Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Probabilistic assessment of axial force–biaxial bending capacity domains of reinforced concrete sections

  • Stochastics and Probability in Engineering Mechanics
  • Published:
Meccanica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alfano G, Marmo F, Rosati L (2007) An unconditionally convergent algorithm for the evaluation of the ultimate limit state of RC sections subject to axial force and biaxial bending. Int J Num Methods Eng 72:924–963

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Bing L, Park R, Tanaka H (2000) Constitutive behavior of high-strength concrete under dynamic loads. ACI Struct J 97(4):619–629

    Google Scholar 

  3. Casciaro R, Garcea G (2002) An iterative method for shakedown analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191((49–50)):5761–5792

    Article  ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Chiorean C (2010) Computerised interaction diagrams and moment capacity contours for composite steel-concrete cross-sections. Eng Struct 32(11):3734–3757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chiorean C (2013) A computer method for nonlinear inelastic analysis of 3d composite steel-concrete frame structures. Eng Struct 57(Suppl C):125–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ditlevsen OD, Madsen HO (1996) Structural reliability methods. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  7. DM 17-01-2018 (1999) Aggiornamento delle “Norme tecniche per le costruzioni”. Min. Inf. Trasp., Italia

  8. European Union: EN 1992-Eurocode 2 (1992) Design of concrete structures

  9. European Union: EN 1998-1-3-Eurocode 8 (1998) Design of structures for earthquake resistance

  10. Garcea G, Leonetti L (2011) A unified mathematical programming formulation of strain driven and interior point algorithms for shakedown and limit analysis. Int J Numer Methods Eng 88:1085–1111

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. JCSS (1999) Probabilistic Model Code [ISBN 978-3-909386-79-6]. Joint Committee on Structural Safety

  12. Karsan ID, Jirsa JO (1969) Behavior of concrete under compressive loading. J Struct Div 95(12):2543–2563

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kent DC, Park R (1971) Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div 97(7):1969–1990

    Google 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):5421–5429

    Google Scholar 

  15. Leonetti L, Casciaro R, Garcea G (2015) Effective treatment of complex statical and dynamical load combinations within shakedown analysis of 3D frames. Comp Struct 158:124–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mander J, Priestley M, Park R (1988) Observed stress–strain behavior of confined concrete. J Struct Eng US 114(8):1827–1849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mander J, Priestley M, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng US 114(8):1804–1826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Marmo F, Rosati L (2012) Analytical integration of elasto-plastic uniaxial constitutive laws over arbitrary sections. Int J Numer Methods Eng 91:990–1022

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Marmo F, Rosati L (2013) The fiber-free approach in the evaluation of the tangent stiffness matrix for elastoplastic uniaxial constitutive laws. Int J Numer Methods Eng 94:868–894

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Marmo F, Rosati L (2015) Automatic cross-section classification and collapse load evaluation for steel/aluminum thin-walled sections of arbitrary shape. Eng Struct 100:57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Marmo F, Rosati L, Sessa S (2008) Exact integration of uniaxial elasto-plastic laws for nonlinear structural analysis. AIP Conf Proc 1020(1):1219–1226

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. Marmo F, Serpieri R, Rosati L (2011) Ultimate strength analysis of prestressed reinforced concrete sections under axial force and biaxial bending. Comput Struct 89:91–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McCormac JC (2008) Structural steel design, 4th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  24. Melchers RE (2002) Structural reliability, analysis and prediction, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  25. Menun C, Der Kiureghian A (2000) Envelopes for seismic response vectors. I: Theory. J Struct Eng 126(4):467–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Menun C, Der Kiureghian A (2000) Envelopes for seismic response vectors. II: Application. J Struct Eng 126(4):474–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rosati L, Marmo F, Serpieri R (2008) Enhanced solution strategies for the ultimate strength analysis of composite steel-concrete sections subject to axial force and biaxial bending. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197:1033–1055

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google 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):8616–8622

    Google 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):13–27

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sessa S, Marmo F, Rosati L (2015) Effective use of seismic response envelopes for reinforced concrete structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(14):2401–2423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sessa S, Marmo F, Rosati L, Leonetti L, Garcea G, Casciaro R (2018) Evaluation of the capacity surfaces of reinforced concrete sections: Eurocode versus a plasticity-based approach. Meccanica 53(6):1493–1512

    Article  Google 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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

    Salvatore Sessa, Francesco Marmo, Nicoló Vaiana & Luciano Rosati

Authors
  1. Salvatore Sessa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesco Marmo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicoló Vaiana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luciano Rosati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salvatore Sessa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclosure.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Authors gratefully acknowledge the Italian Government for its support by funding the project ReLuis 2018 project [AQ DPC/ReLUIS 2014–2018, PR2, Task 2.3].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sessa, S., Marmo, F., Vaiana, N. et al. Probabilistic assessment of axial force–biaxial bending capacity domains of reinforced concrete sections. Meccanica 54, 1451–1469 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-019-00979-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-019-00979-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation