Reply to Rüsch, Jungwirth, and Hilsdorf's discussion of the paper “on the choice of creep function for standard recommendations on practical analysis of structures”

✍ Scribed by Zdeněk P. Bažant; ElMamoun Osman

• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Year: 1975
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 365 KB
• Volume: 5
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0008-8846
• DOI: 10.1016/0008-8846(75)90064-2

✦ Synopsis

The authors welcome the Discussion by H. Rusch et al., for it raises several important questions on which, unfortunately, no agreement has yet been reached by specialists in the field.

Comparison of the

Proposed C.E.B. Creep Function with Test Data Effect of Vertical Shifting The figure of the discussers does not correspond to their proposed C.E.B. creep function (Ref. 4). The correct plot is shown in Fig. 6 and it is seen that the deviations from test data are unacceptably large. They are also greater than those in Fig. I of the paper, which pertains to the best possible fit by a function of the type proposed for CoE.B. recommendations.

In the figure of the Discussion the creep curves have been vertically shifted, which gives the appearance of a better agreement with test data, but implies a very strong age-dependence of the associated (not the actual) elastic modulus E. By deleting the time range from 0.01 day to i day, the associated values of I/E have been obscured.

In Fig. 7 the curves of the discussers are extended to 0.01 day and the 1/E-values obtained by taking the strain at 0.01 day are also plotted.