11/10/23, 10:34 AM ACI minimum area of steel - Structural engineering general discussion - Eng-Tips
Home » Forums » Structural Engineers » Activities » Structural engineering general discussion Forum
ACI minimum area of steel 4
thread507-185223
I have 3 feet deep pile cap. Due to lateral loads, I am placing rebars E.W. T&B. The Ast from analysis is less than
minimum Ast = .0018 x b x h as Per ACI 318-05, Section 7.12, 10.5.4.
I am placing rebars each way both at top & bottom. Now I need this minimum Ast each way at top and bottom of pile
cap.
Replies continue below
LAmbiance Plazza Machine Tool Error Sources
LPT: Motion Components – igus Plastic Pillow New High-Volume Satellite Factory Opens at
Block Bearings, SCHNEEBERGER Linear Texas Spaceport
Guideway More
You need the minimum in each direction, but not at the top and bottom. You can combine your top and bottom (in each
direction) to meet the minimum.
Can you please refer where in code or commentary it is clearly specified
See 7.12.1. If you used As,min for top and bottom you would get twice the required area for T & S.
Just as a side note. I would be sure that you are increasing your actual required As (from analysis) by 1/3 before using
using the minimum for T & S. If your required As is less than 200/fy, you can get out of the 200/fy min by increasing the
required by 1/3. If that is still less than T&S steel, you can use the T&S steel, but check the 1/3 increase first. See
10.5.3 in ACI for the 1/3 increase provision. All my references are to ACI 318-05.
Learn more
nashe, you DO need the minimum 0.0018bh both top and bottom. Note that 10.5.4 requires Learn more area of
the minimum
TENSILE reinforcement to be the same as that required by 7.12. So if you split the 0.0018bh between the top and
All Trading Involves Risk.
All Trading Involves Risk.
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=185223 1/11
11/10/23, 10:34 AM ACI minimum area of steel - Structural engineering general discussion - Eng-Tips
bottom, half of it will be in compression and will not satisfy the TENSILE reinforcement requirement. This is the
interpretation that every publication I have seen (PCA notes, CRSI etc.) uses.
it can be combined. but don't do nothing crazy like space bars at like 18" c.c., lol.
nashe
I agree with you, ACI is not clear at all on this point. I believe Structueral EIT is correct, based on the following;
ACI 350 for Environmental Structures has a similar provision, i.e., 10.5.4 refers you to Article 7.12. Article 7.12 has
minimums for T/S like ACI318, but based on length between wall joints. PCA publishes a design guide based on ACI
350. Example 1 for a Single Tank bases the minimum steel on half the wall thickness.
I think the confusion arises because most design examples for pile caps do not have two laysers of reinforcement, so all
the T/S reinforcement must go to the single layer.
StructuralEIT is correct.....and i think the actual guidlines are also specified in the CRSI manual as well.
If you use half of 0.0018bh in the tension zone for slabs and footings, you may up with an UNSAFE design!
Run the numbers to prove it to yourself. 0.0018bh in one layer will provide a strength that is fairly close to the cracking
strength of the plain concrete section. But using half of this amount of reinforcing will provide a strength that is much
less than the plain concrete. So after the concrete cracks, it can collapse suddenly.
Taro is correct on this.
There is a minimum reionforcement requirement for strength and this is required at the tension face. It is based on the
requirement that the ultimate strength of the member be greater than the cracking moment. For a rectangular section
with a concrete strength of about 4500psi, this comes out to about .0018bh. The aim is to ensure that the reinfrocement
does not have a sudden increase in strain above the failure strain on the onset of cracking which would result in failure of
the reinforcement when the tension fore is transferred from the concrete to the reinforcement. If both faces can be in
tension under different load conditions then the minimum is required at each face.
There is also a requirement for minimum shrinkage and temperature reinforcement. This can be split between the faces.
i thought that tension face minimum requirement was the 200/fy*b*d minimum for flexure. if memory serves me
correctly, .0018*b*h is something completely different (temp and shrinkage). i'll check tommorow.
I vote for StrlEIT's argument and second the last post by swivel63!
The total needs to satisfy 0.0018, but tension steel needs to satisfy 200/fy*b*d (or 4/3 Asreq).
Taro Typed: "...So after the concrete cracks, it can collapse suddenly."
Doesn't the 200bd/fy business take care of this?
ACI 318-02 (sorry--don't have the 05) Commentary to 10.5 seems to indicate that the 200bd/fy stuff is designed to
prevent failures similar to what you're typing about.
FWIW, Nilson, Darwin, & Dolan's textbook shows the 200bd/fy check for footings.
The way 10.5.1 is written ("except as provided"), it seems as though 10.5.4 is to be used instead of 10.5.1 (and 10.5.3)
for structural slabs and footings. I don't think that was the intent of the code. Both need to be checked.
The 200/fy check is a legacy of old codes to provide a minimum value not necessarily corresponding to providing strength
greater than cracking moment.
well, 200/fy is the minimum....but the actual minimum based on concrete strength is 3*f^.5/fy*b*d or something to that
effect i believe.
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=185223 2/11
11/10/23, 10:34 AM ACI minimum area of steel - Structural engineering general discussion - Eng-Tips
If it is in flexure or tension, I place at least 200/fy in each tension face. If I am just placing Temperature and Shrinkage
steel I place the required amount on any face I wish to protect against T&S. Reinforcing steel is not so expensive as a
crumbling piece of concrete that needs rehab. Of course, if my numbers indicate, I place more steel to accommodate the
loads.
Ok. 10.5.4 applies to slabs and footings, and in this case pile caps as well. The minimum reinforcement of flexural
members requirement is for every tension face and shall not be distributed on the cross section. Hypothetically, if you
have a member with 10 sides, and these sides can all be in tension under different loading conditions, you have to apply
this minimum requirement to all sides. As rapt said, “It is based on the requirement that the ultimate strength of the
member be greater than the cracking moment.” Here is how it was developed:
Mcr = S*fr = (bh^2/6)*approx 600psi for fr
My = As*fy*jd
= rho*bd*fy*approx 7/8d for jd
My > Mcr
7/8*rho*bd^2*fy > (100/0.81)*bd^2
rho > 140 / fy
rounded up to 200/fy
The 3*fc^0.5/fy is similar, but instead of assuming 600 psi for fr it uses 12*fc^0.5.
So after all this, what's the answer?
Put 200*bw*d/fy or 3*bw*d*Sqrt(f'c)/fy or 4/3Asmin on tension faces
AND (whichever controls)
0.0018*b*h in the cross-section, some top and some bottom if desired???
That gets my vote, LOL.
Actually, maybe I should've typed "OR" instead of "AND," but I think it's clear enough.
mitchelon-
You are right, but 10.5.3 clearly says that you can neglect these lower limits if you provide 4/3 req'd As.
That being said, as long as you are providing 4/3 req'd As at each face it is needed there is nothing wrong with
combining the two faces to meet the minimum for T&S.
I agree exactly with 271828.
LOL, StrlEIT, you were in the thread first, so I was agreeing with you!
StructuralEIT, I do not disagree. I was just explaining the reasoning behind the minimum requirement and how the
equations were developed as it appears to be confusing some folks. 10.5.3 is very straightforward and I did not feel the
need to explain it, but thanks for mentioning it as I can see some people thinking that the equations I described are the
only ones you have to meet. I think we can close this case now.
All of above discussions are valid for regular beam action. However, for pile cap, I think it is more appropriate to consider
deep beam action, since L/d is usually small, and reinforce accordingly.
To simplify this matter, we usually provide no less than 200/fy, or 4/3 Required As for the bottom, and T&S steel
(0.0009bh, but no larger than the bottom steel) for the top and sides. The reason for wrap the cap with steel is that pile
cap is one of the most critical component in the entire structural system. Once it starts to crack, the calculated capacity
becomes unreliable. The problem is not easy to detect, let alone the repair.
Finally, the cost of adding a few rebars has very little impact on the over all budget. So, be conservative.
kslee1000-
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=185223 3/11
11/10/23, 10:34 AM ACI minimum area of steel - Structural engineering general discussion - Eng-Tips
Seems like your caps wouldn't meet 10.5.4 (7.12) if 4/3 Areq is less than .0009bh. Does that never happen?
Never.
Wow. I always thought that the minimum flexural reinforcing provisions of ACI 318 were fairly straightforward. But from
the discussion here, it seems that there is a great deal of confusion on the matter.
For those engineers who design slabs and footings with 0.0009bh tensile reinforcing, PLEASE run the calcs for the
cracking strength of the plain concrete versus the ultimate strength of the reinforced section. I think it will be quite eye-
opening. Regardless of the clarity of the code language, it is the duty of all licensed engineers to protect the safety and
welfare of the public in their designs. It is well worth the few minutes it takes to run the calcs to clear up any confusion.
Taro-
Reviewing the above postings, none "design slabs and footings with 0.0009bh tensile reinforcing." All that have
advocated this limit, myself included, also check 10.5.1/10.5.3 as well. Article 10.5.1 ensures that the strength of the
reinforced section is greater than the cracking strength of the plain section.
Jmiec:
If my memory is correct, the .0018/.0009 bh is the minimum steel required for temp & shrinkage effect, which is more
pronounced for structures subjected to temperature variations, and exposed to view, for which aesthetic is a primary
concern. The placement of T&S bars thus is considered a practice, as opposed to the min steel required for flexural,
200/fy & 4/3 As required, which have more structural significance.
I concord, however, for pile caps and other mass concrete structures, it is quite often that T&S steel will exceed the
minimum steel required for flexural, since "h" is large, and the calculated As can be quite small. However, for typical
substructures with moderate thickness, either the 200/fy or 4/3 As required is capable of keeping the steel below yield,
thus minimize the crack width, and prevent the crack from further propagation to cause large deformation, or
losing entire section (I consider this is the main reason to provide reinforcing at all). For extreme thick/mass cast-in-
place concrete placement, it is wise to check the stresses due to effect of heat, and find methods to limit the temperature
differentials in between lifts and internal/external exposures, rather than just apply the min T&S steel, which does not
work for mass concrete constructions. Please note that another set of rules will kick-in if corrosion & water-tight are in
the concerns.
In our design, we never use T&S steel in place of min As for flexural for substructures, and no secondary reinforcing (so-
called good practices)to be greater than the main reinforcement determined. However, I agree that the 4/3 rule should
be applied prudently. It is useful in solving steel congestions while the concrete dimensions couln't be altered. And I
wouldn't hesitate to apply it to the structures with low significance in protecting lifes and capital investments.
jmiec,
The very first response by StructuralEIT to the original post about the minimum 0.0018bh says simply "You need the
minimum in each direction, but not at the top and bottom. You can combine your top and bottom (in each direction) to
meet the minimum." Then there are other responses that say they agree.
I just want to make sure for the record that others who come across this web page in the future are aware that this is
very, very wrong.
Also, article 10.5.1 does not apply to slabs and footings of uniform thickness, so most engineers are not checking that. If
they did, it would always control over 10.5.4 and there would be no issue.
Taro-
Let me make something clear. I never said I would use 0.0009bh as a minimum for tensile reinforcement. What I did
say is that if you meet the requirements of 10.5.1 and 10.5.3 there is nothing wrong with combining your top and bottom
reinforcement to meet T&S requirements.
I still stand by that statement. While I may never do it, and it may not be the best practice, ACI gives no lower bound on
the application of 10.5.3 (only that provided As=4/3(req'd As).
Please tell me how this is very, very wrong.
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=185223 4/11
11/10/23, 10:34 AM ACI minimum area of steel - Structural engineering general discussion - Eng-Tips
Taro-
Ah, we get to the crux of the problem. It all has to do with article 10.5.1, and whether or not it applies to slabs and
footings of uniform thickness.
I see that PCA Notes on 318 Example 22 does not check 10.5.1, and does check 10.5.4, as you say. Also, I have to agree
that the code reads that 10.5.4 overrides 10.5.1 for slabs of uniform thickness.
However, I have a PCA publication that does check 10.5.1 for a slab of uniform thickness. This is Example 1 published in
the PCA Publication "Rectangular Concrete Tanks."
Example 1 in the Design Guide for a Single Tank calculates the required reinforcing in a tank wall for strength, and checks
the minimum according to Articles 10.5.1 and 10.5.3. Example 1 then checks the minimum steel according to 10.5.4
based on half the wall thickness.
Also, my old college textbook (Wang and Salmon) checks 10.5.1 for a cantilever retaining wall.
So, I'm admittedly confused. Do you have a reference that definitively states that Article 10.5.1 does not apply to slabs
of uniform thickness?
"Also, my old college textbook (Wang and Salmon) checks 10.5.1 for a cantilever retaining wall."
So does mine.
I think this is really pretty easy, so I'll re-post what I typed before. Somebody tell me what's wrong with this.
Put 200*bw*d/fy or 3*bw*d*Sqrt(f'c)/fy or 4/3Asmin on tension faces
AND SATISFY
0.0018*b*h in the cross-section, some top and some bottom if desired???
That is EXACTLY what 271828 typed before and I still agree with it.
"...If they did, it would always control over 10.5.4 and there would be no issue."
That is an interesting point. For 60 ksi steel and d approximately equal to h,
200*bw*d/fy=0.00333*bw*d which approximately equals 0.00333*b*h. This is a lot more than 0.0018*b*h.
Commentary to 10.5.1 (ACI 318-02) seems to indicate that 200*bw*d/fy is meant to prevent the brittle failure of concern
here. It even states that 200/fy isn't enough for some concrete strengths, so 0.0018 is even worse.
So if one satisfies 0.0018 (forget 0.0009), which is << 0.00333, then isn't that allowing this brittle failure?
Perhaps ACI isn't too concerned about this mode for footings and slabs, with all the 2-way action, redistribution, etc.,
hence only making us satisfy T&S steel.
AND, no I don't have time at the moment (LOL) to go run numbers on it. Perhaps the next time I design some
concrete...which will probably never happen.
271828,
That is correct. I think it is important to reiterate that these are two completely different requirements. 0.0018*b*h is a
T&S requirement for stresses perpendicular to the main flexural reinforcement. For example, this applies to one-way slabs
in the long direction. The main flexural reinforcement is governed by 200*bw*d/fy or 3*bw*d*Sqrt(f'c)/fy or 4/3Asmin.
Assuming fy=60ksi and f’c=3ksi, the first equation will result in 0.0033*b*h an the second in 0.0027*b*h, which proves
that their values will always be greater than 0.0018*b*h and also that the requirements are completely unrelated and are
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=185223 5/11
11/10/23, 10:34 AM ACI minimum area of steel - Structural engineering general discussion - Eng-Tips
to be used for different purposes. Now, if the 4/3Asmin controls the minimum flexural reinforcement requirement, I
would still verify that the minimum T&S requirement is met.
Something I also find interesting is the 4/3 req'd As in 10.5.3 now that we have opened this discussion up a little. If
10.501 is meant to prevent brittle failure (because with rho less and 200/fy or 3F'c^0.5/fy this will be likely), what good
really does 10.5.3 (if 4/3 req'd As is still less than 10.5.1) do if the max moment that can be resisted by the cracked
section is still less than that resisted uncracked plain concrete section?
Presumably, once the section cracks failure will occur (if rho is less than 10.5.1. That being the case, why is 10.5.3
allowed whether it is 0.5req'd As, or req'd As, or 4req'd As?? Either way will cause the same failure mode at the same
strength level.
Just a question.
StructuralEIT, I don't mean to offend you but your first response could easily lead someone to believe that 0.0009bh is an
appropriate minimum reinforcing for slabs and footings. It may clear in your mind, but it's not at all clear in what you
wrote.
271828, ACI 318 used to have a sentence in the commentary that explained the beam vs. slab issue quite well. It said,
"The minimum reinforcement required for slabs is somewhat less than that required for beams, since an overload would
be distributed laterally and a sudden failure would be less likely". In other words, a higher minimum is warranted for
beams because there is no redundancy or alternate load path. They took this sentence out of the commentary in the
1995 code cycle and it appears to be causing quite a bit of confusion for younger engineers.
mitchelon, 0.0018bh is not just a T&S requirement perpendicular to the span. It also happens to be the minimum
flexural tension reinforcement ratio in the direction of the span. The other minimums (200/fy, etc.) are not applicable to
slabs or footings.
Keep in mind also that the 3 i the 3√(f'c)/fy is very conservative for beams, more than 50% over what si required for the
cracked section to be stronger than uncracked.
Taro-
ACI is causing some confusion with some of us older engineers as well. I remember when everyone, myself included,
used to design slabs to 10.5.4.
I remember the commentary that you refer to. I can see how it would apply to a two way slab with a point load. But it
never made sense to apply the redundancy line of reasoning to a cantilever retaining wall, a tank wall, or a footing on
piles. In these cases, the bending moment is uniform across the entire section, and there is no alternate load path.
Besides that, codes change. Perhaps the commentary verbiage was purposely changed. I know this much. I have two
current PCA publications that disagree on this point.
UcfSE-
I don't get your point. Could you elaborate?
Taro-
No offense taken, but it is simply my interpretation of the code. Based on everything I and several others have written in
previous posts, you haven't changed my mind yet. I don't disagree that it probably isn't good practice, but I still don't
see the code disallowing it. 271828's post lays it out pretty well.
So as jmiec pointed about about 15 posts ago, it seems that the issue is whether 200*bw*d/fy applies to footings and
slabs.
If not, then 0.0018*b*h becomes the only lower bound so needs to exist at any tension face like taro argued.
I think I could go for taro's argument and just provide 0.0018 at tension faces and forget 200*bw*d/fy if not for its
inclusion in my textbook's footing example and the wall examples others typed about. Perhaps these guys are just
wrong--examples writers mess up frequently.
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=185223 6/11
11/10/23, 10:34 AM ACI minimum area of steel - Structural engineering general discussion - Eng-Tips
For now, I think I'd put 200*bw*d/fy on tension faces and be done with it (0.0018 automatically satisfied if 200/fy is). I
haven't designed a footing in a couple of years, but I always used that as a limit and the steel didn't get out of control.
Anyway, unless somebody has a definitive source that states that 200/fy doesn't apply to footings, that's what I'm gonna
assume is the best thing to do.
If you derive the equation for minimum rho, you get less than the code minimum for a rectangular beam by quite a
bit. This is a very long thread about something that really shouldn't be so long, IMHO. I've always thought the code was
pretty straight-forward about minimum steel.
After reading through it I thought I would mention what's in my earlier post. Code should not be taken as gospel though
we probably all know some engineers who do that, but should be understood to really get the intent of the what and the
when, when there is some confusion as to what to do and whether more stringent values should be applied just to be
safe. I'd go with 271828 and Taro on this.
same here...
ACI and CRSI are pretty much in line with each other.
Sorry to regurgitate the thread, but I talked to a concrete design professor about this subject today. She's been around a
while and is active in ACI, so I think she'd know.
She told me that the 200/fy stuff does not apply to slabs and footings, period. 0.0018 is it.
Due to redistribution, 2-way action, etc., ensuring that the cracking moment doesn't greatly exceed the reinforced
moment just isn't important for slabs and footings. This aspect as historically been neglected and horrible things haven't
happened.
So if I ever design concrete again (doubtful, LOL), that's what I'm gonna do. Oh the steel I've wasted by also using
200/fy.
That is right. And the 0.0018bh can be placed all in the middle of the slab because it is temperature-shrinkage and not
minimum flexural.
But for a lateral resisting pile cap, I would not go with the 0.0018 and I would have reinforcing at both the top and
bottom each way.
Once again (and hopefully for the last time)...
The 0.0018 IS minimum flexural reinforcing for slabs. It cannot be placed in the middle of the slab. It cannot be placed
half on top and half on bottom. All of it MUST be placed near the tension face.
Only for one-way slabs in the direction perpendicular to the span can you place some or all of the 0.0018 outside of the
tension zone. It is unfortunate that ACI uses the same value of 0.0018 for both T&S and minimum flexural reinforcing
because a lot of people are getting confused here.
When I was in school, my professors always made us ensure that phiMn>Mcr. This made sense to me and still does for
the reasons stated by others earlier in this post.
When I started at my first job, I asked a few P.E.'s in the office where this provision was in teh code. No one knew and
hadn't really heard of it. One of these guys has a master's from MIT, mind you. I did a little code searching myself and
couldn't find anything that required phiMn>Mcr.
Is this in the code anywhere or is it just good practice? Also, if the 200/fy min is meant to ensure this very thing, why
are you allowed to be less than that if you use 4/3 Req'd As? It is certainly within the realm of possibilities that you could
have phiMn<Mcr if you use this provision. Once you are into this area, why wouldn't the code point you to the chapter
on plain concrete?
Is it possible that in reality this only occurs (outside of very rare instances) in footings because the thickness is based on
shears rather than what is needed for flexural capcaities?
this is verbatim CRSI chapter 13
"the requirement for minimum areas of flexural reinforcement (ACI 10.5 and 7.12) have been satisfied by the following
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=185223 7/11
11/10/23, 10:34 AM ACI minimum area of steel - Structural engineering general discussion - Eng-Tips
conservative interpretation, where As is the calculated area for flexure;
if As > 200/fy, use As
if As < 200/fy < 4/3As, use 200/fy
if .0018bh < 4/3As < 200/fy, use 4/3As
if 4/3As < .0018bh < 200/fy use .0018bh"
Per ACI 13.3, "Area of reinforcement in each direction for 2 way slabs systems shall be determined from moments at
critical sections, but shall not ne less than required by 7.12"
And 7.12 is all about temperature and shrinkage reinf. which lists 0.0018bh.
Where does it say that the 0.0018bh reinforcement is actually a flexural minimum and it has to go near the tennsion face
and cannot be placed at the center of the slab (As long as it still meets the moment capacity and deflection requirements
when placed at the slab center.)
Taro, so my very experienced, and active in ACI, concrete professor at a very reputable engineering school is confused?
271828-
I don't see exactly how your prof and Taro disagree.
swivel63-
I don't think a "conservative interpretation" is gonna carry much weight here...
haynewp-
10.5.4.
jmiec,
I saw 10.5.4 also, but I thought that was referring to one way slabs (under the "flexural members" heading)?
I was under the impression you are given more engineering leeway with 2 way slabs (as an example, provision 13.5).
We only disagree at this point on the need to have a reinforced phiMn exceeding the unreinforced phiMn. My
understanding is that we simply should not give a rip about this for slabs and footings.
It's temperature & shrinkage only. It does not all have to go on the tension face.
jmiec typed: "swivel63-
I don't think a "conservative interpretation" is gonna carry much weight here..."
LOLOL! That's the truth.
hey, don't shoot the messenger
LOL
like i said, that's verbatim CRSI
i hope you guys realize that one or two more bars is really gonna cost about.......1 buck.
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=185223 8/11
11/10/23, 10:34 AM ACI minimum area of steel - Structural engineering general discussion - Eng-Tips
ok, so how does this apply to pile caps....particularly those that have both downward and upward forces on them? the
tension face would be at both the top and bottom for varying load cases. do we apply .0018bh to both? effectivly
doubling the T & S?
271828, I seem to be saying the exact same thing your professor is saying. 0.0018bh is the minimum tensile reinforcing
for slabs and footings of uniform thickness. This amount of reinforcing produces a strength that is approximately the
same as the cracking strength. Because there is usually more redundancy in a slab than a beam, this is a sufficient
amount of reinforcing and the higher reinforcing ratios (200/fy, etc.) are not required. It is NOT just temperature and
shrinkage steel. It DOES all have to go on the tension face.
swivel63, yes. If there is tension at top and bottom, you need to provide 0.0018bh at top and 0.0018bh at bottom.
My head hurts. Anyone have an aspirin?
I checked my concrete text and it calls the 0.0018 "flexural reinf. for 2 way slabs" so I think Taro is right from the
beginning. ACI calls it temperature- shrinkage and then references it again in the flexural provisions. Ibuprofen is better
than aspirin.
Taro typed: "My head hurts. Anyone have an aspirin?"
Yeah, mine.
Sorry for getting snippy with my earlier post. I was working on a project all weekend and until 2:45am this morning.
Time to go to bed now.
Taro, I was wrong about the 0.0018bh. Completely agree w/ you that it should be used as min flex reinforcement for
slabs and footings. So folks, please listen to Taro.
UcfSE, what do you propose the 3 in 3?(f'c)/fy should be? In my derivation of 3?(f'c)/fy, I assumed a fr of 12*fc^0.5.
mitchelon, if we won't just take his word for it then why would we take your word for it when you say to take his word
for it? LOLOL.
BTW, I now agree with taro, mostly anyway.
Because I am now one more person who agrees with the definition described by Taro; thus the probabilities that he is
correct have increased. :)
I think it's time now to let this thread die.
mitchelon, I guess I'm one more too except that I think it doesn't matter if all the steel is on the tension face. One would
usually put it all there anyway, though
Clansman just knocked me off his Christmas card list for restarting that argument!!
So the probability goes up even more? Isn't that like asking 100 people if they've caught Bin Laden? If 90 of them say
yes, does that mean it's a higher probability than if 80 say yes?
Clansman, I guess this thread will not die.
271828, All the steel needs to be on the tension face if your are designing for flex. steel. If desinging for T&S, then it can
be distributed.
It is not like asking 100 people about Bin Laden. Most people have no factual data or experience in what happened to Mr.
Laden. Conversely, we are practical engineers.
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=185223 9/11
11/10/23, 10:34 AM ACI minimum area of steel - Structural engineering general discussion - Eng-Tips
Clansman hates us (maybe just me) now, LOL.
It's an academic point because that's probably where it'll go anyway, but...
Name a reference that states that .0018 must go on the tension face. I'll back down in a hurry if somebody can produce
one! -- a paper, an ACI example, an ACI opinion, anything credible, explicit, and halfway formal.
Just for the sake of keeping this thread going forever, I would like to point out from personal experience that professors
are capable of being just as confused, dazed, and disoriented as the rest of us, regardless of their credentials.
271828 -
See MacGregor, "Reinforced Concrete"- 3rd ed. p713
"ACI Sec. 10.5.4 states that for footings of uniform thickness, the minimum area of flexural tensile reinforcement shall be
the same as that required for shrinkage and temperature reinforcement in ACI Sec. 7.12...For Grade 60 steel it is As,min
= 0.0018bh. This amount of steel should provide a moment capacity between 1.1 and 1.5 times the flexural cracking
moment and hence should be enough to prevent sudden failures at the onset of cracking."
halfway formal enough? When was the last time you put your flexural tension reinforcement on the opposite side of the
flexural tension?
271828,
Sure:
ACI 10.5 - Minimum reinforcement of flexural members
ACI 10.5.4 - For structural slabs and footings of uniform
thickness, As,min in the direction of the span shall be
the same as that required by 7.12.
If you would not split the As,min required by 10.5.1, 10.5.2 and 10.5.3, why would split the requirement in 10.5.4 for
slabs between the tension and compression faces?
Now, to quote Taro “Because there is usually more redundancy in a slab than a beam, this is a sufficient amount of
reinforcing and the higher reinforcing ratios (200/fy, etc.) are not required.” So, due to this redundancy, ACI prescribes a
reduction the As,min for slabs by almost half of that required by 10.5.1 and 10.5.2. And your interpretation of the
requirement is that you can reduce As,min in slabs by a quarter of that required for other flexure-controlled members?
Would you also split the As,min required in 10.5.1 and 10.5.2?
More or less it is the same in the EC-2. In the Eurocode-2 the minimum amout of steel in plates to control fisuration
because of temperature and retraction is
As = 1.8e-3 x Ac
And I apply the same As (not a half) top and botom and in each direction. I was taught that the minimum steel
reinforcement tries to equal traction resistance of the concrete and the steel. In equations,
2 x As x fy = Ac x fct
ratio = As / Ac = 0.5 x fct / fy = 2e-3 to 4e-3 aprox.
However in footings there is no recommendend value in most of the norms because the effect of temperatute and
retraction is not so important as in plates. At least in Spanish foundations, we tend to use 1.5e-3, and we put in each
direction (2/3) to (1/2) of this value in the bottom and a (1/3) to (1/2) on top of the foundation when minimum
reinforcement is required. This is done by most of the engineers in practice and it works.
Join | Advertise
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=185223 10/11
11/10/23, 10:34 AM ACI minimum area of steel - Structural engineering general discussion - Eng-Tips
Copyright © 1998-2023 engineering.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
Unauthorized reproduction or linking forbidden without expressed written permission. Registration on
or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Privacy Policy and Terms
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=185223 11/11
