Esempi EC2 2004
Esempi EC2 2004
Esempi EC2 2004
WORKED EXAMPLES
EUROCODE 2
WORKED EXAMPLES
Eurocodes are one of the most advanced suite of structural codes in the world. They
embody the collective experience and knowledge of whole of Europe. They are born
out of an ambitious programme initiated by the European Union. With a wealth of
code writing experience in Europe, it was possible to approach the task in a rational
and logical manner. Eurocodes reflect the results of research in material technology
and structural behaviour in the last fifty years and they incorporate all modern trends
in structural design.
Like many current national codes in Europe, Eurocode 2 (EC 2) for concrete
structures draws heavily on the CEB Model Code. And yet the presentation and
terminology, conditioned by the agreed format for Eurocodes, might obscure the
similarities to many national codes. Also EC 2 in common with other Eurocodes,
tends to be general in character and this might present difficulty to some designers at
least initially.
The problems of coming to terms with a new set of codes by busy practising
engineers cannot be underestimated. This is the backdrop to the publication of
Commentary and Worked Examples to EC 2 by Professor Mancini and his
colleagues. Commissioned by BIBM, CEMBUREAU, EFCA and ERMCO this
publication should prove immensely valuable to designers in discovering the
background to many of the code requirements. This publication will assist in building
confidence in the new code, which offers tools for the design of economic and
innovative concrete structures.
The publication brings together many of the documents produced by the Project Team
during the development of the code. The document is rich in theoretical explanations
and draws on much recent research. Comparisons with the ENV stage of EC2 are also
provided in a number of cases. The chapter on EN 1990 (Basis of structural design) is
an added bonus and will be appreciated by practioners. Worked examples further
illustrate the application of the code and should promote understanding.
The commentary will prove an authentic companion to EC 2 and deserves every
success.
Professor R S Narayanan
Chairman CEN/TC 250/SC2 (2002 2005)
Camberley, may 2008
Joost Walraven
Convenor of Project Team for EC2 (1998 -2002)
Delft, may 2008
summary
Table of Content
summary
EXAMPLE 6.9. THICK SHORT CORBEL, a<Z/2 [EC2 CLAUSE 6.5] ............................................................................... 6-18
EXAMPLE 6.10 THICK CANTILEVER BEAM, A>Z/2 [EC2 CLAUSE 6.5] ........................................................................ 6-21
EXAMPLE 6.11 GERBER BEAM [EC2 CLAUSE 6.5] .................................................................................................... 6-24
EXAMPLE 6.12 PILE CAP [EC2 CLAUSE 6.5]............................................................................................................. 6-28
EXAMPLE 6.13 VARIABLE HEIGHT BEAM [EC2 CLAUSE 6.5] .................................................................................... 6-32
EXAMPLE 6.14. 3500 KN CONCENTRATED LOAD [EC2 CLAUSE 6.5] ........................................................................ 6-38
EXAMPLE 6.15 SLABS, [EC2 CLAUSE 5.10 6.1 6.2 7.2 7.3 7.4] ................................................................... 6-40
Table of Content
2-1
Fig. 2.1. Load combination for verification of holding down devices at the end bearings.
Fig. 2.2. Load combination for verification of bending moment in the BC span.
Table of Content
2-2
EXAMPLE 2.2. ULS combinations of actions for a canopy [EC2 clause 2.4]
Let us consider a shed subjected to the following loads:
Self-weight
Gk1
Permanent imposed load
Gk2
Snow imposed load
Qk1
EQU Static equilibrium (Set A)
Factors to be taken for the verification of overturning are those of Set A, as indicated in
Fig. 2.3.
Table of Content
Fig. 2.4. Load combination for the compression verification of the column.
Fig. 2.5. Load combination for the verification of bending with axial force of the column.
Table of Content
2-3
2-4
Characteristic value Qk
serviceability
imposed load
Qk,es
Combination value 0 Qk
0.7 Qk,es
Variable actions
snow on roofing
wind
Qk,n
0.5 Qk,n
Fk,w
0.6 F
k,w
(for sites under 1000 m a.m.s.l.)
N.B. The values of partial factors are those recommended by EN1990, but they may be defined in the National Annex.
2.6. Basic combinations for the verification of the superstructure (Set B): a) Wind predominant, favourable vertical loads;
b) Wind predominant, unfavourable vertical loads; c) Snow load predominant; d) service load predominant.
Table of Content
Fig.
2-5
Basic combinations for the verification of foundations and ground resistance STR/GEO
[eq. 6.10-EN1990]
EN1990 allows for three different approaches; the approach to be used is chosen in the
National Annex. For completeness and in order to clarify what is indicated in Tables 1.15 and
1.16, the basic combinations of actions for all the three approaches provided by EN1990 are
given below.
Approach 1
The design values of Set C and Set B of geotechnical actions and of all other actions from the
structure, or on the structure are applied in separate calculations. Heavier values are usually
given by Set C for the geotechnical verifications (ground resistance verification), and by Set B
for the verification of the concrete structural elements of the foundation.
Set C (geotechnical verifications)
Predominant action: snow
1.0Gk + 1.3Qk,n + 1.30.7Qk,es + 1.30.6Fk,w = 1.0Gk + 1.3Qk,n + 0.91Qk,es + 0.78Fk,w
Predominant action: service load
1.0Gk + 1.3Qk,es + 1.30.5Qk,n + 1.30.6Fk,w = 1.0Gk + 1.3Qk,n + 0.65Qk,es + 0.78Fk,w
Predominant action: wind (unfavourable vertical loads)
1.0Gk + 1.3 Fk,w + 1.30.5Qk,n + 1.30.7Qk,es = 1.0Gk + 1.3 Fk,w + 0.65 Qk,n + 0.91Qk,es
Predominant action: wind (favourable vertical loads)
1.0Gk + 1.3 Fk,w
Fig. 2.7. Basic combinations for the verification of the foundations (Set C): a) Wind predominant, favourable vertical loads;
b) Wind predominant, unfavourable vertical loads; c) Snow load predominant; d) service load predominant.
Table of Content
2-6
EQU - (static equilibrium of rigid body: verification of global stability to heave and sliding) (Set A)
Only that part of the embankment beyond the foundation footing is considered for the
verification of global stability to heave and sliding (Fig. 2.9).
1.1Sk,terr + 0.9(Gk,wall + Gk,terr) + 1.5Sk,sovr
Table of Content
2-7
Fig. 2.9. Actions for EQU ULS verification of a retaining wall in reinforced concrete
For brevity, only cases in relation with case b), i.e. with surcharge acting on the whole surface
of embankment, are given below.
The following figures show loads in relation to the combinations obtained with Set B partial
safety factors.
Table of Content
Fig. 2.11. Actions for GEO/STR ULS verification of a retaining wall in reinforced concrete.
Table of Content
2-8
2-9
Approach 2
Set B is used.
Approach 3
Factors from Set C for geotechnical actions and from Set B for other actions are used in one
calculation.
1.0Sk,terr + 1.0Gk,wall + 1.0Gk,terr + 1.3Qk,sovr + 1.3Sk,sovr
1.0Sk,terr + 1.35Gk,wall + 1.35Gk,terr + 1.3Qk,sovr + 1.3Sk,sovr
1.0Sk,terr + 1.0Gk,wall + 1.35Gk,terr + 1.3Qk,sovr + 1.3Sk,sovr
1.0Sk,terr + 1.35Gk,wall + 1.0Gk,terr + 1.3Qk,sovr + 1.3Sk,sovr
A numeric example is given below.
EXAMPLE 2.5. Concrete retaining wall: global stability and ground resistance
verifications [EC2 clause 2.4]
The assumption is initially made that the surcharge acts only on the part of embankment
beyond the foundation footing.
Fig. 2.12.Wall dimensions and actions on the wall (surcharge outside the foundation footing).
=18 kN/m3
=30
Ka = 0.33
=0
Pk,wall = 0.30 2.50 25 = 18.75 kN/m
Pk,foot = 0.50 2.50 25 = 31.25 kN/m
Gk,wall = Pk,wall + Pk,foot = 18.75 + 31.25 = 50 kN/m
self weight of ground above footing: Gk,ground = 18 2.50 1.70 = 76.5 kN/m
surcharge on embankment:
Qk,surch =10 kN/m2
ground horizontal force:
Sk,ground = 26.73 kN/m
surcharge horizontal force:
Sk,surch = 9.9 kN/m
weight density:
angle of shearing resistance:
factor of horiz. active earth pressure:
wall-ground interface friction angle:
self-weight of wall:
self-weight of footing:
Table of Content
2-10
Verification to Overturning
overturning moment
moment from ground lateral force (G=1.1): MS,ground = 1.1(26.733.00/3) = 29.40 kNm/m
moment from surcharge lateral force (Q=1.5): MS,surch = 1.5 (9.90 1.50) = 22.28 kNm/m
overturning moment: Mrib = 29.40 + 22.28 = 51.68 kNm/m
stabilizing moment
Mstab,wall = 0.9(18.750.65) = 10.97 kNm/m
moment wall self-weight (G=0.9):
moment footing self-weight (G=0.9):
Mstab,foot = 0.9(31.251.25) = 35.16 kNm/m
Mstab,ground = 0.9(76.51.65) = 113.60 kNm/m
moment ground self-weight (G=0.9):
stabilizing moment: Mstab = 10.97 + 35.16 + 113.60 = 159.73 kNm/m
safety factor to global stability
FS = Mstab/Mrib = 159.73/51.68 = 3.09
Table of Content
2-11
Fig. 2.13. Dimensions of the retaining wall of the numeric example with surcharge on the whole embankment.
Table of Content
2-12
Table 2.2. Max pressure for four different combinations of partial factors of permanent loads
Combination
MS,ground
(kNm/m)
MS,surch
(kNm/m)
Mwall
(kNm/m)
Mground
(kNm/m)
Mtot
(kNm/m)
Pwall
(kN/m)
Pfoot
(kN/m)
Pground
(kN/m)
Ptot
(kN/m)
eccentricity (m)
pressure on ground (kN/m2)
third
36.08
(Q=1.35)
22.28
(Q=1.5)
11.25
(G=1.0)
-41.31
(G=1.35)
fourth
36.08
(Q=1.35)
22.28
(Q=1.5)
15.19
(G=1.35)
-30.60
(G=1.0)
39.01
32.24
28.30
42.95
18.75
(G=1.0)
31.25
(G=1.0)
76.50
(G=1.0)
25.31
(G=1.35)
42.19
(G=1.35)
103.28
(G=1.35)
18.75
(G=1.0)
31.25
(G=1.0)
103.28
(G=1.35)
25.31
(G=1.35)
42.19
(G=1.35)
76.50
(G=1.0)
126.50
170.78
153.28
144
0.31
88.05
0.19
99.26
0.18
88.48
0.30
98.83
Table 2.3. Max pressure on ground for four different combinations of partial factors of permanent loads
Combination
MS,ground
(kNm/m)
MS,surch
(kNm/m)
Mwall
(kNm/m)
Mground
(kNm/m)
Msurch
(kNm/m)
Mtot
(kNm/m)
Pwall
(kN/m)
Pfoot
(kN/m)
Pterr
(kN/m)
Psurch
(kN/m)
fourth
36.08
(Q=1.35)
22.28
(Q=1.5)
15.19
(G=1.35)
-30.60
(G=1.0)
-10.20
(Q=1.5)
28.81
22.04
18.10
32.75
18.75
(G=1.0)
31.25
(G=1.0)
76.50
(G=1.0)
25.50
(Q=1.5)
25.31
(G=1.35)
42.19
(G=1.35)
103.28
(G=1.35)
25.50
(Q=1.5)
18.75
(G=1.0)
31.25
(G=1.0)
103.28
(G=1.35)
25.50
(Q=1. 5)
25.31
(G=1.35)
42.19
(G=1.35)
76.50
(G=1.0)
25.50
(Q=1.5)
Ptot
152.0
196.28
178.78
169.50
(kN/m)
eccentricity (m)
0.19
0.11
0.10
0.19
pressure on ground (kN/m2)
88.46
99.67
88.89
99.24
The two additional lines, not present in Table 1.18 and here highlighted in bold, correspond to the moment and
to the vertical load resulting from the surcharge above the footing.
The max pressure on ground is achieved once again for the second combination and its value
is here higher than the one calculated in the previous scheme.
Table of Content
4-1
Fig. 4.1
From table E.1N - EC2 we see that, in order to obtain an adequate concrete durability, the
reference (min.) concrete strength class for exposure class XC1 is C20/25; the resistance
class adopted (C25/30) is suitable as it is higher than the reference strength class.
The structural class is S4.
First, the concrete cover for the stirrups is calculated.
With:
cmin,b = 8 mm
We obtain from table 4.4N - EC2:
cmin,dur = 15 mm
Moreover:
cdur, = 0 ;
cdur,st = 0 ;
cdur,add = 0 .
From relation (3.2):
cmin = max (cmin,b; cmin,dur + cdur, - cdur,st - cdur,add; 10 mm) =
max (8; 15 + 0 0 0; 10 mm) = 15 mm
Moreover:
Table of Content
4-2
cdev = 10 mm.
cdev = 10 mm.
Table of Content
4-3
Design the concrete cover for a reinforced concrete beam placed outside a residential
building situated close to the coast.
The exposure class is XS1.
We originally assume concrete with strength class C25/30.
The longitudinal reinforcement bars are 5 20; the stirrups are 8 at 100 mm .
The maximal aggregate size is: dg = 20 mm (< 32 mm).
The design working life of the structure is 50 years.
A normal quality control is put in place.
Refer to figure 3.2.
From table E.1N - EC2 we find that, in order to obtain an adequate concrete durability, the
reference (min.) concrete strength class for exposure class XS1 is C30/37; the concrete
strength class must therefore be increased from the originally assumed C25/30 to C30/37,
even if the actions on concrete were compatible with strength class C25/30.
Fig. 4.2
In accordance with what has been stated in example 3.1, we design the minimum concrete
cover with reference to both the stirrups and the longitudinal bars.
The structural class is S4
We obtain ( c min,dur = 35 mm ; cdev = 10 mm):
-
The concrete cover for the stirrups is dominant. In this case, the concrete cover for
longitudinal bars is increased to: 45 + 8 = 53 mm .
Table of Content
4-4
Calculate the concrete cover of a TT precast element, made of prestressed reinforced concrete,
placed outside an industrial building situated close to the coast.
The exposure class is XS1.
We use concrete with strength class C45/55.
At the lower side of the two ribbings of the TT element we have:
longitudinal 12 reinforcement bars;
8 stirrups at 100 mm ;
strands 0,5 .
The maximal aggregate size is: dg = 16 mm.
The design working life of the structure is 50 years.
An accurate quality control of concrete production is put in place.
Refer to figure 3.3.
We find out from table E.1N - EC2 that for exposure class XS1, the minimum concrete
strength class is C30/37; strength class C45/55 is therefore adequate.
The original structural class is S4.
In accordance with table 4.3N:
the structural class is reduced by 1 as the concrete used (C45/55) is of strength class
higher than C40/50;
the structural class is reduced by 1 as special quality control of the concrete production
is ensured
We then refer to structural class S2.
Calculating first the concrete cover for stirrups.
We have:
c min,b = 8 mm .
We obtain from table 4.4N - EC2:
c min,dur = 25 mm .
Moreover:
c dur, = 0 ;
cdur,st = 0 ;
cdur,add = 0 .
From relation (3.2):
c min = max (c min,b ; c min,dur + c dur, c dur,st c dur,add ; 10 mm ) =
= max (8; 25 + 0 0 0; 10 mm) = 25 mm .
Table of Content
4-5
Considering that the TT element is cast under procedures subjected to a highly efficient
quality control, in which the concrete cover length is also assessed, the value of cdev can
be taken as 5 mm.
We obtain from relation (3.1):
c nom = c min + cdev = 25 + 5 = 30 mm .
Calculating now the concrete cover for longitudinal bars.
We have:
c min,b = 12 mm .
We obtain from table 4.4N - EC2:
c min,dur = 25 mm .
Moreover:
c dur, = 0 ;
cdur,st = 0 ;
cdur,add = 0 .
From relation (3.2):
c min = max (c min,b ; c min,dur + c dur, c dur,st c dur,add ; 10 mm ) =
= max (12; 25 + 0 0 0; 10 mm) = 25 mm .
We obtain from relation (3.1):
c nom = c min + cdev = 25 + 5 = 30 mm .
Note that for the ordinary reinforcement bars, the concrete cover for stirrups is dominant.
In this case, the concrete cover for longitudinal bars is increased to: 30 + 8 = 38 mm .
Fig. 4.3
Table of Content
4-6
We have:
c min,b = 1,5 12,5 = 18,8 mm .
We obtain from table 4.5N - EC2:
c min,dur = 35 mm .
Moreover:
c dur, = 0 ;
cdur,st = 0 ;
cdur,add = 0 .
From relation (3.2):
c min = max (18,8; 35 + 0 0 0; 10 mm) = 35 mm .
Moreover:
cdev = 5 mm .
From relation (3.1):
c nom = 35 + 5 = 40 mm .
The first strands axis is placed at 50mm from the lower end of the ribbing of the TT
element. The concrete cover for the lower strands of the TT element (one for each ribbing)
is therefore equal to 43mm.
Table of Content
6-1
Geometrical data: b= 500 mm; h = 1000 mm; d' = 50 mm; d = 950 mm.
Steel and concrete resistance, 1 and 2 factors and x1, x2 values are shown in table 6.1.
Fig. 6.1 Geometrical data and Possible strain distributions at the ultimate limit states
Table 6.1 Material data, 1 and 2 factors and neutral axis depth.
Example
6.1
6.2
fyk
(MPa)
450
450
fyd
(MPa)
391
391
fck
(MPa)
30
90
fcd
(MPa)
17
51
0.80
0.56
0.40
0.35
x1
(mm)
113,5
203.0
x2
(mm)
608,0
541.5
First the NRd values corresponding to the 4 configurations of the plane section are
calculated.
NRd1 = 0.8500113.51710-3 = 772 kN
NRd2 = 0.8500608.01710-3 = 4134 kN.
The maximum moment resistance MRd,max = 2821.2 kNm goes alongside it.
NRd3 = 0.85009501710-3 + 500039110-3 = 6460 + 1955 = 8415 kN
NRd4 = 0.850010001710-3 + 500039110-3 = 8500 + 3910 = 12410 kN
MRd3 must also be known. This results: MRd3 = 6460(500 0,4950) 10-3 = 1655 kNm
Subsequently, for a chosen value of NEd in each interval between two following values of
NRd written above and one smaller than NRd1, the neutral axis x, MRd, and the eccentricity
6-1
6-2
M Rd
e = N are calculated. Their values are shown in Table 6.2.
Ed
Table 6.2. Example 1: values of axial force, depth of neutral axis, moment resistance, eccentricity.
NEd (kN)
X (m)
MRd (kNm)
e (m)
600
2000
5000
10000
0,105
0,294
0,666
virtual neutral axis
2031
2524
2606
1000
3.38
1.26
0.52
0.10
Developing, it results:
x2 + 66.91x 488970 = 0
which is satisfied for x = 666 mm
950
The stress in the lower reinforcement is: s = 0.0035 200000
1 = 297N / mm 2
666
Table of Content
2606
= 0, 52m
5000
6-3
NEd
(kN)
1500
5000
10000
19000
Table of Content
x
(m)
0,142
0,350
0,619
virtual neutral axis
MRd
(kNm)
4194
5403
5514
2702
e
(m)
2.80
1.08
0.55
0.14
6-4
EXAMPLE 6.3 Calculation of VRd,c for a prestressed beam [EC2 clause 6.2]
Rectangular section bw = 100 mm, h = 200 mm, d = 175 mm. No longitudinal or transverse
reinforcement bars are present. Class C40 concrete. Average prestressing cp = 5,0 MPa.
Design tensile resistance in accordance with:
fctd = ct fctk, 0,05/C = 1 2,5/1,5= 1,66 MPa
Cracked sections subjected to bending moment.
VRd,c = (min + k1 cp) bwd
where min = 0,626 and k1 = 0,15. It results:
VRd,c = (0.626 + 0.155.0)100175 = 24.08 kN
Non-cracked sections subjected to bending moment. With I = 1 it results
200 3
I = 100
= 66.66 106 mm 4
12
S=
VRd,c =
Table of Content
6-5
EXAMPLE 6.4 Determination of shear resistance given the section geometry and
mechanics [EC2 clause 6.2]
= sin 2
it results: sin 2 =
Then VRd,s =
A sw
226
z f ywd cot =
500 391 1.29 10 3 = 380 kN
s
150
b) For the same section and reinforcement, with fck = 60 MPa, fcd = 34 MPa;
= 0.532, proceeding as above it results:
sin 2 =
226 391
= 0.2171
150 150 0.532 34
VRd,s =
A sw
226
z f ywd cot =
500 391 1.90 10 3 = 560 kN
s
150
c) For the same section and reinforcement, with fck = 90 MPa, fcd = 51 MPa; = 0.512,
proceeding as above it results:
sin 2 =
226 391
= 0.1504 hence cot = 2.38
150 150 0.512 51
VRd,s =
A sw
226
z f ywd cot =
500 391 2.38 103 = 701 kN
s
150
Table of Content
6-6
Determination of reinforcement (vertical stirrups) given the beam and shear action VEd
Rectangular beam bw = 200 mm, h = 800 mm, d = 750 mm, z = 675 mm; vertical stirrups
fywd = 391 MPa. Three cases are shown, with varying values of VEd and of fck.
VEd = 600 kN; fck = 30 MPa ; fcd = 17 MPa ; = 0.616
1
2VEd
1
2 600000
Then = arcsin
= arcsin
= 29.0 o
2
( cw fcd )b w z 2
(1 0.616 17) 200 675
A sw
VEd
600000
=
=
= 1.263 mm 2 / mm
s
z f ywd cot 675 391 1.80
A sw
VEd
900000
=
=
= 1.50 mm 2 / mm
s
z f ywd cot 675 391 2.27
A sw
VEd
1200000
=
=
= 1.82 mm 2 / mm
s
z f ywd cot 675 391 2.50
Table of Content
6-7
EXAMPLE 6.4b the same above, with steel S500C fyd = 435 MPa. [EC2 clause 6.2]
= sin 2
it results: sin 2 =
Then VRd,s =
A sw
226
z f ywd cot =
500 435 1.18 10 3 = 387 kN
s
150
b) For the same section and reinforcement, with fck = 60 MPa , fcd = 34 MPa;
= 0.532, proceeding as above it results:
sin 2 =
226 435
= 0.242
150 150 0.532 34
VRd,s =
A sw
226
z f ywd cot =
500 435 1.77 10 3 = 580 kN
s
150
c) For the same section and reinforcement, with fck = 90 MPa, fcd = 51 MPa; = 0.512,
proceeding as above it results:
sin 2 =
226 435
= 0.167
150 150 0.512 51
VRd,s =
A sw
226
z f ywd cot =
500 435 2.23 10 3 = 731 kN
s
150
Determination of reinforcement (vertical stirrups) given the beam and shear action VEd
Rectangular beam bw = 200 mm, h = 800 mm, d = 750 mm, z = 675 mm; vertical stirrups
fywd = 391 MPa. Three cases are shown, with varying values of VEd and of fck.
VEd = 600 kN; fck = 30 MPa ; fcd = 17 MPa ; = 0.616 then
1
2VEd
1
2 600000
= arcsin
= arcsin
= 29.0 o hence cot = 1.80
2
( cw fcd )b w z 2
(1 0.616 17) 200 675
It results:
A sw
VEd
600000
=
=
= 1.135 mm 2 / mm
s
z f ywd cot 675 435 1.80
Table of Content
6-8
A sw
VEd
900000
=
=
= 1.35 mm 2 / mm
s
z f ywd cot 675 435 2.27
A sw
VEd
1200000
=
=
= 1.63 mm 2 / mm
s
z f ywd cot 675 435 2.50
Table of Content
6-9
A sw ,max f ywd
bw s
0.5
cw 1fcd
sin
157 391
1 0.616 17
= 2.72 < 7.40
0.5
150 150
0.707
bsfcd
1
A sw f ywd sin
Calculation of VRd
It results: VRd,s =
157
675 391 (2.10 + 1.0) 0.707 10 3 = 605.4 kN
150
Table of Content
6-10
Ring rectangular section, Fig. 6.2, with depth 1500 mm, width 1000 mm, d = 1450 mm,
with 200 mm wide vertical members and 150 mm wide horizontal members.
Materials:
fck = 30 MPa
fyk = 500 MPa
Results of actions:
VEd = 1300 kN (force parallel to the larger side)
TEd = 700 kNm
Design resistances:
fcd =0.85(30/1.5) = 17.0 MPa
= 0.7[1-30/250] = 0.616
fcd = 10.5 MPa
fyd = 500/1.15 = 435 MPa
Geometric elements:
uk = 2(1500-150) + 2(1000-200) = 4300 mm
Ak = 1350 800 = 1080000 mm2
The maximum equivalent shear in each of the vertical members is (z refers to the length of
the vertical member):
V*Ed = VEd / 2 + (TEd z) / 2Ak = [1300103/2 + (700106 1350)/(21.08106)]10-3 = 1087 kN
Verification of compressed concrete with cot =1. It results:
VRd,max = t z fcd sin cos = 200135010.50.7070.707 = 1417 k N > V*Ed
Table of Content
6-11
Determination of angle :
*
1
2VEd
1
2 1087000
= arcsin
= arcsin
= 25.03o
2
fcd tz 2
10.5 200 1350
Table of Content
6-12
resistant hollow
section
Example: full rectangular section b = 300 mm , h = 500 mm, z =400 mm (Fig. 6.3)
Materials:
fck = 30 MPa
fcd = 0.85(30/1.5) = 17.0 MPa
30
= 0.7 1
= 0.616 ; fcd = 10.5 MPa
250
A= 150000 mm2
u = 1600 mm
t = A/u = 94 mm
Ak = (500 94) (300-94) = 83636 mm2
Assumption: = 26.56o (cot = 2.0)
It results: VRd,max = cw bwzfcd/ (cot + tan ) = 10.5300400/(2+0.5) = 504 kN
and for the taken z = 400 mm
TRd,max = 210.583636940.44710.8945 = 66 kNm
Table of Content
6-13
The diagram is shown in Fig. 6.4. Points below the straight line that connects the resistance
values on the two axis represent safety situations. For instance, if VEd = 350 kN is taken, it
results that the maximum compatible torsion moment is 20 kNm.
On the figure other diagrams in relation with different values are shown as dotted lines.
Second case: light action effects
Same section and materials as in the previous case. The safety condition (absence of
cracking) is expressed by:
TEd /TRd,c + VEd /VRd,c 1
[(6.31)-EC2]
200
= 1.63
500
(100lfck )
1/3
= (100 0.01 30 )
Table of Content
1/3
= ( 30 )
1/3
6-14
Table of Content
6-15
Geometry: 5400 x 3000 mm beam (depth b = 250 mm), 400 x 250 mm columns, columns
reinforcement 620
We state that the strut location C2 is 200 cm from the bottom reinforcement, so that the inner
drive arm is equal to the elastic solution in the case of a wall beam with ratio 1/h=2, that is
0.67 h; it suggests to use the range (0.6 0.7)l as values for the effective depth, lower than the
case of a slender beam with the same span.
Materials: concrete C25/30 fck = 25 MPa, steel B450C fyk = 450 MPa
f cd =
f yd =
0.85f ck 0.85 25
=
= 14.17 N / mm 2 ,
1.5
1.5
f yk
1.15
450
= 391.3 N / mm 2
1.15
1Rd,max
f ck
1
250
25
2
= k1
f cd = 1.18 1 14.17 = 15 N / mm
0.85
250
Table of Content
2Rd,max
6-16
f ck
1
250
25
2
= k2
f cd = 1 14.17 = 12.75 N / mm
0.85
250
3Rd,max
f ck
1
250
25
2
= k3
f cd = 0.88 1 14.17 = 11.22 N / mm
0.85
250
Actions
Distributed load: 150 kN/m upper surface and 150 kN/m lower surface
Columns reaction
R = (150+150)5.40/2 = 810 kN
Evaluation of stresses in lattice bars
Equilibrium node 1
C1 =
ql
= 405 kN
2
Equilibrium node 3
C3 =
R
= 966 kN
sen
(where = arctg
2000
= 56.98 )
1300
T1 = C 3 cos = 526 kN
Equilibrium node 2
C2 = C3cos = T1 = 526 kN
Equilibrium node 4
T2 =
ql
= 405 kN
2
Tension rods
526000
= 1344 mm 2
391.,3
the reinforcement of the lower tension rod are located at the height of 0,12 h = 360 mm
The tension rod T2 requires a steel area not lower than:
A s1
405000
= 1035 mm 2
391.3
Table of Content
6-17
Nodes verification
Node 3
The node geometry is unambiguously
defined by the column width, the wall
depth (250 mm), the height of the side on
which the lower bars are distributed and by
the strut C3 fall (Fig. 6.7)
c1 =
810000
= 8.1 N / mm 2 2Rd,max
400 250
Remark as the verification of the column contact pressure is satisfied even without taking into account the
longitudinal reinforcement (620) present in the column.
c2 =
966000
= 7.27 N / mm 2 2Rd,max
531.6 250
Table of Content
6-18
Geometry: 250 x 400 mm cantilever (width b = 400 mm), 150 x 300 load plate, beam
b x h = 400 x 400 mm
Materials: concrete C35/45 fck = 35 MPa, steel B450C fyk = 450 MPa
0.85f ck 0.85 35
=
= 19.83 N / mm 2 ,
1.5
1.5
f yk
450
f yd =
=
= 391.3 N / mm 2
1.15 1.15
f cd =
1Rd,max
f ck
1
250
35
2
= k1
f cd = 1.18 1 19.83 = 20.12 N / mm
0.85
250
Table of Content
6-19
2Rd,max
f ck
1
250
35
2
= k2
f cd = 1 19.83 = 17.05 N / mm
0.85
250
3Rd,max
f ck
1
250
35
2
= k3
f cd = 0.88 1 19.83 = 15 N / mm
0.85
250
Actions
FEd = 700 kN
Load eccentricity with respect to the column side: e = 125 mm (Fig. 6.8)
The beam vertical strut width is evaluated by setting the compressive stress equal to 1Rd,max:
x1 =
FEd
1Rd,max b
700000
87 mm
20.12 400
the node 1 is located x1/2 44 mm from the outer column side (Fig. 6.9)
We state that the upper reinforcement is located 40 mm from the upper cantilever side; the
distance y1 of the node 1 from the lower border is evaluated setting the internal drive arm z
equal to 0.8d (z = 0,8360 = 288 mm):
y1 = 0.2d = 0.2360 = 72 mm
node 1verification:
=
Fc
411000
=
= 7.14 N / mm 2 1Rd,max = 20.12 N / mm 2
b ( 2 y1 ) 400 ( 2 72 )
Ft
411000
=
= 1050 mm 2 we use 814 (As = 1232 mm2)
f yd
391.3
The beam proposed in EC2 is indeterminate, then it is not possible to evaluate the stresses for
each single bar by equilibrium equations only, but we need to know the stiffness of the two
elementary beams shown in Fig. 6.10 in order to make the partition of the diagonal stress
F
F
Table of Content
6-20
Fig. 6.10 S&T model resolution in two elementary beams and partition of the diagonal stress Fdiag.
based on the trend of main compressive stresses resulting from linear elastic analysis at finite
elements, some researcher of Stuttgart have determined the two rates in which Fdiag is divided,
and they have provided the following expression of stress in the secondary reinforcement
(MC90 par. 6.8.2.2.1):
Fwd
z
288
2 1
2
1
a
125
44
+
=
Fc =
411 211 kN
3 + FEd / Fc
3 + 700 / 411
A sw =
Fwd 211000
=
539 mm 2 k1 A s = 0.25 1232 = 308 mm 2
f yd
391.3
The node 2 is a tied-compressed node, where the main reinforcement is anchored; the
compressive stress below the load plate is:
=
FEd
700000
=
= 15.56 N / mm 2 2Rd,max = 17.05 N / mm 2
150 300 45000
Table of Content
6-21
Geometry: 325 x 300 mm cantilever beam (width b = 400 mm), 150 x 220 mm load plate, 400
x 400 mm column
The model proposed in EC2 (Fig. 6.12) is indeterminate, then as in the previous example one
more boundary condition is needed to evaluate the stresses values in the rods;
The stress Fwd in the vertical tension rod is evaluated assuming a linear relation between Fwd
and the a value, in the range Fwd = 0 when a = z/2 and Fwd = FEd when a = 2z. This
assumption corresponds to the statement that when a z/2 (a very thick cantilever), the
resistant beam is the beam 1 only (Fig. 6.13a) and when a 2z the beam 2 only (Fig. 6.13b).
a)
b)
Table of Content
6-22
Fw1 =
and
Fw2 =
FEd
;
3
F
2 FEd
2a / z 1
.
a Ed = FEd
3 z
3
3
Materials: concrete C35/45 fck = 35 MPa, steel B450C fyk = 450 MPa
f cd =
f yd =
0.85f ck 0,85 35
=
= 19.83 N / mm 2 ,
1.5
1.5
f yk
1.15
450
= 391.3 N / mm 2
1.15
Actions:
FEd = 500 kN
Load eccentricity with respect to the column outer side: e = 200 mm
The column vertical strut width is evaluated setting the compressive stress equal to 1Rd,max:
x1 =
FEd
1Rd,max b
500000
62 mm
20.12 400
Table of Content
6-23
rotational equilibrium:
x
FEd e + 1 = Fc z
2
Fc = Ft =
node 1 verification
=
Fc
556000
=
= 13.37 N / mm 2 1Rd,max = 20.12 N / mm 2
b ( 2 y1 ) 400 ( 2 52 )
Ft 556000
=
= 1421 mm 2
f yd
391.3
Fw 204000
=
= 521 mm 2
f yd
391.3
FEd
500000
= 0.5
= 639 mm 2
f yd
391.3
The node 2 is a compressed-stressed node, in which the main reinforcement is anchored; the
compressive stress below the load plate is:
=
FEd
500000
=
= 15.15 N / mm 2 2Rd,max = 17.05 N / mm 2
150 220 33000
Table of Content
6-24
Two different strut-tie trusses can be considered for the design of a Gerber beam, eventually
in a combined configuration [EC2 (10.9.4.6)], (Fig. 6.14). Even if the EC2 allows the
possibility to use only one strut and then only one reinforcement arrangement, we remark as
the scheme b) results to be poor under load, because of the complete lack of reinforcement
for the bottom border of the beam. It seems to be opportune to combine the type b)
reinforcement with the type a) one, and the latter will carry at least half of the beam reaction.
On the other hand, if only the scheme a) is used, it is necessary to consider a longitudinal top
reinforcement to anchor both the vertical stirrups and the confining reinforcement of the
tilted strut C1.
a)
b)
Fig. 6.14 Possible strut and tie models for a Gerber beam.
Hereafter we report the partition of the support reaction between the two trusses.
Materials:
concrete
C25/30
fck = 25 MPa,
steel
B450C
f cd =
f yd =
[(3.2.7 (4)-EC2]
0.85f ck 0.85 25
=
= 14.17 N / mm 2 ,
1.5
1.5
f yk
1.15
450
= 391.3 N / mm 2
1.15
Actions:
Distributed load: 250 kN/m
Beam spam: 8000 mm
RSdu = 1000 kN
Bending moment in the beam mid-spam: MSdu = 2000 kNm
Beam section: b x h = 800 x 1400 mm
Bottom longitudinal reinforcement (As): 1024 = 4524 mm2
Table of Content
6-25
s' =
0,0035
(x d ') where d = 50 mm is the distance of the upper surface reinforcement
x
0.8b x f cd + E s 0.0035
x 50
A's = f yd A s
x
and then:
x = 99 mm
s' =
f
0.0035
391.3
( 99 50 ) = 0.00173 yd =
= 0.00196
99
E s 200000
then the compressed steel strain results lower than the strain in the elastic limit, as stated in
the calculation;
the compressive stress in the concrete is
C = 0.8 b x fcd = 0.88009914.17
Table of Content
6-26
Node 1 equilibrium:
= arctg
580
= 53,77
425
C1 =
R
= 620 kN
sin
T2 = C1 cos = 366 kN
580
= 38, 66
725
T2
= 260 kN
sin + cos
sin
C3 =
C 2 = 230 kN
sin45
C2 =
Node 3 equilibrium:
T1 = C1 sin + C2 sin = 663 kN
Tension rods design
663000
= 1694 mm 2
391.3
366000
= 935 mm 2
391.3
Table of Content
6-27
node 3 equilibrium
C3 = T1 = 707 kN
T2 = (T1 + C3)cos 45 = 1000 kN
Tension rods
for tension rod T2 it is necessary to adopt a steel area not lower than:
1000000
A s1
= 2556 mm 2
391.3
624 = 2712 mm2 are adopted,
a lower reinforcement area would be sufficient for tension rod T1 but for question of bar
anchoring the same reinforcement as in T2 is adopted.
Table of Content
6-28
Geometry: 4500 x 4500 mm plinth (thickness b=1500 mm), 2000 x 700 mm columns,
diameter 800 mm piles
Materials: concrete C25/30 fck = 25 MPa, steel B450C fyk = 450 MPa
0.85f ck 0.85 25
f cd =
=
= 14.17 N / mm 2 ,
1.5
1.5
f yd =
f yk
1.15
450
= 391.3 N / mm 2
1.15
Table of Content
6-29
tension:
A=A/2 = 1167 kN
B=B/2 = 167 kN
In the evaluation of stresses on piles, the plinth own weight is considered negligible.
Table of Content
6-30
Tension rod
Force
(kN)
1662
1544
154
1167
1188
170
167
Table of Content
Required
reinforcement
(mm2)
4248
3946
394
2982
3036
434
427
Bars
826
924
112/20 (612)
stirrups 1020
724
112/20 (512)
Pile reinforcement
6-31
Nodes verification
Concentrated nodes are only present at the pedestal pile and on the piles top. In these latter,
the compressive stresses are very small as a consequence of the piles section large area.:
c =
A
2333000
=
= 4.64 N mm 2
2
2
r
400
Table of Content
6-32
Geometry: length 22500 mm, rectangular section 300 x 3500 mm and 300 x 2000 mm
Materials: concrete C30/37 fck = 30 MPa, steel B450C fyk = 450 MPa
f cd =
f yd =
0.85f ck 0.85 30
=
= 17 N / mm 2 ,
1.5
1,5
f yk
1.15
450
= 391.3 N / mm 2
1.15
1Rd,max
f ck
1
250
30
2
= k1
f cd = 1.18 1 17 = 17.65 N / mm
0.85
250
2Rd,max
f ck
1
250
30
2
= k2
f cd = 1 17 = 14.96 N / mm
0.85
250
3Rd,max
f ck
1
250
30
2
= k3
f cd = 0.88 1 17 = 13.16 N / mm
0.85
250
loads
F = 1200 kN
(the own weight of the beam is negligible)
Table of Content
6-33
x = 522 mm
Table of Content
6-34
strut&tie model
Fig. 6.25 shows the load paths characterized by Schlaich in the strut&tie model identification,
shown in Fig. 6.26.
Table of Content
6-35
The following table reports the value for the stresses in the different beam elements.
Table 6.4
C1
T1
C2
T3
T2
C3
Floop
C4
C5
2130 kN
2130 kN
1647 kN
1128 kN
1128 kN
1128 kN
1002 kN
1509 kN
1595 kN
T1
T2
T3
18 20 = 5655 mm2
stirrups 12 / 10 2 legs = 2260 mm2/m
(2260 1,50 = 3390 mm2)
10 20 = 3142 mm2
Verification of nodes
Node A (left support)
6-36
Fc1
2Rd,max
1.2 106
= 80214 mm 2
14.96
u has to be higher (it is mandatory a reinforcement on more than two layers, or an increase of
the plate length); this last choice is adopted, and the length is increased from 300 to 400 mm:
a2 = 400 sin 46.76 + 150 cos 46.76 = 291 + 103 = 394 mm
1.647 106
c2 =
= 13.93 N / mm 2 14.96 N / mm 2
300 394
Node B
Compressed nodes
1Rd,max = 17.65 N/mm2
a3 = 522 mm (coincident with the depth of the neutral axis in the region B)
c3 =
C3
1.128 106
=
= 7.2 N / mm 2 17.65 N / mm 2
300 522 300 522
6-37
The compressive range for each strut (only exception, the strut C1, which stress has been
verified before in the forces evaluation for the region B) can spread between the two ends, in
this way the maximal stresses are in the nodes.
The transversal stress for the split of the most stressed strut (C2) is:
Ts 0.25C2 = 0.25 1647 = 412 kN;
412000
= 1053 mm 2 ,
391.3
then the minimum reinforcement (1 12 / 20 on both sides and in both directions, that is
as = 1130 mm2/m) is enough to carry the transversal stresses.
Table of Content
6-38
C30/37
B450C
fck = 30 MPa,
fyk = 450 MPa Es = 200000 MPa
0.85f ck 0.85 30
=
= 17 N / mm 2 ,
1.5
1.5
f yk
1.15
450
= 391.3 N / mm 2 ,
1.15
loading area
Ac0 = 300250 = 75000 mm2
h = 600 mm
It is worth to observe that the FRdu upper limit corresponds to the the maximal value Ac1 = 3
Ac0 for the load distribution area, just as in this example; the 3500kN load results to be lower
than FRdu .
Reinforcement design
Point [6.7(4)-EC2] recommends the use of a suitable reinforcement capable to sustain the
transversal shrinkage stresses and point [6.7(1)P-EC2] sends the reader to paragraph [(6.5)EC2] to analyse this topic.
In this case there is a partial discontinuity, because the strut width (500 mm) is lower than the
distribution height (600 mm), then:
a = 250 mm
Table of Content
b = 500 mm
T=
T 437500
=
= 1118 mm 2
f yd
391.3
using 10 mm diameter bars, 15 bars are required for a total area of:
As = 15 78.5 = 1178 mm2.
Table of Content
6-39
6-40
EXAMPLE 6.15 Slabs1,2 [EC2 clause 5.10 6.1 6.2 7.2 7.3 7.4]
As two dimensional member a prestressed concrete slab is analysed: the actual structure is
described in the following point.
6.15.1 Description of the structure
The design example proposed in this section is related to a railway bridge deck made up by
a continuous slab on three spans with two orders of prestressing tendons (longitudinal and
transverse prestressing). The slab is designed in category A (see Eurocode 2, Part 2, table
4.118) for fatigue reasons. The deck rests on abutments and circular piers and has a overall
breadth of 13.60 m with two side-walks of 1.40 m width, two ballast retaining walls and, in
the middle, two track spacing of 5.0 m. The slab presents a constant thickness of 1.50 m
for a central zone 7.0 m width, whilst is tapered towards the extremity with a final height
of 0.6 m. Fig.s 6.29 and 6.30 represent the principal geometric dimension of the slab
bridge and supports scheme.
Example taken from example 7.2 slabs by prof. Mancini, FIB Bullettin n3, Structural Concrete
Textbook on Behaviour, Design and Performance Vol. 3: Durability - Design for Fire Resistance - Member
Design - Maintenance, Assessment and Repair - Practical aspects Manual - textbook (292 pages, ISBN 9782-88394-043-7, December 1999).
Table of Content
6-41
Material properties
Concrete cover
Table of Content
6-42
To evaluate the internal actions on the structure a linear FEM analysis has been
performed adopting shell elements to represent the reinforced slab; this kind of element
takes account of all the slab and plate components as well as the out-of-plane shear forces.
The thickness of shell elements has been assumed constant for the inner zone of the slab
and stepped to fashion the tapered extremity. In Fig 6.31 and 6.32 the FEM model is
sketched and the different thick of the element is reported too.
The adopted shell elements are oriented with the following guidelines:
local axis 2 is oriented as global axis Y of the deck;
local axis 3 is oriented in the opposite direction of global axis X of the deck;
local axis 1 is oriented as global axis Z of the deck.
Positive forces for FEM program output are reported in Fig. 6.33:
Table of Content
6-43
Restraints
The external restraints have been introduced in the FEM model considering their real
geometric dimensions; thus, few nodes have been restrained by means of spring elements
in order to represent only an individual restraint or support. Fig. 6.34 shows a symbolic
notation for the external restraints with the nodes involved.
The elastic constant of the spring restraining elements is calculated to have the same
stiffness of the substructure (abutments or piers) on which the slab is rested. For the x and
y directions, it may be assumed that the pier, or the abutment front wall, behaves like a
Table of Content
6-44
single column fixed at the base and free at his top, so that the relevant Kx/y stiffness is
valuable as:
Kx / y =
3E I
H3
where E is the Young modulus, I the inertia and H the height of the column. For the
vertical direction, the intrinsic stiffness of pot-bearing is assumed, considering the
substructure vertical behaviour as rigid.
For the sake of simplicity the calculus of the relevant stiffness is omitted and the final
values of the spring constants are reported in table 6.6 .
Location
Abutment A
Pier P1
Pier P2
Abutment B
Kx,tot
10 kN/m
9.55
Ky,tot
10 kN/m
178.80
4.74
2.66
2.78
6
Kz,tot
10 kN/m
10.02
11.61
11.61
10.02
6
It can be noticed that the previous values are referred to the overall stiffness of the
restraint, thus the elastic constant of any individual spring element may be obtained
dividing the K values of table 6.6 by the number of element representing the restraint or
the supports.
Prestressing forces
Two orders of prestressing tendons are arranged (in longitudinal and transverse directions)
in order to avoid any tensile stress in concrete at service (required by railway code). The
initial tensile stress of tendon is:
po,max = 0.85 fp 0.1k = 0.85 1600 = 1360 MPa.
The number of tendons is 39 for the longitudinal direction and 64 for the transverse one.
Each tendon is built up with 19 strands 0.6 having an area of 1.39 cm2. Fig. 6.35 reports
tendons layout for half deck, being symmetrically disposed.
Table of Content
6-45
Immediate losses of prestressing due to friction have been evaluated by means of the
following expression:
po (x) = po,max e-( + k x)
with:
= 0.19
k = 0.01 rad/m
Prestressing has to be introduced in the FEM model in order to calculated the hyperstatic
actions that arise in the structural scheme. Considering prestressing as an external load, it is
possible to introduce it by means of two inclined forces at anchorages (representing actions
at the extremity) and of a system of equivalent loads along tendons profile (representing
tendon curvature and losses due to friction): these actions per tendon, should be applied
consistently at the nodes of FEM model.
The equivalent loads may be calculated subdividing the tendon profile into elementary
segments and evaluating the internal action able to equilibrate the external one due to end
actions deriving by the prestressing.
Table of Content
6-46
Fig. 6.36 represents the forces acting on a segment of concrete due to a curved
prestressing tendon; if the inclination of the cable changes from 1 to 2 while the prestress
force changes from P1 to P2 due to friction, the equilibrating vertical and horizontal forces
in the i-segment result:
Fv,i = P2 sin 2 P1 sin 1
Table of Content
6-47
p , c + s + r =
cs ( t , t 0 ) Es + pr + ( t , t 0 ) ( cg + cp 0 )
1+
A p
Ac 2
zcp (1 + 0.8 ( t , t 0 ))
1 +
A c
Ic
where:
p,c+s+r :
loss of initial tendon stress due to creep and shrinkage of concrete and
relaxation of steel, between time t0 and time t;
t0 = 28 days:
cso = s ( fcm) RH
with:
Table of Content
t t0
= 0.574
0.035 h 2 + t t 0
6-48
1 RH 100
= 1.281;
0.1 3 h
( fcm) =
5.3
= 2.556;
fcm fcmo
(t0) =
1
= 0.488
0.1 + t 0 0.2
0.3
t t0
c (t - t0) =
H + t t 0
= 0.983
18
with
(t , t0) = 1.5754
in good aggrement with the previous one, at least for creep value.
pr :
t
1000
0 .19
= 1000h 3 where
Table of Content
6-49
c. :
cpo :
= Es/Ec:
Ap :
Ac :
Ic :
zcp :
lever arm between centroid of concrete gross section and prestressing steel.
Time-dependent losses of prestressing should be calculated for each tendon along his
profile so that a correct value may be used for each element. As a reference, the maximum
value of prestressing losses, as percentage of initial steel tension, turn out:
longitudinal tendon:
transverse tendon:
The effects of losses are taken into account with the same procedure used for the
prestressing, but as actions of opposite sign.
6.15.2 Actions
The external loads applied on the structure should be evaluated according to the provisions
of Eurocode 1.3 Traffic Load on Bridges. As vertical train load the load model LM71 plus
the load models SW (SW/0 and SW/2 respectively) have been adopted with an
coefficient of 1.1. For the LM71, the 4 point loads have been reduced in an equivalent
uniform load by smearing their characteristic value Qvk along the influence length so that a
qvk,1 may be obtained:
Qvk = 1.1250din = 319.6 kN
Table of Content
6-50
where din , being the dynamic factor equal to 1.162, is evaluated below.
without any limitation in length. Fig. 6.39 shows the LM71 arrangement adopted in the
calculations.
The load model SW/0 is represented in Fig. 6.40 and its characteristic value results:
qvk = 1.1 133 din = 170.0 kN/m
The load model SW/2 is represented in Fig.6.41 and its characteristic value results:
qvk = 1.1 150 din = 174.3 kN/m
The previous load model LM71, SW/0 and SW/2 have been introduced in the FEM
analysis considering a spreading ratio of 4:1 in the ballast and of 1:1 in the concrete up to
the middle plane of the slab. In the following as left track is denoted the track which has a
positive value for the y co-ordinate, while right truck the other one. Fig. 6.42 shows which
elements are involved by spreading effects, therefore subjected to variable load.
Table of Content
6-51
The dynamic factor is calculated by means of the following expression (track with
standard maintenance):
3 =
2.16
+ 0.73 = 1.162
L 0.2
L = 1.3
Several other actions, arising from variable loads, should be considered in the analysis
(as traction and braking, centrifugal forces, derailment, wind pressure, differential
temperature variation etc.) but, for the sake of simplicity, in these calculations only the
following actions have been considered (introduced in the mathematical model in different
steps):
STEP 1: Self-weight of the structure: adopting a unit weight value of
= 25 kN/m3;
Table of Content
6-52
for each;
ducts:
gducts = 3 kN/m
for each;
border curbs (with a cross section area of 0.1 m2 and unit weight of
25 kN/m3):
greinf beam = 250.25 = 6.25 kN/m
for each;
noise barriers:
gbarriers = 8.00 kN/m
for each;
STEP 6: Variable loads for maximum bending moment on first span (x = 6.18 m);
the applied load is a LM71 model on the left track with the following
longitudinal arrangement:
plus a SW/2 train on the right track with the following longitudinal
arrangement:
STEP 7: Variable loads for minimum bending moment at pier P1 (x = 18.43 m);
the applied load is a SW/0 model on the left track with the following
longitudinal arrangement:
Table of Content
6-53
plus a SW/2 train on the right track with the following longitudinal
arrangement:
STEP 8: Variable loads for max bending moment on second span (x = 32.305 m);
the applied load is a LM71 model on the left track with the following
longitudinal arrangement:
plus a SW/2 train on the right track with the following longitudinal
arrangement:
Table of Content
6-54
The design values for the external actions have been calculated adopting the combinations
of loads specified in the applied Code as follow indicated in the symbolic presentation:
Ultimate Limit State
Sd = S G1 G1k + G 2 G 2 k + p Pk + Q Q1k + oi Q ik
i >1
Sd = S G1k + G 2 k + Pk + Q1k + oi Q ik
i >1
Sd = S G1k + G 2 k + Pk + 2 i Q ik
i >1
where:
G1k = characteristic value of the action due to self-weight and permanent loads, ballast
excluded;
G2k = characteristic value of action due to ballast self-weight;
Pk
= partial factor of self-weight and permanent loads, ballast excluded, equal to 1.4
for unfavourable effect and 1.0 for favourable effect;
= partial factor of ballast load equal to 1.8 for unfavourable effect and 1.0 for
favourable effect;
= partial factor of prestress load equal to 1.2 for unfavourable effect and 0.9 for
favourable effect;
= partial factor of variable loads equal to 1.5 for unfavourable effect and 0.0 for
favourable effect;
0i
2i
Table of Content
6-55
Verification at tensioning
At time of tensioning, no tensile stress should be present in the extreme fibres of the slab
and the maximum compressive stress should not exceed the limit value of 0.6 fck = 21
MPa. For the sake of simplicity, one reports the verification related to the four elements
showed in fig ii, as subjected to the higher stress level.
The external actions are calculated adopting the rare combination with only the load steps
1 and 2. From FEM analysis, the value of n22 , m22 , n33 , m33 , n23 , m23 are evaluated so that
it results:
y, t = 22, t =
n22 6 m22
2
h
h
y, b = 22, b =
n22 6 m22
+ 2
h
h
x, t = 33, t =
n33 6 m33
2
h
h
x, b = 33, b =
n33 6 m33
+ 2
h
h
xy, t = 23, t =
n23 6 m23
2
h
h
xy, b = 23, b =
n23 6 m23
+ 2
h
h
where the subscripts t and b indicate respectively top and bottom fibre. The angles of
principal directions (for which is xy = 0) are:
1 =
2 23
1
a tan
2
22 33
2 = 1 + 90
n 22
n 33
[m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
1.5
0.963
1.5
1.5
-3091
-7806
-3516
-4280
-13159
-8526
-10418
-10007
n 23
m 33
m 23
6
75
1
-67
Table 6.8
Table of Content
m 22
-225
743
-45
653
-2176
456
-812
1945
0
-51
0
20
33,b
23,b
6-56
22,t
33,t
23,t
-2.66
-3.30
-2.46
-1.11
-14.58
-5.90
-9.11
-1.48
0.00
-0.25
0.00
0.01
-1.46
-12.91
-2.22
-4.59
-2.97
-11.80
-4.78
-11.86
1,b
2,b
1,t
2,t
[]
[]
[]
[]
89.85
108.17
89.99
90.77
1,b
2,b
1,t
2,t
-2.66
-3.27
-2.46
-1.11
-14.58
-5.83
-9.11
-1.48
-1.46
-13.05
-2.22
-4.59
-2.97
-12.15
-4.78
-11.85
The serviceability limit states checked in this section are relative only to stress limitation,
ensuring that, under service load conditions, concrete extreme stresses do not exceed the
corresponding limit, for the quasi-permanent and the rare combinations. The limit stresses
for concrete are:
Quasi-permanent combination:
Rare combination:
Applying to the structural FEM model the variable loads and combining them
according to the railway code provisions, one obtain the maxima stress values at top and
bottom fibres that have to be lower than the corresponding limit. One reports the results
relative to the four elements indicated in Fig. 6.32.
Quasi-Permanent Combination
Table 6.9
Elem.
648
93
320
589
n 22
n 33
[m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
1.5
0.963
1.5
1.5
-2420
-6233
-3539
-2736
-10152
-6347
-7855
-7900
n 23
m 22
m 33
m 23
4
50
2
-3
-236
589
81
-151
-1576
108
233
-396
1,b
2,b
1,t
2,t
4
-37
4
0
-2.24
-2.65
-2.14
-2.23
-10.97
-5.86
-4.62
-6.32
-0.98
-10.31
-2.58
-1.42
-2.57
-7.37
-5.86
-4.21
m 23
1,b
2,b
1,t
2,t
Rare Combination
Table 6.10
Elem.
648
93
320
589
n 22
n 33
[m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
1.5
0.963
1.5
1.5
-2238
-6284
-2604
-3791
-10270
-6033
-7479
-8243
n 23
m 22
m 33
3
4
7
-55
-226
577
7
-689
-615
-133
1279
-1275
4
-62
-9
-26
-2.09
-2.76
-1.72
-4.36
-8.49
-7.02
-1.58
-8.89
-0.89
-10.29
-1.75
-0.69
-5.21
-5.51
-8.40
-2.09
The characteristic crack width should be calculated according to the provisions of Model
Table of Content
6-57
Code 90. It has be notice, however, that from stress calculation neither for the quasipermanent combination nor in the rare one, the maximum stress results tensile. Therefore,
no specific reinforcement is required and it is sufficient to arrange the minimum amount of
reinforcing steel, able to ensure a ductile behaviour in case of corrosion of prestressing
steel.
Deformation
Deformation limitation is carried out to control the maximum vertical deflection for
passengers comfort. The limit values /L (deflection/span Length) are given by the
Eurocode 1.3 as a function of the span length and the train speed. The limit value for
maximum vertical deflection is calculated considering a span length of 27.75 m (central
span) and a train speed over 280 km/h; according to the provisions of the Code, it results:
1
=
L 1600
that should be multiplied by a factor 1.1 for continuous structures; finally, the following
limit may be achieved:
lim
11
.
1
=
=
L
1600
1455
As a consequence of the transient nature of this event, the elastic deflection, calculated
by the FEM model, is relative to the only live load; the check shall be performed loading
only one track, reading the maximum deflection in correspondence of the track axis.
Having loaded the right track with a LM71 load model plus dynamic allowance, placed in
the middle of the of the central span, the obtained /L value is:
effective
0.0055
1
=
=
L
27.75
5045
and it results lower than the corresponding limit.
It can be notice that no further calculation is requested because, due to prestressing
effect, the structure remains entirely compressed, so that the elastic value, calculated by the
FEM analysis, has to be considered.
Verification at ULS should regard the structure as a whole and its component parts,
analysing the resistance of the critical regions. In addition to the analysis of ULS of
several shell element under the relevant combination of internal actions, in this example
some case of detailing are investigated, i.e.:
bursting force at anchorage of prestressing tendon;
spalling force at anchorage of prestressing tendon;
punching under support plate.
Table of Content
6-58
Verification at ULS has been performed adopting the sandwich model for shell elements.
The internal actions in a shell element at ULS are sketched in Fig. 6.49.
Let us consider in this section only four elements on the whole (see Fig.6.32). The
external actions are derived from FEM model using the load step for trains which leads to
the maximum values and combining the results according to the relevant combination
formula. For the investigated elements, turns out (on brackets the notation of Fig. 6.49):
Table 6.11
Elem.
n Sd,y
( n 22 )
n Sd,x
( n 33 )
n Sd,xy
( n 23 )
m Sd,y
( m 22 )
m Sd,x
( m 33 )
[m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
648
1.5
-1779
-9096
-239
470
93
0.963
-5746
-4610
-63
499
320
1.5
-2130
-5922
10
589
1.5
-3865
-7748
-54
m Sd,xy
( m 23 )
v Sd,y
( v 13 )
v Sd,x
( v 12 )
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
-14
-6
-5
-671
-75
89
-150
38
3241
-13
20
47
-1950
-4274
-41
-1124
-1095
As first step, one may design the inner layer checking if specific shear reinforcement is
required or not. In fact, it is possible to calculate the principal shear vo2 = vx2 + vy2 , on the
principal shear direction o (such that tan 0 = v y v x ), and to check that it turn out:
v0 < vRd1 = 012
. (100 fck )
13
Table of Content
d
[m]
648
1.43
93
o
[]
6-59
o
[-]
51.18 0.00158
vo
v Rd1
[kN/m] [kN/m]
F Scw
F Rcw
As/s2
2
[]
n xc
n yc
n xyc
417
26.56
0.0
0.0
0.0
327
26.56
0.0
0.0
0.0
320
1.43
23.14 0.00158
417
26.56
0.0
0.0
0.0
589
1.43
417
51
14.0
with variation of slab components due to vx and vy (i.e. nxc , nyc and nxyc ) only for element
number 589.
The outer layers should be designed supposing an initial thickness for both layers not
lesser than twice the concrete cover evaluated at the centroid of reinforcement. One
assumes:
ts = ti = 20.07 = 0.14 m
so that, internal lever arm z and in plane actions may be evaluated for the outer layers of
each element referring to Fig. 6.50 and by means of the following equations:
n Sdx ,s = n x
n Sdy,s
z ys m x 1 v 2x
+
+
cot
z
z 2 v0
z ys m y 1 v y
= ny
+
+
cot
z
z
2 v0
vSd ,s = n xy
z ys m xy 1 v x v y
+
cot
z
z
2 v0
n Sdx , i = n x
n Sdy,i
z yi m x 1 v 2x
+
cot
z
z 2 v0
z yi m y 1 v y
= ny
+
cot
z
z 2 v0
vSd , i = n xy
z yi m xy 1 v x v y
+
+
cot
z
z
2 v0
where terms on brackets have be summed if shear reinforcement is required. In the design
Table of Content
6-60
ts
ti
tc
ys
yi
n Sdy,s
n Sdx,s
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[kN/m]
1.5
vSd,s
n Sdy,i
n Sdx,i
vSd,i
[kN/m] [kN/m]
0.140 0.140 1.220 0.680 0.680 1.360 -713.5 -4893.3 13.0 -1065.1 -4202.2
-7.7
0.963 0.140 0.140 0.683 0.412 0.412 0.823 -3479.6 -1489.8 59.3 -2266.7 -3120.5 -122.3
320
1.5
0.140 0.140 1.220 0.680 0.680 1.360 -1093.1 -5344.2 14.8 -1037.3 -577.9
589
1.5
307.0
32.7
-4.4
At this stage each layer may be designed by applying the following equations ( = 45):
c t =
v Sd
fcd 2 t
sin cos
v Sd
cot
from which, if result satisfied, the reinforcement areas may be calculated as:
A sx =
nRdx
f yd
A sy =
nRdy
f yd
n Sdx + n Sdy
2
(n
Sdx
n Sdy
4
Table 6.14
Table of Content
+ v 2Sd f cd1 t
6-61
Top Layer Design
Elem.
f cd1/2
[MPa]
Asy
Asx
f cd1/2
Asy
Asx
[kN/m] [cm /m] [cm /m] [MPa] [kN/m] [cm /m] [cm2/m]
648
-35.0
-17.1
0.0
0.0
-30.0
-17.1
0.0
0.0
93
-24.9
-17.1
0.0
0.0
-22.4
-17.1
0.0
0.0
320
-38.2
-17.1
0.0
0.0
-7.4
-17.1
0.0
0.0
589
-11.3
-12.0
25.2
18.9
-45.6
-17.1
0.0
0.0
It can be notice that verification for concrete in compression is not satisfied for any layers
except for element 589 top layer and element 320 bottom layer. Thus, an increasing of
layer thickness is required and new values of plate actions are obtained:
Table 6.15
Elem.
648
93
ts
ti
tc
ys
yi
n Sdy,s
n Sdx,s
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[kN/m]
1.5
vSd,s
n Sdy,i
n Sdx,i
vSd,i
[kN/m] [kN/m]
0.300 0.240 0.960 0.600 0.630 1.230 -716.6 -5040.8 14.1 -1062.0 -4054.7
-8.8
0.963 0.220 0.190 0.553 0.372 0.387 0.758 -3588.5 -1465.5 66.5 -2157.8 -3144.8 -129.4
320
1.5
589
1.5
708.7
870.1
-950.6
-153.8
-5.5
c
[MPa]
f cd1/2
Asy
Asx
f cd1/2
Asy
Asx
[kN/m] [cm /m] [cm /m] [MPa] [kN/m] [cm /m] [cm2/m]
648
-16.8
-17.1
0.0
0.0
-16.9
-17.1
0.0
0.0
93
-16.3
-17.1
0.0
0.0
-16.6
-17.1
0.0
0.0
320
-17.0
-17.1
0.0
0.0
-6.8
-17.1
0.0
0.0
589
-11.4
-12.0
34.6
38.3
-16.8
-17.1
0.0
0.0
Of course, minima values should be adopted for Asx and Asy if no reinforcement areas
are required. For element 589, the Asx and Asy value are required at the centroid of the
layer, whereas they are arranged at 0.07 m from the external surface of the slab in an
eccentric position with respect to middle plane of the layer; so, the amount of
reinforcement provided has to be changed to restore equilibrium conditions. This variation
may be assessed with the aid of the mechanism pictured in Fig. 6.51:
Table of Content
6-62
Fig. 6.51 Shell element equilibrium in one direction with two reinforcement layers only
nSd , s h s bi + nSd , i i bi
2
ns =
z
ni = nSd,s + nSd,i ns
For the investigated elements, the following areas have been detected.
Table 6.17
Forces referred to tension steel level
Elem.
n s,y
n i,y
n s,x
n i,x
Asy
Asx
Asy
Asx
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[cm /m]
[cm /m]
[cm /m]
[cm2/m]
648
-702.5
-1070.8
-5026.6
-4063.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
93
-3522.0
-2287.2
-1399.0
-3274.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
320
-1163.8
-956.1
-5752.3
-159.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
589
1503.5
-2242.5
1664.8
-6370.0
34.6
38.3
0.0
0.0
The previous procedure should be repeated for all the elements of the structural model
finding the amount of reinforcement to provide in the slab; it is useful, to control the
structural behaviour and for a best fitted reinforcement layout, to summarise the results in a
visual map.
Verification to Bursting Force
For the calculation of the bursting force the symmetric prism analogy is used, evaluating
the height of the prism so that his centroid results coincident with the centroid of
prestressing tendons. For the sake of simplicity, only the longitudinal direction of
prestressing tendon is considered with respect to the vertical plane, but transverse force due
to bursting effect should be also calculated in the horizontal plane and for transverse
prestressing too.
Table of Content
6-63
Checking situation is represented in Fig. 6.52, and the most unfavourable situation
occurs when a single tendon is tensioned; considering the lower level of tendon (first
tensioned) the height of the prism results:
hbs = 20.6 = 1.2 m
while the width follows from the possible enlargement of the anchor plate that may be
assumed equal to 0.43 m, corresponding to the transverse spacing of longitudinal lower
tendons.
The design force per tendon has been evaluated by means of the following expression:
FSd =
f ptk
1800
Asp =
(139 19) 10 3 = 4134 kN
115
.
115
.
The bursting force follows from the moment equilibrium along section A-A:
Nbs =
0.5 ( n1 + n 2 ) t 2 n1 t1
1 FSd = 852.6 kN
zbs
where:
t1 = 0.075 m
distance between the centroid of tendons above section A-A to the centroid
of the prism;
t2 = 0.300 m
distance between the centroid of concrete stress block above section A-A
to the centroid of the prism;
Table of Content
6-64
n1 , n2
1 =1.1
ss
(
)
b lbs
3
that may be provided with ties having diameter of 22 mm and spacing both transversally
and longitudinally of 250 mm (see Fig. 53); in fact 22/2525 corresponds to 60.82
cm2/m2 .
The spalling force may be calculated with the equivalent prism analogy. As for bursting
verification, only the longitudinal direction is considered; furthermore, spalling effects
arise if upper tendon are tensioned firstly (the eccentricity leads to tension stresses). Thus,
a section with a breadth of 0.43 m and a height of 1.50 m has to be verified for one tendon
tensioning.
The length of the prism for end anchored tendon, is equal to the overall height of the
section, i.e. lsl = 1.50 m. Considering an eccentricity for upper prestressing tendon of
0.35 m, the extreme stresses at the end of prism length are calculated by means of the beam
theory; for a prestressing force FSd = 4134.0 kN they result (negative if compressive):
top
1
0.35 6 15.38 MPa
F
Sd
0.43 1.50 0.43 1.50 2 +2.56 MPa
bott om
The section along which no shear force results, is placed at 0.428 m from slab bottom fibre
(see Fig 54) and the moment for equilibrium turns out:
Table of Content
M sl =
6-65
2
bott om 0.214 2 0.43 10 3 = 33.61 kNm
3
Assuming zsl = 0.5 lsl and bsl = 0.43 m, the maximum spalling force turns out:
Nsl = Msl / zsl = 44.81 kN
Disregarding any concrete tensile resistance, the amount of reinforcement is:
As = Nsl / fyd = 1.031 cm2
placed parallel to the end face in its close vicinity.
Table of Content
Table of Content
6-66
7-1
Evaluate the normal compressive force and of the associated bending moment in the section
of Figure 7.1, with the boundary conditions
c ( y = h) = 0;
a) ( y = 0) = k f ;
c
2 ck
c ( y = 0) = k 1fck
b) ( y = d) = k f
s
3 sk
The boundary conditions from the first exercise set the neutral axis on the border of the
bottom section, that is yn = h. For this value it results
3
The second condition in the first exercise, assuming k2 = 0.45, can be written as
N( 600)
= 0.45 30
88.96 106
Table of content
7-2
and then
M=Ne=-2001.16(-120.65) 10-3 = 241.49 kNm.
N=-2001.16kN,
The tension stress postulated by the second exercise gives the following expression for the
neutral axis
yn =
1+
d
k 3f yk
e k 2fck
550
= 235.71mm
0.8 450
1+
15 0.6 30
and the compressed steel tension and the stress components are
s' = s
d ' y n
50 235.7
= s
= 0.59s
d yn
550 235.7
400 3
3
+ y n = 200
e=
10 = 500 mm and
400 2
800
y n + 15 1884 [600 2 y n ]
2
c =
s =
16.42
(550 272.3) 15 = 251.18MPa
272.3
s' =
16.42
(50 272.3) 15 = 201.07MPa
272.3
Because the condition e = -500 mm implies that the neutral axis position is lower than the one
previously evaluated assuming the maximal stresses for both materials, the ultimate tension
state corresponds to the maximal tension admitted for concrete. If we consider to change M,
N keeping constant the eccentricity, the tensional state change proportionally and we can state
N
M 0.6fck
=
=
= 1.096 .
N0 M 0
c
Once the concrete ultimate compressive limit state is reached, the stress is
N= 1.096N0 = -876.80 kN; M = 1.096 M0 =438.4 kNm.
Table of Content
7-3
Working with constant normal force (N = N0) the ultimate limit state for the concrete tension
leads to
N0 ( y n )
= 0.6fck
S*yn
and then
y n
400 2
y n + 15 1884 [600 2 y n ]
2
0.6 30
800 103
and then
M = 0.6 30
6
442.56 10
e== 553.2mm
800 103
Keeping constant the bending moment (M = M0), the limit state condition for the concrete
stress is
N( y n )
= 0.6fck
S*yn
and then
e=
M0
M 0 (y n )
=
N 0.6fck S*yn
and
I *yn
S
*
yn
M0( yn )
h
+ yn =
*
0.6 fck S yn
2
As
M0
400 106
=
= 22.22 106 mm 3
0.6 fck
0.6 30
3
+ y n = 300
400 2
y n + 15 1884 [600 2 y n ]
Table of Content
7-4
y n = 395 mm
(50 395)
15 = 235.82 MPa
395
(550 395)
s = 0.6 30
15 = 105.95 MPa
395
s' = 0.6 30
400 395
N = 0.6 30
+ 1884 (105.95 + 235.82) = 1666.67 kN
2
M = 0.6 30
e=-240 mm
Figure 7.2 reports the results obtained in the evaluation in terms of forces and stresses.
As a remark, just in the case c) the concrete tension limit state under load is not reached while
in the case a)(k1=0.45) and the other cases b) d) e) f) (k1=0.65) respectively reach the tension
ultimate states under load associated to non linear viscosity phenomena and minimal tension
in the presence of particular combinations. On the other hand, the tension ultimate state
under load for tied steel is got just in the case b).
2B
Table of Content
7-5
Lets consider the section in Figure 7.3 with the following geometry:
A = 1.925106 mm2 ; yG =809 mm; I = 71.821010 mm4;
Wi = 7.25108 mm3; r2 = I/A =39.35104 mm2
Evaluate the minimum reinforcement into the bottom slab in the following cases:
Application of the first cracking moment Mcr
Application of an axial compressive force N = -6000 kN, applied in the point P at 250
mm from the bottom border of the corresponding cracking moment.
Consider the following data:
fck = 45 MPa; fct,eff = 3.8 MPa; s = 200 MPa; k =0.65 (hw > 1m)
The given statements imply:
s = 2 5 0 / 1 8 0 0 = 0 .1 3 8 8
f = 3 0 0 / 1 8 0 0 = 0 .1 6 6 7
= 1 s f = 0.6945
0
s,min
= 0.65 3.8/ 200 = 0.01235
Case a)
The application of cracking moment is associated to the neutral axis position yn = yG, and then
= 809/1800 = 0.4494 .
It results also
1 s f
= 0.4860 >
2
and for the web
3 0.6945 2(1 0.1667 0.4494 )
s,min = 0.01235 0.4 1
(1 0.1667 0.4494 ) = 0.00208
1 0.4494
4
Table of Content
7-6
and it follows:
s,min = 0.01235 0, 45
Case b)
The cracking moment associated to the axial force N = -6000 kN, with eccentricity eN=1800809-250 = 741 mm derives from the relation
N
A
M cr = 1 + e N
+ fct ,eff Wi
Wi
A
and then:
6
8
M cr =
1+
+ 3.8 7.25 10 10 = 9585 kNm
6
8
7.25 10
1.825 10
Table of Content
yn = yG
7-7
r2
39.35 104
= 809 +
= 1269 mm , = 0.7050
e
856
h
= 1.8 we deduce:
h*
1.8(1
0.7050)
and it results
s,min = 0.01235 0, 45
Table of Content
7-8
wk =
s s,cr
1
k 3 c + k 1k 2 k 4
Es
s
s
(7.1)
with
s
1 + e
s
(7.2a)
1 1
= min 2.5 (1 ) ;
;
3 2
(7.3)
Assuming the prescribed values k3=3.4, k4=0.425 and considering the bending case (k2=0.5)
with improved bound reinforcement (k1=0.8), the (7.2) we get
wk =
s
Es
s,cr
1
3.4 c + 0.17
s
s
(7.4)
400 2
y n + 15 2712 548 y n + 0.167 ( 46 y n ) = 0
2
and then
Table of Content
7-9
y n2 + 237.4y n 113026 = 0
y n = 118.7 + 118.72 + 113026 = 237.8mm ,
y n 237.8
=
= 0.3963
h
600
I *y n =
400
2
2
237.83 + 15 2712 ( 548 237.8 ) + 0.167 ( 46 237.8 ) = 5.96 109 mm 4
3
and we deduce
0.2012
0.0113
1 + 15
= 57.08MPa
0.0113
0.2012
234 57.08
24
wk =
1
0.2012 = 0.184mm
3.4 40 + 0.17
5
2 10
234
0.0113
4B
Table of Content
7-10
EXAMPLE 7.4. Design formulas derivation for the cracking limit state
[EC2 clause 7.4]
7.4.1 Exact method
8B
1
2 e s (1 + ) + e s ( + ' ) = 0
2
s =
e ( ) fctm k t
2
2
2 3n s ( ) + ( ' ) + 3
(7.5)
(7.6)
setting
M
=
M 0cr
M
b h2
k t fctm
6
(7.7)
Deducing s from (7.5) and with its substitution in the (7.6) we get
s =
2
2 e (1 + ) + + '
e ( ) 2 3 p
2
2
( ) + ( ' )
with
32 p
+ ' (1 + )
p=s/(ktfctm)
(7.8)
(7.9)
(7.10)
w 0k
3.4 c + 0.17
+n
s
Es w k
setting w 0k = k f
t ctm
(7.11)
(7.12)
2e
w0k 2
'
1
=
+
+
(
)
2
( )2 +( ')2 3.4 c 2 + 0.34e + ' (1 +)
32
23
+
+ ' (1 +) ( )2 +( ')2
Table of Content
7-11
(7.13)
the (7.13), numerically solved, allows the determination of the neutral axis position and then,
using the (7.11) (7.8), the evaluation of the reinforcement tension and its amount. . If it is not
the case, it is necessary to set in the (7.13) = 2.5(1-) and then re-evaluating , being the
value =0.5 practically impossible for bending problems.
The procedure, aimed to the determination of the reinforcement amount and its tension
corresponding to fixed crack amplitude values and stress level, requires to set before the value
of the bars diameter .
Alternatively, it is possible to set the tensional level s, for example coincident with the
permissible one, and to evaluate the corresponding reinforcement amount s and the maximal
bars diameter. In this case, as the parameter p is defined, the neutral axis is obtained from
(7.9), s from (7.7) and the maximal diameter derives from (7.11) solved with respect to ,
which assumes the form:
max =
5.88s w ok
2c
(p e )s
(7.14)
The application of the procedure discussed above is quite laborious as it requires to iteratively
solve the (7.13). An alternative procedure, easier to be applied, consist in the statement that
the lever arm h0 is constant and independent from and equivalent to 0.9d. In this way, we
have sAs0.9d=M and then
s=0.185/(p)
(7.15)
wk =
s
Es
e s
1+
3.4c + 0.17
1
s
s p
(7.16)
1.18
1
1
0.185
u1 =
u2 =
w 0k
(7.17)
e
p * [17 e u1 + 5u 2 ] = 0
(7.18)
the (11.67) is easy to solve, and together with the (7.15) and (7.11), leads to the desred values
s e s.
In this case too, , if we set the value of s, the solution for (7.18) with respect to leads to the
relation
Table of Content
max
17c( p e * ) 5 * w ok
=
*
e p p2
7-12
(7.19)
that defines the maximal bars diameter, which,, associated to the reinforcement amount given
by the (7.15), allows to satisfy the cracking ultimate state corresponding to a fixed value of the
steel tension.
6B
Table of Content
7-13
Fig. 7.7. Reinforced concrete Section, reinforcement design for the cracking ultimate state.
=(500-63)/500=0.874
M0cr=0.6.3.086.(1000.5002/6).10-6=77.15kNm
=600/77.15=7.77
*=7.77/(1-1.18/7.77)=9.16
max
Defined w k = 0.30mm the maximal amplitude, in the three cases under examination we can
max
set w k = w k k w where kw = 1; 2/3; 1/3. Then in a general form
w 0k =
0.3 2 105
k w = 32404 k w
0.6 3.086
u2 =
32404
k w = 1246 k w
26
7.77 0.20 15
and then
p 2 + 235.93 p 4485 57067 k w = 0
and then
kw = 1,
s (1) =
p(1) = 156.75
0.185 7.77
= 0.01049 ,
156.75 0.874
s ( 2 3) =
w k = 0.2 mm ,
p (2/3) = 119.62
0.185 7.77
= 0.01375 ,
119.62 0.874
Table of Content
7-14
s (1 3) =
w k = 0.1 mm ,
p (1/3) = 75.48
0.185 7.77
= 0.02179 ,
75.48 0.874
1000 2
y n + 15 5310 ( 437 y n ) = 0
2
y n2 + 159.3y n 69614 = 0
y n = 79.65 + 79.652 + 69614 = 195.9 mm ,
I yn =
= 0.3918
1000 195.93
2
+ 15 5310 ( 437 195.9 ) = 7.13 109 mm 4
3
s = 15 600 106
437 195.9
= 304 MPa
7.13 109
kw = 1
w k = 0.3 mm
s= 290 MPa
kw = 2/3
w k = 0.2 mm
s= 221 MPa
kw = 1/3
w k = 0.1 mm
s = 140 MPa
7-15
= (1 0.3918) / 3 = 0.2027
0.2027
0.01062
1 + 15
= 63.11 MPa
0.01062
0.2027
304 63.11
0.2027
1
3.4 50 + 0.17 26
= 0.306 mm
5
304
0.01062
2 10
1000 2
y n + 15 6903 ( 437 y n ) = 0
2
y n2 + 207.1 y n 90498 = 0
I yn =
= 0.4292
1000 214.63
2
+ 15 6903 ( 437 214.6 ) = 8.41 109 mm 4
3
s = 15 600 106
437 214.6
= 238 MPa
8.41 109
= (1 0.4292) / 3 = 0.1903
s,cr = 0.6 3.086
wk =
238
2 105
0.1903
0.0138
1 + 15
= 53.31 MPa
0.0138
0.1903
0.1903
53.31
1
3.4 50 + 0.17 26
= 0.213 mm
238
0.0138
1000 2
y n + 15 9558 ( 437 y n ) + 1593 ( 385 y n ) = 0
2
y n2 + 334.5 y n 143704 = 0
I y n =
= 0.494
1000 247.13
2
2
+ 15 9558 ( 437 247.1) + 15 1593 ( 385 247.1) = 1.06 109 mm 4
3
s = 15 600 106
437 247.1
= 160 MPa
1.06 109
= (1 0.494) / 3 = 0.1687
Table of Content
7-16
0.1687
0.0223
1 + 15
= 41.78 MPa
0.0223
0.1687
160 41.78
0.1687
1
3.4 50 + 0.17 26
= 0.12 mm
5
2 10
160
0.0223
The obtained values are in good agreement with those evaluated within the design.
The values from the verification are slightly larger because of the fact that in the considered
section the internal drive lever arm is lower than the approximated value 0.9d assumed in the
approximated design procedure. In fact, being h0/d the adimensional lever arm in units of
effective height d, in the three case we have
kw = 1
kw = 2/3
kw = 1/3
h0/d
0.9
0.9
0.9
As (mm )
11151
6903
5310
wk (mm)
0.120
0.213
0.306
Table of Content
s (MPa)
160
238
304
h0/d
0.811
0.836
0.85
7-17
wk = 0.1 mm (A)
s
max
As
(mm2)
(MPa)
(mm)
137
30
11111
140
26
11151
145
20
10486
149
16
10205
156
10
9750
wk = 0.2 mm (B)
s
max
As
(mm2)
(MPa)
(mm)
214
30
7001
221
26
6903
233
20
6508
243
16
6245
261
10
5816
wk = 0.3 mm (C)
s
max
As
(mm2)
(MPa)
(mm)
280
30
5430
290
26
5310
309
20
4910
325
16
4672
355
10
4282
Fig. 7.10. Diagrams for Maximal diameter (max) Metal area (As ) Steel tension (s).
Table of Content
7-18
Evaluate the vertical displacement in the mid-spam of the beam in Figure 7.11 with constant
transversal section represented in Figure 7.12
397460 = 385.8mm
500 7003
2
I =
+ 500 700 35.8 2 + 15 3164 ( 650 385.8 ) = 18.05 109 mm 4
12
18.05 109
Wi* =
= 5.745 107 mm 3
700 385,8
*
I
= 2.9MPa
M max
500
=
=3
M cr 166.6
Table of Content
7-19
then
c=18.05/10.13=1.78
The evaluation of the middle-spam displacement can be easily obtained using the relation (7.1)
here expressed as
v ( l 2 )
v ( l 2) = vI ( l 2) 1 +
v I ( l 2 )
(7.20)
where vI is the displacement calculated in the first step and v(l/2) the increase of the
displacement itself caused from the cracking, that can be expressed for symmetry reason
1
2
1
M
M2 f ()
v = 2 ( c 1) max 2 f M ( ) g ( ) d 2 2cr M
d ,
1
E c I I 1
M max g ( )
2
z
l
(7.21)
where Ec is assumed to be Ec =Es/15 in agreement with the introduced statement for the
parameter e, .
Defining the parameter =Mmax/Mcr and considering that fM() = /2, g() = 4(2), the
equation (7.21) is written as
2
1
M
v = ( c 1) max 2 4 ( 2 3 ) d 2
Ec I I 1
4
2
1
2
1
(7.22)
Calculating the integrals on the right side of the equation we finally obtain
2
M
4
5
v = ( c 1) max + 14 13 2 ln 2 (1 1 )
Ec I I 48
3
4
2
(7.23)
The abscissa 1, where the cracked part of the beam start, is given solving the equation
4 ( 1 12 ) =
M cr
1
=
M max
Table of Content
(7.24)
and then 1 =
7-20
1
1
1
(7.25)
2
5 M max 2
48 Ec I I
(7.26)
5 M max
v =
1 + ( c 1) 1 + 14 13
ln 2 (1 1 )
2
5
3 5
2 48 Ec I I
(7.27)
If the value of c previously calculated is inserted in the (7.27) stating =1 and letting
changing in the range 1, we obtain the curves reported in Figure 7.15, that show as the
increase of the ratio means a decrease for 1 and the increase of v(l/2) as a consequence of a
larger cracked part of the beam.
In the same way, a concentrated load Q=200kN, producing the same maximal moment in the
mid-spam section, leads to the following expression for the section displacement
2
M l
v = max *
2 12Ec I I
3
1 + ( c 1) 1 81 2 (1 21 )
(7.28)
12Ec I I
(7.29)
1=1/(2).
(7.30)
The corresponding curves are reported in Figure 7.15. We observe as the displacements in the
two cases of distributed and concentrated load are respectively 0.93 and 0.88 of the
displacement calculated in the stage II. Furthermore, for the same Mmax, the displacement in
case of concentrated load results to be lower because the linear trend of the relative bending
moment is associated to a smaller region of the cracking beam with respect to the case of
distributed load, that is characterized by a parabolic diagram of the bending moments.
The same problems can be solved in a generalized form evaluating numerically the
displacement following the procedure expressed in (11.51). In this way, it is possible the
evaluation the deformation of the whole beam, varying z . The result, for a distributed load
Table of Content
7-21
and for =3, is reported in Figure 7.6, where graphs refer to a 20 folders division for the
cracking part of the beam. Remark as the committed error in the evaluation of the mid-spam
deflection, as obtained comparing the values in Figure 7.15 and Figure 7.16, is about 4%. In
particular, introducing the numerical values in the (7.26) (7.29) and using the results in Figure
11.25, we have for the mid-spam displacement:
Distributed load
6
8
5 500 10 10 15
= 21.64mm
v1 =
5
9
2 48 2 10 18.05 10
v = 1.65 21.64 = 35.71mm
2
a)
Concentrated load
6
8
1 500 10 10 15
= 17.31mm
v1 =
5
9
2 12 2 10 18.05 10
v = 1.56 17.31 = 27.00mm
2
Fig. 7.16. Deformation in the stage I (a), displacement increase caused by the cracking (b)
And total deformation (c).
Table of Content
Table of Content
7-22
11-1
The criteria for design of the characteristic tensile strength (fractile 5% and 95%) and of
the intersecting compressive elastic module for light concrete are shown below, in
accordance with the instructions of paragraphs 11.3.1 and 11.3.2 of Eurocode 2.
Tensile strength
The average value of simple (axial) tensile strength, in lack of direct experimentation, can
be taken equal to:
- for concrete of class LC 50/55
Where:
1 = 0,40+0,60 /2200
= upper limit value of the concrete density, for the corresponding density class expressed
in kg/m3;
flck = value of the characteristic cylindric compressive strength in MPa.
flcm = value of the average cylindric compressive strength in MPa.
The characteristic values of simple tensile strength, corresponding to fractiles 0,05 e 0,95,
can be taken equal to:
fractile 5% :
f
E lcm = 22000 lcm E
10
[MPa]
where:
E =
;
2200
= upper limit value of the concrete density, for corresponding density class in kg/m3.The
results of calculation of the two above-mentioned mechanical features are shown and
compared in the following table, for two different types of light concretes and for the
corresponding ordinary concretes belonging to the same strength classes.
Table of Content
11-2
Table 11.1
flck [MPa]
[kg/m3]
flcm [MPa]
1
E
fctm [MPa]
fctk;0,05 [MPa]
fctk;0,95 [MPa]
Elcm [MPa]
Table of Content
Concrete type 1
Light
Ordinary
35
1650
2400
43
0,850
-0,563
-2,7
3,2
1,9
2,2
3,5
4,2
19168
34077
Concrete type 2
Light
Ordinary
60
2050
2400
68
0,959
-0,868
-4,2
4,4
2,9
3,1
5,4
5,7
33950
39100
11-3
The maximum moment that the reinforced concrete section of given dimensions, made of
type 1 lightweight concrete, described in the previous example, is able to withstand when
the reinforcement steel achieves the design elastic limit. The dimensions of the section are:
b=30 cm, h=50cm and d=47cm.
The section in question is shown in Fig. 11.1 together with the strain diagram related to the
failure mode recalled, which implies the simultaneous achievement of maximum
contraction side concrete and of the strain corresponding to the design yield stress of the
tensioned reinforcement steel.
In case one chooses, like in the previous example, to use the bilinear diagram to calculate
the compressive strength on concrete, the limits of strain by compression have values lc3 =
1,75 and lcu3 = 3,51 = 2,98.
The design strain corresponding to steel yielding, for fyk= 450 MPa, is yd = fyd /(1,15 x Es)
= 450/(1,15 x 200000) = 1,96. The distance of the neutral axis from the compressed
upper edge is therefore x = 28,3 cm.
Two areas can be distinguished in the compressed zone: the first one is comprised between
the upper edge and the chord placed at the level where the contraction is lc3 = 1,75. The
compressive stress in it is constant and it is equal to flcd = 0,85 flck/c = 19,8 MPa; the
second remaining area is the one where compression on concrete linearly decreases from
the value flcd to zero in correspondence of the neutral axis.
The resultant of compression forces is placed at a distance of around 10,5 cm from the
compressed end of the section and is equal to C = 1185 kN. For the condition of
equilibrium the resultant of compressions C is equal to the resultant of tractions T, to
which corresponds a steel section As equal to As = T/fyd = 3030 mm2. The arm of internal
forces is h = d 10,5 cm = 36,5 cm, from which the value of the moment resistance of the
section can eventually be calculated as MRd = 1185 x 0,365 = 432,5 kNm.
Fig.11.1 Deformation and tension diagram of r.c. section, build up with lightweight concrete
(flck = 35 MPa, = 1650 kg/m3), for collapse condition in which maximum resisting bending moment is
reached with reinforcement at elastic design limit.
Table of Content
Table of Content
11-4