Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Case 1 (NEITHER FIBERS NOR STIRRUPS). Beams ordered by
2.50
4.00
CONSERVATIVE
2.25
3.50
2.00
3.00
1.75
2.50
1.50
2.00
1.25
1.50
1.00
1.00
0.75
0.50
UNCONSERVATIVE
0.50
0.00
rho (Reinforced beams)
rho (Prestressed beams)
SM (EHE-08)
SM (MC2010)
SM (RILEM)
Case 2 (ONLY STIRRUPS). Beams ordered by
2.00
4.50
CONSERVATIVE
4.00
1.75
3.50
1.50
3.00
2.50
1.25
2.00
1.00
1.50
1.00
0.75
0.50
UNCONSERVATIVE
0.50
0.00
rho (Reinforced beams)
rho (Prestressed beams)
SM (EHE-08)
SM (MC2010)
SM (RILEM)
Fig. 8.47
In
fl
uence of the amount of longitudinal reinforcement (
ρ
l
) on shear safety margins
After analyzing the database, it was found that, for small elements without
stirrups (e.g. d = 200 mm), Codes gave conservatives SM, and that, for larger
elements, without stirrups, Codes overestimates the shear strength.
For small depths will interest to decrease the SM by increasing the theoretical
shear, for that, size effect factor (
ʾ
) must be increased. In contrast, for great
depths, SM will be increased by reducing the theoretical shear by diminishing
the size effect factor (
). Therefore, the size effect rules proposed by Codes
should be connected accordingly.
ʾ
Search WWH ::
Custom Search