ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Milwaukee, WI

Calibration and Validation of LDPM for Shear Failure

in GFRP Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups

Sina Khodaie*, Fabio Matta, Mohammed Alnaggar

* Presenter | khodaie@email.sc.edu
 1. Problem
Calibration and Validation of LDPM for Shear Failure in GFRP-RC Beams without Stirrupsstatement

Objectives

 Calibration and validation of Lattice Discrete

Particle Model1 (LDPM) of concrete based on
experimental and literature-based data

 Assessment of simulation based on experimental

results of scaled GFRP RC beams without shear
reinforcement2

1 Cusatis et al. (Cement and Concrete Composites 2011)

2 Matta et al. (ACI SP-286 2012, ACI Structural Journal 2013)

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 2 | 22

 Calibration and Validation of LDPM for Shear Failure in GFRP-RC Beams without Stirrups

Outline
1. Significance

2. Problem statement

3. Lattice Discrete Particle Model (LDPM)

4. Calibration of LDPM parameters

5. Beam simulation and model validation

6. Concluding remarks

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 3 | 22

 1. Problem
Calibration and Validation of LDPM for Shear Failure in GFRP-RC Beams without Stirrupsstatement

1. Significance

 Glass FRP (GFRP) RC members without

(or with minimum) shear reinforcement:

 Bridge decks
 Slab bridges
 Retaining walls (wall and foundation)
 Seawalls

 Corrosion resistance Glass FRP (GFRP) bars

 Lower axial stiffness  Tensile strength ~700 MPa

 Elastic modulus ~40 GPa
 Lower shear strength  Weight ~1/4th that of steel

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 4 | 22

 1. Problem
Calibration and Validation of LDPM for Shear Failure in GFRP-RC Beams without Stirrupsstatement

2. Problem statement
d (in)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
 Size effect on shear strength of 0.25 3.0

) (MPa0.5 )

) (psi0.5 )
GFRP RC members without 0.20 d
2.5
stirrups 2.0
0.15

0.5
0.5
bw 1.5

Vexp / (bwd fc
Vexp / (bwd fc
 Modified Compression Field 0.10
Theory (MCFT)1 1.0
0.05 0.5
 Fracture mechanics and
statistical analysis2 0.00 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
d (mm)
1 Collins and Kuchma (ACI Structural Journal 1999) Matta et al. (ACI Structural Journal 2013)
2 Bažant et al. (ACI Structural Journal 2007)

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 5 | 22

 1. 2.
Problem
Problemstatement
statement

MCFT1: load-resisting V
mechanisms and size effect
M
 Aggregate interlock is primary shear-resisting
mechanism

 Maximum shear stress is function of concrete

compressive strength, maximum aggregate
size and crack width

 Size effect is attributed to wider cracks with

reduced contribution of aggregate interlocking
ax

1 Collins and Kuchma (ACI Structural Journal 1999)

ay

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 6 | 22

 2. Problem statement

Fracture mechanics1: load-resisting

mechanisms and size effect V

 Failure by shear-compression
fracture above critical crack M

 Size effect based on ratio of

Fracture Process Zone (FPZ)
length to depth of uncracked
concrete ligament

 Compressive stress profile at

failure more localized as beam
depth increases

1 Bažant & Yu (Journal of Structural Engineering 2005)

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 7 | 22

 1. Problem
Calibration and Validation of LDPM for Shear Failure in GFRP-RC Beams without Stirrupsstatement

3. Lattice Discrete Particle Model (LDPM)

LDPM geometry

 Simulates concrete at meso scale

(aggregate and mortar)

 Size and distribution based on

actual aggregate distribution

 Rigid body kinematics to describe

displacement of particles

Cusatis et al. (Cement and Concrete Composites 2011)

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 8 | 22

 3. Lattice Discrete Particle model (LDPM)

Fracture behavior in LDPM constitutive laws

 Tension-softening based on
cohesive crack model

 σ-ε curve and strength limit

depend on interaction
between tension and shear

Cusatis et al. (Cement and Concrete Composites 2011)

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 9 | 22

 3. Lattice Discrete Particle model (LDPM)

Frictional behavior in LDPM constitutive laws

 Shear-friction constitutive law

allows simulating aggregate
interlocking

 Shear strength increases with

presence of compressive stresses

Cusatis et al. (Cement and Concrete Composites 2011)

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 10 | 22

 1. Problem
Calibration and Validation of LDPM for Shear Failure in GFRP-RC Beams without Stirrupsstatement

4. Calibration of LDPM parameters

50

 LDPM geometric parameters 40

Stress [MPa]
 LDPM material parameters 30

 Uniaxial compression stress-strain data 20

10

0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Strain [-]

Diameter = 101 mm
Length = 203 mm
Ec = 27.6 ± 5.5 GPa
f'c = 40.3 ± 5.1 MPa
Number of specimens: 30

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 11 | 22

 1. Problem
4. Calibration statement
of LDPM parameters

LDPM material
Calibration strategy
parameters

 Macroscopic parameters  Elastic behavior

 Related test data  Fracture in pure tension
 Reasonable ranges from:  Fracture in shear-tension
(1) available test results;
 Frictional behavior
and (2) literature datasets
 Parametric study (vis-à-vis
experimental σ-ε envelope
from cylinder tests)

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 12 | 22

 1. Problem
4. Calibration statement
of LDPM parameters

Parametric study of meso-scale material parameters

Pure tension Tension/shear Friction

 Tensile strength (σt)  Shear strength ratio (σs /σt)

 Initial friction (μ0)
 Tensile characteristic length (lt)  Softening exponent (nt)

60 60 60
Experimental Experimental Experimental μ0 = 0.6
50 envelope lt = 500 mm 50 envelope σs /σt = 6 50 envelope

Stress [MPa]
Stress [MPa]
Stress [MPa]

40 40 40 μ0 = 0.4
lt = 300 mm
30 30 σs /σt = 5 30 μ0 = 0.2
20 20 20 μ0 = 0.1
10 lt = 180 mm 10 σs /σt = 4.2 10
lt = 100 mm σs /σt = 3
0 0 0
0 0.0025 0.005 0 0.0025 0.005 0 0.0025 0.005
Strain [-] Strain [-] Strain [-]

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 13 | 22

 1. Problem
4. Calibration statement
of LDPM parameters

Calibrated model
60

Cement mass content [kg/m3] c 508.5 50

Experimental envelope

Water-to-cement ratio w/c 0.4

Stress [MPa]
40

Aggregate-to-cement ratio a/c 5.2 30

Maximum aggregate size [mm] da 12.7 20

Fuller coefficient nF 0.48 10

Minimum aggregate size [mm] d0 6 0

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Normal modulus [GPa] E0 40 Strain [-]

Shear-normal coupling parameter α 0.24

Tensile strength [MPa] σt 3.6
Tensile characteristic length [mm] lt 180
Shear strength ratio σs/σt 4.2
Softening exponent nt 0.2
Initial friction μ0 0.2

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 14 | 22

 1. Problem
Calibration and Validation of LDPM for Shear Failure in GFRP-RC Beams without Stirrupsstatement

5. Simulation and validation of beam test results

GM
GS

d = 292
Test setup

d = 146

h = 330
h = 178
 s / d = 3.1 for lower-bound Vc *
 ld for development length 1Ø16
* Kani (ACI Journal 1967) GFRP bw = 229 1Ø16
GFRP bw = 114
(Dimensions in mm)
Shear load
GFRP bar

ld s m s ld
L (up to 3.36 m)

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 15 | 22

 5. Beam simulation and model validation

GFRP-RC beam model 12

Upper bound

Bond stress [MPa]

10
 Concrete-loading plate and 8
concrete-support plates
6
 Penalty contact method
4 Lower bound
 Concrete-GFRP bar 2
 Perfect bond (preliminary) 0
 Experimentally validated 0 5 10 15 20
nonlinear bond-slip law Slip [mm]
Baena et al. (Composites: Part B 2009)
Lettow (PhD dissertation 2006)
 GFRP bar
 Modified shear stiffness multiplier
(in Reissner formulation)
 Tsai-Hill failure criterion
          
2 2 2

 T 1    1 22    T 2    12   1
  1 ult    T1      2 ult    12 ult 
 ult 

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 16 | 22

 5. Beam simulation and model validation

Strength and load-deflection response

 Perfect bond: Ve Vb
Vn [kN]
VLDPM
Specimen ACI ACI
[kN] [kN] [kN]
 GS failure: GFRP rupture 440 446
GS1 44.2
 GM failure: diagonal tension GS2 46.0
43.8 11.5 20.7 49.3
(distributed cracking along GFRP GM1 22.7
bar in shear spans) 43.7 11.4 17.3 36.7
GM2 17.8

60 40
Simulation upper-bound
50

Shear load, V [kN]

Shear load, V [kN]

30
40

30
20
20 GS1
GS2 GM1
10 Simulation 10 GM2
GFRP bar shear-tension failure Simulation
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0
Midspan deflection [mm] 0 10 20 30 40
Midspan deflection [mm]
ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 17 | 22
 5. Beam simulation and model validation

Simulation crack maps and bond stress (perfect bond)

40
V = 20 kN
30
V = 20 kN s m s

Bond stress [MPa]

20

10

GS 0
40
V = 40 kN
V = 40 kN 30

20

10

0
0 300 600 900 1200
Beam length [mm]

40
V = 16 kN 30
V = 16 kN
s m s

Bond stress [MPa]

20

GM 10

0
40
V = 25 kN 30
V = 25 kN

20

10

0.1 1 ≥2 0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
Beam length [mm]
Crack opening (mm)

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 18 | 22

 1. Problem
5. Beam simulation statement
and model validation

70
GFRP bar shear-tension failure
60
Load-deflection response

Shear load, V [kN]

50
(nonlinear bond-slip law)
40

30

20 GS1
 Good agreement for GS load- GS2
10
deflection curves irrespective of Bond strength = 10.4 MPa
0
bond law (similar crack patterns) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Midspan deflection [mm]
 Different crack patterns for GM
depending on bond model 40

Shear load, V [kN]

 Diagonal crack at V = 23 kN with 30

lower-bound bond strength

20

 Follow-on simulations (da, d, steel GM1

bars) 10
GM2
Bond strength = 10.4 MPa
Bond strength = 8.4 MPa
0
0 10 20 30 40
Midspan deflection [mm]
ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 19 | 22
 5. Beam simulation and model validation

Comparison of crack maps for GM (bond strength = 8.4 MPa)

V = 15 kN

19 kN

24 kN

0 15000 30000 0.1 1 ≥2

Principal tensile strain (με) Crack opening (mm)

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 20 | 22

 1. Problem
5. Beam simulation statement
and model validation

Comparison of crack maps for GS (bond strength = 10.4 MPa)

V = 25 kN

35 kN

42 kN

0 15000 30000 0.1 1 ≥2

Principal tensile strain (με) Crack opening (mm)

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 21 | 22

 1. Problem
Calibration and Validation of LDPM for Shear Failure in GFRP-RC Beams without Stirrupsstatement

6. Concluding remarks

 LDPM geometric and material parameters were calibrated and validated

vis-à-vis experimental σ-ε envelope from cylinder tests

 GS beam model: irrespective of bond-slip law, accurately approximates

 Pre- and post-cracking response (load-displacement, crack evolution)
 Strength and failure mode (GFRP bar rupture along shear span instead
of shear failure)

 GM beam model:
 Accurately approximates pre- and post-cracking response until bond
stress may result in cover delamination (bond-slip law is important)
 Fails to capture strength and failure mode for perfect bond
 Strength and failure mode for proper bond-slip law (shear failure with
diagonal tension crack)

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Khodaie et al. 22 | 22

ACI Spring Convention 2016 | April 19, 2016 | Milwaukee, WI

Acknowledgements
 University of South Carolina
 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
 R.L. Sumwalt, Sr. Endowed Fund
 Paul Sagona

 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

 Engineering and Software System Solution (ES3)

 Daniele Pelessone
 Xinwei Zhou

Khodaie@email.sc.edu | www.ce.sc.edu