Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Design Optimization of Reinforced Ordinary and High-Strength Concrete Beams with Eurocode2 (EC-2)

By Fedghouche Ferhat

Submitted: February 17th 2018Reviewed: May 15th 2018Published: November 5th 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.78734

Downloaded: 295

Abstract

This chapter presents a method for minimizing separately the cost and weight of reinforced ordinary and high-strength concrete (HSC) T-beams at the limit state according to Eurocode2 (EC-2). The first objective function includes the costs of concrete, steel, and formwork, and the second objective function deals with the weight of the T-beam. All the constraints functions are set to meet the design requirements of Eurocode2 and current practices rules. The optimization process is developed through the use of the generalized reduced gradient (GRG) algorithm. Two example problems are considered in order to illustrate the applicability of the proposed design model and solution methodology. It is concluded that this approach is economically more effective compared to conventional design methods used by designers and engineers and can be extended to deal with other sections without major alterations.

Keywords

  • cost and weight minimization
  • reinforced ordinary and high-strength concrete beams
  • Eurocode2 (EC-2)
  • nonlinear optimization
  • algorithm

1. Introduction

Structural elements with T-shaped sections are frequently used in industrial construction. They are used for repeated and large structures because they are cost effective when using the optimum cost design model which is of great value for designers and engineers. Compression reinforcement is not often required when designing the T-beams sections. One of the great advantages of T-beams sections is the economy in the amount of steel needed for reinforcement. The objective function is usually simplified to represent the weight, disregarding the costs of shaping and the construction details. However, the economy aspects in terms of costs and gain achieved should be the area where scope exists for extending the research works [1, 2, 3, 4].

Recent developments in the technology of materials have led to the use of the high-strength concrete (HSC); this is mainly due to its efficiency and economy. The reduction in the quantities of construction materials has enabled both a gain in weight reduction and in the foundation’s cost. HSC has a high compressive strength in the range of 55–90 MPa; it not only has the advantage of reducing member size and story height, but also the volume of concrete and the area of formwork. In terms of the amount of steel reinforcement, there is a substantial difference between the normal-strength concrete structures compared to high-strength concrete structures [5, 6]. In this chapter, not only does it presents the minimum weight design but it presents a detailed objective function that considers the ratio cost not the absolute cost with sensitivity analysis of this cost ratio as well. It considers both shaping and material costs. The generalized reduced gradient (GRG) method is used to solve nonlinear programming problems. It is a very reliable and robust algorithm; also, various numerical methods have been used in engineering optimization [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].

This work shows a method for minimizing separately the cost and weight of reinforced ordinary and high-strength concrete (HSC) T-beams at the limit state according to Eurocode2 (EC-2). The first objective function includes the costs of concrete, steel and formwork, whereas the second objective function represents the weight of the T-beam; all the constraints functions are set to meet the ultimate strength and serviceability requirements of Eurocode2 and current practices rules. The optimization process is developed through the use of the generalized reduced gradient algorithm. Two example problems are considered in order to illustrate the applicability of the proposed design model and solution methodology. It is concluded that this approach is economically more effective compared to conventional design methods applied by designers and engineers and can be extended to deal with other sections without major alterations.

2. Limit state design of reinforced concrete T-section under bending

In accordance with EC-2 [13], the assumptions used at the limit state for the typical reinforced T-beam-cross section are, respectively, illustrated in Figure 1(a)(c).

Figure 1.

(a) Typical T-beam cross section; (b) strains at ultimate limit state and (c) stresses at ultimate limit state.

In the linear strain diagram of Figure 1b, the symbols εs and εcu3 designate steel strain and the ultimate strain for the rectangular stress distribution compressive concrete design stress–strain relation. The parameter α represents the relative depth of the compressive concrete zone and the plastic neutral axis is located at the distance αd from the upper fiber for the ultimate limit state design, and x is the depth of elastic neutral axis for serviceability limit state design. In the assumed uniformly distributed stress diagram of Figure 1c, fcd is the design value of concrete compressive strength, γc is the partial safety factor for concrete and fck is the characteristic compressive cylinder strength of ordinary or HSC at 28 days. In accordance with EC-2, the possibility of working with rectangular stress distribution is offered. This requires the introduction of a factor λ for the depth of the compression zone and a factor η for the design strength. The λ and η factors are both linearly dependent on the characteristic strength fck in accordance with the following Equations [13]:

λ=0.8fck50400E1
μ=1.0fck50200E2

with 50 ≤ fck ≤ 90 MPa and λ = 0.8,η = 1.0 for fck ≤ 50 MPa.

Fc and Fs denote the resultants of internal forces in the HSC section and reinforcing steel, respectively.

The design yield strength of steel reinforcement is fyd = fyks where fyk is the characteristic elastic limit of steel and γs is the partial safety factor. In addition, the steel strain is considered unlimited in accordance with the Eurocode2 provisions. In this chapter, for an optimal use of steel, the strain must always be greater or equal to elastic limit strain, εyd = fyd/Es where Es represents the elasticity modulus for steel.

3. Formulation of the optimization problem

3.1. Design variables

The design variables selected for the optimization are presented in Table 1.

Design variablesDefined variables
bEffective width of compressive flange
bwWeb width
hTotal depth
dEffective depth
hfFlange depth
AsArea of tension reinforcement
αRelative depth of compressive concrete zone

Table 1.

Definition of design variables.

3.2. Objective functions

3.2.1. Cost function

The objective function to be minimized in the optimization problems is the total cost of construction material per unit length of the beam. This function can be defined as:

C0/L=Ccbwh+bbwhf+CsAs+Cfb+2hMinimumE3

Thus, the cost function to be minimized can be written as follows:

C=COCcL=bwh+bbwhf+CsCcAs+CfCcb+2hMinimumE4

The values of the cost ratios Cs/Cc and Cf/Cc vary from one country to another and may eventually vary from one region to another for certain countries [14, 15].

3.2.2. Weight function

The weight function to be minimized can be written as follows:

W=bwh+bbwhfρminimumE5

where

ρ is the density of the reinforced concrete T-beams and W is the unit weight per unit length of the reinforced concrete T- beams.

3.3. Design constraints

  1. Behavior constraints:

MEdηfcdbbwhfd050hf+ηλfcdbwd2α105λαE6

(external moment ≤ resisting moment of the cross-section)

α=fydfcdASηλbwdbbwhfλbwdE7

(internal force equilibrium)

AsbwdpminE8

(minimum steel percentage)

Asbwh+bbwhfpmaxE9

(maximum steel percentage)

In Eqs. (7) and (8) above, it is assumed that the neutral axis position is under the beam flange which ensures that the section behaves as the T-beam section shown in Figure 1a.

Conditions on strain compatibility in steel:

εcu31α1fydEsE10

(In the case of Pivot B, optimal use of steel requires that strains in steel must be limited to plastic region at the ultimate limit state (ULS).)

λα105λαμlimitE11

(Compression reinforcement is not required.)

b.Shear strength constraint:

VEdVRd,max=ν1fcdbwztgθ+cotgθE12

(external shear force ≤ resisting shear force)

c.Deflection constraint:

5wL4384EcmIcδlimE13
Ic=bwh33+bbwh33+nAsd2Ahx2E14
Ah=bwh+bbwhf+nAsE15
x=bwh22+bbwhf22+nAsdAhE16

d.Geometric design variable constraints including rules of current practice:

hL16E17
dh=0.90E18
0.20bwd0.50E19
bbw2L10E20
bhf8E21
hfhfminE22
bbw3E23

where:

μlimit is the limit value of the reduced moment.

θ is the angle between concrete compression struts and the main chord

ν1 is a nondimensional coefficient, ν1 = 0.60(1-fck/250);

z is the lever arm, z = 0.9d;

hfmin is the minimum depth of flange.

3.4. Optimization based on minimum cost design

The optimum cost design of reinforced concrete T-beams under the limit state can be stated as follows:

For given material properties, loading data and constant parameters, find the design variables defined in Table 1 that minimize the cost function defined in Eq. (4) subjected to the design constraints given in Eq. (6) through Eq. (23).

3.5. Optimization based on minimum weight design

Find the design variables that minimize total weight per unit length defined in Eq. (5), subjected to the design constraints given in Eq. (6) through Eq. (23).

3.6. Solution methodology: Generalized reduced gradient method

The objective function Eq. (4), the objective function Eq. (5) and the constraints equations, Eq.(6) through Eq.(23), together form a nonlinear optimization problem. The reasons for the nonlinearity of this optimization problem are essentially due to the expressions of the cross-sectional area, bending moment capacity and other constraints equations. Both the objective function and the constraint functions are nonlinear in terms of the design variables. In order to solve this nonlinear optimization problem, the generalized reduced gradient (GRG) algorithm is used. This algorithm was first developed in late 1960 by Jean Abadie [16] as an extension of the reduced gradient method and then since has been refined by several other researchers [17, 18]. GRG nonlinear should be selected if any of the equations involving decision variables or constraints is nonlinear.

Microsoft Excel, beginning with version 3.0 in 1991, incorporates an NLP solver that operates on values and formulas of a spreadsheet model. Version 4.0 and later include LP solver and mixed-integer programming (MIP) capability for both linear and nonlinear problems. The Microsoft Office Excel Solver tool uses several algorithms to find optimal solutions. The GRG nonlinear solving method for nonlinear optimization uses the Generalized Reduced Gradient code. The Simplex LP solving method for linear programming uses the Simplex and dual Simplex method. The Evolutionary solving method for non-smooth optimization uses a variety of genetic algorithm and local search methods. The user specifies a set of cell addresses to be independently adjusted (the decision variables), a set of formulae cells whose values are to be constrained (the constraints) and a formula cell designated as the optimization objective. The solver uses the spreadsheet interpreter to evaluate the constraint and objective functions and approximates derivatives, using finite differences. The NLP solution engine for the Excel Solver is GRG.

The generalized reduced gradient method is applied as it has the following advantages: (i) the GRG method is widely recognized as an efficient method for solving a relatively wide class of nonlinear optimization problems; (ii) the program can handle up to 200 constraints, which is suitable for reinforced ordinary and HSC beam design optimization problems; and (iii) GRG transforms inequality constraints into equality constraints by introducing slack variables. Hence all the constraints are of equality form. A more detailed description of the GRG method can be found in [19].

4. Numerical results and discussion

4.1. Design example A for reinforced HSC T-beams

The numerical example A corresponds to a high-strength concrete T-beam belonging to a bridge deck, simply supported at its ends and predesigned in accordance with provisions of EC-2 design code.

The corresponding preassigned parameters are defined as follows:

L = 25 m; MEd = 1.35 MG + 1.5 MQ = 9 MNm; VEd = 1.35 VG + 1.5 VQ = 3.1 MN.

w = 0.60MN/ml (the total distribution load (dead load + live load)), δlim = L/250 = 0.100 m.

Input data for HSC characteristics:

C70/85; fck = 70 MPa; γc = 1.5; fcd = 46.67 MPa; ρ = 0.025 MN/m3; Ecm = 40,743 MPa;

λ = 0.75; η = 0.90; εcu3(‰) = 2.7; εc3(‰) = 2.4; hfmin = 0.10 m; fctm = 4.6 MPa;

μlimit = 0.329; αlimit = 0.554 for S500 and C70/85.

Input data for steel characteristics:

S500; fyk = 500 MPa; γs = 1.15; fyd = fyks = 435 MPa; n = 15;

S400; fyk = 400 MPa; γs = 1.15; fyd = fyks = 348 MPa; fyd/fcd = 9.32 for classes (S500, C70/85);

fyd/fcd = 7.46 for classes (S400, C70/85); μlimit = 0.352; αlimit = 0.6081 for S400 and C70/85;

Es = 2 × 105 MPa; pmin = 0.26 fctm/fyk = 0.002392; pmax = 4%.

Input data for units cost ratios of construction materials:

Cs/Cc = 40 for HSC concrete;

Cf/Cc = 0.01 for wood formwork;

Cf/Cc = 0.10 for metal formwork;

Cf/Cc = 0.00 in the case of the cost of the formwork is negligible.

4.1.1. Comparison between the minimum cost design and the minimum weight design of HSC T-beams

The vector of design variables including the geometric dimensions of the T-beam cross-section and the area of tension reinforcement as obtained from the standard design approach solution and the optimal cost design solution using the proposed approach is shown in Table 2.

Design variables vector.Initial designOptimal solution with minimum cost
(S500, C70/85), Cs/Cc = 40, Cf/Cc = 0.01 wood formwork
Optimal solution with minimum weight
b(m)1.200.860.52
bw(m)0.400.280.28
h(m)1.401.581.56
d(m)1.261.421.40
hf(m)0.150.110.10
AS(m2)185x10−4161x10−4181 x10−4
α0.5540.3420.554
Gain22%47%

Table 2.

Comparison of the optimal solutions with minimum weight and minimum cost design for HSC.

The optimal solutions using the minimum cost design and the minimum weight design are shown in Table 2.

It is shown from Table 2 that the gain and optimum values for minimum cost design and for minimum weight design are different.

From the above results, it is clearly shown that significant cost saving of the order of 47% can be obtained using the proposed minimum weight design formulation and 22% through the use of minimum cost-design approach.

4.1.2. Parametric study

In this section, the optimal solution is obtained according to practical consideration: (i) the total depth is imposed, h = himposed; (ii) the effective width of compressive flange is imposed, b = bimposed; (iii) the reinforcing steel is imposed, As = Asimposed; and (4i) the flange depth is imposed, hf = hfimposed.

The gain depends on the type of formwork used. We distinguish the wood formwork: Cf/Cc = 0.01 and the steel formwork Cf/Cc = 0.10.

Further practical requirements can also be implemented, such as esthetic, architectural and limited authorized templates. The optimal solutions obtained using the particular conditions imposed are shown in Table 3.

Optimal solution with.Gain (%)
Classes(S500, C70/85); Cs/Cc = 40; Cf/Cc = 0.01wood formwork22
Classes(S500, C70/85); Cs/Cc = 40; Cf/Cc = 0.10 steel formwork19
Classes(S500,C70/85) and Cf/Cc = 0 the cost of the formwork is negligible23
Classes(S400,C70/85); Cs/Cc = 40; Cf/Cc = 0.01wood formwork08
Imposed height h = 1.70 m; S500 and C70/8521
Imposed width b = 1.00 m; S500 and C70/8522
Imposed reinforcement As ≤ 0.0150 m2; S500 and C70/8522
Imposed flange depth hf = 0.10 m; S500 andC70/8522

Table 3.

The variation of relative gain with particular conditions imposed such as the HSC T-beam dimensions and reinforcing steel.

From the above results, it is clearly seen that a significant cost saving between 08% and 23% can be obtained by using this parametric study.

4.1.3. Sensitivity analysis

The relative gains can be determined for various values of unit-cost ratios: Cs/Cc = 10; 20; 30; 40; 50; 60; 70; 80; 90; 100 for a given unit cost ratio Cf/Cc = 0.01

The corresponding results are reported in Table 4 and represented in Figure 2.

(S500; C70/85) Cf/Cc = 0.01Gain (%)
1033
2027
3024
4022
5022
6022
7023
8024
9026
10027

Table 4.

Variation of relative gain in percentage (%) versus unit cost ratio Cs/Cc for a given cost ratio Cf/Cc = 0.01.

Figure 2.

Variation of relative gain in percentage (%) versus unit cost ratio Cs/Cc for a given cost ratio Cf/Cc = 0.01.

It is shown in Table 4 and Figure 2 that the relative gain decreases for increasing values of the unit cost ratio Cs/Cc, stabilizes around an average value for 40 ≤ Cs/Cc ≤ 60 and then increases significantly beyond this average value for a given cost ratio Cf/Cc = 0.01.

The relative gains can be determined for various values of unit cost ratios: Cf/Cc = 0.01; 0.02; 0.03; 0.04; 0.05; 0.06; 0.07; 0.08; 0.08; 0.09; 0.10 for a given unit cost ratio Cs/Cc = 40.

The corresponding results are reported in Table 5 and presented in Figure 3.

(S500; C70/85) Cs/Cc = 40 Cf/CcGain (%)
0.0122
0.0221
0.0321
0.0420
0.0520
0.0619
0.0719
0.0819
0.0919
0.1018

Table 5.

Variation of relative gain in percentage (%) versus unit cost ratio Cf/Cc for a given cost ratio Cs/Cc = 40.

Figure 3.

Variation of relative gain in percentage (%) versus unit cost ratio Cf/Cc for a given cost ratio Cs/Cc = 40.

From Table 5 and Figure 3, the gain decreases monotonically with the increase of unit cost ratio Cf/Cc for a given cost ratio Cs/Cc = 40.

4.2. Design example B for reinforced ordinary concrete T-beams

The numerical example B corresponds to a concrete T-beam belonging to a pedestrian deck, simply supported at its ends and predesigned in accordance with the provisions of EC-2 design code.

The preassigned parameters are defined as follows:

L = 20 m; MEd = 5MNm; VEd = 1.1MN; w = 0.043MN/ml; δlim = L/250 = 0.080 m.

Input data for ordinary concrete characteristics:

C20/25; fck = 20 MPa; γc = 1.5;fcd = 11.33 MPa; ρ = 0.025MN/m3; Ecm = 30,000 MPa;

λ = 0.80; η =1.00; εcu3(‰) = 2; εc3(‰) = 3.5; hfmin = 0.15 m; fctm = 2.20 MPa; n = 15;

μlimit = 0.372; αlimit = 0.6167 for S500 and C20/25.

μlimit = 0.392; αlimit = 0.6680 for S400; and C20/25.

Input data for steel characteristics:

S400; fyk = 400 MPa; γs = 1.15; fyd = fyks = 348 MPa;

Es = 2 × 105 MPa; pmin = 0.26 fctm/fyk = 0.00143; pmax = 4%;

fyd/fcd = 30.71 for classes (S400, C20/25);

fyd/fcd = 38.39 for classes (S500, C20/25).

Input data for units cost ratios of construction materials:

Cs/Cc = 30 for ordinary concrete.

Cf/Cc = 0.10 for metal formwork.

Cf/Cc = 0.01 for wood formwork.

4.2.1. Comparison between the minimum cost design and the minimum weight design of ordinary concrete T-beams

The optimal solutions using the minimum weight design and the minimum cost design are shown in Table 6.

Design variables vectorInitial design, C20/25 & S400Optimal solution with minimum weight, C20/25 & S400Optimal solution with minimum cost, C20/25 & S400
b(m)1.201.301.25
bw(m)0.400.280.29
h(m)1.601.571.60
d(m)1.441.411.44
hf(m)0.140.170.16
AS(m2)125 × 10−4123 × 10−4122 × 10−4
α0.6680.6680.668
C1.1711.0281
Gain23%14%

Table 6.

Comparison of the optimal solutions with minimum weight and minimum cost design.

It is shown in Table 6 that the gain and the optimum values for minimum weight design and for minimum cost design are different.

From the above results, it is clearly shown that a significant cost saving of the order of 23% can be obtained using the proposed minimum weight design formulation and 14% through the use of the minimum cost design approach.

4.2.2. Parametric study

In this section, the optimal solution is obtained through the considerations: (i) one of the dimensions of HSC T-section is imposed, h = 1.50 m; (ii) the imposed reinforcing steel As = 120 × 10−4 m2; (iii) imposed web width bW = 0.30 m; and (iv) imposed relative depth of compressive concrete zone α = 0.6000

Further practical requirements can also be implemented, such as esthetic, architectural and limited authorized template.

The optimal solutions obtained using the particular conditions imposed are shown in Table 7.

Optimal solution withGain (%)
fyd/fcd = 30.71; Cs/Cc = 30; Cf/Cc = 0.01 wood formwork, C20/25 & S40014
fyd/fcd = 38.39; Cs/Cc = 30; Cf/Cc = 0.01wood formwork, C20/25 & S50009
fyd/fcd = 30.71; Cs/Cc = 30; Cf/Cc = 0.00; C20/25 & S40015
Imposed web with bw = 0.30 m; fyd/fcd = 30.71; Cs/Cc = 30; Cf/Cc = 0.01; C20/25 & S40013
Imposed reinforcementAs ≤ 0.0120 m2; fyd/fcd = 30.71; Cs/Cc = 30; Cf/Cc = 0.01; C20/25 & S40014
Imposed height h = 1.50 m; fyd/fcd = 30.71; Cs/Cc = 30; Cf/Cc = 0.01; C20/25 & S40011
Imposed relative depthα = 0.600; fyd/fcd = 30.71; Cs/Cc = 30; Cf/Cc = 0.01; C20/25 & S40014

Table 7.

Variation of relative gain with particular conditions imposed such as the T-beam dimensions, reinforcing steel and weight.

From the above results, it is clearly seen that a significant cost saving between 09 and 15% can be obtained by using this parametric study.

4.2.3. Sensitivity analysis

The relative gains can be determined for various values of the unit cost ratios: Cs/Cc = 10; 20; 30; 40; 50; 60; 70; 80; 90; 100 for a given unit cost ratio Cf/Cc = 0.01

The corresponding results are reported in Table 8 and presented graphically in Figure 4.

(S400; C20/25) Cf/Cc = 0.01Gain (%)
1018
2016
3014
4013
5012
6012
7012
8011
9011
10011

Table 8.

Variation of relative gain in percentage (%) versus unit cost ratio Cs/Cc for a given cost ratio Cf/Cc = 0.01.

Figure 4.

Variation of relative gain in percentage (%) versus unit cost ratio Cs/Cc for a given cost ratio Cf/Cc = 0.01.

It is shown in Table 8 and Figure 4 that the relative gain decreases for increasing values of the unit cost ratio Cs/Cc for a given value of Cf/Cc = 0.01.

The relative gains can be determined for various values of the unit cost ratios: Cf/Cc = 0.01; 0.02; 0.03; 0.04; 0.05; 0.06; 0.07; 0.08; 0.08; 0.09; 0.10 for a given unit cost ratio Cs/Cc = 30.

The corresponding results are reported in Table 9 and illustrated graphically in Figure 5.

(S400; C20/25) Cs/Cc = 30 Cf/CcGain (%)
0.0114
0.0214
0.0313
0.0413
0.0513
0.0612
0.0712
0.0812
0.0912
0.112

Table 9.

Variation of relative gain in percentage (%) versus unit cost ratio Cf/Cc for Cs/Cc = 30.

Figure 5.

Variation of relative gain in percentage (%) versus unit cost ratio Cf/Cc for a given cost ratio Cs/Cc = 30.

From Table 9 and Figure 5, the gain decreases monotonically with the increase of unit cost ratio Cf/Cc for a given value of Cs/Cc = 30.

5. Conclusions

The following important conclusions are drawn on the basis of this chapter:

  • The problem formulation of the optimal cost design of reinforced concrete T-beams can be cast into a nonlinear programming problem; the numerical solution is efficiently determined using the GRG method in a space of only a few variables representing the concrete cross-section dimensions.

  • The space of feasible design solutions and the optimal solutions can be obtained from a reduced number of independent design variables.

  • The optimal values of the design variables are only affected by the relative cost values of the objective function and not by the absolute cost values.

  • The optimal solutions are found to be insensitive to changes in the shear constraint. Shear constraint is not usually critical in the optimal design of reinforced concrete T-beams under bending and thus can be excluded from problem formulation.

  • The observations of optimal solution results reveal that the use of optimization based on the optimum cost design concept may lead to substantial savings in the amount of construction materials to be used in comparison to classical design solutions of reinforced concrete T-beams.

  • The objective function and the constraints considered in this chapter are illustrative in nature. This approach based on nonlinear mathematical programming can be easily extended to other sections commonly used in structural design. More sophisticated objectives and considerations can be readily accommodated by suitable modifications of the optimal cost design model.

  • In this chapter, we have included the additional cost of formwork which makes a significant contribution to the total costs. This integration is important for an economical approach to design and manufacture.

  • The suggested methodology for optimum cost design is effective and more economical compared to the classical methods. The results of the analysis show that the optimization process presented herein is effective and its application appears feasible.

  • The comparison of optimal solutions for minimum cost and minimum weight shows that the construction cost affects significantly the optimal sizes. Not only do we use the mass but the cost as objective function as well which contains the material and construction provision costs. The difference is caused by construction details costs.

Appendix

C20/25Class of ordinary concrete
C70/85Class of HSC
S400Grade of steel
S500Grade of steel
fckCharacteristic compressive cylinder strength of ordinary or HSC at 28 days
fctmTensile strength of concrete
fcdDesign value of concrete compressive strength
γcPartial safety factor for concrete
ηDesign strength factor
λCompressive zone depth factor
εc3Strain at the maximum stress for the rectangular stress distribution compressive concrete
εcu3Ultimate strain for the rectangular stress distribution compressive concrete design stress–strain relation
fykCharacteristic elastic limit for steel reinforcement
γsPartial safety factor for steel
fydDesign yield strength of steel reinforcement
εydElastic limit strain
EsYoung’s elastic modulus of steel
EcmModulus of elasticity of concrete
pminMinimum steel percentage
pmaxMaximum steel percentage
αlimitLimit value of relative depth of compressive concrete zone
μlimitLimit value of reduced moment
LBeam span
wThe total distribution load (dead load+ live load)
VGMaximum design shears under dead loads
VQMaximum design shears under live loads
VRd,maxMaximum resistant shear force
VEdUltimate shear force
MRd, maxMaximum resisting moment
MEdUltimate bending moment
MGMaximum design moments under dead loads
MQMaximum design moments under live loads
FsResultant tensile internal force for steel
FcResultant compressive internal force for HSC
nRatio of the modulus of elasticity of steel to that of concrete
bEffective width of compressive flange
bwWeb width
hTotal depth
hfFlange depth
dEffective depth
dsEffective cover of reinforcement
AsArea of reinforcing steel
hfminMinimum depth of flange
δwThe mid-span deflection of simply supported beam under distribution load w
δlimLimit deflection
θAngle between concrete compression struts and the main chord
ν1A nondimensional coefficient; ν1 = 0.60(1-fck/250)
zLever arm, z = 0.9d
ρDensity of the reinforced concrete T-beams
WUnit weight per unit length of the reinforced concrete T- beams
C0/LTotal cost per unit length of T-beam
CsUnit cost of reinforcing steel
CcUnit cost of concrete
CfUnit cost of formwork

© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite and reference

Link to this chapter Copy to clipboard

Cite this chapter Copy to clipboard

Fedghouche Ferhat (November 5th 2018). Design Optimization of Reinforced Ordinary and High-Strength Concrete Beams with Eurocode2 (EC-2), Optimum Composite Structures, Karam Y. Maalawi, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.78734. Available from:

chapter statistics

295total chapter downloads

More statistics for editors and authors

Login to your personal dashboard for more detailed statistics on your publications.

Access personal reporting

Related Content

This Book

Next chapter

Improved Dielectric Properties of Epoxy Nano Composites

By Rashmi Aradhya and Nijagal M. Renukappa

Related Book

First chapter

Using of Magnetron Sputtering for Biocompatible Composites Creating

By Elena O. Nasakina, Mikhail A. Sevostyanov, Alexander S. Baikin, Sergey V. Konushkin, Konstantin V. Sergienko, Mikhail A. Kaplan, Ilya M. Fedyuk, Alexander V. Leonov and Alexey G. Kolmakov

We are IntechOpen, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books. Built by scientists, for scientists. Our readership spans scientists, professors, researchers, librarians, and students, as well as business professionals. We share our knowledge and peer-reveiwed research papers with libraries, scientific and engineering societies, and also work with corporate R&D departments and government entities.

More About Us