2014
DOI: 10.1590/s1983-41952014000500009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Material and geometric nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete frames

Abstract: The analysis of reinforced concrete structures until failure requires the consideration of geometric and material nonlinearities. However, nonlinear analysis is much more complex and costly than linear analysis. In order to obtain a computationally efficient approach to nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete structures, this work presents the formulation of a nonlinear plane frame element. Geometric nonlinearity is considered using the co-rotational approach and material nonlinearity is included using appro… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
(11 reference statements)
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Figure 7 shows the horizontal displacement in left corner on the top of the column as a function of the eccentric vertical force. The results are quite close to the experimental procedure developed by Espion (1993) and the numerical results presented by Parente Junior et al (2014) and Matias, Parente Junior and Araújo (2017). While the experimental maximum force was 450.19 kN, the proposed formulation achieved 210 454.00 kN, a difference of only 0.82%.…”
Section: Verification the Mechanical Modelsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Figure 7 shows the horizontal displacement in left corner on the top of the column as a function of the eccentric vertical force. The results are quite close to the experimental procedure developed by Espion (1993) and the numerical results presented by Parente Junior et al (2014) and Matias, Parente Junior and Araújo (2017). While the experimental maximum force was 450.19 kN, the proposed formulation achieved 210 454.00 kN, a difference of only 0.82%.…”
Section: Verification the Mechanical Modelsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…For steel rebars, a linear elastic, perfectly plastic model with 𝐸 = 21000 kN/cm , 𝜈 = 0.30, 𝑓 = 46.50 kN/cm and 𝑘 = 0 were adopted. For Mazars` damage model, the parameters were calibrated using Equation 18and 19, following stress-strain curves presented by Parente Junior et al (2014), according to Eurocode 2 (COMITÉ…, 2004). The following set of parameters were obtained: 𝜀 = 8.65 x 10 -5 , 𝐴 = 0.50, 𝐵 = 9000, 𝐴 = 1.20 and 𝐵 = 1500.…”
Section: Verification the Mechanical Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the material nonlinearity of the concrete and rebars, the cross-section generalized stresses (σ ) and tangent constitutive matrix (C T ) should be evaluated using appropriate procedures, as the fiber method for path-dependent materials or special integration techniques for nonlinear elastic materials [22][23][24]. Integration on the element length is carried out using Gauss or Lobatto rules.…”
Section: Frame Elementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The latter is the method that was used in this work. The disadvantage of these methods is the high computational cost, as already observed by Parente Jr et al [17] even in portico analysis, and the need for detailed discretization of the finite element mesh in critical regions as can be seen in Marasca et al [18]. All this makes these advanced methods little used in projects, but they are mandatory for advanced research studies, especially when comparisons are made with experimental tests.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%