International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01

86

Nonlinear Analysis of RC Beam for Different Shear Reinforcement Patterns by Finite Element Analysis
I. Saifullah1*, M.A. Hossain2, S.M.K.Uddin3, M.R.A. Khan4 and M.A. Amin5 Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology (KUET), Khulna-9203, Bangladesh, email: saifullah0201113@yahoo.com* 4,5 Undergraduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology (KUET), Khulna-9203, Bangladesh. Abstract- Several methods have been utilized to study the response of concrete structural components. Experimental based testing has been widely used as a means to analyze individual elements and the effects of concrete strength under loading. The use of finite element analysis to study these components has also been used. This paper focuses on the behavior of reinforced concrete beam for different pattern of shear reinforcement to evaluate the effective shear reinforcement pattern and also compare the variation in behavior of reinforced concrete beam for with and without shear reinforcement with a simulation. To carry out the analysis, six 3D beams without and with different patterns of shear reinforcement is built using comprehensive computer software ANSYS 10 2005 SAS IP, Inc package. The static non linear analysis is done to find out ultimate capacity, formation of first crack and its distance from support, initiation of diagonal crack and its distance from support. Load deflection response was also closely observed and compared with the result from theoretical calculation. From close observation of analyses results it was found that all types of web reinforcements were almost same effective for static loading condition. Keywords: ANSYS, shear reinforcement, finite element analysis, diagonal crack When a simple beam is loaded, bending moments and shear forces develop along the beam. To carry the loads safely, the beam must be designed for both type of forces. Flexural design is considered first to establish the dimensions of the beam section and the main reinforcement needed. The beam is then designed for shear. If shear reinforcement is not provided, shear failure may occur. Shear failure is characterized by small deflections and lack of ductility, giving little or no warning before failure [1]. On the other hand, flexural failure is characterized by a gradual increase in deflection and cracking, thus giving warning before total failure. This is due to ACI Code limitation on flexure reinforcement. The Design for shear must ensure that shear failure does not occur before flexural failure [1]. The use of FEA has been the preferred method to study the behavior of concrete (for economic reasons). With the advent of sophisticated numerical tools for analysis like the finite element method (FEM), it has become possible to model the complex behavior of reinforced concrete beams [2]. In recent years, however, the use of finite element analysis has increased due to progressing knowledge and capabilities of computer software and hardware. It has now become the choice method to analyze concrete structural components. The use of computer software to, model these elements are much faster, and extremely costeffective. To fully understand the capabilities of finite element computer software, one must look back to experimental data and simple analysis. Data obtained from a finite element analysis package is not useful unless the necessary steps are taken to understand what is happening within the model that is created using the software. Also, executing the necessary checks along the way is key to make sure that what is being output by the computer software is valid. By understanding the use of finite element packages, more efficient and better analyses can be made to fully understand the response of individual structural components and their contribution to a structure as a whole. This paper focuses on the behavior of reinforced concrete beam for different pattern of shear reinforcement to evaluate the effective shear reinforcement pattern and also compare the variation in behavior of reinforced concrete beam for with and without shear reinforcement with a simulation.
1,2,3

I.

INTRODUCTION

Concrete structural components exist in buildings and bridges in different forms. Understanding the response of these components during loading is crucial to the development of an overall efficient and safe structure. Different methods have been utilized to study the response of structural components. Experimental based testing has been widely used as a means to analyze individual elements and the effects of concrete strength under loading. While this is a method that produces real life response, it is extremely time consuming, and the use of materials can be quite costly. The use of finite element analysis to study these components has also been used. Unfortunately, early attempts to accomplish this were also very time consuming and in feasible using existing software and hardware.

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01

87

II. SCOPE This study is focuses on the numerical simulation technique of 3D approach of beams of without and with shear reinforcement of different patterns and also a simulation and compared with another group experimental and analytical data. This 3D approach is extensible with making variation on loading and support condition and is a basis for the evaluation of the topics of interest for future study includes providing the principles and guidelines to aid in the optimization in a easier manner. The paper may also provide low laborious procedure for modeling of versatile RCC like structure. III. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY A. CRACKS IN CONCRETE MODEL Concrete crack plots were created at different load levels to examine the different types of cracking that occurred within the concrete as shown in Figure 1. The different types of concrete failure that can occur are flexural cracks, compression failure (crushing), and diagonal tension cracks. Flexural cracks (Figure 1a) form vertically up the beam. Compression failures (Figure 1b) are shown as circles. Diagonal tension cracks (Figure 1c) form diagonally up the beam towards the loading that is applied. Crack develops in concrete element when the concrete element stress exceeds modulus of rupture of concrete (tensile strength of concrete). Crash develops in concrete element when the concrete element stress exceeds compressive crashing strength of concrete. This study indicates that the use of a finite element program to model experimental data is viable and the results that are obtained can indeed model reinforced concrete beam behavior reasonably well.

failure modes are 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. Consequently, a criterion for failure of the concrete due to a multiaxial stress state can be calculated (William and Warnke 1975). A three-dimensional failure surface for concrete is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: 3-D failure surface for concrete (William and Warnke 1975) C. Finite Element Modeling of Steel Reinforcement Tavarez (2001) discusses three techniques that exist to model steel reinforcement in finite element models for reinforced concrete is shown in figure 3: the discrete model, the embedded model, and the smeared model.

Figure 1: Typical Cracking Signs in Finite Element Models: a) Flexural Cracks, b) Compressive Cracks, c) Diagonal Tensile Cracks (Kachlakev, et al. 2001) B. FAILURE CRITERIA FOR CONCRETE The model is capable of predicting failure for concrete materials. Both cracking and crushing

Figure 3: Models for Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete (Tavarez 2001): (a) discrete; (b) embedded; and (c) smeared IJENS

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01

88

D. ANSYS FINITE ELEMENT MODEL Table 1 Element Types for Working Model Material Type Concrete Steel Plates and Supports Steel Reinforcement ANSYS Element Solid65 Solid45 Link8

F. MATERIAL PROPERTIES Parameters needed to define the material models can be found in Table 3. Table 3. Material Models for the Calibration Model Material Model Number Element Type

Material Properties

E. REAL CONSTANTS The real constants for this model are shown in Table 2. Note that individual elements contain different real constants. No real constant set exists for the Solid65 element. Table 2. Real constant for model Real Constant set Element Type Solid65

Linear Isotropic EX 3604974.865 PRXY 0.25 Multilinear Isotropic Strain Stress (in/in) (psi) Point 1 0.00049931 1800 Point 2 0.00065 2158.06 Point 3 0.00080 2552.24 Point 4 0.001 2996.43 Point 5 0.0012 3347.11 Point 6 0.0014 3609.99 Point 7 0.0016 3794.94 Point 8 0.0018 3913.71 Point 9 0.002 3978.22 Point 10 0.0022 3999.57 Point 11 0.002219 4000 Point 12 0.003 4000

Constants Real Constants for Rebar 1 Real Constants for Rebar 2 Real Constants for Rebar 3

CrossInitial Orientation Orientation Volume Material Strain sectional Angle Angle Ratio Number 2 (in./in.) Area, (in )

Solid65

Concrete ShrCf-Op 0.3 ShrCf-Cl 1 UnTensSt 474.34 UnCompSt -1 BiCompSt 0 HydroPs 0 BiCompSt 0 UnTensSt 0 TenCrFac 0 Linear Isotropic 29,000,000 EX psi PRXY 0.3

Solid45

2 0

Solid45

1.0

Crosssectional Area (in2)

0.11 3 0 Link8

Link8

Linear Isotropic 29,000,000 EX psi PRXY 0.3 Bilinear Isotropic Yield Stress 60,000 psi Tangent 2,900 psi Modulus

Initial Strain (in./in.)

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01

89

The Solid65 element requires linear isotropic and multi-linear isotropic material properties to properly model concrete. The multi-linear isotropic material uses the von Mises failure criterion along with the Willam and Warnke (1975) model to define the failure of the concrete. EX is the modulus of elasticity of the concrete (Ec), and PRXY is the Poissons ratio (). The modulus of elasticity was based on the equation, Ec = 57000fc (1)

Figure 4 shows the stress-strain relationship used for this study and is based on work done by Kachlakev,et al. (2001). MacGregor Nonlinear model curve Point 1, defined as ' 0.45 fc is calculated in the linear range (Equation 4). Other points are calculated from Equation 2 with 0 obtained from Equation 3.Last point is defined at fc and 0=0.003 in./in. indicating traditional crushing strain for unconfined concrete.

with a value of fc equal to 4,000 psi. Poissons ratio was assumed to be 0.25. The compressive uniaxial stress-strain relationship for the concrete model was obtained using the following equations to compute the multi-linear isotropic stress-strain curve for the concrete (MacGregor 1992) (2)

(3) Figure 5: Idealized Stress-Strain Curve of Reinforcing Steel G. MODELING Where; f = stress at any strain , psi = strain at stress f = strain at the ultimate compressive strength, fc The multi-linear isotropic stress-strain implemented requires the first point if the curve to be defined by the user. It might satisfy Hooks Law; (5) The multi-linear curve is used to help with convergence of the nonlinear solution algorithm. Figure 6. Typical Beam Dimensions

(4)

Figure 4. Uniaxial Stress-Strain Curve

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

Figure 7. Quarter Beam for Model IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01

90

Figure 8. Different types of shear reinforcements Figure 11. Reinforcement Configuration and Meshing for Type 1 Table 4. Mesh Attributes for the model Real Constant Set 1 N/A N/A 2 3 IJENS Material Number 1 2 2 3 3 Element Type 1 2 2 3 3 Model Parts Figure 9. Reinforcement Detailing for Beam Model Concrete Beam Steel Plate Steel Support Longitudinal Reinforcement Shear Reinforcement Figure 10. Mesh of the Concrete, Steel Plate and Steel Support Link8 elements were used to create the flexural and shear reinforcement. Only half of the stirrup is modeled because of the symmetry of the beam. Figure 10 illustrates that the rebar shares the same nodes at the points that it intersects the shear stirrups. The element type number, material number, and real constant set number for the calibration model were set for each mesh as shown in Table 4. Figure 13. Reinforcement Configuration and Meshing for Type 2
1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

Figure 12. Reinforcement Configuration and Meshing for without shear reinforcement

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01

91

1. Beam size The width and height of beam were 10 in. and 18 in respectively 2. Clear span length 15 ft 3. Area of steel 0.93 in.2 4. Yield Stress of Steel, fy = 60,000 psi 5. 28-days Compressive Strength of Concrete, fc = 4800 psi The detail of Wolanoskis beam and also the beam for simulation is given below:

Figure 14. Reinforcement Configuration and Meshing for Type 3

Figure 17. Reinforcement Detailing of Wolanoskis Beam

Figure 15. Reinforcement Configuration and Meshing for Type 4

Figure 18. Load-Deflection curve comparison of ANSYS and Backouse (1997) [2] The graph of present analysis of Wolanoskis thesis is given bellow:

Figure 16. Different Patterns of Shear Reinforcement in ANSYS III. ANALYTICAL STUDY For this purpose it is eventual to compare the develop model with an existing one. And here this simulation was made by using the data given by Anthony J. Wolanoski B.S. in his thesis paper [2]. Where, he used following specification-

Figure 19. Load-Deflection Curve after simulation IJENS

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01

92

The comparison of Wolanoskis analysis and present analysis are given in table. Table 5.Comparison between Anthony J.Wolanoski analysis and present study by ANSYS Reinforcement Steel Stress (psi) Centerline Deflection (in) Extreme Tension Fiber Stress (psi) Load at First cracking (lb)

Model

(b) Initiation of Diagonal Tension crack (load 20423 lb) From thesis paper of Anthony J. Wolanoski B.S. [2] Manual ANSYS calculation 0.0529 3024 5118 5212 5216 530

Simulated ANSYS

Present study

2843.8

0.0534

525

0.0534

2840

536

(c) Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57533 lb)

A. CRACK DEVELOPED CONCRETE BEAMS

IN

THE

At first the crack is formed in the concrete beams because of flexural stress. For the increasing of loads the diagonal tension crack is initiated after the formation of 1st crack. The crack increase with the increase of loads and the steel stress reach to its yielding stress. The failure of concrete beams also observes by the formation of crack which is shown in figures 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24.

(d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 61615 lb) Figure 20 (a),(b),(c)&(d). Represents Cracks Formation in Beam of present study for Without Shear Reinforcement in different stages during the application of load

(a) 1st Crack of the Concrete Model (load 9686 lb)

(a) 1st Crack of the Concrete Model (load 9658 lb)

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01

93

(b) Initiation of Diagonal Tension crack (load 23048 lb)

(b) Initiation of Diagonal Tension crack (load 19949 lb)

(c) Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57898 lb)

(c) Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57450 lb)

(d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 62020 lb) Figure 21: (a),(b),(c)&(d) represents Cracks Formation in Beam of present study for Shear Reinforcement Type 1 in different stages during the application of load

(d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 61852 lb) Figure 22: (a),(b),(c)&(d) represents Cracks Formation in Beam of present study for Shear Reinforcement Type 2 in different stages during the application of load

(a) 1st Crack of the Concrete Model (load 9646 lb)

(a) 1st Crack of the Concrete Model (load 9657 lb)

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01

94

(b) Initiation of Diagonal Tension crack (load 17453 lb)

(b) Initiation of Diagonal Tension crack (load 20313 lb)

(c) Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57576 lb)

(c) Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57451 lb)

(d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 61880 lb) Figure 23: (a),(b)(c)&(d) represents Cracks Formation in Beam of present study for Shear Reinforcement Type 3 in different stages during the application of load

(d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 61964 lbs) Figure 24: (a),(b),(c)&(d) represents Cracks Formation in Beam of present study for Shear Reinforcement Type 4 in different stages during the application of load B. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE

(a) 1st Crack of the Concrete Model (load 9658 lb) Figure 25: Combined Load-Deflection Curve for Different patterns of shear Reinforcement
1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01

95

*Manual Calculation

* Manual Calculation

*H Manual Calculation 9445.5

ANSYS

ANSYS

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Table 6. Crack formation and distance of crack from support and deflection at failure loads on the basis of analysis Initiation of diagonal tension crack Without Shear Reinforcement

0.054786

2788.0

Load at Failure (lb)

Type 1

2788.4

0.0547

1st crack

Deflection at Failure (in.)

2772.34

0.05394

Distance from support (in.)

Distance from support (in.)

0.054751

Type Loads (lb) Load (lb)

Type 2

2788.5

0.054750

Type 3

2788.6

Without shear reinforcement

20423

61616

9686

0.054748

2.31

78

51

Type 4

2788.5

Type 1

4.0340

23048

62020

9658

75

33

Table 8. Formation of 1st Crack and Respective Deflection & Steel Stress in Finite Element Analysis Reinforcing Steel Stress (psi) 2859.0 3870.0 3077.0 3138.3 3651.1 IJENS

Model

Type 3

3.6879

17453

61880

75.75

9657

37.5

Without Shear Reinforcement Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4

9686 9658 9646 9657 9658

0.056181 0.064117 0.057770 0.058253 0.062322

Type 4

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

3.4608

20313

61964

9658

75

36

Centerline Deflection (in.)

Load at First Crack (lb)

Type 2

3.3885

19949

61852

9646

82.5

42

9658

9657

9646

9658

9686

ANSYS

Load-Deflection Curve is linear with a sharp slope up to 9,000-10,000 lb. Within this load first cracking occur. The graph changes its nature after first cracking i.e. its slope is changed continuously. This is due to change in crack depth with the load increment. The location of initiation of the diagonal tension cracking of concrete in curves is in between the 1st cracking loads and steel yielding loads. This crack is observed from concrete cracks and crushing plots which is within 17400 lb to 23050 lb. The cracks & curves were observed and the data from cracks & curves were listed as tabular form in results.

Table 7. Comparison between theoretical Calculation and ANSYS Load at First Crack (flexure crack) (lb) Reinforcing (main bar) Steel Stress (psi) Centerline Deflection (in.)

Model

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01

96

Table 9. Flexural Steel Stress on the basis of analysis Steel Stress at yielding of steel (psi) Deflection at yielding of steel (in.) Loads on beam at yielding of steel (lb) Loads on beam at failure (lb)

From present analysis: Table 11: 1st crack formation distance from support for this analysis 1st Crack Formation Without shear reinforcement Type 1 Distance from Support 0.413L 0.396L 0.437L 0.401L 0.396L

Steel Stress at failure (psi)

Model

*Theoretical calculation

60000

57703

Type 2 Type 3 Type 4

Without shear reinforcement

0.858350

B. COMMENTS ON RESULTS Initiation of diagonal tension crack occurs in Type 1 at larger loads in compare to others. For the beam without shear reinforcement diagonal tension crack initiates at larger distance from support with compared to others. The ultimate load carrying capacity is larger for Type 1 with respect to other types and also showing large deflection for its better ductile property. Theoretical calculation and ANSYS analysis give almost same results for steel stressing at 1st crack. At steel yielding the steel stress is almost same to the theoretical value. These data was collected from ANSYS output after analysis. Steel stress at failure is maximizing for Type 2 shear reinforcement. These data was collected from ANSYS output after analysis. Compare with another group, the behavior of 1st crack formation, is found satisfactory level. From combined load deflection curve, the 1st cracking point and the steel yielding point for with and without different patterns of shear reinforcement are almost same. V. CONCLUSION

60009

57533

60108 60143 60163 60114 60128

0.91714

Type 1

60010

57898

0.829578

Type 2

60004

57450

0.884736

Type 3

60010

57576

0.855752

Type 4

60004

57451

A. COMPARISON From another thesis group [7] performing on Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam got the results as follows: Table 10. 1st crack formation distance from support (without shear reinforcement) [7] 1st Crack Formation Lab Test ANSYS Distance from Support 0.421L 0.414L

61964

61880

61852

62020

62020

The project emanated with an aim to find out the ultimate load carrying capacity of beams of without and with different patterns of shear reinforcements and also find out the different behaviors of beams for different stages of loading. The project is expected to generate reasonable solutions of focused problem defined under some parametric condition. Initially some parameters are chosen for these beams by analysis with finite element method. The ultimate load carrying capacity is then determined by without considering and considering different patterns of shear reinforcement with a constant flexural reinforcement. After IJENS

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01

97

completing the analysis curves are drawn for without and with different patterns of shear reinforcement, to find out various parameters (1st crack formation in beams, initiation of diagonal cracks, failure load etc.) for finding effective shear reinforcement pattern for beam to this loading condition. Also a simulation and comparison to another group is done to the satisfactory use of finite element modeling in structural components. The following conclusion can be stated based on the evaluation of the analyses: ANSYS 3D concrete element is very good concerning the flexural and shear crack development but poor concerning the crushing state. However this deficiency could be easily removed by employing a certain multi-linear plasticity options available in ANSYS. From close observation of analyses results it can be concluded that all types of web reinforcements are almost same effective for static loading condition. VI. REFERENCES [1]. Nilson, Arthur H.; Darwin, David; Dolan Charles W., 2006 Design Of Concrete Structures, McGraw-Hill, 13th Edition. [2]. Wolanski, Anthony J., B.S., 2004, Flexure Behavior of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Beams Using Finite Element Analysis, Faculty of Graduate School, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May. [3]. SAS (2005) ANSYS 10 Finite Element Analysis System, SAS IP, Inc. [4]. Hossain, M. Nadim, 1998, Structural Concrete; Theory & Design, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. [5]. Nakasone, Y., Yoshimoto, S., Stolarski, T. A., 2006, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS WITH ANSYS SOFTWARE, ELSEVIER, 1st Published. [6]. Kachlakev, D.; Miller, T.; Yim, S., May, 2001, Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Structures Strengthened With FRP Laminates, California Polytechnic State University, San Lius Obispo, CA and Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR for Oregon Department of Transportation, May. [7]. Nasir-Uz-Zaman, M, Sohel Rana, M, 2009 Experimental And Analytical Investigation of Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam, Undergraduate Thesis Report, Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering and Technology, Khulna, April. [8]. Willam,K. J. and Warnke, E. P. (1975), Constitutive models for the triaxial behavior of concrete, Proceedings of the

International Assoc. for Bridge and Structural Engineering , vol 19, pp. 1- 30. [9]. Murdock, L. J., Brook, K. M. and Dewar, J. D., Concrete: Materials and Practice, 6th Edition, Edward Arnold, London, 1991 [10]. American Concrete Institute, Material and General Properties of Concrete, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, part 1, 1996 [11]. Tavarez, F.A., (2001), Simulation of Behavior of Composite Grid Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Explicit Finite Element Methods, Masters Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJENS