=
n
i
i s
1
;
o (9)
wherein o
s;i
is stress in ith reinforcing bar, which is given by the c
u'
in the point of the bar and corresponding stressstrain
diagram of steel.
o
s;i
= o (c
s;i
) (10)
The reinforcement area can be expressed from (7) and (9) as follows
A
s
=
n
i
i s
C L
N N
1
;
o
(11)
When we know reinforcement area, we can evaluate the real internal forces in concrete and steel corresponding to c
u'
.
The axial force must be equal to loading axial force, because of (11), but the bending moment M
S;u
will probably differ
from M
L
M
C;u
. Therefore we define a AM as follows
AM = M
S;u
 (M
L
 M
C;u
) (12)
AM = M
S;u
(c
u'
)  (M
L
(c
u'
) M
C;u
) (13)
This AM is zero only for c
u'
= c
u
. That means, if we find such c
u'
for which AM=0, then c
u'
is the Ultimate Limit State c
u
and
corresponding A
s
is the required area of reinforcement.
Now we use the ultimate border substitution. We define parameter t as shown in expression (1). This parameter is
passed to ultimate border function c
fu
. By inserting (2) into (13) we get AM as a function of t.
AM (t) = M
S;u
(c
fu
(t))  M
L
+ M
C;u
(c
fu
(t)) (14)
Now we can apply numerical solution of a scalar function AM. The unknown parameter is t 1 , 0 e , which must satisfy
following condition
AM (t) = 0 (15)
19
Here we apply Newton's iteration. This method is supplemented with a homogenous selection of starting points for the
iteration.
This means that we start with parameter t = 0.5.
If we do not succeed we try t ;...
16
7
;
16
5
;
16
3
;
16
1
;
8
7
;
8
5
;
8
3
;
8
1
;
4
3
;
4
1
e
Biparametrical reinforcement design
After the singleparameter design we describe the biparametrical design. This case is typical for a cross section
symmetrical to zaxis with reinforcement situated near upper edge A
s1
and reinforcement near lower edge A
s2
. The cross
section must be loaded in the direction of its symmetry plane. First we have to realise, that if we have in one cross
section two different areas of reinforcement in two different places, we can design A
s1
and A
s2
for any ultimate plane of
strain so they will satisfy balance of internal forces R
u
and load forces R
L
. Nevertheless, there is only one Ultimate Limit
State for which the designed reinforcement areas A
s1
+ A
s2
are minimal.
For a given parameter t we evaluate c
u'
.
c
u'
= c
fu
(t) (16)
From evaluated c
u'
we get internal forces in concrete R
C;u
and stresses in reinforcing steel bars o
s1
and o
s2
.
o
s;i
= o (c
s;i
) (17)
From the equation of balance of forces we obtain A
s1
and A
s2
.
A
s1
o
s;1
+ A
s2
o
s;2
= N
L
 N
C
(18)
A
s1
o
s;1
z
1
+ A
s2
o
s;2
z
2
= M
L;y
 M
C;y
(19)
Let us consider steps (16)(19) as a function A
fs
(t), which returns A
s1
+ A
s2
in a dependence on parameter t. We can try
to find the global minimum of A
fs
(t) by means of numerical methods. In this case we sample the function on a sparse
regular grid and in the minimal value we follow with Newton's iteration.
Note: Parameter t is on horizontal axis. Blue A
fs
(t) red A
s1
and yellow A
s2
are on vertical axis
The previous figure shows an example of function A
fs
(t), which is depicted in blue. The numerical solution must find the
global minimum of A
fs
(t), which is a sum of A
s1
and A
s2
.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
20
Basic Reinforcement or REDES reinforcement
Prior to the calculation of the main reinforcement the user is able to define a layout of reinforcement bars in the cross
section using the advanced member data or REDES reinforcement. These bars can be respected during the design
calculation and the program calculates the additional reinforcement area.
For instance:
The user defines two bars in the upper part of the crosssection section of a single span beam loaded by selfweight
only. After the calculation of the main reinforcement the user will notice a slightly different amount of necessary
reinforcement and a decreased depth of the compression zone.
21
Biaxially loaded columns
F
M
y
L
M
z
The method for uniaxially loaded columns cannot be directly applied to biaxially loaded columns, since the location of
the reinforcement bars is not known in advance, like in the uniaxial method. Therefore the bars could only be used for
carrying the load for one direction which would be extremely conservative.
A
sy
A
sy
A
sx
A
sx
It is more realistic to use a method that allows bars to act in two directions.
A
sy
A
sy
A
sx
A
sx
SCIA.ESA PT uses this more realistic method wherein the positions of the bars are exactly known during the design
calculation. By intelligently increasing the number of bars the required number of bars is designed. This area of
reinforcement is always the number of bars times the area of a single reinforcement bar, e.g. 1256 for 420. Also note
that the minimum number of bars is 4; 1 for each corner.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
22
Interaction diagram
SCIA.ESA uses a method that is also described in some code like the NORM. This method is based on an interaction
diagram for the design and ultimate moments per direction of bending.
1 s


.

\

+


.

\

x
uz
dz
x
uy
dy
M
M
M
M
wherein:
M
dy
Design moment in ydirection
M
uy
Ultimate moment for reinforcement in ydirection
M
dz
Design moment in zdirection
M
uz
Ultimate moment for reinforcement in zdirection
x Interaction factor, default value is 1.4
The interaction factor is used to define a linear or exponential interaction between M
y
and M
z
. An interaction factor of 1 is
a linear interaction between M
y
and M
z
. This means that when M
y
is fully used, the capacity for M
z
is zero. Realistically
this is not the case and codes will suggest a value around 1.4 for normally loaded columns.
1.0
1.0
M
dz
/M
uz
M
d
y
/
M
u
y
x = 1
x = 1.4
x = 2 x =
Also through research one has found out that the interaction factor is also dependant on the N
d
/N
u
ratio. In NORM
B4700 (June 2001) clause 3.4.3.5 the safety factor should be taken relative to the ratio of N
d
/ (A
b
f'
b
), see table:
N
d
/ (A
b
f'
b
) 0,1 0,7 1,0
x 1,0 1,5 2,0
Between values a linear interpolation may be done.
The work method for the design with the interaction formula is as follows:
SCIA.ESA assumes a reinforcement layout, e.g. 420 per side. For this layout of practical reinforcement SCIA.ESA
determines the M
uy
and M
uz
. Then it fills in the interaction formula and gets a result, e.g. 5.5. Since 5.5 is larger than 1.0,
SCIA.ESA needs to increase the reinforcement. The reinforcement is increased using a special routine, which will be
explained in a later paragraph. Finally if SCIA.ESA gets a result from the interaction formula, that is less than 1.0, e.g.
0.6, SCIA.ESA stops the calculation and the reinforcement amount from that last layout is the result of the reinforcement
calculation.
Optimisation
One of the disadvantages of the column reinforcement calculation is that SCIA.ESA stops the calculation, if the result of
the interaction formula is less than 1, e.g. 0.5. This does not necessarily mean that the number of bars is the optimal
solution. The optimal solution can be a layout of reinforcement with a less number of bars with a higher result value for
the interaction formula, e.g. 0.95.
23
If the user uses the optimisation function, after the Normal design of the reinforcement bars SCIA.ESA will decrease
the number of bars 2 by 2 (1 per edge, 2 per direction) and calculate the result of the interaction formula for each layout
of bars.
Example
The result of the main reinforcement design is 1620 bars and the interaction formula has a result of 0.8. After gradually
decreasing the number of bars the interaction formulae for each layout is calculated, see table.
Layout Interaction Formula
1420 0.98
1220 1.2
1020 3
820 5
In this specific case a layout of 14 bars has an interaction formula result closer to 1 than 0.8 and thus it is more
optimised.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
24
Ratio
SCIA.ESA uses a special routine to increase the reinforcement in the column. This works as follows:
Prior to the column calculation:
SCIA.ESA automatically determines the design moment per direction, M
dy
and M
dz
and for those internal forces it
determines the Normal stress at the outermost fibre by dividing the moment by the section modulus for that direction,
e.g. o
y
= M
dy
/ W
y
. With those o's per direction it can determine the ratio of moments.
r
y
= o
y
/ (o
z
+ o
y
); r
z
= o
z
/ (o
z
+ o
y
)
Step 1:
SCIA.ESA checks the reinforcement for one bar per corner.
Step 2:
SCIA.ESA determines the values for M
uy
and M
uz
and recalculates the interaction formula.
If the results are less than 1, the calculation is stopped.
Step 3:
According the values for r
(y/z)
the reinforcement is increased per direction.
Step 4:
SCIA.ESA determines the values for M
uy
and M
uz
and recalculates the interaction formula.
If the results are less than 1, the calculation is stopped.
Example:
Modeled in SCIA.ESA PT as a frame XYZ.
Concrete class NEN B45, L = 4.5 [m], b h = 350 350 [mm
2
]
 LC1 Permanent Load
F = 1000 [kN]; M
y
= 50 [kNm]; M
z
= 125 [kNm]
 LC2 Variable Load, momentaneous factor = 0.5
F = 1000 [kN]; M
y
= 50 [kNm]; M
z
= 25 [kNm]
NEN ULS Combination = 1.2 LC1 + 1.5 LC2
F
d
= 1.2 1000 + 1.5 1000 = 2700 [kN]
M
dy
= 1.2 50 + 1.5 50 = 135 [kN]
M
dz
= 1.2 125 + 1.5 25 = 187.5 [kN]
W
y
= 1/6 350
3
= 7.15 10
6
[mm
3
] = W
z
r = 135.0 / 187.5 = 0.72
Step 1
As a first layout SCIA.ESA assumes one bar in each corner.
Step 2
M
uy
= 133.1 [kNm] = M
uz
4 . 1 4 . 1
1 . 133
5 . 187
1 . 133
0 . 135

.

\

+

.

\

= 1.01
1.4
+ 1.41
1.4
= 1.01 + 1.62 = 2.63 >> 1
Step 3:
SCIA.ESA starts adding bars in the crosssection and rechecks the interaction formula. The results were as follows.
25
N
d 1755 [kN] N
d 1890 [kN]
M
dy 87,7 [kNm] M
dy 94,5 [kNm]
M
dz 121,9 [kNm] M
dz 131,2 [kNm]
N
d 2160 [kN] N
d 2565 [kN]
M
dy 108 [kNm] M
dy 128,2 [kNm]
M
dz 150 [kNm] M
dz 178,1 [kNm]
N
d 2700 [kN]
M
dy 135 [kNm]
M
dz 187,5 [kNm]
The increment routine for the number of bars is as follows:
Step 1 Add one bar for the 'weakest' side.
Step 2 Add one bar for the 'strongest' side plus 1/r bars for the 'weakest' side. In which the value of 1/r is rounded
off to integer values.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
26
For our example: (1/r = 1/0.72 = 1.39)
Step Real Bars ydirection zdirection
0 4 4 4
1 6 4 4*1.39 = 5.6 = 6
2 10 6 6*1.39 = 8.3 = 8
3 16 8 8*1.39 = 11.1 = 12
4 20 10 10*1.39 = 13.9 = 14
Ratio of step 4: 10/14 = 0.71
Ratio y/z: 4/6 (Real bars)
Delta Area
SCIA.ESA PT bases his column reinforcement calculation for an interaction between normal force and biaxial moments
on real bars. By adding sufficient real bars it will find a solution. For some special cases this may seem incorrect. For
those cases SCIA.ESA allows the user to define real areas of reinforcement, e.g. 100 [mm
2
] or 50 [mm
2
]. SCIA.ESA uses
those areas instead of the defined bar diameter in the dialogue concrete member data. SCIA.ESA however still uses the
location of the defined bar in the calculation.
Tip
Using this option in combination with optimisation of number of bars will give the best results.
Multiple combinations
If multiple combinations (e.g. result class ALL ULS) load a column and the combinations require reinforcement in
different directions, SCIA.ESA PT combines the reinforcement required for two combinations into a new reinforcement
layout and amount.
Example
A column calculated using the NEN code is loaded by two combinations. Combination C1 contains a line load in local y
direction and combination C2 contains a line load in local zdirection.
27
Combination C1 requires a reinforcement amount of 6283 [mm
3
] of which 40% is required in ydirection (8 314 = 2513)
and 60% is required in zdirection (12 314 = 3770). Combination C2 requires a reinforcement amount of 8168 [mm
2
] of
which 23% is required in ydirection (6 314 = 1879) and 77% is required in zdirection (20 314 = 6289). Note that
although the required reinforcement amount for combination C2 is larger than C1, the required reinforcement amount in
ydirection for combination C1 is larger than the reinforcement amount in ydirection for combination C2 (2513>1879).
Thus SCIA.ESA PT combines both combinations and gives the reinforcement amount based upon the maximum
reinforcement amounts in y and zdirection (2513 + 6289 = 8802 8796).
Circular Columns
Circular columns are uniaxially loaded columns. Two possible moments M
y
and M
z
will be vectored into one design
moment M
d
. Thus principally the same method for uniaxially loaded columns is used.
M
y
M
z
M
d
The only problem is the location of the reinforcement bars. Whilst increasing the number of bars the locations of the bars
will change.
SCIA.ESA has implemented a straightforward method of calculating the reinforcement in a circular column. In the first
step the program puts six bars in the crosssection and calculates the ultimate moment. If the ultimate moment is larger
than the design moment, M
d
, the calculation stops and the programs returns a reinforcement area equivalent to the area
of the chosen reinforcement bar diameter times 5, e.g. 1571 for 20. If the ultimate moment is smaller than the program
increases the number of bars by one and recalculates the ultimate moment, etc.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
28
Remark
The ultimate moment capacity of the crosssection is based on two layouts of reinforcement bars.
M
d
M
d
Walls, Plates and Shells
One of SCIA.ESA PT most outstanding features is its ability to deal with two and threecourse reinforcement meshes of
deliberate geometry, i.e. the angles closed by pairs of reinforcement directions may be freely specified, however, within
reasonable limits. The next figure shows the basic definition scheme of reinforcement geometry: The directions of the 2/3
reinforcement courses specified for design are expressed by angles <0, 180) closed with the 1
st
planar axis x
p
.
The reinforcement geometry may be specified individually at each of the 2D structure faces, concerning the direction
angles and the number of reinforcement courses (2 or 3). So it is, for example, possible, to specify at one face a skew
twocourse reinforcement net with directions, say, 10/70 and, at the same time, a threecourse reinforcement net with
directions, e.g., 0/60/120 at the other face. The standard orthogonal reinforcement 0/90, allowed by most design
programs as the only reinforcement geometry specification, is in SCIA.ESA PT one of all possible constellations, nothing
more.
x
p
y
p
1
2
3
o
1
o
2
o
3
29
Transformation of inner forces to design forces
Once the reinforcement design input data have been read and analysed and the FEM Data Base approached, the SCIA.ESA
PT design model can be created respecting all Code rules and restrictions applicable to the active structural model: SCIA.ESA
PT distinguishes between the Wall, Plate and Shell structural type. They are different not only as to the principal assumptions
about the mechanical properties of the reinforcement concrete medium but, in all Codes, also as to the requirements and
restrictions these structural types are subjected to.
The first substantial step of the design procedure to be reported here is the calculation of inner design forces for each item to
be designed. SCIA.ESA PT distinguishes two design items: elements and nodes. The design forces transformation procedure
outlined here takes thus place at each step of the (multiple) design loop.
The SCIA.ESA PT transformation procedure is based on a general transformation formula published by Baumann:
c
i
= [sino
j
sino
k
+ kcoso
j
coso
k
] / [sin(o
j
 o
i
) sin(o
k
 o
i
)]
(i, j, k = 1,2,3)
In this formula the subscripts i, j, k denote the three reinforcement directions according to previous figure. When applied to a
pure bending case with principal moments m
I
and m
II
, the variables have the following meaning:
o
i,,j, k
: angles between individual reinforcement directions and the direction of the 1st principal
moment m
I
k : quotient m
II
/m
I
; according to the values of m
I
and m
II
it can attain negative,
zero and positive values
c
i
: transformation coefficient of the direction i:
m
i
= c
i
m
I
The formula is equally valid for Walls. In that case, however, the principal moments m
I
and m
II
in are to be substituted by the
principal membrane forces n
I
and n
II
to be valid for Walls, too.
In case of Shells, the combined bendingmembrane inner forces {m
x
, m
y
, m
xy
, v
x
, v
y
, n
x
, n
y
, n
xy
} must first be transformed to
virtual membrane forces acting as two formally independent force systems at both structural faces:
p
x
= m
x
/z + n
x
/2
p
y
= m
y
/z + n
y
/2
p
xy
= m
xy
/z + n
xy
/2
In these formulae z represents the inner forces lever calculated, as reference value, for the outermost reinforcement layer. In
subsequent design calculations, it is considered that the inner layers have effectively lesser inner forces levers than z
symbolised by the previous formulae. The calculation of z is an interesting chapter of the design procedure. In this case, the
calculation for the first time must refer to the material properties of the concrete continuum; it is no more material
independent like the transformation formula, which is based on the assumption of linearly elastic material.
The reference value of z is obtained as the minimum value of the inner forces lever calculated for three characteristic cases:
m
I
and associated n
n
I
and associated m
n
II
and associated m
The reference virtual membrane forces {p
x
, p
y
, p
xy}
are in the SCIA.ESA PT design algorithm formally subjected to the same
procedure as normal membrane forces of a Wall structural model. However, there are differences in processing them to the
final result; they will not be reported here in full detail.
The transformation formula does not yet represent the final solution of the transformation problem. The transformation
coefficients c
i
, c
j
, c
k
thus calculated represent transformation forces in a linearly elastic medium that does not make difference
between tension and pressure design forces. Such a solution is generally not applicable to a reinforced concrete medium,
where the basic medium concrete can oppose pressure stresses only.
Let us, for general considerations, independent of the structural model, denote the design forces obtained by the
transformation as {p
1
, p
2
, p
3
}. In Walls the symbols p
i
represent the design Normal forces {n
1
, n
2
, n
3
}; in Plates  the design
moments {m
1
, m
2
, m
3
} and in Shells  the virtual design forces {p
1
, p
2
, p
3
} corresponding in the Baumann transformation to (p
x
,
p
y
, p
xy
) after the formulae (3). The transformation formulae have a fundamental invariant meaning, whatever the values of {p
1
,
p
2
, p
3
} are:
p
1
+ p
2
+ p
3
= p
I
+ p
II
= const
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
30
where p
I
and p
II
symbolise, analogously, the principal Normal forces n
I
and n
II
(Walls), the principal moments m
I
and m
II
(Plates) or, directly, p
I
and p
II
(Shells). The Formula (1) yields several solutions satisfying. For SCIA.ESA PT, the solution
representing the minimum energetic level is used for the design.
o
I
>o
II
>0
o
I
o
II
o
II
I
o
o
In an elliptic state of stress, the solution for a threecourse reinforcement net is relatively quickly found. In twocourse
reinforcement nets, which represent, without doubt, the standard use in the building practice, only two design forces can be
assigned to reinforcement. The third force of the invariant formula is assigned to the concrete medium. It is clear that its value
must be negative, for concrete is not able to resist tension. Only in special reinforcement arrangements or in a strictly circular
state of stress, the concrete design force can vanish: the concrete medium performs (theoretically) no mechanical work in that
case and may be considered as stressfree.
Of practical meaning, however, is the case with concrete participating in resisting the inner forces of external loads. The
function of concrete may thus be explained as stiffening medium of the deformable reinforcement steel net, which would, by
itself, deform under the action of tension or pressure forces in its plane. We will call that function of concrete as Stiffening
Virtual Concrete Strut, or, more simply, just Concrete Strut.
The position of the Concrete Strut is, however, generally not identical with any reinforcement direction specified for design. It
means that if formula does not yield for a threecourse reinforcement net all three positive design forces, at least one of the
reinforcement courses is inactive (or two of them); the Concrete Strut does not automatically coincide with one of the
reinforcement courses! The assessment of the Concrete Strut position is thus an important optimisation task.
It is an outstanding feature of the SCIA.ESA PT design algorithm, developed by months and years of improvements of
theoretical and algorithmic procedures, that the formula can usefully be applied to all possible situations of elliptic (o
1
>o
2
>0),
parabolic (o
1<
>0;o
2
=0) and hyperbolic states of stress/strain, i.e. also to elliptic pressure state, thus yielding design forces
which enable optimised reinforcement design. With respect to competing design programs, the publication of these algorithms
is undesirable in any form.
o
I
>0;o
II
<0
+
+
o
II
II
I
o
I
31
Reinforcement Design
Introductory to this paragraph, dealing with the central topic of SCIA.ESA PT, concepts already discussed above to illustrate
the SCIA.ESA PTs algorithm from a more common point of view will be summarised here and given, if necessary, their
special explanation.
Reinforcement concrete 2D structures handled by SCIA.ESA PT  Walls, Plates and Shells  are usually reinforced by two
systems of steel reinforcement nets consisting of 2 or 3 reinforcement courses situated more or less close to both faces of the
2D structure. SCIA.ESA PT puts no principal restrictions upon the absolute position of reinforcement courses within the cross
section; its axial concrete cover describes the position of each reinforcement course. However, there are relative restrictions:
all concrete covers must fulfil some rules to prevent ambiguousness of the geometric definition of the design task. These rules
are described in the part of the SCIA.ESA PT manual.
Yet it must not be forgotten that there might be other, more complex situations in the crosssection than symbolised by the
next figure:
1. The crossing reinforcement bars of individual layers do not need to touch each other; they might be
placed at larger distances from each other within the cross sections;
2. The surfaces of bars are usually corrugated so that there is, as a rule, a greater distance between two
crossing bars than expressed by their characteristic bar diameters;
3. Last but not least, in very thick plates, e.g. foundation slabs, two layers or bars bundles in one layer are
used, so that the representative axial distance (of the point of gravity) and the representative bar diameter
itself are two independent quantities and qualities, which must be defined independently on input in order
to carry out reliable analysis.
In Walls, being (theoretically) subjected to forces acting in their planes, the (by definition symmetric) positions of reinforcement
nets are of no static interest; however, the crosssection geometry (concrete covers and bar diameters) is of interest for the
Crack Proof algorithm (if implemented). Thus, the Wall design branch comprises the same crosssection input dialog as the
Plate and Shell models.
In Plates and Shells, on the contrary, the reinforcement covers estimate the effective static height of the reinforcement
courses in the crosssection subjected (also) to bending, thus having fundamental meaning for the design process. The covers
are related to the faces. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish them clearly from each other. Because Plates are (still) the
structural type most frequently used in the practice, SCIA.ESA PT used originally common terms distinguishing the two faces:
upper and lower face. These concepts have to be given mathematically exact meaning, which makes them acceptable for
Shells, too: the lower face is the structural plane edge in direction of the positive planar axis Z
p
; the upper face is opposite to it.
Finally, the symbol Z
p
appears generally in the output protocol instead of the term upper face; the symbol +Z
p
symbolises
lower face. In Walls, there is no need of distinguishing both structural edges; nevertheless, out of formal reasons
(simplification), if the concept of upper face appears in connection with Walls it means both faces.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
32
The reinforcement courses are, correspondingly to their relative position in the crosssection, called the outer(most), middle (if
any) and inner(most) ones. This verbal distinguishing is in the mathematical formulation replaced by assigning them the
ordinal numbers 1, 2 and 3 (if three reinforcement courses are specified at all). The same double identification may be given to
other associated terms like reinforcement angles, design forces, effective static heights, inner forces levers, etc. So we can
speak, e.g., about reinforcement angles o, , meaning the same when alternately indicating o
1
, o
2
, o
3
. There is no indication
that this ambiguity of terms should cause confusion; as a fact, there is no ambiguousness for the correspondence of both
systems of denotation is clearly defined.
Remark:
Note that each reinforcement course can hold up to 10 reinforcement layers.
The terms of the reinforcement concrete theory are used in accordance with the general structural use or they strictly follow
the rules postulated by the Norms implemented in SCIA.ESA PT. However, for SCIA.ESA PT deals with several national
codes, it is probable that this or that term or formulation would appear somewhat unfamiliar to some readers focused onto the
use of one code branch only. It is hardly possible to create a manual text on such special topic for international use being in all
respects verbally fully conform to every countrys verbal usage. In doubts, the terminology of Eurocode will be given pre
ference.
The design task and the output of results are performed in basic and derived units of the SI system.
Reinforcement design of Walls
The inner forces {n
x
, n
y
, n
xy
} of the FEM solution are retrieved from the FEM Data Base for each design item (element/node)
and transformed by the method outlined above into the design (membrane) forces {p
, p
2
, p
3
}.
Once a positive design force has been assigned to its associated reinforcement course, the corresponding statically required
reinforcement amount a
i
is calculated after a Formula like this:
a
i
= p
i
/ o
dim
(i=1,2 (,3)) [cm
2
/m]
The previous formula has a symbolic meaning only, for we cannot write down an exact calculation rule for codes implemented
in SCIA.ESA PT. The symbol o
dim
stands for design effective steel strength. Both p
i
and o
dim
may be, according to the code of
question, charged with bearing and/or security coefficients. We will not discuss the problem of elementary reinforcement
design; the SCIA.ESA PT algorithm follows strictly the rules postulated by the national codes and associated regulations.
Above it was emphasised that the application of the transformation formula to the inner forces of the FEM model yields not yet
the final result and that there are formally several solutions fitting the invariance condition. In a class of hyperbolic states of
stress (n
I
> 0, n
II
< 0) the SCIA.ESA PT algorithm finds, by means of the Baumann formula, an energetic minimum solution of
the following quality:
p
1
> 0; p
2
= 0; p
3
< 0
In p
1
> 0 is the (positive) reinforcement design force; the second reinforcement course is set inactive (or both remaining ones,
if a threecourse reinforcement is specified); p
3
is the (negative) design force of the stiffening strut.
For a twocourse, skew (i.e. nonorthogonal) reinforcement net (representing equivalently also threecourse reinforcement
nets under hyperbolic state of stress) we will follow the explanations by means of the next figure.
33
In certain hyperbolic stress situations, the SCIA.ESA PT transformation algorithm yields for the skew reinforcement
specification according to previous figure a solution of the quality. It is sketched by figure (b): the reinforcement course 1 is
assigned a tension design force
1
p
1
> 0; the reinforcement course 2 is inactive; the pressure stress acting at the crosssection
of question is resisted by a relatively large pressure force of the stiffening concrete strut
1
p
3
< 0.
However, the heterogeneous reinforced concrete medium would hardly be armoured by one reinforcement course only. Even
if the state of stress would prevail in extensive parts of the structure, an at least twocourse reinforcement mesh would still be
necessary to maintain the functionality of such 2Dstructure. Due to the Minimum Transversal Percentage requirement, the
reinforcement course No 2 deactivated (theoretically) in this case would generally be assigned a portion of the statically
necessary reinforcement amount of the reinforcement course 1. Thus, in a practical reinforcement design the reinforcement
course 2 would also be assigned a real a
s
value.
In addition, many of national codes implemented in SCIA.ESA PT require a Minimum Pressure Reinforcement proof for
reinforcement resisting pressure forces. In the case of figure (b), such proof could formally not be performed for there is no
data of the calculation pressure force assigned to the reinforcement: the strut pressure force is not associated with any
reinforcement course!
For reasons outlined, the seek of another solution fitting the transformation formula yet assigning a nonzero design force to
the reinforcement course 2 seems to be a logical if not indispensable algorithmic step. As a fact, SCIA.ESA PT carries this
step out automatically in such stresssituations and yields a second order solution symbolised by figure (c). Using vector
arrows of different lengths, the stress vectors of figure XX (b) and (c) express the substantial difference of the two
transformation solutions mentioned. In mathematical notation the relations are as follows:
2
p
1
>
1
p
1
;
2
p
2
>
1
p
2
= 0; 0 >
2
p
3
>
1
p
3
SCIA.ESA PT makes of these two consistent solutions (they are consistent for they fit the invariance condition and
inconsistent final solution by combining them according to figure (d). Analytically expressed:
p
1
1
p
1
; p
2
2
p
2
< 0; p
3
1
p
3
< 0
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
34
The solution (a,b) is extraordinary productive: SCIA.ESA PT extends the design forces set of the first basic solution by the
pressure design force for the reinforcement course 2. Experience shows that the real amount of pressure reinforcement
calculated by this procedure is generally relatively small; in most cases, the Minimum Transversal Percentage requirement
yields a higher value, thus replacing the pressure reinforcement value in the output.
The solution described by figure (d) is inconsistent in the sense of the invariance condition: it is no more fulfilled by the set of
forces combined to form the effective solution. To denote this important circumstance, the design pressure force p
2
=
2
p
2
is
marked by trailing ! in the output table of design forces of the printable document, however, only if the design forces table
output is activated. For the structural engineer it is of importance that the solution just presented is consistent with national
code requirements about Minimum Pressure Reinforcement and represents a good mechanical solution of the design
problem.
The preceding observations made it obvious that the virtual stiffening strut of the heterogeneous concretesteel continuum
represents a quite substantial item of the design process. Whereas it is possible (unless the Upper Reinforcement Percentage
has not been exceeded) to improve the bearing capacity of the crosssection on the side of the reinforcement by augmenting
its amount, the bearing limit of the concrete strut is given by the height of the crosssection and the quality of concrete only;
thus its limits are predestined by the input data. The following relation describes the concrete strut bearing capacity limit
condition:
Reinforcement
Cracks
 p
3
< A o
c,dim
o
c,dim
representing the concrete effective design stress, which, according to the dode of question, may comprise a security
coefficient. In SCIA.ESA PT it is assessed on the base of 80% of the standard concrete pressure strength. This effective
reduction follows the recommendation of Schleich and Schfer: the bearing capacity of concrete under pressure is
unfavourably affected by transversal tension stresses which produce cracks parallel to the direction of pressure; this is
typically the stress situation of the stiffening strut.
The crosssection area A in is taken in Walls as the full amount of the unit rectangular crosssection h x 1.0.
The transformation formula may yield, however, in other hyperbolic states of stress direct design pressure forces assigned
with reinforcement courses specified. At any case, once a design pressure force, direct or virtual one, is known the pressure
reinforcement is calculated after the following general formula:
a
i
= ( p
i
 A o
c,dim
) / o
dim
(i=1,2 (,3)) [cm
2
/m] (ZZZ)
35
Reinforcement design of Plates
In the Wall model the inner as well as the design forces produce constant presses over the crosssection; thus, there is no
necessity to examine the distribution of stresses within the crosssection. For bending in Plates, it is a fundamental
characteristic that the stresses are nonlinearly and discontinuously distributed over the crosssection. For all of the national
Codes implemented in SCIA.ESA PT exclude the tension bearing capacity of concrete out of the reinforcement design
concept, in the tension zone (below the neutral axis) the only bearing material is the reinforcement steel. The resistance
ability of concrete exerts in the pressurebending zone only.
DIN 1045 introduces the concept of combined parabolic (2) and constant pressure stress distribution. It is the most
complex assumption of all Codes implemented (the so called ParabelRechteckDiagramm).
NORM B 4200 does not allow for fully plasticized concrete in a portion of the pressure zone; thus, the pressure stress
distribution function is parabola 2. It is of interest to point out that by this assumption NORM gives for comparable
material strengths reinforcement design solutions with higher virtual security than DIN.
EUROCODE 2 allows for all national Norm assumptions. For SCIA.ESA PT serves as design algorithm on international
scale it would, strictly considering the situation, be necessary to develop several national mutations of the EC 2
algorithm. Actually SCIA.ESA PT keeps to the basic variant developed under the concrete pressure stress distribution
assumption according to DIN 1045 which comprises the assumptions of almost all of the implemented Codes.
EUROCODE 2 introduces a new concept of the Shear Proof, which explicitly operates with the concept of the shear
virtual strut. It also formulates a new approach to the consideration of the interaction between the bending moment +
normal force and the shear force. After this concept, the shear force causes, typically, an increase of the necessary net
reinforcement. This phenomenon was analysed by the Author of SCIA.ESA PT and 1999 implemented algorithmically
into the EUROCODE 2 design branch as well as into all other design branches following the same (or similar) concept
(SIA 162, DIN 10451, NORM B 4700 see below).
CSN 73 1201 introduces the concept of the so called Pressure Bloc: the resisting concrete stress is assumed to
develop constantly over a portion of the pressure zone only (i.e. it covers not completely the zone between the neutral
axis and the compressed face) thus forming a calculation substitute for the reality approximated. Comparative tests
showed that there is no substantial difference between this simplified approach and more complex pressure distribution
assumptions of other Codes on the side of the design results.
SIA 162 introduces, similarly to CSN 731201, the concept of the Pressure Bloc and, parallelly, the ParabolicConstant
stress distribution analogously to DIN 1045. SCIA.ESA PT uses the former assumption. It might thus be expected that
the design results of CSN 731201 and SIA 162 would differ slightly from each other for comparable material qualities.
However, this proves to be true in situations with vanishing shear forces only! As a fact, SIA 162 was the first of national
codes implemented in SCIA.ESA PT (and the first
Norm used in practice on international scale) which formulated the
impact of shear forces upon the mesh reinforcement on both faces(!), which was given the name Shear Effect (see
above, EUROCODE 2). Because SIA 162, in difference to EUROCODE 2, DIN 10451 and NORM B 4700, does not
regularly allow for a design variant without considering the Shear Effect, the development of the Shear Effect algorithm of
SCIA.ESA PT was, as a fact, induced by SIA 162, rather than by EUROCODE 2. This special treatment of the Shear
Effect is by the SIA Norm explicitly formulated for beams, i.e. 1D structural members, only. In order to make it applicable
for 2D reinforcement models, some special assumptions and algorithmic enhancements had to be made. This SCIA.ESA
PTs genuine development was implemented 1999 and published in [17]. By this SCIA holds priority not only in reporting
on this phenomenon but also in having developed and implemented their own 2D algorithm in a design program distri
buted on the international market. Aspects of this phenomenon will be discussed in more detail in the Chapter Shear
Proof.
NEN 6720 operates with the assumption of linearly changing and constant branch of the pressure distribution function. In
comparison with other codes it can be summarised than NEN 6720 is a sophisticated standard of high engineering value.
Especially its concept of Shear and Crack Proof is highly valuable. However, NEN 6720 does not introduce the concept
of the Shear Effect (see above).
DIN 10451 1998/12 is a mutation of EUROCODE 2 developed as a substitute for the actually valid DIN 1045, 1988/7. It
maintains the concept of combined parabolic (2) and constant pressure stress distribution of its predecessor issue.
However, the material strengths are defined in the Eurocode manner. The most distinguishing features to the old DIN
1045 are: (a) the Eurocode concept of partial safety factors; (b) Eurocodelike classification of concrete; (c) substantially
higher allowed ultimate steel strain; (d) the Shear Proof concept is substantially that of EUROCODE 2; however, some
new elements were introduced, not all being a real improvement.
NORM B 4700, declared as Eurocodelike Norm, is in its concept very similar to EUROCODE 2 or to DIN 10451. It
introduces both the concept of the Pressure Bloc and the ParabolicConstant stress distribution after DIN 10451.
SCIA.ESA PT uses the latter assumption. The Crack Proof concept of NORM B 4700 is relatively detailed elaborated.
The statically required tension reinforcement of a steel course is calculated by the following elementary formula:
a
i
= m
i
/ (z
i
o
dim
) (i=1,2 (,3)) [cm
2
/m]
The special moment symbol m
i
for the design moment associated with the reinforcement course i is used instead of the
common symbol p
i
for design force in order to avoid confusion with hasty readers. The stress symbol o
dim
has a
comparable quality as that explained with the formula for Walls; it again represents the effective design steel strength for
all codes. The inner forces lever z
i
in makes out the obvious difference between the formulae. As a fact, there is no
difference between them, for the quotient m
i
/z
i
equals the steel design force Z
i
, which constitutes with the opposing
concrete pressure zone resultant force D
i
the forces couple representing the design bending moment m
i
; thus, we
formally obtain the formula when substituting p
i
= Z
i
= m
i
/ z
i
.
The previous formula reveals the fundamental and equally elementary meaning of the inner forces lever z for the design
algorithm. As a fact, by introducing the transformation formulae (3) for Shells above it was made clear enough that the
knowledge of the proper value of inner forces lever is indispensable for the reinforcement design.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
36
In SCIA.ESA PT the inner forces lever z is calculated following the following procedures:
For DIN 1045, NORM B 4200 and EUROCODE 2 interpolation formulae yielding the value of z very quickly were
developed. The maximum approximation error amounts up to 2%, however, in the region of vanishing bending zone
heights; the interpolation Formula is much better fitted to higher stress states where there the approximation error is less
than 1%.
For CSN 731201, SIA 162, NEN 6720, DIN 10451 and NORM B 4700 analytic integration procedures were develo
ped; they yield exact pressure integrals.
The stiffening function of the concrete medium is not as transparently obvious in Plates as in Walls. In Plates we have to
do with force couples described as bending moments. The concrete pressure stresses are not constantly distributed over
the crosssection. Thus, a direct application of the concrete strut bearing capacity limit condition (8) was not possible
here. SCIA.ESA PT had used some approximate approaches until the best and perhaps most simply formulation of the
strut bearing capacity limit was found. It is, however, not simply enough to be described by a few mathematical terms; in
SCIA.ESA PT it is formulated algorithmically. Here we give the following verbal explanation of the matter relating to
figures (c) and (d):
In Plates the strut design force p
3
means the force couple m
3
. From figure XXX (c) it is obvious that m
3
causes basically
the same kind of stresses in its direction as the other two reinforcement design moments m
1
and m
2
, however, with ex
changed faces (i.e. m
3
is of opposite sign). In this case we are not interested in analysing the situation on the tensioned
face; the state of stress in the stiffening strut bending zone is of interest. What is the limit condition of the strut bearing
capacity; what calculation value of stress integral force D
3
can be taken into account?
The answer to the fundamental question posed under (1) is given by figure (d): SCIA.ESA PT allows for the maximum
height of the bending zone x
max
in the sense of the design algorithm applied. If at this state of stress the equilibrium in the
crosssection is not yet attained, i.e. would strengthening of the pressure zone by (pressure) reinforcement be formally
necessary, then this is seen by SCIA.ESA PT as an unambiguous indication of the bearing capacity of the stiffening strut
being exceeded. The crosssection is nondesignable due to concrete failure (Error number 5).
It is not known to the Author of SCIA.ESA PT that any other design algorithms would deal with this problem at all. Even
theoretical publications on reinforced concrete design and the Codes implemented here do not care about the state of
concrete in the heterogeneous concretesteel medium under bending. DIN 1045, DIN 10451 and NORM B 4700
(curiously, not the old issue NORM B 4200), give some standardised advises as to the geometrical arrangement of
reinforcement in reference to the directions of the principal moments; they are concerned with stressed situations which
are typically of the hyperbolic type (situation in corners of floor slabs etc.).
The virtual strut bearability is a problem of acute practical interest. Users changing to EPW from other program systems
come earlier or later across the design error 5. In discussion with the SCIAs hotline support they then usually claim:
With our old program there we never had such a problem. All the time we had been using it, no exhaustion of the
concrete bearability was reported. It requires often quite a lot of patience to explain to them that programs that do not
care of a phenomenon cannot give any report of it. If the state of stress of the concrete is not monitored sufficiently, not
all of possible critical situations can be realised by the design algorithm. Protests like: We do not know anything of
damages to a structure due to insufficiency of the stiffening function of the concrete, which we hear from time to time,
are of no practical impact. Our structures are built with rather a high security reserves. Underestimating of the bearing
capacity of concrete does not cause immediately a crash yet generally a lesser than the required level of security, which
we are bound to achieve and maintain by codes and other Standards.
37
Reinforcement design of Shells
In the design of Shells, the ideas and procedures of both the design of Walls and the design of Plates are combined. The code
requirements and restrictions, which seldom are formulated individually for Shells, must both be considered both for Walls and
Plates. Thus, the Shell design is the most complex design model dealt with by SCIA.ESA PT.
From the mechanical point of view, the stressstrain situation in crosssections of Shells may develop from a typical Wall
pattern with constant stress distribution to a Plate pattern with its characteristic nonlinear concrete pressure stress
distribution over the bending pressure zone along with a cracked region below the neutral axis where there the reinforcement
resists the stresses from inner forces. The special situation depends, however, on the character of external load as well as on
the boundary conditions of the structure modelled.
SCIA.ESA PT has to manage all possible stress situations arising between the Wall type and the Plate type state of stress
using one unique design model to be able to produce results consistent with quantitatively slowly yet qualitatively abruptly
changing states of stress. It would be nonacceptable to have such a Shell design model which yields on one side results fully
identical with a Plate solution when there is pure bending acting, i.e. the membrane forces being zero, yet would produce
unintelligible results just because the membrane forces differ slightly from zero. Little change in loading must imply also little
change in the reinforcement design results.
We must be aware of the fact that all of the code texts implemented into SCIA.ESA PT were drafted with strongly focusing to
the problems of 1D structural members, i.e. beams. In SCIA.ESA PT, several requirements and restrictions had to be given a
reasonable engineering interpretation or extrapolation to fit to the special character of the 2Dstructures of interest. So it was
also in the design algorithm itself. Above it was shown that the seek of a representative (in this case the minimum) value of the
inner forces lever z may be quite a complex algorithmic task for the directions of the principal moments m
I
and m
II
generally
differ from those of n
I
and n
II
. Additionally, the reinforcement on both faces consists of two mutually independent meshes with
2 or 3 reinforcement courses in different directions. In Shells it is thus not possible to proceed by using the design solutions of
the type (m/n) moment + normal force like in the design theory of beams.
SCIA.ESA PT follows the logical approach of creating two sets of transformed design forces assigned to individual
reinforcement courses and/or the stiffening concrete strut on both faces of the structural model. In the assessment of the inner
forces lever z the Shell design procedure resembles the Plate design. In the creation of equivalent inner forces {p
x
, p
y
, p
xy
} and
their transformations (p
1
, p
2
, p
3
) SCIA.ESA PT follows a typical Wall design approach. Formally, we get two systems of design
situations on both Shell faces that must be managed in two algorithmic steps in each crosssection by considering the
situation on the other face. In this sense, the Shell design is organised like the Plate design.
The next figure shows symbolically a typical Shell design situation: there is the representative design force p
dim
assigned to a
reinforcement course at the upper face (the same procedure applies, however, to the lower face). In next figure symbol p
opp
is
used for the virtual design force on the opposite face going in the same direction as on the actual (upper) face; it is without
impact if there is specified a congruent reinforcement course parallel to that on the actual face (associated with p
dim
). The total
normal force in this crosssection is denoted as p
virt
(virtual normal force). Analogously, the associated virtual bending moment
m
virt
is defined to constitute the inner forces couple (m
virt
, p
virt
) acting in the crosssection of interest. Thus, the virtual
eccentricity can be estimated. Its value decides of the crosssection exploitation status.
The figure reveals that the design on a Shell face is typically a Wall design; however, the design force p
dim
is not applied to the
total crosssection area as in Walls, yet to some portion of it. SCIA.ESA PT assigns this portion of A in accordance with the
suggestions of Baumann. In the area assignment formula
A
s
= e A (ZZZ)
the value of the coefficient e varies from code to code in the range <0.35; 0.42>. In some sense, this approach may be
compared with the approximation made by CSN 731201 and SIA 162 in formulating the stress distribution in the bending
pressure zone using the Pressure Bloc approximation (see above). The reinforcement design goes then analogously after
the formulae (ZZZ) and (ZZZ). Also the strut proof is the same as for Walls; it is governed by the formula (ZZZ). However,
instead of the total crosssection area, the effective oneface area A
s
is to be substituted into these formulae.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
38
39
Design of shear reinforcement
Beams
General
As already stated in the chapter about internal forces, the shear reinforcement design is commonly based on the theory
of the concrete trussmodel. In this theory a virtual trussmodel is imagined in a concrete beam. This trussmodel has a
set of vertical (or slightly diagonal), horizontal and diagonal members. The vertical bars are considered to be the stirrups;
the horizontal bars are the main reinforcement and the diagonal bars are the concrete struts.
All implemented codes postulate a stress level which, when exceeded, indicates the necessity of shear reinforcement to
ensure the crosssection resistance to shear, as well as another (higher) level which, when exceeded, signalises the structure
becoming nondesignable. Following the concepts of DIN 1045 the first (lower) limit restricts the socalled Shear Region 1. In
SR1 (symbolical abbreviation), no shear reinforcement is necessary. In the Shear Region 2 (SR2) which comprises all stress
states between the two limits, the shear reinforcement is calculated on the base of the design value v
dim
in (15). It proved as
good means of communication to use the concept of the Shear Regions when discussing the Shear Proof algorithm aspects
and commenting design results of all Codes. When the upper limit of the SR2 is reached in a 2D structural medium, the shear
bearing ability of the crosssection is considered to be exhausted. This limit is the threshold to the Shear Region 3. When SR3
is indicated in the output protocol of the 2D design it means nondesignabilty of the crosssection.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
40
Composite Section and Arbitrary Sections
Composite sections (concrete/concrete) are more difficult to calculate the shear reinforcement for. Principally a set of two
trussmodels must be defined in order to calculate the reinforcement. One trussmodel for the lesser concrete quality and
one for the difference between the larger and lesser quality. In SCIA.ESA PT a straight forward of calculation of these
sections is allowed. The user is able to define the concrete quality by hand, thus allowing a more practical solution. By
default however the lesser quality is always taken in the calculation.
Since SCIA.ESA PT is capable of calculating main reinforcement for any vertical symmetrical section, the shear
reinforcement calculation can sometimes be seemingly impossible. In those cases SCIA.ESA PT allows the user to set
the value of the shear width himself. Thus the shear area is defined by the static height of the crosssection and the user
defined width. Then a normal shear reinforcement calculation is performed.
Columns
Presently SCIA.ESA PT does not support shear reinforcement calculations for columns loaded in two directions. When
one wants to calculate the shear reinforcement for a column loaded in one direction, change the beam type of the
column to beam and the shear calculation can be performed.
Plates and Shells
All of the Codes implemented in SCIA.ESA PT have their own mechanical model of how slender structures like Plates and
Shells resist the shear stressing and how they can be strengthen to increase their shear resistance. Thus, the Shear Proof is
still more diversified than the "pure" net reinforcement design. However, this diversification becomes more relative by near
consideration. As a fact, there are many common ideas of the Shear Proof among the Codes implemented.
The shear forces v
x
and v
y
in the point of consideration are transformed into the design shear force v
dim
after the following
geometric sum formula:
v
dim
= \ (v
x
2
+ v
y
2
) [kN/m] (15)
41
Some of the modern Codes EUROCODE 2, DIN 10451, NORM B 4700 require in the Shear Region 2 some amount of
Minimum Shear Reinforcement. This requirement is regulated by special tables combining the control by the concrete and
steel strength class. Not unlike this requirement, CSN 73 1201 formulates an additional shear stress limit, which, if attained,
implies the need of the so called Structural Shear Reinforcement in such parts of the structure designed (see below).
Shear Proof Concepts
To enable better understanding of the design results, the most important characteristics of the Norm oriented Shear Proof
procedures applied in SCIA.ESA PT are summarised here:
DIN 1045 (1988/7) introduces the concept of the so called Truss Model (Fachwerkmodell) of the shear stress resistance
mechanism. Three Shear Regions are defined corresponding with different levels of crosssection exploitation. In 2D
Structures of interest, Shear Region 3 is no more allowed. On the other side, in difference to 1D structural members no shear
reinforcement is needed in Shear Region 1. The Shear Region limits are expressed in terms of allowable shear stresses as
functons of the concrete strength class. Depending on the continuity of the tension reinforcement in individual spans (i.e. fields
from support to support), one of two sets of shear tension limits applies. The categorisation by Shear Regions seamed to the
Author of SCIA.ESA PT mechanically and formally so representative that it was generalised to describe comparable design
states also in other Codes implemented (see above).
NORM B 4200 defines a Shear Proof concept similar to DIN 1045. In difference to DIN, the continuity of net reinforcement is
not a factor of design; on the other side, the amount of net reinforcement at both faces is a bearing capacity increasing factor.
For in NORM B 4200 this concept is, as usual, introduced for 1D structural members only, SCIA.ESA PT assumed the
following generalisation: as effective values of longitudinal reinforcement the geometric sums (analogously to the Formula
(15)) on both faces separately, are taken.
EUROCODE 2 introduces a more advanced Shear Proof concept than DIN 1045 (1988/ 7). Two alternative Shear Proof
methods are legal: (a) standard procedure based on the Constant Shear Strut Inclination assumption; (b) shear proof model
using the Variable Shear Strut Iinclination concept. Actually, ESAPrima Win enables the application of both appoaches. Like
all Codes applying the modern concept of the Strut Inclination, EUROCODE 2 introduces the Shear Effect procedure (see
above). In early SCIA.ESA PT versions (before 1997), the explicit calculation of the impact of shear forces upon the net rein
forcement design was disregarded, on the base of the Article 4.3.2.4.4(6), which allows for the consideration of the Shear
Effect by applying constructive measures to the net reinforcement, analogously to the old Norm generation (the concept of the
so called Reinforcement Shift).
CSN 73 1201 has its special Shear Proof concept, which is based on the concrete tension strength merely than on allowable
shear stress limits; both approaches are, however, equivalent. In addition to other Codes, CSN 73 1201 formulates a design
situation where the so called Constructive Shear Reinforcement is required. For this reason, the concept of Shear Regions,
introduced by DIN 1045 and applied to other Codes as well, has for CSN 73 1201 been extended by the formal introduction of
the Shear Region 0. This region is equivalent to SR 1 of other Codes. In SR 1 of the CSN 73 1201 mutatation, Constructive
Shear Reinforcement is calculated. SR 2 and SR 3 have then analogous meanings like with other Codes.
SIA 162 works after the concept of the Strut Inclination Method. As a fact, analogously to the mode (b) of EUROCODE 2 (see
above), the Variable Shear Strut Inclination method is the standard mode of SIA 162. However, the very special requirement
of the Article 3 24 203, which is hardly to controle in 2D structures, made it necessary for SCIA.ESA PT to keep the mode (a)
of the Constant Shear Strut Inclination available to the users decision. SIA was the first Norm in international scale that
introduced the Shear Effect concept into practice; however, SIA 162 did it very consequently: the traditional approach
disregarding the Shear Effect mechanism was disabled as a means of Shear Proof. It means that in real situations of the Plate
and Shell design, where the shear forces act in combination with moments and membrane forces, an increment of the tension
net reinforcement due to shear is a standard design result under SIA 162. Sometimes, also the natural prestress (in pressure
zone) may be overridden by the longitudinal shear forces, so that tension reinforcement appears as final result where there
would, without the consideration of the Shear Effect, be no tension reinforcement necessary [17]. Thus, the Shear Effect has
to be considered in benchmark test examples. Also, in regions nearby (end line) supports, where bending moments ap
proach zero while the shear stresses attain extreme values, the difference between the design results disregarding the >v
m/n< interaction and the results containing the Shear Effect increments of the net reinforcement may been "surprisingly" high!
It is mainly to enable such comparative calculations like benchmark tests that the alternative mode (a) was introduced into
the SIA 162 Shear Proof branch as a nonstandard calculation mode.
NEN 6720 uses a fine, sophisticated, modern concept of Shear Proof resembling a combination of the ideas of EUROCODE 2
and SIA 162. NEN 6720 applies the Variable Shear Strut Inclination assumption for the Shear Proof algorithm. Also the
concept of Shear Regions (see above) is applicable to the NEN 6720 calculation process as common classification base.
DIN 10451 (1998/12) was implemented into SCIA.ESA PT before its final installation into the German Engineering practice.
The concept of DIN 10451 is based on EUROCODE 2. There are, however, differences, yet as a whole they are not of
primary importance. The DIN 10451 design branch follows the same ideas in the dealing with the problem of variable/fixed
strut inclination method and the consideration of the Shear Effect.
NORM B 4700 is actually the last Norm branch implementation into SCIA.ESA PT. The overall design oncept of NORM B
4700 is based on EUROCODE 2. The Shear Proof concept differs slightly from the original EUROCODE 2 concept. The
NORM B 4700 design branch follows the same ideas in the dealing with the problem of Variable/Fixed Strut method and the
consideration of the Shear Effect like EUROCODE 2 or DIN 10451. It comprises an interesting individual approach to the
problem of Crack limitations.
Advanced notes on the Shear Effect concept
The Shear Effect phenomenon, originally introduced by SIA 162 into the Engineering practice, is also a vivid concept of
EUROCODE 2, DIN 10451 (1998/12) and NORM B 4700. Some users not yet accustomed to the modern Eurocodebased
approach to reinforced concrete design may consider this concept considered as controversial. As a fact, the state of stress in
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
42
a Plate or Shell crosssection due to the inner shear force may be regarded as an analogy to the situation in a Wall design
model under the effect of shear membrane forces! In Walls, the consequence of such a kind of stressing is that the concrete
has to withstand relatively high pressure efforts along with substantial tension stresses in both or two of three, respectively,
courses of the reinforcement net. There is really a full analogy between this kind of membrane state of stress and that state of
stress that is produced by shear forces in a Plate or Shell crosssection, as reported in [17]. Here, one reinforcement course is
represented by the shear reinforcement (stirrups), the other reinforcement course are the bars of the upper/lower
reinforcement net of the 2D structure. However, as shown in [17], in high crosssections (more typically, however, in 1D
members) the horizontal, 2
nd
course reinforcement must be arranged not only at both faces but distributed along the cross
section height (at bar web faces). When calculating the shear reinforcement (stirrups), it is a natural mental step to think of the
estimation of the efforts arising from shear in the net reinforcement.
The concept of what was postulated as Shear Effect in [17] is basically the same in EUROCODE 2, SIA 162 and DIN 10451.
For SIA 162 introduced this concept as binding (i.e. the only shear design mode) before it was formulated by EUROCODE 2
we will correspond here to the symbolics of SIA 162 in giving a short overview of the method fundamentals.
In Art. 3 24 203 SIA 162 formulates the so called Truss Model of the Shear Proof based upon the concept of the Variable Strut
Inclination. By Strut a 1D representation of the resisting pressure field of the concrete medium is symbolised; the strut
inclination is then the assumed direction of the principal pressure stresses activated in the concrete by the shear (transversal)
force v. The concrete cannot, in accordance with the general assumption, resist tension stresses; their equilibration is the task
of the reinforcement. One shear reinforcement course constitute the transversal stirrups (the primary issue of the Shear
Proof); the other reinforcement course is represented by the upper/lower net reinforcement bars.
The total Shear Effect force f
t
(v) is calculated according to the Art. 3 24 207 of SIA 162 (analogous relations after EUROCODE
2, DIN 10451 and NORM B 4700) by the Formula:
f
t
(v) = v
R
cotg o [kN/m] (16)
where v
R
is the required crosssection shear resistance and o the variable strut inclination. The required shear reinforcement
amount follow from the Formula:
a
sw
= v
R
tg o / (f
y
z) [cm
2
/m] (17)
where z is the inner forces lever from the (m/n) design. We recognise from (16), (17) that the shear reinforcement amount and
the Shear Effect force component acting upon the net reinforcement are indirectly proportional (tg o = 1/cotg o ). The strut
inclination may be chosen, according to Art. 3 24 203, free within a quite wide range; in Plates: 25 < o < 65. Because the
minimisation of the shear reinforcement is the primary goal of the design, the SCIA.ESA PT design algorithm starts an
iteration loop with the lower limit value of o
min
= 25 and, increasing it by 1, seeks an equilibrium solution ensuring the strut
resistance at minimum inclination. From this solution of o, the corresponding Shear Effect force component is derived after the
Formula (16).
If the Constant Strut Inclination as input control is active or the crosssection is overtensioned (automatic control), no iterative
estimation of the strut inclination is started: the central value of o
o
= 45 is set. In such cases: f
t
(v) = v
R
, i.e. the total Shear
Effect force equals the shear (resistance) force itself!
The SCIA.ESA PT algorithm proceeds in two algorithmic steps: (1) 1
st
step is as described above; (2) In the 2
nd
step, the total
Shear Effect force is assigned 50/50 to the upper/ lower reinforcement nets, where it is merged with the bending/membrane
forces (m
x
, m
y
, m
xy
, n
x
, n
y
, n
xy
). We abstain from describing this essential transformation procedure, characteristic for the high
performance of SCIA.ESA PT, in detail; please refer to [17]. As result, a net reinforcement respecting the Shear Effect in a
consistent way is designed. By developing and implementing this genuine SCIA.ESA PT algorithm SCIA keep primacy on
international scale.
In pressure zones of the crosssection resisting the combination of inner bending moment and normal force, the natural pre
stress is, as a rule, so high that it cannot be overtensioned by the superposing Shear Effect forces. In such cases, the Shear
Effect is no explicitly recognisable in the reinforcement design results of such a face.
In cases of low shear stress, where the crosssection lies in Shear Region 1 (see above), no shear reinforcement (stirrups) is
required to ensure the crosssection shear resistance.
In the early stages of development of this part of the SCIA.ESA PT algorithm the Author, being partially mislead by some
obscure formulations of the corresponding Article of SIA 162, considered also in Shear Region 1 the longitudinal components
of the Shear Effect to be assigned reinforcement. However, the concept of the shear resistance mechanism in SR 1 is merely
a linear elastic state of stress where the principal tension stress is supposed to be resisted by the concrete itself in
difference to the common assumption of concrete failing in tension, which is generally applied in the net reinforcement design.
It means that in SR 1, basically no Shear Effect upon the net tension reinforcement is to be considered. However, SCIA.ESA
PT was equipped also with a possibility to control this part of the Shear Proof algorithm. There are three control stages
provided (for Norm branches which have to do with the Shear Effect at all):
The Shear Effect is not considered at all. For SIA 162 this is, as a fact, an illegal control situation for there are no other
alternatives to provide for the Shear Effect. Yet this control offers the possibility to carry out benchmark test calculations
freed from the Shear Effect, whatever their use might be, also for Norm branches which comprise the Shear Effect
phenomenon as standard.
The Shear Effect is considered in Shear Region 2 only. This is the standard case for all Codes involved in the Shear Effect.
The Shear Effect is considered both in Shear Region 1 and 2. This is a nonstandard case for all Codes involved in the Shear
Effect.
43
It was explained that the primary goal of the Shear Proof, the minimisation of the shear (stirrup) reinforcement, is respected
by the SCIA.ESA PT Shear Effect design procedure. However, the consequence of the minimisation of the stirrups is a higher
increase of the net reinforcement (if any) according to the Formula (16). This circumstance, found quite unusual by traditional
designers, caused some eager discussions on the hotline. There is also another factor to be considered . The Art. 3 24 203
(SCIA 162) presents a closing sentence causing some confusion. It reads: "The strut inclination, once chosen, ought to be
considered constant over the whole length of the shear region". It is not quite clear what is meant by shear region here (the
concept of Shear Region used by SCIA.ESA PT has another meaning clearly defined see above), yet it may be clear that
this sentence is concerned with 1D structural elements (beams) where there geometric relations are better controllable than in
2D structures. This sentence, whatever it may mean, cannot be considered by the SCIA.ESA PT design (EUROCODE 2, DIN
10451 and NORM B 4700 do not pose such a requirement).
SCIA.ESA PT offers the possibility of generally prescribing the constant strut inclination of o= 45. If o = 45 be outside the o
0
interval in a Shell model crosssection (see SIA 162, Art. 3 24 203), the o value nearest to 45 is estimated.
SIA 162 formulates the o
0
interval control for Shells by considering the magnitude of the tension/pressure normal forces (see
Art. 3 24 203). EUROCODE 2, DIN 10451 and NORM B 4700 do not formulate such a condition. However, Art. 7.2.6(5) of
DIN 10451 requires for overtensioned crosssections (i.e. with zero axis outside of the crosssection) the application of the
inclination angle o = 45. SCIA.ESA PT considers this requirement automatically not only for DIN 10451 yet also for
EUROCODE 2 and NORM B 4700.
Moreover, in the design branches of DIN 1045 (1988/7), EUROCODE 2, SIA 162, DIN 10451 and NORM B 4700 the strut
inclination may be set constantly o = 45 for the whole structure as input control provision.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
44
Design of torsional reinforcement
Presently the design of torsional reinforcement in beams and columns is not possible. The torsional moments in plates
and shells (m
xy
) are fully integrated in the calculation.
45
Crack Proof
General
All Norm specific Crack Proof concepts are based on principally the same assumptions about the crack propagation
mechanism:
1. Hightension stress in a reinforcement bar causes high steel strain. The adhesion between concrete
and the reinforcement bar is disturbed and cracks arise. The higher the ratio of steel stress and the
adhesion resistance is, the wider become the cracks along the reinforcement bar. Thus, the larger the
representative reinforcement diameter  is, the higher is the ratio of the steel stress and the adhesion
resistance, for the crosssection area of a bar grows with the square of  whereas the surface of a
(unit length) peace of bar depends linearly on .
2. Cracks arise, however, not only along the reinforcement bar yet also between the reinforcement
bars. Thus the lateral distance of the reinforcement bars is another crucial factor of the cracks
propagation, i.e. crack width.
Thus, to limit or diminish, respectively, crack widths (as a fact, not the number of cracks yet the representative crack width is
of importance for the Crack Proof) the following measures are to be taken:
1. Use of small reinforcement diameters .
2. Reduction of the representative lateral reinforcement bar distance s.
3. Combination of the measures 1 and 2.
4. Combination of the measures 1 and 2 along with augmenting the statically necessary reinforcement
amount. Due to the latter provision the Serviceability state steel stress is reduced to a value that,
along with the reinforcement diameter and bar distance provided, causes also the reduction of the
crack widths.
In practical calculations the concept according to Pt. 4 is of highest interest: A characteristic bar diameter 
k
and/or a
characteristic bar distance s
k
are specified by the user on input. SCIA.ESA PT carries out the Crack Proof according to the
Norm proof concept and increases the statically required reinforcement amount where it is needed to meet completely the
Crack Proof requirements.
Thus it is important to involve all of the active Load Cases into the Crack Proof even if they are not declared as of Crack
Proof type. The design of the statically required reinforcement has to be carried out before the Crack Proof calculations.
The result reinforcement corresponding to the Ultimate state Load Cases (or their extreme Combinations) is saved in the
SCIA.ESA PT Data Base and retrieved again at the stage of the Crack Proof calculations, thus constituting a start base
for possible augmentations of the reinforcement augmentation as outlined under Pt. 4 above.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
46
Beams
The crack proof for beams is generally a check of the allowable steel stress. SCIA.ESA PT calculates the response of
the crosssection for the service limit state using the codegiven stress/strain diagrams of concrete and reinforcement.
Since the lateral distance of the reinforcement bars is off importance for the crack proof, the crack proof can only be
performed for vertical symmetrical crosssection loaded by moment My only. If biaxial bending is introduced in a beam,
the lateral distance between bars cannot exactly be calculated. Additionally not all codes have concept for biaxial crack
proofs.
SCIA.ESA PT allows different kind of environmental classes, adhesion factors, increased covers, etc. All these features
can be codedriven and are described in the manual.
Column
Presently the crack proof for columns is not supported.
Plates, Walls and Shells
Crack Proof after NEN 6720
The Crack Proof theory distinguishes three kinds of Load Cases for the Crack Proof after NEN 6720:
Load Cases representing External Loads. In the SCIA.ESA PT input system they are assigned the attribute Ultimum. They
yield the statically required reinforcement being automatically saved in the Data Base to be retrieved by the Crack Proof pro
cedure. However, they can simultaneously be specified two (or more) times being given the attribute Serviceability and used
as Load Cases of the types specified below; then, probably, provided with another LC factor.
Load Cases representing the Force Imposed Deformations. They are Crack Proof Serviceability Load Cases destined for the
Crack Proof procedure.
Load Cases representing the Strain Imposed Deformations. For Load Cases of this type NEN 6720 formulates a modified
proof procedure. They are special Crack Proof Serviceability Load Cases.
The NEN 6720 Crack Proof branch of SCIA.ESA PT has been equipped with 4 different proof subbranches. All of them are
useful means of Crack Proof analysis:
Noncontrolled Crack Proof: The Crack Proof calculation is not controlled by any restrictions specified by the user. For each
reinforcement course SCIA.ESA PT calculates the Characteristic Average Bar Diameter 
k
and the the Maximum Allowable
Reinforcement Bar Distance s
k
at any point (element and/or node), selected for design, which would be necessary to fit the
Crack Proof requirements. By examination of the results (graphic portrayal) the user gain an overview over the development of
the characteristic values of 
k
and s
k
all over the structure. In special cases, e.g. when the Crack Proof requirements are
fulfilled at some structural parts for the bar diameters or bar distances anticipated, the Crack Proof for these regions can be
finished.
Controlled Crack Proof: The Crack Proof calculation is controlled by the Maximum Bar Diameter  specified by the user.
SCIA.ESA PT calculates the Characteristic Average Bar Diameter 
k
at any point (element and/or node), selected for design,
and compares this value with the input value of . If 
k
calculated is less than the input diameter  the reinforcement amount
augmentation process described above is started. As a result, a higher reinforcement amount fitting the Crack Proof for the
input diameter  is saved in the Data Base, thus replacing the original statically required reinforcement amount saved prior to
the Crack Proof. This Proof variant enables the Engineer to specify a constant bar diameter, e.g.  = 16 [mm] anticipated as
structural measure for some regions (macroelements) of the structure. The results of this SCIA.ESA PT Crack Proof variant
ensure that the Crack Proof requirements will be met overall, however, using the reinforcement saved in the Data Base
(maybe augmented by the Crack Proof procedure).
sControlled Crack Proof: The Crack Proof calculation is controlled by the Maximum Bar Distance s specified by the user.
SCIA.ESA PT calculates the Maximum Allowable Reinforcement Bar Distance s
k
at any point (element and/or node), selected
for design, and compares this value with the input value of s. If s
k
calculated is less than the input diameter s the
reinforcement amount augmentation process is started. As a result, a higher reinforcement amount fitting the Crack Proof for
the input bar distance s is saved in the Data Base. This Proof variant enables the Engineer to specify a constant bar distance,
e.g. s = 200 [mm] for some macroelements. The results of this SCIA.ESA PT Crack Proof variant ensure that the Crack Proof
requirements will be met overall by using the reinforcement saved in the Data Base (maybe augmented by the Crack Proof
procedure).
Optimised Crack Proof: This is algorithmically the most exacting variant of the NEN 6720 Crack Proof algorithm. The
calculation is controlled both by the Maximum Bar Diameter  and the Maximum Bar Distance s specified simultaneously by
the user. SCIA.ESA PT combines the procedures described under Pt. 2 and 3 above. Following variants may be encountered
in course of the calculations: (a) If 
k
calculated is greater than or equal the input diameter  the Crack Proof has been met.
There is no need of augmenting the reinforcement amount; (b) If s
k
calculated is greater or equal than the input distance s the
Crack Proof has been met; (c) if neither  nor s specified meet the Crack Proof requirements a procedure described by Pt. 2
and 3 is started by which the best fit of one of both conditions ( or s) is found by augmenting the statically required
reinforcement precalculated. Best fit means that the fulfilment of one of the  or s conditions is sought, that one which
implies the lesser reinforcement augmentation of both. This variant yields, generally, the lowest total reinforcement
augmentation amount of all three variants described by Pt. 2,3 and 4; this is why it is called the Optimised variant. On the
other hand, its disadvantage lies in the fact that generally both of the input conditions, the Maximum Bar Diameter  and the
Maximum Bar Distance s, must be maintained at every point of the (sub)structure subjected to the Crack Proof.
47
Crack Proof after NORM B 4700
After NORM B 4700, the crack limitation is controlled, like with GBJ1089, by the Calculation Reinforcement Bar Diameter d
sr
rather than by bar distances. However, it is to realise (concerning both GBJ1089 and NORM B 4700) that the explicit
focusing to bar diameters does not mean that the distance of bars within reinforcement net courses is, under such Crack Proof
concepts, of no impact upon the crack control. Besides the bar diameter the reinforcement amount (limiting of steel stresses
see above) is the other control parameter affecting the crack width. The bar distances in a real reinforcement net correspond,
naturally, to the reinforcement amount provided: the higher the reinforcement amount provided the lesser are the distances of
the bars within their course! The difference between the concepts of NEN 6720 on one side and GBJ1089, NORM B 4700
on the other side lies thus in the manner how the bar distances are dealt with: the NEN 6720 concept makes them to explicit
control parameters; the other Codes use bar distances as implicit quantities of the Crack Proof.
NORM B 4700 introduces the Crack Width as central proof item. The crack widths to be dealt with are assigned to the
interval <0.15, 0.30> [mm]. The Maximum Allowable Crack Width value w
k
desired to be maintained throughout the structure
or its part is specified on input. Higher or lesser values of w
k
are obviously outside the scope covered by the NORM B 4700
stipulations. If there appears w
k
< 0.15 or w
k
> 0.30 on input, it is adapted to the nearest limit value (w
k
= 0.15 or w
k
= 0.30,
respectively).
A characteristic feature of NORM B 4700 is the fact that there are no analytic formulas for w
k
yet empirical tables describing
the functional relations d
gr
= f(
tr
) or d
gr
= f(
tr
,o
sD
), respectively for Strain Imposed Deformations or Force Imposed
Deformations (see below). SCIA.ESA PT uses a double extrainterpolation process to get Limit Bar Diameter values d
gr
as
functions of Reinforcement Amount Percentage
tr
or
tr
and Characteristic Steel Tension o
sD
out of the Code Tables 7 or 9
(for w
k
= 0.15) and 8 or 10 (for w
k
= 0.30).
NORM B 4700 distinguishes several situations of exploitation concerning the Crack Proof procedure and the use of Code
Tables 7, 8 or 9, 10, respectively. SCIA.ESA PT distinguishes and deals with such situations by grouping them to Load Cases
of particular attributes, like NEN 6720 (see above):
Load Cases representing External Loads. In the SCIA.ESA PT input system they are assigned the attribute Ultimum. They
yield the statically required reinforcement being automatically saved in the Data Base to be retrieved by the Crack Proof pro
cedure. However, they can simultaneously be specified several times by being given the attribute Serviceability and used as
Load Cases of the types specified below; then, probably, provided with another LC factor.
Load Cases representing the Force Imposed Deformations. They are basic Crack Proof Serviceability Load Cases destined
for the Crack Proof procedure. For dealing with Load Cases of this type the functional relation d
gr
= f(
tr
,o
sD
) governed by the
Tables 9 and 10 is of fundamental importance. An iteration process equilibrates the necessary reinforcement amount by
checking the Reinforcement Amount Percentage
tr
after the Tables 9, 10 against the Limit Bar Diameter d
gr
which is closely
related to the Calculation Reinforcement Bar Diameter d
sr
, being specified on input as principal control quantity (along with w
k
).
Load Cases representing the Strain Imposed Deformations after the Art. 3.2.2(1)(4). They are special Crack Proof
Serviceability Load Cases. Load Cases of this attribute are governed by the functional relation d
gr
= f(
tr
) of the Tables 7 and 8.
For Strain Imposed Deformations are understand to originate from other causes than direct extern forces impact, the inner
force components associated with the Load Cases of this attribute enter the calculations merely by their relative than absolute
amplitudes (bending, full tension etc.)
Load Cases representing the Strain Imposed Deformations after the Art. 3.2.2(5). They are special Crack Proof Serviceability
Load Cases dealing with nonlinearly distributed, selfinduced stresses within the crosssection. These situations of exploi
tation allow, according to NORM B 4700, for a reduction of the necessary Reinforcement Amount Percentage
tr
within the
interval <60%, 80%>. On the whole, the iteration resolution process follows the same rules as described under Pt. 3.
Load Cases representing the Strain Imposed Deformations after the Art. 3.2.2(6). They are special Crack Proof Serviceability
Load Cases dealing with cracks in an early stage of concrete hardening. These situations of exploitation allow, according to
NORM B 4700, for a reduction of the necessary Reinforcement Amount Percentage
tr
to 50% of the standard value. By this
it is assumed that the Average Tension Strength f
ctm,t
attains 50% of f
ctm
(after 28 days). For other percentages linear
interpolation is allowed. SCIA.ESA PT respects these special rules. For f
ctm,t
the corresponding percentage is expected on
input (active for this type of Load Case only).
Load Cases representing the Strain Imposed Deformations after the Art. 3.2.2(7). They are special Crack Proof Serviceability
Load Cases dealing with cracks due to strains caused by the hydration heat flow. These situations of exploitation allow,
according to NORM B 4700, for a reduction of the necessary Reinforcement Amount Percentage
tr
to 70% of the standard
value in case of normally hardening cements (e.g. PZ 275, PZ 375). For other cements a special proof is necessary (however,
no more specified by the Code).
The results of the Crack Proof are available in both graphic and printed form.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
48
Checks
Response
Based on the internal forces, concrete crosssection and supplied reinforcement by the user, SCIA.ESA PT is able to
calculate the response of a member or a single crosssection. This method uses an iteration routine to calculate
equilibrium based on the internal forces, the crosssection, material properties and reinforcement layout. This method
however does not calculate extremes like the interaction diagram, but calculates the state of equilibrium for that section
(response). The calculation also includes depth of compression zones, curvatures, stresses, strains and forces. This
iterative method works for the interaction of the normal force with uniaxial or biaxial bending moments. In the iteration
two things are very important: 1. The number of iteration steps, 2. Precision. Both can be set in the setup of concrete.
Stirrups: 2x FeB 500 (8) Dist= 200 mm
Concrete: B 35
Y
Z
450 mm
6
0
0
m
m
4x FeB 500 (20)
4x FeB 500 (16)
CONCRETE COVER 30 mm
CONCRETE COVER 30 mm
Y
Z
0.788
2.018
1
6
9
m
m
Curvature = 0.468 mrad
1.793
0.573
Strain [*1e4]
49
Y
Z
0.95
1
6
9
m
m
35.87
11.46
Stress [MPa]
Y
Z

3
5
.
9
1
1
.
3
1
1
.
3
1
1
.
3
1
1
.
3

2
.
3

2
.
3

2
.
3

2
.
3
Forces [kN]
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
50
Biaxially loaded crosssection:
Y
Z

2
.4
7
2

0
.1
6
0
5
.2
2
4
2
.9
1
3
4
.4
6
5
0
.
2
2
9
3
.0
5
3
1
.
6
4
1
2
.5
3
9

1
.7
4
4
1
.1
1
2

0
.3
1
6
Strain [*1e4]
Y
Z

3
.
0

0
.
2
8
9
.
3
4
.
6
6
1
.
1
3
2
.
8
5
0
.
8

3
4
.
9
2
2
.
2

6
.
3
Stress [MPa]
51
Capacity
The interaction diagram calculates the extreme allowable interaction between the normal force N and bending moments
M
y
and M
z
. In theory this diagram is a 3Ddiagram, but SCIA.ESA PT allows the user to make horizontal and vertical
cuts. The axis of the diagram has an axis for the normal force N, the bending moment M
y
and the bending moment M
z
N
o
r
m
a
l
F
o
r
c
e
Bending Moment Bending Moment
My Mz
Consequently a horizontal cut displays the interaction between M
y
and M
z
for a given normal force. A vertical cut displays
the interaction between N and M
u.
See figure for an example of a 3D interaction diagram;
M
z
My
N VUmin N=0.0 kN My=23.7 kNm Mz=172.5 kNm
VUmin (N,M)
V N=0.0 kN My=23.7 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
V (N,M)
VUmax N=0.0 kN My=23.7 kNm Mz=172.5 kNm
VUmax (N,M)
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
52
The interaction diagram is used to find the extremes for the reinforcement. The extreme can be a value for N
u
, M
u
, N
u
M
u
,
M
uy
or M
uz
. The following figures show the functionality of these extremes. Note that point V' is the design point and
points 'Vu;min' and 'Vu;max' are the extremes.
Extreme values for N
d
: (M
y
and M
z
are constant)
Mu[kNm]
N
[
k
N
]
VUmin N=5231.9 kN My=250.0 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
VUmin (N,M)
V N=3000.0 kN My=250.0 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
V (N,M)
VUmax N=141.1 kN My=250.0 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
VUmax (N,M)
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1000

7
0
0

6
0
0

5
0
0

4
0
0

3
0
0

2
0
0

1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
Extreme values for M
d
: (N is constant)
Mu[kNm]
N
[
k
N
]
VUmin N=3000.0 kN My=569.7 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
VUmin (N,M)
V N=3000.0 kN My=23.7 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
V (N,M)
VUmax N=3000.0 kN My=612.1 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
VUmax (N,M)
7000
6000
5000
4000
2000
1000
0
1000

7
0
0

6
0
0

5
0
0

4
0
0

3
0
0

2
0
0

1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
53
Extreme values for N
d
M
d
: (eccentricity = constant)
Mu[kNm]
N
[
k
N
]
VUmin N=4535.1 kN My=377.9 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
VUmin (N,M)
V N=3000.0 kN My=250.0 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
V (N,M)
VUmax N=542.3 kN My=45.2 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
VUmax (N,M)
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1000

7
0
0

6
0
0

5
0
0

4
0
0

3
0
0

2
0
0

1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
Extreme values for M
yd
: (M
z
and N are constant)
Mz[kNm]
M
y
[
k
N
m
]
VUmin N=3000.0 kN My=385.8 kNm Mz=200.0 kNm
VUmin (N,M)
V N=3000.0 kN My=250.0 kNm Mz=200.0 kNm
V (N,M)
VUmax N=3000.0 kN My=420.9 kNm Mz=200.0 kNm
VUmax (N,M)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700

6
0
0

5
0
0

4
0
0

3
0
0

2
0
0

1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
54
Extreme values for M
zd
: (M
y
and N are constant)
Mz[kNm]
M
y
[
k
N
m
]
VUmin N=3000.0 kN My=250.0 kNm Mz=288.0 kNm
VUmin (N,M)
V N=3000.0 kN My=250.0 kNm Mz=200.0 kNm
V (N,M)
VUmax N=3000.0 kN My=250.0 kNm Mz=288.0 kNm
VUmax (N,M)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700

6
0
0

5
0
0

4
0
0

3
0
0

2
0
0

1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
55
Physical Nonlinear Deformations
General
The physical nonlinear deformations are calculated based on the concept of quasinonlinearity. This means that linear
calculations are used to model nonlinear behavior of the construction. Four steps are used to perform the calculation.
1. Using the shortterm stress and strain diagram for concrete the deformations for creepload is
determined. The creepload is commonly the quasipermanent load (1.0 DEAD LOAD +
FACTOR LIFE LOAD). The factor is in most cases around 30%.
2. Using the longterm stress and strain diagram for concrete the deformations for creepload is
determined.
3. Subtracting the shortterm deformation from the longterm deformation the creepdeformation is
obtained.
4. Adding the creepdeformation to the linear deformation caused by the representative load (1.0
DEAD LOAD + 1.0 LIFE LOAD), the total quasinonlinear deformation is obtained.
To calculate the immediate deformation, the deformation of the permanent load is calculated using the shortterm stress
and strain diagram. Additionally by subtracting the immediate deformation from the total deformation, the programs
calculates the additional deformation.
So the calculated deformations calculated in SCIA.ESA PTs PNL deformations calculation are:
 Elastic deformation: Using the shortterm stress and strain diagram and representative load
combinations. (1.0 DL + 1.0 LL)
 Creep deformation: Using the long and shortterm stress and strain diagrams and
momentaneous load combinations. (1.0 DL + LL)
 Total deformation: Elastic deformation + Creep deformation.
 Immediate deformation: Using the shortterm stress and strain diagram and permanent combination.
(1.0 DL)
 Additional deformation: Elastic deformation + Creep deformation Immediate deformation.
The short and longterm stiffnesses are calculated using a socalled creep factor. This creepfactor is dependant on the
relative humidity, outline of the crosssection, reinforcement percentage, concrete class, etc. is used to divide the short
term stiffness and obtain the longterm stiffness, e.g. (acc. NEN 6720)
E = E / (1 + 0.75 
creep
)
Thus by taken the concrete stiffness for short and longterm and the representative compression strength the program
calculates the stress and strain diagram.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
56
NEN 6720
The deformation according NEN 6720 is calculated using socalled MNk diagrams. These diagrams representing the
relation between a combination of normal force (N) and bending moment (M) and the curvature are used to define the
deformation for the individual combinations (Creep, Immediate, Representative/Linear).
NEN 6720 prescribes that the diagram is corrected between M
r
(Moment of rupture) and approximately M
e
(End of elastic
part of stress/strain diagram). This correction models the socalled tension stiffening effect, e.g. the concrete between
the cracks still has stiffness. SCIA.ESA PT uses by default the corrected MNk diagram, but is capable of other types as
well, e.g.
1. Concrete without Tension Part.
2. Concrete without Tension Part AND Code Correction
57
3. Concrete with Tension Part
4. Concrete with Tension Part and Tension Softening according CUR 9413.
Other codes than NEN 6720
The deformation for other codes than NEN 6720 is calculated by reducing the stiffnesses using the following socalled
Stiffness/Moment diagram:
E
uncracked
moment of rupture M
rep ultimate moment
E
Columns
There is no nonlinear stiffness calculated for the axially loaded members. Thus columns will have the same stiffness in
PNL deformations calculation as in a linear calculation. However when the concept of PNL internal forces is
introduced in SCIA.ESA PT the user is able to calculate reduced stiffnesses for columns.
Composite Sections
In case of composite crosssections (concrete/concrete) a weighted creepfactor will be taken into account:

composite
= (
1
A
1
+ 
2
A
2
) / (A
1
+A
2
)
Beams, Plates and Shells
The reduced stiffness for Walls is not calculated when a PNL deformations calculation is performed. Deformations of
beams, plates and shells are calculated by integrating the nonlinear curvatures over the length of beam or slab.
However if some element has a value of M
d
larger than M
u
, than the stiffness according M
u
is taken. Since the finite
element method can give large internal forces due to singularities, etc. the calculation is allowed to continue without an
error message, but supplies messages after the calculation has finished.
NEN 6720
For plates and shells the standard corrected MNk diagram is NOT used to calculate the deformations, but the diagram
with tension part and tensionsoftening.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
58
When a calculation using MNk diagrams was implemented in SCIA.ESA PT the calculation would take an awful lot of
time, since for each individual element a MNk diagram would have to be constructed with a lot of points.
59
Part II  2D members
Dipl.Ing. Eduard Hobst, Ph.D.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
60
61
INTRODUCTION TO REINFORCED CONCRETE
DESIGN OF 2D STRUCTURES
Introduction
The 2D reinforcement concrete design modules PRC.72.xx (ESAPrima Win) as well as ESACD.02.xx (SCIA.ESA PT) will be
referred to by their generic name NEDIM the original development name of the 2D design module system, used internally by
SCIA developers, testers and supporters for quick communication. Both EPW and ESA PT have been using the same NEDIM
package. There are, however, differences in I/O handling; ESA PT allows, generally, for some additional, more advanced I/O
control options.
The FEM analysis modules doing their work prior to NEDIM, and delivering their results via the EPW/ESA Data Base as input
data to NEDIM, as well as NEDIM itself distinguish between three analysis types : Walls, Plates and Shells. Each model has
its special mechanical and structural characteristics, which have to be dealt with by individual algorithmic subbranches.
From the point of view of the static analysis, the primary distinguishing feature of mechanical models of these analysis types is
the character of inner forces developing in the crosssection to resist the effect of external forces. The most general analysis
model is the Shell type. Shells are subjected to a combination of bending forces, i.e. moments and shear forces (called also
Plate inner forces), and membrane forces (called also Wall inner forces). This categorization of inner forces is an idealization
used in the theory of 2D structures. However, the experience confirms that our theories and mechanical models, if reasonably
linked with characteristic properties of structures, are able to approximate the reality satisfactorily.
In this sense, Plates and Walls are reduced mechanical models of the Shell model. They are confined geometrically to a
plane, being genuine 2D models. Shells, as a fact, are 3D structures; however, they consist of 2D structural parts (down to
individual plane finite (sub)elements) in compliance with the FEM theory, which assigns the attribute twodimensional to
structures having very small structural thickness in comparison with the other two (main) geometric dimensions. Thus, it is
legal to use a simplifying categorization by introducing the three analysis types Walls, Plates and Shells and considering
them all as 2D models.
The creation of the FEM model is a genuine task of the structural Engineer. ESAPrima Win and SCIA.ESA PT are powerful
means enabling the user to create and manage efficient mechanical models by using the substructuring technique. In the
SCIA terminology such structural parts are called macroelements or members.
For the FEM static analysis as well as for the NEDIM reinforcement design it is without concern what is the shape of the
individual structural parts the structure consists of, which are represented by macroelements. NEDIM, however, raises
additional requirements to the modelling process : defining macroelements of the FEM model, the user should pay attention
to the crosssection geometry as well as the reinforcement geometry envisaged in order to make clear conditions for the
reinforcement design.
NEDIM keeps strictly to the terminology and the notions of ESAPrima Win and SCIA.ESA PT. The macroelement is for
NEDIM the standard reference unit in establishing the amount and the organization of the reinforcement concrete design.
However, the FEM stressstrain analysis runs internally over finite elements and element nodes. Let us remember that the
actual FEM solver yields results directly in element nodes instead of centroidal points of finite elements, as it had been with
the predecessor FEM solvers. Thus, consequently, the NEDIM design refers to element nodes as design nuclei.
When specifying macroelements for the reinforced concrete design, EPW selects implicitly all elements and nodes of each
macroelement selected. On the other hand, NEDIM, in the standalone mode, enables the individual selection of elements or
nodes; yet this mode is of no concern for NEDIM processing as an integral part of SCIA software. Advanced aspects of this
procedure are discussed further on in this manual.
The input data organization of NEDIM keeps strictly to the requirements and restrictions of the Norms implemented;
nevertheless, it is versatile enough to enable reasonable deviations from the Norm parameters. When there is a concern
about the legality of a calculation because of nonstandard values being defined by the program user, NEDIM places a
corresponding warning into the output document file.
The 2D reinforcement concrete design module NEDIM has been developed in close cooperation between SCIA Group n. v.
HerkdeStad, Belgium and Ingenieurbro Dr. Hobst, Nuremburg, Bavaria; Dr. Eduard Hobst is Author of the theory, design
algorithm and calculation kernel as well as this NEDIM manual. SCIA is responsible for the input dialogue and the graphic
portrayal of results as well as the linking of NEDIM to the ESAPrima Win and SCIA.ESA PT program system.
Program objective
The purpose of the module NEDIM is the reinforcement concrete design and serviceability proofs (crack proof) according to
national Standards (Norms) of Wall, Plate and Shell structures.
At the actual development stage NEDIM performs the reinforced concrete design task according to the following national
Norms :
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
62
o DIN 1045 07/1988
o NORM B 4200, Teil 8 (4/1971) + Teil 9 (4/1970)
o EUROCODE 2 (ENV 199211:1991)
o CSN/STN 73 1201 (8/1986 & Amendments 9/1989 + 10/2004)
o SIA 162:1989
o NEN 6720:1995/A3:2004
o DIN 10451 (07.2001 & 05.2005)
o GBJ 1089
o NORM B 4700 20010601
o BAEL 91/99
o SIA 262:2003
o EN 199211:2004 (Eurocode 2 Novella)
o BS 8110:Part 1:1997 & BS 8110:Part 2:1985
o IS 456:2000 & IS 2210:1988/1998
o ACI 318M05
The Norm branches active in NEDIM are presented in the natural time sequence of their program implementation. NEDIM
had been under development since 1986/7; till 1991 its predecessor versions were in practical use in German engineering
practice. Its most spectacular application was the application in the design of ceiling slabs of the Computer Centre of Federal
Bureau for Labour (Bundesanstalt fr Arbeit), Nuremberg. NEDIM was lanced on the software market 1992 with DIN 1045
07/1988 [5] as the first running Norm branch, closely followed by NORM B 4200 [7], [8] and EUROCODE 2 (ENV 19921
1:1991) [9]; in 1993 followed the branch CSN 73 1203 [10] and 1994 SIA 162 [11]. Since 1994, NEDIM has successfully
been operating on international scale, being consecutively extended by implementing other Norm branches as shown above;
the branch of NEN 6720 [12] was developed and implemented in 1997, DIN 10451 [13] 1999, NORM B 4700 2000 [16],
BAEL 91/99 2002 [24], [25], SIA 262 2004. Most recent NEDIM implementations (2005 2007) have been the design
branches of EN 199211:2004 [27], BS 8110 [28], IS 456/2210 [29]/[30], ACI 318M05 [31] and STN 73 1201.
The NEDIM design algorithm has many outstanding features distinguishing it from competing design programs on the
international software market. They are outlined in this introductory chapter.
One of the outstanding features of NEDIM is its ability to deal with 2 and 3course reinforcement nets of almost deliberate
geometry, i.e. allowing for the angles closed by pairs of reinforcement directions being freely specified; however, reasonable
limits are set and checked by the program. Fig. 1 shows the basic definition scheme of the reinforcement geometry : the
directions of respectively 2 or 3 reinforcement courses specified for design are expressed by angles of the interval <0, 180)
to the 1
st
planar axis x
p
.
The reinforcement geometry may be specified individually at both structural faces, concerning the direction angles and the
number of reinforcement courses (2 or 3). So it is, for example, possible, to specify at one face a skew 2course reinforce
ment net with directions, 10/70 and, at the same time, a 3course reinforcement net with directions 0/60/120 at the other
face. The standard orthogonal reinforcement 0/90, allowed by most design programs as the only (implicitly set)
reinforcement geometry specification, is in NEDIM one of an infinite variety of possible constellations, nothing more.
63
x
p
y
p
1
2
3
o
1
o
2
o
3
Fig. 1 Reinforcement geometry (upper or lower face)
Another outstanding feature of NEDIM is its extensive and reliable system of detection of nondesignabilities. NEDIM
distinguishes between several situations of nondesignability (see Chapter Processing nondesignability conditions), specifies
them accurately and informs the user in the printer output file as well as in the graphic portrayal of results (by Error Code
Numbers). In the practice some serious nondesignability situations are regularly encountered, which are not recognizable by
most commercial design programs. For example, in corners of (rectangular) floor plates, which are usually reinforced by
orthogonal nets parallel to the plate edges (0/90), where the principal bending moments at upper and lower face are
declined by about 45/135 from the edges, i.e. acting in the plate's diagonal or perpendicularly to it, respectively, a typical
stressstrain situation is encountered : All four reinforcement layers (two at upper and two at lower face) are subjected to
tension! In such stress states the concrete fulfils two tasks : (a) resisting the compression zone force of the bending moment
(like in 1D design), i.e. opposing the reinforcement tension force on the opposite face and (b) stiffening the reinforcement net
on the actual face against distortion. The concrete medium becomes then the critical factor of the structural bearing capacity.
It is possible to meet high tensions in plate corner regions by increasing the reinforcement steel amount (which is the primary
task of reinforcement design). Yet it is impossible to increase the bearing capacity of the stiffening concrete (see the notion of
virtual concrete strut, discussed in the subsequent text). Here the most design algorithms deliver, maybe, high statically requi
red steel amount, yet ignore at the same time the possible exhaustion of the stiffening concrete. NEDIM recognises reliably
such a state of concrete failure and issues a corresponding nondesignability message (error code E5). This very special
design aspect will be dealt with in the next Chapter Program Theory and Algorithm (see also [18]).
In NEDIM great attention is paid to the processing and reporting of compression reinforcement. The theory of Baumann [1],
which was applied as basic theoretical issue to the development of NEDIM, disregards the fact that in a reinforced concrete
medium the reinforcement may and must also fulfil the function of armouring the concrete being subjected to pressure.
Besides the classical case of the Wall model being under pressure, also in bending the reinforcement in the pressure bending
zone may be engaged in increasing the bearing capacity; this case is, as a rule, strictly regulated by the Norms. For hyperbo
lic states of stress in Walls and Shells, where there is typically one tensioned reinforcement course, the pressure forces being
opposed by the stiffening concrete medium, a substantial improvement was found and implemented: NEDIM assigns, using a
special combined inner forces transformation approach, a calculation pressure force to the compressed reinforcement course
and only an acceptable portion of the pressure force to the stiffening concrete continuum. Thus, an efficient and consistent
solution is found for all possible situations of the reinforcement net geometry. In elliptic pressure states (full pressure in all
directions), both or all three, respectively, design forces are assigned to reinforcement courses, thus attaining a determined
statically required reinforcement. According to the theory of Baumann [1] and other known theories of 2D design, no
compression reinforcement would be designed at all; in other words: plain concrete would have to resist the load in spite of
reinforced concrete!
Special Norm requirements concerning the so called minimum compression reinforcement are an interesting chapter of the
structural theory of reinforced concrete. It is especially well dealt with by DIN 1045 07/1988 [5], which requires a reinforcement
percentage assigned to s. c. statically required (reinforced) crosssection. Actual Norms stipulate minimum compression
reinforcement (for 2D structures) quite elementary : (a) as a constant percentage of concrete gross section; (b) by a simple
dependence on the normal force. Only ACI 318M05 applies a similar approach as DIN 1045 07/1988, however, referring to
the plain concrete crosssection instead of reinforced one. The principal goal of the minimum compression reinforcement is to
allow for a reasonable measure of buckling stability of 2D structures from the structural point of view. Also in this field a satis
factory state of solution has been attained. The topic shall be discussed in Chapter Program Theory and Algorithm.
NEDIM enables to specify every of the load cases from the FEM analysis as design load cases. On the other side, NEDIM
has no ambitions to carry out advanced superposition of load cases. This is, by declaration, a task of specialized postproces
sor modules of the FEM solver of ESAPrima Win and SCIA.ESA PT. However, the assignment and processing of different
load factors to individual load cases and/or combinations (defaulted to 1.0), may be a part of the NEDIM input data control.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
64
PROGRAM THEORY AND ALGORITHM
Introduction to the theory and algorithmization of 2D
design
To fulfil the task of reinforcement concrete design of 2D structures, several steps, theoretically or algorithmically, have to be
performed :
o Analysis of Norm requirements or restrictions; their exact formulation by numerical values
and control items.
o Setup of a userfriendly input system enabling the engineer to understand the data at every
step.
o Processing of the input data as well as the internal program data to prepare a perfect task
definition.
o Transformation of inner forces of the FE solution to design inner forces.
o Reinforcement design and processing of nondesignability conditions.
o Storing up of the design results in the program data base.
o Creating a user controllable printer output file containing all engineering information
obtained during design.
o Performing the crack proof (generally data base bound!) additionally to the reinforcement
design.
o Retrieval of the results from the data base for graphic portrayal including indication of
nondesignabilities.
o Retrieval of the results from the data base for printout documents.
Unlike to 1D models, the static inner forces in 2D models, as resulting from the FEM static/dynamic analysis, are, excepting
very special cases, not directly applicable to reinforcement concrete design. They must be transformed to design forces. This
is a very vital notion of the 2D design; it will frequently be used throughout this manual.
Both FEM inner forces and design forces are understood as generalized forces. They mean both membrane forces and
bending moments, depending on the analysis/design model. However, there is no danger of misunderstanding since in each
design situation it is clear what sort of inner forces is being dealt with.
Transformation of inner forces of the FEM solution to
design forces
Once the reinforcement design input data have been read in and analyzed and the FEM data base approached, the NEDIM
design model can be created respecting all Norm rules and restrictions applicable to the analysis model : NEDIM distinguishes
between the Wall, Plate and Shell analysis types. They are different not only as to the principal assumptions about the
character of inner forces acting upon the crosssection but, in all Norms, also as to the requirements and restrictions these
analysis types are subject to.
The first substantial step of the design procedure is the estimation of inner design forces for each item to be designed. Under
the actual FEM solver there is one design item only: finiteelement node. The design forces transformation procedure outlined
here takes thus place at each step of the multiple design loop running over macroelements elements nodes load
case combinations individual load cases.
Inner forces of the FEM analysis can generally not be used as direct design forces. A versatile inner forces transformation
procedure is indispensable to enable the 2D design.
The NEDIM transformation procedure is based on a general transformation formula devised by Baumann [1] :
c
i
= [sin
j
sin
k
+ k cos
j
cos
k
] / [sin(
j
i
) sin (
k
i
)] (1)
65
(i, j, k, i,... = 1,2,3,1,...)
In the cyclic formula (1), the subscripts i, j, k denote either the three reinforcement directions according to Fig. 1 or two
reinforcement directions and the direction of the virtual concrete strut (see below), respectively. The variables in (1) have the
following meaning :
o
i, j, k
: angles between individual reinforcement/strut directions and the direction
of the 1
st
principal moment m
I
(Plates) or the 1
st
principal membrane force n
I
(Walls and Shells) , respectively
k : quotient (m
II
/m
I
) or (n
II
/n
I
), respectively ; it can assume negative, zero or
positive value
c
i
: transformation coefficient associated with the transformation direction i
The design forces m
i
or n
i
, respectively, are defined by the following relations:
m
i
= c
i
m
I
or n
i
= c
i
n
I
(2)
Formula (2) yields direct design forces for Plates (m
i
) and Walls (n
i
). In Shells, an intermediate transformation step has to be
performed prior to applying (2).
The combined vector of bending & membrane inner forces of the FEM analysis comprises 8 components :
{ m
x
, m
y
, m
xy
 v
x
, v
y
 n
x
, n
y
, n
xy
} (3)
First it has to be transformed to reference membrane forces acting as two formally independent force systems at both
structural faces. The Shell design becomes thus, formally, a double Wall design, executing the typical Wall design
procedure twice, at both faces Z
p
quasi individually :
n
x,Zp
= m
x
/ z + n
x
/ 2
n
y,Zp
= m
y
/ z + n
y
/ 2 (4)
n
xy,Zp
= m
xy
/ z + n
xy
/ 2
The alternating moment sign in (4) refers to +Z
p
(+ m) and Z
p
( m) face, respectively. The reference inner force vectors {n
x
,
n
y
, n
xy
}
Zp
in (4) differ thus generally from each other. This applies equally to the corresponding principal reference forces {n
I
,
n
II
}
Zp
at both faces of the Shell model.
In the following text the faces Z
p
are distinguished by index only if it is necessary in the context; generally, the design algo
rithm is identical for both faces (Plates and Shells).
In (4) z represents the inner forces lever calculated, as reference value, for the outermost reinforcement layer. The calculation
of z must refer to the material properties of the concrete continuum; it is thus material dependent, unlike the transformation
formula (1), which is based on the assumption of (any) linearly elastic material (with cracks).
The reference value of z is calculated in the crosssection perpendicular to the first principal moment m
I
(along with associated
n in this section).
The transformation coefficients c
i
, c
j
, c
k
(1) represent transformation forces in a linearly elastic medium which does not make
difference between tension and pressure design forces. Such a solution is generally not applicable to reinforced concrete,
since concrete can oppose pressure stresses only.
Let us, for general considerations, independently of the analysis model, denote the design forces obtained by the
transformation (1), (2) as {n
1d
, n
2d
, n
3d
}. In Walls they are transforms of the basic inner forces {n
x
, n
y
, n
xy
}; in Plates of the
inner moments {m
x
, m
y
, m
xy
} and in Shells of the reference inner forces {n
x
, n
y
, n
xy
}
Zp
(4). Basically, the design forces {n
1d
,
n
2d
, n
3d
} according to (1) and (2) meet the following generalized first tensor invariant condition, no matter what model they
represent :
n
1d
+ n
2d
+ n
3d
= n
I
+ n
II
= const (5)
where n
I
and n
II
symbolise either the principal normal forces {n
I
, n
II
} (Walls), or the principal moments {m
I
, m
II
} (Plates) or the
face related principal normal forces {n
I
, n
II
}
Zp
(Shells). Formula (1) yields several solutions satisfying (5). NEDIM applies a
solution representing the minimum or another convenient low energy level, respectively, for 2D design.
The subscript d with the design inner forces n
id
shall often be omitted in the following text because the symbols n
i
or m
i
,
respectively, are used exclusively to denote a design force of the reinforced concrete medium obtained by the transformation
(1); vice versa, using the symbol n
d
(m
d
) without direction subscript means the representation of any of the design forces n
id
(m
id
), i=1,2,3.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
66
Under an elliptic state of stress, the solution for a treecourse reinforcement net, each reinforcement being active, may exist.
In twocourse reinforcement nets, which represent the standard use in the building practice, only two design forces can be
assigned to the reinforcement. The third force of the invariant formula (5), n
3d
, represents then the resistance of the concrete
medium. We will call this fundamental function of concrete virtual stiffening concrete strut (or concrete strut, virtual strut, stif
fening strut etc.).
Obviously, the value of n
3d
(5) is nonpositive, since concrete is not able to resist tension. Only in special reinforcement
arrangements (s.c. trajectory reinforcement) or in strictly circular states of stress, the concrete design force can vanish : n
3d
=
0; the virtual strut performs no mechanical work in that case and may be considered as stressfree. Of practical meaning is
n
3d
< 0 with concrete resisting the inner forces by stiffening the reinforcement net, which would, by itself, distort under the
action of tension or pressure forces in its plane.
The notion of virtual stiffening concrete strut is the fundamental topic of the 2D design, primarily distinguishing the 2D design
from the 1D design (beams and columns). The graphic illustration in Fig. 2 reveals the elementary meaning of the stiffening
strut.
The position of the concrete strut is, however, generally not identical with any reinforcement direction specified for design. It
means that if formula (1) does not yield for a 3course reinforcement specification all three positive design forces, at least one
of the reinforcement courses is inactive (or two of them); the concrete strut does not automatically coincide with one of the
reinforcement courses! The assessment of the concrete strut position is thus an important optimization task.
It is an outstanding feature of the NEDIM design algorithm, enhanced during months and years of improvements of the
theoretical background and algorithm, that formula (1) can usefully be applied to all possible situations of elliptic, parabolic and
hyperbolic states of stressstrain, i.e. also to elliptic pressure state, thus yielding design forces which enable optimized design.
67
Fig. 2 Function of the concrete strut in a 2D reinforced concrete continuum : (a) 2D element and section geometry;
(b) trajectory reinforcement with vanishing strut force; (c) general case concrete stiffening the "distorted" steel net
Reinforcement Design
2D structures dealt with by NEDIM Walls, Plates and Shells are usually reinforced by two systems of steel reinforcement
nets consisting of 2 or 3 reinforcement courses situated more or less close to the surfaces of both faces of the 2D structure.
NEDIM sets few restrictions to the absolute position of reinforcement courses within the crosssection; the position of each
reinforcement course is described by its axial concrete cover acc. to Fig. 3. However, there are relative restrictions : all con
crete covers must meet some rules to prevent ambiguousness of the geometric definition of the design task. These rules are
described in the tutorial part of the NEDIM manual.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
68
h
u
11
12
u
13
u
23
u
22
u
21
u
+Z
p
Z
p
Fig. 3 Crosssection geometry (upper/lower face, crosssection height, axial covers)
There might be encountered more complex situations in a crosssection than symbolized by Fig. 3 : (1) reinforcement bars of
individual layers do not need to touch each other; they might be placed at larger distances from each other within the cross
sections; (2) the surfaces of bars are usually corrugated so that there is, as a rule, a greater distance between two crossing
bars than expressed by their characteristic bar diameters; (3) in thick plates, e.g. foundation slabs, two or more layers in one
direction (reinforcement course) or bars bundles in one layer are used, so that the axial distance (from edge) and the
representative bar diameter itself are two independent quantities and qualities, which must be defined independently on input.
Also, exact nominal concrete covers of outermost reinforcement bars of each reinforcement course must be defined for the
crack proof. EPW and ESA PT offer an enhanced input data dialogue enabling such fullscale crosssection geometry input.
In Walls, being subjected to forces acting in their plane, the positions of reinforcement nets, by definition placed symmetrically
in the crosssection, are of no static interest; however, the crosssection geometry (concrete covers and bar diameters) is
meaningful for the crack proof algorithm. Thus, the Wall design branch comprises the same crosssection input dialog as the
Plate and Shell models. From formal reasons (simplification of printed output), if the notion of face appears in connection with
a Wall it means both faces together, since for Walls the total reinforcement is calculated under the principal assumption that
Walls are armoured symmetrically with respect to both faces.
In Plates and Shells, the reinforcement covers estimate the effective static height of the reinforcement courses in the cross
section subjected (also) to bending, thus having fundamental meaning in the design process. The covers are related to the
faces (Fig. 3). Thus, it is necessary to distinguish the faces clearly from each other. NEDIM had originally used the commonly
understandable terms distinguishing two faces of a horizontal plate: upper and lower face. These notions had possessed their
exact mathematical meaning, which had made them acceptable for Shells, too : the lower face had been the structural plane
edge in direction of the positive planar (local) axis +Z
p
, the upper face Z
p
having been opposite to it. However, at a later
development stage of EPW/ ESA PT the orientation of the global coordinate system (X,Y,Z)
glob
was defined by the positive
axis +Z
glob
pointing upwards (before downwards). Thus, the original meaning +Z
p
lower face was reversed to Z
p
lower
face. Generally, to avoid irritations and misunderstandings with 2D members positioned deliberately in 3D space, the
mathematically exact and unambiguous meaning +Z
p
/Z
p
face is being preferred to the equivalent specification upper/lower
face.
The reinforcement courses are, correspondingly to their relative position in the crosssection, called the outer(most), middle (if
any) and inner(most) ones. This verbal distinguishing is in the mathematical formulation replaced by assigning them the
ordinal numbers 1, 2 and 3 (if three reinforcement courses are specified at all). The same double identification may be given
to other associated terms like reinforcement angles, design forces, effective static heights, inner forces levers, etc. So we can
speak, e.g., about reinforcement angles o, , meaning the same as when indicating o
1
, o
2
, o
3
.
The notions and terms of the reinforcement concrete theory are used in accordance with the general use or they strictly follow
the rules postulated by the Norms implemented in NEDIM. However, for NEDIM deals with several national Norms, it is likely
that a few of terms or formulations would appear somewhat unfamiliar to readers focused onto the use of one Norm branch
only. It is hardly possible to create a manual text on such special topic for international use being in all respects fully conform
to every countrys verbal usage. In doubts the terminology of EC 2 will be given preference.
NEDIM works internally with preferred basic and derived units of the SI system.
Design of Walls
The inner forces {n
x
, n
y
, n
xy
} of the FEM solution are retrieved from the FEM data base for each design item (element node)
and transformed by the method outlined above to the design forces {n
1d
, n
2d
, n
3d
} according to the formulae (1) and (2).
69
Once a positive design force has been assigned to its associated reinforcement course, the corresponding statically required
reinforcement amount a
i
is calculated from the elementary relation :
a
i
= n
i
/
sd
(i = 1,2 (,3)) [m/m] (6)
(6) has symbolic meaning only, as we do not want write down at this stage all exact calculation rules for Norms implemented
in NEDIM. The symbol o
sd
stands for effective design steel strength. Both n
i
and o
sd
may be, according to the actual Norm,
charged with security coefficients. We are not going to discuss the problem of 1D reinforcement design; the NEDIM algorithm
strictly follows special rules stipulated by national Norms and associated Standards, as far as they are applicable to the 2D
design.
Above it was emphasized that the application of the transformation formula (1) to the inner forces of the FEM model yields not
yet the final result and that there are formally several solutions fitting the invariance condition (5). In a class of hyperbolic
states of stress (n
I
> 0, n
II
< 0) the NEDIM algorithm finds, by means of (1), a minimum energy solution of the following quality
:
n
1
> 0; n
2
= 0; n
3
< 0 (7)
In (7) n
1
> 0 is the (positive) reinforcement design force; the second reinforcement course is set inactive (or both remaining
ones, if a threecourse reinforcement is specified); n
3
is the (negative) design force of the stiffening strut.
For a general 2course, skew, i.e. nonorthogonal, reinforcement net (representing equivalently also 3course reinforcement
nets under hyperbolic state of stress) we will follow the explanations by means of Fig. 4.
In certain hyperbolic stress situations, the NEDIM transformation algorithm yields for the skew reinforcement specification acc.
to Fig. 4a a solution of the quality described by (7). It is sketched by Fig. 4b : the reinforcement course 1 is assigned a tension
design force
1
n
1
> 0; the reinforcement course 2 is inactive; the pressure stress acting at the crosssection of question is
resisted by a relatively large pressure force of the stiffening concrete strut
1
n
3
< 0.
However, the heterogeneous reinforced concrete medium would hardly be practically armoured by one reinforcement course
only. Even if the state of stress symbolized by (6) and Fig.3 would prevail in extensive parts of the structure, at least a 2
course reinforcement net would still be necessary to maintain the functionality of such 2D structure. Due to the minimum
transversal percentage requirement, the reinforcement course No 2 deactivated (theoretically) in this case would generally be
assigned a portion of the statically required reinforcement amount of the reinforcement course 1. Thus, in a practical rein
forcement design the reinforcement course 2 would also be assigned a real a
s
value.
In addition, many of national Norms implemented in NEDIM require minimum compression reinforcement resisting pressure
normal forces. In case (7) or Fig. 4b, such proof could formally not be performed since there is no data of the calculation
pressure force assigned to the reinforcement : the strut pressure force is not associated to any reinforcement course!
For reasons outlined, the seek of another consistent solution fitting the transformation formula (1) yet assigning a nonzero
design force to the reinforcement course 2 seems to be a logical if not indispensable algorithmic step. As a fact, NEDIM
carries this step out automatically in such stresssituations and yields an alternative solution symbolized by Fig. 4c. Using
vector arrows of different lengths, the stress vectors of Fig. 4b and Fig. 4c express the substantial difference of the two
transformation solutions mentioned. In mathematical notation the relations are as follows :
2
n
1
>
1
n
1
;
2
n
2
<
1
n
2
= 0; 0 >
2
n
3
>
1
n
3
(8
1
)
Respecting the relations (81) NEDIM replaces automatically (i.e. by internal control) the direct solution (7) by one of two
following alternative solutions:
o The consistent solution acc. to Fig. 4c is preferred to the basic solution (7) acc. to Fig. 4b (both solutions are consistent
since they fit the invariance condition (5)) :
n
1
=
2
n
1
;
n
2
=
2
n
2
< 0; n
3
=
2
n
3
< 0
(8
2
)
o NEDIM combines the two consistent solutions (7) and (8
2
) to an inconsistent solution by combining them according to Fig.
4d. Analytically :
n
1
=
1
n
1
;
n
2
=
2
n
2
< 0; n
3
=
1
n
3
< 0
(8
3
)
The choice between (8
2
) and (8
3
) is taken by checking the energy level of both consistent solutions. As a measure of energy
level
j
E the sum of absolute values of the design forces
j
n
i
is considered :
j
E =
j
n
1
+
j
n
2
+
j
n
3
(8
4
)
Is the energy level
1
E less than 80% of
2
E, i.e.
1
E < 0.80
2
E
(8
5
)
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
70
the consistent solution (8
2
) is replaced by the nonconsistent mixed solution (8
3
). The sense of the control by "empiric" limit
80 % is to prevent too high increase of the tension reinforcement corresponding to the first course design force
1
n
1
when
changing to
2
n
1
.
Ofcourse, the nonconsistent solution (8
3
) does not bring any relief to the virtual strut (as it is the case with the alternate
consistent solution (8b)). As is known, the hyperbolic stress states of this kind (7) are prone to failing virtual strut (see Chapter
Processing of nondesignability conditions, NSt = 5). On the other side, the solution (8
3
) assigns the pressure force
2
n
2
to
the second reinforcement direction, thus enabling its design, i.e. at least the estimation of minimum compression
reinforcement !
Note: Actually, a more efficient optimization of this delicate design situation has been being investigated.
(a)
2
1
x
p
y
p
(b)
1
n
3
< 0
1
n
1
1
n
2
= 0
Fig. 4 (Continued on next page )
(c)
71
2
n
3
< 0
2
n
2
< 0
2
n
1
(d)
n
3
=
1
n
3
n
1
=
1
n
1
n
2
=
2
n
2
Fig. 4 (continued) Advanced NEDIM solution for a class of hyperbolic states of stress in Walls and Shells : (a)
reinforcement geometry; (b) consistent solution No 1 (7); (c) consistent solution No 2 (8
2
); (d)
inconsistent solution (8
3
) combining the consistent solutions No 1 and No 2 (8
3
)
The preceding observations made it obvious that the virtual stiffening strut of the heterogeneous concretesteel continuum
represents a quite substantial item of the design process. While it is possible (unless the upper reinforcement percentage limit
has not been exceeded) to improve the bearing capacity of the crosssection on the side of the reinforcement by augmenting
its amount, the bearing limit of the concrete strut is given by the height of the crosssection and the quality of concrete only;
thus its limits are predestined by the input data. The concrete strut bearing capacity condition is described by the following
relation :
n
3
< A
c
cd
(9)
In (9) o
cd
represents the effective concrete design pressure strength and A
c
the concrete area of reference. In NEDIM it is
generally assessed on the base of 80% of the standard design concrete pressure strength. This reduction follows the recom
mendation of Schleich and Schfer in [2] : the compression strength of concrete is unfavourably affected by transversal
tension stresses which produce cracks, parallel to the direction of pressure; this is typically the stress situation of the stiffening
strut. SIA 262, 4.2.1.7 is the only Norm (implemented in NEDIM) which defines the strut reduction explicitly! For cracks
parallel to the direction of strut, the reduction coefficient k
c
= 0.80 is stipulated, which is identical with the NEDIM default,
whereas for cracks crossing the strut direction the value k
c
= 0.60 is specified [26] !
The crosssection area A
c
in (9) is for Walls taken as the full unity rectangular crosssection h 1.
Once a design pressure force n
i
, assigned to a reinforcement direction i, is known the compression reinforcement is calculated
acc. to the following general formula :
a
i
= ( n
i
A
c
cd
) /
scd
(i = 1,2 (,3)) [cm
2
/m] (10)
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
72
In (10) o
scd
represents the effective design compression strength of reinforcement steel differently to (6), where o
sd
denotes
the design tension strength; A
c
is the gross section area. NEDIM checks if the steel attains the pressure yield strain; if not,
o
scd
reflects the actual strain level. Some Norms (NORM B 4200, CSN/STN 73 1201, GBJ 1089) stipulate different values
of steel strength in tension and pressure. NEDIM follows this idea by enabling different definitions of tension and pressure
steel strength to all Norm branches.
Design of Plates
In the Wall model, dealt with in the preceding paragraph, the inner design forces produce constant stresses all over the cross
section; thus, there is no necessity to examine the stress distribution within the crosssection. In contrast to the Wall model,
for bending in Plates it is a fundamental characteristics that the stresses are nonlinearly and discontinuously distributed over
the crosssection. Since all of the national Norms implemented in NEDIM exclude the tensional bearing capacity of concrete
(ULS), in the tension zone (below the neutral axis) the only bearing material is the reinforcement steel. The resistance of
concrete is exploited in the pressure bending zone only.
Fig. 5 shows symbolically one possible equilibrium situation in the reinforcement courses 1 and 2 (Fig. 5a,b) as well as in the
concrete stiffening strut, i.e. in virtual course 3 (Fig. 5c). In Fig. 5, the face subscript is generally omitted, for the discussion is
equally valid for both faces. The distribution of the concrete pressure stress in Fig. 5 is not related to a special Norm.
However, the Norms implemented introduce different basic notions of the concrete pressure stress distribution. The assump
tion of the pressure stress distribution is in affinity to the oc diagram of the concrete material, introduced by the Norms :
DIN 1045 07/1988 introduces the notion of combined parabolic (2) and constant pressure
stress distribution (s. c. parabolarectanglediagram).
NORM B 4200 does not allow for fully plastified concrete in the pressure zone; the
pressure stress distribution function is parabola 2 without a yield stress part. This
assumption of NORM B 4200 yields, for comparable material strength classes, design
solutions with higher security level than DIN 1045.
EUROCODE 2 allows for all national Norm assumptions. Actually, NEDIM keeps to the
parabolaconstant concrete pressure stress distribution assumption. EC 2 introduces a new
approach to the shear proof, which explicitly operates with the notion of the virtual (shear)
strut. It also formulates a new approach to the consideration of the interaction (m/n) v. In
compliance with this notion, the shear force may cause an increase of the required net
reinforcement. This phenomenon was investigated by the Author of NEDIM and 1999
implemented into the EC 2 design branch as well as into all other design branches following
the same (or similar) approach. For more detail on this phenomenon, named Shear Effect by
the Author of NEDIM, see paragraph Advanced notes on "Shear Effect" and [17].
CSN/STN 73 1201 introduces the notion of the so called pressure block : the resisting
concrete stress is assumed to develop constantly over a portion of the pressure zone only (i.e.
it covers not completely the zone between the neutral axis and the compressed face) thus
forming a calculation substitute for the reality approximated. Comparative tests showed that
there is no substantial difference between this simplified approach and more complex pressure
distribution assumptions of other Norms on the side of the design results.
SIA 162 introduces (see CSN/STN 73 1201) the notion of the pressure block and, simul
taneously, the combined parabolaconstant stress distribution, analogously to DIN 1045.
NEDIM uses the former assumption. It might thus be expected that the design results of
CSN/STN 73 1201 and SIA 162 would differ slightly from each other for comparable
material qualities. However, this proves to be true in situations with vanishing shear forces
only! As a fact, SIA 162 was the first of national Norms implemented in NEDIM (and the
first
Norm used in practice on international scale) which formulated the impact of shear forces
upon the net reinforcement at both faces(!), which was given the name Shear Effect (see
above, EUROCODE 2). Because SIA 162, in difference to EC 2, DIN 10451 and NORM B
4700, does not regularly allow for a design variant without considering the Shear Effect, the
development of the shear effect algorithm of NEDIM was, as a fact, induced by SIA 162,
73
rather than by EC 2. This special treatment of the Shear Effect is by SIA 162 explicitly
formulated for beams, i.e. 1D structural members, only. In order to make it applicable for 2D
reinforcement models, some special assumptions and algorithmic enhancements had to be
made. This NEDIM genuine development was implemented 1999 [17]. SCIA holds priority
not only in reporting this phenomenon but also in having developed and implemented their
own 2D algorithm in a design program distributed on the international market. This
phenomenon shall be discussed in more detail in the Chapter Shear Proof.
NEN 6720 operates under the assumption of linearconstant branch of the pressure distribu
tion function. NEN 6720 is a Norm of high engineering value. Especially its notion of shear
and crack proof is highly sophisticated. However, NEN 6720 does not introduce the notion
of the Shear Effect.
DIN 10451 is a Norm of the Eurocode family, developed as a successor of DIN 1045,
07/1988 [5]; it has officially been introduced into the German engineering practice in 2002.
DIN 10451 maintains the notion of combined 2 parabolic and constant concrete pressure
stress distribution of its predecessor issue. However, the material strengths are defined in the
Eurocode manner. The most distinguishing features in comparison with the predecessor DIN
issue are: (a) the notion of partial safety factors; (b) Eurocodelike classification of concrete;
(c) substantially higher allowed ultimate steel strain; (d) the Shear Proof notion is
substantially that of EC 2; however, some new elements have been introduced, not all of them
being a real improvement [21]. For more details see the Paper [22] of the Author of NEDIM.
GBJ1089 uses a similar concrete pressure distribution notion as DIN 10451. This norm does
not substantially differ from any other European norm. A distinguishing feature of the
Chinese Norm is that it pays more attention to design and detailing problems of 2D structures.
Especially, the GBJ 1089 Chapter Deep Beams has, compared with other European norms,
a pioneer character. See the paragraph Deep Beams below and [20].
BS 8110 allows for the pressure block and the parabolaconstant concrete stress distribution
as basic design assumptions. However, BS 8110 has developed outside the EUROCODE
family, thus interesting differences are encountered, e.g. (a) the yield concrete strain
c1
is
controlled by f
cu
(e.g. for f
cu
= 25 [MPa] is
c1
= 0.98 ); (b) the material security factor of
reinforcement steel is
m
= 1.05; (c) the shear strength (global resistance to shear) is assigned
the security coefficient
sh
= 1.25; (d) special shear force limit has been introduced for
constructive minimum shear reinforcement : SR0 SR1; (e) detailed provisions for
minimum reinforcement percentages according to analysis type and steel strength; (f)
"unconventional" approach to the crack control (obscure analytical formulae) etc.
NORM B 4700, officially declared as EUROCODElike Norm, does relatively little
differ from EC 2. It stipulates for the concrete both the notion of the pressure block and the
parabolaconstant stress distribution analogously to DIN 10451. NEDIM follows the latter
assumption. Reference [22] presents a comparative study NORM B 4700 DIN 10451.
BAEL 91/99 stipulates, like SIA 162 and NORM B 4700, both the assumptions of the
pressure block and the parabolaconstant concrete stress distribution. NEDIM follows the
latter assumption, like with NORM B 4700. BAEL 91/99 resembles, in the way how it
deals with the problem of m/n design, the Norms of the Eurocode family. The most
distinguished differences are to be found in special regions of design, like min/ max
reinforcement, shear proof and crack proof, as described further below.
SIA 262 maintains the assumptions of the pressure block and the parabolaconstant
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
74
concrete stress distribution from its predecessor issue SIA 162. As a whole, there are just
little differences to EC 2, e.g. (a) reduced ultimate concrete strain
cu
= 3.0; (b) Young's
module of steel E
s
= 205 [GPa]; (c) simplified estimation of basic shear resistance V
Rd
; (d)
consequent limitation of the effective concrete strength in cracked continuum (4.2.1.7); (e)
simplified semiempirical approach to the crack control etc.
EN 199211:2004 is the EC 2 novella of the preliminary European Norm ENV 19921
1:1991. Extensive modifications to the original text have been taken in all sections. Espe
cially the paragraphs on shear proof, crack control and minimum reinforcement control have
been expanded and diversified, e.g. (a) all "reasonable" assumptions of concrete stressstrain
diagram are allowed, namely the three basic cases: pressure block, linearconstant and
parabolaconstant. For the block distribution, restrictions to height and stress have been
introduced: x and f
cd
; (b) the recommended value of the strength reduction coefficient in
f
cd
=
cc
f
ctk,0.005
/
c
is
cc
= 1.0 (for the EC2 Norm family is typically
c
= 0.85); (c) the
strength reduction coefficient
1
in the formula for the shear strut resistance v
Rd,max
is more
diversified and the coefficient
cw
of the same formula expresses the effect of normal stress
upon v
Rd,max
on three intensity levels; (d) the crack calculation formula (direct control)
resembles that of DIN 10451, however, the crack distance formula depends here on 4
parameters.
IS 456 is unmistakably based upon some principles of BS 8110, yet it has developed ge
nuine approaches, which distinguish it strongly from the British Standard. In particular, (a)
the shear proof is based upon 3 Shear Regions, unlike BS 8110, and the crucial parameters
of the shear proof are defined quite differently from BS 8110; (b) the paragraphs on mini
mum reinforcement control stipulate another approach than BS 8110. On the other hand, the
crack control procedure of IS 456 is, by declaration, identical with the approach of BS 8110.
ACI 318M05 is a comprehensive Norm on concrete. For reinforcement concrete design the
Chapter 9 "Strength and Serviceability Requirements" is of fundamental importance. The
most distinguishing features are: (a) ACI does not apply the notion of partial security
coefficient; instead the design strengths are controlled by the state of stress, which is
expressed by the strength reduction factor . Typically,  = 0.90 for tension,  = 0.65 for
compression and  = 0.75 for shear. This regulation remembers to the strain controlled secu
rity coefficient under DIN 1045 07/1988, yet this case is algorithmically more exacting
since, in bending, the transition interval between "tensioncontrollled" and "compression
controlled" lies between
s,yield
and
s,min
, where
s,min
corresponds to x
max
the maximum
allowable bending pressure zone, and some numerical instability phenomena appear; (b)
ACI allows for three basic assumptions of concrete stress distribution rectangular,
trapezoidal and parabolic, but allows for any other stressstrain diagram that "results in
prediction of strength in substantial agreement with results of comprehensive tests". Since
the more general assumption parabolarectangle is a generalization of pure parabolic stress
distribution, the basic three stressstrain diagrams actually maintained by NEDIM apply
fully to the stipulations of ACI 318M05; (c) for flexural members with factored axial load 
n > 0.10 f
c
' A
c
the steel strain (at nominal strength) shall not be less than
s
= 4.0. This is
an important restriction to the design process! (d) the maximum admissible bending zone
height x
max
is controlled by steel strength or minimum admissible steel strain (see (c)), res
pectively; (e) the maximum usable strain at extreme concrete compression fibre shall be
assumed equal to 3.0 (compare with SIA 262); (f) there is a variety of stipulations con
cerning the minimum reinforcement percentage. However, they seem quite uncoordinated;
(g) Crack control is not directly required; it seems that this topic is covered by a number of
75
structural requirements.
In Plate models the statically required tension reinforcement of a design course is calculated
by the basic formula :
a
i
= m
i
/ (z
i
s,eff
)
(i = 1,2 (,3)) [cm/m] (11)
In (11) the special moment symbol m
i
for the design moment associated with the reinforcement course i is substituted for the
common symbol n
i
for design force in order to avoid confusion. The stress symbol o
s,eff
has a quality comparable with that
introduced by (6) for Walls; it again represents the effective design steel strength for all Norms. The inner forces lever z
i
in
(11) makes out the formal difference of (6) and (11); factually, there is no difference between them, since the quotient m
i
/z
i
equals the steel design force Z
i
, which constitutes with the opposing concrete pressure zone resultant force D
i
the force couple
representing the design bending moment m
i
; thus, we formally obtain (6) by substituting n
i
= Z
i
= m
i
/z
i
into (11).
(11) reveals the fundamental meaning of the inner forces lever z for the design algorithm. As a fact, by introducing the
transformation formulae (3) for Shells it was made clear enough that the knowledge of the proper value of inner forces lever is
indispensable for correct reinforcement design.
In NEDIM the inner forces lever z is calculated by the following procedures:
o For DIN 1045 and NORM B 4200 interpolation formulae for the value of z were
developed. The maximum approximation error amounts up to 2 %, however.
o For all other Norms (following the first two on the time scale) analytic integration
procedures for the basic assumptions of stress block, linearconstant and
parabolaconstant stress function were devised; they yield exact pressure inte
grals.
The stiffening function of the concrete medium is not as transparent in Plates as in Walls. In Plates we have to do with force
couples representing inner bending moments. The concrete pressure stresses are not constantly distributed over the cross
section. Thus, a direct application of the concrete strut bearing capacity limit condition (9) is not possible in Plates. NEDIM
had used some approximate approaches until the best and perhaps most simply formulation of the strut bearing capacity limit
was found. Instead of describing the strut control by mathematical terms, a verbal explanation of the matter relating to Fig. 5c
and Fig. 5d is preferred :
o In Plates the strut design force n
3
means the force couple of m
3
. From Fig. 5c it is
obvious that m
3
causes basically the same kind of stresses in its direction as the
other two reinforcement design moments m
1
and m
2
, however, with exchanged
faces (i.e. m
3
is of opposite sign). In this case we are not interested in analysing
the situation on the opposite face; the state of stress in the stiffening strut bending
pressure zone is of interest. What is the limit condition of the strut bearing
capacity? What calculation value of stress integral force D
3
is to be taken into
account?
o The answer to this fundamental question is given by Fig. 5d : NEDIM allows for the
maximum height of the bending pressure zone x
max
in compliance with the design
algorithm applied. If at this state of stress the equilibrium in the crosssection is
not yet attained, i.e. would strengthening of the pressure zone by (pressure) rein
forcement be formally required, then this is considered by NEDIM as an
unambiguous indication of the bearing capacity of the stiffening strut being
exceeded. The crosssection is nondesignable due to concrete failure (Non
designabilty Status NSt=5).
Till the mid of 2007 it had not been known to the Author of NEDIM that any competing software would deal with this problem at
all. Neither Norms nor theoretical publications on reinforced concrete design do not care about the state of concrete in a
heterogeneous concretesteel 2D medium. Some Norms give standardized recommendations as to the geometrical
arrangement of reinforcement in reference to the directions of the principal moments. They are concerned with stress
situations which are typical for corners of floor slabs etc. The way of how the recommendations had been formulated chal
lenged the Author of NEDIM to a critical essay in [18].
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
76
Fig. 5 Equilibrium of design inner forces in a Plate crosssection : (a) reinforcement course 1; (b) reinforcement course
2; (c) concrete stiffening strut course 3; (d) strain situation in the stiffening strut (bearing ability proof)
The special quality of design in plate corners is summed up by Fig. 6. This case gives a principal insight into the substance of
the virtual strut in bending stress situations.
Two marginal cases are compared by following Fig. 6:
o Usual reinforcement geometry (0/90) at both faces. This is statically the most inefficient arrangement since the
reinforcement courses decline by 45 from the principal moments m
I
, m
II
directions, which is the maximum value. All 4
reinforcement courses are under tension (!?) and the concrete pressure zones (on both faces) cannot develop in sections
rectangular to the reinforcement : they are active in the directions (135/45) a situation, which is completely unknown to
1D design! The reinforcement is, as a fact, under shear stress instead, as generally assumed, under pure tension. This is
very a complicated situation which shall not be analyzed in detail here. The primary knowledge from Fig. 6b is that the
concrete strut has to resist the double value of m
I
!
o The trajectory reinforcement, as demonstrated by Fig. 6c, represents the optimum reinforcement solution. The concrete
strut force vanishes and the reinforcement design simplifies to two quasi 1D design cases.
The virtual strut bearing ability is a topic of acute interest. Users changing from other program systems to EPW/ ESA PT come
earlier or later across the design error NSt = 5. On the SCIA hotline they then often claim : With our old program we never
have had such a problem. All the time we had been using it, no exhaustion of the concrete bearing ability was reported.
However, if the state of stress of the concrete is not monitored properly, not all of possible critical situations can be realized by
the design algorithm. Programs which do not care of this crucial design phenomenon cannot report of it at all, but this
disability does not make them better than software which deals precisely with the matter!
Additional arguments like: We do not know anything about damage to structures due to insufficiency of the stiffening function
of the concrete, are of no practical impact. The structures have to be designed with a security reserve. Underestimating of
the bearing capacity of concrete does not cause immediately a crash, yet generally a lesser than the required level of security
required by Norms and other Standards and Regulations, which every project engineer is obliged to provide with his structure.
The most distinguishing features of the 2D reinforced concrete compared with the 1D design are summarized in the Paper
[18], where some critical theses about the design approaches of EC 2, DIN 1045, DIN 10451 and NORM B 4700 are
formulated. The criticism of lacking attention to the concrete in its function as stiffening medium constitutes one of the vital
points of the Paper.
77
Fig. 6 Stress situation and development of the concrete strut in corner of a quadratic
plate : (a) Alternative reinforcement geometry 0/90 or 45/135 (both faces);
(b) Reinforcement geometry 0/90 : state of stress in plate corner inefficient
reinforcement geometry causing maximum concrete stress;
(c) Trajectory reinforcement geometry 45/135 : state of stress in plate corner
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
78
Design of Shells
In the design of Shells, the ideas and procedures of both the design of Walls and the design of Plates are combined. The
Norm requirements and restrictions, which seldom are formulated individually for Shells, must both be considered both for
Walls and Plates. Thus, the Shell design is the most complex design model dealt with by NEDIM.
From the mechanical point of view, the stressstrain situation in crosssections of Shells may develop from a typical "Wall
pattern" with constant stress distribution to a "Plate pattern" with characteristic nonlinear concrete pressure stress distribution
over the bending pressure zone along with a cracked region "below" the neutral axis where there the reinforcement resists the
stresses from inner forces. The special situation depends, however, on the character of external load as well as on the
boundary conditions of the analysis model.
NEDIM has to manage all possible stress situations arising between the Wall type and the Plate type state of stress using one
unique design model to be able to produce results consistent also with quantitatively slowly yet qualitatively abruptly changing
states of stress. It would be unacceptable to have a Shell design model which, on one side, yields results fully identical with a
Plate solution when there is pure bending acting, i.e. the membrane forces being zero, yet produces, on the other side,
obviously distorted results whenever the membrane forces differ slightly from zero. Little change in loading must imply little
change in the reinforcement design results.
As a fact, all Norms were drafted focusing to the problems of 1D structural members, i.e. beams and columns. In NEDIM,
many requirements and restrictions had to be given a reasonable engineering interpretation or extrapolation to fit to the
special character of the 2D structures. The reinforcement at both faces consists of two mutually independent nets with 2 or 3
reinforcement courses in generally different directions. Thus, in Shells it is not possible to proceed by simply using the
solutions of the reinforcement concrete design of beams.
NEDIM creates two sets of transformed design forces assigned to individual reinforcement courses and/or the stiffening
concrete strut at both faces of the analysis model. The procedure goes acc. to the formulae (4). In the assessment of the
inner forces lever z the Shell design procedure resembles the Plate design. By creating equivalent inner forces {n
x
, n
y
, n
xy
}
Zp
and their transforms {n
1d
, n
2d
, n
3d
} NEDIM follows a typical Wall design approach. Formally, we get two systems of design
situations at both Shell faces which must be managed in two algorithmic steps in every crosssection by considering the
situation on the other face. In this sense, the Shell design is organized like the Plate design.
Fig. 7c symbolizes the Shell design : there is a design force n
d
(subscript i = 1,2,3 is omitted) assigned to a reinforcement
course at the upper face (the same procedure applies to the lower face). The symbol n
d,opp
is used for the virtual design force
at the opposite face acting in the same direction as at the actual face; it is unimportant if there is a congruent reinforcement
course parallel to that at the actual face or not. The normal force in this crosssection is in Fig. 7c denoted as n
virt
(virtual
normal force). The virtual bending moment m
virt
is defined complementary to n
virt
. Thus, the virtual normal force eccentricity
(24
1
), (24
2
) can be estimated.
Fig. 7c demonstrates also the fact that the design at a Shell face is typically Wall design; however, the design force n
d
is not
applied to the total crosssection area as in Walls (Fig. 7a), yet to some portion of it : A
c,eff
= h
eff
1.0. NEDIM assigns A
c,eff
basically in accordance with the suggestions of Baumann in [5].
Fig. 7
Comparison of design situations in three NEDIM design models :
(a) Wall : total crosssection under tension/compression design force n
d
;
(b) Plate : design bending moment m
d
acting over the effective height d;
(c) Shell : combined action of bending moments/membrane forces expressed by n
d
: design normal force at active
face; n
d,opp
: design normal force at passive face; n
virt
: total virtual normal force in crosssection; m
virt
: virtual bending
moment conjugated with n
virt
In the area assignment formula
79
A
c,eff
= k
A
A
c
(12)
the value of the coefficient k
A
varies in the range <0.35, 0.42> in stress situations with neutral axis within the crosssection.
Principally, this approach may be compared with the approximation of the stress distribution in the bending pressure zone by
the pressure block (see above). Recent theoretical and algorithmic enhancements of NEDIM made it possible to distinguish
efficiently between bendinglike and membranelike stress situations in Shells, thus enabling to apply the full crosssection, i.e.
k
A
= 0.50, to the virtual strut proof when the strut crosssection is overpressed.
The proof of the virtual strut resistance is formally governed by (9), like for Walls. However, instead of the total crosssection
area A
c
, the effective oneface area A
c,eff
(12) is to substitute into (9).
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
80
SHEAR PROOF
Introduction to Shear Proof
All Norms implemented in NEDIM introduce own mechanical model of how slender structures like Plates and Shells resist the
shear force and how they can be strengthen to increase their shear resistance. As a fact, the Shear Proof is still more diver
sified than the longitudinal reinforcement design. However, this diversity becomes more relative by near consideration : there
are basic shear proof principles shared by most of the implemented Norms.
The shear stress is associated with bending state of stress in Plates and Shells. Walls are not involved in this design
algorithm; the membrane shear, represented by the inner force n
xy
is principally another kind of inner force and has nothing in
common with the following discussion.
The shear force components v
x
and v
y
at the point of consideration are transformed to the design shear force v
d
according to
the following geometric sum formula :
v
d
= \ (v
x
+ v
y
) [kN/m] (13)
Fig. 8 Notion of the design shear force :  direction of the principal design force v
d ; 
j
directions of
supplement design forces v
jd
associated with m
I
, n
I
The symbol v
d
in (13) denotes the principal design shear force associated with the direction  = arctan (v
y / v
x
) (Fig. 8).
In most Norms the overall state of stress plays a role in the shear proof, thus the actual bending moment and normal
force become factors of the shear proof process. The logical consequence of considering the action (m / n) is to effect
uate the shear proof in the directions 
j
of the principal inner forces m
I
and n
I
(Fig. 8), too. To do this, the notion of
supplement design shear forces v
jd
is
introduced:
v
jd
= v
x
cos 
j
+ v
y
sin 
j

j
=

j
(m
I
, n
I
) (j = 1,2,3) (14)
All Norms define certain stress levels which, when attained/exceeded, indicate either the shear reinforcement being required
to ensure the crosssection resistance to shear, or signalize the structure being nondesignable to shear. In compliance with
the terminology of DIN 1045 07/1988, the lowest limit restricts the so called Shear Region 1 (abbreviated as SR1). Within
SR1, no shear reinforcement is required. In the Shear Region 2 (SR2) the shear reinforcement is calculated on the base of the
design value v
d
(13). When the (upper) limit of SR2 is attained in a 2D continuum, the shear bearing ability of the crosssection
is considered to be exhausted. This limit is the threshold to Shear Region 3. If SR3 is indicated in the output protocol of the
2D design it means nondesignability of the crosssection under scrutiny.
Not all of the Norm proof procedures implemented in NEDIM are discussed here in full detail; their theoretical fundamentals
may be studied in the corresponding Norm texts and accompanying publications. A theoretical summary of the 2D shear proof
is presented in the Paper [17], which comprises some unconventional insights into the computerized 2D shear proof tech
niques. Generally, only selected characteristic details of the shear proof procedure shall be given focus to in this Chapter.
Since there are principles common to all Norms, they shall not be repeatedly discussed in all paragraphs on individual Norm
branches, which had continually been being added to this manual text during their implementation into NEDIM since 1992.
81
The program users are thus encouraged to read all Norm paragraphs of this manual to get sure that no useful information has
been ignored.
Some Norms stipulate minimum shear reinforcement. This requirement is regulated by Norm tables combining e.g. the control
by the concrete and steel strength classes. Analogously, CSN/STN 73 1201 stipulate an additional, lower shear stress limit,
which, if attained, implies the need of the so called structural shear reinforcement in corresponding parts of the structure
designed. A comparable intermediate shear limit is stipulated also by BS 8110. To incorporate the corresponding shear level
into the proof procedure, the notion of Shear Region 0 was introduced for CSN/STN and BS 8110! In these Norm branches,
SR0 means "No required shear reinforcement"; SR1 "Minimum shear reinforcement"; SR2 "Statically required shear
reinforcement"; SR3 "Nondesignable".
To enable better understanding of the design results, the most important characteristics of the Norm oriented shear proof
procedures applied in NEDIM are summarized here. Prior to all individual specifications it is to declare that the assumption of
vertical stirrups, i.e. stirrups which are orthogonal to the structural member normal axis, is common to all Norm branches
implemented in NEDIM.
Shear Proof according to DIN 1045 07/1988
DIN 1045 introduces the notion of the so called truss model analogy (Fachwerkanalogie of
Fachwerkmodel) by E. Mrsch of the shear stress resistance mechanism. The Shear Region
limits (see the introductory paragraph for definition of the notion Shear Region) are expressed
in terms of allowable shear stresses as functions of the concrete strength class. Depending on
the continuity of the tension reinforcement in individual spans, one of two sets of shear stress
limits applies.
Shear Proof according to NORM B 4200
NORM B 4200 stipulates a shear proof approach similar to DIN 1045. Differently to DIN
1045, the continuity of net reinforcement is no design factor ; on the other side, the amount of
net reinforcement (both tension and compression reinforcement!) at both faces is declared a
bearing capacity increasing factor. Since NORM B 4200 formulates this approach for 1D
members only, NEDIM implies the following interpretation : the geometric sums of individual
active reinforcement direction amounts (analogously to (13)), evaluated at both faces sepa
rately, are added up and used as effective values of longitudinal reinforcement.
Shear Proof according to EUROCODE 2
EUROCODE 2 introduces a progressive shear proof method (compared with DIN 1045 88/7
and other Norms of the preEurocode era) based upon the concept of Strut inclination. The
notion Strut is a symbolic representation of the concrete medium resistance to principal
pressure stresses, as described in [17]; the strut inclination is then the assumed direction of the
principal pressure stress field reactivated in the concrete by the shear (transversal) force v.
The basic shear resistance of the concrete crosssection without transversal shear reinfor
cement (stirrups) is determined by a sophisticated formula considering continuity and
percentage of longitudinal reinforcement, height of the crosssection and the magnitude of the
normal force (both compression and tension). This EC2 formula (4.18), written in terms of
NEDIM for 2D design, assumes the following form :
v
Rd1
= (
rd
k
(1.2 + 40
1
) 0.15
cp
)
d [MN/m] (14
1
)
with
Rd
basic value of design shear strength according to Table 4.8;
1
effective longi
tudinal reinforcement percentage according to the following restriction :
1
= min (100 a
sl
/ d, 2.
) [%] (14
2
)
For (14
2
) EC2 strictly specifies tension reinforcement a
sl
, and so it is handled in NEDIM.
However, if there is no tension reinforcement (i.e. overpressed crosssection), the active
compression reinforcement is dealt with instead, in order to prevent inconsistent design results
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
82
in crosssections differing, perhaps, only by normal force slightly alternating around zero.
Furthermore, (14
1
) uses the term
cp
= n
d
/ d < 0 medium normal stress in crosssection due to
the isolated effect of the normal force n
d
(compare with NEN 6720 where there the full cross
section height h is referred to). Differently to EC2, formula (4.18) the term 0.15
cp
in (14
2
)
appears with negative sign since the tension normal force is considered to be positive!
NEDIM controls, however, the basic shear strength not to become negative with high normal
tension.
The coefficient k in (14
2
) is represents the continuity of longitudinal (tension) reinforcement
as well as the static height of crosssection :
k = max (1.6 d, 1.) [] (14
3
)
with d the crosssection static height in [m]; k assumes the minimum value of 1.0 if more
than 50% of the longitudinal (or field) reinforcement is discontinuous.
The crosssection remains in SR1 as long as the basic shear resistance vRd1 fits the following
condition :
v
Rd1
v
d
[MN/m] (14
4
)
For higher load intensity than (14
4
), shear reinforcement is required. Two alternative shear
reinforcement design methods are stipulated by EC 2; both are implemented in NEDIM) :
o The s. c. Standard method EC 2, 4.3.2.4.3 is based on the concept of constant strut inclination. This approach allows in
the calculation of the statically required shear reinforcement for basic concrete resistance v
cd
(s. c. Abzugswert by
Mrsch), which reduces the effective value of the reinforcement design force v
wd
. On the other hand, the strut inclination
angle is applied constantly as = 45 :
a
sw
=
(v
d
v
cd
) / (0.9 d f
ywd
) [m/m] (14
5
)
where v
cd
is, basically, v
Rd1
(14
1
); compare with EC 2, formulae (4.22) and (4.23)). It is noteworthy a fact that the
fundamental formulae (15
9
) for NEN 6720 and (17
3
) for BAEL 91/99 (see below), respectively, are principally identical,
excepting, however, different symbols used.
o The advanced method EC 2, 4.3.2.4.4 applies the concept of variable strut inclination. The statically required shear
reinforcement a
sw
is calculated from the elementary EC 2 formula (4.27); with NEDIM symbolism :
a
sw
=
v
d
tan / (z f
ywd
) [m/m] (14
6
)
which is principally identical for all Norms of the Eurocode family. It does not contain
any reduction component considering the basic concrete resistance, like v
cd
in (14
5
). How
ever, the limited resistance capacity of the virtual concrete strut is paid respect to by the
EC 2 condition (4.27) :
a
sw
0.5 f
cd
/ f
ywd
[m/m] (14
7
)
which means, that the crosssection resistance cannot be increased deliberately by
increasing the stirrup reinforcement ! The control factor = f (f
ck
) is defined by the EC 2
formula (4.21).
Note. EC 2 introduced the symbol for the virtual strut inclination. However, it seems
that the process of European unification has obviously not yet reached the reinforced con
crete symbolism, since there are at least 3 different symbols for the strut inclination in use :
, (SIA 162) and (NORM B 4700). In general considerations of this manual, the EC
2 symbol is preferred.
83
The resistance to shear force of a reinforced crosssection is exhausted when the bearing
capacity v
Rd2
of the virtual shearcompression strut is less than the shear impact v
d
; the cross
section transits to SR3 :
v
Rd2
= 0.5 z
f
cd
sin (2) [MN/m] (14
8
)
In (14
8
) considers the reduced concrete strut strength, as analogy to the reduced strength of
the bendingmembrane stiffening strut (see Design of Walls above). A further reduction of the
strut resistance v
Rd2
follows from compression normal force. EC2, 4.3.2.2(4), formula (4.15)
introduces the effective value of v
Rd2,eff
which then replaces v
Rd2
of (14
8
).
Shear Proof according to CSN 73 1201 and STN 73 1201
CSN/STN 73 1201 stipulate shear proof in oblique section (compare with GBJ 1089), which
is based on the concrete tension strength merely than on allowable shear stress. In addition to
most other Norms, CSN/STN 73 1201 require minimum shear reinforcement in special design
situations. For this reason, the notion of Shear Regions, introduced by DIN 1045 and applied
to other Norms as well, has for CSN/STN 73 1201 (and also BS 8110) been extended by the
formal introduction of SR0; this is equivalent to the standard meaning of SR1, used for other
Norms. For CSN/STN, in SR1 the minimum shear reinforcement is estimated. SR2/3 have
then equal meaning as with other Norms.
The basic shear resistance of the concrete crosssection without transversal shear reinforce
ment is determined by 5.3.3, formula (137); in terms of NEDIM :
q
bu
= h
q
b
R
btd
/ 3. [MN/m] (14
a
)
with h crosssection height, R
btd
design tension strength of concrete,
b
effectivity factor
of concrete (5.1.2) and
q
shear strength factor;
q
= f(h) {1.25, 1.5, 1.6} (5.3.5.2). The
value of q
bu
serves as criteria of determining the Shear Region (5.3.2.2), formulae (133)
(135).
The crosssection is in SR0 if the design shear force does not exceed the value of q
bu
:
q
d
q
bu
[MN/m] (14
b
)
SR1, i.e. required minimum shear reinforcement, corresponds to the shear intensity :
q
bu
< q
d
2.5 q
bu
[MN/m] (14
c
)
For SR1 the minimum stirrup shear reinforcement is specified by 5.3.6, formula (146) ; in
terms of NEDIM :
a
sv
= (
q
/ 2.) R
btd
/ R
ssd
[m/m] (14
d
)
with R
btd
design tension strength of concrete (14
a
), R
ssd
design tension strength of the
stirrup reinforcement steel and
q
shear strength factor (14
a
).
SR2 is limited by the condition :
q
d
> 2.5 q
bu
[MN/m] (14
e
)
The statically required shear reinforcement in SR2 is specified by 5.3.4.1, formula (138) ; in
terms of NEDIM :
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
84
a
sv
= (q
d
q
bu
)
/ (
s
R
ssd
c) [m/m] (14
f
)
with R
ssd
design tension strength of the stirrup reinforcement steel (14
d
),
s
effectivity
factor of stirrup steel (5.1.2) and c length of oblique section projection onto the member
neutral axis, which is stipulated by 5.3.5.1, formulae (140) and (141); in terms of NEDIM :
c
0
= 1.2
b
R
btd
h
e
/ (q
d
q
bu
) [m] (14
g
)
c = max (min (0.18 R
bd
h /(
q
R
btd
), c
0
), z
b
) [m] (14
h
)
with h
e
effective static height, z
b
inner forces lever (used in shear proof) and c
0
auxiliary
variable (14
g
) (14
h
); other variables used in (14
g
), (14
h
) see preceding formulae and
explanations.
The limit to SR3 is described as the so called reliability condition by 5.3.2.1, formula (131);
in terms of NEDIM :
q
d
h min(
b
R
bd
,18.) / 3. [MN/m] (14
i
)
with R
bd
design compression strength of concrete,
b
effectivity factor (2.1.2.1). The
upper limit of 18. [MPa] on
b
R
bd
is stipulated as additional condition by 5.3.2.1, formula
(132). If (14
i
) is not met, the crosssection does not possess sufficient reliability to the shear
impact in the sense of CSN/STN (exhaustion of the virtual concrete strut); undesignability to
shear is reported.
Shear Proof according to SIA 162
SIA 162 applies the variable shear strut inclination method (see mode (b) of EC2, above) as
standard shear proof approach. However, the special requirement of 3 24 203 (see the para
graph Shear Effect), which is hardly to control in 2D structures, made it necessary for
NEDIM to introduce the alternative mode of the so called variablefixed shear strut incli
nation available for user's control. This special approach applies the basic value of o = 45
constantly throughout the whole calculation; however, it is not the same approach as
stipulated by the EC 2 Standard method (14
5
).
Shear Proof according to NEN 6720
NEN 6720 stipulates a sophisticated, progressive method of shear proof, which resembles a
combination of the ideas of EC 2 and SIA 162. Especially, it also applies the notion of vari
able shear strut inclination. The notion of Shear Regions (see above) is well applicable to the
NEN 6720 proof procedure as a classification base.
The NEN 6720 design branch is one of the most crucial NEDIM design algorithms.
Originally, it was coded according to the NEN 6720:1995 edition. The Norm novella
A3:2004 (and other corrections) has been, however, considered by additional algorithm
enhancements. Especially, the shear proof stipulations, as described by the paragraph 8.2
Dwarskracht have thus become quite labyrinthine. In order to make the NEDIM design
procedure transparent to the users, it is here described, adapted to the ESA PT 2D design
terminology and symbolism, in quite a detail:
Shear Region 1 (SR1). The notion of Shear Region introduced by DIN 1045 07/1988 (see
above) has been adapted to the NEN 6720 shear proof procedure. The crosssection lies in
SR1 if the design shear stress t
d
(related to the crosssection width b
0
= 1.0 [m]) is not less
than the basic shear stress limit t
1
(15
2
) :
85
1
d
= v
d
/ d [MPa] (15
1
)
It means that the resistance of the crosssection to shear force is effectuated without shear
reinforcement (stirrups). The basic shear bearing ability is defined as :
1
= 0.4 f
b
max (k
h
k
3
\
0
, 1.) [MPa] (15
2
)
In (15
2
)
1
is, consequently, the SR1 limit; it is calculated from f
b
, as stipulated by the Norm Table 3. From (15
2
) it follows that
1
attains at least the value
1
= 0.4 f
b
. The parameters k
, k
h
and
3
\
0
in (15
1
) have the following meaning :
k
h
= max (1.6 h, 1.) [] (15
3
)
with h the crosssection height in [m]. The parameter k
accounts for increased shear resistance to concentrate loads acting
near to margin supports. It is defined by a formula (8.2.3.1), which implicitly comprises the so called shear force slenderness
v
= M
d,max
/ (d V
d,max
) . However, to apply this typical 1D formula, ESA PT does not contain any necessary geometric
information for 2D members; anyway, the application of the above
v
formula to 2D structures would generally be indefinite !
Thus, NEDIM applies the parameter k
as a constant :
k
= 1. [] (15
4
)
This is, according to the definition in 8.2.3.1, the lower limit of k
with the definition of the parameter in EC2, 4.3.2.2(5) and (9), formula (4.17) !
The most important parameter of (15
2
) is the longitudinal reinforcement percentage, defined as
0
= min (100 a
s,eff
/ d, 2.) [%] (15
5
)
(also related to unit crosssection width b = 1.0), appearing in cubic root. In (15
5
) a
s,eff
represents the effective amount of
longitudinal net reinforcement under tension ! To calculate this special value, NEDIM applies the routine SUMREI(3,). It
yields for a
s,eff
the geometric sum obeying the cos rule :
a
s,eff
= \
j =1,3
(a
st,j
cos(
j
))
Zp
[m/m] (15
6
)
(15
6
) is written in algorithmic symbolism : (a) Z
p
means, that the summations
j =1,3
(...) are carried out separately for upper
and lower face, then applying the square root operator to the final sum of + Z
p
and Z
p
; (b) a
st,j
symbolizes that only active
reinforcement courses under tension (t) are considered. The reinforcement percentage
0
(15
4
) is limited to [2%] ! The cosine
function in (15
6
) is the reinforcement course effectiveness factor, ensuring that reinforcement parallel to the design shear force
direction is engaged by 100%, whereas reinforcement course perpendicular to direction disappears effectively from (15
6
).
The square power of the cosine function considers the tensor character of the longitudinal stresses which a
st,j
is associated
with.
Shear Region 2 (SR2). The shear bearing capacity associated with stirrup reinforcement ( =
90) is represented by the shear stress limit t
s
:
s
= v
s
/ d = a
sv
z f
s
/ (d tan ) [MPa] (15
7
)
with v
s
the partial shear force acting upon the stirrups; a
sv
effective area of stirrups; z
the inner forces lever; actual (chosen) inclination angle of the virtual concrete strut. The
statically required amount of a
sv
follows from the condition of equilibrium of active and
resisting inner forces :
u
1
+
s
=
d
[MPa] (15
8
)
Thus :
a
sv
=
(
d
1
) d tan / (z f
s
) [m/m] (15
9
)
It is noteworthy a fact that the shear reinforcement formula (15
9
) for NEN 6720 and the cor
responding formula (14
5
) of the so called Standard method of EC 2 (see above) comprise
both the shear impact force (or stress) reduced by the basic concrete resistance capacity.
Shear Region 3 (SR3). According to (15
9
), the resistance to shear can be increased within
quite wide limits by increasing the stirrup reinforcement a
sv
. However, if the capacity of the
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
86
virtual strut is exhausted, the crosssection collapsed due to concrete insufficiency, no matter
how strong the shear reinforcement has been provided. The limit value of SR3 is the shear
limit t
2
defined by the following relation :
2
= 0.2 f'
b
k
n
k
[MPa] (15
A
)
The transition to SR3, i.e. nondesignability to shear force, is described by the relation :
2
<
d
[MPa] (15
B
)
For perpendicular stirrups, the factor k
in (15
A
) is defined as :
k
nd
0, i.e. tension; in the latter case the second term of (15
D
) applies, i.e. k
n
= 1.0 for tension
normal forces n
d
(or pure bending, n
d
= 0).
The notion of virtual shear strut with variable inclination, as stipulated by NEN 6720, has consequently been implemen
ted in NEDIM. A comparison of the formulae (15
9
) and (15
A,C
) reveals the doubleedged character of the strut
inclination u : (a) higher values of u cause increased demand of shear reinforcement; (b) lower values of u diminuish the
strut resistance. Since both dependances are described by continuous functions, there exists an optimum value of
opt
,
which yields the minimum required shear reinforcement amount, yet still preventing the transition to SR3 (15
B
). The
opt
value is found iteratively : the iteration process starts with the minimum allowed strut angle u
min
= 30 (8.2.4) and, incre
menting by 1, equilibrium at the lowest amount of required shear reinforcement is searched, meeting the shear
resistance requirement t
u
t
1
+ t
s
= t
2
= t
d
. The ESA PT input control allows, as a practical proof alternative, for user's
choice of the constant inclination u = 45 (compare with the so called variablefixed shear strut inclination method of the
SIA 162 branch).
Additional considerations on SR1. The basic shear stress limit t
1
(15
2
) of SR1 depends,
analogously to the SR3 limit t
2
(15
A
), upon the normal force n
d
, which is, basically, the
integral component of the membrane stress state in the direction of the design shear force v
d
(see (13), (14) and Fig.8). Compression normal forces are favourable, i.e. increase t
1
;
tension normal forces are unfavourable. Using the ESA/NEDIM symbolism, the dependence
on n
d
is expressed by the formula :
'
1
=
1
+
n
[MPa] (15
E
)
with t '
1
the effective SR1 limit; t
n
= f(n
d
) (compare with EC2, 4.3.2.3(1), (4.18)) :
n
= 0.15
nd
> 0.
for n
d
< 0. [MPa] (15
F
)
n
= 0.5
nd
0. for n
d
0. [MPa] (15
G
)
with
nd
= n
d
/ h medium normal stress in crosssection due to the isolated effect of the
normal force n
d
(note the difference to NEN 6720 symbolism:
nd
'
bmd
). To prevent that
t
1
becomes negative for high tension normal forces, (15
E
) is applied in the consistent form :
'
1
= max (
1
+
n
, 0.) [MPa] (15
H
)
87
There is another favourable effect of compression normal force which manifests itself in
case of low bending stresses. If in the crosssection the bending stress is limited :
bd,max
< 0.25 f
br
[MPa] (15
I
)
then NEN 6720, 8.2.3.3 allows to consider the first principal stress
I
instead of the shear
stress t
1
(compression is negative!):
I
= \ (
d
+
bd
/ 4) +
bd
/ 2 [MPa] (15
J
)
In (15
J
) the symbols t
d
and
bd
represent variable shear and bending stress (concrete), respec
tively, in the section parallel to the neutral plane where the principal stress
I
attains its
maximum value. NEDIM searches for such section iteratively. Note that (15
J
) has general
validity for both tension and compression normal forces. NEN 6720, 8.2.3.3 (Toelich
ting) focuses to compression stresses '
bd
only; such constraint is redundant since (15
J
) fits
consistently to normal tension, too.
If the condition (51
I
) is met and
I
(15
J
) does not exceed the concrete tension strength :
I
f
b
[MPa] (15
K
)
then NEN 6720 does not require any further shear proof ! The crosssection resistance to
shear is taken as granted, without shear reinforcement.
Shear Proof according to DIN 10451 07.2001
DIN 10451 was implemented into NEDIM with EPW 3.0. The DIN 10451 design branch
follows the EC 2 thread in dealing with the problem of variable strut inclination method and
considering of the Shear Effect. There are, however, some interesting differences to EC 2 and
NORM B 4700, which have excessively been dealt with in [22]. The most distinguishing
feature from other Norms is that the lower limit of the strut inclination is determined by
DIN 10451, 10.3.4(3), formula (73) :
min
= arccot ((1.2 1.4
c,d
/ f
cd
) / (1. v
Rd,c
/ v
Ed
)) [] (16)
which, nevertheless, is limited by
inf
= 18.4
min
. For meaning of symbols in (16) see
[13]. The NEDIM  iteration starts with
min
(16) and runs until
max
= 45.
Shear Proof according to GBJ 1089
GBJ 1089 was implemented into NEDIM with EPW 3.1. It presents, as a whole, some
interesting reinforcement concrete design ideas. As to the shear proof, its method resembles
that of CSN/STN 73 1201 (stress proof in an oblique section). The notions of the variable
strut inclination and of the Shear Effect are, however, not implemented into the GBJ 1089
proof approach. On the other part, there are some advanced ideas as to the consideration of
the type and the position of loads on the structure compare with NEN 6720, coefficient
c
.
Typically, these specifications, focusing to 1D members, are hardly to follow in the ESA PT
2D design. Thus, corresponding upper limit provisions have been active in the NEDIM algo
rithm to ensure that the security requirements are not underestimated in extreme load situati
ons.
Shear Proof according to BS 8110
BS 8110 defines the ultimate shear stress v
c
, i.e. the basic shear resistance of crosssection
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
88
without shear reinforcement, by the generator formula of Table 3.8; in terms of NEDIM :
v
c
= 0.79
eff
1/3
max ((400 / d)
1/4
, 1.) /
m
[MPa] (16
1
)
with
eff
effective longitudinal reinforcement percentage according to the following re
striction :
eff
= min (100 a
s
/ d, 3.) [%] (16
2
)
BS 8110, Table 2.2 assesses the partial safety factor for concrete shear strength without
shear reinforcement in (16
1
) by a very special value of
m
= 1.25 ! With (16
1
), the Norm
Table 3.8 is of no practical meaning for NEDIM; perhaps, for numerical check of (16
1
).
The design stress v = v
d
/ d is checked against the shear resistance v
c
to specify the Shear
Region : (a) SR0: v
<
v
c
; (b) SR1 : v
c
v
v
c
+
0.4 ; (c) SR2 : v
c
+
0.4
<
v
<
min (0.8 f
cu
, 5.)
[MPa]. For SR1 the minimum shear reinforcement formula is specified in Table 3.16; in
terms of NEDIM :
a
sv
= 0.4 / (0.95 f
yv,eff
) [m/m] (16
3
)
with f
yv,eff
= min( f
yv
, 460.) [MPa] effective strength of stirrup reinforcement (for limitation
of f
yv
to 460 [MPa] see 3.5.5.1). Note that the amount of 0.4 [MPa] in (16
3
) represents the
scope of the SR1 interval (Pt (b) above). The required shear reinforcement amount in SR2 is
specified by a formula in Table 3.16; in terms of NEDIM :
a
sv
= (v v
c
)
/ (0.95 f
yv,eff
) [m/m] (16
4
)
In (16
4
) the difference term (v v
c
) reveals the reduction effect of the basic shear resistance
("Abzugswert" by Mrsch). This approach of BS 8110 resembles the so called Standard
method of EC 2, 4.3.2.4.3 (see above).
The crosssection becomes nondesignable, i.e. transits to SR3, if the design shear stress v
exceeds the lesser value of 0.8 f
cu
and 5. [MPa] (Table 3.16) :
v > min(0.8 f
cu
, 5.) [MPa] (16
5
)
For M40 is 0.8 f
cu
= 5.06 [MPa]; thus, the paired value of 5.0 [MPa] in (16
5
) is the effective
strength limit for concrete grades M40 and higher. A comparison with IS 456, Table 20
shows that the corresponding maximum effective strength for M40 is
c,max
= 4.0 [MPa]; this
makes 80% of the BS 8110 limit. However, since IS 456 allows for 2D members only half
the value of
c,max
as effective strength, the conclusion is justified that IS 456 is much more
conservative than BS 8110 (40%), concerning the ultimate shear resistance !
Shear Proof according to NORM B 4700
NORM B 4700 was implemented into NEDIM with EPW 3.40. The overall design method
of NORM B 4700 is based on EC 2. This NEDIM design branch follows the same prin
ciples of dealing with the variable strut method and the Shear Effect like EC 2 or DIN 1045
1, respectively.
Shear Proof according to BAEL 91/99
BAEL 91/99 was introduced into NEDIM with EPW 3.50. The shear proof method applies,
like most of the Norms implemented, the concept of the truss analogy (Fachwerkmodell)
devised by Mrsch. However, there are some features strongly distinguishing the BAEL
89
approach from other Norm branches. They will become obvious when reviewing the
characteristic items of the BAEL shear proof, which is here described, adapted to the NEDIM
2D design terminology and symbolism, in detail:
Shear strut inclination. Differently from other Norms, BAEL allows for the constant
inclination angle 45 only. It resembles the constant strut inclination variant of EC 2
(compare (17
3
) and (14
5
)).
Inner forces lever z. BAEL strictly stipulates the use of the constant lever z = 0.9 d for shear
proof. Since the most important BAEL shear proof formulae refer explicitly to this relation
(i.e. using the term 0.9 d for z) NEDIM keeps to this rule, ignoring the more precise value of
z
calc
submitted by the preceding m/n design phase.
Shear Region 1 (SR1). The notion of Shear Region "borrowed" from the terminology of DIN
1045 07/1988 can very well be adapted to the BAEL shear proof procedure. The basic shear
bearing ability ("Abzugswert" by Mrsch) expressed by the shear stress limit t
0
:
0
= 0.3 k min (f
tj
, 3.3) [MPa] (17
1
)
is precisely the SR1 shear stress limit! The values which it assumes for the BAEL concrete strength classes (Table A.6.1,21
[24]) are comparable with those of DIN 1045 07/1988. The coefficient k in (17
1
) articulates the effect of tension/pressure nor
mal force acting in the crosssection upon the stress limit t
0
. More than that : also the status of cracking (see below) and the
state of the joint between old and new part of composed crosssections can be expressed by assigning the appropriate value
to the factor k, which can assume both positive and negative values.
Shear Region 2 (SR2). The representative mean ultimate shear stress t
u
is calculated by the
following formula (simplified for 2D structures by setting, as usual, the crosssection width
to b
0
= 1) :
u
= v
d
/ d [MPa] (17
2
)
The required amount of shear reinforcement a
sv
is then calculated (assumed orthogonal stir
rups, o = 90), by the following formula :
a
sv
=
s
(
u
0
) / (0.9 d f
e
) [m/m] (17
3
)
with
s
material security coefficient for steel (1.15) and f
e
steel strength [MPa]. It is
noteworthy a fact that the shear reinforcement formula (17
3
) for BAEL 91/99 and the cor
responding formula (14
5
) of the s. c. Standard method of EC 2 are principally identical,
excepting, however, different symbols used.
Two different upper limits are set for t
u
[24], controlled by three shear modes, which are
specified in relation to the status of cracking : (a) cracking is considered generally as non
critical (peu prjudiciable) for the functionality of structure; (b) cracking is considered as
critical (prjudiciable); (c) cracking is considered as very critical (trs prjudiciable).
These characteristics, distinguishing BAEL 91/99 from other Norms, are controlled on
program input! On the other part, there are no requirements on the continuity of reinforce
ment, as with some Norms of the EC family.
u
min(0.2 f
cj
/
b
, 5.) [MPa] (cracking status (a)) (17
4
)
u
min(0.15 f
cj /
b
, 4.) [MPa] (cracking status (b) & (c)) (17
5
)
In overpressed sections (i.e. zero axis is outside the section area) the shear proof can be
considered as delivered if the shear stress t
u
does not exceed the following limit value :
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
90
u
min(0.06 f
cj /
b
, 1.5) [MPa] (17
6
)
with
b
the material security coefficient of concrete (
b
= 1.5) and f
cj
the actual concrete
strength [MPa].
Shear Region 3 (SR3). The crosssection is declared as nondesignable for shear if the upper
shear limit (17
4
) or (17
5
), respectively, is not met by t
u
.
Shear Proof according to SIA 262
SIA 262 principally follows EC 2. The basic shear resistance v
Rd
is estimated by
v
Rd
= k
d
0
d [MN/m] with k
d
= 1 / (1 + k
v
d) (18
1
)
In the formula for k
d
(18
1
), the coefficient k
v
depends on the expected deformations; for
NEDIM the application of the maximum value.
k
v
= 3.0 (18
2
)
is only plausible. The virtual shear strut inclination can freely be chosen within the interval
(no control by normal force like SIA 162) :
25 45 (18
3
)
NEDIM starts the iteration process with 25, unless the fixed strut option has been chosen
(see the paragraph on SIA 162).
Shear Proof according to EN 199211:2004
EN 199211:2004 is a novella of the preliminary European Norm ENV 199211: 1991 (EC
2). Compared with EC 2 the basic shear resistance v
Rd,c
is defined by an improved formula
containing special coefficients C
Rd,c
, v
min
and k
1
(b
w
= 1) :
v
Rd,c
= [C
Rd,c
k (100
I
f
ck
)
1/3
+ k
1
cp
] d [MN/m] (19
1
)
The value of v
Rd,c
is restricted by the lower limit formula
v
Rd,c
= [v
min
+ k
1
cp
] d [MN/m] (19
2
)
The values of C
Rd,c
, v
min
and k
1
may be found in the National Annexes. The recommended
values are C
Rd,c
= 0.18 /
c
and k
1
=
0.15 (NEDIM defaults), while v
min
is, by default, calculated
from :
v
min
= 0.035 k (k f
ck
) [MN/m] (19
3
)
The formula for shear strut resistance v
Rd,max
contains a new coefficient
cw
(b
w
= 1) :
v
Rd,max
= 0.5
cw
z
1
f
cd
sin (2) [MN/m] (19
4
)
Here
cw
takes account of the state of stress in the virtual shear strut by distinguishing three
intensity levels of axial compression, thus unifying the estimation of the effective value of
v
Rd,max
by one formula. The strength reduction coefficient
1
is more diversified than corres
ponding coefficient in EC2, formula (4.21) see (14
8
) above.
91
Shear Proof according to IS 456
IS 456 defines the design shear strength of concrete
c
without shear reinforcement by Table
19; that is a tabled functional dependence of
c
on concrete grade and longitudinal
reinforcement percentage. NEDIM employs, however, an exact analytical formula for
c
,
which generates the values of Table 19; in terms of NEDIM :
c
= 0.85 (0.8 f
ck
) [ (1. + 5 ) 1.] / (6 ) [MPa] (20
1
)
Notice the analogy to EC2, 4.3.2.3, formula (4.18) (14
5
), term v
cd
and BS 8110 (16
1
),
term v
c
. The auxiliary parameter in (20
1
) is defined by the formula :
= 0.8 f
ck
/ (6.89
t
) [] (20
2
)
with
t
percentage of longitudinal tension reinforcement in crosssection, yet not less than
0.15% (basic value of minimum tension reinforcement) and not more than 3.0% :
t
= max (min (100 a
st
/ d, 3.) , 0.15) [%] (20
3
)
Following 40.2.1.1, in 2D shear proof, the tabled values
c
are augmented by the factor k,
depending on the crosssection depth d ; thus, the effective value
c,eff
is
used instead :
c,eff
= k
c
[MPa] (20
4
)
The function k = f(d) is also tabled (40.2.1.1), assigning to k values from the interval <1.0;
1.3> : the lowest value, k = 1.0, corresponds to d 300 [mm], whereas the maximum, k = 1.3,
is assigned to d 150 [mm]. The dependence k = f(d) is a linear function. NEDIM employs
the algorithmic formula (d is inserted in [m]) :
k = max (min (1.6 2d, 1.3) , 1.) [] (20
5
)
instead of linear interpolation of the tabled values (note the factor 2 with d ; compare with
(14
3
) and (15
3
)).
The design stress
v
= v
u
/ d is checked against
c,eff
(20
1
) to determine the Shear Region. In
SR1, i.e. if the effective design shear strength of concrete
c,eff
is less than the shear impact
v
:
c,eff
v
[MPa] (20
6
)
no shear reinforcement is required. The crosssection resists the shear impact by the con
crete strength f
ck
in combination with the so called dowel effect of the longitudinal rein
forcement, expressed by the factor (20
2
).
In SR2, i.e. if the condition (20
6
) is not satisfied, transversal shear reinforcement (vertical
stirrups are assumed by NEDIM) is required to ensure the crosssection resistance to the
shear impact v
u
(40.4); in terms of NEDIM :
a
sv
=
s
(
v
c,eff
) / f
yv,eff
=
s
vs
/ f
yv,eff
[m/m] (20
7
)
with f
yv,eff
= min ( f
yvk
, 415.) and
s
= 1.15 partial safety factor of steel material (see
26.5.1.5). Design formula (20
7
) demonstrates the fact that the basic concrete shear strength
c,eff
reduces the design value of shear stress
v
to effectively
vs
=
v
c,eff
(s. c. Abzugswert
by Mrsch), like EC2 (14
5
), NEN 6720 (15
9
) and BS 8110 (16
4
).
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
92
Following 40.2.3.1, the crosssection becomes nondesignable, i.e. transits to SR3, if the
design shear stress
v
exceeds half the value (specially for 2D) of
c,max
of Table 20
(40.2.3.1) :
v
>
c,max
/ 2 [MPa] (20
8
)
The maximum shear stress
c,max
, i.e. the ultimate shear resistance of a 1D crosssection, is a
function of concrete strength. For 2D members, half the value of
c,max
is applicable, as
expressed by (20
8
). Table 20 assigns to
c,max
values from the interval <2.5, 4.0>, depending
on concrete grades M15 to M40; the lowest value
c,max
= 2.5 corresponds to M15 (and lower
strengths), whereas the highest value
c,max
= 4.0 [MPa] belongs to M40 (and higher
strengths). NEDIM applies a linear interpolation routine to Table 20 to assign correspond
ing
c,max
value to any concrete grade.
Shear Proof according to ACI 318M05
ACI 318M05 assigns to the shear proof the strength reduction factor of  = 0.75, i.e. the
nominal shear resistance is factorized to 75%. The basic shear proof formula assumes the
form :
 v
n
=  (v
c
+ v
s
) v
u
[MN/m] (21
1
)
with  security coefficient for shear, v
n
total nominal shear strength, v
c
nominal shear
strength provided by concrete, v
s
nominal shear strength provided by reinforcement and v
u
factored shear force in the crosssection considered. The shear strength v
c
may be
calculated either by the simplified or the (more) detailed method. Here, only the simplified
formula including the axial compression effect is presented (b
w
= 1) :
v
c
= 0.17 [1 n
u
/ (14 A
c
)] f
c
' d [MN/m] (21
2
)
with n
u
axial pressure force and A
c
gross concrete section and f
c
' specified compressive
strength of concrete. Formula (21
2
) implies primarily n
u
0 (pressure axial force increasing
shear strength!). For tension axial forces, there is just a statement saying that in case of
"significant" axial tension v
c
0. For a coded algorithm it is obligatory to have strictly
specified what means "significant". NEDIM deals with this uncertainty mathematically
consistently : allowing (21
2
) also for n
u
> 0 (tension axial force decreases the shear strength!)
an algorithmically applicable formula is constituted :
v
c
= max { 0.17 [1  n
u
/ (14 A
c
)] f
c
' d, 0. } [MN/m] (21
3
)
which covers all values of v
c
= 0. Thus, the applied specification of the notion "significant
tension force" means such values of n
u
> 0 which turn v
c
(21
2
) in a nonpositive value, i.e. n
u
> 14 A
c
.
The detailed method specifies two different formulae for n
u
> 0 and n
u
< 0, thus avoiding in
terpretations as with (21
3
), although the unspecified term "significant tension" is still used.
NEDIM offers both proof methods with equal preference.
Shear Effect
The Shear Effect phenomenon, originally introduced by SIA 162, 3 24 206 into the engineering practice, is a vital concept of
the 2D reinforcement design. Its character makes it a link between the (m/n) design and the shear proof. The state of stress
in a Plate or Shell crosssection due to the shear force can be compared, in some sense, with the situation in a Wall design
model under the effect of membrane shear forces! There the concrete has to withstand membrane shear by both or two of
three, respectively, courses of the reinforcement net, which are stiffened against lost of shape by the virtual strut, i.e. by pure
concrete resistance. The analogy between the membrane state of stress and the state of bending shear in a Plate or Shell
93
crosssection has been described in [17]. Typically, one resisting reinforcement course is represented by the shear reinfor
cement (stirrups); the other reinforcement course is represented by the longitudinal reinforcement. However, as shown in [17],
in high crosssections (typically in deep 1D members) the horizontal reinforcement associated with the shear force has to be
arranged along the crosssection height (at barweb faces).
Due to the Shear Effect even the bending pressure zone may be overtensioned, so that tension
reinforcement appears as final result where there no tension reinforcement would be expected
[17]. Also, in regions near to end supports, where bending moments approach zero while the
shear stresses attain extreme values, the difference between the design results disregarding the
interaction m/n v and the results comprising the Shear Effect increments of the longitudinal
reinforcement may be surprisingly high! Similar observation are regularly made in the design
of flat slabs supported by columns (singularity regions [19])
The concept of Shear Effect [17], is basically the same throughout all Norms, since it is based on general mechanical
considerations. Since SIA 162 was the first Norm to introduce explicitly this concept into the practice, it is explained here by
referring to the stipulations and symbolism of SIA 162 [11]. Additionally, special notes are supplied on other Norm branches.
SIA 162 introduces the concept of Shear Effect in paragraph 3 24 207. The total Shear Effect force f
t
(v) is calculated by the
following formula :
f
t
(v) = v
R
cot [MN/m] (22
1
)
where v
R
is the required crosssection shear resistance value and o the strut inclination angle. The required stirrup
reinforcement amount a
sv
is then defined by
a
sv
= v
R
tan / (f
y
z) [m/m] (22
2
)
(compare with (15
9
), (16
3
) , (17
3
)), where z is the inner forces lever from the (m/n) design. We recognize from (22
1
), (22
2
) that
the shear reinforcement amount and the Shear Effect force component acting upon the net reinforcement are indirectly pro
portional (tan o = 1/cot o). The strut inclination may be chosen, according to 3 24 203, within a quite wide range; in Plates :
25 < o < 65. Since the minimization of the shear reinforcement is the primary goal of the design, the NEDIM design
algorithm starts an iteration loop with the lower limit value of o
min
= 25 and, increasing it by 1, seeks an equilibrium solution
establishing the required strut resistance at minimum inclination. From this solution of o, the corresponding Shear Effect
force component is derived according to (22
1
).
If the constant strut inclination is active as input control or the crosssection is overtensioned (automatic control), respectively,
no iterative estimation of the strut inclination is started : the central value of o
o
= 45 is set. In such a case f
t
(v) = v
R
, i.e. the
design value of the Shear Effect force equals the shear resistance force v
R
=
R
v
d
!
The NEDIM algorithm proceeds in 2 algorithmic steps: (1) 1
st
step is standard design and shear proof as described above; (2)
in the 2
nd
step, the total Shear Effect force is assigned by halves to the upper/ lower reinforcement nets, where it is merged
with the bending and membrane forces (m
x
, m
y
, m
xy
, n
x
, n
y
, n
xy
), following a genuine NEDIM approach. We abstain from de
scribing this transformation procedure, characteristic for the high performance of NEDIM; for detail, please, refer to [17].
Repeated reinforcement design consistently respecting the Shear Effect increment forces is carried out.
In cases of low shear stress, i.e. when a crosssection pertains to Shear Region 1, no shear reinforcement is required to
ensure the crosssection shear resistance.
The concept of Shear Effect is principally associated with SR2, i.e. with the statically required stirrup reinforcement. In SR1
the shear resistance mechanism is assumed to be basically linearelastic state of stress, where the principal tension stress is
resisted by the concrete itself (remarkably, in contradiction to the common assumption that concrete does not withstand
tension stress). Thus, in SR1, principally no Shear Effect is to be considered. This fact contradicts, however, to the generally
applied constructive approach to assign a Shift to the tensionforce diagram of the longitudinal reinforcement both in SR2 and
SR1. To provide for diversified control by the user, NEDIM is equipped with advanced possibilities. There are 3 control
options for users control :
o Shear Effect is not considered at all. For SIA 162 this is, as a fact, an illegal control
situation, since there are no other alternatives, like Shift of reinforcement, stipulated. This
control option offers also the possibility to carry out benchmark test and comparative
design calculations freed from the Shear Effect.
o Shear Effect is considered in Shear Region 2 only. This is the standard control for most
Norm branches.
o Shear Effect is considered both in Shear Regions 1 + 2. This is nonstandard control for
most Norm branches (see preceding note).
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
94
There is another factor to be considered. SCIA 162, 3 24 203 presents a closing sentence causing some confusion. It reads
: "The strut inclination, once chosen, ought to be considered constant over the whole length of the shear region". It is not
clearly defined what is meant by shear region here (the notion of Shear Region used by NEDIM has another meaning see
above), yet it is evident that this requirement is concerned with 1D members (beams), where geometric relations are better
controllable than in 2D members. This sentence, whatever it may mean, cannot be considered by the NEDIM design (EC 2,
DIN 10451 and NORM B 4700 do not stipulate such a requirement). The same Article, 3 24 203, determines special strut
inclination control for Shells by considering the magnitude of tension or pressure normal forces; this is effectuated by intro
ducing a central inclination value o
0
. Other Norms do not stipulate this condition at all, or they do it in implicit way,
respectively (see DIN 10451).
DIN 1045 07/1988, NORM B 4200 and CSN/STN 73 1201 are classical Norms of the pre
Eurocode era. They do not stipulate any Shear Effect rules for direct calculation like SIA 162
or EC 2. Instead, they specify the so called moment/reinforcement Shift, e.g. DIN 1045,
18.7.2, Table 25 Versatzma. Principally, the Shift concerns both SR1 and SR2. However,
NEDIM does not deal with this phenomenon for the 3 Norms named !
EUROCODE 2 introduced the Shear Effect principle according to 4.3.2.4.4(5); as usual, in
1D formulation. In early NEDIM versions (before 1997), the explicit calculation of the impact
of shear forces upon the net reinforcement was not implemented; it was to be dealt with on the
base of reinforcement Shift, as described by 4.3.2.4.4(6), which allows to apply constructive
measures to the main net reinforcement. Actually, NEDIM deals with the 2D Shear Effect on
the base of the theory described in [17].
NEN 6720, does not explicitly introduce the concept of Shear Effect by stipulating formulae like (22
1
), (22
2
). However, the
formulations of paragraph 8.1.1, where the notion Shift of the moment line is linked to the strut inclination , lead effectively
to the Shear Effect approach, as described in the SIA 162 paragraph above, which can consistently be applied to the NEN
6720 design branch. Interestingly, 8.1.1 explicitly regulates the application of Shear Effect to SR1 (like DIN 1045 7/88) ! In
case of low bending stress, as described by the relation (15
I
) and with
I
fitting the condition (15
K
), the Shear Effect need not
to be considered in this domain of SR1. In all other stress situations of SR1 as well as in the whole SR2 the Shear Effect
procedure, described by (22
1
) and (22
2
) is in effect : (a) SR1: = 45; (b) SR2: variable inclination.
DIN 10451, 10.3.4(9), Fig.30 stipulates the Shear Effect approach in accordance with EC 2. The alternative constructive
approach of reinforcement Shift is referred to by 13.2.2(3). NEDIM applies the concept [17] and enables user control in 3
variants, as described above.
GBJ10/89 does not stipulate the Shear Effect approach. Actually, NEDIM does not enable the activation of the Shear Effect
procedure as alternative nonstandard design option.
BS 8110 does not stipulate the Shear Effect approach. Nevertheless, NEDIM enables the activation of this procedure
according to EC 2, to 4.3.2.4.4(5) as alternative nonstandard design option.
NORM B 4700, 3.4.4.2(15), Fig.19 stipulates the Shear Effect approach in agreement with EC 2. The alternative
constructive approach of reinforcement Shift is referred to by 3.4.4.2(16).
BAEL 91/99 does not stipulate the Shear Effect approach. Actually, NEDIM does not enable the activation of this procedure
as alternative nonstandard design option.
SIA 262, 4.3.3.4.9 (42) stipulates the Shear Effect approach in agreement with EC 2, i.e. for SR2. Like with SIA 162, there is
not (explicitly) allowed for the reinforcement Shift . Nevertheless, NEDIM alternatively enables both controls, on users
account.
IS 456 does not stipulate the Shear Effect approach. Nevertheless, NEDIM enables the activation of this procedure according
to EC 2, to 4.3.2.4.4(5), as alternative nonstandard design option.
EN 199211:2004, 6.2.3(7) stipulates the Shear Effect approach as advanced EC 2 procedure. The alternative constructive
approach of reinforcement Shift is referred to by 6.2.2(5); however, there are explicitly mentioned flexure cracks only.
Article 9.2.1.3(2), which is, consequtively, referred to, recommends explicitly the reinforcement Shift for SR1, too. Thus,
NEDIM extends the Shear Effect procedure to SR1, where the constant value = 45 is applied (compare with the NEN 6720
approach).
ACI 318M05 does not stipulate the Shear Effect approach. Nevertheless, NEDIM enables the activation of this procedure
according to EC 2, 4.3.2.4.4(5) as alternative nonstandard design option.
95
Dealing with singularities in Shear Proof
The SCIA hotline deals, from time to time, with cases which indicate that the Shear Effect results in a high increase of net
reinforcement, hardly acceptable by the engineers experience. A close analysis regularly brought to daylight that this
reinforcement increase happened along line supports of plates with extreme shear force gradients. This phenomenon has
been analyzed in [19] : it is a defect of the Mindlins 2D FEM model, which causes the redirection of the well known Kirchhoffs
edge reactions to the 1
st
finiteelement row along the line edge. The issue is demonstrated by Fig. 9, an EPW screen copy of
v
x
results of a rectangular plate with 2 FE mesh variants (10x10) and (20x20) to accentuate the singular character of the
FEM solution, which depends on the mesh coarseness (v
x(1010),max
= 45.3 ~ v
x(2020),max
= 70.7 [kN/m]), in comparison with
regular maximum v
x
values (15.4 ~ 17.0 [kN/m]) .
In [19] practical hints were given how to deal with this problem. However, it is primarily no concern of NEDIM, but of the FEM
theory and FEM solver.
Conclusion. The 2D design results cannot achieve a higher quality than the results of the FEM analysis. Defects of the FEM
solution propagate into the 2D design, affecting the design results. Thus, when unacceptable design results appear, the inner
forces of the static analysis ought to be subject to scrutiny prior to checking (and criticising) the 2D design results.
Fig. 9 Mindlins shear force edge defect of a quadratic plate (2 plate halves with different FE mesh displayed, with
regular course of v
x
at midspan y = L/2) :
(a) v
x
singularity on edge y = L with FE mesh (1010) upper half of plate
(b) v
x
singularity on edge y = 0 with FE mesh (2020) lower half of plate
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
96
REINFORCEMENT AMOUNT CONTROL
Introduction to reinforcement amount control
The statically required reinforcement amount (maintaining equilibrium of external forces and internal resistances) is, generally,
not the final design result. There are, dependent on the Norm, some restrictions to be applied to the pure statically required
reinforcement. The minimum reinforcement limits assure certain lower amount of the reinforcement to be built in. Usually,
every Norm stipulates also a maximum reinforcement limit. The sense of this upper limit is : (a) to ensure good workability of
the concrete material during the casting process; (b) to make sure that the steelconcrete medium still works like
reinforcement concrete in the sense of the generally applied theories.
The upper/lower limits on reinforcement are, in most Norms, specified relatively as percentages of either the gross section
area of concrete or the s.c. effective crosssection area. A modern approach to estimating minimum tension reinforcement, as
practised by DIN 10451, BAEL 91/99 and SIA 262, focuses on the transient stress situation of the s.c. first crack by stipulating
the robustness reinforcement which is aimed at preventing brittle fracture of crosssection when the tensile stresses resisted
by concrete in noncracked state (I) is abruptly redistributed to the reinforcement due to the opening of the first crack.
Maximum reinforcement
A typical upper limit set upon the reinforcement amount by the Norms of interest lies within the range <5 %, 9 %> of the gross
section of concrete. Most Norms apply the value of 8 %. NORM B 4200, Vol. 9, Table 9 introduces the upper limit in the
range <3 %, 6 %> depending on the concrete and steel strength classes.
CSN/STN 73 1201 deals with this restriction in a more complex manner. Not only the overall upper limit of 8 % is checked,
also the fulfilment of the limit condition 4 % at both faces separately and, moreover, the condition of 2 % of two congruent rein
forcement courses at both faces simultaneously. The Norms of the Eurocode family stipulate for Walls the limit condition 4 %
for the vertical direction; NEDIM checks this condition, however, in all directions.
If the actual upper limit is exceeded by the required static reinforcement, the Nondesignability Condition NST = 4 is issued
(see Chapter Processing of nondesignability conditions).
Minimum transversal reinforcement
It is a good structural practice to provide at least two reinforcement courses even if (theoretically) only in one of the specified
reinforcement directions a reinforcement is required; this is typically the case of parabolic and a class of hyperbolic states of
stress. Even if both (or all three) reinforcement courses at one face are active (i.e. calculated as nonzero quantities), it may
be required that at least some portion of the principal reinforcement is maintained in the transversal direction(s). In NEDIM,
this requirement is formulated by the minimum transversal reinforcement percentage requirement.
This restriction ensures that the "secondary" reinforcement courses are provided at least a defined portion of the "principal"
reinforcement, no matter what attribute (tension, pressure) they possess.
NORM B 4200, Vol. 9, 3.4.2 and NORM B 4700, 3.4.9. 5(1) & 6.6.1 contain most explicit formulations of this
dependence : at least 20 % of the "principal" reinforcement course amount in each other course at one face are required.
NORM B 4200, 3.4.2 accomplishes the 20 % rule by the requirement that at least 50% of the values of table 7 are provided.
EUROCODE 2, 5.4.7.3 recommends for the horizontal reinforcement courses of walls at least 50% of the reinforcement
amount of the vertical reinforcement (assumed as compressed). To prevent confusion, NEDIM does not control this special
requirement ! It has should be controlled by the user on input by setting 50 % as general transversal reinforcement restriction.
NEN 6720, 9.9.3.1 stipulates the value of 20 % as well.
DIN 1045 07/1988, 20.1.6.3(1) and DIN 10451, 13.3.2(2) introduce the value of 20 % for s.c. oneaxis spanned plates, i.e.
not binding for all analysis types.
GBJ 1089, 7.1.5 requires 10 % minimum for s.c. distribution reinforcement of plates. NEDIM extrapolates this stipulation to
all three design models as 1
st
input default.
BAEL 91/99 : 25 % is assigned as 1
st
input default to all three design models.
SIA 262, 5.5.3.2 requires for plates minimum of 20 % for transversal reinforcement; NEDIM relates this stipulation to Plates
and Shells as 1
st
input default. For walls, 5.5. 4.11 requires that horizontal reinforcement amounts at least to 25 % of vertical
reinforcement. NEDIM assigns this value to Walls as 1
st
input default.
EN 199211:2004, 9.3.1.1(2) introduce the value of 20% for s.c. oneway plates.
CSN/STN 731201, BS 8110 and IS 456 do not take explicitly care of this parameter.
97
IS 456 : 0 % is assigned as first input default upon a request of the Indian support.
NEDIM presets generally 20 % as first input default for Norm branches, or to design models, respectively, where there is not
stipulated (or known) any special requirement. The input default may be redefined by the user, i.e. also to 0 % (e.g. for tests).
Compression reinforcement in general
In reinforced concrete the compression reinforcement is of another quality than the tension reinforcement. The special
character of the compression reinforcement requires a specific theoretical and algorithmic dealing.
In preceding paragraphs it was pointed out that the compression reinforcement calculation has characteristic features,
compared with the tension reinforcement estimation, and that it implies special approach by the design algorithm. Baumann
[1] avoids completely discussions on this topic. Thanks to advanced theoretical and algorithmic development, NEDIM is able
to deal with pressure forces and compression reinforcement effectively.
Once the design pressure force associated to the actual reinforcement course is known, (10) yields a rule for calculation of the
required compression reinforcement amount in Walls and Shells. Ofcourse, the minimum compression reinforcement rules
discussed below may cause an augmentation of this statically minimum value!
In the Plate design model, the compression reinforcement control is more complex. The upper and lower faces are not strictly
separated from each other, since the inner design forces {Z
i
, D
i
} (see Fig.4), resisting the design moment m
i
, act at both faces.
If the stress integral of the bending pressure zone resists the design moment m
i
itself there is no need of compression
reinforcement. In the opposite case, the reinforcement at that face must be activated to support the concrete in its bearing
function. For the NEDIM algorithm the following rules are binding:
o The reinforcement courses at both faces must have pairwise identical directions (con
gruent reinforcement). It means also that at both faces simultaneously 2 or 3 rein
forcement courses, respectively, are specified. However, the congruent reinforcement
courses may be assigned different ordinal numbers in the crosssection and reinforcement
geometry specification.
o The compression reinforcement is calculated for both/all reinforcement courses at one face,
i.e. not only for that reinforcement courses which are directly assigned statically required
compression reinforcement amount to strengthen the pressure zone.
o The statically required compression reinforcement is marked by a trailing asterisk in the
output document if it constitutes the maximum value of all design load cases. If another
LC yields a higher reinforcement amount resisting tension or, respectively, the constructive
reinforcement percentage assigns a higher reinforcement value (transversal reinforcement),
the marking by typographic asterisk is overridden by another symbol ('s' for "structural
reinforcement") or becomes simply blank (for the standard case tension).
The compression reinforcement of the bending pressure zone is, however, restricted by upper limits. As elementary restriction
the maximum reinforcement percentage limit of the whole crosssection (see above) is active; yet this restriction is seldom the
cause of nondesignability. DIN 1045 07/1988, 17.2.3 restricts the bending pressure zone reinforcement amount a maximum
of 1 % of the gross section. SIA 162, 3 24 16 limits the force assigned to the compression reinforcement to 50 % of the pres
sure inner force, by which the concrete resists the bending moment in the pressure zone (i.e. not more than 33.3 % of the total
pressure inner force). Is this limit exceeded by the statically required amount of compression reinforcement, the nondesign
ability Flag NSt = 2 is set (see Chapter Processing of nondesignability conditions).
This 50% restriction of SIA 162 has been applied as first input default to all NEDIM Norm branches which do not stipulate
any restriction upon the compression reinforcement in bending pressure zone, thus, excepting DIN 1045 07/1988.
Minimum compression reinforcement
The primary goal of providing minimum compression reinforcement to structural members subject to prevailing compression
axial forces is to give slender members a structurally based minimum security against buckling; generally, it is a good practice,
even if there is, prom static point of view, no reinforcement required.
According to most Norms the minimum compression reinforcement is calculated as percentage of gross section, i.e. (cross
section width : b
c
= 1.0) :
a
sc,min
=
c
h
[m/m] (23
1
)
with
c
minimum compression reinforcement ratio and h gross section height. (23
1
) makes it clear that large cross
sections are assigned absolutely more minimum compression reinforcement than slender ones. In bulky crosssections high
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
98
absolute minimum compression reinforcement amounts are provided even if the pressure stresses are insignificant. Thus,
(23
1
) ignores the real state of stress of the crosssection !
DIN 1045 07/1988 introduces the notion of the statically required crosssection. It is the minimum part of concrete cross
section reinforced according to the proportionality rule (23
1
) which would still resist the normal force. If the gross section has a
greater area than statically required it is assigned a lower reinforcement percentage than by (23
1
). According to the
symbolism of DIN 1045 07/1988 the minimum compression reinforcement formula assumes the form :
a
sc,min
= n / (
R
/
c
+
s
) [m/m] (23
2
)
with
R
concrete strength,
s
steel (compression) strength, n design (n
d
) or virtual (n
virt
) compression normal force (see
Fig. 7a,c); n is factored by the security coefficient
s
= 2.10. Paragraph 25.5.5.2(2) stipulates for 2D structures the minimum
percentage of 0.50%, i.e.
c
= 0.005.
Fig. 10 enables an insight into the very different approaches of DIN 1045 07/1988 and the EUROCODE family Norms,
respectively, here compared with the novella DIN 10451 (for 2D structures). The modern concept follows the elementary, less
efficient rule (23
1
).
99
Fig. 10 Comparison of the minimum compression rules : scheme of the 1
st
crack DIN 1045 07/1988 sophisticated,
efficient reinforcement rule according to (23
2
)
DIN 10451 (Novella 2001/5) elementary rule according to (23
1
)
NORM B 4200, Vol. 9, 8.2 follows (23
2
) by issuing the minimum percentage acc. to Table 8. The value
c
= 0,005 is preset
as 1
st
input default.
EUROCODE 2, 5.4.1.2.1(2) estimates the minimum compression reinforcement by a twoterm condition, which also takes
respect to the magnitude of the normal force. The EC2 formula (5.13) reads in NEDIM symbolism (b
c
= 1.0) :
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
100
a
sc,min
= max (0.15 n
virt
/ f
yd , 0.003) h [m/m] (23
3
)
The value
c
= 0,003 may be modified by the pertinent National Document. The paragraph 5.4.1.2.1(2) has been given
preference to 5.4.7.1(1), concerning specially walls by stipulating
c
= 0.004 (i.e. the simple approach acc. to (23
2
)).
However, the user may apply his control by setting this value on input (see Closing notes on this paragraph below).
CSN/STN 73 1201, 3.1.4.2, (29) & 3.1.4.4, (37), (38) follow the elementary relation (23
1
), however, subjecting the minimum
reinforcement ratio
c
to the slenderness condition
c
= l
e
/ h 10

4
(23
4
)
with l
e
effective (buckling) length of member and h crosssection height,
c
being restricted to the interval [0.0005, 0.0025],
i.e. percentage [0.05%, 0.25%]. A significant difference to other Norms is that
c
is related to one face, thus the total minimum
reinforcement in crosssection is to be doubled (see Closing notes on this paragraph).
SIA 162, 4 44 3 follows (23
2
) with percentage 0.60%. NEDIM presets the value
c
= 0,006 (twice that of EC 2, however, for
statically required crosssection !) as 1
st
input default.
NEN 6720 does not care about this sort of minimum reinforcement at all, thus allowing, as a fact, for plain concrete in
compression members. NEDIM makes it, however, possible for NEN 6720 users to follow the elementary approach (23
1
);
NEDIM presets
c
= 0 as 1
st
input default to (23
1
)!
DIN 10451, 13.7.1(3) estimates basic percentage of 0.15%, i.e.
c
= 0,0015, which is to be doubled for slender walls acc.
to 8.6.3 or for higher axial stresses. The latter condition is, in NEDIM terms (b
c
= 1.0) :
n
virt
= 0.3 f
cd
h [MN/m] (23
5
)
If n
virt
meets (23
5
) the percentage is set 0.30% (of gross section), i.e. NEDIM presets
c
= 0,003 as 1
st
input default to (23
1
).
GBJ 1089, 6.1.15, Table 6.1.15 estimates the percentage 0.40%, i.e.
c
= 0,004, for all concrete classes up to C60. NEDIM
assigns this value as 1
st
input default to (23
1
).
BS 8110, Part 1, 3.12.5.3 estimates the percentage 0.40%, i.e.
c
= 0,004 (Table 3.25, steel grade independent). NEDIM
assigns this value as 1
st
input default to (23
1
).
NORM B 4700, 3.4.9.3 estimates the percentage 0.28%, i.e. NEDIM presets
c
= 0,0028 1
st
input default to (23
1
).
BAEL 91/99, A.8.1,21 estimates the percentage 0.20%, i.e. NEDIM presets
c
= 0,002 as 1
st
input default to (23
1
).
SIA 262, 5.5.4.3 maintains the approach of the predecessor edition SIA 162, i.e. follows (23
2
) with the percentage 0.60%
related to the statically required crosssection. NEDIM presets the value
c
= 0,006 as 1
st
input default.
EN 199211:2004, 9.6.2(1)+(2) estimates the percentage 0.20% (declared as modifiable by NAD), i.e. NEDIM presets
c
=
0,002 as 1
st
input default to (23
1
).
IS 456 does not care about minimum compression reinforcement. NEDIM follows, however, the elementary approach (23
1
) :
c
= 0 is preset as 1
st
input default to (23
1
).
ACI 318M05, 10.9 estimates the percentage 1.0%, i.e.
c
= 0,01. This very high value, compared with European Norms,
may be explained by the status which has seismic risk in US building industry. However, 10.8.4 allows to base the
minimum compression reinforcement calculation on a reduced effective area (b
w
= 1.0) :
eff A
c
= max (stat req A, h / 2) [m] (23
5
)
In (23
5
) stat req A means the statically required crosssection discussed with DIN 1045 07/1988. ACI stipulates thus a similar
approach as expressed by (23
2
). However, here the value of stat req A is limited by 50% of the gross
section ! Thus, the effective pressure reinforcement percentage may attain the minimum value of 0.5% !
For the Wall design model the considerations on this topic are complete, since the normal force n
d
in formulae (23
#
) is identical
with the design force assigned. In Shells the situation is more complex. The normal pressure force acts in combination with
bending moment. It ought to be defined a limit state of stress to which minimum compression reinforcement is assigned. This
is made by distinguishing three types of state of stress : (a) prevailing axial compression; (b) prevailing bending; (c) prevailing
axial tension. NEDIM designs min a
sc
to type (a) only !
101
Mechanically, the limit is expressed by the critical eccentricity e
cr
of the virtual normal force
n
virt
(see paragraph Design of Shells, Fig. 7c) acting upon the crosssection. The value of e
cr
is stipulated by NORM B 4200/4700 and by DIN 1045/10451 when assigning the attribute
"member subject to prevailing flexion" to a class of members. The limit condition is :
e = abs (m / n) >
cr
h = e
cr
[m] (24
1
)
with h total crosssection height and m, n bending moment and axial force; for NEDIM
are m
virt
, n
virt
to substitute. NORM B 4700, 3.4.3(3) stipulates
cr
= 2.0, DIN 10451,
3.1.18 sets
cr
= 3.5. The lesser value
cr
= 2.0 is applied as 1
st
input default to all Norm
branches, except DIN 1045/10451, to which the value
cr
= 3.5 applies.
Is the eccentricity condition (24
1
) not met, i.e.
e = abs (m / n) e
cr
[m] (24
2
)
the actual state of stress is declared either prevailing axial tension if n
virt
> 0 or prevailing
axial compression if n
virt
< 0, respectively. The latter constitutes the case (a), as classified
above, i.e. subject to minimum compression reinforcement design.
In Shells the situation is, again, more complex than in Walls (compare in Fig. 7a,c). The design force n
d
, assigned to the
reinforcement direction at actual face, participates in the direct reinforcement design according to (6), if n
d
> 0 or (10), if n
d
< 0,
respectively. However, the sign of n
d
has no impact upon the minimum compression reinforcement control ! If n
virt
< 0 and
(24
2
) is true the minimum compression reinforcement is evaluated acc. to one of formulae (23
#
). If it is higher than the reinfor
cement acc. to (6) or (10), respectively, it becomes the new statically required reinforcement amount, and the corresponding
reinforcement attribute is set. Is this value the highest of all design load cases, the minimum reinforcement attribute is main
tained. A trailing 'm' as symbol for minimum compression reinforcement is attached in the output document to the reinfor
cement amount value.
Closing notes
o If the input parameter
c
in (23
1
) or (23
2
) is set 0% on input, no calculation of the minimum compression reinforcement takes
part, whatever Norm is being dealt with; pure statically required reinforcement is then estimated.
o In all Norms the minimum reinforcement ratio
c
is, by definition, assigned to the gross section, excepting CSN/STN 73
1201, where it is related to one face. Thus, for Plate and Shell the resulting min a
sc
is assigned 50/50 to both faces in all
Norm branches except CSN/STN, where there min a
sc
has to be doubled.
o NEDIM assigns additionally, i.e. as nonstandard provision, the control according to the basic proportionality relation (23
1
).
The user is thus enabled to control the minimum compression reinforcement by its own value of
c
, either alternatively or ad
ditively to the standard Norm control.
Minimum tension reinforcement
Some of the Norms implemented in NEDIM stipulate no requirements upon the minimum amount of the (statically required)
tension reinforcement, since it is, generally, controlled by the serviceability proofs. However, Norms which do not comprise
any special serviceability proof requirements control explicitly the minimum amount of tension reinforcement. SIA 162
prescribes general constructive rules. NORM B 4200 introduces a control in relation to the concrete and steel strength
classes.
Generally, the minimum tension reinforcement amount is calculated acc. to the following elementary relation (which is an
analogy to (23
1
) for tension):
a
st,min
=
t
h [m/m] (25
1
)
with
t
minimum tension reinforcement ratio and h gross section height. As guideline for
t
required by the Norms the
value of
t
0.001, i.e. percentage 0,1% of gross section area may be considered.
DIN 1045 07/1988 does not specify any rules for minimum tension reinforcement in the meaning of the proportionality
assignment (25
1
).
NORM B 4200, Vol. 9, 6.5.1 follows principally (25
1
), however, substituting the effective static height d (i.e. axial distance of
reinforcement bar to opposite face) rather than the gross section height h :
a
st,min
=
t
d [m/m] (25
2
)
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
102
Direct consequence of this approach may be different values of min a
s,t
calculated for individual reinforcement courses, which
regularly imply different static heights. To avoid confusion with users expecting equal values for all courses at one face,
NEDIM applies the static height of the outermost reinforcement course for all courses. Table 7 stipulates the values of
t
depending on steel and concrete strength classes.
EUROCODE 2, 5.4.2.1.1(1), (5.14) presents a doubleterm limit condition. Additionally to the condition (25
1
) a parametric
term is introduced, referring to f
yk
(b
t
= 1.0) :
a
st,min
= max (0.60 / f
yk
, 0.0015) d [m/m] (25
3
)
In (25
3
) d denotes, like with NORM B 4200 (25
2
) , the reference static height of the outermost reinforcement course at actual
face rather than h in (25
1
).
CSN/STN 73 1201, 3.1.4.2, (29) & 3.1.4.3, (35) follow the elementary relation (25
1
), however, specifying the minimum
reinforcement ratio
t
as function of concrete design tension strength R
btd
and the steel design tension strength R
sd
:
t
= R
btd
/ (3 R
sd
) (25
4
)
SIA 162, 3 33 41 requires a minimum tension reinforcement as provision against the brittle fracture of concrete in case of 1
st
crack's appearance (see SIA 262 below). This control has not been implemented into the SIA 162 design branch. Instead, the
standard proportionality control by (25
1
) has been active,
t
= 0 being the 1
st
input default; the user may define his own control
by setting
t
> 0.
NEN 6720 does not specify explicit requirements upon the minimum tension reinforcement according to (25
1
); the approach
applied is more sophisticated [4] : low tension reinforcement amounts are checked against some linear stress conditions and,
if they are not met, the statically required tension reinforcement has to be augmented by 25%. This procedure has the
character of an elementary crack control.
DIN 10451, 13.1.1(1) introduces a new notion of minimum tension reinforcement : robustness reinforcement. Its declared
task is to resist the transition inner forces arising abruptly in reinforced concrete crosssection when the 1
st
crack appears.
More specifically: the robustness reinforcement is aimed at preventing brittle fracture, i.e. sudden failure without warning. The
reinforcement steel may be, in this exceptional case, exploited up to the characteristic strength, i.e.
s
f
yk
(compare with SIA
262, where no more than f
sd
,. i.e. the design strength, is allowed).
Article 13.1.1(1) restricts this control to "members subject to prevailing flexion". This class of stress situations meets the
condition (24
1
), i.e. bending with relatively small normal force n
virt
= 0.
The Authors of DIN 10451 preferred another interpretation of the notion brittle fracture than the natural approach
described by BAEL 91/99 and SIA 262 (see below, (26
3
)). It is stipulated in Heft 525 DAfSt [32] by the relation (using
NEDIM symbolism) :
m
r
= (f
ctm
+ n
virt
/ h) h / 6 [MNm/m] (26
1
)
with f
ctm
mean concrete tension strength and h crosssection height. The idea of this quite unusual approach is illustrated
by Fig. 11. The crack moment m
r
applied to the estimation of the robustness reinforcement is a virtual moment which, if
applied to the crosssection (without any axial force!), produces the maximum tensile strength
r
= (f
ctm
+ n
virt
/ h) in the
outermost fibres.
Fig. 11 DIN 10451 scheme of the 1
st
crack moment m
r
(nondeveloped crack) :
103
(a) crosssection subject to design inner forces (m, n); (b) pure bending ;
(c) n > 0 : augmenting m
r
; (d) n < 0 : diminishing m
r
(down to zero)
Since this minimum tension reinforcement control is the only one stipulated by DIN 10451 in ULS (besides the crack control in
SLS) it is indispensable for NEDIM to introduce additionally the control by the elementary proportionality relation (25
1
). Thus,
the user may define his own control setting
t
> 0 to (25
1
), replacing or superposing the Norm control value, respectively; as a
fact, for Walls the user control by
t
> 0 is the only minimum tension reinforcement control to be activated for DIN 10451.
GBJ 1089, 6.1.15, Table 6.1.15 estimates the percentage 0.15%, i.e
t
= 0,0015, for all concrete classes up to C35, or
0.20%, i.e.
t
= 0,0020, for higher concrete classes, respectively. These are 1
st
input defaults set automatically by NEDIM.
The user may redefine the
t
values on input.
BS 8110, Part 1, 3.12.5.3, Table 3.25 estimates the percentage 0.24%, i.e.
t
= 0,0024 for steel grade 250, or 0.13%, i.e.
t
=
0,0013, for steel grades 460 & 500. NEDIM distinguishes the control for f
y
460 and f
y
> 460 [MPa]. These are 1
st
input
defaults set automatically by NEDIM. The user may redefine the
t
values on input.
NORM B 4700, 3.4.9.4(1), (61) pursues the doubleterm approach of EC 2, yet referring to f
yd
instead of f
yk
(b
t
= 1.0) :
a
st,min
= max (1.22 / f
yd , 0.0028) h
t
[m/m] (26
2
)
h
t
denotes (for rectangular crosssection, i.e. also for 2D members) the half value of the crosssection height : h
t
= h / 2 (i.e. the
height of tension zone in case of pure bending);
t
= 0.0028 (i.e. 0.28%).
BAEL 91/99, A.4.2,1 requires a minimum tension reinforcement as provision against the brittle fracture of concrete in case of
1
st
crack's appearance. Article B.6.4 requires, additionally, the minimum ratio of
t
= 0.001 (25
1
), which superposes the result
calculated acc. to A.4.2,1. BAEL stipulates this control globally; it is thus not restricted to "prevailingly flexural members" like
DIN 10451. NEDIM seeks the state of 1
st
crack by simultaneously augmenting both inner forces {m, n} (if nonzero), main
taining the normal force eccentricity, i.e. the ratio m/n, until the 1
st
crack appears due to exhaustion of the concrete resistance
to tension, which, in this very special case, is not supposed to be zero from the begin on (as in pure ULS design) :
m / n = m
r
/ n
r
= e = const m m
r
& n n
r
(26
3
)
In (26
3
) {m, n} symbolize (Fig. 7) either m
d
(Plate : n
d
0 ~ e ), or n
d
(Wall : m
d
0) or {m
virt
, n
virt
} (Shells). To avoid certain
numerical instability effects with vanishing m or n, some practical control provisions have been implemented into the NEDIM
algorithm. The user may redefine the
t
value acc. to B.6.4 and also suppress the brittle fracture control by A.4.2.1.
Three typical states of stress at 1
st
crack occurrence (an "undeveloped crack" is supposed to open due to some not
explicitly specified (local) overstressing, e.g. also due to undefined temperature load, creep, shrinkage and other causes)
are shown in Fig. 12, where the affinity of the explicitly defined load {m, n} and the envisaged 1
st
crack combination {m
r
,
n
r
} is demonstrated as basic assumption of the brittle fracture control. In the explanation on A.4.2.1 [24, Page 29], an
example of pure axial load is given, which leads to the simple formula (using here
t
instead of ) :
t
= f
tj
/ f
e
a
st,min
=
t
h
[m/m] (26
4
)
NEDIM calculates, however, consistent values of a
st,min
for all states of stress between "pure bending" and "pure axial
tension" (26
4
).
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
104
Fig. 12 BAEL 91/99 & SIA 162 scheme of the 1
st
crack inner forces combination (m
r,
n
r
) : (a) pure bending; (b) cross
section subject to nonzero design inner forces {m, n}; (c) prevailing tension disconnection crack
SIA 262, 5.5.3.2 & 4.4.2.3.9, Table 16/1 & 4.4.2.3.10, Fig.31 requires a minimum tension reinforcement as provision
against the brittle fracture of concrete in case of 1
st
cracks appearance. SIA 262 stipulates this control globally, for all design
models and stress situations. The calculation process follows (26
3
), i.e. principally the same rules as BAEL 91/99. However,
SIA 162 does not simultaneously stipulate the control by
t
(25
1
), thus
t
= 0 is 1
st
input default. Since NEDIM V04.5.2.0, the
user may, nevertheless, define his own control by (25
1
), setting
t
> 0, the result superposing or replacing the Norm value,
respectively.
EN 199211:2004, 9.2.1.1(1), formula (9.1) stipulates, like EC 2, a doubleterm limit condition. Additionally to the condition
(25
1
) a parametric term is introduced, referring to f
ctm
and f
yk
(b
t
= 1.0) :
a
st,min
= max ( 0.26 f
ctm
/ f
yk
, 0.0013 ) d [m/m] (26
5
)
In (26
5
) d denotes, like with EC 2 (25
3
), the reference static height of the outermost reinforcement course at actual face rather
than h in (25
1
).
IS 456, 26.5.2.1 estimates the percentage 0.15%, i.e.
t
= 0,0015 for steel class Fe 250, or 0.12%, i.e.
t
= 0,0012, for steel
classes Fe 415 & Fe 500. NEDIM distinguishes the control by f
y
415 and f
y
> 415 [MPa]. These are 1
st
input defaults set au
tomatically by NEDIM. The user may redefine the
t
values on input.
ACI 318M05, 10.5.1 stipulates direct calculation of a
st,min
analytically, referring to f
c
'
, f
y
and d. The ACI formula (103),
rewritten for
t
(b
w
= 1.0):
t
= max (0.25 f
c
' / f
y
, 1.4 / f
y
) (26
6
)
NEDIM presets the actual value of
t
calculated from (26
6
) for both faces individually as the 1
st
input default. The user may
redefine the
t
values on input.
Overall minimum reinforcement
Any of the Norms dealt with by NEDIM do not raise requirements upon the amount of the overall (base) reinforcement.
NEDIM keeps this option open by presetting the first input default of this parameter equal to 0%.
There is, however, another similar control of the s.c. basic reinforcement in NEDIM : the user may define (memberwise) the
desired minimum provided reinforcement in absolute values, e.g. envisaging standard webs like Q384 (DIN) etc.
Minimum shear reinforcement
All Norms introduce the notion of minimum shear reinforcement for 1D members. Actually, only EC 2, 5.4.2.2(5) stipulates
minimum shear reinforcement for 2D structures, referring to Table 5.5 for 1D members and requiring 60% of the table values
for 2D structures as min a
sv
! The minimum shear reinforcement for 2D structures applies in Shear Region 2 only, i.e. if shear
reinforcement is required at all.
CSN/STN 73 1201 and BS 8110 introduce the notion of structural minimum reinforcement, see paragraph Shear Proof
methods above. Yet this is, as a fact, a basic level of statically required shear reinforcement and is calculated by the
program, i.e. not controllable by the user
For EC 2, the 60% values of Table 5.5 are preset as 1
st
input default
sv
; they may be redefined by the user, i.e. also set to 0.
Minimum reinforcement of Deep Beams
The notion of Deep Beams (in its substance, not verbally!) has not been explicitly introduced by all Norms implemented in
NEDIM. In this generalized sense only CSN/ STN 73 1201, SIA 162, NEN 6720 and SIA 262 do not deal with this notion.
Basically, Deep Beam is a notion of a walllike structure being loaded (prevailingly) in its plane, being supported by more or
less concentrated supports and spanning one or more fields. From the point of view of the building mechanics it can be
considered as a simply or continuous beam being characterized by large structural height in relation to its spans. The relation
l/h 2 might generally be recognized as the threshold between a 1D beam and a 2D wall. For NEDIM, however, this
distinguishing is of no concern. If a Wall or a Shell design model is, by input specification, assigned the attribute Deep Beam,
it is dealt with as structure of this type. NEDIM defaults Walls to possess this attribute; Shells are defaulted to the opposite
attribute.
All Norms which introduce this notion stipulate a base structural reinforcement being controlled by two conditions :
o An absolute amount of reinforcement is assigned to all reinforcement courses, making no difference of their direction in the
structure. Typically, such settings fall within the interval [0.5, 2.0] cm/m per course.
105
o A relative amount of reinforcement is stipulated, too. All Norms, excepting BAEL 91/99, make the base reinforcement
dependent on the crosssection height, thus following a relation like (23
1
). Typically for all Norms, the minimum percentage
lies within the interval [0.05, 0.15] %.
These design conditions are, generally, accomplished by constructive rules upon the reinforcement nets. Typically,
rectangular, quadratic meshes with bar distance no more than 300 [mm] (and less) are required.
DIN 1045, 23.3(4) stipulates a doubleterm limit condition : (a)
DB
= 0.0005, i.e. 0.05% of gross section (note that it is a third
of the of EC 2 value); (b) absolute amount of 1.5 [cm/m] for each reinforcement course. Expressed by formula (b
DB
= 1.0) :
min a
DB
= max ( 0.0005 h, 0.00015) [m/m] (27
1
)
EUROCODE 2, 5.4.5(2) requires
DB
= 0.0015, i.e. 0.15% of gross section for both reinforcement directions, at both faces.
DIN 10451, 13.6(2) stipulates a doubleterm limit condition : (a)
DB
= 0.00075, i.e. 0.075% of gross section (note that this is
half the value of EC 2); (b) absolute amount of 1.5 [cm/m] both for each reinforcement course. Analytically (b
DB
= 1.0) :
min a
DB
= max ( 0.00075 h, 0.00015) [m/m] (27
2
)
GBJ 1089, 7.6, Table 7.6.13 requires for "vertical distribution" and "longitudinal tension" bars the minimum reinforcement
ratio of
DB,v
= 0.0020, i.e. 0.20% of gross section, for steel Grade I; for higher steel grades,
DB,v
= 0.0015, i.e. 0.15% is
stipulated. For horizontal reinforcement respectively
DB,h
= 0.0025 or
DB,h
= 0.0020 is required. NEDIM assigns to both/all
reinforcement courses the higher value of
DB,h
DB
= 0.0025 or
DB
= 0.0020 if this control is active.
BS 8110, 3.12.7.4 does not, as a fact, introduce the notion Deep Beam, yet it requires special minimum horizontal
reinforcement ratio of
h
= 0.0030, i.e. 0.30% of gross section, for f
y
= 250 [MPa]; alternatively, for f
y
= 460 [MPa],
h
= 0.0025,
i.e. 0.25 % is stipulated. BS 8110 maintains this requirement for vertical reinforcement ratio up to 2% (compare with
13.2.7.5). For low ratios of the vertical reinforcement
v
, NEDIM controls the horizontal reinforcement ratio
h
to become no
higher than
v
. If no transversal reinforcement control is activated by the user, the minimum reinforcement acc. to 3.12.7.4 is
not calculated ! Because of the character of this reinforcement control it was incorporated into the Deep Beam control group.
NORM B 4700, 11.3(2) stipulates, like DIN 10451, a doubleterm limit condition : (a)
DB
= 0.001, i.e. 0.1% of gross
section; (b) an absolute amount of 1.5 [cm/m] both for each reinforcement course. Expressed by formula (b
DB
= 1.0) :
min a
DB
= max ( 0.001 h, 0.00015) [m/m] (27
3
)
BAEL 91/99, E.5.4,211 stipulates the minimum reinforcement ratio by the formula
DB
= 0.8 / f
e
(27
4
)
With f
e
design steel strength (BAEL uses the symbol instead of ) i.e. indirectly proportional to the value of steel strength f
e
[MPa]. On the other side, BAEL does not require any absolute amount of reinforcement for Deep Beams. However,
A.8.1,21 contains a statement concerning compression reinforcement in wall structures generally, which assigns the total
amount of 4 [cm/m] to any reinforcement direction under pressure. For NEDIM this requirement has been implemented in a
generalized manner as the minimum structural reinforcement condition of Deep Beams. Thus, the amount of 4 [cm/m] is
checked against the amount of (27
4
) and the maximum value of both is assigned to the Wall or Shell design model; provided
that the option Deep Beam was activated on input!
EN 199211:2004, 9.7 stipulates exactly the same conditions as NORM B 4700 : (a)
DB
= 0.001, i.e. 0.1 % of gross
section; (b) an absolute amount of 1.5 [cm/m], see (27
3
).
IS 456 IS 2210, 12.2.5 does not, as a fact, introduce the notion Deep Beam, yet it requires special "minimum
compression" reinforcement of 2.5 [cm/m] for overpressed Shell crosssections. Nevertheless, because of its character this
reinforcement control has been incorporated into the Deep Beam control group. However, this control is under NEDIM active
in case of congruent reinforcement +Z
p
/Z
p
only !
ACI 315M05, 11.8.4 requires a minimum vertical (shear?!) reinforcement of
DB,v
= 0.0025 according to (25
1
) for Deep
Beams, i.e. 0.25% of gross section. For horizontal reinforcement (parallel to the main horizontal "bending reinforcement")
11.8.5 stipulates
DB,h
= 0.0015, i.e. 0.15% of gross section. NEDIM assigns to both/all reinforcement courses the higher
value of
DB,v
DB
= 0.0025 if this control is active. Additionally, there is a special requirement for deformed horizontal
bars of walls acc. to 14.3.3, assigning
DB,h
= 0.0020, i.e. 0.20% of gross section for  16 and f
y
420, or
DB,h
= 0.0025,
i.e. 0.25% to other deformed bars; respectively. This condition, however, can hardly be organized automatically. However, it
is comprised in the above NEDIM control according to 11.8.4; thus, it was omitted from the NEDIM control.
Closing note : The Author of NEDIM published a critical discussion [20] on a Paper by Dajun who reports on investigations
done in preparation of the chapter Deep Beams of the Chinese Norm GBJ 1089 [14]. In that GBJ chapter a semiempirical,
quasi 1D approach to the design of Deep Beams is stipulated. In [20] it was shown that a general 2D solution by EPW or ESA
PT, respectively, is generally safer and more economic than the quasiempiric solutions according to the GBJ 1089 formulae !
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
106
SERVICEABILITY PROOFS
Introduction to serviceability proofs
The most important serviceability proof is the Crack Proof. As first implementation in NEDIM the crack proof according to NEN
6720 was introduced 1997.
The contemporary theories of crack development in a concretesteel compound medium have become very complex.
Practical engineers, confronted with a plenitude of contradictory ideas and formulae, may feel doubts on the reliability of
such calculations. However, it should be understand that all crack theories have probabilistic a nature. They try more or
less successfully to give analytical explanation to empirical data of the crack behaviour of real structures. In 2D
structures even the fundamental question, in what direction the main (first) cracks arise, has not been decided uniquely :
o perpendicular to the direction of 1
st
principal forces n
I
or m
I
(Fig. 13a,b);
o perpendicular to the reinforcement courses (Fig. 13c);
o parallel to the virtual stiffening concrete strut;
o erratic (combined) crack patterns etc. This assumption comes, no doubt, most closely to the reality; on the other hand, it is
obviously least productive in stimulating efficient, simply crack control methods.
The NEDIM crack proof algorithm follows formally the assumption of Fig. 13c. However, it appears contradictory to the
Baumann transformation theory [1], which prefers the assumption of crack parallel to the virtual stiffening concrete strut.
Nevertheless, the NEDIM approach to the crack proof may be defended by following considerations:
o The design forces n
dim
, assigned to the reinforcement courses, attain, as a rule, values comparable with the governing
principal forces n
I,II
(m
I,II
), since the strut force n
3d
is negative (n
3d
denotes, strictly speaking, the strut force in 2course nets;
as a fact, in 3course reinforcement nets the strut force need not to be assigned the subscript 3). Only in threecourse nets
the relation max n
d
 < n
I,II
may become true under elliptic states of stress. However, such states of stress are the less
critical for the crosssection resistance, and the cracks may the more tend to erratic patterns distributed over all three
courses.
o The NEDIM crack proof algorithm is able, as will be demonstrated below, to distinguish qualitatively between different states
of stress of the structure. Thus the formal linearization of the crack proof process does not ignore the 2D character of the
reinforcement concrete medium.
o All Norms stipulate crack control formulae primarily for a 1D state of stress. The NEDIM calculation assumption of cracks
developing perpendicular to reinforcement courses enables to organise the crack proof in quasi 1D steps running over
individual reinforcement courses, in the same manner like with the ULS design.
107
Fig. 13 Assumptions about crack propagation in 2D continuum : (a) Cracks perpendicular to the direction of principal
tension (trajectory reinforcement); (b) Cracks perpendicular to the direction of principal tension, yet non
perpendicular to reinforcement courses; (c) Cracks perpendicular to
reinforcement courses
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
108
The basic Problem of the 2D crack proof is obvious from the only formula dedicated by the Norms of the Eurocode
family, here exemplary EN 199211:2004, formula (7.15)), to 2D structures:
s
r,max
= 1 / {cos / s
r,max,1
+ sin / s
r,max,2
} [mm] (28
1
)
In (28
1
) the symbols s
r,max
denote the maximum allowable or calculated, respectively, crack distances, which play a
distinguished role in most Norm proof theories (besides the crack width w
max
). The indices 1, 2 in (28
1
) refer to 1
st
and 2
nd
reinforcement course, here assuming orthogonality.
(28
1
) and the following discussion refers to Fig. 13a,b. It relates the crack distances s
r,max,1
und s
r,max,2
to the direction of
principal tension. The relation is, however, contradictory, what is obvious from Fig. 13b : the principal direction divides
symmetrically the right angle between the reinforcement directions 1 and 2, i.e. = 45. From (28
1
) follows thus s
r,max
=
s
r,1
/ 2 0,707 s
r,1
(where s
r,1
s
r,max,1
= s
r,max,2
).
The announced contradiction consists in the fact that this most ineffective reinforcement geometry [18], which causes about
200% of req a
s
in ULS compared with the corresponding trajectory reinforcement is assigned a significantly lower design crack
distance s
r,max
(about 71%). This conclusion is unacceptable, obviously defective.
Thus, the NEDIM approach, as symbolized by Fig. 13c, proves, also from this point of view, to be the most realistic in a
2D reinforced concrete continuum.
The proof methods are based on similar assumptions of crack propagation mechanism :
o High tension stress in a reinforcement bar causes high steel strain. The adhesion between concrete and the reinforcement
bar is disturbed, and cracks arise in the concrete continuum. The higher is the ratio of steel stress and the adhesion
resistance, the wider become the cracks along the reinforcement bar. Thus, the higher the representative reinforcement
diameter , the higher the ratio of the steel stress and the adhesion resistance, since the crosssection area of a bar grows
with the square of  whereas the surface of (unit length) of bar depends linearly on .
o Cracks arise not only close to the reinforcement bars yet merely between them. Thus, the transversal distance s of
reinforcement bars may also become a crucial factor of the cracks width development. However, some Norms, like
NORM B 4700, do not introduce the distance s as independent factor of the crack proof at all.
To limit or reduce, respectively, crack widths (as a fact, not the number of cracks but the representative crack width is of
interest for the crack proof) the following measures have to be taken :
o Specification of as small reinforcement diameters  as possible.
o Reduction of the representative (transversal) reinforcement bar distance s. However, there
is a dependence between  and s : with given  and provided a
s
, s is determined by
s = 0.25  / a
s
[mm] (28
2
)
o Augmenting the statically required reinforcement amount. Due to this provision the steel
stress in the serviceability state is lowered, thus the crack widths are reduced as direct
consequence. This steel amount control (augmenting of reinforcement amount from the
ULS design) is the basic concern of the NEDIM crack proof algorithm.
Practically, NEDIM follows a twostep thread : (a) ULS design, yielding statically required reinforcement amount; (b) SLS
design, referring to the characteristic bar diameter 
k
and/or a characteristic bar distance s
k
as specified by the user on input.
NEDIM carries out the crack proof according to the Norm proof approach and increases the statically required reinforcement
amount where it is needed to meet completely the crack proof requirements.
NEDIM, however, allows for merging of load cases for the ultimate and serviceability states within a calculation process in
order to enable the crack proof procedure outlined above. In the following paragraphs it is shown that different attributes may
be assigned to the load cases, in accordance with the individual stipulations of the Norms.
In Chapter Program Theory and Algorithm the notion of the virtual crosssection design force n
virt
was introduced (Fig.
7c). The effect of this algorithmic enhancement is, along with that discussed with the shear proof and the minimum
compression reinforcement, a consistent description of the state of stress in the crosssection, especially in case of non
congruent reinforcement at both faces. Since most Norms consider the stress distribution pattern (bending centric
tension) as important a factor of the crack development, the knowledge of n
virt
is indispensable to reliable crack proof
design. Upon the analysis types dealt with by NEDIM it has the following impact:
o Walls : the general inner forces vector (3) degenerates to
{ n
x
, n
y
, n
xy
} (29
1
)
109
There is no use of n
virt
, since n
virt
n
d
in this model. All design forces are membrane
forces with zero eccentricity, causing either tension or pressure in the crosssection.
o Plates : the general inner forces vector (3) degenerates to
{ m
x
, m
y
, m
xy
, v
x
, v
y
} (29
2
)
Thus, instead of the design forces n
d
, design moments m
d
and shear force v
d
are active in
Plate design. There is effectively no (virtual) normal force n
virt
in pure flexural members,
even if hyperbolic cases like in Fig. 6b suggest that such an interpretation of the rather
complicated type of stress state may be discussible : both reinforcement courses at
upper/lower face appear to be under tension, thus the conclusion seems to be justified that
there is a normal force action upon the crosssection. However, with Fig. 6b it was
explained that, in such hyperbolic cases, the prevailing stress is shear, not tension, and that
also the reinforcement is, effectively, subject to shear rather than to tension; the
representative stress pattern in the design section is thus the shear stress triangle (Fig. 6b).
As a fact, it was made an attempt in NEDIM to deal with such states of stress as with
prevailing tension. This had, however, serious consequences to the crack and shear proof
results : especially under NORM B 4700, unacceptable crack reinforcement increments
to statically required reinforcement were casually obtained.
o Shells : the general inner forces vector (3) applies to Shell design, rewritten here :
{ m
x
, m
y
, m
xy
, v
x
, v
y
, n
x
, n
y
, n
xy
} (29
3
)
Although the twostep reinforcement design (running separately for both faces) assigns a
half crosssection to each reinforcement course, the crack proof must take into
consideration the total crosssection, even if there is no congruent reinforcement at
opposite (actually inactive) face. The information needed is delivered by the virtual
normal force n
virt
and the complementary virtual bending moment m
virt
.
All possible states of stress have to be correctly interpreted and managed by the NEDIM
crack proof algorithm. As symbolized by Fig. 14, for the crack proof procedure it is not
enough to determine tensile stresses at the actual face, yet also the stress pattern over the
crosssection is of eminent importance; especially, the s. c. disconnection cracks are of
interest.
Fig. 14 Typical stress patterns considered by NEDIMs crack proof procedure :
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
110
(a) bending crack neutral axis within crosssection;
(b) disconnection crack due to tension force with low eccentricity;
(c) overpressed crosssection no crack proof
Crack Proof according to DIN 1045 07/1988
The crack proof algorithm of NEDIM follows the basic specifications of DIN 1045 07/1988 [5] as well as the enhancements
described in Heft 400 [23], which is in the German engineering practice regarded as authorized Norm complement.
According to the basic notion of 17.6 [5] the primary goal of the crack proof is the control of the limit bar diameter d
s
and/or
the maximum reinforcement bar distance s. The control is governed by the Tables 14 and 15, which define the functions d
s
=
f
1
(o
s
) and s = f
2
(o
s
) for selected pivot values of d
s
and s. If the steel stress corresponding to the provided reinforcement a
s,ULS
(retrieved from the data base) is higher than allowed by Table 14 or 15, respectively, one of the following measures is
necessary : (a) lowering the input value d
s,inp
; (b) lowering the input value s
inp
; (c) increasing the provided reinforcement to
a
s,SLS
> a
s,ULS
. The NEDIM algorithm runs, however, acc. to (c) since d
s,inp
or s
inp
, respectively, are fixed values, assessed by
the user.
NEDIM distinguishes in the DIN 1045 branch four attributes of load cases :
o Load cases or their combinations representing external loads, assigned the attribute
ULS. They yield the statically required reinforcement, automatically saved in the data
base to be retrieved by the crack proof procedure as a base for crack control. However,
they can simultaneously be specified and used as load cases of the types specified below;
then, generally provided with another LC factor.
o Load cases/combinations for crack proof causing so called force induced deformations.
These serviceability load cases are assigned the attribute SLS/ external forces.
o Load cases/combinations causing both force and strain imposed deformations. The effect
of yielding of supports and other external causes, which cannot be directly identified with
external loads, is assumed. These are serviceability load cases are assigned the attribute
SLS/ externally imposed deformations.
o Load cases/combinations causing both force and strain imposed deformations. The effect
of temperature variation, shrinkage, creep and other internal causes, which cannot be
identified with forces at all, is assumed. These are serviceability load cases are assigned
the attribute SLS/ internally imposed deformations.
The minimum tension reinforcement stipulated by 17.6.2(3), formula (19) [5] is of another kind than discussed in Chapter
Reinforcement amount control :
z
= k
0
bz
/ o
s
(30)
with
z
reinforcement ratio related to tension zone A
bz
; k
0
special parameter respecting the crosssection stress
pattern;
s
steel tension stress according to the crack control described above (i.e. corresponding to the reinforcement
amount calculated, depending by Table 14 on the bar diameter);
bz
calculation concrete tension strength. The
minimum tension reinforcement may be, following 17.6.2(2), omitted in special situations.
The procedure just described is the elementary crack proof directly stipulated by [5]. The crack control guaranteed by this
method means that the mean crack width is implicitly limited to the value w
cal
= 0.25 [mm]. This elementary method is
sometimes called crack limiting.
However, Heft 400 DAfSt [23] provides an enhanced theory on crack propagation and control, using formulae which are
basically identical with the EC 2 approach. It has been implemented into the DIN 1045 07/1988 branch as innovation of the
original approach described by (30).
Crack Proof according to EUROCODE 2
According to the basic notion of EC 2 [9], 4.4.2 two possible crack proof strategies are at choice :
o 4.4.2.3 : crack limiting without direct calculation. This method is almost identical to the elementary crack limiting method
stipulated by DIN 1045 [5] (see above). By meeting the requirements of 4.4.2.3 the mean crack width will be limited to the
value w
k
= 0.30 [mm].
o 4.4.2.4 : method of calculating mean crack width w
k
by formula (4.80) :
111
w
k
= s
rm
sm
(31)
with w
k
calculation value of the crack width; security factor distinguishing force induced cracks ( = 1.7) and cracks
induced by imposed deformations ( = 1.3); s
rm
mean crack distance in case of fully developed crack pattern; c
sm
mean
steel strain, considering tension stiffening between the cracks. (31) represents a sophisticated procedure taking several
factors into account. The procedure by Heft 400 [23], as supplement of DIN 1045 [5], is almost identical to that described
EC 2, formula (4.80), i.e. (31) above.
The enhanced procedure acc. to (31) enables to control the mean crack width w
k
in the structure by varying bar diameter  or
bar distance s. However, the NEDIM procedure, with given input values of 
inp
or s
inp
, is aimed at controlling the statically re
quired reinforcement a
s,ULS
: if required by crack proof, a
s,ULS
is augmented in order to lower the steel stress o
s
, which is the
crucial factor affecting the value of mean strain c
sm
in (31). This procedure is called crack reduction, since generally cracks w
k
< 0.30 [mm] are aspired to.
NEDIM controls the crack proof procedure of the EC 2 branch by distinguishing four
different load case attributes acc. to the same principles as described in the paragraph on the
DIN 1045 07/1988 branch.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
112
Crack Proof according to NEN 6720
The crack proof algorithm of NEDIM follows the specifications of NEN 6720 as well as the theoretical fundamentals described
in [3], [12].
According to the method of NEN 6720, the primary goal of the crack limitation is the assessment of the characteristic average
bar diameter 
k
and/or the maximum allowable reinforcement bar distance s
k
. NEDIM performs both proof variants
simultaneously.
NEN 6720 describes two states of cracks propagation: developed and undeveloped cracks. Developed means that over the
whole span no more cracks will occur; only the crack width will increase. Undeveloped means that the cracks are considered
either not to exist at all or not to be fully developed. For undeveloped crack patterns the initiation of cracks is an important
factor, while for developed crack patterns their widening is of interest. Both the initiation and the widening of cracks are
checked by limiting the diameter  of reinforcement bars as well as by limiting their distance s.
Clauses 8.7.2 and 8.7.3 [12] provide two checks for developed and undeveloped cracks. In case of developed cracks only
one of the requirements A, B is to be met; undeveloped cracks are controlled by meeting both checks simultaneously:
8.7.2. (developed req. A):
1
1
c,
s
k
k
k
s C
(32
1
)
8.7.2. (developed req. B):
e c,2
s
k
k k
k
m s


.

\

s 1.3
1
2
100
(32
2
)
8.7.3. (undeveloped): 50
) (
2
s
+
s C
s sr
ck 3
k
f' k
and
s sr
k
k
+
s C
1
(32
3
)
For explanation of parameters in formulae (32
#
) see [3], [12]. Here we will discuss the para
meter k
e
only. It represents the stressstrain pattern characteristic for the crosssection of
interest taking on the values between 1.0 for pure bending and 0.5 for overtensioned cross
sections. Plates are structures with declared pure bending.
It is the parameter k
e
which is exclusively responsible for expressing this aspect in (32
2
). With
respect to Fig. 14 it means concretely : the situation of Fig. 14b corresponds to the value of k
e
= 0.5; Fig. 14c corresponds to k
e
= 1.0. Thus, in case of equal magnitudes of the principal mo
ment m
I
in the plate corner of Fig. 14, (32
2
) yields for the statically inefficient reinforcement
geometry 0/90 half the value of maximum allowable reinforcement bar distance s than in
case of the statically optimum reinforcement geometry 45/ 135!
It is interesting to realise that the parameter k
e
is active in (32
2
) only, thus having effect upon s
only; the calculation of the bar diameter  is not affected by the stressstrain pattern, unlike
the NORM B 4700, which controls by the analogous parameter k the limit bar diameter d
gr
(compare with (35)).
NEDIM determines the steel stresses o
s
and o
sr
in formulae (32
#
) following an iterative process in which both steel and
concrete obey a linear oc law, the concrete, however, being disabled in tension.
The crack proof theory [12] distinguishes three types of load cases for the crack proof according to NEN 6720 (for details see
Crack Proof according to DIN 1045) :
o Load cases representing external loads. In the NEDIM input system they are assigned the
attribute ULS.
o Load cases representing the force imposed deformations. These serviceability load cases
are assigned the attribute SLS/ external forces.
o Load cases representing both force and strain imposed deformations. Deformations indu
113
ced by LC combinations of this type cannot be assigned to external forces only. The effect
of temperature variation, shrinkage, creep, yielding of supports etc. is involved, too. Servi
ceability load cases of this type are assigned the attribute SLS/ externally and internally
imposed deformations.
The NEN 6720 crack proof branch of NEDIM has been equipped with 4 different proof branches. All of them are useful means
of crack proof analysis :
1. Noncontrolled Crack Proof : The crack proof calculation is not controlled by any user
specified restrictions. For each reinforcement course NEDIM calculates the characteristic
average bar diameter 
k
and the maximum allowable reinforcement bar distance s
k
at any
design point to fit the crack proof requirements. By examination of the results (graphic
portrayal) the user gains an overview over the development of the characteristic values of

k
and s
k
over the part of model analyzed. In special cases, when the crack proof
requirements are completely met for the input values of diameters or distances, the crack
control for these regions is already effectuated.
2. Controlled Crack Proof : The crack proof calculation is controlled by the maximum
bar diameter  specified by the user. NEDIM calculates the characteristic average bar
diameter 
k
at any design point and compares this value with the input value of . If 
k
calculated is less than the input diameter 
inp
, the reinforcement augmentation process
described above is started. As a result, a higher reinforcement amount fitting the crack
proof for the input diameter 
inp
replaces the original statically required reinforcement
amount in the data base. This proof variant enables the engineer to specify a constant bar
diameter 
inp
envisaged for some parts of the structure. The results of this NEDIM crack
proof variant ensure that the crack proof requirements will be met everywhere, when the
reinforcement saved in the data base is applied (superposition of the ULS and SLS design
states).
3. sControlled Crack Proof : The crack proof calculation is controlled by the maximum
bar distance s specified by the user. NEDIM calculates the maximum allowable rein
forcement bar distance s
k
in any design point and compares it with the input value of s
inp
.
If s
k
calculated is less than the input diameter s
inp
the reinforcement amount augmentation
process is started. As a result, a higher reinforcement amount fitting the crack proof for the
input bar distance s
inp
superposes the statically required reinforcement amount saved in the
data base. This proof variant enables the engineer to specify a constant bar distance s
inp
envisaged as structural provision for parts of structure checked. The results of this NEDIM
crack proof variant ensure that the crack proof requirements will be met everywhere, when
using the reinforcement saved in the data base, augmented, if necessary, by the crack proof
procedure.
4. Optimized Crack Proof : This is algorithmically the most exacting variant of the NEN
6720 crack proof algorithm. The calculation is controlled both by the maximum bar
diameter  and the maximum bar distance s specified by the user. NEDIM combines the
procedures described under Pt. 2 and 3 above. Following variants may be encountered in
course of the calculations : (a) If 
k
calculated is greater than or equal the input diameter

inp
the crack proof requirements have been met. There is no need of augmenting the
reinforcement amount; (b) If s
k
calculated is greater or equal than the input distance s
inp
the
crack proof requirements have been met; (c) if neither 
inp
nor s
inp
specified meet the crack
proof requirements the procedure described under Pt. 2 and 3 is started to find the best fit
of one of both conditions ( or s) by augmenting the statically required reinforcement from
the ULS design. Best fit means to seek that one of the  or s conditions which implies
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
114
lesser reinforcement augmentation. This variant yields, generally, the lowest total
reinforcement augmentation amount of all three variants described by Pt. 2, 3 and 4; this is
why it is called optimized.
Crack Proof according to DIN 10451 07.2001
DIN 10451 stipulates, like EC 2, two approaches to the crack control :
o Empiric approach, 11.2.3 : limitation of the crack without direct calculation. Analogously to the ideas of EUROCODE 2, the
functional dependences d
s
= f
1
(o
s
,w
k
) and s = f
2
(o
s
, w
k
) are defined by Tables 28 and 29. While EC 2 relates its table values
to the implicitly assumed crack width w
k
= 0.30 [mm], DIN 10451 distinguishes between 3 basic cases : w
k
= {0.20, 0.30,
0.40} [mm]. Thus, DIN 10451 presents a real enhancement for hand calculations on this elementary proof level. However,
for the automated crack proof by NEDIM this enhancement is of no advantage, compared with the genuine analytic
approach, since a 3step interpolation (compare with the NORM B 4700 algorithm, described below) would be necessary.
For these reasons it was decided not to include this procedure into the NEDIM processing.
o Analytic approach, 11.2.4 : crack limitation by direct calculation has been implemented into NEDIM. It is an analogy of the
crack reduction method introduced by Eurocode 2 (see above). However, the DIN 10451 crack formula differs from (31) :
w
k
= s
r,max
(
sm
cm
) (33
1
)
with w
k
calculation value of the crack width; s
r,max
maximum crack distance in case of fully developed crack pattern; c
sm
mean steel strain, considering tension stiffening between the cracks; c
cm
mean concrete strain between cracks. The
calculation of the strain difference (c
sm
c
cm
) is described by DIN 10451 formula (136). The maximum crack distance
s
r,max
is described by DIN 10451 formula (137); in NEDIM terms :
s
r,max
= min (1 /
eff
,
s
/ f
ct,eff
) / 3.6 d
s
(33
2
)
with
eff
efficient reinforcement ratio; d
s
calculation bar diameter.
NEDIM controls the crack proof procedure of the DIN 10451 branch by distinguishing two load case attributes :
o SLS load cases due to external loads combined with externally imposed deformations, if
occuring. They are assigned the attribute SLS/ external.
o SLS load cases due to internally imposed deformations, i.e. hydration heat. They are as
signed the attribute SLS/ internal.
Crack Proof according to GBJ 1089
The crack proof algorithm of NEDIM follows the specifications of GBJ 1089 as well as the theoretical fundamentals described
in [15].
The GBJ 1089 crack proof method focuses upon the dealing with the bar diameter d only; bar distances do not play any direct
role.
GBJ 1089 introduces the explicit crack width control as the central proof item. The scope of crack widths dealt with is the
interval [0.10, 0.40] [mm]. The maximum allowable crack width value w
max
desired to be maintained throughout the structure
or its part is specified on input.
The GBJ 1089 algorithm, following principally the same threads as described, e.g. in the NEN 6720 crack proof paragraph,
augments, if necessary, the statically required reinforcement, retrieved from the data base, to fit the crack proof requirements
associated with the maximum allowable crack width value w
max
given by the formula :
w
k
= a
cr
(2.7 c + 0.1 d /
te
)
ss
/E
s
(34)
In (34) a
cr
is an analogy to the stressstrain pattern parameters k
e
(NEN 6720) and k (NORM B 4700). GBJ 1089 assigns
the values a
cr
= {2.7, 2.4, 2.1} corresponding to axial tension, eccentric tension and pure bending, respectively. NEDIM
interpolates, however, between a
cr
= 2.7 and a
cr
= 2.1 to distinguish smoothly between different states of stress from pure
bending to centric tensioned crosssection. For explanation of the other factors in (34) see [14].
In the actual version of NEDIM, for both faces of a 2D member different control values of w
inp
may be defined on input. This is,
however, a common input approach to all crack proof branches implemented in NEDIM.
Crack Proof according to NORM B 4700
The crack proof specifications of NORM B 4700, relatively detailed elaborated, present an interesting individual approach to
the problem of crack control in comparison with EC2 or DIN 10451. Acc. to NORM B 4700 the crack development is
controlled by the limit reinforcement bar diameter d
gr
rather than by bar distance s. However, it has to be understood (con
cerning both NORM B 4700 and GBJ 1089 and other crack proof branches of NEDIM) that explicitly focusing to bar dia
115
meters d
gr
as leading proof factor does not mean the distance of bars being of no impact upon the crack control. The bar
distances s in a reinforcement net correspond to the reinforcement amount provided, as shown by (28
2
). The difference
between the methods of DIN 10451, EUROCODE 2 and NEN 6720 on one part and GBJ 1089, NORM B 4700 on the other
part consists just in the manner of how the bar distances are dealt with : the formerly mentioned Norm methods make them
explicit control parameters; the latter Norms use bar distances as implicit quantities of the crack proof.
NORM B 4700 introduces the notion of crack width as a central proof item. The crack widths to be dealt with are assigned
to the interval <0.15, 0.30> [mm]. The maximum allowable crack width value w
k
desired to be maintained throughout the
structure or its part is defined on input. Higher or lesser values of w
k
are obviously outside the scope covered by the NORM
B 4700 stipulations. If there appears w
k
< 0.15 or w
k
> 0.30 on input, it is adapted to the nearest limit value (w
k
= 0.15 or w
k
=
0.30, respectively).
A characteristic feature of NORM B 4700 is the absence of analytic formulae for w
k
. Tables 8a,b to 10 describe the functions
d
sr
= f
1
(
tr
) or d
sr
= f
2
(
tr
,o
sD
), respectively, of the calculation bar diameter d
sr
; f
1
(
tr
) for strain imposed deformations and
f
2
(
tr
,o
sD
) force imposed deformations (compare with the paragraph on NEN 6720). NEDIM applies a double interpolation
process based upon the Norm Tables 8a or 9 (for w
k
= 0.15) and 8b or 10 (for w
k
= 0.30) to establish the limit bar diameter
value d
gr
respectively as function of the reinforcement amount percentage
tr
alone or of
tr
and the characteristic steel tension
o
sD
.
The relation between the limit reinforcement bar diameter d
sr
and the calculation reinforcement bar diameter d
gr
is described
by the following formula:
d
gr
= d
sr
k (35)
with parameter k representing the characteristic stressstrain pattern of the crosssection, attaining values from the interval k e
[0.5, 1.0]. Compared with the crack proof acc. to NEN 6720, k is a direct analogy to the parameter k
e
of (32
2
); however, it is
calculated in another way than k
e
.
NORM B 4700 distinguishes several situations of exploitation concerning the crack proof procedure and the use of Norm
Tables 8a,b or 9 and 10, respectively. NEDIM deals with such situations by assigning attributes to corresponding load cases :
o Load cases representing external loads. They are assigned the attribute ULS when
applied to the design of the statically required reinforcement, which is saved in the data
base to be retrieved by the crack proof procedure. However, they can simultaneously be
specified with the attribute SLS and used as load cases of the types specified below;
then, most probably, provided with another LC factor.
o Serviceability load cases representing the force imposed deformations for crack proof. For
dealing with load cases of this type the functional relation d
sr
= f
2
(
tr
,o
sD
) governed by the
Tables 9 and 10 is of fundamental importance. An iteration process equilibrates the
required reinforcement amount by checking
tr
against d
gr
, which is related to d
sr
by
(35);
d
sr
is specified on input as principal control quantity along with the crack width w
k
. Load
cases of this group are assigned the attribute SLS/ external forces.
o Serviceability load cases representing strain imposed deformations acc. to 4.2.2(1), (2),
(3) and (4). Load cases of this type are governed by the functional relation d
sr
= f
1
(
tr
)
defined by the Norm Tables 8a and 8b. The cause of imposed deformations has to be
expressed by means of load cases. The LC are assigned the attribute SLS/ external
strain.
o Serviceability load cases representing the strain imposed deformations acc. to 4.2.2(5).
They are special LC dealing with nonlinearly distributed, selfinduced stresses within the
crosssection. These situations of exploitation allow for a reduction of the required
reinforcement amount percentage
tr
within the interval <60%, 80%>. On the whole, the
crack iteration process follows the same rules as described by the preceding point. Load
cases of this group are assigned the attribute SLS/internal strain.
o Serviceability Load Cases representing the strain imposed deformations acc. to the
4.2.2(6). They are special crack proof serviceability LC dealing with cracks in an early
stage of concrete hardening. These situations of exploitation allow, according to
4.2.2(6), for a reduction of the required reinforcement amount percentage
tr
to 70% of
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
116
the standard value. By this it is assumed that the average tension strength f
ctm,t
attains 50%
of f
ctm
(after 28 days). For other percentages linear interpolation between these limits is
allowed. NEDIM respects these special rules. For f
ctm,t
the corresponding percentage of
f
ctm
is expected on input (active for this type of LC only), rather than its absolute value. LC
of this group are assigned the attribute early stage strain.
o Serviceability load cases representing the strain imposed deformations due to hydration
heat flow acc. to 4.2.2(6). These situations of exploitation allow for a reduction of the
required reinforcement amount percentage
tr
to 70% of the standard reinforcement value
in case of normally hardening cements (e.g. PZ 275, PZ 375). For other cements a special
proof is required). LC of this group are assigned the attribute SLS/ hydration strain.
Crack Proof according to BAEL 91/99
Concerning the basic assumptions on the crack development in a 2D reinforced concrete medium, NEDIM maintains the
general notion formulated introductory to this chapter also for BAEL 91/99, since BAEL does not contain any special hints as
to the organization of this design part called Limit State of Crack Opening when dealing with the 2D structures.
The crack proof specifications of BAEL 91/99, A.4.5,3 present themselves, in comparison with the procedures stipulated by
the EUROCODE family, NEN 6720 etc., as very a simple approach. This statement concerns, however, exclusively the
practical formulae of the BAEL 91/99 crack theory, not the scientific fundamentals of it! As basic control parameter, the status
of cracking, introduced already in the paragraph Shear Proof methods, redirects the crack control calculations acc. to BAEL
91/99 into three branches:
o Cracking is considered generally as noncritical (peu prjudiciable) for the functionality of structure. In such cases no
crack proof is necessary in the sense of NEDIM. Thus, specifying this status equals to abstaining from the crack proof at all.
o Cracking is considered as critical (prjudiciable). This might be the standard case of crack proof. The approach of BAEL
91/99 consists of proving that the steel tension corresponding to the serviceability load case combination specified does not
exceed the limit value given by the following formula (35
1
) :
lim o
s
= = min { max [110 ( f
tj
), f
e
] , f
e
} [MPa] (35
1
)
o Cracking is considered as very critical (trs prjudiciable). This status of cracking implies a stronger tension limit (thus
decreasing the characteristic crack width) by requiring :
lim o
s
= 0.8 [MPa] (35
2
)
with from (35
1
).
In (35
1
) the factor e [1.0, 1.6] is, as a fact, a steel surface characteristics, thus expressing the adhesion ability of steel bars to
the concrete. It is interesting to realise that in the crack formula (35
1
), differently from all other crack control approaches
applied by the Norms implemented in NEDIM, neither the steel bar diameter nor the bar distance are active as factors of the
crack proof ! Equally interesting is to note that also the shear proof (see above) of BAEL 91/99 is controlled by the status of
cracking. It might be concluded, that BAEL 91/99 pays more attention to shear induced cracks than other Norms !?
Crack Proof according to SIA 262
SCIA 262, 4.4.2 declares the crack control by providing special minimum reinforcement in order to limit the opening of cracks
to an acceptable value. In paragraph Minimum tension reinforcement is was pointed to the fact that 4.4.2.3.9, Table 16 &
4.4. 2.3.10, Fig.31 require a minimum tension reinforcement as provision against the brittle fracture of concrete in case of 1
st
cracks appearance. While that first step of SIA 262 crack control is carried out for steel stress
s,adm
= f
sd
(case A, see Table
1), i.e. for design steel strength (compare with DIN 1045, allowing for f
yk
, i.e. characteristic steel strength), the second step of
(full) crack proof, discussed here, restricts the admissible steel strength as function of bar distance, i.e.
s,adm
= f (s). Table 16
of SIA 262 is reproduced here as Table 1 to give insight into the crack control philosophy of SIA 262 :
Table 1. Adm. steel strength
s,adm
as function of bar distance s and proof objective
Proof objective
Exigencies
Normal Accrued Elevated
1 Preventing brittle fracture when f
ctd
is attained A A A
2
Limiting the opening of cracks under force impact
or due to imposed deformations (when f
ctd
is
attained)
A
*)
B
*)
C
*)
117
3
Limiting the opening of cracks under quasi
permanent load cases (ac. to SIA 260)
C
4
(4) Limiting the opening of cracks under frequent
load cases (ac. to SIA 260)
f
sd
80 f
sd
80
*)
the codes A, B and C point to
s,adm
= f (s) graphical function definition by SIA 262, Fig. 31
The functional relation
s,adm
= f (s), coded A, B, C in Tab. 1, is defined graphically by SIA 262, Fig. 31. NEDIM uses a 3
parabola interpolation representation of Fig. 31 functional graphs to allow for analytic evaluation by the crack proof algorithm.
NEDIM effectuates the crack proof procedure of the SIA 262 branch by distinguishing four load case attributes :
o ULS load cases applied to the brittle fracture control (Tab. 1, Row 1). They are assigned
the attribute "ULS".
o SLS load cases applied to the crack control due to imposed or restrained deformations
(Tab. 1, Row 2). They are assigned the attribute "SLS/ deformation".
o SLS load cases applied to the crack control due to quasi permanent loads (Tab. 3, Row
4). They are assigned the attribute "quasi permanent".
o SLS load cases applied to the crack control due to frequent loads (Tab. 1, Row 4). They
are assigned the attribute "frequent".
Closing note. The 1
st
step of crack control acc. to SIA 262, as summarized by Table 1, is the brittle fracture control. This is,
however, considered as a standard procedure of minimum tension reinforcement estimation. Thus, the brittle fracture control
is carried out primarily by the load cases attributed "ULS". The "genuine" crack proof, described as "limiting the opening of
cracks", is effectuated by the SLS design run.
Crack Proof according to EN 199211:2004
The crack proof stipulations of EN 199211:2004 are obviously the result of continued development of Eurocode 2 (ENV
199211:1992) combined with DIN 10451. Here, two approaches to the crack control are stipulated as well : empiric
approach, 7.3.3 and analytic approach, 7.3.4. For more details on the former one see paragraph on DIN 10451. NEDIM
applies the analytic approach.
Analytic approach, 7.3.4 : the basic formula for maximum crack width w
k
is identical with the crack formula (33
1
) according to
DIN 10451 :
w
k
= s
r,max
(
sm
cm
) (36
1
)
with w
k
calculation value of the crack width; s
r,max
maximum crack distance in case of fully developed crack pattern; c
sm
mean steel strain, taking into account the effects of tension stiffening between the cracks; c
cm
mean concrete strain between
cracks. The calculation of the difference (c
sm
c
cm
) is described by DIN 10451, formula (136). The maximum crack distance
s
r,max
is described by formula (7.11), resembling merely the EC2 formula (4.82); in NEDIM terms :
s
r,max
= k
3
c + k
1
k
2
k
4
/
eff
(36
2
)
with c concrete cover of the longitudinal reinforcement; k
1
, k
2
parameters from EC2; k
3
, k
4
coefficients which may be
found in the NAD; recommended values are : k
3
= 3.4
and k
4
= 0.425.
Where the spacing of bonded reinforcement exceeds 5 (c + /2), i.e. 5 times the axial concrete cover, the alternative upper
distance bound acc. to formula (7.14) applies :
s
r,max
= 1.3 (h x) (36
3
)
NEDIM controls the crack proof procedure of the DIN 10451 branch by applying load cases of a unique class : SLS load
cases due to external loads combined with imposed deformations, if occuring. They are assigned the attribute "SLS"
Crack Proof according to BS 8110 and IS 456
IS 456 follows the same thread of crack proof methodology as BS 8110. The calculation procedure is described in BS 8110,
Part 2, Chapter 3.8; it applies, by declaration, to cracks caused by loads causing prevailingly bending (flexural cracks),
however, it is admitted to extend it to members subjected dominantly to axial tension.
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
118
BS 8110 does not consider the bar diameter  as a primary factor affecting the crack width. The bar distance s is considered
to affect the crack width at least indirectly ("proximity of reinforcing bars to the point considered "). Some of the symbols
used in the crack proof formulae are, regrettably, obscure since (a) general crosssections (1D) are envisaged; (b) no
illustrating scheme is presented. Thus, some interpretation effort was necessary in order to get suitable crack formulae for 2D
crack proof.
The design surface crack width formula (12) reads, with NEDIM terms :
w
max
= 3 (a
cr
m
) / (1. + 2 (a
cr
c) / (h x)) (37
1
)
with
m
average strain at the level where the cracking is being considered; a
cr
distance from the point considered to the
surface of the nearest longitudinal bar; c minimum cover to the tension steel bar; h crosssection height; x depth of the
neutral axis.
The design value of a
cr
is, related to a standard 2D member crosssection, calculated according the following NEDIM formula,
which assumes the "level of cracking" on the tensioned surface, at half distance s/2 between two adjacent bars :
a
cr
=  / 2 + \ (( / 2) + (c + ) c + (s / 2)) (37
2
)
with 
bar diameter; s bar distance; other symbols are the same as in (37
1
). The average strain
m
fomula BS 8110, (13),
"interpreted" for 2D (b
t
= 1 and a' h) reads :
m
=
1
(h x) / (3 E
s
a
s
(d x)) (37
3
)
with
1
average strain at the level considered, calculated ignoring the tension stiffening effect; E
s
modulus of elasticity of
reinforcement steel [MPa]; a
s
(provided) area of tension reinforcement; d effective static height of reinforcement course
considered.
The calculation formula for
1
has been derived from the declared meaning as :
1
= (h x) / (d x)
s
(37
4
)
with
s
steel strain calculated in cracked section under the assumption of linear elasticity of steel and concrete (Linear State
II).
The extrapolation of the application scope of (37
3
) to overtensioned crosssections, as mentioned above, is effectuated by
means of replacing the term (h  x) in (37
3
) by (a) h if the neutral axis just coincides with the opposite face edge; (b) 2h for
axial tension (3.8.3, formula (13)). NEDIM interpolates between these margin values by inserting the term h, with
according to the elementary formula :
= max (min (1 +
2
/
1
, 2.), 1.) (37
4
)
with
1
> 0. strain at actual face,
2
strain at opposite face.
In (37
3
), negative value of
m
indicates that the crosssection is noncracked. In assessing the strains, the modulus of elasticity
of the concrete should be taken as half the instantaneous value. In case of abnormally high shrinkage (
> 0.0006),
m
should
be increased by adding 50 % of the expected shrinkage strain. Both recommendations are obeyed by NEDIM :
o The condition E
c,eff
= 0.5 E
c
is active as default to all load cases engaged in the crack proof . However, NEDIM allows for
setting an individual value of E
c,eff
as individual attribute to each load case.
o The creep effect upon the deformations may automatically be considered by defining a corresponding load case (combina
tion) of type "longterm". Additionally an increase factor k
m,
as provision for creep effects.
NEDIM controls the crack proof procedure of the BS 8110/ IS 456 branches by applying load cases of a unique class : SLS
load cases due to external loads combined with imposed deformations, if occuring. They are assigned the attribute SLS
119
PROCESSING OF NONDESIGNABILITY
CONDITIONS
Processing of nondesignability conditions
A reliable system of reporting nondesignabilities is one powerful feature of NEDIM. There are two kinds of irregularities:
errors and warnings. The maximum number of possible errors within a design run may be restricted. At the present stage of
NEDIM development, the upper error limit has formally been set infinite.
Warnings and errors in the sense of this Chapter are not program errors.
NEDIM defines eight nondesignability and a warning condition. They are represented by their Nondesignability STatus NST
specified by the following Table :
Indication of the Nondesignability Status (NSt)
Table 2. NEDIM design errors classification
NSt Indication of nondesignability status (NSt >0)
<0
Control indication: Element/Node has not been subjected to design as yet.
If there are some design results found in the corresponding Data Base record, nst<0 is an illegal value
(probably caused a program malfunction).
0 Normal design result of element or element node, respectively.
>0 An error condition encountered Verbal description of 8 specified error cases follows :
1
Compression reinforcement in bending (Plates only!) would be necessary,
yet is prohibited (as a rule, by users specification).
2
Compression reinforcement in bending would be required, yet is nondesignable (too heavily exploited
crosssection).
3
Plate model only: Compression reinforcement in bending would be necessary, yet noncongruent
reinforcement geometry at upper/lower faces encountered. Recommendation : if congruent
reinforcement geometry impossible, design as Shell (in Shells, independent reinforcement geometry is
acceptable in all design situations)
4 Maximum reinforcement ratio exceeded.
5 Concrete strength exhausted (generally inefficient reinforcement geometry).
6 General nondesignability (reserved for special design cases).
7 Shear nondesignability.
8
Multiple nondesignability encountered. As a rule, a combination of one of the cases 1 to 6 with the
shear nondesignability case 7
Concrete Code Check  Theoretical Background
120
REFERENCES
This reference list comprises all references made throughout the above text to : (a) national Norm codes; (2) general
publications; (3) publications of the Author of this Handbook; (4) internal SCIA publications.
Table 3. List of references
[1]
Baumann, Th. : "Zur Frage der Netzbewehrung von Flchentragwerken".
In : Der Bauingenieur 47 (1972), P. 36 ff. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 1975
[2]
Schlaich, J. and Schfer, K. : "Konstruieren im Stahlbetonbau".
In : Der Betonkalender 1993, Part 2, P. 327 ff. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 1993
[3]
Willemse, A. H. D. : "Cracking limitation according to NEN 6720". Internal Paper SCIA international,
BelguimNetherlands, Oosterbeek 1997
[4]
Willemse, A. H. D. : "Concrete calculation for plates according to NEN 6720". Internal Paper SCIA internat
ional, BelguimNetherlands, Oosterbeek 1997
[5]
DIN 1045 07/1988: "Beton und Stahlbeton, Bemessung und Ausfhrung", Ausgabe Juli 1988. In :
"Betonkalender 1997", Part II, P. 197 ff. Ernst & Sohn,
Berlin 1997
[6]
DIN 1045 12/78 : "Beton und Stahlbeton, Bemessung und Ausfhrung", Ausgabe Dezember 1978. In :
"Betonkalender 1982", Part II, P. 239 ff. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 1982
[7]
NORM B 4200, Part 8 : "Stahlbetontragwerke. Berechnung und Ausfhrung I", Ausgabe April 1970.
sterreichisches Normungsinstitut (ON), Wien 1970
[8]
NORM B 4200, Part 9 : "Stahlbetontragwerke. Berechnung und Ausfhrung II", Ausgabe August 1971.
sterreichisches Normungsinstitut, Wien 1971
[9]
Eurocode 2, Teil 1, Deutsche Fassung ENV 199211 : 1991, Juni 1992.
In : "Betonkalender 1995", Part II, P. 252 ff. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 1995
[10]
CSN 73 1201 : "Design of reinforcement concrete structures". Czechoslovak State Norm, State
Normalization Institute, Praha 1986 (Czech)
[11] SIANorm 162 : "Betonbauten". In : "Betonkalender 1990", Teil II, Seite 373 ff. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 1990
[12]
NEN 6720, "Betonvoorschriften TGB 1990. Constructieve eisen en rekenmethoden", VBC 1995, 2 editie,
Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut, Delft 1995
[13]
DIN 10451 (07.2001) : "Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und Spannbeton". In : Avak, R. und Goris, A.
(Hrsg.) : "Stahlbetonbau aktuell 2007", Bauwerk Verlag, Berlin 2007
[14]
GBJ1089 : "Code for design of concrete structures", January 1, 1990. National Standard of the Peoples
Republic of China (English), Ministry of Construction of the P. R. China, New World Press, Beijing 1994
121
[15]
Oogink, H. : "Internal development specifications on the Chinese Code for design of concrete structures".
SCIA n.v., Oosterbeek (NL) 1999
[16]
NORM B 4700 : "Stahlbetontragwerke. Eurocodenahe Berechnung, Bemessung und konstruktive
Durchbildung", Ausgabe 20000901.
sterreichisches Normungsinstitut, Wien 2000
[17]
Hobst, Ed. : "Schubbemessung von Flchentragwerken nach SIA 162, Eurocode 2, NORM B 4700 und E
DIN 10451".
In : "Beton und Stahlbeton 95", 2000, Heft 6, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 2000
[18]
Hobst, Ed. : Kritische Hinweise zur Biegebemessung von Platten nach DIN 1045, Eurocode 2, DIN 10451
und NORM B 4700.
In : "Bautechnik 77", 2000, Heft 10, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 2000
[19]
Hobst, Ed. : "Randbedingungen und Singularitten wie genau ist die FiniteElementeMethode?", In :
"Beton und Stahlbeton 95", 2000, Heft 10,
Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 2000
[20]
Hobst, Ed. : "Bemerkungen zum Artikel 'Ding Dajun : Bemessung von Stahlbetonscheiben'". In : "Beton
und Stahlbeton 96", 2001, Heft 12,
Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 2001
[21]
Hobst, Ed.: "Bemerkungen zum Artikel 'Uzunoglu, T.: Notizen aus der Praxis' (Diskussionsforum)". In:
"Beton und Stahlbetonbau 96", 2001, Heft 5,
S. 379382, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 2001
[22]
Hobst, Ed.: "Bemessung von Flchentragwerken nach DIN 10451 und NORM B 4700". In: "Beton und
Stahlbeton 98", 2003, Heft 3, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 2003
[23]
Schiel, P : "Grundlagen der Neuregelung zur Beschrnkung der Rissbreite".
In: "Heft 400 der DAfStSchriftenreihe", BeuthVerlag, BerlinKln 1989
[24] Rgles BAEL 91, 3
e
dition, Eyrolles, Paris, 2
e
tirage 2000
[25] "Bton arm", BAEL 91 modifi 99 et DTU associs, 2
e
dition, Eyrolles, Paris 2000
[26]
SIANorm 262:2003 : "Betonbau", Schweizerischer Ingenieur und
Architektenverein, Zrich 2003 (German) & "Construction en bton", Socit suisse des ingnieurs et des
architectes, Zurich 2003 (French)
[27]
Eurocode 2 : Design of concrete structures Part 11. general rules and rules for buildings (EN 19921
1:2004), European Standard, 16 April 2004
[28]
British Standard BS 8110 : Structural use of concrete, Part 1 : Code of practice for design and
construction, BSI 1997; Part 2 : Code of practice for special circumstances, BSI 1985
[29] IS 456:2000 : Plain and reinforced concrete Code of practice, Indian Standard
[30]
IS 2210:1988/1998 : Criteria for design of reinforced concrete shell structures and folded plates, Indian
Standard 1998
[31] ACI 318M05 : Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI Standard 2005
[32]
Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton: Erluterungen zu DIN 10451, Heft 525, Page 113 ff, Beuth Verlag,
Berlin 2003