ACI 349R-97: Reported by ACI Committee 349

ACI 349R-97
Commentary on Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related

Concrete Structures (ACI 349-97)
Reported by ACI Committee 349
Charles A. Zalesiak
Chairman
Hans G. Ashar Gunnar A. Harstead Richard S. Orr

Ranjit Bandyopadhyay Christopher Heinz Robert B. Pan
Ronald A. Cook Charles J. Hookham †
Julius V. Rotz
Jack M. Daly John C. Hughes John P. Russ
Fadi M. Diya Richard E. Klingner Robert W. Talmadge
Arobindo Dutt Sandra L. Lee Chen P. Tan
Branko Galunic Timothy J. Lynch Richard E. Toland
Dwaine A. Godfrey Frederick L. Moreadith Donald T. Ward
Herman L. Graves III Dragos A. Nuta Albert Y. C. Wong
† Deceased
The content of this commentary is the responsibility of the

committee which prepared it. Institute authority attaches
only to standards adopted as provided in the Bylaws.
This commentary discusses some of the considerations of ACI Committee tion; columns (supports); combined stress; composite construction (con-
349 in developing “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete crete and steel); composite construction (concrete to concrete);
Structures (ACI 349-97).” This information is provided in the commentary compressive strength; concrete construction; concretes; concrete slabs;
because the Code is written as a legal document and cannot therefore construction joints; continuity (structural); cover; curing; deep beams;
present background details or suggestions for carrying out its require- deflection; earthqua ke resistant structures; edge beams; embedded service
ments. ducts; fl exural strength; floors; folded plates; footings; formwork (con-
struction); frames; hot weather construction; inspection; joists; loads
ACI 349-97 is based on “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Con- (forces); load tests (structural); mixing; mix proportioning; modulus of
crete (ACI 318-89)(Revised 1992),” except for Chapter 12, which is based elasticity; moments; nuclear power plants; nuclear reactor containment;
on ACI 318-95. This commentary provides discussion of those requirements pipe columns; pipes (tubes); placing; precast concrete; prestressed con-
in ACI 349 that differ from those of ACI 318. crete; prestressing steels; quality control; reinforced concrete; reinforcing
steels; roofs; safety; serviceability; shear strength; shearwalls; shells (struc-
tural forms); spans; speci fications; splicing; stability standards; strength;
Keywords: admixtures; aggregates; anchorage (structural); beam-column
stresses; structural analysis; structural design; T-beams; temperature; ten-
frame; beams (supports); building codes; cements; cold weather construc-
sile strength; torsion; walls; water; welded wire fabric.
ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and Commen- CONTENTS

taries are intended for guidance in planning, designing, executing,
and inspec ting cons truction. This document is intended for Introduction, p. 349R-3
use of individuals who are competent to evaluate the signifi-
cance and limitations of its content and recommendation Chapter 1—General Requirements, p. 349R-3
who will accept responsibility for the application of the material 1.1—Scope
it contains. The American Concrete Institute disclaims any and all 1.2—Drawings, specifications, and calculations
responsibility for the stated principles. The Institute shall not be lia- 1.3—Inspection and record keeping
ble for any loss or damage arising therefrom.
Reference to this document shall not be made in contract docu- ACI 349R-97 supersedes ACI 349R-90 and became e ffect ive April 11, 1997.
ments. If items found in this document are desired by the Archi- Copyrigh t  1998, American Concrete Institute.
All rights reser ved including rights of reproduction and use in a ny form or by a ny
tect/Engineer to be a part of the contract documents, they shall be means, including the making of copies by a ny photo process, or by electronic or
restated in mandatory language for incorporation by the Architect/ mechanical d evice, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduc-
tion or for use in a ny knowledge or retri eval system or d evice, unless permission in
Engineer. writing is obtained from the co pyright proprietors.
349R-1
349R-2 MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE
1.4—Approval of special systems of design or Chapter 10—Flexure and Axial Loads, p. 349R-12
construction 10.6—Distribution of flexural reinforcement in beams
1.5—Quality assurance program and one-way slabs
Chapter 2—Definitions, p. 349R-3 Chapter 11—Shear and Torsion, p. 349R-12

11.11—Special provisions for slabs and footings
Chapter 3—Materials, p. 349R-4
3.1—Tests of materials Chapter 12—Development of Reinforcement, p.
3.2—Cements 349R-13
3.3—Aggregates 12.6—Mechanical anchorage
3.4—Water 12.15—Splices of reinforcement: General
3.5—Metal reinforcement 12.16—Splices of deformed bars and deformed wire in
3.6—Admixtures tension
3.7—Storage and identification of materials
Chapters 13 through 17, p. 349R-13
Chapter 4—Durability Requirements, p. 349R-5 Chapter 18—Prestressed Concrete, p. 349R-13
4.1—Water-cementitious materials ratio
4.2—Freezing and thawing exposures Chapter 19—Shells, p. 349R-13
4.3—Sulphate exposures 19.1—Scope and definitions
4.4—Corrosion of reinforcement 19.2—General
19.4—Section design and reinforcement requirements
Chapter 5—Concrete Quality, Mixing, and Placing,
p. 349R-6 Chapter 20—Strength Evaluation of Existing
5.0—Notation Structures, p. 349R-14
5.1—General 20.1—Strength evaluation: General
5.4—Proportioning by water-cementitious materials ratio 20.2—Analytical investigations
5.6—Evaluation and acceptance of concrete 20.3—Load tests
5.7—Preparation of equipment and place of deposit 20.4—Load tests of flexural members
5.9—Conveying 20.5—Members other than flexural members
5.10—Depositing
5.11—Curing Chapter 21—Special Provisions for Seismic
5.12—Cold weather requirements Design, p. 349R-15
5.13—Hot weather requirements 21.2—General requirements
21.3—Flexural members of frames
Chapter 6—Formwork, Embedded Pipes, and 21.6—Structural walls, diaphragms and trusses
Construction Joints, p. 349R-9
6.1—Design of formwork APPENDICES
6.3—Conduits and pipes embedded in concrete
6.4—Construction joints Appendix A—Thermal Considerations, p. 349R-16
A.1—Scope
Chapter 7—Details of Reinforcement, p. 349R-9 A.2—Definitions
7.4—Surface conditions of reinforcement A.3—General design requirements
7.12—Minimum reinforcement A.4—Concrete temperatures
Chapter 8—Analysis and Design: General Appendix B—Steel Embedments, p. 349R-17

Considerations, p. 349R-10 B.1—Scope
8.0—General B.2—Definitions
8.1—Design methods B.3—General requirements and loading combinations
8.2—Loading B.4—Design requirements for concrete
8.3—Method of analysis B.5—Anchorage requirements
8.5—Modulus of elasticity B.6—Design requirements for embedment steel
8.6—Stiffness B.7—Expansion anchors
8.11—Joist construction B.8—Inserts
B.9—Grouted embedments
Chapter 9—Strength and Serviceability B.10—Fabrication and installation
Requirements, p. 349R-10
9.0—Notation Appendix C—Special Provisions for Impulsive and
9.1—General Impactive Effects, p. 349R-28
9.2—Required strength C.1—Scope
9.4—Design strengths for reinforcement C.2—Dynamic strength increase
9.5—Control of deflections C.3—Deformation
NUCLEAR SAFETY STRUCTURES COMMENTARY 349R-3
C.4—Requirements to assure ductility lations, but does not preclude him from assigning the
C.5—Shear capacity function of detailed implementation to others.
C.6—Impulsive effects
C.7—Impactive effects R1.3—Inspection and record keeping
C.8—Impactive and impulsive loads This Code requires that the Owner be responsible for in-
spection but does not explicitly preclude him from assigning
INTRODUCTION the function of detailed implementation to others.
This commentary discusses some of the considerations of Inspection personnel should be qualified by the Owner.
Committee 349 in developing the provisions contained in ANSI/ASME NQA-11.1 or ACI 359 Appendix VII may be
“Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete used to qualify inspectors.
Structures (ACI 349-97)” hereinafter called the Code. The Code Requirements for the retention of inspection records
is based on “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Con- should follow ANSI/ASME NQA-1.1.1
crete (ACI 318-89)(Revised 1992)” which is hereinafter re-
ferred to as the Building Code. This commentary discusses R1.4—Approval of special systems of design or
provisions in the Code which differ from the Building Code. In construction
New methods of design, new materials, and new uses of
preparing ACI 349-97 the committee has followed the text of
materials must undergo a period of development before be-
the Building Code wherever appropriate.
ing specifically covered in a code. Hence, good systems or
In the following commentary, all references to the Building
components might be excluded from use by implication if
Code and its commentary are to the 1989 (Revised 1992) edi-
means were not available to obtain acceptance. This section
tion unless specifically noted otherwise.
permits proponents to submit data substantiating the adequa-
cy of their system or component to the Regulatory Authority,
Chapter 1—General Requirements
The commentary on ACI 318 is applicable to this chapter which presently is the United States Nuclear Regulatory
except as described below: Commission (USNRC) in the United States.
R1.1—Scope R1.5—Quality assurance program

The American Concrete Institute “Code Requirements for Title 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, requires that the Owner
Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-97),” have a quality assurance program approved by the Regulato-
referred to as “the Code,” provides minimum requirements ry Authority and states that the Owner is responsible for the
for reinforced concrete design or construction in applications establishment and execution of programs developed by his
where protection against potential radioactive releases is a engineers, construction contractors, and suppliers. More de-
concern. The scope of the Code has historically addressed tailed requirements for development and implementation of
new construction; however, this scope has recently been ex- a quality assurance program are contained in ANSI/ASME
tended to providing recommendations for the analysis, de- NQA-11.1 and ANSI/ASME NQA-2.1.2
sign, construction, testing, and evaluation of new and
existing concrete nuclear structures. While the requirements References
1.1. American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and American Soci-
of this Code pertain primarily to new concrete structures, ety of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), “Quality Assurance Requirements
corresponding recommendations for the evaluation of exist- for Nuclear Facilities,” NQA-1, 1989.
ing concrete nuclear structures are provided in ACI 349.3R- 1.2 ANSI/ASME, “Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility
Applications,” NQA-2, 1989.
96.1.3 1.3 ACI Committee 349, “Evaluation of Existing Nuclear safety related
The Owner is to identify nuclear safety related structures Concrete Structures” (ACI 349.3R-96).
and establish which of them are covered by “Code for Con-
crete Reactor Vessels and Containments (ACI 359)” and its Chapter 2—Definitions
latest revisions in lieu of this Code. Definitions in this Code are the same as those in the Build-
Some special structures involve unique problems which ing Code (ACI 318) except for a few which are added or
are not covered by the Code. However, many Code provi- modified to meet the structures and materials concerned in
sions, such as the concrete quality and design principles, are this Code.
applicable for these special structures. The definitions that differ from or are not listed in ACI 318 are:
Anchorage
R1.2—Drawings, specifications, and calculations Cementitious material
Guidelines for the preparation and retention of design doc- Creep
uments are covered by ANSI/ASME NQA-1.1.1 Any docu- Embedment
mentation that uniquely reflects the as-built condition of the Engineer
concrete nuclear structure should be considered for reten- Evaluation
tion, as a permanent record for the life of the structure. Effective prestress
Drawings and specifications should be prepared under the Load, dead
direction of a licensed (or registered) engineer competent in Load, live
the field of design of concrete structures, who is required to Load, sustained
sign these documents signifying his approval. This Code re- Massive concrete
quires that the Owner be responsible for drawings and calcu- Operating basis earthquake (OBE)
Operating basis wind R3.5—Metal reinforcement

Owner R3.5.3 Zinc used in the galvanizing process may negatively
Regulatory Authority react with alkaline materials commonly found in concrete. In
Safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) addition, potential galvanic corrosion with other embedded
Shrinkage metals, as well as hydrogen generation and potential for hydro-
Stress relaxation gen embrittlement suggest that such coatings may be detrimen-
Tendon tal. Research conducted by Sergi3.2 concluded that zinc
coatings provide little value in providing long-term protection
Unbonded tendons
of reinforcing steel, and cautionary statements in ACI Report
Wall
201.2R-923.3 support this position. These industry concerns
In the definition of the term “Engineer,” the phrase “other have prompted the ACI Committee 349 to prohibit use of zinc
documents” is used. “Other documents” include quality as- coatings on reinforcing steel in nuclear safety related structures
surance plans, design guidelines, and other similar docu- until adequate data justifying its use can be reviewed.
ments for which the Engineer is responsible.
R3.5.3.1 and R3.5.4.1 Use of rail and axle steel rein-
forcing bars is excluded because of inadequate traceability.
Chapter 3—Materials
The commentary on ACI 318 is applicable to this chapter ASTM A 615 covers deformed billet-steel reinforcing
except as described below: bars which are normally used in the United States.
ASTM A 706 covers low-alloy steel deformed bars in-
R3.1—Tests of materials tended for special applications where welding or bending, or
R3.1.3 The Owner shall designate the period of retention both, are of importance.
for all records of tests of materials and of concrete used in R3.5.3.2 Testing requirements for reinforcing steel are
concrete nuclear structures. Typically, any documentation given to conform to regulatory guides. A minimum of one
that uniquely describes tests of materials and of concrete tensile test for each 50 tons of each bar size produced from
used in concrete nuclear structures should be retained for the each heat of steel shall be used, whichever governs.
life of the plant. R3.5.3.3, R3.5.3.5, R3.5.3.6, R3.5.3.7, and R3.5.4.2
To limit the sizes of cracks in the relatively massive concrete
R3.2—Cements sections, design yield strengths are limited to a maximum of
R3.2.3 The requirement for receipt of certified 7-day mill 60,000 psi for deformed bar reinforcement. For further com-
test materials reports in advance of use is imposed to inform ments on the 60,000 psi reinforcement limit, refer to R.9.4.
the materials engineer of changes in cement strength to pro- For further comments on the design yield strength limitation,
vide guidance in altering concrete mixes when significant refer to R9.4.
changes in strength occur. Such alterations can both achieve
R3.5.3.8 Current industry studies have not quantified
increased assurance against low strengths and reduce the
the long-term durability of epoxy coatings in areas of elevat-
standard deviation of strengths, providing a means of opti-
ed temperature and irradiation. Degradation of the epoxy
mizing the cement contents and reducing the heat of hydra-
coating, under certain environmental conditions, may ad-
tion effects in these relatively massive structures.
versely affect reinforcing steel performance and anchorage,
resulting in splitting effects. Adequate performance of the
R3.3—Aggregates epoxy-coated reinforcement and concrete should be demon-
R3.3.1 The reference to lightweight aggregates has been de-
strated for the particular environmental application before
leted. The minimum thickness of most concrete members in
selecting epoxy-coated reinforcement.
nuclear plant construction is based on shielding requirements
which are dependent on the density of the concrete. Light-
weight aggregates would require larger minimum thicknesses R3.6—Admixtures
since the sizing of columns, spacing of walls, etc., is usually R3.6.7 For quality assurance, all admixtures should be ful-
controlled by live load, seismic, or shielding requirements and ly tested and verified to be in compliance with the referenced
not floor dead loads. There appears to be no advantage in us- ASTM test methods prior to use.
ing lightweight aggregates in nuclear structures.
R3.3.3 Minimum testing requirements are specified to as- R3.7—Storage and identification of materials
sure aggregate quality. R3.7.1 Expanded emphasis on the protection and trace-
R3.3.3.3 Anytime there is a basic change in aggregate ability of materials in storage is given to assure that the prop-
source, the aggregate should be tested to determine suitabil- er materials are used and to minimize deterioration of these
ity for use. Retests for soundness (ASTM C 88), abrasion re- materials during storage.
sistance (ASTM C 131), and potential reactivity (ASTM C Material Test Reports (MTR) provided for concrete material,
289) are required since they are not included in the routine reinforcing system material, prestressing system material, and
testing of aggregates. welding and brazing material, should include the following:
(a) Certified reports of the actual results of all required chem-
R3.4—Water ical analyses, physical tests, mechanical tests, examinations (in-
Guidance for water quality may be obtained from Sub- cluding radiographic film), repairs, and heat treatments
paragraph CC-2223 of ACI 359-92. (including times and temperatures) performed on the material.
(b) A statement listing any chemical analyses, tests, exam- rials ratio provide additional assurance that a high quality ce-
inations, and heat treatment required by the material specifi- ment paste will be obtained.
cation, which were not performed. Table 4.2.2 and Code Section 4.2.3 establish limitations
(c) A statement giving the manner in which the material is on the amount of fly ash and other pozzolans that can be in-
identified, including a specific marking. cluded in the calculation of water-cementitious materials ra-
R3.7.2 Concrete materials should be handled and stored in tios for concrete exposed to deicing chemicals. 4.4-4.6 Recent
accordance with Chapter 2 of ACI 304R3.1 research has demonstrated that the use of fly ash and silica
R3.7.4 To prevent detrimental corrosion, prestressing systems fume produce concrete with a finer pore structure and, there-
should normally be stored in a completely enclosed building. fore, lower permeability.4.7-4.9 For concretes exposed to de-
icing salts, the inclusion of maximum percentages of fly ash
References in the calculation of water-cementitious materials ratio is
3.1. ACI Committee 304, Guide for Measuring, Mixing, Transporting,
considered preferable to inclusion of minimum cement con-
and Placing Concrete, (ACI 304R-89), American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1989, 49 pp. Also, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice. tent required by the code.
3.2. Sergi, G.; Short, N.; and Page, C., “Corrosion of Galvanized and R4.2.3 The limitations of this section apply only to con-
Galvannealed Steel in Solutions of pH 9.0 to 14.0,” National Association crete exposed to deicing chemicals and are intended to pro-
of Corrosion Engineers, November, 1985.
3.3. ACI Committee 201, “Guide to Durable Concrete,” ACI Materials
vide protection against deicer scaling in the presence of
Journal, Vol. 88, No. 5, September-October 1991, pp. 544-582. Also, ACI freezing and thawing.
Manual of Concrete Practice. This section is also intended to prevent the use of more
than 25 percent of either fly ash and other pozzolan whether
Chapter 4—Durability Requirements the fly ash and other pozzolan is batched as a separate mate-
The commentary on ACI 318-92 is applicable to this chap- rial or is included in a blended cement. Under ASTM C 595,
ter. All references to lightweight aggregate concrete have Type 1P cement may contain up to 40 percent fly ash or other
been deleted. pozzolans; however, such cements rarely contain more than
25 percent.
R4.1—Water-cementitious materials ratio
ACI 349, Section 4.1.1, does not match ACI 318-89 (Re-
vised 1992) or ACI 318-95. A future code revision will con- R4.3—Sulfate exposures
sider any approved changes to ACI 318-89 (Revised 1992). The commentary for this section on ACI 318 is applicable
to this section. All references to lightweight aggregate con-
In 4.2 on freezing and thawing exposures, the quantity of
crete have been deleted.
fly ash and other pozzolans used in calculation of the water-
cementitious materials ratio is subject to the percentage lim-
its in 4.2.3. Further, in 4.3 for sulfate exposures, the pozzolan R4.4—Corrosion protection of reinforcement
should be Class F by ASTM C 618,4.1 or have been tested by Additional information on the effects of chlorides on the
ASTM 10124.2 or determined by service record to improve corrosion of reinforcing steel is given in “Guide to Durable
sulfate resistance. Ground granulated blast-furnace slag is Concrete” reported by ACI Committee 2014.10 and “Corro-
not allowed as a cementitious material under this code. sion of Metals in Concrete” reported by ACI Committee
222.4.11 Test procedures must conform to those given in
R4.2—Freezing and thawing exposures ASTM C 1218. The FHWA test referenced4.15 is also appli-
R4.2.1 A table of required air contents for frost-resistant cable for determining chloride ion content in concrete. An
concrete is included in the code, based on “Standard Practice initial evaluation may be obtained by testing individual con-
for Selecting Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and crete ingredients for total chloride ion content. If total chlo-
Mass Concrete” (ACI 211.1).4.3 Values are provided for ride ion content, calculated on the basis of concrete
both severe and moderate exposures depending on the expo- proportions, exceeds those permitted in Table 4.4.1, it may
sure to moisture or deicing salts. Entrained air will not probe necessary to test samples of the hardened concrete for wa-
tect concrete containing coarse aggregates that undergo ter soluble chloride ion content described in the guide. Some
disruptive volume changes when frozen in a saturated condi- of the total chloride ions present in the ingredients will either
tion. In Table 4.2.1, a “severe exposure” is where the con- be insoluble or will react with the cement during hydration
crete in a cold climate may be in almost continuous contact and become insoluble under the test procedures described.
with moisture prior to freezing, or where deicing salts are When concretes are tested for soluble chloride ion content
used. A moderate exposure is where the concrete in a cold the tests should be made at an age of 28 to 42 days. The limits
climate will be only occasionally exposed to moisture prior in Table 4.4.1 are to be applied to chlorides contributed from
to freezing, and where no deicing salts are used. Section the concrete ingredients, not those from the environment sur-
4.2.1 permits 1 percent lower air content for concrete with f' c rounding the concrete.
greater than 5000 psi. Such high-strength concretes will have The chloride ion limits in Table 4.4.1 differ from those
lower water-cementitious materials ratio and porosity, and recommended in ACI 318, ACI 201.2R and ACI 222R. The
therefore, improved frost resistance. References to light- limits for reinforced and prestressed concrete of 0.06 and
weight aggregates, lightweight concrete, and slag have been 0.15 percent, respectively, represent the lowest value pre-
omitted from this code and commentary discussions. sented in these documents. For simplicity and to reflect the
R4.2.2 For normal weight aggregate concrete, use of both more critical nature of safety related structures, more restric-
minimum strength and maximum water-cementitious mate- tive limits have been adopted by the committee.
R4.4.2 When concretes are exposed to external sources of R5.0—Notation

chlorides the water-cementitious materials ratio and speci- The splitting tensile strength requirements have been elim-
fied compressive strength f'c of 4.2.2 are the minimum re- inated since they only apply to lightweight aggregates,
quirements that must be considered. The designer should which also have been eliminated.
evaluate conditions in structures where chlorides may be ap-
plied or in structures near seawater. Epoxy-coated bars or R5.1—General
cover greater than the minimum required in 7.7 may be de- R5.1.3 Concrete members 24 in. or more thick will retain
sirable. Use of fly ash meeting ASTM C 618 and increased sufficient moisture throughout the first 12 months to assure
levels of specified strength provide increased protection. Sil- continuous curing and hydration of the major portion of the
ica fume, conforming to ASTM C 1240, when combined cross section. These large members rarely receive full ser-
with an appropriate high-range water reducer (ASTM C 494, vice loads for many months and, therefore, the test age des-
Types F and G, or ASTM C 1017), can also provide addition- ignated for the determination of compliance with the
al protection.4.13 Performance tests for chloride permeability specified strength may be later than the usual 28 days. The
by AASHTO T 2774.14 or ASTM C 1202 of concrete mix- use of such later age strength requirements may permit the
tures prior to use will also provide additional assurance. use of a lower cement content and, therefore, help limit or
control temperature rise due to hydration and the danger of
References cracking which may occur as these large members cool to
4.1. Dikeou, J. T., “Fly Ash Increases Resistance of Concrete to Sulfate ambient temperature levels. The need to control early tem-
Attack,” Research Report No. C-1224, Concrete and Structures Branch, perature rise increases in proportion to the minimum thick-
Division of Research, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Jan. 1967, 25 pp. ness of the section.
4.2. ASTM C 1012-89, “Test Method for Length Change of Hydraulic- R5.1.4 Splitting tensile strength tests are associated with
Cement Mortars Exposed to a Sulfate Solution,” ASTM Book of Standards,
Part 04.01, ASTM, Philadelphia, p. 5. lightweight aggregate concrete of ACI 318-89 (Revised
4.3. ACI Committee 211, Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions 1992), which has been omitted from discussion in this Code
for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete (ACI 211.1-91), American and commentary.
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1991, 38 pp. Also, ACI Manual of Concrete R5.1.5 See R1.2.1.
Practice, Part 1.
4.4. Drahushak-Crow, Roselle, “Freeze-Thaw Durability of Fly Ash
Concrete,” EPRI Proceedings, Eighth International Ash Utilization Sym- R5.3—Proportioning on the basis of field
posium, Vol. 2, Oct. 1987, p. 37-1. experience and/or trial mixtures.
4.5. Sivasundarum, V.; Carette, G. G.; and Malhotra, V. M., “Properties Fig. R5.3 is a flow chart outlining the mix selection and
of Concrete Incorporating Low Quantity of Cement and High Volumes of documentation procedure.
Low-Calcium Fly Ash,” Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag, and Natural Pozzolans R5.4.1 Proportioning mixes by water-cementitious materials
in Concrete, SP-114, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989, pp. 45-
ratio is deleted as an option because the size of the concrete op-
71.
4.6. Whiting, D., “Deicer Scaling and Resistance of Lean Concrete Con-
eration warrants trial mix investigation, and the resulting higher
taining Fly Ash,” Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag, and Natural Pozzolans in cement contents with use of the table is inconsistent with the
Concrete, SP-114, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989, pp. 349- need to control hydration heat in these structures.
372. R5.4.2 The water-cementitious materials ratio of mixes
4.7. Rosenberg, A., and Hanson, C. M., “Mechanisms of Corrosion of
containing fly ash or other pozzolans is defined to eliminate
Steel in Concrete,” Materials Science in Concrete I, American Ceramic
Society, Westerville, Ohio, 1989, p. 285. any confusion in the application of subsequent requirements.
4.8. Berry, E. E., and Malhotra, V. M., Fly Ash in Concrete, CANMET, Since the subsequent requirements for durability, water-
Ottawa, 1985. tightness, and sulfate resistance reflect a service level
4.9. Li, S., and Roy, D. M., “Investigation of Relations between Porosity, strength requirement as well as a minimum cementitious ma-
Pore Structure and CL Diffusion of Fly Ash and Blended Cement Pastes,”
terial volume requirement, the definition is conservative in
Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 16, No. 5, Sept. 1986, pp. 749-759.
4.10. ACI Committee 201, “Guide to Durable Concrete,” (ACI 201.2-
that larger total volumes of cementitious material will al-
92), ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 5 Sept.-Oct. 1991, 1992, 38 pp. ways be used. The Engineer will consider the implications of
Also, ACI Manual Of Concrete Practice, Part 1. heat of hydration, workability, and volume change in selec-
4.11. ACI Committee 222, Corrosion of Metals in Concrete, (ACI 222R- tion of an appropriate water-cementitious materials ratio.
89), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989, 30 pp. Also, ACI Manual
ACI 349, Section 5.4.2, does not match ACI 318-89 (Re-
of Concrete Practice, Part 1.
4.12. ASTM C 1218.
vised 1992) or the proposed ACI 318-95. A future code revi-
4.13. Ozyildirim, C., and Halstead, W., “Resistance to Chloride Ion Pen- sion will consider any approved change to ACI 318-89
etration of Concretes Containing Fly Ash, Silica Fume, or Slag,” Perme- (Revised 1992).
ability of Concrete, SP-108, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1988,
pp. 35-61.
R5.6—Evaluation and acceptance of concrete
4.14. AASHTO T 277-83, “Rapid Determination of the Chloride Perme- R5.6.1 The frequency of testing has little influence on the
ability of Concrete,” American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials, Washington, D.C. accuracy of calculating standard deviations after 25 or more
4.15. FHWA-RD-77-85, “Sampling and Testing for Chloride Ion in Con- tests of one mix have been performed on a given class of
crete,” Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. concrete. It, therefore, has little effect on the level of con-
crete production required to assure strength requirements of
Chapter 5—Concrete Quality, Mixing, and Placing Section 5.3.3. When the calculated standard deviation for 30
The commentary on ACI 318 is applicable to this chapter tests indicates better than normal control, then the frequency
except as described below: of tests has even less effect on the predictability of the
Fig. R5.3—Flowchart for selection and documentation of concrete proportions

strengths. The reduced testing frequency is, therefore, given R5.7—Preparation of equipment and place of
to reward good control and lessen the requirements where deposit
lower concrete strength allowables are used to reduce hydra- Code sections 5.7.1(f) and 5.7.1(g) requires free water
tion heat in the thick concrete members. In such areas, con- deeper than 1/4 in. in hollows be removed from the forms. It
crete strength generally has little effect on design strength. is not necessary that all water be removed. The requirement
R5.6.3.1 Field-cured cylinders do not represent the in- for specifying the method for cleaning joints in construction
specifications was added to insure that only an approved
place strength of typical concrete members used in nuclear
method or methods of joint cleanup would be used.
plant construction, particularly during the first 24 hr follow-
ing placement, because of the effects of hydration heat. The
in-place strengths may be several times that of the field- R5.9—Conveying
cured cylinders, particularly during cold weather place- R5.9.3 Conveyance of concrete by pumping through alumi-
ments. Nondestructive testing, using methods such as sonic num pipe is not permitted because hydrogen gas bubbles are
methods or other similar techniques, may be used by the En- produced by the reaction of aluminum abraded from the pipe
gineer to better understand the in-place strength and concrete with the alkalis in the concrete. These gas bubbles are retained
quality in the structure. in the hardened concrete and reduce concrete strength.5.1, 5.2
R5.6.4 Investigation of low-strength test results
R5.10—Depositing
Instructions are provided concerning the procedure to be R5.10.3 and R5.10.4 The wording has been changed from
followed when strength tests have failed to meet the speci- ACI 318 to be more specific and to exclude the use of retem-
fied acceptance criteria. For obvious reasons, these instruc- pered concrete.
tions cannot be dogmatic. The Engineer must apply
R5.10.9 Section 5.4.4 of the 1971 Building Code con-
judgment as to the true significance of low test results and
tained the requirement that “where conditions make consol-
whether they indicate need for concern. If further investiga-
idation difficult or where reinforcement is congested,
tion is deemed necessary, such investigation may include
batches of mortar containing the same proportions of ce-
nondestructive tests, or in extreme cases, strength tests of ment, sand, and water as used in the concrete, shall first be
cores taken from the structure. deposited in the forms to a depth of at least 1 in.” The re-
Nondestructive tests of the concrete in place, such as by quirement has been deleted from the 1977 Code since the
probe penetration, impact hammer, ultrasonic pulse velocity conditions for which it was applicable could not be defined
or pull out may be useful in determining whether or not a precisely enough to justify its inclusion as a code require-
portion of the structure actually contains low strength con- ment. The practice, however, has merit and has been retained
crete. Such tests are of value primarily for comparisons within the 1980 and subsequent revisions of the Code for Nuclear
in the same job rather than as quantitative measures of Structures. The use of reproportioned batches will aid in pre-
strength. For cores, if required, conservatively safe accep- venting honeycomb and poor bonding of the concrete with
tance criteria are provided which should assure structural ad- the reinforcement. The reproportioned concrete or mortar
equacy for virtually any type of construction.5.4-5.7 Lower should be placed immediately before depositing the concrete
strength may, of course, be tolerated under many circum- containing larger aggregate and must be plastic (neither stiff
stances, but this again becomes a matter of judgment on the nor fluid) when the concrete is placed.
part of the Engineer. When the core tests fail to provide as-
surance of structural adequacy, it may be practical, particu- R5.11—Curing
larly in the case of floor or roof systems, for the Engineer to R5.11.4 In many areas, protective coatings are required,
require a load test (Chapter 20). Before load testing, if time and no curing procedure should be used which may be in-
and conditions permit, an effort may be made to improve the compatible with those coatings.
strength of the concrete in place by supplemental wet curing. R5.11.5 The method or methods of curing should not be
Effectiveness of such a treatment must be verified by further left to the discretion of the contractor or to arbitration. Ac-
strength evaluation using procedures previously discussed. ceptable methods should be clearly stated in the construction
It should be noted that core tests having an average of 85 specifications.
percent of the specified strength are entirely realistic. To ex-
pect core tests to be equal to f'c is not realistic, since differ- R5.12—Cold weather requirements
ences in the size of specimens, conditions of obtaining Recommendations for cold weather concreting are given
samples, and procedures for curing, do not permit equal val- in detail in “Cold Weather Concreting” reported by ACI
ues to be obtained. Committee 306.5.3 (Present requirements and methods for
The code, as stated, concerns itself with assuring structural producing satisfactory concrete during cold weather.)
safety, and the instructions in 5.6 are aimed at that objective.
It is not the function of the code to assign responsibility for R5.13—Hot weather requirements
strength deficiencies, whether or not they are such as to re- The method or methods of curing should not be left to the
quire corrective measures. discretion of the contractor or to arbitration. Acceptable meth-
Under the requirements of this section, cores taken to con- ods should be clearly stated in the construction specifications.
firm structural adequacy will usually be taken at ages later The designer should also consult ACI Committee 207 re-
than those specified for determination of f'c. port “Effect of Restraint, Volume Change, and Reinforce-
ment of Cracking of Massive Concrete”5.5 for additional R7.4.1 For an explanation of the service conditions (i.e.
information on crack control. temperature and radiation) under which an epoxy coating
may be qualified, see the Section 3.5.3.8 of the Commentary
References in this code.
5.1. Newlon, Howard, Jr., and Ozol, A., “Delayed Expansion of Concrete
Delivered by Pumping Through Aluminum Pipe Line,” Concrete Case Study
R7.4.3 All tendons must be protected against deleterious
No. 20, Virginia Highway Research Council, October 1969, 39 pp. corrosion from the time they are manufactured to the time they
5.2. Fowler, E. E., and Holmgren, E. F., “Expansion of Concrete Pumped are incorporated in the work (that is, during storage). In the
Through Aluminum Pipeline,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings Vol. 68,
event the tendons are to be grouted (bonded) and coatings or
December 1971, pp. 950-953; and Discussion, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
Vol. 69, June 1972, pp. 357-360. rust inhibitors are used to provide protection against deleteri-
5.3. ACI Committee 306, “Cold Weather Concreting (ACI 306R-88),” ous corrosion, complete removal of the coating or rust inhibi-
ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Volume 2. tor should be required unless it can be demonstrated that such
5.4. ACI Committee 305, “Hot Weather Concreting (ACI 305R-89),”
ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Volume 2. coatings or inhibitors do not affect the required bond values.
5.5. ACI Committee 207, “Effect of Restraint, Volume Change and Rein-
forcement on Cracking of Massive Concrete (ACI 207.2R-73) (Reapproved R7.12—Minimum reinforcement
1986),” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings Vol. 70, July 1973, pp. 445-470. Also This section has been expanded to include minimum rein-
ACI Manual of Concrete Practice.
forcement for all exposed concrete surfaces. For the purpose
of Section 7.12 and as defined in Section 7.12.1, an exposed
Chapter 6—Formwork, Embedded Pipes, and
Construction Joints concrete surface is any concrete surface which is not cast
The commentary on ACI 318 is applicable to this chapter against existing concrete or against rock.
except as described below: Minimum reinforcement is required to control cracking
and to tie the structure together to assure its acting as as-
R6.1—Design of formwork sumed in the design. Minimum reinforcement is required at
R6.1.7 The use of steel liners as formwork requires con- each surface in approximately perpendicular directions and
siderations in addition to tolerances. the spacing is limited to 18 in. to assist in controlling surface
R6.1.8 and R6.2.5 Form release agents and surface effects cracking. The section has been expanded by inclusion of the
of wood type used in the formwork must be compatible with requirements for walls and shells previously identified in
coating systems to assure a durable coating system. Chapters 10, 14, and 19. It also includes requirements for
sections having a thickness of 48 in. or greater based on the
R6.3—Conduits and pipes embedded in concrete recommendations made by ACI Committee 207.7.1
R6.3.8 The testing requirements were changed to ensure R7.12.2 and R7.12.3 If the concrete sections referred to in
that there would be no conflict in code applications for the 7.12.2 and 7.12.3 are classifiable as beams or structural
many different piping systems used in nuclear plant con- slabs, the minimum reinforcement provisions of Sections
struction. 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 (beams), Section 10.5.3 (one-way structur-
R6.3.9 If an entire pipe system cannot be tested as a unit, al slabs), and Section 13.4.1 (two-way structural slabs) apply
a minimum concrete strength of 1000 psi is required for con- in addition to the provisions of Sections 7.12.2 and 7.12.3.
crete encasing a previously tested length of pipe which has Minimum reinforcement required for beams is given directly
in Section 10.5.1; whereas that required for structural slabs
to be filled with liquid, gas, or vapor for testing an added
is given in Section 7.12.5 by way of reference from Section
length of the pipe in accordance with Section 6.3.8.
10.5.3 and Section 13.4.1.
R6.3.13 Piping systems that are embedded in concrete will
R7.12.3 The reinforcement stress fs in Section 7.12.3 does
be inaccessible for normal maintenance. Certain mechanical
not represent the same effects as that in Section 10.6. Section
connections, such as a screwed pipe connection, may not be 7.12.3 applies only to massive concrete sections. The quan-
as reliable as a sealed welded pipe connection and are there- tity As min is the minimum amount of reinforcement required
fore prohibited from use. to limit the widths of surface shrinkage cracks in these sec-
R6.3.14 The design limits specified for concrete tempera- tions. This can be achieved by keeping the stresses in the re-
tures are those in general use in nuclear structures. See, for ex- inforcement after the concrete cracks well below yield. A
ample, paragraph CC-3440 of ACI 359. Provision is made for value of 0.60 fy was selected for this purpose.
the use of higher temperatures provided the effects of higher R7.12.4 The application of massive concrete is common in
temperatures on concrete strengths have been established by design and construction of concrete nuclear safety structures.
tests and these effects are incorporated into the design. However, the requirements for minimum reinforcement and
physical limitation of massive concrete have not been clear
R6.4—Construction joints to the designers. ACI Committee 207 7.2 has studied and de-
R6.4.3 Indiscriminate location of construction joints veloped much useful information and data in regard to mas-
should not be allowed in these structures. The Engineer is re- sive concrete structures. It is highly recommended that the
sponsible for all construction joint locations. designer obtain and study the specific reports by ACI Com-
mittee 207 for detailed and up-to-date information.
Chapter 7—Details of Reinforcement
The commentary on ACI 318 is applicable to this chapter References
except as described below. 7.1. ACI Committee 207, “Effect or Restraint, Volume Change, and
Reinforcement on Cracking of Massive Concrete (ACI 207.2R-73),” ACI ACI 318 should be referenced for concrete nuclear safety re-
JOURNAL, Proceedings Vol. 70, July 1970, pp. 445-470. Also ACI Manual lated structures except as noted herein.
of Concrete Practice.
7.2. ACI Committee 207, “Mass Concrete for Dams and other Massive Struc- R9.0—Notation
tures,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings Vol. 67, No. 4, April 1973, pp. 273-309. In the notation for D, Eo, Ess, Ra, and Ro, “equipment” is to
include all items which are permanently attached to the con-
Chapter 8—Analysis and Design: General crete structure, such as for example, cable trays and conduits.
Considerations In the notation for F and H, groundwater effects are spe-
R8.0—General cifically included in F, not H, and this differs from ACI 318.
Chapter 8 parallels the general considerations for analysis As a result, load factors which are less than those specified
and design presented in Chapter 8 of ACI 318. Some modi- in ACI 318 will be applied to ground-water loads. This is
fications have been made which reflect particular require- considered to be acceptable for nuclear safety structures be-
ments applicable to concrete nuclear safety structures. cause for nuclear power plants extensive hydrology studies
Reference to the alternative design method and to the use of are normally performed to evaluate the expected groundwa-
lightweight concrete and permanent fillers has not been ter conditions for the site, and then the maximum groundwa-
made in this standard. In addition, the load requirements ter elevation is conservatively established.
have been appropriately altered. Chapter 8 of the commen-
tary on ACI 318 should be referenced for concrete nuclear R9.1—General
safety structures except as noted herein. Even though Section 9.1 of ACI 318 has been completely
revised, the commentary on ACI 318 for this section is gen-
R8.1—Design methods erally applicable. The loads appropriate for nuclear safety
The strength design method of ACI 318 has been referred structures are defined in Section 9.0 and categorized in Sec-
to exclusively, deleting all reference to the alternate design tion 9.1 as follows: normal loads, severe environmental
method of Section 8.1.2 of ACI 318. loads, extreme environmental loads, and abnormal loads.
Piping and equipment reactions to be included as Ro are those
R8.2—Loading reactions produced by normal operating temperatures acting on
The commentary on ACI 318 is not applicable for concrete the piping system or equipment; piping reactions generated by
nuclear safety structures. Commentary regarding design normal operation flow transients; and any other reactions occur-
loads and load combinations is presented in Chapter 9 of this ring during normal operation or shutdown. Note that dead load
document. and earthquake reactions are not included in Ro.
When considering concentrated impactive loads such as
R8.3—Method of analysis those associated with postulated rupture of high energy pipes
Reference to the alternative design method in the com- or missiles, local section strength capacities may be exceed-
mentary on ACI 318 is not applicable. ed. Under these concentrated loads, elastoplastic behavior
R8.3.3(e) This requirement has been added to indicate that may be assumed with appropriate ductility ratios provided
approximate analysis coefficients are not appropriate for resulting deformation will not result in loss of function of
members with haunches and varying cross sections. any safety related system.
Live loads associated with elevators, machinery, and
R8.5—Modulus of elasticity
Reference to lightweight concrete in ACI 318 has been deleted. craneways should be increased to allow for impact in accor-
dance with the recommendations of ASCE 7.
R8.6—Stiffness The discharge of safety relief valves into a suppression
Section 8.6.1 differs from ACI 318 in order to be more pool generates loads which are unique to BWR power plant
specific. structures. Specific classification of these loads is not given
by the Code at this time due to ongoing efforts by the indus-
R8.11—Joist construction try to quantify them.
Reference to permanent burned clay or concrete tile fillers
in ACI 318 has been deleted. R9.2—Required strength
Section 9.2 of ACI 318 and the commentary on this section
Chapter 9—Strength and Serviceability have been completely revised for concrete nuclear safety relat-
Requirements ed structures. The load combinations and load factors of this
Chapter 9 parallels the requirements for strength and ser- section reflect consideration of the likelihood of individual
viceability presented in Chapter 9 of ACI 318. The general and combined-event occurrences as well as possible excess
requirements and the section on required strength have been load effects such as variations in loads, assumptions in the
completely revised to reflect the requirements regarding structural analysis, and simplifications in the calculations.
loads and load combinations applicable to concrete nuclear Load Combinations 1, 2, and 3 involve normal loads and
safety structures. The maximum specified yield strength of normal loads in combination with severe environmental loads.
non-prestressed reinforcement, fy, has been limited to 60,000 Similar to ACI 318, this standard uses load factors of 1.4 and
psi. Deflection limitations have been revised. In addition, re- 1.7 for dead and live loads, respectively, in these load combi-
quirements for the use of lightweight concrete in ACI 318 do nations. In addition, a load factor of 1.4 was assigned to lateral
not appear in this standard. Chapter 9 of the commentary on and vertical liquid pressure, and a load factor of 1.7 was as-
signed to normal-operation pipe reactions, lateral earth pres- When impact due to operating loads is present, impact ef-
sure, and the operating basis wind loads. Since the plant could fects should be considered and impact loads, if any, included
remain operational when subjected to the effects of severe en- with live loads in the various equations for required strength.
vironmental loads such as the operating basis earthquake or As the effects of pipe ruptures Pa, Ta, Ra, Yr, Yj, and Ym, may
operating basis wind, these loads are treated the same as other not necessarily occur simultaneously, Section 9.2.5 of the
operating loads. The load factor on the earthquake is 1.7 rather Code permits a time-history analysis to account for the time
than 1.87 required by ACI 318. ACI 318 assumes a design lag between these loads.
method similar to that of the Uniform Building Code. Nuclear R9.2.7 Apart from the extreme environmental loads gener-
safety related concrete structures are designed to significantly ated by the safe shutdown earthquake and by the design basis
more conservative seismic criteria, and the resulting loads are tornado, other extreme environmental loads may also be re-
less likely to be exceeded. Hence, the additional factor of 1.1 quired for the plant design. Examples of such loads are those
is considered unnecessary. induced by flood, aircraft impact, or an accidental explosion.
Unit load factors are used in Load Combinations 4 and 5 in- These environmental loads should be treated individually
volving extreme environmental loads. This recognizes that the in a manner similar to the loads generated by the design basis
loads caused by the safe shutdown earthquake or the design tornado in determining the required strength according to the
basis tornado are extreme and are of very low probability. equations in Section 9.2.1. Abnormal loads are not considered
Load Combinations 6, 7, and 8 are directed towards abnor- concurrently with the above extreme environmental loads.
mal loads in combination with normal, severe, and extreme
environmental loads, respectively. Abnormal loads are gen- R9.5—Control of deflections
erated by a postulated high-energy, pipe-break accident. This section contains different deflection requirements
This accident could generate differential pressures, thermal than ACI 318. The deflection requirements in ACI 318 are
loads, pipe and equipment reactions on supports, pipe rup- based on comfort levels for human occupancy, cracks in ceil-
ture reaction forces, jet impingement loads, and missile im- ing, and other considerations applicable to residential build-
pact effects. Load Combination 8 has unit load factors on all ings. The Building Code also states that if nonstructural
loads since it represents an extremely unlikely combination elements (such as equipment) are attached to the structure,
of events. Load Combination 6 has a load factor of 1.25 on the deflection requirements are to be satisfied by calculation
the pressure since, although this is a very unlikely event, it and it is not sufficient just to use the given l/d ratios.
affects a larger portion of the overall structure than the local Almost all nuclear safety related concrete structures sup-
conditions included in Combination 8. Load Combination 7 port nonstructural elements. In addition, since the member
is intermediate between 6 and 8 and is included because it sizes used in ACI 349 structures are generally larger than
has been specified historically. In Combinations 7 and 8, unit those used in common building structures, it was felt that it
load factor is specified for the concentrated effects of pipe is too restrictive to require deflection calculations for all
rupture. These events are less probable than a differential these structural elements.
pressure loading and produce only localized effects. Table 9.5(a) indicates the deflections that could be expect-
The load factors for Eo and Pa in Combinations 6 and 7 are ed if no calculations are performed.
lower than the corresponding factors in ACI 359. The rea-
Table 9.5(a)—Maximum deflections for unfactored
sons for this difference are: loads
(a) The structures do not function as leakage barriers to
Loading equation
contain the effects of the loss of coolant accident. number
(b) The pressure loading is a one-time-accident loading. Type (Section 9.2.1) Beams Slabs*
For the corresponding one time loadings of both the safe 1 Eq. (1), (2), and (3) l/400 l/320
2 Eq. (4) and (5) l/250 l/200
shutdown earthquake and the tornado the load factor is unity. *For two-way construction l shall be replaced by ls
(c) The design pressure is larger than the calculated pres-
sure so that a margin of safety is included therein. Consistent with ACI 349 loading combinations, the table
The last three Load Combinations, 9, 10, and 11, are sim- indicates anticipated deflection values for normal, severe en-
ilar to Load Combinations 1, 2, and 3. These Combinations, vironmental and extreme environmental loading combina-
however, consider normal-operation thermal loads, allowing tions. The Code then states that deflection combinations are
a reduction of 25 percent in the required strength. This reduc- to be made only if the requirements given by the manufactur-
tion is in recognition of the fact that such thermal loads tend ers of the nonstructural elements are more stringent than the
to be self-relieving. A 25 percent reduction in required anticipated deflections given in Table 9.5(a).
strength for load combinations involving thermal loads is For normal and severe environmental loading conditions,
also used in ACI 318. the anticipated deflections are selected to be l/400 for beams
It should be noted that, in applying the load combinations and ribbed one-way slabs and l/320 for two-way slabs and
given in Section 9.2.1 of the Code, due regard should be giv- solid one-way slabs. The Building Code also makes a dis-
en to sign since the standard direction of loads may on occa- tinction between the appropriate deflection limits for these
sion be of opposing direction, thus producing tensile axial two groups of structural elements. A more liberal or a more
loads, negative reactions, or reverse bending. The provisions stringent criteria for the anticipated deflection can be chosen,
of Section 9.2.2 consider the effect of differential settlement, however, the l/d ratio has to be modified accordingly. The
creep, and shrinkage where necessary. deflection limits in the Code will provide a reasonable l/d ra-
tio and at the same time will not require deflection calcula- plications, slightly different numbers were used. To simplify
tions for a large number of structural elements. the deflection computations, a deflection reduction factor γ
The l/d ratios given in the Code were established from: and moment of inertia modification factor Ig / Ie have been
1. Recommendations by Committee 435, Deflection of included. These factors can be used to modify the results of
Concrete Building Structures, and the factored load analysis performed for the strength design
2. A review of the minimum member sizes commonly of the structure. Thus, a separate analysis for deflection com-
used in ACI 349 structures. putation is no longer implied.
Based on these l/d ratios, the anticipated deflections were
computed and given in the table. Chapter 10—Flexure and Axial Loads
In these computations, the following assumptions were Chapter 10 is identical to that of ACI 318 except as de-
made: scribed below for Sections 10.6 .
1. The stress in the reinforcing steel is 0.6 fy, for unfactored
service load conditions. R10.6—Distribution of flexural reinforcement in
beams and one-way slabs
2. The immediate deflections are multiplied by a factor of All subsections of Section 10.6 are identical to those of
0.5 and 1.5 to obtain the additional long-term deflections due ACI 318 except 10.6.4.
to structural dead load and equipment dead load, respective- In lieu of stress calculations for fs, 0.40 fy may be used.
ly. This assumes that the equipment would be placed at least This is less than the value of 0.60 fy specified by ACI 318.
a year after the structure has been placed. Therefore part of This difference exists because, unlike ACI 318 structures,
the long-term deflection due to structural dead load has al- the reinforcement design for nuclear safety structures is con-
ready occurred at the time the equipment is placed. trolled by load combinations other than those corresponding
The Code defines the deflections that need to be considered. to a service condition. Consequently, at service loads, the re-
Immediate deflection is no longer a consideration. Since the inforcement stresses for nuclear safety structures are not
minimum l/d ratios are more stringent than ACI 318, the im- likely to be as high as those for ACI 318 structures.
mediate deflection limits of ACI 318 will be satisfied.
The considerations for camber in prestressed concrete Chapter 11—Shear and Torsion
members is included in the Code. The commentary in ACI 318 is applicable to this chapter
A deflection requirement for walls is also included. Since except as noted herein.
the walls in ACI 349 structures frequently carry axial load R11.12.2.3 Special provisions for slabs and footings
and flexure, the walls should satisfy the requirements given Subsection 11.12.2.3 is added to this section. In con-
for non-prestressed one-way or two-way or composite or crete nuclear safety structures, slabs or walls may be subject
prestressed construction, as applicable. to loads producing punching shear forces which have to be
Similar assumptions were made to establish the Building considered in combination with forces in the plane of the
Code deflection requirements. However, to suit ACI 349 ap- slab or wall. The forces in the plane of the slab or wall could
—Concrete shear strengths over perimeters b1 and b2 are Vc1 and Vc2, respectively.
—Total concrete shears strength, Vc = Vc1 + Vc2.
—fm1 and fm2 are negative as shown
Fig. 11.1—Concrete shear strength in presence of membrane tensile stresses

be dynamic (seismic) or static (shear due to wind, tornado, satisfactorily. The range of variabilities to be considered in
equipment, etc.). The concrete shear strength for this condi- subparagraph (a) of the Code may be satisfied by reviewing
tion is given in Subsection 11.12.2.3, and the expressions for large samples (min. of 100) of conformance tests on mechan-
Vc1 and Vc2 are based on punching shear tests of biaxially ical connections constructed under actual field conditions (or
tensioned wall elements, reported in References 11.1 and under simulated field conditions) considering variations in
11.2. These tests indicated that biaxial tension levels up to weather, materials, installation crews or other construction
nearly 0.9 fy produced only minor decreases in the punching variables which may effect the performance of a given type
shear strength for elements without any shear reinforcement. of mechanical connection. Mechanical connections may also
For membrane tension stress ratio fm1/ρ'1 fy or fm2/ρ'2 fy ex- be qualified to the requirements of paragraph 12.14.3.4 by a
ceeding 0.9, the corresponding components of shear strength test program performed in accordance with Section CC-
are taken as 0.5 f′ c b'1 h, and 0.5 f′c b'2 h, which are as- 4333.2 of ACI 359. Previously performed qualification test
sumed lower bounds for very high levels of membrane ten- results may be used if the test variables reflect the conditions
sion. For membrane compressive stresses, the provisions of of the particular project.
Section 11.12.2.2 are applicable. R12.14.3.7 Splices of lower modulus than that of the
Even if no shear reinforcement is required, the provisions reinforcing steel may reduce the ultimate moment capacity
in Sections 11.12.2.3.3 and 11.12.2.3.4 apply when the of the member at the splice location and will contribute sig-
membrane tensile stresses fm1 or fm2 exceed 0.6 ρ'1 fy or 0.6 nificantly to wider-than-normal cracks at the splice location.
ρ'2 fy, respectively. The membrane reinforcement is required For members subject to tensile forces, this increase in crack
to be increased to resist the punching shear force Vu as if it width may result in loss of shear strength.
were an additional membrane tension force. These provi-
sions are a conservative application of the test results (Ref- Reference
erence 11.1) which indicated a slight increase in the forces in 12.1. ACI Committee 439, “Mechanical Connections of Reinforcing
the membrane reinforcement caused by the shear force, at Bars (ACI 439.3).”
higher levels of applied membrane tension.
Chapters 13 through 17
References There are only minor differences between ACI 318 and the
11.1. Jan. W. C.; White. R. N.; and Gergely. P., Behavior of Reinforced standard for:
Concrete Slabs Subjected to Combined Punching Shear and Biaxial Ten- Chapter 13—Two-Way Slab Systems,
sion, NUREG/CR-2920, September 1982.
11.2. Jan W. C.; White R. N.; and Gergely P.; “Peripheral Shear Strength
Chapter 14—Walls,
of Biaxially Tensioned Reinforced Concrete Wall Elements,” Nuclear Chapter 15—Footings,
Engineering and Design, Vol. 69, No. 2, p. 271. Chapter 16—Precast Concrete, and
Chapter 17—Composite Concrete Flexural Members.
Chapter 12—Development of Reinforcement
The changes are given below.
The Commentary of ACI 318-95 is applicable to this chap-
ter except that references to lightweight concrete are to be R14.3 The minimum reinforcement requirements of Sec-
deleted except as described below: tion 7.12 are more applicable for the thick concrete nuclear
safety structures than the corresponding requirements of
ACI 318. See Commentary Section 7.12 for discussion.
R12.6—Mechanical anchorage
The provisions of paragraphs 12.6.2 and 12.6.3 of ACI R15.8.1.1 Reference to the Alternate Design Method in ACI
318-95 have been replaced in ACI 349 by a reference to Ap- 318 Commentary is not applicable for the ACI 349 Commentary.
pendix B which provides minimum requirements for anchor-
age of steel embedments. Mechanical anchorage should Chapter 18—Prestressed Concrete
generally be designed to develop the full capacity of the re- The commentary on ACI 318 is applicable to this chapter.
inforcement. Combinations of mechanical anchorage plus Section 18.1.4 is added to define service load conditions to in-
additional embedment length of reinforcement, as permitted clude both normal mechanical and severe environmental loads.
in paragraph 12.6.3 of ACI 318, should only be used if sub- Section 18.4.2 (a) permits a higher extreme fiber com-
stantiated by experimental or detailed analytical investiga- pressive stress if To is included.
tion as permitted by paragraph B.1.3.
Chapter 19—Shells
R12.14—Splices of reinforcement: General Chapter 19 of ACI 318-83 is intended to provide design
R12.14.3.4.1 Mechanical connections for reinforcing provisions for the wide range of shell forms expected to be
bars can be made by various commercially available me- used for commercial structures. These include thin shells,
chanical connections, as described in Reference 12.1. These folded plates, and ribbed shells to name a few. In nuclear
connections include the following: (1) providing a sleeve safety related concrete structures, the shell forms usually en-
around reinforcing bars to be connected and filling it with countered are limited to basic cylinders with dome shapes,
grout or ferrous filling metal, (2) taper threaded sleeves, (3) having thicknesses not less than 12 in. The design provisions
swaging the sleeves (hot or cold) around reinforcing bars, of Chapter 19 of the Code are intended to be specifically ap-
and (4) threaded sleeves over thread-deformed reinforcing plicable to this type of shell structure. The Commentary to
base. Each of the methods of mechanical connections may Chapter 19 of ACI 318-83 is applicable to the ACI 349 Code,
have its limiting conditions, under which it would perform supplemented by the discussion below.
R19.1—Scope and definitions Chapter 20—Strength Evaluation of Existing

R19.1.1 The type of shells used in nuclear safety related Structures
concrete structures are typically of a thickness greater than
those used in conventional structures, due to the nature of R20.1—Strength evaluation: General
loading and the requirements for shielding. Chapter 19 has, Chapter 20 contains requirements and commentary on the
therefore, been written to apply only to shells having a thick- use of strength evaluation methods such as load testing to
ness greater than or equal to 12 in. If needed, users can refer characterize the strength of an existing nuclear safety related
to Chapter 19 of ACI 318. concrete structure. Because of the massive size and complex
design requirements for most safety related structures, the
R19.2—General use of in-place strength evaluation methods may have limit-
R19.2.1, 19.2.2 and 19.2.3 Nonlinear analysis may be ed application. Local load testing of structural components
necessary when a cracked concrete section due to load com- such as anchorages, embedments, and post-tensioned rein-
binations of thermal, earthquake, and others listed in Section forcing steel is practical and has been utilized to establish ad-
9.2.1 is considered and the redistribution of stresses takes equacy. Other techniques which have been used in
place in relationship to the depth of cracks. Tensile resis- evaluating the physical condition and performance of exist-
tance of the cracked concrete is not relied on. The cracks ing safety related structures are cited in Reference 20.1. The
could occur in meridional, hoop, or other directions depend- Engineer shall identify the appropriate evaluation program
ing on the reinforcement patterns and loadings. to be followed if the safety or strength of an existing struc-
The Code does not intend to require the nonlinear crack ture is questioned.
analysis for all possible cracked conditions, but requires the
Engineer to review the possibility of the resulting redistribu- R20.2—Analytical investigations
tion of forces and initiate analysis if deemed necessary. In an analytical investigation, the analysis must be based on
R19.2.7 Besides thickening of the concrete, rings made of data gathered concerning the actual dimensions of the struc-
structural steel with embedded anchors in composite action ture, the strength of the materials in place and all other perti-
may also be used around penetrations or openings to satisfy nent details. The field examination should be thorough. For
strength requirements. example, if coring of the concrete is required, sufficient sam-
Both cases of either thickening the concrete or reinforcing ples should be taken to obtain reliable average strength indica-
the penetration with steel embedment may induce more ther- tions and to detect possible flaws at critical locations.
mal reactions which need to be considered. (Typically, core tests provide about 85 percent of the strength
R19.2.8 In addition to comments in Sections 19.2.1 of laboratory-cured cylinders for the same concrete.)
through 19.2.3, the variation in the membrane stresses across
In some cases, the Engineer may deem the analytical inves-
the thickness shall be taken into consideration for thick
tigation to be preferable to load testing. In other cases, analyt-
shells.
ical evaluation may be the only practicable procedure. Certain
The variation in stresses across the shell thickness be-
members, such as columns and walls, may be difficult to load
comes significant for thick shells. Thick shells are generally
and the interpretation of the load test results equally as diffi-
considered as shells whose thicknesses are more than one-
cult unless severe damage or actual collapse occurs.
tenth the minimum radius of curvature. The radius may be
based on the mean value of the inner and outer shell surfaces. The code states that the analysis shall demonstrate to the
R19.2.10 For shell structures, analysis must be carried out Engineer’s satisfaction that the intent of the code has been
to support and supplement the results of the model test. This satisfied. The intent of the code is to insure public safety. The
is required to cover the loading conditions presented in load factors and strength reduction factors φ provide for pos-
Chapter 9 of this Code. sible loads in excess of the specific design loads, complexi-
ties involved in the analysis, workmanship variations,
R19.4—Section design and reinforcement materials variations, and similar factors which separately
requirements may be within tolerances but which cumulatively might ad-
R19.4.2 Due to the large number of different load combi- versely affect the strength of the structure or member. In gen-
nations, it is not considered practicable to place the rein- eral, it should be shown that the structure or member will
forcement parallel to the line of the principal tensile stress have strength close to or in excess of that envisioned in the
and it is, therefore, required that reinforcement be placed in original design or as required by the code. This is a matter of
two or more directions. judgment involving consideration of relevant factors such as
R19.4.4 The minimum reinforcement requirements of the possible consequences of collapse.
Section 7.12 are more applicable for the thick concrete nu-
clear safety structures than the corresponding requirements R20.3—Load tests
of ACI 318. See Commentary Section 7.12 for discussion. The selection of the portion of the structure to be tested,
R19.4.6 Stirrups or other types of web reinforcing may be the test procedure, and the interpretation of the results should
used, if required, to tie back curved reinforcement and trans- be done under the direction of a qualified engineer experi-
fer the forces imposed inside the radius of the curved rein- enced in structural investigations and field tests and mea-
forcement away from the penetrations and thus to prevent surements. Additional guidance on the performance of load
cracking around penetrations. tests is contained in Reference 20.2.
R20.4—Load tests of flexural members elastic design requirements are known to insure a high level
R20.4.3 The design and required capacity of many safety of confidence in the retention of structural integrity for the
related flexural members are dictated by load combinations design basis SSE loads.
involving dead, live, and other loads. The total loading ap-
ACI 318 is meant to be used as part of a legally adopted
plied during a load test shall be specified by the Engineer.
building code, covering all building of the usual types and
R20.4.7 A general acceptance criterion for the behavior of
a structure under the test load is that it shall not show “visible providing minimum requirements necessary to provide pub-
evidence of failure.” “Visible evidence of failure” will in- lic health and safety. The predominant structural form is mo-
clude cracking, spalling, or deflection of such magnitude and ment resisting frame. The structure and structural elements
extent that it is obviously excessive and incompatible with are designed to remain elastic for all loads and load combi-
the safety requirements for the structure. No simple rules can nations except those associated with strong motion earth-
be developed, for application to all types of structures and quakes. United States building codes permit a seismic design
conditions. If sufficient damage has occurred that the struc- based on loads corresponding to an inelastic response to
ture is considered to have failed that test, retesting is not per- ground motion. Accordingly, the design must exhibit a ro-
mitted since it is considered that damaged members should bustness characterized by retention of substantial proportion
not be put into service.
of its strength as it is inelastically cycled. The requisite
If the structure shows no visible evidence of failure, “re-
toughness can only be achieved by requiring special rein-
covery of deflection” after removal of the test load or other
forcing steel detailing; hence the special provisions of Chap-
means of verifying the absence of poor performance or be-
havior shall be used to determine whether or not the strength ter 21 of ACI 349.
of the structure is satisfactory. In the case of a very stiff Recognizing that significant differences in design and
structure, however, the errors in measurements under field structural forms exit in the applications of respective codes,
conditions may be of the same order as the actual deflections the high seismic risk provisions of ACI 318, Chapter 21 are
and recovery. adopted here for the following reasons. First, the adoption of
R20.4.8 To avoid penalizing a satisfactory structure in these provisions for nuclear plants provides additional assur-
such a case, recovery requirements are waived if the maxi- ance that structural integrity is maintained in the unlikely
mum deflection is less than l2t / 20,000 h, and deflection re- event of an earthquake beyond the design basis SSE or other
covery is suitable.
unforeseen circumstances. Second, the adoption of these
provisions provides reinforcing bar detailing requirements
R20.5—Members other than flexural members
Because the criteria for judging the results of load tests are consistent with the toughness needs of structural elements
not well established for code purposes, except for members designed for Special Facilities class of structures of the De-
subjected to flexure only, an analytical method is preferred partment of Energy’s non-reactor nuclear production plants
for the strength evaluation of other types of members. Load wherein limited inelastic response to design basis earthquake
testing of any type of structure is not, however, excluded as is permitted. ACI 349 is cited as the design code by the gov-
an alternative procedure when feasible. erning design criteria document of these facilities. Third, and
last, adoption of the high seismic risk provisions of ACI 318
References Chapter 21 maintains the intended maximum possible com-
20.1. ACI Committee 349, “Evaluation of Existing Nuclear safety
related Concrete Structures” (ACI 349.3R-97), American Concrete Insti- patibility between ACI 349 and ACI 318.
tute, Farmington Hills, MI, 20 pp.. R21.6 In a recent paper, the extremely good performance of
20.2. ACI Committee 437, “Strength Evaluation of Existing Concrete
Buildings (ACI 437R-91),” American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1991, 24 shearwalls during earthquakes was described. In addition to
pp. Also, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 3. the seismic capability of shearwalls, the relatively small lateral
deflections of shearwalls are more consistent with the require-
Chapter 21—Special Provisions for Seismic ments that safety related systems must be capable of continued
Design
operation during and after seismic events. At a height to depth
R21.2—General requirements ratio less than 2, the behavior of the wall is predominantly in
ACI 349’s intended scope is the design of safety related shear with insignificant bending deformation. Since boundary
structures of commercial nuclear power facilities and other elements are essentially required to provide adequate deform-
such facilities as may be required by the appropriate govern- ability and confinement for flexure, shear walls with aspect ra-
ing bodies. The predominant structural form is shear wall tios (hw/lw) of less than 2 do not require them.
and slab construction of general heavy proportions. The
safety related structures and structural elements of nuclear Reference
power plants are proportioned and reinforced so as to exhibit 21.1 Fintel, Mark, “Shearwalls—An Answer for Seismic Resistance?,”
elastic behavior under all loads (except impulsive and im- Concrete International, Vol.13, No. 7, July 1991, pp. 48-53.
pactive loads) and load combinations including those associ-
ated with the design basis SSE. This structural form and the Commentary on Appendix A—Thermal
Base Temperature =Tb as shown in Figure A1-I

Mean Temperature =Tm as shown in Figure AI-II and determined by Step 2
Temperature Distribution =The curve TNL or its linearized equivalent TL as shown in Figure A1-III
and determined by Step 3
Step 1. Obtain temperature distribution TNL through the concrete thickness.
Step 2. Determine mean temperature distribution Tm as
t⁄2
∫–t ⁄ 2 [ TNL – Tb ] dy-
T m = ----------------------------------------
t
The integral is the area bounded between TNL and Tb.
Step 3. For the nonlinear temperature distribution TNL, determine the equivalent linear temperature distribution, TL, such that this equivalent
distribution produces the same uncracked moment about the center line of the section as does the nonlinear temperature distribution. The equiv-
alent linear temperature distribution has an average temperature of Tm and a gradient ∆T. For rectangular sections,
∆T = ( 12 ⁄ t ) ∫t–⁄t 2⁄ 2 T NL y dy
2
The integral is the moment of the area under TNL about the section line.
Fig. A-1—Temperature distributions
Considerations operating conditions these temperatures usually produce lin-

ear temperature distributions across structural sections.
A.1—Scope (c) Accident or abnormal temperatures—These are short
Appendix A gives requirements for the design of concrete duration or transient temperatures, which usually produce
nuclear safety related structures (other than reactor vessels nonlinear temperature distributions across structural sections.
and containments) subjected to thermal loading. Typical nuclear safety related structures subjected to sig-
A.1.1 Appendix A also divides the temperature variations nificant ambient, operating, and/or accident temperatures
into two types: are:
(a) Position dependent—Variations through the thickness (a) Major shielding members
and along the geometric center of the member. (b) External walls and slabs
(b) Time dependent—Transient temperature distribution (c) Spent fuel pool walls and slabs
and the final steady state condition. (d) Pipe supports and restraints
Any structure in the vicinity of a high energy piping sys-
These temperature variations are produced by combina-
tem may be subjected to both a steam environment and a wa-
tions of the following:
ter/steam jet. The jet will usually be of short duration; steam
(a) Ambient temperatures—These are outside atmospheric environment will normally also be of short duration when
temperatures which depend upon the location of the plant venting to atmosphere occurs. In the case of containment in-
and vary with meteorological changes. ternal structures, the steam environment can be of long dura-
(b) Operating temperatures—The temperatures as ob- tion since it is contained by the containment.
tained in various locations inside the nuclear power plant un- A.1.2 The procedures discussed in Appendix A and this
der normal operating conditions. Under steady state normal commentary are valid for all of the temperature conditions
described above. However, the designer should consider the (stiffness), and the freedom of the member to move under
following when using these procedures: thermal loads restraint must be considered.
1. Linear thermal strain causes stress only under condi- In order to insure serviceability of the structure, steady-
tions of restraint and a portion of such stress may be self-re- state temperature conditions should be considered. The anal-
lieving. Mechanisms for such relief are: cracking, yielding, ysis should consider crack control on the tensile face, strain
relaxation, creep, and other time-dependent deformations. limitations for the section, and deflections of the structural
2. Accident temperature transients may be of such short elements.
duration that the resulting temperature distributions and cor- The limiting reinforcement requirements of Section 10.3.2
responding stress changes are not significant. Therefore, provide sufficient rotational capacity at the ends of all mem-
these temperature transients may not adversely affect the bers to accommodate some magnitude of thermal strains
safe shutdown capacity of the plant. without influencing the capacity of the member to support
Thus it can be seen that judgment is required when evalu- mechanical loading.
ating the effects of accident temperatures since they are de- In addition, deflection of structural elements may need to
pendent on the duration and location of the thermal transient, be considered in the design of nonstructural items attached to
as well as the performance requirements for the structure. concrete members (see Section 9.5).
A.1.4 Minimum reinforcement as specified in other sec- The thermal stress problem can be handled in any of the
tions of this Code should be provided even if the calcula- following three ways:
tions, as per this Appendix, indicate lesser amounts of 1. Most structural analyses treat thermal loads acting on a
reinforcement. The minimum reinforcement required by monolithic section and evaluate the rigidity of the section
Section 7.12 may be used to resist the thermal and other and the stiffness of the element based on full uncracked cross
loads. sections. Although fairly easy to perform, such an analysis
may be overly conservative, since it does not consider the
A.2—Definitions self-relieving nature of thermal stress due to cracking and
The various definitions are illustrated in Fig. A-1. deformation.
Base temperature—This is the temperature at which it is 2. Analyses may consider the cracking of concrete for all
assumed the material is free of thermal stresses. 70 F can be loads, mechanical and thermal. Although this approach
used as a base temperature for most calculations. probably is the most accurate and generally results in the
Temperature distribution—The temperature distribution largest degree of self-relieving thermal stress, it is very com-
across a section can vary with time as well as varying along plex, involving significant non-linear analysis and iterative
the length of the member. For such variations, the Engineer solutions not readily available to the Engineer.
should evaluate the effects of temperature distribution at a 3. The third alternative is to consider the structure un-
number of sections and for a number of time durations. cracked for mechanical loads and only consider the effect of
In cases where the temperature distribution on a section is cracking on thermal loads. The difficult part of such an anal-
nonlinear and the section is predicted to crack, the nonlinear ysis is the determination of that part of the thermal load that
temperature distribution may be converted to an equivalent causes cracking and that part then can be considered acting
linear temperature distribution for use in design of the section. on a cracked section.
Use of the equivalent linear temperature distribution in these A.3.4 One of the major concerns in the evaluation of
cases will not have a significant effect on the capacity of the stresses due to temperature is that they do not significantly
member. The method for this conversion is given in Figure A- reduce the magnitude of stress resulting from mechanical
1 for a rectangular section. The line TL in Figure A-1-III is the loads. One of the major reasons for this concern is that ther-
equivalent linear temperature distribution for use in design. mal stress may eventually relax with time. Thus, if any ad-
vantage is to be taken from thermal stresses reducing
A.3—General design requirements mechanical stress, loss of stress due to relaxation must be
A.3.1 Fig. A-1 illustrates a technique for considering the considered. The literature is replete with analyses and de-
gradient temperature distribution effect and the difference be- scriptions of creep and relaxation. One of the most used doc-
tween mean temperature distribution and base temperature. uments on the subject is ACI Publication SP-27, Designing
The gradient temperature distribution is represented by ∆T for Effects of Creep, Shrinkage and Temperature in Con-
in Fig. A-1-III, which is acceptable for cracked sections. The crete Structures.
difference between the mean temperature distribution and
the base temperature is Tm - Tb. A.4—Concrete temperatures
A.3.2 The time dependent variations discussed in this sec- The concrete temperatures given in this section are identi-
tion refer to the direct variation of temperature with time, ex- cal to those given by ACI 359.
cluding relaxation and creep effects. The latter are
considered in Section A.3.4. Commentary on Appendix B—Steel Embedments
A.3.3 When evaluating thermal stress in flexural mem-
bers, the calculations are strongly influenced by the rigidity B.1—Scope
of a given cross section, the total stiffness of the member in Appendix B of “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety
question, and the restraint against deformation offered by the Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-96),” referred to here-
structure. Thus the cracking of each cross section (rigidity), in as the Appendix, provides minimum requirements for the
the variation of cracking along the length of the member design of steel embedments used to transmit loads from at-
Fig. B-1—Load transfer behavior of deformed reinforcement
tachments into the reinforced concrete structures governed B.2—Definitions

by ACI 349-97. In addition to the definitions provided in Section B.2, the
Design limits have been established using both analytical definition of other terms used in the Appendix are the same
and test methods. Analytically, limits on capacity for both as those in “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related
concrete and steel have been established which are consis- Concrete Structures (ACI 349-97).”
tent with accepted ACI and AISC practice. Where design
limits have been established through test programs, test re- B.3—General requirements and loading
combinations
sults have been published or are available from the original
The requirements of this section reference other sections
source.1-3 Tests have been performed on steel embedments
of the Appendix and the Code. The Engineer, using the ap-
to determine the limiting load capabilities and anchorage re-
plicable requirements of the referenced sections, is responsi-
quirements for fabricated anchorages, concrete inserts, an-
ble for the design of an embedment which is compatible with
chor bolts, welded studs, and expansion anchors subject to
the material, design loads and function of the attachment and
loads applied in direct tension and shear. The effect of edge
the supporting structure.
conditions, strength of concrete, size, strength, number, and
Sections B.3.1. and B.3.2 require that the Engineer coordi-
spacing of anchors was investigated. Typical arrangement
nate the design of the attachment with the design of the em-
and geometry of steel embedments are as reflected in the fig-
bedment and surrounding concrete and that the embedment
ures of the Appendix, commentary, and references.
be designed for the load combinations of Section 9.2 of this
Although typical embedment details and concepts are ref- Code as a minimum. It is suggested that special consider-
erenced in Section B.1.1, this does not preclude the use of ation be given to embedments designed for vibratory loads
other details or concepts to which the provisions of this Ap- (e.g., increased load factor).
pendix and the Code are applicable. The variation in type of loading coupled with the various
Various methods of joining the attachment to the embed- loading combinations result in a wide range of design prob-
ment may be used, a few of which are shown in figures lems for the embedment designer. Also, a wide range of mate-
which are a part of the Appendix. Section B.1.2 specifies that rial for embedments is available which restricts Section B.3.3
the design of attachments is not a part of the Appendix; how- from being more explicit. From a practical point of view as
ever, proper consideration should be given to their design to well as from an economic standpoint, it must be the responsi-
insure compatibility with assumptions made in the design of bility of the Engineer to select appropriate materials for em-
the embedment. bedments and specify testing, if necessary, for each class of
embedments (as implied by Section B.3.3) which will insure ment are trying to participate equally in the load transfer
that the intended function of the attachment is not impaired. from the bar to the concrete. The committee realizes that us-
Section B.3.4 coordinates design strength in the Appendix ing the ld values of Section 12.2 is conservative. However,
with the requirements of Appendix C. In Section B.3.6, Ap- these requirements are specified in Section B.5.1.1(b) of the
pendix C is again referenced to permit plastic deformation of Appendix due to the lack of available data necessary to re-
embedments when subject to impactive and impulsive loads. duce the embedment requirements.
Section B.3.7 prohibits the Engineer from combining the A single mechanical anchor (e.g., head of an anchor bolt
design shear strength of bearing (e.g., a shear lug) and shear- or stud) at the end of a smooth bar or rod behaves differently
friction (e.g., shear studs) mechanisms. This exclusion is jus- than deformed reinforcement. As tensile load is increased,
tified in that it is difficult to predict the distribution of shear bond failure will occur such that the entire tensile load is
resistance as a result of differential stiffness of the two mech- transferred into the concrete by the anchor head. If depth of
anisms. This exclusion is required because of the displace- embedment is less than that required to develop the ultimate
ment incompatibility of these two independent and tensile strength of the bar or rod, concrete tensile failure will
nonconcurrent mechanisms. Tests show that the relatively occur with initial cracking beginning around the perimeter of
smaller displacements associated with the bearing mode pre- the anchor head. A “pullout cone failure” results as the
clude development of the shear-friction mode until after cracking propagates to the surface.
bearing mode failure (Reference B.7). However, as de- B.4.1 The combined requirements of Sections B.4 and B.5
scribed in commentary Section 5.1.2.2, the confining forces are intended to result in an embedment design which will ex-
afforded by the tension anchors in combination with other hibit ductile behavior in the case of unanticipated overload.
concurrent external loads, acting across potential shear This philosophy is consistent with the Code in that sudden
planes, can result in a significant and reliable increase in brittle failure is an undesirable failure mode.
bearing mode shear capacity and can be utilized. Section B.4.1 requires the designer to be cognizant of sat-
isfying applicable general requirements of the Code.
B.4—Design requirements for concrete
The basic requirements for the development of embedments B.4.2—Tension
in reinforced concrete are provided by Sections B.4 and B.5. This section defines the method of calculating design pull-
The transfer of tensile stress from steel to concrete using de- out strength of concrete, i.e., direct tensile capacity, for an
formed reinforcement or headed anchors is accomplished by embedment.
mechanical means. If the location of the load transfer mecha- The tensile strength of concrete is generally accepted as
nism (either bar deformations or anchor heads) is in close ranging from 6 to 7 times the square root of the compressive
proximity to one or more concrete surfaces, tensile cracking of strength of concrete (in psi). The distribution of principal
the concrete will occur at the load transfer mechanism. The ex- tensile stress in the concrete along the potential pullout fail-
tent of cracking is dependent on the tensile strength of con- ure plane defined by Section B.4.2 is assumed to vary (based
crete and location of the load transfer mechanism with respect on References 1, 2, and 3) from a maximum at the mechani-
to embedment depth and side cover distance. cal anchor on the end of the steel embedment to zero at the
Development length requirements for deformed reinforce- surface of the concrete. This constitutes an average resis-
ment are dependent on the relationship of the height and tance provided by the concrete of approximately 4 f′ c acting
spacing of deformations with respect to bar size and the in- on the projected tensile stress area. Failure is initiated at the
fluence of adjacent stressed reinforcement. The basic devel- outside periphery of the mechanical anchor (anchor head)
opment length requirements of Section 12.2 of this Code are and therefore the area of the anchor head does not contribute
based on clear side cover distances equal to or less than 3 in. to the pullout strength of the concrete and should be subtract-
and maximum bar spacing of 6 in. Reinforcement in concrete ed from the projected tensile stress area in computing pullout
members is generally located near the surface and therefore strength. Thus, it is desirable to keep the effective size of an-
the development length requirements of Section 12.2 of this chor head as small as possible to reduce embedment require-
Code are reasonably conservative to insure a ductile failure ments. Tests1,2 have shown that the head of a standard
without tensile splitting of the concrete. anchor bolt or stud, without a plate or washer, is sufficient
If a reinforcing bar is used as a tensile stress component bearing area to fully develop the tensile strength of bolts
embedded into the interior of a concrete mass, the develop- without damage to the concrete when the head of the bolt has
ment length requirements of Section 12.2 are excessive. For sufficient side cover for development of the necessary con-
uniformly sized and spaced bar deformations, the tensile fining pressure. This is the basis of the requirement specified
stress in the steel varies from a maximum at the surface of in Section B.4.5.2 which defines anchor head dimensions
the concrete to zero at the end of the bar as illustrated in Fig. that are similar to the head of anchor bolts.
B-1. For embedment lengths equal to the ld of Section 12.2, When the individual tensile stress components (e.g., bolts
the failure mode would be rupture of the steel at its ultimate or studs) of an embedment configuration are located suffi-
tensile strength. Typically, complete failure is preceded by ciently close together (i.e., center-to-center spacing) for an
developing a shallow surface cone (see Fig. B-1) when the overlapping of the potential pullout failure planes of the in-
bar reaches yield. dividual anchors, then the loss of the effective tensile stress
This preliminary distress occurs typically because the bar area can be compensated for by increased depth of embed-
deformations along the embedded portion of the reinforcement. The projected tensile stress area of the group must be
Fig. B-2—Concrete wedge due to shear Fig. B-3—Potential shear failure near a free edge
capable of developing the combined strengths of the tensile in-plane biaxial compression stresses becomes very large.
stress components as required by Section B.5.1.1. Other- The mode of failure of the concrete approaches direct shear.
wise, the reinforcement provisions of Section B.4.4 must ap- 2. Biaxial tension in the plane of the structure would tend
ply. to result in a total angle limit of 180 deg with increasing
For fully developed embedments, the concrete dimension magnitude of in-plane tension. However, as a real limit, the
parallel to the development length must be of sufficient thick- reinforced concrete would crack with the crack width being
ness to meet the nominal shear stress requirements of Section controlled by main reinforcement designed in accordance
11.11 of this Code for two-way action. When the anchorage is with appropriate provisions of the Code. In such cases of
made up of a number of bolts or individual anchors, spaced cracking due to biaxial tension (or flexural cracking of the
over a relatively wide surface area of the structure, the effec- face containing the embedment), the committee feels that the
tive stress area must be reduced to comply with Section 11.11 total angle can still be taken as 90 deg in conjunction with
of this Code. (See Fig. B.4-2 of the Appendix.) 4φ f′c to calculate design pullout strength.
The nominal inclination of the failure plane for pullout of The committee is aware that the two φ factors specified in
the concrete is 45 deg due to principal stress orientation if the this section, i.e., 0.65 and 0.85, represent a simplification of
concrete is stress free transverse to the pull-out force. As the a very complex problem. When the anchor head is in the ten-
crack propagates toward the surface the uncracked portion sion zone of the concrete member, the pullout strength of the
flexes as a shallow disc putting the outer surface in compres- concrete is dependent primarily on the tensile strength of the
sion around the perimeter and causing a change in the failure concrete, and the φ factor, 0.65, has been specified to corre-
plane inclination. For shallow embedments, generally less spond with Section 9.3.2(f) of this Code. When the anchor
than 5 in., the flexural strength due to the disc action is great- heads are beyond the far face reinforcement, or when the an-
er than the cone pullout strength such that an increase in load chor is located in the member where the extreme fiber stress
is required to propagate the crack. For this reason, the normal does not exceed the tensile capacity of the concrete, the fail-
90 deg failure cone (total angle) will approach 120 deg with ure should be in a manner consistent with the shear provi-
decreasing anchor depth in correlating failure loads1 to cal- sions of Section 11.11 of this Code. In these cases, using a φ
culated values using 4 f′c as a uniform stress. The actual factor of 0.85, the provisions of Section B.4.2 are equivalent
concrete spall for shallow depth anchors will produce an to those of Section 11.11 of this Code.
even wider area of failure. However, caution should be ob- The committee recognizes that ideally the φ factor could
served in the utilization of inclination angles greater than 45 be varied over a considerable range dependent upon such
deg because of the possibility of surface cracking which factors as depth of embedment, amount of main reinforce-
might restrict flexural action. For this reason the committee ment in the near face, and state of stress in the plane of the
does not recommend the use of inclination angles greater structure. However, there is not sufficient data nor is it prac-
than 45 deg for shallow depth anchors. tical for design purposes to be more precise than 0.85 or 0.65
The inclination of the failure angle will also vary as a func- in the current version of the Appendix.
tion of state of stress in the plane of the concrete structure
(e.g., wall or slab) into which the embedment is being an- B.4.3—Shear
chored. For example, several cases are as follows: The strength of anchors subject to shear are not signifi-
1. Biaxial compression in the plane of the structure will re- cantly affected by concrete strength unless the anchors are
sult in the total angle approaching zero as the magnitude of located near an edge or in the case of anchors (e.g., “shell-
type” expansion anchors) which exhibit nonlinear load de- depths or edge distances are not sufficient to fully develop
flection behavior. For bolts (also studs or bars) shear is trans- the strength of anchor steel, reinforcement must be located to
mitted from the bolt to the concrete through bearing of the intercept potential cracking planes. The reinforcement must
bolt at the surface, forming a concrete wedge approximately be sized and oriented to restrict propagation of cracking
one-quarter of the bolt diameter in depth. Translation of the should it occur. To accomplish this, reinforcement must be
wedge under the shearing force cannot occur without vertical fully developed on both sides of a postulated crack. It is rec-
movement or an upward thrust of the wedge on the restrain- ommended that the reinforcement patterns be concentric
ing plate as illustrated in Fig. B-2. This thrust induces tensile with the tensile stress field.
elongation in the anchor and thus the clamping force on the For direct tensile load transfer, Fig. B-4 illustrates how the
wedge increases in direct proportion with the shear as long tensile capacity of studs might be assured by reinforcing the
as the anchor steel remains elastic. When the bolt is near an potential concrete failure cone. For hairpin reinforcement to
edge, the total shearing force must be developed by tensile effectively intercept the potential failure planes, each leg
stress on a potential failure plane radiating at 45 deg toward should be located within Ld/3 from the edge of an anchor
the free edge from the anchor steel at the surface of the con- head. The portion of the hairpin anchored in the potential
crete as illustrated in Fig. B-3. If several bolts are parallel to failure cone should extend a minimum of eight (8) times the
a free edge, the effect of overlapping failure planes (i.e., cen- diameter of the reinforcement as indicated in Fig. B-4. For
ter-to-center spacing less than 2 m) must be considered in es-
other reinforcement configurations into the potential failure
tablishing the concrete strength.
cone, the anchorage requirements of Chapter 12 should be
When the steel is not fully anchored (i.e., minimum side
satisfied. In any case the limiting dimensions of eight (8) bar
cover distance is not provided) or the anchorage behavior is
diameters and Ld/3 should be complied with. If anchorage of
nonlinear in the normally elastic stress range, there is a radi-
the reinforcement cannot be accomplished in the available
cal reduction in the clamping force of the plate restraining
dimensions, the anchorage configuration should be changed.
the movement of the wedge. The depth of the wedge is then
controlled by the strength of concrete rather than the clamp- Limited testing3 has shown that when the edge distance is
ing force of the restraining plate. The shear strength of the less than two-thirds of the minimum provision of Section
steel is then controlled by bending and is reduced in direct B.5.1.2.1, premature concrete failure occurred for the rein-
proportion to an increased depth of the wedge. forcement pattern provided. For edge distance from one-
The location of the shear plane with respect to the concrete third to two-thirds of the minimum, reinforcement did re-
surface affects the development of shear friction resistance strain 45 deg tensile cracking; however, concrete shear fail-
and is discussed under Section B.6.5.2 ure occurred on a plane parallel to the shear plane at the
uppermost surface of the reinforcing steel. While the anchor-
B.4.4—Reinforcement age remained ductile the shear strength was reduced by the
Concrete tensile failure may occur as a result of insuffi- increased bending of the bolt about the concrete failure
cient embedment depth or edge distance. When embedment plane, therefore, reinforcement and confinement similar to
Fig. B-5—Example of reinforcement for shear near an

Fig. B-4—Example of reinforcement for direct tension edge
that illustrated in Fig. B-5 should be considered to preclude B.4.5—Bearing

premature failure. When the edge distance was less than one- The bearing requirements of Section B.4.5.1 reference the
third of the Section B.5.1.2.1 requirement, there was insuffi- bearing requirements of Section 10.15 of this Code and deal
cient anchorage of the reinforcement on the wedge side of with bearing stresses on concrete supports which are not lat-
the crack and failure was controlled entirely by the tensile erally reinforced to resist splitting stresses. When reinforce-
strength of the concrete. Therefore, in no case should an- ment is provided to prevent splitting and develop the
chors with less than one-third the edge distance required by bursting force of the anchorage, anchorages shall comply
with the requirements of Section 18.13 of this Code. The
Section B.5.1.2.1 be considered active in shear capacity. The
force required to pull out a cone of concrete for an individual
Engineer should be extremely cautious with edge distances
headed anchor (anchored in accordance with Section
less than those required by Section B.5.1.2.1. If reinforce- B.5.1.1) is less than the force required to split the concrete
ment cannot be provided to develop the required capacity, and therefore splitting parallel to the tensile force does not
the shear capacity of all such anchors should be completely occur irrespective of the bearing stress at the anchor head.
discounted or the embedment configuration changed. Splitting transverse to the tensile force can occur between
When the edge distances for direct tension are less than the anchor heads in multiple stress component anchorages par-
Section B.5.1.1(a) requirement, reinforcement must be pro- ticularly when the center-to-center spacing between the an-
vided to arrest tensile failure of the concrete due to lateral chor heads is less than the anchor embedment depth (see Fig.
bursting forces at anchor heads near the free surface. Tests B-7). However, the splitting plane is at 90 deg to the plane of
have not been performed to date on the effectiveness of rein- concern for bearing restrictions and may be controlled with
forcement to prevent tensile failure due to lateral bursting proper depth of embedment. If the concrete has been previ-
forces at an anchor head when the edge distances are less ously cracked in the normal splitting plane, then the force re-
than required by Section B.5.1.1(a). Therefore, the Engineer quired to propagate the crack is approximately one-half of
the force required to initiate splitting. Under these conditions
should rely on accepted practices for prestressing anchorag-
splitting may control the failure mode. However, the failure
es and the committee recommends spiral reinforcement as il-
load is approximately the same as the force required for pull-
lustrated in Fig. B-6. For conventional anchor heads the
out cone failure in uncracked concrete.
lateral force may be conservatively taken as one-fourth of
In compression anchorages, bearing stress is transmitted
the tensile capacity of the anchor steel (based on the Poisson
to the concrete at the concrete surface; therefore, splitting is
effect in the lateral direction). For expansion anchors this likely to occur only in compression anchorages of limited
force should be taken as the tensile failure load unless a less- supporting surface area. For such anchorages, the normal
er value can be established by testing for the specific anchor bearing restrictions should apply.
to be used. B.4.5.1 For shear lugs, the nominal bearing strength value
Any embedment configuration requiring reinforcement of 1.3 f'cAb is recommended based on the tests described in
must also permit development of the reinforcement. If suffi- Reference B.7 rather than the general provisions of Section
cient space is not available for appropriate development, the 10.15. The φ factor of 0.70 corresponds to that used for bear-
Engineer should consider alternative configurations. ing on concrete in Chapter 9.
Fig. B-6—Example of reinforcement to prevent lateral Fig. B-7—Splitting transverse to tension load
bursting
Fig. B-8—Ductile load deflection behavior Fig. B-9—Non-ductile load deflection behavior
Table B.5.1.1—Sample side cone blowout test data

Lateral force
Bolt size ASTM material Side cover distance Concrete strength Failure load coefficient
D, in. specification m, in. f′c, psi P, lb β
3
/4 A 307 2 5500+ 22,100 0.17
1 A 490 41/2 4245 94,000 0.18
Section B.4.5.2 describes anchor heads that do not have to pared to the minimum specified. In addition, the ratio of ten-
satisfy the requirements of Section B.4.5 (see Commentary sile strength to yield strength may vary from approximately
for Section B.4.2). 2 to 1.15. Considering these variations, it is necessary to
specify design pullout strength of concrete as a function of
B.5—Anchorage requirements fut rather than a factor times fy to insure ductility.
The basic philosophy of anchorage requirements is consis- A minimum side cover distance is required at the anchor
tent with the ultimate strength design philosophy of rein- head to confine the lateral thrust generated by the full load
forced concrete. The failure mechanism is controlled by transfer from steel to concrete. Because of the significant dif-
requiring yielding of the steel anchorage prior to brittle fail- ference in restraint stiffness around the periphery of the an-
ure. While ductility is not possible in all types of anchorages, chor head, lateral strains are not uniform and tend to
it is required in those types which can be made ductile (cus- concentrate in the region of minimum cover. The lateral
tom design). Some commercially available expansion an- bursting force is therefore of a magnitude relative to the lon-
chors are not ductile and are penalized by requiring a higher gitudinal load similar to that of the lateral strain to the longi-
safety factor against failure (see Section B.7.2 of the Appen- tudinal strain. Sample side cone blowouts are represented by
dix). Figure B-9 is typical of non-ductile anchorages. the test data given in Table B.5.1.1.
Ductile anchorages provide an added measure of safety for Equating the lateral force of the concrete design strength
seismic and impactive loading by the damping and energy for a single anchor bolt, stud, bar, or reinforcement results in
absorbing characteristics under unanticipated overloads. Fig.
B-8 is a typical load deflection curve for ductile anchorages.
βP × πm
2
= 4φ f′ c
Anchor load-deflection characteristics and flexibility of
the attachment baseplate affect the rotational stiffness of (lateral force) (concrete tensile strength) (projected area)
steel-to-concrete connections. Figure B-10 shows typical de-
formed shapes for attachments with rigid and flexible base- Applying a φ factor of 0.85 to concrete strength, a conser-
plates. Figure B-11 shows typical moment-rotation curves vative β of 0.25 and a tensile stress area of 0.75 of the gross
for the two types of attachment baseplates. area of bolt, stud, or bar
B.5.1.1—Tension 2
0.75πD
βP = β --------------------- × f ut = 4φ f′ c πm
2
The requirement of this section that the design pullout 4
strength of concrete exceed the minimum specified tensile
strength of the steel is to assure ductile behavior of the em-
bedment in the event of overload. Typical embedment steels f ut
m = D ---------------
-
exhibit significant variations in actual yield strength as com- 73 f′ c
If several bolts are parallel to a free edge, the effect of overlap- The anchorage shear strength due to confinement may be
ping failure planes on the lateral concrete design strength must taken as φKc(Py - Pa) with φ equal to 0.85, where Py is the
be considered. When plates or other steel members are used as strength of the tension anchors in accordance with Section
anchorage to transmit bearing stresses to the concrete, the ge- B.6 and Pa is the factored external axial load on the anchor-
ometry of these plates or steel members must be considered in age (Pa is positive for tension and negative for compression).
the reduction of the calculated concrete tensile area. This considers the effect of the tension anchors and external
Similar relationships can be developed for other embed- loads acting across the initial shear fracture planes (see Fig-
ment shapes that are embedded close to a “free” edge of the ure B-12). When Pa is negative, the provisions of Section
concrete. For expansion anchors it is recommended that the 9.2.3 regarding use of load factors of 0.9 or zero, must also
lateral bursting force be established using the average ten- be considered. The confinement coefficient, Kc, given in ref-
sion test failure load of the expansion anchor or a lower value erence B.7, is as follows:
if such can be established by testing. Kc = 1.6 for inset faceplates without shear lugs or for an-
When the anchor steel is composed of reinforcement with- chorages with multiple shear lugs of height, h, and spacing,
out mechanical end anchorage the development require- s, (clear distance face-to-face between shear lugs) less than
ments of Chapter 12 of this Code are more than adequate for or equal to 0.13h f′c
development of the tensile strength of the reinforcement. Kc = 1.8 for anchorages with a single shear lug located a
B.5.1.2 Shear distance, h, or greater from the front edge of the faceplate or
B.5.1.2.1 A minimum edge distance is required for full with multiple shear lugs and a shear lug spacing, s, greater
development of the shear strength of anchor steel. The pro- than 0.13h f′c
jected tensile stress area of a single bolt, stud, or bar for shear The values of confinement factor, Kc, are based on the
toward an edge is exactly half of the normal stress area for analysis of test data. The different Kc values for plates with
tensile loading of an anchor without an edge effect. For a de- and without shear lugs primarily reflect the difference in ini-
sign shear strength of Vu and an edge distance of m tial shear fracture location with respect to the tension an-
chors. The tests also show that the shear strength due to
V u = 2φ f′ c πm
2
confinement is directly additive to the shear strength deter-
mined by bearing or by shear stress. The tension anchor steel
area required to resist applied moments can also be utilized
πD
2
V u = 0.7 ---------- f ut for determining Py providing that the compressive reaction
4
For a friction coefficient of 0.7 for steel against concrete, from the applied moment acts across the potential shear
the ultimate shear strength of a bolt equals: plane in front of the shear lug.
For inset faceplates, the area of the faceplate edge in con-
tact with the concrete can be used as additional shear lug
πD
2
V u = 0.7 ---------- f ut bearing area provided that displacement compatibility with
4
shear lugs can be demonstrated. This requirement can be sat-
The minimum edge distance of a single bolt, stud, or bar is
isfied by designing the shear lug to remain elastic under fac-
obtained by equating the two expressions for Vu. Similar re-
tored design loads with a displacement (shear plus flexure)
lationships can be developed for other embedment shapes
less than 0.01 inches.
that are embedded close to a “free” edge of the concrete.
Consideration should be given to overlapping failure planes For cases such as in grouted installations where the bottom
for embedments with center-to-center spacings less than 2 of the faceplate is above the surface of the concrete, the shear
m. It should be noted that plates embedded near an edge will lug bearing area should be limited to the contact area below
behave essentially as shear lugs and should be treated as the plane defined by the concrete surface. This accounts for
such. The utilization of reinforcement to reduce edge re- the potential extension of the initial shear fracture plane
quirements for shear was discussed in Section B.4.4. (formed by the shear lugs) beyond the perimeter of the face-
B.5.1.2.2 The code requirements for the design of plate which could diminish the effective bearing area.
shear lugs have been revised from the 1985 edition of Ap- Multiple shear lugs must be proportioned by considering
pendix B based on testing reported in Reference B.7. This relative shear stiffnesses. When multiple shear lugs are used
testing confirmed that shear lugs are effective with axial near an edge, the concrete design shear strength effective
compression and tension loads on the embedment and that stress area must be evaluated for the embedment shear at
the strength is increased due to the confinement afforded by each shear lug.
the tension anchors in combination with external loads. The
shear strength of the anchorage is the sum of the bearing B.5.1.3—Combined loading
strength and the confinement as described below. The tensile and shear component load capacities of an-
The bearing strength of single shear lugs bearing on con- chors subjected to combined tension and shear are always
crete is defined in Section B.4.5.1. For multiple lugs the less than the capacities due to tension alone or shear alone.
shear strength should not exceed the shear strength between The Code therefore requires that the embedment be devel-
shear lugs as defined by a shear plane between the shear lugs oped for both pure tension (Section 5.1.1) and pure shear
as shown in Figure B-12 and a shear stress limited to 10 φ (Section 5.1.2.1), thus providing development for any com-
f′ c with φ equal to 0.85. bination of tension and shear loads.
Fig. B-10—Rigid and flexible baseplates
B.5.1.4 Side cover distances less than m/3 may result in strength from anchors and shear strength from friction. The
side blowout cone failures and loss of anchorage (see Sec- total nominal shear strength for anchors designed for shear
tion B.4.4 of the commentary). friction includes only the shear strength from friction. The φ
factor for torsion is applied to the nominal torsional strength
B.6—Design requirements for embedment steel of connections where a group of anchors provides the tor-
B.6.2 The strength reduction factors φ are consistent with sional resistance by shear on individual anchors.
Section 9.3.2 of the ACI 349 Code. B.6.3 The minimum elongation requirement of 14 percent in
B.6.2.1 The φ factor for moment and axial load is applied 2 inches is intended to ensure sufficient ductility in the embed-
to the nominal moment and axial load capacity of the embedment steel. The limit of 14 percent is based on ASTM A325 and
ment steel in the connection. A490 anchor materials which have been shown to behave in a
B.6.2.2 The φ for shear is applied to the total nominal shear ductile manner when used for embedment steel (B.1).
strength of the connection. The total nominal shear strength B.6.4 Anchors that incorporate a reduced section (threads,
for anchors designed for anchor bearing includes shear notch, wedge, etc.) in the load path (the term load path in-
cludes tension load path and shear load path) may fail in the tend across the potential shear plane between the anchorage
reduced section before sufficient inelastic deformation has and the concrete. The shear plane may be located at the inter-
occurred to allow redistribution of anchor tension and shear face between the baseplate and the concrete (or grout) or may
forces, thus exhibiting low ductility. This can be prevented be located within the concrete as for the baseplates with shear
by requirement (a) which assures that yielding of the unre- lugs. Because of surface roughness along the concrete shear
duced section will occur prior to failure of the reduced sec- plane and, in many cases, wedging action of fractured con-
tion. Tests reported in Reference B.8 have shown that crete (or grout), a separation of the two surfaces along the
threaded anchors will exhibit sufficient ductility to redistrib- shear plane occurs as relative shear displacements are induced
ute tension and shear forces. by the shear loading. This causes tensile stress to develop in
the tension anchors which results in a clamping force across
B.6.5—Anchors the shear plane and an increased shear resistance developed
B.6.5.2 Shear
from friction forces along the shear plane.
The dominant mechanism of shear transfer in steel-to-con-
crete connections varies with the location of the shear plane Typical responses of grouted and cast-in-place baseplates
relative to the surface of the concrete. subjected to combined tension and shear loads are illustrated
In connections with baseplates mounted flush or above the in Figure B-13.
surface of the concrete, the dominant mechanism of shear B.6.5.2.1 This sub-section is applicable to connections
transfer is by bearing on the anchor. In this case, shear is that transfer shear primarily by bearing on the anchor. The
transferred directly by the anchor. These types of connec- provisions are consistent with that obtained from the previous
tions are covered in B.6.5.2.1. Local crushing of the concrete Appendix B shear-friction approach and from test results for
occurs at the surface in front of the anchor and is confined by flush mounted baseplates in Reference B.8. The reduction for
the baseplate. This confinement is greater for concrete cast exposed grout pads is consistent with results obtained from
against the baseplate than for baseplates against hardened previous editions of Appendix B and with test results of Ref-
concrete. The bearing loads on the anchor result in kinking erence B.9. The shear strength of anchors in applications with
and bending of the anchor. The extent of local crushing and grout pads thicker than the anchor diameter should be deter-
the deformation of the anchor are affected by the type of an- mined by tests. The shear strength of threaded anchor should
chor. Studs welded to the baseplate are stiffer than bolts be based on the effective area of the threaded portion.
without preload that pass through a hole in the baseplate. In The friction force which develops between the baseplate
addition there is greater confinement since concrete is cast and concrete due to the compressive resultant from moment
directly against the baseplate. As a result there is less crush- and/or axial load contributes to the shear strength of the con-
ing of concrete and less kinking of a welded stud than for a nection. For as-rolled baseplates installed against hardened
non-preloaded bolt. The overall stiffness of a welded stud is concrete, the coefficient of friction is approximately 0.40
higher than that of the same diameter bolt. The stiffness of (B.6 and B.8). Alternatively, higher values may be used if es-
the non-preloaded bolt can be increased by preload such that
tablished by testing, as permitted in B.1.3.
the applied load is less than the frictional resistance.
Connections transfer shear as follows:
The shear-friction mechanism for base plates embedded in
the concrete surface (with or without shear lugs) is similar to 1. By friction between the baseplate and the concrete due
that described in Section 11.7 of the Code. Shear loads are to the compressive resultant from applied moment and axial
transferred into the concrete by bearing of the anchors similar compression, and
to the surface mounted plates and by bearing of the edge of the 2. By the shear strength provided by anchors if the fric-
plate and shear lug on the concrete. The tension anchors ex- tional strength is not sufficient to transfer the applied shear.
Fig. B-11—Typical moment-rotation curves for attachment Fig. B-12—Fracture planes for embedments with shear lugs
baseplates (Ref. B.7)
Fig. B-13—Typical response of grouted and cast-in-place baseplates
If the frictional strength is larger than the applied shear to apply. Elliptical tension-shear interaction is consistent
load, the baseplate will not slip and anchors will not contrib- with the AISC Specifications for bolts in steel structures and
ute to the shear strength of the connection. When the friction- with test results on steel-to-concrete connections (B.8).
al strength is less than the applied shear, the shear resistance B.6.5.3.2 The effect of direct tension on a connection
will be a combination of both frictional strength and shear that transfers shear by shear-friction is a direct reduction of the
strength provided by the anchors. clamping force which produces the shear resistance. While
It must be assured that the compressive resultant used in this effect can be offset somewhat in the elastic range by pre-
determining the frictional resistance acts concurrent with the loading anchors, there is no difference in effect once the ten-
shear load. The presence or absence of loads should satisfy sile load exceeds the preload. The required strength of the
Section 9.2.3. Compressive resultants due to secondary loads anchor is simply a sum of the tensile strength required for di-
should not be considered. rect tension and the tensile strength required for shear-friction.
B.6.5.2.2 This sub-section is applicable to connections
that transfer shear primarily by a friction force that results B.7—Expansion anchors
from the clamping action of anchors stressed in tension that Section B.7 was developed to provide guidance in the de-
cross a shear failure plane in the concrete. The provisions are sign and use of concrete expansion anchors.
consistent with that obtained from the results for embedded
B.7.1—Design requirements
plates with and without shear lugs (see Reference B.7).
The preferred design for concrete expansion anchors is for the
The coefficient of 1.4 for embedments with shear lugs re- concrete to have a design strength greater than the anchor steel
flects concrete-to-concrete friction afforded by entrapment and therefore provide indication of an impending failure if an
of concrete between the shear lug(s) and the faceplate (post overload condition should occur. In lieu of design strength cal-
bearing mode behavior). This value corresponds to the fric- culations as defined in Section B.7.1.1, concrete design strength
tion coefficient of 1.4 recommended in Section 11.7 of the can be verified by tests as defined in Section B.7.1.2.
Code for concrete-to-concrete friction and is confirmed by
Due to variations in installation conditions, expansion
the tests discussed in Reference B.7. The baseplate and shear
mechanisms, and repeatability of test results, the permissible
lugs are required to remain elastic under loads up to the nom-
design strength for the expansion anchor steel is reduced to
inal capacity of the concrete to assure behavior consistent
90 percent of the values specified in Section B.6.2.
with that tested.
B.6.5.3 Combined tension and shear B.7.2—Alternative design requirements
B.6.5.3.1 For anchors that transfer shear by bearing, a Expansion anchors that do not meet the ductility require-
linear tension-shear interaction for anchors is conservative ments of Section B.7.1 are penalized by this section. The
and is recommended for original designs. An elliptical ten- permissible design strength is limited to one-third of the aver-
sion-shear interaction is also acceptable but is more difficult age test failure load. This limitation is applied to both tension
and shear test loads since shear capacity can be a function of B.9.2 Grouts are used frequently for their special characteris-
tensile anchorage capacity. tics. Special grouts shall be tested to verify their required prop-
B.7.3 The use of one expansion anchor results in a connec- erties. Epoxy grouts are not under the jurisdiction of the Code.
tion with no capability to redistribute load; therefore addi- B.9.3 Grouted embedments designed to transfer load be-
tional conservatism is required. tween steel and grout or grout and concrete by tension, shear,
or bond, shall be tested to verify load transfer capabilities.
B.7.4—Testing The testing program shall be established by the engineer.
Testing of expansion anchors and expansion mechanisms Special considerations are required for grouted embed-
to verify anchor strength as used in Sections B.7.1 or B.7.2 ments designed to transfer tension loads by means of bond
is required by Section B.7.4.1. Anchor strength shall be es- between the grout and concrete. Testing has demonstrated
tablished by tests and shall include testing of the anchor ex- that the bond between grout and concrete can be lost when
pansion mechanism and its ability to transmit the load to cracks propagate to the grout-concrete interface. The testing
adjacent concrete. Concrete design strength shall be deter- program should address this situation if applicable.
mined in accordance with Sections B.7.1.1 or B.7.1.2. Tests B.9.5 Grouted embedments designed to transfer load by
performed to meet the requirements of Section B.7.1.2 may bearing or compression should only require testing to verify
be incorporated in the tests specified in Section B.7.4.1. It is compressive strength of grout and do not require in place
not practical to specify in the Appendix a detailed testing verification testing.
program for expansion anchors due to the variety of applica-
tions and designs. The testing requirements defined in ANSI/ B.10—Fabrication and installation
ASTM E 488 are acceptable as a guide for establishing a test- B.10.1 The Engineer must consider and make provisions
ing program. However, the Engineer is responsible for assur- for fabrication and installation conditions that could influ-
ing that the testing program used qualifies the particular ence the load capacity. Thermal expansion due to welding
anchor for the intended application. after the embedment has been set in concrete is considered to
Testing of expansion anchors in the installed condition be a frequent problem.
specified in Section B.7.4.2 is to verify actuation of the ex-
pansion mechanism. References
Test method (a) may not provide verification of load ca- B.1. “Anchorage to Concrete,” Research and Development Report No.
CEB 75-32, Civil Engineering Branch, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knox-
pacity of shell-type anchors, but will provide verification for ville, Dec. 1976, 25 pp.
wedge-type anchors. Test method (b) will provide verifica- B.2. McMackin, P. J.; Slutter, R. G.; and Fisher, J. W., “Headed Steel
tion of load capacity for wedge- or shell-type anchors. How- Anchors Under Combined Loading,” AISC Engineering Journal, 2nd
ever, Test (a) has been the more practical test procedure for Quarter, 1973, pp. 43-52.
B.3. Bailey, John W., and Burdette, Edwin G., “Edge Effects on Anchor-
wedge anchors.
age to Concrete,” Civil Engineering Research Series No. 31, The Univer-
sity of Tennessee, Knoxville, Aug. 1977, 21 pp.
B.7.5—Expansion anchor selection B.4. ACI Committee 318, Commentary on Building Code Requirements
The Engineer is cautioned to select an expansion anchor that for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-77), American Concrete Institute,
is designed, manufactured, and tested to be compatible with Detroit, 1977, 132 pp.
B.5. “Standard Test Methods for Strength of Anchors in Concrete and
the load application, environment, and installation conditions. Masonry Elements,” (ANSI-ASTM E 488-76), 1979 Annual Book of
Cracking of concrete in tension zones subsequent to an- ASTM Standards, Part 18, American Society for Testing and Materials,
chor installation can result in a reduction of anchor capacity Philadelphia, pp. 966-974.
and complete loss of preload if the cracking is coincident B.6. PCI Design Handbook, Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago,
1971, 380 pp.
with the anchor location. In this kind of application, the en- B.7. Rotz, J. V., and Reifschneider, M., “Combined Axial and Shear
gineer should have results from tests conducted in cracked Load Capacity of Embedments in Concrete,” 10th International Confer-
concrete specimens. ence, Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Anaheim, California,
If anchors are subjected to vibratory (i.e., continuous or in- August, 1989.
B.8. Cook, R. A., and Klingner, R. E., “Behavior and Design of Ductile
termittent cyclic loads), a complete loss of function can occur. Steel-to-Concrete Connections with Surface Mounted Baseplates,”
Anchor type and application should be qualified by testing. Anchors in Concrete—Design and Behavior, SP-130, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1991, pp. 61-122.
B.8—Inserts B.9. Adihardjo, R., and Soltis, L., “Combined Shear and Tension on
Grouted Base Details,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1979,
Inserts are not subject to the same variables as expansion pp. 23-26.
anchors and therefore the strength reduction factors are ad-
justed accordingly. Testing to determine design strength is a Commentary on Appendix C—Special Provisions
requirement. for Impulsive and Impactive Effects
B.9—Grouted embedments C.1—Scope

B.9.1 Since grouted embedments are required to transfer C.1.2 While the provisions of this appendix apply to those
loads the same as cast-in-place embedments, the appropriate structural elements directly affected by the impactive and
design and anchorage requirements defined in Section B.4, impulsive loadings, vibratory effects at points away from the
B.5, and B.6 are applicable. location of impact should also be considered.
Table C-1—Dynamic increase factors

Material Dynamic increase factor (DIF)* But not more than
Reinforcing steel
Grade 40 1.1 + 0.0723 ( log SR + 3.3) 1.20

Grade 50 1.05 + 0.08 ( log SR + 3.0) 1.15
Grade 60 1.0 + 0.02625 ( log SR + 5.9) 1.10
Prestressing steel 1.0 —
Concrete
Axial and
flexural 0.90 + 0.10 ( log SR + 5.0) 1.25
compression
Shear [0.90 + 0.10 ( log SR + 5.0)] 1/2 1.10
* Where SR = strain rate, in./in./sec, and DIF ≥ 1.0.
C.2—Dynamic strength increase creasing the deflection which the structural element can un-
Because of the rapid strain rates that occur in structural dergo before collapse. The compression reinforcement is
elements under impactive or impulsive loading, both the most effective in contributing to the ductility of beams when
concrete and reinforcing steel will exhibit strengths that are it is tied by stirrups to the tension reinforcement. However,
higher than those under static loading conditions. in certain cases, the position of the neutral axis of a structural
The Dynamic Increase Factors (DIF) represent the ratio of element may result in the so-called compression reinforce-
dynamic to static yield stresses, or strengths, and are a direct ment being actually in tension when the section reaches its
function of the strain rates involved, as indicated in ultimate capacity. In such cases, the section should be eval-
Table C-1 and References 1 and 2. uated to determine the effectiveness of the compressions re-
inforcement contribution to the ductility of the structural
C.3—Deformation element.
C.3.1 The ductility ratio is used in conjunction with The equation for ductility, µ d = 0.05/(ρ – ρ′) is based
total deformation consisting of both shear and flexural upon test data given in References 3 and 4 and is widely ac-
displacements. cepted in engineering practice. The coefficient of 0.05 was
C.3.2 This section specifies a minimum structural strength chosen instead of 0.1 given in Reference 4 to provide an ad-
for resisting certain impulsive loads whose time-dependence ditional margin of safety against overestimating ductility.
curve contains an interval, equal to or greater than the funda- However, available data indicate that the 0.05 factor may be
mental period of the structural element, during which the too conservative.1,4,22
load is approximately constant. For example, referring to When the permissible ductility ratio is defined as a func-
Fig. C-1, the impulsive loading, which attains a maximum tion of the rotational capacity, the maximum acceptable dis-
value F, has the approximately constant value F 2 during a placement is established by calculating the displacement at
time ∆t, where ∆t is equal to or greater than the fundamental ultimate, with an upper limit based on the rotational capacity
period of the structural element. Let R m1 denote the resis- specified in Section C.3.4.
tance required by the impulsive loading with peak value F 1 Reference 24 presents a rational method for obtaining a
that acts before the time interval ∆t. conservative estimate of the displacement at ultimate of a
Section C.3.2 requires that the minimum available resis- reinforced concrete slab subjected to a concentrated load.
tance for the impulsive load be that larger of the values R m1 It is likely that the upper limit of 10 specified for the case
and R m2 = 1.2F 2, and stipulates that this value is applicable when the permissible ductility ratios are established using
to the load combinations which include impulsive loads in the µ d = 0.05/(ρ – ρ′) equation is too restrictive for two-way
Chapter 9. slabs. Therefore, the Code permits the designer, in accor-
This section emphasizes by referencing Section C.8 that dance with Section C.1.3, to use higher limits if sufficient
the calculation of available resistance or margin in a particu- justification can be provided.
lar structural element should consider the strength required C.3.4 The rotational capacity r u of any yield hinge can be
for other loads which may be acting concurrently with the expressed by:
impulsive load.
C.3.3 This section defines the permissible ductility ratio of ru = ψu Dh (3.4.1)
a concrete member in terms of the tension and compression
reinforcement or as a function of the rotational capacity as
in which the ultimate curvature ψ u is given by:
defined in C.3.4. It should be noted that the compression re-
inforcement contributes to the ductility of a structural ele-
ment, by enabling a large angle-change to take place before ε
ψ u = ----u (3.4.2)
general crushing failure of the concrete occurs, thereby in- c
where ε u is the ultimate compressive strain capacity of the ties in excess of 0.07 radians (4 deg) it is desirable to limit
concrete, c is the distance from the extreme compressive fi- maximum rotations to this amount even under those circum-
ber to the neutral axis at ultimate strength, and D h is the ef- stances where Eq. (3.4.6) may yield greater rotations.
fective dimension of the plastic hinge zone. Reference 5, C.3.5 This section covers the special case of impulsive or
based upon testing simply supported beams with concentrat- impactive loads due to blast and compartment pressurization
ed loads, suggests that the ultimate concrete compressive which could affect the integrity of the structure as a whole.
strain be given by: Such loads may have a more significant overall effect than
other impactive or impulsive loads defined in Sections C.1.4
0.5 and C.1.5. Therefore, the upper limit of ductility has been
ε u = 0.003 + ------- (3.4.3) conservatively limited to 3.0 to minimize the permanent de-
z
formation due to these loads.
and the effective plastic hinge zone dimension be given by: C.3.6 The Code specifies that the load capacity in shear
shall be at least 20 percent greater than the load capacity in
flexure, to assure that flexure will control the behavior of the
D h = --- 1 +  1.14 --- – 1  1 – ------------- ---------- 
d z q – q′ d structural element subjected to impulsive or impactive load-
(3.4.4)
2  d  qb 16.2  ing. This requirement is based on the fact that the increase in
strength under rapid strain exhibited by reinforcing bars is
where z is the span distance in inches from the point of max- better established than that for shear strength of
imum moment to zero moment, d is the effective beam depth concrete.1,2,4,23
in inches, the steel reinforcement indexes are: When considering the conservative limitations placed on
the dynamic increase factors, the load capacity in flexure
ρf might be underestimated to a greater degree than the load ca-
q = -------y pacity in shear.
fc ′
Careful consideration should be given to special cases
where the flexural behavior goes significantly past yield into
ρ′f the strain hardening range. In such cases, the margin for load
q′ = ---------y
fc ′ capacity in shear over the load capacity in flexure should
preferably be higher than 20 percent.
and q b = tensile reinforcement index for balanced ultimate C.3.7 This section specifies the ductility ratios for rein-
strength conditions. forced concrete structures where diagonal or punching shear,
All the test data from which Eq. (3.4.3) and (3.4.4) were rather than flexure, controls the design. A ductility ratio of
developed were obtained from beams with widths of 6 in., 1.3 is specified for cases in which the shear is carried only by
and depths of 10 and 20 in. Excessive conservatism may re- the concrete. The fact that a ductility ratio greater than 1.0 is
sult from extrapolating these equations to beams with depths permitted is based on the fact that even brittle structures1
substantially greater that 20 in. since the terms in these equa- have some inelastic deformation capabilities.
tions are not all dimensionless. This section allows the ductility ratio to be increased from
For members designed in accordance with the provisions 1.3 to 1.6 provided at least 20 percent of the shear load is car-
of this Code for impulsive or impactive loads, the reinforce- ried by stirrups or bent bars, with the rest of the shear load
ment indexes are limited to: being resisted by concrete.
C.3.8 and C.3.9 The ductility of a member at failure is
q – q′ more dependent on the mode of failure than on the type of
------------- ≤ 0.5 (3.4.5) loading. A compressive type of failure may occur in mem-
qb
bers such as columns which are subjected to either an axial
load or axial load and bending moment. Under these condi-
In this case, it can be shown5 that within practical limits tions the mode of failure will be brittle. This is the case when
for z and d, the rotations obtained from Eq. (3.4.1) through failure is controlled by the compression region on the inter-
(3.4.4) can be conservatively estimated by: action diagram for columns. (see Fig. C-2). In this situation
the provisions of Section 10.3.3 that limit the amount of flex-
d ural reinforcement are not applicable and the member can be
r u = ( 0.0065 ) --- (3.4.6)
c over-reinforced. In such cases the permissible ductility ratio
has been specified as 1.3 in accordance with Reference 1.
The ultimate rotation results reported in Reference 5 for When flexure controls the design, the ductility ratio is to
beams which satisfy Eq. (3.4.5) are conservatively estimated be as specified in Sections C.3.3 or C.3.4. Section C.3.8b de-
by Eq. (3.4.6). The ratio of test results to calculated results fines that a design with axial load less than or equal to
has a mean 0f 1.47 and a standard deviation of 0.49. Equa- 0.1 f c′ Ag or one-third of that which produces balanced con-
tion (3.4.6) generally yields rotations in the range from 0.025 ditions can be considered a flexural failure. The limits of
to 0.075 radians (1.4 to 4.3 deg) when applied to beams 0.1 f c′ Ag or one-third that which produces balanced condi-
which satisfy the requirements of Eq. (3.4.5). Because of the tions, whichever is smaller, represent a magnitude of load
lack of sufficient test data showing beam rotational capaci- below which axial effects on ductility are negligible.
C.4—Requirements to assure ductility can be substituted for the shear provisions of this Code for
The provisions to assure ductility are parallel to appropri- those specific situations where these relationships can be
ate sections of Appendix A of ACI 318. shown to be applicable.
C.5—Shear capacity C.6—Impulsive effects

The shear capacity for concrete beams and columns is tak- Three methods are identified as being acceptable for de-
en in accordance with Sections 11.1 and 11.5 of the main termination of structural response to impulsive loads. For
body of this Code, which were evaluated by ACI-ASCE the majority of cases encountered in design, application of
Committee 326 on shear and diagonal tension6 against an ex- these methods can be based on a single-degree-of-freedom
tensive body of test data and found to be satisfactory. These (SDOF) representation of the structure. In the SDOF mod-
criteria are also invoked for walls and slabs where two-way el, the distributed properties of the affected structural ele-
action is not effective, also in accordance with ACI 318 prac- ment are idealized in terms of an equivalent concentrated
tice. Examples would be checking of reaction shear at sup- mass, load, and resistance-displacement function. Formu-
ported edges for slabs under local or distributed loads. lation and application of the SDOF methods is given in a
The shear capacity criteria for slabs and walls imply that number of references, such as References 4, 10, and 11, and
potential failure could only occur either adjacent to the load summarized briefly below.
or at the supported edge. The reference to Section 11.10 for The equivalent mass M e, load F e, and elastic stiffness K e
punching shear criteria invokes the standard 4 f c′ limit are determined on the basis of an assumed deformed shape
taken from ACI 318. The 4 f c′ limit considers beneficial function φ(x, y) for the structure as follows:
effects of two-way action and concurrent flexural stress to
some extent. The punching shear criteria reference to Sec-
∫ ∫ mφ (x,y) dx dy
2
tion 11.11 takes advantage of beneficial effect of net com- Me =
pression in walls in reducing principal (diagonal) tension.
This criterion was taken from the nuclear containment
∫ ∫ pφ (x,y) dx dy
2
code.7 Fe =
The code recognizes the possible conservatism of the
punching shear equation contained in Section 11.11. There-
Fe
fore, the provisions of Section C.1.3 allow substitution of al- K e = -----K
ternate punching shear relationships for those specific Ft
situations where these alternate relationships can be shown
to be applicable. For instance, a number of papers have been where
published recently (such as References 8 and 9) suggesting m = mass per unit area
alternate punching shear relationships for two-way slabs p = p(x, y) = pressure
based on percentage flexural reinforcement. In particular, Ft = resultant force
Reference 9 suggests that the punching shear capacity P v be K = value of F t to cause unit deflection at point
taken as the lesser of: of application of resultant force
The φ(x, y) function can generally be taken either as the
ρf
ρf y d 1 – 0.59 -------y
2 fundamental mode shape or as the deformed shape had the
 fc ′  load been applied statically. Exceptions may occur for very
P v = ---------------------------------------------
- (C.5.1)
 0.2 – 0.9 --c- rapid transient or nonsymmetric loads, in which case higher
 L mode response might predominate. The resistance-displace-
ment function is an idealized bilinear curve characterized by
elastic stiffness up to the static limit load and constant resis-
or
tance thereafter (see Code Fig. C.3.1). Limit load may be de-
termined by methods such as virtual work12 or yield line
theory.13,14
0.25
20 ( c + d )d ( 100ρ ) fc ′
P v = -------------------------------------------------------------
- (C.5.2)
c If significant deformation beyond the elastic limit is pre-
0.75 + 4 ---
L dicted, it is appropriate to assume φ(x, y) as the shape of the
collapse mechanism.
where ρ is the ratio of tensile steel reinforcement, d is the ef- Given the parameters of the equivalent SDOF system, re-
fective depth of tensile reinforcement from the compression sponse can be predicted using one of the specified methods:
face, c is the effective side dimension of the loaded zone as (a) Chart solutions such as those given in References 4, 10,
given by c = A p where A p is the area over which the P v and 11 can be used to determine a dynamic load factor,
is applied, and L is the span length from the center of the based Code ductility criteria, for common forms of
loaded zone to the slab support. For impactive and impulsive transient load functions.
loads, the Dynamic Increase Factors (DIF) of Section C.2 (b) For finite duration loads (as represented by the F 1 part of
should be used with Eq. (C.5.1) and (C.5.2) and the results of the loading as discussed in Section C.3.2 and as shown in
these equations should be reduced by the appropriate Fig. C.3.2) impulse can be equated with change in mo-
φ factor. With these modifications, Eq. (C.5.1) and (C.5.2) mentum to find the velocity of the structure, then velocity
used to find kinetic energy, and finally kinetic energy though these concrete fragments will have exit velocities
equated to strain energy capacity required. Available very much lower than the striking velocity of the impacting
strain energy capacity is that area under the resistance- missile (so long as the wall thickness is greater than the per-
displacement curve and within the Code ductility criteria. foration thickness), they might be damaging to fragile sys-
(c) For complex transient load functions, time history inte- tems or equipment. In such a case, it is necessary to prevent
gration may be performed to predict response. Maximum scabbing by either (1) attaching an adequately designed scab
permissible response is limited by Code ductility criteria. plate to the rear surface of the structural element or (2) use of
In situation where the impulsive loads act on highly irreg- a wall thickness greater than that necessary to prevent scab-
ular structure configurations or nonuniform strength sec- bing.
tions, the SDOF representation may not produce accurate A large number of empirical formulas exist for predicting
results. For these cases, the time history dynamic analysis the required concrete thicknesses to prevent perforation or
method is generally used with a multi-degree-of-freedom scabbing. None of these formulas have yet been sufficiently
mathematical model of the structure. where the Code ductil- verified or accepted to enable the Code Committee to specify
ity criteria are used to permit deformation beyond elastic a single formula and require its usage. At this time, the re-
limits, nonlinear effects must be appropriately accounted for quirement is placed upon the designer to insure that he is us-
in the material models. ing an applicable formula or pertinent test data. Some
Impulsive loads must be combined with other loads in ac- tentative guidance concerning applicable formulas can be
cordance with the load combinations and factors in provided by the Code committee. The Modified National
Section 9.1. Strain energy capacity available to resist im- Defense Research Council formulas,16 the Bechtel formu-
pulsive loads must be reduced by the amount of work done las,17 and the Stone and Webster formulas18 appear to be in
by other (factored) loads during deformation to maximum reasonable agreement with the available published pertinent
response. test data19-21 for perforation and scabbing thicknesses. Any
of these formulas are tentatively recommended for usage for
C.7—Impactive effects relatively nondeformable missiles. Other previously used
Missile impactive loads cause both local effects and over-
formulas such as the Modified Petry, and the Modified Bal-
all structural response of the impacted structure. Local ef-
listic Research Laboratory Formulas (see Reference 16 for
fects consist of:
discussion of these formulas) are not recommended for us-
Penetration—Displacement of a missile into an impacted
age. For highly deformable missiles, usage of nondeform-
structural element. It is a measure of the depth of the crater
able missile impact formulas for calculating the required
formed at the zone of impact.
perforation or scabbing thicknesses may result in excessive
Perforation—The passing of a missile completely conservatism and techniques have been suggested15-17 for
through the impacted structural element with or without exit accounting for missile deformability.
velocity (i.e., “full penetration”).
Test data in the range of interest is rapidly becoming avail-
Scabbing—Ejection of material from the back face of the able.18-21 However, sufficient data is not available to ade-
impacted structural element opposite to the face of impact. quately define the degree of scatter on perforation or
Spalling—Ejection of material from the front face of the scabbing thickness. However, for higher missile velocities,
impacted structural element (i.e., the face on which the mis- the one standard deviation bounds are on the order of ±15 to
sile impacts). 20 percent. Because of potential scatter of test data, and the
Punching shear—Local shear failure occurring in the im- degree of uncertainty that exists for currently available appli-
mediate vicinity of the impacted zone. A punching shear fail- cable formulas or pertinent test data, the Code requires that
ure occurs as part of perforation. wall thicknesses be at least 20 percent greater than deter-
These definitions are not universally used (for instance, mined by an appropriate mean-centered formula or the mean
back face spalling is sometimes used in lieu of scabbing to of test data to prevent perforation or scabbing. This 20 per-
define the ejection of materials from the back face). Howev- cent factor is to account for uncertainty and is not considered
er, the above definitions are consistently used in this Code. to be an additional factor of safety. The factor of safety is
If a structural element must act as a missile barrier then contained in the selection of the impacting missile properties
it is necessary that the element be sufficiently thick so as to and velocity. The intent of the Code is to insure that the con-
prevent perforation and the provisions of Section C.7.2.1 crete thickness be at least one standard deviation greater than
must be met. However, if the structural element is not re- the mean perforation or scabbing thickness. In those cases
quired to stop the missile and local perforation is permissi- where the designer can show that he has met the intent of the
ble and does not impair the required function of the Code with less than a 20 percent increase in thickness, then
structural element, then the provisions of Section C.7.2.1 this Code provision for a 20 percent increase in thickness can
are not mandatory. be reduced. Inasmuch as missile test data are rapidly becom-
The provisions of Section C.7.2.1 do not preclude scab- ing available, values of minimum thickness are being estab-
bing of concrete off the rear face of the structural element. lished and receiving acceptance by industry and responsible
these fragments of scabbed concrete become secondary mis- regulatory agencies. There would be no need to add 20 per-
siles. With estimates of a spectrum of values for the masses cent to such established thickness values determined for spe-
of the fragments, the exit velocities can be calculated.15 Al- cifically defined impact conditions.
It should be noted that most of the test data were devel- of Concrete Practice, Part 2.
oped for missiles with relatively low mass and high impact C.7. ACI-ASME Committee 359, “Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels
velocity. In assessing the applicability of empirical formu- and Containments (ACI 359-74),” ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
Section III, Division 2, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
lae, the range of parameters used in the tests should be con- York, 1975, 316 pp.
sidered. C.8. Yitzhaki, David, “Punching Strength of Reinforced Chicanery
Slabs,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 63, No. 5, May 1966, pp. 527-542.
C.8—Impactive and impulsive loads C.9. Long, Adrian E., “A Two-Phase Approach to the Punching Strength
In cases of impulsive and impactive loading where a struc- of Slabs,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 72, No. 2, Feb. 1975, pp. 37-45.
tural element is expected to deform beyond its elastic limits, C.10. Biggs, John M., Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-
the usefulness of load combination equations presented in Hill Book Co., New York, 1964, 341 pp.
Chapter 9 is rather limited. These load combination equa- C.11. “Design of Structures to Resist the Effects of Atomic Weapons,”
Department of the Army Technical Manual, Mar. 15, 1972: “Principles of
tions do not provide any means of accounting for the addi- Dynamic Analysis and Design” (TM5-856-3), and “Structural Elements
tional work done by the static loads such as dead load, live Subjected to Dynamic Loads” (TM5-856-4).
load, etc., which may be present as the structural element de- C.12. Hodge, Philip G., Jr., Plastic Analysis of Structures, McGraw-Hill
forms beyond its effective yield point (corresponding to X y, Book Co., New York, 1959, 364 pp.
Fig. C-3). C.13. Johansen, K. W., Yield-Line Formulae for Slabs, translated by Pau-
If the energy balance method is used, only the energy rep- lin M. Katborg, Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1972, 106 pp.
C.14. Wood, R. H., Plastic and Elastic Design of Slabs and Plates,
resented by Area A. in Fig. C-3 which is available to resist
Ronald Press Co., New York, 1961, 344 pp.
the impulsive and impactive loads should be used. Alterna-
C.15. Rotz, J. V., “Evaluation of Tornado Missile Impact Effects on
tively, if an elastoplastic analysis is performed, the effective Structures,” Proceedings, A Symposium on Tornadoes, Assessment of
ductility ratio to be used in the analysis for impactive and im- Knowledge and Implications for Man, Texas Technical University, Lub-
pulsive loading is given by bock, June 1976, pp. 363-374.
C.16. Kennedy, R. P., “A Review of Procedures for the Analysis and
Design of Concrete Structures to Resist Missile Impact Effects,” Nuclear
Xm – Xs µd Xy – Xs
µ′ = -----------------
- = ----------------------
- Engineering and Design (Amsterdam), V. 37, No. 2, 1976, pp. 183-203.
Xy – Xs Xy – Xs C.17. Rotz, J. V., “Results of Missile Impact Tests on Reinforced Con-
crete Panels,” Proceedings, Second Specialty Conference on Structural
Design of Nuclear Plant Facilities (New Orleans, Dec. 1975), American
where µ d is the permissible ductility ratio for the case being Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1976, pp. 720-738.
considered. C.18. Jankov, A. D.; Shanahar, J. A.; and White, M. P., “Missile Tests of
This effective ductility ratio is to be used in conjunction Quarter-Scale Reinforced Concrete Barriers,” Proceedings, A Symposium
with effective available resistance equal to R m – R s . on Tornadoes, Assessment of Knowledge and Implications for Man, Texas
Technical University, Lubbock, June 1976, pp. 605-622.
In lieu of a more rigorous analysis, seismic forces can be
C.19. Stephenson, A. E., “Full-Scale Tornado-Missile Impact Tests
conservatively treated as equivalent static loads in the anal- (Interim Report),” Report No. NP-148, Sandia Laboratories, Tonopah,
ysis for determining the adequacy of the element for the im- Nevada (prepared for Electric Power Research Institute), Apr. 1976, 21 pp.
pactive and impulsive loading. C.20. Barber, R. B., “Steel Rod/Concrete Slab Impact Test (Experimen-
tal Simulation),” Bechtel Corp., San Francisco, Oct. 1973.
References C.21. Vassallo, F. A., “Missile Impact Testing of Reinforced chicanery
C.1. Newmark, N. M., and Haltiwanger, J. D., “Air Force Design Man- Panels,” Report No. HC-5609-D-1, Calspan Corp., Buffalo (prepared for
ual; Principles and Practices for Design of Hardened Structures,” Technical Bechtel Power Corp.), Jan. 1975.
Documentary Report No. AFSWC-TDR-62-138, Air Force Special Weap- C.22. Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J., “Dynamic Behavior of Rein-
ons Center, Air Force Systems Command, Kirtland Air Force Base, New forced and Prestressed Concrete Buildings Under Horizontal Forces and
Mexico, Dec. 1962. Design of Joints (Including Wind, Earthquake, Blast Effects),” Proceed-
C.2. Cowell, W. L., “Dynamic Tests of Concrete Reinforcing Steels,” ings, Eighth IABSE Congress (New York, Sept. 1968), International Asso-
Technical Report No. R-394, U. S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, ciation for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, 1968, pp. 585-613.
Port Hueneme, Sept. 1965, 34 pp. C.23. “Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosion,” Techni-
C.3. Denton, D. R., “A Dynamic Ultimate Strength Study of Simply cal Manual No. 5-1300, U. S. Department of the Army, Navy, and Air
Supported Two-Way Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” Technical Report No. 1- Force, Washington, D.C., June 15, 1969.
789, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
1967, 211 pp. C.24. Burdette, E. G., and Bernal, D., “Ductility Ratio for Slabs,” Jour-
nal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. ST 11, November,
C.4. Norris, Charles H., et al., Structural Design for Dynamic Loads,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1959, 453 pp. 1978, pp. 1744-1748.
C.5. Mattock, Alan H., “Rotational Capacity of Hinging Region in Rein- C.25. Sliter, George E., “Assessment of Empirical Concrete Impact For-
forced Concrete Beams,” Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, SP- mulas,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. ST 5, May
12, American Concrete Institute/American Society of Civil Engineers, 1980, pp. 1023-1045.
Detroit, 1965, pp. 143-181.
C.6. ACI/ASCE Committee 326, “Shear and Diagonal Tension,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 59, No. 1, Jan. 1962, pp. 1-30; No. 2, Feb. This report was submitted to letter ballot of the committee and
1962, pp. 277-333; and No. 3, Mar. 1962, pp. 353-395. Also, ACI Manual was approved in accordance with ACI balloting procedures.

ACI 349R-97: Reported by ACI Committee 349

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACI 349R-97: Reported by ACI Committee 349

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 349R-97: Reported by ACI Committee 349

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACI 349R-97

Commentary on Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related

Hans G. Ashar Gunnar A. Harstead Richard S. Orr

The content of this commentary is the responsibility of the

ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and Commen- CONTENTS

Chapter 2—Definitions, p. 349R-3 Chapter 11—Shear and Torsion, p. 349R-12

Chapter 8—Analysis and Design: General Appendix B—Steel Embedments, p. 349R-17

R1.1—Scope R1.5—Quality assurance program

Operating basis wind R3.5—Metal reinforcement

R4.4.2 When concretes are exposed to external sources of R5.0—Notation

Fig. R5.3—Flowchart for selection and documentation of concrete proportions

Fig. 11.1—Concrete shear strength in presence of membrane tensile stresses

R19.1—Scope and definitions Chapter 20—Strength Evaluation of Existing

Base Temperature =Tb as shown in Figure A1-I

Fig. A-1—Temperature distributions

Considerations operating conditions these temperatures usually produce lin-

Fig. B-1—Load transfer behavior of deformed reinforcement

tachments into the reinforced concrete structures governed B.2—Definitions

Fig. B-5—Example of reinforcement for shear near an

that illustrated in Fig. B-5 should be considered to preclude B.4.5—Bearing

Table B.5.1.1—Sample side cone blowout test data

Fig. B-10—Rigid and flexible baseplates

Fig. B-13—Typical response of grouted and cast-in-place baseplates

B.9—Grouted embedments C.1—Scope

Table C-1—Dynamic increase factors

Grade 40 1.1 + 0.0723 ( log SR + 3.3) 1.20

Prestressing steel 1.0 —

Shear [0.90 + 0.10 ( log SR + 5.0)] 1/2 1.10

* Where SR = strain rate, in./in./sec, and DIF ≥ 1.0.

C.5—Shear capacity C.6—Impulsive effects

You might also like