CIE 525 Reinforced Concrete Structures Instructor: Andrew Whittaker

1. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS, COURSE CONTENT, AND INTRODUCTION

1.1 Administrative Matters

Instructor:
Andrew Whittaker
212 Ketter Hall, North Campus
Email: awhittak@buffalo.edu

Schedule:

Fall 2010
Lectures: Tu, Th; 3:30 pm to 4:50 pm; Clemens 4
Review session, Tu, Th; 12:30 pm to 1:50 pm; TBD
One 80-minute midterm examination
One 3-hour final examination to be scheduled during the examination period

Office Hours:
Tu, Th, 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm; 230 Ketter Hall

Grading:
Homework counts 35 points. The midterm exam counts 25 points. The final exam counts
40 points. Letter grades will depend on position in class and knowledge of subject
matter.

Student Conduct:

Student conduct is governed by the rules of the University and students are expected to
know and abide by the University policies on academic honesty and integrity. These
policies state "...students are responsible for the honest completion and representation of
their work, for the appropriate citation of sources, and the respect of other's academic
endeavors. By placing their name on academic work, students certify the originality of all
work not otherwise identified by appropriate acknowledgements." Violation of these
policies is subject to penalties that include receiving a failing grade in the course,
suspension, and dismissal.

1.2 Course Content

1.2.1 Emphasis of Class

The objective of course CIE 525 is to develop an advanced understanding of reinforced concrete
structures. The primary focus will be on behavior, analysis, and design of components, elements,
and systems that are common in building structures. Emphasis will be placed on seismic design.

Module 01 Page 1
CIE 525 Reinforced Concrete Structures Instructor: Andrew Whittaker

1.2.2 Lecture Topics

Topics to be covered should include the following:
• Design approaches
• Materials
• Moment-curvature analysis
• Component response to flexure, axial, and shear loads
• Bond and anchorage
• Yield line analysis of slabs
• Strip-method analysis of slabs
• Strut-and-tie models
• Design of buildings and frame-building components for gravity and earthquake effects
• Design of nuclear structures for earthquake effects

1.2.3 Reading

There are no assigned textbooks for this class because no textbook covers all of the material that
will be addressed in CIE 525. However, students are strongly encouraged to purchase a copy of
the ACI 318 Building Code and Commentary, 2008 Edition.

The textbooks listed below provide useful reference material for the class.
1. Wight, J. K. and MacGregor, J. G., 2009, Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design,
5th Edition
2. Priestley, M. J. N. and Paulay, T., 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings, John Wiley
3. Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M., 1996, Seismic Design and Retrofit of
Bridges, Wiley InterScience
4. ACI, 2002, Examples for the Design of Structural Concrete with Strut-and-Tie Models,
ACI Special Publication 208, Farmington Hills, MI.
5. ACI, 2006, Code Requirements for Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary,
Farmington Hills, MI

Other reading, including journal papers and conference proceedings, will be assigned on a topic-
by-topic basis.

Module 01 Page 2
CIE 525 Reinforced Concrete Structures Instructor: Andrew Whittaker

Lecture Module Topic

1 Course outline, design approaches

2 Reinforced concrete materials

3 Confined reinforced concrete

1-8
4 Moment-curvature analysis

5 Response of components to flexure, and axial and shear loads

6 Bond and anchorage

7 Strut and tie models

8-18 8 Yield line analysis of slabs

8 Strip-method analysis of slabs

19 - Midterm examination

10 Seismic analysis and design: a primer

Design of buildings with frame and slab systems; behavior under

11
gravity and earthquake loads

20-30 Design of buildings with frames; behavior and design of beams,

11
columns, and joints

11 Design of buildings with walls; wall behavior and design

12 Design of reinforced concrete nuclear structures

Module 01 Page 3
CIE 525 Reinforced Concrete Structures Instructor: Andrew Whittaker

1.3 Design of Structural Framing Systems

1.3.1 Procedures for Component Evaluation

Below is an introduction to procedures that are used for proportioning reinforced concrete cross
sections for gravity and lateral loads. For additional information, refer to Chapter 2 of the
MacGregor text.

1.3.2 Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

Allowable Stress Design
Allowable Stress Design (ASD), which is also w no load factors

known as Working Stress Design, has been used  f s
’
c

’s
l
for structural engineering analysis for more than
V
150 years. Best estimates of maximum loads are V = wl/2  f s
s

applied to a linearly elastic model of a structure M

M = wl2/12 Linear Analysis of Cross Section
for the calculation of member stresses (for steel)
Linear Structural Analysis
or stresses in concrete and rebar (in reinforced
concrete). The member stresses are required to Mc
Verification: f   f all
be less than service values (e.g., 0.6Fy for a I
steel component) that are established for each material for different actions (axial, bending,
shear, torsion). Sample information is presented in the picture to the right (courtesy of J. P.
Moehle).

The ASD method has a significant number of shortcomings. First, the reliability of the design (or
safety index) is unknown. Second, no account is taken of the uncertainties in the loads, that is,
how accurate are the estimates of the dead and live loads. Third, member stresses provide little
information on the capacity of a component and the structure to resist the applied loads. In
modern reinforced concrete design, allowable stresses are rarely used: deflection calculations
under service loads being one exception. We will not use the ASD procedure to proportion cross
sections in CIE 525.

1.3.3 Strength Design (SD) or Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

Strength Design (SD) or LRFD is routinely used

for the design of reinforced concrete structures Strength Design
wu factored loads
and is used by many engineers for the design of c
s’ fs
steel structures (although ASD persists in many l ’

parts of the US). Loads are factored to calculate an V

Vu = wul/2 s fs
ultimate load, where the load factors are based on M
Mu = wul2/12 Nonlinear Analysis of Cross Section
a statistical interpretation of measured conditions
Linear Structural Analysis
and thus reflect plausible variations in the loads
(i.e., maximum values) from the mean estimates of Vu  Vn
Verification:
the loads. Load factors are greater for live loads M u  M n
than dead loads for example. The ultimate load is

Module 01 Page 4
CIE 525 Reinforced Concrete Structures Instructor: Andrew Whittaker

then applied to a linearly elastic model of the structure to calculate component actions.
Component capacities (i.e., axial, flexure, shear) are calculated assuming some inelastic behavior
of the cross section. Sample information is presented in the above picture (courtesy of J. P.
Moehle). Note the use of a non-linear stress block (although the shape is simplified to facilitate
calculation of the strength of the cross section).

The SD procedure is more rational than the ASD

procedure. Uncertainties in the loads are considered
through the use of load factors and load
combinations. Load factors from ACI-318-05 are
presented in the box to the right. Contrast these
combinations with those of ASD. The
consequences of failure can be considered more
directly through the use of capacity reduction (phi)
factors, with small values of phi assigned to
undesirable failure modes (e.g., 0.9 for flexure and
0.75 for shear). Note however that the analysis
assumes linearly elastic response but that component capacities are calculated at the strength
level, which implies some measure of inelastic response in the cross section.

 Moment redistribution in beams as an example

1.3.4 Capacity Design

Capacity design is used to prevent undesirable failure mechanisms, for example, a beam failing
in shear (a brittle mode of failure) before it fails in flexure (a ductile mode of failure), and a
column failing in flexure (compromising the gravity load system) before the beams framing into
the column fail in flexure. Many have attributed capacity design to expert engineers in New
Zealand in the 1970s but such an approach was first proposed, to my knowledge, by Blume,
Newmark, Corning, and Sozen in the late 1950s (see Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete
Buildings for Earthquake Motions published in 1961).

The figure to the right (courtesy of J. P.

Moehle) provides summary information Capacity Design
on capacity design. The example is for a 1. Flexural yield mode 5. Determine resulting forces
2. Design for flexure V
cantilever reinforced concrete beam u Vp Vp
where the objective is to prevent shear
failure of the beam. Key steps in the Mp
procedure are as follows: Mu Mn  Mu
6. Design to avoid failures other
than selected mechanism
1. Select the desired failure 3. Detail for ductile response
mechanism, which is usually M Mp
flexure in reinforced concrete Mn
construction. <Why?>
curvature
4. Estimate overstrength.

Module 01 Page 5
CIE 525 Reinforced Concrete Structures Instructor: Andrew Whittaker

2. Proportion the component (beam) for that failure mechanism using strength design for the
factored loads and detail the component for ductile response. (We will discuss how to do
this later in the semester.)

3. Determine the probable strength of the cross section by analysis accounting for actual sizes
and selected rebar, which may be larger than that required to resist the effects of factored
loads. (We will learn how to do this in Module 3.) In the figure above, the probable
strength is Mp that is substantially greater than the design strength.

4. Determine the applied load required to produce the probable strength and design the
remainder of the component (i.e., for shear in the sample problem) so that the nominal
(shear) strength exceeds the actions associated with this back-calculated applied load.

1.3.5 Plastic Design

Plastic design is merely strength design using Plastic Design

plastic analysis rather than linearly elastic analysis.
wu factored loads
Plastic analysis is covered in detail in other s’
c
fs
classes, but we will use such methods for the yield- l
Vu = wul/2
’

V
line analysis of slab systems. For plastic analysis, a Mn s fs

mechanism is proposed and the plastic hinges are M Mn

Nonlinear Analysis of Cross Section
detailed for inelastic response. See the picture to Mo = wul2/8
Linear Structural Analysis
the right (courtesy of J. P. Moehle) for sample
Vu  Vn
information. Component strengths are calculated Verification:
M o  2M n
using SD. Undesirable failure modes are then
avoided using capacity design.

1.3.6 Recent Developments in Component Evaluation

The 1990s saw remarkable innovation in the practice of earthquake engineering. Force based
design procedures that had been used almost
exclusively for 70 years started to give way to
displacement-based procedures that had been
yielding
developed in principle by Sozen, Moehle, and others
in the 1970s and 1980s. It had long been recognized Force spalling
that code-compliant buildings and bridges would
undergo substantial inelastic deformation in a design
earthquake. Given this knowledge and the clear collapse
understanding that damage was related directly to
deformations and not forces (see the drawing to the
right, courtesy of J. P. Moehle), expert structural Displacement
engineers have moved towards analysis, design
(proportioning), and evaluation based on estimates
of displacements. Displacement-based design (DBD) cannot be used alone as a design tool.

Module 01 Page 6
CIE 525 Reinforced Concrete Structures Instructor: Andrew Whittaker

Rather, a minimum level of strength must be provided for service load conditions. However,
DBD has seen widespread acceptance in the past 5 years and this procedure now underpins much
of the FEMA 273/274/356 and ASCE-41 documents that provide guidelines for the seismic
rehabilitation of structures.

Module 01 Page 7