Paper: Subedi

Paper

Ultimate strength analysis of reinforced concrete

1. 1

coupling beams
N. K. Subedi, BSc(Eng), PhD,CEng,FIStructE, MICE,MASCE
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Dundee

Synopsis and amethod for theultimate load analysis of reinforced concrete coupling
The structural behaviour of reinforced concrete coupled shear beams is presented. It is considered that the proposed method of analysis
wall structures is greatly infiuenced by the behaviour of their is consistent with the actual behaviour of the beams reported by Paulay '
coupling beams. Flexural and shear (diagonal splitting) are the and also observed in the recent tests6 at Dundee.
two main modes of failure of reinforced concrete coupling The proposed method is used to analyse the beams tested by Paulay',
beams. The behaviour of coupling beams in shear (diagonal and the results are discussed.
splitting) mode of failure is represented by a mathematical
model, and a method f o r the ultimate strength analysis is Structural behaviour
presented. The proposed method of analysis for rc coupling A typical coupled shear wall structure with symmetrical walls and a single
beams is used to verij'y the results of nine beams tested by a band of openings is shown in Fig 1. A typical coupling beam is deep in
previous investigator. relation to its span or width of the opening. The ends of the beam will
have a fixed connection with the wall. The conventionaldetailing consists
Notation of anequal amount ofreinforcement in the top andbottom and the vertical
a is the width of opening stirrups at equal spacings throughout the length of the beam (Fig l(b)).
b is the thickness of coupling beams or walls
d is the widthwalls
of
h is the overall depth of coupling beams
h' is the
depth: c/c of main reinforcement
f 'c is the compressive strength of concrete from cylinder test
fcufsyfy are the characteristic strengths: concrete, web bars, and
main bars
f s is modular
the ratio x f,,
fIC = fJ21 .: ..:.'.'
f.!:, .:. ,
A h,A.,A St are the areas of reinforcement: horizontal web, vertical
web, and main
C is the compressive force
Ph,PV,Pst arethe forces: horizontal web, vertical web, and main
reinforcement
V is the shear force in beam (b) Coupling beam: typical reinforcement detail
To,Ta is theforce in main reinforcing bars
Pu,Pu,,Pu2 are theultimateloads
A ,?A2 factors
are

Introduction
Reinforced concrete coupled shear wall structures with a single band or
multiple bands of openings are used in multistorey buildings up to about
30-35 storeys. In this range, they provide an efficient structural system for
the resistance of wind and seismic effects.
Currently, the analysis of coupled shear wall structures is carried out
using elasticmethods such as thecontinuous connection technique, modified
frame, and finite element. Over the last 20 years or so, there have been
many publications covering a wide range of problems in the analysis and
design of shear wall structures. In particularthe published works of
Beck l , Rosman2, and C0ul13, are of significance.
The design of coupled shear wall structures is not covered by any British
Standards. Up-to-date information on the available analysis techniques and
recommendations for thedesign and detailing of shear wall buildings are,
however, contained in CIRIA Report 1024, published in 1984.
The structural behaviour of reinforced concrete coupled shear walls is
greatly influenced by the behaviour of their coupling beams. The behaviour
of the coupling beams themselves depends on the geometry of the beams
and thestrength characteristics of the concrete and reinforcement.
Therefore, a study of the coupling beams, their modes of failure, and the
assessment of their ultimate strengths, is an essential part in the study of
coupled shear wall structures.
Paulay' carried out some tests on reinforced concrete coupling beams
and reported on their structural behaviour.
Recently, at Dundee University, a series of tests was carried out. The
series consisted ofsix coupling beams with vertical plates for shear
reinforcement. The details of this study have been published elsewhere6.
In this paper, the concept of the structural behaviour of rc coupling beams
is described. A mathematical model of the beams at failure is put forward
SF (c) Cross-section
(a) Symmetrical coupled shear wall with one band of openings
Fig I .
Test work by Paulay5
Paulay carried out tests on nine reinforced concrete coupling beams and
reported the behaviour of these beams in detail in a paper5. Heobserved
that the structural behaviour of relatively deep coupling beams differs
significantly from that of beams based on the conventional concept of
double curvature bending. The flexural reinforcement can be expected to
be in tension over the entire span of the beam. A low stress area in the
vicinity of zero bending does not exist. In the paper Paulay evaluated the
deformation characteristics of the coupling beams from an analogous,
statically indeterminatetruss system. An empirical method was also
suggested for calculating the distribution of force in the main bars.
The behaviour of reinforced concrete coupling beams observed by Paulay
agrees well with the observations made by the author himself in the series
of tests6 carried out at Dundee University. However, to the best of the
author's knowledge no attempt was made to describe the behaviour of
coupling beams by amathematical model consistent with theactual

The Structural Engineer/Volume 68 /No.3 / 6 February 1990 45

Paper: Subed.i

behaviour and modes of failure. From the designer's point of view, the # ftc = fcu 121
prediction of the mode of failure and the ultimate load are the most
important information required for design.

Structural action and behaviour

The structural action on a coupling beam due to any formof lateral load

cI
on the wall isto cause a differential movement between the supporting ends
(Fig 2). As a result, the beam undergoes flexuraland shear deformations.

Flexural deformation. A flexural deformation in which the beam bends

with a double curvatureand a point of contraflexure at thecentre of span
and the associated forces is shown in Fig 3. The action of the shear force
acting through the points of contraflexure produces maximum bending
moments at the end supports with the development of flexural cracks. When
the shear force increases, the bending moment increases and the flexural
cracks progress towards the compressive zone. Eventually, concrete will r - 1

crush in the compression zone, marking thefailure of the beam.This mode (a) Initial stage: element under biaxial stress
of failure occurs in shallow coupling beams with small flexural capacity.
The ultimate strength of the beam may be determined from its flexural
capacity. The ultimate load based on the reinforcement capacity may be

1
expressed as

,-Diagonal split

in which A St f is the capacity of the main reinforcement and h ' and a are
the parameters as shown in Fig 3.
Crush

(b) Final stage: diagonal splitting and crushing of concrete

Fig 4. Shear deformation of beam

Shear deformation. A pure shear deformation and the actions produced

in the beam are shown in Fig 4. The pure shear deformation requires both
top andbottom surfaces of the beam all along the length to be in tension.
There is compression along the diagonal AC and tension along BD. An
element ofthe beam near the midspan is subjected to a biaxial compression
tension state of stress. When the tensile stress in the concrete along the
diagonal BD reached the limiting tensile strength of concrete, f t , , the
concrete cracks. The averarge diagonal splitting force for the concrete is
given by f, , b d w whose components in the horizontal and vertical
directions, respectively, are given by ftcbh' and f tcba.The value off tC for
a compression-tension stress field arising frompure shear may be
evaluated * to be f,,/21.
Web reinforcement in the form of horizontal bars and vertical stirrups
/ in the beam will influence the resistance capacity in diagonal splitting. For
l
l Differential example, if there is sufficient reinforcement in both horizontal and vertical
I movement
directions, the resistance capacity will depend on the capacity of the
(c) Differential movement
reinforcement. The role of web reinforcement and the control of web
S ;c\ at the two ends af the beam
strength, whether by concrete or by reinforcement, is discussed in detail
(a) Wind profile (b) Deformed shape in ref. 7.
The mode of failure in shear is characterised by the extension of the
diagonal crack up to the position of the main reinforcement diagonally
Fig 2. Coupled shear wall subjected to lateral load
opposite and by the crushing in the compression corners (Fig 4(b)).
Combined action. The true deformation of the coupling beams is a
combination of the flexural and shear deformations. But in any particular
case, either flexure or shear will govern. When flexure governs, the overall
p s t fY deformation of the beam is still accurately represented by the flexural type
deformation (Fig 3) and eqn. (1) is reasonably accurate for estimating the
ultimate strength of the beam.
When the behaviour is governed by shear, the overall deformation of
the beam is much more complex. The flexural deformation causing the
beam to bend in double curvature, with tension along one-half of the beam
changing into compression along the other half on both top and bottom
surfaces, conflicts with the shear deformation which causes the beam to
go into tension on both surfaces along the entire length. This behaviour
pu1 a requires fresh explanation and may be described as follows:
(i) At an early stage of loading, the beam starts to deform in the common
flexural type behaviour (Fig 5(a)). At this stage, the beam has a double
Fig 3. Flexural deformation of beam and forces curvature with a line of contraflexure* at the centre of the span. But soon

* A line of contraflexureisdefinedasthelinepassingthroughthepoints of contraflexure of thehorizontallayers of thebeam.

46 The Structural Engineer/Volume 68/No.3 / 6 February 1990

 Paper: Subedi

- I\
J -v- \ I

\ \
,-Diagonal split

p
(a) Early stage: flexural behaviour
Line of contraf lexure
(b) Diagonal splitting and rotation of the line of contraflexure

I r Crushing

Detail’A’

(c) Final stage at failure: final deformed shape

Fig 5. Combined flexural and shear actions

after, when the shear force is large enough to initiate a diagonal crack,
the double curvature (flexural) behaviour changes.
(ii) As the crack opens up because of increasing diagonal tension
compression effect, the outer concave part of the curvature on both top
and bottom surfaces of the beam pushes outwards gradually. This is
equivalent to a shift in the position of the points of contraflexure in the
reinforcement from their original position at the centre towards the supports
in the opposite directions. It can be visualised from Fig 5(b) that the line
of contraflexure rotates anticlockwise as thediagonal crack in the concrete
spreads outwards from the centre.
(iii) The shift in the position of the point of contraflexure in the
reinforcement will stop near the fixed end support where the conflicting
deformations required forthe bending and shear action cause the I- -1

reinforcement to kink (Fig5(c)). At this stage, the concrete will have cracked Fig 6. Idealised diagram: equilibrium of a triangular half of the beam
most of the way diagonally showing a marked separationnear the middle.
The reinforcement, both top and bottom, will be in tension along most
of its length except near the kink where the local effect will influence the moments about 0
behaviour.
b ( h ’ , + a’) . . . .(4)
(iv) The beam will attain its maximum loadcarrying capacity when small
portions of the concrete in the compression corners crush, thus marking
P,,h’ = Va + f,, + P , -h‘ + P ,
2 2 2
the failure of the beam.
The final deformed shape and mechanisms at failure, when shear governs where
the behaviour, is shown in Fig5(c). P,, is the ultimate load of the beam in shear (diagonal splitting) mode
of failure
Proposed analysis V is the shear force at the compression corners
The analysis of the coupling beams subjected to flexural and shear stress P,,is the tensile force in the reinforcement at the support end
actions, and in which the structural behaviour is governed by shear, may C is the crushing strength of a block of concrete assumed to act at the
be carried out by considering the force system in a triangular half of the level of the main reinforcement
beam as shown in Fig6. The following equations may be written: P, and P , are the contributions of the web reinforcement.
The other geometric parameters are defined in Fig6.
vertical equilibrium From eqns. (2) to (4), the ultimate load for the beam may be expressedas

P,, = 2V + f,,ba + P, . . . .(2) h’ ....

P,, = (f,,bh’ + 2C + P , ) -
a
horizontal equilibrium
In proposing eqn. ( 5 ) the most important criterion for the failure of coupling
P,, = f,,bh ’ + P, + C . . . .(3) beams is assumed to be the crushing of the concrete of depth (h-h’)/2in

The Structural Engineer/Volume 68/No.3 / 6 February 1990 47

 Paper: Subedi

the highly stressed compression corners. The compressive force, C = 0.67
fCub(h-h' ) / 2 .The quantity f,bh ' and the contribution of P , depends on
whether the web strength is controlled by concrete or by reinforcement.
Control of web strength and contribution of web reinforcement
The web reinforcement consists of horizontal web bars placed in the central
part of the beam between the top andthe bottom main bars and thevertical
stirrups. The control of web strength and the contributionof the web bars
depends on the relative capacities of the concrete splitting force and the
web reinforcement. The following criteria tests may be applied:
Test f,,bh' + f,,ba + A,f, strength
Web
controlled by
The criteria tests indicate clearly that, for the web reinforcement to be
effective, sufficient amount must be provided in both directions, i.e.
horizontal and vertical. If sufficient reinforcement is present in one direction
only, e.g. closely spaced vertical stirrups butno additional horizontal bars,
the effectiveness of the reinforcement will be small.
Theintroduction of factors, A, and A*, suggests that,for a better
utilisation of the web reinforcement,thehorizontal and the vertical
reinforcement must be provided in the same proportion as thecomponents
of the concrete splitting force. When the web strength is governed by the
reinforcement and also when the proportion of the reinforcement in the
horizontal and the vertical directions is in the ratio
is Cfcbh + A&) / df,,ba + A,&), A, = A, = 1. That represents an efficient
use of the web bars.

Contribution of main reinforcement

(1) <Ahf,y <A&, Reinforcement The contribution of the main bars may be examined from eqn. (3). Since
the compressive force, C , is assumed to be equal to 0.67 fc,b(h-h')/2at
> < failure, P,, can be calculated. Now, if PS,is less than the capacity of the
(2) Or > Ahfsy or < A,Ly Concrete main bars, A s t f y ,it is assumed that the main bars will not yield at the
or or< > failure of the beam. If P,, is greater than A,&,, the main bars will yield
at failure.

When the web strength is controlled by reinforcement, Ph = A,AhLy, Force distribution in main bars
P, = A&& and f,,will not contribute. Here, A, A, = 1. When the web It is assumed that the force in the main bars varies linearly from Toat the
strength is controlled by concrete, P, = A d , , P , = A ,fs and f,, will tip of the triangular half (Fig6) to T, at the support. For the evaluation
contribute. Here,& = modular ratio x f,,and A, and A, are factors which of To, eqn. (2) is expressed as
depend on the geometric parameters.
V = Yi (P,,, - f,,ba - P,) . . . .(6)
TABLE l - Paulay 's test beams: reinforcement detail in which P,, is calculated from eqn. ( 5 ) and the contribution of the other
quantities is obtained as appropriate,i.e. based on whether the control of

Beam
no.
Main reinforcement

4mount ASt fY
L
Web bars
vertical stirrups

fSY
T Web bars
horizontal

Ah fSY
web strength is by concrete or by reinforcement. Then, referring to Fig6,
the force in the main bar near the tipof the triangle may be obtained from

Va . . . .(7)
V0 :mm2) N/rnm2) :N/mm2) (mm2) :N/mm2) To = -
- h'
311 0.88 1363 386 - -
3 12 1-58 1718 3 14 1 *65 2555 285 - - The force in the bar at the support, T.,, is evaluated from eqn. (3), as
313 2.52 3902 3 14 - - discussed earlier.
3 14 2.52 3902 314 800 314
315 2.43 3763 321 800 321 Mode of failure and ultimate strength
The predicted mode of failure and the ultimate strength of any coupling
391 0.88 1363 407 426 407 beam is determined by comparing the strengths, P,, and P,,*,from eqns.
392 1*06 1481 316 0.88 1363 407 426 407 (1) and ( 5 ) .
393 1-62 2508 328 774 328
394 2.52 3902 314 800 t 314 Results and discussion
258 328 The proposed method of analysis, eqns. (1) to ( 9 , was used to analyse the

TABLE 2 - Coupling beams results: Paulay 's tests and proposed method of analysis

Experimental results (Ref 7) Theoretical results

T T
~ ~~

Flex. failure
Beam Ult. load P,, Shear failure
fc' Mode of Predicted Ultimate
no. fcu ftC
(N/mm2) failure (N/mm2 (N/mm2) Actual load P, analysis
mode of
Eqn. 1 value Control Ultimate failure D,analysis P , test
( W (ref .7) of web load P,, ( W
( W

31 1 36.8 650 45 - 9 2.19 680 703 Conc. 570 Shear, 570 0.88
312 35.2 Shear, major 642 44-0 2.09 680 699 Conc . 546 diagonal 546 0-85
313 44.5 diagonal crack, 659 55 e6 2.65 680 712 Conc. 690 splitting 690 1.05
314 44.8 concrete and 736 55 - 9 2.66 680 84 1 Conc. 714 and 714 0-97
315 37.9 steel stresses 774 47 * 4 2.26 680 819 Reinf. 61 1 crushing 61 1 0.79
391 31 - 5 seriously 776 39.4 1*88 777 912 Conc. 70 1 of 70 1 0.90
392 37.7 disturbed at 745 47.1 2-24 777 926 Conc. 838 concrete 838 1-12
393 30.8 the 849 38.4 1a 8 3 777 96 l Reinf./ 69 1 at the 69 1 0.81
compression Conc. compre-
394 43 - 2 corners. 1041 54.0 2.57 777 1057 Conc./ 959 ssion 959 0.92
Reinf. corners.

Parameters b = 152.4 mm, h' = 640 and 843 mm, I = 1016mm, h = 787.4mm and 990.6mm, f,, = f c ' / O * 8 , ft,= fc,/21.

48 The Structural Engineer/Volume 68/No.3 / 6 February 1990

 Paper: Subedi

beams tested by Paulay’. The details of the beams and the test procedure
may be found in ref. 7. Here, in Tables 1 and 2, the essential details of
the beam and the comparison of results are given.
In each case the first step was to establish whether the web strength was
controlled by concrete or by reinforcement. It is obvious that, in beams
with only vertical stirrups, the control of webstrength is byconcrete. Beams
311,312, and 313, are examples. In beams 314,391, and 392, the proportion
of web horizontal reinforcement is small, and theoverall control is governed
by the concrete. In beam 315, there is adequate reinforcement in both the
horizontal and vertical directions. Therefore theweb strength is controlled
by the reinforcement. In beams 393 and 394, the proportions are such that
the strengths due to reinforcement are similar to those due to concrete.
Therefore, in practice either can control the web strength. However, in
beam 393, reinforcement has a marginally larger control and in beam 394
it isthe concrete that has marginally larger control. Accordingly, the ultimate
strength calculations are based on theoretical control of web strength by
concrete or reinforcement, however marginal it might be.
Mode of failure and ultimate strength
Referring to Table 2, two values for the ultimate strength, PUl,based on
the flexural mode of failure are given. The first column of Pd values were
calculated from eqn. (1) in which the flexural strength is based on the
capacity of the main reinforcement alone. The second column of P,,,
values wasextracted from ref. 5 . These values represent the actual strengths
based on the total horizontal bars in the cross-section. It is clear that the
flexural strengths are underestimated in the case ofbeams with the additional
horizontal bars. Therefore, it is reasonable to take into account all the
horizontal bars in calculating the flexural strength of the section.
Comparing the theoretical ultimate strengths, P,,, and Puz, it is evident
that, in all cases, Pu2is smaller. Hence the predicted mode of failure in
r 500
400
Flexural action
300
200
100
0
100
200
300
400
500
r 600
500
C
400
.-
U)
300
200
all cases is shear or diagonal splitting with the crushing of the concrete
at the highly stressed compression corners. The experimental observations
of the modes of failures agree well with this prediction. The ultimate loads
for the beams were predicted using eqn. (5). The ratios in the last column
of Table 2, P,, analysidP,, test, suggest that the predicted values agree well
with the test results. An example of the calculations is givenin Appendix A.
Force distribution in main bars
The distributionof force in the main barsof the beams at failure is shown
in Fig7. Using the proposed concept,the force in the main bars, when the
diagonal splitting mode of failure occurs, is tensile.The force varies linearly
along the span with a smaller value at the tip of the triangular half of the
beam to its full capacity at the support. Although it was not possible to
compare the forces directly with the experimental results, the observed
behaviour reported in ref. 5 agrees well with the proposed concept. The
distribution of force in the bars based on the conventional concept of
flexural deformation of rc coupling beams differs drastically with the actual
behaviour (Fig 7).
Coupling beams and shear wall structures
In practical situations, coupling beams do not exist in isolation, but they
are anintegral part ofcoupled shear walls. The experiment carried out by
Paula?, being mainly to study the behaviour of coupling beams, allowed
no limits on the force applied or on the relative vertical displacement of
the two ends. This was justifiably so to achieve the full failure of the beams.
In real structures, at every stage of loading the beam-end forces or reactions
at theends of the beams will subject the walls to moments and axial forces.
Therefore, the question of whether a complete failure of the coupling beams
can be achieved or not depends on the geometry and the reinforcement
content of the walls. It will be necessary to evaluate the load-resisting
capacity of the walls to establish whether the walls or thecoupling beams
will fail first. The ultimate strength of the rc shear wall structures will be
greatly influenced by the behaviour of their coupling beams. That is the
next subject of study in this research.
Conclusions
(1) The structural behaviour of the reinforced concrete coupling beams of
relatively deep sections differs significantly from the conventional ‘double
curvature’ bending concept used in the elastic analysis. In such beams, a
shear or diagonal splitting mode of failure is likely to occur at ultimate.
(2) The diagonal splitting mode of failure causes the main bars to go into
tension along the whole span with the exception of two compression corners
where localeffects influence the behaviour. At these corners the conflicting
deformations demanded by the flexure and the shear cause the bars to kink.
(3) The failure of rc coupling beams with symmetrical top and bottom
reinforcement is characterised by the crushing of a small depth of concrete
at the highly stressed compression corners.
(4) The proposed method of analysis of rc coupling beams based on the
equilibrium of forces of a triangular half of the beam at failure gives a
satisfactory prediction of the mode of failure, ultimate strength and the
distribution of force in the main bars.
References
1. Beck, H.,‘Contribution to the analysis of coupled shear walls,’
Journal of the American Concrete Institute,59, 1962, pplO55-1069
2. Rosman, R., ‘Approximate analysis of shear walls subject to lateral

f
loads’, Journal of theAmerican ConcreteInstitute, 61, 1964,
100
~~717-732
0 3. Coull, A. and Puri,R.D.,‘Analysis of pierced shear walls’, Journal
of the StructuralDivision, Proc. ASCE, 94, No. ST1, January 1968,
100 pp7 1-82.
C
.- 200 4. Irwin, A.W., ‘Design of shear wall buildings’, CIRIA Report 102,
U)
London, Construction Industry Research & Information Association,
300 1984
5 . Paulay, T., ‘Coupling beams of reinforced concrete shear walls’,
400 Journal of the StructuralDivision, Proc. ASCE, 97, No. ST3, March
500 1971, ~ ~ 8 4 3 - 8 6 1
6. Subedi, N.K., ‘Reinforced concrete beams with plate reinforcement
Span = 1016 - 600 for shear’, Proc. ICE, Part 2, 87, September 1989, pp377-399
4
7. Subedi, N.K., ‘Reinforced concrete deep beams: a method of analysis’,
Proc. ICE, Part 2, 85, March 1988, ppl-30
8. Hobbs, D.W., Newman, J.B., and Pomeroy, C.D., ‘Design of stresses
for concrete and structures subjected to multiaxial stresses,’ The
Fig 7. Theoretical distribution of forces in the main bars Structural Engineer, 55, No. 4, April 1977, pp151-164

The Structural Engineer/Volume 68/No.3 / 6 February 1990 49

Paper: Subedi Informal. stud-y groups

Appendix A. Example

Beam 311: assume mode of failure: shear or diagonal splitting

Informal study groups
Data: f,’ = 36.8 N/mm2, f,, = f c ’ / 0 - 8 = 45.9 N/mm2

f,, = f,,/21 = 2.19 N/mm2, b = 152*4mm, h = 787-4mm The object of the Study Group scheme is to create
opportunities for members of the Institution to exchange ideas
h’ = 640mm, a = 1016mm, d = 713.7mm and work on deepening and developing their knowledge of
1.58 structural engineering, thus stimulating a greater interest in
Main reinforcement: 1.58% :. A,, = -X 713.7 X 152.4 = 1718mm2 and promoting the art and science of structural engineering.
100 Members wishing to take part in the work of a Study
Group or who require further information about a Study
f , = 314 N/mm2 Group should write to the appropriate Convener.
0.88
Vertical stirrups: 0.88% :. A, = -x 152.4 X 1016 = 1363m2
100
~~

f,, = 386 N/mm2 History of Structural Engineering

Convener: R. J. M. Sutherland, BA, FEng, FIStructE, FICE
Assuming modular ratio = 10, f, = 10 x 2.19 = 21 - 9 N/mm2 Harris & Sutherland, 82-83 Blackfriars Road, London SE1
8HA
Determine the control of web strength The Structural Engineer, March 1973, p1 10
Since, in this beam, there are no additional horizontal web bars, i.e.,
Ah = 0, using the criteria test the web strength is controlled by concrete. Model Analysis as a Design Tool
Convener: F. K. Garas, PhD, CEng, FIStructE, MICE
Now, f,,bh’ = 2.19 x 152.4 x 640 x = 214 kN Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd., Taywood House, 345
Ruislip Road, Southhall, Middlesex UB1 2QX
Ph = A d , = 0 The Structural Engineer, February 1977, p63
h - h’
C = 0.67fc, b (7) = 0.67 x 45.9 x 152.4 (73.7)
= 345.4 kN
Qualitative Analysis of Structural
Behaviour
Ultimate strength Convener: D. Johnson, BSc(Eng), PhD, CEng, MIStructE, MICE
h’ Department of Civil & Structural Engineering, Trent
Eqn. ( 5 ) , PU2= (f,,bh’ + 2 c + Ph) - Polytechnic, Burton Street, Nottingham NGl 4BU
a The Structural Engineer, November 1978, p309
640
or Pu2= (214 + 2 x 345-4 + 0) -
1016
.’.PU2= 570 kN The Design of Steel Portal Frames
Convener: L. J. Morris, BSc(Eng), PhD, ACGI, DIC, CEng, FIStructE
Simon Engineering Laboratories, University of Manchester,
Assume mode of failure: flexure
Manchester M13 9PL
2h ’ The Structural Engineer, Part A, June 1983, p170
Eqn. (l), P,, = -A,, f, = -
x x 1718 x 314 x kN = 680kN
a 1016

The value of P,, from ref. 5 is 703 kN. Vibration Problems in Structures
convener: J. W. Smith, BSc(Hons), PhD, ACGI, CEng, MIStructE
Therefore, for beam 311 the predicted mode of failure is diagonal splitting Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol
and the ultimate strength P, analysis is 570 kN. BS8 1TR
The Structural Engineer, Part A, June 1983, p170
Distribution of force in the main bars at failure

= 570 kN, f,,ba

PU2 = 2.19 X 152.4 X 1016 X = 339 kN Advanced Computing Techniques
Convener: A. T. Humphrey, CEng, MIStructE, MIMechE
Analysis & Test Division, GEC Research, Marconi Research
Centre, West Haningfield Road, Gt. Baddow, Essex
Eqn.(6), V = !h (Pu2- f,,ba - P,) = ?h(570 - 339 - 30) = 100.5 The Structural Engineer, March 1987, p83
kN

Eqn.(7), To = V a = 100.5 x
1016
-= 158.5 kN Advanced Composite Materials and
h‘ 643
Structures
Now examine eqn.(3) Convener: P. R. Head, BSc(Eng), ACGI, CEng, MIStructE, MICE
Maunsell Structural Plastics Ltd., Yeoman House, 63 Croydon
Right-hand side = f,, bh’ + Ph + C = 214 + 0 + 345.4 = 559.4 kN Road, London SE20 7TP
The Structural Engineer, Part A, June 1987, p221
But we have the capacity of the main bars = A,,f , = 539.5 kN ~~

or A,, f , is less than (f,,bh’ + P,, + C ) Management and Maintenance of

Bridges
.: T, = P,, = 539.5 kN (i.e. maximum bar force) Convener: G. Davison, BSc, CEng, MIStructE
c/o The Institution of Structural Engineers, 11 Upper Belgrave
Therefore, the force in the main bars varies from Street, London SWlX 8BH
To = 158.5 kN to T, = 539-5 (i.e. the bars yield at failure). Structural news, 23 January 1990, p4

50 The Structural Engineer/Volume 68/No.3 / 6 February 1990