The disturbing fact about this is that the second equation would give a drastically larger tensile reinforcement ratio to plug into the equation, albeit the reduced effective depth will reduce the overall result of Vrd,c.
The code actually intends to have shear strength for members in tension...
The equation for shear strength of a RC section without shear reinforcement in the various codes takes into account the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement "in tension", which acts as a crack width limiting factor or through dowel action to aid in shear strength.
Example from EN1992-1-1:
The...
In RC the sections are designed for the condition of "bending with or without axial force". The total tensile force will be the one from flexion + the one from tension. The required reinforcement will need to withstand the sum. This would be straightforward in the case of a linear element...
Does it make sense to treat the step as flexural member to find the tensile force acting on the vertical leg (where depth = beam width) or is this force equal to the tension coming from the slabs?
In Germany that we base all our projects on, the proposed detail for a step with required...
Yes, this is what I am trying to differentiate since the original post. By saying "beam" it is presupposed that it is an element sufficiently supported so that it can in turn support the slab. By saying "simple slab offset/ step" I mean a step that occurs in the midst of a slab without the...
Sometimes it makes more sense not to release the moments in the analysis, when there are big spans and the deflections would be a problem for example. It is this case I am trying to examine and try to see how would this be approached, whether by transferring the moment across the beam or treat...
Suppose we have a slab with an offset that at the same time acts as a supporting beam (happens a lot in projects where there is an underground garage for example). In the static analysis the slab is assumed to be continuous. The beam acts as a support therefore the moments in the slab will be...
This is about monolithic RC elements. I edited the title and original post to clarify.
The reference to compatibility torsion had me reading a lot, and it is there mostly explained.
This seems to be ignored by the European Code where I can't find a reference to it.
Assume a RC continuous two-span slab with pinned supports on all sides and a T-Beam acting as mid-support. The beam is supported by columns on each end (assume high flexural stiffness of columns).
Let's take two scenarios:
1) Slab span lengths and loading are equal, there is a force F acting...
Here is an excerpt of the foundation that shows the layout, if it helps. Some indicated distances show that the critical perimeter of 2d overlap.
Most of the problematic piles are in a straight line, not sure how we can make a rectangle around them.
In the case of a base slab with a thickness of 60cm supported on piles with diameter of 44cm-60cm, we have a situation where the punching shear perimeters overlap (using EC2 parameters for Germany). The slab is loaded by walls scattered around. How could we check for punching shear of the piles...
