A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
On the EC2 Minimum Flexural Conventional Reinforcement Requirement for SFRC Beams
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-8065
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6548-9439
The revision of EN 1992-1-1 (Eurocode 2) published in November 2023 includes an Annex (L) for SFRC structures. Its provision for minimum flexural reinforcement is derived by solving the condition MR,min ≥ Mcr. This is similar to the plain RC provision, yet it includes the effects of the fibers, by considering their effective residual tensile strength fFtu,ef. However, for the common ultimate limit state plastic design of reinforced SFRC (R/SFRC) beams or slabs without any direct check of their rotation capacity, the code requires to increase As,min by a factor ‘αduct’. The default value of αduct is 2.0 and it can be different according to the National Annex. The reason for this provision is the effect of cracking localization on reducing the flexural ductility, as observed in R/SFRC beams with relatively low conventional reinforcement ratios. Experimental data shows that there exists a transition point (TP) in terms of the ‘effective reinforcement ratio’, below which a decrease of the reinforcement decreases the flexural ductility (opposite to plain RC beams). This paper presents examples of As,min calculated by the code’s provisions with the default factor and inspects their resulted values with experimental data. It is shown that if minimum ductility is wished to be maintained, as indicated by the TP, the default value should indeed be increased.
On the EC2 Minimum Flexural Conventional Reinforcement Requirement for SFRC Beams
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-8065
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6548-9439
The revision of EN 1992-1-1 (Eurocode 2) published in November 2023 includes an Annex (L) for SFRC structures. Its provision for minimum flexural reinforcement is derived by solving the condition MR,min ≥ Mcr. This is similar to the plain RC provision, yet it includes the effects of the fibers, by considering their effective residual tensile strength fFtu,ef. However, for the common ultimate limit state plastic design of reinforced SFRC (R/SFRC) beams or slabs without any direct check of their rotation capacity, the code requires to increase As,min by a factor ‘αduct’. The default value of αduct is 2.0 and it can be different according to the National Annex. The reason for this provision is the effect of cracking localization on reducing the flexural ductility, as observed in R/SFRC beams with relatively low conventional reinforcement ratios. Experimental data shows that there exists a transition point (TP) in terms of the ‘effective reinforcement ratio’, below which a decrease of the reinforcement decreases the flexural ductility (opposite to plain RC beams). This paper presents examples of As,min calculated by the code’s provisions with the default factor and inspects their resulted values with experimental data. It is shown that if minimum ductility is wished to be maintained, as indicated by the TP, the default value should indeed be increased.
On the EC2 Minimum Flexural Conventional Reinforcement Requirement for SFRC Beams
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-8065
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6548-9439
The revision of EN 1992-1-1 (Eurocode 2) published in November 2023 includes an Annex (L) for SFRC structures. Its provision for minimum flexural reinforcement is derived by solving the condition MR,min ≥ Mcr. This is similar to the plain RC provision, yet it includes the effects of the fibers, by considering their effective residual tensile strength fFtu,ef. However, for the common ultimate limit state plastic design of reinforced SFRC (R/SFRC) beams or slabs without any direct check of their rotation capacity, the code requires to increase As,min by a factor ‘αduct’. The default value of αduct is 2.0 and it can be different according to the National Annex. The reason for this provision is the effect of cracking localization on reducing the flexural ductility, as observed in R/SFRC beams with relatively low conventional reinforcement ratios. Experimental data shows that there exists a transition point (TP) in terms of the ‘effective reinforcement ratio’, below which a decrease of the reinforcement decreases the flexural ductility (opposite to plain RC beams). This paper presents examples of As,min calculated by the code’s provisions with the default factor and inspects their resulted values with experimental data. It is shown that if minimum ductility is wished to be maintained, as indicated by the TP, the default value should indeed be increased.
On the EC2 Minimum Flexural Conventional Reinforcement Requirement for SFRC Beams
RILEM Bookseries
Mechtcherine, Viktor (editor) / Signorini, Cesare (editor) / Junger, Dominik (editor) / Dancygier, Avraham N. (author) / Karinski, Yuri S. (author)
RILEM-fib International Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Concrete ; 2024 ; Dresden, Germany
Transforming Construction: Advances in Fiber Reinforced Concrete ; Chapter: 29 ; 228-235
RILEM Bookseries ; 54
2024-09-12
8 pages
Article/Chapter (Book)
Electronic Resource
English
Minimum Reinforcement Requirement for RC Beams
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1999
Design of SFRC Flexural Members
| Springer Verlag | 2016
Biaxial bending of SFRC slabs: Is conventional reinforcement necessary?
| Springer Verlag | 2018