Title No.

59-58

This report amends the revisions to the ACI Building

Code which were published in the February 1962 JOUR
NAL to solicit discussion. The proposed revisions, in
eluding the following amendment, have been released by
the Standards Committee and will be presented for con
sideration for adoption at the 59th annual convention,
Atlanta, Ga., March 47, 1963.

Proposed Revision of
Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-56)
-Amendment
Reported by ACI Committee 318

RAYMOND C. REESE JOHN P. THOMPSON

Chairman Secretary

W. C. E. BECKER ROBERT 0. JAMESON PAUL F. RICE

FRANK H. BEINHAUER
DELMAR L. BLOEM
FRANK B. BROWN
ROSS H. BRYAN
EDWARD COHEN
THEODORE F. COLLIER
JAMES N. DE SERIO
MALCOLM S. DOUGLAS
WILLIAM EIPEL
PHIL M. FERGUSON
E. I. FIESENHEISER
A. H. GUSTAFERRO
EIVIND HOGNESTAD
HARRY F. IRWIN
ROBERT C. jOHNSON PAUL ROGERS
OLIVER G. JULIAN EMILIO ROSENBLUETH
FRANK KEREKES ROBERT SAILER
WALTER E. KUNZE MORRIS SCHUPACK
GEORGE E. LARGE CHESTER P. SIESS
T. Y. LIN HOWARD SIMPSON
NOLAN D. MITCHELL IRWIN J. SPEYER
NATHAN M. NEWMARK M. P. VAN BUREN
DOUGLAS E. PARSONS A. CARL WEBER
JEROME L. PETERSON WALTER H. WHEELER
ORLEY 0. PHILLIPS C. A. WILLSON
W. GORDON PLEWES GEORGE WINTER
M. V. PREGNOFF H. B. ZACKRISON, SR.
THEODORE 0. REYHNER

Presented here is an amendment to "Proposed Revision of Building

Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-56)," which
appeared in the February, 1962, ACI JOURNAL Included with this
amendment are discussion and reasons for the changes.

REASON FOR AMENDMENT

The Standards Committee authorized the printing of the proposed
revisions in the February, 1962, JouRNAL for study only, not for immedi-
ate adoption.
1821
1822 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE December 1962

ACI Committee 318 had prepared five complete redrafts of "Proposed

Revisions" and several minor rewrites. The time had come to publish
the results for discussion, continue studies and comparisons from the
printed text instead of the changing drafts, and permit an amendment
while it was still possible to modify the provisions. The discussions,
published in the September, October, and November ACI JouRNALS,
indicate the keen interest taken and the wisdom of the course adopted.
The amendment is the result of several meetings of special task forces,
the frequent rewriting of different provisions, and at least four extensive
ballots, voted section by section by members of Committee 318.
Changes from the proposed revisions are of several types: (1) Correc-
tion and arrangement of words for added clarity without substantial
change in the meaning; these are not included in this listing as they
would only make the reading that much more difficult.t (2) Changes
of a general nature, such as the use of cpfy for fy*, which can be listed
once only and applied throughout the text. (3) Substantial changes in
meaning that must be referenced to exact places in the proposed re-
visions and that are the major part of this amendment. Printing only
the changes from the February, 1962, JouRNAL seemed to be most time
saving and convenient even though the reader will have to keep the
February JouRNAL (or the reprint) at hand for reference in reviewing
the changes.
Five general areas of changes deserve special description here: (1)
shear and diagonal tension, (2) bond, (3) long columns, ( 4) ultimate
strength design, and ( 5) load factors.

SHEAR AND DIAGONAL TENSION

The report of the ACI-ASCE Committee 326, Shear and Diagonal
Tension, as related to shear in unreinforced webs of beams was made
available to Committee 318 in manuscript. There are several members
who serve on both committees. That report represents as thorough a
job of research as can be done. When the assembled data showed gaps
in certain regions, additional tests were arranged to supply the needed
information. The formulas in the proposed revisions were based on the
Committee 326 report, but the quite logical concept of having V 0 vary
with the V d/M ratio along the span and with p made for considerable
difficulty in calculation. The results so obtained seemed sufficiently
below those used quite satisfactorily during 1956-1962 to make a critical
look at the proposal imperative. There is a good general survey of the
problem in a discussion of shear in the proposed revision by Knop
and Sbarounis in the October JouRNAL, pp. 1541-1554. The Committee
tA photo offset reproduction of "Proposed Revisions to Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-56) incorporating all changes including these amendments is
available from ACI headquarters at a nominal charge of 50 cents.
 AMENDMENT 1823

TABLE I -COMPARISON BETWEEN SHEAR PROVISIONS OF ACI 318-56,

PROPOSED REVISION, AND AMENDMENT

f c', v,
ACI 318-56
= 0.03f!, psi
I Proposed revision Amendment
psi (90 psi max) Vo = 'VTc': psi v, = 1.1 'Vfc', psi
on bd on bjd
on bjd on bd I on bjd at distance at distance At face of
d d support
I
2500 75 50 57 55 63 71
3000 90 55 63 61 69 77
4000 90 63 72 69 79 89
5000 90 71 81 78 89 100

326 report drew the "best" curve through the lower fringe of the
test data.
A survey of structures designed under the 1956 Code disclosed no
evidences of shear problems. Such results are negative at best, indicating
only that no serious cracking had occurred, but there was no certainty
that the critical design load was ever reached or whether the concrete
in the structure was materially better than that in the test cylinders, or
how close the structure may have been to incipient cracking. Never-
theless, cognizance must be taken of satisfactory results. Numerous
studies and comparisons resulted in the provisions recommended in
this amendment. The formulas for v,. ordinarily establish the level at
which web reinforcement is to be used. Since web reinforcement adds
materially to toughness, a moderately low level is not disadvantageous.
A comparison of the 1956 provisions, the proposed revision (adjusted
for the omission of j in computing the effective area) and of the amend-
ment (similarly adjusted ) is shown in Table 1 and in Fig. 1. Since the
amendment establishes the value of v, at a distanced from the face of the
support some load pattern and relationship between d and L must be
assumed to make a comparison. With a uniform load and normal depth
the increase in v, at the support may be taken as about one-eighth the
value at distance d.
Committee 326 also recognized the resistance contributed by the
longitudinal tensile steel. Direct comparisons with so many variables
are not simple, but consider the formula in the amendment

v, = 'Vf7 + 1300 pVd

M
where Vd/M shall not exceed unity. Consider only the case where
Vd/M = 1 and where p is 0.005, then, with 3000-psi concrete Vc is
54.7 +
6.5 = 61.2, which, adjusted for a bd area becomes 70 at distanced
or about 79 at the face of the support for comparison with the 90 of 1956.
1824 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE December 1962

1956
-::::
eo
.- - -
C/)
a.

>
a::
<(
(.)

60 .- -...-

Revision
IJ.I
J:
C/)

40
_,IJ.I
al
<(
~
_,_,
0
20
<(

QL-------~--------~------~---------L------~
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, fb (PSI)
Fig. I -Comparison of allowable shear versus compressive strength by
various provisions

Because the multiplicity of joists and distribution of loads reduces the

likelihood of failure, an increase in Vc of 10 percent is recommended for
concrete joist construction.

BOND
A second major area of change is in bond. The amendment recognizes
what writers have been explaining, i.e., a differentiation of "anchorage"
bond and "flexural" or "running" bond. It also considers the results of
bond tests by Watstein and by Ferguson that were not completed at the
time the proposed revisions were written and some of which came in
direct response to questions raised by Committee 318. There seems little
reason any loriger to doubt that unit bond stress with A 305 bars does
decrease with bar diameter from #3 to #11, and that this decrease is
roughly inversely proportional to the bar diameter. There is no doubt that
large A 408 bars should develop less unit bond resistance than A 305 bars
because of the difference in deformations. The tests also indicate that
bond "failures"-which are really excessive slippages-are more a result
of splitting of the surrounding concrete than of adhesion of concrete to
 AMENDMENT 1825

TABLE 2 - BOND STRESS ON BOTTOM BARS BY BAR SIZES

(3000-PSI CONCRETE)

Bar size
1956 Code !I #4 1:1 #6 #'/:t:r,
Amendment 1500
300
--
300
500
300
438
----
300 1

3651313
300 300
274
300
244
1-
300
216
#11
300
194
#14S
300(?)
164
#18S
300(?)
164

steel, showing that the bulk of the force is transmitted by bearing of

the deformations on the concrete.
Since the usefulness of a bar may be completely determined by the
value of its anchorage, this subject was carefully studied and enthusi-
astically debated before the amended results were formulated. In fact
many details of anchorages, laps, and splices must be based as much on
past experience and analysis as on tests. Several research programs are
under consideration as a result of these studies.
A comparison of bond values between the 1956 Code and the amend-
ment can be made for bottom bars in, say, 3000-psi concrete with various
bar sizes (see Table 2).
Distinction is made in the amendment between tension and compres-
sion, between top and bottom bars, and between A 305 and other bars.
Requirements for laps and splices had to be reviewed and modified.

LONG COLUMNS
The elastic (and plastic) buckling of long columns combined with
bending has given Committee 318 much trouble and the final solution is
not available at the writing of this amendment. In the beginning it was
felt that long columns in ordinary design are not so common as to be of
great concern. The studies of Broms and Viest caused them to be asked to
frame a simple straight-line relationship that would permit extending
the 1956 Code to somewhat greater length-diameter ratios. This they did.
Aas-Jakobsen proposed to the Comite Europeen du Beton a simple ap-
proximation of determining what additional eccentric end moment
would reasonably represent the buckling effect. As a result of the in-
creasing interest, discussions were getting quite involved when the
proposed revisions were finally written. Some of the difficulties arise
from such items as a mathematical determination of the end restraints,
the fact that end moments in a rigid frame are to a considerable degree
self-relieving on a slender column as it will throw more of the moment
back into the beams, the fact that high-rise structures gain lateral sta-
bility in two different ways, either from the columns or from shear
walls that leave the columns virtually free-ended, and that a similar con-
dition exists in a lesser degree for sidesway developed in unsymmetrical
frames or those unsymmetrically loaded. Elaborate mathematical studies
1826 jOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE December 1962

and computer analyses are still going on in this area. There is a likeli-
hood that a less complicated approach can be developed. In the meantime
fairly comprehensive procedures are provided or the designer is per-
mitted to make his own analysis.

ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN

Ultimate strength designs have become common. The method has had a
good trial period. The proposed revisions extended the 1956 Code to
cover shear, bond, and deflection as well as direct stress and flexure. The
amendment revises shear and bond as previously described. There is no
question but what the formulas proposed for ultimate strength design
can predict the ultimate capacity of a member with a high degree of pre-
cision. Laboratories virtually all over the world have verified this on
many unusual types of members. The hardest problem for the code
writer and the designer is the choice of load factors to determine what
portion of the computed capacity can safely be used. Two problems of
the 1956 factors were: (1) that the overemphasis on the effect of live
load when applied to pattern loading produced negative moments all
across ordinary spans, and (2) the excessive "bookkeeping" required
by the necessity for two criteria for overload factor dependent on the
ratio of dead and live load.

LOAD FACTORS
Design for flexure in under-reinforced beams consists of determining
the bending moment as the product of load, span, and continuity factor
and equating this to the resisting moment which is the product of area of
reinforcement, its stress, and the arm of the internal couple. Bending
moments may be computed for service loads, ultimate loads, or the most
likely reasonable overload. The resisting moment may be computed for
safe working stresses, ultimate capacity, or the most likely minimum
capacity of one in a great number of identically-made specimens.
The bending moment M 118 , at service loads established by general codes
outside the scope of Committee 318, is computed at the safe working
stresses. The considerably larger moment at ultimate load, Mllu, is the
bending moment obtained by increasing the service loads with suitably
chosen load factors.
The resisting moment at safe working stresses, M 118 , is computed from
allowable percentages of the cylinder strength of the concrete or yield
strength of the reinforcement (the ultimate tensile strength having little
significance since permanent deformation will have already taken place).
The resisting moment of a flexural member at ultimate capacity, MRl 1, is
at the level at which the member no longer does a satisfactory job
because of excessive cracking, deflection, or actual collapse.
 AMENDMENT 1827

Ultimate capacity
The ultimate capacity of a member, for reasons discussed later, should
be greater than what the member is ordinarily called on to perform.
This coefficient, or safety factor, is referred to as U. If the stress-strain
curves were straight lines to ultimate capacity so that uniformly varying
strains connoted uniformly varying stresses, it would make little differ-
ence whether we multiply one side of the equation by the safety factor
or the other side by its reciprocal.
Mns = Mns = or UMns = UMus = Muu
Muu!U
The term "bending moment due to the most likely reasonable overload"
indicates that the load prescribed for the design of a structure may
sometimes be exceeded within the life of the structure. True, there is
no limit to what might happen. Someone could fill a bedroom with
bricks (or go as far as the structure will permit in that direction) , but
that is not likely nor reasonable. On the other hand, a group of people
might gather in a room originally designed as a bedroom. There is always
likelihood of possible occasional overloads even when due care is being
exercised. Code writing authorities must decide how much overload is
reasonably to be assumed. They have been so deciding since the first
code was written.
The term "resisting moment at the most likely minimum capacity"
indicates that among a large number of identical specimens, there will be
differences in strength and therefore a most likely minimum capacity
due to unintentional variations in size, strength of materials, placing
and other construction practices. Code writers must decide how great a
provision is to be made for such undercapacity. Dividing the factor U
into two parts where one part, u, times the other part, U ju, equals U,
we have
uMns = uMu" = uJYinu/U
It is not suggested that the three concepts of working stress design,
ultimate strength design, and design by overload and undercapacity fac-
tors are simply algebraic transformations. Far from it. Ultimate strength
design differs from working stress design by more than mere shifting of
values from one side of the equation to the other. The linear variation
of strain with the distance from the neutral axis has been well established
by repeated tests, many to failure. Working stress design by the straight-
line method assumes that stresses also vary linearly from the neutral
axis. This is not so, the difference being especially noticeable from
the working stress level up to ultimate capacity. Ultimate strength
design was developed by analyzing all available tests to determine what
stress prism would approximate the stress-strain curve of concrete and
I

1828 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE December 1962

produce a volume of compression and centroid that would reconcile the

ultimate test moment with the computed one.
Safety factors
The third procedure introduces the concept of divided safety factors.
Safety factors cannot and should not attempt to account for outright
errors, such as the use of 2000-psi concrete (perish the thought) where
6000 psi was called for and required, or A 15 bars where A 432 were speci-
fied, nor the outright omission of two bars in a beam where four were
shown.
Many writers such as E. Torroja, A. L. L. Baker, 0. Julian, and others
have listed a great many causes of variations in load and strength.
There are four distinct types of variation in capacity that safety factors
must cover: (1) possible overloads, (2) variations in assumptions and
methods of design, (3) variations in field construction, and ( 4) possible
understrengths. Of these four classes, the first two are grouped into
overload factors and the second two into undercapacity factors.
Overloads
Overloads result from many causes, one being the accumulation of an
excessive amount of construction materials on light-occupancy floors.
This must be avoided. It is not directly the province of the designer,
though it should be possible to construct buildings by ordinary methods.
Dead loads
Dead loads, many writers assume, can be computed with a high degree
of precision so that little or no overload factor is needed. This is not
quite accurate. While dead loads may be estimated roughly or carefully,
the most careful detailed computation is not exact. The type of floor
finish may be subject to several alternate proposals, or walls may be
open to different types of material. No designer is so precise as to vary
the structure for each alternate. He will provide for the heaviest of the
group. But, beyond that, during the life of the structure, its owner may
see fit to add partitions, to apply new floor finishes, hang new ceilings, or
plaster existing walls. Even if it were possible to predict the original dead
weight with a high degree of precision, an allowance must be made for
future items. The proper allowance can never be precisely determined,
even by -statistical analyses, but for safe design the computed dead
weights can be increased by some relatively small amount that will
reasonably take care of the variations discussed-something in the
range of 25 percent.
Live loads
Live loads are subject to overload because the prescribed live load
overlooks occasional loads heavier than anticipated. A more careful
survey of proper live loads, the growing costs of construction, and the
 AMENDMENT 1829

necessity to obtain residential, educational, hospital, and similar struc-

tures for reasonable capital outlays, has caused some decreases in
specified live loads. Coupled with this will be the need for continued and
more complete studies of what likely overloads should be foreseen.
Complete change of occupancy, as from an apartment house to a
storage warehouse, cannot and should not be thought of in this connec-
tion. Possible increases may come from replacing with heavier equip-
ment, from a denser population of rooms, a congestion of people en
route to a fire exit, or from similar eventualities. The use of a higher
overload factor for live loads than for dead load is reasonable. Something
in the neighborhood of 20 percent seems about right.
Other loads
Other loads can be similarly handled. Impact, which is often expressed
as a percentage of live load can be included with it. Wind, earthquake,
and other forces will have suitable factors so that a combination of any or
all such effects will produce results that appear logical and agree
reasonably well with designs that have proved satisfactory.
Assumptions and calculation inaccuracies
The second type of variation, included with the foregoing, relates to
all the inaccuracies of assumptions and calculations. Span lengths are
rarely expressed exactly. In continuous structures, it is a nice question
just how the effective span length would be determined. Continuity in
frame analysis is approximated in one way or another. Unequal settle-
ment of the supports and its effect on the moments is overlooked or
roughly estimated. Variations in the modulus of elasticity occur in dif-
ferent parts of the same structure. These design items that affect the
exact moment can make about a 20 percent difference in the require-
ments.
Combining the probable variations in dead load, live loads, and the
effects of all the design assumptions and approximations in single over-
load factors produced the values of 1.5 for dead load and 1.8 for live load.
It is possible in the future to study these values, check our appraisals,
and do closer design work. These overload factors more or less represent
items that are under direct control of the designer.
Construction inaccuracies
The third category of variations considers construction inaccuracies.
Members can be slightly undersize and still be acceptable. Steel can be
somewhat misplaced and not rejected. Placing and curing of the concrete
may be such as not to develop its potential strength. With reasonably
good construction, the sum of all these variations because of construction
tolerances might be kept within 10 percent.
1830 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE December 1962

U nderstrength
The fourth item of actual understrength takes into account that test
cylinders are not exact indications of .the quality of the concrete placed
from even the same batch. Also one cylinder in five, or in ten, is
permitted to fall below the specified strength. Similarly with reinforcing
steel, though the specified yield point is a minimum, the weight of indi-
vidual bars is allowed to be 6 percent below the tabulated value. Taking
account of all these factors, it is not unlikely that the ultimate capacity
of a member because of the variations in material strengths alone would
be reduced perhaps 10 percent in the case of bars.
Ductile failure
Still another factor is taken into consideration by researchers and
designers most familiar with failures in reinforced concrete structures.
That is the difference in results of brittle and ductile failures. A flexural
member reinforced considerably below the balanced reinforcement level,
if it fails in flexure, will gradually deflect and, as the steel approaches its
yield point, will develop unsightly crack patterns and severe deforma-
tions which result in a completely unusable structure long before
collapse. This is a ductile failure.
Brittle failure
If the beam is reinforced above balanced reinforcement so that failure
re~;ults from compression in the concrete, there would be little or no
warning, slivers of concrete would fly out of the compression zone, and
collapse might be nearly instantaneous. This is a brittle failure. Commit-
tee 318 recommends factors that will guard severely against possible
brittle failure, perhaps to the amount of 10 to 15 percent.
Summary
This brief, oversimplified explanation does not refer to the many
statistical studies of variations in thousands of tests of steel and concrete
and hundreds of tests of flexural members and columns, but does indi-
cate in a general way the reasoning behind overload and undercapacity
factors. Determining how much of the variation is overload and how
much understrength was the hardest problem. Future studies may
suggest decreasing both undercapacity and overload factors. Different
understrength factors are appropriate for flexure (0.90), shear (0.85),
spirally reinforced columns (0.75), and tied columns (0.70).
For the future, dividing the variations into four general categories
simplifies the job of weighing probabilities. A single over-all factor must
cover all variations in one appraisal. With growing experience, a close
determination of each o the categories may be relatively simple. Some of
them lend themselves to the collection of data and analysis by statistical
 AMENDMENT 1831

methods, others to broader judgments, as, for example, the proper live
load and its proper overload factor.
Committees are already working on allowable tolerances that will
indicate what factor corresponds with a given quality of workmanship. If
certain methods of construction permit closer tolerances, that factor can
be adjusted- not job by job, not at the designer's discretion, but a code
could well recognize two or three classes of construction just as it
recognizes different grades of concrete and steel. If design methods
and assumptions require a certain factor, it may be that with growing
appreciation of the problem, the design methods might be improved, or,
at least, an economic balance will be reached between precision and cost.
Some of the advantages are for the future. As categories are isolated
and studied, and methods improved, the safety factor may be reduced.
The proper factor (and there will always be one) can be based on a much
better analytical approach. There is no disadvantage currently in multiple
factors because, for any given situation, they can be combined into one.
Factors for dead and live load, for design assumptions, for construction
tolerances and for undersize and understrength can all be attacked and
studied. More detailed analyses in some cases, more rigid controls in
others, will make it possible to reduce factors in some or all of the
four categories.

FUTURE COMMENTARY
The previous general explanation is necessary for an intelligent under-
standing of the detailed amendments which follow. Committee 318 has a
commission to prepare a commentary on the new Code explaining in
some detail the reasons for each of the provisions, what sources were
used and how they were interpreted. This commentary will also enlarge
on Code provisions that recommend "recognized methods" or the "judg-
ment of the engineer." Such a commentary will make the 1963 Code
that much more readily understood, evaluated, and applied.
With these explanations, the recommended amendment to the proposed
revisions follows with detailed references by page and section number.

AMENDMENTS
Section 301, p. 155
Change "yield point" to "yield strength" throughout the Cpde.

Section 406, 407, and 408, p. 159-160

Immediately following Section 405 insert Sections 406, 407, and 408
as follows:
1832 jOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE December 1962

406- Air-entraining admixtures

(a) Air-entraining admixtures, if used, shall conform to "Specifica-
tions for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete" (ASTM C 260).
407 -Accelerating, retarding and water-reducing admixtures
(a) Water-reducing admixtures, retarding admixtures, accelerating
admixtures, water reducing and retarding admixtures, and water-reduc-
ing and accelerating admixtures, if used, shall conform to "Specifica-
tions for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete" (ASTM C 494).
408 - Poz:z:olanic admixtures
(a) (a) Fly ash, when used as an admixture, shall conform to "Speci-
fications for Fly Ash for Use as an Admixture in Portland Cement Con-
crete" (ASTM C 350).
(b) Other pozzolans used as admixtures shall conform to Specifica-
tions for Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolans for Use as Admixtures in
Portland Cement Concrete" (ASTM C 402).
Renumber present Sections 406 and 407 as Sections 409 and 410.
Section 50l(c), p. 162
Change to:
(c) Concrete that is to be subject to freezing temperatures while wet
shall have a water-cement ratio not exceeding 6 gal per bag of cement,
and it shall contain entrained air.t
Section 50l(d), p. 162
Add the following:
(d) Concrete that will be exposed to sulfate-containing or other
chemically aggressive solutions shall be proportioned in accordance with
"Recommended Practice for Selecting Proportions for Concrete (ACI
613)" and "Recommended Practice for Selecting Proportions for Struc-
tural Lightweight Concrete (ACI 613A-59)" t
Table 502(a), p. 163
Delete line for 2000-psi concrete.
Section 604(c), p. 167
At end add:
Effective vibration is commonly the most suitable means.
Section 704(b), p. 170
Change to start:
(b) A delay at least until the column concrete is no longer plastic
and at least until the latest time it can still be vibrated must occur in ...
 AMENDMENT 1833

Section 801 (d), p. 171

Add a new sentence to Section 801 (d) as follows: "No bars partially
embedded in concrete shall be field bent except as shown on the plans or
specifically permitted by the engineer."
Section 803(b), p. 172
Begin the section with, "Unless otherwise specified by the engineer ..."
Replace Subsections (b) 1 and (b)2 with:
1. Depth, d, in flexural members, walls, and columns, where d
is 24 in. or less; +% in.
2. Depth, d, in flexural members and columns, where d is more
than 24 in.; + lf2 in.
Section 804(f), p. 172
At the end add:
Where spacing limitations are based on bar size, a unit of bundled bars
shall be treated as a single bar of equivalent area.
Section 805(b), p. 172
Insert the heading:
(b) Splices in reinforcement in which the critical design stress is
tensile-
and omit the words "For tension reinforcement."
Section 805(c), p. 173
Change the heading to:
. (c) Splices in reinforcement in which the critical design stress is
compressive -
Change Item 2 to:
2. Welded splices or other positive connections may be used
instead of lapped splices. Where the bar size exceeds #11, welded
splices or other positive connection shall preferably be used. In
bars required for compression only, the compressive stress may be
transmitted by bearing of square-cut ends held in concentric con-
tact by a suitably welded sleeve or mechanical device.
Replace the last sentence of Item 3 with "See Section 801 (d)."
Section S'OS(d), p. 174
Reletter Subsections (d) and (e) to (e) and (f).
Insert new Subsection (d)
(d) An approved welded splice is one in which the bars are butted and
welded so that it will develop in tension at least 125 percent of the
1834 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE December I 962

specified yield strength of the reinforcing bar. Approved positive con-

nections for bars designed to carry critical tension or compression shall
be equivalent in strength to an approved welded splice.
Section 805(f), p. 174
Replace Subsection (f) with new Subsection (f);
(f) Welded wire fabric used as reinforcement in structural slabs shall
be spliced in accordance with the following provisions:
1. Lapped splices of wires in regions of maximum stress (where
they are carrying more than one-half of the permissible stress) shall
be avoided wherever possible; such splices where used shall be so
made that the overlap measured between outermost cross wires of
each fabric sheet is not less than the spacing of the cross wires
plus 2 in.
2. Splices of wires stressed at not more than one-half the per-
missible stress shall be so made that the overlap measured between
outermost cross wires is not less than 2 in.
Section 900, p. 177
In notation insert:
r =radius of gyration of gross concrete area of a column.

Section 906, p. 180

In heading delete "-Nonprestressed concrete."
Section 908(a), p. 181
Substitute:
(a) The effects of lateral eccentricity of load shall be taken into
account in determining the spacing of lateral supports for a beam which
shall never exceed 50 times the least width, b, of the compression flange
or face.
Section 909(c), p. 182
In Line 2, change "load" to "service load." Line 4 delete remainder of
sentence after "Section 1102" and substitute: "The moment of inertia
shall be based on the gross area when pfy is equal to or less than 500 and
on the transformed area when pf1, is greater."
Section 909(d), p. 182
In Line 2 delete after "deflection by" including Table 909 (d) and
substitute: " ... 3.0 when A/ = 0, 2.2 when A/ = 0.5 A., and 1.8 when
A.'= A . "
Section 909(e)3, p. 182
Renumber as Section 909 (f) and change "l/360" to "l/240."
 AMENDMENT 1835

Section 910(b), p. 183

Delete entire subsection.
Section 911
In heading delete "-Nonprestressed concrete."
Section 915(d), p. 185
Change to read:
(d) Larger effective lengths, h', shall be used for all columns in
frames which depend on the column stiffness for lateral stability:
Section 916(a) 1, p. 185
In Lines 4 and 5 change h'/t to h'/r. In Line 5 change 18 to 60 (twice)
and 30 to 100.
Section 916(a), p. 186
Change equations to
R = 1.32+ 0.006 h/r L 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . .. (9-2)
R = 1.07 - 0.008 h/r L 1.0 ................. (9-3)
R = 1.07 - 0.008 h' /r L 1.0 ................. (9-4)
R = 1.18 - 0.009 h' /r L 1.0 ................ (9-5)
Add Section 916(a)4:
( 4) The radius of gyration, r, may be taken equal to 0.30 times
the overall depth in the direction of bending for a rectangular col-
umn and 0.25 times the diameter of circular columns. For other
shapes r may be computed for the gross concrete section.
Section 916(d), p. 186
Replace with:
(d) In lieu of other requirements of this section, an analysis may be
made taking into account the effect of additional deflections on moments
in columns.
In such an analysis a reduced modulus of elasticity, not greater than
one-third the value specified in Section 1102, shall be used in calcula-
tions of deflections caused by sustained loads.
Section 917(a)3, p. 187
Replace with:
3. For columns laterally supported on four sides by beams of
approximately equal depth or by slabs, the capacity may be com-
puted by using a concrete strength equal to 75 percent of the
column concrete strength, plus 35 percent of the floor concrete
strength.
1836 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE December 1962

Section 918, pp. 187 and 188

In Subsection (b), Line 3, add: " ... or 12 bar diameters, whichever
is greater."
In Subsection (c) 2, Line 2, after "equal to" insert "three-fourths of."
In Line 4, change "d/5" to "d/8rb," where rb is the ratio of the area of
bars cut off to the total area of bars at the section."
In Subsection (c) 3, add: "or double the perimeter required for
flexural bond."
In Subsection (f), Lines 1 and 2, change "any beams" to "simple beams
and one-fourth the positive moment reinforcement in continuous beams."
In Subsection (h), change "50 percent of the allowable stress, f. or fy *,"
to "10,000 psi in Part IV -A or 19,000 psi in Part IV-B."
Section 920(b), p. 189
Replace with:
(b) When openings in slabs are located at a distance less than ten
times the thickness of the slab from a concentrated load or reaction or
when openings in flat slabs are located within the column strips as
defined in Section 2101 (d), that part of the periphery of the critical
section for shear which is covered by radial projections of the openings
to the centroid of the loaded area shall be considered ineffective.
Section 1003(a), p. 190
Above the last line, insert:
For deformed bars with a yield strength of 60,000 psi or more
and in sizes of # 11 and smaller . ... 24,000 psi
Table 1002(a), p. 191
Delete entire column for 2000-psi concrete.
Change coefficient in formula for n from "34" to "33," change E. to
29,000,000 and change tabulated values for normal weight concrete to
10, 9, 8, and 7 for strengths of 2500, 3000, 4000, and 5000 psi, respectively.
Omit entire line for 90 lb per cu ft concrete.
In the line "Extreme fiber stress in tension, etc.," change 'Yf7 to
1.6V-fc' and values 50, 55, 63, and 71 to 80, 88, 102, and 113, respectively.
Change values for shear to read as follows:
Shear: v (as a measure of
diagonal tension at a I
distance d from the face
of the support)
Beams with no web
reinforcementt v. 1.1\JV 55t 60t 70t 78t
Joists with no web
reinforcement v. 1.2'/V 61 66 77 86
 AMENDMENT 1837

Members with vertical

or inclined web
reinforcement, or
combined bent bars
and stirrups v 5'/17 250 274 316 354
Slabs and footing, etc.

Section 1102, p. 193

In Subsection (a), Line 2, change 34 to 33; in Line 3, delete "sand and
stone" and place period after "cu ft."; delete Line 4. In Subsection (b),
change "next highest" to "nearest."

Section 1103, p. 193

Add a new section:
1103- Modulus of elasticity of steel
(a) The modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement may be taken as
29,000,000 psi.

Section 1201, p. 195

Change Sections 1201 (a), (b), (c), and (d) to:
(a) The nominal shear stress as a measure of diagonal tension in re-
inforced concrete members shall be computed by:
v = Vjbd . (12-1) t
For design, the maximum shear shall be considered as that at the section
a distanced from the face of the support.* Wherever applicable, effects of
torsion shall be added and effects of inclined flexural compression in
variable-depth members shall be included.
(b) For beams of I- or T-section, b' shall be substituted for b in
Eq. (12-1).
(c) The shear stress, v,., permitted on an unreinforced web shall not
exceed 1.1 VT at a distance d from the face of the support* unless a more
detailed analysis is made in accordance with (d) or (e). The shear
stresses at sections between the face of the support and the section a
distance d therefrom shall not be considered critical.t For members with
axial tension, v" shall not exceed the value given in (e).
(d) The shear stress permitted on an unreinforced web shall not
exceed that given by:
-, pVd
Vc = V fc + 1300 ]\.1 .. (12-2)
tThis provision does not apply to brackets and other short cantilevers.
1838 jOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE December 1962

but not to exceed 1.75 V f/. The shear stresses at sections between the
face of the support and the section a distance d therefrom shall not be
considered criticaL+ V and M are the shear and bending moment at the
section considered, but M shall be not less than V d.
Section 1202(a), p. 196
At the end add: "Web reinforcement between the face of the support
and the section at a distance d therefrom shall be the same as required
at that section."
Section 1205(b), p. 197
Change Subsection (b) to "The shear stress, v, shall not exceed 5'{Tl
in sections with web reinforcement." Delete Subsection (c).
Section 1206(a), p. 197
In Line 5, change "2.5Vt'" to "3Vf/."
Section 1208(a), p. 198
In Eq. (12-9) change "0.15" to "0.17.'' Change Eq. (12-10) to:
-, pVd
v" = 0.15 Fsp V fe + 1300 ~Nr (12-10)

Section 1301 (b), p. 199

After the first five lines substitute:
For tension bars conforming to ASTM A 305
Top barst 3.5 V f,.' I D nor 350 psi
All other bars 5.0 VV/D nor 500 psi
For tension bars with deformations conforming to ASTM A 408
Top bars 2.1 y---r;;
All other bars 3 Vf c'
For all deformed compression bars
6.5 VT nor 400 psi
The footnote on p. 200 should appear at the bottom of p. 199.

Section 1401 (a), p. 202

Change to:
(a) The loads determined by the provisions of this chapter apply only
when unsupported length reductions are not required by the provision of
Sections 915 and 916. (See Section 912 for minimum size.)
Part IV-B, pp. 206-233
Throughout Part IV-B change f,* to fc' and fv* to fv
 AMENDMENT 1839

Section 1500, p. 206

Delete A and its definition. Delete fc * and its definition. Delete fu *
and its definition. On line below Pw add:
"U = required ultimate load capacity of section."
On line below W add:
"cp = capacity reduction factor (see Section 1504)"
Section 1501(a), p. 206
Change first sentence to read: "Ultimate strength design is a method
of proportioning reinforced concrete members based on calculations of
their ultimate strength."
Section 1504(b), p. 208
Change to read: "The coefficient, cp, shall be: 0.90 for flexure; 0.85 for
diagonal tension, bond and anchorage; 0.75 for spirally reinforced mem-
bers with axial load; 0.70 for tied members with axial load."
Section 1505, p. 208
Change to:
1 505 - Design strengths for reinforcement
(a) When reinforcement is used that has a specified yield strength, f 11 ,
in excess of 60,000 psi, the yield strength to be used in design shall be
reduced to 0.85 fy or 60,000 psi, whichever is greater, unless. it is shown
by tension tests that at a proof stress equal to the specified yield strength,
f 11, the strain does not exceed 0.003 in.
(b) Designs shall not be based on a yield strength, f 1" in excess of
75,000 psi. Design of tension reinforcement shall not be based on a yield
strength in excess of 60,000 psi unless tests are made in compliance
with Section 1508 (b).
Footnote, p. 208
Change reference mark from Section 1505 to Section 1504. Start
footnote: "The coefficient cp provides for such sources of undercapacity"
Section 1506(a), p. 209
Change entire section to:
(a) The design loads shall be computed as follows:
1. For structures in such locations and of such proportions that
the effects of wind and earthquake may be neglected the design
capacity shall be
U = 1.5 D + 1.8 L . . ...... (15-1)
1840 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE December 1962

The loads, D, L, W, and E are the loads specified in the general

. code of which these requirements form a part.
2. For structures in the design of which wind loading must be
included, the design capacity shall be
U = 1.25 (D + L + W) ............ (15-2)
or U = 0.9 D + 1.1 W . . ......... (15-3)
whichever is greater, provided that no member shall have a capacity
less than required by Eq. (15-1).
3. For those structures in which earthquake loading must be con-
sidered, E shall be substituted for W in Eq. (15-2) and (15-3).
4. In considering the combination of dead, live and wind loads,
the maximum and minimum effects of live loads shall be taken into
account.
5. In structures in which it is normal practice to take into account
creep, elastic deformation, shrinkage, and temperature, the effects
of such items shall be considered on the same basis as the effects of
dead load.

Section 1507(a), p. 209

In Line 5, change 0.22 to 0.18
Section 1508(b), p. 209
In Line 2, change 48,000 to 60,000.

Section 1600, p. 210

Delete f,.* and its definition. Delete L* and its definition.
Below definition of d' add:
fc' = compressive strength of concrete (see Section 301)
fv = specified minimum yield strength of steel reinforcement (see
Section 301)
Below t add:
cp = capacity reduction factor (see Section 1504).
Section 1601, p. 210
Multiply right-hand side of Eq. (16-1) by cp
Section 1602(a), p. 211
Multiply right-hand side of Eq. (16-3) by cp
Section 1603(b), p. 211
Multiply right-hand side of Eq. (16-5) by cp
 AMENDMENT J. .1841

Section 1700, p. 213

Delete fc *, fv *, -y fc *,and their definitions. At end, add:
cp = capacity reduction factor (see Section 1504).
Section 1701, p. 214
Replace Subsections (a) to (d) with:
(a) The nominal ultimate shear stress, as a measl!lre of diagonal
tension, in reinforced concrete members shall be computed by:
V 11 , = V.,Jbd ............ . .... (17-1)t
For design, the maximum shear shall be considered as that at the section
a distance d from the face of the support. Wherever applicable, effects
of torsion shall be added and effects of inclined flexural compression in
variable-depth members shall be included.
(b) For beams of I- or T -section, b' shall be substituted for b in
Eq. (17-1).
(c) The shear stress, v,., carried by an unreinforced web shall not
exceed 2 cp -yj;! at a distanced from the face of the support unless a more
detailed analysis is made in accordance with (d) or (e). The shear at
sections between the face of the support and the section a distance d
therefrom shall not be considered critical. For members with axial
tension, Vc shall not exceed the value given in Section 1701 (e).
(d) The shear stress permitted on an unreinforced web shall not
exceed that given by:

v, = </>( 1.9-y fc' + 2500 p~d) '''' ''''' '' (17-2)

except that Vc shall not exceed 3.5 cp -y fc'. The shear at sections between
the face of the support and the section a distance d therefrom shall not
be considered critical.
V and Mare the shear and bending moment at the section considered,
but M shall not be less than Vd.~
Before the radical of Subsection (e) change "3" to "3.5 cp." Change
last line to: "this latter value shall apply."
Section 1702(a), p. 214
Add at end: "Web reinforcement between the face of the support and
the section at a distance d therefrom shall be the same as required at
that section."
Sections 1703 and 1704, p. 215
In Eq. (17-4), (17-5), and (17-6), insert cp in the denominators. Insert
cp in the term following" Eq. ( 17-5) .
This provision does not apply to brackets and other short cantilevers.
1842 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE December I 962

Section 1705, p. 216

Change Subsection (b) to:
(b) The shear stress, v""' shall not exceed 10 cf> YV in sections with
web reinforcement.
Delete Subsection (c)
Section 1706(a), p. 216
Change "5 Y fc*" to "6 cf> Y fc'."
Section 1707, p. 217
In Subsection (c), change "3.5 Y f.,*" to "4 cf> Y fc'" and change
"5.5 Yfc*" to "6 cf> 'Jt:/."
In Subsection (d), change "3.5 Y fc*" to "4 cf> Yf/."
Section 1708, p. 217
Change Eq. (17-8) to:
0.3 cf> Fsp Y fc' . . ... (17-8)
Change Eq. (17-9) to:

Vue = cf> ( 0.3 F8 p 'J fc' + 2500 p ~d) .... (17-9)

Change Eq. (17-10) to:

............ (17-10)
Section 180l(b), p. 218
Substitute for Lines 6 and 7:
For tension bars conforming to ASTM A 305:
Top barst 6.7 cf> VTc'/D nor 560 psi
All other bars 9.5 cf> Yf,' jD nor 800 psi
For tension bars with deformations conforming to ASTM A 408:
Top bars 4.2 cf> Yf c'
All others 6.0 cf> Yf7
For all deformed compression bars:
13 cf> Y fc' nor 800 psi
Section 1900, pp. 220 and 221
Change f.,* and its definition to:
f,.' = compressive strength of concrete (see Section 301)
Change fy * and its definition to:
fu = specified minimum yield strength of steel reinforcement (see
Section 301)
 AMENDMENT 1843

Below definition oft add:

cp = capacity reduction factor [see Section 1504 (b)]

Section 1901(a), p. 221

In Lines 1 and 2 delete:
at ultimate strength equal to or greater than 0.1 fc' A 0

Section 1901(c), p. 221

Immediately following Section 1901 (b) add the following:
(c) Members subjected to small compressive loads may be designed
for the maximum moment, P,e, in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 16 and disregarding the axial load, but the resulting section
shall have a capacity, Pb, greater than the applied compressive load.

Sections 1902 and 1903, pp. 221-223

Multiply by cp the right-hand side of Eq. (19-1), (19-2), (19-3), (19-4),
(19-5), (19-6), (19-7), (19-10), (19-11), and (19-12).

Section 1904, p. 223

Add a new Section 1904 as follows:

1904 - Bending and axial load of short members - Square sections with
bars circularly arranged
(a) The ultimate strength of short square members with bars cir-
cularly arranged subject to combined bending and axial load shall be
computed on the basis of the equations of equilibrium taking into
account inelastic deformations, or by the empirical expressions:
When tension controls:

......... (19-13)

When compression controls:

P,. =
A.tfv
cp ( ~ +1
+ Av f,.'
12 te + l.lS
J
.... (19-14)
Ds (t +0.67 D.) 2
1844 JOURNAL OF THE AMER1CAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE December 196

Section 1905, p. 223

Transfer Section 1902(d) to 1905 with the heading:
1905 - Bending and axial load of short members- General case
Change" (d)" to" (a)."
Section 2001, p. 224
Add Subsection (h):
(h) The shear stresses, Vc, may be increased 10 percent over those
prescribed in Section 1201 or 1701.
Chapter 21, p. 226
In title delete "Working Stress Design."
Section 2101, p. 227
Add new subsection as follows:
(e) Ultimate strength design- Flat slabs shall be proportioned by
Part IV-A only, except that Part IV-B may be used if the following
modifications are made in the design:
1. For either empirical or elastic analysis the numerical sum of
the positive and negative bending moments in the direction of either
side of a rectangular panel shall be assumed as not less than

2
Mo = 0.10 WLF ( 1 - 32cL )

in which F = 1.15 - c/L but not less than 1.

2. The thickness of slab shall not be less than shown in Table
210l(e).

TABLE 2101 (e)- MINIMUM SLAB THICKNESS

t~, psi With drop panelst Without drop panels

40,000 L/40 or 4 in. L/36 or 5 in.

50,000 L/36 or 4 in. L/33 or 5 in.
60,()00 L/33 or 4 in. L/30 or 5 in.

tTo be considered effective, the drop panel shall have a length of at least one-third the
parallel span length and a projection below the slab of at least one-fourth the slab thickness.

Section 2102(g), p. 229

Change the last part of first sentence, beginning on Line 4, to ". . .
and the section proportioned accordingly by the requirements of Part
IV-A or IV-B."
 AMENDMENT 1845

Section 2201, p. 242

Replace the last sentence with: "Walls conforming to the provisions
of Section 2202 shall be considered as meeting these requirements. The
limits of thickness and quantity of reinforcement required by Section
2202 shall be waived where structural analysis shows adequate strength
and stability."
Section 2202(b), p. 242
In Line 8, change 1.6 to 1.9.
Section 2306(f), p. 246
In Line 2, change 1.6 to 1.9.
Section 2307(b), p. 247
Change Line 3 to " ... exceed the values given in Table 1002 (a) for
design by Part IV -A or 2.0 times those values for designs by Part IV -B."
Section 2405(a), p. 248
Change Line 4 and 5 after "concrete" to read: " . at the load stage
considered, be at least equal to the design strength required at that
load stage."
Section 2408(a), p. 249
Revise last sentence to read: "Unless the welds develop 125 percent
of the specified yield strength of the steel used, reinforcement in the
form of continuous bars or fully anchored dowels shall be added to
provide 25 percent excess steel area and the welds shall develop not
less than the specified yield strength of the steel."
Section 2409, p. 249
Add new Section 2409 (b) as follows:
Where panels are designed to span horizontally to columns or isolated
footings, the ratio of height to thickness shall not be limited, provided
the .effect of deep beam action and buckling are provided for in the
design in accordance with Section 910 (a).
Section 2410, p. 249
Add the new section:
2410- Minimum size of precast columns
Precast columns may have a minimum thickness of 6 in. and a mini-
mum gross area of 48 sq in. provided structural adequacy is assured by
rigorous analysis.
Section 2500, p. 250
Delete z and its definition. Add:
1846 jOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE December 196:

b' = width of area of contact between precast and cast-in-place con-

crete
v 1, =horizontal shear along contact surface

Section 2505, p. 251

Replace Lines 2 and 3 of Subsection (a) with:
The horizontal shear stress along the contact surface is given by:
VQ .. (25-1)
v, = Ib' .
Delete Subsection (b) and reletter present Subsections (c) and (d).
Add the following:
(d) VVeb reinforce~ent

Web reinforcement for the composite section shall be designed in

the same manner as for an integral beam of the same shape. All stirrups
so required shall be anchored into the cast-in-place slab, where their
area may also be relied upon to provide some or all of the vertical tie
steel required in (c).

Chapter 26, pp. 253-263

Throughout Chapter 26 change "f,*" to "f,-';" "fs*" to "fs;" "f*s"" to "fsu;"
"f11 *" to "f 11 ;" and "q*" to "q."
Section 2600, pp. 253-254
Delete notations f,*; f.*; f.,"*; and f 11 *. Add:
cf> = capacity reduction factor (see Section 1504)

Section 2602, p. 255

Add the following as Section 2602 (d) :
(d) The following provisions shall not apply to prestressed concrete:
Sections 906, 911, and 913; Chapter 13; Section 1508 and Chapter 18;
Section 2001 (a); Chapter 21; and Section 2504 (b).

Section 2608, p. 257

Multiply right side of Eq. (26-4) by cf> and delete "where q* ... "

Footnote, p. 257
In second footnote, change "less" to "more"

Sections 2608 and 2609, p. 258

Multiply by cf>, the right-hand side of Eq. (26-5), (26-8), and (26-9)
 AMENDMENT 1847

Section 2610, p. 259

In Subsection (a) divide the right-hand side of Eq. (26-10) by cf>.
Change Line 6 to "3.5 cf> 'Jf! b'd but not more than 220 b'd." In
Line 11, change "3" to "3.5 cf>" and add the symbol (t) at the end of line.
Insert corresponding footnote:
In Line 12 change "1.7" to "2 cf>."
In Subsection (d), Line 2, change "7.5" to "8 cf>" and add footnote
symbol (*) after radical. Add corresponding footnote:
tFor lightweight aggregate this value shall be 0.3 F <f>'ltl b'd.
*For lightweight aggregate this value shall be 1.2 F <f>Vfc'.

This report as here submitted was approved in form and substance by the committee which
consists of 46 members. Each section received at least a nine-tenths affirmative vote. It is re-
leased by the Standards Committee for publication with a view to its consideration for adop
tion as an Institute Standard at the 59th annual convention, Atlanta, Ga., Mar. 47, 1963.

Received by the Institute Sept. 15, 1962. Title No. 5958 is a part of copyrighted Journal of
the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings V. 59, No. 12, Dec. 1962.

American Concrete Institute, P.O. Box 4754, Redford Station, Detroit 19, Mich.

Discussion of this report should reach ACI headquarters in triplicate

by Mar. 1, 1963, for publication in the Part 2, June 1963 JOURNAL.

Revision Propuesta del Reglamento de Construcciones en Concreto

Reforzado (ACI 318-56) - Enmienda
Se presenta una enmienda a la "Revision Propuesta del Reglamento de
Construcciones en Concreto Reforzado (ACI 318-56) ," publicada en el ACI
JOURNAL de Febrero, 1962. Acompaii.an a esta enmienda discusiones y razona-
mientos para los cambios adoptados.

Projet de Revision des Exigences du Code du Batiment pour le Beton

Arme (ACI 318-56) -Rectification
On presente ici une addition aux "Exigences du Code du Batiment pour le
Beton Arme (ACI 318-56) ," publiee dans le ACI JOURNAL de Fevrier, 1962.
Inclus dans cette addition: discussions et raisons pour les revisions.

Vorschlag zur Neufassung der Stahlbetonbestimmungen

(ACI 318-56) - Verbesserung
Es wird hier eine Verbesserung zu der vorgeschlagenen Neufassung der
Stahlbetonbestimmungen (ACI 318-56) prasentiert, welche im ACI JOURNAL
im Februar 1962 erschien. In dem neuen Vorschlag werden die Griinde fiir die
Aenderungen erortert.
:' -'

~ _.i