SCIA.

ESA PT

Theoretical Background
Concrete
2
 SCIA.ESA PT

Theoretical Background
Concrete

3
RESTRICTIONS 6
INTERNAL FORCES 7
Beams ............................................................................................................. 7
Shifting of the moment line ....................................................................... 8
Moment reduction ..................................................................................... 8
Shear force reduction................................................................................ 9
Columns ....................................................................................................... 10
Walls ............................................................................................................. 11
Plates ............................................................................................................ 11
Shells ............................................................................................................ 12

DESIGN OF LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT 13

Beams and uni-axially loaded columns .................................................... 13
Ultimate Border ....................................................................................... 13
Single parameter reinforcement design .................................................. 17
Bi-parametrical reinforcement design ..................................................... 20
Basic Reinforcement or REDES reinforcement ...................................... 21
Bi-axially loaded columns .......................................................................... 22
Interaction diagram ................................................................................. 23
Optimisation ............................................................................................ 24
Ratio........................................................................................................ 25
Delta Area ............................................................................................... 28
Multiple combinations ............................................................................. 28
Circular Columns......................................................................................... 29
Walls, Plates and Shells.............................................................................. 31
Transformation of inner forces to design forces ..................................... 32
Reinforcement Design ............................................................................ 35
Reinforcement design of Walls ............................................................... 37
Reinforcement design of Plates .............................................................. 41
Reinforcement design of Shells .............................................................. 44
DESIGN OF SHEAR REINFORCEMENT 46
Beams ........................................................................................................... 46
General ................................................................................................... 46
Composite Section and Arbitrary Sections ............................................. 47
Columns ....................................................................................................... 47
Plates and Shells ......................................................................................... 47
Shear Proof Concepts............................................................................. 49
Advanced notes on the Shear Effect concept......................................... 50
DESIGN OF TORSIONAL REINFORCEMENT 52
CRACK PROOF 53
General ......................................................................................................... 53
Beams ........................................................................................................... 54
Column ......................................................................................................... 54
Plates, Walls and Shells.............................................................................. 55
Crack Proof after NEN 6720 ................................................................... 55
Crack Proof after NORM B 4700.......................................................... 56
CHECKS 58
Response ..................................................................................................... 58

4
 SCIA.ESA PT

Capacity........................................................................................................ 62

PHYSICAL NON-LINEAR DEFORMATIONS 66

General ......................................................................................................... 66
NEN 6720................................................................................................ 67
Other codes than NEN 6720................................................................... 68
Columns ....................................................................................................... 69
Composite Sections .................................................................................... 69
Beams, Plates and Shells ........................................................................... 69
NEN 6720................................................................................................ 69

5
Restrictions
The concrete modules are restricted to the following calculations:
Necessary main reinforcement for vertical symmetrical beams and ribs loaded by a
combination of normal force, Nx, and bending moment My.
Necessary main reinforcement for rectangular and circular columns beams loaded by a
combination of normal force, Nx, and bending moments My and Mz.
Necessary shear reinforcement for vertical symmetrical beams and ribs loaded by a shear force
V z.
Necessary main reinforcement for walls, plates and shells loaded by bending moments mx, my
and mxy and membrane forces nx, ny and nxy. For some codes the shifting of the moment line is
not taken into account.
Necessary shear reinforcement for plates and shells loaded by shear forces qx and qy.
Crack proof of vertical symmetrical beams and ribs loaded by a combination of normal force,
Nx, and bending moment My. For some codes the cross-section cannot contain more than one
concrete quality.
Crack proof of walls, plates and shells loaded by bending moments mx, my and mxy and
membrane forces nx, ny and nxy.
Quasi non-linear deformations for beams and ribs loaded by a combination of normal force,
Nx, and bending moment My. For some codes the cross-section cannot contain more than one
concrete quality.
Quasi non-linear deformations for plates and shells loaded by bending moments mx, my and
mxy and membrane forces nx, ny and nxy.
Checks of moments and normal force response of any reinforced cross-section.
Checks of ultimate moments and normal force Myu, Mzu and Nu of any reinforced cross-
section.
Checks of ultimate shear force Vzu for any reinforced vertical symmetrical cross-section.
Calculation of additional eccentricities for bending moments My and Mz for uni- or bi-axially
loaded columns.
The following calculations are NOT performed:
Torsional reinforcement based on moment Mx.
Shear reinforcement for cross-sections loaded by a combination of shear forces Vz and Vy.
Connection reinforcement between different items of the cross-section that are cast during
separate construction stages.
Design of reinforcement and checks of moments, normal and shear forces for individual
construction stages.
Shear reinforcement for beams loaded at the bottom side of the cross-section.
Shear reinforcement for columns.
Crack proof for columns.
Quasi physical non-linear deformations for columns and walls.
Prestressed cross-sections.
Design of deep beams.

6
 SCIA.ESA PT

Internal Forces
Beams

In practise a beam is subjected to a combination of a Normal force, bending moment(s), shear

and torsion. For the design of necessary areas of reinforcement of a beam SCIA.ESA PT yet
only supports a combination of a Normal force (Nx), bending moment (My) and shear force
(Vz). This means that the cross-section must always be vertically symmetrical. The beam
calculation is not limited to one concrete quality only, the program allows for the design of
necessary areas cross-sections with infinite number of concrete qualities.

z z

y y

Remark:
The user however can check the response or capacity of any reinforced cross-section for the
combination of internal forces Nx, My and Mz using the single check or member check functions. These
checks do not support torsion or bi-axial shear forces.

7
Shifting of the moment line
The shifting of the moment line is done respecting the national code requirements. In general the truss-
model analogy is used to calculate the shifted moment line for My only. The shifted moment line
respects the depth of the beam, the angle of the concrete strut and the angle of the stirrups. The angles
can be set in the concrete code setup. The depth of the cross-section is depended on the height of the
cross-section, the diameters of the stirrups and the main reinforcement.

Remark:
Please note that the shifted or reduced internal forces are not used when a single check of a cross-
section is performed.

Moment reduction
The reduction of the moment line, My, is performed when a beam is supported by either a nodal support
or column. Both types of supports have different methods to reduce the moments.
For the column the bending moment is taken at each face of the column (Frame XZ and Grid).

8
 SCIA.ESA PT

The theory behind the moment reduction for a nodal support is for most codes similar to that of the
Eurocode 2. In this code the bearing load in the support creates a reducing effect on the bending
moment over the support.

Rd

Q
b

According clause 2.5.3.3. de reduced moment is:

MSd = Rd b / 8
where:
Rd = Design value of the support reaction
b = Width of the support in the direction of the beam.

Shear force reduction

The shear force reduction is done in a similar way as for the moment reduction for beams supported by
columns. 3 types: Type 1 uses the shear force operating in the face of the support or column as design
force. Type 2 uses the shear force operating in the face of the support plus the effective height of the
beam as design force. Type 3 uses the shear force operating in the face of the support plus a factor times
the internal cantilever arm.

Remark
Note that for grids and frames that beams connected to beams do not have reduced shear forces.

9
Columns

In practice a combination of normal force and primary and secondary bending moments will load the
column. The geometrical and physical non-linear effects will cause the secondary moments. Shifted
moment lines in columns are not taken into account in SCIA.ESA PT.
The shear force has sometimes influence in case of accidental collision by a truck or car. SCIA.ESA PT
only supports the calculation of necessary areas for the main reinforcement. It does not support the
shear reinforcement calculation. For such cases the user must define the column as a uni-axially loaded
beam and the shear reinforcement calculation can be done.
As already said the secondary moments can have great influence on the main reinforcement calculation.
Some codes have tricks to rewrite the primary moments to secondary moments using for instance
additional eccentricities. For such codes SCIA.ESA PT allows the user to indicate whether he wants to
use tricks or use a more precise approach. Please understand that such tricks do not change the
deformations of the columns yet, only the design moments for the reinforcement calculation.
The non-linear solver allows for geometrical non-linear calculations and offers a more exact solution. In
the current version (5.0) it is not possible to take into account any physical non-linear effects. For those
calculations please refer to ESA-Prima Win 3.60. The non-linear combinations can be used for the
design and checks of the main reinforcement.
It is possible to use concrete combinations (used for PNL deformation calculations) for the design of
main reinforcement, but the results should be useless, since the PNL-calculation is a quasi-non-linear
calculation using tricks according the national code.

10
 SCIA.ESA PT

Walls

Walls are structures loaded by in plane Normal forces, nx, ny and nxy, also called wall inner forces.
These normal or membrane forces will be transformed to n1 and n2 principal forces. The concept of the
wall finite elements indicates that there will be no difference in reinforcement for the top and bottom
side of the wall (z+ and z-). Also there will be no shear reinforcement calculation possible, since the
reinforcement mesh carries the shear stress nxy.
The results service of SCIA.ESA PT allows the user to review the dimensional magnitudes. These
magnitudes are for user reference only and are not actually used in the design of the necessary areas.
The service for the design of the necessary areas uses a more sophisticated approach in which various
parameters are taken into account such as the reinforcement mesh angle, number of reinforcement
layers, etc.
Moments and shear forces in walls are not automatically reduced above walls, columns or supports.

Plates

Plates are structures loaded by out of plane shear forces, qx and qy, and bending moments, mx, my and
mxy, also called plate inner forces. The bending moments will cause principal membrane forces per side
of the plate, n1+, n2+, n1- and n2-. Thus the reinforcement will differ per side and per direction of the
reinforcement. The shear reinforcement is calculated based on qx and qy. For some codes the shear force
is used to calculate the shifted moments. Normally shifting is not taken into account in a plate model.
Moments and shear forces in plates are not automatically reduced above walls, columns or supports.
Note that not for all codes the moment line is shifted automatically using the design value of the shear
force.

11
Shells
Shells are structures that are really combinations of walls and plates. Therefore the same requirements
count for shells as for walls and plates. Principally the only difference between shells and plates is the
calculation of the main reinforcement, see chapter reinforcement design of shells.

The results service of SCIA.ESA PT allows the user to review the dimensional magnitudes.
These magnitudes are for user reference only and are not actually used in the design of the
necessary areas. The service for the design of the necessary areas uses a more sophisticated
approach in which various parameters are taken into account such as the reinforcement mesh
angle, number of reinforcement layers, etc.
Moments and shear forces in shells are not automatically reduced above walls, columns or supports.
Note that not for all codes the moment line is shifted automatically using the design value of the shear
force.

12
 SCIA.ESA PT

Design of longitudinal reinforcement

A task called concrete reinforcement design is used very often in civil engineering. This task has many
different forms and there are usually many different ways how to solve it. We would like to show our
approach. We see the reinforcement design as an engineering problem, which has many variables to be
optimised. Some of the variables are the orientation, shape, number and position of reinforcing bars and
also the area of each bar. However, in many cases an experienced engineer can reduce the amount of
unknowns to one or two. Some issues are given by constructional principles, some are determined by
the applied technology, and some are provided by experience. Very often, if we know the dimensions of
concrete cross-section, we usually know the position of reinforcing bars. Thereafter, the only remaining
unknown is the reinforcement area.

Beams and uni-axially loaded columns

F

0.600
F1
q2
q1 q3

A B C D
3.600 10.8000 3.600

bh = 450600 bh = 450800

Ultimate Border
The method of ultimate deformations is used to calculate the main reinforcement. The principle of this
method is to look for the plane deformation in the ultimate limit state for which we evaluate the
minimal necessary reinforcement area to reach the equilibrium of internal forces.
Imagine a diagram representing the strain in a reinforced concrete cross-section. The cross-section is
symmetric to the z-axis and loaded with a combination of N and My. Then the vector of strain will
consist of two nonzero numbers = [0;z;0]. The corresponding plane of strain with corresponding
internal forces is depicted in the next figure.

13
 z c

Fc

y My N

s Fs

x x

The previous figure shows a non-specific case, but let us imagine an Ultimate Limit State. Under the
Ultimate Limit State, we understand a case, where either concrete or steel is strained to limit value. We
can draw some cases in a similar diagram.

z c,max c,min

B. A .

C.
D.
y

s,max
x c,min

We can, for example, define our ultimate deformations as shown on the previous figure.
Case A. represents maximal bending moment, where concrete is strained on maximal compression and
steel is under maximal tension.
Case B. represents maximal tension in both concrete and steel.

Case C. is the other maximal bending.

Case D. is maximal compression.

All other possible ultimate deformations lie in one of intervals (A.-B.), (B.-C.), (C.-D.), (D.-A.). Of
course, we can define different ultimate deformations, for example, in a case of a symmetrical
reinforcement we can extend maximal tension on the upper half of the cross-section. Nevertheless, we
can use presented diagram as a descriptive example.
Let us now imagine a different diagram. This is a 2D-diagram where the value of z is on one axis and
the value of 0 is on a perpendicular axis. In this diagram, each of our cases, A., B., C., D., is projected
into one point. These points create vertexes of a polygon ABCD. All the other possible ultimate
deformations lie on the edges of this polygon. Each point inside the polygon expresses plane of strain
that is within bearing capacity and each point outside this polygon represents state out of bearing
capacity. We can see this diagram in the next figure.

14
 SCIA.ESA PT

0 A.
B.

limit state

ok collapse

z
C.

D.

We designate the border of such a polygon as the ultimate border of the cross-section. The ultimate
border represents all allowable planes of deformation when the cross-section is in the Ultimate
Limit State. The ultimate border is an analogy to the interaction diagram drawn in strain co-ordinate
system.
The definition of ultimate border has an essential meaning during a reinforcement design. The
requirements on a plane of strain in the Ultimate Limit State vary in different standards. Most of these
requirements can be effectively implemented through the definition of the ultimate border. For example,
some standards allow lower maximal compression in the concrete during a full compression (dominant
axial force) than during a bending. This issue can be implemented by inserting additional point E.
between vertexes A. and D. (see figure 35). This situation is also drawn in the cross-section diagram,
see figure 36.

0 A.
B.

z
C. E.
D.

z 2,0% 3,5%

point of rotation

A.
y
E.
D.

4/7h

s,max
x c,min,c

15
From mathematical point of view, the ultimate border represents the definitional set for
reinforcement design task. To be able to describe each point of ultimate border, we look at the border
as a closed oriented curve described parametrically, where each point corresponds to one value of
parameter t. We also define the Ultimate border function fu.

t 0, t max (1)

u = fu(t) (2)

This function returns plane of strain u on the ultimate border corresponding to given parameter t.

16
 SCIA.ESA PT

Single parameter reinforcement design

Let us have a cross section symmetrical to z-axis loaded by a combination of axial force N and bending
moment My. Let us suppose that the position of each reinforcing bar is known and that each bar has the
same diameter. The only unknown is the total reinforcement area As. The task is to find minimal
reinforcement area As so the cross section would be able to carry just the load forces RL={N,My,0}. Let
us suppose, for a while, that we know the right amount of As. Then, if we load the reinforced cross
section with RL, we get the corresponding plane of strain in the Ultimate Limit State u.
In this state the internal forces (representing the bearing capacity) will be equal to (representing the load
forces). However, we do not know the right amount of reinforcement yet.
On the other hand, imagine that we have state u' which we consider to be Ultimate Limit State. We are
able to determine the required reinforcement area from the balance of internal forces and the load
forces.
Ru = RL (3)
Cross section internal forces Ru consist of internal forces in concrete RC;u and internal forces in steel
RS;u. So we can write
RC;u + RS;u = RL (4)
When we know the plane of strain u', we can integrate internal forces in the concrete as follows:
RC;u = R(u') (5)
Now we are able to evaluate the forces in the reinforcement
RS;u = RL - R(u') (6)
We can write (6) in a scalar form as
NS;u = NL - NC (7)
MS;u = ML - MC (8)

17
If u' = u, the strain is exactly the Ultimate Limit State for defined load forces RL, then both (7) and (8)
must be satisfied simultaneously. Nevertheless, if u' u, then we can choose an equation for the axial
force (7). From this equation we can determine the required area of reinforcement, because
n
NS;u = As
i =1
s ;i (9)

wherein s;i is stress in i-th reinforcing bar, which is given by the u' in the point of the bar and
corresponding stress-strain diagram of steel.
s;i = (s;i) (10)
The reinforcement area can be expressed from (7) and (9) as follows

N L NC
As = n
(11)

i =1
s ;i

When we know reinforcement area, we can evaluate the real internal forces in concrete and steel
corresponding to u'. The axial force must be equal to loading axial force, because of (11), but the
bending moment MS;u will probably differ from ML-MC;u. Therefore we define a M as follows
M = MS;u - (ML - MC;u) (12)
M = MS;u (u') - (ML (u')- MC;u) (13)
This M is zero only for u' = u. That means, if we find such u' for which M=0, then u' is the
Ultimate Limit State u and corresponding As is the required area of reinforcement.
Now we use the ultimate border substitution. We define parameter t as shown in expression (1). This
parameter is passed to ultimate border function fu. By inserting (2) into (13) we get M as a function of
t.
M (t) = MS;u (fu (t)) - ML + MC;u (fu (t)) (14)

Now we can apply numerical solution of a scalar function M. The unknown parameter is t 0,1 ,
which must satisfy following condition
M (t) = 0 (15)

18
 SCIA.ESA PT

Here we apply Newton's iteration. This method is supplemented with a homogenous selection of
starting points for the iteration.
This means that we start with parameter t = 0.5.

1 3 1 3 5 7 1 3 5 7
If we do not succeed we try t ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;...
4 4 8 8 8 8 16 16 16 16

19
Bi-parametrical reinforcement design
After the single-parameter design we describe the bi-parametrical design. This case is typical for a cross
section symmetrical to z-axis with reinforcement situated near upper edge As1 and reinforcement near
lower edge As2. The cross section must be loaded in the direction of its symmetry plane. First we have
to realise, that if we have in one cross section two different areas of reinforcement in two different
places, we can design As1 and As2 for any ultimate plane of strain so they will satisfy balance of internal
forces Ru and load forces RL. Nevertheless, there is only one Ultimate Limit State for which the
designed reinforcement areas As1 + As2 are minimal.
For a given parameter t we evaluate u'.
u' = fu (t) (16)
From evaluated u' we get internal forces in concrete RC;u and stresses in reinforcing steel bars s1 and
s2.
s;i = (s;i) (17)
From the equation of balance of forces we obtain As1 and As2.
As1 s;1 + As2 s;2 = NL - NC (18)
As1 s;1 z1 + As2 s;2 z2 = ML;y - MC;y (19)
Let us consider steps (16)-(19) as a function Afs (t), which returns As1 + As2 in a dependence on
parameter t. We can try to find the global minimum of Afs (t) by means of numerical methods. In this
case we sample the function on a sparse regular grid and in the minimal value we follow with Newton's
iteration.

Note: Parameter t is on horizontal axis. Blue Afs (t) red As1 and yellow As2 are on vertical axis
The previous figure shows an example of function Afs (t), which is depicted in blue. The numerical
solution must find the global minimum of Afs (t), which is a sum of As1 and As2.

20
 SCIA.ESA PT

Basic Reinforcement or REDES reinforcement

Prior to the calculation of the main reinforcement the user is able to define a layout of reinforcement
bars in the cross-section using the advanced member data or REDES reinforcement. These bars can be
respected during the design calculation and the program calculates the additional reinforcement area.
For instance:
The user defines two bars in the upper part of the cross-section section of a single span beam loaded by
self-weight only. After the calculation of the main reinforcement the user will notice a slightly different
amount of necessary reinforcement and a decreased depth of the compression zone.

21
Bi-axially loaded columns
F Mz
My

The method for uni-axially loaded columns cannot be directly applied to bi-axially loaded columns,
since the location of the reinforcement bars is not known in advance, like in the uni-axial method.
Therefore the bars could only be used for carrying the load for one direction which would be extremely
conservative.

Asx

Asy

Asy
Asx

It is more realistic to use a method that allows bars to act in two directions.

Asx

Asy

Asy
Asx

SCIA.ESA PT uses this more realistic method wherein the positions of the bars are exactly known
during the design calculation. By intelligently increasing the number of bars the required number of
bars is designed. This area of reinforcement is always the number of bars times the area of a single
reinforcement bar, e.g. 1256 for 420. Also note that the minimum number of bars is 4; 1 for each
corner.

22
 SCIA.ESA PT

Interaction diagram
SCIA.ESA uses a method that is also described in some code like the NORM. This method is based
on an interaction diagram for the design and ultimate moments per direction of bending.
x x
M dy M dz
+ 1
M M
uy uz
wherein:
Mdy Design moment in y-direction
Muy Ultimate moment for reinforcement in y-direction
Mdz Design moment in z-direction
Muz Ultimate moment for reinforcement in z-direction
x Interaction factor, default value is 1.4
The interaction factor is used to define a linear or exponential interaction between My and Mz. An
interaction factor of 1 is a linear interaction between My and Mz. This means that when My is fully
used, the capacity for Mz is zero. Realistically this is not the case and codes will suggest a value
around 1.4 for normally loaded columns.

1.0

x=2 x=

x = 1.4
x=1
Mdy/Muy

1.0
Mdz/Muz

Also through research one has found out that the interaction factor is also dependant on the Nd/Nu ratio.
In NORM B4700 (June 2001) clause 3.4.3.5 the safety factor should be taken relative to the ratio of
Nd / (Ab f'b), see table:

Nd / (Ab f'b) 0,1 0,7 1,0

x 1,0 1,5 2,0
Between values a linear interpolation may be done.
The work method for the design with the interaction formula is as follows:
SCIA.ESA assumes a reinforcement layout, e.g. 420 per side. For this layout of practical
reinforcement SCIA.ESA determines the Muy and Muz. Then it fills in the interaction formula and gets a
result, e.g. 5.5. Since 5.5 is larger than 1.0, SCIA.ESA needs to increase the reinforcement. The
reinforcement is increased using a special routine, which will be explained in a later paragraph. Finally
if SCIA.ESA gets a result from the interaction formula, that is less than 1.0, e.g. 0.6, SCIA.ESA stops

23
 the calculation and the reinforcement amount from that last layout is the result of the reinforcement
calculation.

Optimisation
One of the disadvantages of the column reinforcement calculation is that SCIA.ESA stops the
calculation, if the result of the interaction formula is less than 1, e.g. 0.5. This does not necessarily
mean that the number of bars is the optimal solution. The optimal solution can be a layout of
reinforcement with a less number of bars with a higher result value for the interaction formula, e.g.
0.95.
If the user uses the optimisation function, after the Normal design of the reinforcement bars
SCIA.ESA will decrease the number of bars 2 by 2 (1 per edge, 2 per direction) and calculate the result
of the interaction formula for each layout of bars.
Example
The result of the main reinforcement design is 1620 bars and the interaction formula has a result of
0.8. After gradually decreasing the number of bars the interaction formulae for each layout is calculated,
see table.

Layout Interaction Formula

1420 0.98
1220 1.2
1020 3
820 5
In this specific case a layout of 14 bars has an interaction formula result closer to 1 than 0.8 and thus it
is more optimised.

24
 SCIA.ESA PT

Ratio
SCIA.ESA uses a special routine to increase the reinforcement in the column. This works as follows:
Prior to the column calculation:
SCIA.ESA automatically determines the design moment per direction, Mdy and Mdz and for those
internal forces it determines the Normal stress at the outermost fibre by dividing the moment by the
section modulus for that direction, e.g. y = Mdy / Wy. With those 's per direction it can determine the
ratio of moments.
ry = y / (z + y); rz = z / (z + y)
Step 1:
SCIA.ESA checks the reinforcement for one bar per corner.
Step 2:
SCIA.ESA determines the values for Muy and Muz and recalculates the interaction formula.
If the results are less than 1, the calculation is stopped.
Step 3:
According the values for r(y/z) the reinforcement is increased per direction.
Step 4:
SCIA.ESA determines the values for Muy and Muz and recalculates the interaction formula.
If the results are less than 1, the calculation is stopped.

Example:
Modeled in SCIA.ESA PT as a frame XYZ.
Concrete class NEN B45, L = 4.5 [m], b h = 350 350 [mm2]
LC1 Permanent Load
F = 1000 [kN]; My = 50 [kNm]; Mz = 125 [kNm]
LC2 Variable Load, momentaneous factor = 0.5
F = 1000 [kN]; My = 50 [kNm]; Mz = 25 [kNm]
NEN ULS Combination = 1.2 LC1 + 1.5 LC2
Fd = 1.2 1000 + 1.5 1000 = 2700 [kN]
Mdy = 1.2 50 + 1.5 50 = 135 [kN]
Mdz = 1.2 125 + 1.5 25 = 187.5 [kN]
Wy = 1/6 3503 = 7.15 106 [mm3] = Wz

r = 135.0 / 187.5 = 0.72

Step 1
As a first layout SCIA.ESA assumes one bar in each corner.
Step 2
Muy = -133.1 [kNm] = Muz

25
 135.0 187.5
1.4 1.4

+ = 1.011.4 + 1.411.4 = 1.01 + 1.62 = 2.63 >> 1

133.1 133 . 1
Step 3:
SCIA.ESA starts adding bars in the cross-section and rechecks the interaction formula. The results were
as follows.

Nd -1755 [kN] Nd -1890 [kN]

Mdy -87,7 [kNm] Mdy -94,5 [kNm]
Mdz -121,9 [kNm] Mdz -131,2 [kNm]

Nd -2160 [kN] Nd -2565 [kN]

Mdy -108 [kNm] Mdy -128,2 [kNm]
Mdz -150 [kNm] Mdz -178,1 [kNm]

26
 SCIA.ESA PT

Nd -2700 [kN]
Mdy -135 [kNm]
Mdz -187,5 [kNm]

The increment routine for the number of bars is as follows:

Step 1 Add one bar for the 'weakest' side.
Step 2 Add one bar for the 'strongest' side plus 1/r bars for the 'weakest' side. In which the value of 1/r
is rounded off to integer values.
For our example: (1/r = 1/0.72 = 1.39)

Step Real Bars y-direction z-direction

0 4 4 4
1 6 4 4*1.39 = 5.6 = 6
2 10 6 6*1.39 = 8.3 = 8
3 16 8 8*1.39 = 11.1 = 12
4 20 10 10*1.39 = 13.9 = 14

Ratio of step 4: 10/14 = 0.71

Ratio y/z: 4/6 (Real bars)

27
Delta Area
SCIA.ESA PT bases his column reinforcement calculation for an interaction between normal force and
bi-axial moments on real bars. By adding sufficient real bars it will find a solution. For some special
cases this may seem incorrect. For those cases SCIA.ESA allows the user to define real areas of
reinforcement, e.g. 100 [mm2] or 50 [mm2]. SCIA.ESA uses those areas instead of the defined bar
diameter in the dialogue concrete member data. SCIA.ESA however still uses the location of the
defined bar in the calculation.
Tip
Using this option in combination with optimisation of number of bars will give the best results.

Multiple combinations
If multiple combinations (e.g. result class ALL ULS) load a column and the combinations require
reinforcement in different directions, SCIA.ESA PT combines the reinforcement required for two
combinations into a new reinforcement layout and amount.
Example
A column calculated using the NEN code is loaded by two combinations. Combination C1 contains a
line load in local y-direction and combination C2 contains a line load in local z-direction.

Combination C1 requires a reinforcement amount of 6283 [mm3] of which 40% is required in y-

direction (8 314 = 2513) and 60% is required in z-direction (12 314 = 3770). Combination C2
requires a reinforcement amount of 8168 [mm2] of which 23% is required in y-direction (6 314 =
1879) and 77% is required in z-direction (20 314 = 6289). Note that although the required
reinforcement amount for combination C2 is larger than C1, the required reinforcement amount in y-
direction for combination C1 is larger than the reinforcement amount in y-direction for combination C2
(2513>1879). Thus SCIA.ESA PT combines both combinations and gives the reinforcement amount
based upon the maximum reinforcement amounts in y- and z-direction (2513 + 6289 = 8802 8796).

28
 SCIA.ESA PT

Circular Columns
Circular columns are uni-axially loaded columns. Two possible moments My and Mz will be vectored
into one design moment Md. Thus principally the same method for uni-axially loaded columns is used.

My
Md

Mz

The only problem is the location of the reinforcement bars. Whilst increasing the number of
bars the locations of the bars will change.

SCIA.ESA has implemented a straightforward method of calculating the reinforcement in a circular

column. In the first step the program puts six bars in the cross-section and calculates the ultimate
moment. If the ultimate moment is larger than the design moment, Md, the calculation stops and the
programs returns a reinforcement area equivalent to the area of the chosen reinforcement bar diameter
times 5, e.g. 1571 for 20. If the ultimate moment is smaller than the program increases the number of
bars by one and recalculates the ultimate moment, etc.

29
Remark
The ultimate moment capacity of the cross-section is based on two layouts of reinforcement bars.

Md Md

30
 SCIA.ESA PT

Walls, Plates and Shells

One of SCIA.ESA PT most outstanding features is its ability to deal with two- and three-course
reinforcement meshes of deliberate geometry, i.e. the angles closed by pairs of reinforcement directions
may be freely specified, however, within reasonable limits. The next figure shows the basic definition
scheme of reinforcement geometry: The directions of the 2/3 reinforcement courses specified for design
are expressed by angles <0, 180) closed with the 1st planar axis xp.

The reinforcement geometry may be specified individually at each of the 2D structure faces, concerning
the direction angles and the number of reinforcement courses (2 or 3). So it is, for example, possible, to
specify at one face a skew two-course reinforcement net with directions, say, 10/70 and, at the same
time, a three-course reinforcement net with directions, e.g., 0/60/120 at the other face. The standard
orthogonal reinforcement 0/90, allowed by most design programs as the only reinforcement geometry
specification, is in SCIA.ESA PT one of all possible constellations, nothing more.

xp
1 2

1 2

3
yp

31
Transformation of inner forces to design forces
Once the reinforcement design input data have been read and analysed and the FEM Data Base approached, the
SCIA.ESA PT design model can be created respecting all Code rules and restrictions applicable to the active
structural model: SCIA.ESA PT distinguishes between the Wall, Plate and Shell structural type. They are
different not only as to the principal assumptions about the mechanical properties of the reinforcement concrete
medium but, in all Codes, also as to the requirements and restrictions these structural types are subjected to.
The first substantial step of the design procedure to be reported here is the calculation of inner design forces for
each item to be designed. SCIA.ESA PT distinguishes two design items: elements and nodes. The design forces
transformation procedure outlined here takes thus place at each step of the (multiple) design loop.
The SCIA.ESA PT transformation procedure is based on a general transformation formula published by
Baumann:
jsin
ci = [sin k + cos
jcos
k] / [sin(
j - i) sin(
k - i)]
(i, j, k = 1,2,3)
In this formula the subscripts i, j, k denote the three reinforcement directions according to previous figure.
When applied to a pure bending case with principal moments mI and mII, the variables have the following
meaning:
i,,j, k : angles between individual reinforcement directions and the direction of the 1st
principal moment mI
: quotient mII/mI; according to the values of mI and mII it can attain negative,
zero and positive values
ci : transformation coefficient of the direction i:

mi = ci mI

The formula is equally valid for Walls. In that case, however, the principal moments mI and mII in are to be
substituted by the principal membrane forces nI and nII to be valid for Walls, too.
In case of Shells, the combined bending-membrane inner forces {mx, my, mxy, vx, vy, nx, ny, nxy} must first be
transformed to virtual membrane forces acting as two formally independent force systems at both structural
faces:

px = mx/z + nx/2
py = my/z + ny /2
pxy = mxy/z + nxy/2

In these formulae z represents the inner forces lever calculated, as reference value, for the outermost reinforce-
ment layer. In subsequent design calculations, it is considered that the inner layers have effectively lesser inner
forces levers than z symbolised by the previous formulae. The calculation of z is an interesting chapter of the
design procedure. In this case, the calculation for the first time must refer to the material properties of the con-
crete continuum; it is no more material independent like the transformation formula, which is based on the
assumption of linearly elastic material.
The reference value of z is obtained as the minimum value of the inner forces lever calculated for three charact-
eristic cases:

mI and associated n

nI and associated m

nII and associated m
The reference virtual membrane forces {px, py, pxy} are in the SCIA.ESA PT design algorithm formally
subjected to the same procedure as normal membrane forces of a Wall structural model. However, there are
differences in processing them to the final result; they will not be reported here in full detail.

32
 SCIA.ESA PT

The transformation formula does not yet represent the final solution of the transformation problem. The
transformation coefficients ci, cj, ck thus calculated represent transformation forces in a linearly elastic medium
that does not make difference between tension and pressure design forces. Such a solution is generally not
applicable to a reinforced concrete medium, where the basic medium concrete can oppose pressure stresses
only.
Let us, for general considerations, independent of the structural model, denote the design forces obtained by the
transformation as {p1, p2, p3}. In Walls the symbols pi represent the design Normal forces {n1, n2, n3}; in Plates
- the design moments {m1, m2, m3} and in Shells - the virtual design forces {p1, p2, p3} corresponding in the
Baumann transformation to (px, py, pxy) after the formulae (3). The transformation formulae have a fundamental
invariant meaning, whatever the values of {p1, p2, p3} are:

p1+ p2 + p3 = pI + pII = const

where pI and pII symbolise, analogously, the principal Normal forces nI and nII (Walls), the principal moments
mI and mII (Plates) or, directly, pI and pII (Shells). The Formula (1) yields several solutions satisfying. For
SCIA.ESA PT, the solution representing the minimum energetic level is used for the design.
I>II>0


II

In an elliptic state of stress, the solution for a three-course reinforcement net is relatively quickly found. In two-
course reinforcement nets, which represent, without doubt, the standard use in the building practice, only two
design forces can be assigned to reinforcement. The third force of the invariant formula is assigned to the
concrete medium. It is clear that its value must be negative, for concrete is not able to resist tension. Only in
special reinforcement arrangements or in a strictly circular state of stress, the concrete design force can vanish:
the concrete medium performs (theoretically) no mechanical work in that case and may be considered as stress-
free.

33
Of practical meaning, however, is the case with concrete participating in resisting the inner forces of external
loads. The function of concrete may thus be explained as stiffening medium of the deformable reinforcement
steel net, which would, by itself, deform under the action of tension or pressure forces in its plane. We will call
that function of concrete as Stiffening Virtual Concrete Strut, or, more simply, just Concrete Strut.
The position of the Concrete Strut is, however, generally not identical with any reinforcement direction
specified for design. It means that if formula does not yield for a three-course reinforcement net all three
positive design forces, at least one of the reinforcement courses is inactive (or two of them); the Concrete Strut
does not automatically coincide with one of the reinforcement courses! The assessment of the Concrete Strut
position is thus an important optimisation task.
It is an outstanding feature of the SCIA.ESA PT design algorithm, developed by months and years of
improvements of theoretical and algorithmic procedures, that the formula can usefully be applied to all possible
situations of elliptic (1>2>0), parabolic (1<>0;2=0) and hyperbolic states of stress/strain, i.e. also to
elliptic pressure state, thus yielding design forces which enable optimised reinforcement design. With respect
to competing design programs, the publication of these algorithms is undesirable in any form.
I>0;II<0


II

+ +

I

34
 SCIA.ESA PT

Reinforcement Design
Introductory to this paragraph, dealing with the central topic of SCIA.ESA PT, concepts already discussed
above to illustrate the SCIA.ESA PTs algorithm from a more common point of view will be summarised here
and given, if necessary, their special explanation.
Reinforcement concrete 2D structures handled by SCIA.ESA PT - Walls, Plates and Shells - are usually
reinforced by two systems of steel reinforcement nets consisting of 2 or 3 reinforcement courses situated more
or less close to both faces of the 2D structure. SCIA.ESA PT puts no principal restrictions upon the absolute
position of reinforcement courses within the cross-section; its axial concrete cover describes the position of
each reinforcement course. However, there are relative restrictions: all concrete covers must fulfil some rules to
prevent ambiguousness of the geometric definition of the design task. These rules are described in the part of
the SCIA.ESA PT manual.
Yet it must not be forgotten that there might be other, more complex situations in the cross-section than
symbolised by the next figure:
1. The crossing reinforcement bars of individual layers do not need to touch each other; they
might be placed at larger distances from each other within the cross sections;
2. The surfaces of bars are usually corrugated so that there is, as a rule, a greater distance
between two crossing bars than expressed by their characteristic bar diameters;
3. Last but not least, in very thick plates, e.g. foundation slabs, two layers or bars bundles in one
layer are used, so that the representative axial distance (of the point of gravity) and the
representative bar diameter itself are two independent quantities and qualities, which must be
defined independently on input in order to carry out reliable analysis.

In Walls, being (theoretically) subjected to forces acting in their planes, the (by definition symmetric) positions
of reinforcement nets are of no static interest; however, the cross-section geometry (concrete covers and bar
diameters) is of interest for the Crack Proof algorithm (if implemented). Thus, the Wall design branch
comprises the same cross-section input dialog as the Plate and Shell models.
In Plates and Shells, on the contrary, the reinforcement covers estimate the effective static height of the
reinforcement courses in the cross-section subjected (also) to bending, thus having fundamental meaning for
the design process. The covers are related to the faces. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish them clearly from
each other. Because Plates are (still) the structural type most frequently used in the practice, SCIA.ESA PT
used originally common terms distinguishing the two faces: upper and lower face. These concepts have to be
given mathematically exact meaning, which makes them acceptable for Shells, too: the lower face is the struct-
ural plane edge in direction of the positive planar axis Zp; the upper face is opposite to it. Finally, the symbol -
Zp appears generally in the output protocol instead of the term upper face; the symbol +Zp symbolises lower
face. In Walls, there is no need of distinguishing both structural edges; nevertheless, out of formal reasons
(simplification), if the concept of upper face appears in connection with Walls it means both faces.

35
The reinforcement courses are, correspondingly to their relative position in the cross-section, called the
outer(most), middle (if any) and inner(most) ones. This verbal distinguishing is in the mathematical
formulation replaced by assigning them the ordinal numbers 1, 2 and 3 (if three reinforcement courses are
specified at all). The same double identification may be given to other associated terms like reinforcement
angles, design forces, effective static heights, inner forces levers, etc. So we can speak, e.g., about reinforce-
ment angles , , meaning the same when alternately indicating 1, 2, 3. There is no indication that this
ambiguity of terms should cause confusion; as a fact, there is no ambiguousness for the correspondence of both
systems of denotation is clearly defined.
Remark:
Note that each reinforcement course can hold up to 10 reinforcement layers.
The terms of the reinforcement concrete theory are used in accordance with the general structural use or they
strictly follow the rules postulated by the Norms implemented in SCIA.ESA PT. However, for SCIA.ESA PT
deals with several national codes, it is probable that this or that term or formulation would appear somewhat
unfamiliar to some readers focused onto the use of one code branch only. It is hardly possible to create a
manual text on such special topic for international use being in all respects verbally fully conform to every
countrys verbal usage. In doubts, the terminology of Eurocode will be given preference.
The design task and the output of results are performed in basic and derived units of the SI system.

36
 SCIA.ESA PT

Reinforcement design of Walls

The inner forces {nx, ny, nxy} of the FEM solution are retrieved from the FEM Data Base for each design item
(element/node) and transformed by the method outlined above into the design (membrane) forces {p, p2, p3}.
Once a positive design force has been assigned to its associated reinforcement course, the corresponding static-
ally required reinforcement amount ai is calculated after a Formula like this:

ai = pi / dim (i=1,2 (,3)) [cm2/m]

The previous formula has a symbolic meaning only, for we cannot write down an exact calculation rule for
codes implemented in SCIA.ESA PT. The symbol dim stands for design effective steel strength. Both pi and
dim may be, according to the code of question, charged with bearing and/or security coefficients. We will not
discuss the problem of elementary reinforcement design; the SCIA.ESA PT algorithm follows strictly the rules
postulated by the national codes and associated regulations.
Above it was emphasised that the application of the transformation formula to the inner forces of the FEM
model yields not yet the final result and that there are formally several solutions fitting the invariance
condition. In a class of hyperbolic states of stress (nI > 0, nII < 0) the SCIA.ESA PT algorithm finds, by means
of the Baumann formula, an energetic minimum solution of the following quality:

p1 > 0; p2 = 0; p3 < 0

In p1 > 0 is the (positive) reinforcement design force; the second reinforcement course is set inactive (or both
remaining ones, if a three-course reinforcement is specified); p3 is the (negative) design force of the stiffening
strut.
For a two-course, skew (i.e. non-orthogonal) reinforcement net (representing equivalently also three-course
reinforcement nets under hyperbolic state of stress) we will follow the explanations by means of the next
figure.

37
In certain hyperbolic stress situations, the SCIA.ESA PT transformation algorithm yields for the skew
reinforcement specification according to previous figure a solution of the quality. It is sketched by figure (b):
the reinforcement course 1 is assigned a tension design force 1p1 > 0; the reinforcement course 2 is inactive; the
pressure stress acting at the cross-section of question is resisted by a relatively large pressure force of the
stiffening concrete strut 1p3 < 0.
However, the heterogeneous reinforced concrete medium would hardly be armoured by one reinforcement
course only. Even if the state of stress would prevail in extensive parts of the structure, an at least two-course
reinforcement mesh would still be necessary to maintain the functionality of such 2D-structure. Due to the
Minimum Transversal Percentage requirement, the reinforcement course No 2 deactivated (theoretically) in
this case would generally be assigned a portion of the statically necessary reinforcement amount of the
reinforcement course 1. Thus, in a practical reinforcement design the reinforcement course 2 would also be
assigned a real as value.
In addition, many of national codes implemented in SCIA.ESA PT require a Minimum Pressure Reinforcement
proof for reinforcement resisting pressure forces. In the case of figure (b), such proof could formally not be
performed for there is no data of the calculation pressure force assigned to the reinforcement: the strut pressure
force is not associated with any reinforcement course!
For reasons outlined, the seek of another solution fitting the transformation formula yet assigning a non-zero
design force to the reinforcement course 2 seems to be a logical if not indispensable algorithmic step. As a fact,
SCIA.ESA PT carries this step out automatically in such stress-situations and yields a second order solution
symbolised by figure (c). Using vector arrows of different lengths, the stress vectors of figure XX (b) and (c)
express the substantial difference of the two transformation solutions mentioned. In mathematical notation the
relations are as follows:

38
 SCIA.ESA PT

2
p1 > 1p1; 2
p2 > 1p2 = 0; 0 > 2p3 > 1p3

SCIA.ESA PT makes of these two consistent solutions (they are consistent for they fit the invariance condition
and inconsistent final solution by combining them according to figure (d). Analytically expressed:

p1 1p1; p2 2p2 < 0; p3 1p3 < 0

The solution (a,b) is extraordinary productive: SCIA.ESA PT extends the design forces set of the first basic
solution by the pressure design force for the reinforcement course 2. Experience shows that the real amount of
pressure reinforcement calculated by this procedure is generally relatively small; in most cases, the Minimum
Transversal Percentage requirement yields a higher value, thus replacing the pressure reinforcement value in
the output.
The solution described by figure (d) is inconsistent in the sense of the invariance condition: it is no more
fulfilled by the set of forces combined to form the effective solution. To denote this important circumstance,
the design pressure force p2 = 2p2 is marked by trailing ! in the output table of design forces of the printable
document, however, only if the design forces table output is activated. For the structural engineer it is of im-
portance that the solution just presented is consistent with national code requirements about Minimum Pressure
Reinforcement and represents a good mechanical solution of the design problem.
The preceding observations made it obvious that the virtual stiffening strut of the heterogeneous concrete-steel
continuum represents a quite substantial item of the design process. Whereas it is possible (unless the Upper
Reinforcement Percentage has not been exceeded) to improve the bearing capacity of the cross-section on the
side of the reinforcement by augmenting its amount, the bearing limit of the concrete strut is given by the
height of the cross-section and the quality of concrete only; thus its limits are predestined by the input data. The
following relation describes the concrete strut bearing capacity limit condition:

Reinforcement

Cracks

- p3 < A c,dim

39
c,dim representing the concrete effective design stress, which, according to the dode of question, may comprise
a security coefficient. In SCIA.ESA PT it is assessed on the base of 80% of the standard concrete pressure
strength. This effective reduction follows the recommendation of Schleich and Schfer: the bearing capacity of
concrete under pressure is unfavourably affected by transversal tension stresses which produce cracks parallel
to the direction of pressure; this is typically the stress situation of the stiffening strut.
The cross-section area A in is taken in Walls as the full amount of the unit rectangular cross-section h x 1.0.
The transformation formula may yield, however, in other hyperbolic states of stress direct design pressure for-
ces assigned with reinforcement courses specified. At any case, once a design pressure force, direct or virtual
one, is known the pressure reinforcement is calculated after the following general formula:

ai = (- pi - A c,dim) / dim (i=1,2 (,3)) [cm2/m] (ZZZ)

40
 SCIA.ESA PT

Reinforcement design of Plates

In the Wall model the inner as well as the design forces produce constant presses over the cross-section; thus,
there is no necessity to examine the distribution of stresses within the cross-section. For bending in Plates, it is
a fundamental characteristic that the stresses are non-linearly and discontinuously distributed over the cross-
section. For all of the national Codes implemented in SCIA.ESA PT exclude the tension bearing capacity of
concrete out of the reinforcement design concept, in the tension zone (below the neutral axis) the only
bearing material is the reinforcement steel. The resistance ability of concrete exerts in the pressure-bending
zone only.
DIN 1045 introduces the concept of combined parabolic (2) and constant pressure stress distribution. It
is the most complex assumption of all Codes implemented (the so called Parabel-Rechteck-
Diagramm).
NORM B 4200 does not allow for fully plasticized concrete in a portion of the pressure zone; thus,
the pressure stress distribution function is parabola 2. It is of interest to point out that by this
assumption NORM gives for comparable material strengths reinforcement design solutions with
higher virtual security than DIN.
EUROCODE 2 allows for all national Norm assumptions. For SCIA.ESA PT serves as design
algorithm on international scale it would, strictly considering the situation, be necessary to develop
several national mutations of the EC 2 algorithm. Actually SCIA.ESA PT keeps to the basic variant
developed under the concrete pressure stress distribution assumption according to DIN 1045 which
comprises the assumptions of almost all of the implemented Codes. EUROCODE 2 introduces a new
concept of the Shear Proof, which explicitly operates with the concept of the shear virtual strut. It also
formulates a new approach to the consideration of the interaction between the bending moment +
normal force and the shear force. After this concept, the shear force causes, typically, an increase of the
necessary net reinforcement. This phenomenon was analysed by the Author of SCIA.ESA PT and 1999
implemented algorithmically into the EUROCODE 2 design branch as well as into all other design
branches following the same (or similar) concept (SIA 162, DIN 1045-1, NORM B 4700 see
below).
CSN 73 1201 introduces the concept of the so called Pressure Bloc: the resisting concrete stress is
assumed to develop constantly over a portion of the pressure zone only (i.e. it covers not completely the
zone between the neutral axis and the compressed face) thus forming a calculation substitute for the
reality approximated. Comparative tests showed that there is no substantial difference between this
simplified approach and more complex pressure distribution assumptions of other Codes on the side of
the design results.
SIA 162 introduces, similarly to CSN 731201, the concept of the Pressure Bloc and, parallelly, the
Parabolic-Constant stress distribution analogously to DIN 1045. SCIA.ESA PT uses the former
assumption. It might thus be expected that the design results of CSN 731201 and SIA 162 would differ
slightly from each other for comparable material qualities. However, this proves to be true in situations
with vanishing shear forces only! As a fact, SIA 162 was the first of national codes implemented in
SCIA.ESA PT (and the first Norm used in practice on international scale) which formulated the impact
of shear forces upon the mesh reinforcement on both faces(!), which was given the name Shear Effect
(see above, EUROCODE 2). Because SIA 162, in difference to EUROCODE 2, DIN 1045-1 and
NORM B 4700, does not regularly allow for a design variant without considering the Shear Effect, the
development of the Shear Effect algorithm of SCIA.ESA PT was, as a fact, induced by SIA 162, rather
than by EUROCODE 2. This special treatment of the Shear Effect is by the SIA Norm explicitly
formulated for beams, i.e. 1D structural members, only. In order to make it applicable for 2D reinforce-
ment models, some special assumptions and algorithmic enhancements had to be made. This SCIA.ESA
PTs genuine development was implemented 1999 and published in [17]. By this SCIA holds priority
not only in reporting on this phenomenon but also in having developed and implemented their own 2D
algorithm in a design program distributed on the international market. Aspects of this phenomenon will
be discussed in more detail in the Chapter Shear Proof.
NEN 6720 operates with the assumption of linearly changing and constant branch of the pressure
distribution function. In comparison with other codes it can be summarised than NEN 6720 is a
sophisticated standard of high engineering value. Especially its concept of Shear and Crack Proof is
highly valuable. However, NEN 6720 does not introduce the concept of the Shear Effect (see above).

41
DIN 1045-1 1998/12 is a mutation of EUROCODE 2 developed as a substitute for the actually valid
DIN 1045, 1988/7. It maintains the concept of combined parabolic (2) and constant pressure stress
distribution of its predecessor issue. However, the material strengths are defined in the Eurocode
manner. The most distinguishing features to the old DIN 1045 are: (a) the Eurocode concept of partial
safety factors; (b) Eurocode-like classification of concrete; (c) substantially higher allowed ultimate
steel strain; (d) the Shear Proof concept is substantially that of EUROCODE 2; however, some new ele-
ments were introduced, not all being a real improvement.
NORM B 4700, declared as Eurocode-like Norm, is in its concept very similar to EUROCODE 2
or to DIN 1045-1. It introduces both the concept of the Pressure Bloc and the Parabolic-Constant
stress distribution after DIN 1045-1. SCIA.ESA PT uses the latter assumption. The Crack Proof concept
of NORM B 4700 is relatively detailed elaborated.
The statically required tension reinforcement of a steel course is calculated by the following elementary
formula:
ai = mi / (zi dim) (i=1,2 (,3)) [cm2/m]
The special moment symbol mi for the design moment associated with the reinforcement course i is
used instead of the common symbol pi for design force in order to avoid confusion with hasty readers.
The stress symbol dim has a comparable quality as that explained with the formula for Walls; it again
represents the effective design steel strength for all codes. The inner forces lever zi in makes out the
obvious difference between the formulae. As a fact, there is no difference between them, for the
quotient mi/zi equals the steel design force Zi, which constitutes with the opposing concrete pressure
zone resultant force Di the forces couple representing the design bending moment mi; thus, we formally
obtain the formula when substituting pi = Zi = mi / zi.
The previous formula reveals the fundamental and equally elementary meaning of the inner forces lever
z for the design algorithm. As a fact, by introducing the transformation formulae (3) for Shells above it
was made clear enough that the knowledge of the proper value of inner forces lever is indispensable for
the reinforcement design.

In SCIA.ESA PT the inner forces lever z is calculated following the following procedures:
For DIN 1045, NORM B 4200 and EUROCODE 2 interpolation formulae yielding the value of z
very quickly were developed. The maximum approximation error amounts up to 2%, however, in the
region of vanishing bending zone heights; the interpolation Formula is much better fitted to higher
stress states where there the approximation error is less than 1%.
For CSN 731201, SIA 162, NEN 6720, DIN 1045-1 and NORM B 4700 analytic integration
procedures were developed; they yield exact pressure integrals.
The stiffening function of the concrete medium is not as transparently obvious in Plates as in Walls. In
Plates we have to do with force couples described as bending moments. The concrete pressure stresses
are not constantly distributed over the cross-section. Thus, a direct application of the concrete strut
bearing capacity limit condition (8) was not possible here. SCIA.ESA PT had used some approximate
approaches until the best and perhaps most simply formulation of the strut bearing capacity limit was
found. It is, however, not simply enough to be described by a few mathematical terms; in SCIA.ESA PT

42
 SCIA.ESA PT

it is formulated algorithmically. Here we give the following verbal explanation of the matter relating to
figures (c) and (d):
In Plates the strut design force p3 means the force couple m3. From figure XXX (c) it is obvious that m3
causes basically the same kind of stresses in its direction as the other two reinforcement design
moments m1 and m2, however, with exchanged faces (i.e. m3 is of opposite sign). In this case we are not
interested in analysing the situation on the tensioned face; the state of stress in the stiffening strut
bending zone is of interest. What is the limit condition of the strut bearing capacity; what calculation
value of stress integral force D3 can be taken into account?
The answer to the fundamental question posed under (1) is given by figure (d): SCIA.ESA PT allows
for the maximum height of the bending zone xmax in the sense of the design algorithm applied. If at this
state of stress the equilibrium in the cross-section is not yet attained, i.e. would strengthening of the
pressure zone by (pressure) reinforcement be formally necessary, then this is seen by SCIA.ESA PT as
an unambiguous indication of the bearing capacity of the stiffening strut being exceeded. The cross-
section is non-designable due to concrete failure (Error number 5).
It is not known to the Author of SCIA.ESA PT that any other design algorithms would deal with this
problem at all. Even theoretical publications on reinforced concrete design and the Codes implemented
here do not care about the state of concrete in the heterogeneous concrete-steel medium under bending.
DIN 1045, DIN 1045-1 and NORM B 4700 (curiously, not the old issue NORM B 4200), give some
standardised advises as to the geometrical arrangement of reinforcement in reference to the directions
of the principal moments; they are concerned with stressed situations which are typically of the
hyperbolic type (situation in corners of floor slabs etc.).
The virtual strut bearability is a problem of acute practical interest. Users changing to EPW from other
program systems come earlier or later across the design error 5. In discussion with the SCIAs hotline
support they then usually claim: With our old program there we never had such a problem. All the
time we had been using it, no exhaustion of the concrete bearability was reported. It requires often
quite a lot of patience to explain to them that programs that do not care of a phenomenon cannot give
any report of it. If the state of stress of the concrete is not monitored sufficiently, not all of possible
critical situations can be realised by the design algorithm. Protests like: We do not know anything of
damages to a structure due to insufficiency of the stiffening function of the concrete, which we hear
from time to time, are of no practical impact. Our structures are built with rather a high security
reserves. Underestimating of the bearing capacity of concrete does not cause immediately a crash yet
generally a lesser than the required level of security, which we are bound to achieve and maintain by
codes and other Standards.

43
Reinforcement design of Shells

In the design of Shells, the ideas and procedures of both the design of Walls and the design of Plates are comb-
ined. The code requirements and restrictions, which seldom are formulated individually for Shells, must both
be considered both for Walls and Plates. Thus, the Shell design is the most complex design model dealt with by
SCIA.ESA PT.

From the mechanical point of view, the stress-strain situation in cross-sections of Shells may develop from a
typical Wall pattern with constant stress distribution to a Plate pattern with its characteristic non-linear
concrete pressure stress distribution over the bending pressure zone along with a cracked region below the
neutral axis where there the reinforcement resists the stresses from inner forces. The special situation depends,
however, on the character of external load as well as on the boundary conditions of the structure modelled.

SCIA.ESA PT has to manage all possible stress situations arising between the Wall type and the Plate type
state of stress using one unique design model to be able to produce results consistent with quantitatively slowly
yet qualitatively abruptly changing states of stress. It would be non-acceptable to have such a Shell design mo-
del which yields on one side results fully identical with a Plate solution when there is pure bending acting, i.e.
the membrane forces being zero, yet would produce unintelligible results just because the membrane forces
differ slightly from zero. Little change in loading must imply also little change in the reinforcement design
results.

We must be aware of the fact that all of the code texts implemented into SCIA.ESA PT were drafted with
strongly focusing to the problems of 1D structural members, i.e. beams. In SCIA.ESA PT, several requirements
and restrictions had to be given a reasonable engineering interpretation or extrapolation to fit to the special
character of the 2D-structures of interest. So it was also in the design algorithm itself. Above it was shown that
the seek of a representative (in this case the minimum) value of the inner forces lever z may be quite a complex
algorithmic task for the directions of the principal moments mI and mII generally differ from those of nI and nII.
Additionally, the reinforcement on both faces consists of two mutually independent meshes with 2 or 3
reinforcement courses in different directions. In Shells it is thus not possible to proceed by using the design
solutions of the type (m/n) moment + normal force like in the design theory of beams.

SCIA.ESA PT follows the logical approach of creating two sets of transformed design forces assigned to
individual reinforcement courses and/or the stiffening concrete strut on both faces of the structural model. In
the assessment of the inner forces lever z the Shell design procedure resembles the Plate design. In the creation
of equivalent inner forces {px, py, pxy} and their transformations (p1, p2, p3) SCIA.ESA PT follows a typical
Wall design approach. Formally, we get two systems of design situations on both Shell faces that must be
managed in two algorithmic steps in each cross-section by considering the situation on the other face. In this
sense, the Shell design is organised like the Plate design.

The next figure shows symbolically a typical Shell design situation: there is the representative design force pdim
assigned to a reinforcement course at the upper face (the same procedure applies, however, to the lower face).
In next figure symbol popp is used for the virtual design force on the opposite face going in the same direction
as on the actual (upper) face; it is without impact if there is specified a congruent reinforcement course parallel
to that on the actual face (associated with pdim). The total normal force in this cross-section is denoted as pvirt
(virtual normal force). Analogously, the associated virtual bending moment mvirt is defined to constitute the
inner forces couple (mvirt, pvirt) acting in the cross-section of interest. Thus, the virtual eccentricity can be
estimated. Its value decides of the cross-section exploitation status.

The figure reveals that the design on a Shell face is typically a Wall design; however, the design force pdim is
not applied to the total cross-section area as in Walls, yet to some portion of it. SCIA.ESA PT assigns this
portion of A in accordance with the suggestions of Baumann. In the area assignment formula

As = A (ZZZ)

44
 SCIA.ESA PT

the value of the coefficient varies from code to code in the range <0.35; 0.42>. In some sense, this approach
may be compared with the approximation made by CSN 731201 and SIA 162 in formulating the stress
distribution in the bending pressure zone using the Pressure Bloc approximation (see above). The
reinforcement design goes then analogously after the formulae (ZZZ) and (ZZZ). Also the strut proof is the
same as for Walls; it is governed by the formula (ZZZ). However, instead of the total cross-section area, the
effective one-face area As is to be substituted into these formulae.

45
Design of shear reinforcement
Beams
General
As already stated in the chapter about internal forces, the shear reinforcement design is commonly
based on the theory of the concrete truss-model. In this theory a virtual truss-model is imagined in a
concrete beam. This truss-model has a set of vertical (or slightly diagonal), horizontal and diagonal
members. The vertical bars are considered to be the stirrups; the horizontal bars are the main
reinforcement and the diagonal bars are the concrete struts.

All implemented codes postulate a stress level which, when exceeded, indicates the necessity of shear reinfor-
cement to ensure the cross-section resistance to shear, as well as another (higher) level which, when exceeded,
signalises the structure becoming non-designable. Following the concepts of DIN 1045 the first (lower) limit
restricts the so-called Shear Region 1. In SR1 (symbolical abbreviation), no shear reinforcement is necessary.
In the Shear Region 2 (SR2) which comprises all stress states between the two limits, the shear reinforcement
is calculated on the base of the design value vdim in (15). It proved as good means of communication to use the
concept of the Shear Regions when discussing the Shear Proof algorithm aspects and commenting design
results of all Codes. When the upper limit of the SR2 is reached in a 2D structural medium, the shear bearing
ability of the cross-section is considered to be exhausted. This limit is the threshold to the Shear Region 3.
When SR3 is indicated in the output protocol of the 2D design it means non-designabilty of the cross-section.

46
 SCIA.ESA PT

Composite Section and Arbitrary Sections

Composite sections (concrete/concrete) are more difficult to calculate the shear reinforcement
for. Principally a set of two truss-models must be defined in order to calculate the
reinforcement. One truss-model for the lesser concrete quality and one for the difference
between the larger and lesser quality. In SCIA.ESA PT a straight forward of calculation of
these sections is allowed. The user is able to define the concrete quality by hand, thus
allowing a more practical solution. By default however the lesser quality is always taken in the
calculation.

Since SCIA.ESA PT is capable of calculating main reinforcement for any vertical symmetrical
section, the shear reinforcement calculation can sometimes be seemingly impossible. In those
cases SCIA.ESA PT allows the user to set the value of the shear width himself. Thus the
shear area is defined by the static height of the cross-section and the user-defined width.
Then a normal shear reinforcement calculation is performed.

Columns
Presently SCIA.ESA PT does not support shear reinforcement calculations for columns loaded in two
directions. When one wants to calculate the shear reinforcement for a column loaded in one direction,
change the beam type of the column to beam and the shear calculation can be performed.

Plates and Shells

All of the Codes implemented in SCIA.ESA PT have their own mechanical model of how slender structures
like Plates and Shells resist the shear stressing and how they can be strengthen to increase their shear
resistance. Thus, the Shear Proof is still more diversified than the "pure" net reinforcement design. However,

47
this diversification becomes more relative by near consideration. As a fact, there are many common ideas of
the Shear Proof among the Codes implemented.
The shear forces vx and vy in the point of consideration are transformed into the design shear force vdim after the
following geometric sum formula:

vdim = (vx2 + vy2) [kN/m] (15)

Some of the modern Codes EUROCODE 2, DIN 1045-1, NORM B 4700 require in the Shear Region 2
some amount of Minimum Shear Reinforcement. This requirement is regulated by special tables combining the
control by the concrete and steel strength class. Not unlike this requirement, CSN 73 1201 formulates an
additional shear stress limit, which, if attained, implies the need of the so called Structural Shear
Reinforcement in such parts of the structure designed (see below).

48
 SCIA.ESA PT

Shear Proof Concepts

To enable better understanding of the design results, the most important characteristics of the Norm oriented
Shear Proof procedures applied in SCIA.ESA PT are summarised here:
DIN 1045 (1988/7) introduces the concept of the so called Truss Model (Fachwerkmodell) of the shear
stress resistance mechanism. Three Shear Regions are defined corresponding with different levels of cross-
section exploitation. In 2D Structures of interest, Shear Region 3 is no more allowed. On the other side, in
difference to 1D structural members no shear reinforcement is needed in Shear Region 1. The Shear Region
limits are expressed in terms of allowable shear stresses as functons of the concrete strength class. Depending
on the continuity of the tension reinforcement in individual spans (i.e. fields from support to support), one of
two sets of shear tension limits applies. The categorisation by Shear Regions seamed to the Author of
SCIA.ESA PT mechanically and formally so representative that it was generalised to describe comparable
design states also in other Codes implemented (see above).
NORM B 4200 defines a Shear Proof concept similar to DIN 1045. In difference to DIN, the continuity of
net reinforcement is not a factor of design; on the other side, the amount of net reinforcement at both faces is a
bearing capacity increasing factor. For in NORM B 4200 this concept is, as usual, introduced for 1D struct-
ural members only, SCIA.ESA PT assumed the following generalisation: as effective values of longitudinal
reinforcement the geometric sums (analogously to the Formula (15)) on both faces separately, are taken.
EUROCODE 2 introduces a more advanced Shear Proof concept than DIN 1045 (1988/ 7). Two alternative
Shear Proof methods are legal: (a) standard procedure based on the Constant Shear Strut Inclination assumpt-
ion; (b) shear proof model using the Variable Shear Strut Iinclination concept. Actually, ESA-Prima Win
enables the application of both appoaches. Like all Codes applying the modern concept of the Strut Inclination,
EUROCODE 2 introduces the Shear Effect procedure (see above). In early SCIA.ESA PT versions (before
1997), the explicit calculation of the impact of shear forces upon the net reinforcement design was disregarded,
on the base of the Article 4.3.2.4.4(6), which allows for the consideration of the Shear Effect by applying
constructive measures to the net reinforcement, analogously to the old Norm generation (the concept of the so
called Reinforcement Shift).
CSN 73 1201 has its special Shear Proof concept, which is based on the concrete tension strength merely than
on allowable shear stress limits; both approaches are, however, equivalent. In addition to other Codes, CSN 73
1201 formulates a design situation where the so called Constructive Shear Reinforcement is required. For this
reason, the concept of Shear Regions, introduced by DIN 1045 and applied to other Codes as well, has for CSN
73 1201 been extended by the formal introduction of the Shear Region 0. This region is equivalent to SR 1 of
other Codes. In SR 1 of the CSN 73 1201 mutatation, Constructive Shear Reinforcement is calculated. SR 2
and SR 3 have then analogous meanings like with other Codes.
SIA 162 works after the concept of the Strut Inclination Method. As a fact, analogously to the mode (b) of
EUROCODE 2 (see above), the Variable Shear Strut Inclination method is the standard mode of SIA 162.
However, the very special requirement of the Article 3 24 203, which is hardly to controle in 2D structures,
made it necessary for SCIA.ESA PT to keep the mode (a) of the Constant Shear Strut Inclination available to
the users decision. SIA was the first Norm in international scale that introduced the Shear Effect concept into
practice; however, SIA 162 did it very consequently: the traditional approach disregarding the Shear Effect
mechanism was disabled as a means of Shear Proof. It means that in real situations of the Plate and Shell
design, where the shear forces act in combination with moments and membrane forces, an increment of the
tension net reinforcement due to shear is a standard design result under SIA 162. Sometimes, also the natural
prestress (in pressure zone) may be overridden by the longitudinal shear forces, so that tension reinforcement
appears as final result where there would, without the consideration of the Shear Effect, be no tension
reinforcement necessary [17]. Thus, the Shear Effect has to be considered in benchmark test examples. Also,
in regions nearby (end line) supports, where bending moments approach zero while the shear stresses attain
extreme values, the difference between the design results disregarding the >v-m/n< interaction and the results
containing the Shear Effect increments of the net reinforcement may been "surprisingly" high! It is mainly to
enable such comparative calculations like benchmark tests that the alternative mode (a) was introduced into
the SIA 162 Shear Proof branch as a non-standard calculation mode.
NEN 6720 uses a fine, sophisticated, modern concept of Shear Proof resembling a combination of the ideas of
EUROCODE 2 and SIA 162. NEN 6720 applies the Variable Shear Strut Inclination assumption for the Shear
Proof algorithm. Also the concept of Shear Regions (see above) is applicable to the NEN 6720 calculation
process as common classification base.
DIN 1045-1 (1998/12) was implemented into SCIA.ESA PT before its final installation into the German
Engineering practice. The concept of DIN 1045-1 is based on EUROCODE 2. There are, however, differences,
yet as a whole they are not of primary importance. The DIN 1045-1 design branch follows the same ideas in

49
the dealing with the problem of variable/fixed strut inclination method and the consideration of the Shear
Effect.
NORM B 4700 is actually the last Norm branch implementation into SCIA.ESA PT. The overall design
oncept of NORM B 4700 is based on EUROCODE 2. The Shear Proof concept differs slightly from the
original EUROCODE 2 concept. The NORM B 4700 design branch follows the same ideas in the dealing
with the problem of Variable/Fixed Strut method and the consideration of the Shear Effect like EUROCODE 2
or DIN 1045-1. It comprises an interesting individual approach to the problem of Crack limitations.

Advanced notes on the Shear Effect concept

The Shear Effect phenomenon, originally introduced by SIA 162 into the Engineering practice, is also a vivid
concept of EUROCODE 2, DIN 1045-1 (1998/12) and NORM B 4700. Some users not yet accustomed to the
modern Eurocode-based approach to reinforced concrete design may consider this concept considered as
controversial. As a fact, the state of stress in a Plate or Shell cross-section due to the inner shear force may be
regarded as an analogy to the situation in a Wall design model under the effect of shear membrane forces! In
Walls, the consequence of such a kind of stressing is that the concrete has to withstand relatively high pressure
efforts along with substantial tension stresses in both or two of three, respectively, courses of the reinforcement
net. There is really a full analogy between this kind of membrane state of stress and that state of stress that is
produced by shear forces in a Plate or Shell cross-section, as reported in [17]. Here, one reinforcement course
is represented by the shear reinforcement (stirrups), the other reinforcement course are the bars of the
upper/lower reinforcement net of the 2D structure. However, as shown in [17], in high cross-sections (more
typically, however, in 1D members) the horizontal, 2nd-course reinforcement must be arranged not only at both
faces but distributed along the cross-section height (at bar web faces). When calculating the shear reinforce-
ment (stirrups), it is a natural mental step to think of the estimation of the efforts arising from shear in the net
reinforcement.
The concept of what was postulated as Shear Effect in [17] is basically the same in EUROCODE 2, SIA 162
and DIN 1045-1. For SIA 162 introduced this concept as binding (i.e. the only shear design mode) before it
was formulated by EUROCODE 2 we will correspond here to the symbolics of SIA 162 in giving a short
overview of the method fundamentals.
In Art. 3 24 203 SIA 162 formulates the so called Truss Model of the Shear Proof based upon the concept of
the Variable Strut Inclination. By Strut a 1D representation of the resisting pressure field of the concrete
medium is symbolised; the strut inclination is then the assumed direction of the principal pressure stresses
activated in the concrete by the shear (transversal) force v. The concrete cannot, in accordance with the general
assumption, resist tension stresses; their equilibration is the task of the reinforcement. One shear reinforcement
course constitute the transversal stirrups (the primary issue of the Shear Proof); the other reinforcement course
is represented by the upper/lower net reinforcement bars.
The total Shear Effect force ft(v) is calculated according to the Art. 3 24 207 of SIA 162 (analogous relations
after EUROCODE 2, DIN 1045-1 and NORM B 4700) by the Formula:

ft(v) = vR cotg [kN/m] (16)

where vR is the required cross-section shear resistance and the variable strut inclination. The required shear
reinforcement amount follow from the Formula:

asw = vR tg / (fy z) [cm2/m] (17)

where z is the inner forces lever from the (m/n) design. We recognise from (16), (17) that the shear
reinforcement amount and the Shear Effect force component acting upon the net reinforcement are indirectly
proportional (tg = 1/cotg ). The strut inclination may be chosen, according to Art. 3 24 203, free within a
quite wide range; in Plates: 25 < < 65. Because the minimisation of the shear reinforcement is the primary
goal of the design, the SCIA.ESA PT design algorithm starts an iteration loop with the lower limit value of min
= 25 and, increasing it by 1, seeks an equilibrium solution ensuring the strut resistance at minimum
inclination. From this solution of , the corresponding Shear Effect force component is derived after the
Formula (16).
If the Constant Strut Inclination as input control is active or the cross-section is over-tensioned (automatic
control), no iterative estimation of the strut inclination is started: the central value of o = 45 is set. In such
cases: ft(v) = vR, i.e. the total Shear Effect force equals the shear (resistance) force itself!

50
 SCIA.ESA PT

The SCIA.ESA PT algorithm proceeds in two algorithmic steps: (1) 1st step is as described above; (2) In the 2nd
step, the total Shear Effect force is assigned 50/50 to the upper/ lower reinforcement nets, where it is merged
with the bending/membrane forces (mx, my, mxy, nx, ny, nxy). We abstain from describing this essential
transformation procedure, characteristic for the high performance of SCIA.ESA PT, in detail; please refer to
[17]. As result, a net reinforcement respecting the Shear Effect in a consistent way is designed. By developing
and implementing this genuine SCIA.ESA PT algorithm SCIA keep primacy on international scale.
In pressure zones of the cross-section resisting the combination of inner bending moment and normal force, the
natural prestress is, as a rule, so high that it cannot be over-tensioned by the superposing Shear Effect forces. In
such cases, the Shear Effect is no explicitly recognisable in the reinforcement design results of such a face.
In cases of low shear stress, where the cross-section lies in Shear Region 1 (see above), no shear reinforcement
(stirrups) is required to ensure the cross-section shear resistance.
In the early stages of development of this part of the SCIA.ESA PT algorithm the Author, being partially
mislead by some obscure formulations of the corresponding Article of SIA 162, considered also in Shear
Region 1 the longitudinal components of the Shear Effect to be assigned reinforcement. However, the concept
of the shear resistance mechanism in SR 1 is merely a linear elastic state of stress where the principal tension
stress is supposed to be resisted by the concrete itself in difference to the common assumption of concrete
failing in tension, which is generally applied in the net reinforcement design.
It means that in SR 1, basically no Shear Effect upon the net tension reinforcement is to be considered.
However, SCIA.ESA PT was equipped also with a possibility to control this part of the Shear Proof algorithm.
There are three control stages provided (for Norm branches which have to do with the Shear Effect at all):
The Shear Effect is not considered at all. For SIA 162 this is, as a fact, an illegal control situation for there are
no other alternatives to provide for the Shear Effect. Yet this control offers the possibility to carry out
benchmark test calculations freed from the Shear Effect, whatever their use might be, also for Norm branches
which comprise the Shear Effect phenomenon as standard.
The Shear Effect is considered in Shear Region 2 only. This is the standard case for all Codes involved in the
Shear Effect.
The Shear Effect is considered both in Shear Region 1 and 2. This is a non-standard case for all Codes involved
in the Shear Effect.
It was explained that the primary goal of the Shear Proof, the minimisation of the shear (stirrup)
reinforcement, is respected by the SCIA.ESA PT Shear Effect design procedure. However, the consequence of
the minimisation of the stirrups is a higher increase of the net reinforcement (if any) according to the Formula
(16). This circumstance, found quite unusual by traditional designers, caused some eager discussions on the
hotline. There is also another factor to be considered . The Art. 3 24 203 (SCIA 162) presents a closing
sentence causing some confusion. It reads: "The strut inclination, once chosen, ought to be considered constant
over the whole length of the shear region". It is not quite clear what is meant by shear region here (the concept
of Shear Region used by SCIA.ESA PT has another meaning clearly defined see above), yet it may be clear
that this sentence is concerned with 1D structural elements (beams) where there geometric relations are better
controllable than in 2D structures. This sentence, whatever it may mean, cannot be considered by the
SCIA.ESA PT design (EUROCODE 2, DIN 1045-1 and NORM B 4700 do not pose such a requirement).
SCIA.ESA PT offers the possibility of generally prescribing the constant strut inclination of = 45. If = 45
be outside the 0 interval in a Shell model cross-section (see SIA 162, Art. 3 24 203), the value nearest to 45
is estimated.
SIA 162 formulates the 0 interval control for Shells by considering the magnitude of the tension/pressure
normal forces (see Art. 3 24 203). EUROCODE 2, DIN 1045-1 and NORM B 4700 do not formulate such a
condition. However, Art. 7.2.6(5) of DIN 1045-1 requires for over-tensioned cross-sections (i.e. with zero axis
outside of the cross-section) the application of the inclination angle = 45. SCIA.ESA PT considers this
requirement automatically not only for DIN 1045-1 yet also for EUROCODE 2 and NORM B 4700.
Moreover, in the design branches of DIN 1045 (1988/7), EUROCODE 2, SIA 162, DIN 1045-1 and NORM
B 4700 the strut inclination may be set constantly = 45 for the whole structure as input control provision.

51
Design of torsional reinforcement
Presently the design of torsional reinforcement in beams and columns is not possible. The torsional
moments in plates and shells (mxy) are fully integrated in the calculation.

52
 SCIA.ESA PT

Crack Proof
General
All Norm specific Crack Proof concepts are based on principally the same assumptions about the crack
propagation mechanism:
1. High-tension stress in a reinforcement bar causes high steel strain. The adhesion between
concrete and the reinforcement bar is disturbed and cracks arise. The higher the ratio of
steel stress and the adhesion resistance is, the wider become the cracks along the
reinforcement bar. Thus, the larger the representative reinforcement diameter is, the
higher is the ratio of the steel stress and the adhesion resistance, for the cross-section area
of a bar grows with the square of whereas the surface of a (unit length) peace of bar
depends linearly on .
2. Cracks arise, however, not only along the reinforcement bar yet also between the rein-
forcement bars. Thus the lateral distance of the reinforcement bars is another crucial
factor of the cracks propagation, i.e. crack width.
Thus, to limit or diminish, respectively, crack widths (as a fact, not the number of cracks yet the representative
crack width is of importance for the Crack Proof) the following measures are to be taken:
1. Use of small reinforcement diameters .
2. Reduction of the representative lateral reinforcement bar distance s.
3. Combination of the measures 1 and 2.
4. Combination of the measures 1 and 2 along with augmenting the statically necessary
reinforcement amount. Due to the latter provision the Serviceability state steel stress is
reduced to a value that, along with the reinforcement diameter and bar distance provided,
causes also the reduction of the crack widths.
In practical calculations the concept according to Pt. 4 is of highest interest: A characteristic bar diameter k
and/or a characteristic bar distance sk are specified by the user on input. SCIA.ESA PT carries out the Crack
Proof according to the Norm proof concept and increases the statically required reinforcement amount where it
is needed to meet completely the Crack Proof requirements.
Thus it is important to involve all of the active Load Cases into the Crack Proof even if they are not
declared as of Crack Proof type. The design of the statically required reinforcement has to be carried out
before the Crack Proof calculations. The result reinforcement corresponding to the Ultimate state Load
Cases (or their extreme Combinations) is saved in the SCIA.ESA PT Data Base and retrieved again at
the stage of the Crack Proof calculations, thus constituting a start base for possible augmentations of the
reinforcement augmentation as outlined under Pt. 4 above.

53
Beams
The crack proof for beams is generally a check of the allowable steel stress. SCIA.ESA PT calculates
the response of the cross-section for the service limit state using the code-given stress/strain diagrams of
concrete and reinforcement. Since the lateral distance of the reinforcement bars is off importance for the
crack proof, the crack proof can only be performed for vertical symmetrical cross-section loaded by
moment My only. If bi-axial bending is introduced in a beam, the lateral distance between bars cannot
exactly be calculated. Additionally not all codes have concept for bi-axial crack proofs.
SCIA.ESA PT allows different kind of environmental classes, adhesion factors, increased covers, etc.
All these features can be code-driven and are described in the manual.

Column
Presently the crack proof for columns is not supported.

54
 SCIA.ESA PT

Plates, Walls and Shells

Crack Proof after NEN 6720
The Crack Proof theory distinguishes three kinds of Load Cases for the Crack Proof after NEN 6720:
Load Cases representing External Loads. In the SCIA.ESA PT input system they are assigned the attribute
Ultimum. They yield the statically required reinforcement being automatically saved in the Data Base to be
retrieved by the Crack Proof procedure. However, they can simultaneously be specified two (or more) times
being given the attribute Serviceability and used as Load Cases of the types specified below; then, probably,
provided with another LC factor.
Load Cases representing the Force Imposed Deformations. They are Crack Proof Serviceability Load Cases
destined for the Crack Proof procedure.
Load Cases representing the Strain Imposed Deformations. For Load Cases of this type NEN 6720 formulates a
modified proof procedure. They are special Crack Proof Serviceability Load Cases.
The NEN 6720 Crack Proof branch of SCIA.ESA PT has been equipped with 4 different proof subbranches.
All of them are useful means of Crack Proof analysis:
Non-controlled Crack Proof: The Crack Proof calculation is not controlled by any restrictions specified by the
user. For each reinforcement course SCIA.ESA PT calculates the Characteristic Average Bar Diameter k and
the the Maximum Allowable Reinforcement Bar Distance sk at any point (element and/or node), selected for
design, which would be necessary to fit the Crack Proof requirements. By examination of the results (graphic
portrayal) the user gain an overview over the development of the characteristic values of k and sk all over the
structure. In special cases, e.g. when the Crack Proof requirements are fulfilled at some structural parts for the
bar diameters or bar distances anticipated, the Crack Proof for these regions can be finished.
Controlled Crack Proof: The Crack Proof calculation is controlled by the Maximum Bar Diameter
specified by the user. SCIA.ESA PT calculates the Characteristic Average Bar Diameter k at any point
(element and/or node), selected for design, and compares this value with the input value of . If k calculated is
less than the input diameter the reinforcement amount augmentation process described above is started. As a
result, a higher reinforcement amount fitting the Crack Proof for the input diameter is saved in the Data Base,
thus replacing the original statically required reinforcement amount saved prior to the Crack Proof. This Proof
variant enables the Engineer to specify a constant bar diameter, e.g. = 16 [mm] anticipated as structural
measure for some regions (macroelements) of the structure. The results of this SCIA.ESA PT Crack Proof
variant ensure that the Crack Proof requirements will be met overall, however, using the reinforcement saved in
the Data Base (maybe augmented by the Crack Proof procedure).
sControlled Crack Proof: The Crack Proof calculation is controlled by the Maximum Bar Distance s
specified by the user. SCIA.ESA PT calculates the Maximum Allowable Reinforcement Bar Distance sk at any
point (element and/or node), selected for design, and compares this value with the input value of s. If sk
calculated is less than the input diameter s the reinforcement amount augmentation process is started. As a
result, a higher reinforcement amount fitting the Crack Proof for the input bar distance s is saved in the Data
Base. This Proof variant enables the Engineer to specify a constant bar distance, e.g. s = 200 [mm] for some
macroelements. The results of this SCIA.ESA PT Crack Proof variant ensure that the Crack Proof requirements
will be met overall by using the reinforcement saved in the Data Base (maybe augmented by the Crack Proof
procedure).
Optimised Crack Proof: This is algorithmically the most exacting variant of the NEN 6720 Crack Proof
algorithm. The calculation is controlled both by the Maximum Bar Diameter and the Maximum Bar Distance
s specified simultaneously by the user. SCIA.ESA PT combines the procedures described under Pt. 2 and 3
above. Following variants may be encountered in course of the calculations: (a) If k calculated is greater than
or equal the input diameter the Crack Proof has been met. There is no need of augmenting the reinforcement
amount; (b) If sk calculated is greater or equal than the input distance s the Crack Proof has been met; (c) if
neither nor s specified meet the Crack Proof requirements a procedure described by Pt. 2 and 3 is started by
which the best fit of one of both conditions ( or s) is found by augmenting the statically required
reinforcement pre-calculated. Best fit means that the fulfilment of one of the or s conditions is sought, that
one which implies the lesser reinforcement augmentation of both. This variant yields, generally, the lowest
total reinforcement augmentation amount of all three variants described by Pt. 2,3 and 4; this is why it is called
the Optimised variant. On the other hand, its disadvantage lies in the fact that generally both of the input
conditions, the Maximum Bar Diameter and the Maximum Bar Distance s, must be maintained at every point
of the (sub)structure subjected to the Crack Proof.

55
Crack Proof after NORM B 4700
After NORM B 4700, the crack limitation is controlled, like with GBJ10-89, by the Calculation
Reinforcement Bar Diameter dsr rather than by bar distances. However, it is to realise (concerning both GBJ10-
89 and NORM B 4700) that the explicit focusing to bar diameters does not mean that the distance of bars
within reinforcement net courses is, under such Crack Proof concepts, of no impact upon the crack control.
Besides the bar diameter the reinforcement amount (limiting of steel stresses see above) is the other control
parameter affecting the crack width. The bar distances in a real reinforcement net correspond, naturally, to the
reinforcement amount provided: the higher the reinforcement amount provided the lesser are the distances of
the bars within their course! The difference between the concepts of NEN 6720 on one side and GBJ10-89,
NORM B 4700 on the other side lies thus in the manner how the bar distances are dealt with: the NEN 6720
concept makes them to explicit control parameters; the other Codes use bar distances as implicit quantities of
the Crack Proof.
NORM B 4700 introduces the Crack Width as central proof item. The crack widths to be dealt with are
assigned to the interval <0.15, 0.30> [mm]. The Maximum Allowable Crack Width value wk desired to be
maintained throughout the structure or its part is specified on input. Higher or lesser values of wk are obviously
outside the scope covered by the NORM B 4700 stipulations. If there appears wk < 0.15 or wk > 0.30 on
input, it is adapted to the nearest limit value (wk = 0.15 or wk = 0.30, respectively).
A characteristic feature of NORM B 4700 is the fact that there are no analytic formulas for wk yet empirical
tables describing the functional relations dgr = f(tr) or dgr = f(tr,sD), respectively for Strain Imposed
Deformations or Force Imposed Deformations (see below). SCIA.ESA PT uses a double extra-interpolation
process to get Limit Bar Diameter values dgr as functions of Reinforcement Amount Percentage tr or tr and
Characteristic Steel Tension sD out of the Code Tables 7 or 9 (for wk = 0.15) and 8 or 10 (for wk = 0.30).
NORM B 4700 distinguishes several situations of exploitation concerning the Crack Proof procedure and the
use of Code Tables 7, 8 or 9, 10, respectively. SCIA.ESA PT distinguishes and deals with such situations by
grouping them to Load Cases of particular attributes, like NEN 6720 (see above):
Load Cases representing External Loads. In the SCIA.ESA PT input system they are assigned the attribute
Ultimum. They yield the statically required reinforcement being automatically saved in the Data Base to be
retrieved by the Crack Proof procedure. However, they can simultaneously be specified several times by being
given the attribute Serviceability and used as Load Cases of the types specified below; then, probably, provided
with another LC factor.
Load Cases representing the Force Imposed Deformations. They are basic Crack Proof Serviceability Load
Cases destined for the Crack Proof procedure. For dealing with Load Cases of this type the functional relation
dgr = f(tr,sD) governed by the Tables 9 and 10 is of fundamental importance. An iteration process equilibrates
the necessary reinforcement amount by checking the Reinforcement Amount Percentage tr after the Tables 9,
10 against the Limit Bar Diameter dgr which is closely related to the Calculation Reinforcement Bar Diameter
dsr, being specified on input as principal control quantity (along with wk).
Load Cases representing the Strain Imposed Deformations after the Art. 3.2.2(1)-(4). They are special Crack
Proof Serviceability Load Cases. Load Cases of this attribute are governed by the functional relation dgr = f(tr)
of the Tables 7 and 8. For Strain Imposed Deformations are understand to originate from other causes than
direct extern forces impact, the inner force components associated with the Load Cases of this attribute enter
the calculations merely by their relative than absolute amplitudes (bending, full tension etc.)
Load Cases representing the Strain Imposed Deformations after the Art. 3.2.2(5). They are special Crack Proof
Serviceability Load Cases dealing with non-linearly distributed, self-induced stresses within the cross-section.
These situations of exploitation allow, according to NORM B 4700, for a reduction of the necessary Reinfor-
cement Amount Percentage tr within the interval <60%, 80%>. On the whole, the iteration resolution process
follows the same rules as described under Pt. 3.
Load Cases representing the Strain Imposed Deformations after the Art. 3.2.2(6). They are special Crack Proof
Serviceability Load Cases dealing with cracks in an early stage of concrete hardening. These situations of
exploitation allow, according to NORM B 4700, for a reduction of the necessary Reinforcement Amount
Percentage tr to 50% of the standard value. By this it is assumed that the Average Tension Strength fctm,t
attains 50% of fctm (after 28 days). For other percentages linear interpolation is allowed. SCIA.ESA PT respects
these special rules. For fctm,t the corresponding percentage is expected on input (active for this type of Load
Case only).
Load Cases representing the Strain Imposed Deformations after the Art. 3.2.2(7). They are special Crack Proof
Serviceability Load Cases dealing with cracks due to strains caused by the hydration heat flow. These
situations of exploitation allow, according to NORM B 4700, for a reduction of the necessary Reinforcement

56
 SCIA.ESA PT

Amount Percentage tr to 70% of the standard value in case of normally hardening cements (e.g. PZ 275, PZ
375). For other cements a special proof is necessary (however, no more specified by the Code).
The results of the Crack Proof are available in both graphic and printed form.

57
Checks
Response
Based on the internal forces, concrete cross-section and supplied reinforcement by the user, SCIA.ESA
PT is able to calculate the response of a member or a single cross-section. This method uses an iteration
routine to calculate equilibrium based on the internal forces, the cross-section, material properties and
reinforcement layout. This method however does not calculate extremes like the interaction diagram,
but calculates the state of equilibrium for that section (response). The calculation also includes depth of
compression zones, curvatures, stresses, strains and forces. This iterative method works for the
interaction of the normal force with uni-axial or bi-axial bending moments. In the iteration two things
are very important: 1. The number of iteration steps, 2. Precision. Both can be set in the setup of
concrete.

CONCRETE COVER 30 mm

4x FeB 500 (20)

600 mm

4x FeB 500 (16)

CONCRETE COVER 30 mm Concrete: B 35

Stirrups: 2x FeB 500 (8) Dist= 200 mm
450 mm

58
 SCIA.ESA PT

Strain [*1e-4]
Z
Curvature = 0.468 mrad
2.018

1.793

169 mm
-0.573
-0.788

Stress [MPa]
Z

35.87

Y
169 mm

-11.46
-0.95

59
 Forces [kN]
Z

.3
11 .3
11 .3
11 .3
11
.9
-35
Y

3
-2. 3
-2. 3
- 2. 3
- 2.

60
 SCIA.ESA PT

Bi-axially loaded cross-section:

Strain [*1e-4]
Z

24 0
16
5.2 -0.
65 53
4.4 3.0 41 29
1.6 0.2

6
31 74
4
12 -0. -1. 472
13 539 1.1
2.9 2. -2.

Stress [MPa]
Z
-0.
2
32

4.6
61
89

.8
.1
.3

Y
-34
-6.
22
50

.9
-3.
.2
.8

61
Capacity
The interaction diagram calculates the extreme allowable interaction between the normal force N and
bending moments My and Mz. In theory this diagram is a 3D-diagram, but SCIA.ESA PT allows the
user to make horizontal and vertical cuts. The axis of the diagram has an axis for the normal force N,
the bending moment My and the bending moment Mz

Normal Force

Bending Moment Bending Moment

My Mz

Consequently a horizontal cut displays the interaction between My and Mz for a given normal force. A
vertical cut displays the interaction between N and Mu. See figure for an example of a 3D interaction
diagram;

N VUmin N=0.0 kN My=-23.7 kNm Mz=-172.5 kNm

V N=0.0 kN My=-23.7 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
VUmax N=0.0 kN My=-23.7 kNm Mz=172.5 kNm

VUmin (N,M)
V (N,M)
VUmax (N,M)

My
Mz

62
 SCIA.ESA PT

The interaction diagram is used to find the extremes for the reinforcement. The extreme can be a value
for Nu, Mu, NuMu, Muy or Muz. The following figures show the functionality of these extremes. Note that
point V' is the design point and points 'Vu;min' and 'Vu;max' are the extremes.
Extreme values for Nd: (My and Mz are constant)
-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

100

200

300

400

500

600

700
VUmin N=-5231.9 kN My=-250.0 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm

0
1000
V N=-3000.0 kN My=-250.0 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
VUmax N=141.1 kN My=-250.0 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
VUmax (N,M)
0
Mu[kNm]

-1000

-2000

V (N,M) -3000

-4000

-5000
VUmin (N,M)

-6000
N[kN]

-7000

Extreme values for Md: (N is constant)

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

VUmin N=-3000.0 kN My=-569.7 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm

0

1000
V N=-3000.0 kN My=-23.7 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
VUmax N=-3000.0 kN My=612.1 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm

0
Mu[kNm]

-1000

-2000

VUmax (N,M) V (N,M) VUmin (N,M)

-4000

-5000

-6000
N[kN]

-7000

63
Extreme values for NdMd: (eccentricity = constant)

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

100

200

300

400

500

600

700
VUmin N=-4535.1 kN My=-377.9 kNm Mz=-0.0 kNm

0
1000
V N=-3000.0 kN My=-250.0 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
VUmax (N,M)
VUmax N=542.3 kN My=45.2 kNm Mz=0.0 kNm
0
Mu[kNm]

-1000

-2000

V (N,M) -3000

-4000
VUmin (N,M)

-5000

-6000
N[kN]

-7000

Extreme values for Myd: (Mz and N are constant)

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

100

200

300

400

500

600

VUmin N=-3000.0 kN My=-385.8 kNm Mz=200.0 kNm

0

700
V N=-3000.0 kN My=-250.0 kNm Mz=200.0 kNm
600 VUmax N=-3000.0 kN My=420.9 kNm Mz=200.0 kNm

500
VUmax (N,M)
400

300

200

100

0
Mz[kNm]
-100

-200
V (N,M)
-300
VUmin (N,M)
-400
My[kNm]

-500

-600

64
 SCIA.ESA PT

Extreme values for Mzd: (My and N are constant)

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

100

200

300

400

500

600
VUmin N=-3000.0 kN My=-250.0 kNm Mz=288.0 kNm

0
700
V N=-3000.0 kN My=-250.0 kNm Mz=200.0 kNm
600 VUmax N=-3000.0 kN My=-250.0 kNm Mz=-288.0 kNm

500

400

300

200

100

0
Mz[kNm]
-100

-200
VUmax (N,M) VUmin (N,M)
V (N,M)
-300

-400
My[kNm]

-500

-600

65
Physical Non-linear Deformations
General
The physical non-linear deformations are calculated based on the concept of quasi-non-linearity. This
means that linear calculations are used to model non-linear behavior of the construction. Four steps are
used to perform the calculation.
1. Using the short-term stress and strain diagram for concrete the deformations for
creep-load is determined. The creep-load is commonly the quasi-permanent load
(1.0 DEAD LOAD + FACTOR LIFE LOAD). The factor is in most cases around
30%.
2. Using the long-term stress and strain diagram for concrete the deformations for
creep-load is determined.
3. Subtracting the short-term deformation from the long-term deformation the creep-
deformation is obtained.
4. Adding the creep-deformation to the linear deformation caused by the representative
load (1.0 DEAD LOAD + 1.0 LIFE LOAD), the total quasi-non-linear
deformation is obtained.
To calculate the immediate deformation, the deformation of the permanent load is calculated using the
short-term stress and strain diagram. Additionally by subtracting the immediate deformation from the
total deformation, the programs calculates the additional deformation.
So the calculated deformations calculated in SCIA.ESA PTs PNL deformations calculation are:
Elastic deformation: Using the short-term stress and strain diagram and representative
load combinations. (1.0 DL + 1.0 LL)
Creep deformation: Using the long- and short-term stress and strain diagrams and
momentaneous load combinations. (1.0 DL + LL)
Total deformation: Elastic deformation + Creep deformation.
Immediate deformation: Using the short-term stress and strain diagram and permanent
combination. (1.0 DL)
Additional deformation: Elastic deformation + Creep deformation Immediate deformation.
The short- and long-term stiffnesses are calculated using a so-called creep factor. This creep-factor is
dependant on the relative humidity, outline of the cross-section, reinforcement percentage, concrete
class, etc. is used to divide the short-term stiffness and obtain the long-term stiffness, e.g. (acc. NEN
6720)
E = E / (1 + 0.75 creep)
Thus by taken the concrete stiffness for short- and long-term and the representative compression
strength the program calculates the stress and strain diagram.

66
 SCIA.ESA PT

NEN 6720
The deformation according NEN 6720 is calculated using so-called M-N- diagrams. These diagrams
representing the relation between a combination of normal force (N) and bending moment (M) and the
curvature are used to define the deformation for the individual combinations (Creep, Immediate,
Representative/Linear).

NEN 6720 prescribes that the diagram is corrected between Mr (Moment of rupture) and approximately
Me (End of elastic part of stress/strain diagram). This correction models the so-called tension stiffening
effect, e.g. the concrete between the cracks still has stiffness. SCIA.ESA PT uses by default the
corrected M-N- diagram, but is capable of other types as well, e.g.
1. Concrete without Tension Part.

2. Concrete without Tension Part AND Code Correction

3. Concrete with Tension Part

67
 4. Concrete with Tension Part and Tension Softening according CUR 94-13.

Other codes than NEN 6720

The deformation for other codes than NEN 6720 is calculated by reducing the stiffnesses using the
following so-called Stiffness/Moment diagram:

Euncracked

moment of rupture Mrep ultimate moment

68
 SCIA.ESA PT

Columns
There is no non-linear stiffness calculated for the axially loaded members. Thus columns will have the
same stiffness in PNL deformations calculation as in a linear calculation. However when the concept
of PNL internal forces is introduced in SCIA.ESA PT the user is able to calculate reduced stiffnesses
for columns.

Composite Sections
In case of composite cross-sections (concrete/concrete) a weighted creepfactor will be taken into
account:
composite = (1 1 + 2 2) / (1+2)

Beams, Plates and Shells

The reduced stiffness for Walls is not calculated when a PNL deformations calculation is performed.
Deformations of beams, plates and shells are calculated by integrating the non-linear curvatures over
the length of beam or slab. However if some element has a value of Md larger than Mu, than the stiffness
according Mu is taken. Since the finite element method can give large internal forces due to
singularities, etc. the calculation is allowed to continue without an error message, but supplies messages
after the calculation has finished.

NEN 6720
For plates and shells the standard corrected M-N- diagram is NOT used to calculate the deformations,
but the diagram with tension part and tension-softening.

When a calculation using M-N- diagrams was implemented in SCIA.ESA PT the calculation would
take an awful lot of time, since for each individual element a M-N- diagram would have to be
constructed with a lot of points.

69