Vo, lOpp, ,,67PergamonP ossl 75PrintodinOreat"ritain

Analysis of Probability of Failure

of Prestressed Concrete Beams
P. C H A N D R A S E K A R *
P. D A Y A R A T N A M +

Paper presents prediction of probability of failure of pre.stressed concrete

beams. Probable strengths of basic materials used in the beam are g~enerated as
random z,ariables sub/ect to code spec(tfcations and the probability qf failure
of the beam is obtained through explicit fi)rmulation. Probability qf.faihlre of
beams designed by Indian code of practice and code of American Concrete
Institute is illustrated through a set of examples. It is found that the probability
q/failure q/'a prestressed concrete beam is very sensitit'e to rariation of steel
and less sensitive to the variation in the strength q/'concrete.

INTRODUCTION

treated as a probabilistic quantity[7]. Freudenthai[8] analyzed the safety factor from observable
and measurable physical properties. Pugsley[9]
pleaded for the assessment of probabilities of
failure and collection of statistics regarding
structural properties and loads. He discussed the
effects of fatigue and thermal variations on the
structural safety. Shaw[10] discussed the application
of probabilistic procedures to problems in structural
engineering. Sexsmith and Nelson[1 I] discussed
several of the difl]cuhies encountered in the application of probabilistic concepts to real problem.
Cornell[12] developed a format o,c AC1318-63127]
code that introduced the fundamental advantage of
probabilistic safety analysis. All uncertainties were
treated through standard deviation ( S. D.). However,
no frequency distribution for the random variable
was considered and hence no estimate of t'.~e
probability of failure was made. A method of
designing a structure for minimum weight subject
to an overall probability of failure constraint was
given by Moses and Stervenson[13] and Moses
and Kinser[t4], The design is considered to be safe
and adequate if the probability of failure of the
structural member is less than a specified small
quantity. Benjamin[I 5] discussed the advantages of
probabilistic design over the deterministic procedures and pleaded for giving a rational basis to
the probabilistic concepts. Costello and Chu[16]
discussed the failure probabilities of reinforced
concrete beams using the data of frequency distribution for steel and concrete from Julian paper[I 7],
Sexsmith [18] discussed the reliability of reinforced
concrete beams and tied columns. Gohle and Lapay
[19] have discussed the minimum cost design of
prestressed beams using non-linear programming
techniques to satisfy the limitations of code of
ACI 20. Rao[21] minimized the cost of a beam by

M E T H O D S in structural design can broadly be

classified into three groups namely deterministic,
semi-probabilistic and probabilistic methods. The
deterministic design can further be divided into
working strength (WSD), ultimate strength (USD)
and limit states design (LSD). The three methods
of deterministic design assume the strengths of
materials and loads of a structure as deterministic
and ensure the safety of the structure by introducing
factors of safety or load factors to the strength
of materials or to the load respectively. The deterministic design while it ensures the safety of the
structure but ignores the actual frequency distribution of the loads and strength of materials[l].
The recommendations for the international code of
practice for reinforced concrete structures by
CEB FIP[2] take into account the frequency
distribution of the loads and strength of materials
to a limited extent. However, it does not consider
the probability of failure as a constraint in actual
design. Therefore, the method recommended by
CEB-FI P can be classified under semi probabilistic
approach. Ang and Amin[3] introduced a factor of
ignorance to take care of non-measurable uncertainties. Rational and semi-probabilistic methods
have been proposed by Lind[4], Turkstra[5] and
Benjamin and Lind[6].

M E T H O D OF PROBABILISTIC DESIGN
If structural safety is to be meaningfully
specified in a quantitative manner it has to be
*Senior Research Fellow at Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur.
tProfessor of Civil Engineering, Institute of Technology,
Kanpur.
161

162

P. Chandrasekar and P. Dayaratnam

using a failure probability constraint in the optimization.

The present paper suggests a method o f explicit
evaluation of the probability o f failure of prestressed concrete beams. The range o f probability
of failure of beams designed by Indian Standards
(IS) Code of practicer22] and code of America~t
Concrete Instituter20] are presented. The frequency
distribution of the strength of materials has been
generated as a r a n d o m variable subject to the
specification o f the codes.
The problem is formulated in two major groups.
The resistance of the materials is treated as a
r a n d o m variable subject to specifications of the
codes while the loads are treated as deterministic.
In the second case the strength of materials as welt
as the loads are assigned a certain type of frequen%
distribution.

working moment caused by dead load. M,.~ and

s.,. can be expressed as [1]:

,%. =, ~A,.~;.,a
,

OF

THE

0"85

(a) I-sections with neutral axis in.flange

The ultimate strength of a rectangular or l-beam
with neutral axis in the flange as per IS Code (22}
is given by

i4i

.~?.+{ ..__22"' I s;

i5

(O'CI-FO-C2-POC,
)
-~
" <
/c~q
i'15 [

+o~,
"

crq oc-.

-t- ac:~ i
I

:6)

PROBLEM

a q + a c e -+-m::3 ~;~ % .
3

Analysis formulation with load as deterministic

Mr = kbA,,a~d

::= J

~i~

where ,~, = S.D. of steel strength, a ..... = mean

value of the strength of steel..r, :~ S.D. o f concrete
strength, a ...... = mean value ot strength o f con-crete.
ac. m and .v,: are generated av r a n d o m variables
subject to IS Code specifications[23] The specification can be expressed as :

c.~.', <
FORMULATION

t'c.,M,.,.,,:

!11

where, k b = bond factor (1 for bonded construction

and 0.7 for u n b o u n d e d one). M, = ultimate
resistance o f the beam. o-~= ultimate strength of
steel. ~c,, = crushing strength of concrete for 15 cm
cube. b = breadth of rectangular member or
flanged width, d = distance of compression edge
to the centre o f area o f prestressing steel. A,~ = area
o f tension steel, k~ = 0.75.
g e t Me be the external m o m e n t on the beam.
The probability of failure of a beam for deterministic loads, denoted by Pza is given by

t7t

where a q , ac2. ac~, are some r a n d o m strengths of

concrete. % . . and s c are obtained from a computer
program written satisfying equations (6) and (7).
Similarly % . and s~ are generated from r a n d o m
variables subject to IS Code specitication (24).
Examph, 1. A prestressed, concrete beam of
effective span 50 m is subjected to uniformly
distributed load (udl) of 2 t/re. The beam was
designed with concrete of 4 5 0 k g / c m 2 cube
strength and steel of 15,000kg/cm z. The crosssection of the beana is shown ia figure 1. Area o f

~. .............

~GC

!78

.........

4t

r~
All dimensions in cm

xa
L

P re = P(M~ < MO) =

\.

~,~

i2)

where, M~, is the mean value of the ultimate

resisting m o m e n t of the beam. sin, is the standard
deviation o f the ultimate resisting m o m e n t of the
beam. 4~ is the normal distribution function.
Me can be working m o m e n t M.~ or design
ultimate m o m e n t Me,, which is given by
Me. = F , M ~ a + f , Mewa

(3)

where /71 = load factor for live load. F a = load

factor for dead. load. M~w~ = external working
m o m e n t caused by live load. Me.,n = external

i
!_

As ~ 8 7 cm

El

Fig. 1. Idealised section o f tile beam at midspatt.

steel is 80 cm 2 and selfweight (sw) of the beam is

2-4 t./m. The external bending m o m e n t at mid
span is Mew = [ ( 2 + 2 ' 4 ) x ( 5 0 ) 2 ] / 8 = 1375 t/re.
M e a n value and S.D. of strength of concrete
satisfying the IS Specifications[23] and [24] are,
a,.,. = 0-472 t/cm 2, s~ ~ 0'054 t/cm z

Analysis of Probabilio' of Failure of Prestressed Concrete Beam.s"

Similarly.
o-i,,, = 16.2 t/cm e, ~~ = 1.22 t/cm 2
The above values are generated from the r a n d o m
variables subject to IS Specifications. The mean
value and the S.D. of the resisting m o m e n t of the
beam from equations (4) and (5) are,
M .... = 2 4 6 8 t m s .... = 175tm
The substitution of the above quantities in equation
(2) gives the probability of failure o f the beam and
it is
P;d = 0"022 10- 9
Such a low probability o f failure indicates that
the beam is absolutely safe.
If one uses the ultimate strength design procedure
the beam is supposed to have failed at the design
ultimate moment computed by using the load
factors. The design ultimate moment on the beam
using the load factors as suggested by Indian Road
Congress (IRC) is,

selfweight of the beam and the external bending

m o m e n t remain the same as in example l.
Mean value and S.D. of strength of concrete
satisfying the A C I specifications subject to the
limit of ao, = 337.5 kg/cm 2 are,
a<,.,,, = 0'379 t/cm ~, s,.>. = 0.041 t:cm e
The mean value and the S.D. of the resisting
moment of the beam from equations (4) and (5)
are,
M .... = 2224tm. s .... = 158tin
The probability of failure of the beam from
equation (2) using the working load is 0-30 10 -v.
The probability of failure of the beam using the
ultimate load is 0.9983. This is nearly equal to
unity.

(b) 1-section with neutral axis in web

The ultimate resisting moment of an I-beam with
neutral axis in the web as per 1S Code[2] is given
by,
M r

1
= 2687 tm

163

kb,4t~

a',d[l

k~At~"al]

+ k 2~,,t(b-b')(d-O'5t)

(9)

where

The probability of failure from equation (2) is

0-8946.
Theoretically, the probability of failure of a beam
based on ultimate strength design should tend to 1.
However, the pfa in the case beam designed by IS
Code of practice is much less than 1 indicating
oversafety in design.
A detailed discussion of the probability of failure
of beams designed by IS and A C I specification is
presented later.
The ultimate strength of a rectangular or I-beam
with neutral axis in the flange as per A C I Code[20],
is given by

[ At,<

M, = 0.9 A,, crld 1

l'7bd~o,_J

(8)

where 0.9 stands for capacity reduction factor and

a o, = cylinder strength of concrete.
The probability of l:ailure is given by equation (2).
The probable mean value and S.D. of the strength
of concrete are generated from r a n d o m variable
values of cylinder strengths satisfying A C I specifications[20].

E.vample 2. A prestressed concrete beam o f

effective span 50 m is subjected to udl o f 2 t/m.
The beam is designed with concrete o f cylinder
strength 337.5 kg/cm 2 (which corresponds to a cube
strength of 4 5 0 k g / c m 2) and steel strength o f
15,000 kg/cm 2. The cross-section used is the same
as in example 1. Area of steel is 8 0 c m 2. The

At,,~ = Ate- At~ r

Atsr = area of steel required to develop the
ultimate compressive strength o[" overhanging portion of the flange

= ky~.,(b-b')t/a I
b' = breadth of web
t --- thickness of flange
k 2 = 0.7

and

k3 = 0.68

M,, r and s,,r can be calculated as per section (a) and

PId from equation (2).

Examph, 3. A prestressed concrete beam of
effective span 50 m is subjected to udl of 2 t/re.
The beam was designed with concrete of 350
kg/cm 2 cube strength, and steel of 15,000 kg/cm 2
as per IS specification. The cross-section of the
beam is the same as shown in example I. Area of
steel = 91 c m 2. The selfweight of tile beam and the
external bending moment remain the same as in
example 1.
Mean value and S.D. of the strength of concrete
satisfying the IS specification subject to the
M 350 are
...... = 0.367 t / c m 2, s c = 0.042 t.cm e
Similarly, Cram = 16"2 t c m 2, s,. = 1"22 t/cm 2. The
mean value and the S.D. o f the resisting m o m e n t
o f the beam from equations (4) and (5) are

Mmr = 2712 tm, s,,r = 172 tm

P. Chandrasekar and P. Dayaratnam

164

Substitution o f the above quantities in equation (2)

give the probability of failure of the beam and it is
0"40x 10 -14.
The probability of failure at the designed ultimate
load is obtained as 0.4432.

Example 4. A prestressed concrete beam of

effective span 50 m is subjected to a udl of 2 t.m.
The beam is designed with concrete of 262-5 kg/cm"
cylinder strength (which corresponds to a cube
strength of 350 kg/cm 2) as per A C i specification.
The cross-section of the beam is same as that of
example I. Area o f steel is 91 cm 2. The sell'weight
o f the beam and the external bending moment
remain the same as in example 1.
Mean value and S.D. of the strength of concrete
using A C I Specification subject to the cylinder
strength of 262-5 kg/cm 2 are

where Pfp = the probability of failure of the beam

for probabilistic loads and M,, o and
, ..... are the mean value and S . D of
M,.

E.vample 5. A prestressed concrete beam o f

effective span 50 m is subjected to probabilistic load,
whose mean value and standard deviation are
11.85 and 4.25 ton respectively. These values are
obtained from a load frequency curve shown m
figure 2 which is based on a traffic survey report
[28]. The beam was designed with concrete to
450 kg/cm 2 and steel o f 15,000 kg.cm 2 as per IS
Specifications. The cross section of the beam is
same as in example I. Area of steel is 48 cm 2,

BYO[

aa, m = 0"304 tern 2, .s'~.= 0"031 tcm 2

;O-,,

The mean value and the S.D. of the resisting

m o m e n t of beam from equations (4) and (5) are:

Mm, = 2418 tm. s,,,, = 149 tm

1
I

"b

The probability o f failure of the beam from equation

(2) is 0"11 x 10 -l~. The probability of failure of the
beam using the design ultimate moment works out
to be 0.9046.

E
1

"7) )1

~"
,'(

""

ANALYSIS FORMULATION WITH LOAD

AS PROBABILISTIC

exp[-l~Me-M"~12]

exp[_~[:M,:_Mmrq2]
f~a. = ~/(2n)Sin.
s.,.
j j

30

~0

kg

The mean value and standard deviation of the

external bending m o m e n t on the beam are

M,,ew = 898 tm, .%,,,~,, = 53 tm

where Mme = mean value of the external m o m e n t

and Sine = S.D. of external moment. These values
can be obtained from mean value and S.D. of the
loads.
The resisting m o m e n t o f a beam (Mr) will
follow a normal distribution by assuming the
strengths of concrete and steel as normal distribution functions. Therefore the density function o f
M~ is,

2"0
L o a d ,< i 0 0 0

Fig. 2. Frequency distribution of loads.

Assuming a normal distribution of load occurrences distribution of an external m o m e n t caused

by the loads can be expressed as:

!0

(11)
'

By treating M o = M r - M e as the new r a n d o m

variable, the density function of the problem, can
be written as a normal distribution function. The
probability o f failure o f the beam can be obtained as

Pfp = P(Mo < O)

1
,o
-- V / - - S m o J -~- e x pEl/ - - / 21,1/Mo--Mmo
.
}/ JI d M o
(12)

% ..... and sc remain the same as in example 1. The

mean value and the S.D. o f resisting m o m e n t of the
beam from equations (4) and (5) are:
M,.. = 1518 tm and _s,.. :: I10 tm
The substitution of the above quantities in equation
(12) gives the probability of failure of the beam as
0.19 10 -6.
Using the load factors as suggested by the Indian
R o a d Congress, the mean value and standard
deviation o f the external m o m e n t is given by:
M .... = 1495 tin, .~,...... = 132tm
The probability of failure of the beam f r o m
equation (12) is 0.4364.

DISCUSSION AND C O N C L U S I O N S
The probability of failure o f a beam subjected to
an external load of example 1 based on IS Specifications is 0-22 10- 9 whereas it is 0.30 10- v as
per A C I Specifications. Similar variations can be

165

Anah,sis o f Probability q f Failure o f Prestressed Co,wrete Beam.s

Effk, ct o f area o f steel on the probabilitr q![/'ailure

o b s e r v e d in t h e o t h e r e x a m p l e s . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t
the

India

estimates

Code
the

Specifications

actual

strength

relatively

of the

over-

beam

It c a n e a s i l y b e e x t r a p o l a t e d

thus

an

increase

in a r e a

qualitatively

o f steel s h o u l d

decrease

than
the

giving a lower probability of failure. A probability

probability

o f f a i ! u r e o f 10 - ' ) o r less f o r a w o r k i n g

e s t i m a t e o f t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a r e a o f steel o n t h e

load or

of failure of a beam.

A quantitative

0 ' 9 o r less f o r a n i m a g i n a r y u l t i m a t e l o a d i n d i c a t e s

probability

t h a t t h e d e s i g n s a r e v e r y safe.

d i f f e r e n t e x a m p l e s in w h i c h a r e a o f steel w a s v a r i e d .

of failure

is g i v e n

irt T a b l e s

I 5 for

Table 1. Effi'et qf area of steel and strength o/" concrete on the probability ofifidlure q/'beam designed/>y IS
Specifications fl)r neutral axis lying in .flange
o-~,, = 450 kg/cm 2

o-~. = 500 kg/cm 2

Pf d
.4 ,,

PJ'd

M ....

(cm 2)

(tm)

80
85
87
89

2468
2612
2670
2727

WL*

U L*

0"22 < 10 -+
0"09 < 10- 1o
0'3010-1'
0'10 < 1 0 - t~

0'8946
0"6578
0-5376
0-4190

]~'/nrP
(tm)

2483
2630
2687
2745

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WL

UL

0.17 : I 0 - ')
0,09 < 10- ' o
0'30 10- ~'
0'09 10- ~

0.8755
0.6224
0,5004
0,3835

*WL indicates working load and UL indicates ultimate load.

Tah/e 2. EffOct of" area of steel attd strength o/" concrete on the probability of failure of beam c&rigned hy
A CI Specifications for neutral axis [ying in the flange
a,., = 450 kg/cm 2
(o-v = 0.75 45(I)

~rc~ = 500 kg/cm 2

(0%. = 0.75 500 kg/cm2)

,4,~

M,, r

(cm 2)

(tin)

WL

( Ps a)
UL

M,,~

80
85
87
89

2224
2354
2406
2457

0"30 ~ I 0 - v
0'17 + 10- 8
0'055 < 10- 8
0"21 / 1 0 -~

0"9983
0'9773
0"9512
0"9077

(trn)
2236
2367
2420
2472

Ps-a
WE

UL

0"28 10- ~
0"17 :, 10+ 8
0 ' 0 5 , 10- s
O'17x 10 -~

0.9976
0.9711
0"9400
0"8899

Tahh" 3. Effect ol'area of steel and strength of concrete on the probability of failure of beant &'signed hy IS
Specifications for neutral axis lying it, the web
cry, ~ 400 kg/cm 2

o-~ = 350 kg/cm 2

A,~

M ....

(cm 2)

tm

91
92
93
94

2712
2730
2749
2766

PIa
WL

M,,,
UL

0 . 4 < 1 0 -1+
0 . 3 5 . 1 0 -''~
0.3 ;, 10 14.
0"3 ~ 10 -1+

0.4432
0-4016
0.3632
0'3281

PIa

tm

WL

UL

2814
2838
2862
2886

0.1 10 - t +
0 - 5 . 1 0 -15
< 1O- 1s
< 10-Is

0.2419
0.2026
O. 1683
0"1388

Tabh" 4. E{lbct of area of steel and strength of concrete on the probability qf faihtre of beam designed hy
A CI Specifications fi~r neutral axis lying in the web
o'c~ = 350 kg/cm 2
(a,-v = 0.75 >: 350 kg/cm 2)

ac, = 400 kg/cm 2

(ao. = 0.75 :. 400 kg/cm 2)

P.r,,
(cm 2)

tm

91
92
93
94

2418
2437
2454
2472

WE
0"113<10 it
0"614x 10 -12
0"348 X 10 - j 2
0"21110 -~2

M,,,r
UL
0"9646
0"9529
0"9386
0'9217

tm

2483
2506
2528
2550

P j-,,
WL

UL

0"181 10 -~2
0 " 5 2 6 , 10 -I 2
0"298 " 10 -[2
0"181. 10 -t2

0"8959
0"8683
0"8365
0"8007

166

P. Chandrasekar and P. Dayaratnam

Table 5. Effect of area of steel and strength of concrete on the probabiHO, oj'faiho'e of beam des tgned by IS
Specification for probabilistic loads
c~,.~ = 450 kg/cm :
(cm 2)

(tin)

48
52
56
60

1518
1642
1766
1890

rs,,, =- 500 kg/cm ~

WL
0.19 I 0 "
0.48 ;,~to- s
0'14:~ 10-"
0'5 :/, 10-"

tit.

tm)

\1~

04364
0,2061
0'0708
/).0192

1523
1647
1773
t897

0.14 I0 ~'
0.38 : I0 ~
01 10 ~
0"33 10 ~

LL
i}.4247
t~.2005
00681
0.0099

A n increase o f II % steel decreases the p r o b a b i l i t y

o f failure by 25-54~0 as per IS Specifications. Its
i m p a c t is less p r e d o m i n a n t when a n a l y s e d by A C I
Specifications. This is because o f the level o1"
p r o b a b i l i t y o f failure o f b e a m confirming to A C I
Specifications is a l r e a d y higher than that c o m p u t e d
f r o m IS Specification. I n either case, the p r o b a b i l i t y
o f failure is sensitive to the changes in area o f steel,
Effect o f strength o f concrete on probability o f failure
M o s t o f the prestressed concrete beams in
practice are under-reinforced, so a v a r i a t i o n in the
strength o f concrete should have little effect on the
p r o b a b i l i t y o f failure. The effect of concrete
strength on the p r o b a b i l i t y o f failure is illustrated
in Tables 1-5 from which it cart be seen that the
v a r i a t i o n o f concrete strength has only marginal
influence. F i g u r e 3 also illustrates the effect,
Level o f probability o f failure
Based on the a b o v e results a n d discussion, the
p r o b a b i l i t y o f failure o f the beams designed by

8'!4 --"

~97fs............ ~576 . . . . . . .
Probability of f a i i u r ~

o8- . . . . . ~ e
F'~a

I"i,~. 3. E[:/ect ~tf area ~f steel oft pr,.~bability ~/ /'ailare.

present codes is o f the order o f ~ ) ~ 4 for d e t e r m i nistic loads a n d 10 -~t for probabilistic loads. Such
a low p r o b a b i l i t y o f failure is generall,/ not enc o u n t e r e d in engineering structures. Hence, a
p r o b a b i l i t y o f failure o f the o r d e r o f 10-8--10 - ~
can be t a k e n for the practical purposes.

REFERENCES

1. E.B. HAUGEN, Probabilistic Approach to Design, John Wiley, New York (1968).
2. Bulletin D'lnformation Comite'N European Du Beton, No. 72, June (1970).
3. A . H . S . ANG and M. AM1N, Safety factors and probability in structural design. J_ struct.
Div., Proc. Am. Soc. cir'. Engng 95, 1389 (1969).
4. N. C. L~ND, Deterministic format for the probabilistic design of structures an
introduction to structural optimization, S.M. Study No. 1, Solid Mechanics Division,
University of Waterloo, Ontario (1969).
5. C. J. TURKSTRA, Choice of failure probabilistics. J. struct. Div., Proc. Amo Soc. tit,.
Engrs 93, 189 (1967).
6. J. R. BENJAt~IN and N. C. LIND, A probabilistic basis for a deterministic code, J. Am.
Concr. Inst. 66, 857 (1969).
7, Structural Safety--A literature review by task committee on structural safety, J. struct.
Div., Proc. Am. Soe. cir,, Engrs 98, 845 (1972).
8. A . M . FgEVDENTnAL, The safety of structures, 7)'arts Am. Soc. ely, Engrs, 112, 125 (1947).
9. A. G. PUGSLEY, Structural Safety, Journal ~ f the Royal Aeronautical Society 59, 425
(1955).
10. H. C. ShAw, The rational probabilistic code format, Jr. Am. Concr. Inst. 66, 690 (1969).
11. R . G . SExsteirrn and M. F. NELSOn, Limitations in application of probabilistic concepts,
J. Am. Concr. Inst. 66, 823 (1969).
12. C . A . CORNELL, A probabilistic based structural code, J. Am. Concr. Inst. 66, 974 0969).

Analysis o f Probabilit.v o f Failure o f Prestressed Concrete Beams

13. F. MosEs and J. D. STEVENSON, Reliability based structural design, J. struct. Div., Proc.
Am. Soc. cir. Engrs 96, 221 (1970).
14. F. MosEs and D. E. KINSER, Optimum structural design with failure probability constraints, AIAA J. 5, 1152 (1967),
15. ,I. R. BENJAMIN, Probabilistic structural analysis and design, J. struct. Die., Proc. Am.
Soc. cir. Engrs 94, 1665 (1968).
16. J. F. Cosr~LI~O and K. CHU, Failure probabilities of reinforced concrete beams, J.
strucr. Die., Proc. Am. Soc. cir. Engrs 95, 2281 (1969).
17. O.G. JULIAN, Synopsis of first progress report of committee on factor of safety, J. sfrucl.
Dic.. Proc. Am. Soc. cir. Engrs 83, 1316-.-1 (1957).
18. R. G. SFXSMI'rH, Reliability analysis of concrete members, J. Am. Contr. Inst. 66, 413
(1969).
19. G. G. GO~LE and W. S. LAPAY. Optimum design of prestressed beams. J. Am. ('mu'r.
Inst. 68, 712 (1971).
20. Proposed Revision of ACI 318-63, J. Am. Concr. Inst. 67, 77 (1970).
21. S. S. RAO, Minimum cost design of concrete beams with a realiability based constraint.
Buihlg. Sci. 8, 33 (1973).
22. IS code for prestressed concrete IS: 1343, Indian Standards Institute, New Delhi
(1960).
23. IS code for method of testing for strength of concretelS: 516, Indian Standards Institule,
New' Delhi (1959).
24. 1S code for specification for high tensile steel bars used in prestressed concrete, IS: 2090,
Indian Standards Institute, New Delhi (1962).
25. Tables of Probability Functions, Report of Official Project No. 65-2-97-33 Prepared
by the Federal Works Agency--Work Projects Administration for the City of New
York.
26. J. M, MC('OMMICKand M. G. SALVAI)ORI,Numerical Methods-in Fortran, Prentice-Hall
(1964).
27. American concrete institute standard building code requirements tbr reinforced
concrete (ACI 318-1963).
28. B. R. MAP,WAH, Traffic study on the national highway No. 2 Near liT Kanpur (to be
published).

167