2
SCIA.ESA PT
3
RESTRICTIONS 
6 

INTERNAL FORCES 
7 

Beams 
............................................................................................................. 
7 
Shifting of the moment line 
8 

Moment reduction 
8 

Shear force reduction ................................................................................ 
9 

Columns 
10 

Walls 
11 

Plates 
11 

Shells 
12 
DESIGN OF LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT
13
Beams and uniaxially loaded columns
....................................................
13
Ultimate Border
.......................................................................................
13
Single parameter reinforcement design
..................................................
Biparametrical reinforcement design
.....................................................
Basic Reinforcement or REDES reinforcement
......................................
17
20
21
Biaxially loaded columns
..........................................................................
22
Interaction diagram Optimisation
.................................................................................
............................................................................................
Ratio
........................................................................................................ Delta Area
............................................................................................... Multiple combinations
.............................................................................
Circular Columns
......................................................................................... Walls, Plates and Shells
..............................................................................
23
24
25
28
28
29
31
Transformation of inner forces to design forces
.....................................
Reinforcement Design
............................................................................ Reinforcement design of Walls
............................................................... Reinforcement design of Plates
..............................................................
Reinforcement design of Shells
..............................................................
32
35
37
41
44
DESIGN OF SHEAR REINFORCEMENT
46
Beams
...........................................................................................................
46
General
...................................................................................................
46
Composite Section and Arbitrary Sections
.............................................
Columns Plates and Shells
.......................................................................................................
.........................................................................................
47
47
47
Shear Proof Concepts
............................................................................. Advanced notes on the Shear Effect concept
.........................................
49
50
DESIGN OF TORSIONAL REINFORCEMENT CRACK PROOF
52
53
General
.........................................................................................................
53
Beams
...........................................................................................................
54
Column
......................................................................................................... Plates, Walls and Shells
..............................................................................
54
55
Crack Proof after NEN 6720
................................................................... Crack Proof after ÖNORM B 4700
..........................................................
55
56
CHECKS
58
Response
.....................................................................................................
58
4
SCIA.ESA PT
Capacity ........................................................................................................ 
62 
PHYSICAL NONLINEAR DEFORMATIONS 
66 
General 
66 
NEN 6720 ................................................................................................ 
67 
Other codes than NEN 6720 ................................................................... 
68 
Columns .................................................................................... 
69 
Composite Sections Beams, Plates and Shells 
69 69 
NEN 6720 ................................................................................................ 
69 
5
The concrete modules are restricted to the following calculations:
∑ 
Necessary main reinforcement for vertical symmetrical beams and ribs loaded by a combination of normal force, N _{x} , and bending moment M _{y} . 
∑ 
Necessary main reinforcement for rectangular and circular columns beams loaded by a combination of normal force, N _{x} , and bending moments M _{y} and M _{z} . 
∑ 
Necessary shear reinforcement for vertical symmetrical beams and ribs loaded by a shear force V _{z} . 
∑ 
Necessary main reinforcement for walls, plates and shells loaded by bending moments m _{x} , m _{y} and m _{x}_{y} and membrane forces n _{x} , n _{y} and n _{x}_{y} . For some codes the shifting of the moment line is not taken into account. 
∑ 
Necessary shear reinforcement for plates and shells loaded by shear forces q _{x} and q _{y} . 
∑ 
Crack proof of vertical symmetrical beams and ribs loaded by a combination of normal force, N _{x} , and bending moment M _{y} . For some codes the crosssection cannot contain more than one concrete quality. 
∑ 
Crack proof of walls, plates and shells loaded by bending moments m _{x} , m _{y} and m _{x}_{y} and membrane forces n _{x} , n _{y} and n _{x}_{y} . 
∑ 
Quasi nonlinear deformations for beams and ribs loaded by a combination of normal force, N _{x} , and bending moment M _{y} . For some codes the crosssection cannot contain more than one concrete quality. 
∑ 
Quasi nonlinear deformations for plates and shells loaded by bending moments m _{x} , m _{y} and m _{x}_{y} and membrane forces n _{x} , n _{y} and n _{x}_{y} . 
∑ 
Checks of moments and normal force response of any reinforced crosssection. 
∑ 
Checks of ultimate moments and normal force M _{y}_{u} , M _{z}_{u} and N _{u} of any reinforced cross section. 
∑ 
Checks of ultimate shear force V _{z}_{u} for any reinforced vertical symmetrical crosssection. 
∑ 
Calculation of additional eccentricities for bending moments M _{y} and M _{z} for uni or biaxially loaded columns. 
The following calculations are NOT performed:
∑ 
Torsional reinforcement based on moment M _{x} . Shear reinforcement for beams loaded at the bottom side of the crosssection. 
∑ 
Shear reinforcement for crosssections loaded by a combination of shear forces V _{z} and V _{y} . 
∑ 
Connection reinforcement between different items of the crosssection that are cast during 
∑ 
separate construction stages. Design of reinforcement and checks of moments, normal and shear forces for individual 
∑ 
construction stages. 
∑ 
Shear reinforcement for columns. 
∑ 
Crack proof for columns. 
∑ 
Quasi physical nonlinear deformations for columns and walls. 
∑ 
Prestressed crosssections. 
∑ 
Design of deep beams. 
6
SCIA.ESA PT
In practise a beam is subjected to a combination of a Normal force, bending moment(s), shear and torsion. For the design of necessary areas of reinforcement of a beam SCIA.ESA PT yet only supports a combination of a Normal force (N _{x} ), bending moment (M _{y} ) and shear force (V _{z} ). This means that the crosssection must always be vertically symmetrical. The beam calculation is not limited to one concrete quality only, the program allows for the design of necessary areas crosssections with infinite number of concrete qualities.
z
y
Remark:
The user however can check the response or capacity of any reinforced crosssection for the combination of internal forces N _{x} , M _{y} and M _{z} using the single check or member check functions. These checks do not support torsion or biaxial shear forces.
7
The shifting of the moment line is done respecting the national code requirements. In general the truss model analogy is used to calculate the shifted moment line for M _{y} only. The shifted moment line respects the depth of the beam, the angle of the concrete strut and the angle of the stirrups. The angles can be set in the concrete code setup. The depth of the crosssection is depended on the height of the crosssection, the diameters of the stirrups and the main reinforcement.
Remark:
Please note that the shifted or reduced internal forces are not used when a ‘single’ check of a cross section is performed.
The reduction of the moment line, M _{y} , is performed when a beam is supported by either a nodal support or column. Both types of supports have different methods to reduce the moments.
For the column the bending moment is taken at each face of the column (Frame XZ and Grid).
8
SCIA.ESA PT
The theory behind the moment reduction for a nodal support is for most codes similar to that of the Eurocode 2. In this code the bearing load in the support creates a reducing effect on the bending moment over the support.
b
Q
According clause 2.5.3.3. de reduced moment is:
M _{S}_{d} = R _{d} × b / 8 where:
R _{d} = Design value of the support reaction b = Width of the support in the direction of the beam.
The shear force reduction is done in a similar way as for the moment reduction for beams supported by columns. 3 types: Type 1 uses the shear force operating in the face of the support or column as design force. Type 2 uses the shear force operating in the face of the support plus the effective height of the beam as design force. Type 3 uses the shear force operating in the face of the support plus a factor times the internal cantilever arm.
Remark Note that for grids and frames that beams connected to beams do not have reduced shear forces.
9
In practice a combination of normal force and primary and secondary bending moments will load the column. The geometrical and physical nonlinear effects will cause the secondary moments. Shifted moment lines in columns are not taken into account in SCIA.ESA PT.
The shear force has sometimes influence in case of accidental collision by a truck or car. SCIA.ESA PT only supports the calculation of necessary areas for the main reinforcement. It does not support the shear reinforcement calculation. For such cases the user must define the column as a uniaxially loaded beam and the shear reinforcement calculation can be done.
As already said the secondary moments can have great influence on the main reinforcement calculation. Some codes have ‘tricks’ to rewrite the primary moments to secondary moments using for instance additional eccentricities. For such codes SCIA.ESA PT allows the user to indicate whether he wants to use tricks or use a more precise approach. Please understand that such tricks do not change the deformations of the columns yet, only the design moments for the reinforcement calculation.
The nonlinear solver allows for geometrical nonlinear calculations and offers a more exact solution. In the current version (5.0) it is not possible to take into account any physical nonlinear effects. For those calculations please refer to ESAPrima Win 3.60. The nonlinear combinations can be used for the design and checks of the main reinforcement.
It is possible to use concrete combinations (used for PNL – deformation calculations) for the design of main reinforcement, but the results should be useless, since the PNLcalculation is a quasinonlinear calculation using tricks according the national code.
10
SCIA.ESA PT
Walls are structures loaded by in plane Normal forces, n _{x} , n _{y} and n _{x}_{y} , also called wall inner forces. These normal or membrane forces will be transformed to n _{1} and n _{2} principal forces. The concept of the wall finite elements indicates that there will be no difference in reinforcement for the top and bottom side of the wall (z+ and z). Also there will be no shear reinforcement calculation possible, since the reinforcement mesh carries the shear stress n _{x}_{y} .
The results service of SCIA.ESA PT allows the user to review the dimensional magnitudes. These magnitudes are for user reference only and are not actually used in the design of the necessary areas. The service for the design of the necessary areas uses a more sophisticated approach in which various parameters are taken into account such as the reinforcement mesh angle, number of reinforcement layers, etc.
Moments and shear forces in walls are not automatically reduced above walls, columns or supports.
Plates are structures loaded by out of plane shear forces, q _{x} and q _{y} , and bending moments, m _{x} , m _{y} and m _{x}_{y} , also called plate inner forces. The bending moments will cause principal membrane forces per side of the plate, n _{1}_{+} , n _{2}_{+} , n _{1}_{} and n _{2}_{} . Thus the reinforcement will differ per side and per direction of the reinforcement. The shear reinforcement is calculated based on q _{x} and q _{y} . For some codes the shear force is used to calculate the shifted moments. Normally shifting is not taken into account in a plate model.
Moments and shear forces in plates are not automatically reduced above walls, columns or supports. Note that not for all codes the moment line is shifted automatically using the design value of the shear force.
11
Shells are structures that are really combinations of walls and plates. Therefore the same requirements count for shells as for walls and plates. Principally the only difference between shells and plates is the calculation of the main reinforcement, see chapter reinforcement design of shells.
The results service of SCIA.ESA PT allows the user to review the dimensional magnitudes. These magnitudes are for user reference only and are not actually used in the design of the necessary areas. The service for the design of the necessary areas uses a more sophisticated approach in which various parameters are taken into account such as the reinforcement mesh angle, number of reinforcement layers, etc.
Moments and shear forces in shells are not automatically reduced above walls, columns or supports. Note that not for all codes the moment line is shifted automatically using the design value of the shear force.
12
SCIA.ESA PT
A task called concrete reinforcement design is used very often in civil engineering. This task has many different forms and there are usually many different ways how to solve it. We would like to show our approach. We see the reinforcement design as an engineering problem, which has many variables to be optimised. Some of the variables are the orientation, shape, number and position of reinforcing bars and also the area of each bar. However, in many cases an experienced engineer can reduce the amount of unknowns to one or two. Some issues are given by constructional principles, some are determined by the applied technology, and some are provided by experience. Very often, if we know the dimensions of concrete crosssection, we usually know the position of reinforcing bars. Thereafter, the only remaining unknown is the reinforcement area.
The method of ultimate deformations is used to calculate the main reinforcement. The principle of this method is to look for the plane deformation in the ultimate limit state for which we evaluate the minimal necessary reinforcement area to reach the equilibrium of internal forces.
Imagine a diagram representing the strain in a reinforced concrete crosssection. The crosssection is symmetric to the zaxis and loaded with a combination of N and M _{y} . Then the vector of strain will consist of two nonzero numbers = [ _{0} ; _{z} ;0]. The corresponding plane of strain with corresponding internal forces is depicted in the next figure.
13
x x
The previous figure shows a nonspecific case, but let us imagine an Ultimate Limit State. Under the Ultimate Limit State, we understand a case, where either concrete or steel is strained to limit value. We can draw some cases in a similar diagram.
We can, for example, define our ultimate deformations as shown on the previous figure.
∑ Case A. represents maximal bending moment, where concrete is strained on maximal compression and steel is under maximal tension.
∑ Case B. represents maximal tension in both concrete and steel.
∑ Case C. is the other maximal bending.
∑ Case D. is maximal compression.
All other possible ultimate deformations lie in one of intervals (A.B.), (B.C.), (C.D.), (D.A.). Of course, we can define different ultimate deformations, for example, in a case of a symmetrical reinforcement we can extend maximal tension on the upper half of the crosssection. Nevertheless, we can use presented diagram as a descriptive example.
Let us now imagine a different diagram. This is a 2Ddiagram where the value of _{z} is on one axis and the value of _{0} is on a perpendicular axis. In this diagram, each of our cases, A., B., C., D., is projected into one point. These points create vertexes of a polygon ABCD. All the other possible ultimate deformations lie on the edges of this polygon. Each point inside the polygon expresses plane of strain that is within bearing capacity and each point outside this polygon represents state out of bearing capacity. We can see this diagram in the next figure.
14
SCIA.ESA PT
We designate the border of such a polygon as the ultimate border of the crosssection. The ultimate border represents all allowable planes of deformation when the crosssection is in the Ultimate Limit State. The ultimate border is an analogy to the interaction diagram drawn in strain coordinate system.
The definition of ultimate border has an essential meaning during a reinforcement design. The requirements on a plane of strain in the Ultimate Limit State vary in different standards. Most of these requirements can be effectively implemented through the definition of the ultimate border. For example, some standards allow lower maximal compression in the concrete during a full compression (dominant axial force) than during a bending. This issue can be implemented by inserting additional point E. between vertexes A. and D. (see figure 35). This situation is also drawn in the crosssection diagram, see figure 36.
15
From mathematical point of view, the ultimate border represents the definitional set for reinforcement design task. To be able to describe each point of ultimate border, we look at the border as a closed oriented curve described parametrically, where each point corresponds to one value of parameter t. We also define the Ultimate border function _{f}_{u} .
t
0,t
max
_{u} = _{f}_{u} (t)
(1)
(2)
This function returns plane of strain _{u} on the ultimate border corresponding to given parameter t.
16
SCIA.ESA PT
Let us have a cross section symmetrical to zaxis loaded by a combination of axial force N and bending moment M _{y} . Let us suppose that the position of each reinforcing bar is known and that each bar has the same diameter. The only unknown is the total reinforcement area A _{s} . The task is to find minimal reinforcement area A _{s} so the cross section would be able to carry just the load forces R _{L} ={N,M _{y} ,0}. Let us suppose, for a while, that we know the right amount of A _{s} . Then, if we load the reinforced cross section with R _{L} , we get the corresponding plane of strain in the Ultimate Limit State _{u} .
In this state the internal forces (representing the bearing capacity) will be equal to (representing the load forces). However, we do not know the right amount of reinforcement yet.
On the other hand, imagine that we have state _{u}_{'} which we consider to be Ultimate Limit State. We are able to determine the required reinforcement area from the balance of internal forces and the load forces.
R _{u} = R _{L}
(3)
Cross section internal forces R _{u} consist of internal forces in concrete R _{C}_{;}_{u} and internal forces in steel R _{S}_{;}_{u} . So we can write
R C;u + R S;u = R L
(4)
When we know the plane of strain _{u}_{'} , we can integrate internal forces in the concrete as follows:
R _{C}_{;}_{u} = R( _{u}_{'} ) Now we are able to evaluate the forces in the reinforcement R _{S}_{;}_{u} = R _{L}  R( _{u}_{'} ) We can write (6) in a scalar form as N _{S}_{;}_{u} = N _{L}  N _{C} M _{S}_{;}_{u} = M _{L}  M _{C}
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
17
If _{u}_{'} = _{u} , the strain is exactly the Ultimate Limit State for defined load forces R _{L} , then both (7) and (8) must be satisfied simultaneously. Nevertheless, if _{u}_{'} π _{u} , then we can choose an equation for the axial force (7). From this equation we can determine the required area of reinforcement, because
N S;u = A s
n
i = 1
s i
;
(9)
wherein _{s}_{;}_{i} is stress in ith reinforcing bar, which is given by the _{u}_{'} in the point of the bar and corresponding stressstrain diagram of steel.
_{s}_{;}_{i} =
( _{s}_{;}_{i} )
(10)
The reinforcement area can be expressed from (7) and (9) as follows
A s =
N
L
N
C
n
i = 1
s i
;
(11)
When we know reinforcement area, we can evaluate the real internal forces in concrete and steel corresponding to _{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 M as follows
M = M _{S}_{;}_{u}  (M _{L}  M _{C}_{;}_{u} ) M = M _{S}_{;}_{u} ( _{u}_{'} )  (M _{L} ( _{u}_{'} )
M _{C}_{;}_{u} )
(12)
(13)
This M is zero only for _{u}_{'} = _{u} . That means, if we find such _{u}_{'} for which M=0, then _{u}_{'} is the Ultimate Limit State _{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 _{f}_{u} . By inserting (2) into (13) we get M as a function of
t.
M (t) = M _{S}_{;}_{u} ( _{f}_{u} (t))  M _{L} + M _{C}_{;}_{u} ( _{f}_{u} (t))
(14)
Now we can apply numerical solution of a scalar function M. The unknown parameter is t which must satisfy following condition
M (t) = 0
(15)
0,1
,
18
SCIA.ESA PT
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.
19
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 _{s}_{1} and reinforcement near lower edge A _{s}_{2} . 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 _{s}_{1} and A _{s}_{2} 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 _{s}_{1} + A _{s}_{2} are minimal.
For a given parameter t we evaluate _{u}_{'} . _{u}_{'} = _{f}_{u} (t)
(16)
From evaluated _{u}_{'} we get internal forces in concrete R _{C}_{;}_{u} and stresses in reinforcing steel bars _{s}_{1} and
s2 .
_{s}_{;}_{i} =
( _{s}_{;}_{i} )
(17)
From the equation of balance of forces we obtain A _{s}_{1} and A _{s}_{2} .
A _{s}_{1} ×
_{s}_{;}_{1} + A _{s}_{2} ×
_{s}_{;}_{2} = N _{L}  N _{C}
A s1 × s;1 × z 1 + A s2 ×
s;2 × z 2 = M L;y  M C;y
(18)
(19)
Let us consider steps (16)(19) as a function A _{f}_{s} (t), which returns A _{s}_{1} + A _{s}_{2} in a dependence on parameter t. We can try to find the global minimum of A _{f}_{s} (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 _{f}_{s} (t) red A _{s}_{1} and yellow A _{s}_{2} are on vertical axis
The previous figure shows an example of function A _{f}_{s} (t), which is depicted in blue. The numerical solution must find the global minimum of A _{f}_{s} (t), which is a sum of A _{s}_{1} and A _{s}_{2} .
20
SCIA.ESA PT
Prior to the calculation of the main reinforcement the user is able to define a layout of reinforcement bars in the crosssection 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
y
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.
It is more realistic to use a method that allows bars to act in two directions.
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 4Ø20. Also note that the minimum number of bars is 4; 1 for each corner.
22
SCIA.ESA PT
SCIA.ESA uses a method that is also described in some code like the ÖNORM. This method is based on an interaction diagram for the design and ultimate moments per direction of bending.
M
dy
uy
M
x
M
+
dz
M
uz
x
1
wherein:
M
_{d}_{y}
M
_{u}_{y}
M
_{d}_{z}
M
_{u}_{z}
Design moment in ydirection Ultimate moment for reinforcement in ydirection Design moment in zdirection 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.
^{M} dz ^{/}^{M} uz
1.0
Also through research one has found out that the interaction factor is also dependant on the N _{d} /N _{u} ratio. In ÖNORM 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. 4Ø20 per side. For this layout of practical reinforcement SCIA.ESA determines the M _{u}_{y} and M _{u}_{z} . 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
23
the calculation and the reinforcement amount from that last layout is the result of the reinforcement calculation.
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.
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 16Ø20 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 
14Ø20 
0.98 
12Ø20 
1.2 
10Ø20 
3 
8Ø20 
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.
24
SCIA.ESA PT
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 _{d}_{y} and M _{d}_{z} 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. _{y} = M _{d}_{y} / W _{y} . With those 's per direction it can determine the ratio of moments.
r _{y} = 
_{y} / ( 
_{z} + 
_{y} ); r _{z} = _{z} / ( _{z} + _{y} ) 
Step 1: 
SCIA.ESA checks the reinforcement for one bar per corner. Step 2:
SCIA.ESA determines the values for M _{u}_{y} and M _{u}_{z} 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 _{u}_{y} and M _{u}_{z} 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 _{d}_{y} = 1.2 × 50 + 1.5 × 50 = 135 [kN] M _{d}_{z} = 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 _{u}_{y} = 133.1 [kNm] = M _{u}_{z}
25
135.0
1.4
+
187.5
1.4
= 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.
26
SCIA.ESA PT
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. 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) 
27
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.
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 ydirection and combination C2 contains a line load in local zdirection.
Combination C1 requires a reinforcement amount of 6283 [mm ^{3} ] of which 40% is required in y direction (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 y direction 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).
28
SCIA.ESA PT
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.
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 Ø20. If the ultimate moment is smaller than the program increases the number of bars by one and recalculates the ultimate moment, etc.
29
Remark The ultimate moment capacity of the crosssection is based on two layouts of reinforcement bars.
30
SCIA.ESA PT
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 ^{s}^{t} 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.
31
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} = [sin _{j} sin _{k} ++++ cos _{j} cos _{k} ] / [sin( _{j}  _{i} ) sin( _{k}  _{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 _{I}_{I} , the variables have the following meaning:
_{i}_{,}_{,}_{j}_{,} _{k} : angles between individual reinforcement directions and the direction of the 1st principal moment m _{I}
: quotient m _{I}_{I} /m _{I} ; according to the values of m _{I} and m _{I}_{I} 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 _{I}_{I} in are to be substituted by the principal membrane forces n _{I} and n _{I}_{I} to be valid for Walls, too.
In case of Shells, the combined bendingmembrane inner forces {m _{x} , m _{y} , m _{x}_{y} , v _{x} , v _{y} , n _{x} , n _{y} , n _{x}_{y} } 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 _{x}_{y} = m _{x}_{y} /z + n _{x}_{y} /2 
In these formulae z represents the inner forces lever calculated, as reference value, for the outermost reinforce ment 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 con crete 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 charact eristic cases:

m _{I} and associated n 

n _{I} and associated m 

n _{I}_{I} and associated m 
The reference virtual membrane forces {p _{x} , p _{y} , p _{x}_{y}_{}} 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.
32
SCIA.ESA PT
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 _{x}_{y} ) 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 _{I}_{I} = const
where p _{I} and p _{I}_{I} symbolise, analogously, the principal Normal forces n _{I} and n _{I}_{I} (Walls), the principal moments m _{I} and m _{I}_{I} (Plates) or, directly, p _{I} and p _{I}_{I} (Shells). The Formula (1) yields several solutions satisfying. For SCIA.ESA PT, the solution representing the minimum energetic level is used for the design.
I > II >0
In an elliptic state of stress, the solution for a threecourse reinforcement net is relatively quickly found. In two course 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 stress free.
33
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 ( _{1} > _{2} >0), parabolic ( _{1}_{<} >0; _{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.
34
SCIA.ESA PT
Introductory to this paragraph, dealing with the central topic of SCIA.ESA PT, concepts already discussed above to illustrate the SCIA.ESA PT´s 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 crosssection; 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 struct ural 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.
35
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 reinforce
ment angles , , meaning the same when alternately indicating _{1} , _{2} , _{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 country’s verbal usage. In doubts, the terminology of Eurocode will be given preference.
The design task and the output of results are performed in basic and derived units of the SI system.
36
SCIA.ESA PT
The inner forces {n _{x} , n _{y} , n _{x}_{y} } 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 static
ally required reinforcement amount a _{i} is calculated after a Formula like this:
a _{i} = p _{i} / _{}_{}_{} _{d}_{i}_{m}
(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 _{d}_{i}_{m} stands for design effective steel strength. Both p _{i} and
_{d}_{i}_{m} 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 _{I}_{I} < 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.
37
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:
38
SCIA.ESA PT
^{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
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 im
portance 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:
39
_{c}_{,}_{d}_{i}_{m} 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 Schäfer: 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 for
ces 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
c,dim ) / _{}_{}_{} _{d}_{i}_{m} (i=1,2 (,3))
[cm ^{2} /m]
(ZZZ)
40
SCIA.ESA PT
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 cross
section. 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 „ParabelRechteck
Diagramm“).
ÖNORM 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 ÖNORM 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, ÖNORM 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
ÖNORM 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 reinforce
ment models, some special assumptions and algorithmic enhancements had to be made. This SCIA.ESA
PT´s 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 distributed 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).
41
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 ele
ments were introduced, not all being a real improvement.
ÖNORM 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 ÖNORM 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} _{} _{}_{}_{} _{d}_{i}_{m} ) (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 _{d}_{i}_{m} 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.
In SCIA.ESA PT the inner forces lever z is calculated following the following procedures:
For DIN 1045, ÖNORM 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 ÖNORM B 4700 analytic integration
procedures were developed; 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
42
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 exchanged 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 _{m}_{a}_{x} 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 cross
section 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 ÖNORM B 4700 (curiously, not the old issue ÖNORM 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 SCIA´s 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.
43
In the design of Shells, the ideas and procedures of both the design of Walls and the design of Plates are comb
ined. 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 mo
del 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 _{I}_{I} generally differ from those of n _{I} and n _{I}_{I} .
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 _{x}_{y} } 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 _{d}_{i}_{m}
assigned to a reinforcement course at the upper face (the same procedure applies, however, to the lower face).
In next figure symbol p _{o}_{p}_{p} 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 _{d}_{i}_{m} ). The total normal force in this crosssection is denoted as p _{v}_{i}_{r}_{t}
(virtual normal force). Analogously, the associated virtual bending moment m _{v}_{i}_{r}_{t} is defined to constitute the
inner forces couple (m _{v}_{i}_{r}_{t} , p _{v}_{i}_{r}_{t} ) 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 _{d}_{i}_{m} 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 =
_{}_{}_{}
A
(ZZZ)
44
SCIA.ESA PT
the value of the coefficient 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.
45
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 reinfor
cement 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 _{d}_{i}_{m} 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.
46
SCIA.ESA PT
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 userdefined width.
Then a normal shear reinforcement calculation is performed.
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.
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,
47
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 _{d}_{i}_{m} after the
following „geometric sum“ formula:
v _{d}_{i}_{m} = _{÷}_{÷}_{÷}_{÷} (v _{x} ^{2} + v _{y} ^{2} )
[kN/m]
(15)
Some of the modern Codes – EUROCODE 2, DIN 10451, ÖNORM 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).
48
SCIA.ESA PT
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 cross
section 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).
ÖNORM 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 ÖNORM B 4200 this concept is, as usual, introduced for 1D struct
ural 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 assumpt
ion; (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 reinforcement 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 user´s 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 approach zero while the shear stresses attain
extreme values, the difference between the design results disregarding the >vm/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
49
the dealing with the problem of variable/fixed strut inclination method and the consideration of the Shear
Effect.
ÖNORM B 4700 is actually the last Norm branch implementation into SCIA.ESA PT. The overall design
oncept of ÖNORM B 4700 is based on EUROCODE 2. The Shear Proof concept differs slightly from the
original EUROCODE 2 concept. The ÖNORM 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.
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 ÖNORM 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 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 ^{n}^{d} course reinforcement must be arranged not only at both
faces but distributed along the crosssection height (at bar web faces). When calculating the shear reinforce
ment (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 ÖNORM B 4700) by the Formula:
f _{t} (v) = v _{R} cotg _{} _{}_{}_{}
[kN/m]
(16)
where v _{R} is the required crosssection shear resistance and
reinforcement amount follow from the Formula:
– the variable strut inclination. The required shear
a _{s}_{w} = v _{R} tg _{} _{}_{}_{}
/ (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 = 1/cotg ). The strut inclination may be chosen, according to Art. 3 24 203, free within a
quite wide range; in Plates: 25° < < 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 _{m}_{i}_{n}
= 25° and, increasing it by 1°, seeks an equilibrium solution ensuring the strut resistance at minimum
inclination. From this solution of , 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} = 45° is set. In such
cases: f _{t} (v) = v _{R} , i.e. the total Shear Effect force equals the shear (resistance) force itself!
50
SCIA.ESA PT
The SCIA.ESA PT algorithm proceeds in two algorithmic steps: (1) 1 ^{s}^{t} step is as described above; (2) In the 2 ^{n}^{d}
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 _{x}_{y} , n _{x} , n _{y} , n _{x}_{y} ). 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 prestress 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.
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 ÖNORM B 4700 do not pose such a requirement).
SCIA.ESA PT offers the possibility of generally prescribing the constant strut inclination of _{} = 45°. If _{} = 45°
be outside the _{0} interval in a Shell model crosssection (see SIA 162, Art. 3 24 203), the value nearest to 45°
is estimated.
SIA 162 formulates the _{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 ÖNORM 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 = 45°. SCIA.ESA PT considers this
requirement automatically not only for DIN 10451 yet also for EUROCODE 2 and ÖNORM B 4700.
Moreover, in the design branches of DIN 1045 (1988/7), EUROCODE 2, SIA 162, DIN 10451 and ÖNORM
B 4700 the strut inclination may be set constantly = 45° for the whole structure as input control provision.
51
Presently the design of torsional reinforcement in beams and columns is not possible. The torsional
moments in plates and shells (m _{x}_{y} ) are fully integrated in the calculation.
52
SCIA.ESA PT
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 rein
forcement 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.
53
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.
Presently the crack proof for columns is not supported.
54
SCIA.ESA PT
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 procedure. 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).
s _{}_{}_{}_{} Controlled 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.
55
After ÖNORM B 4700, the crack limitation is controlled, like with GBJ1089, by the Calculation
Reinforcement Bar Diameter d _{s}_{r} rather than by bar distances. However, it is to realise (concerning both GBJ10
89 and ÖNORM 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,
ÖNORM 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
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.