Checks for walls and details of concrete structures

ISBN 978-80-906759-0-2 24. Czech Concrete Days (2017)
1
A SOLUTION FOR WALLS AND DETAILS OF CONCRETE
STRUCTURES
Jaroslav Navrátil Petr Ševčík Libor Michalčík Petr Foltyn Jaromír Kabeláč
Abstract
Every concrete structure has several parts with some form of discontinuity - bracket,
opening, anchorage, etc. In spite of discontinuity regions being present in every concrete
structure, no single solution exists so far for complete design of concrete details, walls and
diaphragms. Single-purpose, specialized programs or Excel design sheets based on Strut-
and-Tie Method are currently used for the design of discontinuity regions. Conversely
scientifically oriented programs might exceptionally be used with no link-up with national
standards and regulations, and without design and optimization of reinforcement. This
practice leads to oversimplifications or on the contrary to the attempt to simulate reality. A
new method and a software tool allow engineers to design appropriate concrete dimensions
as well as location and amount of reinforcement in an efficient way, providing safe and
economical designs based on valid standards. It is based on a computer-aided
implementation of stress field models. Simplified assumptions similar to the ones used in
hand calculations are used, improved to allow ductility and SLS verifications, and based on
clear material properties. Stress fields can be seen as a generalized Strut-and-Tie Method in
which real members with stresses instead of force resultants are considered. The
verification has been done against code independent cases as well as against existing codes
with material laws as defined in the codes.
Key words: Concrete, Wall, Detail, Discontinuity, Reinforcement
1 Introduction
Design and assessment of concrete elements are normally performed at sectional (1D-
elements) or point (2D-elements) levels. This procedure is described in all standards for
structural design, and it is used in everyday practice of a structural engineer. However, it is
not always known or respected that it is acceptable only in areas where the Bernoulli -
Navier hypothesis of plane strain distribution applies (referred to as B-regions). Places,
where this hypothesis does not apply, are called discontinuity or disturbed regions (D-

2
Regions). Examples of B and D regions of 1D-elements are given in Fig. 1. These are e.g.
bearing areas, parts where concentrated loads are applied, locations of an abrupt change in
the cross-section, openings, etc.
Fig. 1 A structure containing B and D regions
Fig. 2 D-Regions in the transition of the
column support system to the wall
D-Regions also occur on wall elements of cast-in-place and prefabricated objects.
Although linear-elastic models used in the present practice reveal this fact, see Fig. 2, they
are unable to give a true picture of stiffness reduction, stress redistribution due to cracks,
tension stiffening, compression softening of concrete, etc. The result of linear-elastic
analysis is a color image of unrealistic internal forces and stresses with irresistible peaks,
which is useless for the engineer. Application of such results often leads to overestimation
of structural stiffness, crack formation and excessive deflection.
An example may be an exterior facade walls with window openings. Albeit also linear-
elastic calculation shows high stress concentrations at the corners of the headers, the results
are incomprehensible, and do not provide a hint for how to position the reinforcement,
which leads to cracks in the parapet walls. Problems also arise, for example, in the
transitions of the column support system to the wall, see Fig. 2. The high pressure in the
columns combined with the insufficient transverse reinforcement of the wall causes the
wall to be transversely distorted, the columns punch through it, and almost vertical cracks
occur.
2 Methods for design of walls and discontinuity regions
It is possible to use sophisticated programs that work with nonlinear computational models
and methods in case of complicated problems of building practice. These methods,
however, can hardly be used for conceptual design of structures or structural details. They
require to have pre-designed the dimensions of members, and also positions, directions and
amount of reinforcement. In addition, they are still very challenging in terms of necessary
time and user experience. It is necessary to correctly choose material models and their
parameters, which the user often does not understand and for time reasons or for lack of
knowledge he does not make the necessary verification and validation of these models. For

3
this reason, results can often be very different from reality. It is also very difficult to
interpret the results in terms of standard provisions. In fact, the models try to capture
virtual reality rather than standard code assessment. Although stochastic methods based on
probabilistic principles have been developed for these purposes, their demandingness is
even higher and unacceptable in practice.
(a) Diaphragm of box-girder bridge (b) Bracket in IDEA StatiCa [2] according to [1]
Fig. 3 Practical examples of Strut-and-Tie Method
Therefore, D-Regions are currently most often
designed using the truss analogy (Strut-and-Tie
Method). Based on structural shape, load, and
boundary conditions, the engineer proposes a
substitute truss model, on which he then
determines the load-bearing capacity of concrete
struts, nodal areas and reinforcement (ties). The
method is very simple; the truss model calculation
is fast and can be easily done. There are many
models proven by good practice and recommended
by standards, see Fig. 3.
However, the method also has a number of
disadvantages. Especially with regard to the
simplification of the truss model, only the ultimate
limit state (ULS) can be checked. The assessment
of crack width, stress limitation and deflection is
impossible using this method. This disadvantage
becomes a considerable constraint due to the
increasing emphasis on serviceability limit state
design (SLS).
Another disadvantage is the ambiguity in creation
of a suitable truss model. There are an infinite
number of possible truss models, but only one of
Fig. 4 Demonstration of the variety of
"correct" truss models

4
them is optimal and there is no guaranteed way to identify it, see Fig. 4. When creating the
model, we must first recognize the coherence of (i) the design of member or its detail with
(ii) its computational model. The design of shape, dimensions and reinforcement
determines the behavior of the structure and also the mode of failure. We usually know the
“weak” links in the structure in advance, or we predetermine them deliberately. Thus we in
fact create the model of the structure in the ultimate limit state.
A good example is a deliberate under-sizing of the reinforcement in the cross-section
above the support of a continuous beam that, together with a sufficient reinforcement in the
middle of the spans, results in the redistribution of moments. The creation of the model
must respect among others the fact that the tensile strength of the concrete is practically
zero and that the same is true for the flexural resistance of the concrete itself as well.
Therefore, if the concrete is attributed with the ability to transfer just the compressive
forces and the steel with the ability to transfer only the tensile forces, we get a very simple
truss model consisting of elements exclusively under tension or compression. The strut and
tie model must express the behavior of the structure in the limit state. The creation of the
model thus cannot be accidental, but it must correspond to the conditions of the lower
bound and upper bound theorems. The impact of rebar positions on mode of failure and
crack propagation can be demonstrated on the example in Fig. 4. The author’s experience
is that even professionals have inadequate knowledge of the main principles for the
creation of the models in cases of atypical details.
3 Safe and economic design
The interest of structural engineers in a reliable
and fast tool to design D-Regions has led to the
decision to develop new computational software
for the design and assessment of details and walls
of reinforced concrete structures, which is
commercially available under the name IDEA
StatiCa Detail [2]. This program combines the
benefits and eliminates all the above shortcomings
of the methods described in the previous chapter.
The first advantage of the method, which is
particularly relevant for atypical details and wall
structures, is the possibility of designing the
positions and directions of reinforcement by the
topology optimization method, see [4], or
alternatively by linear analysis, see Fig. 5. In
particular, the design of the truss model by topology optimization identifies optimal
reinforcement locations and directions, which can greatly assist the structural engineer in
deciding how to reinforce the structure. No commercial tool used so far provides such a
feature.
Fig. 5 Identification of truss model

5
(a) Positions of reinforcement
(b) ULS check - stress fields, reinforcement and
anchorage
Fig. 6 Wall panel with an opening in IDEA StatiCa [2]
4 Assessment based on valid standards
Similarly to the Strut-and-Tie Method, the specification of input data, reinforcement
design, the analysis, and the code assessment are very fast and can be done, contrary to
general nonlinear programs in the order of 10 to 20 minutes. The model has been verified
and validated, including all parameters entered into the calculation, by the prestigious
Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zürich [3], [5]. Therefore no special
experience or knowledge is needed to understand the input values and the results. The
assumptions of the solution are above the models recommended by national standards.
However, all results are fully interpreted in terms of code provisions [1]. Therefore the
solution is code independent and at the same time code complying. The methods used for
the calculation and assessment are general both in terms of structural topology, see Fig. 7
and the results provided, see Fig. 8. The results are comprehensible and reflecting reality to
the full extent. They can serve not only for the assessment of ULS, but also for SLS
including crack widths, deflections and stress limitations. Note that SLS checks have not
been fully implemented yet. Auxiliary results in the form of zones of excessive tensile
concrete strains can be used to help with the assessment of crack width check in the first
version of the program.
(a) Combination of dapped end with the haunch
and opening
(b) Wall with openings
Fig. 7 General topology of discontinuity regions

6
(a) Load and
reinforcement
(b) ULS check (c) Anchorage (d) Tensile strains
Fig. 8 Pier cap of bridge structure
5 Conclusion
Structural analysis and design of concrete structures is a challenging task – both because of
the natural complexity of the subject and because of the regulation an engineer has to
comply with to get the project done. The construction process has never been as fast as it is
today, and the pressure on cost-effectiveness of structures is growing with zero tolerance of
structural defects. In such an environment, engineers are pushed to work quicker, more
accurate and more reliably than ever before. And they need a different set of tools for that.
The development trend of IDEA StatiCa is to provide engineers with a generic, complete,
and easy-to-use solution for designing and dimensioning structural elements, cross-sections
and details in accordance with applicable standards. We believe that IDEA StatiCa Detail
provides a solution on the level of advanced non-linear programs, but at the same time it
will be commonly used for day-to-day practical design.
6 Acknowledgements
This project has received funding from the Eurostars-2 joint program, project ID 10 571,
code 7D16010 with co-funding from the European Union Horizon 2020 research and
innovation program. Related software IDEA StatiCa Detail was developed by IDEA RS
Ltd in collaboration with IBK ETH Zürich. Above the co-authors of this paper, following
members of the team participated in the project: IDEA StatiCa developers Michal Číhal,
Rostislav Krč, Filip Svoboda, Filip Adler and Michael Konečný and IBK ETH Zürich
researchers supervised by Prof. Kaufmann. The paper was translated from Czech language.
Literature
[1] EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1: General rules and
rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, 2015.
[2] IDEA StatiCa, User guide, IDEA RS s.r.o., www.ideastatica.com.

7
[3] KAUFMANN, W., MATA-FALCON, J., Structural Concrete Design in the 21st
Century: are Limit Analysis Methods Obsolete?, In: Sborník ke konferenci 24.
BETONÁŘSKÉ DNY 2017, Czech Republic, ČBS ČSSI, 2017
[4] KONEČNÝ, M., KABELÁČ, J., NAVRÁTIL, J. Use of topology optimization in
concrete reinforcement design, In: Sborník ke konferenci 24. BETONÁŘSKÉ DNY
2017, Czech Republic, ČBS ČSSI, 2017
[5] MATA-FALCON, J., TRAN, D., T., KAUFMANN, W., NAVRÁTIL, J. Computer-
aided stress field analysis of discontinuity concrete regions, EURO-C 2018,
Computational Modelling of Concrete and Concrete Structures, Austria, in print,
2018
 IDEA RS s.r.o., U Vodárny 2a, 616 00 Brno
 +420 511 205 263,  navratil@ideastatica.com, URL www.ideastatica.com

Checks for walls and details of concrete structures

More Related Content

What's hot (10)

Similar to Checks for walls and details of concrete structures (20)

More from Jo Gijbels (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Checks for walls and details of concrete structures