Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

1.1K views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Ansys contact tutorial
- Ansys Steps for Civilea (1)
- Simplified ANSYS Model Concrete Crack
- Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Beam
- Beginner Ansys Tutorial
- Ansys Structural Analysis
- ANSYS Tutorial-Crack Problem
- Using ANSYS for Creep Analysis.docx
- XFEM for reinforced concrete
- Crack Identification in Reinforced Concrete Beams using ANSYS Software
- ANSYS MODELING OF FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR OF RC BEAM STRENGTHENING BY FRP
- ANSYS Static Structural - RC BEAM - APDL Commands by DrDalyO.docx
- Examples of Concrete Element SOLID65- Hani Aziz Ameen
- Ansys Code for RCC
- Restarting an Analysis Single Multiframe
- STI0802 Drucker Prager
- CivilFEM Theory Manual
- Open Sees Example
- Ansys
- Mechanical APDL Structural Analysis Guide -- ANSYS

You are on page 1of 7

Antonio F. Barbosa and Gabriel O. Ribeiro

Federal University of Minas Gerais Department of Structural Engineering Avenida do Contorno, 842 2o andar 30110-060 Belo Horizonte - MG - Brazil e-mail: gabriel@dees.ufmg.br

Key words: Reinforced Concrete, Nonlinear Analysis, Finite Element Analysis. Abstract. This paper considers the practical application of nonlinear models in the analysis of reinforced concrete structures. The results of some analyses performed using the reinforced concrete model of the general purpose finite element code Ansys are presented and discussed. The differences observed in the response of the same reinforced concrete beam as some variations are made in a material model that is always basically the same are emphasyzed. The consequences of small changes in modelling are discussed and it is shown that satisfactory results may be obtained from relatively simple and limited models.

INTRODUCTION

Reinforced concrete structures are largely employed in engineering practice in a variety of situations and applications. In most cases these structures are designed following simplified procedures based on experimental data. Although traditional empirical methods remain adequate for ordinary design of reinforced concrete members, the wide dissemination of computers and the development of the finite element method have provided means for analysis of much more complex systems in a much more realistic way. The main obstacle to finite element analysis of reinforced concrete structures is the difficulty in characterizing the material properties. Much effort has been spent in search of a realistic model to predict the behaviour of reinforced concrete structures. Due mainly to the complexity of the composite nature of the material, proper modelling of such structures is a challenging task. Despite the great advances achieved in the fields of plasticity, damage theory and fracture mechanics, among others, an unique and complete constitutive model for reinforced concrete is still lacking. Many times specifically developed computer programs are used in finite element analyses of reinforced concrete structures. However, many general purpose codes commercially available provide some kind of material model intended to be employed in the analysis of concrete structures. Once general purpose computer codes are supposed to be more likely used as a design tool, an investigation of the capabilities of such codes seems to be of much concern. The objective of this paper is to discuss the possibilities of different reinforced concrete models in practical use. It reports the results of some analyses performed using the reinforced concrete model of the general purpose finite element code Ansys. A series of analysis of the same structure has been performed, exploring different aspects of material modelling. 2 THE MATERIAL MODEL The finite element code Ansys, version 5.3, has been used. Its reinforced concrete model consists of a material model to predict the failure of brittle materials, applied to a threedimensional solid element in which reinforcing bars may be included. The material is capable of cracking in tension and crushing in compression. It can also undergo plastic deformation and creep. Three different uniaxial materials, capable of tension and compression only, may be used as a smeared reinforcement, each one in any direction. Plastic behaviour and creep can be considered in the reinforcing bars too. Cracking and crushing are determined by a failure surface. Once the failure surface is surpassed, concrete cracks if any principal stress is tensile while crushing occurs if all principal stresses are compressive. The failure surface for compressive stresses is based on WillamWarnke failure criterion, which depends on five material parameters. Tensile failure consists of a maximum tensile stress criterion, a tension cutoff. Unless plastic deformation is taken into account, the material behaviour is linear elastic until failure. When the failure surface is reached stresses in that direction have a sudden drop to zero, there is no strain softening neither in compression nor in tension. Two shear transfer coefficients, one for open cracks and other for closed ones, are used to consider the retention of shear stiffness in cracked concrete.

ANALYSES PERFORMED

A simply supported reinforced concrete beam subjected to uniformly distributed loading has been analyzed (figure 1). Only the longitudinal reinforcement has been considered.

Due to transversal and longitudinal symmetry, a quarter of the beam has been discretized. Regarding meshes, two kinds of models have been used (figure 2): one adopting truss bars as discrete reinforcement connecting solid elements nodes; and the other composed uniquely of solid elements, some of which containing a smeared reinforcement.

Figure 2 - Finite element meshes: a) with discrete reinforcement; b) with smeared reinforcement.

Solid elements have been used in beam modelling for they are the only ones that support the concrete model in Ansys. In fact, this seems to be the only major limitation to practical application of Ansys in reinforced concrete analysis.

Each mesh has been analyzed four times, according to four different material models. Linear elastic behaviour for both concrete and steel, the former capable of cracking in tension and crushing in compression, has provided the first model. In the second model crushing of compressed concrete has been disabled and an elastic perfectly plastic model based on Drucker-Prager yield criterion has been used instead. A multilinear uniaxial stress-strain relation, simulating a parabolic curve, has represented concrete compressive behaviour in the third model. Finally, crushing has been associated to the multilinear stress-strain curve in order to compose the fourth compressive model for concrete. Except those models in which concrete has been considered linear elastic and so has been the steel, the reinforcement has always been treated as elastic perfectly plastic. The analyses performed are summarized in Table 1.

Analysis Case 2f Case 2m Case 2k Case 2L Case 3m Case 3n Case 3p Case 3o Tension Cracking Cracking Cracking Cracking Cracking Cracking Cracking Cracking Concrete Model Compression Linear elastic + crushing Elastic perfectly plastic (Drucker-Prager) Multilinear work hardening (von Mises) Multilinear work hardening + crushing Linear elastic + crushing Elastic perfectly plastic (Drucker-Prager) Multilinear work hardening (von Mises) Multilinear work hardening + crushing Reinforcing steel model Representation Material model Discrete Linear elastic Discrete Elastic perfectly plastic Discrete Elastic perfectly plastic Discrete Elastic perfectly plastic Smeared Linear elastic Smeared Elastic perfectly plastic Smeared Elastic perfectly plastic Smeared Elastic perfectly plastic

Drucker-Prager yield criterion has been considered associated to an elastic perfectly plastic behaviour for there is no other way it can be used in Ansys. This fact causes a certain incompatibility with the failure criterion for both are linear elastic and the phenomenon that occurs earlier, yielding or crushing, prevents the occurrence of the other. The elastoplastic model with multilinear work hardening uniaxial stress-strain curve adopted a von Mises yielding criterion, so that it could not include the effect of hydrostatic pressure, but it has not been considered important to the structure being analyzed. Due to isotropy, concrete model for tensile stresses has been the same as that of compressive one when this plastic model was adopted but, as cracking capability has always been kept on, cracking in linear elastic phase should govern tensile failure in all analyses. Associated flow rules have been used in all elastoplastic analyses. 4 RESULTS

As expected, once all models are quite similar, load-deflection curves show very close results at the early stages of load history for all analyses conducted. The initially linear relation experiments a small jump, with a sudden loss of stiffness, when cracking in concrete begins, followed by a nearly linear curve. The models containing smeared steel presented a smoother transition in this phase of stiffness degradation. The differences between the models appear soon after service load. Linear elastic models

(Case 2f e Case 3m) quickly reach failure in compression zones and cannot converge to a solution anymore. As the steel has been assumed to behave linearly, failure of these models has occurred as soon as the failure surface has been reached by compressed concrete.

90 80 70 60 50 Load (kN/m) 40 30 20 10 0 0,00E+00 Case 2f Case 2k Case 2L Case 2m

5,00E-03

1,00E-02

1,50E-02

2,00E-02

2,50E-02

3,00E-02

3,50E-02

Deflection (m)

The elastic perfectly plastic model based on Drucker-Prager yield criterion with discrete reinforcement (Case 2m) has exhibited a somewhat similar behaviour, concrete yielding soon after service load. The beam ultimate load has not been reached. The ultimate load of this model was much smaller than that of the structure, although the load-deflection relations of the model and of the structure have followed very close paths. Failure should have occurred due to yielding of reinforcement, considering the amount of steel in the cross section of the beam. However, stresses in the reinforcing bars remained in the elastic range. It has happened because, once concrete in compression is linear until yielding, it has been able to resist to higher stresses than it would in reality as the nonlinear phase of stress-strain relation started. So, the failure of this model has been determined by crushing of compressed concrete. Elastoplastic models with work hardening in compression and discrete reinforcement (Case 2k, Case 2L) have provided a longer load history. When crushing has been kept active (Case 2L) the failure of the model has still been premature. On the other hand, the model in which crushing of concrete has been disabled (Case 2k) has been able to generate a complete loaddeflection diagram. In this case, failure of the model has been determined by yielding of reinforcing steel, as it should due to reinforcement ratio. Models with smeared reinforcement presented essentially the same behaviour. Once the initial phase of crack opening, all models have assumed a nearly linear path of smaller stiffness than the initial. Once again the model with crushing associated to plasticity (Case 3o) did not reach loads much greater than service ones. The best results have come from the elastoplastic models, perfectly plastic (Case 3n) and with work hardening (Case 3p), which have been able to reach ultimate loads very close to the expected values, especially the model that followed a multilinear stress-strain relation in concrete compression.

5,00E-03

1,00E-02

1,50E-02

2,00E-02

2,50E-02

3,00E-02

3,50E-02

Deflection (m)

Regardless reinforcement representation, discrete or smeared, and despite the good concrete elastoplastic model behaviour, models combining crushing and plasticity have presented a quite early loss of convergence. This suggests the existence of some kind of incompatibility between yielding and failure in Ansys concrete model.

90 80 70 60 50 40 Load (kN/m) 30 20 10 0 0,00E+0 5,00E-03 1,00EExpected result Case 3p Case 2k

1,50E-

Deflection (m)

Figure 5 - Comparison between load-deflection curves of models with discrete reinforcement and smeared reinforcement.

The results of the analyses performed have been compared to a load-deflection curve derived from an analytically determined moment-curvature relationship. Comparison with experimental data, yet to be done, is the next step in the study. Future studies should also comprise the influence of the amount of reinforcement, as well as effects of shear retention factors and transverse reinforcement. Meanwhile, plotting of the analytical curve against the

best results obtained leads to a very good agreement (figure 5). Although the ultimate load has not been truly determinated, once analyses have been stopped simply due to lack of convergence, the obtained load-deflection paths compares quite well with the expected results in all load history (figure 5), so that the highest analyses loads may be considered the ultimate loads of the models and of the beam. 5 CONCLUSION

This study intended to investigate the possibilities of performing nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete structures using Ansys concrete model. It can be observed in the load-deflection curves (figures 3 and 4) that the model for concrete in compression, although not of much importance to the curves path, has played a major role in the achievement of the numerical solution from a certain load level on. Only nonlinear stress-strain relations for concrete in compression have made it possible to reach the ultimate load and determine the entire load-deflection diagram. The good results attained suggest that, in spite of the relative simplicity of the analyzed structure and of the employed models, satisfactory prediction of the response of reinforced concrete structures may be obtained. REFERENCES [1] A. F. Barbosa, A Study of Models for Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Concrete Structures (Dissertation for attainment of Master Degree), Federal University of Minas Gerais, 1997. [2] W. F. Chen, Constitutive Equations for Engineering Materials - Volume 2: Plasticity and Modeling, Elsevier Science B.V., 1994. [3] W. F. Chen et al., Constitutive Models, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures II, ASCE, p. 36-117, 1993. [4] W. F. Chen and D. J. Han, Plasticity for Structural Engineers, Springer-Verlag, 1988. [5] D. Darwin, Reinforced Concrete, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures II, ASCE, p. 203-232, 1993. [6] K. H. Gerstle and J. Niwa, Finite-Element Analysis as a Design Tool, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures II, ASCE, p. 692-714, 1993. [7] Swanson Analysis Systems, Ansys - Engineering Analysis System. Theoretical Manual (for Ansys Revision 4.4), Swanson Analysis Systems, 1989. [8] Swanson Analysis Systems, Ansys Theory Reference, Seventh Edition, Swanson Analysis Systems, s.d.

- Ansys contact tutorialUploaded byviluk
- Ansys Steps for Civilea (1)Uploaded bydashoo7
- Simplified ANSYS Model Concrete CrackUploaded byMohamadreza Seraji
- Modeling of Reinforced Concrete BeamUploaded byNGUYEN
- Beginner Ansys TutorialUploaded byNGUYEN
- Ansys Structural AnalysisUploaded byUmesh Vishwakarma
- ANSYS Tutorial-Crack ProblemUploaded byMahdi
- Using ANSYS for Creep Analysis.docxUploaded byShadab Alam
- XFEM for reinforced concreteUploaded byRabee Shammas
- Crack Identification in Reinforced Concrete Beams using ANSYS SoftwareUploaded byCyril Vomáčka
- ANSYS MODELING OF FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR OF RC BEAM STRENGTHENING BY FRPUploaded byKhaled Ahmad Ghrier
- ANSYS Static Structural - RC BEAM - APDL Commands by DrDalyO.docxUploaded byx620
- Examples of Concrete Element SOLID65- Hani Aziz AmeenUploaded byHani Aziz Ameen
- Ansys Code for RCCUploaded byAnvar Va
- Restarting an Analysis Single MultiframeUploaded bydaniel how
- STI0802 Drucker PragerUploaded bytinchofran
- CivilFEM Theory ManualUploaded byPérez Roberto
- Open Sees ExampleUploaded byYadish Khan
- AnsysUploaded byapi-3719538
- Mechanical APDL Structural Analysis Guide -- ANSYSUploaded byJaime
- Earthquak Analysis in AnsysUploaded byIgor Gjorgjiev
- Flexural Behavior of Reinforced and Pre Stressed Concrete Beams Using Finite Element AnalysisUploaded byJinsoo Hong
- Ansys tutorialUploaded bysuperguridi
- FE_slabUploaded byLurdes Martins
- Finite Element ModelingUploaded byvictor_333
- Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures Under Monotonic LoadsUploaded byLurdes Martins
- Finite+Element+Modelling+of+Reinforced+Concrete+FrameUploaded byMoataz M. M. Rizk
- Solid 65Uploaded byMarKusskade
- Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened With FRP LaminatesUploaded bysvchaudhari
- mca-16-00947.pdfUploaded bylazem.360

- Design Of 6 storey Building in EtabsUploaded byMisqal A Iqbal
- green-roof-design-considerationsbauder.pdfUploaded bywaseq911
- ACI0314 FORM WORK REMOVAL.pdfUploaded bywaseq911
- MAMansur 2006 Design of reinforced concrete beams with web openings.pdfUploaded byvinthf
- foundation design sampleUploaded byArun Kumar
- PCA Concrete Floor Slab OpeningsUploaded byRavindra MR
- plateUploaded byOktay
- cambering_in_steel_beams_260.pdfUploaded bywaseq911
- Software Verification EtabsUploaded byNGUYEN
- Water Tank Design CalculationUploaded bywaseq911
- POLEFDN V2.3Uploaded bymuh2006
- Etabs Installation ManuaalUploaded bywaseq911
- DESIGN CALCULATION FOR L CLAMPUploaded bywaseq911
- American_App_Examples_2007_CompleteUploaded bySarzu Mulmi
- GREEN ROOF DESIGN CONSIDERATIONSUploaded bywaseq911
- Sign Board ReportUploaded bywaseq911
- DESIGN CALCULATION FOR CONCRETE BEAM SUPPORTING GRU BRACKETS.docxUploaded bywaseq911
- Design of Steel BeamsUploaded byronaldnyirenda2230
- STEEL Designer ManualUploaded byDeveloper
- MRO-AFG-STR-CAL-00016.pdfUploaded bywaseq911
- Mro Esc Zzz Mep Bu Shd 00001Uploaded bywaseq911
- New Microsoft Word Document.docxUploaded bywaseq911
- 413SUploaded bywaseq911
- Design of Tallbuidings Preliminra DesignUploaded byMuhammed Sabah
- Brick Masonry InfillsUploaded bywaseq911

- index2Uploaded byIsmail Magdy Ismail
- Sunday Business Post - article 2 - 13.10.2013.pdfUploaded byConstruction Industry Federation
- Accounting Standard 5-8Uploaded byAseem1
- SAIC-S-4050Uploaded bysa
- S-000-5314-001 Specification for PilingUploaded byMidhun K Chandrabose
- BCA fire protection guide.pdfUploaded byMaan Leung
- The Art of PiggingUploaded byjlcheefei9258
- 20090810_ST_DM - Approval Process FlowchartUploaded bySherif Hashem
- UCFE-212-2248004.html (1)Uploaded byTeodora Jandric
- Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites-2010-Kumutha-531-8Uploaded byjs kalyana rama
- ZONESTAR P802M Installation Guide v.02Uploaded byJose Miguel Cañete Hidalgo
- ACI 318 standardUploaded byKhanh Toan
- ASTM A 106_A 106M-06Uploaded byRamsi Ankzi
- Foundry DefectsUploaded byVirendra Gupta
- Characterising Fibre Compression Fracture Toughness of Composites Using Bearing TestsUploaded bykhudhayer1970
- bbm-978-1-4757-0223-1%2F1.pdfUploaded bykrishnanunni
- S08_12SIUploaded byAmeen Mohamed Ali Sanad
- Spaceframe DetailsUploaded bygorvjndl
- Aquarian Cladding Brochure 2013Uploaded byJamie Williams
- 1.2 Beams With Uniform Load and End MomentsUploaded byfabricio88
- Thioflex 60Uploaded byMcr Kumara
- Organic and Inorganic Landscape ElementsUploaded byAli Zainal
- MIL-C-45224DUploaded byvigneshwaran50
- seamless steel pipes-2.pdfUploaded byNaveen Reddy
- Door Fan Test_Fire New InstallersUploaded byhanlove
- Workshop STAAD FINAL.pptxUploaded bydeepesh3191
- DNVGL-OS-B101 2017-07Uploaded byciekawski
- Stress and Strain (1)Uploaded byJulian Adam
- A SystemUploaded byianmichaelvillanueva
- Technical Questionnaire.xlsxUploaded bylion100_saad