MAIN COMMITTEEseaoa.org/resources/Documents/Meeting Minutes/TMS 402-602...2018/04/02 · TMS...

TMS 402/602 COMMITTEE WWW.MASONRYSTANDARDS.ORG

MAIN COMMITTEE

TMS 402/602 CHAIR TMS 402/602 VICE CHAIR TMS 402/602 2ND VICE CHAIR TMS 402/602 SECRETARY

JOHN CHRYSLER MASONRY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA

1315 STORM PARKWAY TORRANCE, CA 90501

(310) 257-9000 [email protected]

DAVID L. PIERSON ARW ENGINEERS

1594 W. PARK CIRCLE OGDEN, UT 84404


RICHARD M. BENNETT UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE

103 ESTABROOK HALL KNOXVILLE, TN 37996


GERALD A. DALRYMPLE WDP & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

10621 GATEWAY BLVD #200 MANASSAS, VA 20110


STAFF CONTACT, TMS PHILLIP J. SAMBLANET, (303) 939-9700, EMAIL: [email protected]

THE MASONRY SOCIETY PAGE 1 OF 76 FORM REV. 10/1/2016

CHAIR JOHN CHRYSLER

VICE-CHAIR DAVE PIERSON

2ND VIICE-CHAIR DICK BENNETT

SECRETARY ANDY DALRYMPLE

SUBCOMMITTEES CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS JONATHON MERK DESIGN MARK McGINLEY FORM & STYLE JAMES FARNY EMPIRICAL JASON THOMPSON GENERAL REQUIREMENTS DIANE THROOP PARTITION & INFILLS CHARLES TUCKER PRESTRESSED MASONRY ARTURO SCHULTZ REINFORCEMENT & CONNECTORS ROCHELLE JAFFE SEISMIC & LIMIT DESIGN JOHN HOCHWALT STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FERNANDO FONSECA VENEER & GLASS BLOCK BRIAN TRIMBLE

To: John Chrysler – Chair David Pierson – Vice Chair Richard Bennett – 2nd Vice Chair CC: TMS 402/602 Committee Phil Samblanet, TMS From: Andy Dalrymple Secretary Date: April 2, 2018 Reference: TMS 402/602 Main Committee 2022-06 Main Committee Ballot Summary Report When this ballot opened, the voting membership of the Main Committee consisted of 42 members, with 42 members returning on-time ballot responses. Table 1 presents the Ballot Summary Report. Tables 2 and 3 provide summaries of individual Committee voting responses and comments received. TMS rules require affirmative votes from at least one-half of all eligible voters and affirmative votes from two-thirds of the affirmative and negative votes cast. Based on these criteria, all items received sufficient affirmative votes to successfully pass balloting. All Main Committee voting members are reminded that they are expected to reply to Committee ballots and that the Chair must terminate their voting privileges for failure to return two consecutive ballots per Section 1.8 of the Technical Committee Operations Manual.

Attached are all comments received on the ballot items. The voting Main Committee member comments are arranged by the comments received with “Affirmative with Comment”, “Negative”, and “Abstain” votes appearing before “Comments” from non-voting committee members.

http://www.masonrystandards.org/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

TMS 402/602 Main Committee 2022-06 Main Committee Ballot Summary Report

April 2, 2018 of 76

THE MASONRY SOCIETY FORM REV. 10/01/2016

In addition to the regular voting membership of the Committee, comments may have been received from non-voting members. In accordance with TMS balloting procedures, the viewpoints expressed by non-voting members of the Committee are not counted in the final ballot tally but must be distributed to the Committee for consideration. Therefore, any comments received from non-voting individuals are included within this package. Comments received with “Affirmative with Comment” and “Abstain with Comment” votes are enclosed for your review and consideration, as deemed appropriate. Comments received with “Negative” votes must be resolved unless they pertain solely to finding a person persuasive, nonpersuasive, or unrelated. The subcommittee meeting minutes should reflect the actions taken by the subcommittee to resolve comments along with any votes taken and the vote count. The Committee Secretary will document Main Committee resolution of each item listed. Should you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.

TMS 402/602 Main Committee

2022-06 Main Committee Ballot Summary Report April 2, 2018 of 76


Table 1. Ballot Summary: 2022 TMS 402/602 Main Committee Ballot 06

Item Number Pass/Fail Affirmative Affirmative With Comment

Negative Abstain Comments

06-CR-002 Pass 42 0 0 0 0

06-CR-003 Pass 41 1 0 0 1

06-DE-007 Pass 30 7 4 1 11

06-DE-009 Pass 36 1 1 4 2

06-DE-019 Pass 39 0 2 1 3

06-DE-020 Pass 36 3 2 1 5

06-DE-021 Pass 41 0 0 1 0

06-FS-005 Pass 39 2 1 0 4

06-FS-006 Pass 41 0 1 0 1

06-GR-005 Pass 35 3 3 1 6






06-GR-PC12-1 Pass 39 0 3 0 3

06-GR-PC12-2 Pass 35 2 5 0 7

06-GR-PC12-3 Pass 35 2 5 0 7

06-GR-PC12-4 Pass 38 2 2 0 4

06-GR-PC12-5 Pass 38 2 2 0 4

06-GR-PC12-6 Pass 37 1 4 0 5

06-GR-PC12-7 Pass 36 2 3 0 5

06-RC-015 Pass 36 4 1 1 5

06-RC-016 Pass 37 1 4 0 4

06-RC-017 Pass 38 1 2 1 3

06-RC-018 Pass 36 2 3 1 6






06-RC-019 Pass 41 0 1 0 2

06-RC-020 Pass 39 3 0 0 4

06-SM-001 Pass 35 4 3 0 7

06-SM-002 Pass 37 1 3 1 4

06-SM-003 Pass 41 1 0 0 1

06-X-001 Pass 40 2 0 0 2

Notes to Table 1: PASS/FAIL Criteria used per Section 4.2.4 of the Technical Committee Operating Manual:

1. Affirmative votes from at least 50% of all eligible voters (42 Voting members requires 21 Affirmative votes minimum). 2. Affirmative votes from 2/3 of the votes cast, not including abstentions.

Per Section 4.5 of the Technical Committee Operating Manual, names of those abstaining or voting negatively on the ballots must be reported to the Technical Advisory Committee and is being done so by copy of this report as recorded in Table 2, attached.




Table 2. Comment Resolution Table: 2022 TMS 402/602 Main Committee Ballot 06

Item Number

Comment Type

Commenter Unrelated Withdrawn Pers Editorial

Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

06-CR-003 Affirmative With

Comment

Mr. Scott W. Walkowicz [email protected]

06-DE-007 Abstain Ms. Diane B. Throop [email protected]

om

Affirmative With

Comment

Dr. Andres Lepage [email protected]

Dr. Jennifer R. Bean Popehn

[email protected]

Dr. Khaled Nahlawi khaled.nahlawi@concret

e.org

Mr. Alan Robinson [email protected]




Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

Mr. Charles B. Clark Jr. [email protected]

Mr. David L. Pierson [email protected]

m

Mr. James A. Farny [email protected]

Negative Mr. John M. Hochwalt [email protected]

Mr. Thomas A. Gangel [email protected]

Mr. Thomas Michael Corcoran

[email protected]

Ms. Rochelle C. Jaffe [email protected]

m




Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

06-DE-009 Abstain Dr. Jennifer R. Bean Popehn

[email protected]

Mr Kurtis K. Siggard [email protected]


Ms. Diane B. Throop [email protected]

om

Affirmative With

Comment


m

Negative Mr. Alan Robinson [email protected]


om




Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

Negative Dr. Jennifer R. Bean Popehn

[email protected]

Dr. Mohamed ElGawady [email protected]


om

Affirmative With

Comment

Mr. John M. Hochwalt [email protected]



[email protected]

Negative Dr. Andres Lepage [email protected]


2022-06 Main Committee Ballot Summary Report April 2, 2018

of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record


m


om

06-FS-005 Affirmative Mr. Scott W. Walkowicz [email protected]

Affirmative With

Comment

Mr. John Chrysler [email protected]


Negative Ms. Rochelle C. Jaffe [email protected]

m

06-FS-006 Negative Dr. Max L. Porter [email protected]



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

06-GR-005 Abstain Mr. Darrell W. McMillian misldarrell@masonrystl.

org

Affirmative With

Comment

Dr. Daniel P. Abrams [email protected]


m


[email protected]

Negative Mr. Edwin T. Huston huston@smithhustoninc.

com





of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

m

06-GR-PC12-1

Negative Dr. Fernando Fonseca [email protected]



m

06-GR-PC12-2

Affirmative With

Comment

Dr. Richard M. Bennett [email protected]

Dr. William Mark McGinley

[email protected]

Negative Mr. Charles B. Clark Jr. [email protected]

Mr. Jason J. Thompson



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

[email protected]



om


m

06-GR-PC12-3

Affirmative With

Comment



[email protected]


Mr. Jason J. Thompson



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

[email protected]



om


m

06-GR-PC12-4

Affirmative With

Comment


[email protected]


[email protected]

Negative Mr. John Chrysler [email protected]



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record


m

06-GR-PC12-5

Affirmative With

Comment


[email protected]

Mr. Brian E. Trimble [email protected]



m

06-GR-PC12-6

Affirmative With

Comment


[email protected]

Mr. Charles B. Clark Jr.



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

Negative [email protected]

Mr. Jason J. Thompson [email protected]



m

06-GR-PC12-7

Affirmative With

Comment



[email protected]

Negative Dr. Daniel P. Abrams [email protected]

Mr. John Chrysler



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

[email protected]


m

06-RC-015 Abstain Mr Kurtis K. Siggard [email protected]

Affirmative With

Comment



m



Negative Dr. Richard M. Bennett [email protected]



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

06-RC-016 Affirmative With

Comment



Mr Kurtis K. Siggard [email protected]


Mr. Keith Itzler [email protected]

06-RC-017 Abstain Mr. Charles B. Clark Jr. [email protected]

Affirmative With

Comment


Dr. Richard M. Bennett



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

Negative [email protected]


06-RC-018 Abstain Mr. James A. Farny [email protected]

Affirmative With

Comment








of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

06-RC-019 Negative Mr. Jason J. Thompson [email protected]


Comment




m

06-SM-001 Affirmative With

Comment



Mr. Paul G. Scott [email protected]




of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

m

Negative Mr. Edwin T. Huston huston@smithhustoninc.

com



06-SM-002 Abstain Mr. John G. Tawresey [email protected]

Affirmative With

Comment


[email protected]


Mr. Scott W. Walkowicz



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Pers Substantive

Non-Persuasive

Action to Resolve

Comment Negative

Vote Record

[email protected]


m


Comment


06-X-001 Affirmative With

Comment



[email protected]



of 76


Table 3. 2022 TMS 402/602 Main Committee Ballot 06 – Comments

Item Number

Comment Type

Commenter Comment Comment File

06-CR-003 Affirmative With

Comment


Very good change - thank you!

06-DE-007 Affirmative With

Comment


In Rational, replace "hear joints" with "head joints".

Remove "." at the end of 8.2.6.2 item (b).

Consider using simply "Other" in Table 8.2.6.2, instead of "Other than ..."

Dr. Jennifer R. Bean Popehn [email protected]

9.2.6.1 With the proposed language, it reads as "Vn shall shall not exceed". Remove one 'shall'.

Dr. Khaled Nahlawi [email protected]

1. Delete extra "shall"

2. 9.2 is titled Unreinforced (plain) masonry. Is it, therefore, necessary to add ".. Nominal shear strength of



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


unreinforced masonry, ..." in Section 9.2.6.1. Suggest deleting this statement.


A footnote needs to be added to Table 8.2.6.2 and Table 9.2.6.1 to indicate that the values for other than fully grouted and not laid in running bond are only for walls with at least the minimum horizontal reinforcing. The TMS will be used for checking walls that may not have the required minimum horizontal reinfocing, so some direction needs to be given for thise conditions. The footnote could read that the shear stress/strength should be considered as zero for walls without the minimum horozontal reinforcing unless a more detailed analysis is performed.

Mr. Charles B. Clark Jr. [email protected]

Delete second occurence of "shall".


In section 8.2.6.2(b), remove the period at the end of the clause.


The tables are very helpful to clarify the requirements. Given that there are three requirements a-b-c, should the statement say "smallest of (a, b, and c)" rather than "smaller of" those choices?

Negative Mr. John M. Hochwalt The ballot seems to be effectively proposing to remove the requirement that unreinforced masonry not laid in



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


[email protected] running bond be fully grouted to acheive a 15 psi allowable shear stress. There does not seem to be a technical basis for making this change. It would have been helpful if this proposal had addressed whether the research cited in the commentary for this section had looked at unreinforced masonry not laid in running bond that was not fully grouted.


I am voting negative becasue the commentary, although not code, is not clear with respect to the horizontal reinforcing, design versus prescriptive. I will change my vote to affirmative if you make a change to the second sentence of your proposed commentary change clearing up the issue of horizontal reinforcing to say something like this: " In these cases however, minimum prescriptive horizontal reinforcing is still required per Section 4.5. When the minimum prescriptive reinforcing is installed, it will help to maintain the structrural integrity of the head joints and an allowable shear stress of 15 psi is permitted."


[email protected]

The added commentary Section 8.2.6.2 paragraph is somewhat confusing. Suggest revising it such as this or something similar:

"Masonry that is not laid in running bond is prescribed to have minimum horizontal



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


reinforcement per Section 4.5. This helps to maintain structural integrity of the head joints and therefore an allowable shear stress of 15 psi (0.103MPa) is permitted." (not sure where the 15 psi comes from....research?)

Remove the word "shall" after "Vn," in the first sentence of the proposed code revision section 9.2.6.1.


Although the rationale states “Discussion and consideration of changes to the existing code values should be saved for future ballots.”, this ballot item proposes increases to the stated shear capacities without technical justification. Masonry, constructed of other than open end units and not solidly grouted and not laid in running bond has never been considered to have capacity to resist in-plane shear. Consider the wording in the original (1988) edition of the Code: “15 psi for masonry in other than running bond with other than open end units grouted solid.” Note that it does not state “15 psi for all other masonry construction.”

The minimum reinforcement required by Section 4.5 for masonry not laid in running bond cannot be unequivocally used to justify shear capacity values

Jaffe_R_C_06-DE-007_N.doc



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


greater than those in the current Code. The minimum joint reinforcement requirement was established to ensure that masonry not laid in running bond will have the same flexural tensile capacity as running bond masonry without horizontal joint reinforcement. In-plane shear was never considered.

An argument could be made that masonry not laid in running bond but having reinforced bond beams at 4 feet on center does have in-plane shear capacity, although the Structural Member Subcommittee appears to disagree (per their ballot item 06-SM-002).

An argument could also be made that masonry reinforced with extra heavy duty joint reinforcement, conforming to TMS 402 Section 9.3.3.4, has in-plane shear capacity. Note also that Section 7.3.2.6(c)2 requires twice as much horizontal reinforcement (as in Section 4.5) in walls that are not laid in running bond. However, the minimum joint reinforcement required by Section 4.5 is not sufficient to establish in-plane shear capacity.

I fully support showing the shear capacities in tabular form rather than narrative form. However, the capacity of



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


masonry that is not laid in running bond and is not fully grouted should be shown as zero unless Code changes, as described above, are balloted.

As an editorial item, the wording in Sections 8.2.6.2 and 9.2.6.1 should be “smallest”, not “smaller”.


Comment


The parallel provision in Chapter 11 needs to be similarly revised for consistency.

Jaffe_R_C_06-DE-009_AC.doc

Negative Mr. Alan Robinson [email protected]

Seismic design assumes inelastic behavior. Bar and wire have different post yield behaviors, so we may need to limit the use of wire and bar beams resiting seismic loads. This should be reviewed by the seismci design subcommittee to determine if any limitations should remain.

06-DE-019 Comment Non-Voting

Dr. Patrick B. Dillon [email protected]

_

Negative Dr. Jennifer R. Bean Popehn [email protected]

While I agree that a code change may not be warranted, multiple users have expressed concern and have not been utilizing the referenced noted. I believe that commentary language to address this concern is appropriate.

Dr. Mohamed ElGawady The proposed change is more correct. Nolph's walls had an aspect ratio of 1,



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


[email protected] this why the proposed change resulted in insignificant difference. However, for squat walls this difference will result in a significant difference in predicting the shear strength.


Comment


I am voting affirmative as I understand the dilemma of the subcommittee.

Has the subcommittee looked at the research that has been done on partially grouted shear walls? It seems like a partially grouted deep beam would have many similarities in behavior to a partially grouted shear wall. That would suggest, at a minimum, that partially grouted deep beams should have a reduced shear capacity compared to fully grouted deep beams. One could imagine that the deep beam case could be worse than a shear wall, since the shear stresses would be parallel to the head joints and not the bed joints.


This is interesting as I have long been a proponent of beams not being required to be fully grouted. Not that I've had to design one that way, but I have always appreciated the freedom to do so if needed. There is a requirement for beams to be fully grouted in 8.3.4.2.4 in the 2011 code but I don't think there has been a similar provision in any of the earlier codes and cannot find it. I don't know why we put it in there for the 2011



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


but if there was good justification then we should reconsider this and include beam grouting requirements for 'normal' and 'deep' beams in Chapter 5.


[email protected]

Because of the unknown strength capacity for partially grouted masonry beams suggest research/testing be provided for shallow and deep masonry beams comparing the partially and fully grouted gravity load carrying capacities.


Consider revising the response.

The response states "The committee has continued to examine this issue, but has not been able to reach consensus on whether full grouting is required for beams or not".

Why is there a need to reach a consensus when it's already in the Code? Current code is cleas as bell in 9.3.4.2.4: "Beams shall be fully grouted". Note that Deep Beams are part of 5.2, therefore "Deep Beams" are " Beams".

Consider adding to 9.3.4.2.4 to allow fully or partially grouted deep beams or point to specific code sections where deep beams are exempted from having to be fully grouted.



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type



The proposed response that beams need not be fully grouted when designed by TMS 402 Section 8.3 is misleading, if not incorrect. The current Section 8.3 has no provisions for beam design because all of those provisions were moved to Chapter 5. However, it appears that the provisions were incompletely moved because Section 8.3.4.2.4 in the 2011 edition required masonry beams to be fully grouted. Therefore, it seems clear that the intent was for “regular” beams to be fully grouted, whether designed by ASD or SD. This requirement belongs in Chapter 5.

The original intent is not clear relative to deep beams, because those provisions were added at the same time that the beam provisions were moved from Chapter 8 to Chapter 5. However, whatever requirement relative to grouting of deep beams is determined by the Committee to be appropriate belongs in Chapter 5 and should be deleted from Chapter 9.

Jaffe_R_C_06-DE-020_N.doc

06-FS-005 Affirmative Mr. Scott W. Walkowicz [email protected]

I think 'as specified' is good particularly if we make it clear who the specifier is - AAC can be specified with different strength/density classes and there may be other criteria that the project specifier



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


would include as well. So, to me, the general term is better...

Affirmative With

Comment


I agree with the Subcommittee voters comment, but acknowledge that it is not part of this ballot. Perhaps a semicolon after C1634 in Article 2.3 A would help. Article 2.3 B could use improvement also. Perhaps eliminating the first 'or' and adding a semicolon after ANSI A 137.1 would help. These suggesions are offered as consideration for new business.


I think the subcommitee comment has merit. Does 402 talk about what we mean when we say "as specified"? Does that mean it refers to the contract documents or some other document? What trumps?

Negative Ms. Rochelle C. Jaffe [email protected]

Articles 2.3 A through 2.3C need to have the words “as specified” because different types of units are permitted by TMS 602 and the specifier needs to identify which unit types are to be used in the project. However, I agree with the subcommittee commenter that the term “as specified” is undefined. Either define this term in Article 1.2 or change to “as specified by the architect/engineer”.

The words “as specified” should be deleted from Articles 2.3 F and 2.3 G

Jaffe_R_C_06-FS-005_N.doc



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


because only one type of unit is listed and there is no choice to be made.

The proposed change to Article 2.3E should not be made because:

1. The strength class has to be identified by the designer so the words that are proposed to be deleted should be retained.

2. The words “as specified” should not be added because there is only one type of AAC masonry unit. Add the words “by the architect/engineer”.

ASTM C1693 should be deleted from the text because it is now incorporated into ASTM C1691. I thought that we balloted this deletion two cycles ago at the same time that we balloted to delete ASTM C1693 from the list of reference standards in Article 1.3 (Phil should verify).

06-FS-006 Negative Dr. Max L. Porter [email protected]

In the last sentence of 3.1.2 Qualifications change by adding the phrase shown below.

“Testing agencies who are accredited or inspected for conformance to the requirements of ASTM C1093 by a recognized evaluation authority, such as

Porter_M_L_06_FS_006.doc



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


the International Accreditation Service, Inc., (IAS) utilizing ISO/IEC 17025, are qualified to test masonry.”

Likewise, in the last sentence of Specification Commentary: Section 1.6 A. Testing Agency’s services and duties, the insertion of the same wording as above should also be used.

Reason: I’ve seen far too many laboratories that have significant errors, such as inappropriate calibrations, incorrect document control, and other key parts of ISO 17025 procedures that were not satisfied. We must have adequate testing credentials, which go beyond ASTM C1093. ASTM 1093 is part of the total criteria, but in addition ISO 17025 procedures via the IAS process are needed.

06-GR-005 Affirmative With

Comment


The proposed wording of Section 4.1.6.3 could be made clearer if the word "lateral" were inserted between "applied" and "loads". Granted this section pertains to lateral loads and the reader should be able to discern that these loads are not vertical, however, it is always best to err on the side of clarity.

Also, and more importantly, revise the word "rigidity" with "stiffness". Ideally rigid structures are those that are



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


infinitely stiff. Use consistent wording as given in Section 4.1.6, i.e. "stiffness".


I'm fine with this, but I do think that this is actually within the scope and purview of ASCE 7 (where the requirement to offset the calculated center of mass by 5% is added for seismic loads).


[email protected]

Is it implied that the center of rigidity is that of the structural system? or does it need to be defined such as "with respect to the structural systems center of rigidity"?

Negative Mr. Edwin T. Huston [email protected]

In seismic design, in addition to the applied loads acting through the center of rigidity, there is "accidental torsion" It could be interpreted that we are rewriting ASCE 7 or instructing engineers to not add and/or subtract this accidental torsion. My negative could be changed to a positive by adding a phrase that noted the accidental torsion.


I am confused as to how to vote because of the soft ballot I received today regarding the same item change. I am in favor of the "editorial" change in the soft ballot but I noticed that the original language in the soft ballot does not match the original language in this ballot. Seems this ballot is also striking the original language "resulting from the non-uniform distribution of mass". Furthermore, although I am



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


favor the soft ballot, I do not think it is an editorial change as proposed.


The proposed change is in conflict with the change proposed in Item 1 of the Editorial Soft Ballot dated 2/28/2018. The soft ballot version is preferred to the version proposed here because the center of rigidity is applicable to rigid diaphragms and not to flexible diaphragms.

Jaffe_R_C_06-GR-005_N.doc

06-GR-PC12-1

Negative Dr. Fernando Fonseca [email protected]

I believe the last sentence of proposed Code Section 1.1.2 is not correct.

Please change sentence to “Other materials shall be permitted if approved in accordance with Section 1.3.

TMS_402-602_Main_2022-

06_Ballot_Comment_Submittal_

Form_I_hJioBeu.doc


This comment applies to Ballot Items 06-GR-PC12-1 through PC12-7

I have several concerns with this series of ballot items. This approach implies material limitations to the different code chapters where philosophically we should embrace any compliant masonry unit that becomes available. One example would be ASTM C129. The masonry units are listed in Section 1.4 and by listing again in Chapter General Requirements, we are unnecessarily duplicating code language. I am not aware of any problematic issues relating to the current listing of masonry units as



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


applied to the different design methods. Even though this is a committee by consensus, I am uncomfortable that the Public Commenter is the same person working so hard to specifically list unit materials applicable to the individual design chapters.

As a matter of new business, ASTM C129 should be added to Section 1.4.


1. The proposed Commentary to Section 1.1.2 is not based on existing Chapter 14 commentary, despite the voter information that states otherwise. The first sentence that is proposed merely repeats the Code requirements and does not add any explanatory information. The second sentence that is proposed is in conflict the sentence that is proposed in the Code relative to whether only “certain chapter and appendices” or all “chapters and appendices” have specific limitations. Do not add this commentary.

2. The second sentence of the proposed Code addition is not true until the material limitations of each chapter have been defined. Do not add this sentence until other changes have passed.

Jaffe_R_C_06-GR-PC12-1_N.doc



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


06-GR-PC12-2

Affirmative With

Comment


Consider adding in C129 units.

Dr. William Mark McGinley [email protected]

Suggested alternative wording (I consider this editorial).

8.1.1.2 Masonry designed by the allowable stress design provisions of this chapter shall be formed using the following types of masonry units bedded in mortar that complies with TMS 602 Article 2.1A:

(a) clay masonry units that comply with ASTM C34, C62, C126, C216, C652, or C1405; and (b) concrete masonry units that comply with ASTM C55, C73, C90, C744, or C1634.


ASTM C34 Specification for Structural Clay Loadbearing Wall Tile and ASTM C212 Specification for Structural Clay Facing Tile were included in the original Specification with the intent and understanding that they were permitted to be used for masonry designed and constructed to the ASD provisions in the standard. As such, they should be included in this section. I plan to bring



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


calculations to the TMS 402 meeting in New Orleans to justify this.


Add ASTM C129 units to the list. While these units are limited to nonloadbearing applications, they can still be 'engineered'.



I have several concerns with this series of ballot items. This approach implies material limitations to the different code chapters where philosophically we should embrace any compliant masonry unit that becomes available. One example would be ASTM C129. The masonry units are listed in Section 1.4 and by listing again in Chapter General Requirements, we are unnecessarily duplicating code language. I am not aware of any problematic issues relating to the current listing of masonry units as applied to the different design methods. Even though this is a committee by consensus, I am uncomfortable that the Public Commenter is the same person working so hard to specifically list unit materials applicable to the individual design chapters.




of 76


Item Number

Comment Type



This is a step in the right direction, but ASTM C34 units should not be included in the list. While ASD procedures can be used to design C34 units, there are provisions built into Chapter 8 which are not applicable to those units - allowable flexural tensile stresses for example - and perhaps more. Until there are flags to the engineer highlighting the provisions that are not applicable to C34 (and perhaps other units), we can't include C34 in the list as balloted.


1. ASTM C34 units should not be

permitted to be designed by Chapter 8. Hollow clay tile units have lower shear and flexural tensile strength capacities than those for solid or hollow brick and using the values in Chapter 8 would be unsafe (reference: Brick and Tile Engineering by Harry C. Plummer, 1962).

2. ASTM C126 applies to the glaze coating only and not to the brick body. Therefore, it should not be listed as an “acceptable unit”. Note that this same issue should be corrected in TMS 602 Article 2.3B.

3. ASTM C744 applies to the glaze facing only and not to the concrete body. Therefore, it should not be listed as an “acceptable unit”. Note that this same




of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


issue should be corrected in TMS 602 Article 2.3A.

4. Commentary should be provided to remind designers that C55, C73, and C1634 units need to have prism testing in order to be designed using Chapter 8.

New business: With the deletion of the Empirical Appendix, TMS 402 no longer has design provisions for the following types of masonry units, which should be deleted from TMS 602: ASTM C34, C56, and C212.

06-GR-PC12-3

Affirmative With

Comment


Consider adding in C129 units.


9.1.1.2 Masonry designed by the strength design provisions of this chapter shall be formed with the following types of masonry units bedded in mortar that complies with TMS 602 Article 2.1A: (a) clay masonry units that comply with ASTM C34, C62, C126, C216, C652, or C1405; and (b) concrete masonry units that comply with ASTM C55, C73, C90, C744, or C1634

Mr. Charles B. Clark Jr. ASTM C34 Specification for Structural Clay Loadbearing Wall Tile and ASTM



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Negative [email protected] C212 Specification for Structural Clay

Facing Tile were included in the original Specification with the intent and understanding that they were permitted to be used for masonry designed and constructed to the ASD provisions in the standard. I am working on calculations to justify including them in the SD provisions and plan to bring them to the TMS 402 meeting in New Orleans.





I have several concerns with this series of ballot items. This approach implies material limitations to the different code chapters where philosophically we should embrace any compliant masonry unit that becomes available. One example would be ASTM C129. The masonry units are listed in Section 1.4 and by listing again in Chapter General Requirements, we are unnecessarily duplicating code language. I am not aware of any problematic issues relating to the current listing of masonry units as applied to the different design methods. Even though this is a committee by consensus, I am



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


uncomfortable that the Public Commenter is the same person working so hard to specifically list unit materials applicable to the individual design chapters.



This is a step in the right direction, but ASTM C34 units should not be included in the list. While SD procedures can be used to design C34 units, there are provisions built into Chapter 9 which are not applicable to those units - nominal flexural strength for example - and perhaps more. Until there are flags to the engineer highlighting the provisions that are not applicable to C34 (and perhaps other units), we can't include C34 in the list as balloted.



permitted to be designed by Chapter 9. Hollow clay tile units have lower shear and flexural tensile strength capacities than those for solid or hollow brick and using the values in Chapter 9 would be unsafe (reference: Brick and Tile Engineering by Harry C. Plummer, 1962).

2. ASTM C126 applies to the glaze coating only and not to the brick body. Therefore, it should not be listed as an




of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


“acceptable unit”. Note that this same issue should be corrected in TMS 602 Article 2.3B.

3. ASTM C744 applies to the glaze facing only and not to the concrete body. Therefore, it should not be listed as an “acceptable unit”. Note that this same issue should be corrected in TMS 602 Article 2.3A.



06-GR-PC12-4

Affirmative With

Comment


Suggested alternative wording is below.

10.1.1.2 Prestressed masonry designed by the provisions of this chapter shall be formed of the following types of masonry units bedded in mortar that complies with TMS 602 Article 2.1A: (a) clay masonry units that comply with ASTM C62, C126, C216, C652, or C1405; and



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


(b) concrete masonry units that comply with ASTM C55, C73, C90, C744, or C1634.


[email protected]

Should ASTM C34 be included with (a) clay masonry units?






of 76


Item Number

Comment Type




1. ASTM C126 applies to the glaze

coating only and not to the brick body. Therefore, it should not be listed as an “acceptable unit”. Note that this same issue should be corrected in TMS 602 Article 2.3B.





06-GR-PC12-5

Affirmative With

Comment


Alternative wording suggested below.

11.1.1.3 Masonry designed by the strength design provisions of this chapter shall be formed with the following types



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


of masonry units bedded in mortar that complies with TMS 602 Article 2.1C: (a) autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) masonry units that comply with ASTM C1691 and C1693.


ASTM C1691 was updated in 2017 so it should have the date "ASTM C1691-11 (2017)". There were no changes between the 2011 and 2017 versions, just a new date.



I have several concerns with this series of ballot items. This approach implies material limitations to the different code chapters where philosophically we should embrace any compliant masonry unit that becomes available. One example would be ASTM C129. The masonry units are listed in Section 1.4 and by listing again in Chapter General Requirements, we are unnecessarily duplicating code language. I am not aware of any problematic issues relating to the current listing of masonry units as applied to the different design methods. Even though this is a committee by consensus, I am uncomfortable that the Public Commenter is the same person working



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


so hard to specifically list unit materials applicable to the individual design chapters.



1. Only one type of masonry unit is

allowed in Chapter 11, so the section should not state “following types of masonry units”.

2. Only ASTM C1691 should be listed because C1693 is now incorporated into ASTM C1691. Note that ASTM C1693 no longer appears in the list of reference standards in TMS 602 Article 1.3. (Note that ASTM C1693 should be removed from the reference list in TMS 602 if it was not previously made in the same ballot item that deleted ASTM C1693 from the reference list in TMS 602).


06-GR-PC12-6

Affirmative With

Comment


Alternative wording suggested below:

B.1.1.2 Masonry infill walls designed by the provisions of this appendix shall be formed with the following types of concrete masonry and clay masonry units bedded in mortar that complies with TMS 602 Article 2.1A: (a) clay masonry units that comply with ASTM C34, C62, C126, C216, C652, or



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


C1405; and (b) concrete masonry units that comply with ASTM C55, C73, C90, C744, or C1634.

B1.1.3 Masonry infill walls designed by the provisions of this appendix shall be permitted using the following types of autoclaved aerated concrete masonry units bedded in mortar that complies with TMS 602 Article 2.1C: (a) autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) masonry units that comply with ASTM C1691 and C1693.


ASTM C34 Specification for Structural Clay Loadbearing Wall Tile, ASTM C56 Specification for Structural Clay Nonloadbearing Tile and ASTM C212 Specification for Structural Clay Facing Tile were included in the original Specification with the intent and understanding that they were permitted to be used for masonry designed and constructed to standard. As such, they should be included in this section. I plan to bring calculations to the TMS 402 meeting in New Orleans to justify this.





of 76


Item Number

Comment Type








permitted to be designed by Appendix B. Hollow clay tile units have lower shear and flexural tensile strength capacities than those for solid or hollow brick and using the values in Appendix B would be




of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


unsafe (reference: Brick and Tile Engineering by Harry C. Plummer, 1962).

2. ASTM C126 applies to the glaze coating only and not to the brick body. Therefore, it should not be listed as an “acceptable unit”. Note that this same issue should be corrected in TMS 602 Article 2.3B.


4. Commentary should be provided to remind designers that C55, C73, and C1634 units need to have prism testing in order to be designed using Appendix B.

5. Only one type of AAC masonry unit is allowed, so the section should not state “following types of AAC masonry units”.

6. Only ASTM C1691 should be listed for AAC masonry units because C1693 is now incorporated into ASTM C1691. Note that ASTM C1693 no



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


longer appears in the list of reference standards in TMS 602 Article 1.3. (Note that ASTM C1693 also needs to be deleted from the reference list in TMS 602 if it was not previously made in the same ballot item that deleted ASTM C1693 from the reference list in TMS 602).


06-GR-PC12-7

Affirmative With

Comment


Solid units, such as ASTM C216 and ASTM C55 could be used if the construction is double wythe with a grouted center core and the reinforcing in the grouted center. There are numerous design examples in the Reinforced Masonry Engineering Handbook, albeit not for Appendix C. But the same principles should apply.


Alternative Wording is listed below:

C.1.1.2 Masonry designed by the limit design method of this chapter shall be formed with the following types of masonry units bedded in mortar that complies with TMS 602 Article 2.1A: (a) clay masonry units that comply with ASTM C126, C652, or C1405; and



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


(b) concrete masonry units that comply with ASTM C90, or C744.

Negative Dr. Daniel P. Abrams [email protected]

The proposed new paragraph C.1.1.2 is not required because the first paragraph of Appendix C states that the limit state method applies to specially reinforced masonry walls designed per Chapter 9. Thus, the proposed wording for Sec. 9.1.1.2 per ballot item 6-GR-PC12-3 will contain the necessary requirements for design using the limit state method.



I have several concerns with this series of ballot items. This approach implies material limitations to the different code chapters where philosophically we should embrace any compliant masonry unit that becomes available. One example would be ASTM C129. The masonry units are listed in Section 1.4 and by listing again in Chapter General Requirements, we are unnecessarily duplicating code language. I am not aware of any problematic issues relating to the current listing of masonry units as applied to the different design methods. Even though this is a committee by consensus, I am uncomfortable that the Public Commenter is the same person working so hard to specifically list unit materials



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


applicable to the individual design chapters.



1. ASTM C126 applies to the glaze

coating only and not to the brick body. Therefore, it should not be listed as an “acceptable unit”. Note that this same issue should be corrected in TMS 602 Article 2.3B.

2. ASTM C1405 units could be solid or hollow, but only hollow units are permitted in this appendix, so the wording needs to be changed to state hollow units only.




Affirmative Mr. Brian E. Trimble I don't know why we are allowing such large bars for a lateral tie (#8's) when in



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


06-RC-015 With

Comment [email protected] the same breath we state "distributed

small bars provide better performance than fewer large bars". While we may be able to calculate that such a large bar could used, it may be not be feasible to construct such an element. If you consider a #8 bar to be used as a lateral tie with a 180 degree hook, you would need 6db (=6") for the bend, plus 1" for each bar on each side of the bend for a total of 8". Add in minimum space for grout to flow and you might make this with a 12" block (probably not) or possibly a 16" block. Are there real projects that have used bars this large as a stirrup or tie? I would recommend we place the limit at #5 bars as we have experience with that in the past.


I realize there is not a perfectly good theoretical reason to limit this to #5 bars, but I'm just asking - if anyone ever uses a #8 stirrup or tie, please send me a picture.


Along with the added language of ACI 318, additional language discouraging the ue of large diameter stirrups and lateral ties (or more positively encouraging the use of stirrups and lateral ties not exceeding #5) would be beneficial particularly to the designer marginally familiar with masonry. Additional language explaining that consideration of



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


constructing configurations that may just fit on the drawings rarely get done in the field should be considered.


I'm voting Affirmative with Comment because I think that at least limiting the bar size for stirrups and ties to a #8 is a good thing and I don't think our current language places any restriction on bar sizes for these uses other than the standard limits within the design methods. Unless there is a practical reason such as large masonry columns or beams, I don't see the practicality of using bars over #5 and think the limit should be reduced. Is there any testing that shows that a stirrup or even a confinement tie of large diameter (#6, 7 or 8) actually functions and that a designer could expect proper performance? Also, the rationale notes that bars of #6 through #8 can be used per 6.1.8.2.1.a, but I don't know where the #8 limit comes in from? Chapter 6 allows bars up to #11, so in the absence of a specific limit, wouldn't the largest stirrup or tie be #11 under our current code language? Not saying that that is good, but I don't see the basis for the rationale statement.


Although it is true that 6.1.8.2.1 could be used for stirrups greater than a No. 5, let’s run a few numbers. As stirrups would

bennett_r_m-06-RC-015.doc



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


most likely be near the face of the masonry, assume a 2 inch cover on the side. There needs to be an effective embedment of half the development length between the midpoint of the member and the start of the hook. Taking the inside bend diameter as 6db, adding the bar diameter, and assuming a 1.5 inch cover for the top and bottom of the stirrup, the required depth of beam to use the different size stirrups are as follows:

No. 6: 73 inches

No. 7: 97 inches

No. 8: 142 inches

Let’s also look at the hook at the end of the stirrup. Assuming an inside bend diameter of 6db (yes, a slightly smaller inside bend diameter of 5db could be used with Grade 40 steel), the width of the hook would 8db for a 180° hook. This is 6 inch, 7 inch, and 8 inch respectively for a No. 6, No. 7 and No. 8 bar. For a 90° hook, the hook would be a radius of 3db, an extension of 6db, and the bar width, for 10db.



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


I am not sure that it would be practical/feasible to use a No. 6 or larger stirrup in masonry. I think limiting to No. 5 would be sufficient.


Comment


Although everything in this ballot item may be technically correct, I am not sure what is really accomplished. Taken to the extreme, the commentary shows that in an 8 inch wide wall, #7 bars can be specified at 8 inches on center. Even in California, this much reinforcement is rarely, if ever, designed. The concept of using larger bars (say #7 bars at 48 inches) contradicts Code Commentary Section 9.3.3.1 which implies that a larger number of smaller diameter bars is preferred as supported by research.


At a minimum, the GGSA should be given. What if I am using multiple bars, such as 2-#5? It would be nice to determine if they fit.

I do have a concern with adding the figures, and am afraid they could become enforced everywhere, including when other block configurations are used (such as A and H blocks, or blocks with thinner webs). I am afraid this might create more problems with enforcement/inspection than it solves.

Mr Kurtis K. Siggard I am concerned that designers will not ".... consult local manufacturers, local



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


[email protected] masonry institutes, the National Concrete Masonry Association, or the Brick Industry Association to identify configurations and dimensions of the webs, face shells, and cells/cores of units that are available locally to determine the maximum bar size that can be used on their project." The designer does not know what manufacture of CMU's will be used on a project (configurations and sizes vary within a market). The designer may not take the time to "hunt down" the actual configurations used in a region and create a new chart with actual dimensions. This suggestion seems very burdensome.

The example shows a "theoretical" two-cell flanged CMU with ASTM C90 minimum face shell and web thicknesses (why not use ASTM C90, Table 1c dimensions for full grouted walls?). These dimensions are unrealistic in the production of some CMU configurations. This example should be deleted because it may become the “default” that some designers use to quickly determine the area of cells. If it is desired to keep an example, realistic face shell and web thicknesses should be shown, and several other examples should be



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


included (two-cell non-flanged, single open-end, double open-end, etc.). But, the problem with multiple examples is that a designer may want more area and specify a unit configuration and size not available in a market.

Could this also lead to designers or inspectors rejecting CMU’s delivered to a project because the area calculated and specified by the designer is greater than found in the project specific CMU’s? I can see plan checkers having a wild time checking details to make sure that the CMU’s drawn have sufficient area.


Strike NCMA from the list of resources. We don't maintain specifics on unit configurations produced by all manufacturers. I suspect the same is true for BIA as well.

For the column titled '4% GGSA' - this is a limit on the area of reinforcement, not bar size. Suggest changing to a max As...or similar.

Is it no also worth adding a column for the 1/4 of the least cell dimension limit for SD? Somewhat misleading without it.

Editorially - replace the hash (#) with 'No.'.



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type



Comment


I think we need this or some similar change as long as we have Chapter 14 - I agree with Dr. Bennett that we should just get rid of Chapter 14 - the calculations are easy and there are tools out there for engineers, architects and others looking at partition wall design. I think it was a good transition but maybe just deleting the chapter is best and then we don't need special lap length provisions....


I feel like I am reasonably good at reading the code, but when I read the proposed Section 6.1.7.1.1.1, I was completely confused. I am not sure how a novice would handle all the different Sections and Parts. We need a clearer way of doing this.

I disagree that Chapter 6 is the appropriate place for this. I think everything on partitions should be in Chapter 14.

Not part of the negative, but a comment that I know is about three galaxies outside the scope of the ballot. I would suggest the 402/602 Committee consider deleting Chapter 14. I don't think it makes it easy to design partition walls. The person has to come up with the loads (including the seismic load, and determining whether internal wind



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


pressure needs to be considered {generally no}, combining of loads with the 5 psf partition load in IBC which is not in ASCE 7, etc). If the designer can do that, I think they can figure out P/A + M/S, which is really all the design tables are giving us. I think novice designers of partition walls will either ignore Chapter 14 and use what they did on the last 10 projects, or use some other resources like the IMI partition wall program. The experienced designer does not need Chapter 14. Deleting Chapter 14 would save a lot of headaches like this ballot.


As proposed, Section 6.1.7.1.1 would only apply to Part 3. Where are the requirements for the other parts of 402?

Technically this would require a lap length of 75db for bed joint reinforcement placed in 4 in. walls. That's overkill as BJR is only required to be lapped 48db currently - even when used for non-prescriptive reinforcement.

Limiting the bar size to one No. 4 bar centered in a cell for all prescriptive reinforcement is too limiting. As proposed, this removes the option for a designer to engineer their prescriptive reinforcement.



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


In general, this is a confusing change. If these requirements only apply to Chapter 14, they should be placed there.


Comment


Do we have an essentially useless provision in the code? Since the transverse bars have to be developed, I don't think this provision could be used to reduce the splice length of jamb steel. If that is the case, then the reduced splice length can only be used with intermediate bars. I am not sure I would ever specify one splice length for the jamb bars, and a different splice length for intermediate bars. Am I missing something?


I think that this is a good change, but a couple questions - first: does anybody use these provisions or would they be reasonable for use anywhere? locating transverse bars at the ends of laps that may only be 12" to 30" or whatever seems like a lot of transverse steel; second: in keeping with Dr. Bennett's question - could someone actually develop a transverse bar for addressing the lap splice in a jamb bar? It seems challenging at best as I'm not sure that a hook similar to a shear bar end is the kind of development length that we're looking for and because the jamb bar would likely be placed beyond the point of tangency in the hook bend....



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Comment Non-Voting

Mr. Daniel Zechmeister [email protected]

I think Figure 1 in NCMA TEK 12-6A (2013) would be clearer.


Rather than showing a test setup show a detail representative of construction documents. Include a reference to the NCMA test setup.


Is the proposed Figure CC-6.1-2 of the test setup intended to describe the research basis for the hook requirements, or as stated, to describe hook placement? If it is the latter, the figure could be greatly simplified by showing a typical wall (with bed-joints running horizontal rather than vertical) and how horizontal bars should be hooked at their ends. This would be much clearer than giving the superfluous details of a test specimen. Also, shouldn't horizontal bars be hooked around vertical bars as noted in Sec. 7. 1.7.1.1 of TMS 402-16, or am I missing something here?


The proposed figure does not add clarification to the application of the transverse reinforcement requirements. The revised commentary does not mention 180 degree hooks. Would 180 degree hooks with



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


proper development length, le, be sufficient to provide the development?

06-RC-019 Comment Non-Voting

Dr. Patrick B. Dillon [email protected]

Two studies have been recently conducted using headed bars for horizontal reinforcement.

Hoque, N (2013) In-Plane Cyclic Testing of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls to Assess the Effect of Varying Reinforcement Anchorage and Boundary Conditions. Master’s thesis, University of Calgary.

Rizaee, S; Lissel, S (2014) "Efficacy of Horizontal Reinforcement in Concrete Masonry Shear Walls", Proc. 9th International Masonry Conference, Guimaraes, Portugal.

While I don't think that the two studies provide enough data to change the overall ballot response, the Response should be modified to acknowledge that some limited research has been performed but it is not sufficient and additional research needs to be performed. At a minimum, a modification should be made to the sentence beginning with "However, the Committee is unaware of available tension/shear testing for headed deformed reinforcement...".



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Negative Mr. Jason J. Thompson [email protected]

The attached may be of interest. MSST_Gough_2003.pdf

Paper is attached at the end of this report.


Comment


Since plain wire can only apparently be used for joint reinforcement, should we just list W1.7 and W2.8 in the table and not the other sizes? I believe these are the only sizes currently used in joint reinforcement. Are the other plain size wires used anywhere else in TMS 402?


Prior to Ballot Item 03-RC-007A, as shown in our current working draft, there was commentary (current section 6.1.6.1) that stated 'Bars and longitudinal wire must be deformed.' There was no language that prohibited smooth wire from being used as lateral confinement ties which are very different from longitudinal (primary reinforcement) uses. Lateral tie diameter, for non-seismic use, could be as small as 1/4" which would commonly be provided by smooth wire. The definition of 'lateral tie' references bar or wire and we should reinstate the acceptability of smooth wire. The current working draft includes changes to 6.1.1 that directly prescribes the allowed uses of various materials but the section does not include plain wire which I believe was an oversight at the



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


time of deleting the sentence in the 6.1.6.1 Commentary, and created the unintended consequence that smooth wire can no longer be used for lateral ties. Lateral confinement ties for bars in compression also used to require termination with a 90 or 135 degree hook (per 8.3.2 (d), etc... which the former language in older codes referred back to the seismic lateral tie provisions including the end hooks for anchorage but the new section now only refers to 5.3.1.4 which no longer includes end hook requirements - another oversight in re-organization in my opinion. We should re-instate smooth wire lateral ties for bars in compression including hooks per the seismic section or a new addition to 5.3.1.4, to provide the necessary and formerly provided anchorage - deformations formerly were not only not required but would only provide modest anchorage for the lateral ties given the short distances that many ties include in one or both directions. Wire ties are allowed per ASTM A1064 in Spec Article 2.4 F. Table 6, Specification, also addresses only bars and only bars greater than #3 whereas it should also have bend radius information for wires. This all should be considered and changes made to put back the pathway for the use of smooth wire lateral ties



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


and to require end hooks (or lap length?) for anchorage for all lateral ties.


Much of the discussion provided as the third paragraph of the rationale would be very helpful to the designer and should be added to the commentary.

Jaffe_R_C_06-RC-020_AC.doc

Comment Non-Voting

Mr. Daniel Zechmeister [email protected]

For designers, I suggest placing in the Commentary, the last sentence in the Rationale with respect to joint reinforcement.


Comment


The comments presented in the "Rationale" justify the addition of Commentary to the proposed Code change. The Commentary should clarify where to use the defined span length.


I like ACI 318, where the span length is defined as "distance between supports". They then have the provision that for beams built integrally with supports, the moment at the support shall be permitted to calculated at the face of support.

John Hochwalt brings up some good points, and maybe the section on deflection also needs to be cleaned up a bit.


Unnecessary duplication should be avoided. If this ballot item passes, then the following changes should be made:

Jaffe_R_C_06-SM-001_AC.doc



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


5.2.2 Deep Beams

Design of deep beams shall meet the requirements of Section 5.2.1.2 and 5.2.1.3 Sections 5.2.1.1 through 5.2.1.3 in addition to the requirements of 5.2.2.1 through 5.2.2.5.

5.2.2.1 Effective span length — The effective span length, leff, shall be taken as the center-to-center distance between supports or 1.15 multiplied by the clear span, whichever is smaller.

(Renumber subsequent sections.)

Negative Mr. Edwin T. Huston [email protected]

My first reaction was "as a licensed engineer, why do I need to have someone tell me what the span length is?". Then I read the referenced section, and noted that that horse had already left the barn. However, the 1.15 multiplier on the length for deep beams was from very specific research on those beams, and no justification has been given to show that this factor should be applied to beams built integrally with a wall.

I looked at ACI 318-14. They define l as the span length, which they define as the distance between supports. Then at 9.4.2.1 they state that for beams built



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


integrally with supports the moment can be calculated at the face of the support. At 9.4.3.2 they have the same language for shear.

My negative could be changed to affirm if the clear span was adopted for shear and moment calculations.


My concerns about this provision being misapplied to the determination of beam shears has been addressed by the harmonization in the shear provisions under Section 5.2.1.4. I am still concerned, however, about applying this definition of span length to the determination of deflections. The application of this provision to the determination of deflections will result in the calculation of a vertical deflection within the support which is physically not possible. It also seems anomalous that the code would define deflection limits in terms of clear span "l" (Section 5.2.1.5.1) whereas the deflections are being computed based on something larger than the clear span.


While I think that the addition of the 1.15 factor on clear span helps with regard to the prior comments, I'm not sure that the current or the resulting provisions are where we should be with regard to span length for design. Why do we do anything other than clear span for beams



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


built integrally with their supports? That is how any beam stress, deflection, force calculation is done and would be similar for concrete. It makes sense for non-integral beam ends that there has to be consideration given to the bearing length and use of half that dimension is common and I'm not sure why the depth of the beam is invoked in that provision but maybe there is good reason. Center of supports isn't good because what if I'm spanning over an 8' long wall segment and continue my reinforcement - do I really need to add 4' to my beam span or 8' if it continues over supports on both sides? What if the clear span is 20', do I really need to design my beam for 23'? This seems inappropriate and very conservative. In any event, it seems that beam behavior for what are essentially fixed end beams is dependent on clear span unless we want to get into relative stiffnesses of the beam and the elements to which it is integrally built... don't think we need to do that. Can we fix this by working with clear span?


Comment


[email protected]

Because the flange/web wall design is restricted to running bond construction suggest research be conducted for non-running bond flange/web wall construction containing intersecting horizontal bond beams.



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type



I disagree that there is no technical justification. The technical justification was provided in the public comment. If bond beams are sufficient to carry shear at the intersection, why are they not sufficient to carry shear in the flange? In the limit, each continuous head joint in stack bond could be considered a wall intersection, and I could use the bond beam requirements, so I could game the code. But let's do it right. In looking at the negatives, one wanted commentary, one negative stated "At a minimum this code revision should limit the bond beam spacing, perhaps to not more than 48" for alignment with 5.1.2.1." The proposal already does this with 5.1.1.2.5(c). One wanted primarily editorial changes, and for the last negative, there is plenty of research that shows even with severe cracking, there is still shear transfer, resulting in a very large effective flange width.

The public comment was from the California Division of State Architects. If they are trying to help the masonry market, let's accommodate them if at all possible. Let's not continually make it harder to get market share in masonry.

Mr. Scott W. Walkowicz If bond beams are used at some regular occurrence in the non-running bond flange wall and to connect the flange to



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


[email protected] the stem, why can't the shear capacity of the bond beams be shown sufficient?


I generally agree with the Public Comment. According to Section 5.1.2.1, reinforced bond beams at 48 inches on center provides sufficient interlock. However, I suggest that the bonds beams need to extend the full length of the wall that is not laid in running bond, rather than “developed past the effective flange width”.

Furthermore, Section 9.3.3.1(b) indicates that 3/16 size joint reinforcement will provide in-plane shear strength. Therefore, walls that are not laid in running bond should be able to be used as flanges if they contain extra heavy duty joint reinforcement conforming to the size and spacing of Chapter 9 or if they have reinforced bond beams conforming to Section 4.5 and/or 5.1.2.1.

Jaffe_R_C_06-SM-002_N.doc


Comment


Let's now be thorough, use "Header (4% of wall surface area)" at two locations.

06-X-001 Affirmative With


Consider using the actual title of the two Appendices: "Code Appendices include



of 76


Item Number

Comment Type


Comment the Design of Masonry Infills and the Limit Design Method".


[email protected]

Suggest removing the word "of" just before the last word "reinforcement" in the second sentence of the specification SYNOPSIS.

I am assuming the second paragraph of the code SYNOPSIS will be rewritten to delete referencing the Empircal design method since Appendix A: Empirical Design of Masonry will be deleted in the near future.



of 76


TMS Antitrust Statement

The antitrust laws are the rules under which the United States competitive economic system operates. Their primary purpose is to preserve and promote free competition. It is The Masonry Society’s policy to strictly comply in all respects with the antitrust laws.

Society meetings, association events and workshops by their very nature bring competitors together. Accordingly, it is absolutely necessary to avoid discussions of legally sensitive topics and especially important to avoid recommendations with respect to these sensitive subjects. Agreements to fix prices, allocate mark1e25ts or customers, engage in product boycotts and to refuse to deal with third parties are automatically or per se illegal under the antitrust laws. It doesn't matter what the reason for the agreement.

Accordingly, at any Society meeting, discussions of prices, including elements of prices such as allowances and credit terms, quality ratings of suppliers, and discussions which may cause a competitor to cease purchasing from a particular supplier, or selling to a particular customer, must be avoided. Also, there may not be any discussion that might be interpreted as a dividing up of territories or customers.

An antitrust violation does not require proof of a formal agreement. A discussion of a sensitive topic, such as prices, followed by parallel action by those involved in or present at the discussion is enough to show a price fixing conspiracy. As a result, those attending Society-sponsored meetings must remember the importance of avoiding not only unlawful activities, but even the appearance of unlawful activity.

As a practical matter, violations of these rules can have serious consequences for a company and its employees. The Sherman Antitrust Act is both a civil and criminal statute. Violations are felonies punishable by penalties of up to $10 million for corporations and by imprisonment of up to three years or penalties of up to $100,000, or both, for individuals. The Justice Department, state attorney general, and any person or company injured by a violation of the antitrust laws may bring civil actions for three times the amount of the damages, plus attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

Antitrust investigations and litigation are lengthy, complex, disruptive and expensive. Therefore, all companies and their employees must not only comply with the antitrust laws in fact, but must conduct themselves in a manner that avoids even the slightest suspicion that the law is being violated. Associations, because they bring competitors together, are natural targets, along with members alleged to have participated with or through the association.

The following is a list of topics that must never be the subject of any type of agreement among competitors, whether explicit or implicit, formal or informal. Such topics should NEVER be discussed at TMS meetings. This list is not exhaustive of prohibited topics or subjects. Please consult legal counsel in the event of any confusion or question over whether a topic is permissible or appropriate for discussion among Society members:

a. Prices to be charged to clients, customers or by suppliers; b. Specific methods by which prices are determined, with directions as to "how to do it" or even

less; c. Division or allocation of markets or customers; d. Coordination of bids or requests for bids; e. Terms and conditions of sales, including credit or discount terms; f. Terms for distribution of products; g. Targets for production of products or the level of production; h. Specific profit levels; i. Exchange of price information as to specific customers; j. A boycott of or a refusal to deal with a customer or supplier; k. Compilation of “approved” lists of customers or suppliers. l. "Profit" levels...i.e., "here's what our members need to do to make money." m. Whether a company's pricing practices are “unethical,” “improper,” etc. n. Coordination of "bids" or "requests for bids" or requests for proposals ("RFPs"). o. Standards or codes to eliminate competition.

When in doubt about discussing any topic, consult with your own legal counsel, or with the Society’s legal counsel, to be sure you are on safe antitrust ground. When unsure, play it safe and avoid the topic.

Conflict of Interest Considerations:

• placing (or the appearance of placing) one's own self-interest or any third-party interest above that of the Society; while the receipt of incidental personal or third-party benefit may necessarily flow from certain Society



of 76


activities, such benefit must be merely incidental to the primary benefit to the Society and its purposes;

• abusing their Board membership by improperly using their Board membership or the Society's staff, services, equipment, resources, or property for their personal or third-party gain or pleasure, or representing to third parties that their authority as a Board member extends any further than that which it actually extends;

• engaging in any outside business, professional or other activities that would directly or indirectly materially adversely affect the Society;

• engaging in or facilitate any discriminatory or harassing behavior directed toward Society staff, members, officers, directors, meeting attendees, exhibitors, advertisers, sponsors, suppliers, contractors, or others in the context of activities relating to the Society;

• soliciting or accepting gifts, gratuities, free trips, honoraria, personal property, or any other item of value from any person or entity as a direct or indirect inducement to provide special treatment to such donor with respect to matters pertaining to the Society without fully disclosing such items to the Board of Directors; and

• providing goods or services to the Society as a paid vendor to the Society only after full disclosure to, and advance approval by, the Board, and pursuant to any related procedures adopted by the Board.

HEADED REINFORCEMENT LAP SPLICES IN CONCRETE MASONRY

by

Arlo Jay Gough, Jr.

A Report Submitted to the Faculty of the

Milwaukee School of Engineering

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Structural Engineering

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

November, 2003

2

ABSTRACT

Headed reinforcing bars have been used in concrete construction in the past. Previous

research has been conducted on the use of headed reinforcing bars as longitudinal bars in

concrete applications. This experiment researches the use of splicing headed reinforcing

bars in masonry construction. It is felt that a shorter splice length may be used to get the

same capacity, or even more capacity, than code minimum splice length requirements for

deformed bars.

Tests were performed on nine specimens made with 8-inch units and three specimens made

with 12-inch units to determine the effects of splice length and clear cover of headed

reinforcement in masonry. Several limit states for headed reinforcement were reviewed

and a few of them were analyzed. The limit states analyzed included: development, side

blowout, and compression strut failure. A review of both variables (splice length and clear

cover) for each limit state was provided.

The limited number of specimens did not allow for additional variables to be tested. This

experiment showed that splicing headed reinforcement in masonry warrants further review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

3

It is a privilege to acknowledge those who have helped, supported, and encouraged me

during this project.

Dr. Richard DeVries has guided me from the initial idea through the final presentation. He

took the initiative to get the materials and labor donated through the International Masonry

Institute (IMI). He also contacted Headed Reinforcement Corporation, HRC, in order to

get the headed reinforcement donated. Dr. DeVries has helped me through the set-up,

construction and testing phases. His help and guidance was indispensable and this task

could not have been completed without it.

Pat Conway, of IMI, arranged for mason apprentices and a mason instructor to build the

specimens and prisms. Matt Trussoni, an undergraduate student at the Milwaukee School

of Engineering, donated his time and workmanship during the grouting of the specimens.

The time donated by these individuals was invaluable to the completion of this project.

My thanks are extended to Dr. Doug Stahl and Christopher Raebel for their comments and

suggestions as committee members. Dr. Stahl also helped Dr. DeVries and me with

understanding the program that collected the data from the specimen tests. Chris donated

his time in setting up the final specimen tests.

I would also like to thank Cindy Kotlarek, Assistant Director of the Learning Resource

Center at the Milwaukee School of Engineering, for her guidance in English grammar. She

4

has helped me with many term reports throughout my undergraduate and graduate years.

It’s a sweet sorrow to say that this is the last report for which Cindy’s guidance has been

requested. I have had a great time learning from her and I know she can say the same for

me due to the wide range of topics covered in my written reports.

My gratitude goes out to my parents for standing behind me throughout my college career.

I am thankful for their support and encouragement. Finally, I would like to thank my wife

Barb, my son Caleb and my daughter Desirae for their love and support. Caleb’s and

Desirae’s young hearts inspired me to continue. As I completed my research, Barb’s

encouragement kept me focused.

Arlo Jay Gough, Jr. November, 2003

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………… 8

5

LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………… 9

1.0 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………… 10

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………… 13

2.1 Previous Research ……………………………………… 13

2.1.1 Orangun, C., Jirsa, J., and Breen, J. ……………… 13

2.1.2 Thompson, Jason J. ……………………………… 14

2.1.3 DeVries, Richard A. ……………………………… 15

2.2 Code Provisions ……………………………………… 17

2.2.1 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete 17

2.2.2 Masonry Standards Joint Committee ……………… 18

2.2.2.1 Development of Reinforcement ……… 18

3.0 CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING ……………………… 20

3.1 Specimens …………...………….……………………… 20

3.1.1 Spliced Specimens ……………………………… 20

3.1.2 Test Frame ……………………………………… 25

3.2 Prisms ……………………………………………………… 28

3.3 Concrete Masonry Units (CMU)…………………………… 30

3.4 Mortar ……………………………………………………… 32

3.5 Grout Specimens and Cylinders ……………………… 35

3.6 Reinforcement ……………………………………………… 39

3.6.1 Vertical Reinforcement ……………………… 39

3.6.2 Shear Reinforcement ……………………………… 41

4.0 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ……………………………… 43

6

4.1 Limit States ……………………………………………… 44

4.1.1 Reinforcement Limit States ……………………… 44

4.1.2 Masonry Limit States ……………………………… 45

4.1.2.1 Straight Pullout ……………………… 45

4.1.2.2 Cone Pullout……………………………… 46

4.1.2.3 Splitting ……………………………… 48

4.1.2.4 Side Blowout ……………………… 48

4.1.2.5 Compression Strut ……………………… 50

4.2 Variables ……………………………………………… 51

4.2.1 Expected Effect of Splice Length ……………… 51

4.2.2 Expected Effect of Clear Cover ……………… 52

5.0 ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS ……………………………… 53

5.1 Test Results ……………………………………………… 53

5.1.1 Bond ……………………………………………… 54

5.1.2 Side Blowout ……………………………………… 56

5.1.3 Compression Strut Limit State ……………… 57

5.2 Effect of Splice Length ……………………………… 59

5.2.1 Thompson’s Splice Length ……………………… 59

5.2.2 ACI 2002 Splice Length ……………………… 60

5.2.3 MSJC 2002 Splice Length ……………………… 62

5.3 Effect of Clear Cover ……………………………………… 63

5.4 Combination of Limit States ……………………………… 64

5.4.1 Compression Strut + Bond ……………………… 64

7

5.5 Masonry Compressive Strength ……………………… 65

6.0 CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………………… 66

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE TESTING ……………… 67

REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………… 68

8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Description Page

1.1 Spliced reinforcement within a masonry wall. 10 1.2 Headed reinforcement spliced within a masonry specimen. 12 3.1 Spliced reinforcement in masonry specimen. 21 3.2 Tension lines in mortar joint. 22 3.3 Specimens on grouting platform. 23 3.4 Reinforced specimens on grouting platform. 24 3.5 Transporting specimen. 25

a. Hugging specimen. b. Hooked specimen.

3.6 Specimen lying on rollers in test frame. 26 3.7 Test frame set-up. 27

a. Diagrammatical test frame. b. Actual test frame.

3.8 Ungrouted prism units. 28 3.9 12-inch prism in compression tester. 29 3.10 Prism compression test results. 29 3.11 CMU block types used for experiment. 31 3.12 Specimen with full mortar bed. 32 3.13 Filling mortar trays. 33 3.14 Mortar cube in compression tester. 34 3.15 Mortar cube compression test graphical results. 34 3.16 Grout specimen form configuration per ASTM C1019. 36 3.17 Grout specimen and grout cylinder in compression tester. 37

a. Grout specimen. b. Grout cylinder.

3.18 Grout specimen and grout cylinder compression test graphical results.39 3.19 Headed reinforcement. 40 3.20 Vertical reinforcement tensile test setup. 40 3.21 Vertical reinforcement Displacement Versus Applied Load. 41 3.22 Typical Stress Versus Strain plot. 42 4.1 Specimen force diagram. 43 4.2 Straight pullout limit state with headed reinforcement. 46 4.3 Straight pullout limit state with non-headed reinforcement. 46 4.4 Cone pullout limit state with a single headed reinforcement. 47 4.5 Cone pullout limit state with spliced headed reinforcement. 47 4.6 Splitting limit state. 48 4.7 Side blowout limit state. 49 4.8 Grout shear cone within a reinforced masonry specimen. 49 4.9 Side blowout failure of a masonry specimen. 50 4.10 Compression strut failure limit state. 50

9

LIST OF TABLES Table Description Page

3.1 Spliced specimen properties. 21 3.2 Prism compression test tabular results. 30 3.3 Standard CMU compression test tabular results. 31 3.4 Standard CMU measurements. 32 3.5 Mortar cube compression test tabular results. 35 3.6 Grout specimen and grout cylinder compression test tabular results. 38 3.7 Vertical reinforcement tensile test results. 41 3.8 Shear reinforcement tensile test results. 42 5.1 Specimen test results. 54 5.2 Comparison of spliced specimen applied force to predicted bond Force. 55 5.3 Comparison of spliced specimen applied loads to predicted side

blowout capacities. 57 5.4 Comparison of spliced specimen applied force to predicted

compression strut force. 58 5.5 Comparison of spliced specimen applied force to predicted force

based on Thompson’s equation. 60 5.6 Comparison of spliced specimen applied force to predicted force

based on ACI 2002. 62 5.7 Comparison of spliced specimen applied force to predicted force

based on MSJC 2002. 63 5.8 Comparison of spliced specimen applied load to the combination of

compression strut force plus development force. 65

10

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Typical reinforced masonry construction uses spliced deformed reinforcement within a

wall section. Current codes require the splice length of reinforcement in masonry to be 48

times the diameter of the rebar. This can be as much as three to four feet. Current

construction practice rules require grout to be poured in a maximum of 5-foot lifts in order

to provide adequate consolidation unless high-lift grouting is used. High-lift grouting is

allowed up to 24-foot maximum height. If high-lift grouting is used, clean-out holes are

required at 5-foot maximum along the height of the wall [1]. For ease of construction the

rebar is only extended above the splice as high as a mason can reach to lay another course.

Because of these restrictions, many structures have continuously spliced reinforcement for

the entire height of the structure, as shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: Spliced reinforcement within a masonry wall.

11

The use of heads in a splice situation is a relatively new idea and has not yet been used in

masonry construction. By providing heads on the ends of the reinforcement and splicing

them within a masonry wall, the required splice capacity can be achieved with a shorter

splice length. This project experiments with splicing headed reinforcement in masonry

specimens.

Headed bars, however, have been used in concrete construction. Typically, headed

reinforcement has been provided in shallow embedment conditions where pullout capacity

is required. Headed bars are also used in concrete when limited development length is

available.

This report describes the materials used and their tested strengths. It also includes analysis

and test results of spliced headed reinforcement within masonry specimens. A

representation of what spliced headed reinforcement may look like inside a specimen is

shown in Figure 1.2. Although the figure shows the heads perfectly aligned, in most cases

they were skewed to some unknown angle due to placement challenges encountered.

12

Figure 1.2: Headed reinforcement spliced within a masonry specimen.

The intention of this experiment is to introduce the idea of splicing headed reinforcement

within masonry walls. The hope is that this experiment will be the pilot of subsequent

research in developing a design equation for splicing headed reinforcement in masonry

construction.

13

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Required splice length for reinforcement in concrete and masonry is governed by

applicable codes. The provisions of these codes were the basis of comparisons. The codes

used as a guide and for comparison for this project are Building Code Requirements for

Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318/318R-02) [2] and the masonry code

provided by Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC) [3]. The provision of codes are

based and confirmed on research. Research on development of rebar in concrete was

performed by Orangun et al [4] and in masonry by Thompson [5]. DeVries researched the

anchorage of headed reinforcement in concrete [6].

2.1 PREVIOUS RESEARCH

2.1.1 ORANGUN, C., JIRSA, J., AND BREEN, J.

Referenced in the dissertation by Dr. DeVries [6] and provided in an ACI Journal article,

“A Reevaluation of Test Data on Development Length and Splices” [4], (1) provides the

average bond stress along the development length of reinforcement. The effects of spacing,

cover and transverse reinforcement are addressed within (1). After calculating the bond

stress, the development (or bond) force can be calculated by using (2). The development

force is equal to the bond stress multiplied by the surface area of the development length.

Equation (1) follows [4, 6]:

14

cb

yttr

d

b

b

C fds

fAld

dC '

5005032.1 1

+++=µ (1)

where: µ = average bond stress, psi, CC1 = minimum clear cover, in, ld = development length, in, db = reinforcement diameter, in, Atr = transverse reinforcement area, in2, fyt = transverse reinforcement yield strength, psi, s = transverse reinforcement spacing, in, and f’c = ultimate concrete compressive strength, psi.


bdld dlF πµ= (2)

where: Fld = development force, lbs.

2.1.2 THOMPSON, JASON J.

Thompson performed tension tests on 8-inch thick concrete masonry specimens reinforced

with No. 5 and No. 7, grade 60 reinforcing bars. The purpose for his testing was to

determine the required length of lap for spliced deformed reinforcement within the

specimens. Thompson tested the effects of reinforcement diameter, masonry compressive

strength, and reinforcement splice lengths [5].

Linear and multiple linear regression analyses were performed on the results in order to

model lap splices in masonry assemblages. Thompson formulated the following equation

based on the results of his analyses [5]:

inchesKf

fdl

m

ybs 12

'

15.0≥=

γφ (3)

15

where: γ = 1.0 for No. 3 through No. 6 reinforcing bars; γ = 1.3 for No.7 through No. 11 reinforcing bars;

φ = 0.80; K = ccl/db ≤ 5.0; ccl = minimum clear cover, in; db = diameter of reinforcement, in; fy = yield strength of reinforcement, psi; f’m = allowable compressive strength of masonry assemblage, psi; and ls = length of lap splice, in.

Thompson concluded that by increasing the bar diameter, the splice length required to

fully develop the reinforcement also increased. He also discovered that increasing the

masonry compressive strength decreased the required splice length. According to

Thompson’s analyses, the current code provisions overestimate the required splice length

for smaller diameter bars and underestimated the required splice length for larger

diameter bars [5].

2.1.3 DeVRIES, RICHARD A.

DeVries performed more than 140 pullout tests of headed reinforcement in concrete. The

large number of tests allowed for a wide range of variables to be tested. Clear cover, corner

placement, spacing, embedment depth, development length, and size of reinforcement and

head were among the variables tested. Other variables included concrete strength,

transverse reinforcement and head geometry [6].

DeVries provided a pullout-cone capacity design procedure based on his test results using

the Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) method. The pullout cone is defined as a cone-

16

shaped mass of concrete adhered to the reinforcing bar as the headed bar is pulled out of

the specimen. The CCD pullout capacity equation [6] for a single anchor bolt or headed

stud is

cduo fhP '8.36 5.1= (4)

where: Puo = ultimate capacity, lbs; f’c = compressive strength of concrete, psi; and hd = embedment depth, in.

Equation (4) does not factor in close spacing or edge conditions [6].

From the results of his testing, DeVries formulated a design procedure for the side blowout-

capacity of headed reinforcement in concrete. After reviewing several variables and

simplifying terms, DeVries composed (5). Equation (5) is the 95% fractile design equation

[6]. ACI 318 provides a similar equation, D-15 of Appendix D, except that the coefficient

is 160 rather than 150 [2]. DeVries’s equation [6] follows:

cnu fACP '150 1= (5)

where: Pu = ultimate blowout-capacity, lbs, C1 = edge distance, in, An = net bearing area, in2, and f’c = concrete compressive strength, psi.

2.2 CODE PROVISIONS

17

2.2.1 BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE

Based on research by Orangun and published in ACI 318-02, section 12.2.3 [2] the

development length for a reinforcing bar in concrete is as follows:

inchesd

dKcf

fl b

b

trc

yd 12

'403

≥

+=

λγβα (6)

where: α = reinforcement location factor; β = reinforcement coating factor; γ = reinforcement size factor; λ = lightweight aggregate concrete factor; c = spacing or cover dimension (measured to the center of the

reinforcement), in; Ktr = transverse reinforcement index; f’c = ultimate compressive strength of concrete, psi; fy = yield strength of reinforcement, psi; and db = reinforcement diameter, in.

The ratio of (c + Ktr)/db shall not be greater than 2.5. Ktr is allowed to be equal to zero even

if transverse reinforcement is used or the following equation [2] may be used:

ns

fAK yttr

tr 1500= (7)

where: Atr = area of transverse reinforcement, in2; ftr = yield strength of transverse reinforcement, psi;

s = maximum center-to-center spacing of transverse reinforcement within ld, in; and

n = number of bars or wires being spliced or developed along the plane of splitting.

According to section 12.15.1, the minimum tension lap splices for a Class A splice is 1.0*ld

and for a Class B splice is 1.3*ld [2].

18

2.2.2 MASONRY STANDARDS JOINT COMMITTEE

MSJC is comprised of members from ACI, Structural Engineering Institute of the

American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI ASCE), and The Masonry Society (TMS).

MSJC provided the Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures and commentary

(ACI 530-02, ASCE 5-02, and TMS 402-02) and the Specification for Masonry Structures

and commentary (ACI 530.1-02, ASCE 6-02, and TMS 602-02) [3].

2.2.2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF REINFORCEMENT

According to section 2.1.10.2 of MSJC 2002 [3], the minimum development length of un-

coated tension reinforcement embedded in grout is

inchesFdl sbd 120015.0 ≥= (9)

where: db = reinforcement diameter, and Fs = allowable tensile strength of reinforcement ( ≤ 24000 psi).

Section 2.1.10.6.1.1 provides (10) for the minimum length of lap splice for uncoated

reinforcement in tension or compression. Equation (10) is for contact splices. Contact

splices are defined as splices involving two pieces of reinforcement within the same cell

and tied together [3]. Equation (10) follows [3]:

inchesFdl sbd 12002.0 ≥= (10)

Fs is equal to .4*fy. For 70,000 psi steel (used for this project), Fs would equal to 28,000

psi except the maximum allowable tensile strength is 24,000 psi. Using 24,000 psi, the

minimum development length is 36*db and the minimum lap splice is 48*db based on (9)

and (10) respectively. Unlike the proposed equation by Thompson, required spliced length

19

from (9) and (10) are not influenced by reinforcement clear cover or spacing nor are they

influenced by masonry strength [3].

20

3.0 CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING

The materials used to construct the reinforced masonry specimens were concrete masonry

units (CMU), mortar, grout, and rebar. Prisms were also constructed, except that they were

ungrouted and unreinforced. Properties of the materials and assemblies listed were

determined by testing.

3.1 SPECIMENS

During this experiment, a set of specimens with spliced reinforcement grouted in the center

cores was tested. The spliced specimens consisted of several materials: CMU, mortar,

grout, and reinforcement. Each material was tested for its respective strength.

3.1.1 SPLICED SPECIMENS

Spliced specimens consisted of 8 inch and 12 inch nominal CMU and measured 24 inch

wide by 48 inch high (see Figure 3.1). Nominal and actual dimensions of 8 inch and 12

inch specimens are shown in Table 3.1. Nine 8-inch specimens, two 12-inch specimens,

and one 12-inch half-block specimen were constructed.

21

Figure 3.1: Spliced reinforcement in masonry specimen.

Table 3.1: Spliced specimen properties.

Nominal Dimensions Actual Dimensions Specimen H (in.) B (in.) t (in.) Ls (in.) H (in.) B (in.) t (in.) Dtop (in.) Ls (in.)

A1 48 24 8 8 - - - 20 7/8 8 1/4 B1 48 24 8 8 48 24 7 3/4 21 8 1/4 C1 48 24 8 8 - - - 22 8 A2 48 24 8 24 48 1/2 24 1/8 7 3/4 13 1/8 24 5/8 B2 48 24 8 24 - - - 12 5/8 24 7/8 C2 48 24 8 24 - - - 12 1/2 24 5/8 A3 48 24 8 16 - - - 17 1/8 16 3/4 B3 48 24 8 16 - - - 17 5/8 16 1/2 C3 48 24 8 16 48 1/4 24 7 3/4 17 16 5/8 A4 48 24 12 16 47 7/8 23 7/8 11 3/4 16 3/8 16 5/8 B4 48 24 12 16 47 1/2 24 11 3/4 17 16 D2 48 8 12 16 - - - 17 1/4 16 5/8

Note: All specimens were reinforced with #7 rebar with ¾” x 1 ½” x 4” heads.

Three apprentice masons and their instructor donated their time and expertise to build the

specimens. The apprentices had one and one-half, two, and three years of experience,

respectively. Each specimen and prism was labeled according to the person who

constructed it and the order in which it was constructed. For example, specimen B3 was

22

the third specimen constructed by apprentice B (two years of experience) and C2 was the

second specimen constructed by apprentice C (three years of experience). “D” refers to

the instructor.

After some of the specimens and prisms were built and allowed to cure for a while, the

joints were tooled. Tooling is done with a jointer which “forces the mortar into tight

contact with the masonry unit.” [1] A tooled joint better resists water penetration. Some

of the specimens and prisms were tooled too early. This was obvious due to the visible

tension lines in the mortar joints as represented in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: Tension lines in mortar joint.

After a week of curing in the lab (no special curing), the specimens were set on a platform

- shown in Figure 3.3 - for grouting. It was determined through testing that the mortar

strength was at least 100 psi, and this was adequate to move the specimens to the platform

without cracking.

23

Figure 3.3: Specimens on grouting platform.

After the specimens were placed on the grouting platform, they were allowed to continue

curing. During this time, reinforcement was placed within the center cores as shown in

Figure 3.4. Placement of the reinforcement was a challenge. The heads of the

reinforcement encountered mortar droppings and truss-type transverse reinforcement as

they were placed inside of the specimens. Although this was a challenge, eventually the

bars were set into place.

24

Figure 3.4: Reinforced specimens on grouting platform.

The headed reinforcement was spliced at 8 inch, 16 inch, and 24 inch nominally. The

nominal and measured splice lengths for each specimen are tabulated in Table 3.1 and

detailed in Figure 3.1. The measurements were taken after the reinforcement was placed

in the specimens and before grouting.

Grouting was performed in approximately equal lifts using 5-gallon buckets. After each

lift a vibrator was used to consolidate the grout.

When the grouting was finished and the reinforced specimens had cured for seven days,

the specimens were moved once again. Straps were used to hug the specimens as they

were laid down on the platform as shown in Figure 3.5a. The specimens were set flat on

the concrete floor. Hooks from the crane were used to pick up the specimens by utilizing

the extended reinforcement. The specimens were stacked on the floor, as shown in Figure

25

3.5b, where they would remain until tested. All specimens were tested on days 37 and

38, which was day 28 and 29 after grouting.

a. Hugging specimen. b. Hooked specimen.

Figure 3.5: Transporting specimen.

3.1.2 TEST FRAME

The specimens were tested in a horizontal position sitting on four rollers as shown in Figure

3.6. These rollers allow for a level, free-moving surface while the specimen is being tested.

Four lateral rollers, two on each side of the specimen, were attached to the test frame.

These rollers keep the specimen from rotating and twisting under the applied load. A

friction fit collar was wedged onto the extended rebar on the backside of the specimen

26

behind the channel. On the front side of the specimen are a load cell, hydraulic ram, LVDT

(linear variable differential transformer), and another collar.

Figure 3.6: Specimen lying on rollers in test frame.

A schematic drawing of the test frame is shown in Figure 3.7a and a photo of the test frame

is shown in Figure 3.7b. The applied load was measured with an electronic load cell and

relative displacement was measured with an LVDT. All measurements were automatically

recorded with an electronic data accumulation system.

Specimen Collar Frame Horizontal Roller Supports

27

TEST FRAME

REAR COLAR

REBAR

SPECIMEN

SUPPORTSLATERAL ROLLER

LOAD CELL

RAMHYDRAULIC

FRONTCOLAR

a. Diagrammatical test frame.

b. Actual test frame.

Figure 3.7: Test frame set-up.

Specimen Lateral Roller Support Test Frame Load Cell Hydraulic Ram Front Collar

28

3.2 PRISMS

Prisms were constructed on the same day as the specimens using the same mortar mix. The

prisms were two courses high and ungrouted as shown in Figure 3.8. There were twelve

8-inch prisms and six 12-inch prisms constructed. The prisms were cured under the same

conditions as the specimens until tested. Prisms were tested on day 7, 14, 28, and 38

(second day of specimen testing). Three 8-inch and three 12-inch prisms were tested on

days 7 and 28. Three additional 8-inch prisms were tested on days 14 and 38. All prisms

were tested using a compression tester as shown in Figure 3.9. Prism test results are shown

in Table 3.2 and Figure 3.10. The masonry compressive strength, f’m, for this experiment

is the average 28-day prism compressive strength test results. Therefore, f’m for the 8-

inch specimens is 3300 psi and for the 12-inch specimens is 3800 psi.

Figure 3.8: Ungrouted prism units.

29

Figure 3.9: 12-inch prism in compression tester.

Figure 3.10: Prism compression test results.

2,500

2,900

3,300

2,900

1,900

3,800

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

0 7 14 21 28 35 42Com

pres

sive

Str

ess

(psi

)

Age (days)

Prism Compressive Stress

8" Prism

12" Prism

30

Table 3.2: Prism compression test tabular results.

Prism

Number Nominal Width

(in.) Age

(Days) Applied Load

(lbs.) Compressive Stress

(psi) Average Compressive

Stress (psi)

A1 8 7 103,600 2,590 2,500 C6 8 7 100,900 2,523

B3 8 7 92,300 2,308 B2 8 14 110,900 2,773

2,900 C1 8 14 128,700 3,218 A2 8 14 108,700 2,718 C3 8 28 130,800 3,270

3,300 B1 8 28 141,000 3,525 A3 8 28 128,700 3,218 C2 8 38 97,100 2,428

2,900 C5 8 38 147,100 3,678 C4 8 38 108,500 2,713 A7 12 7 100,300 2,090

1,900 A6 12 7 94,500 1,969 A5 12 7 75,400 1,571 B4 12 28 202,400 4,217

3,800 A4 12 28 164,300 3,423 C7 12 28 183,400 3,821

3.3 CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS (CMU)

There were a variety of CMU used in the construction of the specimens including 8 inch

and 12 inch standard and half block units. Units varied in style; for example, some with or

without end flanges. Those with end flanges, or stretcher blocks, had a single web, and

those without end flanges, double corner splittable blocks, had double webs (Figure 3.11).

Nine individual units, six 8-inch units and three half-block 12-inch units, were tested in

compression using a compression tester. Three of the 8-inch stretcher units and three of

31

the 8-inch double corner splittable units were tested. All nine units were tested along with

the 28-day mortar cube and prism tests. CMU compression test results are shown in Table

3.3. The standard units were also measured for tolerance compliancy according to ASTM

C90 [7]. CMU measurement results are shown in Table 3.4.

Stretcher Block Double Corner Splittable Block

Figure 3.11: CMU block types used for this experiment [1].

Table 3.3: Standard CMU compression test tabular results.

CMU

Number

CMU Course

(in.) Course Type

Compressive Strength

(lbs.)

Compressive Strength

(psi)

Average Compressive Strength (psi)

Stan

dard

CM

U

1 8 Stretcher 120,800 4,000 3,800 2 8 Stretcher 96,600 3,200

3 8 Stretcher 124,800 4,200 4 8 Double Corner Splittable 141,000 4,700

4,300 5 8 Double Corner Splittable 124,300 4,100 6 8 Double Corner Splittable 118,900 4,000 1 12 Half Block 133,330 7,400

6,700 2 12 Half Block 134,100 7,500 3 12 Half Block 95,700 5,300

32

Table 3.4: Standard CMU measurements [7].

CMU Course

(in.) Length

(in.) Width (in.)

Height (in.)

Face Shell (in.)

Equivalent Web Thickness (in.)

Inside Web

(in.) Outside Web

(in.)

Stan

dard

CM

U

8 15 1/2 7 5/8 7 5/8 1 5/8 1 3/8 1 1/4 8 15 5/8 7 5/8 7 5/8 1 3/4 2 5/8 1 3/8 8 15 5/8 7 5/8 7 5/8 1 5/8 1 3/8 1 3/8

Average 15 5/8 7 5/8 7 5/8 1 5/8 3 3/8 Expected 15 5/8 7 5/8 7 5/8 ≥ 1 ≥ 2 1/4

12 15 5/8 11 5/8 7 5/8 1 1/2 1 1/2 1 5/8 12 15 5/8 11 5/8 7 1/2 1 3/4 1 1/4 1 5/8 12 15 5/8 11 3/4 7 5/8 1 5/8 1 1/2 1 5/8

Average 15 5/8 11 5/8 7 5/8 1 5/8 3 3/8 Expected 15 5/8 11 5/8 7 5/8 ≥ 1 /8 ≥ 2 1/2

3.4 MORTAR

Type S, pre-mixed mortar was used to construct the specimens. A full mortar bed, as

shown in Figure 3.12, was used due to the small scale of the specimen. Standard practice

is to mortar both face shells of a unit, webs of grouted cores, and outside webs of the walls.

Using this standard for the specimens resulted in a full mortar bed. The mortar joints were

tooled on both sides.

Figure 3.12: Specimen with full mortar bed.

33

Mortar cube specimens were prepared during the construction of the masonry and prism

specimens with mortar sampled from all mortar batches (see Figure 3.13). The cubes were

cured in the same environment as the specimens. The cube forms were released after three

days of curing.

Figure 3.13: Filling mortar trays.

There were a total of twenty-four mortar cubes tested; three each on day 3, 7, 14, and 38

(second day of specimen testing) and six each on day 28 and 37 (first day of specimen

testing). These were tested using the compression tester. A photograph of a mortar cube

in the compression tester is shown in Figure 3.14. Mortar test results are shown in Table

3.5 and Figure 3.15.

34

Figure 3.14: Mortar cube in compression tester.

Figure 3.15: Mortar cube compression test graphical results.

500

800700

1000 1000

600

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 7 14 21 28 35 42

Com

pres

sive

Str

ess

(psi

)

Age (days)

Mortar Compressive Stress

35

Table 3.5: Mortar cube compression test tabular results.

Mix No. Age (Days) Applied Load

(lbs.) Compressive Stress (psi)

Average Compressive Stress

(psi) 1 3 2630 658

500 6 3 1100 275 1 3 2180 545 1 7 3700 925

800 4 7 3330 833 5 7 2640 660 2 14 2960 740

700 5 14 3480 870 6 14 2420 605 1 28 4640 1160

1000

2 28 4050 1013 3 28 4940 1235 4 28 3840 960 4 28 4560 1140 6 28 1930 483 2 37 5490 1373

1000

3 37 4700 1175 3 37 5550 1388 4 37 3600 900 4 37 2640 660 5 37 3370 843 6 38 2460 615

600 6 38 2380 595 6 38 2770 693

3.5 GROUT SPECIMENS AND CYLINDERS

Standard-mix, pea-gravel grout was used to fill the reinforced cores of the masonry

specimens. Slump tests were performed at the beginning and end of the grouting. The

measured slumps were 9 ½ inches at the beginning and 8 inches at the end. For grout, the

slump expectation is between 8 inches and 10 inches.

36

Grout specimens and grout cylinders were also made during grouting. There were nine

specimens and fifteen cylinders made. ASTM C1019 “Standard Test Method for Sampling

and Testing Grout” specifies a configuration for setting up grout specimen forms as shown

below in Figure 3.16 [8]. The specimens were measured at 3 inches x 3 inches x CMU

depth and the cylinders were 6-inch diameter by 12 inches tall.

Figure 3.16: Grout specimen form configuration per ASTM C1019 (front unit not shown for clarity) [8].

Before filling the forms, the plastic cylinders were wiped out with form oil and the

specimen forms were lined with form oil soaked paper towel. Each was filled per ASTM

C1019 [8]. The masonry specimens, grout specimens, and grout cylinders were filled using

the same grout mix from the same redi-mix truck. After filling the grout specimen and

cylinder forms with grout, the grout was allowed to cure for three days before stripping the

forms. The grout specimens and cylinders were cured in the same environment as the

reinforced masonry specimens.

Three of the grout cylinders were tested on day 3 when the forms were released. Three

grout cylinders and three grout specimens were tested on days 7 and 14. Six grout cylinders

and three grout specimens were tested on day 28. A grout specimen and a grout cylinder

37

are shown in Figure 3.17 as they are being tested in the compression tester. Grout specimen

and grout cylinder compression test results are shown in Table 3.6 and Figure 3.18.

According to the average 28-day grout cylinder compressive test results, the grout

compressive strength, f’g, is 4100 psi.

a. Grout specimen. b. Grout cylinder.

Figure 3.17: Grout specimen and grout cylinder in compression tester.

38

Table 3.6: Grout specimen and grout cylinder compression test tabular results.

Cube/Cylinder

Number Age

(Days) Applied

Load (lbs.) Compressive Stress (psi)

Average Compressive Stress (psi)

Gro

ut S

peci

men

s 1 7 19,600 2,200

1,700 2 7 13,300 1,500 3 7 12,850 1,400 4 14 20,070 2,200

2,100 5 14 15,420 1,700 6 14 22,410 2,500 7 28 17,950 2,000

2,100 8 28 22,580 2,500 9 28 17,150 1,900

Gro

ut C

ylin

ders

1 3 65,400 2,300 2,500 2 3 72,700 2,600

3 3 71,400 2,500 4 7 98,000 3,500

3,300 5 7 94,100 3,300 6 7 90,600 3,200 7 14 77,600 2,700

2,900 8 14 86,500 3,100 9 14 83,700 3,000 10 28 120,500 4,300

4,100

11 28 82,500 2,900 12 28 111,800 4,000 13 28 125,900 4,500 14 28 114,300 4,000 15 28 132,800 4,700

39

Figure 3.18: Grout specimen and grout cylinder compression test graphical results.

3.6 REINFORCEMENT

3.6.1 VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT

The specimens were reinforced with #7, A760, grade 70 reinforcement. Each rebar had a

¾ inch x 1½ inch x 4 inch head at one end. A sample of the headed reinforcement is shown

in Figure 3.19.

1,7002,100 2,100

2,500

3,3002,900

4,100

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500

0 7 14 21 28 35

Com

pres

sive

Str

ess

(psi

)

Age (days)

Grout Compressive Stress

Grout Specimens

Grout Cylinders

40

Figure 3.19: Headed reinforcement.

Tensile tests were performed on the vertical reinforcement using a setup as shown in Figure

3.20. The test results are shown in Table 3.7 and Displacement versus Applied Load plot

is shown in Figure 3.21. The LVDT was used to measure relative displacement of the

reinforcement as it was loaded. It was removed after the reinforcement yielded; therefore,

ultimate displacement was not measured.

Figure 3.20: Vertical reinforcement tensile test setup.

Load Cell Ram LVDT Rebar

41

Table 3.7: Vertical reinforcement tensile test results.

Vertical Reinforcement Bar test Yield Load

(lbs.) Yield Stress

(psi) Ultimate

Load (lbs.) Ultimate Stress

(psi) #1 43848 72919 59473 98903 #2 48242 80227 58496 97279 #3 43066 71620 55176 91758 #4 43042 71579 58887 97929 #5 42773 71133 58789 97767

Average 44000 73000 58000 97000

Figure 3.21: Vertical reinforcement Displacement Versus Applied Load.

3.6.2 SHEAR REINFORCEMENT

Truss type shear reinforcement was provided in every other horizontal mortar joint of the

specimens. The shear reinforcement was used mainly for the purpose of modeling typical

construction practice. The tensile capacity of the horizontal joint reinforcement was tested

using a Tinius Olson machine. The average diameter of the shear reinforcement was 0.15

01000020000300004000050000

0 1 2 3

Appl

ied

Load

(lbs

.)

Displacement (in.)

Vertical Reinforcement Tests

42

inches. Table 3.8 shows the results of the shear reinforcement tensile tests. Figure 3.22

shows a typical Stress versus Strain plot of tested shear reinforcement.

Table 3.8: Shear reinforcement tensile test results.

Nominal Width

Maximum Applied Load (lbf)

Maximum Stress (psi)

8" 1,611 91,140 8" 1,503 85,052 8" 1,468 83,090

Average 1,500 86,000 12" 1,883 106,574 12" 1,880 106,378 12" 1,881 106,454

Average 1,900 106,000

Figure 3.22: Typical Stress Versus Strain plot.

0102030405060708090

0 2 4 6 8

Stre

ss (k

si)

Strain (%)

Stress Vs. Strain

43

4.0 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

Before analyzing the information and drawing conclusions, one must understand what is

being tested and how the forces are applied. At one end of the test setup, the rebar is

restrained with a threaded collar. The other end has a load cell and a ram slid over the bar.

The ram pulls on the bar introducing tension into the bar. Bearing of the head and a bond

force between the rebar and the grout resists tension in the bar. In addition, a compression

strut forms between the heads. See Figure 4.1 for a force diagram.

Figure 4.1: Specimen force diagram.

The purpose of this research is to determine the capacity of spliced headed reinforcement

in masonry. The following sections analyze several variables and limit states. When

comparing the results of this project with previous research, the expectation is that a splice

length of headed reinforcement provides more capacity than an equal splice length of

deformed reinforcement within a masonry assemblage.

44

4.1 LIMIT STATES

In order to analyze the data, one must understand the possible failure modes of each

element within the specimen being tested. Two main components of the specimen are the

masonry assemblage and the headed reinforcement. The masonry assemblage is composed

of the CMU, mortar joints with shear reinforcement, and grout. The headed reinforcement

is composed of the rebar, head, and the welded connection. Each component has its own

modes of failure and these modes are discussed in the following sections.

4.1.1 REINFORCEMENT LIMIT STATES

There are four limit states related to headed reinforcement: rebar yielding, rebar fracture,

failure at the welded connection, and head failure. Considering that the welded connection

is designed to be stronger than the rebar and head, the failure at the welded connection can

be disregarded. Head failure can be ignored as well, because the head is designed to

provide a bearing capacity greater than rebar fracture.

Reinforcement yielding (ductile failure) and fracture cannot be ignored. The expectation

is that yielding would occur prior to fracture. Design of reinforced masonry with respect

to the reinforcement is based on the steel yielding. Neither limit state, though, will be

reached if a masonry failure (limit state) is reached first. However, if a rebar yields before

a masonry limit state is reached, there is still additional capacity within the reinforced

specimen. The ultimate failures (completion of a test) occur when the rebar has fractured

or a masonry limit state has been reached.

4.1.2 MASONRY LIMIT STATES

45

The masonry limit states related to anchorage of headed or deformed reinforcement are

straight pullout, cone pullout, splitting, side blowout, and compression strut failure.

Masonry failure is considered a brittle failure. Once it fails, there is no additional capacity

left to resist the applied load.

4.1.2.1 STRAIGHT PULLOUT

Straight pullout failure occurs with headed and non-headed reinforcement. With headed

reinforcement, the bearing stress of the head on the grout causes a vertical crack starting at

the corners of the heads as shown in Figure 4.2. This is the path in which the headed

reinforcement is pulled out from. For non-headed reinforcement, the bond between the

rebar and the grout disintegrates. As the load is being applied, the grout breaks away from

the reinforcement lugs as shown in Figure 4.3. Straight pullout is possible with deformed

bars; however, it has never been observed with headed bars.

46

Figure 4.2: Straight pullout limit state with headed reinforcement.

Figure 4.3: Straight pullout limit state with non-headed reinforcement.

4.1.2.2 CONE PULLOUT

Cone pullout is similar to a straight pullout failure except that the shape of the pullout is in

the shape of a cone or prism. This limit state typically occurs with single headed bars and

in shallow embedment conditions as shown in Figure 4.4. It is an unusual occurrence with

47

deformed bars. Considering the crack is typically at a 45 degree angle [2], the inside crack

of a spliced specimen would be intercepted by the other reinforcement as shown in Figure

4.5. Therefore, cone pullout is not an expected limit state for splices of headed

reinforcement and was not observed during testing.

Figure 4.4: Cone pullout limit state with a single headed reinforcement.

Figure 4.5: Cone pullout limit state with spliced headed reinforcement.

48

4.1.2.3 SPLITTING

Splitting failure is caused by radial stresses in the grout immediately surrounding the

reinforcement. As the radial stresses increase, cracks start to form and project towards the

nearest surface as shown in Figure 4.6. The cracks start to open and eventually a brittle

failure of the masonry occurs, typically spalling of the faceshell. Splitting failure is

associated with deformed reinforcement, not headed reinforcement. Therefore, splitting

failure was not an expected limit state and was not observed during testing.

Figure 4.6: Splitting limit state.

4.1.2.4 SIDE BLOWOUT

Side blowout is when the faceshell of the masonry assembly is spalled off due to high

internal stresses. This limit state typically occurs with a headed bar deeply embedded or

with long splices as shown in Figure 4.7. As the load is being applied to the rebar, the head

is bearing on the masonry as described earlier.

49

Side blowout is also caused by internal stresses produced by a shear cone. A cone of grout

adhered to the reinforcement, at the intersection of the bar and head, acts as a wedge cutting

through the grout (Figure 4.8). The cone is considered a shear cone and is shown in Figure

4.8. As the load increases, the wedge cuts through the grout, introducing high internal

stresses that migrate to the faceshell of the specimen. Eventually, the stresses caused by

the wedges spall the faceshell of the specimens near the head location (Figure 4.9).

Figure 4.7: Side blowout limit state.

Figure 4.8: Grout shear cone within a reinforced masonry specimen.

50

Figure 4.9: Side blowout failure of a masonry specimen.

4.1.2.5 COMPRESSION STRUT

Compression strut failure is similar to side blowout except that this only occurs with spliced

reinforcement as shown in Figure 4.10. The bearing area of the compression strut is equal

to the area of the head surface.

Figure 4.10: Compression strut failure limit state.

51

The heads of the reinforcement bear on the grout. Because the heads are being pulled

towards each other, a compressive force is developed within the grout between the heads.

As the load increases, the compressive force increases and the grout and masonry fails. It

is expected that a failure of the compression strut will look similar to a side blowout failure.

4.2 VARIABLES

There are many variables that can affect which limit state will be reached: reinforcement

diameter; head area and aspect ratio; transverse reinforcement; masonry compressive

strength; reinforcement spacing; splice length and clear cover. Each variable plays an

important role in determining the capacity of a reinforced masonry assemblage. For this

project, the variables tested were splice length and clear cover.

4.2.1 EXPECTED EFFECT OF SPLICE LENGTH

Splice length for headed reinforcement is defined as the distance between the bearing faces

of the heads as shown in Figure 3.1. The nominal splice lengths tested were 8-inches, 16-

inches, and 24-inches. Measured splice lengths tested are noted in Table 3.1.

Thompson proved that an increase in splice length of deformed bars increased the specimen

capacity [5]. The capacity of specimens with spliced headed reinforcement is also expected

to increase as the splice length increases. If side blowout failure controls, an increase in

splice length would have no effect on the capacity, just development length.

52

4.2.2 EXPECTED EFFECT OF CLEAR COVER

The nominal masonry widths tested were 8-inch and 12-inch which correspond to clear

covers of 3 3/8 inches and 5 3/8 inches respectively using #7 bars centered in the cores. It

is probable that the applied load will be greater for a 5 3/8 inch clear cover than a 3 3/8

inch clear cover with the same splice length. The distance for a crack to reach the exterior

of a 12-inch specimen is greater than an 8-inch specimen. Since the crack has further to

travel, it is expected that the larger clear cover will have a greater capacity.

53

5.0 ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS

After developing preliminary conclusions by describing several limit states of a reinforced

masonry specimen reinforced with headed reinforcement, an analysis of the test results

may be performed. The following sections describe in more detail the role each variable

may or may not have had in each specimen failure.

5.1 TEST RESULTS

The applied load for each specimen and the average applied load for each set of specimens

is shown in Table 5.1. The values shown are the results that will be compared to the

expected bond capacity, side blowout capacity and compression strut capacity. These

values will also be the basis for comparison for the effects of splice length and clear cover.

The 8-inch wide specimens increased in capacity by 9,000 pounds as the splice length

increased by 8 inches. The capacity of the 12-inch wide specimens spliced at 16 inches is

equal to the capacity of the 8-inch specimens spliced at 16 inches.

Table 5.1: Specimen test results.

54

Specimen

Nominal Width (in.)

Splice Length

(in.)

Max Applied

Load (lbs.)

Average Applied Load

(lbs.) A1 8 8.25 30300

31000 B1 8 8.25 33700 C1 8 8 28800 A3 8 16.75 37400

40000 B3 8 16.5 41500 C3 8 16.625 41000 A2 8 24.625 46200

49000 B2 8 24.875 50000 C2 8 24.625 50700 A4 12 16.625 39600

40000 B4 12 16 42200 D2 12 16.625 38600

5.1.1 BOND

There are two basic limit states associated with the bond of the grout to the reinforcement,

pullout and splitting. In Section 4, the author had noted that these two limit states were not

expected during testing. Even though pullout and splitting were not expected, the bond

force resisting the applied load causing these two limit states is calculated.

From Orangun’s test results, equations for bond stress, (1) (see page 14), and bond force,

(2) (see page 14), were developed [4]. Equations (11) and (12) are examples of bond stress

and bond force respectively for Specimen A1. A comparison of the spliced specimen

applied force to the predicted bond force for each specimen is shown in Table 5.2.


psi9203300875.016500

60000025.8

875.050875.0

78.232.1 =

∗∗

∗+

∗+

∗+=µ (11)

55

where: CC1 = 2.78 in, ld = 8.25 in, db = 0.875 in, Atr = 0 in2, fyt = 60,000 psi, s = 16 in, and f’m = 3300 psi.


.900,20875.025.8920 lbsFld =∗∗∗= π (12)

where: µ = 920 psi, ld = 8.25 in, and db = 0.875 in.

Table 5.2: Comparison of spliced specimen applied force to predicted bond force.

Specimen

Nominal Width (in.)

Development Length (in.)

Maximum Applied

Load (lbs.) Development Stress (psi)

Development Force (lbs.)

Applied / Predicted

A1 8 8 1/4 30300 920 20900 1.45 B1 8 8 1/4 33700 920 20900 1.61 C1 8 8 28800 930 20500 1.40 A3 8 16 3/4 37400 770 35500 1.05 B3 8 16 1/2 41500 770 34900 1.19 C3 8 16 5/8 41000 770 35200 1.16 A2 8 24 5/8 46200 720 48700 0.95 B2 8 24 7/8 50000 720 49200 1.02 C2 8 24 5/8 50700 720 48700 1.04 A4 12 16 5/8 39600 1250 57100 0.69 B4 12 16 42200 1250 55000 0.77 D2 12 16 5/8 38600 1250 57100 0.68

As shown in Table 5.2, the applied load of the 8-inch specimens spliced at 8 inches and

16 inches nominally surpassed the predicted bond force by as much as 61%. This

suggests that another mechanism was available to help resist the applied load. The

56

applied load of the 8-inch specimens spliced at 24 inches nominally is approximately

equal to the predicted bond force. Bond force in this set of specimens may be the cause

of failure. The applied load of the 12-inch specimens spliced at 16 inches nominally fell

below the predicted bond force.

5.1.2 SIDE BLOWOUT

DeVries developed (5) (see page 16) from his test results of headed reinforcement in

concrete [6]. He tested several rebar deeply embedded and close to an edge in order to

prevent a pullout failure and to obtain accurate side blowout data. Because of the long

embedment depth and small cover, the limit state reached during this report’s experiment

may resemble a side blowout failure.

Equation (13) is a sample side blowout calculation for all 8-inch specimens [6]:

.200,803300681.3150 lbsPu =∗∗= (13)

where: C1 = 3.81 in, An = 1.25 in * 4 in = 6 in2, and f’m = 3300 psi.

Ratios of the spliced specimen applied load to side blowout failure capacities are shown in

Table 5.3. The applied load for spliced specimen C2 was approximately 60% of the

predicted capacity. The side blowout equation developed by DeVries was not for splices

[6]. The equation overestimates the capacity of the splices.

57

Table 5.3: Comparison of spliced specimen applied loads to predicted side blowout capacities.

Specimen Nominal

Width (in.) Splice

Length (in.) Maximum Applied

Load (lbs.) Side Blowout

Capacity (lbs.) Applied / Predicted

A1 8 8 1/4 30,300 80,200 0.38 B1 8 8 1/4 33,700 80,200 0.42 C1 8 8 28,800 80,200 0.36 A3 8 16 3/4 37,400 80,200 0.47 B3 8 16 1/2 41,500 80,200 0.52 C3 8 16 5/8 41,000 80,200 0.51 A2 8 24 5/8 46,200 80,200 0.58 B2 8 24 7/8 50,000 80,200 0.62 C2 8 24 5/8 50,700 80,200 0.63 A4 12 16 5/8 39,600 131,200 0.30 B4 12 16 42,200 131,200 0.32 D2 12 16 5/8 38,600 131,200 0.29

5.1.3 COMPRESSION STRUT LIMIT STATE

Section 4.1.2.5 of this document describes the failure related to the compression strut limit

state. In review of the photographs taken during the experiment and due to the physical

nature of the specimen failures, it is likely that this was witnessed. Ratios of the applied

load to the allowable compression strut force are shown in Table 5.4. The allowable

compression strut force is equal to the allowable masonry compressive stress, f’m, times

the compression strut area. The surface area of the head was used in the calculation for the

allowable compression strut force. Equation (14) is a sample calculation for the

compression strut force for all 8-inch specimens.

.600,3933006 lbsPu =∗= (14)

where: An = 1.5 in * 4 in = 6 in2, and f’m = 3300 psi.

58

According to Table 5.4, the compression strut for the 8-inch specimens spliced at 8 inches

and the 12-inch specimens spliced at 16 inches had additional capacity. The compression

strut force for the 8-inch specimens spliced at 16 inches was approximately equal to the

applied load. Compression strut failure could have been the limit state for this set of

specimens. The compression strut force for the 8-inch specimens spliced at 24 inches

would have failed prior to reaching the maximum applied load; therefore, another limit

state was involved in resisting the applied loads.

Table 5.4: Comparison of spliced specimen applied force to predicted compression strut force.

Specimen Nominal

Width (in.) Splice

Length (in.) Maximum Applied

Load (lbs.) Compression Strut

Force (lbs.) Applied / Predicted

A1 8 8 1/4 30300 39600 0.77 B1 8 8 1/4 33700 39600 0.85 C1 8 8 28800 39600 0.73 A3 8 16 3/4 37400 39600 0.94 B3 8 16 1/2 41500 39600 1.05 C3 8 16 5/8 41000 39600 1.04 A2 8 24 5/8 46200 39600 1.17 B2 8 24 7/8 50000 39600 1.26 C2 8 24 5/8 50700 39600 1.28 A4 12 16 5/8 39600 46000 0.86 B4 12 16 42200 46000 0.92 D2 12 16 5/8 38600 46000 0.84

5.2 EFFECT OF SPLICE LENGTH

59

Thompson developed a new equation - (3) (see page 15) - for the splice length of

reinforcement in masonry based on his test results [5]. ACI 2002 provides an equation for

splice length based on the development length - (6) (see page 17) - of the reinforcement in

concrete and the type of splice, tension or compression [2]. MSJC 2002 provides an

equation for splice length of reinforcement - (10) (see page 18) - in masonry based on

development length and type of splice, contact or non-contact [3].

5.2.1 THOMPSON’S SPLICE LENGTH

Ratios of the applied force to the predicted force using Thompson’s equation are shown in

Table 5.5. Equations (15) and (16) are sample calculations of specimen A1 for the splice

length and predicted force based on Thompson’s equation. According to Thompson, the

required splice length should be 75db. Thompson overestimates the required splice length

of headed bars. The capacity from splicing headed bars is 2 to 6 times greater than what

Thompson predicted [5]. The phi factor was taken out of (15) in order to more accurately

compare the tested splice lengths.

Equation (15) follows [5]:

inchesls 5.6518.33300

3.170000875.015.0=

∗∗∗∗

= (15)

where: γ = 1.3; K = 2.78/0.875 = 3.18; ccl = 2.78 in; db = 0.875 in; fy = 70000 psi; and f’m = 3300 psi.

60

Equation (16) follows:

poundsPu 53005.65

25.860.070000=

∗∗= (16)

where: Ab = 0.60 in2; fy = 70000 psi; las = 8.25 in; and lps = 65.5 in.

Table 5.5: Comparison of spliced specimen applied force to predicted force based on Thompson’s equation.

Specimen Nominal

Width (in.)

Measured Splice

Length (in.)

Predicted Splice

Length (in.) Applied

Force (lbs.) Predicted


A1 8 8 1/4 65 1/2 30,300 5,300 5.72 B1 8 8 1/4 65 1/2 33,700 5,300 6.36 C1 8 8 65 1/2 28,800 5,100 5.65 A3 8 16 3/4 65 1/2 37,400 10,800 3.46 B3 8 16 1/2 65 1/2 41,500 10,600 3.92 C3 8 16 5/8 65 1/2 41,000 10,700 3.83 A2 8 24 5/8 65 1/2 46,200 15,800 2.92 B2 8 24 7/8 65 1/2 50,000 16,000 3.13 C2 8 24 5/8 65 1/2 50,700 15,800 3.21 A4 12 16 5/8 38 3/4 39,600 18,100 2.19 B4 12 16 38 3/4 42,200 17,400 2.43 D2 12 16 5/8 38 3/4 38,600 18,100 2.13

5.2.2 ACI 2002 SPLICE LENGTH

Ratios of the applied force to the predicted force using ACI 2002 are shown in Table 5.6.

Equations (17) and (18) are sample calculations of specimen A1 for the splice length and

predicted force based on ACI 2002. ACI 2002 overestimates the required splice length for

61

all specimens. The required capacity is 1.5 to 3 times greater than predicted by ACI 2002

[2].


inchesld 32875.0*5.2

11113300

70000403

=

∗∗∗= (17)

where: α = 1.0; β = 1.0; γ = 1.0; λ = 1.0; c = 3.81in; Ktr = 0*60,000/(1500*16*1) = 0; f’m = 3300 psi; fy = 70,000 psi; db = 0.875 in;

Atr = 0 in2; ftr = 60,000 psi;

s = 16 in; and n = 1.

c + Ktr / db = 3.81 + 0 / .875 = 4.35 > 2.5 :. Use 2.5


poundsPu 900,1032

25.860.070000=

∗∗= (18)

where: Ab = 0.60 in2; fy = 70000 psi; las = 8.25 in; and

lps = 32 in.

62

Table 5.6: Comparison of spliced specimen applied force to predicted force based on ACI 2002.

Specimen Nominal

Width (in.)

Measured Splice

Length (in.)

Predicted Splice




A1 8 8 1/4 32 30,300 10,900 2.78 B1 8 8 1/4 32 33,700 10,900 3.09 C1 8 8 32 28,800 10,500 2.74 A3 8 16 3/4 32 37,400 22,000 1.70 B3 8 16 1/2 32 41,500 21,700 1.91 C3 8 16 5/8 32 41,000 21,900 1.87 A2 8 24 5/8 32 46,200 32,400 1.43 B2 8 24 7/8 32 50,000 32,700 1.53 C2 8 24 5/8 32 50,700 32,400 1.56 A4 12 16 5/8 30 39,600 23,500 1.69 B4 12 16 30 42,200 22,600 1.87 D2 12 16 5/8 30 38,600 23,500 1.64

5.2.3 MSJC 2002 SPLICE LENGTH

Ratios of the applied force to the predicted force using MSJC 2002 are shown in Table 5.7.

Equations (19) and (20) are sample calculations of specimen A1 for the splice length and

predicted force based on MSJC 2002. MSJC 2002 overestimates the required splice length

according to Table 5.7. During testing, a greater capacity was obtained by using a splice

length of 9db, rather than using the required splice length OF 48db. The capacity from

splicing headed bars is 2 to 4 times greater than what MSJC 2002 predicts [3].


inchesld 42000,24875.0002.0 =∗∗= (19)

where: db = 0.875 in and Fs = 24000 psi.

63


poundsPu 300,842

25.860.070000=

∗∗= (20)

where: Ab = 0.60 in2; fy = 70000 psi; las = 8.25 in; and

lps = 42 in.

Table 5.7: Comparison of spliced specimen applied force to predicted force based on MSJC 2002.

Specimen

Nominal Width (in.)

Measured Splice

Length (in.)

Predicted Splice




A1 8 8 1/4 42 30,300 8,300 3.65 B1 8 8 1/4 42 33,700 8,300 4.06 C1 8 8 42 28,800 8,000 3.60 A3 8 16 3/4 42 37,400 16,800 2.23 B3 8 16 1/2 42 41,500 16,500 2.52 C3 8 16 5/8 42 41,000 16,700 2.46 A2 8 24 5/8 42 46,200 24,700 1.87 B2 8 24 7/8 42 50,000 24,900 2.01 C2 8 24 5/8 42 50,700 24,700 2.05 A4 12 16 5/8 42 39,600 16,700 2.37 B4 12 16 42 42,200 16,000 2.64 D2 12 16 5/8 42 38,600 16,700 2.31

5.3 EFFECT OF CLEAR COVER

It was expected that more reinforcement cover would increase the capacity of the

specimen due to more confinement of the section. According to Table 5.1 on page 54,

this was not the case. The average applied force for an 8-inch unit spliced at 16 inches is

equal to the average applied force for a 12-inch unit spliced at 16 inches.

64

5.4 COMBINATION OF LIMIT STATES

Since each limit state predicted loads higher than, lower than, or approximately equal to

the applied loads, it is reasonable to consider a combination of limit states acting at the

same time for those loads higher and lower than the applied loads. Through review of the

individual limit states, one combination is developed. This includes the compression strut

limit state resisting the applied load in combination with the development limit state.

5.4.1 COMPRESSION STRUT + BOND

When combining the compression strut force with the bond force, the applied force

becomes less than the combination for all specimens, as shown in Table 5.8. If this

combination is the cause of failure to the specimen, there is a reasonable explanation for a

lesser-applied load than predicted. An interaction between the compression strut limit state

and the development limit state may have been occurring. An interaction equation is a

reasonable explanation for the 8-inch specimens spliced at 16 inches and 24 inches. Both

limit states predicted forces less than the average applied force. For the other specimens,

it is unlikely that an interaction occurred during testing since one or both of the limit states

predicted forces greater than the applied loads.

65

Table 5.8: Comparison of spliced specimen applied load to the combination of compression strut force plus development force.

Specimen

Nominal Width (in.)

Splice Length

(in.)

Maximum Applied

Load (lbs.) Compression Strut

Force (lbs.) Bond Force

(lbs.)

Compression Strut + Bond Force (lbs.)

Applied / Predicted

A1 8 8 1/4 30300 39600 20900 60500 0.50 B1 8 8 1/4 33700 39600 20900 60500 0.56 C1 8 8 28800 39600 20500 60100 0.48 A3 8 16 3/4 37400 39600 35500 75100 0.50 B3 8 16 1/2 41500 39600 34900 74500 0.56 C3 8 16 5/8 41000 39600 35200 74800 0.55 A2 8 24 5/8 46200 39600 48700 88300 0.52 B2 8 24 7/8 50000 39600 49200 88800 0.56 C2 8 24 5/8 50700 39600 48700 88300 0.57 A4 12 16 5/8 39600 46000 57100 103100 0.38 B4 12 16 42200 46000 55000 101000 0.42 D2 12 16 5/8 38600 46000 57100 103100 0.37

5.5 MASONRY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

For all equations, f’m for the 8-inch specimens equaled 3300 psi and for the 12-inch

specimens equaled 3800 psi. These compressive strengths were used for comparison

purposes and because designers specify f’m for masonry construction projects. Masonry

compressive strength does not make sense for the ACI 2002 equation and for Oragun’s

equation where f’g would have been more suitable.

66

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

This report introduced the possibility of splicing headed reinforcement in masonry

construction. With a limited number of 8-inch and 12-inch specimens reinforced with #7

headed reinforcement, a new development in masonry construction has started. Through

research of Orangun, Thompson, and DeVries, a comparison of similar ideas to the test

results of this experiment was possible. The variables for this experiment were limited to

splice length and clear cover. Utilizing the givens and the analysis of the test results, the

following conclusions may be drawn:

1. Thompson overestimates the required splice length for headed reinforcement.

Compared to deformed reinforcement, headed reinforcement has 2 to 6 times more

capacity.

2. MSJC 2002 also overestimates the required splice length for head reinforcement.

A greater capacity was obtained using 9db in the experiment than what was

predicted from MSJC’s required minimum of 48db.

3. The average applied loads of the 8-inch specimens and 12-inch specimens spliced

at 16 inches were the same. This suggests that clear cover has no effect on the

capacity of the specimens.

4. The longer the splice, the greater the capacity. The capacity of the 8-inch specimens

increased by 9,000 pounds as the splice increased by 8 inches.

67

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE TESTING

The use of headed reinforcement in masonry construction is a fairly new idea and needs to

be developed further. Due to a limited number of specimens tested during this experiment

and the lack of accurate information, it is recommended that future testing be performed.

Future experiments should include the following:

1. Future tests should look at the effect of bar diameter and clear cover.

2. The only reinforcement used during this experiment was a #7, grade 70 rebar.

Grade 70 is required for welding the head to the rebar. Future tests should include

an analysis of several different diameter rebar. The rectangular heads provided for

this experiment were also uniform in size throughout. Also, future research should

include the effects of square heads and providing heads with different areas.

3. The concrete masonry units used for this experiment are assumed to be normal

weight units. All units were donated, but a manufacturer’s record of strength was

not recorded. Future tests should include the effects of normal weight and

lightweight units.

4. The transverse reinforcement provided for this experiment was uniform throughout.

Future testing may include the effects of different transverse reinforcement or even

no transverse reinforcement.

5. The reinforcement for this experiment was allowed to bond to the grout as a means

of resisting the applied load. Future testing should include the removal of the bond

between the reinforcement and the grout.

REFERENCES

68

[1] Drysdale, Robert C., Ahmad A. Hamid, , Lawrie R. Baker. 1999. Masonry Structures Behavior and Design. 3rd Ed. Boulder, Colorado: The Masonry Society.

[2] American Concrete Institute. ACI Committee 318. 1 November 2001. Building

Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. Designation: ACI 318/318R-02. Farmington Hills, Michigan: American Concrete Institute.

[3] Masonry Standards Joint Committee. ACI Committee 530/530.1, ASCE 5/6, TMS

402/602. 11 February 2002, 28 September 2001, 15 February 2002. Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, Specification for Masonry Structures, Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, Commentary on Specification for Masonry Structures. Designation: ACI 530-02/ ASCE 5-02/ TMS 402-02, ACI 530.1-02/ ASCE 6-02/ TMS 602-02. Farmington Hills, Michigan: American Concrete Institute, Reston, Virginia: Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Boulder, Colorado: The Masonry Society.

[4] Orangun, C. O., J. O. Jirsa, and J. E. Breen. March 1997. “A Reevaluation of Test

Data on Development Length and Splices.” ACI Journal Vol. 74 (3), pp. 114-122. [5] Thompson, Jason James. 1997. “Behavior and Design of Tension Lap Splices in

Reinforced Concrete Masonry.” Master’s thesis, Washington State University. [6] DeVries, Richard A. 1996. “Anchorage of Headed Reinforcement in Concrete.”

Ph. D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. [7] Standard Specifications for Loadbearing Concrete Masonry Units. Designation:

C 90. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2001. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

[8] Standard Test Method for Sampling and Testing Grout. Designation: ASTM C

1019. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2001. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

FINAL DESIGN PROJECT REPORT APPROVAL FORM

69

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Milwaukee School of Engineering This report, for the project titled Headed Reinforcement Lap Splices In Concrete Masonry, submitted by the student Arlo Jay Gough, Jr., has been approved by the following committee: Faculty Advisor: ___________________________________

Dr. Richard DeVries Date Committee Member: ___________________________________

Dr. Doug Stahl Date Committee Member: __________________________________

Christopher Raebel Date

MAIN COMMITTEEseaoa.org/resources/Documents/Meeting Minutes/TMS 402-602...2018/04/02 · TMS...

Documents

Transcript of MAIN COMMITTEEseaoa.org/resources/Documents/Meeting Minutes/TMS 402-602...2018/04/02 · TMS...