Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
5 (2007)
PAGES 521-530
ABSTRACT
The complexity of the geometrical shape in reinforced concrete amplified the difficulties of
shearing resistance in the boundaries limits state in particular for a section, which is
submitted to the eccentrited biaxial loading (biaxial force plus bending).
The difficulties in this study results in the determination of the ultimate forces Nu , Mux
and Muy and the relationship between them. These difficulties are essentially du to the
geometrical shape, the steel disposition and the law behaviour of the concrete and steel. The
main objectif of this paper is to present a methodological study based on the integration
numerical method that would determine the equations of the interaction curves fitting for the
determination of the steel sections and the verification of the shearing resistance.
1. INTRODUCTION
In this case of simple loading such as bending and compression, the value of shearing is less
difficult because it depends on one parameter; Mu' (ultimate limit moment) for the simple
bending and Nu’ (ultimate limit force) for the simple compression.
For the shearing resultats, we have to verify the following condition:
Their graphical performance is flat and the function f2 (Figure 1) defines the interaction
surfaces and their graphical representation is space.
To verify the shearing resistance under axial force plus bending (eccentricity), you must
insure that at each time:
a) In the case of axial force plus bending, the coordonnâtes point (N, M) must be inside
the delimited surface by the interaction curve defined by f1.
b) In the case of biaxial loading plus bending, the coordonnates point (N, Mx, My) must
be inside the defined volume by the interaction surface whuchis f2.
Where:
The problem to be solved is to find functions f1 and f2 which depend on some factors
such as, geometrical shape of sections, the mechanical characteristics of materials (the
behaviour diagram of concrete and steel) and the position of the stroke steel. Those factors
make these equations very complicated.
Although these difficulties exist, the only solution which could be employed are the
graphical ones.
The problem is more difficult for biaxial loading plus bending because the graphical
representation is spaced, which wouldn’t allow their use over a plan.
To solve this problem, we must find firstly a relationship between Mu= f3 (Mux,Muy) and
therefore establish a relationship Nu = f4 (Mu) and this is to reduce the spaced problem to the
plan problem which makes the graphical method’s useful.
Many authors such as Pannel [1], Bressler [2], Ramamarthy and Khan [3], Mallikajuna
and Mahdevappa [4], Wolfgang [5] and Cerniak [6] have looked to this problem for
particular sections defined and by differents approachs.
Nu
Types of curves f2
Types of curves f3
Mu
Types
of curves f1
Muy
Mux
2. ASSUMPTIONS
εa
εb
ε0 ε bu steel
concrete
3. METHODOLOGICAL STUDY
N u = ∫ σ bi .dsi + ∑ Ai .σ ai
s
M ux = ∫ σ bi . y bi .dsi + ∑ Ai .σ ai . y ai
s
M uy = ∫ σ bi .x bi .dsi + ∑ Ai .σ ai .x ai
s
524 A. Boulfoul and A. Belouar
To determine the effort, a numerical program based over numerical integration methods
is essential and needed.
Once the obtained efforts are known, we do an analysis to determine a relationship of
type f3 which could be independent of the orientation of the angle of neutral axis and of the
steel.
dsi
σbu
εbu
σbi 3yn/7
εai yn
4yn/7
h0
εai’ 2,4.h0
a.h
hG .h =
2. sin α
4.1.2 basis elements
The all polygonal section are constitued of a (2xN) triangles represented on triangles, Figure 4:
let us take b.h and v.h respectively the basis and the height of the triangle.
In general when
J ≠ J max → xi = (J − 1)d +
d
2
yi = (I − 1)g +
g
I ≠ I max →
2
526 A. Boulfoul and A. Belouar
J = J max → xi = (J − 1)d +
d
3
yi = (I − 1)g +
g
I = I max →
3
J
max
3
2
z.h = J max .d .h
O x
1 2 3 I Imax
b.h = I max .g .h
If OX and OY are the principal central axis of the total section, θ the rotated angle of
the axis ox and oy from the OX , OY and X0 ,Y0 the coordonates of the point o from OX,
OY, therefore:
X i = X 0 + xi cosθ + yi sin θ
Yi = Y0 − xi sin θ + yi cosθ
with
sin 2α
X0 = .hG
θ = α +π 2
Y0 = hG . cos 2 α
Starting from the calculation program essentially based over the numerical integration
methods, we determine:
Nb = ∑ ds .σ i bi
M bux = ∑ ds .σ i bi
.Yi
M buy = ∑ ds .σ i bi
.X i
METHODOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE ULTIME LIMIT SECTION IN... 527
The reduced forces (for the adimensional section) will follow this form:
N bu
νb = ,
σ bu .h 2
M bx
μ bx = ,
σ bu .h 3
M by
μ bx =
σ bu .h 3
N a = n∑ N ai M an = ∑ N ai .eani .h
ε bu ε ai Ea .ε bu
ε ai = eani .h = e = ψ .eani
k .h ε au k .ε au ani
σ ai
- if ψ .e ani ≥ 1 → =1 (plastic compression domain)
σ au
σ ai
- if − 1 < ψ .eani < 1 → = ψ .eani (elastic compression or tensile domain)
σ au
σ ai
- if ψ .eani ≤ 1 → = −1 (plastic tensile domain)
σ au
Hence
nt .( A.h ²)
• p= → (steel percentage)
Ab
σ au
• m= (equivalent coefficient)
σ bu
• " p.m" is called mechanical percentage
Ab
• a0 = (remind constant)
nt .h ²
nt . Ab .σ au σ bu .h ²
N ai = ( A.h².σ ai ). =
nt . Ab .σ au σ bu .h ²
σ ai
a 0 . pm. (σ bu .h²) = a 0 . pm..Ω i .(σ bu .h ²)
σ au
528 A. Boulfoul and A. Belouar
• N a and N ai are respectively the total effort in the framework and the effort in the
framework i ;
• M an is the provoked moment by the overall steel compared to the neutral axis.
• eani , eaxi and eayi are the eccentricities respectively compared to the axis nn , xx and yy ;
• A and σ ai are respectively the framework steel section and the effort in the framework
steel i .
• nt and nb are respectively the total number of steel and the steel number by side of the
hexagonal section.
We call
ν ai the reduced effort in the framework i by mechanical percentage;
μ ani , μ axi and μ ayi are the reduced moment by the mechanical percentage inside the
framework i compared respectively to the axis nn , YY and XX ; hence:
N ai
ν ai = p.m. → ν ai = p.m.a0 .Ωi
σ bu .h²
N ai .(eani .h)
μ ani = p.m. → μ ani = p.m.a0 .Ωi .eani
σ bu .h3
N ai .(eayi .h)
μ axi = p.m. → μ axi = p.m.a0 .Ωi .eayi
σ bu .h3
N ai .(eaxi .h)
μ ayi = p.m. → μ ayi = p.m.a0 .Ωi .eaxi
σ bu .h3
ν = ν b + a0 p.m ∑Ω i
μ x = μbx + a p.m∑ Ω .e
0 i ayi
μ y = μby + a p.m∑ Ω .e
0 i axi
1.4
1.2
1
Load ν
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Moment μx
Figure 6. Type of results for neutral horizontal axis (Interaction curve ν=f1(μx))
Biaxial loading
pm=1, nbr=3 σ a =2200, c=0.04
1.4
1.2
load ν
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Figure 7. Type of results for neutral oblic axis (Interaction Curve ν = f 2 (μ x ,−μ y ) )
1.4
1.2
1
load ν
0.8
0.6
0.4
( )
μu = f 3 μ x , μ y = μ0.2x2 + μ y2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
moment μ u
5. CONCLUSION
This method based on numerical integration method’s has shown that the calculated
shearing resistance of the hexagonal section at the biaxial eccentrited compression would be
reduced to the calculation of the shearing rersistance of the iniaxial eccentrited compression.
This is shown in Figure 8 it is clearly shown that curves f1 and f4 are identical:
( )
ν = f1 (μ x ) = f μ u
This methodological approach has for task and tarjet to verify the shearing resistance and
to determine the bearing capacity of the considered section. Therefore the determination of
the following f1 relationship is necessarily. It is possible to enable this method to many types
of sections.
REFERENCES