De La Salle University

Gokongwei College of Engineering

Civil Engineering Department
LBYCVD1 - EH2

COMPEX2
Ultimate Stress Design

Submitted by:
Adrian D. Perez (11728477)

Submitted to:
Engr. Richard De Jesus

Date Submitted:
December 12, 2020
 CRITERIA EXEMPLARY SATISFACTOR DEVELOPING BEGINNING RATING
4 Y 2 1
3
Structure and The report is well There is some There is some There is no
quality of the structured structure in structure attempt to
report (40%) and written in a the report. Some in the report or structure the
coherent notation or appropriate report.
manner. It is neat, in terminologies were notation or
proper incorrect. Quality terminologies
format and of the were
appropriate notation report is used. Quality of
and terminologies satisfactory. the
were used. report is poor.
Quality of the report
is
exemplary
Mathematical The report uses the The report uses the The report uses Incorrect
processes and correct correct the theory is
computation theory and carries theory. Some correct theory used and
(50%) out accurate calculations or the calculations
calculations. Tables are inaccurate. calculations are are incorrect.
and graphs Tables and inaccurate. No
are also shown and graphs are also Tables
are shown but or graphs are
exemplary. labels are shown.
incomplete
Commitment Student showed full Student showed Student showed Student
(10%) commitment satisfactory little showed no
commitment commitment commitment
TOTAL:
Problem:
Using USD method, determine the appropriate size of a rectangular beam with uniformly
distributed load of wDL = 10 kN/m and wLL = 10 kN/m. Use f ’c = 25 MPa and fy = 415 MPa. The beam
is simply supported with a length of L = 4.7 m. Design the appropriate reinforcement and sketch the final
designed section. Compare the result with Exercise No. 1.

Given:
wDL (kN/m) 10
wLL (kN/m) 10
fc' (MPa) 25
fs (MPa) 415
L (m) 4.7
c (kN/m3) 24

Required:
RC Beam Design
Comparison of results with COMPEX1
Solutions:
NSCP 2010, 424.4.1
fc = 0.45 (fc’) = 0.45 (25) = 11.25 MPa

NSCP 2015, 419.2.2.1.b

Ec = 4700 √fc’ = 4700 √25 = 23500 MPa

NSCP 2015, 420.2.2.2

Es = 200000 MPa

NSCP 2015, 402

n = Es / Ec = 200000 / 23500 = 8.5

NSCP 2015, 422.2.2.4.3

β1 = 0.85
 fc ' 25
pbal = 0.85 β1 ¿ = 0.85 (0.85) ¿ = 0.0257
fy 415
pmax = 0.728 pbal = 0.728 (0.0257) = 0.0187

pmin = max (
√ fc ' ∨ 1.4 ¿
4 fy fy
√ fc ' =
√ 25 = 0.0030
4 fy 4 (415)
1.4 1.4
= = 0.0034
fy 415
pmin = 0.0034

Pmax
p = 0.0187
Assume self-weight
wSW = 1.51 kN/m
b = 0.611d

Concrete

Total w = greater (1.4DL or 1.2DL + 1.6LL)

NSCP 2015, 203.3.1

1.4DL = 1.4 (10 + 1.51) = 16.11 kN/m
1.2DL + 1.6DL = 1.2 (10 + 1.51) + 1.6 (10) = 29.81 kN/m
Total w = 29.81 kN/m

Mu = wL2/8 = [29.81 (4.7)2 / 8] (1000)2 = 82318385 N-mm

NSCP 421.2.2
Φ = 0.90

Mn = Mu / Φ = 82318385 / 0.90 = 91464872 N-mm

pfy 0.0187( 415)
Ku = pfy (1- ¿ = 0.0187 (415) [1 - ] = 6.3514
1.7 fc ' 1.7(25)
bd2 = Mn / Ku = 91464872 / 6.3514 = 14400674.73 mm3
 0.611d (d2) = 14400674.73 mm3
d = (14400674.73 /0.611)1/3 = 286.71 mm
b = 0.611d = 0.611 (286.71) = 175.18 mm

Steel

Chosen Ø = 25 mm
Unit mass = 3.853 kg/m

NSCP 2015, 420.6.1.3.1

Minimum concrete cover = 50 mm

h = d + cover + 0.5Ø = 286.71 + 50 + 0.5 (25) = 349.21 mm

As = pbd = 0.0187 (175.18) (286.71) = 940.77 mm2
N = As / (π/4 * d2) = 940.77 / (π/4 * 252) = 2

NSCP 2015, 425.2.1

s = [b - N(Ø) - 2(cover)] / (N-1) = [175.18 - 2(25) - 2(50)] / (2-1) = 25.18 mm

175.18(349.21)
Actual wSW = gc (bh) + Unit mass of rebar (g) = 24 [ ]
1000 2
9.81
+ 3.853 ( )
1000
Actual wSW = 1.51 kN/m
sů
Assumed wSW ≈ Actual wSW

Adjusted Dimensions (to the nearest 25 mm)

b = 200 mm
h = 350 mm

200(350) 9.81
Adjusted Actual wSW = 24 [ 2 ] + 3.853 ( )
1000 1000
 Adjusted Actual wSW = 1.72 kN/m

Pmin
p = 0.0034
Assume self-weight
wSW = 2.53 kN/m
b = 0.1915d

Concrete

Total w = greater (1.4DL or 1.2DL + 1.6LL)

NSCP 409.3.1
1.4DL = 1.4 (10 + 2.53) = 17.54 kN/m
1.2DL + 1.6DL = 1.2 (10 + 2.53) + 1.6 (10) = 31.04 kN/m
Total w = 31.04 kN/m

Mu = wL2/8 = [31.04 (4.7)2 / 8] (1000)2 = 85698155 N-mm

NSCP 421.2.2
Φ = 0.90

Mn = Mu / Φ = 85698155 / 0.90 = 95220172 N-mm

pfy 0.0034( 415)
Ku = pfy (1- ¿ = 0.0034 (415) [1 - ] = 1.3539
1.7 fc ' 1.7(25)
bd2 = Mn / Ku = 95220172 / 1.3539 = 70331201.24 mm3
0.1915d (d2) = 70331201.24 mm3
d = (70331201.24/0.1915)1/3 = 716.13 mm
b = 0.1915d = 0.1915 (739.94) = 137.14 mm

Steel

Chosen Ø = 16 mm
Unit mass = 1.578 kg/m
 NSCP 2015, 420.6.1.3.1
Minimum concrete cover = 40 mm

h = d + cover + 0.5Ø = 716.13 + 40 + 0.5 (16) = 764.13 mm

As = pbd = 0.0034 (137.14) (716.13) = 331.31 mm2
N = As / (π/4 * d2) = 319.53 / (π/4 * 162) = 2

NSCP 2015, 425.2.1

s = [b - N(Ø) - 2(cover)] / (N-1) = [137.14 - 2(16) - 2(40)] / (2-1) = 25.14 mm

137.14(764.13)
Actual wSW = gc (bh) + Unit mass of rebar (g) = 24 [ ]
10002
9.81
+ 1.578 ( )
1000
Actual wSW = 2.53 kN/m
sů
Assumed wSW ≈ Actual wSW

Adjusted Dimensions (to the nearest 25 mm)

b = 150 mm
h = 775 mm

150(775) 9.81
Adjusted Actual wSW = 24 [ 2 ] + 1.578 ( )
1000 1000
Adjusted Actual wSW = 2.81 kN/m

Answers:
RC Beam Design
Pmax Pmin
b 200 mm b 150 mm
h 350 mm h 775 mm
d 286.71 mm d 716.13 mm
 cover 50 mm cover 40 mm
bar diameter 25 mm bar diameter 16 mm
number of rebar 2 number of rebar 2

Illustration

Figure 1. RC Beam Design (pmax) Figure 2. RC Beam Design (pmin)

Answers:

RC Beam Design
b 200 mm
h 350 mm
d 286.71 mm
cover 50 mm
bar diameter 25 mm
number of rebar 2

Figure 3. RC Beam Design

Comparison to COMPEX1

Figure 3. COMPEX1 RC Beam Design

In comparing the reinforced concrete beam design from using both working stress design and
ultimate stress design methods, it can be observed that the height of the concrete beam and the bar
diameter required that would produce the most economical section are lower in using the section’s
ultimate strength. The ultimate stress design is a more sensible method given the use of the safety factors
such as the one used in this computational exercise for flexure and tension-controlled section. The method
also includes analyzing the section wherein failure occurs when its ultimate strength is met through
applicable load factors. With this, the beam is designed to have a nominal bending capacity greater than
its ultimate bending strength. Despite this, it has come to mind as to why sections produced using this
method would yield beam dimensions of lesser value as compared to using the working stress design
method. The reason behind why the strength design method produces more economical sections is due to
the utilization of high strength steel at its yield strength (fy) instead of using only a part of the material’s
strength (fs). In the first computational exercise the steel reinforcement was provided a steel strength of fs
= 140 MPa while for this computation exercise its yield strength of fy = 415 MPa was utilized for the
designing the reinforced concrete beam section.