<%BANNER%>

Behavior of Standard Hook Anchorage Made with Corrosion Resistant Reinforcement

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021814/00001

Material Information

Title: Behavior of Standard Hook Anchorage Made with Corrosion Resistant Reinforcement
Physical Description: 1 online resource (116 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Ciancone, Gianni G
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: anchorage, bond, development, ductility, hooked, reinforcement
Civil and Coastal Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Civil Engineering thesis, M.E.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The objective of this study was to evaluate the behavior of standard hooks that are made using high strength reinforcing bars and tested in tension. The bars evaluated were ASTM A615, 316LN Stainless Steel and MMFX microcomposite steel. The impetus is that the current ACI/AASHTO equations for the development length of standard hooks do not address the use of high-strength and corrosion resistant steel bars. The development length of standard hooks was evaluated in terms of concrete strength, bar size, hook geometry, concrete covers, debonded length, and lateral reinforcement. Forty-eight specimens with different development length of standard hooks were constructed in accordance with ACI 318 and AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications. Four specimen design configurations were used as unconfined, confined with stirrups, unconfined with debonded length for 90 degree hooked bar and unconfined with debonded length for 180 degree hooked bar. Compressive cylinders tests were conducted in order to determine the target of average concrete strength of 5500 psi. Also, rebar samples were tested in tension to obtain the yield, and tensile strength. A test frame was constructed in the University of Florida-Structures Lab to test specimens in tension by means of a center hole hydraulic jack. During the test, cracks pattern were observed, and load-displacement were recorded. Test results were compared in function of anchorage capacity, bond stress, ductility, and K-factor. Also, test results indicated that mild steel was consistent and agreeable with ACI and AASHTO requirements for development lengths. For #7 MMFX hooked bars, however, further investigation need to be conducted to evaluate the proper development length. Based on the results obtained from this research the test setup and the procedures using the strut and tie approach appear to provide an adequate basis to evaluate the unconfined anchorage capacities of grade 60 hooked bars.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Gianni G Ciancone.
Thesis: Thesis (M.E.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Hamilton, Homer R.
Local: Co-adviser: Cook, Ronald A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021814:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021814/00001

Material Information

Title: Behavior of Standard Hook Anchorage Made with Corrosion Resistant Reinforcement
Physical Description: 1 online resource (116 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Ciancone, Gianni G
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: anchorage, bond, development, ductility, hooked, reinforcement
Civil and Coastal Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Civil Engineering thesis, M.E.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The objective of this study was to evaluate the behavior of standard hooks that are made using high strength reinforcing bars and tested in tension. The bars evaluated were ASTM A615, 316LN Stainless Steel and MMFX microcomposite steel. The impetus is that the current ACI/AASHTO equations for the development length of standard hooks do not address the use of high-strength and corrosion resistant steel bars. The development length of standard hooks was evaluated in terms of concrete strength, bar size, hook geometry, concrete covers, debonded length, and lateral reinforcement. Forty-eight specimens with different development length of standard hooks were constructed in accordance with ACI 318 and AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications. Four specimen design configurations were used as unconfined, confined with stirrups, unconfined with debonded length for 90 degree hooked bar and unconfined with debonded length for 180 degree hooked bar. Compressive cylinders tests were conducted in order to determine the target of average concrete strength of 5500 psi. Also, rebar samples were tested in tension to obtain the yield, and tensile strength. A test frame was constructed in the University of Florida-Structures Lab to test specimens in tension by means of a center hole hydraulic jack. During the test, cracks pattern were observed, and load-displacement were recorded. Test results were compared in function of anchorage capacity, bond stress, ductility, and K-factor. Also, test results indicated that mild steel was consistent and agreeable with ACI and AASHTO requirements for development lengths. For #7 MMFX hooked bars, however, further investigation need to be conducted to evaluate the proper development length. Based on the results obtained from this research the test setup and the procedures using the strut and tie approach appear to provide an adequate basis to evaluate the unconfined anchorage capacities of grade 60 hooked bars.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Gianni G Ciancone.
Thesis: Thesis (M.E.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Hamilton, Homer R.
Local: Co-adviser: Cook, Ronald A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021814:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





BEHAVIOR OF STANDARD HOOK ANCHORAGE MADE WITH CORROSION
RESISTANT REINFORCEMENT





















By

GIANNI T. CIANCONE


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007

































2007 Gianni T. Ciancone


























This thesis is dedicated to my loving wife Hilda and my daughter Alessandra for their support
and caring throughout my academic endeavors









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank my graduate advisor, committee chairman, Dr. H.R.

Hamilton III, for his patience, advice, and support throughout this research. Also, I would to

acknowledge the rest of the committee, Dr. Ronald A. Cook, and Dr. John M. Lybas. Their

extensive knowledge, and experience in the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering is

greatly respected.

The author would like to thank Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) State

Materials Office and Structural Lab for their support testing materials, and bending the bars.

Special thanks go to the University of Florida-Structural Laboratory personnel, and to all the

members of the Dr. Hamilton Group for their support constructing the specimens.

The author would also like to thank VALBRUNA stainless steel, MMFX Technologies

Corp, FLORIDA ROCK Industries, and BARSPLICE Products Inc. for their contributions to this

research.

Finally, I would like to thank my wife, daughter and close friends who have supported me

during this research.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ............. ............................................................................................4

L IS T O F T A B L E S .............................................................................. ............... 7

L IST O F FIG U R E S ............................................................................... 9

ABSTRACT ........................................... .. ......... ........... 12

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U CTION ........................................... .......... ............................. 14

2 L IT E R A TU R E R E V IE W ......................................................................... ........................ 15

H ook B behavior and G eom etry ................................................................. ....................... 15
C current H ook D design P practice ............................................................................... ........ 16
H igh-Strength Steel R einforcem ent................................................ ............................ 21
Strut and Tie Evaluation of Anchorage .... .......... .................................. ....................21

3 EXPERIM ENTAL PROGRAM .............................................. ........ ......................... 29

Specim en D design ..............................................................................29
C concrete M mixture D designs ........................................................................... .....................32
Specim en Construction .................. ......................................... .............. .. 33
F o rm w o rk ................................................................3 3
C a stin g ................... ...................3...................4..........
T e st S etu p ............................................................. 3 4
D ata A acquisition Setup ............................................................. .. ...... 35

4 RE SU LTS AN D D ISCU SSION ............................................................................. ............47

M materials Properties ............... .............................. ............................ 47
C o n create ...................................... ..................................................... 4 7
S te el .............. ....... ............ ............. ..............................................4 7
G rade 60 Steel ........................................................................4 8
Stainless Steel ................................... ................................ .........48
M M F X Steel ............................................................................... ....................49
Specim ens T est R results ................................................................49
B behavior and F failure M odes ........................................ ............................................49
M ild Steel Specim ens ........................................................ .............. .. 51
Stainless Steel Specim ens............. ........................................................ ...... .... ..... 55
M M F X Specim en s.......... ...................................................................... .......... ....... 56

5 AN A LY SIS OF RE SU LTS .............................................................. 72









A nchorage Capacity .................................. .. .......... .. ............72
B o n d S tre ss ................................................................................ 7 3
D u c utility ..................................................................................................................... 7 5
K -F a c to r .........................................................................................................7 5

6 C O N C L U SIO N S ................................................................86

APPENDIX

A CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND TENSILE RESULTS ............................88

B CRACKS PATTERNS, LOAD-SLIP, AND LOAD-DISPLACEMENT ..............................90

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ............. ..... ............ ..................................................................... 114

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................................................................. ........ ..... ........116









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 M inim um hook dim tensions. ..................................................................... ..................24

3-1 Specim en design details for series 1...........................................................................37

3-2 Specimen design details for series 2 through 5..................................... .................38

3-3 Concrete mixture proportions (quantities are per cubic yard). .......................................39

4-1 C om pressive concrete strengths.............................................. .............................. 59

4-2 Tension test results for ASTM A615 reinforcement..............................59

4-3 Tension test result for stainless steel (316LN).................. .......................................59

4-4 Tension test results for M M FX steel. ........................................ ......................... 59

4-5 Test results for mild steel #5 and #7 specimens. ................................... ............... 60

4-6 Test results for stainless steel 16 mm and 20 mm specimens..............................61

4-7 Test results for MMFX steel #5 and #7 specimens............................... ...............62

5-1 Anchorage capacity ratio for mild steel. ..........................................................................77

5-2 Anchorage capacity ratio stainless steel. ........................................ ....... ............... 77

5-3 Anchorage capacity ratio for MMFX steel.....................................................................78

5-4 Bond stress norm alized for mild steel ................................................... .................78

5-5. Bond stress normalized for stainless steel. ............................................ ............... 79

5-6 Bond stress norm alized for M M FX steel................................... ..................... ............ 79

5-7 D utility ratio for m ild steel...................................................................... .................. 80

5-8 D utility ratio for stainless steel. ........................................................... .....................80

5-9 D utility ratio for M M F X steel.............................................................. .....................81

5-10 K -factor for #5 and #7 m ild steel bars. ........................................ ........................ 81

5-11 K-factor for 16 mm and 20 mm stainless steel bars............................... ...............82

5-12 K-factor for #5 and #7 MMFX bars...................................................................... 82









A-i Compressive concrete strength results -age (days) ................... ......................... 88

A -2 T en sile te st re su lts .................................................................................. .................... 8 8




















































8









LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Cantilever beam ................................ .. ... .... ................... 25

2-2 Normal bar stresses #7 90 deg standard hook............... ............................. .............25

2-3 Standard hook details .................. .................. .................. ......... .. ............ 25

2-4 Points w here slip w as m measured. .............................................. ............................. 26

2-5 R ecom m ended factor. ........................................................................... ....................26

2-6 Comparison of proposed and ACI 318-77 hook provisions. ............. ..........................27

2-7 Typical uses of a standard hook anchorage and F.B.D.............................. .............27

2-8 Extended nodal zone for standard hook anchorage. ................................ ...............28

2-9 Strut and tie model of specimen used in Marques and Jirsa research.............................28

3-1 Specimen design with idealized boundary conditions ............................................. 40

3-2 Specim en design for series 1........................................... .................. ............... 40

3-3 Specimen design for series 2 through 5. ..........................................................................41

3-4 F orm w ork scheme atics. ........................................................................... ......................4 1

3-5 Formwork details. ................................... .. .. ........... .. ............42

3-6 Ready-mixed concrete being discharged into the container for transporting ...................42

3-7 Slump of ready-mixed concrete............................ .............................. ...............43

3-8 Casting and compaction of the specimen .................................................43

3-9 C during of the specim ens........................................................................... ....................43

3 -10 L o a d te st setu p ............................................................................................................. 4 4

3-11 Coupler system ................................................... 45

3-12 Specim en scheme atic reactions. ........................................ ............................................45

3-13 Slip w ire position in hooked bar. .............................................. ............................. 45

3-14 Bond slip instrum entation ................................................................... ............... 46



9









3-15 Linear potentiometer placed at the top face of the specimen ........................... .........46

3-16 D ata acquisition system ......................................................................... .....................46

4-1 Stress-strain curve....................................................... ........... 63

4-2 Stress-strain com prison. ......................................................................... ....................63

4-3 C rack s. .........................................................................63

4-4 Crack pattern for concrete splitting failure. ............................................ ............... 64

4-5 Concrete crushed inside of bend radius ........................................ ......................... 64

4-6 L oad-displacem ent for m ild steel.......................................................................... ...... 65

4-7 Mild steel results in terms of hook capacity. ................. .................... .....................65

4-8 L oad-slip for specim en s ........................................................................... .................... 65

4-9 Locations where relative slip was measured...................................................................66

4-10 L oad-slip for specim en. .......................................................................... .....................66

4-11 Typical load-slip behavior for #5 mild steel specimens with 180-degree hook
(60_5_ 180_35_2 show n). ........................................................................ ....................66

4-12 Relative slip at locations Dl and D2 for unconfined specimens with debonded
le n g th .................. ......... ................................................... ................ 6 7

4-13 Typical load-slip behavior for #7 mild steel specimens with 180-degree hook
(60_7_ 180_35_4 show n). ........................................................................ ....................67

4-14 Load displacem ent for stainless steel. ........................................ ......................... 68

4-15 Stainless steel results in terms of hook capacity .................. ........................... 68

4-16 L oad-slip for specim ens .......................................................................... .................... 68

4-17 Typical load-slip behavior for 16mm stainless steel specimens with both 90 and 180-
degree hooks (SS_16_180_35 4 show )............................................................ ........... 69

4-18 Typical load-slip behavior for 20mm stainless steel specimens with both 90 and 180-
degree hooks (SS_20_90_35 2 shown)................... .... .... ....................69

4-19 Load-displacement for MMFX steel ................................................... ...............70

4-20 MMFX results in terms of hook capacity. .......................................... .................70









4-21 Typical load-slip behavior for #5 MMFX specimens with both 90 and 180-degree
hooks (M M _5_90_25_2 shown) .......................................................... ............... 70

4-22 Typical load-slip behavior for #7 MMFX specimens with both 90 and 180-degree
hooks (M M _7_ 180_35 4 show n) ......................................................................... ....... 71

5-1 A nchorage capacity ratios......................................................................... ...................83

5-2 Comparison of normalized bond stress at capacity...........................................................84

5-3 C om prison of ductility ratios ........................................ .............................................85

B-l Crack patterns, load-slip, and stress-strain curves for mild steel hooked bars. .................90

B-2 Crack patterns, load-slip, and stress-strain curves for stainless steel hooked bars............97

B-3 Crack patterns, load-slip, and stress-strain curves for MMFX hooked bars.................. 106









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering

BEHAVIOR OF STANDARD HOOK ANCHORAGE MADE WITH CORROSION
RESISTANT REINFORCEMENT

By

Gianni T. Ciancone

December 2007

Chair: H. R. Hamilton
Major: Civil Engineering

The objective of this study was to evaluate the behavior of standard hooks that are made

using high strength reinforcing bars and tested in tension. The bars evaluated were ASTM A615,

316LN Stainless Steel and MMFX microcomposite steel. The impetus is that the current

ACI/AASHTO equations for the development length of standard hooks do not address the use of

high-strength and corrosion resistant steel bars. The development length of standard hooks was

evaluated in terms of concrete strength, bar size, hook geometry, concrete covers, debonded

length, and lateral reinforcement.

Forty-eight specimens with different development length of standard hooks were

constructed in accordance with ACI 318 and AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications. Four

specimen design configurations were used as unconfined, confined with stirrups, unconfined

with debonded length for 90 degree hooked bar and unconfined with debonded length for 180

degree hooked bar.

Compressive cylinders tests were conducted in order to determine the target of average

concrete strength of 5500 psi. Also, rebar samples were tested in tension to obtain the yield, and

tensile strength.









A test frame was constructed in the University of Florida-Structures Lab to test

specimens in tension by means of a center hole hydraulic jack. During the test, cracks pattern

were observed, and load-displacement were recorded.

Test results were compared in function of anchorage capacity, bond stress, ductility, and

K-factor. Also, test results indicated that mild steel was consistent and agreeable with ACI and

AASHTO requirements for development lengths. For #7 MMFX hooked bars, however, further

investigation need to be conducted to evaluate the proper development length.

Based on the results obtained from this research the test setup and the procedures using the strut

and tie approach appear to provide an adequate basis to evaluate the unconfined anchorage

capacities of grade 60 hooked bars.










CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Mild steel reinforcing bars have been used for decades in buildings, bridges, highways,

and other construction projects. One weakness of reinforcement is its lack of corrosion resistance

if the concrete cover is breached or penetrated by corrosive elements such as chlorides. This

issue can drastically reduce the service life of the structure requiring costly repairs or even

replacement early in the life of the structure. One potential solution that has been explored is the

use of corrosion resistant steels such as stainless steel, and MMFX. These materials typically

have higher strengths than that of mild steel. However, the use of high-strength and corrosion

resistant bars has been presented as a substitute for coated and uncoated Grade 60 bars. On the

other hand, high-strength reinforcing steel bar reduces not only the use of steel in structural

elements but also the labor costs.

The main objective of this research was to evaluate the behavior of standard hook

anchorages made with high-strength bars as Stainless Steel and MMFX microcomposite steel

relative to Grade 60 steel. Since the current ACI/AASHTO Code specifications do not address

the use of these kinds of materials, equations for the development length of standard hooks made

with high-strength and corrosion resistant steel bars need to be evaluated. The development

length of standard hook was evaluated in terms of concrete strength, bar size, hook geometry,

concrete covers, slip, anchorage capacity, ductility, bond stress, and K-factor. Also, cracks

pattern were evaluated with respect to the failure modes.










CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The structural performance and flexural behavior of high-strength steel reinforcement has

been evaluated as a substitute for Grade 60 bars. Limited research, however, has been conducted

dealing with the behavior of standard hook anchorages made with high-strength reinforcement.

Hook Behavior and Geometry

The structural concrete codes are designed so that, wherever possible, the reinforcement

will yield before the concrete crushes when the nominal strength of a reinforced concrete

element is reached. Development of the yield strength of a reinforcing bar requires that a

sufficient length of bond is available on either side of the critical section where capacity is

expected to occur. In locations where space is limited, insufficient space may be available to

allow a reinforcing bar to develop. In these cases, it is common to bend the bar to form either a

90-degree or 180-degree hook. Figure 2-1 gives an example of one possible situation where a

concentrated load is located near the end of a cantilever beam. The critical section for flexural

strength is located at the face of the support. If the required straight development length is

longer than the cantilever, then the bar would protrude from the concrete. The typical method to

deal with this situation is to turn the bar down into the section, creating a 90-degree hook.

The required length to develop the hook is shorter due to the mechanical advantage

provided by the concrete located at the inside radius of the bend. Figure 2-2 shows the normal

bar stresses in a #7 90-degree hook as reported by Marques and Jirsa (1975). The stresses in the

bar increase dramatically around the bend of the hook (from 13 ksi to 57 ksi), indicating that the

bearing of the inside of the hook against the concrete provides a significant portion of the

anchorage. These bearing stresses cause significant lateral tensile stresses, which can result in a

splitting failure when confinement reinforcement is not present.









Because the strength of hooked anchorages is determined empirically, it was necessary to

create a standard geometry for hooks. Figure 2-3 shows the dimensions for "standard hooks"

that are the same in both ACI and AASHTO design specifications. The development length

approach was first proposed by Pinc, Watkins, and Jirsa (1977). Table 2-1 shows the minimum

hook dimensions proposed in this research.

Current Hook Design Practice

Standard hook anchorages are currently designed using either the provisions of AASHTO

Bridge Design Specifications (2004) for bridges or ACI Building Code and Commentary (2005)

for buildings. The ACI Equation is


0.02yedb f
byh (2-1)

c


and AASHTO LRFD Specifications equation is:


38d f
I 8 b6y (2-2)
=fc 60



where ldh is the hook development length in in., We is the coating factor, h is the lightweight

aggregate concrete factor, db is the bar diameter in in., f, is the specified concrete strength in psi,

and fy is the specified yield strength of the bar in psi.


These provisions were developed in the early 1970s and were finally implemented into

the code in their present form in 1979.









Minor and Jirsa (1975) studied the factors that affect the anchorage capacity of bent

deformed bars. Specimen geometry was varied to determine the effect of bond length, bar

diameter, inside radius of bend, and angle included in the bend. Slip between the bar and the

concrete was measured at several points along the bar as load was applied. Load-slip curves were

used to compare different bar geometries. The results indicated that most of the slip occurred in

the straight and curve portion of the hook.

Marques and Jirsa (1975) investigated the anchorage capacity of hooked bars in beam-

column joints and the effect of the confinement at the joint. The variables considered were size

of anchored bars, hook geometry, embedment length, confinement, and column axial load. Full

scale beam-columns specimens were designed in order to allow the use of large diameter hooked

bars in accordance with ACI 318-71 code hook geometry standards. The test used #7 and #11

mild steel bars anchored in the columns. ACI 318-71 specifications were used for 90 or 180

degree standard hooks. Also, for 90 and 180 degree standard hooks, slip of the bar relative to the

surrounding concrete was measured at five points along the anchored bar (Figure 2-4).

As results, the slip measured on the tail extension of the hook was very small in

comparison with slip measured at the point (1H) and the point (2H). The slip measured at the

lead was greatest in most of the cases. Also, the slip at point (2H) was similar to the slip at point

(1H) when the lead straight embedment was short. In addition, the strength of the bars was

evaluated using the ACI 318-71 design provisions for hooked bar. The strength was determined

by calculating the stress developed by the hook (fh) plus an additional straight lead embedment

(11). It was found that the straight lead embedment calculated using the basic equation for

development length was not enough to develop the yield stress in the hooked bar. On the other









hand, the use of shorter straight embedment did not improve the stress transferring from the bar

to the concrete.

Marques and Jirsa (1975) found that the equations from ACI 318-71 underestimated the

anchorage capacity of the hooks. They found that for their test specimens the tensile stress in the

bar when the bond capacity was reached was:



fh = 700(1- 0.3db)y 7 (2-3)


where fh can not be greater than fy in psi, db is the diameter of the bar in in., f, is the average

concrete strength in psi, and y is a coefficient factor which depends on the size of the bar, the

lead straight embedment, side concrete cover and cover extension of the tail.

They also determined the straight lead embedment length (11) between the critical section

and the hook could be expressed as follows:



1= [0.04Ab (f -fh)/ ]+ 1' (2-4)


where 1 is 4db or 4 in., whichever is greater, Ab is the bar area in sq. in., fy the yield strength of

the bar in psi, fh the tensile stress of the bar in psi, and fc is the average concrete strength in psi.

Pinc, Watkins, and Jirsa (1977) also studied beam-column joints to determine the effect

of lead embedment and lightweight aggregate concrete on the anchorage capacity of the hook.

The first approach consisted in examining the hook and lead embedment separately. Variables as

fi/f'0o5 and li/db were correlated to obtain the straight embedment strength (fl). The total strength

of the anchored bar (fu) resulted by adding the straight embedment strength (fl) and the hook

strength (fh) equation:










f = 550(1 -0.4db +0.811/db) x


Also, the variables fu/f'0o5 and ldh/db were plotted to obtain the following equation:


fu = 50yldh / db (2-6)


As results, it was found that Equation 2-5 and Equation 2-6 were practically the same

except for the number of terms in each equation. Equation 2-6 can be rearranged into a form that

gives the development length, a parameter that is more useful in design:


0.02df
dh- 2 (2-7)



where ldh represents the development length for a hooked bar in in., db is the diameter of the bar

in in., fy is the yield strength of the bar, f' is the average concrete strength in psi, and y is a

coefficient factor which depends on the size of the bar.

The ACI 408.1R-79 presented recommendations for standard hook provisions for

deformed bars in tension based on the study reported by Pinc, Watkins, and Jirsa (1977), and

those recommendations were discussed and explained by Jirsa, Lutz, and Gergely (1979). The

development length (ldh) for standard hook proposed for the ACI 408 committee was the result of

the product of the basic development length (lhb) and the applicable factors. The basic

development length was computed as:


960db
.hb- 9 (2-8)
hb" i <"v


(2-5)









where lhb represents the basic development length for a hooked bar in in., db is the diameter of

the bar in in., f' is the average concrete strength in psi, and 4 represents the factor for anchorage

which was incorporated in the design equation.

The applicable factors included in ACI 408 committee were fy/60,000 for reinforcement

having yield strength over 60,000 psi, 0.7 for side cover, 0.8 for use of stirrups, 1.25 for use of

lightweight aggregate, and Asr/Asp for reinforcement in flexural members in excess. Figure 2-5

shows the recommended 4 factor not only for splices but also for hooked bar, and it compares

the test/calculated values for ACI 318-77 with proposed 4 factor of 0.8.

Figure 2-6 shows a comparison between the development length proposed and ACI 318-

77. The proposed development length was computed as a lineal function of the diameter of the

bar (Figure 2-6), the greater the diameter of the bar the greater the development length. For ACI

318-77, the development length was underestimated from #3 until #8 bars and overestimated for

bars greater than #8 in comparison with the proposed.

Basically, the ACI 318 for basic development length for hooked bar has not changed

since 1979. Also, most of the applicable factors have not changed except for the inclusion of the

epoxy-coated factor of 1.2 which was proposed by Hamad, Jirsa, and D'Abreu de Paulo (1993)

and included in the ACI 318-95.

For ACI 318-02, the basic development length equation changed in the way as the terms

were arranged. Applicable factors as epoxy-coated (0), lightweight concrete (k) and the yield

strength of the bar (fy) were included in the equation rather than being multiplier factors.

Additionally, in this code was included a factor of 0.8 for 180 degree hook enclosed within ties

or stirrups.









Finally, the development length and the factors included in the current ACI 318 code are

the same as ACI 318-02.

High-Strength Steel Reinforcement

High strength steel reinforcement has been introduced as a material which is more

durable than steel reinforcing bars. The use of high strength reinforcing bars is increasingly

rapidly due to the advantages that can offer over conventional reinforcing steel such as fatigue

resistance, corrosion resistant, toughness, and ductility. Also, high strength reinforcing bars can

be used in bridges and other structures where the high seismic activity is prevalent. Stainless

Steel and MMFX are one of the materials categorized as high strength steel due to they do not

have well-defined yield points and do not exhibit a yield plateau. Stainless Steel reinforcing bars

can be used in reinforced concrete structures where very high durability is required and the life

cost analysis is justified. Also, stainless rebar has been used thoroughly in North America and

Europe. Stainless rebar might be considered to be used in marine structures where chloride ion is

present. As Stainless Steel, MMFX reinforcement is a corrosion-resistant material and stronger

than conventional steel. MMFX reinforcing bars have been also used in structures across North

America including bridges, highways, parking garage, and residential and commercial projects.

Several researches using stainless steel and MMFX reinforcing bars have been conducted and

published by universities throughout the United States and sponsored for the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), and State Departments of Transportation (DOTs). These third parties

have conducted studies investigating bond stress behavior, corrosion evaluation, tensile tests, and

bending behavior in concrete structures.

Strut and Tie Evaluation of Anchorage

The strut-and-tie method was proposed by Schlaich, Schafer, and Jennewein (1987). This

method was incorporated in AASHTO LRFD Specifications in 1994 and in ACI 318 Appendix









A in 2002. The design basis of the strut-and-tie method is based on a truss model. The truss

model has been used in beams loaded in bending, shear and torsion. However, this model just

takes into account certain parts of the structure. The strut-and-tie method consists of struts and

ties connected by means of nodes as a real truss. The struts represent the compressive member

(concrete) and they serve either as the compression chord in the truss or as the diagonal struts.

Diagonal struts use to be oriented parallel to the expected axis of cracking. The ties represent the

tension member (stirrups and longitudinal reinforcement) where the anchorage of the ties is

crucial to avoid anchorage failure.

In order to apply correctly the strut-and-tie model, the structure is classified in B and D

regions. The B-regions (B for Bernoulli or beam) are based on the Bernoulli hypothesis which

facilitates the flexural design of reinforced concrete structures by allowing a linear strain

distribution for any loading stages (bending, shear, axial forces and torsional moments). On the

other hand, D-regions (D for discontinuity, or disturbance) are portions of a structure where the

strain distribution is nonlinear. D-regions are characterized for changes in geometry of a

structural portion (geometrical discontinuities) or concentrated forces (statical discontinuities).

For most types of D-regions as retaining walls, pier cap, and deep beam, the use of standard

hooks are common as anchorage (Figure 2-7).

Additionally, the strut-and-tie model is based on the lower bound theorem of plasticity

which allows yielding the bar (ties or stirrups) before crushing of concrete (struts and nodes).

The nodes can be classified according with the sign of the forces. At least three forces

should act on the node for equilibrium. A C-C-C node represents three compressive forces, a C-

C-T node represents two compressive forces and one tensile force, a C-T-T node represents two

tensile forces and one compressive force, and a T-T-T node represents three tensile forces. A C-









C-T node (Figure 2-8) show the nodal zone and extended nodal zone which serve to transfer

strut-and-tie forces. The extended nodal zone is defined as the portion limited by the intersection

of the strut width (ws) and the tie width (wt). The anchorage length (lanchorage) as shown in Figure

2-8 represents the development length of the hooked bar which is anchored in the nodal and

extended nodal zone.

Figure 2-9a shows the beam-column specimen used for Marques and Jirsa (1975) and

Figure 2-9b shows the strut-and-tie behavior of the hooked bar.









Table 2-1. Minimum hook dimensions.
180 degree 90 degree
Diameter Extension. .
Bar No. db (in) Dia Head (in.) nsin Tail (in.) Ratio (in.)
(in.) (in.)
4db 12db 3db
6db 4db
5 0.625 3.75 2.50 2.50 7.50 1.88
7 0.875 5.25 3.50 3.50 10.50 2.625
16 mm 0.629 3.77 2.52 2.52 7.55 1.89
20 mm 0.787 4.72 3.15 3.15 9.44 2.36










Critical Section
for Flexure
i/


Figure 2-1. Cantilever beam.


Figure 2-2. Normal bar stresses #7




I ldb


Figue 23db


5db

FSdha


Figure 2-3. Standard hook details.


L75 ksi

-I 45 kips













90 deg. standard hook.


4db'




6idb
'4d11


^ lo0*i
*141*i18














3 2H 1H

1H
column
S 4H face

i4 Slip V
N.t L Horiz.


Figure 2-4. Points where slip was measured.



DEVELOPMENT

PROPOSED, k
S- PROPOSED,
AC1318 -77
\l / '-.xo

u/ t / U.

SPLICES

S PROPOSED I





U tI / U,

pf10c i a w.
PROPOSED,
Sv"' .HOOKED BARS
,PROPOSED,
nI \, *J AI31-77
a ---- ---- *- --- '-- --- -
S 0.5 I1 tR ~20 Z
h(ltl) 1h (Ro ll


Figure 2-5. Recommended factor.











(U.Wl


ASK- IC VILOPMINT

FNOlPOD, 0.CO


*i *4 -9 *4* ? *S ** *Id II


*14


Ias e689MYs
I*r Z"**


*e


UI OUUAME, in.


Figure 2-6. Comparison of proposed and ACI 318-77 hook provisions.


Figure 2-7. Typical uses of a standard hook anchorage and F.B.D. A) Pier cap, B) Deep beam,
and C) Retaining wall.


fAC31. -7

XM1ll-77


*#I 114i&t


SIDe Ct0V 2 1/t Ia.
TAIL COV 2 In.


"If













W,


Extended nodal zone


Nodal zone


Figure


-1-T


C

anchorage

2-8. Extended nodal zone for standard hook anchorage.


Figure 2-9. Strut and tie model of specimen used in Marques and Jirsa research.










CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Specimen Design

Figure 3-1 illustrates the typical hooked bar anchorage uses that were targeted with this

research. The specimen and load configuration were designed to simulate the development

conditions indicated in the figure. Reinforcing bars fabricated with steel that did not have a well-

defined yield point were used to investigate the behavior of hooked bar anchorage designed

using ACI/AASHTO equations. The effects of concrete strength, bar size, concrete cover,

debonded length, and lateral reinforcement were considered. The bars evaluated were ASTM

A615, 316LN Stainless Steel and MMFX microcomposite steel.

Initial testing was conducted with the design shown in Figure 3-la and b, which are

denoted as unconfined and confined, respectively. The specimen configuration incorporated a

single bar centered in a concrete block. The focus of this initial testing was to validate the test

setup, specimen design, and loading configuration. Consequently, only ASTM A615

reinforcement was tested. Because the design complied with both design specifications, the

expectation was that the specimens would be capable of reaching at least the yield strength of the

mild steel reinforcement in both the confined and unconfined specimens. The test results,

however, indicated that the confined specimens could reach yield, but that the unconfined

specimens were well below yield when the concrete failed. Furthermore, the failure was

generally spelling of a corer section of concrete under the reaction at the outside of the hook,

which was not the targeted splitting of the specimen in the plane of the hook.

In general, the mechanics of hooked bar anchorage can be defined using a strut and tie

approach as indicated in the free body diagrams shown for each of the common hook uses. This

approach is followed by ACI 318-05 Appendix A and AASHTO LRFD (Sec. 5.6.3.5-2004). In









fact, as indicated in Figure 8, the available development length for the anchorage is defined by

the intersection of the reacting compression strut with straight portion of the hooked bar

(Schlaich, Schafer, and Jennewein, 1987).

Adjustment to the specimen configuration to simulate the strut and tie behavior of the

actual hook is shown in Figure 3-1c and d. The bearing over the hook was lengthened to ensure

complete engagement of the bar over the design development length. Although the figure shows

the bearing as uniform, it is likely that the actual bearing distribution varied along the length of

the specimen. This was not expected to affect the results significantly. The embedded portion of

the bar beyond the design development length was debonded to create strut angles between 25

and 47 degrees. The remainder of the testing was conducted with these two configurations using

unconfined specimens.

Forty eight specimens were cast and tested in five series, with each series representing the

specimens cast with a single batch of concrete. The specimen details and testing configuration

for the first series are given in Figure 3-2 and Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 complied with both AASHTO and ACI design specifications for clear cover and

spacing. A factor of 0.7 was applied because the specimen side cover and cover on bar extension

beyond hook were not less than 2-1/2 in and 2 in., respectively. In addition, a factor 0.8 was

applied to the confined specimens to account for the hooks being enclosed by ties or stirrups.

Confined specimens used #3 stirrups spaced at 1.88 or 2.63 in. along the development length of

the hook.

The remaining four series are detailed in Figure 3-3 and and also complied with both

AASHTO and ACI design specifications for clear cover and spacing. The specimen naming

convention is as follows. The first term represents the type of steel where (60) indicates ASTM









A615, (SS) stainless steel, and (MM) microcomposite steel. The second term represents the bar

size, #5, #7, 16 mm or 20 mm. The third term represents the hook bend angle of 90 or 180

degrees. The fourth term represents the strut angle 25, 35 or 47 degrees, and the last term

represents the specimen number or the presence of # 3 stirrups in the hook region.

The metric designation of the stainless steel bars was retained because they were

manufactured in Italy under "hard" metric sizes. The 16 mm diameter and area are very near that

of a U.S. Customary #5, the 20 mm has slightly smaller diameter and respective area than that of

a #7.

In Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 fy is the yield strength used to calculate the development length

of the bars and does not necessarily represent the actual yield strength of the material. In the

ASTM A615 specimens the specified yield strength was used to provide a basis of comparison

for the subsequent high-strength steel bars. The values used for fy in determining the

development lengths of the SS and MM specimens were taken from tests conducted on bars from

the same heat as those used in the pullout tests. The yield strength for these bars was determined

using the 0.2% offset method. Detailed results of these tests are in Chapter 4.

The target concrete strength (f') used to calculate the development length is shown in

these tables. Actual concrete strengths for each of the series varied somewhat from these target

values. Actual concrete strengths are provided in Chapter 4.

The remainder of the variables in the tables describe the specimen geometry including the

development length of the hooked bar as measured from the back edge of the hook. The strut

angles shown in the tables are a function of the specimen geometry and were varied to determine

the effect of the strut angle on the hook capacity.









In series of specimens two and three, there were found that slips from specimens with 35

degree strut were greater than slips obtained for specimens with 25 degree strut. Therefore, the

strut angle used in series four and five was 35 degree. Also, different development lengths were

evaluated for the same kind of rebar. Specimens number 1 and 2 were tested in accordance with

ACI 318-05 Section 12.5 (development of standard hooks in tension), whereas specimens

number 3 and 4 were tested with larger development lengths already used in series three (Figure

3-3 and Table 3-2).

Concrete Mixture Designs

Five batches were used during the research, which correspond to each series detailed in the

previous section. The batch for the first series was prepared at Florida Department of

Transportation State Materials Office (SMO) in Gainesville, and the last four batches were

prepared by Florida Rocks Industries, a local ready-mix concrete supplier.

The concrete mixture proportions per cubic yard are shown in Table 3-3. All mixtures used

a maximum aggregate size of 3/8-in. (#89 crushed limestones) and silica sand as coarse and fine

aggregates respectively. The first batch had a water to cement ratio of 0.44, and a slump of 5 in.

The cement, fine and coarse proportion was 1:2.4:1.99.

The second batch had a water to cement ratio of 0.28, and a slump of 7.5 in. The cement,

fine and coarse proportion was 1:2.45:2.05. The last three batches had an average water to

cement ratio of 0.19, and a slump of 7.5 in. The cement, fine, and coarse proportion for those

three batches were 1:1.82:1.62. The size of the concrete batch for the first batch was nine cubic

feet (0.25 cubic meters), and for the last four batches was 81 cubic feet (2.29 cubic meter) per

batch. Air-entrained admixture and high-range water reducer were included in the mixture

proportions. The water to cement ratio was reduced in the last four batches by means of the

inclusion of high-range water reducer (superplasticizer) in order to obtain high concrete strengths









at early age (14 days). Air-entraining admixture was also used to improve the workability of the

concrete. The volume of concrete used in each batch included the specimens, extra examples and

concrete for quality control testing. As quality control testing was used the Standard Test

Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete (ASTM C 143).

About twenty standard cylinders 6 x 12-in (152 x 305-mm) were cast at the same time, and

vibrated in two layers by means of a vibrating table which was used to assure the compaction.

Also, the cylinders were cured at room temperature and under the same condition as the

specimens for each concrete batch. Compressive tests were performed in accordance with the

Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (ASTM

C39-01). All cylinders were loaded at a load rate of 35 pound square inch per second, and also

they were loaded to failure. The maximum load obtained from the universal testing machine was

used to calculate the maximum compressive strength.

Specimen Construction

Formwork

The formwork design, shown in Figure 3-4, consisted of a base, two side forms, one front

form, one back form, and two 2 x 4 pieces. The front and back forms were kept between the side

forms to allow adjustment in the specimen length. This flexibility in the specimen length allowed

the formwork to be reused for differing specimen configurations. The front form was built in two

pieces to ease bar placement. Three pieces of 2 x 4 were attached below the base to allow forms

to be moved either with the crane or the forklift. The long pieces of plywood were clamped

together with two 2 x 4 and two threaded rods. The 2 x 4 braces maintained the shape of the

forms and dimensions of the specimen. The forms were sealed with a water-based adhesive

caulk.









Casting

Four specimens were cast in series one and two, twelve specimens in series three and four,

and sixteen specimens in series five. All specimens were cast with the bar placed in the bottom

of the forms with the tail of the bend pointed upward (Figure 3-4b and Figure 3-5). A thin wire

was attached to the side forms and to the tail of the hook to hold the bar level, and to maintain

the side cover required. The debonded part of the bar was composed of a plastic tube which was

sealed with electric tape to prevent cement paste from entering the tube.

Since most of the formwork as placed inside of University of Florida-Structural

Laboratory, the concrete from the ready mix truck was poured directly to a galvanized steel

container (Figure 3-6). Afterward, the container was moved to be near to the formworks, and a

slump test was performed as stated in ASTM C143-00 (Figure 3-7).

To ensure that the instrumentation and bar position were not disturbed, concrete was

delivered to the forms from the container by hand (Figure 3-8A). Each specimen was cast in two

lifts, which were compacted using mechanical vibrators. As concrete was placed in the forms,

standard 6xl2-in (152 x 305-mm) cylinders were cast, and also vibrated in two layers. Once

finished with the casting procedure, the top surfaces of the specimens were smoothed with a

finishing trowel (Figure 3-8B). Finally, a plastic sheet was placed over the specimens to

minimize the evaporation of the water (Figure 3-9). The specimens and cylinders were left to

cure in the same environment until they were tested.

Test Setup

A test frame was constructed with back-to-back structural channels. Each two structural

channels were connected and stiffened by 0.5-in. thick plates. A double C15x40, and C15x40

were welded together to form a 90 degree frame. Each end of the frame was then welded to

C12x30 shapes, which were attached to the strong floor and wall. Stiffeners were added to stiffen









the frame against the heavy concentrated loads from the specimen (see Figure 3-10A, and Figure

3-10C).

After fabrication, the test frame was connected to the strong wall and floor by means of

eight 5/8" bolts, and eight 1-1/4" bolts respectively (Figure 3-10B). The specimen was seated in

a 22 x 22-in. steel base. Tension was applied to the bar extension by means of a center hole

hydraulic jack. The threaded rod passed through the 2C15x40 beam, and the center hole

hydraulic jack (Figure 3-10B). A coupler system was used to connect the anchored bar to a

threaded rod (Figure 3-11). This load was reacted with a strut placed between the specimen and

the horizontal member of the reaction frame. The moment generated by the couple was reacted

horizontally with the vertical member of the reaction frame. The reaction on the left face of the

specimen shown in Figure 3-12 was distributed over the development length of the hook. The

remaining portion above the bar was debonded to ensure that only the portion of the hook under

the reaction contributed to the bar development.

Data Acquisition Setup

Slip between the hooked bar and the concrete was measured by a procedure developed and

used by Minor and Jirsa (1975). Figure 3-13 shows the locations along the hook where relative

slip was measured. Location 1 was at the loaded end and location 2 was at the beginning of the

bend. A 0.0625 in. diameter hole was drilled in the hooked bar. A 0.016 in. diameter wire was

attached to the anchored bar at points 1 and 2 by inserting part of the wire to the /4-in deep holes

and securing with a small brass screw. The wire was placed inside of a thin plastic conduit of

0.042 in. diameter along the entire length in order to prevent bonding and to allow free

movement of the wire relative to the surrounding concrete (Figure 3-14).

The conduit containing the wire was extended from the bar attachment point through the

concrete and exited the specimen on the side opposite to the straight portion of the bar. The









exposed conduit and wire was then connected to a linear pot placed in a 1 x 1-in. frame (Figure

3-14B). The linear pots were used to measure the relative movement between the wire and the

conduit, which is nearly a direct measure of the relative movement of the bar and concrete at

attachment point of the wire. Bar displacement was also measured relative to the top side of the

specimen using a linear pot clamped to the bar (Figure 3-14A, Figure 3-15). The purpose of this

linear pot was to measure the strain of the debonded portion of the bar and any slip that might

occur before failure.

The data acquisition system consisted in a LabView virtual instrument which was

programmed to read and record data points from linear pots, and a load cell (Figure 3-16).









Table 3-1. Specimen design details for series 1.
fc W H B Strut ldh tested dL
Specimen fy (ksi) (psi) (in) (in) (in) Angle (in) (in)
60 5 90 S 60 5700 14.5 8.5 10 6
60 5 90 1 60 5700 14.5 10.5 10 8
60 7 90 S 60 5700 18.5 11.5 10 9
60 7 90 1 60 5700 18.5 13.5 10 11











Table 3-2. Specimen design details for series 2 through 5.
Series Sp fy f, W H B Strut Idh tested dL
Specimen
Number (ksi) (psi) (in) (in) (in) Angle (in) (in)
60 5 90 25 1 60 5490 14.5 12.1 10 25 7 2.60
60 5 90 25 2 60 5490 14.5 12.1 10 25 7 2.60
Two90471 60 5490 18.5 22.8 10 47 10 10.30
60 7 90 47 1 60 5490 18.5 22.8 10 47 10 10.30
SS60 7 90 47 2 60 5490 18.5 22.8 10 47 1 0 10.30
SS 16 90 25 1 103 6350 14.5 17.1 10 25 12 2.60
SS 16 90 25 2 103 6350 14.5 17.1 10 25 12 2.60
SS 16 90 35 1 103 6350 14.5 18.4 10 35 12 3.90
SS 16 90 35 2 103 6350 14.5 18.4 10 35 12 3.90
MM 5 90 25 1 114 6450 14.5 19.1 10 25 14 2.60
MM 5 90 25 2 114 6450 14.5 19.1 10 25 14 2.60
Three
MM 5 90 35 1 114 6450 14.5 20.4 10 35 14 3.90
MM 5 90 35 2 114 6450 14.5 20.4 10 35 14 3.90
MM 7 90 25 1 114 6600 18.5 27 10 25 20 4.50
MM 7 90 25 2 114 6600 18.5 27 10 25 20 4.50
MM 7 90 35 1 114 6600 18.5 29.1 10 35 20 6.60
MM 7 90 35 2 114 6600 18.5 29.1 10 35 20 6.60


SS 16 180 35 1
SS 16 180 35 2
SS 16 180 35 3
SS 16 180 35 4
MM 5 180 35 1
MM 5 180 35 2
MM 5 180 35 3
MM 5 180 35 4
MM 7 180 35 1
MM 7 180 35 2
MM 7 180 35 3
MM 7 180 35 4
60 5 180 35 1
60 5 180 35 2
60 7 180 35 1
60 7 180 35 2
60 7 180 35 3
60 7 180 35 4
SS 20 90 35 1
SS 20 90 35 2
SS 20 90 35 3
SS 20 90 35 4
SS 20 180 35 1
SS 20 180 35 2
SS 20 180 35 3
SS 20 180 35 4
MM 7 90 35 3
MM 7 90 35 4


103
103
103
103
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
60
60
60
60
60
60
97.2
97.2
97.2
97.2
97.2
97.2
97.2
97.2
114
114


6100
6100
6100
6100
6320
6320
6320
6320
6170
6170
6170
6170
6330
6330
6330
6330
6330
6330
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150


14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.5
14.5
14.5
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.5
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
18.5
18.5


17.4
17.4
18.4
18.4
18.4
18.4
20.4
20.4
26.1
26.1
29.1
29.1
13.4
13.4
18.0
18.0
19.0
19.0
21.1
21.1
22.1
22.1
21.1
21.1
22.1
22.1
29.1
29.1


3.90
3.90
3.90
3.90
3.90
3.90
3.90
3.90
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
3.90
3.90
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
6.60
6.60


Four


Five









Table 3-3. Concrete mixture proportions (quantities are per cubic yard).
Series and Mixing Dates
1 2 3 4 5
Materials 2/1/2007 3/9/2007 4/9/2007 5/9/2007 6/8/2007
W/C 0.44 0.28 0.22 0.23 0.22
Cement (lb) 513 512 702 668 680
Fly Ash (lb) 145 145 145 152 150
Water (lb) 290 184 184 189 185
Fine Aggregate (lb) 1557 1607 1527 1527 1527
Coarse Aggregate (lb) 1309 1347 1360 1360 1360
Air-entrained (oz) 6.6 4.33 1 1.33 1
Admixture (oz) 39.5 100 156 155 155
Slump (in.) 5 7.5 7.5 8 7.25














A0
1dh



A


4r


IH






B




/-




D


Figure 3-1. Specimen design with idealized boundary conditions. A) Unconfined, B) Confined
with stirrups, C) 90 deg. hook, unconfined with debonded length, and D) 180 deg.
hook, unconfined with debonded length.


Ct


Cs
A
A

H
Ctail

S Section A A


A

W

1 Se


_Ct wC







W


Cs
A lCt


i[ W NNo. 3
A I stirrup
Ctail Cb

Section A A
Section A A


Figure 3-2. Specimen design for series 1: A) Unconfined specimen details and B) Confined
specimen details.


Cb-










c


Ct


SCb
F-:-


Section A A


dL

A
A
Idh


II


.r-
S. -

d/
~7

^ ,


-i Cb -


Ctail
-A


Section A A
B


Figure 3-3. Specimen design for series 2 through 5: A) Unconfined specimen details for 90
degree bend and B) Unconfined specimen details for 180 degree bend.



5/8" Thread Rod 1 x 1 Lumber
2 x 4 Lumber


Coupler







Plywood 3/4"
2.5 2 pieces of 3/4"
of Plywood placed
S' above and below the
IT / bar


Section A A


Figure 3-4. Formwork schematics A) Plan view, and B) Section.


F


























Figure 3-5. Formwork details.


Figure 3-6. Ready-mixed concrete being discharged into the container for transporting.



























Figure 3-7. Slump of ready-mixed concrete.





iii V


Figure 3-8. Casting and compaction of the specimen A), and B) Finishing of specimens.
Figure 3-8. Casting and compaction of the specimen A), and B) Finishing of specimens.


Figure 3-9. Curing of the specimens.













Load Cell
Hydraulic
Jack


ii\,


4'




I-_____ L L-'


Izv-


_ 4' 2"


Bolts
Open holes


22" x 22"
- Base


Section A-A


Figure 3-10. Load test setup A) Plan view schematic, B) Section schematic, and C) Photo.


Strong
Floor


























Figure 3-11. Coupler system.


Plate
12x30x1
Bearing length
varied as needed
to create target
development length

SShims


Neoprene
6x12x1/4


HSS
4x3x1/4


6x10x1/4


Figure 3-12. Specimen schematic reactions.


Figure 3-13. Slip wire position in hooked bar.


2C6x13
A


ft












Load Cell


t

Displacement




1


Bond Slip







Bond Slip


Figure 3-14. Bond slip instrumentation A) Displacement and slip position, B) Linear
potentiometers.


Figure 3-15. Linear potentiometer placed at the top face of the specimen.


I -
j ,

I I


.tEbWddU-l2 ...... i
EntxdS brlmi" Pt 1





mA-
150-
250- I -
ISO-

00-
-0-000
00.
-to No 40 4U0M 4000 -Low


Figure 3-16. Data acquisition system.


...... ldE m


'="









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Materials Properties

Concrete

About twenty standard cylinders 6 x 12-in (152 x 305-mm) per batch were tested in

accordance with the Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete

Specimens (ASTM C39-01). Compressive strengths of each batch are shown in Table 4-1. The

first batch was mixed at Florida Department of Transportation State Materials Office (SMO) in

Gainesville, and the last four batches were delivered by Florida Rocks Industries, a local ready-

mix concrete supplier. Compressive strengths were tested after 7, 14, 21, and 28 days of

continuous lab cured for all the concrete mixes (APPENDIX A).

Steel

ACI indicates that for bars exceeding a specified yield strength of 60 ksi (413 MPa), the

yield strength is to be determined using the stress corresponding to a 0.35% strain. The 0.2%

offset method (ASTM A370-07), however, is more generally applicable to high strength steel

that have no well-defined yield point.

Consequently, for the stainless steel and MMFX bars that do not have well-defined yield

points and do not exhibit a yield plateau, the 0.2% offset method was used in lieu of the 0.35%

strain method. All the tension tests were conducted at Florida Department of Transportation

State Materials Office (SMO) in Gainesville. Four coupons were tested for each Grade 60,

Stainless Steel, and MMFX bars. The load rate used was 0.20 inches per minute per in. of

distance between the grips (in/min/in) until the yield point was determined. After yielding, the

rate used was 3.5 in/min/in until bar rupture occurred.









Stainless steel and MMFX bars do not have a well-defined yield point and do not exhibit a

yielding plateau; therefore, the 0.2% offset method (ASTM A370-07) was used to determine the

yield strength of the bar. This method is illustrated in Figure 4-1 where the intersection of the

stress-strain curve with a line parallel to the slope equal to the initial tangent modulus and which

intercept at 0.002 strain defines the yield point.

Data gathered during tension tests included strain at 0.2% offset, load at 0.2% offset, and

ultimate strength. Complete tension test results are given in APPENDIX A.

Grade 60 Steel

All mild steel bars came from the same heat and were purchased locally at a building

supply center. The #5 bar had yield strength measured at 0.35% (0.0035 in/in) strain of 63 ksi,

and a tensile strength of 105 ksi. The #7 bar had yield strength measured at 0.35% (0.0035 in/in)

strain of 64 ksi, and a tensile strength of 106 ksi (Table 4-2). The two samples of each size

exceeded and complied with the ASTM A615 (Grade 60) standard which established the

minimum yield strength, and tensile strength of 60 ksi, and 90 ksi, respectively.

Stainless Steel

The stainless steel 316LN bars were made in Italy and were provided by Valbruna

Stainless Steel. Valbruna Stainless Steel is a company specialized in supplying and producing

stainless steel and special metal alloys. The company has several branches in United States and

Canada. Their stainless steel bars have been used worldwide in different applications as bridges,

highway and roads, viaducts, and ports. After testing, the 16 mm bar had a yield strength

measured at 0.2% (0.002 in/in) strain offset of 106 ksi, and a tensile strength of 124 ksi. The 20

mm bar had a yield strength measured at 0.2% (0.002 in/in) strain offset of 96 ksi, and tensile

strength of 120 ksi (Table 4-3). The yield and tensile strengths measured in the two samples of









each size exceeded and complied with the minimum yield strength of 75 ksi and minimum

tensile strength of 100 ksi required for ASTM A955 and Valbruna product specifications.

MMFX Steel

The MMFX bars were provided for MMFX Steel Corporation of America. MMFX Steel

Corporation of America is a subsidiary of MMFX Technologies, a company that has invented the

MMFX 2 steel bar which has a microstructure different to the conventional steel. The MMFX 2

steel rebar is a corrosion resistant and a high grade steel which has been used nationwide in

different construction applications as bridge decks, bridge structures, and residential. After

testing, the #5 and #7 bars had yield strengths measured at 0.2% (0.002 in/in) strain offset of 122

ksi, and 128 ksi, respectively (Table 4-4). The yield strength measured in the two samples of

each size exceeded and complied with the minimum yield strength of 120 ksi required for ASTM

A1035 and MMFX product specifications.

Specimens Test Results

Behavior and Failure Modes

Figure 4-2 shows the stress-strain plot of three pullout specimens to illustrate the typical

behavior of each type of steel. Load-slip and stress-strain curves for all specimens are shown in

APPENDIX B. The stress was obtained by dividing the measured load by the nominal area of the

reinforcing bar. The strain was obtained by dividing the measured bar displacement by the

debonded length.

In general, as load was applied the specimen remained uncracked and linear elastic until

the yield point was reached. In some of the specimens cracking occurred, this caused a loss of

bond and a premature failure. This failure mode was deemed concrete splitting which occurred

suddenly when the peak load was reached. This type of failure was characterized by cracks that

split the specimen from the front to the right face (Figure 4-3A). Also, diagonal cracks formed on









the right and left side of the specimen confirming the strut behavior of the specimens (Figure

4-3B). The front face of the specimen presented the typical Y crack which is seen in bond test

using beam end specimens (Ahlbom and DenHartigh, 2002). The rear face exhibited an inverted

Y crack which split the specimen in three parts (Figure 4-3C and D).

Crack pattern of this kind of failure was seen in specimen MM_7_180_35_3 as it is shown

in Figure 4-4.

After testing, a larger portion of the side cover was easy to remove. During the specimen

examination, it was found crushing of the concrete inside radius of the hook. This kind of

behavior was seen not only in 90 degree but also in 180 degree hooks (Figure 4-5). Moreover,

crushing of the concrete near to the radius of the bend was because of the higher tensile force

applied to the bar producing mini cracks between the bar and the concrete and resulting in loss of

bond.

This type of behavior was also observed and reported by Marques and Jirsa (1975) and

Hamad, Jirsa, and D'Abreu de Paulo (1993). The main objective of those studies was to evaluate

bond characteristics and anchorage capacity of uncoated (mild steel) and epoxy-coated hooked

bars for 90 and 180-degree bend angle.

If the specimen was able to sustain load beyond yield, one of two possible failure modes

occurred. The bar yield with concrete splitting, occurred after the bar had yielded indicating that

the anchorage was able to hold load at least to the yield point. Cracks pattern are similar to the

concrete splitting failure.

Bar yield was characterized by continued deformation of the bar without concrete splitting

or bar rupture. This typically occurred on the stainless steel specimens when the hydraulic jack

stroke limit was reached. Specimens SS 16 90 25 1, SS 16 90 25 2, SS 16 90 35 1,









SS 16 90 35 2, SS 16 180 35 1, and SS 16 180 35 4 were loaded until the stroke of the

hydraulic jack reached its limit, however; the bar reached the yielding point before the test was

terminated. After testing, cracks were not seen on the faces of the specimen.

Finally, several specimens failed due to bar yield and rupture. This occurred when the full

rupture strength of the bar was reached before the concrete failed. The bar yield and rupture

failure was mainly observed in MMFX specimens.

Mild Steel Specimens

In this section the detailed results of the mild steel specimens are presented and discussed.

Failure modes for each specimen are documented as well as the load displacement and load slip

behavior.

Figure 4-6 shows the load displacement behavior for all of the #5 and #7 mild steel

specimens. Also, Figure 4-6 show the coupon yield load (Py) for #5 and #7 which confirms that

the bars reached yield. The plots for each are shown with different scales to accentuate the

differences in behavior among the specimens with the same size bar. The 25-degree strut

specimens appear to have a larger initial stiffness than that of the 35-degree strut specimens

when comparing the results for the #5 bar. This is likely due to the manner in which the

displacements were measured. The linear potentiometer was attached to the bar at the point

where it exits the concrete and measured the relative movement between the bar and concrete.

The 25-degree strut specimens had shorter debonded lengths than that of the 35-degree strut

specimens resulting in larger elastic deformations under the same load.

The sudden change in slope of the load displacement plots indicate yielding of the bars and

generally agreed well with the measured yield strength of the bare bars. The anchorage strength

of #5 specimens with 180-degree hook improved about 23% with respect to #5 specimens with

90-degree hooked bar as the concrete strength and the strut angle increased (Figure 4-6a).









Post-yield slopes are not likely to provide useful information because the measurement of

bar displacement is made relative to the concrete surface around the bar. Microcracking is likely

to occur near yield, which will result in movement of the concrete along with the bar as ultimate

strength is approached. This behavior is described more fully when the slip data are presented.

Figure 4-7 summarizes the results of the tests in terms of the hook capacity.

The complete test results for mild steel specimens are shown in the Table 4-5. f, shows

the average concrete strength of the specimen concrete as tested on the day of the pullout test. Pu

is the peak measured load applied to the bar. To allow comparison of the peak measured loads

among the specimens that contained varying concrete strength, Pu was normalized to the square

root of the ratio of the design strength (5500 psi) to the measured strength. Pye is the load at

which the bar yielded using the 0.35% strain. Au is the displacement corresponding to Pu and Ay

is the displacement corresponding to Pye. The bar stress based on the peak measured load is also

given (Pu, Ab). Dl and D2 represent the total measured slip of the bar when the load in the bar is

Pu.

The load slip data gathered during the testing provides interesting insight into the behavior

of the hooked bar anchorages.

Figure 4-8 show two graphs that compare the confined and unconfined #5 bar specimens

from the first series of testing. Recall that this testing was conducted with the original test

configuration. It is readily apparent that the unconfined specimen (which did not reach yield)

has a shallower load-slip slope than that of the confined specimen with stirrups, indicating that

the lack of stirrups allowed greater bar movement prior to reaching ultimate capacity. This

confirms observations by Hamad, Jirsa, and D'Abreu de Paulo (1993). Hamad, Jirsa, and

D'Abreu de Paulo evaluated beam-column joints with mild steel and epoxy-coated hooked bars.









Their results concluded that for #7 uncoated specimens with 90 degree hooked bar, the

anchorage strength increased about 51% with the inclusion of stirrups. However, for #7

specimens tested in this research with 90 degree hooked bar, the anchorage strength increased

about 69% with the inclusion of stirrups. The differences between the results of comparative

tests are based on the test setup, the use of high concrete strength, strut-and-tie approach, and

stirrups spacing.

Further examination of the plots indicates that the slip at Dl is greater than that of D2 until

higher loads are reached where the plots cross. This occurs in both the confined and unconfined

specimens. Dl was expected to remain greater than D2 up to failure since the bar exits the

specimen near where Dl is measured. The cross-over of the plots is likely due to cracking late in

the loading process and is a function of the slip measurement technique and not an indication of

peculiar behavior. Figure 4-9 shows the idealized location of cracks in unconfined and confined

specimens, which are similar to those observed during and after the testing. As load is applied,

the slip at Dl is greater than that of D2. As additional load is applied, diagonal cracks form

perhaps along line 2-3. When these cracks occur, a spall in the shape of 1-2-3 forms and moves

with the bar as further load is applied resulting in zero bond stress in this area. Because the slip

measurement device measures relative movement between the concrete and steel, less (or zero)

slip will register after the spall occurs. These cracks likely form when the specimen is near

capacity, which confirms the crossing locations in the plots.

For unconfined specimens, initial slip located at Dl was greater than slip located at D2

until diagonal cracks formed as shown in Figure 4-9a. For confined specimens, the use of

transverse reinforcement not only improved the anchorage capacity of the hooked bar but also









controlled crack propagation. The inclusion of transverse reinforcement was sufficient to yield

the bar and to achieve the bar rupture failure.

Figure 4-10 shows the relative behavior of the confined and unconfined #7 tests. The

unconfined test is similar to that of the #5 with failure occurring before bar yield and with a

crossing of the slip plots near the specimen ultimate capacity. In contrast, however, the confined

specimen never exhibits the cross-over of the slip plots. This is probably due to the confinement

restricting the formation of the spall in the region of D1.

Slip behavior of the series 2 through 5 tests was similar to that of the unconfined specimen

from series 1 except that most of the specimens tested with the revised setup reached yield before

failure. Figure 4-11 provides an example of the load slip behavior for a #5 bar with a 180-deg.

hook. As expected, Dl remained greater than D2 for the entire test, and never crossed D2 as the

load approached capacity. Recall that the slip Dl was measured at the end of the debonded

length (dL), which placed it closer to the bend than in the previous test setup (Figure 4-12).

Figure 4-12 shows two possible locations where diagonal cracks formed at the edge of the strut.

Crack 2-3 is shown above Dl and Crack 4-5 is shown below. It is believed that the reason there

was no cross-over is that the cracking occurred primarily along line 2-3, which formed spall 1-2-

3 and allowed the relative slip Dl to continue to be measured up to failure. Furthermore, the D2

plot shows a plateau forming while Dl remains linear up until failure of the concrete indicating

that the bar was well beyond its yield point at Dl.

Typical behavior of a #7 mild steel bar with a 180-degree hook is shown in Figure 4-13.

The behavior illustrated is similar to that of the #5 specimen in that Dl remains larger than D2

until failure.









Stainless Steel Specimens

Detailed results of the stainless steel specimens are presented and discussed. Failure

modes for each specimen are documented as well as the load displacement and load slip

behavior.

Figure 4-14 shows the load displacement behavior for all of the 16 and 20-mm stainless

steel specimens. Also, Figure 4-14 show the coupon yield load (Pyt) for 16mm and 20mm, which

confirms that the bars reached yield. The plots for each are shown with different scales to

accentuate the differences in behavior among the specimens with the same size bar. All of the

specimens with 16 mm bars reached their yield point with no bar rupture. In many cases, the test

was terminated when the stroke of the hydraulic jack reached its limit. In contrast, most

specimens with 20 mm bars reached their yield point but then failed by splitting of the concrete.

During this portion of the testing program it was discovered that stainless steel bars from two

different heats had used (Pyt and Pyt2), which explains the difference in the yield loads exhibited

in Figure 4-14a for the 16 mm bars.

For 16 mm and 20 mm specimens, the bond between the bar and the concrete made the

tangent modulus slopes steeper (Figure 4-14). For 20 mm specimens, load-displacement curves

were quite similar despite of different development lengths, strut angles, and hook geometries

(Figure 4-14b).

Figure 4-15 summarizes the results of the tests in terms of the hook capacity.

The test results for stainless steel specimens are shown in the Table 4-3. f, shows the

average concrete strength of the specimen concrete as tested on the day of the pullout test. Pu is

the peak measured load applied to the bar. To allow comparison of the peak measured loads

among the specimens that contained varying concrete strength, Pu was normalized to the square

root of the ratio of the design strength (5500 psi) to the measured strength. Pye is the load at









which the bar yielded using the 0.2% offset strain. Au is the displacement corresponding to Pu

and Ay is the displacement corresponding to Pye. The bar stress based on the peak measured load

is also given (P, /Ab). Dl and D2 represent the total measured slip of the bar when the load in

the bar is Pu.

Because of the 25-degree strut specimens had shorter debonded lengths than that of the 35-

degree strut specimens resulting in larger elastic deformations under the same load (Figure 4-16).

As a result, it was found that the maximum slip for specimen SS_16_90_35 2 increased about

56% as the strut angle increased in comparison with the specimen SS_16_90 25 2 ( Table

4-6).

Typical load-slip behavior is illustrated in Figure 4-17 for 16 mm stainless steel specimens.

Initial slip is larger for Dl than for D2. As the load nears yield, however, the plots cross,

indicating that the diagonal crack formed the 1-4-5 spall (Figure 4-12) in the debonded region of

the bar.

Figure 4-18 indicates that the 20 mm stainless steel specimens behave more like the #7

mild steel specimens than that of the 16 stainless steel specimens. This may be due to the

difference in the failure mode. Recall that the 16 mm stainless steel specimens did not split

while both the #7 mild steel and 20 mm stainless steel specimens yielded and then split.

MMFX Specimens

In this section the detailed results of the MMFX specimens are presented and discussed.

Failure modes for each specimen are documented as well as the load displacement and load slip

behavior.

Figure 4-19 shows the load displacement behavior for all of the #5 and #7 MMFX

specimens. Also, Figure 4-19 show the coupon yield load (Pyt) for #5 and #7 which confirms that

the bars reached yield. The plots for each are shown with different scales to accentuate the









differences in behavior among the specimens with the same size bar. All of the specimens with

#5 bars reached yield, which appears to be at approximately the same load. In contrast, just a

few specimens with #7 bars reached their yield point before failure by concrete splitting

occurred, indicating that the bond strength was not sufficient to develop the #7 bars as fully as

the #5 bars.

It was found that the anchorage strength at failure of #5 specimens with 180-degree hook

improved about 9% as the development length increased ( Table 4-7).

Figure 4-20 summarizes the results of the tests in terms of the hook capacity. Also, in

Figure 4-20, it was not noticed any difference between the average strength of 90 and 180-degree

hook for #5 and #7 specimens.

The test results for MMFX specimens are shown in the Table 4-7. fo shows the

average concrete strength of the specimen concrete as tested on the day of the pullout test. Pu is

the peak measured load applied to the bar. To allow comparison of the peak measured loads

among the specimens that contained varying concrete strength, Pu was normalized to the square

root of the ratio of the design strength (5500 psi) to the measured strength. Pye is the load at

which the bar yielded using the 0.2% offset strain. Au is the displacement corresponding to Pu

and Ay is the displacement corresponding to Pye. The bar stress based on the peak measured load

is also given (P, /Ab). Dl and D2 represent the total measured slip of the bar when the load in

the bar is Pu.

Typical behavior of a #5 and #7 mild steel bar with a 90 and 180-degree hooks is shown in

Figure 4-21, and Figure 4-22. The behavior illustrated is similar to that of the #5 and #7 mild

steel specimens with 180 degree hook in that Dl remains larger than D2 until failure. The

maximum slip for specimen MM 5 90 35 2 increased about 114% as the strut angle increased









in comparison with the specimen MM_5_90 25 2. Also, it was found that the maximum slip for

specimen MM_5_180_35_2 increased about 116% as the development length increased in

comparison with the specimen MM_5_180_35 4.









Table 4-1. Compressive concrete strengths.
Series
1 2 3 4 5
Average Concrete Strength 5700 5520 6500 6180 6070
Coefficient of Variation (%) 4.84 3.84 3.34 3.41 3.74

Table 4-2. Tension test results for ASTM A615 reinforcement.
Grade 60
Yield Strength
at 0.35% strain Strain at 0.35% Load at 0.35% Ultimate
(ksi) yield (in/in) (kip) Strength (ksi)
#5
Average 62.8 0.00350 19.5 104.7
COV (%) < 1 0.00 < 1 0.11
#7
Average 63.7 0.00350 38.2 105.9
COV (%) < 1 0.00 < 1 < 1

Table 4-3. Tension test result for stainless steel (316LN).
Stainless Steel
Yield Strength Strain at 0.2%
at 0.2% offset offset yield Load at 0.2% Ultimate
(ksi) (in/in) offset (kip) Strength (ksi)
16 mm (0.625 in)
Average 106.2 0.00615 32.9 123.8
COV (%) < 1 1.15 < 1 < 1
20 mm (0.787 in)
Average 95.7 0.00575 46.5 120.1
COV (%) 6.09 1.23 6.09 < 1

Table 4-4. Tension test results for MMFX steel.
MMFX
Yield Strength Strain at 0.2%
at 0.2% offset offset yield Load at 0.2% Ultimate
(ksi) (in/in) offset (kip) Strength (ksi)
#5
Average 122.4 0.00649 37.9 158.1
COV (%) < 1 <1 <1 < 1
#7
Average 128.0 0.00670 76.8 162.9
COV (%) < 1 2.11 < 1 < 1











Table 4-5. Test results for mild steel #5 and #7


Specimen notation
60 5 90 1
60 5 90 S
60 5 90 25 1
60 5 90 25 2
60 5 180 35 1
60 5 180 35 2
60 7 90 1
60 7 90 S
60 7 90 47 1
60 7 90 47 2
c\ 60 7 180 35 1

60 7 180 35 3

60 7 180 35 4


f, (psi)
5700
5700
5490
5490
6330
6330
5700
5700
5490
5490
6330
6330
6330
6330


Pu
(kips)
20.2
25.5
26.5
27.0
34.6
34.8
27.8
47.0
58.1
54.1
54.4
52.4
58.9
59.1


Pye
(kips)
N.A
N.A
18.7
19.1
18.9
18.9
N.A
N.A
38.9
39.5
40.8
31.2
36.5
36.9


Au (in)
0.085
0.289
0.151
0.150
0.274
0.275
0.037
0.089
0.497
0.358
0.172
0.163
0.238
0.285


A, (in)
NA
NA
0.009
0.009
0.017
0.016
N.A
N.A
0.036
0.036
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023


Dl1
(in)
0.162
0.117
NA
0.167
0.178
0.157
0.102
0.099
N.A
0.249
0.166
0.251
0.174
0.401


D2,
(in)
0.152
0.074
NA
0.132
0.081
0.074
0.097
0.019
N.A
0.164
0.158
0.226
0.085
0.263


P./Ab
(ksi)
63.8
80.8
85.6
87.1
106.0
106.5
45.4
77.0
97.0
90.2
84.6
81.5
91.5
91.8


F5500
V f'l

(kips)
19.8
25.0
26.5
27.0
32.9
33.0
27.3
46.2
58.2
54.1
50.7
48.9
54.9
55.1


Failure Modes
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield and rupture
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield and rupture
Bar yield and rupture
Concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield
Bar yield
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting


specimens.











Table 4-6. Test results for stainless steel 16 mm and 20 mm specimens.


Specimen notation
SS 16 90 25 1
SS 16 90 25 2
SS 16 90 35 1
SS 16 90 35 2
SS 16 180 35 1
SS 16 180 35 2
SS 16 180 35 3
SS 16 180 35 4
SS 20 90 35 1
SS 20 90 35 2
SS 20 90 35 3
SS 20 90 35 4
SS 20 180 35 1
SS 20 180 35 2
SS 20 180 35 3
SS 20 180 35 4


f, (psi)
6350
6350
6350
6350
6100
6100
6100
6100
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150
6150


Pu
(kips)
35.4
33.3
36.7
33.6
36.3
37.3
35.1
37.4
59.5
59.1
58.5
60.4
62.4
62.5
52.5
55.6


Pye
(kips)
32.15
27.44
32.84
28.98
22.62
34.89
32.43
28.64
39.83
39.75
N.A
39.38
40.94
35.15
41.74
38.03


A, (in)
0.497
0.497
0.658
0.729
0.882
0.204
0.177
0.758
0.263
0.099
0.011
0.150
0.364
0.358
0.056
0.066


Av (in)
0.036
0.015
0.024
0.022
0.022
0.024
0.024
0.032
0.033
0.032
N.A
0.032
0.032
0.031
0.032
0.032


D1 (in)
0.287
0.265
0.446
0.413
0.400
0.207
0.109
0.334
0.239
0.193
0.166
0.077
0.222
0.146
0.167
0.152


D2, (in)
0.186
0.126
0.235
0.148
0.882
0.108
0.102
0.051
0.188
0.146
0.158
0.041
0.061
0.043
0.132
0.079


15500
Pu/Ab V Jf'
(ksi) (kips)
105.7 33.0
99.2 31.0
109.6 34.2
100.2 31.3
110.4 34.5
113.5 35.4
106.8 33.3
113.8 35.5
114.9 56.3
114.0 55.9
113.0 55.4
116.5 57.1
120.4 59.0
120.6 59.1
101.3 49.6
107.2 52.5


Failure Modes
Bar yield
Bar yield
Bar yield
Bar yield
Bar yield
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield and rupture
Bar yield
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting











Table 4-7. Test results for MMFX steel #5 and #7 specimens.


Specimen notation
MM 5 90 25 1
MM 5 90 25 2
MM 5 90 35 1
MM_5 90 35 2
MM 5 180 35 1
MM 5 180 35 2
MM 5 180 35 3
MM_5_180_35 4
MM 7 90 25 1
MM 7 90 25 2
MM_7_90_35_1
MM_7_90 35_2
MM_7_90 35_3
MM_7_90 35_4
MM 7 180 35 1
MM 7 180 35 2
MM 7 180 35 3
MM 7 180 35 4


f, (psi)
6450
6450
6450
6450
6320
6320
6320
6320
6600
6600
6600
6600
6330
6330
6170
6170
6170
6170


Pu
(kips)
49.5
48.6
44.9
49.4
41.0
51.0
47.4
52.9
69.9
71.7
58.3
65.8
58.9
77.2
59.3
71.4
67.6
70.4


Pye
(kips)
27.6
28.2
33.3
34.6
23.1
32.7
44.8
31.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
67.5
N.A
65.3
N.A
59.6


A, (in)
0.115
0.155
0.064
0.162
0.057
0.096
0.051
0.145
0.021
0.029
0.010
0.029
0.044
0.059
0.035
0.051
0.014
0.068


A, (in)
0.017
0.017
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.026
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.044
N.A
0.044
N.A
0.044


Pu/Ab
D l (in) D2, (in) (ksi)
0.071 0.067 159.7
0.114 0.077 156.7
0.145 0.057 144.9
0.244 0.233 159.3
0.019 0.014 132.3
0.087 0.037 164.4
0.199 0.197 153.0
0.187 0.154 170.5
0.379 0.291 116.5
0.044 0.018 119.4
0.003 0.000 97.1
0.284 0.150 109.6
0.237 0.234 98.2
0.088 0.086 128.6
0.171 0.126 98.8
0.077 0.052 119.1
0.106 0.096 112.7
0.309 0.252 117.3


15500
V f',
(kips)
45.7
44.8
41.5
45.6
38.2
47.5
44.3
49.3
63.8
65.4
53.2
60.0
54.9
71.9
56.0
67.5
63.9
66.5


Failure Modes
Bar rupture
Bar rupture
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Bar rupture
Concrete splitting
Bar cast out of position
Bar cast out of position
Bar cast out of position
Concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting
Concrete splitting
Bar yield with concrete splitting




















fy ----1 ---






0.2 % 0 y


Figure 4-1. Stress-strain curve.


Stress-Strain Comparison


160


120



Cr
80

-- 60 5 90 25 1
40 -0-4- MM 5 90 25 1
-- SS 16 90 25 1
0I I


-0.01 0.04 0.09 0.14 0.19
Strain (in/in)

Figure 4-2. Stress-strain comparison.


0.24


Figure 4-3. Cracks A) on the Top, B) on the side faces, C) on the rear and D) on the front faces.


1200


900


600


300


0












s'-. A
I .A- -1d- E k-m *


C D

Figure 4-3. Continued.








Top Front Rear Bottom





Right Left

Figure 4-4. Crack pattern for concrete splitting failure.


Figure 4A B

Figure 4-5. Concrete crushed inside of bend radius A) 90 deg. hook and B) 180 deg. hook.













Load-Displacement
#5 Grade 60


18

1 12

6


---6 60 5 90 25 1
- 60 5 90 25 2
60 5 90 1
S60 5 90_S
- 60 5 180 35 1
++ 60 5 180 35 2


100

75 .

50


-0.01 0.09 0.19 0.29 0.39
Displacement (in.)


Load-Displacement
#7 Grade 60


U

0 -1 2
2
0
0 Di Pys t 2
-Xc- 60 7 90 47 1 1
0 c 60 7 90 47 2
--- 60 7 90 1 1
-- 60 7 90 S
0 4-- 60 7 180 35 1 8
-++ 60 7 180 35 2
S-60 7 180 35 3 4
-++ 60 7 180 35 4

0 0.14 0.28 0.42 0.56 0.7
Displacement (in.)


Figure 4-6. Load-displacement for mild steel A) #5, and B) #7.


120 -


"S


I I I


.Q


.,I


Bend Angle: 90
Bar Size:


180 90 180


Figure 4-7. Mild steel results in terms of hook capacity.


0 0.05 0.1
Slip (in.)


90

75

S Pu- 60
Pu
45

S30

-0 D2 15

0
0.15 0.2


0 0.05 0.1
Slip (in.)


Figure 4-8. Load-slip for specimens A) 60 5 90 1 and B) 60 5 90 S.


-B







B


P ---,-*---]
5 crossing -
0---- Py
15
5 -- __
D y
0 f __D2

5 ---- D2
I- ____ ____ ____ ____


Gd








B


0.15 0.2


w










+ Spall
2
?7W-




00


4 Spall

Dl


loss in stiffness
from cracking


I


Dl

3




D2-


*1
loss in stiffness
from cracking




B


Figure 4-9. Locations where relative slip was measured for A) Unconfined, and B) Confined
with stirrup.


0 0.04 0.08
Slip (in.)


90
75
-60
-F Pu 45
-30
-+ D1
-- D2 15
0
0.12 0.16


60
50
S40
30
20
10


0 0.04 0.08
Slip (in.)


90
Pu 75
60
45
30
-++ D1
--D2 15
0
0.12 0.16


Figure 4-10. Load-slip for specimen. A) 60 7 90 1 and B) 60 7 90 S.


0 0.05 0.1
Slip (in.)


Pu 120

90
py
60

++ D1 30
-o. D2
0.15 0.2
0.15 0.2


Figure 4-11. Typical load-slip behavior for #5 mild steel specimens with 180-degree hook
(60 5 180 35 2 shown).


D2
-0


t










Potential crack


dL
3 -
D I

loss in stiffness
from cracking

D2- L




Figure 4-12. Relative slip at locations Dl and D2 for unconfined specimens with debonded
length.


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Slip (in.)


Figure 4-13. Typical load-slip behavior for #7 mild steel specimens with 180-degree hook
(60_7_180_35_4 shown).











Load-Displacement
20 mm Stainless Steel


150

120

90

60 4

30


60

. 45

S30

15


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Displacement (in.)


0 0.14 0.28 0.42 0.56
Displacement (in.)


Figure 4-14. Load displacement for stainless steel A) 16 mm, and B) 20 mm.


120 -


Ill


III


I I ,


I I


Bend Angle: 90
Bar Size:


180 90 180


16mm


20mm


Figure 4-15. Stainless steel results in terms of hook capacity.


75

50 t:
z


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Slip (in.)


0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Slip (in.)


Figure 4-16. Load-slip for specimens A) SS_16_90_25_2 and B) SS 16 90 35 2.


Load-Displacement
16 mm Stainless Steel


p


-x-- SS 20 90 35 1
-- SS 20 90 35 2
- SS 20 90 35 4
-* SS 20 180 35 1
-- SS 20 180 35 2
- SS 20 180 35 3
-- SS 20 180 35 4


300

240

180

120 4

60

0


125

100

75

50 t

25


1 0
0.4 0.5


J-^














40

30

I 20

10

0


0 0.1 0.2
Slip (in.)


0.3 0


120

90

60

30

0
.4


Figure 4-17. Typical load-slip behavior for 16mm stainless steel specimens with both 90 and
180-degree hooks (SS_16 180 35 4 show).


40

<" 30
0
4


0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Slip (in.)


Figure 4-18. Typical load-slip behavior for 20mm stainless steel specimens with both 90 and
180-degree hooks (SS 20_90_35_2 shown).


I,,


Pu


-----~ ----












Load-Displacement
#5 MMFX

60

50
PYt 2
40
3o 1
3- 0 + MM_ 590_25_1 1
g MM 5 90 25 2
4 20 -0-4- MM 5 90 35 1
MM-*-- 5 90 35 2 8
-0-4- MM 5 180 35 1

-H--- MM 5 180 35 4

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Displacement (in.)


Load-Displacement
#7 MMFX


40

-4
m
4o


0 0.14 0.28 0.42 0.56 0.
Displacement (in.)


320


240


160


80


0
7
B


Figure 4-19. Load-displacement for MMFX steel A) #5, and B) #7.


160 -


40


0 L
Bend Angle:
Bar Size:


144


III,.


180 90 180


Figure 4-20. MMFX results in terms of hook capacity.


S 20
30 --------
10

0l
0 0.05 0.1
Slip (in.)


0.15 0.2


Figure 4-21. Typical load-slip behavior for #5 MMFX specimens with both 90 and 180-degree
hooks (MM 5 90 25 2 shown).


E-x- MM 7 90 25 1
SMM 7 90 25 2
--- MM 7 90 35 4
v vMM 7 180 35 1
-- MM 7 180 35 2
SMM 7 180 35 3
MM 7 180 35 4


I J;

























0 0.1 0.2
Slip (in.)


ru 120


90


60


S 1 30
-1-

0
0.3 0.4


Figure 4-22. Typical load-slip behavior for #7 MMFX specimens with both 90 and 180-degree
hooks (MM 7 180 35 4 shown).










CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The results presented in the previous chapter can be qualitatively summarized as follows:

1. The mild steel specimens generally behaved as would be expected, indicating that the test
specimen design and test set-up provide an effective method of testing hook bar
anchorages.

2. ACI/AASHTO equations appear to ensure that both the 16 and 20-mm bars develop their
yield strength.


3. ACI/AASHTO equations appear to ensure that the #5 MMFX hooked anchorage can
develop well beyond its yield strength, but that the #7 MMFX hooked anchorage was
unable to develop significant additional force or deformation beyond yield.

This chapter presents the results of several analyses that are intended to quantitatively

analyze results of the hooked anchorage tests and determine the suitability of the current design

equations.

Anchorage Capacity

One method that can be used to compare the results of tests on high strength bars is the

excess force capacity available beyond the yield point. Mechanical couplers are required to reach

least 1.25 times the yield strength (fy) of the bar when splicing reinforcement (ACI 318-05

Section 12.14.3.2). The rationale for this approach is not clear but it has also been used by

Marques and Jirsa (1975) and by Ueda, Lin, and Hawkins (1986) in evaluating the capacity and

ductility of hooked bar anchorages that used mild steel. The disadvantage of this approach,

however, is that the current research is comparing steels that have different yield strengths and

post-yield mechanical properties than that of mild steel. Consequently, the bars already vary in

how much post-yield strength is available, both in the absolute and relative sense.

Figure 5-1 shows the calculated anchorage capacity ratios compared to the limit of 1.25.

The anchorage capacity ratio was calculated by dividing the peak measured load (anchorage









capacity) by bar yield strength (Pu/Py), which was taken from the results of the bar tests using the

0.2% offset method.

For mild steel specimens the anchorage capacity ratio exceeded the coupler requirement

of 1.25 by about 12% and 40% for #5 with bend angle of 90 and 180 degrees. For #7 bars the

anchorage capacity ratio was exceeded by 14% and 16%, respectively (see Figure 5-1 and Table

5-1).

For 16mm stainless steel specimens with bend angle of 90-degree, the anchorage capacity

ratio was sufficient to yield the bar but less than the limit of 1.25. However, the anchorage

capacity ratio was exceeded by about 22% and 34% for 16 mm specimens with 180-degree as the

development length increased. For 20 mm stainless steel specimens with bend angles of 90 and

180 degrees, the anchorage capacity ratios increased about 14% (Figure 5-1 and Table 5-2).

The anchorage capacity ratio was exceeded by 43% for #5 MMFX specimens with bend

angle of 90-degree, and with strut angles of 25 degree. For #5 MMFX specimens with bend

angle of 180-degree, the anchorage capacity ratio increased about 25%. For three #7 MMFX

specimens, however, the anchorage capacity ratio was less than the limit of 1.25 but it was

sufficient to yield the bar (Figure 5-1 and Table 5-3). The remainders of the specimens were at

anchorage capacity ratio of less than 1.0, a clear indication that the anchorage capacity was

insufficient.

Criteria for judging the anchorage capacity of high strength bars in concrete is not clearly

defined. It is rational to judge the results of this tests not only based on anchorage capacity ratio

but also on the bond capacity, ductility and K-factor.

Bond Stress

Another method that can be used to compare the relative performance of the different

steel types is to examine the bond stress. Figure 5-2 shows the bond stress normalized by the









square root of the measured concrete strength. The bond stress was calculated by dividing the

peak measured load by the nominal surface area of the straight, bonded portion of the hook.

The straight portion of the in unconfined specimens is lesser than in confined specimens

with stirrups, and unconfined specimens with debonded length. Also, it was found that the bond

stress for #5 mild steel specimens was greater than #7 specimens (Figure 5-2A). The bond stress

for #5 mild steel unconfined specimens with debonded length improved as the concrete strength

and the strut angle increased from 43.19 ksi to 53.30 ksi respectively. Bond stresses were similar

for #7 mild steel specimens with stirrups and without stirrups with debonded length, and with 90

and 180-degree bend angle (Figure 5-2A and Table 5-4).

The bond stress for 20 mm stainless steel specimens was greater than for 16 mm

specimens (Figure 5-2B and Table 5-5). For 16 mm stainless steel specimens with 90-degree

hooked bar, the bond stress was similar about 22 ksi. Also, the bond stresses were similar for 20

mm specimens with bend angle of 90 and 180-degree, and with same development length

(Figure 5-2B).

The bond stress for #5 MMFX specimens was greater than for #7 specimens (Figure 5-2C

and Table 5-6). For #5 specimens with 90-degree hooked bar, the bond stress was similar about

24 ksi. The bond stresses were similar for #7 specimens with bend angle of 90 degree (Figure

5-2C and Table 5-6).

Bond stress for mild steel, stainless steel, and MMFX are shown in Table 5-4, Table 5-5,

and Table 5-6. Pu represents the maximum peak load, 1s represents the straight length of the

hooked bar and db represents the diameter of the bar. umax represents the maximum bond stress,

and Umax/fc1/2 represents the bond stress normalized by the square root of the measured concrete

strength.









Ductility

Yet another option is to compare hook behavior based on the displacement capacity of

the specimen beyond the yield point. A ductility ratio was then calculated as the ratio of the

strain at peak measured stress (Su) to the strain at yield corresponding with the 0.2% offset

method (Sy).

Ductility ratios for bend angle, 90 to 180 degrees, varied from 12.25 at 5490 psi to 14.80

at 6100 psi for #5 mild steel specimens. Also, for #7 mild steel specimens, ductility ratios for

bend angle, 90 to 180 degrees, varied from 7.72 at 5490 psi to 8.80 at 6330 psi. However, the

ductility ratio varied from 5.65 at 6330 psi to 8.83 at 6330 psi for #7 specimens with 180-degree

as the development length increased (Figure 5-3A and Table 5-7).

Ductility ratios for bend angle, 90 to 180 degrees, varied from 32.34 at 6350 psi to 37.80

at 6100 psi for 16 mm stainless steel specimens. Also, for 20 mm specimens, ductility ratios for

bend angle, 90 to 180 degrees, varied from 8.10 at 6100 psi to 11.13 at 6100 psi (Figure 5-3B

and Table 5-8).

Ductility ratios for bend angle, 90 to 180 degrees, varied from 6.20 at 6450 psi to 3.92 at

6450 psi for #5 MMFX specimens. Also, ductility ratios for #7 MMFX specimens was less than

1 because of most of them did not reach yield point. Only three #7 MMFX specimens reached

yield point (Figure 5-3C and Table 5-9).

K-Factor

Another way to compare the hook behavior was by means of the K-factor. The

development length for standard hooks proposed by the ACI 318-07 can be expressed as:


Kdf
by- (5-1)
dh
c









where the K-factor represent the constant value of 0.02, the coating and lightweight concrete

factors equal to 1.0, and an applicable modification factor of 0.7.

The side cover and cover on bar extension beyond hook were not less than 2-1/2 in. and 2

in. for all hooked specimens. The K-factor used to calculate the development length for all the

specimens was 0.014.

After testing, an experimental K-factor was computed as shown in Equation 5-2, and it was

compared with the K-factor used in the Equation 5-1.



K =dh-tested/db (5-2)
K -= (5-2)


where Idh-tested represents the development length tested, db represents the diameter of the bar, fs

represents the peak stress at failure, and fo represents the average concrete strength.

Table 5-10, Table 5-11, and Table 5-12 show the experimental K-factor obtained for each

specimen.

For Grade 60, stainless steel, and #5 MMFX bars, the average experimental K-factor were

0.009, 0.012, and 0.0104, respectively. Also, these average K-factors were less than the K-factor

of 0.014 used in the Equation 5-1. Therefore, for all the specimens as Grade 60, Stainless Steel,

and #5 MMFX, the development length calculated was enough either to yield the hooked bar or

in most cases to exceed the anchorage capacity of 1.25 times the yield strength.

In contrast, for #7 MMFX bars, the average experimental K-factor was similar or in some

cases greater than the K-factor of 0.014 (Table 5-12) resulting in insufficient development length

to yield the bar.









Table 5-1. Anchorage capacity ratio for mild steel.


Specimen
notation
60 5 90 1
60 5 90 S
60 5 90 25 1
60 5 90 25 2
60 5 180 35
60 5 180 35
60 7 90 1
60 7 90 S
60 7 90 47 1
60 7 90 47 2
60 7 180 35
60 7 180 35
60 7 180 35
60 7 180 35 ,


Pu
(kips)
20.2
25.5
26.5
27.0
34.6
34.8
27.8
47.0
58.1
54.1
54.4
52.4
58.9
59.1


5500

(kips)
19.8
25.0
26.5
27.0
32.9
33.0
27.3
46.2
58.2
54.1
50.7
48.9
54.9
55.1


Yield
load at
0.35% Pyt
(kips)
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
38.2
38.2
38.2
38.2
38.2
38.2
38.2
38.2


Anchorage
Ratio test
(Pu/Pyt)
1.02
1.29
1.36
1.39
1.69
1.70
0.71
1.21
1.52
1.42
1.33
1.28
1.44
1.44


Exp.
yield load
Pye (kips)
N.A
N.A
18.7
19.1
18.9
18.9
N.A
N.A
38.9
39.5
40.8
31.2
36.5
36.9


Anchorage
Ratio -
experimental
(Pu/Pye)
NA
NA
1.42
1.41
1.74
1.75
NA
NA
1.50
1.37
1.24
1.57
1.50
1.49


Table 5-2. Anchorage capacity ratio stainless steel.
Yield
load at Anchorage
p 5500 0.2% Anchorage Exp. Ratio-
Specimen Pu V f'I offset Pyt Ratio test yield load experimental
notation (kips) (kips) (kips) (Pu/Pt) PYe (kips) (Pu/Pye)
SS 16 90 25 1 35.4 33.0 32.93 1.00 32.15 1.03
SS 16 90 25 2 33.3 31.0 28.22 1.10 27.44 1.13
SS 16 90 35 1 36.7 34.2 32.93 1.04 32.84 1.04
SS 16 90 35 2 33.6 31.3 28.22 1.11 28.98 1.08
SS 16 180 35 1 36.3 34.5 28.22 1.22 22.62 1.52
SS 16 180 35 4 37.4 35.5 28.22 1.26 21.09 1.68
SS 20 90 35 1 59.5 56.5 46.53 1.21 39.83 1.42
SS 20 90 35 2 59.1 56.1 46.53 1.21 39.75 1.41
SS 20 90 35 4 60.4 57.3 46.53 1.23 39.38 1.46
SS 20 180 35 1 62.4 59.2 46.53 1.27 40.94 1.45
SS 20 180 35 2 62.5 59.4 46.53 1.28 35.15 1.69
SS 20 180 35 3 52.5 49.8 46.53 1.07 41.74 1.19
SS 20 180 35 4 55.6 52.8 46.53 1.13 38.03 1.39









Table 5-3. Anchorage capacity ratio for MMFX steel.
Yield
load at Anchorage
p 5500 0.2% Anchorage Exp. Ratio-
Specimen Pu v f' offset Pyt Ratio test yield load experimental
notation (kips) (kips) (kips) (Pu/Pt) Pve (kips) (Pu/Pe)
MM 5 90 25 1 49.5 45.7 37.96 1.20 27.6 1.66
MM 5 90 25 2 48.6 44.8 37.96 1.18 28.2 1.59
MM 5 90 35 1 44.9 41.5 37.96 1.09 33.3 1.25
MM 5 90 35 2 49.4 45.6 37.96 1.20 34.6 1.32
MM 5 180 35 1 41.0 38.2 37.96 1.01 23.1 1.65
MM 5 180 35 2 51.0 47.5 37.96 1.25 32.7 1.45
MM 5 180 35 4 52.9 49.3 37.96 1.30 31.4 1.57
MM 7 90 35 4 77.2 71.9 76.85 0.94 67.5 1.07
MM 7 180 35 2 71.4 67.5 76.85 0.88 65.3 1.03
MM 7 180 35 4 70.4 66.5 76.85 0.87 59.6 1.11


Table 5-4. Bond stress normalized for mild steel.


Specimen notation
60 5 90 1
60 5 90 S
60 5 90 25 1
60 5 90 25 2
60 5 180 35 1
60 5 180 35 2
60 7 90 1
60 7 90 S
60 7 90 47 1
60 7 90 47 2
60 7 180 35 1
60 7 180 35 2
60 7 180 35 3
60 7 180 35 4


Pu
(kips)
20.2
25.5
26.5
27.0
34.6
34.8
27.8
47.0
58.1
54.1
54.4
52.4
58.9
59.1


/5500
V /l
(kips)
19.8
25.0
26.5
27.0
32.9
33.0
27.3
46.2
58.2
54.1
50.7
48.9
54.9
55.1


Is (in)
5.48
3.48
4.54
4.54
4.03
4.03
7.53
5.53
6.5
6.5
5.5
5.5
6.5
6.5


db (in)
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.875
0.875
0.875
0.875
0.875
0.875
0.875
0.875


Umax
(ksi)


Umax/fcl/2
24.4
48.5
40.2
40.9
53.2
53.4
17.4
40.2
43.9
40.9
42.2
40.6
38.6
38.7









Table 5-5. Bond stress normalized for stainless steel.


Specimen notation
SS 16 90 25 1
SS 16 90 25 2
SS 16 90 35 1
SS 16 90 35 2
SS 16 180 35 1
SS 16 180 35 2
SS 16 180 35 3
SS 16 180 35 4
SS 20 90 35 1
SS 20 90 35 2
SS 20 90 35 3
SS 20 90 35 4
SS 20 180 35 1
SS 20 180 35 2
SS 20 180 35 3
SS 20 180 35 4


Pu
(kips)
35.4
33.3
36.7
34.2
36.3
37.3
35.1
37.4
59.5
59.1
58.5
60.4
62.4
62.5
52.5
55.6


p5500

(kips)
33.0
31.0
34.2
31.3
34.5
35.4
33.3
35.5
56.5
56.1
55.6
57.3
59.2
59.4
49.8
52.8


Is (in)
9.53
9.53
9.53
9.53
8.53
8.53
9.53
9.53
9.86
9.86
10.86
10.86
9.86
9.86
10.86
10.86


db (in)
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.787
0.787
0.787
0.787
0.787
0.787
0.787
0.787


Umax
(ksi)


Umax/fcl/2
22.1
20.8
22.9
21.0
26.3
27.1
22.8
24.3
29.7
29.5
26.5
27.3
31.1
31.2
23.8
25.2


Table 5-6. Bond stress normalized for MMFX steel.
S5500
Pu V ulc Umax
Specimen notation (kips) (kips) Is (in) db (in) (ksi) umax/Pc1 /2
MM 5 90 25 1 49.5 45.7 11.54 0.625 2.0 25.1
MM 5 90 25 2 48.6 44.8 11.54 0.625 2.0 24.6
MM 5 90 35 1 44.9 41.5 11.54 0.625 1.8 22.8
MM 5 90 35 2 49.4 45.6 11.54 0.625 2.0 25.1
MM 5 180 35 1 41.0 38.2 9.50 0.625 2.1 25.8
MM 5 180 35 2 51.0 47.5 9.50 0.625 2.5 32.1
MM 5 180 35 3 47.4 44.3 11.54 0.625 2.0 24.6
MM 5 180 35 4 52.9 49.3 11.54 0.625 2.2 27.4
MM 7 90 25 1 69.9 63.8 15.50 0.875 1.5 18.4
MM 7 90 25 2 71.7 65.4 15.50 0.875 1.5 18.9
MM 7 90 35 1 58.3 53.2 15.50 0.875 1.2 15.4
MM 7 90 35 2 65.8 60.0 15.50 0.875 1.4 17.3
MM 7 90 35 3 58.9 54.9 15.50 0.875 1.3 16.2
MM 7 90 35 4 77.2 71.9 15.50 0.875 1.7 21.2
MM 7 180 35 1 59.3 56.0 11.54 0.875 1.8 22.5
MM 7 180 35 2 71.4 67.5 11.54 0.875 2.1 27.1
MM 7 180 35 3 67.6 63.9 15.50 0.875 1.5 19.1
MM 7 180 35 4 70.4 66.5 15.50 0.875 1.6 19.9










Table 5-7. Ductility ratio for mild steel.


Specimen
notation
60 5 90 25 1
60 5 90 25 2
60 5 180 35 1
60 5 180 35 2
60 7 90 47 2
60 7 180 35 1
60 7 180 35 2
60 7 180 35 3
60 7 180 35 4


Table 5-8. Ductility ratio for stainless steel.


Specimen
notation
SS 16 90 25 1
SS 16 90 25 2
SS 16 90 35 1
SS 16 90 35 2
SS 16 180 35
SS 16 180 35
SS 20 90 35 1
SS 20 90 35 2
SS 20 90 35 4
SS 20 180 35
SS 20 180 35
SS 20 180 35 :
SS 20 180 35


Pu
(kips)
26.5
27.0
34.6
34.8
54.1
54.4
52.4
58.9
59.1


5500

(kips)
26.5
27.0
32.9
33.0
54.0
50.7
48.9
54.9
55.1


Strain at
Pu (Su)
(in/in)
0.0580
0.0579
0.0699
0.0701
0.0347
0.0261
0.0248
0.0361
0.0433


Strain at
0.35%
yield (Sy)
(in/in)
0.0035
0.0035
0.0035
0.0035
0.0035
0.0035
0.0035
0.0035
0.0035


Ductility
Ratio
(Su/SI)
16.6
16.6
20.0
20.0
9.9
7.5
7.1
10.3
12.4


Pu
(kips)
35.4
33.3
36.7
33.6
36.3
37.4
59.5
59.1
60.4
62.4
62.5
52.5
55.6


S5500

(kips)
33.0
31.0
34.2
31.3
34.5
35.5
56.5
56.1
57.3
59.2
59.4
49.8
52.8


Strain at
Pu (Su)
(in/in)
0.1856
0.1896
0.1682
0.2090
0.2256
0.1939
0.0466
0.0175
0.0266
0.0645
0.0635
0.0099
0.0116


Strain at
0.2%
offset
yield (Sy)
(in/in)
0.0062
0.0056
0.0062
0.0056
0.0056
0.0056
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058


Ductility
Ratio
(Su/Sy)
30.2
34.2
27.4
37.7
40.6
34.9
8.1
3.0
4.6
11.2
11.0
1.7
2.0









Table 5-9. Ductility ratio for MMFX steel.
Strain at
0.2%
p 5500 Strain at offset Ductility
Specimen Pu f'c Pu (Su) yield (Sy) Ratio
notation (kips) (kips) (in/in) (in/in) (Su/Sv)
MM 5 90 25 1 49.5 45.7 0.0440 0.0065 6.8
MM 5 90 25 2 48.6 44.8 0.0590 0.0065 9.1
MM 5 90 35 1 44.9 41.5 0.0165 0.0065 2.5
MM 5 90 35 2 49.4 45.6 0.0414 0.0065 6.4
MM 5 180 35 1 41.0 38.2 0.0147 0.0065 2.3
MM 5 180 35 2 51.0 47.5 0.0247 0.0065 3.8
MM 5 180 35 4 47.4 44.3 0.0130 0.0065 2.0
MM 7 90 25 1 52.9 49.3 0.0370 0.0065 5.7
MM 7 90 25 2 71.7 65.4 0.0052 0.0067 0.8
MM 7 90 35 1 58.3 53.2 0.0013 0.0067 0.2
MM 7 90 35 2 65.8 60.0 0.0038 0.0067 0.6
MM 7 90 35 3 58.9 54.9 0.0066 0.0067 1.0
MM 7 90 35 4 77.2 71.9 0.0089 0.0067 1.3
MM 7 180 35 1 59.3 56.0 0.0053 0.0067 0.8
MM 7 180 35 2 71.4 67.5 0.0077 0.0067 1.2
MM 7 180 35 3 67.6 63.9 0.0021 0.0067 0.3
MM 7 180 35 4 70.4 66.5 0.0103 0.0067 1.5

Table 5-10. K-factor for #5 and #7 mild steel bars.
Specimen fe fs (peak) Idh tested
notation (psi) (psi) (in) db (in) ldh/db fs / f05 K
60 5 90 S 5700 82226 6 0.625 9.60 1089.11 0.0088
60 5 90 25 1 5490 85514 7 0.625 11.20 1154.12 0.0097
60 5 90 25 2 5490 86986 7 0.625 11.20 1173.99 0.0095
60 5 180 35 1 6100 111600 7 0.625 11.20 1428.89 0.0078
60 5 180 35 2 6100 112201 7 0.625 11.20 1436.59 0.0078
60 7 90 S 5700 78350 9 0.875 10.29 1037.77 0.0099
60 7 90 47 1 5490 96865 10 0.875 11.43 1307.32 0.0087
60 7 90 47 2 5490 90110 10 0.875 11.43 1216.15 0.0094
60 7 180 35 1 6330 90706 9 0.875 10.29 1140.08 0.0090
60 7 180 35 2 6330 87406 9 0.875 10.29 1098.60 0.0094
60 7 180 35 3 6330 98150 10 0.875 11.43 1233.64 0.0093
60 7 180 35 4 6330 98450 10 0.875 11.43 1237.41 0.0092









Table 5-11. K-factor for 16 mm and 20 mm stainless steel bars.
Specimen fs (peak) Idh tested
notation f, (psi) (psi) (in) db (in) dh/ db fs / f05 K
SS 16 90 25 1 6350 113546 12 0.625 19.20 1424.90 0.0135
SS 16 90 25 2 6350 106613 12 0.625 19.20 1337.90 0.0144
SS 16 90 35 1 6350 117785 12 0.625 19.20 1478.10 0.0130
SS 16 90 35 2 6350 109561 12 0.625 19.20 1374.89 0.0140
SS 16 180 35 1 6100 116314 11 0.625 17.60 1489.25 0.0118
SS 16 180 35 2 6100 119583 11 0.625 17.60 1531.11 0.0115
SS 16 180 35 3 6100 112436 12 0.625 19.20 1439.59 0.0133
SS 16 180 35 4 6100 119836 12 0.625 19.20 1534.35 0.0125
SS 20 90 35 1 6150 128962 13 0.787 16.52 1651.19 0.0100
SS 20 90 35 2 6150 128001 13 0.787 16.52 1638.89 0.0101
SS 20 90 35 3 6150 126845 14 0.787 17.79 1624.08 0.0110
SS 20 90 35 4 6150 130792 14 0.787 17.79 1674.62 0.0106
SS 20 180 35 1 6150 135149 13 0.787 16.52 1730.40 0.0095
SS 20 180 35 2 6150 135456 13 0.787 16.52 1734.33 0.0095
SS 20 180 35 3 6150 113708 14 0.787 17.79 1455.88 0.0122
SS 20 180 35 4 6150 120405 14 0.787 17.79 1541.62 0.0115

Table 5-12. K-factor for #5 and #7 MMFX bars.
Specimen fs (peak) ldh tested
notation f, (psi) (psi) (in) db (in) ldh/ db fs / f'05 K
MM 5 90 25 1 6450 172919 14 0.625 22.40 2153.09 0.0104
MM 5 90 25 2 6450 169641 14 0.625 22.40 2112.28 0.0106
MM 5 90 35 1 6450 156954 14 0.625 22.40 1954.31 0.0115
MM 5 90 35 2 6450 172534 14 0.625 22.40 2148.31 0.0104
MM 5 180 35 1 6320 141781 12 0.625 19.20 1783.45 0.0108
MM 5 180 35 2 6320 176188 12 0.625 19.20 2216.24 0.0087
MM 5 180 35 3 6320 164023 14 0.625 22.40 2063.23 0.0109
MM 5 180 35 4 6320 182788 14 0.625 22.40 2299.27 0.0097
MM 7 90 25 1 6600 127619 20 0.875 22.86 1570.89 0.0146
MM 7 90 25 2 6600 130814 20 0.875 22.86 1610.21 0.0142
MM 7 90 35 1 6600 106386 20 0.875 22.86 1309.52 0.0175
MM 7 90 35 2 6600 120097 20 0.875 22.86 1478.30 0.0155
MM 7 90 35 3 6330 105349 20 0.875 22.86 1324.13 0.0173
MM 7 90 35 4 6330 137982 20 0.875 22.86 1734.28 0.0132
MM 7 180 35 1 6170 104625 17 0.875 19.43 1331.97 0.0146
MM 7 180 35 2 6170 126112 17 0.875 19.43 1605.51 0.0121
MM 7 180 35 3 6170 119386 20 0.875 22.86 1519.89 0.0150
MM 7 180 35 4 6170 124289 20 0.875 22.86 1582.31 0.0144










Z.4

2

1.6

1.2

0.8 Limit Value =1.25

0.4



I/ /


2.4
0
2

. 1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4


S. .

-- \


0
S2

. 1.6

S1.2

0.8

0.4
I C


-.-

SLimit Value =1.25


-

R5 II
@,@,^ C
sa/ 9 .^^/~L
^/lb/l/ c gi^^^g
C33/^L/LO


Figure 5-1. Anchorage capacity ratios A) Mild steel, B) Stainless steel, and C) MMFX steel.

















83


- < 1.0 Specimen did not yield




SV


7 "Limit Value =1.25


I


I













S60


40


S20


N NI I I I I

\06/6/0 \ 60% ,%,%,


50

40

30

S20

10


S40

S30

S 20

10


Figure 5-2. Comparison of normalized bond stress at capacity A) Mild steel, B) Stainless steel,
and C) MMFX steel.


* Bar yield no rupture stroke limit reached


311
0 ,-3 1 1
.


,^ %^t<<<^
q0 q / 0 0/ ^V /
\ \ \ \~c c^) / t\ /e <^/ \^^ ,e< ^
~~^ ^ 8/0/^/ 0















*S 30
30


15
QI


10




0



^/^/^^~/ ,o?,>^>^>^>


0
1 I v II\1 "\\ 1 ^M I I .I.I ^1

^ ^ ^ l > >^v '.\ s, '""-*' :-* -'
.. I I A
-s--s--s--s -s ^ *^ s;^
^~~~~~ ~~~~ *? ? ? ^^^"- ^\-


0
\ ^\ ^\ \ ^\%%1


^^~- -\_ -^- -,1
~ --
- \ \ .. ... ... ,,:',7 ",7 ",7


Figure 5-3. Comparison of ductility ratios A) Mild steel, B) Stainless steel, and C) MMFX steel.










CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS

Based on experimental observations, the following conclusions are made:

1. The test setup and the procedures using the strut and tie approach appear to

provide an adequate basis to evaluate the unconfined anchorage capacities of grade 60 hooked

bars. The predominant failure mode generated using this test setup was splitting of the concrete

in the plane of the hook. Mild steel gave results consistent and agreeable with ACI and

AASHTO requirements for development lengths.

2. The anchorage capacity was improved in specimen configurations using the strut

and tie approach in comparison with confined specimens using stirrups.

3. Anchorage capacities obtained in grade 60, stainless steel, and #5 MMFX bars

were above the limit value of 1.25 times the yield strength of the bar.

4. The anchorage capacity ratio was greater for grade 60 specimens with 180-degree

than specimens with 90-degree bend angle. Also, the anchorage capacity increased as the

development length increased for #7 mild steel specimens with 180-degree.

5. For all mild steel specimens was noted that the displacement at yield point

increased by an average of 53% as the strut angle and the development length increased.

6. For 90 degree hooked bars, the average ductility ratio for 16 mm stainless steel

was greater than #5 grade 60, and #5 MMFX about 164% and 420% respectively. Also, for 180

degree hooked bars, the average ductility ratio for 16 mm stainless steel was greater than #5

grade 60, and #5 MMFX about 155% and 864% respectively.

7. Average bond stress for #5 grade 60 was greater than 16 mm stainless steel, and

#5 MMFX specimens about 88% and 66% respectively. Also, for # 7 grade 60, the average bond

stress was greater than 20 mm stainless steel and #7 MMFX specimens about 43% and 96%









respectively. On the other hand, the bond stress for #5 grade 60, and #5 MMFX specimens were

greater than #7 grade 60, and #7 MMFX specimens about 12% and 33% respectively.

Based on the results obtained from this study, most of the #7 MMFX hooked bar did not

develop the minimum anchorage capacity proposed in the existing provisions of both AASHTO

and ACI 318.

Further investigation need to be conducted to evaluate the proper development length for

#7 MMFX hooked bars.










APPENDIX A
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND TENSILE RESULTS


Table A-1. Compressive concrete strength results -age (days).
Concrete Strength (psi) Age (days)
Batches 7 14 21 28
1 4670 5850 6320
2 3490 4420 5050 5890
3 6350 6690 8060
4 5170 6320 6670 7160
5 4170 5330 6150 6880


Table A-2.


Tensile test results.
#5 Grade 60


Yield Strength at Strain at 0.35% Load at 0.35% Ultimate
Samples 0.35% strain (ksi) yield (in/in) strain (kip) Strength (ksi)
1 62.777 0.0035 19.461 104.64
2 62.744 0.0035 19.451 104.81
Avg. 62.761 0.0035 19.456 104.73
COV (%) 0.037 0.00 0.04 0.115
#7 Grade 60
Yield Strength at Strain at 0.35% Load at 0.35% Ultimate
Samples 0.35% strain (ksi) yield (in/in) strain (kip) Strength (ksi)
1 63.506 0.0035 38.103 105.90
2 63.955 0.0035 38.373 105.93
Avg. 63.73 0.0035 38.238 105.92
COV (%) 0.498 0.00 0.499 0.020
16 mm Stainless Steel
Yield Strength at Strain at 0.2% Load at 0.2% Ultimate
Samples 0.2% offset (ksi) offset yield (in/in) offset (kip) Strength (ksi)
1 106.213 0.0061 32.926 123.87
2 106.205 0.0062 32.924 123.75
Avg. 106.209 0.00615 32.925 123.81
COV (%) 6.09 1.23 6.09 0.182
20 mm Stainless Steel
Yield Strength at Strain at 0.2% Load at 0.2% Ultimate
Samples 0.2% offset (ksi) offset yield (in/in) offset (kip) Strength (ksi)
1 99.865 0.0058 48.534 120.31
2 91.615 0.0057 44.525 120
Avg. 95.74 0.00575 46.530 120.155
COV (%) 0.953 0.19 0.95 0.317









Table A-2. Continued.


#5 MMFX
Yield Strength at
0.2% offset (ksi)


Samples


Strain at 0.2%
offset yield (in/in)


Load at 0.2%
offset (kip)


Ultimate
Strength (ksi)


1 123.273 0.00648 38.215 157.79
2 121.622 0.00650 37.703 158.50
Avg. 122.448 0.00649 37.959 158.14
COV (%) 0.009 2.11 0.01 0.135
#7 MMFX
Yield Strength at Strain at 0.2% Load at 0.2% Ultimate
Samples 0.2% offset (ksi) offset yield (in/in) offset (kip) Strength (ksi)
1 128.089 0.0066 76.854 163.12
2 128.073 0.0068 76.844 162.81
Avg. 128.081 0.0067 76.849 162.97
COV (%) 0.009 2.11 0.01 0.135













APPENDIX B
CRACKS PATTERNS, LOAD-SLIP, AND LOAD-DISPLACEMENT


60 5 90 1


Bar yield followed by concrete splitting


Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
60 5 90 1


15
10


0 0.05 0.1
Slip (in.)


Linear pot 2 n 15

I 0L
0.15 0.2


Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
60 5 90 S


60

45
L,
-/. C/


0 0.05 0.1
Slip (in.)


I '0
0.15 0.2


Load-Displacement
60 5 90 1 vs. 60 5 90 S


0 0.08 0.16 0.24
Displacement (in.)


40

20

--0
0.32


Figure B-1. Crack patterns, load-slip, and stress-strain curves for mild steel hooked bars.


60 5 90 S

Bar Rupture











60 5 90 25 1

Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load-Displacement
60 5 90 25 1vs. 60 5 90 25 2


30

25

20

15

10

5

0
-0.01


0.04 0.09 0.14
Displacement (in.)


120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.19


60 5 90 25 2

Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
60 5 90 25 2


0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Slip (in.)

Stress-Strain
60 5 90 25 1vs. 60 5 90 25 2


100 -

80 -

60 -


40 -

20

0 -
-0.01


600


450 +


300


150


0


0.01 0.03 0.05
Strain (in/in)


Figure B-1. Continued.


90

75

60

45

-30

15

0
0.2












60 5 180 35 1


Bar Rupture


0





Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
60 5 180 35 1


Bar Rupture








Top Front Rear Bottom







Rht Left
Rlht Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
60 5 180 35 2


L t

18

4 12


0 0.05 0.1
Slip (in.)


i 2
60 1

40 2


mear pot i 20
Linear pot 2


0.15 0.2


0 0.05 0.1
Slip (in.)


Load-Displacement
60 5 180 35 1 vs. 60 5 180 35 2


Stress-Strain
60 5 180 35 1 vs. 60 5 180 35 2


150

125

100

75

Cn Ct


-- + 60 5 180 35 2 25

SI Io 0
0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.3
Displacement (in.)


0 0.02 0.04
Strain (in/in)


750

600

450

300
r1

150


06 008
0.06 0.08


Figure B-1. Continued.


,6



4 -

8

2

S-*-*- Linear pot 1
S-+-- Linear pot 2
0 I


100

80

60

40

20

0


0.15 0.2


60 5 180 35 2












60 7 90 S


Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
60 7 90 1


Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
60 7 90 S


S30
o
h^l ?n


0 0.04 0.08
Slip (in.)


H-



inear pot 1
inear pot 2


0.12 0.1


60

45 30

30 20

15 10

0 0


6


0 0.04 0.08
Slip (in.)


90

75

60

45

30

15


I- 0o
0.12 0.16


Load-Displacement
60 7 90 1 vs. 60 7 90 S


S30

S20


240

200

160

120
o4


I I I 1 I0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
Displacement (in.)


Figure B-1. Continued.


60 7 90 1











60 7 90 47 1


Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load_Slip for Linear Pots
60 7 90 47 2


60

50 j-

40

30

20

10 -3-


0 0.08 0.16
Slip (in.)


Load-Displacement
60 7 90 47 1vs. 60 7 90 47 2


240

200

160

120
h.4


I i I i0
0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6
Displacement (in.)


80

60

40

20
(-
0
-0.01


100

83

67 a

50

33 m

Linear pot 1
Linear pot 2 17

S0
0.24 0.32


Stress-Strain
60 7 90 47 1vs. 60 7 90 47 2


600


450


300


150


0


0.01 0.03 0.05
Strain (in/in)


Figure B-1. Continued.


60 7 90 47 2











60 7 180 35 1

Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
60 7 180 35 1


0 0.08 0.16 0.24
Slip (in.)

Load-Displacement
60 7 180 35 1 vs. 60 7 180 35 2


0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Displacement (in.)


60 7 180 35 2

Bar yield followed by concrete splitting


0I




Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
60 7 180 35 2


90

75

60

45

30

15

0
0.32


240

200

160

120

80

40

-0
0.2


0 0.08 0.16 0.24
Slip (in.)

Stress-Strain
60 7 180 35 1 vs. 60 7 180 35 2


-J "


90

75

60

45

30

15

0
0.32


600


450


300


150


)-I -0 I
0 0.008 0.016 0.024 0.032
Strain (in/in)


Figure B-1. Continued.











60 7 180 35 3

Bar yield followed by concrete splitting


0I




Top Front Rear Bottom



L I


Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
60 7 180 35 3


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Slip (in.)

Load-Displacement
60 7 180 35 3 vs. 60 7 180 35 4


0 0.08 0.16 0.24
Displacement (in.)


Figure B-1. Continued.


105

90
75 "

60

45 t

30
15
0
0.5






280

S240

200 '
-, ~
160
-- s
120

80

40

0.3
0.32


60 7 180 35 4

Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
60 7 180 35 4
70
60 105
60
S90
50 ~
75 "
40 f
60
30
45 b
20 30
+-*-- Linear Pot 1
10 --- Linear Pot 2 15

0I 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Slip (in.)

Stress-Strain
60 7 180 35 3vs. 60 7 180 35 4
105



500 ^
60 --400

45 -300

30 F 200
-- 60 7 180 35 3
15 -- 60 7_180354 100

0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Strain (in./in)












SS 16 90 25 2


Bar yield no rupture stroke limit reached


Bar yield no rupture stroke limit reached


Top Front







Right


Rear


Bottom


Top Front







Right


Rear Bottom







Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 16 90 25 1


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 16 90 25 2


75


50
VI


24


o 16
4


I I I I I 1 0J
0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32
Slip (in.)


0 0.08 0.16
Slip (in.)


S125

..... 100


75 "


-50

Linear pot 1 25
Linear pot 2

0
0.24 0.32


Load-Displacment
SS 16 90 25 1vs. SS 16 90 25 2


Stress-Strain
SS 16 90 25 1vs. SS 16 90 25 2


180

150

120

90

60 S

30

0


0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6
Displacment (in.)


0 0.06 0.12
Strain (in/in)


750

-600

S450

300

16 90 25 1
16_90 25 2 150


0.18 0.24


Figure B-2. Crack patterns, load-slip, and stress-strain curves for stainless steel hooked bars.


24


o 16
4


2


4


6


8 SS 1690251
-- SS 16 90 25 2

0I


SS 16 90 25 1












SS 16 90 35 2


Bar yield no rupture stroke limit reached


Bar yield no rupture stroke limit reached


Top Front







Right


Bottom


Top Front







Right


Rear Bottom







Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 16 90 35 1


0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Slip (in.)


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 16 90 35 2


75


50
VI


24


o 16
4


i 10
0.4 0.5


Load-Displacement
SS 16 90 35 1vs. SS 16 90 35 2


120

90 ,

60

30

0


0 0.25 0.5 0.75
Displacement (in.)


0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Slip (in.)


i 0-
0.4 0.5


Stress Strain
SS 16 90 35 1vs. SS 16 90 35 2


12u

1OO ++++++++ ++

80 -

60

40 -
-*- SS 16 90 35 1
20 --- SS 16_90 35 2

0(I


0 0.06 0.12
Strain (in/in)


750

600

450

300

150

0


0.18 0.24


Figure B-2. Continued.


j24


o 16
4


125


100


75


50


25


SS 16 90 35 1












SS 16 180 35 1


Bar yield no rupture stroke limit reached


Bar yield followed by concrete splitting


Top Front







Right


Bottom


Top Front


Rear Bottom







Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 16 180 35 1


0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Slip (in.)


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 16 180 35 2


60 i
Cr


20
s4
o
h.)


LI '0
0.4 0.5


Load-Displacement
SS 16 180 35 1 vs. SS 16 180 35 2


0 0.25 0.5 0.75
Displacement (in.)


180

150

120

90 ,

60

30


0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Slip (in.)


60


30


-I 0
0.4 0.5


Stress-Strain
SS 16 180 35 1vs. SS 16 180 35 2


0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24
Strain (in/in.)


Figure B-2. Continued.


20
s4
o
h.)


S24


o 16
c4


U

0
:^--

0

0

0
I~ I
0
-* SS 16 180 35 1
0 SS_16_18035_2
0 ++ SS 16 180 35 2

I I


900

750

600

450

300

150

0


SS 16 180 35 2












SS 16 180 35 3


Bar Rupture


0





Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 16 180 35 3


Bar yield no rupture stroke limit reached


Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 16 180 35 4


20
s4
o
h.)


60

Cr


20
s4
o
h.)


)I I I i 10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Slip (in.)


0 0.1 0.2
Slip (in.)


S 120


90


S60


near pot 1 30
near pot 2

S 0
0.3 0.4


Load-Displacement
SS 16 180 35 3 vs. SS 16 180 35 4


Stress-Strain
SS 16 180 35 3 vs. SS 16 180 35 4


S20
C4
s<
c^


0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Displacement (in.)


160


120


80
o40

40


0 0.06 0.12
Strain (in/in)


900

750

600

450

300


0'.1 0.24
0.18 0.24


Figure B-2. Continued.


SS 16 180 35 4











SS 20 90 35 2


Bar yield followed by concrete splitting





p nt Rear Bottom


Top Front Rear Bottom


Bar yield followed by concrete splitting





0I


Top Front


Rear Bottom


Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 20 90 35 1


ou 1
50 1

" 40 8

30- 6

20 4
---+ Linear pot 1
10 *-Linear pot 2 2
0 ---- --- -- I --- 0

0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.3
Slip (in.)

Load-Displacement
SS 20 90 35 1 vs. SS 20 90 35 2
75

60

A 45

S30

15. -- SS 20_90_35_1
-+-- SS 20 90 35 2

0 I I
0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24
Displacement (in.)


f



Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 20 90 35 2
70 1

10 ~ 1
0 1

0 4 8
0 6

:0 4
-- Linear pot 1
0 -- Linear pot 2 2

0 0
0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.3
Slip (in.)

Stress-Strain
SS 20 90 35 1 vs. SS 20 90 35 2


180
o a
120

60

0


4 I I I 1 10
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Strain (in/in)


Figure B-2. Continued.


900

750

600 4

450

300

150


SS 20 90 35 1












SS 20 90 35 3


Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 20 90 35 3

70 140

60 --- 120

50 100

40 80

30 -60

20 40
20 __ Linear pot 1
10 -+-- Linear pot 2 20

0 0
0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.3
Slip (in.)

Load-Displacement
SS 20 90 35 3 vs. SS 20 90 35 4


Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 20 90 35 4


0 0.06 0.12 0.18
Slip (in.)


-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

40
lear pot 1
lear pot 2 20

24 0
0.24 0.3


Stress-Strain
SS 20 90 35 3 vs. SS 20 90 35 4


240 j


160


80


0


-0.005 0.005 0.015
Strain (in/in)


Figure B-2. Continued.


80


60
\


40


20


0
-0.02


0.02 0.06 0.1
Displacement (in.)


900

750

600

450

300

150

0


0.025


-- SS 20 90 35 3
------ SS 20 90 35 4


SS 20 90 35 4












SS 20 180 35 1

Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 20 180 35 1
80 160


60 ...." 120


40 80


20 -4- Linear pot 1 40


0 0
-+---- Linear pot 2


0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Slip (in.)

Load-Displacement
SS 20 180 35 1 vs. SS 20 180 35 2


SS 20 180 35 2

Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 20 180 35 2
80 160


60 -, 120


40 -80


20 -*-- Linear pot 1 40
--- Linear pot 2

0 I 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Slip (in.)

Stress-Strain
SS 20 180 35 1vs. SS 20 180 35 2


80


60


S40


20


0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Displacement (in.)


320


240


160


80


-0
0.4


0 0.02 0.04
Strain (in/in)


SM 900

750

600

450

S 300 m
10 180 35 1
10 180 35 2 150

0
0.06 0.08


Figure B-2. Continued.











SS 20 180 35 3


Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom


Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 20 180 35 3
60

50 -" -


/
S40 -- --- -

t 30 --_-

" 20 _---
S-*-*- Linear pot 1
10 --+- Linear pot 2
-I -
0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 C
Slip (in.)

Load-Displacement
SS 20 180 35 3 vs. SS 20 180 35 4
60

50

4 40 ==
- 30 -

0 20
--- SS 20 180 35

10
10 --- ----- SS_20_180 35
o t ---- T


Bar yield followed by concrete splitting





p nt Rear B m


Top Front Rear Bottom


Right


Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
SS 20 180 35 4


120 bu

100 50 --

80 40 4

60 a 30

40 ^ 20
-4-- Linear pot 1
20 10 -+-- Linear pot 2

0 0o


250

200

150 4 ,-

100

50

0


0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
Slip (in.)

Stress-Strain
SS 20 180 35 3 vs. SS 20 180 35 4


120

100

80

60

40

20

0


750

600 "

450

300

150


SI I 10
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012
Strain (in/in)


Figure B-2. Continued.


0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Displacement (in.)


SS 20 180 35 4












MM 5 90 25 1

Bar rupture



0





Top Front Rear Bottom








Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 5 90 25 1


180

150

S9 120

90

60
+ Linear pot 1 3
-+ Linear pot 2
) I 0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
Slip (in.)

Load-Displacement
MM 5 90 25 1 vs. MM 5 90 25 2

0

0

0

0

0




0
0 ---- MM_5_90_25_1
0 -- -+-+- MM 5_90_25_2

0 J -- -- I ----


0.04 0.08 0.
Displacement (in.)


12 0.1


MM 5 90 25 2

Bar rupture









Top Front Rear Bottom








Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 5 90 25 2


0 -.


s C
(^1


240

200

160

120

80

40

0
6


'U



*0
/~ /
10 --



/ ++ Linear pot 1 _
0 -+-- Linear pot 2


0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.
Slip (in.)

Stress-Strain
MM 5 90 25 1 vs. MM 5 90 25 2


0 0.02 0.04
Strain (in/in)


180

150

120

90

60

30

0
12


1200

1000

800


-i-- 0
0.06 0.08


Figure B-2. Continued.


III


-











MM 5 90 35 1

Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 5 90 35 1


MM 5 90 35 2

Bar yield followed by concrete splitting


0I




Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 5 90 35 2


0 0.08 0.16
Slip (in.)


180

150

120

90

60
Linear pot 1
Linear pot 2 30

---- 0
0.24 0.32


Load-Displacement
MM 5 90 35 1 vs. MM 5 90 35 2


0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Displacement (in.)


240

200

160

120

80

40

-0
0.2


0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Strain (in/in)


Figure B-3. Crack patterns, load-slip, and stress-strain curves for MMFX hooked bars.


180

150

120

90

S60

30

-0
0.32


0 0.08 0.16 0.24
Slip (in.)

Stress-Strain
MM 5 90 35 1 vs. MM 5 90 35 2


1200

1000

800


I 0
0.04 0.05











MM 5 180 35 1

Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 5 180 35 1


60

50

- 40

, 30.

h on:


0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Slip (in.)

Load-Displacement
MM 5 180 35 1 vs. MM 5 180 35 2


0 0.025 0.05 0.075
Displacement (in.)


MM 5 180 35 2

Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom


Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 5 180 35 2


180

150

120

90

60

30

- 0
0.1






240

200

160

120

80

40

01
0.1


180

150

120

..-- 90

S|60
-- Linear pot 1
-I-- Linear pot 2 30

I 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Slip (in.)

Stress-Strain
MM 5 180 35 1 vs. MM 5 180 35 2


1200

1000

800


), I I I 10
0 0.007 0.014 0.021 0.028
Strain (in/in)


Figure B-3. Continued.












MM 5 180 35 3

Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 5 180 35 3
60
180
50
50- 150
40 120

30 90

20 -- 60
0*- Linear pot 1
10 -+--+ Linear pot 2 30
0 0
0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24
Slip (in.)

Load-Displacement
MM 5 180 35 3 vs. MM 5 180 35 4

60
50 240

S- 200
40
160
30
2 120
20
20 80
MM 5 180 35 3
10 -MM_5_180_354 40

0 0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Displacement (in.)


MM 5 180 35 4

Bar rupture








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 5 180 35 4
60
180
50
S150
40 120

30 90

20 60

10 *-- Linear pot 1
10 -' I Linear pot 2 30

0 I 0
0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24
Slip (in.)

Stress-Strain
MM 5 180 35 3 vs. MM 5 180 35 4


0 0.01 0.02
Strain (in/in)


0.03 0.04


Figure B-3. Continued.


1200

1000

800











MM 7 90 25 1


Concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 7 90 25 1


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 7 90 25 2


80


0 !
60


40


20


0
0 0.1 0.2
Slip (in.)


120
-
m


0.3 0.4


0 0.1 0.2
Slip (in.)


240


180


120


Linear pot 1 60
near pot 2

0
0.3 0.4


Load-Displacement
MM 7 90 25 1 vs. MM 7 90 25 2


0 0.008 0.016 0.024
Displacement (in.)


320


240


160


S80
2

-0
0.032


StressStrain
MM 7 90 25 1 vs. MM 7 90 25 2


750

600 "

450

300

150


6- i I 0
0 0.0015 0.003 0.0045 0.006
Strain (in/in)


Figure B-3. Continued.












MM 7 90 35 1


Bar cast out of position


0I





Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 7 90 35 1


0 0.08 0.16
Slip (in.)


0.24 0.32


120


90


60


30


0


Load-Displacement
MM 7 90 35 1 vs. MM 7 90 35 2


Bar cast out of position








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left

Load-Slip Comparison
MM 7 90 35 2
80
120

60 -
S 90 .

40
4060


20 "*-*- Linear pot 1 30
-+- Linear pot 2

0 0
0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32
Slip (in.)

Stress-Strain
MM 7 90 35 1 vs. MM 7 90 35 2


4U
2
; 40
o
h.)


0 0.008 0.016 0.024
Displacement (in.)


240 j


160 "


80
2

-0
0.032


750

600

450

300

150


SI I 10
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Strain (in/in)


Figure B-3. Continued.


80


60


40
C

20


0


-- Linear pot 1 -
-- Linear pot 2


MM 7 90 35 2












MM 7 90 35 3

Concrete splitting


00




Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left



Load_Displecement
MM 7 90 35 3 vs. MM 7 90 35 4


60


S40
sC
_]


0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Displacement (in)


320


240


160


80


0.08
0.08


MM 7 90 35 4

Bar yield followed by concrete splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left



Stress-Strain
MM 7 90 35 3 vs. MM 7 90 35 4


600


300


Ar I I I 1 10
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Strain (in/in)


Figure B-3. Continued.












MM 7 180 35 2


Concrete Splitting


0





Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 7 180 35 1


0 0.05 0.1
Slip (in.)


0.15 0.2


Bar yield followed by concrete splitting


00





Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 7 180 35 2


120


90 .


60


30


0


Load-Displacement
MM 7 180 35 1 vs. MM 7 180 35 2


S40
c@


120


90 .


60


30


)1 I I 110
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Slip (in.)

Stress-Strain
MM 7 180 351 vs. MM 7 180 35 2


160
hc m


I1 I I 10
0 0.015 0.03 0.045 0.06
Displacement (in.)


a
448 -
r/i


0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Strain (in/in)


Figure B-3. Continued.


80


60


S40
C
4o


20


0


^-/




t Lmear pot 1
+- Lnear pot 2


MM 7 180 35 1












MM 7 180 35 3


Concrete Splitting








Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left


Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 7 180 35 3


80


60


40


20


0'-
0 0.1 0.2
Slip (in.)


120


90 .


60


Lmearpot 1 30
Linear pot 2

4=n- 0
0.3 0.4


Load-Displacement
MM 7 180 35 3 vs. MM 7 180 35 4


S40
cl


, 1I I 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Displacement (in.)


Bar yield followed by concrete splitting









Top Front Rear Bottom







Right Left

Load-Slip for Linear Pots
MM 7 180 35 4
80
/120

60
-90

40
60


-- Lmnear pot 130
-I--- Linear pot 2
o< ----I ^ o

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Slip (in.)

Stress-Strain
MM 7 180 35 3 vs. MM 7 180 35 4


160
0~


i 0 I I 0
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012
Strain (in/in)


Figure B-3. Continued.


750

600 ^

450

300

150


MM 7 180 35 4









LIST OF REFERENCES

AASHTO (2001). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges." American Association of
States Highway and Transportation Officials.

ACI 408.1R-79 (1979). "Suggested Development, Splice, and Standard Hook Provisions for
Deformed Bars in Tension." American Concrete Institute.

ACI Committee 318 (1977). "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-
77)." American Concrete Institute.

ACI Committee 318 (1995). "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-
95)." American Concrete Institute.

ACI Committee 318 (2002). "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-
02)." American Concrete Institute.

ASTM A 370 (2007). "Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel
Products." American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM A1035/A1035M (2007). "Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain, Low-carbon,
Chromium, Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement." American Society for Testing and
Materials.

ASTM C 39 (1999). "Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens." American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM C 143 (2000). "Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete."
American Society for Testing and Materials.

Ahlborn, Tess and DenHarting Tim (2002). "A Comparative Bond Study of MMFX Reinforcing
Steel in Concrete". Michigan Technological University. Center for Structural Durability.
Final Report CSD-2002-03.

Hamad, B.S., Jirsa, J.O. and D'Abreu de Paulo, N.I (1993). "Anchorage Strength of Epoxy-
Coated Hooked Bars." ACI Structural Journal, 90(2), 210-217.

Jirsa, J.O., Lutz, L.A. and Gergely, P (1979). "Rationale for Suggested Development, Splice, and
Standard Hook Provisions for Deformed Bars in Tension." Concrete International, 79(7),
47-61.

Marques, J.L.G., and Jirsa, J.O (1975). "A Study of Hooked Bar Anchorages in Beam-Column
Joints." ACI Journal, 72(5), 198-209.

Minor, J., and Jirsa, J.O (1975). "Behavior of Bent Bar Anchorages." ACI Journal, 72(4), 141-
149.









Pine, R.L., Watkins, M.D. and Jirsa, J.O (1977). "Strength of Hooked Bar Anchorages in Beam-
Column Joints." CESRL Report No. 77-3, Department of Civil Engineering, The
University of Texas, Austin, Texas.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Gianni T. Ciancone was born in Caracas, Venezuela, to Maria Teresa and Raffaele

Ciancone. He received his Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering in Summer of 1993 from the

University of Santa Maria, Venezuela. Gianni worked in a Power Company for 14 years in

several positions not only in the Design and Construction field but also in the Business field.

Gianni continued his education by entering graduate school to pursue a Master of

Engineering in the Structural Group of the Civil and Coastal Engineering Department at the

University of Florida in Fall 2005. During his stay at the University of Florida, Gianni worked as

graduated research assistant for Dr. H.R. Hamilton III. Gianni plans to pursue a career in the

field of structural engineering.





PAGE 1

BEHAVIOR OF STANDARD HOOK ANCH ORAGE MADE WITH CORROSION RESISTANT REINFORCEMENT By GIANNI T. CIANCONE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007 1

PAGE 2

2007 Gianni T. Ciancone 2

PAGE 3

This thesis is dedicated to my loving wife H ilda and my daughter Alessandra for their support and caring throughout my academic endeavors 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to thank my gradua te advisor, committee chairman, Dr. H.R. Hamilton III, for his patience, advice, and support throughout this research. Also, I would to acknowledge the rest of the committee, Dr. Ronald A. Cook, and Dr. John M. Lybas. Their extensive knowledge, and experien ce in the Department of Civ il and Coastal Engineering is greatly respected. The author would like to thank Florida De partment of Transportation (FDOT) State Materials Office and Structural Lab for their s upport testing materials, and bending the bars. Special thanks go to the University of Florida-St ructural Laboratory personnel, and to all the members of the Dr. Hamilton Group for thei r support constructing the specimens. The author would also like to thank VALBRUNA stainle ss steel, MMFX Technologies Corp, FLORIDA ROCK Industries, and BARSPLICE Products Inc. for their contributions to this research. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, daught er and close friends who have supported me during this research. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................14 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................15 Hook Behavior and Geometry................................................................................................15 Current Hook Design Practice................................................................................................16 High-Strength Steel Reinforcement ........................................................................................21 Strut and Tie Evaluation of Anchorage ..................................................................................21 3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM .............................................................................................29 Specimen Design ....................................................................................................................29 Concrete Mixture Designs ......................................................................................................32 Specimen Construction ...........................................................................................................33 Formwork........................................................................................................................33 Casting .............................................................................................................................34 Test Setup ........................................................................................................................34 Data Acquisition Setup ....................................................................................................35 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................................47 Materials Properties ................................................................................................................47 Concrete ...........................................................................................................................47 Steel .................................................................................................................................47 Grade 60 Steel ..........................................................................................................48 Stainless Steel ...........................................................................................................48 MMFX Steel .............................................................................................................49 Specimens Test Results ..........................................................................................................49 Behavior and Failure Modes...........................................................................................49 Mild Steel Specimens ......................................................................................................51 Stainless Steel Specimens ................................................................................................55 MMFX Specimens ...........................................................................................................56 5 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ....................................................................................................72 5

PAGE 6

6 Anchorage Capacity ........................................................................................................72 Bond Stress ......................................................................................................................73 Ductility ...........................................................................................................................75 K-Factor ...........................................................................................................................75 6 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................86 APPENDIX A CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND TENSILE RESULTS ............................88 B CRACKS PATTERNS, LOAD-SLIP, AND LOAD-DISPLACEMENT ..............................90 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................114 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................116

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Minimum hook dimensions. .............................................................................................24 3-1 Specimen design details for series 1. ................................................................................37 3-2 Specimen design details for series 2 through 5. ................................................................38 3-3 Concrete mixture proportions (quantities are per cubic yard). .........................................39 4-1 Compressive concrete strengths. .......................................................................................59 4-2 Tension test results for ASTM A615 reinforcement. ........................................................59 4-3 Tension test result for stainless steel (316LN). .................................................................59 4-4 Tension test results for MMFX steel. ...............................................................................59 4-5 Test results for mild steel #5 and #7 specimens. ..............................................................60 4-6 Test results for stainless steel 16 mm and 20 mm specimens. ..........................................61 4-7 Test results for MMF X steel #5 and #7 specimens. ..........................................................62 5-1 Anchorage capacity ratio for mild steel. ...........................................................................77 5-2 Anchorage capacity ratio stainless steel. ..........................................................................77 5-3 Anchorage capacity ratio for MMFX steel. ......................................................................78 5-4 Bond stress normalized for mild steel. ..............................................................................78 5-5. Bond stress normalized for stainless steel. .......................................................................79 5-6 Bond stress normalized for MMFX steel. .........................................................................79 5-7 Ductility ratio for mild steel. .............................................................................................80 5-8 Ductility ratio for stainless steel. ......................................................................................80 5-9 Ductility ratio for MMFX steel. ........................................................................................81 5-10 K-factor for #5 and #7 mild steel bars. .............................................................................81 5-11 K-factor for 16 mm and 20 mm stainless steel bars..........................................................82 5-12 K-factor for #5 and #7 MMFX bars. .................................................................................82 7

PAGE 8

8 A-1 Compressive concrete strength results age (days) ..........................................................88 A-2 Tensile test results. ............................................................................................................88

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Cantilever beam .................................................................................................................25 2-2 Normal bar stresses #7 90 deg standard hook. ................................................................25 2-3 Standard hook details. ........................................................................................................25 2-4 Points where slip was measured. .......................................................................................26 2-5 Recommended factor. .....................................................................................................26 2-6 Comparison of proposed and ACI 318-77 hook provisions. .............................................27 2-7 Typical uses of a standard hook anchorage and F.B.D......................................................27 2-8 Extended nodal zone for standard hook anchorage. ..........................................................28 2-9 Strut and tie model of specimen us ed in Marques and Jirsa research. ...............................28 3-1 Specimen design with idealized boundary conditions. ......................................................40 3-2 Specimen design for series 1 ..............................................................................................40 3-3 Specimen design for series 2 through 5. ............................................................................41 3-4 Formwork schematics. .......................................................................................................41 3-5 Formwork details. ..............................................................................................................42 3-6 Ready-mixed concrete being discharged into the container for transporting. ...................42 3-7 Slump of ready-mixed concrete. ........................................................................................43 3-8 Casting and compaction of the specimen. ..........................................................................43 3-9 Curing of the specimens. ....................................................................................................43 3-10 Load test setup ...................................................................................................................44 3-11 Coupler system. ..................................................................................................................45 3-12 Specimen schematic reactions. ..........................................................................................45 3-13 Slip wire position in hooked bar. .......................................................................................45 3-14 Bond slip instrumentation ..................................................................................................46 9

PAGE 10

3-15 Linear potentiometer placed at the top face of the specimen. ............................................46 3-16 Data acquisition system. ....................................................................................................46 4-1 Stress-strain curve. .............................................................................................................63 4-2 Stress-strain comparison. ...................................................................................................63 4-3 Cracks. ...............................................................................................................................63 4-4 Crack pattern for concrete splitting failure. .......................................................................64 4-5 Concrete crushed inside of bend radius.............................................................................64 4-6 Load-displacement for mild steel. ......................................................................................65 4-7 Mild steel results in terms of hook capacity. .....................................................................65 4-8 Load-slip for specimens. ....................................................................................................65 4-9 Locations where relative slip was measured ......................................................................66 4-10 Load-slip for specimen. .....................................................................................................66 4-11 Typical load-slip behavior for #5 m ild steel specimens with 180-degree hook (60_5_180_35_2 shown). ..................................................................................................66 4-12 Relative slip at locations D1 and D2 for unconfined specimens with debonded length. .................................................................................................................................67 4-13 Typical load-slip behavior for #7 m ild steel specimens with 180-degree hook (60_7_180_35_4 shown). ..................................................................................................67 4-14 Load displacement for stainless steel. .............................................................................68 4-15 Stainless steel results in terms of hook capacity. ...............................................................68 4-16 Load-slip for specimens ...................................................................................................68 4-17 Typical load-slip behavior for 16mm st ainless steel specimens with both 90 and 180degree hooks (SS_16_180_35_4 show). ............................................................................69 4-18 Typical load-slip behavior for 20mm st ainless steel specimens with both 90 and 180degree hooks (SS_20_90_35_2 shown). ............................................................................69 4-19 Load-displacement for MMFX steel. .................................................................................70 4-20 MMFX results in terms of hook capacity. .........................................................................70 10

PAGE 11

11 4-21 Typical load-slip behavior for #5 MMF X specimens with both 90 and 180-degree hooks (MM_5_90_25_2 shown)........................................................................................70 4-22 Typical load-slip behavior for #7 MMF X specimens with both 90 and 180-degree hooks (MM_7_180_35_4 shown)......................................................................................71 5-1 Anchorage capacity ratios ..................................................................................................83 5-2 Comparison of normalized bond stress at capacity ............................................................84 5-3 Comparison of ductility ratios ...........................................................................................85 B-1 Crack patterns, load-slip, and stress-st rain curves for m ild steel hooked bars. .................90 B-2 Crack patterns, load-slip, and stress-strain curves fo r stainless steel hooked bars. ...........97 B-3 Crack patterns, load-slip, and stre ss-strain curves for MMFX hooked bars....................106

PAGE 12

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering BEHAVIOR OF STANDARD HOOK ANCH ORAGE MADE WITH CORROSION RESISTANT REINFORCEMENT By Gianni T. Ciancone December 2007 Chair: H. R. Hamilton Major: Civil Engineering The objective of this study was to evaluate the behavior of standard hooks that are made using high strength reinforcing bars and tested in tension. The bars evaluated were ASTM A615, 316LN Stainless Steel and MMFX microcomposite steel. The impetus is that the current ACI/AASHTO equations for the development length of standard hooks do not address the use of high-strength and corrosion resist ant steel bars. The development length of standard hooks was evaluated in terms of concrete strength, bar size, hook geometry, concrete covers, debonded length, and lateral reinforcement. Forty-eight specimens with different deve lopment length of standard hooks were constructed in accordance with ACI 318 and AA SHTO Bridge Design Sp ecifications. Four specimen design configurations were used as unconfined, confined with stirrups, unconfined with debonded length for 90 degree hooked bar and unconfined with debonded length for 180 degree hooked bar. Compressive cylinders tests we re conducted in order to determine the target of average concrete strength of 5500 psi. Also, rebar samples were tested in tension to obtain the yield, and tensile strength. 12

PAGE 13

13 A test frame was constructed in the Univer sity of Florida-Structures Lab to test specimens in tension by means of a center hol e hydraulic jack. During the test, cracks pattern were observed, and load-displacement were recorded. Test results were compared in function of anchorage capacity, bond stress, ductility, and K-factor. Also, test results indicated that mild steel was consistent and agreeable with ACI and AASHTO requirements for development lengths. For #7 MMFX hooked ba rs, however, further investigation need to be conducted to evaluate the proper development length. Based on the results obtained from this research the test setup and the pr ocedures using the strut and tie approach appear to pr ovide an adequate basis to evaluate the unconfined anchorage capacities of grade 60 hooked bars.

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Mild steel reinforcing bars have been used for decades in buildings, bridges, highways, and other construction projects. On e weakness of reinforcement is it s lack of corrosion resistance if the concrete cover is breached or penetrated by corrosive elements such as chlorides. This issue can drastically reduce the service life of the structure re quiring costly repairs or even replacement early in the life of th e structure. One potential solution that has been explored is the use of corrosion resistant steels such as stainless steel, and MMFX. These materials typically have higher strengths than that of mild steel. However, the use of high-strength and corrosion resistant bars has been presented as a substitu te for coated and uncoated Grade 60 bars. On the other hand, high-strength reinforcin g steel bar reduces not only th e use of steel in structural elements but also the labor costs. The main objective of this research was to evaluate the behavior of standard hook anchorages made with high-strength bars as Stainless Steel and MMFX microcomposite steel relative to Grade 60 steel. Sin ce the current ACI/AASHTO Code specifications do not address the use of these kinds of materi als, equations for the development length of standard hooks made with high-strength and corrosion resistant steel bars need to be evaluated. The development length of standard hook was evalua ted in terms of concrete st rength, bar size, hook geometry, concrete covers, slip, anchorage capacity, duc tility, bond stress, and K-factor. Also, cracks pattern were evaluated with respect to the failure modes. 14

PAGE 15

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The structural performance and flexural beha vior of high-strength st eel reinforcement has been evaluated as a substitute for Grade 60 ba rs. Limited research, how ever, has been conducted dealing with the behavior of standard hook anchorages made with high-strength reinforcement. Hook Behavior and Geometry The structural concrete codes are designed so that, wherever possible, the reinforcement will yield before the concrete crushes when the nominal strength of a reinforced concrete element is reached. Development of the yield strength of a reinforcing bar requires that a sufficient length of bond is available on either side of the critical sec tion where capacity is expected to occur. In locatio ns where space is limited, insufficient space may be available to allow a reinforcing bar to develop. In these cases, it is common to bend the bar to form either a 90-degree or 180-degree hook. Figure 2-1 gives an example of one possible situation where a concentrated load is located near the end of a cantileve r beam. The critical section for flexural strength is located at the face of the support. If the required straight development length is longer than the cantilever, then the bar would prot rude from the concrete. The typical method to deal with this situation is to turn the bar down into the section, creating a 90-degree hook. The required length to devel op the hook is shorter due to the mechanical advantage provided by the concrete located at the inside radius of the bend. Figure 2-2 shows the normal bar stresses in a #7 90-degree hook as reported by Marques and Jirsa (1975). The stresses in the bar increase dramatically around th e bend of the hook (from 13 ksi to 57 ksi), indicating that the bearing of the inside of the hook against the concrete provides a significant portion of the anchorage. These bearing stresses cause significant lateral tensile stresses, which can result in a splitting failure when confinement reinforcement is not present. 15

PAGE 16

Because the strength of hooked anchorages is determined empiricall y, it was necessary to create a standard geometry for hooks. Figure 2-3 shows the dimensions for standard hooks that are the same in both ACI and AASHTO design specifications. The development length approach was first proposed by Pi nc, Watkins, and Jirsa (1977). Table 2-1 shows the minimum hook dimensions proposed in this research. Current Hook Design Practice Standard hook anchorages are currently desi gned using either the provisions of AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications ( 2004) for bridges or ACI Buildi ng Code and Commentary (2005) for buildings. The ACI Equation is f c y f b d02.0 dh le (2-1) and AASHTO LRFD Specifi cations equation is: 60 y f f c b d38 l'dh (2-2) where ldh is the hook development length in in., e is the coating factor, is the lightweight aggregate concrete factor, db is the bar diameter in in., fc is the specified conc rete strength in psi, and fy is the specified yield strength of the bar in psi. These provisions were developed in the earl y 1970s and were finally implemented into the code in their present form in 1979. 16

PAGE 17

Minor and Jirsa (1975) studied the factors that affect the anchorage capacity of bent deformed bars. Specimen geometry was varied to determine the effect of bond length, bar diameter, inside radius of bend, and angle incl uded in the bend. Slip between the bar and the concrete was measured at several points along the bar as load was applied. Load-slip curves were used to compare different bar geometries. The results indicated that most of the slip occurred in the straight and curve portion of the hook. Marques and Jirsa (1975) inve stigated the anchorage capac ity of hooked bars in beamcolumn joints and the effect of the confinement at the joint. The variables considered were size of anchored bars, hook geometry, embedment length, confinement, and column axial load. Full scale beam-columns specimens were designed in order to allow the use of large diameter hooked bars in accordance with ACI 318-71 code hook ge ometry standards. The test used #7 and #11 mild steel bars anchored in the columns. ACI 318-71 specifications were used for 90 or 180 degree standard hooks. Also, for 90 and 180 degree st andard hooks, slip of th e bar relative to the surrounding concrete was measured at five points along the anchored bar ( Figure 2-4 ). As results, the slip measured on the ta il extension of the hook was very small in comparison with slip measured at the point (1H) and the point (2H). The slip measured at the lead was greatest in most of the cases. Also, the sl ip at point (2H) was similar to the slip at point (1H) when the lead straight embedment was short. In addition, the strength of the bars was evaluated using the ACI 318-71 de sign provisions for hooked bar. The strength was determined by calculating the stress developed by the hook (fh) plus an additional straight lead embedment (ll). It was found that the stra ight lead embedment calculate d using the basic equation for development length was not enough to develop the yield stress in the hooked bar. On the other 17

PAGE 18

hand, the use of shorter straight embedment did not improve the stress transferring from the bar to the concrete. Marques and Jirsa (1975) found that the eq uations from ACI 318-71 underestimated the anchorage capacity of the hooks. They found that fo r their test specimens th e tensile stress in the bar when the bond capacity was reached was: f)d3.01(700fc b h (2-3) where fh can not be greater than fy in psi, db is the diameter of the bar in in., fc is the average concrete strength in psi, and is a coefficient factor which depends on the size of the bar, the lead straight embedment, side concrete cover and cover extension of the tail. They also determined the straight lead embedment length (ll) between the critical section and the hook could be expressed as follows: '' c h y b ll]f/)ff(A04.0[l (2-4) where l is 4db or 4 in., wh ichever is greater, Ab is the bar area in sq. in., f y the yield strength of the bar in psi, fh the tensile stress of the bar in psi, and f c is the average concrete strength in psi. Pinc, Watkins, and Jirsa (1977) also studied beam-column joints to determine the effect of lead embedment and lightwei ght aggregate concrete on the anchorage capacity of the hook. The first approach consisted in examining the hook and lead embedment separately. Variables as fl/fc 0.5 and ll/db were correlated to obtain th e straight embedment strength (fl). The total strength of the anchored bar (fu) resulted by adding the straight embedment strength (fl) and the hook strength (fh) equation: 18

PAGE 19

' c bl b uf)d/l8.0d4.01(550f (2-5) Also, the variables fu/fc 0.5 and ldh/db were plotted to obtai n the following equation: b dhd/fl50f' c u (2-6) As results, it was found that Equation 2-5 and Equation 2-6 were practically the same except for the number of terms in each equation. Equation 2-6 can be rearranged into a form that gives the development length, a parameter that is more useful in design: 'c y b dhf fd02.0 l (2-7) where ldh represents the development le ngth for a hooked bar in in., db is the diameter of the bar in in., fy is the yield strength of the bar, fc is the average concrete strength in psi, and is a coefficient factor which depends on the size of the bar. The ACI 408.1R-79 presented recommendati ons for standard hook provisions for deformed bars in tension based on the study re ported by Pinc, Watkins, and Jirsa (1977), and those recommendations were discussed and explai ned by Jirsa, Lutz, and Gergely (1979). The development length (ldh) for standard hook proposed for the ACI 408 committee was the result of the product of the basi c development length (lhb) and the applicable factors. The basic development length was computed as: 'c b hbf d960 l (2-8) 19

PAGE 20

where lhb represents the basic developmen t length for a hooked bar in in., db is the diameter of the bar in in., fc is the average concrete strength in psi, and represents the factor for anchorage which was incorporated in the design equation. The applicable factors included in ACI 408 committee were fy/60,000 for reinforcement having yield strength over 60,000 psi, 0.7 for side cover, 0.8 for use of stirrups, 1.25 for use of lightweight aggregate, and Asr/Asp for reinforcement in flexural members in excess. Figure 2-5 shows the recommended factor not only for splices but also for hooked bar, and it compares the test/calculated values for ACI 318-77 with proposed factor of 0.8. Figure 2-6 shows a comparison between the de velopment length proposed and ACI 31877. The proposed development length was computed as a lineal function of the diameter of the bar ( Figure 2-6 ), the greater the diameter of the bar th e greater the development length. For ACI 318-77, the development length was underestimated from #3 until #8 bars and overestimated for bars greater than #8 in comparison with the proposed. Basically, the ACI 318 for basic development length for hooked bar has not changed since 1979. Also, most of the applicable factors have not changed except fo r the inclusion of the epoxy-coated factor of 1.2 which was proposed by Hamad, Jirsa, and DAbreu de Paulo (1993) and included in the ACI 318-95. For ACI 318-02, the basic development length equation changed in th e way as the terms were arranged. Applicable factors as epoxy-coated ( ), lightweight concrete ( ) and the yield strength of the bar (fy) were included in the equation rather than being multiplier factors. Additionally, in this code was included a factor of 0.8 for 180 degree hook enclosed within ties or stirrups. 20

PAGE 21

Finally, the development length and the factors included in the current ACI 318 code are the same as ACI 318-02. High-Strength Steel Reinforcement High strength steel reinforcement has been introduced as a material which is more durable than steel reinforcing bars. The use of high strength re inforcing bars is increasingly rapidly due to the advantages that can offer ove r conventional reinforcing steel such as fatigue resistance, corrosion resistant, toughness, and du ctility. Also, high strength reinforcing bars can be used in bridges and other structures where the high seismic activity is prevalent. Stainless Steel and MMFX are one of the materials categori zed as high strength st eel due to they do not have well-defined yield points a nd do not exhibit a yield plateau. Stainless Steel reinforcing bars can be used in reinforced concrete structures wh ere very high durability is required and the life cost analysis is justified. Al so, stainless rebar has been used thoroughly in North America and Europe. Stainless rebar might be c onsidered to be used in marine structures where chloride ion is present. As Stainless Steel, MMFX reinforcemen t is a corrosion-resistant material and stronger than conventional steel. MMFX rein forcing bars have been also used in structures across North America including bridges, highways, parking ga rage, and residential an d commercial projects. Several researches using stainl ess steel and MMFX reinforcing bars have been conducted and published by universities throughout the United St ates and sponsored for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and State Departments of Transportation (DOTs). These third parties have conducted studies i nvestigating bond stress behavior, corro sion evaluation, tensile tests, and bending behavior in conc rete structures. Strut and Tie Evaluation of Anchorage The strut-and-tie method was proposed by Schlaich, Schfer, and Jennewein (1987). This method was incorporated in AASHTO LRFD Sp ecifications in 1994 and in ACI 318 Appendix 21

PAGE 22

A in 2002. The design basis of the strut-and-ti e method is based on a truss model. The truss model has been used in beams loaded in bending shear and torsion. However, this model just takes into account certain parts of the structure. The strut-and-tie method consists of struts and ties connected by means of nodes as a real truss. The struts represent the compressive member (concrete) and they serve either as the compression chord in the truss or as the diagonal struts. Diagonal struts use to be oriented parallel to the expected axis of cracki ng. The ties represent the tension member (stirrups and longitudinal reinfo rcement) where the anc horage of the ties is crucial to avoid anchorage failure. In order to apply correctly the strut-and-tie model, the structure is classified in B and D regions. The B-regions (B for Bernoulli or beam) are based on the Bernoulli hypothesis which facilitates the flexural design of reinforced concrete structures by allowing a linear strain distribution for any loading stages (bending, shear, axial forces and torsional moments). On the other hand, D-regions (D for disc ontinuity, or disturbance) are portions of a structure where the strain distribution is nonlinear. D-regions are characterized for changes in geometry of a structural portion (geometrical discontinuities) or concentrated forces (statical discontinuities). For most types of D-regions as retaining walls, pier cap, and deep beam, the use of standard hooks are common as anchorage ( Figure 2-7 ). Additionally, the strutand-tie model is based on the lo wer bound theorem of plasticity which allows yielding the bar (ties or stirrups) be fore crushing of concre te (struts and nodes). The nodes can be classified according with the sign of the forces. At least three forces should act on the node for equilibrium. A C-C-C node represents three compressive forces, a CC-T node represents two compressive forces and one tensile force, a C-T-T node represents two tensile forces and one compressive force, and a T-T-T node represents th ree tensile forces. A C22

PAGE 23

23 C-T node ( Figure 2-8 ) show the nodal zone and extended nod al zone which serve to transfer strut-and-tie forces. The extended nodal zone is defined as the portion limited by the intersection of the strut width (ws) and the tie width (wt). The anchorage length (lanchorage) as shown in Figure 2-8 represents the development length of the hooked bar which is anchored in the nodal and extended nodal zone. Figure 2-9 a shows the beam-column specimen used for Marques and Jirsa (1975) and Figure 2-9 b shows the strut-and-tie behavior of the hooked bar.

PAGE 24

Table 2-1. Minimum hook dimensions. 180 degree 90 degree Bar No. db (in) Diameter (in.) 6db Head (in.) 4db Extension (in.) 4db Tail (in.) 12db Ratio (in.) 3db 5 0.625 3.75 2.50 2.50 7.50 1.88 7 0.875 5.25 3.50 3.50 10.50 2.625 16 mm 0.629 3.77 2.52 2.52 7.55 1.89 20 mm 0.787 4.72 3.15 3.15 9.44 2.36 24

PAGE 25

Critical Section for Flexure Figure 2-1. Cantilever beam. 57 ksi 13 ksi 75 ksi 45 kips Figure 2-2. Normal bar stress es #7 90 deg. standard hook. Figure 2-3. Standard hook details. 25

PAGE 26

column face 1H 2H 3H 4H 4V 3V Slip Vert. Horiz.{ Figure 2-4. Points where slip was measured. Figure 2-5. Recommended factor. 26

PAGE 27

Figure 2-6. Comparison of propos ed and ACI 318-77 hook provisions. A B S T R U T C Figure 2-7. Typical uses of a standard hook anc horage and F.B.D. A) Pier cap, B) Deep beam, and C) Retaining wall. 27

PAGE 28

28 Extended nodal zone Nodal zoneC C T lanchorage wt ws Figure 2-8. Extended nodal zone for standard hook anchorage. Figure 2-9. Strut and tie model of specimen used in Marques and Jirsa research.

PAGE 29

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Specimen Design Figure 3-1 illustrates the typi cal hooked bar anchorage uses th at were targeted with this research. The specimen and load configuration were designed to simulate the development conditions indicated in the figure. Reinforcing bars fabricated with steel th at did not have a welldefined yield point were used to investigate the behavior of hooked bar anchorage designed using ACI/AASHTO equations. The effects of conc rete strength, bar size, concrete cover, debonded length, and lateral reinforcement were considered. The bars evaluated were ASTM A615, 316LN Stainless Steel a nd MMFX microcomposite steel. Initial testing was conducted with the design shown in Figure 3-1 a and b, which are denoted as unconfined and confined, respectivel y. The specimen configuration incorporated a single bar centered in a concrete block. The focus of this initial testing was to validate the test setup, specimen design, and loading confi guration. Consequently, only ASTM A615 reinforcement was tested. Because the desi gn complied with both design specifications, the expectation was that the specimens would be capable of reaching at least the yield strength of the mild steel reinforcement in both the confined and unconfined specimens. The test results, however, indicated that the confined specimens could reach yield, but that the unconfined specimens were well below yield when the conc rete failed. Furthermore, the failure was generally spalling of a corner section of concre te under the reaction at the outside of the hook, which was not the targeted splitting of the specimen in the plane of the hook. In general, the mechanics of hooked bar anch orage can be defined using a strut and tie approach as indicated in the free body diagrams shown for each of the common hook uses. This approach is followed by ACI 318-05 Appendix A and AASHTO LRFD (Sec. 5.6.3.5-2004). In 29

PAGE 30

fact, as indicated in Figure 8, the available de velopment length for the anchorage is defined by the intersection of th e reacting compression strut with straight portion of the hooked bar (Schlaich, Schfer, and Jennewein, 1987). Adjustment to the specimen configuration to simulate the strut and tie behavior of the actual hook is shown in Figure 3-1 c and d. The bearing over the hook was lengthened to ensure complete engagement of the bar over the design development length. Although the figure shows the bearing as uniform, it is like ly that the actual bearing distri bution varied along the length of the specimen. This was not expected to affect the results significantly. The embedded portion of the bar beyond the design development length was debonded to create strut angles between 25 and 47 degrees. The remainder of the testing wa s conducted with these tw o configurations using unconfined specimens. Forty eight specimens were cast and tested in five series, with each series representing the specimens cast with a single batch of concrete. The specimen details an d testing configuration for the first series are given in Figure 3-2 and Table 3-1 Table 3-1 complied with both AASHTO and ACI desi gn specifications for clear cover and spacing. A factor of 0.7 was applied because th e specimen side cover and cover on bar extension beyond hook were not less than 2-1/2 in and 2 in., respectively. In additio n, a factor 0.8 was applied to the confined specimens to account fo r the hooks being enclosed by ties or stirrups. Confined specimens used #3 stirrups spaced at 1.88 or 2.63 in. along the development length of the hook. The remaining four series are detailed in Figure 3-3 and and also complied with both AASHTO and ACI design specifications for clear cover and spacing. The specimen naming convention is as follows. The first term represen ts the type of steel wh ere (60) indicates ASTM 30

PAGE 31

A615, (SS) stainless steel, and (MM) microcomposite steel. The second term represents the bar size, #5, #7, 16 mm or 20 mm. The third te rm represents the hook bend angle of 90 or 180 degrees. The fourth term represents the stru t angle 25, 35 or 47 degrees, and the last term represents the specimen number or the presen ce of # 3 stirrups in the hook region. The metric designation of the stainless stee l bars was retained because they were manufactured in Italy under hard metric sizes. The 16 mm diameter and area are very near that of a U.S. Customary #5, the 20 mm has slightly sm aller diameter and respective area than that of a #7. In Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 fy is the yield strength used to calculate the development length of the bars and does not necessari ly represent the actual yield stre ngth of the material. In the ASTM A615 specimens the specified yield streng th was used to provide a basis of comparison for the subsequent high-strength steel bars. The values used for fy in determining the development lengths of the SS and MM specimens were taken from tests conducted on bars from the same heat as those used in the pullout tests. The yield strength for th ese bars was determined using the 0.2% offset method. Detailed re sults of these tests are in Chapter 4. The target concrete strength (fc) used to calculate the deve lopment length is shown in these tables. Actual concrete strengths for each of the series varied somewhat from these target values. Actual concrete strengths are provided in Chapter 4. The remainder of the variables in the tables describe the specimen geometry including the development length of the hooked bar as measured from the back edge of the hook. The strut angles shown in the tables are a function of the specimen geometry and were varied to determine the effect of the strut angle on the hook capacity. 31

PAGE 32

In series of specimens two and three, there were found that slips from specimens with 35 degree strut were greater than slips obtained for specimens with 25 degree strut. Therefore, the strut angle used in series four and five was 35 degree. Also, different development lengths were evaluated for the same kind of rebar. Specimens number 1 and 2 were tested in accordance with ACI 318-05 Section 12.5 (development of standard hooks in tension), whereas specimens number 3 and 4 were tested with larger devel opment lengths already used in series three ( Figure 3-3 and Table 3-2 ). Concrete Mixture Designs Five batches were used during the research, which correspond to each series detailed in the previous section. The batch for the first series was prepared at Florida Department of Transportation State Materials Office (SMO) in Ga inesville, and the last four batches were prepared by Florida Rocks Industries, a local ready-mix c oncrete supplier. The concrete mixture proportions per cubic yard are shown in Table 3-3 All mixtures used a maximum aggregate size of 3/8-in. (#89 crushed limestones) and silica sand as coarse and fine aggregates respectively. The first batch had a wate r to cement ratio of 0.44, and a slump of 5 in. The cement, fine and coarse proportion was 1:2.4:1.99. The second batch had a water to cement ratio of 0.28, and a slump of 7.5 in. The cement, fine and coarse proportion was 1:2.45:2.05. The last three batches had an average water to cement ratio of 0.19, and a slump of 7.5 in. Th e cement, fine, and coar se proportion for those three batches were 1:1.82:1.62. The size of the c oncrete batch for the first batch was nine cubic feet (0.25 cubic meters), and for the last four batches was 81 cubic feet (2.29 cubic meter) per batch. Air-entrained admixture and high-range water reducer were included in the mixture proportions. The water to cement ratio was reduced in the last four batches by means of the inclusion of high-range water reduc er (superplasticizer) in order to obtain high concrete strengths 32

PAGE 33

at early age (14 days). Air-entraining admixture was also used to improve the workability of the concrete. The volume of concrete used in each ba tch included the specimens, extra examples and concrete for quality control testing. As quality control testing was used the Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Ce ment Concrete (ASTM C 143). About twenty standard cylinders 6 x 12-in ( 152 x 305-mm) were cast at the same time, and vibrated in two layers by mean s of a vibrating table which was used to assure the compaction. Also, the cylinders were cured at room te mperature and under the same condition as the specimens for each concrete batch. Compressive tests were performed in accordance with the Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Conc rete Specimens (ASTM C39). All cylinders were loaded at a load ra te of 35 pound square inch per second, and also they were loaded to failure. The maximum load obtained from the universal testing machine was used to calculate the maxi mum compressive strength. Specimen Construction Formwork The formwork design, shown in Figure 3-4 consisted of a base, two side forms, one front form, one back form, and two 2 x 4 pieces. The front and back forms were kept between the side forms to allow adjustment in the specimen length. This flexibility in the specimen length allowed the formwork to be reused for differing specimen configurations. The front form was built in two pieces to ease bar placement. Three pieces of 2 x 4 were attached below the base to allow forms to be moved either with the crane or the fo rklift. The long pieces of plywood were clamped together with two 2 x 4 and two threaded rods. The 2 x 4 braces maintained the shape of the forms and dimensions of the specimen. The forms were sealed with a water-based adhesive caulk. 33

PAGE 34

Casting Four specimens were cast in series one and two, twelve specimens in series three and four, and sixteen specimens in series five. All specim ens were cast with the bar placed in the bottom of the forms with the tail of the bend pointed upward ( Figure 3-4 b and Figure 3-5 ). A thin wire was attached to the side forms and to the tail of the hook to hold the bar level, and to maintain the side cover required. The debonded part of the bar was composed of a plastic tube which was sealed with electric tape to prevent cement paste from entering the tube. Since most of the formwork as placed insi de of University of Florida-Structural Laboratory, the concrete from the ready mix tr uck was poured directly to a galvanized steel container ( Figure 3-6 ). Afterward, the container was moved to be near to the formworks, and a slump test was performed as stated in ASTM C143-00 ( Figure 3-7 ). To ensure that the instrume ntation and bar position were not disturbed, concrete was delivered to the forms from the container by hand ( Figure 3-8 A). Each specimen was cast in two lifts, which were compacted using mechanical vibrators. As conc rete was placed in the forms, standard 6x12-in (152 x 305-mm) cylinders were cast, and also vibrated in two layers. Once finished with the casting procedure, the top su rfaces of the specimens were smoothed with a finishing trowel ( Figure 3-8 B). Finally, a plastic sheet was placed over the specimens to minimize the evaporation of the water ( Figure 3-9 ). The specimens and cylinders were left to cure in the same environment until they were tested. Test Setup A test frame was constructed with back-to-back structural channels. Each two structural channels were connected and stiffened by 0.5-in. thick plates. A double C15x40, and C15x40 were welded together to form a 90 degree frame. Each end of the frame was then welded to C12x30 shapes, which were attached to the strong floor and wall. Stiffeners were added to stiffen 34

PAGE 35

the frame against the heavy concen trated loads from the specimen (see Figure 3-10 A, and Figure 3-10C). After fabrication, the test frame was connect ed to the strong wall and floor by means of eight 5/8 bolts, and eight 1-1/4 bolts respectively ( Figure 3-10 B). The specimen was seated in a 22 x 22-in. steel base. Tension was applied to the bar extension by means of a center hole hydraulic jack. The threaded rod passed through the 2C15x40 beam, and the center hole hydraulic jack ( Figure 3-10B). A coupler system was used to connect the anchored bar to a threaded rod ( Figure 3-11 ). This load was reacted with a st rut placed between the specimen and the horizontal member of the r eaction frame. The moment gene rated by the couple was reacted horizontally with the vertical member of the r eaction frame. The reaction on the left face of the specimen shown in Figure 3-12 was distributed over the development length of the hook. The remaining portion above the bar was debonded to en sure that only the po rtion of the hook under the reaction contributed to the bar development. Data Acquisition Setup Slip between the hooked bar and the concrete was measured by a procedure developed and used by Minor and Jirsa (1975). Figure 3-13 shows the locations al ong the hook where relative slip was measured. Location 1 was at the loaded end and location 2 was at the beginning of the bend. A 0.0625 in. diameter hole was drilled in the hooked bar. A 0.016 in. diameter wire was attached to the anchored bar at po ints 1 and 2 by inserting part of the wire to the -in deep holes and securing with a small brass screw. The wire was placed inside of a thin plastic conduit of 0.042 in. diameter along the entire length in order to prevent bonding and to allow free movement of the wire relative to the surrounding concrete ( Figure 3-14 ). The conduit containing the wire was extended from the bar attachment point through the concrete and exited the specimen on the side oppos ite to the straight por tion of the bar. The 35

PAGE 36

36 exposed conduit and wire was then connected to a linear pot placed in a 1 x 1-in. frame ( Figure 3-14B). The linear pots were used to measure the relative movement between the wire and the conduit, which is nearly a direct measure of the relative movement of the bar and concrete at attachment point of the wire. Bar displacement was also measured relative to the top side of the specimen using a linear pot clamped to the bar ( Figure 3-14 A, Figure 3-15 ). The purpose of this linear pot was to measure the strain of the de bonded portion of the bar an d any slip that might occur before failure. The data acquisition system consisted in a LabView virtual instrument which was programmed to read and record data poi nts from linear pots, and a load cell ( Figure 3-16).

PAGE 37

Table 3-1. Specimen design details for series 1. Specimen fy (ksi) f'c (psi) W (in) H (in) B (in) Strut Angle ldh tested (in) dL (in) 60_5_90_S 60 5700 14.5 8.5 10 6 60_5_90_1 60 5700 14.5 10.5 10 8 60_7_90_S 60 5700 18.5 11.5 10 9 60_7_90_1 60 5700 18.5 13.5 10 11 37

PAGE 38

Table 3-2. Specimen design details for series 2 through 5. Series Number Specimen fy (ksi) f'c (psi) W (in) H (in) B (in) Strut Angle ldh tested (in) dL (in) 60_5_90_25_1 60 5490 14.5 12.1 10 25 7 2.60 60_5_90_25_2 60 5490 14.5 12.1 10 25 7 2.60 60_7_90_47_1 60 5490 18.5 22.8 10 47 10 10.30 Two 60_7_90_47_2 60 5490 18.5 22.8 10 47 10 10.30 SS_16_90_25_1 103 6350 14.5 17.1 10 25 12 2.60 SS_16_90_25_2 103 6350 14.5 17.1 10 25 12 2.60 SS_16_90_35_1 103 6350 14.5 18.4 10 35 12 3.90 SS_16_90_35_2 103 6350 14.5 18.4 10 35 12 3.90 MM_5_90_25_1 114 6450 14.5 19.1 10 25 14 2.60 MM_5_90_25_2 114 6450 14.5 19.1 10 25 14 2.60 MM_5_90_35_1 114 6450 14.5 20.4 10 35 14 3.90 MM_5_90_35_2 114 6450 14.5 20.4 10 35 14 3.90 MM_7_90_25_1 114 6600 18.5 27 10 25 20 4.50 MM_7_90_25_2 114 6600 18.5 27 10 25 20 4.50 MM_7_90_35_1 114 6600 18.5 29.1 10 35 20 6.60 Three MM_7_90_35_2 114 6600 18.5 29.1 10 35 20 6.60 SS_16_180_35_1 103 6100 14.5 17.4 10 35 11 3.90 SS_16_180_35_2 103 6100 14.5 17.4 10 35 11 3.90 SS_16_180_35_3 103 6100 14.5 18.4 10 35 12 3.90 SS_16_180_35_4 103 6100 14.5 18.4 10 35 12 3.90 MM_5_180_35_1 114 6320 14.5 18.4 10 35 12 3.90 MM_5_180_35_2 114 6320 14.5 18.4 10 35 12 3.90 MM_5_180_35_3 114 6320 14.5 20.4 10 35 14 3.90 MM_5_180_35_4 114 6320 14.5 20.4 10 35 14 3.90 MM_7_180_35_1 114 6170 18.5 26.1 10 35 17 6.60 MM_7_180_35_2 114 6170 18.5 26.1 10 35 17 6.60 MM_7_180_35_3 114 6170 18.5 29.1 10 35 20 6.60 Four MM_7_180_35_4 114 6170 18.5 29.1 10 35 20 6.60 60_5_180_35_1 60 6330 14.5 13.4 10 35 7 3.90 60_5_180_35_2 60 6330 14.5 13.4 10 35 7 3.90 60_7_180_35_1 60 6330 18.5 18.0 10 35 9 6.60 60_7_180_35_2 60 6330 18.5 18.0 10 35 9 6.60 60_7_180_35_3 60 6330 18.5 19.0 10 35 10 6.60 60_7_180_35_4 60 6330 18.5 19.0 10 35 10 6.60 SS_20_90_35_1 97.2 6150 17.0 21.1 10 35 13 5.60 SS_20_90_35_2 97.2 6150 17.0 21.1 10 35 13 5.60 SS_20_90_35_3 97.2 6150 17.0 22.1 10 35 14 5.60 SS_20_90_35_4 97.2 6150 17.0 22.1 10 35 14 5.60 SS_20_180_35_1 97.2 6150 17.0 21.1 10 35 13 5.60 SS_20_180_35_2 97.2 6150 17.0 21.1 10 35 13 5.60 SS_20_180_35_3 97.2 6150 17.0 22.1 10 35 14 5.60 SS_20_180_35_4 97.2 6150 17.0 22.1 10 35 14 5.60 MM_7_90_35_3 114 6150 18.5 29.1 10 35 20 6.60 Five MM_7_90_35_4 114 6150 18.5 29.1 10 35 20 6.60 38

PAGE 39

39 Table 3-3. Concrete mixture proportions (quantities are per cubic yard). Series and Mixing Dates 1 2 3 4 5 Materials 2/1/2007 3/9/2007 4/9/ 2007 5/9/2007 6/8/2007 W/C 0.44 0.28 0.22 0.23 0.22 Cement (lb) 513 512 702 668 680 Fly Ash (lb) 145 145 145 152 150 Water (lb) 290 184 184 189 185 Fine Aggregate (lb) 1557 1607 1527 1527 1527 Coarse Aggregate (lb) 1309 1347 1360 1360 1360 Air-entrained (oz) 6.6 4.33 1 1.33 1 Admixture (oz) 39.5 100 156 155 155 Slump (in.) 5 7.5 7.5 8 7.25

PAGE 40

ldh A ldh B S T R U T Debonded ldh C S T R U T Debonded ldh D Figure 3-1. Specimen design with idealized bounda ry conditions. A) Unconfined, B) Confined with stirrups, C) 90 deg. hook, unconfined with debonded length, and D) 180 deg. hook, unconfined with debonded length. B H Ctail Ct Cb W Cs AA Section A A A AA Section A AW B Cs Ct Cb W No. 3 stirrup H Se Cb Ct Ctail Ss B Figure 3-2. Specimen design for se ries 1: A) Unconfined specimen details and B) Confined specimen details. 40

PAGE 41

AA Section A A B W Cb dL W H ldh a Ctail Cb Ct A Section A A B W Cb AA dL W H a ldh Ctail Ct B Figure 3-3. Specimen design for series 2 throug h 5: A) Unconfined specimen details for 90 degree bend and B) Unconfined specimen details for 180 degree bend. A A 2 x 4 Lumber 5/8" Thread Rod 1 x 1 Lumber Coupler A 2.5" Plywood 3/4" Coupler 2 x 4 Lumber Section A A 2 pieces of 3/4" of Plywood placed above and below the bar B Figure 3-4. Formwork schematics A) Plan view, and B) Section. 41

PAGE 42

Figure 3-5. Formwork details. Figure 3-6. Ready-mixed concre te being discharged into th e container for transporting. 42

PAGE 43

Figure 3-7. Slump of ready-mixed concrete. A B Figure 3-8. Casting and compaction of the sp ecimen A), and B) Finishing of specimens. Figure 3-9. Curing of the specimens. 43

PAGE 44

2C15x40 2C15x40StrongWall C12x30 C12x30 4' 2" 4' 5' 3" Load Cell Hydraulic Jack StrongFloor A A HSS 4x3x1/4 A 5 8 Bolts Open holes 17" 1 4 12" 7 8"1 4 Section A-A 22" x 22" Base 2C6x13 Thread Rod Coupler B C Figure 3-10. Load test setup A) Plan view schematic, B) Sect ion schematic, and C) Photo. 44

PAGE 45

Figure 3-11. Coupler system. T 2C6x13 Shims 6x10x1/4 Neoprene 6x8x1/4 Neoprene 6x8x1/4 HSS 4x3x1/4Shims 6x12x1/4 Neoprene 6x12x1/4 Plate 12x30x1 Bearing length varied as needed to create target development length S T R U T ldh Figure 3-12. Specimen schematic reactions. 1 2 Figure 3-13. Slip wire position in hooked bar. 45

PAGE 46

1 2 Bond Slip Bond Slip Displacement Load Cell A B Figure 3-14. Bond slip instrumentation A) Di splacement and slip position, B) Linear potentiometers. Figure 3-15. Linear potentiometer placed at the top face of the specimen. Figure 3-16. Data acquisition system. 46

PAGE 47

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Materials Properties Concrete About twenty standard cylinders 6 x 12-in (152 x 305-mm) per batch were tested in accordance with the Standard Test Method for Compressive Streng th of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (ASTM C39). Compressive st rengths of each batch are shown in Table 4-1 The first batch was mixed at Florida Department of Transportation State Materials Office (SMO) in Gainesville, and the last four ba tches were delivered by Florida Rocks Industries, a local readymix concrete supplier. Compressive strengths we re tested after 7, 14, 21, and 28 days of continuous lab cured for all the concrete mixes ( APPENDIX A ). Steel ACI indicates that for bars exceeding a speci fied yield strength of 60 ksi (413 MPa), the yield strength is to be determined using the stress corresponding to a 0.35% strain. The 0.2% offset method (ASTM A370-07), however, is more generally applicable to high strength steel that have no well-defined yield point. Consequently, for the stainless steel and MMF X bars that do not have well-defined yield points and do not exhibit a yield plateau, the 0.2% offset method was used in lieu of the 0.35% strain method. All the tensi on tests were conducted at Florid a Department of Transportation State Materials Office (SMO) in Gainesville. Four coupons were tested for each Grade 60, Stainless Steel, and MMFX bars. The load rate used was 0.20 inches per minute per in. of distance between the grips (in/min/in) until the yield point was determin ed. After yielding, the rate used was 3.5 in/min/in until bar rupture occurred. 47

PAGE 48

Stainless steel and MMFX bars do not have a well-defined yield point and do not exhibit a yielding plateau; therefore, the 0.2% offset method (ASTM A370-07) was used to determine the yield strength of the bar. Th is method is illustrated in Figure 4-1 where the intersection of the stress-strain curve with a line para llel to the slope equal to the initial tangent modulus and which intercept at 0.002 strain de fines the yield point. Data gathered during tension test s included strain at 0.2% offs et, load at 0.2% offset, and ultimate strength. Complete tension test results are given in APPENDIX A. Grade 60 Steel All mild steel bars came from the same heat and were purchased locally at a building supply center. The #5 bar had yield strength meas ured at 0.35% (0.0035 in /in) strain of 63 ksi, and a tensile strength of 105 ksi. The #7 bar had yield strength measured at 0.35% (0.0035 in/in) strain of 64 ksi, and a te nsile strength of 106 ksi (Table 4-2 ). The two samples of each size exceeded and complied with the ASTM A615 (Grade 60) standard which established the minimum yield strength, and te nsile strength of 60 ksi, and 90 ksi, respectively. Stainless Steel The stainless steel 316LN bars were made in Italy and were provided by Valbruna Stainless Steel. Valbruna Stainless Steel is a company specialized in supplying and producing stainless steel and special metal alloys. The company has several braches in United States and Canada. Their stainless steel bars have been used worldwide in different a pplications as bridges, highway and roads, viaducts, and ports. After testing, the 16 mm bar had a yield strength measured at 0.2% (0.002 in/in) st rain offset of 106 ksi, and a te nsile strength of 124 ksi. The 20 mm bar had a yield strength measured at 0.2% (0 .002 in/in) strain offset of 96 ksi, and tensile strength of 120 ksi ( Table 4-3 ). The yield and tensile strengths measured in the two samples of 48

PAGE 49

each size exceeded and complied with the mini mum yield strength of 75 ksi and minimum tensile strength of 100 ksi required for ASTM A955 and Valbruna product specifications. MMFX Steel The MMFX bars were provided for MMFX Steel Corporation of America. MMFX Steel Corporation of America is a s ubsidiary of MMFX Technologies, a company that has invented the MMFX 2 steel bar which has a microstructure di fferent to the convent ional steel. The MMFX 2 steel rebar is a corrosion resistant and a high gr ade steel which has been used nationwide in different construction applications as bridge decks, bridge stru ctures, and residential. After testing, the #5 and #7 bars had yield strengths meas ured at 0.2% (0.002 in/in) strain offset of 122 ksi, and 128 ksi, respectively ( Table 4-4 ). The yield strength measur ed in the two samples of each size exceeded and complied with the minimum yield strength of 120 ksi required for ASTM A1035 and MMFX product specifications. Specimens Test Results Behavior and Failure Modes Figure 4-2 shows the stress-strain plot of three pu llout specimens to illustrate the typical behavior of each type of steel. Load-slip and st ress-strain curves for all specimens are shown in APPENDIX B The stress was obtained by dividing the measured load by the nominal area of the reinforcing bar. The strain was obtained by dividing the measured bar displacement by the debonded length. In general, as load was applied the specime n remained uncracked and linear elastic until the yield point was reached. In some of the sp ecimens cracking occurred, this caused a loss of bond and a premature failure. This failure mode wa s deemed concrete spl itting which occurred suddenly when the peak load was reached. This type of failure was characterized by cracks that split the specimen from the front to the right face ( Figure 4-3 A). Also, diagonal cracks formed on 49

PAGE 50

the right and left side of the specimen confirming the strut behavior of the specimens (Figure 4-3 B). The front face of the specimen presented th e typical Y crack which is seen in bond test using beam end specimens (Ahlborn and DenHartigh, 2002). The rear face e xhibited an inverted Y crack which split the specimen in three parts ( Figure 4-3 C and D). Crack pattern of this kind of failure was seen in specimen MM_7_180_35_3 as it is shown in Figure 4-4 After testing, a larger portion of the side cover was easy to remove During the specimen examination, it was found crushing of the concrete inside radius of the hook. This kind of behavior was seen not only in 90 degree but also in 180 degree hooks ( Figure 4-5 ). Moreover, crushing of the concrete near to the radius of the bend was because of the higher tensile force applied to the bar producing mini cracks between the bar and the c oncrete and resulting in loss of bond. This type of behavior was also observed and reported by Marques and Jirsa (1975) and Hamad, Jirsa, and DAbreu de Pa ulo (1993). The main objective of those studies was to evaluate bond characteristics and anchorage capacity of uncoated (mild steel) and epoxy-coated hooked bars for 90 and 180-degree bend angle. If the specimen was able to sustain load beyond yield, one of two possible failure modes occurred. The bar yield with concrete splitting, occurred after th e bar had yielded indicating that the anchorage was able to hold load at least to the yield point. Cracks pattern are similar to the concrete splitting failure. Bar yield was characterized by continued deform ation of the bar without concrete splitting or bar rupture. This typically occurred on the stainless steel specimens when the hydraulic jack stroke limit was reached. Specimens SS_16_90_25_1, SS_16_90_25_2, SS_16_90_35_1, 50

PAGE 51

SS_16_90_35_2, SS_16_180_35_1, and SS_16_180_35_4 were loaded until the stroke of the hydraulic jack reached its limit, however; the bar reached the yiel ding point before the test was terminated. After testing, cracks were not seen on the faces of the specimen. Finally, several specimens failed due to bar yield and rupture. This occurred when the full rupture strength of the bar was reached before the concrete failed. The bar yield and rupture failure was mainly observed in MMFX specimens. Mild Steel Specimens In this section the detailed results of the mild steel specimens are presented and discussed. Failure modes for each specimen are documented as well as the load displacement and load slip behavior. Figure 4-6 shows the load displacement behavior for all of the #5 and #7 mild steel specimens. Also, Figure 4-6 show the coupon yield load (Pyt) for #5 and #7 which confirms that the bars reached yield. The plots for each are shown with different scales to accentuate the differences in behavior among the specimens w ith the same size bar. The 25-degree strut specimens appear to have a larger initial stiffn ess than that of the 35-degree strut specimens when comparing the results for the #5 bar. This is likely due to the manner in which the displacements were measured. The linear poten tiometer was attached to the bar at the point where it exits the concrete and measured the rela tive movement between the bar and concrete. The 25-degree strut specimens had shorter debonded lengths than that of the 35-degree strut specimens resulting in larger elastic deformations under the same load. The sudden change in slope of the load displ acement plots indicate yielding of the bars and generally agreed well with the measured yield st rength of the bare bars. The anchorage strength of #5 specimens with 180-degree hook improved a bout 23% with respect to #5 specimens with 90-degree hooked bar as the concrete strength and the stru t angle increased ( Figure 4-6 a). 51

PAGE 52

Post-yield slopes are not likely to provide us eful information because the measurement of bar displacement is made relative to the concrete surface around the bar. Microcracking is likely to occur near yield, which will result in moveme nt of the concrete along with the bar as ultimate strength is approached. This be havior is described more fully wh en the slip data are presented. Figure 4-7 summarizes the results of the tests in terms of the hook capacity. The complete test results for mild steel specimens are shown in the Table 4-5 fc shows the average concrete strength of th e specimen concrete as tested on the day of the pullout test. Pu is the peak measured load applied to the bar. To allow comparison of the peak measured loads among the specimens that contained varying concrete strength, Pu was normalized to the square root of the ratio of the design strength (5500 psi) to the measured strength. Pye is the load at which the bar yielded using the 0.35% strain. u is the displacement corresponding to Pu and y is the displacement corresponding to Pye. The bar stress based on the pe ak measured load is also given (Pu /Ab). D1 and D2 represent the total measured s lip of the bar when the load in the bar is Pu. The load slip data gathered during the testing provides interesting insi ght into the behavior of the hooked bar anchorages. Figure 4-8 show two graphs that compare the co nfined and unconfined #5 bar specimens from the first series of testing. Recall that this testing was conducted with the original test configuration. It is readily a pparent that the unconfined speci men (which did not reach yield) has a shallower load-slip slope than that of the confined specimen with stirrups, indicating that the lack of stirrups allowed greater bar move ment prior to reaching ultimate capacity. This confirms observations by Hamad, Jirsa, a nd DAbreu de Paulo (1993). Hamad, Jirsa, and DAbreu de Paulo evaluated beam-column joints with mild steel and epoxy-coated hooked bars. 52

PAGE 53

Their results concluded that for #7 uncoate d specimens with 90 degree hooked bar, the anchorage strength increased about 51% with the inclusion of stir rups. However, for #7 specimens tested in this research with 90 de gree hooked bar, the anchorage strength increased about 69% with the inclusion of stirrups. The differences betw een the results of comparative tests are based on the test setup, the use of high concrete strengt h, strut-and-tie approach, and stirrups spacing. Further examination of the plots indicates that th e slip at D1 is greater than that of D2 until higher loads are reached where the plots cross. This occurs in both the confined and unconfined specimens. D1 was expected to remain greater than D2 up to failure since the bar exits the specimen near where D1 is measured. The cross-over of the plots is likely due to cracking late in the loading process and is a function of the slip measurement technique a nd not an indication of peculiar behavior. Figure 4-9 shows the idealized location of cr acks in unconfined and confined specimens, which are similar to those observed duri ng and after the testing. As load is applied, the slip at D1 is greater than that of D2. As additional load is applied, diagonal cracks form perhaps along line 2-3. When these cracks occur, a spall in the shape of 1-2-3 forms and moves with the bar as further load is applied resulting in zero bond stress in this area. Because the slip measurement device measures relative movement be tween the concrete and steel, less (or zero) slip will register after the spall occurs. These cracks likely form when the specimen is near capacity, which confirms the crossing locations in the plots. For unconfined specimens, initial slip located at D1 was greater than slip located at D2 until diagonal cracks formed as shown in Figure 4-9 a. For confined specimens, the use of transverse reinforcement not only improved the anchorage capacity of the hooked bar but also 53

PAGE 54

controlled crack propagation. The inclusion of transverse reinforcement was sufficient to yield the bar and to achieve the bar rupture failure. Figure 4-10 shows the relative behavior of the confined and unconfined #7 tests. The unconfined test is similar to that of the #5 with failure occurring before bar yield and with a crossing of the slip plots near the specimen ultim ate capacity. In contrast, however, the confined specimen never exhibits the cross-ov er of the slip plots. This is probably due to the confinement restricting the forma tion of the spall in the region of D1. Slip behavior of the series 2 through 5 tests was similar to that of the unconfined specimen from series 1 except that most of the specimens tested with the revised setup reached yield before failure. Figure 4-11 provides an example of the load slip behavior for a #5 bar with a 180-deg. hook. As expected, D1 remained greater than D2 for the entire test, and never crossed D2 as the load approached capacity. R ecall that the slip D1 was measured at the end of the debonded length (dL), which placed it closer to the bend than in the previous test setup ( Figure 4-12). Figure 4-12 shows two possible locations where diagonal cr acks formed at the edge of the strut. Crack 2-3 is shown above D1 and Crack 4-5 is show n below. It is believed that the reason there was no cross-over is that the cracking occurred primarily along line 2-3, which formed spall 1-23 and allowed the relative slip D1 to continue to be measured up to failure. Furthermore, the D2 plot shows a plateau forming while D1 remains linear up until failure of the concrete indicating that the bar was well beyond its yield point at D1. Typical behavior of a #7 mild steel bar with a 180-degree hook is shown in Figure 4-13 The behavior illustrated is similar to that of the #5 specimen in that D1 remains larger than D2 until failure. 54

PAGE 55

Stainless Steel Specimens Detailed results of the stainl ess steel specimens are presented and discussed. Failure modes for each specimen are documented as well as the load displa cement and load slip behavior. Figure 4-14 shows the load displacement behavior for all of the 16 and 20-mm stainless steel specimens. Also, Figure 4-14 show the coupon yield load (Pyt) for 16mm and 20mm, which confirms that the bars reached yield. The plot s for each are shown with different scales to accentuate the differences in behavior among the sp ecimens with the same size bar. All of the specimens with 16 mm bars reached their yield poin t with no bar rupture. In many cases, the test was terminated when the stroke of the hydrauli c jack reached its limit. In contrast, most specimens with 20 mm bars reached their yield poin t but then failed by split ting of the concrete. During this portion of the testing program it was discovered that stainless steel bars from two different heats had used (Pyt1 and Pyt2), which explains the differen ce in the yield loads exhibited in Figure 4-14 a for the 16 mm bars. For 16 mm and 20 mm specimens, the bond between the bar and the concrete made the tangent modulus slopes steeper ( Figure 4-14 ). For 20 mm specimens, load-displacement curves were quite similar despite of different devel opment lengths, strut angles, and hook geometries ( Figure 4-14 b). Figure 4-15 summarizes the results of the test s in terms of the hook capacity. The test results for stainless steel specimens are shown in the Table 4-3 fc shows the average concrete strength of the specimen concrete as tested on the day of the pullout test. Pu is the peak measured load applied to the bar. To allow comparison of the peak measured loads among the specimens that contained varying concrete strength, Pu was normalized to the square root of the ratio of the design strength (5500 psi) to the measured strength. Pye is the load at 55

PAGE 56

which the bar yielded using the 0.2% offset strain. u is the displacement corresponding to Pu and y is the displacement corresponding to Pye. The bar stress based on the peak measured load is also given (Pu /Ab). D1 and D2 represent the total measur ed slip of the bar when the load in the bar is Pu. Because of the 25-degree strut specimens had shorter debonded lengths than that of the 35degree strut specimens resulting in larger elastic deformations under the same load ( Figure 4-16 ). As a result, it was found that the maximu m slip for specimen SS_16_90_35_2 increased about 56% as the strut angle in creased in comparison with the specimen SS_16_90_25_2 ( Table 4-6 ). Typical load-slip behavior is illustrated in Figure 4-17 for 16 mm stainless steel specimens. Initial slip is larger for D1 than for D2. As the load nears yield, however, the plots cross, indicating that the diagonal cr ack formed the 1-4-5 spall ( Figure 4-12 ) in the debonded region of the bar. Figure 4-18 indicates that the 20 mm stainless stee l specimens behave more like the #7 mild steel specimens than that of the 16 stainl ess steel specimens. This may be due to the difference in the failure mode. Recall that the 16 mm stainless steel specimens did not split while both the #7 mild steel and 20 mm stainless steel specimens yielded and then split. MMFX Specimens In this section the detailed results of the MMFX specimens are presented and discussed. Failure modes for each specimen are documented as well as the load displacement and load slip behavior. Figure 4-19 shows the load displacement behavior for all of the #5 and #7 MMFX specimens. Also, Figure 4-19 show the coupon yield load (Pyt) for #5 and #7 which confirms that the bars reached yield. The plots for each are shown with different scales to accentuate the 56

PAGE 57

differences in behavior among the specimens with the same size bar. All of the specimens with #5 bars reached yield, which appears to be at ap proximately the same load. In contrast, just a few specimens with #7 bars reached their yiel d point before failure by concrete splitting occurred, indicating that the bond strength was not sufficient to develop the #7 bars as fully as the #5 bars. It was found that the anchorage strength at failure of #5 specimens with 180-degree hook improved about 9% as the deve lopment length increased ( Table 4-7 ). Figure 4-20 summarizes the results of the tests in terms of the hook capacity. Also, in Figure 4-20 it was not noticed any difference between the average strength of 90 and 180-degree hook for #5 and #7 specimens. The test results for MMFX specimens are shown in the Table 4-7 f c shows the average concrete strength of the specimen concrete as tested on the day of the pullout test. Pu is the peak measured load applied to the bar. To allow comparison of the peak measured loads among the specimens that contained varying concrete strength, Pu was normalized to the square root of the ratio of the design strength (5500 psi) to the measured strength. Pye is the load at which the bar yielded using the 0.2% offset strain. u is the displacement corresponding to Pu and y is the displacement corresponding to Pye. The bar stress based on the peak measured load is also given (Pu /Ab). D1 and D2 represent the total measur ed slip of the bar when the load in the bar is Pu. Typical behavior of a #5 and #7 mild steel bar with a 90 and 180-degree hooks is shown in Figure 4-21 and Figure 4-22. The behavior illustrated is simila r to that of the #5 and #7 mild steel specimens with 180 degree hook in that D1 remains larger than D2 until failure. The maximum slip for specimen MM_5_90_35_2 increased about 114% as the strut angle increased 57

PAGE 58

58 in comparison with the specimen MM_5_90_25_2. Also it was found that the maximum slip for specimen MM_5_180_35_2 increased about 116% as the development length increased in comparison with the specimen MM_5_180_35_4.

PAGE 59

Table 4-1. Compressive concrete strengths. Series 1 2 3 4 5 Average Concrete Strength 5700 5520 6500 6180 6070 Coefficient of Variation (%) 4.84 3.84 3.34 3.41 3.74 Table 4-2. Tension test results for ASTM A615 reinforcement. Grade 60 Yield Strength at 0.35% strain (ksi) Strain at 0.35% yield (in/in) Load at 0.35% (kip) Ultimate Strength (ksi) #5 Average 62.8 0.00350 19.5 104.7 COV (%) < 1 0.00 < 1 0.11 #7 Average 63.7 0.00350 38.2 105.9 COV (%) < 1 0.00 < 1 < 1 Table 4-3. Tension test resu lt for stainless steel (316LN). Stainless Steel Yield Strength at 0.2% offset (ksi) Strain at 0.2% offset yield (in/in) Load at 0.2% offset (kip) Ultimate Strength (ksi) 16 mm (0.625 in) Average 106.2 0.00615 32.9 123.8 COV (%) < 1 1.15 < 1 < 1 20 mm (0.787 in) Average 95.7 0.00575 46.5 120.1 COV (%) 6.09 1.23 6.09 < 1 Table 4-4. Tension test results for MMFX steel. MMFX Yield Strength at 0.2% offset (ksi) Strain at 0.2% offset yield (in/in) Load at 0.2% offset (kip) Ultimate Strength (ksi) #5 Average 122.4 0.00649 37.9 158.1 COV (%) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 #7 Average 128.0 0.00670 76.8 162.9 COV (%) < 1 2.11 < 1 < 1 59

PAGE 60

Table 4-5. Test results for mild steel #5 and #7 specimens. Specimen notation f'c (psi) Pu (kips) Pye (kips) u (in) y (in) D1u (in) D2u (in) Pu/Ab (ksi) c uf P 5500 (kips) Failure Modes 60_5_90_1 5700 20.2 N.A 0.085 NA 0.162 0.152 63.8 19.8 Bar yield with concrete splitting 60_5_90_S 5700 25.5 N.A 0.289 NA 0.117 0.074 80.8 25.0 Bar yield and rupture 60_5_90_25_1 5490 26.5 18.7 0.151 0.009 NA NA 85.6 26.5 Bar yield with concrete splitting 60_5_90_25_2 5490 27.0 19.1 0.150 0.009 0.167 0.132 87.1 27.0 Bar yield with concrete splitting 60_5_180_35_1 6330 34.6 18.9 0.274 0.017 0.178 0.081 106.0 32.9 Bar yield and rupture 60_5_180_35_2 6330 34.8 18.9 0.275 0.016 0.157 0.074 106.5 33.0 Bar yield and rupture 60_7_90_1 5700 27.8 N.A 0.037 N.A 0.102 0.097 45.4 27.3 Concrete splitting 60_7_90_S 5700 47.0 N.A 0.089 N.A 0.099 0.019 77.0 46.2 Bar yield with concrete splitting 60_7_90_47_1 5490 58.1 38.9 0.497 0.036 N.A N.A 97.0 58.2 Bar yield 60_7_90_47_2 5490 54.1 39.5 0.358 0.036 0.249 0.164 90.2 54.1 Bar yield 60_7_180_35_1 6330 54.4 40.8 0.172 0.023 0.166 0.158 84.6 50.7 Bar yield with concrete splitting 60_7_180_35_2 6330 52.4 31.2 0.163 0.023 0.251 0.226 81.5 48.9 Bar yield with concrete splitting 60_7_180_35_3 6330 58.9 36.5 0.238 0.023 0.174 0.085 91.5 54.9 Bar yield with concrete splitting 60 60_7_180_35_4 6330 59.1 36.9 0.285 0.023 0.401 0.263 91.8 55.1 Bar yield with concrete splitting

PAGE 61

Table 4-6. Test results for stainl ess steel 16 mm and 20 mm specimens. Specimen notation f'c (psi) Pu (kips) Pye (kips) u (in) y (in) D1u (in) D2u (in) Pu/Ab (ksi) c uf P 5500 (kips) Failure Modes SS_16_90_25_1 6350 35.4 32.15 0.497 0.036 0.287 0.186 105.7 33.0 Bar yield SS_16_90_25_2 6350 33.3 27.44 0.497 0.015 0.265 0.126 99.2 31.0 Bar yield SS_16_90_35_1 6350 36.7 32.84 0.658 0.024 0.446 0.235 109.6 34.2 Bar yield SS_16_90_35_2 6350 33.6 28.98 0.729 0.022 0.413 0.148 100.2 31.3 Bar yield SS_16_180_35_1 6100 36.3 22.62 0.882 0.022 0.400 0.882 110.4 34.5 Bar yield SS_16_180_35_2 6100 37.3 34.89 0.204 0.024 0.207 0.108 113.5 35.4 Bar yield with concrete splitting SS_16_180_35_3 6100 35.1 32.43 0.177 0.024 0.109 0.102 106.8 33.3 Bar yield and rupture SS_16_180_35_4 6100 37.4 28.64 0.758 0.032 0.334 0.051 113.8 35.5 Bar yield SS_20_90_35_1 6150 59.5 39.83 0.263 0.033 0.239 0.188 114.9 56.3 Bar yield with concrete splitting SS_20_90_35_2 6150 59.1 39.75 0.099 0.032 0.193 0.146 114.0 55.9 Bar yield with concrete splitting SS_20_90_35_3 6150 58.5 N.A 0.011 N.A 0.166 0.158 113.0 55.4 Bar yield with concrete splitting SS_20_90_35_4 6150 60.4 39.38 0.150 0.032 0.077 0.041 116.5 57.1 Bar yield with concrete splitting SS_20_180_35_1 6150 62.4 40.94 0.364 0.032 0.222 0.061 120.4 59.0 Bar yield with concrete splitting SS_20_180_35_2 6150 62.5 35.15 0.358 0.031 0.146 0.043 120.6 59.1 Bar yield with concrete splitting SS_20_180_35_3 6150 52.5 41.74 0.056 0.032 0.167 0.132 101.3 49.6 Bar yield with concrete splitting 61 SS_20_180_35_4 6150 55.6 38.03 0.066 0.032 0.152 0.079 107.2 52.5 Bar yield with concrete splitting

PAGE 62

Table 4-7. Test results for MMFX steel #5 and #7 specimens. Specimen notation f'c (psi) Pu (kips) Pye (kips) u (in) y (in) D1u (in) D2u (in) Pu/Ab (ksi) c uf P 5500 (kips) Failure Modes MM_5_90_25_1 6450 49.5 27.6 0.115 0.017 0.071 0.067 159.7 45.7 Bar rupture MM_5_90_25_2 6450 48.6 28.2 0.155 0.017 0.114 0.077 156.7 44.8 Bar rupture MM_5_90_35_1 6450 44.9 33.3 0.064 0.025 0.145 0.057 144.9 41.5 Bar yield with concrete splitting MM_5_90_35_2 6450 49.4 34.6 0.162 0.025 0.244 0.233 159.3 45.6 Bar yield with concrete splitting MM_5_180_35_1 6320 41.0 23.1 0.057 0.025 0.019 0.014 132.3 38.2 Bar yield with concrete splitting MM_5_180_35_2 6320 51.0 32.7 0.096 0.025 0.087 0.037 164.4 47.5 Bar yield with concrete splitting MM_5_180_35_3 6320 47.4 44.8 0.051 0.025 0.199 0.197 153.0 44.3 Bar yield with concrete splitting MM_5_180_35_4 6320 52.9 31.4 0.145 0.026 0.187 0.154 170.5 49.3 Bar rupture MM_7_90_25_1 6600 69.9 N.A 0.021 N.A 0.379 0.291 116.5 63.8 Concrete splitting MM_7_90_25_2 6600 71.7 N.A 0.029 N.A 0.044 0.018 119.4 65.4 Bar cast out of position MM_7_90_35_1 6600 58.3 N.A 0.010 N.A 0.003 0.000 97.1 53.2 Bar cast out of position MM_7_90_35_2 6600 65.8 N.A 0.029 N.A 0.284 0.150 109.6 60.0 Bar cast out of position MM_7_90_35_3 6330 58.9 N.A 0.044 N.A 0.237 0.234 98.2 54.9 Concrete splitting MM_7_90_35_4 6330 77.2 67.5 0.059 0.044 0.088 0.086 128.6 71.9 Bar yield with concrete splitting MM_7_180_35_1 6170 59.3 N.A 0.035 N.A 0.171 0.126 98.8 56.0 Concrete splitting MM_7_180_35_2 6170 71.4 65.3 0.051 0.044 0.077 0.052 119.1 67.5 Bar yield with concrete splitting MM_7_180_35_3 6170 67.6 N.A 0.014 N.A 0.106 0.096 112.7 63.9 Concrete splitting 62 MM_7_180_35_4 6170 70.4 59.6 0.068 0.044 0.309 0.252 117.3 66.5 Bar yield with concrete splitting

PAGE 63

f fy y 0.2 % Figure 4-1. Stress-strain curve. Strain ( in/in ) Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-Strain Comparison -0.01 0.04 0.09 0.14 0.190.24 0 40 80 120 160 0 300 600 900 1200 -0.010.040.090.140.190.24 0 40 80 120 160 0 300 600 900 1200 60_5_90_25_1 MM_5_90_25_1 SS_16_90_25_1 Figure 4-2. Stress-strain comparison. A S T R U T B Figure 4-3. Cracks A) on the Top, B) on the side faces, C) on the rear and D) on the front faces. 63

PAGE 64

C D Figure 4-3. Continued. Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left Figure 4-4. Crack pattern for concrete splitting failure. A B Figure 4-5. Concrete crushed inside of be nd radius A) 90 deg. hook and B) 180 deg. hook. 64

PAGE 65

Dis p lacement ( in. ) Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-Displacemen t #5 Grade 60 -0.01 0.09 0.19 0.29 0.39 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 -0.010.090.190.290.39 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Pyt 60_5_90_25_1 60_5_90_25_2 60_5_90_1 60_5_90_S 60_5_180_35_1 60_5_180_35_2 A Dis p lacement ( in. ) Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-Displacemen t #7 Grade 60 0 0.14 0.28 0.42 0.560.7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 Pyt 60_7_90_47_1 60_7_90_47_2 60_7_90_1 60_7_90_S 60_7_180_35_1 60_7_180_35_2 60_7_180_35_3 60_7_180_35_4 B Figure 4-6. Load-displacement for mild steel A) #5, and B) #7. Pu/Ab (ksi) 0 30 60 90 120 9018090180 85 112 94 94 B end Angle: Bar Size: #5 #7 Figure 4-7. Mild steel resu lts in terms of hook capacity. Sli p ( in. ) Load (kip) Stress (ksi) 0 0.05 0.1 0.150.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Pu crossing D1 D2 A Sli p ( in. ) Load (kip) Stress (ksi) 0 0.05 0.1 0.150.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Py Pu crossing D1 D2 B Figure 4-8. Load-slip for sp ecimens A) 60_5_90_1 and B) 60_5_90_S. 65

PAGE 66

D1 D2 loss in stiffness from cracking 1 3 2 Spall A loss in stiffness from cracking D1 D2 Spall 1 2 3 B Figure 4-9. Locations where relative slip was m easured for A) Unconfined, and B) Confined with stirrup. Sli p ( in. ) Load (kip) Stress (ksi) 0 0.04 0.08 0.120.16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Pu D1 D2 A Sli p ( in. ) Load (kip) Stress (ksi) 0 0.04 0.08 0.120.16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Pu Py D1 D2 B Figure 4-10. Load-slip for specimen. A) 60_7_90_1 and B) 60_7_90_S. Sli p ( in. ) Load (kip) Stress (ksi) 0 0.05 0.1 0.150.2 0 10 20 30 40 0 30 60 90 120 PuPy D1 D2 Figure 4-11. Typical load-slip behavior for #5 mild steel specimens with 180-degree hook (60_5_180_35_2 shown). 66

PAGE 67

D1 D2 loss in stiffness from cracking dL Potential crack locations 1 2 3 4 5 S T R U T Figure 4-12. Relative slip at locations D1 a nd D2 for unconfined specimens with debonded length. Sli p ( in. ) Load (kip) Stress (ksi) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 PuPy D1 D2 Figure 4-13. Typical load-slip behavior for #7 mild steel specimens with 180-degree hook (60_7_180_35_4 shown). 67

PAGE 68

Dis p lacement ( in. ) Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-Displacemen t 16 mm Stainless Steel 0 0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0 8 16 24 32 40 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Pyt1 Pyt2 SS_16_90_25_1 SS_16_90_25_2 SS_16_90_35_1 SS_16_90_35_2 SS_16_180_35_1 SS_16_180_35_2 SS_16_180_35_3 SS_16_180_35_4 A Dis p lacement ( in. ) Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-Displacement20 mm Stainless Steel 0 0.14 0.28 0.42 0.560.7 0 15 30 45 60 75 0 60 120 180 240 300 Pyt SS_20_90_35_1 SS_20_90_35_2 SS_20_90_35_4 SS_20_180_35_1 SS_20_180_35_2 SS_20_180_35_3 SS_20_180_35_4 B Figure 4-14. Load displacement for stainless steel A) 16 mm, and B) 20 mm. Pu/Ab (ksi) 0 30 60 90 120 9018090180 104 111 115 112 B end Angle: Bar Size: 16mm 20mm Figure 4-15. Stainless steel results in terms of hook capacity. Sli p ( in. ) Load (kip) Stress (ksi) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.5 0 8 16 24 32 40 0 25 50 75 100 125 Pu Py D1 D2 A Sli p ( in. ) Load (kip) Stress (ksi) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.5 0 8 16 24 32 40 0 25 50 75 100 125 Pu Py crossing D1 D2 B Figure 4-16. Load-slip for specimens A) SS_16_90_25_2 and B) SS_16_90_35_2. 68

PAGE 69

Sli p ( in. ) Load (kip) Stress (ksi) 0 0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 30 60 90 120 150 PuPy D1 D2 Figure 4-17. Typical load-slip behavior for 16mm stainless st eel specimens with both 90 and 180-degree hooks (SS_16_180_35_4 show). Sli p ( in. ) Load (kip) Stress (ksi) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20.25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 PuPy D1 D2 Figure 4-18. Typical load-slip behavior for 20mm stainless st eel specimens with both 90 and 180-degree hooks (SS_20_90_35_2 shown). 69

PAGE 70

Dis p lacement ( in. ) Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-Displacemen t #5 MMFX 0 0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 Pyt MM_5_90_25_1 MM_5_90_25_2 MM_5_90_35_1 MM_5_90_35_2 MM_5_180_35_1 MM_5_180_35_2 MM_5_180_35_4 A Dis p lacement ( in. ) Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-Displacemen t #7 MMFX 0 0.14 0.28 0.42 0.560.7 0 20 40 60 80 0 80 160 240 320 Pyt MM_7_90_25_1 MM_7_90_25_2 MM_7_90_35_4 MM_7_180_35_1 MM_7_180_35_2 MM_7_180_35_3 MM_7_180_35_4 B Figure 4-19. Load-displacement for MMFX steel A) #5, and B) #7. Pu/Ab (ksi) 0 40 80 120 160 9018090180 143 144 103 106 B end Angle: Bar Size: #5 #7 Figure 4-20. MMFX results in terms of hook capacity. Sli p ( in. ) Load (kip) Stress (ksi) 0 0.05 0.1 0.150.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 PuPy D1 D2 Figure 4-21. Typical load-slip behavior for #5 MMFX specimens with both 90 and 180-degree hooks (MM_5_90_25_2 shown). 70

PAGE 71

71 Sli p ( in. ) Load (kip) Stress (ksi) 0 0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0 20 40 60 80 0 30 60 90 120 PuPy D1 D2 Figure 4-22. Typical load-slip behavior for #7 MMFX specimens with both 90 and 180-degree hooks (MM_7_180_35_4 shown).

PAGE 72

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The results presented in the previous chapter can be qualitatively summarized as follows: 1. The mild steel specimens generally behaved as would be expected, indicating that the test specimen design and test set-up provide an effective method of testing hook bar anchorages. 2. ACI/AASHTO equations appear to ensure that both the 16 and 20-mm bars develop their yield strength. 3. ACI/AASHTO equations appear to ensure that the #5 MMFX hooked anchorage can develop well beyond its yield strength, but that the #7 MMFX hooked anchorage was unable to develop significant additional force or deformation beyond yield. This chapter presents the results of several analyses that are intended to quantitatively analyze results of the hooked anchorage tests and determine the suitability of the current design equations. Anchorage Capacity One method that can be used to compare the re sults of tests on high strength bars is the excess force capacity available beyond the yield poi nt. Mechanical couplers are required to reach least 1.25 times the yield strength (fy) of the bar when splicing reinforcement (ACI 318-05 Section 12.14.3.2). The rationale for this approa ch is not clear but it has also been used by Marques and Jirsa (1975) and by Ueda, Lin, and Hawkins (1986) in evaluating the capacity and ductility of hooked bar anchorages that used mild steel. The disadvantage of this approach, however, is that the current research is compari ng steels that have diffe rent yield strengths and post-yield mechanical properties than that of mild steel. Conseque ntly, the bars already vary in how much post-yield strength is available, both in the absolute and relative sense. Figure 5-1 shows the calculated anchorage capacity ratios compared to the limit of 1.25. The anchorage capacity ratio was calculated by dividing the peak measured load (anchorage 72

PAGE 73

capacity) by bar yield strength (Pu/Py), which was taken from the resu lts of the bar tests using the 0.2% offset method. For mild steel specimens the anchorage capacity ratio exceeded the coupler requirement of 1.25 by about 12% and 40% for #5 with bend angle of 90 and 180 degrees. For #7 bars the anchorage capacity ratio was exceeded by 14% and 16%, respectively (see Figure 5-1 and Table 5-1 ). For 16mm stainless steel specimens with bend angle of 90-degree, the anchorage capacity ratio was sufficient to yield the bar but less th an the limit of 1.25. However, the anchorage capacity ratio was exceeded by about 22% and 34% for 16 mm specimens with 180-degree as the development length increased. For 20 mm stainl ess steel specimens with bend angles of 90 and 180 degrees, the anchorage capacity ratios increased about 14% ( Figure 5-1 and Table 5-2 ). The anchorage capacity ratio was exceeded by 43% for #5 MMFX specimens with bend angle of 90-degree, and with strut angles of 25 degree. For #5 MMFX specimens with bend angle of 180-degree, the anchorage capacity ra tio increased about 25%. For three #7 MMFX specimens, however, the anchorage capacity rati o was less than the limit of 1.25 but it was sufficient to yield the bar ( Figure 5-1 and Table 5-3 ). The remainders of the specimens were at anchorage capacity ratio of le ss than 1.0, a clear indication that the anchorage capacity was insufficient. Criteria for judging the anchorage capacity of high strength bars in concrete is not clearly defined. It is rational to judge the results of this tests not only based on anchorage capacity ratio but also on the bond capacity, ductility and K-factor. Bond Stress Another method that can be used to compare the relative performance of the different steel types is to examine the bond stress. Figure 5-2 shows the bond stress normalized by the 73

PAGE 74

square root of the measured concrete streng th. The bond stress was calculated by dividing the peak measured load by the nominal surface area of the straight, bonded portion of the hook. The straight portion of the in unconfined specimens is lesser than in confined specimens with stirrups, and unconfined specimens with debonded length. Also, it was found that the bond stress for #5 mild steel specimens was greater than #7 specimens (Figure 5-2 A). The bond stress for #5 mild steel unconfined spec imens with debonded length improve d as the concrete strength and the strut angle increased from 43.19 ksi to 53. 30 ksi respectively. Bond stresses were similar for #7 mild steel specimen s with stirrups and without stirrups with debonded length, and with 90 and 180-degree bend angle ( Figure 5-2 A and Table 5-4 ). The bond stress for 20 mm stainless steel sp ecimens was greater than for 16 mm specimens ( Figure 5-2 B and Table 5-5 ). For 16 mm stainless steel specimens with 90-degree hooked bar, the bond stress was similar about 22 ksi. Also, the bond stresses were similar for 20 mm specimens with bend angle of 90 and 180-degree, and with same development length ( Figure 5-2 B). The bond stress for #5 MMFX specimens was greater than for #7 specimens ( Figure 5-2 C and Table 5-6 ). For #5 specimens with 90-degree hooke d bar, the bond stress was similar about 24 ksi. The bond stresses were similar for #7 specimens with bend angle of 90 degree ( Figure 5-2 C and Table 5-6 ). Bond stress for mild steel, stainl ess steel, and MMFX are shown in Table 5-4 Table 5-5 and Table 5-6 Pu represents the maximum peak load, ls represents the straight length of the hooked bar and db represents the diameter of the bar. umax represents the maximum bond stress, and umax/f'c 1/2 represents the bond stress normalized by the square root of the measured concrete strength. 74

PAGE 75

Ductility Yet another option is to compare hook behavi or based on the displacement capacity of the specimen beyond the yield poin t. A ductility ratio was then cal culated as the ratio of the strain at peak measured stress (Su) to the strain at yield corresponding with the 0.2% offset method (Sy). Ductility ratios for bend angle, 90 to 180 de grees, varied from 12.25 at 5490 psi to 14.80 at 6100 psi for #5 mild steel specimens. Also, fo r #7 mild steel specimens, ductility ratios for bend angle, 90 to 180 degrees, varied from 7.72 at 5490 psi to 8.80 at 6330 psi. However, the ductility ratio varied from 5.65 at 6330 psi to 8.83 at 6330 psi for #7 specimens with 180-degree as the development length increased ( Figure 5-3 A and Table 5-7 ). Ductility ratios for bend angle, 90 to 180 de grees, varied from 32.34 at 6350 psi to 37.80 at 6100 psi for 16 mm stainless steel specimens. Al so, for 20 mm specimens, ductility ratios for bend angle, 90 to 180 degrees, varied from 8.10 at 6100 psi to 11.13 at 6100 psi ( Figure 5-3 B and Table 5-8 ). Ductility ratios for bend angle, 90 to 180 degrees varied from 6.20 at 6450 psi to 3.92 at 6450 psi for #5 MMFX specimens. Also, ductility ratios for #7 MMFX specimens was less than 1 because of most of them did not reach yiel d point. Only three #7 MMFX specimens reached yield point ( Figure 5-3 C and Table 5-9 ). K-Factor Another way to compare the hook behavior was by means of the K-factor. The development length for standard hooks pr oposed by the ACI 318-07 can be expressed as: f c y f b Kd dh l (5-1) 75

PAGE 76

76 where the K-factor represent the constant valu e of 0.02, the coating a nd lightweight concrete factors equal to 1.0, and an appli cable modification factor of 0.7. The side cover and cover on bar extension be yond hook were not less than 2-1/2 in. and 2 in. for all hooked specimens. The K-factor used to calculate the development length for all the specimens was 0.014. After testing, an experimental K-factor was co mputed as shown in Equation 5-2, and it was compared with the K-factor used in the Equation 5-1. c f s f b dl Ktesteddh (5-2) where ldh-tested represents the development length tested, db represents the diameter of the bar, fs represents the peak stress at failure, and f c represents the average concrete strength. Table 5-10 Table 5-11 and Table 5-12 show the experimental K-factor obtained for each specimen. For Grade 60, stainless steel, and #5 MMFX bars the average experimental K-factor were 0.009, 0.012, and 0.0104, respectively. Also, these average K-factors were less than the K-factor of 0.014 used in the Equation 5-1. Therefore, for all the specimens as Grade 60, Stainless Steel, and #5 MMFX, the development length calculated was enough either to yield the hooked bar or in most cases to exceed the anchorage cap acity of 1.25 times the yield strength. In contrast, for #7 MMFX bars, the average experimental K-factor was similar or in some cases greater than the K-factor of 0.014 ( Table 5-12 ) resulting in insufficient development length to yield the bar.

PAGE 77

Table 5-1. Anchorage capacity ratio for mild steel. Specimen notation Pu (kips) c uf P 5500 (kips) Yield load at 0.35% Pyt (kips) Anchorage Ratio test (Pu/Pyt) Exp. yield load Pye (kips) Anchorage Ratio experimental (Pu/Pye) 60_5_90_1 20.2 19.8 19.5 1.02 N.A NA 60_5_90_S 25.5 25.0 19.5 1.29 N.A NA 60_5_90_25_1 26.5 26.5 19.5 1.36 18.7 1.42 60_5_90_25_2 27.0 27.0 19.5 1.39 19.1 1.41 60_5_180_35_1 34.6 32.9 19.5 1.69 18.9 1.74 60_5_180_35_2 34.8 33.0 19.5 1.70 18.9 1.75 60_7_90_1 27.8 27.3 38.2 0.71 N.A NA 60_7_90_S 47.0 46.2 38.2 1.21 N.A NA 60_7_90_47_1 58.1 58.2 38.2 1.52 38.9 1.50 60_7_90_47_2 54.1 54.1 38.2 1.42 39.5 1.37 60_7_180_35_1 54.4 50.7 38.2 1.33 40.8 1.24 60_7_180_35_2 52.4 48.9 38.2 1.28 31.2 1.57 60_7_180_35_3 58.9 54.9 38.2 1.44 36.5 1.50 60_7_180_35_4 59.1 55.1 38.2 1.44 36.9 1.49 Table 5-2. Anchorage capacity ratio stainless steel. Specimen notation Pu (kips) c uf P 5500(kips) Yield load at 0.2% offset Pyt (kips) Anchorage Ratio test (Pu/Pyt) Exp. yield load Pye (kips) Anchorage Ratio experimental (Pu/Pye) SS_16_90_25_1 35.4 33.0 32.93 1.00 32.15 1.03 SS_16_90_25_2 33.3 31.0 28.22 1.10 27.44 1.13 SS_16_90_35_1 36.7 34.2 32.93 1.04 32.84 1.04 SS_16_90_35_2 33.6 31.3 28.22 1.11 28.98 1.08 SS_16_180_35_1 36.3 34.5 28.22 1.22 22.62 1.52 SS_16_180_35_4 37.4 35.5 28.22 1.26 21.09 1.68 SS_20_90_35_1 59.5 56.5 46.53 1.21 39.83 1.42 SS_20_90_35_2 59.1 56.1 46.53 1.21 39.75 1.41 SS_20_90_35_4 60.4 57.3 46.53 1.23 39.38 1.46 SS_20_180_35_1 62.4 59.2 46.53 1.27 40.94 1.45 SS_20_180_35_2 62.5 59.4 46.53 1.28 35.15 1.69 SS_20_180_35_3 52.5 49.8 46.53 1.07 41.74 1.19 SS_20_180_35_4 55.6 52.8 46.53 1.13 38.03 1.39 77

PAGE 78

Table 5-3. Anchorage capacity ratio for MMFX steel. Specimen notation Pu (kips) c uf P 5500 (kips) Yield load at 0.2% offset Pyt (kips) Anchorage Ratio test (Pu/Pyt) Exp. yield load Pye (kips) Anchorage Ratio experimental (Pu/Pye) MM_5_90_25_1 49.5 45.7 37.96 1.20 27.6 1.66 MM_5_90_25_2 48.6 44.8 37.96 1.18 28.2 1.59 MM_5_90_35_1 44.9 41.5 37.96 1.09 33.3 1.25 MM_5_90_35_2 49.4 45.6 37.96 1.20 34.6 1.32 MM_5_180_35_1 41.0 38.2 37.96 1.01 23.1 1.65 MM_5_180_35_2 51.0 47.5 37.96 1.25 32.7 1.45 MM_5_180_35_4 52.9 49.3 37.96 1.30 31.4 1.57 MM_7_90_35_4 77.2 71.9 76.85 0.94 67.5 1.07 MM_7_180_35_2 71.4 67.5 76.85 0.88 65.3 1.03 MM_7_180_35_4 70.4 66.5 76.85 0.87 59.6 1.11 Table 5-4. Bond stress normalized for mild steel. Specimen notation Pu (kips) c uf P 5500 (kips) ls (in) db (in) umax (ksi) umax/f'c 1/2 60_5_90_1 20.2 19.8 5.48 0.625 1.8 24.4 60_5_90_S 25.5 25.0 3.48 0.625 3.7 48.5 60_5_90_25_1 26.5 26.5 4.54 0.625 3.0 40.2 60_5_90_25_2 27.0 27.0 4.54 0.625 3.0 40.9 60_5_180_35_1 34.6 32.9 4.03 0.625 4.2 53.2 60_5_180_35_2 34.8 33.0 4.03 0.625 4.2 53.4 60_7_90_1 27.8 27.3 7.53 0.875 1.3 17.4 60_7_90_S 47.0 46.2 5.53 0.875 3.0 40.2 60_7_90_47_1 58.1 58.2 6.5 0.875 3.3 43.9 60_7_90_47_2 54.1 54.1 6.5 0.875 3.0 40.9 60_7_180_35_1 54.4 50.7 5.5 0.875 3.4 42.2 60_7_180_35_2 52.4 48.9 5.5 0.875 3.2 40.6 60_7_180_35_3 58.9 54.9 6.5 0.875 3.1 38.6 60_7_180_35_4 59.1 55.1 6.5 0.875 3.1 38.7 78

PAGE 79

Table 5-5. Bond stress normalized for stainless steel. Specimen notation Pu (kips) c uf P 5500 (kips) ls (in) db (in) umax (ksi) umax/f'c 1/2 SS_16_90_25_1 35.4 33.0 9.53 0.625 1.8 22.1 SS_16_90_25_2 33.3 31.0 9.53 0.625 1.7 20.8 SS_16_90_35_1 36.7 34.2 9.53 0.625 1.8 22.9 SS_16_90_35_2 34.2 31.3 9.53 0.625 1.7 21.0 SS_16_180_35_1 36.3 34.5 8.53 0.625 2.1 26.3 SS_16_180_35_2 37.3 35.4 8.53 0.625 2.1 27.1 SS_16_180_35_3 35.1 33.3 9.53 0.625 1.8 22.8 SS_16_180_35_4 37.4 35.5 9.53 0.625 1.9 24.3 SS_20_90_35_1 59.5 56.5 9.86 0.787 2.3 29.7 SS_20_90_35_2 59.1 56.1 9.86 0.787 2.3 29.5 SS_20_90_35_3 58.5 55.6 10.86 0.787 2.1 26.5 SS_20_90_35_4 60.4 57.3 10.86 0.787 2.1 27.3 SS_20_180_35_1 62.4 59.2 9.86 0.787 2.4 31.1 SS_20_180_35_2 62.5 59.4 9.86 0.787 2.4 31.2 SS_20_180_35_3 52.5 49.8 10.86 0.787 1.9 23.8 SS_20_180_35_4 55.6 52.8 10.86 0.787 2.0 25.2 Table 5-6. Bond stress normalized for MMFX steel. Specimen notation Pu (kips) c uf P 5500 (kips) ls (in) db (in) umax (ksi) umax/f'c 1/2 MM_5_90_25_1 49.5 45.7 11.54 0.625 2.0 25.1 MM_5_90_25_2 48.6 44.8 11.54 0.625 2.0 24.6 MM_5_90_35_1 44.9 41.5 11.54 0.625 1.8 22.8 MM_5_90_35_2 49.4 45.6 11.54 0.625 2.0 25.1 MM_5_180_35_1 41.0 38.2 9.50 0.625 2.1 25.8 MM_5_180_35_2 51.0 47.5 9.50 0.625 2.5 32.1 MM_5_180_35_3 47.4 44.3 11.54 0.625 2.0 24.6 MM_5_180_35_4 52.9 49.3 11.54 0.625 2.2 27.4 MM_7_90_25_1 69.9 63.8 15.50 0.875 1.5 18.4 MM_7_90_25_2 71.7 65.4 15.50 0.875 1.5 18.9 MM_7_90_35_1 58.3 53.2 15.50 0.875 1.2 15.4 MM_7_90_35_2 65.8 60.0 15.50 0.875 1.4 17.3 MM_7_90_35_3 58.9 54.9 15.50 0.875 1.3 16.2 MM_7_90_35_4 77.2 71.9 15.50 0.875 1.7 21.2 MM_7_180_35_1 59.3 56.0 11.54 0.875 1.8 22.5 MM_7_180_35_2 71.4 67.5 11.54 0.875 2.1 27.1 MM_7_180_35_3 67.6 63.9 15.50 0.875 1.5 19.1 MM_7_180_35_4 70.4 66.5 15.50 0.875 1.6 19.9 79

PAGE 80

Table 5-7. Ductility ratio for mild steel. Specimen notation Pu (kips) c uf P 5500 (kips) Strain at Pu (Su) (in/in) Strain at 0.35% yield (Sy) (in/in) Ductility Ratio (Su/Sy) 60_5_90_25_1 26.5 26.5 0.0580 0.0035 16.6 60_5_90_25_2 27.0 27.0 0.0579 0.0035 16.6 60_5_180_35_1 34.6 32.9 0.0699 0.0035 20.0 60_5_180_35_2 34.8 33.0 0.0701 0.0035 20.0 60_7_90_47_2 54.1 54.0 0.0347 0.0035 9.9 60_7_180_35_1 54.4 50.7 0.0261 0.0035 7.5 60_7_180_35_2 52.4 48.9 0.0248 0.0035 7.1 60_7_180_35_3 58.9 54.9 0.0361 0.0035 10.3 60_7_180_35_4 59.1 55.1 0.0433 0.0035 12.4 Table 5-8. Ductility ratio for stainless steel. Specimen notation Pu (kips) c uf P 5500 (kips) Strain at Pu (Su) (in/in) Strain at 0.2% offset yield (Sy) (in/in) Ductility Ratio (Su/Sy) SS_16_90_25_1 35.4 33.0 0.1856 0.0062 30.2 SS_16_90_25_2 33.3 31.0 0.1896 0.0056 34.2 SS_16_90_35_1 36.7 34.2 0.1682 0.0062 27.4 SS_16_90_35_2 33.6 31.3 0.2090 0.0056 37.7 SS_16_180_35_1 36.3 34.5 0.2256 0.0056 40.6 SS_16_180_35_4 37.4 35.5 0.1939 0.0056 34.9 SS_20_90_35_1 59.5 56.5 0.0466 0.0058 8.1 SS_20_90_35_2 59.1 56.1 0.0175 0.0058 3.0 SS_20_90_35_4 60.4 57.3 0.0266 0.0058 4.6 SS_20_180_35_1 62.4 59.2 0.0645 0.0058 11.2 SS_20_180_35_2 62.5 59.4 0.0635 0.0058 11.0 SS_20_180_35_3 52.5 49.8 0.0099 0.0058 1.7 SS_20_180_35_4 55.6 52.8 0.0116 0.0058 2.0 80

PAGE 81

Table 5-9. Ductility ratio for MMFX steel. Specimen notation Pu (kips) c uf P 5500 (kips) Strain at Pu (Su) (in/in) Strain at 0.2% offset yield (Sy) (in/in) Ductility Ratio (Su/Sy) MM_5_90_25_1 49.5 45.7 0.0440 0.0065 6.8 MM_5_90_25_2 48.6 44.8 0.0590 0.0065 9.1 MM_5_90_35_1 44.9 41.5 0.0165 0.0065 2.5 MM_5_90_35_2 49.4 45.6 0.0414 0.0065 6.4 MM_5_180_35_1 41.0 38.2 0.0147 0.0065 2.3 MM_5_180_35_2 51.0 47.5 0.0247 0.0065 3.8 MM_5_180_35_4 47.4 44.3 0.0130 0.0065 2.0 MM_7_90_25_1 52.9 49.3 0.0370 0.0065 5.7 MM_7_90_25_2 71.7 65.4 0.0052 0.0067 0.8 MM_7_90_35_1 58.3 53.2 0.0013 0.0067 0.2 MM_7_90_35_2 65.8 60.0 0.0038 0.0067 0.6 MM_7_90_35_3 58.9 54.9 0.0066 0.0067 1.0 MM_7_90_35_4 77.2 71.9 0.0089 0.0067 1.3 MM_7_180_35_1 59.3 56.0 0.0053 0.0067 0.8 MM_7_180_35_2 71.4 67.5 0.0077 0.0067 1.2 MM_7_180_35_3 67.6 63.9 0.0021 0.0067 0.3 MM_7_180_35_4 70.4 66.5 0.0103 0.0067 1.5 Table 5-10. K-factor for #5 and #7 mild steel bars. Specimen notation f'c (psi) fs (peak) (psi) ldh tested (in) db (in) ldh / db fs / f'c 0.5 K 60_5_90_S 5700 82226 6 0.625 9.60 1089.11 0.0088 60_5_90_25_1 5490 85514 7 0.625 11.20 1154.12 0.0097 60_5_90_25_2 5490 86986 7 0.625 11.20 1173.99 0.0095 60_5_180_35_1 6100 111600 7 0.625 11.20 1428.89 0.0078 60_5_180_35_2 6100 112201 7 0.625 11.20 1436.59 0.0078 60_7_90_S 5700 78350 9 0.875 10.29 1037.77 0.0099 60_7_90_47_1 5490 96865 10 0.875 11.43 1307.32 0.0087 60_7_90_47_2 5490 90110 10 0.875 11.43 1216.15 0.0094 60_7_180_35_1 6330 90706 9 0.875 10.29 1140.08 0.0090 60_7_180_35_2 6330 87406 9 0.875 10.29 1098.60 0.0094 60_7_180_35_3 6330 98150 10 0.875 11.43 1233.64 0.0093 60_7_180_35_4 6330 98450 10 0.875 11.43 1237.41 0.0092 81

PAGE 82

Table 5-11. K-factor for 16 mm and 20 mm stainless steel bars. Specimen notation f'c (psi) fs (peak) (psi) ldh tested (in) db (in) ldh / db fs / f'c 0.5 K SS_16_90_25_1 6350 113546 12 0.625 19.20 1424.90 0.0135 SS_16_90_25_2 6350 106613 12 0.625 19.20 1337.90 0.0144 SS_16_90_35_1 6350 117785 12 0.625 19.20 1478.10 0.0130 SS_16_90_35_2 6350 109561 12 0.625 19.20 1374.89 0.0140 SS_16_180_35_1 6100 116314 11 0.625 17.60 1489.25 0.0118 SS_16_180_35_2 6100 119583 11 0.625 17.60 1531.11 0.0115 SS_16_180_35_3 6100 112436 12 0.625 19.20 1439.59 0.0133 SS_16_180_35_4 6100 119836 12 0.625 19.20 1534.35 0.0125 SS_20_90_35_1 6150 128962 13 0.787 16.52 1651.19 0.0100 SS_20_90_35_2 6150 128001 13 0.787 16.52 1638.89 0.0101 SS_20_90_35_3 6150 126845 14 0.787 17.79 1624.08 0.0110 SS_20_90_35_4 6150 130792 14 0.787 17.79 1674.62 0.0106 SS_20_180_35_1 6150 135149 13 0.787 16.52 1730.40 0.0095 SS_20_180_35_2 6150 135456 13 0.787 16.52 1734.33 0.0095 SS_20_180_35_3 6150 113708 14 0.787 17.79 1455.88 0.0122 SS_20_180_35_4 6150 120405 14 0.787 17.79 1541.62 0.0115 Table 5-12. K-factor for #5 and #7 MMFX bars. Specimen notation f'c (psi) fs (peak) (psi) ldh tested (in) db (in) ldh / db fs / f'c 0.5 K MM_5_90_25_1 6450 172919 14 0.625 22.40 2153.09 0.0104 MM_5_90_25_2 6450 169641 14 0.625 22.40 2112.28 0.0106 MM_5_90_35_1 6450 156954 14 0.625 22.40 1954.31 0.0115 MM_5_90_35_2 6450 172534 14 0.625 22.40 2148.31 0.0104 MM_5_180_35_1 6320 141781 12 0.625 19.20 1783.45 0.0108 MM_5_180_35_2 6320 176188 12 0.625 19.20 2216.24 0.0087 MM_5_180_35_3 6320 164023 14 0.625 22.40 2063.23 0.0109 MM_5_180_35_4 6320 182788 14 0.625 22.40 2299.27 0.0097 MM_7_90_25_1 6600 127619 20 0.875 22.86 1570.89 0.0146 MM_7_90_25_2 6600 130814 20 0.875 22.86 1610.21 0.0142 MM_7_90_35_1 6600 106386 20 0.875 22.86 1309.52 0.0175 MM_7_90_35_2 6600 120097 20 0.875 22.86 1478.30 0.0155 MM_7_90_35_3 6330 105349 20 0.875 22.86 1324.13 0.0173 MM_7_90_35_4 6330 137982 20 0.875 22.86 1734.28 0.0132 MM_7_180_35_1 6170 104625 17 0.875 19.43 1331.97 0.0146 MM_7_180_35_2 6170 126112 17 0.875 19.43 1605.51 0.0121 MM_7_180_35_3 6170 119386 20 0.875 22.86 1519.89 0.0150 MM_7_180_35_4 6170 124289 20 0.875 22.86 1582.31 0.0144 82

PAGE 83

83 Anchorage Capacity Ratio 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 60_ 5_90 _25 60_ 5 _180_35 60_ 7_9 0_47 60 7_180 _3 5_1& 2 60_ 7_1 80_3 5_3 &4 Limit Value = 1.25 A Anchorage Capacity Ratio 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 SS _16 _90_25 S S_16_90_35 S S_1 6_1 80_3 5_1 SS_16_1 8 0_35_4 SS_ 20 _90_35 S S _20_9 0_ 35_4 SS _2 0_180_3 5 _1&2 S S_2 0_ 180_35 _3& 4 Limit Value = 1.25 B Anchorage Capacity Ratio 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 M M_ 5 9 0 2 5 MM_5_90_35 MM_5 1 8 0 35_ 1 &2 MM_5_180_35_4 MM_7 9 0 3 5_4 MM_ 7 _18 0 3 5_2&4 M M_ 7_90_25 _1 &2 MM_7 9 0 3 5_1 & 2 MM_7 180_35_ 1 &3 Limit Value = 1.25 < 1.0 Specimen did not yield C igure 5-1. Anchorage capacity ratios A) Mild steel, B) Stainless steel, and C) MMFX steel. F

PAGE 84

Bond Stress, umax/f'c 1/2 0 20 40 60 80 60_5_90_ 1 60_7_90_1 60_5_90_ S 60_7_ 9 0 S 60_5_90_ 25_1&2 60_7_90_47_1&2 60_5_180 _35_1&2 60_7_180_35_1&2 60_7_180_35_ 1&2 24.37 48.54 43.19 53.30 0 17.45 40.24 41.68 41.41 38.67 A Bond Stress, umax/f'c 1/2 0 10 20 30 40 50 SS_16_90_ 2 5 S S_20_ 90_3 5_1&2 S S_16_ 90_3 5 SS_20_90_3 5_ 3& 4 S S _16_90_35_1 SS_20_180_ 35 _1& 2 SS _1 6_180_3 5_ 4 S S_20_1 90_35 _3& 4 21.4*22*26.7*23.5*29.6 26.9 31.1 24.5 Bar yield no rupture stroke limit reached B Bond Stress, umax/f'c 1/2 0 10 20 30 40 50 MM_5_90_25 MM_7_90_25 M M_ 5 _9 0 _35 M M_ 7 _9 0 _35 MM _5 1 8 0_ 3 5_ 1 & 2 MM _7 1 8 0_ 3 5_ 1 & 2 MM_ 5 1 80 35 3&4 MM_ 7 1 80 35 3&4 24.9 23.9 28.9 26.0 18.7 17.5 24.8 19.5 C Figure 5-2. Comparison of normaliz ed bond stress at capacity A) Mild steel, B) Stainless steel, and C) MMFX steel. 84

PAGE 85

85 Ductility Ratio 0 5 10 15 20 25 60_ 5_9 0_ 25_1 60_5_ 9 0_25_ 2 60 _5 _180 _3 5_1 6 0 _5_18 0 _35_ 2 60_7_90_47 60 _7_ 180 _35 _1 60_7_180_35_2 60 _7_ 180 _3 5_3 60_7_180_35_4 A Ductility Ratio 0 15 30 45 S S _16 _90 _25 _1 S S _16 90_25 2 SS_ 16 _90_ 35 _1 SS _16 _90 _35 _2 SS_16_ 18 0_35 _1 SS_16_180_35_4 S S _20 90_35 1 S S _20 90_35 2 SS_ 20 _90_ 35 _4 S S 20_ 180 _35 _1 SS_20_ 18 0_35 _2 SS_20_180_35_3 S S 20_ 180 _35 _4 B Ductility Ratio 0 2 4 6 8 10 M M_ 5 9 0 2 5 1 M M_ 5 9 0 2 5 2 MM_5_90_35_1 M M_5_90_35_2 M M_ 5 1 8 0 3 5 1 MM_5_ 1 8 0 3 5 2 MM_5_180_35_4 M M _7_90_35 4 MM_7_180_35_2 MM 7 1 8 0 3 5 4 MM 7_90_25_1& 2 M M_ 7 9 0 3 5 1 &2 MM_7 1 8 0 3 5 1 &3 < 1.0 no yield C Figure 5-3. Comparison of ductility ratios A) Mild steel, B) Stai nless steel, and C) MMFX steel.

PAGE 86

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS Based on experimental observations, the following conclusions are made: 1. The test setup and the procedures usi ng the strut and tie approach appear to provide an adequate basis to evaluate the unconfined anchorage capacities of grade 60 hooked bars. The predominant failure mode generated using this test set up was splitting of the concrete in the plane of the hook. Mild steel gave re sults consistent and agreeable with ACI and AASHTO requirements for development lengths. 2. The anchorage capacity was improved in specimen configurati ons using the strut and tie approach in comparison with confined specimens using stirrups. 3. Anchorage capacities obtained in grade 60, stainless steel, and #5 MMFX bars were above the limit value of 1.25 times the yield strength of the bar. 4. The anchorage capacity ratio was greater for grade 60 specimens with 180-degree than specimens with 90-degree bend angle. Al so, the anchorage capacity increased as the development length increased for #7 mild steel specimens with 180-degree. 5. For all mild steel specimens was noted that the displacement at yield point increased by an average of 53% as the strut angle and the development length increased. 6. For 90 degree hooked bars, the average ductility ratio for 16 mm stainless steel was greater than #5 grade 60, and #5 MMFX about 164% and 420% respectively. Also, for 180 degree hooked bars, the average du ctility ratio for 16 mm stainl ess steel was greater than #5 grade 60, and #5 MMFX about 155% and 864% respectively. 7. Average bond stress for #5 grade 60 was greater than 16 mm stainless steel, and #5 MMFX specimens about 88% and 66% respectively. Also, for # 7 grade 60, the average bond stress was greater than 20 mm stainless steel and #7 MMFX specimens about 43% and 96% 86

PAGE 87

87 respectively. On the other hand, the bond stress for #5 grade 60, and #5 MMFX specimens were greater than #7 grade 60, a nd #7 MMFX specimens about 12% and 33% respectively. Based on the results obtained from this st udy, most of the #7 MMFX hooked bar did not develop the minimum anchorage capacity proposed in the existing provisions of both AASHTO and ACI 318. Further investigation need to be conducted to evaluate the proper development length for #7 MMFX hooked bars.

PAGE 88

APPENDIX A CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND TENSILE RESULTS Table A-1. Compressive concrete strength results age (days). Concrete Strength (psi) Age (days) Batches 7 14 21 28 1 4670 5850 6320 2 3490 4420 5050 5890 3 6350 6690 8060 4 5170 6320 6670 7160 5 4170 5330 6150 6880 Table A-2. Tensile test results. #5 Grade 60 Samples Yield Strength at 0.35% strain (ksi) Strain at 0.35% yield (in/in) Load at 0.35% strain (kip) Ultimate Strength (ksi) 1 62.777 0.0035 19.461 104.64 2 62.744 0.0035 19.451 104.81 Avg. 62.761 0.0035 19.456 104.73 COV (%) 0.037 0.00 0.04 0.115 #7 Grade 60 Samples Yield Strength at 0.35% strain (ksi) Strain at 0.35% yield (in/in) Load at 0.35% strain (kip) Ultimate Strength (ksi) 1 63.506 0.0035 38.103 105.90 2 63.955 0.0035 38.373 105.93 Avg. 63.73 0.0035 38.238 105.92 COV (%) 0.498 0.00 0.499 0.020 16 mm Stainless Steel Samples Yield Strength at 0.2% offset (ksi) Strain at 0.2% offset yield (in/in) Load at 0.2% offset (kip) Ultimate Strength (ksi) 1 106.213 0.0061 32.926 123.87 2 106.205 0.0062 32.924 123.75 Avg. 106.209 0.00615 32.925 123.81 COV (%) 6.09 1.23 6.09 0.182 20 mm Stainless Steel Samples Yield Strength at 0.2% offset (ksi) Strain at 0.2% offset yield (in/in) Load at 0.2% offset (kip) Ultimate Strength (ksi) 1 99.865 0.0058 48.534 120.31 2 91.615 0.0057 44.525 120 Avg. 95.74 0.00575 46.530 120.155 COV (%) 0.953 0.19 0.95 0.317 88

PAGE 89

Table A-2. Continued. #5 MMFX Samples Yield Strength at 0.2% offset (ksi) Strain at 0.2% offset yield (in/in) Load at 0.2% offset (kip) Ultimate Strength (ksi) 1 123.273 0.00648 38.215 157.79 2 121.622 0.00650 37.703 158.50 Avg. 122.448 0.00649 37.959 158.14 COV (%) 0.009 2.11 0.01 0.135 #7 MMFX Samples Yield Strength at 0.2% offset (ksi) Strain at 0.2% offset yield (in/in) Load at 0.2% offset (kip) Ultimate Strength (ksi) 1 128.089 0.0066 76.854 163.12 2 128.073 0.0068 76.844 162.81 Avg. 128.081 0.0067 76.849 162.97 COV (%) 0.009 2.11 0.01 0.135 89

PAGE 90

APPENDIX B CRACKS PATTERNS, LOAD-SLIP AND LOAD-DISPLACEMENT Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left60_5_90_1 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left60_5_90_S Bar Rupture Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots60_5_90_1 0 0.05 0.1 0.150.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots60_5_90_S 0 0.05 0.1 0.150.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-Displacement60_5_90_1 vs. 60_5_90_S 0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 60_5_90_1 60_5_90_S Figure B-1. Crack patterns, load-slip, and stre ss-strain curves for mild steel hooked bars. 90

PAGE 91

Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left60_5_90_25_1 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Top Front Rear Bottom 60_5_90_25_2 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Right Left Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots60_5_90_25_2 0 0.05 0.1 0.150.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-Displacement60_5_90_25_1 vs. 60_5_90_25_2 -0.01 0.04 0.09 0.140.19 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -0.010.040.090.140.19 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 60_5_90_25_1 60_5_90_25_2Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-Strain60_5_90_25_1 vs. 60_5_90_25_2 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 150 300 450 600 60_5_90_25_1 60_5_90_25_2 Figure B-1. Continued. 91

PAGE 92

60_5_180_35_1 Bar Rupture Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left 60_5_180_35_2 Bar Rupture Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left Sli p ( in. ) Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots60_5_180_35_1 0 0.05 0.1 0.150.2 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 0 20 40 60 80 100 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots60_5_180_35_2 0 0.05 0.1 0.150.2 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 0 20 40 60 80 100 00.050.10.150.2 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 0 20 40 60 80 100 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-Displacement60_5_180_35_1 vs. 60_5_180_35_2 0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.240.3 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 60_5_180_35_1 60_5_180_35_2Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-Strain60_5_180_35_1 vs. 60_5_180_35_2 0 0.02 0.04 0.060.08 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 150 300 450 600 750 60_5_180_35_1 60_5_180_35_2 Figure B-1. Continued. 92

PAGE 93

Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left60_7_90_1 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left60_7_90_S Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots60_7_90_1 0 0.04 0.08 0.120.16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots60_7_90_S 0 0.04 0.08 0.120.16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-Displacement60_7_90_1 vs. 60_7_90_S 0 0.025 0.05 0.0750.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 60_7_90_1 60_7_90_S Figure B-1. Continued. 93

PAGE 94

Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left60_7_90_47_1 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left 60_7_90_47_2 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load_Slip for Linear Pots60_7_90_47_2 0 0.08 0.16 0.240.32 00 10 17 20 33 30 50 40 67 50 83 60 100 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-Displacement60_7_90_47_1 vs. 60_7_90_47_2 0 0.15 0.3 0.450.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 60_7_90_47_1 60_7_90_47_2Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-Strain60_7_90_47_1 vs. 60_7_90_47_2 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 150 300 450 600 60_7_90_47_1 60_7_90_47_2 Figure B-1. Continued. 94

PAGE 95

Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left60_7_180_35_1 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Top Front Rear Bottom 60_7_180_35_2 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Right Left Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots60_7_180_35_1 0 0.08 0.16 0.240.32 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots60_7_180_35_2 0 0.08 0.16 0.240.32 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-Displacement60_7_180_35_1 vs. 60_7_180_35_2 0 0.05 0.1 0.150.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 00.050.10.150.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 60_7_180_35_1 60_7_180_35_2Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-Strain60_7_180_35_1 vs. 60_7_180_35_2 0 0.008 0.016 0.0240.032 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 150 300 450 600 00.0080.0160.0240.032 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 150 300 450 600 60_7_180_35_1 60_7_180_35_2 Figure B-1. Continued. 95

PAGE 96

Top Front Rear Bottom 60_7_180_35_3 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Right Left Top Front Rear Bottom 60_7_180_35_4 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Right Left Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots60_7_180_35_3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 Linear Pot 1 Linear Pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots60_7_180_35_4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 Linear Pot 1 Linear Pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-Displacement60_7_180_35_3 vs. 60_7_180_35_4 0 0.08 0.16 0.240.32 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 60_7_180_35_3 60_7_180_35_4Strain (in./in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-Strain60_7_180_35_3 vs. 60_7_180_35_4 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.040.05 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 60_7_180_35_3 60_7_180_35_4 Figure B-1. Continued. 96

PAGE 97

Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftSS_16_90_25_1 Bar yield no rupture stroke limit reached Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftSS_16_90_25_2 Bar yield no rupture stroke limit reached Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsSS_16_90_25_1 0 0.08 0.16 0.240.32 0 8 16 24 32 40 0 25 50 75 100 125 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsSS_16_90_25_2 0 0.08 0.16 0.240.32 0 8 16 24 32 40 0 25 50 75 100 125 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacment (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacmentSS_16_90_25_1 vs. SS_16_90_25_2 0 0.15 0.3 0.450.6 0 8 16 24 32 40 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 SS_16_90_25_1 SS_16_90_25_2Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-StrainSS_16_90_25_1 vs. SS_16_90_25_2 0 0.06 0.12 0.180.24 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 150 300 450 600 750 SS_16_90_25_1 SS_16_90_25_2 Figure B-2. Crack patterns, load -slip, and stressstrain curves for stai nless steel hooked bars. 97

PAGE 98

Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftSS_16_90_35_1 Bar yield no rupture stroke limit reached Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftSS_16_90_35_2 Bar yield no rupture stroke limit reached Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsSS_16_90_35_1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.5 0 8 16 24 32 40 0 25 50 75 100 125 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsSS_16_90_35_2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.5 0 8 16 24 32 40 0 25 50 75 100 125 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementSS_16_90_35_1 vs. SS_16_90_35_2 0 0.25 0.5 0.751 0 8 16 24 32 40 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 SS_16_90_35_1 SS_16_90_35_2Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress_StrainSS_16_90_35_1 vs. SS_16_90_35_2 0 0.06 0.12 0.180.24 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 150 300 450 600 750 SS_16_90_35_1 SS_16_90_35_2 Figure B-2. Continued. 98

PAGE 99

Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftSS_16_180_35_1 Bar yield no rupture stroke limit reached Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left SS_16_180_35_2 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsSS_16_180_35_1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.5 0 10 20 30 40 0 30 60 90 120 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsSS_16_180_35_2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.5 0 10 20 30 40 0 30 60 90 120 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementSS_16_180_35_1 vs. SS_16_180_35_2 0 0.25 0.5 0.751 0 8 16 24 32 40 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 SS_16_180_35_1 SS_16_180_35_2Strain (in/in.)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-StrainSS_16_180_35_1 vs. SS_16_180_35_2 0 0.06 0.12 0.180.24 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 SS_16_180_35_1 SS_16_180_35_2 Figure B-2. Continued. 99

PAGE 100

Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left SS_16_180_35_3 Bar Rupture Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left SS_16_180_35_4 Bar yield no rupture stroke limit reached Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsSS_16_180_35_3 0 0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0 10 20 30 40 0 30 60 90 120 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsSS_16_180_35_4 0 0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0 10 20 30 40 0 30 60 90 120 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementSS_16_180_35_3 vs. SS_16_180_35_4 0 0.2 0.4 0.60.8 0 10 20 30 40 0 40 80 120 160 SS_16_180_35_3 SS_16_180_35_4Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-StrainSS_16_180_35_3 vs. SS_16_180_35_4 0 0.06 0.12 0.180.24 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 SS_16_180_35_3 SS_16_180_35_4 Figure B-2. Continued. 100

PAGE 101

Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left SS_20_90_35_1 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting SS_20_90_35_2 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots SS_20_90_35_1 0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.240.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots SS_20_90_35_2 0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.240.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementSS_20_90_35_1 vs. SS_20_90_35_2 0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.240.3 0 15 30 45 60 75 0 60 120 180 240 300 SS_20_90_35_1 SS_20_90_35_2Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-StrainSS_20_90_35_1 vs. SS_20_90_35_2 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.040.05 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 SS_20_90_35_1 SS_20_90_35_2 Figure B-2. Continued. 101

PAGE 102

Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left SS_20_90_35_3 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left SS_20_90_35_4 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Sli p ( in. ) Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots SS_20_90_35_3 0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.240.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear Pots SS_20_90_35_4 0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.240.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementSS_20_90_35_3 vs. SS_20_90_35_4 -0.02 0.02 0.06 0.1 0.14 0 20 40 60 80 0 80 160 240 320 SS_20_90_35_3 SS_20_90_35_4Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-StrainSS_20_90_35_3 vs. SS_20_90_35_4 -0.005 0.005 0.015 0.025 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 SS_20_90_35_3 SS_20_90_35_4 Figure B-2. Continued. 102

PAGE 103

SS_20_180_35_1 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left SS_20_180_35_2 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsSS_20_180_35_1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20.25 0 20 40 60 80 0 40 80 120 160 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsSS_20_180_35_2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20.25 0 20 40 60 80 0 40 80 120 160 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementSS_20_180_35_1 vs. SS_20_180_35_2 0 0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0 20 40 60 80 0 80 160 240 320 SS_20_180_35_1 SS_20_180_35_2Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (KN)Stress-StrainSS_20_180_35_1 vs. SS_20_180_35_2 0 0.02 0.04 0.060.08 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 SS_20_180_35_1 SS_20_180_35_2 Figure B-2. Continued. 103

PAGE 104

Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left SS_20_180_35_3 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left SS_20_180_35_4 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsSS_20_180_35_3 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.160.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsSS_20_180_35_4 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.160.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementSS_20_180_35_3 vs. SS_20_180_35_4 0 0.02 0.04 0.060.08 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 50 100 150 200 250 SS_20_180_35_3 SS_20_180_35_4Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-StrainSS_20_180_35_3 vs. SS_20_180_35_4 0 0.003 0.006 0.0090.012 0 25 50 75 100 125 0 150 300 450 600 750 SS_20_180_35_3 SS_20_180_35_4 Figure B-2. Continued. 104

PAGE 105

Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftMM_5_90_25_1 Bar rupture Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left MM_5_90_25_2 Bar rupture Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_5_90_25_1 0 0.03 0.06 0.090.12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_5_90_25_2 0 0.03 0.06 0.090.12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementMM_5_90_25_1 vs. MM_5_90_25_2 0 0.04 0.08 0.120.16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 MM_5_90_25_1 MM_5_90_25_2Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-StrainMM_5_90_25_1 vs. MM_5_90_25_2 0 0.02 0.04 0.060.08 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 MM_5_90_25_1 MM_5_90_25_2 Figure B-2. Continued. 105

PAGE 106

Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftMM_5_90_35_1 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftMM_5_90_35_2 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_5_90_35_1 0 0.08 0.16 0.240.32 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_5_90_35_2 0 0.08 0.16 0.240.32 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementMM_5_90_35_1 vs. MM_5_90_35_2 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.160.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 MM_5_90_35_1 MM_5_90_35_2Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-StrainMM_5_90_35_1 vs. MM_5_90_35_2 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.040.05 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 MM_5_90_35_1 MM_5_90_35_2 Figure B-3. Crack patterns, load-slip, and stress-strain curves for MMFX hooked bars. 106

PAGE 107

Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftMM_5_180_35_1 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left MM_5_180_35_2 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_5_180_35_1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.080.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_5_180_35_2 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.080.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementMM_5_180_35_1 vs. MM_5_180_35_2 0 0.025 0.05 0.0750.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 MM_5_180_35_1 MM_5_180_35_2Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-StrainMM_5_180_35_1 vs. MM_5_180_35_2 0 0.007 0.014 0.0210.028 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 MM_5_180_35_1 MM_5_180_35_2 Figure B-3. Continued. 107

PAGE 108

Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left MM_5_180_35_3 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left MM_5_180_35_4 Bar rupture Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_5_180_35_3 0 0.06 0.12 0.180.24 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_5_180_35_4 0 0.06 0.12 0.180.24 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementMM_5_180_35_3 vs. MM_5_180_35_4 0 0.04 0.08 0.120.16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 MM_5_180_35_3 MM_5_180_35_4Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-StrainMM_5_180_35_3 vs. MM_5_180_35_4 0 0.01 0.02 0.030.04 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 MM_5_180_35_3 MM_5_180_35_4 Figure B-3. Continued. 108

PAGE 109

Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftMM_7_90_25_1 Concrete splitting Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_7_90_25_1 0 0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0 20 40 60 80 0 60 120 180 240 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_7_90_25_2 0 0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0 20 40 60 80 0 60 120 180 240 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementMM_7_90_25_1 vs. MM_7_90_25_2 0 0.008 0.016 0.0240.032 0 20 40 60 80 0 80 160 240 320 MM_7_90_25_1 MM_7_90_25_2Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress_StrainMM_7_90_25_1 vs. MM_7_90_25_2 0 0.0015 0.003 0.00450.006 0 25 50 75 100 125 0 150 300 450 600 750 MM_7_90_25_1 MM_7_90_25_2 Figure B-3. Continued. 109

PAGE 110

Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftMM_7_90_35_1 Bar cast out of position Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left MM_7_90_35_2 Bar cast out of position Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_7_90_35_1 0 0.08 0.16 0.240.32 0 20 40 60 80 0 30 60 90 120 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip ComparisonMM_7_90_35_2 0 0.08 0.16 0.240.32 0 20 40 60 80 0 30 60 90 120 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementMM_7_90_35_1 vs. MM_7_90_35_2 0 0.008 0.016 0.0240.032 0 20 40 60 80 0 80 160 240 320 MM_7_90_35_1 MM_7_90_35_2Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-StrainMM_7_90_35_1 vs. MM_7_90_35_2 0 0.001 0.002 0.0030.004 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 150 300 450 600 750 MM_7_90_35_1 MM_7_90_35_2 Figure B-3. Continued. 110

PAGE 111

Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftMM_7_90_35_3 Concrete splitting Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftMM_7_90_35_4 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Displacement (in)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load_DisplecementMM_7_90_35_3 vs. MM_7_90_35_4 0 0.02 0.04 0.060.08 0 20 40 60 80 0 80 160 240 320 MM_7_90_35_3 MM_7_90_35_4Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-StrainMM_7_90_35_3 vs. MM_7_90_35_4 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.0080.01 0 40 80 120 160 0 300 600 900 MM_7_90_35_3 MM_7_90_35_4 Figure B-3. Continued. 111

PAGE 112

Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftMM_7_180_35_1 Concrete Splitting Top Front Rear Bottom Right LeftMM_7_180_35_2 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_7_180_35_1 0 0.05 0.1 0.150.2 0 20 40 60 80 0 30 60 90 120 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_7_180_35_2 0 0.05 0.1 0.150.2 0 20 40 60 80 0 30 60 90 120 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementMM_7_180_35_1 vs. MM_7_180_35_2 0 0.015 0.03 0.0450.06 0 20 40 60 80 0 80 160 240 320 MM_7_180_35_1 MM_7_180_35_2Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-Strain MM_7_180_35_1 vs. MM_7_180_35_2 0 0.002 0.004 0.0060.008 00 32 224 64 448 96 672 128 896 MM_7_180_35_1 MM_7_180_35_2 Figure B-3. Continued. 112

PAGE 113

113 Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left MM_7_180_35_3 Concrete Splitting Top Front Rear Bottom Right Left MM_7_180_35_4 Bar yield followed by concrete splitting Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_7_180_35_3 0 0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0 20 40 60 80 0 30 60 90 120 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2 Slip (in.)Load (kip) Stress (ksi)Load-Slip for Linear PotsMM_7_180_35_4 0 0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0 20 40 60 80 0 30 60 90 120 Linear pot 1 Linear pot 2Displacement (in.)Load (kip) Load (KN)Load-DisplacementMM_7_180_35_3 vs. MM_7_180_35_4 0 0.02 0.04 0.060.08 0 20 40 60 80 0 80 160 240 320 MM_7_180_35_3 MM_7_180_35_4Strain (in/in)Stress (ksi) Stress (MPa)Stress-StrainMM_7_180_35_3 vs. MM_7_180_35_4 0 0.003 0.006 0.0090.012 0 25 50 75 100 125 0 150 300 450 600 750 MM_7_180_35_3 MM_7_180_35_4 Figure B-3. Continued.

PAGE 114

LIST OF REFERENCES AASHTO (2001). Standard Specifications for Hi ghway Bridges. American Association of States Highway and Tran sportation Officials. ACI 408.1R-79 (1979). Suggested Development, Splice, and St andard Hook Provisions for Deformed Bars in Tension. Am erican Concrete Institute. ACI Committee 318 (1977). Build ing Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 31877). American Concrete Institute. ACI Committee 318 (1995). Build ing Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 31895). American Concrete Institute. ACI Committee 318 (2002). Build ing Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 31802). American Concrete Institute. ASTM A 370 (2007). Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM A1035/A1035M (2007). Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain, Low-carbon, Chromium, Steel Bars for Concrete Reinfor cement. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C 39 (1999). Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C 143 (2000). Standard Test Method fo r Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete. American Society for Testing and Materials. Ahlborn, Tess and DenHarting Tim (2002). A Comparative Bond Study of MMFX Reinforcing Steel in Concrete. Michigan Technological Un iversity. Center for Structural Durability. Final Report CSD-2002-03. Hamad, B.S., Jirsa, J.O. and DAbreu de Paulo, N.I (1993). Anchorage Strength of EpoxyCoated Hooked Bars. ACI Struct ural Journal, 90(2), 210-217. Jirsa, J.O., Lutz, L.A. and Gergely, P (1979). R ationale for Suggested Development, Splice, and Standard Hook Provisions for Deformed Bars in Tension. Concrete International, 79(7), 47-61. Marques, J.L.G., and Jirsa, J.O (1975). A Study of Hooked Bar Anchorages in Beam-Column Joints. ACI Journal, 72(5), 198-209. Minor, J., and Jirsa, J.O (1975). Behavior of Be nt Bar Anchorages. ACI Journal, 72(4), 141149. 114

PAGE 115

115 Pinc, R.L., Watkins, M.D. and Jirsa, J.O (1977) Strength of Hooked Bar Anchorages in BeamColumn Joints. CESRL Report No. 77-3, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas.

PAGE 116

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Gianni T. Ciancone was born in Caracas, Venezuela, to Maria Teresa and Raffaele Ciancone. He received his Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering in Summer of 1993 from the University of Santa Maria, Venezuela. Gianni worked in a Power Company for 14 years in several positions not only in the Design and Constr uction field but also in the Business field. Gianni continued his education by entering graduate school to pursue a Master of Engineering in the Structural Group of the Civ il and Coastal Engineering Department at the University of Florida in Fall 2005. During his stay at the University of Florida, Gianni worked as graduated research assistant for Dr. H.R. Hamilt on III. Gianni plans to pursue a career in the field of structural engineering. 116


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110331_AAAAEK INGEST_TIME 2011-04-01T00:57:54Z PACKAGE UFE0021814_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 8008 DFID F20110331_AADBPS ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH ciancone_g_Page_010thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
b531d52d78577c4bfa97913e61e4dc82
SHA-1
e655337e846e79f83b6e2452feca1a74b1e7cfd3
2168 F20110331_AADBQG ciancone_g_Page_024thm.jpg
a337bb60b250c90f5299dd58af611ebe
e4c8a2841e456a378fc60a0b379f12cf0cfaa59b
3760 F20110331_AADBPT ciancone_g_Page_011thm.jpg
87e3360526fc3acc2932d6b92dff4ed0
9c9793723bfa144aea7c8223143d823de5e71229
3659 F20110331_AADBQH ciancone_g_Page_025thm.jpg
5a50482e920b0db74dac6618c400a1dc
8be1bb362afb639e034a9dd43ec8a7311265df50
7204 F20110331_AADBPU ciancone_g_Page_012thm.jpg
74d016a3abbcc916e1371c22e7689efd
1353002c0b772a44ca0441418727b52af8266b1c
3341 F20110331_AADBQI ciancone_g_Page_026thm.jpg
53de2755ebb971384a4df2ed4277d650
042d057a9f0de42cef9ae06b46fcc6e05db27894
4012 F20110331_AADBPV ciancone_g_Page_013thm.jpg
9dad5dce4203e734db27c513d4f26b75
454419eedb1a30e4e8e4d191e73920451ab404c6
4757 F20110331_AADBQJ ciancone_g_Page_027thm.jpg
8dfb39503583ebe1c2534cfc355f635d
05af3879285aec17921cf0c51432da473a30e147
7041 F20110331_AADBPW ciancone_g_Page_014thm.jpg
e39c5f89bcc5c7814a8aaf5852213659
3c2d5bab59b825d0ac0a7b9de8dcfe83d2a9fdda
3497 F20110331_AADBQK ciancone_g_Page_028thm.jpg
5f5dd6353759f5b0928e06bdbe81e040
5581b3ed359118d8eaf475f686276968b7f505b5
8696 F20110331_AADBQL ciancone_g_Page_030thm.jpg
ff8f4438a0f89056852b58f0b37e3c57
e96afaa505ecc5adb20f13f5e818679e6c416314
8425 F20110331_AADBPX ciancone_g_Page_015thm.jpg
feaa42edf563e4b912b9d906cb85c8c8
eb8af62a62b226d79d65c30c697f13de0ac69988
6127 F20110331_AADBRA ciancone_g_Page_046thm.jpg
9053b25bda7c1261163774606e8bb7dc
400c0769bb0854dc1b7e68237540d104ad6a57ac
8165 F20110331_AADBQM ciancone_g_Page_031thm.jpg
d66c4713eda07812532fb1353715ee8b
8acc2855333d3c1517fa1ca014a48e86363fd98f
6075 F20110331_AADBPY ciancone_g_Page_016thm.jpg
4c0813d640f41422950ca052e6b0eafb
3681ab8b71d30effdc311aab9c9b753a656ca879
7267 F20110331_AADBRB ciancone_g_Page_047thm.jpg
4d26a7a2037581f4ee78fa0f4bbb20d4
482df3ff57f2348cddbd49dffaf217d2dcd8604a
8768 F20110331_AADBQN ciancone_g_Page_032thm.jpg
5b0d8d57dca68fcca39074fe14d850a2
aa0d6171b1398af10b8ebc390861bb4d8b5a3eb3
8535 F20110331_AADBPZ ciancone_g_Page_017thm.jpg
69268ffbd6c2c0591677db10b778d1df
d06f64801f97f411aa65cf8254a37ce8c7df053a
8656 F20110331_AADBRC ciancone_g_Page_048thm.jpg
59623b4913f583b612376b04a76e77fc
c2fe562ac23fc1166c7887701b367dc4bb025581
8089 F20110331_AADBQO ciancone_g_Page_033thm.jpg
b17f84d76c23655bc001b10bdc5fcc41
5531a7350e2dc11b7c707982974e4faa5aea1138
8432 F20110331_AADBRD ciancone_g_Page_049thm.jpg
ca28fcca471fedfb1215e3b0ec246d28
de8896131791ab8feec95cd6c8d3d4c7f1aba208
8048 F20110331_AADBQP ciancone_g_Page_034thm.jpg
e1cbedd7d2ddfcdaa5888d419f66e360
5e09badf2e17033fa45661fdd4f8f5b621060c2b
8380 F20110331_AADBRE ciancone_g_Page_050thm.jpg
50fa99a041c586e802ce6bc0a194af5f
0ed3b92619f653a0c86b3f9fb7a9e15c257e4060
8538 F20110331_AADBQQ ciancone_g_Page_035thm.jpg
040d558dcae55ba53e9587a6dff36b15
c2a37cb0b74e9e31c3fe4602aae2bef053b31ffb
8660 F20110331_AADBRF ciancone_g_Page_051thm.jpg
4535a5fb99ccf52fa1d0188331ca2d67
63c385f5513bc388619bf4abcd1849cbeb1bee51
1845 F20110331_AADBQR ciancone_g_Page_037thm.jpg
01b8e09ff7623402664618bf5055fe2f
a63bb9f66973dd30e7358d228484ae870f8bd458
8868 F20110331_AADBRG ciancone_g_Page_052thm.jpg
7f2bbea20d0d50b46586b9515969e0d4
1432a17533bbcf6705e9a08762a48b07d6fa5976
7935 F20110331_AADBQS ciancone_g_Page_038thm.jpg
84b58fd9a0a66e34dc7626acb9b86c6a
d55239759461214e8f289a3629ab371c52e4af26
8274 F20110331_AADBRH ciancone_g_Page_053thm.jpg
e546602ccbaac7c6b4ccc4340cd61595
ffdb0f7ac62860ce574986fd48e9139e96ea3230
2615 F20110331_AADBQT ciancone_g_Page_039thm.jpg
24fa7f8b40583f64451b8615960f5468
57a3f87694f25840d10e8b5af0320a6137ec43bd
8044 F20110331_AADBRI ciancone_g_Page_054thm.jpg
63bcca3ec36668d13e7e3321d8a1f0da
6ecca0824f995feacb4df0e8a9bb4eedb06e438b
6497 F20110331_AADBQU ciancone_g_Page_040thm.jpg
887f28073ba958c51b5dfaaac09eb18d
1932602ef21a556b39a521fadde6a9c031504022
25271604 F20110331_AADAOH ciancone_g_Page_052.tif
b64e3e615cfcd8e5fb17c0389a730d1c
defd890fe8946458df1498afb13cae997900c203
8365 F20110331_AADBRJ ciancone_g_Page_055thm.jpg
f6d72d9b4a26ea893f5a8aeab5bb8715
06da88e3db65c198c1e3756dfec86236915a66ff
5291 F20110331_AADBQV ciancone_g_Page_041thm.jpg
6db591a99d05d651d32a0ef32322bbda
f21ac0d4880a06743d45baac585670d19ffb42f2
6701 F20110331_AADAOI ciancone_g_Page_064thm.jpg
77c5c6f1de3e54a046006b69e7c80897
95904d736f379c59fb5cbd29b20574bb97a2611d
8516 F20110331_AADBRK ciancone_g_Page_056thm.jpg
d8b6931156384e69166a230c82422265
6a9de8af662123ad9f228940dcee834d630b38fd
5766 F20110331_AADBQW ciancone_g_Page_042thm.jpg
308c3a8e01da3c01dfc701af6502db76
3e2f2c11f97a529a21b51e4f14f6fc49584deaef
2010 F20110331_AADAOJ ciancone_g_Page_049.txt
699e9459eab62ffe63cf403e79f5297a
4955b56384e206778adb4313d72585a0efe411a3
8665 F20110331_AADBRL ciancone_g_Page_057thm.jpg
06f3841a36e8700285b6126434405b12
1aec6f4074864ebd0bee098d0e7d03a2c36fe93a
6967 F20110331_AADBQX ciancone_g_Page_043thm.jpg
175d7a82e8a2cfd8ee31805c45dadd59
363ae273ab38487183c262eab2d3f7b2c0c7f6e2
8447 F20110331_AADBSA ciancone_g_Page_074thm.jpg
f9854da97be23d8352a93ffb1d40b304
1dbb4722a3661d3c37e23b695ade9fbcc7c3c332
1000391 F20110331_AADAOK ciancone_g_Page_011.jp2
37fb13c9508c29c178f341c1a3924f7c
c5cd2352971e2a699c7715209043a33e0fe77afd
1585 F20110331_AADBRM ciancone_g_Page_058thm.jpg
0c44017e02e82f2994dc8fa7620b6f31
ad7f17349285d65f308912c100bd08ecad33089a
7219 F20110331_AADBSB ciancone_g_Page_075thm.jpg
1b78df4a4c06582964b941e3c5489fff
3cef76e1d47e5a0cce514e954851ef2a3b853bea
1061 F20110331_AADAOL ciancone_g_Page_006.txt
ade2deda9ceda0f697e51758ba9cdfb5
e72a2e16f4af750e29c36a5e4319b9ca258a6ff9
7106 F20110331_AADBRN ciancone_g_Page_059thm.jpg
5533cc7862e1c2eabe3db18724a2a951
916af5b95b7a51539ee6e4baeb6ca871d7807ddd
4809 F20110331_AADBQY ciancone_g_Page_044thm.jpg
fa33bd2b16414915d7d6f4ee6adfc1ac
61e205c2fd801138f6cad261979db6188b450114
994 F20110331_AADAPA ciancone_g_Page_041.txt
89a2837b71d9f0cd4f4d3e54ce7231e5
d6562ac33d0022289c14dfabc4e9a2c259560776
7282 F20110331_AADBSC ciancone_g_Page_076thm.jpg
6807a8bf52b842223b01f075a541b245
adcfbab2cb90bacfc6b19b93d4678e75599e8cb2
101735 F20110331_AADAOM ciancone_g_Page_077.jpg
b541a89a01185e3901b70caeacba6e7e
21cc5eaa66e4aa8afa2367b8de9c5b85341b7043
3477 F20110331_AADBRO ciancone_g_Page_060thm.jpg
449f53ae49424246931171dbc81efd18
4ee3a29a6f123fb2f344d223fd76d4adf797e6cc
5541 F20110331_AADBQZ ciancone_g_Page_045thm.jpg
f4b11ccea85bbcbcc1790843295ceb98
9bfe26c782ca5c29ab9d3e125431825a276f7eb4
7862 F20110331_AADBSD ciancone_g_Page_077thm.jpg
bce4356f78b41618e6c2c4a2d94d21fe
14a9757bfb2a9e999a490f745801e1788c8948df
132005 F20110331_AADAON ciancone_g_Page_115.jp2
6cbc92444729c26de9bdd2bf816450b7
e7cd32089df4d06292e55ce17bcda0a8251570b7
3718 F20110331_AADBRP ciancone_g_Page_061thm.jpg
72b587953c84d275228b2062b0797c39
46f1960aca4ad2c2933bf04786d512723187ba51
34029 F20110331_AADAPB ciancone_g_Page_073.QC.jpg
2194a5f4a226dc6dc8cd736c6a98066e
b248e58e3ea38a835d29b7f7a2908eedc60146f7
6804 F20110331_AADBSE ciancone_g_Page_078thm.jpg
d3398f5ff51843fb891fc79a0fe28a9c
14d587a917e46edff5e3b742191f17696be6acac
1924 F20110331_AADAOO ciancone_g_Page_056.txt
14d3d7c6f758f9f846048825ee7bccac
9885883762c9e394991ef9961e2508e7d066f479
3958 F20110331_AADBRQ ciancone_g_Page_062thm.jpg
aded8d32b0fee23c35f784f4a93143a6
6de34cec53adddb951a00f2cba2f50f3d9c2f3ca
F20110331_AADAPC ciancone_g_Page_011.tif
d9661811e9ce74ea079f6dee0db57397
315a10af62d78e80f16b08610f029448c0d7a020
7788 F20110331_AADBSF ciancone_g_Page_079thm.jpg
3a4a2ddf89b4bafebbc3eae3324b52bd
887d1e4351b83a9ed51deaef81b90f8ef615837d
42625 F20110331_AADAOP ciancone_g_Page_014.pro
9faf13ced981ecb0772379c0717b63a5
7f62d141f757810df74f396d91132d08d835a4d2
4842 F20110331_AADBRR ciancone_g_Page_063thm.jpg
60a71e0dde317fbf071eceeed62ef767
23c3ae98591d922fc5e1e89af134ca999b168926
488705 F20110331_AADAPD ciancone_g_Page_013.jp2
bf0060b1854aeb652d4e823f8dae3e86
825a6f41de91b92306070be269d049a0a68f0bc1
6046 F20110331_AADBSG ciancone_g_Page_080thm.jpg
d99d8a3f2e7e3aa3fed82e8fd0ca32d9
da4ff591f3e4bf82d05df40a38b75840c01e2fe6
518 F20110331_AADAOQ ciancone_g_Page_037.txt
b270d101a604eed2f94deae4eb4d583b
a3d67038b565cc4af5e5956e8ff973d277d988f2
7339 F20110331_AADBRS ciancone_g_Page_065thm.jpg
1ac89aa796d9cfc914177e017db552d6
ded44aaff0697a33a674d7f6c306a4c7c9fdc576
67912 F20110331_AADAPE ciancone_g_Page_070.jpg
7a992bb748fc8e94fee9a9c051abed83
2db5a1dd57dd7a6265d43c0ace2b25ae9254b2b6
7309 F20110331_AADBSH ciancone_g_Page_081thm.jpg
ef39d792628f6eaf39490d069a0a9705
15786ecb9c8e466c9839f040e604c40a8f783eec
14733 F20110331_AADAOR ciancone_g_Page_069.QC.jpg
d5d68b49b0ad2d33e0696cfe098dd363
bddb2d9a068fc74c1df8cc90d8112981b1d312ba
6758 F20110331_AADBRT ciancone_g_Page_066thm.jpg
029e406d8805f2e90de0a7138cda995a
ce0257583378c71a7306880848ea93664e261e45
5621 F20110331_AADAPF ciancone_g_Page_111thm.jpg
15d350da6ebbec5e06342df323a8b2ee
a62ab5889329f56e93d7f1f643295becf0a43afa
9020 F20110331_AADBSI ciancone_g_Page_082thm.jpg
47770d12b2eff2542e0492484f761fdb
f6648b54eed64166633ce16cc3d87701ebd3557e
804199 F20110331_AADAOS ciancone_g_Page_110.jp2
a6e8851cfa449544daba203c5000533b
389a9a13de69c492bde274521c46324a93e035f5
3868 F20110331_AADBRU ciancone_g_Page_067thm.jpg
26fdf4d61f25b35fc46cf1241474b52f
e1da273de6d768e98e17e4fdd924a8c5259eba78
F20110331_AADAPG ciancone_g_Page_019.tif
da4180cce9ad3d06be6c87dbd3c19e84
b90bde3d2bd714e8f4e3a8d18ae69c337f89e7e6
5429 F20110331_AADBSJ ciancone_g_Page_083thm.jpg
4646bd7d92114b6918b24f1aae46d145
2cd0eab13994d58bb269b1dc472d219b6df4cf56
1051963 F20110331_AADAOT ciancone_g_Page_055.jp2
dca367fd978c1c558a860454ec99db7d
d13245315f36772e1a5a0665b2e37bf5187a6011
7349 F20110331_AADBRV ciancone_g_Page_068thm.jpg
13008a75fdae4414eb1c27fd40a11215
f07b3eabe097f3a6759d349eba8eacba6251229d
537109 F20110331_AADAPH ciancone_g_Page_040.jp2
aee5d83c0d3019d4da351553aa30affa
f3219b5c5f95ad87a34fc8872a449f6036d96d04
5570 F20110331_AADBSK ciancone_g_Page_084thm.jpg
396f6ee9477f2e9105ed91ab871b9524
ca82e3275de33dfff6c3446a2b5a5c57a572dc90
106210 F20110331_AADAOU ciancone_g_Page_051.jpg
66de2747008264c0b00dae40d9cfd29c
a85dfd8bfb6c6d24626fde18caf853e5229beb62
4374 F20110331_AADBRW ciancone_g_Page_069thm.jpg
5416a8ec38dbadd4a64761d49f553db5
c9753946b2ee1f65cbfb11d7de25ac2054481f09
F20110331_AADAPI ciancone_g_Page_067.tif
a6d2139cf2906e3b4c4e94ea8c247442
94187a21ec914b49a517cd866f1e6b81d04648ad
4171 F20110331_AADBSL ciancone_g_Page_085thm.jpg
af4b9796f8abfd44cc21d3c4512c5549
4e014a3597a0f0081083adf932107464be6fd1b9
2984 F20110331_AADAOV ciancone_g_Page_038.txt
d1f12997db5b1ed910a23aa51869a6e6
17277db9ea09feaff645600964d4fa5bef548f90
2564 F20110331_AADBRX ciancone_g_Page_071thm.jpg
f4c101387a49b4bb092236fb7d17a59d
dc46bd23dc94f5e654c7ddeda9a1d6ac77a822bc
8465 F20110331_AADAPJ ciancone_g_Page_029thm.jpg
fee0bd51d4842b582fa699ef54703fea
757afc405f314808f4220e14f20d8f86fbf704f3
7600 F20110331_AADBTA ciancone_g_Page_101thm.jpg
1468e785d054232bc489e65325c1af55
60876790f9f6a47721d47021536429cf61dd6758
577473 F20110331_AADAOW ciancone_g_Page_044.jp2
ffc5c9c21ace004f4c774c7070585c65
4140f9be8433c353ef39f2927ef375f384760fc1
7834 F20110331_AADBRY ciancone_g_Page_072thm.jpg
48addab44dba544aac9c073c855af74e
b4700b0412c0c76fc0083dada82a9985f5b96a96
8164 F20110331_AADAPK ciancone_g_Page_095thm.jpg
8422b58356470a6c9360ab9b645eab26
b5d0b264a43b8f40bb46c9d90f28a6309874f379
8332 F20110331_AADBSM ciancone_g_Page_086thm.jpg
4253f053c9d2c4393391e1716ac10167
d2f32f6381317149c6ac574ab05d57652ae84ad9
F20110331_AADBTB ciancone_g_Page_102thm.jpg
ab94ced00c8086862ad9e26eb74a1962
f8ba325cf292ba4a3211da92bd9e0e8d9a8142ed
2804 F20110331_AADBSN ciancone_g_Page_087thm.jpg
d0ea7aac58cf95369def05407871e34f
09f6566f6528a10822268199dad5d8dfc27171c3
6164 F20110331_AADAPL ciancone_g_Page_070thm.jpg
9a3730de5ccd75fdf904d4454399a7fe
e9699b1fd5bae6fb25f7ade058cb824767779245
7642 F20110331_AADBTC ciancone_g_Page_103thm.jpg
8c14276ff79bdb0b6cef25b32df2af0b
dddee7d6d5fa45750a16e42a9e072e6f6753a989
7337 F20110331_AADBSO ciancone_g_Page_088thm.jpg
e540f73508438ed5a8014313f42d5710
a97427c0ba9481294a8ee2c8d05d3986b7447b81
26882 F20110331_AADAOX ciancone_g_Page_101.QC.jpg
749bef8bba29ed800087e25f3cf0173b
4940b0a68ca0203a9993278aad0062592b32f409
8373 F20110331_AADBRZ ciancone_g_Page_073thm.jpg
d69716ed6b68fada2c3827693886ac6c
0a085e6ec111469f557e09ab3c28de8435ac0f0f
16371 F20110331_AADAPM ciancone_g_Page_027.QC.jpg
80bcd382cd4433e51c60565dd2800269
f5d2b689a517cfcc89cbea1adf59a28cccba0fc1
7818 F20110331_AADBTD ciancone_g_Page_104thm.jpg
b26d28c546e4d2fa1d893af21a35ca22
1515ee653de6dfb97711eba6ef5f6d07b1271445
3055 F20110331_AADBSP ciancone_g_Page_089thm.jpg
611489cc5d2959a0f224c8ccb8b10225
59cba73d32340fed9f3ea57b7a7d902733539358
1142 F20110331_AADAOY ciancone_g_Page_089.txt
1391eda3f6d12fd69bf212a1eda08c19
b67f8eb420f3283b845d789a6c0aa03fdf2478ae
499 F20110331_AADAPN ciancone_g_Page_027.txt
519869a19793a8f9d69af8507ac74049
ab7b74033488cc7562acdd002b8b3847eee0b190
7507 F20110331_AADBTE ciancone_g_Page_105thm.jpg
77194ffd90e7cc4372a0c394729f027d
02cf2f08f1f5d189523ca8b2a97881f7683b5c7e
7032 F20110331_AADBSQ ciancone_g_Page_090thm.jpg
ee1f68a44f21170a99776f8de04d540f
3aa1032d557b98796764043dd034577d5072712f
742016 F20110331_AADAOZ ciancone_g_Page_059.jp2
594bc2c6f8716cc8b5b3d4ec271d98ae
33f2788d661f892ba0e1075287d799f63d1fe64b
F20110331_AADAQC ciancone_g_Page_002.tif
e1900701eef59b41dd0820f9a21ef66e
0bd7a94e2f2359c2d954cc09fdca100e3223563b
1051976 F20110331_AADAPO ciancone_g_Page_053.jp2
fe89635f4ad1de770e696e1da97aff9b
568c893390d66d4217bd02e8788b346887700572
8060 F20110331_AADBTF ciancone_g_Page_106thm.jpg
0db96f72827ed04a7241d383ba02aead
0001e60df9fbb8f134d73c07f7da77801b7e20f9
6811 F20110331_AADBSR ciancone_g_Page_091thm.jpg
17b2e56206437539e734c3302697828f
beb3854014b929378cc567fe0637106eca9bf390
F20110331_AADAQD ciancone_g_Page_003.tif
13df496557ed31bfb4b76b497b3e23fe
6ecab704c96b0e50aeb4be23732b3aacbf617b75
628 F20110331_AADAPP ciancone_g_Page_063.txt
b249b67e292a7e1fc2b4a8b428ca3135
ac93177120195c55387e64a166219e5fd686a408
8103 F20110331_AADBTG ciancone_g_Page_107thm.jpg
a042062b01773315165a7c3b44c65c2d
cad9fdf294596f879f4cc6aef389abe4053baaeb
7714 F20110331_AADBSS ciancone_g_Page_092thm.jpg
7fbcd3660a71e72c342af13ba7ab08a5
f15b65f855fb3275024d2c6b6dbcfc1580974084
F20110331_AADAQE ciancone_g_Page_004.tif
0e2313d6d1e57da0e85f23800b538487
91a8184e92a2f2b1a780aa3ece5863a1f47277a1
44155 F20110331_AADAPQ ciancone_g_Page_069.jpg
676727a54936300296f3cba6f55342f1
f4fb302084bf45a2d331574507f6e02e22a32102
7761 F20110331_AADBTH ciancone_g_Page_108thm.jpg
133e163e3cc0935f8a5ae5f2c066f815
bedf5270b5c0d56db8d67df388ff4d07a0bf91c3
6606 F20110331_AADBST ciancone_g_Page_093thm.jpg
6cab3fd083772c7cc569d9958f46d550
ef4663c2854ffaf429371975aec2be554e5bad80
F20110331_AADAQF ciancone_g_Page_005.tif
8f6d8128a52710620bc282ec99e6cc2e
86a5c18b612a14a99d864618a9686752eb3f3ba4
25603 F20110331_AADAPR ciancone_g_Page_098.QC.jpg
af7a91dd713894d72d9d05d773c2ea21
05c23e710666ee2426b0ec463412dadb65190632
6691 F20110331_AADBTI ciancone_g_Page_109thm.jpg
8eb12512334df4d17c5254a1312b44a3
dc620db229d2991c3bf06354a9655e2173be7bc1
6817 F20110331_AADBSU ciancone_g_Page_094thm.jpg
b3a8fef85b6a3acff1bed914251f9105
5052436881c6bb6d25b1b007cfd5e7e2d407c6d5
F20110331_AADAQG ciancone_g_Page_006.tif
219bb2357e627da872a8cf7edb794fb9
92be701cebcabae70d7605f0c28174e23eb435ee
105630 F20110331_AADAPS ciancone_g_Page_029.jpg
a5e91d7b6a51cfa2ea7038bd76caa49d
6225371de9b4acfa8ea91b7686c2bef751c176c0
7656 F20110331_AADBTJ ciancone_g_Page_110thm.jpg
c31f1856f2b5562425446cad24b34f7f
ccbc45d7ca2b44b594b4836b5ac7f1710282748b
8130 F20110331_AADBSV ciancone_g_Page_096thm.jpg
feb2c55a432d6f74d698329fff5a3598
7eab3417ba5cdce7ff3de9ec47d3cb357cb158f5
F20110331_AADAQH ciancone_g_Page_007.tif
63d600e46c6f21e77c5ac59256ff5ed5
2c94239559270935948c487ef5e538dadc46d9d5
3689 F20110331_AADAPT ciancone_g_Page_036thm.jpg
ee5d220dea65651296326028052cf646
4a469c3e9ca0e6c82ebd33f04eda433638ae448d
7644 F20110331_AADBTK ciancone_g_Page_112thm.jpg
2d3e779b6a4635fdb135fbb471150730
b0e838946aac58e61c2a627c6143dd40522aeaed
7696 F20110331_AADBSW ciancone_g_Page_097thm.jpg
7b9446dc076a113675bffe9b1006fbd3
f467a2d791813586dd02bacbe7bdcd7a8b50c876
F20110331_AADAQI ciancone_g_Page_008.tif
fcf404d23c138ded63ba0d58c4451eab
41b7e707211641adf4ce6e0b8b73a38af5575eb9
678206 F20110331_AADAPU ciancone_g_Page_094.jp2
dfad235d42cc2d3165418189c4e2cdaf
f5c142e22d477c6c0d33f4448958f34ee11a5e92
7613 F20110331_AADBTL ciancone_g_Page_113thm.jpg
5fd1833f3dc47efa4e1eb2c350885834
d4717c229de74b6ce00702adea35f61b053ff637
F20110331_AADBSX ciancone_g_Page_098thm.jpg
50475f1c74111c3e850f02e0ebcf508b
5d93ec77631a2d50b70b8c5a4961c5b8181cb897
F20110331_AADAQJ ciancone_g_Page_009.tif
3a13d85b7cea88dab12878eb08f0905b
beaa5ef03c67d3be270cacdc04603b150bf1acbd
21549 F20110331_AADAPV ciancone_g_Page_016.QC.jpg
40d540ff27652567d4d370b8c85ecf9c
6b9ade390f3ae8982befb4ee82888cc416baa1fd
8457 F20110331_AADBTM ciancone_g_Page_114thm.jpg
fc21f79ad29213bcc70783e2e2596321
8a4fa296429d42186601333e3b7fe2d061e95f5e
7333 F20110331_AADBSY ciancone_g_Page_099thm.jpg
e984868f0cb9904c0be79595bf6eeb2d
a6175262619561424c9b56d0e444aca93a798d5c
F20110331_AADAQK ciancone_g_Page_010.tif
a6f08c640ca6f63e768f6fd668bbaf40
33e913c781acaa825c7d2aa501543f3eb752262d
104268 F20110331_AADAPW ciancone_g_Page_049.jpg
93026015402df551351c6c45c414c212
20ca9d7a98bae97fbc3ced819b01e9dca1910300
1188 F20110331_AADBTN ciancone_g_Page_115thm.jpg
356044bbaa07dad925f85bb22c1028ea
9fb2bf5dfa13e20e929decf37e401016d0a330b3
7538 F20110331_AADBSZ ciancone_g_Page_100thm.jpg
c2587647714a8c4d6ef4a4aa59c73d5b
91a5f1998c46e9a387630f4337423f5eb19dd368
F20110331_AADAQL ciancone_g_Page_012.tif
94e7028870bf55eb89cc6168a552d14d
955de80717ccfe0083fe6be5f74ec27da22eec0d
316088 F20110331_AADAPX ciancone_g_Page_039.jp2
1bc43e42750905ffb680d5ef5b61e5c5
59dfc2834b882454ee3c5b0a7358724cb2473664
3831 F20110331_AADBTO ciancone_g_Page_116thm.jpg
12faabd4ec414cf246c794e0f3f2aea0
a906ac98ca7b882015634f6a1b0c9322a247bcb1
F20110331_AADARA ciancone_g_Page_028.tif
9d637c84496370a94eb0b3dc660346a9
844058d7ceed8b075d15f6462d9c73ad346e387d
F20110331_AADAQM ciancone_g_Page_013.tif
23b1807ca9151648ff972f5ad8469889
64710d57a4b99619249828de2ee49025f8740321
2165293 F20110331_AADBTP ciancone_g.pdf
0eb386e452e4ea64b31d5158021df562
e41961194bc160067cb94b777a716bb75d12ce9b
F20110331_AADARB ciancone_g_Page_029.tif
24d495ade48e4cc2f9c7ec8874017810
cf190bf9c772632b13c8304324b09f2f5902ac91
F20110331_AADAQN ciancone_g_Page_014.tif
ddd94926aa55a9c1672a8a85f856de66
a550e938c87c1222b5810d2e0a548383ea3181df
F20110331_AADAPY ciancone_g_Page_082.tif
5363b99aa4c6e4cd57f9f6ee0750c6da
2fa32d0a4b653074e5b2d432c4a2c3ff7ba71f00
137887 F20110331_AADBTQ UFE0021814_00001.mets FULL
62be8eb76ea197c36c376367aeb75154
e9d4d741ce2d422ff95ccf2e67f0bb6f1edaca1f
BROKEN_LINK
ciancone_g_Page_001.tif
F20110331_AADARC ciancone_g_Page_030.tif
4f4453a0478953f48319909b26935564
a0be2a68069e1fa24706d858fb55d4469721f10b
F20110331_AADAQO ciancone_g_Page_015.tif
728abdb1c5bf28010770b6236bdc7e9c
4c384fb746220c47fae25508d7acf869c23255d4
189379 F20110331_AADAPZ UFE0021814_00001.xml
d8038d1257a55c2cd39cad53a2c426a2
d3982cbacd85f1167778827a142f7da0e3cd040c
ciancone_g_Page_001.tif
F20110331_AADARD ciancone_g_Page_031.tif
c22ad0d84f8ca5378c8455e2d52390b0
666a0431f7d156a6f4b082cfe3f9ad54f80ef06f
F20110331_AADAQP ciancone_g_Page_016.tif
b18bbd5b444cbcde3558feb82eaba5ac
a1bc0ab3c7930087ea2a3d220cf31f4b71f9c12d
F20110331_AADARE ciancone_g_Page_032.tif
3ad7c4b50c7efe63a7cb1ddc05c91f5f
be86b584786e987355a976352af758eae151bef2
F20110331_AADAQQ ciancone_g_Page_017.tif
551098e57180a0023743e1c505d02dac
89dd87dcf708637de6ccdb363468da9da9f63dc4
F20110331_AADARF ciancone_g_Page_033.tif
43fc912f924fd116236f16e0ffbb9f87
42e20bd8b35ea4ee930ede3e4aa00028b90ad558
F20110331_AADAQR ciancone_g_Page_018.tif
ba2118fe3751aa587c8cfc2423fb99c8
203d72ed8f38ba995013bc779dede4b312d5857b
F20110331_AADARG ciancone_g_Page_034.tif
9ab7579145c27fdba31894954a4f491c
7af3ecd00f179bb62c99be6f16828f90f2f7894f
F20110331_AADAQS ciancone_g_Page_020.tif
d49ac73dba7aac93444e1290af02927e
23ecf815da4787be9d40e93b6ec74201c4e1a57c
F20110331_AADARH ciancone_g_Page_035.tif
e0fda427ccfedff8c65ef9e9ed1dbb57
fc444a193a8a80416399031d00f27a2b6a830e5f
F20110331_AADAQT ciancone_g_Page_021.tif
d121a27f54b7297024c041c23b91ea74
47629db7078cf8d475f3d3de159330c2f5bcf390
F20110331_AADARI ciancone_g_Page_036.tif
772e19ad56917315fbaf5bb173ccd8f5
48d71f53b43a265e672f41365538fc2cd88fa3be
F20110331_AADAQU ciancone_g_Page_022.tif
2012186d93d50e2611daa06b7913b959
630a138856cc2aebd5bf588e7243fb0208703a56
F20110331_AADARJ ciancone_g_Page_037.tif
408a0d15f7cf95f5aec5e3db2b080ac8
cd70a5fd2c1bbd7127414973589bd7f71aa8c31c
F20110331_AADAQV ciancone_g_Page_023.tif
56363fd5d50e3d94a1e09fd29fadb293
b178a2cf491f35d37da96a6c07e9bfdf3ca520de
F20110331_AADARK ciancone_g_Page_038.tif
645ca4e8426b76bb72cbc0ca3c13c648
7c7063f64048e9da4b8c345d2bebebe5c881269d
F20110331_AADAQW ciancone_g_Page_024.tif
70e92441da7370efa9ea5316b3086329
2774852f9b07f441be388e7ae5dbf63a10f24292
F20110331_AADARL ciancone_g_Page_039.tif
439c290edf378fc749c140556310d42a
256db8f35497f69bf82a588c65357838db579e9a
F20110331_AADAQX ciancone_g_Page_025.tif
eea609b2d781f01c7c0c8f6c845414de
55df01005ae965e0a46101ef87f506ce2d71cd2a
F20110331_AADARM ciancone_g_Page_040.tif
8926a102554f9d28d3b1d9105a7ba828
3652f89bf4c3c2b42f45608865b3c3a9f8f062e1
F20110331_AADAQY ciancone_g_Page_026.tif
c7b2ea58f0077a76e41a6259365f11b9
e79f90bb3b273d2da66391443074c66317407291
F20110331_AADASA ciancone_g_Page_055.tif
752650de8a5bd84eec8d221ebca00901
0ca2cef426dbb239c24d37379eb254b4e5ed3cb2
F20110331_AADARN ciancone_g_Page_041.tif
4eba2736c3ab7ef9cea051c5e6820237
ee657d6f7fbd08b39ad3028b423b26dfa1b3c0f3
F20110331_AADASB ciancone_g_Page_056.tif
9896b3f3c4e0ad81b6ddf2544e407c36
e347f67f82e6d3afeb47fd12cbd0a4a0a74d28c4
F20110331_AADARO ciancone_g_Page_042.tif
3a97b9b872b5846badf0f54e174ad68e
04be3f6218603b131f868a6a5fae4a70ebc4ec25
F20110331_AADAQZ ciancone_g_Page_027.tif
f405af80323abbd4d8b0bf31d0f5581c
99798fc3a25467474b32b49bd5b9ad171fc0f91f
F20110331_AADASC ciancone_g_Page_057.tif
1bdf677d74b797b76b6b65d72772eca9
8ed223ef15e77e34a4730167c35d3ba2e80ee4c1
F20110331_AADARP ciancone_g_Page_043.tif
b01a011d0732bc3cb9a59f80df53eee4
4a87e8ea886f7178ae057061811b4ec173a24135
F20110331_AADASD ciancone_g_Page_058.tif
a7582c2ac5e276da60be08300fb41d68
f44aa645eeb95b27fc8e0335355c36e4437793c7
F20110331_AADARQ ciancone_g_Page_044.tif
a068299bec3897b100546a3da62c61b2
0d47dd372236e29e734475aa66ea166e21fffeff
F20110331_AADASE ciancone_g_Page_059.tif
0f7361e583e0a6bd675e51b277b23cd4
f5b0c27319ddb8966526e9ae38ef5660ee91fae1
F20110331_AADARR ciancone_g_Page_045.tif
4b0260dcb9c722bbf8ab79ca346b7f0e
4bef4dd95442106c45c0f7874745a39d85919403
25265604 F20110331_AADASF ciancone_g_Page_060.tif
771ed4c431abc39ec726574d7841cc9e
badbdc427e57af15363af8a3e0714e47c373a08e
F20110331_AADARS ciancone_g_Page_046.tif
0e10501187dce99930176580e667c73f
51df11572732d66d8342a164d7625c823aa327c1
F20110331_AADASG ciancone_g_Page_061.tif
0d28c6e0367385725f973fed4a94c13a
dd6a19291ce1d4128c5d3561fed0c1c066cec9b9
F20110331_AADART ciancone_g_Page_047.tif
eccf933f34e1de1d0359e41a8dab755b
e80f04bc1a53d30d3e456c936e523915792bdb57
F20110331_AADASH ciancone_g_Page_062.tif
78e045b896dcbb3ba0f9c6e9da5113aa
1cc702d908fd13959a5641eda8c3e317066c028f
F20110331_AADARU ciancone_g_Page_048.tif
9c5f76a4a100eff4bb332c2ee1aa8305
5b6e54711f2a2ac5f5a9b27544b00ae295b9eaf0
F20110331_AADASI ciancone_g_Page_063.tif
3209c88a0924eef06ddcd80c220d6311
b247869edd49513bf876725a063e8cde899e6f2b
F20110331_AADARV ciancone_g_Page_049.tif
10f149533b8bcde96568381c4d92b666
9e955aa3e03bf5a65cc8962fa8fad5fd8b2de3a5
F20110331_AADASJ ciancone_g_Page_064.tif
07da0e3f59acdd820da1da55d69ddca9
c220684dd370e6e0d90f93c708dd129c9c7c5fd8
F20110331_AADARW ciancone_g_Page_050.tif
19ca4432f3db5ba5d4f69b72c1394619
fc99ddfb08a797242ec68bc52b44561ab0ca3a5d
F20110331_AADASK ciancone_g_Page_065.tif
c7446fa103bc3db7e9ba4792f3f446f4
de9ff8e078f22c3334e10fb30687b9fc38f6e7df
F20110331_AADARX ciancone_g_Page_051.tif
cdd9e87a0c260cd6341c9033c6d02ac5
aae924f0de23643890ea747087356d9cf23611d0
F20110331_AADASL ciancone_g_Page_066.tif
3acebd6d8d791699d1c6ba7d7847f51a
5456126b3dc314c9cab0f2f015fb0b8813a9ca84
F20110331_AADARY ciancone_g_Page_053.tif
60281b2db70ecafc91dd3f9de15fc104
9190065411b7bfbdf8b72e1d10af016df6c885bc
F20110331_AADATA ciancone_g_Page_083.tif
0a2df3a8730139dfba885b6295608655
d6d36708f56888525ccc060587401d1d9eb3bf38
F20110331_AADASM ciancone_g_Page_068.tif
ddf5ed872b9ac90b510d0853ed4a815f
f1aa2c093e373cf2d4d750cb764acb1fef7daa3c
F20110331_AADARZ ciancone_g_Page_054.tif
5c664d94195a948a2b15023d46491523
05e439f587d8798a3547b07e064483241115b364
F20110331_AADATB ciancone_g_Page_084.tif
534fcc809932e8fabc1741c482c86bf8
50dc97db6922eb8e5238fdcaac1392b0be53c827
F20110331_AADASN ciancone_g_Page_069.tif
fa9478dc296470b8895ac31f263c1bdb
2a61fcf695c6900538c02407dd6bac8b813abf8c
F20110331_AADATC ciancone_g_Page_085.tif
457ebd1e035ff4c7269574e91611e8c4
e29f36bdc9c43fe0b4e6599181e4b8a37e935cf9
F20110331_AADASO ciancone_g_Page_070.tif
25b71024611f0fcec70348df61cefe82
bcbcd98a37769c40b175730bb74f4939be1292e8
F20110331_AADATD ciancone_g_Page_086.tif
daed51f173c0d43b0a7aebd041df0ada
0063011c5e110a06fac099e87dc5c57d4a7a2658
F20110331_AADASP ciancone_g_Page_071.tif
a00503b189a09a4443e24be2bddc88dd
1727d8e7d62e7ca18ebae8d9d1763bf24a18a888
F20110331_AADATE ciancone_g_Page_087.tif
8c85f5c15174c7751b291910b72b72f8
0a3850d8634a1a00808e4c09a1642ca5cadedb4a
F20110331_AADASQ ciancone_g_Page_072.tif
b21d1913bf47eb12e408d11414e78d5c
e031394537e7eaccbeae3d14e59252baa9327ce1
F20110331_AADATF ciancone_g_Page_088.tif
4331d7b58a8ce5f9d569fc65afbd1787
dcecccd45242d6015f73490d9bf751e4d1cf0cd2
F20110331_AADASR ciancone_g_Page_073.tif
3e10241e890192e286a48bb2e786730c
8e62b36f96a3382321f49ef9e25a02cbc9e94082
F20110331_AADATG ciancone_g_Page_089.tif
8f5a0aab5c6e3add9ff72285f54644b5
08b704aa1df91ee581c902406f1876f38e662df1
F20110331_AADASS ciancone_g_Page_074.tif
daf272360752f4f8a5eebadf4b0d4aa1
e2d33439880075c2e281247a2b59ca4b129cfffc
F20110331_AADATH ciancone_g_Page_090.tif
037f5e96ba1f79ea37104bb341f78891
7f9cf113cae778a2609f2325b6ae19000b939208
F20110331_AADAST ciancone_g_Page_075.tif
0bb27d39021d855dc58106c2f95f76c2
68ea244bcf54c958f3e1dde9f245dc900f80682a
F20110331_AADATI ciancone_g_Page_091.tif
bf11c4a61d70b98bc011abb84134bc1c
12a56ef23805be655eb9469e71da69c02338daae
F20110331_AADASU ciancone_g_Page_076.tif
ee88535db8d100c01e15e972d48720bf
1d5b3f7e7c24ee4a04daba32e2fc467ee3d824e0
F20110331_AADATJ ciancone_g_Page_092.tif
5a6ec6671bde90a372f0e5ee47f8e2c5
d02cb0393628a5925094dbeaab9e9406bb0ea324
F20110331_AADASV ciancone_g_Page_077.tif
31ba4861d85e25d4ff921948955ef7c5
10fd946e3d4e99c0bd90f1e9cb4b9dc466c3b319
F20110331_AADATK ciancone_g_Page_093.tif
e2f74f8b52e1b8d5f43ff91ff9767321
deda45816c8997323e3480bb9241d1d2c451980a
F20110331_AADASW ciancone_g_Page_078.tif
258c9f35dc0a8ef1b91093035f3ab160
2763182012bb0a2d14cec460bae3a1d1fc07accd
F20110331_AADATL ciancone_g_Page_094.tif
e7b6fe2817256ded98924469ce9f489e
300e402cb2d2c23f89ef296f3a87652a1cd80441
F20110331_AADASX ciancone_g_Page_079.tif
40c3e4174dc66c0110685349904a960e
49893eef71bd3460bc4ed06e5cabe70e92589bc4
F20110331_AADATM ciancone_g_Page_095.tif
c6d0d7ffd6d8fb650ca385e319ec2eb3
d37f55589d0f7426c3b5551c075cbc1363541571
F20110331_AADASY ciancone_g_Page_080.tif
f6c3a81da7b2cd4b4f33a395d4bf6525
db09dce70928dbeeabbcaa0f78812e95e8838739
F20110331_AADAUA ciancone_g_Page_109.tif
5a0d12f48200339994b6f7b338156c81
9cf7549492cfecb98429cc8c0a2005b13a86bf70
F20110331_AADATN ciancone_g_Page_096.tif
82b6d325a77d8de2f9d0661c4081b93e
7a3f10a8887c1c75136c51e2f70740bf4c4660b9
F20110331_AADASZ ciancone_g_Page_081.tif
13042248c2a0b818b9c271c7bd4a7080
a536c400bf69a8c621c95189029e7ff9a06785bb
F20110331_AADAUB ciancone_g_Page_110.tif
4b4995029765e541352c1625fa5142fb
27c147073a4aa501938afed14f0d2211a3186370
F20110331_AADATO ciancone_g_Page_097.tif
39eefacd339a318e5fcc7d0634cdfcdf
54e7db9e59a48971bb7ca568376ca7f5f5a5e931
F20110331_AADAUC ciancone_g_Page_111.tif
e73c485c36f2b49f14e293e7dd52548b
be239c7572ef6e20a2a85cab354e9311cca5a064
F20110331_AADATP ciancone_g_Page_098.tif
616680f6840f1089fd9ba83812ec291e
38d7a725db31e2e10565609d1847ae6a659d9292
F20110331_AADAUD ciancone_g_Page_112.tif
a48478aecfd59b30289383018cfe68bf
f047d90df8fcd7222736855e068f7ec909d11ad4
F20110331_AADATQ ciancone_g_Page_099.tif
d9b7f8cdd4eda40c16b1fb335825b1d7
1a2651ee331388b96b90c2af9ca732c2d838e94e
F20110331_AADAUE ciancone_g_Page_113.tif
61018d59bea8e5ee3a663188c748d2fa
733f5cf19da27458bee93bb845d04d0faadfecbd
F20110331_AADATR ciancone_g_Page_100.tif
223dd3379c0cfd7112fd12d06e733ac6
cdce2071949c2c2b295e4470d37b27e3364a6d53
7228 F20110331_AADBAA ciancone_g_Page_043.pro
69052b67c98dc83e07eaa5f5b42247ce
00d20df3953480947f59cdc4c07640926b8f3501
F20110331_AADAUF ciancone_g_Page_114.tif
4f2d57d5bfe068df2668d1e2b20cefd3
5cf57b1576508e21037f0c473582c4f73230d99f
F20110331_AADATS ciancone_g_Page_101.tif
7b1f1df87841ea8b9587298961319eaa
134d2eb4e8d6c1bcc6932874c165bcf6c2f35c34
6622 F20110331_AADBAB ciancone_g_Page_044.pro
d6a57a8362efa8c0b89db9adfcf3b786
0fca2718f6ab053ff3deb9919722a7e6abae5f1b
F20110331_AADAUG ciancone_g_Page_115.tif
e3a192b29a0184d27e7aed8bc3c2b753
c287e839a7de54c6965c5bdc45726a4533be8ceb
F20110331_AADATT ciancone_g_Page_102.tif
26a96ab709f133a1eb71256635e98776
ff5504b71b904e0d438e32a0e2bd71a717b950a8
7854 F20110331_AADBAC ciancone_g_Page_045.pro
c70382436655c5d189e21278d7e44b6c
e4bc1d008bddaf600c87f7ca86a8779ee6923e06
F20110331_AADAUH ciancone_g_Page_116.tif
9ebb49a86742abe66bd20af9021876ac
b02432a67a8bb3dba76aa9ebe775db68fcdd3c7c
F20110331_AADATU ciancone_g_Page_103.tif
e88615ff20af858513eb429926ffce0b
fc2ce89c7b0e915a8be0f757acebe26b717ad237
12718 F20110331_AADBAD ciancone_g_Page_046.pro
de4b1571e19e412235dad2ab81bcc1a9
60e6bfc2ce50d26cf70c31c49397a0be4681e0e2
478 F20110331_AADAUI ciancone_g_Page_001.txt
36d0e2571ef0f9a5c1b71b6694de3cf1
256848b54b243d97075a5da174374b126e6b468c
F20110331_AADATV ciancone_g_Page_104.tif
b74b68fcd4b6012353a20bcc377bde74
096a3b27c2b73cd23c9de4df0430a1efea220a5b
42522 F20110331_AADBAE ciancone_g_Page_047.pro
9e740ea371dbeccffcb0818ab0941399
478b99a749bd8de090aa685a88c07e8f642b80a1
92 F20110331_AADAUJ ciancone_g_Page_002.txt
65b7bd40849222af6760d68ebc49dfd9
67448f46ee4fbbff4a8e671baeda8a89fd191b62
F20110331_AADATW ciancone_g_Page_105.tif
9e8af668819e486e7953578853db2296
3df831c0341901d1e6894162bc13675cbd48881e
51117 F20110331_AADBAF ciancone_g_Page_048.pro
ada2757c47fb4200f7ebc26c7093e9e8
db0a79c616a81fa576ee6dd952b8a1f060591f64
210 F20110331_AADAUK ciancone_g_Page_003.txt
32409b42cd0eb6b5b38d3e889a04c5db
fc1174ca7c8cba7d4fadeda8bf5d94bc799d2920
F20110331_AADATX ciancone_g_Page_106.tif
24485000c823bcd9402fcd89f583cf3e
c972c2d4ebeeaf4d33c68f0947a70f9ca3e01eec
50215 F20110331_AADBAG ciancone_g_Page_049.pro
33ba09f8eea228254a5b7a072d68f75c
7f02cec3280f00bdf7bd13cd14e2412577edf54e
1148 F20110331_AADAUL ciancone_g_Page_004.txt
008e7366b5bffd307c376493d196c780
95e1623d09c4774084a56892d45ec1704bf9ffee
F20110331_AADATY ciancone_g_Page_107.tif
860502ab0934d8afb6d42ea992123a6d
c44c8b2188498ac4242f2020e3123d715f625bb9
48762 F20110331_AADBAH ciancone_g_Page_050.pro
9a0c35e0838e3cb017996b58eb413d90
626f002b9e6a0ab284e6802be906ffe1aaa58b65
1909 F20110331_AADAVA ciancone_g_Page_020.txt
8f2d011c1aaa914076e3915cd4dfb74e
696b47e65288bd34aa45820c2ca7f478c0973c5f
3816 F20110331_AADAUM ciancone_g_Page_005.txt
8d8bf6a7fd3e88953d57dda430425cc5
ec8c1357c4857d6b880bac3e73f3a24f89541061
F20110331_AADATZ ciancone_g_Page_108.tif
5d004554487bbf2d259dd9f8db2962b8
ad768e636066032a8982260a473450fbf2d61a1e
2175 F20110331_AADAVB ciancone_g_Page_021.txt
a2cd910ab7a8db2c48c14133607d1472
39235c5437687f26378cc75c514f7902fc595c13
2949 F20110331_AADAUN ciancone_g_Page_007.txt
3122606c2daa42b005acb81bfbe53f0d
963f054f101e24658a3eb298a7a091edc205894c
52797 F20110331_AADBAI ciancone_g_Page_051.pro
6f49a127dd8f49a77eda7782e0d6f0eb
f16e6cf897553402e40e0b12ad4cd797d4fea196
2170 F20110331_AADAVC ciancone_g_Page_022.txt
0a42282fb04861e9504ef9fd09530852
3c59139fd9af0db9d0a65a16ae6673b732e24ae3
431 F20110331_AADAUO ciancone_g_Page_008.txt
64b29ddc31815620f5a76b2763f801da
b41562aed98457057f82cf24d4df24afd5191c8f
53191 F20110331_AADBAJ ciancone_g_Page_052.pro
37cc0ba90ba5bf11146a5079383f7e32
283b206cbe6d2d8cbe6454ff91049154d0901858
589 F20110331_AADAVD ciancone_g_Page_023.txt
34798cb8833d633dba129dd9bbde988d
432b74374e8ea1b8fa63c72a756abd1270a27827
2943 F20110331_AADAUP ciancone_g_Page_009.txt
541018c7bd4e0b2197eda1c912e4bd95
8d1803b61344cec824917b4e7067ce866d0cdcce
52002 F20110331_AADBAK ciancone_g_Page_053.pro
7c7429c903ed5ef55789794b1e0823d2
ff5e051cfca7bf1885d9bd0f48eafac037795b41
788 F20110331_AADAVE ciancone_g_Page_024.txt
df935df4078731bdff6ba57df65af5da
8ac8763c91885258867bf92ce5944a239a23a656
3140 F20110331_AADAUQ ciancone_g_Page_010.txt
0850d902a752db3040f276796263151f
8457b5e1da527f2945b9c36dab735fcd8258a799
49978 F20110331_AADBAL ciancone_g_Page_054.pro
efeea65add3b8e4c199770a291adae12
92faceea619358856c16ebee25b4c370f73b6a0d
428 F20110331_AADAVF ciancone_g_Page_025.txt
72f0bba4c1716fbb7f35523b9c21af65
c8bc7ba1d7c0f959d07d24da3055240a4be1d882
1136 F20110331_AADAUR ciancone_g_Page_011.txt
74e4393ba369c38d0755f06c7dc17a94
c0cb0a365303822d7bb5f6a0cb66fe205c9d0434
11783 F20110331_AADBBA ciancone_g_Page_069.pro
274b78c0ec77d87096f6d1689adc643f
0748efd77e09801bb9dc1cf17c1efcf4f75fdb81
51534 F20110331_AADBAM ciancone_g_Page_055.pro
ea262ad62580b2cf2d2a070183fc42fc
0c64c55aef28d8b718c8ac112015f1c741881ffb
869 F20110331_AADAVG ciancone_g_Page_026.txt
2d996a103b6c79351c477f727a949db4
4f346fea1b1b813bb8896a658d7666837044c4b1
1784 F20110331_AADAUS ciancone_g_Page_012.txt
acd99ede60bc91ff1165f791a3ec9495
56caf5a6d2e6af6b8f54e0c065bf425bc87f7148
24847 F20110331_AADBBB ciancone_g_Page_070.pro
eae1f17d62288484f88f180a970ff346
d5b58ef8b1e369486f6f4ee14c7df22e9194899f
48316 F20110331_AADBAN ciancone_g_Page_056.pro
365b9df2d3e88d104f728e8bfe080bf6
6ed485e4e484de71a79d20eb260456810ca26dee
270 F20110331_AADAVH ciancone_g_Page_028.txt
25082c5fc5e087ca6458ae72f909b90e
c31c75354f0cf55f860fa959a2020cc09492ecad
862 F20110331_AADAUT ciancone_g_Page_013.txt
657ae12242c955a458236381ee60f35b
4566580d81a280a838f0866da1a1f90f34df4009
5550 F20110331_AADBBC ciancone_g_Page_071.pro
b9efffbe0018a556bc41e4e3e624d0f8
237b85da4a4ff3b438ec7aac7a1673ff286b6651
50346 F20110331_AADBAO ciancone_g_Page_057.pro
4d86561f97ed4a46244c5adba38b4b06
3a8edeb33bb65d97825da539169db69ad100159b
2114 F20110331_AADAVI ciancone_g_Page_029.txt
ec1d848182428852f4e03bf1dec22f4b
4d56f031a235cb742dff88e16158850bd8d0ea70
1779 F20110331_AADAUU ciancone_g_Page_014.txt
98c030269557ac0ecfd36751fed3e158
945b383bef6ce5c15239936ca4ffb1231daf59ec
50314 F20110331_AADBBD ciancone_g_Page_072.pro
a713461730bd1a23b73ca188d0368e94
10396bddac1cc130778417c23e62b57bfcfe1ca9
5960 F20110331_AADBAP ciancone_g_Page_058.pro
62b933bffad3b836560a37b5314c7a38
adfcdae7a7e56c22e236590239ad604083bca901
2009 F20110331_AADAVJ ciancone_g_Page_030.txt
e28f4a9378038bbb50832604bcd0dc68
51ade73d1b13b84a1bc58c020d7e9865893039ce
2206 F20110331_AADAUV ciancone_g_Page_015.txt
e9332e8f164932adba9e418c44e5cf09
57b497a6f9294d8de67a17497ef6a4aec52493dc
49406 F20110331_AADBBE ciancone_g_Page_073.pro
1ffb8e2300f864cb5211cdd82b25b126
24459ec676e1f48885f9471ea2299d085f942e13
40397 F20110331_AADBAQ ciancone_g_Page_059.pro
fe5bee47ef2ef02236419cbf4e42c7a7
faa8e32466c9cf7b27c8217f51cc8ff402a8cee5
1955 F20110331_AADAVK ciancone_g_Page_031.txt
7b2261e0ccff6f79b276c591f6c32410
70af97021f25592a1144c6e23101ca7dbeba5560
1453 F20110331_AADAUW ciancone_g_Page_016.txt
c97c491c5966cd544fb7c0be8e928dfe
4701a24a0743b79db6c844e1266f580fdf15190e
49349 F20110331_AADBBF ciancone_g_Page_074.pro
c8258d635abf2e1a18cc0569acbfe08b
065a721d750d7d348d0b12a8b04cd0f2b080064d
40597 F20110331_AADBAR ciancone_g_Page_060.pro
f3124abfb7ed421a79764fb2b1287505
7594738a75387b5ddb9b8e2f751ee03c2c43769e
2181 F20110331_AADAVL ciancone_g_Page_032.txt
cce19fcd64a8d34e5270a07566d6c89a
22207cc42da6ab6c137d4383ccb94c232350d068
2084 F20110331_AADAUX ciancone_g_Page_017.txt
98e443eada2d99e56682345db870c6d1
02ca7c9d32e9f9e452688ed194fc5af3577bafff
42067 F20110331_AADBBG ciancone_g_Page_075.pro
52543a2cee99c63f11798ed69b64e237
0b0a4b5c4efc194068486ffa1c08ef9c47a17de5
2083 F20110331_AADAWA ciancone_g_Page_051.txt
e9f6dc85b0145c7967cc95b9f61582f8
d28fef79138dfe77afb4d6ae10c88dd26665c9b1
47570 F20110331_AADBAS ciancone_g_Page_061.pro
71e8a5f88680f89cb1f38928e7f3905a
609ea076c95eefae07cb4d22b4bf5661adffde54
1943 F20110331_AADAVM ciancone_g_Page_033.txt
97646a08890db5e56a29cc57a9a3e8d3
c58d4045b49cd0cf129b201f1ca3e1c372e79c31
1746 F20110331_AADAUY ciancone_g_Page_018.txt
053ba0aad289554bf593f7ab0f8e8b71
94e6d7d6d1e74a7fad533eeb578fbba47437b7a1
41376 F20110331_AADBBH ciancone_g_Page_076.pro
6b9e7671a0a8ec81226730c75104094d
c7585e972f1271938bef2715ef49845cda4690f6
2108 F20110331_AADAWB ciancone_g_Page_052.txt
efafb7693e5900e57ab30f70158864dc
b3cca9b7b0ac4b0c3f73dfc5d572befd2995f5cc
50421 F20110331_AADBAT ciancone_g_Page_062.pro
09c4ebe2d06c364ad6532900179a81e8
2c1f63deee03848e8e3b4e2b646e83d83536dba4
2069 F20110331_AADAVN ciancone_g_Page_034.txt
71cc241c931323601e6cdbb61d17b837
1a71264a91cb11a03af8bb92aae0b73090fcafd9
1555 F20110331_AADAUZ ciancone_g_Page_019.txt
0d40a2332ba8eca1446892c17ad876f5
d1b242fd3d76a31ba8e023589f21c4943c78d9c4
51556 F20110331_AADBBI ciancone_g_Page_077.pro
ba58d9244b03883bb4b40cf4c1c35045
b10a5c9fda358a782f2344b380f92e4b3fdd7bee
2049 F20110331_AADAWC ciancone_g_Page_053.txt
54ce0d0ba6b2eb6b15ea7b2b01f047ea
dac29651b4938e3613b02b004ceff23a54045cc9
11195 F20110331_AADBAU ciancone_g_Page_063.pro
15977279bfe6a7fe473a855f94995552
c981302bfa344405195f63867ebba4fe180f9b74
2113 F20110331_AADAVO ciancone_g_Page_035.txt
d835b94587a49d1a1c99d142860cedc5
064442f0956871521fd487371606aaeb47e07fd4
1983 F20110331_AADAWD ciancone_g_Page_054.txt
11f023eb2dc46e4e618d1e81f9b5b5ae
21d6d541a9d7390fee323f019e11b42b20c5ac7e
8670 F20110331_AADBAV ciancone_g_Page_064.pro
2b5499dea8a02113cf4e8e4887c4ed30
f830e2d74f43a9f48bfcb8e9aa01f3a7645d68e6
810 F20110331_AADAVP ciancone_g_Page_036.txt
e68cec9954a5392112b3a5b6f4d7e00b
dd2dccb8cbf5a096eec0c98c925cda90633748bf
42223 F20110331_AADBBJ ciancone_g_Page_078.pro
564d0f01346a86a7d8b0712964544a49
39613e3019f53ba6b0a32a0228923f1c81a9fcba
2039 F20110331_AADAWE ciancone_g_Page_055.txt
dfc9e2658ab399cd862236f714475fa6
fb0dcc48023e940cd394ef6a9cc98f97071cdf58
28766 F20110331_AADBAW ciancone_g_Page_065.pro
7491fb06be9cc4e7fb04e9b08e6f01f5
9cd0db98f827af33bf194f4e3f6959a9fba60dd5
1033 F20110331_AADAVQ ciancone_g_Page_039.txt
bdccd1e0f8a4596209cc2820bf8488ac
cbabd633c757ade9b70876c0072f442083cf8838
53771 F20110331_AADBBK ciancone_g_Page_079.pro
d34d4d43a534750eb5485566c7c8ebe0
60804511bcd5a6438c6991b1d718b3e649756f01
1994 F20110331_AADAWF ciancone_g_Page_057.txt
b3f16ef570588112f00dd9feb5a99172
833024d1151e18003e757b6ba9c79bf244d0f4bb
19574 F20110331_AADBAX ciancone_g_Page_066.pro
204eb2385111ea0af91b479e3823f602
ab9ed179161ce82839a8a4ea401d97ab759611df
801 F20110331_AADAVR ciancone_g_Page_040.txt
8d042ff7a1b7c0d3da95f6f58f9aade6
fa97c69e2dfa1e2b2bc69f29dfbb8d8a7ecda967
19463 F20110331_AADBCA ciancone_g_Page_095.pro
088168951ff0e260acf539b12f1a05bf
f4c4700b23f7e652cb06ec47ba839573f9d48c2e
36966 F20110331_AADBBL ciancone_g_Page_080.pro
17d8ed2152670bc5b71cd1458d9eb249
c2931a11fcfac26578ffde0914927efbdd14f3bd
240 F20110331_AADAWG ciancone_g_Page_058.txt
a799387852fc0a46d95580ea4ecf7d5d
c4788b23bec28c3d1e5ae30b9bbf5866f0d0afce
9199 F20110331_AADBAY ciancone_g_Page_067.pro
a348751014388fe94b34cec3c6d65cbf
272ac8b13c3af9255a6bcf2367f5d307ad8144be
172 F20110331_AADAVS ciancone_g_Page_042.txt
d3edf4239f0ae15f80252e81406ea709
87bafd7026986761a64b0068f55cfd4a960d28dd
27603 F20110331_AADBCB ciancone_g_Page_096.pro
a4552c784c6dda5fe9ded881419f8813
df77bf2fe15354ddd6a1f66024791918a9b06da6
52142 F20110331_AADBBM ciancone_g_Page_081.pro
57f31dd7ca148fd0c7aedbd49816473c
400b992d2f408ee16822cec0ce2eaf27a5ef4289
2381 F20110331_AADAWH ciancone_g_Page_059.txt
a91c45299ea41f9af0be01144c56da1d
021f11d2db62773f28c1fa8927233e511e8fdeb3
23317 F20110331_AADBAZ ciancone_g_Page_068.pro
14244e16f3a9f3b6ce1b0e5eaef92861
289cb473a6d2846c6830d5d99fe242e15e3bc6d4
340 F20110331_AADAVT ciancone_g_Page_043.txt
133c608c70b53e3f1294c801e68770bf
2c5a685172babbc5431a9765931aafb2627f5095
25337 F20110331_AADBCC ciancone_g_Page_097.pro
58a2cc693453b786aa3e99e43f2cdbc1
e881368207f038cc030ce6c9fb43c12f29dfe097
67547 F20110331_AADBBN ciancone_g_Page_082.pro
c4a00b192455e7f37d928b49f18dede9
5c4ff90ceccefe5396e03857d41f3caccbb52acd
2096 F20110331_AADAWI ciancone_g_Page_060.txt
a76f779212a195b8dd7ad9cc5740ae13
90d68c16c9180b62ae106204976ab341627d432b
316 F20110331_AADAVU ciancone_g_Page_044.txt
5b51ed2477824c4020d7ab304066da79
9f662a6a9c943c44cba2e5d3a0c409eaa0d01c71
22294 F20110331_AADBCD ciancone_g_Page_098.pro
912d6ff6b1ccebc22091850b95b43ce3
ccdd313b05f3049654d5ec46349bf63ec7902219
10842 F20110331_AADBBO ciancone_g_Page_083.pro
c5026c898f6d10a306ac82bdad6b6758
195d139d61bfdbbed0832b256060bb1066c8881c
2303 F20110331_AADAWJ ciancone_g_Page_061.txt
793b50be402de813f9a7054ed9fc8abe
113b7b17b2ccc92cd860d16b1c1e06457b88b598
390 F20110331_AADAVV ciancone_g_Page_045.txt
abc72b234fe77e4286c6127d9c2c4c6b
59ca37a732cc2124e299eee5c30656b96997da51
22870 F20110331_AADBCE ciancone_g_Page_099.pro
630da3c94576ca502c1de6d2a984c590
c205f77c9f2409d2c4bb93296c0d3690b0227c45
10671 F20110331_AADBBP ciancone_g_Page_084.pro
7cc7d9c8ba038fe1cd7f3cbfcb228f96
ca90baa03665fe79998fa3b0e2813b74894f055e
2520 F20110331_AADAWK ciancone_g_Page_062.txt
5e04b458338ebe2a4f92245bf5c7f404
1901cf288d2d9e931addce4232cb859e05c24ff8
609 F20110331_AADAVW ciancone_g_Page_046.txt
c77a1770ae04f3974394e8e5440186dd
dd709dd8bbf9792f6568264aff3ae33529da5540
21298 F20110331_AADBCF ciancone_g_Page_100.pro
2e223dd1644509bc426836eb40e242d5
7f1b0cda4192548195ea8f710848669862ade0de
10810 F20110331_AADBBQ ciancone_g_Page_085.pro
347c3c3f72e949692e4f45a9555d6d2b
302907187e2bcab1887bd9e7ff9f6e0f78e80bb1
462 F20110331_AADAWL ciancone_g_Page_064.txt
dc581a365051010d920a1e6b898f7ace
8d2ebaf03b271e4d8a5557c16b11287422dc9287
1790 F20110331_AADAVX ciancone_g_Page_047.txt
e733aefc1d0b5cc5db2be9b61cf90fc1
d0be47eeba216593a3a748619f21de0dfa868140
32259 F20110331_AADBCG ciancone_g_Page_101.pro
f663bababad01f12c5b1dac50603a065
746d51bbed56a2b7918900cef82d43aca8ce8dc3
48534 F20110331_AADBBR ciancone_g_Page_086.pro
77f70357a68a8f56409a1f2c4e3ceaa1
cabd24262173f0fea976598a50f20f39e78a417b
1670 F20110331_AADAWM ciancone_g_Page_065.txt
38876e09b6261960d3c8887ddddb24b9
1ecdf877b490bdc97788f43f8995b1df52901dac
2023 F20110331_AADAVY ciancone_g_Page_048.txt
e6f328d71f637383ca69341ddee0f028
b69e978cbb06833baaa9b6ef448d9ed25233c420
27037 F20110331_AADBCH ciancone_g_Page_102.pro
ee53209ed474351615daa939849e49a0
871e35a043ec5fc0a4a1a51c734e92972564ec96
2734 F20110331_AADAXA ciancone_g_Page_079.txt
b384167dac134df4bc5186542c633e75
da026955b5e0ae2c2f984f101bec553171752e2e
12624 F20110331_AADBBS ciancone_g_Page_087.pro
ad48382f7de4bee207b22088aee2bc0e
b5e5f2af224061018e52624a8c4b0cc997da875e
1115 F20110331_AADAWN ciancone_g_Page_066.txt
291bdf781115925ced49e56098d58795
a4d5dd0a7659c219380dbfd31ba9f0c5df5f5f05
1942 F20110331_AADAVZ ciancone_g_Page_050.txt
1a484b39083eef27c2a5ebe2edd49a5a
d8883adec4e73683a5b2ac6939789632602d61cf
27138 F20110331_AADBCI ciancone_g_Page_103.pro
3ee3f88aa382ea07357288feb53131dc
7cabf0fb5edabebcef5fdb660963936b0ae17011
1896 F20110331_AADAXB ciancone_g_Page_080.txt
f9a3331622a647921fbdd40dd121dfdc
cd51d7d0824f99f52cc04f55757f420791d955a5
51333 F20110331_AADBBT ciancone_g_Page_088.pro
54a70f78c43818dc0f84a1b7be51a287
6d422b1208560c2cc48de5e59b834ae8f5cc09e5
507 F20110331_AADAWO ciancone_g_Page_067.txt
b8743812cfd868921059510a0c57c177
ba383e9c7c95813e6dc06f24579b88e09d7a6b1c
32337 F20110331_AADBCJ ciancone_g_Page_104.pro
f1157788d23f41c1134c8bb051fdc167
39d5ee690fd7f9b479e267f25ddb239c65efec65
2588 F20110331_AADAXC ciancone_g_Page_081.txt
77debd70eee489203987810bfa97fd60
8f838bf92bf926b82414239ed7c50cc92f94cb61
20864 F20110331_AADBBU ciancone_g_Page_089.pro
b281e6b36fe542b8ae162b20b5e1f90d
475cced5df712d04788d8b3101ca901ec5b27ff4
1097 F20110331_AADAWP ciancone_g_Page_068.txt
6c9774ae2ae58cb063cff4e78437d440
fa174bb649ef82e51cb2aa398c3514a99cf5b009
3110 F20110331_AADAXD ciancone_g_Page_082.txt
ccbf5abd5a09559dd341c0dc9cbee486
883bc5c1befe3747b8a006236337e70c701198b1
18563 F20110331_AADBBV ciancone_g_Page_090.pro
d8985311cec8f452df17fc882d61bc30
d7524562f70ddc8349c3c5c2702f4bb2342f15ba
604 F20110331_AADAWQ ciancone_g_Page_069.txt
7fb8fb0ba475601f8b59e5b741b62f3c
e816d6c44ce2a38725ce7d03f41fdb2cffe08ecf
24690 F20110331_AADBCK ciancone_g_Page_105.pro
9b33dcdeff91db1c3f7e0fe7ae83e47b
845be5b1b891139b104a12693e9ece47d763c394
697 F20110331_AADAXE ciancone_g_Page_083.txt
7a9ab702a64c3631e157f6c7e4d6c588
614293427f7bcc8f5baa28f93bb187888539101a
17365 F20110331_AADBBW ciancone_g_Page_091.pro
2586a95a15a26210c312a37b285a7dff
a103683b5392561892239460fb3cf0f5850b2d6b
1401 F20110331_AADAWR ciancone_g_Page_070.txt
3dafe7e4c27d4b773eb9a41b20c8251c
42baa3c9b5c566ceff5109493943c86124d84c60
10858 F20110331_AADBDA ciancone_g_Page_003.jpg
914e6ab2caf26fb3a564143836d10b77
f5c97e0399693b1633dcb63f633d7e48dd76e903
21768 F20110331_AADBCL ciancone_g_Page_106.pro
2ecc0871efa67754f0838c05cecb975e
34b30ef61e7267c8174685f8f1d19fe458ea0e94
550 F20110331_AADAXF ciancone_g_Page_084.txt
cff8312aedde27e61ec3bc23152c9c26
bd8fbd7c7ac987e9cf4ab59e420bb69fe574a8d6
24072 F20110331_AADBBX ciancone_g_Page_092.pro
c1f17ae3b4f89f71f6687d27d287ff62
33eabb7e521e2e676f05d362928523a6ecf59038
326 F20110331_AADAWS ciancone_g_Page_071.txt
f5aac78d87d0a743ef5848e73e7a4d0b
8eb93fd9480f9c94c58677f048d1cc57f9973f73
2775 F20110331_AADBDB ciancone_g_Page_003.QC.jpg
01201924f33d1b71b9dfe6b4483779a6
a9032644ac8c738c977cd1f2d9932ebf82109cd7
22033 F20110331_AADBCM ciancone_g_Page_107.pro
d8f533d9155257b7b7251111261d28a5
01e930a3914e54dda0d70ce5f2bf2297fc0eabbb
536 F20110331_AADAXG ciancone_g_Page_085.txt
633e51b22f5f979517dfa9f905a2c48d
a2ee2194f363e3bd51c37d62ae64d267f9120980
18985 F20110331_AADBBY ciancone_g_Page_093.pro
58b9a04d3501fe4338a30b9f566546c2
931a3c0442260d053c1bd1675d5452d587d0e9a2
2106 F20110331_AADAWT ciancone_g_Page_072.txt
0a0a7400a4b07f217aeaeac6925c30a6
7a31da0e05a64059f3209b6e29ae0a29f87dc5a4
60217 F20110331_AADBDC ciancone_g_Page_004.jpg
b7b1b0e5be28316496971897eb83a039
42b31257e40048d8d4abf02e32f3b4ef2fe4b08c
27969 F20110331_AADBCN ciancone_g_Page_108.pro
c67b9e4fda6decd6ad89270c2d7aa9c6
d230ac2a52f880fead5f88b084b04b66e71fa0b8
F20110331_AADAXH ciancone_g_Page_086.txt
9ea197a2571cb97c8afe4c2b6ed92bc9
21dd0d488f5ad0fb24fc9d2402df82a898b508d1
18753 F20110331_AADBBZ ciancone_g_Page_094.pro
9b474978eb72b9e0adfd60397e87e37a
e1e99fd0e3b1e2839424d1b89cb2a68e60257939
1971 F20110331_AADAWU ciancone_g_Page_073.txt
0fbe3d94a869520b14ad82d42625a7ea
ca76742a29bf5e33e556bba49934cac9e20adf33
19344 F20110331_AADBDD ciancone_g_Page_004.QC.jpg
2923ffdce5fc686c705659b886fa3e84
a10764ae1bdd052891e92e3cd8d74a84b43ec236
17433 F20110331_AADBCO ciancone_g_Page_109.pro
84238c1a2d9420134768bed6990472ff
4a97612e3432fc7d8bb085c20d1aeffe909771ee
516 F20110331_AADAXI ciancone_g_Page_087.txt
4c50a8e390ee98572a8d42e2f0d53bb1
62916e0705915d77e1822ac2005ebef4690fa349
1964 F20110331_AADAWV ciancone_g_Page_074.txt
75fcc6f93589622a8367f910e06b780e
09a2257e5903f7457e743262c0c70f8cfd042e57
108133 F20110331_AADBDE ciancone_g_Page_005.jpg
8c0a8631832e0048daee202ea9f58cb7
3f73fb5f8edad99b63795b6a24bfa9bff910a2d6
22992 F20110331_AADBCP ciancone_g_Page_110.pro
0700dcd6d0122adfbf8a01a97adecb66
664fdc48d0638388f6dcca3f9af8276c0ae73a72
2791 F20110331_AADAXJ ciancone_g_Page_088.txt
0ea0ac7dcaa35104961671017d862c77
efcfa1f453ed963ff930c18587596430eb15a6b1
F20110331_AADAWW ciancone_g_Page_075.txt
dbd954717c8238cfde795ce9c67708a4
1064d78a8fa35ae37376572e7b7405d0fd133e27
23269 F20110331_AADBDF ciancone_g_Page_005.QC.jpg
c69325182017d2267647c79a356cb258
68b0efefc8315c47ac9c99b9aaf369bf421835dc
13175 F20110331_AADBCQ ciancone_g_Page_111.pro
14e6afbe1dff14995c95539d44aaeecf
63c4ae27b68f9d9d2c7d31d321a4da06b8d9ec39
984 F20110331_AADAXK ciancone_g_Page_090.txt
7dc725cfa5f3bbbaf1bfc5fae4dc4864
e1a248d2aa27a4c8cf368f2d2003f09777cbe653
40546 F20110331_AADBDG ciancone_g_Page_006.jpg
2e659e9673d4cd5da6c3908fb12496bd
b74177d6748ffc5dac297756dc8c2a331580199e
1289 F20110331_AADAYA ciancone_g_Page_106.txt
1dd04ec533f0ccbb454ca93ba3470a06
a3290256c4f382fb63ee91634f43e44182ba893c
21328 F20110331_AADBCR ciancone_g_Page_112.pro
689e0b84174a07bda2639e375111f3ea
2214173265a47c2046cf49632d76d11f9dfa5149
1068 F20110331_AADAXL ciancone_g_Page_091.txt
4817f06f49639bb8191ce041f302da42
1949f52ef36652b68f0d5e24d7bcc96f10184fb8
1752 F20110331_AADAWX ciancone_g_Page_076.txt
86dea69f1f6a09e4173f65373e5e4ddd
cf0ea9c83493606366086e49f962d6b10f746031
10342 F20110331_AADBDH ciancone_g_Page_006.QC.jpg
721ed671533538164049d74aeeb42c76
0ff68f9e1eb8fd8e1b05f149a04e51a2d9f7f4b2
22204 F20110331_AADBCS ciancone_g_Page_113.pro
9de96f72fe2b73193ff812e483186ce4
a605e6e939b2a5990d87ee9ca59306e491a14658
1368 F20110331_AADAXM ciancone_g_Page_092.txt
176d6bfa9be7f67d7d36fe58302873cb
dc4333d8642b2db1f7fce5658f52bef977b2fdc6
2928 F20110331_AADAWY ciancone_g_Page_077.txt
c2dc496d1b9d890a0a90337f12be9b20
ac9787b9a6f4563b9c79d16df405ee5cdd06e732
107140 F20110331_AADBDI ciancone_g_Page_007.jpg
79535197ced2fc4209fcd50bf8406157
651c113a8355ae8a2c420dfc95f3d903986c0534
1551 F20110331_AADAYB ciancone_g_Page_107.txt
0ca8c789294c61e6dc755b708bbb3cd7
4c5b34f80b3fe3094173d624c3e15ff1c9eae407
53909 F20110331_AADBCT ciancone_g_Page_114.pro
b3ad0b730acbe4c370af68fdf5589503
ce9aa5c24dd13408379517fcdf8d422ebf1b9aa9
1135 F20110331_AADAXN ciancone_g_Page_093.txt
b23090a48c073e2554b71a4884e7d22b
7e92ea426dcd9915a8a0bacaeb1dd116c2aee8d3
2274 F20110331_AADAWZ ciancone_g_Page_078.txt
58c85cc5ce97b5a68ed7ee5c4015c3fd
cb0bde283ae9f128f171e49c2d25cb610dea6afd
30086 F20110331_AADBDJ ciancone_g_Page_007.QC.jpg
9b57059d1583d3d2cf8f649db98516f1
b88dfc5fd96157cf29a53f612fcbc7f65639fdb4
2085 F20110331_AADAYC ciancone_g_Page_108.txt
84514b4c7935ca58db0d76a8d7682343
8acd4bf9bd8069e4bcbce655f0533d0fa281bf15
5622 F20110331_AADBCU ciancone_g_Page_115.pro
140453c364fba6e227c6c9ffd1d04e60
365e49cb8165e2e886f66ecafb2c65e9be68e5bc
1170 F20110331_AADAXO ciancone_g_Page_094.txt
d5cbc8692232eb9a7b02ddec63de016c
613eccba817872d4c7a2872195ad4a894d97136d
13028 F20110331_AADBDK ciancone_g_Page_008.jpg
c62450f9c488b1f924fdd2af0a2ceb88
ad46caa53b185fbdb727b0911c7d9e21d1a8e71d
1064 F20110331_AADAYD ciancone_g_Page_109.txt
f530310ae8e97fd6ac57f02a4bce0e89
ddab1e6bc970c5b5ec6b8439eec1942e4a6e6d0f
20574 F20110331_AADBCV ciancone_g_Page_116.pro
bbd3d1cf2dcf9ea92e1314cdfddbfc97
b8345c9788428004b9c5ba26c8a30c7227625b45
1214 F20110331_AADAXP ciancone_g_Page_095.txt
0452e0f81bb2be5f6bb87122d2144d42
ff7aa57c27f103ede0fdfed8accef51d25bda60f
1397 F20110331_AADAYE ciancone_g_Page_110.txt
66301b9c4d81a95ddeac6604388729d6
36218b9b4ab393818fa5732237eabf63a4d926d8
26200 F20110331_AADBCW ciancone_g_Page_001.jpg
d2f3c21e14ce42648d58e2713e4df38a
9d495911be5c500cf2da13ec66bc38bface5c517
1901 F20110331_AADAXQ ciancone_g_Page_096.txt
65ea7216ff75ca5e5dea36ea3aa0d130
bdb688562a4a8f07c6de3fa70735427a45e08830
3971 F20110331_AADBDL ciancone_g_Page_008.QC.jpg
4c43e2adc24ed118f4e3b54d363d68af
4281c29d9d74def27c7cdc6096c7ce425dd14163
823 F20110331_AADAYF ciancone_g_Page_111.txt
4dd9c23a6f1e6c6c84e54b9d3f2668b7
13d5e5e8ccca17c5dbe930a9636498f2283df835
8247 F20110331_AADBCX ciancone_g_Page_001.QC.jpg
4d5923b6a1160e53bbd8ef942354af51
d203937dc70e5bcea7cec8de5899cb569b7bdfed
1423 F20110331_AADAXR ciancone_g_Page_097.txt
f5b49b81529024a42342b96ce1fd560a
b1c93311b7441258d8ddfe2abfe21b0bfae8e62c
64535 F20110331_AADBEA ciancone_g_Page_016.jpg
027dc0a0517392bf3d7c5674345b3763
18e39a40ef9757561d7347111478bff18c88a924
101224 F20110331_AADBDM ciancone_g_Page_009.jpg
0268c84ee998cf0b99efba4496333156
ed12d86f28a37366c813305afddb751afa88d65d
1261 F20110331_AADAYG ciancone_g_Page_112.txt
5d30a345d5486d1336b8a100bc80149c
374238e88426eb59594fc03e473088e04b1f8e06
4091 F20110331_AADBCY ciancone_g_Page_002.jpg
4b2ef9d8cba3e61810d4f7e91b0b8e08
a9cd18b7bbda7a305bb6f1c6fe3cdfef1288c051
1237 F20110331_AADAXS ciancone_g_Page_098.txt
68763449dbadd9ddc39cc4f6ed4b9730
7ed92cf1c03df2da47e0a25532709464a2a6f84b
107001 F20110331_AADBEB ciancone_g_Page_017.jpg
4e04e82f65785bef35813ceefb1f1720
98b90aa544f355b33b182ac0986492714446bd04
28489 F20110331_AADBDN ciancone_g_Page_009.QC.jpg
cadac193e36b35ba89433279cc64b25c
846c04041ca33418bce62dddd58f49622c822b7f
1559 F20110331_AADAYH ciancone_g_Page_113.txt
6a8307fa3a3c601a701311fe6158a4e6
423d8a64e49b36e8607979e09052960a446cf254
1183 F20110331_AADBCZ ciancone_g_Page_002.QC.jpg
6bf9e07ac373d69ef48f20f20f346e00
ebe4d456cef15a534a03636c1ef9ce7b33e8398a
1286 F20110331_AADAXT ciancone_g_Page_099.txt
c1e5fb8a918b522548a9228a30ffa7cb
bfa18b62d2a1a2e3f7b9cb0cfea38d6c4645e8f9
34164 F20110331_AADBEC ciancone_g_Page_017.QC.jpg
12199c36c372a6ae849cd68203dc36df
43b1622e6d62f5cafb882d6e71909b7ab5232c23
116262 F20110331_AADBDO ciancone_g_Page_010.jpg
a066eaacd5eac6fb52e0e4abac82c5fe
f53d6a3cb047d13c6df4d8c1b82afa2d18c2dcfe
2219 F20110331_AADAYI ciancone_g_Page_114.txt
6890fdb493eb4c2d99b02d3f39dd3c72
c59fba932bfb8853c24fc01a76719aba0ec367ed
1248 F20110331_AADAXU ciancone_g_Page_100.txt
07b5a5af47251f64b0529c3449b630b6
72d198092f969af51f178439055ac889d06eb08a
82465 F20110331_AADBED ciancone_g_Page_018.jpg
3d26023748e4a6821f078417cf6bf9f7
d93e6c28ae08982d748ca56ffd7612b0da4ed1c4
31832 F20110331_AADBDP ciancone_g_Page_010.QC.jpg
2f7e29167162869f2e5ce28e219c6288
8f8960b76f86a8cc6ca59f7887a8ebdbbfd075b7
233 F20110331_AADAYJ ciancone_g_Page_115.txt
1e93cd5633a1b7f63e23dfcc4b82a559
61774b403a61b69b49265265d355350debcd8574
1995 F20110331_AADAXV ciancone_g_Page_101.txt
03f2627c05ef934282ee1f10820e15b5
38fe74abfba9e7e0f102b63ef78a4e4d0ab9befc
25539 F20110331_AADBEE ciancone_g_Page_018.QC.jpg
f6c97937d1cabdb78534ef2aa8b20896
018f69bb40cbf1fda1bbc38205a2a3df71ea1f06
53325 F20110331_AADBDQ ciancone_g_Page_011.jpg
7d024affcb3f7d9fd77d9a51fade5b5a
34bb8f59585ba1bc7aee6a5072bd5c96c19676d2
F20110331_AADAYK ciancone_g_Page_116.txt
91ea8b656731ee3ad37350e64398b149
38c19013033f0b724f34bb8a29012a21c6ba854a
1742 F20110331_AADAXW ciancone_g_Page_102.txt
d29f92c9c6e8dae65ac05d9eb19ffea0
601c6d25952a0d8e0bb796e4dfe8a5ad8c11be65
67380 F20110331_AADBEF ciancone_g_Page_019.jpg
a535cda26c3000ab14b0a8c859bff449
fcddfade051c9511709c928aa6ce0a11b63caba2
15671 F20110331_AADBDR ciancone_g_Page_011.QC.jpg
19b72db5a2fa990a7279c9b4a69436b1
7801b4d2ae53d19cbdc2717720152849cfd00b0c
7964 F20110331_AADAYL ciancone_g_Page_001.pro
b70277ca811bcde4410a89fc9b347bf7
1f07832637d6e6daa1d553e4d07c87283d1b8077
1869 F20110331_AADAXX ciancone_g_Page_103.txt
15d922dc16cc3a013c52c23c918429c6
a3ca7a16efd4c2160c1ee998da39c2b768b772e1
21387 F20110331_AADBEG ciancone_g_Page_019.QC.jpg
22ff83cd4ce78fc0cb2216bdfdb79559
3d32eaea366f248588e9561ea2d70d2063749321
52696 F20110331_AADAZA ciancone_g_Page_017.pro
53046d1487f552aa31f97c7067c9e0f3
55cf347a1ed510b60873f2ee8b2f004b158cd34c
85797 F20110331_AADBDS ciancone_g_Page_012.jpg
1d8705d053a210a3afefb7a9395dab8f
700ed97540c24584abd36d924a341985f490c115
940 F20110331_AADAYM ciancone_g_Page_002.pro
4c89ab388bdfed379319cea7187f5d7b
c3189e515a89f7121df9237fb28ac34f7207e4cd
2018 F20110331_AADAXY ciancone_g_Page_104.txt
07d443f49726e29be3855e6bfc0be121
9e842bbb017b10a4436d46704e47b347624e55b7
98045 F20110331_AADBEH ciancone_g_Page_020.jpg
c7f360af108a14fcd002bb446dbb48d8
fd191d53351c145460cbbd0a856decff70f159f0
41930 F20110331_AADAZB ciancone_g_Page_018.pro
1b6d4187c1e87c3077c669a7e82de936
6f4ef36b15c9b64ecf09140442f0c41a547c21e6
28065 F20110331_AADBDT ciancone_g_Page_012.QC.jpg
a7c559b53b0213dc810a58302c0f7629
bcc5b859b383146da59d0dd6ceaa1dbf021872ec
3865 F20110331_AADAYN ciancone_g_Page_003.pro
a314e8a6e1b14d9ec1964b63e96e76bb
9469113be61c78ec69d407a4690675bbaf612123
1711 F20110331_AADAXZ ciancone_g_Page_105.txt
3be0c41d3ce82ed24f88e0ad282138af
274e12bcc7a85654544d6d0afa5f51127a7bc77a
33168 F20110331_AADBEI ciancone_g_Page_020.QC.jpg
305bccbdbaad2a3ad3ed2335be99a1da
6c71a94504ac89f508f86902b4c1bdedd65f165b
27305 F20110331_AADAYO ciancone_g_Page_004.pro
17f2f97efd950ce8af175db7dd2105be
dff1c22f588916df6f2c2527914549435e55b919
109352 F20110331_AADBEJ ciancone_g_Page_021.jpg
bf2965a1f3b47bb873b5fad275d324f0
9b2a84660301e9b97f36143661a8128622ed7890
34503 F20110331_AADAZC ciancone_g_Page_019.pro
8fbe4697c0abd5863e93fdcfa6fc2d24
c499458eef3f6dffec2c547bb439e6f9c0739f6a
46501 F20110331_AADBDU ciancone_g_Page_013.jpg
5b23f07e9d6353d1f11929edaf23c95c
46d64153efdc8b269e668d0e3a5d4b661cbd0524
92562 F20110331_AADAYP ciancone_g_Page_005.pro
2b446ce14ceeb55b32f3f07e21b94092
0c5312e138032a0b8483e6e7fe4060abf221e6eb
36774 F20110331_AADBEK ciancone_g_Page_021.QC.jpg
8da3c0a3a47f831f3c339c007409a15e
ffdb5393146e6d608afe53f5a1b7a716e36ad88f
47810 F20110331_AADAZD ciancone_g_Page_020.pro
aabc6ca7a311329d5fa0ead589faea63
56267454fd379346c051a756fc03c7ef53615e7a
15431 F20110331_AADBDV ciancone_g_Page_013.QC.jpg
66cfec12475d4d3eb5cbfca1b5f5e046
e34475604a3516ffde8a942d1ada7eceb4999b04
26326 F20110331_AADAYQ ciancone_g_Page_006.pro
4d111464e292adfaf999f16075ca2bbd
cbd2d29210bb91de0db4a405fc1a0441c7056dca
108175 F20110331_AADBEL ciancone_g_Page_022.jpg
65e780f2a10fa662a92c5dbfb5ecb40a
c51780e9f87e95ca4422fbf026748d88f2a6c17e
53668 F20110331_AADAZE ciancone_g_Page_021.pro
5d99995e53e09db5f4c2d487ce667b18
d7845c0f75abd3758867b410151e62354b5e10ea
87509 F20110331_AADBDW ciancone_g_Page_014.jpg
edc7d803deb1f6e863af2c1fd37e2540
583cabc69c393399e6caedbec9f9c7ca3ee6f803
73476 F20110331_AADAYR ciancone_g_Page_007.pro
45e3b40a3b5426099ca23755ae82e2b4
cfe9ca18b1bce06d5d02817bd20c2613544800a4
33328 F20110331_AADBFA ciancone_g_Page_030.QC.jpg
2c54e67ea8e71ab6620dea9ba31e5518
f10c0c288101a544f84e5388f888998ff8bdd747
55061 F20110331_AADAZF ciancone_g_Page_022.pro
b9e21f4ba6f72f0b35b955e24cf8eb58
5c7671aae5b93d701152fa980852bf98bb592c22
28732 F20110331_AADBDX ciancone_g_Page_014.QC.jpg
b367cf0c7af6262243e98bdd86d6af8c
551275618b909b8e29997d9ab343dde262fccece
7005 F20110331_AADAYS ciancone_g_Page_008.pro
cd489b4847afdcb6da2ad22fede69cf2
fae053faa4f20fa3c96a370527f8bb8f4192bf68
99464 F20110331_AADBFB ciancone_g_Page_031.jpg
c3eafa9ea03c23bd53adac7b0056e228
7169fd003288152b83c131b2c0d09c5675b1caa6
35695 F20110331_AADBEM ciancone_g_Page_022.QC.jpg
2b34199ff3bd42501f0bff9890b13d2e
aad763b1049feba6e62fe51f56b603e7321bc0c4
14587 F20110331_AADAZG ciancone_g_Page_023.pro
e7db09b616528afa055e32fbeb454b93
06d52345d827ef36705b27a7619d87b4329702c4
107133 F20110331_AADBDY ciancone_g_Page_015.jpg
60058775521a98acf12fdb32560e03ef
9638aef5ad171ddc03550f9815e0f9558b2df8aa
72882 F20110331_AADAYT ciancone_g_Page_009.pro
913f1c004e31b4a82781088cc55ed4f2
51d118d5f837f093aca1f935c1dead6cde9f7c0d
33241 F20110331_AADBFC ciancone_g_Page_031.QC.jpg
1265733ff9f2f0ea6747fc73c3dcc126
e8f10782bdca633c884f8a8399465403b9ad6116
33238 F20110331_AADBEN ciancone_g_Page_023.jpg
32d34a3ff2fbf4ea884f500ff339251b
2aeea4037e3eecff9c70b250b05ac22c9b96742c
12537 F20110331_AADAZH ciancone_g_Page_024.pro
65e1a5e8b2233c2361d73c50776e0dd1
dcd8c398211ab814803b841aac8e035af58a9f24
35164 F20110331_AADBDZ ciancone_g_Page_015.QC.jpg
480f30bd5a91a81fa0328d12d648a834
5129738ee894bbbece618cca3f394354d53f0540
79932 F20110331_AADAYU ciancone_g_Page_010.pro
1c79d54a2fc81aba1df4889830257aa5
fd173dab6a690fe0dcfb04b9541e48d9136edff2
108855 F20110331_AADBFD ciancone_g_Page_032.jpg
b3f7819bfd59f23cb8e55ee53744e799
4d41babd81e62fc81052d55917daa84a46b7fc46
11442 F20110331_AADBEO ciancone_g_Page_023.QC.jpg
d81f6210c07f7c404237a0d9fa713a40
9346d247b1a42d89844c3869607c6778a3658453
7077 F20110331_AADAZI ciancone_g_Page_025.pro
cc4252bdc63df842535c9bb819cb4093
1a735f47dafadefe6df13f7df1c9f76915229823
28506 F20110331_AADAYV ciancone_g_Page_011.pro
0f42df40cc0a8250474d9769ae929b20
9c1aeca5a0f5392e8181fd3c2bc53d7ba8d0ab10
36892 F20110331_AADBFE ciancone_g_Page_032.QC.jpg
68c39f2c63919fac1b49c04a0893bd34
43cbef1ff5cae5a4207697f546d975ec73072ea3
23350 F20110331_AADBEP ciancone_g_Page_024.jpg
42de0ec4f35e1ca6509c5aad3f64bfb9
1942fd85bee1937695f9f24e8e4be854acb7effd
11731 F20110331_AADAZJ ciancone_g_Page_026.pro
bb47de43a17a3b7cac8660685cfb0c3c
62fe142617e90f690da7e41bb24e6f5c65cc9f80
39480 F20110331_AADAYW ciancone_g_Page_012.pro
6db90c3bcf9a4146b90215cf39540259
403ccdecec423b6206fde69af18d7291e11c8a3d
99909 F20110331_AADBFF ciancone_g_Page_033.jpg
bc06688540378e6cd48d63c14f030e7a
269698dc3e26faf3ca8417ff6828efded120326f
7416 F20110331_AADBEQ ciancone_g_Page_024.QC.jpg
abb604722c9052dc5f9f033696e10af4
7f37b4c19dbc7a7c6b400295881cad66ebddc262
11226 F20110331_AADAZK ciancone_g_Page_027.pro
7d668b5d632c5cdfda5c839016c518d9
b485a2ec2ac422ffcea7cc23d6131ab7f06ded90
F20110331_AADAYX ciancone_g_Page_013.pro
0c5b8df4879b5183363b8d17cfe29e4d
d15d5321a4796b92e926651d1753290bc3c35a58
32930 F20110331_AADBFG ciancone_g_Page_033.QC.jpg
3345f5c32dd28e5ba89752be182c858d
7250e8229342e144e295999c411dee36275bdc23
32821 F20110331_AADBER ciancone_g_Page_025.jpg
3e2130bea2052137ee79954b6741f0ca
5bd81e6670e3860a53c7d20bc642b3ad8a1a1617
5936 F20110331_AADAZL ciancone_g_Page_028.pro
f6e99a71231bdc5d077cd6e096ccce63
a1b855d2708b39f70d0ec590adc5f2dce0712344
53449 F20110331_AADAYY ciancone_g_Page_015.pro
c9c160337afb19988090c60dbc9d3afc
fd703e17c98eb7815bb48a83b71ad2f27f15dc85
105295 F20110331_AADBFH ciancone_g_Page_034.jpg
3004a2c63c105ad84d92f20dc3cc4518
368921927d91a7ce24c5640ef1cb46023a3eb9ce
11017 F20110331_AADBES ciancone_g_Page_025.QC.jpg
17e9487137c71eec4abdbb784216356f
44b0ec8f7f919d25a6a1fb89f06ddea302d8c27e
51006 F20110331_AADAZM ciancone_g_Page_029.pro
b2b3bad9a19484aaebf449822db13a71
096f46252e542b49ed76d8d0f132e3e8f88b7494
31833 F20110331_AADAYZ ciancone_g_Page_016.pro
28f7fd8f24d0b54629b34a64fd951101
c8349a11bbd302eaf50c6632427e9d0175ee1864
34774 F20110331_AADBFI ciancone_g_Page_034.QC.jpg
3835f842ed0896039a98ca6677291ca0
136a3d25c4c462dfe5f5bcb15b5b57f33a5e8d67
33080 F20110331_AADBET ciancone_g_Page_026.jpg
549c81bd12bee06c2391cfc3d16b183c
d9f8f04c8636567135871a87966d249895806c8c
50623 F20110331_AADAZN ciancone_g_Page_030.pro
a3b56dae819e4ece5958f64fc25d1cb5
499d415bff434377699ed0bbf10e817579f79b07
107593 F20110331_AADBFJ ciancone_g_Page_035.jpg
0ec07e478ce48511830383708eef82c3
0016cd6b1fc43d61b641b925591a7df164035c1a
10581 F20110331_AADBEU ciancone_g_Page_026.QC.jpg
2253510cf7a46f79049c6523efdd3879
bdf8edb6f57ff735aaf9a49b4d961c37fbaa6c22
49181 F20110331_AADAZO ciancone_g_Page_031.pro
d986e336795f0d7b7de63d509e12f8b7
b15634ac97b229a07c12f39046047e91af3e2dcf
35743 F20110331_AADBFK ciancone_g_Page_035.QC.jpg
fcbabdf06b9c04f17421da028f36530f
3a4bc7c9b14c3e19663190d290765214b449bee3
45662 F20110331_AADBEV ciancone_g_Page_027.jpg
d72d7edca11e90cd14584affedc21e84
95534e5b1f57ff5bea35e98519dbafb8915d1167
54551 F20110331_AADAZP ciancone_g_Page_032.pro
8a98abcfdb365c1654e56aa15ef77c4d
81f93f968480c87a8688c4216c734924cb29982c
44127 F20110331_AADBFL ciancone_g_Page_036.jpg
f30fceb8a929c0fcca4cfd6cafe72b37
2fd60377d5120161af4a9f54ca6f0d4fa36f5948
26743 F20110331_AADBEW ciancone_g_Page_028.jpg
bf1ae6da9ae4952816d3bbb402e5bbff
086b1e2900a06933293c3165d561c1fb55ec106d
48278 F20110331_AADAZQ ciancone_g_Page_033.pro
b4544cb0c23988e74f6066e093a85548
a8fd78b3ba0b95a3befa757b259a0b4e8276f001
14106 F20110331_AADBFM ciancone_g_Page_036.QC.jpg
d80929cd26ee5a390d241d1d4a9a64d2
9a73352fa4d141d7bbe7383a7771eb8df884c3a8
10171 F20110331_AADBEX ciancone_g_Page_028.QC.jpg
af53f7648fbaed60e9d11868967726d6
559fb12ee61ebcf7a73f65817b58e4516030d875
52266 F20110331_AADAZR ciancone_g_Page_034.pro
60d84f8ba782479b943c60b6b5dfece9
e3c05ba07143b2f61f8b666bd671c047661909c7
23413 F20110331_AADBGA ciancone_g_Page_043.QC.jpg
232c7012caafdc597622692b27cc00b0
401d0ffbb2ad7ffac02af2a259cd31488e57f4c1
34541 F20110331_AADBEY ciancone_g_Page_029.QC.jpg
227f4d082b14fb5754bacb946dbc6ed7
5d0ea3afb6e4aeee37b7ef6fda85460707f2722b
53711 F20110331_AADAZS ciancone_g_Page_035.pro
f0b2b3a912cb7496fd0a848b6cf1660e
9ccdf856d7db1cb9478406e60431298559dcd235
49794 F20110331_AADBGB ciancone_g_Page_044.jpg
032af91552e7efbb085845889b9b0922
07d05b5b84c54fad67d31bb931342b4c70bfc7f4
19657 F20110331_AADBFN ciancone_g_Page_037.jpg
6016ccca529840e6a3d7256ac9b65b8f
3f3fd737bc461e92aeafb3e3a6ce0ffa3b1ac7ef
103519 F20110331_AADBEZ ciancone_g_Page_030.jpg
13080dab5ea044424f234f0cbf3d13b3
b5b6fcc5cb04169916562cceab5aa5221e8bd33f
20246 F20110331_AADAZT ciancone_g_Page_036.pro
90b92f02e4eb79075d2ea6cf84a41265
62703c16be75bc058b467711e16b17b9756cec11
16620 F20110331_AADBGC ciancone_g_Page_044.QC.jpg
0185699de41e5d80f559413ec36eaca5
174957fa765e5dc32c306de42f43e43d23a0f66f
6748 F20110331_AADBFO ciancone_g_Page_037.QC.jpg
6b9290b7303b8a08012249bda822f5b7
9915d41f777df0a2b9d2a80d1bd8204c26cbb678
9370 F20110331_AADAZU ciancone_g_Page_037.pro
a15f3692cee3b0cdfdcd3c4903752ae1
460cd5a22dfa03dd6956ae76c765357c1505af90
53734 F20110331_AADBGD ciancone_g_Page_045.jpg
10abc982d305ac19ddb4a63e141abd63
e12fe180aeffd0c71b693e93cfadced6266d485c
119636 F20110331_AADBFP ciancone_g_Page_038.jpg
207ade5b18f855b5b3f742f1f1fb358a
77054cfbde3a3c982459819509dc51f7d5187417
64015 F20110331_AADAZV ciancone_g_Page_038.pro
e18ddf118529721491eaf43ee450325d
1fc99f890c359a2fb21a1018998a47992ebf5bac
17308 F20110331_AADBGE ciancone_g_Page_045.QC.jpg
3654fbc07442819789cde469f1905dc7
faef95439db2a473b7182c19ee3bfdc426f91dc5
34394 F20110331_AADBFQ ciancone_g_Page_038.QC.jpg
86941f00a01f9f01d7325b3f288248bc
9e6d955173082c7a6765856f6ee2479570d8c32c
18731 F20110331_AADAZW ciancone_g_Page_039.pro
8d6a68c3f8c8c219bc0b056b131fc8cc
e5b7e5dbc227b40a51b0f597bcfe1622dcad79ce
59418 F20110331_AADBGF ciancone_g_Page_046.jpg
35369120027858b6f7ca6bda1400522a
335613033f73c0b2543d965133e5dbe936fb7901
32411 F20110331_AADBFR ciancone_g_Page_039.jpg
d5ef20bfbf415e05b7439a966dfa0610
043192fceaaa9a7415fc129cebc1c912a0d559c4
14544 F20110331_AADAZX ciancone_g_Page_040.pro
ec0ce06f2d6b43df365334545fd36f30
4609d6a4d93704c3849629dc3c680a90d0726ec2
20083 F20110331_AADBGG ciancone_g_Page_046.QC.jpg
4e6fc4f32e4461bfc5271d72a7f83a1b
618d565533046729d1693ebb09151241122a96aa
10436 F20110331_AADBFS ciancone_g_Page_039.QC.jpg
f458c79e71f04ee1e2383098540ac4f9
0376133f5e07b47082632344bf7c22b65f22ac76
15740 F20110331_AADAZY ciancone_g_Page_041.pro
53916ff0cfc1d3fb0b0013770d16e590
3377d2bd08d768c030a5f3130e4616d3b8c96433
89241 F20110331_AADBGH ciancone_g_Page_047.jpg
33c35aeb584f86d587365e94fb93a823
e628d85acb87c06ced2c00338728945e729b7f8d
59980 F20110331_AADBFT ciancone_g_Page_040.jpg
302505299825de5daad35644bc9077be
0dac0fb7bf499d8597143bc3fb57803f75fcd2e1
3558 F20110331_AADAZZ ciancone_g_Page_042.pro
32ab662c5c3411f2bd87f8812b14114a
eaed194c90576d2dd315943523706c9d2e2d5a1d
30591 F20110331_AADBGI ciancone_g_Page_047.QC.jpg
fa7df563bc178f9f573aeb8ed59869d6
a3aa788a5a91c45b88ea21bebe35e9db9f2f4b10
20810 F20110331_AADBFU ciancone_g_Page_040.QC.jpg
3a60e889062bf978956d455d4490d7c6
95097ac20c55d582f616f0730d7b27298f83449c
104689 F20110331_AADBGJ ciancone_g_Page_048.jpg
c2dd6d5394b383cdb0bc440078e70a88
c7f86ec46a575f999d17dedd1e63604cac1dec06
56207 F20110331_AADBFV ciancone_g_Page_041.jpg
84b4856871a0703acfd5228c801870dd
70a88ae6b92d02baac06c5400b7b3d996055b6cc
34621 F20110331_AADBGK ciancone_g_Page_048.QC.jpg
9f3d2c35ab6c207aa6b44ba9cee0b8ea
60f4fc76476dcca589d53f1de9eca440dc1db89b
19097 F20110331_AADBFW ciancone_g_Page_041.QC.jpg
54988e125e1cc3704768c4da09a2cf27
abaafe1ff2468d1c4744c066c65ee6592f5cad6e
34788 F20110331_AADBGL ciancone_g_Page_049.QC.jpg
f7648659af95c21541581c1ac3373584
5ba757c4b0dcfec482a165f6631253cfe5142146
61442 F20110331_AADBFX ciancone_g_Page_042.jpg
09b7b384f89c0503b341ef4aa547ae95
917c503fd88d4caa70909e58be7e4a45fd271042
32601 F20110331_AADBHA ciancone_g_Page_057.QC.jpg
33c3a2bfa11a5f09a96f338bd72c9267
259623c3f6257c6f34e617d3c2695444cc032c8f
100926 F20110331_AADBGM ciancone_g_Page_050.jpg
ca05aefbd229318fcd408f19ea44d719
c498ecc23ebde572b7ab4dcba056be68d28a114a
19592 F20110331_AADBFY ciancone_g_Page_042.QC.jpg
5874d6299ff254a125c3051747255b95
1560cc3f41aeacd065930c5163ad8dfd2d5eab1c
16468 F20110331_AADBHB ciancone_g_Page_058.jpg
00b794b805d915c3b6875b4bcd96e94b
e89e5a4f1719cd3e13900cbb0198568672b56ee9
32433 F20110331_AADBGN ciancone_g_Page_050.QC.jpg
7437987623c5b0be329a0d81e8968845
94951b050ac24e334e115fc8ee8e911c98def841
70261 F20110331_AADBFZ ciancone_g_Page_043.jpg
18ee403dd539d5674a125116699ff9e6
74eed3dcf62f00cfeded2a39bd7c1fbacf93f18e
6031 F20110331_AADBHC ciancone_g_Page_058.QC.jpg
bd8a08aca139c8ddf4f4cf4119ff6e0c
1977ca9e76110177ef6b831402f931979730e0da
75311 F20110331_AADBHD ciancone_g_Page_059.jpg
ea53039e8cb8d5cff93e0b1ba42b4101
8ab3c58bfef1317560de62a29d43ffa101478e09
34880 F20110331_AADBGO ciancone_g_Page_051.QC.jpg
0a0e9c188f4e8d4a9bb83f66edc5c272
4d52b0594c2db8f7e72a7cc0e9360f4702504ca9
24682 F20110331_AADBHE ciancone_g_Page_059.QC.jpg
c104864f47e2467d31e8113d4f21f289
6dca2d7a3647aaf51773f89de4a0d05638ecc410
107234 F20110331_AADBGP ciancone_g_Page_052.jpg
8eaf3cde273da0dd1a0b2ed80de0dd5c
2f5ad0d1ad70c2dd230640a738d7227b7df4b304
47332 F20110331_AADBHF ciancone_g_Page_060.jpg
c6fc2d1c817f9d2b405eee01c945bf14
f48cdec779074c95fcb425520ff4a96f0a462a1c
34790 F20110331_AADBGQ ciancone_g_Page_052.QC.jpg
aa664450a36fa7c1dfbd477354e86b83
18f9482dec72dcca90c8158fbfd3466c0c6394dd
13236 F20110331_AADBHG ciancone_g_Page_060.QC.jpg
8f64638ae085ae8f0dc3358ad00e78ea
59977952afaaf4c4157898f1cb09883721c80729
104250 F20110331_AADBGR ciancone_g_Page_053.jpg
a7f5841dd98a22e81f10fcd59ea5990a
cba587c889359e43bf3ea16a9c9e34463b05b6e4
53667 F20110331_AADBHH ciancone_g_Page_061.jpg
a072b1c3fa0a686220a633e5dc6c1573
bf99210d2204dce8c1cd3af4bc9a7af9cd7187fd
33403 F20110331_AADBGS ciancone_g_Page_053.QC.jpg
67f675354325e7602dcd24ced6e89214
2dd046cae064a50479110c31ede4d97a521cfef7
15095 F20110331_AADBHI ciancone_g_Page_061.QC.jpg
9722cbce6fad66c3b09f4873abd8736c
c72205196f4e623822306b7447bc527e98e9bed8
100170 F20110331_AADBGT ciancone_g_Page_054.jpg
dc1a52980d83db911e7d1426cbf2bc3c
8172583d93a73f578170af57449b78ad299ff5de
58458 F20110331_AADBHJ ciancone_g_Page_062.jpg
7fdfa9c4e6ff0f5887e7f8a952017a86
d87dc25cb0110dc62e95ab76bc25e3feb0beccab
32667 F20110331_AADBGU ciancone_g_Page_054.QC.jpg
574171f8643f587a24d458208dba012b
07e672baaa49d8fa67e91c4a157f14fb9261dd9a
16363 F20110331_AADBHK ciancone_g_Page_062.QC.jpg
0503c70bffcc6517303fa2e618aad06e
c5cd186176575ffea5d236751db6e497544678a8
104407 F20110331_AADBGV ciancone_g_Page_055.jpg
2ba19c5be197c01a426d49c33e58a503
08028fd0eb8c12b4d53e628710da4b2b39d17962
48118 F20110331_AADBHL ciancone_g_Page_063.jpg
9a6323b8240f0e223de3d06d8802cea0
f03bcdb05d2b35aeeed5dc53ff9cd90740036996
33924 F20110331_AADBGW ciancone_g_Page_055.QC.jpg
9c5457c9b0765b31cd1e847f2e4bd75b
91c62a46554f1343d4464f105e3cfe2f3ed32e1e
100288 F20110331_AADBIA ciancone_g_Page_072.jpg
9c06f96b7d08f8397d1abca5ec0abaea
578a8cd5c8505ea9db429cbf2a38d0651ee5897e
15767 F20110331_AADBHM ciancone_g_Page_063.QC.jpg
7b098289ce2c78f833015df34602c486
1afcb4942beff09ef595651c11d1fca59feaa430
96865 F20110331_AADBGX ciancone_g_Page_056.jpg
92a5cffcab3dca0756466bcbdb2f4be5
1ff71a4537de67fec278b200196028c36429f461
31947 F20110331_AADBIB ciancone_g_Page_072.QC.jpg
5b47330ef160b788b9798a602a8be6d8
227bb19a57d0fc87fba6baf8804b175eb8802c5a
72079 F20110331_AADBHN ciancone_g_Page_064.jpg
953dcd41d6548380b0506993babd4f40
71f4d88c4e4d8b5d1620f351a276a967d7356d39
34685 F20110331_AADBGY ciancone_g_Page_056.QC.jpg
ebce356f73500f5970048cec5ed476c9
19d78984a2d52b9edb93f419baafd72a5d9cfecb
101419 F20110331_AADBIC ciancone_g_Page_073.jpg
d989c1c5315d061140ff7932572d4b88
397e5ac4cc39f784fbd88226e5cc3b678df13723
23001 F20110331_AADBHO ciancone_g_Page_064.QC.jpg
a0ce093d2d2e8a19b7ea14a79498876b
6e030a95240e2e0b8652bb8a5c18acc2a92c9993
102084 F20110331_AADBGZ ciancone_g_Page_057.jpg
e919c6e319d3841adca0c7471aff268d
00a93101699d9e5692c5ee72bb19c8b8d837186d
101412 F20110331_AADBID ciancone_g_Page_074.jpg
9f4f2c4e52292481a27248a766581b26
763df8099085506529e95c369795cf6ac126d066
33093 F20110331_AADBIE ciancone_g_Page_074.QC.jpg
934c82d772e938cbb26994415e281600
f12eef246afbfeb9bed0f5d582e85a7dbc3ec640
80274 F20110331_AADBHP ciancone_g_Page_065.jpg
c899a7954df6681ea207cdccadff195c
24958af1a2f289c466f0bb9c8a7c64b4b7d2b8d2
86969 F20110331_AADBIF ciancone_g_Page_075.jpg
6919d440f596339d2f5da2c82a6c53d3
80eefd23d2b8f2a0f23181a35c5dd5ce92e5ffd7
25206 F20110331_AADBHQ ciancone_g_Page_065.QC.jpg
2ab571b496100b8906c28b388559bcec
198b51cba1a8d37ed77da9bb734161c246647d5b
26627 F20110331_AADBIG ciancone_g_Page_075.QC.jpg
3a833f8fb95ffa2a175ce765b97163b1
c252c0870405b8648a363102a7842b9869048b56
65626 F20110331_AADBHR ciancone_g_Page_066.jpg
115f14863a98d6a51a9cb7666d105eff
9b964ffc99449648305614db7e431bc68e58ccaa
82476 F20110331_AADBIH ciancone_g_Page_076.jpg
f5b2d5ec92f0667ff98d91fab125d4fd
7273a1d96ab53adcc749ac61b1a3bef54530287b
22948 F20110331_AADBHS ciancone_g_Page_066.QC.jpg
bc7f793fe9691bb94e1d602a19e456b3
2dfe65564f6b35ccf99329b346c98ca59b6bfb69
27307 F20110331_AADBII ciancone_g_Page_076.QC.jpg
d613ce25caae418b6560ef0d13f7e7df
cd89c957d11e5af05c76e46292310e4c455f383d
37676 F20110331_AADBHT ciancone_g_Page_067.jpg
20eca63401fcee66f864dcc9ae7e635c
a8f32a6ba87a838837bd521a8f2e2a5bfeef1872
30701 F20110331_AADBIJ ciancone_g_Page_077.QC.jpg
337ddb554b2fddb961cc434ed5d60aad
5352b2bd24c41798e71e059b3f5181f3a8dbf53c
11983 F20110331_AADBHU ciancone_g_Page_067.QC.jpg
a4226f84a423f37d621afeaf909986a4
11495933b8bc14b8b51508b8ab6358171b30c597
89811 F20110331_AADBIK ciancone_g_Page_078.jpg
3b040229fd9b0c01930a03c4be2ce912
4d6b32a37fb07d7dea980896d4d06d4ee2dfc286
80487 F20110331_AADBHV ciancone_g_Page_068.jpg
af3cce5c7e708f2b8d361a7e2554d62d
e35894ad5f15f1c0d6769e9721e534215b33654b
26116 F20110331_AADBIL ciancone_g_Page_078.QC.jpg
6426b36794b1306ed732eb8d24ccdf0f
30162bb072d16222462e3e31a96d4f7d7fad0b7c
25239 F20110331_AADBHW ciancone_g_Page_068.QC.jpg
fd90991173d2953a6937efa4b4b924f1
6d07b6dd9bc8710eac243a35ab87ebb8c0523415
109432 F20110331_AADBIM ciancone_g_Page_079.jpg
79a6adba015038641dce1757bfcb42ae
28940b5d00bdb5a8a5473015b74c02b88c590fbd
21273 F20110331_AADBHX ciancone_g_Page_070.QC.jpg
9039652043e47ca725f27bf422820def
16d8b1b9d1a9eec14eca1053c75f3fcff5a3aa35
98788 F20110331_AADBJA ciancone_g_Page_086.jpg
972cb414b6f01c8e290e6f109b4bf9f4
eed3490749d299b76a6587863bbe21410eb976cb
31861 F20110331_AADBIN ciancone_g_Page_079.QC.jpg
d416490857df97c7fb98009c812cac2d
151aae4b49d55f712a91874fabba997931e62cac
23539 F20110331_AADBHY ciancone_g_Page_071.jpg
e30d92c3422a4bd126faadfad0a9b374
3aa8a84cda1e04f8dbb0973613ace2072331bc1e
32819 F20110331_AADBJB ciancone_g_Page_086.QC.jpg
91f55e428404ed9792ef5e24e8d5e994
03a3dda344a4af2660c1694d58d525974cd3f1bd
80397 F20110331_AADBIO ciancone_g_Page_080.jpg
2da064f9e191d8e0a7bfd6a28ef86be2
7c57765cf12450472d205d1200956bfdd9b84c5d
7643 F20110331_AADBHZ ciancone_g_Page_071.QC.jpg
b6b9f6d395f438187599c0105a73dc45
ca55f88a175e898aadad7d0d28408ee9194ee028
30780 F20110331_AADBJC ciancone_g_Page_087.jpg
98f402ea785f168de803d57367acd1c5
cb11734b125a501820471acad4a7dbcd5d785216
23934 F20110331_AADBIP ciancone_g_Page_080.QC.jpg
ef5f5bf322299fbbfda8f91ddc2887aa
c4823da4ebbdc7f2bff95439979da27e176dac67
10363 F20110331_AADBJD ciancone_g_Page_087.QC.jpg
350a8556134d75deaab7599db1695946
c72d173e0ae5afb581175dd72cecad862b2e5ed5
92263 F20110331_AADBJE ciancone_g_Page_088.jpg
d8aff1a368bbde5a84f9395ee9069e3d
6d9570e651e381a7bfcdd7d5ae8baf3d04a15dfd
104934 F20110331_AADBIQ ciancone_g_Page_081.jpg
de806d75027c2c1b8246695be0221070
0ec83ccbe3db6367be0d8ba9d1f6f875ab04a31e
27876 F20110331_AADBJF ciancone_g_Page_088.QC.jpg
1292c439cb5dd80baf6733f1d6203f29
d6f253e8c2b23d7a6deada8a11cf2e14f7fffab6
39565 F20110331_AADBJG ciancone_g_Page_089.jpg
d2af1e0ba9279ec55c7913b823eb9f0e
1194ed0bfd3dc1c43b06f0ce458859e1e8083105
30096 F20110331_AADBIR ciancone_g_Page_081.QC.jpg
b86b7dc6e0a3e0e2c011cba794e3ffd7
05cee8971b04c75e25e84419254c292c82f42d03
12258 F20110331_AADBJH ciancone_g_Page_089.QC.jpg
0ee9fcdd4ea25ce38e079f9cd2bcec75
d9bd038fd23e1a15e0d558386c59117979a4f44a
141283 F20110331_AADBIS ciancone_g_Page_082.jpg
c268bd5f7d2a2dd486ad6d7a9efd6ed8
22539cd7b1f799afa850b313d5a16f7551dce6e6
69109 F20110331_AADBJI ciancone_g_Page_090.jpg
d11325e673f53ca842e08e8b07d3a741
fe849c75cad604d50b0770ec7b22a46a0ebfeb3c
40250 F20110331_AADBIT ciancone_g_Page_082.QC.jpg
af4b5ae90f0cf2508be4a780a456eb84
d28d3f594f15d7bfd519068c6149f95048ea02fd
23645 F20110331_AADBJJ ciancone_g_Page_090.QC.jpg
7c7861d743c94893ebba105e2dbb1c47
2e533f24e09816ecc41b4739a41cbd99994f9142
57828 F20110331_AADBIU ciancone_g_Page_083.jpg
04c19882b6e29606a755c69608a567be
d198c9e75335b5db5fa7a3f3ee26b144c26b47c6
66781 F20110331_AADBJK ciancone_g_Page_091.jpg
29a8365e444ad3c85a5d016b5194d493
6d959db5526ec1e290766d622cda1c7a811582c0
19548 F20110331_AADBIV ciancone_g_Page_083.QC.jpg
9d638d8bd03afdba46b144c89cf51498
bda178c7c25fb07baa87a1263a6a759cfd947a0c
23327 F20110331_AADBJL ciancone_g_Page_091.QC.jpg
8455e1c95fd9c585a848f79c32573a70
9de806fcd84996ed94182cd9da82940fe1c2afdf
60713 F20110331_AADBIW ciancone_g_Page_084.jpg
c3b7130d4b10faf08e5c5c930c565d55
f7ea49a93cf4a8e7a02d5ae7b0a5f0daecf4cdd9
25095 F20110331_AADBKA ciancone_g_Page_099.QC.jpg
ed816b7a8668971d161cf5aea1ee31a8
490ab7b97bb4448c1927fa47b2df835cf9259ef5
74512 F20110331_AADBJM ciancone_g_Page_092.jpg
612416a0ad758bef580155bb64bb9d0c
7b754588a3334b24c58f80d3df23cb1d02300e55
17548 F20110331_AADBIX ciancone_g_Page_084.QC.jpg
22ca66328cc275ec628a110869a8157b
18267582d997501c1d50a6a9e0a869e483e45b63
73935 F20110331_AADBKB ciancone_g_Page_100.jpg
b067490dc326d2332b7245ec9a4f1221
d9834cf0e9600957e0d8af8c586cf4d40cc81cd3
26202 F20110331_AADBJN ciancone_g_Page_092.QC.jpg
6b2ddabd203d9f998e1d62b36df4d0c6
83424c4d80712835fb2421b27ca513a1a63da2ea
47634 F20110331_AADBIY ciancone_g_Page_085.jpg
7efc4ad84570afad337bed8c440cd50f
1cffbc71a266fc084f99a217e1598369367a5001
25245 F20110331_AADBKC ciancone_g_Page_100.QC.jpg
b42f81f44deeb56ace5716d0f4170ec8
237766bd8eafc67b70621b969949c309896a8365
64868 F20110331_AADBJO ciancone_g_Page_093.jpg
788ded648890e6dc56a25b1834a992b5
f65530bc9646582051f1752ab0789bc05f369afc
13839 F20110331_AADBIZ ciancone_g_Page_085.QC.jpg
f27f11e871127f606e0d0c4d95e56600
a30be4a5ed7b120e9ac9c69e9a44a5e64915baf5
78073 F20110331_AADBKD ciancone_g_Page_101.jpg
be2952c9aff0de5396fdd6a801b96809
eb1b4fc02bb8424c74eb7462a2efd819145dd890
22810 F20110331_AADBJP ciancone_g_Page_093.QC.jpg
3da1957689ea7063e89b69c85a1bb9b5
a58f4f83ab216eead69fa48403e89575bc3343b9
81691 F20110331_AADBKE ciancone_g_Page_102.jpg
d7d6545235c5cfdfa902f6f6ea528be5
d022f833b9a79b1d59d042fde7b25b5ce31fa495
66395 F20110331_AADBJQ ciancone_g_Page_094.jpg
8a477dc1fbc24f6e76065ee589ab8748
2557f5485f1e499a2ca0841ae6576d7a2ecc1387
27827 F20110331_AADBKF ciancone_g_Page_102.QC.jpg
e16d43a3a705a6c2d7e94c342f6cdd69
84aecdd794ddcbe061513691ca406dcf842884f7
73275 F20110331_AADBKG ciancone_g_Page_103.jpg
dae79a151d9e1f61655d0cae7da2fac0
7acf4b86a368a646e031d9a78dcff6edc44ae321
23262 F20110331_AADBJR ciancone_g_Page_094.QC.jpg
348e4c1361fcc5a636230b1af33ef9a5
9b07fe5c3f26aca5351af3a0c31313d2adcc9e38
25946 F20110331_AADBKH ciancone_g_Page_103.QC.jpg
83e68daa861bef654fe94cd9b6422093
56e6a2619b2c169f1e903e1ac49fc2d4a570ac13
80252 F20110331_AADBJS ciancone_g_Page_095.jpg
39eaa2c8fed9af334960ce2171e29727
0d58827b66df74f97c0a11531bbed55bf9db75ff
80756 F20110331_AADBKI ciancone_g_Page_104.jpg
b9d023d0a574d440bf9119ef3a7b56b5
ce276685bba1b2cbf6f7a939ee65548954bc609e
28293 F20110331_AADBJT ciancone_g_Page_095.QC.jpg
d688d1cf528ed338d0f32560d316070b
ef4796ff76ed4a105237bd00d5eb51bd22aa7f36
27585 F20110331_AADBKJ ciancone_g_Page_104.QC.jpg
6cad53e48f5102faf9b87f7258401634
eebdf2ec51f960e907ec272371621027fdf8253c
83278 F20110331_AADBJU ciancone_g_Page_096.jpg
d4fa67b1abade24bf337d880ecf6d447
4c369f42ac6b995af4bbb5a0910dd34c2fc42031
72866 F20110331_AADBKK ciancone_g_Page_105.jpg
e2081ee2a6d747a2f8e216e0b319f4e8
59bae4635e1a44a9f32f27358a642c349a4e1ed0
28740 F20110331_AADBJV ciancone_g_Page_096.QC.jpg
d9d98ad68aa1dbc0d3627a44a200dbbc
f535f4c760e5fbe61b84b62f803277b5ed146da9
25721 F20110331_AADBKL ciancone_g_Page_105.QC.jpg
cffa6b615fda95eb0457d7a6bd583f28
0d252a0cd8b90dd095262734ea67d163c462afdb
79767 F20110331_AADBJW ciancone_g_Page_097.jpg
d549caa485f865699a6b2b1b40d55d0d
28b4aced11bece0acc478366807034473395de90
83084 F20110331_AADBKM ciancone_g_Page_106.jpg
c81749cba4a3e469dcb3b5151f02b240
d2ea0c0b1471b8a40f887ac0b043fd78480d964d
26390 F20110331_AADBJX ciancone_g_Page_097.QC.jpg
8b04625719b97635ae1761d2f244bd65
b5b58212ae7a7576146770b333fb80367c6e5996
72890 F20110331_AADBLA ciancone_g_Page_113.jpg
3504e57b8b55631dd0a2956c5ae73ee1
c27419ac0088e4a3e54f605f79d6961f5064e6b1
28516 F20110331_AADBKN ciancone_g_Page_106.QC.jpg
ff0b649d8b1753395a660ccc7f278468
ea5b0d96a76be6734f8d988059a52411268dd997
76796 F20110331_AADBJY ciancone_g_Page_098.jpg
8e949161bd5c0120b62ffa50815d56fd
f0c33a1bf631c9d1aea9a72145d6224eb075d481
26225 F20110331_AADBLB ciancone_g_Page_113.QC.jpg
3b09b75793290ee05d62ea30d688e844
599b7313c2f0458901e246329ff6d1c799336542
83289 F20110331_AADBKO ciancone_g_Page_107.jpg
9213b3ee91e47cf3fa18f966a81e8c69
493a3b5e65e5fffede06989ef3b6489792e57353
75616 F20110331_AADBJZ ciancone_g_Page_099.jpg
5fff4e3d078abcaf7aec83b8a1d825fe
d2c30871ab7cde47b643e4188f4508edc24ec694
117958 F20110331_AADBLC ciancone_g_Page_114.jpg
44a59d1530521543edf301ecf0df3241
440a87dab0609aaf78d8005a025ec39ce106b62e
28650 F20110331_AADBKP ciancone_g_Page_107.QC.jpg
a6da7aabfd97e011e4f5507cdf6ccbfd
97edbac0a565d95a9917dc304038f012affa8bf2
34179 F20110331_AADBLD ciancone_g_Page_114.QC.jpg
01a7c0e62bc393aac3a5af1120a95a25
48177e5c775b17a15835a567b476f0b82ab0e633
76653 F20110331_AADBKQ ciancone_g_Page_108.jpg
4557cd2df95a0ff29f2224dc0269e0dc
6f84fde6c9d7eb5dd59f8fc5b3fd83cf339ef014
15142 F20110331_AADBLE ciancone_g_Page_115.jpg
9385d51b1d73a86d5a7ed51504195374
393457e97ea8f3e52e47c089507e924758a42167
26929 F20110331_AADBKR ciancone_g_Page_108.QC.jpg
af8f0d3e5192e2cff270a49783b2f0e2
e2202c84f15dbe0f92995610bccccd65e4c66f6d
4759 F20110331_AADBLF ciancone_g_Page_115.QC.jpg
66a540fdcf3ca818fddc4d8967168022
8bca210cef952293282e3d3a929ec1f2e4f959a9
45953 F20110331_AADBLG ciancone_g_Page_116.jpg
a50506d609e0b1ce69d7adf6f1e1a0f5
2fc10e19a1315f4134379a8c7eef8b5657148d06
66456 F20110331_AADBKS ciancone_g_Page_109.jpg
73fc0f1ee16087d66d46b9444753795d
a70ded6892b31f4063ca9bb6c4c4e65893a20246
14712 F20110331_AADBLH ciancone_g_Page_116.QC.jpg
2c056f0aed5a305ebc381220c8df1c0d
63437bd011eabaeb4ff77595747ad5baf1cb4c31
23186 F20110331_AADBKT ciancone_g_Page_109.QC.jpg
5a2a3545b18601ac61e7a66807b8458d
ae7f5d76abc81ae10269502f27fea4acdc9bfefd
248705 F20110331_AADBLI ciancone_g_Page_001.jp2
e5959d9990b735006df37ddc63e1d414
3450514654b12524cd34b7a4d09c30a61036ffd3
75817 F20110331_AADBKU ciancone_g_Page_110.jpg
f48b99a242b7b68641cb9626795561f2
6d4f30af12728a44c27e4c9eb2f4d65d4cf5ee7b
F20110331_AADBLJ ciancone_g_Page_002.jp2
c791c3277f8e7332cc5e2ceee809443c
1e1f27b489ca8ce3313852ea6d58f0c2678c8843
26519 F20110331_AADBKV ciancone_g_Page_110.QC.jpg
051229cf7574b82532b7bd794b14ac4f
c42c067e7a3ac365008e4c35c92f5fbc48f95485
95120 F20110331_AADBLK ciancone_g_Page_003.jp2
2c4779cd746880eb473cae9047ae6abb
a7b436887e20cd2cd255ddb0103d7eb9a50211bd
53676 F20110331_AADBKW ciancone_g_Page_111.jpg
c8099e62c6e9ee59208e6ce48e73c3f5
0e7f339de626c311de4b69b8eab3125fb9b06ffc
633235 F20110331_AADBLL ciancone_g_Page_004.jp2
ddff8b40fcc7ff1a60c4100f26b0b6b4
5544c45dc94ac878241e40d2647e182c6d17cfdb
18984 F20110331_AADBKX ciancone_g_Page_111.QC.jpg
64ebb0d9ad1660001dc8694fbaefe039
d9fb6725948a9e14eb6f870763d945c633399322
1051927 F20110331_AADBMA ciancone_g_Page_021.jp2
0ef7117e2d5499d804545ea1dc4857ec
8d6c4eeb4a345c1e2d72e1d96870663f9ce57bc0
1051978 F20110331_AADBLM ciancone_g_Page_005.jp2
8477a28188840147a9489b17126f2095
ef8c3ff008959ca127d0f113e5ffa31ffe4f3d0f
71377 F20110331_AADBKY ciancone_g_Page_112.jpg
8a04724be38116f0c6dc3dcf86bf252f
295961386688225069560840ed4486a107c17f71
F20110331_AADBMB ciancone_g_Page_022.jp2
5b7538c8b9e405080696be19a47de185
484b667e606d83d34cae0022abb5f5d753bfaa60
693739 F20110331_AADBLN ciancone_g_Page_006.jp2
0b36f070642d40c9a5841758d69e0f55
7b1d5cdd701f6971219b1e2d10cdd77ae2afff7e
F20110331_AADBKZ ciancone_g_Page_112.QC.jpg
5971d392d0bff626a8dd7878307cbd1c
fba71aef564eab2d347bc1f602cdec1506999d65
335957 F20110331_AADBMC ciancone_g_Page_023.jp2
24013d83bdb9d33d9820a6a7735de22d
11b2cfd54ae1233ed85d5f62596c12a8a780aa9e
1051972 F20110331_AADBLO ciancone_g_Page_007.jp2
81930eb02b978ed775371c1e159271c2
5584264728bfeb72e729b58f58e828126059e275
198500 F20110331_AADBMD ciancone_g_Page_024.jp2
40b2cfc47dcf1043bceb60645b1b3c00
6ae7a113321388fdca544f52f058b4046f586a61
179568 F20110331_AADBLP ciancone_g_Page_008.jp2
376a086891ab0cc290b00cf35f860509
7674ca5ad2083afdcc4bab7655e54b42252dcabe
329125 F20110331_AADBME ciancone_g_Page_025.jp2
9966776fdfc98b092dcaf7a207a035d5
aa547ababdc5299131fa9c3cc0a4e05a1a3c805d
1051969 F20110331_AADBLQ ciancone_g_Page_009.jp2
570ae3eb616b82b407b9aa9b3e83e6ee
dd9c0fa96fd52fadc702f00df28cc6a2b3b8349a
360756 F20110331_AADBMF ciancone_g_Page_026.jp2
e88182c85d3f45704a218c1e6cb91360
6fbd101f0d18e3b4be3951093ae040763d392728
1051981 F20110331_AADBLR ciancone_g_Page_010.jp2
2888a051e011e9ea243385b1c130660c
b8ab0528af1125cd72ab4bcc9d07870c7116bac0
435603 F20110331_AADBMG ciancone_g_Page_027.jp2
306ccd5cac2a6c61c6df426b98c6df43
4fb10475b03a744d00afb0a9d052b9e1d309ee6d
926947 F20110331_AADBLS ciancone_g_Page_012.jp2
109e5acc1409c01e140cc876b597ea2b
1b1a317a379af2fbb608834ffdc9f351b2c7bb52
249993 F20110331_AADBMH ciancone_g_Page_028.jp2
321d2724a46a3701db378b119121b58c
e7c201288d7182de78dfa4a9e64a0b7e07ba48e4
1051986 F20110331_AADBMI ciancone_g_Page_029.jp2
9bbbdd59dc78ab1032387f9ef7136661
c4e0fd5f83b9d77f5cb4c3a5627ca4e5681012bc
953666 F20110331_AADBLT ciancone_g_Page_014.jp2
29bac29a8f3426600a85a753fc3bfd23
7c731e2fe1d26655aa86c35c264267f97fdbdf40
1051916 F20110331_AADBMJ ciancone_g_Page_030.jp2
967965cf3c539b3a663cf217e1c419d3
a7dd2503edc2ab9b6f5e96683ee9baf92413b6dc
1051952 F20110331_AADBLU ciancone_g_Page_015.jp2
73c477d5eb252dd7b62ce2112427b9bb
63557399795fa3d9158068a883304ce3352350e5
F20110331_AADBMK ciancone_g_Page_031.jp2
d2a4f91e61b6a47b4a77eab25f49f402
5fbe5e9797eb2df82de96d856cc471c1ae521632
699084 F20110331_AADBLV ciancone_g_Page_016.jp2
e6fd6682eccf74025f360726cb0b2175
301c6016174ac8f5119523a31a580e20a078597d
F20110331_AADBML ciancone_g_Page_032.jp2
6c3b9860e40d742e64ec86aab1a5968d
bf03805de9f15db66bcc1ea282017b106be2eb68
1051965 F20110331_AADBLW ciancone_g_Page_017.jp2
d99a3fc684baca862c65b0ef14483e31
fc06870dd2d5d2850d618b17cfb06c3eed8b45a5
1051956 F20110331_AADBNA ciancone_g_Page_050.jp2
bb6ae98d721ec5f683fc9921cfc1b80e
162f44f58955d2056414d0685096b7c8e8339d02
1051937 F20110331_AADBMM ciancone_g_Page_033.jp2
62ddd111f290f4d8fee9ab482a799aae
ad315091cf52cfd13d7f81d4367125c547bfda74
889178 F20110331_AADBLX ciancone_g_Page_018.jp2
f6852825fa9eedc9f1c70217ff94970b
1e7ab0db96fd5b964d75ea0d4efed41079f81326
1051982 F20110331_AADBNB ciancone_g_Page_051.jp2
a0bce5803bb18e77aeb42f21cbfa9542
c031dfb0002047426f20b459a0ecd72f2dd12c59
1051950 F20110331_AADBMN ciancone_g_Page_034.jp2
fc790c2d270ee06292304d5cfef15cbd
4b8cba80940c4f32306c2607e13cd0d506f4a077
714238 F20110331_AADBLY ciancone_g_Page_019.jp2
36b57cbff1899093217840f573c812f8
e69f48d005bfd586aba5ebf970552d6de0de2e99
1051954 F20110331_AADBNC ciancone_g_Page_052.jp2
923ad3f6739b20ec76aee6a0f5e1cd8b
02d0a6e4a7e98aebaaabded553326ac13dc6ca0a
1051977 F20110331_AADBMO ciancone_g_Page_035.jp2
5a295c86eb572c20c8b3f75875d05663
02e35ae501495ece37ec6f338cc4cc6ac61382e1
1051960 F20110331_AADBLZ ciancone_g_Page_020.jp2
1093627ef3ced3aea883ebcfafb93a3a
0bdb3cb9776d59292ad23d75b5c8df88163b9d50
1051980 F20110331_AADBND ciancone_g_Page_054.jp2
22975bb37cf4d3bf499230512b9e313d
d13555f8ad53dbbf72d67b1897c196353e46e014
453199 F20110331_AADBMP ciancone_g_Page_036.jp2
9694bd74bcc0e8c6fb89e807562770ff
c25fc8684f3a9d5e06eb261b3479bba49dc02a73
1051945 F20110331_AADBNE ciancone_g_Page_056.jp2
e30ef95c6c448e31df63601e48cb7dc2
8563fc7fd6e3f96d7772bcc1abe8a353f5d90b3e
172313 F20110331_AADBMQ ciancone_g_Page_037.jp2
4a489173e6e5b2af73fdf2086e3d99a6
4eddd5d5a9acef94ddad603a77dbc35f46e6450d
F20110331_AADBNF ciancone_g_Page_057.jp2
37b172819733c22a7c2a63f3fddb2122
085020a7da39c6910a0bcea82315d922d3c28203
1051929 F20110331_AADBMR ciancone_g_Page_038.jp2
5e14af0e76a9d4fdc6419595bd11aef2
986e152034fd56c7cae2638437f18defe399379b
149033 F20110331_AADBNG ciancone_g_Page_058.jp2
aeacb9d743ff2370009fee577770fc50
980eb5510a8df84b87164fdaa536cb48ae597eef
606624 F20110331_AADBMS ciancone_g_Page_041.jp2
5664e3862a9a85003b7abdb42f33dd86
ed98ed4bed15489e05e7c1ece307e9ba95d85d46
715291 F20110331_AADBNH ciancone_g_Page_060.jp2
12d420d3a3ff4b8301f8c42ece6339ef
32bcf97ac672d1bf3066935605b1f2deaddb6133
859169 F20110331_AADBMT ciancone_g_Page_042.jp2
e14373769e56f8de91f03bba460af693
26da9d42b6c27f08254924326dfd0d473cfdf349
831901 F20110331_AADBNI ciancone_g_Page_061.jp2
25d26c7915f83a281cfc98b03881bdd8
37c6d923725f5c7227145f05b77ee2d54d74ea4f
898517 F20110331_AADBNJ ciancone_g_Page_062.jp2
fc91ba269497bf12ca307730927bce06
6c2bc1c850ca13762594abbbfedf287b8238e8a9
949996 F20110331_AADBMU ciancone_g_Page_043.jp2
ef7ac7c8c6cb08141b4d55a0b3c8f8fa
7a0c8d7f2bd643370fb861166c48072c4027cd99
551497 F20110331_AADBNK ciancone_g_Page_063.jp2
270f589acf2eb1e5c84d3b13f4e49aab
6a9fc2e17dbb9959ceb1c3e8779e99561e16eec1
630650 F20110331_AADBMV ciancone_g_Page_045.jp2
7d55785c70c624d530129fd5404d0f07
ac32e2204f0c0f52ea5b8eda9f34d83c0e07e289
1007654 F20110331_AADBNL ciancone_g_Page_064.jp2
e417adfef7e7df15b6e725f7c677ecb7
0a1a8da83be2273288800fbc35a6de1f0c619e3f
857161 F20110331_AADBMW ciancone_g_Page_046.jp2
2e8ea931a5625159204f3bd204adbfb5
4f754d66611662f273f80ef3813cab198834884c
F20110331_AADBNM ciancone_g_Page_065.jp2
bc896272107d45b782519dab1f889864
061c7d02ad676c64dbd08719f4f5a0e88f017689
972324 F20110331_AADBMX ciancone_g_Page_047.jp2
5554a7803732dae9a0b87e07f1442385
d48e0704e4ceec82c4b795fe1b860af11aaa477e
F20110331_AADBOA ciancone_g_Page_079.jp2
07726ae0b0d6030e2a6b4f72015ce3b7
29163207e29945713e9e26f343a86d6ac1332940
666757 F20110331_AADBNN ciancone_g_Page_066.jp2
a3fa768fe3395268d73dbb6c97f74d8e
3e1361966b69259d7fb0a40742820bdf69522f46
1051979 F20110331_AADBMY ciancone_g_Page_048.jp2
60b4647d6ab139a422b816fb6958cd63
db8a54be7789928dab8e2942ea7eecfeb87e14af
816113 F20110331_AADBOB ciancone_g_Page_080.jp2
c494cd646fe840500a6160b589610e49
2b32774726ed79be4a5743c4431d658ded69e81c
368425 F20110331_AADBNO ciancone_g_Page_067.jp2
728e766c1d307ff3e10941fd7a5d14e5
0d516acd8ba82a23728cf2da3b3d4423f0c951da
1051962 F20110331_AADBMZ ciancone_g_Page_049.jp2
b91bb517b380370564b91be2be5bd23f
b335c1e955a19d6712fe22fa908c41d6c1014983
1039574 F20110331_AADBOC ciancone_g_Page_081.jp2
05bdde84dc83277468b18a0e4d30bdf0
d18a126caae6a902a8322563eaa95460aa3f54cd
1051967 F20110331_AADBOD ciancone_g_Page_082.jp2
45f99763c8d7acbd9f6b310ff65deb10
cf4e901a8be2b6a616eff42bbf7243051749ed60
F20110331_AADBNP ciancone_g_Page_068.jp2
7358eb072583796ea36094190145c85c
f2be5ea794181ac167318519308839ba72dd486c
554114 F20110331_AADBOE ciancone_g_Page_083.jp2
7883c6cc249d34e0f1be7eac13d5c81c
7a1eeed9ed8f8b6408de4f361adeb9698c61c63e
467932 F20110331_AADBNQ ciancone_g_Page_069.jp2
5a1b2f98d20f7bfbab22cac6749fbb40
918ec124659d88b96f8cddf62df67b0c93a82857
1051942 F20110331_AADBOF ciancone_g_Page_084.jp2
5ae292d022116fc3506dd5eb18618033
d999b8626eaac551bbc15d2958e0c35d183a4e06
1009426 F20110331_AADBNR ciancone_g_Page_070.jp2
7e48c3a27cdb7c74c1a73a4d6a06e000
072a5384cef552778491fd61c1ed0230357e307f
842107 F20110331_AADBOG ciancone_g_Page_085.jp2
71f80dd1eb9a7118d742ee10c1eb2aae
dbad95d02dc0b0435783dc943e996b10da7d2360
230205 F20110331_AADBNS ciancone_g_Page_071.jp2
452a6b5a7948ac5febcf8fe1c933787f
a67bbb3fa381a0be507e67020d346f557ba6aa8a
F20110331_AADBOH ciancone_g_Page_086.jp2
9e80b2f3f5ff21b9ab316ea9ded502dc
fbf0a652bee891bd10fd8b18430462de89769987
1051928 F20110331_AADBNT ciancone_g_Page_072.jp2
5fe458685194bf3a530916888d37a272
d12cb975ab8bde9fc7452ecf98a27715c96698cb
308630 F20110331_AADBOI ciancone_g_Page_087.jp2
12e9ef07ff04f43ec4eaf15518193b75
66443681605505bdedd33d942e6bf66fbe790380
1051953 F20110331_AADBNU ciancone_g_Page_073.jp2
f620a40fb88b2f5c9db09dbb3dbcde7f
286f00c568777fcc108f02153028183319a9ff29
934771 F20110331_AADBOJ ciancone_g_Page_088.jp2
0f72c33740458cd03b6f6b9b26e1ecc4
e749b7bc8ee35eb47c1a1683a829681f0c1ae7dd
384939 F20110331_AADBOK ciancone_g_Page_089.jp2
d0220df604eb35eca7aab9743f2ec17b
bbf875e2a43ed62526ccbcf7bd9290755ccdbcfc
1051970 F20110331_AADBNV ciancone_g_Page_074.jp2
6dd433a9db7025dbd1b7a319cd24627c
e799efc3bb6864c10d6bf3a9e4bb55d44a61bb97
698573 F20110331_AADBOL ciancone_g_Page_090.jp2
768218b9b95d6555e949dbc5c3b79642
1de603c17a8186209df42aa0d0ed8f1aabbf9e5e
929588 F20110331_AADBNW ciancone_g_Page_075.jp2
b32f602f0ca7ab8e1045816fca993ffd
86ee39901da3e89095257c95b747a4adb01c3072
860238 F20110331_AADBPA ciancone_g_Page_106.jp2
b823cb61cf35070f517e3fe4f4b447ec
12065b939674cea95119bee494b44a10a05d41cc
689095 F20110331_AADBOM ciancone_g_Page_091.jp2
b98b1248e5398abc9bf667fa0dc03a09
dc9384643a9108e86c06eb02c237ed6e285f9223
883755 F20110331_AADBNX ciancone_g_Page_076.jp2
95e6b21db04c6abdb1addcbe1a2ff4ee
067791b8194f5e10d9eccc1e0b31ef4bf935246a
875787 F20110331_AADBPB ciancone_g_Page_107.jp2
9adc0adf555a17e15793b853549decb5
333992110177ad8a0c1cf65cc744fdc83f6c6a5c
784060 F20110331_AADBON ciancone_g_Page_092.jp2
fc6e4a7891163420cc4eac6214a9aa90
e5f7831c842b62532b8a18b6174500e3b16a0e36
996128 F20110331_AADBNY ciancone_g_Page_077.jp2
402d1a6475899cd05dfadd00085386be
63128fd573aaa61f909aaa94f964ba9b97f04915
824917 F20110331_AADBPC ciancone_g_Page_108.jp2
8b0d1d0ddadb7ae543fb0831f414d12f
58eee809376b8a40ab61dcfdd8df1392cb93ed92
647011 F20110331_AADBOO ciancone_g_Page_093.jp2
16aeddfe21c19ffacea56c1e46b5c7cc
149c80dedb926837d12cd4bdbededd43694d848d
849198 F20110331_AADBNZ ciancone_g_Page_078.jp2
48948fc75921b7509c345a63e7abd3a5
2f374cf1f67a86fb27cfb69289adb2229156f34c
721656 F20110331_AADBPD ciancone_g_Page_109.jp2
1db010233d3cac2e89dc97f200488dfb
d7ebcfcbc43ad4e7e34f9b88597c2f71c43c80f0
864544 F20110331_AADBOP ciancone_g_Page_095.jp2
60347d0c1538357418e4ee2ed7aa30a8
2dfc8a2ca1f0422f945658952e2c1e0e516ff4a6
548924 F20110331_AADBPE ciancone_g_Page_111.jp2
4bc63817146d7da09961f7b7684a28a9
2972e75e8bf154bafd0315dcf4c7e51114f5f4aa
870343 F20110331_AADBOQ ciancone_g_Page_096.jp2
d5da0b0086863990fd053bbc0a553704
a17c3f2de07595fedaf7f6259b10593bcc5d052c
767843 F20110331_AADBPF ciancone_g_Page_112.jp2
8e213ff681c1496f004f3b2c6c1fa227
99cf78f84d8f23c344af8d75e0fbc1c3cbe242be
852817 F20110331_AADBOR ciancone_g_Page_097.jp2
4573ed8cdd2b6d56c7e7ffe06a285454
697311c367df71d9ed3a914bc746917e4d42ed0a
771386 F20110331_AADBPG ciancone_g_Page_113.jp2
67255469f22277c6d52887d2b4df143e
1d7e35952be561e890fab990e9f62f6b42b41078
829029 F20110331_AADBOS ciancone_g_Page_098.jp2
f185281e90ab858b525d47b205e99584
3b65a1bd9e70e6a432acbf6094f0d81d27734f60
1051881 F20110331_AADBPH ciancone_g_Page_114.jp2
6d9443beb092541eb8a15ba28a3f9695
b9682567aa84f1f6592b1da4389718f61cb752d6
782564 F20110331_AADBOT ciancone_g_Page_099.jp2
75b8e03655e71ba52dee4117361a2481
d8a6d98c370110c6ef23aab56227b83f0540bfc6
473211 F20110331_AADBPI ciancone_g_Page_116.jp2
d0e7d233eac82a986900d2a4fe522ed5
e99e9b97d9493a126c3929607da09ec19e0fc09e
743802 F20110331_AADBOU ciancone_g_Page_100.jp2
30f45758ee4cb1a70182702d5fa96038
efbbaf73ae1eac718588f67314a79568fc1fe051
F20110331_AADBPJ ciancone_g_Page_001thm.jpg
11791caa3e7e27ebfc97dd0aa8a1e44c
9c763a33f33e6a2b147f863bb68a243e4810c90a
797131 F20110331_AADBOV ciancone_g_Page_101.jp2
8bf9fc21bf2f43db1b1c56f95f8281ab
4c7999f5a04eabd6ac48b69f2c4186ba4cd50633
527 F20110331_AADBPK ciancone_g_Page_002thm.jpg
6cbf50562d1657f4dd942a255fc752e6
dc334abdcbc9426083598dc6a79d9f40d5dfa177
928 F20110331_AADBPL ciancone_g_Page_003thm.jpg
dfa6f4de26af9414552f8c415c75b904
f6255142eb77b031486690a68597dbb58e24fc77
826381 F20110331_AADBOW ciancone_g_Page_102.jp2
fcff57b0df248bc8fa6006dbab7cc710
e365984a6dbba2c4325a0dfe902cffc3aad6ac3d
4866 F20110331_AADBPM ciancone_g_Page_004thm.jpg
b96968b40d383e85991246d5cdd8bd08
e09cecadc24f689c6fc07c9d42f4b6ec73ddf3c4
784577 F20110331_AADBOX ciancone_g_Page_103.jp2
08250e17c52407a5d5ab4ef11d0b808d
f00fefdbc3a888463c2dbd000829a3d6744adfbe
7262 F20110331_AADBQA ciancone_g_Page_018thm.jpg
cfe75c939594676ec8f373a62615a0e5
0086edba3f9a87d30d0e5228aabe3513373a6642
5893 F20110331_AADBPN ciancone_g_Page_005thm.jpg
899f87091310577544fb54d0f259b8f0
e6ddcdea5b7e47254f025ef53e6ffcc22b206300
856960 F20110331_AADBOY ciancone_g_Page_104.jp2
36e97f237eea70bda5ccbd1e3de1b108
07477f2de7b8a724ab4ff7ed62b8fc4343aeb5e6
6130 F20110331_AADBQB ciancone_g_Page_019thm.jpg
085f6b0f56cdb6fa949a748f0a32d5a5
8b32572570610da8203f077ef2c90890d889db44
2787 F20110331_AADBPO ciancone_g_Page_006thm.jpg
a86cb71bbf5a00e175284a5a359f8a30
cd92e02e32c98cf275d525630698243ed9591d45
765172 F20110331_AADBOZ ciancone_g_Page_105.jp2
8165cde8ddabf058c5876ed1d293f66e
52e7d0c1f820d1de7e38049df7936bbda5394e17
F20110331_AADBQC ciancone_g_Page_020thm.jpg
32002a304f1e4420141f9aa4c424d48a
a82251d94d0b4008c4808fe956c11f0d80ae40f0
7225 F20110331_AADBPP ciancone_g_Page_007thm.jpg
ecf1fa9946a5980c0b37e698f695d12a
54d00b05b172fa914a62135abcba7d66a1281109
8791 F20110331_AADBQD ciancone_g_Page_021thm.jpg
175337115fe86d7ff744db33e373a82f
928033366fa7aa253e18348de83e2b36dc9d503f
1275 F20110331_AADBPQ ciancone_g_Page_008thm.jpg
d58a681ccda6e21cc143598656486ec0
5272f24769e542e0a6a5a60e0dd123e3270730a1
8839 F20110331_AADBQE ciancone_g_Page_022thm.jpg
1764375a977513148d36c2cb3200df55
9e21c2f4fdaf31d4525b5583f0a41ee2e49c01ed
6912 F20110331_AADBPR ciancone_g_Page_009thm.jpg
2e2f3d0f5aa75efbd162fbc3c3b9d200
fbfa4fb8358c1f2024469d6001bf4af171879afd
2937 F20110331_AADBQF ciancone_g_Page_023thm.jpg
003488e780128f978940362581799a8d
2ffa333d443a4778ca8048bf18283cf85fc4cc16