oe Ceca] Pea) Pay 223 Ultimate Limit State ‘Design Models A state-of-art report 5.1-70982 ANNA 13280003 Ex 4166 i i "Plastic i shear walls”. Plasticity in Marti, P. (1978). "Plastic analysis of reinforced concrete Is’ p Reinforced Concrete. Introductory Report. Ziirich, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Reports of the Working Commissions, Vol. 28, Oct. 1978, pp. 51-69. i ihlbetonscheiben und -balken. Milller, P. (1978). Plastische Berechnung von Sta h u Dissertation, Institut fiir Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Ziirich, Bericht Nr. 83. Birkhduser Verlag, Basel, Juli 1978; 160 pp. "Yi it it hells in the membrane Nielsen, M.P. (1964). "Yield conditions for reinforced concrete si state." Non-Classical Shell Problems (ed.: W. Olszak & A.. Sawczuk). Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing co., 1964, pp. 1030-1040. inforced concrete discs. Copenhagen, Acta jelsen, M.P. (1971). On the strength of reinforced con : Polyecinica ‘Scandinavica, Civil Engineering and Building Construction Series No. 70, 1971, 261 pp. "Bssais de modéles d’ame de poutres en Robinson, J.R., Demorieux, J.M. (197). "Essais . double té." Annales de l'Institut Technique du Batiment et des Traveaux Publics, No. 384, Oct. 197, pp. 77-95. " and Flexure in Structural igrist, V., Alvarez, M., Kaufmann, W. (1995). "Shear and Flext u Seen Beams.", Comité Euro-Internationale du Béton, Bulletin d'Information, No. 223, Lausanne, June 1995, 167 > Ultimate Limit State Design of Structural Concrete Shell Elements Giampaolo Fanti, Giuseppe Mancini, Department of Structural Engineering, Polytechnic of Turin Turin, Htaly 1, Introduction The problem of ultimate limit state design of structural concrete shell elements in which structural analysis makes it possible to identify eight stress resultants has been addressed with some continuity only since the early 80s, even though some interesting ideas, which proved useful in the subsequent development of new theories, had already been formulated in studies on the ultimate limit state behaviour of slabs. If we limit our analysis to investigations produced during the last fifteen years, we find 4 contribution of great significance by Bazant (1982) who envisaged a resisting mechanism by which tangential actions are carried by friction only through the zone in compression by flexure, in that they are associated with normal compressive stresses, In the light of the latest theories, this mechanism should surely be viewed as restrictive, since, in accordance with a well-known principle adopted, for example, in the flange-web connections of T beams, tangential actions can certainly be transferred too, through the zone in tension by flexure, provided that the latter zone is crossed by reinforcement. A very important observation in Bazant's report is the one concerning the behaviour of bars arranged in directions which deviate substantially from the principal directions and which therefore display reduced efficiency, since the local damage to concrete may prevent steel yielding from being reached before failure by crushing of the concrete itself occurs; this phenomenon has actually been observed in several specimens of membrane tested very recently In 1985 Brondum-Nielsen proposed a sandwich element model, to be used in the ultimate limit state design of shell elements: each individual shell element was subdivided into three membranes, of which the outer ones were meant to carry normal and tangential stresses originating from the six local force components Mi, My, Mt, Mo yy Py, This model stil failed to take into account off-plane shear components, vs and v,, and the inner layer seemed to have no bearing function. Within the individual membranes168 corresponding to the outer layers, reinforcement dimensioning and conerete verification were carried out according to a “lower bound solution”. Gupta (1986) took up Brondum-Nielsen's proposal again and completed it by formulating the set of equations leading to the ultimate limit state dimensioning of the reinforcement and to concrete checking in the presence of the six stress resultants affecting the outer membranes of the sandwich. In this case, too, however, the shear forces orthogonal to the shell element plane, v, and v,, were disregarded. Some time later, Marti addressed the problem in a rational and systematic way through a series of theoretical studies and experimental investigations (1987,1990,1991,1992). In his first study (1987), Marti confirmed the non conservative nature of the “Normal Moment Yield Criterion” in the presence of significant twisting moments in the direction of the reinforcement, ic., in the presence of appreciable differences between the principal stresses directions and the directions of the reinforcements. This aspect had already been stressed by Nielsen (1964, 1971) who ascribed it essentially to an underestimation of the compression zone and the consequent overestimation of the lever arm of the internal resisting bending moment, as well as to the crack softening effect taking place on both faces of the element parallel to the direction of concrete compressive stresses, the latter problem was addressed later on by Vecchio and Collins (1986) with reference to the behaviour of r.c. membranes. In 1990, Marti presented his complete sandwich model, where the intermediate layer has the task of carrying off-plane shear forces, v, € Vj, both through a truss mechanism and in the absence of transverse reinforcement; thus, we have a complete analogy between a beam consisting of two flanges linked by a web and a slab conceived as a sandwich in which the intermediate layer behaves like a beam web ‘This approach was developed further in a report presented by Marti in 1991. In 1992 Marti provided an experimental confirmation of the reduction in bearing capacity arising from the need for extensive crack reorientation, by comparing the failure behaviour of re. vs. p.c. membranes; in particular, in r.c. membranes, the reinforcement in one direction will not reach the yield point before concrete failure occurs owing to the considerable local damage arising upon the opening of the first crack; in prestressed concrete, instead, involving a lesser degree of crack reorientation, the reinforcement can reach the yield point in all directions before concrete failure occurs, It may therefore be concluded that when the need for crack reorientation is considerable, or when checking existing structures, limit analysis should be associated with a local verification of the congruence of deformations. In this paper, Mart's model is modified to adapt it to the limit state design philosophy ‘embodied in Model Code 90 and is supplemented by an operational proposal to provide 169 7 7 z guidance in reinforcement dimensioning and detailing, account taken of the bearing capacity of the different concrete layers. ° 2. Definition of the Resistant Mechanism In general, in shell type elements, there are eight internal force components, and namely (Fig. 1): =3 plate components 1, My My = Ry; =3 slab components My My My = Rhys ~ 2 transverse shear forces, orthogonal to the element's middle plane vz, vy; Fig. 1: forces resultants in a shell element. According to the semiprobabilistic limit state method, an initial verification consists of checking, at different levels along the element's thickness, the magnitude of the principal stresses in relation to corresponding available strength, i.e., by considering the element as. uncracked. Consequently, at a generic level z with respect to the shell's middle plane we get: 12m, ny, 12m, Py , 12M | how 2h and the corresponding principal stresses o, 0, 0, represent the solutions of the cubic equation which is obtained by annulling the following determinant: a) ag170 ‘According to the indications set forth in Model Code 90, the verification should obviously be performed by taking into account the multiaxial nature of the force present in the element, and it consists of checking whether the following expression is satisfied: daar sph r20 @ where J,, J, and J, are, respectively, the stress deviator and the stress tensor invariants characterizing the state of stress existing in the element; the coefficients a, 4 and are material parameters depending on the ratio between the conorete's mean tensile strength and mean compressive strength values. If @<0 is not satisfied, this means that it is necessary to operate in cracked conditions and hence it proves necessary to adopt a more consistent model of behaviour (sandwich model), as outlined above in the introduction. The basic concept of the sandwich model, which stems from the analogy with the response of the beam element, consists of recognizing in the shell element the presence of three layers performing different functions: the two outer layers resist the membrane actions originated by plate and beam components while the inner one, working as a beam web, carries the shear forces, v, e v,, acting perpendicularly to the element's middle plane; it is clear, however, that in order to fashion a shell element into the corresponding beam element, which amounts to defining the thickness of the different layers, concrete strength has to be verified, and, as a rule, this is done through an iterative procedure. Figs. 2, 3 and 4 illustrate the sandwich model and also show, separately, for ease of interpretation, the internal forces affecting the different layers; each layer is assumed to have even thickness, while thickness may vary from one layer to another. The following quantities are introduced in the figures: = Z 2) lever arms referring to the bending moments and the membrane's normal forces; - Yen Yeu Yo Jy distances of the reinforcement's gravity centre in the two directions x and y for the absorption of the bending moments and the membrane's normal forces; so that we get: z, Ves + Vas ANE Zy = Vyy + Yee lever arms referring to twisting moments and membrane shear forces; Fyn Zap ~ Yes Yo Yan Yo distances of the reinforcement’s gravity centre in the two directions x and y for the absorption of twisting moments and membrane shear forces; so that we Bet Ze = yu + Vous ADD 2 = Yue + Ye my Fig. 2: normal actions and bending moments in the outer layers. Hence, the membrane forces present in the various layers can be easily calculated: y= dan Me Je © @ 6) ©) It should be noted that in the definition of the membrane layers, the lever arms of ‘twisting and bending moments are generally distinguished, so as to be able to adopt different reinforcement levels in a single layer. Shear forces orthogonal to the element's plane (v, and y, ) are applied directly to the inner layer, of thickness t,, which carries them, and obviously calls into play the outer layers as well, acting over a lever arm z, corresponding to the reinforcements weighted average for the 2, Z, Zap Zy. Fig. 3: membrane shear actions and twisting moments in the two outer layers.172 Let us now examine separately, as far as possible, the behaviour of the various layers, starting with the intermediate one. Fig. 4: actions affecting the inner layer. 3. Dimensioning the Inner Layer The analysis concerns in particular the behaviour of two prism-shaped sections (Figs. 5, € 5,) delimited by means of planes arranged parallel to the z axis and orthogonal to axes n and m (n and m being mutually orthogonal and forming an angle of inclination @). By imposing the condition of equilibrium to vertical translation we get: v, =V, C0sp+v, sing to) V,=-v,sing +v, cosp ® We may therefore refer to principal shear v,” =v,’ +v,,’ =v,’ +V, , which tus out to be invariant with respect to @. In particular, for v,=v, we get p=9, and v,, =0; we may therefore define the principal shear direction, identified by anglep, such that tang, Fig. 5,: vertical shear forces referring to direction n. Fig. 5,: vertical shear forces referring to direction m. In the principal shear direction, the shell element behaves like a beam element, as it is only subjected to principal shear, hence it possible to apply the corresponding design provisions. It proves necessary to distinguish the case in which no ‘specific shear reinforcement is required, as opposed to the case in which this reinforcement must be provided. @) case in which no specific shear reinforcement is required In this case it must be: Y, cose with b= verification width O} where V;a takes on the function specified in Model Code 90: Vga, = 0128100 pf)" bd (10) by assessing the geometric reinforcement ratio pin the principal direction. Aw Ay ida Fig. 6: Determination of reinforcement ratio in the principal shear direction.174 ‘Thus, when the element is fitted with reinforcement running close to the tension side along two orthogonal directions x and y (Fig. 6), with geometric ratios , and p,, the reinforcement ratio pin the main direction shall be calculated as follows: - P= p, 008" 9+ p,sin’p ay ) case in which specific shear reinforcement must be provided When the foregoing conditions do not apply, the resisting mechanism is perfectly analogous to that of a beam, locally oriented according to the principal shear direction; with reference to the variable strut inclination methods, we therefore find that a diagonal compression field is generated in concrete which, assuming that vertical stirrups are used, leads to the following verification equations: = diagonal compressive forces in concrete: Fogg = 25 § Foe = Sesste 0089 «ay - tensile forces in the web reinforcement (stirrups): 4, left z, cot (13) 5 shear direction (Fig. 7); thus, this force must be projected in the outer layer’s reference directions x and y, as shown in Figs. 8 and 9 vecotthing, v.cotBsing.cosp, ny vecotBosp — 1! re | ‘vecotBiing.cosgs vcotdeos*p, ae VecorBsing, Fig. 9: forces due to principal shear in the x direction, Let us consider first of all a prism obtained from a shell element by delimiting a section thereof with a vertical plane orthogonal to y axis and two vertical planes which are orthogonal and parallel, respectively, to the principal shear direction; by imposing the condition of equilibrium of the element, we get: n,, =v, cot in®p, =v, cot9—8 Po — y, cot g Is. I+ tg'g, l+v,?/v, v, cots176 v _ cot sing, cosp, = v, cot 82 = v, cots Mls oy, eotg te, 1+tg"@, l+v,'/v, vi tv, (16) and keeping in mind that v, +v," finally we get: 2 7 S» cota ay Vo n,, = 22% cot 9 ag) Vo Let us now consider a prism obtained from the previous one by exchanging the x and y axes; by imposing the equilibrium conditions, by analogy with the previous case, we get: as) (20) Obviously 7,., Me, and my, represent the global contributions due to the truss mechanism, which must be subdivided further between the upper and lower layer At this point, we must proceed with the dimensioning of the outer layers ‘which are loaded in their plane by the actions identified by the foregoing analysis. 4. Dimensioning the Plate Elements (Outer Layers) ‘The plate elements can be dimensioned according to plasticity theory, operating by means of a “lower bound solution”. In general, the internal forces present on the plate are as shown in Fig. 10,, By assuming the presence of reinforcements arranged along two orthogonal directions x and ¥, equilibrium conditions are guaranteed by a field of compressive stresses inclined by angle 9 relative to the x axis and by a double field of tensile stresses running in the x and y directions and confined by the reinforcement. By delimiting the element of thickness # with a plane parallel to the direction of compressive forces in concrete (Fig 17 > 10,), it is possible to impose the following conditions of equilibrium in the x and y directions - Maa = Inde = sax + Vig COLD en Mpg, COS = Ny COLD + Vag the second of which may be written as: Nyy = Niggy + 8 cot (22) On the other hand by delimiting a section of the element with a plane orthogonal to the direction of compressive forces in concrete (Fig. 10,), we obtain the following equilibrium equations: ot ~ 2 0089.+ Nyy ~My + Vu = 0 and using Eq. (21) to substitute the value of niga, We get: Of = age + Vig COI Mhgy + Vuh hence: = -_Ys Ot = Vg(cOtS + ig8) = — 3) Fig. 10,: internal forces in a plate type element. 9,a,; the satisfaction of Eq. (22) implies that the required safety level has been achieved, if Eq (22) is not satisfied, instead, equilibrium requirements cannot be met in any way. When the reinforcement is present in the y direction only, from Eq. (21), having set Maa = 0, we find: (26) @7 (28)180 Notice that, in this case, the angle 9 cannot be chosen freely, but takes on a well defined value. For design purposes, having ascertained that o, < @,f,,, the necessary reinforcement area will be calculated 4, = "M so as to ensure that the ULS is reached through steel a yielding. For checking purposes, having ascertained that o, < @,f.g, it is also necessary to verify that Muy generally be assigned to normal actions and the more internal one to tangential actions; obviously, in these circumstances, concrete internal forces must be vectorially summed in the two layers - increase layer thickness so as to satisfy the requirement on the concrete side and leave unchanged the position of the reinforcement which therefore becomes eccentric relative to the layer, needless to say, this means that the amount of reinforcement provided has to be changed so as to restore equilibrium conditions. This variation can be assessed with the aid of the mechanism described below, which obviously concems the entire sandwich. With reference to the equilibrium conditions of both the outer membranes subjected to an increase in thickness and the ensuing eccentricity of the reinforcement, the acting moments that come into being in both of them can be compensated by resisting moments generated by equal and opposing forces localized in the outer reinforcement layers; in actual practice this amounts to attributing to the entire sandwich the algebraic sum of the acting moments and hence to transferring a given reinforcement area from one edge of the plate to the other. Fig. 14: shell element equilibrium in one direction with two reinforcement layers only. ‘The new forces acting on the reinforcements become: @1) (42) Obviously, as a consequence, the intermediate layer must be checked for an additional off-plane shear force corresponding to the force transferred between the two reinforcement levels. If this takes us back to the case requiring the adoption of specific shear reinforcement due to the effect of v, € v, , then it will prove necessary to calculate again the forces acting on the reinforcements from Eqs.(38 - 40),186 6. Design Example The procedure proposed has been applied to the design of a strongly skew reinforced bridge in continuity on two span, with three orders of prestressed cables (fig 15). The analysis has considered a Finite Element Model with about 10000 degrees of freedom. Prestressing has been considered both as an acting action (through equivalent loads) and as a resisting action (considering the level of prestressing in the final condition), In the paragraph it is illustrated the Ultimate Limit State dimensioning of a series of representative elements of the mode! considered, as reported in fig. 19. The class of concrete is f, =35N/mm? and the characteristic resistance of the non prestressed reinforcement is f,, = 500 N/mm? Sanne! 40.45 ———+ 391) BIS} 138 $35.95, 4 9) ———+ Fig. 15: two span skew reinforced bridge slab and tendons layout. Fig. 16: upper ordinary reinforcement. Fig. 17: lower ordinary reinforcement. 1626/20 ms Fig. 18: lower ordinary reinforcement in the support’s zones. ‘example 5 [example 10 (example ® (example 7 (example? ample? Fig. 19: Finite Element Model and representative elements.189 188 > Example n. 2 Example n. 1 n, =-44989kN mm, n, = -8623KN |m 194.2kNm/m_ v,, ~T014KN | m 6739kNm/m 4£=0.18m 4=0.18m taht t= het, +f =0.89m ray, +y,= 107m ” 5-$-054m, =0.54m; z=y,+y,=1.07m variation of slab components due tov, and vy 2 variation of slab components due to vz and vy An, =0.kN/im ‘An, =0 kN/m An, =0 kN/r y Gd An, =0 kN/m Any =0 Nim Ang =0kN/m TOP LAYER TOP LAYER eae =-236 TKN Im; egy =-612. IN Im; ay =-9B1 EN Im Mate =-2689KN Im; yg =-569.LRN Im; May = 529.1 Im; case n. 4: v= 0, =0735 Uf =-17.1 N/mm? < o, = -15.6.N Imm? case n. 4: v= 0) #0735 ufgg =-17.1 N/mm? < 0, =-15.6 N/mm? Ag =O cm Im; Ay =O cm? /m; Ag =0 em? Im; Ay =0 om? im; BOTTOM LAYER BOTTOM LAYER age = 2132.1 Im; yyy =-249.6 RN Im; May = 279.1 EN I Mage =-2919.T RN Im; Magy =-SUTBRN Im; ay =-65.04N Im case n, 4: v= 0, =0735 Ufag =-1T.UN Imm? < 0, =-12.1 N/mm? case n, 4: v=v, =0.73; Ufo =-17.1 N/mm? < o, =-16.2N/ mm? Ag =0 em? 1m; Ay =0 om? Im; Ag =0 om? Im; Ay =0 cm? /m; The verification is satisfied for both layers. The verification is satisfied for both layers.Example n. 3 n, =-4072.1KN | m, =-6318kNm/ mv, =67.7kN/m -4915KN/m — m,=29.4kNm/m — v, =~-5S9kN/m ~467.9KN mm, =807.4kNm | m 1,= 0.18 m 4=0.18m tobe fy =f = 0.89 m =0.54 m; 054m; 2=y,+y,=1.07m variation of slab components due to v, and vy OkN/im kNim an, Any Ang =0kN/im TOP LAYER Mugg =-2626KN I; Magy =-218.2KV Im; gay =-9BOEN Im case n. 2: v=0, =052; fgg =-12.0N/mm?< o, =-16.7 N/mm? BOTTOM LAYER Mote =-1445.6KN Im May =-2T3.2KEN Im; Mt = 520.6 kV Im case n. 4: v= 0, = 073; Wfeg =-17.1 N/mm? < 0, =-9.1N Imm? 191 > ‘The verification is not satisfied for the top layer; then it is determined the thickness of the top layer necessary for the compressive verification of the layer. = 0.26m f= 018m 1.= het, -f, =0.81m A =0.54m, z=y,+y,=1.03m 4 £220.50 » $=050m; 2 22 variation of slab components due to vz and vy: O.kN/m 0.kN/m An, = an, An, =0 Nim TOP LAYER Nyge =-2T26KN Im, Paty -226.5EN Im; aay =-1026 EN Im; case n. 2: v=v, =052; ufeg =-12.0N/mm? =o, =-12.0N/ mm? Ag =0 em? Im; Ag =3.67 em? Im; BOTTOM LAYER ugg =-1345.71N Im, gg, =-264.90N Im; Muay = 558.24N Im, case n. 4: =v, =0.735 Ugg =-17.1 N/mm? < 6, =-8.8 NJ mm? Ag =0 om? Im; Ag =O em? Im; The verification is satisfied for both layers. If it is requested only one reinforcement level with b’; = b’, = 0.09m, the reinforcement must be calculated using equations (41) and (42), It results: TOP LAYER =3.53 cm? /m BOTTOM LAYER A =O em? Im Ay =0.14 om? Im;192 Example n. 4 193 Example n. 5 1, =-ST182KN/m =m, =39.2kNm/m — v, =-932kN/m 613.1KN | m m, -21.6kNm/m —-101.0KN /m n,, = 6278KN/m —m,,=-3188kNm/m bo 054m, z=y,+y)=1.07m variation of slab components due tov, and vy ‘An, =0 kNim An, =0 kNim Ang =0 kN/im TOP LAYER Myig =-2822 KN Im Maly =-326.T KN Im yay = 611.9 Im; case n. 4: v= 0, =0.73; Uf =-17.1Nimm?< 0, =-16.5 N/mm? Ag, =0 om? Im; Ay =0 om? /m; BOTTOM LAYER Mya =-289S.8EN Im Magy =-286.4 EN Im; yay = 16.0kN Im, case n, 4: v= 0, =073; Ufey =-17.1N Imm? < 0, =-16.1 N/mm? Ag 20 om? Im; Ay =O om? /m3 ‘The verification is satisfied for both layers. n,=-42458KN mm, =-18S70kNmm/m v,=~598KN /m n, =-12586kN/m —m, =2551kNm/m — v, = 1852.1KN /m My =392KN/m — my =7495kNm/m Ah yakLe0S4m, zay,4y,=107m variation of slab components due tov. and vy: an, =0.97 kN/ An, =925.58 kN/n Sow = 43,450. ” bd, me An, 29.9 kN/m TOP LAYER Mtg =-3857EN Im; 1,4, =534.6KN Im; tay =-T1LKN Im; case n, 20=v, = 052; fy =-12.0N /mm?> o, =-22.2N/mm? BOTTOM LAYER Nae =-386.AKN Im; yyy =ST7.9KN Im; yy = 690.24N Im; case n. 3: v= 0, = 052; uf,y =-12.0N/mm?< o, =-7.7N/ mm194 ‘The verification is not satisfied for the top layer; then it is determined the thickness of the top layer necessary for the compressive verification of the layer. 4,=0.36m 4=0.18 m t= bet - =0.71m =044m; — y,=2-4 054m; 2=y,+y, =0.98m on variation of slab components due tov. and vy: An, = 0.97 kN/m 2 An, =925.58 kN/m Ane = 43,45 ” bb, mm 29.9 kN/m TOP LAYER tage =A2VTEN Im tyyy = 498.34 I; yay =-TTARN ms case n, 2: v= 12.0N/mn® = o, =-12.0N mm? O cm? m5 Ay =14.73 om? Im; BOTTOM LAYER / Mage =-2T.2KN Im; tygy = 94. BEN Im Nga, = 753.58N Im, / case n. 1: v=, =052; ufgg =-12.0 N/mm? < 0, =-8.4N/ mm? Ag, =16.71 om? Im; Ag =19.50 en? Im; ‘The verification is satisfied for both layers. If it is requested only one reinforcement level with b’ = b’, reinforcement must be calculated using equations (41) and (42). It results: TOP LAYER 0 em? /m; Ay =15.97em? Im; BOTTOM LAYER 18.26 cm* /m; =16.Tlem? im; Ay = 0.09m, the 195 Example n. 6 ty hy, = ~487.6Nin = 0.18 m 4=0.18m t= he fy +f) = 0.89 m ft os4m: 2 vy =054m; z=y,+y,=107m a 22 variation of slab components due to v, and vy: An, =0 Nim ‘An, =0 kim An, =0 kN/m 2 TOP LAYER Mpg =-28T0KN Im; yy =-TBLAKN Im; tag, =23.5KN mm; case n. 4: b= v, = 0.73; ofyy =-17.1N/mm?< 6, =-15.9 N/mm? BOTTOM LAYER 3672.7 Nm; Mg, =-1224.7N Im; Myggy =-BB7.BEN Im; case n. 4: b=, = 0.73; Ufy =-17.1 N/mm? > 0 =-22.0 N/mm?196 ‘The verification is not satisfied for the bottom layer; then it is determined the thickness of the bottom layer necessary for the compressive verification of the layer. 4=0.18m 24m t= he fy -f, = 0,83 m hit h ahh 054 = O5im, z=y,+y,=104 2-5 m WAI-> m 2=y, +), m variation of slab components due tov, and vy An, = 0 Nim An, =0 kN/im An, =0 kN/m : TOP LAYER 2766kN Im; Mg =-696.8KN Im; My =48.6KN m; case n. 4: v=, = 0.73; Uf.y =-17.1N/mm’< o, =-15.4N /mm* 4, BOTTOM LAYER =-3776.5IV Im; Nyy =-1259.3KN Im; May case n, 4: v= v, = 0.73; of. =-17.1 N/mm’ =o, Aq, =0 em? Im; A, =0 cm* /m; The verification is satisfied for both layers, and it is not requested reinforcement in any direction. 197 Example n. 7 8.6kNm/m -2148kNm/m 4=0.18m 4=0.18 m = het, -t, =0.89 m 1 ea 4 =0.54m, 0.54m; z=y, +y,=1.07m variation of slab components due tov. and vj: ‘An, = 0.60 kN/m 2 An, = 292.53 kN/m Aw 213750 bb, mt An, = 13.2 Nim TOP LAYER: Mugg =-2422KN Im; yyy =323.2KN 1m; May =209.1 NI; 13.6 N/mm case n. 2: b= v, =052; Ufy =-12.0N/mm*> o, BOTTOM LAYER Mig =-3530KN Im; iggy = 288.4 KN |; =-192.5kN/m; case n, 2: b= 0, = 052; Uf =-12.0N /mm?> o, =-19.7N /mm?198 The verification is not satisfied for both layers; then it is determined the thickness of the two layers necessary for the concrete compressive verification. 4=0.18m 4=031m t= h-t, -f =0.75m =047 m, z=y, +y, =1.00m 4: 053m; 2 variation of slab components due tov. and vj ‘An, = 0.60 kN/m ‘An, = 292.53 kN/m Ave. 213.75 a 5, mm An, = 13.2 kNim TOP LAYER Mugg =-2192EN Im; yyy =323.5KN Im; aay =223.2KN Im; case n. 2: v= 0, = 052; uf, =-12.0N/ mm? =-12.0N/mm*> 0 cm /m; A, =7.97 cm? | m; BOTTOM LAYER Mugg =-3760.1kN Im; Ng, =288KN Im; aay =-206.5 KN Im; case n. 2: v= 0, = 052; Uf =-12.0N /mm* =-12.0N/mm*> A,, =0 om* |m; A, =6.89 cm* | m; The verification is satisfied for both layers. If it is requested only one reinforcement level with b’; = b’, = 0.09m, the reinforcement must be calculated using equations (41) and (42). It results: TOP LAYER BOTTOM LAYER A,, = 0cm’* | m; 199 Example n. 8 -16628kNm/m v,=-39kN/m n, =-S16L0KN/m_m, 1, =-537.6kN | m =324kNm/m —v, =2413kN /m 1239,0kNm /m 4=0.18m 4= 0.18 m f= het -4 = 0.89 m ht, hi, =2-445054m, =o-4=054m, z=y,+y,=1.07 %=5-5 m y=5-4 m, z=y,+y, m variation of slab components due to vs and vy: An, = 0 kN/m 4, An, =0 kNim Se 0 ” 5b, ‘An, =0 kN/m TOP LAYER Mage =-AV4QEV Im; yyy =-239.0KN I; Nyy =-12724N Im; case. 2: v= v, = 052; vf,y=-12.0.N/mm? > o, =-24.7N mm? BOTTOMLAYER 019.20 ms Nyy, Nate 298.6KN Im; Magy = 1048.3 KN; case n. 1: v=, = 052; uf, =-12.0N/mm? < 0, =-11.6N/mm*200 ‘The verification is not satisfied for the top layer; then it is determined the thickness of the top layer necessary for the compressive verification of the layer. 4.=0.42m 18m 1 fy =f, = 0.65 m A f ~%=041m, y=$-L-054m, z=y,+y, =0.95m variation of slab components due tov. and vy An, =0 kN/m An, = 0 kN/m An,, = 0 kN/m TOP LAYER Nugg =-AO6TRN I My, =-269.3KN Im; Magy =-1433 KN tm, case n. 2: v= v, = 052; ufy =-12.0N/mm? = o, =-12.0N /mm* BOTTOMLAYER Mugg =-493.9KN I; tag, =-268.3KN I; gay = 1209.7 KN Im case n. 1: v= 0, = 052; Uf, =-12.0N/mm? > o, =-13.4N/mm* ‘The verification is not satisfied for the bottom layer, due to the reduction of the lever arm caused by the increased thickness of the top layer; then it is determined the thickness of both layers necessary for the concrete compressive verification. 1,= 0.42 m = 0.20 m f= het, +t = 0.62m 201 > variation of slab components due to vz and y,: An, = 0 kN/m 2 An, =0 kN/m Ace 9S 5b, An, =0 kNim TOP LAYER Mage =-AGCLEN Im; yy =-266.0kN Im; Mya =-1449N Im; case n. 2: v= 0, = 052; uf =-12.0N/mm? 2.0.N /mm* 4, cm" Im; Ay, =4.24 cm? | m; BOTTOM LAYER =-499,1 kV /m; Nyy =-2T1.6KN Im; May = 1225.24 Im; case n. 1: v= v, =052; uf, =-12.0N/mm* 12.0. N/mm? 4, 6.70 cm? | m; A,, =21.93 cm? | m; Ifit is requested only one reinforcement level with b’; = b’, = 0.09m, the reinforcement must be calculated using equations (41) and (42). It results TOP LAYER 1.9m? | m; A, =3.97em* |; BOTTOM LAYER Ag =14.8cm? | m; A, =22.2 cm | m;202 Example n. 9 ~S6869KN mm, =-T75kNm/m v,=144.2kN Im -1513.7KN mm, = -685.7kNm/m —v, = 29.4kN Im 873KkN /m my, =12802KNm/m 4=0.18m 4= 0.18 m Lab t - , = 0.89 m 1 =0.54m; 2=y,+y,=1.07 pa m, 2=y,+Y, m TOP LAYER Nagy =-2916KN Im Nyy =-1397.TKN 1m; My =-1153 KN im; 19.7 N/mm? case n. 4: b=, = 073; Uf =-17.1N/mm?> o, BOTTOM LAYER Magy =-2TTLOKN Im yyy =-116.OKN J; Magy, =-1240.1 KN I; case n. 2: b= v, = 052; Ufy =-12.0N/mm?> 0, =-18,5 N/mm 303 The verification is not satisfied for both layers, then itis determined the thickness of the layers necessary for the concrete compressive verification. 4=0.21m 4=0.29m t= het -t,=0.75 m hit, ~f=048 m; 2= y,+y,=1.00m variation of slab components due tov. and vy: An, =0 kN/im z An, =0 kN/im oe a 5b, Any = 0 kNim TOP LAYER Mage =-2802KN Im; yy, =-1409.9KN I; gay =-1236 KN / m; case n, 4: v= 0, =0735 Ufag =-17.1 N/mm? =, =-17.1.N Imm? A, om Im; A, cm? |m; BOTTOM LAYER Mugg =-2884.5 KN Im; rig =-103.8KN Im; Magy = 1323,6KN Im; case n. 2: b= 0, = 052; fy =-12.0N/mm? =o, =-12.0 N/mm? A,, =0 cm* Im; A, =11.58 om? /m; ‘The verification is satisfied for both layers. Ifit is requested only one reinforcement level with b’, 09m, the reinforcement must be calculated using equations (41) and (42). It results: TOP LAYER jem” |m; A, =0.60cm* /m; BOTTOM LAYER Ocm* /m; A, = 10.98 cm? /m;204 Example n. 10 n, =-51993KN /m = m,=-1717.7kNm/m —v, =-98kN /m n,=-9T32KN Im —m,=154.0kNm/m —v, =2139KN/m '24.6kN /m — m,, =11605kNm/m 4,=0.18m 4= 0.18 m t= het -f=0.89m TOP LAYER Map =-4205KN Im; yg, =-342.6kN Im; =-1022KN /m; 24.8. N/mm? BOTTOM LAYER | i | | case n. 4: v= 0, =0.73; Uf.g =-17.1N/mm'> o, i Ngae =-994.3KN Im; My =-630.5KN I; Mag, = 1146.9 KN J; case n, 1; b= v, = 052; uf.y =-12.0N/mm?> 0, =-12.1N Imm? 205 oe . * The verification is not satisfied for both layers; then it is determined the thickness of the layers necessary for the concrete compressive verification. 4=0.27m = 0.20 m (= het, -t =0.78m =0.49 m; variation of slab components due to vz and vy ‘An, = 0 kNin An, =0 kN/m Aw = 9 bb, An, =0 N/m TOP LAYER Myag =-AB88 KN Im; yyy =-352.1KN Im; yay =-1081 KN im; case n. 4: =v, = 073; Ufy =-17.1.N /mm* 0 cm? im; BOTTOM LAYER Mag =-B10.9KN Im, ig, =-621AKN Im; tgggy =1205.3 N/m; case n, 1: v= =052; 12.0. N/mm’ 12.0 /mm* Ufa 9.07 cm? Im; =13.44 om? Im; The verification is satisfied for both layers. Ifit is requested only one reinforcement level with b’; = b’, = 0.09m, the reinforcement must be calculated using equations (41) and (42). It results: TOP LAYER 08 em™ m ; Ay =0.13 cm? /m; BOTTOM LAYER 8.99cm?/m; Ay =13.31 cm? /m;206 7. Conclusions The resisting model illustrated above, combined with the methods employed to determine the thickness of the layers to be adopted in order to complete the design process, provides a rational approach to the design of structural concrete shell elements. However, a correct design approach calls for a rational choice, by the designer, of the directions of the principal reinforcements; it should be taken into account, in fact, that a marked deviation between the directions of the reinforcements and the principal stresses directions may result in early failure due to concrete crushing, not in keeping with the predictions of limit analysis, as well as abnormal steel consumption. Finally, it should be pointed out that the beam - shell analogy can be applied even in the presence of prestressing by adopting for the beam the resisting model by which prestressing is transferred to the chords and the task of carrying shear forces is assigned to the web. 207 > References Nielsen, M.P. (1964), “Limit Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Slabs” Acta Polylechnica ‘Scandinavica, Ci 26, Copenhagen, Denmark. Nielsen, M.P. (1964), “Yeld Conditions for Reinforced Concrete Shells in the Membrane State” Olszak, W. and Sawezuk, A. (Eds), Non Classical Shell Problems, North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 1030 - 1040, Nielsen, M.P. (1971), “On the Strength of Reinforced Concrete Discs” Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica, Ci 70, Copenhagen, Denmark. Rajendran, S. and Morley, C.T. (1974), “A General Yeld Criterion for Reinforced Concrete Slab Elements”, Mag. Con. Res., Vol. 26, No, 89, Dec. 1974, pp. 212-220. Discussion, Vol. 27, No. 93, Dec. 1975, pp. 245-246. Cookson, P.J. (1979), “Generalized Yeld Lines in Reinforced Concrete Slabs”, J.Struct. Mech., Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 65-82. Bazant, Z. P., Lin, C. (1982), “Concrete Plate Reinforcement: Frictional Limit Design”, J. Struct. Div., ASCE, Vol. 108, No. ST11, Nov. 1982, pp. 2443-2234. Brondum-Nielsen, T. (1985), “Optimization of Reinforcement in Shells, Folded Plates, Walls, and Slabs” ACI Journal, May-June 1985, pp. 304-309, Gupta, A. K. (1986), “Combined Membrane and Flexural Reinforcement in Plates and Shells” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, Vol, 112, No. 3, March 1986, pp. 550-557. Vecchio, F.J., Collins, M.P. (1986), “Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear” ACI Journal, March-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231 Marti, P., Kong, K.(1987), “Response of Reinforced Concrete Slab Elements to Torsion”, J. Struct. Div., ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 5, May, 1987, pp. 976-993 Marti, P. (1990), “Design of Concrete Slabs for Transverse Shear” ACI Structural Journal, March-April 1990, pp. 180-190. Marti, P. (1991), “Dimensioning and Detailing” IABSE Colloquium, Structural Conerete, Stuttgardt, 10-12 April 1991. Colloquium Report, — International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, pp. 411-443 Marti, P., Meyboom, J. (1992), “Response of Prestressed Concrete Elements to In-Plane Shear Forces” ACI Structural Journal, Sept.-Oct. 1992, pp. 503-514, CEB. F.LP. (1990), “CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures”, Comité Euro- International du Béton, Bulletin d’Information n° 213-214, Lausanne, May 1993