Struct Multidisc Optim (2010) 41:979–987
DOI 10.1007/s00158-010-0481-2
INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION
Optimization of piers for retaining walls
Luisa María Gil-Martín · Enrique Hernández-Montes ·
Mark Aschheim
Received: 5 March 2009 / Revised: 15 December 2009 / Accepted: 1 January 2010 / Published online: 23 January 2010

c Springer-Verlag 2010
Abstract The ultimate strength design of reinforced con-
crete members under flexure and axial loads is well known,
with solutions dating back to the 1950s. There is little
motivation for engineers to change solution approaches
in the absence of a clear benefit, particularly given that
current solution approaches are well-known and do not
raise controversy. Recently, a different solution approach
has been presented in the form of Reinforcement Sizing
Diagrams and Optimal Domains, but applications to rect-
angular sections were limited and thus the approach has
been mainly of academic or theoretical interest. This paper
presents an application to circular sections, which allow the
advantages to be realized in the commonly encountered sit-
uation of retaining walls supported by circular section piers.
Using the approach presented herein, longitudinal rein-
forcement can be reduced up to 50% compared with tradi-
tional designs, allowing significant financial savings while
also reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated
with the reinforcement component of reinforced concrete
construction.
Keywords Retaining walls · Reinforced concrete ·
Optimal reinforcement
L. M. Gil-Martín · E. Hernández-Montes (B)
Structural Mechanics, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
e-mail: emontes@ugr.es
M. Aschheim
Civil Engineering, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, USA
1 Introduction
The present work focuses on circular cross sections, where
the potential advantages of optimal reinforcement have
more readily realized benefits. Traditionally, longitudinal
reinforcement for circular cross sections has consisted of
a number of bars of uniform diameter spaced uniformly
around the circumference of the section, inset from the face
of the member by the required cover distance (see Fig. 1).
Circular sections have many applications in civil engi-
neering. Design solutions for circular sections obtained with
available computer programs presume that the longitudinal
reinforcement consists of a uniform bar diameter (∅) dis-
tributed uniformly around the perimeter of the section, at
a spacing, s (see Fig. 1). One such program is IECA 3.0
(2001), which was written to satisfy the requirements of
Eurocode 2 (EC2). Davalath and Madugula (1988) provide
a numerical procedure for the analysis/design of reinforced
concrete circular cross sections subjected to axial loads
(compression or tension) and bending moments, based on
ACI 318 assumptions. Their procedure determines uni-
formly distributed reinforcement for any given size of circu-
lar cross section or an optimal combination of reinforcement
and section diameter to minimize cost, based on uniformly
distributed reinforcement having a uniform bar diameter.
As the number of bars in the circular section increased,
the N –M interaction curve approaches one that has
polar symmetry, and thus the conventional reinforcement
configuration is ideally suited to members that experience
N –M demands that lay within an N –M interaction sur-
face that is approximately symmetric in three-dimensions
(Mθ = constant, where θ is the angle from the Mx axis in
the Mx − M y plane). In some applications, such as retain-
ing walls supported by circular piers, the N –M demands
lack this symmetry and hence substantial advantages may
980
Constant separation
Longitudinal
reinforcement
Transversal
reinforcement
Fig. 1 Traditional reinforcement of a circular section
be realized by using non-uniformly reinforced circular piers
(see Fig. 2).
Weber and Ernst (1989) developed interaction dia-
grams for reinforced concrete circular cross-sections having
asymmetrically distributed reinforcement. The interaction
diagrams allow engineers to design a reinforced circular
cross-section with asymmetrical reinforcement. Reinforce-
ment was assumed to be smeared into continuous plates,
with a thicker plate representing the main reinforcement
over an included angle of α, and a thinner plate representing
minimum reinforcement over the remainder of the section
(Fig. 3), with engineers having to determine an equivalent
number of discrete reinforcing bars to be used for a given
set of values of α. The distance from the edge of the section
to the centroid of the reinforcement plate is given by d1 , as
shown in Fig. 3.
Upper view
Piers wall
A A
Section A-A
Piers wall
B B
Fig. 2 Example of pier wall retaining structure
L.M. Gil-Martín et al.
Minimum
reinforcement
d1
α
Main reinforcement
Fig. 3 Cross-section as defined by Weber and Ernst
Kanagasundaram and Karihaloo (1990) formulated the
minimization of cost designs of reinforced concrete struc-
tures problem as a non-linear mathematical programming
problem. Later, Adamu and Karihaloo (1994) and Adamu
et al. (1994) proposed a numerical procedure for the eco-
nomic design of reinforced concrete element on the basis of
Discretized Continuum-type Optimality Criteria (DCOC).
The costs to be minimized involved, among other fac-
tors, those of concrete and reinforcing steel and limits on
bending and shear strengths were included as design con-
straints. This procedure was applied to rectangular and sym-
metrically reinforced cross-section columns of RC frames
(Adamu and Karihaloo 1995).
In recent years the authors have developed a new
approach to the optimal proportioning of reinforcement in
the design of reinforced concrete cross sections. Classical
approaches, including the division between small and large
eccentricities described by Whitney (Nawy 2003), have
been subsumed by a more informed view in the form of
Reinforcement Sizing Diagrams (Hernández-Montes et al.
2004, 2005), Optimal Domains (Aschheim et al. 2006), the
Theorem of Optimal Section Reinforcement (Hernández-
Montes et al. 2008), and the treatment of multiple load
combinations (Lee et al. 2009). Although these contribu-
tions are theoretically and pedagogically significant, further
clarifying the understanding of the design of sections for
axial load and moment, applications to rectangular sections
are limited in practice, thus reducing the utility of the
approach over traditional methods.
The preceding work recognized, perhaps for the first
time, that an infinite number of reinforcement solutions can
provide a section with adequate strength, and thus engi-
neers have the opportunity to select a combination of top
and bottom reinforcement that meets other objectives, such
as minimization of reinforcement, cost, or environmental
consequences (e.g. embodied greenhouse gas emissions),
or enhancement of curvature ductility, while providing
adequate strength.
The existence of an infinite number of reinforcement
solutions for a cross section subjected to a combination
Optimization of piers for retaining walls 981

of axial load and moment can be understood by recogniz- σs (MPa)

ing that reinforcement can be sized to provide the tension
400
and compression forces required for equilibrium for many
different neutral axis depths. In this paper, the minimum
200
area of reinforcement is located among the infinite number
of possible solutions for particular configurations of lon-
gitudinal reinforcement that are defined parametrically. In −0.01 −0.008 −0.006 −0.004 −0.002 0.002 εs
the present work, an optimization algorithm is presented.
To facilitate simplicity in construction and drafting, bar −200
positions are considered explicitly using a simple param-
eterization scheme. As much as 50% of the longitudinal −400
steel weight can be saved by using this approach, relative to
that obtained with traditional procedures. Several examples
illustrate the approach and the reduction in reinforcement Fig. 5 Bilinear steel model, for steel of characteristic resistance of
500 MPa
that may be achieved.

2 Flexural strength design assumptions

cern for the locations where steel is present, and the stress
The strength design problem for combined flexure and axial
assigned to any steel within this zone is reduced by ηfcd .
load involves the simultaneous consideration of equilib-
Compression is considered positive.
rium, compatibility, and the constitutive relations of the
All cross sections of a concrete member are required to
steel and concrete materials at the section level. Some
resist combined moment and axial load without failure, as
assumptions required for ultimate strength design are pre-
determined according to conventional design calculations.
scribed by codes of practice, including the Bernouilli
Failure is considered to occur at critical sections by crush-
assumption that plane sections remain plane and the
ing of the concrete in compression. The possible distribution
assumption that strains in the reinforcement are equal to the
of strain over the cross section associated with the bend-
strains in the adjacent concrete at any level. Without limit-
ing ultimate state is illustrated in Fig. 6 according to the
ing the generality of the method, the provisions of Eurocode
design assumptions given in Eurocode 2. The strain εc3 is
2 (2002) are used herein for illustration.
the concrete strain corresponding to the maximum concrete
The concrete stress block prescribed in Eurocode 2 is
compressive strength according to EC2 and εcu3 is the con-
illustrated in Fig. 4, where the factor λ defines the effective
crete ultimate strain. Both strain limits, εcu3 and εc3 , which
height of the compression zone and factor η defines the
define points B and C, respectively, are represented in Fig. 6.
strength of the rectangular stress block. A bilinear, elastic-
The variable yna represents the depth of the neutral axis.
plastic model for steel is used (no strain hardening), as
The area (Ac ) and center of gravity of the compression zone
shown in Fig. 5, for a steel having a characteristic strength
(ycgc ) are function of yna :
of 500 MPa. In this case, the concrete compressive stress
was reduced to ηfcd . To facilitate computation, the concrete
Ac = Ac (yna )
stress is applied over the compression zone without con- (1)
ycgc = ycgc (yna )

Nc is the axial compressive force carried by the concrete

and Mc is the moment of force Nc with respect to the cen-
εc η fcd
ter of the circular section. Nc and Mc can be expressed as
function of the variable yna :
λyna
yna
Nc (yna ) = η f cd Ac (yna )
Neutral axis
(2)
Mc (yna ) = η f cd Ac (yna ) · ycgc (yna )

Each value of yna defines a unique ultimate strain

distribution—for example, plane A–B of Fig. 6. The strain
Strain distribution Concrete stress block
distribution can be expressed as a function of two variables:
Fig. 4 Concrete stress block and strain distribution the position of the neutral axis (yna ) and the position of
982 L.M. Gil-Martín et al.

Fig. 6 Strain distributions

B
considered at the ultimate
limit state λyna yna (1-εc3/εcu3)/(2R)

y C
s2

A
s1
0 εc3 εcu3

A An arbitrary point at the bottom fiber

B Concrete compression strain limit
C Concrete pure compression strain limit

the fiber (y), ε = ε(y,yna ). Strain in the longitudinal bars and n 2 is the number of bars separated by s2 . Areas A1 and
follows the same function ε = ε(yi , yna ), where yi is the A2 are the cross sectional areas of individual bars having
y-coordinate of the bar i, and yna is the depth of the neutral diameters ∅1 and ∅2 respectively (see Fig. 7).
axis.
The equations of equilibrium for Nd and Md , applied at
the center of gravity of the gross section are:


n1
Zone 1
Nd = Nc (yna ) + A1 σs (ε (yi , yna ))
i=1
ξ

n2
  
+ A2 σs ε y j , yna
j=1


n1
Md = Mc (yna ) + A1 σs (ε (yi , yna )) · yi
i=1 Zone 2


n2
   Maximum flexural moment
+ A2 σs ε y j , yna · y j (3) Md (kN.m)
800
j=1

600
The number of longitudinal bars is partitioned into n 1
and n 2 ; n 1 is the number of bars separated by a spacing s1 ,
400
ξ (º)
90 110 130 150

Nd (kN)
y N-M Interaction diagram
εcu3 η fcd 8000
∅1
yna λ yna 6000
ξ
90º
4000 100º
110º
120º
130º
2000 140º
150º
Md (kN.m)
∅2 200 400 600 800 1000

Strain distribution Concrete stress block -2000

Fig. 7 Definition sketch, showing notation and variables y and yna Fig. 8 Results for Example 1
Optimization of piers for retaining walls 983

Eurocode 2 requirements for longitudinal reinforcement Non-symmetrical circular piers for retaining walls are
of columns (also applicable to piers) are: protected by international patents property of the University
of Granada.

– Bars should have a diameter of no less than 8 mm.

– The minimum amount of total longitudinal reinforce-
ment must not be less than 0.10 N E D / f yd or 0.002 Ac ,
where N E D is the design (factored) axial compression
force and Ac is the gross sectional area.
– Maximum area of reinforcement (away from splices)
must not exceed 0.04 Ac .
– A minimum of four longitudinal bars are required in a
circular column.
3 Flexural strength solutions
For a given cross section and reinforcement configuration,
the N –M interaction diagram can be obtained by consider-
ing equilibrium for different values of yna , ranging from 0 to
∞. The following simple example shows the advantage of
the application of non-uniformly distributed reinforcement
in a circular section.

The minimum clear separation between bars (according

to EC2) is the maximum of: the bar diameter, 20 mm, and
dg + 5 mm, where dg is the maximum size aggregate.
Though not required by Eurocode 2, a maximum sepa-
ration among longitudinal bars should also be established.
In the examples presented, the maximum clear spacing was
taken equal to 300 mm.
4 Example 1
Figure 6 represents a cross section of a pier wall, i.e. a wall
consisting of circular piers. The section analyzed is part of a
wall constructed in the southern part of Spain, as a retaining

Fig. 9 Flow chart of

Optimization Process 1 D, fck, fyk, ∅, Md, Nd

Calculate s1 and s2

n1 bars @ s1

Add 1 bars @ s2
(*)

Yes
No
Finish Resist Md and Nd?

(*) Bars added at spacing s2 have to be added at the bottom, at the position that generates the
highest lever arm relative to the center of gravity of cross-section. When adding bars at s2, there
may be interference with the bars having spacing s1. Any bar provided in the first step that is
located within the region containing bars spaced at s2 or within a distance less than s2 from this
region must be removed.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

984 L.M. Gil-Martín et al.

wall for a high speed railway line. The pier has a diameter
of 800 mm and is to be made from C-25 concrete (charac-
teristic compressive strength of 25 MPa) and steel having a
characteristic strength of 400 MPa. As originally designed,
its longitudinal reinforcement consists of 16∅20 (16 bars,
each 20 mm in diameter) distributed uniformly as indicated
in the figure, for a total reinforcement area of 5027 mm2 , or
1.0% of the gross area. Concrete cover is 60 mm. For this
example, two different separations are considered. Let ξ be
the angle that defines Zone 1, and therefore distinguishes
Zone 1 from Zone 2 (see Fig. 8). In this example, each zone
contains the same number of bars, and the total number of
bars is maintained (i.e. 16∅20). So, ξ = 90◦ corresponds
to equal spacing (s1 = s2 ) of the bars in both zones, and
increasing ξ means an increment in the clear spacing of
bars in Zone 1 and a decrease in the clear spacing between
bars in Zone 2. Under the constraint that each zone con-
tains the same number of bars, the evolution of flexural
strength with ξ , assuming zero axial load, is plotted in
Fig. 8.
This example makes clear that rearranging the position
of the bars causes the ultimate flexural strength to increase
from 530 to nearly 740 kN m (see Fig. 8). The parameter ξ is
used here as a way to clarify the potential effect of reinforce-
ment configuration. In the next section, two optimization
procedures are presented.
The evolution of the N –M interaction diagram with the
variation of parameter ξ is also shown in Fig. 8, for the
example analyzed. N –M.
5 Optimization approach
The optimization process must address several variables.
Some of these can be established based on practical con-
siderations. It is clear, for example, that the clear spac-
ing (or separation) between longitudinal bars in Zone 1
should be the maximum allowed while separation in Zone 2
should be the minimum allowed. Thus, a few approaches to
optimization may be considered.

Fig. 10 Flow chart of

Optimization Process 2 D, fck, fyk, ∅1, ∅2, Md, Nd

Calculate s1 and s2

n1 ∅1 bars @ s1

Add 1 bars ∅2 @ s2
(*)

Yes
Finish Resist Md and Nd?

(*) Bars ∅2 added at spacing s2 have to be added at the bottom, at the position that generates
highest lever arm relative to the center of gravity of cross-section. When adding bars ∅2 at s2,
there may be interference with bars located at a spacing s1. Any bar (∅1) provided in the first
step that is located within the region containing bars spaced at s2 or within a distance less than
s2 from this region must be removed.

∅1 bars

∅2 bars
Iterarion 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3
Optimization of piers for retaining walls 985

Table 1 Iteration to obtain a solution according to Optimization
Procedure 1, for Example 2
Iteration Bar composition
1 10∅20
3 3∅20 @ 45 mm + 9 ∅ 20 @ 270 mm
5 5∅20 @ 45 mm + 9 ∅ 20 @ 270 mm
7 7∅20 @ 45 mm + 9 ∅ 20 @ 270 mm
9 9∅20 @ 45 mm + 9 ∅ 20 @ 270 mm
10 10∅20 @ 45 mm + 9 ∅ 20 @ 270 mm
obtained, the bar diameter can be reduced, but this will
require a larger number of bars. Similarly, a smaller num-
Mu (kN m) ber of larger diameter bars may be found acceptable. The
discrete nature of the problem, associated with the use of
572 an integer number of bars in each zone and the availabil-
792 ity of bars in particular bar diameters, rather than diameters
910 that would be optimal for a given problem, suggests that one
1,212 cannot predict in advance which bar diameter solution will
1,409 use the least weight of reinforcement. A similar reasoning
1,502 can be applied to the section diameter, which for prag-
matic reasons, must be limited to the diameters for which
formwork and/or soil augers are readily available.

5.1 Procedure 1: optimization for a common

bar diameter (∅1 = ∅2 )
The steps of the optimization procedure are shown in Fig. 9.
For a given bar diameter, s1 and s2 (Fig. 6) are chosen to
be the maximum and the minimum allowed, respectively.
Bars are located at a spacing s1 , and bars are added in the
tension zone (Zone 2) at s2 up to the point that the ultimate
flexural strength is adequate (M Rd ≥ M E D ). The forego-
ing presumes that a solution can be obtained for the given
bar diameters and section dimensions. If a solution can be
5.2 Procedure 2: optimization for two bar diameters
(∅1 = ∅2 )
The steps of the optimization procedure are shown in
Fig. 10. If two different bar diameters may be selected,
then minimization of total bar area (or weight) will lead to
A1 and A2 being equal to the minimum and maximum bar
sizes allowed (or considered acceptable by the engineer),
respectively. The clear spacing between the bars (s1 ) will be
the largest allowed, for the smaller bar size, while s2 will

Fig. 11 Solution and Nd (kN)

interaction diagrams for 15000
Example 2, Optimization N-M Interaction diagram for ∅20 bars
Procedure 1, with ∅20 bars Iterations 1 to 10

10000
Iterations
1 Iteration 10
3
5
7
5000 9
10

Md (kN.m)
500 1000 1500 2000

Iteration 1 Iteration 3 Iteration 10

10∅20 @ 45mm + 9 ∅ 20 @ 270mm

10∅ 20 @ 45mm
986 L.M. Gil-Martín et al.

Table 2 Iteration to obtain a solution according to Optimization
Procedure 2, for Example 2
Iteration Bar composition Mu (kN m)
1 10∅10 158
2 1∅32 @ 64 mm + 9 ∅ 10 @ 270 mm 430
4 3∅32 @ 64 mm + 9 ∅ 10 @ 270 mm 1,000
6 5∅32 @ 64 mm + 9 ∅ 10 @ 270 mm 1,521
be the minimum allowed for the maximum bar size. Thus,
the larger bar size will be located within Zone 2, and the
number of bars, n 2 , will be calculated to provide adequate
strength for a given design moment (Md ) and design axial
force (Nd ), following the optimization procedure of Fig. 10.
As n 2 increases, reductions in n 1 have to be identified, based
on the space occupied by the larger bars, to avoid physical
interference with the smaller diameter bars, and to maintain
adequate spacing limits (separation) with the smaller bars.
6 Example 2
The need for 500 m of retaining wall has been projected
along the national freeway A2 from Madrid to Barcelona.
In a particular area, the retaining wall is composed of piers
that are 1-m in diameter. Longitudinal reinforcement con-
sists of 20∅25, and circular hoops consist of ∅8@300 mm.
The design flexural moment was 1,592 kN m and axial force
is approximately zero. Steel reinforcement is B-500-S, hav-
ing a characteristic strength of 500 MPa. Concrete, C-30,
has a compressive strength of 30 MPa. The total area of lon-
gitudinal reinforcement (20∅25) is 9,817 mm2 , or 1.25% of
the gross area.
6.1 Optimization for a common bar diameter
In this case we determine the optimum distribution for sev-
eral bar diameters (20, 25 and 32 mm). The maximum size
of coarse aggregate is 20 mm, and the cover considered is
60 mm. Because the allowable distance between bars (cen-
ter to center distance) is imposed to be less than 300 mm,
the minimum number of bars is 10.
The design moment can be resisted using a single bar
size (A1 = A2 ) at uniform spacing (s1 = s2 ) using 12∅32
placed symmetrically (total area of 9,651 mm2 ). With a
reduction to bars of 25-mm diameter, 14∅25 are found ade-
quate, using nine bars in Zone 1 and five bars in Zone 2.
This solution has a total area of 6,872 mm2 , representing a

Fig. 12 Solution and 15000 Nd (kN)

interaction diagrams for
Example 2, Procedure 2, ∅10 N-M Interaction diagram for ∅10 and ∅32 bars,
and ∅32 bars Iterations 1 to 6

10000
Iterations
1 Iteration 6
2
4
6
5000

Md (kN.m)
500 1000 1500 2000

Iteration 1 Iteration 3 Iteration 6

5∅32 @ 64mm + 9 ∅ 10 @ 270mm

5∅32 @ 64mm
Optimization of piers for retaining walls
savings of 29% in reinforcement area. Using 20-mm diame-
ter bars, 19∅20 are found adequate, with nine bars in Zone
1 and 10 bars in Zone 2). This solution has a total area
of 5,969 mm2 , representing a savings of 40% in reinforce-
ment area. Since for this solution, the total number of bars
is the same as in the original design, labor costs should be
very similar to those originally envisioned. Table 1 shows
the six iterations needed to converge on the final solution.
Figure 11 presents the N–M interaction diagrams for the
solutions obtained for each of the iterations described in
Table 1.
6.2 Optimization for two bar diameters
Further savings can be realized if different bar diameters are
allowed. In this case, if ∅10 are used in Zone 1 and ∅32 are
used in Zone 2, a solution is obtained for 9∅10 in Zone 1
together with 5∅32 in Zone 2. This solution uses a total area
of 4,728 mm2 , representing a saving of 51% of the orig-
inal reinforcement area. Table 2 shows the four iterations
needed to reach the final solution. Figure 12 presents the
N–M interaction diagrams obtained for each of the itera-
tions, corresponding to those identified in Table 2.
7 Conclusions
Engineers have better tools and greater responsibility to
rethink design practice with the advent of widely avail-
able computational power in design offices and the press-
ing needs to achieve economy and reduce anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases. Substantial reductions in
the amount of steel reinforcement required in design can
be achieved, by coupling a novel solution approach with
widely accepted assumptions for ultimate strength analy-
sis. Examples illustrate potential reductions of up to 51%
in the longitudinal reinforcement required, relative to con-
ventional, uniformly distributed reinforcement solutions.
987
References
Adamu A, Karihaloo BL (1994) Minimum cost design of RC beams
using DCOC. Part II: beams with uniform cross-section. Struct
Optim 7:252–259
Adamu A, Karihaloo BL (1995) Minimum cost design of RC frames
using the DCOC method. Part I: columns under uniaxial bending
actions. Struct Optim 10:16–32
Adamu A, Karihaloo BL, Rozvany GIN (1994) Minimum cost design
of reinforced concrete beams using continuum-type optimality
criteria. Struct Optim 7:91–102
Aschheim M, Hernández-Montes E, Gil-Martín LM (2006) Optimal
domains for strength design of rectangular sections for axial load
and moment according to Eurocode 2. Engineering Structures
29(8):1752–1760
Davalath GSR, Madugula MKS (1988) Analysis/design of rein-
forced concrete circular cross sections. ACI Struct J 85(6):
617–623
Eurocode 2 (2002) Design of concrete structures—part 1: general
rules and rules for buildings prEN 1992-1-1 (July). European
Committee for Standardization. Brussels, Belgium
Hernández-Montes E, Aschheim M, Gil-Martin LM (2004) The impact
of optimal longitudinal reinforcement on the curvature ductility
capacity of reinforced concrete column sections. Mag Concr Res
56(9):499–512
Hernández-Montes E, Gil-Martín LM, Aschheim M (2005) The design
of concrete members subjected to uniaxial bending and com-
pression using reinforcement sizing diagrams. ACI Struct J
102(1):150–158
Hernández-Montes E, Gil-Martín LM, Pasadas-Fernández M,
Aschheim M (2008) Theorem of optimal reinforcement for
reinforced concrete cross sections. Struct Multidisc Optim
36(5):509–521
IECA 3.0 (2001) Prontuario Informático del Hormigón Estruc-
tural. (www.ieca.es) by Corres Peiretti, Martínez Martínez JL,
Pérez Caldentey A and López Agüí JC. Accessed 16 February
2008
Kanagasundaram S, Karihaloo BL (1990) Minimum cost design of
reinforced concrete structures. Struct Optim 2:173–184
Lee HJ, Aschheim M, Hernández-Montes E, Gil-Martin LM (2009)
Optimum RC column reinforcement considering multiple load
combinations. Struct Multidisc Optim 39(2):153–170
Nawy EG (2003) Reinforced concrete. A fundamental approach,
5th edn. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
Weber K, Ernst M (1989) Entwicklung von Interaktionsdiagrammen
für asymmetrisch bewehrte Stahlbeton-Kreisquerschnitte. Beton -
und Stahlbetonbau V84(7):176–180