Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 96-S5

Toward a Rational Approach for Design of Minimum


Torsion Reinforcement
by Mohamed A. Ali and Richard N. White
One of the significant improvements in ACI 318-95 is the adoption
of a rational model for torsion design. The minimum torsional reinforcement requirement remained empirical. This paper describes a
proposed rational approach for computing minimum torsional reinforcement.
Keywords: beams; brittleness (brittle failure); minimum reinforcement;
reinforced concrete; structural design; torsion.

INTRODUCTION
The torsion provisions in ACI 318-95 were substantially
improved compared with ACI 318-89. The 1995 provision is
based on a rational thin-walled tube, space truss analogy,
which is currently adopted in the CEB Model Code1 and the
Canadian Code.2 The method adopted in ACI 318-95 was
reported to correlate well with experimental results of both
high-strength and normal strength concrete specimens.3,4
Nevertheless, the minimum torsional reinforcement provision
(11.6.5) in ACI 318-95 is still empirical, which contradicts the
general rationality of other torsion design provisions.
The method presented herein for computing minimum
torsional reinforcement capitalizes on results and equations
already adopted in ACI 318-95 to prevent brittle failure of a
member in torsion. Therefore, the method will be both
rational and consistent with the existing design approach.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This paper describes the derivation of a design procedure
for minimum torsional reinforcement in beams so as to
preclude brittle failure in torsion. This is ensured by specifying that the beams ultimate torsion capacity should be
greater than its cracking torsion. The method is compared
with available test data.
Torsion design in ACI 318-95
Section 11.6, Design for Torsion, was subject to major
changes3 in ACI 318-95. The new torsion provisions are based
on a thin-walled tube, space truss analogy in which the beam
cross section is idealized as a tube (Fig. 1). After cracking, the
tube is idealized as a space truss consisting of closed stirrups,
longitudinal bars in the corners, and concrete compression
diagonals approximately centered on the stirrups. The diagonals are at angle to the member longitudinal axis [Fig. 1(b)].
The angle is generally taken as 45 deg for reinforced
concrete beams and 37.5 deg for prestressed beams.
Tests by Rasmussen and Baker4 showed that the new provisions
give good estimates of capacity of both high-strength concrete
(HSC) specimens (10 specimens 50 MPa < f'c < 110 MPa) and
normal strength concrete (NSC) specimens. Table 1 shows
the results of test/predicted compared with CEB Model
Code1 (which is also based on a space truss approach) for the
eight HSC specimens and 160 NSC specimens. Obviously,
40

Fig. 1(a) Tube-analogy; and (b) space-truss analogy.


Table 1Statistical performance of ACI 318-95
compared with CEB Model Code2 in predicting
torsion capacity
All specimens
(168 specimens)
Coefficient of
Mean test/
variation,
predicted
percent

Code

HSC specimens
(10 specimens)
Coefficient of
Mean test/
variation,
predicted
percent

ACI 318-95

0.935

21

0.81

CEB Model
Code 90

1.045

21

1.5

15

ACI 318-95 provides superior estimates in the case of HSC specimens and reasonably accurate estimates for NSC specimens.
Empiricism in existing minimum torsion
reinforcement design
Minimum areas of transverse closed stirrups and longitudinal torsional reinforcement are specified by Eq. (11-23)
and (11-24), and Sections 11.6.5.2 and 11.6.5.3 of ACI 318-95.
These equations are given by Eq. (1), (2), and (3) below
50b w s
A v + 2A t, min = ------------f yv

(1)

where
At,min = minimum cross-sectional area of one leg of closed
stirrup, in.2
Av
= area of shear reinforcement within a distance s,
in.2
ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 1, January-February 1999.
Received October 16, 1996, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 1999, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies
unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
authors closure, if any, will be published in the November-December 1999 ACI Structural
Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 1999.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

ACI member Mohamed A. Ali is a senior research engineer at the Engineering


Mechanics Laboratory of the Corporate Research and Development Center, General
Electric Co. He obtained his PhD from Cornell University in 1997. His research interests include high-strength concrete structures, fracture mechanics, and truss models
for design, along with algorithm development for optimal design of large nonlinear
structures.
Richard N. White, FACI, is the James A. Friend Family Professor of Engineering at
Cornell University, where he has been a faculty member since 1961. He is a member
of ACI Committees 335, Composite and Hybrid Structures; and 444, Experimental
Analysis for Concrete Structures. He was a co-recipient of the ACI Wason Medal and
the Structural Research Prize, and recipient of the ACI Joe Kelly Prize.

bw
s

= web width or diameter of circular section, in.


= spacing of torsion reinforcement in direction
parallel to longitudinal reinforcement, in.
fyv
= yield strength of closed transverse torsional
reinforcement, psi.
In addition to Eq. (1) above, provision 11.6.5.3 specifies
that
50b w s
2A t, min ------------f yv

(2)

The minimum area of total longitudinal reinforcement is


computed as
5 f c A cp A t
f yv
A l, min = -------------------- ----p h ----f yl
f yl
s

(3)

where
Al,min = minimum area of total longitudinal reinforcement
required for torsion, in.2
Acp
= area enclosed by outside perimeter of concrete
cross section, in.2 (refer to Section 11.6.1 in ACI
318-95)
f c
= concrete compressive strength, psi
fyl
= yield strength of longitudinal torsional reinforcement, psi
ph
= perimeter of centerline of outermost closed transverse torsional reinforcement (stirrups), in.
Eq. (3) has an interesting historical development. Based on
tests of rectangular reinforced concrete members subjected to
pure torsion, Hsu5 noted that beams with volumetric torsional
reinforcement ratio slightly less than 1 percent failed in pure
torsion failure at the cracking load, while those specimens
with reinforcement ratio slightly greater than 1.07 percent
failed at torques in excess of 1.2 times the cracking load.
Therefore, Hsu5 suggested that 1 percent reinforcement ratio
should be the threshold minimum volumetric torsional reinforcement. Thus
A l, min s

At ph

---------------- + ------------ 0.01


A cp s
A cp s

(4)

or
At ph
A l, min = 0.01A cp ----------s

(5)

where s is the spacing between stirrups. Later, the constant


0.01 was assumed to be a function of concrete strength, and
Eq. (4) was rewritten as
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

At ph
7.5 f c
A l, min = ------------------ A cp ----------f yl
s

(6)

This was so since the constant 7.5 f c / f yl equals 0.01 at


the values of concrete strength and steel yield strength that
Hsu5 used in his tests.
In the 1971 Code and subsequent codes, it was noticed that
there is a large gap between the amount of steel required for
pure torsion and a much smaller minimum required for beams
subjected to shear without torsion. To bridge the gap, the first
term of the right-hand side of Eq. (6) was multiplied by the
ratio between shear stresses resulting from torsion and those
resulting from the combination of shear and torsion. That
approach remained until 1995 when major changes were
introduced to ACI 318-95. MacGregor and Ghoneim3
reported that during the committee ballot to approve the new
torsion design procedure, Mattock and Hsu developed a
simplification in which the effect of shear stresses on
minimum torsional reinforcement can be taken by reducing
the 7.5 factor in Eq. (6) to 5 as in Eq. (3). This approach was
finally adopted in ACI 318-95.
In addition to the above historical development, provisions
11.6.5.2 and 11.6.5.3 can practically result in one of the
following:
1. Negative minimum longitudinal reinforcement requirement which causes unnecessary confusion to a designer
(refer to Design Examples).
2. Disproportional longitudinal and stirrup reinforcement in
which their ratio does not result in admissible values of in
accordance with Eq. (11-22) in ACI 318-95 (refer to Design
Examples)
A
f yv
2
A l = -----t p h ----cot
s
f yl

(7)

where is the angle of inclination of diagonal compressive


stresses to the longitudinal axis of members.
3. Unnecessary confusion in flanged sections (refer to
Design Examples).
SUGGESTED MINIMUM TORSION
REINFORCEMENT DESIGN METHOD
An alternative method is based on the following equations
(which are the same as those in Reference 3 and were also
utilized in ACI 318-95)
2

A cp
T cr = 4 f c --------p cp

(ACI R11.6.1)

(8)

where
Tcr
= torsional cracking moment, in.-lb
= area enclosed by outside perimeter of concrete
Acp
cross section, in.2 (refer to Section 11.6.1 in ACI
318-95)
fc
= concrete compressive strength, psi
pcp
= outside perimeter of the concrete cross section, in.
(refer to Section 11.6.1 in ACI 318-95)
and
41

2A o f yl A l
T n = ---------------------p h cot

(9)

where

Tn
Al

= torsional moment capacity, in.-lb


= longitudinal reinforcement area (in.2) and fyl is its
yield stress (psi)
Ao
= gross area enclosed by shear flow path, in.2
ph
= perimeter of centerline of outmost closed transverse
torsional reinforcement (stirrup), in.
To avoid brittle failure, we should have
T n T cr or T n = T cr

(10)
Fig. 2Measured versus computed Tn/Tcr .

where is a factor 1 and will be determined later.


Therefore
2 f c A cp p h
A l, min = ------------- -------- ------- cot A cp
f yl A o p cp

(11)

and the minimum transverse area should be related to Al,min


according to Eq. (11-22) in ACI 318-95 [Eq. (7) above].
Eq. (11) has the following advantages:
It capitalizes rationally on equations and concepts
already adopted in ACI 318-95.
It contains no new terms other than those computed
previously in any torsion design.
It is valid for both prestressed and reinforced concrete
members since it accounts for variable angle that may
be taken differently to suit either reinforced or
prestressed concrete structures.
Therefore, if the equations adopted in ACI 318-95 for
torsion design are accurate (and they are believed to be so, as
discussed earlier), Eq. (11) should be as accurate.
COMPARISON TO AVAILABLE TEST DATA
In Hsu5 tests of rectangular reinforced concrete beams
subjected to pure torsion, two beams failed at the torsional
cracking load. In these beams, the total ratio of the volume of
stirrups and longitudinal reinforcement to the volume of the
concrete was 0.802 and 0.88 percent, respectively. Another
beam with a volumetric ratio of 1.07 failed at 1.08 times the
cracking torque. All remaining specimens in Hsus tests5 (50
specimens) had volumetric reinforcement ratios of 1.07 or
greater and failed at torques in excess of 1.2 times the
cracking load. This argument was used3 to establish existing
ACI 318-95 minimum torsion provisions [Eq. (4)]. The same
set of specimens will be used herein to calibrate the
suggested procedure and find the factor in Eq. (11). The
following steps were followed.
1. By knowing all the properties of a specimen,5 the angle
for each specimen was computed according to Eq. (7).
2. Equations (8) and (9) were used accordingly to compute
Tn and Tcr .
Fig. 2 shows values of measured Tn/Tcr plotted versus
computed values of Tn/Tcr . Fig. 3 is a zoom into the area
inside the box of Fig. 2. It is clear that the only two specimens
that failed immediately after the formation of the first crack
(i.e., Measured Tn = Measured Tcr) had the lowest computed
Tn/Tcr (slightly above unity) among all the compiled 53 specimens. Fig. 3 shows that if the computed values of Tn/Tcr are
42

Fig. 3Measured versus computed Tn/Tcr (in detail).


greater than or equal to 1.5 to 1.7, then the resulting designed
specimen will not fail immediately after the first torsion
crack. The threshold region (shaded in Fig. 3) is defined
approximately because:
1. No strong evidence (experimental or analytical) suggests
selecting a certain number inside the range 1.5 to 1.7;
2. Cracking depends on a multitude of parameters that may
vary the cracking load significantly. For example, changing
aggregate sizes can have a remarkable effect on the cracking
load even if concrete strength (f c ) is the same6. In fact, the
effect of aggregate size alone6 can be well above the 6.25
percent tolerance [=(1.7-1.5) /1.6] in defining the threshold
region.
Taking in Eq. (11) as 1.7, thus, Eq. (11) becomes
2 f c Acp ph
A l, min = 1.7 ------------- -------- ------- cot A cp
f yl A o pcp

(12)

Effect of shear stresses


To rationally account for shear stresses, the resulting equation would be again as complex as it was in ACI 318-89.
Based on our current knowledge, this complexity is unnecessary and did not result in an appreciable practical gain.3
Therefore, until further information becomes available, the
values of Al,min in Eq. (11) may be multiplied by a constant
reduction factor as suggested by Mattock and Hsu3 to
account for the effect of shear stresses. In their original
suggestion, the first term of the right-hand side of Eq. (5)
should be multiplied by a factor of 2/3 for practical range of
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

behavior of beams.3 If a smeared reduction factor is to be


introduced to both terms of the right-hand side of Eq. (5), it
should be higher than 2/3 (but obviously less than 1). For
practical problems, this smeared reduction factor will be
on the order of about 3/4. Considering the status of existing
knowledge, this level of accuracy should be sufficient; therefore, Eq. (12) may be written as (with some error involved to
obtain a simple equation form)
3 2 f c Acp ph
A l, min = 1.7 --- ------------- -------- ------- cot A cp

4 f yl A o pcp

Fig. A1Design Example 1: wide beam (1 in. = 25.4 m).


(13)

2 f c Acp ph
------------- -------- ------- cot A cp
f yl A o pcp

DESIGN EXAMPLES (A)


The aim of these design examples is to demonstrate the
possibility of obtaining negative values of minimum longitudinal reinforcement in typical design situations based on
existing ACI 318-95 provisions. Each design example will
be redesigned according to the suggested method to demonstrate how the potential contradiction will be eliminated.
Example 1: Consider the wide beam shown in Fig. A1
which occurs frequently in waffle slabs. Use fc = 3000 psi,
fyv = fyl = 60 ksi, and determine the minimum torsional reinforcement. Assume Av = 0 for simplicity.
According to Eq. (1)
50b w s
2
70 s
----------------------- = 0.0583s in.
2A t, min = ------------- = 50
60,000
f yv

Try No. 4 stirrups: s = 6.86 in., say 6-3/4 in. spacing.


Accordingly, the minimum longitudinal reinforcement will
be [Eq. (3)]
5 f c A cp A t
f yv 5 3000 700
- = --------------------------------A l, min = ---------------------- ---- p h ----60,000
f yl
s
f yl
2
0.260,000
--------147 ------------------ = 3.20 4.36 = 1.16 in.
6.75
60,000

indicating that no longitudinal reinforcement should be taken


to resist torsion. Consequently, the implied angle would be
90 deg, which is well beyond the admissible limits. Thus,
although code provisions indicated that stirrups are needed to
prevent premature failure after the formation of the first
crack, the negative longitudinal reinforcement requirement
resulted in a design that lacks longitudinal reinforcement.
Consequently, this design would have an implied angle that
is inadmissible.
On the other hand, the suggested method can be implemented
as follows [Eq. (14)]
2 f c A cp p h

A l, min = ------------- -------- ------- cot A cp


f yl A o p cp

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

Fig. A2Design Example 2: rectangular beam (1 in. =


25.4 mm).
2
3000 700 147
- --------- --------- cot 45 700 = 1.75 in.
= 2----------------- 60,000 470 160

i.e., nine No. 4 (1.8 in.2) will be sufficient.


The required stirrups can be calculated from Eq. (15)
sA l
s ( 1.8 )
A t = -----------------------= -------------------------------------------2
f yv 2
60
,
000
147 ------------------ cot 45
p h ----- cot
60, 000
f yl

or At = 0.0122s for which No. 3 @ 9 in. is sufficient.


Example 2: Design the cross section shown in Fig. A2 to
sustain a nominal torsion Tn = 731 kip-in. Take the material
properties as in Example 1 above and assume Av = 0 for
simplicity.
According to the requirements of ACI 318-95 and taking
= 45 deg, stirrups No. 4 at 6-7/8 in. and eight No. 5 bars
will be sufficient to resist the applied torque. To check that
these bars do not violate the minimum torsion reinforcement
requirements of ACI 318-95, Eq. (1) should be employed
50b w s
2
12 6.875
---------------------------------- = 0.079 in.
2A l, min = ------------- = 50
f yv
60,000

which is much less than that already introduced. Accordingly,


the minimum longitudinal reinforcement will be [Eq. (3)]
43

f yv 5 3000 360
5 f c A cp A t
- = --------------------------------A l, min = ---------------------- ---- p h ----f yl
60,000
s
f yl
0.2
,000- = 1.64 2.095 = 0.45 in. 2
- 72 60
---------------------------6.875 60,000

Although the result indicates that introduced longitudinal


reinforcement satisfies the minimum requirement (which is
different than the case in Example 1 above), it may cause
unnecessary confusion to a designer.
Alternatively, the suggested method would give
2 f c A cp p h

A l, min = ------------- -------- ------- cot A cp


f yl A o p cp

Fig. B1Design Example: flanged HSC beam (1 in. =


25.4 mm).

2
3000- --------------------------360 - 72
2----------------------- cot 45 360 = 0.985 in.
60,000 9 27 0.85 84

i.e., the already provided eight No. 5 will be sufficient to prevent


premature failure after the formation of the first crack.
The minimum required stirrups can also be calculated
according to Eq. (15); however, the calculation will be
redundant since both Al and At are already proportioned to
resist the applied torque.
DESIGN EXAMPLE (B)
This design example will demonstrate the potential confusion and misinterpretation resulting from using current
minimum torsion reinforcement provisions in flanged sections.
Consider the section shown in Fig. B1, where fc = 10,000
psi and fyv = fyl = 60 ksi. Suppose, for simplicity, that only
the minimum torsion reinforcement is required, and Av = 0.
From Eq. (1)
2
50b w s
12 s
----------------------- = 0.01s in.
2A l, min = ------------- = 50
f yv
60, 000

or At,min = 0.005s; say No. 3 @ 22 in., but a spacing of 12 in.


is the maximum allowable according to ACI 318-95; therefore, use No. 3 @ 12 in. Afterwards, from Eq. (3)
5 f c A cp A t
f yv 5 10, 000 1656
- = ------------------------------------------A l, min = ---------------------- ---- p h ----f yl
60,000
s
f yl
2
0.11
60,000
---------- 358 ------------------ = 13.8 3.28 = 10.52 in.
12
60,000

i.e., using 24 No. 6 (10.56 in.2) is sufficient.


The above design raises the following remarks:
The angle implied by the above design can be computed
from Eq. (7)
A f yv 2
2
0.11
60,000
A l = 10.1 = ----t p h ----cot = ---------- 358 ------------------ cot
12
60,000
s f yl

44

Fig. B2Reliance on web only to resist torque (1 in. =


25.4 mm).
or = 29.2 deg, which is less than the minimum allowable (30
deg) according to existing ACI 318-95 (provision 11.6.3.6),
and should be considered inadmissable, particularly considering:
The limited ability of high-strength concrete to sustain
a high magnitude of stress redistribution.
The required amount of stirrups according to Eq. (3) is
far less than that used. This should have resulted in
increasing angle .
The reason for the excessive ratio between longitudinal
and transverse reinforcement is:
According to Eq. (1), the minimum transverse reinforcement is proportional to the web width bw. On the other hand,
according to Eq. (3), the minimum longitudinal reinforcement is proportional to the total cross section area Acp, which
is much higher than that defined by the web only. A better
approach7 is to use Acp as shown (hatched) in Fig. B2,
resulting in
5 f c A cp A t
f yv 5 10, 000 792
- = ---------------------------------------A l, min = ---------------------- ---- p h ----f yl
60,000
s
f yl
2
0.11
60,000
---------- 140 ------------------ = 6.6 1.28 = 5.32 in.
12
60,000

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

i.e., using 12 No. 6 is sufficient.


The structural interpretation of the above design is that
reliance to develop the required minimal torsional capacity
is on the hatched area (Fig. B2). This will require concentrating both the transversal and longitudinal torsional reinforcement in the web area. Although the approach employed
in Reference 6 will result in an admissible angle , the equations used lack a tangible way for considering the cracking
moment in the section which is proportional to the whole
cross section area (including the flanges). Using the whole
cross-sectional area in Eq. (3) will again lead to inadmissible
angle as pointed out above. An unnecessary futile cycle
would ensue as a consequence of embedding the basic
concept depicted by Eq. (10) into design Eq. (1) and (3).
The use of the suggested approach will eliminate the
confusion described above:
From Eq. (14) and relying on the whole cross section
(including flanges) to sustain torque [refer to Fig. R11.6.3.6(b)
in ACI 318-95]

CONCLUSIONS
The minimum torsional reinforcement provision in ACI 31895 is not only empirical, but also may cause unnecessary
confusion to the designer. Moreover, the provision is not
consistent with recent changes in torsion design adopted in
ACI 318-95. In this paper, a minimum reinforcement provision is introduced which is believed to eliminate the disadvantages discussed above. Moreover, the suggested
approach correlates well with available experimental results.
Design examples show that, even for extreme cases, the
suggested method provides reasonable results.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the National Institute of Standard and
Technology (Grant No. 60NANB5D0073) and Cornell University.

CONVERSION FACTORS
1 in.
1000 psi
1 kip
1 lb
1 lb-in.

2 f c A cp p h

A l, min = ------------- -------- ------- cot A cp


f yl A o p cp

1656- -------160- cot 45 1656 = 6.22 in. 2


10,000- ----------= 2------------------------
60,000
1250 188

sA l
s ( 6.22 )
A t = -----------------------= ----------------------------------------f yv 2
60, 000 2
160 ------------------ cot 45
p h ----- cot
60, 000
f yl

or At = 0.039s for which No. 4 @ 5 in. is sufficient.


The discrepancy between the results obtained using the
suggested approach and that in ACI 318-95 is due to the
significant underestimation of Tcr resulting from using Eq.
(1) where the minimum transverse reinforcement area is
proportional to the web width bw. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the approach in ACI 318-95 may be suited for
rectangular sections [upon which the empirical Eq. (1) and
(3) are based], but not for flanged sections.
SUMMARY OF SUGGESTED MODEL
The suggested governing equations for computing
minimum torsional reinforcement are as follows:
1. The minimum longitudinal reinforcement should be

(14)

ph

Tcr
Tn

=
=
=
=

area enclosed by outside perimeter of concrete cross section,


in.2 (refer to Section 11.6.1 in ACI 318-95).
longitudinal reinforcement area, in.2
minimum longitudinal reinforcement area, in.2
gross area enclosed by shear flow path, in.2
minimum cross-sectional area of one leg of closed stirrup, in.2
area of shear reinforcement within a distance s, in.2
concrete compressive strength, psi
yield strength of longitudinal torsional reinforcement, psi
yield strength of closed transverse torsional reinforcement, psi
outside perimeter of concrete cross section, in. (refer to Section
11.6.1 in ACI 318-95).
perimeter of centerline of outmost closed transverse torsional
reinforcement, in.
spacing of torsion reinforcement in direction parallel to longitudinal reinforcement, in.
torsional cracking moment, in.-lb
torsional moment capacity, in.-lb
factor 1
angle of inclination of diagonal compressive stresses to longitudinal axis of members

REFERENCES
1. CEB-FIB, Model Code 1990, Code European du Bton, Comit
Euro-International du Bton, 437 pp.
2. CSA, Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings, CAN3-A23.3-A94,
Concrete Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, 1994, 199 pp.
3. MacGregor, J., and Ghoneim, M., Design for Torsion, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., 1995, pp. 211-218.
4. Rasmussen, L., and Baker, G., Torsion in Reinforced Normal and
High-Strength Concrete BeamsPart 2: Theory and Design, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 2, Mar.- Apr., 1995, pp. 149-156.
5. Hsu, T. C., Torsion of Structural ConcreteBehavior of Reinforced
Concrete Rectangular Members, Torsion of Structural Concrete, SP-18,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1968, pp. 261-306.

2. At should be computed from

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

Al
=
Al,min =
Ao =
At,min =
Av
=
f c
=
fyl
=
fyv =
pcp =

i.e., 15 No. 6 (6.6 in.2) will be sufficient.


The required stirrups can be calculated from Eq. (15)

s Al
A t = -----------------------f yv 2
ph ----- cot
f yl

25.4 mm
1 ksi = 6.895 MPa
4.448 kN
4.44 N
0.113 N.m

NOTATIONS
Acp

2 f c A cp ph
A l, min = ------------- -------- ------- cot A cp
f yl A o pcp

=
=
=
=
=

(15)

6. Baant, Z., and Oh, B., Crack Band Theory for Fracture of Concrete,
RILEM, 1983, pp. 155-176.
7. Nawy, E. G., Reinforced Concrete, third edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1996.

45

Вам также может понравиться