2.2K views

Uploaded by Khaled Ahmad Ghrier

- Ansys Structural Analysis
- Examples of Concrete Element SOLID65- Hani Aziz Ameen
- Ansys Code for RCC
- Ansys Steps for Civilea (1)
- nonlinear analysis of shear dominant prestressed concrete beams using ansys
- Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened With FRP Laminates
- Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures Using Ansys Nonlinear Concrete Model(1)
- FE_slab
- Beginner Ansys Tutorial
- Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Beam
- Simplified ANSYS Model Concrete Crack
- Ansys
- Solid 65
- Flexural Behavior of Reinforced and Pre Stressed Concrete Beams Using Finite Element Analysis
- Crack Identification in Reinforced Concrete Beams using ANSYS Software
- ansys-example0702
- Crack identification in reinforced concrete beams using ANSYS software W04606133141.pdf
- ansys
- Ansys Manual for CAMA LAB
- ANSYS for designers - extract

You are on page 1of 57

by

Faculty of the Graduate School,

Marquette University,

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for

the Degree of

Master of Science

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

May, 2004

PREFACE

Several methods have been utilized to study the response of concrete structural

components. Experimental based testing has been widely used as a means to analyze

individual elements and the effects of concrete strength under loading. The use of finite

This thesis is a study of reinforced and prestressed concrete beams using finite

The parameters for the reinforced concrete model were then used to model a

results.

Conclusions were then made as to the accuracy of using finite element modeling

for analysis of concrete. The results compared well to experimental and hand calculated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was performed under the supervision of Dr. Christopher M. Foley. I am

extremely grateful for the guidance, knowledge, understanding, and numerous hours

committee, Dr. Stephen M. Heinrich and Dr. Baolin Wan, for their time and efforts.

I would like to thank my parents, John and Sue Wolanski, my brother, John

Wolanski, and my sister, Christine Wolanski for their understanding, encouragement and

support. Without my family these accomplishments would not have been possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.2.4 Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.2.5 Meshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.0 Introdution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.1.3 Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.2.2 Self-Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.2.3 Zero Deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.2.4 Decompression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

5.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

5.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

2.3 FEM Discretization for a Quarter of the Beam (Kachlakev, et al. 2001) . 8

3.11 Reinforcement Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.19 Load vs. Deflection Curve Comparison of ANSYS and Buckhouse (1997) 48

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

3.6 Dimensions for Concrete, Steel Plate, and Steel Support Volumes . . . . . . 31

3.14 Deflections of Control Beam (Buckhouse 1997) vs. Finite Element Model

At Ultimate Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

components. Experimental based testing has been widely used as a means to analyze

individual elements and the effects of concrete strength under loading. While this is a

method that produces real life response, it is extremely time consuming, and the use of

materials can be quite costly. The use of finite element analysis to study these

components has also been used. Unfortunately, early attempts to accomplish this were

also very time consuming and infeasible using existing software and hardware.

In recent years, however, the use of finite element analysis has increased due to

progressing knowledge and capabilities of computer software and hardware. It has now

become the choice method to analyze concrete structural components. The use of

computer software to model these elements is much faster, and extremely cost-effective.

To fully understand the capabilities of finite element computer software, one must

look back to experimental data and simple analysis. Data obtained from a finite element

analysis package is not useful unless the necessary steps are taken to understand what is

happening within the model that is created using the software. Also, executing the

necessary checks along the way is key to make sure that what is being output by the

By understanding the use of finite element packages, more efficient and better

reinforced and prestressed concrete beams using finite element analysis to understand the

The objective of this thesis was to investigate and evaluate the use of the finite element

method for the analysis of reinforced and prestressed concrete beams The following

model using a commercial finite element analysis package (ANSYS, SAS 2003) was set

up and evaluated using experimental data. A mild-steel reinforced concrete beam with

flexural and shear reinforcement was analyzed to failure and compared to experimental

results to calibrate the parameters in ANSYS (SAS 2003) for later analyses.

Based on the results obtained from the calibration model and the

analyzed from initial prestress to flexural failure. Deflections, stresses, and cracking of

the concrete beam were analyzed at different key points along the way. These key points

include initial prestress, addition of self-weight, zero deflection point, decompression,

Discussion of the results obtained for the calibration model and the prestressed

concrete beam model is also provided. Conclusions regarding the analysis are then

CHAPTER 2

2.0 Introduction

To provide a detailed review of the body of literature related to reinforced and prestressed

concrete in its entirety would be too immense to address in this thesis. However, there

are many good references that can be used as a starting point for research (ACI 1978,

MacGregor 1992, Nawy 2000). This literature review and introduction will focus on

recent contributions related to FEA and past efforts most closely related to the needs of

The use of FEA has been the preferred method to study the behavior of concrete

(for economic reasons). Willam and Tanabe (2001) contains a collection of papers

contains areas of study such as: seismic behavior of structures, cyclic loading of

reinforced concrete columns, shear failure of reinforced concrete beams, and concrete-

Shing and Tanabe (2001) also put together a collection of papers dealing with

inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete structures under seismic loads. The monograph

contains contributions that outline applications of the finite element method for studying

post-peak cyclic behavior and ductility of reinforced concrete columns, the analysis of

concrete beam-column bridge connections, and the modeling of the shear behavior of

The focus of these most recent efforts is with bridges, columns, and seismic

design. The focus of this thesis is the study of non-prestressed and prestressed flexural

members. The following is a review and synthesis of efforts most relevant to this thesis

Three concrete control beams were cast with flexural and shear reinforcing steel. Shear

All three beams were loaded with transverse point loads at third points along the

beams. Loading was applied to the beams until failure occurred as shown in Figure 2.1.

The mode of failure characterized by the beams was compression failure of the concrete

in the constant moment region (flexural failure). All failures were ductile, with

Load-deflection curves were plotted for each beam and compared to predicted

ultimate loads. This thesis will utilize the experimental results of these control beam tests

Faherty (1972) studied a reinforced and prestressed concrete beam using the finite

element method of analysis. The two beams that were selected for modeling were simply

supported and loaded with two symmetrically placed concentrated transverse loads

(Figure 2.2).

The analysis for the reinforced concrete beam included: non-linear concrete

properties, a linear bond-slip relation, bilinear steel properties, and the influence of

progressive cracking of the concrete. The transverse loading was incrementally applied

and ranged in magnitude from zero to a load well above that which initiated cracking.

Because the loading and geometry of the beam were symmetrical, only one half of the

beam was modeled using FEA. The finite element model produced very good results that

Faherty (1972) also analyzed a prestressed concrete beam that included: non-

linear concrete properties, a linear bond slip relation with a destruction of the bond

between the steel and concrete, and bilinear steel properties. The dead load, release of

the prestressing force, the elastic prestress loss, the time dependent prestress loss, and the

loss of tensile stress in the concrete as a result of concrete rupture were applied as single

loading increments, whereas the transverse loading was applied incrementally. Only

three finite element models of the prestressed beam were implemented (or used): two

uncracked sections, and a partially cracked section. Symmetry was once again utilized.

These results for the prestressed beam showed that deflections computed using

the finite element model were very similar to those observed by Branson, et al. (1970).

However, the load-deflection curve past the cracking point was not generated because

only three distinct cracking patterns were used for this analysis. It was recommended

that additional analysis of the prestressed concrete beam should be undertaken after a

procedure is developed for modeling the tensile rupture of the concrete. The model

utilized in this research required the beam to be unloaded and the finite element model

Kachlakev, et al. (2001) used ANSYS (SAS 2003) to study concrete beam

members with externally bonded Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) fabric.

Symmetry allowed one quarter of the beam to be modeled as shown in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3 – FEM Discretization for a Quarter of the Beam (Kachlakev, et al. 2001)

At planes of symmetry, the displacement in the direction perpendicular to the plane was

set to zero. A single line support was utilized to allow rotation at the supports. Loads

were placed at third points along the full beam on top of steel plates. The mesh was

refined immediately beneath the load (Figure 2.3). No stirrup-type reinforcement was

used.

path during the load-deformation response. It was found that convergence of solutions

for the model was difficult to achieve due to the nonlinear behavior of reinforced

concrete material. At certain stages in the analysis, load step sizes were varied from large

(at points of linearity in the response) to small (when instances of cracking and steel

yielding occurred). The load-deflection curve for the non-CFRP reinforced beam that

was plotted shows reasonable correlation with experimental data (McCurry and

Also, concrete crack/crush plots were created at different load levels to examine the

different types of cracking that occurred within the concrete as shown in Figure 2.5.

The different types of concrete failure that can occur are flexural cracks,

compression failure (crushing), and diagonal tension cracks. Flexural cracks (Figure

2.5a) form vertically up the beam. Compression failures (Figure 2.5b) are shown as

circles. Diagonal tension cracks (Figure 2.5c) form diagonally up the beam towards the

Figure 2.5 – Typical Cracking Signs in Finite Element Models: a)Flexural Cracks,

b)Compressive Cracks, c)Diagonal Tensile Cracks (Kachlakev, et al. 2001)

This study indicates that the use of a finite element program to model

experimental data is viable and the results that are obtained can indeed model reinforced

Willam and Warnke (1974) developed a widely used model for the triaxial failure surface

Figure 2.6. The mathematical model considers a sextant of the principal stress space

The failure surface is separated into hydrostatic (change in volume) and deviatoric

(change in shape) sections as shown in Figure 2.7. The hydrostatic section forms a

Figure 2.6). The deviatoric section in Figure 2.7 lies in a plane normal to the equisectrix

Figure 2.6 – Failure Surface of Plain Concrete Under Triaxial Conditions (Willam and

Warnke 1974)

The deviatoric trace is described by the polar coordinates r , and T where r is the

position vector locating the failure surface with angle, T . The failure surface is defined

as:

1 Va 1 Wa

1 (2.1)

z f cu r (T ) f cu

where:

The opening angles of the hydrostatic cone are defined by M1 and M2 . The free

parameters of the failure surface z and r , are identified from the uniaxial compressive

The Willam and Warnke (1974) mathematical model of the failure surface for the

planes);

Based on the above criteria, a constitutive model for the concrete suitable for FEA

This constitutive model for concrete based upon the Willam and Warnke (1974)

model assumes an appropriate description of the material failure. The yield condition can

be approximated by three or five parameter models distinguishing linear from non-linear

and elastic from inelastic deformations using the failure envelope defined by a scalar

relations. The parameters for the failure surface can be seen in Figure 2.7.

proportional loading into an elastic and inelastic portion which governs the failure surface

using integration, and normal penetration, which allows the elastic path to reach the yield

surface at the intersection with the normal therefore solving a linear system of equations.

Both of these methods are feasible and give stress values that satisfy the constitutive

constraint condition. From the standpoint of computer application the normal penetration

approach is more efficient than the proportional penetration method, since integration is

avoided.

Tavarez (2001) discusses three techniques that exist to model steel reinforcement in finite

element models for reinforced concrete (Figure 2.8): the discrete model, the embedded

The reinforcement in the discrete model (Figure 2.8a) uses bar or beam elements

that are connected to concrete mesh nodes. Therefore, the concrete and the reinforcement

mesh share the same nodes and concrete occupies the same regions occupied by the

reinforcement. A drawback to this model is that the concrete mesh is restricted by the

location of the reinforcement and the volume of the mild-steel reinforcement is not

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 2.8 – Models for Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete (Tavarez 2001): (a)

discrete; (b) embedded; and (c) smeared

The embedded model (Figure 2.8b) overcomes the concrete mesh restriction(s)

because the stiffness of the reinforcing steel is evaluated separately from the concrete

elements. The model is built in a way that keeps reinforcing steel displacements

this model is very advantageous. However, this model increases the number of nodes and

degrees of freedom in the model, therefore, increasing the run time and computational

cost.

The smeared model (Figure 2.8c) assumes that reinforcement is uniformly spread

throughout the concrete elements in a defined region of the FE mesh. This approach is

used for large-scale models where the reinforcement does not significantly contribute to

Fanning (2001) modeled the response of the reinforcement using the discrete

model and the smeared model for reinforced concrete beams. It was found that the best

modeling strategy was to use the discrete model when modeling reinforcement.

The literature review suggested that use of a finite element package to model reinforced

and prestressed concrete beams was indeed feasible. It was decided to use ANSYS (SAS

2003) as the FE modeling package. A reinforced concrete beam with reinforcing steel

modeled discretely will be developed with results compared to the experimental work of

compared to analytical predictions to calibrate the FE model for further use. A second

analysis of a prestressed concrete beam will also be studied. The different stages of the

response of a prestressed concrete beam are computed using FEA and compared to

CHAPTER 3

CALIBRATION MODEL

3.0 Introduction

This chapter discusses the calibration of the finite element model using experimental

ANSYS (SAS 2003) to create the finite element model is also discussed. All the

necessary steps to create the calibrated model are explained in detail and the steps taken

Buckhouse (1997) studied a method to reinforce a concrete beam for flexure using

external structural steel channels. The study included experimental testing of control

beams that can be used for calibration of finite element models. The width and height of

the beams tested were 10 in. and 18 in., respectively. As shown in Figure 3.1, the length

Figure 3.1 – Loading and Supports for the Beam (Buckhouse 1997)

of the beam was 15 ft.-6 in. with supports located 3 in. from each end of the beam

allowing a simply supported span of 15 ft. The mild steel flexural reinforcements used

were 3-#5 bars and shear reinforcements included #3 U-stirrups. Cover for the rebar was

set to 2 in. in all directions. The layout of the reinforcement is detailed in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 – Typical Detail for Control Beam Reinforcement (Buckhouse 1997)

The steel yield stress, 28-day compressive stress of concrete, and area of steel

60,000

(psi)

28-Day Compressive

Strength of Concrete, fc' 4,770

(psi)

Two 50-kip capacity load cells were placed at third points, or 5 ft. from each

support on steel bearing plates (Figure 3.1). Data acquisition equipment was used to

record applied loading, beam deflection at the midspan, and strain in the internal flexural

Vertical cracks first formed in the constant moment region, extended upward, and then

out towards the constant shear region with eventual crushing of the concrete in the

constant moment region as shown in Figure 3.3. Test data for the beam is summarized in

Table 3.2.

The theoretical ultimate load for the beam was calculated to be 14,600 lbs

(Buckhouse 1997). Table 3.2 shows the experimental ultimate load determined was

16,310 lbs. The ultimate loading corresponded to the nominal flexural capacity of the

cross-section being reached. A plot of load versus deflection for control beam C1

Table 3.2 – Test data for control beam C1 (Buckhouse 1997)

4,500

Crack (lbs.)

16,310

(lbs.)

Avg. Centerline

Deflection at Failure 3.65

(in.)

compression failure of

Mode of Failure

concrete

18000

C

16000

14000

C1 theoretical

ultimate load

12000

(14,600 lbs.)

Avg. Load, P (lbs.)

B

10000

Nonlinear Region

8000

6000 Point B - Steel Yielding

Point C - Failure

4000

Linear Region

2000

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Figure 3.4 – Load vs. Deflection Curve for Beam C1 (Buckhouse 1997)

The plot shows the linear behavior before first cracking (point A). A second slope

corresponding to the cracked section is followed until point B where the flexural

The FEA calibration study included modeling a concrete beam with the dimensions and

in cross-section of the concrete beam and loading, symmetry was utilized in the FEA,

To create the finite element model in ANSYS (SAS 2003) there are multiple tasks

that have to be completed for the model to run properly. Models can be created using

command prompt line input or the Graphical User Interface (GUI). For this model, the

GUI was utilized to create the model. This section describes the different tasks and

The element types for this model are shown in Table 3.3. The Solid65 element was used

to model the concrete. This element has eight nodes with three degrees of freedom at

each node – translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. This element is capable of

Table 3.3 – Element Types For Working Model

Concrete Solid65

Steel Plates and

Solid45

Supports

Steel

Link8

Reinforcement

A Solid45 element was used for steel plates at the supports for the beam. This

element has eight nodes with three degrees of freedom at each node – translations in the

nodal x, y, and z directions. The geometry and node locations for this element is shown

in Figure 3.6. The descriptions for each element type are laid out in the ANSYS element

spar element and it has two nodes with three degrees of freedom – translations in the

nodal x, y, and z directions. This element is also capable of plastic deformation. This

The real constants for this model are shown in Table 3.4. Note that individual elements

contain different real constants. No real constant set exists for the Solid45 element.

Figure 3.7 – Link 8 Element (SAS 2003)

Real Real Real

Constants for Constants for Constants for

Rebar 1 Rebar 2 Rebar 3

1 Solid 65 Material Number 0 0 0

Volume Ratio 0 0 0

Orientation Angle 0 0 0

Orientation Angle 0 0 0

Cross-sectional

0.31

Area (in.2)

2 Link8

Initial Strain

0

(in./in.)

Cross-sectional

0.155

Area (in.2)

3 Link8

Initial Strain

0

(in./in.)

Cross-sectional

0.11

Area (in.2)

4 Link8

Initial Strain

0

(in./in.)

Cross-sectional

0.055

Area (in.2)

5 Link8

Initial Strain

0

(in./in.)

Real Constant Set 1 is used for the Solid65 element. It requires real constants for

rebar assuming a smeared model. Values can be entered for Material Number, Volume

Ratio, and Orientation Angles. The material number refers to the type of material for the

reinforcement. The volume ratio refers to the ratio of steel to concrete in the element.

The orientation angles refer to the orientation of the reinforcement in the smeared model

(Figure 2.8c). ANSYS (SAS 2003) allows the user to enter three rebar materials in the

concrete. Each material corresponds to x, y, and z directions in the element (Figure 3.5).

The reinforcement has uniaxial stiffness and the directional orientation is defined by the

user. In the present study the beam is modeled using discrete reinforcement. Therefore,

a value of zero was entered for all real constants which turned the smeared reinforcement

Real Constant Sets 2, 3, 4, and 5 are defined for the Link8 element. Values for

cross-sectional area and initial strain were entered. Cross-sectional areas in sets 2 and 3

refer to the reinforcement of 3-#5 bars. Due to symmetry, set 3 is half of set 2 because

one-half the center bar in the beam is cut off. Cross-sectional areas in sets 4 and 5 refer

to the #3 stirrups. Once again set 5 is half of set 4 because half of the stirrup at the mid-

span of the beam is cut off resulting from symmetry. A value of zero was entered for the

Parameters needed to define the material models can be found in Table 3.5. As seen in

Table 3.5, there are multiple parts of the material model for each element.

Table 3.5 – Material Models For the Calibration Model

Material Properties

Number Type

Linear Isotropic

EX 3,949,076 psi

PRXY 0.3

Multilinear Isotropic

Strain Stress

Point 1 0.00036 1421.7

Point 2 0.0006 2233

Point 3 0.0013 3991

Point 4 0.0019 4656

1 Solid65 Point 5 0.00243 4800

Concrete

ShrCf-Op 0.3

ShrCf-Cl 1

UnTensSt 520

UnCompSt -1

BiCompSt 0

HydroPrs 0

BiCompSt 0

UnTensSt 0

TenCrFac 0

Linear Isotropic

2 Solid45 EX 29,000,000 psi

PRXY 0.3

Linear Isotropic

EX 29,000,000 psi

PRXY 0.3

3 Link8

Bilinear Isotropic

Yield Stss 60,000 psi

Tang Mod 2,900 psi

Material Model Number 1 refers to the Solid65 element. The Solid65 element

requires linear isotropic and multilinear isotropic material properties to properly model

concrete. The multilinear isotropic material uses the von Mises failure criterion along

with the Willam and Warnke (1974) model to define the failure of the concrete. EX is

the modulus of elasticity of the concrete ( Ec ), and PRXY is the Poisson’s ratio (Q ). The

with a value of f c' equal to 4,800 psi. Poisson’s ratio was assumed to be 0.3. The

compressive uniaxial stress-strain relationship for the concrete model was obtained using

the following equations to compute the multilinear isotropic stress-strain curve for the

EcH

f 2

(3.2)

§H ·

1 ¨ ¸

© H0 ¹

2 f c'

H0 (3.3)

Ec

f

Ec (3.4)

H

where:

H = strain at stress f

The multilinear isotropic stress-strain implemented requires the first point of the curve to

V

E (3.5)

H

The multilinear curve is used to help with convergence of the nonlinear solution

algorithm.

6000

f c' 5

4

4000

3

Ec

Stress (psi)

3000

2

2000

0.30 f c' 1

1000

H0

0

0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035

Strain (in./in.)

Figure 3.8 shows the stress-strain relationship used for this study and is based on

work done by Kachlakev, et al. (2001). Point 1, defined as 0.30 f c' , is calculated in the

linear range (Equation 3.4). Points 2, 3, and 4 are calculated from Equation 3.2 with H 0

obtained from Equation 3.3. Strains were selected and the stress was calculated for each

strain. Point 5 is defined at f c' and H 0 0.003 in. indicating traditional crushing strain

in.

requires that different constants be defined. These 9 constants are: (SAS 2003)

7. Biaxial crushing stress (positive) under the ambient hydrostatic stress state

(constant 6);

8. Uniaxial crushing stress (positive) under the ambient hydrostatic stress state

(constant 6);

Typical shear transfer coefficients range from 0.0 to 1.0, with 0.0 representing a

smooth crack (complete loss of shear transfer) and 1.0 representing a rough crack (no loss

of shear transfer). The shear transfer coefficients for open and closed cracks were

determined using the work of Kachlakev, et al. (2001) as a basis. Convergence problems

occurred when the shear transfer coefficient for the open crack dropped below 0.2. No

deviation of the response occurs with the change of the coefficient. Therefore, the

coefficient for the open crack was set to 0.3 (Table 3.4). The uniaxial cracking stress was

fr 7.5 f c' (3.6)

The uniaxial crushing stress in this model was based on the uniaxial unconfined

compressive strength ( f c' ) and is denoted as ft . It was entered as -1 to turn off the

et al. 2001). Convergence problems have been repeated when the crushing capability

The biaxial crushing stress refers to the ultimate biaxial compressive strength

( f cb' ). The ambient hydrostatic stress state is denoted as V h . This stress state is defined

as:

1

Vh (V xp V yp V zp ) (3.7)

3

where V xp , V yp , and V zp are the principal stresses in the principal directions. The biaxial

crushing stress under the ambient hydrostatic stress state refers to the ultimate

stress state ( f1 ). The uniaxial crushing stress under the ambient hydrostatic stress state

superimposed on the hydrostatic stress state ( f 2 ). The failure surface can be defined

with a minimum of two constants, ft and f c' . The remainder of the variables in the

concrete model are left to default based on these equations: (SAS 2003)

These stress states are only valid for stress states satisfying the condition

V h d 3 f c' (3.11)

Material Model Number 2 refers to the Solid45 element. The Solid45 element is

being used for the steel plates at loading points and supports on the beam. Therefore, this

element is modeled as a linear isotropic element with a modulus of elasticity for the steel

Material Model Number 3 refers to the Link8 element. The Link8 element is

being used for all the steel reinforcement in the beam and it is assumed to be bilinear

isotropic. Bilinear isotropic material is also based on the von Mises failure criteria. The

bilinear model requires the yield stress ( f y ), as well as the hardening modulus of the steel

to be defined. The yield stress was defined as 60,000 psi, and the hardening modulus was

2900 psi.

Note that the density for the concrete was not added in the material model. For

the control beam in Buckhouse (1997), the LVDT’s used to measure deflection at mid-

span were put on the beam after it was set in the test fixture. Deflections were taken

relative to a zero deflection point after the self-weight was introduced. Therefore, the

3.2.4 Modeling

The beam, plates, and supports were modeled as volumes. Since a quarter of the beam is

being modeled, the model is 93 in. long, with a cross-section of 5 in. x 18 in. The

dimensions for the concrete volume are shown in Table 3.6. The zero values for the Z-

coordinates coincide with the center of the cross-section for the concrete beam.

Table 3.6 – Dimensions for Concrete, Steel Plate, and Steel Support Volumes

X1,X2 X-coordinates 0 93 60 66 1.5 4.5

Y1,Y2 Y-coordinates 0 18 18 19 0 -1

Z1,Z2 Z-coordinates 0 5 0 5 0 5

The 93 in. dimension for the X-coordinates is the mid-span of the beam. Due to

symmetry, only one loading plate and one support plate are needed. The support is a 3 in.

x 5 in. x 1 in. steel plate, while the plate at the load point is 6 in. x 5 in. x 1 in. The

dimensions for the plate and support are shown in Table 3.6. The combined volumes of

the plate, support, and beam are shown in Figure 3.9. The FE mesh for the beam model

Concrete Beam

Steel Support

Concrete Element

Width 1.25 in.

Concrete Element

Length 1.5 in.

Width 1.25 in.

Steel Support

Element

Length 1.5 in.

Width 1.25 in.

Length 1.5 in.

Concrete Element

Height 1.2 in.

Figure 3.10 – Mesh of the Concrete, Steel Plate, and Steel Support

Link8 elements were used to create the flexural and shear reinforcement.

Reinforcement exists at a plane of symmetry and in the beam. The area of steel at the

plane of symmetry is one half the normal area for a #5 bar because one half of the bar is

cut off. Shear stirrups are modeled throughout the beam. Only half of the stirrup is

modeled because of the symmetry of the beam. Figure 3.11 illustrates that the rebar

shares the same nodes at the points that it intersects the shear stirrups. The element type

number, material number, and real constant set number for the calibration model were set

#3 Shear Stirrups

#5 Bar Reinforcement at

Plane of Symmetry

Stirrup at Plane of

Symmetry

from the end of the Cross-Section

Shared nodes of

Stirrups and Rebar

Model Parts

Type Number Set

Concrete Beam 1 1 1

Steel Plate 2 3 N/A

Steel Support 2 3 N/A

Rebar at Center of Cross-Section 3 2 3

Rebar 2.5 in. of Cross-Section 3 2 2

Stirrup at Center of Beam 3 2 5

Other Stirrups 3 2 4

3.2.5 Meshing

To obtain good results from the Solid65 element, the use of a rectangular mesh is

recommended. Therefore, the mesh was set up such that square or rectangular elements

were created (Figure 3.10). The volume sweep command was used to mesh the steel

plate and support. This properly sets the width and length of elements in the plates to be

consistent with the elements and nodes in the concrete portions of the model.

The overall mesh of the concrete, plate, and support volumes is shown in Figure

3.10. The necessary element divisions are noted. The meshing of the reinforcement is a

special case compared to the volumes. No mesh of the reinforcement is needed because

individual elements were created in the modeling through the nodes created by the mesh

of the concrete volume. However, the necessary mesh attributes as described above need

The command merge items merges separate entities that have the same location. These

items will then be merged into single entities. Caution must be taken when merging

entities in a model that has already been meshed because the order in which merging

occurs is significant. Merging keypoints before nodes can result in some of the nodes

becoming “orphaned”; that is, the nodes lose their association with the solid model. The

orphaned nodes can cause certain operations (such as boundary condition transfers,

surface load transfers, and so on) to fail. Care must be taken to always merge in the order

that the entities appear. All precautions were taken to ensure that everything was merged

in the proper order. Also, the lowest number was retained during merging.

3.2.7 Loads and Boundary Conditions

Displacement boundary conditions are needed to constrain the model to get a unique

solution. To ensure that the model acts the same way as the experimental beam,

boundary conditions need to be applied at points of symmetry, and where the supports

The symmetry boundary conditions were set first. The model being used is

symmetric about two planes. The boundary conditions for both planes of symmetry are

Nodes defining a vertical plane through the beam cross-section centroid defines a plane

of symmetry. To model the symmetry, nodes on this plane must be constrained in the

= 0. Second, all nodes selected at Z = 0 define another plane of symmetry. These nodes

The support was modeled in such a way that a roller was created. A single line of

nodes on the plate were given constraint in the UY, and UZ directions, applied as

constant values of 0. By doing this, the beam will be allowed to rotate at the support. The

to allow rotation

The force, P, applied at the steel plate is applied across the entire centerline of the

plate. The force applied at each node on the plate is one tenth of the actual force applied.

Loading Applied

on the Plate

The finite element model for this analysis is a simple beam under transverse loading. For

The Restart command is utilized to restart an analysis after the initial run or load

step has been completed. The use of the restart option will be detailed in the analysis

The Sol’n Controls command dictates the use of a linear or non-linear solution for

the finite element model. Typical commands utilized in a nonlinear static analysis are

Calculate Prestress Effects No

Time at End of Loadstep 5120

Automatic Time Stepping On

Number of Substeps 1

Max no. of Substeps 2

Min no. of Substeps 1

Write Items to Results File All Solution Items

Frequency Write Every Substep

In the particular case considered in this thesis the analysis is small displacement and

static. The time at the end of the load step refers to the ending load per load step. Table

3.8 shows the first load step taken (e.g. up to first cracking). The sub steps are set to

indicate load increments used for this analysis. The commands used to control the solver

Number of Restart Files 1

Frequency Write Every Substep

All these values are set to ANSYS (SAS 2003) defaults. The commands used for the

nonlinear algorithm and convergence criteria are shown in Table 3.10. All values for the

Table 3.10 – Nonlinear Algorithm and Convergence Criteria Parameters

DOF solution predictor Prog Chosen

Maximum number of iteration 100

Cutback Control Cutback according to predicted number of iter.

Equiv. Plastic Strain 0.15

Explicit Creep ratio 0.1

Implicit Creep ratio 0

Incremental displacement 10000000

Points per cycle 13

Set Convergence Criteria

Label F U

Ref. Value Calculated calculated

Tolerance 0.005 0.05

Norm L2 L2

Min. Ref. not applicable not applicable

The values for the convergence criteria are set to defaults except for the tolerances. The

tolerances for force and displacement are set as 5 times the default values. Table 3.11

shows the commands used for the advanced nonlinear settings. The program behavior

upon nonconvergence for this analysis was set such that the program will terminate but

Nodal DOF sol'n 0

Cumulative iter 0

Elapsed time 0

CPU time 0

3.2.9 Analysis Process for the Finite Element Model

The FE analysis of the model was set up to examine three different behaviors: initial

cracking of the beam, yielding of the steel reinforcement, and the strength limit state of

the beam. The Newton-Raphson method of analysis was used to compute the nonlinear

response.

the Newton-Raphson procedure. After each load increment was applied, the restart

option was used to go to the next step after convergence. A listing of the load steps, sub

steps, and loads applied per restart file are shown in Table 3.12.

Load

Beginning Time at End

Load Step Sub Step Increment

Time of Loadstep

(lbs.)

0 5210 1 1 5210

5210 5220 2 10 10

5220 5300 3 16 5

5300 5400 4 20 5

5400 10000 5 92 50

10000 13000 6 30 100

13000 14000 7 10 100

14000 14500 8 50 10

14500 14700 9 20 10

14700 14800 10 20 5

14800 14900 11 100 1

14900 15000 12 10 10

15000 15100 13 10 10

15100 15200 14 50 2

15200 15300 15 20 5

15300 15600 16 150 2

15600 15900 17 150 2

15900 16200 18 150 2

16200 16300 19 50 2

16300 16382 20 41 2

The time at the end of each load step corresponds to the loading applied. For the first

load step the time at the end of the load step is 5210 referring to a load of, P, of 5210 lbs

The two convergence criteria used for the analysis were Force and Displacement.

These criteria were left at the default values up to 5210 lbs. However, when the beam

began cracking, convergence for the non-linear analysis was impossible with the default

values. The displacements converged, but the forces did not. Therefore, the convergence

criteria for force was dropped and the reference value for the Displacement criteria was

changed to 5. This value is then multiplied by the tolerance value of 0.05 to produce a

criterion of 0.25 during the nonlinear solution for convergence. A small criterion must be

used to capture correct response. This criteria was used for the remainder of the analysis.

As shown in Table 3.12, the steps taken to the initial cracking of the beam can be

decresed to one load increment to model/capture initial cracking. Once initial cracking of

the beam has been passed (5220 lbs), the load increments increased slightly until

subsequent cracking of the beam (14,000 lbs) as seen in Table 3.12. Once the yielding of

the reinforcing steel is reached, the load increments must be decreased again. Yielding of

the steel occurs at load step 13,400; therefore, the load increment sizes begin decreasing

further because displacements are increasing more rapidly. Eventually, the load

increment size is decreased to 2 lb. to capture the failure of the beam. Failure of the

beam occurs when convergence fails, with this very small load increment. The load

3.3 Results

The goal of the comparison of the FE model and the beam from Buckhouse (1997) is to

ensure that the elements, material properties, real constants and convergence criteria are

adequate to model the response of the member. Figure 3.4 shows the different

components that were analyzed for comparison: the linear region, initial cracking, the

The analysis of the linear region can be based on the design for flexure given in

MacGregor (1992) for a reinforced concrete beam. Comparisons were made in this

region to ensure deflections and stresses were consistent with the FE model and the beam

before cracking occurred. Once cracking occurs, deflections and stresses become more

difficult to predict. The stresses in the concrete and steel immediately preceding initial

cracking were analyzed. The load at step 5210 was analyzed and it coincides with a load

Calculations to obtain the concrete stress, steel stress and deflection of the beam

at a load of 5210 lbs. can be seen in Appendix A. A comparison of values obtained from

the FE model and Appendix A can be seen in Table 3.13. The maximums exist in the

constant-moment region of the beam during load application. This is where we expect

the maximums to occur. The results in Table 3.13 indicate that the FE analysis of the

Table 3.13 – Deflection and Stress Comparisons At First Cracking

Extreme Tension

Model Steel Stress Deflection Cracking

Fiber Stress (psi)

(psi) (in.) (lbs.)

Hand-

530 3024 0.0529 5118

Calculations

ANSYS 536 2840 0.0534 5216

The cracking pattern(s) in the beam can be obtained using the Crack/Crushing plot option

in ANSYS (SAS 2003). Vector Mode plots must be turned on to view the cracking in the

model.

The initial cracking of the beam in the FE model corresponds to a load of 5216 lbs

that creates stress just beyond the modulus of rupture of the concrete (520 psi) as shown

in Table 3.13. This compares well with the load of 5118 lbs calculated in Appendix A.

The stress increases up to 537 psi at the centerline when the first crack occurs. The first

crack can be seen in Figure 3.15. This first crack occurs in the constant moment region,

and is a flexural crack. Buckhouse (1997) reported first cracking at a load, P, of 4500 lbs

In the non-linear region of the response, subsequent cracking occurs as more load is

applied to the beam. Cracking increases in the constant moment region, and the beam

1st Crack in

Concrete Beam

Significant flexural cracking occurs in the beam at 12,000 lbs. Also, diagonal tension

cracks are beginning to form in the model. This cracking can be seen in Figure 3.16.

Yielding of steel reinforcement occurs when a force of 13,400 lbs. is applied. At this

point in the response, the displacements of the beam begin to increase at a higher rate as

more load is applied (Figure 3.4). The cracked moment of inertia, yielding steel, and

nonlinear concrete material, now defines the flexural rigidity of the member. The ability

of the beam to distribute load throughout the cross-section has diminished greatly.

Flexural Cracks

Figure 3.17 shows successive cracking of the concrete beam after yielding of the

steel occurs. At 15,000 lbs., the beam has increasing flexural cracks, and diagonal

tension cracks. Also, more cracks have now formed in the constant moment region. At

16,000 lbs., cracking has reached the top of the beam, and failure is soon to follow.

Multiple cracks

occurring

Increasing Diagonal

Tension Cracks

At load 16,382 lbs., the beam no longer can support additional load as indicated by an

moment region occurs (see Figure 3.18). The deflections at the analytical failure load of

the control beam were compared with the finite element model as shown in Table 3.14.

Excessive cracking and of the beam in

the constant moment region

Diagonal Tension

Cracking

Table 3.14 – Deflections of Control Beam (Buckhouse 1997) vs. Finite Element Model

At Ultimate Load

Centerline

Beam Load (lb.) Deflection

(in.)

C1 16310 3.65

ANSYS 16310 3.586

The deflection of the finite element model was within 2% of the control beam at the same

3.3.6 Load-Deformation Response

The full nonlinear load-deformation response can be seen in Figure 3.19. This response

was calibrated by setting the tolerances so that the load-deformation curve fits to the

curve from Buckhouse (1997). The response calculated using FEA is plotted upon the

the model produced compares well with the response from Buckhouse (1997). This gave

confidence in the use of ANSYS (SAS 2003) and the model developed. The approach

18000

FEA

16000

14000

C1 theoretical

12000 ultimate load

(14,600 lbs.)

Avg. Load, P (lbs.)

10000

Buckhouse (1997)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Avg. Centerline Deflection (in.)

Figure 3.19 – Load vs. Deflection Curve Comparison of ANSYS and Buckhouse (1997)

- Ansys Structural AnalysisUploaded byUmesh Vishwakarma
- Examples of Concrete Element SOLID65- Hani Aziz AmeenUploaded byHani Aziz Ameen
- Ansys Code for RCCUploaded byAnvar Va
- Ansys Steps for Civilea (1)Uploaded bydashoo7
- nonlinear analysis of shear dominant prestressed concrete beams using ansysUploaded byMaryam Sh
- Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened With FRP LaminatesUploaded bysvchaudhari
- Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures Using Ansys Nonlinear Concrete Model(1)Uploaded bywaseq911
- FE_slabUploaded byLurdes Martins
- Beginner Ansys TutorialUploaded byNGUYEN
- Modeling of Reinforced Concrete BeamUploaded byNGUYEN
- Simplified ANSYS Model Concrete CrackUploaded byMohamadreza Seraji
- AnsysUploaded byapi-3719538
- Solid 65Uploaded byMarKusskade
- Flexural Behavior of Reinforced and Pre Stressed Concrete Beams Using Finite Element AnalysisUploaded byJinsoo Hong
- Crack Identification in Reinforced Concrete Beams using ANSYS SoftwareUploaded byCyril Vomáčka
- ansys-example0702Uploaded byTran Hoc
- Crack identification in reinforced concrete beams using ANSYS software W04606133141.pdfUploaded byYogi Rp
- ansysUploaded bynanduslns07
- Ansys Manual for CAMA LABUploaded byPranav Pandey
- ANSYS for designers - extractUploaded byNono_geotec
- ANSYS Mechanical APDL Material ReferenceUploaded byWeb Logueando
- Mitres2 002s10 LinearUploaded byHYTHAMEL
- Ansys Shear Rc BeamUploaded bySonia Faisal
- ansysUploaded bynanduslns07
- Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures Under Monotonic LoadsUploaded byLurdes Martins
- Ansys TutorialUploaded byborchec
- ANSYS Static Structural - RC BEAM - APDL Commands by DrDalyO.docxUploaded byx620
- ansysUploaded bypraveen06apr
- Ansys tutorialUploaded bysuperguridi
- XFEM for reinforced concreteUploaded byRabee Shammas

- Fatigue ANalysis SN CurveUploaded byM Rafiq Raja
- ADPI Comfort and LEEDUploaded byLORELIELIM822
- Amsterdam_jet Grouted SlabUploaded bymetropodikas
- self healing concrete.pdfUploaded bythirumal
- CosmoplastUploaded byTurbado81
- Spirax Sarco - Typical Steam Orifice Flowmeter Station.pdfUploaded bynasirmuzaffar
- Oman Building RegulationsUploaded bySachin Mangrulkar
- HT pipe SPUploaded byShamolog
- drinking_water_gb.pdfUploaded byjsenad
- AW Alloys EquivalentsUploaded bymaniaq42
- Chapter - 2, Lesson 2Uploaded byyeshi janexo
- 32Uploaded byc_vivi92
- Ladder Reinforcement AreaUploaded byAkshay Kosanam
- High Integrity Die Casting - iMdc Dec 2013 Silafont®, Magsimal® und Castasil®Uploaded byGiacomo Zammattio
- TICO Pipe GripUploaded byfalokun
- Specification for Insulation Joint KitUploaded byharry
- Hangers Hanger BearingsUploaded byDouglas Batistella
- Effect of Different Types of Steel Fibers With Metakaolin & FlyUploaded byIAEME Publication
- Lab Equipment List 14-11-17Uploaded byRaza Mutahir
- A. P. Szilas - Production and Transport of Oil and Gas, Gathering and TransportationUploaded byAkpevweoghene Kelvin Idogun
- Influence of Rare Earth (Tb3+) on Electrical and Magnetic Studies of Nickel ferrite NanoparticlesUploaded byIOSRjournal
- 365 Epojet LvUploaded bypankaj
- MiltonRoy MRoy XT 33005 07 UsUploaded byLina
- Heat Treat9Uploaded bychibuezeoffiah
- Stop LogsUploaded byLakshmiWijayasiri
- Solar Heating for BuildingsUploaded byyk2bros
- BWPGuideUploaded byAntonio Figueroa Tejada
- Shigley Mechanical Engineering Design SOUploaded byAtidech Tepputorn
- sto adhesive B.pdfUploaded byPaulo Carvalho
- Min Tek Pyro Metallurgy 1Uploaded byBernard García Durán