Grundlagen des Stahlbetonbaus

König, Gert; Tue, Nguyen Viet

doi:10.1007/978-3-322-96639-1

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… Modellvorstellungen zum Entstehen von zentrischem Zwang infolge der horizontalen Behinderung durch den Baugrund gemäß [9] Model conception to consider external restraint in ground slabs due to horizontal interaction with the subsoil according to [9] …”

Section: Zwangbeanspruchung Von Bodenplattenunclassified

Mindestbewehrung zur Begrenzung der Rissbreite unter Berücksichtigung des tatsächlichen Bauteilverhaltens

Schlicke

Tue

2016

Beton und Stahlbetonbau

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Minimum reinforcement for crack width control considering the real member behaviour It is standard practice to determine the minimum reinforcement for crack width control on base of centric restraint due to concrete hardening. Although this concept gives straightforward results, it can only be seen as a pragmatic solution which is generally not on the safe side. In detail, this simplification neglects the deformation compatibility and considers therefore not the real member behaviour. As a result of this, structural damage -especially in form of leakage in watertight constructions -often occurs. A detailed presentation of the weakness of this empirically modified cracking force approach can be found in [1]. However, the mechanically consistent determination of the minimum reinforcement for crack width control can be achieved by considering the deformation compatibility of the restrained member, see [2]. This contribution presents the general application of the deformation-based design concept and its particular application in case of "ground slabs". A second part [3] presents the particular application in case of "walls on foundations" as well as a direct comparison with results from a cracking force-based minimum reinforcement design according to current design standards. Altogether, the introduced approach reduces the empiricism of minimum reinforcement design significantly. The main reason is the verification of deformation compatibility along the member length. In contrast, however, the cracking force-based minimum reinforcement design according to EC2 [4] solely verifies the equilibrium in a cross section.

show abstract

Section: Zwangbeanspruchung Von Bodenplattenunclassified

Mindestbewehrung zur Begrenzung der Rissbreite unter Berücksichtigung des tatsächlichen Bauteilverhaltens

Schlicke

Tue

2016

Beton und Stahlbetonbau

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For simply supported beams such as for example flat lintels or straight masonry lintels, l ef /d ≤ 20 is required. Die Werte von σ s1 und x sind nach den Regeln der Stahlbetontheorie [11] für den GZG zu bestimmen.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…The values of σ sr and σ s are determined according to the rules of reinforced concrete theory [11]. The average value of the masonry tension strength f tm can be used as a first approximation for the calculation of σ sr = M cr /(A s • z) or the crack moment M cr .…”

Section: Verifikation Der ζ-Berechnungsmethodementioning

confidence: 99%

“…To compensate the effect of physical non-linearity, a procedure is described in [11], [N 6] and [N 7], which gives a summation approach (Eq. (15)) for the calculation of an "averaged curvature value" max(1/r) m with the assistance of a distribution coefficient ζ (see also Fig.…”

Section: Berechnung Von Durchbiegungenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In case calculated investigations are necessary, this can be undertaken as follows: -Limitation of the slenderness ratio with known reinforcement previously calculated according to ultimate limit state rules -Calculation of the deflection occurring at the limit state of serviceability taking into account long-term effects and comparison with the limit value for permissible deflection of w/l ef ≤ 1/250 or w/l ef ≤ 1/500 if applicable. The values of σ s1 and x are to be determined for the serviceability limit state according to the rules of reinforced concrete theory [11].…”

Section: Proposals For Future Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Deflection limitation of beam‐type reinforced masonry constructions – proposals for future requirements

Gunkler

2018

Mauerwerk

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The minimum reinforcement of reinforced masonry under bending should according to DIN EN 1996‐1‐1:2013‐02 [N 1], Section 8.2.3(1), be not less than ρmin = 0.05 % of the effective masonry cross‐section for building elements, in which the reinforcement makes a contribution to the loadbearing capacity of the section, with the effective masonry cross‐section being the product of the effective width (bef) and the usable height d of the building element. In order to limit cracking and increase the ductility of the element, the reinforcement area should according to [N 1], Section 8.2.3(3), be not less than 0.03 % of the gross cross‐sectional area (of a wall). Other regulations ([1], [N 2], [N 3], [N 4], [N 5], [N 6], [N 7]) also prescribe minimum reinforcements in order to avoid brittle behaviour of the building element when the first crack forms or to limit cracking. In this specialist article, the figures given in [N 1] for the minimum reinforcement of reinforced masonry beams, like flat lintels or prefabricated lintels, are checked. The work concentrates on avoiding brittle failure when the first crack forms. In addition to geometrical requirements, the amount of minimum reinforcement depends on the tensile strength of the masonry ft,m. Values of ρmin vary considerably depending on the magnitude of the tensile strength of the masonry that can be assumed. For lintels over openings in facing brickwork facades, the height of any capping or soldier courses under the reinforcement layer also has an enlarging influence on the value of ρmin. With regard to future regulations in standards or Allgemeine bauaufsichtliche Zulassungen (national technical approvals), it is recommended not to give lump sum values for ρmin but to undertake a calculation like for reinforced concrete, using the algorithms given in this article.

show abstract

FE‐basierte Verifikation der Rissbreitenberechnung nach DAfStb‐Heft 466

Schlicke

Krenn

Mayer

et al. 2022

Beton und Stahlbetonbau

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ein wesentliches Element der Erfolgsgeschichte des Stahlbetonbaus ist die Beherrschung der Rissbildung, sodass die Rissbreiten im Gebrauchszustand auf ein tolerierbares Maß begrenzt werden können. Mehr als 60 Jahre nach den ersten gezielten Forschungsarbeiten zur Rissbreitenentwicklung in Stahlbeton mit Rippenbewehrung besteht aber noch immer kein Konsens darüber, wie die Rissbreite rechnerisch prognostiziert werden sollte. Dieser Beitrag greift die mechanische Modellvorstellung aus DAfStb‐Heft 466 nach König/Tue zur Berechnung der maximalen Rissbreite [1] auf und vergleicht die Ergebnisse mit modernen numerischen Simulationsmethoden. Besonderes Augenmerk wird hierbei auf den Einfluss der Betondeckung auf die Oberflächenrissbreite und die Bedeutung einer rissbreitenabhängigen Verbundspannung in der Berechnung gelegt. Dabei zeigt sich, dass das mechanische Modell zur maximalen Rissbreite durch die numerische Simulation sehr gut bestätigt werden kann.

show abstract

Grundlagen des Stahlbetonbaus

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Mindestbewehrung zur Begrenzung der Rissbreite unter Berücksichtigung des tatsächlichen Bauteilverhaltens

Mindestbewehrung zur Begrenzung der Rissbreite unter Berücksichtigung des tatsächlichen Bauteilverhaltens

Deflection limitation of beam‐type reinforced masonry constructions – proposals for future requirements

FE‐basierte Verifikation der Rissbreitenberechnung nach DAfStb‐Heft 466

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About