DESIGN OF CONTINUOUS BEAMS AND

MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION

Gravity Load Patterns for Maximum Design Moments

Gravity loads comprise dead loads and live loads to be estimated in

accordance with Parts 1 and 2 respectively of IS 875 : 1987. Dead loads, by
their inherent nature, act at all times, live loads occur randomly both
temporally and spatially.
In order to determine the maximum (positive as well as negative)
moments that can occur at any section in a continuous beam or frame, it is
first necessary to identify the spans to be loaded with live loads so as to
create the worst effects
This can be conveniently done by sketching, qualitatively, the shape of the
influence line for the bending moment at the section under consideration,
using the Mller-Breslau Principle:

A fictitious hinge is first inserted at the section under consideration, and a

rotation introduced therein in a direction corresponding to the moment desired

The resulting deflected shape, corresponding to a unit value of the imposed

rotation, gives the desired influence line.

+
Loading for ,

Loading for ,

Influence lines and gravity load patterns for a continuous beam and

Design Moments in Beams

1.

The maximum positive moment in a span occurs when live loads are
placed on that span and every other alternate span

In the case of a plane frame, this arrangement corresponds to a

checkerboard pattern

+
Loading for ,

2.

The minimum positive moment in a span (which may turn out to be a

maximum negative moment in some cases) occurs when it is not loaded
with live loads, and when live loads are placed on adjoining spans, as well
as alternate spans further away

3. The maximum negative moment at a support section [marked C] occurs

when live loads are placed on the span (BC) in which the support section is
located as well as the adjoining span CD, and also on every alternate span
thereafter, as shown in figure.

4. The influence of loads on spans far removed from the sections under
consideration is relatively small

Code Recommendations: IS 456 2000

The Code recommendations for arrangement of imposed load (Cl. 22.4.1) in

continuous beams (and one-way slabs) and frames are in conformity with
the conclusions (1) (3) cited above
With respect to the live load pattern required to estimate the maximum
moment at a support section, the Code does not call for live loads to be
placed on alternate spans [refer span EF in Figure] in addition to the
placement on the two spans adjacent to an interior support [this is justified
by conclusion (4) above]

Furthermore, in the case of frames in which the design live load does not
exceed three-fourths of the design dead load, the Code (Cl. 22.4.1b) permits
the designer to ignore altogether the problem of analysing different live load
patterns.
In such cases, it suffices to perform a single frame analysis for gravity
loading with full design dead load plus live load on all the spans.
It may be noted that this major concession is permitted only for frames, and
not for continuous beam and one-way slabs. Also, it should be noted that

Design Moments in Columns

Bending moments in columns, unlike beams, need to be studied in

association with co-existing axial compressive forces
The interaction between axial compressive strength and flexural strength of
a given column section is such that its ultimate moment resisting capacity
MuR is nonlinearly dependent on the factored axial load Pu
Strictly, this calls for an investigation of all gravity load patterns that result
in all possible combinations of Pu and Mu.
Strictly, the combinations should include Pu, Mux and Muy considering the
biaxial bending moments that occur simultaneously from the longitudinal
and transverse frames connected to the same column

However, it is generally accepted that considerations may be limited to

gravity load patterns that result in (a) maximum eccentricity e = Mu /Pu and
(b) maximum Pu.
The former is generally obtainable from the checkerboard patterns of
loading (which are, at any rate, required to determine the maximum span
moments in beams). The latter is obtained by loading all the panels on all
the floors above the storey under consideration.
It may be noted here that the Loading Code [IS 875 : 1987 (Part 2)] permits
some reduction in live load values to account for the low probability of
simultaneous occurrence of full live loads on all the floor slab areas in all
the floors above.

Factored Moments from Elastic Analysis and Moment

Redistribution

The maximum load effects (moments, shear forces, etc.) are generally
determined on the basis of elastic analyses of the structure under service
loads (characteristic loads)
The factored moments (design moments) are obtained by multiplying the
service load moments by the specified load factors. This is equivalent to
considering elastic moment distributions under the factored loads
The structural analysis is based on linear elastic theory, whereas the
structural design is based on inelastic section behaviour. It should be noted,
however, that there is no real inconsistency if the moment-curvature (M- )
relationship remains linear even under ultimate loads
the moment-curvature relationship is practically linear up to the point of
yielding of the tension steel in under-reinforced sections
If under the factored loads, no significant yielding takes place at any section
in the structure, the bending moment distribution at the ultimate limit
state will indeed be the same as that obtained from a linear elastic analysis
under factored loads
As the design moments at various critical sections are greater than the

The main advantage of under-reinforced sections is that they exhibit ductile

behaviour, due to the ability of the sections to undergo large curvatures at
nearly constant moment after the yielding of steel

This ductile behaviour enables the structure to enter into an inelastic phase,
wherein the sections which have reached their ultimate moment capacities
undergo rotations (under constant moment).

This causes additional load effects to be borne by less stressed sections a

phenomenon which is described as redistribution of moments (or, in
general, stresses).
This capacity for moment redistribution can be advantageously made use of
in many cases, resulting in designing for ultimate moments that are less
than the peak factored moments obtained from elastic analysis.
The Code (Cl. 37.1.1) permits a limited redistribution of moments provided
adequate ductility is ensured at the critical sections

Behaviour of under-reinforced section (tension

failure)

Moment-curvature
relations

Inelastic Analysis and Moment Redistribution

Reinforced concrete structures are generally analysed by the conventional

elastic theory (refer Cl. 22.1 of the Code). In flexural members, this is
tantamount to assuming a linear moment-curvature relationship, even
under factored loads

For under-reinforced sections, this assumption is approximately true,

provided the reinforcing steel has not yielded at any section. Once yielding
takes place (at any section), the behaviour of a statically indeterminate
structure enters an inelastic phase, and linear elastic structural analysis is
strictly no longer valid
For a proper determination of the distribution of bending moments for
loading beyond the yielding stage at any section, inelastic analysis is called
for
This is generally referred to as limit analysis, when applied to reinforced
concrete framed structures, and plastic analysis when applied to steel
structures
In the special case of reinforced concrete slabs, the inelastic analysis usually
employed is the yield line analysis

The assumption generally made in limit analysis is that the momentcurvature relation is an idealised bilinear elasto-plastic relation

Idealised moment-curvature relation

This has validity only if the section is adequately under-reinforced

and the reinforcing steel has a well-defined yield plateau.
The ultimate moment of resistance (MuR) of such sections, with
specified area of steel, can be easily assessed

Plastic hinge Formation

With the idealised M relation, the ultimate moment of resistance (MuR)

is assumed to have been reached at a critical section in a flexural member
with the yielding of the tension steel
On further straining (increase in curvature: > y), the moment at the
section cannot increase. However, the section yields, and the curvature
continues to increase under a constant moment (M = MuR)
In general (with bending moment varying along the length of the member),
the zone of yielding spreads over a small region in the immediate
neighbourhood of the section under consideration, permitting continued
rotation, as though a hinge is present at the section, but one that continues
to resist a fixed moment MuR. A plastic hinge is said to have formed at the
section
If the structure is statically indeterminate, it is still stable after the
formation of a plastic hinge, and for further loading, it behaves as a
modified structure with a hinge at the plastic hinge location (and one less
degree of indeterminacy)
It can continue to carry additional loading (with formation of additional
plastic hinges) until the limit state of collapse is reached on account of one of
the following reasons:
formation of sufficient number of plastic hinges, to convert the structure (or
a part of it) into a mechanism

Clapeyrons Theorem of Three Moments

Example of limit analysis

The linear elastic behaviour of the

beam is reached at a load w = w1
corresponding max. bending
moment MuR
1

Loading on beam

This continuous beam can be analysed elastically by theorem of three

moment method

1
1
2
2
61 1 62 2
+ 2
+
+

+
=0
1 1
1 1 2 2
2 2
1 1 1 2 2 2

For with constant EI=1 1 =2 2

1 + 2 1 + 2

1 31 2 32
+ 2 =

4
4

(1)

The elastic moments at support A and C are

= = 0
Moment at support B : using equation (1)
1 3 1 3
1 2
+ 2 + + =

=
= . =
4
4
8

Moment at any section in span AB

From known moments at supports
Find

reaction
= 0

force

RA:

1 2 1 2

+
=0
2
8
= .

Bending moment at any section in span Bending moment up to limit of elastic

phase
AB
1 2
=
(2)

Maximum
bending
2moment in the span AB will be where the shear force is zero,
i.e.

= 0 1 = 0

0.3751
=
= .
1
Substitute x-value in equation (2)
1 0.375
() = 0.3751 0.375
2
2

= . = .
2

Plastic hinge at continuous

support

Now, increase the load on the beam to 2 = > 1, the beam behaves as a
two-span beam with a hinge at support B and the span moment alone
increases while the support moment remains constant at MuR
Assuming that the support section is sufficiently under-reinforced such that
it will not break down prior to the formation of the next plastic hinge, this
phase of behaviour will continue until the peak moment in the span reaches
MuR
Find out max. bending moment in the AB span for load
w2

2 2
=
2
2

2
=
2

2 2
=
=
2
= .

Substitute x value in equation (3)

(3)

Limit analysis

Variation of support/span moment with

loading

=
.

11.656
= .
2

hinged mechanism at ultimate load w

= w2

Moment redistribution
It is generally referred to the transfer of
moments from peak stressed sections to the
less stressed sections as sections of peak
moments being reached
Two span continuous beam with uniform
loading
Design viewpoint, the redistributed bending
moment diagram allows to reduce the
maximum bending moment level and a
corresponding increase in the lower
moments at other location
It leads to design of a more economical
structure
and
less
congestion
of
reinforcement at critical sections

Considering the two-span continuous beam,

as a design problem (rather than an
analysis problem), it may be seen that the
designer has several alternative factored
moment diagrams to choose from, depending
on the amount of redistribution to be
considered
If the design is to be based on a purely
elastic moment distribution
(without
considering any redistribution) then the

Design moments of resistance

Elastic bending moments

(a)

Reduction in peak negative moments

High support moment ()

demands large section beam or limited crosssection with large amount of reinforcement

In such situations, it is desirable to reduce the design moment at the

support to the value C1M(E) and correspondingly increase span (positive)
moments which are otherwise low
The % reduction in the support moment given by:
= 1 1 100

Reduce in support moment and Increase in span moment Consequent to a

reduction in the support moment from ()

to 1 ()
, there is an increase
+
+
in the design (positive) moment in the span region from ()
to 2 ()
,
where the factor 2 obviously is greater than unity. Accordingly, as
indicated in Figure

plastic hinge at continuous

support


()
= 1 _

+
+
()
= 2 ()

C1 < 1

--------------(1)

C2 > 1

--------------(2)

where the subscript (L) represents limit analysis. The factor C2 (indicating the
increase in the elastic span moment + ) depends on the factor C1. The factor C1 is
fixed (based on the percentage reduction desired), and the factor C2 has to be
determined for design by considering limit analysis
Moment about B:
2

+ 1 = 0
2
1
= 0.5

Moment about section X-X in span AB:

2
=
(4)
2
Max. bending moment

=0

1
= 0 0.5
=

1
= 0.5

Redistributed moment for

X
design

Limit analysis (reduced support moment

C1M-(E))

Maximum span moment corresponding to reduced support moment of 1

Substitute x value and equation (2) in equation (3)

2 +

1 1
1
=

2

2 2

2 +

1 1 1
=

+
2

4
2
1
=
2

4
2

=
+

Substitute eqn (a) in above eqn

Substitute equations (1) & (2) in (3)

64 1 1
2 =

9 2 8

This equation is represented graphically in the figure

% reduction in
support moment

% increase in
span (positive)
moment

25

17.3

50

36.1

Relation between reduction in

support moment with increase in
span moment

For the desired moment redistribution to take place, the plastic hinges that
develop must have the required rotation capacities to hold on without
inducing premature failure

Example
Analyse a three-span continuous beam (with equal spans l ), subjected to a
uniformly distributed load w per unit length, to determine the critical
positive moments M1 or MAB and MCD (in the end span) and M2 or MBC (in the
interior span), as well as the negative moment M3 or MB and MC at the
continuous support. Assume that the dead load (wD) and live load (wL)
components of the total load (w) are equal (wD= wL= 0.5w and wD+wL= w).
Also assume all spans to have the same cross-section. Calculate the
Redistributed span and support moments due 30% reduction of maximum
support moment.
w = 30 kN/m (wD = 15 kN/m, wL = 15 kN/m); l = 8.0 m
Assume a partial load factor of 1.5 for both dead loads and live loads (as per
IS Code). Use M 20 concrete and Fe 415 steel

Solution
Elastic analysis

Uniform load w on all spans

Find out elastic moments for above beam using theorem of three moment:
= = 0 = ()
For span AB and BC:
3 3
+ 2 2 + =

4
4
3
4 + =
2

(1)

Similarly for span BC and CD:

3
+ 4 =
(2)
2
Solve equations (1) and (2),
= = = . =

Bending moment about any section in span AB: Max. bending moment in span BC:
Moment about C:

Moment about B:

2
2

+ 0.1 2 = 0

= 0.4
2
= 0.4
(3)
2
Maximum bending moment occurs where

=0

2

+ 0.12 0.12 = 0
2
= 0.5
2
= 0.5
0.12
2

0.5 = 0
= .

From equation (3)

= = . =

= 0

= .
Substitute x value in equation (3)

= = . = .

Moment Redistribution
30% reduction of continuous support moment is given by

B = 0.7 MB = 0.7 0.1000 wul2

= 0.07574 wul2 = 134.4 kNm
Now, find out the increase of span moment corresponding to decreased
support moment
Find out moment about B:
30 82
8
+ 134.4 = 0 = 103.2
2
Moment at any section of AB:
30 2
= 103.2
2
Maximum bending moment occurs where

=0

= 3.44
Max. AB span bending moment (Substitute x value in ) = 177.504

Determine max. BC span moment:

Take moment about C:
30 82
8
134.4 + 134.4 = 0 = 120
2
Moment at any section of BC:

30 2
= 120
134.4
2
Maximum bending moment occurs where

=0

=4
Max. BC span bending moment (Substitute x value in ) = 105.6

Reduction in peak positive moments

Moment redistribution may also be

applied to situation where positive
moments are relatively high and need to
be reduced for economy and less
congestion of reinforcement
In a two span continuous beam, if the
loading arrangement is like shown in
figure then the span AB experiences the
max. bending moment

The max. span moment from elastic

analysis can be redistributed by allowing
the first hinge to form in the span
region.
The reduction in span moment is
accompanied
by
a
corresponding
increase in support moment

Loading diagram for max. +ve

span moment in AB

Elastic factored moment diagram

Redistributed moment

Code Recommendations for Moment Redistribution

Limit Equilibrium
The redistributed moments must be in a state of static equilibrium with the
factored loads at the limit state

Serviceability
The ultimate moment of resistance () at any section should not be less
than 70 percent of the factored moment (, max) at that section, as obtained
from the elastic moment envelope (considering all loading combinations).

In other words, the flexural strength at any section should not be less than
that given by the elastic factored moment envelope, scaled by a factor of 0.7
0.7 ,

This restriction is aimed at ensuring that plastic hinge formation does not
take place under normal service loads, and even if it does take place, the
yielding of the steel will not be so significant as to result in excessive crackwidths and deflections

It is mentioned in the Explanatory Handbook to the Code that the

value of 70% is arrived at as the ratio of service loads to ultimate loads with

Low Demand for High Plastic Hinge Rotation Capacities

The reduction in the elastic factored moment (negative or positive) at any
section due to a particular combination of factored loads should not exceed
30 percent of the absolute maximum factored moment ( , max), as obtained
from the envelope of factored elastic moments (considering all loading
combinations).
Although the basis for this clause in the Code (Cl. 37.1.1.c) is different from
the previous clause, which is based on the idea of preventing the formation
of plastic hinges at service loads, for the case of gravity loading, in effect,
this clause is no different.

However, in the design of lateral load resisting frames (with number of

storeys exceeding four), the Code (Cl. 37.1.1.e) imposes an additional
overriding restriction. The reduction in the elastic factored moment is
restricted to 10 percent of , max. Thus

0.3 ,
0.1 ,

This restriction is intended to ensure that the ductility requirements at the

plastic hinge locations are not excessive

Adequate Plastic Hinge Rotation Capacity

The design of the critical section (plastic hinge location) should be such that
it is sufficiently under-reinforced, with a low neutral axis depth factor (xu/d),
satisfying

where M denotes the percentage reduction in the maximum factored

elastic moment (Mu,max) elastic at the section

In practice, it is sometimes more convenient to express above equation

alternatively as

For singly reinforced rectangular beam sections, the expression for xu/d is
given below, which is repeated here for convenience, with MuR = Mu

Moment Redistribution in Beams

Low values of xu/d (and, thus large values of ) are generally not possible
in beams without resorting to very large sections, which may be
uneconomical. However, even with the extreme case of a balanced section
(with xu = xu,max), it can be shown, by applying
and

Thus, it is seen that a limited moment distribution (for example, up to 12.1

percent
in the case of Fe 415 steel) is possible, even with the limiting neutral axis
depth
permitted for design

Inelastic Analysis of Slabs

The thicknesses of reinforced concrete slabs are generally governed by
deflection control criteria, with the result that the sections are invariably
under-reinforced, with low xu/d values. Hence, significant inelastic action is
possible in such cases
It may be noted, however, that, in the case of one way continuous slabs, (and
continuous beams), no moment redistribution is permitted by the Code (Cl.
22.5.1) if the analysis is based on the use of the Code moment coefficients

This is so, because such coefficients are only approximations, and minor
errors are assumed to be accommodated through the inherent capacity for
moment redistribution in the structure

In the case of two-way slab systems, which are statically indeterminate,

detailed inelastic analysis (yield line analysis) is often resorted to [shown in
figure], and, in fact, the moment coefficients given in the Code for two-way
rectangular slabs with various possible edge conditions are based on such
analyses

Concept underlying yield line analysis of

slabs

Yield line analysis is the equivalent for a two-dimensional flexural member

(plate or slab) of the limit analysis of a one-dimensional member
(continuous beam)
It is based on the elastic-plastic M relation, according to which, as the
moment at a section reaches MuR, a plastic hinge is formed, and therefore
rotation takes place at constant moment.
In slabs, peak moments occur along lines (such as negative moments along
support lines and positive moments along lines near the midspan), and
hence the yielding (plastic hinge formation) occurs along lines (yield lines),

In a skeletal structure (continuous beam, grid, plane frame, space frame),

the ultimate (collapse) load is reached when sufficient number of plastic
hinges are formed to transform the structure into a mechanism
In a similar way, the ultimate load is reached in plates when sufficient
number of yield lines are formed to transform the slab into a series of plate
segments connected by yield lines, resulting in mechanism type behaviour

As in the case of limit analysis of beams and frames, it is assumed in yield

line analysis that the plastic hinges which form (along the yield lines)
possess adequate plastic rotation capacities to hold on till a complete set of
yield lines are formed, leading to a mechanism type of collapse
This is justifiable in view of the relatively low xu/d values in slabs in general

Moment Redistribution in Columns

Reduction of moments on account of moment redistribution is generally not
applied to columns, which are essentially compression members that are
also subjected to bending (due to frame action)
In general, the neutral axis location at the limit state is such that the Code
requirements (equation given below) cannot be satisfied by a column section
unless the column is very lightly loaded axially and the eccentricity in
loading is very large.

Furthermore, in the case of a typical beam-column joint in a reinforced

concrete building, it is desirable that the formation of the plastic hinge
occurs in the beam, rather than in the column, because the subsequent
collapse is likely to be less catastrophic. This is particularly necessary in
earthquake-resistant design

Example 1
Analyse a three-span continuous beam (with equal spans l ), subjected to a
uniformly distributed load w per unit length, to determine the critical
positive moments M1 or MAB and MCD (in the end span) and M2 or MBC (in the
interior span), as well as the negative moment M3 or MB and MC at the
continuous support. Assume that the dead load (wD) and live load (wL)
components of the total load (w) are equal (wD= wL= 0.5w and wD+wL= w).
Also assume all spans to have the same cross-section. Compare the moment
coefficients obtained by
a) Elastic analysis considering total load w on all spans
b) Elastic analysis considering pattern loading
c) Code recommendations for moment coefficients

Solution
a) Elastic analysis considering total load w on all spans

Uniform load w on all spans

Find out elastic moments for above beam using theorem of three moment:
= = 0 = ()
For span AB and BC:
3 3
+ 2 2 + =

4
4
3
4 + =
2

(1)

Similarly for span BC and CD:

3
+ 4 =
(2)
2
Solve equations (1) and (2),
= = = .

Bending moment about any section in span AB: Max. bending moment in span BC:
Moment about C:

Moment about B:

2
2

+ 0.1 2 = 0

= 0.4
2
= 0.4
(3)
2
Maximum bending moment occurs where

=0

2

0.12 + 0.12 = 0
2
= 0.5
2
= 0.5
0.12
2

0.5 = 0
= .

From equation (3)

= = .

= 0

= .
Substitute x value in equation (3)

= = .

b) Elastic analysis considering pattern

loading

w on end spans and wD on

mid span

Find out elastic moments for above beam using theorem of three moment:
= = 0 = ()
For span AB and BC:
3 3
+ 2 2 + =

8
4

3 3
4 + =

4
8

(4)

Similarly for span BC and CD:

3 3
+ 4 =

(5)
8
4
Solve equations (4) and (5),
= = = .

Bending moment about any section in span

AB:
Moment about B:
2

+ 0.075 2 = 0
2

= 0.425
2
= 0.425
(6)
2
Maximum bending moment occurs where

=0

From equation (6)

Max. bending moment in span BC:

Moment about C:
2

0.0752 + 0.0752 = 0
4
= 0.25
2
= 0.25
0.0752
4

=0

0.25 0.5 = 0
= .
= .

= 0

= .
Substitute x value in equation (6)

= = .

Max./min. moments in span

AB/BC

w on end spans and wD on

mid span

Find out elastic moments for above beam using theorem of three moment:
= = 0 = ()
For span AB and BC:
3 3
+ 2 2 + =

8
4
3 3
4 + =

8
4

(7)

Similarly for span BC and CD:

3 3
+ 4 =

(8)
4
8
Solve equations (7) and (8),
= = = .

Bending moment about any section in span

AB:
Moment about B:
2

+ 0.075 2 = 0
4

= 0.175
2
= 0.175
(9)
4
Maximum bending moment occurs where

=0

From equation (9)

Max. bending moment in span BC:

Moment about C:
2

0.0752 + 0.0752 = 0
2
= 0.5
2
= 0.5
0.0752
2

=0

0.5 = 0
= .
= .

0.5 = 0

= .
Substitute x value in equation (9)
= = .
Min./max. moments in span
AB/BC

w on span AB, and BC and Dead load wD on

CD span

Find out elastic moments for above beam using theorem of three moment:
= = 0
For span AB and BC:
3 3
+ 2 2 + =

4
4
3
4 + =
2

(10)

Similarly for span BC and CD:

3 3
+ 4 =

(11)
4
8
Solve equations (1) and (2),
= = .
= .

Max. bending moment in span BC:

Bending moment about any section in span

AB:

Moment about C:

Moment about B:

2

0.06672 + 0.10822 = 0
2

2

+ 0.1082 2 = 0
2

= 0.5412

= 0.3918
2
= 0.3918
(12)
2
Maximum bending moment occurs where

=0

From equation (12)

2
= 0.5412
0.10822
2

=0

0.5412 = 0
= .
= .

= 0
= .

Substitute x value in equation (12)

= = .
max. negative moment at continuous
support

c) Code recommendations for moment

coefficients
Factored moment in continuous beams using code coefficient
(Cl. 22.5):
Positive Moments:

Negative Moments:

,
+ ,
12
10

,
+ ,
16
12

,
+ , 2
10
9

, + , 2
12
9

The results are easily obtained from above formula

Span moments

1
+
12
1
2
+
16

1
10
1
12

3 = 0.5

1 = + 0.5 2
2 = + 0.5

Support moments

= +0.09172
= +0.07292
1
1
+
16
12

= 0.10562

Comparison of results
Span moments
M1

M2

Support
moment
M3

(a) Total load on all spans

+0.0800

+0.0250

-0.1000

(b) Pattern loading

+0.0903

-0.01250

-0.1082

(c) Code coefficients

+0.0917

+0.0729

-0.1056

Method

Comments
The simplified consideration of total loading on all spans [case (a)] results in
a 50 percent under-estimation in the positive mid-span moment (M2) in the
interior span; M1 and M3 are also under-estimated, but marginally
The Code coefficient method over-estimates the mid-span positive moment
M3 in the interior span by as much as 45.8 percent and the moment M1 in
the end span by 1.5%
in general, the relatively crude method of considering total loads on all
spans
results in an unconservative design, whereas the use of Code moment

Example 2

(a)

Based on the elastic factored moment envelope obtainable from Example

1, design the flexural reinforcement in the three-span continuous beam
of Example 1, given the following data:

w = 30 kN/m (wD = 15 kN/m, wL = 15 kN/m); l = 8.0 m

Assume a partial load factor of 1.5 for both dead loads and live loads (as per
IS Code). Use M 20 concrete and Fe 415 steel
(b) Redesign the three-span continuous beam by applying moment
redistribution (to the extent permitted by the Code)

Solution:
a)
Factored load w = 1.5 30 = 45 kN/m, wu l2 = 45 (8.0)2 = 2880 kNm
The elastic factored moment envelope, based on the results of Example 1, is
shown fig
Max. -ve moment
at continuous
support exp 1

Min./max. moments
in span AB/BC exp 1

Max./min.
moments in span
AB/BC exp 1

1 = +0.09032 = +260.1 ( )

2 = +0.052 = +144 ( )
S 3 = 0.10822 = 311.7

Proportioning of beam section:

Assume a beam width b = 300 mm. Considering the maximum design moment
of 311.7 kN/m, for an under-reinforced section
effective depth

where Rlim = 0.1389 fck = 0.1389 20 = 2.778 Mpa

311.7 106
= 611.6
2.778 300

Assume overall depth D = 700 mm and d 655 mm (for an economical design)

Design of flexural reinforcement:

4.598

=
1 1
100 2

Considering fck = 20 MPa, fy = 415 MPa, b = 300 mm, d = 655 mm, the
following results are obtained

1. for Mu1 = + 260.1 kNm, R = 2.021 MPa pt = 0.647 (Ast)reqd = 1271 mm2
Provide 225 + 120 at bottom in the end span [Ast = 1296 mm2 > 1271]
2. for Mu2 = + 144.0 kNm, R = 1.119 MPa pt = 0.333 (Ast)reqd = 655 mm2
Provide 216 + 120 at bottom in the central span [Ast = 716 mm2 > 654]
Mu2 = 0.0125 wul2 = 36 kNm is accommodated by the nominal top steel (2
16 bars) provided

design for elastic factored moments

3. for Mu3 = 311.7 kNm, R = 2.422 MPa pt = 0.805 (Ast)reqd = 1583
mm2 Provide 228 + 216 at top [Ast = 1634 mm2 > 1583] up to, say
0.3l on the end span side, and 0.4l on the central span side of the continuous
support; beyond this, the 216 bars may be extended over the span
regions as nominal top steel

(b) Moment Redistribution

By applying moment redistribution, the maximum negative moment at

the continuous support can be reduced. The amount of reduction possible
depends on the plastic hinge rotation capacity at the section. [

+ 100

0.6

has to be satisfied].

The maximum reduction in moment permitted by the Code is 30 percent,

corresponding to which, the design moment at the continuous support is
given by

u3 = 0.7 Mu3 = 0.7 0.1082 wul2

= 0.07574 wul2 = 218.2 kNm
Assuming b = 300 mm and d = 655 mm (as before)

4.598 218.2 106

= 1.202 1 1
= 0.263

20 300 6552
which satisfies the Code requirement xud 0.6 30/100 = 0.30 (for 30%
reduction in Mu3). Hence, the desired plastic rotation capacity is ensured

Now, find out the increase of AB span moment corresponding to decreased

support moment
Find out moment about B:
2

+ 0.07574 2 = 0 = 0.424
2
Moment at any section of AB:
2
= 0.424
2

Maximum bending moment occurs where

=0

= 0.424
Max. AB span bending moment (Substitute x value in ) = 0.09 2

Determine max. BC span moment:

Take moment about C:
2

0.07574 2 + 0.0748 2 = 0 = 0.5
2
Moment at any section of BC:

2
= 0.5
0.07574 2
2
Maximum bending moment occurs where

=0

= 0.5
Max. BC span bending moment (Substitute x value in ) = 0.049 2

Bending
moment
redistribution:

envelope

after

analysis with moment redistribution (plastic hinge

at B)
For the loading pattern shown in example1(b), the possibility of
redistribution has been recognised by reducing the design flexural strength
at the continuous support from the elastic solution value of 0.1082 wul2 to
u3 = 0.07574 wul2.
By performing an analysis of the continuous beam with a plastic hinge at the
continuous support the maximum +ve moments in end span and centre span
are
end span:

u1 = + 0.0900 wul2 < (Mu1)elastic = +0.0903 wul2

central span:

u2 = + 0.0497 wul2 < (Mu2)elastic = + 0.0500 wul2

end span moment:

u1 = +0.0903 wul2 = 260.1 kNm

central span moment:

u2 = + 0.0500 wul2 = 144 kNm

Design moment envelope (after

redistribution)
Design of flexural reinforcement
Considering fck = 20 MPa, fy = 415 MPa, b = 300 mm, d = 655 mm (as
before), for u1 = + 260.1 kNm, (which is identical to Part(a) of this
Example).
Provide 225 + 120 at bottom in the end span (Ast = 1296 mm2
>1256).
Note: There is no increase in the reinforcement provided on account of

1)

for u2 = +144.0 kNm, (which is identical to Part(a) of this Example)

Provide 2 16 + 120 at bottom in the central span (exactly as before).

2) for3 = +218.2,

= 1.695 pt = 0.527 (Ast)reqd =

1036 mm2. Provide 222 + 216 at top (Ast = 1162 mm2 >1036), with the
222 bars curtailed exactly as before.
Note: This results in some savings, compared to the earlier design which
required 228 + 216 .

design for redistributed

moments

Code Recommendation for Moment Redistribution

Equilibrium between the internal forces and the external loads should be
maintained

The ultimate moment of resistance provided at any cross-section of a

member after the redistribution should not be less than 70 per cent of the
moment at that cross-section obtained from an elastic maximum moment
diagram covering all appropriate combinations of loads
M(E)
Elastic bending moment under working load
MuR
Elastic bending moment under design load
MuR(L) Design factored bending moment after redistribution

Percentage reduction in MuR

Load factor = 1.5
= 1.5()
() = 0.67 0.7
() 0.7()

This ensures that the design factored moments are greater than the elastic
moments everywhere in the structures

Continue.

The elastic moment at any cross-section in a member due to a particular

combination of loads shall not be reduced by more than 30 per cent of the
numerically largest moment given anywhere by the elastic maximum
moment diagram for the particular member, covering all appropriate
combinations of loads
Note: this restriction is to ensure that the ductility requirements at the
plastic hinge locations are not excessive
Cross-sections having moment capacity after redistribution less than that
of the elastic maximum moment shall satisfy the relationship

0.6
100

This equation ensures that the cross-section of the member is underreinforced which will give higher value of the rotation