You are on page 1of 22

PORTLAND

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

Reprinted from Twent&Sixth


of Coiorado, May 12S2.

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.

A Method for Determining


the Moisture Condition of Hardened
crete in Terms of Relative
Humidity,
by CARL A. MENZEL.
~le&~ted

D5

M~isture.Vo]ume

March,
by JOSEPH J. SRJDELER,

(May,

American

Soctetv

Properties

For Testing

of Soil-Cement

108 of the IIigfwav

Research

Distribution
in Ultimate
Strength
and D. MCHENRY.

Con-

M@tUiaiS, 55

Mixtures,

Board, p. 123 (19S5).

Design,

by E.

HOONESTAO, N. W. HANSON

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).

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.

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

L
MU
U
W

= 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

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

properties

= 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,

= effective depth to centroid

e=
e

of compressive

eccentricity of axial load measured


reinforcement
= eccentricity
section

of axial load

e~

= eccentricity

of loacl Fb measured

= unsupported

reinforcement

from the centroid

measured

from

plastic

of tensile

centroid

of

from plastic centroid of section

Iengtlh of an axially loaded member

nudl = depth to neutral axis at ultimate


r

= ratio of tensile reinforcement

rb

=- ratio of balanced

= ratio of compressive

rt

= ratio of total reinforcement

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

strain in tensile reinforcement

at ultimate

strength

stress in tensile reinforcement

at ultimate

strength

f=>U
f
k,

.Y

strain

in concrete

at ultimate

yield point stress of reinforcement

= ratio of average
strength

compressive

mu

mu

= cfy
ucy/

stress and depth to

U,y,

mul

strength

of 6 x 12 in. cylinders at 28 days


5

to

to 0.85 u.+, at ultimate

= ratio of depth to resultant of compressive


neutral axis at ultimate strength

U.yl = compressive

limited

(limited to 60,000 lb/in2)

stress

k,

085

strength

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(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

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 00015G).
(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:

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

~ ~~k from published


the coefficient

data on 364 beam tests

by the statistical

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

1-0.59:/
CY

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

as
Mu
=q(l-

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

z,%.,,

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$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

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

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

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

in which A,f is the steel area necessary to develop the compressive


of the overhanging flange:
A,~=O85@-

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

The joint committee


recognized
loaded short columns is given by

COLUMNS

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

which, when the neutral


follows (Figure 2):
FU =

2:

Eccentric

load analysis.

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

= eccentricity of the axial load measured


tensile reinforcement

from

the centroid

of

Au

= 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+

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (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

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:


0.85e
0.38
D

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

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

318-51). Journal of the American

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

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
II.Discussion
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).

DIO-Laboratory
Investigation
NER and E. HOGNESTAO.

of Rigid

Reprinted from Jrournul of the


proceedings,
53, 637 (1957).

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

Structures,

Lond,m, May,

Frame

Testing

No, 185, published by Ameri-

Failure,

by R. C. ELST-

Amertcan Concrete Institute


Concrete

in American

of a S#mpos@n
1956.

of Con.

(January,

Design

on the Strength

1957);

Prac-

of Concrete

You might also like