay fa plats Joad-efection pattems dont reflect any abrupt change stfoes a his pint in be loading histor, ‘Only ac lo levels beyond the design (tore) lds is the addtional cracking extensive enough ease an abt ‘hang inthe lad defection patter. Tetsave aso shown that ts not posible wo pare (r even yield) unbonded ostensioning tendons n two-way slab pcr oe punching shear fore. The use of unboeded tendon in conbnation with te minimum bonded reinforcement equirements of Section 18 9.3and 189:40f ACI 318 hasten shown toa sure psccrackng ductility and tht «brite file move will nt develop at irst racking Sestion 18.124 of ACT 31889 requires iio PIA for lb syste of 125 ps, or 125 percent othe sinkage ad temperature reinforcement eeuiremert (te Basis for ‘minimum reinforcement in convention fat plats). Sex ins 18.9.2 and 18.9.3. include minim boned ei Fowcement requirements in postive and wegative maser areas. especavely, of two-way Mal pats. in consideration of the etmmendion of join ACL-ASCE Commitee 423 quoted above, the exception _rated oconvetionaly enforced sla i Sesion 105.3 ‘oF ACL 31889 andin ACT 318-95 Seaton 10.54 a5 well ‘he minimum reinforcement segirements for pressed slabs in Sections 1.124 189.32 od 18.933.4 waiver of ‘ny other minimum reinforcement requires i consi ‘redo be waraned for presse at plates, 12 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNIFIED MINIMUM FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS. Generat The discussion in previous ston ofthis study inate ‘hat unified minima Mexerat enforcement requitements for nonprestessed and presuessed cocretsiembes are erally feasbeon the bast ofthe following equation: Acai = 0.00206, Exceptions tots equation ae nscessary fr sail de- termina T-bcas wth the flange inten, for stars Sls of uniform thickness and for membec prestesed with ubonded tendoas. Appian af dscesons in pre ‘ons section ofthis stay esl in the following eset ‘fe, minimum Aexra reinforcement pvsons for re inforced and pestesedconiete memes, Minimum flexural reinforcement for reinforced {concrete members (revision of Section 10.5 of ACI Stas) Minimum exoralrenfrcement provisions for enforced camcrete members resoking fan ths ty ae proposed as folows Section 10.5 (AC131895)-Notaion Armia = misimom area of nonprestessd reinforce ment 9 in by = Me wid in, The average web width shallbe wid for webs wth slope sides, ‘inimam tensile Sueagth of tonpestvesed ‘einoremen, ps fu = Secin 195.1 (AC1 31895) ‘Acovey section of lesural member where tsi en forceent i rouired by analysis, except as proved 105.2 tnd 19.53, he area of aonprsressed reinfrcerent provid Usha ot be les than required by 92 and 3, nr that gv by Bquaion (10-3, sllina 4 03) ‘Sec 105 2(ACI 31895) Fora sally dteoinate Teton with tbe Mange in tenia, he requirements of 105.1 shall be waited and infoement provided stl nthe les than equied 0 ide capac of 133 My Section 103.3 (ACI3I8-95) Forstractrllabs and footings of uriform tikes, tbe ‘niin area of esl eiforcement in the direction othe Span hl ete sume a eqired by 7.12 Maximum spac ing the eenfrcement shall nat exceod hres times the thilaeso 1 in Mininum flexural reinforcement requirements for eased concrete members (revision 3 "8.0.9 of ACI 318-95) ‘Minimam flexural enforcement provisions for p= sree concrete members resling rom his ly are pro pose as folows: Secon 188.3 (ACT3I8-95) “The ttl amount of prestressed and no-prestessed en forcement shal be not ese than required by 92 and 9.3, nor the amounts specified im 188.31, 18832, 188.33, and 18854, The geld suength of deformed bar enforcement sed sats the requirement ofthis section shal not be Tess tan 60,000 pi Section 18 8.3.1 (ACT 31898) Except as provided in 188.32, the ara of longitudinal tenle restessing sel in preteasiond members, and in posttenioned members with bonded endo, sal not be Fes thant given by Exton (18-5) 036) web width For webs with sloped ides the aver ‘age id sall be oped. (Nove: Subsequent equations in CChipter 18 tobe renumbered). For pretnsoned L-shaped and inverted T shige ledger teams the Flange wit Shall, teed for fy, for pstnoned follow core pends ‘i shal be tk a one af the width ofthe Seton, Section 188.12 (ACT318-95) Forstatialy determinant pretensinedorbondedpost-en sioned T-beams wih the Mange in tension the reuiemens (of 168.31 shall be waved, ad reinforcement shal tbe Jes thi equredo provide capacity of 138M, Minimam reinforcement reired by Equation (18:6 for ther preter Sioned, cantilevered cross sections shale wavedifatevery Seton ofthe catlever,pestessed andlor nmprestessed reinforcement sot ss than equired provide capacity of 133M, Section 188.33 (C1 31895) Tor posttenscned beams, Teams, or one-way slabs with nbonded teadone te ares of presressng sel and faxmed bar enfcement shall be at les tha required by 18.42, and 18.9.2 respetvely (Not: Section 18.92 alo to be revised ore eof Gide 0 enforcemen). Section 188.34 (ACI3IS.95) For post tensioned at pits with unboaded tendons, the sexof longitudinal pestessng sel and deformed bari {oreement in echo hal ot bees than required by 18.124, 189.32.and 189.33. (Now: 189.32 and 18933 to be revised to gue use of Grade 60 rinercernend, REFERENCES | ole MS € sand Newer NM, Cond Dem sem fini omen! Tarver. Seng ie Pe of ela Ute Pe ‘Pens reel Bsns, ey lina ep. 380 {Ce rl roc Se, on 9h "ACE ASCE ones 2, Recent or Conte Membre 7 ACEASCE Coa 3, Reeds fr Cone Menor Zan eid in Us of hel ape ‘RE RAE ARSA n eey ibemc wa ‘Authorized reprint from: July-August 1997 issue of AGL Structural Journal