ML19257D151

Forwards Supplemental Matl Re Proposed Mods to Control Bldg in Response to NRC Questions Concerning Vertical Shear Forces at Corners R-55 & N-55

ML19257D151
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	01/28/1980
From:	Broehl D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-07551, TAC-11299, TAC-7551, NUDOCS 8002010394
Download: ML19257D151 (106)

Text

i.

4

. :a _.b. --E Podland General Electric Company

~!

$v

?

'.Ev es: ::r, :e ;w5 +~

January 28, 1980 Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50-344 License NPF-1 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ATTN:

Mr. A.

Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission k'a shingt on, D. C.

20555

Dear Sir:

Enclosed are 40 copies of supplemental material, relating to the proposed modifi>_ations to the Trojan Control Building, in response to NRC Staff Questions as follows:

Enclosure A is titled " Vertical Shear Forces at Corners R-55 and N-55" and provides information supplemental to Licensee's response dated July 6, 1979 to NRC Question 16 dated Iby 18, 1979, and responses dated December 21, 1979 to NRC Questions 2 and 5 dated October 2, 1979.

Enclosure B is a replacement page for Licensee's response dated December 21, 1979 to NRC Question 5 dated September 20, 1979.

Enclosure C is a replacement " Attachment 5-3" to replace that supplied with Licensee's response dated December 17, 1979 to NRC Staff Question 5 dated September 14, 1979.

(The attachment previously provided included only even numbered pages of the report.)

Sincerely, s

4/

DJB/LNE/4sa6Al Enclosure c:

Mr. Lynn Frank, Director State of Oregon Department of Energy i855 0,77 Mr. R. H. Engelken, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V 8002010 3%

s sw n n o

A. Schwencer January 28, 1980 Enclosure A Page 1 of 3 VERTICAL SHEAR FORCES AT CORNERS R-55 AND N-55 The Licensee's response dated December 22, 1979 to NRC Ques-tion No. 6 dated October 2, 1979 discusses in detail the mechanism of vertical shear force transfer at the corners of R-55 and N-55 walls of the Control Building.

The referenced response also addresses the compatibility of deformation cor-responding to the resistances provided by the beam-column connections and the shear-friction of horizontal reinforcing steel.

The Licensee's response dated December 21, 1979 to NRC Question No. 5 dated October 2, 1979 provides the explanation for the difference in the magnitude of the actual corner shear forces as given by the latest STARDYNE analysis to the shear forces reported in Section 3.3 of PGE-1020, Rev 2.

The corner shear forces were arrived at by distributing the effect of the base reaction equally in the participating walls.

The actual t

distribution will depend upon the element size and membrane stresses.

In case of the R-55 corner, since the element size along line R is much larger compared to that along line 55, a larger proportion of the base _eaction force may be attributed to the R line.

This is also seen from the element corner forces from the STARDYNE run.

Hence, an equal distribution of the base reaction among the two walls is considered to be conservative.

The attached table summarizes the vertical shear forces, the itemized capacities corresponding to the different resistance mechanisms and the summations of the resistance components.

The significance of providing the capacities corresponding to the shear-friction of horizontal reinforcing steel together with the capacities as provided by the frictional resistance of beam-column connections is explained in the Licensee's response dated December 22, 1979 to NRC Question No. 6 dated October -7f DG-3 1855 078

A. Schwencer January 28, 1980 Enclosure A Page 2 of 3 1979.

The vertical shear forces and the capacities at the corresponding wall intersections provided herewith supersede 1

those provided in Licensee's responses dated July 6, 1979 to NRC Question No. 16 dated May 18, 1979, and December 21, 1979 to NRC 4

Question No. 2 dated October 2, 1979.

s 1

DG-3 1855 079'

A. Schwencer January 28, 1980 Enclosure A Page 3 of 3

~

Table VERTICAL SHEAR FORCES AND CAPACITIES AT CORNERS R-55 AND N-55 l

Shear Resistance (kips) l I

I I

Vertical l

l Beam-Column Connection l

l 1

l Corner l Wall l Shear Force i Shear-Friction I Frictional l Ultimate I

V=

l V

l l

l Line I (kips) i V

I Resistance I Resistance IV +V2(f)lV +V2(")!

1*4 I

1 y

y l

l 1

OBE 0.159 l

l V2(f) l V2(")

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I l

1 R

l 1686 1

2125 l

1032 l

1895 l

3157 I

4020 l

2871 l 1

I I

I I

I I

I I

I R-55 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l 55 i

1686 l

2125 I

923 l

1429 I

3048 I

3554 l

2539 l l

1 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I l

N I

1593 l

1275 l

1251 l

2538 l

2526 1

3813 l

2724 l 1

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l 55 l

1289 l

1682 1

923 l

1441 l

2605 1

3123 l

2231 l I

N-55 l(West)l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

1 1

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

55 1

304 I

807 I

597 l

1030 l

1404 l

1837 l

1312 l 1

l(East)l I

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

1 1

I I

I I

LD C

CD O

r.

e

A. Schwencer January 28, 1980 Enclosure B Page 1 of 1 NRC Ouestions (9/20/79)

O. 5 Page 6 of 8 dance with Table I of Part 4 of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction.

b.

If the reaction of i.npact force does not meet the criteria of iii.a, but is less than the ultimate shear capacity of the connection (where the ultimate shear capacity is based on half the ultimate strength of the bolting material or of the material of the connected member), the connection is adequate.

The connection adequacy has been assessed by considering i

the bending of the connecting material in addition to the direct shear stress.

The floor elements considered in the analysis and the way they meet the acceptance criteria are as follows (see Figure 5-1):

1.

Beam at the east edge of the hatch:

The beam under tha influence of dead load, construction load, and impact does not yield.

The drop height for impact calculations is 1".

The allowable connection capacities of 230 kips at end U-41 and 275 kips at end U-44 are not exceeded and the connection meets the cri-terion iii.a.

2.

Concrete floor:

The floor under the influence of dead load, construction load, and impact yields with a ductility ratio of 4, where a ratio of 30 is allowea.

The drop height in these calcu-slab thickness of 12".

3.

Beam on line S:

REVISED 1/23/80 1855 081

A.

Schwencer January 28, 1980 ENCLOSURE C -3 to Licensee's response dated Dece=ber 17, 1979 to NRC Staff Question 5 dated September 14, 1979.

1855 082

..s

.,,x,,~,.

]

..y-.. w...

7...-,..,.. -,. y..

ATTACHMENT 5-3 f

E a

kr.N

(

d

~

.+ -

..w.

N

\\

IS

_' q

-%p ycW, gg'g< e/

a o

U WJH iry.

dy

@if GiC

@R Noug p.6 y

. ~ ~..

K h

. l s.,

P ~ --

r.,

..ww

.w

, L N,.,..

i

.- g. *

..+..,x..

.:.e. e p.

,~.

l

. r.

. c., :.y.) ~. ' -

.~9; /.dg.y l..*

'j t l

~~

5f *

,u._ g;T: =)T

~

.. ~

.y.

.,.J.

_E.

.,;,...e. MISCELLANEOUS PAPER C-7412

..j.n.d.......

r L(

,..: m,..,.. ;.. m,,.

.. u.. :. :.c.. s,~,,; w,:._..m........... ::.

, cm..... m.,, 7,,..<-:.,

z,... _.:. : - :. n. p=.,

, x., - :-.

w..

.a I.[:IP.ULi OU$NNNISY. ANCE MIREINFbRbNb_NN.,

-a f.1 BARS. EMBEDDED..IN HARDENED ~CONCRETER 1. ~

......+.0 w.

s

.:. z.

• .,,.,. ?, * ; w.:.' :

'.'". ".a...',;, % c. -....-.... %.

by

j..

.y

~

. c.., :-.

v. ~ ;

.,,r..~

...e.

" :.'- '+6 " -). '.. -

=

'z

..1 L.df._. ? - :. -. -f.,,L, ; - : ' *i '.-f e g

,-, %..,.,. ~.,....

,.e.

, fc,.c

...- +

m,,s....%..,.,

.,...-3.

,y

.. p, _-

. ::...e c.

,o a

... +..

x-.

.a..

j.e'.,- Q..

V '...

Q,.

M

,, 7 x

. w. ~ e. w. m. -, --... w.r.,, 7, ~:..,,. n - o

.u. :..s:x n.: wza -u a..... y m..g....e w -%,. c.',

r.-~,,

w._,. +.,. _.,_,-:-,-

,,,.w. n. u.,.c c..w x.y

.,n.

r: g

..g-g.-.g~g, g u..,,

. m

.s.

.a.~

g,m, s-..py:..q,.m.gm, g,. gr _g.- 9.e.-.m.. y.

m

. -w g.,..o.. %.r.o..,v/.e. n x_

m,

..w

. o.g, G o.<+v-.,W:s.....

...1 ;.,

. s.~: h,a

. set !'J.::. v,

. p we 8

'.%e'.e.,..( :-'.~.[,9..g.9' 1c d ".'.. :.<.,,.,2,3. 7;,. e.. ;.. G Q

.m m u ~

n

,f g

-', ",' qc. !s-$ ';., _..

1 w y., :;

., n J

n;.. -.. y gg gg1[i.

- +2

..m e '

.a4 z

m

. y.;

g %.m wm :'

w

^

.e

,,a.-- e. 4,...., u.. u' J.W1 m

-a

~.

k.

t

.y,, %..%,

e. 9. ::4. 4.,,...,;,.p...c: w.-~.,k.

..+2...,

s.. y

.'..a 0

.. m.:. -.,,., y n....:.y n

~.

--a.

[g%.,. ~.

s,u.. :.m f..g %%' '4.'>.w' ? ~M I,e

+ g..s..e. -~ y'h:;,._,. t

' ' Y"M4 n.

. w...

~s v.

s

. ~s

.w..

.w.

s..- e

l,'

' i....Z O.S...

G'd

% - ~ '.,

'd' W

/Jh s-4*f r-1 1:.p. p) #

?..

-u u,,

y '. K l,ry e y,

.g,.

LM.%:

.. - &~

5.X d C M ?'T

}5 w $$w&;;hi-S;y'{E(;N&.Y.SW&':

,~ z

~

$.'; &g

&_'Y h*N5 & W.E. h W l &. w& % 'N.? WE W m f'*?.

V W

s.

-Q

'M50%s w&

2

%3 d%%

.c i

~

> 4-

"" m s ~ qL At g.v v;, p h i. A..

e e.m -

ef%..w-Mt.W-M.4 r.x.= W J J' w==

- m -

'gM'@

.. c--.

c 5 d.,.

h n-~-~~ r.w a. t

,%-e *m:-y 'df 4.,sI *g

. e" yt f r. m a w

-.Yl T 9 E.i

~ ~Q;Q.Wx,4. Q:.u.

,ce &.T

..,..j M-.

u n

....r..--m

..- 6,

.w.:W, e i

e

'+

. 1

- a a ' - -...

u y -- - ~ - _

4

F I P P M h. - e. 3 -"a..>_ n..MRIT

}

n w.

~11 T.W_:..,Aa. xe; 1

? [yWp&

.a. :-- ;---c--

i II21 b

2.

= y, ~;.

il Bh

-.kM w-- _..h._.. m..am.,9 9h.m 2

... w. _ _.-_. _ _

.4,Am,y,, -

,.n i.n

~

w-s

- 2w.

- q..

.. m.

- ~-m-w y~.x y e

-:'L~.9.w a., x _.._..

x..:_.__ m,L.

-~

_.. a "'_

f.

-.,,,4gsDirMD_e d_-

.--. - ~ -.

~

~

.a ~

.e_.

t -.*p:.-... -.. to L cs.s. J Q. t f.

, -g.y$

5

~ ~. Q. f h.,

~. ::,;,_

_~-u 2,,.;., ;

.w.---

-L. % _ y

.%s :.?.g,; '

'N 1

e c*

y

.m

. c

,_.. +

'.i,,,.'.g.~.,.v.,,

-...:...,.e-.. -. ~..,..

1

1. 4-

.,.3 s.

r.. _L.._..

~

f. o..

. p

._ _ ;.m.,

3,,,

.u..

,..,.,.a

...u s

1 June 1974g j

d' 4casored by Office, Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army condutesby U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experirner,t Station

-+

Concrete Laboratory b

V. ksburg, e....

ic ssissippi t

1 APPROVED FOR PUBUC RELEASE; CISTMSUTON UNUMITED g

1855 J83

b

.phdN,

.D.

'Tu.e s,

.. - QM_.7M7,'y$

' '4Ay-j

,.z..g:

l

,~-.NXiT ;>

2 vf %..

m

,. -y-4. v $.

n.4

.;1. -!.r+s Q i ~

2

,. g Mg,.,f Z.

4 f.

4

. -3. _.. '. 'y v, +,

i

' e *. %%y q"c's..

w c.. L-*

y 3

4.. s. W,Q" sa.;

?,.

4 i

p-e 1,!

.. - ?IC6MrtoC.

..N

. e:: L,61<.h o

'

• f r. 7.htWe 2fs w

w{. [:, 5%c 3 49

• f -

4

.s, s.-

m -*~, e Ln.3 4ew"-

.;?

. _. - -M *';'4.

a ra

- : c.. E ::-42;.y.G-J

...p #.L

.g

. y. ;.

f

. >}.f.i(4 y!,

~l jg

~

+1

~.

.. en.

. p.. " -'LLrllyA. y

$ ' ' ;I.A.,'> k. k.- -_

.~

..gjp-J..f,

}

Cestroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.

@

• F.as.4:s. +. 1

'a

~

e'

.hI

'.51.

a y

5 75:.60.'

4..,

- map.g..

.,,'r'm y?,

",. &.* t.o

)

..~.

. w._-cG.p;o...

1

' n.;l r-

.)'

' ' '.'.' 0D

. - 'p". ' t

.A

.g

.; }

,, ~;.w:.

3..

' ' %. py s.

._~..,".%

J T.

. 'j a

'.%;s.;s..

a c.

. r.- i

. '. :g

v. n s

" p.

H c

. S..Y,$

e

~.3 0 h.. > M...'*t.'

g*=,

~

Shy

..w,t.-

W: e. <

&s

.~,-

r

.e

. e ~ < e.

t

' 2:

E n,- C?

3 1

,.,. t

.i.

x

..w...

j The rindings in this report are not to be construed as on officiel

~ '

Department of the Army position unless so designated w; -

)

I by other cuthorized documents.

', [

'd r

}

-'r-

'.n~:.

p e -';

9

~ ',

-?-y 9,

'.h k.

9 4

h

'[

~

O f4 r

. ~ -,

\\

m F-s A

^d w

,%)

• S; FOREWORD This investigation was authorized by first indorsement from the Office, Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, dated 28 May 1909, to a U. S.

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) letter dated 19 May 1969, subject, " Project Plan for Epoxy Resins and Other Adhesives:

Pullout Resistance of Reinforcing Bars in Drilled Holes in Hardened Concrete Grouted with Epoxy Resins (E3 Item 628.11). " It was completed as a part of Work Unit 31140 of the Civil Works Resear.h Pregram, " Investigation of New Materials, Testing Methods, and Apparatus," approved 25 June 1973 The work was conducted during fiscal years 1972 and 1973 The investigation was conducted in the WES Concrete Laboratory under the supervision of Messrs. Eryant Mather, Chief of the Concrete Laboratory, J. M. Polatty, Chief of the Engineering Mechanics Division, and W. O. Tynes, Chief of the Concrete and Rock Properties Branch. Mem-bers of the Concrete Laboratory staff actively concerned with the work included Messrs. Mather, Polatty, Tyr.es, W. F. McCleese, and R. L. Stowe.

Messrs. McCleese and Stowe served independently as project leaders; Mr. Stowe conducted the data analyses and prepared this report.

Directors of WE3 during this investigation and the preparation of this report were COL L. A. Brown, CE, and BG E. D. Peixotto, CE.

COL G. H. Hilt, CE, was Director at the time of publication. Technic 11 Direc tor was Mr. F. R. Bro'.m.

1855 085 111

q

. w n _=,. c n. ~ w e s a.=_w:we m a m. w

~,c. m.w -

-.--:-~-r

!!t It

/k\\h

,1 f @ I$'h i

y I

W crs 2,

' - ). {Ok MISCELLANEOUS PAPER C-74-12

.I PULLOUT RESISTANCE OF REINFORCING BARS EMBEDDED IN HARDENED CONCRETE by R. L. Stowe

'til

'Ji i'

I' w

w

'ICI m h

I,I I C10) 1 iD10E22CIE

,l m

p

(

h l-i l

b June 1974 l

sponsma by Office, Chief of Epginee s, U. S. Army f

Conouctesty U. S. Arrny Engineer Waterways Experiment Station I

Concrete Laboratory Vicksburg, Mississippi

'. v s Aewv wec viCKseum 3 win g.

APF80VE3 FOR PU9L 0 RELE.ASE; CtsiR18UT10N UNLIMITED 1855

&nw-_,_n.w-n.w.a_._o g g-.n.x.

~-, w. e mn

,n

.M l Wy i*A

?

N L

e 4,

C4

).

a e,

(.*

H..

s +t CCiTE!TS d.

?

D 8

t%

Page E:

3 FCFI,iCRD.

iii M

w l

CC:!VERSIO:i FACTORS, U. 3. CUSTCMARY TO :ETRIC (OI) U:IITS OF w T.

,-. d':b., s..-

g-au

.1 vil r-Er

~,cu.w,,.n.. -,

e:

ix i

1 Ly PART I: BTRODUCTIO:I 1

?

Eackground.

1 I

Cb,jective 2

i E

a l

Scope rg,W 2

t i

FART II: MATERIALS, EG.UIEiT, TEST ELOCES, AIID PROCEIUPZ3 3

Nb Pi3 Materialc 3

i p' N

Test Blocka 5

5 Equipment and Tecting Procedure 9

-[

FART III: A:iALYS."J A iD DICCUCCIO:7.

11 (5

t t v, 4

Cenent Crcut Mixturec 11

! "l'

=

)

Epoxy-Recin Cycterc 13 t..

3, Displacement 15 R

r&C FART 1V : CCIiCLU3ICIiG A'!D PICO:"G:IDATIO:ic 17

[

w.

g i

Ccnclucions 17 j e.M Recctmendationc 18 l

-. =-.Fm.,, 7. - C.u.s g!

u 20

,1-o-6%

a.= w..>

...m 1-5

,.m:

v

.r i

E,

_,w

. e...

l

[

O

'h,A i s

t.?:v c

4*d s'c '

EX -

l 4-, -

1855 08/

j.;ru9

~

I.

[,(/;;

~C

, n:.

[ h @,

S+

n ~...v

.. a _.......,

.,,.c.

a d

N

NN j

pMs%%sa+a w mbw$s'as~m;reomsn,n: wn-: n ma ~ : -- w-2 mxc.= y'my,

,6 r

i Lj JY f.9 r

or 2

V b

. p

.'N 1 '

I i. CJy

-w CCL'ER3IC:t FACTCRS, U. 3. CUSTC!'.ARY TO METRIC (SI) g

'f U:!ITS CF I.ACURDEIT 8,.

N U. S. custcmar/ units of measure tnts c1n be converted to metric (SI)

I units as follows:

d 4

Multirly By To Obtain i

inches 25.h millimetres square inches 645.16 square millimetres

),

feet 0 3048 metres i

i pounds (= ass) 0.h5359237 kilograms

.4 Ih cunce:: (mass)

?S.3k9527 grams in kipr (force) k.kkS222 kilonevtens

• D 4

f,r f

tons (ferce) 8.896Lhh kilonewtons

'l e

j pcunds (force) per square 0.006694757 regapascals inch pcunds (mass) per cubic 0.5933 kilogra=3 per cubic metre jj i

J,1 yard h;E Fahrenheit degrees 5/9 Celsius degree., or Kelvins

• E I,

ls a.

h i

=

Ei Y

I

. r?

i L..

g..

i t

. s-'

ir,

, Y-h FM t

i e

d To cbtain Celsius /C) temperature readings frce Fahrenheit (F) read-

!M I

Ih;.

(5/9)(F - 32). To sbtain i

ings, use the folle rinc-formula:

2 0 --

elvin (.':) readirc:., use:

~ = ( 5/9', ' ? - 3 2 ) + 2 73 15 L

w' rs,

.b.,,

.a 4

• g z

\\.

~I i> n l

l. 5 h ~'

y%

m n_+ ~ m +-u n u w m. m s., ?: m :.-~,. n.. w n ; w,. g n p y :.- :. R m. m u ; ? -

e

l' r.a%

e'

~.

y l,

l

-.x5 N

'i W.

J, oi.

(

i,l, D

l

., y p

.. y f

J Q'i v&1 N

~.,w i

SUD RRY r

..a I

Holes for embedding reinforcing bars were diancnd-drilled into z.

macc concrete test blocks. The holes were 1 in. (25.4 mm) in dieneter T

l

! {

and deep enough to embed No. 4 and No. 6 deformed reinforcing bars to depths of 5, 8,10, and 20 nominal bar d.taneters. Fortland-ccment gn.

grouts and ccamercially available epoxy-recin cyctems were used to an-Sd',

"9 chor the bars in the drilled holec. The bcnding agents were allowed to f?f cure, and the reinforcing barc were axially loaded to determine which bonding agent offered the most pullout resistance.

In all instances, j

i; the epcxy-anchored reinforcing bars exhibited more resistance to pull-D.

agents evaluated in this investigation are reccamended for anchoring

@,,(

cut than did the bars anchored with the cement groutc. The bonding reinforcing bars in drilled holes in hardened mass ccncrete; however, 1

certain limitations are specified for their use.

ll ', [t M[

..[

4.9 g

m/ E a

i h., 4 j

i

,[4'.

m' jn aed

< ~. >..

a

n

.. ;.a y,-

W f %,$

f f

[$/

• h

,Y

)

y.

i

.'.t m..,..

v.

L, e/A.t.

yg

., p:..

1855 uB9 Vgg u

scw.

&l *:

N..

N.

.w

't M,.

N:

.e

-.. :.=

5 a..

=-

.,..m. :..

W.W.w%'%eMy,L4;d.. :h&w2.. -:=bM.m;ym..- w,.. :.~mSM Q Q i;;G Q :g}iLQfsflQ g;f $gg.3,__

AM4WM S

g;.,

w g m a >=

m-

.c w c*

b IULLTT RESISTA: ICE OF REriFCECriG EARS E'GEDDED (q

E

,,. p ri HARDE:iED CC:: CRETE no

p. n

4 il SI FART I: ri!ECUJOTICII o#

f Back2round i

E

';^

"'he effectiveness of epoxy resins and portland. cement grouts q

1.

in anchcring reinforcing bars in drilled holes in hardened mass ccncrete f *5 1

is net well documented. Method CRD-C 2h-72 describes the standard ASTM However, this test is designed so that cencretes can be p

pulicut test.

hj ccmpared en the basis of the bcnd develcped with reinforcing steel, 3

have reported on the mechanics of bond and slip of g

Luts and Gergely i,

deferred bars in concrete. Although these authers discuss cast-in-ql; 1

pace bars, their findings apply to bars anchored in concrete with a cementiticus grout.

r.

2.

Luts and Gergely explain that the bcnd betvesn a bar and the I!

surrcunding concrete is predoninantly due to the chemical adhesion and 4

3 Mechanical in-

}

i the mechanict.1 interaction between ccncrete r.d steel.

Initially, teraction is the na.jor bending property for defor-cd bars.

when a reinforcing bar is longitudinally stressed, chemical adhesien As adhesion is ecnbined with mechanical interactica prevents slippage.

destroyed and slippage cccurs, the ribs of the defor ed bar restrain i4, this movement by bearing against the ccncrete bet teen the ribs.

i 3

It appears that only limited studies have been made using re-1t inforcing bars and varicus bonding agents to cetpare bcnding agents, ii cencretes, and reinforcing bars. !io reports were found on this subje*

h.

Caversen and Parker report that resin-anchcred reinforcing l

3 bars installed in the White Pine copper eine have chcun excellent re-i sistance in pullcut tests, being far.cre effective than techanical h

A California Divisica of Higbvays report presents results of

}

anchers.

i pullcut tests cn No. 5 and :Ic. 10 rei;fercing bec that were anchcred in ccncrete with epc:q and pov"-cement grcut. For the test conditicns a

better then the used, the epc::%d reinforcira bus resisted pullout I

2 getitti_reinfoninc bus.

i 7

1855 090 v aww%w u. g,g.ggg.g. 3;n. s -.4mp w.

mm.m tssre+ m m m ss w_._:c lef--

.. g,.

g x

m p.

f3 Musk N?$E%TE+EWRi' MDEll@Mj!5%i&?% 9:4%%%nWhi? Tin W M M W4d W M & &

5 Insufficient data are available to provide adequate cuidance for field usage of bonding agents. This investigation was initiated to obtain auch data.

Objective 6.

The objective of this investigation was to determine which of several bonding agents would bect anchor deformed reinforcing bars in holes drilled in hardened concrete. Three ecmmercially available epoxy-resin systems and two portland-cement grouts were evaluated.

Sec;e 7-Existing 5-by 10- by 20-ft+ (1524-by 3.048-by 6.006-m) mass concrete blocks, which were cast daring a cement-replacement progran, were used as test blocks. All test blockc contained 6-in. (152.4-mm) maximum-sice aggregate. Five 6-by 12-in. (152.4-by 304.8-mm) cores were drilled from each tect block and tested for compressive ctrength.

Holen for embedding reinforcing bars were drilled into the test blockc using a thin-wall dia.cnd bit.

The holes were 1 in. (25.4 mm) in dia -

eter and deep enough to embed No. 4 and 50. 6 bars to depths of 5, 8, lo, and 20 nominal bar diameters. Two portland-cement groutu and three two-ecmponent epoxy-resin systems were uced to anchor the bars in the drill holes. The bonding agents were allowed to cure for 14 days, at which time the barc were pulled using a reaction frame and a hydraulic jack.

Initinlly,12 teste per adhecive were to be conducted; however, the number of tests was reduced dependi.ng upcn the yielding of the bars (i.e., if either the Co. L cr No. 6 tar yielded at, cay, the second en-beiment depth, then the test at the -hird criedment depth vac omitted from the test cchedule). Dial indicators were uced to monitor relative displacement between the reinforcing bar crd the concrete test block.

t A table of factors for cc:rcerting s.

3. cuctomary unit: of measure-

+

tent to retric (CI) units in preser.ted on pace '.ii.

L 1855 091 w

<amc m

.--- -. ~

.- ~.m -~ w=c.ca.m.,,..c mv ~n.>.-, a :.w. s

.yWP&m&*wV.%WmWrs%;cEnmmfg=,wm ;yamgmm.,nn

%wi'c l

. g y

PART II: MAZ. RIALS, I;.UI22'IT, EST 3LCCT.3, A"D PRCCEUJRES

, i I

i+,,,

6 l"

M.aterials Yb j f Ce ent crouts 8.

The two cement grcuts used during this study were designated

.,h mi: care: A and B.

Mixture A censisted, of a 1:1 blend by volume

l39, m

of a type II (RC-635) portland cement and a chemical-stressing cement (RC-6kh(3)), tcgether with a natur11 fine aggregate (WES-15-4(50)). The

! he cctbined cement and the aggregate were propertiened 1:2 5 by weight l g, k D.'

using a water-cement ratio of 0.5 by weight of cement. Mixture 3 was a i r 3 :%

chrinkage-cc=pencating mixture cencisting of the type II cement used in I

['

mi: care A, an aluminun (A1) pcider, and the same nataral fine aggregate l

! /

as that used in mixture A.

"he water-cement ratio for this mixture was

{

also 0.5 Three trial batches of sixture 3 were made using 1.0,15,

!,. h.v and 2.0 g of aluminiet powder per 9h lb (h2.6h kg) of cement.

"'he che.-

ical and physical characteristics of the two cementa used in these mix-N.

iI;-

tures are presentcl in table 1.

1E i'

9 ene batch of =i-care

.s and the three ta:chec of ni care 3 were u:ed to ascertain the l' -dr/ cct pressive strength. The specimens t

were cast in 3-by 6-in. (76.2-by 152.k-=:) cold: and cured in the fcg

's room until tecting.

"he aver 2ge ecmpressive strengtha of the cylinders were ac follow: (the lk-day ctrengths chewn for each mixture number are the average of three tect:):

s Average lk-Day

( -.a Ccmprescive Strencth y

gL Mixture Tc.

psi MP2 am A

2950 20.o,2

%p

,9p El (1.0 g (0.035 cc) Al pcxderT h280 29 51 i

32 (1 5 g (C.C53 c 1 Al pcwder)

LL50 30.68 lk 33 (2.0 g (c.c70 cc) Al powder!

357c 24.61

T4 EN n.'.

Eatch 32 wa: : elected frc= nixtare 3 bacdd cn its cenproccive strength q'y 1

t-and the lack cf any noticeable chrinkage cr expannicn during the curing i m, L

.4 e

u '- - 4"cc clich Chrinkage, j gy cycle. Cpeci en; frc batch El appes.r

.c 1.%~.

., W 3

e, -

8s s

(j u<-

e 4

y.-

s%.

' MC.,.

.b C

4"

) Jh'.,.7.,"%f.

f., LT J""j._ _ d" J N M.7_ J_ K_.p ' *_ 7 _h_,'gt n, * ' 'j"',,.* J ~_ '_" 5 '_ _4 P_ a.. M._ wl 2M,,Nu m _..,

.g}-.

,,, q'

%... T m*

,,_'7

& & arr r.-2 n w n = :nw.--evn -

m 1 --

c. ~ - --

--r-

_-. m t

while specimens from batch 33 expanded considerably.

Enoxy-resin systems 10.

The three commercially available epoxy-resin systems used during this study were designated systems A, B, and C.

Each of the epoxy-resin systems consisted of two components, an epoxy resin and a curing agent. System A was a filled system, while systems B and C were unfilled systems. The systems were used as received from the manufacturers.

11.

No generally accepted testing criteria were found for eval-uating epoxy-resin systems that are proposed for general construction Considering the scope of this investigation, the following tests use.

were deemed appropriate :

(a) gel time, (b) bond strength, (c) tensile strength, (d) elengation, and (c) modulus of elasticity. The gel time test was conducted in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASf4) Designation D 2471-71.

The bond strength tests were conducted in accordance with a procedure that has been proposed by the U. S. Amy Engineer Waterway 0 Experiment Station (WES) as an ASZ4 nothod for accertaining the strength of epoxy-resin syctems. Bis pro-cedure is described in Appendix A of Husbands, Derrington, c.nd Pepper.

The tencile strength, elongation, and moduluc of elasticity tests were conducted in accordance with ASZ4 Designation D 638-71a.

The results of these tects are presented in table 2.

12.

A large difference in gel times existed between system A and cystems 3 and C : the measured gel times of cystems B and C were 4 and A

b.25 times creater than the cel time of system A, which was 20 min.

20-min working time vac found to be adequate for the cmall number of reinforcing bars that were bonded in place at any one time during this studj. With idea.1 working conditions, it took 2 min to pour the epoxy into a 1-i:T.-dian (25.h

=) by 5-in.-deep (127 0-mm) drilled hole, work the reinforcing bar to the tott:m of the ha'e, plumb the bar, and se-cure the bar rithir a centering frame., Given that 3 min were recuired to mix the tuc-ccaponent epoxy syctem, cnly 8.5 bars ceuld be embedded luri: - the r m inin time.

Curtnint;., with more thx one person worhng, sddi n 11 tars could le ent-Ti.'

tiith all cer.ditionc being qual, 1855 093 t

t amws

-+ sMphpga iWge;pggsig;Qgq,g.ggggggg -

7:7' i f,

+amW-l

' ' ~ ' '

^..,.

~

y-p m

yy f~-

,o V

E "; -

4

hDMYM-E' besem

..j ii r!!

w-ll.s.

?

.l i

33 and bl bara could be embedded using systems 3 and C, respec-Of course, for seme applications, the shorter gel time may 4. 'i tively.

{ j:

[

be advantagecus.

The average bond strength (average of three tests) cf system A was 2530 psi (17.44 MPa). The average bond strengths (average of l

13 three tests) of systems 3 and C were 1.81 and 1,79 times greater than l;

The tensile strength results, however, the bcnd strength of system A.

i The l

were not as censistent as the gel time and bcnd strength results.

5290, 70 0, and

[

2 average tensile strengths (average of five tests) were 4

=

3, and C re-462C psi (36.h9, 48.k3, and 31.88 MPa) for systems is, The rel:.tively high bcnd and tensile strengths of system 3 g

j spectively.

shculd made this system superior to the other two systems in resisting reinforcing bar pulicuts.

1 i

i Reinforcinn bars To. 6 defor=ed reinforcing 14.

Two separate shipments of Iro. 4 and :

Se first shipment contained

)

bars were used daring this investigation.

an inadequate number of bars, and the second shipment was the result of i

l It was later discovered that the two shipnents centained f

s back order.

bars that came from two separate mil.1 :ans and the average yield The first ship ent stren6th for the two ship enas was cuite different.

of bars (lower yield strength) was used in most of the test series, while bars from the second shipment were used in an attempt to determine the The data obtained using bars from the two ship-minimum embedment depth.

ments were analyaed separately.

1 were fel-Applicable portions of test nethed CRD-C 501-69 15 f

Icwed in testing one piece of the !!o. h and I;o. 6 bars to see if they Ecth si: e bars met the yield met minimum tersile yield requirements.

l The results were as follows:

requirements of grade LO deformed bars.

h5,0C0 psi.

k bar yielded at h7,5CO psi, the : o. 6 bar at I

the I 0.

i Test Elecks s

blocks in whi? the reinforcin'; bars were anchcred

16. The tcc:

ondacted at were c2st in 1994 as rurs of a cement replacement procr=2

/

A 1855 094

,g _e m.

n.n n.,,,

i. =. _,, z.3t /,

,y,,,p.

~.==x m.g% =.

7."

• ,_* s-sq.,yd.f,,, "d[yf.

,- :P,{

e4

-m

=. xw - ~

v.

ssimrw,wwwmead-m-.m.g y

WES.

The blocks measured 5 by lo by 20 ft (1.524 by 3.oh8 by 6.096 m) and contained 6-in. (152.k-tm) maximum-sice limestone aggregate. Die concrete used to cact the five blocks used in thic invectigation had a nominal cement factor of 2-1 t bg / cu yd (see table 3). The replace-

/

ment materials, which were different for each of the five blocks, were pumiGi,e, blast furnace clag, natural cement, calcined shale, and un-calcined diatomite. The replacement materials were combined with type II cement in varicus percentagec ranging from 12 to 50.

Table 3 pre-cents the percentagec of replacement material used and the 90-day ecm-preccive strengths of lo-in.-dian (254.0-mm) cores obtained in 1954 from the tops of the blockc. These strengths, which were not concis-tent, ranged from 1360 to 2390 pci (9 38 to 16.48 MPa).

17.

It was believed that the various replacement materials would not appreciably influence the adhecive interaction between the bonding agents and the concrete macs, and thus not influence the pullcut resist-ance. For example, given one bondin % nt and a weak and a strong con-crete with similar quantities and qualities of cement and aggregate, the adhesive interaction between the bonding agent and the concretes should be nearly the same. However, a large strength difference betueen con-cretec might influence the pullout resistance. Therefore, the chear and tensile strengths of the two concretec should control, to a large ex-tent, the pullout resistance of the reinforcing bars.

18. Five 6-in.-dian (152.k-mm) cores were drilled from each test block at locationc at the came elevatica as that used for the pull-out testa (top portion of' the block). Then, 6-by 12-in. (152.4-by 305.8-mm) cpecimenc werr. prepared frcn the ccres and tected for compres-cive strength. Thece cects were conducted to see if the five test blocks still had inecnsictent ctrength after approximately 17 yr.

The 17-yr strength recults are presented in table h aleni; with the 90-day I

ctrengthc. Over the 17-yr period, nll five of the concrete blocks chewed a strength gain.

Ole 17-yr average strengths ranged from 2280 t

to 3720 pai (15 74 to 25.65 MPa); thuc, the block were still showing inconcictent stren;;ths. Ecu large of a strength difference would have k

1856 095 w

ITMMc5WhsMwG9085afack;'anM&6anMGM6NiiM5b55%l,5%L....::,

_ Y 2 S $ W ALWNPSNW&MiWNMWWs%272@281N%vQ W>

'?

it h

g to exist before strength differences would cignificantly influence the

. I h..;

p cut results is not known.

Q,

'N Drill hole laycut h

19 A typical laycut for the 1-and o-in.-dian (25.k-and g

l 152.b-em) drilled holes is shown in fig. 1.

The 1-in.-diam (25.4-=m)

J 4

I drilled holes were drilled deep enough to embed No. k and No. 6 reinfore-ing bars at embedment length to nominal bar diameter ratios (L/D) equal g

to 5, 8, and 10.

A few of the No. 4 bars were also embedded to have an L/D = 20.

The 1-in. (25.h-mm) drilled holes were spaced to allow for a

"!f,.

p['

possible h5-deg cenical failure of the cenerete. Le 6-in. (152.4-cm) tJ I

holes were drilled i the center and at the corners of the five test 1 v blocks in order to obtain representative core samples. All holes wer-drilled with diamend-tipped core barrels that left smooth drill hole I,

surfaces. No attempt was made to test rough curface holes such as f

vculd result from drilling with percussion drilling equipment. All J*

of the 1-in. (25.4-=m) drilled holes were elesned of debris, and the i.

holes were air-dried prior to placement of any bonding agent.

P.beddin; reinforcine bars

-g 20.

Individual ecnstituents for the creuts were preveighed in i ';

Io l1 the laboratcry. In the field, the groutc were mixed in a crc 1 elec-4 tric paddle mixer. Se separate ccmpenents of the epoxy were ecmbined 3 3 in accordence with the manufacturer's recc-endations. Components were 3 h.

s first weighed and then nixed for 3 min-j$

21.

After a bcnding agent was mixed, a portien of it was poured i$

t4 into a hole to about ene-half its depth, and a reinforcing bar wac ij is L

worked to the bottcm. Normally +he bar wculd dicplace encugh bending p

3a agent to fill the hole; however, if not, the hole was then filled with

{s

'(

the bcnding agent, and the bar was plumbed and secured by a wooden f.C frame until the bending agent cbtained its set. Wet burlap was placed l

e.

around the barc that stere greuted to accict in curing. The epoxied-in-ir place barc vere covered with plactia h tc to protect them frcm the i r t

L weather. All bcnding agent vere allowed to cure for 14 days before i.

teccing vac started. D1117 temperatre recordc were kept during the t_

1855 096 7

.c s

- ^^

--s

. _ _ _ }

g. v

,,.__~7 y;,

lih 94Y l gg(< LQh, NI t neH, 3'

/I% [(*

o] 1(jsP

>', > /i,

4 e 49a1,'

t i 1

l

,i y tT 7

I n1

)

M

%N,5

)

M 2

A r(,3

.M

\\)

6 NM r'L

(

I 5 2

5 O

72 jNMI 35 9

.M

(

2 C

I751 A(2

)

t

.M NM f

y I 5 0

2 O

5. 0 79 2

1 s

(

yk bc o

l C

0b 2

1 R

e E

I yt T

be E

r

)

M1

- c M L 5n N

1 IM nc M L o

3 i

3(,N t m D

)

2 e

F A

N u-I S

o6 E

1 E

y9 5

H N

a0 L

C A

l O

N L

6

\\

)

I P

e H

L M,

l y S

L R

M H ob L

UT 99 P T

h tR IOT LUH

,^

(.D l4 3

D A

E l8 LP F

MI F LE NT i0 M

FUD I

N r

OP A

EE 15E d3 AH LN M

2 5

EAOO D

ly 1

RDHC E

ab

(

A M

R B

c N '5 A

OOO "W E M

i -

4 p4 t

EF O

M DA

'4 y2 EE E

T5 USN5D 5

NI SOAN

'2 I

L 6

AZDA

(

1

.(

,1/

.M O

• )/

\\

.MI 1

M O

/ s NM 2

N M

G -

Q41 4

Us m

' 5 g

I6 Y

(

,tJj 1 4M N

0 v

5. 3 i

79 F

(

f

)

(

m\\

1 114 O

2 M

62 I

j H

A i

N.M T

1$

I 1

N I7 l

%52

.I )

)

G 1

.I

(

M H~

.M E

t

)

72 M

O INM N

D O 5

\\)I 4 5

G,y> /

.M.

62 E

{

.M 5

5 1

L 3

N'9

(

O t

)b3 1

dM 9

H 5

%I

(

(

41 5

,t 1

0 1

(

a OM

~

CLu.3mN

~C

.5s1 -

i

?

l l

a'}.Clie:w

, i

,I f I [-iw/j

&y8 ((t}3{w

. ' ?dV.,fdF

,f 1

$h2 r

y 1

14

)sa lp'j/

<hf,[:

'/:

(p

-(

.v V

es CcNCPETE TEST BLOCK

W Fig. 2.

Test configuration Izt jacks in ccebinatien with 1 40,000-pci (275 79-MFa) hand-operated pump l.

d were used to apply the axial load to the reinforcing bars. The 10- an 60-ton (88.96-and 533 79-P20 jach vere ucei to pul' the no. 4 and id

.yag gJ No. 6 bars, respectively. The jacking systen was calibrated, and, as the lead vac applied to the bars, a 10,COC-nci (68.95 'ea) pres:ure sage iM ac vaa monitored. Frcm the pressure gage readings, the jack load was de-fy I h3.

termined for any increment of pressure.

4 23 The reacticn frcne was constructed with a 6-in. (152.k-mm)

M wa channel. The supported bean cpan length'vas adjustable. The minir:un f /

l cpan length wa; never less than two timec thc embed =ent depth of the e2 I 4.1 -

rei. forcing bar. "his :pn length allcued a sufficient dictance 30 i @l li@.'

s ;n C

w-y s

1855 098

!.r i.

s.

m;.,

a a.'% G eJ -

- PyQ 1 - 3_

r ~ - _m.

s n

that the beam supports would not influence a potential concrete failure

)

Cone.

24. A 7/16-in. (ll.1-mm) prestressing chuck was used to hold the exposed end of the No. 4 bars (see fig. 2). The chuck perfomed ade-quately as was evident by the fact that no bar yielding was observed in this region of the bar. 'lhe No. 6 bars were threaded, and the jack force was transmitted to the bar throu6h a specially designed nut. No bar yielding could be observed near the threaded region on any of the No. 6 t a that did yield. 'Ihe No. 6 bars were threade'd with 16 threads per inch, and the cross-sectional area was reduced from a nominal 0.44 sq in. (Ed3 9 sq mm) to 0 372 sq in. (240.0 sq mm). This fact is mentioned in case the reader wishes to check bar yield stresses. The naminal cross-sectional area of a No. 4 bar is 0.20 sq in. (129 0 sq mm).

25 The relative displacement of a bar with respect, to a concrete block was measured by the use of two dial irdicatcrc. The indicators were mounted on a cross am that was attached to each bar before it was pulled. The indicators were secured to the cross arm so that movement close to the bars could be monitored. Displacement readings were taket.

at regular increments of jacking pressure.

26. After the bonding agents had cured for lh days, they were tested for pullout resistance. A particular test was te m inated when the concrete cracked or when no additional load cculd be added to the reinforcing bars.

s 1

1855 099 lo 3MmygyndaM5&Las MukME'r&d5550ENSE5NNNN.

2. N rW M W ?rsmW K M % c w -uq w a h m m s m.e x

W,

r

,ttd l

,.t-P s

{'

PART III: M ALYSIS MID DISCUSSIGH

?.

"t j-i gli Cement Greut Mixtures ltd,s

'(

Pullout resistance i -b 27 The pullcut test results for the two sizes of bars anchored with the two different grout nixtures chowed very little difference in pull-hN out resistance when L/D = 5 (plate 1).

mis was also obcerved when the

!Q 4

l L/D was hiereased to 10 for the no. 4 bars. The reascn that the two

. g>

grcuts exhibited s# d'ar pullcut resistance is in part explained by cen-i '%.

..iH sidering sc=e of the fundamentals of bcnd described by Lutn and bh Gergely.2

'Ih-l

28. To reiterate, adhesien and mechanical interaction between a b

i bar and a bcnding agent are the ma,jor bending prcperties. Berefore, m!$

i ass" 4*g that the adhesive characteristics of two grouts are approxi-R i

o t

I i

mately equal, the mechanical interaction between the greut and _bar alcng with the cencrete strength largely govern pullout resistance.

lie 2e mechanical interacticn between the two grcuts and the reinforcing

'. I:m bars can be censidered equal. For the investigaticn reported herein, one fact in support of this principle is that nearly identical quan-

.J tities of the same aggregate were used in both mixtures. Derefore, l;&n f t.3 1

tre grouts should have respended similarly under the acticn of a rein-

{ ${5 forcing bar being pulled frem the grout. The 90-day average ccmpres-(j..

cive strengths of the two test blocks (Nes. 6 and 7) used for testing

! i y$

f the grout mixtures were 1360 and 2010 psi (9 38 and 13 86 MPa). The

w' I

17-yr average strengths were 2280 e_nd 2920 psi (15 74 and 20.1o MPa).

7>

Ucing the generally accepted rule that the tencile and chear strengths

a

.N cf mas; ccncrete can be estimated by taking 10 and lo,, percent, respec-tively, of the ccmpreccive strength, it is evident that the difference P

.N s

ll g$

in the tensile and shear strengths of both tect blecks (at 17 yr) would be c=all.

The pullcut loads indicate that, for the test configuraticas lq

? [

used, both grout mixtures are equally ef2ective in anchoring reinforc-

..(

in e bars against pullout.

u 7

.t

s l, i

n. >.,s '...

oi

.~ -

3.*

s, 18 %

100 a

.I a

A-tm.m a.r6 bmns.mygggg.f,ygggg ;.g

.g 4g g,

3

u_ m,wesmwca.~om m 2 t

r revremm m m. - - -

lh b.m uy a%w m.,

m..

EU Tynes of failures I#Ni GM9 T D,s b

~,5 3t&. ~}EYn x++A' ws.ew n. %

. ~ [-'

if kFW d@

29 Tables 5 and 6 present hh the pullout leads and the modes of failure observed for the Uo. 4 and N Ese N,h,7

[I

'tf

- N.I$ Y no. 6 bars, respectively. Two modes Mj,_

of failure were observed for the

~

..r s bars anchored with grout. These T

7:5. Qg#-Mih.jb%w-------

failures occurred separately in r......,....y'.2.---

r

' w'- C some instances and in combination in other instances. One mode of failure was the grout-bar failure Fig. 3 Typ1 cal example of s,nallow-depth concrete cone and grout-bar where the bar was pulled completely failure (combination failure) away from the grout. The predomi-nant mode, the combination failure, was characterised by a shallow-depth concrete cone and a grout-bar failure occurring together (fig. 3). Nor-r t11y, the concrete cone remained on the bar as the bar was pulled out of the grout. In these instan:es, the bond between the grout and the sur-rounding concrete remained intact. The nominal concrete cone depth for the No. h bars when L/D = 5 and 10 was 0.78 in. (19 8 mm). The nominal cone diameter (measured at the base of the cone) was 3 in. (76.2 mm).

Embedment depth appeared to have no effect on the depth of the concrete cone pulled from the test block.

30.

The nominal ecncrete cone depth on the no. 6 bars was 3 35 in. (851 mm), while the ncninal cone dia r.eter was 16 in.

(406.4 mm). The concrete cane failures were sbn11ower than the theo-retical 45-deg angle, i.e., less than 25 deg for an average cone depth of 3 35 in. (85 1 mm). A possible contributing factor to the width of the concrete cone is the large aggregate used in the mass concrete test l

blocks. In several cases, pieces of aggregate larger than 3 in.

i (76.2 mm) were found.-ithin a concrete cone that had been pulled from f,

a test block. The failure curface occurred along the bottom of these large aggregates. Slate end Claerski nave shown that preload cracking in concrete is much more proninent at the bottom of the aggregate as rlaced. This fact is caciedl; uce to segregation during settlement of 12 1855 101 A

_x=aa.w.nuaxwwwa -mmawmkMmGzgay&M.;;Aff.g:,

a vanw

+-- m w m : m m m..g _ _

I 1

the concrete before hardening. Thus, it is believed that, as e

a cene failure developed, the path of least resistance was followed ll (along the bottcm of tbe larger aggregate), hence resulting in the lev-angle failure conec.

i

31. Bar yielding occurred when L/D = 20 and 10 for the No. 4 and No. 6 bars, respectively. Yielding was evident when rust ca the bar be-gan flaking off and when the bar would suppcrt no additio.-l load. A minimum embednent depth was not determined for the bar grenced in vlace.

Eccrr Recin Ev_ stems s'

Pallcut resistance

'i 32.

In all inctances, the epoxy-anchcred reinforcing bars had j

more resistance to pullcut than did the bars anchored with cement l

groutc. The filled epoxy-resin cycten (systep A) offered the least re-I sistance to pullcut of the three systems evaluated. The differences in average pullcut lead between cycten A and the most resictant grout nix-ture at L/b = 5 for the No. E and No. 6 bars were about 0.6 and 19 kips I

t (2.67 and 3.k5 MI), respectively.

33 The range in average pullout loadc for L/D = 5 for the epoxied bars was much wider than the range for the greuted bars. For the No. k barc, the rangec of the grouted and epoxied bars were 0.4 and 3 5 kirc (1.78 and 15 57 kn), respectively, while for the No. 6 bars the ranges were 0 9 and 2.7 kipa (4.00 and 12.01 kN). nie wide range 1

in pulleut leads indicates the difference in adhesive characterictics of the epoxies, whereas there is very little adhesive difference be-4 tween the two crcut mixtures.

l

34. Systen C offered nore resistance to pullout leads than sys-tem B for the Uo. k barc at L/D = 5 Hcwever, for the No. 6 tars i

t at the came L/D, cyctem 3 had the greater recictance to pullout leadc.

No explanatica ic Pnc.m for thic behavier, and additional testing will have to be performed to verify thecd recults.

l T.Tec of f,.ilurec 35 Tablcc 5 cn1 6 precent the pulicut lead and the e.cdes of

~J 1855 102 m

&&RN'N?%%'MQWcMW~&&n9@emgwg4;g;%_-@ll%.5_)>,:u;Q xcQ jw. ;y u.g%._(

i a_

_s

MG8$$kD.Y$ME89@dSD ki3DdW4MFIMEM 6 E N M D'MME!*E"M

,ff Y h,f/M ]

W!V6jf~L, failure for the bars anchored with epoxy.

Tao modes of failure oc-curred. Full-depth cones occurred on two I;o. h bar pulloutc, while all other pullouts resulted in epoxy-cencrete failures in co-bination with partial concrete cones (see fig. h).

Ihe cone depths ranged from g,

.,,-w%_,-

s U,p g* g -

QR

_w M*

e-I g, 9 9" y gTd 6.+14.

• M i

%8 g

i O'>E'

~~

d, E,

, g..

...-~

-w

--. c.3

?.c -

X' y7 i.*O;2,l.[p. ;79 pk-

,I r-

-n*

C il

- 0 !c'-

f;

~ ~ ~

2C(%

V -O.4.=

< -Q~ '

~

• r - '

T 5

^ W, '.:~:u.'$

f,,., g

-- - y u yy

,..s.

g,....

g FW,,

• -3, e;nss --

m;;

A.,.. ~

4 t

tg y

.,w.>

2y ww

~.a:

Q.

• • 1 g

Q

, = ss p

-.- ; '.... -w -.

1.,.y,s.

Iv

~---s w-

L.

, 1.....

f

- ' ;.s

- : s,...a s.%*, a:c. % 1;.::2: ;...:t..sv.-*,w.

w

=-

- ', c; Y.

, M, ^.p. :.G.... w :. -:.~". -; & x:"$1

~

....n--.

.8.. a.. ~ ;.,~..

n., ? --

,.v

n -~. _. -.-,. :..w.. - w.

..:~

, c. w,

.m.

..., x a.

Full-depth concrete cone b.

Epoxy-concrete failure with partial cone

? pical exr.ples of failures shouing full-depth concrete Fig. h.

/cone and epoxy-concrete failure uith partial cone 0 5 to 2 5 in. (12.7 to 63 5 r=Q h

for both the No. h and I;o. 6 bars.

C The ncminal cone disneters were i.

similar to thoce neasured on the g

x%-

grouted bars. Fig. 5 illustrates

~

~,

.hn-'

f -

a tyrical example of the conec

~

e-

~

-' yv--w.s

c. _

mW* n, *

q,...

"' D5'

j T.%{._

for the epoxied bars. An vac

'*> -un.,

the cace with the grouted-in-

-p

.- f '

'A place bars, the challow-depth cones predominated. The angle i

2 of the failure surface averaged ab, cut 30 deg as opposed to the theoretical 45-deg angle. The

_. rig. 5 Typ. cal example of wide-hsed, shallcw-depth crerete ecnes explanation of fered for the wide-y1 e.-.. '~' d " "

"2. l ~ -

baced, challcw-depth failure m..o

~

1855 103

~

_+

m.-

. ~,. -~

.. -.w.w.. -w. w - =.: xxw : c..

W$bY?$(W1Wh%d.6&NSMSY5MWMWEs!E$':&Y

(tr.

I' -

'i.-

,4 t, "i h

cones of the grcuted bars also applies for the epoxied-in-place bara g.

36. Cf the 12 failures with the epoxied-in-place bars, not one

-fp Id occurred between the epcxy and the steel bar. Ten of the twelve fail-t ce

.;I li l

ures resulted frcm loss of adhesion between the epoxy and the concrete.

as The loss of adhesien eculd have been caused by the presence of moisture M

in the concrete. As is =enticced in paragraph 19, t'he drill holes were l

air-dried prior to embedding the reinforcing bars. However, during the g

tI 14-day curing, rainwater or moisture frcm within the concrete cculd have

?y LI ;e3 affecte:i the bcnd between the epoxy and ccncrete. The epoxies used dur-a q.h.n

[M Q ing this investigation were recc== ended for use with d.ry materials; hence, the presence of water could have caused deletericus effects.6 gj j;d h.p

'Ihe ambient temperature during the pullcut tests, 80 F (26.7 C), was not

[

considered high. Ecvever, scme hardened epoxy-resin systems are sen-sitive to temperatures; therefore, temperature could have affected the

,f adhesive characteristics.

,M

.t. 'W 37 All bar yielding occurred with L/D = 10, except for the I; 3

r !!1 cases of the four bars used to approximate the minimum e bedment depth.

{l As was the case with the grouted-in-place bars, yielding was evident i:a when the mst en the bar began flaking off and when the bar vculd sup-p i;

!.,,N pcrt no additicnal load.

38. Both of the No. 4 and No. 6 bars that were anchored with

~

m epoxy at L/D = 8 yielded. There was not sufficient time for testing to U.g determine if bar pullouts wouli occur at L t 's greater than 5 but less

,[Q

/

h than 8.

Therefore, L/D = 8 was assumed to be the minimum ratio for iM

.P S

the epexy-resin systems used.

Sj

.y f%

h Disrlacements I h?,

i &

39

':he results of the relatite dispracement measurements are

.y shcun in plates 2-5 Displacement readings were discontinued when the ji reinforcing cars yielc'ed cr when the cc9 crete cracked. The No. h bars b

tr anshcred with ni-.ture 3 displaced apprcximately twice as rash as the

}

No. L bars anchored with mixture A fer L/D = 5 and care than five n

timr as much fer L/D = 10 (see plate 2).

AtL/D=20,thebars y

^.e 04 tr 10

,f 2

s

• /

1 (p er (U

U!

,m 9 ~

e i ;

x n,..

-av.

- _ - n.- ___- y

_ w- --

r_

n.---

@{

Ms92$@9DA$4bi9f[dI1D-!'EN)kMN[hb$N[d'bN NY[NI[d anchored with mixture A exhibited the greater cmount of dicplacement.

The maximum avera6e movement, 0.0453 in. (1.15 rn), vac recorded for the bars anchored with mixture B at L/D = 10.

40.

Plate 3 shoas the displacement recults for the No. 6 rein-forcing barc anchored with the two mixtures. AtL/D=5,thebars anchored with rixture B displaced about twice as rms h as the bars held with mixture A.

However, at L/D = 10, the bars anchored with mixture A displaced nearly 4 timec as much as those held with mixture B.

The dic-placement data indicate that, for the L/D and the test setup used, both mixtures A and B allowed cimilar dicplacements of the strecced reinforc-ing barc. However, mixture B allowed slightly more movement than did mixture A.

41.

The No. 4 barc anchored with cyctem A displaced approxi-mately twice as much as did the bars anchored with system: B and C for L/D = 5 and 10 (plate 4). The No. 4 barc held with cyctems B and C

{

underwent cinilar average displacements, 0.013 in. (0 33 mm). The large displacement coupled with the relatively low pullout recistance makec system A the leact decirable epoxy-recin bonding agent evaluated during thic ctudy.

42.

The No. 6 barc anchored with cyctem C had an average dis-placement creater than that of the barc anchored with the other epoxies.

Syste-t A had the next largest displacement, while cysten B shoued the least movement (plate 5). The average dicplacements of the three syc-tenc were 0.0275, 0.0225, and 0.01 in. (0.699, 0 572, and 0.254 mm) for cyctema C, A, and B, recpectively. Generally, for all of the bonding agents, the barc embedded the deepect chcred lecc displacement than the barc at the challower embed.ent depths; thic recult was as anticipated.

43 In comparing the grouted and epoxied barc of equal cine, it appearc that for the No. 4 barc, both tyrer of bonding agente re-ctrained bar movement approximately the come. However, the epoxied Ho. 6 barc dicplaced about twice as much as the crouted No. 6 bars.

1855 105 n

M DbSM 5M MN5N.DM M.5. M M W M?$9E N NiSN'-S N D NEW/RMN.

.I t-

,.. t

,, S.

t k

> o PART IV: CC:iCLUSICUS A::D RFCO:M:CTICNS r

l i

3 F

concluciens j

kk. The results of this investig1 tion nrrant the following y' W ccnclusiens:

llI

. s

~a.

Se cuc=ical-stressing cement md the chrinkage-

[i) y)f ccmpensating grcut =hture: (mixtures A and 3) exhibited cSnar resistance to reinforcing bar pullouts at all j,

embedment depths.

j b.

In all instances, the epcxy-anchored reinforcing bars h}

exhibited = ore resistance to tullout than did the bars t.

/

.g anchored with the cement grouts.

Q(

te filled cpoxy-recin ystem (cystem A) offered the least u'

c_.

s resistance to bar pullouts of the three epoxy systems t

ll g evaluated. However, at embed ent depths equal to 10 times the bar diameters (L/D = 10), all three epcxy-0;e resin systens caused yielding of the No. 4 and !!o. 6 bars; therefore, at this embed ent depth all three I, f epoxies are equally effective.

_d.

Se t. redominant t., a e of failure for the creuted-in-place reinforcing bars was a ccmbination failure, which cen-sisted of a concrete cene bebg pulled frcm the te t block at the care time that a grout-bar failure occurred.

When the cc=bination failure did not occur, a full-depth

i cene resulted or bar yielding was cbserved.

[

t e.

A sintilar cenbinatica failure cccurred for the epoxied-

[..

in-place reinforcing bar:,

i.e.,

a partial concrete ecne LE resulted with an epoxy-cencrete bcnd failure. When the l;

cctbination failure did not occur, a full-depth cone reculted or bar yielding was cbserved.

f.

Concidering the L/D ratics and the testing configuration

'f utel, mixture: A and B 1110wed ^- displacements as l

the redsforcing bara vere leaded and culled frca the l-

~

test blocks.

3 In cencral, the No. E reinforcing barc anchcred with f

cper/ undenzent displacement that vere approximately ecu11 to the displacements observed for the grouted h

No. h reinforci.g barc. Houever, the epoxicd No. 6 re-i, inforcing car; cxhibitei twice the tevement of the crcuted !!3. 5 reinforcid; bcr.

h i

h.

Eecauce only fcur epczied reinforcin; barc vere tested

'I at L D = o,1-is beh t?d that a mininum embed =ent der ' 1:Ci: m ty L/D = 3 zinuld be a b rd?rline value i

'10

.m 1855 106

/

1

_m

--A

~

R'_-

m"~M u_

g_y", g

@ p g '

,x

,3 y

x y-

, = _

_V w

[dI:dYf M :N M F 6 MT M M '551;M,I/M M N ds%$9 dt@ @,5M @ %#fk[h3(([ M.

when syctems A, B, and C are used as bonding agents.

However, adequate data were collected for epoxicd rein-forcing bara at L/D = 10, and this L/D is considered to define a sufficient minimum embedment depth.

Recommendations 45 As an outgrowth of this investigation, the following recom-mendationc are made for field guidance; these recommendations are applicable to grade 40 deformed reinforcing bars:

a_. This study concerned itself with testing reinforcing bars with relatively small diameters. There fore, it appears reasonable that the results of this study could be exten-ded to bars having a 1-in. (25.h-mm) diameter. Larger bars should be evaluated for pullout recistance. Although not a variable parameter in this study, the diameter of the drilled hole would have some effect on the type of failure. Therefore, it is recommended that a minimum drilled hole /bar diameter ratio of 2 should be used.

b.

The three epoxy cystems evaluated are recommended for anchoring No. h through I!o. 8 reinforcing barc in drilled holes in hardened mass concrete. However, the following it e:r.: must be complied with:

(1) A minimum embedment depth defined by L/D = 10 chould be used when epoxy systems A, B, and C are used.

(2) The epoxbc should only be used within the tempera-ture range recommended by the manufacturer.

(3) The drilled holes must be free of debric and well dried.

(h) The epoxies must be cured at least 1h days before being stressed.

(5) Where possible, the drill holes for embedding reinfore-ing bars chould be placed at least 20 bar diameters from a free surface.

c.

Although the r.inimum embednent depth was not determined during thic investigation for grcuted-in-place cara, the following guidance ia sugged.ed; thia guidance ia based on reaconable extrapolation oS the data preacnted in thia report. If cement greuts aimilar to those used during this investigation are used to anchor Iio. 4 thron h !!o. 8 rein-forcing barc ir.':.23: concrete, a.inimum embednent depth defined by L/D = 15 in recomended.

3 1855 107 A. -

WWWAsWmvWwtML:&' hMmW2tMcw,wmmmqmv:n@HPWMQ r

, y$1 Ph O

]~)

c d.

Additienal testing should be performed to determine the

~. y pullout resistance of other premising epoxy-resin systems.

M This testirg could be conducted on a reduced scale in the laboratory. If a sufficiently large number of co=er-cially availaMe epoxies were evaluated, then a wider h

selection of epoxies would be available for Corps of J r' Engineers use.

m e.

The bending agents reco= ended for field use can be used

)

y[*

in vertical as well as horizontal drill holes. The epoxy l

resins will require a different placement procedure when used in horizontal holes instead of vertical holes. The ipd reinforcing bars vill have to be located in the horizon-c tal hole and held securely in the center. An adequate 3

packing material vill have to be used to seal off the ik; hole.

Normy, a dry cement mortar placed about 2 in, q{

(50.3 =m) into the hole vill suffice to seal the epoxy.

jy An air-outlet tube vill have to be placed at the top of the hole prior to packing to allow a return of the in-

)F}[f jected epoxy. An injection tube must be placed at the bottcm of the hole at the sa:::e time. A small pumping

..itJ unit or a hand-operated pump can then be used to inject

[ f,[p the epoxy ipto the drill hole.

iE-

hI' f.

Placing bars in horizontal holes in which cement grouts

f,@

are to be used does not require any special equipment.

The grout can be rodded to the back of the hole, and the reinforcing bar can then be verked to the back of the

'. O hole. A dry cement mortar can be used to seal the hole l' at the free surface, and the reinforcing bar can then be secured in the center of the hole. 4 o + t &

c. I

.e, ) Il [J .. :x {., T . u~ ..f,.Ri. t 84 a .a. +w in: r-it g ~i?f: 'h is o. }c [Ra k' u z 1856 108 G, - I

1. :..

R

• D L V-% & M.<-71rr3_.y _a_T_ N 7 r_. p'ar L_.

-g.5.y.;:.. ay _.?_T'-Q,._ },. G'G._T3'[; p,.._,

.r >< a arr.w = w.gaw,r~. au .,ww = vx = : - w y LITERATURE CITED 1. U. S. Army Engineer ilaterway Experiment Station, CE, " Handbook for Concrete and Cement," Aug 1949 (with quarterly cupplements), Vicksburg, Misc. 2. Lutc, L. A. and Cergely, P., " Mechanics of Bond and Slip of Deformed Barc in Concretc," American Concrete Inctitute Proceedings, Vol 64, Ilo.11, IIcv 1967, pp 711-721. 3 Cavercen, B. and Parker, J., " Roof Bolts Hold Eest with Pccin," Society of Mininz Engineerine. Vol 23, Ilo. 5, May 1971, pp '5h-57 4. I!urllin, E. F., " Evaluation of Concrete Anchor Bolts," Research Report I!o. IGR 36390, Jun 1968, State of California, Materials and Research Department, Division of Highways, Sacramento, Calif. 5 American Society for Testing and Materials, " Standard Method of Test for Gel Tir.e and Peak Exothermic Temperature of Reacting Thermocetting Plactic Ccmpocitions," 1972 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Designation: D 2471-71, Part 26, Jul 1972, Fhiladelphia, Pa. 6. Hucbands, T. B., Derrington, C. F., and Pepper, L., " Effects of Flater en Epoxy-Recin Systenc," Technical Report C-71-2, Sep 1971, U. S. Army Engineer Vlaterway: Experiment Station, CE, Vickcburg, I11.:c. 7 American Society for Testing and Materialc, " Standard Method of Test for Tencile Froperties of Plasticc," 1972 Annual Book of ASTM Stan-dards, Decignation : D 639-71a, Part 27, Jul 1972, Philadelphia, Pa. 8. Vlillettc, C. H.3 " Investigation of Cement-Replacement Materialc; Performance of Various I'.aterials in Maca Concrete, Field Study (Phace D)," Miscellaneous Paper !To. 6-123, Report 6, May 1957, U. S. Army En:;;ineer klatermy: Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Misc. 9 Slate, F. O. and Olcerski, S., "X-Rays for Study of Internal Struc-ture and Microcracking of Concrete," American Concrete Institute Proceedince, Vol 60, May 1963, pp 575-50d. 1855 109 20 ~ I$?&bYh[!S5hb$?Sik kh* NV?"WhlNI.5$.b{.kY A$ hh tY N? '"h L:e!. Al4$ U

SC b hh h ?hYkh$$$$$$W16?&i?sR%&.et; r b, I$ S ,e Table 1 C'er.ical a-d %ycical Characteristics of 'he j 1 T.to Cenents Used in ~':in Investinatien (; f,e 'y Cement Identificatien No. Charseteri:tice RC-r35 hC-o44(1) p Che,ical. 4 310 21 5 14.6 je 3 2

A130, 53 8.4

- a Fe 0, 4.7 1.6 i {f(3 g 23 3 Mg0 09 2.7 f i SO 2.0 12.4 I 3 Lc:: en ignitien 13 1.9 i Total alka.li as Na 0 0 3h 0.k7 t 2 h ) g3 In:cluble re:idue 0 37 1.09 . 'i h Cs L5.h 3 ? n, i .} cA 6.2 19 5 3 j 't CmA 27.h c 3 Ca0 63 1 57.6 P-0, AF ik.2 I- .e 1 -i "a,0 0.C; 0.15 } i c L0 0.40 0.k9

3 rf e

I' ,1 B y:ical Le ? Surface area fAP),c~/g 3610 L2LC ,a Air centen:,-' 7.? 99 ff u ' f. 'f Ccr, pre::ive stren.;th, ;:1 I4 1 day L75 (3 2B :T2) Il 3 day: 23L0 (10.13 '72) k5 (0 31 :Ga)+ +1 7 day; 3060 (Q.10 :Ta) 7 Autc: lave ex :::cicn, ' O.Cl [- 'g r ec.,. ;n 3: 5 C :05 t-

f. s

.ri.ul ;ct, hr:.in '.5 1:00 J (i - ~ i-l' u s Ju - - L -- m u __m., a r m 1; 4 g

5N!N$Y$[YkSb?$ Y4hYkI$Y ?$$*Eb?b$ hYb~ ~ ' Y 5 Yh L + Table 2 Su v.try of Test Results of Ercrf-Fesin Systenc Cel bond knsile Tangent :cdulus of Epo:7-Tine Stren7th Strength Percent Elasticity millicns R?cin Systen min pai MFa psi Ga Elonration _ psi !?a A 20 2490 17.17 5720 39.Lh 1 91 0.580 0.co399c96 2430 16.75 5360 36.96 2.27 0 357 0.oc2h61L3 i 2670 18.41 4960 34.20 2.c3 0 382 c.oc263330 5270 36.3h 2.09 o.h85 0.0c33435"3 5150 35 51 1.73 0.474 0.00326311 Average 253o 17.44 5290 36.49 2.C2 0.L56 C.00314125 Standard deviation

• 2 30 1 93 0.20 0.039 0.c0061363 B

So h560 31.kh 717o 49.h4 3 94 0 337 0.00232353 4610 31.78 7340 50.61 4.27 0.281 o.00193743 461o 31 73 684o L7.16 3 93 0.299 o.00206153 6920 47.71 3 64 0 321 0.00221322 6350 47.23 h.03 0 341 0.00235111 Average h590 31.67 7020 L8.h3 3 97 0 316 o.00217736 3 + =brd ceviation 22o 1 52 0 35 0.026 C.oCC17?S6 c 85 h!.20 30.k7 4730 32.61 1.15 o.459 o.co316469 463o 31 92 h390 30.27 1.03 o.471 o.co3F47L3 4503 31 5S 4500 31.16 1.13 c.L67 o.00321955 h??o 34.40 1.22 0.L33 0.003364& kh90 30.96 1.C6 0.433 0.oo336LO Avera:e h5ho 31 32 k620 31.33 1.12 0.475 0.0032Z23 Standard deciation 240 1.65 0.08 0.013 o.CC00 39E3 .n 1855 lil [ ' -i'r'i d~ - *ien. ins O:1c z u :in. : s= .( 33 2 ~ , - - ~ >^W ~

i yi 41M ft b'i h.yQp'y} ydON914y hgT)<. 9 's i i ,m L

• (

[? ga 1 i p h g t 8 6 0 2 8 T g a 3 8 2 6 h. M n P es M 9 3 2 2 6 ry 1 1 1 1 t a SD h 3 e0 A g v9 i st 4 1 s a "l e r* M_ pM ms J oe k 9 a C r c S A. o o E eC l gar i 0 0 0 0 0 b N gy ro s 6 1 7 3 9 f e p 3 0 7 8 3 o v 1 2 1 1 2 h A d r, r .g i h M e d t - g S M [g t l e i a n p v c t r i o k i s u c , g t X c m a t l r; o u l a a n h m l p b n c u o B r a, 4 f w 7, t 5 0 5 0 2 s 2 5 2 3 1 n A "{ n e o T + + 4 + + e e g t k i a g t f t t t t ti t a a o n n n n nm 1 m e e e e eo g r n m m m m mt 3 o o e eg e e ea s J T e j f i c ca c c ci J. e n t l d r o l I i I I s I I I b s I I I I Id c _ ] a k o e e ) m T c n e ec et e en o m p pa pn pe pi l o y yn ye yl yc m m u e h a 0 f B C t t r t m t a tl y t %f %c %s %c ".4 . g s 5 0 5 0 8 d5 4 e 7 5 7 7 8 y2 ( T ( t,. u /c m 3 a y, /m 0 1 5 1 2 r si gd L, tn g 3 7 9 0 7 a h el k 2 5 3 3 s h[g b t ma n n ei [i we e c r m* ae 3 / l o h' et l t d 8 2 6 1 - l c n pt /y 8 6 6 0 2 c ae i l t tef " f b 3 9 C 5 1 w o I pn l r e o os J C t t l [ l u. e cs 4 3 2 8 3 j dl 3 ae 1, na /m f t e( ui 3 1 2 8 1 r g 9 6 8 8 1 t o t e t p 1 nw e nt n et e a e m mM m er . 7 e e 3 h. 7 6 7 6 co C C d 7 7 /> 8 9 7 /v l e ) 0 3 4 8 ag b l' 1 1 1 1 na U, ( ( I ir me

o"A t

kc l ; o 7 8 9 0 oa o I' t 1 cum N n, ~ <(, i;r"" 1' lb ( l l' I <[ ,h4hL t" hsl '- [

Q A M M 6 # M A4 0 5 !) M 9 7s M F M 2 G M M M M 59 5 f 9 7 / U N I @ M M j. E M [L M A M 3} % k h Table 4 Summary of 00-day and 17-vr Cemcressive StrensTths of Corec Average Average Compressive Compressive Compressive Compressive Strength osi Strength Strength, MPa Strength Block Average psi Average MPa No. 90 days

• 17 yr 17 yr 90 days
• 17 yr 17 vr 6

1360 2250 9 38 15 51 6 2270 15.65 6 2330 2280 16.06 15 74 7 2010 2200 13.86 15 17 7 2800 19 31 7 3770 2920 25 99 20.16 8 1770 46c0 12.20 31.72 t 8 2400 16.55 I 8 4160 3720 28.68 25.65 9 1830 2560 12.62 17.65 9 3170 21.86 9 3110 2950 21.44 20 32 lo 2390 3150 16.h8 21.72 10 2220 15 31 10 3650 3070 26.54 21.19 I f 1855 113 Averace of t.co tects. + _ mn?*v~~~, s.?gs@ MAT,4.<%m s w vuy ' + w.#.so m w r. e >-Se w &.n- - - ' - - ' - - ' ' - ~ " ' ' ~ ' ~

W Y$W &h W N VE$WJtY?CN'-2W!Y M W kWWW-M 'M fOYT' 1 s y,VC s* P Table 5 t *6 V .d a s N r f^" U.:

.stt

ein f,4 e

1 .1

• z re r %. '+

'.'oi d ; w I *0xie I in Pl*"? r,rs cc.,nc re t e g.7, g cer,c

• .r. -r h ilure o.

A_ent M r..:t h. in. M . 2.::. A, 7[~ (('h tYt.,g j, nicek 3onding htetent Pill:2' W P 'llN t *-'M N

• h '

6 wixturr A 5 2.5 5.o 2'*.91 X ~ ~ k 5

.tixture A 5 2.5 4.0 17.7) 1.50 33 1 X

~ ~ 6 !!ixtu.re A 5 2.5 32 14.c3 4.3 1S.93 0 50 12.7 X ~ ~ {

• e r

" 'o m ' x , e ~ * - 7 7,ixture 3 5 2.5 3.; , u.," ?

ixtu.re 3 5 2.5 2.?

If. 90 X i. 7 Mixture 3 5 2.5 50 22.26 3.? 17 35 0 50 12 7 ~~ ~~ l$ Mj i-w c 10

ystem A 5

2.5 '1

13. 'i 0 50 "

X ll$d 10

y: ten A 5

2.5 5.! h.91 L.9 01 5'3 0D ~ ~ X ~ i 9

y3 cm 3 5

2.5 c.:

?.D l fo 23 1 X

i@$ 9

y: en 3 5

2.5 6.3 3 '.0:i J.7 09.51 C 53 63 3

1. j 3

Cystem c 5 2.5 9J L2 15 2.50 63 5 ~ ~ ( L s-- X i w 9i ,. a-s.,- 3

y ten c 5

c.5 7.1 u 3 Systen C 3 k.0 10.7 ' 7. D , p 3 cy: ten c B L.0 10.7 .7.@ D.7 *

• LT.O X

i 6

1:ture I, 10 5.0 17.0

-? 1*00 25 X ~ k$ 5 ?:1.xturc.\\ 10 5.0 D.c .' w.0 L'> 0.50 12.- X G 5* [7.4. 7

.xture E 10 5.0 F,. "

?" ^1 0-50 12 7 X [? b. 7 'tlxtre 3 D 50 ?.1 - 3 ? l' 'I 19 1 10 27m.m. D 53 D.: X y D 2,,te. A D 5.0 95

12..

3.' u.r -- r iy ? Sytten ; 10 5.0 97 ..i. X ]

ysten 3 10 5.]

0.k -1. 1 9.u L' 5 -- X Q. egs 2 system 0 D 50 97

.1; 1p]

3 ry: ten c D 5.0 ?.7 h2 17 '.7 -2 15 -- X 6 mtm A 20 n.0 D.: X r 6 M.1;;ture / 20 U.0 10.; '- 10 L -

iix are 3 CO 10.0

'). - 7 I N . '3 L ?. 3 " 7

'.1 :ture 15 20 10.)

9.: . e . m,.<. s 6 :, i e % f?2 ^ ' f: !. %f. n l ' T. m n 9.. .i-r ^ t V,,.r. [ &?.. c fit t 1855 114 T.,

i. y i

I b-r_ r.. . 1 f-^ >%'yLd'_Q '*yM))dt@~ a,*jb3j g; -

k. - ^[.

gfy-7_ - * ' '; - i- _- _ _, c ru rr,. ,e r

$ h W & $ 515j$ ?.h W $ k 5 ( T W D Y ki G ft% Q pr ifY'Osj M @ DrLEd.IsP W 3 D _-FJ M h n 4 Tatle 6 Ststic Axial frai Test Pesalts Pr . 6 Feinfereir.* I Tarc Cr< uted el F-exi= 1 i t: M a ~,. I Concrete Avera;e Cone ?.w er t si lu r Block Bondiq Ihte 2.ent Ihlicut Lond P 11~1* Lcai Der

• h
• Gr_ut-4 cxy-f-a r in.

er hr Ccrerete Yie'. dias 'b. Acent _L /D rerth, in, k s rl: kirs 6 !& ture A 5 3 7$ 7.0 31.1k 3 75 95 3 - -- 6 Mixture A 5 3 75 8.1 36.03 3 00 76.2 X f 6 !41xture A 5 3 75 11 9 52.93 90 LO.03 3 75 95 3 I 7 Mixture B 5 3 75 9.3 43 59 3 00 76.2 X + 7 Mixture B 5 3 75 10.0 L t..L 3 99 L.C4 3 25 82.6 X [ 10 System A 5 3 75 12.0 53 35 2.50 63 5 X 10 Cy: ten A 5 3 75 11 5 51.15 11.3 52.27 2 50 63 5 X 9 System B 5 3 75 1L.5 6L.50 1.00 25.L X 9 Syster. 3 5 3 75 14 5 6'4.50 lk.5 6L.50 2.m 50.9 X l 3 Sys+en C 5 3.75 11.5 51.15 0.50 12.7 X i e system C 5 3 75 1L.3 63 61 12 9 57 33 1.50 35.1 X 6 C*Istem C 8 4.0 25.0 111.21 X 3 Zysten C 3 6.0 24.C 108.')S

21.. S *

• 110.10 X

6 Mixture A 10 7.5 17.0 75.62 X 8 6 Mixture A 10 7.5 17 5 77.sh X 6 Mixtare A 10 7.5 21.0 9 3. '.1 18.5

.29 X

7 .isture B 10 7.5 15 5 68 95 X 7 .'axture B 10 7.5 35 5 t2 95 15 5 .:.95 X 1C Cyrte. A 10 7.5 15 5 63 95 X 10 '/ s ter. A 10 7.5 15 5 63 95 15.5

1. 3.95 X

9 J.; stem D 10 7.5 17.0 75.62 X 9 C7: ten 3 10 ?.5 10 3 51.LO 17.7 51 -- X l ? Eyrtem C 10 15.C 64.72 X l t Systt. C 10 7.5 17.0

75. ? 16.0 71.17 X

1 l I i 4 M* 9 p ..n 1855 115 -A

• " ebew~.s. h *b eL&.

~ 5. f M.% &a%N", TOW.?.RWIN),*Nf&nde&,. h b ?.& pd.l.c $,M*e ',.,.W k W..O -w-men a-rm - ennww -

M b$ hNE Nwkh NsbhaYE $bNN bekf5 t . bg t 43 s 'h VE YlELO FOR NO 6 BARS us'/TH SYSTEM C = A T MINIMUM EMBCOMENT OCPTH ,? (a,2 4.s ws) lg is ao.or ,5;\\ t A / ' r e,i t / / /1', l as ) i SYSTEM B is a z.z a L j //[' I@ / SYSTEM C / ap z a. I fr sa.se z I l ,7 E SYSTEM AJ / ? priaO rOR NO s exns wira sysTEu c 3 A T uiniuuM EMBCOMENT DEPTH a 3 a l A 0o / g MixTunt e/ 4 4. 4. { ) j MIXTURE Ad / > > 3. 2 P4 SYSTEM C g r^ 3l sh s [f) 3 SYSTEM 8 0 e e

z... ;

a l 3 I .I 'J. SYSTEM A MIXTURE J-l '7. S

• wxTunt e 17y Ya

} z e so

s ea kk o

o O e0 5% 20 23 30 L/D p -f UJ LEGEND 'a NO.4 s a n s 9 ~a n.as J o saa ve.o s ??Op REL ATIONSHIP BETWEEN 4 AVERAGE PULLOUT LOADS AND /i THE LENGTH OF EMSEDMENT TO SAR DIAMETER RATIOS l1 r DLAN 1 '. s 1855 116- !!!i ~_-_w_-

• $1 Y5 e h i

h $'$ Yh, h f; 'h*fkh4 Y Y YEh

• Yh s

I I 20 88 94 t l$ 86.72 Z* I 8 k. a 3 o 3 d W 5 to ^A 8 44 48 o k g (0.0 4 S J IN.,8 S) S Bl b d s 2 o. b a l S 22.24 A g e / 0 0 09 002 003 DiSPL ACE MENT, IN O O254 C SCS 0.762 D+5 8L ACEuf N T, Mu LEGENO A L/03 5 O L/Osto 0 L/D=20 NO T E : E ACH CURVE RE**ESENTS AN AVE R AGE OF T WO TE S TS. A ANO B ARE u!v70RE DEstGNATecNs PULLOUT AND BAR YlELD LOADS VS DISPLACEMENTS 1 FOR NO.4 BARS ANCHORED WITH MIXTURES A ANDB 1855 117 =E 2

j'D15MKf"iEEMEG"JPMVRN&id8h?#5Mst%T*>Mi%ammewevw&y, L My>

e

?' A i 20 A ?, [ - 86.72 F 13 E I 8 i h J L 0' a Y g i /^ 44 A. O l0 i J g ~ 3 e s 2 I E I t t W' 22 24 9 3 t k I bOE 0 0 F ** O 00s 002 003 DiSPLACEMEN', i% L O 02$4 0509 0.762 085PL ActuENT, wu [g! I LEGENO L/Os 3 V 4 O L/D8 IQ j.' NOTE: E ACH CURVE REPRESENTS AN AVER AGE OF T *O TES TS fy A ANO S ARE Wiz Tutt DES:GNATION$. +5 g.. \\ 2r+; PULLOUT AND BAR 'I Y! ELD LOADS VS DISPLACEMENTS f$ FOR NO.6 BARS ANCHORED ,&e WITH MIXTURES A AND8 wcw 3%. ib PLATE T-Eg, 185$ 118 if4 ~ m t.. w n -~

t i t 4 1 - [ 20 se 96 IS 6e.72 E 2 2 d k a 3 o d w 10 aA e 44.48 I / 2 /* C 3' 3 0 a B 5 I I 5 / 22.24 /^ 0 0 01 002 003 Dl5 pt A CE u(N T, IN O 0.254 O SC8 0.762 Ot5pL ACEME N T, vu LEGENO a L/Da S O L/02 EO NOTE

• E ACH CURVE REPRESENTS A N AVE R AGE OF Two TES TS.

A, B, AND C AR E SYST E M DE SICPe ATICNS. \\ PULLOUT AND BAR YlELD LOADS VS DISPLACEMENTS FOR NO.4 BARS ANCHORED WITH SYSTEMS A, B, AND C PLATE 4 1855 119 -w

- W=V b d S. d b Y_ ' Ir V A L o NT

• .5 A

20 e. 9. (& L t B C / 2 grg I. ...,2 E B A I ?. / a' n 3 .O e a a .a* A c 10 44 48 9 l 5 s< 8 3 ." t d s 3 s F, U w 5 ar w 2 2.2 e / 7 5N bw <a, 0 0 01 002 003 Dl3PL4Ce ucNr, IN. >] o 0254 0"08 0.762 D'sPL AccucNr, uw 3 LEGEND c7' A L/ D * $ O L/Ds10 L K*NS I$ wort: cacw cu=ve er..csc~rs an avc=4cc or two res ts. f. 4.s.4Na c anc srsrew Desicuations.

g MM

\\ ktM PULLOUT AND BAR tcy YlELD LOADS VS DISPLACEMENTS jf FOR NO.6 BARS ANCHC RED Ed WITH SYSTEMS A,8, AND C fp E *,:W W. PLATE 5 ?! 185S 120- 'i Y-u., w. T 2_,x w i=. ~ u....rw r _. < r, -e m. m.,, -om -,r - =- u -a a vm

fhh N{$5?I$WY&$$h$$$$$hb:?hNW?5$Y b?b{W&YS*~?.,5W&Sh ,WW?h' v 4i 24 o J I r l Ni O,1 <D 1 6 I }} j f ;Il!g\\ / J J 69: 9 Lj \\ j t : !] t, 0 a J jt } U 212:sific i q -.a......<..,-, DOCUMENT CONTROL D AT A. R & D g i. o....= = r. = c. c v.. e v n. b..a.o.rsac...v c6.sswic.r.o= ,'] ,s..,.,,....,..,..,,,,,..&,..,...,.,,.,..a..,,,.........,.,..,....,,,...,,e.,,...m... P U. 2.,W,' Engineer..aterways Experi~. cat Station Unclassified Vicksburg, "issiscippi q

b..E.O.T f.rkt

,v. IUII.CZ :.ESICTANCE CF REII.TORCI:L 1ARJ E$ EDDED I:. HARCE::ED CCI!CR2TE N I V) . o a a e.. s., e ~ o s e e c rn.. a,...,....,,,..> Final rcrort f Riche.rd L. Steve dh v s. .a.o.5 D.rg FA Y07 6 mo o...ets 96.No.o..EFS w June 19N 36 9 l{ .. c c,~,.. c v o.... ~ r - o .o..c...........o.,..<..... !.iiscellanocus Paper C-%-12

n...os e c r ~o.

e, p; ...o,........,..mg.,...,-,.,..,.....,.., 1, e. ,9 f>b d y Appryted for public relense; distribution unlimited. I.- Sv.*44ME '..v mo 7 5,5 s, s.ogso.epeg u g,T..v .C Te ve r y i Office, Chief of En.;ineers, U. S. Arny 'rlashi gten, D. C. s. ...v..c, Mole: for erd;e'ldin; reinforcinc b u :. ere dissend-drillei into m:0 concrete test [ blocks. Tne hole:.ere 1 in. ('_'S.' rr.) in lisreter cnd deep enough to er. bed I o. 4 + cnd ::c. : deforned reinfarcing tars tc.icpths of 5, c,10, and 20 nominal bar diar- 'I eters. F;rtland-ceter.t grauta nna c; =creially available epoxy-recin cystccs were u ilo role; Fanjing scen u were alloved to cure, used to ancnor the L1rs in t ie the rei:. forcing birs were axially leaded to determine which bondira agent effered an: the u st ;allaut re.sistance. In all instances, ti.e cp xy-anchored reinfercing barc t exhibitsi nere rc;iatance to mlloit t. 'n lid t?.c bers anchorel with the cercat rr.rlt s. La hOnlin n en'.: evinte l in ..la wrestim tion are recorrended for nredrinc i< eforcirc.are in Irilla : Re: in Esrlened tas: concre'.e ; '.0weve r, r certna limite tlan arc mrh 2 T !rir use. p .u \\ A DD.roen..14 / o....c . a,o 1;nc t, _ _,,. s ..c,, s.t. .. u... i r... wm 1855 121 5 1 f: 1 p &,s s.,w 7272l*3*T Ers r - m om.-., -. . w. ,.n,7py. a w c..z. %= -y,, .c sm. 1

e ffnelessiftad Security C la s saisc a cio n t e es e a 6 sse m a s s ee m c .6, . us ..se Anchcring Bonding agents Mass cenerete Pullout resistance Reinforcing bars I i f :Jt ?$ Ni 5ecurter Cassification b 1856 122 ~ m

h

y@a

.,a <Q k' a -4 bh .. ~.:< i ( E,9 = In accordance with ER 70-2-3, paragraph 6c(1)(b), i dated 15 Febr.tary 1973, a facsicile catalog card in Library of Corgress format is reproduced below. l 'n, t c. t s o JJ m 43" (5,1 .$3n Stove, Richani L Sp*2 Pullout resistance of reinforcing bars embedded in ,E hardened concrete, by R. L. Stove. Vicksbu g, U. S. A./ 4{' E.vineer ','ateruvs Experiment Station, l$fT4. 7 1 v. (various pagirgs) illus. 27 cm. (U. S. Water-Vi vays Experiment Station. Miscellaneous parer C-7h-12) $i Sponsored by Office, Chief of Engineers, U. S. Amy. y,,

• 8[4 Includes bibliography.

gp{.

1. Ar.chorirc.

2. Boniing agents.

3. Mass concrete.

4. Pullout resistance.

5. F.einforcing bars.

I. U. S. i y Arg. Corps of Ergineers. (Sarics: U. S. 'Jate rways N.. $3'fi Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Miscellaneous y paper C-Th-12) TA7.w31.s no.C-7h-12

g

,4 A. $?1 M . >: c b M,( ' , *u Rh. ,IE $~3 g, n lQ1 v. 5: .-hb, Ye 1855 123 n&& N- , Zi a-

9' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) Docket 50-344 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ) et al ) (Control Building Proceeding) ) (Trojan Nuclear Plant) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 28, 1980 Licensee's letter to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation dated January 28, 1980 with supplemental material to responses to NRC Staff questions has been served upon the persons listed below by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail with proper postage affixed for first class mail. Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Docketing and Service Section (3) Division of Engineering, Office of the Secretary Architecture and Technology U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oklahoma State University Washington, D. C. 20555 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Joseph R. Gray, Esq. Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Counsel for NRC Staff 1229 - 41st Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll Panel 1025 Connecticut Ave., N. W. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1214 Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20036 1855 124

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Frank W. Ostrander, Jr., Esq. Mr. David B. McCoy Richard M. Sandvik, Esq. 348 Hussey Lane Assistant Attorney General Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 State of Oregon Department of Justice Ms. C. Gail Parson 500 Pacific Building P. O. Box 2992 520 S. W. Yamhill Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Portland, Oregon 97204 Mr. Eugene Rosolie William Kinsey, Esq. Coalition for Safe Power Bonneville Power Administration 215 S. E. 9th Avenue P. O. Box 3621 Portland, Oregon 97214 Portland, Oregon 97208 Columbia County Courthouse Ms. Nina Bell Law Library 728 S. E. 26th Avenue Circuit Court Room Portland, Oregon 97214 St. Helens, Oregon 97051 Mr. John A. Kullberg Route 1, Box 250Q Sauvie Island, Oregon 97231 // / Ronald W. Johnsor PortlandGeneral[ElectricCompany Assistant Gen rdl Counsel Dated: January 28, 1980 185512s sa6A4}}