Report CE/ST 36 report submitted to American Institute of Steel Construction Effects of Slab Post-tensioning on Supporting Steel Beams Bhavna Sharma, M.Sc. Kent A. Harries, Ph.D., FACI, P.Eng. March 2007 structural engineering and mechanics Watkins-Haggart Structural Engineering Laboratory Effects of Slab Post-tensioning on Supporting Steel Beams Bhavna Sharma and Kent A. Harries, Ph.D., FACI, P.Eng. University of Pittsburgh Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Pittsburgh PA 15261 Acknowledgements This study was carried out with support from the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). In this regard, the authors wish to acknowledge Tom Schalfly, Bill Pascoli, John Cross and Charles Carter. Charles Churches Sr. of Churches Engineering, Washington PA, is the EOR for the project. His support and the information he provided is gratefully acknowledged. Eric Campbell of Ionadi Construction, Pittsburgh PA, was the site supervisor; his assistance was invaluable to the study. The building is owned by Real Estate Enterprises, Pittsburgh PA; Kai Olander is acknowledged for providing access to the site and test structure. University of Pittsburgh graduate and undergraduate students Keith Coogler, Patrick Minnaugh, Derek Mitch, Mark Beacraft, Louis Gualtieri and Lisa Abraham assisted in various aspects of instrumentation and data acquisition. The findings of this report do not necessarily reflect the opinions of those acknowledged above. This research was sponsored by the American Institute of Steel Construction. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of AISC or The University of Pittsburgh. This report does not comprise a standard, specification or regulation. Effects of Slab Post-tensioning on Supporting Steel Beams page 1 of 40 University of Pittsburgh Structural Engineering and Mechanics Report CE/ST 35 this page intentionally left blank Effects of Slab Post-tensioning on Supporting Steel Beams page 2 of 40 University of Pittsburgh Structural Engineering and Mechanics Report CE/ST 35 Table of Contents 1. Preamble...................................................................................................................................................................5 1.1 Objective....................................................................................................................................................5 2. Current Practice and Literature Review.................................................................................................................5 3. Test Structure – 450 Melwood Avenue, Pittsburgh PA.........................................................................................5 3.1 Structural Steel........................................................................................................................................10 3.2 Concrete..................................................................................................................................................10 3.3 Post Tensioning Strand...........................................................................................................................11 3.4 Mild Reinforcement..................................................................................................................................11 4. Instrumentation......................................................................................................................................................11 5. Test Program..........................................................................................................................................................14 6. Test Results............................................................................................................................................................17 6.1 Post-Tensioning Operation – November 27, 2006...................................................................................21 6.2 Live Load Tests.......................................................................................................................................23 6.2.1. “Audi” Test – December 30, 2006.........................................................................................23 6.2.2. “Two Vehicle” Test – January 12, 2007.................................................................................25 6.3 Gage Integrity..........................................................................................................................................25 7. Discussion of Test Results...................................................................................................................................27 7.1 Effective Width of Slab.............................................................................................................................27 7.1.1 Effective width while formwork is in place...............................................................................27 7.1.2 Code prescribed effective width.............................................................................................27 7.2 Composite Section Properties.................................................................................................................28 7.3 Predicted Behavior..................................................................................................................................28 7.4 Predicted versus Observed Behavior......................................................................................................29 7.5 Post-tension-induced stresses.................................................................................................................29 7.5.1 Post-tensioning operation.......................................................................................................29 7.5.1.1 Rigorous Analysis of post-tensioning operation....................................................30 7.5.2 Release of formwork..............................................................................................................32 7.6 Summary of Procedure for Assessing PT-induced Stresses...................................................................32 7.6.1 PT pulled while slab shored....................................................................................................32 7.6.2 PT pulled while slab is unshored............................................................................................33 7.6.3 Non-composite slab................................................................................................................33 7.6.4 AISC Design Guide 18 Figure 3.12 misconception................................................................33 8. Summary and Conclusions...................................................................................................................................35 9. Cited References....................................................................................................................................................36 Appendix A – Observed Strain Data.........................................................................................................................37 Appendix B – Concrete Shrinkage and Cracking of Slab.......................................................................................38 B.1 Restraint of Concrete Shrinkage Causing Cracks...................................................................................38 B.2 Plastic Shrinkage Cracking......................................................................................................................39 Effects of Slab Post-tensioning on Supporting Steel Beams page 3 of 40 University of Pittsburgh Structural Engineering and Mechanics Report CE/ST 35 List of Figures Figure 3.1 450 Melwood Avenue, Pittsburgh PA............................................................................................................6 Figure 3.2 Completed parking structure at 450 Melwood Ave.......................................................................................6 Figure 3.3 Structural steel framing plan.........................................................................................................................7 Figure 3.4 Steel superstructure......................................................................................................................................8 Figure 3.5 PT tendon and reinforcing steel plan............................................................................................................9 Figure 3.6 Reinforcing bar and strand layout prior to concrete placement...................................................................10 Figure 4.1 Strain gage layout.......................................................................................................................................11 Figure 4.2 Strain gage installation................................................................................................................................12 Figure 4.3 Installations of formwork shores near and directly on top of strain gages...................................................13 Figure 4.4 Vishay P3 4-channel strain gage indicator..................................................................................................13 Figure 5.1 Pittsburgh ambient hourly temperatures.....................................................................................................15 Figure 5.2 Placing concrete: November 22, 2006........................................................................................................16 Figure 5.3 Pulling the PT strand: November 27, 2006.................................................................................................16 Figure 5.4 Shoring condition at Beam B: December 23, 2006.....................................................................................16 Figure 5.5 Taking readings: December 14 through 19, 2006.......................................................................................16 Figure 6.1(a) Strain profiles for Beam B.......................................................................................................................18 Figure 6.1(b) Strain profiles for Beam C......................................................................................................................19 Figure 6.1(c) Strain profiles for Beam D.......................................................................................................................20 Figure 6.2 Observed strains during post-tensioning operation.....................................................................................23 Figure 6.3 Live load test: December 30, 2006.............................................................................................................24 Figure 6.4 Live load test: January 12, 2007.................................................................................................................26 Figure 7.1 Location of form shores at Beam B.............................................................................................................27 Figure 7.2 Modeling shored beam as beam on elastic foundations.............................................................................31 Figure 7.3 PT-induced stresses...................................................................................................................................33 Figure 7.4 Noncomposite and incorrect PT-induced stress distribution.......................................................................34 Figure B.1 Predicted shrinkage strains and estimated cracking strains.......................................................................39 Figure B.2 Cumulative bleed and evaporation as function of time...............................................................................39 Figure B.3 Evaporation rate nomograph from ACI 308.1.............................................................................................40 List of Tables Table 3.1 Concrete test results....................................................................................................................................10 Table 5.1 Test Program Milestones.............................................................................................................................14 Table 6.1 Results of live load test: January 12, 2007...................................................................................................25 Table 7.1 Effective width calculations..........................................................................................................................27 Table 7.2 Composite section properties.......................................................................................................................28 Table 7.3 Predicted steel stress and strain behavior...................................................................................................28 Table 7.4 Comparison of observed and predicted behavior at midspan of Beam D....................................................29 Effects of Slab Post-tensioning on Supporting Steel Beams page 4 of 40 University of Pittsburgh Structural Engineering and Mechanics Report CE/ST 35 1. Preamble AISC Design Guide 18, Steel Framed Open-Deck Parking Deck Structures (Churches et al. 2003), discusses the use of cast-in-place post tensioned slabs in steel framed parking structures. In Section 3.3.2.1, the authors reflect on the manner in which the post-tensioning force is carried by the supporting beam: in a non composite or composite manner. They conclude that the post-tensioning force is carried almost entirely in a composite manner (minus effects of shrinkage and elastic shortening). This conclusion is based on results of unpublished research (as reported) and is corroborated by earlier design guidance provided by Bakota (1988). 1.1 Objective The objective of this field study is to quantitatively assess the effect that slab post-tensioning forces have on their supporting steel members. 2. Current Practice and Literature Review Cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete slabs on steel girders are an attractive alternative for parking structures. The use of post-tensioned slabs permits somewhat longer spans to be achieved but primarily enhances the durability of the slab system, affecting superior crack control. Investigation of the effects of the post-tensioning stress on the composite behavior of the beams has been explored but not published. Current practice, as promulgated in AISC Design Guide 18, Steel Framed Open-Deck Parking Deck Structures (Churches et al. 2003) assumes that the composite beams experience a small amount of compressive stress from the post-tensioning of the slab along the length of the beam. Design Guide 18 notes that unpublished testing by Mulach Steel Corporation demonstrated a stress increase of 3% in the composite beams under dead load conditions. Bakota (1988) explores the design of a post-tensioned parking deck and analyzes the effects of post-tension stresses on the composite beam. The author notes various design criteria for a post-tensioned deck and that an effective post- tension stress of 100 psi in the transverse shrinkage and temperature direction reduces the effects of the post tensioning parallel to the beam. Bakota presents equations to determine the long-term stresses and deflections. He concludes that the post-tension forces in the deck create long-term beam and slab stresses due to differential volume changes. Steel framed parking structures, in general, where introduced in the literature in the 1960’s (Sontag 1970; “New” 1974). Frequent references and case studies appear in the literature through today: in North America, typically appearing in Modern Steel Construction; in Europe, in Acier-Stahl-Steel; and elsewhere including a number of references in the South African Journal Steel Construction. In addition to Design Guide 18, AISC promulgates Innovative Solution in Steel: Open Deck Parking Structures (Troup and Cross 2003). Available references in the literature primarily address precast concrete decks on steel frames (e.g.: Simon 2001; Englot and Davidson 2001). A review of available literature revealed no additional publications relating specifically to cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete decks on steel frames. 3. Test Structure – 450 Melwood Avenue, Pittsburgh PA The test structure reported in this study is a single story steel parking structure having a post-tensioned composite concrete deck. The structure is located behind 450 Melwood Avenue in the North Oakland area of Pittsburgh (Figure 3.1). The structure, shown complete in Figure 3.2, is a single story steel frame over a slab on-grade. Parking is provided on both levels although there is no connecting ramp. Separate entrances are provided for the grade and deck parking. Effects of Slab Post-tensioning on Supporting Steel Beams page 5 of 40 University of Pittsburgh Structural Engineering and Mechanics Report CE/ST 35 450 Melwood Ave. University of Pittsburgh Figure 3.1 450 Melwood Avenue, Pittsburgh PA. Overall view of 11 bay parking structure looking West from across railway right-of-way. Beams A & B Beams B, C & D Interior of parking structure. Exterior of parking structure at Beams A and B. Figure 3.2 Completed parking structure at 450 Melwood Ave. Effects of Slab Post-tensioning on Supporting Steel Beams page 6 of 40 University of Pittsburgh Structural Engineering and Mechanics Report CE/ST 35 As shown in Figure 3.3, the structure has eleven bays (ten measuring 20’-0” and the first measuring 15’ 0”) in the N-S direction and two bays in the E-W direction: bay 1-2 measuring 45’-2” and bay 2-3 measuring 35’-2”. There is a 10’ cantilever beyond column line 3. All columns are W12x65 and the beams spanning bay 1-2 are W24x76 at Beams C and D and W24x68 at Beam B. Where beams frame into girders, a simple shear connection is provided (Figure 3.4, lower left). Beams that frame into columns (all strong axis, in this case) are provided with angles at both flanges resulting in a partially-restrained connection (Figure 3.4, lower right). The beams considered in this study span bay 1- 2 at column lines B, C and D. These beams will be referred to as Beams B, C and D, respectively as indicated in Figure 3.3. 1 2 3 45' 2" 35' 2" 10' 0" 1' 6" edge of concrete 2' 6" A 1 W16x3 15' 0" W24x68 B Beam B 5 8 13 10 0" 6x 0x 0' 3 3 2 W W W24x76 C Beam C p,) y 6x31 (t 20' 0" 1 W W24x76 D Beam D 26 0" 6x 0' 1 2 N W W12x65 (typ.) W12x65 (typ.) al W24x76 ot E s t y a b 1 1 Figure 3.3 Structural steel framing plan. The cast-in-place concrete deck is a 6” post-tensioned concrete slab. Reinforcing details of the deck are shown in Figure 3.5 and views of the deck prior to concrete placement is shown in Figure 3.6. Single, double and triple strands are arranged as shown in Figure 3.5. The concrete stress due to initial post tensioning is 330 psi in the N-S direction and 168 psi in the E-W direction. Mild steel is arranged primarily for crack control as indicated in Figure 3.5. Additionally, as shown in Figure 3.6, 5/8” x 3” shear studs are provided along all beams in bay 1-2 at a spacing of 10”. Effects of Slab Post-tensioning on Supporting Steel Beams page 7 of 40 University of Pittsburgh Structural Engineering and Mechanics Report CE/ST 35 Figure 3.4 Steel superstructure. Effects of Slab Post-tensioning on Supporting Steel Beams page 8 of 40 University of Pittsburgh Structural Engineering and Mechanics Report CE/ST 35