2015
DOI: 10.14359/51687710
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Design versus Assessment of Concrete Structures Using Stress Fields and Strut-and-Tie Models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

4
37
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
4
37
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…1b-f). Both approaches are in fact related to the principles of the upper-and lower-bound theorems of the theory of plasticity [20]. The former (forces acting on a free-body) investigates on the actions at the edges of the free-body related to the failure mechanism (without any further check inside the freebodies).…”
Section: Classical Definitions Of Shear-transfer Actions and Mechanicmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1b-f). Both approaches are in fact related to the principles of the upper-and lower-bound theorems of the theory of plasticity [20]. The former (forces acting on a free-body) investigates on the actions at the edges of the free-body related to the failure mechanism (without any further check inside the freebodies).…”
Section: Classical Definitions Of Shear-transfer Actions and Mechanicmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Victoria et al [17] generated the optimum STM for corbels and concrete deep beams with openings using the isolines topology design (ITD) method and verified the validity of the optimal STM with existing test data. Muttoni et al [18] noted that when constructing the optimal STM for concrete structures, it is necessary to repeatedly optimize and improve the STM. They then gave suggestions on how to obtain the optimum STM.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This approach has been shown to be simple and robust for design and assessment, and can be easily implemented in a numerical manner (Fernández Ruiz and Muttoni, 2007;Muttoni et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%