Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FraMCoS-8
J.G.M. Van Mier, G. Ruiz, C. Andrade, R.C. Yu and X.X. Zhang (Eds)
University of Parma
Parco Area delle Scienze 181/A,43100 Parma, Italy
e-mail: beatrice.belletti@unipr.it
University of Parma
Parco Area delle Scienze 181/A,43100 Parma, Italy
e-mail: cecilia.damoni@nemo.unipr.it
+
1 INTRODUCTION
The Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public
Works and Water Management is running a
project to re-evaluate the load carrying
capacity of existing bridges and viaducts in the
whole country because of the increase of
traffic and the reallocation of emercency lanes
to traffic lanes. For a certain amount of Dutch
bridges and other infrastructures the safety
verifications are not satisfied if the usual
analytical procedures, proposed by the current
norms (e.g. [1]), are adopted for the
calculations. For this reason The Dutch
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and
Water Management proposed to make a
structural assessment of existing structures
through the use of nonlinear finite element
analyses with the final release of a document
containing guidelines for nonlinear finite
element (NLFE) analyses of reinforced and
prestressed concrete elements [2]. Previous
studies of the authors specifically deal with
indications of the guidelines for reinforced and
prestressed beams [3], [4]. In the present paper
the focus is on slabs.
The guidelines not only contain indications on
the modeling of structures through NLFE
analyses but also on the way to present the
results in order to facilitate the preparation of
technical reports and the reviewing by other
professionals. The focus is on the analysts
skills in order to control the results from NLFE
analyses without a priori accepting these
results
NLFE analyses, which are more and more
becoming a usual instrument in the daily
design process, can in fact take into account
hidden capacities of the structures and offer
refined modelling based on realistic material
properties. Nevertheless the power of NLFE
analyses does not have to be overestimated.
The results of NLFE analyses strongly depend
on the modelling choices and therefore a big
scatter in the results for the same structure
analyzed by several analysts can be detected.
For this reason the development of guidelines
for NLFE analyses to be followed by all users
1
CASE STUDIES
B-B
10/240
10/240
50
20/120
300
20/120
3300
900
10/240
265
300
B-B
50
20/120
Support 3
Simple and continuous supports
10/240
20/120
200 X 8 mm plywood
250
300
10/240
20/120
10/240
5000
HEM 300
100
20/120
S1T2
B-B
10/240
2700
600
900
20/120
500
3 DYWIDAG BARS 36
10/240
20/120
265
300
B-B
300
50
20/120
Support 3
Continuous support
Simple support
10/240
265
300
A-A
2500
500
3 DYWIDAG BARS 36
Support 3
Continuous support
Simple support
2500
265
300
A-A
50
Support 3
Simple and continuous supports
5000
20/120
10/240
200 X 8 mm plywood
250
300
10/240
20/120
10/240
HEM 300
100
20/120
S4T1
Bottom side
A-A
B-B
A-A
10/250
2700
10/125
20/120
50
Support 3
Simple and continuous supports
5000
10/125
10/250
10/240
10/125
20/120
125
250
300
200 X 8 mm plywood
10/125
10/250
10/240
10/125
20/120
10/250
HEM 300
10/250
900
500
3 DYWIDAG BARS 36
20/120
600
265
300
B-B
300
50
20/120
Support 3
Continuous support
Simple support
2500
265
300
10/240
(a)
(b)
Ec
fc
(Mpa) (Mpa)
S1T1 30910
29.7
S1T2 30910
29.7
S4T1 34930
42.9
*
OWS=One Way Shear
ft
(Mpa)
2.8
2.8
3.8
Failure
OWS*
OWS*
OWS*
Pu,exp
(KN)
954
1023
1160
(a)
Es (Mpa)
210000
10
210000
20
210000
336
Fpe*= prestressing force
fy (Mpa)
537
541
1000
Fpe* (KN)
315
(b)
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
-1
S1T1: 10mm felt
P50- 8mm plywood
-2
-3
-4
[N/mm2]
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
[-]
(a)
Support 3
1
0
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
-1
-2
[N/mm2]
-3
-4
S1T1: 5mm felt P50
S1T2: 5mm felt P50
-5
-6
-7
S4T1: 5mm felt P50
-8
[-]
-9
Shear MC 2010
Level I Level II
204.8
400.6
161.6
489.4
229.8
421.2
(b)
S1T1
SIT2
S4T1
Punching
Regan
EC2
472.1
542.0
472.1
542.0
512.6
498.3
VRd ,c = k v
f ck
c
zb eff
(1)
where:
180
0 .4
1300
k v , Level II =
1 + 1500 x 1000 + k dg z
Analytical procedure
x =
1
2E s A s
M Ed
+ VEd
zl
(2)
(3)
k dg =
32
0.75
16 + d g
(4)
(11)
where dl and dt are the effective depth of the
longitudinal and transversal bars and av is the
distance from the support to the point load
application. The variables of eq. (10) and (11)
are listed in eq. (12)-(15).
(c)
st = 4
500
dt
(13)
(14)
(15)
(5)
where
v Rdc = C Rd ,c k (100 f ck )
(6)
(7)
1/ 3
(8)
(12)
200
d eff
500
dl
0.27 3
100 l f ck
m
0.27 3
v ct =
100 t f ck
m
k =1+
sl = 4
v cl =
1288
1500
45
1500
(b)
PR1
(10)
45
45
(a)
2d l
sl v cl u 2 d l
av
= sl v cl u 2 d l + 2 st v ct u 1 d t
PR 2 =
(9)
(17)
Brick
elements
Rd =
Interface
elements
Truss
elements
Rm
R Rd
uz
(19)
Fpe
R = exp( R VR )
(a)
Fp e
Fp e
(b)
(20)
-1.6E-02
-1.1E-02
-6.0E-03
5
0
-1.0E-03
700
Gf/h
4.0E-03
500
[N/mm2]
-10
Gc/h
-15
-20
Gc = 250Gf
-25
(a)
-30
[N/mm2]
-5
Steel
600
10
400
20
300
200
100
0
0
0.04
0.08
0.12
(b)
MAIN RESULTS
Analysis A
Analysis B
Analysis C
Analysis D
Analysis E
Analysis F
0.15
variable
variable
variable
variable
variable
fc,red/fc
1
1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Gf
MC2010
MC2010
MC2010
MC2010
MC2010
MC2010
Gc
250GfMC2010
250GfMC2010
250GfMC2010
120GfMC2010
250GfMC2010
120GfMC2010
crack model
rotating
rotating
rotating
rotating
fixed
fixed
/
/
/
/
variable
variable
S1T1
1600
Ana lysis B
Ana lysis C
1400
Ana lysis D
experimenta l
1200
Ana lysis E
Ana lysis F
Load [KN]
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
deflection [mm]
25
30
(a)
S1T2
1600
1400
1200
Analysis B
Load [KN]
1000
Analysis C
800
Analysis D
experimental
600
Analysis E
Analysis F
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
deflection [mm]
(b)
S4T1
1600
1400
1200
Load [KN]
1000
800
Analysis A
600
Analysis B
Analysis C
400
Analysis E
200
experimental
0
0
10
15
20
deflection [mm]
25
30
(c)
From Figure 11 it can be noted that the loaddeflection curve that best fits with the
experimental curve, for all slabs, is Analysis
B, which has been chosen as reference analysis
for the safety format analyses. The parameters
used in Analysis B are reasonable and rather
100
S1T1
90
80
2.5
70
[N/mm2 ]
1.5
Pu / Pu,exp [%]
0.5
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
(a)
Level I
2.5
(a)
[N/mm2 ]
1.5
0.5
100
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
90
S1T2
80
Pu / Pu,exp [%]
70
(b)
60
50
40
3.5
3
[N/mm2 ]
2.5
30
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
20
10
0
100
(c)
(b)
S4T1
90
80
Pu / Pu,exp [%]
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Level I
(c)
10
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge the Dutch Ministry
of Transport, Public Works and Water
Management for supporting this research.
11
REFERENCES