You are on page 1of 22

PORTLAND

RESEARCH AND

CEMENT
DEVELOPMENT

ASSOCIATION
LABORATORIES

ULTIMATE

STRENGTH

OF

REINFORCED CONCRETE IN AMERICAN DESIGN PRACTICE

By Eivind Hognestad

Authorized Proceedings Concrete

Reprint

From on the May, Strength of

of a Symposium Structures, London,

1956

Bulletins

Published

by the

Development Research

Department Division

and Development d the

Portland

Cement

Association

D1

Influence neering,

of Soil Volume by E, J. FELT.

Change

and Vegetation

on Highway

Engf.

Reprinted from Twent&Sixth of Coiorado, May 12S2.

Annuat Highuxw

Conference

of the Universit?j

D2

-Nature
JANNEY,

of Bond in Pre-Tensioned

Prestressed

Concrete,
Institute

by JACK R.
(May, 1954);

Reprinted from JournfIl of the American proceedings, 30, 717 (12S4).

Concrete

D2ADiscussion of the papw Nature of Bond in Pre-Tensioned N. W. Concrete, by P. W. ABELES, K. HAJNAL-KONYI, Author, JACK R. JANNEY.
Reprinted from Journal of the American Concrete Part 2, 1954): Proceedings, SO, 73S-1 (1254).

HANSON

Prestressed and
(December,

Institute

D3 _f

~Investigation of
Units,

M~isture.Vo]ume

Stability 1955.

of

Concrete

Masonry

March, by JOSEPH J. SRJDELER,

D4

A Method for Determining the Moisture Condition of Hardened crete in Terms of Relative Humidity, by CARL A. MENZEL.
~le&~ted froml Proceedings, American Soctetv For Testing

Con-

M@tUiaiS, 55

D5

Factors Influencing by EARL J. FELT.


Reprinted

Physical

Properties
108 of the IIigfwav

of Soil-Cement
Research

Mixtures,

from~ Bulletin

Board, p. 123 (19S5).

D6

-Concrete

Stress

HOONESTAO, N. W. HANSON

Distribution in Ultimate Strength and D. MCHENRY.


Concrete

Design,
Institute

by E.
(December,

Reprinted from JonrnaI of the American 1955); Proceedings, 52, 455 (19S6).

D?

-Ultimate Flexural Strength of Prestressed forced Concrete Beams, by J. It. JANNEY, HENRY.
Reprinted from Journal of the American Proceedings, S2, S01 (12SS).

E.

Reinand Conventionally HOONESTAD and D. Mc-

Concrete Institite

(FebruaxT, 19S0;

SYMPOSIUM

ON

THE

STRENGTH LONDON

OF MAY

CONCRETE 1956

STRUCTURES

Sessicm E: Paper 1 ULTIMATE REIN FORCE(D AMERICAN STRENGTH CONCRETE OF IN

IDESIGN

PRACTICE
Dr. techn.
U.S.A.

by Eivind Hognestad,
Portland Cement Association,

SUMJ4AR

Ultimate strength design procedures for reinforced concrete were recommended in an October 1955 report of a joint committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Concrete Institute. This paper discusses the background for and contents of that report, which represents a signj?cant stage in the development of an American design practice based on ultimate strength by inelastic action.

Introduction
The past fifty years have been a period of rapid growth and development in the use of reinforced concrete as a structural material throughout the world. The production of Portland cement in the United States rose twenty-five fold from about 2 million long tons in 1900 to over 50 million tons in 1955. Similarly, the U.S. production of reinforcing stee[ increased from a small amount to about 18 million tons. Introduction of new design procedures for reinforced concrete must be considered with this background of great progress and expansion. Though the classical straight-line theor:y was evolved when reinforced concrete was in its infancy some 60 years ago, it has served us well; and it certainly cannot be put aside on the basis that it has led to unreasonable or unsafe
designs.

On the other hand, through half a century of practical experience and laboratory experimentation, our knowledge regarding the strength and behaviour of structural concrete has been vastly improved. To some extent, such improvements of knowledge have been utilized in design practice by
I

periodic adjustments and modifications of the straight-line theory. In this manner the original sitnplicity of an elastic theory based on a few fundamental assumptions has largely been lost. It is primarily to facilitate further progress, therefore, that many of us feel that the time has come to introduce a new theory of reinforced concrete design based on the actual inelastic properties of concrete and steel. Such a new theory is needed to realize the full future benefits of such highly important developments in the field of structural concrete as highstrength reinforcement,, prestressing, and precasting.
DEFINITIONS

In recent years good progress has been made in the development of knowledge regarding the properties of all engineering materials. New and improved concepts of structural behaviour and design have therefore become significant in the practice of civil engineering. These concepts are identified by rather reeent additions to engineering terminology such as rheology, plasticity, inelastic behaviour, plastic analysis, limit strength, and many others. Definitions for these terms vary to some extent between countries as well as between groups concerned with the various materials. It is necessary, therefore, to define common American word usage in connexion with structural concrete design. Ultimate strenglh design Ultimate strength design indicates a method of structural design based on the ultimate strength by inelastic action of conventionally reinforced or prestressed structural concrete cross-sections subject to simple bending, axial load, shear, bond., or combinations thereof. Ultima~e strength design does not necessarily involve an inelastic theory of structures. Evaluation of external moments and forces that act in indeterminate structural frameworks by virtue of dead and live loads may be carried out either by the theory of elastic displacements or by limit design. Limit design Limit design indicates a design method involving an inelastic theory of structures in which readjustments in the relative magnitude of bending moments at various sections due to non-linear relationships between loads and moments at high loads are recognized. Limit design does not by definition necessarily involve a final design of sections on an inelastic basis. Yield line theory Yield line theory indicates a theory of reinforced concrete slab structures based on inelastic behaviour occurring in a pattern of yield lines, the
2

location of which depends on loading and boundary conditions. Final design of sections does not necessarily involve inelastic action. So far, most American work regarding inelastic behaviour of structural concrete has been devoted to ultimate strength design. A term indicating ,a combination of ultimate strength design, limit design and yield line theory therefore still remains tc}be adopted. Perhaps the most important aspect of ultimate strength design is that it represents a significant step toward a broader consideration of inelastic behaviour in design.
AMERICAN DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

Two groups have made important contributions to the development of reinforced concrete design specifications in the United Statesthe Joint (Committees on Standard Specifications for Concrete and Reinforced Concrete, and committees of the American Concrete Institute(1). The Joint Committees have consisted of delegates from the American Concrete Institute (ACI), American Institute of Architects (AIA), American Railway Engineering Association (AREA), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), and the Portland Cement Association (PCA). The first, second and third Joint Committees were organized in 1904, 1919 and 1930, and submitted final reports in 1916, 1924 and 1940 respectively. These reports, which were milestones on the road of progress and had a strong effect on American concrete usage, were submitted to the constituent organizations. The sections concerning reinforced concrete design were written in the form of a recommended practice rather than a design code, so that it was possible to give a broad reflection of the state of the art as represented by the best practice of the day. The first committee on reinforced concrete of the ACI, then the National Association of Cement Users (NACU), was the Committee on Laws and Ordinances. The first report of this committee appeared in 1909 and was essentially based on what has later become known as ultimate strength design. The report was later revised to introduce the concepts of the straight-line theory, allowable stresses, and service loads; and it was then adopted as Standard Building Regulations for Reinforced Concrete in 1910. Later a Committee on Reinforced Concrete and Building Laws was formed, sponsoring <Standard Building Regulations for the Use of Reinforced Concrete in 1920. Committees E-1 and 501 foIlowed, sponsoring tentative regulations in 1928 and 1936 respectively. The three last revisions of The ACI Building Code were sponsored by Committee 318 and were adopted in 1941, 1947 and 1951. A new proposed revision was published in December 1955 2). The last three ACI codes were approved verbatim as American Standard by the American Standards Association. The codes have also been incorporated verbatim or adopted by reference in the general building codes of
3

numerous cities and municipalities throughout the United States. Many agencies of the U.S. Government also refer to the ACJ Code, though minor adjustments are often made to suit their particular needs. In the field of bridge design and construction, specifications have been developed and periodically revised by the American Association of State Highway Officials and by the Ameriean Railway Engineering Association.
NOTATION

The letter symbols used are generally defined where they are first introduced; they are also listed below for convenient reference. Loads and load factors B E Fb FO FU Fu K = effect of basic load consisting of dead load plus volume change due to elastic and inelastic actions, shrinkage and temperature = effect of earthquake forces = ultimate strength for balanced condition given by equation (I 5) = ultimate strength of concentrically loaded column given by equation (12) = ultimate strength of eccentrically loaded member = maximum axial load on long member given by equation (21) = load factor equal to 2.0 for columns and members subject to combined bending and axial load, and equal to 18 for beams and girders subject to bending = effect of live load plus impact = ultimate resisting moment = ultimate strength capacity of section = effect of wind load properties

L MU U W

Cross-sectional AC A, A,C A,f A,, b= b, ;= D, d,

= gross area of concrete section == total area of IIongitudinal reinforcement = area of compressive reinfcwcement = steel area to develop compressive strength of overhanging flange in T beams, defined by equation (11) = area of tensile reinforcement width of a rectangular section, or overall width of flange in T beams = width of web in T beams n.dl = depth to neutral axis total diameter of circular section = diameter of ci rcle circumscribing the longitudinal reinforcement in circular section = effective depth to centroid of tensile reinforcement
4

d, e= e e~ L

= effective depth to centroid

of compressive

reinforcement of tensile of

eccentricity of axial load measured reinforcement = eccentricity section = eccentricity = unsupported of axial load measured

from the centroid from plastic

centroid

of loacl Fb measured

from plastic centroid of section strength

Iengtlh of an axially loaded member A,, .= bdl defined by equation (6) A = ~ bd,

nudl = depth to neutral axis at ultimate r rb r = ratio of tensile reinforcement =- ratio of balanced

tensile reinforcement reinforcement

= ratio of compressive

rt rW t

= ratio of total reinforcement = bd, = flange thickness section


A ,t

A,, = AC

in T section,

or total

depth

of

:ctangular

Properties of materials
ECU =

maximum 0003)

strain

in concrete

at ultimate at ultimate at ultimate stress

strength strength strength

limited

to

=W

strain in tensile reinforcement stress in tensile reinforcement

f= >U
.Y

f k, k,

yield point stress of reinforcement compressive

(limited to 60,000 lb/in2) to 0.85 u.+, at ultimate stress and depth to

= ratio of average strength

= ratio of depth to resultant of compressive neutral axis at ultimate strength =


=

mu
mu

085
mul

U,y,

= cfy ucy/ strength of 6 x 12 in. cylinders at 28 days


5

U.yl = compressive

Report of ASCE-ACI Joint Committee on Ultimate Strength Design


Advancement in the field of structural design and analysis must of necessity proceed with extreme caution and deliberation. This has been true of the recommendations in the report of the ASCE-ACI Joint Committee on Ultimate Strength Design which culminates over ten years of continuous study of the subject. The joint committee was formed as a sub-committee of the ASCE Committee on Masonry and Reinforced Concrete under the chairmanship of the late A, J. Boase in 1944. It immediately commenced a comprehensive study of the adequacy of various ultimate strength theories and design formulae. As a result of its studies, it initiated extensive series of both short-time and sustained load tests on eccentrically loaded columns. These tests have been completed under the sponsorship of the Reinforced Concrete Research Council of the Engineering Foundation. In 1949 L. H. Corning was made chairman of the sub-committee. At this time, the sub-committee further recommended an extensive test programme on the shear resistance of reinforced concrete members. Extensions of this investigation are still in progress. In 1952 the sub-committee was made a joint committee o:f AC1 and ASCE and designated as Committee 327 by ACI. Hand in hand with the :studies made on ultimate strength formulae, the joint committee has investigated the question of overload factors in terms of the practice prevailing in countries where design by ultimate strength is in practical use, and of the factors of safety implied in conventional straight-line design methods. During the annual convention of ACI in 1952, the joint committee sponsored a symposium on ultimate strength design(3). This provided an opportunity for public discussion of such topics as reasons for changing design method, fundamental concepts of ultimate strength design, review of research, practical design, and overload factors. In 1955 the committee completed its assignment to evaluate and correlate theories and data bearing on ultimate strength design procedures with a view to establishing them as accepted practice . A final report was submitted to ASCE and AC1(45). It is the principal purpose of this paper to discuss the contents of that report, and to present the authors opinions and interpretations regard ing the report.
NATURE OF THE REPO!RT

The joint committee report presents recommendations and formulae for ultimate strength design (of reinforced. concrete structures together with basic supporting and explanatory data. The report is confined to design of cross-sections; it does not deal with evaluation of external moments
6

and forces. The committee recognized limit design as important but did not recommend practical use thereof at the present time. The report is based on the assumption, therefore, that structural analysis will be carried out by the theory of elastic displacements. On the basis of this assumption stresses will remain within the elastic limits under service loads when proper load factors are used. For statically determinate members, the ultimate capacity equals the computed capacity. For indeterminate structures, it is important to note that the maximum moments at various sections are usually due to different load arrangements. Because of moment redistribution at high loads, therefore, the maximum load capacity of the indetermini~te structure may considerably exceed that indicated by the capacity at a single section. Accordingly, a combination of ultimate strength design of sections and elastic structural analysis may be conservative in some cases, but it is not at all unreasonable. The joint committee report as published by ASCE(4) consists of a brief section on historical background, and the essence of the report appears under the heading Recommendations for design Three appendixes deal with substantiating test data, design aids, and derivation of formulae. The report ends with a selected bibliography. The AC I publication (sJ does not contain the appendixes concerning test data and derivation of formulae.
LOAD FACTORS

Consideration was given by the joint committee to the circumstance that ultimate strength design may be carried out in two ways. Moments and forces acting at various sections may be evaluated for service loads, Sections may then be designed by deducted or allowable ultimate strength equations, in which chosen safety factors are incorporated. Another alternative is LOmultiply the, service loads by chosen load factors before the cross-section forces are evaluated. The design of sections then takes place by equations expressing actual ultimate strengths. The joint committee chose to follow the second alternative, principally because ultimate strength equations are essentially factual in nature, while the choice of load factors to a considerable extent is a matter of engineering judgment. By keeping load factors and strength equations separated, the report should be conveniently useful even to specification-writing bodies that find it necessary for special applications to change the numerical values of the load factors recommended by the joint committee. Furthermore, it is believed to be wise for a designer clearly and unmistakably to keep his load factors in view. Two criteria were consic[ered as a basis for selecting load factors. Members should be proport.ioned so that: (l) they should be capable of carrying service loads with ,ample safety against an increase in live load beyond that assumed in design and against other uncertainties; (2) the
7

strains under service loacls should not be so large as to cause excessive cracking. The committee found that these criteria are satisfied by the following formulae. (1) For structures in the design of which effects of wind and earthquake forces can properly be neglected: U=I2B+2.4L and U= K(B -I- L), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(2) in which U= ultimate strength capacity of section B ==effect of basic loald consisting of dead load plus volume changes dueto elastic and inelastic actions, shrinkage, and temperature L = effect ofliveload plus impact K = load factor equal to 20 for columns and members subject to combined bending and axial load, and equal to 18 for beams and girders subject to bending (2) For those structures in which wind loading should be considered: U~l2B+ U=12B+ and U=K 24L+O6W 0.6L+24W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(la) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(lb) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(1)

U==K

( (

B+

I!+;

B+:C+W

) )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2a)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2b)

(3) Forstructures inthe design of which earthquake Ioading must be considered, substitute for the effect of wind load, W, the effect of earthquake forces, E.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The joint committee report does not deal with the many detailed requirements involved in reinforced concrete design and construction, such as spacing and cover of reinforcement, and special considerations regarding the various typical bui[ding elements. A reference is therefore made to the ACI Building Code in all matters not otherwise provided for in the committee report. It is required that bending moments should be taken into account in calculating the ultimate strength of compression members. Analysis of indeterminate structures should be carried out by the theory of elastic displacements, though approximate coefficients such as those recommended in the ACI code are acceptable for the usual types of buildings In structures such as arches, the effect of shortening of the arch axis,
8

temperature, shrinkage, and secondary moments due to deflexion should be considered. The committee report also calls attention to the need for checking deflexion of members including effects of creep, especially for high percentages of reinforcement. In considering the recommended ultimate strength equations, it is important to note that the committee assumed that only controlled concrete will be used in construction of structures designed by ultimate strength. The quality of concrete should then be such that not more than one test in ten has an average compressive strength less than the strength assumed in design, and the average of any three consecutive tests should not be less than the assumed design strength. In this manner, the design concrete strength is not an average strength; with a reasonable probability it is a minimum strength. Similarly, through the general reference to the AC1 code, the joint committee assumed that design values for the yield point of reinforcing steel are minimum values. Accordingly, the ultimate strength design equations should express an average and not a minimum relationship between ultimate strengths of the various reinforced concrete members as observed in tests and the cclrresponding compressive strengths.

BASIC

ASSUMPTIONS

FOR

IJLTIMATE

STRENGTH

After a thorough study of many ultimate strength theories presented in Europe as well as in America, the committee recommended that the calculation of ultimate strengtlh be based on the following assumptions. (1) As ultimate strength is approached, stresses and strains are not proportional, and the distribution of compressive stress in sections subject to bending is non-linear. The diagram c~f compressive concrete stress distribution may be assumed a rectangle, trapezoid, parabola, or any other shape which results in ultimate strength in reasonable agreement with comprehensive tests. In addition to this broad assumption, the joint committee recommended a specific set of limiting equations for various typical design cases as discussed in the following pages. These limiting equations are in good agreement with comprehensive tests of reinforced concrete, and calculated ultimate strengths based on a chosen stress distribution should therefore not exceed these given limits. (2) Plane sections normal to the axis remain plane after bending. When deformed reinforcing bars are used, this assumption has been verified even for high loads by numerous tests to failure of eccentrically loaded columns as well as of beams subject to bending only. (3) Tensile strength in concrete is neglected in sections subject to bending. When normal percentages of reinforcement are used, this assumption leads to results in good agreement with tests. For very small percentages of reinforcement it is on the conservative side.
9

Maximum concrete strain in ffexure is limited to 0.003. This is a safe value; most strains observed in tests of reinforced concrete members fall between 0003 and 00015 G). (5) Maximum fibre stress is assumed not to exceed 85~0 of the compressive strength of 6 x 12 in, cylinders, A maximum stress near 100~0 of the cylinder strength has been found in tests of horizontally cast members7. In vertically cast members such as columns, however, due to water gain resulting in a lower strength near the top, and due to effects of size and shape, a maximum stress of 8.5~ of the cylinder strength has been observed 89. Since some effect of size and shape probably also is present in large beams, and since the concrete near the top of beams as well as columns may be somewhat weaker than control cylinders, it seems reasonable in all cases to use an 8.50/0stress. (6) Stress in tensile and compressive reinforcement at ultimate strength is assumed not to exceed the yield point of the steel used or 60,000 lb/in2, whichever is smaller. The purpose of the 60,000 lb/in2 limit is, of course, to avoid excessive cracking under service loads. This limit is conservative, considering the high effectiveness of the bar deformations that are now in use throughout our country. It is also possible, to some extent, to control cracking by other variables than steel stress.
(4)
RECTANGULAR BEAh4S

To establish limiting equations for ultimate cases, the joint committee chose a theoretical F. Sttissi of Switzerland in 1932 and based on the stress distribution shown in Figure 1. The

strength in the various approach originated by the general properties of properties of the stress

l-- b--l

J l!!!!!!
h:
c
As, q ***

Figure

1:

Flexwd

analysis.

block are given by the stress factor O85kl (German: Volligkeitsgrad) and the centroid factor k2 (German: Schwerpunktsbeiwert). Equilibrium of forces and moments then gives: -4s,j_,U =0.85 klu@c . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ...(1) ,MU = 0.85kluCY@c(dl I@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(2)

10

When tension controls ultimate strength, the ultimate steel stress f,U equals the yield point Y;, and the ultimate resisting moment obtained by solving equations (1) and (2,) is given by: MU= / A,lfydl

in which AS, = area of tensile reinforcement yield point stress of reinforcement (limited to 60,000 lb/in2) d, = effective depth lto centroid of tensile reinforcement O85k1 = stress factor, ratio of average compressive stress to uCYl k, = centroid factor,, ratio of depth to resultant of compressive stress and depth to neutral axis ucy/ = compressive strength of 6x 12 in. cylinders at 28 days A,,, r ratio of reinforcement = bdl width of beam b= The quantities kl and k2 are fundamental properties of concrete that have been determined by direct tests of plain concrete specimens(T). Equation (3) is then a fully rational equation developed by the equations of equilibrium from measured properties of the materials steel and concrete. Equation (3) may also be developed on a more empirical basis by studying the results of reinforced concrete beam tests. The author recently determined ~ ~~k from published the coefficient
1

k, rfy I- . . . . } . . . . . . . . . . . (3) 0.85k1 UCY, )

data on 364 beam tests

method c)f least squares, and the value of 0593 was 0.5 found. A value of = 0.59 was suggested by C. S. Whitney over ten 085 years ago[lO), and this value is also in good agreement with the direct tests of plain concrete(7. It is entirely reasonable, therefore, that the joint committee recommended that the computed ultimate moment of beams should not exceed that given by MW=A,,,fYdl which can be re-stated as
z,%.,,

by the statistical

1-0.59:/
CY

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(4)

Mu =q(l-

0.59q) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(4a)

rfy in which q ==.


%Y

When compression

controls

ultimate
11

strength,

the steel stress at failure

may be determined

by considering

linear distribution

of strain (Figure

1):

dl c E = Ecu- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5) $U c Combining equations (1) and (5) and seeking the balanced reinforcement ratio for which f,. = fY, we obtain
Ecu
U@

b=085kk+ j-~s

Ecu

(6)

The maximum ratio of reinforcement in equation (4) should be somewhat less than the balanced ratio given by equation (6). Choosing a limiting value of r equal to about 9070 of r~, the joint committee recommended that r should not exceed r=o.40@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(7)

f,
in which the coefficient 0.40 is to be reduced at the rate of 0025 per 1,000 lb/in2 concrete strength in excess of 5,000 lb/inz. Such reduction for high concrete strength is desirable on the basis of several experimental studies that indicate a decrease of the stress factor, 0.85k,, with increasing concrete strength (7,11. When the ratio of reinforcement exceeds that given by equation (7), compression reinforcement must be provided. For this case, the joint committee recommended that the resisting ultimate moment should not exceed MU = (AS* AJj;dl 1 0.59(r - r)~ Ury(

d,) ~(8) 1+&fJd,

in which (r r) should not exceed the value given by equation (7), and A$C = area of compressive reinforcement A = ~ r = ratio of compressive reinforcement bd, d2 = effective depth to centroid of compressive reinforcement For beams with the usual amounts of reinforcement dictated by economy bars, r is 0.15 to 0.25 times 4[, and there is f, little difference between designs resulting from ultimate strength and straight-line procedures. The major changes suggested by the committee therefore concern a more efficient use of reinforcement with yield points over 40,000 lb/in*. In present American design codes based on straightline theory a ceiling allowable stress of 20,000 lb/inz is used for such reinforcement, while the ultimate strength design method as outlined may lead to the equivalent of a.n ailowable stress of 60,000/ 1.8 =. 33,300 lb/in2.
12

and spacing of reinforcing

As a second change it is made possible, when economically and practically feasible, to utilize more fully the strength of the concrete compression zone.
T SECTIONS

If the neutral axis falls within the flange of a T beam, the equations for rectangular beams are applicable with r cc~mputed as for a beam with a width equal to the overall flange width. The depth to the neutral axis, c, may be estimated by solving equation (1): c=n@~l= In this case, the joint committee c = l30rfy4. Ucyl When c is greater than the depth of the flange, the tensile reinforcement, A,,, may be considered subdivided into one part, A,f, that will develop the compressive strength of the overhanging portion of the fldnge and another part, (A,f A,f), that will develop the compressive strength of a a portion of the web. Assuming a uniform stress of 085uCYZ the flange, in the joint committee recommended: 1 r~d . .(9)

085k1uCYl 1 a conservative

recommended

value of

Mu(A,, = Atf)jji, 1
[ 1 0.59(r~ rf)$
CY

+ A,f~(dl

~5t). .(10) strength

in which A,f is the steel area necessary to develop the compressive of the overhanging flange: A,~=O85@and t = flange thickness b = overall width of flange b = width of web r =2 :dl AS, w = bdl
rf= A,f

lY)~l h

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(11)

bdl In equation equation (7). (10) the value of (rW r~) should not exceed that given by

13

CONCENTRICALLY

LOADED

SHORT

COLUMNS

The joint committee recognized loaded short columns is given by

that

the strength

of concentrically

Fo=0.85uC,vlAC +A,~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(12) in which AC = gross area of concrete section A, = total area oflcmgitudinal reinforcement It wasrecommended, however, that all members subject to axial loads should be designed for at least a minimum eccentricity. For spirally reinforced columns the cc)mmittee gave a minimum eccerrtricity measured from the centroidal axis equaI to 0.05 times the depth of the column section; for tied columns O.10 times the depth was recommended. This recommendation involves a change from present practice which limits the allowable load for a tied column to 80% of that for a spirally reinforced column. This change seems reasonable since in practice very few columns are trul~y concentrically loaded, and recent tests(g) have indicated that for columns with even a small eccentricity of load, no second maximum Ioad is developed due to spiral action.
ECCENTRIC LOAD, F~ECTANGULAR SECTION

The uItimate strength of members subject to combined bending and axial load may be computed from tlhe usual two equations of equilibrium,

,C

Figure

2:

Eccentric

load analysis.

which, when the neutral follows (Figure 2):


FU =

axis is within the section, may be expressed

as

().85klUcY~hnudl+ A.C~Y ,4.,~,u. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)

Fue = 0085kluCY@Ud12(l k2n.) + A,~L(dI - dz). . . . . . . (14) in which FU = ultimate eccentric axial load
14

e Au

= eccentricity of the axial load measured tensile reinforcement

from

the centroid

of

= stress in tensile reinforcement which equals ~Y when tension controls ultimate strength, but is smaller than ~Y when compression controls nudl = c = depth to neutral axis at ultimate strength In the above equations, the joint committee recommended that k, should not be taken as less than ~kl, and hl should not be greater than 085 for UCY1 5,000 lb/in2. The coefficient ().85 should be reduced at the ~ rate of 005 per 1,000 lblinz concrete strength in excess of 5,000 lb/in2. By solving equations (5) and (,13) forj~U ==f, and ECU 0.003, it is found = that the ultimate load for the balanced condition is given by F~ = 0-85k1

0.003E, UQ@dl + (Asc z4Jfy 0O03E, + f, )

. . . . . . (15)

When FU is less than the value of Fb given by equation (15), ultimate strength is controlled by tensicm and .fiU = fY. Taking into account the concrete area displaced by the compression reinforcement and solving equations (13) and (14) for the ultimate strength, we then obtain: FU = 0.85uCYlbd1 <rm. rmu + (

()

1 ~
1

in which f, u 085uCY1 mU =mUl A,, r = bdl A r .& bdl m For symmetrical reinforcement or for members without compression reinforcement, the general equation (16) is simplified considerably. When FU exceeds the value of F~ giV(?JI by equation ( 15), ultimate strength is controlled by compression; ,f,U is less than fY and must be determined by the strain equation (5). Solution of equations (5), ( 13) and ( 14) involves a cubic equation which is further complicated when the neutral axis is outside the section. For this case, therefore, the joint committee recommended two approximate solutions that have been found to be in good agreement with results of extensive tests of reinforced concrete eccentrically loaded columns(g).
15

A linear relationship between axial load and moment may be assumed for values of FU between Fb as given by equation (15) and the concentric ultimate load Fo given by equation (12). For this range the ultimate strength may therefore be computed by FO FU = 1+ () in which e == eccentricity measured from plastic centroid of section e~ = eccentricity of load Fb measured from plastic centroid of section as computed bly solution of equations (14) and (15). The plastic centroid of a section is computed with a modular ratio
m = ~ For symmetrical reinforcement, the plastic centroid coin0.85uCY, tides with the geometric centroid. The joint committee also recognized the equation developed by C. S. Whitneytlj for ultimate strength when compression controls:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17) eb

;15

Fu=

A,Cu$ e + d, d, *

+ -

btu,,,

. ... . . . . . . . . . . . (18)

;+118
1

in which t = total depth of section. Though we] 1 substantiated by test data, the methods presented above for the ~esign of eccentrically loaded rectangular sections involve a major change from present American practice. Even though the principle of the addition law as expressed by equation ( 12) is recognized in present design codes for small eccentricities, the safety factor with respect to ultimate strength may vary frc~m near one to over four, depending on the combination of variables involved. By the proposed ultimate strength design procedures, a much more uniform safety factor will be obtained. It should also be noted that l.he mathematical equations involved are greatly simplified as compared to a modified straight-line theory.

ECCENTRIC

LOAD,

CIRCULAR

SECTION

The ultimate strength of members of circular cross-section subject to combined bending and -axial load may be computed on the basis of the equations of equilibrium taking inelastic deformations into account. The joint committee also recommended use of a modification of the partially rational and partially empirical formul~ developed by C. S. Whitney (9.10).
16

When tension controls: FU = 085uCYlD~ {/( 0.85e 0.38 D ~-O.38 2 + % } . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(19)

) )

-( When compression Fu= controls:


4fy _+

ACuCYl 96De (O%D + 067D$)2 + 1.18

. . . . . . . . . . (20)

:+ s in which D = diameter D, = diameter A, rt= AC


LONG MEMBERS

11

of circular column of circle circumscribing

longitudinal

reinforcement

For cases when the unsupported length., L, of an axially loaded member is greater than fifteen times its least lateral dimension, t, the joint committee recommended that the maximum axial load, FM, should be determined by one of the following two methcjds. The effect of slenderness on ultimate strength maybe taken into account by stability determination with an apparent reduced modulus of elasticity used for sustained loads. A numerical procedure such as that recommended in the report of ACI Committee 312 on Plain and Reinforced Concrete Archestlzj may be used. The maximum axial load may also be determined by FU=ZFO

16 O.04~ t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(21)

in which F. is the concentric load capacity of the section with L/ t <15 as given by equation (12). Equation (21 ) may be unduly conservative in some cases. Extensive investigations of the effect c)f slenderness on the strength of reinforced concrete compression members are now in progress.
SHEAR AND BOND

Good progress has been made in recent years in studies regarding shear, diagonal tension, and bond. Further experimental investigations are under way, and special ACI-ASCE committees are working on these problems. The joint committee therefore made no recommendations regarding ultimate strength design in these items at, the present time.
17

Practical

applications

After one becomes farniiiar with ultimate strength theory for reinforced concrete, the design equations involved are considerably simpler to use than those resulting from the straight-line theory, Further simplification of routine design calculations is nevertheless desirable. The joint committee report4 ) contains several charts intended to expedite the proportioning of sections by ultimate strength theory. Development of further design aids is in progress. THE
AC I BUILDING CC)DE

The joint committee report is an engineering report; it is not a building code, it is not a standard specification. To gain widespread practical application, therefore, ultimate strength design must be incorporated into design and building codes,. Ultimate strength design in America has now, in the opinion of many of us, been developed so far that extensive practical experience is necessary to continue progress. A proposed revision of the ACI Building Code was reported by ACI Committee 318 in December 1955(Z). This proposed revision incorporates the ultimate strength method of design as an alternative to tlhe straight-line theory, and an abstract of the joint committee report on ultimate strength design is given in an appendix. This proposed revision was unanimously adopted by the 1956 convention of the ACI. In this manner, after extensive scientific researches and a decade of thorough committee work, the ultimate strength design method has been placed before the engineering profession. The future of ultimate strength design in American practice is, therefore, now largely in the hands of our engineers and architects practicing the science and art of reinforced concrete design and construction.

REFERENCES
1. KEREKES,
requirements F. and REIID, H. B. Jr. for reittfoneed concrete. Fifty years of development in building code Journal ojthe American Concrete Institute.

Vol. 25, No. 6. February 1954. pp. 441-470.


2. Proposed revision of building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI
Concrete Institute. Vol. 27, No. 4. December 1955. pp. 401-445. L, H., ANDERSON, B. G,, HOGNESTAD, Ii, SIESS, C. P., 3, CORNING, REESE, R. C. and LIN, T. Y. Symposium on ultimate strength design. Journal of the Ainerlcan Concrete Institute. Voll. 23, No. 10. June 1952. pp. 797900. 4. Report of ASCE-ACI J,Dint Committee on ultimate strength design. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 81, October 1955. Paper 809. pp. 68. 327. Ultimate strength design. Journal of the American 5. ACI-ASCE COMMITTEE Concrete Institute. Vol. 27, No. 5. January 1956. pp. 505-524. 1!3

318-51). Journal of the American

6. Discussion

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12.

of a paper by E. Hognestad: Inelastic behaviour in tests of eccentrically loaded short reinforced concrete columns. Journal of the American Concrete Instiiure. Vol. 25, No. 4. Dec[:mber 1953. Fig. G. p. 140/13. HOGNESTAD, E., HANSC)N, N. W. and McHENRY, D. Concrete stress distribution in ultimate strength design. Journal o~the American Concrete Institute. Part 1. Vol. 27, No. 4. December 1955. pp. 455-479. RICHART, F. E. and BROWN, R. L. An investigation of reinforced concrete columns. University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station. June 1934. Bulletin No. 267. pp. 91. HOGNESTAD, E. A study Of combined bending and axial loud in reinforced concrete members. University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station. November 1951. Bulletin No. 399. pp. 128. WHITNEY, C. S. Plastic theory in reinforced concrete design. Transactions of the American Society oj Civil Engineers. Vol. 107. 1942. pp. 25 1282. Discussion pp. 282-326. RUSCH, H. Versuche zw Festigkeit der Biegedruckzone. Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton. No. 120.1955. pp. 94. Report of ACI Committee 31,2: Plain and reinforced concrete arches. Journal of the American Concrete Institute. Vol. 22,No. 9. May 1951. pp. 681-.69 Discussion II. Vol. 23, No. 4. December 1951. pp. 692/1-692/11.

19

D8

Resurfacing and patching crete, by EARL J. FEL!r.

Concrete

Pavement

with

Bonded

Con-

lteprintedfrom Proceedings OJ the H{phuau Research Board, 35 (1956), D9 Review of Data on Effect of Speed in Mechanical crete, by DOUGLAS MCHENRY and J. J. SIIIDELER.
Reprinted from Speeiat Tectmical PubUcation can Society for Testing Materials (1S5S).

Testing

of Con.

No, 185, published by Ameri-

DIO-Laboratory Investigation NER and E. HOGNESTAO.

of Rigid

Frame

Failure,

by R. C. ELST(January, 1957);

Reprinted from Jrournul of the proceedings, 53, 637 (1957).

Amertcan Concrete Institute


Concrete in American

D12-Ultimate Strength of IReinforced tice, by EMND HOCNESTAD.


Structures,

Design

Prac-

Reprinted from Proceedings


Lond,m, May,

of a S#mpos@n 1956.

on the Strength

of Concrete

You might also like