APPENDIX-B

B 1 Finite Element Modelling B1.1 Element Type An eight-node solid element, Solid65, was used to model the concrete. The solid element has eight nodes with three degrees of freedom at each node translation in the nodal x, y, and z directions. The element is capable of plastic deformation, cracking in three orthogonal directions, and crushing. The geometry and node locations for this element type are shown in Fig.B1.

Fig. B1 Solid 65- 3D Reinforced Concrete Solid (ANSYS 8.0) A Link8 element was used to model the steel reinforcement. Two nodes are required for this element. Each node has three degrees of freedom translation in the nodal x, y, and z directions. The element is also capable of plastic deformation. The geometry and node locations for this element type are shown in Fig. B2.

175

Fig. B2 Link8-3D Spars (ANSYS 8.0) SHELL 41 element is used to model GFRP composites. This element is a 3-D element has membrane (in-plane) stiffness but no bending (out-ofplane) stiffness. It is intended for shell structures where bending of the elements is of secondary importance. The element has three degrees of freedom at each node: translation in the nodal x, y, and z directions. The element has variable thickness, stress stiffening, large deflection, and a cloth option. The geometry and node locations for this element type are shown in Fig. B3.

Fig. B3 SHELL 41- 3D Membrane Element (ANSYS 8.0) B 1.2 Material Properties

176

Modulus of elasticity of concrete is given as a direct input. Other parameters required for input are Poissons ratio of concrete, Stress - strain curve, tensile strength of concrete, and shear transfer coefficients for open and closed cracks. A total of five input strength such as ultimate uniaxial tensile strength ft, ultimate uniaxial compressive strength f c ' , ultimate biaxial compressive strength fcb, ultimate compressive strength for a state of biaxial compression superimposed on hydrostatic stress state f1 and ultimate compressive strength for a state of uniaxial compression superimposed on hydrostatic stress state f2 are needed to define the failure surface as well as an ambient hydrostatic state of stress. However, the failure surface can be specified with a minimum of two constants, ft and fc. The other three constants default to Willam and Warnke model of failure surface (Fig.B4), which uses these two constants to calculate other three parameters.

Fig. B4 Failure Surface Model for Concrete by William Warnke (1975) Drucker-Prager plasticity was used to model the irreversible straining that occurs in a material once the yield surface is reached. Modulus of elasticity of concrete would be calculated automatically from its unconfined strength unless the user prefers direct input. The cohesion value c and value of friction angle were direct input. The user inputs the dilation as a percentage

177

between 0 and 100. The default dilatancy angle is zero, unless the user prefers partial or full associative flow rule and volumetric expansion. The shell material is assumed linearly elastic for FRP. The steel for the finite element models was assumed to be an elasto-plastic material and identical in tension and compression. Poissons ratio of 0.27 was used for the steel reinforcement in this study as suggested by Gere and Timoshenko (1997). Material properties for various elements are given in Table B1. Table B1 Material Properties Material Particulars Modulus of elasticity Ex=30000 MPa Poissons ratio =0.2. Willam and Warnke failure surface Shear crack coefficient open 1= 0.3 Concrete Shear crack coefficient closed 2= 1 Uniaxial tensile stress = 3.6 MPa Drucker-Prager plasticity Cohesion =24 Friction angle =28 Flow angle = 0 Youngs Modulus Ex=200000 MPa Steel Poissons ratio =0.27 Yield strength= 415 MPa Modulus of elasticity Ex=17500 MPa Poissons ratio =0.21

FRP Composite

B1.3 Element Connectivity Ideally, the bond strength between the concrete and steel reinforcement should be considered. However, in this study, perfect bond between materials was assumed due to difficulties in modelling bond slip relations. To provide the perfect bond, the link element for the steel reinforcing was connected between the nodes of each adjacent concrete solid element, so the two materials shared the same nodes. The same approach was adopted for FRP composites as well. Nodes of the FRP elements were

178

connected to those of adjacent concrete solid elements in order to satisfy the perfect bond assumption. The high strength of the resin used to attach GFRP wraps to the experimental specimens supported the perfect bond assumption. Fig. B5 illustrates the element connectivity.

Fig. B5 Element Connectivity

179