This paper contains criticism by Brooks, IL of the original paper by Cross, MG (see IRRD 805972). The interpretation of the shear failure mechanism as given in the original paper is questioned. In particular it is suggested that neither dowell action nor aggregate interlocking plays a role in the failure mechanism. An hypothesis to explain why the truss analogy model does not always yield exact results, especially for longer spans, is proposed. This is based on the theory that a reinforced concrete beam behaves as a flat arch, with failure occurring due to tensile splitting of the compressive zone wherever the maximum tensile stress of the concrete is exceeded. In this reply, Cross,MG provides evidence to support his claim that some dowel action has been mobilized, as well as some aggregate interlocking. The suggstion that pure arching only were occurring is also refuted with evidence taken from the results provided in the original paper. (TRRL)

  • Availability:
  • Corporate Authors:

    South African Institute of Civil Engineers

    9 St Davids Place, Parktown, P.O. Box 62129
    Marshalltown,   South Africa 
  • Authors:
    • Cross, M G
    • Brooks, I L
  • Publication Date: 1988-3

Media Info

  • Features: References;
  • Pagination: p. 113-114
  • Serial:

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00493089
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Source Agency: Transport Research Laboratory
  • Files: ITRD, TRIS
  • Created Date: May 31 1990 12:00AM