Advertisement

Meccanica

, Volume 53, Issue 6, pp 1493–1512 | Cite as

Evaluation of the capacity surfaces of reinforced concrete sections: Eurocode versus a plasticity-based approach

  • Salvatore Sessa
  • Francesco Marmo
  • Luciano Rosati
  • Leonardo Leonetti
  • Giovanni Garcea
  • Raffaele Casciaro
Novel Computational Approaches to Old and New Problems in Mechanics

Abstract

The classical Eurocode-compliant ultimate limit state (ULS) analysis of reinforced concrete sections is investigated in the paper with the aim of verifying if and how this well-established design procedure can be related to plasticity theory. For this reason, a comparative analysis concerning capacity surfaces of reinforced concrete cross sections, computed via a ULS procedure and a limit analysis approach, is presented. To this end, a preliminary qualitative discussion outlines modeling assumptions aiming to reproduce the physical behavior of reinforced concrete cross sections with respect to ductility and confinement issues. Besides the theoretical importance of the proposed approach, numerical experiments prove that limit analysis yields not only very accurate results but also a computationally effective procedure that can be affordably used in common design practice.

Keywords

Ultimate limit state Reinforced concrete Limit analysis Capacity surface 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Bilotta A, Garcea G, Leonetti L (2016) A composite mixed finite element model for the elasto-plastic analysis of 3D structural problems. Finite Elem Anal Des 113(Suppl C):43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bing L, Park R, Tanaka H (2000) Constitutive behavior of high-strength concrete under dynamic loads. ACI Struct J 97(4):619–629Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bleyer J, De Buhan P (2013) Yield surface approximation for lower and upper bound yield design of 3d composite frame structures. Comput Struct 129:86–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Casciaro R, Garcea G (2002) An iterative method for shakedown analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191(49–50):5761–5792ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chandler A, Lam N (2001) Performance based design in earthquake engineering a multidisciplinary review. Eng Struct 23:1525–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiorean C (2010) Computerised interaction diagrams and moment capacity contours for composite steel concrete cross-sections. Eng Struct 32(11):3734–3757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chiorean C (2013) A computer method for nonlinear inelastic analysis of 3d composite steelconcrete frame structures. Eng Struct 57(Suppl C):125–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ditlevsen OD, Madsen HO (1996) Structural reliability methods. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Union: EN 1992—Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Union: EN 1998-1-3—Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ile N, Frau A (2017) Use of response envelopes for seismic margin assessment of reinforced concrete walls and slabs. Nucl Eng Des 314(Suppl C):238–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karsan ID, Jirsa JO (1969) Behavior of concrete under compressive loading. J Struct Div 95(12):2543–2563Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karthik M, Mander J (2011) Stress-block parameters for unconfined and confined concrete based on a unified stress–strain model. J Struct Eng 137(2):270–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kent DC, Park R (1971) Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div 97(7):1969–1990Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim JH, Lee HS (2017) Reliability assessment of reinforced concrete rectangular columns subjected to biaxial bending using the load contour method. Eng Struct 150(Suppl C):636–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koiter WT (1960) General theorems for elasticplastic solids. In: Sneddon IN, Hill R (eds) Progress in solid mechanics. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leonetti L, Le CV (2016) Plastic collapse analysis of Mindlin–Reissner plates using a composite mixed finite element. Int J Numer Methods Eng 105(12):915–935MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leonetti L, Casciaro R, Garcea G (2015) Effective treatment of complex statical and dynamical load combinations within shakedown analysis of 3D frames. Comput Struct 158:124–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loureno PB, Figueiras JA (1995) Solution for the design of reinforced concrete plates and shells. J Struct Eng 121(5):815–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lubliner J (2008) Plasticity theory. Dover, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malena M, Casciaro R (2008) Finite element shakedown analysis of reinforced concrete 3d frames. Comput Struct 86(11–12):1176–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mander J, Priestley M, Park R (1988) Observed stress–strain behavior of confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1827–1849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mander J, Priestley M, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marmo F, Rosati L (2012) Analytical integration of elasto-plastic uniaxial constitutive laws over arbitrary sections. Int J Numer Methods Eng 91:990–1022MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marmo F, Rosati L (2013) The fiber-free approach in the evaluation of the tangent stiffness matrix for elastoplastic uniaxial constitutive laws. Int J Numer Methods Eng 94:868–894MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marmo F, Rosati L (2015) Automatic cross-section classification and collapse load evaluation for steel/aluminum thin-walled sections of arbitrary shape. Eng Struct 100:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Melan E (1938) Zur plastizität des raümlichen continuum. Ing Arch 9:116–126CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Melchers RE (2002) Structural reliability, analysis and prediction, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Menun C (2003) A response-spectrum-based envelope for Mohr’s circle. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(12):1917–1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Menun C, Der Kiureghian A (2000) Envelopes for seismic response vectors—I: theory. J Struct Eng 126(4):467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Menun C, Der Kiureghian A (2000) Envelopes for seismic response vectors—II: application. J Struct Eng 126(4):474–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pastor F, Loute E (2005) Solving limit analysis problems: an interior-point method. Commun Numer Methods Eng 21(11):631–642MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Priestley M, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN (1982) Stress–strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. J Am Concrete Inst 79(1):13–27Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sessa S, Marmo F, Rosati L (2015) Effective use of seismic response envelopes for reinforced concrete structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(14):2401–2423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Simon JW (2012) Shakedown analysis with multidimensional loading spaces. Comput Mech 49:291–334MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Spiliopoulos KV, Panagiotou KD (2017) An enhanced numerical procedure for the shakedown analysis in multidimensional loading domains. Comput Struct 193:155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Valoroso N, Marmo F, Sessa S (2014) Limit state analysis of reinforced shear walls. Eng Struct 61:127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yan Y, Chirikjian GS (2015) Closed-form characterization of the Minkowski sum and difference of two ellipsoids. Geom Dedicata 177(1):103–128MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zouain N (2004) Encyclopedia of computational mechanics, chap. Shakedown and safety assessment. Wiley, Chichester, pp 291–334Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Structures for Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Ingegneria Informatica, Modellistica, Elettronica e SistemisticaUniversitá della CalabriaRendeItaly

Personalised recommendations