Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
917-929,
Printed in Great Britain.
1993
0
1. INTROD~~ION
AND SCOPE
Chans [3,4] previous numerical model for the nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete shells has been
917
P. ROCAand A. R.
918
DESCRIPTION
OF THE COURSE
OF A TENDON
MARi
(1)
919
4
(Sp,qp)
x(a, Bh
X, =
(2)
_v(a,B),
z(a9B).
B = B(a), e = eta)
(3)
or alternatively,
a = a(/?),
e = e(B)
xp= x,(t),
i; =ar2+bz
+f,
eG)=W +P$ +4
(4)
(5)
q =dr2+e7
(6)
expression results
t = a or /I.
+c,
*=
(7
lk
2 + (g - 1)(7 + 1)
Oa)
k > Oh
VW
X,(T)=
(8)
i-l
e
t
eP
rk
-1
Fig. 2. kestressing
C-AS 46,5--I
920
P. ROCAand A. R. MARL
where Ni({, n), i = 1,2, . . , N are the shape functions used for the interpolation of the middle shell
surface (as described in [l]), and x,,, i = 1,2, . . . , N
are the nodal coordinates.
3.4. Automatic generation of the course of a tendon
The adopted procedure is a modification, including
the adaptation to the L9 shell element, of a method
previously utilized by Hofstetter [8]. Using the analytical expressions of Sec. 3.4, an automatic determination of the consecutive elements crossed through
by a tendon is performed. The points where the
tendon intersect the interfaces of the shell elements
are determined by their coordinates (a, p).
The usage of this procedure needs the definition of
trapezoidal elements in the a-8 plane (Figs 5 and 6).
Such a mesh is easy to conceive for most shell
(or $),
(or%).
(9)
+dij)=O,
(104
where
k
Jy-B
11 aI_ai
aj_ai
(lob)
921
can
be used to identify the consecutive element crossed
through by the tendon.
A similar automatic test is performed throughout
the mesh contour to first determine the elements and
the element sides that include the tendon ends. Then
the process is started beginning at the element which
includes the first end of the tendon, and is then
repeated until reaching the element with the opposite
end.
The following iterative procedure has been adopted
to solve eqn (IOa), which permits advantage to be
taken of the provision of its derivative. For an
equation
or alternatively
(11)
e,=e(&),
f(a) = 0
e,=e(a,),
e,=e(a,),
tatreP=;
P
(16)
=cotA,,
P
Bq,
3 Q=cotA,,
e,=e(flq),
COt@p=d
uq=a$),
dSP
(12)
df -
( du >
Aa = -f(a)
(14)
dB
dtL
(15)
(a")
-k,
(13)
a+ = a + Aa.
Aa_
(17)
e f
q.
(18)
e,
e,
tan 0,
(19)
(20)
5,
8,=B(a,).
=tanA,,
P
aq,
L$=B(a,),
=tanA,,
5 =t(a,B)
rl
=tl@,B)
for
(21)
P. ROCAand A. R. MARL
922
which is accepted with the isoparametric interpolation of the geometry. In fact, the two following
surfaces
x0*= %(a, 8)
where the
defined as
functions
are
M, =&r + l)(rl + 1)
(23a)
W=$tl-
l)(V + 1)
(23b)
- l)(? - 1)
(23~)
(23d)
W=&
(24)
and
(26)
Fig. 7. Summary of the different representations considered for a prestressed shell element.
923
s s
Aa =
ing segment.
KdS=
c.
1.
uJP d7.
(34)
ds = J,, dr.
(27)
The following formulae, known from the differential geometry, are available to perform those calculations (where single overdot and double overdot
characterize the first and the second derivatives with
respect to the parameter 7, respectively)
(29)
n=
4-
ip*($+ip)
(j)z
txn
> K(S)*
b=ltxnl.
(31)
AXIAL
DEFORMATION
OF A PRESTRESSING
TENDON
924
P. ROCAand A. R. Meal
(37)
cc.
where (vii = vi**vi>, and (vl, v,, v, >. (VT, vf, v: ), are
the unit trihedrals respectively related to the axes
(x,y, z) and (x*,y*, z*).
Perfect bonding, meaning that no relative motion
between concrete and prestressing steel exists, is
assumed for bonded tendons after grouting. Thus, the
axial deformation tp of a bonded tendon can be
obtained by selecting the shell strain component E,.
which results from a transformation (38) where the
unit vectors {vr, vf, v: ] are taken as the moving
trihedral (t, n, b). Such a process yields the following
relationship
w>
(42)
(43)
CB dsa,.
(44)
5. CONTRIBUTION
OF PRESTRESSJNG TO THE
GLOBAL STIFFNESS
EXAMPLES
925
-experimental
--o--present
h Van treuenen
o Fernandes
et al
0.0
A = 4.9 N/mmz,
v = 0,
E, = 0.002,
2.0
fern)
1J
2.5
p = 0.3 rad-I,
fi = 38 NJmm2,
1.0
1.5
VERTICAL
DEFLECTION
0.5
A, = 6.2 13 cm,
E0 = 37,100 N/mm*,
analysis
K = 0.01 m-l,
AI = 0.25 cm.
yc = 25 kN/m3.
g1 = 1456 N/mm2,
.q = 0.0072,
c2 = 1589 N/mm,
c2 = O-01,
c3 = I705 N/mm2,
c3= 0.02,
64= 0.03,
Ed= 0.05.
Reinforcing steel
E, = 198,800 N/rnrn~~ fsy = 318.5,
L, = 0.016.
9 equal
shell
elements
t
1
2@14
Tendon position
id
id
in A
in B and C
in 0
2#14
Measures
in meters
926
P. ROCAand A. R. Mmf
p(kN/m)
20-1
gz4.45,
6C= 0.002,
y, = 25 kN/m3.
p = 0.1 rad-,
K = 0.00157 m-l.
~~= 0.008,
a2 = 1056 N/mm*,
c2 = 0.010,
o3 = 1092 N/mm*,
c3 = 0.011,
u4 = 1128 N/mm*,
C, = 0.015,
o5 = 1160 N/mm*,
Ed= 0.027.
j+xJp
L______--- -1
Q-
-10
I )
I
-15
-20
-25 (cm)
Measures in cm
ki&
E
I-
Fig. 13. Example 2: experimental load vs central displacement diagram obtained by Ritz et al. [12].
!
I
u,(x1=O,x,-0)
-5
Prestressing steel
Z
360
fi = 35 N/mm*,
120
180
elements.
40
$
z
30
20
RITZ SLAB
____ experimental
0 Van Greunen
0 present analysis
0 Hofstetter (midle mesh)
10
04
1
2
MIDSPAN
3
DEFLECTION
1 cm
927
f, = 3380 kN/mm*,
v = 0.2,
y, = 25 kN/m3.
Due to incomplete data, the following approximative properties are assumed for the reinforcing
steel
ES = 210,000 N/mm*,
6su= 0.01.
~-Fig. 17.
I
Measurements
in cm
Fig. 18.
P. RCICAand A. R. MAR!
928
Q, = 1700 N/mm2,
6, = 0.0085,
u2 = 1920 N/mm2,
t2 = 0.01,
u, = 2050 N/mm2,
.c,= 0.02,
u4 = 2100 N/mm2,
E.,= 0.03,
CT~
= 2150 N/mm*,
c5 = 0.05.
fl = U,(E) + bit
+ (i - 1)0.01611372 m-2
(48)
i
5
6
7
8
9
10
ai, m-I
-0.01571848
-0.01335784
-0.00903960
-0.00667896
-0.00236064
0.0
4.0
edge beam
3.5
3.0
= 2.5
9
0 2.0
2
-I 1.5 I
B
---0
b,,m
0.071375
0.079875
0.079875
0.088375
0.088375
0.096875
crown
0.5
I
-2
I
-l
experimental
present analysis
Hofstetter
0
1
2
3
4
MIDSPAN DEFLECT ION km)
(middle mesh)
Fig. 20. Example 3: load vs deflection diagrams for overloading. Comparison between the experimental and the
analytical results.
load for Q/Q,, = 3 found experimentally. This discrepancy is probably due to the use of an excessively
coarse mesh. Such a mesh, although not being able to
provide the resolution that is needed to properly
characterize such a local brittle failure, has nevertheless detected most of the complex phenomena
shown by the experimental test. Hofstetter, at his
turn, found a brittle failure for Q/Q,, = 2.25 which
discrepancy with the experimental one was attributed
to the uncertainty caused by the incomplete information provided in [13] regarding the material properties and layout of the untensioned reinforcement of
the edge beams.
7. SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS
929
and
Acknowledgements-This
work was carried out under the
financial support of a fund provided by the U.S.-Spain Joint
Committee&
Scientific and Technological Cooperation as
oart of Proiect CCA-85/000X and a F.P.I. arant awarded to
ihe first auihor by the Spanish Ministry of Education during
the years 1986-88.
REFERENCES
10. S. Carrascon, A. R. Mari and I. Carol, Analisis instantlneo y diferido de puentes curves de hormigon armado
y pretensado. Universitat Polit&mica de Catalunya,
Barcelona (1987).
II. T. Y. Lin, Strength of continuous prestressed concrete beams under static and repeated loads. ACI Jnl
26, No. 10 (1955).
12. P. Ritz, P. Marti, and B. Thiirlimann, Versuche iiber
das Biegeverhalten von Vorgespannten Platten ohne
Verbund. Institut fur Baustatik und Konstruktion,
Zurich, Report No. 7305-l (1975).
13. A. L. Bouma, A. C. Van Riel, H. Van Koten and
W. J. Beranek, Investigations on models of eleven
cylindrical shells made of reinforced and prestressed
concrete. Proceedings of the Symposium on Shell
Research, Delfr. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1961).