Would you like to sign out?

Select Country

  • Afghanistan English
  • Albania English
  • Algeria English
  • American Samoa English
  • Andorra English
  • Angola English
  • Anguilla English
  • Antarctica English
  • Antigua and Barbuda English
  • Argentina Español
  • Armenia English
  • Aruba English
  • Australia English
  • Austria English
  • Azerbaijan English
  • Bahamas English
  • Bahrain English
  • Bangladesh English
  • Barbados English
  • Belarus English
  • Belgium English
  • Belize English
  • Benin English
  • Bermuda English
  • Bhutan English
  • Bolivia Español
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina English
  • Botswana English
  • Bouvet Island English
  • Brazil Español
  • British Indian Ocean Territory English
  • British Virgin Islands English
  • Brunei English
  • Bulgaria English
  • Burkina Faso English
  • Burundi English
  • Cambodia English
  • Cameroon English
  • Canada English
  • Cape Verde English
  • Caribbean Netherlands English
  • Cayman Islands English
  • Central African Republic English
  • Chad English
  • Chile Español
  • Christmas Island English
  • Cocos (Keeling) Islands English
  • Colombia Español
  • Comoros English
  • Congo English
  • Cook Islands English
  • Costa Rica Español
  • Côte d’Ivoire English
  • Croatia English
  • Cuba Español
  • Curaçao English
  • Cyprus English
  • Czech Republic English
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo English
  • Denmark English
  • Djibouti English
  • Dominica English
  • Dominican Republic Español
  • Ecuador Español
  • Egypt English
  • El Salvador Español
  • Equatorial Guinea English
  • Eritrea English
  • Estonia English
  • Ethiopia English
  • Falkland Islands English
  • Faroe Islands English
  • Fiji English
  • Finland English
  • France English
  • French Guiana Español
  • French Polynesia English
  • French Southern Territories English
  • Gabon English
  • Gambia English
  • Georgia English
  • Germany English
  • Ghana English
  • Gibraltar English
  • Greece English
  • Greenland English
  • Grenada English
  • Guadeloupe Español
  • Guam English
  • Guatemala Español
  • Guernsey English
  • Guinea English
  • Guinea-Bissau English
  • Guyana English
  • Haiti Español
  • Heard Island and McDonald Islands English
  • Honduras Español
  • Hong Kong English
  • Hungary English
  • Iceland English
  • India English
  • Indonesia English
  • Iran English
  • Iraq English
  • Ireland English
  • Isle of Man English
  • Israel English
  • Italy English
  • Jamaica English
  • Japan 日本語
  • Jersey English
  • Jordan English
  • Kazakhstan English
  • Kenya English
  • Kiribati English
  • South Korea 한국어
  • Kuwait English
  • Kyrgyzstan English
  • Laos English
  • Latvia English
  • Lebanon English
  • Lesotho English
  • Liberia English
  • Libya English
  • Liechtenstein English
  • Lithuania English
  • Luxembourg English
  • Macau English
  • Madagascar English
  • Malawi English
  • Malaysia English
  • Maldives English
  • Mali English
  • Malta English
  • Marshall Islands English
  • Martinique Español
  • Mauritania English
  • Mauritius English
  • Mayotte English
  • Mexico Español
  • Micronesia English
  • Moldova English
  • Monaco English
  • Mongolia English
  • Montenegro English
  • Montserrat English
  • Morocco English
  • Mozambique English
  • Myanmar English
  • Namibia English
  • Nauru English
  • Nepal English
  • Netherlands English
  • New Caledonia English
  • New Zealand English
  • Nicaragua Español
  • Niger English
  • Nigeria English
  • Niue English
  • Norfolk Island English
  • Northern Mariana Islands English
  • Norway English
  • Oman English
  • Pakistan English
  • Palau English
  • Palestine English
  • Panama Español
  • Papua New Guinea English
  • Paraguay Español
  • Peru Español
  • Philippines English
  • Pitcairn Islands English
  • Poland English
  • Portugal Español
  • Puerto Rico Español
  • Qatar English
  • Réunion English
  • Romania English
  • Russia English
  • Rwanda English
  • Saint Barthélemy Español
  • Saint Helena English
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis English
  • Saint Lucia English
  • Saint Martin Español
  • Saint Pierre and Miquelon English
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines English
  • Samoa English
  • San Marino English
  • Sao Tome and Principe English
  • Saudi Arabia English
  • Senegal English
  • Serbia English
  • Seychelles English
  • Sierra Leone English
  • Singapore English
  • Sint Maarten English
  • Slovakia English
  • Slovenia English
  • Solomon Islands English
  • Somalia English
  • South Africa English
  • South Georgia English
  • South Sudan English
  • Spain Español
  • Sri Lanka English
  • Sudan English
  • Suriname English
  • Svalbard and Jan Mayen English
  • Eswatini English
  • Sweden English
  • Switzerland English
  • Syria English
  • Taiwan English
  • Tajikistan English
  • Tanzania English
  • Thailand English
  • Togo English
  • Tokelau English
  • Tonga English
  • Trinidad and Tobago English
  • Tunisia English
  • Turkey English
  • Turkmenistan English
  • Turks and Caicos Islands English
  • Tuvalu English
  • U.S. Virgin Islands English
  • Uganda English
  • Ukraine English
  • United Arab Emirates English
  • United Kingdom English
  • United States of America English
  • U.S. Minor Outlying Islands English
  • Uruguay Español
  • Uzbekistan English
  • Vanuatu English
  • Vatican City English
  • Venezuela Español
  • Vietnam English
  • Wallis and Futuna English
  • Western Sahara English
  • Yemen English
  • Zambia English
  • Zimbabwe English
  • Åland Islands English
  • East Timor English
  • Netherlands Antilles English
  • Serbia and Montenegro English
  • North Macedonia English
  • Timor-Leste English
Structure

Mastering Time-Dependent Analysis in Structural Engineering

Table of Contents Click the table of contents for details.

How to Perform Time-dependent Analysis?

 

Mainly there are two ways to perform the time-dependent analysis. One is the time-step analysis and the other is the age-adjusted method.

 

The age-adjusted method is a simplified one and can consider the long-term effects with only a one-step analysis. Of course, this is an approximate way to consider the long-term effects, but the creep itself is an approximation anyway. The results from the age-adjusted method are reasonable in many cases.

 

The author prefers the time-step analysis. The time-step analysis is nothing more than to do the same calculation again and again. This is painful for humans but computers are very good for these repeated calculations. The time-step analysis is to divide the time into shorter durations of time-steps and repeat the same analysis. All calculations are done by the computers and extra efforts comparing to the age-adjusted method is nominal. (We need computers anyway even for the age-adjusted method.)

 

As always, before starting theory discussions, start with a simple example.

 

Post-tensioned section Example (Example 2.2 from Concrete structures, 3rd ed., by Dr. Ghali, et al.)


A prestress force P = 1400 kN and a bending moment M = 390 kN-m are applied at age t0 = 5 days on the rectangular post-tensioned concrete section shown in Figure 1 Calculate the stresses, the axial strain and curvature at age t0 and t = ∞ given the following data: Ens = Eps = 200 GPa; f’c = 5 ksi, RH = 70%, ts = 3 days. The dimensions of the section and cross-section areas of the reinforcement and the prestress duct are indicated in Figure 1.

 

Assume that the intrinsic relaxation, ∆σpr∞ = −115 MPa  and the characteristic tensile strength of the prestressed steel, fptk = 1770 MPa.

Figure 1. Cross-section dimensions of the post-tensioned section

Figure 1. Cross-section dimensions of the post-tensioned section. 

 

Step1) Elastic strain at t0

 

The axial strain at O and curvature is

The axial strain at O and curvature

 

When the reference point O is chosen at the centroid of the section, B = 0, and the equation takes the more familiar form

When the reference point O

 

In this example, the reference point O is chosen at the top of the section. 

 

Figure 2. Ec(5 days) = 29352 MPa

Figure 2. Ec(5 days) = 29352 MPa

 

Table 1. Section property (Reference point is section top, t = 5 days)

Table 1. Section property

(Reference point is section top, t = 5 days)

 

Step2) Strain at t = 8 days

 

Ec(8 days) = 29352 MPa

 

Table 2. Section property (Reference point is section top, t = 8 days)

Table 2. Section property

 

Restrained strain due to concrete creep

 

Figure 3. φ(t,t0)

Figure 3. φ(t,t0) (t0 = 5, 8, 37, 128, 567 days).
 
 
 
 

 

φ(8,5) = 0.4383

φ(8,5) = 0.4383

 

Restrained strain due to concrete shrinkage

 

Figure 4. Restrained strain due to concrete shrinkage

Figure 4. Restrained strain due to concrete shrinkage

 

εsh(8,3) = -20.14(10-6)

εsh(8,3) = -20.14(10-6)

Restrained strain due to strand relaxation
Reduced relaxation value:

 

Figure 5. Reduced relaxation value

Figure 5. Reduced relaxation value.

 

(τ – t0) = 8 – 5 = 3 days = 72 hrs < 1000 hrs,

 

(τ – t0)[1]

(τ – t0)[2]

(τ – t0)[3]

Assume χr = 0.9581,

 

Assume χr[1]

Restraining force

 

Restraining force[1] creep

Restraining force[2] shrinkage

Restraining force[3] relaxation

 

Strain due to restraint

 

Strain due to restraint[1] creep

Strain due to restraint[2] shrinkage

Strain due to restraint[3] relaxation

Strain due to restraint[4]

Check for χr 

 

Check for χr

The calculated value of χr matches with the assumed value. No further iteration is needed. Repeat the same calculations for the next time steps.

 

 

Discussion


Midas Civil File for This Example

 

Figure 6. Concrete stresses at top and bottom

Figure 6. Concrete stresses at top and bottom.

 

Figure 6 shows top and bottom concrete stresses from this article and Midas Civil. Can be seen some differences at the bottom fiber and this is because reinforcements would support portions of external load and prestress. Also, stresses are transferred from concrete into reinforcement as time passes. The dashed line shows stresses without considering reinforcements and well matches with Midas Civil.

 

It can be seen that if we use the stress value directly from the computer output, we do need some levels of adjustment to consider the effects of reinforcements.


In this example, the top and bottom stresses at the time of infinity are -0.728 MPa and -5.18 MPa from the age-adjusted method.

 

bridge-design-software

Figure 7. Concrete axial force

 

Figure 7 shows concrete axial force from Midas Civil and this article. As time passes, portions of concrete axial force are transferred into reinforcements and these effects can not be ignored.

 

 

Closure


      • As time passes, portions of concrete forces/stresses are transferred into reinforcements. In other words, the absolute values of concrete forces/stresses are reduced and those of reinforcements increase.

      • Most general-purpose programs can not consider these reinforcement effects and we do need to interpret computer output. These effects are more severe for deflection calculations.

      • To perform the time-step analysis, we have to define the time of infinity. Some programs can consider the time of infinity as t = ∞, however, most general-purpose programs require defining the time of infinity from the user. In this example, φ(,5) = 2.1787 which is approximately corresponding t = 1500 years! Considering the uncertainty of creep itself, these levels of precise calculations may be justified. For t = 30 years, φ(30 years, 5 days) = 2.1427, which is 98% of φ(,5) = 2.1787, should be enough. For authors view, even when t = 4 years, φ(4 years, 5 days) = 1.9604, which is 90% of φ(,5) = 2.1787, might be enough.

      • The important one is how many and how to divide time steps. Creep, shrinkage, and relaxation coefficients are assumed to be constant within a single time step. These coefficients vary continuously and even not linear. This is why we do need to divide time steps into shorter duration. Computers blindly perform time-dependent analysis and give output without time division, without asking us nor judging whether the output is reasonable or not.

The number of time-division mainly depends on past experiences or iteration. From past experiences, 5 to 10 divisions may be reasonable under the constant loadings.

 

Equal time division is not efficient because creep develops more rapidly during the early steps. There are many ways to consider these effects, and one of these is to assume the time division as a geometric sequence. The author prefers to divide the time steps corresponds to equal creep coefficients.

 

      • Comparing to creep and shrinkage, relaxation effects are less significant. We need iteration to calculate reduced relaxation. The iteration itself is quite simple and the convergency is very fast, but these levels of detailed calculation may not be necessary for practical design.

      • For indeterminant structures, more consideration is needed and will be discussed later.

 

 

About the Editor
Seungwoo Lee PhD, P.E., S.E.
Senior Supervising Engineer at WSP USAs (Tampa, FL)

He is a Senior Supervising Engineer with a high level of expertise in the design and analysis of suspension bridges. He has a solid fundamental understanding of structures and can apply his knowledge exceptionally well to the design and analysis of highly complex structures. He is also a strong communicator, able to identify and distill the key information that is relevant to the task at hand and present it in a clear and quickly understandable manner.

Subscribe to Newsletter

Catch the weekly engineer news!

What you may
also like