StructuralAnalysisLabSubmission4

LinearAnalysisofRCbeam

DT024/4
12/12/08

WayneKavanagh
LauraBowens
MartinByrne
DanielRoe

TableofContents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................3
FiniteElementAnalysis:PointLoad ........................................................................................................4
Fig.1 Deflectedshape ..................................................................................................................5
Fig.2 Stressinbeamatfailure .....................................................................................................5
Fig.3 Cracksinbeamatfailure,52.853kN ...................................................................................6
Fig.4 Firstcracksappearat19kN................................................................................................6
FiniteElementAnalysis:UniformlyDistributedLoad .............................................................................9
Fig.5 DeflectedShape ..................................................................................................................9
Fig.6 StressDistributionatfailure,26.052kN..............................................................................9
Fig.7 Crackpatternatfailure .....................................................................................................10
Fig.8 Firstcracks9kN .................................................................................................................10
Modelling ..............................................................................................................................................13
Results...................................................................................................................................................13
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................14
References ............................................................................................................................................15
AppendixA: SimplySupportedBeamSubjectedtoaUDL ................................................................16
AppendixB: PointLoadatMidSpan.................................................................................................19


Introduction

Nonlinearanalysisistheanalysisofasectionoutsideitslinearrange.Thismeansanalysinga
structurewhenitnolongerobeysHookesLaw,stressisnolongerproportionaltostrain.Thisis
knownasdesigningastructureinitsplasticregion.Thisallowsastructuretotakemoreloadas
thematerialpropertieshaveinitialyieldstressvaluesbutcantakemoreuptoanultimateyield
state.Onlynonbrittlematerialscanbedesignedthisway,thereforeinthisreportthenonlinear
materialisthesteelreinforcementintheconcretesection.
In this report the behaviour of a simply supported beam subjected to two separate loading
conditionsshallbeinvestigated.Thefirstoftheseloadingconditionsisapointloadlocatedat
the beams midspan and the other being a uniformly distributed load. The objective of the
report is to compare a nonlinear analysis of the beam to theoretical calculations. A finite
elementanalysisprogrammeshallbeusedtopredictthenonlinearbehaviour.
The beam was designed as part of a six meter grid in a concrete frame for an office building,
imposedloadof5kN/m2.Thisbeamwasthenanalysedwithapointload.

FiniteElementAnalysis:PointLoad

Steel
SteelUltYield500
SteelInitialYield300
E=210e3N/mm2
PoissonsRatio=0.3

Concrete
Yield35N/mm
E=42000
PoissonsRatio=0.2

Comments:
NotenoughnodesforUDL
NeedtosetDesignStrengths(NotdoneinManual)
Modellingin2Disfine,noneedfor3D
NotenoughNodessoonlyhalfofeachbeammodelled


Fig.1 Deflectedshape

Fig.2 Stressinbeamatfailure

FromFig.2wecanseethatthemaxstressdistributionintheconcreteislocatedatthetopthird
ofthesection.Thisshowsthattheconcretesectioniscapableoftakingmoreload,asifitwere
fullyloadedthemaxstressestheoreticallyshouldstretchdowntotheneutralaxis.


Fig.3 Cracksinbeamatfailure,52.853kN

Fig.3showsthattheconcreteiscrackingwhereveratensilestressisexertedonit.

Fig.4 Firstcracksappearat19kN


Itcanbeseenfromthegraphthatthereisalinearrelationshipbetweenloadanddeflectionup
untilaloadofaround37kN.Thisrangeshowsthatupuntilthisloadthesectionwaslinearly
elastic.Itisclearthatthesectionthenbehavesplastically,butisnotperfectlyplasticasthe
sectionstilltakesmoreloadincrements.Thisisduetotheinitialyieldvalueinthesteelof
300N/mm2andanultimatestressvalueof500N/mm2


Theloadvsstressgraphconfirmsthesameregionoflinearelasticity,upuntilaloadof37kN,
andexhibitsthesameplasticbehaviour,asexpected.


FiniteElementAnalysis:UniformlyDistributedLoad

TheLUSASmodeloftheUDLwasapproximatedtoapointloadlocatedatonemeterintervals
alongthelengthofthebeam.ThiswasdoneasthestudentversionofLUSASwasunabletocope
withafullUDL.

Fig.5 DeflectedShape

Fig.6 StressDistributionatfailure,26.052kN


Fig.7 Crackpatternatfailure

Fig.8 Firstcracks9kN

Modelling

1. Inthiscaseonlyhalfthebeamwasmodelled.Itwasonlypossibletodothisbecausethe
beamissymmetricalandloadedatmidspan.Itwasalsoonlypossibletomodelhalfthe
beaminthestudentversionofLUSASastherewasnotenoughnodesinthisversionto
modelthefullbeam
2. Atthesupportahorizontalrollerwasusedtoproptheverticaldirection,asifapinned
support was used (restraining the vertical and horizontal directions) yielding of the
concreteoccursintheconcreteatthesupportscausinganearlyfailureofthebeam.As
onlyhalfthebeamisbeingconsideredverticalrollersmustbeplacedattheendofthe
beam,i.e.atthemidspanoftheactualbeam.
3. When considering the beam under a uniformly distributed load (UDL), again there
wasntenoughnodesinthestudentversion,sopointloadswhereappliedat1mspacing
totrysimulateaUDL.
4. Inthiscasethemeshdensitywassetataconstantvaluethroughoutthebeam.Anideal
meshdensitywasnotexamined.
5. Iffailureoccursinthemodel,themanualdoesntreallyhelpasitisjustdesignexamples.

Results

By carrying out a theoretical analysis (Appendix A and B) and by modelling (In LUSAS)
symmetricallysimilarconcretebeamsitwaspossibletopredictthefailureloads,shownintable
1.
Table1:

TheoreticalResult(kN)

LUSASModelResults(kN)

%Difference

PointLoad

99.926

105.706

5.50%

UDL

33.31

26.052

21.80%

For the case of the beam subjected to a single point load at midspan, the failure load
calculated theoretically is 5.50% smaller than the value predicted from modelling the
beaminLUSAS.Thispercentagedifferencemaybeduetoassumptionswhicharemade
during hand calculations (i.e. simplified stress block). Noting that although the value
calculated analytically may be slightly conservative it is still an accurate method of
calculatingthefailureload.

InthesecondcasewherethebeamwassubjecttoaUDLwefind thatthereisalarger
percentagedifferenceandthetheoreticalvalueislargerthan theLUSASmodelsresult.
As we were unable to model the UDL due to limitations in the allowable number of
nodesinthestudentversionofLUSASwehadtomodelitasaseriesofpointloadsat1m
spacing.Thesepointloadsleadtothebeamfailingearlierthaniftheloadhadhavebeen
evenlydistributedoverthelengthofthebeam.

Conclusion

For the case of the beam subjected to a point load at midspan we were able to predict the
failure load by hand calculations and by use of a finite element analysis, the values achieved
were reasonably similar with the hand calculations being slightly conservative. As we were
unabletoefficientlymodelthecaseofthebeambeingsubjectedtoauniformlydistributedload
we cant really draw any decisive conclusions for this loading. The finite element analysis
programmewouldbemoreusefulifyouhavethefullpackage,asthenitcouldbeusedformore
unusualloadingpatternsandsupportconditions,todeterminetheexactlocationsofmaximum
stressestoaccuratelydesignthesectionandplacereinforcement.

References

Bhatt,Prab,MacGinley,ThomasJ,Choo,BanSeng.2007.ReinforcedConcreteDesignTheoryand
Examples.3rdEd.TaylorandFrancis:LondonandNewYork

Gere,JM.2004.MechanicsofMaterials.5thEd.ThomsonBusinessInformation

Maekawa,K,Pimanmas,A,Okamura,H.2003.NonlinearMechanicsofReinforcedConcrete.Spon
Press:LondonandNewYork

AppendixA:

SimplySupportedBeamSubjectedtoaUDL

Assume:

BeamWidth

=300mm

BeamDepth

=600mm

Loading:

DeadLoad=

Selfweightofbeam: (0.3)(0.6)(24)

=4.32kN/m

=5.0kN/m

TotalDeadLoad

=9.32kN/m

TotalLiveLoad

=5.0kN/m

DesignLoad: (1.4)(9.32)+(1.6)(5.0)

=21.05kN/m

6mSpan:

-21.05

StructuralDesign:

EffectiveDepth,d:

MaximumMoment,Mmax
BendingMomentDiagram:

600251210

=553mm

=(21.05)(6.02)/(8)

=94.73kNm

0.00

0.00

94.72

k=(94.73x106)/(300)(5532)(35)

=0.030

Note: Sincekislessthan0.156(Giveninthecodes)thereisnocompressionsteelrequired
Leverarm:

AsRequired:

As=

z=(553)(0.5+

0.03/0.9)

=534mm

(94.73x106)/(0.95)(500)(535)(0.95) =393mm2

(1000)(600)

=780mm2

Thereforeuse4T16sproviding804mm2

MaxShearforce:
Maxshearforce=

(21.05)(6.0)/(2.0)

=63.15kN

ShearForceDiagram:

63.15

-63.15

v=

(63.15x103)/(300)(553)

vc=(0.632)

=0.381N/mm2

(1.0)(1.12)

vc<v ThereforeShearisnotaproblem
Spacing:

=0.293N/mm2

Sv

=9.76Asvifweuse2links

ofT12s
Sv

=(553)(9.76) =5397.3mmc/c

Butmaxc/c

=0.75d=(0.75)(553) =414.75mm2

Thereforeprovide2T12@400c/clinks
Deflection:

Simplysupported:

Span/depth

ServiceStress:

fs=

Modificationfactor:

AllowableDeflection =(1.358)(20)

=27.16

ActualDeflection

=20

=(6000)/(553)

MaximumUDLthatcanbeappliedtothebeam:

Mmax =

=Mr=149.89

Mmax=Mr

w=(149.89)(8)/(62) =33.31kN/m

=163

2.0

=1.3582.0

=10.85

AppendixB:

PointLoadatMidSpan

Note: UsethesamebeamdimensionsandsteelreinforcementasAppendixA
MomentCapacityofSection:

fcu

=35N/mm2

fy

=500N/mm2

ConcreteStressBlock:

FromAppendixA,

As=4T16=804mm2

Tensionforceofsteel: 0.87fyAs
x=0.5d

=(0.5)(553)

=(0.87)(500)(804)

=349.74kN

=276.5mm

CompressiveForceofConcrete:

0.45fcu(0.9xb)

=(0.45)(35)(0.9)(0.5)(553)(300)

=1175.82kN

Z=d0.45x

=d0.45(0.5d) =0.775d

=0.775(553) =428.58mm

Momentresistanceofsection: Mr=Tensioninsteelbyleverarm

Mr=(349.74)(428.58)=149.89kNm

Note:Thisisthemaximummomentthebeamcantake,anyvalueabovethisandthebeamwill
haveatensionfailureintherebar
Toconvertthisintoapointloadwecanjustworkbackwardsfromsimplebeamanalysis:
Cutthebeamatmidspan:

Given that the beam is symmetrical and the point load is at midspan we can say that the
reactionsareequalandthemaximummomentoccursatmidspan.
LetMmax=Mr=149.89kNm
Takingmomentsaboutthemidspan: MmaxRA(3m)=0

149.893RA=0

RA=149.89/3=49.963kN=RB

ThereforethemaximumpointloadthatcanbeappliedtothebeamisequaltoRA+RB

Pmax=99.926kN