Summary Paper
Exceptions of Precast
Prestressed Concrete
Members to Minimum
Reinforcement Requirements
by
S. K. Ghosh
Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
74
CONTENTS
Synopsis................................................76
Scopeof Research ....................................... 77
Organizationof Research ................................. 77
1. Shear Reinforcement Requirements for
Precast Prestressed Double Tee Members ............... 78
Overview of Investigation
ACI Code Requirements
Load Tests
--- Performance Record
Conclusions and Recommendations
References.............................................. 90
75
SYNOPSIS
This summary paper presents an
overview of PCISFRAD Project No. 2,
"Exceptions of Precast, Prestressed
Members to Minimum Reinforcement
Requirements (of American Concrete
Institute Standard ACI 318-83)."
The objectives of this project were
t6 (1) determine provisions in the ACI
Building Code which require excessive minimum reinforcement and (2)
compile an experience record and
recommend appropriate testing to justify modification of these provisions.
To make the study more meaningful, an extensive industry survey of
practice among American and Canadian precast producers was undertaken and subsequently analyzed.
The major focus of the investigation
was on mass produced precast prestressed concrete members. In par-
76
SCOPE OF RESEARCH
The scope of this investigation' was to
study the provisions of the AC! Code
(ACI 318-83)2 as related to reinforcement requirements of precast prestressed concrete members and to recommend appropriate changes and/or
additions in these provisions.
The investigation was concerned primarily with mass produced elements
such as double tees, rather than on usuall y custom made elements such as
spandrel beams. All post-tensioned construction was excluded from the scope of
this research. However, precast nonprestressed or nominally prestressed concrete components such as wall panels
were included. Composite precast,
cast-in-place construction was also a part
ofthis investigation.
Table 1 summarizes the survey results
of the performance of double tees. Tables 2 through 5 list the minimum reinforcement requirements and related
provisions of the ACI Code 2 for prestressed concrete flexural members,
prestressed concrete slabs, precast concrete walls, and prestressed concrete
columns, respectively. Close examination of the listed provisions formed a
major part of the research.
ORGANIZATION OF RESEARCH
Research carried out under this project was focused on the following topics:
1. Shear reinforcement requirements
for precast prestressed double tee members.
2. Development length of prestressing strands, including debonded
strands, and allowable concrete stresses
in pretensioned members.
3. Minimum reinforcement requirements for prestressed concrete flexural
members.
4. Minimum reinforcement requirements for precast wall panels.
PCI JOURNALNovember-December 1986
80
f"
(1)
b1
(2)
in which
Aps = cross-sectional area of pre-
stressing steel
b,. = web width
d = effective depth (need not be
less than 80 percent of total
depth)
"U = ultimate tensile strength ofprestressing steel
The tests generally showed that flexural failure preceded shear failure even
in double tees that did not conform with
the minimum shear reinforcement requirements of the Code.
Performance Record
The survey questionnaire from the
authors to precasters included one
question concerning the performance of
double tees not containing the Coderequired minimum shear reinforcement.
The responses, summarized in Table 1,
show that the second, third and fourth
Iargest producers responding to the survey produce 100, 95, and 80 percent of
their double tees without shear reinforcement. None of them report any significant shear cracking or other distress
in their products.
Table 1 lists only 34 precast manufacturers who responded, at least partially, to the investigators' question
about production volume. The table indicates that over 8 million sq 11(740,000
m2 ) odouble tees without Code-required
minimum web reinforcement are produced annually by the 34 manufacturers, and that the same producers have
manufactured (until 1984) nearly 100
million sq ft (9,000,000 m2 ) of such double tees that are in service today.
The performance of these double tees
has been satisfactory, as can be seen
quite clearly from Table 1. Since there
are nearly 400 precast manufacturers in
the United States and Canada, the volume of double tees without minimum
reinforcement in satisfactory service
today is probably several hundred million square feet.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In view of the evidence accumulated
as a result of the investigation described, the following Code change
proposal appears to be warranted:
1. Add item (d) to the existing Section
11.5.5.1 to read as follows: "(d) Simply
supported precast, prestressed double
79
Table 1. Summary results of industry surveyPerformance record of doub'e tees without code required minimum reinforcement.
Respun
dent
number
A5
Annual
produetion,
sq ft
Percent
without
Shear
reinkrrcement
250,00(1
Year
started
producing
Total
=xrtluetion
up to 1984,
sq li
Total
production
without
web reinforcement.
sq p
Al0
300.000
A15'
400,000
to
A20
A25
A35
720,000
240,000
1.000,000
0
0
A40
A45
A55
150,000
40,000
A60
A70
A75f
400,00(1
200,000
290.000
ASO
14,000
21)0,(00
150,000
800,000
75,000
A90
A95
AICX)
A105
Annual
pnaduction
without
web reinfOreement,
sq ft
Severe
l
Failures
c'
40,0(1(1
1959
1.0,000,000
1954
1979
2,980,000
G,000,000
600,000
so
800,000
1954
1,200,011(1
30,000,000
24,000.0(0
70
5(1
0
105,000
20,0110
1970
?
300,000
250,000
1980
(1
5^
0
Never
0
Never
0
Never
1960
1980
1960
4,000,000
1,000,000
4,300,000
1955
4,01)0,000
Minor'
amount
0
0
0
1.968
2,0(11,000
2,5(10,000
p
,
8,700
129,0(1.1
Negligible
11
.5"
Comments
Onlyatsomebearing
plates No shear
cracking
I
3*
Intermediate
(1
0
0
0
0
0
Only when V$ <V,/2
""5% of total; 35% of
lightweight concrete
"Most due to form
expansionorend hearing
stresses (not shear)
x+
x**
AllO
200,000
Al12
200.(XX)
Al20
A130
198,0(X)
850,000
A140
A150
A155
400,0011
400,000
.300,000
A160
3,000.00()
100*
Al65
2,500,000
95
Alh0
5,((00,(4)0
A185
A195
A187
C15
C2)1
C25
280,000
700,000
500,0(H)
250,000
10,00
80,000
400,0(10
Very
little
75
0
5
Tc t; l
20,497,000
A190
ED
100*
0
fl() +
10
100
U
0
0
99
1955
3.800,000
200,000
1974
2,000,(K)0
2,000,080
765,000
1952
1956
3,500,0110
12,500,0011
l 1,250,000
1967
1983
1983
7,000,000
600,000
400,000
700,000
600,00()
1975
18,000.0(1(1
18,000,000
1957
38,000,4)01)
36,100,000
1*
40,000
400.000
3.000.0(X)
2,375,(K)u
x*'
--25*
'AII
25,00
1969
1958
1979
3,800,000
16,1100,00(1
2,500,000
300,000
1964
1956
r
2,850.0011
2.821.504)
181,430.0((1
99,425.50))
210,000
8,384,7(X)
2,850,000
125,000
5-10'
Rarely
Early experience led us to always provide stirrups. Allowable waiver in ACI Section 11.5.5.2 seldom includes sufficiently "realistic assessment" of settlement, creep,
shrinkage, temperature and other wrstipulated events.
Hairline cracks often present when lightweight mix is used.
Infrequent occurrences, not expressible as a percentage.
Note: 14 producers manufacture part of their double tees without web reinforcement. Annually, they produce 8,384,700 sq ft (= 41% of present production by 34
responding producers) without web reinforcing. These same 14 producers have manufactured about 100,(1(10,000 sq ft of double tees without web reinforeement (to
1984).
Metric (Sl) conversion factors: I ft = 0.3048 in = 304.8 mm; 1 in. = 25.4 min; 1 sq ft = 0.7929 nm?
tee roof or floor members supporting or- for splitting forces. The use of continuity
dinary interior occupancy, such as of- or substantial cantilevers at one or both
fice, residential, passenger car parking ends of a beam or the presence of mod(excluding roofs on which significant erate to heavy concentrated loads can
snow accumulation can be expected), or increase shear requirements; such situretail uses, and loaded in an essentially ations are excluded from the waiver.
uniform manner, excluding one-tenth of Certain parking garage roof decks are
the span length or 5 ft (1.5 rn), which- also excluded from the waiver because
ever is smaller, at either end."
they are subject to special loading from
2. Replace the last two sentences of snow removal equipment, snow drifts,
the first paragraph of the Commentary" etc. Double tee members supporting ordinary interior occupancy would noron Section 11.5.5 to read as follows:
"Four types of members are excluded mally be those designed for live load
from the minimum shear reinforcement intensities not exceeding 125 psf (6.0
requirement: slabs and footings; floor kPa).* Also, when a member is subjoists; wide shallow beams; and simply jected to concentrated loads not consupported precast prestressed double tributing more than 10 percent of the
tee roof or floor members (middle 80 required shear strength at the critipercent of span only). Slabs, footings cal section(s), the member may still
and joists are excluded because there is be considered as essentially uniforma possibility of load sharing between ly loaded."
The author would like to further recweak and strong areas. Precast prestressed double tees are excluded be- ommend that the precast concrete incause numerous load tests have shown dustry consider sponsoring tests of douconclusively that the required ultimate ble tees subjected to variable loads repflexural and shear strengths can be de- resentative of those encountered in
veloped in such members when heavy storage decks, as well as reminimum shear reinforcement as re- petitive loads such as those experienced
quired by Section 11,5.5.1 is omitted. in manufacturing facilities. Such tests
There is also a long record of satisfactory are needed before a waiver of minimum
performance in service of double tees reinforcement requirements for double
not comforming with the minimum tees used in applications, such as those
shear reinforcement requirement of mentioned, can be sought.
Section 11.5.5.1. End shear reinforcement is necessary to guard against acci- *The reference number obviously will have to
dental damage that can occur during change when the suggested part of the paragraph is
fabrication and handling, and to account inserted into the Commentary to the ACI Code.
82
jf, (0.6,j7))
83
f,
85
tored load and cracking load, the proposed modified provision is in terms of
flexural strength and cracking moment.
It is hoped that this change would add to
the clarity of the provision. If all references to shear strength are removed,
there would no longer be any need to
phrase it in terms of loads anyway.
The minimum reinforcement requirements of the ACI Code for reinforced concrete walls, including precast
wall panels, were reviewed in this part
of the investigation. 1,23 Wall panels
were categorized into three groups: unreinforced panels (Level 1 walls), walls
that are designable by the empirical design procedure of Chapter 14 of the
Code (Level 2 walls), and walls that
must be designed as compression members by Chapter 10 (Level 3 walls).
Certain differences between precast
and cast-in-place walls, that have a
bearing on minimum reinforcement requirements for walls, were pointed out.
It was also shown that as a result of successful experience with a longstanding
practice by many precast manufacturers
of using lesser amounts of reinforcement
in precast walls than is required by the
ACI Code provisions, the PCI Committee on Precast Concrete Bearing Wall
Buildings has recommended Z4 the use of
a minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.001
(0.1 percent) for both vertical and horizontal wall reinforcement.
Spacing of this reinforcement is not to
exceed 30 in. (760 mm) for interior walls
or 18 in, (460 mm) for exterior walls.
Also, PC1's Manual for Structural Design of Architectural Precast Concrete"
makes the same recommendations for
minimum wall reinforcement based on
years of successful use of precast panels
86
The 225 psi (1.6 MPa) effective prestress limit of the ACI Codez that divides prestressed concrete walls and
columns from those that are considered
nonprestressed was critically examined
in this part of the investigation.' 26 It was
shown that the strength capabilities of a
wall containing the minimum vertical
reinforcement required by the Code are
more than matched by those of a wall
with an effective prestress level of 100
PCI JOURNALiNovember-December 1986
88
f,
This part of the investigation considered the various types of composite precast/cast-in-place concrete flexural
members in use in the construction industry today, and certain aspects of their
design.' 27 The ACI Code2 provisions
governing the transfer of horizontal
shear stresses across the interface between the precast and cast-in-place portions of such members were reviewed.
Interpretations of these provisions were
developed, and certain modifications
suggested.
Recommendations
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to acknowledge
the most valuable contributions of -Mark
F'intel, consulting structural engineer,
Chicago, Illinois.
89
REFERENCES
1. Ghosh, S. K., and Fintel, M., "Exceptions
of Precast, Prestressed Members to
Minimum Reinforcement Requirements
(of American Concrete Institute Standard
ACI 318-83)," PCISFRAD Project No. 2,
Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago,
Illinois, 1986, 204 pp.
2. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code
Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
(ACT 318-83)," American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1983, 111 pp.
3. Ghosh, S. K., "Summary of Responses to
a Questionnaire on Minimum Reinforcement Requirements for Prestressed
Concrete Members," PCI JOURNAL, V.
31, No. 6, November-December 1986,
pp. 92-123.
4. Ghosh, S. K., "Shear Reinforcement Requirements for Precast Prestressed
Double-Tee Members," Accepted for
publication in the AC! journal.
5. "Elimination of Shear Reinforcement in
Prestressed Double Tees: Final Test Results Report," Engineering Department,
Stanley Structures, Denver, Colorado,
February 1977 (Second Printing, 1981).
6. ACI Committee 318, "Commentary on
Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACT 318R-83)," American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1983, 155 pp.
7. "American National Standard Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures (ANSI A58.1-1982)," American National Standards Institute, New
York, N.Y., 1982, 100 pp.
8. Chosh, S. K., and Fintel, -M., "Development Length of Prestressing Strands, Including Debonded Strands, and Allowable Concrete Stresses in Pretensioned
Members," PCI JOURNAL, V. 31, No. 5,
September-October 1986, pp. 38-57.
9. Janney, J. R., "Nature of Bond in PreTensioned Prestressed Concrete," ACI
Jou rn al, Proceedings V. 50, No. 9, May
1954, pp. 7)7-736. Also PCA Development Department Bulletin D2.
10. Janney, J. R., Hognestad, E., and
McHenry, D., `Ultimate Flexural
Strength of Prestressed and Conventionally Reinforced Concrete Beams," ACI
Journal, Proceedings V. 52, No. 6, February 1956, pp. 601-620. Also PCA Development Department Bulletin D7.
til]
91