28

CHAPTER 3
Analysis of the
structure at the
ultimate limit state
CHAPTER INTRODUCTION
.............................................................................
A reinforced concrete structure is a combination of beams, columns, slabs and walls,
rigidly connected together to form a monolithic frame. Each individual member must
be capable of resisting the forces acting on it, so that the determination of these forces
is an essential part of the design process. The full analysis of a rigid concrete frame is
rarely simple; but simplified calculations of adequate precision can often be made if
the basic action of the structure is understood.
The analysis must begin with an evaluation of all the loads
carried by the structure, including its own weight. Many of
the loads are variable in magnitude and position, and all
possible critical arrangements of loads must be considered.
First the structure itself is rationalised into simplified forms
that represent the load-carrying action of the prototype. The
forces in each member can then be determined by one of the
following methods:
1. applying moment and shear coefficients
2. manual calculations
3. computer methods
Tabulated coefficients are suitable for use only with simple,
regular structures such as equal-span continuous beams
carrying uniform loads. Manual calculations are possible for
the vast majority of structures, but may be tedious for large or
complicated ones. The computer can be an invaluable help in
the analysis of even quite small frames, and for some
calculations it is almost indispensable. However, the amount
of output from a computer analysis is sometimes almost
overwhelming; and then the results are most readily inter-
preted when they are presented diagrammatically.
......................................
Analysis of the structure 29
Since the design of a reinforced concrete member is generally based on the
ultimate limit state, the analysis is usually performed for loadings corresponding
to that state. Prestressed concrete members, however, are normally designed for
serviceability loadings, as discussed in chapter 11.
3.1 Actions
The actions (loads) on a structure are divided into two types: permanent actions, and
variable (or imposed) actions. Permanent actions are those which are normally constant
during the structures life. Variable actions, on the other hand, are transient and not
constant in magnitude, as for example those due to wind or to human occupants.
Recommendations for the loadings on structures are given in the European Standards,
some of which are EN1991-1-1 General actions, EN1991-1-3 Snow loads, EN1991-1-4
Wind actions, EN1991-1-7 Accidental actions from impact and explosions, and
EN1991-2 Trafc loads on bridges.
A table of values for some useful permanent loads and variable loads is given in the
appendix.
3.1.1 Permanent actions
Permanent actions include the weight of the structure itself and all architectural
components such as exterior cladding, partitions and ceilings. Equipment and static
machinery, when permanent xtures, are also often considered as part of the permanent
action. Once the sizes of all the structural members, and the details of the architectural
requirements and permanent xtures have been established, the permanent actions can
be calculated quite accurately; but, rst of all, preliminary design calculations are
generally required to estimate the probable sizes and self-weights of the structural
concrete elements.
For most reinforced concretes, a typical value for the self-weight is 25 kN per cubic
metre, but a higher density should be taken for heavily reinforced or dense concretes. In
the case of a building, the weights of any permanent partitions should be calculated
from the architects drawings. A minimum partition loading equivalent to 1.0 kN per
square metre is often specied as a variable action, but this is only adequate for
lightweight partitions.
Permanent actions are generally calculated on a slightly conservative basis, so that a
member will not need redesigning because of a small change in its dimensions. Over-
estimation, however, should be done with care, since the permanent action can often
actually reduce some of the forces in parts of the structure as will be seen in the case of
the hogging moments in the continuous beam in gure 3.1.
3.1.2 Variable actions
These actions are more difcult to determine accurately. For many of them, it is only
possible to make conservative estimates based on standard codes of practice or past
experience. Examples of variable actions on buildings are: the weights of its occupants,
30 Reinforced concrete design
furniture, or machinery; the pressures of wind, the weight of snow, and of retained earth
or water; and the forces caused by thermal expansion or shrinkage of the concrete.
A large building is unlikely to be carrying its full variable action simultaneously on
all its oors. For this reason EN1991-1-1: 2002 (Actions on Structures) clause 6.2.2(2)
allows a reduction in the total variable oor actions when the columns, walls or
foundations are designed, for a building more than two storeys high. Similarly from the
same code, clause 6.3.1.2(10), the variable action may be reduced when designing a
beam span which supports a large oor area.
Although the wind load is a variable action, it is kept in a separate category when its
partial factors of safety are specied, and when the load combinations on the structure
are being considered.
3.2 Load combinations and patterns
3.2.1 Load combinations and patterns for the ultimate limit state
Various combinations of the characteristic values of permanent G
k
, variable actions Q
k
,
wind actions W
k
, and their partial factors of safety must be considered for the loading of
the structure. The partial factors of safety specied in the code are discussed in
chapter 2, and for the ultimate limit state the following loading combinations from
tables 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5 are commonly used.
1. Permanent and variable actions
1:35G
k
1:5Q
k
2. Permanent and wind actions
1:35G
k
1:5W
k
The variable load can usually cover all or any part of the structure and, therefore,
should be arranged to cause the most severe stresses. So, for a three-span continuous
beam, load combination 1 would have the loading arrangement shown in gure 3.1, in
order to cause the maximum sagging moment in the outer spans and the maximum
possible hogging moment in the centre span. A study of the deected shape of the beam
would conrm this to be the case.
Load combination 2, permanent + wind load is used to check the stability of a
structure. A load combination of permanent + variable + wind load could have the
arrangements shown in gure 2.4 and described in section 2.4 of Chapter 2.
Figure 3.1
Three-span beam
Analysis of the structure 31
Figure 3.2 shows the patterns of vertical loading on a multi-span continuous beam to
cause (i) maximum design sagging moments in alternate spans and maximum possible
hogging moments in adjacent spans, (ii) maximum design hogging moments at
support A, and (iii) the design hogging moment at support A as specied by the EC2
code for simplicity. Thus there is a similar loading pattern for the design hogging
moment at each internal support of a continuous beam. It should be noted that the UK
National Annex permits a simpler alternative to load case (iii) where a single load
case may be considered of all spans loaded with the maximum loading of
(1:35G
k
1:50Q
k
).
3.3 Analysis of beams
To design a structure it is necessary to know the bending moments, torsional moments,
shearing forces and axial forces in each member. An elastic analysis is generally used to
determine the distribution of these forces within the structure; but because to some
extent reinforced concrete is a plastic material, a limited redistribution of the elastic
moments is sometimes allowed. A plastic yield-line theory may be used to calculate the
moments in concrete slabs. The properties of the materials, such as Youngs modulus,
which are used in the structural analysis should be those associated with their
characteristic strengths. The stiffnesses of the members can be calculated on the basis of
any one of the following:
1 the entire concrete cross-section (ignoring the reinforcement);
2. the concrete cross-section plus the transformed area of reinforcement based on the
modular ratio;
3. the compression area only of the concrete cross-section, plus the transformed area of
reinforcement based on the modular ratio.
The concrete cross-section described in (1) is the simpler to calculate and would
normally be chosen.
Figure 3.2
Multi-span beam loading
patterns
32 Reinforced concrete design
A structure should be analysed for each of the critical loading conditions which
produce the maximum stresses at any particular section. This procedure will be
illustrated in the examples for a continuous beam and a building frame. For these
structures it is conventional to draw the bending-moment diagram on the tension side of
the members.
Sign Conventions
1. For the moment-distribution analysis anti-clockwise support moments are positive
as, for example, in table 3.1 for the fixed end moments (FEM).
2. For subsequently calculating the moments along the span of a member, moments
causing sagging are positive, while moments causing hogging are negative, as
illustrated in figure 3.4.
3.3.1 Non-continuous beams
One-span, simply supported beams or slabs are statically determinate and the analysis
for bending moments and shearing forces is readily performed manually. For the
ultimate limit state we need only consider the maximum load of 1:35G
k
1:5Q
k
on
the span.
EXAMPLE 3. 1
Analysis of a non-continuous beam
The one-span simply supported beam shown in gure 3.3a carries a distributed
permanent action including self-weight of 25 kN/m, a permanent concentrated action of
40 kN at mid-span, and a distributed variable action of 10 kN/m.
Figure 3.3 shows the values of ultimate load required in the calculations of the
shearing forces and bending moments.
Maximum shear force
54
2

195
2
124:5 kN
Maximum bending moment
54 4
4

195 4
8
151:5 kNm
The analysis is completed by drawing the shearing-force and bending-moment
diagrams which would later be used in the design and detailing of the shear and bending
reinforcement.
Figure 3.3
Analysis of one-span beam
Analysis of the structure 33
3.3.2 Continuous beams
The methods of analysis for continuous beams may also be applied to continuous slabs
which span in one direction. A continuous beam is considered to have no xity with the
supports so that the beam is free to rotate. This assumption is not strictly true for beams
framing into columns and for that type of continuous beam it is more accurate to analyse
them as part of a frame, as described in section 3.4.
A continuous beam should be analysed for the loading arrangements which give the
maximum stresses at each section, as described in section 3.2.1 and illustrated in
gures 3.1 and 3.2. The analysis to calculate the bending moments can be carried out
manually by moment distribution or equivalent methods, but tabulated shear and
moment coefcients may be adequate for continuous beams having approximately equal
spans and uniformly distributed loads.
For a beam or slab set monolithically into its supports, the design moment at the
support can be taken as the moment at the face of the support.
Continuous beams the general case
Having determined the moments at the supports by, say, moment distribution, it is
necessary to calculate the moments in the spans and also the shear forces on the beam.
For a uniformly distributed load, the equations for the shears and the maximum span
moments can be derived from the following analysis.
Using the sign convention of gure 3.4 and taking moments about support B:
V
AB
L
wL
2
2
M
AB
M
BA
0
therefore
V
AB

wL
2

M
AB
M
BA

L
3:1
and
V
BA
wL V
AB
3:2
Figure 3.4
Shears and moments in a
beam
34 Reinforced concrete design
Maximum span moment M
max
occurs at zero shear, and distance to zero shear
a
3

V
AB
w
3:3
therefore
M
max

V
AB
2
2w
M
AB
3:4
The points of contraexure occur at M 0, that is
V
AB
x
wx
2
2
M
AB
0
where x the distance from support A. Taking the roots of this equation gives
x
V
AB

V
AB
2
2wM
AB
_ _
_
w
so that
a
1

V
AB

V
AB
2
2wM
AB
_ _
_
w
3:5
and
a
2
L
V
AB

V
AB
2
2wM
AB
_ _
_
w
3:6
A similar analysis can be applied to beams that do not support a uniformly distributed
load. In manual calculations it is usually not considered necessary to calculate the
distances a
1
, a
2
and a
3
which locate the points of contraexure and maximum moment
a sketch of the bending moment is often adequate but if a computer is performing the
calculations these distances may as well be determined also.
At the face of the support, width s
M
0
AB
M
AB
V
AB

ws
4
_ _
s
2
EXAMPLE 3. 2
Analysis of a continuous beam
The continuous beam shown in gure 3.5 has a constant cross-section and supports a
uniformly distributed permanent action including its self-weight of G
k
25 kN/m and a
variable action Q
k
10 kN/m.
The critical loading patterns for the ultimate limit state are shown in gure 3.5 where
the stars indicate the region of maximum moments, sagging or possible hogging.
Table 3.1 is the moment distribution carried out for the rst loading arrangement: similar
calculations would be required for each of the remaining load cases. It should be
noted that the reduced stiffness of
3
4
I
L
has been used for the end spans.
Analysis of the structure 35
Figure 3.5
Continuous beam loading
patterns
Table 3.1 Moment distribution for the first loading case
A B C D
Stiffness (k)
3
4
:
I
L

3
4
:
1
6
0:125
I
L

1
4
0:25
3
4
:
I
L
0:125
Distr. factors 0:125
0:125 0:25
1=3
0:25
0:125 0:25
2=3 2=3 1=3
Load (kN) 292 135 292
F.E.M.
0
292 6
8

135 4
12

292 6
8
0
0 219.4 45.0 45.0 219.4 0
Balance 58.1 116.3 116.3 58.1
Carry over 58.1 58.1
Balance 19.4 38.7 38.7 19.4
Carry over 19.4 19.4
Balance 6.5 12.9 12.9 6.5
Carry over 6.5 6.5
Balance 2.2 4.3 4.3 2.2
Carry over 2.2 2.2
Balance 0.7 1.5 1.5 0.7
M (kNm) 0 132.5 132.5 132.5 132.5 0
36 Reinforced concrete design
The shearing forces, the maximum span bending moments, and their positions along
the beam, can be calculated using the formulae previously derived. Thus for the rst
loading arrangement and span AB, using the sign convention of gure 3.4:
Shear V
AB

load
2

M
AB
M
BA

292:5
2

132:5
6:0
124:2 kN
V
BA
load V
AB
292:5 124:2 168:3 kN
Maximum moment, span AB
V
AB
2
2w
M
AB
where w 292:5=6:0 48:75 kN/m. Therefore:
M
max

124:2
2
2 48:75
0 158:2 kNm
Distance from A, a
3

V
AB
w

124:2
48:75
2:55 m
The bending-moment diagrams for each of the loading arrangements are shown in
gure 3.6, and the corresponding shearing-force diagrams are shown in gure 3.7. The
individual bending-moment diagrams are combined in gure 3.8a to give the bending-
moment design envelope. Similarly, gure 3.8b is the shearing-force design envelope.
Such envelope diagrams are used in the detailed design of the beams, as described in
chapter 7.
In this example, simple supports with no xity have been assumed for the end
supports at A and D. Even so, the sections at A and D should be designed for a hogging
moment due to a partial xity equal to 25 per cent of the maximum moment in the span,
that is 158=4 39:5 kNm.
Figure 3.6
Bending-moment diagrams
(kN m)
Analysis of the structure 37
Continuous beams with approximately equal spans and uniform loading
The ultimate bending moments and shearing forces in continuous beams of three or
more approximately equal spans without cantilevers can be obtained using relevant
coefcients provided that the spans differ by no more than 15 per cent of the longest
span, that the loading is uniform, and that the characteristic variable action does not
exceed the characteristic permanent action. The values of these coefcients are shown
in diagrammatic form in gure 3.9 for beams (equivalent simplied values for slabs are
given in chapter 8).
Figure 3.7
Shearing-force diagrams (kN)
Figure 3.8
Bending-moment and
shearing-force envelopes
Figure 3.9
Bending-moment and
shearing-force coefficients
for beams
38 Reinforced concrete design
The possibility of hogging moments in any of the spans should not be ignored, even if
it is not indicated by these coefcients. For example, a beam of three equal spans may
have a hogging moment in the centre span if Q
k
exceeds 0:45G
k
.
3.4 Analysis of frames
In situ reinforced concrete structures behave as rigid frames, and should be analysed as
such. They can be analysed as a complete space frame or be divided into a series of
plane frames. Bridge deck-type structures can be analysed as an equivalent grillage,
whilst some form of nite-element analysis can be utilised in solving complicated shear
wall buildings. All these methods lend themselves to solution by computer, but many
frames can be simplied for a satisfactory solution by hand calculations.
The general procedure for a building is to analyse the slabs as continuous members
supported by the beams or structural walls. The slabs can be either one-way spanning or
two-way spanning. The columns and main beams are considered as a series of rigid
plane frames which can be divided into two types: (1) braced frames supporting vertical
loads only, (2) frames supporting vertical and lateral loads.
Type one frames are in buildings where none of the lateral loads such as wind are
transmitted to the columns and beams but are resisted by much more stiffer elements
such as shear walls, lift shafts or stairwells. Type two frames are designed to resist the
lateral loads, which cause bending, shearing and axial loads in the beams and columns.
For both types of frames the axial forces in the columns can generally be calculated as if
the beams and slabs were simply supported.
3.4.1 Braced frames supporting vertical loads only
A building frame can be analysed as a complete frame, or it can be simplied into a
series of substitute frames for the vertical loading analysis. The frame shown in
gure 3.10, for example, can be divided into any of the subframes shown in gure 3.11.
The substitute frame 1 in gure 3.11 consists of one complete oor beam with its
connecting columns (which are assumed rigidly xed at their remote ends). An analysis
of this frame will give the bending moments and shearing forces in the beams and
columns for the oor level considered.
Substitute frame 2 is a single span combined with its connecting columns and two
adjacent spans, all xed at their remote ends. This frame may be used to determine the
bending moments and shearing forces in the central beam. Provided that the central span
is greater than the two adjacent spans, the bending moments in the columns can also be
found with this frame.
Substitute frame 3 can be used to nd the moments in the columns only. It consists of
a single junction, with the remote ends of the members xed. This type of subframe
would be used when beams have been analysed as continuous over simple supports.
In frames 2 and 3, the assumption of xed ends to the outer beams over-estimates
their stiffnesses. These values are, therefore, halved to allow for the exibility resulting
from continuity.
The various critical loading patterns to produce maximum stresses have to be
considered. In general these loading patterns for the ultimate limit state are as shown in
gure 3.2, except when there is also a cantilever span which may have a benecial
minimum loading condition (1:0G
k
) see gure 7.21.
Analysis of the structure 39
When considering the critical loading arrangements for a column, it is sometimes
necessary to include the case of maximum moment and minimum possible axial load, in
order to investigate the possibility of tension failure caused by the bending.
EXAMPLE 3. 3
Analysis of a substitute frame
The substitute frame shown in gure 3.12 is part of the complete frame in gure 3.10.
The characteristic actions carried by the beams are permanent actions (including self-
weight) G
k
25 kN/m, and variable action, Q
k
10 kN/m, uniformly distributed along
the beam. The analysis of the subframe will be carried out by moment distribution: thus
the member stiffnesses and their relevant distribution factors are rst required.
Figure 3.10
Building frame
Figure 3.11
Substitute frames
Figure 3.12
Substitute frame
40 Reinforced concrete design
Stiffnesses, k
Beam
I
0:3 0:6
3
12
5:4 10
3
m
4
Spans AB and CD
k
AB
k
CD

5:4 10
3
6:0
0:9 10
3
Span BC
k
BC

5:4 10
3
4:0
1:35 10
3
Columns
I
0:3 0:35
3
12
1:07 10
3
m
4
Upper
k
U

1:07 10
3
3:5
0:31 10
3
Lower
k
L

1:07 10
3
4:0
0:27 10
3
k
U
k
L
0:31 0:2710
3
0:58 10
3
Distribution factors
Joints A and D

k 0:9 0:58 1:48

D.F.
AB
D.F.
DC

0:9
1:48
0:61
D.F.
cols

0:58
1:48
0:39
Joints B and C

k 0:9 1:35 0:58 2:83

D.F.
BA
D.F.
CD

0:9
2:83
0:32
D.F.
BC
D.F.
CB

1:35
2:83
0:48
D.F.
cols

0:58
2:83
0:20
The critical loading patterns for the ultimate limit state are identical to those for the
continuous beam in example 3.2, and they are illustrated in gure 3.5. The moment
distribution for the rst loading arrangement is shown in table 3.2. In the table, the
distribution for each upper and lower column have been combined, since this simplies
the layout for the calculations.
Analysis of the structure 41
T
a
b
l
e
3
.
2
M
o
m
e
n
t
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
c
a
s
e
A
B
C
D
C
o
l
s
.
(

M
)
A
B
B
A
C
o
l
s
.
(

M
)
B
C
C
B
C
o
l
s
.
(

M
)
C
D
D
C
C
o
l
s
.
(

M
)
D
.
F
.
s
0
.
3
9
0
.
6
1
0
.
3
2
0
.
2
0
0
.
4
8
0
.
4
8
0
.
2
0
0
.
3
2
0
.
6
1
0
.
3
9
L
o
a
d
k
N
2
9
2
1
3
5
2
9
2

F
.
E
.
M
.
1
4
6
1
4
6
4
5
.
0
4
5
.
0
1
4
6
1
4
6

B
a
l
.
5
6
.
9
8
9
.
1
3
2
.
3
2
0
.
2
4
8
.
5
4
8
.
5
2
0
.
2
3
2
.
3
8
9
.
1
5
6
.
9

C
.
O
.
1
6
.
2
4
4
.
6
2
4
.
2
2
4
.
2
4
4
.
6
1
6
.
2

B
a
l
.
6
.
3
9
.
9
2
2
.
0
1
3
.
8
3
3
.
0
3
3
.
0
1
3
.
8
2
2
.
0
9
.
9
6
.
3

C
.
O
.
1
1
.
0
5
.
0
1
6
.
5
1
6
.
5
5
.
0
1
1
.
0

B
a
l
.
4
.
3
6
.
7
6
.
9
4
.
3
1
0
.
3
1
0
.
3
4
.
3
6
.
9
6
.
7
4
.
3

C
.
O
.
3
.
4
3
.
4
5
.
2
5
.
2
3
.
4
3
.
4

B
a
l
.
1
.
3
2
.
1
2
.
8
1
.
7
4
.
1
4
.
1
1
.
7
2
.
8
2
.
1
1
.
3

M
(
k
N
m
)
6
8
.
8
6
8
.
8
1
3
5
.
0
4
0
.
0
9
5
.
0
9
5
.
0
4
0
.
0
1
3
5
.
0
6
8
.
8
6
8
.
8
42 Reinforced concrete design
The shearing forces and the maximum span moments can be calculated from the
formulae of section 3.3.2. For the rst loading arrangement and span AB:
Shear V
AB

load
2

M
AB
M
BA

292:5
2

68:8 135:0
6:0
135 kN
V
BA
load V
AB
292:5 135 157 kN
Maximum moment, span AB
V
AB
2
2w
M
AB

135
2
2 48:75
68:8
118 kNm
Distance from A, a
3

V
AB
w

135
48:75
2:8 m
Figure 3.13 shows the bending moments in the beams for each loading pattern;
gure 3.14 shows the shearing forces. These diagrams have been combined in
gure 3.15 to give design envelopes for bending moments and shearing forces.
A comparison of the design envelopes of gure 3.15 and gure 3.8 will emphasise the
advantages of considering the concrete beam as part of a frame, not as a continuous
beam as in example 3.2. Not only is the analysis of a subframe more precise, but many
moments and shears in the beam are smaller in magnitude.
The moment in each column is given by
M
col

M
col

k
col

k
col
Figure 3.13
Beam bending-moment
diagrams (kNm)
Analysis of the structure 43
Thus, for the rst loading arrangement and taking

M
col
table 3.2 gives
Column moment M
AJ
68:8
0:31
0:58
37 kNm
M
AE
68:8
0:27
0:58
32 kN m
M
BK
40
0:31
0:58
21 kN m
M
BF
40
0:27
0:58
19 kN m
This loading arrangement gives the maximum column moments, as plotted in
gure 3.16.
Figure 3.14
Beam shearing-force
diagrams (kN)
Figure 3.15
Bending-moment and
shearing-force envelopes
44 Reinforced concrete design
EXAMPLE 3. 4
Analysis of a substitute frame for a column
The substitute frame for this example, shown in gure 3.17, is taken from the building
frame in gure 3.10. The loading to cause maximum column moments is shown in the
gure for G
k
25 kN/m and Q
k
10 kN/m.
The stiffnesses of these members are identical to those calculated in example 3.3,
except that for this type of frame the beam stiffnesses are halved. Thus
k
AB

1
2
0:9 10
3
0:45 10
3
k
BC

1
2
1:35 10
3
0:675 10
3
upper column k
U
0:31 10
3
lower column k
L
0:27 10
3

k 0:45 0:675 0:31 0:27 10

3
1:705 10
3
fixed-end moment M
BA
292:5
6
12
146 kNm
fixed-end moment M
BC
135
4
12
45 kNm
Column moments are
upper column M
U
146 45
0:31
1:705
18 kNm
lower column M
L
146 45
0:27
1:705
16 kNm
The column moments are illustrated in gure 3.18. They should be compared with the
corresponding moments for the internal column in gure 3.16.
Figure 3.16
Column bending
moments (kNm)
Figure 3.17
Substitute frame
Figure 3.18
Column moments
Analysis of the structure 45
In examples 3.3 and 3.4 the second moment of area of the beam was calculated as
bh
3
=12 a rectangular section for simplicity, but where an in situ slab forms a ange to
the beam, the second moment of area may be calculated for the T-section or L-section.
3.4.2 Lateral loads on frames
Lateral loads on a structure may be caused by wind pressures, by retained earth or by
seismic forces. A horizontal force should also be applied at each level of a structure
resulting from a notional inclination of the vertical members representing imperfections.
The value of this depends on building height and number of columns (EC2 clause 5.2),
but will typically be less than 1% of the vertical load at that level for a braced structure.
This should be added to any wind loads at the ultimate limit state
An unbraced frame subjected to wind forces must be analysed for all the vertical
loading combinations described in section 3.2.1. The vertical-loading analysis can be
carried out by the methods described previously. The analysis for the lateral loads
should be kept separate. The forces may be calculated by an elastic computer analysis or
by a simplied approximate method. For preliminary design calculations, and also only
for medium-size regular structures, a simplied analysis may well be adequate.
A suitable approximate analysis is the cantilever method. It assumes that:
1. points of contraflexure are located at the mid-points of all columns and beams; and
2. the direct axial loads in the columns are in proportion to their distances from the
centre of gravity of the frame. It is also usual to assume that all the columns in a
storey are of equal cross-sectional area.
It should be emphasised that these approximate methods may give quite inaccurate
results for irregular or high-rise structures. Application of this method is probably best
illustrated by an example, as follows.
EXAMPLE 3. 5
Simplified analysis for lateral loads cantilever method
Figure 3.19 shows a building frame subjected to a characteristic wind action of 3.0 kN
per metre height of the frame. This action is assumed to be transferred to the frame as a
concentrated load at each oor level as indicated in the gure.
By inspection, there is tension in the two columns to the left and compression in the
columns to the right; and by assumption 2 the axial forces in columns are proportional to
their distances from the centre line of the frame.
Figure 3.19
Frame with lateral load
46 Reinforced concrete design
Thus
Axial force in exterior column : axial force in interior column 4:0P : 1:0P
The analysis of the frame continues by considering a section through the top-storey
columns: the removal of the frame below this section gives the remainder shown in
gure 3.20a. The forces in this subframe are calculated as follows.
(a) Axial forces in the columns
Taking moments about point s,

M
s
0, therefore
5:25 1:75 P 6:0 P 10:0 4P 16:0 0
and therefore
P 0:135 kN
thus
N
1
N
4
4:0P 0:54 kN
N
2
N
3
1:0P 0:135 kN
(b) Vertical shearing forces F in the beams
For each part of the subframe,

F 0, therefore
F
1
N
1
0:54 kN
F
2
N
1
N
2
0:675 kN
(c) Horizontal shearing forces H in the columns
Taking moments about the points of contraexure of each beam,

M 0, therefore
H
1
1:75 N
1
3:0 0
H
1
0:93 kN
Figure 3.20
Subframes at the roof
and 4th floor
Analysis of the structure 47
and
H
1
H
2
1:75 N
1
8:0 N
2
2:0 0
H
2
1:70 kN
The calculations of the equivalent forces for the fourth oor (gure 3.20b) follow a
similar procedure, as follows.
(d) Axial forces in the columns
For the frame above section tt
0
,

M
t
0, therefore
5:253 1:75 10:5 1:75 P 6:0 P 10:0 4P 16:0 0
P 0:675 kN
therefore
N
1
4:0P 2:70 kN
N
2
1:0P 0:68 kN
(e) Beam shears
F
1
2:70 0:54
2:16 kN
F
2
2:70 0:68 0:54 0:135
2:705 kN
(f) Column shears
H
1
1:75 0:93 1:75 2:70 0:543:0 0
H
1
2:78 kN
H
2

1
2
10:5 5:25 2:78
5:1 kN
Values calculated for sections taken below the remaining oors are
third floor N
1
7:03 kN N
2
1:76 kN
F
1
4:33 kN F
2
5:41 kN
H
1
4:64 kN H
2
8:49 kN
second floor N
1
14:14 kN N
2
3:53 kN
F
1
7:11 kN F
2
8:88 kN
H
1
6:61 kN H
2
12:14 kN
first floor N
1
24:37 kN N
2
6:09 kN
F
1
10:23 kN F
2
12:79 kN
H
1
8:74 kN H
2
16:01 kN
The bending moments in the beams and columns at their connections can be
calculated from these results by the following formulae
beams M
B
F
1
2
beam span
columns M
C
H
1
2
storey height
48 Reinforced concrete design
so that the roofs external connection
M
B
0:54
1
2
60 1:6 kNm
M
C
0:93
1
2
3:5 1:6 kNm
As a check at each joint,

M
B

M
C
.
The bending moments due to characteristic wind loads in all the columns and beams
of this structure are shown in gure 3.21.
3.5 Shear wall structures resisting horizontal loads
A reinforced concrete structure with shear walls is shown in gure 3.22 . Shear walls are
very effective in resisting horizontal loads such as F
z
in the gure which act in the
direction of the plane of the walls. As the walls are relatively thin they offer little
resistance to loads which are perpendicular to their plane.
The oor slabs which are supported by the walls also act as rigid diaphragms which
transfer and distribute the horizontal forces into the shear walls. The shear walls act as
vertical cantilevers transferring the horizontal loads to the structural foundations.
3.5.1 Symmetrical arrangement of walls
With a symmetrical arrangement of walls as shown in gure 3.23 the horizontal load is
distributed in proportion to the the relative stiffness k
i
of each wall. The relative
Figure 3.21
Moments (kN m) and
reactions (kN)
Analysis of the structure 49
stiffnesses are given by the second moment of area of each wall about its major axis
such that
k
i
h b
3
where h is the thickness of the wall and b is the length of the wall.
The force P
i
distributed into each wall is then given by
P
i
F
k
i

k
EXAMPLE 3. 6
Symmetrical arrangement of shear walls
A structure with a symmetrical arrangement of shear walls is shown in gure 3.23.
Calculate the proportion of the 100 kN horizontal load carried by each of the walls.
Figure 3.22
Shear wall structure
Figure 3.23
Symmetrical arrangement
of shear walls
50 Reinforced concrete design
Relative stiffnesses:
Walls A k
A
0:3 20
3
2400
Walls B k
B
0:2 8
3
346

k 22400 346 5492

Force in each wall:
P
A

k
A

k
F
2400
5492
100 43:7 kN
P
B

k
B

k
F
346
5492
100 6:3 kN
Check 243:7 6:3 100 kN F
3.5.2 Unsymmetrical arrangement of walls
With an unsymmetrical arrangement of shear walls as shown in gure 3.24 there will
also be a torsional force on the structure about the centre of rotation in addition to the
direct forces caused by the translatory movement. The calculation procedure for this
case is:
1. Determine the location of the centre of rotation by taking moments of the wall
stiffnesses k about convenient axes. Such that
x

k
x
x

k
x
and y

k
y
y

k
y
where k
x
and k
y
are the stiffnesses of the walls orientated in the x and y directions
respectively.
2. Calculate the torsional moment M
t
on the group of shear walls as
M
t
F e
where e is the eccentricity of the horizontal force F about the centre of rotation.
3. Calculate the force P
i
in each wall as the sum of the direct component P
d
and the
torsional rotation component P
r
P
i
P
d
P
r
F
k
x

k
x
M
t

k
i
r
i

k
i
r
i
2

where r
i
is the perpendicular distance between the axis of each wall and the centre
of rotation.
EXAMPLE 3. 7
Unsymmetrical layout of shear walls
Determine the distribution of the 100 kN horizontal force F into the shear walls A, B, C,
D and E as shown in gure 3.24. The relative stiffness of each shear wall is shown in the
gure in terms of multiples of k.
Analysis of the structure 51
Centre of rotation

k
x
20 5 5 30
Taking moments for k
x
about YY at wall A
x

k
x
x

k

20 0 5 32 5 40
30
12:0 metres

k
y
6 4 10
Taking moments for k
y
about XX at wall C
y

k
y
y

k
y

6 0 4 16
10
6:4 metres
The torsional moment M
t
is
M
t
F 20 x 100 20 12
800 kNm
The remainder of these calculations are conveniently set out in tabular form:
Wall k
x
k
y
r kr kr
2
P
d
P
r
P
i
A 20 0 12 240 2880 66.6 20.4 46.2
B 0 4 9.6 38.4 369 0 3.3 3.3
C 0 6 6.4 38.4 246 0 3.3 3.3
D 5 0 20 100 2000 16.7 8.5 25.2
E 5 0 28 140 3920 16.7 11.9 28.6

30 10 9415 100 0 100

As an example for wall A:
P
A
P
t
P
r
F
k
A

k
M
t

k
A
r
A

k
i
r
i
2

100
20
30
800
20 12
9415
66:6 20:4 46:2 kN
Figure 3.24
Unsymmetrical arrangement
of shear walls
52 Reinforced concrete design
3.5.3 Shear walls with openings
Shear walls with openings can be idealised into equivalent plane frames as shown in
gure 3.25. In the plane frame the second moment of area I
c
of the columns is
equivalent to that of the wall on either side of the openings. The second moment of area
I
b
of the beams is equivalent to that part of the wall between the openings.
The lengths of beam that extend beyond the openings as shown shaded in gure 3.25
are given a very large stiffnesses so that their second moment of area would be say
100I
b
.
The equivalent plane frame would be analysed by computer with a plane frame
program.
3.5.4 Shear walls combined with structural frames
For simplicity in the design of low or medium-height structures shear walls or a lift
shaft are usually considered to resist all of the horizontal load. With higher rise
structures for reasons of stiffness and economy it often becomes necessary to include
the combined action of the shear walls and the structural frames in the design.
A method of analysing a structure with shear walls and structural frames as one
equivalent linked-plane frame is illustrated by the example in gure 3.26.
In the actual structure shown in plan there are four frames of type A and two frames
of type B which include shear walls. In the linked frame shown in elevation the four
type A frames are lumped together into one frame whose member stiffnesses are
multiplied by four. Similarly the two type B frames are lumped together into one frame
whose member stiffnesses are doubled. These two equivalent frames are then linked
together by beams pinned at each end.
The two shear walls are represented by one column having the sectional properties of
the sum of the two shear walls. For purposes of analysis this column is connected to the
rest of its frame by beams with a very high bending stiffness, say 1000 times that of the
other beams so as to represent the width and rigidity of the shear wall.
The link beams transfer the loads axially between the two types of frames A and B so
representing the rigid diaphragm action of the concrete oor slabs. These link beams,
pinned at their ends, would be given a cross-sectional area of say 1000 times that of the
other beams in the frame.
As all the beams in the structural frames are pressing against the rigid shear wall in
the computer model the effects of axial shortening in these beams will be exaggerated,
Figure 3.25
Shear wall with openings
Analysis of the structure 53
whereas this would normally be of a secondary magnitude. To overcome this the cross-
sectional areas of all the beams in the model may be increased say to 1000 m
2
and this
will virtually remove the effects of axial shortening in the beams.
In the computer output the member forces for type A frames would need to be
divided by a factor of four and those for type B frames by a factor of two.
3.6 Redistribution of moments
Some method of elastic analysis is generally used to calculate the forces in a concrete
structure, despite the fact that the structure does not behave elastically near its ultimate
load. The assumption of elastic behaviour is reasonably true for low stress levels; but as
a section approaches its ultimate moment of resistance, plastic deformation will occur.
Figure 3.26
Idealised link frame for a
structure with shear walls and
structural frames
54 Reinforced concrete design
This is recognised in EC2, by allowing redistribution of the elastic moments subject to
certain limitations.
Reinforced concrete behaves in a manner midway between that of steel and concrete.
The stressstrain curves for the two materials (gures 1.5 and 1.2) show the elastoplastic
behaviour of steel and the plastic behaviour of concrete. The latter will fail at a
relatively small compressive strain. The exact behaviour of a reinforced concrete
section depends on the relative quantities and the individual properties of the two
materials. However, such a section may be considered virtually elastic until the steel
yields; and then plastic until the concrete fails in compression. Thus the plastic
behaviour is limited by the concrete failure; or more specically, the concrete failure
limits the rotation that may take place at a section in bending. A typical moment
curvature diagram for a reinforced concrete member is shown in gure 3.27
Thus, in an indeterminate structure, once a beam section develops its ultimate
moment of resistance, M
u
, it then behaves as a plastic hinge resisting a constant moment
of that value. Further loading must be taken by other parts of the structure, with the
changes in moment elsewhere being just the same as if a real hinge existed. Provided
rotation of a hinge does not cause crushing of the concrete, further hinges will be
formed until a mechanism is produced. This requirement is considered in more detail in
chapter 4.
EXAMPLE 3. 8
Moment redistribution single span fixed-end beam
The beam shown in gure 3.28 is subjected to an increasing uniformly distributed load:
Elastic support moment
wL
2
12
Elastic span moment
wL
2
24
In the case where the ultimate bending strengths are equal at the span and at the
supports, and where adequate rotation is possible, then the additional load w
a
, which the
member can sustain by plastic behaviour, can be found.
At collapse
M
u

wL
2
12

wL
2
24
additional mid-span moment m
B
where m
B
w
a
L
2
=8 as for a simply supported beam with hinges at A and C.
Figure 3.27
Typical momentcurvature
diagram
Analysis of the structure 55
Thus
wL
2
12

wL
2
24

w
a
L
2
8
Hence w
a

w
3
where w is the load to cause the rst plastic hinge; thus the beam may carry a load of
1:33w with redistribution.
From the design point of view, the elastic bending-moment diagram can be obtained
for the required ultimate loading in the ordinary way. Some of these moments may then
be reduced; but this will necessitate increasing others to maintain the static equilibrium
of the structure. Usually it is the maximum support moments which are reduced, so
economising in reinforcing steel and also reducing congestion at the columns. The
requirements for applying moment redistribution are:
1. Equilibrium between internal and external forces must be maintained, hence it is
necessary to recalculate the span bending moments and the shear forces for the load
case involved.
2. The continuous beams or slabs are predominately subject to flexure.
3. The ratio of adjacent spans be in the range of 0.5 to 2.
4. The column design moments must not be reduced.
There are other restrictions on the amount of moment redistribution in order to ensure
ductility of the beams or slabs. This entails limitations on the grade of reinforcing steel
and of the areas of tensile reinforcement and hence the depth of the neutral axis as
described in Chapter Four Analysis of the Section.
EXAMPLE 3. 9
Moment redistribution
In example 3.3, gure 3.13, it is required to reduce the maximum support moment of
M
BA
147 kNm as much as possible, but without increasing the span moment above
the present maximum value of 118 kNm.
Figure 3.28
Moment redistribution,
one-span beam
56 Reinforced concrete design
Figure 3.29a duplicates the original bending-moment diagram (part 3 of gure 3.13)
of example 3.3 while gure 3.29b shows the redistributed moments, with the span
moment set at 118kN m. The moment at support B can be calculated, using a
rearrangement of equations 3.4 and 3.1.
Thus
V
AB

M
max
M
AB
2w
_
and
M
BA
V
AB

wL
2
_ _
L M
AB
For span AB, w 48:75 kNm, therefore
V
AB

118 67 2 48:75
_
134 kN
M
BA
134
48:75 6:0
2
_ _
6:0 67 140 kNm
and
V
BA
292:5 134
158:5 kN
Reduction in M
BA
147 140
7 kNm

7 100
147
4:8 per cent
Figure 3.29
Moments and shears after
redistribution
Analysis of the structure 57
In order to ensure that the moments in the columns at joint B are not changed by the
redistribution, moment M
BC
must also be reduced by 7 kNm. Therefore
M
BC
115 7 108 kNm hogging
For the revised moments in BC:
V
BC

108 80
4

195
2
105 kN
V
CB
195 105 90 kN
For span BC:
M
max

105
2
2 48:75
108 5 kNm sagging
Figure 3.29c shows the revised shearing-force diagram to accord with the
redistributed moments. This example illustrates how, with redistribution
1. the moments at a section of beam can be reduced without exceeding the maximum
design moments at other sections;
2. the values of the column moments are not affected; and
3. the equilibrium between external loads and internal forces is maintained.