Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs, Part 2, 1988,85, Sept.

, 397-413

Aggregate interlockin high strength reinforced

concrete beams


Tests are reported on aggregate interlock in reinforced concrete beams which have web
reinforcement and are made of high strength concrete. High strength concrete is here defined
as concrete which has a strength in excess of 6000 Ibf/in2 (41 N/mm’). The various mecha-
nisms that contribute to shear in reinforced concrete beams are discussed in relation to the
effect high strength concrete has on these mechanisms. These test results show that the
contribution of aggregate interlock to beams made of high strength concrete decreases
significantly as the concrete compressive strength increases. Conversely, the contribution of
the dowel action increases while that of the concrete in the compression zone remains fairly
constant as the concrete compressive strength increases.

A, stirrup area
b beam width
d effective beam depth
E, modulus of elasticity of concrete
E, modulus of elasticity of steel
fc concrete compressive strength, cylinder
reinforcement yield strength
bending moment at section
r AJbs
s stirrup spacing
V shear force at section
U Vlbdshear stress
U, predicted shear strength of beams without stirrup
U, shear carried by aggregate interlock
U,, shear carried by compression zone
ud shear carried by dowel action
U, shear carried by stirrups
U, measured ultimate shear strength of beams
E longitudinal strain in concrete
c longitudinal stress in concrete
txy shear stress in concrete compression zone

The design of reinforced concrete beams for shear is still highly empirical. This is
mainly due to the fact that a proper mathematical model that accurately predicts

Discussion closes 18 November 1988; for further details see p.ii.

* Formerly Lecturer in Civil Engineering, University of Zimbabwe; now with University of

shear behaviour is not yet available, the most accurateto datebeing that given by
Zsutty' for concretes ranging from2000 to 6000 Ibf/in2 (14 to 41 N/mmz).
2. Mphonde and Frantz2 haverecentlyproposed an empiricalequation to
estimate the ultimate shear strengthof reinforced concrete beams without stirrups
and made of concrete, with strengths ranging from 3000 to 13000 lbf/in2 (21 to
90 N/mm2). However, the proposed equationis not general enough becauseit did
notinclude different values of shear-span/depth, a/d ratioand steel p ratios. The .
equation is therefore accurate for the a/d and p ratios used of 3.6 and 0.0336.
Ahmad et aL3 have pointed out this limitation and have proposed anew equation
based on Zsutty's original equation.
3. The purpose of this test study, however,is not to discuss the validityof any
proposed equationsfor the predictionof ultimate shear, butto show theeffect that
high strength concrete hason the aggregate interlock mechanism.
4. Fenwick andPaulay4haveisolatedtheprincipalmechanismsofshear
transfer in reinforced concrete beams without stirrups, namely
(a) shear carried by the concrete in the uncracked compression zone
(b) interface shearor aggregate interlock across the crackface v,
( c ) shear carriedby dowel actionof the longitudinalflexural steel vd .
Therefore, the total ultimate shear
v , for beams without stirrupsis

v, = v,, + v, + v*
where v, is the total concrete contribution to shear.
5. Theaddition of shearstirrupsincreasestheultimateshearcapacityofsuch ~

beams, and Swamy and Andriopo~los~ have reported that as much as 48% of the
total shear in beams of aid = 3.0 is carried by aggregate interlock and dowel
action. The addition of the steel contributes significantly to the shear capacity of
the member by increasing or maintaining the shear carried by interface shear
transfer.6 As the width of the crackincreases, the contribution from interface shear
decreases.Therefore,stirrups assist theaggregateinterlockmechanism by
restricting the widths of diagonal cracks, thus maintaining bearing of aggregate
across the crack.
6. Naaman7 hasreportedthatin high strengthconcrete,a brittle type of
failure may occur accompanied by a smooth crack leadingto a decrease in aggre-
gateinterlockcapacity.This is because,astheconcretecompressivestrength
increases,crackstend to propagate through the coarse aggregate rather than
around the aggregate asin normal strength concrete, resulting in smoother cracks.
The addition of stirrups, therefore, may notassist the aggregate interlock mecha-
nism as much inhigh strengthconcretebeamsas it obviouslydoes in lower
strength concretes.
7. Taylor'reported tests in 1970 on aggregateinterlocksheartransfer in
concrete blocks made with limestone aggregate and found that, as the concrete
compressive strength increased, the cracks became smoother and the aggregate
interlock shear decreased.In a beam made of high strength concrete, the concrete
contribution to shear strength after inclined cracking may, therefore, be less than
the shear neededto cause inclined cracking (the value used by the present codesto
predict shear capacity) becauseof the decreasein the contribution from the aggre-
gate interlock. Therefore,it is necessary to study the effect of high strength on the
aggregate interlock shear.

C : j r L ,$!
- 0..
3 No. 8 bars

84 in
1. I Sertes A 1 In cover
I 1/ein.3/lsinor
In + 3/16 in
stirrups at
3.5 in spacing
2- 3 No. 8 bars, 1 In
cover on A,

Serles B
3.5 In spacing

3 No 8 bars, 1 in
SenesCcoveron A,

I 1

Fig. 1. Specimen details (No.8 bar = I in diu.; No. 7 bar = 7/8 in diu.)

Details of test specimens

8. A totalof 24 reinforced concrete beams with and without web reinforcement
were tested at a shear-span/depth a/d ratio of 3.6. The beams were tested in three
series, as shownin Fig. 1.
9. Series A comprised eight beams without web reinforcement, while series B
had eight beams with web reinforcement of r& = 50 and 100 Ibf/in2 (0.34, 0.68
N/mmz). Series C beams were identical to series B beams except that series C
beams had preformed diagonal cracks in both shear spans. Therefore, while the
series B beams had all the shear transfer mechanisms present, beams in series C
had the aggregate interlock mechanism removed.
10. The position of the preformed diagonal crackswas obtained from diagonal
failure cracks of series A and series B. These failure cracks were not necessarily
identical in all the beams, but an average diagonal crack was chosen (Fig. 2). The
preformed diagonal crack stoppedat a point where the failure cracks started tobe
11.All beams were 6 in X 13.25 in X 96 in (152 mm X 337mm X 2438 mm)
with an effective depth of 11.75 in (298 mm) and a cover of 1 in (25 mm) (Fig. 1).
Beams weresimply supported and loaded at mid-span. The beams were reinforced
with flexural reinforcement consistingof three No. 8 (25 mm dia.) bars providing a
steel ratio p of 3.36%, ensuring a shear rather than a flexural failure in all the
12. The main reinforcement consisted of grade 60 steel with an actual yield
strength of 65 klbf/in2 (448 N/mmz). The stirrups,however, were fabricated from
annealed smooth bars withyield strengths of 44 and 39 klbf/in2 (303 and 269
N/mm2) for the 1/8 and 3/16 in (3.2 and 4.8 mm) diameter bars, respectively. The
concrete mix details and the method of specimen fabrication are all reported in
reference 9. The concrete compressive strengths were obtained from 3 in X 6 in


Preformedcrack i
Fig. 2. Selection of preformed cracks

(76 mm X 152 mm) test cylinders. However, these were converted to equivalent
6 in X 12 in (152 mm X 304 mm) cylinder strengths, which were assumed to be
92% of the smaller cylinder strengths. Ahmad et aL3 have recently confirmed that
this factor is correct for high strength concrete. I.

Test procedure
13. Beams were tested in a 300klbf (1330 kN) hydraulic testing machine
(Fig. 3) and loaded at mid-span in load intervals of 2 klbf (8.9 kN) until failure. At
each load stage, mid-span beam deflexions and concrete cracking patterns (all

, 4 In X 1 in plate -
L@ 10 In
1 India roller

In '

In plate

beam Test l

I i

t 42.0 In
42.0 in

Fig. 3. Test set-up

series), stirrup strains and longitudinal surface strains in the compression zone
concrete (series C beams) were recorded. The width of the preformed inclined
crack at beam mid-depth was also recorded at each load stage.

Test results
Analysis of shear transfer mechanisms
14. From the modified truss analogy, it is assumed that the shear not carried
by the concrete is carried by the stirrups; therefore, the total shearis
v, = v, f v, (2)
15. However, in the beams of series C, which have the aggregate interlock
contribution eliminated by preforming smooth diagonai cracks, the ultimate shear
strength is given by
v"(=) = Vd + v,, + 0% (3)
Therefore, the aggregate interlock shear should be the difference between the
ultimate shear capacities of series C beams and those of series B beams having
identical shear reinforcement.
16. The stirrup contribution v, was measured directly from the stirrup strains.
The dowel resistance was therefore assumed to be equal to the difference between
the total shear and the sumof the compression zone and stirrup shears for series C

Shear contributedby concrete compression zone

17. Taylor" has presented a semi-empirical procedure for the determination
of shear carried by the concrete compression zone in reinforced concrete beams.
The computation requires an analysis of the longitudinal strains taken at several
load stages and at different levels across the depth in the beam compression zone
(Fig. 4).
18. As in reference 10, the following expression was used to compute the shear
force carried by the compression zone


- X
faceof beam
, I
c 5.

10 -
I l+
3 In
1.5 In
4 31.5 In
3 4

Fig. 4. Details of gauge location to measure longitudinal compressive stresses

40 1



0 0


4 0
4 4
19. The longitudinal strains E for each level measured at each load stage were
plotted against the moment at that load stage (Fig. 5). A slope &/aM of the plot
was obtained. To simplify calculations, the slope was assumed to be a constant
with respect to M . This approach, however, might have resulted in a small loss of
20. The total shear force a M / a x for each load stage under consideration was
then determined. This is the same for all gauge levels at each load stage because
the shear force is taken at onesection.
21. The shear stress 7ry was then obtained by integrating the expression of
equation (4) to each gauge level. Because it was the slopes of the strain against
moment plots which had been obtained, this slope was multiplied by E, to obtain
an equivalent slope but with stress against moment, rather than strain against
22. The shear force carried by the compression zone U,, was then obtained by
integrating the shear stresses from the compression face down to the level of the
inclined shear crack. Taylor," however, integrated the shear stresses down to the
neutral axis which was located below the crack. The shear stresses below the crack
should not be included in compression zone shear force, as only the portion of the
uncracked compression zone actually contributes to this shear force. Details of
how the shear carried by the concrete compression zone was calculated are fully
reported by Shagrithaya.

Shear carriedby stirrups

23. The stirrup contribution to shear at any load stage in the series C beams
was determined from stirrup strains which were obtained for the stirrups crossing
the diagonal crack (Fig. 6). The shear force was, therefore, calculated using the
following expression

gaugeStraln I

Serles B

15 000 PSI beams In series B

Serles C

Fig. 6. Location ojstrain gauges to measure stirrup strains

where n is the number of stirrups crossing the preformed crack, is the strain in
the ith stirrup andA, is the area of each stirrup crossing the diagonal crack.

Shear carriedby dowel action

24. In the series C beams, the total shear force was carried by three mech-
anisms only, on account of the elimination of the aggregate interlock shear. These
mechanisms are
(a) the concrete compression zone shearucz
(b) shear carried by stirrups U,
(c) shear carried by dowel action ud .

Therefore, the dowel force shear is obtained thus

ud = u,(C beams) - (ucz + U,)
Shear carriedby aggregate interlock mechanism
25. As the aggregate interlock contribution to the ultimate shear capacity was
eliminated from all the beams in series C, its contribution was determined by
comparing the ultimate shear capacities of the series C beams with those of the
series beams which had no preformed cracks. Therefore, the aggregate interlock
shear was determined thus
U, = u,(B beams) - u,(C beams) (7)
26. Because the preformed diagonal crack was an average of actual diagonal
cracks for series A and B beams (Fig. 2), the values of the aggregate interlock shear
U, obtained are approximate. This is because the contribution of the aggregate
interlock depends on the length of the inclined diagonal failure crack. The failure
diagonal cracks for the series C b e a m s were fixed because they were preformed.
However, those in series B beams were not preformed and, therefore, did not
necessarily coincide with those in series C. While the stirrup contribution can be
assumed to be the same in identical beams of series B and C, the compression zone
contribution is probably not the same, as the latter depends on the depth of the
compression zone. However, itis not unreasonable to assume that U, obtained
from equation (7) gives reasonable values, as the consistent trends shown by series
C data and the good agreement of these results with those found by other people
for low to medium strength concrete indicate that thepreformed crack successfully
eliminated aggregate interlock while allowing other mechanisms to function nor-

Test results
27. Table 1 and Fig. 7 show the test results of the comparable series B and C
beams as well as the contributions of the various shear transfer mechanisms for
series C only. Series A test results are also shown in Table 1.
28. The percentage contributions of the various mechanisms determined in
terms of the total concrete shear resistance are shown in Table 2(a). In Table 2(a),
the concrete resistance U, from the beams with web reinforcement was obtained
from series B by making use of equation (2);therefore

500 L
0 SeriesB
0 SeriesC
400 -
oL 0
g 300 -

5 200
100 - .- X
L.. v.
~. -.X- -
0 I 1
0 4000 8000 12000
Concretestrength: Ibf/in2

500 -
400 -
300 -
5 200

0 I I I
0 4000 8000 12000
Concretestrength: Ibf/in2

Fig. 7. Eflect of concrete strength on shear distribution at ultimate load: (a) ‘f, =
50 lbfin’ ;(b)‘fy = 100 lbfin’

29. Table 2(b) and Fig. 8 also show percentage contributions of the various
mechanismsusingthetotalshearcontribution U, obtained from series A test
results. As series A beams had no shear stirrups, their ultimate failure loads were
taken to be the ultimate shear capacities of the beams. The following equation,
which was obtained froma regression analysisof the datafor series A beams, was
used to calculate the concrete contribution
used in Table 2(b) and Fig. 8
U, = uJbd = 1.52,/( f i) + 135
Ibf/in2 (94
wheref i is in lbf/in2.
U, = 0.126,/( f L) + 0.931 N/mmz (9b)
wheref: is in N/mm’.
Table 2. Percentage contributions of shear transfer: mechanisms to beam strength
(a) Percentage of v , contribured by each mechanism-measured from beams with
web reinforcement
rfy = 50: Ibf/in2 rf, = 1 0 0 : lbf/in2
v. 5@-17% 43-12% for 3000 <f: < 6000 Ibf/in2
0?h 0% forf: > 9000 lbf/in2
'd 28-77% 28-75% for 3000 < f : < 13000 Ibf/in*
'c, 22-23% 29-25% for 3000 <f: < 13000 Ibf/in2

(b) Percentage of v , contribured by each mechanism-rneasuredfrom beams without

web reinforcement
rfv = 50: lbf/in2 rf, = 100: Ibf/in2

0, 53-25% 4 6 2 2 % for 3000 < f : < 6000 Ibf/in2

0% 0% for f > 9000 Ibf/in2
ud 31-74% 32-71% for 3000 <f: < 13000 lbf/in2
"c, 1626% 22-29% for 3000 < f ; < 13000 Ibf/in2
* The percentage contributions fromboth methods agree reasonablywell.
30. From the results shown in Table 2, the percentage contributions from both
methods agree reasonably well and also show that the concrete contributions v,
obtained from either the series B or the series A beams also agree reasonably well.
However, the discrepancies occur because, when stirrups are added, the actual
total ultimate shear is always greater than that assumed for simple superposition,
as is done by assuming the modified truss analogy. This has been shown to be true
by the Author" and other^.'^.'^ In the Author's work, it was shown that the
stirrups effectively contribute up to 60% more shear force than is assumed. This
extra shear force is obviously a contribution from the concrete and the other shear
mechanisms, although the exact amounts are not known.
31. Figures 7 and 8 show that theshearcarried by the compression zone
increases slightly with increasing concrete compressive strength. However, the line
of best fit indicates that v,= remained fairly constant with increasing f L. The
ultimate shear strength for the highest strength concrete was consistently below
that just preceding it. These results indicate, however, that high strength concrete
is very sensitive to the method of production and specimen fabrication. This may
also be due to the fact that high strength concrete is brittle, so these brittle failures
may lower the ultimate strength unless proper confinement is provided to the
32. The modulus of elasticity of the concrete and the concrete strain condi-
tions in the compression zoneboth affect the compression zoneshear.Work
reported in reference 9 by the Author indicates that as f b increases, the strain
decreases but the modulus of elasticity E , increases. Therefore, the compression
zone shear does not seem to vary much, as the above two factors have nullifying
effects. Dowel actionintroduces tensile stress in theconcrete surrounding the
longitudinal bars. When this stress exceeds the tensile strength of the concrete,
splitting takes place along the bars and results in loss of dowel action. Work
reported in reference 9 has shown that the splitting strength of the concrete
increases as f increases. Therefore, dowel actionshould also increase as f :
increases. Figs 7 and 8 show that the dowel action became increasingly predomi-
140 c

120 L
/ - -

52 80 *

60- e

40 - vd
20 - 0 .
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

f‘,: Ibf/in2

120 - e
/ -
100. a

80 -
60 -
40 - vd

20 - 0 ,
- 0 0

0 2000 4000 80006000 10000 12000

P, : Ibfhn’
Fig. 8. Effect of concrete strength on contribution of various transfer mechanisms as
a percentage of vc: (a)J$, = 50 lbf/in2; (b)J$, = 100 lbflin2 (v, is based on equation
(9),ultimate strength of series A beams)

nant with increasing f:. As f: increased from 3000 to 1 3 0 0 0 lbf/in2 (21 to 90

N/mm2), the shear carried by dowel action more than doubled.
33. It was conjectured that, because smoother cracks form inhigh strength
concrete, the aggregate interlock contribution to shear decreases as the concrete
strength increases. The results obtained in this work support this observation. A
study of the cracked surfaces in manyof the beams tested in the projectrevealed
that the inclined crackswere indeed smoother as they went through the aggregates
at the higher concrete strengths.
34. Figures 8 and 9 show conclusively thatat low concretecompressive
strengths the aggregate interlock mechanism is a significant contributor to the
total shear carried by a beam, whereas its role seems to be insignificant at higher
concrete strengths. The results clearly indicate that at higher concrete strengths
the contributionof the aggregate interlock mechanism to the total shear carriedby
the beamwas closeto zero.

-f, = 12000 Ibfiin'

-- ...--e
- -- f" = 8000 Ibf/in'
------- rc = 4000 Ibfiin'


50 100
fly: Ibfiln'

Fig. 9. Eflect of r$ on contribution of various transfer mechanisms as a percentage of

ultimate shear

35. It was observed in these tests that an increase in 'f, resulted in smaller
widths of the diagonal cracks(Fig. 10).The contribution from the aggregate inter-
lock should, therefore, increaseon account of the increased bearing between sur-
faces. However, Fenwick" has reported that a higher area of stirrups decreases
the rotation of the concrete cantilever about the head of the diagonal crack,
resulting in a smaller displacement along the crack. This causes a reduction in the
aggregate interlock shear. As rfy increased from 50 to 100 Ibf/inz (0.34to 0.68
N/mm2), some small reduction in the percentage contribution of U,, compared
with the totalconcrete contribution, occurred.An increase in rfy, however, did not
affect thepercentageshearcontributionfromdowelaction and only slightly
increased the contribution from the compression zone.
36. The results of Swamy and Andriopoulo~~ on the contribution of aggregate
interlock and dowel action to the shear capacity of a beam indicate that, as the
amount of stirrups increases, the shear carriedby the concrete sectionucz remains
fairly constant; however, as a percentageof the totalshear resistance, its contribu-
tion decreases.Fig. 9, which was derived fromFig. 8, shows a similar trendfor the
beams testedin this project.
37. The dowel mechanism was a significant contributor to shear strength of
the beam in this current study, especially at the higher compressive strengths. It
should be noted that these beams had stirrupswhich would increasedowel capac-
ity, while most previous work has been done on beams without stirrups.
70 -

60 .
*K’ C100-15-3

50 -


0 ’
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Crackwidth: in

Fig. 10. ApplieP load against crack width

38. The Paper has presented results of tests to show the significance of the
aggregate interlock mechanismto the shear capacityof reinforced concrete beams
made of high strength concrete.
39. The study has shown conclusively that while aggregate interlock plays a
very significant role as a shear carrying mechanism at low concrete compressive
strengths, it does not have much influence on the shear strength of reinforced
concrete beamsat high concrete strengths.
40. However, dowel action is more predominant at very high strengths, and
the shear carried by the concrete compression zone remains fairly constant with
increasing concrete compressive strengths.
41. The contributions from the dowel action and the compression zone were
not substantiallyaffected bythe amount of web reinforcement. However, the shear
carried by aggregateinterlockshowedsomedecrease with anincrease in the
amount of web reinforcement.
42. The results obtained for the contributions of different mechanisms for low
to medium concrete strengths are in general agreement with those obtained by
other investigators. However, no such comparisonwas possible at higher strengths
because of lack of previous test results.
41 1
43. The decrease in the importance of aggregate interlock as a shear carrying
mechanism may have significant implications in the design of high strength con-
crete elements such as corbels and brackets which use the shear friction concept of
shear transfer. However, because of the conservative nature of the current design
methods such as the American Concrete Institute (ACI) method, Yong et
have found that a comparison of test values with those predicted by the ACI Code
confirm the conservative nature of the Code provisions, while the truss analogy
model predicted values which weresafe but less conservative than the ACI values.

44. The research reported in this Paper was conducted at the University of
Connecticut,under National Science Foundation grant CEE-8119386. The
Author is grateful to Dr Gregory C. Frantz who supervised the work, to Nagaraja
Shagrithaya who did the aggregate interlock tests, and to the Atlantic Cement
Company, the Balf Corporation, The Tilcon Tomasso Corporation, Jack Weber
and P. J. Morvissey for the assistance rendered during the study.

1. ZSUTTY, T. C. Beam shear strength prediction by analysis of existing data. J . Am. Concr.
Inst., 1968,65, Nov., 942-951.
2. MPHONDE A. G. and FRANTZG. C. Shear tests of high and low strength concrete beams
without stirrups. J . Am. Concr. Inst.,1984,81, No. 4, July-Aug., 35Cb357.
3. AHMADS. H. et al. Shear capacity of reinforced high-strength concrete beams. J . Am.
Concr. Inst.,1986,83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., 297-305.
4. FENWICK R. C. and PAULAY T.Mechanisms of shear resistance of concrete beams. J .
Struct. Diu. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs,1968,94, Oct., 232S2350.
5. SWAMY R.N. and ANDRIOPOULOS A. D. Contributions of aggregate interlock and dowel
forces to the shear resistance of reinforced beams with web reinforcement. Shear in
reinforced concrete. American ConcreteInstitute,Detroit, 1974, ACI Publication
SP-4A, 129-166.
6. ACI-ASCECOMMITTEE426. The shearstrength of reinforced concrete members. J .
Struct. Diu. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs,1973,99, June, 1091-1187.
7. NAAMAN A. E. and SHAHS. P. High strength concrete. Workshop sponsored by National
Science Foundation, University of Illinois, Chicago, Dec. 1979.
8. TAYLCIR H. P. J. Investigation of the forces carried across cracks in reinforced concrete
beams in shear by interlock of aggregate. Cement and Concrete Association, London,
1970, Nov., TRA 42-447.
9. MPHONDE A. G. and FRANTZ G. C. Shear strength of high strength reinforced concrete
beams. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, 1984, June,
Report CE 84-157.
10. TAYLOR H. P. J. Shear stresses in reinforced concrete beams without shear reinforcement.
Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1968, Feb., TRA 42-407.
11. SHAGRITHAYA N. Contribution of aggregate interlock to the shear capacity of high strength
reinforced concrete beams.Master’s thesis, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, 1984.
12. MPHONDE A. G. and FRANTZ G . C. Shear tests of high- and low-strength concrete beams
with stirrups. High strength concrete. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1985, ACI
Publication SP-87,179-196.
13. PALASKAS M. N. et al. Shear strength of lightly reinforced T-beams. J . Am. Concr. Inst.,
1981,78, NO.6,Nov.-Dec.,447-455.
14. HADDADINM. et al. Stirrup effectivenessin reinforced concrete beams with axial force. J .
Struct. Diu. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs,1971,97, ST9, Sept., 2277-2297.
15 FENWICK R. C. The shear strength ofreinforced concrete beams. PhD thesis, University of
Canterbury, New Zealand, 1966.
16. YONGY . K. et al., Reinforced corbels of high-strength concrete. High strength concrete.
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1985, ACI Publication SP-87, 197-212.

Conversion factors
Imperial SI
1 in 25.4 m m
1 ft 0.3048 m
1 klbf 4.448 kN
1 Ibf/inz 04069 N/mrnz