FCE 332: STRENGTH OF MATERIALS IIB

2 LIMIT STATE DESIGN THEORY

2.1 DESIGN AIM AND OBJECTIVES
The general aim in design is to achieve an acceptable probability that a structure (or part of it)
is not rendered unfit for its intended use and remains serviceable throughout its design life.
The design aim is achieved by fulfilling the following objectives:
(i) Safety - against collapse, loss of life & property, instability
(ii) Functionality and comfort - intended use must be assured & optimal
(iii) Economy - capital costs, return on investment, maintenance costs, opportunity costs.
(iv) Durability - materials used must be durable with respect to anticipated environmental
exposure and wear-and-tear conditions for the design life period, only requiring
reasonable repairs.
(v) Appearance and aesthetics - No alarming or unsightly deformations, cracks,
weathering; elegance, visual and functional appeal to users and public.

2.2 LIMIT STATE PRINCIPLES

2.2.1 Definitions and Categories of Limit States
A limit state is a particular condition or state which, when attained, a structure or component
ceases to fulfil a particular function, or satisfy a particular condition, for which it was
designed.
Ultimate Limit States
These are conditions which, when reached, a structure or component collapses; becomes
unstable; or suffers some other irreparable damage that renders it a total loss with regard to its
function. Examples: Material yield or rapture; buckling instability; loss of static equilibrium;
explosion; fatigue failure.
Serviceability Limit States
These are conditions which, when reached, a structure or component may not collapse but
becomes difficult / expensive to repair and maintain; results in discomfort / nuisance to users;
or losses its core function. Examples: Excessive deflections; excessive vibrations; fire
penetration; heat transmission; excessive cracking; loss of durability.

2.2.2 Avoidance of Limit States

This is achieved through provision of acceptable, reasonably low probability of any particular
limit state being reached with due regard to:
(i) Socio / economic consequences - social costs, maintenance costs, public / private loss.
(ii) Functional effects - whether structure repairable or total loss.
The statistical probability of reaching a particular limit state can only be determined if loads
and material strengths and properties and their variations during that state can be reasonably
estimated. The worst-case scenario is that loads / actions may exceed expected values, while
resistance of structure / component and material strengths and quality may fall below
expected levels during the design life of the structure.

PPM/2017 Page 6
 FCE 332: STRENGTH OF MATERIALS IIB

2.2.3 Assessment of Material Strengths and Structural Loads

Variations in material strengths and properties may occur due to:
(i) Inherent variability - statistical variation due to nature of material and its composition
(influenced by method of manufacture; degree of quality control; quality and
consistency of ingredients; equipment; etc).
(ii) Other causes - construction procedures and methods (concrete placing, curing &
treatment); state of stress; nature of loads - speed, duration, repetition; environmental
exposure conditions; etc.
Statistical derivation of a characteristic strength fk takes care of inherent variability. fk is that
value of strength below which ≤ 5% of samples test results are expected to fall (figure 6 -
frequency distribution curve). For concrete and reinforcement strengths this is specified as fcu
(EC2: fck,) and fy, respectively.
Other variations are accounted for by specification of a partial factor of safety for material
strength, γm, so that,
design strength, .

Generally γm ≥ 1.0.
Variations in loads on a given structure may be due to:
(i) Inherent variability - dead (permanent), live (variable) and transient loads vary
differently during the design life of a structure.
(ii) Other causes - inaccuracies due to assumptions in design calculations (neglect of
creep, shrinkage, thermal effects, etc); construction discrepancies in dimensions and
alignment; inaccuracies in positioning and quantities of reinforcement; unduly
flexible formwork; etc.
Specification of a characteristic load Fk takes care of inherent load variability. Fk is that value
of load above which ≤ 5% of samples test results are expected to fall (figure 7 - frequency
distribution curve). Dead, imposed and wind loads are specified as Gk, Qk and Wk,
respectively.
Other causes of load variations are accounted for by specification of a partial factor of safety
for load, γf, so that,
design load, .
Generally γf ≥ 1.0.
Values of γm & γf
In addition to variations already mentioned, values of partial factors of safety adopted also
account for :
(i) Nature of structure and its behaviour (e.g. whether sudden partial or complete collapse
is possible - buckling instability; whether collapse of single member leads to overall
collapse; etc)
(ii) seriousness of reaching a particular limit state with regard to functional and social /
economic consequences.
Values of γf also depend on particular combinations of simultaneous loads / actions.
See BS 8110-1:1997 Tables 2.1 and 2.2 (EC0: Sect. 6 and Tables A1.2 (A,B,C) and EC:2:
Table 2.1N) for typical γf and γm values.

PPM/2017 Page 7
 FCE 332: STRENGTH OF MATERIALS IIB

NOTES
 Partial factors of safety do not account for gross defects or errors nor exceptional
events (riots, wars, natural disasters, misuse of structure, etc) - earthquakes, fires,
explosions and accidental events are considered in design, though extensive damage
may result.
 No single gross defect or event should result in major catastrophic failure, except in
combination with at least two other major errors in
(i) design
(ii) construction, or
(iii) usage.
Compliance with relevant codes of practice will generally prevent catastrophic failure.

2.2.4 Material Stresses and Strains

Concrete
 Actual stress-strain relationship depends on grade of concrete (figure 8).
 For elastic analysis under service (working load) conditions, static modulus Ec (Ecm) is
taken as Young’s modulus of elasticity. This corresponds to elastic stress limit of
for bending compression and for axial compression (EC2: 0.4 fck).
 At ultimate load conditions, maximum failure stress of concrete in compression is
taken as 0.67fcu (EC2: αcc fck, where αcc = 0.85 for UK) and maximum failure strain
 0.8 f cu   3
 cu   4  10 (see EC2 Table3.1 also). The coefficient 0.67 accounts for
 45 
differences in cube specimen results and actual concrete strength of element (due to
rate of loading, testing conditions in lab, manner of compaction, size effects, etc)
 For design calculations, an idealised parabolic-rectangular stress-strain relationship is
adopted, in which the partial factor of safety for concrete strength γmc is included
(figure 9). The design ultimate strength in compression [ EC2:
] and the design ultimate strain in compression  cu  0.0035 .

Steel Reinforcement
 Actual stress-strain relationship depends on type of steel (figure 10). For steel with
definite yield point, the relationship is linear up to yield point followed by plastic
yielding and strain hardening. For high-yield, cold-formed steel the initial linear
relationship is followed by a curve.
 For elastic analysis at service load, Young’s modulus is taken as Es = 200 kN/mm2.
The elastic limit stress may be taken as both in compression and tension,
where fy is the yield stress (typical values are 250 and 460/500 N/mm2 for mild and
high-yield steel, respectively).
 At ultimate load conditions, the maximum failure stress (compression or tension) is
taken as fy, ignoring any strain hardening effects.
 For design calculations, an idealised linear stress-strain relationship is adopted, in
which the partial factor of safety for reinforcement strength γms is included (figure
11). The design ultimate strength, [EC2: ].

PPM/2017 Page 8