Ladder

Tensile strength — the ladder

One essay so far against this idea. A ladder is the distinct arguments that stand against one idea, and this one has room to grow.

$The strength that does not keep pace. Concrete's mean tensile strength against its characteristic compressive strength, with the ratio of the two on the same axis, scaled. The tensile strength goes as f_ck^⅔, so it rises from 1.57 to 5.04 N/mm² over a sixfold rise in the compressive strength, and the ratio between them falls from 11.1% at C20 to 6.0% at C80 — a factor of 1.83. Nothing in a bending or a column calculation ever uses the lower curve, and everything that decides a transition does: when the section cracks, how much minimum steel it needs, how far a bar has to be lapped, what a member without links carries. So a stronger concrete needs more minimum reinforcement, longer laps and a bigger crack-control check, in a member whose ultimate capacity has barely moved. Its real scale is a length: E·G_F/f_ct² is 299 mm here, which is the size at which a member stops behaving plastically and starts behaving like a fracture problem.$
The strength that is never used

Concrete's tensile strength appears in no bending calculation, no column calculation and no shear calculation with links in it. The whole design philosophy is that it cracks and the steel takes over. And it decides where nearly every transition in the subject sits — when a section cracks, how much minimum steel it needs, how far a bar has to be lapped, what a member without links can carry, and how wide a crack opens.
rung 1 · materials