You are on page 1of 87

INSA de RENNES

Dpartement Gnie Civil et Urbain










Experimental and numerical analysis on
reinforced concrete structures using small
scale models










Adrian-Corneliu MIHALI

2014


Table of contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Structural modeling 4
2.1. Generalities 4
2.2. Dimensional analysis 5
2.3. Classification of the structural models 7
3. The materials 8
4. Reinforced concrete beam 13
4.1. Ultimate bending moment 14
4.2. Cracking bending moment 19
4.3. Maximum mid-span deflection 21
4.4. Model beam three point bending. Experiment 26
4.5. Model beam three point bending. Finite Element simulation 29
5. Two dimensional frame 33
5.1. Vibration modes 33
5.2. Ductility test of the model 39
5.3. Earthquake response 41
6. Conclusions and future research 51
Appendix A 53
Appendix B 55
Appendix C 60
Appendix D 62
References










1

1. Introduction
The current paper presents the results of 1:10 reinforced concrete scaled model tests.
The purpose was to find methods through which the behavior of full-sized structures (named
prototype) could be predicted using scaled structures (named models). The scaling of the
prototypes dimensions, materials characteristics, boundary conditions, loadings, and result
interpretation will be made based on the similitude theory.
The main advantages of small-scale experimenting are the ease of manipulating the
structure, fabrication costs and the small size of the equipment. The main disadvantages are
fabrication time and the challenges in simulating the complete behavior of the prototype. In
mots of the cases, some carefully chosen distortions are necessary that will lead to minimum
differences between the expected and the obtained result.
In the current study, the 1:10 scale has been used for experimenting on reinforced
concrete structures. The tests were made on a simple supported beam 3x6x50cm with the
support opening of 45cm and a concrete cover of 3mm. The similitude between the cracking
bending moment, the capable bending moment and the maximum deflection at breaking were
studied.
For the fabrication of the model the materials used are: a micro-concrete with a recipe
determined using the instructions from Manea ET. Al. [7] with 2mm aggregates due to the
concrete cover of the reinforcement. Following the results obtained by Kim ET. Al. [5], as
reinforcement threaded rod and steel wire for the stirrups were used. In figure 1.1 are
presented the reinforcement cages. Along with the beams, 10mm cubes and 4x4x20mm and
10x10x30cm prisms were cast in order to determine the characteristics of the concrete
(compression limit, tension limit and elasticity modulus). The model was subjected to a
physical test and the results compared to a finite element analysis while prototype was
analyzed only theoretically.
The second structure that has been studied is a two-dimensional frame with a single
span and two levels. The opening between the columns is 45cm and the levels are 60cm each.
The beams are 3x6cm and the columns are 5x5cm. Another micro-concrete with 2mm
aggregates whose recipe is presented in Appendix C was used. For the reinforcement
threaded rod and steel wire was used. Along with the three frames, 10mm cubes,
10x10x30cm prisms and hourglass shaped probes were cast to determine the concretes
characteristics. Both the frames and the probes were kept underwater for 28 days after
hardening.
2


Figure 1.1 Reinforcement cages (left) and casted beams (right)

Figure 1.2 Reinforcement cages and framework (left) hardened frame (right)
The frames were subjected to dynamic tests: vibration modes, pushover analysis and a
time-history analysis in order to determine how the model simulates the behavior of the
prototype. The model and the prototype were both analyzed using the finite element method
in all three cases and an experimental modal analysis was performed on the model.
Structural similitude is known from the gothic masons period who used what is
known as proportionality laws through which a valid structural system remained so
independent of the size as long as the dimensions of the structure were proportional, as
observed by Huerta [8]. With the development of the PI Theorem by Buckingham [6],
structural modeling was made using a mathematical model (any physical system can be
expressed as a series of dimensionless products, called PI terms). Moncarz ET. AL. [1],
3

Harris ET. AL. [2] and Dehousse ET. AL. [9] offer extensive information regarding the
challenges of structural modeling of reinforced concrete structures subjected to both static
and dynamic loading. Lu ET. AL. [3] report good results in modeling the vibration modes of
a structure using a 1:25 model and Wu ET. AL. [4] managed to predict the dynamic behavior
of a crane structure using a 1:10 model.
The present paper begins with an introduction in the similitude theory in chapter 2,
followed by the characteristics of the materials used in the experiments in chapter 3. The
experiments on the beams and frames of figures 1.1 and 1.2 are presented in chapters 4 and 5,
along with the results. In chapter 6 the conclusions and the future studies can be found.
























4

2. Structural modeling
2.1. Generalities
The structural model is any physical representation of a structure or a part of that
structure. In most of the cases, the model is built at a reduced scale. For the scaling of the
structures dimensions, characteristics, boundary conditions, loadings and result
interpretation, the laws of similitude must be used.
The model is the small-scaled structure for which the similitude laws are applied,
while the prototype is the full-scale structure. The advantages of physical modeling are:
- Experimental analysis of large structures
- Numerous problems in structural engineering for which approximate solutions exist
are analytically resolved
- Useful in education, research and design in order to better understand the phenomena
and to validate analytical models
The limitations are the time and the impossibility of a complete simulation of the
prototypes behavior.
Structural models classify in many ways but the most relevant one is the models
designation. The following categories exist: elastic models, indirect models, direct models,
strength models, wind models, dynamic models, etc.
The choice of the models scale depends on the type of the experiment. A very small
model requires small loadings but fabrication and instrumentation difficulties appear, while a
large scale model is easier to build but requires larger testing facilities. Each model has an
optimal scale for testing, as seen in table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Scales for modeling different structures
Structure Elastic model Strength model
Usual column, beam, slab
structures
1/25 1/101/4
Roof structures 1/2001/50 1/301/10
Highway or railroad bridges 1/25 1/201/4
Wind models 1/3001/50 -
Dams 1/2501/40 1/75
Nuclear reactors 1/1001/50 1/201/4



5

A typical small scale study has the following stages:
- Defining the purpose of the experiment and choosing the proper model.
- Specifying the similitude conditions for the models geometry, the materials, the loads
and the interpretation of the results.
- Establishing the size of the model and the accuracy level of the results.
- Choosing the proper materials and building the model
- Conducting the experiment and recording the results
- Analyzing the results and writing the research paper
2.2. Dimensional analysis
Dimensional theory can be resumed in the following phrases:
1. Any equation which describes an aspect of nature must be dimensional homogenous:
the equation must be valid independent of the chosen dimensions
2. As a consequence of dimensional homogeneity, it can be shown that any equation like
(2.1)
F(X
1
,X
2
,,X
n
) =0 (2.1)
Can be expressed as equation (2.2)
G(
1
,
2
,,
m
) =0 (2.2)
where the PI terms are dimensionless products of the n physical quantities(X
1
,X
2
,,X
n
),
and m=n-r represents the number of fundamental dimensions used to describe the physical
process. This second observation was made by Buckingham [6].
As a consequence, physical systems differing only quantitatively will have the same
equation G(
1
,
2
,,
m
) =0, and the similitude conditions result imposing that the terms

j
,j =1,m

to be equal in both the model and the prototype.


To form the PI terms, all variables must be used, the m terms must independent and
for any given problem there are multiple sets of P terms. The steps are as follows:
1. Choosing the n terms which significantly influence the physical phenomenon along
with their dimensions. For example, in the case of a three point bending of a simple
supported beam as the one in chapter 4, variables like the concrete cover of the
reinforcements, the height of the beam and the effective depth can be all replaced with
the height of the compressed section. An equation like (2.1) is formed.
2. Choosing r main variables for the r dimensions which describe the physical
phenomenon and which are dimensionally independent. Dimensionless variables like
6

Poissons coefficient or the damping ratio cannot be main variables. The main
variables are noted as Q
1
,Q
2
,,Q
r
.
3. The remaining m variables form the system of independent equations (2.3). The m PI
terms will be expressed as in (2.4):

[X
1
][Q
1
]
a1
[Q
2
]
a2
[Q
r
]
ar
=1
[X
2
][Q
1
]
a1
[Q
2
]
a2
[Q
r
]
ar
=1

[X
m
][Q
1
]
a1
[Q
2
]
a2
[Q
r
]
ar
=1
(2.3)
where [X
1
] represents the dimension of X
1
. Any dimensionless parameter will automatically
become a PI term.


1
=X
1
Q
1
a1
Q
2
a2
Q
r
ar
=1

2
=X
2
Q
1
a1
Q
2
a2
Q
r
ar
=1

m
=X
m
Q
1
a1
Q
2
a2
Q
r
ar
=1
(2.4)
4. For every PI term the values of a
I
,i =1,r

will be determined and write an equation


like (2.2).
For example, consider a physical system which can be described with the following
variables: length, mass, concentrated force, stress, deformation, acceleration, displacement,
Poissons coefficient and the elastic modulus, n=9. Each of these variables can be expressed
with the following dimensions: force, length and time, r=3. In table 2.2 are all the parameters
along with their dimensions.
Table 2.2 The 9 variables with their dimensions
l Q M a E
F 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
L 1 0 -1 -2 0 1 1 0 -2
T 0 0 2 0 0 -2 0 0 0
As main variables the mass, the elastic modulus and the length were chosen. The PI
terms will be determined solving each equation of the system at (2.5). The number of the PI
terms is m=n-r=9-3=6 and can be found in equation (2.6)

1
=[Q][M]
a1
[E]
a2
[l]
a3
=1

2
=[][M]
a1
[E]
a2
[l]
a3
=1

3
=[a][M]
a1
[E]
a2
[l]
a3
=1

4
=[][M]
a1
[E]
a2
[l]
a3
=1

5
=[] =1

6
=[] =1
(2.5)

7

The PI terms for this physical system are:

1
=

LI
2
,
2
=
Mu
LI
2
,
3
=
o
L
,
4
=
8
I
,
5
=,
6
= (2.6)
2.3. Classification of the structural models
The degree in which the PI terms are respected represents an important criterion in
classifying the structural models as follows:
1. Exact models which replicate entirely the studied phenomenon. It was shown that any
phenomenon can be reduced to a complete set of independent domensionless
products, called PI terms. Each of these terms can be expressed as in equation (2.7):


1
=(
2
,
3
,,
m-1
) (2.7)
Complete similitude is achieved imposing that the PI terms be equal both for the
model and the prototype as in equation (2.8):

H
1
H
1m
=
q(H
2
,H
3
,,H
n
)
q(H
2m
,H
3m
,,H
nm
)
=1 (2.8)
where
1m
represents
1
as defined for the model, and
1p
represents
1
as defined for the
prototype. In complete similitude
2m
=
2p
,
3m
=
3p
, ,
nm
=
np
. Equation (2.8)
will be named prediction equation.
Using the PI terms in previous example, equation (2.9) is obtained:

1m
=
1p
=>
Q
m
E
m
I
m
2
=
Q

2
=>
Q
m
Q

=
E
m
I
m
2
E

2
(2.9)
c
x
=X
m
/ X
p
denotes the ratio between the values of the X parameter in the model
and the prototype. Equation (2.10) is obtained which describes the necessary force that must
applied to the model in order to achieve complete similitude.
c
Q
=c
E
c
I
2
=> Q
m
=Q
p
c
E
c
I
2
(2.10)
The difficulties which appear in trying to obtain an exact model are very hard if not
impossible to overcome. In such cases, one must isolate the variables which dont influence
significantly the result and can be modified in order to minimize the errors in the results.
Such models are called adequate models.
In most of the cases, more often with the strength models (also used in the present
study), the alteration of a variable in inevitable and leads to important changes in the response
of the model. In this case the initial error must be considered when interpreting the final
result and correcting if necessary.

8

3. The materials
The first step of the study was finding a proper micro-concrete recipe. Because of the
small size of the model having a 3mm cover of concrete, the aggregates used had to be no
larger than 2mm. Because of this restraint, the challenge was finding a micro-concrete with a
proper compression strength, while the elastic modulus and the tension strength will be scaled
accordingly.
Along with casting the models for the two experiments, probes were also cast (cubes,
prisms and hourglass shaped probes) in order to determine the properties of the concrete. The
recipes were determined following the indications in Manea ET. AL. [7]. Appendix C shows
the calculus made for establishing the recipe of the concrete used in making the second
model.
For building the beam model three recipes of micro-concrete have been tried: first,
with a water:cement:aggregates ratio of 0.507:1:3.196 with 9 ml of super plasticizer added.
The other recipes were 0.549:1:3.025 and 0.621:1:3.025 without super plasticizer. The
cement used was Portland 42.5 kept in a dry environment.
From these recipes 2 prisms with a cross section of 4x4cm were poured for each mix
along with two 10cm cubes. Each prism was subjected to a bending test to establish the
tension strength of the concrete. After the test each half of the prism was later tested to
determine the compression strength of the concrete. The results can be seen in table 2.1 and
the devices used ar in figure 2.1.
Table 2.1 Compression and tension strengths of the concrete
Recipe
(A:C:Ag)
Prism 1 Cube 1 Prism 2 Cube 2

fct
(MPa)
fck 1
(MPa)
fck 2
(MPa)
fck 3
(MPa)
fct
(MPa)
fck 1
(MPa)
fck 2
(MPa)
fck 3
(MPa)
0.507:1:3.196 4.69 28.53 29.46 28.57 4.31 28.46 29.79 29.38
0.549:1:3.025 4.88 22.58 21.50 22.78 4.66 21.86 22.38 24.48
0.621:1:3.025 4.86 22.49 23.03 23.16 4.77 22.49 23.41 23.69
Although the best recipe is the one with the additive, the third one was used as not
enough super plasticizer was available. Thus obtaining a C16/20 class concrete.
For the determination of the elastic modulus
E
cm
, two 10x10x30cm prisms were cast
and kept in the same atmospheric conditions as the beams in chapter 4. The load stages were
8% and 40% of the compression strength. The value of 20.74 GPa was obtained.

9


Figure 2.1 The devices used in obtaining the compression strength (left) and the tension
strength (right)
For the micro-concrete used in building the frames a better recipe was tried using
Portland cement 42.5 and 2mm aggregates and a W:C:A ratio of 0.42:1:2.57. For finding the
micro-concretes characteristics, five 10cm cubes were cast for the compression strength test,
two 10x10x30cm prisms for the elastic modulus test and 2 hourglass shaped probes for the
tension test. All these were kept underwater for 28 days before testing. The devices can be
seen in figure 2.2 and belong to the Central Laboratory for Concrete and for Structures of the
Technical University of Cluj-Napoca: one Lloyd LR10K press for tension tests and one
Avantest 9 for compression and elastic modulus tests. The results can be found in Appendix
D and are synthesized in table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Characteristics of the micro-concrete recipe
Probe 1 2 3 4 5 Average
Compression
[MPa]
40.70 45.15 47.81 43.27 44.59 44.30
Tension [MPa] 4.528 4.693 - - - 4.61
Elastic modulus
[MPa]
31130.98 29597.73 - - - 30364.36

10


Figure 2.2 Probes (left) and devices used to determine the concretes compression strength
and elastic modulus (right) and tension tests (middle)
It can be seen from the table that the average compression strength obtained is
44.30MPa which corresponds to a concrete class C35/45. The elastic modulus reached
89.30% of the prescribed value by the Eurocode 2 and the tension strength is above with
44.10%. These differences are negligible when studying the breaking behavior and in the
elastic domain their effect can be controlled with the PI terms.
In order to simulate the reinforcement, the results of Kim ET. AL. [5] were consulted
and threaded rod was used as it properly simulates the bond between the reinforcement and
the concrete. Also, steel wire was used for the stir-ups. The diameters of the rod and the wire
were dictated by their availability on the market: 3mm and 4mm threaded-rod and
0.9mm and 1.2mm steel wire. Their characteristics were tested in the Strength of
Materials laboratory at the Faculty of Mechanics of Cluj-Napoca and can be found in
Appendix D. They are synthesized in table 2.3 and the stress-strain relationships are in
figures 2.3-2.6

Table 2.3 Steel wire and threaded rod characteristics
Reinforcements for the beams
0.9 3
Ultimate strength [MPa] 498.46 379.93
Elastic modulus [MPa] 105549.46 77485.08
11

Reinforcements for the frames
1.2 3 4
Ultimate strength [MPa] 553.22 498.89 418.58
Elastic modulus [MPa] 147287.78 65505.92 67446.12
It can be seem that the characteristics above are close to that of the steel being used in
constructions. The differences between the values of the elastic modulus will be taken into
account while establishing the PI terms and correcting them if necessary.

Figure 2.3 Threaded-rods and steel wires used in fabricating the beams

Figure 2.4 Steel wire 1.2mm used in fabricating the frames
12


Figure 2.5 3mm threaded-rods used in constructing the frames

Figure 2.6 4mm threaded-rods used in constructing the frames












13

4. Reinforced concrete beam
To illustrate the theories presented in chapter 2 and to verify the behavior of the
materials in chapter 3, the following experiments were made: a simple supported reinforced
concrete beam submitted to three point bending and a two-dimensional frame with ope
opening and two levels submitted to dynamic tests. The purpose of these experiments was to
find proper scaling coefficients for 1:10 scaled models.
A beam like that in figure (4.1) was fabricated. Three identical beams with a cross-
section of 3x6cm, 50cm in length, reinforced with 23 mm threaded rod both superior and
inferior and 1 mm stir-ups with 10mm between them in the vicinity of the supports and
20mm in the middle. The concrete cover used was 3mm. The materials used are extensively
presented in the previous chapter.


Figure 4.1 Reinforcement cage and framework for the 1:10 scaled beam
Using known relationships, the capable bending moment, the cracking moment, and
the maximum deflection were determined both for the model and the prototype. The later was
considered as being built using a C16/20 concrete, with the characteristics in Eurocode 2,
reinforced using S500 steel. The area of the reinforcement varied from 214 to 240 both up
and down. This interval was chosen in order to obtain the minimum are as prescribed by the
national seismic norm, P100-1/2013 [26] and to ensure a ductile behavior at collapse.
The approach was as follows: every characteristic of the three studied was determined
both for the prototype and the model and the ratio between them; determine the scaling ratios
using the specifications of chapter 2 and the error between this value and the one previously
determined. The next step was to find a correction coefficient for the similitude determined
14

ratio in order to be able to apply it at smaller scale models, from 1:15 to 1:100 with a
minimum error.
The calculus was compared to a Finite Element Analysis and a physical experiment
for the model structure.
4.1. Ultimate bending moment
It has been chosen to analyze to ultimate bending moment and not the applied force as
this information can be used in any static configuration and also, the influence of the support
opening is eliminated. For the calculation of the bending moment, equation (4.2) was used.
This was obtained from equation (4.1). Appendix A shows how this equation is obtained.
M
cap
=f
c
xb[d
\x
d
+A
s2

s2
(dd
2
) (4.1)
M
cap
=f
c
xb[d
\x
d
+A
s2
E
s

cu
[
x-d
d
(d d
2
) (4.2)
where: =0.8, =1 []
f
c
is the concretes compression strength [kN/ m
2
]
x is the height of the compressed area of the beam cross section [m]
b is the width of the beam [m]
d is the effective height [m]
A
s2
is the reinforcement area at the upper part [m
2
]

s2
is the stress in the upper reinforcement in the moment of colapse [kN/ m
2
]
d
2
is the distance from the upper limit of the beam to the centroid
of the upper reinforcement [m]
E
s
is the elastic modulus of the reinforcement [kN/ m
2
]

cu
is the ultimate deformation of the concrete, 3.5. []
The theoretical value of the capable bending moment for the model beam is
0.367kNm, resulting in the capable force of 3.253 for a simple supported beam.
Using the equation (4.2) again, the capable bending moment was determined for the
10:1 scale prototype reinforced in various ways at the upper and the lower part. The results
are in table 4.1. The missing values represent the combination of reinforcements which cause
brittle behavior of the beam




15

Table 4.1 Capable bending moment [kNm] of the prototype reinforced in various ways
Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 236 240
214 86.67 86.69 86.78 86.95 87.26 87.48 87.73
216 112.28 112.26 112.25 112.28 112.42 112.54 112.69
220 173.23 173.18 173.02 172.79 172.53 172.41 172.33
225 266.26 266.62 266.81 266.50 265.76 265.31 264.88
232 421.11 424.26 427.56 429.38 429.07 428.30 427.39
236 - 524.40 531.17 536.61 538.56 538.02 537.01
240 - - - 651.19 658.34 658.94 658.27
All the variables in the (4.2) equation were chose to find the PI terms necessary to
express the perfect similitude between the model and the prototype. A
s2
was replaced with
A
S
, the total area of reinforcement in the beam. As main variables, the height of the
compressed area of the beam section and the elastic modulus of the reinforcement were used.
The PI terms are in equation (4.3):

1
=
x
3
L
s
M
,
2
=
d
2
x
,
3
=
A
S
x
2
,
4
=
d
x
,
5
=
b
x
(4.3)
The similitude ratios obtained using this PI terms are in equation (4.4):
c
M
=c
E
c
x
3
, c
d
2
=c
x
, c
A
S
=c
x
2
,c
d
=c
x
, c
b
=c
x
(4.4)
It can be seen that many of this ratios cannot be fulfilled, making the model a
distorted one. The way each distortion in the model influences the final response is
impossible to establish. Therefore the ratio for the capable bending moment will be written as
in equation (4.5) in order to contain more relevant variables:
c
M
=c
E
c
A
S
c
d
(4.5)
Table 4.2 contains the values of the capable bending moment of the prototype
reinforced in various ways using equation (4.5) and remembering that M
cap.P
=c
M
M
cap.M
.
Table 4.3 contains the errors between these values and the ones in table 4.1
Table 4.2 Capable bending moment [kNm] of te prototypes cross-section determined using
the similitude theory:

Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 236 240
214 262.20 302.40 398.70 549.20 816.10 998.10 1201.40
216 301.80 341.90 438.10 588.30 854.80 1036.40 1239.40
220 396.60 436.50 532.40 682.10 947.60 1128.60 1330.90
225 543.90 583.70 679.10 828.20 1092.50 1272.70 1474.10
232 803.30 842.80 937.60 1085.80 1348.50 1527.60 1727.80
236 - 1018.30 1112.80 1260.40 1522.20 1700.60 1900.10
240 - - - 1454.70 1715.50 1893.30 2092.10
16

Tabel 4.3 The error [%] between the value in table (4.1) and table (4.2):

Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 236 240
214 66.95 71.33 78.23 84.17 89.31 91.23 92.70
216 62.80 67.17 74.37 80.91 86.85 89.14 90.91
220 56.32 60.33 67.50 74.67 81.79 84.72 87.05
225 51.04 54.32 60.71 67.82 75.67 79.15 82.03
232 47.45 49.66 54.40 60.45 68.18 71.96 75.26
236 - 48.50 52.26 57.42 64.62 68.36 71.74
240 - - - 55.23 61.62 65.20 68.54
The error in table 4.3 must be as close to zero as possible. So, the scaling coefficient
in equation (4.5) will be corrected with a factor like in equation (4.6). This correction factor
will be determined like in equation (4.7) as a function of the ratio between the aria of
reinforcement at the upper part and the area at the lower part of the beam.
c
M
=
c
E
c
A
S
c
d

(4.5)
=f [
C
Ass
C
As
(4.6)
Using the scales factors C
Ass
and C
AsI
was preferred as equation (4.5) is expressed in scaling
factors.
will be determined as the error in table 4.3 approaches 0. To do so, in table 4.4 are
presented the values considered significant to determine the correction factor. The graph
generated by these values can pe seen in figure 4.2. The expression of was found as the one
in equation (4.7) whose graph can be also seen in figure 4.2 for comparison.

Figure 4.2 The points in table 4.4 compared to the graph of equation (4.7)
17

=1.47[
C
Ass
C
As
+1.68 (4.7)
It can be seen the two graphs coincide. In table 4.5 the values for the capable bending
moment determined with equation 4.5 are synthesized, and in table 4.6 the error between
these values and those determined with equation (4.2) can be found.
Table 4.4 Significant values for determining the value of :
CAss/CAsi
0.2 1.88
1 3.18
2.07 4.80
3.23 6.54
4 7.60
8.16 13.73
Table 4.5 The capable bending moment [kNm] of the prototypes section determined with
equation 4.5:
Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 236 240
214 83.25 83.99 85.19 86.25 87.19 87.55 87.82
216 107.59 108.54 110.15 111.66 113.06 113.62 114.05
220 165.23 166.57 169.00 171.51 174.09 175.17 176.05
225 254.06 255.77 259.12 262.91 267.22 269.18 270.82
232 409.56 411.63 415.94 421.30 428.09 431.47 434.45
236 - 516.80 521.52 527.60 535.70 539.89 543.69
240 - - - 645.30 654.57 659.54 664.15
Tabel 4.6 The error [%] between the value determined with equation (4.2) and equation 4.5:
Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 236 240
214 3.93 3.11 1.83 0.80 0.08 0.08 0.11
216 4.17 3.31 1.87 0.56 0.57 0.95 1.19
220 4.61 3.82 2.32 0.74 0.90 1.57 2.11
225 4.59 4.07 2.88 1.35 0.55 1.44 2.19
232 2.97 2.98 2.72 1.88 0.23 0.74 1.63
236 - 1.45 1.82 1.68 0.53 0.35 1.23
240 - - - 0.90 0.57 0.09 0.89
It can be seen that the error is now below 5%, while using the uncorrected similitude
ratio the maximum error was 92.70%.
Next, using equation 4.5, the capable bending moment for prototype beams scale 8:1,
20:1, 50:1 and 100:1 are calculated. A prototype beam scale 100:1 with a cross section of
600x1200cm is improbable but the purpose of the calculus was to illustrate the influence of
the correction factor on various scales, factor determined started from a 1:10 scale model.
18

The reinforcements for the large scale beams were chosen in order to maintain a ductile
behavior of the beam and that the upper reinforcement does not yield before the lower
reinforcement.
Table 4.7 Capable bending moment [kNm] of the 8:1 scale prototype determined with
equation (4.5) and the error (%) to the value determined with equation (4.1)
Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 236 240
214 65.81(2.82) 66.40(1.94) 67.35(0.55) 68.19(1.49) 68.93(1.48) 69.22(1.73) 69.43(1.84)
216 85.02(2.99) 85.77(2.08) 87.04(0.53) 88.23(0.90) 89.34(2.18) 89.78(2.64) 90.12(2.96)
220 130.45(3.22) 131.50(2.44) 133.42(0.90) 135.41(0.80) 137.44(2.57) 138.29(3.33) 138.99(3.94)
225 200.34(2.60) 201.68(2.26) 204.33(1.25) 207.32(0.29) 210.72(2.29) 212.26(3.26) 213.55(4.10)
232 - - 327.44(0.21) 331.66(0.11) 337.01(1.66) 339.67(2.66) 342.02(3.62)
236 - - - 414.94(0.84) 421.31(1.50) 424.61(2.36) 427.60(3.28)
240 - - - - 514.31(1.76) 518.21(2.25) 521.83(3.02)
Table 4.8 Capable bending moment [kNm] of the 20:1 scale prototype determined with
equation (4.5) and the error (%) to the value determined with equation (4.1)
Sup
Inf
240 825 732 640 840 1040 1240
240 540.9(4.26) 549.70(2.68) 557.20(1.39) - - - -
825 869.50(5.25) 883.50(3.64) 896.60(3.10) 908.90(0.65) 917.60(0.37) 923.80(1.08) 928.30(1.55)
732 1336.7(5.87) 1355.9(4.56) 1375.7(3.06) 1396.2(1.42) 1411.9(0.11) 1423.9(0.91) 1433.1(1.70)
640 2058.0(5.68) 2082.2(5.01) 2109.5(3.94) 2140.3(2.42) 2166.4(0.99) 2187.6(0.23) 2204.7(1.26)
840 2931.1(4.40) 2958.9(4.45) 2992.0(4.11) 3032.3(3.11) 3068.7(1.83) 3100.4(0.56) 3127.1(0.59)
1040 3954.7(2.15) 3984.9(2.82) 4022.6(3.29) 4070.7(3.19) 4116.8(2.38) 4158.7(1.27) 4195.9(0.11)
1240 - - - 5254.6(2.34) 5309.0(2.40) 5360.7(1.72) 5408.1(0.71)
Tabel 4.9 Capable bending moment [kNm] of the 50:1 scale prototype determined with
equation (4.5) and the error (%) to the value determined with equation (4.1)
Sup
Inf
825 732 640 840 1040 1240 1936
825 5476(4.79) 5543(3.61) 5597(2.65) 5641(1.89) 5676(1.30) - -
732 7778(5.72) 7572(4.54) 7953(3.51) 8022(2.63) 8079(1.89) 8127(1.28) 8167(0.78)
640 10470(6.43) 10589(5.33) 10696(4.31) 10792(3.39) 10875(2.58) 10946(1.88) 11007(1.27)
840 13551(6.89) 13692(5.95) 13825(4.99) 13947(4.09) 14057(3.26) 14154(2.51) 14240(1.84)
1040 17022(7.12) 17181(6.36) 17337(5.54) 17485(4.69) 17622(3.88) 17746(3.11) 17858(2.42)
1240 20527(7.13) 20698(6.57) 20872(5.91) 21405(5.17) 21567(4.41) 21718(3.67) 21857(2.97)
1936 25133(6.94) 25321(6.58) 25514(6.10) 25706(5.51) 25893(4.84) 26069(4.15) 26234(3.47)
Tabel 4.10 Capable bending moment [kNm] of the 100:1 scale prototype determined with
equation (4.5) and the error (%) to the value determined with equation (4.1)
Sup
Inf
1936 1840 2240 3036 2840 3240 3640
1936 53460(5.08) 53770(4.53) 54050(4.02) 54310(3.56) 54550(3.14) 54760(2.76) 54960(2.42)
1840 63250(5.59) 63620(5.06) 63960(4.55) 64270(4.09) 64560(3.66) 64830(3.26) 65070(2.90)
2240 73850(6.04) 74270(5.53) 74660(5.04) 75030(4.58) 75380(4.14) 75690(3.74) 75990(3.37)
3036 85240(6.43) 85720(5.95) 86160(5.48) 86590(5.03) 86990(4.60) 87360(4.19) 87710(3.81)
2840 97450(6.76) 97970(6.32) 98470(5.88) 94950(5.44) 99400(5.02) 99830(4.62) 100230(4.23)
3240 110460(7.02) 111020(6.63) 111570(6.22) 12100(5.81) 112610(5.41) 113100(5.01) 113550(4.63)
3640 124280(7.21) 124890(6.87) 125480(6.51) 126060(6.14) 126620(5.75) 127160(5.37) 127670(5.01)
19

It can be seen that the error is below 7.21%. This is obtained choosing the proper
scaling factors, which is always difficult.
4.2. Cracking bending moment
The cracking bending moment has been chosen in order to eliminate the influence of
the span of the beam which appears when determining the cracking force. The approach was
the same as in the case of the capable bending moment: determine the values for the
prototype, the 1:10 scale model by already known relationships and using similitude theory.
After that, applying the same relationships to beams of bigger scales in order to establish their
validity.
The well knows relationship of Navier for normal stresses for bent beams was used,
equation (4.8). The moment of inertia was determined for a composed section, considering
also the influence of the reinforcement. The cracking stress was considered equal to the
concretes tension limit, as defined by the Eurocode 2, equation (4.9).
M
fIs
=
I
ec
z
=
I
tI
I
ec
z
(4.8)
f
tI
=maxj[1.6
h
1000
f
t
,f
t
[ (4.9)
where: f
tI
is the concretes tension limit [kN/ m
2
]
f
t
is the concretes direct tension limit [kN/ m
2
]
z is the height of the tensed area of the beam section [m]
I
cc
is the moment of inertia of the beams cross-section. [m
4
]
Using equation (4.8) the models crack bending moment was determined as 0.149
kNm, leading to a cracking force of 1.324 kN for a simple supported beam.
The PI term for scaling the cracking moment was determined using the variables in
equation (4.8) and can be found in equation (4.10); the main variables used were the
concretes tension limit f
tI
and the moment of inertia of the beams cross section, I
cc
.

1
=
M
]is
]
tl
_I
cc
3
4
(4.10)
The similitude ratio found based on the PI term in in equation (4.11). It was then used
to determine the cracking moment of a 10:1 scale prototype beam reinforced in various ways.
The results are found in table 4.11, along with the error induced by the similitude criterion.
M
fIs.P
=c
M
fs
M
fIs.M
.
c
M
fs
=c
I
tI
_c
I
ec
3
4
(4.11)
20

Table 4.11 Cracking moment [kNm] of the prototype scale 1:10 determined using
similitude theory and the error [%] to the value determined using equation (4.8):
Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 236 240
214 50.16(1.32) 50.46(1.43) 50.79(1.55) 51.15(1.69) 51.24(1.85) 52.16(2.12) 53.75(2.89)
216 50.46(0.82) 50.76(0.92) 51.10(1.05) 51.46(1.19) 51.86(1.35) 52.48(1.62) 54.09(2.39)
220 50.79(0.25) 51.10(0.36) 51.44(0.49) 51.81(0.63) 52.20(0.79) 52.84(1.06) 84.48(1.83)
225 51.15(0.37) 51.46(0.26) 51.81(0.13) 52.18(0.01) 52.59(0.17) 53.23(0.44) 54.89(1.22)
232 51.54(1.03) 51.86(0.93) 52.20(0.80) 52.59(0.66) 52.99(0.50) 53.65(0.23) 55.34(0.55)
236 52.16(2.11) 52.48(2.01) 52.84(1.88) 53.23(1.74) 53.65(1.59) 54.32(1.32) 56.06(0.54)
240 53.75(4.92) 54.09(4.82) 54.48(4.70) 54.89(4.57) 55.34(4.42) 56.06(4.16) 57.93(3.41)
From table 4.11 it can be seen that the error induced by the similitude criterion is
below 5%. Thus the determination of a correction factor in not necessary. Next, the cracking
moment of prototype beams scale 8:1, 20:1, 50:1 and 100:1 will be determined using the
same ratio. The values can be found in tables 4.12 4.15 along with the error induced by the
similitude criterion.
Table 4.12 Cracking moment [kNm] of the prototype scaled 8:1 determined using
similitude theory and the error [%] to the value determined with equation (4.8):
Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 236 240
214 29.33(0.67) 29.58(0.85) 29.85(1.05) 30.15(1.28) 30.46(1.53) 30.95(1.96) 32.15(3.18)
216 29.58(0.07) 29.84(0.10) 20.12(0.31) 30.42(0.53) 30.73(0.79) 31.23(1.22) 32.46(2.45)
220 29.86(0.90) 30.12(0.72) 30.40(0.52) 30.71(0.29) 31.03(0.04) 31.54(0.40) 32.80(1.63)
225 30.15(1.78) 30.42(1.61) 30.71(1.41) 31.02(1.19) 31.35(0.93) 31.88(0.50) 33.16(0.74)
232 30.46(2.72) 30.74(2.55) 31.03(2.36) 31.35(2.13) 31.69(1.89) 32.23(1.46) 33.55(0.23)
236 30.95(4.22) 31.23(4.05) 31.54(3.86) 31.88(3.65) 32.23(3.40) 32.78(2.99) 34.16(1.78)
240 32.15(8.00) 32.46(7.85) 32.80(7.67) 33.16(7.47) 33.55(7.23) 34.16(6.84) 35.70(5.70)
Table 4.13 Cracking moment [kNm] of the prototype scaled 20:1 determined using
similitude theory and the error [%] to the value determined with equation (4.8):
Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 240 532
240 419.91(0.19) 428.92(0.24) 438.99(0.78) 449.72(2.18) 460.78(3.03) 471.83(3.03) 482.59(3.95)
825 428.92(2.02) 438.31(1.60) 448.83(1.07) 460.08(0.42) 471.69(0.34) 483.34(1.20) 494.74(2.15)
732 438.99(4.09) 448.83(3.68) 459.87(3.16) 471.72(2.53) 483.99(1.79) 496.35(0.93) 508.49(0.02)
640 449.72(5.33) 460.08(4.93) 471.72(4.43) 484.25(4.82) 497.27(4.09) 510.43(3.26) 523.43(2.33)
840 460.78(7.68) 471.69(5.30) 483.99(6.81) 497.27(5.22) 511.12(5.52) 525.17(5.71) 539.10(4.80)
1040 471.83(8.10) 483.34(6.73) 496.35(7.26) 510.43(6.68) 525.17(6.01) 540.18(6.22) 555.14(6.35)
1240 482.59(9.53) 494.74(7.18) 508.49(8.73) 523.43(8.18) 539.10(8.52) 555.14(8.76) 571.17(8.91)
Table 4.14 Cracking moment [kNm] of the prototype scaled 50:1 determined using
similitude theory and the error [%] to the value determined with equation (4.8):
Sup
Inf
825 732 640 840 1040 1240 1936
825 4494(1.89) 4515(1.96) 4541(2.05) 4569(2.15) 4602(2.27) 4637(2.41) 4675(2.56)
732 4515(1.48) 4537(1.55) 4563(1.64) 4592(1.74) 4625(1.86) 4661(1.99) 4699(2.15)
640 4541(0.99) 4563(1.07) 4589(1.16) 4619(1.26) 4652(1.38) 4688(1.52) 4727(1.67)
21

840 4569(0.45) 4592(0.52) 4619(0.61) 4649(0.72) 4682(0.84) 4719(0.97) 4758(1.13)
1040 4602(0.16) 4625(0.09) 4652(0.01) 4682(0.11) 4716(0.23) 4783(0.37) 4793(0.52)
1240 4638(0.83) 4661(0.75) 4688(0.67) 4718(0.56) 4753(0.44) 4790(0.30) 4831(0.15)
1936 4676(1.54) 4699(1.47) 4727(1.38) 4758(1.28) 4793(1.16) 4831(1.02) 4872(0.87)
Tabel 4.15 Cracking moment [kNm] of the prototype scaled 100:1 determined using
similitude theory and the error [%] to the value determined with equation (4.8):
Sup
Inf
1936 1840 2240 3036 2840 3240 3640
1936 49594(1.69) 49735(11.72) 49888(1.77) 50052(1.81) 50226(1.86) 50411(1.91) 50607(1.96)
1840 49735(1.47) 49877(1.50) 50031(1.54) 50195(1.59) 50371(1.63) 50556(1.69) 50753(1.74)
2240 49888(1.22) 50031(1.26) 50185(1.30) 50350(1.35) 50526(1.39) 50713(1.45) 50910(1.50)
3036 50052(0.96) 50195(1.00) 50350(1.04) 50516(1.08) 50693(1.13) 50881(1.18) 51079(1.24)
2840 50226(0.68) 50371(0.72) 50526(0.76) 50693(0.81) 50871(0.85) 51060(0.91) 51259(0.96)
3240 50411(0.39) 50556(0.42) 50713(0.46) 50881(0.51) 51060(0.56) 51250(0.61) 51450(0.66)
3640 50607(0.07) 50753(0.11) 50910(0.15) 51079(0.19) 51259(0.24) 51450(0.29) 51652(0.35)
The error induced is below 10% and fades with the increase of the prototypes scale.
There was no need for a correction factor in order to maintain a minimum error because the
beam is in the elastic domain, where the similitude theory can yield acceptable results, as
observed by other authors like WU ET. Al. [4].
4.3. Maximum mid-span deflection
After studying the elastic and the breaking behavior, the mid-span deflection of a
simple supported beam submitted to three point bending was also studied. It was determined
using the similitude theory using a model as the one in figure (4.1) and then compared to the
value determined using Eurocode 2 relationships. The same similitude relationship was them
applied to larger scale prototype beams. The equation provided by the Eurocode is (4.12),
extended as in (4.13).
f =
II
+
I
(4.12)
f = j
1
12
L
2
o
s
E
s
z
[ +[
1
12
L
2
M
fs
E
c
I
ec
(4.13)
=1 [
o
s
o
s

2
(4.14)
where f is the deflection at the middle of the beam [m]
is a distribution coefficient allowing for tension stiffening at a section
0 for uncracked sections and determined with equation (4.14) if else []
is a coefficient taking account of the influence of the duration of the
loading or of repeated loading on average strain: =1 for single short
term loading []

22


s
is the stress in the tension reinforcement calculated on the basis of a
cracked section [kN/ m
2
]

sr
is the stress in the tension reinforcement calculated on the basis of a
Cracked section under the loading conditions causing first cracking [kN/ m
2
]
M
fIs
is the cracking moment [kNm]
E
c
is the concretes modulus of elasticity [kN/ m
2
]
I
cc
is the reinforced concrete cross-sections modulus of inertia [m
4
]
L is the span of the beam [m]
E
s
is the elastic modulus of the steel [kN/ m
2
]
z is the height of the tensed area of the cross-section [m]
is the deformation parameter considered (a strain, a curvature or a rotation);
I
si
II

are the values of the parameter calculated for the uncracked and fully cracked conditions
respectively.
Using equation (4.13), the mid-span deflection of the beam model in figure (4.1) was
determined as 2.879mm.
With the same relationship, the same characteristic was determined for a 10:1 scale
prototype reinforced in various ways. The values can be seen in table 4.16. The missing
values stand for the combination of reinforcements which lead to a brittle failure of the beam.
The PI terms which define this phenomenon where determined using the variables of
equation (4.13) and can be found in equation (4.15). As main variables L, the span of the
beam and E
c
, the elastic modulus of concrete were used.

1
=
M
fs
L
3
E
c
,
2
=
I
L
,
3
=
z
L
,
4
=
E
s
E
c
,
5
=
I
ec
L
,
6
=
o
s
E
c
(4.15)
Table 4.16 The mid-span deflection [mm] for the prototype beam using equation (4.12):
Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 236 240
214 7.82 7.83 7.84 7.85 7.86 7.88 7.91
216 7.88 7.89 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.91 7.94
220 7.96 7.95 7.95 7.95 7.95 7.96 7.98
225 8.06 8.04 8.02 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.02
232 8.18 8.14 8.11 8.09 8.07 8.06 8.06
236 8.41 8.35 8.29 8.25 8.21 8.18 8.14
240 9.26 9.13 8.99 8.86 8.75 8.61 8.42

The scaling ratios determined based on the PI terms are in equation (4.16). As in the
case of the capable moment, a similitude ratio which contains as many terms as possible was
used, equation (4.17)
23

c
M
fs
=c
E
s
c
L
3
,c
I
=c
L
,c
z
=c
L
,c
E
c
=c
E
s
,c
I
ec
=c
L
4
,c

s
=c
E
s
(4.16)
c
I
=
c
M
fs
c
z
c
L
c
E
c
(4.17)
Using equation (4.17) and knowing that f
max.P
=c
I
f
max.M
, the maximum deflection of
the 10:1 prototype beam was determined and the values can be seen in table 4.17. The error
induced by the similitude theory as opposed to the values determined using equation (4.13) is
in table 4.18.
Table 4.17 The mid-span deflection [mm] of the 10:1 prototype determined using similitude
theory:
Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 236 240
214 2.22 2.23 2.23 2.44 2.25 2.25 2.25
216 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.28 2.29 2.29
220 2.33 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.37
225 2.44 2.45 2.46 2.47 2.48 2.49 2.49
232 2.64 2.65 2.66 2.68 2.69 2.70 2.70
236 2.78 2.78 2.79 2.81 2.83 2.84 2.84
240 2.92 2.93 2.94 2.96 2.98 2.99 3.00
Table 4.18 The error [%] induced by using similitude theory as opposed to equation (4.13)
Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 236 240
214 18.13 18.07 17.96 17.88 17.93 18.09 18.36
216 17.61 17.47 17.26 17.08 17.06 17.19 17.44
220 16.70 16.23 15.75 15.28 15.02 15.06 15.24
225 16.25 15.44 14.07 12.90 12.07 11.90 11.94
232 17.76 16.34 13.48 10.43 7.81 7.04 6.64
236 20.03 18.33 14.69 10.29 5.89 4.43 3.56
240 23.55 21.62 17.30 11.60 4.92 2.40 0.77
The error in the previous table must be minimal. So, equation (4.17) must be adjusted
using a correction factor, depending again on the ratio between the upper area of
reinforcement and the lower one, as they determine the capable moment of the cross-section.
The correction factor will be determined like in equation (4.19)
c
I
=
c
M
fs
c
d
c
L
c
E
c

(4.18)
=f[
C
Ass
C
As
(4.19)


24

Table 4.19 Significant values for determining
CAss/CAsi
0.12 0.764
0.25 0.820
0.31 0.853
0.48 0.897
1 0.950
2.07 0.881
3.23 0.849
4 0.848
8.16 0.816
will be determined in order for the error in table 4.18 to be as close to 0 as possible,
meaning that the values in tables 4.16 and 4.17 must be very close. Table 4.19 contains
significant values of the CAss/CAsi ratio. The graph generated by these points can be seen in
figure 4.3. was determined as in equation (4.20), whose graph can be seen in the same
figure 4.3 for comparison.
=_
1.152[
cAss
cAsI

0.088
0.19 ,
cAss
cAsI
<1
0.15 [
cAss
cAsI

0.45
+0.954 ,
cAss
cAsI
1
(4.20)

Figure 4.3 The graph generated by the points in table 4 .19 compared to equation (4.20)
25

Next, the mid-span deflection for the prototype scaled 10:1 using similitude theory
was determined. The results can be found in table 4.20. The error between them and those
found with the equation given by the Eurocode is in table 4.21.
Table 4.19 Mid-span deflection [mm] of the 10:1 prototype beam using equation (4.18):
Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 236 240
214 6.71 7.32 7.78 8.16 8.53 8.69 8.82
216 6.95 6.82 7.65 8.08 8.48 8.64 8.87
220 7.53 7.33 7.08 7.94 7.43 8.62 7.77
225 8.28 8.07 7.72 7.47 8.44 8.68 8.87
232 9.45 9.20 8.81 8.45 8.13 8.83 9.12
236 10.18 9.91 4.49 9.10 8.70 8.57 9.25
240 10.96 10.67 10.22 9.80 9.37 9.17 9.06
Table 4.18 The error [%] between the value determined with equation (4.12) and using the
similitude theory after applying the correction factor:
Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 236 240
214 14.19 6.53 0.85 3.49 7.24 8.69 9.75
216 11.90 13.50 3.10 2.02 6.26 7.56 9.04
220 6.60 8.81 11.69 0.79 4.81 6.82 8.28
225 1.50 3.36 6.35 8.81 3.48 6.24 8.17
232 2.00 0.83 061 1.90 3.38 5.20 8.54
236 1.77 0.97 0.51 0.75 0.29 0.16 8.21
240 0.41 0.84 0.33 1.52 3.48 3.60 3.85
Thus, it can be seen that the error reduced from 20.89% to 9.35%. Next, the mid-span
deflection of prototype beams scaled 8:1, 20:1, 50:1 and 100:1 will be determined using
equation (4.18). The error between these values and those determined using equation (4.12)
are also shown. The results can be found in tables 4.19 4.23.
Table 4.19 Mid-span deflection [mm] of 8:1 scale prototype beam determined using
similitude theory and the error [%] as opposed to Eurocod 2 equations:
Sup
Inf
214 216 220 225 232 236 240
214 6.17(4.81) 6.73(3.63) 7.16(9.23) 7.50(13.07) 7.82(16.09) 7.93(17.05) 8.01(17.59)
216 6.43(2.04) 6.32(3.66) 7.09(7.51) 7.48(12.18) 7.82(15.67) 7.94(16.78) 8.03(17.43)
220 7.07(3.88) 6.89(2.93) 6.65(0.73) 7.47(10.56) 4.90(15.40) 8.05(16.91) 8.16(17.84)
225 7.93(8.04) 7.73(7.05) 7.41(5.35) 7.16(3.79) 8.07(15.46) 8.28(17.74) 8.43(19.17)
232 9.30(7.11) 9.07(7.46) 8.69(8.90) 8.34(10.34) 8.02(10.68) 8.68(18.43) 8.94(21.28)
236 10.18(1.82) 9.92(3.09) 9.51(6.67) 9.13(11.07) 8.72(13.96) 8.59(14.61) 9.24(21.74)
240 11.12(8.74) 10.83(6.39) 10.40(0.10) 9.99(8.20) 9.55(15.71) 9.33(17.40) 9.20(18.40)

26

Table 4.20 Mid-span deflection [mm] of 20:1 scale prototype beam determined using
similitude theory and the error [%] as opposed to Eurocod 2 equations:
Sup
Inf
240 825 732 640 840 1040 1240
240 14.26(8.11) 16.04(3.82) 16.83(8.65) 17.41(11.97) 17.87(14.41) 18.23(16.25) 18.50(17.59)
825 15.64(1.51) 15.15(3.190 16.84(7.92) 17.59(12.33) 18.15(15.32) 18.57(17.49) 18.50(19.07)
732 17.30(4.26) 16.61(3.35) 16.23(2.93) 17.88(12.87) 18.61(16.84) 19.13(19.48) 19.52(21.37)
640 19.15(4.26) 18.39(3.35) 17.82(9.11) 17.50(9.50) 19.14(18.28) 19.84(21.79) 20.34(24.09)
840 21.23(8.61) 20.39(11.150 19.76(13.80) 19.26(15.27) 18.98(16.12) 20.61(23.85) 21.29(26.92)
1040 23.55(6.80) 22.63(11.01) 21.94(15.74) 21.39(19.54) 20.91(21.52) 20.65(22.60) 22.29(29.36)
1240 26.14(1.03) 25.12(7.53) 24.37(14.61) 23.77(20.94) 23.25(25.43) 22.78(27.63) 22.52(28.77)
It can be seen from these two tables that the error in only increasing. This is because
equation 4.20 is not suitable as a correction factor. Also, from figure 4.3 it can be seen that
finding such an equation is very difficult.
Another purpose of this part of the study is to see if the materials used in building the
models are adequate for small scale experiments. The three beams in figure 4.1 were
subjected to three point bending and the results compared to those obtained in a Finite
Element Analysis. If the values obtained are close, a numeric simulation will be enough
without performing a physical experiment.
4.4. Model beam three point bending. Experiment
Three beams as in figure 4.1 were tested. The beams have a 3x6cm cross-section and
a 45cm span. The reinforcement cage is made of 43mm threaded rod and 0.9mm steel
wire for the stir-ups.
A 40tf press equipped with force and displacement transducers were used. The
displacements were also measured using a optical measuring device.
The cracks were observed on one side of the beam coated with white paint to observe
the contrast. The other side was left unmodified as the optical device works by measuring the
tones of grey on the element. The deflection was measured using a displacement transducer
found at the bottom of the beam as in figure 4.4.
Figure 4.6 shows the relationship applied force-time for all the three beams. For the
first beam the loading rate was slower as we didnt know what to expect, reading the
displacement transducer and using the optical device every 200daN. For the later two beams
the readings were made every 300daN. Force-displacement graphs are shown in figure 4.7.
All the three beams behaved in ductile manner as expected and successfully modeling the
behavior of prototype beams.

27


Figure 4.4 Equipping the beams
The optical measurements were made on the second beam in order to verify the
results given by the displacement transducer. The device works by measuring using the
Digital Image Correlation. By comparing the grey tones of two successive images of the
analyzed element and using a special algorithm the software can track the movement of every
point a defined matrix on the surface on the element as seen in figure 4.5. The coordinates of
the points are known enabling to calculate the displacements and the strains of any section of
the beam.

Figure 4.5 Point matrix on the beam at initial stage (left) and the final stage (right)
28


Figure 4.6 Time applied force graphs for the three beams

Figure 4.7 Force displacement graphs for beams 1 and 2
Figure 4.9 shows a comparison between the force-displacement relationship obtained
by mechanical means (press and transducer) and the one obtained with the optical device.
29


Figure 4.9 Force-displacement graphs for beams 1 and 3
The three beams collapsed at 3.21kN, 3.96kN and 4.1kN, yielding an average
breaking force of 3.76kN. The mid-span deflections are 3.96mm and 5.67mm
4.5. Model beam three point bending. Finite Element simulation
In order to be able to reproduce effortlessly the behavior of a model made of the
materials used in this experiment, a finite element analysis using Abaqus 6.12 was performed.
Three materials were used for simulating the concrete, the threaded rod and the steel wire.
For the stir-ups an elastic, perfect plastic steel model was used with an elastic modulus of
105.56 GPa, a Poissons coefficient of 0.3 and a yield strength of 499MPa. The threaded rod
was simulated using a plastic steel model with an elastic modulus of 77.49 GPa and a
Poissons ratio of 0.3. The yield force was considered at 380MPa. The stree-strain
relationship for the rod can be found in Appendix D.
The concrete was simulated using the Concrete Damaged Plasticity model developed
by Lubliner [16] and modified by Lee [17]. The stress-strain relationship for the concrete was
determined using the equation developed by Saenz [19] in equation (4.21)

c
=
E
c

c
1+(R+R
E
-2)[

0
-(2R-1)[

2
+R[

3
(4.21)
where:
c
si
c
are the stress and the strain of concrete
E
c
=20740 MPa is the concretes modulus of elasticity

0
is the stress in the concrete corresponding to the compression or tension limit,
30

R=
R
E
(R

-1)
(R

-1)
2

1
R

,R
E
=
E
c
E
0
,E
0
=
I
c

0
, R
s
=
s
I
s
0
, R
o
=
I
c
o
I
. Usualy R
s
=4,R
o
=4 can
be employed with good results.
f
c
is the concretes tension limit (1.815 MPa) or compression (23 MPa),

I
is the breaking stress of concrete

I
is the breaking strain of concrete.
Using equation (4.21) the stress-strain relationships for concrete compression and
tension were obtained, as in figure 4.10.
The beam was modeled using solid elements (C3D8R) of 3x3x5mm, while the
reinforcement and the stir-ups were modeled using truss elements (T3D2) of 5mm and 3mm
respectively, in order for the nodes of the reinforcement and the concrete to coincide. Figure
4.11 shows the meshing of the elements.
Table 4.21 contains the values used for defining the concrete plasticity:
Table 4.21 Values used for defining the concrete plasticity
Dilation angle
()
Eccentricity fb0/fc0 K Viscosity
parameter
32 0.1 1.16 0.667 0.01

Figura 4.10 Relatia tensiune-deformatie pentru beton, folosind relatia (4.28)
For a greater accuracy, the supports and the metal piece through which the loads were
applied were also modeled. Theyre interaction with the concrete beam was modeled as a
General Contact with a Normal Behavior that allows the separation and a Penalty type
Tangential Behavior with a 0.45 friction coefficient. A Static-Riks analysis was conducted.
The force-displacement graph obtained using the finite element analysis is compared in figure
31

4.12 with the ones obtained mechanically and optically. Figures 4.13 and 4.14 show the
concrete and reinforcement stresses and figures 4.15 and 4.16 show the cracks network.

Figure 4.11 The finite elements used to model the concrete beam and the reinforcement

Figure 4.12 Force-displacement graphs for beam 3

Figure 4.13 Concrete stresses

Figure 4.14 Equivalent plastic stress of reinforcement
32


Figure 4.15 Cracks network

Figure 4.16 Cracks appeared during the experiment
In table 4.22 the values for the cracking moment, the capable moment and the mid-
span deflection are shown for the model in figure 4.1 determined using Eurocode 2, obtained
from the physical experiment and from the finite element analysis.
Table 4.22 Comparative values for the three results studied obtained in three separate ways
Cracking moment
[kNm]
Capable moment
[kNm]
Mid-span deflection
[mm]
Eurocode 2 equations 0.149 0.366 2.627
Physical experiment 0.154 0.423 3.960
Finite element analysis 0.159 0.450 4.024
The differences between the results obtained by computer analysis and the ones
obtained through a physical experiment are 3.1% for the cracking moment, 6% for the
capable moment and 1.6% for the mid-span deflection. Thus, the finite element model is
adequate in simulating the three points bending of a threaded rod reinforced micro-concrete
beam. Also, the cracks in the finite element model seem to agree with the behavior of the
actual beam.
Larger differences appeared between the values determined using Eurocode 2
equations and experimentally: 3.2% for the cracking moment, 13.5% for the capable moment
and 33.67% for the mid-span deflection. These differences are due to the fact that the speed
of loading was not taken into account when applying the fore mentioned equations.
33

5. Two-dimensional frame
The second purpose of this study was to determine the response of a structure
subjected do dynamic actions by using a model scaled 1:10. The objectives are the modes of
vibration, the ductility of the model and the behavior during an earthquake
5.1. Vibration modes
The prototype frame is considered as part of a spatial structure with 4.5m openings in
both directions, a 12cm concrete slab and being an office building. Also, the columns are
considered fixed into the foundation. Thus, the loading acting on each level of the frame is
determined as in equation (5.1), according to Eurocode 0:
q =[1.35(g
k
+h
p

b
) +1.5q
k
]L
1
=40.84kN/ m (5.1)
where: g
k
=1.5kN/ m
2
is the dead load
q
k
=2kN/ m
2
is the live load
h
p
=12cm is the thickness of the concrete slab

b
=25kN/ m
3
is the weight of the concrete
L
1
=4.5m is the opening of the spatial on direction one
The mass of each level was determined using the special combination of loads as
defined in Eurocode 0 like in equation (5.2):
q =[(g
k
+h
p

b
) +0.4q
k
]T =23.85kN/ m (5.2)

Figure 5.1 Prototype frame (left) and the model frame with the mass of each level (right)

As presented in chapter 3, for the fabrication of the model, a micro-concrete with a
compression strength of 44.30MPa and an elastic modulus of 30364.36MPa, corresponding to
34

a C35/45 class. Thus, the prototype was considered as being built with a C35/45 concrete and
S500 steel. Reinforcing of the frame will be made in accordance to the prescriptions of P100-
1/2013 [26], the Romanian seismic design code for a structure in the class H (high) of
ductility and following an analysis using SAP2000. Also, the prototype was reinforced in
order to have the same reinforcement percentage for the columns as the model, because of the
availability of threaded-rod on the market.
Next, the similitude between the vibration modes of the prototype and of the model
will be studied. To establish the necessary parameters for the PI terms, equation (5.3) was
used.
=_
k
m
(5.3)
where: is the pulsation of the fundamental mode [1/s]
k is the stiffness of the structure [kN/m]
m is the mass of the structure [kNs
2
/ m]
The fundamental period of a structure is determined using equation (5.4). So, will
be replaced by T. To this parameters, the added mass m
ad
[kNs
2
/ m] used to simulate the
loads acting on the structure and the gravitational acceleration g [m/s
2
] are added.
T =
2

(5.4)
Thus, the parameters used in the similitude study are found in equation (5.5), the PI
terms are in equation (5.6) and the similitude ratios are in equation (5.7).
P ={T,k,m,m
ad
,g} (5.5)

1
=
Tk
m
,
2
=
m
ad
m
(5.6)
c
T
=
_
c
m
c
R
,c
m
ad
=c
m
(5.7)
The model frame was reinforced using the same rules as stipulated in P100, with
some modifications: the middle steel bar was removed because of the difficulties in
fabricating the model, as in figure 5.2. Also, the threaded rod used gave a 2% reinforcement
percentage because of their availability on the market.
For the modal analysis of the two frames, a finite element analysis in Abaqus 6.12
was performed. The concrete and the reinforcement were defined as at paragraph 4.5. In
figure 5.3 the prototype frame with the added mass can be seen. This was simulated as a
50x50x50cm rigid body made of a material with a density of 132828.23 kg/ m
3
. Placing it
was made so that the frames stiffness will not be affected.
35

For modeling the concrete elements, 100x100x100mm blocks (C3D8R) were used for
the prototype and 10x10x10mm blocks for the model. The reinforcement elements were
defined as truss (T3D2) having 100mm in the case of the prototype and 10mm in the case of
the model.

Figure 5.2 Reinforcement for the prototype (left) and the model (right)
The stiffness of each level was determined using the method presented in the work of
Barsan [10], like in Appendix B. The influence of the reinforcements were also taken into
account. The mass of each level was determined like in figure 5.1. These and the stiffness are
found in table 5.1

Figure 5.3 FE models for the frame with added mass (left) and reinforcement cage (right)
36

Table 5.1 Masses and stiffness of each level of the frames
Mass [hNs
2
/ m] Stiffness [kN/m]
Level 1 2 1 2
Prototype 16603.53 14691.56 141385.41 94256.94
Model 16.604 14.692 11795.44 7863.63
Ratio 0.001 0.001 0.083 0.083
Table 5.2 contains the periods for the first 9 natural modes of the prototype and the
model. The ratio between them is compared to the ratio as obtained with similitude theory,
equation (5.7). It can be seen that the difference is below 2.47%.
Table 5.2 Vibration periods [s] for the model and prototype frames
Vibration
mode
Prototype Model Tm/Tp Ratio
obtained with
eq. 5.7
Error (%)
1 0.1387 0.0149 0.1072
0.1098
2.47
2 0.0447 0.0048 0.1086 1.15
3 0.0426 0.0046 0.1085 1.19
4 0.0384 0.0042 0.1081 1.55
5 0.0191 0.0013 0.1121 2.03
6 0.0191 0.0012 0.1121 2.07
7 0.0118 0.0008 0.1079 1.74
8 0.0107 0.0008 0.1101 0.30
9 0.0074 0.0007 0.1093 0.44
In order to validate the finite element analysis results, an experimental modal analysis
was performed using an impact hammer as that in figure 5.5 on the model in figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4 Reinforcement and formwork of the model frame (left) and the hardened model
(right)
37


Figure 5.5 The devices used in the experimental modal analysis
Figure 5.6 shows the network of points used in the experiment. Figures 5.7 and 5.8
show a comparison between the mode shapes as obtained in the finite element analysis and in
the experiment.
Only the first two modes are presented because they were the only ones clearly visible
during the experiment . Table 5.3 contains the values of the mode periods obtained in each
case.

Figure 5.6 The network of points used in the experimental modal analysis
38


Figure 5.7 Vibration mode 1 shape

Figure 5.8 Vibration mode 2 shape
Table 5.2 Vibration periods for the model frame
Vibration mode Period obtained through
FEM
Period obtained through
experiment
1 0.008872 0.086956
2 0.002619 0.003419
A significant difference between the two cases is observed: the period measured
experimentally is greater than the one obtained theoretically, which translates in lower
39

stiffness of the model. This is to be expected as the supports for the columns are not perfectly
fixed and a level of fixation in impossible to determine. Also, the structural faults appeared
during fabrication are a significant factor, whose influence on the stiffness of the frame is
impossible to determine.
5.2. Ductility test of the model
Next, using a Pushover analysis, the ductility of the model frame will be studied,
comparing it to the ductility of the prototype. This is made by comparing the multiplication
factor
u
/
1
. The reinforcement of the two frames has been presented in figure 5.2. The
materials used in the analysis have been presented in chapter 3 and their characteristics can
be found in Appendix D. A Static-Riks analysis was performed with forces applied at each
level.
Two types of analysis were made with two different distributions of the lateral forces,
as defined in P100-1/2013 and seen in figure 5.9:
- One where the lateral forces as proportional with the level masses without regard to
their position on the height of the structure, in order to evaluate the maximum shear
force
- One where the forces are according to the shape of the most influential vibration
mode; also, a simplified triangular distribution is accepted, with the tip of the triangle
at the base of the structure. This helps establish the maximum bending moments.

Figure 5.9 Lateral forces distribution
40

From table 5.1, the mass ratio is R
m
=m
1
/ m
2
=1.11, so the force ratio will be
R
I1
=1.11 in the first distribution. The predominant vibration mode is the first one, with a
ratio of the level displacement of R
d
=d
1
/ d
2
=0.5, leading to a force ratio of R
I2
=0.5 in
the second distribution.
After a finite element analysis, the graphs in figure 5.10 were obtained. Also, the
multiplication factor
u
/
1
was determined and the results are in table 5.3
Table 5.3 The multiplication factor for the two frames in the two lateral forces distribution
Distribution 1 Distribution 2 u
u
/ u
1

Model 1.756 1.867 1.756
Prototype 1.679 1.791 1.675

Figure 5.10 Base shear force displacement graphs for the model (left) and the prototype
(right) for each distribution of the lateral forces
The two frames appear to have the same behavior when submitted to lateral forces
with the same distribution and the multiplication factor is close, having a difference of below
4.83%. Figure 5.11 shows the plastic hinges appeared at breaking in the model and the
prototype. It can be notices that they seem to form at the same places: the base of the columns
and the extremities of the beams.
41


Figure 5.11 Plastic hinges developed in the prototype (left) and the model (right) at
breaking
Next, the behavior of the frames will be studied during an earthquake. The analysis
will be made using a finite element model. Following the laws of similitude, the goal is to
predict the behavior of the prototype starting from that of a model scale 1:10.
5.3. Earthquake response
For establishing the PI terms, the equation (5.8) was used.
Mu +Cu +Ku=p(t) (5.8)
where: M is the mass matrix
K is the stiffness matrix
C is the damping factor matrix
u is the displacement vector
u is the velocity vector
u is the acceleration vector
p(t) is the applied forces vector
Because of the configuration of the frames, the masses and the stiffness of the two
levels are equal, as seen from table 5.1. Thus, in equation (5.9) the mass and the stiffness
matrix can be replaces with the mass of a level, m and the stiffness of a level, k. Also, the
mass has been replaced with the weight of the level, G. The damping ratio has not been taken
42

into account because its difficult to determine. An added weight G
ad
is added to the
parameters and the period of the first vibration mode, T. The similitude between the level
displacements, u has been studied.
The exterior forces acting on the structure are given by an earthquake record of
Vrancea 1977, as in figure 5.12. This forces will be scaled by scaling the time, t and of the
ground acceleration, a like in figure 5.13.
P ={G,K,u,G
ad
,T,t,a} (5.9)
where: G is the weight of the level [N]
K is the stiffness of the level [N/m]
u is the displacement of the level [m]
G
ad
is the added weight to simulate exterior loading [N]
T is the period of vibration mode 1 [s]
t is the time of the earthquake [s]
a is the acceleration of the earthquake [m/ s
2
]

Using similitude theory, the PI terms in equation (5.10) have been found and the
similitude ratios in equation (5.11). As main variables G, K and T have been used.

1
=
t
T
,
2
=
G
ad
G
,
3
=
aKT
2
G
,
4
=
dK
G
(5.10)
c
t
=c
T
,c
a
=
c
G
c
K
c
T
2
,c
d
=
c
G
c
K
,c
G
ad
=c
G
(5.11)

Figure 5.12 Vrancea 1977 time-history used in analyzing the prototype
43


Figure 5.13 Vrancea 1977 scaled time-history used in analyzing the model
A Dynamic Implicit finite element analysis has been performed using Abaqus 6.12,
with an acceleration applied at the base of the columns on the longitudinal direction. The
concrete and the reinforcement was defined as in the previous experiments.
Figures 5.14 and 5.15 show a comparison of the displacements obtained with a finite
element analysis and following the rules of similitude for each level of the prototype. Scaling
the displacements of the model has been done using equation (5.12). Figures 5.16 5.21
show the same graph on smaller intervals in order to be easier to analyze: 5s 15s, 15s 25s
si 25s 35s.
d
p
=
d
m
c
G
c
K
,t
p
=
t
m
c
T
(5.12)
In the process of finding the PI terms, only the period of the first vibration mode was
used. Thus, it can be seen in the following graphs that the displacement of each level
determined with similitude theory and by a finite element analysis are comparable. But, after
25s the differences increase due to the influence of the higher vibration modes. Regarding the
behavior of the reinforcement, nor the model neither the prototype arent developing plastic
hinges. They will be submitted to a stronger earthquake, Northridge 1944 like in figure 5.22
and scaled as in figure 5.23 for the analysis of the model.



44


Figure 5.14 Level 1 displacement




Figure 5.15 Level 2 displacement

45


Figure 5.16 Level 1 displacement on the 5s 15s interval









Figure 5.17 Level 2 displacement on the 5s 15s interval



46


Figure 5.18 Level 1 displacement on the 15s 25s interval









Figure 5.19 Level 2 displacement on the 15s 25s interval




47


Figure 5.20 Level 1 displacement on the 25s 35s interval





Figure 5.21 Level 2 displacement on the 25s 35s interval



48


Figure 5.22 Northridge 1994 time-history used in the analysis of the prototype

Figure 5.23 Northridge 1994 time-history scaled and used in the analysis of the model
Figures 5.24 and 5.25 show a comparison of the displacements of each level of the
prototype obtained by a finite element analysis and by scaling the displacements of the model
using the similitude ratio in equation (5.12). The plastic hinges developed by the two
structures are found in figure 5.26.
It can be seen that the values of the displacements differ significantly. Also, the errors
start to appear after t=6s, when plastic hinges begin to form in the prototype, while the
reinforcements of the model remain in the elastic domain for the entire analysis.
49


Figure 5.24 Level 1 displacement

Figure 5.25 Level 2 displacement


50


Figure 5.26 Plastic hinges developed in the reinforcements of the prototype (left) and the
model (right)













51

6. Conclusions and future research
It has been shown in chapter 3 that is difficult for the materials used in the modeling
the reinforced concrete structures using a 1:10 to have the same characteristics as those used
in the construction industry but satisfactory values can be obtained, while the others are
subjected to similitude relationships.
The micro-concrete in the models is submitted mostly to compression stresses so it
needs to have a compression strength similar to that of the concrete used in the prototype.
Following the rules presented in Manea ET. AL. [7] regarding the concrete recipe, such
materials have been obtained. The tension strength and the elastic modulus had different
values due to the use of 2mm aggregates. These differences are mostly visible in the elastic
domain, where carefully chosen similitude parameters can minimize their influence. A micro-
concrete with the water:cement:aggregate ratio of 0.42:1:2.57 yielded the best results and
proved to be effective in 1:10 scale model testing.
Regarding the reinforcement, the experiments of Kim ET. AL. [5] proved to be
helpful and threaded-rod was used as it simulates properly the bond between it and the
concrete. Because of its availability on the market, 3mm and 4mm was used. Steel wire
for the stir-ups was also employed. After testing them (results available in Appendix D) it has
been seen that their breaking point and ultimate strain are close to those of the steel used in
the industry. The elastic modulus differs in a significant way but again, by carefully choosing
the similitude parameters satisfactory results can be obtained. Thus, the materials used for
simulating the reinforcement are considered to be adequate for 1:10 scale model testing.
In chapter 4 a simple supported reinforced concrete model beam has been tested at
three point bending. The studied results are: cracking moment capable moment and ultimate
mid-span deflection.
The cracking moment was simulated with no difficulty, as similitude theory is known
to yield good results in the elastic domain. For the capable moment some modifications of the
similitude ratios were necessary in order to obtain satisfactory results. The ultimate deflection
has proven to be hard to simulate because of its variation along with the variation of the ratio
between the upper reinforcement sectional area and the lower one.
Chapter 5 presents the experiments made on a two dimensional frame with one
opening and two levels. The results studied were: vibration modes, ductility and earthquake
response.
52

For the vibration modes, satisfactory results were obtained, as the frames remain in
the elastic domain. The ductility was studied by performing a pushover analysis following the
indications in P100-1/2013 [26], the Romanian code for seismic design and using a finite
element software, Abaqus 6.12. The obtained values of the multiplication factor proved to be
close for the model and the prototype. The harder to simulate proved to be the earthquake
response because of the phenomenons complexity which extends on the determination of the
similitude criteria. Aspects like the cyclic behavior of concrete and the influence of the
superior vibration modes have been taken into account in the present study.
The small scale experiments on reinforced concrete models imply a partial similitude,
as defined in chapter 2. But, after the two tests of the present study some indications have
been developed for minimizing both the fabrication difficulties and the errors in the results:
- The cross-section dimensions and the concrete cover should follow the similitude
ratios and the ratios between them
- A micro-concrete with a compression strength and an ultimate strain as close as
possible to the one of the prototypes concrete should be used
- The reinforcement used should have the ultimate strength and the ultimate strain as
close as possible to that of the reinforcement of the prototype
- In the case of a dynamic test the reinforcement ratio of the columns should be the
same in the model and the prototype
As original contributions the following can be named: the micro-concrete recipe used
in the experiments and the equations found by means of similitude theory used in the
determination of the cracking and capable moment of the reinforced concrete beam using a
1:10 scale model and in the determination of the vibration modes of a two dimensional frame
with one span and two levels using a 1:10 scale model.
As future research one can name:
- Studying the plastic behavior of concrete and micro-concrete and determination of the
plasticity parameters for defining it in the Lubliner [16] model.
- Studying the behavior of concrete and micro-concrete to cyclic loading and their
influence in the final response of the structure along with a similitude study
- Studying the influence of the superior vibration modes and the damping ratio on the
final response of the structure along with a similitude study between a prototype and
its model.
53

Appendix A: The expression of the bending moment of a double reinforced
concrete cross section

Figure A.1 Strains and stresses in the double reinforced concrete cross section





h
b
d
1
d
As1
MRd
x
Fc
Fs1

x
z
c
cu
s1
fcd
As2
s2
Fs2
z
s

54


In calculating the value for the model beam in chapter 4, characteristic values for the
concrete and steel strengths have been used.















55

Appendix B: Determination of the level stiffness and masses for the two
frames presented in chapter 5
The masses of each level was determined using the mass distribution in figure 5.1
For calculating the stiffness of each level, the method presented in the work of Barsan
[10] was employed. The bending stiffness of the columns and beams was determined taking
into account the influence of the reinforcements.
Index p was used for the characteristics of the prototype and index m was used for the
characteristics of the model.

1. Loads:

2. Prototype frame:
2.1.The geometry:




56

2.2.Stiffness of the reinforced concrete elements:
2.2.1. The column:

2.2.2. The beam:

2.3.Stiffness of each level:
2.3.1. Level 1:

57


2.3.2. Level 2:

2.4.Level masses:

3. Model frame:
3.1.The geometry:

58


3.2. Stiffness of the reinforced concrete elements:
3.2.1. The column:

3.2.2. The beam:

3.3. Stiffness of each level:
3.3.1. Level 1:

59


3.3.2. Level 2:

3.4.Mass of each level:







60

Appendix C: Micro-concrete class C35/45 recipe



61




















62

Appendix D: Characteristics of the materials
The results of the following tests are presented in the Appendix, in this order:
Concrete compression tests: five 10x10x10cm cubes
Concrete tension tests: two hourglass shaped probes
Concrete elastic modulus tests: two 10x10x30cm prisms
Reinforcement tests: three 0.9mm steel wire and three 3 threaded-rod
Reinforcement tests: four 1.2mm steel wire
two 3mm threaded-rod
two 4mm threaded-rod

450. 0
0. 0
50. 0
100. 0
150. 0
200. 0
250. 0
300. 0
350. 0
400. 0
Time (s)
60. 0 0. 0 5. 0 10. 0 15. 0 20. 0 25. 0 30. 0 35. 0 40. 0 45. 0 50. 0 55. 0
Cube
Advantest 9
Compression test on concrete : EN 12 390-3
Certificate number Certificate date 1/1/1904 :
Testing apparatus
Customer
Contact
Specimen type Cem.content kg/m
Cement type Preparation date 12/12/2013 :
Specimen conditions:
On receipt At time of test
Sampling location Sampling date 1/1/1904
Specimen preparation
Specimen ID.
Dimensions 100.0 a(mm) 100.0 b(mm)
100. 0 c(mm) Mass (Kg) 2.450
Area (mm) 10000.0 Test date 1/1/1904 :
Load of failure (kN) 407.0 Stress (MPa) 40.70
Failure appearance Sat i sfact ory
Notes
Operator
Density (Kg/m) 2450. 0
No parts of this certificate may be reproduced without permission
:
Test results
"L" distance between lower rollers 0.0 Upper bearers number 1
Load rate MPa 0.800
Age 48 zile
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: :
500. 0
0. 0
50. 0
100. 0
150. 0
200. 0
250. 0
300. 0
350. 0
400. 0
450. 0
Time (s)
65. 0 0. 0 5. 0 10. 0 15. 0 20. 0 25. 0 30. 0 35. 0 40. 0 45. 0 50. 0 55. 0 60. 0
Cube
Advantest 9
Compression test on concrete : EN 12 390-3
Certificate number Certificate date 1/29/2014 :
Testing apparatus
Customer
Contact
Specimen type Cem.content kg/m
Cement type Preparation date 12/12/2013 :
Specimen conditions:
On receipt At time of test
Sampling location Sampling date 1/1/1904
Specimen preparation
Specimen ID.
Dimensions 100.0 a(mm) 100.0 b(mm)
100. 0 c(mm) Mass (Kg) 2.450
Area (mm) 10000.0 Test date 1/1/1904 :
Load of failure (kN) 451.5 Stress (MPa) 45.15
Failure appearance Sat i sfact ory
Notes
Operator
Density (Kg/m) 2450. 0
No parts of this certificate may be reproduced without permission
:
Test results
"L" distance between lower rollers 0.0 Upper bearers number 1
Load rate MPa 0.800
Age 48 zile
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: :
500. 0
0. 0
50. 0
100. 0
150. 0
200. 0
250. 0
300. 0
350. 0
400. 0
450. 0
Time (s)
70. 0 0. 0 5. 0 10. 0 15. 0 20. 0 25. 0 30. 0 35. 0 40. 0 45. 0 50. 0 55. 0 60. 0 65. 0
Cube
Advantest 9
Compression test on concrete : EN 12 390-3
Certificate number Certificate date 1/29/2014 :
Testing apparatus
Customer
Contact
Specimen type Cem.content kg/m
Cement type Preparation date 12/12/2013 :
Specimen conditions:
On receipt At time of test
Sampling location Sampling date 1/29/2014
Specimen preparation
Specimen ID.
Dimensions 100.0 a(mm) 100.0 b(mm)
100. 0 c(mm) Mass (Kg) 2.450
Area (mm) 10000.0 Test date 1/29/2014 :
Load of failure (kN) 478.1 Stress (MPa) 47.81
Failure appearance Sat i sfact ory
Notes
Operator
Density (Kg/m) 2450. 0
No parts of this certificate may be reproduced without permission
:
Test results
"L" distance between lower rollers 0.0 Upper bearers number 1
Load rate MPa 0.800
Age 48 zile
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: :
450. 0
0. 0
50. 0
100. 0
150. 0
200. 0
250. 0
300. 0
350. 0
400. 0
Time (s)
65. 0 0. 0 5. 0 10. 0 15. 0 20. 0 25. 0 30. 0 35. 0 40. 0 45. 0 50. 0 55. 0 60. 0
Cube
Advantest 9
Compression test on concrete : EN 12 390-3
Certificate number Certificate date 1/29/2014 :
Testing apparatus
Customer
Contact
Specimen type Cem.content kg/m
Cement type Preparation date 12/12/2013 :
Specimen conditions:
On receipt At time of test
Sampling location Sampling date 1/29/2014
Specimen preparation
Specimen ID.
Dimensions 100.0 a(mm) 100.0 b(mm)
100. 0 c(mm) Mass (Kg) 2.450
Area (mm) 10000.0 Test date 1/29/2014 :
Load of failure (kN) 432.7 Stress (MPa) 43.27
Failure appearance Sat i sfact ory
Notes
Operator
Density (Kg/m) 2450. 0
No parts of this certificate may be reproduced without permission
:
Test results
"L" distance between lower rollers 0.0 Upper bearers number 1
Load rate MPa 0.800
Age 48 zile
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: :
450. 0
0. 0
50. 0
100. 0
150. 0
200. 0
250. 0
300. 0
350. 0
400. 0
Time (s)
65. 0 0. 0 5. 0 10. 0 15. 0 20. 0 25. 0 30. 0 35. 0 40. 0 45. 0 50. 0 55. 0 60. 0
Cube
Advantest 9
Compression test on concrete : EN 12 390-3
Certificate number Certificate date 1/29/2014 :
Testing apparatus
Customer
Contact
Specimen type Cem.content kg/m
Cement type Preparation date 12/12/2013 :
Specimen conditions:
On receipt At time of test
Sampling location Sampling date 1/29/2014
Specimen preparation
Specimen ID.
Dimensions 100.0 a(mm) 100.0 b(mm)
100. 0 c(mm) Mass (Kg) 2.450
Area (mm) 10000.0 Test date 1/29/2014 :
Load of failure (kN) 445.9 Stress (MPa) 44.59
Failure appearance Sat i sfact ory
Notes
Operator
Density (Kg/m) 2450. 0
No parts of this certificate may be reproduced without permission
:
Test results
"L" distance between lower rollers 0.0 Upper bearers number 1
Load rate MPa 0.800
Age 48 zile
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: :


Static elastic modulus determination -
: Customer
: Identifi cation number
: 1/25/2013 Sampl i ng date
: 3/11/2013 Test date
: cond STANDARD Descriptions
TEST RESULTS
: prisma Speci men type
: 100x100x300 mm Dimensions (mm)
: Mass (Kg)
: Notes
: Posi t i on
: 31130.98 Elastic Modulus (N/mm)
: 10000.0 Area mm
: Standard N : 3/11/2013 Standard date
: Testi ng apparatus
Name
: Notes
Page 1 of 3
: Age
: Base of measurement (mm)
: Extensometer no. : Type of extensometer
Specimen description
= 4.68 = 16.64
= 140. 2 = 524. 3
N/mm N/mm
e e
Reference values for elastic modulus elaboration :
20.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
s
500.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0
STRESS / TIME diagram
: Posi t i on
: Standard N : 3/11/2013 St andard
date
: Testing apparatus
Name
: Notes
Page 2 of 3
20.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
e
600.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 550.0
Strain ch 5
Strain ch 6
Strain ch 7
Strain ch 8
Average Strain
Average Strain
STRESS / STRAIN diagram
DEVIATIONS (%) / TIME diagram
: Posi t i on
: Standard N : 3/11/2013 St andard
: Test i ng apparat us
Name
: Notes
Page 3 of 3
Step Max Delta ch5 (%) Max Delta ch6 (%) Max Delta ch7 (%) Max Delta ch8 (%) M (e)
1 19.9 7.0 - - 20.8
2 15.1 8.9 - - 495.9
3 12.7 23.0 - - 76.7
4 10.2 6.3 - - 516.7
5 23.6 32.3 - - 91.1
6 7.5 3.9 - - 528.6
7 29.1 37.6 - - 103.7
8 5.2 1.6 - - 537.7
9 36.4 43.1 - - 113.4
10 2.9 0.0 - - 545.9
11 38.6 45.5 - - 119.6
12 1.3 2.2 - - 550.7
13 41.2 46.2 - - 127.2
50.00
-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
s
500.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0
Strain ch 5
Strain ch 6
Strain ch 7
Strain ch 8
Average Strain
Stress
Scost +
Scost -
10.0 Limits (%)
Cumulated deviations (%) for selected steps
Static elastic modulus determination -
: Customer
: Identifi cation number
: 1/25/2013 Sampl i ng date
: 3/11/2013 Test date
: cond STANDARD Descriptions
TEST RESULTS
: prisma Speci men type
: 100x100x300 mm Dimensions (mm)
: Mass (Kg)
: Notes
: Posi t i on
: 29597.73 Elastic Modulus (N/mm)
: 10000.0 Area mm
: Standard N : 3/11/2013 Standard date
: Testi ng apparatus
Name
: Notes
Page 1 of 3
: Age
: Base of measurement (mm)
: Extensometer no. : Type of extensometer
Specimen description
= 4.67 = 17.23
= 123. 3 = 547. 7
N/mm N/mm
e e
Reference values for elastic modulus elaboration :
20.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
s
325.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0 150.0 175.0 200.0 225.0 250.0 275.0 300.0
STRESS / TIME diagram
: Posi t i on
: Standard N : 3/11/2013 St andard
date
: Testing apparatus
Name
: Notes
Page 2 of 3
20.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
e
700.0 -100.0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0
Strain ch 5
Strain ch 6
Strain ch 7
Strain ch 8
Average Strain
Average Strain
STRESS / STRAIN diagram
DEVIATIONS (%) / TIME diagram
: Posi t i on
: Standard N : 3/11/2013 St andard
: Test i ng apparat us
Name
: Notes
Page 3 of 3
Step Max Delta ch5 (%) Max Delta ch6 (%) Max Delta ch7 (%) Max Delta ch8 (%) M (e)
1 15.8 9.1 - - 20.6
2 9.4 13.8 - - 532.1
3 9.3 23.7 - - 71.7
4 10.5 13.7 - - 543.0
5 18.5 25.9 - - 83.1
6 10.7 13.6 - - 549.0
7 19.3 28.2 - - 88.9
8 10.8 13.9 - - 553.9
9 22.2 27.6 - - 95.5
10 11.0 14.2 - - 557.7
11 21.9 29.5 - - 100.2
12 11.0 14.5 - - 561.2
13 24.5 30.5 - - 105.6
50.00
-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
s
320.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 240.0 260.0 280.0 300.0
Strain ch 5
Strain ch 6
Strain ch 7
Strain ch 8
Average Strain
Stress
Scost +
Scost -
15.0 Limits (%)
Cumulated deviations (%) for selected steps
Company Universitatea Tehnica din Cluj-Napoca
Laboratory Name Laborator Incercarea materialelor
Operator ID Dudescu
Rate 1 2.00000 mm/min
Humidity (%) 50.00000
Temperature (deg C) 18.00
Number of specimens in sample 10
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-10 0 10 20 30
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Tensile strain (%)
Specimen 1 to 6
Specimen #
1
2
3
4
5
6
Specimen
label
Diameter
(mm)
Maximum
Load
(N)
Tensile
stress at
Maximum
Load
(MPa)
Tensile
strain at
Maximum
Load
(%)
Load at
Break
(Standard)
(N)
Tensile
stress at
Break
(Standard)
(MPa)
1 Alu - 1mm -1 1.00000 432.85 551.13 24.99 342.76 436.42
2 1.00000 370.28 471.45 19.98 235.45 299.78
3 Alu-1mm-2 1.00000 391.49 498.46 23.41 304.25 387.38
4 Bara Alu 1 3.00000 2,227.68 315.15 1.41 1,938.05 274.18
5 Bara Alu 2 3.00000 2,685.56 379.93 1.44 1,960.97 277.42
6 Bara Alu 3 3.00000 2,126.97 300.90 2.32 844.46 119.47
Coefficient
of Variation
54.77226 78.97589 24.49112 95.12742 86.70570 36.62643
Maximum 3.00000 2,685.56 551.13 24.99 1,960.97 436.42
Mean 2.00000 1,372.47 419.50 12.26 937.66 299.11
Median 2.00000 1,279.91 425.69 11.15 593.61 288.60
Minimum 1.00000 370.28 300.90 1.41 235.45 119.47
Range 2.00000 2,315.28 250.22 23.58 1,725.52 316.95
Standard
Deviation
1.09545
1,083.921
96
102.74147 11.65902 813.00174 109.55227
Mean + 1
SD
3.09545 2,456.39 522.25 23.92 1,750.66 408.66
Mean - 1
SD
0.90455 288.55 316.76 0.60 124.65 189.55
Page 1 of 2
Tensile
strain at
Break
(Standard)
(%)
Tensile
stress at
Yield (Zero
Slope)
(MPa)
Modulus (E-
modulus)
(MPa)
1 27.09 551.13 96,849.82
2 20.97 471.45 92,424.40
3 25.01 498.46 105,549.46
4 1.58 315.15 59,380.64
5 1.73 379.93 77,485.08
6 2.86 300.90 60,635.39
Coefficient
of Variation
93.74427 24.49112 23.58262
Maximum 27.09 551.13 105,549.46
Mean 13.21 419.50 82,054.13
Median 11.92 425.69 84,954.74
Minimum 1.58 300.90 59,380.64
Range 25.51 250.22 46,168.82
Standard
Deviation
12.37897 102.74147
19,350.512
10
Mean + 1
SD
25.58 522.25 101,404.65
Mean - 1
SD
0.83 316.76 62,703.62
Page 2 of 2
Company Universitatea Tehnica din Cluj-Napoca
Laboratory Name Laborator Incercarea materialelor
Operator ID Dudescu
Rate 1 2.00000 mm/min
Humidity (%) 50.00000
Temperature (deg C) 18.00
Number of specimens in sample 10
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Tensile strain (%)
Specimen 1 to 4
Specimen #
1
2
3
4
Specimen
label
Diameter
(mm)
Maximum
Load
(N)
Tensile
stress at
Maximum
Load
(MPa)
Tensile
strain at
Maximum
Load
(%)
Load at
Break
(Standard)
(N)
Tensile
stress at
Break
(Standard)
(MPa)
1 Sirma 1.00000 350.17 445.85 16.39 94.50 120.32
2 Sirma 1.00000 402.63 512.64 21.77 221.72 282.30
X 3 Sirma 1.00000 323.51 411.91 14.09 95.42 121.49
4 Sirma 1.00000 434.50 553.22 14.92 227.48 289.64
Coefficient
of Variation
0.00000 10.75960 10.75961 20.39050 41.47709 41.47708
Maximum 1.00000 434.50 553.22 21.77 227.48 289.64
Mean 1.00000 395.76 503.90 17.69 181.23 230.75
Median 1.00000 402.63 512.64 16.39 221.72 282.30
Minimum 1.00000 350.17 445.85 14.92 94.50 120.32
Range 0.00000 84.33 107.38 6.85 132.99 169.32
Standard
Deviation
0.00000 42.58274 54.21803 3.60797 75.17049 95.71004
Mean + 1
SD
1.00000 438.35 558.12 21.30 256.40 326.46
Mean - 1
SD
1.00000 353.18 449.69 14.09 106.06 135.04
Page 1 of 2
Tensile
strain at
Break
(Standard)
(%)
Tensile
stress at
Yield (Zero
Slope)
(MPa)
Modulus (E-
modulus)
(MPa)
1 17.55 445.85 140,904.94
2 24.72 512.64 138,160.57
X 3 15.21 411.91 85,206.98
4 16.44 553.22 147,287.78
Coefficient
of Variation
22.96067 10.75961 3.29509
Maximum 24.72 553.22 147,287.78
Mean 19.57 503.90 142,117.77
Median 17.55 512.64 140,904.94
Minimum 16.44 445.85 138,160.57
Range 8.28 107.38 9,127.21
Standard
Deviation
4.49398 54.21803
4,682.9147
0
Mean + 1
SD
24.07 558.12 146,800.68
Mean - 1
SD
15.08 449.69 137,434.85
Page 2 of 2
Company Universitatea Tehnica din Cluj-Napoca
Laboratory Name Laborator Incercarea materialelor
Operator ID Dudescu
Rate 1 2.00000 mm/min
Humidity (%) 50.00000
Temperature (deg C) 18.00
Number of specimens in sample 10
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Tensile strain (%)
Specimen 1 to 2
Specimen #
1
2
Specimen
label
Diameter
(mm)
Maximum
Load
(N)
Tensile
stress at
Maximum
Load
(MPa)
Tensile
strain at
Maximum
Load
(%)
Load at
Break
(Standard)
(N)
Tensile
stress at
Break
(Standard)
(MPa)
1 Tija filetata 3.00000 3,471.92 491.18 2.09 3,195.10 452.01
2 Tija filetata 3.00000 3,526.43 498.89 2.68 3,194.46 451.92
Coefficient
of Variation
0.00000 1.10150 1.10150 17.42125 0.01410 0.01410
Maximum 3.00000 3,526.43 498.89 2.68 3,195.10 452.01
Mean 3.00000 3,499.18 495.03 2.38 3,194.78 451.97
Median 3.00000 3,499.18 495.03 2.38 3,194.78 451.97
Minimum 3.00000 3,471.92 491.18 2.09 3,194.46 451.92
Range 0.00000 54.51 7.71 0.59 0.64 0.09
Standard
Deviation
0.00000 38.54350 5.45278 0.41504 0.45055 0.06374
Mean + 1
SD
3.00000 3,537.72 500.49 2.80 3,195.23 452.03
Mean - 1
SD
3.00000 3,460.64 489.58 1.97 3,194.33 451.91
Page 1 of 2
Tensile
strain at
Break
(Standard)
(%)
Tensile
stress at
Yield (Zero
Slope)
(MPa)
Modulus (E-
modulus)
(MPa)
1 2.17 491.18 64,953.28
2 2.92 498.89 65,505.92
Coefficient
of Variation
21.04166 1.10150 0.59908
Maximum 2.92 498.89 65,505.92
Mean 2.55 495.03 65,229.60
Median 2.55 495.03 65,229.60
Minimum 2.17 491.18 64,953.28
Range 0.76 7.71 552.64
Standard
Deviation
0.53559 5.45278 390.77749
Mean + 1
SD
3.08 500.49 65,620.38
Mean - 1
SD
2.01 489.58 64,838.82
Page 2 of 2
Company Universitatea Tehnica din Cluj-Napoca
Laboratory Name Laborator Incercarea materialelor
Operator ID Dudescu
Rate 1 2.00000 mm/min
Humidity (%) 50.00000
Temperature (deg C) 18.00
Number of specimens in sample 10
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-1 0 1 2 3 4
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Tensile strain (%)
Specimen 1 to 2
Specimen #
1
2
Specimen
label
Diameter
(mm)
Maximum
Load
(N)
Tensile
stress at
Maximum
Load
(MPa)
Tensile
strain at
Maximum
Load
(%)
Load at
Break
(Standard)
(N)
Tensile
stress at
Break
(Standard)
(MPa)
1 Tija filetata 4.00000 5,260.08 418.58 2.18 4,323.48 344.05
2 Tija filetata 4.00000 5,366.12 427.02 3.29 4,380.59 348.60
Coefficient
of Variation
0.00000 1.41125 1.41126 28.52067 0.92782 0.92782
Maximum 4.00000 5,366.12 427.02 3.29 4,380.59 348.60
Mean 4.00000 5,313.10 422.80 2.73 4,352.03 346.32
Median 4.00000 5,313.10 422.80 2.73 4,352.03 346.32
Minimum 4.00000 5,260.08 418.58 2.18 4,323.48 344.05
Range 0.00000 106.04 8.44 1.10 57.10 4.54
Standard
Deviation
0.00000 74.98135 5.96684 0.78001 40.37921 3.21327
Mean + 1
SD
4.00000 5,388.08 428.77 3.51 4,392.41 349.54
Mean - 1
SD
4.00000 5,238.12 416.84 1.95 4,311.66 343.11
Page 1 of 2
Tensile
strain at
Break
(Standard)
(%)
Tensile
stress at
Yield (Zero
Slope)
(MPa)
Modulus (E-
modulus)
(MPa)
1 2.39 418.58 67,446.12
2 3.52 426.59 63,550.84
Coefficient
of Variation
27.05040 1.33971 4.20526
Maximum 3.52 426.59 67,446.12
Mean 2.95 422.59 65,498.48
Median 2.95 422.59 65,498.48
Minimum 2.39 418.58 63,550.84
Range 1.13 8.01 3,895.28
Standard
Deviation
0.79858 5.66145
2,754.3803
0
Mean + 1
SD
3.75 428.25 68,252.86
Mean - 1
SD
2.15 416.93 62,744.10
Page 2 of 2
References
[1] MONCARZ P.D, KRAWINKLER H. Theory and application of experimental model
analysis in earthquake engineering, 1981
[2] HARRIS H.G, SABNIS G.M. Structural modeling and experimental techniques, 1999
[3] LU X, FU G, SHI W, LU W. Shake table model testing and its applications, 2008
[4] WU J .J , CARTMELL M.P, WHITTAKER A.R. Prediction of the vibration
characteristics of a full-size structure from those of a scale model, 2002
[5] KIM W, EL-ATTAR A, WHITE R.N. Small-scale modeling techniques for reinforced
concrete structures subjected to seismic loads, 1998
[6] BUCKINGHAM E. On physically similar systems: illustrations of the use of
dimensional equations, 1914
[7] MANEA D.L, NETEA A.G, ACIU C. Materiale de constructii si chimie aplicata, 2010
[8] HUERTA S, Technical challenges in the constructions of gothic vaults: the gothic
theory of structural design, 2012
[9] DEHOUSSE N.M, ARNOULD R. Les modles reduits de structures en gnie civil,
1971
[10] BARSAN G.M. Dinamica si stabilitatea constructiilor, 1979
[11] HEGHES B.H, CHIOREAN A, LETIA C, MAGUREANU C. Beton armat: indrumator
de laborator, 2007
[12] KISS Z, ONET T. Proiectarea structurilor de beton dupa SR EN 1992-1, 2008
[13] HARRIS H.G, PAHL P.J , SHARMA S.D. Dynamic studies of structures by means of
models, 1962
[14] HARRIS D.W, SNORTELAND N, DOLEN T, TRAVERS F. Shaking table 2.D models
of a concrete gravity dam, 2000
[15] CHOPRA A.K. Dynamics of structures third edition, 2007
[16] LUBLINER J , OLIVER J , OLLER S, ONATE E. A plastic-damage model for
concrete, 1989
[17] LEE J , FENVES G.L. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures,
1998
[18] HU H.T, LIN F.M, LIU H.T, HUANG Y.F, PAN T.C. Constitutive modeling of
reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete structures strengthened by fiber-reinforced
plastics, 2009
[19] SAENZ L.P. Discussion of Equation for the stress-strain curve of concrete, 1964
[20] J ANKOWIAK T, LODYGOWSKI T. Identification of parameters of concrete damage
plasticity constitutive model, 2005
[21] CHIRA A, BURU S.M. Analiza neliniara a structurilor Indrumator de laborator, 2014
[22] ABAQUS, INC. Abaqus analysis users manual and theory manual, v6.12
[23] SR EN 1990 Eurocod: Bazele proiectarii structurilor, 2004
[24] SR EN 1991-1-1 Eurocod 1: Actiuni asupra structurilor. Partea 1-1: Actiuni generale
Greutati specifice, greutati poprii, incarcari utile pentru cladiri, 2004
[25] SR EN 1992-1-1 Eurocod 2: Proiectarea structurilor de beton. Partea 1-1: Reguli
generale si reguli pentru cladiri, 2006
[26] P100-1 Cod de proiectare seismic. Partea 1: Prevederi de proiectare pentru cladiri,
2013