technical report: crack widths

Crack width calculation to BS 8007 for

combined flexure and direct tension
ε12
H. G. Kruger derives and sets out the equations H. G. (Erhard)
Kruger, is a
strain at face 2 ignoring stiffening
effect of concrete
for determining surface crack widths for sections specialist engineer ε2 strain due to stiffening effect of
associate in the concrete between cracks
under combined flexure and direct tension, structural division ε21 strain due to stiffening effect of
which, according to the author, are not covered of BKS (Pty) Ltd. concrete between cracks at face 1
ε22 strain due to stiffening effect of
in the BS 8007 standard concrete between cracks at face 2
εm average strain at level where

B
S 8007 includes recommendations Es modulus of elasticity of reinforce- cracking is being considered
for the calculation of design crack ment εm1 average strain at face 1
widths for sections under flexure fc compressive stress in concrete εm2 average strain at face 2
and for sections under direct tension. It fs stress in reinforcement εsm average strain in tension reinforce-
does not provide recommendations for fs1 stress in reinforcement at face 1 ment
sections under the combined forces. fs2 stress in reinforcement at face 2 εsm1 average strain in tension reinforce-
This Technical Report examines the fstif stiffening tensile stress in concrete ment at face 1
procedures given in the code, and shows fstif1 stiffening tensile stress in concrete εs strain in tension reinforcement
the separate equations for flexure and at face 1 εs1 strain in reinforcement at face 1
direct tension to be based on similar fstif2 stiffening tensile stress in concrete εs2 strain in reinforcement at face 2
premises. The situation where tension at face 2 ∆εs strain reduction in tension rein-
exists across the whole of the section is Fstif total stiffening tensile force in forcement due to tension stiffening
examined, and the limiting values of the concrete of concrete
depth of the neutral axis are calculated. Fstif1 portion of stiffening tensile force ∆εs1 strain reduction in reinforcement
Equations are developed for surface acting at the level of the steel at at face 1 due to tension stiffening of
strains and the stiffening effect of the face 1 concrete
concrete. Fstif2 portion of stiffening tensile force ∆εs2 strain reduction in reinforcement
Similar equations are developed for acting at the level of the steel at at face 2 due to tension stiffening of
the second case where some compres- face 2 concrete
sion is present on one face of the h overall depth of section ρ1 ratio of reinforcement at face 1
section. It is shown how the design
a constant < = F
a2
e= o
A
crack widths for these cases can be k1 s1

h - a1 bh
determined. Equations are developed
with variables allowing for different ρ2 ratio of reinforcement at face 2
a constant < = F
h - a2
reinforcement ratios and concrete cover k2
e= o
a1 A s2
at each face.
bh
K a constant for a particular section
Notation under a certain configuration of Note: Generally subscripts 1 and 2 refer
a’ distance from the compression face moment and direct tension to faces 1 and 2 of the section respec-
to the point at which crack width is R V tively.
being calculated S e+ h -a W 2

a1 distance from face 1 to centroid of S = 2h W Introduction

the reinforcement at face 1 SS e - 2 + a WW
1 The British Code of Practice, BS 80071
a2 distance from face 2 to centroid of includes recommendations for the calcu-
the reinforcement at face 2 M
X at the section
Tapplied moment lation of design surface crack widths for
acr distance from point considered to considered sections under flexure and for sections
surface of the nearest longitudinal under direct tension. However, the code
x
bar n1 ratio does not provide recommendations for
h
As area of tension reinforcement sections under combined flexure and
As1 area of reinforcement at face 1 T applied direct tension at the direct tension.
As2 area of reinforcement at face 2 section considered Furthermore, little guidance is given
bt width of section at the centroid of w design surface crack width in the literature. Neither Anchor2 nor
the tension steel w1 design surface crack width at face Batty3 provides a rational approach to
b width of section considered 1 allow for the effect of tension stiffening
(normally 1m) w2 design surface crack width at face for the case of combined flexure and
cmin minimum cover to tension steel 2 direct tension.
c1 minimum cover to reinforcement at x distance to the neutral axis from Since combined flexure and direct
face 1 face 2 tension often exist in structural
c2 minimum cover to reinforcement at x’ distance to the centroid of the elements of certain water-retaining
face 2 concrete stiffening force from face 2 structures (e.g. in the horizontal direc-

modular ratio b = l
d effective depth tion of walls of rectangular or square
Es
J M N αe
Ec
tanks), a need for calculating design
e eccentricity K= O crack widths for this case exists. The
T
L P ε1 strain at level considered ignoring Technical Report proposes a method for
Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete (1/2 the stiffening effect of concrete calculating the design crack widths, w1
the instantaneous value when used ε11 strain at face 1 ignoring stiffening and w2, at the two faces of a section
to determine αe) effect of concrete under these loadings.

18|The Structural Engineer – 17 September 2002


BS 8007 approach bt (h - x)
The procedure for the calculation of Df s =
3Es As
design crack widths given in Appendix
B of BS 8007 can be summarised as The average value of the steel strain,
follows: therefore, is:
bt (h - x)
• calculate the average strain in the f sm = f s -
3Es As
section at the level where cracking is
being considered allowing for the The average value of the strain at a
stiffening effect of the uncracked distance al from the compression face,
concrete between cracks where the crack width is to be calcu-
• calculate the design crack width lated, is:
using this value of the strain.
(al- x) f sm
fm =
The average steel strain may, as an ad - xk
approximation, be determined by calcu-
lating the steel stress on the basis of a
(al- x) f s b t a h - x k a al- x k
cracked section, and reducing this by the = -
tensile force due to tension stiffening in ad - xk 3E s A s a d - x k
the concrete (BS 8110: Part 24 Clause
3.8.3, Assessment of crack widths). =f1 - f 2
By considering the cracked concrete bt a h - x k a al- x k
section in flexure as shown in Fig 1 (See where f2 =
BS 8110: Part 2 Fig 3.1), Eqn (2) of BS 3Es As a d - x k
8007: Appendix B, which defines the
stiffening effect of the concrete for a Similarly, by considering the cracked
design crack width of 0.2mm, can be concrete section in direct tension as
derived as follows5. shown in Fig 2, Eqn (5) of BS 8007:
The value of the tensile stress at the Appendix B for the stiffening effect of
tension face between cracks is assumed concrete in direct tension for a design
as 2/3MPa. The stiffening force of the crack width of 0.2mm, can be derived as
concrete in tension, therefore, is: follows:
The stiffening force of the concrete in
bt (h - x)
Fstif = ....(1) tension is:
3
2
The effective strain reduction in the Fstif = bt h
3
steel is:
technical report: crack widths
Fig 1. The effective strain reduction at any
Stiffening effect of level in the section, therefore, is:
concrete in flexure
2bt h
f2 = ....(6)
3Es As
Similarly, it can be shown that the
value of the tensile stress at the tension
face for a design crack width of 0.1mm,
is taken as 1MPa.
Crack width formulae
The design crack width defined by eqn
(1) of BS 8007: Appendix B, is:
3acr f m
w= ....(7)
1 + 2c m
acr - cmin
h-x
In a section under direct tension,
....(2) the value of the depth of the neutral
axis is x = –∞ or x = ∞. By substituting
these values in eqn (7) the design
crack width for a section under direct
tension is:
....(3)
w = 3acr f m ....(8)
Since this is the same as eqn (4) of BS
8007: Appendix B, it can, therefore, be
assumed that eqn (7) will also apply to
the case of combined flexure and direct
tension.
Combined flexure and direct
tension
...(4) The procedure for calculating the design
crack width for sections under combined
flexure and tension, can be summarised
as follows:
• determine the position of the neutral
axis in the cracked section, x
• determine the strain due to tension
stiffening of concrete between cracks,
ε2
• determine the average strain at the
level where cracking is considered, εm
• determine the crack width according
to eqn (7).
Two cases can be considered:
• Case 1: Complete section in tension
....(5) • Case 2: Section partially in compres-
sion.
Case 1: Complete section in tension
Determining the neutral axis depth
Consider the cracked concrete section
with a width, b, as shown in Fig 3. The
position of the neutral axis x, is defined
as negative when it is above face 2 of
the section, where face 2 is defined as
the side of the section under compres-
sion when the section is subjected to a
moment in an anti-clockwise direction.
The complete section would be in
tension when x ≤ 0 or x ≥ h. By consider-
ing horizontal and moment equilibrium,
and keeping in mind that x is negative
as shown in Fig 3(c), the position of the
Fig 2. neutral axis, x, is2:
Section in direct
tension (See panel at end) ....(9)
17 September 2002 – The Structural Engineer|19
 technical report: crack widths

From equation 9 the following equa- Fig 3.

t1 t1
tions can be derived for the limits of x Case 1 – Complete When t 2 = - K , x = –∞ or x = ∞ the depth of the neutral axis, and t 2 , is
as indicated: section in tension shown in Fig 4.
t1 When none of the above applies,
a2
For x # 0: $ - k1 K where k1 = 0 < x < h. Determining the stiffening force
t2 h - a1
The equations for steel stresses are: Consider a section with width, b, as
....(10) M + T _ 0.5h - a2 i shown in Fig 5(a), with the neutral
and
c e + 2h - a2 m Fig 4. (Below)
Relationship
f s1 =
bht 1 _ h - a1 - a2 i
....(14) axis position at x ≤ 0. The maximum
stiffening tensile stress in the
K= ....(11) between x and concrete is:
c e - 2h + a1 m ρ1/ρ2 f s2 = t12 d T - t 1 f s1 n
bh
....(15)
Fig 5. (Bottom) f stif1 = 2 3 MPa for w = 0.2mm, and
Stiffening effect of Consider for example a concrete
t1
For x = ∞ or x = –∞: t 2 = - K ....(12) concrete, section, with b = 1000mm, h = 400mm, f stif1 =1MPa for w = 0.lmm ....(16)
complete section a1 = 50mm, a2 = 60mm, M = 10kNm and
t1
For x ≥ h: t 2 # - k 2 K in tension T = 400kN. The relationship between Since x is negative, it follows from the
figure that:
h - a2
where k 2 = a1 ....(13) _- xi
f stif2 = f stif1 ....(17)
When the eccentricity of the tension _h - xi
force coincides with the centroid of the The total stiffening force is:
reinforcement at face 1, ie when the
Fstif = e o bh
fstif1 + fstif2
denominator of eq 11 equals 0, it can be ....(18)
2
shown that the section is partially in
compression. The equations in the The centroid of the stiffening force is
following section should then be used to at:
determine x. h _ 2f stif1 + f stif2 i
In summary, provided that: x l= ....(19)
3 _ f stif1 + f stif2 i
e ≠ (h/2) – a1 Taking moments about the steel in
face 2 yields:
t1
When - k1 K # t 2 < - K , –∞ < x ≤ 0
Fstif1 = Fstif d n
x l- a2
....(20)
h - a1 - a2
When - K < t 1 # - k 2 K , h≤x<∞
t2
From horizontal equilibrium:

20|The Structural Engineer – 17 September 2002

 technical report: crack widths

Fig 6. and moment equilibrium, the position of

Case 2 – Section the neutral axis x, can be found from
partially in the following equation2 by using trial
compression and error or computer methods:

(See panel at end) ....(34)

where n1 = x/h and e = M/T.

The concrete stress, fc, can be deter-
mined from eqn (35)

(See panel at end) ....(35)

The equations for steel stresses, are:

f s1 = - a e h - xx - a1 f c ....(36)
Fstif2 = Fstif - Fstif1 ....(21) a2 _ f s1 - f s2 i
f 12 = f s2 - ....(29) f s2 = a e x -x a2 f c ....(37)
When the neutral axis position is at x _ h - a1 - a2 i
≥ h (Fig 5(b)): Therefore, according to BS 8007 Determining the stiffening force
Clause B3, the average strains are as As shown in Fig 7, the maximum stiff-
f stif2 = 2 3 MPa for w = 0.2mm, and follows: ening tensile stress in the concrete is:
....(22)
f stif2 =1MPa for w = 0.1mm At face l: εm1 = ε11– ε21 ....(30) f stif1 = 2 MPa for w = 0.2mm, and
3
At face 2: εm2 = ε12– ε22 ....(31)
f stif1 = f stif2 x -
x
h ....(23) f stif1 =1MPa for w = 0.lmm ....(38)
Determining the design surface crack
As previously, the total stiffening width When 0 < x <a2:
force is as given in eqn (18), the The total stiffening force is:
3a cr f m
centroid of the stiffening force as in When x # 0: w = ....(32)
2 _ a cr - c min i
eqn (19), and the values of Fstif1 and Fstif2 1+ Fstif = 1 fstif1 _ h - x i b ....(39)
_h - xi
2
as in equations (20) and (21) respec-
tively. When x ≥ h, this equation has to be The centroid of the stiffening force is
modified by replacing (h – x) in the at:
Determining the average strain denominator by x. Therefore:
The effective reduction in strain in the x l= x + 2h ....(40)
3a cr f m 3
reinforcement due to the stiffening when x $ h: w = ....(33)
2 _ a cr - c min i
effect of the concrete is: 1+ Taking moments about the reinforce-
x
ment in face 2 yields:
Fstif1
Df s1 = , and ....(24) By substituting the values for εm1 or
E s A s1
Fstif1 = Fstif d n
x l- a2
εm2 in these eqns, the values of the ....(41)
Fstif2 h - a1 - a2
Df s2 = ....(25) design crack widths, w1 and w2 at faces
E s A s2
1 and 2 respectively, can be calculated. From horizontal equilibrium:
The effective reduction in strain at It should be noted that when A2 << A1,
the faces of the section is: w2 can actually be larger than w1, even Fstif2 = Fstif - Fstif1 ....(42)
a1 _ Df s2 - Df s1 i if the bending moment is applied in an
f 21 = Df s1 - ....(26) anti-clockwise direction as shown in Fig When a2 ≤ x < h:
_ h - a1 - a2 i 5. The complete stiffening force acts on
a2 _ Df s2 - Df s1 i the reinforcement in face 1 as in the
f 22 = Df s2 + ....(27) Case 2: Section partially in case of flexure only. Therefore,
_ h - a1 - a2 i compression
The strain in the concrete at the Determining the neutral axis position Fstif1 = 1 f stif1 _ h - x i b ....(43)
2
faces, ignoring the stiffening effect, Consider a cracked section with a
is: width, b, which is partially under b _h - xi
a1 _ f s1 - f s2 i compression, as shown in Fig 6. Define =
3
for w = 0.2mm, and
f 11 = f s1 + ....(28) fc and fs2 as negative to indicate
_ h - a1 - a2 i compression. By considering horizontal b _h - xi
= for w = 0.1mm
2
Determining the average strain
When 0<x<a2:
The effective reduction in strain in
the reinforcement due to the stiffening
effect of the concrete is:
Fstif1
Df s1 = ....(44)
E s A s1
Fstif2
Df s2 = ....(45)
E s A s2
Fig 7. Due to the section being partially in
Stiffening effect of compression, cracks can form only in
concrete, section face 1 and the crack width in face 2
partially in need not be calculated. The effective
compression reduction in strain at face 1 is:

17 September 2002 – The Structural Engineer|21

 technical report: crack widths

a1 _ Dfs1 - Dfs2 i Table 2: Surface crack width examples direct tension.

f21 = Dfs1 + ....(46) 2. The equations for the stiffening effect
_ h - a1 - a2 i Parameter Example
of concrete in flexure and in direct
1 2 3
The strain in the concrete at face 1, Case x<o x>h o<x<h tension given in BS 8007: Appendix B
ignoring the stiffening effect, is: a1 mm 48 48 48 can be derived from first principles by
a1 _ f s1 - f s2 i a2 mm 55 46 46 assuming the maximum stiffening
f 11 = f s1 + ....(47) tensile stress of the concrete between
_ h - a1 - a2 i
As1 T16@125mm T16@150mm T16@150mm
As2 T1O@150mm T12@150mm T12@150mm cracks as 1MPa and 2/3MPa for design
Therefore, according to BS 8007 M kNm 30 10 63 crack widths of 0.1mm and 0.2mm
Clause B3, the average strain at face 1 T kN 400 525 60 respectively. It can, therefore, be
is: ρ1/ρ2 3.07 1.78 1.78 assumed that the same principles apply
f m1 = f 11 - f 21 ....(48) –k1K 1.37 0.27 –0.22 to the case of combined flexure and
–K 6.30 1.48 –1.22 direct tension.
When a2 ≤ x < h: –k2K 32.14 7.85 –6.44 3. Two cases exist for a section
The effective reduction in strain in x mm –132.7 1289.9 72.2 subjected to combined flexure and direct
the reinforcement due to the stiffening w1 mm 0.188 0.200 0.199 tension, i.e.
effect of the concrete is: w2 mm1 –0.042 0.177 • complete section is in tension
f stif1 b _ h - x i [ b = 1000mm; h = 300mm; fy = 460MPa; Es = 200GPa; Ec = 27GPa ]
1
Negative value indicates that face is uncracked
• section is partially in compression.
Df s1 = ....(49) Equations to determine the neutral axis
2E s A s1
depth, x, for both these cases have been
The average value of the steel strain, Table 1 indicates how the values of given.
therefore, is: the design crack width at the two faces 4. The proposed method enables the
f stif1 b _ h - x i of the section vary with different config- designer to check design crack widths
f sm1 = f s1 - ....(50) urations of flexure and direct tension. It for different configurations of reinforce-
2E s A s1
shows a smooth transition in the values ment and concrete cover in the two
The average value of the strain at of design surface crack widths from faces of a section, resulting in a more
face 1 is: direct tension to combined direct economical design.
_ h - x i f sm1 tension and flexure, and from flexure to 5. Although the method involves some-
f m1 = combined flexure and direct tension. what cumbersome mathematics, the
_ h - a1 - x i
_ h - x i f s1 f stif1 b _ h - x i equations are easily programmable in
2

= - .(51) Examples spreadsheet programmes like Corel

_ h - a1 - x i 2E s A s1 _ h - a1 - x i Examples of sections checked for design Quattro Pro, Microsoft Excel etc, or in
= f 11 - f 21 surface crack widths of 0.2mm are given Mathcad.
b _h - xi in Table 2.
2

where f 21 = Acknowledgement
3E s A s1 _ h - a1 - x i
Conclusions The author thanks Robert Anchor for
for w = 0.2mm, and 1. It has been shown that the expression his assistance in the development of
b _h - xi for design crack widths in flexure as given this method, both in discussions and by
2

= in Equation (1) of BS 8007: Appendix B, correspondence which stretched over a

2E s A s1 _ h - a1 - x i
also applies to the case of direct tension. It number of years. Without his help this
for w = 0.1mm can, therefore, be assumed that it will also Technical Report would not have been
The equations for flexure in BS 8007, apply to the case of combined flexure and possible. se
therefore, applies directly to this case.

Determining the design surface crack Equations panel

width

_ h - a 1i c e - m + a 2 c e + 2h - a 2 m
In both cases, ie when 0 < x < a2 and a2 t1 h
<x < h the crack width at face 1 can be + a1
t2 2
determined as before from eqn 7. x= ....(9)

ce - 2 m + ce + 2 - a 2m
t1 h h
+ a1
Transition t2
Consider a section with the following
characteristics:
b = 1000mm; h = 350mm; c1=c2 =40mm n1 d 3 - 2n1 + 6e n + 6t2 _ ae - 1i d n1 - a2 n d1 - 2a2 + 2e n + 6t1 ae d1 - a1 - n1 n d1 - 2a1 - 2e n = 0
2

As1: T16 @ 150mm; As2: T16 @ 150mm; h h h h h h h ....(34)

fy = 460MPa; fcu = 35MPa.
The service moment and service
_ e id x n bh e d
x n bh
T = x + a - 1 1 - a2 As2 - a h - 1 - a1 As1
tension capacities of the section for a fc bh 2h x ....(35)
design surface crack width of 0.2mm,
are: Ms = 87.8kNm and Ts = 675kN.

Table 1: Design surface crack widths

for different configurations of flexure REFERENCES
and direct tension
T M x w1 w2 1. BS 8007: Design of concrete structures for retaining acqueous liquids, London, British
[kN] [kNm] [mm] [mm] [mm] Standards Institution, 1987
675 0 –∞ 0.200 0.200 2. Anchor, R. D.: Design of liquid retaining concrete structures, (2nd ed.), London,
675 1 –10712.1 0.204 0.196 Edward Arnold, 1992, pp 45 – 52
675 5 –2002.4 0.218 0.180 3. Batty, I., Westbrook, R.: The design of water-retaining structures, Harlow, Longman
675 10 –913.7 0.236 0.161 Scientific and Technical, 1991, pp 58 – 60
20 87.8 83.0 0.208 – 4. BS 8110 Structural use of concrete: Part 2: Code of practice for special circumstances,
5 87.8 84.6 0.202 – London, British Standards Institution, 1985, pp 3/2 – 3/4, 3/6 – 3/7
1 87.8 85.0 0.200 – 5. Rowe, R. E. et al: Handbook to British Standard BS 8110:1985 Structural use of
0 87.8 85.1 0.200 – concrete, Sussex, Palladian Publications Ltd, 1987, p 179

22|The Structural Engineer – 17 September 2002


Queries,
Q comments,
correspondence,
and curiosities…
Codes of practice
I have received a lengthy letter
from Mr S. L. Hammond of
Whitstable, Kent who has
given much thought to the use
of partial safety factors in
Codes of Practice and the
design principles on which the
codes are based. For the sake
of comprehension Mr
Hammond’s letter is published
in full. He writes:
When I entered the field of struc-
tural engineering the new design
codes BS 8110 and BS 5950 were
coming into use, since then I have
used these codes along with the
masonry code which is in a similar
format. As an engineer I have tried
to make sense of these publications
and understand the theoretical
basis of the design rules.
Unfortunately the more closely
these documents are examined, the
less sense they make from the
point of view of basic physical laws
and mathematics.
All these codes, and the new
‘Eurocodes’, make use of so called
‘partial safety factors’ in order to
calculate the design loads acting on
the structure, or a particular
section of a member, the idea being
that the various ‘partial factors’
represent different risks of the
calculated load being exceeded in
the actual structure.
Take the following example of a
simply supported beam loaded
with a variety of non-uniform
imposed and dead loads, these
different types of load having
different partial factors applied to
them. Then calculate the design
(factored) moments and shears for
the beam, and the actual (non
factored) moments and shears in
the beam. Unless both types of load
are applied in an identical way, the
ratio (factor of safety) between
actual and design forces will vary
from location to location in the
beam. In the same way a calculated
example will show that the ratio
between the calculated design
loads and the actual loads acting
on a structure will vary from loca-
tion to location in a structure, thus
showing that the use of partial
safety factors negates the objective
of structural analysis which is to
calculate accurately the distribu-
tion of forces in a structure due to
a given set of loads.
Investigation of the statistical
basis of the ‘partial factors’ also
reveals faulty mathematics. We are
told that the partial factors are set
according to the degree of risk of
the particular type of load exceed-
ing the factored load (whether any
proper assessment of real loads has
ever been carried out we are not
told). Thus for the dead load we
assume that, say, 99% of the dead
loads will be less than or equal to
1.4 times the calculated dead load,
and for the live load, 99% of the
actual live loads will be less than or
equal to 1.6 times the calculated
live load. Thus the actual probabil-
ity that the calculated factored load
will be exceeded depends on a
combination of probabilities that
varies with the proportion of dead
to live load (as the factors of safety
are not equal). In fact the highest
probability of failure occurs when
the load is all of one type (dead or
live load), and the minimum prob-
ability of failure occurs when the
two loads are approximately equal.
–There is an appreciable difference
in the probabilities of the order of a
factor of 100, thus showing that the
stated objective of providing a
consistent probability of the struc-
ture not failing is not met. The
introduction of further partial
factors such as for wind load only
serves to complicate the statistics
even more.
(As an elementary example of
the probability of combined events
consider the probability of throw-
ing two sixes in succession with a
dice, the probability is one in
thirty-six as opposed to one in six
for a single six. Loads are continu-
ous variables and the probabilities
that the load will exceed the total
factored load varies with the ratio
of the loads, but unless there is
only one type of load, the probabil-
ity of exceedance bears no rela-
tionship to the probabilities on
which the partial factors are
based.)
This covers the general format
of the current codes. However there
are also specific mistakes in the
individual codes. I will try and
briefly list some of the worst errors
that I have come across in each of
the codes:
BS 8110: To achieve the stress
distribution assumed in the section
design for beams, a considerable
amount of deflection must occur,
sufficient to lead to a rearrange-
ment of forces in the structure, and
possible collapse. Certainly the
rotations required to develop the
design stresses in the beam negate
any question of elastic analysis,
although the code assumes an
elastic distribution of forces in
subframe analysis.
Column design: as far as I have
been able to find out (Kong and
Evans) the design of column
sections also assumes yield in the
steel and failure in the concrete.
This involves the structure in
further contortions in order that it
may achieve the assumptions on
which the section design is based.
No account is taken of elastic insta-
bility or deflection of the column.
The same remarks apply to the
design of concrete walls.
BS 5950: Allowing for the incorrect
format of safety factors the beam
design appears to be adequate and
cover more design situations than
previous codes. However, the
column design is based upon
inelastic buckling, which for open
sections such as channels and H
section columns is inadequate.
Examination of Timoshenko &
Gere’s Theory of elastic stability
shows that the stability of open
section columns is treated in
Chapter 5 ‘Torsional buckling’ and
that for the commonly used H-
section, failure occurs in a
combined torsional and lateral
buckling mode. (This is not to be
confused with the torsional buck-
ling of beams). No account is taken
of this in allowable stresses for
columns either in BS 449 or BS
5950. In any case the use of open
17 September 2002 – The Structural Engineer|23
verulam
sections for columns is inefficient.
S.H.S., R.H.S. and C.H.S. sections
should be used, with built up or
fabricated box section columns for
heavier loads. With these type of
sections the treatment and formu-
lae given in Chapter 1 of
Timoshenko and Gere, ‘Beam
columns’ can be applied.
As far as existing structures go,
the most appropriate form of reme-
dial work to the columns is to weld
plates across the toes of the flanges,
thus transforming the open section
into a closed section and avoiding
the problem of torsional instability.
BS 5400: Generally the same
comments as BS 5950 apply, with
the added observation that the
ratios between dead and live loads
vary more in a bridge structure
than building structures, and
therefore the actual factors of
safety vary more greatly across the
structure.
BS 5628: Apart from the format of
partial safety factors the method
given for the design of elements
under vertical load is wrong. The
capacity of masonry walls and
columns is dependent on the elastic
properties of the masonry as well
as its crushing strength. No
account is taken of this.
Mr Hammond says in his
covering note that his
conclusions are based on
sound mathematical
reasoning and that not only is
he alarmed by the inadequacy
of the current codes but by the
fact that they do not offer an
adequate means of assessing
existing structures for
strength. Is there support for
Mr Hammond’s conclusions
among the membership? If so
please write in.
Promoting the profession
Andrew Sandford has sent in
this letter after reading the
interview with Professor
David Blockley which
appeared in NCE 8-15 August.