Report On Design Methods With BS-En-SABS For Water Retaining Structures

WATER RESEARCH COMMISSION
KSA 1: Water Resource Management
Thrust 2: Management of Natural and Human-induced Impacts on Water Resources
P3: Integrated flood and drought management
REPORT ON DESIGN CODES : December 2009
The development and calibration of South Africa's National Standards for Water Retaining
Structures
Start date : 1 April 2007
End date : 30 March 2010
Lead Organisation : University of Stellenbosch, Department of Civil Engineering
Prepared by : Prof J A Wium (30 November 2009)

THE DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION OF SOUTH AFRICA'S NATIONAL
STANDARDS FOR WATER RETAINING STRUCTURES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 2
1. Background ........................................................................................................................................ 3
2. Comparison of codes ......................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Design for the ultimate limit state : ............................................................................................... 5
2.3 Design for the serviceability limit state ......................................................................................... 9
3. Other considerations ........................................................................................................................ 16
4. Discussion........................................................................................................................................ 16
4.1 Design for the ultimate limit state ............................................................................................... 17

4.2 Design for the serviceability limit state ....................................................................................... 17
5. Proposal for design code ................................................................................................................. 19
6. Summary and conclusions............................................................................................................... 20
7. References....................................................................................................................................... 21
Annexure A : ............................................................................................................................................... 23
Bending in water-retaining structures ...................................................................................................... 23
Annexure B : ............................................................................................................................................... 28
Shear in water retaining structures .......................................................................................................... 28
Annexure C ................................................................................................................................................. 39
Detailing and anchorages ........................................................................................................................ 39
Annexure D ................................................................................................................................................. 48
Crack width comparison .......................................................................................................................... 48
Annexure E.................................................................................................................................................. 60
Crack control ........................................................................................................................................... 60
Annexure F .................................................................................................................................................. 67
Experimental measurements of crack width ............................................................................................ 67
Annexure G ................................................................................................................................................. 77
Deflections of structures .......................................................................................................................... 77
Annexure H ................................................................................................................................................. 91
L/d comparisons ...................................................................................................................................... 91
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In order to assist in design, construction, quality control and maintenance of water retaining infrastructure,
it is important to use applicable South African National Standards.
Considering the fact that no South African standard exists for the design of water retraining structures, a
natural step is to develop such a standard for local application. Most frequently the British Standard BS
8007 is used as design code for water retaining structures in South Africa. However, consideration of
local conditions, practice and materials is essential, calling for an in-depth study to ascertain
appropriateness of design rules and guidelines, as well as harmonization of related codes. To achieve
such rational and appropriate procedures and guidelines for the South African Industry, it is necessary
that a South African National Standard for Water Retaining Structures is developed. In addition, the
related standards for loading (SANS 10160) and relevant construction materials (SANS 10100) are to be
revised to include appropriate provisions for water retaining structures. Furthermore, BS 8007 will soon
be replaced by EN-1992-3.
This report presents an evaluation of the concrete design code EN 1992-1 (Eurocode) which is the
supporting design code for EN 1992-3. The aim of the report is to determine how EN 1992-1 compares
with the South African standard (SANS 10100-1) and with BS 8007.
The report considers the ultimate limit state, serviceability limit state, structural detailing and other
considerations.
It is shown that the Eurocode (EN 1992-1) is more comprehensive than SANS 10100-1 and that for some
considerations, the Eurocode is less conservative. This specifically relates to the design of concrete in
shear, and for deflections of structures with higher strength concrete.
The criteria for evaluation of crack widths also differ between the codes and this subject needs careful
consideration for a future code.
The existing BS 8007 provides guidance to designers on testing of structures, details of joints and other
consideration which are not part of the Eurocode (EN 1992-3). It is proposed that such items be included
in a South African Standard for water retaining structures.
It is therefore concluded that once a South African design code for water retaining structures is
developed, it can be based on EN 1992-3, but that it that will have to include aspects of BS 8007 as
guidance for local designers. Furthermore, while the revision of SANS 10100-1 is currently in progress,
eventually to be based on EN 1992-1, it would be feasible to use the current SANS 10100-1 (2000) as
supporting concrete design standard until a new revision, based on Eurocode (EN 1992-1), is issued.
2
1. Background
it is important to use applicable South African National Standards. Extensive research has and is being
focused at deriving rational design rules for Civil Engineering Infrastructure and buildings internationally,
and may be exploited for local application. However, careful translation to local conditions, construction
materials and technologies is imperative.
natural step is to develop such a standard for local application. Most frequently, reference is made to the
British Standard BS 8007 for this purpose. However, consideration of local conditions, practice and
materials is essential, calling for an in-depth study to ascertain appropriateness of design rules and
guidelines, as well as harmonization of related codes. To achieve such rational and appropriate
procedures and guidelines for the South African Industry, it is necessary that a South African National
Standard for Water Retaining Structures is developed. In addition, the related standards for loading
(SANS 10160) and relevant construction materials (SANS 10100) are to be revised to include appropriate
provisions for water retaining structures. Furthermore, BS 8007, the design code most often used by local
designers, will soon be replaced by EN-1992-3 (Eurocode for liquid retaining structures). EN-1923-3 was
published in July 2006 and its National Annex on 31 October 2007.
The creation of a code of practice for water retaining structures will form part of a basis from which the
quality, durability and maintenance of water retaining infrastructure can be managed in South Africa.
Although not an innovative creation on its own, it will provide local authorities and water authorities a
basis from which systems can be set up in a co-ordinated manner for the management of durable
infrastructure. The establishment of a code of practice for water retaining structures will thus provide one
of the building blocks which is necessary to develop innovative water infrastructure management
systems.
This document reports on an investigation that was carried out to evaluate the following design codes:
- EN 1992-1 in comparison with SANS 10100-1 and BS 8110 (1997);

- EN 1992-3 in comparison with BS 8007
In this document, comparisons are made between the design codes for the following conditions :
- Design for the ultimate limit state

- Design for the serviceability limit state
- Structural detailing
- Other considerations
The report is structured to first present a comparison of relevant items in the design codes. This is
followed by a summary of items currently in BS 8007 but not in the Eurocode. A discussion of the
comparison is then presented where the most important aspects are considered. The report is concluded
with a summary of the major findings and conclusion are then drawn.
3
2. Comparison of codes
2.1 Introduction
The current code for the design of concrete structures in South Africa is SANS 10100-1 (2000). A working
group was created in 2007 for the revision of SANS 10100-1. Following a revision of the South African
Loading Code for Building Structures (SABS 0160-1989) which is based on the Eurocode (EN 1990 and
EN 1991) it was decided by the working group to evaluate the Eurocode (EN 1992-1) as reference code
for the revision of SANS 10100-1.
It was decided by the working group responsible for the revisions of SANS 10100-1 that once the
necessary comparisons have been carried out, the aim will be to adopt EN 1992-1 as South African
design code for concrete structures.
At present, the process of adoption entails a review of the contents of EN 1992-1-1 by a working group.
The aim is to adopt the reference standard in a responsible manner. Individual committee members have
been allocated sections of EN 1992-1-1 for which they are responsible. Each is tasked to determine by
comparative calculations and by review, the effect which it would have on the local industry if EN 1992-1-
1 is adopted for South Africa. It also entails identifying and motivating the choice of nationally determined
parameters. Another matter which receives much attention is the characterizing of South African material
properties for verification against those in the Eurocode. The process of verification and comparisons is
scheduled to continue until June of 2010.
A relevant issue which has been identified is the cross referencing between EN 1992-1-1 and other
Eurocode standards or norms. An extensive effort is now required to identify the relevant national
standards which would provide similar specifications. The impact of adopting EN 1992-1-1 also needs to
be investigated on other South African standards. One such example is SABS 0100-2, a materials
standard currently being used in conjunction with the existing design standard. Much of this content (but
not all!) is addressed in EN 1992-1-1. Early indications are that the matter of cross referencing, and the
way in which accompanying standards are used, may become an onerous task.
It is foreseen that ultimately a national standard would be issued with format and contents almost an
exact copy of EN 1992-1-1. Differences would be the referencing of local standards and incorporation of
nationally determined parameters into a single document.
The information provided in this report is supported by several investigations at Stellenbosch University.
Undergraduate final year research projects were used to investigate some of the aspects. Extracts from
these research projects are included as annexures to this report.
For the purpose of the development of a national standard for the design of concrete water retaining
structures, a comparison of Eurocode (EN 1992-1) with SANS 10100-1 serves two purposes. These are :
- To determine how compatible SANS 10100-1 would be with Eurocode (EN 1992-3) as design
standard for concrete water retaining structures during an interim period in which SANS 10100-1
still remains to be the valid South African design standard for concrete structures.
- To determine the implication of using Eurocode (EN 1992-1) as concrete design standard once it
is adopted as South African Standard for the design of concrete structures.
The following paragraphs present information obtained during investigations to compare EN-1992-1 and
SANS 10100-1. The aspects considered are the following :
- Design for the ultimate limit state :

o Bending
o Shear
o Bond in reinforcement
4
o Other matters
- Design for the serviceability limit state :
o Crack width calculations
o Deflections
- Structural detailing
2.2 Design for the ultimate limit state :
Although the design of water retaining structures is governed to a large extent by the conditions in the
serviceability limit state, it is nevertheless necessary to perform a verification at the ultimate limit state.
Selected topics were identified for verification and comparison in this study. The comparisons between
EN 1992-1 and SANS 10100-1 are presented in this section.
A comparison was made in 2008 between EN 1992-1 and SANS 10100-1 by G. Kretchmar (2008) as part
of a final year undergraduate research project at Stellenbosch University. Extracts from the final year
research project are enclosed as annexure to this report.
Bending of reinforced concrete elements :
An extract from the research project by G. Kretchmar (2008) is enclosed in Annexure A. The project made
a comparison between EN 1992-1 and SANS 10100-1 for bending in reinforced concrete elements. A
summary of the principle findings is presented in the following paragraphs.
The custom in South Africa is to use concrete cubes as testing method for verification of the concrete
characteristic strength. The cube strength is then used as parameter in the design of concrete members.
The Eurocode (EN 1992-1) uses concrete cylinder strength as parameter in its formulations and
equations. A table is provided in EN 1992-1 in which concrete cube strengths are shown for the
corresponding cylinder strength. For this reason, some parameters are slightly different in the formulation
of element resistance.
The formulations for the bending resistance of concrete elements are provided in Annexure A for the case
when only tension reinforcement is needed. A graphical comparison is also presented of the calculated
resistance of members using the two design codes. The figure from Annexure A has been expanded to
also include the case for when compression steel is also needed, and shown here as Figure 1. It can be
seen that when reinforcement steel with the same yield strength is used, the formulations from the two
design codes provide resistances which are virtually the same. The graphs presented here have been
drawn based on a concrete characteristic cube strength of 30 MPa (SANS 10100) and a concrete
characteristic cylinder strength of 25 MPa
The compression steel requirement which should be read with the information in Figure 1 is shown in
Figure 2. For both codes a characteristic steel yield strength of 450 MPa was used.
It can be seen that EN 1992-1 allows sections to take more compression before compression steel is
needed than in SANS 10100-1. This is basically because the compression block depth is limited to 0.5d in
SANS 10100-1, while the limit is 0.6d in EN 1992-1.
Using EN 1992-1 for sections with high percentages of reinforcement (> 1.5%) will result in savings on
compression steel as opposed to SANS 10100-1. This is however seldom a need in concrete water
retaining structures.
5
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
M/bd2
8.00 EN 1992-1
SANS 10100-1
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
100As/bd
Figure 1 : Comparison between SANS 10100-1 and EN 1992-1 for bending resistance of concrete
elements (Moment resistance plotted against percentage of tensile steel).
3.000
2.500
2.000
AS2bd
1.500 EN 1992-1
SANS 10100-1
1.000
0.500
0.000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
100As/bd
Figure 2 : Comparison between SANS 10100-1 and EN 1992-1 for compression steel of concrete
elements.
Shear in reinforced concrete elements
An extract of an evaluation on shear resistance from the research project by G. Kretchmar (2008) is
enclosed in Annexure B. The project made a comparison between EN 1992-1 and SANS 10100-1 for the
6
shear resistance in reinforced concrete elements. A summary of the principle findings is presented in the
following paragraphs.
Shear resistance without shear reinforcement :
The shear capacity of reinforced concrete sections without shear reinforcement is a function of
dowel action from the tensile steel, aggregate interlock on the shear plane, and shear friction in
the compressive zone in the case of bending or compressive axial forces. The approach to
determine the resistance against shear failure is very similar between SANS 10100-1 and EN
1992-1 for the case where no shear reinforcement is required. The resistance is based on
equations which are empirically based. The formulae do not differ substantially between the two
codes and are presented in Annexure B.
Figure 2 shows a comparison between the resistance provided by the formulae in the two codes.
The results presented are shown for a concrete characteristic cube strength of 30 MPa (cylinder
strength 25 MPa), and for member depths of 250 mm and 450 mm.
It can be seen that there is only a small difference between the resistance values obtained with
the two codes. The difference is 5.8% for the 450 mm deep member and 3.8% for the 250 mm
deep member. The resistance provided by the formula in SANS 10100-1 is slightly more
conservative than that of EN 1992-1. In other words, SANS 10100-1 provides a smaller shear
resistance value than EN 1992-1 for the same percentage of tensile reinforcement.
1.2
1
Shear resistance (Vc)
0.8
SANS 10100-1 400 mm
EN 1992 400 mm
0.6
SANS 10100-1 250 mm
EN 1992 250 mm
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Steel ratio (100As/bd)
Figure 3 : Comparison between SANS 10100-1 and EN 1992-1 for concrete shear capacity without
shear reinforcement
7
% of shear reinforcement
1.4
1.2
1
EN 1992-1
100A/bs (%)
0.8 SANS 10100-1

SANS Minimum %
0.6 SANS Stress limit
EN 1992-1 Minimum %
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Vu (MPa)
Figure 4 : Comparison between SANS 10100-1 and EN 1992-1 for % shear reinforcement
Shear resistance with shear reinforcement
When the shear capacity of concrete is exceeded, both codes require that shear reinforcement be
provided to enhance the strength of the section. There is quite a significant difference in the
approach by the two codes.
The method in SANS 10100-1 makes use of the traditional approach developed by Ritter in 1899.
This approach is based on a planar truss analogy with a 45° planar truss model. The total
sectional resistance is given my the summation of the concrete capacity and that of the shear
reinforcement.
EN 1992-1 considers a variable angle truss where the capacity of the concrete in compression is
used to determine a strut angle, and the shear reinforcement is then obtained using this angle.
The angle is defined to be > 21.8 degrees. This formulation does not add the resistance of the
concrete to that of the shear reinforcement.
A comparison between the shear resistance as calculated by the two codes is presented in
Figure 4. The figure shows the required percentage of shear reinforcement as a function of the
shear resistance on the section for concrete characteristic cube strength of 40 MPa and 1%
tension reinforcement. The non linear shape of the graph showing the resistance by EN 1992-1 is
a result of the variable angle truss analogy. It can be seen that there is a significant difference
between the resistance provided by the two formulations as the applied shear stress (v u)
increases. For smaller values of vu (up to 1.2 MPa) there is very little difference between the two
codes. SANS 10100-1 provides a much more conservative result for higher shear stresses.,
therefore requiring more shear reinforcement than EN 1992-1.
8
On the other hand, EN 1992-1 requires that the force in the tension reinforcement be increased to
allow for the additional tensile force due to the truss analogy. The tensile reinforcement must be
verified for the additional force, a verification not explicitly required in SANS 10100-1.
Both codes allow for shear enhancement in the close proximity of supports. EN 1992-1
furthermore provides an alternative procedure for calculating the capacity of members with loads
applied close to the support by referring to the section on strut and tie models.
Bond in reinforced concrete elements
Bond between steel and concrete is essential for the concept of reinforced concrete to function. Design
codes give directions for the calculation and verification of bond stress in structural elements.
Both EN 1992-1 and SANS 10100-1 assume the ultimate bond stress to be uniformly distributed along
the length of the anchored bar. The ultimate allowable bond stress for normal conditions for the two codes
is compared in Table 1. It can be seen that ultimate anchorage bond stress values are slightly higher in
SANS 10100-1 than in EN 1992-1.
Both codes allow for the bond stress to be reduced by 30% for top bars in sections. For EN 1992-1 it
applies to sections deeper than 250 mm, while in SANS 10100-1 it applies to sections deeper than 300
mm.
Both codes provide rules for adjusting the ultimate anchorage bond stress as a function of concrete
cover, bar shape (end hooks) and bar spacing. These rules are very similar between the two codes.
However, EN 1992-1 provides substantially more information for allowance of transverse bars, welded
transverse bars and other conditions which could have an influence on bond between steel and concrete.
Similarly, EN 1992-1 is more explicit in the provisions for laps length between bars.
More information about the comparison between the codes can be found in the extract of an evaluation
on bond in reinforced concrete from the research project by G. Kretchmar (2008) which is enclosed in
Annexure C.
Table 1 : Comparison of anchorage bond stress values between EN 1992-1 and SANS 10100-1
Concrete characteristic Ultimate anchorage Ultimate anchorage

cube strength bond stress bond stress
(Mpa) EN 1992-1 SANS 10100-1
(MPa) (MPa)
25 2.25 2.5
30 2.7 2.9
37 3 3.25
45 3.3 3.4
2.3 Design for the serviceability limit state
The considerations for the serviceability limit state which needs attention for concrete water retaining
structures are crack width calculations and to a lesser extent, the calculations of deflections.
9
Crack width calculations
Crack width calculation is very often the determining factor which governs the amount of reinforcement
required in the section. For this reason a number of comparison have been made for this study.
In 2007 a final year undergraduate research project was carried out by Le Roux (2007) in which crack
width calculations were compared between the two codes EN 1992-1 and BS 8007. The results of the
investigation were reported in a WRC Report (Wium, 2007). An extract from that report is presented here
in Annexure D where this comparison can be seen.
The final year research project by G Kretchmar (2008) investigated the differences in crack width
calculation between BS 8007 and EN 1992-1. An extract from the research report is enclosed in this
report as Annexure E. The formulations for crack width calculations by the two codes are given in this
Annexure.
From the results by Le Roux (2007) and Kretchmar (2008) it was apparent that crack widths are
calculated to be similar between the two codes for a variety of parameters when a crack width of 0.2 mm
is targeted. The influence of the amount of reinforcement on the crack width is for example shown in
Figure 5. The figure shows the crack width for using BS 8007 and EN 1992-1 (EC2). Values are also
presented from calculating crack width using the Prokon software suite. (2008). It can be seen that crack
2
widths, as calculated using the two codes, are very similar for 2000 mm and more, for the chosen
2
section. Below 2000 mm of reinforcement, the calculated crack width is larger when calculated with EN
1992-1 than for BS 8007.
Based on these observations, a test series was conducted in 2009 as part of a final year undergraduate
research project (Vosloo (2009)). The purpose of the tests was to measure crack widths on small
specimens under short term loading, and to compare the results with calculations using the two codes
(BS 8007 and EN 1992-1). The tests consisted of specimens with 3 different percentages of
reinforcement.
Figure 5 : Calculated crack width comparison between EN 1992-1 and BS 8007 (Kretchmar (2008))
10
The results of the test series are shown in Figure 6. In these graphs, the crack width is presented against
percentage of tensile reinforcement for three different levels of applied bending moment, ranging from
1.41 Ma/Mcr to 2.82 Ma/Mcr. In these ratios Ma = the applied bending moment and Mcr = bending moment
at first cracking of the section.
From the results it can be seen that EN 1992-1 may over estimate crack width at low levels of applied
load for low levels of reinforcement, while the estimate is fairly accurate for higher levels of reinforcement.
It can be concluded that EN-1992-1 gives a reasonable estimate of crack widths.
An extract from the investigation report by Vosloo (2009) is enclosed in Annexure F. It also shows the test
results presented in Figure 5 in another format.
Allowable crack width
The report by Kretchmar (2008) presents a comparison between BS 8007, EN 1992-1 and EN-1992-3 for
the limits these codes place on concrete crack width. An extract from this report is presented in Annexure
E.
In short, the maximum design surface crack widths for direct tension and flexure or restrained
temperature and moisture effects according to the BS 8007:1987 are:
Severe or very severe exposure: 0.2 mm;

Critical aesthetic appearance: 0.1 mm.
EN 1992-1 recommends limits to which the maximum allowable surface crack width is determined. These
values range from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm depending on the type of exposure of the element. The British
National Annex recommends values which differ only slightly, with the range being only between 0.2 mm
and 0.3 mm.
The superseding water retaining standard EN 1992-3 specifies different crack widths for different classes
of water tightness. Sections for which water tightness Class 0 is considered need to comply with the
requirements of EN 1992-1. The same crack width is considered acceptable for tightness Class 1 if the
crack does not pass through the section. If through cracking is possible, then the allowable crack width is
a function of the hydrostatic pressure and ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.05 mm. For water tightness Class 2
through cracks should be avoided, and for water tightness Class 3 special measures are required to
ensure water tightness.
These limits are potentially more restrictive than the current values in BS 8007 and will need special
consideration if it is contemplated to adopt EN 1992-3 as design code for water retaining structures
11
Crack Width vs. Reinforced Area
0.14
at 1.41 Ma/Mcr
0.12
0.1
Crcak Width [mm] 0.08

Test result
0.06 EN 1992-1
BS 8007
0.04
0.02
0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
% Reinforcement
Crack Width vs. Reinforced Area at

2.12 Ma/Mcr
0.3
0.25
Crcak Width [mm]
0.2
0.15 Test result

EN 1992-1
0.1 BS 8007
0.05
0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
% Reinforcement
Crack Width vs. Reinforced Area at

2.82 Ma/Mcr
0.4
0.35
0.3
Crcak Width [mm]
0.25
0.2 Test result

EN 1992-1
0.15
BS 8007
0.1
0.05
0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
% Reinforcement
Figure 6 : Crack width tests presented against design code values
12
Calculation of deflections
Deflections are generally not a critical design consideration for concrete water retaining structures. In this
report a brief overview is presented of comparisons performed in an undergraduate research project by J-
L Maritz (2009).
The investigation by Maritz considered the short term deflection of slab elements and is comparable to
the deflection behaviour of cantilever walls. An extract from his research report is presented in Annexure
G. Comparisons were made between the two design methods in SANS 10100-1 Annexure A and the
method in EN 1992-1. The results of the comparison are shown in Figure 7. Also shown in Figure 7 are
the results of the maximum deflections calculated at the service bending moment. It can be seen that the
method in EN 1992-1 and in SANS 10100-1 Annexure A.2.3 predict the experimental results reasonable
well.
9
8
7
Deflection (mm)
6
5
Experiment
4
SABS 0100-1
3 A.2.3
SABS 0100-1
2 A.2.4
Eurocode 2
1 Clause 7.4.3
0
0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4%
% Tension reinforcement
Figure 7 : Comparison of deflection calculation methods from SANS 10100-1 and EN 1992-3.
It is however custom to rather use the L/d ratios when verifying for deflections in normal design situations.
SANS 10100-1 provides recommended L/d ratios for different structural conditions such as cantilever
beams, single span beams and continuous beams. These values can also be used for slab (or wall)
design, and may need an additional adjustment factor depending on the type of slab. Allowance can also
be made to adjust these ratios as a function of the available tension reinforcement, compression
reinforcement and span length.
EN 1992-1 provides a similar approach by offering equations to calculate the L/d ratio as a function of the
tension and compression reinforcement content.
The information from the two codes was used to prepare Figures 8 and 9 which provide a comparison of
the L/d rations. For the comparison a concrete characteristic cube strength of 30 MPa was assumed
(cylinder characteristic strength is 25 MPa). Figure 8 shows the L/d ratios for cantilever beams (slabs) and
13
Figure 9 shows L/d rations for the end span of a continuous beam (or slab). The L/d rations are presented
as a function of the required tension reinforcement.
The effect of providing additional reinforcement to increase the allowable L/d ratio is shown in Figures H.3
and H.4 in Annexure H. In these figures the percentage difference between the L/d ratios from EN-1992-1
and SANS 10100-1 can be seen. A positive percentage indicates that SANS 10100-1 has larger L/d
ration than EN-1992-1.
In a paper by Beal (2009) it is shown that for cases of higher concrete strength, the EN 1992-1 values can
be significantly different from those in BS 8110 (BS 8110 is very similar to the values in SANS 10100-1).
This can also be seen in Annexure H where the effect of concrete strength on L/d ratios is shown in
Figures H.1 and H.2. While L/d ratios are relatively similar between the two codes for a concrete
characteristic cube strength of 30 MPa, EN-1992-1 has significantly larger values for higher strength
concrete (fcu – 50 MPa).
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
EN 1992-1
L/d
SANS 10100-1
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
100As/bd
Figure 8 : L/d ratios for cantilever elements as a function of the % tension reinforcement.
14
30.0
28.0
26.0
24.0
EN 1992-1
L/d
22.0
SANS 10100-1
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
100As/bd
Figure 9 : L/d ratios for end span of continuous beams as a function of the % tension reinforcement.
Concrete detailing
Kretchmar (2008) summarized the requirements of SANS 10100-1 and EN 1992-1 for reinforcement
detailing. An extract from his report is enclosed in Annexure C. Both codes provide requirements for
minimum and maximum percentages of reinforcement for different structural elements including walls,
slabs, beams and columns (BD 2403 (2007)).
The detailing requirements in SANS 10100-1 (2000) are very similar to those in BS 8110 (1997). Apart
from the requirements in BS 8110 (1997), BS 8007 (1985) specify additional requirements for minimum
percentage of reinforcement. BS 8007 (1985) has a tabulated requirement for a minimum of 0.35% of the
gross area of the concrete section of high yield reinforcement (fy = 460 MPa). A figure defines the
“concrete section” as surface zones presented for surface and suspended slabs.
These requirements for minimum percentage of reinforcement from BS 8007 were plotted against the
requirements of EN 1992-1 and SANS 10100-1 and are shown in Figure 10 as a function of the section
height. Apart from the requirement by EN 1992-1 for minimum percentage of reinforcement, it is also
required to verify concrete crack width during the design of a section. These requirements would normally
exceed the minimum values presented in Figure 10.
It can be seen that the minimum percentage reinforcement from EN 1992-1 is less than those of BS 8007
and SANS 10100-1 for section less than 0.65 mm in height. However, EN 1992-1 requires additional
calculations to verify the reinforcement content to meet crack width requirements.
15
Minimum area steel (% )
0.25
0.20
EN 1992-1
Area steel (%
0.15
BS 8007
SANS 10100-1 bending
)
0.10 SANS 10100-1 tension

EN 1992-1 Walls
0.05
0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Section height (m)
Figure 10 : Minimum percentage reinforcement as specified in different codes
3. Other considerations
Apart from design related matters, in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the implication of
using EN 1992-3 as reference standard for a design code for water retaining structures in South Africa,
the following items were identified as items addressed in BS 8007 but not directly in EN 1992-3 :
- BS 8007 identifies the need for maintenance and inspection of the structure : Now addressed in
SANS 10160 Draft (2009)
- BS 8007 specifies certain operational safety considerations : Safety now addressed in SANS
10160 Draft (2009)
- BS 8007 has a whole section on joints and jointing materials in water retaining structures
- BS 8007 gives specifications for inspection and testing of structures : The broad concept of
testing is addressed in SANS 10160 Draft (2009)
4. Discussion
The following section provides a discussion of the comparisons presented in the previous section of this
report.
16
4.1 Design for the ultimate limit state
Bending of reinforced concrete elements :
It is shown that the tension reinforcement requirement for EN-1992-1 is very similar to that of SANS
10100-1. The main difference is that SANS 10100-1 limits the depth of the compression block in the
section to 0.5d, while EN 1992-1 has a maximum compression block depth of 0.6d. The result is that
SANS 10100-1 requires more compression reinforcement for sections under high bending moments (>
2
M/bd = 4.6).
When no compression reinforcement is required, the two codes provide almost the same requirement for
tension reinforcement.
Shear resistance without shear reinforcement :
The approach to determine the resistance against shear failure is very similar between SANS 10100-1
and EN 1992-1 for the case where no shear reinforcement is required. The resistance is based on
equations which are empirically based. The formulae do not differ substantially between the two codes
and are presented in Annexure B.
It can be seen that there is only a small difference between the resistance values obtained with the two
codes.
Shear resistance with shear reinforcement
When the shear capacity of concrete is exceeded, both codes require that shear reinforcement be
provided to enhance the strength of the section. There is quite a significant difference in the approach by
the two codes which results in a significant difference between the resistance provided by the two
formulations for higher applied shear stresses. SANS 10100-1 provides a much more conservative result
at high shear stresses, therefore requiring more shear reinforcement than EN 1992-1.
For low applied shear stress (< 1.2 MPa), the difference between the two codes is negligible. The
difference increases as the applied shear stress increases.
Bond in reinforced concrete elements
The ultimate allowable bond stress for normal conditions for the two codes are very similar with the values
in SANS 10100-1 BEING slightly higher (less conservative). Both codes allow for similar parameters
which have an effect on the ultimate allowable bond stress.
EN 1992-1 provides substantially more information for allowance of transverse bars, welded transverse
bars and other conditions which could have an influence on bond between steel and concrete. Similarly,
EN 1992-1 is more explicit in the provisions for laps length between bars.
4.2 Design for the serviceability limit state
Crack width calculations
Crack widths are calculated to be similar between the two codes for a variety of parameters when a crack
width of 0.2 mm is targeted.
17
In a test series conducted in 2009 it was seen that EN 1992-1 may over estimate crack width at low levels
of applied load for low levels of reinforcement, while the estimate is fairly accurate for higher levels of
reinforcement.
It was concluded that EN-1992-1 gives a reasonable estimate of crack widths.
Allowable crack width
The maximum design surface crack widths for direct tension and flexure or restrained temperature and
moisture effects according to the BS 8007:1987 are:

EN 1992-1 the maximum allowable surface crack width ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm depending on the
type of exposure the element is being subjected to. The British National Annex recommends values which
differ only slightly, with the range being only between 0.2 mm and 0.3 mm.
The superseding water retaining standard EN 1992-3 specifies different crack widths for different classes
of water tightness. Sections for which water tightness Class 0 is considered need to comply with the
requirements of EN 1992-1. The same crack width is considered acceptable for tightness Class 1 if the
crack does not pass through the section. If through cracking is possible, then the allowable crack width is
a function of the hydrostatic pressure and ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.05 mm. For water tightness Class 2
through cracks should be avoided, and for water tightness Class 3 special measures are required to
ensure water tightness.
The limits in EN 1992-3 are potentially more restrictive than the current values in BS 8007 and will need
special consideration if it is contemplated to adopt EN 1992-3 as design code for water retaining
structures
It is suggested that the limiting crack width values currently used in South Africa, based on BS 8007, be
retained until further investigations have demonstrated that it would be reasonable and advantageous to
use values in EN 1992-3.
Deflections
A comparison of short term deflections for structural elements showed that the Eurocode (EN 1992-1)
provides a reasonable estimate of expected deflections. The long term deflection calculations, which is of
more relevance, was not investigated.
Normally, deflection calculations is not a critical element in the design of water retaining structures. When
deflections are calculated, the allowable L/d ratio is more often used during the design process than the
direct calculation of deflections.
It is shown in this report that for concrete with a characteristic cube strength of 30 MPa, the L/d ratios are
very similar between SANS 10100-1 and EN 1992-1 for cantilever element. SANS 10100-1 is slightly less
conservative for beam elements. When the concrete strength is increased, EN 1992-1 becomes
increasingly un-conservative when compared with SANS 10100-1. It is recommended that the L/d ratios
of SANS 10100-1 be used until further investigations have shows that the values in EN 1992-1 are
reasonable for higher strengths concrete.
18
Concrete detailing
The detailing requirements in SANS 10100-1 (2000) are very similar to those in BS 8110 (1997). Apart
from the requirements in BS 8110, BS 8007 (1985) specify additional requirements for minimum
percentage of reinforcement. BS 8007 has a tabulated requirement for a minimum of 0.35% of the gross
area of the concrete section of high yield reinforcement (f y = 460 MPa). A figure defines the “concrete
section” as surface zones presented for surface and suspended slabs.
It is shown that the minimum percentage reinforcement from EN 1992-1 is less than those of BS 8007
and SANS 10100-1 for section S less than 0.65 mm in height. However, EN 1992-1 requires additional
calculations to verify reinforcement content to verify compliance with crack width criteria.
5. Proposal for design code
The South African Code SANS 10160 Basis of structural design and actions for buildings and industrial
structures (2009) is currently in Draft format and has been circulated for public comment. This code is a
revision of SABS 1060 (1989). EN 1990 and EN 1991 has been used extensively as reference codes in
the development of this revision. The revision of SABS 0160 has set the example of how South African
codes can be based on the Eurocode.
South African concrete design codes have historically had very strong reference to British codes. The
British codes are in the process of being withdrawn to make space for the Eurocode together with a
British National Annex. In view of these developments, the development of a South African code for
concrete water retaining structures can use the Eurocode (EN 1992-3) as a reference document. EN
1992-3 however uses EN 1992-1 as supporting concrete design code without which it can not exist. Any
efforts to consider the development of a South African code for concrete water retaining structures
therefore need to include an evaluation of EN 1992-1 as supporting document.
The evaluation in this report shows the differences between SANS 10100-1 (and BS 8110) and EN-1992-
1. It shows in general that although EN 1992-1 may at first glance be more difficult to use for the design
engineer, it has more information available which allows for the treatment of special cases and situations.
In general the following conclusions can be made after the evaluation between the two codes (SANS
10100-1 and EN 1992-1) :
- Design for the ultimate limit state :
o Design for bending is very similar, with EN 1992-1 slightly less conservative when
compression steel is needed
o Design for shear : At low levels of applied shear, the two codes are very similar. For
higher values of applied shear, EN 1992-1 is less conservative, increasingly so with
increasing applied shear stress.
o Design of anchorage of reinforcement is very similar, except that EN 1992-1 provides
significantly more guidance to allow for certain parameters and circumstances.
- Design for the serviceability limit state :
o The calculation of crack widths provides very similar reinforcement requirements when a
crack width of 0.2 mm is targeted. For larger cracks there is an increasing difference
between the codes with decreasing reinforcement content. Comparison of short term
crack width experimental results compare well with the EN 1992-1 calculation method.
o EN 1992-3 has a significantly more restrictive crack width requirement for cracks
extending through the section. This may have a significant impact on the South African
design environment if adopted.
19
o The short term deflection calculations using EN 1992-1 gives similar results to one of the
methods in SANS 10100-1. The deflections also compare well with limited tests
performed at Stellenbosch University. Long term calculations are being investigated but
have not been completed.
o Verification of deflections by L/d ratio is very similar for the two codes when concrete
characteristic cube strength of 30 MPa is used. With increasing concrete characteristic
cube strength, EN 1992-1 becomes increasingly less conservative. It is suggested that
the values in EN 1992-1 first be evaluated before this formulation is accepted for higher
characteristic concrete strengths.
The process to revise SANS 10100-1 by using EN 1992-1 as reference code may still take a year or two.
It is proposed that once the revision of SANS 10100-1 has been completed, the proposed code for
concrete water retaining structures use the revised SANS 10100-1 as supporting concrete design code.
In the interim, it will THUS be acceptable to continue to use SANS 10100-1 as supporting code for design
of water retaining structures. In most cases this may result in slightly more conservative designs than
when EN 1992-1 would be used, but similar to current practice.
The proposed code for water retaining structures will have to include sections which are not included in
EN 1992-3. These include :
- maintenance and inspection of structures (verify the requirement against the contents of SANS
10160 Draft (2009)
- operational safety considerations (verify the requirement against the contents of SANS 10160
Draft (2009)
- joints and jointing materials in water retaining structures
- specifications for inspection and testing of structures
6. Summary and conclusions
it is important to use applicable South African National Standards.
natural step is to develop such a standard for local application. Most frequently the British Standard BS
8007 is used as design code for water retaining structures in South Africa. However, consideration of
local conditions, practice and materials is essential, calling for an in-depth study to ascertain
appropriateness of design rules and guidelines, as well as harmonization of related codes. To achieve
such rational and appropriate procedures and guidelines for the South African Industry, it is necessary
that a South African National Standard for Water Retaining Structures is developed. In addition, the
related standards for loading (SANS 10160) and relevant construction materials (SANS 10100) are to be
revised to include appropriate provisions for water retaining structures. Furthermore, BS 8007 will soon
be replaced by EN-1992-3.
This report presents an evaluation of the concrete design code EN 1992-1 (Eurocode) which is the
supporting design code for EN 1992-3. The aim of the report is to determine how EN 1992-1 compares
with the South African standard (SANS 10100-1) and with BS 8007.
The report considers the ultimate limit state, serviceability limit state, structural detailing and other
considerations.
It is shown that the Eurocode (EN 1992-1) is more comprehensive than SANS 10100-1 and that for some
considerations, the Eurocode is less conservative.
It is concluded that once a South African design code for water retaining structures is developed, it can be
based on EN 1992-3, but that it that will have to include aspects of BS 8007 as guidance for local
20
designers. Furthermore, while the revision of SANS 10100-1 is currently in progress, eventually to be
based on EN 1992-1, it would be quite feasible to use the current SANS 10100-1 (2000) as supporting
concrete design standard until a new revision is issued, based on Eurocode.
7. References
1. ACI 318-02/318R-02. 2002. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02)
and Commentary (ACi 318R-02). Michigan: American Concrete Institute
2. Beal, A.N. Eurocode 2: Span/depth ratios for RC slabs and beams. The Structural Engineer.
October 2009.
3. BS EN 1992-1-1. 2004. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. General rules and rules for
building. BSI
4. NA to BS EN 1992-1-1:2004. UK National Annex. National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design of

concrete structures – Part1. Brussels : British Standards Institution.
5. BS EN 1992-3. 2006. Eurocode – Design of concrete structures – Part 3: Liquid retaining and
containment structures. BSI
6. BS 8007:1987. Design of concrete structures for retaining aqueous liquides. London: British
Standards Institution
7. BS 8110:1985 Part 1. 1985. The structural use of concrete. London : British Standards Institution.
Companion Document.
8. Companion document on Eurocode 2. 2007. Design of concrete structures – Part1. London :

Department for Communities and local Government.
9. Huber, UA. MscEng (civil) thesis report. Reliability of reinforced concrete and shear resistance.
Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch, 2006.
10. Kong, F. K., & Evans, R. H. (1987). Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete (Vol. Third Edition).
London: Chapman & Hall.
11. Kretzschmar, G. (2008). Final year project. The differences between the South African SANS
10100-1 and the European (British) EN 1992-1 as they relate to the design in water retaining
structures. Department of Civil Engineering, Stellenbosch University.
12. Maritz, J-L. (2009). Thesis nr. S-34. Deflections of reinforced concrete elements. Department of
Civil Engineering, Stellenbosch University.
13. NA to BS EN 1992-1-1:2004. UK National Annex. National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design of

concrete structures – Part1. Brussels : BSI
14. NA to BS EN 1992-3:2006. UK National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures –

Part 3: Liquid retaining and containment structures. BSI.
15. Roux, W. L. (2007). Thesis nr. S-36. South-African Practice for the Design of Water Retaining
Concrete Structures. Department of Civil Engineering, Stellenbosch University.
21
16. SANS 10100-1. 2000. The structural use of concrete. Part 1: Design. Edition 2.2. Pretoria: The
South African Bureau of Standards
17. SABS 0160-1:1989. 1994. The general procedures and loadings to be adopted in the design of
buildings. Pretoria: The South African Bureau of Standards
18. SANS 10160-1 – WG Draft 2009. 2009. Basis of structural design and actions for building and
industrial structures. Part 2: Self-weight and imposed loads. Pretoria: South African National
Standard.
19. Vosloo, R.N. (2009). Thesis nr. S-33. South African Practice for the design of water retaining
concrete structures. Department of Civil Engineering, Stellenbosch University.
20. Wium, J.A. (2007) The development and calibration of South Africa’s National Standards for
Water Retaining Structures. Department of Civil Engineering, Stellenbosch University
22
Annexure A :
Bending in water-retaining structures
(Extract from the final year undergraduate research report by G Kretchmar)
This chapter aims to discuss the basic principles from which the bending resistance is derived. The basic
principles i.e. the rectangular stress block will be used to illustrate the resisting bending moments of
members. The basic theory is expected not to change between the two standards under discussion, since
the equations being derived from the stress block rely on simple static equilibrium. Certain minor
differences have indeed been identified. The resulting significance and implication of these is then again
discussed and analyzed with the aid of a graphical presentation. Sections requiring tension reinforcement
only are considered.
3.1 Stress distribution

First, the older stress block lay-out is being assessed (SANS 10100-1). The size of the compression
zone, its intensity and the lever arm to the tension steel is then compared to their respective parameters
of the subsequent standard (EN 1992-1).
SANS 10100-1:
Figure 3. 1: Stress distribution as in SANS 10100-1
Consider the square concrete cross-section being simply reinforced with steel bars as illustrated
in Figure 3.1. The section is considered to be subjected to a simple bending moment about the
neutral axis. The top half of the profile, in compression, is dealt with by the concrete compressive
resistance of 0.67fcu/γm (where fcu is the characteristic compressive cube strength of concrete and
γm is the partial material factor for concrete amounting to 1.5).
23
EN 1992-1:
Figure 3. 2: Stress distribution as in EN 1992-1
Consider the square concrete cross-section being simply reinforced with steel bars as illustrated
in Figure 3.2. The section is considered to be subjected to a simple bending moment about the
neutral axis. The top half of the profile, in compression, is dealt with by the concrete compressive
resistance of 0.85fck/γm where fck is the characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete
and γm is the partial material factor for concrete amounting to 1.5).
3.2 Resisting strength vs. Reinforcement quantity

A characteristic strength for concrete (fcu in SABS and fck in EN) was taken to be 30 MPa (both as cube
tested strength), and for the yield stress in tension reinforcement steel (fy) a standard 450 MPa was used.
The Eurocode furthermore mostly specifies an ultimate yield at 500 MPa. The effect of this is also being
observed.
In the following, both the SANS 10100-1 and the EN 1992-1stress blocks are being compared by means
of a technique that allows quantifying their apparent divergence. It enables to prepare a curve that can
clearly distinguish between the two codes.
SANS 10100-1:
Firstly, taking the sum of moments about the tension reinforcement yields:
∑M = ∙( ) ∙ (d - )
= 0.405 fcu (b x) (d-0.45x)

= 0.405 fcu (bdx) (1-0.45 [eq:3.1]
24
by taking γm= 1.5 as the partial safety factor for concrete
For: the lever arm between the compression and tension forces z = (d - )
EN 1992-1:
Again we take the sum of moments about the tension reinforcement:

∑M = ∙( ) ∙ (d - )
= 0.4536 fck (b x) (d-0.4x)

= 0.4536 fck (bdx) (1-0.4 [eq:3.2]
by taking γc= 1.5 as the partial safety factor for concrete.

For: the lever arm between the compression and tension forces z = (d - )
Directly comparing equations eq:3.1 and eq:3.2 show a constant dissimilarity. The intention is to obtain
two sets of equations of the same variables, namely the bending moment resistance and the reinforcing
steel ratio (see Steps 1 and 2). Then, simultaneously solving and manipulating these equations (Steps 3
and 4) yields the final relationship to be plotted on a graph.
SANS 10100-1:
Step 1: Taking the sum of moments about the compression block:

∑M = As ∙ (d - )
= 0.87 fs As (d-0.45x)
= 0.87 fs As d [eq:3.3a]
by taking γm= 1.15 as the partial safety factor for reinforcement steel
Step 2: Taking a static equilibrium of forces:
∑F = 0.45 fcu (0.9bx) – fsAs = 0
= 0.405 fcu bx – fsAs
= 0.405 fcu bx – fsAs [eq:3.3b]
Step 3: Manipulating e:3.3a by dividing both sides by (bd²) gives:
= 0.87fs [eq:3.4a]
Step 4: Manipulating eq:3.3b by dividing both sides by (bd) gives:
= [eq:3.4b]
Now, finally merging equation eq:3.4b into eq:3.4a gives us the planned relation of the computed
bending resistance in terms of the steel ratio:
= 0.87∙450∙ –
25
= 391.5∙ - 5676.75∙ [eq:3.5]
EN 1992-1:
Taking the sum of moments about the compression block yields roughly the same as for the
South African, the only difference being the lever arm:
Step 1: ∑M = As ∙ (d - )
= 0.87 fs As (d-0.4x)
= 0.87 fs As d [eq:3.6a]
by taking γm= 1.15 as the partial safety factor for reinforcement steel
Step 2: ∑F = 0.567 fck (0.8bx) – fsAs = 0
= 0.4536 fck bx – fsAs
= 0.4536 fck bx – fsAs [eq:3.6b]
Step 3: Manipulating e:3.6a by dividing both sides by (bd²) gives:
=
= 0.87fs [eq:3.7a]
Step 4: Manipulating eq:3.6b dividing both sides by (bd) gives:

=
= [eq:3.7b]
Again, merging eq:3.7b into 3.7a gives us (having fy = 450 MPa):

= 0.87∙(fy)∙ –
= 391.5∙ – 5406.43∙ [eq:3.8]
When using fy = 500 MPa for the reinforcement, it generates:

= 0.87∙500∙ –
= 435∙ – 6674.603∙ [eq:3.9]
We now have three equations (eq:3.5, eq:3.8 and eq:3.9), all in terms of M/bd² and A s/bd. Where the
variable factor As/bd is, by observation, the percentage of reinforcement applied per sectional area
(considering the square concrete section in Figure 3.1 and 3.2). A table was set containing values ranging
from a bit less than minimum reinforcement per section to the maximum allowable reinforcement
quantities in concrete section. The minimum and maximum reinforcement areas are discussed in chapter
5 (Annexure C of this report)
By varying the steel content (As/bd), the resisting strengths have been computed by equations eq:3.5,
eq:3.8 and eq:3.9 respectively and then plotted as shown in Figure 3.3 below. We can clearly observe a
rise in strength as the steel content increases, of which both the standards experience similar behaviour.
The EN 1992 curve seems marginally less conservative indicating a slight stronger theoretical resistance
to the same reinforcement.
26
6
4
M/bd²
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
As/bd
SABS 0100 EN 1992 fyk=450 En 1992 fyk=500
Figure 3. 3: Bending moment resistance of a section as a function of steel area
3.3 Summary to bending

The graph in Figure 3.3 clearly shows curves that are very similar in their behaviour, of which the
differences are rather insignificant and negligible. The European stress block though, shows a tiny less
conservative result to their approach by having a greater resistance to the same reinforcement. It shows
that a longer lever arm has the upper hand in comparing it to the smaller compression area.
Below the line, the difference of the computed resistance between the two standards can easily be
neglected. And thus the new EN 1992-3 would do fine in collaboration with the present SABS 0100-1
standard.
27
Annexure B :
Shear in water retaining structures
Shear in beams still remains a matter being heavily debated concerning the predictability and safety.
There are several different approaches which all are based on firm and well motivated assumptions.
In general, members that are very vulnerable to shear are usually very short members, since once a
member has a longer span in relation to the cross-section, members tend to fail in bending before shear
failure becomes apparent. The designers usually try to omit the possibility of shear failure by ensuring
that the beam fails due to bending first. This bypasses the fact that shear still is so unexplored, whereas
bending is rather accurately predictable.
In the following paragraphs sections without shear reinforcement are first considered before sections with
shear reinforcement.
4.1 Sections without shear reinforcement

To introduce the basic principles of shear a simple free body diagram is used. The forces and stresses
applied are discussed and reviewed. The part is concluded by a graphical curve, having similar aims as in
the previous chapter concerning the bending comparisons. This curve compares the equations used to
calculate the shear resistance of the pure concrete section by the various standards, namely the SABS
0100-1 and the EN 1992-1-1:2004.
4.1.1 The basic principles

To understand the mechanisms of shear stresses in a beam, we first consider the basic concrete section
containing no shear stirrups. Nominal longitudinal tension reinforcement is provided.
There are a number of different approaches to model and simplify shear members, all the various
different theories rely on the same principles though. Consider a beam with simple support and shear
force V being resisted. The total shear force being resisted consists of the following components:
Vr = Vcz + Vay + Vd [eq:4.1]
where Vcz the resistance offered by the uncracked concrete section in compression
Vay the resistance offered by interlocking aggregate (also referred to ‘Interface Shear
Transfer’)
Vd a resistance referred to as the ‘Dowel action’, is offered by the main longitudinal tension
steel passing the cracked section.
28
Figure 4. 1: A shear failure crack displaying the resisting forces (Kong & Evans, 1987)
Empirically, it was found that the total resisting force V r consists of the following approximate proportions
with reference to eq:4.1 (Kong and Evans,1987):
Shear compression zone Vzc = 20-40%

Dowel action Vd = 15-25%
Aggregate Interlock Va = 35-50%
According to Kong and Evans, in the process of an increasing applied load, the shear stress increases.
The dowel action reaches its maximum capacity first, after which the aggregate interlock provides
resistance to provide the structural integrity. Once the frictional resistance is exceeded, all the stresses
are delegated almost instantaneously to the only resistance left, being the concretes compressive zone.
The sudden impairment causes an inevitable ultimate abrupt failure. This behaviour is to be prevented, as
whole structures can simply fail with no indication prior to the collapse.
In the following section the various codes’ similarity in calculating the concrete sections’ shear resistance
is being assessed.
SANS 10100-1:
The South African standard assumes and applies a theory firstly proposed by Mörsch in 1902
(Huber, 2006). Mörsch projected the shear stress to be:
ν= [eq:4.2]
where ‘V’ is the applied shear force and ‘b’ and ‘d’ are the section’s thickness and effective
depth respectively. The shear resistance of a beam is given by two distinct components one of
which is the shear resistance of the concrete and the other being the shear capabilities of the
stirrups:
νr = νc + νs [eq:4.3]
where the concretes shear resistance νc is given by:
29
[eq:4.4]
for which: γm,c the material factor 1.4

fcu concrete cube compressive strength
being the % longitudinal tension steel reinforcement supplied
and fcu ≤ 40 MPa

As ≤ 0.03bd
EN 1992-1:
The average shear distribution is also according to Mörschs’ predictions and follows the same
behaviour as equation eq:4.3. The concrete shear resistance is given by the following equation:
[eq:4.5]
Where γm,c the partial material factor for concrete = 1.5
fck the concrete cylinder compressive strength
Also, νc is limited by the value:

vc ≥ [eq:4.6]
The concrete shear resistance equations differ significantly comparing the EN 1992-1 with SANS
10100-1. The exact magnitude of the observed difference is hard to determine without any
numerical values.
4.1.2 Summary to sections without shear reinforcement
In an attempt to illustrate the numerical difference between the European and South African standard
concerning the above mentioned concrete shear resistance equations, the following constants were
chosen:
fcu = 30 MPa
d = 450 mm
fck = 25 MPa
when substituted into eq:4.4, eq:4.5 and eq:4.6, the following equations are obtained:
SANS 10100-1: νc = 0.55276
EN 1992-1: νc = 0.5848
Now, gradually increasing the steel percentage ratio ranging from = 0.1 to the maximum
allowable 3, we can generate the following graph:
30
Figure 4. 2: Relative shear resistance with increasing longitudinal tension steel ratio
Considering the curves in Figure 4.2, it is observed that a higher resistance in shear is obtained using the
Eurocode formulation. This is a slightly less conservative approach, since one would consequently be
inserting less shear stirrups into the section.
4.2 Sections with shear reinforcement

The same components that add to the beam shear resistance are still applicable. In the previous sections
considered, the carrying capacity of the section was limited to the tensile strength of concrete. Now that
shear reinforcement is introduced to enhance the sections capacity some tensile resistance is added to
that of the concrete. Vertical stirrups are placed that allows the use of the following equation:
Vr = Vcz + Vay + Vd + Vs [eq:4.7]
for which Vs is simply the contribution to shear resistance from the stirrups. The role of the shear
reinforcement is made clear in Figure 4.3.
31
FigureFigure
4. 3: 4. 3:
Resistance
Shear of the shear
stirrups’ rolereinforcement
of resistance (Huber, 2006)
When a simply supported beam under shear, as in Figure 4.3, is loaded extensively, the diagonal shear
tension crack occurs as a result of the tensional failure of the concrete. The member experiences a
tensile stress near the support of the structural member as indicated in Figure 4.3. Simultaneously, there
is the compressive stress as indicated by the blue arrows in Figure 4.3. The orientation of the diagonal
tension crack is to a maximum degree of about θ= 45° measured with respect to the direction of the shear
stirrups. Now, the concrete resists compression stresses, whereas the tension is resisted by the shear
stirrups. This system, similar to the bending stresses in ordinary bending-beam elements where steel
takes care of tension and the concrete resists compressive stresses, ensures the integrity of the
structures. In order to calculate the amount of steel reinforcement to be placed, in addition to the
longitudinal tension steel, the two standards follow their respectable approaches. The approaches mainly
differ in the angle θ. The older SABS standard assumes the angle to always be 45°, whereas the
subsequent Eurocode makes its distinction with a different model that allows θ to vary between a
minimum of 21.8° and the maximum 45°. These two approaches are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
4.2.1 The 45° Planar Truss Model

A historical approach to disintegrating shear reinforcement models, simplifying them, is referred to as the
planar truss analogy. This methodology was first introduced by Swiss engineer Ritter in 1899. The
following figure is used by Huber to explain the principles of Ritter’s proposition. A shear members’
equilibrium is made up of diagonal compression struts encountered by the shear stirrups in tension
reinforcement.
32
Figure 4. 4: 45° Planar Truss Analogy (Huber, 2006)
The diagonal compression struts are seen to be forcing the top and bottom sections of the beam apart,
where the shear stirrups are then accordingly inserted aiming to hold these very sections together. Ritter
postulates the structural member to fail ultimately in shear once the stirrups loose their effect or
alternatively the concrete compression struts fail.
Stirrup yield at: νs = [eq:4.8a]
Compression struts: νd = fd,max sinθcosθ [eq:4.8b]
where Av the area of shear reinforcement considering both legs of stirrups

fyv the steels’ yield strength
fd,max concretes’ compressive capacity of diagonal struts
33
4.2.2 The Variable Angle Truss Model
Huber furthermore considered the Variable Angle Model in his project. The main difference of the
Variable Angle Model to the 45° Planar Model is that the Variable Angle Model allows the angle θ to
deviate between 21.8° and 45°. This is due to an assumption that not only the shear reinforcement but
also the longitudinal tensional reinforcement in a beam can contribute to the shear capacity of the beam.
The theory requires both the shear and longitudinal tension reinforcement to yield before ultimate failure.
Now the effect of the longitudinal tension steel, depending on its quantity, causes the diagonal tension
crack to occur at a steeper angle than previously assumed.
There are two types of reinforced beams, the one being under-reinforced where both the shear and
longitudinal steel yield before failure. The other scenario is when the beam is over-reinforced, here the
members concrete compressive struts are being crushed before the steel yields in tension. The aim of
design is to reach the absolute equilibrium ensuring optimum resistance to the loads.
Stirrups yield: νs = ρv fyv cot θ [eq:4.9a]
Concrete struts: νd = fd sin θ cos θ [eq:4.9b]
Longitudinal: νsl = ρl fyl tan θ [eq:4.9c]
Where the factor ρ is the % steel provided in the respective sections, f is the prevailing steel yield strength
and θ being the angle the diagonal tension crack makes with the vertical.
Now, for tan θ = , cot θ = we can generate the following set of equations:
ρv fyv = fd cos² θ [eq:4.10a]
ρl fyl = fd sin² θ [eq:4.10b]
ν = fd sin θ cos θ [eq:4.10c]
Also, by using the trigonometric identity sin² θ + cos² θ = 1 (Remembering that: fd sin² θ + fd cos² θ = fd)
and the respective equations eq:4.10a and eq:4.10b we can deduce:
ρv fyv + ρl fyl = fd [eq:4.11]
We normalize the formula eq:4.11 by dividing the whole identity with the maximum possible compressive
strength fd,max.
+ =
Which gives: ωl + ω t = [eq:4.12]
where, in the optimum balanced position, the longitudinal reinforcement index ω l is equal to 0.5, and the
shear reinforcement index ωt equating to 0.5. This gives the optimum reinforcement for fd = fd,max.
Therefore, for:
Under-reinforced: ω l + ωt ≤ 1
Over-reinforced: ω l + ωt ≥ 1
and the balanced condition: ωl + ωt = 1
understanding that the shear reinforcement index ω can be regarded as the respectable
normalized steel ratio inserted in the section’s profile.
34
We can derive a formula to compute the angle Ѳ by dividing the equation eq:4.10b by eq:4.10a. This
would then yield:
tan²Ѳ = ωt/ωl
and tan Ѳ = [eq:4.13]
To be able to plot a relationship between the various relations, we want to be able to illustrate using a
curve on a graph that can distinguish and differentiate between under-reinforced and over-reinforced
sections. For a start we consider the balanced condition which is the apex of all the succeeding. Once we
can establish the balanced curve, the rest should be directly visible.
For the balanced condition we can substitute the three equations of eq:4.10 into each other. Note that:
sin² θ = ρl fyl / fd ,
cos² θ = ρv fyv / fd , and
ν = fd ∙ now cancelling the fd and dividing by fd,max we can say:
ν/fd,max = [eq:4.14]
The three cases for a balanced condition entail:
ωl = ωt = 0.5 the both the longitudinal and shear reinforcement yield simultaneously
ωt ≤ 0.5 here the shear reinforcement is expected to yield first due to a lower steel ratio in
relation to the normalized steel quantity in the longitudinal direction. Also, the
following holds: ωl = 1 - ωt. Note, that in this case Ѳ is always smaller than 45° for
that:
-1
tan .
ωl ≤ 0.5 the vice versa is about to happen. The angle Ѳ is expected to be more than 45°.
Now, finally, we consider the equation eq:4.14. We rearrange it as follows:
(ν/fd,max)² = , squaring both sides and adding 0.5² to both sides raises:
(ν/fd,max)² + 0.5² = ωt - ωt² + 0.5²
(ν/fd,max)² + (ωt² - ωt + 0.5²) = 0.5²
(ν/fd,max)² + (ωt - 0.5)² = 0.5² [eq:4.15]
A little rearranging and simplification yields a better understanding. Notice:
(ν/fd,max)² + (ωt - 0.5)² = 0.5² ≡ (y-a)² + (x-b)² = r²
35
For which the right hand side is the standard formula for a circular plot having its centroid at the
coordinate (x,y) = (a,b) = (0.5,0.0) and a radius of r = 0.5. And hence, Figure 4.5 could be plotted.
Figure 4. 5: Normalized comparison of Shear stress ratio vs. reinforcement ratios

(Huber, 2006)
Figure 4.5 illustrates a semi circle that demonstrates the balanced condition mentioned earlier. Once
deviating off the curve depicted by eq:4.15, the section’s shear strength is restricted to the capacity of the
factor yielding first.
For example, we say that:

ωl = 0.3, and ωt = 0.7
remembering that ω is the normalized ratio of reinforcing steel inserted into the section.
This gives us an angle Ѳ = tan

-1
= 66.8°.
Further, by eq:4.14 : ν/fd,max = = 0.458
And by inspection : 2 x (ν/fd,max) = = 0.916.
The optimum steel ratios are to be obtained by having striving to 1.0. This is obtained, by
observation, at a diagonal crack angle Ѳ = 45°. The Eurocode limits the allowable angle between 21.8°
and 45° as mentioned previously. For Ѳ = 21.8°, we can deduce that:
36
-1
21.8° = tan since ωl = 1 – ωt.
This implies that ωt = 0.1379 ≈ 0.138

When ωt = 0.138, then: ωl = 1 – ωt = 0.862
Also : ν/fd,max = = 0.345 and
= 0.690
The values just computed for when θ = 21.8° were shown on Figure 4.5. To follow is a comparing
summary of all the above mentioned, we compare the graph in Figure 4.5 with added values used in the
Former British-South African standards.
4.3 Direct comparison

Both the 45° planar truss model and the Variable Angle Model are applied in the following paragraphs to
present a comparison.
SANS 10100-1:
The South African code, using the 45° planar model, adds an empirical constant concrete
contribution term to the resisting strength in shear. This term corresponds to the offset of the line
labelled “SANS” as shown in Figure 4.6. Notice the dashed line also being orientated at 45°, and
having an initial off-set of .
Figure 4. 6: Shear stress ratio vs. reinforcement ratios added the concrete contribution
(Huber, 2006)
37
EN 1992-1:
As previously mentioned, the Eurocode based on the Variable Angle Model, has the deviation of
θ which ranges from 21.8° to 45°. In contrast to the older standards, the European model
neglects the tensile strength provided by the concrete in the diagonal shear crack zone. The
values using the EN 1992-1 model are compared to that of SANS 10100-1 in Figure 4.7.
Figure 4. 7: Close-up look at Shear stress vs. Reinforcement (Huber, 2006)
Figure 4.7 provides a close-up view of the critical zone depicted in Figure 4.6. The axes were
modified into usable units that result in the shear resistance being plotted against the shear
reinforcement (both in MPa units). Huber uses a formula that provides the relationship between
the shear index ω and the reinforcement ratio used in Figure 4.7.
For ωt values of more than approximately 0.04, the Eurocode computes a higher section
resistance than the former British standard. We can therefore deduce a more conservative
behaviour from the older SANS standard.
38
Annexure C
Detailing and anchorages
This chapter consists of two distinctive parts. The first part discusses the differences in the minimum and
maximum steel areas specified in the respectable standards.
The second part presents the basic principles used to calculate the anchorage lengths of reinforcement.
5.1 Reinforcement areas

5.1.1 Minimum area requirements
The minimum requirements in steel areas are generally specified in terms of a percentage, where this is
calculated in relation to the section effective area. The effective area of the section is referred to the area
of the member cross-section that actively contributes to the structural integrity.
For the reason that in water retaining structures there are rarely beams and columns forming part of the
design, and even if this would be the case the design would be similar to standard calculations, the
detailing specifications of beams and columns depicted in the codes where excluded in this presentation.
SANS 10100-1:
Main: The minimum amount of vertical reinforcement in a wall should be no less than 0.4% of
the gross cross-sectional area. (See section 4.11.4.2.2 in (SABS 0100-1 Ed 2.2, 2000))
This reinforcement may be inserted in double or single layers.
Secondary: In cases where the main vertical bars are inserted to resist a compressive load,
the minimum secondary (horizontal) reinforcement shall be at least 0.25% of the cross-
sectional area. The bars shall be at least of 6 mm diameter or one quarter of the vertical
main bar diameter. (4.11.4.3.2 in (SABS 0100-1 Ed 2.2, 2000))
Shear: where the main vertical reinforcement in walls exceeds 2%, shear links should be added
with diameter not less than 6 mm or one quarter of the diameter of the largest
compression bar throughout the thickness of the wall section. (4.11.4.5.2 in (SABS 0100-
1 Ed 2.2, 2000)). The spacing of these links shall not exceed twice the wall thickness in
both the vertical and horizontal spanning directions. Additionally, in the vertical direction
the link spacing shall not be more than 16 times the bar diameter.
Sections that are subjected to mainly tension, which would be the case for the horizontal
reinforcement in a reservoir wall, the minimum area of reinforcement is specified as 0.45% of the
cross-section. (Table 23 in (SABS 0100-1 Ed 2.2, 2000)).
Rectangular sections subjected to bending have a specified minimum requirement of 0.13% of

their cross-sectional area. In solid slabs, this reinforcement quantity is to be placed in both
spanning directions. (Table 23 in (SABS 0100-1 Ed 2.2, 2000)).
For other non-mentioned cases or any uncertainty, the SABS 0100-1 code provides a table
(Table 23) providing all minimum reinforcement requirements.
39
EN 1992-1:
The Eurocode expresses all the minimum and maximum reinforcement areas in terms of the
As,vmin and the As,vmax respectively. These are then defined as a ratio between a constant and Ac.
Ac is the cross-sectional area of the member under consideration and the factor being a
percentage.
Vertical: As,vmin = 0.002Ac. (Meaning the vertical areas of reinforcement are to be no less
than 0.2% of the cross-sectional area). Half of this value should be located on each face.
This 0.2% is the recommended value, where the British National Annex uses the
recommended value.
Horizontal: As,vmin = 25% of the vertical amounts or 0.001Ac which ever is the greater is
recommended. The British National Annex states to use the suggested values, it puts
special emphasis on the thermal effects in the case of crack control though.
Half of both the vertical and horizontal steel areas should be located at each face of the
wall.
Shear: In the case where the total vertical reinforcement area of the wall exceeds 0.02A c, shear
links should be provided in accordance to the requirements of columns. This in turn
details the link diameters to be either no less than 6 mm or one quarter of the maximum
longitudinal bars. The spacing of shall not exceed the value given by s cl,tmax. This value is
recommended to be the least of the following three distances:
- 20 times the minimum longitudinal bar diameter

- the lesser dimension of the column (wall thickness)
- 400 mm
The Eurocode furthermore gives additional specifications for shear link areas in cases where the
main reinforcement is placed nearest to the external face of the wall.
For other non-mentioned cases or any uncertainty, Section 9.6 in EN 1992-1-1:2004 code depicts
all detailed reinforcement requirements.
5.1.2 Maximum allowable reinforcement areas
SANS 10100-1:
The area of reinforcement shall not exceed 4% of the cross-sectional area of the member.
EN 1992-1:
Again, similar to the minimum steel area requirements, the max allowable areas are defined in
terms of the As,vmax. The As,vmax = 0.04Ac which is 4% of the cross-sectional area of the member.
Additional rules are provided concerning laps as presented in EN 1992-1-1:2004 section 9.6.2(1)
Note2.
5.2 Spacing of reinforcement

Both standards describe a number of requirements for the minimum spacing of re-bars. These
specifications mainly depend on the size of aggregate placed in the concrete.
40
SANS 10100-1:
Refer to the section 4.11.8 in (SABS 0100-1 Ed 2.2, 2000)

- When the diameter of the re-bars exceeds the maximum aggregate size plus 5 mm, a
spacing of less that value should be avoided.
- A pair of bars or a bundle of more than 2 bars should be regarded as a single bar having the
diameter reaching an equivalent area.
The spacing of bars should be made suitable for proper concrete compaction
- The horizontal distance between bars should be no less than (h agg+5 mm) for which the hagg
is the maximum coarse aggregate size.
- In the case where there more than one row of reinforcement, the vertical distance between
the bars should at least be 2/3hagg and the bars should be vertically in line.
Additional rules and regulations are applicable in the case of pairs of bars and bundles of bars
(Sections 4.11.8.11.2.2 and 4.11.8.11.2.3 of SABS 0100-1)
Spacing of shear links is mentioned in section 4.11.4.5.2, as mentioned above under the
minimum area requirements for shear reinforcements.
EN 1992-1:
The clear spacing of bars relies on the same basic ‘aggregate’ principles as described in the
South African standard. Section 8.2 in EN 1992-1-1:2004 describes:
The reinforcement bars should be spaced such that the placing and compacting of concrete can
be done adequately assuring optimum bond conditions.
Any clear distance between the bars, horizontal or vertical, shall not be less than:
- k1∙(bar diameter)
- (dg + k2)
- 20 mm
For which k1 and k2 are constants recommended to be 1 and 5 mm respectively. The British use
the recommended values in their National Annex.
Furthermore, the Eurocode specifies additional rules to be followed concerning the bar spacing.
Assuring the minimum requirements of steel reinforcement areas, the vertical bar spacing (s) in a
wall shall not exceed the lesser of 3 times the wall thickness or 400 mm. Whereas the horizontal
bar spacing should be more than 400 mm. (Section 9.6).
Further to the above regulations given in EN 1992-1-1:2004, additional specifications are

applicable to the detailing as specified in the superseding water retaining code EN 1992-3:2005.
In addition to Section 9.6.4 in EN 1992-1-1:2004, EN 1992-3:2005 specifies that Sections 9.6.5
and 9.6.6 to be followed in cases of corner connections between walls and the provision for
movement joints.
41
5.3 Anchorage
Reinforcement bars subjected to direct tension must be firmly anchored if it is not to be pulled out of the
concrete member. The anchorage depends on the bond condition between the re-bars and the concrete.
SANS 10100-1:
The anchorage bond strength is assumed to be constant over the full length of the bars. The
basic principles followed rely on the design bar force divided by the effective contact area of the
bar.
Table 24 details values for the ultimate anchorage bond stress fbu.
Table 5. 1: Ultimate Anchorage bond strength according to SABS 0100

(SABS 0100-1 Ed 2.2, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Bar type Ultimate anchorage bond stress fbu
Mpa
Concrete Grade
20 25 30 35 40
Plain bar in tension 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.9
Plain bar in compression 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.3
Deformed bar in tension 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.15 3.4
Deformed bar in compression 2.7 3.1 3.5 4.2
The concrete grade of 35 MPa is not included in the original “Table 24”. Linear interpolation was
done to obtain the fbu = 3.15 MPa.
The required anchorage length can be calculated using:
fb = ≤ fbu [eq:5.1]
for: Fs the force in the bar (or group of bars)

Fs = (fs/γm)As = 0.87fyAs
bar diameter
L being the anchorage length to solve for since the bond strength (fbu) is known
and can be read from Table 24.
In elements where the member thickness exceeds 300 mm, a lower bond condition is assumed
for elements in the top of horizontal sections and thus a 30% reduction of the fbu values in Table
24 is applicable. This has a direct 30% increasing effect on the eventual anchorage length (L)
being calculated.
42
EN 1992-1:
Similar to the SANS 10100-1, the length required relies mainly on the principle of the pull out
force divided by the contact area :
Tensile pull out force = (cross-sectional area of bar) x (direct stress)
= ∙fs [eq:5.2]
Anchorage force = (contact area) x (anchorage bond stress)

= (lb,rqdπØ)xfbd [eq:5.3]
And: Tensile pull out force = Anchorage force. Therefore equating the two and solving for the
anchorage length (lb,rqd) gives:
lb,rqd = fsØ/4fbd
= (fyk Ø/4.6 fbd) [eq:5.4]
considering the partial safety factor for steel (γm) is 1.15 (fyk = fs/γm).
For: lb,rqd anchorage length
Ø bar diameter
fbd ultimate anchorage bond stress
fs direct tensile or compressive stress in the bar
To calculate the ultimate anchorage bond stress fbd a simple equation is used.
fbd = 2.25 η1η2fctd [eq:5.5]
For: fctd the design concrete tensile strength
fctd = αct fctk,0,05 / γm [eq:5.6]
for: αct a coefficient that takes account for the long term effects on the
tensile strength and unfavourable effects. Can be taken as 1.0 as
recommended
fctk,0,05 characteristic axial tensile strength of concrete obtainable from Table 3.1
in EN 1992-1-1:2004.
γm being the partial safety factor for concrete (1.5)
η1 factor related to the quality of the bond condition, being 1.0 assuming good conditions
and 0.7 for reasons where bad bond conditions can be deduced
η2 a factor related to the bar diameter
η2 = 1.0 for Ø ≤ 32 mm
η2 = (132- Ø)/100 for Ø ≥ 32 mm
Lower bond conditions exist once the concrete member thickness exceeds 250 mm. Figure 5.1
provides information.
43
Figure 5. 1: ‘Good’ bond conditions (EN 1992-1-1, 2004)
The design anchorage length lbd can now be calculated by:
lbd = α1α2α3α4α5∙lb,rqd [eq:5.7]
For: all constants are given in Table 8.2 in EN 1992-1-1:2004
α1 effect of the form of the bars

α2 effect of concrete minimum cover
α3 effect of confinement of transverse reinforcement
α4 the influence of one or more welded transverse bars along the design anchorage
length
α5 effect of the pressure transverse to the plane of splitting along the design
anchorage length
Also: the product (α2α3α5) ≥ 0.7;
The Eurocode furthermore gives regulations for minimum requirements for the anchorage lengths. If no
further limitation is provided, the minimum anchorage length in tension and compression is defined by two
distinct equations 8.6 and 8.7 respectively.
5.4 Summary to detailing and anchorage

Table 5.2 summarizes the findings and discussions used in chapter 5.
44
Table 5. 2: Summary to detailing and anchorages
Topic Former Subsequent

5.1 Reinforcement areas:
5.1.1 Minimum required Main: As ≥ 0.4% of Ac Main: As ≥ 0.2% of Ac
Horizontal: As ≥ 0.25% of Ac in the Horizontal: As ≥ 25% of amount
case where vertical bars to resist placed vertically. Or As ≥ 0.1% of Ac
compression. For members in plain whichever being the greater
tension, As ≥ 0.45% of Ac
Shear: applicable when main As ≥ 2% Shear: applicable when main As ≥
of Ac. Diameter provided to be 6mm 2% of Ac. Diameter provided to be
or ¼∙(main compression bar 6mm or ¼∙(main vertical bar
diameter). Spaced by twice the wall diameter). Spaced by either 20
thickness and vertical direction times minimum vertical bar
additionally at 16 times bar diameter, the wall thickness or 400
diameter. mm whichever the least.
5.1.2 Maximum allowable As ≤ 4% of Ac As ≤ 4% of Ac
5.2 Spacing of reinforcement:

General Spacing to be such that the placing Spacing to be such that the placing
and compaction of concrete can be and compaction of concrete can be
done adequately assuring proper done adequately assuring proper
reinforcement bond conditions reinforcement bond conditions
Horizontal s ≥ (hagg + 5mm) s ≥ (bar diameter)

≥ (dg + 5mm)
≥ (20mm)
whichever the biggest
Vertical s ≥ 2(hagg)/3 , the bars should be Vertical spacings to be the same as
vertically in line. mentioned horizontal.
∅
5.3 Anchorage
L = Fs/( πfbu) , for fbu (the ultimate fctd = 0.87fctk,0,05 , further that ƒbd =
bond strength) obtainable from 2.25 η1η2fctd , for ƒbd the ultimate
Table 24 in SABS 0100-1. bond strength, and also lb,rqd = (ƒyk
Ø/4.6 ƒbd) , leading finally to lbd =
α1α2α3α4α5∙lb,rqd.
A 30% reduction in the ultimate The factor η1 = 0.7 (decreasing the
bond strength is applicable for ultimate bond strength by 30%) in
members having a depth exceeding cases of good bond conditions. This
300mm relates to members whose thickness
exceeds 250mm
45
5.4.1 Direct ultimate anchorage bond strength (fbu vs. fbd)
A comparison was made between the ultimate bond strength values presented by the two standards. The
bond strength plays the determining factor in the calculation of anchorage lengths.
SANS 10100-1:
Table 5. 3: Ultimate anchorage bond strength according to SABS 0100

(SABS 0100-1 Ed 2.2, 2000)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Mpa
Concrete Grade
20 25 30 35 40
Plain bar in tension 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.9
Plain bar in compression 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.3
Deformed bar in tension 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.15 3.4
Deformed bar in compression 2.7 3.1 3.5 4.2
EN 1992-1:
Table 5. 4: Ultimate anchorage bond strength according to EN 1992
1 2 3 4 5 6
Mpa
Concrete Grade
20 25 30 35 40
Plain bar in tension
Plain bar in compression
Deformed bar in tension 1.95 2.25 2.7 3 3.3
Deformed bar in compression
These values were obtained by applying the equations as discussed in section “3.3 Anchorage”
of the research report. The following was assumed to apply:
fctd = αct fctk,0,05 /γm
where αct = 1.0 and
γm = 1.5
Continuing the assumptions to calculate fbd = 2.25 η1 η2fctd:
good bond conditions give: (η1 = 1.0)
re-bar diameter ≤ 32 mm gives: (η2 = 1.0)
We can deduce the values as shown in Table 5.5, 5.6 and in Figure 5.2.
46
Table 5. 6: Calculation values of EN Table 5. 5: SABS 0100 vs. EN 1992
1992
fck,cube fctk,0.05 fctd SABS EN

20 1.3 0.866667 fck,cube fbu fck,cube fbd
25 1.5 1 20 2.2 20 1.95
30 1.8 1.2 25 2.5 25 2.25
35 2 1.333333 30 2.9 30 2.7
40 2.2 1.466667 35 3.15 35 3
45 2.5 1.666667 40 3.4 40 3.3
50 2.7 1.8 45 3.4 45 3.75
55 2.9 1.933333 50 3.4 50 4.05
60 3 2 55 3.4 55 4.35
60 3.4 60 4.5
Figure 5. 2: Ultimate anchorage bond strength comparison
The former standards (BS 8007, SANS 10100-1) do not specify any values for fbu that are applicable for
concrete strengths beyond 40 MPa as shown in Table 5.3. The values for fbu are therefore assumed to
stay constant for greater cube strengths.
In the remaining parts of the figure (Fig. 5.2) is can be seen that there is a small difference between
SANS 10100-1 and EN 1992-1.
47
Annexure D
Crack width comparison
(Extract WRC Report (Wium, 2007))
C.1.1 Crack width versus service moment
Graphs
Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Bar Variable Bar

Service Reinforceme Section Steel Ratio Moment Spacing Diameter
Moment nt Area Thickness Ratio
Figure C.1 Crack width versus service moment
48
Figure C.1 presents an interesting comparison between the design codes and the manner in which the
crack width increases with an increased service moment.
It is clearly shown that the service moment is directly proportional to the predicted crack width which
develops within the concrete.
There is a slight difference between the BS 8007:1987 and the Eurocode 2 spreadsheet-values.
The values obtained when using Prokon with BS 8007:1987 almost exactly match the values when using
the BS 8007-spreadsheet.
When using Eurocode 2 in Prokon, the values differ quite a lot from the spreadsheet values as can be
seen with the bottom line which lies below the other three sets of values.
49
C.2.2 Crack width versus reinforcement area
Graphs

Figure C.2 Crack width versus reinforcement area
Figure C.2 shows that the crack width increases dramatically when the reinforcement area dips below the
2
value of 2000 mm /m. There is however little change in the crack widths when increasing the
2
reinforcement area above this value. This also shows that a minimum area of reinforcement of 2000 mm
is required to restrict the crack widths to 0.2 mm.
50
The values obtained from Prokon correspond almost exactly to the values from the spreadsheet
calculations.
C.2.3 Crack width versus section thickness
Graphs

Figure C.3 Crack width versus section thickness
Figure C.3 shows a great variance in the crack widths calculated by the different design formulae.
51
These graphs differ a lot due to the different assumptions made regarding the surface zones of
reinforcement.
A. BS 8007 specifies the following surface zone depths :
 For h < 500 mm, assume each reinforcement face controls h/2 depth of concrete. Where h is the
total depth of the slab.
 For h > 500 mm, assume each reinforcement face controls 250 mm depth of concrete, ignoring
any central core beyond this surface depth.
B. prEN 1992-3 specifies :
The effective tension area should be taken as having a depth equal to 2.5 times the distance from the
tension face of the concrete to the centroid of the reinforcement, although for slabs the depth of
this effective area should be limited to (h-x)/3 where x is the depth to the neutral axis. An overall
upper limit of h/2 also applies.
This means that the surface zone depth is the minimum value of:
 2.5 x (h-d)
 (h-x)/3
 h/2
52
C.2.4 Crack width versus steel ratio
Graphs

Figure C.4 Crack width versus steel ratio
Figure C.4 shows that the values obtained from the two different codes vary considerably at higher steel
ratios where the area of steel required exceeds the area of steel provided.
53
The Prokon values from the two codes however correspond to their respective values from the
spreadsheet.
This graph shows that a steel ratio of 0.5 is required to restrict the crack widths to a value of 0.2 mm.
54
C.2.5 Crack width versus moment ratio
Graphs

Figure C.1 Crack width versus moment ratio
Figure C.5 shows that in the region where the crack width is in the range of 0-0.2 mm, the value of all four
data ranges corresponds.
55
Above the maximum allowable crack width of 0.2 mm the data values become scattered and the
Eurocode 2 values moves away from the other three data sets. Following from Figure 11.5 we can see
that for this specific section an ultimate moment (M u) of almost half the moment of resistance (Mr) is
required to restrict the crack width to 0.2 mm.
56
C.2.6 Crack width versus bar spacing
Graphs

Figure 02 Crack width versus bar spacing
From Figure C.6 it is apparent that all four data sets exhibit an almost exponential trend at which the
crack width changes relative to the spacing of the reinforcement bars.
57
Again, the Eurocode 2 values obtained from Prokon does not match the values of the other three data
sets. At a crack width of 0.2 mm the other three data sets lie on the same line. This figure also shows that
for this section a maximum bar spacing of 250 mm is allowed to restrict the crack widths to 0.2 mm.
58
C.2.7 Crack width versus bar diameter
Graphs

Figure C.3 Crack width versus bar diameter
For smaller bar diameters Eurocode 2 predicts larger crack widths than calculated with BS 8007.
The Prokon values almost exactly match the values from the spreadsheets.
Following from Figure C.7 it seems that the maximum allowable bar diameter, to restrict crack widths to
0.2 mm, is a 25 mm bar for this specific concrete section.
59
Annexure E
Crack control
Both standards specify calculations for the crack spacing, calculations for the expected crack width, and
both have prescribed minimum and maximum allowable limits to the parameters of a crack. The following
content details formulas and equations to calculate the spacing of cracks, their maximum widths and also
the maximum allowable crack widths.
2.1 Spacing of cracks

The spacing of cracks refers to the expected clear distance between two or more cracks on the same
element under consideration.
SANS 10100-1:
When sufficient reinforcement is provided to distribute cracking, the likely maximum spacing of
cracks is given by:
smax [eq:2.1]
for: smax the maximum spacing of cracks

fct the tensile strength of the concrete
fb the average bond strength between concrete and steel
the size of each reinforcing bar
ρ the steel ratio based on the areas of surface zones
The “BS 8007:1987” provides additional specifications for square-mesh fabric reinforcement
where the cross wires are not smaller than the main bars.
EN 1992-1:
In situations where bonded reinforcement is fixed at reasonably close centres within the tension
zone, the maximum final crack spacing can be calculated by:
sr,max ck3 + k1k2k4Ø / ρp,eff [eq:2.2]
for: sr,max the maximum spacing of cracks
Ø the bar diameter
c the concrete cover to the longitudinal reinforcement
k1 a coefficient that takes account of the bond properties of the reinforcement, being
0.8 for high bond bars, and 1.6 for bars with effectively plain surfaces
k2 accounting for the distribution of strain, being 0.5 for bending and 1.0 for pure
tension.
k3 and k4 may be found the in National Annex, recommended values are 3.4 and 0.425
respectively, where the UK decided to use the recommended values.
The Eurocode2 has the following additional “special” specifications:
- For sections where more than one re-bar diameters are used, an Øeq is calculated, to be used
instead of Ø in equation eq2.2, with a given relation accounting for the relative weights that
the bar contributes.
60
- For cases of eccentric tension in the re-bars k2 may be calculated by using intermediate
values. Additional formulas are given.
- Provisions for when the calculated spacing exceeds a value calculated by 5(c+ Ø/2), or when
there is no bonded reinforcement within the tension zone another rather simple calculation
may be followed. Figure 2.1 (to be followed) might aid for a better understanding
- A different formula takes account for where the angle between the axes of principle stresses
and the direction of reinforcement, for members reinforced in two orthogonal directions, is
significant (>15°).
- A simple factor may be applied for walls subjected to early thermal contraction where the
horizontal steel area (As) doesn’t fulfill earlier requirements and the bottom of the wall being
restrained.
The Eurocode furthermore provides a useful figure showing the relationship between the crack
width “w” and the relative distance from a bar. (See Figure 2.1)
Figure 2. 1: Crack width “w” at concrete surface relative to distance from a bar
(EN 1992-1-1, 2004)
2.2 Crack widths

In both standards the approximate maximum crack spacing has to be calculated first before calculation of
the estimated crack width.
61
SANS 10100-1:
For elements subjected to drying shrinkage and thermal contraction, the width of a fully
developed crack can be acquired from:
wmax = smax∙є [eq:2.3]

for: wmax estimated maximum crack width
smax maximum crack spacing
-6
є effective strain = [єcs + єte – (100x10 )]
where: єcs is the estimated shrinkage strain
єte is the estimated total thermal contraction after peak
temperature arising from thermal effects
Provided that the strain in the tension reinforcement is limited to 0.8f y/Es and the stress in the
concrete is limited to 0.45fcu, the design surface crack width ‘w’ may be calculated using:
w= [eq:2.4]
for: acr distance from the point being considered to the surface of the nearest
longitudinal bar
єm average strain at level being considered
cmin min cover to tension steel
h overall depth of member
x depth of neutral axis
where: єm = є1 – є2 (Strain at level considered – strain due to stiffening effect)
and: the stiffening effect may be assessed by a formula that depends on the limiting design
surface crack. For w ≤ 0.2 mm:
є2 = [eq:2.5]
and for w ≤ 0.1 mm:

є2 = [eq:2.6]
and: Assessing the crack widths caused by direct tension, we use:

w = 3acrєm
For a detailed interpretation of the equations, please refer to the respective standard with the aid of the
list of “Formulas and Equations” under “References”.
EN 1992-1:
Similar to the former standards, the Eurocode’s calculations rely on the crack spacing initially to
be computed. The crack width, wk, may be calculated from:
wk = sr,max (εsm - εcm) [eq:2.7]
for: sr,max the maximum crack spacing
εsm the mean strain in the reinforcement under the relevant combination of loads,
including the effect of imposed deformations and taking into account the effects
of tension stiffening. Only the additional tensile strain beyond the state of zero
strain of the concrete at the same level is considered
εcm is the mean strain in the concrete between cracks
To calculate the factor (εsm - εcm) the following equation is used in the EN 1992-1-1:2004:
62
[eq:2.8]
of which some of the variables are easily obtainable, by either simple constants depending only
on the long term or short term loading, whereas others rely on further equations to be followed.
The superseding water retaining standard (EN 1992-3:2005) specifies a number of other
overruling equations to be followed in order to calculate the (εsm - εcm) factor. The formulas mainly
depend on the type of restraint the member is subjected to.
Figure 2. 2: Restraint factors for crack widths (EN 1992-3, 2005)
For the case in (a) in Figure 2.2,

(εsm - εcm) = 0.5 αekckƒct,eff(1+1/(αeρ))Es [eq:2.9]
and for (b),
(εsm - εcm) = Raxεfree [eq:2.10]
for: Rax the restraint factor (as depicted in Figure L.1 (Annex L in EN 1992-3:2005))
The EN 1992-1-1:2004 has additional specifications to determine the control of cracking without
direct calculations (Section 7.3.3 in (1)). It provides tables of the maximum bar diameters for
crack control and the maximum bar spacing. Modifications to certain exceptions are also possible
by applying a formula that accounts for bending and cases in direct tension.
2.2 Crack width limits

Both standards specify the maximum allowable surface crack widths in reinforced concrete members. If
not complying with the following margins, a different concrete strength or other detailing specifications
might have to be considered.
SANS 10100-1:
The permissible crack widths should be controlled considering the required tightness and/or
aesthetic appearance. The maximum design surface crack widths for direct tension and flexure or
restrained temperature and moisture effects according to the BS 8007:1987 are:

63
According to SABS 0100-1, the general allowable width of 0.3 mm should not be exceeded.
Where, however, the concrete is exposed to particularly aggressive conditions (see SABS 0100-
2), the surface width of cracks at points nearest to the main reinforcement are to be limited to
0.004 times the nominal cover to the main reinforcement.
EN 1992-1:
The Eurocode “EN 1992-1-1:2004” details a number of rather simple general considerations that
have to be taken care of. An example might be “cracking shall be limited to an extent that will not
impair the proper functioning or durability of the structure….” The standard recommends using
Table 7.1N to obtain values of wmax which describes the limits to which the maximum allowable
surface crack width is determined. These values range from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm depending on the
type of exposure the element is being subjected to. The British National Annex recommends
using a different table (Table NA.4), which differs only slightly, where the range is only between
0.2 mm and 0.3 mm.
The superseding water retaining standard “EN 1992-3:2005” classifies the constraints to which
surface cracks are limited by the degree of protection against leakage that is prescribed or
required by the user.
Table 2. 1: Tightness class for crack control (EN 1992-3, 2005)
Tightness Class 0. — the provisions in 7.3.1 of “EN 1992-1-1:2004” may be adopted.
Tightness Class 1. — cracks which can be expected to pass through the full thickness of the
section should be limited to wk1 (see equation eq:2.7). The given provisions in 7.3.1 of
“EN 1992-1-1:2004” apply in cases where the full thickness of the section is not cracked.
Two further conditions that require a more detailed observation are also to be fulfilled.
Tightness Class 2. — cracks which may be expected to pass through the full thickness of the
section should generally be avoided unless appropriate measures have been
incorporated.
Tightness Class 3. — special measures will be required to ensure water tightness.
The value wk1 (see equation eq:2.7) depends on a ratio between the hydrostatic pressure (h D)
and the wall thickness (h) of the containing structure.
If hD/h ≤ 5, wk1=0.2 mm;

hD/h ≥ 35, wk1=0.05 mm;
64
For intermediate values between the 5 and 35 ratios, linear interpolation may be used between
0.05 mm and 0.2 mm.
2.3 Summary to cracks

The following table provides a summary of the topics and details discussed before.
Table 2. 2: Summary to cracks

Topic Former Subsequent
2.1 Spacing of cracks:
smax = fct/fb x Ø/2ρ; additional specs sr,max = k3c + k1k2k4Ø/ρp,eff ; where
on square mesh fabric the k constants account for bond
reinforcement properties, bending/tension strain
distributions etc. A number of
various additional specs are
detailed.
2.2 Crack widths:

Thermal & Moisture wmax = smax∙є ; for which є being the
effects: effective strain [єcs + єte – (100x10-6)]
Flexural effects: wk = sr,max(εsm - εcm) ; of which the

(εsm - εcm) part is being calculated
using further complicated
formulas
Comment: The formulas used in the calculation The formulas used in the calculation
of crack widths arising from flexure, of crack widths arising from flexure,
are rather too complex to be are rather too complex to be
described in this "summary format". described in this "summary format".
It is recommended to see either the It is recommended to see either the
standards or the detailed standards or the detailed
description in the report. description in the report.
2.3 Crack width limits

(1) Severe exposure: 0.2mm; Depends on: (1) the degree of
(2) Aesthetic appearance: 0.1mm; exposure, and (2) the quantity of
(3) In general ≤ 0.3mm leakage allowed (prescribed by the
user). Values range from 0.05mm to
0.2mm determined by simple
applicable ratios.
Comment: Values depend on many variables. It
is advised to see the detailed report
section and/or the applicable
standards.
65
2.4.1 Graphical comparison
By observation, the formulas and equations represented in Table 2.2 are relatively dissimilar. The
following figure was prepared W le Roux in 2007.
Figure 2. 3: Relationship of crack width vs. Reinforcement area (le Roux , 2007)
Figure 2.3 was prepared comparing BS 8007:1987 and the Eurocode2 to the commercial software
package “Prokon” . Ignoring the Prokon curves it can be seen that there is a good similarity in the curves
between the codes.
66
Annexure F
Experimental measurements of crack width
APPARATUS AND PLANNING

I(Extract from the final year undergraduate research report by R Vosloo)
This chapter presented the planning that took place for the practical experiments, the apparatus used and
the setup of the experiments.
The following items are addressed
 Concrete mix
 Framework design
 Reinforcement design
 Apparatus used
 Apparatus design
 Experimental setup
Experimental arrangement :
9 beam specimens were prepared. Three specimens were cast for each of three reinforcement
arrangements :
 2-Y10
 2-Y12
 3-Y12
All the specimens had the same dimensions.
 Length = 2400 mm
 Width = 200 mm
 Height = 150 mm
Figure 1 shows the experimental set-up.
67
667 mm
2000 mm
Figure 4: Experimental arrangement
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the two codes (BS 8007 and EN 1992-1) are compared by means of graphs. First, to verify
that the spreadsheet calculations are accurate, they are compared with Prokon crack width simulation by
means of graphs.
SPREADSHEET RESULTS VS. PROKON

The previously discussed parameters are incremented into the spreadsheet calculations and Prokon.
Different service moments are then inserted into the spreadsheet and Prokon to tabulate the crack
results. The tabulated values are then plotted onto specific graphs to compare the results graphically. The
parameter that stayed constant during the specific analysis is shown on the top right hand corner of each
graph. Both design codes are simulated in Prokon and compared to both spreadsheet design codes.
The following four data sets are presented in each of the following figures:
 BS8007 – Data from the spreadsheets when using BS 8007:1987.

 EC 2 – Data from the spreadsheets when using prEN 1992-3.
 Prokon_BS – Data from Prokon when using BS 8007:1987.
 Prokon_EC – Data from Prokon when using prEN 1992-3 (Eurocode 2).
The following three graphs are shown to compare the Prokon crack widths with the spreadsheet crack
widths:
 Figure 5: Crack Width vs. Service Moment
 Figure 6: Crack Width vs. Moment Ratio
 Figure 7: Crack Width vs. Reinforcement Area
68
Figure 5: Crack Width vs. Service Moment
Figure 5 presents the comparison between the crack width and the service moment. The crack width
increases linear as the service moment increases.
It can be seen that Eurocode 2 predicts a slightly wider crack width under the same service moment than
BS 8007:1987 for higher service moments. However, at a very low service moment the BS 8007:1987
predicts a wider crack width than the Eurocode 2. In the design region of 0.2 mm the two codes provide
very similar results when performing the hand calculations.
69
Figure 6: Crack Width vs. Moment Ratio
Figure 6 presents the crack width against the moment ratio. It can be seen that where the crack width is
between 0.05-0.2 mm, the results corresponds favourably between the codes. However, for larger
moment ratios the values differ increasingly. The Eurocode 2 spreadsheet calculations are very similar to
the Prokon simulation.
70
Figure 7: Crack Width vs. Reinforcement Area
Figure 7 shows that the crack width increases significantly as the reinforcement area decreases from
2
below the value of 600 mm . The BS 8007:1987 crack width decreases slower than the Eurocode 2 as
the reinforcement area increases. The BS 8007:1987 overlaps at 0.75 mm crack width. The values from
the spreadsheet calculations correspond almost exactly with the Prokon values.
From these graphs it is reasonable to believe that the spreadsheet calculations are sufficiently accurate to
be used in this study.
SHREADSHEET RESULTS VS. PRACTICAL RESULTS

In this section the practical experiment result are compared with the spreadsheet calculation results to
determine which code is more reliable. The example used in this section is the beam with 2-Y10
reinforcement. The practical results are analyzed on Spreadsheet Appendix D (of the Vosloo report). The
crack width over the effective area was measured and tabularized as shown on Table 1. The average
crack width values are to be compared with the BS 8007:1987 and the Eurocode 2.
71
Table 1: Practical Experiment Results (2-Y10)
2-Y10 Crack Number Avarage

Appleid Load [KN] 1 2 3 4 5 6 Crack Width
8 0.04 0.040
9 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.063
10 0.1 0.08 0.1 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.083
11 0.12 0.1 0.14 0.12 0.08 0.1 0.110
12 0.16 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.1 0.12 0.133
13 0.18 0.16 0.2 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.167
14 0.2 0.16 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.2 0.187
15 0.22 0.18 0.26 0.2 0.18 0.2 0.207
The experimental results are compared with the Spreadsheet results with the same applied loads. The
comparison is shown in Figure 8.
As = 2-Y10
Figure 8: Crack Width vs. Applied Moment
Figure 8 shows that the practical results mature towards the Eurocode 2 results as the applied force
increases. At low loads the crack width is smaller than both design codes, possibly because the crack
depth has not fully developed all the way to the reinforcement. This implies that crack width is not fully
dependent on the strain in the reinforced steel bars and that the strain of the concrete on the crack
position still plays a role on the crack width.
The applied force is determined at the instant the crack originates. This is done with the Instron results of
applies force vs. vertical displacement as shown on Figure 9. All the beams gave similar results because
72
at the instant the crack occurs only the concrete strain has an effect on the crack width. The tabularized
results are shown in Appendix A (of the Vosloo report).
Figure 9: Applied Force vs. Vertical Displacement
The applied force at which the crack would originate was determined by calculating the position where the
two linear lines overlap. The average original applied cracking force is 7.08 KN for all 9 specimens. The
horizontal sections on the graph illustrate the crack width still being developed after the applied force is
paused.
Figure 10 presents a three dimensional graph that allows an improved overview of the comparison
between the two codes and the practical results. The tabularized form of this graph is in Appendix B (of
the Vosloo report).
73
Figure 10: Crack Width vs. Area Ratio vs. Moment Ratio
The three dimensions shown in Figure 7 are :
 Ratio of Service Moment/Crack Moment

The service moment is calculated with an applied force of 10kN, 15kN and 20kN.
The average crack moment is calculated with the crack force that was recorded.
 Ratio of Area reinforcement/Area concrete
This dimension is the ratio of the percentage area reinforcement in the concrete area.
74
 The crack width result calculated from the spreadsheets and measured in the experiment.
The graph shows that as the moment ratio increases and the area ratio decreases, the practical results
are closer to the Eurocode 2 than to the BS 8007:1987. The Eurocode 2 surface in the figure is shaped
similar to the practical results and is more parallel to the result surface than that of BS 8007:1987.
The region where the area ratio is low and the moment ratio is high, the graph shows that the difference
between the practical results and the BS 8007:1987 is higher than the difference between the Eurocode 2
and the practical results. This implies that in situations of low reinforced steel percentages and high
applied moments the Eurocode 2 is the favourable method.
Appendix B – Table 1: Practical crack widths compared with the two codes
Beam (2-Y10)
Appleid Moment Practical
[KNm] BS 8007:1987 prEN 1992-3 Results
3.133 0.089 0.099 0.040
3.466 0.103 0.110 0.063
3.799 0.118 0.123 0.083
4.133 0.132 0.140 0.110
4.466 0.147 0.158 0.133
4.799 0.161 0.176 0.167
5.133 0.175 0.193 0.187
5.466 0.190 0.211 0.207
75
Appendix B – Table 2: Crack Width vs. Area Reinforcement Ratio vs. Service Moment Ratio
Practical Results
Area % 1.130973 0.753982 0.523599
M Ratio
1.412 0.043867 0.079333 0.118233
2.118644 0.078533 0.154667 0.2459
2.824859 0.1132 0.23 0.373567
prEN 1992-3
Area % 1.130973 0.753982 0.523599
M Ratio
1.412 0.044352 0.077378 0.122889
2.118644 0.078789 0.137247 0.218329
2.824859 0.113226 0.197116 0.313769
BS 8007:1987
Area % 1.130973 0.753982 0.523599
M Ratio
1.412 0.055115 0.086713 0.122558
2.118644 0.09089 0.144227 0.205315
2.824859 0.126665 0.20174 0.288072
76
Annexure G
Deflections of structures
(Extract from the final year undergraduate research report by J-L Maritz)
2.5 Methods for calculating deflection

This section includes a description of each calculation method.
2.5.1 SABS 0100-1 Annexure A, clause A.2.3 method (SABS 0100-1, 2000)
This method calculates deflection from curvatures. The deflected shape of an element is related to the
curvatures as follows:
1 d 2

rx dx 2
where
1
is the curvature at x; and
rx
∆ is the deflection at x
This method can be simplified by taking the following approach:

1
  KL2
rb
where
∆ is the deflection at mid-span;
L is the effective span of the element;
K is a coefficient that depends on the shape of the bending moment diagram (See Figure
2.4); and
1
is the curvature at mid-span
rb
and
1 M

rb Ec I
with
Mapplied moment
Ma  Maisthe
M
∆M is the moment caused by the tension in concrete calculated as follows:
1 b( h  x )3
M  x1Mpa
3 (d  x)
77
I is the second moment of area and is determined depending on one of the following
situations:
1) uncracked section: I = Ig
2) cracked section: I = Icr
Ig is the second moment of area (ignoring reinforcement)
Icr is the moment of inertia of the cracked transformed section, determined as follows:
I cr  13 bxcr  As (d  xcr ) 2  e
3
where
b is the section width;
xcr is the distance to the neutral axis of the cracked section;
As is the cross-sectional area of tension reinforcement;
d is the effective depth; and
e is the ratio of Es/Ec
Loading Bending moment K

diagram
MB 
MA
K  0.083(1  )
4
MA  MB
Mc 
MC

MA MB K  0.104(1  )
10
MC MA  MB

MC
Figure 2.4 – K values for various bending moment diagrams
2.5.2 SABS 0100-1 Annexure A, clause A.2.4 method (SABS 0100-1, 2000)
This method is seen as an alternative to the method described in section 2.5.1 and recommends that the
immediate deflection ∆i at mid-span be calculated as follows:
L2
i  KMa
Ec I e
where
∆i is the immediate deflection;
Ma is the applied moment;
L is the effective span of the member;
78
Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete;
Ie is the effective second moment of area; and
2.4)
The second moment of area Ie should incorporate the degree of cracking in the element and can be
approximated by the following formula:
M 
3
 M 
3
 (but not exceeding Ig)
I e   cr  I g  1   cr   I cr
where  Ma    M a  
Mcr is the cracking moment of the element, such that:
fr I g
Mcr 
yt
and
fr is the modulus of rupture, such that:
f r  0.65 f cu for unrestrained slabs
(fcu is the compression strength of concrete)
Ig is the moment of inertia of concrete section (ignoring reinforcement);
yt is the distance from the centroidal axis of concrete (ignoring reinforcement), to the
extreme fibre in tension; and
Icr is the moment of inertia of the cracked transformed section, determined as described in
section 2.5.1.
2.5.3 Eurocode 2, Clause 7.4.3 method (Eurocode 2, clause 7.4.3)
This method takes flexural curvature of the element into account and determines the short term deflection
as follows:
1
i  KL2
where ri
∆i is the immediate deflection;
L is the effective span of the member;
2.4); and
1
is the flexural curvature
ri
with
1 Ma

ri Ec I e
Ma is the applied moment;
Ec is the elasticity of concrete; and
Ie is the effective second moment of area and is determined depending on one of the
following situations:
1) uncracked section: Ie = Iu
2) cracked section:
I cr
Ie  2
 I  M cr  79
1  1  cr  
 Iu  M a 
where
Iu is the second moment of area for an uncracked section;
Icr is the moment of inertia for a cracked section as determined in section 2.5.1;
Mcr is the cracking moment determined as follows:
ft Iu
M cr 
with h  xu
h the height of the section
ft the tension strength of the concrete
xu the distance to the centroidal axis of the uncracked section
3. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
This chapter presents the preparation of the experiment as well as the preparation of the specimens to be
tested. Further detail on the experiment as well as the setup of the experiment is also included in this
chapter. Finally this chapter explains the test procedure.
3.1 Experimental preparation

Preparation for the experiment includes the selection of the size of slab to be tested and the amount of
reinforcement it must contain. The load value and application is also determined and the boundary
conditions for the slab explained.
3.1.1 Selection of Slab Size
The experiment was performed on typical flat slabs but was scaled down by a factor of 2.5 for
convenience. A typical flat slab panel of 6 m x 6 m area and 0.25 m thick was identified and scaled down
as shown in Table 3.1
Table 3.1 – Scaled down flat slab
Length (m) Width (m) Thickness (m)

Typical Flat Slab panel
6 6 0.25
Scaled down by factor 2.5
Slab used for Experiment 2.4 2.4 0.1
Only a strip of the scaled down slab was necessary for testing and thus the width of the slab was 0.6 m
which represents a typical column strip. The experiment requires a continuous slab and thus the length
consists of two spans of 2.4 m. An additional 0.2 m of length was added at each end to ensure that the
slab could be supported (see Figure 3.1).
80
5.2m
0.2m Span 1 - 2.4m Span 2 - 2.4m 0.2m

0.1m
Side view
600mm
100mm
Section
Figure 3.1 – Typical slab size
3.1.2 Slab Reinforcement
Altogether nine experimental slabs (specimens) were prepared each reinforced with either: 0.4%, 0.8% or
1.1% (percentage of cross sectional area) steel tension reinforcement as shown in Table 3.2. The reason
for choice of reinforcement is to compare the defection of lightly reinforced slabs with more heavily
reinforced slabs at the service moment. 0.4% Reinforced slabs are considered lightly reinforced where as
1.1% reinforced slabs are considered as more heavily reinforced slabs.
Table 3.2 – Summary of specimens tested
Tension Reinforcement (ρ) as percentage of

Specimen number Label
slab cross-sectional area
1 Slab 1a 0.4%
2 Slab 1b 0.4%
3 Slab 1c 0.4%
4 Slab 2a 0.8%
5 Slab 2b 0.8%
6 Slab 2c 0.8%
7 Slab 3a 1.1%
8 Slab 3b 1.1%
9 Slab 3c 1.1%
81
The tension steel reinforcement for each specimen is calculated using Table 3.2 and the cross-sectional
area of each slab. Table 3.3 contains a summary of required reinforcement and provided reinforcement
for each slab while Figure 3.2 illustrates the positioning of the reinforcement.
Table 3.3 – Summary of required and provided steel reinforcement
ρ as % of Slab Actual ρ as
cross- Height Width cross- As,prov % of cross-
Label As (mm²) As,prov
sectional (m) (m) sectional (mm²) sectional
area area (m²) area
Slab 1a 0.4% 0.1 0.6 0.06 240 3 - Y10 236 0.39%
Slab 1b 0.4% 0.1 0.6 0.06 240 3 - Y10 236 0.39%
Slab 1c 0.4% 0.1 0.6 0.06 240 3 - Y10 236 0.39%
Slab 2a 0.8% 0.1 0.6 0.06 480 6 - Y10 471 0.79%
Slab 2b 0.8% 0.1 0.6 0.06 480 6 - Y10 471 0.79%
Slab 2c 0.8% 0.1 0.6 0.06 480 6 - Y10 471 0.79%
Slab 3a 1.1% 0.1 0.4 0.04 440 4 - Y12 452 1.13%
Slab 3b 1.1% 0.1 0.4 0.04 440 4 - Y12 452 1.13%
Slab 3c 1.1% 0.1 0.4 0.04 440 4 - Y12 452 1.13%
A
1.8m
5.1m
Top tension reinf
Bottom tension reinf
Section A-A: Typical 0.8% reinforcment layout at mid-section
Figure 3.2 – Positioning of reinforcement
82
5. ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION
The analytical investigation includes an identification of three methods used for determining deflection and
the results obtained from each of these methods. These results are illustrated using tables and plots.
5.1.1 Methods of deflection calculation

Three methods of deflection calculation are used to determine the deflection of the slabs. The results for
each method are compared to the results obtained by the experiment performed.
5.1.2 SABS 0100-1 A.2.3 method

This method is used to determine the deflection from curvatures. The method is described in section
2.5.1 (of the Maritz report) and is similar to the method used in BS8110: Part 1: 1985
5.1.3 SABS 0100-1 A.2.4 method

This method is used as an alternative to the SABS 0100-1 A.2.3 method. The SABS 0100-1 A.2.4
method incorporates the degree of cracking in the element when determining the second moment of area.
The method is described in section 2.5.2 (of the Maritz report) and is similar to the method from Branson
also found in the ACI 318-02/318R-02.
5.1.4 Eurocode 2 Clause 7.4.3 method

Clause 7.4.3 of Eurocode 2 contains a method for calculating deflection. The method is described in
section 2.5.3 (of the Maritz report).
5.2 Results for deflection calculations of each method

The complete set of calculations for determining the deflection using each method can be found in
Appendix F (of the Maritz report). The deflections determined are equivalent to the Case 2 deflection of
the experimental investigation. The results of these calculations are summarised in this section.
Table 5.1 presents values for the deflection calculated by each method. The value for Δi consists of
subtracting the deflection calculated from the service moment caused by the permanent load from the
deflection obtained from the service moment caused by the entire load (permanent and imposed loads).
The reason for this is to compare these values to the experiment values considering the experiment
deflection were recorded without the effect of self-weight. Section 2.2 and 2.3 carefully explains the
procedure for taking this into consideration.
83
Table 5.1 – Summary of deflection determined for each slab
Calculation Method Slab number Δi (incl ΔDL) ΔDL Δi

Slab 1a 4.83 0.37 4.46
Slab 1b-c 4.9 0.39 4.51
SABS 0100-1 A.2.3
Slab 2a-c 7.06 0.37 6.69
Slab 3a-c 8.05 0.31 7.74
Slab 1a 1.28 0.32 0.96
Slab 1b-c 1.34 0.33 1.01
SABS 0100-1 A.2.4
Slab 2a-c 5.96 0.31 5.65
Slab 3a-c 7.94 0.3 7.64
Slab 1a 4.76 0.32 4.44
Eurocode 2 clause Slab 1b-c 4.89 0.32 4.57
7.4.3 Slab 2a-c 7.7 0.3 7.4
Slab 3a-c 8.6 0.29 8.31
The calculations for determining ΔDL and Δi (incl ΔDL) as presented in Table 5.1 is included in Appendix F
(of the Maritz report).
Table 5.2 contains the deflection values for each percentage of reinforcement. These values are plotted
in Figure 5.1.
Table 5.2 – Summary of deflections calculated for the percentage tension reinforcement (after ΔDL has been subtracted)
Calculation Method %ρ Δi
0.40% 4.485
SABS 0100-1 A.2.3 0.80% 6.69
1.10% 7.74
0.40% 0.985
SABS 0100-1 A.2.4 0.80% 5.65
1.10% 7.64
0.40% 4.505
Eurocode 2 clause
0.80% 7.4
7.4.3
1.10% 8.31
From Table 5.2 it can be seen that for these percentages of reinforcement the SABS 0100-1 A.2.3 method
and the Eurocode 2 clause 7.4.3 method gives more or less the same results while the SABS 0100-1
A.2.4 method gives slightly lower results especially at a low percentage reinforcement.
6. COMPARISON OF METHODS
The results of the different calculation methods are compared with each other as well as with the results
obtained from the experiment (see Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1). These methods are also compared by
creating a comparison ratio (ΔTheoretical/ΔExperimental). The closer the ratio is to one, the better the value
obtained from the theoretical calculation agrees with the value obtained from the experiment (considered
as the true value). Finally a comparison between the methods is done using a Ma/Mcr ratio.
84
6.1 Comparison of the deflections of each method
Table 6.1 – Summary of deflection determined for percentage tension reinforcement
Method %ρ Δi
0.40% 4.62
Experiment 0.80% 6.3
1.10% 7.68
9
8
7
Deflection (mm)
6
5
Experiment
4
SABS 0100-1
3 A.2.3
SABS 0100-1
2 A.2.4
Eurocode 2
1 Clause 7.4.3
0
0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4%
Figure 6.1 – Compare deflection versus percentage tension reinforcement
Figure 6.1 shows that the calculation methods generally results in a similar deflection value than obtained
from the experiment with the exception of the deflection value of the SABS 0100-1 A.2.4 method at low
percentage reinforcement.
6.2 Comparison of methods using a comparison ratio

Methods are also compared using a ΔTheoretical/ΔExperimental ratio as shown in Table 6.2.
85
Table 6.2 – Comparison ratio between deflection calculation methods and experiment
Comparison ratio
%ρ
ΔSABS1/Δexp ΔSABS2/Δexp ΔEC2/Δexp
0.4% 0.97 0.21 0.98

0.8% 1.06 0.90 1.17
1.1% 1.01 0.99 1.08
The ratios represent the relationship between the calculation methods and the experiment. These ratios
are illustrated in Figure 6.2 and show the deviation from the ideal ratio of 1 (represented by the thick red
horizontal line).
2.00
1.80
1.60
Comparison ratio
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60 ΔSABS1/Δexp
0.40 ΔSABS2/Δexp
0.20 ΔEC2/Δexp
0.00
0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4%
Figure 6.2 – Summary of comparison ratios versus % tension reinforcement
6.3 Comparison of methods using a MD/Mcr ratio

Another way to compare these methods is to plot the MD/Mcr (where MD is the applied service moment and
Mcr the cracking moment) ratio versus deflection for each method. Table 6.3 and 6.4 summarises these
values and is illustrated in Figure 6.3. All calculations are performed with use of Appendices C and F.
Table 6.3 – Summary of MD/Mcr ratio for experiment
Method %ρ Δi MD Mcr MD/Mcr

0.40% 4.62 4.62 4.15 1.11
Experiment 0.80% 6.3 8.81 4.37 2.02
1.10% 7.68 8.02 3.10 2.59
86
Table 6.4 – Summary of MD/Mcr ratio for calculation methods
Calculation Method %ρ Δi MD Mcr MD/Mcr

0.40% 4.485 4.62 4.15 1.12
SABS 0100-1 A.2.3
0.80% 6.69 8.81 4.37 2.02
(SABS1)
1.10% 7.74 8.02 3.10 2.59
0.40% 0.985 4.62 4.15 1.12
SABS 0100-1 A.2.4
0.80% 5.65 8.81 4.37 2.02
(SABS2)
1.10% 7.64 8.02 3.10 2.59
0.40% 4.505 4.62 3.15 1.47
Eurocode 2 clause
0.80% 7.4 8.81 3.45 2.55
7.4.3 (EC2)
1.10% 8.31 8.02 2.52 3.18
3.50
1.1% ρ
3.00
0.8% ρ
2.50
2.00
Ma/Mcr
0.4% ρ
1.50
SABS1
1.00
SABS2
0.50 EC2
Experiment
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
Figure 6.3 – MD/Mcr versus deflection
The EC2 value for Mcr differs from the values of the other methods and thus has a different MD/Mcr ratio.
In order to compare the EC2 ratio with the ratios from the other methods the data points have been traced
(dotted line) downwards so that a deflection value can be found at the MD/Mcr ratio of the other three
methods. The MD/Mcr ratio at each % tension reinforcement is represented with the red line.
6.4 Comparison of methods using a Ma/Mcr ratio
Similar to the MD/Mcr ratio, the Ma/Mcr is used to compare the calculation methods to the experiment. The
difference is that the applied moment (Ma) is not necessarily the service moment of each percentage
reinforced slab but a constant moment used for all percentage reinforced slabs. The following is a short
description of each Ma used for these comparisons:
87
 the Ma (for all percentage reinforced slabs) in Figure 6.4 is equal to the service moment of the 0.4
% reinforced slabs with Ma/Mcr = 1.11
 the Ma in Figure 6.5 is equal to the service moment of the 0.8% reinforced slabs with M a/Mcr =
2.02
 the Ma in Figure 6.6 is equal to the service moment of the 1.1% reinforced slabs with Ma/Mcr =
2.59
Tables 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 contain the values for the moments and deflections of each method for these
ratios. The reason all of the tables and figures do not contain data for each percentage reinforcement is
that in some cases the Ma needed to reach the current Ma/Mcr ratio is higher than the maximum applied
moment (MD) for that percentage tension reinforcement.
Table 6.5 – Summary of moments and deflections for Ma/Mcr = 1.11
Method %ρ Ma (kNm) Mcr (kNm) Δi (mm)

0.40% 4.61 4.15 4.62
Experiment 0.80% 4.85 4.37 1.51
1.10% 3.44 3.10 1.31
0.40% 4.60 4.15 4.49
SABS 0100-1 A.2.3 0.80% 4.85 4.37 2.70
1.10% 3.44 3.10 2.39
0.40% 4.60 4.15 0.99
SABS 0100-1 A.2.4 0.80% 4.85 4.37 0.95
1.10% 3.44 3.10 0.96
0.40% 3.49 3.15 4.51
Eurocode 2 clause
0.80% 3.83 3.45 1.05
7.4.3
1.10% 2.80 2.52 0.96

0.80% 8.83 4.37 6.30
Experiment
1.10% 6.26 3.10 4.57
0.80% 8.83 4.37 6.69
SABS 0100-1 A.2.3
1.10% 6.26 3.10 5.68
0.80% 8.83 4.37 5.65
SABS 0100-1 A.2.4
1.10% 6.26 3.10 5.03
Eurocode 2 clause 0.80% 6.97 3.45 7.40
7.4.3 1.10% 5.09 2.52 4.51

Experiment 1.10% 8.03 3.10 7.68
SABS 0100-1 A.2.3 1.10% 8.03 3.10 7.75
SABS 0100-1 A.2.4 1.10% 8.03 3.10 7.65
Eurocode 2 clause
1.10% 6.53 2.52 6.42
7.4.3
88
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
Deflection (mm)
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00 SABS1
SABS2
0.50 EC2
experiment
0.00
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40%
Tension reinforcement (%)
Figure 6.4 – Comparison of 0.4%, 0.8% and 1.1% ρ for Ma/Mcr = 1.11
8.00
7.00
6.00
Deflection (mm)
5.00
4.00
3.00
SABS1
2.00 SABS2
EC2
1.00 experiment
0.00
0.60% 0.70% 0.80% 0.90% 1.00% 1.10% 1.20% 1.30% 1.40%
Tension reinforcement (% )
Figure 6.5 – Comparison of 0.8% and 1.1% ρ slabs for Ma/Mcr = 2.02
89
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
Deflection (mm)
5.00
4.00
3.00
SABS1
2.00 SABS2
EC2
1.00 experiment
0.00
0.80% 0.90% 1.00% 1.10% 1.20% 1.30% 1.40%
Tension reinforcement (%)
Figure 6.6 – Comparison of 1.1% ρ slabs for Ma/Mcr = 2.59
The following conclusions are drawn for each calculation method when compared to the experimental
results:
Ma/Mcr = 1.11
 SABS1 method shows a higher deflection for 0.8% and 1.1% tension reinforcement
 SABS2 method shows a lower deflection for 0.4% tension reinforcement
 EC2 method shows similar results to that obtained from the experiment for each percentage
tension reinforcement
Ma/Mcr = 2.02
 All calculation methods shows similar results to that obtained from the experiment for each
percentage tension reinforcement
Ma/Mcr = 2.59
 All calculation methods shows similar results to that obtained from the experiment except the
results obtained from the EC2 method which show a small deviation for 1.1% tension
reinforcement
90
Annexure H
L/d comparisons
Beam fcu 30 MPa
29.0
24.0
19.0
EN 1992-1
L/d
SANS 10100-1
14.0
9.0
4.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
100As/bd
Figure H.1 : L/d ratio as a function of tension reinforcement % for beam end span with fcu = 30 MPa
Beam fcu 50 MPa
39.0
34.0
29.0
24.0
EN 1992-1
L/d
SANS 10100-1
19.0
14.0
9.0
4.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
100As/bd
Figure H.2 : L/d ratio as a function of tension reinforcement % for beam end span with fcu = 50 MPa
91
Beam end span
25.0
20.0
15.0
% difference
10.0 Asprov/Asreq=1.0
Asprov/Asreq=0.9
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
-5.0
-10.0
100As/bd
Figure H.3 : % difference between L/d ratios of EN 1992-1 and SANS 10100-1 as a function of tension
reinforcement % for a beam end span with various rations of As,prov/As, required for fcu = 30 MPa
Cantilever
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
% difference
Asprov/Asreq=1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 Asprov/Asreq=0.8
-5.0
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
100As/bd
Figure H.4 : % difference between L/d ratios of EN 1992-1 and SANS 10100-1 as a function of tension
reinforcement % for a cantilever with various rations of As,prov/As, required for fcu = 30 MPa
92

Report On Design Methods With BS-En-SABS For Water Retaining Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report On Design Methods With BS-En-SABS For Water Retaining Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WATER RESEARCH COMMISSION

KSA 1: Water Resource Management

Thrust 2: Management of Natural and Human-induced Impacts on Water Resources

P3: Integrated flood and drought management

REPORT ON DESIGN CODES : December 2009

Start date : 1 April 2007

End date : 30 March 2010

Lead Organisation : University of Stellenbosch, Department of Civil Engineering

Prepared by : Prof J A Wium (30 November 2009)

REPORT ON DESIGN CODES : December 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 2

2. Comparison of codes ......................................................................................................................... 4

3. Other considerations ........................................................................................................................ 16

4.1 Design for the ultimate limit state ............................................................................................... 17

5. Proposal for design code ................................................................................................................. 19

6. Summary and conclusions............................................................................................................... 20

REPORT ON DESIGN CODES : December 2009

REPORT ON DESIGN CODES : December 2009

- EN 1992-1 in comparison with SANS 10100-1 and BS 8110 (1997);

- Design for the ultimate limit state

- Design for the ultimate limit state :

2.2 Design for the ultimate limit state :

Bending of reinforced concrete elements :

Shear in reinforced concrete elements

Shear resistance without shear reinforcement :

0.8 SANS 10100-1

Shear resistance with shear reinforcement

Bond in reinforced concrete elements

Concrete characteristic Ultimate anchorage Ultimate anchorage

2.3 Design for the serviceability limit state

It can be concluded that EN-1992-1 gives a reasonable estimate of crack widths.

Allowable crack width

Severe or very severe exposure: 0.2 mm;

Crcak Width [mm] 0.08

Crack Width vs. Reinforced Area at

0.15 Test result

Crack Width vs. Reinforced Area at

0.2 Test result

Figure 6 : Crack width tests presented against design code values

0.10 SANS 10100-1 tension

Figure 10 : Minimum percentage reinforcement as specified in different codes

Bending of reinforced concrete elements :

Shear resistance without shear reinforcement :

Shear resistance with shear reinforcement

Bond in reinforced concrete elements

4.2 Design for the serviceability limit state

Crack width calculations

It was concluded that EN-1992-1 gives a reasonable estimate of crack widths.

Allowable crack width

Severe or very severe exposure: 0.2 mm;

5. Proposal for design code

- Design for the ultimate limit state :

- Design for the serviceability limit state :

6. Summary and conclusions

4. NA to BS EN 1992-1-1:2004. UK National Annex. National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design of

8. Companion document on Eurocode 2. 2007. Design of concrete structures – Part1. London :

13. NA to BS EN 1992-1-1:2004. UK National Annex. National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design of

14. NA to BS EN 1992-3:2006. UK National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures –

3.1 Stress distribution

Figure 3. 1: Stress distribution as in SANS 10100-1

Figure 3. 2: Stress distribution as in EN 1992-1

3.2 Resisting strength vs. Reinforcement quantity

= 0.405 fcu (b x) (d-0.45x)