Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Design Aids For The Evaluation of Creep Induced Structural Effects
Design Aids For The Evaluation of Creep Induced Structural Effects
Design Aids For The Evaluation of Creep Induced Structural Effects
+ (1)
) , , ( ) , ( ) , ( ) , (
1 0 0 1 0
1
t t d t J t t J - t t J
t
t
(2)
NUMERICAL SOLUTION
The classical numerical algorithm first proposed by Bazant [Bazant 1972a] was
adopted for the approximate solution of eqs. (1) and (2). The algorithm is
illustrated in Appendix 1, with reference to the determination of R by eq. (1) and
using the trapezoidal rule. Considering that the term J(t
1
,t
0
) at the left side of eq.
(2) is constant by respect to time, the numerical solution of eq. (2) can be easily
obtained adopting the same algorithm, provided that t t
0
and t
1
t
0
.
Two options are available for the approximation of the integrals with finite
sums: the trapezoidal rule and the rectangle rule. The second option allows a
quicker solution and usually leads to acceptable approximations if the number of
time steps is not too small. However, computation time is not significant even
when adopting the trapezoidal rule: of the order of seconds for the entire family of
curves of R or appearing on one window.
The selection of the most convenient progressions of time steps, in terms of
amplitude of the first time interval and rate of the geometrical progression, or in
terms of final time, can be easily performed thanks to the rapidity of the process
verifying the influence of the refinement of the adopted subdivision of the time
scale on the numerical results of the computed function through repeated trials.
The following values are normally adequate for accuracy in the results up to
third digit for all the models:
- amplitude of the first time interval: t
2
= t
2
- t
1
= 0.01 day = 864 s,
- number of step per decade: m = 80,
- number of steps for 10
5
days: 550.
CREEP MODELS
The following models have been embedded in the program: CEB MC90, B3,
and GL2000. Their formulations are presented in Appendix 2, together with the
input data required by each model.
7
EQUIVALENT CONDITIONS FOR A COMPARISON OF MODELS
For a comparison of the predictions of the different models, equivalent
conditions can be established setting at the same values identical or equivalent
parameters.
Some minor problems arise in this selection, as e.g. in the case of the
parameters related to the type of cement, due the different classification of
cements in the CEB-FIP Model Code and in American Standards. In the examples
of the families of curves shown in Figs. 1 to 12 the following equivalence has
been adopted: normal (N) or rapid hardening (R) cements for CEB MC90 model,
and Type I cement for B3 and GL2000 models.
One other minor difficulty is due to the fact that the reference concrete strength
is the characteristic strength at 28 days f
ck28
(termed f
ck
) for CEB MC90 model,
and the mean compressive strength at 28 days f
cm28
for the B3 and GL2000
models. The characteristic strength f
ck
has been selected as one of the general
input data in the present program. The relationship f
cm28
= 1.1 f
ck28
+ 5.0 (MPa),
suggested by GL2000 model for an estimation of f
cm28
from f
ck28
, has been
extended also to the B3 model.
B3 and GL2000 models require the introduction of the additional parameter t
c
(age when drying begins, end of moist curing, with t
c
= t
0
). In the examples of the
families of curves shown in Figs. 1 to 12 a fixed value t
c
= 3 days has been
adopted for all the curves.
In this respect, it must be observed that model GL2000 specifies that to
calculate relaxation the correction term (t
c
) for the effect of drying before
loading must remain constant at the initial value throughout the relaxation period.
This specification has been extended to the calculation of the redistribution
function. Therefore, when the solver calculates for this model a curve of the
relaxation function R(t,t
0
) or of the redistribution function (t,t
0,
t
1
) for a given t
0
,
the value of (t
c
) has been be set constant for all the compliance curves involved
in the calculation at the value calculated for t
0
. On the contrary, in B3 model the
value of t
c
= t
0
is set constant for all the compliance curves involved in the same
type of calculations.
Model B3 requires the introduction of further parameters related to the
concrete mix and to curing conditions. The following values were adopted for the
curves shown in the figures:
Aggregate content: a = 1820 kg/m
3
Cement content: c = 400 kg/m
3
8
Water content: w = 180 kg/m
3
Curing condition factor:
2
= 1,2 (normal curing)
Cross section factor: k
s
= 1
INITIAL (NOMINAL ELASTIC) VALUES OF STRAINS AND STRESSES
In creep prediction models the compliance function J(t,t
0
) is normally
conventionally separated into an initial age dependent strain due to unit stress
J(t
0
+ ,t
0
) with = t - t
0
small, which is treated as instantaneous and elastic
(nominal elastic strain), and represented as the inverse of a nominal elastic
modulus E
c
(t
0
), and a creep strain C(t ,t
0
), i.e.:
) (
1
) , ( ) , (
0
0 0 0 0
t E
t t J t t J
c
+ (3)
) , (
) (
1
) , (
0
0
0
t t C
t E
t t J
c
+ (4)
By analogy, in the relaxation function the initial age dependent stress response
due to a unit imposed strain for = t - t
0
small is treated as instantaneous and
elastic, i.e.:
R(t
0
+ , t
0
) R(t
0
, t
0
) = E
c
(t
0
) (5)
as indicated in eq. (1).
This conventional separation is included directly in the formulations of the
model for CEB MC90 and GL2000 models.
For CEB MC 90 it is accompanied by the indication that the corresponding
modulus of elasticity is defined as the tangent modulus at the origin of the stress-
strain diagram, and that it is approximately equal to the slope of the secant of
the unloading branch for rapid unloading and does not include initial plastic
deformation. As for the stress rate an indication of 1MPa/s is given [CEB 1993].
For GL2000 no specific indication is given on the stress duration for measuring
the initial strain and the corresponding elastic modulus E
cmt0
.
In model B3 this conventional separation is not applicable. The formulation of
the model includes an instantaneous strain due to unit stress, termed q
1
, which is
age independent and represents the inverse of an asymptotic modulus for load
durations t t
0
= 0. To be able to compare the graphical outputs of functions J
and R of model B3 with those of the other models, a conventional value of = 10
seconds has been adopted in eq. (3). It must be noted that the graphical
representation of the relaxation curves requires selecting a conventional initial
(nominal elastic) stress due to the unit imposed strain.
9
COMPARISONS OF THE PREDICTIONS OF THE DIFFERENT MODELS
The immediate availability of extended sets of charts of the basic functions J, R
and , for a wide range of material, geometrical and ambient parameters, allows
easy comparisons between the different models.
Although the reliability of creep prediction models must be evaluated with
respect to their agreement with the available experimental results (essentially
concerning the compliance J and gathered in the data bank [MLLER 1993]), a
comparison between the predictions of the different models is not devoid of
interest.
In fact, in the parallel paper [Chiorino 2005] it has been observed that, in spite
of the fair to good ratings depending on the adopted statistical criteria and
indicators attributed in the recent literature [ACI 2004, Al-Manaseer and Lam
2004] to all the three models considered here, with regard to their agreement with
the data bank, considerable differences can be observed between the predictions
of the different models. In particular the differences between on one side the CEB
MC90 creep model and, on the other side, B3 and GL2000 models, respectively,
are noteworthy.
These differences concern both the shapes of the families of curves, and their
long-term values, for all the basic functions. In fact, the influence of both long
elapsed times t (e.g. for time ranges of the order of magnitude of the service life of
a structure, that largely exceed the extension of any experimental collection of
data), and of almost the entire range of ages t
0
at loading or t
1
at the moment of
modification of the static scheme, is evaluated in significantly different ways by
the two groups of models. This can be clearly observed e.g. in the set of Figures 1
to 3 for J, 4 to 6 for R, and of Figures 7 to 12 for , for typical average values of
the input parameters.
The reasons of these differences and their impact on design strategies, and on
the formulation of code provisions, have been discussed in the parallel paper.
The flexibility and immediateness of the program presented in this paper,
allowing extended parametric explorations, offer a valuable instrument for this
kind of evaluations.
CONCLUSIONS
The general approach of creep analysis of structures based on the linear theory
of viscoelasticity and on the extended use of the four fundamental theorems leads
to very compact and theoretically correct solutions for homogeneous structrures
with rigid and delayed restraints. The use of reduced relaxation functions allows
the theoretical solution to be extended to homogeneous structures with elastic
restraints.
10
In this perspective the paper has presented a powerful design tool, conceived
for researchers and designers, consisting of a software application for a quick,
automatic calculation of the three basic functions (compliance function J,
relaxation function R and redistribution function ) characterizing these solutions,
with reference to the principal creep models presently considered by international
civil engineering societies. The computer program has been designed to be easy to
use and to allow control on all the parameters involved by the prediction models,
It has a powerful graphic module for handling and printing charts.
The three following models have been considered: CEB MC 90, B3 and
GL2000. The immediate availability of the basic functions allows extended
comparisons of the outputs of the different models, and the evaluation of the
influence that the selection of a particular model has on the assessment of
structures.
To allow a large distribution of this design aid a web page has been created,
from which the software can be easily downloaded. The web page
www.polito.it/creepanalysis is hosted by the web site of the Politecnico di Torino
and will be upgraded by the Creepanalysis Research Group with the aim of
developing further automatic tools devoted to the creep structural analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The assistance of Dr. G. Lacidogna is gratefully acknowledged.
APPENDIX 1
Numerical solution of the fundamental integral equation for the determination
of the relaxation function R(t,t
0
) from the compliance function J(t,t
0
)
The numerical procedure illustrated in the following consists in the step-by-
step solution of the Volterra integral equation (1) for the determination of the
relaxation function R(t,t
0
) from a given compliance function J(t,t
0
), and is based
on the approximation (with the trapezoidal rule) of the superposition integral with
finite sums.
Subdividing time t by discrete times t
0
, t
1
, t
2
,...t
i
...t
k
into sub intervals t
i
= t
i
- t
i-
1
(i=1,2,...,k) (with t
0
t
1
and t
1
= t
1
- t
0
= 0, and consequently
c
(t
1
) = 1), eq.
(1) may then be written:
1
1
2
1
1
+
i
k
k i k i i
J t t J t t R t [ ( , ) ( , )] ( ) (A1.1)
Rewriting eq. (A1.1) for t=t
k-1
(for k>1):
1
1
2
1
1
1 1 1
+
i
k
k i k i i
J t t J t t R t [ ( , ) ( , )] ( ) (A1.2)
11
and subtracting these equation from (A1.1) one obtains:
for k >1
R t
J t t J t t J t t J t t R t
J t t J t t
k
i
k
k i k i k i k i i
k k k k
( )
[ ( , ) ( , ) ( , ) ( , )] ( )
( , ) ( , )
+
+
1
1
1 1 1 1
1
(A1.3)
for k =1
R t
J t t J t t
E t
c
( )
( , ) ( , )
( )
1
1 1 0 0
0
1 1
(A1.4)
In consideration of:
- the particular prescribed strain history, which exhibits only an immediate
discontinuous change at time of loading t
0
t
1
(
c
(t
1
) = 1) and remains constant
afterwards, and the corresponding stress history (relaxation function) showing a
corresponding initial instantaneous change followed by a variation (decrement) at
a decreasing rate,
- the particular shape of the creep curves described by the compliance
function J(t,t
0
) which are characterized by significant slopes in the logarithmic
time-scale for elapsed times ranging from seconds to decades of years (rapid
initial increments of the strain followed by increments at decreasing rate and
limited, but non negligible, long-term increments),
it is possible to gradually increase the time steps t
k
in order to reach the long-
term response with an acceptable number of steps, considering that the first
interval should be of the order of fractions of the day (due to the high initial slope
of the creep curves, and, correspondingly, of the calculated relaxation curve).
For practical computation it is most convenient [Bazant 1972a] to choose the
discrete time (t
k
- t
0
) in a geometric progression, that is (t
k
- t
0
)/( t
k-1
- t
0
) =
constant = q. In the log(t-t
0
) time scale the time steps appear as constant and
putting q=10
1/m
, i.e.:
(t
k
- t
0
) = 10
1/m
( t
k-1
- t
0
) or log(t
k
- t
0
)=1/m +log( t
k-1
- t
0
),
m represents the number of steps per decade log10 (discussion in [Chiorino and
Lacidogna 1993]).
APPENDIX 2
In this appendix a compact summary of the formulations and the parameters
involved in numerical calculation is given; some problems related to different
definitions of parameters are discussed at the end of each model description.
A2.1 CEB MC90 Model [CEB 1993]
ci c
E
t t
t E
t t J
) 0
0
0
, (
) (
1
) , (
+
12
3 / 1
0 0 ci
] / ) [(
cm ck c
f f f E E +
4
0
10 15 . 2
c
E
8 f
10
0
cm
f
ci E
E t E ) ( (t)
c
5 . 0
)] ( [ ) ( t t
cc E
'
'
]
]
]
]
,
`
.
|
2 / 1
1
/
28
1 exp ) (
t t
s t
cc
1
1
t
) ( ) , (
0 0 0
t t t t
c
) ( ) (
0 0
t f
cm RH
3 / 1
0
0
) / ( 46 . 0
/ 1
1
h h
RH RH
RH
+
% 100
0
RH
u A h
c
/ 2
100
0
h
5 . 0
0
) / (
3 . 5
) (
cm cm
cm
f f
f
2 . 0
1 0
0
) / ( 1 . 0
1
) (
t t
t
+
3 . 0
1 0
1 0
0
/ ) (
/ ) (
) (
]
]
]
t t t
t t t
t t
H
c
1500 250 2 . 1 1 150
0
18
0
+
'
'
,
`
.
|
+
h
h
RH
RH
H
The input data necessary to perform calculation are:
f
ck
concrete characteristic compressive strength at 28 days [MPa]
s coefficient related to the type of cement
RH relative humidity expressed as percentage
A
c
section cross area [mm
2
]
u section perimeter [mm]
t age of concrete [days]
t
0
age of concrete at loading [days].
13
A2.2 B3 Model [BAZANT and BAWEJA 2000]
) , , ( ) , ( ) , (
0 0 0 0 c d 1
t t t C t t C q t t J + +
28 1
/ 6 . 0
cm
E q
28 28
4734
cm cm
f E (*)
) / ln( ] ) ( 1 ln[ ) , ( ) , (
0 4 0 3 0 2 0 0
t t q t t q t t Q q t t C
n
+ + +
9 . 0
28
5 . 0 6
2
10 4 . 185
cm
f c q
) 0 ( / 1
) 0 (
0
0
0 0
) , (
) (
1 ) ( ) , (
t r
t r
f
f
t t Z
t Q
t Q t t Q
]
]
]
]
,
`
.
|
+
1 9 / 4
0
9 / 2
0 0
] ) ( 21 . 1 ) ( 086 . 0 [ ) (
+ t t t Q
f
] ) ( 1 ln[ ) ( ) , (
0 0 0
n m
t t t t t Z +
8 ) ( 7 . 1 ) (
12 . 0
0 0
+ t t r
4
2 3
) / ( 29 . 0 c w q q
7 . 0 6
4
) / ( 10 3 . 20
c a q
2 / 1
0 5 0
)}] ( 8 exp{ )} ( 8 [exp{ ) , , ( t H t H q t t t C
c d
6 . 0
6 1
28 5
10 757 . 0
sh cm
f q
6 28 . 0
28
1 . 2
2 1
10 ] 270 019 . 0 [
+
cm sh
f w
) ( ) 1 ( 1 ) ( t S h t H
) ( ) 1 ( 1 ) (
0 0
t S h t H
]
]
]
]
,
`
.
|
2 / 1
tanh ) (
sh
c
t t
t S
]
]
]
]
,
`
.
|
2 / 1
0
0
tanh ) (
sh
c
t t
t S
2 25 . 0
28
08 . 0
)] / ( 2 [ 085 . 0 S V k f t
s cm c sh
The input data necessary to perform calculation are:
f
cm28
concrete mean compressive strength at 28 days [MPa]
a aggregate content in concrete [Kg/m
3
]
c cement content in concrete [Kg/m
3
]
w water content in concrete [Kg/m
3
]
a
1
coefficient related to the Type of cement
a
2
coefficient related to the Curing method
h relative humidity express as a decimal
k
s
coefficient related to the Cross-section shape
V/S volume to surface ratio [mm]
t age of concrete [days]
t
0
age of concrete loading [days]
14
t
c
age when drying begins, end of moist curing [days].
Notes:
The value of E
cm28
is computed from the formula (*) which is considered as a
part of the model formulation.
The program calculates f
cm28
from the characteristic strength at 28 days f
ck28
according to the same formula suggested by GL2000 model.
The exponent m and n are empirical quantities assumed to be equal
respectively to 0.5 and 0.1.
The value of t
c
, representing the age when the moist curing of concrete ends
and start the drying, must be less than t
0
.
When the solver calculates a curve of the relaxation function R(t,t
0
) or of the
redistribution function (t,t
0,
t
1
) for a given t
0
, the value of t
c
is set constant for all
the compliance curves involved in calculation.
A2.3 GL2000 [GARDNER and LOCKMAN 2001]
28 0
0
1
) , (
cm cmt
E E
t t J
+
cmt cmt
f E 4300 3500 +
4 / 3
4 / 3
28
bt a
t
f f
cm cmt
+
0 . 5 1 . 1
28 28
+
ck cm
f f
,
`
.
|
,
`
.
|
+
,
`
.
|
+
,
`
.
|
+
+
5 . 0
2
0
0 2
5 . 0
0
0
5 . 0
0
3 . 0
0
3 . 0
0
) / ( 12 . 0
) 086 . 1 1 ( 5 . 2
7
7
14 ) (
) (
2 ) (
S V t t
t t
h
t t
t t
t t t
t t
t
c
If t
0
= t
c
1 ) (
c
t
If t
0
> t
c
5 . 0
5 . 0
2
0
0
) / ( 12 . 0
1 ) (
]
]
]
]
,
`
.
|
+
S V t t
t t
t
c
c
c
The input data necessary to perform calculation are:
f
cm28
concrete mean compressive strength at 28 days [MPa];
a,b coefficients related to the Type of cement;
h relative humidity expressed as a decimal;
V/S volume to surface ratio [mm];
t age of concrete [days]
t
0
age of concrete loading [days]
t
c
age when drying begins, end of moist curing [days].
15
Notes:
The value of f
cm28
is obtained from f
ck28
according to the formula:
which is considered as a part of the model formulation.
The value of t
c
, representing the age when the moist curing of concrete ends
and start the drying, must be less than t
0
When the solver calculates a curve of the relaxation function R(t,t
0
) or of the
redistribution function (t,t
0,
t
1
) for a given t
0
, the value of (t
c
) is set constant for
all the compliance curves involved in the calculation.
NOTATION
t = time, representing the age of concrete, in days
t
0
= age at loading, in days
t
0
+
= age immediately after loading, in days
t
1
t
0
+
= age at change of static scheme, in days
t
c
= age when drying begins, end of moist curing, in days
J(t,t
0
) = creep or compliance function,
R(t,t
0
) = relaxation function
(t,t
0
,t
1
) = redistribution function
For notations specific to the CEB MC 90, B3 and GL200 creep prediction
models refer to Appendix 2
REFERENCES
ACI 209 (2004), Guide to Factors Affecting Shrinkage and Creep of Hardened
Concrete, Chapter 5 - Modelling and Calculation of Shrinkage and Creep, Draft
Document.
Bazant Z.P. (1972a), Numerical Determination of Long-range Stress History from
Strain History in Concrete, Material and Structures, Vol. 5, pp. 135-141.
Bazant Z.P. (1972b), Prediction of Concrete Creep Effects Using Age-Adjusted
Effective Modulus method, ACI Journal, Vol. 69, p. 212-217.
Bazant Z. P. and Baweja S. (2000), Creep and shrinkage prediction model for
analysis and design of concrete structures: Model B3. in: A. Al-Manaseer ed., A.
Neville Symposium: Creep and Shrinkage Structural Design Effects, ACI Fall
Convention, 1997, ACI SP-194, pp. 1-83.
Bazant, Z. P. (2000), Criteria for Rational Prediction of Creep and Shrinkage of
Concrete, in: A. Al-Manaseer ed., A. Neville Symposium: Creep and Shrinkage
Structural Design Effects, ACI Fall Convention, 1997, ACI SP-194, pp. 237-260.
Bazant, Z. P. (2001), Creep of Concrete, Encyclopedia of Materials: Science and
Technology, K.H.J. Buschow et., Eds., Vol. 2C, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1797-
1800.
0 . 5 1 . 1
28 28
+
ck cm
f f
16
Bazant Z. P., Cusatis G. and Cedolin L. (2004), Temperature Effect on Concrete
Creep Modeled by Microprestress-Solidification Theory, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 6,June 1, 2004, pp. 691-699.
CEB (1993), CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, CEB Bulletin dInformation, N
213/214, Thomas Telford, London, 437 pp.
CEN EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION (2004), European Standard,
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures, Part 2: Concrete Bridges, Design and
detailing rules (Annex K), pr-EN 1992-2, Stage 49, July 2004, 120 pp .
Chiorino M.A. (Chairm. of Edit. Team), Napoli P., Mola F. and Koprna M.,
(1984), CEB Design Manual on Structural Effects of Time-dependent Behaviour
of Concrete, CEB Bulletin d'Information N 142/142 bis, Georgi Publishing Co.,
Saint-Saphorin, Switzerland, 391 pp.
Chiorino M.A., Creazza G., Mola F. and Napoli P. (1986), Analysis of Aging
Viscoelastic Structures with n-Redundant Elastic Restraints, Fourth RILEM
International Symposium on Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete: Mathematical
Modelling, Z.P. Bazant ed., Northwestern University, Evanston, 1986, pp. 623-
644.
Chiorino M.A. and Lacidogna G. (1993), Revision of the Design Aids of CEB
Design Manual on Structural Effects of Time-Dependent Behaviour of Concrete in
Accordance with the CEB/FIP Model Code 1990, CEB Bulletin d Information N
215, 297 pp.
Chiorino M.A., Dezi L. and Tarantino A.M. (1997), Creep Analysis of Structures
with Variable Statical Scheme: a Unified Approach, in: A. Al-Manaseer ed., A.
Neville Symposium: Creep and Shrinkage Structural Design Effects, ACI Fall
Convention, 1997, ACI SP-194, 2000, pp. 187-213.
Chiorino M.A. and Lacidogna G. (1999), General Unified Approach for Creep
Analysis of Concrete Structures, ACI-RILEM Workshop Creep and Shrinkage of
Concrete, March 1998, Revue franaise de gnie civil, vol. 3, N 3- 4, 1999, pp.
173-217.
Chiorino M.A., Dezi L. and Lacidogna G. (1999), Evaluation of Creep Influence
on the Modification of the Restraint Conditions in Concrete Structures,
Proceedings of fib Symposium 1999, Structural Concrete The Bridge between
People, Prague, October 1999, Vol. 2, pp.481-486.
Chiorino M. A. (2000), Principles for a Rational Viscoelastic Analysis of
Concrete Structures, Accademia delle Scienze, Torino, Memorie Sc. Fisiche, 24
(2000), pp. 57-80.
Chiorino M.A., Lacidogna G. and Segreto A. (2002), Design Criteria for Long-
term Performance of Concrete Structures Subjected to Initial Modifications of
Static Scheme, in Concrete Structures in the 21
st
Century, Proceedings of the 1
st
fib Congress 2002, Osaka, October 13-19, 2002, pp. 285-294.
Chiorino M. A. (2005), A Rational Approach to the Analysis of Creep Structural
Effects, in J. Gardner and J Weiss eds., Shrinkage and Creep of Concrete, ACI
SP-. 2005.
17
Dezi, L., Menditto, G., and Tarantino (1990), A.M., Homogeneous Structures
Subjected to Repeated Structural System Changes, J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, Vol.
116, No. 8, August, 1990, pp. 1723-1732.
Dezi, L., and Tarantino, A.M.(1991), Time-dependent Analysis of Concrete
Structures with Variable Structural System, ACI Mat. Journ., Vol. 88, May-June
1991, pp. 320-324.
Gardner N.J. and Lockman M.J. (2001), Design Provisions for Drying Shrinkage
and Creep of Normal Strength Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, March-April,
pp.159-167.
Giussani F. and Mola F. (2003), Long-term Behaviour of Cable-stayed Bridges,
Part I Theoretical Approach, Studies and Researches, Vol. 24, 2003, Graduate
School in Concrete Structures Fratelli Pesenti, Politecnico di Milano, Italy,
pp.153-187.
Krstek V., Vojtech P. and Pilhofer H-W (2001), Creep and Shrinkage Prediction
on the Web, Concrete International, January 2001, pp. 8-9.
Mola F (1993), The Reduced Relaxation Function Method: an Innovative
Approach to Creep Analysis of non Homogeneous Structures, Int. Conf. on
Concrete and Structures, Hong Kong, 1993.
Mller H.S. (1993), Considerations on the Development of a Database on Creep
and Shrinkage Tests, Proceedings of Fifth Int. RILEM Symposium Creep and
Shrinkage of Concrete, Z. P. Bazant and I. Carol eds., Spon, pp. 859-72.
18
Fig. 1 CEB MC90 model: compliance function J(t,t
0
).
Fig. 2 B3 model: compliance function J(t,t
0
).
Fig. 3 GL2000 model: compliance function J(t,t
0
).
19
Fig. 4 CEB MC90 model: relaxation function R(t,t
0
).
Fig. 5 B3 model: relaxation function R(t,t
0
).
Fig. 6 GL2000 model: relaxation function R(t,t
0
).
20
Fig. 7 CEB MC90 model: redistribution function (t,t
0
, t
1
) for t
0
= 7days.
Fig. 8 B3 model: redistribution function (t,t
0
, t
1
) for t
0
= 7days.
Fig. 9 GL2000 model: redistribution function (t,t
0
, t
1
) for t
0
= 7days.
21
Fig. 10 CEB MC90 model: redistribution function (t,t
0
, t
1
) for t
0
= 28days.
Fig. 11 B3 model: redistribution function (t,t
0
, t
1
) for t
0
= 28days.
Fig. 12 GL2000 model: redistribution function (t,t
0
, t
1
) for t
0
= 28days.