Probabilistic assessment of axial force–biaxial bending capacity domains of reinforced concrete sections
- 211 Downloads
Capacity domains of reinforced concrete elements, computed according to Eurocode 2 provisions, have been investigated from a probabilistic perspective in order to examine the variability of the failure probability over different regions of the domain boundary. To this end, constitutive parameters, such as limit stresses and strains, have been defined as random variables. Discretized ultimate limit state domains have been computed by a fiber-free approach for a set of cross sections. In addition, the failure probability relevant to each point of the domain’s boundary has been evaluated by means of Monte Carlo simulations. The numerical results prove that the failure probability presents a significant variability over the domain boundary; it attains its maximum nearby pure axial force while it drastically decreases in presence of significant bending contributions. Finally, the iso-probability surface, i.e. the locus of the internal forces corresponding to a fixed value of the failure probability, is presented. It permits to establish a probabilistic interpretation of the axial force–biaxial bending capacity check consistently with the underlying philosophy of recent structural codes.
KeywordsUltimate limit state Reinforced concrete Limit analysis Capacity surface
This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research—FFABR Grants—and by the Italian Government—ReLuis 2018 project [AQ DPC/ReLUIS 2014–2018, PR2, Task 2.3]—which are gratefully acknowledged by the authors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclosure.
- 2.Bing L, Park R, Tanaka H (2000) Constitutive behavior of high-strength concrete under dynamic loads. ACI Struct J 97(4):619–629Google Scholar
- 6.Ditlevsen OD, Madsen HO (1996) Structural reliability methods. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- 7.DM 17-01-2018 (1999) Aggiornamento delle “Norme tecniche per le costruzioni”. Min. Inf. Trasp., ItaliaGoogle Scholar
- 8.European Union: EN 1992-Eurocode 2 (1992) Design of concrete structuresGoogle Scholar
- 9.European Union: EN 1998-1-3-Eurocode 8 (1998) Design of structures for earthquake resistanceGoogle Scholar
- 11.JCSS (1999) Probabilistic Model Code [ISBN 978-3-909386-79-6]. Joint Committee on Structural SafetyGoogle Scholar
- 12.Karsan ID, Jirsa JO (1969) Behavior of concrete under compressive loading. J Struct Div 95(12):2543–2563Google Scholar
- 13.Kent DC, Park R (1971) Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div 97(7):1969–1990Google Scholar
- 14.Khan AH, Balaji KVGD (2017) A comparative study of probability of failure of concrete in bending and direct compression AS PER IS 456:2000 and AS PER IS 456:1978. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci 12(19):5421–5429Google Scholar
- 23.McCormac JC (2008) Structural steel design, 4th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
- 24.Melchers RE (2002) Structural reliability, analysis and prediction, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- 28.Salma Taj, Karthik B, Mamatha N, Rakesh J, Goutham D (2017) Prediction of reliability index and probability of failure for reinforced concrete beam subjected to flexure. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Technol 6(5):8616–8622Google Scholar
- 29.Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN (1982) Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. J Am Concr Inst 79(1):13–27Google Scholar
- 32.Sessa S, Marmo F, Vaiana N, Rosati L (2018) A computational strategy for Eurocode 8-compliant analyses of reinforced concrete structures by seismic envelopes. J Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1551161