Structural Analysis: Elastic or Plastic? Johan Blaauwendraad Prot. Dr Delft University of Technology Delft, The Netherlands Johan Blaauwendraad, born in 1940, re ceived his civil engineering degree in 1962 and his doctorate in 1973, both from Delft University of Technology (TU Deli). He joined the Netherlands Organisation for ‘Applied Scientific Research (TNO) in 1964 and Rijkswaterstaat in 1971. He has been professor at TU Delft since 1979, Jorg Schneider Prot. Federal Inst. of Technology Zurich, Switzerland Born in 1934, Jorg Schneider received his civil engineering degree from the Federal Inst. of Technology (ETH) Zurich. He was aan assistant at the ETH from 1959 to 1963, and then worked with Stahltor/BBRV in Zurich. Since 1967 he has been professor ‘of structural engineering at the ETH. His research interests include safety and relia- bility, with emphasis on human error. A ‘Structural Engineering International Peer-reviewed by international ‘experts and accepted by the Publications Committee 393 Summary ‘The misuse of computer analysis in structural design is an issue that needs to be faced. With the wide application of “solution” - oriented elastic analysis comput- er software, thirty years of research in plastic y theory and the knowledge gained from experience can be ignored at the push of a button, resulting in struc- lures of questionable quality. The paper proposes an interactive hybrid design analysis process that exploits the strengths of both elastic analysis and plasticity theory and calls for critical reflection and active decision-making from the user. Introduction Until the early 1960s, elastic analysis was the only method available for ana- lysing statically indeterminate struc- tures. Later, plastic analysis also found its way into engineering practice. Al- though only applicable to the analysis, of the ultimate limit state of structures, plastic analysis proved to be a powei ful tool, simple to use and especially effective regarding the upper and low- er bound theorems of the theory of plasticity. Plastic analysis has also demonstrated its value in the design of slabs. A nota- ble advantage of the plastic analysis approach is the explanation it provides for the relative unimportance of local moment peaks in slabs and similar structures. ‘Through the 1970s and into the 1980s, ‘mainframe and then desktop comput- crs entered the engineer's toolbox. A multitude of computer programmes for the analysis of beams, frames, grids, plates, shells and other three- dimensional structures have been de: veloped. Finite element methods (FEM) form the basis of such pro- grammes. In this easy-to-use form, FEM found its way from the scientist's laboratory to the practising designer's desk. Today, the analysis of even very complicated structures does not present much of a problem for any av- erage engineer, as long.as the right PC tools are on hand. The Problem Most design analysis programmes at the disposal of engineers are elastic in the sense that they make use of elastic FEMs. Such programmes are inherent ly easier to write because they are solution-based in their basic formula- tion, Analysing structures with such tools is a simple undertaking for any- one sitting behind a PC: just type in the data, and out comes the elastic s0- lution. Presto, the structural analysis is completed. The problem is that too little thought is given to this instant solution, Wheth- er the impressive-looking output really is the optimal basis for subsequent di- mensioning, detailing and execution of the structure is a question too rarely asked. Just put the steel where the FEM elastic analysis indicates, that's all. Incredible but true, instances have been observed where manifestly over- stressed finite elements of a concrete slab have been reinforced just because the computer output showed high bending moment peaks. The gluing of steel plates to the upper and lower sides of the concrete slab was some- how seen to increase bending strength. The Proposal To rectify such falsely placed reliance on computer-derived “solutions”, a new design process must be estab- lished. The goal is a process that ex- Science and Technology 165ploits both the strength of plasticity theory as well as the power and ease of computers and, importantly, stimulates the user really to act as a designer. This design tool supports an interac- tive design process demanding much more reflection than is the norm today. This new type of interactive pro- ‘gramme, be it for framed structures or slabs, can be called “hybrid” in order to express its use of both elasticity the- ory and plasticity consid ‘An Example A three-span steel or reinforced con- a sm is considered (Fig. 1) with constant rigidity over its entire length and uniformly distributed toads on each of the three spans. The focus is on the bending moments in the beam in order to determine dimensioning and detailing. Fig, I: Sructural system ‘The bending moments M, and Mp at the ends of the beam are zero. At the two inner supports, negative moments, M, and Me can be expected. A relative rotation gq is defined between the beam ends at support B, and similarly ‘cat support C. In a fully elastic solution, a require- ment is imposed on gy and g. Both are zero and as a result the analysis yields an outcome for the bending mo- ‘ments My and Mc. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether My and Me do not exceed a given strength criterion, Ina fully plastic approach, a priori val- ues for the plastic moments My and Mc would be expected and the analysis would result in a value for the relative rotations gy and ge, the distortions in the plastic hinges. It must be deter- mined whether gy and ¢ meet a given deformation criterion (rotation capaci- 9), In the proposed hybrid method, the designer decides which solution he wants. It can be the one or the other, but in most cases a mix of both solu: tions would likely be preferred. This requires establishing a relation be- 166 Science and Technology tween the two bending moments My and Mo, the two distortions ¢ and ge, and the loads q,, q> and q; on the three spans. Initially, only the loads are known and the bending moments and distortions are unknown. It is the role of the hybrid program to produce the relations for the designer, In this simple example, use is made of the well-known method introduced by Clapeyron in 1830. Clapeyron’s equa- tions, based on a statically determinate primary system with two hinges at the inner supports B and C provides the two equations which the designer needs. Using m and kN, the Clapeyron equations for this example are: Ely = 13.333 My + 5.000 Me + 41.667 q, + 1125.0 q2 Ele = 5.000 My + 16.667 Me + 1125.0 q; + 333.33 qy ‘These equations may be arranged so that the known values are assembled in the right-hand members. The left- hand members contain the four design parameters to be determined. Eligy ~ 13.333 My ~ 5.000 Mc 41.667 q, + 1125.0 q, Elyge~ 5.000 My ~ 16.667 Mc 1125.0 qs + 333.33 gy Thus, the two equations contain four unknowns. Two design parameters must be determined in order to solve the other two. In the hybrid metho the designer is called upon to do this demanding task and not the software. A possible sequence would be that the designer first wants to see the clastic solution. So he starts with @, = 0 and 5 = 0. Solving the equations for My ‘and Me provides the outcome: M, =~35211 q, 66.549 g, + 84507 4, Mc= + 1.0563 q, 47.535 q, ~22.535 q, Bending moment Load case iB momenis Mp, -1310. -1357 =2696 -2426 1046-1876 1232-1380 2588-2899 2774-2403 2511-2922 = 1124-1853, Fig, 2: Elastic moments at B and C From these expressions, the bending ‘moments at the two intermediate sup- ports B and C for all relevant load cas- es can be derived. The respective re- sults are shown in Fig. 2 based on the following factored loads to comply with the ultimate limit state =20kNim, 42 kNim. sin oo Fig. 3 shows the bending moments dia- grams for some of the above load cases. = 2696 2922 2 7 2 Fig, 3: Elastic moment diagrams It is obvious that a design engineer would choose load case 7 in Fig. 2 in order to decide on the dimensions of the beam and to fix the reinforcement in section C, while he would derive from load cases 2 and 8 the reinforce- ‘ment at the bottom of the beam in spans 2 and 3, respectively. But, here is the problem: Would this be an optimal solution to the problem at hand? Sometimes the answer is clearly affirmative. But in many cases it would be better to make use of what has been learned from plasticity theo- 1. It is sufficient to assume some rota- tional capacity for the beam and thus, to limit the bending moment in section C to a conveniently lower value (in an absolute sense): Men 2775 kNm. ‘The question now is how the bending moments in the rest of the beam are influenced by this decision. ‘The two preselected design parame- ters now are: oe =O Mc Mos ‘The outcome is a value for the design parameters g and My. The distortion is gos Which is the rotation capacity requirement. The two Clapeyron ‘equations indicate that: Ms 125 gy ~ 84.375 as 0.375 Meu Elegcq, == 15.625 qy + 703.13 ga + 333.33 qy + 14.792 Meg Structural Engineering International 93From these, M, must be checked against a strength criterion (My < May) and gq Ought to be checked against the available rotational capa ty of the beam at section C. Taking load case 5 in Fig. 2 as an example, for instance: 2634 kNm 827 kNm? Likewise, the choice could be instead to limit the bending moment at section. B. The respective equations, assuming = except at section B ~ elastic behavi- ‘our of the beam, are as follows: Me =~675 q;~20.000q3- 0.300 May Elen, =41.667 q, +7875 q>— 100,000 q, + 11.833 Moy, It is even possible to go further and. limit the bending moments at both supports. This results obviously in two rotational capacity requirements: El gyq = 41.667 q, + 1125.0 q. + 13.333 Mg + 5.000 Mess El Gey. = 1125.0 qs + 333.33 q3 + 5.000 Muy + 16.667 Mey ‘As an example, both bending mo- ments are set to Mug = Meni =~ 2400 kNm, For load case 2 this results in rotation- al capacity requirements of Elgg = 4083 kNm? and Ellgcy= 1917 kN, respectively. ‘The corresponding bending moment ram is shown in Fig. 4 together with the diagram related to load case 7. It is obvious that these diagrams al- low for smaller dimensions of the ‘beam and might well be more econom- ical with respect to the reinforcement than the elastic solutions shown in Fig 2. Also shown in Fig. 4 is the bending ‘moment diagram for load case 8 which still remains in the elastic range, as do load cases 1, 3 and 4, not shown, It should be noted that at the interme- diate supports B and C there is either a bending moment in agreement with elastic analysis or a rotational capacity requirement. There are as many free choices of bending moments in the structure as the degree of statical inde terminacy. In accordance with what is known from plasticity theory, there Structural Engineering International 393 2325 Fig. 4: “Hybrid” moment diagrams might, however, be local mechanisms that in a given area restrict the choice to what is acceptable from the equilib- rium conditions, ‘This is the way an engineer would han- dle the problem, but, obviously, he is lacking the corresponding software support, since many, if not all, availa- ble programmes provide the elastic so lution only, leaving the engineer with heaps of data that do not really help much to reach a good design. Slabs What has been explained for a simple three-span beam can be applied to slabs as well. Again, a very simple ex- ample is chosen, and just the proce- dure is discussed, ‘The example considered is a flat slab consisting of square parts supported by columns. The slab is expected to be t a Fig. 5: Slab system of constant thickness and has infinite length in two orthogonal directions. ‘A constant uniformly distributed load iis applied. There is no difference be- tween the reinforcement in both dire tions. This means that the system lines through the columns are lines of sym- metry, as are the lines through the cen- tres of the slab fields (Fig. 5). Thus, analysis can be restricted to a quarter of a square slab part (the shaded area in Fig. 5). The shaded part is shown again on a larger scale in Fig. 6. The (quarter of the) column is in corner A. The centre of the slab part is in comer D. The di Fig. 6: Moments in slab ‘Stience and Technology 167mensions of the column are realistical- ly taken into account. The load q is ap- plied over the square ABCD. ‘The designer starts to be interested in the elastic solution. Such a solution can be found applying elastic FEM procedures, The result is sketched in Fig. 6 for the moment ma, in all four lines of symmetry (thin lines). ‘This result, in a conventional ap- proach, would be used to determine the reinforcement in the x-direction, because no twisting moments occur in lines of symmetry. Of course, the same reinforcement is needed in the y- direction. It can be seen that a high peak occurs at the position of the col- A next step for a capable designer would be to choose a practical rein- forcement system, limiting the bending moments in some defined region around the corner. In the example, the designer might choose a value which is, 660 % of the elastic peak value. Assuming that the designer has a hy: brid programme at his disposal to make a plastic analysis, he would find a new distribution of bending moments reflecting the choice of the reinforce- ment. The result is sketched in Fig. 6, in the thick shaded lines. It can be seen that a strong reduction of the peak bending moment on top of, the column hardly influences the bending moment distribution at some distance from the column. In slabs, itis hard to speak about a distinct plastic rotation ¢ as for a beam. Rather, the notion of plastic curvature should be used as a deformation criterion, A further decision could be made specifying a limit value m, close to the 168 Science and Technology column and a lower value ms in the re- maining part of the slab. In all cases, it must be determined that principal mo- ments do not occur anywhere in the slab which surpass the limiting values given by the reinforcement. This simple example has been chosen only to show that the designer is again called upon to make choices and deci- sions. Only then should the software analysis proceed, defining the conse- quences of these decisions as a help for further improvements. The Development Challenge ‘The choice elements that have been demonstrated for statically indetermi- nate structures should be incorporated into desktop computer programmes which would then work interactively. The engineer should be able ~ to input the geometrical configura- tion and sectional properties of a structure, 1o define the load case to be analysed, and to see the corre- sponding elastic bending moment diagram to critically study the diagram and, if felt appropriate, make changes somewhere to the obtained elastic solution, The engineer should. be able to apply a limit to the bending ‘moment at any point in the struc ture and see the resulting changed bending moment diagram and rota- tional capacity requirements. = to then proceed, starting from what had been obtained, by limiting the bending moments at some other points in the structure or return to some previous decisions. In such a way, slowly, a preferable basis for dimensioning, detailing and execu- tion could be interactively obtained by this hybrid procedure. Clearly, this procedure must be fol- lowed for all load cases relevant to proper dimensioning of the structure. Conclusion Software developers are challenged to provide designers with interactive hy- brid programmes. Programming. spe- cities are not relevant. What is hidden within the programme does not mat- ter. Itean be linear or nonlinear, based ‘on ineremental loading. The only re- quirements for the designer are free- dom of choice among clearly shown al- ternatives, speed, ease of use and, of course, reliable and complete informa- tion. It is acknowledged that serviceability problems generally cannot be dealt with by plastic methods, but are better considered by basing dimensioning and detailing on elastic solutions. Thus, care should be taken when designing bridges and other structures exposed to environmental loads, or structures where deflections, ete. are of prime im- portance. Comments above on devia- tions from the elastic solution taking account of the rotational capacities of beams or slabs should not be applied to such structures, The proposed hybrid approach to structural analysis relates to problems in which the bearing capacity of a structure and the identification of eco- nomical solutions are primary. con- cerns Without doubt, these considera- tions involve the great majority of all structures. Structural Engineering International 93