This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

Scribd Selects Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

P. 1

ANSYS MODELING OF FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR OF RC BEAM STRENGTHENING BY FRP|Views: 1,395|Likes: 12

Published by Khaled Ahmad Ghrier

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/51420288/ANSYS-MODELING-OF-FLEXURAL-BEHAVIOR-OF-RC-BEAM-STRENGTHENING-BY-FRP

06/05/2013

text

original

by Anthony J. Wolanski, B.S.

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

Milwaukee, Wisconsin May, 2004

PREFACE

Several methods have been utilized to study the response of concrete structural components. Experimental based testing has been widely used as a means to analyze individual elements and the effects of concrete strength under loading. The use of finite element analysis to study these components has also been used. This thesis is a study of reinforced and prestressed concrete beams using finite element analysis to understand their load-deflection response. A reinforced concrete beam model is studied and compared to experimental data. The parameters for the reinforced concrete model were then used to model a prestressed concrete beam. Characteristic points on the load-deformation response curve predicted using finite element analysis were compared to theoretical (hand-calculated) results. Conclusions were then made as to the accuracy of using finite element modeling for analysis of concrete. The results compared well to experimental and hand calculated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was performed under the supervision of Dr. Christopher M. Foley. I am extremely grateful for the guidance, knowledge, understanding, and numerous hours spent helping me complete this thesis. Appreciation is also extended to my thesis committee, Dr. Stephen M. Heinrich and Dr. Baolin Wan, for their time and efforts. I would like to thank my parents, John and Sue Wolanski, my brother, John Wolanski, and my sister, Christine Wolanski for their understanding, encouragement and support. Without my family these accomplishments would not have been possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 1.2 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Objectives and Outline of Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Experiment-Based Testing of Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Finite Element Analysis .................................. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Failure Surface Models for Concrete

FE Modeling of Steel Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Direction for Present Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

CHAPTER 3 – CALIBRATION MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.0 3.1 3.2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Experimental Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ANSYS Finite Element Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 Element Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Real Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.2.8 3.2.9 3.3

Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Meshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Numbering Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Loads and Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Analysis Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Analysis Process for the Finite Element Model . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 Behavior at First Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Behavior at Initial Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Behavior Beyond First Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Behavior of Reinforcement Yielding and Beyond . . . . . . . . 44

Strength Limit State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Load-Deformation Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

CHAPTER 4 – PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.0 4.1 Introdution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Finite Element Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.2 Real Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Analysis Process for the Finite Element Model . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4.2.1 4.2.2 Application of Effective Prestress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Self-Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Theoretical Calculations for Calibration Model . . . . . . . . . 63 Conclusions . . . . . . 66 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Theoretical Calculations for Prestressed Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Behavior of Steel Yielding and Beyond . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . .5 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 REFERENCES . . . . . .1 5. . . . . . . . . . .8 Zero Deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . .4 4. . . . 73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 4. . . . . . . . . . .0 5. . . 61 CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Initial Cracking . . . . . . . 59 Secondary Linear Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Flexural Limit State .2 Introduction .3 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . 63 5. . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Recommendations for Future Work . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Decompression . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 5 Reinforced Concrete Beam With Loading (Faherty 1972) . . . . . . .3 3. . . 8 Load vs. . . . . . . . .1 2. . . . . .LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2. .2 2. . . . . . . 23 Uniaxial Stress-Strain Curve . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Typical Cracking Signs in Finite Element Models (Kachlakev. .8 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Models for Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete (Tavarez 2001) . . . . . . . . . . 19 Solid 65 Element (ANSYS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steel Plate. . . . .8 3.6 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Failure Surface of Plain Concrete Under Triaxial Conditions (Willam and Warnke 1974) . . . . . . . . . 27 Volumes Created in ANSYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 2. . . . . . . . . . .9 3. . Deflection Curve for Beam C1 (Buckhouse 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . et al. . . et al. . . . . . . . . . . . 2001) . . . . et al. . 14 Loading and Supports for the Beam (Buckhouse 1997) . . . SAS 2003) . . . . 17 Failure in Flexure (Buckhouse 1997) . . and Steel Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Three Parameter Model (Willam and Warnke 1974) . . 22 Link 8 Element (ANSYS. . . . .4 2. .2 3. 31 Mesh of the Concrete.5 PAGE Typical Cracking of Control Beam at Failure (Buckhouse 1997) . .5 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Typical Detail for Control Beam Reinforcement (Buckhouse 1997) . . . . . . .3 2. . . 21 Solid 45 Element (ANSYS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 . .1 3. Deflection Plot (Kachlakev. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SAS 2003) . . . . 2001) . 6 FEM Discretization for a Quarter of the Beam (Kachlakev. . . . . . . . SAS 2003) . 11 2. .4 3. . . .7 3. . . . 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Load vs. . . . . . . . . . 10 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74 . . . . 58 Cracking at 12. . . . . . . . . .16 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 3. . . . . . . . . .4 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Localized Cracking From Effective Prestress Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 A. . . . 37 1st Crack of the Concrete Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .000 and 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .000 lbs. . . . . . . . . . . .6 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .000 lbs. . . . . . . . 47 Load vs. . . . . . . . . . 36 Boundary Conditions at the Loading Plate . . . . 60 Cracking at Flexural Capacity .1 Reinforcement Configuration . . 35 Boundary Condition for Support . . . . . . 45 Increased Cracking After Yielding of Reinforcement . . . . . . . .000 and 12.13 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . Deflection Curve for Prestressed Concrete Model . . . .3. 61 Loading of Beam with Supports . . 44 Cracking at 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Transformed Cross-Section . . . . . . . . . . . .1 A. . . . . . . 56 Bursting Phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 4. . . . . . . . . . Deflection Curve Comparison of ANSYS and Buckhouse (1997) 48 Stress-Strain Curve for 270 ksi strand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Typical Prestressed Concrete Beam with Supports . . . . . 55 Deflection due to prestress . . .12 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Load vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 3. . .18 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 3. . . .19 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Boundary Conditions for Planes of Symmetry . 46 Failure of the Concrete Beam . . . . . .3 4. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 . . . . . . . .11 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Test Data for Control Beam C1 (Buckhouse 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Real Constants for Prestressed Beam . 47 4.9 PAGE Properties for Steel and Concrete (Buckhouse 1997) . . .5 3. . .7 3. 39 3. . . . . .13 3. . . . . . . . . .3 4. . . . . . . . Steel Plate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Analytical Results . . . . . . . .6 3. . . . .14 Advanced Nonlinear Control Settings Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Material Models for the Calibration Model . . .12 3. . . .2 3. . . . . . . 21 Real Constants for Calibration Model . 40 Deflection and Stress Comparisons At First Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Nonlinear Algorithm and Convergence Criteria Parameters . . . . . . .2 4. . . . . 43 Deflections of Control Beam (Buckhouse 1997) vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3. . . . 19 Element Types for Working Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Commands Used to Control Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Load Increments for Analysis of Prestressed Beam Model . 31 Mesh Attributes for the Model . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3. . . . . . . . . . .8 3. . . . . 39 Load Increments for Analysis of Finite Element Model . . . . .4 3. and Steel Support Volumes . . . . . . . . . 25 Dimensions for Concrete. . .LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3. . 50 Values for Multilinear Isotropic Stress-Strain Curve . . . Finite Element Model At Ultimate Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 3. . . . . . 33 Commands Used to Control Nonlinear Analysis . . .

Different methods have been utilized to study the response of structural components. early attempts to accomplish this were also very time consuming and infeasible using existing software and hardware. In recent years. and extremely cost-effective. it is extremely time consuming. While this is a method that produces real life response. and the use of materials can be quite costly. Experimental based testing has been widely used as a means to analyze individual elements and the effects of concrete strength under loading. Also. To fully understand the capabilities of finite element computer software. Understanding the response of these components during loading is crucial to the development of an overall efficient and safe structure.1 General Concrete structural components exist in buildings and bridges in different forms. Unfortunately. the use of finite element analysis has increased due to progressing knowledge and capabilities of computer software and hardware. It has now become the choice method to analyze concrete structural components. executing the . The use of computer software to model these elements is much faster. however. one must look back to experimental data and simple analysis.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Data obtained from a finite element analysis package is not useful unless the necessary steps are taken to understand what is happening within the model that is created using the software. The use of finite element analysis to study these components has also been used.

a prestressed concrete beam was analyzed from initial prestress to flexural failure. Based on the results obtained from the calibration model and the analysis/modeling parameters set by this model. a calibration model using a commercial finite element analysis package (ANSYS. a literature review was conducted to evaluate previous experimental and analytical procedures related to reinforced concrete components.necessary checks along the way is key to make sure that what is being output by the computer software is valid. and cracking of the concrete beam were analyzed at different key points along the way. Second. more efficient and better analyses can be made to fully understand the response of individual structural components and their contribution to a structure as a whole. These key points . SAS 2003) was set up and evaluated using experimental data. 1. stresses. This thesis is a study of reinforced and prestressed concrete beams using finite element analysis to understand the response of reinforced and prestressed concrete beams due to transverse loading. Deflections. First. A mild-steel reinforced concrete beam with flexural and shear reinforcement was analyzed to failure and compared to experimental results to calibrate the parameters in ANSYS (SAS 2003) for later analyses. By understanding the use of finite element packages.2 Objectives and Outline of Thesis The objective of this thesis was to investigate and evaluate the use of the finite element method for the analysis of reinforced and prestressed concrete beams The following procedure was used to meet this goal.

and failure. Discussion of the results obtained for the calibration model and the prestressed concrete beam model is also provided.include initial prestress. zero deflection point. addition of self-weight. decompression. . Conclusions regarding the analysis are then drawn and recommendations for further research are made. yielding of steel. initial cracking.

The use of FEA has been the preferred method to study the behavior of concrete (for economic reasons). Nawy 2000).0 Introduction To provide a detailed review of the body of literature related to reinforced and prestressed concrete in its entirety would be too immense to address in this thesis. MacGregor 1992. the analysis of reinforced concrete components in bridge seismic design. . cyclic loading of reinforced concrete columns. Willam and Tanabe (2001) contains a collection of papers concerning finite element analysis of reinforced concrete structures. The monograph contains contributions that outline applications of the finite element method for studying post-peak cyclic behavior and ductility of reinforced concrete columns. This literature review and introduction will focus on recent contributions related to FEA and past efforts most closely related to the needs of the present work. the analysis of reinforced concrete beam-column bridge connections. This collection contains areas of study such as: seismic behavior of structures. shear failure of reinforced concrete beams. and concretesteel bond models. Shing and Tanabe (2001) also put together a collection of papers dealing with inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete structures under seismic loads. However. and the modeling of the shear behavior of reinforced concrete bridge structures.CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS 2. there are many good references that can be used as a starting point for research (ACI 1978.

Three concrete control beams were cast with flexural and shear reinforcing steel.1 Experiment-Based Testing Of Concrete Buckhouse (1997) studied external flexural reinforcement of existing concrete beams. Figure 2. columns. Loading was applied to the beams until failure occurred as shown in Figure 2. All three beams were loaded with transverse point loads at third points along the beams. The following is a review and synthesis of efforts most relevant to this thesis discussing FEA applications. and concrete material models. The focus of this thesis is the study of non-prestressed and prestressed flexural members. Shear reinforcement was placed in each beam to force a flexural failure mechanism. 2.1 – Typical Cracking of Control Beam at Failure (Buckhouse 1997) . and seismic design.The focus of these most recent efforts is with bridges. experimental testing.1.

Load-deflection curves were plotted for each beam and compared to predicted ultimate loads.2).2 – Reinforced Concrete Beam With Loading (Faherty 1972) . The two beams that were selected for modeling were simply supported and loaded with two symmetrically placed concentrated transverse loads (Figure 2. 2.2 Finite Element Analysis Faherty (1972) studied a reinforced and prestressed concrete beam using the finite element method of analysis. All failures were ductile.The mode of failure characterized by the beams was compression failure of the concrete in the constant moment region (flexural failure). This thesis will utilize the experimental results of these control beam tests for calibration of the FE models. Figure 2. with significant flexural cracking of the concrete in the constant moment region.

The dead load. Only three finite element models of the prestressed beam were implemented (or used): two uncracked sections. .The analysis for the reinforced concrete beam included: non-linear concrete properties. whereas the transverse loading was applied incrementally. only one half of the beam was modeled using FEA. It was recommended that additional analysis of the prestressed concrete beam should be undertaken after a procedure is developed for modeling the tensile rupture of the concrete. These results for the prestressed beam showed that deflections computed using the finite element model were very similar to those observed by Branson. release of the prestressing force. and the influence of progressive cracking of the concrete. The model utilized in this research required the beam to be unloaded and the finite element model redefined as each crack is initiated or extended. However. bilinear steel properties. et al. and a partially cracked section. a linear bond-slip relation. and the loss of tensile stress in the concrete as a result of concrete rupture were applied as single loading increments. the elastic prestress loss. The transverse loading was incrementally applied and ranged in magnitude from zero to a load well above that which initiated cracking. the load-deflection curve past the cracking point was not generated because only three distinct cracking patterns were used for this analysis. a linear bond slip relation with a destruction of the bond between the steel and concrete. Faherty (1972) also analyzed a prestressed concrete beam that included: nonlinear concrete properties. the time dependent prestress loss. (1970). The finite element model produced very good results that compared well with experimental results in Janney (1954). and bilinear steel properties. Symmetry was once again utilized. Because the loading and geometry of the beam were symmetrical.

Kachlakev. Figure 2. The mesh was refined immediately beneath the load (Figure 2. et al. No stirrup-type reinforcement was used. et al.3 – FEM Discretization for a Quarter of the Beam (Kachlakev. At certain stages in the analysis.3. The nonlinear Newton-Raphson approach was utilized to trace the equilibrium path during the load-deformation response. Loads were placed at third points along the full beam on top of steel plates. A single line support was utilized to allow rotation at the supports. (2001) used ANSYS (SAS 2003) to study concrete beam members with externally bonded Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) fabric. Symmetry allowed one quarter of the beam to be modeled as shown in Figure 2. load step sizes were varied from large .3). the displacement in the direction perpendicular to the plane was set to zero. 2001) At planes of symmetry. It was found that convergence of solutions for the model was difficult to achieve due to the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete material.

concrete crack/crush plots were created at different load levels to examine the different types of cracking that occurred within the concrete as shown in Figure 2. compression failure (crushing). .(at points of linearity in the response) to small (when instances of cracking and steel yielding occurred).5c) form diagonally up the beam towards the loading that is applied. et al. Deflection Plot (Kachlakev.4 – Load vs. Figure 2. The different types of concrete failure that can occur are flexural cracks. The load-deflection curve for the non-CFRP reinforced beam that was plotted shows reasonable correlation with experimental data (McCurry and Kachlakev 2000) as shown in Figure 2. and diagonal tension cracks.5. 2001) Also. Diagonal tension cracks (Figure 2.5b) are shown as circles. Compression failures (Figure 2.4. Flexural cracks (Figure 2.5a) form vertically up the beam.

1 2 3 . The mathematical model considers a sextant of the principal stress space because the stress components are ordered according to components are the major principal stresses. 2. b)Compressive Cracks.5 – Typical Cracking Signs in Finite Element Models: a)Flexural Cracks. The failure surface in principal stress-space is shown in Figure 2.Figure 2. et al. c)Diagonal Tensile Cracks (Kachlakev.3 Failure Surface Models For Concrete Willam and Warnke (1974) developed a widely used model for the triaxial failure surface of unconfined plain concrete. These stress .6. 2001) This study indicates that the use of a finite element program to model experimental data is viable and the results that are obtained can indeed model reinforced concrete beam behavior reasonably well.

6). The deviatoric section in Figure 2. The hydrostatic section forms a meridianal plane which contains the equisectrix 1 2 3 as an axis of revolution (see Figure 2.7 lies in a plane normal to the equisectrix (dashed line in Figure 2.The failure surface is separated into hydrostatic (change in volume) and deviatoric (change in shape) sections as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2.7 – Three Parameter Model (Willam and Warnke 1974) .6 – Failure Surface of Plain Concrete Under Triaxial Conditions (Willam and Warnke 1974) Figure 2.7).7.

4. continuous surface with continuously varying tangent planes). The failure surface is defined 1 a z f cu where: a 1 a r ( ) f cu 1 (2. a constitutive model for the concrete suitable for FEA implementation was formulated. monotonically curved surface without inflection points).1) and a = average stress components z = apex of the surface f cu = uniaxial compressive strength The opening angles of the hydrostatic cone are defined by 1 and 2 . smoothness (e.g.g. Based on the above criteria. biaxial compressive strength ( f cb ). 3. convexity (e. and position vector locating the failure surface with angle. and uniaxial tension strength ( ft ) The Willam and Warnke (1974) mathematical model of the failure surface for the concrete has the following advantages: 1. 2. The yield condition can . close fit of experimental data in the operating range. as: where r is the . This constitutive model for concrete based upon the Willam and Warnke (1974) model assumes an appropriate description of the material failure. simple identification of model parameters from standard test data. The free parameters of the failure surface z and r . are identified from the uniaxial compressive strength ( f cu ).The deviatoric trace is described by the polar coordinates r .

2.be approximated by three or five parameter models distinguishing linear from non-linear and elastic from inelastic deformations using the failure envelope defined by a scalar function of stress f ( ) 0 through a flow rule.8): the discrete model. since integration is avoided. Therefore. The parameters for the failure surface can be seen in Figure 2. and the smeared model. From the standpoint of computer application the normal penetration approach is more efficient than the proportional penetration method. which allows the elastic path to reach the yield surface at the intersection with the normal therefore solving a linear system of equations. the embedded model.8a) uses bar or beam elements that are connected to concrete mesh nodes. the concrete and the reinforcement mesh share the same nodes and concrete occupies the same regions occupied by the reinforcement. During transition from elastic to plastic or elastic to brittle behavior.4 FE Modeling of Steel Reinforcement Tavarez (2001) discusses three techniques that exist to model steel reinforcement in finite element models for reinforced concrete (Figure 2.7. A drawback to this model is that the concrete mesh is restricted by the . Both of these methods are feasible and give stress values that satisfy the constitutive constraint condition. which subdivides proportional loading into an elastic and inelastic portion which governs the failure surface using integration. while using incremental stress-strain relations. The reinforcement in the discrete model (Figure 2. two numerical strategies were recommended: proportional penetration. and normal penetration.

The model is built in a way that keeps reinforcing steel displacements compatible with the surrounding concrete elements. When reinforcement is complex.8b) overcomes the concrete mesh restriction(s) because the stiffness of the reinforcing steel is evaluated separately from the concrete elements. therefore.8 – Models for Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete (Tavarez 2001): (a) discrete. However.location of the reinforcement and the volume of the mild-steel reinforcement is not deducted from the concrete volume. and (c) smeared The embedded model (Figure 2. . (a) (b) (c) Figure 2. this model is very advantageous. this model increases the number of nodes and degrees of freedom in the model. (b) embedded. increasing the run time and computational cost.

This approach is used for large-scale models where the reinforcement does not significantly contribute to the overall response of the structure. The different stages of the response of a prestressed concrete beam are computed using FEA and compared to results generated using hand computations. It was found that the best modeling strategy was to use the discrete model when modeling reinforcement. . It was decided to use ANSYS (SAS 2003) as the FE modeling package. The load-deflection response of the experimental beam will be compared to analytical predictions to calibrate the FE model for further use.The smeared model (Figure 2. 2.8c) assumes that reinforcement is uniformly spread throughout the concrete elements in a defined region of the FE mesh. A second analysis of a prestressed concrete beam will also be studied.5 Direction for Present Research The literature review suggested that use of a finite element package to model reinforced and prestressed concrete beams was indeed feasible. Fanning (2001) modeled the response of the reinforcement using the discrete model and the smeared model for reinforced concrete beams. A reinforced concrete beam with reinforcing steel modeled discretely will be developed with results compared to the experimental work of Buckhouse (1997).

As shown in Figure 3.. 3.1 – Loading and Supports for the Beam (Buckhouse 1997) .CHAPTER 3 CALIBRATION MODEL 3.1.1 Experimental Beam Buckhouse (1997) studied a method to reinforce a concrete beam for flexure using external structural steel channels. and 18 in. respectively.0 Introduction This chapter discusses the calibration of the finite element model using experimental load-deformation behavior of a concrete beam provided in Buckhouse (1997). The study included experimental testing of control beams that can be used for calibration of finite element models. the length Figure 3. All the necessary steps to create the calibrated model are explained in detail and the steps taken to generate the analytical load-deformation response of the member are discussed. The use of ANSYS (SAS 2003) to create the finite element model is also discussed. The width and height of the beams tested were 10 in.

Figure 3.1. Cover for the rebar was set to 2 in. and area of steel reinforcement are included in Table 3. in all directions.1 – Properties for Steel and Concrete (Buckhouse 1997) Area of Steel (in. from each end of the beam allowing a simply supported span of 15 ft. with supports located 3 in. Table 3. The layout of the reinforcement is detailed in Figure 3.93 60.2 – Typical Detail for Control Beam Reinforcement (Buckhouse 1997) The steel yield stress. fc' (psi) 0. fy (psi) 28-Day Compressive Strength of Concrete. 28-day compressive stress of concrete.000 4.2) Yield Stress of Steel. The mild steel flexural reinforcements used were 3-#5 bars and shear reinforcements included #3 U-stirrups.of the beam was 15 ft.770 .2.-6 in.

3. beam deflection at the midspan. and strain in the internal flexural reinforcement. . Figure 3.310 lbs.Two 50-kip capacity load cells were placed at third points. Table 3.600 lbs (Buckhouse 1997).2. Data acquisition equipment was used to record applied loading. or 5 ft.3 – Failure in Flexure (Buckhouse 1997) Vertical cracks first formed in the constant moment region. The beam was loaded to flexural failure (Figure 3.3).4. and then out towards the constant shear region with eventual crushing of the concrete in the constant moment region as shown in Figure 3.2 shows the experimental ultimate load determined was 16. extended upward. A plot of load versus deflection for control beam C1 (Buckhouse 1997) is shown in Figure 3.1). from each support on steel bearing plates (Figure 3. The theoretical ultimate load for the beam was calculated to be 14. The ultimate loading corresponded to the nominal flexural capacity of the cross-section being reached. Test data for the beam is summarized in Table 3.

) Avg.500 16. Load.Failure 6000 4000 Linear Region 2000 0 0 0.) Mode of Failure 4.) C1 theoretical ultimate load (14.5 1 1.) Figure 3.5 4 4. Centerline Deflection (in. P (lbs.) B 10000 8000 Nonlinear Region A Point A . Load at 1st Crack (lbs.65 compression failure of concrete 18000 C 16000 14000 12000 Avg. Centerline Deflection at Failure (in.600 lbs.Table 3.4 – Load vs.5 2 2.First Cracking Point B .310 3.Steel Yielding Point C .2 – Test data for control beam C1 (Buckhouse 1997) Avg. P (lbs. Deflection Curve for Beam C1 (Buckhouse 1997) .) Avg. Failure Load.5 3 3.5 Avg.

. The Solid65 element was used to model the concrete. A second slope corresponding to the cracked section is followed until point B where the flexural reinforcement yields.2 ANSYS Finite Element Model The FEA calibration study included modeling a concrete beam with the dimensions and properties corresponding to beam C1 tested by Buckhouse (1997). only one quarter of the beam was modeled.The plot shows the linear behavior before first cracking (point A).5. y.3. 3. To create the finite element model in ANSYS (SAS 2003) there are multiple tasks that have to be completed for the model to run properly.1 Element Types The element types for this model are shown in Table 3. A schematic of the element is shown in Figure 3. This section describes the different tasks and entries into used to create the FE calibration model. 3. Models can be created using command prompt line input or the Graphical User Interface (GUI). symmetry was utilized in the FEA. cracking in three orthogonal directions. and crushing.2. This element has eight nodes with three degrees of freedom at each node – translations in the nodal x. and z directions. This element is capable of plastic deformation. the GUI was utilized to create the model. Due to the symmetry in cross-section of the concrete beam and loading. The cracked moment of inertia with yielding internal reinforcement then defines the stiffness until flexural failure at point C. For this model.

Table 3. This element has eight nodes with three degrees of freedom at each node – translations in the nodal x.5 – Solid 65 Element (SAS 2003) A Solid45 element was used for steel plates at the supports for the beam. and z directions. y. The geometry and node locations for this element is shown .3 – Element Types For Working Model Material Type ANSYS Element Concrete Solid65 Steel Plates and Solid45 Supports Steel Reinforcement Link8 Figure 3.

No real constant set exists for the Solid45 element.6 – Solid 45 Element (SAS 2003) A Link8 element was used to model steel reinforcement.7. and z directions.2 Real Constants The real constants for this model are shown in Table 3. Figure 3. y.6. . This element is shown in Figure 3. This element is also capable of plastic deformation. 3.in Figure 3. Note that individual elements contain different real constants.2. This element is a 3D spar element and it has two nodes with three degrees of freedom – translations in the nodal x.4. The descriptions for each element type are laid out in the ANSYS element library (SAS 2003).

7 – Link 8 Element (SAS 2003) Table 3.4 – Real Constants For Calibration Model Real Constant Set Element Type Constants Real Real Real Constants for Constants for Constants for Rebar 1 Rebar 2 Rebar 3 Material Number 0 0 0 Volume Ratio 0 0 0 Orientation Angle 0 0 0 Orientation Angle 0 0 0 Cross-sectional 0.155 0 0.Figure 3.2) Initial Strain (in.055 0 1 Solid 65 2 Link8 3 Link8 4 Link8 5 Link8 .2) Initial Strain (in.) Cross-sectional Area (in.2) Initial Strain (in.31 Area (in./in./in.) 0 0.) Cross-sectional Area (in./in./in.) Cross-sectional Area (in.11 0 0.2) Initial Strain (in.

Cross-sectional areas in sets 4 and 5 refer to the #3 stirrups.5. and z directions in the element (Figure 3. 4. Due to symmetry. Values for cross-sectional area and initial strain were entered. and 5 are defined for the Link8 element. The reinforcement has uniaxial stiffness and the directional orientation is defined by the user. ANSYS (SAS 2003) allows the user to enter three rebar materials in the concrete. . It requires real constants for rebar assuming a smeared model.3 Material Properties Parameters needed to define the material models can be found in Table 3. Values can be entered for Material Number. Each material corresponds to x. In the present study the beam is modeled using discrete reinforcement. there are multiple parts of the material model for each element. A value of zero was entered for the initial strain because there is no initial stress in the reinforcement. set 3 is half of set 2 because one-half the center bar in the beam is cut off. As seen in Table 3.5. Real Constant Sets 2. a value of zero was entered for all real constants which turned the smeared reinforcement capability of the Solid65 element off. The volume ratio refers to the ratio of steel to concrete in the element.2. 3. Once again set 5 is half of set 4 because half of the stirrup at the midspan of the beam is cut off resulting from symmetry.5). The orientation angles refer to the orientation of the reinforcement in the smeared model (Figure 2. The material number refers to the type of material for the reinforcement. y. and Orientation Angles.Real Constant Set 1 is used for the Solid65 element. 3. Cross-sectional areas in sets 2 and 3 refer to the reinforcement of 3-#5 bars. Volume Ratio. Therefore.8c).

900 psi .000.0019 0.00036 0.000 psi 0.00243 Concrete 1 Solid65 Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Point 5 Stress 1421.3 Bilinear Isotropic Yield Stss 60.000.3 EX PRXY 3 Link8 Linear Isotropic 29.949.Table 3.000 psi 0.0006 0.3 Multilinear Isotropic Strain 0.7 2233 3991 4656 4800 ShrCf-Op ShrCf-Cl UnTensSt UnCompSt BiCompSt HydroPrs BiCompSt UnTensSt TenCrFac 0.000 psi Tang Mod 2.0013 0.5 – Material Models For the Calibration Model Material Model Element Number Type Material Properties EX PRXY Linear Isotropic 3.3 1 520 -1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Solid45 EX PRXY Linear Isotropic 29.076 psi 0.

. It must satisfy Hooke’s Law. psi = strain at the ultimate compressive strength f c' The multilinear isotropic stress-strain implemented requires the first point of the curve to be defined by the user. EX is the modulus of elasticity of the concrete ( Ec ).Material Model Number 1 refers to the Solid65 element.2) 0 2 f c' Ec (3. Poisson’s ratio was assumed to be 0. and PRXY is the Poisson’s ratio ( ).4) f = stress at any strain = strain at stress f 0 .800 psi. The multilinear isotropic material uses the von Mises failure criterion along with the Willam and Warnke (1974) model to define the failure of the concrete.3) Ec where: f (3.3. The compressive uniaxial stress-strain relationship for the concrete model was obtained using the following equations to compute the multilinear isotropic stress-strain curve for the concrete (MacGregor 1992) f 1 0 Ec 2 (3. Ec 57000 f c' (3. The modulus was based on the equation.1) with a value of f c' equal to 4. The Solid65 element requires linear isotropic and multilinear isotropic material properties to properly model concrete.

and 4 are calculated from Equation 3.3.8 – Uniaxial Stress-Strain Curve Figure 3.8 shows the stress-strain relationship used for this study and is based on work done by Kachlakev.0005 0. Points 2. is calculated in the linear range (Equation 3.002 0. Point 1. defined as 0.30 f c' .0025 0.003 0.4).) Figure 3. et al.5) 6000 5000 f c' 4000 Stress (psi) Ultimate Compressive Strength 4 5 3 Ec 3000 2 2000 0.0015 0. (2001)./in.30 f c' 1000 1 Strain at Ultimate Strength 0 0 0 0.001 0.0035 Strain (in. (3. Strains were selected and the stress was calculated for each .E The multilinear curve is used to help with convergence of the nonlinear solution algorithm. 3.2 with 0 obtained from Equation 3.

0 representing a rough crack (no loss of shear transfer). . 6. Therefore. in.0 to 1. The uniaxial cracking stress was based upon the modulus of rupture. with 0.2. 9. the coefficient for the open crack was set to 0. Uniaxial crushing stress (positive). (2001) as a basis.4).strain. This value is determined using. These 9 constants are: (SAS 2003) 1. Uniaxial crushing stress (positive) under the ambient hydrostatic stress state (constant 6). 0 0. Convergence problems occurred when the shear transfer coefficient for the open crack dropped below 0. 7.3 (Table 3. Shear transfer coefficients for a closed crack. Stiffness multiplier for cracked tensile condition. Biaxial crushing stress (positive) under the ambient hydrostatic stress state (constant 6). Biaxial crushing stress (positive). 5. Typical shear transfer coefficients range from 0. No deviation of the response occurs with the change of the coefficient. Shear transfer coefficients for an open crack. Uniaxial tensile cracking stress. et al.003 in. Ambient hydrostatic stress state for use with constants 7 and 8. 2. 3. 8.0 representing a smooth crack (complete loss of shear transfer) and 1. indicating traditional crushing strain Implementation of the Willam and Warnke (1974) material model in ANSYS requires that different constants be defined. Point 5 is defined at f c' and for unconfined concrete. The shear transfer coefficients for open and closed cracks were determined using the work of Kachlakev.0. 4.

2001). ft and f c' . The biaxial crushing stress refers to the ultimate biaxial compressive strength ' ( f cb ).45 f c' f 2 1. et al. The remainder of the variables in the concrete model are left to default based on these equations: (SAS 2003) ' f cb 1.5 f c' (3.fr 7.6) The uniaxial crushing stress in this model was based on the uniaxial unconfined compressive strength ( f c' ) and is denoted as ft . It was entered as -1 to turn off the crushing capability of the concrete element as suggested by past researchers (Kachlakev.9) (3. The uniaxial crushing stress under the ambient hydrostatic stress state refers to the ultimate compressive strength for a state of uniaxial compression superimposed on the hydrostatic stress state ( f 2 ). This stress state is defined as: h 1 ( 3 xp yp zp ) (3. The ambient hydrostatic stress state is denoted as h .10) .2 f c' (3. yp .725 f c' (3. The failure surface can be defined with a minimum of two constants.7) where xp . The biaxial crushing stress under the ambient hydrostatic stress state refers to the ultimate compressive strength for a state of biaxial compression superimposed on the hydrostatic stress state ( f1 ). Convergence problems have been repeated when the crushing capability was turned on.8) f1 1. and zp are the principal stresses in the principal directions.

Note that the density for the concrete was not added in the material model. For the control beam in Buckhouse (1997). The Solid45 element is being used for the steel plates at loading points and supports on the beam.3).11) Material Model Number 2 refers to the Solid45 element. The yield stress was defined as 60. The Link8 element is being used for all the steel reinforcement in the beam and it is assumed to be bilinear isotropic. Since a quarter of the beam is being modeled. and the hardening modulus was 2900 psi.000 psi. and supports were modeled as volumes. the LVDT’s used to measure deflection at midspan were put on the beam after it was set in the test fixture. Therefore. 3.These stress states are only valid for stress states satisfying the condition h 3 f c' (3. . The bilinear model requires the yield stress ( f y ). the self-weight was not introduced in this calibration model.2. The dimensions for the concrete volume are shown in Table 3. The zero values for the Zcoordinates coincide with the center of the cross-section for the concrete beam.4 Modeling The beam. this element is modeled as a linear isotropic element with a modulus of elasticity for the steel ( Es ). Bilinear isotropic material is also based on the von Mises failure criteria. Material Model Number 3 refers to the Link8 element. plates. x 18 in. Therefore.6. Deflections were taken relative to a zero deflection point after the self-weight was introduced. as well as the hardening modulus of the steel to be defined. long. with a cross-section of 5 in. and poisson’s ratio (0. the model is 93 in.

9. Concrete Beam Steel Loading Plate Steel Support Figure 3.) 60 66 18 19 0 5 Steel Support (in.6 – Dimensions for Concrete.6. The FE mesh for the beam model is shown in Figure 3.10.5 0 -1 0 5 The 93 in. Due to symmetry. steel plate.Y2 Y-coordinates Z1. x 1 in. and Steel Support Volumes ANSYS X1.) 1. x 5 in. The combined volumes of the plate.X2 X-coordinates Y1. dimension for the X-coordinates is the mid-span of the beam. support. x 5 in. Steel Plate.) 0 93 0 18 0 5 Steel Plate (in.Table 3. The dimensions for the plate and support are shown in Table 3. The support is a 3 in. x 1 in. only one loading plate and one support plate are needed. while the plate at the load point is 6 in.Z2 Z-coordinates Concrete (in. and beam are shown in Figure 3.9 – Volumes Created in ANSYS .5 4.

Concrete Element Height 1.2 in. . and Steel Support Link8 elements were used to create the flexural and shear reinforcement. Steel Plate Element Length 1. Steel Plate. Concrete Element Length 1.25 in.5 in. Steel Support Element Width 1. The area of steel at the plane of symmetry is one half the normal area for a #5 bar because one half of the bar is cut off. Reinforcement exists at a plane of symmetry and in the beam. Figure 3.25 in.Concrete Element Width 1.5 in. Steel Plate Element Width 1. and real constant set number for the calibration model were set for each mesh as shown in Table 3.10 – Mesh of the Concrete.11 illustrates that the rebar shares the same nodes at the points that it intersects the shear stirrups. Steel Support Element Length 1. Figure 3. The element type number. Shear stirrups are modeled throughout the beam. material number. Only half of the stirrup is modeled because of the symmetry of the beam.7.5 in.25 in.

from the end of the Cross-Section Shared nodes of Stirrups and Rebar Figure 3.7 – Mesh Attributes for the Model Element Material Type Number 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 Real Constant Set 1 N/A N/A 3 2 5 4 Model Parts Concrete Beam Steel Plate Steel Support Rebar at Center of Cross-Section Rebar 2.11 – Reinforcement Configuration Table 3.5 Meshing To obtain good results from the Solid65 element.#3 Shear Stirrups #5 Bar Reinforcement at Plane of Symmetry Stirrup at Plane of Symmetry #5 Bar Reinforcement located 2.2.5 in.5 in. of Cross-Section Stirrup at Center of Beam Other Stirrups 3. the use of a rectangular mesh is recommended. Therefore. the mesh was set up such that square or rectangular elements .

3. No mesh of the reinforcement is needed because individual elements were created in the modeling through the nodes created by the mesh of the concrete volume. . and support volumes is shown in Figure 3. However. Care must be taken to always merge in the order that the entities appear. the necessary mesh attributes as described above need to be set before each section of the reinforcement is created. This properly sets the width and length of elements in the plates to be consistent with the elements and nodes in the concrete portions of the model. and so on) to fail.6 Numbering Controls The command merge items merges separate entities that have the same location. Merging keypoints before nodes can result in some of the nodes becoming “orphaned”. surface load transfers.2. These items will then be merged into single entities. The volume sweep command was used to mesh the steel plate and support. The overall mesh of the concrete.were created (Figure 3. The orphaned nodes can cause certain operations (such as boundary condition transfers. The necessary element divisions are noted. the lowest number was retained during merging. that is. the nodes lose their association with the solid model. plate. All precautions were taken to ensure that everything was merged in the proper order. Caution must be taken when merging entities in a model that has already been meshed because the order in which merging occurs is significant. The meshing of the reinforcement is a special case compared to the volumes.10. Also.10).

12. The model being used is symmetric about two planes.2. To ensure that the model acts the same way as the experimental beam.12 – Boundary Conditions for Planes of Symmetry . The symmetry boundary conditions were set first. Constraint in the z-direction Constraint in the x-direction Figure 3. and where the supports and loadings exist.3.7 Loads and Boundary Conditions Displacement boundary conditions are needed to constrain the model to get a unique solution. boundary conditions need to be applied at points of symmetry. The boundary conditions for both planes of symmetry are shown in Figure 3.

therefore. all nodes selected at Z = 0 define another plane of symmetry. the beam will be allowed to rotate at the support.13.Nodes defining a vertical plane through the beam cross-section centroid defines a plane of symmetry. To model the symmetry.13 – Boundary Condition for Support . These nodes. applied as constant values of 0. Support roller condition to allow rotation Figure 3. Second. have a degree of freedom constraint UX = 0. nodes on this plane must be constrained in the perpendicular direction. By doing this. The support was modeled in such a way that a roller was created. and UZ directions. The support condition is shown in Figure 3. A single line of nodes on the plate were given constraint in the UY. These nodes were given the constraint UZ = 0.

The Restart command is utilized to restart an analysis after the initial run or load step has been completed.14 – Boundary Conditions at the Loading Plate 3. The use of the restart option will be detailed in the analysis portion of the discussion. Loading Applied on the Plate Boundary Conditions at Plate Figure 3. . the Static analysis type is utilized.2. For the purposes of this model.8 Analysis Type The finite element model for this analysis is a simple beam under transverse loading.The force.14 illustrates the plate and applied loading. P. Figure 3. applied at the steel plate is applied across the entire centerline of the plate. The force applied at each node on the plate is one tenth of the actual force applied.

The Sol’n Controls command dictates the use of a linear or non-linear solution for the finite element model.g. The sub steps are set to indicate load increments used for this analysis. of Substeps 2 Min no.9 – Commands Used to Control Output Equation Solvers Sparse Direct Number of Restart Files 1 Frequency Write Every Substep All these values are set to ANSYS (SAS 2003) defaults.8 shows the first load step taken (e.8 – Commands Used to Control Nonlinear Analysis Analysis Options Small Displacement Calculate Prestress Effects No Time at End of Loadstep 5120 Automatic Time Stepping On Number of Substeps 1 Max no. up to first cracking).8.10. Table 3. Table 3.9. . Table 3. Typical commands utilized in a nonlinear static analysis are shown in Table 3. The time at the end of the load step refers to the ending load per load step. The commands used to control the solver and output are shown in Table 3. The commands used for the nonlinear algorithm and convergence criteria are shown in Table 3. of Substeps 1 Write Items to Results File All Solution Items Frequency Write Every Substep In the particular case considered in this thesis the analysis is small displacement and static. All values for the nonlinear algorithm are set to defaults.

05 Norm L2 L2 Min. The rest of the commands were set to defaults.005 0.1 Implicit Creep ratio 0 Incremental displacement 10000000 Points per cycle 13 Set Convergence Criteria Label F U Ref. Table 3. Table 3. not applicable not applicable The values for the convergence criteria are set to defaults except for the tolerances.10 – Nonlinear Algorithm and Convergence Criteria Parameters Line Search Off DOF solution predictor Prog Chosen Maximum number of iteration 100 Cutback Control Cutback according to predicted number of iter. Ref. The tolerances for force and displacement are set as 5 times the default values.15 Explicit Creep ratio 0.Table 3. Plastic Strain 0. Equiv. Value Calculated calculated Tolerance 0. The program behavior upon nonconvergence for this analysis was set such that the program will terminate but not exit.11 – Advanced Nonlinear Control Settings Used Program behavior upon nonconvergence Terminate but do not exit Nodal DOF sol'n 0 Cumulative iter 0 Elapsed time 0 CPU time 0 .11 shows the commands used for the advanced nonlinear settings.

12 – Load Increment for Analysis of Finite Element Model Beginning Time 0 5210 5220 5300 5400 10000 13000 14000 14500 14700 14800 14900 15000 15100 15200 15300 15600 15900 16200 16300 Load Time at End Load Step Sub Step Increment of Loadstep (lbs. the restart option was used to go to the next step after convergence. and the strength limit state of the beam.3. Table 3.12. sub steps. The application of the loads up to failure was done incrementally as required by the Newton-Raphson procedure.2. yielding of the steel reinforcement.) 5210 5220 5300 5400 10000 13000 14000 14500 14700 14800 14900 15000 15100 15200 15300 15600 15900 16200 16300 16382 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 10 16 20 92 30 10 50 20 20 100 10 10 50 20 150 150 150 50 41 5210 10 5 5 50 100 100 10 10 5 1 10 10 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 . A listing of the load steps. and loads applied per restart file are shown in Table 3.9 Analysis Process for the Finite Element Model The FE analysis of the model was set up to examine three different behaviors: initial cracking of the beam. The Newton-Raphson method of analysis was used to compute the nonlinear response. After each load increment was applied.

The displacements converged.000 lbs) as seen in Table 3.12. with this very small load increment. convergence for the non-linear analysis was impossible with the default values. Failure of the beam occurs when convergence fails. The two convergence criteria used for the analysis were Force and Displacement. . This criteria was used for the remainder of the analysis. the convergence criteria for force was dropped and the reference value for the Displacement criteria was changed to 5. Once initial cracking of the beam has been passed (5220 lbs).12.400. but the forces did not. P. Once the yielding of the reinforcing steel is reached. to capture the failure of the beam. For the first load step the time at the end of the load step is 5210 referring to a load of. This value is then multiplied by the tolerance value of 0. A small criterion must be used to capture correct response. of 5210 lbs applied at the steel plate.The time at the end of each load step corresponds to the loading applied.05 to produce a criterion of 0. the load increment sizes begin decreasing further because displacements are increasing more rapidly. These criteria were left at the default values up to 5210 lbs. Yielding of the steel occurs at load step 13. However.25 during the nonlinear solution for convergence. the load increments must be decreased again. The load deformation trace produced by the analysis confirmed the failure load. therefore. the load increment size is decreased to 2 lb. when the beam began cracking. the load increments increased slightly until subsequent cracking of the beam (14. the steps taken to the initial cracking of the beam can be decresed to one load increment to model/capture initial cracking. As shown in Table 3. Eventually. Therefore.

the nonlinear region. The maximums exist in the constant-moment region of the beam during load application.3 Results The goal of the comparison of the FE model and the beam from Buckhouse (1997) is to ensure that the elements.13 indicate that the FE analysis of the beam prior to cracking is acceptable. Figure 3. Comparisons were made in this region to ensure deflections and stresses were consistent with the FE model and the beam before cracking occurred.3. can be seen in Appendix A. .13.4 shows the different components that were analyzed for comparison: the linear region. The stresses in the concrete and steel immediately preceding initial cracking were analyzed.3. Once cracking occurs. 3. material properties. This is where we expect the maximums to occur. Calculations to obtain the concrete stress. The results in Table 3. The load at step 5210 was analyzed and it coincides with a load of 5210 lbs. the yielding of steel. steel stress and deflection of the beam at a load of 5210 lbs. real constants and convergence criteria are adequate to model the response of the member. A comparison of values obtained from the FE model and Appendix A can be seen in Table 3. deflections and stresses become more difficult to predict. applied on the steel plate. initial cracking.1 Behavior at First Cracking The analysis of the linear region can be based on the design for flexure given in MacGregor (1992) for a reinforced concrete beam. and failure.

13. Buckhouse (1997) reported first cracking at a load.15.) 530 536 3024 2840 0. . and the beam begins cracking out towards the supports at a load of 8. subsequent cracking occurs as more load is applied to the beam. This compares well with the load of 5118 lbs calculated in Appendix A.0529 0. of 4500 lbs using visual detection.3. The initial cracking of the beam in the FE model corresponds to a load of 5216 lbs that creates stress just beyond the modulus of rupture of the concrete (520 psi) as shown in Table 3. This first crack occurs in the constant moment region. P.13 – Deflection and Stress Comparisons At First Cracking Model HandCalculations ANSYS Reinforcing Centerline Load at First Extreme Tension Steel Stress Deflection Cracking Fiber Stress (psi) (psi) (in.) (lbs.3.000 lbs.3 Behavior Beyond First Cracking In the non-linear region of the response. The first crack can be seen in Figure 3.Table 3.0534 5118 5216 3.2 Behavior at Initial Cracking The cracking pattern(s) in the beam can be obtained using the Crack/Crushing plot option in ANSYS (SAS 2003). 3. The stress increases up to 537 psi at the centerline when the first crack occurs. Vector Mode plots must be turned on to view the cracking in the model. Cracking increases in the constant moment region. and is a flexural crack.

The cracked moment of inertia. the displacements of the beam begin to increase at a higher rate as more load is applied (Figure 3.4 Behavior of Reinforcement Yielding and Beyond Yielding of steel reinforcement occurs when a force of 13. 3. diagonal tension cracks are beginning to form in the model.16. The ability of the beam to distribute load throughout the cross-section has diminished greatly.1st Crack in Concrete Beam Figure 3. greater deflections occur at the beam centerline. now defines the flexural rigidity of the member. . Therefore.3. and nonlinear concrete material. yielding steel.4).400 lbs. is applied.15 – 1st Crack of the Concrete Model Significant flexural cracking occurs in the beam at 12. Also.000 lbs. This cracking can be seen in Figure 3. At this point in the response.

cracking has reached the top of the beam.000 lbs. and failure is soon to follow.. Also. the beam has increasing flexural cracks.17 shows successive cracking of the concrete beam after yielding of the steel occurs. .000 lbs. Figure 3.000 and 12.Flexural Cracks Diagonal Tension Cracks Figure 3. At 15. At 16. more cracks have now formed in the constant moment region..000 lbs. and diagonal tension cracks.16 – Cracking at 8.

.. The deflections at the analytical failure load of the control beam were compared with the finite element model as shown in Table 3.18).382 lbs. Severe cracking throughout the entire constant moment region occurs (see Figure 3. the beam no longer can support additional load as indicated by an insurmountable convergence failure.14.17 – Increased Cracking After Yielding of Reinforcement 3.5 Strength Limit State At load 16.3.Multiple cracks occurring Increasing Diagonal Tension Cracks Figure 3.

14 – Deflections of Control Beam (Buckhouse 1997) vs.Excessive cracking and of the beam in the constant moment region Diagonal Tension Cracking Figure 3.) Deflection (in.) C1 16310 3.65 ANSYS 16310 3.18 – Failure of the Concrete Beam Table 3. Finite Element Model At Ultimate Load Centerline Load (lb. .586 Beam The deflection of the finite element model was within 2% of the control beam at the same load at which the control beam failed.

The approach was then utilized to analyze a prestressed concrete beam.3. Centerline Deflection (in.5 Avg. 18000 FEA 16000 14000 12000 Avg.19.3.) C1 theoretical ultimate load (14.) Buckhouse (1997) 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 0.5 4 4. Load.19 – Load vs. This response was calibrated by setting the tolerances so that the load-deformation curve fits to the curve from Buckhouse (1997). Deflection Curve Comparison of ANSYS and Buckhouse (1997) .5 1 1.6 Load-Deformation Response The full nonlinear load-deformation response can be seen in Figure 3. The response calculated using FEA is plotted upon the experimental response from Buckhouse (1997).5 2 2. This gave confidence in the use of ANSYS (SAS 2003) and the model developed. P (lbs.600 lbs.) Figure 3. The entire load-deformation response of the model produced compares well with the response from Buckhouse (1997).5 3 3.

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

José Antonio Cornetero Urpeque

Smeared Crak Model, modelo de agrietamiento elasto-plástico multi-fijo en el ...

Simplified ANSYS Model Concrete Crack

Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Beam

Examples of Concrete Element SOLID65- Hani Aziz Ameen

Beginner Ansys Tutorial

Simplified ANSYS Model Concrete Crack

Crack Identification in RCC Beams Using ANSYS Software

Ansys Steps for Civilea (1)

Ansys

Ansys Tutorial

Concrete Damage Plasticity Model for Modeling FRP-to-Concrete Bond Behavior

Smeared Crak Model

1. Damage and Plasticity for Concrete Behavior

Crack Identification in Reinforced Concrete Beams using ANSYS Software

Ansys Contact

Ansys - Tutorial 1

Crack identification in reinforced concrete beams using ANSYS software W04606133141.pdf

Rigid Self Contact Tutorial

Experimental Study on the Behaviour of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete

Ansys Solved Tutorials

Unioni bullonate con Abaqus

Ansys 14 - Tutorial

ANSYS-Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced concrete Structures using Fracture and Damage Mechanics Constitutive Models-wolanski_2004_MS.pdf

Creo Parametric

ANSYS Mechanical APDL Verification Manual (1).pdf

Ansys Training Manual

ansys

Creo Simulate Guide

Earthquake Engineering Application Design

Creo Parametric

ANSYS

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd