Standard: £9 + VAT
Members/Subscribers, log in to access
An IStructE account gives you access to a world of knowledge. Create a profile to receive details of our unique range of resources, events and training.
Mr A. N. Beal (M) (Thomason Partnership) This paper adds valuable experimental results to the database of concrete column tests, particularly for very high strength concrete. However, there is an unfortunate, misleading statement in the synopsis: 'These tests ... have indicated that the Codes are safe design documents for concrete strengths as high as 96N/mm²'. In fact, the tests reported in the paper covered only short-term loading and the 'conclusions' state that 'BS 8110 might not be conservative enough for long-term loading...'. Outside of the laboratory, very few concrete columns are subjected to only short-term loading: indeed, most real concrete columns are subjected to high proportions of long-term load, so this is a point of fundamental importance.
Dr S. B. Desai (F) (Department of the Environment, Transport & the Regions) You state, under eqn (8) of the paper, that the core will remain uncracked if the principal shear stress voldV does not exceed fct/3, where fct is the concrete tensile strength given by fct= 0.3(f'c)2/3. This implies that the shear strength is related to (fc)2/3. Although this relationship may agree with that given in EC 2, it tends to give unsafe results for higher values off,. BS 8110 relates concrete shear strength to the cube root of compressive strength, which is more realistic.
This article was prompted by the contributions in Verulam (2 March 1999) by Paul Rose and John Tanner that appeared under the heading ‘How big is a dominant opening' Professor Nicholas Cook