CONCRETE AND COMPUTERS
The use of computers in the
design of concrete structures
John Morrison, Buro
Happold and Tony Jones,
Arup Research and
Development
T
he aim of this article is to consider
computer use in the design of con-
crete structures and how this is
changing the design process. It is often
argued that this change is not for the
good of design. Problems may arise
when trying to produce reinforced con-
crete designs from computer output. The
article contains a checklist of items of
which the engineer should be aware
before relying on the output received.
Simple methods for checking the validity
of computer output are highlighted and
the need for a body to check proprietary
software is discussed.
The current situation
Today’s young engineers often appear
unwilling to undertake analyses by hand.
Whether an approximate calculation to
confirm the viability of a concept or the
final design analysis, the preferred
approach is to use a computer. In itself
this is not necessarily a bad thing and
computers can be valuable in understand-
ing behaviour. For example, by varying
different parameters, the sensitivity of a
solution to a number of variables can be
quickly assessed. However, if the reliance
is such that the engineer loses the confi-
dence to carry out simpler methods of
analysis, the ability to carry out an inde-
pendent check of their model is compro-
mised. In addition, in the search for an
exact answer, the nature of reinforced
concrete construction is forgotten. The
material is not elastic, stresses are induced
through many mechanisms other than
load (shrinkage, thermal effects, creep)
and the process of sensible rationalisation
and detailing often negates the benefits of
any perceived additional accuracy.
There are numerous factors behind this
situation, some of which are listed below.
It is important to realise that all parts of the
industry have played their part:
• the ready availability of software in the
office, in universities, and free from the
internet
• lack of education in approximate meth-
ods, some universities placing too
much emphasis on obtaining the exact
answer
40
• a belief that computer analysis is
quicker and the only way to compete in
providing a low fee service
• low fees, leaving senior engineers with
insufficient time to teach approximate
methods
• lack of guidance from industry journals
on practical design methods and
approximate solutions – too much
emphasis on highly theoretical, and
necessarily computer-driven, solutions
• a belief that software calculations must
be correct and that hand calculations
can only be crude approximations
• increasing complexity of modern codes
deterring engineers from hand calcula-
tions as they believe they can no longer
provide the complete answer.
Over-reliance on computer output is
not only a concrete issue and has been
addressed in other publications. The
Institution of Structural Engineers pub-
lished guidelines on the use of computers
last year(1). This report was, in part, a
response to concerns raised by the
Standing Committee on Structural Safety
(SCOSS)(2).
Design consultants have acknowl-
edged the problem. For example, Buro
Happold has a policy where a hand calcu-
lation must be made before the computer
analyses is started and the computer
model is accepted only if it corresponds
to the hand calculation within defined
limits. Arup has introduced a one-day
course, Design without the computer,
where the objective is to teach young
engineers how approximate answers can
be quickly calculated to check more
detailed analyses. Both companies have
internal handbooks giving approximate
solutions and schematic element sizes.
Reinforced concrete design
All these points are equally applicable to
other structural materials. However, there
are a number of issues specific to rein-
forced concrete. It is suggested that the
engineer should understand how the pro-
posed computer program deals with each
of these issues before analysis is under-
taken.
Shear strength
Shear design is basically empirical and
requires additional rules to define the
boundaries under which code values are
applicable. These vary from code to code
and can be interpreted differently by soft-
ware writers. In particular, the method for
designing punching shear reinforcement
can be problematic and, in the authors’
experience, most engineers end up carrying
out this calculation by hand as computer
values are, at best, variable. This is not to
say that no capable software is available,
but that the engineer needs to be sure that
the package being used takes into account
all the parameters required in the code.
Column fixity
Some slab packages assume pins at col-
umn locations; this is normally accept-
able for slab flexural design. However, if
bending moments are developed, they
will affect both punching shear design
and column design. If the column-pinned
assumption is made, a separate frame
analysis may be required to calculate col-
umn moments.
Boundary conditions
Owing to the inherent continuity of rein-
forced concrete construction, elemental
design packages often require restraint
conditions to be specified at the boundary
edges. The forces generated then need to
be transferred to the restraining member.
The element design package will not
check the validity of these boundary con-
ditions and the engineer must do so. For
example, a beam framing into a thin wall
may be closer to pinned than fixed. Many
frame programs overestimate the mom-
ents transferred between flat slabs and
boundary columns. Inadequate consider-
ation of these factors could lead to crack-
ing in the wall, under-design of the beam
and, in the case of flat slabs, cracking and
additional deflection.
Torsion
When a structure is not dependent on tor-
sional resistance for equilibrium, most
codes say that torsion can be ignored.
However, if torsional stiffness is present
in a computer model, the equilibrium
found will rely on torsion and the tor-
sional stresses developed should be
designed for. Some packages deal with
torsions in the post-processing of results,
and some assume that the torsional resist-
ance of all elements is zero. Others will
leave it to the engineer to take into
account. Again, the engineer must under-
stand the assumption implicit in their
design and the computer package being
used.
May 2003 CONCRETE
Stiffness
In many packages, stiffness is simply the
elastic section properties of the concrete.
This is usually adequate for an ultimate
limit state design, but will tell the engi-
neer little about the likely serviceability
performance. Stiffness is affected by the
elastic modulus of the concrete, which
varies because of creep. A simple short-
term/long-term modulus may not be rel-
evant for the case considered. It should
also be noted that for a C40 concrete to
BS 8110-2: 1985 Structural use of con-
crete – Code of practice for special cir-
cumstances(3) gives a range of elastic
modulus of 22–34kN/mm2. This can be
refined if the aggregate type is known.
However, if an accurate prediction of
serviceability behaviour is required, rely-
ing on default values could be problem-
atic.
Stiffness is also affected by the tensile
strength of the concrete that dictates the
extent of cracking. In practice, there are
large variations in tensile strength for any
given compressive strength, and this ten-
sile strength varies with age. Normally, it
is the strength at the time of cracking that
is important. Once the concrete is
cracked, tension stiffening comes into
effect, and a number of methods can
model this. It is important to understand
the limitations of any model. In terms of
stiffness, reinforced concrete is far from
an elastic or even elastic–plastic material,
and models for accurate prediction of
serviceability behaviour need to be thor-
oughly checked and the underlying
assumptions considered. It is certainly
not acceptable to predict the deflection of
members by assuming uncracked elastic
properties, particularly with slender
members where the cracked stiffness is
significantly reduced.
Redistribution
Codes generally allow redistribution
from the moments calculated using gross
concrete properties. Non-linear analysis
will ‘automatically’ allow some redistri-
bution, due to cracking. If further hand
redistribution of the moments is under-
taken, greater overall redistribution than
that assumed by the code will be implied.
In any case, suitability of code rules deal-
ing with detailing should be carefully
considered when non-linear analysis has
been used for the ultimate limit state.
Intrinsic movements
Unlike structural steel, concrete changes
in volume through shrinkage and heat of
hydration. The amount is often signifi-
cant when compared with normal in-
service temperature variations. If such
movements are restrained, significant
stresses can build up and may cause
CONCRETE May 2003
cracking. This invalidates deflection
assumptions, and at worse causes failure
of restraining elements, e.g. shear failure
of end columns in long continuous struc-
tures. These effects are unlikely to be
considered in the computer analysis and
the danger is that over-reliance on the
computer output will result in the engi-
neer also ignoring them.
Several of the above issues come
together in flat slab design, where there
is a trend to use thinner and longer spans.
This has, in part, been encouraged by the
reduction in the safety factor for rein-
forcement and by the use of high-
strength concrete. As a result, flat slab
design tends to be controlled by punch-
ing shear and the serviceability limit
state. There is concern that inadequate
description of stiffness is leading to a sit-
uation where some flat slabs will not per-
form as intended in the long term. As a
minimum, reinforced concrete design
packages should include warnings when
code span-to-depth ratios are being
exceeded.
Hand checks
The term ‘hand check’ is perhaps wrong.
What is required is a progression from
simple analysis that can be easily verified
through to final analysis, with each step
being validated by the one before.
Consider the design of an irregular
flat slab. Initial sizing and reinforcement
quantities may be determined from span-
to-depth ratios and the moment tables in
BS 8110: Part 1: 1997 Structural use of
concrete – Code of practice for design
and construction(4) or yield-line analysis.
This may then progress to a two-dimen-
sional frame of a more typical bay, and
finally to a grillage or finite element
analysis, if required. At the extreme, if
deflections are critical, the finite element
analysis may need to be non-linear. Each
layer builds on the previous, discrepan-
cies can be considered and, if not readily
explainable, the models checked. It
should be noted that even for a regular
flat slab, there is a tendency to move to a
finite element analysis. With current soft-
ware this may be quicker than a two-
dimensional frame, but any assumption
that the answers are any more accurate is
not necessarily correct. With experience,
it will soon be found that the hand meth-
ods give results that are reliable if not
better than the computer approach.
Other more straightforward checks
include:
• checking that the sum of reactions
equals the applied load; this check is
not only valid for the model but also
for individual elements within it
• checking that the support and mid-
span design moments in a continuous
beam add up to wl2/8; use of standard
end restraints will also allow a loose
check on the magnitude of redistribu-
tion assumed
• checking the load increase (and face
shear) in a column at any given floor is
approximately equal to the load on the
floor area notionally supported by the
column
• checking the moments at flat slab inte-
rior columns comply with where m and
m / are the moment capacities in hog-
ging and sagging at the column loca-
tion and P is the column reaction
• checking selected members with the
charts in BS 8110-3: 1985 Structural use
of concrete – Design charts for singly rein-
forced beams, doubly reinforced beams and
rectangular columns(5); although the tables
still incorporate a 1.15 safety factor on the
steel, they should still highlight any gross
errors
• checking that span-to-depth ratios are in
accordance with the code, unless a deflec-
tion analyses acknowledging the non-lin-
ear behaviour has been carried out.
These checks may be considered by
some as overly simplistic. However, it is
the authors’ opinion that such simple
checks can locate most gross errors intro-
duced by using computers. The checks
can be valuable in understanding the
accuracy of design. For example, there
are at least three ways you can design a
stocky column to BS 8110 – equation 39,
the charts in Part 3, and by considering
plane sections. For the same column, a
range of 24–32mm bars is dependent on
the method. In this particular case, the
simplest method (equation 39) was actu-
ally found to be more accurate than the
Part 3 charts. Discrepancies were easy to
explain and added to the understanding
of those involved.
There must be a wealth of similar or
better approximate checks/design meth-
ods known to CONCRETE readers, and
it is hoped that this note will prompt sug-
gestions. If enough contributions are
made, these may be combined into a
paper on simplified methods. It would
also be interesting to hear whether, and
how, universities teach approximate
methods. It is clear from examples of
coursework and exam papers provided
by University College, London, that
some universities require the use of
simple methods in developing a design.
As so little design is analysis, students
should understand that the computer is
where the design is refined not necessar-
ily begun.
Validation
The final issue to be considered is the
validation of software. Some practices
validate their own software formally,
41
 Figure 1: Final
CONCRETE AND COMPUTERS analysis of the
base to an off-
shore concrete
gravity struc-
ture. Initial
NEWS from
design was car-
ried out by
hand using
standard tables and assumptions of uniform bearing
pressure. During the design process, soil structure
interaction and actual applied load distribution were
taken into account. The initial design was then
checked against this final analysis. Association of Concrete Industrial
Flooring Contractors
others relying on a network of users to highlight prob-
33 Oxford Street, Leamington Spa, CV32 4RA, UK
lems. What is clear is that there is little or no exchange
Tel: +44 (0)1926 833 633 Fax: +44 (0)1926 423 236
of validation information across the industry. This is
E-mail: acifc@hotmail.com Website: www.acifc.org.uk
costly and could be perceived as wasteful. Possible
solutions are:
• An independent organisation to verify software. This The current situation
would need careful planning in terms of liabilities if
a validated program is shown to have an error. Two years of intensive debate and discussion about concrete industrial
• The development of a set of validation models for floors led to the launch, on 5 March, of Concrete Society Technical Report
checking software. These would need to be secret to 34 Concrete industrial ground floors – a guide to design and construction.
avoid ‘tuning’ of the software and always run the risk ACIFC is now undertaking a new round of problem-
of being obsolete, as new developments require vali- solving, setting the pace for higher standards, contractor accreditation and
dation. It would, however, be possible to define the renewed industry partnerships.
extent of validation clearly. There is continuing Government indifference to the retention system. Led
• The setting up of a voluntary network of users within by the National Specialist Contractors Council, representation is being made
the industry so that problems can be circulated and on this matter and in relation to the increases in insurance premiums affect-
discussed. ing the entire construction industry.
All these have their difficulties, and further discus- The practicalities of floor construction and finished slab performance
sion is welcomed. A further plea is for software houses remain the concern of specialist contractors. In particular, poor-quality sub-
to produce detailed documentation on the technical strata are always a challenge, especially as demand for redevelopment of
assumptions made. brownfield sites increase.
Floor contractors and foundation specialists are combining to achieve
Conclusions greater predictability in relation to geotechnical factors. The factors
enabling achievement of a successful floor are seen as a partnership
Computer packages greatly increase the speed of the
between designer, main contractor, specialist contractors and their suppli-
design of concrete structures. However, there is concern
ers, together with an improved design and construction code.
that there is an over-reliance on the output and insuffi-
cient education on approximate methods of checking/- Piled floors
designing. There is a need for users to understand the
The ACIFC working party is seeking assistance in the provision of published
assumptions behind the software they are using, and an
references relating to design, construction and performance monitoring of
even greater need for engineers to learn simplified or
suspended ground floor slabs, thereby speeding preparation of a fundamental
approximate methods. Similarly, software validation
guidance document.
needs to be co-ordinated. Comment on all these aspects
To date, most information has been sourced from steel-fibre-reinforcement
is welcomed, to enable better guidance to be produced
specialists. It is hoped that those involved with steel bar and mesh alternatives
and perhaps show how the industry can move forward
will make their views known. While the new TR34 covers broad design of this
with software validation. ■
construction type, much better knowledge is needed to help flooring and main
Contact John Morrison on +44 (0)1255 320 600. contractors understand the components of a good piled floor.
E-mail: john.morrison@burohappold.com Web tendering
The method of tendering for large floor construction has developed electroni-
References:
cally, with supermarket Tesco seeking bids for new floor construction over
1 THE INSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS. the internet. While this process increases pressure for lower prices, the main
Guidelines for the use of computers for engineering
calculations, 2002. contractor has already identified the preferred bidders.
2 STANDING COMMITTEE ON STRUCTURAL SAFETY. This has two effects: the bidder has no knowledge of competitors, but as
Structural safety 1997–99: Review recommendations: 12th all pricing has to be received at a given moment, Tesco identifies the lowest
Report of SCOSS, The Institution of Structural Engineers,
London. 2001. bid and gives a half-hour reflection time, during which any bidder can revise
3 BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 8110-2: 1985 the submission.
Structural use of concrete – Code of practice for special
circumstances.
The second effect is to increase collaboration between the designer, spe-
4 BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 8110-1: 1997 cialist contractor and supply chain to enable partnership on floor detailing,
Structural use of concrete – Code of practice for design and allowing submission of a revised bid.
construction.
5 BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 8110-3: 1985
Structural use of concrete – Design charts for singly
Annual golf
reinforced beams, doubly reinforced beams and rectangular The ACIFC Annual Golf event will take place on 5 June at Hawkstone Park,
columns.
near Shrewsbury. ■

42 May 2003 CONCRETE