Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263062398
CITATION READS
1 5,150
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Peter I. Kattan on 14 April 2016.
.t.wIJJ W4.J , LsiJ':-~ iG..J~ <t.:U r....u..P ~L:J.£ ~ ~I ~ ~J '11 ..uJ~ .LaGJI u ~I .t.wIJJ uAi
~j:$~/~.~JJ'jIL)Jp.1/u~y-!~~La., 4' Hi=> Q ~J u/J.,s ~~ r~~u'jJU-4 ;;.J.£~J.ij.,
.'G.1.=/.1 ~r....u,p..J1 j"Ct.:u.J1 ~ ~~~ (SJ.4., ~I ~JJ'j1 L)J.PJI u~ u~
~ 4.;.WJJ 'f 1L)J.PJJ., ('\ /..s; JS..J.':J ~y.6.1.1 ~u..::JJ ~J'jI..uJ~.LaG. u~.Jj., u~t..::U....:iw1 ~J.ij ~ {Pi.,
.u.aG.
Abstract:
The requirements regarding the min imum reinforcement rati o in various reinforced con
crete elements is considered. Variou s f ormulas, bas ed on six different major codes, are pre
sented, discussed and compared with the recommendations of the Jordanian Code. Emph a
sis is pla ced on the applicability of the requirements of the local Jordanian Code and their
suitability in reinforced concrete elements. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are
made regarding the minimum reinforcement ratio requirement in gen eral and the Jordanian
Code in particular.
Introduction:
When a flexural member is subjec ted to a small ultimate moment, it may not beh ave as expect
ed by the ultimate strength theory. The method used for computing flexural strength is bas ed on
the assumption that concrete in the tension zone is cracked and cannot resist loads. Thus if the
nominal strength for a section having a small amount of steel reinforcement is less than the crack
ing moment of the section, the beam will fail immediately and without or insufficient warning
distress on formation of the first crack [1]. This type of failure , of course, is brittle failure which
is not usually allowed in reinforced concrete sections. Since a ductile failure mode is always de
sired, the lowest amount of stee l permitted should be the amount that would equal the strength of
the unreinforced beam section [2].
Applying the previous principle, the minimum amount of steel reinforcement in a rectangular
section can be estimated using the relationship:
bh 2
M cr =f
.r rt - 6 -< M II (1 )
where
M R = the moment that can be resisted by the section using the ultimate strength theory.
Using the strength theory and equation (l), it can be shown that:
where
p = reinforcement ration = As/(bd) .
As = amount (cross-sectional area) of steel reinforcement.
d = depth of tension steel in the section.
cp = factor depending on the code of practice used.
fy = yield strength of steel reinforcement.
Assuming d ::::: 0.9h and a =:: 0.111, the relationship in equation (2) can be reduced to:
The tensile strength of concrete can be related to its compressive strength. A number of empiri
;
cal formulae connecting fel and fe have been suggested, Many of these formula s are of the type
represented in equation 4 [3-8].
(4)
where
k = constant.
fc = concrete compressive strength.
n = constant representing the power of the formula.
According to the available literature, the values of n range from 1/2 to 3/4 [3-8].
J.]' Appl. Sci. 1999: 2 (1) , 25 - 36.
In addition to the previously mentioned problem of failure, concrete always experiences strains
due to shrinkage and temperature effects. Therefore, codes tend to specify another lower limit of
reinforcement in order to control the cracking produced by the hydration shrinkage and the tem
perature effects. This amount is based on the gross area .
The steel reinforcement ratio required to control cracking of concrete due to thermal and
shrinkage effects is usually called the critical reinforcement ratio, Per This value can be obtained
by equating the tension and compression forces adjacent to the crack after concrete cracking
[9,10). When both concrete and steel reach tbeir limiting values, the following equation can be ob
tained [9]:
As In
P rr = - = --::---=--- (5)
A( f y + I;
where:
As = steel area.
A: = concrete area.
The value of fsc is generally very small and can be taken as zero without introducing undue
accuracy. Hence, the critical value of steel ratio is approximately [8-10]:
I('/ (6)
P('r = Iy
The control of cracking is critical during the early life of the concrete, and tberefore a value of
concrete strengtb at 3 days should be used. Anchor [10] tabulated some of the values of Per for dif
ferent types of concrete and steel.
ment ratio: 3« 4« 1
I
p = l Sf, to p = 15fy
New in 1995, ACI-1O .5.l gives as Formula (10-3) for the minimum reinforcement ratio:
p =-
4fy
«
hut not less than l.4/L which was the sole recommendation in the 1989 Code [17]. This latter
].]. Appl. Sci. 1999 : 2 (1) , 25 - 36 .
limit was a last minute addition to these Code changes to satisfy negative voters.
For T-sections having slab in tension, the following range is given:
37fT
to P = --'--
60!\.
New in 1995, ACI- to .S.2 gives as Formula (10-4) for the minimum reinforcement ratio:
but not more than ACI Formula (10-3) . This modifier of the above equation was an addition to
addres s concerns of Code Committee members that the equation would require too much mini
mum reinforcement.
for situations where the reinforcement required for strength is far below the minimum required
by ACI Formulas (10-3) or (10-4), ACI-10.S.3 permits the use of a lesser minimum, as long as the
amount is "at least one-third greater than that required by analysis".
For structural slabs and footings of uniform thickness , the following range is given for the min
imum reinforcement ratio:
fO
ACI-10.S.4 requires that A/(b)l) to be not less than O. 20% for Grades 40 and SO deformed
bars, and not less than 0.18% for Grade 60. These amounts agree with the lower end of the ranges
indicated above for rectangular section s.
Also, P min can be 30% more than that steel required for flexural reinforcement but in no way
should be less than 0.25 % for grade 60 steel or 0.15 % for grade 40 steel.
2. In members with moment and small loads, P 2:: 0.4% (Article 4-2-1-3).
3. In normally tied columns, P > 0.8% of the effective concrete section and p > 0.6% of the
gross concrete area (Article 7-4-6) .
4 . In spirally tied columns, p > 1.2% of the effective concrete area and p > 1% of the gross
concrete area (Article 7-4-6).
Comparison of Results:
Comparing the results obtained and shown 111 Table 2, the following conclusions can be
reached:
1 . The results of the ACI 318-95 are the highest among all results, and are now more than the
I
previously recommended values of ACI 318-89 . Only the yalues for solid slabs Grade 40 are l
, I
not higher than other values recommended by the other codes.
2 . The Jordanian Code of Practice uses the value 70/fy in most cases. This value is not suitable;
for all cases when compared with results of the other codes. For example, this value is ap- ~
proximately one-half that of the ACI and about two-thirds that of the ECP. 'I
3 . The values recommended by the Jordanian Code for the T,-Section are much lower than the
values recommended by all other codes. : I
4. The minimum reinforcement ratio for columns recommended by the Jordanian Code is equal :
to that recommended by the DS 8110 and both me onl y about 40% of those recommended by ;
the ACI -318 and are also less than those of the ECP.
5. The values of the ACI 3 18-95 vary according to concrete strength as expected from the basic
principles given in the Introduction. This variation is not observed in the other codes because
other codes do not take into consideration the effect of concrete strength in their equations .
The previous Soviets Code also gives a minimum reinforcement ratio which depends on con
crete strength [8] .
].]. Appl. Sci. 1999 : 2 (1) , 25 - 36.
This value ranges from (67/fy )% for concrete of strength f'c of 20 MPa (25 MPa cube strength)
and (95/f y )% for concrete of f'c = 40 MPa.
2. Assuming fCI = 0. 39(f'c)2I3, (the EC2 requirement, [19]), equation (3) can be reduced to:
0.085(/ ) 2-3
P -> fy
c
This value ranges from (63/fy )% for concrete of strength f 'c of 20 MPa (25 MPa cube strength)
and (l OO/fy )% for con crete of f'c = 40 MPa.
3. Using the limits of Table 5.4 of the BS 8110 : 1997 , and assuming that concrete cub e
streng th is 1.25 times that of the cylinder streng th, and rp = 0.87, which is the requirement of both
the Jordanian and the BS 8110 1985 Codes, equation (3) can be reduced to:
p > 80/f y for f", = 20 MPa and 125/f y for f'c = 40 MPa.
Using <p = 0.95 (US 8110 : 1997 , [12]) and the previous assumptions, p will range from 73/f y
I
[or r, = 20 and 114/f y for f'c = 40 . I
The ECP [17] specifies l10/f y for all types of concrete.
The previous Sovietfs standards [8] gives a formula for calculating the tensile strength of con
crete in the form fCI = 0.5(R)2/3 , where R is the strength of 200 nun Cubes in kgf/cm". Assuming the
. .
str ength of 150 mID cube = 1.1R [8] and that f", = 1.25 times the cube strength, the relationship be-
I
comes :
fCI = 0.25(R/
13
,in SI unit s.
According to the same reference, ela stop1asti c analysis of concrete in tension of simply sup
ported beams using 2 point loading showed that the section modulus is 1.7 times the elastic modu
lus that appears in equation (3). Using the pre vious equation and elastoplastic analysis it can be
shown that minimum reinforcement ratio will range from (68/f y )% for con crete of strength f, of
Esham Qasrawi and Peter Kattan .
20 MPa (25 MPa cube strength) and (l08/f)% for concrete of f' c = 40 MPa.
Furthermore, using concrete strength (f'c) = 20 MPa (fcu = 25 MPa), fCI can be taken as 1.15
[9], then equation (6) becomes Per = 115/fy ' This value (of course) is much higher than the values
obtained using equation (3). However, this critical reinforcement ratio is recommended only when
control of cracking is essential such as in the design of liquid retaining structures . Unfortunately,
the Jordanian Code of Practice does not provide any recommendation for such a case. Moreover ,
this value is close to the ECP limit of 110/fy and approximately to the upper limits of equation 3.
From the previously obtained results, it is clear that the Jordanian limit of 70/f y is close to the
lower limit of equation (3); i.e. for f", = 20 MPa (fell = 25 MPa), which is relatively a low strength .
This value becomes unsafe and cannot be accepted for higher concrete strengths.
Further Comments:
Elastoplastic analysis of concrete in tension of simply supported beams using 2 point loading
!
showed that the section modulus is 1.7 times the elastic modulus that appears in equation (3) [8].
Since values in the previous paragraph were obtained using elastic analysis, elastoplastic analysis
would result in an increase of about 70% in the minimum reinforcement ratios obtained before.
Conclusion and Recommendation:
One can easily draw conclusions from the numerical comparison made in Table 2.
1. It is clear that the Jordanian Code requirements are consistently lower for the minimum re
inforcement ratio than in the other codes. Moreover, in many cases (e.g. rectangular beams,
Tvbeams) the Jordanian Code recommends only half the requirement of the ACI Code and
also two thirds of the requirement of the ECP. This clearly demonstrates the inadequacy of
the requirements of the Jordanian Code in this regard. It is recommended that the minimum
reinforcement ratio in the Jordanian Code be increased in order to meet the requirements of
the other codes, preferably the well know and well tested American Code ACI 318-95.
2. It is also recommended that the Jordanian Code should include the following in its recom
mendation for minimum reinforcement:
a. concrete strength, and
b. control of cracking due to shrinkage and temperature.
3. It is recommended that the minmum reinforcement ratio.!required for columns in the Jorda
nian Code should be adjusted (increased). A thorugh investigation and study of the actual
conditions in Jordan should be performed before any decision is taken. The requirement of
the ACI or the ECP might suit Jordan more that that represented in the recent code.
4. The Jordanian requirement of 70/f y is quite suitable for solid slabs in Jordan. This value is
consistent with the requirements of other codes.
J.]. Appl. Sci. 1999: 2 (1), 25 - 36.
fy = 250 fy = 460
Rectangular Beams 0.24 % 0.20 %
Area)
Walls faces of the wall and also to control cracking by providing horizon-
0.30%* 0.25%*
ment
(a) Gra de 60 0.17 0.14** 0.22** 0.34 -0.38 0.3 4 0.27
in Ten sion