Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Fw: 60,000 psi limit on Reinforceing bars

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Michael:

I am unclear as to the basis for you statement that fy cannot exceed 60
ksi.  Doesn't Section 21.2.5.1 cover this (see below)?

Also, the original post that started this discussion led me to believe that
the gentlemen DID have the mill certificates, and that was the reason for
his question.  As I understood it, he was asking basically whether he could
use the steel with a higher than 60ksi yield point, to which I would answer
yes of course.  As to whether he would use 60ksi in his calculations, I
guess there are differing opinions, though.  But this brings up another
point: if a designer knew from experience that the steel in his area had
ultimate tensile stress capacities of up to 95ksi, would he be wise to
assume 1.25*60=75ksi for computing ultimate flexural capacities?  Strictly
using the code, this is all that would be required, right?  But I would say
it is not in his best interest to take the code at face value, when he has
evidence that it does not apply in his particular situation.

Pehaps you are looking at it from a case where, say, someone wanted to use
Grade 75 instead of 60?  If so, then I would agree that the code prohibits
such a course of action.

T. Eric Gillham PE

----------
> From: Michael Valley <mtv(--nospam--at)skilling.com>
> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
> Subject: Re: 60,000 psi limit on Reinforceing bars
> Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 10:27 AM
> 
> I agree.  When performing checks on existing structures, the actual 
> yield stress can and should be taken into account.  However, for 
> design of new structures, the code is quite clear: the nominal yield 
> strength of reinforcement for seismic design cannot exceed 60 ksi.  
> The mill certificates are not available during the design and the 
> designer must use A706 or A615 reinforcement (and the nominal yield 
> values found in the ASTM standard).  Thus, where ACI 318 is the basis 
> for NEW DESIGN, this limit must be obeyed.
> 
> T. Eric Gillham wrote:
> > Thought I would throw in my 2 cents:
> > 
> > ACI 318-89 (revised 1992):
> > 
> > Section 3.5.3.2 - Deformed reinforcing bars with a specified yield
strength
> > fy exceeding 60,000 psi shall be permitted, provided fy shall be the
stress
> > corresponding to a strain of 0.35 percent and the bars otherwise
conform to
> > one of the ASTM specifications listed in 3.5.3.1.
> > 
> > Section 21.2.5.1 - Reinforcement resisting earthquake-induced flexural
and
> > axial forces in frame members and in wall boudary elements shall comply
> > with ASTM A 706.  ASTM A 615 Grades 40 and 60 reinforcement area
allowed in
> > these members if (a) the actual yield strength based on mill tests does
not
> > exceed the specified yield strength by more than 18,000 psi...(b) the
ratio  <--------------*************
> > of the actual ultimate tensile stress to the actual tensile yield
strength
> > is not less than 1.25.
> > 
> > 
> > >From these two sections, it would appear that the ACI does NOT limit
the
> > bar yield strength to 60ksi.  In the course of evaluating a number of
> > existing structures, and reading a lot of literature on evaluation,
most
> > reinforcement I have seen yields at around 65ksi, and ultimate tensile
> > strength is somewhere around 95ksi.  When this is the case, it becomes
a
> > matter of using the actual (average) yield and ultimate tensile
strengths
> > for any calculations, including bond strength.  I agree that the
> > stress-strain curves for the steel will need to be checked in order to
> > lessen the possibility of fracture.  My point is that you are unlikely
to
> > get rebar with a yield strength of EXACTLY 60ksi, so don't sweat it if
it
> > is higher.  Just account for it in any checks you are making. 
> > 
> > On the other hand, there ARE some requirements in the ACI that limit
the
> > yield strength when running check equations (e.g. shear friction). 
This
> > would appear to me to be added safety factor, and in these cases it
would
> > be appropriate to assume 60ksi even if you have 65ksi.  But for seismic
> > calculations, I try to always use the mill certificates to determine my
> > assumed fy and fu.
> > 
> > T. Eric Gillham PE
> >  
> > ----------
> > > From: ALEX C. NACIONALES <anacio(--nospam--at)skyinet.net>
> > > To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
> > > Subject: Re: 60,000 psi limit on Reinforceing bars
> > > Date: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 6:56 AM
> > > 
> > > Dear Michael,
> > > 
> > > Thank you for your response. I have a follow up question.
> > > 1. Using higher strength concrete would increse bond srength would it
> > not?
> > > 2. Is not posssible or practical to manufacture 100,000 psi or more
> > > reinforcing steel with  adequte ductility as required by code.
> > > 
> > > I agree with you on the possible brittle failure of high strength
steel.
> > > 
> > > Thanks again. I hope you have a nice week a head
> > > 
> > > Alex C. Nacionales, C.E.
> > > A.C. Nacionales Construction
> > > Iloilo City, Philippines
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael Valley <mtv(--nospam--at)skilling.com>
> > > To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
> > > Date: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 3:06 PM
> > > Subject: Re: 60,000 psi limit on Reinforceing bars
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The Code imposes the same limit on yield strength for reinforcement
> > > (in seismic applications) regardless of the concrete compression
> > > strength.  Again, the concern is assuring ductile response.  There
> > > are at least two potential ductility problems with higher strength
> > > reinforcement:
> > > 1) The wrong limit state (bond failure) controls.
> > > 2) The reinforcing steel lacks adequate ductility at the material
> > > level.  This is why material satifying ASTM A706 or A615 (with
> > > additional requirements) is specified in the Code.
> > > 
> > > Internationally, some have used LOWER strength reinforcement to
> > > acheive higher levels of ductility in R/C response.
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 20 Jun 1998 13:04:50, Alex Nacionales wrote:
> > > > What if  I  use 5000 psi or even 7000 psi
> > > > concrete?
> > > >
> > > > Alex C. Nacionales, C.E.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Michael Valley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 04:47:18, Alex C.
> > > > > Nacionales wrote:
> > > > > > I do not understand the 60,000 psi  yield
> > > > > point
> > > > > > limit on the concrete  reinforcing bars.
> > > > > > Can some please give me a reason for this.
> > > > > > Some bars tested on my projects reached more
> > > > >
> > > > > > than 60,000 psi  before it yielded.
> > > > >
> > > > > ACI 318-95 allows higher yield reinforcement
> > > > > (for non-seismic
> > > > > applications) per 3.5.3.2.
> > > > >
> > > > > The commentary to ACI 318-95 section 21.2.5
> > > > > explains why the yield
> > > > > stress is limited for seismic applications.
> > > > > The concerns center on
> > > > > the potential for limit states controlled by
> > > > > shear or bond failure.
> > > > >
> > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > > > > Michael
> > > > > Valley
> > > > > E-mail: mtv(--nospam--at)skilling.com
> > > > > Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire
> > > > > Inc.                  Tel:(206)292-1200
> > > > > 1301 Fifth Ave, #3200,  Seattle  WA
> > > > > 98101-2699          Fax:        -1201
> > > > >
> > > > > ******* ******* ***
> > > > > *   This email was sent to you via Structural
> > > > > Engineers
> > > > > *   Association of California (SEAOC) email
> > > > > server. To
> > > > > *   subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email
> > > > > to
> > > > > *   admin(--nospam--at)seaoc.org and in the body of the
> > > > > message type
> > > > > *   "join seaoc" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe,
> > > > > send email
> > > > > *   to admin(--nospam--at)seaoc.org and in the body of the
> > > > > message
> > > > > *   type "leave seaoc" (no quotes). For
> > > > > questions, send
> > > > > *   email to seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org. Remember, any
> > > > > email you
> > > > > *   send to the list is public domain and may
> > > > > be reposted
> > > > > *   without your permission. Make sure you
> > > > > visit our web
> > > > > *   site at: http://www.seaoc.org
> > > > > ****** ********
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 
> > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
> > > Michael Valley                                   E-mail:
mtv(--nospam--at)skilling.com
> > > Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc.                 
Tel:(206)292-1200
> > > 1301 Fifth Ave, #3200,  Seattle  WA 98101-2699          Fax:       
-1201
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Michael Valley                                   E-mail: mtv(--nospam--at)skilling.com
> Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc.                  Tel:(206)292-1200
> 1301 Fifth Ave, #3200,  Seattle  WA 98101-2699          Fax:        -1201
> 
>