International Concrete Abstracts Portal

With discussion by Milik Tichy and Milos Vorlicek; and Herbert A. Sawyer, Jr. Because structural failure generally occurs in successively more severe stages at successively less probable loads, design should ideally account for all stages and be based on comprehensive analysis utilizing a comprehensive, non-linear, force-strain relationship. The criterion for optimum design, using the failure-stage-versus-load profile, is derived. For frames, a method of comprehensive analysis based on a multilinear moment-curvature relationship, using critical moments and "plasticity factors," is presented. Procedures and the relative economics of comprehensive design and its special cases, elastic, plastic, and ultimate strength designs, are compared. A bilinear design procedure for concrete frames, based on two failure stages, is presented.

With discussion by Edward G. Nawy, H.A. Sawyer, M.Z. Cohn, and E.F.P. Burnett and C.W. Yu. An attempt is made to evaluate our present knowledge with regard to the analysis and design of reinforced concrete linear structural systems at ultimate load. The fundamental difference between the moment curvature concept and moment rotation concept is emphasized and discussed in detail. The authors have attempted to outline previous significant work, to underline a few basic principles, bearing in mind the difference between these two concepts, and to indicate the present extent of our knowledge of this subject with an appreciation of the assumptions and simplifications that are entailed. Readers are assumed to have some basic knowledge of some of the better known work on the subject, such as Sawyer’s or Baker’s work.

With discussion by Theodore Zsutty, Jack R. Benjamin, C. Allen Cornell, and Milik Tichy and Milos Vorlicek. Because the ultimate strength and deformation ability of critical sections are random variables, the ultimate strength of a structure must likewise be a random variable. If the structure is subjected to load from one source and there is only one possible collapse mechanism, the determination of the ultimate strength ZU of the structure is simple. If the structure is subjected to load from one source but there are m possible collapse mechanisms, it becomes necessary to analyze the structure with the aid of equations of the type given herein. The ultimate strengthZUj, for j = 1, 2, . . . , m of the structure is determined by means of each of these equations assuming the occurrence of the j-th collapse mechanism. The probability pUj that the structure will change into the jth mechanism may be ascertained for a definite value of the load for each random variable ZUj But the actual probability of failure must be expressed with the aid of the so-called conditional probabilities since the individual mechanisms are not always statistically independent. If the structure is subjected to load from v sources and there are m possible collapse mechanisms an equation for the jth mechanism will graphically be represented by an interaction diagram. For a given population of structures, identical according to the design, there exists a number of possible combinations of load with a corresponding probability of failure pU. Geometrically speaking, they are points in the v - dimensional space. Their locus is the so called boundary of the safe domain IImin. When the deformation ability of a structure is considered, the system of equations forms the starting point. In this instance the random variable Zuj is a linear combination of ultimate moments MUi and the ultimate plastic rotation 0U of the section. The statistical solution is analogous with the previous one. It may be demonstrated that the variability in ultimate strength of a redundant structure is lower than that of a statically determinate one in all cases. Consequently, the application of the statistical method must result in savings of material in redundant structures.

Along with the recent developments in the field, certain doubts were expressed on the practical value of limit design in structural concrete, with particular reference to the following aspects: 1. Limited redistribution in concrete structures due to the variable strength design of members. 2. Lack of economic advantages if additional reinforcement is required at plastic hinges to increase their ductility. 3. More critical service conditions than for structural steel. 4. Special service considerations leading to more complicated analytical work. Similar doubts marked the discussions of the CEB Committee XI at the Monaco Session of the European Concrete Committee in 1961. All these problems can, probably, be summarized as follows: Are there any reasons at all for developing nonlinear analysis and design methods for concrete structures? This writer believes the only reasonable answer to the above question is a straight "of course"! With this he assumes an analysis or design method obviously has to reflect as closely as possible the actual behaviour of the structure. The arguments to follow are but a brief justification of this answer, illustrating the reasons for a nonlinear design of structural concrete from both theoretical and practical considerations.

The purpose of this paper is to review the five papers on experimental investigations presented in Session II, including the prepared and extemporaneous discussions to these papers. An attempt will be made to draw whatever conclusions the results of the studies suggest.