by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
Concrete In Australia : December 2013
Concrete in Australia Vol 39 No 4 51 These results are shown diagrammatically in my Figure 2. Although the entire dissertation above is carried out without the introduction of φ factors, there may be a warning here for the design process. It is not conservative to pro-rata the spacing of shear reinforcement from the spacing required adjacent to the support, in accordance with the shear force diagram or envelope. This may lead to a 31% reinforcement deficiency at the quarter point or a 65% deficiency at the 3/8 point, although minimum shear reinforcement and maximum spacing rules usually take care of this. David Herbert, Structural Consultant, CDE Design Solutions At support At 1⁄4 point At 3⁄8 point At mid-span Case 1,3 Case 2,4 Case 1,3 Case 2,4 Case 1,3 Case 2,4 Case 1,3 Case 2,4 20° 20° 27.8° 21.6° 46.5° 33.4° 90° 90° 30° 30° 43.7° 35.6° 62.4° 50.0° 90° 90° Table 1: Typical variation of θ along span with UDL. Figure 2 Figure 1 49-56 - Discussion.indd 51 49-56 - Discussion.indd 51 25/11/13 4:15 PM 25/11/13 4:15 PM