ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

ADDIS ABABA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONEMNTAL
ENGINEERING

Reinforced Concrete I
Chapter one: Introduction to Reinforced Concrete
 1.1. INTRODUCTION

• That concrete is a common structural material is, no doubt,

well known. But, how common it is, and how much a
Generally…. part of our daily lives it plays, is perhaps not well known
— or rather, not often realized NOT CLEAR
Concrete

• buildings, stadia, auditoria , pavements, bridges, piers,

breakwaters, berthing structures, dams, waterways, pipes,
Extensively water tanks, swimming pools, cooling towers, bunkers and
used in…. silos, chimneys, communication towers, tunnels,
etc. Stadium, auditorium
 1.2. PLAIN AND REINFORCED CONCRETE
1.2.1. PLAIN CONCRETE

What is concrete? Concrete may be defined as any solid mass made by the use of a cementing medium; the ingredients
generally comprise sand, gravel, cement and water.

Why is it popular? 1) Durability under hostile environments (including resistance to water),

2) Ease with which it can be cast into a variety of shapes and sizes, and
3) Its relative economy and easy availability.

What are it’s It’s advantages… It’s disadvantages

advantages and • The main strength of concrete
disadvantages? lies in its compression-bearing
ability, which surpasses that of
traditional materials like brick
and stone masonry.
• Concrete may be remarkably strong in compression, but it
is equally remarkably weak in tension .
• Its tensile ‘strength’ is approximately one-tenth of its
compressive ‘strength’ .
• Hence, the use of plain concrete as a structural material is
limited to situations where significant tensile stresses and
strains do not develop, as in hollow (or solid) block wall
construction, small pedestals and ‘mass concrete’
applications (in dams, etc.).
 1.2. PLAIN AND REINFORCED CONCRETE
1.2.2. REINFORCED CONCRETE

What is Reinforced concrete with steel bars embedded in it

concrete?

combining the best features of concrete and steel.

  Concrete Steel
Strength in Tension Poor Good
Why is it versatile?
Strength in Compression Good Good, but slender bars will buckle
Strength in Shear  Fair Good
Durability Good Corrodes if unprotected
Fire resistance Good Poor, suffers rapid loss of strength at high temperature
combining the best features of concrete and steel.

What are the • compensate for the concrete’s incapacity for tensile resistance, effectively taking
up all the tension, without separating from the concrete
advantages of the • The bond between steel and the surrounding concrete ensures strain compatibility,
steel bar i.e., the strain at any point in the steel is equal to that in the adjoining concrete.
embedded in it? • the reinforcing steel imparts ductility to a material that is otherwise brittle.

How do tensile Directly direct tension or flexural tension

stresses occur?
Indirectly Shear, Temperature and shrinkage effects
 1.3. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CONCRETE

Advantages Advantages
Disadvantages
Disadvantages

1. Economy. 1. Low tensile strength.

2. Suitability of material for 2. Forms and shoring.
architectural and structural 3. Relatively low strength per unit of
function. weight or volume.
3. Fire resistance. 4. Time-dependent volume changes.
4. Rigidity.
5. Low maintenance.
6. Availability of materials.
 1.4. THE DESIGN PROCESS

What do we
The structure should satisfy four major criteria: mean by
1. Appropriateness. structural
Objectives of Design 2. Economy. engineer?
3. Structural adequacy.
4. Maintainability

The three major phases are the following:

1. Definition of the client’s needs and
The design process priorities.
2. Development of project concept
3. Design of individual systems.
1.5. DESIGN CODES AND HANDBOOKS
1.5.1. PURPOSE OF CODES

Purpose of codes
The codes serve at least four distinct functions:
 ensure adequate structural safety, by specifying certain essential minimum requirements for design.
 render the task of the designer relatively simple; often, the results of sophisticated analyses are made
available in the form of a simple formula or chart.
 ensure a measure of consistency among different designers.
 have some legal validity, in that they protect the structural designer from any liability due to structural
failures that are caused by inadequate supervision and/or faulty material and construction.

The codes are not meant to serve as a substitute for basic understanding and
engineering judgment. The student is, therefore, forewarned that s/he will
make a poor designer if s/he succumbs to the unfortunate (and all-too-
common) habit of blindly following the codes. On the contrary, in order to
improve her/his understanding, s/he must learn to question the code
provisions — as, indeed, s/he must, nearly everything in life!
 1.5.2. INTRODUCTION TO EUROCODES
BS EN 1990: Eurocode: Basis of design (EC0)
BS EN 1991: Eurocode 1 Actions on structures (EC1)
Part 1-1: General actions – Densities, self-weight and imposed loads
Part 1-2: General actions on structures exposed to fire
• All Eurocodes follow a
Part 1-3: General actions – Snow loads
common editorial style.
Part 1-4: General actions – Wind loads • The codes contain
Part 1-5: General actions – Thermal actions ‘Principles’ and ‘Application
Part 1-6: Actions during execution rules’.
• Principles are identified by
Part 1-7: Accidental actions from impact and explosions
the letter P following the
Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges paragraph number.
Part 3: Actions induced by cranes and machinery • Principles are general
statements and definitions
Part 4: Actions in silos and tanks
for which there is no
BS EN 1992: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures (EC2) alternative, as well as,
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings (EC2 Part 1-1) requirements and analytical
Part 1-2: General rules - Structural fire design (EC2 Part 1-2) models for which no
alternative is permitted
Part 2: Reinforced and pre-stressed concrete bridges (EC2 Part 2)
unless specifically stated.
Part 3: Liquid retaining and containing structures (EC2 Part 3) • Application rules are
BS EN 1993: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures (EC3) generally recognized rules
which comply with the
BS EN 1994: Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures (EC4)
Principles and satisfy their
BS EN 1995: Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures (EC5) requirements.
BS EN 1996: Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures (EC6)
BS EN 1997: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design (EC7)
BS EN 1998: Eurocode 8: Earthquake resistant design of structures (EC8)
BS EN 1999: Eurocode 9: Design of aluminum alloy structures (EC9)
1.5.2. INTRODUCTION TO EUROCODES 
 1.5.2. INTRODUCTION TO EUROCODES

• overarches all the other Eurocodes (EN 1991 to EN 1999).

• defines the effects of actions, including geotechnical and seismic actions, and
Eurocode: Basis of applies to all structures irrespective of the material of construction.
• The material Eurocodes define how the effects of actions are resisted by giving
structural design
rules for design and detailing of concrete, steel, composite, timber, masonry and
aluminum.

Eurocode 1: • Eurocode 1 contains in ten parts all the information required by the designer to
assess the individual actions on a structure. It is generally self-explanatory.
Actions on
Structures

There are four parts to Eurocode 2;

Eurocode 2: Design  Eurocode 2, Part 1–1: General rules and rules for buildings
of concrete • Eurocode 2, Part 1–2: Structural fire design
• Eurocode 2, Part 2: Bridges
structures
• Eurocode 2, Part 3: Liquid retaining and containment
 1.6. DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES
1.6.1. INTRODUCTION

Working stress • The earliest codified design philosophy

method of • based on linear elastic theory,
design (WSM) • it is now sidelined by the modern limit states design philosophy.

Ultimate load • developed in the 1950s.

• Based on the (ultimate) strength of reinforced concrete at ultimate loads.
method
• was introduced as an alternative to WSM in the ACI code in 1956 and the
British Code in 1957.

• developed over the years and received a major impetus from the mid-1960s
onwards.
Reliability-based • was based on the theory that the various uncertainties in design could be
methods handled more rationally in the mathematical framework of probability theory.
• there was little acceptance for this theory in professional practice, mainly
because the theory appeared to be complicated and intractable
(mathematically and numerically).

• is reliability-based in concept.
Limit states • the probabilistic ‘reliability-based’ approach had to be simplified and
method (LSM) reduced to a deterministic format involving multiple (partial) safety factors
(rather than probability of failure).
 1.6.2. WORKING STRESS METHOD (WSM)

The method
• This was the traditional method of design not only for reinforced concrete, but also for structural steel and timber
design.
• The method basically assumes that the structural material behaves in a linear elastic manner, and that adequate safety
can be ensured by suitably restricting the stresses in the material induced by the expected “working loads’ (service
loads) on the structure.
• As the specified permissible (‘allowable’) stresses are kept well below the material strength (i.e., in the initial phase of
the stress-strain curve), the assumption of linear elastic behavior is considered justifiable.
• The ratio of the strength of the material to the permissible stress is often referred to as the factor of safety.

Advantages
• results in relatively large sections of structural members (compared to ULM and LSM), thereby resulting in
better serviceability performance (less deflections, crack-widths, etc.) under the usual working loads.
• its essential simplicity — in concept, as well as application.

Disadvantages
• the main assumption of linear elastic behavior and the tacit assumption that the stresses under working loads can be
kept within the ‘permissible stresses’ are not found to be realistic. Many factors are responsible for this — such as the
long-term effects of creep and shrinkage, the effects of stress concentrations, and other secondary effects. All such
effects result in significant local increases in and redistribution of the calculated stresses.
• does not provide a realistic measure of the actual factor of safety underlying a design.
• fails to discriminate between different types of loads that act simultaneously, but have different degrees of uncertainty.
1.6.3. ULTIMATE LOAD METHOD (ULM)

The method
• the stress condition at the state of impending collapse of the structure is analyzed, and the non-linear stress−strain
curves of concrete and steel are made use of.
• The safety measure in the design is introduced by an appropriate choice of the load factor, defined as the ratio of the
ultimate load (design load) to the working load. The ultimate load method makes it possible for different types of loads
to be assigned different load factors under combined loading conditions, thereby overcoming the related shortcoming of
WSM.
• generally results in more slender sections, and often more economical designs of beams and columns (compared to
WSM), particularly when high strength reinforcing steel and concrete are used.

Advantages
• generally results in more slender sections, and often more economical designs of beams and columns
(compared to WSM), particularly when high strength reinforcing steel and concrete are used.

Disadvantages
• the satisfactory ‘strength’ performance at ultimate loads does not guarantee satisfactory ‘serviceability’ performance at
the normal service loads. The designs sometimes result in excessive deflections and crack-widths under service loads,
owing to the slender sections resulting from the use of high strength reinforcing steel and concrete.
1.6.4. LIMIT STATES METHOD (LSM)

The method

• Unlike WSM, which based calculations on service load conditions alone, and unlike ULM, which based calculations on
ultimate load conditions alone, LSM aims for a comprehensive and rational solution to the design problem, by
considering safety at ultimate loads and serviceability at working loads.
• The LSM philosophy uses a multiple safety factor format which attempts to provide adequate safety at ultimate loads as
well as adequate serviceability at service loads, by considering all possible ‘limit states’.
• The selection of the various multiple safety factors is supposed to have a sound probabilistic basis, involving the
separate consideration of different kinds of failure, types of materials and types of loads.
 1.6.4. LIMIT STATES METHOD (LSM)

Limit states

Ultimate limit states Serviceability limit states Special limit states

Definition….

• involve a structural collapse • involve disruption of the • involves damage or failure

of part or all of the structure.
Such a limit state should have
a very low probability of
occurrence, because it may
lead to loss of life and major
financial losses.
functional use of the structure, but due to abnormal conditions or
not collapse . Because there is less abnormal loadings and
danger of loss of life, a higher includes:
probability of occurrence can
generally be tolerated than in the
case of an ultimate limit state.

a) Loss of equilibrium a) Excessive deflections a) Damage or collapse in extreme

Includes….

b) Rupture b) Excessive crack widths earthquakes

c) Progressive collapse c) Undesirable vibrations b) Structural effects of fire,
d) Formation of a plastic explosions, or vehicular
mechanism collisions
e) Instability c) Structural effect of corrosion
f) Fatigue or deterioration
d) Long – term physical or
chemical instability
 1.7. MATERIALS
1.7.1. BEHAVIOR OF CONCRETE UNDER COMPRESSION

Compressive strength of concrete

• Generally, the term concrete strength is taken to refer to the uniaxial compressive strength as measured by a
compression test of a standard test cylinder, because this test is used to monitor the concrete strength for quality
control or acceptance purposes.
• For convenience, other strength parameters, such as tensile or bond strength, are expressed relative to the
compressive strength.

Factors Affecting Concrete Compressive strength

• Water/Cement ratio
• Type of cement
• Supplementary cementitious materials
• Aggregate
• Mixing water
• Moisture conditions during curing.
• Temperature conditions during curing
• Age of concrete
• Maturity of concrete
• Rate of loading
 1.7.1. BEHAVIOR OF CONCRETE UNDER COMPRESSION

Statistical variations in concrete strength

• Concrete is a mixture of water, cement, aggregate, and air.
• Variations in the properties or proportions of these constituents, as well as variations in the transporting, placing,
and compaction of the concrete, lead to variations in the strength of the finished concrete. I
• n addition, discrepancies in the tests will lead to apparent differences in strength.
 1.7.1. BEHAVIOR OF CONCRETE UNDER COMPRESSION

Stress-Strain Curves
• The curves are somewhat linear in the very initial phase of loading;
• the non-linearity begins to gain significance when the stress level exceeds about one-third to one-half of the maximum.
• The maximum stress is reached at a strain approximately equal to 0.002; beyond this point, an increase in strain is
accompanied by a decrease in stress.
• For the usual range of concrete strengths, the strain at failure is in the range of 0.003 to 0.005.
• The higher the concrete grade, the steeper is the initial portion of the stress-strain curve, the sharper the peak of the curve,
and the less the failure strain. For low-strength concrete, the curve has a relatively flat top, and a high failure strain.
 1.7.1. BEHAVIOR OF CONCRETE UNDER COMPRESSION

Modulus of Elasticity
• The Young’s modulus of elasticity is a constant, defined as the ratio, within the linear elastic range, of axial stress to axial 
strain, under uniaxial loading.   
• In the case of concrete under uniaxial compression, it has some validity in the very initial portion of the stress‐strain curve, 
which is practically linear ; that is, when the loading is of low intensity, and of very short duration.   
• Various descriptions of Ec are possible, such as initial tangent modulus (IT) , tangent modulus (T)( (at a specified stress 
level), secant modulus (S) (at a specified stress level), etc.  
• Among these, the secant modulus at a stress of about one‐third the cube strength of concrete is generally found 
acceptable in representing an average value of Ec under service load conditions (static loading). 
 1.7.2. BEHAVIOR OF CONCRETE UNDER TENSION

• Concrete is not normally designed to resist direct tension. However, tensile stresses do develop in concrete members as
a result of flexure, shrinkage and temperature changes. Principal tensile stresses may also result from multi-axial
states of stress.
• Often cracking in concrete is a result of the tensile strength (or limiting tensile strain) being exceeded.
• As pure shear causes tension on diagonal planes, knowledge of the direct tensile strength of concrete is useful for
estimating the shear strength of beams with unreinforced webs, etc.
• Also, knowledge of the flexural tensile strength of concrete is necessary for estimation of the ‘moment at first crack’,
required for the computation of deflections and crack widths in flexural members.
• As pointed out earlier, concrete is very weak in tension, the direct tensile strength being only about 7 to 15 percent of
the compressive strength.
• It is difficult to perform a direct tension test on a concrete specimen, as it requires a purely axial tensile force to be
applied, free of any misalignment and secondary stress in the specimen at the grips of the testing machine. Hence,
indirect tension tests are resorted to, usually the flexure test or the cylinder splitting test.

Stress-Strain curve of concrete in tension

• Concrete has a low failure strain in uniaxial tension. It is found to be in the range of 0.0001 to 0.0002.
• The stress-strain curve in tension is generally approximated as a straight line from the origin to the failure point.
• The modulus of elasticity in tension is taken to be the same as that in compression.
• As the tensile strength of concrete is very low, and often ignored in design, the tensile stress-strain relation is of little
practical value.
 1.7.2. BEHAVIOR OF CONCRETE UNDER TENSION

Splitting tensile strength

• The cylinder splitting test is the easiest to perform and gives more uniform results compared to other tension tests.   
• In this test, a ‘standard’ plain concrete cylinder (of the same type as used for the compression test) is loaded in 
compression on its side along a diametric plane.  Failure occurs by the splitting of the cylinder along the loaded plane  
• In an elastic homogeneous cylinder, this loading produces a nearly uniform tensile stress across the loaded plane 
• From theory of elasticity concepts, the following formula for the evaluation of the splitting tensile strength fct is obtained:   
   2P
  fct 
 dL
 1.7.4. REINFORCING STEEL

Stress-Strain Curve

• The stress-strain curve of reinforcing steel is obtained by performing a standard tension test. Typical stress-strain curves for
the three grades of steel are depicted in the figure below.
• For all grades, there is an initial linear elastic portion with constant slope, which gives a modulus of elasticity that is
practically the same for all grades.
• The Code specifies that the value of to be considered in design is 2 ×105 MPa N/mm2.
• The stress-strain curve of mild steel (hot rolled) is characterized by an initial nearly elastic part that is followed by an yield
plateau (where the strain increases at almost constant stress), followed in turn by a strain hardening range in which the stress
once again increases with increasing strain (although at a decreasing rate) until the peak stress (tensile strength) is reached.
Finally, there is a descending branch wherein the nominal stress (load divided by original area) decreases until fracture
occurs. (The actual stress, in terms of load divided by the current reduced area, will, however, show an increasing trend).
 1.8. EUROCODE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIMIT STATES DESIGN
1.8.1. ACTIONS

Introduction
• The term action is used in the Eurocodes in order to group together generally all external influences on a structure’s 
performance.  
• It encompasses loading by gravity and wind, but includes also vibration, thermal effects, fire and seismic loading. 
• Separate combinations of actions are used to check the structure for the design situation being considered. For each of the 
particular design situations an appropriate representative value for each action is used. 

Representative values of actions

• The main actions to be used in load cases used for design are: 
a. Permanent actions G: e.g. self‐weight of structures and fixed equipment; 
b. Variable actions Q: e.g. imposed loads on building floors and beams; snow loads on roofs; wind loading on walls and roofs 
c. Accidental actions A: e.g. fire, explosions and impact. 

Permanent actions
• The characteristic value of a permanent action  may be a single value if variability is known to be low (e.g. the self‐weight of 
quality‐controlled factory‐produced members).  
• If the variability of G cannot be considered as small, and its magnitude may vary from place to place in the structure, then an 
upper value  and a lower value  may occasionally be used. 
 1.8. EUROCODE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIMIT STATES
DESIGN
1.8.1. ACTIONS 
Variable actions
• Up to four types of representative value may be needed for the variable and accidental actions. The types most commonly used 
for variable actions are: 
a. The characteristic value   
                      and combinations of the characteristic value with other variable actions, multiplied by different combination factors: 
b. The combination value   
c. The frequent value  
d. The quasi‐permanent value  
• The ‘ ’ factors generally reduce the value of a variable action present in an accidental situation compared with the characteristic 
value. 

• Ultimate limit states; 
a. Combination value of     0Qk • Irreversible serviceability limit states (e.g. deflections which fracture 
brittle fittings or finishes). 

 1Qk
b. Frequent value of      
• Ultimate limit states involving accidental actions; 
• Reversible serviceability limit states, primarily associated with frequent 
combinations. 

 2Qk
c. Quasi‐permanent value of       • Ultimate limit states involving accidental actions; 
• Reversible serviceability limit states ( 
 1.8. EUROCODE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIMIT STATES
DESIGN
1.8.1. ACTIONS 
Load combinations for design

The values of actions to be used in design are governed by a number of factors. These include: 
1. The nature of the load 
2. The limit state being considered 
3. The number of variable loads acting simultaneously 

I. Ultimate limit state 

The following ultimate limit states shall be verified as relevant:

a) EQU: Loss of static equilibrium of the structure or any part of it considered as a rigid body, where: 
 Minor variations in the value or the spatial distribution of actions from a single source are significant, and 
 The strengths of construction materials or ground are generally not governing; 
b) STR: Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural members, including footings, piles, basement 
walls, etc., where the strength of construction materials of the structure governs; 
c) GEO: Failure or excessive deformation of the ground where the strengths of soil or rock are significant in providing 
resistance; 

d) FAT: Fatigue failure of the structure or structural members. 
 1.8. EUROCODE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIMIT STATES
DESIGN
1.8.1. ACTIONS 
I. Ultimate limit state 

1. Persistent and transient situations – fundamental combinations. 

Equilibrium 
   G, j ,supGk , j ,sup is used when the permanent loads are unfavourable, and  G, j ,infGk , j ,inf is used when
the permanent actions are favourable. Numerically,  G, j ,sup  1.1 ,  G, j ,inf  0.9 , and  Q  1.5
when unfavourable and 0 when favourable.

Strength 
   G, j ,supGk , j ,sup is used when the permanent loads are unfavourable , and  G, j ,infGk , j ,inf is used when
the permanent actions are favourable. Numerically,  G, j ,sup  1.35 ,  G, j ,inf  1.0 , and  Q  1.5
when unfavourable and 0 when favourable
 1.8. EUROCODE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIMIT STATES
DESIGN
1.8.1. ACTIONS 
I. Ultimate limit state 

2. Accidental design situation 

3. Seismic design situation 
 1.8. EUROCODE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIMIT STATES
DESIGN
1.8.1. ACTIONS 
II. Serviceability limit state 

1. Characteristic combination 
• This represents a combination of service loads, which can be 
considered rather infrequent.  
• It might be appropriate for checking sates such as micro cracking 
or possible local non‐catastrophic failure of reinforcement leading 
to large cracks in sections. 

2. Frequent combination 
• This represents a combination that is likely to occur relatively 
frequently in service conditions, and is used for checking cracking. 

3. Quasi‐permanent combination 
• This will provide an estimate of sustained loads on the structure, 
and will be appropriate for the verification of creep, settlement, 
etc. 
1.8. EUROCODE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIMIT STATES
DESIGN
1.8.2. MATERIAL 
Partial factors for materials

Partial factors for materials for ultimate limit states 

Partial factors for materials for serviceability limit states 
• The value for partial factors for materials for serviceability limit state verification 
should be taken as those given in the particular clauses of this Eurocode. The 
recommended value is 1.0.  
 
1.8. EUROCODE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIMIT STATES
DESIGN
1.8.2. MATERIAL 
Concrete

Design compressive strengths 

c   is the partial safety factor for concrete 
 cc    is the coefficient taking account of long term effects on the compressive strength and of 
unfavourable effects resulting from the way the load is applied. 

The value of   cc  for use in a Country should lie between 0.8 and 1.0 and may be found in its National 
Annex. The recommended value is 1. 

Stress‐Strain relations for the design of cross‐sections 
• For the design of cross‐sections, the following stress‐strain relationship may be used. 
 1.8. EUROCODE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIMIT STATES
DESIGN
1.8.2. MATERIAL 
Concrete

Stress‐Strain relations for the design of cross‐sections 
1. Parabolic‐ Rectangular 
 1.8. EUROCODE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIMIT STATES
DESIGN
1.8.2. MATERIAL 
Concrete

Stress‐Strain relations for the design of cross‐sections 
2. Bi – Linear stress‐strain relation 
 1.8. EUROCODE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIMIT STATES
DESIGN
1.8.2. MATERIAL 
Concrete

Stress‐Strain relations for the design of cross‐sections 
3. Rectangular stress‐strain relation 
1.8. EUROCODE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIMIT STATES
DESIGN
1.8.2. MATERIAL 
Reinforcing steel

Stress‐Strain relations for the design of cross‐sections