Theorem of Optimal Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete

© All Rights Reserved

22 visualizações

Theorem of Optimal Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete

© All Rights Reserved

- Tunnel Load Calcs
- Limiting reinforcement for RC flexural Members-ICJ-Sept2010
- Cavern Reinforcement
- 45 Barton-Et-Al on Design Tunnel Support
- Size Effect on Shear Strength of Reinforced
- DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS.pdf
- Anchorage of Reinforcing Bars
- 38-Hydraulic Design of Reservoir Outlet Works
- Stress and Strains Around a Cylindrical Tunnel in an Elasto Plastic Material With Dilatancy
- Numerical Analysis of forepole in tunnelling
- Tunnel Support- Use of Lattice Girders in Sedimentary Rock
- Hoek-Diederichs Rock Mass Modulus-2006 Edition
- Analysis of the Radial and Tangential Stress Distribution Between Two Neighbouring Circular Holes Internal Pressure by Numerical Modelling - Sh. ARSHADNEJAD, K. GOSHTASBI
- Approach for Finding the Minimum Reiforcement
- The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings (Wiley)
- Tunnels in Weak Rock
- Bi Axial
- Aschheim - 2002 - Seismic Design Based on the Yield Displacement
- An Interesting Article About Preliminary Sizing
- Design Analyses for a Large-Span Tunnel in Weak Rock

Você está na página 1de 13

DOI 10.1007/s00158-007-0186-3

INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION

cross sections

E. Hernndez-Montes & L. M. Gil-Martn &

M. Pasadas-Fernndez & M. Aschheim

# Springer-Verlag 2007

Abstract A theorem of optimal (minimum) sectional reinforcement for ultimate strength design is presented for

design assumptions common to many reinforced concrete

building codes. The theorem states that the minimum total

reinforcement area required for adequate resistance to axial

load and moment can be identified as the minimum

admissible solution among five discrete analysis cases.

Therefore, only five cases need be considered among the

infinite set of potential solutions. A proof of the theorem is

University of Granada,

Campus de Fuentenueva,

18072 Granada, Spain

E. Hernndez-Montes

e-mail: emontes@ugr.es

L. M. Gil-Martn

e-mail: mlgil@ugr.es

M. Pasadas-Fernndez

e-mail: mpasadas@ugr.es

M. Aschheim (*)

Civil Engineering Department, Santa Clara University,

500 El Camino Real,

Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA

e-mail: maschheim@scu.edu

E. Hernndez-Montes : L. M. Gil-Martn

Department of Structural Mechanics, University of Granada,

Campus de Fuentenueva,

18072 Granada, Spain

M. Pasadas-Fernndez

Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Granada,

Campus de Fuentenueva,

18072 Granada, Spain

made by means of a comprehensive numerical demonstration. The numerical demonstration considers a large range

of parameter values, which encompass those most often

used in structural engineering practice. The design of a

reinforced concrete cross section is presented to illustrate

the practical application of the theorem.

Keywords Reinforced concrete . Beams . Columns .

Optimal reinforcement . Concrete structures

Notation

Ac

cross-sectional area of concrete section

As

area of bottom reinforcement

0

As

area of top reinforcement

N

axial force applied at the center of gravity of the

gross section

M

bending moment applied at the center of gravity of

the gross section

b

width of cross section

d

depth to centroid of bottom reinforcement from top

fiber of cross section

d

depth to top reinforcement from top fiber of cross

section

fc

specified compressive strength of concrete

fy

specified yield strength of reinforcement

h

overall depth of cross-section

x

depth to neutral axis from top fiber of cross section

x*

depth to neutral axis corresponding to a compressive strain of 0.003 at top fiber and a tensile strain

of 0.01 at bottom reinforcement

xb

depth to neutral axis corresponding to a tensile

strain of y at bottom reinforcement

0

xb

depth to neutral axis corresponding to a tensile

strain of y at top reinforcement

xbb

depth to neutral axis given by (9)

Hernndez-Montes et al.

xc

0

xc1

0

xc2

x0

y

x

c

c,

depth of neutral axis corresponding to a compressive strain of y at top reinforcement and a tensile

strain of 0.01 at the bottom reinforcement

depth of neutral axis corresponding to a compressive strain of y at top reinforcement and a

compressive strain of 0.003 at top fiber.

depth of neutral axis at the minimum of total

reinforcement

vertical coordinate measures from the center of

gravity of the gross section

discrete increments in the depth of the neutral fiber

strain

strain of the concrete

maximum compressive strain of the concrete

max

s

0

"s

u

y

s

0

ss

strain at top reinforcement

maximum allowable tension strain of the steel

yield strain of the reinforcement

stress of bottom reinforcement

stress of top reinforcement

1 Introduction

The approaches commonly used for the design of reinforced concrete sections subjected to combinations of axial

load and moment applied about a principal axis of the cross

section were established many years ago. However, a new

design approach was presented recently by HernndezMontes et al. (2004, 2005), which portrays the infinite

number of solutions for top and bottom reinforcement that

provide the required ultimate strength for sections subjected

to combined axial load and moment. Solutions obtained

with this new approach allow the characteristics of optimal

(or minimum) reinforcement solutions to be identified. The

characteristics of these optimal solutions have led to the

development of the theorem of optimal section reinforcement (TOSR) presented herein.

The longstanding conventional approaches treat the

design of sectional reinforcement in one of two ways.

One approach utilizes the distinction between large and

small eccentricities based on an approach taken by Whitney

and Cohen (1956), as described in Nawys (2003) textbook.

The second approach uses NM interaction diagrams,

which have been widely used since their initial presentation

by Whitney and Cohen (1956). These diagrams provide

solutions for the reinforcement required to resist a specified

combination of axial load, N, and moment, M, under the

constraint that the reinforcement is arranged in a predetermined pattern. Typically, a symmetric pattern of reinforce-

suggests that an asymmetric pattern of reinforcement would

be more economical for small axial loads for cases in which

the applied moment (or eccentricity) acts in one direction

only.

The family of solutions for combinations of top and

bottom reinforcement required to confer adequate strength

to a cross section constitutes an infinite set of solutions that

includes the symmetric reinforcement solution obtained

using conventional NM interaction diagrams. The family

of solutions is displayed graphically on a Reinforcement

Sizing Diagram (RSD) as described by Hernndez-Montes

et al. (2005). Using an RSD, an engineer can rapidly select

the reinforcement to be used in reinforced and prestressed

concrete sections subjected to a combination of bending

moment and axial load. Reinforcement may be selected to

achieve whatever may be dictated by the design objectives,

such as minimizing cost, facilitating construction, or

providing a structure that has a very simple and uniform

pattern of reinforcement.

RSDs were used in a recent investigation by Aschheim

et al. (2007) to characterize the optimal (minimum)

reinforcement solutions for a cross section over the twodimensional space of design axial load and moment. This

study identified domains in NM space for which the

optimal solution for nominal strength is characterized by

0

either constraints on reinforcement area (As =0, As 0, or

0

As As 0) or constraints on the strains at the reinforcement locations (s =y, s equal to or slightly greater than

0

y, or "s "y ) for stresses and strains taken as positive

in compression), where As =the cross-sectional area of

0

bottom reinforcement, As =the cross-sectional area of top

reinforcement, s =the tensile strain in the bottom rein0

forcement, "s =the compressive strain in the top reinforcement, and y =the yield strain of the reinforcement. The

optimal domains approach uses the characteristics of the

optimal solution to solve directly for the minimum reinforcement required for a given combination of axial load

and moment.

The present paper puts forth a TOSR and demonstrates

its validity by argument and computationally using numerical results obtained for a large range of parameter values

representative of those commonly encountered in practice

(Table 1).

and strength design

The design problem for combined flexure and axial load

involves the simultaneous consideration of equilibrium,

compatibility, and the constitutive relations of the steel and

concrete materials at the section level.

Table 1 Range of variables studied for rectangular cross sections

Variable

Range

Height (h)

Width (b)

Yield strength (fy)

Yield strain (y)

Distance from extreme

compression fiber to centroid

of compression reinforcement (d)

Mechanical cover condition

Modulus of elasticity of

reinforcement (Es)

Axial load

Flexural moment

Lower limit

Upper limit

25 (MPa)

200 (mm)

200 (mm)

275 (MPa)

275/200,000

hd

55 (MPa)

2,000 (mm)

2,000 (mm)

500 (MPa)

500/200,000

200,000 (MPa)

0.2bhfc

0

bhfc

0.25bh2fc

level (e.g., Fig. 1) for the governing combination of

bending moment, M, and axial force, N:

0

0

0

M M Ac c ydAc A0s s ydAs As s ydAs

applied, with y being the distance of each differential area

0

(dAc, dAs, dAs , or dAp) from the location of the point about

which the stress resultants act, as illustrated in Fig. 1.

Stresses and axial forces in (1) are positive in compression

and negative in tension. Without loss of generality, the axial

load, N, and moment, M, that equilibrate the internal stress

resultants are presumed to act about the center of gravity of

the gross section (see Fig. 1). The moment, M, is considered positive if it produces tensile strain on the bottom

fiber. For consistency, in the case that the applied loads

cause compression over the depth of the section, the

moment is considered positive if the compressive strain at

the bottom fiber is smaller than the compressive strain at

the top fiber.

diagrams at cross section level

hypothesis that plane sections remain plane after deformation and assume no slip of reinforcement at the critical

section. The Bernoulli hypothesis allows the distribution of

strain over the cross section to be defined by just two

variables. The strain at the center of gravity (cg) of the

gross section and the curvature () of the cross section may

be used to define the strain diagram, as illustrated in Fig. 1.

For strength design, the reinforcement usually is modeled to have elasto-plastic behavior, and the concrete

compression block usually is represented using a rectangular, trapezoidal, or parabolic stress distribution. ACI-318

(2005) allows the use of a rectangular stress block having

depth equal to the product of a coefficient, 1, and the

depth of the neutral axis, where 1 varies between 0.85 and

0.65 as a function of the specified compressive strength of

the concrete. Eurocode 2 (2002) specifies that the stress

block has a constant compressive stress of fcd having a

depth equal to the x, where x=the depth of the neutral axis

and fcd =the design strength of the concrete, for concrete

whose resistance is between 25 and 55 MPa. The factor

defines the effective height of the compression zone, and

the factor defines the effective strength. The design

strength of the concrete is given as a function of the

specified characteristic strength, fck, where fcd =cc fck/c.

The term cc accounts for long term effects on strength and

the rate at which the load is applied. The term c is the

partial safety factor for concrete, taken as 1.5. For the range

contemplated in Table 1, we have chosen =0.8 and =1.0

and cc =0.85, as these represent fairly typical values.

Perhaps the greatest difference in code provisions for

ultimate strength determination is the treatment of cross

section strains. The maximum usable strain at the extreme

compression fiber is 0.003 in ACI 318 (2005), and there is

no limit on the strain in the tensile reinforcement. Consequently, the neutral axis depth is a positive number. In

Eurocode 2 (2002), the maximum usable strain in the extreme compression fiber ranges between 0.002 and 0.0035,

and the tensile reinforcement strain cannot exceed 0.01.

The Eurocode 2 (2002) approach invokes the concept of

strain domains, wherein the strain diagram pivots about

certain points located on the boundaries between adjacent

As

cg

Center of gravity

of the gross section

Neutral fiber

Ap

p

s

As

Strains due to external loads

Hernndez-Montes et al.

positive or negative values. The Swiss Concrete Code SIA162 (1989) establishes the maximum compressive strain

c,max =0.003 and a tensile steel strain limit of s,max =0.005.

For the demonstration of the theorem, assumptions

intermediate between ACI 318 (2005) and Eurocode 2

(2002) were adopted. It is assumed that plane sections

remain plane, the maximum usable strain for concrete

in compression is given by c,max =0.003, and the maximum usable strain for steel in tension is given by s,max =

0.01. These assumptions are similar to those used in

the Swiss Concrete Code; the only difference is that the

tensile strain limit used for the demonstration is 0.01

and the Swiss Concrete Code uses 0.005. Walther and

Miehlbradt (1990) indicate that the choice of a tensile

strain limit of 0.005 or 0.01 has little effect on strength

design.

These strain limits are illustrated in Fig. 2, where three

domains are identified. In domains I and II, the extreme

Stress distributions according to

rectangular block assumption

and equilibrium of applied N

and M with internal stress

resultants for x>0

bottom reinforcement is either in compression or is at a

tensile strain less than the yield strain, while in domain II,

the bottom reinforcement is yielding in tension. In domain

III, the bottom reinforcement is at a strain of 0.01, and the

top fiber is either in tension or at a compressive strain less

than 0.003. Thus, for domains I and II, the neutral axis

depth, x, assumes a positive value, and can approach + as

the strains approach 0.003 over the entire section. The

neutral axis depth may be positive or negative in domain

III, and approaches as the strains approach 0.01 (in

tension) over the entire section.

3 Design solutions

The algebraic form of the integrals of (1) allows the internal

stress resultants to be determined as the product of the

stresses and the corresponding areas. Using the above

the concrete, Nc, can be expressed as

8

<

0

Nc x 0:85fc 0:8x b

:

0:85fc hb

if

if

if

0:8x 0

0 0:8x < h

0:8x > h

As

2

and height h. Where the compressive stress block includes

the top reinforcement (0.8x>d), the stress assigned to the

rectangular concrete block should not be counted in

determining the force carried by the top reinforcement,

0

Ns . Similarly, if the compressive stress block extends below

the bottom reinforcement, the stress carried by the

rectangular stress block should not be counted in determining the force carried by the bottom reinforcement, Ns.

0

Therefore, Ns and Ns can be determined as:

0

Ns x s xAs x

Ns x s xAs x

distance d from the top of the section and As =the crosssectional area of steel located at a distance d from the top of

the section, and

s x 0:85fc

0

s x

s x 0:85fc

s x

s x

0

s x

if

if

0:8x > d 0

otherwise

0:8x > d

otherwise

reinforcement results in (7).

As

M N h2 d 0 Nc xd 0 0:4x

s xdd 0

if

M N0:85fc bh h2 d 0

s xdd 0

s xdd 0

otherwise

M N d h2 Nc xd0:4x

0:8x < h

0:8x < h

if

M N0:85fc bhd h2

0

s

xdd 0

7

otherwise

(7) are functions of the neutral axis depth, x. Some values

0

of x result in negative values of As and As , and therefore

must be considered inadmissible. The admissible solutions

0

for As and As , obtained with (6) and (7), are plotted on a

RSD. Such a plot clearly indicates that the minimum total

reinforcement solution generally differs from the symmetric

reinforcement solution that typically is represented using

conventional NM interaction diagrams. More information

on RSDs can be found in Hernndez-Montes et al. (2005)

where an example of the design of a column from ACI

Publication SP-17 (1997) is used (see Fig. 3). ACI

Publication SP-17 presents only the symmetric reinforceh=406 mm (20 in)

0.75h

0

The internal stress resultants Nc, Ns , and Ns equilibrate

the applied load, N, and moment, M. For a given neutral

axis depth, material properties, and reinforcement areas As

0

and As , the internal stress resultants can be determined and

equations of equilibrium can be applied to the free body

diagram of Fig. 1 to determine the axial load and moment

resisted by the section. The equations of equilibrium for N

and M applied at the center of gravity of the gross section

are:

e=178 mm (7in)

10000

Total area (As + As)

As

8000

N Nc x Ns x N s x

0

Nc x h2 0:4x Ns x h2 d 0 Ns x d h2 if 0:8x h

M

0

otherwise

Ns x h2 d 0 Ns x d h2

6000

4000

As

2000

0

to determine the steel areas As and As required to provide

the section with sufficient capacity to resist the applied

loads N and M. In particular, the sum of moments about the

location of the top reinforcement results in (6), while the

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

Hernndez-Montes et al.

savings in cost can be obtained when optimal (minimum

total) reinforcement solutions are used in place of traditional symmetric reinforcement solutions.

Although it is possible to obtain zero reinforcement

solutions from (6) and (7), code-required minimum reinforcement requirements also must be considered in design.

The theorem addresses only equilibrium considerations.

0

Theorem The top (As) and bottom As reinforcement

required to provide a rectangular concrete section with

adequate ultimate strength1 for a combination of axial load

and moment applied about a principal axis of the cross

section has the following characteristics:

0

0

(2) The minimum total reinforcement area As As

0

occurs for one of the following cases: As =0, As 0,

0

As As 0, s equal to or slightly greater than y,

0

0

=s ="s =c,max =0.003, and =s ="s 0:01.

Corollary The minimum reinforcement area for a specific

combination of axial load and moment may be determined

by:

0

0

c,max =0.003, and =s ="s 0:01.

(2) Selecting the minimum of the admissible solutions,

where an admissible solution is one in which the value

0

of x0 is real and the areas As and As are each nonnegative, subject to the following:

0

0 produces a negative value for As, then the

minimum reinforcement solution is given by

0

As As 0.

b. If s =y produces an admissible solution and

As(xb)<As (xb), the minimum (x0) will be located at

xb <x0 <xbb.

5 Proof

A formal analytical proof requires the treatment of (6) and

(7) in a piecewise fashion over more than seven domains of

x. As an alternative to this lengthy approach, a numerical

proof is provided in the following. The validity of the

1

strengths and section dimensions, as specified in Table 1.

The range of parameters considered encompasses most

practical cases that arise in civil engineering practice.

Formal constraints expressing the limits of applicability of

the theorem have not been encountered yet, and parameter

values beyond those considered in Table 1 may be

contemplated.

The proof is formulated in terms of the section

variables defined in Fig. 2. Here, solutions for the rein0

forcement areas As and As are determined as a function of

the depth of the neutral axis, x. Solutions given by (6)

0

and (7) may, for some x, require negative values of As or As ;

such solutions are physically inadmissible and thus are

excluded.

To summarize in mathematical terms:

x 2 1; 1

0

0

As As x; As As x reinforcement areas for x

The optimal reinforcement solution is given for x=x0,

0

Minx As x As x As x0 As x0

0

and As x0 0 and As x0 0

Conjecture For the simplifying assumptions given previously (and illustrated in Fig. 2), the solution x0 is charac0

terized by As =0 and/or As 0, s equal to or slightly greater

0

0

than y, =s ="s =c,max =0.003, and =s = "s 0:01.

Conditions associated with the simplifying assumptions,

the geometry of the section, and the elasto-plastic nature

of the constitutive relationship for the reinforcement

0

cause the areas As and As to be defined as piecewise

functions of x. To define these functions, the parameters xb,

0

0

0

x*, xc, xb , xc1 and xc2 are defined, as given in the Appendix

and in Figs. 8 and 9.

For all possible combinations of values of the parameters

0

of Table 1, solutions for As and As were determined for

x 2 1; 1, and the optimal (i.e., minimum total area)

0

solution parameters x0, As(x0), and As (x0) were retained.

The optimal reinforcement solutions were determined

numerically for all combinations of N and M defined by

0.2bhfc Nbhfc and 0M0.25bh2fc, with each range

being subdivided into 80 steps. The numerical solutions

were determined by considering discrete values of x in

increments of 1 mm.

To focus attention on significant aspects of the numerical

results, only the subset of cases in which h=700 mm, 200

b2,000 mm, 25fc to 55, fy =400 MPa, and hd = d=

70 mm are considered in detail. Numerical solutions are

plotted for this subset of cases in Fig. 4a,b. As(x0) is

0

plotted as a function of x0/d in Fig. 4a, and As (x0) is plotted

in Fig. 4b. To clarify, (6) and (7) are evaluated in the range

Fig. 4 a Values of As(xo/d)

determined for optimal

solutions. b Values of determined for optimal solutions

0

of 2xb ; 2xc for fixed values of N and M. Discrete

values of x are considered in increments

of 1 mm, and the

0

minimum value of the total area As As is retained and

0

plotted as a function of x0 [As(x0), and As (x0)]. Thus, each

fixed value of N and M. Inspection of these plots reveals

0

that there are regions where either As or As are equal to

0

zero, regions where both As and As appear to be nonzero,

Hernndez-Montes et al.

Table

2 Limits for the piecewise functions used to define As(x) and

0

As x

Variable

0

xb

x*0

xc1

0

xc2

xb

xc

Value of the

variable (mm)

normalized by d

70

145

210

163

378

1,890

0.11

0.23

0.33

0.26

0.60

3.00

0

0

0

solutions occur. The values of xb, x*, xc, xb , xc1 and xc2 are

identified on Fig. 4a,b and in Table 2.

Inspection of Fig. 4a,b reveals several singularities and

zones as follows. These are discussed sequentially in order

of increasing x0/d, with respect to Fig. 4a,b:

0

"y for Grade 400 reinforcement). For this case, both

0

As and As assume positive values. It is interesting to

observe that for given values of N and M, any x smaller

0

0

0

0 0

than xb results in As(x)=As xb and As x As xb .

Thus, if an optimal solution is found for x0/d<0.11,

0

the result obtained is equal to that obtained for x0 =xb

0

(given equivalently by "s "y ). The same result also

0

can be obtained for =s ="s 0:01.

b) x0/d=1/9, which corresponds exactly to x0 =d', Here,

there is zero strain in the top reinforcement. As the top

reinforcement carries no force at x0/d=1/9, the mini0

mum top reinforcement is given by As 0.

0

0

c) As (x0)=0 in the zone xb <x0 <xb, This zone, which

includes the singularity at x0 =d', is shown in white in

the bar at the bottom of Fig. 4a,b. Note that the discrete

steps used in the computation of x0 result in very small

0

0

values of As , but in the limit, as x approaches zero, As

approaches zero.

d) x0/d=0.6, which corresponds exactly to x0 =xb for

Grade 400 reinforcement [see (12) in Appendix]. For

0

x0 =xb =0.6d, both As and As are positive.

e) Figure 4a illustrates a region where values of As are

limited to relatively small, positive numbers, where x0/

d is just slightly greater than 0.6. This corresponds to

0

xb <x0 <xbb, for Grade 400 reinforcement. Both As and As

are positive in this region, which is shown hatched on

the bar at the bottom of Fig. 4a,b. An explanation for

this phenomenon is provided later in the paper.

f) x0/d=1, which corresponds to zero strain in the bottom

reinforcement. Because the bottom reinforcement carries no force, one may use As =0. However, the discrete

steps used in the computation of x0 result in very small,

nonzero, strains (and values of As) in the computed

g) As(x0)=0 in the zone xbb <x0 <xc, This zone is shown in

gray in the bar at the bottom of each figure. However,

the discrete steps used in the computation of x0 result in

very small, nonzero strains (and values of As) in the

computed results.

h) x0/d=3, which corresponds exactly to x0 =xc for Grade

400 reinforcement (see (13) in Appendix for xc, for

s =y). Figures 4a,b demonstrate that for this value of

x0/d, the optimal solution gives positive values of both

0

As and As . In fact, for any given N and M, any x greater

0

0

than xc results in As(x)=As(xc) and As (x)=As (xc). Thus,

if an optimal solution is found for x0/d>3, the result

obtained is equal to that obtained for x0 =xc, which

corresponds to s =y. For the grades of reinforcement

considered, the same result is also obtained for =s =

0

"s =c,max =0.003.

A trivial case exists where the axial load N provides the

section with sufficient capacity to resist the applied

moment, M, without requiring reinforcement to carry

tension or compression. For this case, the solution for As =

0

0

0 results in As < 0, while the solution for As 0 results in

As <0, indicating that no reinforcement is necessary.

The singularities or zones described in b, e, and f are

addressed in greater detail in the following sections.

5.1 Singularities at the reinforcement position

To better characterize the singularities that appear at x0/d=1

and x0/d=1/9, optimal solutions were obtained using a

smaller numerical increment in x. Figure 5a shows As(x0)

determined using increments, x, equal to 1 mm (as before), and Fig. 5b shows the more precise values of As(x0),

determined for x=0.1 mm, for x0/d1. One may observe

that the computed values of As are smaller in Fig. 5b. This

illustrates that greater precision in the calculation results in

reduced total steel areas and, moreover, that the singularity

at x0/d=1 is not an artifact of the computational approach.

As stated earlier, because the strain at this location is zero,

the force carried by the reinforcement at this location is

zero, and thus, the minimum reinforcement area is given by

As =0 in the case that x0/d=1.

Similar results were found for x0/d=1/9. This case, which is

equivalent to x0 =d for Grade 400 reinforcement, is parallel to

the previous one and does not require further consideration.

5.2 Characterization of optimal solutions

in the range xb <x0 <xbb

One may observe in Fig. 4a that values of As somewhat

greater than zero appear to the right of the singularity at

of data represented in Fig. 4a for which b=200 and b=1,000.

One may further observe that the minimum values of As are

aligned based on the value of the parameter b. This result is

not an artifact of the step size x.

Where xb <x0 <xbb, the associated values of As depend on

the value of b as indicated in Fig. 6a. The correct solution

for this case can be found by considering

the minimum,

0

which is given where dAs As dx 0 for two different

positions of the neutral fiber (at x and x+dx) under the

As

values of N and M. This can be stated as:

8

< M x M x dx

N x N x dx

0

:d

dx As x As x 0

Equation (8) may be solved by considering the differential forms of the first two equations and using the third

0

equation to replace dAs x in the first two equations with

dAs(x). The first two equations can be used to eliminate

dAs, to obtain a single equation that may be solved for As.

Solving for As as a function of x results in:

bfc x 1; 020Es d 2 1; 836Es xd x 289; 000fc d 0 340; 000fy d 0 816Es x 231; 200fc x 272; 000fy x

case is designated by As , and the minimum total reinforcement may occur anywhere in the range xb <x0 <xbb.

Equation (9) is plotted in Fig. 6b for the same parameter

values represented in the computed results of Fig. 6a.

Inspection of Fig. 6a reveals that optimal solutions at xb are

characterized by As >As (xb). Thus, to determine whether the

optimal solution occurs at x0 =xb or in the range xb <x0 <xbb,

it is sufficient to compare As(xb) with As (xb), where As(xb) is

solution must be located to the right of xb (i.e., xb <x0 <xbb).

Also of interest is the fact that (9) indicates that As (xb) is a

property of the cross section and materials and is

independent of N and M.

The x intercept of (9) was determined by setting As =0

and solving for x. This intercept is designated xbb. The

value of xbb is given by

816Es 231; 200fc 272; 000fy

q

2

2

0

0

where sqrt 4; 090d Es 816Es 231; 200fc 272; 000fy 1; 836Es d 289; 000fc d 340; 000fy d

xbb

solution occurs for xb <x0 <xbb, and the area of bottom

reinforcement may be obtained using (6) or (9). The corresponding value of x0 may be determined by minimizing

the total area, obtained with (6) and (7). In this case, the

optimal solution corresponds to strain in the bottom

reinforcement given by s ="*,

y where "*

y is given as

"*y

0:003d x0

x0

11

Because the optimal (minimum) reinforcement solution

0

occurs for one of the following cases: As =0 and/or As 0,

10

0

0.003, and =s ="s 0:01, the other cases must produce

0

non-optimal solutions for As and As . The non-optimal

solutions either (1) have total area greater than optimal or

(2) are inadmissible because one or both computed areas

are negative or imaginary solutions are obtained. Consequently, the optimal solution is producing the smallest total

area among the admissible solutions obtained for the possible cases. This may be seen by consideration of Fig. 4

and (6) and (7) and will be illustrated with an example.

Consider an example used in Aschheim et al. (2007),

using Grade 400 reinforcement, 25 MPa concrete, and a

concrete cover of 0.05 m, shown in Fig. 7. This section was

designed using RSDs for many combinations of N and M.

Values of N and M will be selected to illustrate the design

Hernndez-Montes et al.

As (mm 2)

As (mm2)

2000

20000

17500

1750

15000

1500

12500

1250

10000

b = 1000 mm

1000

7500

b = 200 mm

750

5000

2500

500

0.9

0.95

1.0

1.05

1.1

x/d

250

0.60

b

As

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

x/d

(mm2)

20000

As (mm 2)

2000

17500

15000

1750

12500

1500

10000

1250

7500

1000

5000

2500

750

x/d

0.9

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.1

Fig. 5 a Detail of the singularity at x=d, for x=1 mm. b Detail of

the singularity at x=d, for x=0.1 mm

500

250

0.60

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

x/d

and M are those for which the optimal solutions occur for

each of the possible cases. These values are presented in

normalized form in Table 3.

One may observe that in general, the minimum of the

admissible solutions corresponds to the optimal solution.

Two special cases are described as follows:

1) For the first case, no admissible solutions are found,

and in particular, the case As =0 produces a negative

0

0

value for As, and second, the case As 0 produces a

negative value for As. In this case, no reinforcement

is required for the section to resist the combined

axial load and moment, and the optimal solution is

0

As As 0.

2) For the last case of Table 3, three admissible solutions

were identified. Among these, x=xb appears to be the

optimal solution, but there is a possibility that the true

optimal solution is in the range xb <x0 <xbb. To address

this possibility, (9) is solved to obtain As (xb)=465 mm2.

Based on the discussion of Fig. 6a, because As(xb)=

51 mm2 <As (xb), we expect the optimal solution to be to

the right of xb (i.e., xb <x0 <xbb). In fact, the optimal

solution occurs for s ="y*. However, the solution

d = 70 mm, h = 700 mm and b = 200 and 1,000 mm. b Solution of As

given by (9)

total steel area (645 mm2) that is only 4.4% greater than

that determined for the optimal solution (618 mm2)

while being considerably easier to determine.

500 mm

A s

500 mm

As

50-mm to centroid of reinforcement

Fig. 7 Example cross section

Table 3 Reinforcement area

solutions obtained by

considering individual

cases (mm2)

shown in italics; the minimum

of the admissible solutions is

shown in bold typeface.

a

For this case none of the solutions are admissible and, in par0

ticular, As =0 requires As < 0

0

and As 0 requires A s < 0.

Thus, no reinforcement is required to support the axial force

and moment, corresponding to

0

the solution As As 0.

b

Imaginary solution

N

A g fc

M

Ag hfc

0.4

0.05

1.0

0.02

0.8

0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.15

0.20

0.10

0.02

0.12

As

0

As

As

0

As

As

0

As

As

0

As

As

0

As

As

0

As

As

0

As

0a

0

825

1,650

0

2,817

3,176

595

1,885

0

1,953

1,172

196

422

in which x0 = xb, we consider the fourth case (N =0.2Agfc,

M= 0.20Aghfc) of Table 3. To determine if the minimum

might be in the range xb <x0 <xbb, (9) is used to determine

As (xb)= 465 mm2. Because As(xb) =3,176 mm2 >As (xb),

the optimal solution is at x0 = xb.

0

=0.003

As =0

s =y

As 0

=0.01

4744

2682

825

1,650

3,507

2,682

9,488

1,238

9,076

4,951

9,076

8,250

6,188

1,237

0

2,074

1,317

849

6,590

3,483

2,488

4,514

3,176

595

2,785

3,118

2,785

6,418

51

594

1761

0

2,148

4,102

7,422

8,203

3,320

9,180

2,344

5,469

1,953

1,953

1,953

1,172

781

5,469

b

b

0

2,817

b

b

b

b

b

b

0

672

b

b

b

b

5,980

0

1,885

0

b

b

880

0

used to identify optimal solutions for any cross-sectional

shape, for materials with different constitutive behaviors,

and for different assumptions regarding ultimate strength

evaluation.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to recognize the helpful

comments of two anonymous reviewers.

6 Conclusion

A TOSR was articulated based on clear patterns evident in

the minimum reinforcement solutions obtained in the

optimal design of reinforced concrete sections for combinations of axial load and bending moment. According to

the theorem, the minimum total reinforcement solution can

be determined by examining the following five cases: As =

0

0

0, As 0, s =y, =s ="s =c,max =0.003, and =s =

0

"s 0:01. Admissible solutions, which may exist for a

subset of these cases, are examined to determine the

minimum total reinforcement solution, as described in the

paper. As a result, minimum reinforcement solutions may

be obtained speedily, requiring far fewer analyses than are

required to determine optimal solutions using RSD (described recently by Hernndez-Montes et al. 2005).

The individual cases associated with the minimum

reinforcement patterns correspond one-to-one with the

optimal domains described by Aschheim et al. (2007).

Whereas the optimal domains are described in NM space

and require deductive logic to establish the governing

domain, the solution procedure contained within the TOSR

may be considered to be more direct and may be easier to

implement in numerical solution procedures.

The TOSR was established for a large range of material

properties and rectangular section geometries commonly

used in practice and a particular set of assumptions used for

Appendix

0

0

necessary to express the stresses s and s s as explicit

functions of the neutral axis depth, x. These expressions are

developed in the following based on whether the reinforcement is yielding in tension or compression.

Bottom reinforcement

Based on the geometry shown in Fig. 8, the depth of the

neutral axis for certain states can be defined. The balanced

condition is the state at which the bottom reinforcement is

at the yield point in tension, given by xb

0:003

xb

d

12

0:003 "y

where y assumes a negative value for tension strain. The

depth of the neutral axis when the bottom reinforcement is at

the yield point in compression is given by the same expression

due to the fact that s changes sign so that xc is given by

xc

0:003

d

0:003 "y

13

Hernndez-Montes et al.

B

x*

As

h

xb

A

As

-0.01

xc

-y

0 y 0.003

Fig. 8 Depth of the neutral axis for cases in which the bottom

reinforcement yields in tension or compression

for cases in which the top

reinforcement yields in tension

or compression

8

fy

if

x < xb

<

if

x

x xc

s x 0:003Es dx

14

b

x

:

fy

if

x > xc

For large values of x and typical configurations of reinforcement, that is, x1.25 h and xxc, the stresses acting on

the section are independent of x; therefore, the external N

and M required to equilibrate the internal stress resultants

are independent of x. For ordinary cover dimensions, the

limit xxc determines the fixed values of N and M, and this

limit governs for cover thicknesses such that

"y 0:0006

hd

h

15

0:0024

which corresponds to h d 0.583 h for Grade 400

reinforcement and 0.792 h for Grade 500 reinforcement.

Thus, the fixed values of N and M can be found for xxc

using x=xc for virtually all practical cases of interest.

As shown in Fig. 2, the strain diagram used to establish

ultimate strength can be located in strain domains I, II, or

Compression yield

x'c2

x'c1

-0.01

-y 0 y 0.003

,

(a) x=x c1x*

-0.01

-y 0 y 0.003

,

(b)

x=x c2<x*

Tension yield

x'b

-0.01

- y 0 y 0.003

,

(c) x=x b<x*

-0.01

- y 0 y 0.003

(d)

x>x*

rotates about point B, thereby ensuring that the extreme

compression fiber is at a strain of 0.003. Within domain

III, the strain diagram pivots about point A, thereby ensuring the bottom reinforcement is at a tensile strain of

0.01. The neutral axis depth varies from + (represented

by a vertical line in domain I) to (a vertical line in

domain III). The neutral axis depth corresponding to the

border between domains II and III is given by x=x*, as

shown in Fig. 8. For the values of strain used to define

points A and B,

x*

3

d

13

16

Top reinforcement

Neutral axis depths corresponding to yielding of the top

reinforcement in concert with obtaining strains of 0.003 in

the extreme compression fiber or 0.01 in the bottom

reinforcement can be defined. Although four cases are

illustrated in Fig. 9, only cases (a) through (c) are of interest

for ordinary section geometries.

For top reinforcement yielding in compression, only the

two cases shown in Fig. 9 are possible. For case (a), the top

reinforcement is yielding in compression, and the extreme

compression fiber strain is equal to 0.003. For this case,

0

xc1 x*. Based on similar triangles, this case applies where

0:003 "y

3 0:003 "y

d0

d

17

d

13

0:003

0:013

For case (a), the depth of the neutral axis corresponding

0

to yield of the top reinforcement in compression, xc1 , is

given by

0

xc1

0:003d 0

x*

0:003 "y

18

d>0.0715d.

Case (b) is defined by yielding of the top reinforcement in

compression in concert with the bottom reinforcement having

a strain of 0.01. More generally, the top reinforcement

maybe responding elastically or maybe yielding in compression or in tension while the bottom reinforcement at strain of

0.01 (in tension). Any of these conditions may occur for

0:003 "y

d

0:013

Thus, for case (b),

d0 <

xc2 d 0

"y d d 0

0:01 "y

19

20

Case (c) of Fig. 9 represents yielding of the top reinforcement in tension in concert with bottom reinforcement having

ment yielding in tension, xb , is given by

0

xb d 0

"y d d 0

0:01 "y

21

in tension while the extreme compression fiber strain is

equal to 0.003, is only possible for large values of d, beyond

the range contemplated in Table 1 for the cover dimensions

d and hd. Typically, only case (c) will be applicable for

top reinforcement yielding in tension. Thus, to describe the

stress behavior of the top reinforcement, it is necessary to

distinguish between cases (a) and (b), as follows.

For case (a), the stress carried by the top reinforcement is:

8

0

if 1 < x < xb

fy

>

>

>

0

0

<

x

0

0:01 Es ddx

if

xb x x*

s x

0

0

>

0:003 0:003 dx Es if x* x xc1

>

>

:

0

fy

if

x > xc1

22

For case (b), the stress carried by the top reinforcement is

8

0

fyd

if 1 < x < xb

<

0

0

0

0

x

if xb x < xc2

s x 0:01 Es ddx

23

:

0

fy

if

x > xc2

References

ACI Committee 340 (1997) ACI design handbook: design of

structural reinforced concrete elements in accordance with the

strength design method of ACI 318-95, ACI Special Publication

SP-17(97). American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, USA

ACI 318-05 (2005) Building code requirements for structural concrete.

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA

Aschheim M, Hernndez-Montes E, Gil-Martn LM (2007) Optimal

domains for strength design of rectangular sections for axial load

and moment according to Eurocode 2. Eng Struct (in press)

Eurocode 2 (2002) Design of concrete structures- Part 1: general rules

and rules for buildings prEN 1992-1-1 (July 2002). European

Committee for Standardization, Brussels

Hernndez-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):499512

Hernndez-Montes E, Gil-Martn LM, Aschheim M (2005) The

design of concrete members subjected to uniaxial bending and

compression using reinforcement sizing diagrams. ACI Struct J

102(1):150158

Nawy (2003) Reinforced Concrete. A fundamental approach, 5th edn.

Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

SIA 162 (1989) Norme SIA 162: Ouvrages en btn. Socit suisse

des ingnieurs et des architectes, Zurich

Walther R, Miehlbradt M (1990) Dimensionnement des Structures en

Bton. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes,

Lausanne, Swiss

Whitney CS, Cohen E (1956) Guide for ultimate strength design of

reinforced concrete. ACI J 28(5):445490 (Nov., Proceedings V.53)

- Tunnel Load CalcsEnviado porSanjoy Sanyal
- Limiting reinforcement for RC flexural Members-ICJ-Sept2010Enviado porscribdengineer
- Cavern ReinforcementEnviado porbalaji_raoch
- 45 Barton-Et-Al on Design Tunnel SupportEnviado porRodrigo Muñoz Valderrama
- Size Effect on Shear Strength of ReinforcedEnviado porAsim Bashir
- DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS.pdfEnviado porYoshua Yang
- Anchorage of Reinforcing BarsEnviado porAntonette Marie Elgario
- 38-Hydraulic Design of Reservoir Outlet WorksEnviado porSalman Tariq
- Stress and Strains Around a Cylindrical Tunnel in an Elasto Plastic Material With DilatancyEnviado porChaithanyam Kyasnoori
- Numerical Analysis of forepole in tunnellingEnviado porRed Orange
- Tunnel Support- Use of Lattice Girders in Sedimentary RockEnviado porJunaida Wally
- Hoek-Diederichs Rock Mass Modulus-2006 EditionEnviado porchouszesze
- Analysis of the Radial and Tangential Stress Distribution Between Two Neighbouring Circular Holes Internal Pressure by Numerical Modelling - Sh. ARSHADNEJAD, K. GOSHTASBIEnviado porIoan-Lucian Stan
- Approach for Finding the Minimum ReiforcementEnviado porsumankanthnelluri7
- The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings (Wiley)Enviado porHamed Nikbakht
- Tunnels in Weak RockEnviado porswabright
- Bi AxialEnviado porfabricio88
- An Interesting Article About Preliminary SizingEnviado porAnonymous D1h2pK
- Aschheim - 2002 - Seismic Design Based on the Yield DisplacementEnviado porLuís Macedo
- Design Analyses for a Large-Span Tunnel in Weak RockEnviado pormoomeejee
- types of cracks in reinforcement concreteEnviado porMohamed Salah
- Gil Martin 2008 Engineering StructuresEnviado porteodorabogdan
- Tunnel LiningEnviado porswabright
- Numerical Validation and Refinement of Empirical Rock Mass ModulusEnviado porshahabk
- A simple displacement control technique for pushover AnalysisEnviado porKtk Zad
- USACE - !Structural Design and Evaluation of Outlet WorksEnviado porAlin Catinean
- The Ground Reaction Curve due to Tunnelling under Drainage ConditionEnviado porNguyễn Hòa
- 139C-Modelling of reinforced concrete structures-KAMIŃSKI-2011Enviado porZiyad12
- Interaction Behaviours Between Parallel Tunnels in Soft GroundEnviado porsheeeep
- The Effect of Initial Rust on the Bond Strength of ReinforcementEnviado porMustafa

- The Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings With Masonary Infill WallsEnviado porirawan syadzali gunawan
- Seismic demands and their dependance on ground motion - KrawinklerEnviado porGabriel Ionita
- FEMA 451 Compl -Struct Analysis Performance-basedEnviado porGeorge Sanches
- 58 ElnashaiEnviado porFelice Madio
- Dynamics Response Spectrum AnalysisEnviado porAhmed Gad
- D.Vamvatsikos - PerformingIDAinParallel.pdfEnviado porGabriel Ionita
- 1998 CUREE ExcerptEnviado porkh.mitesh1904
- Fenves - OPEN SEES Framework for Seismic SimulationEnviado porGabriel Ionita
- TR103_Krawlinker.pdfEnviado porGabriel Ionita
- Indumator vant CR 1-1-4_2012.pdfEnviado porGabriel Ionita
- UrbanismEnviado porCami Micu
- Indumator Vant CR 1-1-4-2012Enviado porGabriel Ionita
- Modeling and Analysis of Lattice Towers With More Accurate ModelsEnviado porFeleki Attila
- Pereti hibriziEnviado porGabriel Ionita
- Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings - TPaulayMPriestley 1992Enviado porLiliCojanu1981
- Seismic Design and Evaluation of Multistory Buildings Using Yield Point SpectraEnviado porGabriel Ionita
- Reinforced Concrete Design Limit State - By Varghese P.C.Enviado porGabriel Ionita
- mechanics and design of reinforced concrete_victor e.saouma_2002.pdfEnviado porGabriel Ionita

- Unico HVAC Air Handler Replacement Guide Available from Unique Indoor Comfort LibertyvilleEnviado porUnique Indoor Comfort Libertyville Heating and Air Conditioning
- CFD BackgroundEnviado porBaliramBhosle
- Som Lecture PlanEnviado pormanmohansinghlotey
- Flexural Analysis DesignEnviado porBoreir
- RC Retaining WallEnviado porKatherine Shayne Yee
- Butterfly ValveEnviado porBoy Liverpool
- Controllable Pitch in Flight Vaneaxial Fans Axico Anti Stall (Models Fpac Fpda) Catalog Fa 202Enviado pormohmehr
- SBE SS10 SecureEnviado porilovevina
- A macro-element model for masonry-infilled structural framesEnviado porMohamed
- PLC ROC F9 C9Enviado poreko sunaryo
- OSID 141Enviado porStarla Hill
- Chemcad PipingEnviado porSajjad Ahmed
- Effectiveness Analysis of Additive Manufactured Heat Exchanger through Selective Laser Sintering Process for HRVEnviado porSaad Saleem
- Engineering Drawing NotesEnviado porAnonymous OFP2ygPId
- Product Manual - Juki PLC-2700 (2 Needle Post)Enviado porWill
- Characteristics of Masonry in Romania in Correlation with the European CodesEnviado porJoseph Chen
- Mee353 Vehicle Technology (Automotive Chassis and Body Engineering) Th 1.00 Ac21Enviado poryashvant
- Riveted JointsEnviado porgaur1234
- 3 Quarterly Test in ScienceEnviado porrenalou
- Basic Principlesand Calculations in Process Technology.pdfEnviado porSampathkumar Attuluri
- PY205-Syllabus-F17 (1)Enviado porRyan Li
- Advanced Cooling- Chiller Hire Case StudiesEnviado porinfo3903
- Manual Elevador 2 Columnas XG-3Enviado porJuan Sandy
- Minor Project MeEnviado porpuneet
- 2017 Latbsdc Criteria Final 06-08-17Enviado porMir Shabir Ali Talpur
- PLM Documentation Dim Tolerancing Gages Fixtures Principles [EDocFind.com](2)Enviado porCecilia Lauretta
- metallurgical basicsEnviado pormohgscribd
- Punch ProblemsEnviado porAl Engg
- ScriEnviado pordhinesht
- 510.docEnviado porseso20081