Sie sind auf Seite 1von 34


ANSYS SOFTWARE 8.0 INTRODUCTION The nonlinear response of RC structures can be computed using the finite element method (FEM). This analytical method, gives the interaction of different nonlinear effects on RC structures. The success of analytical simulation is in selecting suitable elements, proper material models and in selecting proper solution method. The FEM is well suited modeling composite material with material models. The various finite element software packages available are ATENA,

ABAQUS, Hypermesh, Nastran, ANSYS etc. Amongst the available finite element package for the non-linear analysis ANSYS (Analysis System), an efficient finite element package is used for of the present study. This chapter discusses the procedure for developing analysis model in ANSYS v11.0 & the procedure for nonlinear analysis of Reactive Powder Concrete structural components is discussed. This chapter discusses the models and elements used in the present analysis of ANSYS. The graphical user interface in ANSYS provides an efficient and powerful environment for solving many anchoring problems. ANSYS enables virtual testing of structures using computers, which is the present trend in the research and development world. Concrete is represented as solid brick elements; the reinforcement provided by fibre is

175 simulated by bar elements. All the necessary steps to create these models are explained in detail and the steps taken to generate the analytical load-deformation response of the beam are discussed. The results from the finite element model are compared with the experimental results by load deformation plots and cracking patterns. 8.1 DESIGN DETAILS OF BEAM AND COLUMN The beams designed for Finite Element Model (FEM) in ANSYS 11.0 took up the experimental study for the analytical study. The design details of the beam are shown in Fig. 8.4.1. The same beam is modeled in ANSYS using the following procedure The columns designed for the experimental study was taken up for the analytical study by FEM in ANSYS 11.0. The design details of the column were shown in Fig.8.4.2. The same column is modeled in ANSYS using the following procedure. To create the finite element model in ANSYS there are multiple tasks that are 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 entries into used to create the FE calibration model. Three basic steps involved in ANSYS include: Preprocessing: Building FEM model Geometry Construction

176 Mesh Generation (right element type!) Application of Boundary and load conditions Solving: Submitting the model to ANSYS solver Post processing: Checking and evaluating results Presentation of results- Stress/Strain contour plot, Load deflection plots etc. 8.2 ELEMENT TYPE USED IN THE MODEL Concrete generally exhibits large number of micro cracks, especially, at the interface between coarse aggregates and mortar, even before it is subjected to any load. The presence of these micro cracks has a great effect on the mechanical behavior of concrete, since their propagation during loading contributes to the nonlinear behavior at low stress levels and causes volume expansion near failure. Some micro cracks may develop during loading because of the difference in stiffness between aggregates and mortar. Since the aggregate-mortar interface has a significantly lower tensile strength than mortar, it constitutes the weakest link in the composite system. This is the primary reason for the low tensile strength of concrete. The response of a structure under load depends largely on the stress-strain relation of the constituent materials and the magnitude of stress. The stress-strain relation in compression is of primary interest because mostly for compression members are cast using concrete. The actual behavior of concrete

177 should be simulated using the chosen element type. For the present type of model solid 65 elements was chosen. The element types for this model are shown. 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 plastic deformation, cracking in three orthogonal directions, and crushing. A schematic representation of the element is shown in Fig 8.1.

Fig 8.1 Solid 65 Elements in ANSYS

The element has eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. Up to three different rebar specifications may be defined. The solid capability may be used to model the concrete while the rebar capability is available for modeling reinforcement behavior. Fibre reinforcement is modeled through Link 8. Link 8 is a uniaxial tension-compression element with three degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions as shown in Fig. 8.2.


Fig. 8.2 Link 8 Element in ANSYS

8.3 COMBIN 14 ELEMENT COMBIN14 has longitudinal or torsional in 1-D,2-D, or 3-D

applications(Fig.8.3). The longitudinal spring-damper option is a uniaxial tension-compression element without three degrees of freedom at each node x, y, and z directions. No bending or torsion is considered. The torsional spring-damper option is a purely rotational element with three degrees of freedom at each node: rotations about the nodal x, y and z axes. No bending or axial loads are considered.

Fig. 8.3 COMBIN 14 Element in ANSYS

8.4 REAL CONSTANT Real constant Set 1 is used for the Solid65 element to define the geometrical parameters of embedded with fibres. A value of zero was

179 entered for all real constants for solid65. Real Constant set 4 and 5 are defined for COMBIN 14 element and Link8 (Fig.8.4). Value for spring constant 114.78 for COMBIN 14 and for Link 8, the bilinear stress strain for fibres were entered as per Fig.8.8a.

Fig. 8.4 Real Constant Values For Various Elements Types

8.5 MATERIAL PROPERTIES Parameters needed to define the material models were obtained from experimental study. Some of the parameters were obtained from the literature. As seen in Fig 8.5, there are multiple parts of the material model for each element. Concrete 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

180 (E), and PRXY is the Poissons ratio (). The material properties given in the present model is shown Table 8.1.

Fig. 8.5 Material Property given to SOLID65

Table 8.1 Material Property Given for the Calibration Model

Material property EX (MPa) Poissons ratio

RPC concrete 39 GPa to 48.5 GPa 0.23

The compressive uniaxial stress-strain relationship for the concrete model was obtained by idealizing the stress strain curve obtained from the experimental study. The multilinear curve is used to help with convergence of the nonlinear solution. A typical idealized multilinear stress strain curve for RPC is shown in (Fig. 8.6).

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0

Compressive stress(MPa)

1%13mm 0.005

2%13mm 0.01 Strain 0.015 0.02

Fig. 8.6 A Typical Stress Strain Curve For RPC with 2% 13mm fibre for Non Linear Analysis

8.6 Failure surface models of concrete The model is capable of predicting the failure of concrete materials. Both cracking and crushing failure modes are to be accounted for. The two input strength parameters i.e., ultimate uniaxial tensile and compressive strengths are needed to define a failure surface for the concrete. Willam and Warnke (1974) developed a widely used model for the triaxial failure surface of unconfined plain concrete. The failure surface in principal stress-space is shown in Fig 8.7a&b. The mathematical model considers a sextant of the principal stress space because the stress components are ordered according to 123. These stress components are the major principal stresses. The failure surface is separated into hydrostatic (change in volume) and deviatory (change in shape) sections as shown in Fig. 8.7b. The hydrostatic section forms a meridianal plane which contains the equisectrix 1 = 2 = 3 as an axis of revolution (see Fig. 8.7b). The deviatory section in Fig.8.7a&b lies in a plane normal to the equisectrix (dashed line in Fig. 8.7b).


Fig. 8.7

Fig. 8.7b (Willam and Warnke 1974)

Fig. 8.7a & 8.7b Failure Surface of Plain Concrete Under Triaxial Conditions

The Willam and Warnke (1974) Fig.8.7 mathematical model of the failure surface for the Concrete has the following advantages: 1. Close fit of experimental data in the operating range; 2. Simple identification of model parameters from standard test data; 3. Smoothness(e.g. continuous surface with continuously varying tangent planes); 4. Convexity (e.g. monotonically curved surface without inflection points). Based on the above criteria, a constitutive model for the concrete suitable for FEA Implementation of the Willam and Warnke material model in ANSYS requires that nine different constants be defined. These 9 constants are 1. Shear transfer coefficients for an open crack; 2. Shear transfer coefficients for a closed crack; 3. Uniaxial tensile cracking stress; 4. Uniaxial crushing stress (positive);

183 5. Biaxial crushing stress (positive); 6. Ambient hydrostatic stress state for use with constants 7 and 8; 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); 9. Stiffness multiplier for cracked tensile condition. 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). Convergence problems occur when the shear transfer coefficient for the open crack drop 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 0.65 .The uniaxial tensile cracking stress is based upon the modulus of rupture. For the present model, the uniaxial tensile cracking stress was given as varies between 7MPa to 12 MPa for RPC concrete with various dosages of steel fibre (Fig.8.11). Numerous general purpose computer programs are available for the analysis of reinforced concrete structures. However, modeling the effect of fibres on concrete, fibre bond/slip and the bridging effects across has still not taken into account in FEM analysis in SFRC structures in any of these programs. Padmarajaiah.S.K. et al., (2002)62 developed a model for finite element assessment of flexural strength of prestressed concrete beams with fibre reinforcement.

184 In Finite element studies using ANSYS to simulate the effect of steel fibres in a concrete matrix its behavior has been decomposed into two components. Firstly, the multiaxial stress state in concrete failure surface and the stress-strain properties. Secondly, the fibres along the beam length have also been modeled as truss elements explicitly in order to capture the crack propagation resistance through bridging action. Tension stiffening and bond slip between concrete and fibre reinforcement have been considered in the model using Linear springs. All the flexure critical beams having fibre over the full depth or partial depth are observed to have failed in flexure with fibre pull-out across the cracks, rather than through yielding of the fibre. In order to

simulate the effect of steel fibres in a concrete matrix, its behavior has been decomposed into two components. The multiaxial state of stress in concrete due to the presence of fibre has been simulated by modifying the failure surface of concrete and a typical stress strain is shown in Fig.8.6. The bridging action of fibres resisting crack propagation has been modeled using three-dimensional LINK8 (truss) elements explicitly. Material Model Number 4 refers to the Link8 element. The Link8 element is being used for all the steel fibre reinforcement in the concrete. The model requires the modulus of elasticity of steel Es as 200GPa and Poissons ratio (0.3). The fraction of the entire volume of the fibre present along the entire longitudinal axis of the longitudinal beam has been modeled explicitly, in the flexure zone. In the case of beams containing fibres, were modeled only over half the depth in the flexure zone. (Fibres in shear were ignored) The

185 effect of tension stiffening and bond-slip at the interface between these fibre elements and concrete elements has also been simulated using COMBIN 14 (linear springs) elements with appropriate properties to capture the effects of bond, bond-slip and peel off. 8.7 Modelling the Flexure and Compression Specimen The beam was modeled as a volume. The zero values for the Z coordinates coincide with the center of the cross-section for the concrete beam. To obtain good results from the Solid65 element, a mapped mesh is used. Selection of element size is an important factor in the finite element analysis of concrete structures. It has been reported by Padmarajaiah,,(2002), that the smallest element dimension in an FE model is controlled by the size of coarse aggregate used. The mesh size used for the study of angle section in flexure and compression is 10mm x 10mm. The compression member with various heights 600mm, 400mm, 300mm and 200mm were simulated in Ansys using SOLID 65, LINK 8 and COMBIN 14(Fig.8.8). 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 key points 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 in which

186 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.

Fig.8.8. (a) & (b) Rheological representation of a FRC element by Padmarajaiah.S.K., and Ananth Ramasamy(2002)

8.8 LOADING AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR BEAM AND COLUMN 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 where the supports and loadings exist. Loading applied was applied at loading point. Since it is a quarter beam model, at one end of the beam support, Uy is restrained to ensure roller support conditions and other end is restrained against x direction ensuring the symmetry boundary conditions along the longitudinal section. Similarly, along the z direction all the nodes are constrained ensuring symmetry boundary condition along cross section. The loading was applied on the nodes at one-third point. The range of load applied for flexure was between 10kN

187 to 25 kN for various dosages of RPCs. The loading was applied at a distance of 167mm from the support for span to depth ratio 7.5 for flexure. The loads range from 100kN to 170 kN for RPC compression members. Similarly, the loading was applied at the centroid for the compression members. The bottom nodes are restrained in the longitudinal direction.(Fig.8.9 a & b)

Fig.8.9 (a)&(b) Loading Conditions in Flexure and Compression specimen model

The finite element model for this analysis is a simple beam under transverse loading. For the purposes of this model, the Static analysis type is utilized. The Solution Controls command dictates the use of a

linear or non-linear solution for the finite element model. In the particular case considered in this thesis, the analysis is small displacement and static type. The time at the end of the load step refers to the ending load per load step. The commands used to control the solver and output is shown in Table 8.2 & 8.3.

188 Table 8.2 Commands used for the Nonlinear Algorithm

The commands used for the nonlinear algorithm and convergence criteria are shown in Table 8.3. All values for the nonlinear algorithm are set to defaults.

Table 8.3 Nonlinear Algorithm and Convergence Criteria Parameters

8.9 Techniques for Nonlinear Solution In nonlinear analysis, the total load applied to a finite element model is divided into a series of load increments called load steps. At the completion of each incremental solution, the stiffness matrix of the model is adjusted to reflect nonlinear changes in structural stiffness before proceeding to the next load increment. The ANSYS program (ANSYS v.11) uses Newton-Raphson equilibrium iterations for updating the model stiffness. Newton-Raphson equilibrium iterations provide convergence at the end of each load increment within tolerance limits. Fig, 8.10 shows the

189 use of the Newton-Raphson approach in a single degree of freedom nonlinear analysis.

Fig. 8.10 Newton-Raphson iterative solution (2 load increments) (ANSYS v11.0)

Prior to each solution, the Newton-Raphson approach assesses the out-of-balance load vector, which is the difference between the restoring forces (the loads corresponding to the element stresses) and the applied loads. Subsequently, the program carries out a linear solution, using the out-of-balance loads, and checks for convergence. If convergence criteria are not satisfied, the out-of-balance load vector is re-evaluated, the stiffness matrix is updated, and a new solution is attained. This iterative procedure continues until the problem

converges (ANSYS v11.0). solid elements,

In this study, for the reinforced concrete criteria were based initially on force and the

convergence and the





convergence tolerance limits. It was found that convergence of solutions for the models was difficult to achieve due to the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete. Therefore, the convergence tolerance limits were increased to a maximum of 5 times the default tolerance limits (0.1% for force checking and 1% for displacement checking) in order to obtain convergence of the solutions.

190 8.10 LOAD STEPPING AND FAILURE DEFINITION FOR FE MODELS For the nonlinear analysis, automatic time stepping in the ANSYS program predicts and controls load step sizes. Based on the previous solution history and the physics of the models, if the convergence behavior is smooth, automatic time stepping will increase the load increment up to a selected maximum load step size. If the convergence behavior is abrupt, automatic time stepping will bisect the load increment until it is equal to a selected minimum load step size. The maximum and minimum load step sizes are required for the automatic time stepping. 8.11 BEHAVIOUR OF CRACKED CONCRETE The nonlinear response of concrete is often dominated by

progressive cracking which results in localized failure. So it is important to study the behaviour of concrete at the cracked zone. 8.11.1Description of a Cracked Section The structural member has cracked at discrete locations where the concrete tensile strength is exceeded. At the cracked section all tension is carried by the steel fibre reinforcement. Tensile stresses are, however, present in the concrete between the cracks, since some tension is transferred from steel fibre to concrete through bond. The magnitude and distribution of bond stresses between the cracks determines the distribution of tensile stresses in the concrete and the reinforcing steel fibre between the cracks. Additional cracks can form between the initial cracks, if the tensile stress exceeds the concrete tensile strength between previously formed cracks. The final cracking

191 state is reached when a tensile force of sufficient magnitude to form an additional crack between two existing cracks can no longer be transferred by bond from steel fibre to concrete. Primary cracks formation starts when the concrete reaches its tensile strength. The size, orientation and placement of the steel fibre controls the extent and number of cracks at the primary cracks. The concrete stress drops to zero and the steel fibre carries the entire tensile force. The concrete between the cracks, however, still carries some tensile stress, which decreases with increasing load magnitude. This drop in concrete tensile stress with increasing load is associated with the breakdown of bond between steel fibre and concrete. At this stage a secondary system of internal cracks, called bond cracks, develops around the steel fibre, which begins to slip relative to the surrounding concrete. Since cracking is the major source of material nonlinearity in the serviceability range of concrete structures, realistic cracking models need to be developed in order to accurately predict the load-deformation behavior of concrete members. The selection of a cracking model depends on the purpose of the finite element analysis. If overall load deflection behavior is of primary interest, without much concern for crack patterns and estimation of local stresses, the "smeared" crack model is probably the best choice. If detailed local behavior is of interest, the adoption of a "discrete" crack model might be necessary. Unless special connecting elements and double nodes are introduced in the finite element discretization of the structure, the well established smeared crack model results in perfect bond between steel

192 and concrete, because of the inherent continuity of the displacement field. 8.11.2 Modelling of Crack in Concrete The process of crack formation can be divided into three stages. The uncracked stage is before the limiting tensile strength is reached. The crack formation takes place in the process zone of a potential crack with decreasing tensile stress on crack face due to crack bridging effect. Finally, after a complete release of the stress, the crack opening continues without the stress. The tension failure of concrete is characterized by a gradual growth of cracks, which join together and eventually disconnect larger parts of the structure. It is usually assumed that cracking formation is a brittle process and that the strength in tension loading direction abruptly goes to zero after such cracks have formed. The discrete approach is physically attractive but this approach suffers from few drawbacks, such as, it employs a continuous change in nodal connectivity, which does not fit in the nature of finite element displacement method; the crack is considered to follow a predefined path along the element edges and excessive computational efforts are required. The second approach is the smeared crack approach. In this approach, the cracks are assumed to be smeared out in a continuous fashion. Within the smeared concept, two options are available for crack models: the fixed crack model and the rotated crack model. In both models, the crack is formed when the principal stress exceeds the tensile strength. It is assumed that the cracks are uniformly distributed

193 within the material volume. The element includes a smeared crack idea for handling cracking in tension zones and a plasticity algorithm to account for the possibility of concrete crushing in compression zones. Each element has eight integration points at which cracking and crushing checks are performed (Fig.8.11).

Fig. 8.11 Gaussian Integration Points in solid 65 and Model of Crack in ANSYS

The element behaves in a linear elastic manner until either of the specified tensile or compressive strengths is exceeded. Cracking (or crushing) of an element is initiated once one of the element principal stresses, at an element integration point, exceeds the specified tensile or compressive concrete strength. The formation of a crack is achieved by the modification of the stress-strain relationships of the element to introduce a plane of weakness in the principal stress direction. 8.12 RESULTS &DISCUSSIONS OF FE ANALYSIS OF RPC BEAMS The RPC beam modeled in ANSYS 11.0 is compared with the experimental results. Typical RPC beam modeled in Ansys is shown in Figs.8.12 &8.13. The loading applied was 10kN to 22 kN at a distance of 116mm from the support.

194 8.12.1 Behaviour at Different Load Stages-RPC Beams The nonlinear analysis was procedure adopted same as that described in the previous section. The load deformation response obtained and the crack pattern of the beams was shown in Fig. 8.17 and 8.19. Table 8.4 gives the typical Load-deflection response obtained from the tests along with the FE results for RPC beams under pure bending. From the load deflection response (Fig.8.14 a-d), it is clear that the initial portion of the load deflection curve is in close agreement with the experimental findings. Addition of fibres increased the cracking and ultimate strength and reduces the deformational characteristics. As seen from the load-deflection curves the FEM load response prediction is close to the experimental results in the working load range. However, as the load reached the peak it is seen that the FEM results are stiffer than the corresponding test results. An examination of the Table 8.4 reveals that the cracking values for these beams were almost the same for various fibre contents. This may be due to the inability to account for the actual heterogeneity existing in the test beam is not simulated in the analytical model as the same property is assigned to all concrete elements for various fibre contents. The present analytical model predicts well the behavior of the beam similar to experimental beam. In the pre peak regime, flexural cracks development in the experiment is quite smooth whereas in the numerical solution curve it is flat and sudden. This is because the ANSYS cracking option does not include properly the tensile stress relaxation. That fact does not generally affect

195 the solution since the tensile steel capacity is available; therefore, the sudden stress drop at the cracking points explains the discrepancy between the two curves at the beginning of nonlinear process. Table 8.4 shows the typical finite element results comparison with the test results at five stages of loading for the selected beam. The first stage was taken before the crack initiation (20% peak load), the second stage at initiation of first flexure crack, the third and fourth stage at a working load level taken to be the peak load/1.5 and the last stage at the peak load. From the results, it is observed for all the

beams, the load and deflection before crack and at first crack in the analysis were very much in agreement with the experimental values. At working load level and at the peak load level the values of load obtained from the FEM were close to the experimental results. However, the deflection obtained from FEM was less than those in the test at working load level, at the peak. One possible reason for the lower deflection may be because linear springs were used to simulate the bond slip where as the behavior may be highly nonlinear at these load levels. The ratio of load obtained in FE analysis to experimental loads ranged from 0.68 to 1.2 for 6mm fibres, 1.08 to 0.8 times for 13mm fibres and 1.08 to 1.2 times for the hybrid fibres i.e., Combination of 6mm and 13mm fibres. The Bending stress distribution across the beam cross section shows the increase in tensile stress in the tensile zone compared with the other High Performance Concrete. The Neutral axis lies at 23.7mm from the bottom of the beam. The theoretical calculations also confirm the neutral axis but the bending stresses are one fourth of the theoretical

196 bending stress in compression as well as in tension (Fig.8.15. and Fig8.16)

Fig. 8.12

Fig. 8.13 Fig. 8.12 Details of Beam Fig. 8.13 3D beam modelled in ANSYS

10 8 Load(kN) 6 4 2 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Deflection (mm) Fig.8.14 (a) 0.5

10 8

Angle flexure 1f6 Angle Flexure ansys 1f6


6 4 2 0 0 Angle Flexure 2f6 Angle Flexure ansys 2f6 0.1 0.2 0.3 Deflection (mm) Fig. 8.14(b) 0.4

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.1

2%13mm Experimenral Ansys

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

1%6mm+1%13mm Experimenral


Load (kN)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 deflection (mm) deflection (mm) Fig.8.14(c) Fig.8.14(d) Fig.8.14(a-c) Flexural Stress-Strain curves for different dosages of fibres

Load (kN)


Fig.8.15 Typical Bending Stress distribution across the cross section of the beam for 2% 6mm fibre and 2% 13mm

Fig.8.16 Theoretical Bending Stress distribution across the cross section of the beam for 2% 6mm fibre and 2% 13mm

198 Table 8.4 Comparison of FEM results at various stages for the RPC beams under Flexure.

Specime n id

Stag es

FEM Load (kN) (mm) 0.28 0.336 0.392 0.448 0.504 0.092 0.183 0.274 0.366 0.458 0.165 0.247 0.33 0.413 0.579 0.09 0.19 0.29 0.51 0.68

Expt Loa d (kN) 0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 7 8 2 5 8 12 18 2 4 8 14 18 (mm ) 0 0.12 0.21 0.3 0.38 0.28 0.52 0.73 0.88 0.99 0.11 0.3 0.41 0.76 1.13 0.04 0.1 0.23 0.48 0.71

Spec imen id

FEM Load (kN) (mm) 0.062 0.124 0.218 0.357 0.489 0.092 0.183 0.274 0.366 0.458 0.11 0.24 0.39 0.49 0.54

Expt. Load (kN) 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 9 2 4 6 8 11.5 (mm) 0.1 0.21 0.36 0.53 0.9 0.26 0.36 0.47 0.69 0.74 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.43 0.58



1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1.2 2.4 4.2 6.9 9.45 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4 9.6 3 4.5 6 7.5 14.32 2.05 4.18 6.31 10.8 14.36



1.2 2.4 4.2 6.9 9.45 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4 9.6 2.1 4.74 7.68 9.78 10.7


1f61 f13



Fig.8.17 a-b Crack Pattern at the 46thand 51st (12kN) load Step



Fig.8.4.17c Crack Pattern at the failure stage Fig.8.18 Bending Stresses for 2% 13mm 55th(12kN) load Step

8.12.2 Initial Flexural Crack and Formation of Diagonal Crack The cracking pattern(s) in the beam was obtained using the Crack/Crushing plot option in ANSYS (v11.0). Vector Mode plots must be turned on to view the cracking in the model. Crack pattern of a typical flexure beam of fibre dosage 3%6mm is discussed in the following paragraph. The initial flexural cracks formed in the constant bending moment region (at the load of 9.9N for 3% 6mm) as reckoned from the link in the initial segment of the load deformation curve. As load increases, the depth of the flexural cracks in the constant bending moment region

200 increased and more cracks appeared adjoining the existing cracks. However, with further increase of load the cracks stopped growing in length and additional cracks consisting of flexural cracks formed in the constant bending moment region.

(a) Crack pattern at load of 2450N

(b) Crack pattern at load step 2477N

(c)Crack pattern at load step 2800N

(d) Deformed beam with cracks

Fig. 8.19 (a-d) Crack pattern at Various Stages 2% 13mm-RPCC BEAM

Fig. 8.20. Typical Crack pattern -RPC BEAM

After the load stage of 41 the cracking increases in the flexural zone. Many adjoining diagonal cracks extend from the loading point towards the bottom nodes and crushing of concrete occurs below the loading plate. This is followed dropping of load and failure on a brittle fashion

201 with little increase in deflection beyond this stage in tests (Fig.8.17) However in case of finite element analysis because of withholding the crushing option, the deflection starts further increasing and crushing of concrete in the constant bending region at the failure load of 11200N. Therefore, large number of flexure crack develops at the constant moment region. The beam no longer can support additional load as indicated by an insurmountable convergence failure and the analysis is interrupted. The crack patterns of beam in pure bending are shown in Figs. 8.17 & 8.19. 8.12.3 Behaviour of Compression Members At different Load Stages The behaviour of compression members with various aspect ratios such as 2.5, 3.75, 5 and 7.5 are compared in the Tables 8.5-8.8. The predicted values from FE analysis mostly correlates well with the experimental results. The stress-strain curves show the slopes are the same at the pre-peak loads. Fig.8.21 gives the stress strain curves for RPC specimens with various fibre contents for an aspect ratio of 7.5. The bar charts (Fig.8.24) shows the compressive stresses of RPC specimens with various aspect ratios. The figures indicate the results are well correlating with the experimental results. The Fig.8.22 shows the progress of compressive stress at various load stages. The Maximum stress distribution along the diagonal of the specimen coincides with the failure pattern of the compressive specimen during experiments (Fig.8.23). The propagation of the critical diagonal crack

202 provokes growth of concrete plastic strain and relevent material softening. The peak loads values vary 10 to 25% more than experimental values in all the cases. The present analytical model predicts well the behavior of the compression specimen similar to the experimental specimen. In pre peak regime, the maximum stresses are formed along the diagonals indicating the buckling of the specimen. The failed specimen (Fig.8.23) confirms the orientation of failure as that of the predicted stresses (Fig.8.22).

Height of angle 600mm

2f6H600 1f61f13H600 ansys-3f6-600 ansys 1f6+2f13-600 3f6H600 1f62f13H600 ansys - 1f13-600 Ansys 2f6-600 1f13H600 1f6H600 ansys-2f13 2f13H600 ansys2f6-600 ansys-1f6+1f13-600

140 120 Compressive Stress (MPa) 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1f6 2000 2f6 4000 6000 3f6 8000 1f13 10000 1f61f13 12000 2f13 14000 16000 1f62f13

Compressive strain

Fig.8.21 Compressive stress-strain curves for different dosages of fibres for aspect ratio 7.5.




Fig.8.22( c)

Fig 8.23

Fig 8.22 Compressive Stress Pattern at different Load step. Fig 8.23 Typical Diaagonal tensile failure of RPC Specimen under compression.


Compressive Stress (MPa)

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Ansys Experimental

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Compressive stress(MPa)



Fig.8.24a&b Compressive Stress Pattern at different aspect ratios

160 Compression Stress(MPa) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0



Compression Stress(MPa)


140 120 100 80 60 40



20 0

Fig.8.24c&d Compressive Stress Pattern at different aspect ratio


Table 8.5 Comparison of Experimental and Ansys Results for L/d ratio 2.5 Specimen id. L/d Ansys peak peak Ansys % of increase stress strain (MPa) (MPa) (10-6) (10-6) stress strain 103.3 2257 2120 -1.86 101.4 -10.58 114.89 124.6 2585 2200 -7.81 -14.89 122.36 146.7 2240 2420 -16.57 8.03 124.18 143.3 2273 2500 -13.34 9.98 139.05 153.3 2642 3000 -9.31 13.55 120.3 126.3 2058 2210 -4.72 7.38 137.53 156.7 2485 2785 -12.21 12.07

1f6H200 2f6H200 3f6H200 1f13H200 2f13H200 1f61f13H200 1f62f13H200

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Table 8.6 Comparison of Experimental and FE Results for L/d ratio 3.75 Specimen id. L/d Ansys (MPa) 1f6H300 2f6H300 3f6H300 1f13H300 2f13H300 1f61f13H300 1f62f13H300 3.75 3.75 3.75 107.5 108.2 90.04 peak stress (MPa) 95.72 100 90.31 121.1 130 118.2 129.5 Ansys peak strain (10-6) 2132 2200 2100 2482 2320 2200 2462 (10-6) 2020 2195 2335 2273 2550 2108 2695 % of increase Stress 12.30 8.2 -0.29 -4.25 7.69 -4.60 0 Strain 5.54 0.22 -10.06 9.19 -9.01 4.36 -8.65

3.75 115.91 3.75 140 3.75 112.8 3.75 129.51


Table8.7 Comparison of Experimental and Ansys Results for L/d ratio 5.0 Specimen id. L/ d 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Ansys (MPa) 1f6H400 2f6H400 3f6H400 1f13H400 2f13H400 1f61f13H400 1f62f13H400 76.55 100.3 101.4 115.9 129.1 114.9 115.4 peak stress (MPa) 88.73 105.9 113.3 109.9 121.1 101.4 116.3 Ansys Strain 1900 2557 2552 2127 2682 2532 2585 peak strain (10-6) 1765 2342 2322 1967 2462 2322 2695 % of increase stress strain -12.3 -5.3 -10.5 5.45 6.61 13.3 -0.77 7.64 9.18 9.9 8.13 8.94 9.04 -4.08

Table 8.8 Comparison of Experimental and Ansys Results for L/d ratio 7.5 peak stress (Mpa) 1f6H600 2f6H600 3f6H600 1f13H600 2f13H600 1f61f13H600 1f62f13H600 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 87.27 96.67 101.6 109.9 116.2 97.9 106.7 101.29 112.22 113.33 112.2 128.3 110.23 117.92 Ansys peak strain (10-6) 2114 2140 2180 2186 2255 2084 2211 2200 2340 2400 2300 2340 2360 2490 Ansys % diff.
Stress 16.06 16.08 11.54 2.09 10.41 12.59 10.51

Specimen id.


4.07 9.34 10.09 5.21 3.76 13.24 12.62

The failures of the compression specimens were attained by crushing under the load plate. This was seen in all the crack patterns which were indicated by the increased concentration of diagonal crack.


1. Based on the points raised in numerical results and discussion sections, the following conclusions are drawn from this numerical research: 2. The 3D ANSYS modeling is able to properly simulate the nonlinear behavior of RPC in Flexure and Compression. 3. ANSYS 3D concrete element is very good concerning flexural development but poor concerning the crushing state. It may be possible to overcome the deficiency employing a certain

multilinear plasticity model available in ANSYS but the lack of experimental data for material parameters especially RPCs is a drawback. 4. The concrete finite element model does not consider adequately tension stiffening, tension softening & bond slip behaviour. 5. The load-deformation characteristics obtained from the finite element solution was in close agreement with the experimental results at four critical stages of loading. 6. The crack pattern at both initial and at failure predicted by FEM was in close agreement with the experiment results, indicating that the effect of fibres on the concrete strength and ductility and its bridging effects in arresting crack propagation have been suitably captured.