Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3, 2008 pp 382-394
AbstracT
The absence of universally accepted
solutions in the structural concrete codes for
the design of reinforcement in shells gives rise
to the problem of calculating the required
reinforcement in these structures. The constant
development of the computer s performance
and storage capacity combined with the
powerful numerical methods reveal the need
for a standard procedure to design shells
subjected to membrane and flexural forces.
In this paper, the solution for the design
of the required reinforcement in concrete shells
is presented based on a complete iterative
computational algorithm to design shell
elements subjected to combined membrane
forces and bending moments.
In the design equations, the reinforcement
will contribute to tension and the concrete
compression struts parallel to the crack
direction will contribute to compression. The
reinforcement is assumed to have two
orthogonal layers placed in the top and bottom
surfaces with appropriate covers. Each
reinforcement layer has reinforcing bars placed
orthogonally. For the concrete compression
struts, the stress is assumed to be uniformly
distributed in the depth of Whitney s stress
block.
This design algorithm is achieved by
developing a design code (DRCSH) based on
shells,
382
Fahmi, Ali
383
384
Figure (2) Four reinforcement layers (two for top and two for bottom) [5]
Nx
N xt
N xb
Ny
N yt
N yb
N tc
at f t c
and
M tc
ht N tc 3
N bc
ab f bc
and
M bc
hb N bc 4
where;
h is the total thickness
of
the
shell
element
ht
Mx
N xt hxt
N xb hxb
My
N yt hyt
N yb hyb
hb
( h at )
2
( h ab )
2
385
in which
Nx
Ntc sin2
Nx
Ny
c
t
Ny
Nbc sin2
N cos
Nbc cos2
N xy
b,
Nbc sin
and
b
b
cos
hxbNx Mx
hx
Nxt
hybNy My
Nyt
Mx
Mx
M tc sin 2
My
My
M tc cos 2
M tc sin
M xy
M bc sin 2
cos
M bc cos 2
M bc sin
cos
reinforcement capacities N xt , N xb , N yt
and
b ; the depths
at and ab .
values of
result with
N tc
M xy )
hc sin 2
2(hb N xy
N bc
C xbt
hxt ht
hx
C xbb
N yt
N yb
N yt
N yb
ht Nxy Mxy
hc
ht
hy
h yt
ht
hy
C ytb
and
C ybb
hxb hb
hx
hxt
hb
hx
h yb
13
hb
hy
h yt
hb
hy
hxt
h yt
hxb
h yb
, and
2N xyt
sin 2
2N xyb
N bc
and
sin 2
7
When the values of
ab )
10
NxybCxtb tan
NxybCxbb tan
are very
maximum
range
Therefore,
he
10
b
of
set ( t ,
( t,
b
5 .
when
In the cases of
( t,
or
( t,
Nxb Nxb NxytCxbt tan
h yb
Ntc
M xy )
( at
C xtb
hy
Nxt
hx
where;
12
hy
hc sin 2
hc
hytNy My
where,
2(hb N xy
hxb ht
hx
C ybt
give a satisfactory
Nyb
C xtt
C ytt
hxtNx Mx
hx
and
and
Nxb
and Nxyb
hc
, and 6
N yb ; crack directions
hb Nxy Mxy
Nxyt
hy
or
11
386
14
c
t
15
ht hyb
c
b
Ntc
at f t c
h is total thickness of
the shell element
16
( h at )
2
ht
When the calculated values of Eqs. (8) to
(11) are negative, then no reinforcement is
required in that direction. One can set the
reinforcement capacity in that direction to zero
and recalculate the values of t or b . Min in
his study implemented the minimum
reinforcement area ( As ,min ) of ACI 318M-05
[1] for limiting crack width and spacing under
the service load condition. In each direction,
As ,min f y
by N min
where;
t
hb hyt
ht Ntc 1
Mtc
and
and N yb
in
the
x-
and
y-directions
c
Nx
Ny
Nx
c
N xb
Ny
c
yb
Ntc sin2
c
t
N cos
N xy
2
t
Nbc sin
20
and
b
cos
stress of reinforcement.
Therefore, in Eq. (8), when N xt
then set N xt
N min ,
value as
1
7
or
values accordingly.
Nx
N xt
Ny
N yt
Mx
N xt hxt
My
N yt h yt
Mx
M xbc
M tc sin 2
My
My
c
M yb
M tc cos 2
M xy
Mx
c
M xyb
M tc sin
cos
t
t
and 2
1
in which
M xbc
hb N xbc ,
c
M yb
c
hb N yb
and
c
M xyb
c
ht N xyb
22
N yt ,
, depths of compressive
concrete forces
c
c
c
, N yb and N xyb .From
N xb
N tc
2(hb N xy
hc sin 2
M xy )
23
Fahmi, Ali
387
c
b1,b2
c
c
Nxb
Nyb
c
c
Nxb
Nyb
2
c 2
xyb
c
b2
c
b
N
f
ab
tan 1
N xxt
Similarly, when
(1 Dxt ) N min
N xyt1
as,
Nyt
Dyt Nmin
hbNx Mx
hb hxt
hbNxy Mxy
Nxyt1
hb hxt
hb hxb
hb hxt
Dxt
Nyyt
Nxyt2
and Dyt
Also setting
hbNxy Mxy
N tc
My
hb N y
hc
26
hb hyt
hb hyb
hb hyt
N tc is expressed as
27
N xyt 2
N yyt
(1 D yt ) N min
2
9
3 Verification Examples
hb hyt
is calculated
The
design
equations
for
the
reinforcement required only in the bottom and
no reinforcement required are omitted here,
and the complete design algorithms for the
four cases are presented in details in Ref. [6]
hbNy My
0 when
tan
25
in which
Nxxt
28
N yt is smaller than
is calculated
as,
t
Nxt
5 to
0 , and
Design examples:
Gupta s design problem:
Gupta [4] showed a design example
problem in the case of reinforcement required
in the top and bottom layers, simultaneously.
The design variables of Gupta s example
(which are the only input data required for
DRCSH) are given in Table (1).
388
N x = -350.16 kN/ m (-2000 lb/ in.); N y = 297.636 kN/ m. (1700 lb/ in.); N xy = 175.08 kN/ m.
(1000 lb/ in.)
= 6.895 MPa(1000psi) ;
Initially assume
at = ab = 0.2h = 0.0508m.,
= 45 and
h xt
h yt
h xb h yb
0.1016m.
Gupta s Result
Present Study
N min
=0.0
No. of
iterations
at (m)
0.0254(1.0in)
a b (m)
0.0762(3.0in)
0.077
0.0792
()
45.00
45.00
45.00
45.00
78.45
78.76
229.179(1309lb/ in)
229.447
233.049
167.90(959lb/ in)
167.591
167.024
0.0
0.0
13.131
223.051(1274lb/ in)
222.492
221.959
620.13(3542lb/ in)
619.530
635.163
()
N xt
(kN/m)
N yt
(kN/m)
N xb
(kN/m)
N yb
(kN/m)
Sum of
Tensile
Forces
N min
=13.131
kN/m
6
0.021
0.0204
389
Table (3) Design variables of Lourenco and Figueiras s first design problem
Initially assume
h xt
h yt
= 45 and
Present study
Optimization
module
-
No. of
iterations
at (m)
0.0495
0.490
a b (m)
0.0816
0.075
()
45.00
45.6
45.00
()
-79.6
-78.9
-78.89
N xt
(kN/m)
N yt
(kN/m)
N xb
(kN/m)
N yb
(kN/m)
526.8
509.0
505.573
79.0
72.4
75.862
34.7
0.0
0.0
422.5
422.8
422.915
t
b
390
Table (5) Design variables of Lourenco and Figueiras s second design problem
Initially assume
h xt
h yt
= 45 and
Table (6) Comparison of the designs results of Lourenco and Figueiras s second design problem
Lourenco and Figueiras s
Design
results
No. of
iterations
Present study
Optimization
module
at (m)
0.0474
0.048
a b (m)
0.0236
0.015
()
71.11
()
-44.6
-45.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
377.6
377.1
378.787
493.7
494.2
494.206
t
b
N xt
(kN/m)
N yt
(kN/m)
N xb
(kN/m)
N yb
(kN/m)
Experimental examples:
Several experimental examples are
designed and performed with nonlinear
inelastic analysis [6] to show the adequacy of
the design equations. If the calculated ultimate
strength is larger than the ultimate strength
obtained from the test, then the design method
can be considered satisfactory, The
experimental examples are: (1)Marti et al. s [7]
slab elements ML 7 and ML9 subjected to
torsional moments, (2) Polak and Vecchio s
[8] shell elements SM1, SM2 and SM3
models.
NUCEJ vol.11, No.3,2008
391
Table (7) Comparison of steel ratios from original tested specimens, from design teams and from
present design code (%)
Top layer (Steel ratio)
Models
Marti et al [7 ]
ML 7
Present study
Marti et al [7 ]
ML 9
Present study
Polak and Vecchio [8]
SM 1
Min [5]
Present study
Polak and Vecchio [8]
Lourenco and Figueiras[3]
SM 2
Min [5]
Present study
Polak and Vecchio [8]
Lourenco and Figueiras[3]
SM 3
Design teams
Min [5]
Present study
x-dir.
y-dir.
x-dir.
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.25
1.00
1.21
0.96
0.95
1.25
0.0
0.01
0.01
1.25
0.0
0.01
0.01
1.00
1.21
0.96
0.95
0.42
0.0
0.01
0.01
0.42
0.0
0.01
0.01
1.00
1.21
0.96
0.95
1.25
1.43
1.59
1.55
1.25
1.84
1.86
1.83
1.25
0.0
0.01
0.01
0.42
0.0
0.01
0.01
1.25
1.42
1.55
1.42
392
Table (8) Comparison of ultimate strength obtained from the test and calculated by nonlinear
inelastic analysis
Models
Ultimate Moment
Obtained from the
test (kNm/m)
Calculated Ultimate
Moment [6](kNm/m)
42.5
45.208
107
ML 9
101.5
112.839
111
SM 1
477
652.86
118
SM 2
421
383.11
91
SM 3
488
546.56
112
Conclusions
4)
5)
6)
5 References
2)
3)
[(2)*(1)]/100
ML 7
Ratio %
7)
8)
Fahmi, Ali
393
(Whitney)
(DRCSH)
394