119

CHAPTER 6

ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION ON
R.C.C. BEAMS AND R.C.C. FRAMES

6.1 INTRODUCTION

One of the objectives of this research is to develop a finite element

model representing the R.C.C. beams and frames to study the load deflection
behaviour of wrapped and unwrapped specimens. Numerical analyses were
performed using the ABAQUS 6.10.1 finite element program to predict the
ultimate loading capacity of rectangular reinforced concrete beams
strengthened by GFRP composites. Linear material behaviour, as it relates to
steel reinforcing bars, plain concrete and fibre-reinforced polymer were
simulated using appropriate constitutive models. The influences of patterns of
wrapping with GFRP on the ultimate strength of the beams were investigated.

6.2 ABAQUS SOFTWARE PACKAGE

ABAQUS is a suite of powerful engineering simulation programs

based on the finite element method, sold by Dassault systems as part of their
SIMULIA Product life-cycle management software tools.

6.2.1 Unique Features of ABAQUS

ABAQUS contains an extensive library of elements that can

model virtually any geometry.
 120

It imports geometry from many different CAD software

packages.

Able to use various different material models to simulate the

behaviour of most typical engineering materials including
metals, rubber, polymers, composites, reinforced concrete,
crushable and resilient foams, and geotechnical materials such
as soils and rock.

It is designed as a general-purpose simulation tool, ABAQUS

can be used to study more than structural (stress/displacement)
problems. It can simulate problems in such diverse areas as
heat transfer, mass diffusion, thermal management of
electrical components (coupled thermal-electrical analyses),
acoustics, soil mechanics (coupled pore fluid stress analyses),
and piezoelectric analysis.

ABAQUS offers a wide range of capabilities for simulation of

linear and nonlinear applications. Problems with multiple
components are modelled by associating the geometry
defining each component with the appropriate material models
and specifying component interactions. In a nonlinear
analysis, ABAQUS automatically chooses appropriate load
increments and convergence tolerances and continually adjusts
them during the analysis to ensure that an accurate solution is
obtained efficiently.

It can perform static as well as dynamic analysis.

 121

6.2.2 ABAQUS ELEMENT TYPES

Solid Element

ABAQUS contains a library of solid elements for two-dimensional

and three-dimensional applications. The two-dimensional elements allow
modelling of plane and axis symmetric problems and include extensions to
generalized plane strain (when the model exists between two planes that may
move with respect to each other, providing thickness direction strain that may
vary with position in the plane of the model but is constant with respect to
thickness position). The material description of three-dimensional solid
elements may include several layers of different materials, in different
orientations, for the analysis of laminated composite solids. A set of nonlinear
elements for asymmetric loading of axis symmetric models is also available,
and linear infinite elements in two and three dimensions can also be used to
model unbounded domains. The solid element library includes iso-parametric
elements; quadrilaterals in two dimensions and CONCRETE (hexahedra) in
three dimensions. These iso-parametric elements are generally preferred for
most cases because they are usually the more cost-effective of the elements
that are provided in ABAQUS. They are offered with first- and second-order
interpolation and are described in detail in Solid iso-parametric
quadrilaterals and hexahedra. For practical reasons it is sometimes not
possible to use iso-parametric elements throughout a model; for example,
some commercial mesh generators use automatic meshing techniques that rely
on triangulation to fill arbitrarily shaped regions. Because of these needs,
ABAQUS includes triangular, tetrahedron, and wedge elements. For concrete
model, 3D solid element C3D8R shown in Figure 6.1 was considered and for
the reinforcing steel modelling it was considered as 2D truss element and
which was called as T3D2. Ultimate strength failure criteria analysis were
considered.
 122

Figure 6.1 C3D8R- 8 Nodes linear hexagonal brick element

Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP)

As the FRP material has been assumed to behave as a linearly

elastic and orthotropic material, a lamina option for the elastic behaviour of
the material was chosen. For this type of material, ABAQUS requires the
longitudinal, transverse and shear modulus of elasticity. The manufacturer
provided the longitudinal and transverse modulus of elasticity. For the near
surface mounted system, the strips were modelled in the same way as the
reinforcing steel was. Meanwhile the reinforcing steel was modelled with
surface elements and the FRP strips were modelled using membrane
elements. Membrane elements represent thin surfaces in space that offer
strength in the plane of the surface, but have no bending stiffness. An
ABAQUS tool called Skin Reinforcement was used to model the FRP strips
externally bonded to the beams. This tool defines a skin that is perfectly
bonded to the surface of an existing part and specifies its engineering
properties. Figure 6.2 shows the material constitutive models of concrete,
steel reinforcement and FRP.
 123

Figure 6.2 Material Constitutive Models of Concrete, Steel

Reinforcement and FRP

6.3 BEAM MODELLING

6.3.1 Group (I) R.C.C. Beams

A normal R.C.C. beam finite element model was developed and

analysed in ABAQUS as a simply supported beam for two point loads with
and without GFRP wrapping.

6.3.1.1 Modelling Procedure of Normal beam and Normal

Strengthened beam

1. Modelling of Concrete element

In ABAQUS the concrete element was modelled using 3D solid

element C3D8R and Figure 6.3 shows the concrete model developed in the
ABAQUS.
 124

Figure 6.3 ABAQUS Normal beam concrete material model

2. Modelling of Steel Reinforcement element

The steel reinforcement bar element was modelled using 2D truss

element named as T3D2. Figure 6.4 shows the reinforcing steel model
developed in the ABAQUS.

Figure 6.4 ABAQUS Normal beam steel reinforcement material model

 125

3. Modelling of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP)

An ABAQUS tool called Skin Reinforcement was used to model the GFRP
strips externally bonded to the beams. Figure 6.5 shows the GFRP model
developed in ABAQUS.

Figure 6.5 ABAQUS GFRP material model

4. Assemblies modelling of Concrete, Steel Reinforcement and

GFRP

Figure 6.6 shows the concrete, reinforcing steel and GFRP

assembly model developed in ABAQUS.

Figure 6.6 Concrete, reinforcement and GFRP assembly model

 126

5. Modelling of loading arrangement and support conditions

Two point loads were applied at one third span from supports and loading
arrangements are shown in Figure 6.7. Simply support condition using pinned
support was created and shown in Figure 6.8.

Figure 6.7 ABAQUS Two point loading arrangement model

Figure 6.8 ABAQUS Simply support condition model

 127

6. Assemblies modelling of Concrete, Steel Reinforcement and GFRP

with support conditions

Figure 6.9 shows the full assembly of normal strengthened beam.

Figure 6.9 Concrete, reinforcement and GFRP with support condition

assembly model

7. Finite element meshing of Normal Strengthened Beam

The model was discretized into finite element by meshing concept

before application of loading condition. Figure 6.10 and Figure 6.11 shows
the finite element meshing of normal beam strengthened model.
 128

Figure 6.10 Finite elements meshing of GFRP with support condition

Figure 6.11 Finite elements meshing of normal strengthened beam

 129

8. Modelling of boundary condition and loading applied

Two point loads were applied at one third span form supports and
beam was analysed as simply support condition, the deflections were
determined at midpoint of the beam. Figure 6.12 shows the loading applied
normal beam strengthened model.

Figure 6.12 ABAQUS Boundary condition and loading applied normal

strengthened beam model

The FEM normal beam model without wrapping condition shows

maximum strain at ultimate load of 71 kN and the maximum deflection at
failure was found to be 6.73 mm at mid span as shown in Figure 6.13.
Figure 6.14 shows the strain pattern in reinforcing bar of normal beam. The
FEM normal beam strengthened with GFRP sheets failed at ultimate load of
80 kN and maximum deformation produced at mid span at this load was
8.147 mm. The deformation of normal strengthened beam is shown in
Figure 6.15.
 130

Figure 6.13 Deformation pattern of normal beam at ultimate load

Figure 6.14 Strain in reinforcing bar of normal beam at ultimate load

Figure 6.15 Deformation pattern of normal strengthened beam at

ultimate load
 131

It is shown that the use of GFRP can significantly increase the

ductility as well as the ultimate strengths of reinforced concrete beams. The
results from finite element analysis were calculated at the same location as
that of the experimental test of the beams. The results obtained from the
ABAQUS finite element analysis were compared with the experimental data
and plotted in Figures 6.16 and 6.17. The validity of the experimental results
were assessed by comparison with the FEM results, which were found to be in
good agreement.

80
70
60
50
Load (kN)

40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8
Deflection (mm) EXPERIMENTAL ANALYTICAL

Figure 6.16 Comparison of analytical and experimental load deflection

curve of normal beam

90
80
70
60
Load (kN)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYTICAL
Deflection (mm)

Figure 6.17 Comparison of analytical and experimental load deflection

curve of normal strengthened beam
 132

6.3.2 Group (II) R.C.C. Beams

Finite element beam model with pre-determined failure mode of

flexural failure as shown in Figure 6.18 was developed and analysed in
ABAQUS as a simply supported beam for two point loads with and without
GFRP wrapping as shown in Figure 6.19. Three beam models each were
wrapped with GFRP composites in three different manners, as for full portion,
for bottom half portion and for middle one third portion as shown in Figures
6.20, 6.21 and 6.22 were developed and analysed.

Figure 6.18 Finite elements meshing of flexure beam

Figure 6.19 Loading pattern of flexure beam model

 133

Figure 6.20 Model of fully wrapped flexure strengthened beam

Figure 6.21 Model of bottom half portion wrapped flexure

strengthened beam

Figure 6.22 Model of middle one third portion wrapped flexure

strengthened beam
 134

From Figure 6.23, the maximum deflection at mid span of the

flexure beam corresponding to the ultimate load of 60 kN was found to be
18.89 mm. From Figures 6.24, 6.25 and 6.26, the ultimate load of
strengthened specimens wrapped with externally bonded GFRP composites
for full portion , bottom half portion and middle one third portion were
found to be 68.0 kN, 66.0 kN, 64.0 kN respectively. The corresponding
deflections developed were 22.86 mm, 23.76 mm and 19.77 mm.

Figure 6.23 Deformation pattern of flexure beam model at ultimate load

Figure 6.24 Deformation pattern of fully wrapped flexure strengthened

beam model at ultimate load
 135

Figure 6.25 Deformation pattern of bottom half wrapped flexure

strengthened beam model at ultimate load

Figure 6.26 Deformation pattern of bottom one third wrapped flexure

strengthened beam model at ultimate load

The influences of pattern of wrapping with GFRP on the ultimate

strength of the beams were investigated. It was found that the fully wrapped
beam model could carry more load than the other patterns of wrapping and it
has been shown that the use of GFRP can significantly increase the ductility
as well as the ultimate strengths of reinforced concrete beams.
 136

The comparisons are made for three different wrapping patterns.

The results from finite element analysis were obtained at the same location as
that of the experimental test of the beams. The validity of the experimental
results was assessed by comparing with the analytical results, which are found
to be in good agreement. Figures 6.27, 6.28, 6.29 and 6.30 show the analytical
and experimental load deflection curves of flexure beam and strengthened
flexure beam with three different pattern of wrapping respectively.

70
60
50
40
Load (kN)

30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Deflection (mm) EXPERIMENTAL ANALYTICAL

Figure 6.27 Comparison of analytical and experimental load deflection

curve of flexure beam

80
70
60
50
Load (kN)

40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Deflection (mm) EXPERIMENTAL ANALYTICAL

Figure 6.28 Comparison of analytical and experimental load deflection

curve of full portion wrapped flexure strengthened beam
 137

70
60
50
40
Load (kN)

30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYTICAL
Deflection (mm)

Figure 6.29 Comparison of analytical and experimental load deflection

curve of bottom half portion wrapped flexure strengthened
beam

70
60
50
40
Load (kN)

30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Deflection (mm) EXPERIMENTAL ANALYTICAL

Figure 6.30 Comparison of analytical and experimental load deflection

curve of middle one third portion wrapped flexure
strengthened beam

6.3.3 Group (III) R.C.C. Beams

A finite element beam model with pre-determined failure mode of

shear failure model as shown in Figure 6.31 were developed and analysed in
ABAQUS as a simply supported beam for two point loads with and without
GFRP composites wrapping in shear zone as shown in Figure 6.32.
 138

Figure 6.31 Steel embedded in concrete modelling of shear beam

Figure 6.32 Loading pattern of shear beam model

Figure 6.33 Deformation model of shear beam at ultimate load

 139

Figure 6.34 Deformation model of shear strengthened beam at

ultimate load

From Figure 6.33, the ultimate load of shear beam was found to be
60 kN and the corresponding deflection was 5.689 mm. The shear
strengthened specimen failed at ultimate load of 67 kN and the corresponding
maximum deflection at mid span was 10.6 mm as shown in Figure 6.34.
Comparison between analytical and experimental load deflection values
obtained and which are found to be in good agreement. Figures 6.35 and 6.36
show the analytical and experimental load deflection curves of shear beam
and shear strengthened beam.

70
60
50
LOAD (kN)

40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
DEFLECTION (mm) EXPERIMENTAL ANALYTICAL

Figure 6.35 Comparison of analytical and experimental load deflection

curve of shear beam
 140

80
70
60
LOAD (kN)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
DEFLECTION (mm) EXPERIMENTAL ANALYTICAL

Figure 6.36 Comparison of analytical and experimental load deflection

curve of shear strengthened beam

6.4 R.C.C. FRAME MODELLING

A single bay two storey R.C.C. frame finite element model with
beam dimensions 100 mm x 100 mm and 1 m long and column dimensions
120 mm x 100 mm and 0.6 m c/c height were developed as shown in
Figures 6.37 and 6.38. This model was analysed in ABAQUS with lateral
loading condition as shown in Figure 6.39 with and without GFRP wrapping.

Figure 6.37 Steel embedded in concrete modelling of R.C.C. frame

 141

Figure 6.38 Finite elements meshing of R.C.C. frame model

Figure 6.39 Loading pattern of R.C.C. frame model

From the finite element analysis of normal frame under lateral load,
it was found that the lateral load carrying capacity of frame was 12.07 kN and
maximum deflection at the top and bottom storey of the frame was 25.45 mm
and 14.06 mm respectively. Figures 6.40 and 6.41 show the top and bottom
storey deformation pattern of normal frame at ultimate lateral load
respectively.
 142

Figure 6.40 Top storey deformation of R.C.C. frame at ultimate load

Figure 6.41 Bottom storey deformation of R.C.C. frame at ultimate load

Figure 6.42 Model of R.C.C. strengthened frame fully wrapped with

GFRP
 143

Figure 6.43 Top storey deformation of R.C.C. strengthened frame at

ultimate load

Figure 6.44 Bottom storey deformation of R.C.C. strengthened frame at

ultimate load

From the finite element model of strengthened frame wrapped fully

with GFRP as shown in Figure 6.42, the ultimate lateral load carrying
capacity was found to be 14.01 kN and the corresponding maximum
deflection at the top and bottom storey of the frame was 26.57 mm and
15.14 mm as shown in Figures 6.43 and 6.44 respectively. Comparison
between analytical and experimental values obtained and which are found to
be in good agreement. It has been shown that the use of GFRP can
 144

significantly increase the ductility as well as the ultimate strength of

reinforced concrete frame. Figures 6.45, 6.46, 6.47 and 6.48 show the
analytical and experimental load deflection values at the bottom and top
storey of normal frame and normal strengthened frame respectively.

14
12
10
LOAD (kN)

8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15
DEFLECTION (mm) EXPERIMENTAL ANALYTICAL

Figure 6.45 Comparison of analytical and experimental load

deflection value at bottom storey of normal frame

14

12

10
LOAD (kN)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DEFLECTION (mm) EXPERIMENTAL ANALYTICAL

Figure 6.46 Comparison of analytical and experimental load deflection

value at top storey of normal frame
 145

16
14
12
LOAD (kN)

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
DEFLECTION (mm) EXPERIMENTAL ANALYTICAL

Figure 6.47 Comparison of analytical and experimental load deflection

value at bottom storey of strengthened frame

16
14
12
10
LOAD (kN)

8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

DEFLECTION (mm) EXPERIMENTAL ANALYTICAL

Figure 6.48 Comparison of analytical and experimental load deflection

value at top storey of strengthened frame