Lightweight Highway

Concrete Bridges

for California's

by James E. Roberts, Director, Engineering Service Center, Chief Structures Engineer, California Department of Transportation Introduction The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has used expanded shale structural lightweight concrete for bridge construction as a substitute for normal weight concrete for
b o th 1 repacemen t o f o Id er b n .d ge d ec k s an d

turallightweight concrete, incorporating the latest t~chnolQ.gical developments. Qu~stions regarding the shear stren.gth an~ ductile performance of structural lightwelgh~ co~crete hav~ pr~mpted res~arch at the Urnverslty of
Callforrna at San DIego, funded by Caltrans.

widening, and new bridge construction on the California State Highway S~stem f?r the past forty five years. A 1986 Desl~n Polic.y Memo sugg~ststhe use of structural lightw~~gh~concrete III deck replacement and rehabilitation at ~ '.'.'h~I':~!00.:l! agg~~g.a:~~ unsuit ~~ able, as a cost e~fectl~e ~aten~ for long span structures, and III seismIc regions where superstructure dead loa;d nee~s to .be reduced. Examp~esof four ~aj?~ projects Illustrate the d.urabllity and reliability of a pr?perly .designed and constructe~ structural lightw~lght aggregate co~crete b?dge. Cost comparisons o~ st:ructural li~~twel~ht aggregate structures bid III co~petition With struc~ral steel and normal weight concrete al~ern~ti~e. structur~s demo?strate the economIc viability of this matenal. .The ?utstanding performance of Caltrans ' lightweight concrete bnd~s u~de~he~vy traf -for fic, and the.close ~ompetition III ~Iddlllg su.ggests that lightweight aggregate IS a matenal which should be considered III future bndge designs, especially in earthquake country where dead load is such an important factor in seismic design. The known consistent creep, shrinkage and modulus of elasticity properties of lightweight aggregate concrete remove any doubts about performance as Caltrans' structures have shown. The industry advances in controlling lightweight aggregate moisture content have considerably reduced the handling and finishing problems of earlier years. Preliminary plans to bridge two large bodies of water in the San Francisco Bay Area with long span structures over 1.5 miles (2.4 km)inlengthhaspromptedCaltranstoreview and update the overall policy on use of struc-

Background Caltrans bridge engineers have designed and constructed expanded shale structurallightweight concrete bridges or bridge components since the mid 1950's. The use was primarily iurdc;l:k:c;Ic;IIlc;IIr~ rcr-teduceme-d load imposed on supporting superstructures, bents, abutments and foundations. The additional weight imposes severe problems on foundation design in a highly active seismic zone. A total of 15 major bridges have been designed with structural lightweight concrete decks. There have been several bridges designed using structural lightweight aggregate concrete for the entire superstructure to further reduce substructure design requirements in poor foundation materials. Two of those have been in service for several years. Structural lightweight concrete has been used decks with the typical normal weight concrete topping or polyester concrete overlays b t al h b tru ted . u sever ave een cons c WIth out t .E. ht fth b .d h b . Oppln.g. Ig O ese n g~s ave een III place. III e~cess of 30 years With no apparent detenorati~n of ~e deck concrete. In 19~7 stru~tural lightweight .concrete. was used III portions of the conventionally relllforced concrete box girders on the Tenninal Separation Interchange at the west end of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Lightweight aggregate was used to bring the concrete stresseswithin reasonable limits while simultaneouslysatisfying the aestheticrequirements of the site. In the mid 1960's, the San Francisco-OaklandBayBridgewasconverted to one-way traffic on each level, requiring

continued on nextpage

Portland Cement Association strengthening of the upper deck to carry modern truck traffic. Since it had previously carried only automobile traffic, substantial strengthening of the deck support system was required and lightweight aggregate concrete decks were used to reduce those requirements. Napa River Bridge The Napa River Bridge was designed in 1973-74 and constructed in 1975-77. It is a thirteen-span continuous post-tensioned cast-in-place structural lightweight concrete box girder with a total length of 2230 ft (680 m). It carries four lanes of State Highway 12 over the NapaRiver, immediately south of the city of Napa and about 35 miles (56 km) northeast of San Francisco. It was designed as an alternative to a structural steel girder system. Both alternatives were advertised. Seven bids were received. Six bids were for the prestressed concrete box girder, including the lowest bid of $10.96 million. The seventh bid was for the structural steel girder; it was the highest bid at $16.66 million. The bridge superstructure is constructed entirely of expanded shale structural lightweight aggregate and has shown no significant problems during its 20-year life. Spans range from 150to 250ft (45.7 to 76.2 m) over the main river navigation channel and are supported on 100 ft (30.5 m) nonnal weight concrete piers and prestres3sed concrete piling. The 11,000 cu yd (8410 m )of structurallightweigfit-concrete utilized expanded shaleaggregate produced by Port Costa Materials at their Port Costa, California plant, located approximately 20 miles (32 km) from the bridge site. This bridge is not only an economical alternative in direct competition with structural steel but is an aesthetic award winner in national competition. It has been inspected annually since 1977 and there are no apparent problems with the structural lightweight concrete. alternatives to the bidders as possible. The design assumptions for structural lightweight concrete creep and modulus of elasticity were obtained from historical data maintained by the manufacturer. concrete alternative would be competitive. When the study was completed it concluded that the savings in substructure would offset the additional cost of lightweight concrete aggregate and the Caltrans designers prepared two alternative designs for the final bidding. It had been assumed after the study that the five column bent required for the normal weight concrete alternative could be reduced to three columns for the lightweight alternative. unfortunately, during final design some difficult foundation problems caused by underground utilities were encountered and the total savings anticipated in foundations were not achieved. The normal weight concrete alternative was estimated at $29. 78 million and the lightweight concrete alternative was estimated at$30.56 million. The normal weight concrete alternative was low bid at $ 26.35 million, a savings of $ 3.43 million below the lowest Engineer's Estimate foreitheraltemative. With the proper site conditions, the lightweight alternative would have been extremely competitive and may have been the lowest bid. The competitive position of lightweight aggregate concrete is close enough to warrant further designs. From the perspective of the owner agency, the competition generally results in a lower bid, regardless of the successful alternative. San Juan Creek Bridge This bridge is on State Route 74 east of San Jua!l Capistrano in Orange County. It is designed as a 267-ft (81.4-m) two-span prestressed structural lightweight concrete boxgirder structure as an alternative to a hard rock concrete structure. Structural lightweight concrete is being used to generate some competition in bidding in Southern California. The bridge provides a 42 ft (12.8 m) roadway and is replacing a deficient older bridge. The project is scheduled for completion and advertising in late 1997. Future Plans for Structural

Figure 2 Napa River Bridge The successful bidder, Guy F. Atkinson Company of South San Francisco, California proposed an alternative construction method from that assumed by the designer. The Caltrans Standard Specifications forconstruction contracts provide this option to bidders. Atkinson chose to construct the bridge as a modified form of segmental construction by building segments up to 100 ft (30.5 m) in length on steel falsework towers (see Figure 1). The long segments were partially post-tensioned and the falsework removed and relocated asconstruction progressed across the valley. Figure 2 shows a general view of the completed bridge. Benicia-Martinez Bridge Widening The Benicia-Martinez Bridge is a 7200-ft (2195-m) deck truss carrying four lanes of Interstate 680 over the Carquinez Straits approximately 30 miles (48 km) Northeast of San Francisco. The bridge was completed and opened to traffic in 1962 and utilized a struCturallightweight concrete deck with normal weight concrete topping. In 1988 plans were completed to widen the bridge deck from four to six lanes to handle increasing traffic. In order to minimize the additional reinforcement of the existing deck truss, the deck widening was also designed and constructed of expanded shale structural lightweight concrete with a polyester concrete overlay. The deck widening project was completed in June
3 1991. A total of 2600 cu yd (1990 m ) of

-~

Figure 7 Nopo River Bridge during construction. The design drawings and bid documents were based on the assumption that the balancedcantilever method of construction would be used. All final camber and prestressing diagrams as well as assumed form traveler loads were indicated on contract drawings based on this assumption. Optional details for precast girder segments were also provided on the contract drawings to provide as many

structural lightweight concrete was used in the deck widening. A parallel five lane bridge is currently being designed with a structural lightweight concrete superstructure. Alameda Street Viaduct This bridge is a ten-Iane 3500-ft (1067-m) viaduct carrying Interstate 105, the Century Freeway, over an industrial area with complex foundation problems. At the request of the Port Costa expanded shale lightweight concrete aggregate producer, the Department allowed a consultant to prepare conceptual designs to show that a structural lightweight

Lightweight Concrete Two major crossings of the Carquinez Straits at the northeast end of San Francisco Bay are being planned and the use of structurallightweight concrete superstructures is being considered at both sites. The Carquinez Bridge site is on Interstate 80 at Vallejo where two bridges carry the east and west bound lanes. The west bound bridge was erected in 1927 and is severely overloaded by the current truck loads. A new westbound bridge has been financed and design studies are underway. Several alternatives were studied, including a structural lightweight concrete segmental bridge superstructure. In any bridge constructed at this site the decks will be constructed of structural lightweight concrete. The Benicia-Martinez site is on Interstate 680, upstream of the Carquinez site, and parallel to the bridge which was recently wid-

~q1 0:1 p~WJOJUO:) S~~::Idold

:~U!A\OnoJ ~1!SU~ ~~

JO A1!I!:1;)nppU11 ~~U~J:lS ~lnX~lJ ~~ ~U!UU~~p o~ ~U1rIlodw! SUM ~! s~u~w~I~ ~u!:IlOddns l~~O lO SUWnI;) ~~P!lq U! ~~~l;)UO;) ~q~!~M~q~!I
lU;}A;} t! ~U!JnP suwnIo:) ;}qi U! ;}:)Ut!WlOJlOO ;}qi Jo ;}snt!:);}q {t!WlOU :)1WST;}S ~I!:j:)np

~Jn:I;)nJ:js p~sn ~OU suq SU11J:1~J ~I~ .p~~s~~pU11~I!nq ~l~M SU~W

~
~V8 dn:> S~V8 a3~~0.:130.

lOJ U~!S;}P O:j ~;}U -qns -:)nl:Isl;}dns f!UllI:)nl:IS -wo:) ;}qi

S;}ln:I:)nl:IS pUt! 'S;}ln:I P;}:j;}Id

;}qi U! ;}:jOO:)UO:) :jq~!;}M U! AluO ;}sn O:j ;}nUnuo:) S!qi Inun

;}:jOO:)UO:) :jq~!;}N\:jq~!I II!M SUt!l:j{t!J .;}:j;}l:)UO:) :jq~!;}M:jq~!I U~!S;}P dOI;}A P;}I!t!:I;}P ;}lOW st! II;}M ;}In:)np ;}qi :jt!qi S:jS;}.L .;}:jt!~;}i3~t!

-!;)OOs~S~ UWnIO;)~~P!lq ~~~l;)UO;)~q~!~M~q~!I ~Jn:I;)nJ:js OM.L .~!l~~UW ~~ JO ~~U~J:lS JU~qs ~~ ~~Un~A~ AI~~um;);)u o~ ~U1rIlodw! S! ~! 'l~q -w~w ~~l;)UO;) ~;)lOJU!~l AU11 U~!S~P ~~ U! JO ~lnI!UJ JU~qs ~su!U~u UO!:1;)~Old ~~unb~pu ~P!A -old o~ AJ:ISl~~U!~U~ ~Jn:I;)nJ:jS ~;)U!S .;unI!UJ JU~qs u JO S;)!:1S!l~~;)UJUq;) ~Iqul!s~pun ~~ U! S~!I ~~~;)Uo;) ~q~!~!{';!q~!I ~Jn:I;)nJ:js JO ~~U~J:lS JU~qs ~~ ~U!SS~SSUJO ~;)U111l0dW! ~q,L .MOU ~IquI!UAU ~JU

S! ){lOM

{t!ln:I:)nl:IS lOJ suont!pU;}WWO:);}l -;}P O:j At!/\U;}pun ;}It! s;}sA{t!Ut! .~U!l:)t!l:) S~V8 3~VnOS 031SIM.L 010a l;}MOI ~ ;}:jt!~m~t! O:j Slt!OOdt! .P;}l;}:j{t! suwnIo:) uo St! I;};}:js ;}Sl;}ASUt!l:j

uo SUO!:jt!AJ;}sqo qi~U;}l:jS It!;}qs

;}qi U! SI;}A;}I u!t!l:jS uo P;}St!q

'l;}A;}MOH ;}:jt!:)!pU! {t!ln:j:)nl:IS

ApUt!:)y!u~!S It!;}qs ;}~P!lq

:jOU S! ;}:j;}l:)

-uo:) ;}qi Jo qi~U;}l:jS aSJn

;}In:)np-uou

s~suqd 0!{';! ~sy ~~ JO s~Ins~l ~~ AluO .~~~;) -Uo;) ~q~!~M~q~!I ~Jn:I;)nJ:js JO lO!AUq~ ;)!UillU -Ap ~~ ~~U~!:1S~AU! Pl!q1 pU11'A1!I!:1;)np pU11 o~ ~U~S I11lnX~lJ~~ ~U~!:1S~All!o~puo~S '~~~;) -Uo;) ~q~!~M~q~!I ~Jn:I;)nJ:js JO ~~U~J:lS JU~qs

;}:jOO:)UO:) :jq~!;}M:jq~!I

,..P~~OU~S!ft\J~q10 ss~IUn apv.l81v.lnJ:Jn.lJS ~q nuqs ~suq:Jlnd JO S!Suq ~q1" p~~mS ~ I V JO (U) 'l Uon:J~s .AIUO ~pUl~ {t!lfil:JnJ:jS o~ P~UllOJ -UO:JSlUq P~S!M1-PI;) .pJp,qpuu ~~U!P~Ull~U! '{t!Jn:I:JnJ:jS :S~pu~ ~;}Jq! U! p~y!:J~ds ~l~M

:jt! P;}WlOJlOO

;}qlJO ~ II!M

;}Sn p;}pUt!dx;} A:)!IOd :jU;}llnJ {t!!l;}:jt!w

;}qi ;}~t!roo:)U;} UO ;}nunuo:)

O:j ~:jt!pdn q~~ U! II!M q:)lt!;}S

.S;}UOZ :)!illS!;}S

~~ ~U!UU~~~p o~ ~snJ ~s~suqd ~ U! p~~;)np -Uo;) ~U!~q S! UlUfj,Old ~U!:1S~~ ~~~;)UO;) ~q~!~M -~q~!I S!q.L .Sl~qW~W ~~~l;)UO;) lOJ q:)lU~S -~ ;)!WS!~S ,SU11J:1~J~~ JO q;)nW p~~;)npUO;) S1!q oqM ' A~I1s~!ld .f .W I~~!N lOSS~JOld JO

;}:)Ut!WloJl;}d -;}"M .;}An:);}JJ;} l;}A;}:jt!qM Jo ;}sn ;}qi

SJP,qP~UllOJ~P pUU U!Uld ~~ .p~~S!M1-PI:J pUU 'P~UllOJ~P 'u!Uld :SlUq JO s~ssul:J ~ puq UonU:Jy!:J~S ~I V ~~ .~I V P~UU~!S~P 'v161 U! P~S!A~l '1161 U! W.LSV Aq ~~dopU SUM S.lV8 JuaUJa:J.loJu!a)j aJa.l:Ju.J laaJS

:jSO:) ;}q O:j ;}AOld :jq~!;}N\:jq~!I

sUOnt!:)!Iddt! {t!ln:I:)nl:IS

U! ;}:j;}l:)UO:) ;}nUnuo:)

O:j SPU;}:jU! sUt!l:j{t!J U! lO!At!q~ ;}Iqm:)!p;}ld ~ Ut!:)

.S;}UOZ :)!illS!;}S ';}Iqt!PUOO;}P qi!M

Uo!s!Al~dns ~~ l~pUn f.lo~UloqUl S~lfij;)nJ:jS II~MOd ~~ s~IJUqJ ~q~ ~Up~~;)npUO;) ~U!~ S! ~;)~rold ~q,L .0~~!a U11S U!UlJ!~JJO A~!Sl~A ~U -!llfl ~~ ~U~~rold q;)JU~S~l U ~U!:1!ll! o~ ~U~W -:)lUd~a ~~ p~~dWOld ~U~A~;)!WS!~S U U! ~~;)

suwnIo:)

U! p;}sn

:jI .UOnt!l;}p!SUO:) AI{t!!;);)dS;} ;}{t!qs

U~!S;}P t! S! Pt!oI pt!;}P ;}l;}qM ;}Iqt!!A t! S! ;}:jt!~;}l~~t! :jq~!;}M:jq~n ;}q.L

';}A!:jt!W;}:j{t! ~u!sn ;}:jt!:)!PU!

p;}pUt!dx;} :jt!qi

;}:j;}l:)UO:) ;}:jt!p

Jall!8 .loJ uopv:J.!/i:Jads p.lVpuvJS ~Sly ~~ .{t!!1~~UW MUl ~q1 SUdUl:JS 1~~~sq1!M ~:JUWUJ :J!.Q:J~I~Aq Al~A!snl:Jx~ ~SoW{t! p~:Jnp01d ~Jp, SJP,q ~U!:JlOJU!~ S,AUpO~'uos!lt!dwo:J UJ .~:JUU -lUJ :J!.Q:Jal~Aq ~~U~U~:Jl~ l{t!wS U puu 'SS~:J -old l~W~SS~H ~q1 ~U!Sn p~:Jnpold SUM 1;};}~S ~WoS .{t!!1~~UWMUl ~q1 sU dUl:JS 1~~~spuu ~10 Ul! 'U01! ~!d JO UonUU!qWO:J U ~U!Sn 'SS~:J01d ~:JutiriiJ ~q U~O~~ Aq;rIUfi':-Wp~:Jnpold SUM 1~~~s'061 O~0061 pO!1~d ~q1 ~U!Jna

{t!ro:j:)nl:IS -,;;;~$

O:j s:jlns;}l

-S~We~

~UISOI~ .;}:j;}l:)UO:)

-Uo;) ~q~!~!{';!q~!I ~;)nJ:js JO ~;)U11UllOJl~d ~I!:1;)np pU11~~U~J:lS JU~qs ~~ l~AO SW~;)UOJ -~ 4:>JDeSe~ e~eJ:>uo:> ~46IeM~46!lIDJn~:>nJ~S

:jq~!;}M:jq~!I :jq~!;}M ;}ums ;}qi qi!M

lOJ

P;}U!t!:jqo

;}q

ut!:)

;}:j;}l:)UO:) JO ;};}i3;}P Jo S;}:jt!W

.p~~:JnJ:jSUO:J SUM ~U!PI!nq ~q1 PO!1~d ~q1 ~u!JnP p~qs!U -lUJ puu p~ln~:JUJnuuw Al{t!:J!~ SUM 1~~~sJO

{t!WlOU

lOJ St! WSnt!AJ;}SUO:) A:j!:)t!dt!:) :jU;}W;}:)t!Ids!p

.UO!~~ S!ql U! g1gl;)UO;) ql!M gA9!1gd -Wo;) gq 0110U ~!lg1RW 1Rql pgMOqS sg~p!lq Igg1s ~Jn:I;)nl:Is Aqjp,gu gWOS UO Sp!q 19ljR 'gA9RWg1~ g1~;)UO;)1q~!gM1q~!I ~Jn:I;)nl:IS gql A{Uo JO U~!sgp g1gIdwo;) 01 gpRW SRMUO!S!;)gp gql 966 I UJ .Sg;)RPnS ~U!JRgM ARpgAO g1gl;) -Uo;) 191sgAIOd ql!M 'sgA9RWg1~ qlOq UO gJn:l

-nS;} :jt!qi pUt! ';}:joo:)uo:) -Jt! :jOU S! u!t!l:jS -!:jln ;}qi :jt!qi ;}:jt!:)!PU!

Jo ;}dA:j ;}qi Aq P;}:j:);}J ;}:jOO:)UO:) ;}:jt!W :jS;}:j ;}S;}qi Jo S!S {t!W s:jlns;}l

~pUl~ pUU ~I\J, ~UqM S! snq1 uons~nb ~~ l;};}~S JO ~pUl~ ~q1 AJ!:)gds Al!lt!SS~:J~u ~OU PlnoM ~nq 'sl!U~~P {t!:J!dA~ puu l~AO:J 's~u!:Juds 's~Z!S JP,qo~ ~u!u!B11~d mup ~P!A01d Plno:J '~lqul!UAU J! 'suuld ~u!1~~U!~U~ puu {t!Jn:I:J~~:JJP, {t!U!~!10 ~~ .SJP,q~q1 ~S~~o~ l~plO U! S~Z!S JP,q ~U~ -l~JJ!P JO s~ldums ~u~!:JyJns U!U~qoo~ ~An:JnJ:jS -~P pUU ~A!SU~X~ Al~W~l:jX~ ~q PlnoM ~I (,SlUq ~U!:JlOJU!~l p~pp~qW! ~q1JO q1~U;)l:jS~q1 ~U!UU~~~p o~ MOq ~nq , A:JUln:J:JU {t!~p ~U~~ U JO q1!M ~~~l:JUO:J ~q1JO q1~U~l:jS ~u~s~ld ~q1 ~A!~ n!M ~u!Pl!nq PI ~q1 WOlJ U~~ S~lO:Jp~n!1p WOpUU~ l;};}~S puu ~~~:JUO:J 'S{t!!1~~UW OM~

uo!ss;}ldwo:)

-A{t!uV .;}:j;}l:)uo:):jq~!;}M:jq~!IloJuont!:)y!pOW :jnOql!M P;}!Iddt! ~ Ut!:) ;}:jOO:)UO:) :jq~!;}M -lOUlOJ -;}:)t!Ids!p suont!I;}l ~u!dump

'u~!S;}P P;}st!q- :jU;}W {t!WlOU S! ;}:jOO:)UO:) :jq~!;}M

:j:);}l!P lod

.;}:j;}l:)UO:) :jq~!;}M

lOJ St! ;}ums ;}qi AI{t!nU;}SS;}

-;)nl:ISlgdns pUR S){:)gp gqllOJ pgsn gq II!M g1gl;) -Uo;) 1q~!gA\1q~!I IRJn:I;)nl:IS .){;)gp 01 ){;)Olpgq WOlJ (w 'l"9U lj O~Z 01 dn ~U!~URl Slg!d 1q~!gM ~UllOU Uo pg:jJOddns sURds 8Z~ JO sg!lgs R JO pgsodWO;) S! g~p!lq q;)Ra .Pg1dg;);)RP!q 1SgM01 gql ql!M 'qlOq lOJ ug){l!:j Sp!q pURpgu~!sgp sgA9 -RUl~~ OM1 gARq 01 pgUURld pRq SURl:j~J

-:jq~!I {t!ln:j:)nl:IS Jo ~u!dump :)noo;}:jsAq ;}qi :jt!qi p;}pnI:)uo:) ;}q Ut!:) :j! S:jS;}:j ;}S;}qi uo P;}st!H

S! U~!S;}P -n:):)t!u!

P;}st!q-:jU;}W;}:)t!Ids!p lU;}W;}:>t!Ids!p 'l;}A;}MOH AI;}){!I PlnoM

.~pu;}wwo:)oo :j:);}l!P Jo ;}sn Jo ;}:jt!wnS;} .;}IOl t! At!Id ;}:jt!l :jOU U~!S;}P P;}st!q

;}qi 'OOOJ;}l;}q.L

Ut! U! :jlns;}l

.suos!JRdWO;) gql WOlJ 1qnop AUR gAOW -~ 01 uuy ~u9InSUO;) j;.J,~!;)gds ~u9Rw9sg 1S0;) 'q1JY R Aq pg1;)npUO;) glgM Sg1RW!:ISg 1S0;) ~U!WJ1JUOJ .SU~!sgp gA99gdWO;) 1S0W 0A\1 gql glgM g~p!lq 19p1!~ Xoq ~1UgW~gS g1~;) -Uo;) 1q~!gM1q~!I ~Jn:I;)nl:IS gql pUR SSnl:l Ig~s

JO q1~U~l:jS ~q1 Aq p~u!UU~~~p S! 1\J,!:Judu:J ~u~ .~Jn:I:JnJ:jS~q1 JO 1\J,!:Judu:JPu01 Aup ~u~s~ld ~q1 ~U!UU~~p o~ l~plO U! s!sA{t!uu {t!lfil:JnJ:jS ~~~ldwo:J U S~l!n~l o~U SlU~A ~lOW 10 OL '09 p~~:JnJ:jSUO:J ~u!pl!nq ~~l:JUO:J p~:JlOJU!~l U ~Unm!l!quq~ JO A~!I!q!su~J ~q1 ~U!~U~nS~AuI

-;}:)lOJ Jo ;}sn ;}qi PlnoM ;}qllOJ

SS;}uJJns ~:)np;}l ;}qi ;}:jms :j!ill!I ;}:jt!wnln ~!S;}P lod .;}){t!nbqllt!;} ;}:jt!l;}poW t! :)nSt!I;} U! ;}St!;}l:)U! Ut! U! :jlnsoo ;}:j;}l:)UO:) :jq~!;}M Aq p;}:)np;}l ;}:j;}l:)UO:) P;}){:)t!l:) {t!WlOU AI;}An :jq~!;}M {t!n!U!

U! s:jU;}W;}:)t!Ids!p PlnoM S!q.L

.uwnIo:)

t! JO SS;}UJJnS ;}qi WOlJ %~I -t!AJ;}suo:) -:jq~!I t! Jo ;}q Ut!:) l;}qW;}W SS;}uJJns uon:);}s S! :j! ){lOM

'luvl1nsu.J

AN 'all!i\uos.lalfaf 'uuvUJal.l:g .D i\V1SnD ,{q

~Jn:I;)nl:IS gq.L .g~p!lq 19p1!~ Xoq IR1ug~gs g1gl;)UO;) 1q~!gM1q~n ~Jn:I;)nl:IS R pUR 'g~p!lq pgAR1SgIqR;) Igg1s pUR ~~;)Uo;) R 'lgpl!~ Xoq Igg1s ~Jn:I;)nl:IS R 'g~p!lq ~U9S!xg gql 01 jP,I!W!S 'SSnl:l Igg1S ~Jn:I;)nl:IS R lOJ pg1;)npUO;) glgM sg!pms .gA!19gdWO;) 1S0W OM1 gql gU!Ullg1gp 01 SWJ1J ~u9InSUO;) g1RjP,dgs lnoJ Aq Pg1gId -Wo;) ~gM sg!pmS gA9RUlg1~ U~!sgG .sgURI punoqqlnoS gql f.Jm;) II!M g~p!lq PgUgp!M 'lgPIO gql pUR ;)YJRl:j punoqq:llOU JO sgURI gAY f.Jm;) II!M g~p!lq (W-~6IZ) 1J-OOZLs!q.L .pgug

;}qi :jt!qi ~:js;}~~ns

S!qi UO ~St!H

.uos!lt!dwo:) lOJ ;}:jOO:)UO:) :jq~!;}M {t!WlOU qi!M ;}UO pUt! ;}:jOO:)UO:) :jq~!;}N\:jq~!I qi!M ON\:j 'P;}:jS;}:j pUt! P;}:j:)nl:ISUO:) ;}:jt!I U! P;}:j;}Idwo:) S!q.L .;}:j;}l:)UO:) ;}l;}M suwnIo:) ~ .966 I St!M S:jS;}:j JO S;}!l;}S pUO:);}S ;}qi qi!M ~U~!S;}P suwnIo:)

UO!~t!!:>0SSV

~U~W~J

PUt!I1lod

Portland Cement Association Structural Yield min., psi (MPa) Tensile, psi (MPa) 33,000 (228) 55,000 (379) to 70,000 (483)
Intermediate 40,000 (276) 70,000 to 85,000 (483) (586) Hard 50,000 (345) Cold-twisted I
DEFORMED Corrugated Square Bar Type A {IIJ~7J.~ UUU] BARS -cont'd Corrugated Square Bar Type B ~/I-J! lJ[j--~=~--1[JI Rolled Conugeted Co. for Bar 1-,4~

55,000 (379)
n/a

55,000 (379) min

Deformations were not standard, and in fact very dissimilar compared to present mark ings. Most were patented and particular to the producing mill, and were labeled cup, corrugated, lug, herringbone, or by the name of the inventor, such as Havemeyer, Elcannes, Scofield, or Thacher. Bar sizes were also not standard, with each manufacturer publishing a list of sizes available from that mill. Shapes were round, square,oval, flat with either raised lugs or depressed dimples. A conservative estimate of the steel grade of the reinforcing bars furnished for a concrete structure built between 1910 and the mid 1920's would be structural grade. Effective January 1, 1928, the U.S. Departrnent ofCommerce recommended that the "Standard" for new billet reinforcing bars be intermediate grade. In effect, this suggested not specifying structural grade reinforcing bar. It is interesting to note that in 1928, A 1514 was still in effect. During the decade of the 1920' s, the producing mills standardized reinforcing bar to: 1/4 in. (6 mm) rd; 1/2 in. (13 mm)rd; 1/2 in. (13 mm)sq;5/8in. (16mm)rd; 3/4in,(19mm)rd;7/8in. (22 mm)rd; 1 in. (25 mm) sq; 1-1/8 in. (29 mm) sq; 1-1/4 in. (32 mm) sq; 1-1/2 in. (38 mm) sq; and 2 in. (51 mm) sq. During the same decade, each mill developed its own deformation or brand pattern with a quality mark "N" for new billet, plus a letter or symbol designating the producing mill. Thus, intermediate grade new billet reinforcing bar became typical into the 1930' s through the 1940's As a historical note, the 1/ 2 in. (13 mm) sq size was eliminated in 1942 as a war emergency measure. In 1950, ASTM revised the specifications pertaining to new billet reinforcing bars. ASTM A 15-50T changed all reinforcing bars to round, designated #3 (10 mm diameter) through #11 (35 mm diameter), replacing 3/8 in. (10 mm) rd through 1-1/4 in. (32 mm) sq. #2 or 1/4 in. (6 mm) rd was not classified as deformed, and was available only as plain round. However, A 15-50T still listed plain and deformed reinforcing bar with the same three grades: structural, intermediate and hard. At the same time, ASTM issued Tentative Specifications for the Deformations of

Defo17lled Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, designated A 305-50T. A 305 required minimum deformation heights, a maximum angle of the deformations with respect to the bar axis, deformation spacings per foot, and the overall length of the deformations. It was not until 1964 that A8TM A 408, Special Defo17lled Round Bars, namely #148 (44 mm diameter) and #188 (57 mm diameter), originally 1-1/2 in. (38 mm) sq and 2 in. (51 mm) sq, now round with the same crosssectional area, became available in the same grades as A 15. In the same year (1964), A8TM adopted two higher strength grades of reinforcing steel: A 432-64, yield 60,000 psi (414 MPa)min., tensile 90,000 psi (621 MPa) min., and A 431-64, yield 75,000 psi (517 MPa) min., tensile 100,000 psi (690 MPa) min., for sizes #3 (10 mm diameter) through #188 (57 mm diameter). Finally, in 1968, A8TM adopted A 615-68 titled Standard Specifications for Defo17lled Billet Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. A 615 incorporated previous A 15, A 305, A 408, A 431, and A 432 into one specification, and also eliminated structural grade steel and plain round reinforcing bar, listing three grades: Or40 (276MPa yield strength) and Or 60 (414 MPa yield strength) in sizes #3 ( 10 mm diameter) through #18 (57 mmdiameter) and Or 75 (517 MPayield strength) in sizes#ll (35 mm diameter), #14 (44 mmdiameter), and#18 (57 mm diameter) only. In conclusion, it is reasonable to assume that a reinforced concrete structure built in the period 1910 through 1927 was reinforced with structural grade (Or 33 or 228 MPa yield strength) deformed reinforcing bars, and from 1928 through 1963 with intermediate grade (Or 40 or 276 MPa yield strength) deformed reinforcing bars. Of course, during these same periods higher strength steel reinforcing bars were available and may have been used or specified for a particular project; however, unless specific data are available regarding the grade of the material supplied to that project, conservative judgment would use the foregoing values of the grade of steel when evaluat ing an "elderly" structure.

e~ Corrugated Round Bar Type C Lug Bar -Type A

[~i3[~ Corrugated Square Bar Type D Lug Bar- Type B

Herringbone Havemeyer Square Bar

Bar Havemeyer Round Bar

flffl Elcannes Bar

Wing Bar- Type A

Wing Bar- Type B

BfIiiiiiiilJ Rolled lor Trussed Concrete Steel Co.

ffI:IlJ New Rib Bar

Printed in U.S.A.

PL279.0lD