CIVL6003 – Advanced Reinforced

Concrete Structure Design

THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

Ir Dr. Ray Su
Department of Civil Engineering
(office: HW 6-6, Tel. no.: 2859 2648
Plastic theory - 02 Email: klsu@hku.hk)
Fundamental Theorems of Plastic Analysis
Main assumptions for the plastic theory at collapse of structures
(i) Sufficient plastic hinges must be formed to transform the structure into a
mechanism (Mechanism condition)
(ii) Work done by external loads is equal to work absorbed in plastic hinges
(Energy balance)
(iii) Bending moments anywhere cannot exceed plastic moment (Yield
condition)
sufficient ductility
for real str.
Theorem 1. Bending moment at collapse remains constant as the structure
deforms.
+σy
Rigid plastic materials Moment-rotation
σy M
θp
εp θp
section -σy
2
 Proportional loading

P’i is called proportional loading if P’i=ηPi

where η is some real number and Pi is the applied load.

P’1 P’2 P’i

P1 P2 Pi

In other words
Pi
=
Pi
Pn

P’n
3
 Lower Bound Theorem

Theorem 2. The lower bound theorem (or safe theorem or static theorem)
states if a body subject to any external load P’i (i = 1,..n), a stress
distribution can be found which satisfies both the equilibrium condition
and the yield condition (f ≤ 0), then P’i (the predicted load by LBT) is less
than or at most equal to the true collapse load Pi. The stress field of this
kind is called statically admissible.
P’1 P’2 P’i

Induced stress σ’ Equilibrium P’i σ’

Yield condition f ≤ 0

=> P’i ≤ Pi
4
P’n
 Proof
may not be the same as the true stress distribution
Assume that for the external load P’i, we can find a statically admissible
stress distribution   = (Q1 , Q 2 ,  ) which is in the body and satisfies both
the yield condition and equilibrium. The strains  and displacement field
u i correspond to the true collapse set. The principle of virtual work gives
The principle of virtual work gives

Variables
Work Done  P u =      dV
i i
V
P(25)
True collapse displacements

w h e r e d V is a v o lu m e e le m e n t, a n a r e a e le m e n t, o r a le n g th e le m e n t.

Denoting the statically admissible stress distribution due to the true collapse
load P as  = (Q1 , Q 2 ,  ) , the principle of virtual work gives

 Pu i i =     dV
V
P (26)

5
A ccording to equation P(10),
     P (27)
Q2
True collapse displacements
ε and strains

  Varying the stress on

the yield surface
Q1
    

T h e re fo re  P u   P u
i i i i P (2 8 )
W h e n P i  is a p ro p o rtio n a l lo a d in g s u c h th a t P i  =  L P i
L 1 P (2 9 )
The load Pi  obtained by the lower bound theorem is less than or equal to the
true collapse load P i .
This means that the load-carrying capacity predicted by the lower bound theorem
is always less than or equal to the true collapse load. We thus underestimate the
load-carrying capacity of the structures and the lower bound theorem can be 6
regarded as a safe theorem.
 Comments on Lower Bound Theorem

• A stress field that satisfies equilibrium (e.g. from FEA) and does not
violate the yield criteria at any point provides a lower-bound (safe)
estimate of the load-carrying capacity of rigid-plastic materials (which
can be extended to elasto-plastic materials)
• The true collapse displacements and strains do not need to be evaluated.
• To apply the above theorem, crushing of concrete should not occur prior
to yielding of reinforcement (i.e. sufficient ductility should be provided
to ensure that plastic deformation and load redistribution could happen.)
• Applications of Lower Bound Theorem: RC design based on load path
approach, strut & tie design for non-flexural members, panel design by
Mohr circle method (will be discussed in the coming lectures).

7
 Design of Transfer Plates

True applied load Pi → M x , M y , M xy Internal forces

For the easy of RC design, it is often assumed that

The design based on elastic finite element analysis must satisfy equilibrium.
To ensure all the design moment less than the yield moment would satisfy
the yield condition.
Hence the design forces to be resisted by the structure would be less than
the true collapse load according to the Lower Bound Theorem, i.e.
Pi '  Pi
The design is safe, if the material/structure is sufficiently ductile, according
to the lower bound theorem.
8
Shear concentration effects
Transfer structures such as transfer plates and transfer girders are often
massive and stiff. Many engineers may ignore the out-of-plane
deformations of the transfer plate and adopt rigid plate and rigid
diaphragm assumptions in seismic or wind load calculations.
However, such local
Shear force Shear force T- Tension
deformations are the increasing C- Compression
decreasing
primary cause of the abrupt
T
change in shear at the θe1 C
Shear walls T θc θe2
exterior walls and should C

not be neglected in seismic

analyses. Transfer Structure

Shear checking must be

performed for columns and
walls. Columns Core wall

Local deformations of a transfer structure

9
Shear concentration effects
a b c b a
Inter-storey drift Shear force
30 30
Core wall
Core wall Exterior wall
Exterior wall Column
25 Column 25

20 20
Coupling
27@3000=81000

Floor level

Beam

15 15

Exterior Center
Wall Wall
10 10

Transfer 5 5
Beam
Transfer level
Transfer level
13500

Column Center
Wall
0 0
-0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0025 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Shear force (kN)
Inter-storey drift

The difference in wall rotations above the transfer

10
structure causes shear concentration in walls.
Cracks above Transfer Structures

cracks on nonstructural walls

11
Cracks above Transfer Structures

12
Cracks above Transfer Structures

13
 Upper Bound Theorem
Theorem 3. The upper bound theorem (or unsafe theorem or kinematic theorem)
states that the external load P”i obtained from the energy balance of the external
work (from the external load P”i) and the internal work dissipate in plastic flow
due to any assumed kinematically admissible mechanisms (the strains   are
deformed in accordance with the normality condition, or flow rule) is greater
than, or at least equal to, the true collapse load Pi.

Example
P
A B C D
P”i ≥ Pi unsafe!
a a a
P
A B P” D Assume a kinematically admissible
mechanism and determine the critical
load by equating the external and
θ C 2θ internal works
P” 14
 Proof

By assuming a kinematically admission mechanism, the body will deform

with a geometrically admissible displacement field u” i and the
corresponding induced strains   .
Denote the true collapsed load as Pi and the associated statically admissible
stress distribution as  = (Q1 , Q2 ,). (The stresses Qi will be on the yield
surface). According to the principle of virtual work, the virtual work done to
deform the body corresponding to this assumed strain field   is

True collapse set

 P u  =   • dV = D
i i
V
P (30)
from assumed mechanism

15
It is however not certain if  obtained from Qi using the flow rule corresponds to
the strains   . Therefore, according to equation P(10),
Determine P” i from
true collapse load/stress energy balance

 P u =     dV       dV =  Pu

i i
V V
i i P (31)
follow flow rule
may not but for
follow flow assumed  ' '
rule
w here   is the stresses corresponding to the strains   according to the
norm ality condition.
Q2

Stresses which ε Deformation according to

correspond to the true the assumed mechanism,
the strains follow the

collapse load (Pi).
 ' ' normality condition.

σ' ' Q1
The stresses reached the yield surface
          following the assumed strains

16
W h e n P i  is a p r o p o r tio n a l lo a d in g s u c h th a t P i  =  U P i ,
From equation P(31)
Predicted load
 P u    Pu  =  P u 
i i i i U i i P (32)
true collapse load

It can be seem that  U ≥1. T herefore P ” i is greater than or equal to the true collapse
load P i .

This means that the load-carrying capacity predicted by the upper bound theorem
is always greater than or equal to the true collapse load. We thus overestimate the
load-carrying capacity of the structures and the upper bound theorem can be
regarded as an unsafe theorem.

17
 Comments on Upper Bound Theorem

• Assume a set of admissible mechanisms

• Following that, all the plastic hinges has been
reaching the yield moments
• Determine the critical load P ” by energy balance
• P ” ≥ P (true collapse load) Not safe!!
• Out of all mechanisms, search for the minimum P ”
• M ”  M (true moment in the structure) Not safe !!
• Out of all mechanisms, search for the maximum M ”
• Applications of the Upper Bound Theorem: Yield line
analysis for slab design, plastic design of steel frames

18
Theorem 4. The uniqueness theorem states that for any load, a distribution of
stresses can be found which simultaneously satisfies (1) the mechanism
condition, (2) the equilibrium condition and (3) the yield condition, then that load
is the true collapse load.

Proof:

Since the stress distribution satisfies the mechanism condition, the upper bound
theorem states that:
P” ≥ P P (33)

Since the stress distribution satisfies the equilibrium condition and the yield
condition, the lower bound theorem states that:

P’ ≤ P P (34)

The predicted load satisfies the all the above conditions simultaneously only if

P ≥ P’ = P” ≥ P or P’ = P” = P P (35)
19
 Example

Determine the critical loads of the following statically indeterminate beam by

(1) lower bound theorem (static theorem) and (2) upper bound theorem
(kinematic theorem). Hence verify the uniqueness theorem.

F
A B C D
a a a
F

As the statical indeterminacy for this beam is one, TWO plastic hinges
are sufficient to change the structure to become mechanism.

20
(A) Lower Bound Theorem or Static Theorem

F
A B C D
a a a
F
F -Fa/3

Fa/3
F
+
MA

MA
21
(A) Lower Bound Theorem or Static Theorem
Case A1 MA=MC=MA/3+FLa/3= MF
MF /3+FLa/3= MF
F
FL= 2MF/a Predicted load
A B C D
a a a
F MA MC=MA/3+Fa/3
F -Fa/3

Fa/3
F
+
MA

MA
22
(A) Lower Bound Theorem or Static Theorem
Case A2 -MB=MC=FLa/3= MF
FL= 3MF/a the largest force
F
-Fa/3
A B C D
a a a
Fa/3
F
F -Fa/3

Fa/3
F
+
MA

MA = 0

23
(B) Upper Bound Theorem or Kinematic Theorem

F
A B C D
a a a
F

Case B1
F Equating the external and internal works
2θ B θ
A D FU×2θ×a - FU×θ×a = MF×2θ+ MF×3θ
F C FU×θ×a = 5MF×θ
FU= 5MF /a Predicted load

24
(B) Upper Bound Theorem or Kinematic Theorem

F
A B C D
a a a
F

Case B2
Equating the external and internal works

F D -FU×θ×a + FU×2θ×a = MF×θ+ MF×3θ

A B
FU×θ×a = 4MF×θ
θ C 2θ FU= 4MF /a Predicted load
F

25
(B) Upper Bound Theorem or Kinematic Theorem

F
A B C D
a a a
F

Case B3
Equating the external and internal works

F D FU×2θ×a = MF×2θ +MF×4θ

A B
FU×θ×a = 3MF×θ
F 2θ C 2θ FU= 3MF /a the smallest force

26
 Constant Moment Resistant (MF)

Predicted load
Upper bound theorem carrying capacity

Case B1 FU= 5MF /a

Case B2 FU= 4MF /a

(lowest load) Case B3 FU= 3MF /a

They are the same.
Uniqueness Theorem
(highest load) Case A2 FL= 3MF/a

Case A1 FL= 2MF/a

Lower bound theorem

27
 Constant Applied Load (F)

Predicted internal
Upper bound theorem moment

Case B1 MU = Fa/5

Case B2 MU = Fa/4

(greatest internal moment) Case B3 MU = Fa/3

They are the same.
Uniqueness Theorem
(lowest internal moment) Case A2 ML = Fa/3

Case A1 ML = Fa/2
Lower bound theorem

28
 Comments
The Uniqueness theorem does not guarantee that the collapse mechanism
itself is unique. However, one thing is certain. If there are, say, two
different collapse mechanisms, both of which satisfy the three conditions
of mechanism, equilibrium, and yield, then the loading capacities
determined for the two mechanisms must be the same – they must each
be equal to the true collapse load.

Loading capacities are the same but the mechanisms are different.

29
 Comments
The three theorems of plastic collapse are, strictly speaking, only valid
for rigid-plastic structures, which have zero elastic displacement until
the collapse load is reached. They are, however, applicable to elastic-
plastic structures provided the effects of change of geometry or buckling
instability are not important.
Plastic theorems, which are based on rigid-plastic structures, can allow
internal load redistributions in structures and attain a higher load
resistant or capacity for the structures. However, it is important to note
that sufficient ductility (avoid brittle failure e.g. shear failure) should be
provided to the structures to allow sufficient plastic deformations in the
structures for the redistribution of internal loads. Failing to provide
sufficient ductility to the structure and applying the ultimate limit state
method to design the structure may over-estimate the load-capacity of
the structure and leads to an unsafe design.

M
Plastic hinge with constant moment.
θ
30
Related papers published

Su RKL and Siu WH (2007), Nonlinear response of bolt groups under in-
plane loading, Engineering Structures, 29(4), p626-634.
Siu WH and Su RKL (2009), Load-deformation prediction for eccentrically
loaded bolt groups by a kinematic hardening approach, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 65(2), p436-442.
Su RKL and Cheng MH (2009), Earthquake induced shear concentration
in shear walls above transfer structures, The Structural Design of Tall
and Special Buildings 18(6), p657-671.
Tang TO and Su RKL (2015), Gravity-induced shear force in reinforced
concrete walls above transfer structures, Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers-Structures & Buildings, 168(1), p40-55.

End

31
 In the following section, we will verify the von Mises’s flow rule.

The strain at the centroid of section is, y o 1  N 

by P(13) = 1−
h 2  N p 
1  1 N 1
 =   h − y o  = h = hn P (20)
2  2 Np 2
Introducing the new quantities for generalized strain (E, Ξ)

Ξ=M p θ and E=N p ε P (21)

The energy dissipation per unit length of the beam is

W = M + N =
M
(M p ) + N (N p  ) = m  + nE P (22)
Mp Np

from equations P(20), P(17) and P(21), we have

P(20)
1
P(21) E = N p  =  hN = 2 M p n = 2  n P (23)
2
1 1 N 1
P(17) M p = hN p  M p n = hN p  2 M p n = hN
4 4 Np 2 32
 generalized strains are
related to each other E = 2 n

If w e se t Ξ = λ th e n E = 2 λ n Generalized strain P (2 4 )

On the other hand, if we apply the flow rule of equation P(8) on equation
P(19), f 2
qi =  f (m , n ) = m + n − 1 = 0
Q i
Generalized strain f f
obtained by flow rule E= = 2 n and  =  = P (25)
n m
Equations P(24) and P(25) get the same results. The von Mises’s flow rule is
verified. m, Ξ
(0,1)
strains

(-1,0) (1,0) n, E

(0,-1) 33