ML17277B056: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 14: Line 14:
| page count = 70
| page count = 70
}}
}}
See also: [[followed by::IR 05000397/1983038]]


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:REGULATORY
{{#Wiki_filter:REGULATORY IN RMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)t ACCESSION NBR:8311220173 DuC.DATE: 83/11/15 NOTARIZED:
IN RMATION DISTRIBUTION
No DOCKET FACIL:50-397 NPPSS Nuclear Projects Unit 2~1'tashington Public Powe 05000397 AUTH, NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION S6RENSENgG,G
SYSTEM (RIDS)t ACCESSION NBR:8311220173
~Washington Public Power Supply System REC IP~NAME AEC IP IENT AFF ILI ATION SCHNENCERgA
DuC.DATE: 83/11/15 NOTARIZED:
~, Licensing Branch 2'
No DOCKET FACIL:50-397
 
NPPSS Nuclear Projects Unit 2~1'tashington
==SUBJECT:==
Public Powe 05000397 AUTH, NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION
Forwards addendum to 831031 response to violations, noted in IE Insp Rept 50~397/83 38 re evaluation of concrete 8 reinforcing steeliin response to 831108 telcon w/NRC~DISTRIBUTION CODE: IEOIS COPIES RECEIVED:LTR j ENCL l SIZE: gg TITLE: General (50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice of Violation Response NOTES: REC IP IENT ID CODE/NAME NRA LB2 BC INTERNALS AEOD IE ENF STAFF IE/DQAS IP/ORPB NRR/DSI/RAB EXTERNAL: ACRS t<RC PDR NT/S COPIES LTTR ENCL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 I 1 1 1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME AULUCKeRD'LD/HDS2 IE F ILE IE/ES FILE LPDR NSIC COPIES LTTR ENCL'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1)k TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED~LTTR M ENCL 0~~Il Eli>>~'>>'J I" N ,'*tr II')C"'v'E ,i~e I H''>r~~fr>>ff)a<<cur)<<<<>>r I)JE))')<<lr))r)P))r)~<<>>l<<fI'>>,)>>)')l'1 4 if),f"~>>l q'>>>0 ,TP~).r>>e',EI>>">>I f)l~, E), c E e ,f)E>>E I~P)ltd.'ktttl I)P"'<<T I~IEE~~&Eh<<>>10 l>>P')<<')P) f~F>>l)r 4)0>>g r$O II it iTI J T ffl'g)I ll q 9 I IE jiPfi]I Pf~>>f>>E'f I fI<<I E fl v, Washington Public Power Supply System P.O.Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352 (509)372-5000 November 15, 1983 G02-83-1057 Docket No.50-397 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
S6RENSENgG,G
~Washington
Public Power Supply System REC IP~NAME AEC IP IENT AFF ILI ATION SCHNENCERgA
~, Licensing Branch 2'SUBJECT: Forwards addendum to 831031 response to violations, noted in IE Insp Rept 50~397/83 38 re evaluation
of concrete 8 reinforcing
steeliin response to 831108 telcon w/NRC~DISTRIBUTION
CODE: IEOIS COPIES RECEIVED:LTR
j ENCL l SIZE: gg TITLE: General (50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice
of Violation Response NOTES: REC IP IENT ID CODE/NAME NRA LB2 BC INTERNALS AEOD IE ENF STAFF IE/DQAS IP/ORPB NRR/DSI/RAB
EXTERNAL: ACRS t<RC PDR NT/S COPIES LTTR ENCL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 I 1 1 1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME AULUCKeRD'LD/HDS2
IE F ILE IE/ES FILE LPDR NSIC COPIES LTTR ENCL'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1)k TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED~LTTR M ENCL  
0~~Il Eli>>~'>>'J I" N ,'*tr II')C"'v'E ,i~e I H''>r~~fr>>ff)a<<cur)<<<<>>r I)JE))')<<lr))r)P))r)~<<>>l<<fI'>>,)>>)')l'1 4 if),f"~>>l q'>>>0 ,TP~).r>>e',EI>>">>I f)l~, E), c E e ,f)E>>E I~P)ltd.'ktttl
I)P"'<<T I~IEE~~&Eh<<>>10 l>>P')<<')P)
f~F>>l)r 4)0>>g r$O II it iTI J T ffl'g)I ll q 9 I IE jiPfi]I Pf~>>f>>E'f I fI<<I E fl v,  
Washington
Public Power Supply System P.O.Box 968 3000 George Washington
Way Richland, Washington
99352 (509)372-5000 November 15, 1983 G02-83-1057
Docket No.50-397 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attention:
Mr.A.Schwencer:
Mr.A.Schwencer:
Licensing Branch No.2 Division of Licensing U.S.Nuclear Regulatory
Licensing Branch No.2 Division of Licensing U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555  
Commission
 
Washington, D.C.20555 Dear Hr.Schwencer:
==Dear Hr.Schwencer:==
Subject: Reference:
 
NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 INSPECTION
==Subject:==
REPORT 83-38, NOTICE OF VIOLATION-CONCRETE Letter, G02-83-996, C.S.Carlisle (SS)to J.B.Hartin (NRC), same subject, dated October 31, 1983 As requested by a phone conversation
 
on November 8, 1983, between Messrs.R.Auluck and K.C.Leu (NRC)and P.Powell and H.Crisp (SS), the attached documents (3)are provided in clarification
==Reference:==
and support of the reference.
 
Should you have any additional
NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 INSPECTION REPORT 83-38, NOTICE OF VIOLATION-CONCRETE Letter, G02-83-996, C.S.Carlisle (SS)to J.B.Hartin (NRC), same subject, dated October 31, 1983 As requested by a phone conversation on November 8, 1983, between Messrs.R.Auluck and K.C.Leu (NRC)and P.Powell and H.Crisp (SS), the attached documents (3)are provided in clarification and support of the reference.
questions, please contact Mr.P.L.Powell, Manager, WNP-2 Licensing.
Should you have any additional questions, please contact Mr.P.L.Powell, Manager, WNP-2 Licensing.
Very truly yours, G.C.Sorensen, Manager Regulatory
Very truly yours, G.C.Sorensen, Manager Regulatory Programs PLP/tmh Attachments cc: R Auluck-NRC WS Chin-BPA KC Leu-NRC AD Toth-NRC Site 8311220173 831115 PDR ADOCK 05000397 Q PDR J P t n.)'
Programs PLP/tmh Attachments
ATTACHMENT I WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 DOCKET NO.50-397 LICENSE NO.CPPR-93 ADDENDUM TO RESPONSE TO INSPECTION REPORT 83-38 NOTICE OF VIOLATION EVALUATION OF CONCRETE AND REINFORCING STEEL FOR WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM UNIT 2 This attachment restates each question recorded by the Supply System at the October 14,,1983, meeting with the NRC and ref'erences the part of the Supply System response, G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, which addressed the question.1.What was the disposition of NCRs written for questions raised during visual reinspections of beam bioshield wall connections?
cc: R Auluck-NRC WS Chin-BPA KC Leu-NRC AD Toth-NRC Site 8311220173
~Res onse: Last paragraph, first bullet, of Attachment l to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, states: "Visual reinspections were made of the beam-bioshield wall connections for 37 beams (framing into the bioshield wall), which represent 56&#xc3;of the principal beams in the Reactor Building.Eight minor questions recorded were dispositioned
831115 PDR ADOCK 05000397 Q PDR  
'accept as is'y the engineer." 2.Explain the background of the sampling plan.~Res ense: The first bullet of the attachment to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."Concrete Sam lin Pro ram Beams 2B3, 2B11 and 2B25 were the subject of nonconformance report (NCR)6426-1851.
J P t n.)'  
This NCR identified honeycombing on each beam, which was subsequently repaired.When these patches were reinspected and sounded (by tapping)in 1983, it appeared patches were deficient and it was decided to perform destruc-tive examination of these beams.Removal of these patches showed that there were reinforcing steel placement deviations and honeycombing/voids existed in areas of congested rebars.Concerns were expressed by the Construction Appraisal Team (CAT)that similar conditions might exist elsewhere and additional destructive examination of concrete structural components was undertaken.
ATTACHMENT
Page 1 of ll I h l,'l A total of 17 members with 23 excavation locations known to have congestion were selected for evaluation.
I WASHINGTON
PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 DOCKET NO.50-397 LICENSE NO.CPPR-93 ADDENDUM TO RESPONSE TO INSPECTION
REPORT 83-38 NOTICE OF VIOLATION EVALUATION
OF CONCRETE AND REINFORCING
STEEL FOR WASHINGTON
PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM UNIT 2 This attachment
restates each question recorded by the Supply System at the October 14,,1983, meeting with the NRC and ref'erences
the part of the Supply System response, G02-83-996
dated October 31, 1983, which addressed the question.1.What was the disposition
of NCRs written for questions raised during visual reinspections
of beam bioshield wall connections?
~Res onse: Last paragraph, first bullet, of Attachment
l to G02-83-996
dated October 31, 1983, states: "Visual reinspections
were made of the beam-bioshield
wall connections
for 37 beams (framing into the bioshield wall), which represent 56&#xc3;of the principal beams in the Reactor Building.Eight minor questions recorded were dispositioned
'accept as is'y the engineer." 2.Explain the background
of the sampling plan.~Res ense: The first bullet of the attachment
to G02-83-996
dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."Concrete Sam lin Pro ram Beams 2B3, 2B11 and 2B25 were the subject of nonconformance
report (NCR)6426-1851.
This NCR identified
honeycombing
on each beam, which was subsequently
repaired.When these patches were reinspected
and sounded (by tapping)in 1983, it appeared patches were deficient and it was decided to perform destruc-tive examination
of these beams.Removal of these patches showed that there were reinforcing
steel placement deviations
and honeycombing/voids
existed in areas of congested rebars.Concerns were expressed by the Construction
Appraisal Team (CAT)that similar conditions
might exist elsewhere and additional
destructive
examination
of concrete structural
components
was undertaken.
Page 1 of ll  
I h l,'l  
A total of 17 members with 23 excavation
locations known to have congestion
were selected for evaluation.
These structures (with congested rebars)are the ones most likely to exhibit misplaced rebars and honeycombing.
These structures (with congested rebars)are the ones most likely to exhibit misplaced rebars and honeycombing.
The sample was thus biased in the direction of those components
The sample was thus biased in the direction of those components and locations most susceptible to be affected by the deviations mentioned above.Reinforced concrete design drawings were reviewed and it was established that the areas most likely to have a similar problem would be the beam-bioshield wall intersections where the main rebars are spliced with dowels.There are 66 such beam-bioshield intersections; six of these intersections were excavated.
and locations most susceptible
The sample was further biased by selecting 2Bll and 2B25, which represent all of the-beams with three layers of bottom reinforcement at the beam-bioshield intersections.
to be affected by the deviations
mentioned above.Reinforced
concrete design drawings were reviewed and it was established
that the areas most likely to have a similar problem would be the beam-bioshield
wall intersections
where the main rebars are spliced with dowels.There are 66 such beam-bioshield intersections;
six of these intersections
were excavated.
The sample was further biased by selecting 2Bll and 2B25, which represent all of the-beams with three layers of bottom reinforcement
at the beam-bioshield
intersections.
Also excavated were beams 2B3 and 2B5, with two layers of bottom reinforcement, and beams 3B18 and 6B9, with single layers of bottom reinforcement.
Also excavated were beams 2B3 and 2B5, with two layers of bottom reinforcement, and beams 3B18 and 6B9, with single layers of bottom reinforcement.
In addition to beams framing into the bioshield wall, two beams (3B10 and 4B30)framing into column/exterior
In addition to beams framing into the bioshield wall, two beams (3B10 and 4B30)framing into column/exterior walls were also excavated.
walls were also excavated.
The total sample excavated is representative of the reinforced concrete in the remainder of the plant.Reinforced concrete design drawings were also reviewed in order to include other type structures in the sample program.Again, congested areas were selected in order to obtain representative samples of columns, walls, slabs and mats.The pour records were examined for each structure included in the sample to insure that RFIs and NCRs, which might have been issued on the structure, were considered in the analysis.The selection and extent of each excavation also included evaluation of each member for the excavated condition to assure that the excavation did not weaken the member.The sample selected for investigation was not based on a random nor a statistical approach.Rather it was selected to provide a conservative biased sample of representative types of construction.
The total sample excavated is representative
It included beams, columns, walls, slabs and mats.Each excavation was selected at an area most susceptible to construction problems where rebar congestion might lead to honeycombing, voids, rebar spacing deviation or misplacement of rebar." 3.Provide calculation to substantiate disposition of spent fuel pool wall.~Res onse: This calculation was transmitted initially to Nr.Auiuck during the week of October 24, 1983.A second copy is attached herewith.Page 2 of 11 4.Speak to why no other areas of congested reinforcing bar exist in the plant.~Res ense: The second, third, and sixth p.aragraphs of the first bullet of the attachment to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."A total of 17 members with 23 excavation locations.
of the reinforced
known to have congestion were selected for evaluation.
concrete in the remainder of the plant.Reinforced
concrete design drawings were also reviewed in order to include other type structures
in the sample program.Again, congested areas were selected in order to obtain representative
samples of columns, walls, slabs and mats.The pour records were examined for each structure included in the sample to insure that RFIs and NCRs, which might have been issued on the structure, were considered
in the analysis.The selection and extent of each excavation
also included evaluation
of each member for the excavated condition to assure that the excavation
did not weaken the member.The sample selected for investigation
was not based on a random nor a statistical
approach.Rather it was selected to provide a conservative
biased sample of representative
types of construction.
It included beams, columns, walls, slabs and mats.Each excavation
was selected at an area most susceptible
to construction
problems where rebar congestion
might lead to honeycombing, voids, rebar spacing deviation or misplacement
of rebar." 3.Provide calculation
to substantiate
disposition
of spent fuel pool wall.~Res onse: This calculation
was transmitted
initially to Nr.Auiuck during the week of October 24, 1983.A second copy is attached herewith.Page 2 of 11  
4.Speak to why no other areas of congested reinforcing
bar exist in the plant.~Res ense: The second, third, and sixth p.aragraphs
of the first bullet of the attachment
to G02-83-996
dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."A total of 17 members with 23 excavation
locations.
known to have congestion
were selected for evaluation.
These struc-tures (with congested rebar s)are the ones most.likely to exhibit misplaced rebars and honeycombing.
These struc-tures (with congested rebar s)are the ones most.likely to exhibit misplaced rebars and honeycombing.
The sample was thus biased in the direction of those components
The sample was thus biased in the direction of those components and locations most susceptible to be affected by the deviations mentioned above.Reinforced concrete design drawings were reviewed and it was established that the areas most likely to have a similar problem would be the beam-bioshield wall intersections where the main rebars are spliced with dowels.There are 66.such beam-bioshield intersections; six of these intersections were excavated.
and locations most susceptible
The sample was further biased by selecting 2811 and 2825, which represent all of the beams with three layers of bottom reinforcement at the beam-bioshield intersections.
to be affected by the deviations
mentioned above.Reinforced
concrete design drawings were reviewed and it was established
that the areas most likely to have a similar problem would be the beam-bioshield
wall intersections
where the main rebars are spliced with dowels.There are 66.such beam-bioshield
intersections;
six of these intersections
were excavated.
The sample was further biased by selecting 2811 and 2825, which represent all of the beams with three layers of bottom reinforcement
at the beam-bioshield
intersections.
Also excavated were beams 283 and 285, with two layers of bottom reinforcement, and beams 3818 and 689, with single layers of bottom reinforcement.
Also excavated were beams 283 and 285, with two layers of bottom reinforcement, and beams 3818 and 689, with single layers of bottom reinforcement.
In addition to beams framing into the bioshield wall, two beams (3810'and 4830)framing into column/exterior
In addition to beams framing into the bioshield wall, two beams (3810'and 4830)framing into column/exterior walls were also excavated.
walls were also excavated.
The total sample excavated is'representative of the reinforced concrete in the remainder of the plant.""The sample selected for investigation was not based on a random nor a statistical approach.Rather it was selected to provide a conservative biased sample of representative types of construction.
The total sample excavated is'representative
It included beams, columns, walls, slabs and mats.Each excavation was selected at an area most suscep-tible to construction problems, where rebar congestion might lead to honeycombing, voids, rebar spacing deviation or mis-placement of rebar." The last bullet also addressed this question."Conclusion The Supply System has confirmed the adequacy of concrete construction at HNP-2 by performing a detailed investigation of selected as-built structural members.The investigation included 23 excavations in 17 structural members at locations of congested rebar in representative beams, columns, walls and Page 3 of 11 II I'1 I I slabs.Such locations are difficult to construct and there-fore provide a conservative sample of the.plant structures.
of the reinforced
The investigation included three structural beams (2B3,"2Bll and 2B25)where the congestion had been so severe that honey-combing and voids had been identified during construction and had been repaired in accordance with approved construction procedures.
concrete in the remainder of the plant.""The sample selected for investigation
Results of the evaluations are summarized in Table 1.The excavations demonstrated acceptable construction quality in columns, walls, slabs and mats.The excavations in beams indicated a significant number of locations where the spacing of rebar was less than that specified in the code.This occurred primarily in areas where the main reinforcement was lap spliced.The code requirement on clear spacing between reinforcement is primarily imposed to assure good concrete consolidation.
was not based on a random nor a statistical
With the exception of the three beams where honeycombing and voids had already been identified during construction, all excavation locations showed good consolida-tion of the concrete, thereby demonstrating the adequacy of concrete construction in these locations.
approach.Rather it was selected to provide a conservative
All discrepancies from the design requirements were evaluated.
biased sample of representative
In every case the structures were found to be adequate.The results show that for two cases some bond.was not available on all the bars.This inadequacy occurred in beams at dowel splice locations where honeycomb and voids were most likely.Both of these beams have already experienced construction loads in excess of those specified during plant operation, and performed well.Of all the cases studied, only one dowel that should have been located in the excavation was not uncovered.
types of construction.
This beam was conservatively evaluated assuming the dowel was missing and not just misplaced, and was found to be adequate..
It included beams, columns, walls, slabs and mats.Each excavation
In summary, all structural members excavated during the investigation were demonstrated to be adequate for all speci-fied loads.The investigation demonstrated that structural members speci-fically selected for their difficulty in construction met the intent of the code for all design conditions.
was selected at an area most suscep-tible to construction
This biased sample provides confidence that the conclusion may be extended to all Category I concrete structures of WNP-2 since they were designed and constructed to the same quality procedures as those included in this investigation." 5.What was the statistical basis for the number of beams selected'~Res ense: Paragraphs two, three and se,ven of the first bu11et of Attachment I to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this Page 4 of ll li l question."A total of 17 member s with 23 excavation locations known to have congestion were selected for evaluation.
problems, where rebar congestion
might lead to honeycombing, voids, rebar spacing deviation or mis-placement of rebar." The last bullet also addressed this question."Conclusion
The Supply System has confirmed the adequacy of concrete construction
at HNP-2 by performing
a detailed investigation
of selected as-built structural
members.The investigation
included 23 excavations
in 17 structural
members at locations of congested rebar in representative
beams, columns, walls and Page 3 of 11  
II I'1 I I  
slabs.Such locations are difficult to construct and there-fore provide a conservative
sample of the.plant structures.
The investigation
included three structural
beams (2B3,"2Bll
and 2B25)where the congestion
had been so severe that honey-combing and voids had been identified
during construction
and had been repaired in accordance
with approved construction
procedures.
Results of the evaluations
are summarized
in Table 1.The excavations
demonstrated
acceptable
construction
quality in columns, walls, slabs and mats.The excavations
in beams indicated a significant
number of locations where the spacing of rebar was less than that specified in the code.This occurred primarily in areas where the main reinforcement
was lap spliced.The code requirement
on clear spacing between reinforcement
is primarily imposed to assure good concrete consolidation.
With the exception of the three beams where honeycombing
and voids had already been identified
during construction, all excavation
locations showed good consolida-
tion of the concrete, thereby demonstrating
the adequacy of concrete construction
in these locations.
All discrepancies
from the design requirements
were evaluated.
In every case the structures
were found to be adequate.The results show that for two cases some bond.was not available on all the bars.This inadequacy
occurred in beams at dowel splice locations where honeycomb and voids were most likely.Both of these beams have already experienced
construction
loads in excess of those specified during plant operation, and performed well.Of all the cases studied, only one dowel that should have been located in the excavation
was not uncovered.
This beam was conservatively
evaluated assuming the dowel was missing and not just misplaced, and was found to be adequate..
In summary, all structural
members excavated during the investigation
were demonstrated
to be adequate for all speci-fied loads.The investigation
demonstrated
that structural
members speci-fically selected for their difficulty
in construction
met the intent of the code for all design conditions.
This biased sample provides confidence
that the conclusion
may be extended to all Category I concrete structures
of WNP-2 since they were designed and constructed
to the same quality procedures
as those included in this investigation." 5.What was the statistical
basis for the number of beams selected'~Res ense: Paragraphs
two, three and se,ven of the first bu11et of Attachment
I to G02-83-996
dated October 31, 1983, addressed this Page 4 of ll  
li l  
question."A total of 17 member s with 23 excavation
locations known to have congestion
were selected for evaluation.
These struc-tures (with congested rebars)are the ones most likely to exhibit misplaced rebars and honeycombing.
These struc-tures (with congested rebars)are the ones most likely to exhibit misplaced rebars and honeycombing.
The sample was thus biased in the direction of those components
The sample was thus biased in the direction of those components and locations most susceptible to be affected by the deviations mentioned above.Reinforced concrete design drawings were reviewed and it was established that the areas most likely to have a similar problem would be the beam-bioshield wall intersections where the main rebars are spliced with dowels.There are 66 such beam-bioshield intersections; six of these intersections were excavated.
and locations most susceptible
The sample was further biased by selecting 2Bll and 2B25, which represent all of the beams with three layers of bottom reinforcement at the beam-bioshield intersections.
to be affected by the deviations
mentioned above.Reinforced
concrete design drawings were reviewed and it was established
that the areas most likely to have a similar problem would be the beam-bioshield
wall intersections
where the main rebars are spliced with dowels.There are 66 such beam-bioshield
intersections;
six of these intersections
were excavated.
The sample was further biased by selecting 2Bll and 2B25, which represent all of the beams with three layers of bottom reinforcement
at the beam-bioshield
intersections.
Also excavated were beams 2B3 and 2B5, with two layers of bottom reinforcement, and beams 3B18 and 6B9, with single layers of bottom reinforcement.
Also excavated were beams 2B3 and 2B5, with two layers of bottom reinforcement, and beams 3B18 and 6B9, with single layers of bottom reinforcement.
In addition to beams framing into the bioshield wall, two beams (3B10 and 4B30)framing into column/exterior
In addition to beams framing into the bioshield wall, two beams (3B10 and 4B30)framing into column/exterior walls were also excavated.
walls were also excavated.
The total'ample excavated is representative of the reinforced concrete in the remainder of the plant.""The sample selected for investigation was not based on a random nor a statistical approach.Rather, it was selected to provide a conservative biased sample of representative types of construction.
The total'ample
It included beams, columns, walls, slabs and mats.Each excavation was selected at an area most suscep-tible to construction problems where rebar congestion might lead to honeycombing, voids, rebar spacing deviation or mis-placement of rebar." 6.In Sketch 17, clarify that splice is equivalent to a contact splice;i.e., that no greater than six inches separates the two bars.~Res onse: The second bullet of Attachment I to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."Clarification of La S lice SK-17 of Reference 1 ACI Code 318-71, per paragraph 7.5.4, allows the use of non-contact lap splices, provided the bars to be spliced are not spaced transversely farther apart than one-fifth the required length of lap nor six inches.At column line M on the East Exterior Mall, the wall thickness is 3'-0" on the north side of the pilaster and 2'-6" on the south side of the pilaster.Page 5 of ll  
excavated is representative
~f s 0 The horizontal bars for 3'-0" and 2'-6" walls were terminated within the pilaster with C-1 splice, which is in full confor-mance with code requirements, because the difference in wall thickness is six inches and the horizontal bars are spaced transversely only six inches apart." 7.Certify that RFIs were considered in the re-evaluation of the concrete beams.~Res onse: The fifth paragraph of the first bullet of Attachment l to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, contains this certification."The pour records were examined for each structure included in the sample to insure that RFIs and NCRs, which might have been issued on the structure, were considered in the analysis." 8.Summarize the findings on mix substitution.
of the reinforced
concrete in the remainder of the plant.""The sample selected for investigation
was not based on a random nor a statistical
approach.Rather, it was selected to provide a conservative
biased sample of representative
types of construction.
It included beams, columns, walls, slabs and mats.Each excavation
was selected at an area most suscep-tible to construction
problems where rebar congestion
might lead to honeycombing, voids, rebar spacing deviation or mis-placement of rebar." 6.In Sketch 17, clarify that splice is equivalent
to a contact splice;i.e., that no greater than six inches separates the two bars.~Res onse: The second bullet of Attachment
I to G02-83-996
dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."Clarification
of La S lice SK-17 of Reference 1 ACI Code 318-71, per paragraph 7.5.4, allows the use of non-contact lap splices, provided the bars to be spliced are not spaced transversely
farther apart than one-fifth the required length of lap nor six inches.At column line M on the East Exterior Mall, the wall thickness is 3'-0" on the north side of the pilaster and 2'-6" on the south side of the pilaster.Page 5 of ll  
~f s 0 The horizontal
bars for 3'-0" and 2'-6" walls were terminated
within the pilaster with C-1 splice, which is in full confor-mance with code requirements, because the difference
in wall thickness is six inches and the horizontal
bars are spaced transversely
only six inches apart." 7.Certify that RFIs were considered
in the re-evaluation
of the concrete beams.~Res onse: The fifth paragraph of the first bullet of Attachment
l to G02-83-996
dated October 31, 1983, contains this certification."The pour records were examined for each structure included in the sample to insure that RFIs and NCRs, which might have been issued on the structure, were considered
in the analysis." 8.Summarize the findings on mix substitution.
How does it affect other locations?
How does it affect other locations?
Assess possible impact on other structures.
Assess possible impact on other structures.
~Res onse: The fifth bullet of Attachment
~Res onse: The fifth bullet of Attachment I'to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addresses these questions.
I'to G02-83-996
"-Mix Substitution Contract drawing S749, note II2, specified concrete mixes.The mix for use in beams cast integral with floor slabs is based on the slab thickness.
dated October 31, 1983, addresses these questions.
For beams"4B30 and 6B9 the required mix was 4SA-P (maximum size of aggregate equal to 3/4")based on the adjacent slab thickness of 12 inches.The beams and slab were constructed using mix 4MA-P (maximum size aggregate equal to 1-1/2").The mix substitution was approved by the Burns and Roe Field Engineer prior to concrete placement.
"-Mix Substitution
This substitution in no way affected the structural integrity of the beams because of the following: (a)Both classes of concrete (i.e., 4MA-P and 4SA-P)have the same required minimum 28-days strength of fc'=4000 psi.(The actual 28-day strength of these pours was over 5000 psi.)(b)Concrete bond and consolidation in the excavations made in these two beams was excellent, without honeycomb and voids.(c)Beams 4B30 (3'-0" x 3'-0")has seven bottom bars and beam 6B9 (2'-0" x 3'-0")has four bottom bars, which provides a minimum average clear space of four inches between the rebars.This spacing meets the requirements of paragraph 3.3.2 of the ACI Code 318-71." Page 6 of ll 9.Enhance credibility of Westinghouse as"independent" reviewer.Provide original charter if necessary.
Contract drawing S749, note II2, specified concrete mixes.The mix for use in beams cast integral with floor slabs is based on the slab thickness.
~Res onse: The sixth bullet of Attachment I to 802-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."Westin house Charter The Westinghouse Corporation was given direction under a Basic Ordering Agreement with the Supply System to provide an inde-pendent overview of the Supply System effort to resolve the questions raised by the NRC CAT.Westinghouse reported their assessments through the Director of Technology to the Managing Director;however, there was daily contact between project people and the Westinghouse Team.Westinghouse was specifi-cally asked to provide a third-party review of the concrete issue.Initially, this review was to have been a broad overview of the facts and conclusion reached by the Supply System.Direction to Westinghouse was expanded, however, after the inspection conducted by Messrs.Albert and Herring on July 25-27, 1983,'to provide for a more detailed review of the facts being developed by the excavations related to the concrete issue.The detailed scope of the Westinghouse review is stated in their September 15, 1983, letter to the Supply System (Appendix D to reference (1))." 10.Discuss the misalignment of reinforcing bars in layers.Summarize industry studies with references.
For beams"4B30
~Res ense: Bullets three and four of Attachment I to 802-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, address these questions.
and 6B9 the required mix was 4SA-P (maximum size of aggregate equal to 3/4")based on the adjacent slab thickness of 12 inches.The beams and slab were constructed
Paper No.3047 of the 1960 ASCE Transactions was transmitted to Mr.Auluck during the week of October 24, 1983;a second copy is attached herewith."RRbAli R Paragraph 7.4.1 of ACI 318-71 stipulates that where parallel reinforcement is placed in two or more layers, the bars in the upper layers shall be placed directly above those in the bottom layer.The commentary to ACI 318-71 code further clarifies that these spacing limits were developed from successful practice to permit concrete to flow readily into spaces between bars and between bars and forms without honey-comb.Rebar placement with some misalignment in layers (bars in different layers not directly above each other)meets the intent of the code and is acceptable, as.long as rebar s are placed to allow concrete to flow readily through the spaces without honeycombing.
using mix 4MA-P (maximum size aggregate equal to 1-1/2").The mix substitution
The excavation of beam 2B5 (SK-2 of Reference 1), which originated this concern, showed fully--consolidated concrete tightly bonded to the rebar with no Page 7 of ll honeycomb." u~Rb S The spacing of rebar has received considerable attention among structural engineers and constructors for decades.The ASCE has a committee to study the problems related to nuclear power plants.The various codes (ACI 301, ACI 318, ACI 349, and ACI 359)specify clearances that are desirable.
was approved by the Burns and Roe Field Engineer prior to concrete placement.
It is desirable that the maximum size aggregate pass between the rebar.This is rarely practical on all parts of the plant.Sometimes the spacing between bars is actually designed to be zero.This'bundling'as been studied,and tested.Some results of tests have been published in the 1960 ASCE Transactions in Paper No.3047,"Concrete Beams and Columns with Bundled Reinforcement", by N.W.Hanson and Hans Reiffenstuhl.
This substitution
As the title states, both beams and beam--columns were tested.Bars were placed with zero clearance, both vertically and horizontally, so that'bundling'ccurred in part of the cross section of the member.In all cases,'no significant difference in behavior or ultimate strength was found for bundled as compared to spaced reinforcement'.
in no way affected the structural
The tests showed that'there was no systematic difference in ultimate bond stress developed between spaced and bundled bars'.Zero spacing in bundled areas was determined to be satisfactory for both tension and compressi've areas.Examina-tion of the structures after testing indicated mortar had penetrated into and filled the cavity between the bars of the bundle.Thus, it is concluded that the spacing of rebar can be less than specified if adequate concrete consolidation (without honeycomb) is obtained.In examining the various structural members, there were only two cases where lack of bond was experienced.
integrity of the beams because of the following: (a)Both classes of concrete (i.e., 4MA-P and 4SA-P)have the same required minimum 28-days strength of fc'=4000 psi.(The actual 28-day strength of these pours was over 5000 psi.)(b)Concrete bond and consolidation
These were in the compressive areas on beams 2Bll and 2B25.The detailed structural evaluation showed that construction loads dominated and the beams had been"'-'.tested'y the construction loads, which indicated that the systems met the design requirements." 11.Mix substitution l-l/2" vs.3/4" aggregate size.What effect does aggregate size have on strength of beam?~Res ense: This question is the same as question 8.Page 8 of ll 12.Di.scuss proof tests of beams with construction loads.~Res ense: The third paragraph of the final bullet of Attachment I to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."All discrepancies from the design requirements were eval-uated.In every case the structures were found to be ade-quate.The results show that for two cases some bond was not available on all the bar s.This inadequacy occurred in beams at dowel splice locations where honeycomb and voids were most likely.Both of these beams have alread ex erienced construc-tion loads in excess of those s ecifsed dugan lant o eration and erformed well.Of all the cases studied, only one dowel that should have been located in the excavation was not uncovered.
in the excavations
This beam was conservatively evaluated assuming the dowel was missing and not just misplaced, and was found to be adequate.In summary, all structural members excavated during the investigation were demonstrated to be adequate for all specified loads." (Emphasis added)13.Did sample excavations weaken structures?
made in these two beams was excellent, without honeycomb and voids.(c)Beams 4B30 (3'-0" x 3'-0")has seven bottom bars and beam 6B9 (2'-0" x 3'-0")has four bottom bars, which provides a minimum average clear space of four inches between the rebars.This spacing meets the requirements
~Res ense: The sixth paragraph of the first bullet of Attachment I to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."The selection and extent of each excavation also included evaluation of each member for the excavated condition to assure that the excavation did not weaken the member." 14.Discuss the statistical basis for the selection of the sample.~Res onse: The question is the same as question 2.15.Discuss the safety margins in the beams;use worst case assumptions.
of paragraph 3.3.2 of the ACI Code 318-71." Page 6 of ll  
~Res onse: The fourth paragraph of the last bullet of Attachment I and Table I of Attachment I to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."All discrepancies from the design requirements were evaluated.
9.Enhance credibility
In every case the structures were found to be adequate.The results show that for two cases some bond was not available on all the bars.This inadequacy occurred in beams at dowel splice locations where honeycomb and voids were most likely.Both of these beams have already.experienced construction loads in excess of those specified during.plant operation, and performed well.Of all the cases studied, only one dowel that should have been located in the excavation was not uncovered.
of Westinghouse
Page 9 of ll This beam was conservatively evaluated assuming the dowel was missing and not just misplaced, and was.found to be adequate.In summary, all structural members excavated during the in-vestigation were demonstrated to be adequate for-all specified loads'~" 16.Characterize the sample (conservative, representative) with rationale.
as"independent" reviewer.Provide original charter if necessary.
Considering the deviations recorded, did the construc-tion exposed by excavation meet the intent of the code?~Res onse: The last bullet of Attachment I and Table I of Attachment I to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."Conclusion The Supply System has confirmed the adequacy of concrete construction at WNP-2 by performing a detailed investigation of selected as-built structural members.The investigation included 23 excavations in 17 structu'ral member s at locations of congested rebar in re resentative beams, columns, walls and slabs.Such locations are difficult to construct and there-.fore rovide a conservative sam le of the lant structures.
~Res onse: The sixth bullet of Attachment
The snvestigation included three structural beams 2B3, 2Bll and 2B25)where the congestion had been so severe that honey-combing and voids had been identified during construction and had been repaired in accordance with approved construction procedures'esults of the evaluations are summarized in Table 1.The excavations demonstrated acceptable construction quality in columns, walls, slabs and mats'he excavations in beams indicated a significant number of locations where the spacing of rebar was less than that specified in the code.This occurred primarily in areas wher e the main reinforcement was lap spliced.The code requirement on clear spacing between reinforcement is primarily imposed to assure good concrete consolidation.
I to 802-83-996
With the exception of the three beams where honeycombing and voids had already been identified during construction, all excavation locations showed good consolida-tion of the concrete, thereby demonstrating the adequacy of concrete construction in these locations'll discrepancies from the design requirements were evaluated.
dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."Westin house Charter The Westinghouse
In every case the structures were found to be adequate.The results show that for two cases some bond was not available on all the bars'his inadequacy occurred in beams at'dowel splice locations where honeycomb and voids were most likely.Both of these beams have already experienced construction loads in excess of those specified during plant operation, and performed well.Of all the cases studied, only one dowel that Pa'ge 10 of ll 0
Corporation
should have been located in the excavation was not.uncovered.
was given direction under a Basic Ordering Agreement with the Supply System to provide an inde-pendent overview of the Supply System effort to resolve the questions raised by the NRC CAT.Westinghouse
This beam was conservativel evaluated assuming the dowel was missing and not just misplaced, and was found to be adequate.In summary, all structural members excavated during the investigation were demonstrated to be adequate for all speci-fied loads.The investi ation demonstrated.
reported their assessments
that structural members s eci-ficall selected, for their difficult in construction met the intent of the code for all desi n conditions.
through the Director of Technology
This biased sample provides confidence that the conclusion may be extended to all Category I concrete structures of WNP-2 since they were designed and constructed to the same quality procedures as those included in this investigation." (Emphasis added)17.Provide calculation to substantiate acceptability of East Wall.~Res onse: This calculation was transmitted initially to Rr.Auluck during the week of October 24, 1983.A second copy is attached herewith.18.Discuss the rebar spacing problem.~Res ense: Response to this question.was included with the response to question 10.Page ll of ll t, I  
to the Managing Director;however, there was daily contact between project people and the Westinghouse
 
Team.Westinghouse
==SUMMARY==
was specifi-cally asked to provide a third-party
OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS EVALUATED Design Margin(See Footnote)Observed Discrepancies Member Maximum five Moment~+H Haximum-ive Moment-H Shear Rebar'ebar/Spacing Dowel Missing/His/aced Honey-combing Remarks Conclusi ons jK-1 2B3 2.1 1.4 1.5 Yes None None Concrete consolidation is excellent.
review of the concrete issue.Initially, this review was to have been a broad overview of the facts and conclusion
Meets the intent of the code.SK-2 285 3.5 1.5 1.2'one None None Rebars were p]aced in 3 1 ayers instead of two layers.Meets the intent of the code.SK-3 2811 3.6 1,9 1.3 Yes None Yes Honeycombing and rebar spacing deviations were found in con-gested area where main bars were spliced with dowels.Meets the intent of~~the code.-SK-4 2825 3.0 1.5 Yes None.Yes Honeycombing and rebar spacing deviations were found in con-gested area where main bars were spliced with dowels.Meets the intent of the code.SK-5 SK-6 3B10 3818 2.5 2.5 1.4 1.0 1,5 1.6 Yes Yes None Yes None None Concrete consolidation is excellent.
reached by the Supply System.Direction to Westinghouse
was expanded, however, after the inspection
conducted by Messrs.Albert and Herring on July 25-27, 1983,'to provide for a more detailed review of the facts being developed by the excavations
related to the concrete issue.The detailed scope of the Westinghouse
review is stated in their September 15, 1983, letter to the Supply System (Appendix D to reference (1))." 10.Discuss the misalignment
of reinforcing
bars in layers.Summarize industry studies with references.
~Res ense: Bullets three and four of Attachment
I to 802-83-996
dated October 31, 1983, address these questions.
Paper No.3047 of the 1960 ASCE Transactions
was transmitted
to Mr.Auluck during the week of October 24, 1983;a second copy is attached herewith."RRbAli R Paragraph 7.4.1 of ACI 318-71 stipulates
that where parallel reinforcement
is placed in two or more layers, the bars in the upper layers shall be placed directly above those in the bottom layer.The commentary
to ACI 318-71 code further clarifies that these spacing limits were developed from successful
practice to permit concrete to flow readily into spaces between bars and between bars and forms without honey-comb.Rebar placement with some misalignment
in layers (bars in different layers not directly above each other)meets the intent of the code and is acceptable, as.long as rebar s are placed to allow concrete to flow readily through the spaces without honeycombing.
The excavation
of beam 2B5 (SK-2 of Reference 1), which originated
this concern, showed fully--consolidated
concrete tightly bonded to the rebar with no Page 7 of ll  
honeycomb." u~Rb S The spacing of rebar has received considerable
attention among structural
engineers and constructors
for decades.The ASCE has a committee to study the problems related to nuclear power plants.The various codes (ACI 301, ACI 318, ACI 349, and ACI 359)specify clearances
that are desirable.
It is desirable that the maximum size aggregate pass between the rebar.This is rarely practical on all parts of the plant.Sometimes the spacing between bars is actually designed to be zero.This'bundling'as
been studied,and
tested.Some results of tests have been published in the 1960 ASCE Transactions
in Paper No.3047,"Concrete Beams and Columns with Bundled Reinforcement", by N.W.Hanson and Hans Reiffenstuhl.
As the title states, both beams and beam--columns were tested.Bars were placed with zero clearance, both vertically
and horizontally, so that'bundling'ccurred
in part of the cross section of the member.In all cases,'no significant
difference
in behavior or ultimate strength was found for bundled as compared to spaced reinforcement'.
The tests showed that'there was no systematic
difference
in ultimate bond stress developed between spaced and bundled bars'.Zero spacing in bundled areas was determined
to be satisfactory
for both tension and compressi've
areas.Examina-tion of the structures
after testing indicated mortar had penetrated
into and filled the cavity between the bars of the bundle.Thus, it is concluded that the spacing of rebar can be less than specified if adequate concrete consolidation (without honeycomb)
is obtained.In examining the various structural
members, there were only two cases where lack of bond was experienced.
These were in the compressive
areas on beams 2Bll and 2B25.The detailed structural
evaluation
showed that construction
loads dominated and the beams had been"'-'.tested'y
the construction
loads, which indicated that the systems met the design requirements." 11.Mix substitution
l-l/2" vs.3/4" aggregate size.What effect does aggregate size have on strength of beam?~Res ense: This question is the same as question 8.Page 8 of ll  
12.Di.scuss proof tests of beams with construction
loads.~Res ense: The third paragraph of the final bullet of Attachment
I to G02-83-996
dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."All discrepancies
from the design requirements
were eval-uated.In every case the structures
were found to be ade-quate.The results show that for two cases some bond was not available on all the bar s.This inadequacy
occurred in beams at dowel splice locations where honeycomb and voids were most likely.Both of these beams have alread ex erienced construc-tion loads in excess of those s ecifsed dugan lant o eration and erformed well.Of all the cases studied, only one dowel that should have been located in the excavation
was not uncovered.
This beam was conservatively
evaluated assuming the dowel was missing and not just misplaced, and was found to be adequate.In summary, all structural
members excavated during the investigation
were demonstrated
to be adequate for all specified loads." (Emphasis added)13.Did sample excavations
weaken structures?
~Res ense: The sixth paragraph of the first bullet of Attachment
I to G02-83-996
dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."The selection and extent of each excavation
also included evaluation
of each member for the excavated condition to assure that the excavation
did not weaken the member." 14.Discuss the statistical
basis for the selection of the sample.~Res onse: The question is the same as question 2.15.Discuss the safety margins in the beams;use worst case assumptions.
~Res onse: The fourth paragraph of the last bullet of Attachment
I and Table I of Attachment
I to G02-83-996
dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."All discrepancies
from the design requirements
were evaluated.
In every case the structures
were found to be adequate.The results show that for two cases some bond was not available on all the bars.This inadequacy
occurred in beams at dowel splice locations where honeycomb and voids were most likely.Both of these beams have already.experienced
construction
loads in excess of those specified during.plant operation, and performed well.Of all the cases studied, only one dowel that should have been located in the excavation
was not uncovered.
Page 9 of ll  
This beam was conservatively
evaluated assuming the dowel was missing and not just misplaced, and was.found to be adequate.In summary, all structural
members excavated during the in-vestigation
were demonstrated
to be adequate for-all specified loads'~" 16.Characterize
the sample (conservative, representative)
with rationale.
Considering
the deviations
recorded, did the construc-tion exposed by excavation
meet the intent of the code?~Res onse: The last bullet of Attachment
I and Table I of Attachment
I to G02-83-996
dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question."Conclusion
The Supply System has confirmed the adequacy of concrete construction
at WNP-2 by performing
a detailed investigation
of selected as-built structural
members.The investigation
included 23 excavations
in 17 structu'ral
member s at locations of congested rebar in re resentative
beams, columns, walls and slabs.Such locations are difficult to construct and there-.fore rovide a conservative
sam le of the lant structures.
The snvestigation
included three structural
beams 2B3, 2Bll and 2B25)where the congestion
had been so severe that honey-combing and voids had been identified
during construction
and had been repaired in accordance
with approved construction
procedures'esults
of the evaluations
are summarized
in Table 1.The excavations
demonstrated
acceptable
construction
quality in columns, walls, slabs and mats'he excavations
in beams indicated a significant
number of locations where the spacing of rebar was less than that specified in the code.This occurred primarily in areas wher e the main reinforcement
was lap spliced.The code requirement
on clear spacing between reinforcement
is primarily imposed to assure good concrete consolidation.
With the exception of the three beams where honeycombing
and voids had already been identified
during construction, all excavation
locations showed good consolida-
tion of the concrete, thereby demonstrating
the adequacy of concrete construction
in these locations'll
discrepancies
from the design requirements
were evaluated.
In every case the structures
were found to be adequate.The results show that for two cases some bond was not available on all the bars'his inadequacy
occurred in beams at'dowel splice locations where honeycomb and voids were most likely.Both of these beams have already experienced
construction
loads in excess of those specified during plant operation, and performed well.Of all the cases studied, only one dowel that Pa'ge 10 of ll  
0  
should have been located in the excavation
was not.uncovered.
This beam was conservativel
evaluated assuming the dowel was missing and not just misplaced, and was found to be adequate.In summary, all structural
members excavated during the investigation
were demonstrated
to be adequate for all speci-fied loads.The investi ation demonstrated.
that structural
members s eci-ficall selected, for their difficult in construction
met the intent of the code for all desi n conditions.
This biased sample provides confidence
that the conclusion
may be extended to all Category I concrete structures
of WNP-2 since they were designed and constructed
to the same quality procedures
as those included in this investigation." (Emphasis added)17.Provide calculation
to substantiate
acceptability
of East Wall.~Res onse: This calculation
was transmitted
initially to Rr.Auluck during the week of October 24, 1983.A second copy is attached herewith.18.Discuss the rebar spacing problem.~Res ense: Response to this question.was
included with the response to question 10.Page ll of ll  
t, I  
SUMMARY OF STRUCTURAL
MEMBERS EVALUATED Design Margin(See
Footnote)Observed Discrepancies
Member Maximum five Moment~+H Haximum-ive Moment-H Shear Rebar'ebar/Spacing Dowel Missing/His/aced Honey-combing Remarks Conclusi ons jK-1 2B3 2.1 1.4 1.5 Yes None None Concrete consolidation
is excellent.
Meets the intent of the code.SK-2 285 3.5 1.5 1.2'one None None Rebars were p]aced in 3 1 ayers instead of two layers.Meets the intent of the code.SK-3 2811 3.6 1,9 1.3 Yes None Yes Honeycombing
and rebar spacing deviations
were found in con-gested area where main bars were spliced with dowels.Meets the intent of~~the code.-SK-4 2825 3.0 1.5 Yes None.Yes Honeycombing
and rebar spacing deviations
were found in con-gested area where main bars were spliced with dowels.Meets the intent of the code.SK-5 SK-6 3B10 3818 2.5 2.5 1.4 1.0 1,5 1.6 Yes Yes None Yes None None Concrete consolidation
is excellent.
l One dowel not',found.
l One dowel not',found.
Dowel not needed per code.Consolidation
Dowel not needed per code.Consolidation is excellent., M eets the code requirement.
is excellent., M eets the code requirement.
Meets the intent of the code.'SK-7 4B30 4,3 2.4 2.1 None None'one Meets the code requirement.
Meets the intent of the code.'SK-7 4B30 4,3 2.4 2.1 None None'one Meets the code requirement.
Footnote to Table: Design margin as used herein is the capacity provided above that of the originql gesign requireyentg.(A design margin of 1.0 signifies compliance
Footnote to Table: Design margin as used herein is the capacity provided above that of the originql gesign requireyentg.(A design margin of 1.0 signifies compliance with ACI 318 code requirements anu 1>censing comtn>Tmen~s,)
with ACI 318 code requirements
anu 1>censing comtn>Tmen~s,)  
k 1, f I I  
k 1, f I I  
SUMMARY OF STRUCTURAL
 
MEMBERS EVALUATED Design Margin(See
==SUMMARY==
Footnote)Observed Discrepancies
OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS EVALUATED Design Margin(See Footnote)Observed Discrepancies SK.E SK-8 Member GB9 Maximum+jve Moment+M 4.8 Maximum-ive Moment-M 4.2 Shear 2.1 Rebar Spacing Yes Rebar/Dowel Honey-Hissing/combing His/aced.None Hone Remarks Concrete consolidation is excellent.
SK.E SK-8 Member GB9 Maximum+jve Moment+M 4.8 Maximum-ive Moment-M 4.2 Shear 2.1 Rebar Spacing Yes Rebar/Dowel Honey-Hissing/combing His/aced.None Hone Remarks Concrete consolidation
Conclusions Meets the intent of the code.SK-9 Pilaster Hot Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated None Hone Hone None.I Meets the Code..requirement.
is excellent.
Conclusions
Meets the intent of the code.SK-9 Pilaster Hot Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated None Hone Hone None.I Meets the Code..requirement.
~SK-1 West Exterio Wall 1 Not Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated None Hone Hone None Meets the code requirement.
~SK-1 West Exterio Wall 1 Not Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated None Hone Hone None Meets the code requirement.
SK-11 Dryer Separa-tor Pool Not Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated-None None'one None Meets the code requirement.
SK-11 Dryer Separa-tor Pool Not Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated-None None'one None Meets the code requirement.
SK-1 Fuel Pool Wall(N,)El.Hot Appli-cable 5.6 Not Appl i-cable Yes None Hone Construction
SK-1 Fuel Pool Wall(N,)El.Hot Appli-cable 5.6 Not Appl i-cable Yes None Hone Construction aid rebars at El.588'-2>><<were not placed per drawings.Meets the code requirement fo~operating con~ons 6K-1 Mat at El.422'-0<<Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated'ot Calcu-lated Yes None Hone Trim additional rebar deviate spacing requirements.
aid rebars at El.588'-2>><<were not placed per drawings.Meets the code requirement
Concrete consolidation excellent.
fo~operating con~ons 6K-1 Mat at El.422'-0<<Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated'ot Calcu-lated Yes None Hone Trim additional
rebar deviate spacing requirements.
Concrete consolidation
excellent.
Meets the code requirements, K-1 Mat.at El, 422 IP<<Hot Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated None None'None None Meets the code requirements.
Meets the code requirements, K-1 Mat.at El, 422 IP<<Hot Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated None None'None None Meets the code requirements.
Footnote t bl o Ta 4 fM I~+i inal desi'rne t e: Design margin as used herein in the capacity provided above that, of the or g gn requlr n s.(A design margin of l.p signifies compliance
Footnote t bl o Ta 4 fM I~+i inal desi'rne t e: Design margin as used herein in the capacity provided above that, of the or g gn requlr n s.(A design margin of l.p signifies compliance with ACI 318 code requirements and lscens>ng commitments
with ACI 318 code requirements
)
and lscens>ng commitments
0 ly t r LI age" SUHHARY OF STRUCTURAL HEHBERS EYALUATED Design Margin(See Footnote)Observed Discrepancies Hember Haximum Haximum+ive-ive Moment Moment 4H-H Shear Rebar Spacing Rebar/Dowel.Honey-Missing/combing Hisplaced.RemarRs Conclusions Mat at El.422'-0"\Slab at El.471'ot Cal cu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated Hot'Calcu-lated Not Calcu-.lated Hot Calcu-lated Yes None None Hone None Additional rebars.deviate spacing requirements.
)  
Concrete consolidation excellent.
0 ly t r LI  
age" SUHHARY OF STRUCTURAL
HEHBERS EYALUATED Design Margin(See
Footnote)Observed Discrepancies
Hember Haximum Haximum+ive-ive Moment Moment 4H-H Shear Rebar Spacing Rebar/Dowel.Honey-Missing/combing Hisplaced.RemarRs Conclusions
Mat at El.422'-0"\Slab at El.471'ot Cal cu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated Hot'Calcu-lated Not Calcu-.lated Hot Calcu-lated Yes None None Hone None Additional
rebars.deviate spacing requirements.
Concrete consolidation
excellent.
I Meets the code requirements.
I Meets the code requirements.
Meets the code requirements~
Meets the code requirements~
K-1 East Ext.Wall Not Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated 2.2 Hone None Hone Meets the code requirements.
K-1 East Ext.Wall Not Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated 2.2 Hone None Hone Meets the code requirements.
it rovided above that'of the ori inal desi n re uirement'ei i e:ootnote to Table: Design Margin as used her n n the capac y p g g q s.(A design margin of 1.0 signifies compliance
it rovided above that'of the ori inal desi n re uirement'ei i e:ootnote to Table: Design Margin as used her n n the capac y p g g q s.(A design margin of 1.0 signifies compliance with ACI 318 code requirements and licensing commitments.)
with ACI 318 code requirements
HIIIEN ANO,KUCHENREUTHER,ON SUROE FORCES When the solutions to Eq.44 are extended over those presented in Table 3 and the results plotted, curves of the type given in Fig.11 are obtained which show strikingly the tendency of.the ship movement and restoring for e t b-e infinite whenthe naturalperlodof vibration(when Ao=0)is approached.
and licensing commitments.)  
Of course, no such thing can occur due to the"fuze'n the system in the form of the mooring lines which tend to break and thereby ruin what elegance there is in this problem.Fig.11 shows the relationship between period and amplitude of a moored ship (and standing wave)oscillation in su'rge with standing wave amplitude as a parameter.
HIIIEN ANO,KUCHENREUTHER,ON
Note that both negative as well as positive dlsplacements are plotted where this rather unconventional presentation Is made to emphasize those situations where the oscillation (x)Is 180'ut of phase with th it-0 on(o).Usually this phase'relation Is conslderedof slight interest In com-parison with the amplitudes.
SUROE FORCES When the solutions to Eq.44 are extended over those presented in Table 3 and the results plotted, curves of the type given in Fig.11 are obtained which show strikingly
However, at the precise point of phase switching many ships couldreceive a jolt at a level high enough to rouse even the slee-ie t 8 seaman and, even worse, to break the ropes.Therefore, the negative signs n eseep-are usuallydisregarded so a presentation is made entirely inthefirstquadrant.
the tendency of.the ship movement and restoring for e t b-e infinite whenthe naturalperlodof
The writers have obtained a record of such a shift correlated with changes n mooring fbrces, bjj a landing ship tank (LST),as spread moored in the open Gulf of Mexico.This.ship shifted the phase of its pitching motion by 180'-as theperlodof the lncldentwave changedln a very short tlmefrom 4 to I 1/2 sec where the point of shift is computed as about 6 sec.The system, depending on its period of excitation will be subject to stable-bran mottuns, fro example, branch 1, 3, 4, and 5 In Fig.11 and unstable-motions 7 J ranch 3 and.4-b.Some damping, however slight, must be present in order to permit the ship to cross from In-phase oscillation, periods greater than free period, to out-of-phase oscillation across the, zone of transition.(from 4-a to 2 In Fig.11, for example).".lt would appear that the free'period of oscillation, line designated A=0 In Fig.11, of the ship-line system Is one of the dominantdesignparameters where care should be exerctsed toward avoiding period coincidence between this pe-riod and that of the excitation.
vibration(when
A likely operational period of oscillation which ls less than rather than greater than the free period would seem desirable.
Ao=0)is approached.
A number of investigators, including Abramson and Wilson,33 havediscuss-ed surge oscillation of a ship moored at the node of a standing wave, although none appear to have stretched the mechanical analogy as far as the writers herein.Other modes are not at all well covered.Another examination of the problem was made by Wilson.34 The writers hope that this closure has provided In some measure answers to and amplification of the questions raised by Mr.Wilson In his much appre-ciated discussion of their paper.AMERICAN'OCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded Novcmbei 5, 1852 TRANSXCTIDNS
Of course, no such thing can occur due to the"fuze'n the system in the form of the mooring lines which tend to break and thereby ruin what elegance there is in this problem.Fig.11 shows the relationship
-/g (D Paper No 3047 CONCRETE BEAMS AND COLUMNS WITH BUNDLED REINFORCEMENT By Norman W.Hanson,1 M.ASCE and Hans Relffenstuhl2 Witli Discussion by hiessr Homer ht Hadley I'VNOPSIS This paper reports on tests of pairs of large beams with conventionally spaced and with bundled longitudinal reinforcement.
between period and amplitude of a moored ship (and standing wave)oscillation
The bundles of reinforcement used comprised groups of four No.6, four No.8, or three No.9 touching bars.Pairs of beams were compared with respect to width of flexural cracks, steel stress distribution, deflection, andultiinate strength;No significant difference
in su'rge with standing wave amplitude as a parameter.
Note that both negative as well as positive dlsplacements
are plotted where this rather unconventional
presentation
Is made to emphasize those situations
where the oscillation (x)Is 180'ut of phase with th it-0 on(o).Usually this phase'relation
Is conslderedof
slight interest In com-parison with the amplitudes.
However, at the precise point of phase switching many ships couldreceive
a jolt at a level high enough to rouse even the slee-ie t 8 seaman and, even worse, to break the ropes.Therefore, the negative signs n eseep-are usuallydisregarded
so a presentation
is made entirely inthefirstquadrant.
The writers have obtained a record of such a shift correlated
with changes n mooring fbrces, bjj a landing ship tank (LST),as spread moored in the open Gulf of Mexico.This.ship shifted the phase of its pitching motion by 180'-as theperlodof
the lncldentwave
changedln a very short tlmefrom 4 to I 1/2 sec where the point of shift is computed as about 6 sec.The system, depending on its period of excitation
will be subject to stable-bran mottuns, fro example, branch 1, 3, 4, and 5 In Fig.11 and unstable-motions
7 J ranch 3 and.4-b.Some damping, however slight, must be present in order to permit the ship to cross from In-phase oscillation, periods greater than free period, to out-of-phase
oscillation
across the, zone of transition.(from 4-a to 2 In Fig.11, for example).".lt would appear that the free'period
of oscillation, line designated
A=0 In Fig.11, of the ship-line system Is one of the dominantdesignparameters
where care should be exerctsed toward avoiding period coincidence
between this pe-riod and that of the excitation.
A likely operational
period of oscillation
which ls less than rather than greater than the free period would seem desirable.
A number of investigators, including Abramson and Wilson,33 havediscuss-
ed surge oscillation
of a ship moored at the node of a standing wave, although none appear to have stretched the mechanical
analogy as far as the writers herein.Other modes are not at all well covered.Another examination
of the problem was made by Wilson.34 The writers hope that this closure has provided In some measure answers to and amplification
of the questions raised by Mr.Wilson In his much appre-ciated discussion
of their paper.AMERICAN'OCIETY
OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded Novcmbei 5, 1852 TRANSXCTIDNS
-/g (D Paper No 3047 CONCRETE BEAMS AND COLUMNS WITH BUNDLED REINFORCEMENT
By Norman W.Hanson,1 M.ASCE and Hans Relffenstuhl2
Witli Discussion
by hiessr Homer ht Hadley I'VNOPSIS This paper reports on tests of pairs of large beams with conventionally
spaced and with bundled longitudinal
reinforcement.
The bundles of reinforcement
used comprised groups of four No.6, four No.8, or three No.9 touching bars.Pairs of beams were compared with respect to width of flexural cracks, steel stress distribution, deflection, andultiinate
strength;No significant
difference
.in behavior or ultimate strength was found for bundled as compared to spaced reinforcement.
.in behavior or ultimate strength was found for bundled as compared to spaced reinforcement.
Tied columns were tested by concentric
Tied columns were tested by concentric loading to compare spaced and bundled longitudinal reinforcement consisting of twelve No.6 or twelve No.8 bars.Comparison with respect to ultimate strength indicated that bundling is a safe detailing procedure when adequate ties are provided.This true even for 6.6%longitudinal reinforcement.
loading to compare spaced and bundled longitudinal
Splicing of bundled reinforcement incolumns was explored and found to be feasible.INTRODUCTION 334 F A urther Analysis of tho LoagttudtnalRosponso ofh'Ioorod Vessels to Sea Osctl-laflon,~by H.N.Abramson, and B, W.WHson, Proceedings, Joint hiid-West Conf., Solid and Fluid Mechanics; Purdue UnivSeptember, 1955.34"The Energy Problem in tho hioortng of Ships Exposed to Waves," by B.W.Wilson, Proc.of Princeton Conference on Borthing and Cargo Handflng in Exposed Locations Octobor, 1958, pp.1-87.Bundled reinforcement in structuralconcrete refers to reinforcement placed In groups of touching bars.As compared to the mlnlmum bar spacings com-monly used in beams, for instance those given by the 1965 American Concrete Note.-Published, essentially as printed hero, in October, 1958, in the Journal of the Structural Division, as Proceedings Paper 1818.Positions and titles given are thoso In effect when the paper or discussion was approved for pubflcation In Transactions.
reinforcement
I Assoc.Development Engr., Roses'rch and Dovolopmont Div., Portland Cement Assn., Chicago, Ill.9 Visiting Engr., Research and Development Div., Portland Cement Assn., Chicago, Hl.889 a t I I l)r f 890 BUNDLING Sl Section 505(a))1 bundling yern)its'the necessary+rs,to be phced.in much,nar-rower sections.As a'result, bundling permits construction of lighter, inore graceful and more economtcpl-,beams.
consisting
of,box,-.channel or T-B6, section.In beams of normal width, the clear distance between bundles will beconslderably greater than the distance',betw4efi individual evenly spaced bars.Bundling greatly facilitates concrete placement and insertion of spud vibrators, par-ticularly" wlien heavy negate'moment reTnfbrcement must be ehibedded ihthe top of beams.In columns, bundled reinforcement permits a reduced concrete cross section, which maybe an important advantage in the lower storiesof tall buildings.
of twelve No.6 or twelve No.8 bars.Comparison
with respect to ultimate strength indicated that bundling is a safe detailing procedure when adequate ties are provided.This true even for 6.6%longitudinal
reinforcement.
Splicing of bundled reinforcement
incolumns was explored and found to be feasible.INTRODUCTION
334 F A urther Analysis of tho LoagttudtnalRosponso
ofh'Ioorod
Vessels to Sea Osctl-laflon,~by H.N.Abramson, and B, W.WHson, Proceedings, Joint hiid-West Conf., Solid and Fluid Mechanics;
Purdue UnivSeptember, 1955.34"The Energy Problem in tho hioortng of Ships Exposed to Waves," by B.W.Wilson, Proc.of Princeton Conference
on Borthing and Cargo Handflng in Exposed Locations Octobor, 1958, pp.1-87.Bundled reinforcement
in structuralconcrete
refers to reinforcement
placed In groups of touching bars.As compared to the mlnlmum bar spacings com-monly used in beams, for instance those given by the 1965 American Concrete Note.-Published, essentially
as printed hero, in October, 1958, in the Journal of the Structural
Division, as Proceedings
Paper 1818.Positions and titles given are thoso In effect when the paper or discussion
was approved for pubflcation
In Transactions.
I Assoc.Development
Engr., Roses'rch and Dovolopmont
Div., Portland Cement Assn., Chicago, Ill.9 Visiting Engr., Research and Development
Div., Portland Cement Assn., Chicago, Hl.889  
a t I I l)r f  
890 BUNDLING Sl Section 505(a))1 bundling yern)its'the
necessary+rs,to be phced.in much,nar-rower sections.As a'result, bundling permits construction
of lighter, inore graceful and more economtcpl-,beams.
of,box,-.channel
or T-B6, section.In beams of normal width, the clear distance between bundles will beconslderably
greater than the distance',betw4efi
individual
evenly spaced bars.Bundling greatly facilitates
concrete placement and insertion of spud vibrators, par-ticularly" wlien heavy negate'moment
reTnfbrcement
must be ehibedded ihthe top of beams.In columns, bundled reinforcement
permits a reduced concrete cross section, which maybe an important advantage in the lower storiesof tall buildings.
Bundling also permits interior ties to be omitted, so that concrete placement is facilitated.
Bundling also permits interior ties to be omitted, so that concrete placement is facilitated.
Finally, bundled bars ln beams and columns may be a satisfactory.
Finally, bundled bars ln beams and columns may be a satisfactory.
alternate.to!large
alternate.to!large sizes of specially rolled~reinforcing bars that are occasionally used in very large, structures.
sizes of specially rolled~reinforcing
Practical use of ibundledirelnforcement in beams has been pioneered, and several structures with bundled reinforcement have been builtP>>i4&#xc3;i6 for which good service records have been reported.Laboratory tests that have been reported>>concern principally bundles of four j-tn.square bars in beams,and there maybe somequestion regardingthe performanceof bundlesof larger bar sizes.No tests of bundled reinforcement in columns have been reported.An experimental investigation was therefore carried out 1n the Research and Development Laboratories of the Portland Cement Association during 1955-57 to inyestigate the performanceof largede-formed bars placed in bundles as longHudfnai beam andcolumn reinforcement.
bars that are occasionally
Nolaffon.-The letter symbols adapted for use in this paper are defined where the)first afloat', lri the text'or in'the illustrations, and are arranged alphabetically, for chnvehte'nce of reference, in the Appendix.I y~~g Jf I~gl TEST BEAM ARRANGEMENT
used in very large, structures.
~..~))v-$A,f, t~~a gg v r As compared to spaced bars, bundling may be questioned primarily with respect to the bond integrity'of beams: The most serious conditions may then be expected for bars plac'ed ast negative reinforcement near the top of deep and short beams.'Previous tests>have clearly indicated that, due to adverse ef-fects of settlement,'the bond resistance of top bars is less than that of bottom bars.They have also indicated that'a short beam span leads to high bond stress 2'Unusual Concrete Roof of Hollow Girdera and Precast Slabs, by H.hL Hadloy, Journah A,C.I., Proceedings Vol, 37, February, 1941, pp.453-460.Braall'a Wonder Hotel.and Casino,'y A, J.Boaae, Engineering News-Record, Vol.136, January, 1946, pp.112-116, 4~Bundle Reinforcing Savea hiatoriala," Engineering Nowa-Record, Vol.140, AprQ, 1948, pp, 609-610.5~Bridge with'Bundled'otnforoement,~
Practical use of ibundledirelnforcement
in beams has been pioneered, and several structures
with bundled reinforcement
have been builtP>>i4&#xc3;i6
for which good service records have been reported.Laboratory
tests that have been reported>>concern principally
bundles of four j-tn.square bars in beams,and there maybe somequestion
regardingthe
performanceof
bundlesof larger bar sizes.No tests of bundled reinforcement
in columns have been reported.An experimental
investigation
was therefore carried out 1n the Research and Development
Laboratories
of the Portland Cement Association
during 1955-57 to inyestigate
the performanceof
largede-formed bars placed in bundles as longHudfnai
beam andcolumn reinforcement.
Nolaffon.-The
letter symbols adapted for use in this paper are defined where the)first afloat', lri the text'or in'the illustrations, and are arranged alphabetically, for chnvehte'nce
of reference, in the Appendix.I y~~g Jf I~gl TEST BEAM ARRANGEMENT
~..~))v-$A,f, t~~a gg v r As compared to spaced bars, bundling may be questioned
primarily with respect to the bond integrity'of
beams: The most serious conditions
may then be expected for bars plac'ed ast negative reinforcement
near the top of deep and short beams.'Previous tests>have clearly indicated that, due to adverse ef-fects of settlement,'the bond resistance
of top bars is less than that of bottom bars.They have also indicated that'a short beam span leads to high bond stress 2'Unusual Concrete Roof of Hollow Girdera and Precast Slabs, by H.hL Hadloy, Journah A,C.I., Proceedings
Vol, 37, February, 1941, pp.453-460.Braall'a Wonder Hotel.and Casino,'y A, J.Boaae, Engineering
News-Record, Vol.136, January, 1946, pp.112-116, 4~Bundle Reinforcing
Savea hiatoriala," Engineering
Nowa-Record, Vol.140, AprQ, 1948, pp, 609-610.5~Bridge with'Bundled'otnforoement,~
by H.M.Hadley<Weatern Construction,.
by H.M.Hadley<Weatern Construction,.
l~26, Juno1951, pp, 69;90,: 'Bundled'Reinforcement,",by
l~26, Juno1951, pp, 69;90,: 'Bundled'Reinforcement,",by H~hL Hadloy, Journal, A.C.IProceedings Vol..49, October, 1952, pp.$57-159.Precast Box Beams for High Strength,~
H~hL Hadloy, Journal, A.C.IProceedings
by H.hi, Hadiey, Engineering News-Record, Vol.125, Doo1940, pp, 383-839>~~8'Tests of Beams Retnforoed wHh'Bundle Bars',~by H.hi, Hadley, Civil Engtneer-Ing, VoL 11, February, 1941;pp: 90-93.9'An InvestlgaHon of Bond, Anchorage and Related Factors in Reinforced Concrete Beams,'y C.A.htenzol and W.M.Woods, BuHeHn 42, Research Dept., Portland Ce-ment Assn., November~1952, p.114;~BUNDLING 891 before the flexural ultimate strength ls developed.
Vol..49, October, 1952, pp.$57-159.Precast Box Beams for High Strength,~
Therefore, the test speci-mens for this investigation were short, deep beams, with the tension steel at the top as cast..In the beam, designations to follow, the first number shows the number of: bars and the second number their size;.the letter S indicates spaced bars and B indicates bundled bars;H indicates high-strength steel.The test beams 8-SSy 8 SSHp 8 SSH and 6-9S, with spaced reinforcement, shown in Fig.I, were designed by first determining the minimum beam width for a chosen group of bars.By the ACI code previously mentioned, this width is governed by a minimum protective cover of 1-f in.and, for 1-f in.maxi-mum size aggregate, a clear distance of 2 ln.between parallel bars.The beam depth was chosen so that the ratio of reinforcement was 1.5%.Finally, the distance from the face of a centrally located column stub to the beam support was chosen as twice the effective beam depth.Thus, the test span L is 85 in.for the beams with No.6 bars,-134.5 in.for the beams with No.8 bars, and 151.8 in.for those with No.9 bars.The beams and all bars were extended 6 in.beyond the supports.The gross concrete dimensions of beams 8-6S, S-SS and 6-9S, excluding the column stubs, wex'e 13 in.by 21 in.by 97 in., 14.5 in by 33.5 in.by 146.5 fn., and 11.5 in.by 38.8 in.by 163.8 in., respectively.
by H.hi, Hadiey, Engineering
The beams with bundled reinforcement, beams 8-6B, 8-SB and 6-9B we identical.to the corresponding beams with spaced bars except fo'r the bar rangeme'n7.
News-Record, Vol.125, Doo1940, pp, 383-839>~~8'Tests of Beams Retnforoed
The effect of decreasing the beam width for bundled reinforcement was investigated through beams 8-SBH and 8-8 BH.For these two beams,and their companions with spaced reinforcement, high-strength reinforcement was used to delay flexural faQure and develop very high bond stress.The column stubs of all beams were reinforced with four bars of the same size as the'longitudinal beam reinforcement, and these bars vlere extended through the beam, Vertical stirrup reinforcement was provided to prevent di-agonal tension and shear failures, The stirrups also served the function of preventing horizontal splitting that might otherwise have been caused by high bond stress.Beams 8-6SH and 8-SBH had two No.6 bars placed as compress sion reinforcement toprevent flexuralcompresston failure.Beams 8-SSH and 8-8BH had two No.8 bars placed as compression reinforcement.
wHh'Bundle
ProPerffes of Bundfes.~e external perimeter for a bundle of four bars as shown for be'am 8-6B and 8-SB in Fig.1 is 38D, that is, 25%less than for the same bars spaced in the usual manner.On the other hand, a single large bar with the same cross-section area as a bundle of four bars with diameter D would have a diameter of 2D and a perimeter of 2nD.Accordingly, the bundle of four bars has anexposed perimeter 50%greater than that of thesingle large bar.The bundle of three bars used for beam 6-9B similarly.has an expos perimeter'16.'I%
Bars',~by H.hi, Hadley, Civil Engtneer-Ing, VoL 11, February, 1941;pp: 90-93.9'An InvestlgaHon
less than that for the same spac'ed bars, and 55%greater t that of a larger bar of the same area.These geometric properties indicate that bundling leads to only a moderate increase ln bond stress as compared to spaced bars.Replacing a single large bar by a bundle with the same area, leads to a reduced bond stress.It should be noted, however, thht the deformation of lug height, as defined by ASTM A-305-53T, would be greater for a single large bar than for a bundle of bars, a d bo nd r'esistance for top b rs 18 k own9 to 1 crease with tncreasi g lug height.Materials.-A laboratory blendof Type I cements was used.Sand and gravel aggregates were combined to gradations within-the limits given by ASTM C-33-.55T for 1-j in.maximum: size.The concretes were mixed in 6 cu ft 1
of Bond, Anchorage and Related Factors in Reinforced
ceo e>>CCt ce m 0O~~0&gal ce mo'g g~e3 m e E 8 8 ce~~Cl e~e r cer 4 Q Ce e$04 s""'4d r ce m cl 0 yc e m'0>>m ce m ce I e KOb0 rm"0~O bore e 99~-m m Q e'ce m e el I O 5~CD g QCI m>>ci 4 4~>>P p cl Q ca" g Rom.BF Ir C~ce g e I 3~~0 P Cl 0 ro CI r IC1 Cl ICC)O ce o r r e be Cl>>el CI 4 e~g bb m>>4 e ce~Sl w 0 g be 0 oe'e ce r e e O r~e e a CI e QI 4J mre roe m m eer Ce r 0 0 0 4 i>>0 I e~e00 g'0 ce el~Ce r r>>CO 0 8 Ri m e~O>>>>$e m C 6 m ce ce e el 4 8C'6 Cl'm Qi m cD~O 0 C4 m o RR ce N53$~g r g g g I g>>i Cl dl c O~g C''CI QCI g ea Cl clclr&P 4-8'r%r" r~r 00 Cl 04 MIDih0000~0 ID CI>>0 00 iD 04 CI Cl 00,04 04 ID O C4 CI>>I 0 O>>C CII O CD>>C~0 CD>>C>>li O CD>>4>>4 CI CI CI 04 ID A c-c oooo CI Cl CD CD>>Ci'CIC A>>00404 C4 ID CD CD 00>>ci ID>>C>>I C4 Dl>>4>>4 ID O CD O O O CICDC>>CCDO A O CI 04%CD C4 00'CC W,'00M Oooooo O io O O O O 0 0 CI Cl CD 0)c c m00 ID co cn 4 03 cQ cn lC CP<<0 CD Dl Dl iD CD ED CO CD CD O CC C 04>>4 CI O IA ID CI CI 04 QDI CI CD CD M C4 C4>>li+O IA O CD>>4 Q ID O O ID O O CD O C>>>>li O 00 00 00>>C CI W CI OOOO OOOO 04 04 0 O.XI9 O Cl o r 4J>>J'g C O e Qi e'"0'0 r-.'8 8 el cl CI Q e ce Q, 4 o O e~CD b0 g r~C I cee ce CQ be 0 r m a~u 4'0~04 c I e m g e o oD"0 e co., bb~0 r~~g<e 4 Clg>>0 4C>>>>>>0%0 e>>0 Cerl">>e'0 0 m ce I e ce'ts 0'8 rc e~r 0'~g e'IS w C~ee e~emcermvt m>>ID'ce m Q,r r~~8 m~ce~" 4e ce m 0~~e r~e 4 Q e r g m o o me m'ce g o o ce e r e eg~e O~~m 0 0 g~~ID Ce Io mo4 oe I a'X Cl C0 E9 00 00 CO.cl i0 Q>>.5 d X'It d Z'lt d x CD al~0 00 C I X I I I I 0 t t I t It t (r p I rr~>r'r(,I'(g." r.~((i (r~r~yr<<4k>Pt C(rC Q.@+r r 4'rr(r" r: j rf t ,I rg h FIG.2.-TESTING ARRANGEhIENT FOR BEAhIS wires were attached, and the slot was filled to the bar surface with wax water-proofing.Tension tests indicated that gages so placed yielded measurements in close accord with mechanical strain measurements over the same reduced section.The stress at any bar load was 5%to 9%higher in"the sloffed section than in the full bar section.Eight strain gages for each beam were located as shown ln Fig.1(a).Two gageswer'e placed on eachof four barS symm'etrlcally about mid-span.The measured strainwlthout correctionwas ass'umed to'ep-reseq)the average strain'n all bars at the location of the gage'.Therefore, measured strain is reported heryin a's stress obtains'd by multiplying~
Concrete Beams,'y C.A.htenzol and W.M.Woods, BuHeHn 42, Research Dept., Portland Ce-ment Assn., November~1952, p.114;~BUNDLING 891 before the flexural ultimate strength ls developed.
'the'aver-age strain in the two half sparis by the modulus of elasticity for the full section of the various bar sixes as obtained in te'nsion tests.'r'5~r(,'('-'J (J"rl'(r'.(r~.~((TEST RESULTS~'r (rrr.~..I r., r I.('ll beamswith,intermedtaty-grade(steel, beams 8;,L'I,through 6-9p 1nTable 1, fa1led by yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement, followed by large de-BUNDLING stub through a 2-in.steel plate.The total duration of each beam test was ap-proximately two hours.Deflection dial.gages were mounted directly below the two faces.of the column stub and mid-way between these points and the supports.The widths of all cracks were measured by a graduated microscope at the level of thy centroid of the longitudinal reinforcement.
Therefore, the test speci-mens for this investigation
To minimize the amount of bar surface area isolated from bond by the waterproofing of the electric strain gages, SR-4 Type A-12 gages were placed in the intermediate grade bars in milled slots.3/32 in.,wide,r 3/8 in.de.p, and approximately 6 in.long.The high-strength bars could not be milled.Thus, the location of the strain gages in Fig.1(a)does not refer to tha,beamsuslng high-strength steel rods.A gage was cemented ta the sideof each slot, lead P~~>3 QUNDJ2gG$95 flections and final crushing of the concrete compression zone at the column face.As shown in Fig.2;both flexural and diagonal'cracks tended to extend upward toward the corner at the column stub so that lt-was hardly possible to differentiate behveen flexural and diagonal~cktt'-po indication.
were short, deep beams, with the tension steel at the top as cast..In the beam, designations
of bond fail-ure was found 1n any of these beams, and noijisual difference in behavior was noted for beams with bundled as compared t'o'spaced bars.Three beams with high strength reinforcement failed ln bond as indicated by large amounts of bar slip at the beam ends.For bream 8-6SH the tension steel yielded following bar sflp at the beam ends.Steel Stress and Deflection.-Measured steelstressanddeflectionatvarlous load levels for the three beam pairs with intermediate grade steel are shown in Figs.3(a),(b)and(c).
to follow, the first number shows the number of: bars and the second number their size;.the letter S indicates spaced bars and B indicates bundled bars;H indicates high-strength
Both steel stress and deflection are given as an aver-age of two measurements symmetrical about mldspan for each beam.Distribution, of measured steel stress along a longitudinal reinforcing bar, in a beam specimen, may be expected to reflect bong distress.Preceding a final destruction of bond, an abnormal rise of steel stress should take p~toward the beam ends.Fig.3 shows that.the distribution of steel stress~very similar for the two members of each pair of test beams even at high steel-stress..lt may be noted, on the other hand, that the steel-stress for all beams was practically uniform at high loads in the middle third of the span.This was certainly caused by a stress redistribution resulting from the deep--beam type of crack pattern seen in Fig.2.'It is also seen that the overhangs contributed to the bonding action because the steel-stress'of all beams is not zero over the supports at high loads.It is felt that this behavior ls related to local stress disturbances in the support region where heavy reaction forces entered the abnormally short beams.The deflection curves are also similar for all beam pairs.Accordingly, both steel stress and deflection measurements indicate that there was no sig-nificant difference in behavior between bundled and spaced reinforcement.
steel.The test beams 8-SSy 8 SSHp 8 SSH and 6-9S, with spaced reinforcement, shown in Fig.I, were designed by first determining
Crach IVidth.-Crack patterns were closely similar within pairs for all tests.Bond distress maybe expected toopenup a few wide cracks near the beam ends rather than to increase the widthof all cracks.Crackwidths are therefore given in Fig.4, as the average width of the three widest cracks in the beam.Steel stress is given in the figure asvalues computed fromapplied moment at the column face section, taking'the internal moment arm as 7/8 times the ef-fective depth.It is seen that there ls no systematic difference between~crack widths for bundled and for spaced reinforcement, Furthermore, noes~opened suddenly before yielding of the reinforcement was ln progress.This indicates that'even the high local bond stress<<whioh acts near cracks, resulted only in the normal minor bond slip for bundled as well as for spaced reinforce-ment.For the four beams with high strength reinforcement, a similar lack of systematic difference was observed between'crack widths for bundled and spaced reinforcement.
the minimum beam width for a chosen group of bars.By the ACI code previously
However, for beams 8;,6BH, 8-8SH, and 8-8BH, as the ultimate load was reached,a few cracks near the beam ends became very wide shortly before final bond failure took place.Flexural Strength, Beams uVth Intermedtate Grqde Steel.-Itis seen In Table 1 that some of the beams with intqrmediate grade steel carolled loads consider-ably above their.yield-loads.
mentioned, this width is governed by a minimum protective
These yield loads'are'listed as detected by strain~r 0 I I~u t r((038~l l~-<<rr(4(lrr(<<4(Z
cover of 1-f in.and, for 1-f in.maxi-mum size aggregate, a clear distance of 2 ln.between parallel bars.The beam depth was chosen so that the ratio of reinforcement
.~~I'I r V (I'I 1 4)~I II k PI fI k I 896 P Fsosh silos h Mcsos BUNDLING P IO 8 20 cn cn hc o 3 x 25Kl ps ro~50~/r I I I I I I r r r I I r I 4 IOO~or r//~/P ISO Kiss 42,000psl ss C O.IO ss o OIS 2 0.20 2SKIPs r SO~r I/FS~///IOO~P r r<<Spocs4 Soss ispn Kl,-~a'4II4 ben-4 (0)BEAMS 8 BS ond 8 88 00 IO 40 SO 40 BUNDLING 49$and crack width measurements.
was 1.5%.Finally, the distance from the face of a centrally located column stub to the beam support was chosen as twice the effective beam depth.Thus, the test span L is 85 in.for the beams with No.6 bars,-134.5
Considering the external moment at the face of the column the computed flexural ultimate loads, Pcalcs were abtained by the equation for ultimate internal moment'I Mu=b d2 fc q(1-0 P q)~~~~~~(1)in which fc is the concrete cylinder strength, and q is the factor pfy/fc in I which p equals As (the effective cross-sectional area of reinforcement) divided by bd, and fy is the yield point of reinforcement.
in.for the beams with No.8 bars, and 151.8 in.for those with No.9 bars.The beams and all bars were extended 6 in.beyond the supports.The gross concrete dimensions
This'equation is given in ACI*s'18-56, A605(b).The ratio of measured tocomputed ultimate load exceeds one (1)for all beams.The average ratio for the three beams with spaced bars is 1.13, and the average ratio for the beams with bundled bars is also 1.13.This indicates that there was no systematic difference in ultimate flexural strength developed by spaced and by bundled bars except that the beams with bundled bars were slightly stronger by virtue of the slight increase in effective b~depth.sf s P Fcshi ISIISPOh Ihollo~50 g 40 f-47000 pcl I-48300 ps>I If<<46800 ps)6.9S IO vs 8 20 cn sI OI 7 I vs 8 cn~I In so~s X 40~h c OI o COKlp~/////I I I I I I I IZ0~I I I.ISO~I I/40-r 4 802 s'u cs ss 0.~s I~s cs I 20 r r r r ISO'Spo44i SCAptroo th-cs-scdlidlsohI
of beams 8-6S, S-SS and 6-9S, excluding the column stubs, wex'e 13 in.by 21 in.by 97 in., 14.5 in by 33.5 in.by 146.5 fn., and 11.5 in.by 38.8 in.by 163.8 in., respectively.
~SOO Klps 240+fp~4SWpsl (h)BEAMS Pi240 Kins 8 BS opd 8-88 I'O Kiss//I/I r//P//I ,/p r r c40 P 240 Klps/o I I~44,000 psl o I20 8 g OI 8~0.2~s<<0 aS COKlps I r/r/I/I20 rr//~4////rSO 220 rr I r f40~Spocso Sos~w Oohoiso nosh (c)BEAMS B-SS ond 6-88 FIG.S.-h(EASURED STEEL STRESS AND DEFLECTIONS R E 8 30 9 20 8 8.68 8-6S B.SS 8.88 6.98 10 0 0.004 0.008 OA)12, 0 OI004 OA)08 0412 0 OA)04 OA)08 JO12 Clock widths, ln (nchos'IG.4.-CRACK 1VIDTH htEASUREhiENTS The average ratio of 1.13 also confirms previous findings that the equa~for ultimate moment, which was developed essentially by tests of small bea~is also applicable to the large beams of this investigation.
The beams with bundled reinforcement, beams 8-6B, 8-SB and 6-9B we identical.to
It is believed that the excess of measuredultimate loads over the computed load resulted princi-pally from strain hardening of the reinforcement.'
the corresponding
biaxial state of stress at the column stub appeared to delay crushing of the compression zone so that large steel strains were developed locally at the ma)or flexural cracks.Bond stresses are given in Table 1 as computed at ultimate load, by dividing the shearing force by the external perimeter of the bars times 7d/8.These bond stresses, for the beams with intermediate'rade steel, were sustained without any indication of bond failure." They are'in no way to'e regarded as ultimate bond stresses.To develop higher bond stresses with intermediate-grade steel it would have been necessary to make'special test beams with part of thetension zone removed, or to make the beams so short that theywould act as walls rather than beams.Both of these cases were thought not to represent practical conditions under which bundled bars may be used." High-strength steel was therefore used to study ultimate load stress;=s s.illll~~I'I I~ssl~~~I I I I jl f t f If f I 898 BUNDLING BUNDLING 899 Bond Strength, Beams with Hfgh-Strength Steel.-Table 1 shows that the beams with high-strength reinforcement failed at ultimate loads close to the flexural strengths computed by ACI 318-56, A606(a), Mu" (As-As)fy d~1-'+As fy (d-d'),...(2)I 0.59 (p-p')f)c ln which As ls the area of tensile reinforcement, As ls'he area of compres-sive reinforcement, d etluals the distance from the extreme compressive fiber to the centroid of tensile reinforcement, whereas d's the distance from this fiber to the centroid of compressive reinforcement and p ls the factor As/bd.Beam 8-6SH failed ln flexure after bond slip had been observed at the beam ends.The remaining three beams failed at loads below the computed ultimate flexural strength.Failure was ln bond, as indicated by large amounts of bar slip observed by dial gages as a relative movement between bar ends and the concrete surface at the beam ends.Bar slip ls plotted as a function of computed bond stress ln Fig.5.Bond stresses at ultimate strength, calculated by dividing shearing force by external-bar-perimeter times 7d/8, are also shown.It ls seen that bond slip was ln progresswhen beam8-6SH failed ln flexureatabond stressof 520psl(Table1).
beams with spaced bars except fo'r the bar rangeme'n7.
By comparlsonwlth the slip records for beams 8-8SH and 8-8BH ln Fig.5,both of which failed ln bond, lt must be expected that beam 8-6SH would have failed ln bond at a stress only slightly greater than 520 psl lf flexural failure had been prevented bya higher yield point for the steel.Hence,theultlmate bond stress for spaced No.6 bars must be expected to exceed only slightly the value of 513 psl observed for bundled bars.For No.8 bars, the ultimate bond stress for spaced bars was 337 psl, which ls slightly less than the stress of 391 psl ob-served for bundled bars.However, lt should be noted from Fig.5 that bond stress fora given slip value was always lower for bundled than for spaced bars.It can be concluded that, when only external bar perimeter was used to cal-culate bond stress, there was no systematic difference ln ultimate bond stress developed between spaced and bundled bars.Thus, the beam tests indicated that bundling of tension reinforcement ls a satisfactory detailing procedure.
The effect of decreasing
TEST COLUMN ARRANGEMENT 8-6SH 400 n X 4 n 300 Fr':m r3 l00 0~Il I/IS l'l:~I 8-68H l F!~F 8.8SH OA$4 0.008 OA)12 OAI I 6'Average bar srlp et beam ends, tn Inches FIG, 6.-BAR SLIP MEASUREMENTS lr~F I I FnIF 0.020 A series of ten tied columns was designed to study bundled compression re-inforcement.
the beam width for bundled reinforcement
Concentric loading was chosen..An outline of, the test program ls shown ln Fig.6.Allcolumnswere12-1n.-by-12-ln.
was investigated
W>th a height Alf 6 ft.Two amounts of longitudinal reinforcement were used.These were 6.58%and 3.67%, made up of 12 po.8 and 12 No.p bars, respectively.
through beams 8-SBH and 8-8 BH.For these two beams,and their companions
The 1/4-ln, tie-diameter used ls tile minimum permitted by ACI 318-58, 1104(c).The corresponding maximum tie spacing of forty-eight tie diameters ln 12 ln., whtgh ls also the maximum spacing as governed by the 12,-+.colure size and by sixteen times the diameter of the No.6 bars.Five columtts with 12 No.8 bars were tested.Column 12-8S contained bars spaced ln'the nOrmal manner and surrounded by a squarp tie.The interior barswere hefd firmly by two interior rectangular ties.All ties of this column were spaced at 12 ln.Column 12-8B-1 contained bars bundle)at the corners, Interior ties were omitted, and the exterior tie spacing its maiqtained at 12 ln.For column 12-8B-2, the exterior tie spacing was decreased to 6 fn, A splice was provided at mid-height of column 12-8B-3 as shown ln Fig.6.The spliced bars were cut by a saw, and each bar was touching its longltut(tnal ex-tension.The tie spacing In both columns 12-8 B3 and 12-8 B4 was 6 lns.The IF'~'I~trcoromn'S column ,I ,.I" I VI F la~O FF I,F 4 V I F FIG, S,-TEST COLUMNS"~
with spaced reinforcement, high-strength
t~"e!
reinforcement
was used to delay flexural faQure and develop very high bond stress.The column stubs of all beams were reinforced
with four bars of the same size as the'longitudinal
beam reinforcement, and these bars vlere extended through the beam, Vertical stirrup reinforcement
was provided to prevent di-agonal tension and shear failures, The stirrups also served the function of preventing
horizontal
splitting that might otherwise have been caused by high bond stress.Beams 8-6SH and 8-SBH had two No.6 bars placed as compress sion reinforcement
toprevent flexuralcompresston
failure.Beams 8-SSH and 8-8BH had two No.8 bars placed as compression
reinforcement.
ProPerffes
of Bundfes.~e
external perimeter for a bundle of four bars as shown for be'am 8-6B and 8-SB in Fig.1 is 38D, that is, 25%less than for the same bars spaced in the usual manner.On the other hand, a single large bar with the same cross-section
area as a bundle of four bars with diameter D would have a diameter of 2D and a perimeter of 2nD.Accordingly, the bundle of four bars has anexposed perimeter 50%greater
than that of thesingle large bar.The bundle of three bars used for beam 6-9B similarly.has
an expos perimeter'16.'I%
less than that for the same spac'ed bars, and 55%greater t that of a larger bar of the same area.These geometric properties
indicate that bundling leads to only a moderate increase ln bond stress as compared to spaced bars.Replacing a single large bar by a bundle with the same area, leads to a reduced bond stress.It should be noted, however, thht the deformation
of lug height, as defined by ASTM A-305-53T, would be greater for a single large bar than for a bundle of bars, a d bo nd r'esistance
for top b rs 18 k own9 to 1 crease with tncreasi g lug height.Materials.-A
laboratory
blendof Type I cements was used.Sand and gravel aggregates
were combined to gradations
within-the limits given by ASTM C-33-.55T for 1-j in.maximum: size.The concretes were mixed in 6 cu ft  
1  
ceo e>>CCt ce m 0O~~0&gal ce mo'g g~e3 m e E 8 8 ce~~Cl e~e r cer 4 Q Ce e$04 s""'4d r ce m cl 0 yc e m'0>>m ce m ce I e KOb0 rm"0~O bore e 99~-m m Q e'ce m e el I O 5~CD g QCI m>>ci 4 4~>>P p cl Q ca" g Rom.BF Ir C~ce g e I 3~~0 P Cl 0 ro CI r IC1 Cl ICC)O ce o r r e be Cl>>el CI 4 e~g bb m>>4 e ce~Sl w 0 g be 0 oe'e ce r e e O r~e e a CI e QI 4J mre roe m m eer Ce r 0 0 0 4 i>>0 I e~e00 g'0 ce el~Ce r r>>CO 0 8 Ri m e~O>>>>$e m C 6 m ce ce e el 4 8C'6 Cl'm Qi m cD~O 0 C4 m o RR ce N53$~g r g g g I g>>i Cl dl c O~g C''CI QCI g ea Cl clclr&P 4-8'r%r" r~r 00 Cl 04 MIDih0000~0 ID CI>>0 00 iD 04 CI Cl 00,04 04 ID O C4 CI>>I 0 O>>C CII O CD>>C~0 CD>>C>>li O CD>>4>>4 CI CI CI 04 ID A c-c oooo CI Cl CD CD>>Ci'CIC A>>00404 C4 ID CD CD 00>>ci ID>>C>>I C4 Dl>>4>>4 ID O CD O O O CICDC>>CCDO
A O CI 04%CD C4 00'CC W,'00M Oooooo O io O O O O 0 0 CI Cl CD 0)c c m00 ID co cn 4 03 cQ cn lC CP<<0 CD Dl Dl iD CD ED CO CD CD O CC C 04>>4 CI O IA ID CI CI 04 QDI CI CD CD M C4 C4>>li+O IA O CD>>4 Q ID O O ID O O CD O C>>>>li O 00 00 00>>C CI W CI OOOO OOOO 04 04 0 O.XI9 O Cl o r 4J>>J'g C O e Qi e'"0'0 r-.'8 8 el cl CI Q e ce Q, 4 o O e~CD b0 g r~C I cee ce CQ be 0 r m a~u 4'0~04 c I e m g e o oD"0 e co., bb~0 r~~g<e 4 Clg>>0 4C>>>>>>0%0 e>>0 Cerl">>e'0 0 m ce I e ce'ts 0'8 rc e~r 0'~g e'IS w C~ee e~emcermvt
m>>ID'ce m Q,r r~~8 m~ce~" 4e ce m 0~~e r~e 4 Q e r g m o o me m'ce g o o ce e r e eg~e O~~m 0 0 g~~ID Ce Io mo4 oe I a'X Cl C0 E9 00 00 CO.cl i0 Q>>.5 d X'It d Z'lt d x CD al~0 00 C I X I I I I  
0 t t I t It t  
(r p I rr~>r'r(,I'(g." r.~((i (r~r~yr<<4k>Pt C(rC Q.@+r r 4'rr(r" r: j rf t ,I rg h FIG.2.-TESTING
ARRANGEhIENT
FOR BEAhIS wires were attached, and the slot was filled to the bar surface with wax water-proofing.Tension tests indicated that gages so placed yielded measurements
in close accord with mechanical
strain measurements
over the same reduced section.The stress at any bar load was 5%to 9%higher in"the sloffed section than in the full bar section.Eight strain gages for each beam were located as shown ln Fig.1(a).Two gageswer'e
placed on eachof four barS symm'etrlcally
about mid-span.The measured strainwlthout
correctionwas
ass'umed to'ep-reseq)the average strain'n all bars at the location of the gage'.Therefore, measured strain is reported heryin a's stress obtains'd by multiplying~
'the'aver-
age strain in the two half sparis by the modulus of elasticity
for the full section of the various bar sixes as obtained in te'nsion tests.'r'5~r(,'('-'J (J"rl'(r'.(r~.~((TEST RESULTS~'r (rrr.~..I r., r I.('ll beamswith,intermedtaty-grade(steel, beams 8;,L'I,through
6-9p 1nTable 1, fa1led by yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcement, followed by large de-BUNDLING stub through a 2-in.steel plate.The total duration of each beam test was ap-proximately
two hours.Deflection
dial.gages were mounted directly below the two faces.of the column stub and mid-way between these points and the supports.The widths of all cracks were measured by a graduated microscope
at the level of thy centroid of the longitudinal
reinforcement.
To minimize the amount of bar surface area isolated from bond by the waterproofing
of the electric strain gages, SR-4 Type A-12 gages were placed in the intermediate
grade bars in milled slots.3/32
in.,wide,r
3/8 in.de.p, and approximately
6 in.long.The high-strength
bars could not be milled.Thus, the location of the strain gages in Fig.1(a)does not refer to tha,beamsuslng
high-strength
steel rods.A gage was cemented ta the sideof each slot, lead P~~>3 QUNDJ2gG$95 flections and final crushing of the concrete compression
zone at the column face.As shown in Fig.2;both flexural and diagonal'cracks tended to extend upward toward the corner at the column stub so that lt-was hardly possible to differentiate
behveen flexural and diagonal~cktt'-po indication.
of bond fail-ure was found 1n any of these beams, and noijisual difference
in behavior was noted for beams with bundled as compared t'o'spaced
bars.Three beams with high strength reinforcement
failed ln bond as indicated by large amounts of bar slip at the beam ends.For bream 8-6SH the tension steel yielded following bar sflp at the beam ends.Steel Stress and Deflection.-Measured
steelstressanddeflectionatvarlous
load levels for the three beam pairs with intermediate
grade steel are shown in Figs.3(a),(b)and(c).
Both steel stress and deflection
are given as an aver-age of two measurements
symmetrical
about mldspan for each beam.Distribution, of measured steel stress along a longitudinal
reinforcing
bar, in a beam specimen, may be expected to reflect bong distress.Preceding a final destruction
of bond, an abnormal rise of steel stress should take p~toward the beam ends.Fig.3 shows that.the distribution
of steel stress~very similar for the two members of each pair of test beams even at high steel-stress..lt
may be noted, on the other hand, that the steel-stress
for all beams was practically
uniform at high loads in the middle third of the span.This was certainly caused by a stress redistribution
resulting from the deep--beam type of crack pattern seen in Fig.2.'It is also seen that the overhangs contributed
to the bonding action because the steel-stress'of
all beams is not zero over the supports at high loads.It is felt that this behavior ls related to local stress disturbances
in the support region where heavy reaction forces entered the abnormally
short beams.The deflection
curves are also similar for all beam pairs.Accordingly, both steel stress and deflection
measurements
indicate that there was no sig-nificant difference
in behavior between bundled and spaced reinforcement.
Crach IVidth.-Crack
patterns were closely similar within pairs for all tests.Bond distress maybe expected toopenup a few wide cracks near the beam ends rather than to increase the widthof all cracks.Crackwidths
are therefore given in Fig.4, as the average width of the three widest cracks in the beam.Steel stress is given in the figure asvalues computed fromapplied
moment at the column face section, taking'the
internal moment arm as 7/8 times the ef-fective depth.It is seen that there ls no systematic
difference
between~crack widths for bundled and for spaced reinforcement, Furthermore, noes~opened suddenly before yielding of the reinforcement
was ln progress.This indicates that'even the high local bond stress<<whioh
acts near cracks, resulted only in the normal minor bond slip for bundled as well as for spaced reinforce-
ment.For the four beams with high strength reinforcement, a similar lack of systematic
difference
was observed between'crack widths for bundled and spaced reinforcement.
However, for beams 8;,6BH, 8-8SH, and 8-8BH, as the ultimate load was reached,a few cracks near the beam ends became very wide shortly before final bond failure took place.Flexural Strength, Beams uVth Intermedtate
Grqde Steel.-Itis
seen In Table 1 that some of the beams with intqrmediate
grade steel carolled loads consider-ably above their.yield-loads.
These yield loads'are'listed
as detected by strain~r 0 I I~u t r((038~l l~-<<rr(4(lrr(<<4(Z
.~~I'I  
r V (I'I 1 4)~I II k PI fI k I  
896 P Fsosh silos h Mcsos BUNDLING P IO 8 20 cn cn hc o 3 x 25Kl ps ro~50~/r I I I I I I r r r I I r I 4 IOO~or r//~/P ISO Kiss 42,000psl ss C O.IO ss o OIS 2 0.20 2SKIPs r SO~r I/FS~///IOO~P r r<<Spocs4 Soss ispn Kl,-~a'4II4 ben-4 (0)BEAMS 8 BS ond 8 88 00 IO 40 SO 40 BUNDLING 49$and crack width measurements.
Considering
the external moment at the face of the column the computed flexural ultimate loads, Pcalcs were abtained by the equation for ultimate internal moment'I Mu=b d2 fc q(1-0 P q)~~~~~~(1)in which fc is the concrete cylinder strength, and q is the factor pfy/fc in I which p equals As (the effective cross-sectional
area of reinforcement)
divided by bd, and fy is the yield point of reinforcement.
This'equation is given in ACI*s'18-56, A605(b).The ratio of measured tocomputed
ultimate load exceeds one (1)for all beams.The average ratio for the three beams with spaced bars is 1.13, and the average ratio for the beams with bundled bars is also 1.13.This indicates that there was no systematic
difference
in ultimate flexural strength developed by spaced and by bundled bars except that the beams with bundled bars were slightly stronger by virtue of the slight increase in effective b~depth.sf s P Fcshi ISIISPOh Ihollo~50 g 40 f-47000 pcl I-48300 ps>I If<<46800 ps)6.9S IO vs 8 20 cn sI OI 7 I vs 8 cn~I In so~s X 40~h c OI o COKlp~/////I I I I I I I IZ0~I I I.ISO~I I/40-r 4 802 s'u cs ss 0.~s I~s cs I 20 r r r r ISO'Spo44i SCAptroo th-cs-scdlidlsohI
~SOO Klps 240+fp~4SWpsl (h)BEAMS Pi240 Kins 8 BS opd 8-88 I'O Kiss//I/I r//P//I ,/p r r c40 P 240 Klps/o I I~44,000 psl o I20 8 g OI 8~0.2~s<<0 aS COKlps I r/r/I/I20 rr//~4////rSO 220 rr I r f40~Spocso Sos~w Oohoiso nosh (c)BEAMS B-SS ond 6-88 FIG.S.-h(EASURED
STEEL STRESS AND DEFLECTIONS
R E 8 30 9 20 8 8.68 8-6S B.SS 8.88 6.98 10 0 0.004 0.008 OA)12, 0 OI004 OA)08 0412 0 OA)04 OA)08 JO12 Clock widths, ln (nchos'IG.4.-CRACK 1VIDTH htEASUREhiENTS
The average ratio of 1.13 also confirms previous findings that the equa~for ultimate moment, which was developed essentially
by tests of small bea~is also applicable
to the large beams of this investigation.
It is believed that the excess of measuredultimate
loads over the computed load resulted princi-pally from strain hardening of the reinforcement.'
biaxial state of stress at the column stub appeared to delay crushing of the compression
zone so that large steel strains were developed locally at the ma)or flexural cracks.Bond stresses are given in Table 1 as computed at ultimate load, by dividing the shearing force by the external perimeter of the bars times 7d/8.These bond stresses, for the beams with intermediate'rade
steel, were sustained without any indication
of bond failure." They are'in no way to'e regarded as ultimate bond stresses.To develop higher bond stresses with intermediate-
grade steel it would have been necessary to make'special
test beams with part of thetension
zone removed, or to make the beams so short that theywould act as walls rather than beams.Both of these cases were thought not to represent practical conditions
under which bundled bars may be used." High-strength
steel was therefore used to study ultimate load stress;=s s.illll~~I'I I~ssl~~~I I  
I I jl f t f If f I  
898 BUNDLING BUNDLING 899 Bond Strength, Beams with Hfgh-Strength
Steel.-Table
1 shows that the beams with high-strength
reinforcement
failed at ultimate loads close to the flexural strengths computed by ACI 318-56, A606(a), Mu" (As-As)fy d~1-'+As fy (d-d'),...(2)I 0.59 (p-p')f)c ln which As ls the area of tensile reinforcement, As ls'he area of compres-sive reinforcement, d etluals the distance from the extreme compressive
fiber to the centroid of tensile reinforcement, whereas d's the distance from this fiber to the centroid of compressive
reinforcement
and p ls the factor As/bd.Beam 8-6SH failed ln flexure after bond slip had been observed at the beam ends.The remaining three beams failed at loads below the computed ultimate flexural strength.Failure was ln bond, as indicated by large amounts of bar slip observed by dial gages as a relative movement between bar ends and the concrete surface at the beam ends.Bar slip ls plotted as a function of computed bond stress ln Fig.5.Bond stresses at ultimate strength, calculated
by dividing shearing force by external-bar-perimeter
times 7d/8, are also shown.It ls seen that bond slip was ln progresswhen
beam8-6SH failed ln flexureatabond
stressof 520psl(Table1).
By comparlsonwlth
the slip records for beams 8-8SH and 8-8BH ln Fig.5,both of which failed ln bond, lt must be expected that beam 8-6SH would have failed ln bond at a stress only slightly greater than 520 psl lf flexural failure had been prevented bya higher yield point for the steel.Hence,theultlmate
bond stress for spaced No.6 bars must be expected to exceed only slightly the value of 513 psl observed for bundled bars.For No.8 bars, the ultimate bond stress for spaced bars was 337 psl, which ls slightly less than the stress of 391 psl ob-served for bundled bars.However, lt should be noted from Fig.5 that bond stress fora given slip value was always lower for bundled than for spaced bars.It can be concluded that, when only external bar perimeter was used to cal-culate bond stress, there was no systematic
difference
ln ultimate bond stress developed between spaced and bundled bars.Thus, the beam tests indicated that bundling of tension reinforcement
ls a satisfactory
detailing procedure.
TEST COLUMN ARRANGEMENT
8-6SH 400 n X 4 n 300 Fr':m r3 l00 0~Il I/IS l'l:~I 8-68H l F!~F 8.8SH OA$4 0.008 OA)12 OAI I 6'Average bar srlp et beam ends, tn Inches FIG, 6.-BAR SLIP MEASUREMENTS
lr~F I I FnIF 0.020 A series of ten tied columns was designed to study bundled compression
re-inforcement.
Concentric
loading was chosen..An
outline of, the test program ls shown ln Fig.6.Allcolumnswere12-1n.-by-12-ln.
W>th a height Alf 6 ft.Two amounts of longitudinal
reinforcement
were used.These were 6.58%and 3.67%, made up of 12 po.8 and 12 No.p bars, respectively.
The 1/4-ln, tie-diameter
used ls tile minimum permitted by ACI 318-58, 1104(c).The corresponding
maximum tie spacing of forty-eight
tie diameters ln 12 ln., whtgh ls also the maximum spacing as governed by the 12,-+.colure size and by sixteen times the diameter of the No.6 bars.Five columtts with 12 No.8 bars were tested.Column 12-8S contained bars spaced ln'the nOrmal manner and surrounded
by a squarp tie.The interior barswere hefd firmly by two interior rectangular
ties.All ties of this column were spaced at 12 ln.Column 12-8B-1 contained bars bundle)at the corners, Interior ties were omitted, and the exterior tie spacing its maiqtained
at 12 ln.For column 12-8B-2, the exterior tie spacing was decreased to 6 fn, A splice was provided at mid-height
of column 12-8B-3 as shown ln Fig.6.The spliced bars were cut by a saw, and each bar was touching its longltut(tnal
ex-tension.The tie spacing In both columns 12-8 B3 and 12-8 B4 was 6 lns.The IF'~'I~trcoromn'S column ,I ,.I" I VI F la~O FF I,F 4 V I F FIG, S,-TEST COLUMNS"~  
t~"e!  
900 BUNDLINg BUNDLING 901 bars of column 12-8B-4 were cut at the splice with a hydraulic bar cutter so that the bar-ends were wedge-shaped.
900 BUNDLINg BUNDLING 901 bars of column 12-8B-4 were cut at the splice with a hydraulic bar cutter so that the bar-ends were wedge-shaped.
A clear spacing of 1/4 in.was provided between the two parts of each longitudinal
A clear spacing of 1/4 in.was provided between the two parts of each longitudinal bar.It should be noted that the splice lap is only ten bar-diameters as compared to the minimum amount of twenty diameters given by ACI 318-56, 1103(c).A similar group of five col-umns with 12 No.6 bars was tested.Materials.-A laboratoryblend of Type I cements wasused.Sand and gravel aggregates were combined to gradations within the ASTM C-33-55T limits for 3/4-in.maximum size.The mix ratio of cement to sand to gravel was 1 to 3.58 to 2.38 by weight, and the water-cement ratio was from 0.64 to 0.68 by weight.Two concrete batches were used for each column.In previous column tests it has been found10 that failure generally takes place near the top of vertically cast columns.To explore this phenomenon, the bottom batch of some columns was made with a slightly higher water-cement ratio than the top batch.Com-pressive strengths, representing averages of three to four 6-in.-by-12-in.
bar.It should be noted that the splice lap is only ten bar-diameters
cylinders for each batch, made and cured with the corresponding columns, are given in Table 2.All reinforcement was intermediate-grade steel and was tied into cages without welding.The ties were 1/4-in.plain bars.The longitudinal reinforce-ment conformed to ASTM A-305-53T for deformations and had the yield points reported in Table 2.All reinforcing bars were cut by a saw to a length toler-ance of 1/32-in.Bearing plates, 3/4-in.thick, were placed touching the bars at the top and bottom of the columns.The lower plate was placed in the form before casting, the upper plate was set 1n a thin layer of high-strength plaster after the concrete was cured.The heavy t1e reinforcement shown in Fig.6 prevented failure at the column ends by possible local non-uniform stress conditions.
as compared to the minimum amount of twenty diameters given by ACI 318-56, 1103(c).A similar group of five col-umns with 12 No.6 bars was tested.Materials.-A
laboratoryblend
of Type I cements wasused.Sand and gravel aggregates
were combined to gradations
within the ASTM C-33-55T limits for 3/4-in.maximum size.The mix ratio of cement to sand to gravel was 1 to 3.58 to 2.38 by weight, and the water-cement
ratio was from 0.64 to 0.68 by weight.Two concrete batches were used for each column.In previous column tests it has been found10 that failure generally takes place near the top of vertically
cast columns.To explore this phenomenon, the bottom batch of some columns was made with a slightly higher water-cement
ratio than the top batch.Com-pressive strengths, representing
averages of three to four 6-in.-by-12-in.
cylinders for each batch, made and cured with the corresponding
columns, are given in Table 2.All reinforcement
was intermediate-grade
steel and was tied into cages without welding.The ties were 1/4-in.plain bars.The longitudinal
reinforce-
ment conformed to ASTM A-305-53T for deformations
and had the yield points reported in Table 2.All reinforcing
bars were cut by a saw to a length toler-ance of 1/32-in.Bearing plates, 3/4-in.thick, were placed touching the bars at the top and bottom of the columns.The lower plate was placed in the form before casting, the upper plate was set 1n a thin layer of high-strength
plaster after the concrete was cured.The heavy t1e reinforcement
shown in Fig.6 prevented failure at the column ends by possible local non-uniform
stress conditions.
Casting.All columns were cast in a vertical position, fn plywood forms protected by an epoxy resin paint.Concrete was placed in columns and com-panion cylinders with the aid of spud vibrators.
Casting.All columns were cast in a vertical position, fn plywood forms protected by an epoxy resin paint.Concrete was placed in columns and com-panion cylinders with the aid of spud vibrators.
It was noted that the absence of interior ties in the columns with bundled reinforcement
It was noted that the absence of interior ties in the columns with bundled reinforcement eased the concrete placing operation substantially.
eased the concrete placing operation substantially.
By fnspectfon after testing the columns, ft was found that mortar had filled the cavity between the bars of all bundles.The test columns and their companion cylinders were cured four to five days under wet burlap.They were then stored in the laboratory until they were tested at the ages given in Table 2.Test Method.-Alf columns were tested under concentric loading as shown in Fig.7, with both ends fixed against rotation.Spherical bearings permitted rotation at both column ends until a load of 20 k was applied, after which the hearings were blocked by steel wedges.Electric strain gages applied at mid-height of all four column faces were monitored by a continuous strain recorder.Even at ultimate strength, the spread between the four gage readings was less than 15%, which indicates that a closely concentric loading was obtained for all columns.In addition to electric strain measurements, the total shortening over the entire column-hefghtwas measured by a dial gage.A continuous load-ing speed of 160 k per min was maintained for all columns.COLUMN TEST RESULTS the ACI column investigations in the 193Ps.The equation used is'>P~=0.85 fc (Ag-AST)+AST fy,..........
By fnspectfon
~.(3)fn which Ag is the gross area of the section an'd AST fs the total area of longi-tudinal reinforce ment.This equation has been confirmed by several recent fnvestfgations10 and is used in Section A608(b)of ACI 318;56.A comparison of measured and calcu-lated ultimate loads is given in Table 2 together with concrete and steel prop-erties.A>>y 1~j, TABLE 2,-COLUMN STRENGTH J Column Desig-nation hfain Steel, (>>p i per square inch Cylinder Strength, fg, In pounds per square inch Top Bottom Avera Test ge>In ays hfeasured Uftimat'e Load,'>test>)in kips Calcu-lated tfinate Load in Yips Ptest Pcafc Location>all~I 12-8S 12-8B-1 12-8B-2 12-8B>>3 12-8B-4 12-6S 12-6B-1 12-6B-12-6B-3 12-6B-49,610 49,500 49,800 50,000 48>470 48,510 49,300 48,800 50,200 48,230 3220 3290 3930 3550 3280 3970 3840 4200 3270 2960 3290 3150 3680 3150 3360 3470 3310 3820 2540 2860 3250 3220 3800 3350 3320 3720 3570 4010 2900 2910 5 915 8-'83 6 i9.09 6>>,889 7"'.789 726.7b2-~758'02'626 842 836 906 856 839 695 681 730 607 597 1,09 0.94 1.00 1.04 0.04 1.04 1.03 1,04 1.16 1.05 Top Top TOp Top hiiddle Top Top Top Bottom Middle The test data were also studied ln terms of the relationship between applied load and total column shortening expressed as strain..The load-shortening durves for the columns with 12 No.8 bars are given in Fig.8.Type of Failure.-Aff columns failed.through the crushing of the con~e followed by the buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement.
after testing the columns, ft was found that mortar had filled the cavity between the bars of all bundles.The test columns and their companion cylinders were cured four to five days under wet burlap.They were then stored in the laboratory
Except for~columns, failure took place in the upper half of th'e columns.Tffe typical nature of such a failure 1s shown in Ffg.7(a)./he Iftrength of the concrete placed fn the lower half of some columns was reduced to explore the phenomenon of top failure, which had been observed10 fn numerous prevfous4ests.
until they were tested at the ages given in Table 2.Test Method.-Alf
Though the cylinder strength of the bottom batch for columns 12-8B-1, 12-8B-2, 12-8B-3, 12-6S, 12-6B-1 and 12-6B-2, was from 4%to 14%less than that of the top batch, failure took placein theupper halfof the columns.For column 12-6B-3,cylin-der strength of the bottom batch was 22%below that of the top batch, and in this case failure took place in the lower half of the column as shown fn Fig.9(c).Even so, the measured ultimate load exceeded by 24%the value calculated on the basis of the cylinder strength for the bottom batch.The column test results were evaluated essentially in terms of the equation for ultimate strength of concentrically loaded tied columns established during"A Study of Combined Bonding and Axial Mad in Reinforced Concrete hiembors,'y E.Hognestad, Bulletin No.399, Engrg, Experiment Sta., Univ.of Illinois, 1951.
columns were tested under concentric
I I 0 I t V I I 1i ljl I c~1 I 1 I II I 1 W 902 BUNDLING BUNDLING 903",;>@0.IT$u>y4'>flj A>>'Qtrt>>,.Yr~Q>jg)s 1 J'bg ,>>4u,g.!~>(((g+"~4>>-+u I I>'J r ((~4'tu>>+8>)f-()(Ik&b)41, i jjpptt'jt'-'-})>>)rrr,'4~;eQ$f.'I 6 I'i a.'Jgg i.: ',y J~i (r>>,>>8>*>>r>r>>>41 s+J YP is'./@+I".'r$8'j',:, (>>J(fi'gQ>'-
loading as shown in Fig.7, with both ends fixed against rotation.Spherical bearings permitted rotation at both column ends until a load of 20 k was applied, after which the hearings were blocked by steel wedges.Electric strain gages applied at mid-height of all four column faces were monitored by a continuous
&No.)2-8B-I (o)NO.l>)-BB-4 (b)..No.l2-6B-3 (c,), FIG.7,-TYPICAL COLUMN FAILURES-These findings confirm the previously reported observatio'n that the column strengthof the concrete placed in the lower half of columns is Increased;proba~
strain recorder.Even at ultimate strength, the spread between the four gage readings was less than 15%, which indicates that a closely concentric
bly by the'improved compaction afforded when the upper half is cast.Similar-ly, the'column strength of the concrete placed in the upper half may decrease somewhat by water gairi from below.To evaluate effects of bundling, there-fore, measuredultlmate loads were compared to calculated values based on the average cylinder strength for the top and bottom batches for each column.The two spliced columns 12-8B-4 and 12-6B-4 which had I/4'n.clear be-tween bars at the splice, failed in the-splice region at mid-height as shown in Fig.'r(b).~~Effect of Bundling.-
loading was obtained for all columns.In addition to electric strain measurements, the total shortening
The ratios between measured and calculated ultimate load given in TabIe 2 exceed one (1)for all except two columns.'ll'hits confirms previous findings that led to the ACI column investigation equation.j t i')'lJ">8 r+>'.r.~>'t.~~i Yield point or steel~.r~>>>>>l'lr r>6~.I>>>j 9~~4 J"J~J'~600 JC 8 2 400 J+)2.88-2 (t>(ts at 6 in 12-8 (ties at 8.1 12 ln.)\)2-88-3'spliced bep t()ucrjnd)
over the entire column-hefghtwas
measured by a dial gage.A continuous
load-ing speed of 160 k per min was maintained
for all columns.COLUMN TEST RESULTS the ACI column investigations
in the 193Ps.The equation used is'>P~=0.85 fc (Ag-AST)+AST fy,..........
~.(3)fn which Ag is the gross area of the section an'd AST fs the total area of longi-tudinal reinforce ment.This equation has been confirmed by several recent fnvestfgations10
and is used in Section A608(b)of ACI 318;56.A comparison
of measured and calcu-lated ultimate loads is given in Table 2 together with concrete and steel prop-erties.A>>y 1~j, TABLE 2,-COLUMN STRENGTH J Column Desig-nation hfain Steel, (>>p i per square inch Cylinder Strength, fg, In pounds per square inch Top Bottom Avera Test ge>In ays hfeasured Uftimat'e Load,'>test>)in kips Calcu-lated tfinate Load in Yips Ptest Pcafc Location>all~I 12-8S 12-8B-1 12-8B-2 12-8B>>3 12-8B-4 12-6S 12-6B-1 12-6B-12-6B-3 12-6B-49,610 49,500 49,800 50,000 48>470 48,510 49,300 48,800 50,200 48,230 3220 3290 3930 3550 3280 3970 3840 4200 3270 2960 3290 3150 3680 3150 3360 3470 3310 3820 2540 2860 3250 3220 3800 3350 3320 3720 3570 4010 2900 2910 5 915 8-'83 6 i9.09 6>>,889 7"'.789 726.7b2-~758'02'626 842 836 906 856 839 695 681 730 607 597 1,09 0.94 1.00 1.04 0.04 1.04 1.03 1,04 1.16 1.05 Top Top TOp Top hiiddle Top Top Top Bottom Middle The test data were also studied ln terms of the relationship
between applied load and total column shortening
expressed as strain..The load-shortening
durves for the columns with 12 No.8 bars are given in Fig.8.Type of Failure.-Aff
columns failed.through the crushing of the con~e followed by the buckling of the longitudinal
reinforcement.
Except for~columns, failure took place in the upper half of th'e columns.Tffe typical nature of such a failure 1s shown in Ffg.7(a)./he Iftrength of the concrete placed fn the lower half of some columns was reduced to explore the phenomenon
of top failure, which had been observed10
fn numerous prevfous4ests.
Though the cylinder strength of the bottom batch for columns 12-8B-1, 12-8B-2, 12-8B-3, 12-6S, 12-6B-1 and 12-6B-2, was from 4%to 14%less than that of the top batch, failure took placein theupper halfof the columns.For column 12-6B-3,cylin-
der strength of the bottom batch was 22%below that of the top batch, and in this case failure took place in the lower half of the column as shown fn Fig.9(c).Even so, the measured ultimate load exceeded by 24%the value calculated
on the basis of the cylinder strength for the bottom batch.The column test results were evaluated essentially
in terms of the equation for ultimate strength of concentrically
loaded tied columns established
during"A Study of Combined Bonding and Axial Mad in Reinforced
Concrete hiembors,'y
E.Hognestad, Bulletin No.399, Engrg, Experiment
Sta., Univ.of Illinois, 1951.  
I I 0 I t V I I 1i ljl I c~1 I 1 I II I 1 W  
902 BUNDLING BUNDLING 903",;>@0.IT$u>y4'>flj A>>'Qtrt>>,.Yr~Q>jg)s 1 J'bg ,>>4u,g.!~>(((g+"~4>>-+u I I>'J r ((~4'tu>>+8>)f-()(Ik&b)41, i jjpptt'jt'-'-})>>)rrr,'4~;eQ$f.'I 6 I'i a.'Jgg i.: ',y J~i (r>>,>>8>*>>r>r>>>41 s+J YP is'./@+I".'r$8'j',:, (>>J(fi'gQ>'-
&No.)2-8B-I (o)NO.l>)-BB-4 (b)..No.l2-6B-3 (c,), FIG.7,-TYPICAL COLUMN FAILURES-These findings confirm the previously
reported observatio'n
that the column strengthof
the concrete placed in the lower half of columns is Increased;proba~
bly by the'improved
compaction
afforded when the upper half is cast.Similar-ly, the'column
strength of the concrete placed in the upper half may decrease somewhat by water gairi from below.To evaluate effects of bundling, there-fore, measuredultlmate
loads were compared to calculated
values based on the average cylinder strength for the top and bottom batches for each column.The two spliced columns 12-8B-4 and 12-6B-4 which had I/4'n.clear be-tween bars at the splice, failed in the-splice
region at mid-height
as shown in Fig.'r(b).~~Effect of Bundling.-
The ratios between measured and calculated
ultimate load given in TabIe 2 exceed one (1)for all except two columns.'ll'hits confirms previous findings that led to the ACI column investigation
equation.j
t i')'lJ">8 r+>'.r.~>'t.~~i Yield point or steel~.r~>>>>>l'lr r>6~.I>>>j 9~~4 J"J~J'~600 JC 8 2 400 J+)2.88-2 (t>(ts at 6 in 12-8 (ties at 8.1 12 ln.)\)2-88-3'spliced bep t()ucrjnd)
)2-88.4''~(spdced bars$ln.clear),>200 12-8S (spaced bars)12-8S 0.001 J~J~~J J 0 Total column shor>ann>d.
)2-88.4''~(spdced bars$ln.clear),>200 12-8S (spaced bars)12-8S 0.001 J~J~~J J 0 Total column shor>ann>d.
ih incttespei~
ih incttespei~
FIG.8.-LOAD-SHORTENING
FIG.8.-LOAD-SHORTENING CURVES FOR COLUMNS\'"~, J The load ratios of columns 12-6B-1 and 12-8Bn2 jr(ere 1.03 and 1.04 r ypectively as cpmpared to a value of 1.04 for column 12-68 that had convention-ally spaced Iprs.Fpr 3.6'l%longitudinal reinforpen)*ents,.
CURVES FOR COLUMNS\'"~, J The load ratios of columns 12-6B-1 and 12-8Bn2 jr(ere 1.03 and 1.04 r ypectively
therefore, no detri-mental j)feet of btmdling was found regardless oftie spacing..,-.For the columns with 6.58%reinforcement, which(eltpceds,the maximum value of 4%given by ACI 318-56, 1104(a), the 12-in.tie spacing of column 12-8B-1 led to a load ratio of 0.94 as compared to 1.09 for column 12-88 with spaced bars.By reducing the tie'spa'cing to 6 ln:"for column 12-8B-2, the load ratio increased to 1.00.Furthermore, column 12-8B-3, which had a 6-in.tie-spacing andufailed above the splice, had a load ratio of'1:04.'-Therefore; even for 6.68%reinforcement, no detrimental>
as cpmpared to a value of 1.04 for column 12-68 that had convention-
effect of bundlingl))as found when the tie spacing for'bundle'd bars was reduced" tb 6(in."which is>>eslual'to 24'tie-'iameters, or-one"-half of'the least dimension-of the'column.
ally spaced Iprs.Fpr 3.6'l%longitudinal
>"-'undling:did not" significantly affect'-the'relatk4sliipr between applied load and'column'(ihorte)iing.-
reinforpen)*ents,.
Thlhris"shuwrilforthe'dollimtis'4th'No."8&Ps"fii(Fig.8:
therefore, no detri-mental j)feet of btmdling was found regardless
J r I I'l t II~
oftie spacing..,-.For the columns with 6.58%reinforcement, which(eltpceds,the
BUNDLING The results for the columns with No.6 bars indicated a similar lack of effect of bundling.Sp/fang.-Bundled reinforcement placed in the corners of a column section maybe spliced in the~me manner as single corner bars.The bars from be-low may be offset to a position inside the bars above the splice, and a proper amount of lap may then be provided.The bars may also be-butted and welded'n these testy, a splice particularly suitable for bundled bars yes explored.As shown in Fig.6 the splices of the three bundled corner bars were staggered a distance of five bar-diameters, and a fourth splice-bar, 35 bar-diameters long, was added at each corner.For columns 12-8B-3 the bars were cut by a saw, and each bar was touching its longitudinal extension.
maximum value of 4%given by ACI 318-56, 1104(a), the 12-in.tie spacing of column 12-8B-1 led to a load ratio of 0.94 as compared to 1.09 for column 12-88 with spaced bars.By reducing the tie'spa'cing
The contact was not perfect and after testing, a mortar layer 1/32 in.to 1/16 fn.thick was found between the bars.Both of these columns failed outside the splice, and the measuredultimate loads exceeded the computed values by 4%and 16@, respec-tively.To simulate less accurate manufacture of reinforcement, the bars of col-umns 12-8B-4 and 12-6B-4 were cut at the splice by a hydraulic bar cutter with 60 cutting edges.The bar ends were wedge-shaped by the cutting to an angle of 90, and a clear distance of 1/4 in.was provided between the bars when the reinforcing cages were tied.Both columns failed at mid-height in the splice.However, in spite of the unfavorable conditions for a direct stress transfer be-tween bars in the longitudinal direction, the No.6 bar column developed an ultimate strength 5%over the computed value.The ultimate strength of the No.8 bar column was only 6%below the computed value.As shown for the No.8 bar columns in Fig.8, the splicedid not significantly change the relation-ship between load and column shortening.
to 6 ln:"for column 12-8B-2, the load ratio increased to 1.00.Furthermore, column 12-8B-3, which had a 6-in.tie-spacing andufailed
It was planned in subsequent tests to strengthen the splice by longitudinal welds between the four bars at each splice.Even without welds, however, three out of four spliced columns developed an ultimate strength in excess of the computed values.It is obvious that the strength of splices with longitudinal welds would exceed that of the three bars outside the weld.Therefore, no columns with welded splices were made.It is believed that the short lap used in the splices did not suffice to trans-fer stress by bond.The mortar between meeting bar ends was probably sub-jected to a triaxial stateof stress so that acompressive strength far inexcess of the cylinder strength could be developed.
above the splice, had a load ratio of'1:04.'-Therefore;
To assure that the longitudinal bars do not buckle in the splice, the reduced tie-spacing used in the tests, twenty-four tie-diameters or one-half the column dimension, may be neces-sary.If a splice of the type studied is used in eccentrically loaded columns so that tensile stress may be developed in the longitudinal bars,'the mortar be-tween bars cannot be expected to transfer stress and welds, or a longer lap, are obviously necessary.'>
even for 6.68%reinforcement, no detrimental>
HADLEY ON BUNDLING 905 for spaced bars, 3.Each bar in a bundle is a deformed bar and is individually well anchored, and 4.Stirrup reinforcement ls provided"in regions of high bond stress.Bundling of compression reinforcement in tfed columns can also be used even for high ratios of longitudinal reinforcement, if the'provisions of ACI 318-56 regarding other details are strictly complied wfth.For large amounts of longitudinal bundled reinforcement, it is advisable to reduce the maximum tie-spacing to about one half of that given by the ACI Building Code.Because bundling of refnforcementwas found to be saf'e in tests involving the extreme cases of bending alone and compression alone, bundling should also be satisfactory for members subject to combined bending and axfal load.APPENDIX.-NOTATION The following symbols, adapted for use in the'paper and for the guidance of discussers, conform essentially with"American Standard Letter Symbols for StructuralAnalysis" (ASA A10.8-1949), prepared bya committeeof theAmeri-can Stanthrds Associatfon with Society representation, and'approved by the Association in 1949: Ag=Gross area of section;As=Area of tensile reinforcement; As=Area of compressive reinforcement; AST=Total area of longitudinal reinforcement; d=Distance from extreme compressive fiber,.to centroid of tensile rein-forcement; d'Distance from extreme compressive fiber to centrqfd of compressive reinforcement; 4 fy=Yield point of reinforcement not to exceed 60,000 psl;I fc=Concrete cylinder strength of test specimen;As/bd p'At/bd;and k q (pfy)/fc.CONCLUDING REMARKS The test results reported confirm the previous findings that the use ofbun-dled reinforcement is a sound detailing procedure.
effect of bundlingl))as found when the tie spacing for'bundle'd
It can be expected that bundling of tension reinforcement in beams will not lead to,detrimental conse-quences as compared to spaced bars, for the following conditions:
bars was reduced" tb 6(in."which
1.Thery are not more than four touching bars in each bundle, 2, Bong stress computed on the basis of external bar perfmeter fs limited tp the vafuqs now permitted DISCUSSION HOMER JN.HADLEY, F.ASCE.-The writer'was pleased to read this 11 paper on the'testing of bundled reinforcement fn both beams a'nd columns." On>>Cons.Engr., Seattle, Wash.  
is>>eslual'to
\I'I>~F r jj l t 906 HADLEY ON BUNDLING HADLEY ON BUNDLING numerous occasions, he has found bundling highly advantageous in beams par-ticularly in precast channel-shaped concrete sections for short-span bridge decks, for which A, C.L or AASHO bar spacing is peculiarly ill-adapted.
24'tie-'iameters, or-one"-half
There are probably several hundredof such short spans-16-ft-to-30-ft long and ten or fewer years old-installed and in service in various parts of the state of Washington.
of'the least dimension-of
These have been made,wifh four bundled bars in each leg of the channel.The bar size depends on the span.length, with single-be stirrups looped around the bundle at the bottom.The stems of the channel webs are usually given a 6-in.bottom thickness, with a 7-in.top thickness at the under-side of the slab.These over-all web thicknesses, except inthe case of theouter curb units, are initially reduced to approximately 4 in.by notcldng with a 2-in.plankon their outer faces.Thenotchstarts approximately 6 in.above the bottom of the stem.When the units are placed aide by side, these notched spaces, and any additional spaces are filled with concrete and thereafter there is full cover of the bundle everywhere.
the'column.
There have been a few such small bridges on Federal Aid projects.After quite a number of small county bridges had been successfully installed, per-mission was granted on a project having twenty-eight ft trestly spans to use the precast units with four bar bundled reinforcement in, each web.This pro-ject was likewise successfully installed and 4 the best of the writer's know-ledge has proven entirely satisfactjry.
>"-'undling:did
Unfortunately', an engin'eer from Wash-ington, D.C.visited the project during construction and voiced some misgivings about bundling.This brought ona local reactionof rejectionto'thepractice'a'nd permission to bundle reinforcement was withdrawn for several years, lt is the writer's understanding that currently three bars may be bundled on local Fed-eral Aid projects but not four bars.He is unable to explain the rationale of this ruling.The California Highway Department has bundled four bars'on Federal Aid prospects since 1949 and continues to do so;.Not mentioned by theauthors among thenuqed advantages of bundlingis the fact that it affords opportunity for having the quantity of beam reinforcement conform roughly with the moment diagram, by stopping unneeded steel areas somewhere near the points at which they become unneeded.In these days of high-priced reinforcement, such savings can total a considerable sum.The original use of 1/2 in.square bars fn contrast with 1-in.square bars was in demonstration of this fact.In the beam with the single 1-in',-'square bar, that bar had to run through from end to end of-the.beam;.whereas with.the bundled four 1/2-in.square bars only two of them carried through from end to end, and slightly offset longitudinally in the beam, provided as much eHective bond area as the 1-in.-square bar offered.li The authors state in their conclusion that'bundling of tension reinforce-ment in beams will not lead to deterimental consequences as compared to spaced bars for the following conditions:
not" significantly
1.There must not be more than four, touch-ing bars in each bundle;2.Bond stress computed on the basis of external bar perimeter must be limited to the values,now permitted for spaced bars..." Strictly limited to their test findings these statements are correct.However, attention should be drawn to the fact that they did not test five or six bars in a bundle and that there is nothing to be found in these tests to indicate or imply that a larger number of bars should not be bundled if that is desirable.
affect'-the'relatk4sliipr
The writer has used stx No.10 bars in a bundle, stacked 1-2-3 from top down in one bridge in beamy of 9 in.width, and 2-2-2 from top doggy qyeqond bridge in beams of the same 9 in.width., No,ill;effect haye pen,;qbspzyed, In the latter case the twovertical tiers were not incontact with oneanother but there was considerably less than orthodox spacing between the tiers.In the writer's mind it has been the long-held and continued concept that if the bars in a large bundle are successively well anchored in the concrete at their ends, so that they can develop their designed stress at these ends, it then matters little how much or how little bond they have between these terminal zones.It is at these endzones thatanchorage is indeed vital.The intermediate concrete is simply fireproofing or weatherproofing.
between applied load and'column'(ihorte)iing.-
With a dozen bars in a bundle, withgood plastic concrete and with vibration, the fines of the mortar will penetrate and fill the interstitial spaces of the bundle and afford all needed protection.
Thlhris"shuwrilforthe'dollimtis'4th'No."8&Ps"fii(Fig.8:  
J r I I'l t II~  
BUNDLING The results for the columns with No.6 bars indicated a similar lack of effect of bundling.Sp/fang.-Bundled
reinforcement
placed in the corners of a column section maybe spliced in the~me manner as single corner bars.The bars from be-low may be offset to a position inside the bars above the splice, and a proper amount of lap may then be provided.The bars may also be-butted and welded'n these testy, a splice particularly
suitable for bundled bars yes explored.As shown in Fig.6 the splices of the three bundled corner bars were staggered a distance of five bar-diameters, and a fourth splice-bar, 35 bar-diameters
long, was added at each corner.For columns 12-8B-3 the bars were cut by a saw, and each bar was touching its longitudinal
extension.
The contact was not perfect and after testing, a mortar layer 1/32 in.to 1/16 fn.thick was found between the bars.Both of these columns failed outside the splice, and the measuredultimate
loads exceeded the computed values by 4%and 16@, respec-tively.To simulate less accurate manufacture
of reinforcement, the bars of col-umns 12-8B-4 and 12-6B-4 were cut at the splice by a hydraulic bar cutter with 60 cutting edges.The bar ends were wedge-shaped
by the cutting to an angle of 90, and a clear distance of 1/4 in.was provided between the bars when the reinforcing
cages were tied.Both columns failed at mid-height
in the splice.However, in spite of the unfavorable
conditions
for a direct stress transfer be-tween bars in the longitudinal
direction, the No.6 bar column developed an ultimate strength 5%over the computed value.The ultimate strength of the No.8 bar column was only 6%below the computed value.As shown for the No.8 bar columns in Fig.8, the splicedid not significantly
change the relation-ship between load and column shortening.
It was planned in subsequent
tests to strengthen
the splice by longitudinal
welds between the four bars at each splice.Even without welds, however, three out of four spliced columns developed an ultimate strength in excess of the computed values.It is obvious that the strength of splices with longitudinal
welds would exceed that of the three bars outside the weld.Therefore, no columns with welded splices were made.It is believed that the short lap used in the splices did not suffice to trans-fer stress by bond.The mortar between meeting bar ends was probably sub-jected to a triaxial stateof stress so that acompressive
strength far inexcess of the cylinder strength could be developed.
To assure that the longitudinal
bars do not buckle in the splice, the reduced tie-spacing
used in the tests, twenty-four
tie-diameters
or one-half the column dimension, may be neces-sary.If a splice of the type studied is used in eccentrically
loaded columns so that tensile stress may be developed in the longitudinal
bars,'the mortar be-tween bars cannot be expected to transfer stress and welds, or a longer lap, are obviously necessary.'>
HADLEY ON BUNDLING 905 for spaced bars, 3.Each bar in a bundle is a deformed bar and is individually
well anchored, and 4.Stirrup reinforcement
ls provided"in
regions of high bond stress.Bundling of compression
reinforcement
in tfed columns can also be used even for high ratios of longitudinal
reinforcement, if the'provisions
of ACI 318-56 regarding other details are strictly complied wfth.For large amounts of longitudinal
bundled reinforcement, it is advisable to reduce the maximum tie-spacing
to about one half of that given by the ACI Building Code.Because bundling of refnforcementwas
found to be saf'e in tests involving the extreme cases of bending alone and compression
alone, bundling should also be satisfactory
for members subject to combined bending and axfal load.APPENDIX.-NOTATION
The following symbols, adapted for use in the'paper and for the guidance of discussers, conform essentially
with"American Standard Letter Symbols for StructuralAnalysis" (ASA A10.8-1949), prepared bya committeeof
theAmeri-can Stanthrds Associatfon
with Society representation, and'approved
by the Association
in 1949: Ag=Gross area of section;As=Area of tensile reinforcement;
As=Area of compressive
reinforcement;
AST=Total area of longitudinal
reinforcement;
d=Distance from extreme compressive
fiber,.to centroid of tensile rein-forcement;
d'Distance
from extreme compressive
fiber to centrqfd of compressive
reinforcement;
4 fy=Yield point of reinforcement
not to exceed 60,000 psl;I fc=Concrete cylinder strength of test specimen;As/bd p'At/bd;and
k q (pfy)/fc.CONCLUDING
REMARKS The test results reported confirm the previous findings that the use ofbun-dled reinforcement
is a sound detailing procedure.
It can be expected that bundling of tension reinforcement
in beams will not lead to,detrimental
conse-quences as compared to spaced bars, for the following conditions:
1.Thery are not more than four touching bars in each bundle, 2, Bong stress computed on the basis of external bar perfmeter fs limited tp the vafuqs now permitted DISCUSSION
HOMER JN.HADLEY, F.ASCE.-The writer'was
pleased to read this 11 paper on the'testing
of bundled reinforcement
fn both beams a'nd columns." On>>Cons.Engr., Seattle, Wash.  
\I'I>~F r jj l t  
906 HADLEY ON BUNDLING HADLEY ON BUNDLING numerous occasions, he has found bundling highly advantageous
in beams par-ticularly in precast channel-shaped
concrete sections for short-span
bridge decks, for which A, C.L or AASHO bar spacing is peculiarly
ill-adapted.
There are probably several hundredof such short spans-16-ft-to-30-ft
long and ten or fewer years old-installed and in service in various parts of the state of Washington.
These have been made,wifh four bundled bars in each leg of the channel.The bar size depends on the span.length, with single-be stirrups looped around the bundle at the bottom.The stems of the channel webs are usually given a 6-in.bottom thickness, with a 7-in.top thickness at the under-side of the slab.These over-all web thicknesses, except inthe case of theouter curb units, are initially reduced to approximately
4 in.by notcldng with a 2-in.plankon their outer faces.Thenotchstarts
approximately
6 in.above the bottom of the stem.When the units are placed aide by side, these notched spaces, and any additional
spaces are filled with concrete and thereafter
there is full cover of the bundle everywhere.
There have been a few such small bridges on Federal Aid projects.After quite a number of small county bridges had been successfully
installed, per-mission was granted on a project having twenty-eight
ft trestly spans to use the precast units with four bar bundled reinforcement
in, each web.This pro-ject was likewise successfully
installed and 4 the best of the writer's know-ledge has proven entirely satisfactjry.
Unfortunately', an engin'eer from Wash-ington, D.C.visited the project during construction
and voiced some misgivings
about bundling.This brought ona local reactionof
rejectionto'thepractice'a'nd
permission
to bundle reinforcement
was withdrawn for several years, lt is the writer's understanding
that currently three bars may be bundled on local Fed-eral Aid projects but not four bars.He is unable to explain the rationale of this ruling.The California
Highway Department
has bundled four bars'on Federal Aid prospects since 1949 and continues to do so;.Not mentioned by theauthors
among thenuqed advantages
of bundlingis
the fact that it affords opportunity
for having the quantity of beam reinforcement
conform roughly with the moment diagram, by stopping unneeded steel areas somewhere near the points at which they become unneeded.In these days of high-priced
reinforcement, such savings can total a considerable
sum.The original use of 1/2 in.square bars fn contrast with 1-in.square bars was in demonstration
of this fact.In the beam with the single 1-in',-'square
bar, that bar had to run through from end to end of-the.beam;.whereas with.the bundled four 1/2-in.square bars only two of them carried through from end to end, and slightly offset longitudinally
in the beam, provided as much eHective bond area as the 1-in.-square
bar offered.li The authors state in their conclusion
that'bundling of tension reinforce-
ment in beams will not lead to deterimental
consequences
as compared to spaced bars for the following conditions:
1.There must not be more than four, touch-ing bars in each bundle;2.Bond stress computed on the basis of external bar perimeter must be limited to the values,now
permitted for spaced bars..." Strictly limited to their test findings these statements
are correct.However, attention should be drawn to the fact that they did not test five or six bars in a bundle and that there is nothing to be found in these tests to indicate or imply that a larger number of bars should not be bundled if that is desirable.
The writer has used stx No.10 bars in a bundle, stacked 1-2-3 from top down in one bridge in beamy of 9 in.width, and 2-2-2 from top doggy qyeqond bridge in beams of the same 9 in.width., No,ill;effect
haye pen,;qbspzyed, In the latter case the twovertical
tiers were not incontact with oneanother
but there was considerably
less than orthodox spacing between the tiers.In the writer's mind it has been the long-held and continued concept that if the bars in a large bundle are successively
well anchored in the concrete at their ends, so that they can develop their designed stress at these ends, it then matters little how much or how little bond they have between these terminal zones.It is at these endzones thatanchorage
is indeed vital.The intermediate
concrete is simply fireproofing
or weatherproofing.
With a dozen bars in a bundle, withgood plastic concrete and with vibration, the fines of the mortar will penetrate and fill the interstitial
spaces of the bundle and afford all needed protection.
But the dozen bars must be well anchored at their several ends.About that necessity there must be no misunderstanding.
But the dozen bars must be well anchored at their several ends.About that necessity there must be no misunderstanding.
The writer is particularly
The writer is particularly pleased to see bundling applied to columns, where it will unquestionably effect marked improvement in economy and quality.The-contrasting column cross-sections in Fig.6 convincingly show this, The authors and whoever elseparticipated in this development are to be congratulated u n its excellence.
pleased to see bundling applied to columns, where it will unquestionably
j 4 l I l ll d I I ab@1 II'I e e e V/.0.No.Drawing N.Sy Title PO-0 3 Q BURNS AND ROE.lNO.o..l'"~s..sH.J'ale.No.C~d 4 Approved d2'-r Pr'Page No.Sheet~et nzet/Pr zfri'~AAzX~+Sriar Ps////Eric/prZ/c'sr
effect marked improvement
/g/CrCWCX,+/+r jPZJC~/QCpyrr///SuN S~Er//ere'4
in economy and quality.The-contrasting
~45-Jr~CJre JAeeJ-84 Y~(g Pre jp JggfcA/~T Jgocsz///cg~tct wag j~z//dgpJ, (gee J"/te-7/P) orle'cd';/7'oxggggl~yt
column cross-sections
~~gdrJ gf 7/h~rrc-'~~ra>~/o/Vs.-J'eP rn~/,/jc P/wc<E~j gj'/C/erOt/"/PAL/dr l><r~u/o a-'C Worl/Co//inc rl/,+e Cr/OCCn~P: 47r'-'o~d/-'O"~e A'r Wider'r"~porc'~Z/"C///PWZP~g er~d<J CZ/r/~or Zn guP/ig+get@'rc/ssg tf-74" 7 roooA'u 8roJ//c~AcuDri i'77O jOV'/Z'O//~4~/r Cfcf P O Ce/Wi/Plr//j/rd'/yncg~rl/<~i~j
in Fig.6 convincingly
/~u/c~c g~,/did~gJ~g~/%4 e/tr//e/C j>f Jg//~>>~c/VCgux~~~e>ddo'V r j~glluorig+
show this, The authors and whoever elseparticipated
d/u/jci/v ltd/I.nor/Yiu/-'"'k c)/'~~/i n.~ggcoi f/4/o/felrrerifJ par OgcP 4'VCR Ct+//c'ndiekar Ji'Iles'O/
in this development
are to be congratulated
u n its excellence.  
j 4 l I l ll d I I ab@1 II'I  
e e e V/.0.No.Drawing N.Sy Title PO-0 3 Q BURNS AND ROE.lNO.o..l'"~s..sH.J'ale.No.C~d 4 Approved d2'-r Pr'Page No.Sheet~et nzet/Pr zfri'~AAzX~+Sriar
Ps////Eric/prZ/c'sr
/g/CrCWCX,+/+r
jPZJC~/QCpyrr///SuN S~Er//ere'4
~45-Jr~CJre JAeeJ-84 Y~(g Pre jp JggfcA/~T Jgocsz///cg~tct wag j~z//dgpJ, (gee J"/te-7/P)
orle'cd';/7'oxggggl~yt
~~gdrJ gf 7/h~rrc-'~~ra>~/o/Vs.-J'eP rn~/,/jc P/wc<E~j gj'/C/erOt/"/PAL/dr l><r~u/o a-'C Worl/Co//inc rl/,+e Cr/OCCn~P: 47r'-'o~d/-'O"~e A'r Wider'r"~porc'~Z/"C///PWZP~g er~d<J CZ/r/~or Zn guP/ig+get@'rc/ssg
tf-74" 7 roooA'u 8roJ//c~AcuDri i'77O jOV'/Z'O//~4~/r
Cfcf P O Ce/Wi/Plr//j/rd'/yncg~rl/<~i~j
/~u/c~c g~,/did~gJ~g~/%4 e/tr//e/C j>f Jg//~>>~c/VCgux~~~e>ddo'V
r j~glluorig+
d/u/jci/v ltd/I.nor/Yiu/-'"'k c)/'~~/i n.~ggcoi f/4/o/felrrerifJ
par OgcP 4'VCR Ct+//c'ndiekar
Ji'Iles'O/
/d')pc'P/o/rcu(R/
/d')pc'P/o/rcu(R/
74 vr/P44g IJ'Ji le)d/ra.wo/co//fru//ri/r
74 vr/P44g IJ'Ji le)d/ra.wo/co//fru//ri/r g+67+cojgclrl
g+67+cojgclrl
/D~lWg f'cA ht//Cce&//O/PI cd/t/fag"J/+JJ 4n/O, t/~j QrH//cv A/I biz-.7i)r c'" 7, z;.//n rc/o~g Q/~zc,ny-.4'c/vc/y
/D~lWg f'cA ht//Cce&//O/PI cd/t/fag"J/+JJ 4n/O, t/~j QrH//cv A/I biz-.7i)r c'" 7, z;.//n rc/o~g Q/~zc,ny-.4'c/vc/y
/p//ere 4~rp/gxl+g~ctctpp~//e
/p//ere 4~rp/gxl+g~ctctpp~//e M vcJJ'n e 8</" rJ c/jrcr4gK/id'$ye o.s dg z4u I peoi t.o/y~lj k/"zgurrclrrc z.'ses..Z,, Z/rrc/ppeor c s'/j/cc rp e/8c/rz 4/"c/o.z rcc//wigi$c/f~/rrvc r//enny<, p//earl~//riled
M vcJJ'n e 8</" rJ c/jrcr4gK/id'$ye o.s dg z4u I peoi t.o/y~lj k/"zgurrclrrc
~rcypuuyr~gi or Cur/gp/li p//Ay)seee sssees.'ATTACHMENT 3  
z.'ses..Z,, Z/rrc/ppeor c s'/j/cc rp e/8c/rz 4/"c/o.z rcc//wigi$c/f~/rrvc r//enny<, p//earl~//riled
~rcypuuyr~gi
or Cur/gp/li p//Ay)seee sssees.'ATTACHMENT
3  
~I I I V/.0.No.Drawing N.By Title dO~03 BURNS AND ROE,,INC.Date/+Book No.J~4 Gale.No.J7 Ch ed App oved c'age No.Sheets~of/v~//~/~-'crrui'g//c/'k~J/l~~
~I I I V/.0.No.Drawing N.By Title dO~03 BURNS AND ROE,,INC.Date/+Book No.J~4 Gale.No.J7 Ch ed App oved c'age No.Sheets~of/v~//~/~-'crrui'g//c/'k~J/l~~
/4 t~gJ~/qc ada'c wg/I z/-c c"/~//-8'plica-pp=/zJa3 oner///un:
/4 t~gJ~/qc ada'c wg/I z/-c c"/~//-8'plica-pp=/zJa3 oner///un:
Jyyr'c c/pz///,///n/<caT//-cJ4c'p c+4/J/c jib.c~c-W~/4~Ferrite~///f/t t uA PiJ+gal~+HAJJ~/~~=/13 g)'Ws/~i//g~jlc<//dCcc/kb'/~
Jyyr'c c/pz///,///n/<caT//-cJ4c'p c+4/J/c jib.c~c-W~/4~Ferrite~///f/t t uA PiJ+gal~+HAJJ~/~~=/13 g)'Ws/~i//g~jlc<//dCcc/kb'/~
uc H~/-+CJXII 7-/~cud'c~/c~/i~~i'.c.
uc H~/-+CJXII 7-/~cud'c~/c~/i~~i'.c.
r,~4 M>,z z'.age 7iIu~r~g~r/cu/.P/~x
r,~4 M>,z z'.age 7iIu~r~g~r/cu/.P/~x X~X>J<<ii~4 Ae~mrzrwccm pu~Qufcg rwlu~gtncig
X~X>J<<ii~4
Ae~mrzrwccm pu~Qufcg rwlu~gtncig
/Z/~Xi'>a Form BR 8002-2  
/Z/~Xi'>a Form BR 8002-2  
, l~~il~N.O.'etio.Graviing By Title Apltro ed BURNS AND ROE, INC./'ate/I~~Book No.Gale.No.Ch kd Sheet~of~'I SHIPp.g Dreretntt No.tty'8tte~~~BVRNS AND ROE, INC.ceceeccc, le J,~l4cerewt, cc, 7,~ere Angel~ccclt.0, Attrroored
, l~~il~N.O.'etio.Graviing By Title Apltro ed BURNS AND ROE, INC./'ate/I~~Book No.Gale.No.Ch kd Sheet~of~'I SHIPp.g Dreretntt No.tty'8tte~~~BVRNS AND ROE, INC.ceceeccc, le J,~l4cerewt, cc, 7,~ere Angel~ccclt.0, Attrroored
Line 1,169: Line 232:
A rtos'/S-7/
A rtos'/S-7/
-//.<fico'/c/~Ie-'.V>>~h''6S~Afr)/4+
-//.<fico'/c/~Ie-'.V>>~h''6S~Afr)/4+
rl Jew'eL I~8 (Q'W CC/NAOS,C E Mki/7/i/kac'C,C U>>'-C4>fan'" t/d r 2ig r/Zc'C~~/OP('crSa p~r tlCI'~%/gal)
rl Jew'eL I~8 (Q'W CC/NAOS,C E Mki/7/i/kac'C,C U>>'-C4>fan'" t/d r 2ig r/Zc'C~~/OP('crSa p~r tlCI'~%/gal) u'/C.>./ac/~!g-N)//./d4 li/D'OR/ZOrI r4L Sf'R EgZ~~CpgMW/Cttn
u'/C.>./ac/~!g-N)//./d4 li/D'OR/ZOrI
'r Ar>eCO~+uZSC) g.V..Ay (CP-ac)gS;P'//C))e72 XgPW Zk)Hr-cP<CX 4A'pSS'gecr.Ccr~c'Ace.>>w/g'aox5 VaerrC~~S ffa~~4~rW~Vr p'I r+g~)afar)1)PK OKSSC thee).~HCC'e:rI oPAS+Ct'5 g6'///C.4.x (/'crba J c (A et tr~~~1 I~~l t I~~~~~I:, l.'.J~l'  
r4L Sf'R EgZ~~CpgMW/Cttn
'r Ar>eCO~+uZSC)
g.V..Ay (CP-ac)gS;P'//C))e72 XgPW Zk)Hr-cP<CX 4A'pSS'gecr.Ccr~c'Ace.>>w/g'aox5 VaerrC~~S ffa~~4~rW~Vr p'I r+g~)afar)1)PK OKSSC thee).~HCC'e:rI oPAS+Ct'5 g6'///C.4.x (/'crba J c (A et tr~~~1 I~~l t I~~~~~I:, l.'.J~l'  
~I I~~I ,.i~I\: j6&cdcC'..~K-.:&g>>~/cP 7./"...dcujiun
~I I~~I ,.i~I\: j6&cdcC'..~K-.:&g>>~/cP 7./"...dcujiun
//4',6 l.: I.i}~~~~~~I fi n..//=.-.:-'.",::..'P~=.:>~vZc.~7''.u 0~a 0 1E~BURNS AND ROE, INC.h WO.No.+~+~Daaa d~<<r~Booh Na.O+~Pago No.Drevking lo.N ghaat0 Mof gy'~Ch k r ved Title r~~i~'n~~a/~~ar//p WAlzvr~v-/+~i I:: Pg jcreyPziu'~
//4',6 l.: I.i}~~~~~~I fi n..//=.-.:-'.",::..'P~=.:>~vZc.~7''.u 0~a 0 1E~BURNS AND ROE, INC.h WO.No.+~+~Daaa d~<<r~Booh Na.O+~Pago No.Drevking lo.N ghaat0 Mof gy'~Ch k r ved Title r~~i~'n~~a/~~ar//p WAlzvr~v-/+~i I:: Pg jcreyPziu'~
/~f<NiPr>>P"/YcfJ/~4g~PQ//a~L)~0,~.~a~~0 1'~1 k~gfiw~..//2Z a 0 L~O I 1~~g o tv'.,7 Spy (/Q~Pm F z,i A ZA'I~~~~~~~~~~~r~.~'~.1~~1 4 o~gPr~'~+/.-W aC'I~~~~'~~~~~~Form BR 8002.2~4~~~~00 0~~0 0~~~0~0~~~0~~~0~0~0 00  
/~f<NiPr>>P"/YcfJ/~4g~PQ//a~L)~0,~.~a~~0 1'~1 k~gfiw~..//2Z a 0 L~O I 1~~g o tv'.,7 Spy (/Q~Pm F z,i A ZA'I~~~~~~~~~~~r~.~'~.1~~1 4 o~gPr~'~+/.-W aC'I~~~~'~~~~~~Form BR 8002.2~4~~~~00 0~~0 0~~~0~0~~~0~~~0~0~0 00  
't~~~~Q Vf.Q.No.+Drmving By Itic o.~.~Gale.Nn.C ec Appr ed r I'UR S AND ROE, tNC.Boak No.27 Page No, Sheet~et..jill/CJfi shan A Jf~Zg~riuc 4/ilier, ccnrrnqfrj'-
't~~~~Q Vf.Q.No.+Drmving By Itic o.~.~Gale.Nn.C ec Appr ed r I'UR S AND ROE, tNC.Boak No.27 Page No, Sheet~et..jill/CJfi shan A Jf~Zg~riuc 4/ilier, ccnrrnqfrj'-
vr'l'ororg~lc
vr'l'ororg~lc f4.'~d"i~iJ' OA e/-o cr orno ro"'r.oorcr;.~W/o.or 4'77->a~/i 23Oy,lSC/f~~~e~~~e~w~A..~/CclCC',-'g7C Won-O'P>7'//Zor<)
f4.'~d"i~iJ'
occofrin'.'ec g 4Pjrlgo Zgr/7/'gc Z...,.../"/>J34',/', lt",d'dd,,'Pl rl.-7/:/>'7 O>l dt p~e: AGRIC.....
OA e/-o cr orno ro"'r.oorcr;.~W/o.or 4'77->a~/i 23Oy,lSC/f~~~e~~~e~w~A..~/CclCC',-'g7C Won-O'P>7'//Zor<)
occofrin'.'ec g 4Pjrlgo Zgr/7/'gc Z...,.../"/>J34',/', lt",d'dd,,'Pl
rl.-7/:/>'7 O>l dt p~e: AGRIC.....
X.:.:/1~54-//JKr/
X.:.:/1~54-//JKr/
g+7?-rrt7/:.:'Qg
g+7?-rrt7/:.:'Qg
(, d gP.:: '.,perry':
(, d gP.:: '.,perry':
Cr.>>:::"/op(f',.'7g~r<Jrp<Gal'lrj i oS d'+p~pizj~)..y~)/f~gi'..<.::::.:,/clr./Ig-/.7768'c
Cr.>>:::"/op(f',.'7g~r<Jrp<Gal'lrj i oS d'+p~pizj~)..y~)/f~gi'..<.::::.:,/clr./Ig-/.7768'c WzZ-,g7/...,..., 7 Z~'k lf't: Nl jS'Z;/c//Ir/<
WzZ-,g7/...,..., 7 Z~'k lf't: Nl jS'Z;/c//Ir/<
So/-f.7/7/7clo.(z0qQ c Jo)r t~~~~J~~~~~~~~''~t~~~~j., Crlotrilnfirlc..SJZcrrr".~~C.<o?/u=Z/da'Z~., l~~~e))>>w 4 j.'..0/c,"..',/~~Ac'4<@8'd@rAX~!ye".~d/<kJcXg4'".
So/-f.7/7/7clo.(z0qQ c Jo)r t~~~~J~~~~~~~~''~t~~~~j., Crlotrilnfirlc..SJZcrrr".~~C.<o?/u=Z/da'Z~., l~~~e))>>w 4 j.'..0/c,"..',/~~Ac'4<@8'd@rAX~!ye".~d/<kJcXg4'".
o P~ggrcrol/r
o P~ggrcrol/r Sg~i o.>/r.~gaerrm..
Sg~i o.>/r.~gaerrm..
//-ZZ H-oggcrzy'~7 cocr:.CgJZ.Z~.~.J/c'V,Z.p~qe
//-ZZ H-oggcrzy'~7
'.4Z...4ekrg cor V4r>c./.rrrtrcitrorl j':cg z boa&.J....='voo+PJ P.-r'oc"d.odor ocJ'c o>>-..7.'..ob Ac.g'cnr rr/rorL rlZ 8>zYzocrr~tdl<g.l<c/Pr cor.o.o rcrc>~inc', ug jfci'.,ltr/c govt.rn Z4 gq/crnrrr'eo/co ore Acr<erne rkrrim.>...:or.mc.,vt.ri.Marco/rocl
cocr:.CgJZ.Z~.~.J/c'V,Z.p~qe
//-gg err,C'O/rZ ocro~rl/8r coo"-.m+'A"...con/erg+~~/rorioni4p d~/wccrr.moorcC.r.use>ader.
'.4Z...4ekrg
cor V4r>c./.rrrtrcitrorl
j':cg z boa&.J....='voo+PJ
P.-r'oc"d.odor
ocJ'c o>>-..7.'..ob Ac.g'cnr rr/rorL rlZ 8>zYzocrr~tdl<g.l<c/Pr
cor.o.o rcrc>~inc', ug jfci'.,ltr/c
govt.rn Z4 gq/crnrrr'eo/co
ore Acr<erne rkrrim.>...:or.mc.,vt.ri.Marco/rocl
//-gg err,C'O/rZ
ocro~rl/8r coo"-.m+'A"...con/erg+~~/rorioni4p
d~/wccrr.moorcC.r.use>ader.
v/c.r e-pr/o/rrrrrrt
v/c.r e-pr/o/rrrrrrt
-5@87co>>..l/-Zz..or.J/rcodg, roti)/fr'crrrlui
-5@87co>>..l/-Zz..or.J/rcodg, roti)/fr'crrrlui
/I-3Z..gOVcNrlr, Pjc~'lcCg-'
/I-3Z..gOVcNrlr, Pjc~'lcCg-'
~For~OR 8002 2~~e~W  
~For~OR 8002 2~~e~W II~II IV 1 BURNS AND ROE, 1NC.tjtj.o.No.39 O O Data V at D Book No.Dr'awing'.
II~II IV 1  
BURNS AND ROE, 1NC.tjtj.o.No.39 O O Data V at D Book No.Dr'awing'.
IC.Nrt.By"<ch cd Title'-ggi jPxj~~.u Ngrr".':, j4 j~l jjUUjjjv PZUjt Q/J/.M~lic J jag Fjr~lg Jg~r Pgj Pago No, Shoat iaa ot---r j"/C Wlf t.'t e at~I Ij~~~~a~~a ar/NJ jg ahAZ r t~a~a~~:: g~.ji..i.(S~~Z~y8W33
IC.Nrt.By"<ch cd Title'-ggi jPxj~~.u Ngrr".':, j4 j~l jjUUjjjv PZUjt Q/J/.M~lic J jag Fjr~lg Jg~r Pgj Pago No, Shoat iaa ot---r j"/C Wlf t.'t e at~I Ij~~~~a~~a ar/NJ jg ahAZ r t~a~a~~:: g~.ji..i.(S~~Z~y8W33
'.'~a: Scrv~cs A (Conscruc/7i
'.'~a: Scrv~cs A (Conscruc/7i UO j.'j'j/cv~I\'C/: VZ/a--3 3 ja 32~UjcOato,~2C'g+S'C.~~,~a~,~r o a lg4wc OpCjsCCrg jf Ir5': (Cdj/isMvgfijc fjrjcc SS+fj j a~I~t~I'.t a~J a r: '-j@s-5~-: 3F 4/zan/73-.O'Z+z$0 Z~d r.a/tor j jjjait (wc/~su~)ttjjeta ot Jjrjt'ij jta L~r~" r~t I~I~I j iQ:~~~~~.izing-79'~~r a~~~a~gj j cr 4Cg!!i~Z>" gk.'~ai~/vor//~-Pcs 0~~~~~~~e~~~>>~~~~~0~o 0~~Form GA 8002.2 4~e~0~~~~~~~~\~~0~~  
UO j.'j'j/cv~I\'C/: VZ/a--3 3 ja 32~UjcOato,~2C'g+S'C.~~,~a~,~r o a lg4wc OpCjsCCrg jf Ir5': (Cdj/isMvgfijc
fjrjcc SS+fj j a~I~t~I'.t a~J a r: '-j@s-5~-: 3F 4/zan/73-.O'Z+z$0 Z~d r.a/tor j jjjait (wc/~su~)ttjjeta ot Jjrjt'ij jta L~r~" r~t I~I~I j iQ:~~~~~.izing-79'~~r a~~~a~gj j cr 4Cg!!i~Z>" gk.'~ai~/vor//~-Pcs 0~~~~~~~e~~~>>~~~~~0~o 0~~Form GA 8002.2 4~e~0~~~~~~~~\~~0~~  
.j gp)~~$.0.No.~POD 0 Drawing Noi By~Tile Date Calo.No hec ed Ap roved BURNS AND ROE)INC.Book No.C&#xc3;rlrz I e Page No.Sheet~>>f/pe///.-~C>cr chuck~c>>F Ezyccccr~~n
.j gp)~~$.0.No.~POD 0 Drawing Noi By~Tile Date Calo.No hec ed Ap roved BURNS AND ROE)INC.Book No.C&#xc3;rlrz I e Page No.Sheet~>>f/pe///.-~C>cr chuck~c>>F Ezyccccr~~n
&zP~ezwv z//7o)~J g/g gt~~v cp W/~7/s=8 Z, 77/g/Prc~cc.: Ci/cap ZP-'roe ICa/egg lY-zov/P~/yah.4 lF-ill g Rulc/Jcc//a/xgy
&zP~ezwv z//7o)~J g/g gt~~v cp W/~7/s=8 Z, 77/g/Prc~cc.: Ci/cap ZP-'roe ICa/egg lY-zov/P~/yah.4 lF-ill g Rulc/Jcc//a/xgy J/ceo g~/i/err 7o c'z/crzur Pre//Z=ag5 P 4 cretic~: Cz c 8>>Z4'Z7gp~c zs-)Cg 7'/h>Ar.P~J 7o c~Pri.-~Zji~o a+x'bP<Z7,774 XZ, 9yz, jAc'~r g~jjuciQ tu P~z7W~//=gp&'z-I'l,SC Z/dc jarA Qo+fd&n/J<("=I 7o~~z-fcg-cd/>Jo~" pc~>IS ,gg'ward zA+(kE~~~~cc, Pu/egg gP'XTp~pc wZ)zap'cc (d'~c Jg+)(z07)Y~-y xl>>Z+Wc-Soy)<Zo x>p/yq>>gg~110O" 4 all xf~~f+~oucdca/
J/ceo g~/i/err 7o c'z/crzur Pre//Z=ag5 P 4 cretic~: Cz c 8>>Z4'Z7gp~c zs-)Cg 7'/h>Ar.P~J
=+jcufz=g x',g6=>zz i-;57<cSX J~o'clare darS I PZ-O.pg (O,X+7 Z>I Z FOtm BR 8002.2 0~J lj  
7o c~Pri.-~Zji~o a+x'bP<Z7,774 XZ, 9yz, jAc'~r g~jjuciQ tu P~z7W~//=gp&'z-I'l,SC Z/dc jarA Qo+fd&n/J<("=I 7o~~z-fcg-
~e C.BURNS AND ROE, tNC.., Q!'g.C', i'to'.4 Cgte~+agate No.+~~Page Ma.Growing o Cole.Na.gtteet~at~ra ,.By r h k~prov.'itle r..-'r/z~pr i r o r~<~a~floor."/~~/rr~~~rrC%7-re I:\a\~~a~~~\.,~.j%rc.ni'iform 2Nj J"-7 Z tfcifin JZd dS~aS j+c,..8 vizonfi/~4cC r devi ur":j~g8.@Pc Aciv//!~g//rrr d4/>>&#x17d;8/gttg HA'c/icdd/
cd/>Jo~" pc~>IS ,gg'ward zA+(kE~~~~cc, Pu/egg gP'XTp~pc wZ)zap'cc (d'~c Jg+)(z07)Y~-y xl>>Z+Wc-Soy)<Zo x>p/yq>>gg~110O" 4 all xf~~f+~oucdca/
=+jcufz=g x',g6=>zz i-;57<cSX J~o'clare darS I PZ-O.pg (O,X+7 Z>I Z FOtm BR 8002.2  
0~J lj  
~e C.BURNS AND ROE, tNC.., Q!'g.C', i'to'.4 Cgte~+agate No.+~~Page Ma.Growing o Cole.Na.gtteet~at~ra ,.By r h k~prov.'itle r..-'r/z~pr i r o r~<~a~floor."/~~/rr~~~rrC%7-re
I:\a\~~a~~~\.,~.j%rc.ni'iform 2Nj J"-7 Z tfcifin JZd dS~aS j+c,..8 vizonfi/~4cC r devi ur":j~g8.@Pc Aciv//!~g//rrr d4/>>&#x17d;8/gttg HA'c/icdd/
P4//gd'+C//WrO....,:..::
P4//gd'+C//WrO....,:..::
<a'c<ac~f r~J.conPi<j pcs/P~><>j'i ns>rcP<c erst>:~'oiri7 aP...e cc(~ion rrz-'rc"c Wg ecPrsiZr inc.elr~g'P~Sd//<4'crt
<a'c<ac~f r~J.conPi<j pcs/P~><>j'i ns>rcP<c erst>:~'oiri7 aP...e cc(~ion rrz-'rc"c Wg ecPrsiZr inc.elr~g'P~Sd//<4'crt re//d dgng MP at v/dp 3certt~c/col/a.:.:-.goZ-'Z>~'!
re//d dgng MP at v/dp 3certt~c/col/a.:.:-.goZ-'Z>~'!
Agchc~P~c(gers j~rcro p 4c'vwcr7/~~>'no
Agchc~P~c(gers j~rcro p 4c'vwcr7/~~>'no
,:.pgvrjpg A~oc rcr(c//4 6d'd f dd c1ogF oov7<u wo//cmz.vryno'err,jn~
,:.pgvrjpg A~oc rcr(c//4 6d'd f dd c1ogF oov7<u wo//cmz.vryno'err,jn~
gp gc Spore psucr%j,::-:ab~@.C<i5
gp gc Spore psucr%j,::-:ab~@.C<i5 C S'g~W 8/e/~7itt rg>d4g.rtrr+/nfl~.rubric'~
C S'g~W 8/e/~7itt rg>d4g.rtrr+/nfl~.rubric'~
rp~S~neccrq..rr!rr C urer'rri7::..-::;</eeg n.~W Z-Z~-'Zg<"~+~
rp~S~neccrq..rr!rr C urer'rri7::..-::;</eeg n.~W Z-Z~-'Zg<"~+~
io c~rczc77p<
io c~rczc77p<
~dec~~~r/iuvt~orr7rs./
~dec~~~r/iuvt~orr7rs./
Hive)roo/4g/l gegz rfcjv;iir:-(~-
Hive)roo/4g/l gegz rfcjv;iir:-(~-
p9cc2:-'-':.+ri@VS+I'&rC-Mge(rOOJWg(//gggrSfr
p9cc2:-'-':.+ri@VS+I'&rC-Mge(rOOJWg(//gggrSfr irO/7>~'poS~r.r/rg cs'cto pgPrpdzgArv
irO/7>~'poS~r.r/rg cs'cto pgPrpdzgArv
/<jr gg jgu/qlccn retd eig~g./ic p ized et ji (-/"c/Aorcrrr-jrr.-':-, ay//rw~sci~rP rr~.~ivrr Wee-'4 ri WZ~~e/='pi c+i.rppcv ylzcj~rrp pc~/A'd<g He~evi.>.-~J a6O<<...79iJ+jul@flu./ah>S/'nI 75 Werc/~C.VW
/<jr gg jgu/qlccn retd eig~g./ic p ized et ji (-/"c/Aorcrrr-
~c'l'4r u"Q'crt/rr Wc~r'Ccrgryl wee sv'd'd''~>~/oc<Z ore gov ops'(rcc/rhea rrrupprgcl hd'f'gp rcpt i7/cg~S vcricr.rrr o r c')ccz c~rc<g7 rro..-'-Crrfc uov'&-, j4 nx 8 ue Drs>rrrc'71~>
jrr.-':-, ay//rw~sci~rP rr~.~ivrr Wee-'4 ri WZ~~e/='pi
JccfAo ZZo>dig 7 rb7crrcg/e Igi AY@-/~r~icm..%is wo/I dcev resn Pcs''gy J"$<rsrn err gee'........
c+i.rppcv ylzcj~rrp pc~/A'd<g He~evi.>.-~J
A eh~Xicclj/~)rr'(d cwWJrv~gi,~~1~e~Ae oa a form SA 800M P~~~a~g~~~~~~a~~1  
a6O<<...79iJ+jul@flu./ah>S/'nI 75 Werc/~C.VW
 
~c'l'4r u"Q'crt/rr Wc~r'Ccrgryl
0 Oh VM~hp Oy~oo C~~I>>TO 0 4 04~~4bh+ICI 1 LAYClte'I CA>>LAYCR ov 00 tll 4Y OCC LICC4.Oil>>4~IA>>CQ LTD.)~II 8 9'~0~I.v~at 000~0 00>>0~q>.0>>0~Q~Q J~0>>r.l et I'.~<<e+>>~~I'VOL 41JORL4L&tl t COO,Ct 4'IO t tLTCot O'b llCtOItO.aCC CT>>Cr>>0>>$&#x17d;oo~0 D<l,bt>>c erat)/r gn~tg Tt AYCRS I5'7 II CS.LI Y" IL nh LAYCIts~Ilsgv t CA, I A'YCIL~2 II~i t CLA>cps$H IICX.LA'tCC Clttito~p(p~'I I!0~00 0~00~n gn a'A 0 C 0 J$fl~v 0 p4>>+II 4 LAYCILS 4 Ch.LXYCC$II'K~1 Ttl toll C l 4)olg~~~~~~~~~'o~:,4 I4~I>>~~Cplbo 14~v oo~oooo>>~oooo>>oooo>>
wee sv'd'd''~>~/oc<Z ore gov ops'(rcc/rhea rrrupprgcl
J~]"$I~COI Ll MJ.I~M lttIN!~LIOT etOOtNH'SCC D+4'o 01CT eCCT~T Doe:iri4)jercr.bio ye(<t 0000~~00 O FOAL eTDILA4$I'OOL RCII4K OYIOI~AbTJ l Q.N>>~~IICY IC A l I I.I I ho~~POOL~~~~I"I I~~~~J~a<<~~~~~2 LAVERS~llf$lh LAVEC,~IIQ 0.~~I poo LAYCILS 0 a..sea-A'I I 4 LIlICIC 4V I LVTr.)I.~.~J.~~Ioe 5'.~.~~~.0~,~0~~~FOR.REINlt IN 5Lh&P.KYOH~C't Ct.'CL>OH I,"i~<$1Q&ECTIOkl 030-SSO~e~0~~0~s.l (~3-'~'t I~00>>otoo~00~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~>>00~O~0>>~000~O~~~J>>o o~>>C Qi 4ST J r~oo PQ CCIOII+o l4OT Ot>>OWN OCC OW4>>MTl etCT>>404 S04 i f~O~CL.COO'IOC
hd'f'gp rcpt i7/cg~S vcricr.rrr
o r c')ccz c~rc<g7 rro..-'-Crrfc
uov'&-, j4 nx 8 ue Drs>rrrc'71~>
JccfAo ZZo>dig 7 rb7crrcg/e
Igi AY@-/~r~icm..%is wo/I dcev resn Pcs''gy J"$<rsrn err gee'........
A eh~Xicclj/~)rr'(d
cwWJrv~gi,~~1~e~Ae oa a form SA 800M P~~~a~g~~~~~~a~~1  
0 Oh VM~hp Oy~oo C~~I>>TO 0 4 04~~4bh+ICI 1 LAYClte'I CA>>LAYCR ov 00 tll 4Y OCC LICC4.Oil>>4~IA>>CQ LTD.)~II 8 9'~0~I.v~at 000~0 00>>0~q>.0>>0~Q~Q J~0>>r.l et I'.~<<e+>>~~I'VOL 41JORL4L&tl t COO,Ct 4'IO t tLTCot O'b llCtOItO.aCC CT>>Cr>>0>>$&#x17d;oo~0 D<l,bt>>c erat)/r gn~tg Tt AYCRS I5'7 II CS.LI Y" IL nh LAYCIts~Ilsgv t CA, I A'YCIL~2 II~i t CLA>cps$H IICX.LA'tCC
Clttito~p(p~'I I!0~00 0~00~n gn a'A 0 C 0 J$fl~v 0 p4>>+II 4 LAYCILS 4 Ch.LXYCC$II'K~1 Ttl toll C l 4)olg~~~~~~~~~'o~:,4 I4~I>>~~Cplbo 14~v oo~oooo>>~oooo>>oooo>>
J~]"$I~COI Ll MJ.I~M lttIN!~LIOT etOOtNH'SCC D+4'o 01CT eCCT~T Doe:iri4)jercr.bio ye(<t 0000~~00 O FOAL eTDILA4$I'OOL RCII4K OYIOI~AbTJ l Q.N>>~~IICY IC A l I I.I I ho~~POOL~~~~I"I I~~~~J~a<<~~~~~2 LAVERS~llf$lh LAVEC,~IIQ 0.~~I poo LAYCILS 0 a..sea-A'I I 4 LIlICIC 4V I LVTr.)I.~.~J.~~Ioe 5'.~.~~~.0~,~0~~~FOR.REINlt IN 5Lh&P.KYOH~C't
Ct.'CL>OH I,"i~<$1Q&ECTIOkl 030-SSO~e~0~~0~s.l (~3-'~'t I~00>>otoo~00~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~>>00~O~0>>~000~O~~~J>>o o~>>C Qi 4ST J r~oo PQ CCIOII+o l4OT Ot>>OWN OCC OW4>>MTl etCT>>404 S04 i f~O~CL.COO'IOC
.~~..~T IIC4+OtnT Ar'Cg>>I plr>>Yo Ir)(OO r~~--xCV I'R nb~!(TYlo)LI l4.>>CONST JT y',I I CL.Slhlh"Ot
.~~..~T IIC4+OtnT Ar'Cg>>I plr>>Yo Ir)(OO r~~--xCV I'R nb~!(TYlo)LI l4.>>CONST JT y',I I CL.Slhlh"Ot
~Q:-.J~~Q I~g~i g r 0 Q p QT Q4 Z 0 m 0 R C/I tO g~0 P 0 0 I~~op~I 5/Z-A~J o~o I  
~Q:-.J~~Q I~g~i g r 0 Q p QT Q4 Z 0 m 0 R C/I tO g~0 P 0 0 I~~op~I 5/Z-A~J o~o I 0~~  
0~~  
~0~~+~~~~~\~j/I%85 R g~~
~0~~+~~~~~\~j/I%85 R g~~  
I f,, I  
I f,, I  
~.//J~~~'a.//ARRP''&#xc3;RW~SI r 1~/.~~~g I H i I I~PI~~~  
~.//J~~~'a.//ARRP''&#xc3;RW~SI r 1~/.~~~g I H i I I~PI~~~
0  
0 o)o r r~CF~~~%mr~~/J r p/I/jr r/~~
o)o r r~CF~~~%mr~~/J r p/I/jr r/~~  
0~~  
0~~  
,W.O, No.;-:tPrIIWillg
,W.O, No.;-:tPrIIWillg
." Sy Thf~~oole/d/g)d~took Me, Ic.No.~/Cg~e Approved a Page No, Sheol~el O~r W~~40~~~la~~~I I I~J'.~I I.l~t 0I 0~~I~~0~.'l''~0~~..''I l"L~I.~~~~0~~0~I~~~0~t~~4 ,~~~0~~;~et~~0~~0 I~~a Ie~a~~~14 ar C,I..CO>Ios.~I~jul-SC///ended
." Sy Thf~~oole/d/g)d~took Me, Ic.No.~/Cg~e Approved a Page No, Sheol~el O~r W~~40~~~la~~~I I I~J'.~I I.l~t 0I 0~~I~~0~.'l''~0~~..''I l"L~I.~~~~0~~0~I~~~0~t~~4 ,~~~0~~;~et~~0~~0 I~~a Ie~a~~~14 ar C,I..CO>Ios.~I~jul-SC///ended dr C~~/ifdd//o>>
dr C~~/ifdd//o>>
., e.Z PO Cu~>g i.','.+dan j dncrgXc'Pnsm'.
., e.Z PO Cu~>g i.','.+dan j dncrgXc'Pnsm'.
..:/Od<<j,+de';jqr gcziy>>~~V'~~~I~~<~~~r'I, e, see-8 I..''~~~~'gg.'z74'oy.
..:/Od<<j,+de';jqr gcziy>>~~V'~~~I~~<~~~r'I, e, see-8 I..''~~~~'gg.'z74'oy.
~'~~~~t~~~'0.J~~~~a.~~t S CO fid6.fy<<et C I d~SCe-'Ia rt 0 0 I~~~I't t t~~~~~~e e~~~ra J,~~J 4 WzclPyo)A'))'-/rdnP~udp'~n
~'~~~~t~~~'0.J~~~~a.~~t S CO fid6.fy<<et C I d~SCe-'Ia rt 0 0 I~~~I't t t~~~~~~e e~~~ra J,~~J 4 WzclPyo)A'))'-/rdnP~udp'~n Se'/<z~c-".~I:: f.'l I aa~aa~0~1 t~~I~~0.I.~0~~0 I 0~~~~~~'rt~eaa~~r~I r t ara}<<t)~~~d~~r 004~L I~I~~~~~~~~~I re 0~~~~~I>..L.~~0~I~~-at~~0.+/der/4',.+<.,e)d'7 n t dEcj P'td./.IlI.I.d'4 r, rt I~C a 000 p~~/'I/Porn~Z~~/rr/7<&#x17d;g prrrrrr~~~, wisp.'s-,pz-z6,...!>>/hatt
Se'/<z~c-".~I:: f.'l I aa~aa~0~1 t~~I~~0.I.~0~~0 I 0~~~~~~'rt~eaa~~r~I r t ara}<<t)~~~d~~r 004~L I~I~~~~~~~~~I re 0~~~~~I>..L.~~0~I~~-at~~0.+/der/4',.+<.,e)d'7 n t dEcj P'td./.IlI.I.d'4 r, rt I~C a 000 p~~/'I/Porn~Z~~/rr/7<&#x17d;g prrrrrr~~~, wisp.'s-,pz-z6,...!>>/hatt
/fi P/me//rdna/
/fi P/me//rdna/
/t!Jc'r/~.~d//Zuni, p~<<S2.~,//.8, y,p/~Py,~1~cyA~~I'.,I l",.e~~r~0\~I'I'~''r~~l..I~~~~0~~~~~~~~~I I 0~0 I l 0 I~~~~~0 j I I S.~,t~~I~.t~I~I~~~~~~~~~~~J'~drtfrrj
/t!Jc'r/~.~d//Zuni, p~<<S2.~,//.8, y,p/~Py,~1~cyA~~I'.,I l",.e~~r~0\~I'I'~''r~~l..I~~~~0~~~~~~~~~I I 0~0 I l 0 I~~~~~0 j I I S.~,t~~I~.t~I~I~~~~~~~~~~~J'~drtfrrj l8+~c'I/>>'r cd/7c'r~~c Pd///rr4dr<~cdr~gI g g'd//d~/j//r'd+g/n/!
l8+~c'I/>>'r cd/7c'r~~c
Pd///rr4dr<~cdr~gI g g'd//d~/j//r'd+g/n/!
/c ji'>>//>>re r/r.I::.c2ndt/:, d rccv~r''ptr",r/nor'/
/c ji'>>//>>re r/r.I::.c2ndt/:, d rccv~r''ptr",r/nor'/
//lc'rm 7hcl.'.careen.'::~r/r'.csnp urer//r ri'Zu/r/>>I
//lc'rm 7hcl.'.careen.'::~r/r'.csnp urer//r ri'Zu/r/>>I drt:.o/$d~.';7I/., e6/ld:lg/4~3'.gdlt Q, r/7.r/<f2/S',-.''Ji//ja5w<~/./..u'%e id'/l."r't r'..l/''/.c'dorctyp
drt:.o/$d~.';7I/., e6/ld:lg/4~3'.gdlt Q, r/7.r/<f2/S',-.''Ji//ja5w<~/./..u'%e id'/l."r't
r'..l/''/.c'dorctyp
.;...J'g>>ted P~" e//dr/Par/fg
.;...J'g>>ted P~" e//dr/Par/fg
.: dr'd'I/.yC'/>/Cygne>'vi'nt c n.'//7/r dt.d d'.C'a>00 ea~~~e~ee~~~~~~~~~~0 r~0~  
.: dr'd'I/.yC'/>/Cygne>'vi'nt c n.'//7/r dt.d d'.C'a>00 ea~~~e~ee~~~~~~~~~~0 r~0~
0 E a.~I 1'l 1 l t'r,  
0 E a.~I 1'l 1 l t'r,  
'W.O.No.~4 4 Drawing~g By fl lr Title~<'BURNS AND ROE, INC.Date/'o~Book N Gale.No.S/X Ch ked A Z.-ws r roved r r Page No.Sheet~of/Ac//Jfp~j//c//
'W.O.No.~4 4 Drawing~g By fl lr Title~<'BURNS AND ROE, INC.Date/'o~Book N Gale.No.S/X Ch ked A Z.-ws r roved r r Page No.Sheet~of/Ac//Jfp~j//c//
Line 1,289: Line 303:
/g,ZJ zc zi f&gJ=/F/)////
/g,ZJ zc zi f&gJ=/F/)////
~SC.Z/<2/-cfog Jgf Z lZ FEr//Jc=Fi>8=<S=
~SC.Z/<2/-cfog Jgf Z lZ FEr//Jc=Fi>8=<S=
'a,z/xz7//Z u/'=/,r/Pc/i=/8/c(+>>./~~ac)g r<<--I-,u 4'c z(gJ wJaq-31J$7Z'f~--O'h274 S'$598 H/3-Rc3-7n/-/god zg z3g PJ/rh-~=/ii'I gq Pg'=Z<~iXE8 W~gz l2Jdud lz yd p Odr fc'fNlo~/Cooo S s=4+$<rgb.Form BR 8002-2  
'a,z/xz7//Z u/'=/,r/Pc/i=/8/c(+>>./~~ac)g r<<--I-,u 4'c z(gJ wJaq-31J$7Z'f~--O'h274 S'$598 H/3-Rc3-7n/-/god zg z3g PJ/rh-~=/ii'I gq Pg'=Z<~iXE8 W~gz l2Jdud lz yd p Odr fc'fNlo~/Cooo S s=4+$<rgb.Form BR 8002-2 V~
V~  
ee,r rr i oo'~o os~o\f BUR SAND ROE, INC.!WO Ne+fru+Dele~fr/.7 BeekNe S rd~L PegeNe.Dra win Gale.No.SheetMf ef By Cel A proved.r.~Title r r r.>r/r/Wr'r/ji'giurf
ee,r rr i oo'~o os~o\f BUR SAND ROE, INC.!WO Ne+fru+Dele~fr/.7 BeekNe S rd~L PegeNe.Dra win Gale.No.SheetMf ef By Cel A proved.r.~Title r r r.>r/r/Wr'r/ji'giurf
+fr~rWrc'c/Heiefr/P+Wf
+fr~rWrc'c/Heiefr/P+Wf
.'e'rfcnrcZ/q rj ilg7ifrr cd if'/rcr/7 ifr g gc/r rl B rc's.merry.
.'e'rfcnrcZ/q rj ilg7ifrr cd if'/rcr/7 ifr g gc/r rl B rc's.merry.
rp rrrrcnpcur
rp rrrrcnpcur 8r trpb/r crrdn i idion I'o~pVrrlfr/rcir
8r trpb/r crrdn i idion I'o~pVrrlfr/rcir
.Xi f/dr'/<c/~a~/m~r/r'.rn..We...VrC/err~rj".....4.
.Xi f/dr'/<c/~a~/m~r/r'.rn..We...VrC/err~rj".....4.
r rr-ii-:',,:: "'-::.-:: '.:::g~..3''rrP r ccrPPcn7.gr er&rrree P cc'/rrrr&#xc3;BBr zz W/0:=ZZM c 7=Z7r/P 4,':;:"-'::;::;".'::...-'"::
r rr-ii-:',,:: "'-::.-:: '.:::g~..3''rrP r ccrPPcn7.gr er&rrree P cc'/rrrr&#xc3;BBr zz W/0:=ZZM c 7=Z7r/P 4,':;:"-'::;::;".'::...-'"::
Line 1,305: Line 317:
~r WZZ-Z:.:.f'/rrr.'<4Z I g>>4'i/zJlc),8/2 squirrel m~l ge/rrn.:.::.'....:
~r WZZ-Z:.:.f'/rrr.'<4Z I g>>4'i/zJlc),8/2 squirrel m~l ge/rrn.:.::.'....:
--: "/n c>i>I~i ZL J'Zg-Z.j.grrrrA~iver..~~'ef~i o<<o'oO'o J~~e~~e~~~i~~C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e~'o~~~<<~~eo~~<<ooe o oe r~~I'~~~~'~~0~v os 0~~oo 0~~~~~~e ee>>o>>~~oo~o~~~o~p~.~e~~~~o~o~o~~~>>~~o~.~S o~~~e~N~~~~~~~o~~~o~~~~~ee~'I~~~o o eForm BR 80024 e~~~o~oo<<~~~~~A%~o  
--: "/n c>i>I~i ZL J'Zg-Z.j.grrrrA~iver..~~'ef~i o<<o'oO'o J~~e~~e~~~i~~C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e~'o~~~<<~~eo~~<<ooe o oe r~~I'~~~~'~~0~v os 0~~oo 0~~~~~~e ee>>o>>~~oo~o~~~o~p~.~e~~~~o~o~o~~~>>~~o~.~S o~~~e~N~~~~~~~o~~~o~~~~~ee~'I~~~o o eForm BR 80024 e~~~o~oo<<~~~~~A%~o  
'L
'L}}
}}

Revision as of 13:36, 17 August 2019

Forwards Addendum to 831031 Response to Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-397/83-38 Re Evaluation of Concrete & Reinforcing Steel,In Response to 831108 Telcon W/Nrc
ML17277B056
Person / Time
Site: Columbia Energy Northwest icon.png
Issue date: 11/15/1983
From: Sorensen G
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To: Schwencer A
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
GO2-83-1057, NUDOCS 8311220173
Download: ML17277B056 (70)
v • d • e


Text

REGULATORY IN RMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)t ACCESSION NBR:8311220173 DuC.DATE: 83/11/15 NOTARIZED:

No DOCKET FACIL:50-397 NPPSS Nuclear Projects Unit 2~1'tashington Public Powe 05000397 AUTH, NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION S6RENSENgG,G

~Washington Public Power Supply System REC IP~NAME AEC IP IENT AFF ILI ATION SCHNENCERgA

~, Licensing Branch 2'

SUBJECT:

Forwards addendum to 831031 response to violations, noted in IE Insp Rept 50~397/83 38 re evaluation of concrete 8 reinforcing steeliin response to 831108 telcon w/NRC~DISTRIBUTION CODE: IEOIS COPIES RECEIVED:LTR j ENCL l SIZE: gg TITLE: General (50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice of Violation Response NOTES: REC IP IENT ID CODE/NAME NRA LB2 BC INTERNALS AEOD IE ENF STAFF IE/DQAS IP/ORPB NRR/DSI/RAB EXTERNAL: ACRS t<RC PDR NT/S COPIES LTTR ENCL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 I 1 1 1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME AULUCKeRD'LD/HDS2 IE F ILE IE/ES FILE LPDR NSIC COPIES LTTR ENCL'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1)k TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED~LTTR M ENCL 0~~Il Eli>>~'>>'J I" N ,'*tr II')C"'v'E ,i~e I H>r~~fr>>ff)a<<cur)<<<<>>r I)JE))')<<lr))r)P))r)~<<>>l<<fI'>>,)>>)')l'1 4 if),f"~>>l q'>>>0 ,TP~).r>>e',EI>>">>I f)l~, E), c E e ,f)E>>E I~P)ltd.'ktttl I)P"'<<T I~IEE~~&Eh<<>>10 l>>P')<<')P) f~F>>l)r 4)0>>g r$O II it iTI J T ffl'g)I ll q 9 I IE jiPfi]I Pf~>>f>>E'f I fI<censing comtn>Tmen~s,)

k 1, f I I

SUMMARY

OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS EVALUATED Design Margin(See Footnote)Observed Discrepancies SK.E SK-8 Member GB9 Maximum+jve Moment+M 4.8 Maximum-ive Moment-M 4.2 Shear 2.1 Rebar Spacing Yes Rebar/Dowel Honey-Hissing/combing His/aced.None Hone Remarks Concrete consolidation is excellent.

Conclusions Meets the intent of the code.SK-9 Pilaster Hot Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated None Hone Hone None.I Meets the Code..requirement.

~SK-1 West Exterio Wall 1 Not Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated None Hone Hone None Meets the code requirement.

SK-11 Dryer Separa-tor Pool Not Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated-None None'one None Meets the code requirement.

SK-1 Fuel Pool Wall(N,)El.Hot Appli-cable 5.6 Not Appl i-cable Yes None Hone Construction aid rebars at El.588'-2>><<were not placed per drawings.Meets the code requirement fo~operating con~ons 6K-1 Mat at El.422'-0<<Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated'ot Calcu-lated Yes None Hone Trim additional rebar deviate spacing requirements.

Concrete consolidation excellent.

Meets the code requirements, K-1 Mat.at El, 422 IP<<Hot Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated None None'None None Meets the code requirements.

Footnote t bl o Ta 4 fM I~+i inal desi'rne t e: Design margin as used herein in the capacity provided above that, of the or g gn requlr n s.(A design margin of l.p signifies compliance with ACI 318 code requirements and lscens>ng commitments

)

0 ly t r LI age" SUHHARY OF STRUCTURAL HEHBERS EYALUATED Design Margin(See Footnote)Observed Discrepancies Hember Haximum Haximum+ive-ive Moment Moment 4H-H Shear Rebar Spacing Rebar/Dowel.Honey-Missing/combing Hisplaced.RemarRs Conclusions Mat at El.422'-0"\Slab at El.471'ot Cal cu-lated Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated Hot'Calcu-lated Not Calcu-.lated Hot Calcu-lated Yes None None Hone None Additional rebars.deviate spacing requirements.

Concrete consolidation excellent.

I Meets the code requirements.

Meets the code requirements~

K-1 East Ext.Wall Not Calcu-lated Not Calcu-lated 2.2 Hone None Hone Meets the code requirements.

it rovided above that'of the ori inal desi n re uirement'ei i e:ootnote to Table: Design Margin as used her n n the capac y p g g q s.(A design margin of 1.0 signifies compliance with ACI 318 code requirements and licensing commitments.)

HIIIEN ANO,KUCHENREUTHER,ON SUROE FORCES When the solutions to Eq.44 are extended over those presented in Table 3 and the results plotted, curves of the type given in Fig.11 are obtained which show strikingly the tendency of.the ship movement and restoring for e t b-e infinite whenthe naturalperlodof vibration(when Ao=0)is approached.

Of course, no such thing can occur due to the"fuze'n the system in the form of the mooring lines which tend to break and thereby ruin what elegance there is in this problem.Fig.11 shows the relationship between period and amplitude of a moored ship (and standing wave)oscillation in su'rge with standing wave amplitude as a parameter.

Note that both negative as well as positive dlsplacements are plotted where this rather unconventional presentation Is made to emphasize those situations where the oscillation (x)Is 180'ut of phase with th it-0 on(o).Usually this phase'relation Is conslderedof slight interest In com-parison with the amplitudes.

However, at the precise point of phase switching many ships couldreceive a jolt at a level high enough to rouse even the slee-ie t 8 seaman and, even worse, to break the ropes.Therefore, the negative signs n eseep-are usuallydisregarded so a presentation is made entirely inthefirstquadrant.

The writers have obtained a record of such a shift correlated with changes n mooring fbrces, bjj a landing ship tank (LST),as spread moored in the open Gulf of Mexico.This.ship shifted the phase of its pitching motion by 180'-as theperlodof the lncldentwave changedln a very short tlmefrom 4 to I 1/2 sec where the point of shift is computed as about 6 sec.The system, depending on its period of excitation will be subject to stable-bran mottuns, fro example, branch 1, 3, 4, and 5 In Fig.11 and unstable-motions 7 J ranch 3 and.4-b.Some damping, however slight, must be present in order to permit the ship to cross from In-phase oscillation, periods greater than free period, to out-of-phase oscillation across the, zone of transition.(from 4-a to 2 In Fig.11, for example).".lt would appear that the free'period of oscillation, line designated A=0 In Fig.11, of the ship-line system Is one of the dominantdesignparameters where care should be exerctsed toward avoiding period coincidence between this pe-riod and that of the excitation.

A likely operational period of oscillation which ls less than rather than greater than the free period would seem desirable.

A number of investigators, including Abramson and Wilson,33 havediscuss-ed surge oscillation of a ship moored at the node of a standing wave, although none appear to have stretched the mechanical analogy as far as the writers herein.Other modes are not at all well covered.Another examination of the problem was made by Wilson.34 The writers hope that this closure has provided In some measure answers to and amplification of the questions raised by Mr.Wilson In his much appre-ciated discussion of their paper.AMERICAN'OCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded Novcmbei 5, 1852 TRANSXCTIDNS

-/g (D Paper No 3047 CONCRETE BEAMS AND COLUMNS WITH BUNDLED REINFORCEMENT By Norman W.Hanson,1 M.ASCE and Hans Relffenstuhl2 Witli Discussion by hiessr Homer ht Hadley I'VNOPSIS This paper reports on tests of pairs of large beams with conventionally spaced and with bundled longitudinal reinforcement.

The bundles of reinforcement used comprised groups of four No.6, four No.8, or three No.9 touching bars.Pairs of beams were compared with respect to width of flexural cracks, steel stress distribution, deflection, andultiinate strength;No significant difference

.in behavior or ultimate strength was found for bundled as compared to spaced reinforcement.

Tied columns were tested by concentric loading to compare spaced and bundled longitudinal reinforcement consisting of twelve No.6 or twelve No.8 bars.Comparison with respect to ultimate strength indicated that bundling is a safe detailing procedure when adequate ties are provided.This true even for 6.6%longitudinal reinforcement.

Splicing of bundled reinforcement incolumns was explored and found to be feasible.INTRODUCTION 334 F A urther Analysis of tho LoagttudtnalRosponso ofh'Ioorod Vessels to Sea Osctl-laflon,~by H.N.Abramson, and B, W.WHson, Proceedings, Joint hiid-West Conf., Solid and Fluid Mechanics; Purdue UnivSeptember, 1955.34"The Energy Problem in tho hioortng of Ships Exposed to Waves," by B.W.Wilson, Proc.of Princeton Conference on Borthing and Cargo Handflng in Exposed Locations Octobor, 1958, pp.1-87.Bundled reinforcement in structuralconcrete refers to reinforcement placed In groups of touching bars.As compared to the mlnlmum bar spacings com-monly used in beams, for instance those given by the 1965 American Concrete Note.-Published, essentially as printed hero, in October, 1958, in the Journal of the Structural Division, as Proceedings Paper 1818.Positions and titles given are thoso In effect when the paper or discussion was approved for pubflcation In Transactions.

I Assoc.Development Engr., Roses'rch and Dovolopmont Div., Portland Cement Assn., Chicago, Ill.9 Visiting Engr., Research and Development Div., Portland Cement Assn., Chicago, Hl.889 a t I I l)r f 890 BUNDLING Sl Section 505(a))1 bundling yern)its'the necessary+rs,to be phced.in much,nar-rower sections.As a'result, bundling permits construction of lighter, inore graceful and more economtcpl-,beams.

of,box,-.channel or T-B6, section.In beams of normal width, the clear distance between bundles will beconslderably greater than the distance',betw4efi individual evenly spaced bars.Bundling greatly facilitates concrete placement and insertion of spud vibrators, par-ticularly" wlien heavy negate'moment reTnfbrcement must be ehibedded ihthe top of beams.In columns, bundled reinforcement permits a reduced concrete cross section, which maybe an important advantage in the lower storiesof tall buildings.

Bundling also permits interior ties to be omitted, so that concrete placement is facilitated.

Finally, bundled bars ln beams and columns may be a satisfactory.

alternate.to!large sizes of specially rolled~reinforcing bars that are occasionally used in very large, structures.

Practical use of ibundledirelnforcement in beams has been pioneered, and several structures with bundled reinforcement have been builtP>>i4Ãi6 for which good service records have been reported.Laboratory tests that have been reported>>concern principally bundles of four j-tn.square bars in beams,and there maybe somequestion regardingthe performanceof bundlesof larger bar sizes.No tests of bundled reinforcement in columns have been reported.An experimental investigation was therefore carried out 1n the Research and Development Laboratories of the Portland Cement Association during 1955-57 to inyestigate the performanceof largede-formed bars placed in bundles as longHudfnai beam andcolumn reinforcement.

Nolaffon.-The letter symbols adapted for use in this paper are defined where the)first afloat', lri the text'or in'the illustrations, and are arranged alphabetically, for chnvehte'nce of reference, in the Appendix.I y~~g Jf I~gl TEST BEAM ARRANGEMENT

~..~))v-$A,f, t~~a gg v r As compared to spaced bars, bundling may be questioned primarily with respect to the bond integrity'of beams: The most serious conditions may then be expected for bars plac'ed ast negative reinforcement near the top of deep and short beams.'Previous tests>have clearly indicated that, due to adverse ef-fects of settlement,'the bond resistance of top bars is less than that of bottom bars.They have also indicated that'a short beam span leads to high bond stress 2'Unusual Concrete Roof of Hollow Girdera and Precast Slabs, by H.hL Hadloy, Journah A,C.I., Proceedings Vol, 37, February, 1941, pp.453-460.Braall'a Wonder Hotel.and Casino,'y A, J.Boaae, Engineering News-Record, Vol.136, January, 1946, pp.112-116, 4~Bundle Reinforcing Savea hiatoriala," Engineering Nowa-Record, Vol.140, AprQ, 1948, pp, 609-610.5~Bridge with'Bundled'otnforoement,~

by H.M.Hadley<Weatern Construction,.

l~26, Juno1951, pp, 69;90,: 'Bundled'Reinforcement,",by H~hL Hadloy, Journal, A.C.IProceedings Vol..49, October, 1952, pp.$57-159.Precast Box Beams for High Strength,~

by H.hi, Hadiey, Engineering News-Record, Vol.125, Doo1940, pp, 383-839>~~8'Tests of Beams Retnforoed wHh'Bundle Bars',~by H.hi, Hadley, Civil Engtneer-Ing, VoL 11, February, 1941;pp: 90-93.9'An InvestlgaHon of Bond, Anchorage and Related Factors in Reinforced Concrete Beams,'y C.A.htenzol and W.M.Woods, BuHeHn 42, Research Dept., Portland Ce-ment Assn., November~1952, p.114;~BUNDLING 891 before the flexural ultimate strength ls developed.

Therefore, the test speci-mens for this investigation were short, deep beams, with the tension steel at the top as cast..In the beam, designations to follow, the first number shows the number of: bars and the second number their size;.the letter S indicates spaced bars and B indicates bundled bars;H indicates high-strength steel.The test beams 8-SSy 8 SSHp 8 SSH and 6-9S, with spaced reinforcement, shown in Fig.I, were designed by first determining the minimum beam width for a chosen group of bars.By the ACI code previously mentioned, this width is governed by a minimum protective cover of 1-f in.and, for 1-f in.maxi-mum size aggregate, a clear distance of 2 ln.between parallel bars.The beam depth was chosen so that the ratio of reinforcement was 1.5%.Finally, the distance from the face of a centrally located column stub to the beam support was chosen as twice the effective beam depth.Thus, the test span L is 85 in.for the beams with No.6 bars,-134.5 in.for the beams with No.8 bars, and 151.8 in.for those with No.9 bars.The beams and all bars were extended 6 in.beyond the supports.The gross concrete dimensions of beams 8-6S, S-SS and 6-9S, excluding the column stubs, wex'e 13 in.by 21 in.by 97 in., 14.5 in by 33.5 in.by 146.5 fn., and 11.5 in.by 38.8 in.by 163.8 in., respectively.

The beams with bundled reinforcement, beams 8-6B, 8-SB and 6-9B we identical.to the corresponding beams with spaced bars except fo'r the bar rangeme'n7.

The effect of decreasing the beam width for bundled reinforcement was investigated through beams 8-SBH and 8-8 BH.For these two beams,and their companions with spaced reinforcement, high-strength reinforcement was used to delay flexural faQure and develop very high bond stress.The column stubs of all beams were reinforced with four bars of the same size as the'longitudinal beam reinforcement, and these bars vlere extended through the beam, Vertical stirrup reinforcement was provided to prevent di-agonal tension and shear failures, The stirrups also served the function of preventing horizontal splitting that might otherwise have been caused by high bond stress.Beams 8-6SH and 8-SBH had two No.6 bars placed as compress sion reinforcement toprevent flexuralcompresston failure.Beams 8-SSH and 8-8BH had two No.8 bars placed as compression reinforcement.

ProPerffes of Bundfes.~e external perimeter for a bundle of four bars as shown for be'am 8-6B and 8-SB in Fig.1 is 38D, that is, 25%less than for the same bars spaced in the usual manner.On the other hand, a single large bar with the same cross-section area as a bundle of four bars with diameter D would have a diameter of 2D and a perimeter of 2nD.Accordingly, the bundle of four bars has anexposed perimeter 50%greater than that of thesingle large bar.The bundle of three bars used for beam 6-9B similarly.has an expos perimeter'16.'I%

less than that for the same spac'ed bars, and 55%greater t that of a larger bar of the same area.These geometric properties indicate that bundling leads to only a moderate increase ln bond stress as compared to spaced bars.Replacing a single large bar by a bundle with the same area, leads to a reduced bond stress.It should be noted, however, thht the deformation of lug height, as defined by ASTM A-305-53T, would be greater for a single large bar than for a bundle of bars, a d bo nd r'esistance for top b rs 18 k own9 to 1 crease with tncreasi g lug height.Materials.-A laboratory blendof Type I cements was used.Sand and gravel aggregates were combined to gradations within-the limits given by ASTM C-33-.55T for 1-j in.maximum: size.The concretes were mixed in 6 cu ft 1

ceo e>>CCt ce m 0O~~0&gal ce mo'g g~e3 m e E 8 8 ce~~Cl e~e r cer 4 Q Ce e$04 s""'4d r ce m cl 0 yc e m'0>>m ce m ce I e KOb0 rm"0~O bore e 99~-m m Q e'ce m e el I O 5~CD g QCI m>>ci 4 4~>>P p cl Q ca" g Rom.BF Ir C~ce g e I 3~~0 P Cl 0 ro CI r IC1 Cl ICC)O ce o r r e be Cl>>el CI 4 e~g bb m>>4 e ce~Sl w 0 g be 0 oe'e ce r e e O r~e e a CI e QI 4J mre roe m m eer Ce r 0 0 0 4 i>>0 I e~e00 g'0 ce el~Ce r r>>CO 0 8 Ri m e~O>>>>$e m C 6 m ce ce e el 4 8C'6 Cl'm Qi m cD~O 0 C4 m o RR ce N53$~g r g g g I g>>i Cl dl c O~g CCI QCI g ea Cl clclr&P 4-8'r%r" r~r 00 Cl 04 MIDih0000~0 ID CI>>0 00 iD 04 CI Cl 00,04 04 ID O C4 CI>>I 0 O>>C CII O CD>>C~0 CD>>C>>li O CD>>4>>4 CI CI CI 04 ID A c-c oooo CI Cl CD CD>>Ci'CIC A>>00404 C4 ID CD CD 00>>ci ID>>C>>I C4 Dl>>4>>4 ID O CD O O O CICDC>>CCDO A O CI 04%CD C4 00'CC W,'00M Oooooo O io O O O O 0 0 CI Cl CD 0)c c m00 ID co cn 4 03 cQ cn lC CP<<0 CD Dl Dl iD CD ED CO CD CD O CC C 04>>4 CI O IA ID CI CI 04 QDI CI CD CD M C4 C4>>li+O IA O CD>>4 Q ID O O ID O O CD O C>>>>li O 00 00 00>>C CI W CI OOOO OOOO 04 04 0 O.XI9 O Cl o r 4J>>J'g C O e Qi e'"0'0 r-.'8 8 el cl CI Q e ce Q, 4 o O e~CD b0 g r~C I cee ce CQ be 0 r m a~u 4'0~04 c I e m g e o oD"0 e co., bb~0 r~~g<e 4 Clg>>0 4C>>>>>>0%0 e>>0 Cerl">>e'0 0 m ce I e ce'ts 0'8 rc e~r 0'~g e'IS w C~ee e~emcermvt m>>ID'ce m Q,r r~~8 m~ce~" 4e ce m 0~~e r~e 4 Q e r g m o o me m'ce g o o ce e r e eg~e O~~m 0 0 g~~ID Ce Io mo4 oe I a'X Cl C0 E9 00 00 CO.cl i0 Q>>.5 d X'It d Z'lt d x CD al~0 00 C I X I I I I 0 t t I t It t (r p I rr~>r'r(,I'(g." r.~((i (r~r~yr<<4k>Pt C(rC Q.@+r r 4'rr(r" r: j rf t ,I rg h FIG.2.-TESTING ARRANGEhIENT FOR BEAhIS wires were attached, and the slot was filled to the bar surface with wax water-proofing.Tension tests indicated that gages so placed yielded measurements in close accord with mechanical strain measurements over the same reduced section.The stress at any bar load was 5%to 9%higher in"the sloffed section than in the full bar section.Eight strain gages for each beam were located as shown ln Fig.1(a).Two gageswer'e placed on eachof four barS symm'etrlcally about mid-span.The measured strainwlthout correctionwas ass'umed to'ep-reseq)the average strain'n all bars at the location of the gage'.Therefore, measured strain is reported heryin a's stress obtains'd by multiplying~

'the'aver-age strain in the two half sparis by the modulus of elasticity for the full section of the various bar sixes as obtained in te'nsion tests.'r'5~r(,'('-'J (J"rl'(r'.(r~.~((TEST RESULTS~'r (rrr.~..I r., r I.('ll beamswith,intermedtaty-grade(steel, beams 8;,L'I,through 6-9p 1nTable 1, fa1led by yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement, followed by large de-BUNDLING stub through a 2-in.steel plate.The total duration of each beam test was ap-proximately two hours.Deflection dial.gages were mounted directly below the two faces.of the column stub and mid-way between these points and the supports.The widths of all cracks were measured by a graduated microscope at the level of thy centroid of the longitudinal reinforcement.

To minimize the amount of bar surface area isolated from bond by the waterproofing of the electric strain gages, SR-4 Type A-12 gages were placed in the intermediate grade bars in milled slots.3/32 in.,wide,r 3/8 in.de.p, and approximately 6 in.long.The high-strength bars could not be milled.Thus, the location of the strain gages in Fig.1(a)does not refer to tha,beamsuslng high-strength steel rods.A gage was cemented ta the sideof each slot, lead P~~>3 QUNDJ2gG$95 flections and final crushing of the concrete compression zone at the column face.As shown in Fig.2;both flexural and diagonal'cracks tended to extend upward toward the corner at the column stub so that lt-was hardly possible to differentiate behveen flexural and diagonal~cktt'-po indication.

of bond fail-ure was found 1n any of these beams, and noijisual difference in behavior was noted for beams with bundled as compared t'o'spaced bars.Three beams with high strength reinforcement failed ln bond as indicated by large amounts of bar slip at the beam ends.For bream 8-6SH the tension steel yielded following bar sflp at the beam ends.Steel Stress and Deflection.-Measured steelstressanddeflectionatvarlous load levels for the three beam pairs with intermediate grade steel are shown in Figs.3(a),(b)and(c).

Both steel stress and deflection are given as an aver-age of two measurements symmetrical about mldspan for each beam.Distribution, of measured steel stress along a longitudinal reinforcing bar, in a beam specimen, may be expected to reflect bong distress.Preceding a final destruction of bond, an abnormal rise of steel stress should take p~toward the beam ends.Fig.3 shows that.the distribution of steel stress~very similar for the two members of each pair of test beams even at high steel-stress..lt may be noted, on the other hand, that the steel-stress for all beams was practically uniform at high loads in the middle third of the span.This was certainly caused by a stress redistribution resulting from the deep--beam type of crack pattern seen in Fig.2.'It is also seen that the overhangs contributed to the bonding action because the steel-stress'of all beams is not zero over the supports at high loads.It is felt that this behavior ls related to local stress disturbances in the support region where heavy reaction forces entered the abnormally short beams.The deflection curves are also similar for all beam pairs.Accordingly, both steel stress and deflection measurements indicate that there was no sig-nificant difference in behavior between bundled and spaced reinforcement.

Crach IVidth.-Crack patterns were closely similar within pairs for all tests.Bond distress maybe expected toopenup a few wide cracks near the beam ends rather than to increase the widthof all cracks.Crackwidths are therefore given in Fig.4, as the average width of the three widest cracks in the beam.Steel stress is given in the figure asvalues computed fromapplied moment at the column face section, taking'the internal moment arm as 7/8 times the ef-fective depth.It is seen that there ls no systematic difference between~crack widths for bundled and for spaced reinforcement, Furthermore, noes~opened suddenly before yielding of the reinforcement was ln progress.This indicates that'even the high local bond stress<<whioh acts near cracks, resulted only in the normal minor bond slip for bundled as well as for spaced reinforce-ment.For the four beams with high strength reinforcement, a similar lack of systematic difference was observed between'crack widths for bundled and spaced reinforcement.

However, for beams 8;,6BH, 8-8SH, and 8-8BH, as the ultimate load was reached,a few cracks near the beam ends became very wide shortly before final bond failure took place.Flexural Strength, Beams uVth Intermedtate Grqde Steel.-Itis seen In Table 1 that some of the beams with intqrmediate grade steel carolled loads consider-ably above their.yield-loads.

These yield loads'are'listed as detected by strain~r 0 I I~u t r((038~l l~-<<rr(4(lrr(<<4(Z

.~~I'I r V (I'I 1 4)~I II k PI fI k I 896 P Fsosh silos h Mcsos BUNDLING P IO 8 20 cn cn hc o 3 x 25Kl ps ro~50~/r I I I I I I r r r I I r I 4 IOO~or r//~/P ISO Kiss 42,000psl ss C O.IO ss o OIS 2 0.20 2SKIPs r SO~r I/FS~///IOO~P r r<<Spocs4 Soss ispn Kl,-~a'4II4 ben-4 (0)BEAMS 8 BS ond 8 88 00 IO 40 SO 40 BUNDLING 49$and crack width measurements.

Considering the external moment at the face of the column the computed flexural ultimate loads, Pcalcs were abtained by the equation for ultimate internal moment'I Mu=b d2 fc q(1-0 P q)~~~~~~(1)in which fc is the concrete cylinder strength, and q is the factor pfy/fc in I which p equals As (the effective cross-sectional area of reinforcement) divided by bd, and fy is the yield point of reinforcement.

This'equation is given in ACI*s'18-56, A605(b).The ratio of measured tocomputed ultimate load exceeds one (1)for all beams.The average ratio for the three beams with spaced bars is 1.13, and the average ratio for the beams with bundled bars is also 1.13.This indicates that there was no systematic difference in ultimate flexural strength developed by spaced and by bundled bars except that the beams with bundled bars were slightly stronger by virtue of the slight increase in effective b~depth.sf s P Fcshi ISIISPOh Ihollo~50 g 40 f-47000 pcl I-48300 ps>I If<<46800 ps)6.9S IO vs 8 20 cn sI OI 7 I vs 8 cn~I In so~s X 40~h c OI o COKlp~/////I I I I I I I IZ0~I I I.ISO~I I/40-r 4 802 s'u cs ss 0.~s I~s cs I 20 r r r r ISO'Spo44i SCAptroo th-cs-scdlidlsohI

~SOO Klps 240+fp~4SWpsl (h)BEAMS Pi240 Kins 8 BS opd 8-88 I'O Kiss//I/I r//P//I ,/p r r c40 P 240 Klps/o I I~44,000 psl o I20 8 g OI 8~0.2~s<<0 aS COKlps I r/r/I/I20 rr//~4////rSO 220 rr I r f40~Spocso Sos~w Oohoiso nosh (c)BEAMS B-SS ond 6-88 FIG.S.-h(EASURED STEEL STRESS AND DEFLECTIONS R E 8 30 9 20 8 8.68 8-6S B.SS 8.88 6.98 10 0 0.004 0.008 OA)12, 0 OI004 OA)08 0412 0 OA)04 OA)08 JO12 Clock widths, ln (nchos'IG.4.-CRACK 1VIDTH htEASUREhiENTS The average ratio of 1.13 also confirms previous findings that the equa~for ultimate moment, which was developed essentially by tests of small bea~is also applicable to the large beams of this investigation.

It is believed that the excess of measuredultimate loads over the computed load resulted princi-pally from strain hardening of the reinforcement.'

biaxial state of stress at the column stub appeared to delay crushing of the compression zone so that large steel strains were developed locally at the ma)or flexural cracks.Bond stresses are given in Table 1 as computed at ultimate load, by dividing the shearing force by the external perimeter of the bars times 7d/8.These bond stresses, for the beams with intermediate'rade steel, were sustained without any indication of bond failure." They are'in no way to'e regarded as ultimate bond stresses.To develop higher bond stresses with intermediate-grade steel it would have been necessary to make'special test beams with part of thetension zone removed, or to make the beams so short that theywould act as walls rather than beams.Both of these cases were thought not to represent practical conditions under which bundled bars may be used." High-strength steel was therefore used to study ultimate load stress;=s s.illll~~I'I I~ssl~~~I I I I jl f t f If f I 898 BUNDLING BUNDLING 899 Bond Strength, Beams with Hfgh-Strength Steel.-Table 1 shows that the beams with high-strength reinforcement failed at ultimate loads close to the flexural strengths computed by ACI 318-56, A606(a), Mu" (As-As)fy d~1-'+As fy (d-d'),...(2)I 0.59 (p-p')f)c ln which As ls the area of tensile reinforcement, As ls'he area of compres-sive reinforcement, d etluals the distance from the extreme compressive fiber to the centroid of tensile reinforcement, whereas d's the distance from this fiber to the centroid of compressive reinforcement and p ls the factor As/bd.Beam 8-6SH failed ln flexure after bond slip had been observed at the beam ends.The remaining three beams failed at loads below the computed ultimate flexural strength.Failure was ln bond, as indicated by large amounts of bar slip observed by dial gages as a relative movement between bar ends and the concrete surface at the beam ends.Bar slip ls plotted as a function of computed bond stress ln Fig.5.Bond stresses at ultimate strength, calculated by dividing shearing force by external-bar-perimeter times 7d/8, are also shown.It ls seen that bond slip was ln progresswhen beam8-6SH failed ln flexureatabond stressof 520psl(Table1).

By comparlsonwlth the slip records for beams 8-8SH and 8-8BH ln Fig.5,both of which failed ln bond, lt must be expected that beam 8-6SH would have failed ln bond at a stress only slightly greater than 520 psl lf flexural failure had been prevented bya higher yield point for the steel.Hence,theultlmate bond stress for spaced No.6 bars must be expected to exceed only slightly the value of 513 psl observed for bundled bars.For No.8 bars, the ultimate bond stress for spaced bars was 337 psl, which ls slightly less than the stress of 391 psl ob-served for bundled bars.However, lt should be noted from Fig.5 that bond stress fora given slip value was always lower for bundled than for spaced bars.It can be concluded that, when only external bar perimeter was used to cal-culate bond stress, there was no systematic difference ln ultimate bond stress developed between spaced and bundled bars.Thus, the beam tests indicated that bundling of tension reinforcement ls a satisfactory detailing procedure.

TEST COLUMN ARRANGEMENT 8-6SH 400 n X 4 n 300 Fr':m r3 l00 0~Il I/IS l'l:~I 8-68H l F!~F 8.8SH OA$4 0.008 OA)12 OAI I 6'Average bar srlp et beam ends, tn Inches FIG, 6.-BAR SLIP MEASUREMENTS lr~F I I FnIF 0.020 A series of ten tied columns was designed to study bundled compression re-inforcement.

Concentric loading was chosen..An outline of, the test program ls shown ln Fig.6.Allcolumnswere12-1n.-by-12-ln.

W>th a height Alf 6 ft.Two amounts of longitudinal reinforcement were used.These were 6.58%and 3.67%, made up of 12 po.8 and 12 No.p bars, respectively.

The 1/4-ln, tie-diameter used ls tile minimum permitted by ACI 318-58, 1104(c).The corresponding maximum tie spacing of forty-eight tie diameters ln 12 ln., whtgh ls also the maximum spacing as governed by the 12,-+.colure size and by sixteen times the diameter of the No.6 bars.Five columtts with 12 No.8 bars were tested.Column 12-8S contained bars spaced ln'the nOrmal manner and surrounded by a squarp tie.The interior barswere hefd firmly by two interior rectangular ties.All ties of this column were spaced at 12 ln.Column 12-8B-1 contained bars bundle)at the corners, Interior ties were omitted, and the exterior tie spacing its maiqtained at 12 ln.For column 12-8B-2, the exterior tie spacing was decreased to 6 fn, A splice was provided at mid-height of column 12-8B-3 as shown ln Fig.6.The spliced bars were cut by a saw, and each bar was touching its longltut(tnal ex-tension.The tie spacing In both columns 12-8 B3 and 12-8 B4 was 6 lns.The IF'~'I~trcoromn'S column ,I ,.I" I VI F la~O FF I,F 4 V I F FIG, S,-TEST COLUMNS"~

t~"e!

900 BUNDLINg BUNDLING 901 bars of column 12-8B-4 were cut at the splice with a hydraulic bar cutter so that the bar-ends were wedge-shaped.

A clear spacing of 1/4 in.was provided between the two parts of each longitudinal bar.It should be noted that the splice lap is only ten bar-diameters as compared to the minimum amount of twenty diameters given by ACI 318-56, 1103(c).A similar group of five col-umns with 12 No.6 bars was tested.Materials.-A laboratoryblend of Type I cements wasused.Sand and gravel aggregates were combined to gradations within the ASTM C-33-55T limits for 3/4-in.maximum size.The mix ratio of cement to sand to gravel was 1 to 3.58 to 2.38 by weight, and the water-cement ratio was from 0.64 to 0.68 by weight.Two concrete batches were used for each column.In previous column tests it has been found10 that failure generally takes place near the top of vertically cast columns.To explore this phenomenon, the bottom batch of some columns was made with a slightly higher water-cement ratio than the top batch.Com-pressive strengths, representing averages of three to four 6-in.-by-12-in.

cylinders for each batch, made and cured with the corresponding columns, are given in Table 2.All reinforcement was intermediate-grade steel and was tied into cages without welding.The ties were 1/4-in.plain bars.The longitudinal reinforce-ment conformed to ASTM A-305-53T for deformations and had the yield points reported in Table 2.All reinforcing bars were cut by a saw to a length toler-ance of 1/32-in.Bearing plates, 3/4-in.thick, were placed touching the bars at the top and bottom of the columns.The lower plate was placed in the form before casting, the upper plate was set 1n a thin layer of high-strength plaster after the concrete was cured.The heavy t1e reinforcement shown in Fig.6 prevented failure at the column ends by possible local non-uniform stress conditions.

Casting.All columns were cast in a vertical position, fn plywood forms protected by an epoxy resin paint.Concrete was placed in columns and com-panion cylinders with the aid of spud vibrators.

It was noted that the absence of interior ties in the columns with bundled reinforcement eased the concrete placing operation substantially.

By fnspectfon after testing the columns, ft was found that mortar had filled the cavity between the bars of all bundles.The test columns and their companion cylinders were cured four to five days under wet burlap.They were then stored in the laboratory until they were tested at the ages given in Table 2.Test Method.-Alf columns were tested under concentric loading as shown in Fig.7, with both ends fixed against rotation.Spherical bearings permitted rotation at both column ends until a load of 20 k was applied, after which the hearings were blocked by steel wedges.Electric strain gages applied at mid-height of all four column faces were monitored by a continuous strain recorder.Even at ultimate strength, the spread between the four gage readings was less than 15%, which indicates that a closely concentric loading was obtained for all columns.In addition to electric strain measurements, the total shortening over the entire column-hefghtwas measured by a dial gage.A continuous load-ing speed of 160 k per min was maintained for all columns.COLUMN TEST RESULTS the ACI column investigations in the 193Ps.The equation used is'>P~=0.85 fc (Ag-AST)+AST fy,..........

~.(3)fn which Ag is the gross area of the section an'd AST fs the total area of longi-tudinal reinforce ment.This equation has been confirmed by several recent fnvestfgations10 and is used in Section A608(b)of ACI 318;56.A comparison of measured and calcu-lated ultimate loads is given in Table 2 together with concrete and steel prop-erties.A>>y 1~j, TABLE 2,-COLUMN STRENGTH J Column Desig-nation hfain Steel, (>>p i per square inch Cylinder Strength, fg, In pounds per square inch Top Bottom Avera Test ge>In ays hfeasured Uftimat'e Load,'>test>)in kips Calcu-lated tfinate Load in Yips Ptest Pcafc Location>all~I 12-8S 12-8B-1 12-8B-2 12-8B>>3 12-8B-4 12-6S 12-6B-1 12-6B-12-6B-3 12-6B-49,610 49,500 49,800 50,000 48>470 48,510 49,300 48,800 50,200 48,230 3220 3290 3930 3550 3280 3970 3840 4200 3270 2960 3290 3150 3680 3150 3360 3470 3310 3820 2540 2860 3250 3220 3800 3350 3320 3720 3570 4010 2900 2910 5 915 8-'83 6 i9.09 6>>,889 7"'.789 726.7b2-~758'02'626 842 836 906 856 839 695 681 730 607 597 1,09 0.94 1.00 1.04 0.04 1.04 1.03 1,04 1.16 1.05 Top Top TOp Top hiiddle Top Top Top Bottom Middle The test data were also studied ln terms of the relationship between applied load and total column shortening expressed as strain..The load-shortening durves for the columns with 12 No.8 bars are given in Fig.8.Type of Failure.-Aff columns failed.through the crushing of the con~e followed by the buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement.

Except for~columns, failure took place in the upper half of th'e columns.Tffe typical nature of such a failure 1s shown in Ffg.7(a)./he Iftrength of the concrete placed fn the lower half of some columns was reduced to explore the phenomenon of top failure, which had been observed10 fn numerous prevfous4ests.

Though the cylinder strength of the bottom batch for columns 12-8B-1, 12-8B-2, 12-8B-3, 12-6S, 12-6B-1 and 12-6B-2, was from 4%to 14%less than that of the top batch, failure took placein theupper halfof the columns.For column 12-6B-3,cylin-der strength of the bottom batch was 22%below that of the top batch, and in this case failure took place in the lower half of the column as shown fn Fig.9(c).Even so, the measured ultimate load exceeded by 24%the value calculated on the basis of the cylinder strength for the bottom batch.The column test results were evaluated essentially in terms of the equation for ultimate strength of concentrically loaded tied columns established during"A Study of Combined Bonding and Axial Mad in Reinforced Concrete hiembors,'y E.Hognestad, Bulletin No.399, Engrg, Experiment Sta., Univ.of Illinois, 1951.

I I 0 I t V I I 1i ljl I c~1 I 1 I II I 1 W 902 BUNDLING BUNDLING 903",;>@0.IT$u>y4'>flj A>>'Qtrt>>,.Yr~Q>jg)s 1 J'bg ,>>4u,g.!~>(((g+"~4>>-+u I I>'J r ((~4'tu>>+8>)f-()(Ik&b)41, i jjpptt'jt'-'-})>>)rrr,'4~;eQ$f.'I 6 I'i a.'Jgg i.: ',y J~i (r>>,>>8>*>>r>r>>>41 s+J YP is'./@+I".'r$8'j',:, (>>J(fi'gQ>'-

&No.)2-8B-I (o)NO.l>)-BB-4 (b)..No.l2-6B-3 (c,), FIG.7,-TYPICAL COLUMN FAILURES-These findings confirm the previously reported observatio'n that the column strengthof the concrete placed in the lower half of columns is Increased;proba~

bly by the'improved compaction afforded when the upper half is cast.Similar-ly, the'column strength of the concrete placed in the upper half may decrease somewhat by water gairi from below.To evaluate effects of bundling, there-fore, measuredultlmate loads were compared to calculated values based on the average cylinder strength for the top and bottom batches for each column.The two spliced columns 12-8B-4 and 12-6B-4 which had I/4'n.clear be-tween bars at the splice, failed in the-splice region at mid-height as shown in Fig.'r(b).~~Effect of Bundling.-

The ratios between measured and calculated ultimate load given in TabIe 2 exceed one (1)for all except two columns.'ll'hits confirms previous findings that led to the ACI column investigation equation.j t i')'lJ">8 r+>'.r.~>'t.~~i Yield point or steel~.r~>>>>>l'lr r>6~.I>>>j 9~~4 J"J~J'~600 JC 8 2 400 J+)2.88-2 (t>(ts at 6 in 12-8 (ties at 8.1 12 ln.)\)2-88-3'spliced bep t()ucrjnd)

)2-88.4~(spdced bars$ln.clear),>200 12-8S (spaced bars)12-8S 0.001 J~J~~J J 0 Total column shor>ann>d.

ih incttespei~

FIG.8.-LOAD-SHORTENING CURVES FOR COLUMNS\'"~, J The load ratios of columns 12-6B-1 and 12-8Bn2 jr(ere 1.03 and 1.04 r ypectively as cpmpared to a value of 1.04 for column 12-68 that had convention-ally spaced Iprs.Fpr 3.6'l%longitudinal reinforpen)*ents,.

therefore, no detri-mental j)feet of btmdling was found regardless oftie spacing..,-.For the columns with 6.58%reinforcement, which(eltpceds,the maximum value of 4%given by ACI 318-56, 1104(a), the 12-in.tie spacing of column 12-8B-1 led to a load ratio of 0.94 as compared to 1.09 for column 12-88 with spaced bars.By reducing the tie'spa'cing to 6 ln:"for column 12-8B-2, the load ratio increased to 1.00.Furthermore, column 12-8B-3, which had a 6-in.tie-spacing andufailed above the splice, had a load ratio of'1:04.'-Therefore; even for 6.68%reinforcement, no detrimental>

effect of bundlingl))as found when the tie spacing for'bundle'd bars was reduced" tb 6(in."which is>>eslual'to 24'tie-'iameters, or-one"-half of'the least dimension-of the'column.

>"-'undling:did not" significantly affect'-the'relatk4sliipr between applied load and'column'(ihorte)iing.-

Thlhris"shuwrilforthe'dollimtis'4th'No."8&Ps"fii(Fig.8:

J r I I'l t II~

BUNDLING The results for the columns with No.6 bars indicated a similar lack of effect of bundling.Sp/fang.-Bundled reinforcement placed in the corners of a column section maybe spliced in the~me manner as single corner bars.The bars from be-low may be offset to a position inside the bars above the splice, and a proper amount of lap may then be provided.The bars may also be-butted and welded'n these testy, a splice particularly suitable for bundled bars yes explored.As shown in Fig.6 the splices of the three bundled corner bars were staggered a distance of five bar-diameters, and a fourth splice-bar, 35 bar-diameters long, was added at each corner.For columns 12-8B-3 the bars were cut by a saw, and each bar was touching its longitudinal extension.

The contact was not perfect and after testing, a mortar layer 1/32 in.to 1/16 fn.thick was found between the bars.Both of these columns failed outside the splice, and the measuredultimate loads exceeded the computed values by 4%and 16@, respec-tively.To simulate less accurate manufacture of reinforcement, the bars of col-umns 12-8B-4 and 12-6B-4 were cut at the splice by a hydraulic bar cutter with 60 cutting edges.The bar ends were wedge-shaped by the cutting to an angle of 90, and a clear distance of 1/4 in.was provided between the bars when the reinforcing cages were tied.Both columns failed at mid-height in the splice.However, in spite of the unfavorable conditions for a direct stress transfer be-tween bars in the longitudinal direction, the No.6 bar column developed an ultimate strength 5%over the computed value.The ultimate strength of the No.8 bar column was only 6%below the computed value.As shown for the No.8 bar columns in Fig.8, the splicedid not significantly change the relation-ship between load and column shortening.

It was planned in subsequent tests to strengthen the splice by longitudinal welds between the four bars at each splice.Even without welds, however, three out of four spliced columns developed an ultimate strength in excess of the computed values.It is obvious that the strength of splices with longitudinal welds would exceed that of the three bars outside the weld.Therefore, no columns with welded splices were made.It is believed that the short lap used in the splices did not suffice to trans-fer stress by bond.The mortar between meeting bar ends was probably sub-jected to a triaxial stateof stress so that acompressive strength far inexcess of the cylinder strength could be developed.

To assure that the longitudinal bars do not buckle in the splice, the reduced tie-spacing used in the tests, twenty-four tie-diameters or one-half the column dimension, may be neces-sary.If a splice of the type studied is used in eccentrically loaded columns so that tensile stress may be developed in the longitudinal bars,'the mortar be-tween bars cannot be expected to transfer stress and welds, or a longer lap, are obviously necessary.'>

HADLEY ON BUNDLING 905 for spaced bars, 3.Each bar in a bundle is a deformed bar and is individually well anchored, and 4.Stirrup reinforcement ls provided"in regions of high bond stress.Bundling of compression reinforcement in tfed columns can also be used even for high ratios of longitudinal reinforcement, if the'provisions of ACI 318-56 regarding other details are strictly complied wfth.For large amounts of longitudinal bundled reinforcement, it is advisable to reduce the maximum tie-spacing to about one half of that given by the ACI Building Code.Because bundling of refnforcementwas found to be saf'e in tests involving the extreme cases of bending alone and compression alone, bundling should also be satisfactory for members subject to combined bending and axfal load.APPENDIX.-NOTATION The following symbols, adapted for use in the'paper and for the guidance of discussers, conform essentially with"American Standard Letter Symbols for StructuralAnalysis" (ASA A10.8-1949), prepared bya committeeof theAmeri-can Stanthrds Associatfon with Society representation, and'approved by the Association in 1949: Ag=Gross area of section;As=Area of tensile reinforcement; As=Area of compressive reinforcement; AST=Total area of longitudinal reinforcement; d=Distance from extreme compressive fiber,.to centroid of tensile rein-forcement; d'Distance from extreme compressive fiber to centrqfd of compressive reinforcement; 4 fy=Yield point of reinforcement not to exceed 60,000 psl;I fc=Concrete cylinder strength of test specimen;As/bd p'At/bd;and k q (pfy)/fc.CONCLUDING REMARKS The test results reported confirm the previous findings that the use ofbun-dled reinforcement is a sound detailing procedure.

It can be expected that bundling of tension reinforcement in beams will not lead to,detrimental conse-quences as compared to spaced bars, for the following conditions:

1.Thery are not more than four touching bars in each bundle, 2, Bong stress computed on the basis of external bar perfmeter fs limited tp the vafuqs now permitted DISCUSSION HOMER JN.HADLEY, F.ASCE.-The writer'was pleased to read this 11 paper on the'testing of bundled reinforcement fn both beams a'nd columns." On>>Cons.Engr., Seattle, Wash.

\I'I>~F r jj l t 906 HADLEY ON BUNDLING HADLEY ON BUNDLING numerous occasions, he has found bundling highly advantageous in beams par-ticularly in precast channel-shaped concrete sections for short-span bridge decks, for which A, C.L or AASHO bar spacing is peculiarly ill-adapted.

There are probably several hundredof such short spans-16-ft-to-30-ft long and ten or fewer years old-installed and in service in various parts of the state of Washington.

These have been made,wifh four bundled bars in each leg of the channel.The bar size depends on the span.length, with single-be stirrups looped around the bundle at the bottom.The stems of the channel webs are usually given a 6-in.bottom thickness, with a 7-in.top thickness at the under-side of the slab.These over-all web thicknesses, except inthe case of theouter curb units, are initially reduced to approximately 4 in.by notcldng with a 2-in.plankon their outer faces.Thenotchstarts approximately 6 in.above the bottom of the stem.When the units are placed aide by side, these notched spaces, and any additional spaces are filled with concrete and thereafter there is full cover of the bundle everywhere.

There have been a few such small bridges on Federal Aid projects.After quite a number of small county bridges had been successfully installed, per-mission was granted on a project having twenty-eight ft trestly spans to use the precast units with four bar bundled reinforcement in, each web.This pro-ject was likewise successfully installed and 4 the best of the writer's know-ledge has proven entirely satisfactjry.

Unfortunately', an engin'eer from Wash-ington, D.C.visited the project during construction and voiced some misgivings about bundling.This brought ona local reactionof rejectionto'thepractice'a'nd permission to bundle reinforcement was withdrawn for several years, lt is the writer's understanding that currently three bars may be bundled on local Fed-eral Aid projects but not four bars.He is unable to explain the rationale of this ruling.The California Highway Department has bundled four bars'on Federal Aid prospects since 1949 and continues to do so;.Not mentioned by theauthors among thenuqed advantages of bundlingis the fact that it affords opportunity for having the quantity of beam reinforcement conform roughly with the moment diagram, by stopping unneeded steel areas somewhere near the points at which they become unneeded.In these days of high-priced reinforcement, such savings can total a considerable sum.The original use of 1/2 in.square bars fn contrast with 1-in.square bars was in demonstration of this fact.In the beam with the single 1-in',-'square bar, that bar had to run through from end to end of-the.beam;.whereas with.the bundled four 1/2-in.square bars only two of them carried through from end to end, and slightly offset longitudinally in the beam, provided as much eHective bond area as the 1-in.-square bar offered.li The authors state in their conclusion that'bundling of tension reinforce-ment in beams will not lead to deterimental consequences as compared to spaced bars for the following conditions:

1.There must not be more than four, touch-ing bars in each bundle;2.Bond stress computed on the basis of external bar perimeter must be limited to the values,now permitted for spaced bars..." Strictly limited to their test findings these statements are correct.However, attention should be drawn to the fact that they did not test five or six bars in a bundle and that there is nothing to be found in these tests to indicate or imply that a larger number of bars should not be bundled if that is desirable.

The writer has used stx No.10 bars in a bundle, stacked 1-2-3 from top down in one bridge in beamy of 9 in.width, and 2-2-2 from top doggy qyeqond bridge in beams of the same 9 in.width., No,ill;effect haye pen,;qbspzyed, In the latter case the twovertical tiers were not incontact with oneanother but there was considerably less than orthodox spacing between the tiers.In the writer's mind it has been the long-held and continued concept that if the bars in a large bundle are successively well anchored in the concrete at their ends, so that they can develop their designed stress at these ends, it then matters little how much or how little bond they have between these terminal zones.It is at these endzones thatanchorage is indeed vital.The intermediate concrete is simply fireproofing or weatherproofing.

With a dozen bars in a bundle, withgood plastic concrete and with vibration, the fines of the mortar will penetrate and fill the interstitial spaces of the bundle and afford all needed protection.

But the dozen bars must be well anchored at their several ends.About that necessity there must be no misunderstanding.

The writer is particularly pleased to see bundling applied to columns, where it will unquestionably effect marked improvement in economy and quality.The-contrasting column cross-sections in Fig.6 convincingly show this, The authors and whoever elseparticipated in this development are to be congratulated u n its excellence.

j 4 l I l ll d I I ab@1 II'I e e e V/.0.No.Drawing N.Sy Title PO-0 3 Q BURNS AND ROE.lNO.o..l'"~s..sH.J'ale.No.C~d 4 Approved d2'-r Pr'Page No.Sheet~et nzet/Pr zfri'~AAzX~+Sriar Ps////Eric/prZ/c'sr

/g/CrCWCX,+/+r jPZJC~/QCpyrr///SuN S~Er//ere'4

~45-Jr~CJre JAeeJ-84 Y~(g Pre jp JggfcA/~T Jgocsz///cg~tct wag j~z//dgpJ, (gee J"/te-7/P) orle'cd';/7'oxggggl~yt

~~gdrJ gf 7/h~rrc-'~~ra>~/o/Vs.-J'eP rn~/,/jc P/wc<E~j gj'/C/erOt/"/PAL/dr l><r~u/o a-'C Worl/Co//inc rl/,+e Cr/OCCn~P: 47r'-'o~d/-'O"~e A'r Wider'r"~porc'~Z/"C///PWZP~g er~d<J CZ/r/~or Zn guP/ig+get@'rc/ssg tf-74" 7 roooA'u 8roJ//c~AcuDri i'77O jOV'/Z'O//~4~/r Cfcf P O Ce/Wi/Plr//j/rd'/yncg~rl/<~i~j

/~u/c~c g~,/did~gJ~g~/%4 e/tr//e/C j>f Jg//~>>~c/VCgux~~~e>ddo'V r j~glluorig+

d/u/jci/v ltd/I.nor/Yiu/-'"'k c)/'~~/i n.~ggcoi f/4/o/felrrerifJ par OgcP 4'VCR Ct+//c'ndiekar Ji'Iles'O/

/d')pc'P/o/rcu(R/

74 vr/P44g IJ'Ji le)d/ra.wo/co//fru//ri/r g+67+cojgclrl

/D~lWg f'cA ht//Cce&//O/PI cd/t/fag"J/+JJ 4n/O, t/~j QrH//cv A/I biz-.7i)r c'" 7, z;.//n rc/o~g Q/~zc,ny-.4'c/vc/y

/p//ere 4~rp/gxl+g~ctctpp~//e M vcJJ'n e 8</" rJ c/jrcr4gK/id'$ye o.s dg z4u I peoi t.o/y~lj k/"zgurrclrrc z.'ses..Z,, Z/rrc/ppeor c s'/j/cc rp e/8c/rz 4/"c/o.z rcc//wigi$c/f~/rrvc r//enny<, p//earl~//riled

~rcypuuyr~gi or Cur/gp/li p//Ay)seee sssees.'ATTACHMENT 3

~I I I V/.0.No.Drawing N.By Title dO~03 BURNS AND ROE,,INC.Date/+Book No.J~4 Gale.No.J7 Ch ed App oved c'age No.Sheets~of/v~//~/~-'crrui'g//c/'k~J/l~~

/4 t~gJ~/qc ada'c wg/I z/-c c"/~//-8'plica-pp=/zJa3 oner///un:

Jyyr'c c/pz///,///n/<caT//-cJ4c'p c+4/J/c jib.c~c-W~/4~Ferrite~///f/t t uA PiJ+gal~+HAJJ~/~~=/13 g)'Ws/~i//g~jlc<//dCcc/kb'/~

uc H~/-+CJXII 7-/~cud'c~/c~/i~~i'.c.

r,~4 M>,z z'.age 7iIu~r~g~r/cu/.P/~x X~X>J<<ii~4 Ae~mrzrwccm pu~Qufcg rwlu~gtncig

/Z/~Xi'>a Form BR 8002-2

, l~~il~N.O.'etio.Graviing By Title Apltro ed BURNS AND ROE, INC./'ate/I~~Book No.Gale.No.Ch kd Sheet~of~'I SHIPp.g Dreretntt No.tty'8tte~~~BVRNS AND ROE, INC.ceceeccc, le J,~l4cerewt, cc, 7,~ere Angel~ccclt.0, Attrroored

'l t~,l pegeHo.I4 Sh t~rot-~/g,~gyes Ce Checked 7)cia.~H)PP~@NG 17 a I l i': Jl!Zj/EX/pg/7~+/~I~~~Cgg.j 4/A>C 6HZ C//A'/7dAZ I~'C~cr~)nerf@

'mcr I/&1 cI~I/u p~~c7 V'ee)'Ii('g)

A rtos'/S-7/

-//.<fico'/c/~Ie-'.V>>~h6S~Afr)/4+

rl Jew'eL I~8 (Q'W CC/NAOS,C E Mki/7/i/kac'C,C U>>'-C4>fan'" t/d r 2ig r/Zc'C~~/OP('crSa p~r tlCI'~%/gal) u'/C.>./ac/~!g-N)//./d4 li/D'OR/ZOrI r4L Sf'R EgZ~~CpgMW/Cttn

'r Ar>eCO~+uZSC) g.V..Ay (CP-ac)gS;P'//C))e72 XgPW Zk)Hr-cP<CX 4A'pSS'gecr.Ccr~c'Ace.>>w/g'aox5 VaerrC~~S ffa~~4~rW~Vr p'I r+g~)afar)1)PK OKSSC thee).~HCC'e:rI oPAS+Ct'5 g6'///C.4.x (/'crba J c (A et tr~~~1 I~~l t I~~~~~I:, l.'.J~l'

~I I~~I ,.i~I\: j6&cdcC'..~K-.:&g>>~/cP 7./"...dcujiun

//4',6 l.: I.i}~~~~~~I fi n..//=.-.:-'.",::..'P~=.:>~vZc.~7.u 0~a 0 1E~BURNS AND ROE, INC.h WO.No.+~+~Daaa d~<<r~Booh Na.O+~Pago No.Drevking lo.N ghaat0 Mof gy'~Ch k r ved Title r~~i~'n~~a/~~ar//p WAlzvr~v-/+~i I:: Pg jcreyPziu'~

/~f<NiPr>>P"/YcfJ/~4g~PQ//a~L)~0,~.~a~~0 1'~1 k~gfiw~..//2Z a 0 L~O I 1~~g o tv'.,7 Spy (/Q~Pm F z,i A ZA'I~~~~~~~~~~~r~.~'~.1~~1 4 o~gPr~'~+/.-W aC'I~~~~'~~~~~~Form BR 8002.2~4~~~~00 0~~0 0~~~0~0~~~0~~~0~0~0 00

't~~~~Q Vf.Q.No.+Drmving By Itic o.~.~Gale.Nn.C ec Appr ed r I'UR S AND ROE, tNC.Boak No.27 Page No, Sheet~et..jill/CJfi shan A Jf~Zg~riuc 4/ilier, ccnrrnqfrj'-

vr'l'ororg~lc f4.'~d"i~iJ' OA e/-o cr orno ro"'r.oorcr;.~W/o.or 4'77->a~/i 23Oy,lSC/f~~~e~~~e~w~A..~/CclCC',-'g7C Won-O'P>7'//Zor<)

occofrin'.'ec g 4Pjrlgo Zgr/7/'gc Z...,.../"/>J34',/', lt",d'dd,,'Pl rl.-7/:/>'7 O>l dt p~e: AGRIC.....

X.:.:/1~54-//JKr/

g+7?-rrt7/:.:'Qg

(, d gP.:: '.,perry':

Cr.>>:::"/op(f',.'7g~r<Jrp<Gal'lrj i oS d'+p~pizj~)..y~)/f~gi'..<.::::.:,/clr./Ig-/.7768'c WzZ-,g7/...,..., 7 Z~'k lf't: Nl jS'Z;/c//Ir/<

So/-f.7/7/7clo.(z0qQ c Jo)r t~~~~J~~~~~~~~~t~~~~j., Crlotrilnfirlc..SJZcrrr".~~C.<o?/u=Z/da'Z~., l~~~e))>>w 4 j.'..0/c,"..',/~~Ac'4<@8'd@rAX~!ye".~d/<kJcXg4'".

o P~ggrcrol/r Sg~i o.>/r.~gaerrm..

//-ZZ H-oggcrzy'~7 cocr:.CgJZ.Z~.~.J/c'V,Z.p~qe

'.4Z...4ekrg cor V4r>c./.rrrtrcitrorl j':cg z boa&.J....='voo+PJ P.-r'oc"d.odor ocJ'c o>>-..7.'..ob Ac.g'cnr rr/rorL rlZ 8>zYzocrr~tdl<g.l<c/Pr cor.o.o rcrc>~inc', ug jfci'.,ltr/c govt.rn Z4 gq/crnrrr'eo/co ore Acr<erne rkrrim.>...:or.mc.,vt.ri.Marco/rocl

//-gg err,C'O/rZ ocro~rl/8r coo"-.m+'A"...con/erg+~~/rorioni4p d~/wccrr.moorcC.r.use>ader.

v/c.r e-pr/o/rrrrrrt

-5@87co>>..l/-Zz..or.J/rcodg, roti)/fr'crrrlui

/I-3Z..gOVcNrlr, Pjc~'lcCg-'

~For~OR 8002 2~~e~W II~II IV 1 BURNS AND ROE, 1NC.tjtj.o.No.39 O O Data V at D Book No.Dr'awing'.

IC.Nrt.By"<ch cd Title'-ggi jPxj~~.u Ngrr".':, j4 j~l jjUUjjjv PZUjt Q/J/.M~lic J jag Fjr~lg Jg~r Pgj Pago No, Shoat iaa ot---r j"/C Wlf t.'t e at~I Ij~~~~a~~a ar/NJ jg ahAZ r t~a~a~~:: g~.ji..i.(S~~Z~y8W33

'.'~a: Scrv~cs A (Conscruc/7i UO j.'j'j/cv~I\'C/: VZ/a--3 3 ja 32~UjcOato,~2C'g+S'C.~~,~a~,~r o a lg4wc OpCjsCCrg jf Ir5': (Cdj/isMvgfijc fjrjcc SS+fj j a~I~t~I'.t a~J a r: '-j@s-5~-: 3F 4/zan/73-.O'Z+z$0 Z~d r.a/tor j jjjait (wc/~su~)ttjjeta ot Jjrjt'ij jta L~r~" r~t I~I~I j iQ:~~~~~.izing-79'~~r a~~~a~gj j cr 4Cg!!i~Z>" gk.'~ai~/vor//~-Pcs 0~~~~~~~e~~~>>~~~~~0~o 0~~Form GA 8002.2 4~e~0~~~~~~~~\~~0~~

.j gp)~~$.0.No.~POD 0 Drawing Noi By~Tile Date Calo.No hec ed Ap roved BURNS AND ROE)INC.Book No.CÃrlrz I e Page No.Sheet~>>f/pe///.-~C>cr chuck~c>>F Ezyccccr~~n

&zP~ezwv z//7o)~J g/g gt~~v cp W/~7/s=8 Z, 77/g/Prc~cc.: Ci/cap ZP-'roe ICa/egg lY-zov/P~/yah.4 lF-ill g Rulc/Jcc//a/xgy J/ceo g~/i/err 7o c'z/crzur Pre//Z=ag5 P 4 cretic~: Cz c 8>>Z4'Z7gp~c zs-)Cg 7'/h>Ar.P~J 7o c~Pri.-~Zji~o a+x'bP<Z7,774 XZ, 9yz, jAc'~r g~jjuciQ tu P~z7W~//=gp&'z-I'l,SC Z/dc jarA Qo+fd&n/J<("=I 7o~~z-fcg-cd/>Jo~" pc~>IS ,gg'ward zA+(kE~~~~cc, Pu/egg gP'XTp~pc wZ)zap'cc (d'~c Jg+)(z07)Y~-y xl>>Z+Wc-Soy)<Zo x>p/yq>>gg~110O" 4 all xf~~f+~oucdca/

=+jcufz=g x',g6=>zz i-;57<cSX J~o'clare darS I PZ-O.pg (O,X+7 Z>I Z FOtm BR 8002.2 0~J lj

~e C.BURNS AND ROE, tNC.., Q!'g.C', i'to'.4 Cgte~+agate No.+~~Page Ma.Growing o Cole.Na.gtteet~at~ra ,.By r h k~prov.'itle r..-'r/z~pr i r o r~<~a~floor."/~~/rr~~~rrC%7-re I:\a\~~a~~~\.,~.j%rc.ni'iform 2Nj J"-7 Z tfcifin JZd dS~aS j+c,..8 vizonfi/~4cC r devi ur":j~g8.@Pc Aciv//!~g//rrr d4/>>Ž8/gttg HA'c/icdd/

P4//gd'+C//WrO....,:..::

<a'c<ac~f r~J.conPi<j pcs/P~><>j'i ns>rcP<c erst>:~'oiri7 aP...e cc(~ion rrz-'rc"c Wg ecPrsiZr inc.elr~g'P~Sd//<4'crt re//d dgng MP at v/dp 3certt~c/col/a.:.:-.goZ-'Z>~'!

Agchc~P~c(gers j~rcro p 4c'vwcr7/~~>'no

,:.pgvrjpg A~oc rcr(c//4 6d'd f dd c1ogF oov7<u wo//cmz.vryno'err,jn~

gp gc Spore psucr%j,::-:ab~@.C<i5 C S'g~W 8/e/~7itt rg>d4g.rtrr+/nfl~.rubric'~

rp~S~neccrq..rr!rr C urer'rri7::..-::;</eeg n.~W Z-Z~-'Zg<"~+~

io c~rczc77p<

~dec~~~r/iuvt~orr7rs./

Hive)roo/4g/l gegz rfcjv;iir:-(~-

p9cc2:-'-':.+ri@VS+I'&rC-Mge(rOOJWg(//gggrSfr irO/7>~'poS~r.r/rg cs'cto pgPrpdzgArv

/<jr gg jgu/qlccn retd eig~g./ic p ized et ji (-/"c/Aorcrrr-jrr.-':-, ay//rw~sci~rP rr~.~ivrr Wee-'4 ri WZ~~e/='pi c+i.rppcv ylzcj~rrp pc~/A'd<g He~evi.>.-~J a6O<<...79iJ+jul@flu./ah>S/'nI 75 Werc/~C.VW

~c'l'4r u"Q'crt/rr Wc~r'Ccrgryl wee sv'd'd~>~/oc<Z ore gov ops'(rcc/rhea rrrupprgcl hd'f'gp rcpt i7/cg~S vcricr.rrr o r c')ccz c~rc<g7 rro..-'-Crrfc uov'&-, j4 nx 8 ue Drs>rrrc'71~>

JccfAo ZZo>dig 7 rb7crrcg/e Igi AY@-/~r~icm..%is wo/I dcev resn Pcsgy J"$<rsrn err gee'........

A eh~Xicclj/~)rr'(d cwWJrv~gi,~~1~e~Ae oa a form SA 800M P~~~a~g~~~~~~a~~1

0 Oh VM~hp Oy~oo C~~I>>TO 0 4 04~~4bh+ICI 1 LAYClte'I CA>>LAYCR ov 00 tll 4Y OCC LICC4.Oil>>4~IA>>CQ LTD.)~II 8 9'~0~I.v~at 000~0 00>>0~q>.0>>0~Q~Q J~0>>r.l et I'.~<<e+>>~~I'VOL 41JORL4L&tl t COO,Ct 4'IO t tLTCot O'b llCtOItO.aCC CT>>Cr>>0>>$Žoo~0 D<l,bt>>c erat)/r gn~tg Tt AYCRS I5'7 II CS.LI Y" IL nh LAYCIts~Ilsgv t CA, I A'YCIL~2 II~i t CLA>cps$H IICX.LA'tCC Clttito~p(p~'I I!0~00 0~00~n gn a'A 0 C 0 J$fl~v 0 p4>>+II 4 LAYCILS 4 Ch.LXYCC$II'K~1 Ttl toll C l 4)olg~~~~~~~~~'o~:,4 I4~I>>~~Cplbo 14~v oo~oooo>>~oooo>>oooo>>

J~]"$I~COI Ll MJ.I~M lttIN!~LIOT etOOtNH'SCC D+4'o 01CT eCCT~T Doe:iri4)jercr.bio ye(<t 0000~~00 O FOAL eTDILA4$I'OOL RCII4K OYIOI~AbTJ l Q.N>>~~IICY IC A l I I.I I ho~~POOL~~~~I"I I~~~~J~a<<~~~~~2 LAVERS~llf$lh LAVEC,~IIQ 0.~~I poo LAYCILS 0 a..sea-A'I I 4 LIlICIC 4V I LVTr.)I.~.~J.~~Ioe 5'.~.~~~.0~,~0~~~FOR.REINlt IN 5Lh&P.KYOH~C't Ct.'CL>OH I,"i~<$1Q&ECTIOkl 030-SSO~e~0~~0~s.l (~3-'~'t I~00>>otoo~00~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~>>00~O~0>>~000~O~~~J>>o o~>>C Qi 4ST J r~oo PQ CCIOII+o l4OT Ot>>OWN OCC OW4>>MTl etCT>>404 S04 i f~O~CL.COO'IOC

.~~..~T IIC4+OtnT Ar'Cg>>I plr>>Yo Ir)(OO r~~--xCV I'R nb~!(TYlo)LI l4.>>CONST JT y',I I CL.Slhlh"Ot

~Q:-.J~~Q I~g~i g r 0 Q p QT Q4 Z 0 m 0 R C/I tO g~0 P 0 0 I~~op~I 5/Z-A~J o~o I 0~~

~0~~+~~~~~\~j/I%85 R g~~

I f,, I

~.//J~~~'a.//ARRPÃRW~SI r 1~/.~~~g I H i I I~PI~~~

0 o)o r r~CF~~~%mr~~/J r p/I/jr r/~~

0~~

,W.O, No.;-:tPrIIWillg

." Sy Thf~~oole/d/g)d~took Me, Ic.No.~/Cg~e Approved a Page No, Sheol~el O~r W~~40~~~la~~~I I I~J'.~I I.l~t 0I 0~~I~~0~.'l~0~~..I l"L~I.~~~~0~~0~I~~~0~t~~4 ,~~~0~~;~et~~0~~0 I~~a Ie~a~~~14 ar C,I..CO>Ios.~I~jul-SC///ended dr C~~/ifdd//o>>

., e.Z PO Cu~>g i.','.+dan j dncrgXc'Pnsm'.

..:/Od<<j,+de';jqr gcziy>>~~V'~~~I~~<~~~r'I, e, see-8 I..~~~~'gg.'z74'oy.

~'~~~~t~~~'0.J~~~~a.~~t S CO fid6.fy<<et C I d~SCe-'Ia rt 0 0 I~~~I't t t~~~~~~e e~~~ra J,~~J 4 WzclPyo)A'))'-/rdnP~udp'~n Se'/<z~c-".~I:: f.'l I aa~aa~0~1 t~~I~~0.I.~0~~0 I 0~~~~~~'rt~eaa~~r~I r t ara}<<t)~~~d~~r 004~L I~I~~~~~~~~~I re 0~~~~~I>..L.~~0~I~~-at~~0.+/der/4',.+<.,e)d'7 n t dEcj P'td./.IlI.I.d'4 r, rt I~C a 000 p~~/'I/Porn~Z~~/rr/7<Žg prrrrrr~~~, wisp.'s-,pz-z6,...!>>/hatt

/fi P/me//rdna/

/t!Jc'r/~.~d//Zuni, p~<<S2.~,//.8, y,p/~Py,~1~cyA~~I'.,I l",.e~~r~0\~I'I'~r~~l..I~~~~0~~~~~~~~~I I 0~0 I l 0 I~~~~~0 j I I S.~,t~~I~.t~I~I~~~~~~~~~~~J'~drtfrrj l8+~c'I/>>'r cd/7c'r~~c Pd///rr4dr<~cdr~gI g g'd//d~/j//r'd+g/n/!

/c ji'>>//>>re r/r.I::.c2ndt/:, d rccv~rptr",r/nor'/

//lc'rm 7hcl.'.careen.'::~r/r'.csnp urer//r ri'Zu/r/>>I drt:.o/$d~.';7I/., e6/ld:lg/4~3'.gdlt Q, r/7.r/<f2/S',-.Ji//ja5w<~/./..u'%e id'/l."r't r'..l//.c'dorctyp

.;...J'g>>ted P~" e//dr/Par/fg

.: dr'd'I/.yC'/>/Cygne>'vi'nt c n.'//7/r dt.d d'.C'a>00 ea~~~e~ee~~~~~~~~~~0 r~0~

0 E a.~I 1'l 1 l t'r,

'W.O.No.~4 4 Drawing~g By fl lr Title~<'BURNS AND ROE, INC.Date/'o~Book N Gale.No.S/X Ch ked A Z.-ws r roved r r Page No.Sheet~of/Ac//Jfp~j//c//

IJ cc c"4'/Q4'/@

@joel g~gc 44//r g)f/~S~k)Zaire~l~S ZZZ-'C'aZ Z-S~'l&c'dP&~/sc'df

//~+oJh J'o c+P"I~<wc 7 Co/rc<oIcgo/r/

do Jere r<c/ou'<cog Z.$&pep gc>Z-to~P5c/A a)S'/W~j-'/u,'WZS Pk~/-aogrr/lo~l=O.t//Arly.S/"-FJHI~S/r Jg-/Z)=4 ff/z,]J~/34))7J-IC/90 WAS ZZ=asizfhf~jg 83'p sgz-jc J/~Z-u=,~SF/dcl~S-=

/)7J Ci s~jo//~J Pgj=,rrxldZ<S=-

/g,ZJ zc zi f&gJ=/F/)////

~SC.Z/<2/-cfog Jgf Z lZ FEr//Jc=Fi>8=<S=

'a,z/xz7//Z u/'=/,r/Pc/i=/8/c(+>>./~~ac)g r<<--I-,u 4'c z(gJ wJaq-31J$7Z'f~--O'h274 S'$598 H/3-Rc3-7n/-/god zg z3g PJ/rh-~=/ii'I gq Pg'=Z<~iXE8 W~gz l2Jdud lz yd p Odr fc'fNlo~/Cooo S s=4+$<rgb.Form BR 8002-2 V~

ee,r rr i oo'~o os~o\f BUR SAND ROE, INC.!WO Ne+fru+Dele~fr/.7 BeekNe S rd~L PegeNe.Dra win Gale.No.SheetMf ef By Cel A proved.r.~Title r r r.>r/r/Wr'r/ji'giurf

+fr~rWrc'c/Heiefr/P+Wf

.'e'rfcnrcZ/q rj ilg7ifrr cd if'/rcr/7 ifr g gc/r rl B rc's.merry.

rp rrrrcnpcur 8r trpb/r crrdn i idion I'o~pVrrlfr/rcir

.Xi f/dr'/<c/~a~/m~r/r'.rn..We...VrC/err~rj".....4.

r rr-ii-:',,:: "'-::.-:: '.:::g~..3rrP r ccrPPcn7.gr er&rrree P cc'/rrrrÃBBr zz W/0:=ZZM c 7=Z7r/P 4,':;:"-'::;::;".'::...-'"::

'.:."-".: 'f:.':":-',.'::::

".:.".'~y'Cg jl-&rj7 g/PZ/CurrCid

%~~r~',-.~e e.r~<':, e.~~~~~~~~r~e.Q/d Z~gr guru neer/7::~i)::-:,:.:-:~@AC~e"W4/I: '-:.::.':as%">(4g'lee 7=.>'77.rrr rt rcrirlrlr~/'..

ggcl..:.:.':,...:: gfrg<gg rr'Pire/Ccrnrfr'qcFzs~

co>JiliB>>:hg:=d~7.-Af r.'./i crV~ruP~+/Q'.-::-::.".':.:-:..W4/t"Cghl r C",fi.~~~~~0'e::;".ji>~J/lcsI K.>Z,fdJ rrJ-rcpt/rrrr: rrrC/rrr~P

~r WZZ-Z:.:.f'/rrr.'<4Z I g>>4'i/zJlc),8/2 squirrel m~l ge/rrn.:.::.'....:

--: "/n c>i>I~i ZL J'Zg-Z.j.grrrrA~iver..~~'ef~i o<<o'oO'o J~~e~~e~~~i~~C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e~'o~~~<<~~eo~~<<ooe o oe r~~I'~~~~'~~0~v os 0~~oo 0~~~~~~e ee>>o>>~~oo~o~~~o~p~.~e~~~~o~o~o~~~>>~~o~.~S o~~~e~N~~~~~~~o~~~o~~~~~ee~'I~~~o o eForm BR 80024 e~~~o~oo<<~~~~~A%~o

'L

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17277B056&oldid=1878505"