The ninth point raised by the author is well taken. Too great emphasis cannot be laid on the inadequacy of design disclosed by an examination of many T-beams.
Such ready concurrence, however, is not lent to the author"s tenth point. While it is true that, under all usual a.s.sumptions, except those made by the author, an extremely simple formula for the resisting moment of a reinforced concrete beam cannot be obtained, still his formula falls so far short of fitting even with approximate correctness the large number of well-known experiments which have been published, that a little more mathematical gymnastic ability on the part of the author and of other advocates of extreme simplicity would seem very necessary, and will produce structures which are far more economical and amply safe structurally, compared with those which would be produced in accordance with his recommendations.
As to the eleventh point, in regard to the complex nature of the formulas for chimneys and other structures of a more or less complex beam nature, the graphical methods developed by numerous German and Italian writers are recommended, as they are fully as simple as the rather crude method advocated by the author, and are in almost identical accord with the most exacting a.n.a.lytical methods.
With regard to the author"s twelfth point, concerning deflection calculations, it would seem that they play such a small part in reinforced concrete design, and are required so rarely, that any engineer who finds it necessary to make a.n.a.lytical investigations of possible deflections would better use the most precise a.n.a.lysis at his command, rather than fall back on simpler but much more approximate devices such as the one advocated by the author.
Much of the criticism contained in the author"s thirteenth point, concerning the application of the elastic theory to the design of concrete arches, is justified, because designing engineers do not carry the theory to its logical conclusion nor take into account the actual stresses which may be expected from slight changes of span, settlements of abutments, and unexpected amounts of shrinkage in the arch ring or ribs. Where conditions indicate that such changes are likely to take place, as is almost invariably the case unless the foundations are upon good rock and the arch ring has been concreted in relatively short sections, with ample time and device to allow for initial shrinkage; or unless the design is arranged and the structure erected so that hinges are provided at the abutments to act during the striking of the falsework, which hinges are afterward wedged or grouted so as to produce fixation of the arch ends--unless all these points are carefully considered in the design and erection, it is the speaker"s opinion that the elastic theory is rarely properly applicable, and the use of the equilibrium polygon recommended by the author is much preferable and actually more accurate. But there must be consistency in its use, as well, that is, consistency between methods of design and erection.
The author"s fourteenth point--the determination of temperature stresses in a reinforced concrete arch--is to be considered in the same light as that described under the foregoing points, but it seems a little amusing that the author should finally advocate a design of concrete arch which actually has no hinges, namely, one consisting of practically rigid blocks, after he has condemned so heartily the use of the elastic theory.
A careful a.n.a.lysis of the data already available with regard to the heat conductivity of concrete, applied to reinforced concrete structures like arches, dams, retaining walls, etc., in accordance with the well-known but somewhat intricate mathematical formulas covering the laws of heat conductivity and radiation so clearly enunciated by Fourier, has convinced the speaker that it is well within the bounds of engineering practice to predict and care for the stresses which will be produced in structures of the simplest forms, at least as far as they are affected by temperature changes.
The speaker concurs with the author in his criticism, contained in the fifteenth point, with regard to the design of the steel reinforcement in columns and other compression members. While there may be some question as to the falsity or truth of the theory underlying certain types of design, it is unquestioned that some schemes of arrangement undoubtedly produce designs with dangerous properties. The speaker has several times called attention to this point, in papers and discussions, and invariably in his own practice requires that the s.p.a.cing of spirals, hoops, or ties be many times less than that usually required by building regulations and found in almost every concrete structure. Morsch, in his "Eisenbetonbau," calls attention to the fact that very definite limits should be placed on the maximum size of longitudinal rods as well as on their minimum diameters, and on the maximum s.p.a.cing of ties, where columns are reinforced largely by longitudinal members. He goes so far as to state that:
"It is seen from * * * [the results obtained] that an increase in the area of longitudinal reinforcement does not produce an increase in the breaking strength to the extent which would be indicated by the formula. * * * In inexperienced hands this formula may give rise to constructions which are not sufficiently safe."
Again, with regard to the s.p.a.cing of spirals and the combination with them of longitudinal rods, in connection with some tests carried out by Morsch, the conclusion is as follows:
"On the whole, the tests seem to prove that when the spirals are increased in strength, their pitch must be decreased, and the cross-section or number of the longitudinal rods must be increased."
In the majority of cases, the spiral or band s.p.a.cing is altogether too large, and, from conversations with Considere, the speaker understands that to be the inventor"s view as well.
The speaker makes use of the scheme mentioned by the author in regard to the design of flat slabs supported on more than two sides (noted in the sixteenth point), namely, that of dividing the area into strips, the moments of which are determined so as to produce computed deflections which are equal in the two strips running at right angles at each point of intersection. This method, however, requires a large amount of a.n.a.lytical work for any special case, and the speaker is mildly surprised that the author cannot recommend some simpler method so as to carry out his general scheme of extreme simplification of methods and design.
If use is to be made at all of deflection observations, theories, and formulas, account should certainly be taken of the actual settlements and other deflections which invariably occur in Nature at points of support. These changes of level, or slope, or both, actually alter very considerably the stresses as usually computed, and, in all rigorous design work, should be considered.
On the whole, the speaker believes that the author has put himself in the cla.s.s with most iconoclasts, in that he has overshot his mark. There seems to be a very important point, however, on which he has touched, namely, the lack of care exercised by most designers with regard to those items which most nearly correspond with the so-called "details" of structural steel work, and are fully as important in reinforced concrete as in steel. It is comparatively a small matter to proportion a simple reinforced concrete beam at its intersection to resist a given moment, but the carrying out of that item of the work is only a start on the long road which should lead through the consideration of every detail, not the least important of which are such items as most of the sixteen points raised by the author.
The author has done the profession a great service by raising these questions, and, while full concurrence is not had with him in all points, still the speaker desires to express his hearty thanks for starting what is hoped will be a complete discussion of the really vital matter of detailing reinforced concrete design work.
ALBIN H. BEYER, ESQ.--Mr. Goodrich has brought out very clearly the efficiency of vertical stirrups. As Mr. G.o.dfrey states that explanations of how stirrups act are conspicuous in the literature of reinforced concrete by their absence, the speaker will try to explain their action in a reinforced concrete beam.
It is well known that the internal static conditions in reinforced concrete beams change to some extent with the intensity of the direct or normal stresses in the steel and concrete. In order to bring out his point, the speaker will trace, in such a beam, the changes in the internal static conditions due to increasing vertical loads.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 8.]
Let Fig. 8 represent a beam reinforced by horizontal steel rods of such diameter that there is no possibility of failure from lack of adhesion of the concrete to the steel. The beam is subjected to the vertical loads, [Sigma] _P_. For low unit stresses in the concrete, the neutral surface, _n n_, is approximately in the middle of the beam. Gradually increase the loads, [Sigma] _P_, until the steel reaches an elongation of from 0.01 to 0.02 of 1%, corresponding to tensile stresses in the steel of from 3,000 to 6,000 lb. per sq. in. At this stage plain concrete would have reached its ultimate elongation. It is known, however, that reinforced concrete, when well made, can sustain without rupture much greater elongations; tests have shown that its ultimate elongation may be as high as 0.1 of 1%, corresponding to tensions in steel of 30,000 lb. per sq. in.
Reinforced concrete structures ordinarily show tensile cracks at very much lower unit stresses in the steel. The main cause of these cracks is as follows: Reinforced concrete setting in dry air undergoes considerable shrinkage during the first few days, when it has very little resistance. This tendency to shrink being opposed by the reinforcement at a time when the concrete does not possess the necessary strength or ductility, causes invisible cracks or planes of weakness in the concrete. These cracks open and become visible at very low unit stresses in the steel.
Increase the vertical loads, [Sigma] _P_, and the neutral surface will rise and small tensile cracks will appear in the concrete below the neutral surface (Fig. 8). These cracks are most numerous in the central part of the span, where they are nearly vertical. They decrease in number at the ends of the span, where they curve slightly away from the perpendicular toward the center of the span. The formation of these tensile cracks in the concrete relieves it at once of its highly stressed condition.
It is impossible to predict the unit tension in the steel at which these cracks begin to form. They can be detected, though not often visible, when the unit tensions in the steel are as low as from 10,000 to 16,000 lb. per sq. in. As soon as the tensile cracks form, though invisible, the neutral surface approaches the position in the beam a.s.signed to it by the common theory of flexure, with the tension in the concrete neglected. The internal static conditions in the beam are now modified to the extent that the concrete below the neutral surface is no longer continuous. The common theory of flexure can no longer be used to calculate the web stresses.
To a.n.a.lyze the internal static conditions developed, the speaker will treat as a free body the shaded portion of the beam shown in Fig. 8, which lies between two tensile cracks.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 9.]
In Fig. 9 are shown all the forces which act on this free body, _C b b"
C"_.
At any section, let
_C_ or _C"_ represent the total concrete compression; _T_ or _T"_ represent the total steel tension; _J_ or _J"_ represent the total vertical shear; _P_ represent the total vertical load for the length, _b_ - _b"_;
and let [Delta] _T_ = _T"_ - _T_ = _C"_ - _C_ represent the total transverse shear for the length, _b_ - _b"_.
a.s.suming that the tension cracks extend to the neutral surface, _n n_, that portion of the beam _C b b" C"_, acts as a cantilever fixed at _a b_ and _a" b"_, and subjected to the unbalanced steel tension, [Delta]
_T_. The vertical shear, _J_, is carried mainly by the concrete above the neutral surface, very little of it being carried by the steel reinforcement. In the case of plain webs, the tension cracks are the forerunners of the sudden so-called diagonal tension failures produced by the snapping off, below the neutral surface, of the concrete cantilevers. The logical method of reinforcing these cantilevers is by inserting vertical steel in the tension side. The vertical reinforcement, to be efficient, must be well anch.o.r.ed, both in the top and in the bottom of the beam. Experience has solved the problem of doing this by the use of vertical steel in the form of stirrups, that is, U-shaped rods. The horizontal reinforcement rests in the bottom of the U.
Sufficient attention has not been paid to the proper anchorage of the upper ends of the stirrups. They should extend well into the compression area of the beam, where they should be properly anch.o.r.ed. They should not be too near the surface of the beam. They must not be too far apart, and they must be of sufficient cross-section to develop the necessary tensile forces at not excessive unit stresses. A working tension in the stirrups which is too high, will produce a local disintegration of the cantilevers, and give the beam the appearance of failure due to diagonal tension. Their distribution should follow closely that of the vertical or horizontal shear in the beam. Practice must rely on experiment for data as to the size and distribution of stirrups for maximum efficiency.
The maximum shearing stress in a concrete beam is commonly computed by the equation:
_V_ _v_ = ------------- (1) 7 --- _b_ _d_ 8
Where _d_ is the distance from the center of the reinforcing bars to the surface of the beam in compression:
_b_ = the width of the f.l.a.n.g.e, and _V_ = the total vertical shear at the section.
This equation gives very erratic results, because it is based on a continuous web. For a non-continuous web, it should be modified to
_V_ _v_ = ------------- (2) _K_ _b_ _d_
In this equation _K b d_ represents the concrete area in compression.
The value of _K_ is approximately equal to 0.4.
Three large concrete beams with web reinforcement, tested at the University of Illinois[K], developed an average maximum shearing resistance of 215 lb. per sq. in., computed by Equation 1. Equation 2 would give 470 lb. per sq. in.
Three T-beams, having 32 by 3-1/4-in. f.l.a.n.g.es and 8-in. webs, tested at the University of Illinois, had maximum shearing resistances of 585, 605, and 370 lb. per. sq. in., respectively.[L] They did not fail in shear, although they appeared to develop maximum shearing stresses which were almost three times as high as those in the rectangular beams mentioned. The concrete and web reinforcement being identical, the discrepancy must be somewhere else. Based on a non-continuous concrete web, the shearing resistances become 385, 400, and 244 lb. per sq. in., respectively. As none of these failed in shear, the ultimate shearing resistance of concrete must be considerably higher than any of the values given.
About thirteen years ago, Professor A. Vierendeel[M] developed the theory of open-web girder construction. By an open-web girder, the speaker means a girder which has a lower and upper chord connected by verticals. Several girders of this type, far exceeding solid girders in length, have been built. The theory of the open-web girder, a.s.suming the verticals to be hinged at their lower ends, applies to the concrete beam reinforced with stirrups. a.s.suming that the s.p.a.ces between the verticals of the girder become continually narrower, they become the tension cracks of the concrete beam.[N]
JOHN C. OSTRUP, M. AM. SOC. C. E.--The author has rendered a great service to the Profession in presenting this paper. In his first point he mentions two designs of reinforced concrete beams and, inferentially, he condemns a third design to which the speaker will refer later. The designs mentioned are, first, that of a reinforced concrete beam arranged in the shape of a rod, with separate concrete blocks placed on top of it without being connected--such a beam has its strength only in the rod. It is purely a suspension, or "hog-chain" affair, and the blocks serve no purpose, but simply increase the load on the rod and its stresses.
The author"s second design is an invention of his own, which the Profession at large is invited to adopt. This is really the same system as the first, except that the blocks are continuous and, presumably, fixed at the ends. When they are so fixed, the concrete will take compressive stresses and a certain portion of the shear, the remaining shear being transmitted to the rod from the concrete above it, but only through friction. Now, the frictional resistance between a steel rod and a concrete beam is not such as should be depended on in modern engineering designs.
The third method is that which is used by nearly all competent designers, and it seems to the speaker that, in condemning the general practice of current reinforced designs in sixteen points, the author could have saved himself some time and labor by condemning them all in one point.
What appears to be the underlying principle of reinforced concrete design is the adhesion, or bond, between the steel and the concrete, and it is that which tends to make the two materials act in unison. This is a point which has not been touched on sufficiently, and one which it was expected that Mr. Beyer would have brought out, when he ill.u.s.trated certain internal static conditions. This principle, in the main, will cover the author"s fifth point, wherein stirrups are mentioned, and again in the first point, wherein he asks: "Will some advocate of this type of design please state where this area can be found?"
To understand clearly how concrete acts in conjunction with steel, it is necessary to a.n.a.lyze the following question: When a steel rod is embedded in a solid block of concrete, and that rod is put in tension, what will be the stresses in the rod and the surrounding concrete?
The answer will be ill.u.s.trated by reference to Fig. 10. It must be understood that the unit stresses should be selected so that both the concrete and the steel may be stressed in the same relative ratio.
a.s.suming the tensile stress in the steel to be 16,000 lb. per sq. in., and the bonding value 80 lb., a simple formula will show that the length of embedment, or that part of the rod which will act, must be equal to 50 diameters of the rod.