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

RE: 1950 Rebar

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Not quite.  The ACI 350-89 and 350-83 "recommended" an upper limit of 14 ksi
for rebar in direct tension.  

It was a bit more complicated in members with flexural steel.  The
recommended maximum tension rebar stress was a function of bar size and and
exposure.

The ACI 350 also provided guidance on shrinkage and temperature
reinforcement.

Regards,
Harold O. Sprague


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Stanley_P_Johnson(--nospam--at)dot.ca.gov [SMTP:Stanley_P_Johnson(--nospam--at)dot.ca.gov]
> Sent:	Monday, March 19, 2001 2:25 PM
> To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject:	1950 Rebar
> 
> I have heard of using working stress design with a cap on allowable stress
> in steel around 10 ksi in order to improve watertightness in structures
> where watertightness was desired.  Seems to make some sense, you end up
> with more steel, less cracks, and a perhaps a greater degree of overdesign
> than with typical strength design.
> 
> 
> > This leads me to wonder if the limitation on maximum stresses in the
> rebar is
> > the basic reason for the durability! Less cracks, less chloride ingress
> and less
> > corrosion. I have heard some friends who had inspected some old marine
> > structures state that even in places where the concrete had spalled due
> to other
> > reasons, round (not deformed) bars had shown remarkably few signs of
> corrosion!
> > It has led me to wonder if, for marine structures, the ASD approach with
> reduced
> > steel limiting stress would be a better choice compared to limit state
> design
> > with exotic specifications and coatings for reinforcement. Any feedbacks
> would
> > be welcome. TIA
> 
> > M. Hariharan
> > Engineers India Limited
> 
>