Chapter—6

Structural analysis methods/Design approaches, assumptions and

Approximations for practical life line structure

6.1 Introduction

This chapter deals with different types of structural analysis and design
different types of connections of members, different design assumptions and
approximations different design philosophies etc .

In the analysis of structure i.e. determination of the internal forces like

axial compression, bending moment, shear force, twisting moment etc. in the
component members for which these members are to be designed, under the
action of given external loads. This process requires the knowledge of
Structural Mechanics which includes mechanics of rigid bodies
(i.e mechanic of forces, mechanics of deformable bodies (i.e. mechanics of
deformations) and theory of structures (i.e. the science dealing with response
of structural system to external loads). A brief review is taken of structural
analysis to refresh the basic principles.

6.2 Methods of Analysis

The various approaches to structural analysis are mentioned below.

1) Elastic Analysis based on Elastic theory.

2) Limit Analysis based on Plastic Theory or Ultimate load theory.

Generally, elastic analysis is utilised in working stress or permissible

stress Method of design ( WSM) moreover the Limit analysis is utilised in
Ultimate strength or Ultimate Load method of design (ULM). Modified version
related ultimate load method is known as Limit state method.

Therefore Limit state method of design comprise design for ultimate

limit state for
ultimate load theory is applicable, and also for service state at this point
elastic theory applies, consequently requiring study of both the theories.
Simultaneously, one should not be confused amid limit state philosophy of
design with limit analysis. Latter is a process or method of structural analysis
collapse whereas the former is a process or method of design on behalf of
different limit states.

In this section, both these approaches of structural analysis will be briefly

reviewed.

6.2.1 Elastic Analysis

It the study of behaviour plus strength of the structures and members at

working loads. This is based on following assumptions which is related to
Hook's law:

1. Relation amid force and displacement is linear (Hooke's Law is

applicable).
2. Displacement are extremely small compared to geometry of structure
in the sense that they does affect analysis

Methods of elastic analysis broadly can be classified as below:

a) Classical Methods:
i. Consistent deformation Method
ii. Slope-deflection Method
iii. Methods of strain energy.

b) Relaxation/Iterative Methods:
i. Moment Distribution method.
ii. Kani's Method

c) Computer Methods
i. Matrix Method,
ii. Finite Difference Method,
iii. Finite Element Method.

d) Approximate Methods:
i. Substitute Frame Method,
ii. Portal Method.
iii. Cantilever Method, Coefficient method
iv. Coefficients mentioned in design hand books or IS codes are
utilised to get force bending moment, etc

With the and unproblematic access computers, we can divide the above
methods into two main groups, First group consist of methods which are
more suitable for manual. Method of consistent deformations, Kani's
Method, moment distribution method coefficient method and approximate
methods come in this group or category. Substitute Frame method be
appropriate for analyzing a building frame for loads, while the cantilever
method and the portal appropriate for analyzing the horizontal loads
effects on frames.

Second group comprises of methods need the utilisation of computers.

Matrix
as well as computer methods described in arts (iii) and (iv) at the top come
within this group.

The scope of this thesis work is restricted to design of Practical life line
structure. As per investigation it is (G+3) storied building, hence discussion
can be and hence is limited to utilization substitute frame method for
analysis of building frames intended for vertical loading only. Coefficient
method or approach of determination design forces e.g. axial loads,
bending moment, shear force, etc. by utilization of coefficient obtainable
for standard cases of loading, is extremely common in building design
generally for analyzing simple or easy frames and standard beams such
as simply supported, cantilever, and continuous beams as well as slabs,
and single storied single bay rectangular portal frames.

Since in many cases redistribution of moments is carried out therefore

it is necessary to know the limit analysis and redistribution of moments.
6.2.2 Limit Analysis:

It is a type of analysis dealing within the study and behaviour of

structure and members at collapse. This is totally plastic theory based, for
structure made up of perfectly plastic it is based mainly on ultimate load
theory meant for structure of reinforced concrete, the behaviour of it is
characterized by yielding of steel and crushing of concrete at collapse.
Therefore It have to be borne in brain that this type of ultimate state is never
accepted to be attained with utilisation of suitable safety factors. However
knowledge related to strength and behaviour on collapse is extremely
essential to know the safety margin.

Consider the behaviour of astatically indeterminate fixed beam of span

L, fixed at both ends A,B and carrying a uniformly distributed load of intensity
w. The maximum bending moment occurs at ends A and B rather than at the
mid-span. Now, the load is gradually increased till the collapse occurs. Initially
the beam behaves elastically till the stress at any section reaches its yield
value at ultimate moment capacity. The plastic hinges develop at ends due to
plasticisation of concrete in compression, and cracking of concrete
accompanied by yielding of steel in tension The UDL has increased from w to
this stage -1. The plastic hinges destroy full fixity at A and B. At this stage the
collapse does not occur the beam behaves as a with constant moment Mu
acting at A and B see Fig. 6.1.

MA=MB =w1L2/12=Mu i.e MuA= MuB = w1L2/12=Mur

The corresponding moment at mid-span is just w1L2/24

On loading further, the moments at the fixed ends remain unchanged

as the beam section at their locations cannot offer any additional
resistance, but the moment in the span region increases. (Thus, additional
load is resisted by span region only)
 Fig. 6.1

In fixed Beam

A stage-II is
its ultimate momen
Fig. 6.2. This cau
at A,B and C. At
created which lea

The bending momen

w1L2/12

But MuA = Mur

But MuA is also equa

Thus , there is
over the load w1
analysis lies fact
indeterminate struct
Advantages of Redistribution of Moments.

(1) In case of indeterminate structures, it helps to reduce bending

moments in the peak regions such as beam column junction or supports of
continuous beams, thereby the congestion of reinforcement is reduced
making detailing and concreting easier.

(2)Reduction in support moment not only helps in reducing steel at

supports but utilizes higher moment resisting capacity of a flanged section
in the span region.

(3) It ensure reinforced failure since the depth of the neutral axis
decreases with the increase in the percentage redistribution of moments.

(4) It gives distribution of moments along the length of the member and
makes detailing easier and gives economic design.

(5) It is not only reduces the moment at support but, many times, it also
does not increase the design moment at mid-span. This can be seen in the
case of continuous beam designed of maximum moments decided by
bending moment envelop i.e. diagram for maximum moment got by all
likely loading arrangements consideration.

The procedure limit analysis involves the following

1. Elastic Analysis for ultimate (factored) loads

2. Redistribution of moments subject to following conditions

a. Equilibrium shall always be maintained i.e the sum of the support

moment and the span moment shall be equal to the maximum span
moment for a simply
supported beam. Thus, for beam subjected to uniformly distributed
load.

Msup + Mspan = wuL2/8

 In brief ,in support moment by dM must be accompanied corresponding
increase in the mid-span moment by dM/2.

b. Amount of redistribution (dM=Elastic moment MEU – assumed design

moment MDU) shall not exceed prescribed percentage given below.

-30% in Limit state design

The limitations of 30% redistribution of moments has been imposed to

avoid large rotation, and hence excessive deflection and cracking
which affect the serviceability of the structure.

-15% to 20% redistribution may be normally taken as reasonable limit.

-10% in case of structures over 4 storey height to prevent lateral

instability.

(c) The design moment MDU shall not be less than 0.7 times the elastic
moment MEU at ultimate state.

Since MEU=1.5 x working moment MEW , it means that

MDU ≥ 0.7 X 1.5 MEW i,e MDU ≥ 1.05 MEW.

In other words the design moment after redistribution shall not be less than
the working moment (i,e MEW) at service load.

The depth of neutral axis shall be limited to

ku.limit (=xulimit/d) < = (0.6-dM/100) or ku.max whichever is less.

This is required satisfying the requirement of ration capacity at a point

where redistribution of moment is done.

6.3 Elastic analysis of Building frame

6.3.1 General

The structural frame of a building consists of floor and roof slabs and
supporting beams and columns. All the components of the frame are usually
cast together forming a monolithic construction. The resulting frame acts as
one integral unit. The monolithic casting of members and proper detailing
enables to have rigid connections between the members so that every
member acts integrally with the connected members. The continuity between
the members help to distribute the forces to number of connected members.
This enhances the reserve strength of the structure and eliminates the
possibility of collapse of the structure due to failure of any component member
on account of effect of localized loads and actions safety of the building as a
whole is increased. The rigidly of the connection is also desirable or rather
essential for resisting horizontal loads like wind load or earthquake load.

A typical frame of a multi-storeyed building is shown in Fig. 6.3. say

the frame consists of continuous one-way slab S1 cast monolithically with
secondary beams B1, B2 and main beams B3, B4, B5.The main beam is
continuous over columns and is rigidly connected to them above and below
that floor. The frame as a whole consists of number of rigid joints. The
structure is highly statically indeterminate. The exact analysis of the entire
frame by use of classical methods is beyond the capacity of manual/hand
calculations. It can only be done by computer. Besides formulation will involve
large number of unknown displacements and large computer memory. The
solution is also, therefore costly and beyond there ach of a common designer.
In fact such rigorous computer analysis will be required only for tall and
unconventional irregular structures. Besides in R.C. buildings of ground plus
three storeys does not demand use of exact classical analysis. The
approximate methods are more than adequate.
 Plan
n Elevation

Fig. 6.3 Plan showing the type of Slab

b

. Approximatte methods as are based on principle

ciple of dividing the
structure into parts and
a analyzing only part of interest, disre
egarding the effect
of member resistan
nces and their loads which are distan
ant away from the
interested member. The above simplification is based on th
he fact that a load
on any member and
an its stiffness hardly affect two store
reys or two spans
beyond existing member.
me For example, suppose unit mom
ment is applied at
one joint end of conti
tinuous beam produces a moment of only
ly 27% at next i.e.
second joint, 7% at
a 3rd joint and only 2% at 4th join
int. The assumed
approximate reducess the computational efforts to a great exttent without much
affecting the accurac
racy, and results obtained are on the saferr side.
s

The approxima
mate method, therefore adopts some sttandardized small
portions of the who
hole frame, known as substitute Frame
mes or sub-frames
principally consisting
sisting of members of interest and another adjacent
ad members
connected to it. The method of analysis is known is Substitu
ute Frame Method.
Since the scope of this
t thesis is restricted to Practical life line
e structure i.e. the
buildings of up to storey
st height for which the effect of horizzontal loads is not
worth considering th
he substitute frame method, suitable for vertical
v loads only
will be discussed here.
re.
 Fig. 6.4. Fig
gure showing analysis outcomes beyond supports

6.3.2 Substitute fra

ames: Analysis for vertical loads

A building fra
ame, in fact is a three dimensional frame
rame i.e. A space
frame show in Fig.. practical life line structure of G+3 storied
st commercial
building analysis off a space frame is complex, laboriou
ous and also time
consuming. Besidess it is also not necessary or not even just
stified for degree of
accuracy required R.C. construction. Therefore as a first leve
el or degree of Fig
approximation, three
ree dimensional space frame is divided into
to a number of two
dimensional plane frrames.

Each plane frrame Fig 6.6. analysed the loads horizon

ontal or vertical in
the plane of frame
e assumed to behave independently i.e
e. disregarding its
interconnection with the adjacent frames. This assumption holds,
ho so that there
is no relative deforma
mation between in the loading conditions and the structural
properties say stiffne
fness of adjacent frames, the relative de
eformations which
are caused due to them are ignored in the analysis by th
his first degree of
approximation. As an
a illustration, the torsion and/or lateral be
ending stiffness of
members (cross beams)
bea at right angles are ignored. Howeve
er these members
are assumed to giive lateral support to the plane frame
e (i.e. the cross
members are assum
med to be very rigid), with the result, the
t vertical frame
which is plane before
re loading remains plane after loading.
 Fig. 6.5 A three dimensional figure of space frame

Thus, the basic frame considered for analysis of a building is a vertical

plane frame Fig.6.6. shows the front elevation of vertical frame marked B-B in
Fig.ÿ6.5. This existing plane frame which is subdivided in substitute frames
into different manners discussed below making further approximations. The
method assumes that forces (i.e. B.M. and SF.) in the beam of any floor are
influenced by the loading on that floor ignoring the effect of loading on the
lower and upper floor. As earlier, the explanation of substitute frames
provided which is restricted for those used in analysis for vertical loads only.
 Fig 6.6 Elevation of Frame

a) Substitute Frame - I:Frames

In the second degree of approximate, the complete vertical frame which is

subdivided in several two storey frames within each floor. The floor frame or
substitute frame - I at any floor consists of beams at the floor under
consideration together with all connected columns in adjacent storeys,
assumed to be fixed at their far ends.

Fig. 6.7 Substitute Frame – I Floor Frame

The substitute frames for the top floor and intermediate floors are shown in
Fig. 6.7.For different cases of loading frame can be analysed with any method
to produce the maximum forces for design of members. The analysis is
carried out for each floor frame, and moments and shears in all beams and
columns are determined

b) Substitute Frame – ii Bay Frames

Substitute Bay approximation at the level of third degree, instead of

taking entire columns and entire beam segments, in adjacent two storeys, this
frame is further subdivided into separate bay frames each one consisting of
interested beam along the connected columns and adjacent spans beams
only, fixed on their distant ends as shown in Fig.ÿ6.8. This type of frame is
known as substitute Bay Frame. While beams are not considered beyond
their adjacent spans however assumed as fixed, stiffness of these get extra
estimated. Thus, their stiffness is lessened by half to allow for flexibility on
account of continuity.
 Fig. 6..8. Substitute Frame- II: Bay Frame

This third degree approximate holds well, symmetric frames for

symmetric loadings The results are likely to differ from exact values in case of
unsymmetrical frames and /or unsymmetrical loading. However, the difference
is hardly beyond 10%. Such frame is also analysed for different loading cases
to get maximum forces in columns beams as usual.

c) Substitute Frame – iii Beam and column systems:

A very conservative alternative to the preceding substitute consists of
only continuous beam at each floor level with ends simply supported
providing no restraint to rotation as shown in Fig 6.9. Since rigidity offered
by column is totally ignored, very large beam moments come, even at times
to the extent of 30% to 50%the actual moments. Thus, though the analysis
is simplified, the design proves to be very I.S. Code does not permit to use
this method However BS: Code 3.8 still permits this method of approach.
 Fig 6.9. Substitute frame beam system

Even though, interconnection amid columns and beams are to be

ignored calculation, moments in columns gets induced by actual rigidity which
is not to be ignored in design. Therefore the moments in columns are
obtained by considering only column systems made up of upper and lower
column at a joint together with connecting beams fixed at their far ends as
shown in Fig The far ends of beams and columns are assumed to be fixed
stiffness of beams are reduced to half to compensate for the effects of bay
beyond. The columns sub-frames are analysed for such loading on beams so
as to cause maximum column moments.

The results of this totally approximate method are required to be

brought nearer to those of substitute I the effect of moments on beam shear
and moments must further be taken into consideration and beams shear with
moments be modified.

Fig. 6.10. Substitute Frame- III : Beam Column System

 In the frame analysis discussed above whatever approximation is
adopted, fundamental fact on which the analysis is based is that the joints
between members are rigid. It is, therefore necessary to know how rigid
connection is obtained in a R.C. construction and what are the types of
connections. Besides the analysis which is based on the significant structural
property, namely, the stiffness (k) which depends upon the ration I/L and the
nature of support conditions of the member at the far ends. In all substitute
frames discussed above, it is assumed that the far end of member is fixed. If
far end hinged i.e. rotation free, the stiffness of the member is taken equal to
0.75 I/L.

From above, it is evident that for computing the stiffness, it is

necessary to decide whether the support is rotation free or not. The different
types of support in R.C. construction and the different alternative methods of
computation of stiffness (I/L) are discussed in subsequent sections

6.3.3 Types of connections between two members

When two members (viz slab-beam or beam-column are to be connected, no

relative translator movement can be allowed between them. Therefore,
connection between the two members are only of two types..

i. A simple of hinged connection: It allows relative rotation between

the connected members. It does not transfer moment from one
component to other but transverse shear will not get transferred
with axial load.
ii. Rigid connection : It does not allow the relative rotation connected
members. It transfer the moment besides shear and axial force from
one member to other.

For transfer of moment and hence for joint to be rigid, the following
conditions are required to be satisfied.
 a) Between the two members there should be tension steel which
is to
interconnecting on the tension face through area adequately
enough to effect transfer of forces (i.e B.M. and S.F.)
b) The interconnecting steel should be adequately anchored in
both the connected members either by requisite development or
by mechanical anchorage.

If any one of the above conditions is not satisfied, the joint will not act as a
rigid joint. For a joint which is to be rotation free. It should be seen that above
conditions are not satisfied. If they are satisfied partially, the joint will act as a
partially rigid (i.e. semi-rigid) joint.

For illustration, consider a beam column connection shown in Fig For

rigid connection enough area of interconnecting steel `Ast' to resist moment
`M' at support must be provided on the tension face (i.eat top, for vertical
downward loading) for a length equal to development length and at the same
time it must be extended further in the column through a distance BA
equivalent to anchorage length in turn development length Ld will be same as
anchorage length. If it is found that this length is large, then instead of
extending beam reinforcement into the columns, the columns bars should be
bent and extended in the beam through a distance BC equal to the
development length.

On the contrary, for simple connection between column and beam, no

steel other than anchor bars be provided at top in the beam, and furthermore,
these bars could be simply continued straight in the column through column
width only, just for getting sufficient lateral support at top.
 Fig. 6.11. Figure showing joint connections

When the beam deflects it rotates at support. This type of connection

allows to rotation with the development of crack which is vertical at the face of
column or at junction of upper part of column cast with beam and lower part
of the column top cast earlier.

It should be kept in mind that merely casting two components

monolithic will not ensure continuity of structure. The structural continuity is
obtained only by rigid connection. As an illustration, consider a monolithically
cast slap-beam connection shown in Fig Connection shall not be a rigid one
till adequate tension steel is existing at top portion of slab and also it to be
sufficiently anchored.
 Fig. 6.12. Figure showing beam column connection

Enlarging it with a distance of bonder mechanically hooked round the

beam bar through 180o.ÿIf at the top separate tension steel is not provided
the slab and if it is simply leftover the beam, the connection will be a simple
one. The slab only will rotate (and not the beam) by development of crack at
the top of slab just at the beam face. If the connection is rigid and beam itself
is simply supported and it will also rotate (due to torsion along with the slab).

6.3.4 Types of supports or End conditions

There are about three different kind of ideal support exists.

a. Simple support: In this support it allows member to move in the direction

of the plane of support. It also allows rotation though, it does it does not
allow the movement in direction perpendicular to supporting plane.
b. Hinged support: It is a support which permit the supported member for
rotation and does not allow any translatory movement. This support offers
reaction in any direction but does not resist moment. Support is called by
the name rotation free support.
c. Fixed support : It is the support which not only resists translation but
also rotation, but also. It resists moment and offers reaction in any
direction. Thus, fixed support does not rotate.
 A slab or abeam embedded in the rigid wall then it gives a rigid
support. Fixed support means it is a type of support in which a resisting
moment offered for prevention of rotation. A rigid connection should not be
taken as to give fixed end condition. Rigid connection implies zero relative
rotation between the connected members. It does not imply zero rotation of
the joint or of the supported member. Thus, it must be noted that a simple
connection between two members if it gives simply rotation free end condition
to the supported member. But rigid connections members not essential to
provide a fixed end condition for supported member.

Consider a two span continuous beam carrying equal U.D load on both
the spans. The beam is simply supported over three supports i.e. it is not
even interconnected with the support. Still, the symmetry of the loading span
and end condition of zero rotation at the intermediate support which can be
taken into consideration like rotation fixed support condition for the purpose of
analysis. However, still the support will be simple as rotation is likely due to
change in the loads on two spans.

Question of end condition for column near the end of footing is a

typical one. Consider a column subjected to axial load P and a moment M at
the top. It is observed whether the footing end might be termed fixed or
hinged. A stated above, for the column base to be fixed, footing should be
capable of offering a resisting moment equal to M/2 besides, axial
compression. This resisting moment can be made available either by non-
uniform pressure division at the footing base in case of a concentric footing or
alternatively, resisting moment it can be available for eccentric footing having
pressure distribution uniformly at base of it which is shown in Fig.6.13. If the
bearing capacity of the soil is low, it is many times not necessary provide a
fixed base i.e. moment resistance footing. In such a case, only for axial load
footing could be designed. Footing cannot offer resisting moment, the column
has a tendency to rotate at the base. This type of rotation is possible if
supporting soil yields more on one side and less at the other edge, therefore
rotation free condition is created as shownÿFig.6.14. This rotation free
condition is possible only with soils having low or medium bearing capacities.
For soil with large bearing capacity, rotation of footing is not possible as such
footing cannot be designed for axial loads only. They have to be designed as
moment resistant or fixed. The moment at the footing can also be avoided or
reduced by providing a heavy plinth beam in the plane bending near the
footing. This practice is common in R.C. building construction when the depth
of footing below plinth is very large i.e when the cost of wall below plinth
works to be greater than the cost of plinth beam. The plinth beam also helps
in reducing the effective length of column at ground floor.

Fig. 6.13. Concrete Footing

Fig.6.14 End Column Conditions for Footing

6.3.5 Members Stiffness

Calculating the stiffness of a member, the moment of inertia (I) of the

members meeting at a joint are required. Code allows taking any one of the
following definitions of moment of inertia for determining the stiffness.

(1) Moment of inertia of Gross- section : Moment

section (igr) ignoring reinforcement is given by :
Rectangular section of size b x D, Igr = bD3/12

(2) Transformed gross section Moment of inertia

Moment of inertia (MI ) of transformed gross concrete section including
the reinforcement transformed on the basis of modular ratio, is obtained
as under:

In the case of column of size b x D with the neutral axis lying outside the
section. The while section is under compression. In such a case all the steel
will be in compression and the moment of inertia is given by :

n
I = bD3/12 + ∑ (m − 10) Asi x xi2
i =1

Where, m = modular ratio reinforcement Asi

compression xi = distance of the steel at the level from C.G of station

3) Transformer cracker section Moment of Inertia: it is the moment of

inertia concrete compression (Ir) including area of reinforcement transformed
on the basis ratio.

Whatever may be the basis adopted for calculation of I, it is required to

be applied consistently to all members.

In preliminary design, since neither the moments are known not the
reinforcement, the question of using the second or third method of finding I
(described above) does not arise at all. The common practice is, therefore, to
take I of concrete gross section (Igr) ignoring reinforcement.
 The moment of Inertia of gross concrete section excluding
reinforcement may be obtained using the following equations:

Rectangular section : Igr = bD3/12

Flanged section :

_ bw D 2 / 2 +(b f −bw ) D 2f / 2
=
Depth of N.A x b xD + (b f − bw )xD f (I)
w

_3
Igr = b f x / 3 − (b f − bw )(x− D f )3 / 3 + bw (D − x)3 / 3 (II)

3
or Igr = k f bw D /12

_3
Where k f = [k x / 3 − (b f − bw )(x− D f )3 / 3 + bw (D − x)3 / 3] (III)

_
k1 = b f − bw k2 = D f / D and k = x/ D

However, main difficulty in calculating arises when the beam is

continuous at both ends as in the case often frames, because in that case the
beam acts as rectangular beam in the negative moment region and a flanged
beam in positive moment region. Thus such a beam is of varying moment of
inertia along the length. A single equivalent or effective value of I to be taken
for stiffness would depend up on the ratio of region of positive moment (Lo) to
length L of the beam. However, since value of Lo depends upon the end
conditions, the loading and the moment developed at supports, it is not
constant. It varies from 0.58 L for a fixed at both ends at L for a beam simply
supporter at both ends.

Since 100% fixity at supports is hardly ever possible because of rotational

at supports due to flexibility of supports, the ratio Lo/L is normally large, hence
some designers take Igr of a flanged section ignoring the difference between
Lo and L. The other method is to use moment of inertia of T-section equal to
twice that of rectangular section. The multiplying factor 2 corresponds of
flanged section having bf/bw = 6 and Df/D=0.2

Since the section acts as a flange section in the major portion of beam
span normally the ratio is bf/bw is nearly 6, authors consider Igr of beam =
2xbwD3/12 two times that of a rectangular section to be more appropriate.

Institute of structural Engineers Manual recommends considering

actual flange width of T-beam or (0.14L+bw) whichever is less. In book say by
`wang at all' it is assumed as an equivalent system approximating T section
having flange width equal to twice web width over the entire section. This will
over estimate the beam stiffness giving higher moments in beam.
Alternatively, the assumption of rectangular section (instead of flanged
section) is easy for calculation, given higher moments in the column

The length of the member, in calculation of stiffness (k = I/L), which is

considered
equivalent to centre to centre distance in between supports for beams and
floor to floor height for columns except in case of ground floor column for
which the length is taken from the top of footing to the top of floor level when
there is no plinth beam, and the top of plinth beam when the same exists.

6.3.6. Effect of stiffness on Distribution of Moment in Beams columns

When a beam is connected to columns, fixed end moments Me is calculated

on the assumption of zero rotation or clamping of the joint. This moment is
known as unbalanced moment acting at the joint. The joint is then released
unclamped by applying an opposite moment. This moment is now distributed
to various members meeting at the joint in proportion of their stiffness.

Thus, moment in columns are obtained as follows

kca kcb
Mcal.a = xMe M cal.b = xM e
kca + kcb + k b kca + kcb + kb

kb
Mbeam = xMe
kca + kcb + k b
Where, kca = stiffness of columns Above the joint = Ica/Lca

kcb = stiffness of columns below the joint = Ica/Lca

kb = stiffness of Beam = Ib/Lb

If the beam is continuous beyond, the stiffness of beam kb is reduced

to half to account for the effect of loads on spans beyond.

It will be observed from the above relations, that if the column has large
cross-section and is short compared to beam, its stiffness kc = Ic/Lc will be
large While, if a beam is of smaller cross-section and has a large span. Its
stiffness will be small Consequently, negligible small rotation will occur at the
joint and the column is said to offer practically full fixity to beam. The bending
moments in the beam and column will both be nearly wL2/12. The fixity
offered is more are two in number while the beam is only one. The situation is
common in lower storeys of multi-storeyed frames having large span bays.

On other hand of the cross-section of beam is large and span short, its
stiffness will
be large. Simultaneously, if the column cross-section is small and length large
its stiffness will be small and consequently joint will rotate and practically no
fixed end moment will develop either in the column or in the beam Total
quantity of fixed end moment get released at the joint with no moment
remaining in the beam This type of condition offers simple support of beam
which is rotation free, thus, the bending moment in the beam and column at
the joint lies between o and wL in general; the actual magnitude is dependent
on beams relative stiffness and the column for satisfying the equilibrium
condition, summation of moments in the beams meeting at a joint must be
equal and opposite to the sum of the moments in the column meeting at that
joint.

6.4 Assumptions and approximations of Design

In practical design, a designer is many times required to make certain

assumptions and approximations the analysis simple to save computational
effort and time. The design assumptions, of course, should be such as to
make the designer on the safer side. If at all they are found to be on the
unsafe side at certain places, an allowance should be made in the analysis
based on earlier observations and judgment. Some of the assumptions are
given below.

6.4.1 Assumptions regarding support condition

The first and the assumptions that required to be made is about the
support condition or the type is support for slabs and beams. Normally,
though slab is cast monolithically with the beam, it is not necessary that it
should be connected rigidly to supporting beams. Such a rigid connection
does not necessarily ensure fixed end condition. It may cause rotation of the
beam if the beam itself is simply supported at its ends. If the beam is fixed at
the ends, the rigid connection between the slab itself is simply supported at its
ends. If the beam is fixed at the ends, the rigid connection between the slab
and the beam induces torsion in the beam giving condition of partial fixity and
not full fixity. Therefore, it is commonly assumed that a slab is simply
supported at discontinuous end and continuous over intermediate support
Same assumption holds good for beams hence applicable, it is because
whether a to a supporting column beam is connected simply or rigidly, it
generally at the ends rotation free, therefore assumption is that it is at the
ends simply supported if one is unsure of rotational condition of restraint at
the ends.

The above assumption is for ends continuous beams or Similarly,

assumption is many times, required to be made for an intermediate support
too. For example, the exact analysis of a continue slab or beam contain spans
large in number (say more than 4) is extremely laborious, and besides
continuity of beam/slab for more than spans has advantage. Simplicity in
analysis can be brought via introduction of discontinuity at suitable
intermediate support (like the discontinuity at support in an multi span bridge).
As an illustration, of a public building considering a beam revealed in Fig.6.15.
 A structural discontinuity can be introduced at supports D and also at E,
total beam be divided into 3 separate ABCD-freely supported A and D, DE-
simply supported at D and E, and EFGH freely supported at E and H. As the
structural discontinuity is assumed at D and E, the same condition can be on
obtained by not allowing the top bars to extend from CD to DE or from FE to
ED.

Fig.6.15. Introduction of Discontinuity in a long unequal span continuous

beam

Assumption of giving for beams a simple support which is backed by

age-old practice of well-known post-lintel construction adopted before since
many centuries. However it should not be extended to each span of a
continuous beam.

Alternatively, beam in Fig. 6.15. can be divided three segments

ABCD,DEEFGH for analysis purpose only and each section analyzed
separately assuming fixity fully at D and E. This assumption of treating
structural continuity as fixity, though may not be rigorously correct, especially
if beams have unequal spans and also loads, can still be accepted as the
difference because of this approximate is found to be well within the degree of
accuracy expected in reinforced concrete structures It simplifies the analysis
to a great extent.

If a physically continuous beam cast monolithically is designed as it is

made up of many simply supported beams, it is quite likely that may not be
any steel or there may be very little insufficient steel over the top of
intermediate support extending through anchorage length in both the spans.
The negative moment that may structurally develop at intermediate support
due to physical continuity of beam and/ or rigidity of intermediate
walls/columns/supports would cause at the face of support concrete cracking
at top which is quite objectionable though it may not be a sign of structural
unsoundness or lack of safety. As cracking occurs, the moment at support is
transferred to the mid-span. The load is fully sustained of the mid-span
section is designed corresponding to moment for a simply support condition.
However, this is a crude design practice which makes the beam heavy and
misuses the principle of compensatory resistance. Especially, such design
though may not be unsafe for vertical loads, is definitely unsound for resisting
horizontal loads and unacceptable from viewpoint of serviceability or
performance of the structure and it will not give any reserve strength at
collapse, and consequences of collapse, whenever it may occur, are likely to
be serious .

6.4.2 Approximations regarding bending moments in Beams and slabs

The analysis of a multi span can be further simplified by analyzing and

designing each beam span) separately considering approximate moments at
continuous end based on redistribution of moments. In this approach,
simplicity is achieved together with the desired economy, safety and a
satisfactory structural performance.

Exact bending moments computation for single span beams or slabs will
not be a problem. Directly they can be obtained using the coefficient for
standard loading cases available in various design aids. Normally difficulty
arises in finding out of bending moments into continuous slabs/beams having
equal spans approximately (deviation amid short and short span does not
exceed 15% of long span) along with carrying uniformly distributed loads. in
various design aids coefficients for equal span continuous beams slabs for
other standard loadings like equal point loads at 1/4 th , central point load
or1/3rd span points are too available.
 As the continuous beams/slabs can be approximately designed via
considering a continuous beam/slab as made up of number of independent
single span beams
or a group of typical multi span beams. This approximation is an extension of
the principle used in substitute frame method related to analysis in which
division of big
structure in parts for the reason of analysis, and then analyzing each part
independently. Here, it is applied to continuous beams of approximately equal
spans. Each one is analyzed independently by utilising standard bending
moment co-efficient which are dependent on the ordinates of bending
moment's envelope and allowing redistribution of moments. They provide
values within 30% of exact theoretical values. It may be noted, that
redistribution of moments is allowed the extent of 30% hence variation of 30%
is tolerable amid the design moment and elastic moment within mid-span
moment. The results got from the approximations in discussion prevail
between elastic moments and those got by limit analysis allowing
redistribution of moments. The design moment coefficients used for typical
beams are as follows:

Moment at supports as well as at mid-span

Uniformly distributed load (w)

End spans ± wL2 /10

Intermediate spans ± wL2 /12

6.4.3 Assumptions regarding Beam section

Another important assumption made in design of R.C. beams is about

the type of the section (whether flanged or rectangular). A beam having a slab
acting as flanged on compression side and having minimum transverse
reinforcement at top and which has stirrups running through total depth
(including thickness of slab portion will structurally act as a flanged beam.
Since, design of a flanged beam is complicated and laborious as compared to
the design of rectangular beam the design could be done assuming beam to
be of rectangular section only when the design moment does not exceed
Mur.max of the balanced section The beam designed on the basis of this
assumption is always in the safer side when design moment is less than M ul
which is the value of Mur of flanged section for xu = Df (i.e when xu <Df), of
assumption of rectangular section is always greater than that required for
flanged section because the lever arm of the rectangular section is always
less than that of a flanged section since xu in a rectangular section is always
greater than xu for flanged section (for required total compression). Fig. 6.16.

Fig. 6.16. Assumption Regarding Beam Section

The area of steel increases with in the value of and is maximum when
xu=Df in case of flanged beam, the quantity of steel required to balance the
compression in outstanding flanged portions depends upon the ratio D f/d and
bf/bw and is a variable quantity. However to get rough ides, it may be
mentioned that the maximum additional steel required due to assumption of
rectangular section in place of flanged section is about 10% to 20% for xu
≤ Df

However, when the design moment Mur.max of assumed rectangular

section, this assumption of rectangular section should not be made i.e. the
area of steel should not be worked out on this assumption of rectangular
section because that would necessitate the rectangular section will be
designed as a doubly reinforced, area of steel required for doubly reinforced
rectangular section will be much more than that required for flanged section.
In such a case, the beam, shall be designed as flanged beam only. The
following example will clearly will clearly bring out the difference between the
area of steel required when design is based on assumption of rectangular
section in place of a flanged section.

Illustrative example:

Data : A beam continuous at both ends, Span = 4m, Slab 110mm thick,

Section 230mm x 380mm, M20-Fe415,

UD. Load (a)wu = 48kN/m2 (b) wu = 72 kN/m2

Required : Ast

Solution : Let d = 40mm, ∴ d=380-40 = 340mm

Mur.max = Rur.max x bd2. For M20-Fe415, Rur.max = 2.76 N/mm2

∴ Mur.max = 2.76 x 230 x 3402 x 10-6 = 73.3 kN.m

a) Mu = wuL2/12 = 48 x 42/12 = 64kN.m

For T-section :

Lo = 0.7 x L = 0.7 x 40000 = 2500mm

bf = Lo/6 + 6Df + bw = 2800/6+6 x 110 + 230 = 1357mm

(Murl)xu = Df = 0.36fck bf Df (d-0.42Df)

= 0.36 x 20 x 1357 x 110 x (340 – 0.42 x 110) x 10-6

= 315.8 kN.m > 73.38 kN.m ∴xu < Df

Case – I : Mu < Mur.max

For Flanged section :

  6 
Required Ast = 0.5 ×20 1 − 1 − 4.6 ×64 ×10 2
 ×1357 × 340
415 20 ×1357 × 340

= 534.5mm2

For rectangular section :

Since Mu < Mur.max , the section is singly reinforced

 6 
Required Ast = 0.5 ×20 1 − 1 − 4.6 ×64 ×10 2
 × 230 × 340
415 20 × 230 × 340

625.4 −534.5
% increase over flanged section = ×100 = 17%
534.5

Case II : Mu = Mur.max = 73.3 kN.m

For flanged section :

By Eq. 4.3.5 Required Ast = 614.4mm2

For rectangular section :

By Eq. 4.1.1b Required Ast = 744.5mm2

744.5 −614.4
% increase over flanged section = ×100 = 21%
614.4

Case – III : Mu = Mur.max /2 = 37 kN.m (This possibility is very less)

For flanged section :

Required Ast = 305.7mm2

For rectangular section :

 Required Ast = 330.5mm2

330.5 −305.7
% increase over flanged section = ×100 = 8%
305.7

Case – IV : wu = 72 kN.m ∴ Mu = 72 x 42/12 = 96 kN.m>Mur.max

For flanged section :

Required Ast = 812 mm2

For rectangular section :

Since Mu > Mur.max, the rectangular section will be designed as doubly

reinforced section only.

Design of rectangular section as doubly reinforced:

Xur.max = 0.48 x 340 = 163.2mm, Mur.max = 73.3kN.m as obtained earlier

73.3 ×106
Ast1 = = 747.9mm2
0.87 × 415 × (340 − 0.42 ×163.2)

(96 − 73.3) ×106

Ast2 = = 209.6mm2
0.87 × 415 × (340 − 40)

Total area of tension steel = 747.9+209.6 = 957.5mm2

dc/d= 40/340 = 0.12, ∴ fsc = 348mm2

0.87 × 415x209.6
Asc = = 223mm2
(348 − 0.446 × 20)

Total area of steel = 957.5 + 223 = 1180.5mm 2 as against 812 mm2

1180.5 −812
% increase over flanged section = ×100 = 45%
812
Comments: It will be observed that percentage of increase of steel over
flanged section varies from between 12% to 20%. But when Mu > Mur.max
the doubly reinforced section becomes very costly is 45% in this case.

6.5 Various Design Philosophies

Reinforced concrete structures can be designed by using one of

philosophies.

1. Working stress method (WSM)

2. Ultimate load method (ULM)
3. Limit state method (LSM).

1. Working stress method (WSM) It is also known as Modular Ratio Method:

This is the traditional method of design, utilised in both for reinforced concrete
as well for steel structures Close to about hundred years old, the method is
based on linear elastic theory or classical elastic theory. This method of
design was around 1900 and was the first theoretical method accepted by the
National Codes of Practice for the of reinforced concrete sections. Method
ensures adequate safety by suitably restricting the stresses in the materials
(i:e concrete and steel) induced by the expected working on the structure.
Herein assumption of linear elastic behavior is taken into consideration
justifiable since the specified permissible or allowable stresses kept well
below the ultimate strength of the material. The ratio of yield stress of the
steel reinforcement or the cube strength of the concrete the corresponding
permissible or working stress is usually called the factor of safety. The WSM
uses a factor of safely of about 3 the cube strength of concrete and a factor of
safety of about 1.8 with respect

to the yield strength of steel.

Reinforced concrete is a composite material. The WSM assumes
strain compatibility; in which the strain in Reinforcing steel is assumed to be
equal to that in the adjoining to which it is bounded Consequently the stress in
steel linearly related to the stress in adjacent concrete by an invariable factor
known as modular ratio which is defined as the ratio of modulus of elasticity of
steel to that of concrete. The WSM is therefore also known ratio method.
Demerits of WSM

Many of the structures designed from WSM have been normally performing
suitably for many years the method has the following demerits:

1. The WSM does not show real strength nor gives the true factor of safety
failure.

2. The modular ratio design results in larger percentage of compressive steel

than that
given by the limit state design thus leading uneconomic design.

3. Because of creep and non linear stress strain relationship concrete does
not have
definite modulus of elasticity.

4.Fails to discriminate between different types of loads so as to act

concurrently but contain different uncertainties.

Merits of WSM

In above defects the WSM has the advantage of its simplicity both in concept
as usual as in design generally results in relatively sections of structural
members in comparison to the ULM. Due to this, structures designed by WSM
give better serviceability performance example (i.e. less deflection, less track
width etc,) under working loads , WSM is the only method available when one
has to investigate the R.C. selection for service stresses and for the
serviceability states of deflection and cracking. It is essential to have
knowledge of WSM since it forms a part of limit design (LSD) for a
serviceability condition.

2. Ultimate load method (ULM)

The ultimate load method (ULM) evolved in 1950 as the WSM. The
method is resting on the reinforced concreters ultimate strength at ultimate
load. The ultimate load
by service load by some factor referred to as load factor for giving a desired
margin of safety. Hence the method is also referred to as the factor method or
the ultimate strength method. The ULM was introduced like alternative to the
WSM within ACI Code in 1956, the British Codes the in 1964.

In the ULM method, stress condition at the state of impending collapse

[se of the structure is analysed, thus using the nonlinear stress strain curves
meant for concrete, steel also, the safety measure in the design is obtained by
the use of proper load factor. This makes it possible to use different load
factors under combined loading conditions. It is to be carefully noted that
satisfactory strength presentation ultimate loads will
not promise satisfactory serviceability in plastic region ( inelastic region) and
of ultimate strength of resulting section is very slender or This gives rise to
excessive deformation and cracking. Also, the method does not consideration
the affects of creep and shrinkage.

Merits of ULM

1. While the WSM uses only the nearly linear part of stress-strain curve, uses
fully the actual stress-strain curve. In other words, the stress block parameters
are defined by the actual stress-strain curve.

2. The load factor give the exact margin of safely against collapse.

3. The method allows to use different load factors for different types of
combination thereof.

4. The failure load computed by ULM matches with the experimental results.

.5. The method is based on the ultimate strain failure criteria. The method
utilises the reserve of strength in the plastic region.

Demerits of ULM

1. The method does not take the serviceability criteria of deflection and
cracking.

2. The utilisation of high strength reinforcing steel and concrete results in

increase and crack width.
3. The method does not take into consideration the effects of creep and
shrinkage.

4. At ultimate load in the resultants which is taken as redistribution of stress

resultants occurs the loading is augmented from service loads towards
ultimate loads.

To summarize, the ultimate load method ensures safety at ultimate loads

but disregards the serviceability at service loads.

3. Limit State Method (LSM)

We have seen that while the WSM gives satisfactory performance of the
structure at working loads, it is unrealistic at ultimate state of collapse
Similarly, while the ULM provides realistic assessment of safety, it does not
guarantee the satisfactory requirements at service loads. An ideal method is
the one which takes into account not only the ultimate strength of the structure
but also serviceability and durability requirements. The newly emerged Limit
State Method of design is oriented of all these requirements. In Limit state
method of design, structure is considering safety against collapse (that is for
ultimate strength ultimate load) as well as checked for serviceability at
consequently rendering the structure very fit for its planned use. Thus,
consideration of a structure at both the working and the ultimate load levels
with a view to satisfy the requirements of safety and serviceability

The international federation for pressurizing (FIP) and committee for

concrete (CEB) were amongst the earliest to introduce the philosophy of limit
state method, which is reliability-based in concept Recommendations for an
international code of practice for reinforced concrete: known as the blue book
was published in 1963 by CEB and complimentary report; international
recommendations for the design structures; known as red book, was
published in 1970 by CEB along with FIP. were subsequently revised by CEB-
FIP as the; model codes concrete structures; as model for national codes to
follow. The LSM was introduced in the British code in 1973 and the Indian
code in united states, it was introduced in 1971 in a slightly different format of
strength design.
 The acceptable limit as well as serviceability requirements, prior to failure
takes place, is known as a Limit state. A Limit can be defined as a state of
impending failure, beyond which structure stops to perform its planned or
intended function satisfactorily, in terms of either safety or serviceability, i.e. it
either collapses or becomes unserviceable. The aim of structural design is to
attain acceptable likelihood that the structure does not becomes unfit for
which it is intended, i.e., it will not reach a limit state. As per ISÿ456:2000, to
ensure an adequate safety as well as serviceability, totally all limit states have
to be taken into consideration for design. Commonly, the structure may be
designed by considering critical limit state moreover shall be checked limit
states.

For ensuring the above objectives, the design should be based on

characteristics values for material strengths which take into account the loads
to be supported and variations of material strengths. The characteristic values
have to based on availability of statistical data: if such a data is not available,
then experience basis is to be considered. Design are characteristic values by
the use of partial safety factors, one for the material strengths and the other
for loads.