Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

106 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- metals
- Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture09-5
- Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing) Vol. 8,
- Towards
- 4731775
- Modelagem de conformação de corte por cisalhamento utilizando software abaqus
- Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering Free Download'
- Impact Analysis of a Concrete Storage Container
- Dissertation Schoettler 3412262[1]
- Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Review
- 03-18
- 9fcfd50fabd73b4ea2
- Plastic Hinge Length of Reinforced Concrete Columns.
- Concrete
- DoTienThinh4.2008
- Mechanical & Physical Properties V2
- DIAB Guide to Core and Sandwich P1r2 Locked
- WPH01_01_rms_20160817
- 109CE0454.pdf
- Proofread

You are on page 1of 18

2 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

Abstract: A parametric study is performed to assess the influence of the tension reinforcement

index, (ω = ρ fy /f Bc), and the bending moment distribution (loading type) on the ultimate

deformation characteristics of reinforced concrete (RC) beams. The analytical results for 15 simply

supported beams with different amounts of tension reinforcement ratio under three different loading

conditions are presented and compared with the predictions of the various formulations and the

experimental data, where available. The plastic hinge rotation capacity increases as the loading is

changed from the concentrated load at the middle to the third-point loading, and it is a maximum

for the case of the uniformly distributed load. The effect of the loading type on the plastic rotation

capacity of the heavily reinforced beams is not as significant as that for the lightly reinforced beams.

Based on the analytical results obtained using the nonlinear finite element method, new simple

equations as a function of the tension reinforcement index, ω, and the loading type are proposed.

The analytical results indicate that the proposed equations can be used for analysis of ultimate

capacity and the associated deformations of RC beams with sufficient accuracy.

Keywords: Nonlinear Analysis, Finite Element, Plastic Hinge, Reinforced Concrete, Rotation

Capacity

It is well established that the inelastic The plastic hinge rotation, θp, of RC beams

behavior of Reinforced Concrete (RC) depends on a number of parameters including

sections leads to a redistribution of moments the definition of yielding and ultimate

and forces, resulting in an increased load curvatures, section geometry, material

carrying capacity of the members and the properties, compression and tension

indeterminate structure. As the applied load reinforcement ratios, transverse

is increased, hinges start forming in reinforcement, cracking and tension-

succession at locations where the hinge stiffening, the stress-strain curve for the

moment capacity is reached; with further concrete in tension and compression, the

increase in the applied load, these hinges stress-strain curve for the reinforcing steel,

continue to rotate until the last hinge forms bond-slip characteristics between the

converting the structure into a mechanism concrete and the reinforcing steel, support

resulting in failure. conditions and the magnitude and type of

loading, axial force, width of the loading

Kheyroddin has reviewed the various limit plate, influence of shear, and the presence of

design methods which have been proposed column. Several researchers have

based on the concepts of limit equilibrium, investigated this problem; however,

serviceability, and rotational compatibility in individual researchers differ even on the

terms of the available rotation at the plastic basic definition of what is to be taken as the

hinge being larger than the rotation required plastic rotation capacity. Some of these

contradictions among the various researchers

are partly due to the definition of the ultimate

limit state, and the different test conditions

such as the specimen dimensions, loading

plate geometry, and the method of

application and type of loads on the beam.

Some equations have been proposed to

calculate the plastic hinge length and the

inelastic rotation capacity; however, there is

no general agreement on the techniques to

evaluate the inelastic behavioral

characteristics of indeterminate concrete

structures.

typical cantilever beam subjected to uniform

load are shown in Fig. 1. For values of loads

Fig.1 Schematic Curvature Distribution along Beam at

smaller than the yielding moment, My, the Ultimate Stage:

(a) Beam, (b) Bending Moment Diagram,

curvature increases gradually from the free (c) CurvatureDiagram

end of a cantilever (point A) to the column

face (point B). There is a large increase in the moment, My, or the distance between the

curvature at first yield of the tension steel. At critical section and the location where

the ultimate load stage, the value of the tension steel first yields (Fig. 1) and φ (x) is

curvature at the support increases suddenly the curvature at a distance x from the critical

so that it causes large inelastic deformations. section at the ultimate load stage.

Since the concrete between the cracks can

carry some tension (tension-stiffening), the The shaded area in Fig. 1(c) is the plastic

curvature fluctuates along the beam length. (inelastic) rotation, θp that occurs in addition

Each of the peaks of curvature corresponds to to the elastic rotation at the plastic hinge at

a crack location. The actual distribution of the ultimate load stage. The plastic hinge

curvature at the ultimate load stage can be rotation can be determined either by the

idealized into elastic and inelastic (plastic) calculation of shaded area or by an

regions [Fig. 1(c)], thus the total rotation, θt, equivalent rectangle of height (φu−φy) and

over the beam length can be divided into width lp. Using Eq. 1, the equivalent plastic

elastic, θe, and plastic, θp, rotations. The hinge length, lp, can be defined as:

elastic rotation, θe, (until yielding of steel)

∫ >I ( x) I @dx

1 ly

can be obtained using the curvature at lp (2)

Iu I y

y

0

yielding. With reference to Fig. 1, the plastic

hinge rotation, θp, on each side of the critical Therefore, the value of plastic hinge rotation,

section, can be determined as: θp, at ultimate stage can be calculated easily

by the following well-known equation:

∫ >I ( x) I @dx

ly

Tp (1)

6 p 1u

1 y l p 1 p l p

y

0

(3)

In which ly is the beam length over which the

bending moment is larger than the yielding Where φu and φy are the curvatures at the

a) Plain Concrete b) Steel Reinforcement

Fig.2 Uniaxial Stress-Strain Curves

ultimate load and yielding, respectively and 2.Nonlinear Finite Element Program

lp is the equivalent length of the plastic hinge

over which the plastic curvature, (φp=φu−φy), A nonlinear finite element analysis program,

is assumed to be constant. Equation 3 results NONLACS2 (NONLinear Analysis of

in the same area as the actual plastic Concrete and Steel Structures), developed by

curvature distribution (Shaded area in Fig. 1). Kheyroddin [1], is used to analyze the

A survey of the literature shows that most selected RC beams. The program can be used

researchers first calculate the equivalent to predict the nonlinear behavior of any plain,

plastic hinge length, lp, and then the plastic reinforced or prestressed concrete, steel, or

rotation, θp, is determined using equation 3. composite concrete-steel structure that is

composed of thin plate members with plane

In this paper, a nonlinear layered finite stress conditions. This includes beams, slabs

element program is used for determination of (plates), shells, folded plates, box girders,

the yielding length, plastic hinge length and shear walls, or any combination of these

the plastic hinge rotation. In fact, at first the structural elements. Time-dependent effects

plastic rotation is determined and then the such as creep and shrinkage can also be

equivalent plastic hinge length is derived considered.

only for comparison. The advantage of the

present study is that the yielding length and 2.1. Concrete Properties

the "exact" value of plastic rotation (shaded As shown in Fig. 2(a), the uniaxial stress-

area in Fig. 1b) can be determined with more strain curve of concrete adopted in this study

accuracy without using the concept of the is made of two parts. The ascending branch

equivalent plastic hinge length. Further, a up to the peak compressive strength is

parametric study is performed to examine the represented by the equation proposed by

influence of tension reinforcement index and Saenz [2]:

the loading type on the ultimate deformation

characteristics of RC beams and new E0H (4)

V 2

equations are developed to consider the ⎛ E ⎞⎛ H ⎞ ⎛ H ⎞

1 ⎜⎜ 0

2 ⎟⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟

influence of the various parameters on the ⎝ E SC ⎠⎝ H max ⎠ ⎝ H max ⎠

calculation of the plastic hinge rotation.

Attention is focused on the plastic rotation Where E0 is the initial modulus of elasticity

capacity at the ultimate limit state only. of the concrete, Esc is the secant modulus of

the concrete at the peak stress, σ is the stress, of E1, E2 and v are functions of the level of

å is the strain, and εmax is the strain at peak stress, and the stress combinations. The

stress. The descending or the strain-softening concrete strength when subjected to biaxial

branch is idealized by the Smith and Young stresses is determined using the failure

model [3]: envelope developed by Kupfer et al. [5]. The

values of E1 and E2 for a given stress ratio

⎛ 0 ⎞ 0

8 8 c ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ exp( 1

) (5) (α =σ1/σ2) are found as the slopes of the

0

⎝ max ⎠ 0 max

σ1-ε1 and σ2-ε2 curves, respectively. For the

Where σc is the compressive strength of the descending branches of both compression

concrete. For uniaxially loaded concrete, σc and tension stress-strain curves, Ei is set

is equal to f cB . For high-strength concrete, the equal to a very small number, 0.0001, to

compressive stress-strain response is avoid computational problems associated

modeled using a modified form of the with a negative and zero values for Ei. The

Popovics' Equation (see [1]). concrete is considered to be crushed, when

the equivalent compressive strain in the

For analysis of most plane stress problems, principal directions exceeds the ultimate

concrete is assumed to behave as a stress- compressive strain of the concrete, εcu. For

induced orthotropic material. In this study determination of the concrete ultimate

the orthotropic constitutive relationship compressive strain, εcu, two models for

developed by Darwin and Pecknold [4] is unconfined high and normal-strength

used for modeling the concrete using the concrete [6] and confined concretes [7] are

smeared cracking idealization. The implemented in the program.

constitutive matrix, D, is given by:

For elimination of the numerical difficulties

⎡ ⎤

⎢ E1 Q E1E2 0 ⎥ after crushing (ε >εcu) and cracking of the

D

1 ⎢

Q E1E2 E2 0 ⎥ (6) concrete (ε >εtu), a small amount of

(1 Q 2 ) ⎢ ⎥

⎢ 0 0

1

(E1 E2 2Q E1E2 )⎥ compressive and tensile stress as a fraction of

⎢⎣ ⎥⎦

4 concrete strength, γ c f cB and γ t f tB, is assigned

In which, E1 and E2 are the tangent module in (optional) at a high level of stress [Fig. 2(a)],

the directions of the material orthotropy, and where parameters γc and γt define the

v is the Poisson's ratio. The orthotropic remaining compressive and tensile strength

material directions coincide with the factors, respectively.

principal stress directions for the uncracked

concrete and these directions are parallel and Cracking of the concrete is idealized using

normal to the cracks for the cracked concrete. the smeared cracking model, and is assumed

The concept of the "equivalent uniaxial to occur when the principal tensile stress at a

strain" developed by Darwin and Pecknold point exceeds the tensile strength of the

[4] is utilized to relate the increments of concrete.

stress and strain in the principal directions.

Therefore, stress-strain curves similar to the 2.2. Reinforcing Bar Properties

uniaxial stress-strain curves can be used to The reinforcing bars are modeled as an

formulate the required stress-strain curves in elastic strain-hardening material as shown in

each principal direction. Fig. 2(b). The reinforcing bars can be

modeled either as smeared layers or as

The strength of concrete, σc, and the values individual bars. In both cases, perfect bond is

Fig.3 Some Typical Finite Elements in NONLACS2 Program

assumed between the steel and the concrete. quadrature point. The history, capability,

element library, constitutive models and the

2.3. Finite Element Formulation limitations of the NONLACS2 program are

The element library includes plane presented by Kheyroddin [1].

membrane, plate bending, one dimensional

bar, spring boundary elements as well as a

facet shell element which is a combination of 3. Analysis of Reinforced Concrete

the plane membrane and the plate bending Beam,C5

elements. Figure 3 shows some of these

elements and the associated degrees of One simply supported beam, C5, subjected to

freedom. The program employs a layered a midspan-concentrated loading tested by

finite element approach. The structure is Mattock [8] is analyzed using the

idealized as an assemblage of thin constant NONLACS2 program and a finite element

thickness plate elements with each element mesh with 88 elements (Fig. 4). This beam is

subdivided into a number of imaginary layers also used for further parametric studies. The

as shown in Fig. 3(c). A layer can be either of experimental material properties for the

concrete, smeared reinforcing steel or a concrete and the reinforcing steel are

continuous steel plate. Each layer is assumed presented in Table 1. Since the reinforcement

to be in a state of plane stress, and can and the loading are symmetrical with respect

assume any state - uncracked, partially to the mid span, only one half of the beams is

cracked, fully cracked, non-yielded, yielded modeled. The vertical loads are applied in 30

and crushed - depending on the stress or load steps with smaller increments of loads

strain conditions. Analysis is performed being applied just before the beam reaches its

using an incremental-iterative tangent ultimate load stage. This would improve the

stiffness approach, and the element stiffness rate of convergence of the solution and the

is obtained by adding the stiffness accuracy in predicting the ultimate load. The

contributions of all layers at each Gauss details of geometry, reinforcement, loading

Table 1. Dimensions and Properties of Beam C5

As (mm2) A´s (mm2) f´c (MPa) E0 (MPa) εcu f´t (MPa) fy (MPa) Es (MPa) Es* (MPa) εsu

1135.5 142.0 23.4 23145 0.0078 3.0 328.2 195130 5515 0.05

Fig.4 Geometry, Reinforcement Details and Mesh Fig.5 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results

Configuration for Beam C5 for Beam C5; Load-Deflection Curve

pattern and finite element modeling of this the accuracy of the 172-element model, beam

beam are shown in Fig. 4. Since this C5 is analyzed using the NONLACS2

phenomenon represents a plane stress program. The load-deflection and moment-

condition, only one layer of concrete is curvature curves obtained from the program

sufficient. The longitudinal reinforcements are compared with the experimental findings

are lumped in a single bar at the reference in Fig. 5. The computed results from the

surface as a bar element. The stirrups are beam idealization using 172 elements shows

modeled as smeared steel layers on the two excellent agreement with the experimental

sides of the beam. results. In this model, the load corresponding

to the initiation of crack in the structure is

In order to determine accurate values of the 14.23 kN, when the first crack occurs in the

yielding length and plastic rotations near the beam. The experimental values of loads for

critical section (midspan), a fine mesh yielding of steel reinforcement and crushing

configuration with 172 elements is utilized of the concrete at the ultimate load are

[Fig. 4(b)]. In other words, nonlinear finite Py=115.29 kN and Pu=121.79 kN, while the

element analysis of selected beams have been analytical yielding and ultimate loads are

carried out using the NONLACS2 program 118.76 kN and 119.2 kN, with discrepancies

using small elements (35G35 mm) in the of +3 and -2 percent from experimental

neighborhood of the "critical" section, and results, respectively, showing excellent

progressively increasing to, 70G70 mm, agreement with the experimental results (Fig.

elements in the neighborhood of the zero 5.). The analytical yielding and ultimate

moment location at the support. To evaluate deflections are 10.95 mm and 40.64 mm with

Table 2 Details of Mattock Beams Used in Parametric Study

Group No. Beam f´c (MPa) fy (MPa) ρ´ Parameters Studied Type of Loading

2 M2jF 23.4 328.2 0.0037 Loading Type Uniform Loads

3 M3jF 23.4 328.2 0.0037 Loading Type Third-Point Loadings

Table 3 Analytical Results Obtained Using the NONLACS2 Program (Group No. 1)

∆y ∆u Iy Iu θp ly lp

Beam ρ=As/bd ω=ρfy/f´c µ∆=∆u/∆y (10-5 (10-5

PI Iu I y c

(mm) (mm)

rad/mm) rad/mm)

(mm) (rad) (mm) (mm)

M15F 0.0294 0.412 10.95 40.64 3.71 1.70 8.27 4.88 102.87 0.013 314.5 197.6

M14F 0.022 0.309 8.84 47.0 5.32 1.54 9.84 6.41 85.1 0.0148 332.7 178.1

M13F 0.0147 0.206 7.49 62.23 8.30 1.30 12.9 9.92 65.53 0.020 349.3 172.7

M12F 0.011 0.154 6.43 69.3 10.8 1.18 16.7 13.83 50.30 0.026 393.7 167.1

M11F 0.0074 0.103 5.59 84.3 15.1 1.02 22.4 21.9 37.08 0.034 402.6 158.8

experimental values of ∆y=11.38 mm and Index, ω

∆u=46.74 mm, respectively.

The loaddeflection curves obtained from the

NONLACS2 program for the beams in

4. Parametric Study Group No. 1, are shown in Fig. 6, which

presents the results of five under-reinforced

For the parametric study, the C5 Mattock beams with different values of the tension

beam, 152G280 mm (6 G 11 in), with a reinforcement index (ω = ρ fy/f Bc ). The

tension reinforcement index of 0.412 analytical results including the yielding and

subjected to a mid-span concentrated load, is ultimate deflections and curvatures, and

used in the study (Fig. 4). In addition, the ductility ratios for these beams are also

same beam is analyzed with four other presented in Table 3. The failure mode is

assumed tension reinforcement indices flexural for all of the beams, i.e., steel yields

(0.309, 0.206, 0.154, and 0.103). Table 2 lists first at the bottom at midspan and then the

the parameters which are varied, together concrete crushes at the top of the beam at

with their designations, cross sectional midspan. The cracking, yielding and the

details, types of loading, concrete and steel ultimate loads increase with the value of ω.

strengths, for the 15 beams (3 Groups) The yielding deflection increases with an

investigated in this study. Each beam is increase in the tension reinforcement index.

designated as MijF, where "i" is the group An increase in ω by about 50 percent

number, "j" indicates the rank of the tension increases the yielding deflection by about 18

reinforcement ratio in increasing order, and percent. The ultimate deflection and the

"F" represents the use of the fine mesh with deflection ductility ratio, µ∆=∆y/∆u

172 elements. decrease with an increase in the tension

Fig.6 Load-Deflection Curves at Mid-Span for Beams Fig.7 Variation of Yielding Curvature with Tension

with Different Reinforcement Index (Group No. 1) Reinforcement Index, ω

reinforcement index. The ultimate deflection from the program are about 9 to 35 percent

for the beam M11F with ω=0.103 is 84.3 mm greater than that the model assuming the

which is 79 percent higher than that for the linear stress distribution. For beam C5

beam M14F with ω = 0.309. The deflection (M15F) with ω = 0.412, the analytical

ductility ratio varies between 3.71 to 15.1, as yielding curvature is 1.7G10-5 rad/mm which

ω changes from 0.412 to 0.103. is very close to experimental value of

1.57G10-5rad/mm with an 8 percent

5.1. Yielding Curvature discrepancy, while the model with a linear

In reinforced concrete sections, the yielding stress distribution underestimates the

curvature φy is well defined as a curvature yielding curvature by about 20 percent

when the tension reinforcement first reaches (φy =1.26G10-5 rad/mm). As the tension

the yield strength, fy. Most researchers (e.g. reinforcement index is increased, the

[9]) used a linear distribution of concrete yielding curvature increases and the

stress and strain at the yielding stages (see difference between two models (linear and

Fig. 7). In a more accurate model, a nonlinear nonlinear stress distributions) increases.

(curved) stress distribution should be used at

the yielding stage, especially when the 5.2. Ultimate Curvature and Ductility Ratio

concrete compressive stress is high. As can In the ACI 318-02 Building Code[10], the

be seen from Fig. 7, the value of neutral axis ultimate limit state is based implicitly on the

depth, c, calculated assuming a linear assumption of a limit strain for concrete

distribution of concrete stress is smaller than (εcu=0.003), while in CEB Model Code [11]

the "actual" value of the c if the concrete it is based explicitly on both the steel and the

stress distribution is nonlinear, which would concrete ultimate strains i.e. εsu=0.01, and

lead to an underestimation of the curvature at εcu=0.0035. Although the ultimate concrete

first yield, φy, and an overestimation of the strain values are satisfactory for the

curvature ductility ratio, µφ=φu/φy . Since evaluation of the ultimate strength, they are

the NONLACS2 program considers the very conservative for deformation analysis

nonlinear concrete compressive stress and moment redistribution. The ultimate steel

distribution, the yielding curvatures obtained strain limitation of εsu=0.01 in the CEB

Table 4 Comparison of Existing εcu and θp Formulations (θp is the Plastic Rotation on One Side of Section)

∫ >1 ( x) 1 (dx

Present study ly

6p y

0

z ; (k1k 3 0.5)

6p 0.8(0 cu 0 cy )k1k 3 ( )

Baker and d

Amarakone d

0 cu = 0.0015 [ 1 + 150 U s + ( 0.7 - 10 U s ) ]

[16] c

Mu z Z - Zc d d

6 p = (1u - 1 y ) ( 1 + ( 1.14 -1) (1 - ( ) ))

My d Zb 16.2 2

Mattock [8]

0.5

0 cu = 0.003 +

z

M u ) ( 1 + 0.4 z ) ( d )

6 p = ( 1u - 1 y

My d d 2

Corley [17] b Us f y 2

0 cu = 0.003 + 0.02 +( )

z 20

1 pu 7.0 1 pu -0.9

For d 7.0 : 6 p = ( 0.39 - )( ) 1 pu z

1 py 800 Z 1 py

1 pu 5.4

For 〉 7.0 : 6 p= ( ) 1 pu z

1 py 100

[18] For d 7.0 : 6 p = ( 0.58 - )( ) 1 pu z

1 py 800 Z 1 py

1 pu 5.0 6.5 1 pu

For 〉 7.0 : 6 p = ( + ) 1 pu z

1 py 100 1000 1 py

Model Code [11] is excessively conservative, Figure 8 shows the variation of analytical

while the absence of a steel strain limitation ultimate compressive concrete strain, εcu, at

in the ACI 318-02 [10] and the CSA Standard the top and the ultimate tensile steel strain,

CSA A23.3-M94 [12] is unconservative. The εsu, at the bottom at midspan with respect to

most common definition adopted in the ω for beams in Group No. 1. The ultimate

literature is that the ultimate limit state compressive strain of concrete is larger than

corresponds to the maximum moment 0.0082 and can be as high as 0.0085. The

capacity of the section (i.e. cM/cφ=0). values of εcu and εsu decrease with an

increase in the value of ω. Riva and Cohn

Based on the experimental data reported by [13] arrived at a similar conclusion from their

Mattock [8], the concrete ultimate analyses. As can be seen from Baker and

compressive strain, åcu, is selected equal to Amarakone's equation (Table 4), with an

0.0078. The most widely used εcu increase in the tension reinforcement index,

formulations available in the literature are the neutral axis depth, c, increases and

presented in Table 4. The values of consequently the value of åcu decreases. All

εcu=0.0057, εcu=0.012, and εcu=0.00645 have other equations for εcu estimate constant

been adopted from the works of Baker and values of εcu regardless of the amount of

Amarakone, Mattock, and Corley (see Table 4). tension reinforcement index. The ultimate

Fig.8 Effect of ω on Ultimate Concrete and Reinforcing Steel Strains (Group No. 1)

steel tensile strain at the bottom of the beams values obtained from the ACI, Corley's, and

at midspan, as shown in Fig. 8, varies from Mattock's methods, respectively. The ACI

0.0115 to 0.049, as the tension reinforcement 318-02 Building Code [10] predicts the

index changes from 0.412 to 0.103. ultimate curvature very conservatively as

compared with the other methods. Although

The neutral axis depth, c, is determined from the ultimate concrete compressive strain

the compatibility of the strains at the section. value, εcu=0.003, is satisfactory for the

The ultimate curvature is then calculated as ultimate strength design, it is very

the ratio of ultimate concrete compressive conservative for deformation analysis.

strain at the top of beam to the neutral axis Mattock's method overestimates the ultimate

depth when the failure of structure occurs, curvature compared with the analytical

i.e. φu=εcu/c . The influence of the tension results, because the concrete ultimate

reinforcement index on the ultimate compressive strain determined by Mattock's

curvature and curvature ductility ratio, equation (Table 4) is about 54 percent greater

µφ = φu/φy for Group No. 1 are shown in than the analytical concrete compressive

Figures 9 and 10, respectively. For strain value. For beam C5 (M15F), the value

comparison, the ultimate curvatures obtained of φu using NONLACS2 program is equal to

using NONLACS2 program, Mattock's 8.3G10-5 rad/mm, while the ACI, Corley's,

equation (Table 4), Corley's equation (Table and Mattock's methods result in values of

4) and the ACI method are presented. The 2.4G10-5 rad/mm, 5.5G10-5 rad/mm, and

neutral axis depth for each method is 9.3G10-5 rad/mm, respectively. The experimental

calculated based on the assumptions relevant value of the ultimate curvature for this beam

to the method. For a given z/d ratio, the as reported by Mattock [8] is equal to

ultimate curvature decreases with an increase 11.8G10-5 rad/mm, respectively.

in the tension reinforcement index. The

curvature is inversely proportional to the As can be seen from Fig. 10, the curvature

depth of the neutral axis, c, which varies ductility ratio varies from 4.88 to 21.9, when

directly as the tension reinforcement index at the value of ω changes from 0.412 to 0.1. The

the ultimate limit state. The analytical results figure shows that the curvature ductility

are about 2.35, 1.31, and 0.84 times the ratios for the various methods are distributed

Fig.9 Variation of Ultimate Curvature with Respect to Fig.10 Effect of Tension Reinforcement Index on the

Tension Reinforcement Index, ω (Group No. 1) Ductility Factor (Group No.1)

calculated using the same methods. This was

expected because the yield curvature is about The failure mechanism of beam M13F

the same for all of the methods. The ACI including the cracking of the concrete (solid

Code underestimates the curvature ductility lines) and its crushing (small circles) is

ratio (up to 2.5 times) compared with the shown in Fig. 11(a). The crushing of the

analytical results. For beam C5 (M15F), the concrete is concentrated at the top near the

analytical, the ACI, Corley's, and Mattock's midspan or the critical section where the

methods have discrepancies of -36, -75, 44, spread of inelasticity commences. The

and -5 percent from the experimental value curvature increases linearly from the support

of µφ = 7.65 (Fig.10). to the yielding point and then the curvature

suddenly increases and in the crushing

5.3. Plastic Hinge Rotation and Length region, it is very close to the ultimate

Figure 11 illustrates the method to determine curvature.

the analytical plastic rotation and the

equivalent plastic hinge length for the beam The spread of plasticity (yielding length),

M13F. First, the curvature along the beam is ultimate curvature and consequently the

obtained from the concrete strain values in plastic rotation for the lightly reinforced

the compression zone and from the steel beam (M12F) are greater than that for

strain in tension zone at the ultimate limit heavily reinforced beam (M15F).

state. Then, the plastic rotation, θp, is Comparison of the beams M12F and M15F

obtained by integration, along the yielding indicates that an increase in ω by about 2.68

length, ly (where the curvature in the section times decreases the yielding length and the

is higher than its yielding curvature, φy), of plastic rotation by about 20 percent and 50

the difference between the ultimate curvature percent, respectively (Table 3).

and the yielding curvature (Table 4). Here, θp

refers to the plastic hinge rotation on one side A comparison of the analytical plastic

of the critical section. Finally, the equivalent rotation obtained from the NONLACS2

plastic hinge length, lp, can be calculated as program with some models available in the

Fig.11 Calculation of Plastic Rotation for Beam M13F

(ω =0.206) at Ultimate Stage: Fig.12 Comparison of Existing Plastic Hinge Rotation

(a) Crack Pattern and Crushing of Concrete, (b) Plastic Formulations for Simply Supported Beams Subjected to

Hinge Rotation Concentrated Load at Midspan (z/d=5.5)

literature is made here. The most widely used results and Corley's theory are found to give

θp formulations in Europe and North safe values except in one case (ω =0.1) and

America along with the formula used in the yet they are not as conservative as Baker and

present study are presented in Table 4. The Amarakone's and Riva and Cohn's

plastic rotations for the beams in Group No. formulations. For ω values greater than 0.15,

1 with z/d =5.5 using the NONLACS2, CEB- the analytical results are close to the values

FIP MC90 [14], Baker and Amarakone's, obtained from CEB-FIP MC 90. The first

Corley's, Mattock's and Riva and Cohn's branch of the CEB-FIP MC90 curve with a

methods are plotted in Fig. 12. Since the positive slope represents the failure of the

CEB, Corley, Mattock and Baker and tension reinforcement, and the second

Amarakone expressions in Table 4 are based branch, with negative slope, indicates failure

on experiments mostly characterized by through the crushing of the concrete. The

z/dy5.0, and Riva and Cohn expression is plastic rotation capacity predicted by the

valid for any z/d values, therefore a formula given by Riva and Cohn appear to

comparison among these models is represent a fairly safe estimate of the actual

reasonable. It is noted that the plastic hinge rotation capacities available up to the

rotation obtained from Riva and Cohn's maximum load. Mattock's equation gives

model (Table 4) is the total inelastic rotation much higher values of the plastic rotation

from the onset of inelastic behavior, i.e. compared with any other models considered;

cracking of concrete. For all of the other this indicates that the expression given by

methods including the present study, the Mattock for calculation of εcu tends to

plastic hinge rotation is defined as the overestimate the deformability of RC

rotation between the yielding and the sections. For beam C5 (M15F), the

ultimate states. The parameters φpu and φpy in experimental plastic hinge rotation is 0.0249

Riva and Cohn's formula are measured from rad, while the present study results in a value

the onset of cracking (φcr) and are determined of 0.013 rad. The CEB, Baker and

using the NONLACS2 program. Compared Amarakone's, Corley's, Mattock's and Riva

with the CEB-FIP MC90 [14], the analytical and Cohn's methods predict plastic hinge

rotation values of 0.0072 rad, 0.0035 rad, the above discussion, it can be concluded that

0.0092 rad, 0.017 rad, and 0.0098 rad, the rotation capacity of the plastic hinges in

respectively. RC beams can be predicted using

NONLACS2 program with sufficient

The above comparison indicates that the accuracy.

experimental value is much higher than any

other models considered. The experimental

plastic rotation as reported by Mattock [8] 6. Influence of Bending Moment

was obtained from the measured inelastic Distribution (Loading Type)

deflection, δp, at midspan. The plastic

rotation was assumed to be concentrated at In order to study the effect of the loading

the point of the maximum moment, and was type, three loading conditions are considered:

equal to tan-1(δp/z). In fact, this assumption (1) concentrated load at midspan (linear

overestimated the plastic rotation and is moment distribution) to achieve a rapid

independent of the shape of the bending moment variation as is observed at the

moment diagram. Comparison of Mattock's supports in continuous beams, (2) third-point

experimental results with the experimental loading (linear moment distribution from the

work of other researchers [15] corroborates support to the location of the load and a

the finding that Mattock's method results in constant moment between two loads), and (3)

much higher plastic rotations. uniformly distributed loading (nonlinear

moment distribution). The influence of the

After calculation of the plastic hinge rotation, bending moment distribution on the plastic

the analytical equivalent plastic length, lp, on hinge rotation for Group Nos. 1, 2, and 3 is

one side of critical section can be determined. shown in Fig. 13. For these groups, all of the

As mentioned earlier, this value is obtained variables are the same, and the only

only for comparison with the other available difference is in the type of loading. The

methods. As can be seen from Table 3, the plastic hinge rotation increases as the loading

analytical value of lp is not constant for the type is changed from the midspan

different values of the tension reinforcement concentrated load, to the third-point loading,

indices. It increases linearly from 158.8 mm and it is a maximum for the case of the

to 197.6 mm, as the value of ω changes from uniform load. The plastic hinge rotation for

0.103 to 0.412. The average value of the beams subjected to uniform loads are always

analytical plastic hinge length lp is 174.9 greater than that for the same beams under

mm, which is 69 percent of effective depth third-point loadings or concentrated load.

(0.69 d). In the new equation proposed by

Baker and Amarakone (Table 4), lp increases As can be seen from Fig. 13, θp values for the

linearly with the c/d ratio. Riva and Cohn's beam subjected to third-point loading are

formulation result in the lowest values of larger than that for the beam loaded at

plastic hinge length and approximately the midspan, when the value of ω is less than

same pattern as the analytical curve. The 0.38. Beyond ω =0.38, the value of θp for

Corley's, Mattock's, and Sawyer's theories third-point loaded beam tends to be slightly

give a constant plastic hinge length less than the corresponding values for the

regardless of the reinforcement index, of beam loaded at midspan. In fact, the plastic

215.4 mm (0.85 d), 196.9 mm (0.78 d), and rotation for the third-point loading depends

168.2 mm (0.66 d), respectively. Based on on the length of constant moment region and

Fig.13 Influence of Different Loading Types on the Plastic Fig.14 Variation of Yielding Length with Respect to

Rotation Tension

the location of the plastic zone and the heavily reinforced beams is not as significant

crushing of the concrete within a narrow as for the lightly reinforced beams. For the

area. This phenomenon will be explained beam M81F (ω = 0.412), Riva and Cohn's

latter. Bosco et al. [19] compared the plastic formula (Table 4, for uniform loads) predicts

hinge rotations of simply supported beams the plastic hinge rotation equal to 0.064 rad,

under two different loading conditions: (1) which is very close to the analytical value of

three loads applied symmetrically with 0.070 rad.

respect to the midspan, and (2) midspan

concentrated load. They arrived at the same The variation of θp values for the differently

conclusion as in the present study. The plastic loaded beams can be explained by the

hinge rotations of lightly reinforced beams differences in the bending moment diagram

under three point loads were higher than that and the yielding length, ly, for each type of

the beams loaded under central loads, while loading. Figure 14 shows that, with the same

in the heavily reinforced beams, the plastic tension reinforcement index, the yielding

hinge of concentrated loaded beams were length of the beam under a central load is less

greater. than that under uniform or third-point loads,

leading to a smaller plastic rotation. Beams

For two extreme values of ω, the effect of the under uniform load show a considerable

loading type is discussed. For beam with increase in the yielding length and the zone

ω =0.103, uniformly distributed loads on a of plasticity. This is due to the smaller

simply supported beam lead to θp values moment gradient (nonlinear moment

varying from 1.90 to 1.35 times as high as distribution) in the neighborhood of the

those corresponding to the beams loaded critical section.

with a midspan concentrated load or a third-

point loading on the same beam, respectively. On the other hand, the bending moment

These ratios for the heavily reinforced beam distribution will also influence the

with ω = 0.412 are 1.59 and 0.88. Thus it can distribution of curvature along the length of

be concluded that the effect of the loading the beam. Figure 15 shows the variation of

type on the plastic rotation capacity of curvature over half length of beams with

Fig.15 Effect of Loading Type on the Plastic Rotation of Fig.16 Analytical and Estimated Values of Plastic

Beam with ω =0.412 Rotations

D u (Unif .)

types. Although the yielding length for the T p (Conc.) l p ( Conc.) (7)

beam subjected to third-point loading is T p (Third .) l p (Third .)

higher than that for the beams subjected to D u (Third .)

T p (Conc.) l p (Conc.)

uniform and concentrated loads, localization

of the plastic zone and the crushing of Where αu is the loading type factor at the

concrete, cause a smaller value of θp even ultimate load stage. The variation of αu with

less than that the beam subjected to respect to the tension reinforcement index is

concentrated load. shown in Fig. 16. Regression analysis of the

results of the parametric study shows that the

Although it has become common practice to loading type factor can be expressed in term

use the terms "plastic hinge" and "critical of the tension reinforcement index as:

section" or concentration of plastic rotations For uniform loads, with 0.1O ω O0.4:

at the critical sections, the properties of the

plastic hinge are not the properties of D u (Unif .) (2.0 Z ) (8)

individual critical sections but they represent

integrated curvature values over the length of For third-point loadings, with 0.1O ω O0.4:

the plastic hinge. As shown here, the loading

type has a significant effect on the plastic D u (Third .) 1.5(1.0 Z ) (9)

hinge rotation and length, and the assumption

of a constant plastic hinge length implies that The analytical values of the plastic hinge

the effects of the structural layout, magnitude rotations obtained from the NONLACS2

and the type of load on the inelastic rotation program, θp(anl), and the values estimated

have been neglected. using equations 6.2 and 6.3, θp(est), are

compared in Table 5. The comparison is

6.1. Proposed Equations based on the relative error which is defined

The relationship between the three different as:

loading types at the ultimate load stage can 6 p ( est .) 6 p ( anl .)

be defined as: ERR (10)

6 p ( anl .)

Table 5 Analytical and Estimated Values of Plastic Rotation, θp (rad), for Different Loading Types.

ω= (Concentrated Loads) (Uniform Loads) (Third-Point Loadings)

ρfy/f´c Estimated ERR Estimated ERR

NONLACS2 NONLACS2 NONLACS2

(Eq. 8) % (Eq. 9) %

0.412 0.013 0.021 0.0206 -1.90 0.011 0.0114 3.63

0.309 0.0148 0.0245 0.025 2.04 0.017 0.0153 -9.76

0.206 0.020 0.034 0.0359 5.59 0.025 0.024 -4.0

0.154 0.026 0.0494 0.048 -2.83 0.034 0.033 -2.9

0.103 0.034 0.070 0.065 -7.14 0.048 0.046 -4.17

The maximum error between analytical and deflection ductility ratio, µ∆=∆u/∆y,

estimated values is 9.76 percent. The average decrease with an increase in the value of ω.

value of the ratios of the proposed - to - The deflection ductility ratio varies between

analytical value of the plastic rotations for 3.71 to 15.1, as ω changes from 0.412 to

the beam subjected to uniform loads is found 0.103.

to be 0.991 with a standard deviation of

0.0486. The average value and the standard 2. At the yielding stage, the value of the

deviation for the proposed - to - analytical neutral axis depth, c, is smaller than the

plastic rotations ratio for beam under third- "actual" value of the depth of the

point loadings are 0.965 and 0.0485, compression zone, c, if the concrete stress

respectively. This indicates that the proposed distribution is assumed to be nonlinear,

equation predictions are in good agreement which will lead to an underestimation of the

with the analytical results as shown in Fig.16. curvature at the first yield, φy, and an

As a final remark, it is worth nothing that the overestimation of the curvature ductility

reinforcement index and the type of loading ratio, µφ =φu/φy .

are important factors to be considered in

evaluating the rotation capacity of plastic 3. At the ultimate load stage, the values of εcu

hinges. The proposed equations can be used and εsu decrease with an increase in the value

in any limit design method to evaluate the of ω. For a given z/d ratio, the ultimate

plastic hinge rotations and other deformation curvature decreases with an increase in the

characteristics at the ultimate load when the tension reinforcement index. The analytical

statically indeterminate system transforms ultimate curvatures are about 2.35, 1.31, and

into a collapse mechanism. 0.84 times the values obtained using the ACI,

Corley's, and Mattock's methods,

respectively.

7. Conclusions

4. The Corley's, Mattock's, and Sawyer's

Based on the analytical results, the following theories give a constant plastic hinge length

conclusions can be drawn: regardless the reinforcement index, while the

analytical value of lp and the value of lp

1. The cracking, yielding and the ultimate obtained from Baker and Amarakone's, and

loads increase with the tension reinforcement Riva and Cohn's formulations is not constant

index, ω. The ultimate deflection and the for different values of tension reinforcement

indices. The average value of the analytical Uniaxial and Biaxial Compression of

plastic hinge length on one side of the critical Concrete", ACI Journal, V. 61, No. 9,

section is 69 percent of the effective depth. pp. 1229-1235.

5. The plastic hinge rotation increases as the [3] Smith, G. M., and Young, L. E. (1955).

loading is changed from the concentrated "Ultimate Theory in Flexure by

load to the third-point loading, and it is a Exponential Function", Journal of

maximum for the case of the uniformly American Concrete Inst., V. 52, No. 3,

distributed load. For the beam with ω =0.103, pp. 349-359.

uniformly distributed loads on a simply

supported beam lead to θp values varying [4] Darwin, D., and Pecknold, D.A.

from 1.90 to 1.35 times as high as those (1977). "Nonlinear Biaxial Stress-

corresponding to the beams loaded with a Strain Law for Concrete", ASCE

midspan concentrated load or a third-point Journal of the Engineering Mechanics

loadings on the same beam, respectively. It Division, V. 103, No. EM4, pp. 229-

can be concluded that the effect of the 241.

loading type on the plastic rotation capacity

of the heavily reinforced beams is not as [5] Kupfer, H. B., Gerstle, K. H., and

significant as that for the lightly reinforced Rüsch, H. (1969). "Behavior of

beams. It is concluded that the reinforcement Concrete under Biaxial Stresses,"

index and the loading type have a significant Journal of ACI, V. 66, No. 8, pp. 656-

effect on the plastic hinge rotation and 666.

length.

[6] Pastor, J.A. (1986). "High-Strength

6. The analytical results indicate that the Concrete Beams", Ph.D. Thesis,

NONLACS2 program and the proposed Cornell University, New York, Ithaca.

equations (as a function of tension

reinforcement index, ω, and the loading type) [7] Scott, B.D., Park R., and Priestly,

can be used for analysis of the ultimate M.J.N. (1982). "Stress-Strain Behavior

capacity and the associated deformations of of Concrete Confined by Overlapping

RC beams with sufficient accuracy. Hoops at Low and High Strain Rates",

ACI Journal, V. 79, No. 1, Jan./Feb.,

pp. 13-27.

8. References

[8] Mattock, A.H. (1964). "Rotational

[1] Kheyroddin, A., (1996). "Nonlinear Capacity of Hinging Regions in

Finite Element Analysis of Flexure- Reinforced Concrete Beams",

Dominant Reinforced Concrete Proceedings of the International

Structures", Ph.D. Thesis, Department Symposium on Flexural Mechanics of

of Civil Engineering and Applied Reinforced Concrete, Miami, Florida,

Mechanics, McGill University, ACI SP-12, pp. 143-181.

Montreal, Canada, 290p.

[9] Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1975).

[2] Saenz, L.P. (1965). "Equation for the "Reinforced Concrete Structures", John

Stress-Strain Curve of Concrete in Wiley and Sons, New York.

[10] ACI Committee 318 (2002). "Building [17] Corley, W.G. (1966). "Rotation

Code Requirements for Structural Capacity of Reinforced Concrete

Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Beams", Proceedings of the ASCE

Commentary (ACI 318R-02)", Structural Journal, V. 92, No. ST-4, pp.

American Concrete Institute, 121-146.

Farmington-Hills, Michigan, 2002, 443

p. [18] Riva, P., and Cohn, M.Z. (1994).

"Rotation Capacity of Structural

[11] CEB-FIP (1978), "Model Code for Concrete Members", Magazine

Concrete Structures", Paris. Concrete Research, V. 46, No. 168, pp.

223-234.

[12] Canadian Standards Association

(1994), Code for the Design of [19] Bosco, C., Carpinteri, A., and

Concrete Structures for Buildings. Debernardi, P.G. (1990). "Fracture of

CAN3-A23.3-M94, Rexdale, ON. Reinforced Concrete: Scale Effects and

Snap-Back Instability", Engng.

[13] Riva, P., and Cohn, M.Z. (1990), Fracture Mechanics, V. 35, pp. 665-

"Engineering Approaches to Nonlinear 677.

Analysis of Concrete Structures",

ASCE J. Struct. Engng. Div., V. 116, [20] Shayanfar, M.A., Kheyroddin, A., and

No. 8, pp. 2162-2186. Mirza, M.S. (1997), "Element Size

Effects in Nonlinear Analysis of

[14] CEB-FIP Model Code 1990- Chapter Reinforced Concrete Members",

1-3, Final Draft. CEB Bull.d' Inf., Computers & Structures, Vol.62, No.2,

1991, No. 203. 339-352.

[15] Siviero, E. (1974). "Rotation Capacity [21] Bazant, Z. P., and Nova´k, D. (2000).

of Mono Dimensional Members in "Energetic-Statistical Size Effect in

Structural Concrete", CEB Bull. d'Inf., Quasi-Brittle Failure at Crack

No. 105, pp. 206-222. Initiation", ACI Mater. J., 97(3),

381–392.

[16] Baker, A.L.L., and Amarakone, A.M.N.

(1964). "Inelastic Hyper Static Frames [22] Hillerborg, A. (1990). "Fracture

Analysis", Proceedings of the Mechanics Concepts Applied to

International Symposium on Flexural Rotational Capacity of

Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, Reinforced Concrete Beams",

Miami, Florida, ASCE 1965-50, ACI Eng.Fract.Mech, 53(1/2/3), 233–240.

SP-12, pp. 85-142.

- metalsUploaded bysujit_sekhar
- Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture09-5Uploaded byAlija Sirotanović
- Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing) Vol. 8,Uploaded bymuhammadyf
- TowardsUploaded bymanhcuongctk39l
- 4731775Uploaded bySaad Al Hely
- Modelagem de conformação de corte por cisalhamento utilizando software abaqusUploaded byJoão Flávio
- Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering Free Download'Uploaded byTung-Chai Ling
- Impact Analysis of a Concrete Storage ContainerUploaded bySantanu Dasmahapatra
- Dissertation Schoettler 3412262[1]Uploaded byJamesFarrugia
- Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction ReviewUploaded byGenie
- 03-18Uploaded byShaikh Aamer
- 9fcfd50fabd73b4ea2Uploaded byNSun
- Plastic Hinge Length of Reinforced Concrete Columns.Uploaded bynvnrev
- ConcreteUploaded bychongpt
- DoTienThinh4.2008Uploaded bythanhdung65
- Mechanical & Physical Properties V2Uploaded byrusschallenger
- DIAB Guide to Core and Sandwich P1r2 LockedUploaded byM.Sreeram Sanjay
- WPH01_01_rms_20160817Uploaded byad
- 109CE0454.pdfUploaded bysom_bs79
- ProofreadUploaded byडॉ. कनिष्क शर्मा
- 07-A Aerospace 048Uploaded byFABIAN FIENGO
- 9783662442241-c2Uploaded byangrycabbage
- lecture.pptxUploaded byirum,
- Mechanical Testing - Tensile Testing Part 1 - Job Knowledge 69Uploaded byNilesh Mistry
- DocumentUploaded bymaruns004
- lec11Uploaded byDilip Kumar
- 82814941 the Theory of Penetration Failure in Compact SoilsUploaded byoperationmanager
- Effect of Al2O3 Film on Thermal Stress in the Bonded Compliant Seal Design of Planar Solid Oxide Fuel CellUploaded byAdammplouh
- Gorbunov-Posadov (1982) Consideration of the Structure of Compacted CoresUploaded byAdam Taylor
- Prezent 02 12Uploaded byZiad Al Sarraf

- Wind Loads for High-Solidity Open-Frame StructuresUploaded byMILL3482
- Tall Buildings Under Multidirectional Winds - Response Prediction and ReductionUploaded byMILL3482
- ufc_3_301_01Uploaded byJia Hann Tan
- CE3099 Individual Project Bekar Bedir 0707295 MEngUploaded byMILL3482
- CCL Bridge Bearings BrochureUploaded byMILL3482
- AISC - Steel Design GuidesUploaded byMILL3482
- Seismic Provisions in the Saudi Building CodeUploaded byMILL3482

- 1997 gateUploaded byShraboni Sinha
- ss507Uploaded byNeang Vy
- Efect of BrazierUploaded byAngiesGarcia
- Ch02Uploaded byuuubird
- Unit-8 Shear Stress in BeamsUploaded byBharath Kaipparedan
- AITECH Accredited October 2015Uploaded byJiane Naval
- Local, Distortional, And Euler Buckling of Thin-walled ColumnsUploaded byReaditReadit
- [Ensc 13] Problem Set 4 - Stresses in BeamsUploaded bylucas
- Distributed ForcesUploaded byNOKIA
- Traditional Earthquake Resistant Systems of Kashmir-1023 (1).pdfUploaded byUbaid Nazir
- Module 1Uploaded byJohn Aparicio
- ce_212Uploaded byjules
- Assgmnen SteelUploaded byewanz89
- Index.pdfUploaded byVHAM
- Strength of MaterialsUploaded bydhana555
- Splice and ShearUploaded bydeanz_75
- Structural StrengthUploaded byGoutam Kumar Saha
- Long Term Deflection in Concrete BeamsUploaded bySeifeldin Ali Marzouk
- RC BIAX SoftwareUploaded byEber Pe Isi
- Plane Trusses and Frames ExamplesUploaded byEsmaeil Na
- New Syllabus for mechanical engineering RTUUploaded byLokeshSharma
- Advt BacklogUploaded byAnjuRose
- 115 Eurocode DesignUploaded byHakan Ezcan
- 14 Area MethodUploaded byAiris Joy Labacanacruz Rojas
- MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGESUploaded bySujay Raghavendra N
- Manual 19 BearingsUploaded byOmar AbdelAziz
- Estimation & CostingUploaded byHanamanagouda Bevoor
- Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural MembUploaded bygreat_triskelion
- Som Question BankUploaded byamns99
- Final Mroject(Mekele1).pdfUploaded byYared Tadesse