REINFORCED CONCRETE

STRUCTURE I

“Reinforced Concrete Code History”
Revised : 12-September-2013

Prepared By : LB3-ITS

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND PLANNING
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI SEPULUH NOPEMBER
SURABAYA
1

002 t=0.7 0.15 Pu Aksial Tarik Aksial Tekan Kecil   0 . Unified Design Method (UDM) (2002-Now) 4.7 0.65   0 . Ultimate Strength Design (USD) (1956-Now) 3.8 0.600 dt =0.1 f ' cAg 0.1Pu   0 .7 Kolom Bersengkang 0. Strut and Tie Model (STM) For Shear (2002-Now)   Kolom Bertulangan Spiral   0 .57  67  t 0.375 Prepared By : LB3-ITS 2 .1 f ' cAg P P 0 0.65 Compression Controlled Transition Tension Controlled 0. Codes Development of RC Philosophy design of RC were developed through out the 20th century. Working Stress Design (WSD) (1900-1999) 2. some records of the development is shown below : 1.48  83t Kolom Bersengkang 0.8   0 .65 0.005 c c dt =0.8   0.1f'cAg t=0.8 Kolom Bertulangan Spiral 0.

WSD was moved into (WSD Based) Alternate Design Method (ADM)). Prepared By : LB3-ITS. USD was (WSD Based – Deterministic) introduced) ACI 318-63 (WSD & USD Based) 1963 Design of Bond. Shear. 3 . Philosophy Design of RC The development of codes in United States and in Indonesia will be shown in the table below : Years American Concrete Institute Indonesian Code’s (ACI) (PB & SNI) ACI 318-56 PB 55 1956 (WSD Based . Diagonal Still PB 55 Tension. Combine Axial And Flexure was based on USD ACI 318-71 PBI 71 1971 (USD Based.

WSD was moved into Still PBI 71 Appendix A) 1989 ACI 318-89 PB’ 89 SKSNI T15-1991 (USD Based. WSD was moved into 1995 Still SKSNI T15-1991 Appendix A. WSD moved in to 1991 ACI 318-92 ADM) Based On ACI 318-83 ACI 318-95 (USD Based. UDM was introduced in Appendix B) Prepared By : LB3-ITS 4 . Philosophy Design of RC The development of codes in United States and in Indonesia will be shown in the table below : Years American Concrete Institute Indonesian Code’s (ACI) (PB & SNI) ACI 318-77 1977 (USD Based.

ST. STM introduced in Based On ACI 318-99 Appendix A) 2005 ACI 318-05 Still SNI 2847-2002 ACI 318-08 (UDM Based. STM was in Appendix A) Prepared By : Bambang Piscesa. Philosophy Design of RC The development of codes in United States and in Indonesia will be shown in the table below : Years American Concrete Institute Indonesian Code’s (ACI) (PB & SNI) 1999 ACI 318-99 Still SKSNI T15-1991 ACI 318-02 (UDM Based. USD was moved SNI 2847-2002 2002 into Appendix C. USD was in 2008 Still SNI 2847-2002 Appendix C. WSD moved into ADM) deleted. 5 . WSD was (USD Based. MT.

REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE I “Serviceability. CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND PLANNING INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI SEPULUH NOPEMBER SURABAYA 6 . Strength and Structural Safety” Revised : 12-September-2013 Prepared By : LB3-ITS.

2. 3. 2. structure must be safe against collapse and serviceable in use. Vibration be minimized. Strength. if any. Strength and Structural Safety To serve it’s purpose. Deflection be adequately small. Cracks. be kept in tolerable limits. Three importance in structural design to ensure the structure serve it’s purpose are : 1. Serviceability. Prepared By : LB3-ITS 7 . Structural Safety To ensure the serviceability of structure a few requirements needed : 1. Serviceability. 3.

Providing a carrying capacity just barely in excess of the known loads. The loads acting on the structure such as (Moment. Shear. Strength and Structural Safety To ensure the strength and structural safety of structure a few requirements needed : 1. Serviceability. Strength of the structure must be predicted accurately. 2. Prepared By : LB3-ITS 8 . Axial Forces) must be known accurately. 4. 3. Strength of the structure is adequate for all loads that may foreseeable act on it.

Actual loads may differ from those assumed. Actual member dimension may differ from those specified. 6. Prepared By : LB3-ITS 9 . 2. act on the structure. in which require a definite margin of safety as follows : 1. 7. Reinforcement may be not in its proper position. owing to imperfect knowledge. 4. 3. The actual structure behavior may differ from that assumed. Uncertainty in Analysis and Design These source of uncertainty. The assumption and simplification inherent in any analysis and design may different from those. Actual loads may distributed in a manner different from those assumed. in fact. Actual material strength may be different from that specified. 5.

Strength of structure depends on the strength of material from which it is made. Prepared By : LB3-ITS. It can be considered a random variable. A probability model for the maximum load can be devised by means a probability density function for loads. minimum material strength are specified in standardized ways. Variability of Loads (Q) and Strength (S) Since the maximum load that will occur during a life of structure is uncertain. as represented by the frequency curve. Actual material cannot be known precisely and therefore also constitute random variable. For this purpose. 10 .

Since S and Q are random variables. Variability of Safety Margin (M) Structural Safety Margin (M) = S – Q > 0. So strength (S) must be larger than Load (Q). 11 . (S>Q) Prepared By : LB3-ITS. Failure of structure occur when M less than O. the Safety Margin (M) is also random variable. this condition satisfied if strength is larger that load acting on it.

12 . Sn   nQn • Example : • (Dead +Life) --> Sn > Qd +Ql • (Dead) --> Sn > Qd • (Dead+Life+Wind) --> Sn > Qd + Ql + Qw • (Dead+Life+Quake) --> Sn > Qd + Ql + Qq Prepared By : LB3-ITS. Partial Safety Factor Because the load acting on the structure is not only one type but also can be more than two and since each type of load has different characteristic we need to modified the equation where S > Q according to the load type.

2D+1. • U=1. It is specified in codes (SNI 2847-2002) where : • U=1.9D+1.6W W=Wind Load • U=1.2D+1.5(A or R) A=Roof Load • U=1.5(A or R) R=Rain Load • U=0.0L+1.2(D+T)+1. 13 .4(D+F) • U=1.6W+0.2D+1.0E E=Earth Quake Load • U=0. Factored Load (U) Increasing the load for design (Qd) from the average load (Q) known as factored load for design. Shrinkage and Differential Settlement.6L D=Dead Load L=Life Load • U=1.6L+0.0E T=Combination of Creep.5(A or R) Prepared By : LB3-ITS.4D Remarks : • U=1.2D+1.6L+0.0L+1.9D+1.

14 . Strength Reduction Factor () Strength reduction factor () was defined to reduce the strength of the structure because of the variability of material compound that made the structure. 1.65 6.5Pu/fc’ Ag Prepared By : LB3-ITS. Compression member.70 3.  = 0. Compression member. Bending with or without tension.  = 0.75 5.  = 0.8 – Pu/ fc’ Ag – Tied  = 0.55 7.  = 0.80 2. tied. Shear and Torsion  = 0.65 4. The value of reduction factor determined in the codes (SNI 2847-2002). Bearing on concrete  = 0. low axial loads: – Spiral  = 0. spirally reinforced. Plain concrete. Compression member.8 – 1.

15 . Become : • Reduced Design Strength ( Sd) > Factored Load (U) • Generally above equation was written as below : •  Sn > 1.6 LL • (Design equation for dead and life load where Sn = Nominal Strength or Design Strength) Prepared By : LB3-ITS.2 DL + 1. Design Method and Strength Requirement Since there is strength and load. which the strength is reduced from its initial value and the load is multiplied by the load factor the where initial design equation : • Design Strength (Sd) > Load Design (Qd) .

 1D   2 L 1 SF   DL  Prepared By : LB3-ITS 16 . Safety Factor comparison Safety factor determine the safety of structure against load applied on the structure. the result of Ultimate Strength Design seems conservative compared with Working Stress Method (ACI term : Alternate Stress Design (ASD)) usually have safety factor 1.5 for upper structure’s.

Thank You .