THE ESSENY'IIALS OF REINFORCED CONCRE TB DESIGN.-An Elementary Explanation from FirstPrinc@les for Students.-By Ewart S. Andrews, BSc., Il.llInst.

C.E., M.I.Struct.E. Part IX. Centrally Loaded Columns.

I

The formulae emplosed in t,he design of centrally loaded reinforced concrete columns usually present no dificulty. The safe load on tl column is given by the formula ,P = C { A + (m-l) AV ; (1) where c = permissible stress per sq. in. on the 600 lbs. per conwetme [usually sq. in. for the 1 : 2 : 4 mix]. A = effective area of t,hecolumn(discussed in detail 1a.ter). m = modular ratio .Ec AV= area of vertical reinforcement. 'L'his formulaisbasedupon thefundamental assumption of reinforcedconcretetheory that t,here is no slip between concrete and steel so that the strain in the two mat,erials is the same,i.e., t,he actualshortening of the concrete due to the load must be t,he same as the shorkening of thesteel. As therefore ittakes nl times as much load per square inch to make a steel rod t.0 shorten by a given arnount as it takes t.0 make a concrete rodof the same length to shorten by thesameamount,eachsquare inch of steel is equivalent to m square inches of concrete as regards load carrying capacity. The (m-l) occurs in the formula because the .area of the steel (AV)has already been counted in the area of the column. Thearea of concrete is therefore (A-AV) and the equivalent area is therefore = area of times area of steel = A-AV c0ncret.e + m +mAv = A + (m-l) AV.
"

not less
bar
"

than t'lle diamet,er of suchvertkxl

ES

Thismeansthat,with very amallcolumns, say 6 inches square, t'he effective area. cannot core be more t h m 9 squareinchessincethe cannot be more than t'hree inches square, and this, together with rules as to permissible ratio of length to effective diameter would lead t.0 absurdresults if we tried t o . designa thing like a hmp-post in accordance with the regu1;i t ions. Thepurpose of this coreis to provideprotection against fire and against corrosion of the reinforcement. There hns been considerable discussion as to whether the full 8re:t of concrete (i.e., to the outside of the column) should not be ailowed i n somecases; we thinkthe balance of opinion and t.echnica1 knowledge IS certainly in favour of such a course and would suggest that we should be given the option of taking either t,he full area at a lower st,ress or t,he core mea at a higherstress. The current American Joint Commit,tee Report (19243 allows t,he full a.rea of concrete to be t,aken at a stress of 4 of the crushing strength of the concretx at:' 28 days measured upon cylinders of lengthequalto t,wice the diameter.

The importance of adequate

lateral reinforcement.
I n a reinforced concrete t,he lateral reinforcement or binding between t,he reinforcement is of the utmost importance. A fact, which was well known some fifteen to twenty years ago, but does not appeur now often to be mentioned, should here be referred plain columns to. It is that on some t.ests have proved t,o be actually stronger than reinforced concrete columns of t.he same size and made of t,he same concrete. The reason for this is that each vertical rod is a very slender column, and unless there is strong lateral so reinforcement a t close dist'ance apart arranged that it ca.n effectively divide each rod into a number of short columns, the rods will buckle a.nd drive their wav throughtheconcrete and bring about t,he failure of t,he whole column.

E f e c t i v e '' Area of Column.

I n the L.C.C. Regulations the effect'ive area is defined as " the area bounded by the lateral reinforcementmeasured t,o the inside of the hooping. " This is commonly called the " core area,"andmay also be definedasthearea bounded by the outsides of the longitudinal reinforcement the points between reinforcement being straight or arcuate according as the ties are polygonal or circular. In clause 140 of theL.C.C.R,egulations it is specified that " the cover of any vertical bar in a pillar" shall not be less than l* inches and

* Columns are called

"

pillars " in these regulations.

Mr. Edward Godfrey, of Pittsburgh, U . S . A . , has for ma,ny years been condemning with no uncertain voice what he calls the rodded column," and has att,ributed many failures involving serious loss of life t,o it.s use; he quotes many examples of this in his stimulating book upon " EngineeringFailures."Althoughthe present writer cannot follow that engineer into the full depth of all his denunciations, he has too high a regard for Mr. Godfrey's experience and-t,o usehisown phrase-" horse-sense '' tocastasideany opinionwhich he holds so strongly. .By a " rodded column Mr. Godfrey means a square or rectangular column with a small diameter rod a t each corner provided withlinks atdistancesapartverticallyequal to 12 inches or more. Many examples of such columns may be found in the early American books upon Reinforced Concrete, and particular objection is made by Mr. Godfrey to the case in which there are three or more rods on eachside. We will alsobear in mind that if hasbeen known for thelinksto be pushed down in the concreting so that t,hey are in fact farther apart than the drawings show. One point, which may go a long way to explain the reason why such a rodded column is sometimesdangerous,we will briefly refer to here. It is known that concret,e shrinks on hardening;thisshrinkageistheprincipal cause of cracking which often occurs in slabs if sufficient transverse reinforcement is not provided. The text-books usually describe this reinforcement as beingprovided to deal with expansion due t.o temperature; now expansion cannotcausethiscracking,although contraction can do so, but we believe that the princidue to pal cause of it is the contract,ion shrinkage. This shrinkage may continue for many months. Now if the concrete shrinks-and this action is probably increased if the concreteissubjected to compression-the column must get shorter, and as the steel does not shrink naturally atthesametime,thesteel if no slip occurs must be pulled down with the concrete and thus subjected to stress which is very much greater than that calculated, so that the buckling tendency of individual rods is greatly increased if they are not absolutely tied in by the tranverse reinforcement. We shall probably have further information upon t'his important subject in the near future.
" "

Spiral Reilzforcement.
The points which we have considered above haveanimportantbearing upon the cla.ims put forward by the great French engineer, Armand Considere, in favour of spiral reinforcement and never disproved, is close-wound and, Spiral reinforcement therefore, effectively divides the longitudinal as individual rods into very short lengths columnsand ismoreover continuous, so that each link is absolutely anchored. Considhe clairned as t,lle result of experirnerltal and theoretical investigations that a given volume of steel was 2.4 times as effective in increasing the strength of the column ns the same volume arranged vertically. I f ttlerefore Vh is the volume of steel in the helical reinforcement in a length of column V11 represents equa,] to l , the quantity A h =

t,he area of helical stmeel, so that 2.4 Ah represents the area of longitudind steel equivalent to the helical steel on Considbre's formula. The formula therefore for giving the safe load upon a column according to Considkre is : P = C{ A (m-l) (AY -l- 2.4 Ah)) (2) The symbols in this forrnula, other than Ah defined above, are the same as in formula (1) but A should be t,aken as the core area in this

CilS3.

There a,ppears to be no doubt, whatever, fromtestsmade by Considheandotherinvestigators that the spirally reinforced column gives a " tougher " column than the column tied by links at the ordinary dista.nces apart; thefracture of the roddedcolumnis brittle, while the spirally-reinforcedcolumnstillhas R reserve of strength,and will shorten considerably after the initial failure which occurs by the spalling off of the concrete outside the core. Some writers have cast doubt upon the greater value of spiralreinforcement a.s compared wit,h linkreinforcementontheground that once the load is reached at which the failure will ultimately spalling off occurs, occur at this loa,d if the load i s kept on long enough ; moreover, they say that the shortening occurring after this spailing off is so great that beams framing into such a column in actual practice would fail. hga,iust this argument Mr. Godfrey haa st,a.ted th2t whereas many buildings having rodded columns ha,ve collapsed, there never

O f

THEINSTITUTION

OF STRUCTURAL

ENGINEEKS, 3 0 3

has been a collapse of a building with spirally reinforced columns; it seems to the writer to be very difficult to disregardthisverypractical criterion of the matter, At this point we ought to say that our view is that in most of the cases of collapse referred to by Mr. Godfrey we believe that the fundamental error in the design was an omission to allow for bending stresses in the column. that is tosayeccentricity of loading ; it is,howcolumn ever, possible that a spirally-wound overstressed from this cause would stand better than a rodded column. In Fig. 27 are illustrated various forms and arrangements of transverse reinforcement for columns.

The form (b) used often to be used, but it is open to the seriousobjection that, unless thetiesarevery closely spacedor of spiral form the rods at the middle of each side are not tied at all effectively ; Mr. Godfrey is very severe in his criticism of this. Forms(c) and (d) provide adequatetying of these centre rods; of these form ( c ) is theoreticallybetter,butithasthepractical objection that the ties pass across the centre of thecolumn,andthus offer obstructionto the placing and tamping or rodding of the concrete; this is often a serious objection, because if. meticulouscare be not taken the ties will he displaced in the concreting. Form (e) shows an ochgonalcolumn wit,hspiralreinforcement. This brings out what the writer believes to be an advant.age of thespiral hoopingquite apart from tlhe theoretical consideration of forming a kind of open steel jacket which liter-. ally prevents the concretefrom bursting between the tics and fracturing diagonally. The point is that with spiral reinforcement displacement of the lateral reinforcement. may be regarded 8s impossible; atthesametime it presentsnoobstruction to the placing of the concrete and " rodding " nfter ithas been placed. This enables the column to be cast in long lengths, and it should be mentioned that some very experienced authorities on reinforced concrete regard effective " rodding " as of theutmostimportanceasitensuresthe absence of airpockets,andthathomogenity of the concrete which enables very great strengths to be obtained. While the writer believes that there is justification in the statements of the advocates of the spiral reinforcement as to the higher stresses which it justifies, he also believes that there is no danger in a linked or rodded column if the links are adequately shaped and spaced suficiently close together, and due regard is paid to bending stresses due to eccentricity of loading snd other causes.

e
Frc:. 27.

L b CbC. Rules for CentrallyLoaded cdu?n?z$b

The L.C.C. regulations provide [SlOS) that the pitch of lateral reinforcement shall not exceed -6 of the effective diameter of the column, or 16 times the diameter of the least vertical bar, and that for a length equal to l + times the effective diameter t,hepitchshallnot be less than -3 of the effective diameter.

(a) is the ordinary link for a four-rod cclumn, and calls for no comment except that che links should not be farther apart than about 15 diameters of t,he bars,or half tho least diameter of the cdumE.

Moreover $107 stmates that the minimum volume of lateral reinforcement shall be 8 per cent. of the volume of t,he hooped core. The minimum size allowed for links is & in. and for hoops 8 in. of the These provisions prevent the use dangerous type of rodded column to which previous reference has been made. minimum The vertical reinforcement allowed is 1 per cent. of the core area and the limits of series of vert,ical bars are 6 in. to 2 in.

Stresses Allowed.
When the amount of lateralreinforcement is in excess of the minimum theworking stress may be increased by multiplying by a quant'ity depending upon the type of reinforcement, the pitch and volume of 1nt.eral reinforcement per unit volume of core. The stress is given by the formula

\
I. l 0
1-05

= c [I

+ f.S.Vl
9, 9,
99

where i = permissible increased stress per sq. inc = ordinary compressive stress per sq. in. L600 lb. per sq. in. for 1:2:4 concrete 1 *2:2:4 650 3, 3, 1.5:2.4 7 , 700 97 7, 2:2:4 750 7 , 7, 1 f = 1.0 for helical circular reinforcement - 7 5 ,, circular hoops 50 ,, rectilinear links S = 32 for pitch = '2d or less = '3d 24 97 = '4d 16
9 9,
9,

99 9,

79

9,

9,

9,

= '5d $9 = '6d 0 99 $9 VI = Volume of lateral reinforcement ... 9, core I n no case m a y t.heincreasedstress i be more than 33+ per cent. in excess of the stress c . This valve is reached when the quantity f.s.V, equals 3 ; forhelicalreinforcement at pitch-2d f = 1.0 and S = 32. 1 1 x 32 x V I = 3 ' v 1 = -1 96 This corresponds to dmost, exactly 1 per cent.helicalreinfopcement. On Fig. 28 is shown an alignment-chart or monogram for calculat,jnq t,he increased stress in accordance with t,he above rules.

99

9,

99

9,

:.

To use the diagrsm we join across the division corresponding to the pit,ch of lateralsto the division corresponding to the form of binding; we then join t'he point at t,his line intersecting the support line to the division corresponding t,o the volume ratio for binding. The line t,hen gives the inintersection of this creased stress ratio. I n t h e case illustrated, whichisforhelical reinforcement a t pitch 4d and 1.0 volume ratio, the diagram shows an increased stress ratio of 1-16.

Numerica l Examp le.

A square reinforced column of 1 : 2 : 4 mix has 4-3 roundbars as longitudinalreinforcement, and is 17 in. square in ext,ernal dimenof sions. The lateral reinforcement consists

-_______c -

o f THEINSTITUTION OF

STRUCTURAL

ENGINEERS. 3 0 5

rectilinear square 5 in. binding a t 29 in. pitch. C:dculate the permissible load on the column ;Lssuming thatthelength of columnissuch that full stress may be allowed. Theminimum cover for 8 in.longitudinal bws allowed by the regulationsis 14 inches, 80 that the core area in the present case will be 14 x 14.

275 - -1 14 X 14 X 276 196 For 1:2:4 ccncrete c = 600 stress allowed =

..

In our cage
S=

27! 14

= -2d approx. so that

32 and f = 5 because the binding is rectilinear. The volume of steel per link = 4 X 14 X .0491 = 275 cu. in. (0491 is the area of a 2 in. wire.) Volume of core per pitch = 14 X 14 X 275 Volume of steel binding v1 = Volume of core

: .

600 ( 1 + 5 2 ) = 6 4 9 lb. per sq. in. 196 Now the area of 4-4bars is 2.40 Equivalent area = 14 X 14 -l14 X 2.40 = 280 sq. in. Permissible load =stress allowed X equivalent area. =649 X 230 = 149,000 lb. The next point t.0 be considered is the effect of slenderness of column upon the permissible 1oa.d.

..

..

FINANCE AND COMMERCE-By

The CityEditorwill be gladtoanswerenquiries by readers on 5nancial or commercialsubjects.Advice as to investments will also be furnished. Letters should be addressed to The City Editor, The Structural Engineer, 10, Upper Belgrave Street, S.W. 1, and .a stamped and addressed envelope for B reply should be enclosed.

Our City Editor.

The total amount of capital invested by the public in British indust7ry has increased enormouslysincet,heconclusion of the European War,but fewsectionscanboastsuchrapid expansion as thoseengagedin thesupply of the principal building materials. In comparison with the interestof the investing public in the building supply trades in pre-war days, as theextension of the jointstockprinciple applied to companies engaged in brick and cement manufacture has been remarkable. Apartfromthe Associated PortlandCement Manufactarers, Limited, and its associates, the pre-war interest of the public in this class of enterprise was practically nil, and although many ,brick and cement undertakings were

then in existence few of them were public companies. Conditions have altered greatly during the past eight years, approximately ~6,000,000 of new public capital having been raised by various brick and cement mnnufacnumber of them t,uring enterprises, a large entirely new flotations, and the number of such companies whose shares are now known. on the Stock Exchange exceeds twenty. O f the new capitalraised,rathermorethan 50 per cent. has been for the purpose of cement manufacture, and the remainder for bricks and similar materials. The circumstance surrounding the brick and cement industries are, of course, widely different, for while a considerable quantity of cement exported, is bricks are manufactured almost exclusively for the home market,. Brick-making concerns are therefore likely to be more rapidly affected by the overtaking of arrears of house building than cement companies, especially as the in this latter have a more varied outlet, even count,ry, for their product. At the present