Differences between DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA2011 guidelines and EN-1992-1-1:2004 standard with respect to the design of the minimum reinforcement and crack width from imposed deformation / Mariusz Zych, Ewa ... więcej

Differences between DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA2011 guidelines and EN-1992-1-1:2004 standard with respect to the design of the minimum reinforcement and crack width from imposed deformation / Mariusz Zych, Ewa Jaromska // Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering [Dokument elektroniczny]. – 2019, Vol. 19, Iss. 3, s. 627-638 : tab., wykr. – Tryb dostępu: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1644966519300044. – Bibliogr. 48 poz., Abstr. – doi: 10.1016/j.acme.2019.01.001. – ISSN 1644-9665

The paper provides a commentary on the differences in the approach to the mechanics of cracking, concerning cracks from imposed deformations and external loads, as defined in DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA (2011) ... więcej

The paper provides a commentary on the differences in the approach to the mechanics of cracking, concerning cracks from imposed deformations and external loads, as defined in DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA (2011) compared with the EN-1992-1-1 (2004) guidelines. Theoretical assumptions of a detailed method of calculating crack width are presented, the assumptions resulting in, inter alia, a different way of determination of cracks maximum spacing in structural elements, satisfying or not satisfying the condition of the minimum degree of reinforcement. For certain cases, in the condition checking allowable cracks width, the necessity of taking account of cumulative action of imposed deformations and external loads is highlighted, while in EN-1992-1-1 (2004) guidelines imposed deformations and external loads are always treated as non-additive actions. Moreover, more detailed regulations for minimum reinforcement specification after DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA (2011), which are an inseparable element of cracking checking in the simplified method are also commented on. The paper identifies critical knowledge gaps and thus motivates researchers to close them. Moreover, the discrepancies between what we know and what we need to know are highlighted. This alerts other scholars to the opportunities for a key contribution. Finally, the conclusions for designers and researchers are presented.