1990
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-20929-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reinforced Concrete Design

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The failure of the building notwithstanding, it was clear that the owner of the failed building wanted to keep the functions originally intended for the building, but it can no longer meet the serviceability requirements. Based on this, a new structural design was carried out for the building in accordance with provisions of relevant Codes of Practice BS 6399 [14] and BS 8110 [15,16], as well as Moseley and Bungey [17] and Kong and Evans [18]. The remedial option recommended involves demolition and rebuilding of apparent, and engineering support is critically lacking because of patronage of nonprofessionals in executing engineering projects.…”
Section: Engineering Assessment Of the Buildingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The failure of the building notwithstanding, it was clear that the owner of the failed building wanted to keep the functions originally intended for the building, but it can no longer meet the serviceability requirements. Based on this, a new structural design was carried out for the building in accordance with provisions of relevant Codes of Practice BS 6399 [14] and BS 8110 [15,16], as well as Moseley and Bungey [17] and Kong and Evans [18]. The remedial option recommended involves demolition and rebuilding of apparent, and engineering support is critically lacking because of patronage of nonprofessionals in executing engineering projects.…”
Section: Engineering Assessment Of the Buildingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whereas in the CEB-FIP model code, 14 an equilibrium equation was established using a second-order ordinary differential equation from the bond-slip relationship at the rebar rib in the crack face that assumed the occurred slip of rebar as derived in Equation (6). Crack widths calculated using Equation (1) or (6), which are based on the traditional bond-slip relationship of rebar, differ from actual crack widths of strengthened RC member, because actual crack widths are affected by strengthening variables such as the loading scheme and stress level, as well as bond-slip relationship: [17][18][19] …”
Section: General Review Of Crack Width Equationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, the average crack spacing can be assumed to be approximately 1.5 a min . The practical crack spacing in RC beams is generally 0.67-1.33 times the average crack spacing [9,10]. Crack width should be de ned as a deformation of GFRP and concrete at the spacing of two adjacent cracks.…”
Section: Interface Debonding Mechanismmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The term f p;peeling =E p in equation (4) describes the GFRP strain at the mid-point of the beam, and can be obtained from the experimental results given in Table 3. The concrete and rebar bonding strength is u s D 0:28 p f ck (kgf/ cm 2 ) [10], and the GFRP bonding strength from the test results is u p D 5 MPa. The measured critical crack widths of ve specimens are shown in Table 4; the average crack width based on the test results was 0.092 cm.…”
Section: Interface Debonding Mechanismmentioning
confidence: 99%