Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FILE 20201001 053410 Thesis Yun Lin
FILE 20201001 053410 Thesis Yun Lin
College of Engineering
A Thesis in
Civil Engineering
by
Yun Lin
Master of Science
August 2010
The thesis of Yun Lin was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Andrew Scanlon
Professor of Civil Engineering
Thesis Adviser
Gordon Warn
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
Swagata Banerjee
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
William Burgos
Professor of Environmental Engineering and Professor in Charge of Graduate Programs
ii
Abstract
contribution of concrete between cracks to the overall stiffness of the member. In assessing
the strength of reinforced concrete sections the tension in the concrete is usually ignored
first proposed by the first author in 1971. This paper proposes and evaluates a method to
evaluate the post-peak parameters of the tension stiffening model based on bond
iii
Table of contents
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….……...1
1.1 Background…………………………………………………………………………1
1.2 Objective and Scope………………………………………………………………..2
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………………….3
2.1 Tension Stiffening Mechanism…………………………………...………………….3
2.2 Steel-concrete Bond…………………………………………………………………6
2.3 Tension Stiffening Models…………………………………………………………..6
2.4 Finite Element Models………………………………………………………………8
2.5 Harajli’s Bond Stress-slip Model……………………………………………………9
2.6 Summary…………………………………………………………………………..10
Chapter 3 DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL MODELS……………………………………11
3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………...11
3.2 Algorithm…………………………………………………………………………..11
3.3 Two-dimensional Simplification…………………………………………………...20
3.4 Bond Link Element………………………………………………………………...21
3.5 Mesh and Cracks…………………………………………………………...………25
3.6 Example Application of the Model………………………………………………...27
Chapter 4 BEEBY AND SCOTT TEST SPECIMEN………………………………………........38
4.1 Develop Tension Stiffening Model………………………………………………....38
4.2 Strain Distribution along the Steel Bar……………………….……………………..49
Chapter 5 APPLICATION OF THE MODEL………………………………………………...…53
5.1 Introduction……………………………………………….………………..……….53
5.2 Comparison with CEB Model……………………………………………………....53
5.3 Effect of Varying Reinforcement Ratio…………………………………………….57
Chapter 6 SUMMARY CONLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………….57
6.1 Summary……………………………………………………………………………57
6.2 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….57
6.3 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………..58
References……………………………………………………………………………………….59
Appendix Bond-slip Relation Chart……………………………………………………………...61
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Reinforced concrete members have been widely use for structural purposes. Tension stiffening
refers to tension carrying ability of concrete between cracks, contributing to the stiffness of a
reinforced concrete member before the reinforcement yields. If concrete is assumed to carry
tension between the cracks only, the reinforcement carries the entire axial load at the crack
location. The rigidity of the reinforced member affects the performance of a reinforced member in
Concrete cracks when the tensile stress limit is exceeded. Cracking causes a softening behavior
in plain concrete. As cracking progresses, concrete loses its stiffness at a relatively high rate.
However, this softening behavior is counteracted by the steel reinforcing bars in the tension zone
between concrete and reinforcement and plays an important role in the analysis of concrete
structures. This thesis investigates the development of a tension stiffening model based on bond
stress-slip relationships that for can be used in smeared cracking finite element analysis.
The objective and scope of this study is to investigate the behavior of concrete between cracks
considering bond stress-slip relationships to develop tension stiffening models for reinforced
concrete. Tension stiffening models are needed to simulate post-cracking behavior of reinforced
concrete which is important for evaluating serviceability and in particular, deflection control.
1
This objective will be achieved within the scope of the following tasks:
1. Literature review
4. Comparison with the CEB tension stiffening model and study of the effect of reinforcement
ratio
2
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEWS
The tension stiffening mechanism is illustrated in Fig 2.1 which shows a prism loaded in
tension. As the tensile force P increases cracks form at intervals long the prism.
Figure 2.1(a) shows the stress distribution of concrete and steel along the bar length. At
individual cracks, the entire force is transferred across the crack by the steel bar. Between cracks,
force transfers from steel to concrete through bond stress and the tensile force is carried by both
steel and concrete. The total applied force is equal to the sum of the force in the steel and the force
in the concrete at any section. At the cracked locations, stress in concrete is assumed to be zero
Figure 2.2 shows the stress distribution of the concrete in a section perpendicular to the bar. At
a section near to the end of the bar or a cracked location, stress in the concrete is higher closer to
the reinforcement bar and lower further away. The distribution gradually becomes uniform at
3
Fig. 2.1 Stress distribution of concrete and steel along the prism (MacGregor 2009)
4
Fig. 2.2 Variation of longitudinal stress distribution of concrete in vertical direction
5
2.2 Steel-Concrete Bond
Figure 2.3 shows a picture of a steel-concrete bond. The bond between steel and concrete has
three main components: chemical adhesion, friction and mechanical interlock (Wang and Liu
2003). Chemical adhesion is the original bond developed between concrete and steel before any
slip occurs. The effect of chemical adhesion is very small and it does not allow any slip. As the
steel bar is loaded up to a certain level, chemical adhesion bond cannot provide sufficient bond
force and breaks down. As soon as the chemical bond fails, relative movement can occur between
concrete and steel. As one of the components of bond force, friction comes into play. The radial
forces around the steel bar can create a certain amount of friction forces counteracting the slip
effect. Also, mechanical interlock, which is created by the ribs on the bar embedded in the
concrete, becomes the most important component as illustrated in Figure 2.3. As the load
continuous to increase, the steel bar is elongated more significantly. Poisson’s ratio’s effect causes
the cross section to decrease. The radial forces are significantly reduced due to that effect, so
friction becomes negligible at this stage and leaving the bearing of concrete becomes the primary
Since the early 1970’s a number of models have been proposed in the literature to represent the
stiffening effect of concrete between cracks for use in smeared crack finite element analyses. (e.g.
Scanlon (1971), Scanlon and Murray (1974), Nayall and Rashid, 2006). Figure 2.4 shows the
original tension stiffening model developed by Scanlon (1971). In most cases these models,
typically referred to as “tension stiffening models”, have been developed on an empirical basis and
6
validated by comparing computed load – deformation response against available laboratory test
data. In this paper a methodology is proposed to develop such a model based on consideration of
bond characteristics between concrete and steel and progressive cracking under increasing load
7
Figure 2.5 shows the bond force distribution along the prism. Bond force is larger closer to crack
location.
Finite element models for analysis of reinforced concrete have been under development since
the 1960’s. Ngo and Scordelis (1967) proposed a discrete crack analysis finite element model for
reinforced concrete beams. A unit width of the beam was modeled using plane stress elements. At
predefined crack locations, separate nodal points on either side of the crack were defined. Linear
bond link elements were used to model bond between the reinforcement and the concrete.
Nilson (1971) extended the model incorporating a nonlinear bond-slip relationship with
nonlinear material property to increase the accuracy of the model. A nonlinear incremental method
was used in his study. De Groot et al. (1981) developed a bond-zone element to distribute bond
stress. Keuser and Mehlhorn (1987) introduced a contact element to provide continuous interaction
8
between concrete and steel. Yankelevsky (1985) proposed a linear bond stress-slip law. G. Chen
and G. Baker (2002) use a single spring model to account for bond stress and slippage. Rots and
Invernizzi(2002) developed a saw-tooth tension stiffening model with sequential cracks. Lowes et
Harajli (2002) generated a monotonic envelope bond stress-slip relationship using regression
analysis of test data. Using both analytical model and experimental results, he proposed an
equation for maximum bond stress and the corresponding slippage. Figure 2.5 shows the local
bond stress and slip relationship for axially loaded concrete prisms reinforced with steel bars. The
vertical axis U is the local bond stress and horizontal axis is local slip distance. Local bond stress
U is increasing in a descending rate instead of linear relationship with slip distance. Equation 2.4.1
shows the relationship between local bond stress and slip distance. The maximum bond stress 𝑈𝑚
and the corresponding slip distance 𝑠1 are defined in equation 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. The splitting stress
𝑈𝑠𝑝 is required stress for concrete splitting failure and it is not used in this study. The bond stress
slip relationship is used to determine the stiffness for linkage elements in later chapters.
𝑠
𝑈 = 𝑈𝑚 ( )𝛼 (2.4.1)
𝑠1
𝑠1 = 0.15𝑐𝑜 (2.4.3)
𝑐𝑜 : Clear distance between lugs
9
2.6 Summary
In most cases tension stiffening models have been developed on an empirical basis and verified
in terms of overall structural behavior. Models have been developed in this chapter to simulate the
load interaction between reinforcement and concrete in tensile zones. In the following chapter,
bond stress-slip elements will be used to provide the basis for an overall tension stiffening model
10
Chapter 3
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, a finite element model is developed to simulate the response of an axially
loaded tensile prism under increasing load. Using a proposed bond stress-slip model, stresses in the
prism are monitored and cracks are inserted as the cracking stress is exceeded under increasing
load. The model is used to develop a saw-tooth type of tension stiffening model for use in smeared
3.2 Algorithm
An increasing tensile stress is applied to the prism. Whenever the maximum stress in the
concrete reaches the tensile stress limit, a new series of cracks are inserted to the prisms, crack
3.2.1 Step 1
The prism is initially assumed to be uncracked and under a uniform strain 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 1
corresponding to a total axial force 𝑃𝑇 causing a stress fc in the concrete and fs in the steel. A
uniform strain is considered to be under plane stress with area of concrete Ac and area of steel As .
Figure 3.1 shows the stress and strain distribution in axially loaded the prism.
11
a) Stress
b) Strain
12
As the load P is increased, the stress in the concrete increases until the maximum tensile stress
of the concrete is reached 𝑓𝑡′ . The strain 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 1 at any cross section is uniform. While increasing
the applied load, the tensile stress of concrete will eventually reach the tensile stress limit 𝑓𝑡′ .
𝑓𝑡′
𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 1 =
𝐸𝑐
Figure 3.2 shows the plot of stress vs. strain in concrete up to the first cracking.
13
3.2.2 Step 2
At first cracking, the concrete has reached its tensile strength 𝑓𝑡′ . It is assumed that at this stage
a series of cracks form at a spacing L along the prism, the force is concentrated in the steel bar.
Therefore, apply force P to the steel bar embedded in a prism with a length of L (Fig. 3.3). The
right end represents the section of the prism mid-way between adjacent cracks. Tensile stress
distribution in vertical direction closer to the force end is no longer uniform, and gradually
changing to uniform as moving to the middle of the prism (Fig.3.4). In any horizontal path,
concrete closer to the steel bar has higher tensile stress and the maximum tensile stress can exceed
the tensile stress limit 𝑓𝑡′ as the load P increases. New cracks are inserted when maximum stress of
concrete reaches 𝑓𝑡′ and new crack spacing becomes L/2. Every time new cracks are inserted to the
prism, the equivalent overall prism stiffness is reduced to a new value which means the slope of
Fig. 3.3 Load P applied to reinforcing bar after formation of first series of cracks at spacing
14
Fig. 3.4 Tensile Stress distribution in vertical paths
Apply force P in the prism at 1st crack to the steel. Obtain the stress distribution in the steel bar
from the finite element results. Figure 3.5 shows the tensile stress distribution along the steel bar
between two cracks. 𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 is the average stress in the steel. The average total force in the steel
𝑃𝑠 is equal to the product of the average stress in the steel 𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 and the area of steel 𝐴𝑠 . Total
force in the concrete at any section is equal to the difference of total applied force 𝑃𝑇 and force in
the steel 𝑃𝑠 .
15
Force in the steel = 𝑃𝑠 = 𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 × 𝐴𝑠
𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 = Average stress in the steel can be obtained from ABAQUS model.
𝑃𝑇 = 𝑃𝑐 + 𝑃𝑠
𝑃𝑐 = 𝑃𝑇 − 𝑃𝑆
𝑃𝐶
𝐴𝐶
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑡𝑒
𝐸𝑒2 = =
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 2
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 2 ∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 3
𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 2 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 3 =
𝐿 𝐿
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 : 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑚.
In figure 3.7, point 2 shows the stress in the concrete when the original total load in step 1 is
applied at the steel bar. The new slope is reduced to 𝐸𝑒2 due to the stiffness loss caused by cracks.
𝑓𝑡 2 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 2 × 𝐸𝑒2
Continue increasing applied load to the ABAQUS model to make the maximum stress of
concrete reach limit again (point 3). Figure 3.4 shows in any vertical path, the maximum stress in
the concrete is always at the layer closest to the steel layer. Figure 3.6 shows the tensile stress
distribution of the horizontal path in the concrete closest to steel layer between two cracks.
Applied load P is increased until the maximum stress 𝑆𝑡,𝑐(𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) reaches the tensile stress limit 𝑓𝑡′ .
Due to the variation of concrete property, crack can take place within the length of 𝑆𝑐 , shown in
figure 3.6.
16
Fig. 3.6 Tensile stress distribution of the horizontal path in the concrete closest to steel layer
between two cracks
At point 3:
𝑓𝑡 3 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 3 × 𝐸𝑒2
Figure 3.7 shows shows the plot of average stress of concrete vs. Strain of the composite up to
Fig. 3.7 Average tensile stress vs. Strain up to the second cracking
17
3.2.3 Step 3
Insert new series of cracks to the model. Crack spacing is decreased to L/4. Repeat the procedures
in step 2: Increase applied load (𝑃𝑇 ) so that maximum stress of concrete matches 𝑓𝑡′
Average stress in steel (𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 ) can be obtained from ABAQUS model.
𝑃𝐶 = 𝑃𝑇 − 𝑃𝑠
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 3
𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 4 =
𝐿
𝑃𝐶
𝐴𝐶
Equivalent modulus of elasticity of concrete = 𝐸𝑒3 =
𝜀 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 4
𝑓𝑡 4 = 𝐸𝑒3 × 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝4
18
3.2.4 Step 4
Repeat step number 3 until stress in the steel can no longer be increased or crack spacing is too
small. A stepped (saw-tooth) stress-strain diagram is completed once all the steps are properly
performed until reinforcement bar is yielded. Figure shows a complete saw tooth stress and strain
diagram.
19
3.3 Two-dimensional simplification
Figure 3.10 shows a simplified two-dimensional Prism model. The model has a 16 inches long
prism with 5 x 5 inches cross-section with a number 8 steel rebar though the middle.
All parts have a unit width of 1 inch. A realistic model contains a circular cross-sectional steel
bar and a block of concrete. For simplicity, Scordelis’s two-dimensional model with unit width is
used in the modeling. A thin layer of steel is used to model the steel bar so that the 1 unit width
model has the same reinforcement ratio. The thickness of the thin layer is the product of the
ρ: reinforcement ratio
20
3.4 Bond link element
Figure 3.11 shows a sample ABAQUS model of a cracked reinforced concrete beam with two
point loads on one third of the beam and its bond stress distribution along the horizontal distance.
A fully bonded condition was assumed. In reality, the bond stress curve does not have sudden
jumps at the locations of crack. A bond link element which can account for slip effect is needed.
A series of spring elements will be added to provide the bond force and a slip distance
depending on the local bond force. A stiffness coefficient and the tributary width of each spring
Figure 3.12 shows the spring element setup for the analytical models. Spring elements are
spaced out evenly along the prism member. Each spring pair provides the bond force over the
distance ∆L.
21
Fig. 3.12 Spring element layout
Initially, a linear relationship between bond slip and bond stress was assumed which means the
bond slip is proportional to bond stress. A single spring was used in each location. Cracking due to
a “press down effect” has not yet occurred. It is reasonable to believe that the vertical movement of
steel is very small and negligible. Thus, only horizontal elongations of spring elements are allowed
in this model.
Load is directly applied to steel. Part of the stress is transferred to the concrete due to bond
stress. The horizontal stiffness coefficient of spring element affects the rate of stress transfer
between concrete and steel. However, the amount of stress transfer is not directly proportional to
the stiffness coefficient K. The force in the spring is the product of stiffness coefficient K and
elongation S. Any increment in K value decreases the elongation S. To know how K value is
affecting the stress left in the steel in middle of the prism, parametric study of stiffness coefficient
K is performed
A stress of 6452 psi is applied to the bar at the end of the prism. Perfect bond between concrete
and steel is used. In the result, at middle of the prism, the steel has a residual horizontal stress of
1511 psi. Then, fully bonded condition is replaced by a number of evenly distributed spring
22
elements. Figure 3.13 shows the relationship between spring stiffness coefficient K and residual
Fig. 3.13 Residual stress distribution in the steel bar at the middle of the prism
When the stress reached its minimum value, in this case it is 1665.81 psi, any increment of K
has no effect on residual stress. The minimum residual stress is still larger than the case in perfect
bond condition. It is because spring element can only provide discrete resistance instead of
continuous resistance.
Stiffness coefficient K is affecting the amount of stress transferred from steel to concrete. The
variation of stress distribution shows exactly how sensitive the solution is to the selected value K.
Figure 3.14 shows how stress distribution from the end to the middle of the prism in the concrete
varies with different K value. It is assumed that from 50000 to 300000 lb/in is the reasonable range
23
of K in this model because within the range the distribution of the concrete is increasing from zero
S11
(psi) 600
K = 1E^7
500 K = 1E^6
K = 5E^5
400 K = 3E^5
K = 2E^5
300 K = 1.5E^5
K = 1E^5
200 K = 80000
K = 50000
100 K = 10000
K = 1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 x (in)
In reality, bond slip relationship is not exactly linear as represented by a spring with constant
stiffness. Bond slip relationships are different at different locations, even at the same location the
relationship changes under different applied loads. Harajli’s model (chapter 2) is used to determine
variable bond link stiffness for Beeby and Scott’s model discussed in chapter 4. Figure 3.14 shows
the variation of bond link stiffness as a function of slip. The bond link stiffness is relatively greater
when the slip is small. The derivation will be presented in chapter 5. More slippage means more
24
Fig. 3.14 Tensile stress distribution in concrete
Figure 3.15 shows the mesh of the prism problem. Rectangular mesh is used for finite element
calculations. Smaller mesh is used in steel, because the steel thin layer has a small thickness. Nodal
points are needed at the middle of the layer to obtain the stress level at each position. Larger mesh
is used in concrete, but the layer closer to the steel has smaller mesh size. In general, smaller mesh
For simplicity, straight through cracks are used in the model as is shown in figure 3.16. A
series of cracks will be generated where stress level in concrete passes the limit. Cracks are placed
slightly left of the spring element. A very small crack width of 0.0001 inch is used so that it does
25
Fig. 3.15 Mesh
26
3.6 Example application of the model
An arbitrary reinforced concrete prism is used as the first analytical model using spring linkage
element with constant stiffness. Fig.3.17 shows an axially loaded 32’ long prism with a 5” by 5”
cross-section reinforced with a number eight steel bar though the middle. Load is applied at each
Assumptions:
Material property:
Material property:
27
Dimensions:
Thickness = 1 in
Length = 32 in
Step 1
Applied a uniform strain to an uncracked prism and increase the uniform strain to 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 1 when
𝑓𝑐 = 474 𝑝𝑠𝑖
Step 2
All the concrete has reached its maximum tensile stress capacity. Cracks can happen at
anywhere along the uncracked prism. Insert cracks and make a crack spacing 32”. Now the same
load 2885 lb is applied at both ends of the steel bar, the stress level in the concrete is reduced due
to the stress relief at cracks. Increase the load to 2945 lb, so that the maximum stress in the
concrete is reached to 𝑓𝑡′ again. Figure 3.18 shows the stress contour from ABAQUS result.
28
Fig. 3.18 Tensile Stress Contour for 32” crack spacing
Figure 3.19 shows the tensile stress distribution in the steel and average stress in the steel 𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 .
Force in the steel = 𝑃𝑠 = 𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 × 𝐴𝑠 = 5939 𝑝𝑠𝑖 × 0.155 𝑖𝑛2 = 920.5 𝑙𝑏
𝑃𝑇 = 𝑃𝑐 + 𝑃𝑠 = 2945 𝑙𝑏
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 2 = 0.00745 𝑖𝑛
29
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 2 0.00745 𝑖𝑛
𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 2 = = = 0.000233
𝐿 32 𝑖𝑛
Equivalent modulus of elasticity of concrete is reduced to 𝐸𝑒2
𝑃𝐶
𝐴𝐶 2024.5 𝑙𝑏
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑡𝑒 4.845 𝑖𝑛2 = 1793362 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐸𝑒2 = = =
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 2 0.000233
In figure 3.20, maximum stress of the concrete was reached approximately from 4 in to 28 in of
the prism. Figure only shows half of the results due to symmetry. At zero horizontal distance, the
stress in concrete is not zero, because there are spring elements placed at both ends of the prism
Fig. 3.20 Tensile stress distribution of the horizontal path in the concrete closest to steel layer
between two cracks
30
Step 3
Additional cracks are assumed to be at 8”, 16” and 24” of the prism. New crack spacing is 8”.
Load is increased to 3131 lb in ABAQUS model to make maximum stress in concrete reach 𝑓𝑡′ .
Figure 3.22 shows the tensile stress distribution in the steel and average stress in the steel 𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 .
Force in the steel = 𝑃𝑠 = 𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 × 𝐴𝑠 = 12871 𝑝𝑠𝑖 × 0.155 𝑖𝑛2 = 1995 𝑙𝑏
𝑃𝑇 = 𝑃𝑐 + 𝑃𝑠 = 3131 𝑙𝑏
31
𝑃𝑐 = 𝑃𝑇 − 𝑃𝑆 = 3131 𝑙𝑏 − 1995 𝑙𝑏 = 1136 𝑙𝑏
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 3 0.0138 𝑖𝑛
𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 3 = = = 0.000431
𝐿 32 𝑖𝑛
Equivalent modulus of elasticity of concrete is reduced to 𝐸𝑒3
𝑃𝐶
𝐴𝐶 1136 𝑙𝑏
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑡𝑒 4.845 𝑖𝑛2 = 544010 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐸𝑒3 = = =
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 3 0.000431
In figure 23, maximum stress of the concrete was reached approximately at 4”, 12”, 20” and
28” in of the prism. Figure only shows half of the results due to symmetry.
Fig. 3.23 Tensile stress distribution of the horizontal path in the concrete closest to steel layer
between two cracks
Step 4
Additional cracks are inserted at 4”, 12”, 20” and 28”. New crack spacing becomes 4”. Load is
increased to 3720 lb to make maximum stress in concrete reach 𝑓𝑡′ . Stress contour is shown in
figure 3.24.
32
Fig. 3.24 Tensile Stress Contour for 4” crack spacing
Figure 3.25 shows the tensile stress distribution in the steel and average stress in the steel 𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 .
Force in the steel = 𝑃𝑠 = 𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 × 𝐴𝑠 = 20335 𝑝𝑠𝑖 × 0.155 𝑖𝑛2 = 3152 𝑙𝑏
𝑃𝑇 = 𝑃𝑐 + 𝑃𝑠 = 3720 𝑙𝑏
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 4 = 0.0212𝑛
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 3 0.0212 𝑖𝑛
𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 4 = = = 0.000663
𝐿 32 𝑖𝑛
33
Equivalent modulus of elasticity of concrete is reduced to 𝐸𝑒4
𝑃𝐶
𝐴𝐶 568 𝑙𝑏
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑡𝑒 4.845 𝑖𝑛2 = 176824 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐸𝑒4 = = =
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 4 0.000663
Fig. 3.26 Tensile stress distribution of the horizontal path in the concrete closest to steel layer
between two cracks
In step 1, figure 3.4(d) shows that it takes about 4” for the stress in concrete to rise from
minimum to maximum. This distance does not change on step 2 and 3. The required load
increment is small to form another series of cracks if the crack spacing is greater than 8”, which is
twice the distance of 4”. Once the crack spacing is less than 8”, it takes a lot more additional load
for the maximum stress in concrete to reach 𝑓𝑡′ . In this model, crack spacing is still able to reduce
to 2”, if enough additional load is provided, because spring stiffness is assumed to be constant. In
reality, bond link stiffness will be reduced when slippage is increased. When slippage is too large,
bond link elements might not be able to provide needed force transfer within a distance shorter
than 4”. It is suggested that minimum cracks spacing to be taken as 4”. A variable stiffness for
34
spring element will be adopted in Beeby and Scott’s model. Figure 3.27 shows the stepped (saw-
Fig. 3.27 Stepped (saw-tooth) Stress strain diagram for example model
35
Comparison of bond link elements with different constant stiffness
For analytical model with constant spring stiffness, 50000 to 300000lb/in is the reasonable
range for stiffness coefficient (K) of spring elements (Fig. 3.14). In the previous calculation,
150000lb/in is used for K value. In the part of study, different k values will be used to determine
the sensitivity of K.
Figure 3.28 shows that how bond link stiffness K affect the cracking load and displacement.
Generally speaking, a prism with higher K value cracks in a faster rate. The faster rate is reflected
The saw-tooth form can also be converted to a gradually descending post-peak form by curve
fitting and an “equal energy” criterion, i.e. equal area under the post-peak portion of the stress-
ft 500
(psi) 450
400
350
300
K= 50000
250
K=150000
200 K=250000
150
100
50
0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014 0.0016
36
500
ft
(psi) 450
400
350
300
250 K=150000
200 K=50000
K=250000
150
100
50
0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014 0.0016
37
Chapter 4
4.1 Introduction
A simplified two-dimensional model was made to compare with the Beeby and Scott’s test
specimen (Beeby and Scott 2002). A tension stiffening model was created based on the analytical
finite element results. The strain distribution along the steel bar was compared with experimental
Fig.4.1 shows an analytical model for a axially loaded 1600mm long prism with a 120 by
120mm cross-section reinforced with a number five steel bar though the middle. Load is applied at
each end of the steel bar. The intention of building this model is to match up the experimental
data with experiment T16B1. Variable Bond link stiffness is used in this analytical model.
Assumptions:
Bond link stiffness K is variable corresponding to the slip distance. Details are presented later
in this chapter.
38
Material property:
Dimensions:
Thickness = 1 mm
Element type:
Load stages:
1. 8 KN
2. 20 KN
3. 29 KN
4. 44 KN
Spacing = 2.5 cm
39
Derivation of bond link stiffness coefficient
The variable bond link stiffness coefficient will be derived based on the bond stress-slip
relationship in Harajli(2002). K is the spring stiffness coefficient equal to the bond force divided
by slip distance S. Bond force is equal to the product of bond stress 𝜏 and tributary area at each
spring element. Equation (2) can be used to obtain local bond stress to get the bond force needed in
equation (3).
𝛼 = 0.4
𝑠
𝐵𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝜏(𝑇.𝐴.) 𝜏 𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑠 )𝛼 (𝑇.𝐴)
𝐾= = = 1
= {𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑆1−𝛼 (𝑇. 𝐴. )}𝑆 (𝛼−1) (3)
𝑆 𝑆 𝑆
All the parameters in {𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑆1−𝛼 (𝑇. 𝐴. )} are constant. The only variable for K is slip distance.
The value of bond link stiffness can be calculated if slip is known. All the value of bond link
stiffness is tabulated in appendix A from a 0.01 mm to 1.8 mm, where 1.8 mm is 15% of clear lug
distance of a number five steel rebar. Table 4.1 shows the different K value for slip distance
between 0 and 𝑆1 .
40
In the experimental (Beeby and Scott 2002), deflections of the bar at each location along the
bar have been recorded. Elongation in the steel bar is normally 10 times larger than the elongation
in the concrete at the same horizontal location. A series of slip distances can be generated
according to the local deflection of the steel bar. The corresponding series of stiffness K can be
obtained from the slip distance and the tabulated stiffness in Appendix A. All stiffness K values
have to be regenerated once the applied load is changed which means there are 4 different series of
The tensile stress limit 𝑓𝑡′ is assumed to be increasing in the sequential crack stages. For
example in step 1 where the first series of crack is about to form, 𝑓𝑡′ is assumed to be 1.6 Mpa, but
in step 2, 𝑓𝑡′ is assumed to be 1.7 Mpa. In reality, concrete property is not perfectly uniform. Crack
will always from at the location with weaker tensile strength first.
Step 1
𝑓𝑟 1.6𝑀𝑝𝑎
𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 1 = = = 0.000073
𝐸𝑐 21856𝑀𝑝𝑎
41
Spring Stiffness(N/mm) Spring Stiffness(N/mm)
K1 381 K33 3051
K2 396 K34 3051
K3 413 K35 3051
K4 432 K36 3051
K5 453 K37 3051
K6 477 K38 3051
K7 506 K39 3051
K8 539 K40 3051
K9 578 K41 3051
K10 626 K42 3051
K11 687 K43 3051
K12 766 K44 3051
K13 879 K45 3051
K14 1041 K46 3051
K15 1328 K47 3051
K16 2013 K48 3051
K17 3051 K49 2013
K18 3051 K50 1328
K19 3051 K51 1041
K20 3051 K52 876
K21 3051 K53 766
K22 3051 K54 687
K23 3051 K55 626
K24 3051 K56 578
K25 3051 K57 539
K26 3051 K58 506
K27 3051 K59 477
K28 3051 K60 453
K29 3051 K61 432
K30 3051 K62 413
K31 3051 K63 396
K32 3051 K64 381
Table 4.1 Stiffness coefficients for spring elements for Beeby and Scott’s specimen
42
Step 2
Figure 3.5(b) shows the tensile stress distribution along the steel bar and the average stress in
Figure 4.2 shows the tensile stress distribution along the steel bar and the average stress in
Force in the steel = 𝑃𝑠 = 𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 × 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 = 46.8𝑀𝑝𝑎 × 200𝑚𝑚2 = 9260 𝑁
𝑃𝑇 = 𝑃𝑐 + 𝑃𝑠
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 2 = 0.3408 𝑚𝑚
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 2 0.3408 𝑚𝑚
𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 2 = = = 0.000213
𝐿 1600 𝑚𝑚
𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 = 0.000213
43
𝑃𝐶
𝐴𝐶
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑡𝑒 16740𝑁(14400𝑚𝑚2 − 200𝑚𝑚2 )
𝐸𝑒2 = = =
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 2 0.000213
= 5500 𝑀𝑝𝑎
In figure 4.3 maximum stress of the concrete was reached approximately from 500 mm to 1100
mm of the prism. According to the experimental results, the next crack will be inserted at 800 mm.
Fig. 4.3 Tensile stress distribution of the horizontal path in the concrete closest to steel layer
between two cracks
Step 3
Load = 29 KN
Figure 4.3 shows the tensile stress distribution along the steel bar and the average stress in
steel 𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 .
Force in the steel = 𝑃𝑠 = 𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 × 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 = 84.5 𝑀𝑃𝑎 × 200𝑚𝑚2 = 16900 𝑁
𝑃𝑇 = 𝑃𝑐 + 𝑃𝑠
44
Equivalent modulus of elasticity of concrete is reduced to 𝐸𝑒3
𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 3 = 0.0004
𝑃𝐶
𝐴𝐶
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑡𝑒 12100𝑁 14400𝑚𝑚2 − 200𝑚𝑚2
𝐸𝑒2 = = =
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 3 0.0004
= 2130 𝑀𝑝𝑎
In figure 4.4 maximum stress of the concrete was reached approximately from 100 mm to 600
mm and 900mm to 1500mmof the prism. According to the experimental results, the next series of
45
Fig. 4.4 Tensile stress distribution of the horizontal path in the concrete closest to steel layer
between two cracks
Step 4
Cracks are modeled at all same locations with experiment T16B1 (Beeby and Scott 2002).
Load = 44 KN
Figure 4.5 shows the tensile stress distribution along the steel bar and the average stress in
steel 𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 .
Force in the steel = 𝑃𝑠 = 𝑆11 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 × 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 = 183.6 𝑀𝑝𝑎 × 200𝑚𝑚2 = 36720 𝑁
𝑃𝑇 = 𝑃𝑐 + 𝑃𝑠
46
Equivalent modulus of elasticity of concrete is reduced to 𝐸𝑒4
𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 4 = 0.000881
𝑃𝐶
𝐴𝐶
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑡𝑒 7280𝑁(14400𝑚𝑚2 − 200𝑚𝑚2 )
𝐸𝑒4 = = =
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 3 0.000881
= 580 𝑀𝑝𝑎
Figure 4.6 shows the 𝑓𝑡 𝑣𝑠 𝜀𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 diagram using the result from step1-4.
ft (mpa)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009 0.001
Strain
47
Figure 4.7 shows the load vs. deflection curve of Beeby and Scott specimen.
Fig. 4.7 Load vs. Deflection for Beeby and Scott specimen
48
4.2 Strain distribution along the steel bar
Two sets of analysis were performed. Initially, an arbitrary model was analyzed using a
constant element stiffness, K = 15000 lb/in. Comparing with experimental results (Fig. 4.8), the
strain distribution pattern is quite similar except the strain in the steel with no crack developed
(Fig. 4.9). In the experimental model, the strain in the mid-section is close to uniform which means
the stress level is uniform. The real experiment, the bond link stiffness K varies from node to node.
K at the middle tends to be smaller than the ones on the sides. Therefore, most of the force transfer
occurs at the sides closer to applied force but not in mid-section. In analytical model, a linear
relationship was assumed for bond stress and slip distance, same K values has been used at every
bond link element. A relatively smaller K allows more force transfer in mid-section.
To compare with the results done with constant K, figure 4.10 shows Beeby and Scott’s prism
with variable bond link stiffness used in the model. The strain diagram looks very close to the
experimental result. A more accurate result has been achieved by using a more realistic bond slip
model.
49
Fig. 4.8 Strain distribution along the reinforcement at four stages during loading (Beeby and Scott,
2002)
50
900
800
3689 lb
700
3046 lb
600
reinforcement Strain x 10⁶
500
2325 lb
400
300 1550 lb
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
distance (in)
Fig. 4.9 Strain distribution along the reinforcement at four stages during loading (Constant K)
51
Fig. 4.10 Strain distribution comparison of Analytical and experimental results (Variable K)
52
Chapter 5
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, comparison of the analytical load vs. Strain plot with two different
CEB method uses a tension stiffening factor 𝛽2 to reduce the overall stiffness EA and β is the
ratio of cracking load 𝑁𝑐𝑟 and applied load N (Equation 5.1). Figure 5.1 shows a tensile load vs.
strain diagram of finite element analytical results, predicted results using CEB method and steel
bar only for Beeby and Scott specimen. (𝐸𝐴)𝑢𝑐 is the uncracked member stiffness. (𝐸𝐴)𝑒 is the
effective member stiffness at different stages. (𝐸𝐴)𝑐𝑟 is the remaining member stiffness when
concrete is fully cracked. It is equivalent to the stiffness of the steel bar only.
𝑁𝑐𝑟 2
𝐸𝐴𝑒 = 𝐸𝐴𝑢𝑐 ( ) (Equation 5.1)
𝑁
The area between the analytical RC curve or CEB curve and steel bar only is the total
The diagram shows finite element approach is more conservative than CEB approach. That is
due to the algorithm of analytical approach. Cracks take place one series at one time instead of
propagating steadily. Strain jump occurs when a new crack series takes place without any load
increase. The major different occurs when the first series of cracks occurs. A significant stiffness
loss due to first series of cracks occurs while the CEB method shows a smooth transition. With
increasing load beyond the first series of cracking the two curves are seem to be approximately
parallel.
53
Fig. 5.1 Tensile load vs. strain diagram
54
5.3 Effect of varying reinforcement ratio
The number 5 steel reinforcing bar was replaced by a number 3 bar with the same Beeby and
In comparison, concrete cracks in a faster rate for the member with larger reinforcement ratio.
Larger steel bar has a large contact area with concrete and larger ribs. The bond force is relatively
higher than the member with smaller reinforcing bars. The larger bond force causes concrete to
crack faster and more completely. Therefore, concrete block should contribute more to the whole
member due to smaller damage. As mentioned in previous sections, the area between the curve and
the straight line represents the total contribution of pure concrete. In figure 5.2, the area is larger
There are also some disadvantages for the member with smaller reinforcement ratio. First is
lower tension capacity. They cannot carry as much tension force as the one with larger
reinforcement. Second is lower bond force. If the reinforcement ratio is too low, pull-out failure
can occur before crack is initiated. A total bond link failure is same as total concrete failure, which
55
Fig. 5.2 Tensile load vs. strain diagram for models with different reinforcement ratio
56
Chapter 6
6.1 Summary
This research investigated the development of a tension stiffening model based on bond stress-
slip relationships. Based on Harajli’s(2002) bond stress-slip relationship, single spring bond link
elements with variable stiffness were implemented to provide the basis for an overall tension
stiffening model based on degrading concrete stiffness under sequential cracking. Numerical
results provided by ABAQUS, a finite element program, were compared with experimental results
to establish the validity of the simplifications and assumptions made for the two dimensional
The method of constructing an analytical tension stiffening model for an axially loaded
reinforced concrete prism with degrading stiffness and sequential cracking algorithm has been
described. Models with constant and variable bond link stiffness have been presented for
illustration. A tension stiffening saw-tooth stress-strain diagram has been generated in the form
proposed by Scanlon and Murray (1974). Development of bond link element is the key factor
which has significant influence on the stress distribution of the entire model. Comparisons with
experimental results show that using variable bond link stiffness improves the accuracy of
modeling.
6.2 Conclusions
The finite element approach developed in this thesis can be used to construct a tension
stiffening model for axially loaded prism. Both constant stiffness and variable bond link stiffness
models were applied. The variable bond link stiffness model was found to produce better
correlation with available experimental results. The proposed methodology provides a rational
57
6.3 Recommendations
The algorithm can be improved by extending the modeling approach to three dimensional
stress states that can be used to evaluate the effects of additional factors such as bar spacing and
concrete cover, and other reinforcement materials such as FRP (fiber reinforced polymer
materials). Further refinement is also possible in the modeling of bond between concrete and steel.
The probabilistic nature of the problem can be addressed by considering spatial variation of tensile
strength and modulus of elasticity. The approach could also be extended to flexural members.
58
References:
De Groot, A. K., Kusters, G. M. A., and Monnier, T. (1981). “Numerical modeling of bond-slip
behavior.” Heron, Concrete mechanics, V. 26(1B), 1-90.
Gilbert, R., and Waner, R. (1978). “Tension stiffening in reinforced concrete slabs.”ASCE J.
Struct. Div., V. 104(12), 1885-1990.
Harajli, M. H., Hout, M. and Jalkh, W. (1995). “Local bond stress-slip behavior of reinforcing bars
embedded in plain and fiber concrete” ACI Materials Journal, V. 92, 343-353.
Harajli, M. H., Hamad, B. and Kram, K. (2002). “Bond-slip response of reinforcing bars embedded
in plain and fiber concrete” J. Mat. in Civ. Engrg., V. 14(6), 503-511.
Keuser, M., and Mehlhorn, G. (1987). “Finite element models for bond problems.” J. Struct. Eng.,
V.113(10), 2160-2173.
Lin, C. S., and Scordelis, A. C. (1975). “Nonlinear analysis of RC shells of general form.” J.Struct.
Div., V. 101(3), 523-538.
Lowes, L. N., Moehle, J. P. and Govindjee, S. (2004) “ Concrete-Steel bond model for use in finite
element modeling of reinforced concrete structures” ACI Structure Journal, V. 101, No.4. 501-
511.
Nayal, R., and Rasheed, H. A. (2006). “Tension stiffening model for concrete beams reinforced
with steel and FRP bars.” J. Mat. in Civ. Engrg., V. 19(11) , 1014-1015
Ngo, D. and Scordelis, A.C. (1967) “Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beams”, ACI
Journal, V. 64,152-163
Nilson, A. H. (1971) “Internal measurement of bond slip.” J. AM. Concr. Inst., V. 69(7), 439-441.
Scanlon, A., and Murray, D. W. (1974). “Time dependent deflections of reinforced concrete slab
deflections.” ASCE J. Struct. Div., V. 100(9), 1911-1924.
Vebo, A., and Ghali, A. (1977). “Moment curvature relation of reinforced concrete slabs.”ASCE J.
Struct. Div., V. 103(3), 515-531.
59
Yankelevsky, D. Z. (1985). “New finite element for bond-slip analysis.” ASCE J. Struct. Eng., V.
111(7), 1533-1542.
Wang, X., Liu, L. (2003). “A strain-softening model for steel–concrete bond” Cement and
Concrete Research 33, 1669-1673.
60
Appendix
61
Table A - Continued
Slip(mm) Bond Stress(MPa) Spring Stiffness(N/mm)
31 0.31 4.82 388.70
32 0.32 4.88 381.36
33 0.33 4.94 374.39
34 0.34 5.00 367.74
35 0.35 5.06 361.40
36 0.36 5.12 355.34
37 0.37 5.17 349.55
38 0.38 5.23 344.00
39 0.39 5.28 338.68
40 0.4 5.34 333.58
41 0.41 5.39 328.67
42 0.42 5.44 323.95
43 0.43 5.49 319.41
44 0.44 5.54 315.04
45 0.45 5.59 310.82
46 0.46 5.64 306.74
47 0.47 5.69 302.81
48 0.48 5.74 299.01
49 0.49 5.79 295.33
50 0.5 5.84 291.78
51 0.51 5.88 288.33
52 0.52 5.93 284.99
53 0.53 5.97 281.75
54 0.54 6.02 278.61
55 0.55 6.06 275.56
56 0.56 6.11 272.60
57 0.57 6.15 269.72
58 0.58 6.19 266.92
59 0.59 6.23 264.19
60 0.6 6.28 261.54
61 0.61 6.32 258.96
62 0.62 6.36 256.45
63 0.63 6.40 254.00
64 0.64 6.44 251.61
65 0.65 6.48 249.28
62
Table A - Continued
Slip(mm) Bond Stress(MPa) Spring Stiffness(N/mm)
66 0.66 6.52 247.00
67 0.67 6.56 244.79
68 0.68 6.60 242.62
69 0.69 6.64 240.50
70 0.7 6.68 238.44
71 0.71 6.71 236.42
72 0.72 6.75 234.44
73 0.73 6.79 232.51
74 0.74 6.83 230.62
75 0.75 6.86 228.77
76 0.76 6.90 226.96
77 0.77 6.94 225.18
78 0.78 6.97 223.45
79 0.79 7.01 221.75
80 0.8 7.04 220.08
81 0.81 7.08 218.44
82 0.82 7.11 216.84
83 0.83 7.15 215.27
84 0.84 7.18 213.73
85 0.85 7.22 212.22
86 0.86 7.25 210.73
87 0.87 7.28 209.28
88 0.88 7.32 207.85
89 0.89 7.35 206.44
90 0.9 7.38 205.06
91 0.91 7.41 203.71
92 0.92 7.45 202.38
93 0.93 7.48 201.07
94 0.94 7.51 199.78
95 0.95 7.54 198.52
96 0.96 7.58 197.27
97 0.97 7.61 196.05
98 0.98 7.64 194.85
99 0.99 7.67 193.66
100 1 7.70 192.50
63
Table A - Continued
Slip(mm) Bond Stress(MPa) Spring Stiffness(N/mm)
101 1.01 7.73 191.35
102 1.02 7.76 190.23
103 1.03 7.79 189.12
104 1.04 7.82 188.02
105 1.05 7.85 186.95
106 1.06 7.88 185.89
107 1.07 7.91 184.84
108 1.08 7.94 183.81
109 1.09 7.97 182.80
110 1.1 8.00 181.80
111 1.11 8.03 180.82
112 1.12 8.06 179.85
113 1.13 8.09 178.89
114 1.14 8.11 177.95
115 1.15 8.14 177.02
116 1.16 8.17 176.10
117 1.17 8.20 175.19
118 1.18 8.23 174.30
119 1.19 8.25 173.42
120 1.2 8.28 172.55
121 1.21 8.31 171.70
122 1.22 8.34 170.85
123 1.23 8.36 170.02
124 1.24 8.39 169.19
125 1.25 8.42 168.38
126 1.26 8.45 167.57
127 1.27 8.47 166.78
128 1.28 8.50 166.00
129 1.29 8.53 165.23
130 1.3 8.55 164.46
131 1.31 8.58 163.71
132 1.32 8.60 162.96
133 1.33 8.63 162.23
134 1.34 8.66 161.50
135 1.35 8.68 160.78
64
Table A - Continued
Slip(mm) Bond Stress(MPa) Spring Stiffness(N/mm)
101 1.01 7.73 191.35
102 1.02 7.76 190.23
103 1.03 7.79 189.12
104 1.04 7.82 188.02
105 1.05 7.85 186.95
106 1.06 7.88 185.89
107 1.07 7.91 184.84
108 1.08 7.94 183.81
109 1.09 7.97 182.80
110 1.1 8.00 181.80
111 1.11 8.03 180.82
112 1.12 8.06 179.85
113 1.13 8.09 178.89
114 1.14 8.11 177.95
115 1.15 8.14 177.02
116 1.16 8.17 176.10
117 1.17 8.20 175.19
118 1.18 8.23 174.30
119 1.19 8.25 173.42
120 1.2 8.28 172.55
121 1.21 8.31 171.70
122 1.22 8.34 170.85
123 1.23 8.36 170.02
124 1.24 8.39 169.19
125 1.25 8.42 168.38
126 1.26 8.45 167.57
127 1.27 8.47 166.78
128 1.28 8.50 166.00
129 1.29 8.53 165.23
130 1.3 8.55 164.46
131 1.31 8.58 163.71
132 1.32 8.60 162.96
133 1.33 8.63 162.23
134 1.34 8.66 161.50
135 1.35 8.68 160.78
136 1.36 8.71 160.07
137 1.37 8.73 159.37
138 1.38 8.76 158.67
65
Table A - Continued
Slip(mm) Bond Stress(MPa) Spring Stiffness(N/mm)
139 1.39 8.78 157.99
140 1.4 8.81 157.31
141 1.41 8.83 156.64
142 1.42 8.86 155.98
143 1.43 8.88 155.32
144 1.44 8.91 154.67
145 1.45 8.93 154.03
146 1.46 8.96 153.40
147 1.47 8.98 152.77
148 1.48 9.01 152.15
149 1.49 9.03 151.54
150 1.5 9.06 150.93
151 1.51 9.08 150.33
152 1.52 9.10 149.74
153 1.53 9.13 149.15
154 1.54 9.15 148.57
155 1.55 9.18 147.99
156 1.56 9.20 147.42
157 1.57 9.22 146.86
158 1.58 9.25 146.30
159 1.59 9.27 145.74
160 1.6 9.29 145.20
161 1.61 9.32 144.66
162 1.62 9.34 144.12
163 1.63 9.36 143.59
164 1.64 9.38 143.06
165 1.65 9.41 142.54
166 1.66 9.43 142.03
167 1.67 9.45 141.51
168 1.68 9.48 141.01
169 1.69 9.50 140.51
170 1.7 9.52 140.01
171 1.71 9.54 139.52
172 1.72 9.57 139.03
173 1.73 9.59 138.55
174 1.74 9.61 138.07
175 1.75 9.63 137.60
66
Table A - Continued
Slip(mm) Bond Stress(MPa) Spring Stiffness(N/mm)
176 1.76 9.65 137.13
177 1.77 9.68 136.66
178 1.78 9.70 136.20
179 1.79 9.72 135.74
180 1.8 9.74 135.29
67