Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RESEARCH
CEMENT
AND
ASSOCIATION
DEVELOPMENT
ULTIMATE
LABORATORIES
STRENGTH
OF
REINFORCED
CONCRETE IN
AMERICAN
DESIGN
PRACTICE
By Eivind Hognestad
Authorized
Proceedings
Concrete
Reprint
From
of a Symposium
Structures,
London,
on the
May,
Strength
1956
of
Bulletins
Published
Development
Research
Department
and Development
d
Portland
D1
D2
Influence
neering,
-Nature
by the
the
Cement
of Soil Volume
by E, J. FELT.
Division
Association
Change
and Vegetation
Annuat Highuxw
of Bond in Pre-Tensioned
Prestressed
on Highway
Conference
Engf.
of the Universit?j
by JACK R.
Concrete,
JANNEY,
Reprinted from JournfIl of the American
proceedings,
30, 717 (12S4).
Concrete
Institute
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).
D3 _f
~Investigationof
Units,
D4
froml Proceedings,
Factors
Influencing
by EARL J. FELT.
Reprinted
D6
Stability
of
-Concrete
Stress
Physical
from~ Bulletin
1954);
Prestressed
and
HANSON
Institute
(December,
Concrete
Masonry
1955.
D5
M~isture.Vo]ume
March,
by JOSEPH J. SRJDELER,
(May,
American
Soctetv
Properties
For Testing
of Soil-Cement
Research
Distribution
in Ultimate
Strength
and D. MCHENRY.
Con-
M@tUiaiS, 55
Mixtures,
Design,
by E.
HOONESTAO, N. W. HANSON
D?
-Ultimate
Flexural
Strength of Prestressed
forced Concrete Beams,
by J. It. JANNEY,
HENRY.
Reprinted from Journal of the American
Proceedings,
S2, S01 (12SS).
Concrete
Institute
(December,
Reinand Conventionally
HOONESTAD and D. Mc-
E.
Concrete Institite
(FebruaxT, 19S0;
SYMPOSIUM
ON
THE
STRENGTH
LONDON
OF
CONCRETE
MAY
STRUCTURES
1956
Sessicm E: Paper 1
ULTIMATE
STRENGTH
REIN FORCE(D
AMERICAN
CONCRETE
IDESIGN
Cement Association,
SUMJ4AR
IN
PRACTICE
by Eivind Hognestad,
Portland
OF
Dr. techn.
U.S.A.
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.
DESIGN
SPECIFICATIONS
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
L
MU
U
W
Cross-sectional
AC
A,
A,C
A,f
A,,
b=
b,
;=
D,
d,
properties
d,
e=
e
of compressive
of axial load
e~
= eccentricity
of loacl Fb measured
= unsupported
reinforcement
measured
from
plastic
of tensile
centroid
of
rb
=- ratio of balanced
= ratio of compressive
rt
rW
=
bd,
= flange thickness
section
strength
A,,
.=
bdl
tensile reinforcement
reinforcement
defined by equation
(6)
A
= ~
bd,
A,,
=
AC
A ,t
in T section,
or total
depth
of
:ctangular
Properties of materials
ECU =
maximum
0003)
=W
at ultimate
strength
at ultimate
strength
f=>U
f
k,
.Y
strain
in concrete
at ultimate
= ratio of average
strength
compressive
mu
mu
= cfy
ucy/
U,y,
mul
strength
to
U.yl = compressive
limited
stress
k,
085
strength
OF
THE
REPO!RT
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
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(1)
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+
24L+O6W
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(la)
U=12B+
0.6L+24W
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(lb)
and
U=K
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
BASIC
ASSUMPTIONS
FOR
IJLTIMATE
STRENGTH
RECTANGULAR
BEAh4S
l-- b--l
J
l!!!!!!
h:
As,
***
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
. .. . . . . . . . . . .
,MU = 0.85kluCY@c(dl I@ . . . . .
10
. . . . ...(1)
. . . . . . . . . . . . .(2)
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
k,
rfy
I-
. . . . } . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
0.85k1 UCY,
)
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
by the statistical
1-0.59:/
CY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(4)
as
Mu
=q(l-
0.59q) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(4a)
z,%.,,
rfy
in which q ==.
%Y
When compression
controls
ultimate
11
strength,
may be determined
by considering
linear distribution
of strain (Figure
1):
dl c
E$U= Ecu-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
c
Combining equations (1) and (5) and seeking the balanced reinforcement
ratio for which f,. = fY, we obtain
U@
Ecu
b=085kk
j-- +
Ecu
(6)
~s
The maximum ratio of reinforcement in equation (4) should be somewhat less than the balanced ratio given by equation (6). Choosing a
limiting value of r equal to about 9070 of r~, the joint committee recommended that r should not exceed
r=o.40@
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(7)
f,
in which the coefficient 0.40 is to be reduced at the rate of 0025 per
1,000 lb/in2 concrete strength in excess of 5,000 lb/inz. Such reduction
for high concrete strength is desirable on the basis of several experimental
studies that indicate a decrease of the stress factor, 0.85k,, with increasing
concrete strength (7,11.
When the ratio of reinforcement
exceeds that given by equation (7),
compression
reinforcement
must be provided. For this case, the joint
committee recommended
that the resisting ultimate moment should not
exceed
MU = (AS* AJj;dl
d,)
~(8)
1+&fJd,
1 0.59(r - r)~
Ury(
in which (r r) should not exceed the value given by equation (7), and
A$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
and spacing of reinforcing
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
r~d
085k1uCYl 1
recommended
a conservative
. .(9)
value of
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
in the flange,
the joint committee recommended:
Mu
=(A,,
Atf)jji, 1
[
1 0.59(r~ rf)$
+ A,f~(dl
~5t). .(10)
CY
lY)~l
strength
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(11)
h
and
t = flange thickness
b = overall width of flange
b = width of web
r
=2
:dl
AS,
w = bdl
rf=
A,f
bdl
In equation
equation (7).
(10) the value of (rW r~) should not exceed that given by
13
CONCENTRICALLY
LOADED
SHORT
COLUMNS
that
the strength
of concentrically
LOAD,
F~ECTANGULAR
SECTION
,C
Figure
2:
Eccentric
load analysis.
as
eccentric
axial load
14
from
the centroid
of
Au
0.003E,
. . . . . . (15)
()
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
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
;15
()
eb
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
~
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:
m =
A,Cu$
Fu=
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
FU = 085uCYlD~
{/(
-(
When compression
Fu=
2 + %
~-O.38
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..(19)
controls:
4fy
:+
ACuCYl
_+
. . . . . . . . . . (20)
96De
11
+ 1.18
(O%D + 067D$)2
in which
D = diameter
D, = diameter
A,
rt=
AC
LONG
of circular column
of circle circumscribing
longitudinal
reinforcement
MEMBERS
16 O.04~
t
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(21)
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
REFERENCES
1. KEREKES,
requirements
6. Discussion
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
19
D8
Resurfacing
and patching
crete, by EARL J. FEL!r.
Concrete
Pavement
with
Bonded
Con-
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).
DIO-Laboratory
Investigation
NER and E. HOGNESTAO.
of Rigid
D12-Ultimate
Strength of IReinforced
tice, by EMND HOCNESTAD.
Reprinted from Proceedings
Structures,
Lond,m, May,
Frame
Testing
Failure,
by R. C. ELST-
in American
of a S#mpos@n
1956.
of Con.
(January,
Design
on the Strength
1957);
Prac-
of Concrete