Scribd
Upload
270 views7 pages

Shear of Reinforced Circular Sections

Shear of Reinforced Circular Sections

Uploaded by

mcakmak715
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
270 views7 pages

Shear of Reinforced Circular Sections

Shear of Reinforced Circular Sections

Uploaded by

mcakmak715
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7
Pap er The behaviour of reinforced concrete circular sections in shear J.L. Clarke, MA, PhD, CEng, MiStucte, MICE F.K, Birjandi, eng, PhD British Comont Association Introduction CCiroular piles are used extensively either individually or in groups, in the foundations of buildings, bridges, and other structures. Tp alton, they are used in the form of secant piling to form diaphragm walls. In many situations, they ae subjected te & lateral load, patlewatly when being used as a retaining wall, and hence a horizontal shear is applied to the ex0ss- Section, Similarly, circular columas are used fairly frequently for bridge piers. They have be designed for a lateral load due to impactor the effect (of vehicle braking on the bridge. ‘Despite thelr widespread use, there is no agreod design method in British Codes for assessing the shear resistance of cireular cross-sections: most ‘ners attempt to use an equivalent rectangular section, but this has not | a | ae | zine | ioe so | % | sea | ue faa] 8 | 134 | 60 | = | a | tas | ter | ose | sm | 0 | mo | te | 23] 8 wo | oe [oo | = fa | an fas | te so | > | iso | ue [23] uso | os | oo | — | a | iss | toss | 136 w] so | a | 33 | te faa] s 3 | 13e | a0] = | a | as | ama | 120 so | 3 | aa | ie fas] a a | 134 | 60] — | a | tae | ta | oot u] 300] a | ac | os [se] oe wo | oor | oo | — | os | ise five | 158 so | | 21 | 25 | ss} s so] os | oo] — | s | iss [ure | ceo w| 3m] a | as | as [se] a 75 | ise | oo | — | s | an | ises | tar so | | ae | as | se] s a | 13e | oo] = | s | a | ses | ios | so | a0 | aa | as [se | 8 vo | oer | oo] — | s | zr | tsa | ta so | > | ae | as [5s] 8 iso | os | oo | — | s | ae | ias3 | cee w]sm fm | sos | os [se] a 3 | use | oo) = | s | a9 [ima] us so | » | sos | 2s | se] 8 a | 13 | oo | — | s | ame firs] te us| 30 | 2 | 209 | 2 [ae] s wo | oer | oo | — | s | ts | tore) 3s so | | xa | 2 [ae] s wo | oor | oo] — | s | tae | tone | iar w| so | 3 | ter | 20 [ae] 8 iso | os | oo | = | os | iss | ince | cas so | 2 | ar | 0 [a6] a wo | oer | oo | — | s | iss | izes) a9 w| 3m | a | m7 | te [as] 6 so] ose | oo | = | s | im | ‘ors | tes so | w» | a7 | is [2a] 6 10 | oss | oo | — | s | us | ais | tao w] 30 | 2 | ws | as faa] 6 iso | o3e | oo | = | a | uy | oa | 19 so |» | we | ue [23] 6 uo | 038 | 6 | — | a | us | so} 120 w| 30 | 2 | ass | 2 | a6] 6 vo | 038 | em | = | s | us | oa] ca so | | ace | 2 [ae] 6 uso | ose | oo | — | s | tao | oxy] 13s van] sto | 2 | os | o> | ae] « iso | o3e | oo | = | s | ta | nos] 135 x0 | » | 03 | » [as] 6 iso | one | om | = | s | tar | utes | 13s a} so | 2 | 22 | as | se] & iso | o3s | oo | — | s | it | ‘se | te so | 2 | 22 | as [se] 6 iso | ose | go] — | § | ist | gas | is u| am | a» | ass | as | ss] ¢ so | o3s | oo | — | s | te | rms | 13s so | a | ass | as | se] 6 iso | 038 | oo | — | s | is | ams | 136 a|am | a | ar | te | 23] 6 10 | ose | so | = | s | io | tes} 138 so | 2 | as | ts [a3] < iso | ose | oo | = | s | us | tes] is x} 30 | a | es | ts fas] ¢ iso | one | oo | = | s | ua | sea so | 0 | ao | us faa] 6 iso | oar | oo | = | s | ue | sea 2s] 30 | » | 23 | » [ae] 6 iso | oat | oa | — | s | ‘oe | ma so | m | 23 | > fae] ¢ uso | oat | oo | 2 | s | um | sa w | so | m | wa | x fas] 6 iso | oar | ao | = | s | ae | sass | ao so | % | aa | 2 [ae] 6 so | ose | seo | = | s | iso J aoe | ise » | so | m | me | as fae] 6 so | oaa | go | = | s | ts | ‘oss | iar xo | » | ma | 2s | se} 6 iso | oak | 6 | = | s | ia | oss} 120 w|sm | | a3 | a las] s iso | oak | oo | = | s | ise | ae | 136 xo | » | asa | as [se] & tso | ose | oo | — | s | ois | ae | vss ws | 30 | a | a2 | fas} © |Z} | ooo | sa | ame] s | ize | rs | a0 xo | » | 2 | 2» [a6] = | = | = | ow feo] — | s | ‘ss | tea] ne so} 30 | 20 | 27 | |ae| = | = | = | oo | 6 | aa] s | ue | sor] ive so | 20 | m7 | 2» |ae| — | = | = | oo | eo] — | s | ‘o> | a6] tas a | se | a0 | 209 | 2 fas) = | = | = | oo | oo | sise] s | uss | sor | i so | x | x9 | 2 fas) = | = | = | oo | eo |=] s | ‘oe | G2] ite x | 30 | ao | aor | a fxs} — | = | = | O00 | oo | sao] s | as | ois] ce soo_| | 21 |» Jas} — | = | = | om foo] — }- | = | ws} = 7 “The Structural Enginoer/ Volume 71/No.5/2 March 1993 TABLE 2 — continued ope | ae | tae | psletn'| Ely | St | iss tv | aswsv | av | pax | Fail | Va | vib | vacvih Sem | ae | ey [ove | tren | | tm com | gam) | qm | aN) [mode | cx) | a9 | ca) xo | 2 | ue | 2s |se| — | — | — | om | oo] an2f os [ist 1a a0 | 20 | a6 | 2s | 56 = | = | om | oo} — | s | ue 19 ss | 300 | 20 | sas | 2s | se =] = | ao | 60 | 2708 | s | im re zo | 20 | aaa | 2s | so =] = | om | oo) — | s fas | sie] 136 as | 300 | 20 | az7 [os | 56 = | | coo | 660 | s368} s fuss | sos | ie goo | 20 | 3x7 | as [se | — | — | = | om | oo] — | s Jaas | oe | 133 x | 300 | 20 | a9 | 25 | 56 =} = | oo | 660 | soar} s | re | r266 | 130 30 | 20 | 39 | 2s [se] — | — | — | om | oo] — | s fae | m7] as st | 30 | 20] ao | as [se | & | vine | 150 | oer | ooo] 209] s | m2 | ase7 | 1.80 sn | 20 | aso | 2s | se | 8 | tisk | a0 | oor | oo] — | s | ae | ase | re ae | 300 | 20 | ser | 2s [se | 8 | tim | 150 | oer | 660] 29 | s | 209 | 73 | 10 x as se] x | tim | 150 | oe | oo] — | s | 205 | nos | 1.59 ss | 30 | 2 | 363 | 2s [se] 8 | tim | 150 | oer | 60 | 2706] s | a2 | 73 | 147 ao | 20 | 363 | 2s | 36 | 8 | une | a0 | oo | ceo) — | s jis | ior | 1s ao | am | 20 | 3er | 2s | se | 8 | ume | a0 | oor | oto | arr] s | mas | ase | se so | 20 | sei [2s | se] & | win | 130 | oor | co | — | s |as Jims | 13 a | 50 | 20 | 30 | 283 | 26] — | — | — | ooo | 100} — | s | me | ise | ss so | 20 | 340 | 253 | 26 =} 5 | oo | i200] = | — | — [ase] — a | soo | 20 | sss | 23 [26] — | = | = | ooo | 120) — | s | am | ras | 130 seo | 20 | 333 | 283 | 26 | — | — | — | oo | sa) - | s } m2 | mas | 27 a [| so | a | are | 303 | 26 | | unk | vo | ore | s200] — | s | ais | asos | 125 | sw | 2 | are | 283 | 26 | 8 | vin | vo | 072 | 1200] — | s | 360 | r508 | 146 a | 30 | 20 | a29 | des [26] & | tine | 140 | or | 120) — | s } an | are | 12 soo | 20 | 329 | 383 [26 | 8 | uimk | 140 | o72 | 120 | — | s | sa | mae | 136 as | 30 | 20 | aoa | gee [ae] — | — | — | 000 | x20} — | s | ae | wis | 12 50 | 20 | 294 | 346 | 38 = | = | oto | 0) = | — | — fos] = 4 | so | 2 | 306 | x6 | 38 =] = | ooo | x20) — was | soo _| 20 | x6 | x6 | 38 = | = | oo | 20 | = | s 938 |_ 145 NOTES TO TARLE 2 (As ayes of lonpadinal reinforcement “The flowing abieitons hve been edn he ble heading: Fix ameter af shear reinforsenent Ty pol shear rnforcoment a ‘vrse Berets senor ied spacing, ‘Saion Serpe ‘nico cover Pa hla ovr abe srength Ve Eta tr ood Tuner of lonpusinal reinforce Vin heer fore os Concrete “Three different concrete mixes were used with nominal strengths of 25N/mim?, 3SN/aam, ot SON/mm? at the time of testing. ‘The specimens were cast vertically in fbreglss moulds, They were emovlded at 48h and cured under polyerhlene until they were required testing, generally at shout 28 days, The compressive and tensile strengths obtained from 100mm cubes and 100% 200mm cylinders, scspectively, half stored alongside the test specimens and half stored under standard conditions. Average values ofthe actual strengths a the time of testing from the aircured specimens are given in Table 2 Fig 2. Test arrangement: no axial force In addition, forthe Smum diameter specimens, (wo 150mm » 300mm cinders were cast foreach specimen and cured alongside them. They were used to measure the static eastic modulus ofthe eonerete at the test date, siving an average value of 27.6kN/mm* Test arrangement “The spacimens were tested horizontally, as shown in Pig 2. They were supported and loaded through concrete saddles 100mm wide, which extended round one-quarter of the periphery of the specimen. Load vas applied by a hydraulic jack with a locking collar, and the reactions at the Fig 3. Test arrangement: with axial force supports were measured by load cells. dial gauge was used to measure the deflection, The shear span, the distance between the centelines ofthe Toad and the suppor, varied heqween 660mm and 330mm for the 300mm, ameter epecimens aad was fixed at 1200mm for the $00mm ones. The axial force, ehere applicable, was provided by two hydraulic jacks acting through prestressing strands running along the sides ofthe specimen and anchored to rigid plates covering the ends of the test specimen (see Fig 2). The two prestressing strands were sessed equally to the required level, and the force on each was measured by load cells throughout the test. Test method and behaviour ‘The load was applied in inciemems of about 1/10th of the estimated specimen shear capacity, At each load stage the deflection was noted and the crack pattern recorded. “Two t3pe of failure occurred, Le. shear and Dering. The letter was characterised by cracks running normal to the longitudinal axis, which ‘pened steadily leading to yielding ofthe stcel and, generally, evushing of the concrete. Shear failure consisted of a series of inclined cracks from, tive load 0 the support which developed rapidly, leading toa sudden file. Failure ofthe end of the specimen under test generally led to minimal damage atthe other end. Therefore, after testing, the specimen was rotated though 180" about its axis and the other ead tested in shear. Thus it was ‘gencrally possible to obtain two test results from each specimen, which [ie reported separately in Table 2. In all, about 100 results were obtained, "The modes of failure and the failure loads are given in Table 2, where Tadicates a shear failure and ‘B" a bending failure Analysis of results Code desien approaches British Codes of Practice, BS810 for buildings* and BSS400:Part for bridges, use very similar approaches for determining the shear capacity of rectangular sections, but neither gives ay specifi method for determining the shear capacity of eicula sections. The only Code that gives any gudance is that of the American Concrete Institute’ reviewed below. “The design approach for cectangular sections in BS54O0: Part # gives the shear sitess which can be carried by the concrete v, for nocral weight ne = 0.27 1004.10.29 (S001)! (97m where A, is the area of seat 1B, isthe breadth of the web isthe effective depth isthe characterise concrete cube strength, which should not be taken as greater tan 40N/mmn® fa i the materals partial safety ctor taken as 1.25 oe loads applied at a distance a, closer than 24 from the support, ¥ 33 eased t0 (2d/a,) Taran Fora rectangular beam with shear reinforcement, the total shear capacity fs taken af the sam of the conerete capacity and that ofthe links. ‘The design shear stress carried by the links is 0.874, APS, where fy. i the characteristic strength for the links 3, isthe total cross-section of links atthe neutral axis of the section 5" is the spacing of links slong the member ‘An aciitional link capacity of 0.4N/rmm* is required throughout to allow for the effects of repeated losding. I a member under an anal compression NY the design shear stress is mliplied by (1 + 0.05 N/A), where A, isthe area of concrete. ‘The approach in BSEIIO" is the same except that the depth term (600/2)" is replaced by (400/d), and the additional D.6N/mn? shear capacity i not requlted. ‘Two approaches for determing the shear capacity of rectangular sections are included in ACI 318-89, The simple method is based on concrete strength only, and the more detailed method includes the area of tension feinforcement. The method for the design of links isthe same as ia the British Codes, Cicculae sections are designed using the same approaches as for rectangular sections. Here the breadth is defined as the diameter ff the section and the effective depth as the distance from the extreme 6 Fit 4. Bar arrangement and definition of effective depth & and effective depth zone bd as used in the analysis compression fibre to the centroid of the tension reinforcement in the ‘opposite half of the member. The commentary” says that this latter ‘efinition is intended to cover the case of a circular section subjected only to transverse loads. Thus it presuimably excludes the design of circular sections with a longitudinal load applied, as this will alter the position of the aeutral axis Determination of theoretical strengths ‘The shear strengths have been calculated on the basis of the BS'5400 approach given eatlicr. The patil safety factor in the equetion forthe shear stress was set to 1,0, and the 0.87 factor in the expression forthe Tink capacity wae also set to 1.0, The maximum concrete strength limit of 40N/mm was ignored. ‘The effective depth, &, was taken asthe distance to the centroid of the steel in the tension zone assuming the neutral axis to be at the centre of the section. This followed the ACI approach, The ‘cross-sectional ates", ‘bd, used in the caleuation, was taken as the actual area in the effective depth zone, as shown in Fig 4. In this way, there is no need to assume fa value for the effective section width, b, and would appear to be more logieal than the arbitcary assumption in the ACI Code. Cateulating the shear force contribution of the links would also avoid an assumption for boas Vig = Ae Son D5, Only BSBL10 gives an equation, and a diagram, for caleuating the shear capacity of bent-up bars, a5 follows: Vm Ay (O87 f,) (cose + sinee cous) (d's, where ais the angle between the bent-up bars and the longicudinal axis andi the angle between the compressive strut and the axs of the beam. Fig 3.4 of BS8110 implies that the compressive strut is constrained 19 Jntersect with the tension ste a the point at which eis bent up. This may bye valid for the system shown but, for inclined links, it would be more Ioial to take @ ~ 45° in line with the approach for vertical links. This ‘agrees with the draft Eurocode for concrete structures, EC2', which uses the same equation for both inclined inks and bent-up bers, except that the (ded) term is replaced by 0.9d. Vertical links are taken as a special cage of inlined links. Ths points up another Wlogicality in BS 8110 where the shear capacity of beat-up bar is based on (d-d") while that of vertical links is based only on d. Thut comparing inclined and vertical links, it would be sensible fo say thatthe efficiency of inclined links is simply equal to (cose + sina) times that of vertical inks with the same crose-sction, taking ‘col! 1, This ageees with the approach in the ACI Code’ “A spiral may be taken as a special form of inclined link. ln simple teres, tone leg on one side of the wnt erosses a potential shear crack, while the leg on the other side runs broadly paralle to the potential crack. The two legs will beat angles and (180 ~ a), respectively, and hence the total efficiency ofthe spiral, compated to two les of vertical link, simplifies The Structural Engineer/Volume 71 /No.5/2 March 1993 ‘Thus for spirals with the following pitch, taken as w proportion of 4, the efficiency is Pitch | Bificiency 02 1.00 os | ose os | 036 os | 033 10 | 089 “The Code allows the basic shear capacity to be multiplied by (2d/a,) for loads applied nearer than 2d from the support. Hewever, other work has shown that a mukiplier of (d/a,) for loads closer than 3d is a more accurate representation. This approach is used by the Department of “Transport in its standard for bridge assessment" and has been adopted for this comparison Comparison of results with predicted values ‘The final three columns of Table 2 list the predicted failure Josds snd ‘compare the values with the actual fsilure loads. "The main variables that influence the shear capacity of the circular cxoss- section are: (4) conerete strength ‘mount of longitudinal stee! fection depth (4) amount of shear reinforcement (6) axial load ©) shear-span-to-efective depth ratio for Touds close to supports ‘The tests concentrated on variables (1) ro (8) with a limited number of tests for variable (6). 1 was not possible, within the scope of the programme, 10 est all the possible combinations ofthe variables. Shear tess tend 10 sive a wide scatter of reslls and hence, ideally, several replicas of each specimen should have been tested. However, this would have required several hundred tests. Fig 5 shows the effect of varying the concrete strength between about 20N/mm* and SON/mm?, For each concrete strength, the actul/ theoretical siengths forall the specimens tested are shown. The scatter, 6 bp os1L spp Fig 9. Link and spiral comparison (A,/S, = 038mm) ‘hough considerable, is similar to that which would be found from tests fon reciangulr sections, The Figure demonstrates that the proposed approach is equally valid over the whole range, with an average value of actual/theoretical strength of about 1.2. ‘Similarly, Fig 6 shows the effect of varying the amount of Iongitudinal steal from about 1% to about §.68%, based on the total concrete area. Here individual mean values are shown for the various steel percentages, which vary between about 1.28 and 1.5. Fig 7 shows the effest of shear reinforcement. Once again, there is no significant trend with increasing amounts of shear reinforcement. Fir 8 shows the effect of the axial load on the ratio of actual to theoretical sirength, where no significant trend is shown. This sugsests that the resitiction in the ACI Code — that the method applies only vo members ‘without axial load — is unnecessary. The highest axial load considered — [MORN of an average stress of nearly BN/mm? — is roughly equivalent to the service load on a column and stil gives a value of nearly 1.5, which is more than adequate Fig 9 shows the comparison of links and spirals for a shear reinforcement 7 i 0 30 40 00 cy Fig 10. Effects of depth factor se 3888 wo ma Treoretiea voles 411 Fig 11, Comparing experimental and theoretical values for different section dia, D a toons waae = te S000 "4 a > | mo wo oD ‘rsortecrlies, Fig 12, Comparing experimental and theoretical values for ALL results combined smount of 4,,/s, = 0.38mm, The resus do not indicate a noticeable tuend, and both links and spirals broadly give a similar range of actual to predicted ratios, indicating thatthe design approach is reasonable, Fig. 10 shows that the choice of (400/¢)* or (500/)* in the basic ‘equation for shear — BS8L10 and BS5400, cespectively — makes litle difference to the actual/predicted valves, the latter being slightly more ‘conservative. ‘The results ofa limited numberof tests on shear-span-to-ffective- depth ratio variable are shown in Table 2. These show an increase for loads close to supports similar to that predicted. Thue the (2/2,) multiplier included in both Codes is conservative. Figs 11 and 12 show experimental values against predicted characteristic ‘ones, considering all results. The average experimental to theoretical values are 1.48 and 1.42 for depth factors of 400/¢ and 500/¢, respectively. Thus both BSBI10 and BS'5200 would give adequate margins of safety. Tt will bbenoted thatthe average resuls obtained were somewhat higher than those obtained by other investigators. This may be a function of the text 78 arrangement, oF some of the fallures that they reported as shear may, in fact, have been due to bending {All the above comparisons have besa with the partial safety actors on the concrete aad stel strengths set at 1.0, using measuced values for the ‘concrete strength. Inthe design equation & factor of 1.25 is applied to the characteristic concrete contribution and 1.15 tothe link contribution. This tnould lead to an average ratio of actual to design strength oF about 1.8 Te addition, both Codes limit the value off, that can be used inthe design equation to 40N/mm, and BS400 requires that links are provided to carry 0.4N/mt in excess ofthat actually required. In practice, both these factors would increase the ratio of the actual to the design strength Imcommon with most work on shear, all ests were caried out with point loading. In practice, elements will generally be subjected to distributed losdines. However, limited studies have shown that this is a less severe loading. For example, Leonhardt & Walthec"* concluded that uniformly distributed loading gave a 20 to 40% higher shear capacity than 2 load. Thur the proposed design method ed with confidence for any loading situation. Relevance to piles Much ofthe impetus fo this project came from members ofthe Federation ‘of Piling Specialists. While they were concerned with the srength of piles in shear, they also questioned wether the approaches in Codes for the design of structures in ai should be applied directly to piles. Tis section isintended to raise and discuss the issues but not necessarily to reach firm conclusions ‘Of particular concern to the Federation was the provision of Tinks. Two approaches had been suggested, ie. that 1 piles should be treated as columns and hence the size and spacing of the links related to the main longitudinal steel; oF (links should be provided as for a beam from considerations of shear only “The first was outside the seope of this study, being relevant to vertial loads. However, limited research evidence suggests that nominal links have no significant effect on theultimate load capacity. The second approach leads to two requirements, which will eneally nreaze the amount of secondary sted required in 2 pile (1) Minimum links, equivalent co 0.4N/tamm, will be required. However, BS8L10 says they may be omitted if the maximum design shear stress is less than half of v. BSS400 has no such clause @ It the design shear stress exceeds the shear eapacity of the concrete section, both Codes require designed links but BS $400 requires an additional O.4N/man capacity, “The differences between the requirements ofthe two Codes are thought to be due to the type of loading. For buildings (BS8110) the load is predominantly stati, while for bridges (BS 5400) there is a hich dynamic component, at least for elements such as beams. It is argued that, while the assumption that the total shear capacity ofa section is equal to that fof the conccete plus the laks is valid for stale loading, under repeated, loading the concrete contribution pradvally reduces. Hence for a piven total capacity a greater link contribution is required. Ia plles the load will be predominantly static, even for bridges, and hence the additional O.4N/tmm* required by 855400 would appear to be unnecessary. “Miniimusn Haks aze tatended to prevent a brittle failure ia the event of| aan accidental overload. In bending, brittle failures are generally avoided. bby designing the section as undereelnforced. For overrcinforced sections te bide Code requires design to 15% above the maximum design load, te provide an additional margin of safety. As mentioned calir, dstibuted, loading will ead to a higher shear eapacity than concentrated loading. Piles uunder a given shear load will have a geester margin of safety thin would be anticipated based on texts with concentrated loads. Thus, on the basis fof the data from the present tests, they ace likely to fail at more than twice the design shear steengsh. This should be a more than adequate margin, «ven without minimum links. Is, a fact, exactly the same as the approach in BS110 which allows minimum links Co be omitted where the maximum design shear stress is less than half of ¥ ‘On the bass of the above, its probably necessary only to provide links in piles when the applied shear exceeds the shear capacity ofthe concrete section. It should then be necessary only to provide sufficient inks to carry the difference between the applied shear and the shear capacity. Further study is required to confirm this approach. Continued on page 81 The Structural Engineer/Volume 71/No.5/2 March 1993 o os 42 os ohh NI oz LOK. | 0 cr 0? 03 os 05 a6 G7 08 09 1 255050 ---— Asprotinoe forma 4, Effective length chart for broced frame “The dotted Lines in Fig 2 represent plots of (5) for &y = 0. 1 can be seen thatthe approximations reasonably good, and itis found thatthe accuracy ‘obiained is usually o beter than the second decimal place. Similar diagrams can be dravn for the otber values of fin Table 1. By way of comparizon, the chain dowted tines in Fig 2 represent plots of the approximation given in Annex E ef EuroCode 3, which uses the BS 5950 method of determining effective length, The approximation suggested in this paper is seen to be nuch more accurate. Approximate formula for # braced frame |S procedure similar to that used above yields the following approximate formula for braced frames: K = 10.07 ~ 0.055¢k, + kN, — is enhibits an accuracy similar to that of ego. (3), as can be seen from i 6. faclusions ‘he approximate formulae which have been presented in this paper have bocen shown to be accurate to degree which should be sufficient for most desi situations. They achieve an accuracy which rivals the results obtained boy accurately scaling from the graphs in Appendix E of BS5950, The euthor ‘would suggest that they present an alternative to this technique, especially ‘when used in computer aided design software. With the increasing use of brogramable calculators, ie may even ne used in hand ealculated designs. 1 should also be possible to develop similar formulae 10 replace the ‘American nomogram technique ‘Further research must now be condueted to extend the usefulness ofthese fotmulze to mutisiorey simple construction, whece the connections are seu-rigi 1 is hopes that this wil lead wo equally aceurate approximations. References 1.55950 Structural use of stelwork in bullding: Part 1: Code of practice for destzn in simple and continuous construction: hot rolled sections, London, British Standards Institution, 1999 2. Wood, R. H.: Etfectve lengths of columas in mhistrey tilings’, ‘The Structural Engineer, 82, No. 7, Tuly 1974, ppZ4-244 3. Chen, W. ., Lai, EM. Stability design of stel frames, CRC Press, 1991, 4 Specification forthe design, fbricaion and erection of sructralsteet for buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, November 1978 3. Advisory desk: SCI answers to queries on stslvork design: 1988-1990, Stee! Construction Institue, SCT publication 104, 199), p30 ‘The Structural Engineer/Volume 71/No.6/2 March 1993 Paper: Clarke/Birjandi : Continued from page 78 Conclusions ‘The shear capacity of eroular cross-sections in at may be determined using the approach for rectangular sections given in either BS8110 or BS3400, ‘with the following modifications: (1) The area of tension reinforcement, A, isthe area of the steet below the mid-depth of the section. (©) The effective depth, d, is taken a the distance from the extreme compression fibre to the centroid of the tension reinforcement (@) When determining the shear capacity of the concrete section or of the shear reinforcement, the term bd should be taken 85 the area of concrete from the extreme compression fibve down to the depth d. (4) When spirals are used as shear reinforcement, thei arca Ay should be reduced by a factor sina, where a isthe angle between the spiral und the longitudinal axis of the unit, Acknowledgements ‘This work was carried out at the British Cement Association with financial support from the Federation of Piling Specialists, the Department of the Environment, and the BCA member companies ‘The authors would like to thank the sponsers and Dr G. Somerville, Director of Engineering atthe BCA, for permission to publish this paper. ‘They also want to thank the staf of the Structures Laboratory for theit enthusiastic help wth the project and particularly Mr R. Beleher who carried ‘out most of the testing References 1. Capen, M.J.F., de Cossia, R, D.: ‘Diagonal tension in concrete ‘members of circular section’, Foreign Literature Study No.466, tino, Portland Cement Association, orginally published in Ingenieria, April 1965, pp2s7-280 2. Khalifa, J. U., Collins, M. P.: ‘Circular reinforced concrete members subjected to shear’, University of Toronto, Department of Civil Engineering, Publication 81-08, December 1981 3. Nagato, Y. ‘Shear sxength of reinforced concrete meinbers with circular cross-section’, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro 4, BS8100 Siruetural use of concrete: Part I: Code af practice for desien ‘end construction, London, British Standerds Institution, 1985 5, BS5400 Stet, concrete and composite bridges: Part 4: Code of practice ‘Sor design of concrete bridges, London, British Standards Institution, 1990 6 ACT 318-89 Building code requirements for reinforced concrete, Detroit, American Conercie Institue, 1989 7. ACI 31BR-89 Commentary on building code requirements for reinforced concrete, Detroit, American Concrete Institute, 1989 8. “Design of concrete structures: Part I: General rules and rules for buildings’, EC2:Part 1, Commission of the European Communities, final draft October 1991 9 ‘The assessment of conerete highway bridges and structures’, Departmente Standard BD 46/90, London, Departaient of Transport, 1990 10. Leonhardt, F., Walther, Rut ‘The Stuttgart shear texts, Library translation 111, Cement & Concrete Acsociation, 1964 ct

You might also like