You are on page 1of 14

# ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

## Size Effect in Diagonal Shear Failure: Influence of Aggregate

Size and Stirrups

## by Zden~k P. Ba1ant and Hsu-Huei Sun

Fracture mechanics of brittle failures of concrete structures due to the
propagation of a cracking zone indicates that the nominal stress at
failure should not be constant but should decrease as the structure
size increases. This size effect may be described by a simple size-effect law recently derived by dimensional analysis and similitude arguments. A formula for diagonal shear failure based on this size-effect law was published, verified, and calibrated by a large set of data
from the literature. The present paper improves this previous formula in two respects: fJ) the effect of maximum aggregate size, distinct from the effect of the relative beam size, is incorporated and (2)
the formula is extended to cover the effect of stirrups on the shear
capacity of concrete. The new formula is verified and calibrated according to a larger data set than before, consisting of several hundred
test results compiled from the literature. [t is shown that the new formula achieves an appreciable reduction in the coefficient of variation
of the deviations of the measured data from the prediction formula.
Keywords: aggregate size; beams (supports); cracking (fracturing); crack prop
agation; failure: loads (forces); optimization; reinforced concrete; shear prop
erties; statistical analysis; stirrups; tests.

## The diagonal shear failure of reinforced concrete

beams is a classical yet formidable problem that has
not been resolved to complete satisfaction despite several decades of study.I.J7 Although the design formulas
for diagonal shear have been gradually improved, they
still exhibit large errors that are in fact much greater
than the random errors in the measurements of strength
or of fracture energy. So there is clearly room for further improvement.
Until recently, the formulas proposed for diagonal
shear failure were either purely empirical or based on
plastic limit analysis. A new viewpoint was introduced
in 1981 by Reinhardt,lH.J9 who suggested that the design
formula be based on linear elastic fracture mechanics
and substantiated his suggestion by certain test results.
Subsequently, it was established 40 .41 that the size effect
implied by linear elastic fracture mechanics is too
strong in the case of concrete, and that brittle failures
of concrete structures are better described by nonlinear
fracture mechanics, which is based on the existence of
a large cracking zone at the fracture front and yields a
considerably weaker size effect.

## At the same time, a simple approximate size-effect

law for brittle failures due to fractures that are blunted
by a zone of distributed cracking was derived 41 -44 and
shown to be approximately applicable to various brittle
failures of concrete structures, including the present
problem of diagonal shear failure in both nonprestressed 45 and prestressed beams,46 the punching
shear failure of slabs," the ring and beam failures of
unrein forced pipes:8 and torsional failures of longitudinally reinforced beams.49.5o A formula for diagonal
shear failure of beams without stirrups, incorporating
the size-effect law, was developed 45 and shown to offer
significantly reduced errors in comparison to the existing formulas of ACpl or CEB-FIP,52 which were developed on the basis of crack initiation rather than failure.
The purpose of the present study is to: (1) improve
the previously proposed formula based on the size-effect law by incorporating, in addition to the effect of
relative beam size, the effect of aggregate size; (2) recalibrating the formula with a larger data base, encompassing essentially all the adequately documented test
results that can be found in the literature; and (3) extending the formula to beams with stirrups.

## PREVIOUS FORMULA INCORPORATING THE

SIZE-EFFECT LAW
In a previous paper,.5 Bazant and Kim derived and
justified by existing test data the following formulas for
the diagonal shear failure of beams with longitudinal
reinforcement but without stirrups [Fig. l(a)]
v=vo
-d-)-"
( l +~da
c
<

(1)

Received Nov. 21, 1986, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the MayJune 1988 ACI Materials Journal if received by Feb. \, 1988.

259

where
Vc = V/bd = nominal shear strength at failure
Vc= shear force at failure
b
beam width
d
beam depth measured to the axis of longitudinal
reinforcement
do = maximum aggregate size
a = shear span (equal to the distance of the concentrated load from the support when a simply supported beam is loaded symmetrically by two concentrated loads)
p = steel ratio for longitudinal reinforcement
f: = standard cylindrical compressive strength in psi
(6895Pa)
kit Ao = empirical constants (k l = 10)

Zdenek. P. Bazant, FACI, is a professor at Northwestern University, Evanston, III., where he recently served a five-year term as director of the Center for
Concrete and Geomaterials. Dr. Bazant is a registered structural engineer and
is on the editorial boards of a number of journals. He is Chairman of ACI
Committee 446, Fracture Mechanics; a member of ACI Committees 209, Creep
and Shrinkage in Concrete; 348, Structural Safety, and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 334, Concrete Shell Design and Construction; and a fellow of ASCE,
RILEM, and the American Academy of Mechanics; and Chairman of RILEM's Creep Committee and of SMiRT's Concrete Structures Division.
Hsu-Huei Sun is a structural engineer at Corddry Carpenter Dietz and Zack
Engineers and Planners. He received his M.S. degree from Northwestern University, Evanston, III., and B.S.E. degree from National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of China.

(2)

0.2~----------------------------------------~

(II)

0.1

PROPOSED FORMULA

## strength or yield criterion

C -0.1
"'<..
;>.

'-

~ -0.2

-0.3
nonlinear fracture mechanics - -0.4
-0.5+--.--r--r-'--~-r--r-.--.--.--r--r-.--.--.-~

0.6

0.8

1.4

1.2

1.6

1.8

2.2

log(dld)

0.2.-----------------------------------------~

(c)

## linear fracture mechanics

#v

O+-----~~~------~~~------.r----------~
A

.......

1:

;>.

+
+

'b() -0.2

f1
3

C)

~"I"

'\.
-C

\.),

## nonlinear fracture mechanics

0.8

1.2

\,))"1"

+
+
+

V
d

tv

C - 10 pll3cv'f~.30()(hlp/(ald)5 J

0.6

+
+

-0.4

1.4

1.6

1.8

rIA
~A

i
i
+

2.2

xi

log(dld)

roo.0.0E- data
129
0.738

"Y

0.46
0.457
22.0
1.61

0
0

## Fig. I-Effect of beam size in beams without stirrups

260

20

40

60

80

100

dido
ACI Materials Journal I July-August 1987

Eq. (2), which is quite similar to the formula currently used by ACI, has been derived by analyzing the
arch action and the composite beam action, and summing their contributions. 4
The size effect is due to the release of strain energy
from the beam into the cracking zone as the cracking
zone extends; the larger the structure, the greater is the
energy release. Eq. (1) expresses Bazant's size-effect
law,42 which was derived by dimensional analysis and
similitude arguments from two simplifying assumptions, namely that the energy loss due to cracking is a
function of both the fracture length and of the area of
the cracking zone assumed to have a constant width at
its front, proportional to the maximum aggregate size.
Although this size-effect law is approximate, it was
shown to capture the basic trend correctly when geometrically similar specimens of different sizes, failing in
a brittle manner, are considered.
For very small structure sizes d, such that d/'Aod.
<!i!: 1, Eq. (1) approaches the limiting case of plastic
limit analysis, which is characterized by absence of the
size effect. For very large structure sizes d, such that dl
'Aod. ~ 1, Eq. (1) approaches the limiting case of linear
elastic fracture mechanics. For normal beam sizes, Eq.
(1) describes a smooth transition between these two
limit cases.
Applicability of the size-effect law in Eq. (1) to
sfructures that contain no notches is further contingent
upon the assumption that the failure surfaces (cracks)
in beams of various sizes are geometrically similar, and
that the failure occurs when the front of the final crack
reaches approximately the same relative position within
the beam regardless of the size. These assumptions appear to agree with experimentally observed behavior.
It should be mentioned that the most general size-effect law for geometrically similar structures or specimens may be described by an asymptotic series expansion presented in Reference 43. The approximate sizeeffect law in Eq. (1) is then found to represent the first
two terms of this asymptotic series expansion. It has
been also shown45 ,53 that an improved size-effect law for
blunt fracture can be obtained as Vc = ~ (1 + ~~)- y"
with ~ = dl'Aod., in which r is an empirical constant.
In the course of the present study, however, it appeared that the existing test data for concrete, due to
their scatter as well as limited range, are insufficient for
determining r. The optimum values of r for the existing
diagonal shear data for beams ranged from 0.75 to 1;
the fits were about equally good for this entire range.
Therefore, the value r = 1 has been adopted.
Eq. (1) and (2) involve no size effect of beam width.
This means that the cracking is assumed to occur
roughly simultaneously through the thickness rather
than propagate across the thickness.
Fracture mechanics is not the only theory that yields
a size effect. A competing theory is the statistical Weibull theory. Although both theories can describe the
same size-effect data if their size range is rather limited, they have very different extrapolations to very
large sizes. While Weibull theory is certainly applicable

## to brittle failures of structures that can be modeled as a

chain of brittle suddenly failing elements, it is questionable to apply it to diagonal shear failure. 44
There is no aspect in this problem that could be regarded as a failure of a one-dimensional chain of elements. The release of strain energy into a localized extending fracture front, which is the basis of fracture
mechanics, has nothing to do with Weibull's assumptions. It has also been pointed out 44 that if the material
parameters of the extreme value strength distribution
underlying Wei bull theory are calibrated by typical test
data for homogeneously stressed tensile specimens, and
the same material parameters are then used for the
cracking front zone, the statistical Weibull-type contribution to the size effect is found to be negligibly small,
due to the fact that the volume of the frOlital cracking
zone is rather small compared to the beam size.
In very large beams, significant size effect may also
be caused by diffusion phenomena, such as conduction
of hydration heat and diffusion of pore water. Larger
beams heat up more, and they also lose moisture more
slowly than small beams. For lack of information, the
diffusion size effects must be ignored in the analysis of
existing test data.
Eq. (1) and (2) were calibrated45 by a set of 296 data
points extracted from the literature. Unfortunately,
most of these data were not obtained with the size effect in mind, and therefore, the conclusions for the size
effect cannot be definite. Nevertheless, plotting the existing data in the proper variables, the existence of the
size effect was clearly demonstrated and it was shown
that the size effect did not disagree with the theoretical
size-effect law [Eq. (1)]. The scatter of the data was
large, since it was necessary to include in the comparison data obtained in different laboratories, with different concretes and test beams that were not geometrically similar. This produces a scatter of the data that is
large and obfuscates the precise trend with regard to the
beam size.
As for comparisons with the existing formulas of
ACpl and CEB-FIP ,52 the improvement achieved by
Eq. (1) and (2) was significant; the standard deviation
of the errors in Vu compared to the formula was found
to be 128 psi for the ACI formula, 148 psi for the CEBFIP formula, and 44.6 psi for Eq. (1) and (2). On the
other hand, the improvement over another previous excellent formula due to Zsuttyl8,21 was negligible when
the entire data set was considered. However, Zsutty's
formula gives no size effect and the presence of the size
effect is clearly verified by those scant data in which
beams of significantly diffent sizes were included in the
test series (see Fig. 5 of Reference 45).
PROPOSED GENERALIZED FORMULA
To cover the effect of maximum aggregate size d.,
Bazant53 derived by fracture ,mechanics considerations
the following generalization of Eq. (1)

Vc

+ v'coldA

+ :d.

(3)

261

where Co = empirical material constant having the dimension of length. By optimizing the fits of the test
data described in the sequel, the optimum values of the
empirical constants were found to be Co = 0.2 in., Ao =
25 and kl = 6.5. Note that for the aggregate size d a =
0.69 in. (17.5 mm), Eq. (2) and (3) are equivalent to the
original Eq. (1) and (2). In Reference 53 it was also
shown that the factor 1 + (col dY', which gives the
effect of aggregate size, agrees reasonably well with the
test results of Taylor25 and of Chana,30 which include a
wide range of maximum aggregate sizes.
With regard to the identification of material parameter values, Eq. (3) has the advantage that it can be algebraically transformed to a linear regression plot. This
plot is described by the equation Y = AX + C in
which
d

x=d

(4)

## with C = l/v5 and A = CiAo. By linear regression of

the test data plotted as Y versus X, one finds the slope
A and the Y-intercept C of the regression line, and the
material parameters are then obtained as Vo = 1/C and
Ao = CIA. This regression plot reveals the effect of the
relative size dl da.
Another algebraic rearrangement of Eq. (3) yields a
linear regression plot Y' = A X' + C ' in which
I

X'

= _1_

.fd.

Y' =

Ve

d)-V,
(1 + :;:-l'Od

(5)

## with C ' = v~ and A I = veo../Co. After determining the

slope and the Y' -intercept of this plot, the material pa3

~
Fig. 2-EJJect oj aggregate size in beams without stirrups
262

## rameters may be identified as v~ = C I and Co = (A I I

~)2. This type of regression reveals the effect of the
maximum aggregate size.
To verify the present formulation, one would ideally
need test data for geometrically similar beams of very
different sizes. Unfortunately, no such test data exist in
the literature. Most of the published test results pertain
to beams of the smallest possible size that can be made
with a given aggregate. Only a few test series, those indicated in Fig. l(b), give at least some information on
the size effect, although the size range of these data is
relatively limited. These data, obtained by Walraven,28
Bhal,19 Kani,16 Leonhardt and Walther, 8 Rusch et aI., 10
Taylor,25 and Chana,30 are plotted in Fig. l(a) through
(d).
The large scatter of these data is due principally to
the fact that the tests were made in different laboratories, on different concretes, and on geometrically dissimilar beams. Consequently, the error involves not
only the error of Eq. (3) but also the error of Eq. (2),
which enters Eq. (3). Nevertheless, the cost of producing a sufficiently large data set in one laboratory, on
the same concrete, and for geometrically similar beams,
would be high. First, one should exploit the information already available, even though it was not obtained
for the purpose of studying the size effect.
From Fig. l(a) through (c), it is clear that a significant size effect exists, since otherwise the trend of the
data in these figures would have to be horizontal. Furthermore, it is clear that the size effect according to
linear fracture mechanics, represented by the straight
line of slope - Y2 in Fig. l(a) and (c), would be too
strong. The size effect is intermediate between the
strength or yield criterion (limit analysis) and linear
elastic fracture mechanics. This corroborates the acceptability of the assumption of a blunted fracture
front from which Eq. (1) is derived. The size-effect plot
of the new formula in Fig. l(a) [with the corresponding
linear regression according to Eq. (4) and (5) and Fig.
l(b)] is compared to the size-effect plot of the previous
Baiant-Kim formula [Fig. l(c) and Eq. (1)], with corresponding linear regression [Fig. 1(d)].
It is seen that the new formula, which includes the
effect of aggregate size, significantly reduces the scatter. This is confirmed by the values of the coefficient of
variation w = S.D.!Y for the vertical deviations of the
data from the regression line, listed in Fig. 1, or the
regression correlation coefficient r. The notations are:
S.D. = standard deviation of the vertical differences
from the regression line; X, Y = coordinates of the
centroid of the data; the lines of W95 represent the 95
percent confidence limits; and, in Fig. 1, C 1 = vo[1 +
(0.2Idar"]. Compared to the previous Bazant-Kim formula, the present improved formula reduces the coefficient of variation of the errors from 0.457 to 0.246,
and increases the correlation coefficient from 0.46 to
0.75 [Fig. l(b) and (d)].
The linear regression plot of the same data, showing
the effect of maximum aggregate size and based on Eq.
(5), is presented in Fig. 2. Despite the very large scat-

## ter, it is evident that, in addition to the effect of the

relative beam size d/ do, there is also an effect of the
maximum aggregate size. If there were none, the trend
of the data in Fig. 2 would have to be horizontal.
Fig. 3(a) and (b) show comparison of the present
formulas [Eq. (2) and (3)] with 461 test results that have
been extracted from the literature. In addition to the
data used in Fig. 1, this large data set also includes the
test results of Ahmad et al. 37 Bhal,19 Bresler and Scordelis,1I Chana,30 Diaz de Cossio and Siess,6 Elzanaty et
al.,36 Gaston, Siess, and Newmark,4 Kani,15.16 Krefeld
and Thurston,14 Leonhardt and Walther, 8 Mathey and
Watstein,12 Mattock,20 Mattock and Wang/3 Moody et
al.,s Mphonde and Franz,34 Placas and Regan,24 Rajagop alan and Ferguson,17 Swamy and Bahia,35 Swamy,31
H. Taylor,25 Taylor and Brewer,7,13 van den Berg,9 and
Walraven. 28
Since the compilation of these data has been a rather
tedious process (requiring correspondence with some of
the authors to obtain various missing information), the
complete set of 461 data points is listed numerically in
Table 1. This makes it possible to verify the present
rules as well as to use these data for possible future improvements of the diagonal shear formula.

## Since most of the data in the complete set of 461 data

points in Fig. 3 do not cover the size effect, the effect
of the relative beam size d/ do is not as conspicuous as
in Fig. 1, but from the size-effect plot in Fig. 3(a) it is
still clear that a size effect exists. Fig. 3(c) shows a plot
of the measured values versus the calculated values of
the nominal shear stress at failure. If there were no
scatter and the formula were perfect, this plot would be
a straight line of Slope 1, passing through the origin. So
the deviations from this straight line are a measure of
the error.
For comparison, Fig. 3(b) and (d) show the same
plots for the previous BaZant-Kim formula. We see that
the present formula achieves a reduction of scatter, diminishing the coefficient of variation of the errors '"
from 0.292 to 0.242, and increasing the correlation
coefficient r from 0.923 to 0.952. Again, the lines
marked "'95 represent the 95 percent confidence limits.
GENERALIZATION FOR THE EFFECT OF
STIRRUPS
For a beam with both longitudinal reinforcement and
stirrups, the nominal ultimate shear stress at failure
may be expressed as

,."
.s

0.2

3.6

l+dl25d.

t*

## linear fracture mechanics

Proposed Formula
.J1..
~ 1+v"0.2/d
6.5 pll~ fc+3OOO pl(a/d) ~. = Yc

(cl

3.2

It
...

0
strength or yield criterion

"""'
~
..."

+
+

1.5
(b) BAZANT. KIM (1984)

~t

## linear fraclure mechanics

or yield criterion

I+d/25d.

3.2

...~

.;;

2.8

il
~
~
.;;

+
+
+

..

.2

2.4

## nonlinear fracture mechanics

eli

-0.4
C-

5
\0 pill
Yc' [..'fc +3000.Jp/(ald ~

!:;

""

\.6
3.6
(d) BAlm. KIM (1984)

E5

~~...

+t

~ -0.2

::5....,
]":1

0.2

S.D. 57~si
r - O. 52
w
0.242

.g

-0.4

'-

2.4

eli

.......
I:...>

...~

.;;
~

2.8

~.,

']> -0.2

## No. of data 461

S.D. 62.4')Si
r = 0.92
w
= 0.292

.~

10 pl/l[';f~ .30()(),lpl(a/d)5 I

::5....,
1.5

log(dld,l

]":1
"E 5

~~...

1.6
1.6

2.4

2.8

3.2

## Nominal Ultimate Shear Stress without StirruPS Calculated" 1011

3.6
Y., (Y.

in psi)

Fig. 3-Plots of measured versus calculated values of nominal shear strength for 461 available data for beams without stirrups (J psi = 6895 Pa)
ACI Materials Journal I July-August 1987

263

a
No.

1)

b
(In)

(In)

d
d.
f.
(In) (In) (pol)

A.

(in')

V.

Ob)

Ub)

Al
A2
A3
A.
81
B2
83
U

CI
C2
C3
C4

]1. 5
31. 5
ll.5
31. 5
]1. 5
31. 5
31. 5
31. 5
31. 5
31. 5
31. 5
31. 5

7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
1.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.

Al
A2
A3
AI
AS
A6
A7
AI
A9
AIO
All
A12

33.

n.
n.
n.
n.
n.
n.
n.
H.
n.

33.
33.

1.35
7.35
1.10
7.35
1.n
1. ) I
1. ) I
1.31
1.40
7.10
1.10
1.10

1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.

4400
4500
4500
4510
3010
3110
2190
2UO
no
110
1000
980

1.56
1. SI
loU
1.76
1.19
1. 20
1.19
1.24
.fO
.62
.60
.62

13000
1'000
14000
ISOOO
11450
13500
12000
11900
4500
5500
5700
5650

11500
15000
17000
16000
12150
11500
12500
12500
4500
5500
5700
5650

I. (lM31 1"1

I. "
1.19
1.19
1.19

I.n
1.19
I.U
1.19
1.75
1.15
1.75
1.15

.75
.75
.75
.15
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75

40fO
4110
4060
U60
SUO
4520
1520
5490
UIO
4110
500
5<90

1. 24
1.24
1. 24
1. 24
1. 24
1.24
1.24
1. 24

I
I
I
I

10lf4
10304
10416
1960
llnl
1l01l
11011
9HI
10416
9072
11200
10304

101&'
10304
10416
19tO
lltl4
Ilon
Ilon
'H4
10416
'012
ll200
10304

OA-l
0"-2
OA-3

72.0
'0.0
126.0

12.2
12.0
12.1

l~

11
22
24

21.4
27.4
,1.1
51. 4
51. 4
51.

6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.

18.15
11.35
11.17

.75

.75
.75

3210
)"0
5450

4.
S.
f.

30000
32500
35000

37500
40000
U500

10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.

.15
.15
.75
15
.75
.75
.75

2410
6100
2690
3750
2620
2]40

42)0

f2
.62
1.16
.62
1. 21
1.16
1.16

1000
1l'00
11500
1000
1000
9000
11100

1200
12300
12600
7000
1000
'000
11100

## leereld, willl J. and ThuE8ton, CherI w. (1966)

4A3
5A3
llA2
12A2
IIA2
1182
lIC2
1102
13A2
HA2
15A2
1S12
16A2
17A2
lIE2
19A2
20A2
2IA2
2AC
lAC
CAC
'AC
6AC
3CC
4CC
~CC

6CC
CEC
SEC
6EC
4GC
5GC
6GC
6C
)UC
IUC
5MC
6MC
3AC
4AC
SAC
6AC
OCC
'CC
6CC
'EC
lEC
3MC
4MC
5MC
fMC
)AC
4AC
SAC
'AC
lCC
4CC
~CC

6CC
C
PC.
PCb
OC.
OCb

264

36.
36.
36.
36.
36.
36.
36.
36.
16.
36.
36.
36.
36.
36.
36.
36.
36.
36.

u.

U.
U.
U.

n.

60.
10.
60.
60.
72.
12.

......
12.
84.

36.
36.
36.
16.
36.
U.
U.

n.
n.

60.
60.
60.
72.
12.
16.
36.
16.
36.

U.

n.

CB.

U.
fO.
60.
60.
60.
60.

12.
72.
~O.

60.

ce.

12.

OCb

72.

I.
I.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
f.
6.
6.
6.
6.

,.
6.
6.
6.
I.
6.
6.
6.
6.

..

f.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
f.
f.
f.
f
6.
f.
6.
6.
6.

I.
6'
6.
6.
6.

6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
f.
6.
6.
6.
f.
6.
6.
I.
6.
8.
6.
6.
6.
f.
10.
10.

d
d.
f.
lin) lin) (pol)

A.
lin')

V.

lib)

ObI

3-polnl~nl

1S.36
15.36
12.36
'.36
12."
12.44
12 . . .
12 . . .
12.56

'.56
12.44

12.44
'.44
9.56
12."

...

9.36
'.36
10.00
10.Of
10.00
9.94
9.91
10.06
10.00

,.,.
'.Ii
,.,.

10.00
9.16
10.00
9."
9.16
9."
10.06
10.00

,.,.

'.16
10.06
10.00

'."
'.16

10.00
9."
9.16
, .94

9.16
10.06
10.00
'.'4

'.16

10.06
10.00

'."

9.86
10.06
10.00
9."
9.16
19.00

'.16

'.If
10.00
10.00

17."
17. , .

1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
I.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.

1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.

0
030
010
U60
2100
2110
1210
3200
2190
1000
2920
1000
3220
3190
2110
2910
1050
2190
lHO
3020
2390
2660
3310
2970
2910
2950
2910
1010
2130
2110
10'0
1110
3100
2,20
SOlO
4235
4760
4990
4620
4420
41'0
U50
5570
500
5570
5HO
nOD
lUO
1110
2230
1940
1990
1810
2230
1100
1770
2080
2130
1910
2elO
5260
5260
'110
5660
'550
5550

2."
3.11
2.54
2.54
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
.60
.fO
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.20
2.00
2.00
2.54
1.11

.19
1. 20
1. 51
2.00
2.54
1.20
1. 58
2.00
2.54
1.58
2.00
2."
1.51
2.00
2.54
2.00
1. 20
1. 5'
2.00
2. ~4
1.20
1. 58
2.00
2. '4
1. 5'
2.00
2.54
2.00
2.5.
1. 20
1.58
2.00
2. '4
1.20
1. 58
2.00
2.54
1. 20
1. 58
2.00
2.54
2.37
2.54
2.54
1. 58
1. 5.
0.00
4.00

22500
22500
15000
12500
13000
13000
12000
12000
1500
6000
9000
11000
1500
'000
12000
'500
10000
14000
7000
'000
1500
1500
12000
1000
9000
10000
10000
9400
1900
9500
8000
150O

noo

11500
12000
12500
12000
13000
11000
11000
11000
12000
11000
12000
11500
'000
'000
'000
'000
10500
10000
1000
8000
9500
1000
6000
1900
7500
1500
19000
12000
12000
10000
11500
HOOO
29000

I~OO

9400
12000
1000
'000
10000
10000
9400
1900
'500
8)00
'100
9100
11500
12500
13000
12800
lJ'OO
12000
12100
12200
13300
11100
12,00
lnOO
12000
11000
'100
9600
11300
14000
1)00
9000
9100
9200
1000
1900
1700
1900
19000
12000
12000
10900
11100
nooo
10000

I.
f.
f.

I.
I.

II. 75
1l.75
1l.75
1l.75
1l.75
1l.75
11. 75
11. 75
11. 75
11. 75

.375
.375
.375
.375
.375
.375
.375
.:75
.375
.375

3273
4277
SUI

un
11112
11766
12123
1<7"
14477
12"1

2.37
1.14
2.37
2. )7
2.37
2. ]7
2. ]7
2.37
2. ]7
2.37

12750
ISOOO
11500
11500
20150
20100
21000
21500
20000

11500
ISOOO
11500
lIfOO
201S0
20100
21000
22500
22000
25000

Bhal, N. s. (1968)

lS.
lS.
lS.

t2M_
12Mb
UNe

f.
f.
6.

,1ae .nd

"9

WI
03
D2

33. f
H.I

,.I.

lJ.6

6.

ft

10.51
10.51
10.51

1.
1.
1.

10.
10.
10.

.75
.75

1.4]
2.If
4.29
5.72
I.U
1. 35
2.1S
2.02

15763
26345
]"76
3""
2)JU
2H12
30113
27557

H. H. (I'~21

U20
'020

.11
.11
.11

1700
9225
11950

lIOO
3600
4400

2. "
2."
2. "

10100
10100
11100

"'0

(1971)

.lS

## Dla .. de co lo, ""9"r and.

L-l
L-2
1.-2
L-3
L-'
L-5
van den

24700
31300
16500
14400
IUOO
lUOO
16500
13500
10,00
1900
10100
11700
9400
9900
11400
10400
11100
11200
1500
9900

I.
f.
6.
f.
f.

81
35.U 9.45 11.11 1.18 .ose
12
70.17 9.45 23.12 1.11 5177
13
106.30 9.45 35.U 1.11 Cl07
II
141. 70 9.45 47.21 1.11 4409
15
70.17 9.45 23.12 1.11 4UI
70.17 9.45 23.62 1.11 U24
16
17
10t.30 9.45 35.U 1.11 on
II
106.30 ,. IS
3f.02 1.11 4850
o t:on, J. ft., sle , C. r. .nd """'.rk,

Z)
27 ...

Wilhoul .tlrr""

AO-3-3b
42.
AO-3-Jc
42.
AO-7-1a
42.
AO-7-3b
42.
AO-Il-3.
U.
AO-Il-3b
U.
AO-15-3.
U.
U.
AO-15-3b
AO-IS-3e
U.
AO-Il-2 n.375

1
3
10

IInl

## "phoneS., Andre.. C. ond Frent.l., Gre<JOry C. (1'8')

10.]0
10. SO
10.55
10.13
10.50
10.55
10. f]
10.19
10.55
10.70
10.75
10.10

..

b
(In)

No.

1)

(l9~.)

Moody, K. G. et 01.

.....

D-l
D-2
D-3
D-4
1>-5
1>-6
1>-7
1>-1
D-'
1>-10
1>-11
D-12
1>-13
D-H
D-15
D-16
1>-11
D-II
1>-19
D-20
-1
E-2
E-3
-4
-5
U-I
A5-2
A5-3
A5-4
A5-5
A5-f
A5-1

-Yo
8-1
1-2
8-3
1-'
1-5
8-f
1-7
I-I
1-9
1-10
8-11
8-12
1-13
I-I<
8-15
1-16

20.
)0.
30.
10.
'0.
60.

......

f.
f.
f.
f.
f.
f.

I'. , Che.ter

9.91
9."
,. '4
,. '4
9."
9."

)050
3120
5320
4060
3HO
40'0

2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.

15000
1)000
1000
12000
11500
11100

26100
11000
11000
12000
11500
11450

.15
.75
.15
.15
.75
.75

1500
7330
UfO
6060
7330
1050
5500
U50
2510
4550
3260
lnO
)550
1010
1110
4420
3110
4160
0610
el30
11220
8060
7060
6190
3410
1590
)470
4010
3'00
4260
4590
'~10

5. SO
5.50
5. SO
5.50
~. '0
5. '0
~. SO
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
'.50
5. '0
5. '0
5. SO
5. '0
5. '0
'.50
5.50
5.50
5. '0
5. SO
5. SO
5.50
5.50
L6I
1.U
1.11
2.26
2 ...
5. SO

33000
29500
29000
30000
21500
21500
31'00
25500
20000
21500
2HOO
22500
22300
2.000
23000
25000
21500
23500
26000
2<000
33500
32500
29000
29000
22000
10000
22500
2lS00
21500
23000
25000
H'OO

30000

5120
2420
)HO
2230
4450
22'0
4410
1170
5nO
lHO
5530
2930
SUO
1210

1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2

11500
7500
11500
1500
10500
1500
10000
7000
11500
9500
11000
10500
10000
noo
11500
8000

F. J. (lMz) (")

,.

,,,...

19.5
IL14
. , .5
14.14
19.5
14.14
19.5
14.14
9.
lL14
19.'
19.5
14.l<
U.S
14.14
n.5
H.l<
n.5
14 .11
n.5
14.14
U.S
14.14
n.5
14.14
U.S
14.14
n.5
9.
14.1<
U.S
1<.14
n.5
9.
1<.14
14.14
U.'
19.5
9.
14.14
n.5
14.14
n.5
9.
14.14
fO.O
lLH
60.0
9.
lLH
60.0
9.
14.14
60.0
9.
14.14
60.0
9.
lLI4
n.5
12. 14.14
n.5
9.
lL39
n.5
9.
IL52
19.5
9.
14.47
39.0
lL56
39.0
14.1'
19.5
11.<4
G., et al. (195' )

,.,.,.
,.

,.,.
,.
,.
,.
,.

,.
,.

..

P. (960)

1.
I.
1.
1.
1.
1.

,.,.
,.

36.
36.
36.
36.
36.
36.

36.
36.
16.

36.
16.

36.
36.
36.
36.
36.

6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
f.
6.
6.
f.

6.
f.

10.56
10.56
10.56
10. ~6
10.56
10.56
10.56
10.56
10.56
10.56
10.56
10.56
10.56
10.5f
10. Sf
10.56

.75
.15
.75
.75
.15
.75
.75
.75
.15
.15

.75
.75
.15
.75
.75
.75
.15
.75
.75
.75

.lS
.75
.75

.75
. 15
.75

1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.

~no

2310

29~00

2'000
32500
29~00

31S00
31500
26500
20000
21500
2'500
2'000
22300
24000
21000
25000
21500
23500
26000
2.000
ll500
32500
29000
29000
22000
41500
22500
21500
21500
23000
27000
14500

13000
8000
111~0

'100
11700
7150
11500
7000
12000
11000
13500
10600
12~00

9700
11500
1500

I-I
1-2
II-)

11-4
1I1-5
III-6
Iv-7
IV-8
v_,
v-10
Vl-ll
vl-12
V 13

24.
2L
2L
24.
24.
24.
2L
24.
2424.
24.
24
24 .

I.

I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.

..
...

1S.1.6
15.16
15.16
IS .16
15.86
15.16
IS .16
15.86
15.16
15.16
15.16
15.86
15.86

1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.

3680
lHO
3170
38)0
3130
3110
3500
lUO
n50
3UO
1610
3720
1250

3.86
1.86
2. J!
2.19
2.35
2.35
2.36
2.36
1.41
1.41
1.41
1. 48
.95'

27500
21500
22500
25000

70350
69850
:'.':'0

2~000

2~000

"ISO
65HO

25000
21500
22500
24QOO
20000
22500
17500

68HO
50lS0
60150
50350
60350
50000

10]~0

6~375

.....

No.

2)

(In'

eI

eI.

".

"

fln')

y'

y,

(lb'

Ob)

V_I.
YI-15
YI-16

2"
24.
2"
10.
50.
'0.
10.
45.
45.
45.
10.
10.

lIh-17

111.-11

ve-l'
v.-20
YI1>-21
VI1>-22
Ylb-23
Ylb-24
Ylb-2S

'f.yloc, k.

-.

II.
30.
42.

...

32.
2 ..
21.6
II. e
16.
I.
32.76
2"57
22.11

A7
AI
A9
AID
All
AI2
BI
12
13

II."
11.31

1.19
31.76
23.12
21."
11.26

n."

.5

11

32.76
24.57
22.11

.1

"III
BlO

II.'.
11.31

Bl2
CI
C2
C3
ce
C1
CI
C,
CIO
Cll
CI2

1.19
29.00
21.75
U.SI
16.61
32.U
2""
21.95
11.70
16.2
1.13

'.n1, c.

47

52
5]
5e
55
5'
57
51
S9
'0
11
13
IC
91
n

"

95

"n

97

"
""

100
61
65

"51
"7172
,e
75

"79].41
30U
]~O

lOU

]045
]046
3041
271
272
273
274

".ni,

1.

I.
1.
I.
I.
1.
1.
1.
I.
1.
1.
1.

IS."

U."
u.n
IS. "
U.II
I~. "

3.,0
3700
3110
.240
3no
3410
3110
3790
3740
"]0
3120

.ue
.951
.951
].2]
3.23
1.11
1.11
1.07
1.07
1.07
.594

3740

.~,.

II.
II.
II.
II.

6.

11.

.75
.15
.15
.7S
.75

2572
2721
2704
2,.0
2592

1. 32
1.32
1. 32
1. 32
1. 32

."

...

U.II
lS.n
u.n
u.n
u.n
lS.n

I.
I.
6.

,.

54.

Al
A2
A]
Ae
AS

eo
41
H
n

I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.

N.

~.

5.
S.
5.
5.
5.
S.
5.
5.
S.
S.
5.
5.
5.
5.
S.
S
5.
5.
S.
5.
S.
5.
5.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
5.
5.
S.
5.
5.

II""
s.n

2t.42
13.31
32.00
10.70
10.70
2'.70
2'.70
21. eo
5.3e
5.3e
16.00
11.73
ZI.H
11.73

14.61

6.00
5.91
S.95
5. '5
S.95
5.95
'.00
S.'5
S.'S
S.U
'.03
'.03
6.00
6.0'
6.10
6.0e
'.14
5.'5
'.01
'.10
6.03

16.02
6 .. 01
32.0.
H.72
64.01
n.H
21.3'
2'.70 '.04
H.72 1.0]
32.10 '.00
21.75 ,.0]
26.75 '.00
21.00 1.03
H.72 6.16
IS." '.01
170."
S3.S0 5."
121.16 '.U
21.36
21. 3' '.11
&4.01 6.10
H.'O 6.00
&4 .20 '.00
64.20 6.00
53.50 '.00
149.'0 6.03
16.40 '.00
107.75 6.06
129.00 , .05
, .0
In.'
6.1
215.0
331.e
'.1
]73. I
'.1
64.2 24.06
5].5 24.05
42 2 .. 1
32.1 2( .1

'.15
,.U

I.
I.
I.

..

I.
I.
I.n
I.n
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19
7."
7.,.
7.,.
7.,.
7.,.
1.19
I.n
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19
7.25
7.25
7.25
7.2S
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
I.U
1.13

S.50
5.U
5.00
5.23
S.3S
5.20
S.2S
S.U
5.20
5.35
5.30
5.U
S.U
5.U
5.50
S.U
10.10
10.n
10.17
10.51
10."
10.76
10.13
10.13
10."
10.11
10.70
10.'2
21.32
21.37
21. 21
21.75
21.31
20.10
21.35
21. e2
21.12
20.60
20.n
20.31
21.90
43.20
43.10
n.oo
H.20
0.00
0.20
0.10
10.51
10.56
10.6.
10.64

20000
20000
20000
17500
Ino.
12000
Inoo
12500
12000
13500
10500
9000

UOOO
19100
IIUO
IU25
14115
U050
14025
""5
12250
11225

1232.
1001.
10521
noo
.,10

26]20
1232.
10521
"52
.,1

~0350
003~0

.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.!
.5
.5
.S
.5
5
5
5
.75
.75

.75
.7S
.7S

.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75

.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
75
.75
.75
.75

.75
.75
.75
.75
75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75

.75

.75
.75
.75
.75
.75

9590
959p

U90
9590
9StO
9590
9590
9stO
9590
U90
9590
95".
10560
10560
10560
IOS60
IOSlO
10560
10SIO
10510
105'0
10560
10550
10140
10140
10140
10140
lOUD
10140
10140
10140
10140
lOHO .
3no
3950
e060
3700
3700
3UO
3UO
3600
3110
3170
3UO
3950
3130
3950
3160
, . .0
3"0
3910
3"0
3910
e390
3510
3no
3170
"SO
JlOO
]100
]950
3110
]800
3730
]910
3130
4400
3970
3970
3500
3950
3,.0
"'0
3790
3900
3130
3910
nlo
ClOO
3"0
3170
)910
3910
"eo
".0

1. 5'
1. 51
1.51
1.51
1. 51
1.51

.71
.71
.71
.71

.71
.71
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
2. e
2. e
2. e
2.0
1. 32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32

(J 91.,

13000
14000
14000
14300
17000
34500
1500
9500
11000
11000
12000
30000
11505
'12750
14000
14000
17500
10000
10500'
10501
12500
14000
25000
12000
11000
9000
12500
1000
10000
10000
U50
It 500
20000

...
.15
.11

4'"
13000
ISSOO
15500
21000
31500
90000
10500
11000
11000
11500
12500
50000
11510
U500
2UOO
32200
2eooo
10030
10500
11000
14400
27500
. . 000
12200
17000
15500
20000
10200
10000
10200
12100
20000
noon

6."
6."

7195
11565
1790
IH20
15520
"35
10'5
'495
34900
35450
7325
1295
7095
6500
11275
1135
11500
14600
12450
lIe55
120'5
2"50
U3S0
uno
140S0
17UO
17350
2SUO
31700
20950
17750
2S250
zoeoo
123UO
131600
22950
"250
2noo
24250
nlOo
11100
73300
Sl250
]7100
]5750
]C250
3U50
33050
"120
51200
U330
56225

.])0
.321

11900
7]00

.11
.11
.11

......
......
...
.11

.11
.11
.17

.11

1.10
1. 10
1.10
I. ,.
1.74
1.10
1.10
1.10
1. 75
1.75
1.75
1.76
3.35
].10
3.'0
3.61
3.'0
3.se
]

...

3."
].51
].51
].51
3.51
].59
7.06
7.06
7.06
7.0'
, .08
7.12
7.06

6."

,."

C. N. J. II.UI

16.02
26.50

,.oe
'.03

10.10
10.69

.....
No.

2)

(1960)

1-11
1-30
I-U
1-"
I-54

265
2"

(In'

.75 . 2630
.75 2120

251
2n
2"
270
241
HI
2.,
no
251
174
171
179
110
141
142

b
(In'

eI

(In'

"

".

lIn')

y'

v,

(lb'

Ubll

## withOUt stirrups poinl-Mont

]7.31
32.12
10.'2
21. 35
37.09
26.70
10.62
11.00
21. 00
10.62
16.00
25.70
37.31
21.00
21.4.
02.72
25.70
16.05
26.70
n.70
n.75
]2.10
]2.10
21. 36
32.0e
U.72

1.04

10. '0
10 e
10.77
10.74
10.10
11.10
10.15
10.77
10.11
10.70
10.10
10.00
10.10
10.53
10."
14]
10. '0
147
11. II
~.
HI
10
I.,
6.01
I n
UO
'.oe 10.75
UI
1.06 10.7]
152
5." 10.6]
15]
'.00 10.7]
102
I.oe
10.5'
10]
'.11 10.71
loe
'.05 10.10
lOS
n.75 6.00 10.70
26.70 6.05 10.5e
10'
107
5].00 '.01 10.51
109
11.02 1.0] 10.67
III
ZO.70 6.06 10.71
112
21.70 1.02 10.75
11]
16.05 '.00 10.71
lie
21.oe '.0] 10.'2
.........115
26.75 1.00 10.19
116
32010 6.00 lo.n
21. 36 6.0e 10.71
152
21.36 1.0' 10.St
162
16]
26.70 I.U 10.7]
U]
26.70 5.91 10.70
1&4
42.72
10.61
32.10 5.91 10.n
I"
32.10 1.05 10.10
I"
32.10 6.00 10.72
121
e2.10 5.9. 10. IS
122
12]
42.72 '.12 10.n
ue
S].40 '.01 10.61
126
32.0e 6.12 10.72
In
16.02 '.09 10.11
130
51.7C
10.15
131
26.75 5.95 10.79
132
26.75 6.05 10.66
5].50 1.06 10.7&
133
ue
21.40 '.0' 10.75
us
21.40 5." 10.79
24
16.02 '.00 10.61
21.36 '.00 10.n
25
21. 3' '.00 10.n
2'
27
26.70 '.00 10.n
26.70 '.00 10.n
21
29
".06 6.00 lo.n
30
" . 0 ' '.00 10.n
37.50
10.61
35
37.50 6.02 10.75
3'
21.36 '.06 10.19
III
5].00
112
10.51
16.02 '.05 10.67
IIC
H.72 6.09 10.70
116
III
21.36 ,.oe 10.90
32.10 6.05 10.13
191
19]
26.70 ,. De
10.fl
I,.
32.0e '.06 10.93
42.72 '.0] 10."
US
26.75 S. '2 10.77
197
71. eo 00 10.75
199
L.eonh.rdt., et 01.119621( 0 )
1.0]
1.05
1.00
1.0]
1.03
1.00
1.00
6.01
1.01
1.04
6.03
, .00
5.90
'.U
1.05
6.0.

,.

'.15

'.04

'.ll

,..,

DI/I
DI/2
D2/1
D2/2
DJ/I
DJ/2
DC/I
DC/2
Cl
C2
C3
ce

eI,

'.21
1.21
16.se
16.se
24.10
24.10
3].07
3].07
17.72
35.43
53.15
70.17

1.91
1.91
3."

].,.

5.91
5.91
7.17
7.17

,.,.

S.U
7."

I."

2.76
2.76
5.51
5.51
1.27
'.27
11.02
11.02
5.'1
11.11
17.72
23."

.75
.75

.75

.75
.75
.75
.75
.75

.75
.15
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75

.75
.75

.75
.75
.15
.15

.75
.75
.75
.15
.75

.n

.75

.75
.75
.75
.75

.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75

.75
.75
.75
.75
.75

.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75

.59
.S9

3000
2910
2520
2910
0000

cooo
001.
0010
JlOO
5210
5000
4190
5000
2100
21
UI.
2. . .
2. . .
2UO
2610
2100
2nO
2nO
3610
4210
3610
JlOO
4110
3150
3UO
3920
3920
3700
3100
JlOO
]"0
0"0
e,.o
5130
5130
.,00
5130
5130
2950
2110
22]0
2230
2360
2550
2UO
2UO
2610
2110
2530
2530
.OCO
3UO
39]0
4320
4230
35'0
3no
3710
3710
Ouo
4920
5090
S090
. . 00
ono
S020
5020
5020
S220
5220

usa
&lSI

.59

UI6

.S9

""

.59
S9
.59
.59
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11

6600
"00
6045
6005

""
""
""

""

]]0
]21
]2\

.321
.HO
.HO
.321
]21
.311
.]30
.]30
.)]0
.]30
.511
.51l
.0"
.475
SOl
.500
.500
.505

.,c

.en
.e.,
e"

..,

.e"
.e"
.en
.ell
..,1
.e91
.500
.512
. .,e
.e91
e,.
.e.,
.e,.
.e"
.476
.0"
.e"
1.19
1.11
1.17
1.11
1.17
1.17
1.11
1.19
1.17
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.20
1. 20
1.20
1. 20
1.20
1. 20
1.20
1.11
1.11
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.11
1.19
1.19
1.19

1.11
1.11

.093
.on
.3'0
360
.791
.791
I.ue
l.ue
.30'
.925
1.151
2.17

...

5500
IllS
2000.
tlOO
5700
1350
11100
12300
9UO
IUOO
13250
7550
SiOO
lOUD
IllOO
"95
nos
1795
9115
10llO
'005
7]00
1]75
10910
lao
1560
tl35
100)0
5765
lIUO
9135
. . SO
19500
11100
10115
'''0
13250
I3no
9100
IHO
1050
9050
liDO
11000
"25
1500
7200
"00
32200
tooo
11140
lIno
1"0
13no
17250
e0900
2lCOO,
17550
IlSS0
12200
9nO
loeoo
10100
11100
I4no
10960
,noo
12e50
20100
llUO
12750
11500
10125
12000
17250

1631
1609
e"2
S225
loni

""

16645
16021
e150
14550
22117
3U71

## . . ' ....... 1.... It. ond ... rgueoa, "Phil K. 0 .."

5-1
5-2
-]

s-e
1-5

1-'
.-1
s-'
5-12
5-13

...............
......
00.
eo.

H.

t.ylor, Hov.rd p.
Al
A2
II
12
.3
CI
C2
Cl
C,

6.06
6.0'
6.00
'.00
6.00
5.,.
'.00
5.,.
'.03
5."
~.

10.11
10 ...
10.50
10.S'
10.31
10.5]
10.56
10.30
10.51
10.0

.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5

5]00
..00
C200

.5

. . 00
e050
4500
e150
36eo
000

.5

)4140

36.61 1. 50

5210
4120
ono
e500
5110
... 0

.62
.51
eo

.33
.22

..16

]]

.16
1.01

'000
ICOO
6"0
6300
7550
6150
6150
5500
55]0
9000

(1912) (*)

110.20 15.75
110.20 15.75
S5.12 7 7
55.12 7.11
55.12 7.17
21.56
27.56 3."
27.S' 3."
27.56 ].

].,.

,.

36.U
11.31
11.31
11.31
, .15
9.15
9.15
, .15

.75
1. 50
.75
.315
.75
.]75
.]75
.]75

.,,0

.,10
3770

7.71
7.7.
1. 95
1. 95
1.95
,17
,17
'17
.17

10100
73900
2leOO
19600
19200
5060
5390
6110
506.

265

No.

(In)

(In)

A.

(In)

(In)

(p.1)

(in')

v
UbI

UbI

## Wlthoul stirrups. "-po;nt-bfftl

2)
C:~

.1.~6

C:6

27 .

Dl
D2
D3
DO

16.~'

3.,.
3. ,.
2.35
2. l6
2.35
2. ]6

~6

16 . ~.
16.~'
~!.

ll.

Chana, P. I. (1981)

2.10
2.lb

42.05
<2.0S
'2.0S
42.05
<2.05
42.05
20.tI
20.tI
20.91
20.91
ZO.t!
20.t!
20.91
20.t!
20.tI
12.U
12.52
12.52
12.52
12.52
12.52
12.52
12.52
20.01
20.01
20.01
20.0'

2.2.
2.2b
2. , .
2.3b

3.le
3.lb

3. z.
3.2b
l.la
3.3b
DI
D2
D3

4."

"lb
C.Z.
.. 2b
4.Ja
"3b

....

. 'b
S .le
S.lb
S.2.
S.2b
6.1
6.2
6.3

..
.
..
..

,. ,

010

~.U

.10
.10
.10
.10

5220
5100
5100
5100
5100

.3,.

.n.

3."

3."
2.31

6."
4.17

2.36

17
.. 17
4.17 .n7
4.17
4.17
<.17 .It,
.. 17 . It,
6.n .no

"12
"12
U.2
'571
7571
'571
7S71

.3,.

SI.S
SIH

.1'7

5751
S751
SU2
5511
Sill
n02
6102
UI2
nSI

3."

3." 6. t7 .n.
.3"
,,<
3."
I."
3. ,.
6.97 .3,.
.no
2. H
2.36
2.3'
2. ] I
2.36
2. Jl

.n7

.1"
. n,

.1"
.n,

,..,

I.n
I.n
I.n

7 .,

7.17

.717
I.IS
LIS
LIS
1.1S .0,.
LIS
1. IS .094
I.IS
I.IS
1.1S

.US
.US
.US
,2S
.US
.U5
.U5
.125
.U5

4.t'

HSO
7150
103<
1034
USI
ISU
500<
500<
53"
5337
Sill
5116
0513

I."
."0
6."
3,.
I." .".
.3,.
I."
I."

3. ,.
3. ,.

<.n

, . IS

14.02 .,.7
14.02 '17
14.02
14.02
14.02 .717
14.02 .717

3."

.. n

6.6
6.7
6. I

4060

S.U
S"

.. ,'" 7."
... ""
... ""

6.'
6.

.315

. .,

.0,.
.0,.
.0,.
.0,.

.0,.
.0,.
.0,.

14." 7.17
n
.13
".51 7.17 U.S 13
U.O< 7 . , 2I.3S .13
Mhrar H., NIl..on, Ar~hur

El&.n~y,

r'rll

,.
,.
,.

<2.0
42.'
42.0

rl2

7.

02.'
42.1

rl
rl3
FH
PI
F2
riO

7.
7.

'2.0

ca.'
42.0

r,

42.0

rl5

42.0
21.'
21.0

7.

7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7
7.

42

P3

r.

rs

... 2

63.0

PI

10.~

10.7
10. S

3. S.
4.72
7.0'

n.lS
21.22
]7.29

~
.S
S
.5
S
.S
S
.S
.S
S
.S
S
S
.S

10.7
10.7
10.S
10.7
10.7
10.S
10.7
10. S
10.S
10.1
10. S
10. ,

."

5060
'110
2UO
2720
2310

.122
.1%2
.122
.122

25!0

21512
21129

I."

I..,
I..,
1.19
I."

1."

U'"

21222
223"
21172
5350
5n3
SSOI
57J3
5'5'
5216

.
."

47,

.."
."

.." ...'9"
.47,

.,,,

.<"

."9

'.'3
UI2

5261
4111
2201
U45
2017
2113
2630
2116
2163
23S<

.11'

.1"
.119
.1"
.119
.119
.119

.1"
.,,,
.,,,
,.,
.,.021

..

.026
.026
.026
.026
.026
.021

61"

3000
3000
]000
5100
5100
noo
'SOo
noD
noo
I1S00
11500
10000
10000
uoo

.5 noD

r.

.,0

10000
12000
10300
10'00
14300
ll100
14100
17300
14100

.n

.to

1.'0

.to

1.10
2. '0
1.20
1.10

nooo

.'0

1.'0

U'OO

.to

'"00

1. 10

u'OO

32.
10.61
192.2"

61

ve

5."
1.01
6.17

4." .5'
7." .5'
lo.n .59

3UI
lUI
3502

.n

.'12
I.U

3215
6768
12302

S 0

. 'S

10.47
21. 21

.7S
.75

40'0
4560
39.0

0.11

67'0

1.77

lanD

3.53

1700

r.t.,.ence only.

(-:1

Iv" (1'71)

21.
ll.S
S.
20.25
10.13
, .15
10.13

6.

H2N3/2

~.06

3.

HIN31Z
HIN)A

3.37
20.25
20.25
20.25
10.ll
10.ll
10.13
6.75

"lH4
H2N4
K3M ..

HIH3
H2H3

H3HI
HIH]12

HIHlI
K1N3!)

K2N3A
H2Nli

H2NlC
H3N]t
H)N3e

I.

l.
2.
I.
3.
2.
2.
6.

,.
6.

3.
3.

I.
2.
2.

,. 7~

With sUrruDS.

5. 7~
.75
3.3' 37~
2. 2~
.2S
6.15 .75
3.37 .37~
2.2S .25
6.75 .75
3.37 .375
2.2S .25
6.75 .15
6.75 .375
6.7S
I.S
3.37 .75
3.37 .375
3.17 .25
2.25 .J7S
2.25
.2!o

...

5100

1.76

5000
60S0
1040
1200

.20
1.76

USO
5100
SIOO
6250
S750
5700
45'0
'SSO
6220
5700
6700
SSOO

14170
3,"0
1750

.
...

uno

.20
1.76

50'0
25'0
41000
10320

.20
1.76
1.76

17670
11 .. 0

1. '6

1'.00

6270

...

S'SO

0
'0

SOia
.'77

3020
1130

.20
.20

3-DO~nt ... ~t

## le.feld., wilH'" J. and 'I'hureton. Charl W. fl966)

72.

266

12.

U.

U-3
311-1
321-1
311-2
321-2
313.S-3
lII-3
321-]

72.

..

U.

U.
72.

72.
72.
72.

U.

10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.

10. 17."

d
lin)

S120

Co

.16<

"500

.,son

fc

lpol)

33. I

I .

]].6

I.
I.
I .
I.

n."
17."

US

RI6

R21

n.o

SO.5
36.0
31.0
36.0

17."

17."
17.,.

17.'4
17."
17."
17.'4

I.
6.
I.
I.
6.

I.

I.
6.
6.

,7.

A-I
A-2
A-3

72.'12.1
'0.
12.
121. 12.1
72. 9.1

1-1

121.

t.

72.

1.1
6.
1.1

II.JS
11.27
11.35
11.15
11.33
11.13
11.25
11.21
11.01

.
.

1S.36
n.36
1S.36
U.36

to.

a-2
a-3
C:-I
C:-2
C-3

'0.
121.

36.
36.

"1-1
AI-2
AI-3

"1-4-

31.
36.

t.

).

17.,.
17."

12.0
12.'
12.4

RI4

5"0
S140
SltO
1000
3500
..10
'030
2210
5360
5450

I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.

11."
17.,.

I.
6.

SUo

I.
I.

17."
17.,.
17."
17 .'4

C:30S-DO J7 2 S. 91
C:310-DO
2 5. U
c:nO-D2D 37.2 S.t!

33.1
]].1
36.0
36.0
33.'
36.0
36.0
33.6
33.6
33. I
33.1
36.0

I.
I.

1.

17.'.

6
I.
I.

RIO
UI
U2
U3

5)

d.
(In)

17."

10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.

R'

A
(In')

IJ."
(~)

V.

lib)

f ..
Ipol)

).

"'0
SliD

1.

5620

I.

s o

1.

SS10

).
).

1.

75
.7S
.15
.7S
7~

.n
.n
.n

.75
.15

.n
.n

.7S
'5
.15
.7S

.n

.75
.75

..

Ino
62<0
1200

l170

4.

.111

o 111
07\1

. . . 111
o 111
< 111
4. .111
< 111
. 111
074

4. .O~~
4. .111
. . . 122
4. .IO~
O. .122
. . . 105
4. .163
4. .122
4. .IOS

.1"

Uto .n6

.ns

SIS
3100 1.17
'UO 2. S
""0 2.5
UIO .nl
030 2.5
4!JIO
2.5
1150
.'CO .171
43tO . .,1
1230 .nl
2.5
UIO .176
CCIO
2.5
2. S
1910 2. S
0510 2. S

.1"

""0

"'0

.21

.41
.21
.21
.21

.41
.14
.41
.41
.21
.21
.41
.21
.41
.21
.21

n,oO
HOOO
3HOO
"'00
'HOO
3UOO
3HOO

HOOD

00

~.OOO

lnOO
3UOO
3noo
'0000

~'OOO

.noo

.,~oo

U~OO

U~OO

~'OOO

~'OOO
~'OOO

~.OOO

~'OOO

HOOD
~'OOO

36100
"100

HOOD

37~OO

~'OOO

41000
3UOO
UIOO

1"00
23S00
"'00
20100
2"00
))600
20100
31400
31<00
15'00

~'OOO

~<OOO

504000
504000

3USO
40600
HUO
)tUO
39UO
.0100
)tUO
CO'OO
CO'OO

3USO
)tUO
40100
)tUO

.41
.13

19000
2"00
20200
33600
1"00
20700
2HOO
21300
<0300

J9UO
)tUO
)tUO
.0100
ltUO

.21

.1

un

loU "
0 1.'1 ... "

2UIO
2'''0
31120

51400
51400
SI'OO

.n
n

3490
3S20
SOlO
U90

snoo

S.
.1 HOOD
I.
.1 . USOO
. . . 1e7 50000
nooo
4 1.'
cOOOO
S 141
2 . 1" novo
4. .202 lHOO
4. .19' 3UOO

47200
47200
41200
<7200
"'200
47200
47Z00
47200
47200

.31
.31
]'
.31

50016
47016
50016
5S016

41020
41020
41020
41020

.:.000

.75

.75

.75

'liD

.75
.15
.7S
.75

5620
U90

lno

SOlO

3S75
3430
3)tS
3510

4.

3.11
1.11
3.11
l.11

.1

&-I-t

a-2-II
a-I-I
a-3-II
I-i-I
I-i-II
T-I-I
T-2-II
T-3-I
T-3-II

36.
36.
J6.
36.
36.
36.
36.
36
36.

12.
12.
12.

12.
12.
12.
12.
12.

C:205-DIO
C205-D20
C:210-DOA
C:2l0-10

.75

31'0

l~I;t

.auC

22500

12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.

.7S
.75
.1S
.7S

]UIl 1.11
31'01.19
31901.n
3190 1.11
3190 1.11
3190 1. 25
3190 1.17
3UO 1.13
n901.1]

.100
~ J oc
.100
.104
.104
.10'
.100
.100
.104

22515

UIO
"10
"SO
4170

.233
.2]]
. ",
"

12.

1;'.

nn.~h C. (193"

12.

12.

12.
12.

Z4.1 5.91
24.1 5.'1
2 . . . S."
24. IS. tI

12
12.0
12.4
12.4

.tr.ft09~

.*)

.1

(In)

## John.toa, Bruce end CO"

(~)

lanl, C. N. J. (1'67) (~
U
II

72.
72.
72:
72.
72.
72.
72.
72.

022
RaO
025
02'
021

7600

1.10

:~1~~.-2

14r:.

211.-2

02

no.
15112
22n6
O. (1916)

.45

2'.-2

RII
RU
020

no

.t..

"7' .321
"5'
5041 1.77
H. end .l.t._,

2'.-2
29b-2
2'c-2
2td-2

107"
12l'.
125.,
411

611
531
500
5n

.021

211.~-~

U,

517

b
(In)

## With SUrn",s. 3"'DOint-bfont

2'.-1
2'.-2

lOlUi

472

.026

&s27

"'&l n, J. C. tl"tla) ( .. )

Al
U
A3

No.

.)

'.ts
~

....

.7~

.75
.n
.75
.75

...

.1
.1

loti
1.52
1. tI
1. tI

2'COO

26425
23000
22750
21075
22150
211?0
221S0

30no

2nn
39190
"090

nooo
nooo
'SOOO
nooo
'5000
nooo
'SOOO
nooo
nooo

S1400
51400
SIIOO
51400

42.
42.

04
C5
01

42.

7.
7.
7.

10. S
10. S
10.5

.S
.5
.S

JJSOO
2S000
17500

55000
SSOOO
SSOOO

.SO
.50

41001
41006

31130

3920 I. 01 .211
4920 1.0 211
'3401.01 .221

13510

SOOOO

13~00

~OOOO

ISOOO

HOOO

3460

".
4.

3795
4700
3475
3455
3115
H20
H15

4 ]31
4. .331
4.
.21

51)00
67550
60475

SSOOO
SSOOO
55000
55000

9100 2.'0
5100 1. 10
3000 1.10

.n
.n
.19

E2
E3

## 29.537.41 10.6] 1.11

2'.S3 7,41 10.13 1.11

I-I

. . . S.U 10.45

5-10

## ... 5.96 10.S7

\$-\1

CC.

6.

10 . 0

5
.S
.5

5'05 1.96
S0071.96

]712)

Moretto, Or te 0'''5)
J_V I/C
2-V 1/0

I-I
2-1
I-D
2-D
I_V

1/0
1/0
1/0
1/'
3/1

2-Y 3/1
I-I 3/1

l2.
32.
32.
32.
32.

32.
32.
l2.
32.

5.5
5.S
5.5
5.5
S.5
5.5
5.S
S.S
S.5

11.25
11.25
11.25
11.25
11.25
11.25
11.25
11.25
11.25

.n
.75

.75
.75
.75
.75
.7S
n

nos

28
28

. .2'

. . . US
4. .IlS
4. .143

66000

S,27S
70275

nus

71125
79S00

S~OOO

5S000
47900
47'00
47'00

b

Beam

"0.

(In)

slin-ups.

With

S)

2-1 )/9
1-0 )/8
2-0 )/8

la-V l/e
la_V 3/8

32.
32.
32.
32.
32.

D2-1

02-2
0)-1
OC-I
01-6
01-7
01-8
EI-2
02-6
D2-7
02-1
D4-1
D4-2

0'-)
O~-I
0~-2
O~-)

24.
24.
24 .
21.

24.
21.
24.
21.
24.
2 ..
24.

21.
2C.
2C.

18.
18.
lB.
lB.
18.
18.
21.
2C.
24.
2~

)0.
JO.
)0.
)0.
30.
)0.
)0.
)0.
)0.

d.

I,

(In)

(pel)

~. ~

18 . 2S
11.25
5. ~ 19.25
5. ~
I'. ~
5.5
I'. ~
~. ~

7~
.75
.75
.15
.75

4185
2855
)685
H'O
))H

P.

A.

( lnl,

..,.

2.
2.

(%)

v.

I ...

8e&ftl

Ob)

(pel)

No.

6)

.74)
.615
.61~

.28
615

14000
U8'S
71825
~)O~O

~'615

4'900
"'00
"'00
<6000
52000

(l'~ll

8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
I.
8.
I.
8.
8.
I.
8.
8.
8.
I.
B.
I.
I.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.

1S.)6

3398 ). II

.J?

62685

15.36
J5. )6
IS. )6

3680 ). II
)7
305 3. II
.31
.31
3380 3.81
3~10 3. II
)7
))10 ). II
.7)
.7)
3820 ).8l
.7)
361~ ). II
.31
6110 ).81
3120 2. ~,
.J<
.34
3820 2.H
.J<
3"~ 2. ~C
.3<
'210 2. ~,
)4)0 2 . 54
.69
362~ 2. ~4
"10 2. ~C
20CO 2. ~<
.34
2000 2.5<
.34
2020 2. ~,
.J<
3~~0 ).81
.34
.34
'~60 ).81
6480 ).81
.34
6900 ).81
.34
J800
2
lS60
)410
2.
.61
3755
.61
2.
.92
C090
J.
J)~O
2. I. 22
COlO 2.54
'060 2. ~,
4010 2. ~C
.7)
075 2. ~,
.61
.280 2.54
.61
H2O 2.54
)790 2.54
.61
3970 2.54
)720 2. ~4
3200 2. ~C
.)7
<020 2.54
.)7
4210 2. SC
.)7
3930 2.S'

5168~

I~.

)6

I~.

36

I~.

)6

I~.

36

I~. )6

B.36
I~. 36
I~. )6
I~.

36
I~. 36
I~. 36
I~. 36
I~. 36
I~. 36
15.36

...,.,

1~.36
I~.

36
15.36
I~. 36
IS. )7
I~. )7

15. )7
1~.

......
......"

..

I~. )7

)7
)7

15.
12. J6
12.36
12. J6
12. J6
12. )6
12. J6
12. )6
12.36
12.36
12.36
12. J6
12.36
12.36

"
.n

..,

'40l0
60280
5<280
"68~
720~

1~280
8~280

62CH
6,,)5
~~280

64280
6~19~

61615

'.'80
50210
'~O)O

42280
"5)0
9~210

91780
")~,

61"~
5168~

65115
70185

88781
701l~

39281
C0211
C1181
"8~'
371~'
)~JS9

37.~'

37859
)s3~'

)710'
32.~'
)~3~9

JS)5'

41020
4.020
48020
41020
41020
48020
4'020
41020
41020
'8020
48020
4'020
48020
4.020
41020
.a020

48020
4.020
48020
48020
4'020
48020
41020
48020
4'020
4a020
4.020
48020
.'020
48020
4.020
0418020
48020
.'020
41020
41020
48020
48020
'8020
Cl020
.a020
41020

( *)

6)

)0.
)0.
)0.
30.
)0.
)0.
)0.
30.
)0.

( In)

4-poinl-b~nt

Clark, Authur P.
8J-I
81-2
81-)
81-'
81-5
82-1
82-2
82-)
86-1
CI-I
CI-2
CI-)
CI-'
C2-1
C2-2
C2-4
CJ-I
C)-2
C)-)
C4-1
C5-2
C6-J
C6-C
01-1
01-)

( In)

'.lakas,

.75
BOO

6 ..
6161.
6J.
61.
61.
61.

82~

61.

AOO
A2~

A2Sa
A~O

ASOa

7.

7.

15.54
15. )1
15.26
15.42
I~. "
15. ~6

7.~
1.~

15.52

7.5
7. ~
1. ~
7.5

1~.70

.75

.7.0

.765

O.

16244

7~
7~

4720 .16~
'90 .76~
3110 . 76~
C060 .76~
"70 .76~
4640 ~7~
4410 ~75

0~2
0~2
.10C
.IOC
1~1
O.
0~2

20772
25954
24660
31966
16027
17670

.n
7~
.75
1~
7~

1927~

61000
61000
71400
12~00

(In)

(In)

d.

I,

( In)

(psi)

v.

p.

A.
(In ' ,

('!'o)

Ob)

(psi)

oSo
COO
C2~

U.
61.
61.

C50

H.

C7~

61.

1. S I~.H
7.5 B.41
7.5 I~. ))
7.5 15. "
7.5 I~. ~1

.n
.n
.n
.75
',1S

~ 390
.. 270
41100
.. 100
.. 260

575

.}O ..

O.
1. 0'
1.09 . 0~2
I. 0' .104
1. 09 . I ~1

HOSD
13270

1 )600

186~0

62100
7 )600
65100

)01 ~O
)1020

Tl
T2
T)
T'
T5
T6
T1
TI
19
TIO
Til
TI2
TI)
TIC
TIS
T16
TI7
Til
Tl'
T20
T22
T2~

T26
T21
T)1
T32
T34
TH
T36
TJ7
T31

)).6
)J.6
)).6
)).6
)J.6
)6.0
) .. 6
)6 .0
)6.0
)). 6
36.0
)6.0
n.6
)6 .0
12 . 0
72.0
72.0

)).6
~4. 0
~LO

)).6
)J.6
36.0
)6.0
)).6
36.0
54-0
~

..

36.
36.
36.

6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
5.
5.
6.
5.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.

10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10 ...

10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.

.75
75
75
.75

.n
.75
.n
.n
7~
.n
7~
7~

.n
.n
.75
7~
.75
.75
7~
.75

.75
.75
.75
.7~

7~
7~
.75
7~
7~
.75
7~

.75
4070 .816
)"0
.. 710 1.11
4.90 .876
J< 70 2.5
3970
1.1
C~)O
2. ~
29)0
2. ~
4090 . 876
2. ~
~360
2. ~
'HO
1150 .176
0
2. ~
4810
2. ~
4HO
2. ~
2. ~
" 790
"9aO .875
.. J40
2. ~
~~
2. ~
.,10 116
7,.0 . '76
1260
2. ~
1140
2. ~
, "5 .876
2. ~
'000
.920
2.5
2. ~
4880
)~OO
2. ~
461~
2. ~
2.5
4380

.21
O.
.21
.21
.41
.8J
.21
.21
.41

4050

. "6

...
...
.11
.21
.21

.)

.21

.11

.
..
..

o.

B~nt )

24700

391 SO

12)00
2HOO
24'00
31400

)9150
HI50
40600

J9I

~O

46000
2UDO

HI~C

28000

HI~O

)4100

C0600
HnO
'0600

)9~00

J6000

)2500
20200
,,)00
2HOO
20100
)0100
16800

J9I~O
HI~O

HI ~O
J'150
HI50
40600

.21

2~~00

21
.21

2~800

.21
I)

CO)OO
29700
21300
48600

)9150
<0600
40600
HI ~O
HI ~O

.21

34500
24600

H150
'0600
HI~O

2~200

HI~O

.21

2~100

.4\

40)00
.. 7100
53800

HI ~O
C0600
HI ~O

I)
.8)

HI~O

0.71)
Al
A2
AJ
A4
A~

0) ,

CI
C2
C3
C,
CS
0)
1

Mlehael H.

(In)

37.~

J7.

)7 .~

37.5
37. ~
50.525
63.75
63. 7~
63.75
63.75
63.75
90.
31. ~

E2
E)
E<

)7. ~

E~

)7.
31.

FJ
G)
G'

)7.

)7.~
~
~

31.~

31.5

61900

G~

)7 .~

HI
H2

)1.~

62100

J7.~

1.
7.
1.
7.
7.

15.

< 27~

15.
I~ .
15.
1~ .

4360

42)~

<14~
)II~

7.

15.

7.
1.
7.
1.
1.
7.
7.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
7.
1.

'Ol~

15.

3160
COlO
3500
)7)0

15.
1~.
I~

.
15.
15.
15.

15.
1~

.
15.

15.
15 .
15 .
I ~.
15.
I ~.
15.

"1~

42 OS
2020
2200
1980

U.s
2.7S
6515
)800
)810
)790
C2CO
40'0

..,.
...
..
.,...
.. . ,
..
...
O
.19
.CI9
078,
1. 26

C.

041,

O
.1,
4C. . . 9
.716
1.26
.419

C.

262~0

.. ]680

~OOOO

,.,65
87045
61005
196JS

~OOOO

389~~

~B4

~OOOO
~OOOO

52000

15

~OOOO

5912~

50000
50000
!tOOOO

lOBS
~C1IO

2236~

.19

38010
< 2~2S
56.,0
590'0
H130
7C 160
86205
96110

.7'6
1.26
C. .419
C. .419
.629
1.05
2. .419
6. .419

52000

6S~20

~2000

50000
50000
~OOOO

~OOOO

6J7J~

66200
6'200
66200
50000

11610

~OOOO

## 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 in.' = 645.2 mm 2 ; 1 lb = 4.448N; Ipsi = 0.006895 MPa.

Note: The data of Clark (1951). Haddadin (1971), and Tsection data of RUsch (1972) are not used due to lack of information.

(6)
Vs represents the contribution of the yield forces in stirrups, and Vs represents the additional contribution due
to concrete. For the contribution of stirrups, plastic
limit analysis readily yields the expression

Vs

AJyv ( .

fu

smo: + coso:

(7)

where
Av
s
b

/Yv
0:

## cross-sectional area of the stirrup

spacing of the stirrup
beam width
yield strength of stirrups
angle between the stirrups and the longitudinal
axis of the beam

## Although it has been recognized that the presence of

stirrups has some beneficial effect on the magnitude of
vc ' this effect is neglected in the current code specifications, i.e., Vc is taken to be the same as in a beam with
no stirrups. The assumption that the magnitude of Vc is
unaffected by the presence of stirrups is more reason~
able when the design formula is based on the initial
cracking. However, design on the basis of initial cracking appears to be insufficient because the ratio of the
the beam size increases, thus causing the safety margin
against failure to be nonuniform. The ideal approach
would be to use design criteria for both the ultimate
of these two criteria should be used, then the failure
load criterion is probably more reasonable from the
safety viewpoint.
The reason that the stirrups enhance the strength
contribution of concrete is probably due to several ef267

## as proposed by Palakas and Darwin. 29 For the sake

of simplicity, we assume a linear dependence, realizing
that the scatter of the test data makes it impossible to
calibrate any more complicated dependence. So we may
write
Pv,

Placas <I97D
a

....8

-....
--

a
a

a
a
a

a
D

(8)

>
.......

>

Q.

>

(T-Section)

## aid = 33.6 & 36 in.

0.5

0.005

0.01

Fig. 4-Effect of stirrup reinforcement ratio on diagonal shear strength of beams without stirrups

liP,
-0.4

= 40011+

## C. 6.5 p lI lt:/(.3ooolp/(aldll Xl.JO. 2Ida)

tanh[ 2(a/d-2. 81
+-.--.--....-=r-....-'r-............-r''-r---r----r--r-r....,......,..-I
0.2

0.4

0.8

0.8

1.2

108

1.4

1.8

1.11

d.( 1 + P./P,)

## Fig. 5-Size effect in beams with stirrups and effect of

stirrup ratio
fects. One of them is that cracks are forced to redistribute at a closer spacing and over a wider area. This
results in a smaller crack width and therefore, in an increased shear and tension transfer capability. Another
effect enhancing the beam strength arises from the fact
that the stirrups support the longitudinal bar and thus
prevent concrete splitting along the bar.
If one looks up the derivation of the size-effect law
in Reference 42, it transpires that redistribution of
cracking over a wider area should manifest itself in an
increase of coefficient An in Eq. (1) or (3). Thus, from
the viewpoint of the size effect, the proper way to
model the influence of stirrups on the strength contribution of concrete appears to be an increase of coefficient An as a function of the stirrup-reinforcement ratio

268

## in which Po is an empirical coefficient indicating the

stirrup reinforcement ratio Pv for which Ao is doubled
compared to Ao for Pv = o.
The increase of concrete shear capacity described by
coefficient P can be realized only if the relative shear
span is not too small; roughly aid ~ 1.5. For smaller
shear spans, the stirrups do not appear to develop their
full yield capacity, as suggested by Zsutty.21 Therefore,
the value of coefficient Po cannot be constant, but must
change from 0 for aid < 1.5 to a finite value for larger
shear spans. The transition should, of course, be expected to be smooth rather than abrupt, and a smooth
formula is also preferable for certain numerical procedures or computer optimization of design. A simple
empirical formula that gives a smooth transition from
a zero value to a finite value is

## in which ao is an empirical constant and coefficients 2

and 5.6 have been approximately determined by optimization of data fits.
The available experimental evidence on the effect of
Pv on Vc is shown in Fig. 4, in which the ordinate is the
ratio of the measured Vc to the value of Vc calculated for
Pv ..... 00 ( or Ao ..... 00). The curve represents the trend
according to Eq. (8). Although the scatter is very large,
the increasing trend is nevertheless clearly apparent.
The effect of Pv is also evident from the regression in
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5 shows the effect of beam depth d on the contribution of concrete to the shear capacity of a beam
with stirrups. The existing test data, plotted in the figure, are those of Johnston and Cox, I Bresler and Scordelis," Mattock and Wang,33 Krefeld and Thurston,'4
Elzanatyet al.,36 and Placas and Regan. 24 The curve in
Fig. 5 shows the present formula. Although the data
scatter is very large, the presence of the size effect in
beams with stirrups is nevertheless evident.
Fig. 6 shows, for beams with stirrups, a plot of the
measured values of Vu versus the values calculated from
the formulas. The plot in Fig. 6(c) is based on the presently proposed equations [Eq. (3), (2), (6), (8), (9), and
(7)], and for comparison Fig. 6(d) shows the plot obtained when the effect of the stirrups is omitted, i.e.,
1/Po = o. We see that by considering the effect of stirrups, the coefficient of variation of the deviations from
the straight line is reduced from w := 0.156 to w :=
0.141 for this set of 87 data points. The improvement
due to considering the effect of stirrups on concrete caACI Materials Journal I July-August 1987

3~-------------------'~--~

(al ACI

(bl "z.sUTIY

++

Vc.ISOI(p(dJal'Jln fora/d<2.S
v c 60(f:pdIal ln fora/d12.S t

+. +

'.~
""'
.S

2.5

X ~ 328 psi
Y = 360 psi
No. of data 87
S. D. = 65 . 3 psi
r = 0.956

= 305 psi
Y = 360 psi
No. of data 87

S.D.=105psi

r.>

0.923

= 0.292

0.181

.-----------------------~~

(e)

## (d) PROPOSED FORMULA. BUT WITHOUT

CONSIDERING THE STIRRUPS EFFECT

PROPOSED FORMULA

S.D.~

56.2 psi

348 psi
360 i

## S.D.= 50.7 psi

X = 368 psi
Y = 360 psi
r
= 0.964
v = 0.141

r
v

No. of Data 87

No. of Data 87

Vq

v, +

~
a

=
=

0.95
0.156

l)l<\'>

Yo

pi,.

t .,.[K.. JOOO.!PiWdi>I6.selntl?>
jlt

2Sd.U.p/Pol

## Po' 40011 tanbC2Wd - 2. 8lB

2.5

2.5

Nominal U/tif1lJ1le Shear Stress with Stirrups Calculated. loe( v,). (v. in psj)

Fig. 6-Plots of measured versus calculated values of mean nominal shear strength
for beams with stirrups (1 psi = 6895 Pa)
pacity is small but nevertheless appreciable. For comparison, Fig.6(a) and (b) show the same plots for the
current ACI specificationssl and for Zsut1y's formula l8
[also see Eq. (15) and (18) of Reference 36]. We see that
the coefficients of variation of the vertical deviations
from the straight line are for these two formulas 0.292
and 0.181, which is distinctly larger than the value for
the presently proposed formula. Note also the increased separation of the 95 percent confidence limits.
The same set of 87 data points is plotted in Fig. 7 to
show the size effect, i.e., the dependence of Vc on the
relative size dlda. Comparison with the proposed formulas is shown in Fig. 7(c) and (d), and despite large
scatter the presence of a downward trend representing
a size effect is clearly visible. By contrast, the scatter in
Fig. 7(a) for the ACI specification is so large that no
size effect is easily detected. This means that it would
make no sense to introduce the size effect into the ACI
formula without improving the form of the existing
formula itself, which was previously shown possible for
beams without stirrups.45
In all the preceding comparisons with tests, the formulas were made to represent the mean trend of the test
data. The design formulas should, however, be introduced in such a manner that most of the test data are
ACI Materials Journal I July-August 1987

## on the safe side of the predicted values. This is achieved

by mUltiplying the formula for the mean trend by a
factor. According to the experimental evidence, a suitable adjustment is achieved by changing the value of kl
in Eq. (2) from 6.5 to 4.5. The plot of the measured
versus calculated values of the nominal shear strength
Vu for beams with stirrups is shown (for the design formula with k, = 4.5) in Fig. 8. In these plots, the majority of the test data should lie above the inclined
straight line, and we see that this is well satisfied for
Fig. 8(c) and (d) for the present formulas. However, for
the existing ACI formula there are more data points
falling significantly below this line, and also more data
points high above the straight line - a case that represents overdesign.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The previously proposed formula of Bazant and
Kim45 for diagonal shear failure of longitudinally reinforced beams without stirrups is improved by introducing, in addition to the effect of the relative beam size,
the effect of the maximum aggregate size. The new formula is calibrated according to a larger set of test data
than before, consisting of 461 test results that were
compiled from the literature.

269

(a)Ael

(b)

0.4

Z'!trITY

C- I

sorr: P(dla)4)111

c. 60 (f~ pdIa)1I1

## for aid ( 2.5

for ald. 2.5

0.2

*
tl

+
+,
++

+t

C.1.2611;".

V.d

.0.2

13600p--~3.51t';"
M,

0.2 ~=====:::::r::::===,===,====,=======:::::r:==::;
(e)

~====:::c===,===,====,=======:::::r::::==;
(d) f>ROPOSED FORMt;LA.

PROPOSED fORMULA

JPS

## hncar fracture mechanics

strength or
l
Yield cnlenon

0~--------~----------~~------------4i----------T----------~~----------~

~
}

-0.2
mechanics

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.4

1.2

1.6

/oS(dld,l

/og(dld"l

Fig. 7-Size-ejject plots jor various jormulas jor beams with stirrups in comparison with test data
3.-------------------------~

ACI

(a)

...

(b) ZSlTITY

++

tt+

t ,
I'

+t++++

, it,

+t

,t+

,++

'

tt

t ,.,

t
+

*tit

'.
t

Ye

C y "0.15
for aId (2.5
Vc = C F 60 (f~pd/a)1I3 for aId) 2.5

## 1. 9.fr;;. 2500 P - . 1 3. 5.fr;;

Mu

2*--.--~.__.--r_,,_,--.__r~

cy 15()[f~p(dla)4Jl/3

3.---------------------------~
(e)

t.

PROPOSED FORMULA

## (d) USE PROPOSED FORMULA BUT

WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE
STIRRUPS EFFECT
..

'....
, 't, +

, t

,"

+'

.....

ttl
't' t
+ ,,~
'ft.
'+ +f'

.,, ,

+t

2.5

't+

'+

VII.

v. +

Va

v,. pjY"'

## v. 4.S pIl3[./(+ 300o/PRaidi\,::m

2f-_r-'r-.--.--.-,,-.--.-,,~

ft

~.

2.5

Nominal Ultimate Shear Stress with Stirrups Calculated. log(y,). (v. in psI)

## Fig. 8-Plots oj measured versus calculated values oj nominal shear strength

jor various design jormulas
270

## 2. The formula is further extended to diagonal shear

failure of reinforced concrete beams with stirrups. The
generalization of the formula takes into account the
fact that the presence of stirrups has a strengthening
effect on the shear capacity of concrete. The degree of
strengthening depends, however, on the shear span.
The resulting formula is calibrated according to a set of
87 test results compiled from the literature. The results
confirm that the size effect on the concrete shear
strength still exists in the presence of stirrups, but it is
milder than without stirrups.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Some of the theoretical fracture research relevant to the present
study has been supported under AFOSR Grant No. 83-0009 to
Northwestern University. Assistant Professor Jin-Keun Kim of Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul, deserves
thanks for some stimulating discussions.

REFERENCES
1. Johnston, Bruce, and Cox, Kenneth C., "High Yield-Point Steel
as Tension Reinforcement in Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceeding V.
36, No.1, Sept. 1939, pp. 65-80.
2. Moretto, Oreste, "An Investigation of the Strength of Welded
Stirrups in Reinforced Concrete Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 42, No.2, Nov. 1945, pp. 141-164.
3. Clark, Arthur P., "Diagonal Tension in Reinforced Concrete
Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 48, No.2, Oct. 1951, pp.
145-156.
4. Gaston, J. R.; Siess, C. P.; and Newmark, N. M., "An Investigation of the Load-Deformation Characteristics of Reinforced
Concrete Beams up to the Point of Failure," Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 40, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Dec. 1952.
5. Moody, K. G.; Viest, l. M.; Elstner, R. c.; and Hognestad, E.,
"Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams. Part I-Tests of
Simple Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 51, No.3, Nov. 1954,
pp. 317-332.
6. Diaz de Cossio, Roger, and Siess, Chester P., "Behavior and
Strength in Shear of Beams and Frames without Web Reinforcement," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 56, NO.8 Feb. 1960, pp. 695735.
7. Taylor, R.,"Some Shear Tests on Reinforced Concrete Beams
without Shear Reinforcement," Magazine of Concrete Research
(London), V. 12, No. 36, Nov. 1960, pp. 145-154.
8. Leonhardt, Fritz, and Walther, Rene; "Beitrage zur Behandlung der Schubprobleme in Stahlbetonbau," Beton- und Stahlbetonbau (Berlin), Mar. 1962, pp. 54-64, and June 1962, pp. 141-149.
9. van den Berg, F. J., "Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Beams without Web Reinforcement. Part 2-Factors Affecting Load
at Diagonal Cracking," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 59, No. 11,
Nov. 1962, pp. 1587-1600.
10. Rusch, Hubert; Haugli, Finn Robert; and Mayer, Horst,
"Schubversuche an Stahlbeton-Rechteckbalken mit gleichmassing
verteilter Belastung," Bulletin No. 145, Deutscher Ausschuss fur
Stahlbeton, Berlin, 1962, pp. 4-30.
11. Bresler, Boris, and Scordelis, A. C., "Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 60, No.1,
Jan. 1963, pp. 51-74.
12. Mathey, Robert G., and Watstein, David, "Shear Strength of
Beams without Web Reinforcement," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V.
60, No.2, Feb. 1963, pp. 183-208.
13. Taylor, R., and Brewer, R. S., "The Effect of the Type of Aggregate on the Diagonal Cracking of Reinforced Concrete Beams,"
Magazine of Concrete Research (London), V. 15, No. 44, July 1963,
pp.87-92.
14. Krefeld, William 1., and Thurston, Charles W., "Studies of the
Shear and Diagonal Tension Strength of Simply Supported Rein-

## forced Concrete Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 63, No.4,

Apr. 1966, pp. 451-476.
15. Kani, G. N. J., "Basic Facts Concerning Shear Failure," ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 63, No.6, June 1966, pp. 675-692.
16. Kani, G. N. J., "How Safe Are Our Large Reinforced Concrete Beams?," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 64, No.3, Mar. 1967,
pp. 128-141.
17. Rajagopalan, K. S., and Ferguson, Phil M., "Exploratory
Shear Tests Emphasizing Percentage of Longitudinal Steel," ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 65, No.8, Aug. 1968, pp. 634-638.
18. Zsutty, Theodore C., "Beam Shear Strength Prediction by
Analysis of Existing Data," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 65, No.
11, Nov. 1968, pp. 943-951.
19. Bhal, N. S., "Uber den Einfluss der Balkenhohe auf Schubtragfahigkeit von einfledrigen Stahlbetonbalken mit und ohne
Schubberwehrung," dissertation, Universitat Stuttgart, 1968, 124 pp.
20. Mattock, Alan H., "Diagonal Tension Cracking in Concrete
Beams with Axial Forces," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 95, ST9, Sept.
1969, pp. 1887-1900.
21. Zsutty, Theodore C., "Shear Strength Prediction for Separate
Categories of Simple Beam Tests," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68,
No.2, Feb. 1971, pp. 138-143.
22. Swamy, R. Narayan, and Qureshi, Schamsuddin A., "Strength,
Cracking, and Deformation Similitude in Reinforced T-Beams Under
Bending and Shear," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No.3, Mar.
1971, pp. 187-195.
H., "Shear Effectiveness in Reinforced Concrete Beams with Axial
Force," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 97, ST9, Sept. 1971, pp. 2277-2297.
24. Placas, Alexander, and Regan, Paul E., "Shear Failure of
Reinforced Concrete Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No.
10, Oct. 1971, pp. 763-773.
25. Taylor, Howard P. J., "Shear Strength of Large Beams,"
Proceedings, ASCE, V. 98, STU, Nov. 1972, pp. 2473-2490.
26. Santiago, Samuel Diaz, and Hilsdorf, Hubert K., "Fracture
Mechanisms of Concrete under Compressive Loads," Cement and
Concrete Research, V. 3, No.4, July 1973, pp. 363-388.
27. Park, Robert, and Paulay, Thomas, Reinforced Concrete
Structures, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975,769 pp.
28. Walraven, J. C., "The Influence of Depth on the Shear
Strength of Lightweight Concrete Beams Without Shear Reinforcement," Stevin Laboratory Report No. 5-78-4, Delft University of
Technology, 1978, 36 pp.
29. Palakas, Michael N., and Darwin, David, "Shear Strength of
Lightly Reinforced Concrete Beams," Structural Engineering and
Engineering Materials Report No.3, University of Kansas Center for
Research, Lawrence, Sept. 1980, 198 pp.
30. Chana, P. S., "Some Aspects of Modelling the Behaviour of
543, Cement and Concrete Association, Wexham Springs, July 1981,
22 pp.
31. Swamy, R. N., and Al-Ta 'an, Sa'ad A., "Deformation and
Ultimate Strength in Flexure of Reinforced Concrete Beams Made
with Steel Fiber Concrete," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 78, No.5,
Sept.-Oct. 1981, pp. 395-405.
32. Kotsovos, Michael D., "Mechanisms of 'Shear' Failure,"
Magazine of Concrete Research (London), V. 35, No. 123, June 1983,
pp. 99-106.
33. Mattock, Alan H., and Wang, Zuhua, "Shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Members Subject to High Axial Compressive
Stress," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 81, No.3, May-June 1984,
pp. 287-298.
34. Mphonde, Andrew G., and Frantz, Gergory C., "Shear Tests
of High-and Low-Strength Concrete Beams Without Stirrups," ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 81, No.4, July-Aug. 1984, pp. 350-357.
35. Swamy, R. N., and Bahia, H. M., "The Effectiveness of Steel
Fibers as Shear Reinforcment," Concrete International: Design &
Construction, V. 7, No.3, Mar. 1'985 pp. 35-40.
36. Elzanaty, Ashraf H.; Nilson, Arthur H.; and Slate, Floyd 0.,
"Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using High-Strength
Concrete," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No.2, Mar.-Apr.
1986, pp. 290-296.

271

37. Ahmad, Shuaib H.; Khaloo, A. R.; and Poveda, R., "Shear
Capacity of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No.2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 297-305.
38. Reinhardt, H. W., "Similitude of Brittle Fracture of Structural Concrete, ': Advanced Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete,
IABSE Colloquim, Delft, 1981, pp. 201-210.
39. Reinhardt, H. W., '~Scale Effect in Shear Tests in the Light of
Fracture Mechanics," Beton- und Stahlbetonbau (Berlin), No. I,
1981, pp. 19-21. (in German)
40. Bazant, Zdenek P., and Oh, B. H., "Crack Band Theory for
Fracture of Concrete," Materials and Structures, Research and Testing (RILEM, Paris), V. 16, No. 93, May-June 1983, pp. 155-177.
41. Bazant, Z. P., "Mechanics of Distributed Cracking," Applied
Mechanics Reviews, V. 39, No.5, May 1986, pp.675-705.
42. Bazant, Zdenek P., "Size Effect in Blunt Fracture: Concrete,
Rock, Metal," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 110, No.
4, Apr. 1984, pp. 518-535.
43. Bazant, Zdenek P., "Fracture Mechanics and Strain-Softening of Concrete,"Proceedings, U.S.-Japan Seminar on Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures (Tokyo, 1985),
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1986, pp. 121-150.
44. Bazant, Z. P., "Fracture Energy of Heterogeneous Materials
and Similitude," Proceedings, RILEM-SEM International Conference on Fracture of Concrete and Rock (Houston, June 1987), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Bethel.
45. Bazant, Zdenek P., and Kim, Jin-Keun, "Size Effect in Shear
Failure of Longitudinally Reinforced Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 81, No.5, Sept.-Oct. 1984, pp. 456-468. Also, Discussion, Proceedings V. 82, No.4, July-Aug. 1985, pp. 579-583.

272

46. BaZant, Zdenek P., and Cao, Zhiping, "Size Effect of Shear
Failure in Prestressed Concrete Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
V. 83, No.2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 260-268.
47. BaZant, Zdenek P., and Cao, Zhiping, "Size Effect in Punching Shear Failure of Slabs," ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. I,
Jan.-Feb. 1987, pp.44-53.
48. BaZant, Zdenek P., and Cao, Zhiping, "Size Effect in Brittle
Failure of Unreinforced Pipes," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83,
No.3, May-June 1986, pp. 369-373.
49. BaZant, Z. P., and Sener, S., "Size Effect in Torsional Failure
of Longitudinally Reinforced Concrete Beams," Report No. 86-9/
428s, Center for Concrete and Geomaterials, Northwestern University, Evanston, Sept. 1986. Also Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, in press.
50. BaZant, Z. P.; Sener, S.; and Prat, P. C., "Size Effect Tests
of Torsional Failure of Beams," Report No. 86-12/428s, Center for
Concrete and Geomaterials, Northwestern University, Evanston, Dec.
1986, 18 pp.
51. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-83)," American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1983, III pp.
52. CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Strustures, 3rd Edition,
Comite: Euro-International du Beton/Federation Internatinale de la
Precontrainte, Paris (English Edition, Cement and Concrete Association, Wexham Springs), 1978, 348 pp.
53. BaZant, Zdenek P., and Kim, Jin-Keun, Authors' Closure to
Discussion of "Size Effect in Shear Failure of Longitudinally Reinforced Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 81, No.4, July-Aug.
1985, pp. 580-583.