Concrete beam subjected to shear and torsion: a comparison between the Brazilian Standard Code NBR 6118, ACI and AASHTO Provisions

Andrade, Rebecca Cardelli; Bittencourt, Túlio Nogueira

doi:10.1590/s1983-41952020000100011

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On this basis, it can be found that the strut angle θ ð Þ has significant impact on the analytical accuracy of the torsional design methods. [48][49][50][51] In the torsional design provision of SNiP, θ is not explicitly required to calculate the torsional strength, but the tensile strength ratios of the reinforcements λ 1 ð and λ 2 Þ are limited to guarantee the yielding of reinforcement as presented in Equations ( 16) and (17). Then, these tensile strength ratio λ 1 ð and λ 2 Þ can be regarded as an equivalent expression corresponding to θ SNiP defined by other design codes as presented in Equation (19).…”

Section: Evaluation Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, the average of

θ_{EC 2}

was as low as 28.4°, while the averages of

θ_{EC 2, eq}

and

θ_{ACI, eq}

were 39.3° and 42.0°, respectively, which are quite close to the average value of 40.27 ° by the CSA method. On this basis, it can be found that the strut angle

((), θ)

has significant impact on the analytical accuracy of the torsional design methods 48–51 …”

Section: Comparison Of Torsional Design Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Torsional design method used in Eurasia region: A comparative study

Lee

Kim

et al. 2021

Structural Concrete

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study conducted an extensive review and evaluation of torsional design methods specified in SNiP and other international building codes. Unlike thin‐walled tube approach utilized as a key basis of design expressions in ACI 318, CSA, and Eurocode 2, skew‐bending theory is still adopted as torsional design methods specified in SNiP code used through Eurasia region. This comparative study is timely required since there are radical code changes in leading Eurasia countries, such as Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, toward Eurocode from SNiP code. To this end, a total of 253 reinforced concrete (RC) specimens that failed in pure torsion were collected from the literature to compare the analytical accuracy of the torsional design methods specified in various design codes. It was found that the torsional design methods specified in SNiP and CSA codes can estimate the torsional strengths of RC members with good level of accuracy, while Eurocode 2 provided quite conservative results. In addition, the maximum limitations stipulated in each design code on the compressive strength of concrete and yield strength of reinforcements are of importance for the safe and efficient torsional design due to interrelation between reinforcement ratios considering materials strengths and inclination angle of compressive concrete strut.

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, the average of

θ_{EC 2}

was as low as 28.4°, while the averages of

θ_{EC 2, eq}

and

θ_{ACI, eq}

were 39.3° and 42.0°, respectively, which are quite close to the average value of 40.27 ° by the CSA method. On this basis, it can be found that the strut angle