LIMIT STATE PRINCIPLES

1
Codes of Practice have developed considerably since the first attempt in 1934. The way in which
they have done so is outlined in Table 1.1.
From Table 1.1 it can be seen that working stresses have gradually increased and the load factor
or factor of safety has decreased. This has arisen mainly from the satisfactory performance of
structures and the general improvement in construction standards.
Quality control of concrete took a large jump forward in the 1965 edition of CP114, when
statistical control was introduced and the allowable compressive stress in bending was increased
if there was a design mix. Substantial progress had also been made in the philosophical approach
to structural design, mainly due to the work of the international committees. One of these, the
Comit Europen du Bton (CEB), published in 1963 its Recommendations for an International
Code of Practice for Reinforced Concrete, generally known as the Blue Book, and later, in
conjunction with the Fdration Internationale de la Prcontrainte (FIP), a complementary report
dealing with prestressed concrete. Further to these there was published in 1970 the International
Recommendations for the Design and Construction of Concrete Structures giving the Principles
and Recommendations and generally known as the Red Book.
When the drafting committees for CP114 and 115 were reconvened in 1964, they agreed to adopt
the CEB report as a guide in the preparation of the new British Codes with the proviso that the
new recommendations should not change unduly the
Table 1.1 Development of Codes of Practice since 1934
Code Steel stress (working Load Deflection Cracking
Comments
load) factor
1934 0.45fy 2.2 Nothing Nothing Concretenominal
2
DSIR (140N/mm ) proportions.
Beamsstraight
line theory
1948 0.5fy (189N/mm2) 2.0 Warning Nothing
Ditto
CP114
1957 0.5fy (210N/mm2) 2.0 Warning+ Nothing Concretenominal
CP114 span/depth or strength
2
1965 0.55fy (230N/mm ) 1.8 Warning+ Warning Concrete
CP116 expanded statistical control for
CP114 span/depth quality
1972 0.58fy (267N/mm2)* 1.6*1.8 Span/effective Bar
CP110 (without depth ratios spacing Ditto
redistribution) rules

Page 2
proportions of structures compared with those designed to the
 recommendations of the current codes. The main consequence of this
decision was that limit state design was accepted as the basis for the
preparation of the new drafts. Later, these two committees in
conjunction
with the drafting committee for CP116 agreed to the unification of the
three codes into a single document, which would rationalize design and
coordinate detailed interpretation, for concrete construction. The Code
for Water Retaining Structures was not included and although that Code
(now BS8007) relies very heavily on the building structures document it
has retained its independence.
In drafting CP110 it was decided to go right back to square one and
establish the engineers intentions and problems. The purpose of design
may, perhaps oversimply, be stated as the provision of a structure
complying with the clients and the users requirements. In design
appropriate attention must be paid to overall economy, the safety,
serviceability and aesthetics of the structure. In most cases the
design
process entails finding the cheapest solution capable of satisfying the
appropriate safety, serviceability and aesthetic considerations.
The design of a structure for a specific function is usually a two-stage
process, involving first the selection of an appropriate type or form of
structure and secondly the detailed design of the various parts of the
chosen structure. In selecting the type or form of structure the
question
of the relative costs of different types of structures and of different
methods of construction of the same structure will be of great
importance.
In this selection the designer must rely to a large extent on his
experience, judgement and intuition. A preliminary study of several
types
of structure may be necessary.
Having selected the type of structure the designer then has to proceed
with the detailed design of the chosen one, always bearing in mind the
factors of safety considerations and cost. In most cases the aesthetic
requirements will have been substantially met in the selection of the
type
of structure and will now be completely satisfied by the specification
of
surface finishes, colour, etc. Fundamentally, then, the design process
consists of finding and detailing the most economical structure
consistent
with the safety and serviceability requirements.
In design the following points have to be taken into consideration:
1. variations in materials in the structure and in test specimens
2. variations in loading
3. constructional inaccuracies
4. accuracy of design calculations
5. safety and serviceability.

For (1) we know that the cube test is a reliable guide as regards
quality
of concrete from the mixer but does not guarantee that the concrete in
the
structure is the same. If we get consistent cube results of the required
strength this means that the potential of the concrete in the structure
is
 higher. This is why we took a higher proportion of the cube strength as
a
permissible stress when we have quality control, i.e. a design mix.
There
is, however, still no guarantee that the concrete in the structure is of
the same consistent strength and properties, as has been shown from
tests
that have been performed. The same applies to reinforcement, as tests
are
carried out on small samples which may or may not be truly
representative
of the whole. For (2) we must enquire how near the truth is the loading
given in BS6399, Part 1. Constructional inaccuracies (3) are probably
accidental. For (4) designers can and do make mistakes in calculations
but
very often in analysis they assume a structure will behave in a certain
way or that certain conditions exist. Item (5) is dealt with quite
arbitrarily in previous codesif the structure does not collapse it is
deemed to be satisfactory.