Impact of Bottom Flange Confinement Reinforcement on Performance of Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girders

For many years AASHTO provided no recommendation to state DOT’s on bottom flange confinement reinforcement for their bridge superstructures. The 1996 edition of AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges stated that nominal reinforcement be placed to enclose the prestressing steel from the end of the girder for at least a distance equal to the girder’s height. A few years later the 2004 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification changed the distance over which the confinement was to be distributed from 1.0h to 1.5h, and gave minimum requirements for the amount of steel to be used, No.3 bars, and their maximum spacing, not to exceed 6”. Research was undertaken to study what impact, if any, confinement reinforcement has on the performance of prestressed concrete bridge girders. Of particular interest was the effect confinement had on the transfer length, development length, and vertical shear capacity of the fore mentioned members. First, an analytical investigation was performed on the subject, and then an experimental investigation followed which consisted of designing, fabricating, and testing eight tee-girders and three NU1100 girders with particular attention paid to the amount and distribution of confinement reinforcement placed at the end of each girder. The results of the study show: 1) neither the amount or distribution of confinement reinforcement had a significant effect on the initial or final transfer length of the prestress strands; 2) at the AASHTO calculated development length, no significant impact from confinement was found on either the nominal flexural capacity of bridge girders or bond capacity of the prestressing steel; 3) the effects from varied confinement reinforcement on the shear resistance of girders tested was negligible, however, distribution of confinement did show to have an impact on the prestressed strands’ bond capacity; 4) confinement distribution across the entire girder did increase ductility and reduced cracking under extreme loading conditions.

Literacy Research: Issues of Authority, Ownership, and Representation

With the “social turn” of language in the past decade within English studies, ethnographic and teacher research methods increasingly have acquired legitimacy as a means of studying student literacy. And with this legitimacy, graduate students specializing in literacy and composition studies increasingly are being encouraged to use ethnographic and teacher research methods to study student literacy within classrooms. Yet few of the narratives produced from these studies discuss the problems that frequently arise when participant observers enter the classroom. Recently, some researchers have begun to interrogate the extent to which ethnographic and teacher research methods are able to construct and disseminate knowledge in empowering ways (Anderson & Irvine, 1993; Bishop, 1993; Fine, 1994; Fleischer. 1994; McLaren, 1992). While ethnographic and teacher research methods have oftentimes been touted as being more democratic and nonhierarchical than quantitative methods—-which oftentimes erase individuals lived experiences with numbers and statistical formulas—-researchers are just beginning to probe the ways that ethnographic and teacher research models can also be silencing, unreflective, and oppressive. Those who have begun to question the ethics of conducting, writing about, and disseminating knowledge in education have coined the term “critical” research, a rather vague and loose term that proposes a position of reflexivity and self-critique for all research methods, not just ethnography or teacher research. Drawing upon theories of feminist consciousness-raising, liberatory praxis, and community-action research, theories of critical research aim to involve researchers and participants in a highly participatory framework for constructing knowledge, an inquiry that seeks to question, disrupt, or intervene in the conditions under study for some socially transformative end. While critical research methods are always contingent upon the context being studied, in general they are undergirded by principles of non-hierarchical relations, participatory collaboration, problem-posing, dialogic inquiry, and multiple and multi-voiced interpretations. In distinguishing between critical and traditional ethnographic processes, for instance, Peter McLaren says that critical ethnography asks questions such as “[u]nder what conditions and to what ends do we. as educational researchers, enter into relations of cooperation. mutuality, and reciprocity with those who we research?” (p. 78) and “what social effects do you want your evaluations and understandings to have?” (p. 83). In»the same vein, Michelle Fine suggests that critical researchers must move beyond notions of the etic/emic dichotomy of researcher positionality in order to “probe how we are in relation with the contexts we study and with our informants, understanding that we are all multiple in those relations” (p. 72). Researchers in composition and literacy stud¬ies who endorse critical research methods, then, aim to enact some sort of positive transformative change in keeping with the needs and interests of the participants with whom they work.