The use of three strain gauges adhered to the concrete side face provided flexural moments similar to that predicted theoretically. The evaluation of the neutral axis location within the shear span showed that shear is first transferred by beam action, followed by arch action. Instrumented specimens showed that strain compatibility between the longitudinal reinforcement and the surrounding concrete did not exist for much of the loading range due to bond loss.
#CEB FIP MODEL CODE 2010 PDF CODE#
On the other hand, the draft CEB-FIP Model Code (2010) provisions showed an overly conservative prediction for all specimens reinforced with either round or square bars cast in the top or bottom position. The influence is instead represented by a modification of the tension stiffening from. However, the CEB-FIP Model Code (1993) predictive equation is unconservative when predicting the behaviour of specimens reinforced with either square or round bars cast in the top position. Explicit consideration of the influence of bond on performance at the serviceability limit state and on rotation capacity is not normally required for members reinforced with conventional plain or deformed steel bars. The CEB-FIP Model Code (1993) predictive equations are reasonably conservative in capturing the behaviour of specimens reinforced with round bars cast in the bottom position, and square bars with side dimension of 25 mm cast in the bottom position. A top cast factor of 0.4 and 0.6 captures the reduction in the maximum normalized load for specimens cast with round and square bars, respectively, in the top position. An equivalent round diameter based upon the cross-section area of the square bars allowed for a single predictive equation between the maximum normalized load as a function of splice length, casting position and bar size. The analysis of specimens with strain gauge instrumentation is also presented, and includes results of strain compatibility, bond stress distribution, and flexural section analysis.Īll specimens failed by bond, caused by a sudden pullout of the reinforcement within the splice region.
#CEB FIP MODEL CODE 2010 PDF CRACK#
The results of maximum loads, crack patterns, load versus deflection behaviour, and deflected profiles are presented for all specimens. The principal reinforcement was either cast in the bottom or top position.
Three lap splice lengths, two bar sizes for square bars, and one bar size for round bars were investigated. It is the result of a comprehensive revision to the original model code of 1978, which was produced jointly by the Comit Euro-International du B ton (CEB) and the F d ration International de la Pr contrainte (FIP). Three of the specimens were instrumented with strain gauges adhered to the reinforcement and the concrete side face. This document is a comprehensive design code for concrete. If FCK28 is not given the characteristic strength is taken according to the CEB-FIP Model Code 2010 from the specified concrete grade. FCK28 fck28 is the characteristic strength f ck (in MPa) of a concrete cylinder at the age of twenty-eight days.
Eighteen splice specimens were tested under four-point loading as part of a larger experimental investigation to study the behaviour of lap spliced plain steel bars in reinforced concrete specimens. For all regular structural elements is the mass density per unit volume.
0 kommentar(er)
