Abstract

An appropriate detailing of reinforcement in concrete structures is imperative as to basic conduct, security and great execution. Notwithstanding, governs in codes for detailing and minimum reinforcement proportions are not generally straightforward and interpret, since there is exceptionally constrained or no foundation information explaining the capacity and providing inspirations. The point of this undertaking was to investigate and explain the foundation for the tenets in the codes, particularly Eurocode 2, and give guidelines for good detailing, in view of past research and experience . Tenets and guidelines for detailing of reinforcement that may be hard to interpret or comprehend were distinguished by an initial investigation of the European Standard. From this examination the foundation to a portion of the ambiguities were examined all the more completely in an itemized writing study . An investigation consisting of interviews and a subjective overview was performed keeping in mind the end goal to assess how basic engineers interprets and applies the guidelines gave in ACI318 and Eurocode 2. This was performed likewise with the intention to illuminate ambiguities to have the capacity to recommend enhancements of the new standard . The writing study demonstrated that there is exceptionally constrained foundation information to ACI318 and Eurocode 2 and that it can be hard to find reply, if something is seen as indistinct in the code. In any case, learning about the principal hypothesis and required basic conduct of reinforced concrete structures can be sufficient to comprehend numerous necessities, why this is given in this report. The result from the investigation indicated that there are sections in Eurocode 2 that can be difficult to interpret. The standard needs to be improved or clarified in order to facilitate for the users and in order to know how to apply the rules on cases other than standard cases. Some of the identified problem areas in ACI and Eurocode 2 are for instance lapping of longitudinal reinforcement, concrete frame corners subjected to opening moment and limitations of crack widths for concrete members subjected to shear and torsion. In some cases, specific changes of Eurocode 2 have been suggested, while it in some cases is sufficient to add even stronger references between sections or include a short description of the motive for the intended rule, in order to improve the standard. A need for further research has also been identified in order to be able to improve certain parts of Eurocode 2.