ES - 06 - Design of Reinforced Concrete Shell Elements

6 Design of R.C.
shell elements 1/72
BRIDGE DESIGN
DESIGN OF
REINFORCED
CONCRETE SHELL
ELEMENTS
Politecnico di Torino
Department of Structural and Geothecnical Engineering
“Bridge Design”
6 Design of R.C. shell elements 2/72
Sandwich model:
Internal actions and sign conventions
“Bridge Design”
Structural analysis of 2 dimension elements
Structural analysis of 2 dimension elements can be done in several way:

• closed form solutions (simple structures under simple loads
conditions)
• tabular methods (simple structures under simple loads conditions)
• approximate methods (stripe methods)
• numerical methods (finite differences, finite elements)
Finite element methods is nowaday the most popular as it allows to

analyse generic structures under generic load and restraint conditions.
“Bridge Design”
The complete solution of the most generic 2D structure, a shell,

gives as output:
• 3 membrane components nx, ny, nxy= nyx

• 5 plate components
• 2 bending moments and a torque moment mx, my, mxy= myx
• 2 out of the plane shears tx, ty
“Bridge Design”
Pay attention
All these internal actions are for unit lenght, for instance:
nx, ny, nxy, tx, ty  [kN/m]
mx, my, mxy  [kNm/m]
“Bridge Design”
Sign convention for membrane internal actions:

• nx: gives rise to x stresses, positive if the stresses are tensile
z y
x
nx nx nx nx
sx = sx =
h h
• ny: gives rise to y stresses, positive if the stresses are tensile
z
y
x
ny ny ny ny
sy = sy =
h h
“Bridge Design”
• nxy: gives rise to xy, stresses, positive if:

– on the positive face it is oriented in the positive direction of
the axes
– on the negative face it is oriented in the negative direction
of the axes
z y
nxy
nxy
t xy =
h
“Bridge Design”
Sign convenction for plate internal actions

• mx: gives rise to x stresses, it is positive if the stresses are
tensile on the side with positive z
z
mx y mx
12mx 12mx
sx = z x sx = z
h3 h3
• my: gives rise to y stresses, it is positive if the stresses are

tensile on the side with positive z
z
my my
12my 12my
sy = z y sy = z
h3 x h3
“Bridge Design”
• mxy: gives rise to xy stresses, it is positive as shown in the

figure
z
y 12mxy
t xy = z
h3
x
myx
mxy
“Bridge Design”
Sign convention for out of the plane shears:

They are positive if directed along positive z on positive faces and
along negative z on negative faces.
z
z
y
y
x x
tx ty ty
tx
3 tx 3t
(t xz )max = (t yz )max = 2 hy
2h
“Bridge Design”
Sandwich model:
Resisting mechanism definition
“Bridge Design”
1° step: divide the thickness of the slab into several layer (i.e.
20) and check if concrete is cracked in each layer. That is to say
calculate the principal tensile stress and check if it is bigger than
the resisting tensile strength.
The stresses can be derived from the internal actions as follows.
“Bridge Design”
Principal stresses are the eigenvalues of the stress tensor that

is to say the solutions of the cubic equation that we get setting
the determinant of the following matrix equal to zero.
According to Model Code 90, concrete is cracked if >0, where:
Where….
“Bridge Design”
First invariant of stresses
Second and third invariant of deviatoric stresses, where:
Where  is the lode angle on the octahedral plane:
“Bridge Design”
Principal stresses referring system Octahedral plane and lode angle
“Bridge Design”
Tresca and Von Mises failure criteria
 3   2   cu  2   1   cu  1   3   cu
Tresca 2 2 2 2
F ( J 2' , J 3' )  4 J 2'  27 J 3'  9 y 2 J 2'  6 y 4 J 2'   y 6  0
“Bridge Design”
Tresca and Von Mises failure criteria
 
f (  cu )  1  1   2 2   2   3 2   3   1 2   cu  0
2
Von
f
Mises
︵ ︶  6  0
c
u
c
u
“Bridge Design”
Mohr failure criterion
  J' 2  
f J 1 , J 2 ,  
J1
sen  J ' 2 sen    cos   sen  C cos   0
3  3 3  3
   
f  , r ,   2sen  3 r  sen    r  cos   sen  6 C cos   0
 3  3
“Bridge Design”
And:
Where k is the ratio between tensile and compressive strength  0.1
“Bridge Design”
If concrete is not cracked (≤0) the principal stresses are inside the
resistance dominion, which can be evaluated, according to Model Code
90, with the following relations.
Kupfer and Gerstle

failure curve
“Bridge Design”
“Bridge Design”
Kotsovos, Pavlovic
failure criteria
“Bridge Design”
r  3 0u  3
   
2 0u  02c  02e cos  0c 2 0e  0c  4  02c  02e cos2   5 02e  4 0c 0e
 
4  02c  02e cos2    0c  2 0e 2
“Bridge Design”
If >0 we have to work in cracked state using a sandwich model.

The basic idea derives from the analogy with the beam element.
Three different layers are individuated inside the shell element.
The two external ones bear membrane actions coming both from
membrane and the plate external actions.
The inner one, working as a beam web bears the out of the plane
shears.
Each layer has a constant thickness and the following quantities

are introduced:
“Bridge Design”
• zx, zy internal lever arms for mx, nx and my,ny

• yxs, yxi distances of the reinforcement that bears mx and nx
from the centroid of the shell (zx = yxs + yxi)
• yys, yyi distances of the reinforcement that bears mx and nx
from the centroid of the shell (zy = yys + yyi)
“Bridge Design”
• zxy, zyx internal lever arms for mxy, and nxy

• yxys, yxyi distances of the reinforcement that bears mxy and
nxy from the centroid of the shell (zxy = yxys + yxyi)
• yyxs, yyxi distances of the reinforcement that bears mxy and
nxy from the centroid of the shell (zyx = yyxs + yyxi)
“Bridge Design”
N.B.
Usually these second quantities are set equal to the

respective ones presented in the previous slide.
They can be set to different values in order to place

different layers of reinforcement for the different actions in
the same concrete layer.
“Bridge Design”
The membrane actions that interest the external layer can

then be calculated by writing equilibrium equations as follows
“Bridge Design”
Out of the plane shears are carried by the internal layer of

thickness tc , that works in collaboration with the external ones.
Therefore we will consider an effective thickness zc equal to the

weighted average of zx, zy, zxy and zyx
“Bridge Design”
Sandwich model:
Internal layer design
“Bridge Design”
Calculation of the principal out of the

plane shear direction
If we analyze the equilibrium to the vertical translation (z direction) of a

prismatic triangular element obtained by sectioning the internal layer with a
plane parallel to the z axis and orthogonal to a general n axis belonging to
the [xy] plane, and inclined of the angle  whit respect to the x axis, we get:
“Bridge Design”
If now we analyze the equilibrium to the vertical translation (z direction) of

another prismatic triangular element obtained by sectioning the internal
layer with a plane parallel to the z axis and orthogonal to a general m axis
belonging to the [xy] plane, and orthogonal to the n axis defined before, we
get:
“Bridge Design”
It can be observed that the value of the principal shear

t 02 = t 2x + t 2y = tn2 + tm2
Is constant with respect to the angle .
Moreover there’s a angle 0 that makes tn = t0 and tm = 0.
This is the principal direction of shear and can be calculated as:
tan j0 = t y t x
In this direction the shell element behaves like a beam as it is

subjected to shear in only one direction.
“Bridge Design”
if t 0 > VRd1 shear reinforcement should be provided. The resisting

mechanism is equal to a beam, a unit length wide, and oriented along
the principal shear direction. According to Model Code 90 we have:
• verification of compressed struts.
• verification of tensed reinforcement (vertical stirrups)
• force variation in longitudinal chords (tensed and compressed)
The angle  is subjected to the same limitations seen for beams

(26°<<45°). Whereas the forces Fst = Fsc are directed in the
direction 0 and should be decomposed along x and y.
“Bridge Design”
Components in x and y directions of force variation in

longitudinal chords Fst = Fsc
We cut a rectangular prism

oriented in the principal shear
x direction firstly with a vertical plane
parallel to the x axis, then with a
vertical plane parallel to the y axis
y
“Bridge Design”
Components in x and y directions of force variation in

longitudinal chords Fst = Fsc
View from the top
Here we have t0 cotg 

because it still has to
be divided between
the two external
layers.
“Bridge Design”
“Bridge Design”
“Bridge Design”
nxc, nyc, nxyc are the decomposition of the Fst = Fsc and have to
be added to the external actions nx, ny, nxy and then divided
between the two external layers.
“Bridge Design”
Sandwich model:
External layers design
“Bridge Design”
For seek of simplicity we refer to the mean level of reinforcement in

each of the two layers:
yxs=yys=yxys=yyxs=ys yxi=yyi=yxyi=yyxi=yi z=ys+yi
Each layer is subjected to

membrane actions (see figure).
The design can be done according

to plasticity theory with a lower
bound solution.
The values of the three internal

actions shown beside for each
layer is given by the equations
presented in the next slide.
“Bridge Design”
No shear reinforcement Shear reinforcement

needed needed
“Bridge Design”
Two different approaches.
Reinforcement is arranged Reinforcement is arranged

along the two orthogonal along two general directions
directions x and y respectively inclined of the
angles α with the x axis and 
with the y axis
In both cases the equilibrium in the directions x and y is

granted by a compressive field inclined of an angle 
with respect to the x axis and by two tension fields
directed along the directions of reinforcement.
“Bridge Design”
Sandwich model:
External layers design – x & y reinforcement
“Bridge Design”
We cut the layer with a plane parallel to the direction of

compressions at failure.
This direction can be chosen by

the designer starting from the
value of the inclination of
principal stress 2 at cracking
and changing it of -20°<< 20°.
Remember that a big  leads

to wider cracks in service.
Equilibrium to traslation in x direction

n Rdx  n Sdx  vsd cot   A sx sx
Equilibrium to traslation in y direction

vsd
n Rdy cot   n Sdy cot   vsd  n Rdy  n Sdy   A sy sy
cot 
“Bridge Design”
Then we cut the same layer with a plane orthogonal to the

direction of compressions
Equilibrium to traslation in x direction

ct
 cos   n Rdx  n Sdx  vsd tg  0
cos 
And substituting the value of n Rdx calculated in the previous slide we get
 c t   n Sdx  vsd cot   n Sdx  vsd tg
“Bridge Design”
The verification on concrete side is:
 c  vsd   cot   tg  t  c  f cd 2
Where fcd2 is the concrete compressive strength in cracked state,

that can be calculated according to MC90 as:
 f 
f cd 2 MC 90  0.6 1  ck  f cd
 250 
Or according to a proposal of the authors:

If at least one reinforcement is yielded
f cd 2  f cd 2MC90  1  0.032  
Where  is the variation of the inclination of compressed struts
from first cracking to failure.
“Bridge Design”
Or if no reinforcement is yielded
 f cd s  f cd 
 c  f cd 2 MC 90  0.85   0.85  1 
 f cd 2 MC 90  
 f cd 2 MC 90 f yd 
But remember that if NO reinforcement is yielded there CAN NOT

be  variation.
A comparison of the result obtained with this procedure with Marti

and Kaufmann model on experimental results is presented in the
next slide.
“Bridge Design”
12
 calc 12
 calc
10 [MPa] 10 [MPa]
8 8
cal cal
[Mpa] [Mpa]
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
exp [Mpa] exp [Mpa]

 exp [MPa]  exp [MPa]
(a) (b)
Experimental versus calculated panel strength by Marti and
Kaufmann (a) and by Carbone, Giordano and Mancini (b)
“Bridge Design”
Something about layers thickness
The choice of the thickness of the layers is up to the

designers as far as:
• ts ≥ 2b’s where b’s is the distance between the upper
reinforcement centroid and the extrados of the slab
• ti ≥ 2b’i where b’i is the distance between the lower
reinforcement centroid and the intrados of the slab
• ts + ti < h
The reinforcement Asx and Asy calculated in the previous

slides are supposed in the middle of the thickness of their
layer.
“Bridge Design”
If reinforcement Asx and Asy are not placed in the middle of their
layer but somewhere else like outer wards (i.e. with the minimum
cover) leads to internal redistributions to respect the equilibrium.
Equilibrium to rotation around point P leads to:
And equilibrium to translation to:

ns ni
In this case redistributions inside

concrete compression fields take
also place but are generally nRd,s nRd,i
neglected.
“Bridge Design”
Sandwich model:
External layers design – α &  reinforcement
“Bridge Design”
We cut the layer with a plane parallel to the direction of compressions at

failure so that the cutting edge has unit length.
As before this direction is br
r sr br
u = cr   with
1

-20°<< 20°.
 xr sinr sinr
r sr ar
ar  xyr sinr
r
 xyr cosr
yr cosr
Equilibrium to traslation in x direction cosr
 x sin  r   xy cos     s a cos      s b sin   0

Equilibrium to traslation in y direction
 y cos    xy sin     s a sin      s b cos   0
“Bridge Design”
Where:
 and  are the geometrical reinforcement ratios respectively in
directions  and .
a and b are the projections fo the unit length cut respectively in

a  1 sin(   ) b  1 cos(   )
Solving the system of two equations in the two unknowns

  s and    s
And remembering that

cos   cos   sin   sin   cos(   )
cos   cos   sin   sin   cos(   )
cos   sin   sin   cos   sin(   )
“Bridge Design”
We get
 x sin  cos    y cos  sin    xy cos(   )

  s 
sin(   ) cos(   )
 x sin  sin    y cos  cos    xy sin(   )

   s 
cos(   ) cos(   )
From which we can calculate the reinforcement ratios by choosing the

reinforcement stress, remembering:
 s  ,   f yd
“Bridge Design”
Then we cut the same r layer with a plane orthogonal to the

direction of compressions b’ r
 r sr br’

Equilibrium to traslation in x direction  cr
 x cos    xy sin     s a 'cos  

r ar’
    s b 'sin    c cos   0 xr cosr
 r sr ar
’
cosr
xyr cosr 1
Equilibrium to traslation in y direction xyr sinr yr sinr
 y sin    xy cos     s a 'sin 

sinr
    s b 'cos    c sin   0
“Bridge Design”
Being the four equilibrium equations linearly correlated, only three of them
are independent , and c can be derived from both the previous two
equations as:
From equilibrium to traslation in x direction

cos  sin 
 c   x   xy tan     s cos(   )     s sin(   )
cos  cos 
From equilibrium to traslation in y direction
 xyr sin  cos 

c   y     s cos(   )     s sin(   )
tan  sin  sin 
Where:
a’ and b’ are the projections fo the unit length cut respectively in
a '  1 cos(   ) b '  1  sin(   )
“Bridge Design”
The verification on concrete side is as seen for reinforcement

along x and y:   f
c cd 2
N.B.
1. The values of α, , α ,  and  can be different for the two
external layers.
2. The  angle used for external layers has NO relation with the 
angle used for out of the plane shear in the internal layer.
3. In the previous equations  should be included in the same
quadrant of cr (angle on x axis of principal tension direction at
cracking) and the solutions with nil denominator in equations of
slide 148 correspond to cases in which, in disagreement with
the code provisions, only one order of reinforcement is
available (cos( - ) = 0) or the equilibrium is not possible
(sin(r - ) = 0 and cos(r - ) = 0).
“Bridge Design”
Sandwich model:
Numerical example
“Bridge Design”
Element chosen: n°682
Y = 33
X = 22
“Bridge Design”
Symbols, conventions
and general data
α = 0  transverse reinforcement, Asx, direction 22

= 0  longitudinal reinforcement, Asy, direction 33
Concrete properties fctd = 20.75 MPa

fctm = 3.16 MPa
fctd = 1.38 MPa
Steel properties fyd = 373.9 MPa
“Bridge Design”
Dimensioning of
α reinforcement (transverse)
in the inferior layer
Distance of reinforcement from the outer surface = 6 cm
Combination Nsd22 Nsd33 Nsd23 Msd22 Msd33 Msd23 Vsd12 Vsd13

type (KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) (KNm/m) (KNm/m) (KNm/m) (KN/m) (KN/m)
Max M33 277 -5134 -230 616 1121 -476 95 -212
Load combination that maximizes this reinforcement
“Bridge Design”
Layers
thicknesses
H sez. tsup tinf
(m) (m) (m)
1.0000 0.23 0.18
Increment of internal actions

due to shear
(for the single layer)
nsd22 nsd33 nsd23
(KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m)
0 0 0
“Bridge Design”
Upper layer verification
Reinforcement
Internal actions on the Cracked Concrete Actions at
?
calculated at
layer parameters tsup/2
c+/2
nsd22 nsd33 nsd23 case  fcd c(f) nR1(x) nR2(y) As(x)nec As(y)nec
(KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) (-) (°) (N/mm²) (kN/m) (kN/m) (cm2/m) (cm2/m)
-633 -4070 481 no. 65.0 17.6 17.6 0.0 0.0 15.7 15.7
Lower layer verification
Reinforcement
?
calculated at
c+/2
909 -1064 -711 yes 23.1 11.1 11.1 1212.0 607.2 31.3 15.7
“Bridge Design”
Dimensioning of
β reinforcement (longitudinal)
in the inferior layer

Max M22 261 -5134 -219 657 1014 -464 79 -197
“Bridge Design”
Layers
thicknesses
H sez. tsup tinf
(m) (m) (m)
1.0000 0.23 0.19

due to shear
nsd22 nsd33 nsd23
0 0 0
“Bridge Design”
Reinforcement
?
calculated at
c+/2
-695 -3904 474 no 45.0 17.6 17.6 0.0 0.0 15.7 15.7
Reinforcement
?
calculated at
c+/2
956 -1229 -693 yes 20.6 11.1 11.1 1216.7 611.5 31.3 15.7
“Bridge Design”
Dimensioning of
α reinforcement (transverse)
in the superior layer

Max M22 261 -5134 -219 657 1014 -464 79 -197
“Bridge Design”
Layers
thicknesses
H sez. tsup tinf
(m) (m) (m)
1.0000 0.23 0.19

due to shear
nsd22 nsd33 nsd23
0 0 0
“Bridge Design”
Reinforcement
?
calculated at
c+/2
-695 -3904 474 no 45.0 17.6 17.6 0.0 0.0 15.7 15.7
Reinforcement
?
calculated at
c+/2
956 -1229 -693 yes 20.6 11.1 11.1 1216.7 611.5 31.3 15.7
“Bridge Design”
Dimensioning of
β reinforcement (longitudinal)
in the superior layer

Max M22 261 -5134 -219 657 1014 -464 79 -197
“Bridge Design”
Layers
thicknesses
H sez. tsup tinf
(m) (m) (m)
1.0000 0.23 0.19

due to shear
nsd22 nsd33 nsd23
0 0 0
“Bridge Design”
Reinforcement
?
calculated at
c+/2
-695 -3904 474 no 45.0 17.6 17.6 0.0 0.0 15.7 15.7
Reinforcement
?
calculated at
c+/2
956 -1229 -693 yes 20.6 11.1 11.1 1216.7 611.5 31.3 15.7
“Bridge Design”
Verification of maximum compressive

stresses in concrete
Inferior layer

Min V12 188 -5215 -148 -88 143 -245 -43 -48
Load combination that maximizes the stress
Superior layer Inferior layer Centoid

Thicnness 1,sup 3,sup 1,inf 3,inf 1,g 3,g
[m] (N/mm²) (N/mm²) (N/mm²) (N/mm²) (N/mm²) (N/mm²)
1.0000 0.97 -6.32 0.23 -4.93 0.21 -5.22
“Bridge Design”
Verification of maximum compressive

stresses in concrete
Superior layer

Min V12 188 -5215 -148 -88 143 -245 -43 -48
Load combination that maximizes the stress
Superior layer Inferior layer Centoid

Thicnness 1,sup 3,sup 1,inf 3,inf 1,g 3,g
[m] (N/mm²) (N/mm²) (N/mm²) (N/mm²) (N/mm²) (N/mm²)
1.0000 0.97 -6.32 0.23 -4.93 0.21 -5.22
“Bridge Design”
References
• CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Thomas Telford – 1990
• Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures, Part 1-1: general
rules and rules for buildings - 2003
• Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures – Part 2: concrete
bridges - 2004
“Bridge Design”
References
• V.I. Carbone, L. Giordano, G. Mancini, “Design of r.c. membrane
element” – Structural Concrete – 2001,2, N° 4, December 213-
223.
• Bertagnoli G., Carbone V.I., Giordano L., Mancini G., “Skew
reinforcement design in reinforced concrete two dimensional
elements”, 2nd International Specialty Conference on The
Conceptual Approach To Structural Design, 1-2 July 2003,
Milan, pp 283-290, ISBN 981-04-8561-1.
• Bertagnoli G., Carbone V.I., Giordano L., “A compact finite
element model for N.L. analysis of concrete structures”,
Proceedings of the second fib congress, Naples, June 5-8 2006,
fib publ., ISBN 13 978-88-89972-05-2
“Bridge Design”

ES - 06 - Design of Reinforced Concrete Shell Elements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ES - 06 - Design of Reinforced Concrete Shell Elements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 Design of R.C.

shell elements 1/72

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 2/72

Structural analysis of 2 dimension elements

Structural analysis of 2 dimension elements can be done in several way:

Finite element methods is nowaday the most popular as it allows to

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 4/72

The complete solution of the most generic 2D structure, a shell,

• 3 membrane components nx, ny, nxy= nyx

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 6/72

Sign convention for membrane internal actions:

• ny: gives rise to y stresses, positive if the stresses are tensile

• nxy: gives rise to xy, stresses, positive if:

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 8/72

Sign convenction for plate internal actions

• my: gives rise to y stresses, it is positive if the stresses are

• mxy: gives rise to xy stresses, it is positive as shown in the

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 10/72

Sign convention for out of the plane shears:

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 12/72

The stresses can be derived from the internal actions as follows.

Principal stresses are the eigenvalues of the stress tensor that

According to Model Code 90, concrete is cracked if >0, where:

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 14/72

First invariant of stresses

Second and third invariant of deviatoric stresses, where:

Where  is the lode angle on the octahedral plane:

Principal stresses referring system Octahedral plane and lode angle

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 16/72

Tresca and Von Mises failure criteria

Tresca and Von Mises failure criteria

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 18/72

Mohr failure criterion

Where k is the ratio between tensile and compressive strength  0.1

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 20/72

Kupfer and Gerstle

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 22/72

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 24/72

If >0 we have to work in cracked state using a sandwich model.

Three different layers are individuated inside the shell element.

Each layer has a constant thickness and the following quantities

• zx, zy internal lever arms for mx, nx and my,ny

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 26/72

• zxy, zyx internal lever arms for mxy, and nxy

Usually these second quantities are set equal to the

They can be set to different values in order to place

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 28/72

The membrane actions that interest the external layer can

Out of the plane shears are carried by the internal layer of

Therefore we will consider an effective thickness zc equal to the

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 30/72

Calculation of the principal out of the

If we analyze the equilibrium to the vertical translation (z direction) of a

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 32/72

If now we analyze the equilibrium to the vertical translation (z direction) of

It can be observed that the value of the principal shear

Is constant with respect to the angle .

Moreover there’s a angle 0 that makes tn = t0 and tm = 0.

This is the principal direction of shear and can be calculated as:

In this direction the shell element behaves like a beam as it is

6 Design of R.C. shell elements 34/72

if t 0 > VRd1 shear reinforcement should be provided. The resisting