Welcome, A2MYPROFILE (@jLoGouT @ HELP Comment Overview Draft Details AS 3600 - Concrete structures Committee Comment Period Open Date Comment Period Close Date Status 80-002 Conerete Structures 4103/2018 25/04/2018 Comment period resolved Download and review the PDF version, available here: Download Draft [Showing 1 to 23 of 23 entries Search Section Comment Type Sup.dec Method — Status a Clause Technical No Upload Accepted with 13.22 modification Comment Minimum lap length in Eq 13.2.2 is 29*db*k1 is now inconsistent with Eq 13.1.22 Proposed Chango: Amend Eq 13.2.2 to 0.058"sy"k1"ab. Supporting Documents:Section Word Document: ‘Comment: Clause 8.6.3 Proposed Change: ‘Supporting Documents: Word Document: ‘Comment: Clause 8.4.4 Proposed Change: ‘Supporting Documents: Word Document: ‘Comment: Clause 8.4.3 Comment Type Sup.dec Method — Status Foownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload Accepted modification In clause 8.6.3 no reference is made to crack size that limiting the stress increment in the reinforcement to the values in Table 8.6.3 would provide, Recommended to clarify the crack width that stress increments would limit to (believed to be in order of 0.3mm) to be consistent with Cl 8.6.2.2. Aownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload modification Additional clarification recommended to be added clarifying whether this applies in longitudinal direction of beam/slab and/or transverse direction. Often for the flanges of wide beams, while the spacing is satisfied in the longitudinal direction this is not in the transverse direction. Is it required to provide sufficiently well-spaced reinforcement in both directions ie. Well distributed in both directions? Provide additional clarification to clause. Foownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload Accepted with Based on much of studies on longitudinal shear, the coefficients are fairly conservative. This is particularly for monolithic shear planes which only given as marginally better than roughened surfaces. The source of this is unknown as source codes of Fib and Eurocode do not specifically include monolithic shear planes. Particularly many existing structures,Section Proposed Change: ‘Supporting Documents: Word Document: Clause 8.4.3 ‘Comment: Proposed Change: ‘Supporting Documents: Word Document: Comment Type Sup.dec Method — Status have been shown deficient in this where limited shear reinforcement in provided; yet show no signs of distress. The paper by Patnaik “Suggested revisions to Australian Standards (AS3600) requirements on design for longitudinal shear in concrete beams” notes that the results as being overly conservative, AASHTO LRED gives significantly higher results for monolithic shear planes. Increase shear plane coefficients, particularly for monolithic shear planes. Poownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload Accepted with ‘The approach in AS3600-2018for longitudinal shear utilises the “shear friction” model, consistent with AS3600-2009 where the source codes Include fib Mode! Code 1990 (MC190) and Eurocode 2. Fib MC2010 Cl 7.3.3.6 has more recently updated this approach to include the “extended shear friction” theory. This approach assumes that the contribution from the reinforcement is primarily from dowel action and rot from the frictional clamping force from the tensile development of the reinforcement. Itis also takes the approach that when cohesion is Ultilsed, then the contribution from reinforcement is taken as zero. If cohesion resistance is exceeded, then only aggregate interlock should be relied upon, Based on this, the approach is potentially un- conservative, This method is the latest approach currently being adopted, and rectifies, ‘some of the un-conservative assumptions of previous theories. ‘The dowel action model also provides a more rational method for strengthening existing structures, as full development of new retrofitted reinforcing bars is often difficult (if not impossible) and short anchor lengths are required Adopt latest Fib MC2010 extended shear friction theory. Poownload Original Word DocumentSection Clause 8.2.7 8 ‘Comment: Proposed Change: ‘Supporting Documents: Word Document: Clause 8283 ‘Comment: Proposed Change: ‘Supporting Documents: Word Document: Clause 8.2.7 Comment Type Sup.dec Method — Status Technical No Upload Accepted with modification In clause 8.2.7(b), to avoid confusion this should be noted as shear without torsion and or cellular sections with torsion, V" should then be \Véeq. This is given Cl 8.2.7(a) is only relevant for solid sections. There should be no square root on this formula too in equation 8.2.7, 1(2) and the cotev should be removed from under the square root in eq 8.2.7.1 (. Introduce V*eq terminology in equations for cellular sections. Remove square root equation 8.2.7.1(2) and the cotev should be removed from under the square root in eq 8.2.7.1(1) Pbownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload Accepted modification In clause 8.2.7, Vus is now reduced by a capacity reduction factor. Given this component of shear induced longitudinal tension will be again factored as per equation 8.2.8.3(2) this will “double count” the factor. ‘This is consistent with AS5100.5-2017/CSA/AASHTO codes. It is noted that removing the factor would result in potentially conservative or conservative results when using the bending capacity reduction factors, as per Table 2.2.2(a}(b)(c). Recommend to adopt approach consistent with AASHTO LRFD (CI 5.8.3.5) with application of reduction factors for bending, axial and shear components respectively. Poownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload Accepted withSection ‘Comment: Proposed Change: ‘Supporting Documents: Word Document: Clause 8.2.7 ‘Comment: Proposed Change: Supporting Documents: Word Document: Clause 8.24.23 ‘Comment: Proposed Change: Comment Type Sup.dec Method — Status In clause 8.2.7, Vus Is now reduced by a capacity reduction factor. Given this component of shear induced longitudinal tension will be again factored as per equation 8.2.8.2(2) this will “double count” the factor. This is consistent with ASS100.5-2017/CSA/AASHTO codes. It is noted that removing the factor would result in potentially conservative or conservative results when using the bending capacity reduction factors as per Table 2.2.2(a}(b)(c), Recommend to adopt approach consistent with AASHTO LRFD (CI 5.8.3.5) with application of reduction factors for bending, axial and shear components respectively, Poownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload Accepted In clause 8.2.7, an additional partial safety factor has been provided to the vertical component of prestress. This is inconsistent with the equations in Cl 8.2.9.3, C1.8.2.4.2.2 and Cl 8.2.4.2.3. Given this is already factored by the main capacity reduction factor (0.75 or 0.7) it appears unnecessary. It is recommended to remove partial safety factors on prestress, Foownioad Original Word Document Technical No Upload —_—ReJected The minimum moment is only applicable for application of the simplified equations which assume the strain in the top half of the beam is zero, This need not apply to all more detailed analysis. Refer Canadian code commentary CANICSA-S6-06 C8.9.3.8 (a)) for more details It is recommended to clarify that if more detailed strain calculations are undertaken, then the minimum moment need not apply.Section ‘Supporting Documents: Word Document: 8 Clause 8.2.4.2.2 ‘Comment: Proposed Change: ‘Supporting Documents: Word Document: Clause 8.2.4.2.2 ‘Comment: Proposed Change: ‘Supporting Documents: Word Document: 8 Clause 8.24.21 ‘Comment: Comment Type Sup.dec Method — Status @ownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload —_—Rejected ‘The minimum moment is only applicable for application of the simplified equations which assume the strain in the top half of the beam is zero, This need not apply to all more detailed analysis. Refer Canadian code commentary CANICSA-S6-06 C8.9.3.8 (a)) for more details Iis recommended to clarify that if more detailed strain calculations are undertaken, then the minimum moment need not apply. Poownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload Accepted Missing information on how to undertake more detailed strain calculations considering both sides of the section, not just the tensile side. Iis recommended to provide additional guidance in an appendix of more detailed method for strain calculations as included in CAN/CSA- 86-06 and AASHTO LRFD such as in Canadian code commentary CANICSA-S6-06 C8.9.3.8 Figure CB.11 or provide relevant reference. FPownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload —RejectedSection Proposed Change: Supporting Documents: Word Document: 8 Clause 8.2.4.2.1 ‘Comment: Proposed Change: ‘Supporting Documents: Word Document: a Clause 8.2.3.4 ‘Comment: Proposed Change: Supporting Documents: Word Document: Comment Type Sup.dec Method — Status Missing guidance on crack spacing parameter where here minimum shear steel is not provided but side face reinforcement is consistent with CANICSA-S6-06 and AASHTO LRFO. Recommended to add further guidance on reduced crack spacing parameter where minimum shear steel is not provided but side face reinforcement is greater than As>0.003bv x bar spacing as per CANICSA-S6-06. This can be advantageous for assessing existing structures not complying with current minimum shear reinforcement requirements. Poownload Original Word Document Editorial No Upload Accepted as submitted In C18.2.4.2.1 (b), the equality sign is incorrect. Change sign to be reversed and made greater than or equal (Asvis >= Asvmin/s). Poownload Original Word Document Editoriat No Upload Accepted as submitted ‘The square root sign is in equation 8.2.3.4(3) is missing part of the equation, Correct error. oownload Original Word DocumentSection ciause a 8.234 ‘Comment: Proposed Change: Supporting Documents: Word Document: ciauso a 8.234 ‘Comment: Proposed Change: Supporting Documents: Word Document: 8 Clause 7.3.1 ‘Comment: Comment Type Sup.dec Method — Status Technical No Upload Accepted with C1 8.2.3.4 for web crushing under combined shear and torsion has now been revised in the latest draft to have the stress limits consistent with C18.2.3.3. However, the revised formula now “double counts" the Pv component of prastress as this is already included beneficially in Cl 8.2.3.3. ‘The Pv should therefore be removed from the left hand side of the equation to avoid this. Having Pv on the left hand side of the equation also means that itis not subject to the capacity reduction factor. Poownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload —_—Rejected ‘There are now two checks for web crushing, one noted for shear, the other noted for combined shear and torsion. Given torsional moments are now converted to equivalent shear as per Cl 8.2.1.2 (V*eq), this is essentially two design checks for the same failure mechanism. This inconsistent with all other international codes. Given the potentially more conservative web crushing results given in Cl 8.2.34 formulas (consistent with ACI and CSA), suggested to combine into one clause. Fownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload —_—RejectedSection Proposed Change: Supporting Documents: Word Document: ciavse a 3.3.43 ‘Comment: Proposed Change: ‘Supporting Documents: Word Document: Clause 3183 ‘Comment: Comment Type Sup.dec Method — Status Clause 7.3.1 requires that the reinforcementitendons be evenly distributed across the nodal zone. In elements like pile caps, this can make placement of reinforcement very difficult require large bars sizes, BS8110 allows reinforcement to considered in the tie up to 1.5 x pile diameters each side of the pile. BS5400 changed this to 80% of the total tension te over the pile head, however this was based on limited research and is viewed as conservative. Research has shown, neither reinforcement located directly over the pile nor evenly distributing fully across the pile cap gives the best Performance. A combination of the two has been found to provide the greatest structural capacity. At present, this clause would deceptively encourage designers to use strong bands of large bars over pile heads but only require minimal reinforcement in between. Provide additional guidance on elements such as pile caps for allowable width that reinforcement can be considered effective. Recommended to adopt BS8110 unless other suitable method known, APoownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload —_—Rejected Additional guidance required in Cl 3.3.4.3 for determination of tendon relaxation losses for curing at elevated temperature rather than just noting as an issue to ensure consistency of approach across industry. Could reference AS5100.5-2017 Cl 3.3.4.4 or potentially reference to detailed method given in Eurocode 2. Poownioad Original Word Document Technical No Upload Rejected There tends to bo some recent confusion in industry over tho application of the k3 creep factor in Cl 3,1.8,3 for members that have undergone accelerated steam curing such as pre-tensioned beams where the ageSection Proposed Change: ‘Supporting Documents: Word Document: ‘Comment: Clause 2.2.4 Proposed Change: Supporting Documents: Word Document: 8 ‘Comment: Clause 2.2.3 Comment Type Sup.dec Method — Status at time of loading (transfer) can be as little as 24hrs, yet the beam has achieved approximately 80% of its 28 day strength. Applying the literal interpretation of 1 day for this scenario would result in excessively large hog predictions not consistent with measurements. Potentially this should be clarified as the beams effective age if subject to normal curing unless more suitable method is available. This approach appears to provide similar results to the older chart in ‘AS3600-2009 Fig 3.1.8.3(B). Poownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload —_—ReJected In Table 2.2.4 for axial and bending capacity reduction factors, only Class N or Class L reduction factors have been provided. It is suggested that the table needs to clarify what factor is used for “other” reinforcement for grades such as Y (400MPa), structural grade (230MPa) etc. which are not low ductility or class N (SOOMPa). This is critical for assessments of existing structures where it maybe more reasonable to use reduction factor of 0.8 for bending rather than 0.85 or 0.65. Otherwise further clarification is required if the new increased 0.85 could be used given this increase has been based on quality control improvements in the construction industry. Provide capacity reduction factors for sections consisting of other than class N or L reinforcement, Poownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload —_—Rejected In Table 2.2.3 for axial and bending capacity reduction factors, only Class N or Class L reduction factors have been provided. It is suggested that the table needs to clarify what factor is used for “other” reinforcement for grades such as Y (400MPa), structural gradeSection Proposed Change: ‘Supporting Documents: Word Document: Clause 2.2.2 ‘Comment: Proposed Change: Supporting Documents: Word Document: Comment Type Sup.dec Method — Status (230MPa) etc. which are not low ductility or class N (S0OMPa). This is critical for assessments of existing structures where it maybe more reasonable to use reduction factor of 0.8 for bending rather than 0.86 or 0.65. Otherwise further clarification is required if the new increased 0.85 could be used given this increase has been based on quality control Improvements in the construction industry. Provide capacity reduction factors for sections consisting of other than class Nor L reinforcement, Poownload Original Word Document Technical No Upload —_—ReJected In Table 2.2.2 for axial and bending capacity reduction factors, only Class N or Class L reduction factors have been provided. It is suggested that the table needs to clarify what factor is used for “other” reinforcement for grades such as Y (400MPa), structural grade (230MPa) etc. which are not low ductility or class N (SOOMPa). This is critical for assessments of existing structures where it maybe more reasonable to use reduction factor of 0.8 for bending rather than 0.85 or 0.65. Otherwise further clarification is required if the new increased 0.85 could be used given this increase has been based on quality control improvements in the construction industry. Provide capacity reduction factors for sections consisting of other than class N or L reinforcement, Poownload Original Word Document Copyright © 2018 Standards Australia