MINUTES

ACI 440-F: FRP Repair/Strengthening

ACI Fall 2013 Convention Phoenix, AZ
October 21, 2013
3:00 to 6:00 p.m.
Hyatt Regency D
Members (29)
Alkhrdaji, Tarek
Bank, Larry
Barros, Joaquim
Blaszak, Gregg
Bouadi, Hakim
Bradberry, Tim
Brown, Vicki
Busel, John
Ekenel, Mahmut
El-Hacha, Raafat

Fallis, Garth
Fam, Amir
Galati, Nestore
Gold, Will (Vice-Chair)
Gremel, Doug
Henderson, Mark
Horeczko, Nick
Kim, Jimmy
Lee, Michael (Chair)
McClasky, Charlie

Nanni, Tony
Raheed, Hayder
Rizkalla, Sami
Sadeghian, Pedram
Seracino, Rudi
Shield, Carol (Vice-Chair)
Silva, Pedro
Thomas, Jay
Witt, Sarah (Co-Chair)

Crawford, Stephen
DiBenedetti, Matteo
Emmons, Peter
Gerpheide, Matt
Gillette, Karl
Gray, Rob

Kargahi, Mohsen
Lewis, Chris
Ramo, Carla
Steere, Sam
Vokshi, Eri

Visitors (17)
Abbas, Amir
Abbasi, Neil
Andrawes, Bassem
Balck, Lars
Bond, Greg
Braverman, Heidy

Administrative
1. Call to Order: Chairman Lee called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM.
2. Attendees made self-introductions.
3. Agenda: Busel moved to approve agenda. Ekenel seconded the motion. Motion passed by
voice vote. Chairman will now start with Item 7a (Ballot Review) from the approved agenda so
that Silva can be available.
7a. Seismic Design Example Ballot Review. A table of ballot comments was distributed. Lee reviewed
the ballot results. There were several items that merit committee discussion as follows (item numbers
below refers to numbering in ballot table):
#6: Lee reviewed proposed solution. No comments from committee.
#7: Lee reviewed the reason for no change. No comments from committee.
#8: Lee reviewed reason for no change. Silva explained procedures. No comments from committee.
#16: Lee review why the current numbers are correct. No comments from committee.
#21: Lee reviewed the negative which requested that moment-curvature calculations be included. Bank
clarified that his negative is that no one in this room could repeat this example. Appendix E was
presented for the people who do not have access to a moment curvature program. Silva mentioned that
these calculations are extensive, were once included on a prior ballot, were voted on, and it was decided
to take them out. Silva will put the calculations back in if the committee would like that. Lee suggests
that we can take the example and have other individuals review for repeatability and accuracy. Rasheed
and Barros both have moment curvature programs and can check the results. Lee asked what it would
take to address Banks negative. Bank wants to show all the steps needed to complete the examples.
Lee asked Rasheed to show the repeatability. Bank wants 5 people to review the questions and see if we
can repeat the results. Barros will also check the solutions.
#22 and #23: Lee reviewed that there is no change to document. Many programs are available.
#24: Lee reviewed the solution. No comments from committee.
#32: Lee showed Figure 13-2. Bank reviewed his negative. He said his comment applies to the example
where moment curvature is not used not at this location in document. Will discuss when that comment
comes up.
#35A: Lee reviewed the comment and solution. No comments from committee.
#40: Same as #21.
#42: Lee reviewed the comment and the seismic TG response.
#44: Lee reviewed the strength reduction factor of using phi of 0.9 to be conservative. Committee
needs to determine if that is too conservative. This will be reserved for further study. Silva and
Alkhrdaji to review.
#51: Same as #21.
#52: Same as #44.
#59: Will be brought up as new business as an error was found in Chapter 13.
#63: This is the location where moment curvature is not used. Diagram was put in to show the results
and the diagram helped show the difference in behavior between un-retrofit and retrofit section. Lee
asks if the proposed text will satisfy the negative. Bank says that will be ok.

Chairman Lee went over some of the other ballot comments.

#1: Lee will look at the number of significant digits and clean up the document but there will be some
round off difference as a result of this.
#3A: Negative was found persuasive.
#4: Lee discussed that the examples end abruptly and detail of the final FRP design are not always clear.
Text will be inserted at the end of the examples to summarize the solution. Diagrams will not be added.
General comments on other items: Text will be added to reinforce that a seismic analysis has to be
completed. Some typos will be corrected. Other comments were good comments but dont need to be
discussed by the committee as a whole. Four comments have been withdrawn to date. See attached
ballot summary for additional comments and proposed response.
Three primary action items: 1) second check of moment curvature, 2) determination of proper phi
factor, and 3) editorial work.
7b. Seismic Design Appendices Ballot Review.
On Appendix E there was a significant comment on the use of subscript frp that is associated with the
strengthened section, not just the FRP. This subscript was added as the result of an earlier ballot and
needs to be retained to be consistent with Chapter 13. FRP will be added to the one location where it
is currently missing. Other comments from the vote were clarification type comments. Item #6 points
out the appendix just gives the computations but not the strain limits. Alkhrdaji review his comment
and get back to the committee. This remains an open item.
Now back to beginning of the agenda.
4. While meeting minutes are distributed, Lee asks for announcements. Busel announces that he
has given all of his to Shield for the Main Meeting. There were no other announcements.
5. Minutes: Busel moved to approve the minutes from Minneapolis. Rizkalla seconded the
motion. Motion passes by voice vote.
6. Task Group Reports
a. Tg TG (Bisby via email) Nothing significant to report.
b. Deflection Task Group (Rasheed) Work was completed at the last session. The next
item after seismic is to push this out to vote.
c. Blast (El-Domiaty via email) We had an initial ballot within 370 committee on chapters
4-7 ( technical chapters) of the blast retrofit with frp guideline and the ballot resulted in
comments, positives and negatives. The 370 committee will meet at this conference to
discuss the comments and provide me a list of action items as needed. 440 comments
will go to 370 with comments from TAC.

d. Anchorage (Lopez via email) The proposed changes to the 440.2R document are
currently being reviewed by our international members (S. Smith and colleagues in
Australia). Pending their input (we should receive it in the next 2 weeks), the document
will circulate one more time to the entire task group and will be ready to submit to 440F for ballot.
e. Mechanically Fastened FRP (Bank) PowerPoint presentation. Seracino is advising
NCDOT on a prestressed concrete bridge where the prestressing is on the floor. Bridge
will be replaced in 2 years. DOT doesnt want a bonded system and is interested in this
technology. They will give the bridge to NCSU for testing in two years. Framing consists
of 30 foot channels. Busel asks what industry wants: a standalone document or to be
part of 440.2R. Bond says he wants there to be a demand for it. Bond would like
something to get the DOTs to have more faith in the technology. They rely on current
documents for design and a report would be better. Bank thinks they can put together
a report (formerly known as state-of-the-art). Objective is to communicate that this is
another tool in the tool chest. There may be some other approaches to get the word
out such as articles in ICRI Repair Bulletin or ACI Concrete International. Seracino states
that the DOT would like guidance on monitoring of the materials.
7. Old Business
a. Seismic Design Guidelines - Editorial review of Chapter 13. Green has competed
editorial review. Lee shows the relatively few areas that need improvement. Lee will
look at Greens review to ensure that changes do not affect technical content.
b. Load Combinations: 440.2R, ASCE 7-10 and ACI 562 address load combinations. Lee
reviewed what was discussed at the Minneapolis meeting. Lee asked Alkhrdaji to talk
about this topic. The main issues that relate to FRP are Fire and a Strengthening limit.
We dont have a full understanding of the reliability. ACI 440 used 0.75 since there is a
chance that the load will be exposed to a live load while the FRP is damaged. Fire is
different. Impact and Blast will come out of 562 since FRP can help with both of these
situations. Ellingwood did research on the background. For repair, the 0.75 seems to be
better. Calculating Ak is very complex. This is the indirect effect of the load on the
structure. Maybe we need to take out Ak since it only effects a small part of the
structure. There is not a conclusion in 562. If we use the current limit for ambient and
fire with no Ak, this might be a way to move forward. But this is an equation that is not
in any other document. Or we can wait to see what 562 does. Alkhrdaji stated that 562
will address this subject in the design and load committees with online meetings every
two weeks. Hopefully in the next few months there will be a resolution. 562 was
rejected by IEBC and NCSEA because they were not comfortable with the document,
they were not clear technical issues. They are working on familiarizing the engineers
with the document. Nanni points out that 440 does not have the 0.2S. Equation 9-1
was a negotiated number from committee meetings in Boston. Since 440.2R is only a
guide (i.e., not a standard) we need to see what 562 does.
8. New Business

a. Proposed changes to shear wall equation. Subsequent to approval in 2012 of the

Chapter 13 text, a question arose regarding the practicality of two sided shear
strengthening on walls. This question needs to be addressed before Chapter 13 goes to
TAC. The way to get comment was to put it out to ballot. Some numerical examples
were done to look at the effective strains based on two examples. Wording of the ballot
was discussed. Reviewed relevant section in ACI 318 and ASCE 41. Lee reviewed the
negatives. Alkhrdaji points out that many application have been installed on one side.
A strain of 0.0015 is very conservative but feasible. Witt discussed that there are
application that have gone through actual earthquakes. Lee would like to have a feel for
what the subcommittee wants to take to main. There are three negatives that have to
be addressed. First negative is from Bank. What does the committee want to do with
this negative? Fallis makes a motion to find negative non persuasive. Second Silva.
Voice vote passes. 0 negatives 1 abstention.
Second negative is from Harries. Reviewed comments. Lee asks for either more time to
address this issue or to find negative non-persuasive. More discussion on this topic.
Alkhrdaji asks about the shear wall. 0.0015 is an acceptable limit for the strengthening
as mentioned in Harries negative as the equivalent strengthening is conservative. Lee
points out that part of the requirement is to inhibit fragmentation. Gold states you
need to have confidence that you have consensus here before taking it to main.
b. The alpha sub c problem in Section 13.7.3. The example problem follows the correct
equation in ACI but this is not what is shown in Chapter 13. This will be another single
item on the upcoming main ballot. No comments from the committee.
c. Update on ICC activities (Ekenel): Some proposed changes were made to ICC AC 125 as
follows: Adopt ASTM 7522. Adopt ASTM 1640 for Glass Transition Testing using Loss
Modulus method. Testing to date has been using this method and it was accepted to
keep this method. Committee rejected taking out the 10,000 hour durability testing
requirement. Suggestion was to put limits on 10,000 hours of testing.
d. Moment redistribution of FRP strengthened section. This is a topic that Silva has been
working on. There are papers in literature to provide guidelines on moment
redistribution. Silva would like to put together a task group. If there is interest, contact
Silva. Silva wants the OK to form the TG. It was suggested to defer work on this item
until all open items on the seismic item have been resolved.
Going forward, Lee is stepping down as Chair of 440F and Kent Harries will be the new chair of 440F.
Lee will continue to clean up seismic document. As incoming Chair, it will be up to Harries to decide on
priorities on committee including which TG to focus on. Lee discussed that much work remains to
improve 440.2R-08 including reformatting for seismic content, anchors, deflection, etc. This all has to be
bundled up and the whole document has to go to TAC.
Witt acknowledges the work of Lee over the past several years. The committee gives a round of
applause.
Chairman Lee asked if there was any other business. There was none.
Meeting Adjourned at 5:36 PM.