ACI 318 15 April 2015 Minutes (Ver 4)

ACI COMMITTEE 318 STRUCTURAL BUILDING CODE
ACI Spring The Concrete Convention and Exposition

Kansas City Marriott and Convention Center
Kansas City, MO
Wednesday 15 April 2015 8:00 AM 12:30 PM C-2102 A&B
MINUTES Main Committee

1. Call to order at 8:20 AM.
2. Self-introductions
3. Meeting minutes from Washington D.C. (October 28, 2014) were approved.
4. Announcements
a. Professor James K. Wight gave comments celebrating the life and
accomplishments of Jim MacGregor. A moment of silence was held. (PDF
of slides and comments appended to the Main committee meeting reports)
b. ACI 318 Workshop prior to the Denver Convention in November, 2015.
318 Subcommittee W is finalizing the program for Denver. Some of the
sessions planned are: Repair of Existing Buildings, Performance-Based
Design of New Buildings and Strengthening of Existing Buildings, and
Design of Marine Concrete Structures. All 318 members are invited to
attend. The Workshop is all day Friday and Saturday before the Denver
convention (November 6 & 7, 2015).
5. Code cycle information
a. ICC schedule and ACI 318 cycle
December 4, 2015
Kansas City, MO
i. Chair Moehle gave a short review of the upcoming cycle and noted
that 2019 is still this Code committees target for producing the next
version of the code.
b. Procedures review/revisions
i. ACI Staff Zeisler gave a short comment that the iClickers now have
each members name attached and the votes will be tallied
electronically this way.
c. 318.2 Shells
i. Chair Moehle updated the committee on how the 318.2 Shells
document will be maintained going forward. Subcommittee D will
be responsible for maintenance and suggestions from ACI 334 will
be considered.
6. 318 Procedures
a. Balloting best practices
i. Zeisler presented on ballot comment best practices to the
committee members. If the committee members follow the best
practices shown and discussed, it should alleviate some of the
more troublesome issues for the Subcommittee chairs and the Main
committee secretary.
ii. Zeisler will add instructions to each ballot when it is created. This
will be a short reminder of the discussion in this meeting.
December 4, 2015
Kansas City, MO
iii. Zeisler will add instructions to the ballot comment file. This same
file should be used by all of the subcommittees going forward so
that there is a consistent comment form for members to use
throughout the 318 process. A pdf of this adjusted form is attached
to these minutes.
iv. Zeisler will remove the E (Editorial) option from the ballot comment
template. The comment form will align with the voting options on
the web-ballot page.
b. No vote signoff
i. Form for sign-off will all be in the Subcommittee chair hands and do
not need to have signatures from the negative voter. Zeisler will
work with the Subcommittee chairs and Chair Moehle to create a
form for this.
7. Technical issues
a. Minimum thickness tables
i. Poston presented on the minimum thickness tables in the code and
what some options might be if the committee wishes to change the
code in this area. Presentation appended to these meeting
minutes.
ii. Subcommittees C & D have also been looking at options for the
minimum thickness tables in the code.
December 4, 2015
Kansas City, MO
iii. The subcommittees will coordinate their efforts moving forward.
b. Material-based phi factors vs PM diagram fix
i. Frosch presented a discussion for adjusting the phi factors to
create a PM diagram that doesnt have the transition zone bump.
ii. Kelly showed further discussions of this issue in his Subcommittee
R report.
c. Shear provisions review
i. Sanders presented a discussion and plan for the joint effort
between ACI 445 (Shear and Torsion) and ACI 318 Subcommittee
E to examine alternatives for the existing 318 equations for one-
way shear.
d. Load factors in ACI 318
i. Browning presented a discussion regarding the possible removal of
the load factors from the Code and referencing ASCE 7 exclusively.
A straw vote was taken. The question asked was: Is removing the
phi factors and load factors from the code and placing them in the
commentary appropriate? The vote count was: 33 Affirmative, 4
December 4, 2015
Kansas City, MO
Negative, 1 Abstention, and 2 Non-responsive.
e. High-strength reinforcement
i. Kelly presented on several items that Subcommittee R are looking
at with regard to high-strength reinforcement in the Code.
8. Reports from Subcommittee Chairs
a. Sub A
i. Sub A has been productive since the Washington meeting and had
a very productive meeting in KC
1. Two letter ballots completed
2. Working primarily on the TAC and public comment lists
3. Will have three CA items for the first 318 ballot after KC
ii. Update on shotcrete into the Code
1. Move and update provisions from IBC into 318
2. Does not look like shotcrete provisions in IBC have been
updated in a long time
3. Plan is to treat shotcrete as concrete that is transported and
December 4, 2015
Kansas City, MO
placed differently
4. Shotcrete provisions will be inserted into the appropriate
locations within the Code rather than setting up a new
section for shotcrete
iii. Discussion of "alternative cements" appearing under ASTM C1157
1. Many new materials are appearing on the market
2. Being promoted by developers as meeting ASTM C1157
3. There is little information available for these materials
regarding durability and basic structural performance
4. Because cements covered by C1157 are approved by t he
Code, these new materials are being promoted as
"approved" by 318
5. Sub A will develop provisions for Code to ensure that
meeting C1157 does not automatically mean a material is
approved for structural concrete
iv. LDP will be addressed in Denver with a possible ballot item to the
Main committee after Denver
v. Meeting minutes from Subcommittee A are attached below.
b. Sub B
i. One ballot on Chapter 17 and portions of Chapter 26 reorganizing
to fit the present format of the code (i.e. the reorganization process)
ii. Kline noted that the notation in these sections should be adjusted
as they are a bit awkward in places.
iii. French noted that there was some resistance to making a full
change to the chapters in Subcommittee B.
iv. Wyllie noted that the phi-factor table was a good addition to the
Code. He also noted that any Main committee ballot on these
chapters will likely be complex because of the amount of
information that will be moved and edited.
v. Looking for input from the committee Anderson asked for a straw
vote with the question: Should Sub B continue moving forward with
reorganizing Chapter 17 and select portions of Chapter 26 to make
it consistent with the rest of the Code? The vote count was: 34
Affirmative, 3 Negative, and 2 Abstentions.
December 4, 2015
Kansas City, MO
vi. Meeting minutes from Subcommittee B are attached below.

c. Sub C
i. Sub C is working to have a Main committee ballot item this
summer.
ii. Deflections discussions will be coordinated with Sub C and
interested subcommittees (Sub D)
iii. Presentation slides and meeting minutes from Subcommittee C
report are attached below.
d. Sub D
i. Members and shells (except diaphragms)
ii. Mcr basis for minimum steel amounts
iii. Main ballot items are being worked on, but will likely not be ready
before Denver.
iv. Presentation slides and meeting minutes from Subcommittee D
e. Sub E
i. At least one ballot item will be ready for the summer 318 ballot.
ii. Presentation slides and meeting minutes from Subcommittee E
f. Sub F
December 4, 2015
Kansas City, MO
i. Deep foundation requirements are being worked on. This item is

expected to be ready for the September 318 ballot.
ii. Presentation slides and meeting minutes from Subcommittee F
g. Sub G
i. Four different subcommittee ballots.
ii. One item is ready for the summer 318 ballot.
iii. Working to combine several items into a large item for cracked
sections of prestressed concrete.
iv. Working on the definition of Acf.
v. Strand bond testing
vi. Presentation slides and meeting minutes from Subcommittee G
h. Sub H
i. Should have a main committee ballot item ready for the summer or
fall 318 ballot.
ii. Presentation slides and meeting minutes from Subcommittee H
i. Sub J
i. Should have a ballot item ready for the September 318 ballot.
ii. Presentation slides and meeting minutes from Subcommittee J
j. Sub R
i. Is coordinating with several other Subcommittees this cycle
because of the amount of areas that will be touched when high-
strength reinforcement is discussed.
ii. Should have an item ready for the September 318 ballot.
iii. Presentation slides and meeting minutes from Subcommittee R
k. Sub L
i. Sub L is coordinating with ACI 133 to help with the work for disaster
study efforts.
ii. Shear heads are not used by many people, only one from Sub L
December 4, 2015
Kansas City, MO
indicated they are being used in their country.

iii. Meeting minutes from Subcommittee L are attached below.
l. Sub S
i. Meeting minutes from Subcommittee S are attached below.
9. Errata and formatting for ACI 318-14, 318M-14
a. Moehle announced that the pdf available on the ACI 318 web-page is now
up to date with the most recent formatting changes and errata. Please see
the first page of the document for the appropriate printing and errata date
information.
10. New Business
a. No new business.
11. 318 ballot schedule
a. LB15-1 items due 15 June 2015
b. LB15-2 items due 14 September 2015
12. Subcommittee meetings
a. Moehle suggested to the Subcommittee chairs that now that we have
virtual meeting availability that they should consider holding summer virtual
meetings.
b. It would be best if done through the website, but if there is a wish to hold a
GoToMeeting instead of a GoToWebinar, please contact staff for help in
scheduling the meeting. This should only be done if you have a smaller
meeting of a task group or other working sub-section of the Subcommittee.
December 4, 2015
Kansas City, MO
13. Next 318 Meeting
a. Monday-Wednesday, November 10-11, Denver, CO
b. Expect subcommittees to meet mainly on Tuesday, Main on Wednesday.
14. Adjournment
a. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:30 PM.
December 4, 2015
Earlier this year we lost one of the true giants of the concrete design
community. Jim MacGregor was a major contributor to concrete design codes in
the US and Canada, and his influence spread around the world. It is hard to
express in a few words all of the technical contributions he made and all of the
good will he spread within our industry.
My first contact with Jim was during the ACI Convention in the Fall of 1974. I
decided to visit my first technical committee meeting, so I stepped into the 426
meeting on shear. Jim was the committee chair and he graciously welcomed me
into the meeting. They were having an intense discussion of a new shear strength
design equation for concrete beams with low reinforcement ratios (sound
familiar?). The meeting was so exciting and educational, that I was immediately
sold on the importance of getting involved with the work of ACI technical
committees. Years later when I chaired my first meeting of Committee 318, I said
I was standing on the shoulders of giants in the concrete industry and I was
envisioning Jim MacGregor as one of those giants.
Jims contributions to Committee 318 actually started when he was a graduate

student at the University of Illinois, working for Professor Chet Siess. Chet was an
active member of Committee 318 and he asked Jim to help with his preparation for
upcoming committee meetings. During his technical committee work in the US
and Canada, Jim was a tireless worker in leading free and open discussions,
respecting the viewpoint of others, and convincingly developing broad technical
consensus. He had an ability to assemble research results, blend it with practical
lessons learned from practitioners, and present it in a balanced and coherent
manner.
The technical contributions Jim made to the structural engineering community

in North America are too numerable to recount. I will try to list some of his major
contributions and I apologize if I leave out something that should have been
included.
1. He was a leader in the development of the Limit States Design Criteria in both
the US and Canada. He worked on the development of both the phenomenon-
based strength reduction factors (-factors) used in the ACI Code, as well as the
material based partial -factors used in the Canadian Design Code. In the mid-70s
he gave the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering National Lecture Tour on
Safety and Limit States Design of Reinforced Concrete.
1
2. He led in the development of design procedures for slender columns that were
eventually included in both the ACI and Canadian Concrete Design Codes. I
remember an ACI meeting where he lectured not just the 318 committee, but the
full ACI membership on the derivation of moment-magnification factors and
stiffness-based -factors that formed the basis of the slender column design
provisions.
3. He served as Chair of key ACI technical committees as well as when I was

Chair of 318-Sub E, he provided technical leadership in the development of the
ACI Code design requirements for the use of Strut-and-Tie models.
4. The leadership he provided to ACI may pale in comparison to his contributions

in Canada as Chair of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Committee for
the Design of Concrete Structures and Chair of the CSA Committee on Structural
Design for the National Building Code. He was regarded as the voice of Canada
in all international associations dealing with reinforced concrete design
regulations.
5. He served as ACI President in 1992-93; was made an Honorary Member in

2001; won several awards for his technical papers and leadership within ACI; was
named a Fellow of the Academy of Sciences of the Royal Society of Canada and a
Fellow of the Canadian Academy of Engineering; and last but not least, a
Distinguished University Professor at his beloved University of Alberta.
He was a great contributor to the technical knowledge embodied in the ACI and
Canadian Concrete Design Codes, as well as a great colleague and friend to many
of us. In his memory he would want us, each in our own way, to strive for
excellence in our own fields, utilizing to the fullest the talents that God has given
us.
James K. Wight
April 15, 2015
2
Slab Deflections
Two- Way Slab Deflections
Table 8.3.1.1 Minimum slab thickness
Table 24.2.2 - Allowable deflections
Slab Reinforcement
Minimum Slab Thickness
By code, if slab thickness exceeds slab span divided by 30, no
deflection calculations are needed:
Span Design Thickness Span/30
in. in.
17 - 8 8.0 7.1
24 - 9 8.0 9.9
17 - 8 8.0 7.1
24 - 9 8.0 9.9
31 - 5 10.0 12.6
18 - 2 8.0 7.3
25 - 3 8.0 10.1
31 - 1 10.0 12.4
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Max Deflection (in.)
2.5
Level 2
2.0 Level 3
Level 4
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3 3.5 9.5 10 13.5 14
Gridline
Deflection Calculations
ACI 435R-95 Control of Deflections in Concrete
Structures
Calculated Deflections
Calculated Deflections:
DSD+L = 0.7 in. (Using ACI 318)
DSD+L = 1.5 in. (Using ACI 435 Method 1)
DSD+L = 2.1 in. (Using ACI 435 Method 2)
Code Limits:
DSD+L L/480 = 0.59 in.
DSD+L L/240 = 1.19 in.
INTERACTION DIAGRAM
ACI318
-20000
-17500
-15000
-12500
-10000
N (kN)
-7500
-5000
-2500
Nominal Strength
2500 ACI 318 Design Strength
Partial factor design strength
5000
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
M (kN m)
interaction ACI318.xls
318E Section and
Member Strength
One-Way Shear Strength

Equations
318E and 445
318E Section and
Member Strength
Concerns have been Expressed about the

One-Way Shear Equations
Concerns about the large number of shear equations within
Chapter 22 that cover a wide range of conditions.
Concerns expressed about the accuracy of the equations
especially for beams without minimum shear reinforcement
and members with low longitudinal reinforcement ratio.
Concerns that the equations do not include the size effect.
There has been a lot of research on one-way shear but not a

consensus on what would be best for ACI 318.
318E Section and
Member Strength
What is the plan?

A joint effort has begun between 445 (Shear and Torsion) and
318E to examine alternatives for the existing 318 equations
for one-way shear.
Gather Data
Collect potential proposals
Compare proposals with existing 318 equations
Compare proposal with experimental databases
Determine how the different proposals and current 318
equations compare with a wide range of variables
(examples).
Evaluate the above data along with ease of use, range of
application and transparency.
Most accurate method may not be the best design
method
318E Section and
Member Strength
Examination of One-Way Shear Equation
Early Fall 2014, an invitation was sent to 445 (Shear and

Torsion) and 446 (Fracture Mechanics) members to present
ideas for improving the ACI318 one-way shear design
provisions.
Ten presentations were made during Fall 2014 ACI445
meeting in Washington DC.
318E Section and
Member Strength
Shear Design Proposals (Washington DC meeting):

1) ACI-446 Committee (Gianluca Cusatis) ACI-446 Proposal to Update the ACI Shear Design
Provisions
2) Evan Bentz and Michael Collins Shear Design Provisions for ACI Based on the fib 2010
Model Code
3) Robert J. Frosch Unified Shear Design of Structural Concrete
4) Karl - Heinz Reineck Shear Design of Structural Concrete within the Concept of Strut-and-
Tie Models
5) Hong-Gun Park , Kyoung-Kyu Choi, and Jong-Chan Kim Shear Strength Model Based on
Compression Zone Failure Mechanism
6) Thomas T. C. Hsu Shear Design of Partially Prestressed Concrete Beams A Unified
Approach
7) Qiang Yu Size Effect of Reinforced Concrete Beam under Shear
8) Jia-Liang Le, Mija H. Hubler, and Christian G. Hoover Discussion on Shear Design
Provisions Based on Experimental Data and Fracture Mechanics
9) Zdenek P. Bazant and Marco Salviato Comparative Critical Examination of Models for Size
Effect on the Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams
10) A. Mar, A. Cladera and J. Bairn Shear-Flexural Strength Mechanical Model for Design
and Assessment
318E Section and
Member Strength
Formal request for proposals was sent to:

Presenters at 445 meeting, Washington DC
445 members, associate members and friends
318E member through 318E Chair
446 members through 446 Chair
International colleagues and their colleagues

Joost Walraven (Delft Univ.)
Victor Segrist (Hamburg)
Auelio Muttoni (EPFL Switzerland)
Linh Cao Hoang (Denmark Tech. Univ.)
Tamon Ueda (Hokkaido Univ.)
Niwa (Tokyo Tech.)
Foster (Univ. New South Wales)
318E Section and
Member Strength
Template for Proposals

[ACI318-14] ACI318 Equation or Provision Type, Actions, Change/New Variation in Type,
and and Limits for Provisions being Actions, and Limits
(ACI318-11) ACI318 Proposed for Change Proposal
Ref.#s Provision relative to ACI318
[22.5] One-Way Shear Strength
[22.5.1] General
[22.5.1.1] P, NP, Av, NAv,

(11.1.1) Vn Vc Vs M, Nc, Nt
[22.5.1.1] (11-2)
[22.5.1.2]
(11.4.7.9)
Vu (Vc 8 f 'c ) bwd
[22.5.1.1]
318E Section and
Member Strength
Template for Proposals

[ACI318-14] ACI318 Equation or Provision Type, Actions, Change/New Variation in Type,
and (ACI318- and Limits for Provisions being Actions, and Limits for
11) Ref.#s ACI318 Proposed Change Proposal
Provision relative to ACI318
[22.5] One-Way Shear Strength

[22.5.1] General
[22.5.2] Geometric assumptions
[22.5.3] Limiting material strengths
[22.5.4] Composite concrete members
[22.5.5] Vc for nonprestressed members without axial force
[22.5.6] Vc for nonprestressed members with axial compression
[22.5.7] Vc for nonprestressed members with significant axial tension
[22.5.8] Vc for prestressed members
[22.5.8.2] Approximate method for calculating Vc for prestressed members
[22.5.8.3] Vc for prestressed members may also be taken as the lesser of Vci and Vcw
[22.5.9] Vc for pretensioned members in regions of reduced prestress force
[9.6.3] (11.4.6) Minimum shear reinforcement (and provisions from other chapters than 22)
[22.5.10] One-way shear reinforcement
318E Section and
Member Strength
Progress:
Template sent to all potential proposers on Dec. 10 for
review and comment and other reviewers with 445 and
318E
Feedback received by Dec. 19
Revised template sent to all potential proposers on Dec. 24
Request to receive completed templates by Feb. 7.
Received seven (07) completed templates by Feb. 25
318E Section and
Member Strength
Submitted Proposals:
1) Qiang Yu, Teng Tong, Mija H. Hubler, Jia-Liang Le, Gianluca Cusatis, and
Zdenek P. Bazant
2) Evan Bentz and Michael Collins
3) Robert J. Frosch
4) Karl-Heinz Reineck
5) Hong-Gun Park , Kyoung-Kyu Choi, and Jong-Chan Kim
6) Thomas T.C. Hsu and Yi-An Li
7) Antonio Mar, Antonio Cladera, and Jesus Bairn
8) Yasuhiko Sato (received on 4-12-15)
Four of the proposals presented at 445

in Washington DC were combined.
318E Section and
Member Strength
Databases for One-Way Shear
Subcommittee ACI 445D on Beam Shear in combination with

the Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton (DAfStb, German
Committee for Structural Concrete) and its Research Council
{Sponsored by the DAfStb and Deutsches Institut fr
Bautechnik (DIBt)}. - Karl-Heinz Reineck and Dan Kuchma
Reinforced Concrete
Without Shear Reinforcement (784)
With Shear Reinforcement (170)
Prestressed Concrete
Without Shear Reinforcement (214)
With Shear Reinforcement (119)
318E Section and
Member Strength
Progress:
445D databases were made available to all proposers.
Proposers were asked to run the evaluation of their proposal
using 445D databases
Not all proposers have submitted their evaluations.
445D subcommittee member Dr. Reineck ran the evaluation of
all 7 proposals + current 318-14 shear provisions using 445D
databases.
During evaluation process, 445D and proposers worked to:
(1) agree on the method assumptions
(2) resolve any discrepancies
Independent evaluation of the above was also run by Dan
Kuchma
318E Section and
Member Strength
Progress:
445D completed all evaluations and were sent to respective
proposers
Dan Kuchma completed all evaluations but are still resolving
some minor details.
445D presented summary of the evaluation results at 445
meeting in Kansas City.
318E Section and
Member Strength
What is next?:
Refine all evaluations (445D (Reineck), Kuchma. and proposers).
Merge some proposals (proposers), if any and re-evaluate
Generate a design example database (proposers + TG of 445 and
318E)
Apply the proposed design methods to the design examples
(proposers)
Potentially refine the analysis to include data size bias and
other factors (Zdenek Bazant)
318E Section and
Member Strength
National Cooperative Highway Research Program,

Project 12-61, FY 2002
Simplified Shear Design of Structural Concrete Members
Task 7. Prepare a minimum of 6 design examples illustrating

application of the recommended design procedures.
What they really wanted to know was the following:
1. How shear reinforcement requirements (vfy) are going to
change relative to current practices.
2. How adopting these new requirements are going to affect
the capacity rating of existing structures.
3. Where there are significant differences between current and
proposed requirements
15
318E Section and
Member Strength
16
318E Section and
Member Strength
500 Sectional Design Cases

Multiple Sections over Length
Multiple Slenderness Ratios,
Load Levels (wu, Pu, etc.), and
Levels of Prestressing
17
318E Section and
Member Strength
ACI AASHTO
18
318E Section and
Member Strength
19
Tentative Proposal for Design Cases 318E Section and
Member Strength
Better to use a Double Tee
20
318E Section and
Member Strength
Examples:
Column axial load

Large Transfer Beams
Flexural Design including Cut-Offs
????
= Automated Generation of Graphs
Other Issues:
Limits Minimum and Maximum

High Strength Reinforcement and Concrete
21
318E Section and
Member Strength
Proposed design method needs to be:

Conservative
Simple to use
Easy to understand
Applicable to wide range of structures
Schedule between now and Denver (Fall 2015)

Work on finalizing database analysis
Develop examples and then utilize to compare
proposals with each other and 318
Denver - begin to examine examples including
trends and comparisons, and look at statistics
318E Section and
Member Strength
HUGE THANK YOU TO 445 and 446

DJ Belarbi(445 Chair)
Karl Heinz Reineck and Daniel Dunkelberg
Dan Kuchma and his students
Proposers
Unified Design Provisions
Work-in-Progress
ACI 318 Main Committee Meeting
Kansas City
4/15/2015
ACI 318 Sub R
Potential Issues to Tackle
Net Tensile Strain, t, limit for tension-controlled
sections with high strength reinforcement
Shorter or non-existent yield plateau
Stress-strain shape dependent
Over strength due to strain hardening
Odd shaped axial load-moment diagram
Approach to smoothing it
High-strength concrete
Nominal strengths are over-predicted for compression
controlled section
Computation of nominal strength
Consider impact of stress-strain curve shape (not
addressing today)
Overview of t and
Compression/Tension Controlled
Transitions
Current Provisions in ACI 318-14

ACI 318-14: Unified f Factors
21.2.2 Strength reduction factor for moment, axial force, or combined moment and axial
force shall be in accordance with Table 21.2.2.
21.2.2.1 For deformed reinforcement, ty shall be fy/Es. For Grade 60 deformed
reinforcement, it shall be permitted to take ty equal to 0.002.
21.2.2.2 For all prestressed reinforcement, ty shall be taken as 0.002.
2.2 Notation
t = net tensile strain in extreme layer of longitudinal tension reinforcement at nominal
strength, excluding strains due to effective prestress, creep, shrinkage, and temperature
ty = value of net tensile strain in the extreme layer of longitudinal tension reinforcement
used to define a compression-controlled section
ACI 318-14: Calculating et
R21.2.2 The nominal
strength of a member that is
subjected to moment or
combined moment and axial
force is determined for the
condition where the strain in
the extreme compression
fiber is equal to the assumed
strain limit of 0.003. The net
tensile strain tyis the tensile
strain calculated in the
extreme tension
reinforcement at nominal
strength, exclusive of strains
due to prestress, creep,
shrinkage, and temperature.
The net tensile strain in the
extreme tension
reinforcement is determined
from a linear strain
distribution at nominal
strength, shown in Fig.
R21.2.2a for a
nonprestressed member.
ACI 318-14: Explanation of Boundaries
R21.2.2 If the net tensile strain in
the extreme tension reinforcement is
sufficiently large ( 0.005), the
section is defined as tension-
controlled, for which warning of
failure by excessive deflection and
cracking may be expected. The 0.005
limit provides sufficient ductility for
most applications.
R21.2.2 If the net tensile strain in
the extreme tension reinforcement is
small ( ty), a brittle compression
failure condition is expected, with
little warning of impending failure.
Before ACI 318-14, the compression-
controlled strain limit was defined as
0.002 for Grade 60 reinforcement and
all prestressed reinforcement, but it
was not explicitly defined for other
types of reinforcement. In ACI 318-
14, the compression-controlled strain
limit ty is defined in 21.2.2.1 and
21.2.2.2 for deformed and prestressed
reinforcement, respectively.
Where is et used?
21.2.2 for selection of factor
6.6.5 for limits on moment redistribution
7.3.3., 8.3.3 and 9.3.3 minimum et for flexural
members
8.4.2.3.4 modified values for gf for slab-
column connection design
(still searching for more)
900
800
700
Mn/bd2 (psi)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200
Reinforcement ratio, r
Early Suggests of t Limit for Tension-
Controlled Sections with High-Strength
Reinforcement
Grade 60 0.005
Grade 80 0.007
Grade 100 0.009
60,000
= 0.005 + 0.001
10,000
Table 1 Definition of tension
controlled section limits
fy (ksi) 60 75 80 90 100
ey 0.0021 0.0026 0.0028 0.0031 0.0034
etc 0.005 0.0065 0.0070 0.0080 0.0090
r/rb 0.625 0.579 0.570 0.545 0.533

Resulting Reductions in Mn Maximum
18"
2- 24
typ
Grade = 1% t = 0.005 t = variable

60 4,770 in-k 12,110 in-k 10,931 in-k
80 6,265 in-k 12,110 in-k 9,957 in-k
100 7,709 in-k 12,110 in-k 8,447 in-k
Whats Going On?
0.003
c (neutral axis)
a (stress block depth)
and thus C
(compression force)
gets smaller
0.005
0.007
0.009
Historical Notes
ACI 318-14 Commentary Reference:
(Mast 1992)
Commentary Reference (Mast 1992)
Mast, R. F., 1992, Unified Design Provisions for

Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Flexural
and Compression Members, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 89, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 185-199
As Described by Mast (1992)
Boundary at Compression Boundary at Tension
Controlled Section Controlled Section
Then-current ACI 318 Code rb 0.75 rb

Corresponding strain in 60 ksi
= = 0.0021 0.00376
Grade 60 reinforcement 29,000 ksi
Location where strain is
Centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement, d
determined
Masts simplified net tensile
strain values, et, suitable for all
grades produced at that time
0.0025 0.005
(Grade 60 and Grade 75)
Depth of extreme tension steel, dt
determined
60
= = 29,000 = 0.0021, Again, for simplicity,

Basis of simplified strain then round to 0.0025 for apparently based on
simplicity, and as a compromise
value + 0.0025
between the yield strain for
Grade 60 and for higher grades 0.0025 + 0.0025 = 0.005
Generalization by Mast (1992)
From section in Mast (1992)

titled Steels Other Than = + 0.0025
Grade 60

determined
Calculated values:
Grade 40 .00138 .00388
Grade 60 .00207 .00457
Grade 75 .00259 .00509
Grade 80 .00276 .00526
When Mast wrote his article in 1992, GR60 was commercially

dominant, GR75 was occasionally used, and GR80 was not produced.
Masts simplified values are slightly below GR75 values; Mast

indicates these are compromise values across all grades.
Net Tensile Strain Boundaries
90
80
70
60
rb
0.75rb
Stres (ksi)
50
40
30
20
GR60 GR75 GR80
10 ety ety + 0.0025 Mast's Comp Bdry
Mast's Tens Bdry
0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Strain
Possible ACI 318-14
Code Changes
Generalizing hard wired limits on et
Summary of 318 Code Provisions
ACI 318-99 and before: rb 0.75 rb

Corresponding strain in 60 ksi
Grade 60 reinforcement, at = = 0.0021 0.00376
centroid depth, d 29,000 ksi
Net tensile strain in the

ACI 318-02 through ACI
reinforcement at balanced
318-11: Net tensile strain, 0.005
strain conditions; permitted
et, at extreme depth dt to use 0.002 for Grade 60
= ; permitted to
ACI 318-14 clarification 0.005
use 0.002 for Grade 60
NOTE: Mast (1992) recommended 0.005

NOTE: Mast (1992) recommended 0.0025 tension boundary for all grades
compression boundary for all grades
Masts Generalization v. 318-14 Code Values
Generalization from Mast

= + 0.0025
(1992)
determined
Calculated values:
Grade 40 .00138 .00388
Grade 60 .00207 .00457
Grade 75 .00259 .00509
Grade 80 .00276 .00526
318-14 Codes compression boundary of = is applicable to all grades: makes
sense.
318-14 Codes hard wired compression boundary value of 0.002 for Grade 60: makes
sense.
318-14 Codes hard wired tension boundary value of 0.005 for all grades: actually
relates best to Grade 75.
90
80
70
60
0.75rb
Stres (ksi)
50
40
30
20
GR60 GR75
10 GR80 ety
Mast's Tens Bdry
0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Strain
90
80
70
60
Stres (ksi)
50
40
30
20
GR60 GR75 GR80
10
ety ety + 0.0025 Mast's Tens Bdry
0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Strain
Possible Code Change if a Well Defined,
Long Yield Plateau
The hard wired boundary strain at tension
controlled sections could be generalized by
replacing the value of 0.005 with the
expression ( + 0.0025)
However, we wont have a long yield plateau

Grade 80 Reinforcement
Yield plateau is about

0.005 long
Some realistic beam
sections will be strain
hardening before
reaching the nominal
strength
Condition is more
critical for Grade 100
when the yield plateau
becomes smaller or
disappears
160
ASTM A1035
140
Grade 100
120 Transition zone
100
Assumed
Stress
80
behavior
60
Grade 60
40
Transition zone
20
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012
Strain
What about moment redistribution?
Current provisions for

moment redistribution
adequately cover Grade 80
reinforcement no Code
change needed
Do we need a more gradual change in
Case c: Mu Case c / Mu Case a = 1.05

0.2153
TCF Transition CCF
Leads to odd-
Case a Design strength
0.205
Case a required strength
shaped P-M
diagram
Case b: Mu Case b / Mu Case a = 0.95
0.1948
Possible Direction for t Limit
Generalize the net tensile strain boundary for
tension controlled sections with different
grade reinforcements
Compression controlled boundary is already
generalized
Tension controlled section needs to consider
shape of stress strain curve in determining the
minimum net tensile strain.
Values of t to be determined
Broaden the range between comp-controlled and
tension controlled
Possible Direction for Addressing Odd-
Shaped P-M Diagram
Broaden the range between comp-controlled and
when becomes 0.9
< 0.9 for heavily reinforced beams
H-S Reinforcement leads to use of H-S
Concrete
Typical Concrete Stress-Strain Curves
Solution
New transition zone for
Adjust the stress block parameter for high-
strength concrete
Design of Members
Design strength of columns
The smoother strength reduction factor also eliminates the discontinuities in the
axial load flexure interaction diagram for columns
5.3 Load Factors and Combinations
Reference ASCE 7 for load factors and combination
Move load factors and combinations into the commentary

ACI Sub C
Proposals through 1st Sub C LB; reballot in May,

possibly to Main summer 2015:
5.3.1 and 13.2.6.1 Applying factors to loads in nonlinear systems, not
applied to load effects
Why? identified in discussions this has been mis-interpreted in practice
5.3 Adoption of ASCE-7 load factors, moving ACI factors into
commentary
Why? stay consistent with ASCE-7 development of loads as well as load factors
ACI Sub C
Proposals in next Sub C letter ballot:
24.2.3.5 Modify Ie and deflection calculations
Why? cracking in slabs noted in field
6.2.4.1, 8.10 & 8.11 Removal of EFM and DDM
27. 4 Harmonize 318 Chapter 27 with ACI 437 and ACI 562
Why? standards have conflicting methods
6.9 Update FEM section in code
Why? guidance for commonly-used method
6.3 Coordinate definition of stiffness throughout 318
Why? stiffness used in 137 places in code, no section that points
designer to recommended values
318-11 New Business items
Sub D - Members
Minimum flexural reinforcement
Minimum thickness tables
Unify design provisions for nonprestressed/prestressed
Composite columns
Walls
Simplify beam detailing
Connect with integrity reinforcement
DDM/EFM
Shells
318E Section and
Member Strength
318E Section and

Member Strength
Kansas City, Missouri
April 15, 2015
318E Section and
Member Strength
ACI 318E Ballot LB19E-01
CE010, Curved Bar Node - Klein

CE020, Two-Way Shear Strength Provided by Concrete-
Hawkins
CE040, Prestressed Ties in STM - Klein

CE045-Effective Width for One Way Shear in Footings
and Mat Foundations Poston
CE065-Impact of Openings in Slabs Hawkins
318E Section and
Member Strength
CE010 Curved Bar Nodes - Klein
Code Sections (ACI 318-14): 2.2, 2.3, 23.8, 23.9

318E Section and
Member Strength
CE020, Two-Way Concrete Shear Strength - Hawkins

Code Sections (ACI 318-14): 22.6.1.3 and 22.6.5.2
10 2.5
Guandalini et al (2009), rho = 0.33% Punching Failures
9 Birkle (2004), rho = 1.1 - 1.15% Flexure-driven Failures
8 Li (2000), rho = 0.8 - 1.0%
2.0
Regan (1986), rho = 1.0%
7 KTH (1972, 1980), rho = 0.6 - 0.8%
6 Nylander & Sundquist (1972), rho = 0.6%

1.5
ACI 318-14 Vtest
Vtest 5
V ACI k v
'
bo d f c 4 1.0
3 Notes:
Proposed 1. Test slab failure mode evaluated by authors
2 0.5 2. USCS Units
Flexure-driven Failures Proposed 3
3. Size effect factor defined as kv
1 d
0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
V flex
d (in) bo d f c'
Experiments and analytical modeling have shown that the shear strength provisions
for nonprestressed two-way members without shear reinforcement need revision for
slabs with low flexural reinforcement ratios and large effective depths.
318E Section and
Member Strength
Code Sections (ACI 318-14): 23.7

318E Section and
Member Strength
CE045-Effective Width for One Way Shear in

Footings and Mat Foundations Poston
Code Sections (ACI 318-14): New Section 13.2.7.3
2d
SUPPORTED EFFECTIVE WIDTH

ELEMENT FOR ONE-WAY
DIMENSION SHEAR
2d
Figure 1: Effective Width for Footings and Mat Foundations

318E Section and
Member Strength
Code Sections (ACI 318-14): 22.6.4.3 and R22.6.4.3
22.6.4.3 If an opening is located within a column strip or

closer than 4h 10h from a column, concentrated load or
reaction area, a portion of bo enclosed by straight lines
projecting from the centroid of the column, concentrated load
or reaction area and tangent to the boundaries of the opening
shall be considered ineffective.
318E Section and
Member Strength
Chapter 21 Strength Reduction Factors
Members vs Materials factors

Evaluation of phi factors for strut-and-tie method (STM)
Sanders
318E Section and
Member Strength
Chapter 22 Sectional Strength
Shear in Walls - Wight and Wallace

Stirrup Spacing for multiple-leg stirrups - Patel
Biaxial shear in columns - Patel
Specialized slab shear-transfer slabs and column
rotations/offsets - Bonacci
One-way slabs subjected to span-parallel line loads - Bonacci
Concentrated loads near support of beams - Kuchma
Headed Shear Stud Assembly - Poston
Inclined Shear Studs - Hawkins
High Strength Reinforcement Kelly/Sanders
318E Section and
Member Strength
Chapter 23 Strut and Tie Models

Minimum Angle between a Strut and Tie (CE035?) - Klein
Shear Friction (CE060?) - Klein
Equation for Minimum Strut Reinforcement
Bottle shaped structures, fan shaped struts - Klein
Stress within the Node - Klein
Partial-width Bearing Areas - Klein
Efficiency Factors for STM - Kuchma
STM - Model to Method (CE055?) Novak
Buckling Concerns for Struts, limit on aspect ratio - Novak
Specific design provisions for deep beams and corbels
Wight
Impact of Seismic Loading on STM Sanders
Simplification of the STM Sanders
F
Just completed 2 nd
Ballot on CF001
Deep Foundation Design in Earthquake
Resistant Buildings.
At this meeting we resolved the Negatives
from the Code side of CF001.
Before the next Convention we will add the

Commentary side and reballot.
(4) ballots since Washington DC
All passed 1/2 and 2/3 rules on subcommittee ballot, but only
(1) made it cleanly through subcommittee discussion
CG011 - modify 2% loss of prestress limitation
Other near-term topics
CG012 - tensile stresses in prestressed members immediately after
transfer (also relates to CG006 and CG007)
CG013 - improved definition of Acf
CG020 - modify 2% loss of prestress limitation (commentary)
CG002 - Strand bond testing (also relates to CG003 CG005)
CG010 - Serviceability for Class T & C members with unbonded tendons
CG014 - Minimum value of Vci for prestressed members (also relates to
CG015)
ACI 318 Subcommittee H
Kansas City, April 15, 2015
Ballot Items
Five items were balloted CH 19-001 to -005

All passed
In discussion of negatives, four ballot items were
tabled for further development or withdrawn
completely
One item is advancing to 318 Main: editorial
clarification of bar spacing in collector elements,
18.12.7.6
Interactions with other subs
Sub R High-strength reinforcement

Sub J Joints
Sub F Foundations
Advisory ballots cast by select members of other

subs
Technical Discussions
Frames:
Strong column/weak beam
Mpr calculation and column shear
Moments at joint faces vs. moments at centerlines
Classification of walls behavior-based

Embedded ducts in slabs
Future Sub-H Initiatives
Classification of walls task group

Wall detailing task group
Fiber-reinforced coupling beams task group
318-J (Joints and Connections)
Recently closed ballots:

CJ15-1: Removal of shearheads (10 Y/C, 1 N)
CJ15-2: Extension of flexural reinforcement in thick
slabs (9 Y/C, 2 N)
Both ballots discussed in 318-J meeting and negatives
have been resolved
Active ballots:
CJ15-3: Provisions for joints in ordinary moment
resisting frames (shear stress limits, effective joint
width)
CJ15-4: Gravity shear and drift limits for two-way
prestressed slab-column connections (Sub-H informed)
318-J (Joints and Connections)
Other ongoing efforts:

Structural integrity reinforcement in nonprestressed
and prestressed concrete slab-column connections
Detailing provisions for joints in intermediate moment
resisting frames (anchorage provisions will need
coordination with 318-R)
Commentary on overall behavior of joints/detailing of
other joints (e.g., joints between inclined members,
knee joints)
New business items carried over from 2014 Code
cycle (some of them being taken care of already
through new ballots)
ACI 318 Sub R Report
ACI 318 Main Committee Meeting

Kansas City
4/15/15
Sub Committee Ballot
CR001 A615 Grade 100 for Confinement
Will move forward after the update to ASTM A615
is completed
Special Moment Frames and
Structural Walls with A706 GR 80
Is performance equivalent to that of Grade
60?
Improving potential existing issues is not part
of these proposals (wait for GR 100
introduction)
Committee opinion versus detailed testing
Special Moment Frames with GR 80
Reinforcement
CR003b Beams of special moment frames
Move forward in September ballot (some desire for testing
of larger members expressed)
CR003c Columns of special moment frames
Move forward in September ballot
CR003d Strong column-weak beam requirement
Not trying to fix (many believe it should be higher)
Grade 80 no worse than Grade 60
Not necessary to move forward because no change
CR003e Joints
Not trying to fix issues
Add factor to relate joint depth to the inverse of the fc
Move forward in September ballot
Special Structural Walls with GR 80
Reinforcement
CR004a Vertical Bars of Special Walls
Move forward in September ballot (with message that
splices in plastic hinge region should be addressed)
CR004b Horizontal Bars of Special Walls
Probably not enough research
Likely not move forward before next meeting
CR004b Coupling Beams of Special Walls
Probably not enough research
Likely not move forward before next meeting
ACI 318 Sub A General Concrete and Construction
[ACI 318 Chapters 1, 19, and 26 (excluding 26.6 through 26.10) ]
Kansas City Meeting

Tuesday, 14 April 2015, 1:30 PM to 6:00PM
Meeting Room Convention Center 2101
Minutes
1. Call to order.
2. Introductions and sign in. Sign-in sheets and updated roster are attached.
3. Approval of Agenda. Agenda was approved. Several additions were allowed during
meeting.
4. Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the Washington meeting were distributed via email
on 3 Nov 14. A supplement to the minutes was distributed on 7 Nov 14. Minutes were
approved.
5. Announcements.
5.1. Announcements from Steering Committee meeting. Note that these items were
raised during the committee meeting in Washington.
5.1.1. Coverage of structural grout in the Code. Issue was raised during the Minneapolis
meeting. On the agenda for the Steering Committee meeting.
SCS generally in favor of adding to the code. Need to find an individual to work
on this item. Prepare a brief presentation for the SC and possibly 318 for the
Denver meeting. Suprenant and Holland will work on this topic as CA 174.
5.1.2. Look at definitions in 318 versus those in the ACI CT document. This is covered
by CA 113. On the agenda for the Steering Committee meeting.
Strive to make 318 definitions agree with those in the CT, unless there is a need to
have a different definition.
Do not work on removing definitions from 318.
5.1.3. How will files be updated and how will committee members gain access to the
most current version of the document? On the agenda for the Steering Committee
meeting.
1
The most current version of 318-14 may be found on the 318 web site in the
published documents folder. It is named 318-14 Structural Concrete Building
Code and Commentary. At the top of page 4 is a note indicating the revision
status of the file. The file currently on the web site is marked as including errata
as of March 12, 2015. This version also includes numerous formatting revisions,
particularly those in Ch 26.
The method of providing updated Word files for use by committee members
apparently has not yet been resolved.
5.1.4. Does the SC support revising the definition of LDP? On the agenda for the
Steering Committee meeting.
SC was in favor of clarification here. Terry will include this issue during the Sub
A report to 318 on Wednesday.
There was a lengthy discussion of this item with committee members advocating
no changes or adoption of engineer of record and specialty engineer. Terry
stated that he had talked with Jeff Coleman and that Jeff said an appropriate
solution would be to modify the definition of LDP by revising it to read in
responsible charge of all or part of the work. Dean and Terry agreed to work on
a ballot item (CA 160).
Discussion of changing the definition of LDP was not included in the 318 report
to 318 because Sub A had not reached a consensus on how to handle.
5.1.5. Other items from SC meeting:
No changes in schedule for ICC. No plans for interim code.
There will be a master list of all change proposals. Dont know where it will be
yet. Need to add a column to Sub A listing showing which code/commentary
sections are being addressed by each change proposal. This item will be updated
once the location of this listing is defined.
All subs are encouraged to make more use of folders on web site for agendas,
minutes, ballot results, etc. Terry will set up appropriate folders on the Sub A
site.
5.2. Announcements from members. None were made.
6. Old Business.
6.1. Review of Ballot A01-2014. Results of this ballot were distributed via email on 10
Jan 15. Negatives and comments on the four CA items on this ballot were addressed;
2
however, not all negatives were resolved. All of the CA items on this ballot were
balloted again on Ballot A01-2015.
6.2. Review of Ballot A01-2015. Results of this ballot were attached to the agenda.
Because the ballot closed very close to the meeting date, not all negatives and comments
have been addressed. Where possible, issues will be discussed. Note that the ballot
results file has two parts the first is simply a screen capture of the ballot site and the
second part is the comments sorted by CA and line number. There are two corrections to
the ballot: 1. Change Fred Meyer's vote on Item 4 (CA 161) from Affirm to Affirm
w/comment. 2. Change Fred's vote on Item 8 (CA 171) from Affirm w/comment to
Affirm. These changes are included in the table below.
Item Description Y Y/C N A Disposition

150 Proportioning 10 2 4 0 This item was discussed by Holland,
concrete Carino, Lobo, and Fiorato before Sub
mixtures A meeting. Negatives were resolved.
A revised version will be on the next
Sub A ballot.
155 Lambda 13 3 0 0 Proposed changes were accepted. 15
reference Aff, 1 not voting (Hooton). This one
is ready for 318.
158 Calculating 14 1 1 0 This item was discussed. Motion to
chloride content leave as a footnote failed: 2 affirm, 10
negative, and 3 abstaining. Roger
will rewrite as a code provision for
reballot.
161 Chloride ion 7 4 5 0 Juenger and Holland will work on
content responses. A revised version will be
warnings on the next Sub A ballot.
162 Wording on 16 0 0 0 Ready for 318 after ballot.
limits on SCMs
165 Loads on 13 3 0 0 This item was discussed and the
formwork reason for change statement was
during post reworded to satisfy Hover Y/C vote.
tensioning Comments by Fiorato and Gleich
were accepted. As revised: 15 Aff, 1
not voting (Hooton). This one is
ready for 318.
169 Exposure Class 12 2 2 0 Proposed changes were accepted. 15
C0 Aff, 1 not voting (Hooton). This one
is ready for 318.
171 Possibility of 12 2 2 0 This item was discussed. Decided
exceeding fc that no changes are necessary. This
one is completed.
3
No additional work is required for Ballot A01-2015. Of the eight items on this ballot,
four will be sent to 318 for ballot, three will be revised and reballoted by Sub A, and one
was determined to be completed with no changes required.
6.3. Review of current change proposals. An updated list of all CA change proposals is
attached. Members responsible for each change item will report the status of their
assigned items. Note that this item has been updated 21April 2015 to include the results
of Ballot A01-2015 and the committee actions in Kansas City. No item-by-item review
was conducted because of a lack of time. Committee members were encouraged to
review the list and work on their assigned items.
6.3.1. Review of specific items regarding change proposals. Note that the following
discussions are not intended to review specific code language. They are intended to
provide committee guidance to the individuals working on the assigned items.
CA 153: Suprenant presentation on direction for adding shotcrete to the Code.

Talking paper was attached to the agenda. Terry brought this topic up during the
318 meeting. The following two items were presented and received no
comments:
o Shotcrete is concrete that is placed using pneumatic pressure.
o Provisions for shotcrete will be placed in the appropriate locations in the
Code.
CA 156: Malits presentation on possibly adding or changing provisions for

modulus of high-strength concrete. Frank had prepared a summary that was
attached to the agenda. There are two issues here: first, a TAC comment
regarding making it clear that modulus can be measured, and second, a public
comment regarding the suitability of predictive equations for high-strength
concrete. The committee agreed to include a provision on measuring modulus
including a warning that for projects where modulus is significant, it should be
measured. Because of he wide scatter of data, no predictive equation will be
added to the Code for high-strength concrete.
CA 172: Weiss presentation on alternate means of specifying durability.

Jasons presentation included a much more sophisticated approach to specifying
durability, particularly for freezing and thawing. The committee asked that this
approach be presented to committees dealing with durability for feed back during
the Denver meeting. Terry indicated a reluctance to get too far ahead of the 318
feeder committees.
CA 173: Browning presentation on revised inspection section in Chapter 26.

Dean presented his approach to integrating the IBC inspection requirements into
the Code. He also indicated that the welding provisions in the IBC that 318 found
unacceptable will probably be removed from the next edition of the IBC, Deans
final talking paper is attached. Dean was asked to prepare the change proposal for
this action.
4
CA 111: Meyer reported that ACI 213 had approved the approach of determining
lambda based upon unit weight of concrete. This approval will be included in the
minutes of their Kansas City meeting and in future updates of the 213 document.
The committee agreed to add the unit weight approach as a third option for
determining lambda. Fred will prepare the change proposal.
CA 151: Lobo presented data from a survey of NRMCA members showing

strength versus w/cm. No action was taken by the committee.
6.4. The following items have not been resolved. These will be discussed to determine
what actions are necessary.
6.4.1. Various new work items resulting from ballots taken during the reorganization of
the Code. Items from all ballots will be added to the possible new work list. Not
discussed in Kansas City.
6.4.2. Revisit saturation and freezing. Jason will make a presentation on this topic
during the Kansas City meeting. See item above for CA 172.
6.4.3. Issue regarding ASTM C1157 cements and lack of durability and structural
performance provisions. This question was raised last cycle and the committee elected to
take no action. An item in the March, 2015, issue of CI has raised the question of
whether compliance with C1157 automatically qualifies a cementitious material for use
in concrete covered by the Code. Another article in the April, 2015, issue of CI has
further complicated the issue. These items were attached to the agenda. This topic was
discussed at the Steering Committee meeting and during the Sub A meeting. There was
agreement that changes to the code or commentary or both are required. Terry will
address this item as CA 175.
6.4.4. Concern over PLC in scaling environment. Wib Langley has raised a concern
over durability of PLC in Exposure Class F3. Doug was asked to contact Wib and
determine the status of this item. Not discussed in Kansas City.
6.4.5. Sub A sponsored session. This was brought up during the Washington meeting.
Do we want to request a session? Not discussed in Kansas City.
6.4.6. Terry will follow up on the following and inform the committee:
Hard copies of 318 for all new members?

Access to the ACI MCP?
What was meant by the make the CT a standard comment at the TAC
breakfast?
These issues were addressed in the supplement to the Washington minutes that was sent
to members.
5
6.5. The following items were listed as not resolved after the meeting indicated. The
items indicated will be addressed during the Kansas City meeting. None of the remaining
items were discussed in Kansas City because of a lack of time.
CA 113, definitions. Need input from Steering Committee. See 5.1.2

New Business item 1 update references. Ongoing. (Washington meeting)
New Business item 3 Add ACI 562 to Ch 1. (Washington meeting)
Question regarding structural performance of shotcrete. (Washington meeting)
Question regarding structural performance of alternative cementitious materials.
See 6.4.3
Scaling of concrete containing PLC. Doug to follow up. See 6.4.4
Saturation and freezing. Jason to make presentation in Kansas City. See 6.4.2
Add new work items from ballots during preparation of 2014 code. See 6.4.1
Sub A sponsoring a session. See 6.4.5
How will Word files be updated. (Kansas City meeting)
Update of Sub A web site. (Kansas City meeting)
Editorial revision of R26.5.3.2(e) without ballot. (After Kansas City meeting
see below)
7. New business. None.
8. Balloting schedule. The next meeting of 318A will be Tuesday, 10 Nov15. Based
upon that date, ballots will be issued as follows:
A02-2015: Issue: Monday, 8 Jun 2015. Close: Wednesday, 8 Jul 15.
A03-2015: Issue: Wednesday, 30 Sep 15. Close: Friday, 30 Oct 15.
9. Next meeting: Tuesday, 10 November, Denver.
10. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned in time for the Mixer.
Attachments:
1. Sign-in sheet and updated roster.

2. Brownings recommendations for inspection (CA 173).
Addition to the minutes:
1. CA 099. The following email was received from Tony after the meeting.
Terry, this is in response to your request for review of Change Proposal CA099 "Clarify
use of term f'c, various locations, Chapter 26". I reviewed use of f'c in Chapter 26 and
6
believe that Sub A has already made the changes for appropriate use of the term in the
Code and Commentary. I recommend that CA099 be closed.
I did find one editorial change we should consider. The word "specified" as highlighted
below in the third sentence of R26.5.3.2(e) can be deleted because it is redundant. The
value of f'c is specified by definition. If specified is deleted, the end of the sentence
would read "...of field cured cylinders and the value of f'c."
CA 099 has been moved to the no change required category.
"R26.5.3.2(e) Research (Bloem 1968) has shown that the strength of cylinders protected
and cured to simulate good field practice should be at least about 85 percent of standard-
cured cylinders if both are tested at the age designated for fc. Thus, a value of 85 percent
has been set as a rational basis for judging the adequacy of field curing. The comparison
is made between the measured strengths of companion field-cured and standard-cured
cylinders, not between the strength of field-cured cylinders and the {specified} value of
fc. Test results for the field-cured cylinders are considered satisfactory, however, if the
strength of field-cured cylinders exceeds fc by more than 500 psi, even though they fail
to reach 85 percent of the strength of companion standard-cured cylinders."
This change has been passed along to Greg Zeisler to determine if it can be made without
ballot.
7
Reasons for Changes to IBC & ACI 318 Inspection & Testing
4/10/2015
Suggested changes to IBC
1. IBC Sections 1701 to 1702 are written in general language for all trades (structural steel, wood,
masonry, etc.) There should be no need to suggest IBC make changes.
2. IBC Sections 1703 is written in general language for all trades. These provisions are missing in
26.13. ACI may want to reference them for jurisdictions that do not use IBC. There is no need to
suggest IBC modify any of these provisions.
3. IBC Section 1704 is written in general language for all trades. Several of these provisions are similar
to ACI 318 26.13.1 & 2 provisions except 318 provisions are specific to concrete construction.
Therefore, both versions complement each other so neither needs to be modified. If ACI does
suggest changes to IBC 1704, treating the change as an exception pertaining to concrete only should
make the change more acceptable to IBC.
4. IBC Section 1705 - It is the desire of ACI 318 that IBC reference ACI 318-14 section 26.13 Inspection
and Test requirements similar to the AISC 360 reference for structural steel.
1705.2.1 Structural steel - Special inspections and nondestructive testing of structural steel
elements in buildings, structures and portions thereof shall be in accordance with the quality
assurance inspection requirements of AISC 360.
Exception: Special inspection of railing systems composed of structural steel elements
shall be limited to welding inspection of welds at the base of cantilevered rail posts.
5. Suggest IBC make the following change 1705.3 Concrete construction - Special inspections and tests
of concrete construction shall be performed in accordance with this section and Table 1705.3 ACI 318-14
chapter 26.13.
6. Similar to IBC 1705.2.1 (for structural steel) IBC 1705.3 (concrete construction) will maintain the
exceptions outlined in the present IBC. ACI may want to suggest changes to a couple of the following
IBC exceptions.
Exception: Special inspections and tests shall not be required for:
1. Isolated spread concrete footings of buildings three stories or less above grade plane that
are fully supported on earth or rock.
2. Continuous concrete footings supporting walls of buildings three stories or less above
grade plane that are fully supported on earth or rock where:
2.1. The footings support walls of light-frame construction;
2.2. The footings are designed in accordance with Table 1809.7; or
2.3. The structural design of the footing is based on a specified compressive strength, fc,
no greater than 2,500 pounds per square inch (psi) (17.2 MPa), regardless of the
compressive strength specified in the approved construction documents or used in the
footing construction.
3. Nonstructural concrete slabs supported directly on the ground, including prestressed slabs
on grade, where the effective prestress in the concrete is less than 150 psi (1.03 MPa).
4. Concrete foundation walls constructed in accordance with Table 1807.1.6.2.
5. Concrete patios, driveways and sidewalks, on grade.
Page1of3
7. Suggest IBC delete 1705.3.1 Welding of reinforcing bars and 1705.3.2 Material test, and ACI 318
add both provisions to 26.13 (see below for ACI 318 26.13.1.6 & 26.13.2.4 changes for details).
8. Suggest IBC delete Table 1705.3
Suggested changes to ACI 318 section 26.13
Note - The blue marked below are from changes working through sub B due to moving inspection
provisions from chapter 17 to 26.
- The red marked below are suggested changes to satisfy IBC
- Unless noted the commentary does not change
- If ACI can not convince ICC to drop its desire to include continuous inspect all other welds, ACI
needs to decide what to do about adding IBC 5/16 fillet weld to periodic, and all other welds to
continuous. As written below, 26.13.3 is silent on periodic and continuous welding (see 26.13.1.6)
- 26.13.1.1 should not references IBC 1701 and 1702 since these are general provisions
compatible with ACI 318.
-26.3.1.1 may want to reference IBC 1703 to pull those provisions into the Code for jurisdictions
that have not adopted IBC.
- 26.3.1.1 should not reference IBC 1704 general provisions since most of those provisions are in
26.3.1 & 2 written specific for concrete construction.
- If possible, it would be desirable to find appropriate wording to eliminate the only pointer
(20.2.2.5) to another 318 chapter in 26.13.2.3.
26.13Inspection
26.13.1 General
26.13.1.1 Concrete construction shall be inspected as required by the general building code, or in the absence of
a general building code this Code and section 1703 of the IBC.
26.13.1.2 In the absence of general building code inspection requirements, Cconcrete construction shall be
inspected throughout the various Work stages by or under the supervision of a licensed design professional or by a
qualified inspector in accordance with the provisions of this section.
26.13.1.3 The licensed design professional, a person under the supervision of a licensed design professional, or
a qualified inspector shall verify compliance with construction documents.
26.13.1.4 For continuous construction inspection of special moment frames, qualified inspectors under the
supervision of the licensed design professional responsible for the structural design or under the supervision of a
licensed design professional with demonstrated capability to supervise inspection of these elements shall inspect
placement of reinforcement and concrete.
26.13.1.5 Installation of anchors shall be inspected in accordance with the general building code. Inspection of
the installation of adhesive anchors in horizontal or upwardly inclined orientations to resist sustained tension loads
shall be conducted by an inspector specially approved for that purpose by the building official.
R26.13.1.5 The model code (2012 IBC) requires special inspection of all post-installed anchors. The installation
of adhesive anchors in horizontal or upwardly inclined orientations poses special challenges to the installer and
requires particular attention to execution quality as well as an enhanced level of oversight. It is expected that these
anchor installations will be inspected by a certified special inspector who is continuously present when and where
the installations are being performed.
26.13.1.6 When required, welding of reinforcing bars special inspections of welding and qualifications of special
inspectors for reinforcing bars, including weldability of reinforcing bars other than ASTM A706, shall be in
accordance with the requirements of AWS D1.4 for special inspection and of AWS D1.4 for special inspector
qualification
26.13.2 Inspection reports
26.13.2.1 Inspection reports shall document inspected items and be developed throughout each construction
Work stage by the licensed design professional, person under the supervision of a licensed design professional, or
Page2of3
qualified inspector. Records of the inspection shall be preserved by the party performing the inspection for at least
2 years after completion of the project.
26.13.2.2 Inspection reports shall document (a) through (e):
(a) General progress of the Work.
(b) Any significant construction loadings on completed floors, members, or walls.
(c) The date and time of mixing, quantity, proportions of materials used, approximate placement location
in the structure, and results of tests for fresh and hardened concrete properties for all concrete mixtures
used in the Work.
(d) Concrete temperatures and protection given to concrete during placement and curing when the
ambient temperature falls below 40F or rises above 95F.
(e) For adhesive anchors, verification that the work covered has been performed, and that the materials
used and the installation procedures used conform with the approved construction documents and the
Manufacturers Printed Installation Instructions (MPII).
26.13.2.3 Test reports shall be reviewed to verify compliance with 20.2.2.5 if ASTM A615 deformed
reinforcement is used to resist earthquake-induced flexure, axial forces, or both in special moment frames, special
structural walls, and components of special structural walls including coupling beams and wall piers.
26.13.2.4 Material test reports - In the absence of sufficient data or documentation providing evidence of
conformance to quality standards for materials in this Code Chapters 19 and 20 of ACI 318, the building official
shall require reports of testing of materials in accordance with the appropriate standards and criteria for the
material in this Code Chapters 19 and 20 of ACI 318.
26.13.3 Items requiring inspection
26.13.3.1 Unless otherwise specified in the general building code, items requiring verification and inspection shall
be continuously or periodically inspected in accordance with 26.13.3.2 and 26.13.3.3.
26.13.3.2 Items requiring continuous inspection shall include (a) through (e):
(a) Placement of concrete.
(b) Tensioning of prestressing steel and grouting of bonded tendons.
(c) Installation of adhesive anchors in horizontal or upwardly inclined orientations to resist sustained tension loads
in accordance with 17.8.2.4.
(d) Installation of adhesive anchors where required as a condition of the anchor assessment in
accordance with ACI 355.4.
(e) (d) Reinforcement for special moment frames.
26.13.3.3 Items requiring periodic inspection shall include (a) through (g):
(a) Placement of reinforcement, embedments, and post-tensioning tendons.
(b) Curing method and duration of curing for each member.
(c) Construction and removal of forms and reshoring.
(d) Sequence of erection and connection of precast members.
(e) Verification of in-place concrete strength before stressing post-tensioned reinforcement and before
removal of shores and formwork from beams and structural slabs.
(f) Installation of cast-in anchors, expansion anchors, and undercut anchors in accordance with 17.8.2.
(g) Installation of adhesive anchors where continuous inspection is not required in accordance with
17.8.2.4 or as a condition of the anchor assessment in accordance with ACI 355.4, including procedures
and results of proof loading where required.
(h) Verify use of required design mix.
Page3of3
SUMMARY OF SUB A CHANGE PROPOSALS AFTER KANSAS CITY MEETING

UPDATED: 21 APR 15
Total Sub A Items 38
Last CA Number Assigned CA 175 NOTE: Change proposals added during the 2019
code cycle begin with CA 150.
SOURCES:
Carry over from 2014 code cycle 12
Added during this cycle 26
Total 38
RESOLVED:
Adopted 2019 Code 0
Not adopted 2019 Code 5
Active items 33
Total 38
ACTIVE CHANGE PROPOSALS
CA No. DESCRIPTION CODE SOURCE RESPONSIBLE COMMENTS

SECTION
CA 056 Harmonize chloride limits and look at effects of Sub A. Weiss, Lobo Coordinate with ACI 201 and ACI
SCM on limits. Chapter 19 Carry over 222. Also look at results of
from 2014 NRMCA test program.
CA 065 Maximum size of aggregate between Sub A. Klorman Assigned Washington meeting
reinforcement and forms. 26.4.2.1(a)(4) Carry over
from 2014
CA 069 Incorporate certified technicians into the Code. Sub A. Carino, Holland Reassigned Washington meeting.
Chapter 26. Carry over Has this been accomplished?
from 2014
CA 105 Number of 4x8 inch cylinders required. Sub A. Lobo Reassigned Washington meeting
26.12.1.1(a) Carry over
from 2014
CA 111 Additional lamda issues -- can lamda be Sub A. Meyer Assigned in Pittsburgh. Meyer is
defined on basis of unit weight? Chapter 19 Carry over working on this with lightweight
and elsewhere. from 2014 committee. ACI 213 approved
during Kansas City meeting.
CA 113 Combination of several definitions. Various Sub A. open Hold for guidance from steering
locations. Carry over committee on how to handle all
from 2014 definitions and ACI CT. Terry will
bring this up at SC meeting in
Kansas City.
CA 128 Define term "strength test record" and fix in Sub A. Carino Reassigned Washington meeting
text. 26.4.3.1(b) Carry over
from 2014
CA 129 Look at "when requested" by building official or Sub A. Browning Assigned Washington meeting
by LDP and make consistent in code. Carry over
26.11.2.1(b) and (e) from 2014
CA 150 Revise proportioning requirements to remove 2014 Public Holland Assigned Washington meeting
reference to ACI 301. 26.4.3.1(b) Cmt 355 A01-2014: Did not pass. Being
revised for A01-15.
A01-2015: Y: 10, Y/C: 2, N: 4. Did
not pass. Comments addressed in
Kansas City. A02-2015:
CA 151 Review w/cm versus strength. 19.3.2.1 Sub A Lobo, Hover Assigned Washington meeting
CA 152 Allow cubes for compressive strength testing. Sub A. Holland Assigned Washington meeting
26.12.1.1(a) Initiated by
Executive
Committee
CA 153 Add shotcrete provisions to the code. Ch 26 Requested Hanskat, Assigned Washington meeting
by 318 Suprenant,
Fiorato
CA 154 Add AAR provisions to the code. Ch 19 and 26 Sub A, 2014 Hooton, Juenger Assigned Washington meeting
Public Cmt
243, TAC
Cmt 327
CA 155 Check on use of "based on research." Ch 1, TAC Cmt 7 Holland Assigned Washington meeting
19, 26. A01-2015: Y: 13, Y/C: 3, N: 0.
Resolve comments. Discussed
and approved during Kansas City.
Ready for 318.
CA 156 Modulus of elasticity. 19.2.2 2014 Public Malits Assigned Washington meeting
Cmt 247,
TAC Cmt
304
CA 157 Freezing and thawing description. Do we need 2014 Public Hanskat Assigned Washington meeting
"exterior"? R19.3.1 Cmt 251
CA 158 Calculating chloride contents using individual 2014 Public Becker Assigned Washington meeting
materials. Need to bring into the Code. Cmt 257 A01-2014: Did not pass. Being
R19.3.2 revised for A01-15
A01-2015: Y: 14, Y/C: 1, N: 1. Did
not pass. Comments addressed in
Kansas City. A02-2015:
CA 159 Sulfate issues in various locations. R19.3.2, Sub A Weiss, Hooton Assigned Washington meeting
Table 19.3.2.1, see new business comments 9,
10, and 13
CA 160 Definition of LDP throughout code Sub A, 2014 Becker, Gleich, Assigned Washington meeting.
Public Klorman, Bondy Terry will bring this up at the SC
Comment meeting in KC.
371, TAC
Cmt 264
CA 161 Chlorides and mix water with and without 2014 Public Juenger Assigned Washington meeting
aluminum embedments Cmt 325 A01-2014. Did not pass. Being
revised for A01-15.
A01-2015: Y: 7, Y/C: 4, N: 5. Did
not pass. Will be revised for A02-
2015.
CA 162 Wording in SCM limits for exposure class F3. Sub A Holland Assigned Washington meeting
26.4.2.2(b) A01-2015: Y: 16, Y/C: 0, N: 0.
Ready for 318.
CA 163 Resolve specification items in code. Sub A, Becker, Gleich, Assigned Washington meeting
Ch 26 Public Cmts Malits,
339 and Browning,
355, TAC Holland
Cmt 262
CA 164 Question on slabs and joint fillers. 26.5.7.1(b) TAC Cmt Klorman Assigned Washington meeting
26-28
CA 165 Wording on construction loads. 26.11.2.1 TAC Cmt Malits Assigned Washington meeting
26-41 A01-2015: Y: 13, Y/C: 3, N: 0.
Resolve comments. Discussed
and approved during Kansas City.
Ready for 318.
CA 166 Inconsistencies in core waiting period between Sub A Carino Assigned Washington meeting
318 and C42. 26.12.4.1(c)
CA 167 Use of recycled aggregate -- do we need to Sub A Hover Assigned Washington meeting
add wording beyond what is in C33? 26.4.1.2
CA 168 Question from user on Brackish water. Sub A Hanskat Assigned Washington meeting
R19.3.1, Exposure Category C
CA 169 Definition of exposure class C0. R19.3.1.1 Sub A Holland Assigned Washington meeting
A01-2014. Did not pass. Being
revised for A01-15.
A01-2015: Y: 12, Y/C: 2, N: 2. Did
not pass. Discussed and approved
during Kansas City. Ready for
318.
CA 170 Question on w/cm and f'c for exposure class Sub A Hooton Assigned Washington meeting
S3. 19.3.2.1
CA 172 Alternate means for specifying durability. Sub A Weiss, Hooton, Assigned Washington meeting
19.3.2.1 Carino
CA 173 Revise inspection section. 26.13 Sub A Browning, Assigned Washington meeting
Fiorato
CA 174 Add structural grouts to Code Sub A Suprenant, Assigned Kansas City meeting
Holland
CA 175 Address suitability of ASTM C1157 cements in Sub A Holland Assigned Kansas City meeting
Code
ADOPTED 2019 CODE
NOT ADOPTED 2019 CODE

CA 070 Cementitious materials for chlorides. Chapter 19. Carry over Rolled into CA 056 during Washington
from 2014 meeting.
code cycle
CA 077 Rewrite Ch 5, construction issues. (Now Chapter Carry over Dropped during Washington meeting. This
26.) from 2014 work will be accomplished as the overall
code cycle review of construction items in Ch 26 is done
under CA 163
CA 099 Clarify use of term f'c, various locations. Chapter Sub A. Carry Reassigned Washington meeting. Has this
26. over from 2014 been accomplished?
Closed after KC meeting upon
recommendation by Fiorato.
CA 117 Review whether to add C1600 cements to Code Carry over No responses were received from proponent
from 2014 of adding these cements.
code cycle
CA 171 Possibility of exceeding f'c. 19.2.1.1 Sub A Assigned Washington meeting
A01-2015: Y: 12, Y/C: 2, N: 2. Did not
pass. During discussion in Kansas City,
committee agreed that no changes were
necessary.
Sub B Meeting Minutes Unapproved
Committee: ACI 318B - Anchorage & Reinforcement Spring 2015

Date: Tuesday April 14 2015
Time: 8:00 am 12:30 pm
Location: Kansas City Convention Centre, Kansas City, MO
Members Neal Anderson (Chairman) Jim Jirsa
Present Lisa Feldman (Secretary) Ray Lui
Tess Ahlborn Robert McGlohn
Dean Browning Don Meinheit
Ron Cook Jack Moehle (Ex Officio)
Dave Darwin Mike Mota
Rolf Eligehausen (Consulting) Conrad Paulson
Damon Fick John Silva
Cathy French Loring Wyllie
Werner Fuchs Greg Zeisler (ACI Staff)
Members Not Bahram Shahrooz (Excused)

Present
Visitors: Omar Abdelkarim (Missouri S&T) Kenton McBride (HILTI Corp.)

Mohamad Abdulazeez (Missouri S&T) George Miljus (Nucor)
Giovanni Muciaccia (Politecnico di
Mahdi Adibi (U. of Kansas)
Milano)
Hayder Alghazali (Missouri S&T) Dan Mullins (Martin/Martin Inc.)
Zuhair Al-Jaberi (Missouri S&T) Javeed Munshi (Bechtel)
Samir Al-Yasso (U. of Kansas) Erik Nissen (Nucor)
Mark Perniconi (Charles Pankow
Ali Ajaam (U of Kansas)
Foundation)
Jay Amin (SRNS) Giovanni Plizzari (U. of Brescia)
Joerg Asmus (Eligehausen & Asmus) Dan Reider (Erico)
Attila Beres (HRC) Jake Olsen (Powers)
Sung Chul Chun (Incheon National
Cliff Sabo (DYWIDAG Systems)
University)
Sylvia Dyer (Simpson Strongtie) Nate Searle (Kiewit)
Oliver Ernst (FIscherwerke GmbH) Jacob Selzer (CMC Steel Arizona)
Anthony Felder (CRSI) Hitoshi Shiohara (U. of Tokyo)
Peter Fosnough (Harris Rebar) Howard Silverman (ICC-ES)
Martin Gagn (IZA) Leslie Sprague
Larry Gartley (HILTI Corp.) Jayne Sperry (U. of Kansas)
Krishna P. Ghimire (U of Kansas) Jrgen Stork (A Warth KG)
Muna Hano (U of Kansas) John Turner (CRSI)
ACI 318B - Anchorage & Reinforcement Committee Minutes
18 May 2015
Page 2
Andra Hrmann-Gast (ICC-ES) Raveesh Varma (A. Epstein & Sons)

Ali Kheyroddin Fritz Wall (HILTI Corp.)
Carl Labbe (Fibermesh) Nathan Westin (ITW)
Hung-Jen Lee (Nat. Yunlin U.) Les Woodard (Harris Rebar)
Derek Lewis Curtis Yokohama (Fluor)
Adolfo Matamoros (U. Texas San
Antonio)
1. The meeting was called to order by Chair Anderson at 8:12 am. Members provided self-
introductions around the table. Visitors to the meeting also provided self-introductions.
2. Approval of Minutes of Tuesday 28 October 2014 meeting in Washington DC

The minutes of the October 28 meeting in Washington, DC were reviewed. There was a
motion by Browning and seconded by Ahlborn to accept the minutes as distributed. The
motion passed.
3. Report on ACI318 Steering Committee Meeting (Anderson)

Highlights of the steering committee meeting included:
Still on schedule for the 2019 ICC code. All structural codes are in ICC Group B and
are on the schedule at this time.
Coordination between the sub-committees: incumbent on certain committees that
single ballots will reside in a single committee. However, a small number of people
from a different sub-committee may review ballots of other sub-committees, when
applicable, to make sure that issues not resident in a given committee are
addressed.
ACI website will be updated, with a move towards web ballots.
318 Procedures: Most current version of all chapters will be posted with a table at the
front of the chapter with the most recent changes made itemized.
Re-reviewing the definition of license design professional (only one per project is
assumed in the Code).
Addressing structural grouts in the Code.
4. Reports from Working Groups

a. Pedestal/Base Plate Issues
Reviewing papers relating to models of concrete breakout resistance to steel. Wants
to develop a design provision to take this into account.
Reviewing research on shear lugs for the development of potential design provisions.
Outstanding issue of disconnect between reinforced or precast concrete column to
base plate design. SSCC (Structural Standards Coordination Committee) of AISC
has discussed this. A virtual meeting in May is planned.
b. Non-Straight Bar Development (Bar Anchorage)
Refer to Item 5.
c. Spirals
No action since last meeting.
Need a better idea of how these are fabricated in order to standardize the design.
18 May 2015
Page 3
d. Yield Strength Definition

No report.
e. Anchorage to Concrete (new methods)
Screw anchors: the sub-committee has had some discussions. Several clauses
were identified that need to be updated. Proposal for this work is in progress.
Committee 355 (Jake Olson) has prepared a draft of proposed Code changes to
incorporate screw anchors. However, this was written in the old Appendix D, and
will need to be updated for Chapter 17.
General anchorage to concrete: Nothing new to report.
f. Leftover Issues
i. Reorganize Chapter 17
Refer to Item 10.
ii. Public Comment Issues from ACI318-14
Refer to Item 7 below.
iii. Errata
Chair Anderson has not seen any new errata come through for this committee.
Silva: over-strength factor applied to term e, the over-strength factor actually gets
applied to eH. This caused confusion trying to apply it to the entire seismic
design load case which contrasts with what is stated in ASCE7. Suggest calling
it eH in our text and add a definition for it.
Following the initial discussion, Silva drafted a proposal for changes to 17.8.4.3
and 17.8.5.3 for eH such that it is specifically defined as the horizontal component
of E (i.e. text was added, no text was deleted from these provisions).
A motion was made to accept these as errata for Chapter 17 by Anderson,
seconded by Silva. An amendment to the motion was made that additional
information to the commentary may be added at a later date (for ACI 318-19).
Motion was approved unanimously.
5. Update on Hooked Bar and Headed Bar Research at KU (Darwin)

Darwin provided a presentation on the research work continuing at KU.
Discussed multiple hook specimen geometry. Range of stresses at failure is much
larger than conducted by other researchers. As compressive strength is increased, the
level of safety is decreased. Small bars have better levels of safety by code than larger
bar sizes. Increased capacity is provided by adding ties. Square root of fc is too high a
power and so expression was revised to use quarter power. A design equation was
developed based upon a 5% characteristic strength and re-arranged to solve for
development length of the hook. Larger bars are more effective for a given anchorage
depth. Transverse reinforcement factor is provided to account for increase in capacity
provided by transverse reinforcement. Consider allowing fewer transverse ties for
smaller bar size factors. Hook spacing factor considers that as hooks are more closely
spaced, the capacity reduces. A third factor takes into account whether the hooks are
anchored within the column core or not. Staggered hooks will also be evaluated.
Discussed specimens with headed bars, including different styles of heads, some of
which do not meet current standards. Beam-column joint specimens are similar to
specimens with hooks. Same descriptive equation can be used for hooked and headed
bars.
7. Discussion - Tie or stirrup spacing along a hook at the end of a beam (See 318-14,
25.4.3.3) for smaller diameter hooked bars (Fick)
18 May 2015
Page 4
Spacing of three bar diameters for smaller diameter bars (i.e. No. 4 top bar) is small yet
a large number of ties is required.
Jirsa stated that case of No. 4 bars does not come up often and was not considered in
the original research.
Provision can be reconsidered in light of this observation.
Some of Darwins tests are done without transverse reinforcement and so may shed
some light on this issue. This will be reported on once these tests at KU are complete.
8. Discussion - Section 25.7.2.4, Circular ties referenced in the section for rectilinear ties
(Anderson)
Raised at an ACI 318 seminar in Texas.
Second paragraph of R25.7.2.3 describes requirements for spirals such that the pitch
and area are able to substitute for a circular tie.
Suggest moving commentary to 25.7.2.4 which discussed circular ties. Associated
figures then need to be renumbered.
French suggested that moving the text is not appropriate given the definition of tie in the
code. The text was included in the section simply to state that this is an allowable
method. Agreed that the figures should be moved as proposed.
For action (hoops, ties, spirals, etc.) by Shahrooz and Jirsa.
9. Discussion - ACI 318-14 Table 26.6.2.1(a) permits the d to be out of tolerance by 0.5
in. (Anderson / Browning)
Relates to Chapter 26.
d is rarely measured in the field, and, if attempted, would be very difficult to measure.
Table 26.6.2.1(a): Our guidance to industry, and has been considered in the phi factors.
This information is not intended to provide guidance to contractors.
First column in table should perhaps be h rather than d.
Guidance may need to be provided in design requirements and information should be
provided in the toolbox chapter instead of Chapter 26. Tolerances on concrete cover
will remain in Chapter 26.
This issue will need to be coordinated with Sub D and possibly put forth as a Code
change proposal.
10. Discussion - Lower limit for hef and dense reinforcement clustering (Fuchs)
Presented two proposals: (1) to include a minimum embedment depth in 17.1.1 of 1.5
in., or (2) to take into account test results published in Symposium on Anchorage to
Concrete in 2007, with average tests performed with wedge type anchors with
embedment depths less than 1.5 in. Test results follow the line given by the CCD
method, but with: (a) a reduction in the phi factor, or (b) introducing a reduction factor to
the concrete cover taking into account scatter and reduction of capacity. Suggests
dividing the actual factors by 1.5 (and so reducing the phi factor by this amount). Fuchs
was asked to proceed with a code change proposal that was along the lines of option 2
as presented.
Further, Fuchs presented on superimposition of stresses on post-installed expansion
anchors under tension and lap splices. This experimental program conducted at
Stuttgart a number of years ago (~ 30). Dense reinforcement with No. 9 bars results by
replacing a breakout by a spalling failure. Test results show no influence of bond
condition and a mean reduction factor of 0.7.
11. Review of Ballot CB15-01 ~ Chapter 17 (French)

18 May 2015
Page 5
Suggested moving forward by having a task group address the comments and decide on
what direction to take when revising the Chapter and ultimately bring it forward to the
main committee. Chapter 17 task group will consist of Anderson, French (Chair), Cook,
Fuchs, Meinheit, and McGlohn.
Chapter 26: An attempt was made to move information out of Chapter 17 and into the
correct location in Chapter 26. Suggests that a separate task group should ensure that
Chapter 26 actually reads the way that we want it to. Some comments received on the
ballot suggested that this is currently problematic. Chair Anderson requested a task
group consisting of Browning (Chair), Ahlborn, Feldman, Mota, Silva, and Fick to
address Chapter 26.
Versions of these chapters, following task group revisions, will be balloted by 318 Main
and Sub B.
The committee approved (12 affirmative, 2 negatives) moving forward with the revisions
to Chapters 17 and 26.
12. Other new business

Information on format and how to fill out a ballot was presented by Chair Anderson.
Please fill out with reference to one line number so it is easier to sort when merging
comments from all members. Your name and ballot number must be filled in for each
separate ballot. Same comment on multiple line number: put first location in the Line
column and the rest in the comment in the right hand column.
Martin Gagn from IZA spent a moment introducing a new type of zinc-coated
reinforcing steel.
13. Next meeting - Fall ACI Convention 2015 Denver
14. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:06 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa R. Feldman, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Associate Professor - University of Saskatchewan
ACI 318B Committee Secretary
Approved by the Chair
Attachments:
1) Sign-in Sheets
318 Subcommittee C Meeting Safety, Serviceability, and Analysis
ACI 2015 Spring Convention
Kansas City, MO
Tuesday April 14, 2015 8 A.M. 12:30 P.M. C-2206
Members Present: Jason Draper, JoAnn Browning, Fernando Yaez, Ron Klemencic,
Insung Kim, Jim Harris, Mike Kreger, Sergio Brea, Laura Lowes,
Keith Kesner, Paul Mlakar, Allan Bommer, Jim Cagley, Mike
Bartlett
Visitors: Jeff West, Carl Larosche, Nicolas Rodriguez, Paul Husni, Paul
Ziehl
Regrets:
Meeting Minutes
1. Call to order and welcome

a. Call to Order 8:00 AM
2. Introductions
3. Review of Agenda
4. 318C Balloting Procedures
a. Put all comments on comment sheet in lieu of using the online comment box.
b. Use one comment sheet for multiple change proposals.
5. Discussion of LB-15-C-01
a. CC001 Paul Mlakar

i. Suggested rewrite proposed by Allan Bommer
ii. Jim Harris to propose revised language to address concerns raised by
Ron Klemencic.
iii. Change proposal to incorporate these changes and reballot (May 2015)
in subcommittee C.
b. CC002 Sergio Brena
i. Move Section 5.3.3 into the commentary; quote ASCE 7-10 Section
2.3.2 Exception 1 in the commentary.
ii. Keith Kesner to work with Sergio Brena to propose language
regarding return periods for wind and seismic loads.
iii. Change proposal to incorporate these changes and reballot (May 2015)
in subcommittee C.
6. Update on Progress
Page 1 of 3
a. Minimum Thickness Allan Bommer and Mike Kreger; will coordinate with
Randy Poston in 318D
b. le and deflections Allan Bommer and Mike Kreger
i. Mike Kreger presented on Ie and deflections
ii. Current Ie underestimates deflections for lightly reinforced flexural
members (primarily slabs).
iii. Proposal to use Bischoff Ie versus Branson Ie (current provision)
iv. Jim Harris to provide a prestressed case to Alan Bommer
v. Mike Bartlett to provide CSA discussion.
vi. Prepare ballot for May 2015, or for 2nd ballot in July 2015
c. Remove DDM and EFM Jason Draper
i. Draft change proposal has been prepared, but more coordination is
needed with Sub D. Jason will work with Larry Novak to ballot in
May 2015.
d. Harmonizing strength evaluation with ACI 562 and 437; and new business
from ACI318-14 Keith Kesner
i. Harmonization between 562 and 437
1. Keith Kesner to draft change proposal to reference ACI 437.2
in section 27.4. Ballot in May 2015.
ii. New Business
1. Discussion of changes to make to 27.3.1.2 and R27.3.1.2.
2. Coordinate 27.4 changes with committee 437.
e. Coordinating definition of stiffness throughout the code Insung Kim
i. Insung Kim to develop change proposal for May 2015 letter ballot.
ii. Section R18.2.2 does not reference 6.6.3.1.1. Chair Browning will
coordinate with Subcommittee H.
f. Floor vibrations Keith Kesner and Jim Harris, with respect to discussion in
(d) above
i. Discussed referencing CRSI document (2014) for evaluating floor
vibration in reinforced concrete structures.
g. Analysis and FEM Laura Lowes
i. Will provide change proposal to ballot (ballot July 2015).
7. Update on 318-14 New Business Items

a. The following new business items are being reviewed by the indicated leaders.
i. CH4 Jason Draper
ii. CH7 Sergio Brena
iii. CH8 Laura Lowes
iv. CH10 Mike Kreger
v. CH24 Keith Kesner (also discussed in 5c above)
b. Leaders will review the new business and mark them as no change
warranted, yes change warranted, should be addressed by subcommittee
___
c. no change warranted items will be balloted by Sub C July 2015 ballot
d. yes change warranted will be assigned to other committee members to
present in Denver Fall 2015
Page 2 of 3
e. Other items will be sent to the appropriate subcommittee for their review and
action
8. Update on Research and coordination with ASCE 7

a. Structural Integrity Sergio Brena
b. Reliability of concrete structures Jim Harris update from ASCE 7
c. Performance under high winds Ron Klemencic update from ASCE 7
9. New Business
10. Approval meeting minutes from Fall 2014 (this item is to be moved to front of
Agenda for Fall 2015)
11. Adjourn (Motion by Paul Mlaklar) 12:30
Page 3 of 3
318 Sub D Members
ACI 318 Spring Convention
Kansas City Convention Center
Kansas City, MO
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 C-2206 1:30 PM 6:00 PM
Minutes
1. Call to order and welcome

Chair Frosch called the meeting to order and invited each of the members and visitors
to introduce themselves.
Members in attendance:
Frosch (chair), Bertero, Correal, Decker, Dolan, Hube, Mlakar, Novak, Poston,
Roberts-Wollmann, Stark, Falconer (staff)
Members with regrets:

Wood
Visitors in attendance:
JoAnn Browning, Sergio Brena, Jason Draper, Robert Esplin, Tim Grundhoffer,
Wael Hassan, Dan Mullins, Mehrdad Sasani
2. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Fall 2014 meeting were approved by unanimous voice vote.
3. LB15D-1
a. CD001 Minimum two-way slab thickness
The first letter ballot of the subcommittee was conducted. The vote was 3 yes, 7
no, and 2 abstain. The goal of this ballot was to obtain a straw vote regarding
changing the minimum thickness table for two-ways slabs. There have been a
number of structures that have met the table, but have significant deflection
problems. The topic was opened to discussion. Several issues were discussed
included sustained DL and LL, cracking due to restrained shrinkage, varying
reinforcement ratios, and longer spans. It was stated that the values in the tables
originated from a 1936 paper and first appeared in the 1947 code. The limits were
based on plaster on wood and steel systems. This paper will be forward to the
subcommittee.
Different approaches were discussed including (1) maintain guidance on

minimum thickness, but always requiring deflection calculations, (2) limiting the
applicability of the tables, and (3) deleting the tables. Based on the discussion, an
approach that will be explored is to provide a minimum thickness table in the
commentary, but require the calculation of deflection. Randy Poston and Raul
Bertero will work with Mike Kreger and Allan Bommer from Sub C to coordinate
and develop a change proposal. An important part of this issue is to provide
guidance on how to appropriately calculate deflections which includes proper
estimate of stiffness (EI) and accounting for creep & shrinkage.
4. Discussion Items
a. Strength Reduction Factors (Bertero)
Raul provided a presentation to discuss the pros and cons of using behavioral
based strength reduction factors as opposed to material strength reduction
factors. Material factors provide a significant advantage in addressing
unusual transitions of design strength that occur in the P-M interaction curve
for certain shapes such as Ts. Several calculation examples were provide to
illustrate the use of the approach. Discussion focused on if this approach
should be considered further for implementation in ACI. While there was
interest, it was concluded that changing to this approach would not be
desirable. The current approach has been used for many years and provides
consistency with other US design standards. There are advantages, however,
for use in strut-and-tie, and this application of different phi factors for the
struts, ties, and nodes should be further explored. Sub E will be informed.
b. Slab Ducts - 7.2.1 and 8.2.2 to address voids in slabs (Frosch)

Robert provided a presentation regarding slab ducts that are becoming more
common in slabs. Due to the size of these ducts, which can be used for
venting as well as conduits, the strength of a slab can be negatively impacted.
To alert engineers, it was recommended that 7.2.1 and 8.2.2 provide some
language indicating that voids in the slabs need to be considered. This
language should also be included in the diaphragm chapter. The
subcommittee was in agreement. It was also suggested that Chapter 26 should
provide language indicated that duct locations shall be approved by the LDP.
Robert will work on developing a change proposal and also coordinate with
Sub H (diaphragms) and Sub A (Chapter 26).
c. Unified Design Provisions (Dolan)

Charlie discussed the unified design provisions and the need for changes
considering the use of high-strength reinforcement and high-strength concrete.
More study is needed, but Sub R will be working on the required code
changes. It was recommended that Sub D process deletion of the 0.004 strain
limit and that this limit be changed to require tension-controlled members.
Charlie will develop this change proposal.
d. Retaining Walls - Tim Grundoffer, Army Corps of Engineers

Tim Grundoffer indicated that the Corps of Engineers is working to revise its
flood and retaining wall requirements. The notes of this discussion are
provided as an attachment to the minutes. Two primary questions were posed.
First, at what section should shear be checked (the face or d away) and what
2
shear strength should be used ( Vc or 0.5Vc ). It appears that different
combinations of these two options are used. Several members provided their
personal opinion and it appears that most textbooks calculate shear at the face
and use 0.5Vc considering the wall as a slab. Improved guidance from ACI
318 seems appropriate. In addition, current 11.1.4 does not provide any
guidance on the design of these walls and needs improvement. This item will
be discussed with Sub E (regarding shear strength) and Sub F.
5. Sub D Targets
a. Minimum Flexural Reinforcement (Stark)
Roberto discussed the impact of changing from the current minimum flexural
reinforcement expressions to requiring that the ultimate strength be greater
than the cracking strength. In general, the current design expressions require
reinforcement amounts significantly greater than would be required using a
factor of 1.2Mcr. Robert will send the committee articles by Chet Siess and
Steve Seguirant that focused on this subject for their detailed review. In
addition, Robertos results will be forwarded for review. Roberto will
develop a draft change proposal.
b. Direct Design & Equivalent Frame Methods (Novak)

Larry will work with Sub C to identify all of the changes required for deletion
of Sections 8.10 and 8.11 from the Code, and a code change proposal will be
developed shortly. It was pointed out that in 8.4.1.2 and 6.2.4.1, reference
should be made to the 318-14 code rather than just textbooks so that code
language for these approaches can be maintained.
c. Unify design procedures nonprestressed/prestressed (Roberts-Wollman)

Carin is evaluating the provisions, and should have recommendations for the
near future.
d. Unify shear design procedures (Sub E)

Sub E is in the process of evaluating a number of change proposals to
comprehensively unify the shear design provisions. Therefore, Sub D does
not have any further business regarding this topic.
e. High strength reinforcement (Sub R)

Sub R is evaluating the changes required for high-strength reinforcement.
While a number of items may impact the member chapters, Sub R will take
the lead.
f. Slender columns (Frosch)

Research at Purdue is currently nearing completion. A focus of the study is to
evaluate the 1.4 limit on second-order effects and to evaluate the handling of
sustained load effects. Recommendations are expected to be available for the
next meeting in Denver.
3
g. Composite columns (Decker)
Curt initiated a detailed investigation into future directions for handling
composite columns in the 318 code. He had discussions with Gustavo Parra,
Roberto Leon, and Amit Varma who have been quite involved in this subject.
The current 318 provisions are outdated, not complete, and cannot be used to
design composite columns; therefore, designers are using the AISC provisions
which refer to the ACI code for particular details. Based on discussion in the
committee, it was decided to pursue deletion of the composite column
provisions. Curt will develop a change proposal which will identify all of the
changes/deletions required.
h. Walls (Correal)
Juan is developing a list of recommended changes to enhance the walls
chapter and improve completeness. It was recommended that he develop a
strikeout/underline version of the entire chapter starting with the Code so that
the changes can be reviewed and balloted. Once this effort is completed, the
commentary can be adjusted as necessary.
As part of this discussion, an item of new business was also identified.

Section 11.7.2.3 refers to exterior and interior surfaces of walls, but this
provision is generally applicable, not just to walls at the exterior of a building.
In general, the provision sounds like it is addressing basement walls as it
requires increased cover for the exterior surface, but the provision exempts
basement walls. Overall, it appears that this provision morphed over the years
and something is incorrect. Juan will track the history of this provision in past
Codes and recommend a code change.
i. Bar detailing for one-way and two-way slabs (Dolan)

Charlie is evaluating minor changes in detailing that have the potential to
simplify the overall detailing requirements. There is potential that some of the
minimum integrity reinforcement provisions could be integrated such as
requiring a minimum of two #3 continuous bars that go through the column
core in all one-way slabs and beams as well as two-way slabs. Figures should
also be added to either the commentary or code to improve understanding of
the requirements. Charlie will discuss further with Dan Falconer who has
thoughts on this subject.
j. Minimum shear reinforcement simplification (Roberts-Wollman)

Carin has checked a number of example problems to determine if the
minimum requirement for prestressed members (Equation 9.6.3.3(e)) ever
controls. It appears that it doesnt, but she will evaluate further. In addition,
she will investigate the origin of the expression. If this equation is not
required, its deletion will greatly simplify Table 9.6.3.3.
4
6. TAC & Public Review
The following provisions were identified by Sub D at the first meeting in Washington
DC as new business items that should be addressed. Details regarding each item are
identified in the minutes of the Fall 2014 meeting in Washington DC. The goal is to
develop a change proposal prior to the next meeting in Denver.
a. Provision 8.3.1.1 (Bertero/Poston)

b. Provision 8.6.2 (Frosch)
In reviewing this item in detail, it was identified that a change is not needed.
There are no minimum shear reinforcement requirements, and shear
reinforcement required for strength is already provided by 8.4.3 and 8.4.4.
Therefore, this item is considered complete and will not result in a change
proposal.
c. Provision 8.4.1.4 (Novak)
d. Figure 8.7.6(d) (Poston)
e. R8.7.7.1.2 (Poston)
a. 9.6.3 (Dolan)
7. New Business
a. Integrity reinforcement - Figures (Frosch)
It is being found that engineers continue to be unfamiliar with the integrity
provisions. The reorganization of the code should help significantly, but
inclusion of figures in the commentary similar that those used in the 318-14
code seminars would be helpful. A change proposal will be developed by
Frosch and coordinated with the work that Charlie is conducting on
simplifying the detailing requirements.
b. Error in 11.6.2 (Frosch)

A typographical error was found in 11.6.2. The wording at the end of (a)
should read required by 11.5.4.8 rather than in accordance with Table
11.6.1. This errata has been submitted to ACI staff.
c. New Business Flagged in 318-14 ballots

A number of new business items were flagged by Committee 318 during the
last code cycle. Due to time restrictions, many of these new business
recommendations could not be implemented. ACI staff has developed a list of
these items for each chapter, and this list will be sent to committee following
the meeting. Sub D will review to determine if any should be implemented
during this code cycle. A complete history of the 318-14 ballots is available
at the following site and will likely be helpful in this review:
http://www.concrete.org/Current318Reorg.aspx.
d. Shells Document (318.2)

The shells document has been assigned to Sub D; therefore, any changes will
be processed through our subcommittee. Robert Esplin, secretary of the shells
5
committee, has been working on developing changes, and Charlie Dolan will
serve as a liaison between Sub D and shells committee.
e. Deep Beam Question

Wael Hassan inquired if there was a problem with the deep beam provisions
in the case of a concentrated load near the support. There was concern that
the angle of the strut can be too vertical considering the angular limits in the
strut-and-tie provisions (23.2.7). It was indicated that the angle requirement is
regarding the angle from the longitudinal reinforcement to avoid struts from
being too shallow and does not restrict the vertical angle (perpendicular to the
longitudinal reinforcement).
8. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 pm.
6
ForACI318DMembers:ShearStrengthofRetainingandFloodWalls
April2015
ByTimGrundhoffer,USArmyCorpofEngineers,StPaulDistrict
timothy.m.grundhoffer@usace.army.mil

Background:TheUSArmyCorpsofEngineersiscurrentlyintheprocessofupdatingoneorour
engineeringmanuals,EM111022104StrengthDesignofReinforcedConcreteHydraulic
Structures,1992.ThemanuallygenerallyfollowsACI318andACI350withsomemodifications.
Aspartofthiseffortalongstandingquestionregardingshearstrengthofreinforcedconcrete
invertedTtyperetainingandfloodwallshavebeendiscussed.Inparticularthestrengthand
designoftheStemwallforshear(seefigurebelow).

Figure1:InvertedTWall
Issues:
1.ShearStrength:Stemwallssubjectedtoonewayshearfromuniformlyloadedbackfillor
waterloaddonotallowforredistributionofloadasdiscussedinACI31811.4.6.1andits
Commentary.ThroughACI11.9>ACI11.11>ACI11.4.6.1(restatedbelow),outofplaneshearfor
wallsareexcludedfromprovisionsforminimumshearreinforcementthatrequiresVulessthan0.5Vc.
Thus,basedoncurrentcodeVuwouldbecomparedtoVc.
11.9 Provisions for walls

11.9.1 Design for shear forces perpendicular to face of wall shall be in accordance with
provisions for slabs in 11.11.
11.11 Provisions for slabs and footings
11.11.1.1 Beam action where each critical section to be investigated extends in a plane across
the entire width. For beam action, the slab or footing shall be designed in accordance with 11.1
through 11.4.
11.4.6 Minimum shear reinforcement

11.4.6.1 A minimum area of shear reinforcement, Av,min, shall be provided in all reinforced
concrete flexural members (prestressed and nonprestressed) where Vu exceeds 0.5Vc, except
in members satisfying one or more of (a) through (f):
(a) Footings and solid slabs;
Commentary, 11.4.6.1: Solid slabs, footings and joists are excluded from the minimum shear
reinforcement requirement because there is a possibility of load sharing between weak and
strong areas. However, research11.21-11.23 has shown that deep, lightly reinforced one-way slabs
and beams, particularly if constructed with high-strength concrete, or concrete having a small
coarse aggregate size, may fail at shear loads less than Vc, calculated from Eq. (11-3) especially
if subjected to concentrated loads.
Uniformlyloadedfloodwallsdonothavethepossibilityofloadsharingasallsectionsare
loadedequally.Retainingwallswithhorizontalbackfillalsoproduceuniformloads.However
withretainingwallsdesignedwithatrestpressures(i.e.Corpswalls)theloaddecreasesto
activepressureaswallsmovesunderloadandarecurrentlyconsideredlesscritical.
3.CriticalSectionforShearinStem:PerACI318S 11.1.3,criticalsectionforshearshouldbea
distancedabovethebaseofthestem.However,CRSIandotherreferencestakecriticalshear
atthebaseofthestem.Isthereareasonforthisorisitjustaconservativeapproach?Some
agenciesandtextsspecifycriticalsectionforToe(dfromface)andHeel(faceofstem)butnot
theStem.Foraretainingorfloodwalls(seeFigure1)andusingFigure2below:Toeis
comparabletosupportcondition(c),thestemiscomparabletosupportcondition(d)andheel
iscomparabletosupportcondition(e).

Figure2:CriticalSectionforShearfromACI11.1.3

2.DesignPractice:Designsarenotconsistentasmanyapproachesarebeingpracticed.Alist
ofsomeapproachesfound:
1. Doesnotcheckshear,onlyflexure.(Couldbevaliddependingonheightofwall.)
2. CompareVutoVcatbaseofstem.(CRSIandmosttexts/classes)
3. CompareVutoVcatdistancedfrombaseofstem.Additionally,checkshear
frictionagainstVuatbaseofstem(ACI14.2.8and15.8).(someengineeringfirms)
4. Other???

QuestionsforConsideration:
1. WhichapproachisconsistentwithintentofACIcode?
2. ShouldVubecomparedtoVc or 0.5Vc foruniformlyloadedstemwallswhere
redistributionofloadorloadsharingisnotavailable?
3. Whatiscriticalsectionforshearinstemsforretainingandfloodwalls?
Otherfactors:
1. Shearonlygovernsdesignsforhigherwalls(nowavesandgreaterthanabout20ft).For
coastalwalls,shearmightgovernatlowerwallheights.
2. Momentsteelgovernsovershearfrictionsteelatbaseofstem.
3. Roughnessorkeysatbaseofstemmanydifferentdesignphilosophiesoutthere.
4. Shearreinforcementforstems(Corpsdoesnotuse,butinCRSImanualforretaining
wallsitsokforVu>Vc)

ACI 318-14 Subcommittee E Section and Member Strength
ACI Spring Convention Kansas City, Missouri
Minutes
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 8:00 am to 12:30 pm - C-2207
Attendance
Subcommittee Members: Abdeldjelil "DJ" Belarbi John Bonacci, Neil Hawkins, Dan Kuchma, Gary Klein,
Leonardo Massone, Larry Novak, Viral Patel, Randy Poston, Mario Rodriguez, David Sanders (Chair),
Lesley Sneed, John Wallace, Jim Wight and Sharon Wood
Visitors: David Fields, David Garber, Bob Howell, Dominic Kelly, Adam Lubell, Jack Moehle, Jeff
Rautenberg, Greg Zeisler (ACI Staff), Nancy Varney
1. Review of Agenda
2. Approval of Minutes Minutes from Washington DC 318E meeting approved - unanimous
3. Members vs Materials Factors Presentation by Raul Bertero (see attached)

Same presentation being made to SubD (Robert Frosch)
Discussion was held on proposals: Gary Klein mentioned that member factors help to adjust for the
confidence in the design equations, significance of failures, dimension uncertainty, material factors
are a useful idea to pursue. Larry Novak it would be a good effort to undertake but a big education
effort, there are other ways to fix the problem, material factors will be different than other US
Codes/member factors. Mario Rodriguez use curvature instead to fix the discontinuity. John
Bonacci the current methods rewards low reinforcement ratios/under-reinforced. Jim Wight At
an International Workshop the idea of material factors was discussed. There were concerns at going
to material factors. Member factors help to control the failure model. Might be better to focus on
the problem with T-walls not the whole code. Neil Hawkins Dimensional effects are important,
interface with other materials such as AISC and ASCE7 are very important.
What about material factors for STM Gary Klein - ok for tie, need to be careful with development
length.
Straw Votes:
o Should we investigate material factors the clear direction was to not change.
o Should we investigate material factors for STM lot of interest in investigating material
factors for STM
4. Pre Kansas City Ballots Discussion was held on each of the ballots. Ballot results are on the 318E
website.
CE010, Curved Bar Node Klein
o Comments: add table to background on application of curved bar nodes. Add a couple of
sentences to commentary on when to use
o Votes: Unanimously approved pending the addressing of comments.
pg. 1 318E Minutes Kansas City, MO

o Action: Send out for 30-day review (After committee note: A 318 Main Committee Vote will
go out in mid June. Another will go out in mid September. To meet the mid June vote, the
30-day review would need to start by early May)
o Comments: Expand Background sections, concern nodes and whether they should be CCC
or CCT,
o Action: Send out for ballot within 318E
CE020, Two-Way Shear Strength Provided by Concrete- Hawkins see attached
o Comments: worked out examples would be very helpful, also a parametric study for
different variables including longitudinal reinforcement ratio, also corner
o Comments: Reduce background section
CE045-Effective Width for One Way Shear in Footings and Mat Foundations Poston
o Comments: concerns over references, discussion about different methods and the
pros/cons, discussion on what the failure mode will look like, is it too conservative
o Action: Go forward with existing concept in ballot with 318E, also send to 318F.
5. Chapter 21 Strength Reduction Factors

a. Members vs Materials Factors Sanders/Raul Bertero
b. Evaluation of factors for strut-and-tie method (STM) Sanders
Covered under items 3 in the agenda
(After Committee Comments: Factors were discussed in 318D, similar results as in 318E with limited
desire to do a comprehensive change. Raul Bertero did not make a full presentation to 318 Main.
Instead Robert Frosch talked about just addressing the direct problem with columns and the potential for
material factors for STM. 318R (High Strength Concrete/Reinforcement-Dominic Kelly) is also addressing
as part of investigating high strength concrete and reinforcement. Also dealing with t and when you
go to = 0.9. There are multiple article being written on factors (Gamble, Dolan, Stanton/Taylor).)
Action: wait to see what happens at main committee
6. Chapter 22 Sectional Strength

Torsion Belarbi (see attached)
o Presentation by DJ Belarbi on potential areas of study for torsion (see attached).
o Need to do work before proposals can be made; minimum shear equation, torsion in
prestress, open section and thin rectangular section are areas of interest.
o MISTAKE/ERRATA IN CODE: In Section 22.7.6.1b the equation should be tan not cot.
One-way Shear Equations - Belarbi, Kuchma, Sanders
o Presentations by DJ Belarbi and Dan Kuchma about progress on work in 445 and
coordination effects with 318E (see attached).
o Templates from eight proposers has been received (last one just received). Statistical
analysis with four databases has been done by 445D/Karl Reineck on the first seven
proposals and is also being done by Dan Kuchma to compare. The first seven proposal come
from the ten that were presented in Washington DC. Four of the proposals have been
combined. Need to work on examples that should be used to compare all proposals.
Previous study on Dan Kuchma and Neil Hawkins for NCHRP did 500 examples.

o Comments: Need to include members with axial load and other codes, also should include
point loads and distributed loads, best to look at double tees instead of single tees.
o Action: Develop list of examples by June in coordination with 445.
Shear in Walls - Wight and Wallace
o Presentation by Jim Wight on simplification of shear equations in walls, non seismic (see
attached)
o Comments: concerns expressed that this reduce the capacity of walls with high axial load, it
was noted that when all thing are considered, the change in capacity by including axial load
is minor.
o Action: Send out for ballot.
Limited time prevented the discussion of the following items. Will provide updates between now
and the fall meeting.
o Specialized slab shear-transfer slabs and column rotations/offsets Bonacci; Specialized slab
shear-transfer slabs and column rotations/offsets Bonacci; and One-way slabs subjected to
span-parallel line loads - Bonacci (see attached, provided after the meeting)
Stirrup Spacing for multiple-leg stirrups - Patel
Biaxial shear in columns - Patel
Concentrated loads near support of beams - Kuchma
Torsion - Belarbi
Headed Shear Stud Assembly - Poston
Inclined Shear Studs - Hawkins
High Strength Reinforcement Sanders/Kelly
7. Chapter 23 Strut and Tie Models

STM - Model to Method (CE055?) Novak (Ballot to be presented in attached)
Bottle shaped structures, fan shaped struts Klein presentation on impact of cross tension on
inclined struts (see attached)
Limited time preventing the discussion of the following items. Will provide updates between now
and the fall meeting.
o Development of Tie Force within Nodal Zone (CE030?) - Klein
o Minimum Angle between a Strut and Tie (CE035?) - Klein
o Shear Friction (CE060?) - Klein
o Equation for Minimum Strut Reinforcement (CE050?) Klein
o Stress within the Node - Klein
o Partial-width Bearing Areas - Klein
o Efficiency Factors for STM - Kuchma
o Minimum Reinforcement Requirements (CE015?) Kuchma
o Buckling Concerns for Struts, limit on aspect ratio - Novak
o Specific design provisions for deep beams and corbels Wight
o Impact of Seismic Loading on STM Sanders
o Simplification of the STM Sanders
8. New/Other Business
Presentation by Cris Moen, Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech
Reinforced Concrete Analysis and Design Informed with Topology Optimization (see attached)
9. Adjournment 12:30 pm

318EMeetingKansasCity,MO 4/14/2015
PhiFactors RaulBertero
Membersvs Materials factors

Problem:OddshapeofRCdesign
InteractionDiagram
c 0.003

t 0.005
c 0.003

t 0.002
Member factor
MembersFactors
INTERACTION DIAGRAM
Compressioncontrolledsectionshave
ACI318 lessductility,aremoresensitiveto
-20000
variationsinconcretestrength,and
-17500 generallyoccurinmembersthatsupport
-15000
largerloadedareasthanmemberswith
tensioncontrolledsections
-12500
250
Changeinthereductionfactoristoo
0.65 ( t 0.002)
-10000
0.80 Pn 3 highandabruptproducingtheawkward
noseshown.Theabruptdecreasein
N (kN)
-7500
thefactorproducesastrongchangein
-5000 theshapeoftheinteractiondiagram.
-2500 t
Thechangeinfrom0.005to0.002
producesverysmallchangeinthe
0
nominalflexuralstrength,particularlyfor
2500 Tsectionswiththeflangeunder
compression.
5000
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
M (kN m)
ACI 318 MN.grf
1
MaterialsFactors
INTERACTION DIAGRAM
-20000
ACI318 Materials factor
-17500
Forexample
-15000 Concrete, c 0.65
-12500
Steel, s 0.90
-10000
N (kN)
-7500
-5000
Member factor
-2500
Nominal Strength
2500 ACI 318 Design Strength
Partial factor design strength
5000
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
M (kN m)
interaction ACI318.xls
AxialTension
MemberFactors MaterialFactors
0.90 c 0.65 s 0.90
SameValue=>
2
AxialCompression
0.65 c 0.65 s 0.90
Theratiobetweenapproachesdependsonthesteelratiosincethematerial
factorintroducethechangeinreliabilitywiththesteelratio.
Tensioncontrolled
beam
0.90 c 0.65 s 0.90
3
Shear
0.75 c 0.65 s 0.90
Theratiobetweenapproachesdependsonthesteelratiosincethematerial
factorintroducethechangeinreliabilitywiththesteelratio.
Materials factors
Pros Cons
Conceptuallyclear.Reflectthe Historicalreasons:Significantchange
differentscatterinsteelandconcrete intheusualACI practice
materials. Significanteffortrequiredto
Reasonableinteractiondiagram incorporateinACICode.Theproblem
shapeinallcasessincereflectthe couldbesolveusingamore ( t )
realtransitionfromtension complicatedequationfor
controlledtocompressioncontrolled (Lequesne andPincheira)
sections
Itispossibletoobtainasmooth
transitioninfailureprobabilityfrom
beamtocolumnswithout
discontinuities Otherfacts
Itisnotnecessaryconsiderthesteel Itisthesameapproachusedby
strainleveltodefinethephi factor Eurocodes andCanadianCode
Adjustbetterthefailureprobabilityin Ithasbeendiscussedinthepast(It
strutandtiemodels(differentphi wasproposedin1962ACI 318
factorsforstrutthanforties) Revision)
4
Materials factors
Whatshouldbedonetointroducematerial
phi factors
Calibratethephifactorstominimizethedesign
differences
Reviewalltheimplicationsinthecode
Studythereliabilityofthedesignequationsandphi
factorsthathavebeendefinedinthe80s.
Therearenewdesignequationslikestrutandtie
modelsthathavenotbeenstudiedenough.
References
GambleW.(1998).Factors andOther Anomalies.

ConcreteInternational.August 1998.
GambleW.andLequesne R.andPincheira J.(2015).Letters.
PhiFactors Again.ConcreteInternational.January 2015.
IsraelM.,Ellingwood B.andCorotis R.(1987)Reliability
basedCodeFormulationsforReinforcedConcreteBuildings.
JournalofStructuralEngineering,Vol.113,No.10,October,
1987.
Lequesne R.andPincheira J.(2014).ProposedRevisionsto
theStrengthReductionFactorforAxiallyLoadedMembers.
ConcreteInternational.September 2014.
5
318E KC Meeting 04/14/2015
Two-Way Shear, Hawkins & Opsina
Proposed Code Change CE020
Punching Shear Strength -Two-way RC Slabs
Secs. 22.6.1.3, 22.6.5.2, 8.4.2.3.4
Neil M. Hawkins
Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois
Carlos E. Ospina
Senior Project Manager, BergerABAM Inc
Co-Chairs, ACI 445D
Kansas City, April 2015
Prelude
l The basic concepts of the ACI 318 equations for slab
punching, developed in 1963, have served us well.
However, experimental evidence from the past decade
( laboratory and field) indicates that two additional
factors need recognition. Decreased relative strength
with increasing slab depth and with decreasing
reinforcement ratios
l The basic equation (concentric punching) was
developed based on tests of slabs with V/Vflex < 1 (
about 0.8%) and maximum slab depths of 6 in.
318E KC Meeting 04/14/2015
Goals of Code Change Proposal

Address depth effect
Develop procedure to determine safe punching

capacities for slabs with low values ( < 0.008)
Ensure marked slab deformation prior to punching
Handle concentric and eccentric punching through a

set of consistent design provisions
SIZE EFFECT
l Hanson PCA 1970 12ft 10 in sq. slab, 14 in sq. column
h = 8 in., 0.94% top , fc =3,220 psi, Vtest/Vaci =0.94
l Guandalini and Muttoni EFPL 2004 - fc =5,000 psi
CSA Code Includes Size Effect (51/39+d) d 12in
FIB Code Based on Muttonis work which results in size effect
318E KC Meeting 04/14/2015
Size Effect
3/d
LOW REINFORCEMENT RATIOS

Proposed Approach based on Muttonis Critical
Shear Crack Theory (CSCT) ACI Str. Jnl.
July/Aug. 2008
CSCT is not used explicitly because use of the
theory is relatively complicated.
Instead:
Influence of low values is acknowledged and
handled through a simple formulation ensuring
reasonable slab deformations prior to failure.
Philosophy
ensuring slab deformation prior to punching is as
relevant as predicting safe shear capacities.
318E KC Meeting 04/14/2015
ACI 318-14 Punching Shear Design Equation
Vc 4 f c' bo d (USCS Units)
bo = perimeter of critical section at 0.5d from

column face
l Based on Moes (1961) work
l Developed by ASCE/ACI 326 after modifying
Moes original equations.
l In the Code with Modifications since ACI 318-63
l Intended as a Design and Not an Analysis Tool.
l Deliberately does not Include Effect of
Effect (Slab Deformation) - CSCT

318E KC Meeting 04/14/2015
Discussion
l Peiris and Ghali (2012) proposed that the shear
strength be taken as the smaller of Vn and Vflex, where
Vn is the nominal shear strength per Chapter 11 of
ACI 318-11.
l This proposal endorses that approach. However, the
extent of slab deformation prior to punching is what
dictates whether the response is ductile or not.
l Vflex is easy to compute for laboratory test
specimens but may not be for prototype structures.
l Vflex develops after reasonable deformations and
per CSCT such deformations lead to punching.
Discussion
l Slab system test data show that behavior and
strength at an interior column connection control the
system response. Sec.8.4.2.3.4
l The load for yielding around an interior column is
approximately Vflex for a simply supported slab-
column test specimen and is approximately 8mo. mo=
average moment strength per unit width at column.
318E KC Meeting 04/14/2015
Proposed Approach (USCS Units)
l Vn is the lesser of vVc v 4 f c' bo d
and f V flex f 8m
l for an interior column connection. Constant 8 becomes 6 for an
edge connection and 4 for a corner connection
l v =0.75 for shear and f = 0.9 for flexure

3
l Include size effect factor k v
d
l Vn limited to Vflex even when shear

reinforcement provided. Sec. 22.6.1.3
318E KC Meeting 04/14/2015
Connections Transferring
Moment and Shear
l Proposed recommendations linking Vflex to Vn also
applicable for slab punching under moment and gravity load
shear transfer.
l Databank of 160 tests
l Vu/VACI decreases as Vug/Vc increases and as decreases.
l Slab depth effect also observed but there are only 2 results for
d 6 in.
l Introduction of Vflex in Sec. 22.6.5.2 leads to better
predictions for punching under unbalanced moment transfer.
For the 13 results from 7 different investigations where
<0.8%, the Vtest/Vaci was less than unity. Linking Vaci to
Vflex improved agreement for all 13 results.
Proposed Responses to
Ballot Comments
Torsion Belarbi
TorsionIssues?
ACI3180E
Spring2015
KansasCity
TorsionIssues Identified
Torsionalissuesrelatedtobuildingsandbridges
Minimumamountoftorsionalreinforcement
Torsionofprestressed concrete
Torsionofopensectionsandwarpingtorsion
Distributionofadditionallongitudinalsteelfortorsion
1
Torsion Belarbi
TorsionIssues Identified
Torsionalissuesprimarilyrelatedtobridges
Thresholdtorqueforlargehollowsections
Torsioninboxgirderswithslopedwebsand/ormultiplecells
MethodtoincludetorsionwithVu,Mu,Nu incalculatings
Valuesofthetausedindesignforcombinedshearandtorsion
Useoffixedvaluesforthetatodeterminelongitudinal
reinforcement
Influenceofdiaphragmsondesignoftorsioninskewed
cellularstructures
TorsionIssuesIdentified
Minimumamountoftorsionalreinforcement
Bothshearandtorsionrequireminimumstirrups.
Thetransitionofminimumstirrupsfrompuretorsionto
pureshearneedsmoreresearch.
For Shear Only For Combined Shear and Torsion
2
Torsion Belarbi
Torsionofprestressed concrete
Theeffectofprestressingontorsionalbehaviorisstill
unclear.
(solid and hollow
Threshold Torsion
cross sections)
Nominal Torsional Strength

Suggested:
= 45 for RC
2Ao A fy
Additional Longitudinal Tn cot = 37.5 for PC
5
Reinforcement for Torsion ph
tan
Torsionofopensections
WarpingtorsionandSt.Venant torsionaremixedtogether
invarioustypesofopensections.Theinteractionisstill
unclear.
from Report on
Torsion in Structural
Concrete
(Krpan and Collins)
3
Torsion Belarbi
Torsionofopensections
Designfortorsionalstrengthisstillbasedonthethintube
theory. Theuseofthisconceptappliedtoopenflanged
sections,especiallyifthesectionisthinandcomposedof
flangeswithhighaspectratio,maynotbesuitable.
Perhapsthecodeprovisionsshouldbeseparatedintotwo
differentsections,onethataddressesclosedsections,and
anotherthataddressesopensections.
Nominal Torsional Strength
4
OnewayShear Belarbi
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Meeting of
Joint ACI/ASCE Committee 445
SHEAR AND TORSION
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
ACI/ASCE 445 Committee 445 - MEMBERSHIP
VotingMembers(36)
AssociateMembers(68)
ConsultingMembers(12)
SubcommitteeMembers(2)
1
OnewayShear Belarbi
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
TheStructureoftheCommittee:
Subcommittee445A
StrutandTie(Sanders)
Subcommittee445B
SeismicShear(Pujol)
Subcommittee445C
SlabShear(OspinaandHawkins)
Subcommittee445D
BeamDatabase(Reineck)
Subcommittee445E
Torsion(Greene)
Adhoccommittee
Prestressedconcreteshearissues(Matamoros)
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Ballot:
Request for Re-approval of 445R-99: Recent Approaches to Shear
Design of Structural Concrete
Published in 1999, re-approved in 2009.
TAC requested a letter ballot for re-approval since we are changing

the title Please vote before May 8, 2015
2
OnewayShear Belarbi
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
445Goals:
1) Assist 318-affiliated committees and subcommittees to address
life-safety issues and to make other improvements in the ACI 318
Building Code (445)
2) Develop a committee document that provides guidance for the use of the strut-and-tie method as a full member design
procedure (445A)
3) Complete the review and distribution of a database of punching shear test data; Assess shortcomings in current punching
shear provisions and provide evaluation of improved approaches (445C)
4) Merge the beam shear database efforts of members of 445 for the development and distribution of complete (collection)
databases for researchers and of reduced size (selected) databases for use in the evaluation of design code provisions (445D)
5) Support ACI 318 affiliated committees to develop improved two-

way and one-way shear design provisions (445)
6) Develop a new 445 committee document on torsion that presents design examples for challenging torsion design and
assessment problems (445E)
7) Work with ACI committee 446 in examining the roles of fracture and non-fracture bases for design provisions (445)
8) Work even more closely with other national and international agencies to advance the state-of-the-art (445)
9) Sponsor sessions focused on the dissemination of committee work (445)
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Briefhistory:
.2002.
Manyexperimentsillustratedevidenceofsizeeffectinshear
strengthofonewaymemberswithnoAv.
ThiseffectwasnotaccountedfortheACI31802
specifications.
In2002and2003,committee445askeditsmembersto
proposenewprovisionsforthisclassofmembers.Thiseffort
becameknownasthequickfix.
21Proposalsweresubmitted.
Acomparisonofallproposalswasmadewithexistingtest
data,andareportwiththeresultsofthiswasmadeavailable
to445committeemembers.
3
OnewayShear Belarbi
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Briefhistory:
Report:
Title:Summaryoftheevaluationsoftheproposalsofthe
quickfixforreinforcedconcretememberswithout
transversereinforcement(27pages)
PublishedinMarch4,2003
Subcommittee445FBeamShear(KHReineck (Chair),E.
Bentz,C.French,D.Kuchma,M.Polak,J.Ramirez,andD.
Sanders)
IndependentReviewers:R.Barnes andA.Matamoros
Independentreviewerofdatabase:R.Frosch
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Briefhistory:
Thefindingsandrecommendationsofthisreportwerenot
usedtomakeanychangetotheACI318code.
Aseparateproposaltochangetheexceptiontominimum
reinforcementrulesin11.5.5.1[31814:9.6.3.1].that
minimumshearreinforcementisrequiredinallbeamswith
adepthgreaterthan10incheswhenVu >Vc/2.
ThischangewassuccessfullyintroducedintheACI31808
code.
4
OnewayShear Belarbi
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Briefhistory:
Aninvitationwassendto445and446memberstopresent
ideasforimprovingtheACI318onewaysheardesign
provisions.
Fivepresentationsweremadeduringfall2005ACI445
meetinginKansasCity.
Thereweretwochallengestocomparingtheseproposals:
Proposalscoveredadifferentrangeofprovisions.
Proposalsuseddifferentexperimentaldatabasesto
demonstratetheimprovementintheaccuracyoftheir
proposalrelativetotheACI318provisions.
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Briefhistory:
Twosignificantdevelopmentssince2005:
Subcommittee445DonBeamShearhasdeveloped
comprehensivedatabasestobeusedtoassesstheaccuracyof
currentACI318provisionsandanychangeproposals
ACI31814isareorganizedcode,withnotechnicalchanges
madetotheonewaysheardesignprovisions.318Ehas
identifiedtheimprovementoftheseprovisionsasan
importantactionitemforthenextmajorcoderevision.
5
OnewayShear Belarbi
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Ongoingactivities/tasks:
Earlyfall2014,aninvitationwassentto445and446
memberstopresentideasforimprovingtheACI318oneway
sheardesignprovisions.
Tenpresentationsweremadeduringfall2014ACI445
meetinginWashingtonCD.
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Shear Design Proposals:

Provisions
Model Code
Tie Models
Approach
and Assessment
6
OnewayShear Belarbi
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
ProposedTimelineandSchedule(original):
December11:DistributionofTemplateto445and318Eadhocgroupto
commentandsuggestchanges/improvementtothetemplate.
December19:Deadlineforcommentsontemplatetobesentto445Chair
December23:Distributionofrevisedtemplateandinstructionsonaccess
todatabasestoallpotentialproposers
February7:Receiptofcompletedtemplates
March14:Completeevaluationofeachproposalbythe445D
subcommittee
March28:Resolutionofdiscrepancies
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Templatedistributedto:
445presentersat445meeting,WashingtonDC
445members
318Ememberthrough318EChair
446membersthrough446Chair
Internationalcolleaguesandtheircolleagues
Joost Walraven (DelftUniv.)
VictorSegrist (Hamburg)
Auerlio Muttoni (EPFLSwitzerland)
Linh CaoHoang(DenmarkTech.Univ.)
Tamon Ueda(HokkaidoUniv.)
Niwa (TokyoTech.)
Foster(Univ.NewSouthWales)
7
OnewayShear Belarbi
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Template
[ACI31814] ACI318EquationorProvision Type,Actions, Change/New VariationinType,
and andLimitsfor Provisionsbeing Actions,andLimits
(ACI31811) ACI318 Proposed forChangeProposal
Ref.#s Provision relativetoACI318
[22.5]OneWayShearStrength
[22.5.1]General
[22.5.1.1] P,NP,Av,NAv,
(11.1.1) Vn Vc Vs M,Nc,Nt
[22.5.1.1](112)
[22.5.1.2]
(11.4.7.9)
Vu (Vc 8 f 'c ) bwd
[22.5.1.1]
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Template
[ACI31814] ACI318EquationorProvision Type,Actions, Change/New VariationinType,
and(ACI318 andLimitsfor Provisionsbeing Actions,andLimitsfor
11)Ref.#s ACI318 Proposed ChangeProposal
Provision relativetoACI318
[22.5]OneWayShearStrength
[22.5.1]General
[22.5.2]Geometricassumptions
[22.5.3]Limitingmaterialstrengths
[22.5.4]Compositeconcretemembers
[22.5.5]Vc fornonprestressed memberswithoutaxialforce
[22.5.6]Vc fornonprestressed memberswithaxialcompression
[22.5.7]Vc fornonprestressed memberswithsignificantaxialtension
[22.5.8]Vc forprestressed members
[22.5.8.2]ApproximatemethodforcalculatingVc forprestressed members
[22.5.8.3]Vc forprestressed membersmayalsobetakenasthelesserofVci andVcw
[22.5.9]Vc forpretensioned membersinregionsofreducedprestress force
[9.6.3](11.4.6)Minimumshearreinforcement(andprovisionsfromotherchaptersthan22)
[22.5.10]Onewayshearreinforcement
8
OnewayShear Belarbi
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Progress:
TemplatesenttoallpotentialproposersonDec.10
FeedbackreceivedbyDec.19
RevisedtemplatesenttoallpotentialproposersonDec.24
RequesttoreceivecompletedtemplatesbyFeb.7.
Receivedseven(07)completedtemplatesbyFeb.25
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Shear Design Proposals (Washington DC meeting):

Provisions
Model Code
Tie Models
Approach
and Assessment
9
OnewayShear Belarbi
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Submitted Proposals:
1) Qiang Yu, Teng Tong, Mija H. Hubler, Jia-Liang Le, Gianluca Cusatis, and
Zdenek P. Bazant
2) Evan Bentz and Michael Collins
3) Robert J. Frosch
4) Karl-Heinz Reineck
5) Hong-Gun Park , Kyoung-Kyu Choi, and Jong-Chan Kim
6) Thomas T.C. Hsu and Yi-An Li
7) Antonio Mar, Antonio Cladera, and Jesus Bairn
8) Yasuhiko Sato (received on 4-12-15)
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Progress:
445Ddatabasesweremadeavailabletoallproposers.
Proposerswereaskedtoruntheevaluationoftheirproposal
using(1)445Ddatabasesand(2)otherdatasetstheysee
appropriate.
Onlysomeproposershavesubmittedtheirevaluations.
445Dsubcommittee,undertheleadershipofDr.Reineck,was
taskedtoruntheevaluationofall7proposals+current31814
shearprovisionsusing445Ddatabases.
Duringevaluationprocess,445Dandproposershadclose
interactionto:
(1)agreeonthemethodassumptions
(2)resolveanydiscrepancies
IndependentevaluationoftheabovewasalsorunbyUniv.of
TuftsundertheleadershipofDr.Kuchma.
10
OnewayShear Belarbi
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Progress:
445Dcompletedallevaluationsandweresenttorespective
proposers
Univ.ofTuftscompletedallevaluationsbutarestillresolving
someminordetails.
318EChairwaskeptinformedofallstepsoftheprocess
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Whatisnext?:
445Dwillpresentsummaryoftheevaluationresults(atthis
meeting).
Nextstepsoftheprocessaretobedefinedatthismeetingby
ensuringthat:
Weneedtoworktogethertowardacommongoal
Weneedtoberesponsivetotheneedsof318E
Noballoting/votewithin445onanyproposal/design
method,but445membersareencouragedifnotrequiredto
buyintheapproachandendresults
11
OnewayShear Belarbi
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
Whatisnext?:
Theproposeddesignmethodneedstobe:
Conservative
Simpletouse
Easytounderstand
Applicabletowiderangeofstructures
445 ShearandTorsion
JointACI ASCE
NextSteps:
Refineallonongoingevaluations(445D,TuftsU.and
proposers).
Mergesomeproposals(proposers),ifanyandreevaluate
Generateadesignexampledatabase(proposers+TGof445and
318E)
Applytheproposeddesignmethodstothedesignexamples
(proposers)
Documenttheeffortforfuturereference

12
318E MEETING- KC JIM WIGHT 04/14/15
CHAPTER 11WALLS
11.5.4 In-plane shear
11.5.4.1 Vn shall be calculated in accordance with 11.5.4.2 through 11.5.4.84. Alternatively, for walls with hw 2w, it
shall be permitted to design for in-plane shear in accordance with the strut-and-tie method of Chapter 23. In all cases,
reinforcement shall satisfy the limits of 11.6, 11.7.2, and 11.7.3.
11.5.4.2 For in-plane shear design, h is thickness of wall and d shall be taken equal to 0.8w. A larger value of d, equal to
the distance from extreme compression fiber to center of force of all reinforcement in tension, shall be permitted if the center
of tension is calculated by a strain compatibility analysis.
11.5.4.23 Vn at any horizontal section shall not exceed 8 f ch w .
11.5.4.34 Vn shall be calculated by:
Vn = Vc + Vs (11.5.4.4)
Vn c f c t f y h w (11.5.4.3)

where c is 3.0 for hw/w 1.5, is 2.0 for hw/w 2.0, and varies linearly between 3.0 and 2.0 for hw/w between 1.5 and
2.0.
11.5.4.45 Unless a more detailed calculation is made in accordance with 11.5.4.6, Vc shall not exceed 2 f chd for
walls subject to axial compression or exceed the value given in 22.5.7 For walls subject to axial tension, c shall be taken
as 0.0 in Eq. (11.5.4.4).
11.5.4.6 It shall be permitted to calculate Vc in accordance with Table 11.5.4.6, where Nu is positive for compression
and negative for tension, and the quantity Nu/Ag is expressed in psi.
Table 11.5.4.6Vc: nonprestressed and prestressed walls
Calculation
option Axial force Vc
Compression 2 f chd (a)
Nu
Simplified 2 1 f chd (b)
Greater 500 Ag
Tension
of:
0 (c)
Nu d
3.3 f chd (d)
4 w
N
Tension or Lesser w 1.25 f 0.2 u
Detailed 0.6 f wh
compression of: hd
c
Mu w
(e)
Vu 2

Equation shall not apply if (Mu/Vu w/2) is
negative.
318E MEETING- KC JIM WIGHT 04/14/15
11.5.4.7 Sections located closer to wall base than a distance w/2 or one-half the wall height, whichever is less, shall be
permitted to be designed for Vc calculated using the detailed calculation options in Table 11.5.4.6 at a distance above the
base of w/2 or one-half the wall height, whichever is less.
11.5.4.8 Vs shall be provided by transverse shear reinforcement and shall be calculated by:
Av f yt d
Vs (11.5.4.8)
s
11.5.5 Out-of-plane shear

11.5.5.1 Vn shall be calculated in accordance with 22.5.
11.6Reinforcement limits
11.6.1 If in-plane Vu 0.5Vc 0.4 c f c h w , minimum and minimum t shall be in accordance with Table
11.6.1. These limits need not be satisfied if adequate strength and stability can be demonstrated by structural analysis.
Table 11.6.1Minimum reinforcement for walls with in-plane Vu 0.5Vc shear

Type of Minimum
Wall nonprestressed Bar/wire longitudinal[1] Minimum
type reinforcement size fy, psi , transverse, t
60,000 0.0012 0.0020

No. 5
Cast-in- Deformed bars < 60,000 0.0015 0.0025
place
> No. 5 Any 0.0015 0.0025
Welded-wire W31 or
Any 0.0012 0.0020
reinforcement D31
Deformed bars or
Precast[2] welded-wire Any Any 0.0010 0.0010
reinforcement
[1]
Prestressed walls with an average effective compressive stress of at least 225 psi need not meet the requirement for minimum
longitudinal reinforcement .
[2]
In one-way precast, prestressed walls not wider than 12 ft and not mechanically connected to cause restraint in the transverse
direction, the minimum reinforcement requirement in the direction normal to the flexural reinforcement need not be satisfied.
11.6.2 If in-plane Vu 0.5Vc, 0.4 c f c h w , (a) and (b) shall be satisfied:
(a) shall be at least the greater of the value calculated by Eq. (11.6.2) and 0.0025, but need not exceed t in accordance
with Table 11.6.1.
0.0025 + 0.5(2.5 hw/w)(t 0.0025) (11.6.2)
(b) t shall be at least 0.0025

318EMeeting,KansasCity,MO 4/14/2015
ShearinSlabs/ParallelLineLoads,Bonacci
Gravityloadedslabcolumn
connections
ColumnShapeChange
ColumnRotation
ColumnOffset/Transfer
Transferofaxialloadthroughslab
Slabpunchingshear
1
Columnshapechange,
Columnrotation
Loadtransferthroughslab
Columnbehavior/detailing
2
Columnoffsets:partial
overlapping,distant,
near/interacting?
Punchingshear,strut
action
Gravityloadedslabcolumn
connections
Columnshapechange,Columnrotation,Columnoffset
318Subcommittee(s)?Codechanges?Commentary
additions?
Codeareas
Loadtransferthroughslab:15.3J
Slabshear:8.4.3.2D (twowaycriticalsection),8.5.3.1D
(twowayshearnearconcentratedloadpoint),22.6.4E
(twowaycriticalsections),22.5E (onewayshear)
Columndesign:10.3D (designlimits),10.7.4D (bar
offsets),22.8E (bearing)
Strut&Tie:6.2.4.4C (analysismethods),23E
3
Lineloadparalleltoonewayslabspandirection
Effective
widthofslab
Flexure
Shear
Lineloadparalleltoonewayslabspandirection
318Subcommittee(s)?Codechanges?
Commentaryadditions references?(AASHTOpoint
loads,Westergaard 1930pointloads,U.Delft)
Codeareas
Onewayslabs:7D(general);7.2.1D (concentrated
loads),R7.2.1D (concentratedloadsmaycauseregionsofoneway
slabstohavetwowaybehavior)
Twowayslabs:8D (general),8.2.1D(slabanalysis
methods yieldline)
Onewayslabstrength:22.3E (flexure),22.5E (one
wayshear),22.6E (twowayshear)
4
318EMeetingKCModeltoMethodNovak 04/14/15
ACI 318 CHANGE SUBMITTAL
Submittal #: CE055
Subject: STM change the term Models to Method where appropriate
Code (or Commentary) Provisions: (see below)
Reason for Change: STM = Strut-and-Tie Method.
Background of Change: ACI 318-14 improperly uses the term Strut-and-Tie Models to describe design
by the Strut-and-Tie Method. The appropriate term is Method as the Models are only a tool used to
determine the forces in one step of the overall analysis & design by the Strut-and-Tie Method.
Hence, when referring to the overall design process by STM, one should use the term Method.
When one is referring to the actual analysis models used in STM, one should use the term Models.
This proposed code revision involves only a terminology change no change in design method.
Ballot History: At the ACI 318E 2014 fall meeting it was agreed by straw poll to put forth a code
change proposal to clarify that STM is a full design Method. Hence, replace Model with Method
when discussing the overall design process by STM.
Change Proposal (updates highlighted in yellow):
9.9.1.3 The strut-and-tie models method in accordance with Chapter 23 are is deemed to satisfy 9.9.1.2.
13.2.6.3 Foundation design in accordance with the strut-and-tie modeling method, Chapter 23, shall be permitted.
13.4.2.4 If the pile cap is designed in accordance with the strut-and-tie modeling method as permitted in 13.2.6.3,
the
22.8.1.2 Bearing strength provisions in 22.8 shall not apply to post-tensioned anchorage zones or the strut-and-tie
models method.
Chapter 23 STRUT-AND-TIE MODELS METHOD
R23 STRUT-AND-TIE MODELSMETHOD
R23.2.1 The process of designing by the strut-and-tie model method to support the
R23.2.3 The strut-and-tie models method represents a lower-bound strength limit states.
23.2.8 Deep beams designed using the strut-and-tie models method shall satisfy 9.9.2.1, 9.9.3.1, and 9.9.4.
23.2.9 Brackets and corbels with shear span-to-depth ratio av/d < 2.0 designed using the strut-and-tie models
method shall satisfy 16.5.2, 16.5.6, and Eq. (23.2.9).
25.9.4.3.1 (a) Strut-and-tie models method in accordance with Chapter 23
The following is one example of where in the Code the term Model is not changed to Method as the provision is
referring to the analysis model used in the strut-and-tie method (i.e.: no changes):
23.2.1 Strut-and-tie models shall consist of struts and ties connected at nodes to form an idealized truss.
SOLUTIONS FOR THE BUILT WORLD
Inclined Struts in STMs
Click to edit Master title style
Gary Klein
and
Jeff Rautenberg
www.wje.co
m The Effect of Diagonal Tension
Laughery and Pujol

Compressive Strength of Unreinforced Struts
Laughery and Pujol
Laughery and Pujol

On
Onn av
verage,
average,
bottle struts
stru
attained
compressiv
compressive
strengths
comparable e to
o or
greater than the
th
strengths of
prismatic struts
regardless
ess of their
W/B ratio
io.
io
INCLINED BOTTLE- PRISMATIC
SHAPED
A
B
Cracking at ultimate - A
Cracking at ultimate - B
Cracking at ultimate - C
Effective stress at ultimate - A
Effective stress at ultimate - B

Effective stress at ultimate - C
Stress vectors at ultimate - A

Stress vectors at ultimate - B
Stress vectors at ultimate - C

A
Strengths (normalized to A): B
A 1.00
B 0.87
C 0.98
University of Texas CTR: Strength and Serviceability

Design of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams
Cracking at ultimate - B
WJE-NCSU Dapped Tee Research

WJE-NCSU Dapped Tee Research
V= 44.3 kips
Deep Transfer Girder
Solutions for the Built World Page 24

Deep Transfer Girder
Reineck and Todisco: Database of Shear Tests of Non-

Slender Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups
Reineck and Todisco: Database of Shear Tests of Non-
Slender Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups
Alternative 3:
Depth of the
compre
compression
pre
re
esss
zone,
zonee,, c,
e c,
calculated for
fo
the load at
shear failure.

5 f c' bw d
a d
CSA Standard A23.3-14
s cot(s) fcu/f'c s
30 1.73 0.31 0.37
45 1.00 0.55 0.65
60 0.58 0.73 0.86
f cc 75 0.27 0.84 0.99
f cu d 0.85 f cc
1.14 0.68 cot T s
2
90 0.00 0.88 1.03
Effect of Bearing Length
<
Lclear Lclear
1.00 0.93
Conclusions
Vertical bottle shaped struts are no weaker
than prismatic struts.
Inclined struts are weakened by diagonal

tensile strains, or
Vc decreases with increasing shear span

4/21/15
Reinforced Concrete Analysis and Design

Informed with Topology Optimization
Cris Moen1, Jamie Guest2, Yang Yang3

1Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia
Polytechnic and State University

www.moen.cee.vt.edu
2Dept. of Civil Engineering, Johns Hopkins University
www.ce.jhu.edu/jguest
ACI Committee 445A Shear and Torsion Strut & Tie

Kansas City, MO
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Goals
-Share latest research results
-Offer our help on the upcoming S&T publication
Research Motivation
Research on strut and tie models has confirmed their viability and led to
code provisions and design guidelines
Sometimes the flow of forces is difficult to identify 3d FE modeling

and S&T
Project Goals
Develop topology optimization as a visualization tool and design aid in
reinforced concrete design
2
1
4/21/15
Truss topology in design
Reinforced concrete deep beam

From a groundstructure
Traditional Model Optimized Model

Experimental results by
Topology informed design Nagarajan and Pillai (2008)
Steel ties bridge the principal tension cracks

Stiffer truss structure
Less steel in this example
Red is tension
Black is compression
3
Minimum compliance connecting S&T to topology optimization
Schlaich offers guidelines for proportioning and developing truss model to

achieve such performance:
Stiffest trusses produce the safest loaddeformation response
Minimize the reinforcing steels total strain energy (stretching) to prevent large
plastic deformations
Schlaich, J., Schaefer, K., and Jennewein, M. (1987). "Toward a consistent design of
structural concrete." PCI Journal, 32(3), 74-150.
Minimum Compliance (maximum stiffness) formulation

min
e
F T d = d T K( e ) d External work (= Internal strain energy)

Design variables such that K( e ) d = F equilibrium
e
ve V volume (mass) constraint
e
e
0 e max design variable bounds
4
2
4/21/15
Minimum compliance solution for truss and continuum simply supported beam
Truss vs. continuum

Gaynor, A., Guest, J.K., Moen C.D. (2013). Reinforced concrete force visualization and design using
bilinear truss-continuum topology optimization. Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(4), 607-618.
Minimum compliance solution for truss and continuum deep beam with a hole
Gaynor, A., Guest, J.K., Moen C.D. (2013). Reinforced concrete force visualization and design using
bilinear truss-continuum topology optimization. Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(4), 607-618.
Concrete vs. steel
3
4/21/15
Automated S&T
Several papers on automating truss models via generating principal

stress trajectories or continuum topology optimization.
Anderheggen, E., and Schlaich, M. "Computer-aided design of reinforced concrete structures

using the truss model approach." Swansea, UK, 1295-306.
Biondini, F., Bontempi, F., and Malerba, P. G. (1999). "Optimal strut-and-tie models in reinforced
concrete structures." Computer Assisted Mechanics and Engineering Sciences, 6(3), 279-293.
Ali, M. A., and White, R. N. (2001). "Automatic generation of truss model for optimal design of
reinforced concrete structures." ACI Structural Journal, 98(4), 431-442.
Liang, Q. Q., Xie, Y. M., and Prentice Steven, G. (2000). "Topology optimization of strut-and-tie
models in reinforced concrete structures using an evolutionary procedure." ACI Structural
Journal, 97(2), 322-330.
Tjhin, T. N., and Kuchma, D. A. (2002). "Computer-based tools for design by strut-and-tie method:
Advances and challenges." ACI Structural Journal, 99(5), 586-594.
Bruggi, M. (2009). "Generating strut-and-tie patterns for reinforced concrete structures using
topology optimization." Computers and Structures, (in press).
Our research builds on this work by merging continuum (concrete) and truss
(steel) models and adding constructability and cost constraints.
1.How
Topology Optimization
should we treat for in
steel and concrete RCthe solution?
Force spreading and material properties
4
4/21/15
1.A hybrid
Topology Optimization
truss-continuum solutionfor RC
tensile
truss model steel rebar
forces
bimodulus materials
hybrid model
compressive
continuum model concrete
forces
Mush truss and continuum together with new steel-concrete constitutive law
Bi-linear constitutive law
Steel is distributed to carry principal 0 ksi 29000 ksi

tensile stresses, concrete is
distributed to carry compression.
290 ksi
3600 ksi
Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio
are reflected for steel and concrete.
Dii = Et , i = t if i > 0
D11 eff D11 D22 0 Dii = Ec , i = c if i < 0
1
Dp = D D D22 0
1 eff 2 eff 11 22 D12 = D21 = eff D11 D22
1
0 0 ( D11 + D22 2 eff D11 D22 ) eff = 1 2
4
change material based on
2 2
principal stress direction
cos ( ) sin ( ) 2 cos( )sin( )

D = QT D p Q Q = sin 2 ( ) cos 2 ( ) 2 cos( )sin( )
cos( )sin( ) cos( )sin( ) cos 2 ( ) sin 2 ( )

10
5
4/21/15
1.Truss-continuum
Topology Optimization for RC
model - prestressing anchorage
Design domain Compressive load Tensile load
force spreading and splitting steel!
Hybrid truss-continuum solution available in 3d - prestressing anchorage
Design domain Optimal topology Cutaway view of Tensile load

Optimal topology
Yang, Y., Guest, J.K., Moen C.D. (2014). Three-Dimensional Force Flow Paths and Reinforcement
Design in Concrete via Stress-Dependent Truss-Continuum Topology Optimization. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 141(1).
6
4/21/15
Hybrid truss-continuum solution available in 3d - pile foundation
Mechanics, 141(1).
Hybrid truss-continuum solution - applications
14
7
4/21/15
1.Example
Topology Optimization for RC
deep beam
Hybrid truss-continuum solution with constructability
constrain only vertical and

horizontal bars, but 20%
higher compliance
(deflection)
16
8
4/21/15
Concluding Remarks
Topology optimization is a powerful tool for visualizing the flow of forces in

concrete structures and their design solutions are consistent with classical S&T
theories
Concrete and steel properties are integrated in solution accommodating
accurate force spreading and deflection calculations
Solutions are available in 2d and 3d and can directly provide compression strut
size and rebar quantities
Constructability and cost can be included in the solution (only vertical and
horizontal reinforcing steel, lots of small bars or only a few large bars)
What are the steps required to integrate these new capabilities into practice?
Read all publications at

http://www.moen.cee.vt.edu/topopt/
17
Reinforced Concrete Analysis and Design

Informed with Topology Optimization
Cris Moen1, Jamie Guest2, Yang Yang3

1Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic and State University
www.moen.cee.vt.edu
2Dept. of Civil Engineering, Johns Hopkins University
www.ce.jhu.edu/jguest
ACI Committee 445-A Shear and Torsion Strut & Tie

Kansas City, MO
Sunday, April 12, 2015
9
4/21/15
Supporting theory
Schlaich, Marti, Collins & Mitchell, Breen, Kuchma, and

others.
Marti relates truss model concept to a lower bound plasticity theory
Optimum truss has compressive struts and tension ties coincident with the
elastic stress trajectories
Stiffer trusses offer improved ductility and performance at ultimate limit
state
Schlaich offers guidelines for proportioning and developing truss model to

achieve such performance:
Stiffest trusses produce the safest loaddeformation response
Minimize the reinforcing steels total strain energy (stretching) to prevent
large plastic deformations
Marti, P. (1980). "On Plastic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete, Report No. 104."
Institute of Structural Engineers, ETH, Zurich.
Schlaich, J., Schaefer, K., and Jennewein, M. (1987). "Toward a consistent design of
structural concrete." PCI Journal, 32(3), 74-150.
19
Examples continuum topology
Hammerhead Pier
rmin = 0.5 ft. rmin = 2 ft. rmin = 3 ft.
Design complexity decreases with increasing minimum allowable

length scale
20
10
4/21/15
Implementation in research and practice
Dapped concrete beam for a parking garage
Does this reinforcing steel pattern follow the flow of forces?

21
What is the effect of boundary conditions on stress distribution? 22
11
4/21/15
A convenient tool for visualizing how the beam is working. 23
Reinforcing steel could be placed better to bridge cracks 24
12
4/21/15
Hybrid truss-continuum solution available in 3d - hammerhead pier
25
Mechanics, 141(1).
Compressive principal stresses
elastic, plane stress, compressive principal stresses
26
13
4/21/15
Compressive tensile stresses
elastic, plane stress, tensile principal stresses
27
Minimum compliance solution for continuum hammerhead pier
Hammerhead Pier
rmin = 0.5 ft. rmin = 2 ft. rmin = 3 ft.
Design complexity decreases with increasing minimum allowable

length scale
Complexity and length scale
28
14
ACI COMMITTEE 318F FOUNDATIONS
ACI Spring Convention
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 8:00 AM 12:30 PM C-2209
Meeting Minutes
1. ATTENDEES
Members Visitors
Rudy Frizzi Dale Biggers

Ian McFarlane William Brant
S. K. Ghosh Rob Prentiss
Luis E. Garcia
Carlos E. Ospina
Tom Schaeffer
Chris White
Jack Moehle
Greg Zeisler
1. ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.1. Chair welcomed all in attendance. He invited members and visitors to introduce
themselves.
2. SEISMIC DESIGN OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS - CF001
2.1. The results of the 2nd ballot for CF001 were discussed in an attempt to resolve the
negative votes.
2.2. It was agreed that the committee should proceed with developing a commentary to
accompany the Code provisions of CF001.
2.3. The organization of the new pile provisions was discussed and it was decided to add a
statement at the beginning of the provisions stating what types of piles are included in
the new provisions, along with pile descriptions and possibly illustrations in the
Commentary. ACI 543 is being updated and Rudy Frizzi stated that it is possible to use
this as a reference for the pile descriptions.
2.4. It was discussed that Steel Pipe Piles may be classified by the thickness of the pipe or
casing and whether or not the casing is accounted for in the strength of the pile.
2.5. The new ASCE SEI 61-14 was mentioned by Carlos Ospina as a possible reference for
pile descriptions and illustrations.
2.6. Chris White informed the committee that the provisions for precast piles essentially
came from the 1993 PCI document and that is currently being updated based on current
research. It was agreed to revise the precast pile provisions to be consistent with the
new recommendations and Chris White volunteered to make these revisions.
2.7. The agreed upon tentative timeline for the next ballot is that the commentary and
revised precast pile provisions will be ready in a month, a month following that a third
ballot will be sent to the committee, and negatives will try to be resolved using Go-To-
Meeting before the next convention.
3. OTHER GOALS FOR THE FOUNDATION CHAPTER THIS CODE CYCLE
3.1. There was an open discussion of important items to work on incorporating into ACI
318-19 after CF001. Listed below are the primary goals agreed upon by the committee:
3.2. Ian McFarlane will work on a general provision for Foundation design
recommendations.
3.3. The committee will continue with working on deep foundation provisions for SDC A and
B to be included in Chapter 13, intended to be consistent with the provisions for SDC C-
F in CF001.
3.4. Incorporate the foundation grade beam provisions currently in IBC.
3.5. Minimum reinforcement for Mat Foundations which is a hold-over from the last Code
cycle.
3.6. Sub E will copy our committee on the ballot they are currently working on regarding
one-way shear in mat foundations.
4. ADJOURNMENT
4.1. The meeting was adjourned until the next meeting to be held at the 2015 Fall
Convention in Denver, Colorado.
ACI 318-19 Subcommittee G April 14, 2015
Minutes Kansas City
MINUTES
ACI 318 - Subcommittee G
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
8:00 PM 12:30 PM
Room: C-2208
Kansas City, MO
Members Present
Steve Seguirant Chair William Klorman
Asit Baxi Jason Krohn
Roger Becker Colin Lobo
Jared Brewe Secretary Clay Naito
Ned Cleland Suzanne Nakaki
Charles Dolan Sami Rizkalla
Harry Gleich Carin Roberts-Wollmann
Don Kline Miroslav Vejvoda
Jack Moehle Ex-Officio Greg Zeisler Ex-Officio
Visitors Present
Karen Polanco (Metromont) George Morcous (Univ of Nebraska)
Natassia Brenkus (Univ of Florida) Joe Ferzli (CKC)
Robert Barnes (Auburn Univ.) Radhouane Masmoudi (Univ of Sherbrooke)
Rashid Ahmed (Walker Parking)
1. Welcome / Introductions
Seguirant called the meeting to order at 8:05 AM. Seguirant welcomed members and
visitors present and asked for introductions.
2. Approval of Minutes - Fall 2014 Meeting (Washington D.C.)

Gleich moved, Krohn seconded, a motion for approval of the minutes from the fall meeting.
Motion passed unanimously.
3. Adoption of Agenda
Seguirant noted some modifications to the distributed agenda due to meeting conflicts and
asked for any other additions to the agenda. The agenda was accepted.
4. Sub G Ballot Results

Seguirant asked members responsible for the four change proposals to present the results
of the ballots. The following results were discussed:
a. CG012 Revision to reinforcement requirements for tensile stresses in prestressed

members immediately after transfer (Dolan/Seguirant)
Ballot results: 6 Affirmative, 5 Affirmative with Comments, 5 Negative (Becker, Cleland,
Gleich, Kline, Nakaki)
Dolan initiated discussion on the balloted change and the negative comments. Negative
comments were generally categorized as the following: (1) total tension at release can
be resisted by bonded prestressed reinforcement and the restriction to bonded mild
1
Minutes Kansas City
reinforcement is unnecessary; (2) the proposed steel stress limitation of 40 ksi is

arbitrary and perhaps too restrictive (both the PCI Design Handbook and Standard
Practice suggest fy for this reinforcement) or not restrictive enough (30 ksi is currently
recommended in the commentary); and (3) whether full anchorage of this reinforcement
is required on both sides of the section under consideration. The committee agreed that
bonded prestressed reinforcement should be permitted to resist tension at prestress
release. Seguirant described a parametric study currently being conducted using
cracked section analysis (Mast 1998) to calculate section stresses allowing for cracking
of the tension face. To date, the analyses indicate that these sections behave more as
eccentrically loaded columns than flexural members, and the design stress assumed in
the reinforcement does not greatly affect the results; however, the cracked section
analysis results in increased compressive stresses at the opposite face over those
calculated using a gross section analysis.
Following discussion, the current proposal was tabled until the parametric study has
been completed and a more rational approach can be taken. It was also agreed that, in
light of the preliminary results of the parametric study, two other change proposals
regarding the allowable compressive stresses and a minimum required concrete
strength at transfer (CG006 and CG007) should be combined with this proposal to
provide a more comprehensive revision to allowable stresses at transfer.
b. CG013 Improved definition of Acf (Vejvoda)

Ballot results: 13 Affirmative, 1 Affirmative with Comments, 2 Negative (Baxi, Krohn)
Vejvoda initiated discussion on the balloted change and the negative ballots. Negative
comments were primarily related to the terminology used within the proposed definition
and the general removal of equivalent frame from the provisions specific to the design
of post-tensioned slabs. The committee agreed that while the equivalent frame
methodology is not the only analysis method employed, the terminology is still used
within the code and the proposed definition may conflict with other code provisions.
Vejvoda agreed to further study uses of the term Acf within the code and assure the
committee that no conflicts exist, or revise the definition to avoid such conflicts.
Following discussion, Vejvoda agreed to revise and reballot the proposed change.
c. CG011 Modify 2 percent loss of prestress limitation (Klorman)

Ballot results: 13 Affirmative, 2 Affirmative with Comments, 1 Negative (Baxi)
Klorman initiated discussion on the balloted change and negative ballot. The negative
ballot was primarily related to tendon breakage which may occur during service life. The
committee considers breakage during service life beyond the intent of this provision,
which applies only to breakage during construction. After discussion, Baxi withdrew his
negative. Other comments on the proposal were discussed and commenters accepted
the responses.
Proposal was approved and will be moved to ballot within full committee.
2
Minutes Kansas City
d. CG020 Modify commentary on 2% loss of prestress limitation (Klorman)

Ballot results: 9 Affirmative, 3 Affirmative with Comments, 4 Negative (Baxi, Dolan,
Krohn, Seguirant)
Klorman initiated discussion on the balloted change and the negative ballots. Negative
comments related primarily to prestressed two way slab systems where the current
commentary refers to a column strip or middle strip as a prestressed member. The
proposal to change this to slab-beam strips would double the amount of prestress
which could potentially be lost during construction at an isolated location within the slab.
Several members would prefer to refer to a design section as opposed to a slab-beam
strip to provide clarity within the commentary on the section where the 2% loss is
permitted, particularly where large concentrated loads or openings influence the design
section.
Following discussion, Klorman agreed to review the negative comments and reballot the
proposed change.
5. Old Business
a. CG002 Acceptance criteria for strand bond (Becker)

Becker provided a brief review of the current status of the PCI sponsored research
program on acceptance criteria for stand bond in pretensioned members. The research
team has submitted a draft report to the advisory committee within PCI for review.
Becker anticipates providing ACI Committee 423 with recommendations following
completion of the research and after approval from the necessary PCI Advisory,
Research and Development, and Technical Activities committees. Becker plans to work
within ACI Committee 423 to evaluate the research results and determine appropriate
revisions.
b. CG014 Minimum value of Vci for prestressed members (Becker/Seguirant)

Seguirant discussed his review of the minimum limit of 1.7fc within 318. Primarily, this
limit is less than the minimum value for nonprestressed members (2fc). Committee is
considering an in-depth review of all shear strength equations for simplification.
6. Review of Sub G Change Proposal List (see list appended below)

Seguirant reviewed the current list of change proposals and asked for any updates from the
responsible member(s). The following were specifically discussed:
a. CG010 Serviceability Limits

Kline discussed his review of Table R24.5.2.1, specifically related to section properties
used in analysis of one-way Class T and C unbonded post-tensioned systems. Kline
does not believe revisions are needed in the applicable sections of the table, but will
study modifications to the commentary to clarify how service stresses and deflections
are addressed for cracked sections where the prestress is unbonded. Guidance in the
current commentary only applies to fully bonded systems.
b. CG019 and CGXXX Post-Tensioned Anchorage Zones

The committee was informed that ACI Committee 423 has formed a task group
(including several Sub-G members) to review current practice regarding post-tensioned
anchorage zones. Current CG019 (Vejvoda) and potential change (Roberts-Wollman)
were combined and will be considered following the work of the task group.
3
Minutes Kansas City
c. CGXXX 0.004 Strain Limit

Dolan reviewed his white paper (distributed following meeting) on the current flexural
reinforcement strain limit of 0.004 and tension controlled strain limit of 0.005. The current
phi-factors in the transition zone between compression controlled and tensioned
controlled sections results in sections where increasing the reinforcement ratio doesnt
correspond to an equivalent increase in design strength due to the reduced phi-factor.
Inclusion of higher strength reinforcement in 318 also produces unexpected results
where the maximum reinforcement ratio results in equal capacities for all steel yield
strengths. Dolan is continuing work on this provision, within other 318 subcommittees as
well.
7. Upcoming Meetings
ACI Fall Convention, Tuesday, November 10, 2015 (Denver, CO)
8. Adjournment
Gleich moved, Cleland seconded, for adjournment at 12:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jared Brewe, Secretary
ACI 318 Subcommittee G
ACI31819SubcommitteeG CodeChangeSummaryList
LetterBallot
# Title By CanvassDate
SubG Main
Structuralintegrityofprecastmodularsystems
16.2.4or16.2.5 Dolan/
CG001
Dolantoproposeachangeconsistentwith Gleich
variousgovernmentrequirements
StrandbondtestingR25.4.8
StrandqualificationASTMA1081[2012]
CG002 Becker
Thresholdvaluesmaybeproposedin
ASTMA416
Pretensionedstrandtransferanddevelopment
lengths22.5.9.1,25.4.8
Unifyltrforshearandflexure?
CG003 Naito
Simplifyltrto60dbperAASHTO?
Includeotherinfluencessuchasconcrete
strengthandmethodofdetensioning?
4
Minutes Kansas City
Transferanddevelopmentlengthfordebonded
pretensionedstrands25.4.8.1(b)
Isdoublingldfordebondedstrands
necessary?Research(Russell,Frosch,
CG004 Brewe
Bayrak,andBurgueno)appearstoindicate
thatitisnot.
Ifdoublingisretained,shouldltrbedoubled
aswellas ld?
Transferanddevelopmentlengthfor
pretensionedtopstrandsNew(25.4.8)
CG005 Gleich
Introducetopstrandmultipliersimilarto
topbars?
CG006 Allowablecompressivestressattransfer24.5.3.1
Increaseto0.70fciforfulllengthof
Cleland
pretensionedmembers?
CombinewithCG012
CG007 Minimumconcretestrengthatreleaseof
pretensioningNew(19.2.1.1?)
Higherminimumreleasestrengththan Cleland
2500psirequirementinTable19.2.1.1?
CombinewithCG012
Onewayslabcriteriaforminimumunbonded
prestressandmaximumtendonspacingNew
(Chapter7)
CG008 Baxi
Introduceprovisionssimilarto125psitwo
wayslabrequirement?(Barth&Bondy)
CombinewithCG018
MinimumnonprestressedreinforcementinClassC
beamsprestressedwithunbondedtendonsNew
(Chapter9?)
ClassCbeamswithunbondedpost
tensioningarenotrequiredtomeetthe
CG009 Baxi
1.2Mcrrequirementsforminimumflexural
reinforcement.Thiscanleadtobeam
designswithsignificantlylessminimum
flexuralstrengththanasimilar
nonprestressedbeam.
5
Minutes Kansas City
ServiceabilityrequirementsforClassT&C
prestressedonewaymemberswithunbonded
tendonsNew(TableR24.5.2.1)
TableR24.5.2.1providesguidanceforthe
serviceabilitydesignoftheentirerangeof
prestressedandnonprestressedoneway
CG010 members.Thistabledoesnotdistinguish Kline
betweenbondedandunbondedprestress.
ForClassTandCmembers,someofthe
guidanceonlyappliestomemberswith
bondedprestress.Inthesecases,guidance
shouldalsobeprovidedformemberswith
unbondedprestress.
32115
CG011 Modify2%lossofprestresslimitation26.10.2(g) Klorman Passed

Revisiontoreinforcementrequirementsfortensile 11215
stressesinprestressedmembersimmediatelyafter Dolan/
CG012
transfer24.5.3.2 Cleland/
CombinewithCG006and007
ImproveddefinitionofAcf2.2,8.6.2.3
TACcommentdefinitionsuggests
CG013 Vejvoda 32115
equivalentframeswheretheapplicability
ofthetermismoregeneral.
MinimumvalueofVciforprestressedmembers
CG014 Becker
22.5.8.3.1
InterpretationofVdandfdinthecalculationofVci
CG015 Becker
22.5.8.3.1&R22.5.8.3.1
Roberts
CG016 ACI423PrestressLossdocumentreference
Wollmann
CG017 RequireNubeconsideredinbearingareas Cleland
CG018 Maximumtendonspacinglimitsforonewayslabs
New(Chapter7) Baxi
CombinewithCG008
Consistencyofterminologyforanchoragezonesin
CG019 Vejvoda
posttensionedmembers2.3,R21.2.1(e),25.9
Modifycommentaryon2%lossofprestress
CG020 Klorman 4215
limitationR26.10.2(g)
Modifyminimumbondedreinforcement
CG021 Vejvoda
requirementsintwowayslabs
Applicationofintransferanddevelopment
CG lengthequationforpretensionedstrandin Lobo
lightweightconcreteNew(25.4.8)
6
Minutes Kansas City
Splitting/anchoragereinforcementattheendsof
pretensionedmembersNew(25.9?)
CG Krohn
EvaluateapplicabilityofAASHTOprovisions
topretensionedbuildingmembers.
Prestressingreinforcementusedas
CG Nakaki
nonprestressedreinforcementNew(?)
Delete0.004reinforcementstrainlimitfor
nonprestressedmembers7.3.3,8.3.3,9.3.3, Seguirant/
CG
Table8.4.2.3.4 Dolan
SeeLB1210ofpreviouscodecycle
CG InvestigatedeletingreferencestoAASHTOfrom
theCodesideforposttensioninganchoragezones
3.2.1,25.9.3.1,25.9.4.3.1
AASHTOisnotaconsensusstandardand
Roberts
technicallyshouldnotbereferencedinthe
Wollmann
code.
CanACI423developanalternative
standard?
CombinewithCG019
CG LedgedesigninprecastbeamsNew(Chapter7) Rizkalla
Should0.8hminimumvalueofdpapplytoEq.
CG Vejvoda
22.5.8.2(a)?

7
ACI 318 Subcommittee H April 14. 2015
Seismic Provisions
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
ACI 318-H Spring Meeting, 1:30 PM to 6:00 PM, Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Room C-2207, Kansas City Convention Center, Kansas City, MO
Members Present:
Hawkins, Santana, Lui, Ghosh, Moehle, Harris, Taylor, McCabe, Rodrigues, Yez,
Wallace, Klemencic, Wyllie, Rodriguez, Stanton, Nakaki, Pourzanjani, Cleland, Lopez
Members Excused:
Elwood
Visitors:
Ali Kheyroddin, Siamak Sattar, Dan Reider, Ian McFarlane, Jeff Rautenberg, Otton Lara,
Daniel Toro, Jeff Dragovich, Hlne Dutrisac, Bob Howell, Anna Birely, Adolfo
Matamoros, Mohamed El Gawady, Leonardo Massone, Leslie Sprague, Greg Zeisler,
Laura Lowes, Wael Hassan, Insung Kim, Paul Brienen
Administrative Items
1) Welcome and Introductions
Taylor welcomed all attendees to the second meeting of Subcommittee H for the 2019
Code cycle. All attendees introduced themselves.
2) Review and approve agenda
Taylor reviewed the draft agenda. No new items were proposed. The draft agenda was
approved.
3) Review and approve minutes of previous meeting, Fall 2014 Convention, Washington,
D.C.
The previous meeting minutes were reviewed and approved.
4) Revised ACI Technical Committee Manual (TCM) available for 2015
Taylor announced that an updated Technical Committee Manual has been published by
the ACI Technical Activities Committee.
5) Members of Sub-H are kindly requested to add their photo to their ACI member profile
Taylor encouraged all Sub-H members to post a photo to their ACI member profile.
6) Question for Sub-H members: Are you able to access the minutes of other ACI 318
subcommittees (e.g. Sub D, Sub E, Sub F, Sub J, Sub R) which are posted to the
subcommittee web pages?
During the meeting several Sub-H members attempted to access other ACI 318
subcommittee web pages, and they were able to view the minutes of other
subcommittees.
Page 1 of 6
Seismic Provisions
Ballots
7) Review of Ballots CH 19-001 to CH 19-005 and resolution of negatives Taylor
a) CH 19-001: Clarification of column depth h at joints
An initial discussion of this ballot item was held. After taking a vote it was found that
three members voted no. After further discussions Lui proposed that the existing
meaning of the subject provision in the Code is clear, and that no modification is
required. A vote was held on this proposal, and the vote was 16 Y/ 1 N/ 0 A. As a
result, this ballot item was withdrawn and it will not go forward to ACI 318 Main.
b) CH 19-002: Clarification of bar spacing at splices and anchorage zones
This item was discussed and a vote was held. All members voted yes, except Wyllie
who voted no. It was agreed that the item should go forward to ACI 318 Main, along
with a record of Wyllies no vote.
c) CH 19-003: Two-way shear: correct basis from shear force to shear stress
After discussion of this item it was decided that further study of the issue is required.
Pourzanjani pointed out that a clearer distinction needs to made between shear
stress caused by direct transfer of gravity load, and shear stress caused by transfer of
imbalanced moments. There was discussion of whether this item could be addressed
as an erratum rather than a code change, but no consensus was reached on that
question. Therefore this item was tabled for further investigation, and will not go
forward to ACI 318 Main.
d) CH 19-004: Clarification of Table 18.12.7.5
This item was discussed and Rodrigues pointed out that the proposed change should
be enacted in other tables in Chapter 18. It was agreed that this item should receive
further study, and that all tables in Chapter 18 should be reviewed. Therefore this
item was withdrawn pending further review, and it will not go forward to ACI 318 Main.
e) CH 19-005: Correct error by oversight in Section 18.8.5.1, hook development length
After discussion, it was decided to withdraw this item, because it is the opinion of Sub-
H that the correct application of 18.8.5.1 is made clear in the second paragraph of
the commentary R18.8.5.1.
8) Interactions with other ACI 318 subcommittees:
a) Sub-R: High-Strength Reinforcement
Sub-H members participated in Sub-R ballot: Taylor, Ghosh, Santana, Rodriguez,
McCabe, Wyllie
Rodrigues asked to be added to this list and Taylor agreed to do so.
Wyllie said that it would be beneficial for Sub-H and Sub-R to meet together at ACI
conventions. Taylor agreed this would be a good idea, but noted that Sub-H and Sub-
R committee meetings are scheduled at the same time. Both committees would
need to agree to take time from their individual meeting agendas to hold a joint
meeting, and a room large enough for both sub-committees would have to be found.
Page 2 of 6
Seismic Provisions
Taylor will continue to explore this idea with Sub-R chair Dominic Kelly to see if a way
can be found to get the two subcommittees together during the convention.
A question was raised about how Sub-H members can find out when Sub-R ballots
are being held. There is no mechanism in the on-line balloting system for notifying
members outside the voting subcommittee that a ballot is in progress. Taylor said
that he will continue to coordinate closely with Sub-R chair Dominic Kelly, and will
notify Sub-H members who are reviewing Sub-R ballots when a Sub-R ballot has been
issued.
b) Sub-J: Joints and Connections
Sub-H members who participate in Sub-J ballot: Hawkins, Taylor, Wallace,
Pourzanjani.
The first two ballots held within Sub-J this code cycle were not related to seismic
design, so coordination with Sub-H on those ballots was not necessary. The third and
fourth Sub-J ballots are related to seismic design and should be reviewed by Sub-H.
Taylor will communicate with Sub-J about forwarding these items to the review group
members.
c) Sub-F: Foundations.
Coordination of deep foundation provisions between ACI 318, ASCE 7, and IBC.
Ghosh and Hawkins are members of both Sub-H and Sub-F. Wyllie and Harris are not
members of Sub-F but will provide review of Sub-F ballots. First ballot of coordinated
deep foundation provisions was held recently.
Ghosh reported on coordination with Sub-F.
Sub-F reviewed the original proposals for overall coordination of deep
foundation provisions between the three codes, and Sub-F made some
modifications to the proposals. Sub-F will develop a commentary explaining
the background and reasons for the proposed changes, and this commentary
will accompany the ballot that goes to 318 Main.
There are many types of piles, and no clear, uniformly accepted definitions of
these types. The applicability of the deep foundation provisions to each type
of pile must be clarified, so the commentary that will accompany the ballot to
318 Main will attempt to provide this clarification.
Existing provisions for precast concrete piles are based on outdated research.
Sub-F plans to update the provisions to reflect current research, and these
updates will be included in the ballot that goes to 318 Main before the Denver
convention.
Page 3 of 6
Seismic Provisions
Technical Initiatives
9) Applicability of root fc < 100 psi limit beyond one-way and two-way shear Taylor
Requires coordination with Sub D, Sub E, and Sub J
Taylor made a brief presentation on this topic. The 100 psi limit applies to one-way
shear, unless minimum reinforcement is provided, and to two-way shear, without an
exception related to minimum reinforcement. Other elements that should be studied
with regard to the 100 psi limit include beam-column joints, shear walls, and
diaphragms.
Moehle commented that Sub-H should make a determination one way or the other
about the applicability of the 100 psi limit to shear walls.
There was a discussion of previous research related to shear in beam-column joints, and
research at UCSD on high-strength beam-column joints was mentioned. A group that is
interested in studying the 100 psi limit with respect to beam-column joints is
Pourzanjani, Wallace, and Ghosh.
Hawkins commented that he does not believe a 100 psi limit should need to be applied
to two-way shear in slabs.
Ghosh commented that as far as he is aware, there is no experimental data available on
the behavior of diaphragms with high-strength concrete.
10) In-slab ducts and conduits Taylor
Taylor made a presentation on this topic, and showed examples of current applications
of in-slab ducts and conduits.
Klemencic commented that he thought there might be provisions related to such
embedded items in the Canadian concrete code. Taylor will check on that.
Rodriguez noted that the fundamental approach for designing with such embedded
items is to clearly identify a valid load path through the diaphragm that includes the
influence of the embedded items, and then design for the required strength along that
load path.
Hawkins noted that in 1974 PCA studied embedded service ducts that were 6 by 3
inches, and embedded in an 8 inch thick slab.
Insung Kim noted that the treatment of voids in slabs depends on the size of the voids.
For relatively small embedded items, general rules limiting their size can be sufficient.
See for example sections 6.3.3 to 6.3.12 in ACI 318-11
After further discussion it was decided that technical changes to code provisions are
probably not necessary with regard to in-slab ducts and conduits, but that possibly some
commentary about the treatment of large embedded ducts may be appropriate. It was
decided to bring this issue to the attention of Sub-D for possible further consideration.
Taylor will talk with Robert Frosch, chair of Sub-D.
11) Column Shear Mario Rodriguez
Rodriguez gave a presentation on shear in columns of moment frames.
Page 4 of 6
Seismic Provisions
The question considered was Is there a better procedure for predicting Mpr?
Rodriguez believes that current methods may be underestimating design shear forces in
columns.
Ghosh commented that most of the time Mpr of beams governs the shear in joints.
Wallace noted that in addition to study of the shear demand on columns, there should
be parallel consideration of shear capacity in columns, and the likely underestimation of
this capacity.
12) Strong Column/Weak Beam John Stanton
Stanton made a presentation on strong column/weak beam provisions in ACI 318, and
proposed that the 6/5 ratio is not sufficient to ensure strong column/weak beam
(SCWB) behavior. He noted that Paulay and Priestly recommended a factor of 1.5 for
grade 60 reinforcement.
Additional research is under way at U.C. Berkeley that appears to support the conclusion
that a simple 6/5 factor is insufficient.
After discussion of this item, a clear consensus or direction on this question was not
achieved. Sub-H may revisit this item at a future meeting.
Stanton noted, and it was generally agreed, that an exception to the 6/5 rule should be
written into the code for top-level columns, as the rule does not make sense at the top
level, and is already routinely ignored at that level.
13) Task Group on Shear Wall Classification Nic Rodrigues
Task group members: Rodrigues (chair), Nakaki, Pourzanjani, Ghosh, Lui, Wyllie,
Rodrigues, Elwood, and Yez
Rodrigues reported. The group plans to work on a mission statement, as the scope and
direction of their work is not clearly defined right now. The topic is so broad that
clarification of the task group goals is needed.
Wallace noted that there was an attempt in the ASCE 7 code committee to classify walls,
but no consensus was reached. Wallace said he believes this issue is worth re-visiting.
Ghosh said that he is interested in working on definition and classification of coupled
shear walls. Such definitions are needed for ASCE 7, as there is currently no definition of
a coupled shear wall system in ASCE 7.
Taylor noted that the Canadian Standards Association concrete design standard does
contain classifications of shear walls. Taylor will send a copy of these definitions to
Rodrigues.
Wallace said that there have been many more tests of shear walls, and observations of
shear wall performance in earthquakes, since the current wall detailing provisions were
written. The detailing provisions should be re-visited in light of this new information.
Wallace volunteered to lead a wall detailing task group. This task group will include Jack
Moehle, Leo Massone (Sub E), Laura Lowes (Sub-C), Steve McCabe, Mario Rodriguez,
and Ken Elwood.
Page 5 of 6
Seismic Provisions
Nakaki raised the topic of the distribution of plasticity in walls. Wall behavior is radically
different if plasticity is distributed over the wall height or concentrated in one or two
locations. For example a coupled shear wall exhibits distributed plasticity, whereas most
planar shear walls exhibit concentrated plasticity at the base. Klemencic noted that
distributed plasticity is far superior to concentrated plasticity.
Wallace pointed out that penetrations in coupling beams can have important influences
on the coupling beam behavior. Taylor agreed, and suggested that a discussion of
coupling beam penetrations should be on the agenda for the meeting in Denver.
14) New multi-year research program on walls in New Zealand (Taylor, for Elwood)
Taylor reported on behalf of Elwood that a new, multi-year, multi-institution research
program on seismic performance and design of concrete shear walls is getting under way
in New Zealand. Elwood will provide periodic updates to Sub-H on the progress and
findings of this program.
15) New business
There was no new business
16) Next meeting
The next meeting of Sub-H will be at the Fall ACI Convention in Denver, Colorado. The
date and time of the Sub-H meeting have not been announced, but it is likely the
meeting will be on the Tuesday of the convention, which is November 10. More details
will be announced.
17) Adjourn
Taylor adjourned the meeting at 6:00 PM
Page 6 of 6
MEETINGMINUTES

ACISUBCOMMITTEE318JJOINTSANDCONNECTIONS
2015ACISpringConvention
KansasCityConventionCenter
KansasCity,MO
Tuesday,April14,2015
1:30PM6:00PM
RoomC2208
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: John Bonacci, Jim Cagley, MinYuan Cheng, Mary Beth Hueste, Jim Jirsa, Gary
Klein,MikeKreger,JimLaFave,RemyLequesne,JackMoehle,GustavoParra,JimWight
MembersAbsent:N/A
Visitors:MahdiAdibi,GregZeisler(ACIStaff)
1. Calltoorderandintroductions
ChairGustavoParracalledthemeetingtoorderatapproximately1:35pm.Allindividualsin
themeetingroomintroducedthemselves.
2. Approvalofagenda;additionofotheritems
Amotion(byJimWight,secondedbyJimCagley)wasmadetoapprovethemeetingagenda,
adraftofwhichhadbeenpreviouslybeenpostedtothecommitteewebsite.Noadditional
agendaitemswereproposedandthemotionwasapprovedbyacclamation.
3. ApprovalofminutesfromWashington,D.C.Fall2014meeting
Amotion(byJimWight,secondedbyRemyLequesne)wasmadetoapprovetheFall2014
meetingminutes(fromtheconventionheldinWashington,DC),whichhadpreviouslybeen
postedtothecommitteewebsite.Noadditionaldiscussionwasrequestedandthemotion
wasapprovedbyacclamation.
4. ResultsfromCJ151andCJ152ballots:
Theresultsofthetworecentlycompletedballotswerediscussed.Thecommentswerecompiled
andforwardedtothesubcommitteebyGustavopriortothemeeting.
a. BallotCJ151(Shearheadprovisions)Cagley
Theballotpassed(7affirmative,2affirmativewithcomments,1negative,0abstain,0
notreturned).
ACISubcommittee318J,Spring2015Meeting 1
Jim Cagley summarized that the ballot was intended to remove the shearhead
provisions from the code because of their very limited use in practice. However,
engineerswillbeallowedtouseshearheadsfollowingtheACI31814provisions.
JimCagleynotedthatallcommentsreceived,whichwereprimarilyeditorialinnature,
wereaddressedassuggestedorwithminormodifications.
JimJirsawithdrewnegativebasedonupdatedwordingtorefertospecificcodeyear.
Somediscussionensuedregardingtheuseofshearheads.JimCagleynotedthathedid
talkwithanumberofpeopleintheUSandoutsidetheUS,includingLatinAmerica,and
onlyheardofpossibleusebysomeoneinArgentina.JimCagleyalsonotedthathehas
notusedshearheadsinpracticein40years.JimWightnotedthatduringcodeseminars
in Atlanta, there was some discussion of use of shear heads;possibly two code cycles
ago.GustavonotedthatduringarecentmeetinginEurope,itwasstatedthattheBritish
prefershearheads,andthismayapplytootherareasofEurope.

ACTIONITEMS:
Jim Cagley will update the ballot according to the ballot comments from 318J
membersandthemeetingdiscussion.
GustavowillforwardthefinalizedballottoJackMoehleforfurtherconsiderationby
themaincommittee.

b. BallotCJ152(Extensionofflexuralreinforcementinthickslabs)Klein
Theballotpassed(2affirmative,7affirmativewithcomments,2negative,0abstain,0
notreturned).
Gary Klein summarized the background of the code change proposal. Changes in
construction with advent of podium and transfer slabs has led to very thick, heavily
loadedslabs.Currentcoderequirementsarebasedonslabsofnormalproportions.An
examplewasgivenofaparkinggaragewhereachangeinthecolumngridledtoa2ft
thick slab. A punching shear failure was observed where the diagonal crack was not
interceptedbythetopbars.Itwasnotedthattheoriginaldetailingdidnotquitemeet
ACI318;however,therearestillconcernsregardingtheminimumextensionfortopbars
inthesethickslabs.Apaperpostedwiththeballot(Ruizetal.2013),focusedonpost
punching behavior of RC slabs, included a discussion on short cutoff lengths for top
bars.Acomparisonofcontinuoustopbarsversusbarscutat2.5dfromthesupportface
indicated, on average, 43% less strength with 2.5d. Improper anchored tensile
reinforcement(cutoffbars)significantlyreducedthepunchingshearstrength.
TheballotproposalwastoadjustFig.13.3.8ofACI31814toincludeatopbarminimum
cutoffofnotlessthan5d.
Garynotedthattherewasanefforttoincludethischangeinthelastcodecycle,butit
wasonlypossibletomakeachangetothecommentarytowarnengineerstobeaware
ofthissituation.JimWightnotedthatinpreparationsforthe31814Codeseminar,the
questioncameupastowhythereisachangetocommentarybutnottheCode.
Garyledadiscussionoftheballotresults.
o JohnBonacci,Line0:Commentregardingballothistory.Garyaskedwhetherisit
necessarytoprovidethehistorysincethisispost2014Code?Gustavowillcheck
withstafftoconfirmthatthehistoryisnotrequired.
o Discussion ensued regarding how the recommendation affects slabs with drop
panelsandwhether5distheappropriateminimumcutoff.
Gary suggested clarifying in the commentary that for slabs with drop
panels,distheeffectivedepthatthefaceofthecolumn.
JimCagleyaskedwhetherGarywascomfortablewiththeshallowangle.
Garyindicatedhehasheardofanglesof1820degreesbasedinprevious
tests.
Jim Lafave, Line 10: Gary indicated that the intent of 5d is to have
adequatedevelopmentoftopbarspastthecrack.Ithasbeendifficultto
findcompaniontestswithcontinuousbarsandanearliercutoff.
MinYuanCheng,Line10:useoftermintercept,noissueswerefound
withuseofthisterm.
FigureR8.741.3:Suggestionstoimprovethefigureincludedadding5d
dimension,stopping0.3lnshortofcrack,andstoppingbarbeforeendof
diagram.
o Mary Beth Hueste, Line 20: Suggestion to provide guidance on what is
considered a thick slab. Commentary in 2014 code noted ln/h ratios less than
about15.JimJirsaindicatedthatthisshouldberetained.Garywillreviewthe
existingcommentaryandadaptasappropriate.
o Kreger,Line24:concernedwithwordensure.Modificationmade.
o ResolutionofNegativeVotes:
Jim Cagley, Line 0: Jim withdrew his negative based on the discussion
andsuggestedchanges.
Mike Kreger, Line 20: Mike indicated that he was satisfied with the
changeforJohnscommentandwithdrewhisnegative.
Mike Kreger, Line 33: Mike withdrew his negative based on the
discussionandsuggestedchangestothefigure.
o Gary moved that the ballot be accepted subject to a 30day review by
subcommittee.

ACTIONITEMS:
Garywillupdatetheballotaccordingtotheballotcommentsfrom318Jmembers
andthemeetingdiscussion.
The ballot will posted for a 30day review period and members should provide
commentstoGustavoassoonaspossible.
GustavowillforwardthefinalizedballottoJackMoehleforfurtherconsiderationby
themaincommittee.
5. Discussiononongoingballots:
Subcommittee discussed viewing incomplete ballots and agreed to discuss comments to help
advancetheballotsassoonaspossible.
a. CJ153(JointsinOrdinaryMomentResistingFrames)Parra,Bonacci
Gustavoprovidedanoverviewoftheballotandpreviewedtheinitialballotresults.
Jim Jirsa suggested separating the provisions for slabcolumn joints and beam
column joints rather than grouping them together. Gustavo indicated that
separatingthetwotypesofjointsshouldnotbeabigissuebecausemostprovisions
aredirectedatbeamcolumnjoints.
Jim Jirsa indicated he is not sure what is meant in the commentary language
providedintheballot.GustavonotedthatR15.3wastakenfromChapter18,butit
isquiteverbose.Thiscommentarycanberewritten,alongwithproposingasimilar
changeforChapter18to318H.
Remy Lequesne, Line 40: Remy asked whether it is necessary to add minimum
reinforcement for beam stubs. Jim Wight suggested minimum transverse steel.
Longitudinal steel should be continued be continued into the stubs. Remy noted
that the minimum length given for special moment frames is h. With respect to
developing the bars, it was concluded that the bars will be developed if they are
required for strength. Otherwise, the minimum dimension for special moment
framesissufficient.
RemyLequesne,Line50:Remyquestionedwhetheritisnecessarytohavethesame
depth on all four sides? Gustavo indicated that Chapter 18 also provides this
guidance.RemywassatisfiedwithusingthesamelanguageasinChapter18.
JimWight,line40:Jimquestionedthetermconfined.Subcommitteeagreedto
changetothistermtorestrained.
JimWight,Line46:
o Jim Wight suggested adding spacing requirements to tighten up the
minimum steel requirement, such as 6 in. It was noted that the minimum
shearreinforcementvaluesarecarriedoverfromthe2014Code.
o JimJirsanotedthattheconcernismoreforcornerandexteriorjoints,and
thataminimumoftwotiescouldberequiredforinteriorjoints.
o MinYuanChengmentionedtheIMFjointdetailsthatheisworkingonwith
Remy.Forcornerbarbuckling,itissuggestedtouseaminimumof16db,or
atleasttwolayers.
o Gustavo and Jim Wight suggested using a minimum of two layers with a
maximumspacingof6or8in.JohnBonacciwilllookmorecloselyatwhatis
requiredforType1connectionsinACI352R02.
JimLaFaveaskedJohnaboutcontinuouscolumnanddiscontinuouscolumncasesin
ACI 352R02. These recommendations will not match ACI 31814 Chapter 18. John
BonacciindicatedthesecouldbeconsideredforChapter18,aswell.Gustavonoted
thatsomediscussionoccurredinthefirstmeetingregardingadditionofprovisions
forcornerandroofjoints.GustavowillinformAndyTaylorthat318Jwillalsolook
atparallelchangesforChapter18.
Jim LaFave also indicated the joint shear factors from ACI 352R02 correspond to
=0.85,butinChapter15,=0.75,somayhavesomeadditionalconservatism.
Gustavoindicatedthattheballotwillbecompletedtoallowdocumentationofthe
ballothistory.
Gustavo noted that future ballots will use a common form to aid in compiling the
comments.Heaskedthatmembersnotusethecommentboxforfutureballots.

ACTIONITEM:
Johnwillupdatetheballotaccordingtotheballotcommentsfrom318Jmembers
andthemeetingdiscussion.Anewballotwillbepostedsoonafter.

b. BallotCJ154(Gravityshearanddriftlimitsforposttensionedslabcolumnconnections)
Parra,Hueste
Mary Beth provided an overview of the code change proposal and discussed
commentsreceivedsofar.Therecommendedgravityshearratiolimitanddrift
limitsforprestressedslabcolumnconnectionsarebasedontheACI352.1R11
recommendations.
Remy and Mary Beth discussed that the Vc being used for gravity shear ratio
shouldbeclarified.MaryBethhascheckedwithThomasKangwhodeveloped
the original data and recommendations found in the graph provided with the
ballot. Thomas indicated that he used the 4*sqrt(fc) equation. The
subcommittee suggested updating the Vc value to use the equation for
prestressedslabs,butnotincludingtheVpterm.
JimJirsahadaquestionabouthowthisproposalwillbecoordinatedwith318H.
GustavonotedthathehadalreadysentacopyoftheballottoJackMoehleand
AndyTaylor(318HChair).
GaryKleinindicatedthatVcisnotgivenin22.6.5;ratherthatsectiongivesvcin
stressunits.Garyalsonotedaconcurrentchangeproposalballotedin318Eto
limit the maximum vc based on vflex (for lower flexural reinforcement ratios),
whichcanbelessthan4*sqrt(fc).
For the updated figure, it was noted that the RC line should be adjusted to
continue to 3.5% on the vertical axis, while the PT line needs to head toward
4.5%orwhatevervalueisagreedon.
Gustavoindicatedthattheballotwillbecompletedtoallowdocumentationof
theballothistory.

ACTIONITEM:
Mary Beth will update the ballot according to the ballot comments from 318J
membersandthemeetingdiscussion.Anewballotwillbepostedsoonafter.
6. Otherongoingefforts:
a. Commentary on overall behavior of beamcolumn joints; detailing requirements for

cornerandroofjoints(KleinandJirsa)
Gary noted that noninterior joints, including at the base of retaining walls and
cantileveredmembers,havepotentialforjointdiagonaltensionfailureduetolackof
reinforcement continuity, which prevents the development of a continuous force
path.Heindicatedthatthereisaproposalin318todefinetheminimumbarradius
sothatstresscanflowaroundcorner.
Withregardtojointbehavior,therearesomepotentialrevisionstotheChapter15
commentary. First, to emphasize the importance of providing continuity in
reinforcement to ensure a continuous force path, especially at rooflevel exterior
joints.Also,torefertheusertootherresourcesfordesignofjointsnotaddressedin
theprovisions.Inaddition,thereisaneedtoreviewjointrelatedprovisionsinother
chaptersoftheCode.

ACTIONITEM:
JimJirsaandGaryKleinwilldevelopsomeitemsforfeedbackandbringthemtothe
Fallconventionmeetingfordiscussion.

b.AnchorageofbarsandtransversesteelrequirementsinjointsofIntermediateMoment
Frames(Cheng,Lequesne)
RemyandMinYuansummarizedtheireffortsrelatedtojointsinIMFs.Remynoted
thattheyareassumingthatjointshearisbeingtakencareofthroughotherefforts.
Considerationsfortransversereinforcementincludethefollowing:
o ContinuetheIMFcolumnconfinementthroughthejoint
o AddreferencetoSec.25.7.2.2(minimumtiesize)
o Spacingoftransversereinforcement:
The current spacing limit in Sec. 15.4.2 is considered too large. Sec.
15.4.2.2requiresthatsisnogreaterthanh/2.
AddreferencetoSec.18.4.3.3(a)(d).
The352R02spacingis12in.,witha6in.limitforwindlateralforce
resisting frames (LFRFs). It was suggested to use 12 in. to be
consistentwithIMFsinACI31814.Gustavosuggestedthat6in.limit
forwindshouldalsoapplyforLFRFsinIMFs.GustavoandJimWight
suggested running some calculations to determine whether the
spacinglimit(12in.vs.6or8in.)willgovern.
Detailing:ReferenceSec.25.7.3and25.7.4
Considerationsforminimumcolumnh/dbincludethefollowing:
o Gustavonotedthat318RhascurrentballottoincorporateGR80steel;318J
will likely need to modify accordingly if this passes. Jim Jirsamentioned the
value of 20db for GR 60 steel may be reduced, and suggested getting
correspondence from Dominic Kelly, Chair of 318R. The value 20db was
selected based on data, but could go up or down a bit. It was suggested to
holdoffonconsidering16dbuntilthe318Ritemisreviewed.

ACTIONITEM:
MinYuan and Remy willconsider the subcommittee input and develop a code
changeproposalforballot.

c. StructuralIntegrityReinforcement(Hueste,Cagley)
Mary Beth and Jim discussed the structural integrity provisions for slabs and
possiblechangesbasedonacomparisonofdifferencesbetweenACI31814and
ACI352R02.
Regardingthedifferenceintheminimumbottomdeformedbars,itwasagreed
to look at some cases for heavily loaded thick slabs and typical slabs to
determinewhenthe352requirementscontrol.
Itwasnotedthatheavilyloadedslabsareaspecialcaseandwillnotnecessarily
behave in catenary action as the normal slab model. Therefore, it would be
beneficialtohaveanoteinthecommentaryindicatingthatthisprovisiondoes
notapplytoheavypodiumslabs.
Jim Cagley noted that the substitution of mild steel for bottom reinforcement
throughthecolumn,inplaceofposttensioningstrands,ismeantforliftslabs.
Hesuggestedremovingthisprovisionwithacodechangeproposal.

ACTIONITEM:
MaryBethandJimCagleywillconsiderthesubcommitteeinputanddevelopacode
changeproposalforballot.

d. Shearstressandspacinglimitsforpunchingshearreinforcement(Wight,Parra)
JimWightpresentedresultsofrecenttestsofthreeslabcolumnconnections
o The three specimens are identical in flexural design with =0.87% and
compressionsteelof#4@6.5.Loadcorrespondingtoflexuralstrengthand
nominalpunchingshearstrengthwereapproximatelythesame.
o Specimen 1 had no shear reinforcement, Specimen 2 had an orthogonal
arrangementofstudrailshearreinforcement,andSpecimen3hadaradial
arrangementofstudrailshearreinforcement.
o All specimens exhibited some flexural yielding followed by punching shear.
Thepresenceofshearstudsimprovedstrengthandductility.Moreductility
wasobservedfortheradialarrangementofstudrailsversustheorthogonal
arrangement; yielding of the studs in the radial arrangement was more
distributed.
o The next pair of specimens will have a higher reinforcement ratio for the
flexuralsteel,whichmayleadtopunchingbeforeflexuralyielding.
Jim noted that the European code does not use the full outer perimeter to
determine Vc for a radial arrangement of shear reinforcement. His research is
considering the use of a reduced perimeter for an orthogonal arrangement of
shearreinforcementwhencomputingVc.
7. Newbusinesscarriedoverfrom2014Codecycle(LaFave,Wight)
JimLaFavenotedthat59itemswerepassedonto318Jforpossibleconsiderationbasedon
previous ballots during the 31814 Code cycle. Of these, there are 18 unique comments
relatedtoChapter15.
Gustavo noted that anything that is castinplace and involves a connection should be
considered,withtheexceptionofshearfrictionasthesecanbepassedalongto318E.Also,
itwouldbebesttotransferitemsrelatedtoprecastmembersto318G.
It was discussed whether 318J should handle items related to foundation elements and
anchorage,orifanchorageitemsshouldbetransferredto318B.JimCagleymentionedthat
thesteelcomponentsarepartofthescopeof318B.
JimLaFaveindicateditemswithinthescopeofChapter15willberetained.Gustavoagreed
and noted that for items related to Chapter 16, it should be determined what should be
handledby318Jandthenhewillforwardtheremainingitemsto318B,318Eand318G.

8. Newbusiness
a. AspectRatiosforbeamcolumnjoints
Gustavonotedthatbecausetherearealreadyanumberofactionitems,hewillhold
thisitemasnewbusinessforthenextmeetingattheFall2015convention.

b. BondedposttensionedslabsinSpecialMomentResistingFrames(Kreger)
Mike askedthe subcommittee whether theyfelt whether twotestswouldprovide
sufficientdatatoputforwardacodechangeproposal.Membersfeltthatthismay
notbesufficienttobesuccessfulwithinthemaincommittee.

9. Nextmeeting
Thenextsubcommitteemeetingwillbeheldatthe2015ACIFallConventioninDenver,CO.
Chair Parra noted that Subcommittee 318J will likely meet again on Tuesday in the
afternoon,withthemainACI318CommitteemeetingonWednesday.
10.Adjournment
A motion by Jim Wight (seconded by Jim Cagley) was made to adjourn the meeting. No
additional discussion was requested and the motion was approved by acclamation. The
meetingwasadjournedatapproximately6:10pm.
Respectfullysubmitted,
GustavoParra MaryBethD.Hueste
Chair,ACISubcommittee318J Member,ACISubcommittee318J
ACISubcommittee318LInternationalLiaison
ACISpringTheConcreteConventionandExposition
KansasCityMarriottandConventionCenter
KansasCity,MO
Monday,April13,20159:30AM11:00AMC2215BRoomConventionCenter
MINUTES318LSUBCOMMITTEE
1. Themeetingwascalledtoorderat9:30AM.

2. Attendants:
Subcommitteemembers(9):RaulBertero(Argentina),JuanF.Correal(Colombia),
WernerFuchs(Germany),LuisE.Garcia(Chairman),WaelHassan(Egypt),Augusto
Holmberg(Chile),EnriquePasquel(Peru),GuillermoSantana(CostaRica),RobertoStark
(Mexico)
AbsentSubcommitteemembers(9):MarioChiorino(Italy),KennethElwood(New
Zealand),LuisFargierGabaldon(Venezuela),PatricioGarcia(Spain),RaymondGilbert
(Australia),ngelHerrera(PuertoRico),HctorMonzonDespang(Guatemala),Ernesto
Ng(Panam),andGuneyOzcebe(Turkey).
Visitors(6):SoledadMoline(IMCYC),RaulHusni(Argentina),JulioTimerman(Brazil),
MikeKreger(ChairmanACICommittee133),GerardoAguilar(MST),HeidiHelmink
(Bekaert).

3. ApprovaloflastmeetingminutesLastmeetingatminutesoftheSubcommittee
meetingatWashington,D.C.Convention,weredistributedbyemail.Theywere
approvedbytheSubcommitteememberspresent.

4. RequestfromJamesCagleyonuseofShearHeads
JimCagleyrequestedthattheliaisonmembersbeaskedaboutusageofshearheadsin
everydaydesignoflabcolumnframesintheirowncountries.Althoughallthemembers
ofSubLwillbeaskedbyemail,thequestionwasposedtothememberspresent.All
memberspresentrespondedthatshearheadsareneverused.Bertero,fromArgentina,
respondedthattheywereusedinsomeprojects,butarenotusedineverydaydesign.

5. RequestfromMichaelKreger,ChairmanofACICommittee133DisasterReconnaissance
CommitteeACI133,DisasterReconnaissance,wascreatedbyACIinordertocoordinate
investigationsofthebehaviorofreinforcedconcretestructuresduringnaturalandman
madedisastersthatmayincludesendinganACIsponsoredteamortoincludeACI
memberstoateambeingsentbyotherinstitutions.Committee133isinterested
creatingagroupofACImembersinternationallythatwouldbewillingtoactasfirst
contactwithACIfortheirrespectivecountries,andneighboringcountriesincasethere
isnoliaisonmember.AbriefexplanationoftheproposedproceduresbyCommittee133
wasmadebyChairmanKreger,thepurposeandscopeoftheparticipationofACIand
theimportanceoftheinformationtobegatheredforadjustmentsofACI318inthe
futurewasexplained.AllmembersofSubcommitteeLvolunteeredtobefirstcontact
fortheircountrieswithCommittee133.AllmembersofSubLwillbepolledbyemail
andwillbeaskedtoconfirmtheiravailabilityforCommittee133activitiesintheir
correspondingcountries,maininterestsonwhatwillbetheirreferredtypeof
structures,languageskills,andotherrelevantandimportantinformation.

6. SubLWorkPlanforCurrentCodeCycleSuggestions
AWorkPlanforcurrentcodecycleisbeingdrafted.Theitemscoveredintheworkplan
arethosewherethefeedbackprovidedbytheliaisonmembersfromtheirown
countriesonthesethemesselected,andother,asweprogressinthecycle.Amongthe
themessuggestedduringthemeetingaredeepbeamrequirements,theinclusionof
crackwidthsaspartoftheserviceabilityrequirements,andguidanceonopeningson
beams.AnemailwillbesendtoSubLmembersrequestingotherthemesofinterest.
Oncethisinformationiscollectedarankingbyimportancewillbedecidedbyvoteand
groupsforaddressingthesethemeswillbeassembledfromthepoolofmembersofSub
LtoproducewhitepapersontheseissuestobesenttotheFull318Committeewhen
ready.

7. NewBusiness
TransitionKeysformACI31811to14and31814to11willbesentbothinEnglishand
Spanish.

8. Nextmeeting
NextmeetingwilltakeplaceduringtheDenverConvention.
Draft
Meeting Minutes
ACI 318 Subcommittee R High-Strength Reinforcement
14 April 2015 Kansas City, MO
Attendees: David Fields (DF), Cathy French (CF), Wassim Ghannoum (WG), Cathy Huang
(CH), Zen Hoda (ZH), Dominic Kelly (DK), Andres Lepage (AL), Mike Mota (MM), Conrad
Paulson (CP), Jose Pincheira (JP), Santiago Pujol (SP), Jose Restrepo (JR),
Visitors: Manuel Conde, Kevin Conroy, Amanda Eldridge, Salem Faza, Pete Fosnough,
Ramon Gilsanz, Lucas Laughery, Hung-Jen Lee, Adam Lubell, George Miljus, Jack Moehle,
Erik Nissen, Mark Perniconi, Aishwarya Puranam, Jeff Rautenberg, Tom Russo, Jacob Selzer,
Hitoshi Shiohara, Chungwook Sim, Drit Sokoli, Cheng Song
DK opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m.
Introductions: Subcommittee members and visitors introduced themselves.
Agenda: Agenda was reviewed and approved as noted.
Previous Meeting Minutes: Approval Washington DC meeting minutes WG, made a motion,
MM seconded it. All were in favor. Motion carried.
General Review of Letter Ballot LB R01-2015: DK reported that the ballot was successful in
that the desired feedback was obtained. Some of the items will be revised, re-balloted in Sub R,
and balloted by the main committee.
Comments on Ballot
CR001 A615 Gr 100 as Confinement Reinforcement CF led the discussion

CF discussed ballot results with respect to adding Gr 100 A615 for confinement purposes. The
only negative was from Loring Wyllie (LW) of Sub H, who was invited to vote on the ballot. His
concerns are that the ASTM A615 Specification update has yet to be approved within the ASTM
process and he has a concern that the bend diameters for bars are being relaxed. It was
mentioned that ASTM will most likely adopt A615 Gr 80 bend diameters for Gr100 A615. DK
stated that this proposal would not be sent to the main committee until ASTM officially approves
the updated version of A615 to include Gr 100 reinforcement.
Comment regarding T/Y ratios that would not support adoption of Gr 100 A615 to be used as
confining yield.
CR003b Beams of Special Moment Frames ZH led the discussion

ZH reviewed ballot comments
Discussion to revise the minimum net tensile strain by 2.5 times the theoretical yield
strain: 0.005 for Gr 60, 0.007 for Gr 80, and 0.009 for Gr 100.
DK discussed Unified Design Provisions and that the maximum allowed moment
strength drops significantly to perhaps 60% of the strength by increasing net tensile
strain to 0.009 for Gr 100 reinforcement. Increasing net tensile strain to 2.5 times the
theoretical yield strain (fy/Es) will also reduce the maximum allowed moment for beams
designed using Gr 80 reinforcement. DK identified that other minimum net tensile strains
Sub R Kansas City Meeting -2- 14 April 2015
might be appropriate because cracking and deflection are the key measures that need to
be considered. DK identified that moment redistribution is only allowed if the net tensile
strain is greater than or equal to 0.0075. He asked the subcommittee to consider
whether a similar net tensile strain should be used for special moment frame beams. He
asked the subcommittee to think about replacing the required rho, , of 0.025 in Section
18.6.3.1 with a minimum net tensile strain.
AL stated that the ductility for special moment frame beams is addressed by the
requirement that the area of bottom reinforcement at a joint equal at least one-half of the
negative moment reinforcement required. A suggestion was made that this item be
addressed by 318 Sub H.
CF had a comment about short beam spans with high rotational demands in her no vote
on this proposal. DK asked whether the minimum required span to depth (L/d) ratio of 4
adequately addressed this already. Comment by AL with respect to pilot study using Gr
120 showed that there is no need to change L/d of 4. There was a general feeling that
coupling beams should be kept separate from beams in SMF in the ballots.
Tie spacing change to 5db (# 9 or higher) or minimum of 6. Comment by ZH was that

maximum spacing should be limited to 4. Issue regarding tying every bar will be sent to
318 Sub H.
Large scale testing LW voted negative and is looking for more information about large
scale beam tests. We need to ask LW what tests would satisfy his negative.
CR003c Columns of Special Moment Frames WG led the discussion
A question was raised whether the proposed maximum hoop spacing of 5db is close
enough. A discussion followed and there was agreement to keep it at this spacing.
CF stated her concern over increases in hoop spacing at mechanical couplers, that hoop
dimensions are not adjusted at the level of the couplers, and how is cover addressed.
She would like for her concern to be addressed because use of mechanical couplers will
increase with high-strength reinforcement.
WG described that if shear design strength used for calculations is increased to 80 ksi
then A706 grade 80 should be required. His reasoning is that the cyclic loading requires
greater ductility. DK indicated that he thinks of shear reinforcement as always being in
tension regardless of the cyclic loading. Others agreed and thought the cyclic demand
would not be very high on the shear reinforcement because of this. A decision was
made that raising the allowed shear stress for calculations should be treated as a
separate proposal rather than including it with the proposal for flexural design.
JP had voted no on this proposal with one of the reasons being that bi-directional
loading is not addressed. DK indicated that it has not been addressed for Gr 60 bar
either and that our focus is on whether Gr 80 will provide equivalent performance to Gr
60. JP indicated that with bi-directional loading only 1 or 2 bars will be in tension and
that the column will not necessarily exhibit adequate ductility.
WG discussed splitting bond failure. DK indicated that this should be a separate

proposal that stays in Sub R rather than being shifted to Sub H.
CR003d Strong Column Weak Beam SP led the discussion
SP indicated that the focus is on whether using Gr 80 reinforcement will lead to more
intermediate mechanisms than those developed for Gr 60. The focus is not on whether
the 6/5 ratio is adequate. Several members of the subcommittee expressed a concern
that 6/5 is too low. A reference was made to LWs description of how 6/5 was
determined by committee opinion. Research by Haselton was cited that indicate a much
higher ratio, more than 3, is needed to preclude intermediate mechanisms. Jack Moehle
has a student that is also attempting to determine what an appropriate value for this ratio
is. There seemed to be much support for a higher ratio. Changing the ratio should be
considered by Sub H. If Sub H does not make progress with this topic, we will address it
when moving forward with Gr 100 reinforcement.
SP presented the results of a study that one of his students performed in which the
impact of using Gr 80 reinforcement relative to using Gr 60 reinforcement was
considered. For a series of analyses with Gr 60 bars and Gr 100 bar or 120 bars, the
number of yielding hinges decreased. Possible reasons for the results were discussed.
The results appear to indicate that using Gr 80 bar in design rather than Gr 60 bar will
not lead to the formation of more intermediate mechanisms. The subcommittee asked
SP to provide a more clear explanation regarding the fewer number of hinges shown on
the pilot study. DK suggested that he consider larger rotations as the definition of hinge
formation.
The subcommittee provided the recommendation to remove the proposed commentary.
A decision was made to not move forward with this background unless main committee
members insist on an explanation for not making an adjustment to 6/5. However, SP is
to complete the investigation so Sub R can react quickly if necessary to satisfy no votes
from the Main Committee.
CR003e Beam-Column Joints JR led the discussion
Based on negative votes, the factor for top bar affect is being incorporated into the
coefficient so that it always applies and eliminates the variable. The axial load factor is
being eliminated. Lightweight concrete will not be allowed with Gr 80 reinforcement
unless research shows it is adequate. The required depth of joint related to the inverse
of the square root of fc will be included.
The proposal should require that the joint depth be at least 20db until more research is
available to possibly go lower.
Possibly impose limits on column reinforcement size passing through the joint or have a
minimum joint height based on the column bar size. This item should be addressed by
Sub J as it should apply to all reinforcement grades.
DK indicated that some researchers believe that the column-to-beam strength ratio is an
important consideration in the design of joints and that the performance of the joint is
improved if the ratio is increased.
CR004a - Vertical Reinforcement for Special Structural Walls DF led the discussion
This proposal should be modified to be consistent with column confinement

requirements of 5db, if applicable.
In the background statement, a comment should be made that the wall test specimens
by Dazio do not comply with ACI 318 requirements.
This proposal can be moved to the main committee without further test results.
A subcommittee straw poll indicates a desire to eliminate lap splices at the base of walls
with Gr 80 vertical bar. SP indicated that he will vote no unless the proposal does not
allow lap splices in the plastic hinge region. The requirement to not allow lap splices in
plastic hinges needs to be coordinated with Sub H as this may be a change that is
applicable to all reinforcement grades, and Sub H may want to develop such a proposal.
CR004b - Horizontal Reinforcement of Special Structural Walls DF led the discussion
The ballot results included many negatives citing a lack of test data supporting such a
change.
This proposal requires test results before it is moved to the main committee.
Based on a comment by Loring Wyllie, who was asked to vote on the ballot, sliding
shear failure needs to be addressed. This should be coordinate with Sub H.
CR004c - Coupling Beams of Special Structural Walls AL led the discussion
The ballot results included many negatives citing a lack of test data supporting such a
change.
This proposal requires test results before it is moved to the main committee.
Deflection of Gravity Members SP presented
The presentation addressed how depth of beams and slabs need to change to maintain
deflection constant as working strain changes with the use of higher grade reinforcement
Update regarding ASTM MM provided a verbal summary
ASTM sub-committee A1.05 is currently balloting addition of Gr 100 to A615. Completion

is expected at the next ASTM meeting in Anaheim, CA in May 2015.
Revision to Unified Design Provisions JR presented
The main issue is the net tensile strain and how it should be adjusted with higher grade.
The values of 0.007 for Grade 80 and 0.009 for Grade 100 are likely inappropriate.
A secondary issue that has come up is that the current stress block does not accurately
represent the strength of columns with high-strength concrete and high axial loads.
Background to Unified Design Provisions CP presented
Mast originally proposed that the compression-controlled strain limit be fys and it was
simplified to 0.002 for Gr 60, 75 and 80. He wanted the tension-controlled strain to be
0.005 for Gr 60, 75 and 80.
ACI COMMITTEE 318S SPANISH TRANSLATION
ACI Spring Convention
Monday, April 13, 2015 11:00 AM 12:30 PM C-2215 B
Meeting Minutes
1. ATTENDEES
Members Visitors
Juan Correal Gerardo Aguilar

Luis E. Garcia Esteban Anzole
Augusto Holmberg Barry Bergin
Jack Moehle Cesar Constantino
Gustavo Parra Silvia Dyer
Mario Rodriguez Dan Falconer
George Taylor Aimee Gurski
Tom Schaeffer Guillermo Huaco
Fernando Yaez Cheryce Johnson
Soledad Moline
1. ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.1. Chair welcomed all in attendance. He invited members and visitors to introduce
themselves.
2. FALL 2014 MINUTES
2.1. The minutes of the Fall Meeting were discussed. The minutes were then approved by
the committee.
3. FUTURE TRANSLATIONS
3.1. Aimee Gurski and Dan Falconer of ACI staff made a thorough presentation to the
committee about ACIs plans for future translations in Spanish as well as in other
languages.
3.2. It was agreed that 318S would continue to contribute as much as possible in future
translations. It was stressed that the goal is to use the current Glossary established by
318S for consistency of translations.
3.3. To start, Dan Falconer will forward ACI 116 to 318S to begin the translation process.
3.4. ACI 301 is planned to be sent to TAC in June and it is estimated that the version for
public comment will be available in December 2015. It is anticipated that a copy of 301
will be available for translation after the TAC review. The plan is for 318S to start the
translation process at that time and then make any necessary revisions after the public
comment process.
4. ADJOURNMENT
4.1. The meeting was adjourned until the 2015 Fall Convention in Denver, Colorado.

ACI 318 15 April 2015 Minutes (Ver 4)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACI 318 15 April 2015 Minutes (Ver 4)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACI COMMITTEE 318 STRUCTURAL BUILDING CODE

ACI Spring The Concrete Convention and Exposition

Wednesday 15 April 2015 8:00 AM 12:30 PM C-2102 A&B

MINUTES Main Committee

a. Professor James K. Wight gave comments celebrating the life and

accomplishments of Jim MacGregor. A moment of silence was held. (PDF

of slides and comments appended to the Main committee meeting reports)

b. ACI 318 Workshop prior to the Denver Convention in November, 2015.

318 Subcommittee W is finalizing the program for Denver. Some of the

sessions planned are: Repair of Existing Buildings, Performance-Based

Design of New Buildings and Strengthening of Existing Buildings, and

Design of Marine Concrete Structures. All 318 members are invited to

convention (November 6 & 7, 2015).

5. Code cycle information

a. ICC schedule and ACI 318 cycle

version of the code.

each members name attached and the votes will be tallied

electronically this way.

i. Chair Moehle updated the committee on how the 318.2 Shells

document will be maintained going forward. Subcommittee D will

be responsible for maintenance and suggestions from ACI 334 will

i. Zeisler presented on ballot comment best practices to the

committee members. If the committee members follow the best

practices shown and discussed, it should alleviate some of the

will be a short reminder of the discussion in this meeting.

file should be used by all of the subcommittees going forward so

that there is a consistent comment form for members to use

throughout the 318 process. A pdf of this adjusted form is attached

the web-ballot page.

work with the Subcommittee chairs and Chair Moehle to create a

form for this.

a. Minimum thickness tables

i. Poston presented on the minimum thickness tables in the code and

what some options might be if the committee wishes to change the

code in this area. Presentation appended to these meeting

minimum thickness tables in the code.

iii. The subcommittees will coordinate their efforts moving forward.

b. Material-based phi factors vs PM diagram fix

i. Frosch presented a discussion for adjusting the phi factors to

create a PM diagram that doesnt have the transition zone bump.

ii. Kelly showed further discussions of this issue in his Subcommittee

c. Shear provisions review

i. Sanders presented a discussion and plan for the joint effort

E to examine alternatives for the existing 318 equations for one-

d. Load factors in ACI 318

i. Browning presented a discussion regarding the possible removal of

commentary appropriate? The vote count was: 33 Affirmative, 4

Negative, 1 Abstention, and 2 Non-responsive.

i. Kelly presented on several items that Subcommittee R are looking

at with regard to high-strength reinforcement in the Code.

8. Reports from Subcommittee Chairs

vi. Meeting minutes from Subcommittee B are attached below.

i. Deep foundation requirements are being worked on. This item is

indicated they are being used in their country.

10. New Business

11. 318 ballot schedule

a. LB15-1 items due 15 June 2015

b. LB15-2 items due 14 September 2015

12. Subcommittee meetings

a. Moehle suggested to the Subcommittee chairs that now that we have

GoToMeeting instead of a GoToWebinar, please contact staff for help in

meeting of a task group or other working sub-section of the Subcommittee.