ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

EFFECT OF CHANGE IN YIELD STRENGTH OF

REINFORCEMENT STEEL ON THE SAFETY AND STRENGTH OF
REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS AND COLUMNS

ALEMU SISAY WEDAJO

NOVEMBER 2009

Approved by Board of Examiners

Dr. Shifferaw Taye _________________ _________________

Advisor Signature Date

Dr.Esayas G.youhannes __________________ ________________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

Dr.-Ing Girma Zerayohannes __________________ ________________

 External Examiner Signature Date

Ato Belete Lakew __________________ _____________ __

Chairman Signature Date

Effect of Change in Yield strength of Reinforcement Steel on the Safety and

Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams and Columns

By

Alemu Sisay

A Thesis Submitted to
School of Graduate Studies,
Addis Ababa University
In
Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
In
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

_________________
Shifferaw Taye (Dr.)
Thesis Advisor

ii
 Addis Ababa University
Addis Ababa

November 2009
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Shifferaw Taye without whom this
research would have not been possible. He not only provided direction and guidance, but
also inspired me to really learn and understand the art and science of Structural
Engineering. I would also like to thank my academic instructors at the Department of Civil
Engineering for their professional dedication and the knowledge they shared me.
Special thanks go to my friends for their endless support and encouragement, especially
Engineer Tesfaye Mekonnen, for always believing, and helping me to believe, that I can
succeed at any thing. Also, I would like to thank all of the wonderful friends I have had at
A.A.U. Faculty of Technology who have made my college years meaningful and
enjoyable.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

AKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………..........................iv
LIST OF SYMBOLS..........................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………….viii
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………….........................ix
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………….x
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUTION
1.1 Background of the problem …………………………...........................1
1.2 Objective of the study ………………………………………………...2
1.3 Methodology ………………………………………………………….2
1.4 Scope and limitations …………………………………………………3
1.5 Out line of the thesis ………………………………………………….3
1.6 State of the art ……………………………………………………..…4
1.6.1 Reinforced concrete structures……………………………….....4
1.6.2 Reinforced concrete beams ……………………………………..4
1.6.2.1 Under reinforced beams ………………………………..4
1.6.2.2 Over reinforced beams …………………………………5
1.6.3 Reinforced concrete columns …………………………………...6
1.6.4 Reinforcing bars ………………………………………………...6
CHAPTER 2. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
2.1 Overview …………………………………………………………...…8
2.2 Beam design …………………………………………………..………8
2.3 Column design ……………………………………………………….14
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Overview ……………………………………………………………..19
3.2 Effect of yield strength on moment capacity …………………………19

iv
 3.3 Effect of yield strength on total area of steel ………………………....21
3.4 Effect of yield strength on neutral axis depth ……………………..…24
3.5 Effect of yield strength on ultimate load ……………………………..26
3.6 Effect of yield strength on stiffness …………………………………..28
3.7 Effect of yield strength on curvature …………………………………30
3.8 Effect of yield strength on total steel area of column ………...………33
3.9 Effect of yield strength on axial load capacity …………………...…..36
3.10 Effect of yield strength on capacity of a beam …………………..….38
3.11 Effect of yield strength on capacity of a column ……………………45
CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Conclusions …………………………………………………………..48
4.2 Recommendations ……………………………………………………49
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................51

v
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

ACI =American Concrete Institute

AISC=American Institute of Steel Construction
As= area of reinforcement in the tension zone (mm2)
A’s= area of reinforcement in the compression zone (mm2)
Ast= total area of reinforcement (mm2)
Ag= gross area (mm2)
ab=depth of rectangular stress block corresponding to balanced strain conditions (mm)
αc=non dimensionalized resultant compressive force
βc=relative location of the resultant compressive force
d = effective depth (mm)
e=eccentricity of axial load on a column M/P (mm)
Єcu=compressive strain at crushing of concrete (0.0035)
Єyd=strain in the reinforcement at yield point
EBCS=Ethiopian Building Code of Standards
fck = concrete cylindrical strength (MPa)
fctk=concrete cylindrical strength in tension (MPa)
fyk =yield strength of reinforcement (MPa)
k=factor to account for the distribution shear along the member
l=length (m)
le=effective length (m)
μ=moment ratio
Mn, Mrd=moment capacity (kN.m)
Msd=moment due to factored loads (kN.m)
ν=normal force ratio
Pdo=nominal axial load strength at zero eccentricity (kN)

vi
Pnb=nominal axial load strength at balanced strain conditions (kN)
Pdn=design axial load capacity applied at edx and edy simultaneously (kN)
∆Pdn=change in axial load capacity applied at edx and edy simultaneously (kN)
ρ=steel ratio
ρb=reinforcement ratio corresponding to balanced strain conditions
s=spacing of stirrups (mm)
γc=factor of safety for concrete
γs=factor of safety for steel
Vs= nominal shear strength provided by reinforcement (kN)
Vc= nominal shear force carried by concrete (kN)
V=shear force acting on section in question (kN)
W= distributed load (kN/m)
ω=mechanical reinforcement ratio
x=neutral axis depth (mm)
xb= neutral axis depth for balanced reinforcement ratio (mm)
Φ=diameter of reinforcement (mm)

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1a: System, loading and beam section………………………………………………8

Figure 1b: Strain and stress distribution across beam depth ……………………………...10

Figure 2: Column location and geometry …………………………………………………14

Figure 3: Moment capacity versus yield strength ………………………………….……..21

Figure 4: Total steel area versus yield strength (for beam)… ……………………………23

Figure 5: Neutral axis depth versus yield strength ……………………………………….26

Figure 6: Ultimate load versus yield strength …………………………………………….28

Figure 7a: Moment curvature diagram for the beam ……………………………………..31

Figure 7b: Stiffness versus yield strength ……………………………………………..…33

.
Figure 8: Curvature versus yield strength ………………………………………………..35

Figure 9: Total steel area versus yield strength (for column) …………………………….38

Figure 10: Design axial load capacity versus yield strength ……………………………..41

Figure 11: Ultimate load capacity parameter versus yield strength ………………………43

Figure 12: Moment capacity parameter versus yield strength ……………………………45

Figure 13: Beam capacity parameter versus yield strength ……………………………….47

Figure 14: Column capacity parameter versus yield strength ………………....................50

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Results obtained from change in ultimate load ………………………………….13

.
Table 2: Moment capacity as a function of yield strength ………………………………..20

Table 3: Steel area as a function of yield strength ………………………………………..22

Table 4: Neutral axis depth as a function of yield strength ……………............................25

Table 5: Ultimate load as a function of yield strength ………………………….………...27

Table 6a: Moment and curvature at different stages………………………………………30

Table 6b: Stiffness as a function of yield strength ………………………………………..32

Table 7: Curvature as a function of yield strength …………………………………….….34

Table 8: Total steel area as a function of yield strength (for column)………………….…37

Table 9: Design axial load capacity as a function of yield strength ……………………....40

Table 10: Change in ultimate load capacity as a function of yield strength……………....42

Table 11: Change in moment capacity as a function of yield strength …………………...44

Table 12: Beam capacity as a function of yield strength …………………………………46

Table 13: Change in design axial load capacity as a function of yield strength ………….49

ix
 ABSTRACT

This thesis is concerned with the effect of change in yield strength of reinforcement steel
on the safety and strength of reinforced concrete beams and columns. Of different possible
types of beams and columns, simply supported beams and short columns are considered in
this study.

Parameters like moment capacity, total steel area, neutral axis depth, ultimate load
curvature and stiffness of the beam and total steel area of the column are taken. The
general trend observed in behavior due to the change in yield strength is assessed and have
been presented graphically.

Both the beam and the column are first designed using limit state design method
employing the appropriate partial safety factors for loads and materials. Next they are
designed for service loading keeping other conditions the same as before using a factor of
safety equal to one for concrete and steel. Then the difference in capacity between the
design results is evaluated. As this difference is the reserve capacity we have as a safety
margin, the effect of the change in yield strength is evaluated with respect to this capacity
and presented graphically to show that by how much safety margins are compromised.

Finally, conclusions and recommendations have been made based on the findings

Key words: over–reinforced concrete beams, under–reinforced concrete beams, yield

strength of steel, capacity parameter.

x
xi
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND

Locally, in projects most of the construction works are done by people who have no
deep knowledge about construction materials. These people have knowledge stemmed
from long period exposure to the work, which is not supplemented with scientific
background about the subject matter. In some cases where professionals exist, they
may not have the upper hand to express themselves and share their knowledge or they
may not exercise professionalism due to being dominated by those parties who believe
that “they have never seen a collapsed building locally due to lack of knowledge except
in the theory told by ‘people of the book’.” Therefore, the chance of altering values
given in the specification by the designers without considering the consequences is
becoming a common practice. Clients are also in favor of them because they get no
resistance while making any modifications due to lack of visualizing the consequences
and money–oriented interest.

Quality of raw material used in the production of reinforcement is also another factor
that leads to the change in yield strength. Nowadays, it is a fact that factories use metal
scraps to make steel only considering their profit.
In the USA and Europe, for example, systems exist for quality control of scrap to be
used for steel making (Chen and Richard, 2003). Unfortunately, no such system seems
to exist locally for controlling the scrap to be used in steel making

In addition, branding system to identify whether rebar is manufactured from new steel
or scrap is not available. The above–mentioned problems compounded with poor
workmanship locally could adversely affect the dependability of the steel for civil
engineering structures. These structures need a good quality and strength of
reinforcement steel. In such cases, even minute mistakes that are made in designing
and improper use of materials which are different from the specifications will be
amplified.

1
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The general objective of the thesis research is to investigate the effects of altering the
yield strength of reinforcement steel on the safety and strength of RC beams and
columns.

The paper tries to answer the question:

a) What is the safety margins if fluctuations in yield strength of steel occur after
design is complete (i.e. during commencement of construction)?
b) Which parameters are more sensitive to such changes and critical (leads to
failure, unfunctionality or instability)?
c) What remedial measures should be taken to compensate for the fluctuations in
yield strength whether it is by way of modification to parts of the design work
or complete revision of the design?

1.3 METHODOLOGY

Structural parts beam and column, which are helpful to study the behavioral changes
due to change in yield strength, were selected.

A simply supported beam and a column subjected to biaxial bending were selected to
study the behavioral changes that may be observed due to change in yield strength of
reinforcement steel. They were designed for a building constructed to serve as a class
room for students.
Design and analysis procedures recommended by Ethiopian Building Code of
Standards (EBCS 2, 1995) were employed. Basis of design and action on structures
were carried out as per (EBCS 1, 1995). After completing the design and analysis,
parameters like moment capacity, area of steel, ultimate load, stiffness (force required
per unit deflection of the member at center of the span), curvature and neutral axis
depth, axial force capacity were evaluated for different values of yield strength of steel
to observe their behavior for the change. The result obtained was tabulated and
presented graphically using Excel 2003. Different literatures related to the problem at
hand are reviewed and incorporated to supplement the study.

2
1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The study was devoted to see the behavior of a simply supported beam and that of a
biaxially loaded column subjected to change in yield strength of reinforcement steel.
In the present study, a simply supported beam as opposed to a continuous beam which
exists in buildings was used. In different literatures (for example, Reynolds and
Steedman, 1988) the basic design and analysis equations for beams are developed and
best explained using simply supported beams. In this thesis the same procedure is used
to show the effects of change in yield strength on beams. The interaction of change in
yield strength of steel with other material properties like, compressive strength of
concrete was not included. Even if design and analysis of beams is basically similar for
beams with different support conditions, these support condition variations may affect
the result obtained. For the column, a general case where a column is subjected to a
biaxial moments and axial force is considered.

1.5 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS

Chapter One presents major engineering problems related to the reinforcement steel.
The objective of the study, the methods employed scope and limitations and state of
the art are also given here. Chapter Two is devoted to the presentation of the analysis
and designs. Results and discussions are given in Chapter Three. Finally, conclusions
and recommendations of the present work are given in Chapter Four. Proposals to
further research are also made in this final chapter.

3
1.6 STATE OF THE ART
1.6.1. Reinforced concrete structures
Reinforced concrete structures are made up of two materials with different
characteristics, namely, concrete and steel. Reinforced concrete is one of the most
important building materials and is widely used in many types of engineering
structures. The economy, the efficiency, the strength and the stiffness of reinforced
concrete make it an attractive material for a wide range of structural applications.
1.6.2 Reinforced concrete beams

A bar subject to forces or couples that lie in a plane containing the longitudinal axis
of the bar is called a beam. The forces are understood to act perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis (Nash, 1998). Reinforced concrete beams are not homogeneous in
that they are made of two entirely different materials. The methods used in the
analysis of reinforced concrete beams are therefore different from those used in the
design or investigation of beams composed entirely of steel, wood, or any other
structural material. The fundamental principles involved are, however, essentially the
same (Siddique and Rouf, 2006).
1.6.2.1 Under –reinforced beams

A beam in which reinforcement yields before concrete crushes or reaches its limiting
compressive strain (0.0035 according to EBCS-2, 1995) is referred to as an under -
reinforced beam. A compression failure in flexure, should it occur, gives little if any
warning of distress, while a tension failure, initiated by yielding of the steel, typically
is gradual.
Distress is obvious from observing the large deflections and widening of concrete
cracks associated with yielding of the steel reinforcement. Measures can be taken to
avoid total collapse.

4
Furthermore, most beams for which failure is initiated by yielding posses substantial
strength based on strain hardening of the reinforcing steel, which is not accounted for in
the calculation of the moment capacity (Nilson et al., 2003).
Because of these differences in behavior, it is prudent to require that beams be designed
such that failure, if it occurs, will be by yielding of the steel, not by crushing of concrete.
These can be done, theoretically, by keeping the reinforcement ratio, ρ, below the balanced
reinforcement ratio, ρb. In actual practice, the upper limit on ρ should be below ρb, for the
following reasons;
1) For a beam with exactly equal to ρb, the compressive strain limit of the concrete
would be reached, theoretically, at precisely the same moment that the steel reaches
its yield stresses, without significant yielding before failure
2) Material properties are never known precisely
3) Strain hardening of the reinforcing steel, not accounted for in design, may lead to
a brittle compression failure even though ρ may be somewhat less than ρb
4) The actual steel area provided, considering standard reinforcing bar sizes, will
always be equal to or larger than required, based on selected reinforcement ratio ρ ,
tending toward over reinforcement, and
5) The extra ductility provided by beams with lower value of ρ, increases the
deflection capability substantially and, thus, provides warning prior to failure
(Nilson et al., 2003).

1.6.2.2 Over reinforced beams

A beam in which concrete crushes, reaches its limiting compressive strain (0.0035
according to (EBCS-2, 1995), before reinforcement steel yields (MacGregor, 2005).
According to ACI Code (Nilson et al., 2003), all beams are to be designed for yielding of
the tension steel with tensile strain not less than 0.004. Occasionally, however, such as
when analyzing the capacity of existing structures, it may be necessary to calculate the
flexural strength of an over reinforced compression controlled member, for which its yield
strength, fs, is less than the design yield strength, fyd, at flexural failure. In this case, the
steel strain will be less than the yield strain, but can be expressed in terms of the concrete
strain (Nilson et al., 2003).

5
1.6.3 Reinforced concrete columns
Columns are defined as members that carry loads chiefly in compression. Usually
columns carry bending moments as well, about one or both axes of their cross
sections and the bending action may produce tensile forces over a part of the cross
section. Even in such cases, columns are generally referred to as compression
members, because, the compression force dominate their behavior.

The main reinforcement in columns is longitudinal, parallel to the direction of the

load, and consists of bars arranged in a square, rectangular, or circular pattern. The
ratio of longitudinal reinforcement area Ast to the gross concrete cross section Ag is in
the range from 0.001 to 0.08 according to ACI Code 318 -05, 10.9.1 (Ray, 1995).
The lower limit is necessary to ensure resistance to bending moments not accounted
for in the analysis and to reduce the effects of creep and shrinkage of the concrete
under the sustained compression. Ratios higher than 0.08 are not only uneconomical
but also would cause difficulty owing to congestion of the reinforcement particularly
where the steel must be spliced.
Most columns are designed with ratios below 0.04. Larger diameter bars are used to
reduce placement costs and to avoid unnecessary congestion (Ray, 1995).

1.6.4 REINFORCING BARS

Because of the low tensile strength of concrete, steel reinforcement is embedded in it
to resist tensile stresses. Steel, how ever, also is used to resist compressive stresses, in
beams and columns, to permit use of smaller members. It serves other purposes too:
it controls strains due to temperature and shrinkage and distributes load to the
concrete and other reinforcing steel; it can be used to prestress the concrete; and it
ties other reinforcing together for easy placement or to resist lateral stresses.

Reinforcing bars are available in smooth form and with deformations. The
deformation on a deformed reinforcing bar inhibit longitudinal movement of the bar
relative to the concrete around it (Chen and Richard Liew, 2003).

6
The most common type of reinforcing steel is in the form of round bars, often called
rebar, available in a large range of diameters from about 6mm to 36mm. Surface
deformations furnished on bars for the purpose of increasing resistance against
slipping between steel and concrete have minimum requirements (spacing,
projection, etc) which have been developed in experimental research. Different bar
producers use different patterns, all of which satisfy these requirements. Use of bars
with yield points over 420MPa for flexural reinforcement is limited because special
measures are required to control cracking and deflection (Nilson et al., 2003).

Rebar with yield strength up to 500MPa are acceptable in most instances. The
reinforcing steel should have adequate ductility when plastic analysis is adopted for
continuous beams. This factor should hence be carefully considered in the selection
of the steel grade in particular when high strength steels are used. A different
requirement is implied by the limitation of 380MPa specified by AISC for the yield
strength of the requirement in columns; this is aimed at ensuring that buckling of the
reinforcement does not occur before complete yielding of the steel components
(Chen, 1999).

7
 CHAPTER TWO

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

2.1 OVERVIEW

The results of beam and column design with calculations that show the effect of
change in yield strength of reinforcement steel are presented in this chapter. Using
design methods and specifications given in (EBCS-1 and EBCS-2, 1995), the
structural parts were designed and analyzed, comparing results for different values of
the characteristic yield strength of reinforcement steel that ranges from 150 MPa to
600 MPa. The loading cases were established to represent the loading conditions on
each of the structural parts. Each of the loads were factored and combined according
to (EBCS-2, 1995).

2.2 BEAM DESIGN

The beam designed was a simply supported beam. The bay width is 6m. Depth and
width that gives an economical section is assumed: depth= (1.5 - 2.0) times the width
according to [ACI].
The concrete strength is C-25, and reinforcement steel is S-300 Class I works. The
geometry is shown below in figure 1.

Figure 1a: system, loading and beam section

8
A live load of 3kN/m2 for school resulted in a distributed load of 0.6kN/m after being
multiplied by the width of the beam. A dead load of 10kN/m from wall and finishing’s, 12
kN/m transferred from a slab resulted in unfactored uniformly distributed load of 22kN/m.

Gravity loading:
Assume width, b=200mm
From the above argument, the depth, D =400mm
Own weight = wDγ
Where: w is the width of the beam
D is the depth of the beam and
γ is the unit weight of concrete
= .2  .4  25
Own weight = 2.00kN/m
200mm HCB wall and 20mm plaster produces,
Wall and finishing load = 10.00kN/m
Slab reactions = 12.00kN/m
Design load, W = 1.3  DL +1.6  LL
W= 28.56kN/m
wl 2
Msd=
8
=128.52kN.m
wl
Vmax=
2
=85.68kN
Flexure:

128.52  10 6
μsd,s =
11.33  200  359 2

= 0.439 > μ*u,s =0.295

Therefore, compression reinforcement is required.

M *u,s = 0.295  11.33  200  3592  10-6

=86.15kN.m

9
 ∆M = 128.52-86.15= 42.37kN.m
M sd , s  M *u, s
As 2 
(d  d 2 ) s 2

42.37  10 6
As2 =
(359  41)  260.87
= 510.75 mm2  2 Φ 20

M * u , s M sd , s  M u , s N sd
*

As1    , where z=kzd

zf yd (d  d 2 ) f yd f yd

86.15  106 42.37  10 6

= +
0.815  359  260.87 (359  41)  260.87

As1 = 1128.7 + 510.75

= 1639.45 mm2  6 Φ 20

Ast = As1 + As2=2150.2 mm2

c fcd fcd
Cc cd x
cc   f c ( y)bdy
dy c(y)
x y fc(y) 0

y d h y
N.A
z

steel As s Ts
Ts = Asfs

b
parabolic-rectangular
longitudinal view x-section strains actual stress block
stress block

Figure 1b: Strain and stress distribution across beam depth/parabolic-rectangular

stress block

With parabolic rectangular stress block

Mrd=αcfcdbd2 (1-βc) + As2fyd (d-d’)

Where αc=[ (3Єcu-2)/(3 Єcu)]kx , kx=x/d=0.448, Єcu=3.5
βc=[( Єcu(3 Єcu-4)+2)/(2 Єcu(3 Єcu-2))] kx, kx=x/d, Єcu=3.5 o/oo
=138.29kN.m

10
 Shear:
V=75.43kN (taken at a distance d from the support)
k1=1+50ρ
VRD = 0.25fcdbwd

The shear force Vc carried by the concrete in members with out significant axial forces
shall be taken as:
VC = 0.25fctdk1k2bwd
Where
k1 = (1 + 50ρ) ≤ 2.0
6  314
=1+50
200  (400  41)
=2.31 > 2  k1=2
k2 = 1.6 - d ≥ 1.0 (d in meters)
= 1.6-0.359

=1.241>1.0  ok!

VC =0.25  1.03  2  1.241  200  359

=45.89kN

Vs =V-Vc =75.43-45.89=29.54kN

VRD = 0.25fcdbwd
=0.25  11.33  200  359
=203.37 > V  ok!
2
S max  0.5d  300mm if Vsd  Vrd
3

Smax=0.5 359=179.5mm

Av f s d
S=
vs

2  3.14  9  260.87  359

Try Φ6, S=
29.54  10 3

=179.28 S=175mm < Smax  ok!

Provide Φ6 C/C 175mm

11
Next, the capacity of the same beam is evaluated for service load and unfactored material

strengths. That means, factor of safety equal to one is employed for both concrete and

reinforcement bar.

Material strengths,

fcd =.85*fck/γc, where γc=1.0

fcd =17MPa

fyd =fyk/ys, where γs=1.0

fyd =300MPa

Service loading,

Ws=DL+LL+TR

Where: DL is dead load

LL is live load

TR transferred load from slab

Ws =20.48kN/m

The moment capacity of the beam with the above given values and using the same amount

of reinforcement is,

Mn=αcfcdbd2 (1-βc) + As2fyd (d-d’)

Mn=215.88 kN.m

We designed the beam for W=28.56kn/m and we get Mrd=138.29kN.m. This load is a
factored load and it is magnified by 39%. Therefore, we have also a reserve capacity due to
this. From table 1, the contribution of magnifying the load by 39% to the moment capacity
is observed. That is increasing the load from 28.56 to 39.71 will increase the moment
capacity by 31%. Therefore, to get the reserve capacity we have, the capacity obtained
without γs and γc will be increased by the same amount to take in to account the unfactored
load.
Mrd=215.88+0.31  215.88
=282.53

12
 ∆Mrd =282.53-138.29=144.24
∆Mrd / Mrd =144.24/282.53=51.05%
This amount is the reserve capacity we have after the beam is loaded to its ultimate.
Note that in the following table, the units for all parameters are the same as in previous
case.
Table 1: Results obtained from change in ultimate load

values obtained W W1 W2 W3 W4 W5

28.56 31.42 25.70 34.27 22.85 39.71

(1.1W) (0.9W) (1.2W) (0.8W) (1.39W)

Msd 128.52 141.39 115.65 154.23 102.83 178.71

μsd,s 0.439 0.483 0.395 0.527 0.351 0.612

M*u,s 86.15 86.15 86.15 86.15 86.15 86.15

∆M 42.37 55.24 29.50 68.08 16.68 92.56

As2 510.75 665.89 355.61 820.67 201.07 1115.76

(2 Φ20) (1 Φ20, (2Φ16) (3 Φ20) (1Φ16) (3 Φ20,
2Φ16) 1Φ16)
As1 1639.45 1794.59 1484.31 1949.37 1329.77 2244.46
(6 Φ20) (6 Φ20) (5 Φ20) (5 Φ20, (3 Φ20, (6 Φ20,
2Φ16) 2Φ16) 2Φ16)
As-As’(As1- As2) 1256.00 1168.00 1168.00 1030.00 1143.00 1143.00

Mn 138.29 145.60 119.54 164.35 102.85 181.04

∆Mn (%) - +5.29 -13.56 +18.84 -25.63 +30.91

=( Mn-138.29)/138.29

Note that: Values given in the brackets are area of steel provided

13
2.3 COLUMN DESIGN

In order to see the effect of change in yield strength on the behavior of a column, the

first floor column in (Department of Civil Engineering, 2007) has been considered.

The column to be treated is shown in bold on the following figure.

x x
L=2.40m

a) Short direction b) long direction

c) Section x-x
Figure 2: column location and geometry

14
Column data:

Length=2.40m

Cross-section=250  400

Material strength: C-25concrete and

S-400 Class I Works

Mh=149.65kN.m
Mb=5.3 kNm
N=449.41 kN
N
Normal force ratio:   =0.397
f cd Ac

Moment ratios: h 
Mh =0.350
f cd Ac h

M b =0.05
 b
f cd Ac b

 ω=1.2

bhf cd
Astot= w
f yd

Where ω is mechanical steel ratio read from [EBCS part 2]

Astot=3908.1mm2
Astot 3908.1
= =488.51mm2  provide 8 Φ 26
8 8

15
Next design the column without charts

Assume 400x250mm size with 8 Φ 26 arranged as shown above

Design eccentricity, ed=eo+ei+e2

Where: eo is the first order eccentricity that is M /N

ei initial eccentricity

e2 is second order eccentricity which may result from lateral deflection

ei  le/300 or 20mm, where le is the effective height of the column

ei  2400/300=8mm or 20mm

Therefore, ei=20mm, e2=0, because the column is short.

eox=5000/450

=11.11mm

eoy=150,000/450

=333.33mm

Finally, edx=eox+ei

=11.11+20.00

=31.11mm

edy=eoy+ei

=333.33+20

=353.33mm

Design axial force capacity for concentric load case,

Pdo=fcd(Ag-Ast)+fydAst

Total steel area, Ast=8П2  132=4247.43mm2

Pdo =11.33  (250  400 - 4247.43) +260.87  4247.43

=2336.38kN

16
Considering Y –direction, with edy=353.53mm, d=360mm, d’=40mm,

As=As’=1592.79mm2, ρ=ρ’=0.0221

Condition controlling the design: nominal axial load strength at balanced strain

conditions is given by

Pnb=fcd  b  d  (0.8X/d –ρ)

=417.87kN

Xb = (Єcu/ Єcu+Єyd) d

Xb=240.46mm

ab=0.8  Xb=192.37mm, eb’=688.28mm, eb=528.28mm

eb’=[fcd(abb-As’)(d-0.5ab) +(As’fyd(d-d’))]/Pnb

=688.28mm

eb = eb’- 0.5  (d-d’)

=528.28mm > edy=353.33mm

Which implies compression failure controls the design.

Design axial force capacity when edy only acts,

Pdny=573.95kN

Considering X –direction, with edx=31.11mm, d=180mm, d’=20mm, b=400mm

Using similar procedure as above,

Pnb=417.87kN

ab=96.18mm

eb=264.14mm> edx=31.11mm

This implies again compression controls the design.

Design axial force capacity when edx only acts,

Pdnx=1516.23kN

17
Finally, for biaxial bending, design axial load capacity applied at edx and edy

simultaneously

Pdn=506.63kN > N=450kN

Therefore, the selected section is safe and economical. Next, the same column is

designed and its actual capacity for biaxial bending is evaluated using the actual

concrete and steel strengths. Using γc=1.0 and γs=1.0 gives, fcd=17MPa and

fyd=300MPa for C -25 concrete and S -300 steel reinforcement. Design eccentricities

are not changed when both the moments and axial force obtained from analysis are

unfactored. With modifications made to material strengths only, the above procedure

is employed and the following result is obtained.

Pdo=2986.77kN

Pnb=596.08kN

Y –direction, ab=183.27mm, eb=450.24mm> edy=353.33mm

Pdny=720.15kN

X –direction, ab=91.64mm, eb=225.19mm> edx=31.11mm

Pdnx=1921.67kN

For biaxial bending,

Pdn=635.26kN

∆Pdn=635.26 – 506.63

=128.63kN

128.63
This accounts, ∆Pdn/ Pdn =  100% =20.25%
635.26

This amount is the reserve capacity we have even after the column is loaded to its

maximum designed value of 506.63kN.

18
 CHAPTER THREE

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 OVERVIEW

In this chapter, the results of the design and analysis with the effects of the change in

yield strength on the capacity of the beam and column are presented. The effects

observed are shown graphically.

3.2 EFFECT OF YIELD STRENGTH ON MOMENT CAPACITY

It is important to know the moment capacity of a beam with respect to change in

yield strength of steel by finding the moment capacity versus yield strength relation
and observing the change in moment capacity with the actual design value. The
calculation has been carried out using equations given as per the local code. The yield
strength values used are shown in Table 2. It has been carried for a yield strength
ranging from 150MPa to 600MPa with 25MPa increment.

Results of the change in yield strength: From the results the effects of yield strength
of reinforcement steel on the moment capacity is shown in the second column of
Table 2. The result has shown that the moment capacity increases with increase in
yield strength and vice versa (Fig. 3).
As we increase the yield strength, the load increases and at some point the shear force
becomes above the capacity of the beam. Therefore, we cannot indefinitely increase
the yield strength. In this study fyk  600MPa, up to this point we do not have a
problem of diagonal shear failure.

19
Table2: Moment capacity as a function of yield strength

Yield strength Moment capacity

(MPa) (kN.m)
150 71.15
175 83.16
200 94.84
225 106.19
250 117.21
275 127.91
300 138.29
325 148.34
350 158.00
375 167.41
400 176.42
425 185.17
450 193.52
475 201.63
500 209.30
525 216.76
550 223.77
575 230.58
600 236.91

20
 250

224
217
209
202
200 194
185
176
167
158
148
moment capacity (kN.m)

150
138
128
117
106

100 95
83
71

50

0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
yield strength (MPa)

Figure 3: Moment capacity versus yield strength

3.3 EFFECT OF YIELD STRENGTH ON TOTAL AREA OF STEEL

The total steel area is obtained using the chart developed for the design of beams in

(EBCS -2, part II, 1995). The yield strength values employed are shown in Table 3.

The same ranges of values have been used as the previous case. Only yield strength

varies in the evaluation of the steel area.

21
Results of the change in yield strength: from the results, the effect of yield strength of

the reinforcement steel on the total area of the reinforcement steel is shown in the

second column of Table 3. The result has shown that, the total area of the

reinforcement steel has an inverse relation ship with the characteristic yield strength:

area increases with decrease in yield strength and area decreases with increase in

yield strength of the steel (Fig. 4).

Table 3: Steel area as a function of yield strength

Yield strength Steel area

(MPa) (mm2)
150 4300.41
175 3686.06
200 3225.30
225 2866.94
250 2580.24
275 2345.68
300 2150.2
325 1984.80
350 1843.03
375 1720.16
400 1612.65
425 1517.79
450 1433.47
475 1358.02
500 1290.12
525 1228.69
550 1172.84
575 1121.85
600 1075.10

22
 5000

4500
4300

4000

3686
3500

3225
total steel area (mm^2)

3000
2867

2580
2500
2346
2150
2000 1985
1843
1720
1613
1500 1518
1433
1358
1290
1229 1173
1122
1075
1000

500

0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
yield strength (MPa)

Figure 4: Total steel area versus yield strength

23
3.4 EFFECT OF YIELD STRENGTH ON NEUTRAL AXIS DEPTH

Both the normal neutral axis depth and the neutral axis depth for the balanced

reinforcement ratio are calculated using equations for simplified rectangular stress

block. Both values are evaluated and presented in the same table and figure to easily

understand their behavior when subjected to change in yield strength. The values of

yield strength used for the calculation of both items are given in Table 4. The ranges

of yield strengths are similar to the previous case.

Results of change in yield strength: From the results, the effect of yield strength of

the reinforcement steel on the neutral axis depth is shown in Table 4. The result has

shown that, the neutral axis depth varies linearly with the yield strength of the steel

while the neutral axis depth for the balanced reinforcement ratios varies inversely.

After the yield strength has reached around 400MPa, the neutral axis depth for

balanced steel ratios was exceeded (Fig. 5).

24
 Table 4: Neutral axis depth as a function of yield strength

Yield strength Neutral axis depth Neutral axis depth for

(MPa) (mm) balanced reinforcement
ratio
(mm)
150 90.45 302.61
175 105.53 294.89
200 120.6 287.56
225 135.68 280.58
250 150.75 273.93
275 165.83 267.59
300 180.84 261.53
325 195.81 255.75
350 211.05 250
375 225.94 244.91
400 241.20 239.83
425 256.06 234.96
450 271.35 230.27
475 286.18 225.78
500 301.50 221.45
525 316.31 217.29
550 331.65 213.28
575 346.43 209.42
600 361.8 205.69

25
 400

362
350 346

Neutral axis depth for 332

balanced strain conditions 316
300 303 302
295
288 286
281
274 271
268
262
256 256
250 250
245 241
240
neutral axis depth (mm)

235
226 230 226
221 217
211 213 209206
200
196
181
166
150 151
136
121
106
100
90

50

0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
yield strength (MPa)

Figure 5: Neutral axis depth versus yield strength

3.5 EFFECTS OF YIELD STRENGTH ON ULTIMATE LOAD

The ultimate load carrying capacity of the beam was calculated using the previously

mentioned formulas above by keeping the load as unknown and varying the yield

strength. For a given value of yield strength, the load that corresponds to it is

calculated and tabulated with the yield strength values in Table 5.

26
Similar ranges of yield strengths are considered as before.

Results of change in yield strength: From the result, it has been observed that the load

varies linearly with the yield strength (Fig.6).

Table 5: Ultimate load capacity as a function of yield strength

Yield strength Ultimate load capacity

(MPa) (kN)
150 111.9
175 121.8
200 131.7
225 141.66
250 151.56
275 161.46
300 171.36
325 181.26
350 191.16
375 201.06
400 211.02
425 220.86
450 230.82
475 240.66
500 250.62
525 260.46
550 270.45
575 280.26
600 290.28

27
 350

300
290
280
270
260
250 251
241
231
221
ultimate load capacity (kN)

211
200 201
191
181
171
161
150 152
142
132
122
112
100

50

0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
yield strength (MPa)

Figure 6: Ultimate load capacity versus yield strength

3.6 EFFECTS OF YIELD STRENGTH ON STIFFNESS

First the behavior of the beam for different stages of loading is discussed.
If the maximum moment in a flexural member is so small that the tensile stress in the
concrete does not exceed the modulus of rupture fr, no flexural tension cracks will
occur. The full uncracked section is then available for resisting stress and providing
stiffness: the effective moment of inertia for this low range of loads is that of the
uncracked transformed section, Ig.

28
At higher loads, flexural tension cracks are formed. In addition, if shear stresses
exceed the section cracking capacity and web reinforcement is employed to resist
them; diagonal cracks can exist at service loads. In the region of flexural cracks, the
position of the neutral axis varies: directly at each crack it is located at the level
calculated for the cracked transformed section; midway between cracks it dips to a
location closer to that calculated for uncracked transformed section. Correspondingly,
flexural tension cracking causes the effective moment of inertia to be that of the
cracked transformed section in the immediate neighborhood of flexural tension
cracks, and closer to that of the uncracked transformed section midway between
cracks, with a gradual transition between these extremes (Nilson et al., 2003). The
cracking moment and curvature is given by
fr  I g
Mcr=
yb

f r / Ec
φcr=
yb

Where: y b is the centroid from the bottom face of the beam

fr is modulus of rupture and Ig is the gross moment of inertia

Concrete in RC members can still support part of the applied tension even after
cracking, which is known as tension stiffening effect. Due to bond transfer at the
interface of concrete and reinforcement, concrete between cracks can develop local
tensile stresses after cracks occur. This tension may restrain the free elongation of
reinforcing bars but the elongation is limited close to the crack planes. The tension
stiffening effect is known to increase the overall stiffness of RC in tension compared
with that of single reinforcing bar.

When tensile cracking occurs at the section, the stiffness is immediately reduced, and
curvature increases to other value with no increase in moment as shown in the
diagram below. The analysis is based on the transformed section in this case, with
steel represented by the transformed area nAs and tension concrete deleted. The
cracked, elastic neutral axis distance kd is found as shown below. In the limiting

29
case, the concrete strain just reaches the proportional limit and the steel is still below
the yield strain (Nilson et al., 2003).
The curvature at first yield is easily computed by
y
φy=
d (1  k )

and the corresponding moment is

My=Asfyjd

In which, the neutral axis depth coefficient k is given by

k= [(ρ+ρ’) 2 +2(ρ+ρ’d’/d) n] 1/2-(ρ-ρ’) n,
jd=lever arm and n=Es/Ec, ρ=As/bd, ρ’=A’s/bd
Next, as the load increases further and the moment reaches its ultimate, the ultimate
curvature and moment of a doubly reinforced section for case when compression
steel is yielding may be:
As f y  A' s f y
x=
0.8 f cd b
Mu=0.8xbfcd (d-0.4x) +A’sfy (d-d’)
c
φu =
x
Now using the above equations, the moment and curvature at different stages are
evaluated, tabulated and presented graphically as shown below.
Table 6a: moment and curvature at different stages

Mcr My Mu φcr φy φu
-6 -6 -6
(kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m) ( 10 rad/mm) ( 10 rad/mm) ( 10 rad/mm)
17.46 143.19 154.05 0.000489 7.032 29.04

30
 200

154.05

150 143.19
moment (kN)

100

50

17.46

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-6
curvature (x10 rad/mm)

Figure 7a: Moment-curvature diagram for the beam

Note that stiffness (slope) decreases as cracking progresses.

Next to assess the effect of change in yield strength on the stiffness and curvature,
simply, one case is considered and values are tabulated and graphically presented.
The stiffness, the force required per unit deflection of the member at the center of the
span, was calculated and the result is shown in Table 6b.

Similar ranges of values for yield strength of the steel is considered.

Results of change in yield strength: The result has shown that an increase in yield

strength increases the stiffness and stiffness decreases with decrease in yield strength

(Fig. 7b).

31
Table 6b: Stiffness as a function of yield strength

Yield strength Stiffness

(MPa) (kN/mm)
150 7.22
175 7.86
200 8.5
225 9.14
250 9.78
275 10.42
300 11.06
325 11.70
350 12.34
375 12.98
400 13.62
425 14.26
450 14.89
475 15.54
500 16.18
525 16.82
550 17.46
575 18.10
600 18.74

32
 20

18.74
18 18.10
17.46
16.82
16 16.18
15.54
14.89
14.26
14
13.62
12.98
12.34
12
11.70
stiffness (kN/mm)

11.06
10.42
10 9.78
9.14
8.50
8 7.86
7.22

0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
yield strength (MPa)

Figure 7: Stiffness versus yield strength

3.7 EFFECTS OF YIELD STRENGTH ON CURVATURE

The ultimate curvature was evaluated using the ultimate compressive strain of

concrete, that is 0.0035 (EBCS -2, 1995) and the result is tabulated in Table 7.

33
Results of change in yield strength: From the result, it is observed that curvature and

yield strength of steel have an inverse relationship (Fig. 8).

Table7: Curvature as a function of yield strength

Yield strength Curvature

(MPa) (  10-6 rad/mm)

150 44.22
175 39.91
200 33.17
225 29.48
250 26.53
275 24.12
300 22.13
325 20.43
350 18.95
375 17.70
400 16.58
425 15.62
450 14.74
475 13.98
500 13.27
525 12.65
550 12.06
575 11.55
600 11.06

34
 50

45
44

40 40

35
33

30 29
curvature (x10 )
-6

27
25
24
22
20 20
19
18
17
16
15 15
14
13
13 12 12 11
10

0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
yield strength (MPa)

Figure 8: Curvature versus yield strength

35
3.8 EFFECTS OF YIELD STRENGTH ON TOTAL STEEL AREA

In this study, the column under consideration is taken from a second floor of a class
room building (Technical and financial proposal, 2007). Concrete class of C-25 is
used for all reinforced concrete members. The steel grade of the reinforcing bar is
S-400. The column is subjected to a biaxial bending moments and axial force. It is
designed using (EBCS -2 and EBCS -2, part II, 1995). In the design of a short
column using the above method the parameter that is a function of yield strength is
only the total reinforcement area of the column. The yield strength values
employed and the corresponding reinforcement area obtained is tabulated in
Table 8. Similar ranges and increments of yield strength values as previous case are
considered.

Results of change in yield strength: from the result, it is observed that an increase in
yield strength decreases the reinforcement area and vice versa.

A 2.3% reduction in yield strength from its initially designed value, 400MPa, will
give a reinforcement area equal to 4000mm2 which must be the maximum
reinforcement at overlaps for the given column cross section as per (EBCS -2,
1995). Some codes like BS8110 and CP110 give the maximum longitudinal
reinforcement at overlaps to be 10% (Reynolds and Steedman, 1995). Even in the
latter case, the maximum area of steel expected in the column under consideration
is 5000mm2. This is achieved at yield strength of 312.708MPa. It is a 21.8%
reduction in yield strength (Fig. 9).

36
Table 8: total steel area as a function of yield strength (column)

Yield strength Total steel area

(MPa) (mm2)

150
10423.6
175
8934.5
200
7817.7
225
6949.1
250
6254.2
275
5685.6
300
5211.8
325
4810.9
350
4467.3
375
4169.4
400
3908.9
425
3678.9
450
3474.5
475
3291.7
500
3127.1
525
2978.2
550
2842.8
575
2719.2
600
2605.9

37
 12000

10424
10000

8935

8000
7818
total steel area (mm )
2

6949

6254
6000
5686
5212
4811
4467
4169
4000 3909
3679
3475
3292
3127
2978
2843 2719
2606

2000

0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
yield strength (MPa)

Figure 9: Total steel area vs yield strength

38
3.9 EFFECTS OF YIELD STRENGTH ON AXIAL LOAD CAPACITY

The axial load carrying capacity of the column was calculated using Breseler’s

reciprocal load equations, by keeping the other parameters constant and varying the

yield strength. For a given value of yield strength, the load that corresponds to it is

calculated and tabulated with the yield strength values in Table 9. Similar ranges of

yield strengths are considered as before.

Results of change in yield strength: From the result, it has been observed that the

axial load capacity varies linearly with the yield strength (Fig.10).

39
Table 9: Design axial load capacity as a function of yield strength

Yield strength Design axial load

(MPa) capacity
(kN)
150
322.69
175
340.49
200
358.51
225
376.69
250
395.00
275
413.42
300
431.92
325
450.50
350
469.15
375
487.86
400
506.63
425
525.44
450
544.31
475
563.22
500
582.18
525
601.18
550
620.21
575
639.29
600
658.40

40
 700

658
639
620
600 601
582
563
544
525
500 507
488
469
451
432
axial load capacity (kN)

413
400 395
377
359
340
323
300

200

100

0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
yield strength (MPa)

Figure 10: Design axial load capacity versus yield strength

3.10 EFFECT OF CHANGE IN YIELD STRENGTH ON THE

CAPACITY OF A BEAM

Firstly, the ultimate load for service loading is evaluated and its difference with

ultimate loading is used to get the safety parameter. The result is tabulated in

Table 10 and represented graphically in Figure 11 shown below. The value in the

third column is obtained by dividing the change observed in the second column in

to the reserve capacity obtained earlier.

41
Table 10: Change in ultimate load capacity as a function of yield strength

Yield strength Ultimate load capacity Capacity parameter

(MPa) (kN) (%)
150 111.9
227
175 121.8
189
200 131.7
152
225 141.66
114
234 145.2
100
250 151.56
76
275 161.46
38
300 171.36
0
325 181.26
-38
350 191.16
-76
366 197.52
-100
375 201.06
-114
400 211.02
-152
425 220.86
-189
450 230.82
-227
475 240.66
-265
500 250.62
-303
525 260.46
-341
550 270.45
-379
575 280.26
-416
600 290.28
-455

42
 500

455

416
400
379

341
ultimate load capacity parameter (%)

300 303

265

227 227

200
189 189

152 152

114 114
100 100 100
76 76

38 38

0 0
150 200 234 275 325 366 400 450 500 550 600
yield strength (MPa)

Figure 11:ultimate load capacity parameter versus yield strength

Secondly, the moment capacity, using a factor of safety equal to one for concrete and steel,

is evaluated and its difference with the one obtained by limit state design method is used to

get the safety parameter. The result is tabulated and represented in Table 11 and Figure 12

respectively. The capacity parameter is obtained similarly as in the first case.

43
Table 11: Change in moment capacity as a function of yield strength

Yield strength Moment capacity Capacity parameter

(MPa) (kN) (%)
150
71.15 87
175
83.16 71
200
94.84 56
225
106.19 41
250
117.21 27
275
127.91 13
300
138.29 0
325
148.34 13
350
158.00 25
375
167.41 38
400
176.42 49
425
185.17 60
450
193.52 71
475
201.63 82
500
209.30 92
525
216.76 101
550
223.77 110
575
230.58 119
600
236.91 127

44
 140

127

120 119

110

100 101

92
moment capacity parameter (%)

87

80 82

71 71

60 60
56

49

40 41
38

27
25
20

13 13

0 0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
yield strength (MPa)
Figure 12:moment capacity parameter versus yield strength

Finally, the contribution of the ultimate load carrying capacity for the moment capacity is

evaluated and a capacity parameter that shows the overall capacity of the beam is obtained.

The result is tabulated and represented graphically in Table 12 and Figure 13 respectively.

Similar procedure as before is employed to get the capacity parameter.

45
 Table 12: Beam capacity as a function of yield strength

Yield strength Moment capacity Capacity parameter

(MPa) (kN) (%)
150
71.15 47
175
83.16 38
200
94.84 30
225
106.19 22
250
117.21 15
275
127.91 7
300
138.29 0
325
148.34 -7
350
158.00 -14
375
167.41 -20
400
176.42 -26
425
185.17 -33
450
193.52 -38
475
201.63 -44
500
209.30 -49
525
216.76 -54
550
223.77 -59
575
230.58 -64
600
236.91 -68

46
 70

64

60 59

54

50 49
47
44
capacity parameter (%)

40
38 38

33
30 30

26

22
20 20

15
14

10
7 7

0 0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
yield strength (MPa)

Figure 13:beam capacity parameter versus yield strength

Results of the change in yield strength: From the results, the effect of yield strength of steel

on the capacity of a beam is shown above. The result has shown that the capacity of a

beam varies linearly with yield strength: capacity decreases with decrease in yield strength

and vice versa.

47
3.11 EFFECT OF CHANGE IN YIELD STRENGTH ON THE
CAPACITY OF A COLUMN

The axial load capacity for a service loading and unfactored concrete and steel
strengths is evaluated using Breseler’s reciprocal load equation and the result is
compared with the design axial load capacity. The result obtained is employed to
get the percentage change observed in capacity. It is tabulated and graphically
presented in Table 13 and Figure 14 respectively.

Results of the change in yield strength: the result has shown that the capacity of the
column varies linearly with a change in yield strength.

48
Table 13: Change in design axial load capacity as a function of yield strength

Yield strength Design axial load Capacity parameter

(MPa) capacity (%)
(kN)
150
322.69 143
175
340.49 129
200
358.51 115
225
376.69 101
250
395.00 87
275
413.42 72
300
431.92 58
325
450.50 44
350
469.15 29
375
487.86 15
400
506.63 0
425
525.44 -15
450
544.31 -29
475
563.22 -44
500
582.18 -59
525
601.18 -73
550
620.21 -88
575
639.29 -103
600
658.40 -118

49
 160

143
140

129

120
118
115

103
100 101
capacity parameter (%)

87 88

80

72 73

60 59
58

44 44
40

29 29

20
15 15

0 0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
yield strength (MPa)

Figure 14:Column capacity parameter versus yield strength

50
 CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 CONCLUSIONS

From the study, the following points are observed.

1. A 33% increase in yield strength of steel gives a neutral axis depth greater than the
one for a balanced reinforcement ratio. This means, the type of failure favored, if
failure is inevitable, that is tension failure, is changed to compression failure which is
sudden and brittle.

2. Total area of steel for a column varies inversely with yield strength of steel. A 2.3%
reduction in yield strength from its initial value will give a reinforcement area, which
must be the maximum reinforcement at overlaps for the given column cross-section.

3. The capacity of a beam and column reduces significantly with a reduction in yield
strength of steel and increases relatively in a similar rate with increase in yield
strength of steel. Relatively, the capacity of a beam is highly compromised than the
column capacity for a similar change in yield strength.

4. There is only a small room to accept the change in yield strength that occurs at
large mainly due to quality issue and rarely due to shortage of supply

5. If change in yield strength is inevitable, firstly, due to the quality of the

reinforcement and secondly, due to shortage of the steel with a specified strength of
interest on the market:
 Before the commencement of the project: complete revision of the
design with the strength at hand must be done or the function of the
building must be revised in a way that takes in to account the relation
ship between the yield strength and the capacity;
 After the casting is complete: the capacity should be assessed and
measure should be taken that ranges from changing the function of the
structure if the capacity compromised is relatively small to

51
 demolishing the structure if the capacity is seriously compromised in a
way that leads to lack of serving the intended purpose or failure.
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Before the commencement of any project, reinforcement steel should be tested and
checked against design value seriously regardless of the scale of the project. Any
change in yield strength should not be accepted because, other problems related to
the quality of concrete and workmanship with the small room we have for the change
in yield strength may be magnified and leads to disaster. Since the main reason for
the change in yield strength is related to the quality of the raw material from which
the steel is produced, a serious follow up is required.

2. There should be a standard on the quality of raw material to be used for the
production of reinforcement steel.

3. There should be branding system that gives information regarding the raw material
used whether it is a new metal or used metal scrap. Because such branding system
gives the user to choose and decide which one is suffice for the project at hand.

4. A continuous test on the steel starting from production site should be made by the
authorized body to control quality before it reaches its destination, customer, where it
should be tested finally.

For the steel imported from broad, there should be a mechanism to test the steel
thoroughly where it is produced, because failure to do so will open the door to import
steels that do not meet the specification. Since, the test is carried out on samples
taken randomly; increasing the frequency of the test will reduce the chance of using
unfit steel reinforcement.

5. A standard on the maximum yield strength to be used on reinforced concrete

structures should be set to avoid the general misconception that higher yield strength
means always a good quality and favorable.

52
6. All civil engineering structures of any scale should be designed and constructed by
professionals who are well equipped with the knowledge and ethics of civil
engineering.

7. Finally, further study on the behavior of reinforced concrete structures to change in

steel and concrete strengths should be done so that curves that show their interaction
can be prepared which in turn use as a guide for design engineers and consultants.

53
 REFERENCES

1. Chen, W.F., ‘Structural Engineering Handbook’, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton,

FL., 1999.

2. Chen, W.F. and Richard Liew, J.Y., ‘Civil Engineering Handbook’, 2nd edition,

CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.,2003.

3. EBCS -1, Ethiopian building code standard: ‘basis of design and actions on
structures’, Ministry of works and Urban development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
1995.
4. EBCS -2, Ethiopian building code standard: ‘Structural use of concrete’, Ministry
of works and Urban development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1995.
5. EBCS -2, part II, Ethiopian building code standard: ‘Structural use of concrete’,
Ministry of works and Urban development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1995.
6. MacGregor, J., ‘Reinforced concrete: Mechanics and Design’, 4th edition, Prentice
Hall, New Jersy, 2005.
7. Nash, W.A., ‘Theory and problems of strength of materials’, 4th edition, Mc

–Graw Hill, USA, 1998.

8. Nilson, N.H., Darwin, D. and Dolan,C.W., ‘Design of Concrete Structures’, 13th

edition, Mc-Graw Hill, USA, 2003.
9. Ray, S.S.,’ Reinforced Concrete Analysis and Design’, 1st edition, Black Well
Science, London, 1995.
10. Reynolds, C.E. and Steedman, J.C., ‘Reinforced Concrete Designer’s Handbook’,

10th edition, The university Press, Cambridge, UK, 1988.

11. Siddique, M.A. and Rouf, M.A., ‘Effect of Material Properties on Behavior of

Over –Reinforced Concrete Beams’, Journal of Civil Engineering, No.2, 7, (195 -

204), 2006.

12. Technical and financial proposal, ‘Failure analysis and Recommendations:

Yekatit 23 Primary School Buildings’, Addis Ababa University: Civil Engineering

Department, Addis Ababa, 2007.

54
DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis is my original work, it has not been presented for
a degree in another university and that all sources of material used for this thesis has been
acknowledged.
Name: Alemu Sisay
Signature: __________
Place: Addis Ababa University, Faculty of Technology
Date of Submission :November, 2009

55