Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Untitled Extract Pages 7

    Uploaded by

    Fakhere Alam

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Untitled Extract Pages 7

    Uploaded by

    Fakhere Alam
    5 views1 page

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    5 views1 page

    Untitled Extract Pages 7

    Uploaded by

    Fakhere Alam

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    34

    34 C H A P T E R 2     D E S I G N M E T H O D S A N D R E Q U I R E M E N T S

    When the strength design method is used, the comparison of provided strength with
    required strength (i.e., axial force, shear, or bending moment, caused by factored loads)
    does not imply that any material “yields” or “fails” under service load conditions. In fact,
    at service loads, the behavior of the structure is essentially elastic. The use of the term
    “imminent failure” under factored loads is only a mechanism for establishing adequate
    safety parameters.

    Comments on Strength Design Methods


    Historically, “ultimate” strength was the earliest approach to design, since the failure load
    could be measured by tests without knowledge of the magnitude or distribution of internal
    stresses. With the interest in and understanding of the elastic methods of analysis in the
    early 1900s, the elastic working stress method was adopted almost universally by codes
    as the best for design. As more detailed understanding of the actual behavior of reinforced
    concrete structures subjected to loads in excess of the service loads developed, adjustments
    in the theory and in the design procedures were made.
    The first modification of the elastic working stress method resulted from the study of
    axially loaded columns in the early 1930s. By 1940, the design of axially loaded columns
    was based on ultimate strength. Next, the working stress method was modified to account
    for creep of concrete in beams with compression steel and in eccentrically loaded columns.
    The early history of the ACI Code has been summarized by Kerekes and Reid [2.2]. An
    excellent discussion of what is involved in writing the ACI Code is given by Siess [2.3].
    The 1956 ACI Code was the first that officially recognized and permitted the strength
    design method, the result of work by ACI-​ASCE Committee 327 [2.4]. The 1963 ACI Code
    treated the working stress method and the strength design method on an equal basis; but,
    actually, the major portion of the working stress method was based on strength. With the
    relegation of the working stress method to a small section referred to as the “alternate
    method,” the 1971 ACI Code entirely accepted the strength design method. Between 1971
    and 1999, the ACI Code had the “alternate design method” in an appendix, but it was
    removed from the 2002 and subsequent editions of the ACI Code.

    2.6 SAFETY PROVISIONS—​G ENERAL


    Structures and structural members must always be designed to carry some reserve load
    above what is expected under normal use. Such reserve capacity is provided to account
    for a variety of factors, which may be grouped into two general categories: factors relat-
    ing to overload and factors relating to understrength (i.e., less strength than computed by
    acceptable calculating procedures). Overloads may arise from changing the use for which
    the structure was designed, from underestimation of the effects of loads by oversimpli-
    fication in calculation procedures, and from effects of construction sequence and meth-
    ods. Understrength may result from adverse variations in material strength, workmanship,
    dimensions, control, and degree of supervision, even though individually these items are
    within required tolerances.
    Conventionally, the term “safety factor” has been used in working stress design to desig-
    nate the ratio between the yield stress (real, as for steel; nominally defined, as for concrete)
    and the allowable working stress. Such use has resulted in structures and structural elements
    having the same “safety factor” but considerably different variance in their strength to ser­
    vice load ratio. Thus the term “safety factor” as conventionally applied has little meaning
    with respect to the prediction of strength.
    The variability in the ratio of the strength to service load in the working stress method
    was an important reason for the change to the strength design method. To distinguish
    between the term “safety factor,” as used in working stress design, and the ratio of strength
    to service load, the term “load factor” was adopted for the latter.
    The purpose of a safety provision is to limit the probability of failure and yet permit
    economical structures. Obviously, if cost is no object, it is easy to design a structure whose

    You might also like