Figure 5: Plan of Floor Slab Design (Bottom and

Temperature/Shrinkage Steel)

The full, tabulated calculations for the floor slab can be found in
Appendix C.
T-beam Design for Flexure
The T-beams were then designed for the flexural forces they would
experience. This design comprised of the determination and
selection of the adequate amount of steel necessary in each of the
critical T-beam sections. The steel reinforcement is necessary in the
portions of the Tbeam that are in tension because steel is strong in
tension while concrete is very weak and brittle in tension. However,
the T-beam sections cannot have too much steel or they become
overreinforced and the failure mode of an over-reinforcement beam
is very sudden. The T-beam should be under-reinforced so there is
warning before a failure would occur (under a loading condition that
was not designed for). There were six unique beam lines to analyze
when designing the T-beam for flexure. Beam lines A and G; B and F;
and C, D and E are the three groups of identical beam lines and
there was both the floor and roof loading cases for each set of beam
lines. Along each beam line, there were five critical sections that
correlated to the critical sections for the ACI Moment Coefficients.

The T-beam width was taken to be fifteen (15) inches to match the
column widths in order to make construction easier. The first step in
determining the T-beam reinforcement was to calculate the
governing T-beam depth. Using ACI code, both the exterior and
interior spans were checked and it was found that the interior T-
beam depth (17.14 inches) governed the exterior T-beam depth
(16.2 inches). Since these are a minimum value, a round value of
eighteen (18) inches was used as the T-beam depth. For beams
with positive bending (tension is in the bottom of the T-beam), it
was assumed the rectangular stress block (which is correlated to the
portion of the beam in compression), was fully comprised in the
flange (i.e. slab). For beams with negative bending (tension is in the
top of the T-beam), the rectangular stress block was assumed to be
in the stem (i.e. web). Both of these assumptions would be checked
in the design process. Next, the effective width of the slab was
calculated according to ACI 8.12.3. The effective width of the slab is
the portion of the T-beam flange that contributes to the strength of
the T-beam. For interior beam lines the effective width of the slab
cannot be greater than onequarter of the clear span length and the
overhanging flange width must be less than eight times the slab
thickness and must also be less than one half the adjacent clear
span. For exterior spans, the overhanging flange width cannot
exceed one-twelfth the span length of the beam, six times the slab
thickness and one-half the clear distance to the next web.

After the effective width was calculated, the effective depth was
then found. For the positive bending sections, the effective depth
was the beam depth minus the two and a half (2.5) inches, which
includes the cover distance (1.5 inches), the diameter of the stirrup
bar (0.5 inches) and half of the longitudinal rebar diameter (which
was assumed to be a #8 bar). For the negative section, the
effective depth was the T-beam depth minus the cover (0.75
inches), the transverse rebar (0.5 inches) and half of the
longitudinal rebar diameter (which was assumed to be a #8 bar).
The distributed load that the T-beam supported was then found by
multiplying the tributary area of the T-beam (half the center-to-
center span to each side of the T-beam) by either the floor or roof
load. This value was added to the self-weight of the beam stem for
the total line load. Then using the corresponding ACI moment
coefficients, the moment for each section was found.

Using the moment for the section along with the effective depth of
the section, the width of the T-beam and an assumed reduction
factor () of 0.90, the area of steel required in each section was
found and a combination of bar sizes was selected. The effective
depth was then check again using the same methodology (but using
the actual value of half the diameter of the longitudinal steel) to
make sure it was approximately the value that was assumed. The
extreme tension strain and the reduction factor () were then
verified to be the same as the values that were assumed. The clear
distance spacing of the bars was also checked using ACI 318. Finally,
the minimum and maximum steel requirements were verified
according to ACI 10.3.5 and 10.5.1 and the design strength of the T-
beam was checked.

For beam lines C, D and E, the extreme tension stress and factor
were not verified as they were assumed and the beams were not in
compliance with the code. Therefore, for these beam lines the
beam depth was increased to twenty (20) inches and the process
was repeated. This beam depth resulted in a design that complied
with the code.

The reinforcement details (elevation and cross-sections) for floor

beam lines A and G can be seen in Figure 6. The elevation and
cross-section reinforcement details for all the unique beam lines can
be found in Figures A7 to A12 in the Appendix. The T-beam flexural
reinforcement calculations can be found in Appendix D. It should be
noted that only one steel reinforcement design was used between
S3 and S4. The section that requires the larger amount of steel will
control the steel region at the first interior support.

Figure 6: Floor T-Beam Reinforcing Elevation and Sections for Beam

Lines A and G

T-beam Design for Shear

Next in the design process was the determination of the shear
reinforcement. Without shear reinforcement the beam would have a
catastrophic failure due to shear-web and flexure-shear cracks.
These cracks would form due to the shear forces in the beam and
cause equivalent tension stresses that would cause failure in the
beam since concrete is very weak in tension. This failure would be
sudden and extremely dangerous and must be designed against.
Additionally, this is incredibly important because this failure occurs
substantially before the flexural strength of the beam is reached.
Therefore stirrups at a determined spacing are used to provide a
source of tensile strength against these shear forces (and equivalent
tensile stresses).

As was the case with the T-beam flexural design, there are six
unique beam lines that must be designed for shear. Additionally,
like the T-beam flexural design, beam lines A and G; B and F; and C,
D and E compose three groups of identical beam lines and then
there are the two loading conditions for each group (i.e. the floor
and the roof loads).

The shear forces at the critical locations were determined using

the shear coefficients from ACI 318 with the same line load that was
used in the flexural design (i.e. the tributary area of the Tbeam
multiplied by the area load combined with the T-beam stem self-
weight). The effective depth was also calculated using the most
conservative value from the positive moment sections in the flexural
design. The shear diagram was then constructed by applying the
shear coefficients from ACI 318. The shear at the columns was
truncated at a distance d away from the support (so there is a
constant shear away from the supports to a distance d away from
the support at which the shear will connect back to the original
shear diagram).

The strength of the concrete in shear was then calculated with a

factor of safety. The portions of the beam where the reduced
strength of the concrete itself was greater than the factored shear
force on the beam are required to have the minimum web
reinforcement. A #4 stirrup was used and the required maximum
spacing was determined to be seven and a half (7.5) inches. For the
portion of the shear diagram that had a shear force above the
concrete shear strength, the minimum spacing for strength
purposes were tabulated. In all the sections, this value was above
the maximum spacing limits that were the same as above (for the
region where the reduced concrete shear strength was greater than
the factored shear force). An additional check was conducted to
make sure that the maximum spacing limits could be used
according to ACI code.

After conducting all of these checks, it was determined that #4

stirrups could be used at seven and a half (7.5) inches for all T-
beams in the entire structure. Next, the starting locations were
determined with a goal of having them roughly half of the spacing
away from the supports. It was actually determined that the stirrups
could start exactly one half of the spacing away from the supports,
which is three and three-quarter (3.75) inches. Figure 7 shows the
shear reinforcement.

Figure 7: Shear Reinforcement

Figures 8 shows a sample factored shear diagram for the floor

load for beam lines A and G. It should be noted that the smax value
of seven and a half (7.5) inches can be used everywhere. For the full
set of shear diagrams, see Figures A13 to A18 in the Appendix.

Figure 8: Floor Load Shear Diagram for Beam Lines A & G

The full T-beam shear reinforcement design calculations can be

found in Appendix E.
Crack Control
Cracks pose not only aesthetic problems to a building, but cracks
also can lead to faster corrosion rates that can accelerate the failure
of the beam. Therefore, ACI 318 limits the spacing of the rebar to
control the cracking of the concrete. First the T-beams were checked
for cracking according to Equation (10-4) in ACI 318 with the
assumption that the stress in the rebar was two-thirds the yield
stress. Every T-beam section had adequate spacing of the
longitudinal rebar.

Next, the slab reinforcement was checked. Again using Equation

(10-4) in ACI 318 and the assumption that the stress in the rebar
was two-thirds the yield stress, the maximum spacing allowed by
code was found. However, this maximum spacing was twelve (12)
inches, which was smaller than any of the slab reinforcing in the
original design. Therefore, the slab reinforcing fails code and must
be re-designed with a maximum spacing of twelve inches. The best
way to accomplish this would be to reduce the size of the bar to a
#3 bar and use the corresponding spacing needed per the strength
requirements or twelve inches, whichever is smaller. This would be
the most economical way to change the design, as it would most
likely not rely on an ACI minimum anymore. When a design relies
on an ACI minimum it is typically not the most efficient design.

The full crack control calculations can be found in Appendix F.

T-beam Deflection Control

Deflections must be controlled in any structure in order to make
the building feels safe and is serviceable. Additionally, deflections
must be controlled so that the non-structural components of the
building do not fail.

For the T-beam deflection control analysis, the un-factored loads

were used in the calculation, but were found exactly the same way
as they were in the flexural design of the T-beams. Additionally,
each span was checked for deflection. Therefore, there were twelve
(12) spans that had to be checked, as there were the exterior and
interior spans under roof and floor loading for three distinct beam
lines.

The first step in the deflection calculation was to find the effective
moment of inertia of the Tbeam cross-section assuming the full load
was applied to the building early on in the construction process (this
is in order to be conservative). This effective moment of inertia is
the moment of inertia for the beam based on the amount of
cracking in the beam (it is always somewhere in-between the
moment of inertia of a fully cracked beam and a completely
uncracked beam). First the gross moment of inertia was found for
the T-beam cross-sections (disregarding the fact that there was steel
in the T-beam, which is allowed by code and is conservative). Then
each critical point on each span (i.e. the negative bending moments
near the columns and the positive bending moment at the mid-
span) was checked to see if the section was cracked. If the section
was cracked (which was the case for the majority of the sections),
the cracked moment of inertia for the beam was calculated. Next
the effective moment of inertia for each of the critical sections was
found according to ACI 318 using the weighted average method for
each span (i.e. the mid-span effective moment of inertia was
multiplied by one half and each of the support effective moment of
inertias was multiplied by one quarter). Using the deflection
equation for a continuous span, the deflection under the total load
was found.
It was assumed that the beam carried a partition that was
sensitive to deflections and therefore according to ACI 318, the
beam deflection after the partition is installed cannot be greater
than the span length divided by 480. The assumed loading history
used was that the partitions were installed after the shoring from
the dead load of the structure was removed and the immediate
deflection due to the dead load was experienced. Therefore, the
deflection experienced by the partitions would be the long-term
dead load deflection; the immediate live load deflection for both the
short-term portion of the live load (50 psf) and the sustained portion
of the live load, which was the partitions weight (20 psf); and the
long-term deflection from the partitions. Assuming that after the full
initial deflection occurred, that the stress-strain plot was linear and
passed through the origin, the above deflections were calculated
using ACI 318. All the Tbeams passed except the interior spans
under floor loads for beam column lines B, C, D, E and F. These
cross-sections would need to be redesigned with a larger T-beam
web depth or maybe additional steel. However, if additional steel
was added, the design must be re-checked to make sure the
extreme tension fiber stress is below the limits set by ACI 318. The
full set of deflection calculations can be found in Appendix G.

Column Design
The last part of the design that was completed was the
determination of the reinforcement for the columns. The columns
are the most critical part of the building because the failure of a
column, especially a column lower in the building, could have
devastating ramifications. The failure of a column could result in the
failure of a large portion, or all, of the building. Columns are
deemed more important in the design of building than the design of
the beams or the floor systems because if a beam or floor collapses,
the damage may be contained to a much smaller area than if a
column fails. This is called the strong column, weak beam design
theory.

First the maximum axial and moment loads that each column
could experience were found. These loads were divided into the
dead loads (i.e. mechanical equipment, roofing material, slab self-
weight, column self-weight, T-beam self-weight) and the live loads
(i.e. the partitions, general live load, and snow). The top and
bottom of each column were analyzed by looking at two different
loading conditions. Both conditions include the entire dead load of
the structure. However, the loading conditions vary based on which
bays the live load is applied. For both scenarios the simplest
loading scenario that causes the maximum bending is assumed to
be the starting point (this is typically achieved by applying the live
load on the bay that frames into the section of the column being
analyzed that causes that largest moment). In the first loading
scenario, the live load is then applied to the other bays of the
structure as long as the moment in the column being analyzed is not
affected. In the second loading scenario, only the initial live load to
cause the maximum moment is applied (i.e. no additional bays are
loaded from the first step). In this way, the column is designed for
both axial loading and eccentric loading.
 Using these loading scenarios, the moment was calculated in the
beams and using structural analysis the distribution of the moment
in the beam to the moments in the column was computed. Then
using this moment in the column along with the axial load in the
column, the reinforcement was found using Graph A.5 and Graph
A.6 in Nilson et al for both loading cases at the top and bottom of
each column. Next, the governing steel requirement was found for
a given column (i.e. the largest steel requirement from the top and
bottom of each column when considering both loading conditions).
After the longitudinal steel was chosen, the ties were chosen in
accordance to ACI 318. Since #4 bars were used as the stirrups in
the T-beams, #4 ties were also chosen so that there was
consistency in the materials on the jobsite and no confusion would
be made between the bars. Using the constraints that the spacing
could not be more than sixteen times the diameter of the
longitudinal steel, forty-eight times the diameter of the ties and the
least dimension of the compression member, the tie spacing was
determined for every floor of every column line as well. The
longitudinal reinforcement along with the tie spacing for each story
of every column in the building is present in Tables 1 and 2. The
exterior column notation refers to columns on grid lines 1 and 4
while the interior column notation refers to columns on grid lines 2
and 3.
Table 1: Column Longitudinal Reinforcement

Table 2: Column Tie Spacing Story C

A number of the column longitudinal reinforcement was based on

the ACI minimum of 1% steel in the column. This indicates an
efficient design. Ideally the percentage of steel in the column
should be closer to 4%. Therefore, in future iterations of this design,
a smaller columns size should be used.

The pattern in the column reinforcement is that on the exterior of

the building, the roof experiences considerable bending and
therefore more steel is needed in these regions. Additionally, the
interior middle column lines of the structure also need additional
reinforcement at the lower stories due to the large axial loads that
the columns are subjected to.

Figure 9 shows the column cross-sections for column lines B2, B3, F2
and F3.

Figure 9: Column Reinforcement for Interior Column Lines B and F

(B2, B3, F2, F3)
The cross-sections showing the reinforcement for all the column
lines can be found in Appendix A (FigureA19 to Figure A23).

The tabulated data for the design of the columns can be found in
Appendix H. In these tabulations, any column reinforcement that is
denoted with an asterisk means that for this value, a higher value of
the reduction factor () was used to keep the necessary steel
reinforcement to a minimum. This higher value was checked for
each section in which it was used and all calculations comply with
ACI 318.

Summary and Conclusions

Using ACI 318, a preliminary design of a five-story office reinforced
concrete office building was completed. Overall, the structure is a
very efficient building with only a couple of edits needed in future
iterations of the design. It was determined that the design did not
fully comply with ACI 318 code, but that these flaws would be
revised in future edits to the overall design. The loads for the
structure were determined from ASCE 7 with the load combinations
from ACI 318. The columns were determined to be fifteen (15)
inches by fifteen (15) inches with a slab thickness of seven (7)
inches and T-beam depths that varied from eighteen (18) inches to
twenty (20) inches in the first design. These T-beam depths would
be increased for selected beam lines up to twenty-two (22) inches
for deflection control reasons. The chosen T-beam flexural
reinforcement was verified through crack control checks and
strength checks, as was the T-beam shear reinforcement. However,
the slab reinforcement did not comply the ACI 318 crack control
standards. Therefore, the size and spacing of the slab reinforcing
would have to be edited in the next design check to make sure the
spacing was no more than twelve (12) inches. Finally, the
reinforcement in the columns varied throughout the structure with
the maximum reinforcement in the top of the exterior column lines
(due to high bending) and at the bottom of the interior columns
lines (due to large axial loads). The ties for the columns were also
designed according to ACI 318. Because the minimum steel
reinforcement according to ACI 318 was used for the columns, these
columns should be made smaller in future iterations of the design so
the structure can be more efficient.

The next step in this design project would be to complete a

number of iterations on the design until it complies with ACI 318.

Recommendations
This design is only a preliminary design for this reinforced concrete
building and several further revisions are still needed for this design
to be complete. In future revisions to this building, there are a
handful of recommendations that I would make.

The first is to reduce the slab reinforcement to #3 bars, which

would mean a closer spacing. This would be the most economic
solution to the problem with the spacing of the slab reinforcement
that arose when checking the crack control. Whenever a design is
forced to use a minimum value in the code, which was the case in
the slab spacing, that design is typically not as economical as it
could be. In this case, simply reducing the spacing while still using
#4 bars would not be economical. Using a #3 bar at a smaller
spacing would result in a more efficient design, as less material
would be used.

Additionally, I would increase the depth of the T-beams under floor

loading on beam lines B and F to twenty (20) inches and then I
would increase the depth of the T-beams under floor loading on
beam lines C, D and E to twenty-one (21) or twenty (22) inches.
These changes would result in all the T-beams being in compliance
with ACI 318 deflection limits.

Finally, since the column reinforcement was commonly governed

by the ACI minimum, in future iterations I would decrease the
column sizes so that the columns would be more efficient and have
closer to 4% steel instead of the minimum 1% steel. As stated
above, whenever the design is limited by the ACI minimum, it
means there is a more efficient way to the design the structure. In
this case it would be smaller column sizes and more column steel
reinforcement.