Dynamic Loading
A DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the award of the degree
of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING
(With specialization in Structural Engineering)
by
ABHINAV GUPTA
(E.No. 10523001)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE
ROORKEE 247667, UTTARAKHAND, INDIA
JUNE, 2012
II
CANDIDATES DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work being presented in this dissertation, entitled Non
Linear Analysis of RC Structure for Dynamic Loading towards partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Technology in Civil Engineering
with specialization in Structural Engineering, submitted to the Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, is an authentic record of my
own work carried out under the guidance of Dr. ASHOK K. JAIN, Professor, Department of
Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee and Shri Prabhakar Gundlapalli, Additional Chief Engineer
(Civil), Scientific Officer G, NPCIL, Trombay, Mumbai.
Date:
Place: Roorkee (ABHINAV GUPTA)
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best of our
knowledge.
Dr. ASHOK K. JAIN
Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
Roorkee 247667 (INDIA)
Shri PRABHAKAR GUNDLAPALLI
Additional Chief Engineer,
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd,
Anushakti Nagar, Trombay,
Mumbai, INDIA
III
ACKNOWLEGEMENT
I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. ASHOK K. JAIN, Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee and Shri Prabhakar Gundlapalli, Additional
Chief Engineer (Civil), Scientific Officer G, NPCIL, Trombay, Mumbai for their unfailing
inspiration, concern, wholehearted cooperation and pain staking supervision for this
dissertation. Their encouragement and incisive comments gave immense confidence to
complete this work.
I would like to express my deep respect and love to my parents, brother, and other family
members for their blessings, inspiration, encouragement and support throughout my life.
I would also like to specially thank Shri Rajiv Ranjan, Deputy Chief Engineer, NPCIL and
Shri Shrikant Devmani Mishra, Executive Engineer, NPCIL, Mumbai who helped me
throughout this dissertation and also my friends Arun Das and Shabbir Lokhandwala who
devoted their valuable time for carefully scrutinising the text of this dissertation.
Finally I would also like to extend my deepest gratitude to my friends Avantika, Warlu,
Satyam, Narpat and Samrat for their support throughout my M.Tech life. The unforgettable
moments spent with them will remain lifelong in my memory.
Date:
Place: Roorkee (ABHINAV GUPTA)
IV
ABSTRACT
An extensive study of the material models of concrete and steel available in
ABAQUS v6.9 was carried out and Linear Elasticity, Concrete Smeared Cracking and
Concrete Damaged Plasticity material models of concrete and Classical metal plasticity
material model of steel were chosen to represent the elastic and plastic behaviour of these
materials. Various parameters that were required to define a material model were also studied
in detail. Detail of various methods available to model the bond between concrete and steel
has also been presented.
Effect of meshing and type of element chosen for stress analysis viz. first order
hexahedral and second order hexahedral first order tetrahedral and second order tetrahedral
elements are studied with the help of a cantilever beam. Twelve different models with three
mesh densities viz. two, four and six elements along the depth and four types of elements viz.
first order hexahedral, second order hexahedral, first order tetrahedral, second order
tetrahedral elements were analysed for this study. Linear hexahedral element is found to be
more consistent compared to other elements for all the mesh densities studied such that
percentage error in displacement for linear hexahedral element is in between 4% to 7.5%.
Stress Analysis is done for two different experiments carried out by Bresler &
Scordelis (1963) and Burns & Seiss (1962). The first beam that was tested by Bresler &
Scordelis (1963) had no shear reinforcement and the second beam that was tested by Burns &
Seiss (1962) had shear reinforcement. Clear span for both the beams were same. Validation
of the two material models of concrete is done with respect to the two beams. Also, a beam
column joint was analysed by taking Concrete Damage Plasticity model, which was sbjected
to a cyclic load applied at the tip of the beam. It is found out that only by the use of Concrete
Damage plasticity model, the finite element model is able to predict the complete non linear
response of structure.
Finally a comparison of the two material models of concrete by analysing two
different beams tested by Bresler & Scordelis (1963) and Burns & Seiss (1962) respectively
is done. For the purpose of comparison based on the effect of combination of mesh size and
tension stiffening parameter on the analysis, eighteen different models were made by taking
three different mesh densities viz. 50 mm, 75 mm and 100 mm element sizes respectively and
six different tension stiffening parameter values ranging from 0.001 to 0.006. Based on the
comparison data it is concluded that Concrete Damage Plasticity model is the suitable
concrete model to carry out a nonlinear analysis of a structure subjected to dynamic loading.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CANDIDATES DECLARATION ................................................................................................. II
ACKNOWLEGEMENT ............................................................................................................. III
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... V
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. VIII
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... X
Chapter 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Need of the study ........................................................................................ 2
1.3 Objective of the study ................................................................................. 3
1.4 Scope of the study ....................................................................................... 4
1.5 Organization of report ................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2 Literature Review ................................................................................................. 5
2.1 General ........................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Experimental Studies .................................................................................. 5
2.3 Literature Survey ......................................................................................... 6
2.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 3 Material Modelling ............................................................................................. 11
3.1 General ...................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Material Behaviour Post Yield .................................................................. 11
3.3 Tension Stiffening Effect .......................................................................... 12
3.4 Material Model for Concrete ..................................................................... 16
3.4.1 Linear Elasticity ............................................................................. 16
3.4.2 Concrete Smeared Cracking .......................................................... 17
3.4.3 Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model ............................................. 23
3.5 Material Model for Reinforcement ........................................................... 32
3.5.1 Classical Metal Plasticity .............................................................. 32
Chapter 4 BondSlip Model ............................................................................................... 33
4.1 General ...................................................................................................... 33
VI
4.2 Existing Studies ......................................................................................... 33
4.2.1 Embedded models ......................................................................... 33
4.2.2 Distributed models ......................................................................... 33
4.2.3 Discrete models ............................................................................. 34
4.3 Simulation in ABAQUS ............................................................................ 35
4.3.1 Embedded Element ........................................................................ 35
4.3.2 Friction .......................................................................................... 35
4.3.3 Spring Element .............................................................................. 36
4.3.4 Translator ....................................................................................... 36
4.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 5 Meshing .............................................................................................................. 38
5.1 General ...................................................................................................... 38
5.2 Element Description .................................................................................. 38
5.2.1 Family ............................................................................................ 38
5.2.2 Degrees of freedom ....................................................................... 39
5.2.3 Number of nodes and order of interpolation ................................. 39
5.2.4 Formulation ................................................................................... 40
5.2.5 Integration ...................................................................................... 40
5.3 Mesh Size .................................................................................................. 40
5.3.1 Comparative study on different mesh sizes ................................... 41
Analytical Solution .................................................................................... 43
5.3.2 Observations .................................................................................. 43
Chapter 6 Finite Element Model Development ................................................................... 45
6.1 General ...................................................................................................... 45
6.2 Analysis: Procedure and Theory ............................................................... 45
6.2.1 Geometric modelling ..................................................................... 46
6.2.2 Material Modelling ........................................................................ 47
6.2.3 Interaction ...................................................................................... 48
6.2.4 Meshing ......................................................................................... 48
6.2.5 Applying load and boundary condition ......................................... 49
6.2.6 Analysis ......................................................................................... 50
6.3 Experimental Data (Bresler & Scordelis, 1963) ....................................... 51
6.3.1 Test Procedure ............................................................................... 52
VII
6.4 Analysis of Beam ...................................................................................... 52
6.4.1 Load and Boundary Condition ...................................................... 53
6.4.2 Concrete Material Model Definition ............................................. 53
6.4.3 Material Properties for reinforcing steel ........................................ 60
6.4.4 Validation of Concrete Material Models ....................................... 60
6.5 Analysis of BeamColumn Joint .............................................................. 61
6.5.1 Material Properties ........................................................................ 62
6.5.2 Load and boundary condition ........................................................ 64
6.5.3 Results ........................................................................................... 64
Chapter 7 Comparison of Concrete Material Models ......................................................... 66
7.1 General ...................................................................................................... 66
7.2 Comparison Based On Equilibrium Path .................................................. 67
7.3 Comparison Based on Crack Visualization ............................................... 68
7.4 Comparison Based On Meshing and Tension Stiffening .......................... 69
7.5 Comparison Based on Response to cyclic behavior ................................. 73
Chapter 8 Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................... 74
8.1 Summary ................................................................................................... 74
8.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 74
8.3 Recommendations for Further Work ........................................................ 76
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 77
VIII
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 31Post yield material behaviour. ................................................................................. 11
Figure 32 Loaddeflection diagram. ....................................................................................... 12
Figure 33 Beam and loading. .................................................................................................. 12
Figure 34 Moment curvature relation. .................................................................................... 13
Figure 35 Variation of neutral axis and steel tensile strain in a cracked beam. ..................... 14
Figure 36 Strain profiles as per cracked and uncracked sections. .......................................... 14
Figure 37 Variation of EI with moment. ................................................................................ 15
Figure 38 Variation of EI along the length of the beam shown in Figure 33 ........................ 15
Figure 39 Tension Stiffening .................................................................................................. 18
Figure 310 Uniaxial behavior of plain concrete. .................................................................... 20
Figure 311 Failure Surface ..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 312 Yield and failure surfaces in the (pq) plane. ...................................................... 22
Figure 313 Uniaxial tension behavior of concrete.................................................................. 23
Figure 314 Uniaxial compression behavior of concrete ......................................................... 24
Figure 315 Illustration of the effect of the compression stiffness recovery parameter w
c
. .... 26
Figure 316 Illustration of the definition of the cracking strain. .............................................. 27
Figure 317 Definition of the compressive inelastic (or crushing) strain. ............................... 28
Figure 318 Yield surface in plane stress. ................................................................................ 30
Figure 319 Yield surfaces in the deviatoric plane, corresponding to different values of K
c
. . 31
Figure 41 Spring Model (Nilson 1968) .................................................................................. 34
Figure 42 Layered model by Bresler, 1968 ............................................................................ 35
Figure 43 Frictional Behavior in ABAQUS ........................................................................... 36
Figure 44 Translator Type of connector (ABAQUS,2010) .................................................... 37
Figure 51 Types of elements available in ABAQUS ............................................................. 38
Figure 52 Linear and Quadratic hexahedral element. ............................................................. 39
Figure 53 Linear and Quadratic tetrahedral element. ............................................................. 39
Figure 54 Description of element names. ............................................................................... 40
Figure 55 Dimension of beam. ............................................................................................... 41
Figure 56 Effect of mesh density on displacement field (linear hexahedral elements) .......... 41
Figure 57 Effect of mesh density on displacement field (quadratic hexahedral elements) .... 42
Figure 58 Effect of mesh density on displacement field (linear tetrahedral elements) .......... 42
Figure 59 Effect of mesh density on displacement field (Quadratic tetrahedral elements) ... 42
IX
Figure 61 Geometric modelling of reinforced beam components in ABAQUS .................... 46
Figure 62 Assembly of different part instances. ..................................................................... 47
Figure 63 Modelling of concrete in ABAQUS v6.9 ............................................................... 48
Figure 64 The Mesh Module Toolbox .................................................................................... 49
Figure 65 The Load module toolbox. ..................................................................................... 50
Figure 66 Job Manager Window ............................................................................................ 50
Figure 67 Experimental Setup (Bresler & Scordelis, 1963)(1 = 25.4 mm) .......................... 51
Figure 68: Dimensioning of BeamOA1 (Bresler & Scordelis, 1963) .................................. 51
Figure 69 Meshed view of the beam ...................................................................................... 52
Figure 610 Window for defining part. .................................................................................... 53
Figure 611 Stress Strain Curve for Concrete .......................................................................... 54
Figure 612 Compressive behaviour of concrete ..................................................................... 55
Figure 613 Tension Stiffening ................................................................................................ 56
Figure 614 Comparison of load deflection graph for various values of tension stiffening. ... 57
Figure 615 Comparison of beam OA1 results for different tension stiffening property. ....... 59
Figure 616 Comparison of results. ......................................................................................... 60
Figure 617 Specimen design and test results of Beres et al. (1992). ...................................... 62
Figure 618 Geometry of the Model in ABAQUS ................................................................... 62
Figure 619 Load History......................................................................................................... 64
Figure 620 Tensile Damage in concrete. ................................................................................ 65
Figure 71 Dimensioning of BeamOA1 (Bresler & Scordelis, 1963) .................................... 66
Figure 72 Dimensioning of Beam J1 (Burns & Seiss, 1962) (all dimensions in mm) ......... 66
Figure 73 Computed and observed load displacement history for (Bresler & Scordelis, 1963)
beam without shear reinforcement. .......................................................................................... 67
Figure 74 Computed and observed load displacement history for (Burns & Seiss, 1962)
beam with shear reinforcement. ............................................................................................... 68
Figure 75 Crack visualization with the help of Concrete Damaged Plasticity model. ........... 69
Figure 76 Crack visualization with the help of Concrete Smeared Cracking model. ............ 69
Figure 77 Variation of LPF with tension stiffening parameter (Concrete Smeared Cracking).
.................................................................................................................................................. 71
Figure 78 Variation of LPF with tension stiffening parameter (Concrete Damaged Plasticity).
.................................................................................................................................................. 72
X
LIST OF TABLES
Table 51 Variation of displacement according to different mesh density .............................. 43
Table 52 Percent error in displacement as compared to analytical results. ............................ 43
Table 61 Compression Hardening Table ................................................................................ 56
Table 62 Tension Stiffening Table ........................................................................................ 57
Table 63 Concrete Damaged Plasticity model parameters (Tomasz et al 2005) .................... 58
Table 64 Compression hardening table. ................................................................................. 58
Table 65 Tension Stiffening Table for Concrete .................................................................... 59
Table 66 Material properties for reinforcing steel .................................................................. 60
Table 67 Concrete Damaged Plasticity model parameters ..................................................... 63
Table 68 Steel Plasticity Model Parameters ........................................................................... 63
Table 71 Effect of Tension stiffening and element size on analysis using Concrete Smeared
Cracking. .................................................................................................................................. 70
Table 72 Effect of Tension stiffening and element size on analysis using Concrete Damaged
Plasticity. .................................................................................................................................. 72
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 General
Dynamic Analysis is a subset of structural analysis and is the calculation of the
response of a building structure subjected to dynamic loads. It is part of the process of
structural design, earthquake engineering or structural assessment and retrofit in regions
where earthquakes or dynamic forces are prevalent.
Dynamic response of a structure can be caused by different loading conditions such as:
 Earthquake ground motion,
 Wind pressure,
 Wave action,
 Blast,
 Machine vibration, and
 Traffic movement.
Among these, inelastic response is mainly caused by earthquake motions and accidental
blasts. A building has the potential to wave back and forth during application of dynamic
lateral loads which generates additional loads on the structural elements; the dynamic
properties of the structure affect these loads generated. There are several methods available in
literature for the estimation of these loads. A few of these methods are described below,
1. Equivalent Static Analysis: This approach defines a series of forces acting on a building
to represent the effect of earthquake ground motion, typically defined by a seismic design
response spectrum.
2. Response Spectrum Analysis: This approach permits the multiple modes of response of
a building to be taken into account. The response of a structure can be defined as a
combination of many special shapes (modes).
3. Linear Dynamic Analysis: The seismic input is modelled using either modal spectral
analysis or time history analysis but in both cases, the corresponding internal forces and
displacements are determined using linear elastic analysis.
4. Nonlinear Static Analysis: This approach is also known as "pushover" analysis. A
pattern of forces is applied to a structural model that includes nonlinear properties (such
as steel yield), and the total force is plotted against a reference displacement to define a
capacity curve.
2
5. Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis: Nonlinear dynamic analysis utilizes the combination of
ground motion records with a detailed structural model, therefore is capable of producing
results with relatively low uncertainty.
Out of all the above type of analysis Nonlinear dynamic analysis is the most rigorous,
and is required by some building codes for buildings of unusual configuration or of special
importance. However, such an analysis requires proper understanding of the materials
utilized. The calculated response can be very sensitive to the material model and solution
techniques used and also to the characteristics of the dynamic loads acting on it.
1.2 Need of the study
With the advancement of computer technologies and various kind of numerical
methods it is now possible to model complex material behaviour and loads for analysis of a
structure. But even with the advancement of these technologies there is a need to first
properly understand the actual behaviour of the structure and then to find a technique that
gives the best possible results. One of such technique is Finite Element Method that is now
being extensively used for analysis of reinforced concrete structures.
Within the framework of developing advanced design and analysis methods such as
Finite Element Method for modern structures the need for experimental research continues.
Experimental research supplies the basic information for finite element models, such as
material properties. In addition, the results of finite element models have to be evaluated by
comparing them with experiments of fullscale models of structural sub assemblages or, even,
entire structures. The development of reliable analytical models can, however, reduce the
number of required test specimens for the solution of a given problem, recognizing that tests
are timeconsuming and costly and often do not simulate exactly the loading and support
conditions of the actual structure.
The development of analytical models of the response of RC structures is complicated by
the following factors:
 Reinforced concrete is a composite material made up of concrete and steel, two materials
with very different physical and mechanical behavior;
 Concrete exhibits nonlinear behavior even under low strain loading due to nonlinear
material behavior, environmental effects, cracking, biaxial stiffening and strain softening;
 Reinforcing steel and concrete interact in a complex way through bondslip and aggregate
interlock.
3
These complex phenomena have led engineers in the past to rely heavily on empirical
formulae for the design of concrete structures, which were derived from numerous
experiments. With the advent of digital computers and powerful methods of analysis, such as
the finite element method, many efforts to develop analytical solutions which would obviate
the need for experiments have been undertaken by investigators. With this method the
importance and interaction of different nonlinear effects on the response of RC structures can
be studied analytically. Thus the current investigation focuses on development of a finite
element model that is appropriate for investigating the behavior of reinforced concrete sub
assemblies subjected to general loading and dynamic loading.
Also, laboratory investigation of reinforced concrete structure indicates that component
failure may result from inelastic material response of plain concrete or reinforcing steel.
Thus, model development includes investigating and characterizing the behavior of these
materials. A material model would be proposed from the available material models in
ABAQUS to represent the response of plain concrete that may develop multiple, discrete
cracks under tensiletype loading and also the loss of stiffness and strength associated with
moderate to severe compressivetype loading and the transition from tensile to compressive
response mechanism under load reversal. For reinforcing steel, the material model would
represent tensile and compressive yielding as well as the curvilinear nature of steel response
under reversed cyclic loading.
Ideally these models should be based on an accurate representation of material
behaviour taking into account the controlling states of stress or strain and identifying the
main parameters which influence the hysteretic behavior of each critical region in order to
predict the behavior up to failure of any structural component. At the same time these models
should be computationally efficient, so that the dynamic response of multistorey structures
under dynamic excitations can be determined within reasonable time.
There is also a need of comparative study of different material models, thus structural
subassemblies would be analysed using these different properties.
1.3 Objective of the study
The present investigation of the nonlinear response to failure of RC structures under
short term monotonic loads was initiated with the intent to investigate the relative importance
of several factors in the nonlinear finite element analysis of RC structures: these include the
effect of tensionstiffening and bondslip and their relative importance on the response of
beams, the effect of size of the finite element mesh on the analytical results and the effect of
the nonlinear behavior of concrete and steel on the response of beams.
4
The main objective of the study can be listed as below
 Modelling structural elements and dynamic condition in ABAQUS v6.9 for performing
the nonlinear analysis.
 Studying different material models of concrete and steel available in ABAQUS v.6.9.
 Studying the effect of size of finite element mesh on analysis results.
 Studying the effect of different material model parameters on analysis results.
 Conducting a comparative study of the material models of concrete available in
ABAQUS v6.9 and proposing the best suited model of concrete for the purpose of
dynamic analysis.
1.4 Scope of the study
In this thesis first a detailed study of the two concrete material models that are available
in ABAQUS v6.9 viz. Concrete Smeared Cracking and Concrete Damaged Plasticity has
been done. Few of the techniques that are available in literature for the purpose of modelling
Bondslip behaviour are then presented along with the methods of applying those techniques
in ABAQUS v6.9. Effect of mesh size on the analysis results of a 2 m length cantilever beam
by taking elastic properties and subjected to point load is then presented, and finally a
comparative study of Concrete Smeared Cracking and Concrete Damaged Plasticity model is
documented. Only the inelastic effect of material is considered and the effect of strain rate
and other field variables is neglected.
1.5 Organization of report
The report has been divided into several chapters as follows
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Literature Review
Chapter 3. Material Modelling
Chapter 4. BondSlip Model
Chapter 5. Meshing
Chapter 6. Finite Element Model Development
Chapter 7. Comparison of Concrete Material Models
Chapter 8. Summary and Conclusion
5
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 General
Dynamic loading requires an understanding of the structural behavior under large
inelastic deformations. Behavior under this loading is fundamentally different from wind or
gravity loading, requiring much more detailed analysis to assure acceptable dynamic
performance beyond the elastic range. Some structural damage can be expected when the
building experiences design ground motions because almost all building codes allow inelastic
energy dissipation in structural systems. Hence, for the proper simulation of structure it is
essential to properly understand the behavior of materials under dynamic loading condition.
A considerable amount of work has been accomplished on material properties in the inelastic
regime.
A brief review of previous studies on the behavior of materials under monotonic and
cyclic loading and the application of the finite element method to the analysis of reinforced
concrete structures is presented is this section.
2.2 Experimental Studies
Bresler & Scordelis [1963] performed tests on a series of beams to study their general
behavior, cracking loads, and strength.The tests were designed to provide data regarding the
shear strength of beams having narmal to low percentage of web reinforcement and normal to
high shear span ratios. The results were provided in the form of load deflection plots for
various beams under the same loading condition but with variating amount of reinforcement.
Owing to the high quality of testing and results, this experiment has been taken as the basis
for validation of material models.
Burns and Seiss [1962] conducted out experiments on lightly reinforced concrete
beam. These beams are very lightly reinforced with a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of
0.007 and no transverse reinforcement. The ratio of the flexural length to the depth of the
longitudinal reinforcement is approximately 4. Thus behavior of the element is controlled
entirely by flexure and the lack of transverse reinforcement does not adversely affect
behavior. The results were provided in the form of load deflection plots for various sections
of beams.
Beres, Attila Bella [1994] conducted out experiments on reinforced concrete frames
with nonductile details. The experimental study was restricted to plane frames without slab.
Various kinds of beam column junction were studied and cyclic loading was applied to them
6
to study their behaviour under dynamic condition. The results were provided in form of
diagrams of cracking patterns seen in actual experiment and hysteresis graphs.
2.3 Literature Survey
The earliest publication on the application of the finite element method to the analysis
of RC structures was presented by Ngo and Scordelis (1967). In their study, simple beams
were analysed with a model in which concrete and reinforcing steel were represented by
constant strain triangular elements, and a special bond link element was used to connect the
steel to the concrete and describe the bondslip effect. A linear elastic analysis was performed
on beams with predefined crack patterns to determine principal stresses in concrete, stresses
in steel reinforcement and bond stresses. Since the publication of this pioneering work, the
analysis of reinforced concrete structures has enjoyed a growing interest and many
publications have appeared. Scordelis et al. (1974) used the same approach to study the effect
of shear in beams with diagonal tension cracks and accounted for the effect of stirrups, dowel
shear, aggregate interlock and horizontal splitting along the reinforcing bars near the support.
Nilson (1972) introduced nonlinear material properties for concrete and steel and a
nonlinear bondslip relationship into the analysis and used an incremental load method of
nonlinear analysis. Four constant strain triangular elements were combined to form a
quadrilateral element by condensing out the central node. Cracking was accounted for by
stopping the solution when an element reached the tensile strength, and reloading
incrementally after redefining a new cracked structure. The method was applied to concentric
and eccentric reinforced concrete tensile members which were subjected to loads applied at
the end of the reinforcing bars and the results were compared with experimental data.
Franklin (1970) advanced the capabilities of the analytical method by developing a
nonlinear analysis which automatically accounted for cracking within finite elements and the
redistribution of stresses in the structure. This made it possible to trace the response of two
dimensional systems from initial loading to failure in one continuous analysis. Incremental
loading with iterations within each increment was used to account for cracking in the finite
elements and for the nonlinear material behavior. Franklin used special frametype elements,
quadrilateral plane stress elements, axial bar members, twodimensional bond links and tie
links to study reinforced concrete frames and RC frames coupled with shear walls.
Plane stress elements were used by numerous investigators to study the behavior of
reinforced concrete frame and wall systems. Nayak and Zienkiewicz (1972) conducted two
dimensional stress studies which include the tensile cracking and the elastoplastic behavior
of concrete in compression using an initial stress approach. Cervenka (1970) analysed shear
7
walls and spandrel beams using an initial stress approach in which the elastic stiffness matrix
at the beginning of the entire analysis is used in all iterations. Cervenka proposed a
constitutive relationship for the composite concretesteel material through the uncracked,
cracked and plastic stages of behavior.
For the analysis of RC beams with material and geometric nonlinearities Rajagopal
(1976) developed a layered rectangular plate element with axial and bending stiffness in
which concrete was treated as an orthotropic material. RC beam and slab problems have also
been treated by many other investigators (Lin and Scordelis 1975; Bashur and Darwin 1978;
Rots et al. 1985; Barzegar and Schnobrich 1986; Adeghe and Collins 1986; Bergmann and
Pantazopoulou 1988; Cervenka et al. 1990; Kwak 1990) using similar methods.
Selna (1969) analysed beams and frames made up of onedimensional elements with
layered cross sections which accounted for progressive cracking and changing material
properties through the depth of the cross section as a function of load and time. Significant
advances and extensions of the finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beams and
frames to include the effects of heat transfer due to fire, as well as the timedependent effects
of creep and shrinkage, were made by Becker and Bresler (1974).
The finite element analysis of an axisymmetric solid under axisymmetric loading can
be readily reduced to a twodimensional analysis. Bresler and Bertero (1968) used an
axisymmetric model to study the stress distribution in a cylindrical concrete specimen
reinforced with a single plain reinforcing bar. The specimen was loaded by applying tensile
loads at the ends of the bar.
In one of the pioneering early studies Rashid (1968) introduced the concept of a
"smeared" crack in the study of the axisymmetric response of prestressed concrete reactor
structures. Rashid took into account cracking and the effects of temperature, creep and load
history in his analyses. Today the smeared crack approach of modelling the cracking behavior
of concrete is almost exclusively used by investigators in the nonlinear analysis of RC
structures, since its implementation in a finite element analysis program is more
straightforward than that of the discrete crack model. Computer time considerations also
favour the smeared crack model in analyses which are concerned with the global response of
structures. At the same time the concerted effort of many investigators in the last 20 years has
removed many of the limitations of the smeared crack model (ASCE 1982; Meyer and
Okamura, eds. 1985).
8
Gilbert and Warner (1978) used the smeared crack model and investigated the effect
of the slope of the descending branch of the concrete stressstrain relation on the behavior of
RC slabs. They were among the first to point out that analytical results of the response of
reinforced concrete structures are greatly influenced by the size of the finite element mesh
and by the amount of tension stiffening of concrete. Several studies followed which
corroborated these findings and showed the effect of mesh size (Bazant and Cedolin 1980;
Bazant and Oh 1983; Kwak 1990) and tension stiffening (Barzegar and Schnobrich 1986;
Leibengood et al. 1986) on the accuracy of finite element analyses of RC structures with the
smeared crack model. In order to better account for the tension stiffening effect of concrete
between cracks some investigators have artificially increased the stiffness of reinforcing steel
by modifying its stressstrain relationship (Gilbert and Warner 1977). Others have chosen to
modify the tensile stressstrain curve of concrete by including a descending postpeak branch
(Lin and Scordelis 1975; Vebo and Ghali 1977; Barzegar and Schnobrich 1986; Abdel
Rahman and Hinton 1986).
In the context of the smeared crack model two different representations have
emerged: the fixed crack and the rotating crack model. In the fixed crack model a crack forms
perpendicular to the principal tensile stress direction when the principal stress exceeds the
concrete tensile strength and the crack orientation does not change during subsequent
loading. The ease of formulating and implementing this model has led to its widespread used
in early studies (Hand et al. 1973; Lin and Scordelis 1975). Subsequent studies, however,
showed that the model is associated with numerical problems caused by the singularity of the
material stiffness matrix. Moreover, the crack pattern predicted by the finite element analysis
often shows considerable deviations from that observed in experiments (Jain and Kennedy
1974).
The problems of the fixed crack model can be overcome by introducing a cracked
shear modulus, which eliminates most numerical difficulties of the model and considerably
improves the accuracy of the crack pattern predictions. The results do not seem to be very
sensitive to the value of the cracked shear modulus (Vebo and Ghali 1977; Barzegar and
Schnobrich 1986), as long as a value which is greater than zero is used, so as to eliminate the
singularity of the material stiffness matrix and the associated numerical instability. Some
recent models use a variable cracked shear modulus to represent the change in shear stiffness,
as the principal stresses in the concrete vary from tension to compression (Balakrishnan and
Murray 1988; Cervenka et al. 1990).
9
de Borst and Nauta (1985) have proposed a model in which the total strain rate is
additively decomposed into a concrete strain rate and a crack strain rate. The latter is, in turn,
made up of several crack strain components. After formulating the twodimensional concrete
stressstrain relation and transforming from the crack direction to the global coordinate
system of the structure, a material matrix with no coupling between normal and shear stress is
constructed. In spite of its relative simplicity and ease of application, this approach still
requires the selection of a cracked shear modulus of concrete.
While the response of lightly reinforced beams in bending is very sensitive to the
effect of tension stiffening of concrete, the response of RC structures in which shear plays an
important role, such as overreinforced beams and shear walls, is much more affected by the
bondslip of reinforcing steel than the tension stiffening of concrete. To account for the
bondslip of reinforcing steel two different approaches are common in the finite element
analysis of RC structures. The first approach makes use of the bond link element proposed by
Ngo and Scordelis (1967). This element connects a node of a concrete finite element with a
node of an adjacent steel element. The link element has no physical dimensions, i.e. the two
connected nodes have the same coordinates.
The second approach makes use of the bondzone element developed by de Groot et
al. (1981). In this element the behavior of the contact surface between steel and concrete and
of the concrete in the immediate vicinity of the reinforcing bar is described by a material law
which considers the special properties of the bond zone. The contact element provides a
continuous connection between reinforcing steel and concrete, if a linear or higher order
displacement field is used in the discretization scheme. A simpler but similar element was
proposed by Keuser and Mehlhorn (1987), who showed that the bond link element cannot
represent adequately the stiffness of the steelconcrete interface.
Even though many studies of the bond stressslip relationship between reinforcing
steel and concrete have been conducted, considerable uncertainty about this complex
phenomenon still exists, because of the many parameters which are involved. As a result,
most finite element studies of RC structures do not account for bondslip of reinforcing steel
and many researchers express the opinion that this effect is included in the tensionstiffening
model.
Suidan and Schnobrich (1973) were the first to study the behavior of beams with 20
node threedimensional isoperimetric finite elements. The behavior of concrete in
compression was assumed elastoplastic based on the vonMises yield criterion. A coarse
finite element mesh was used in these analyses for cost reasons.
10
2.4 Summary
In spite of the large number of previous studies on the nonlinear finite element
analysis of reinforced concrete structures, only few conclusions of general applicability have
been arrived at. The inclusion of the effects of tension stiffening and bondslip is a case in
point. Since few rational models of this difficult problem have been proposed so far, it is
rather impossible to assess exactly what aspects of the behavior are included in each study
and what the relative contribution of each is. Similar conclusions can be reached with regard
to other aspects of the finite element analysis. Even though the varying level of sophistication
of proposed models is often motivated by computational cost considerations, the multitude of
proposed approaches can lead to the conclusion that the skill and experience of the analyst is
the most important aspect of the study and that the selection of the appropriate model
depends on the problem to be solved.
11
Chapter 3 Material Modelling
3.1 General
The response of a reinforced concrete structure is determined in part by the material
response of the plain concrete and steel of which it is composed. Thus, analysis and
prediction of structural response of a reinforced concrete structure to static or dynamic
loading requires prediction of concrete response to variable load histories. The fundamental
characteristics of concrete behavior are established through experimental testing of plain
concrete specimens subjected to specific, relatively simple load histories. Continuum
mechanics provides a framework for developing an analytical model that describes these
fundamental characteristics. Experimental data provide additional information for refinement
and calibration of the analytical model.
The following sections present the concrete and steel material models used in this
investigation for finite element analysis of reinforced concrete structural elements.
3.2 Material Behaviour Post Yield
Different types of material behavior are (Figure 31),
 Strain Hardening is a phenomenon whereby yield stress increases with further plastic
straining.
 Elastic Plastic is a phenomenon whereby yield stress remains constant with further
plastic straining.
 Strain Softening is a phenomenon whereby yield stress decreases with further plastic
straining.
 Brittle is a phenomenon whereby the material fails as soon it reaches its elastic limit.
Figure 31Post yield material behaviour.
12
Plain concrete belongs to a class of materials that can be called brittle, indicating that it
fails as soon as it reaches its elastic limit. But in RCC because of aggregate interlock and
presence of reinforcement the member is able to take more loads and thus shows strain
softening behavior. The strain softening kind of behaviour shown by RCC structural elements
is based on a phenomenon known as Tension Stiffening Effect as described in section 3.3.
3.3 Tension Stiffening Effect
In this section tension stiffening effect in reinforced concrete structures is defined,
LoadDeflection Behavior of a Concrete Beam
Figure 32 traces the loaddeflection history of the fixedended, reinforced concrete
beam shown in Figure 33. Initially, the beam is uncracked and is stiff (OA). With further
load, flexural cracking occurs when the moment at the ends exceeds the cracking moment.
Figure 32 Loaddeflection diagram.
Figure 33 Beam and loading.
When a section cracks, its moment of inertia decreases, leading to a decrease in the
stiffness of the beam. This causes a reduction in stiffness (AB) in the loaddeflection
diagram in Figure 32. Flexural cracking in the midspan region causes a further reduction of
stiffness (point B). Eventually, the reinforcement would yield at the ends or at midspan, an
13
effect leading to large increases in deflection with little change in load (points D and E). The
serviceload level is represented by point C. The beam is essentially elastic at point C, the
nonlinear load deflection being caused by a progressive reduction of flexural stiffness due to
increased cracking as the loads are increased.
Flexural Stiffness and Moment of Inertia
The deflection of a beam is calculated by integrating the curvatures along the length
of the beam. For an elastic beam, the curvature, , is calculated as,
where,
EI = flexural stiffness of the cross section.
M = Moment acting at cross section.
If EI is constant, this is a relatively routine process. For reinforced concrete, however,
three different EI values must be considered. These can be illustrated by the moment
curvature diagram for a length of beam, including several cracks, shown in Figure 34. The
slope of any radial line through the origin in such a diagram is M/ = EI.
Figure 34 Moment curvature relation.
Before cracking, the entire cross section shown in Figure 36 (a) is stressed by loads. The
moment of inertia of this section is called the uncracked moment of inertia, and the
corresponding EI can be represented by the radial line OA in Figure 34. The gross moment
of inertia for the concrete section, I
g
, or moment of inertia based on uncracked transformed
section I
T
is used for this region of behavior.
14
Figure 35 Variation of neutral axis and steel tensile strain in a cracked beam.
(a) Uncracked (b) Cracked (c) Strain Profiles
Section Section
Figure 36 Strain profiles as per cracked and uncracked sections.
The crackedsection EI is less than the uncracked EI and corresponds relatively well
to the curvatures at loads approaching yield, as shown by the radial line OB in Figure 34.
At service loads i.e. when the moment curvature graph is in between A and B, the average EI
values for this beam segment that includes both cracked and uncracked sections are between
these two extremes. The actual EI at service load levels varies considerably, as shown by the
difference in the slope of the lines and depending on the relative magnitudes of the cracking
moment the service load moment and the yield moment. The variation in EI with moment is
shown in Figure 37, obtained from Figure 34.
15
Figure 37 Variation of EI with moment.
Evidently, EI
T
represents the true flexural rigidity for M < M
cr
, and EI
eff
represents the
true flexural rigidity for M > M
cr
. Whereas EI
T
is constant and a property of the beam section,
EI
eff
depends on the load level (applied moment). It follows that
EI
T
> EI
eff
> EI
cr
Thus, determining the flexural rigidity on the basis of the uncracked section results in
an underestimation of the actual deflection of a reinforced concrete beam under service
loads; whereas doing so on the basis of the fully cracked section results in an overestimation
of the actual deflection.
The increase in stiffness over the cracked section stiffness, on account of the ability
of concrete (in between cracks) to resist tension, is referred to as the Tension Stiffening
Effect.
Figure 38 Variation of EI along the length of the beam shown in Figure 33
EI
T
(EI
cr
)
16
Figure 38 shows the distribution of EI along the beam shown in Figure 33. The EI
varies from the uncracked value at points where the moment is less than the cracking moment
to a partially cracked value at points of high moment. Because the use of such a distribution
of EI values would make the deflection calculations tedious, an overall average or effective
EI value is used which obviously is greater that the cracked EI of beam. The effective
moment of inertia must account for both the tension stiffening and the variation of EI along
the member.
3.4 Material Model for Concrete
The material models used for defining behavior of concrete are
 Linear elasticity:  used for defining the elastic behavior of concrete.
 Concrete Smeared Cracking:  used for defining the plastic behavior of concrete.
 Concrete Damaged Plasticity:  used for defining the plastic behavior of concrete.
A comparative study was carried out to determine the best suited model for defining plasticity
in concrete. All of these models are explained in detail.
3.4.1 Linear Elasticity
A linear elastic material model:
 Is valid for small elastic strains (normally less than 5%) and suitable for first order
approximation;
 Can take care of isotropic, orthotropic, or fully anisotropic properties of concrete;
 Has properties that depend on temperature and/or other field variables
The total stress is defined from the total elastic strain as
el el
D c o = , (32)
where
= total stress,
D
el
= Fourthorder elasticity tensor, and
el
= total elastic strain.
The simplest form of linear elasticity is the isotropic case, and the stressstrain
relationship is given by
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
23
13
12
33
22
11
23
13
12
33
22
11
/ 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 / 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 / 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 / 1 / /
0 0 0 / / 1 /
0 0 0 / / / 1
o
o
o
o
o
o
u u
u u
u u
c
c
c
G
G
G
E E E
E E E
E E E
(33)
17
The elastic properties are completely defined by giving the Youngs modulus, E, and
the Poissons ratio, . The shear modulus, G, can be expressed in terms of E and as
G=E/2(1+ ). These parameters can be given as functions of temperature and other
predefined fields, if necessary.
3.4.2 Concrete Smeared Cracking
The smeared crack concrete model in Abaqus/Standard:
 provides a general capability for modelling concrete in all types of structures, including
beams, trusses, shells, and solids;
 can be used for plain concrete, even though it is intended primarily for the analysis of
reinforced concrete structures;
 can be used with rebar to model concrete reinforcement;
 is designed for applications in which the concrete is subjected to essentially monotonic
straining at low confining pressures;
 consists of an isotropically hardening yield surface that is active when the stress is
dominantly compressive and an independent crack detection surface that
determines if a point fails by cracking;
 uses oriented damaged elasticity concepts (smeared cracking) to describe the reversible
part of the materials response after cracking failure;
 requires that the linear elastic material model be used to define elastic properties.
Smeared cracking
The concrete model does not track individual macro cracks. Constitutive
calculations are performed independently at each integration point of the finite element
model. The presence of cracks enters into these calculations by the way in which the cracks
affect the stress and material stiffness associated with the integration point.
Defining Tension Stiffening
The post failure behavior for direct straining across cracks is modelled with tension
stiffening, which allows to define the strainsoftening behavior for cracked concrete. This
behavior allows for the effects of reinforcement interaction with concrete to be simulated in a
simple manner. Tension stiffening is required in the Concrete Smeared Cracking model.
Tension stiffening can be specified by means of a post failure stressstrain relation (Figure
39).
18
Figure 39 Tension Stiffening
Post failure stressstrain relation
Specification of strain softening behavior in reinforced concrete generally means
specifying the post failure stress as a function of strain across the crack (Figure 39). In cases
with little or no reinforcement this specification often introduces mesh sensitivity in the
analysis results in the sense that the finite element predictions do not converge to a unique
solution as the mesh is refined because mesh refinement leads to narrower crack bands. This
problem typically occurs if only a few discrete cracks form in the structure, and mesh
refinement does not result in formation of additional cracks. If cracks are evenly distributed
(either due to the effect of rebar or due to the presence of stabilizing elastic material, as in the
case of plate bending), mesh sensitivity is of little concern.
In practical calculations for reinforced concrete, the mesh is usually such, that the
element contains rebar. The interaction between the rebar and concrete tends to reduce mesh
sensitivity, provided that a reasonable amount of tension stiffening is introduced in the
concrete model to simulate this interaction.
The tension stiffening effect must be estimated; it depends on such factors as
the density of reinforcement, the quality of the bond between the rebar and the concrete,
the relative size of the concrete aggregate compared to the rebar diameter, and the mesh.
A reasonable starting point for relatively heavily reinforced concrete modelled with a fairly
detailed mesh is to assume that the strain softening after failure reduces the stress linearly to
Failure point
Tension stiffening curve
Strain,
Stress,
19
zero at a total strain of about 10 times the strain at failure. The strain at failure in standard
concretes is typically 10
4
, which suggests that tension stiffening that reduces the stress to
zero at a total strain of about 10
3
is reasonable. This parameter should be calibrated to a
particular case.
The choice of tension stiffening parameters is important in Abaqus/Standard since,
generally, more tension stiffening makes it easier to obtain numerical solutions. Too little
tension stiffening will cause the local cracking failure in the concrete to introduce temporarily
unstable behavior in the overall response of the model.
Defining Compressive Behavior
When the principal stress components are dominantly compressive, the response of
the concrete is modelled by an elasticplastic theory using a simple form of yield surface
written in terms of the equivalent pressure stress, p, and the Mises equivalent deviatoric
stress, q as shown in Figure 312. Associated flow and isotropic hardening are used. This
model significantly simplifies the actual behavior. The associated flow assumption generally
overpredicts the inelastic volume strain. When the concrete is strained beyond the ultimate
stress point, the assumption that the elastic response is not affected by the inelastic
deformation is not realistic. In addition, when concrete is subjected to very high pressure, it
exhibits inelastic response: no attempt has been made to build this behavior into the model
(this also leads to the error:Convergence judged unlikely.).
The simplifications associated with compressive behavior are introduced for the
sake of computational efficiency. In particular, while the assumption of associated flow is
not justified by experimental data, it can provide results that are acceptably close to
measurements, provided that the range of pressure stress in the problem is not large. From a
computational viewpoint, the associated flow assumption leads to enough symmetry in the
Jacobian matrix of the integrated constitutive model (the material stiffness matrix) such
that the overall equilibrium equation solution usually does not require unsymmetrical
equation solution. All of these limitations could be removed at some sacrifice in
computational cost.
Stressstrain behavior of plain concrete can be defined in uniaxial compression
outside the elastic range (Figure 310). Compressive stress data are provided as a tabular
function of plastic strain and, if desired, temperature and field variables. Positive (absolute)
values should be given for the compressive stress and strain. The stressstrain curve can be
defined beyond the ultimate stress, into the strainsoftening regime.
20
Uniaxial and multiaxial behavior
The cracking and compressive responses of concrete that are incorporated in the
concrete model are illustrated by the uniaxial response of a specimen shown in Figure 310.
When concrete is loaded in compression, it initially exhibits elastic response. As the stress is
increased, some nonrecoverable (inelastic) straining occurs and the response of the material
softens. An ultimate stress is reached, after which the material loses strength until it can no
longer carry any stress.
If the load is removed at some point after inelastic straining has occurred, the
unloading response is softer than the initial elastic response: the elasticity has been damaged.
This effect is ignored in the model, since it is assumed that the applications involve primarily
monotonic straining, with only occasional, minor unloading.
Figure 310 Uniaxial behavior of plain concrete.
When a uniaxial concrete specimen is loaded in tension, it responds elastically until, at a
stress that is typically 7%10% of the ultimate compressive stress, cracks form. Cracks form
so quickly that, even in the stiffest testing machines available, it is very difficult to observe
the actual behavior.
The model assumes that cracking causes damage, and open cracks can be represented by a
loss of elastic stiffness. It is also assumed that there is no permanent strain associated with
21
cracking. This will allow cracks to close completely if the stress across them becomes
compressive.
In multiaxial stress states these observations are generalized through the concept of surfaces
of failure and flow in stress space. These surfaces are fitted to experimental data.
Failure surface
Failure ratios can be specified to define the shape of the failure surface (Figure 311).
Four failure ratios can be specified:
 The ratio of the ultimate biaxial compressive stress to the ultimate uniaxial compressive
stress.
 The absolute value of the ratio of the uniaxial tensile stress at failure to the ultimate
uniaxial compressive stress.
Figure 311 Failure Surface
 The ratio of the magnitude of a principal component of plastic strain at ultimate stress in
biaxial compression to the plastic strain at ultimate stress in uniaxial compression.
 The ratio of the tensile principal stress at cracking, in plane stress, when the other
principal stress is at the ultimate compressive value, to the tensile cracking stress under
uniaxial tension.
22
Reinforcement
Reinforcement in concrete structures is typically provided by means of rebar, which
are onedimensional strain theory elements (rods) that can be defined singly or embedded in
oriented surfaces. With this modelling approach, the concrete behavior is considered
independent of the rebar. Effects associated with the rebarconcrete interface, such as bond
slip and dowel action are modelled approximately by introducing some tension stiffening
(Figure 39) into the concrete modelling to simulate load transfer across cracks through the
rebar. Defining the rebar is important since it may cause an analysis to fail due to lack of
reinforcement in key regions of a model.
Crack detection
Cracking is assumed to be the most important aspect of the behavior and
representation of cracking and of post cracking behavior dominates the modelling. Cracking
is assumed to occur when the stress reaches a failure surface that is called the crack
detection surface. This failure surface is a linear relationship between the equivalent
pressure stress, p, and the Misses equivalent deviatoric stress, q as shown in Figure 312.
Figure 312 Yield and failure surfaces in the (pq) plane.
Subsequent cracking at the same point is restricted to being orthogonal to this
direction, since stress components associated with an open crack are not included in the
definition of the failure surface used for detecting the additional cracks. Cracks are
irrecoverable: they remain for the rest of the calculation (but may open and close). No more
than three cracks can occur at any point (two in a plane stress case, one in a uniaxial stress
case). Following crack detection, the crack affects the calculations because a damaged
elasticity model is used.
23
Response to strain reversals
Because the model is intended for application to problems involving relatively
monotonic straining, no attempt is made to include prediction of cyclic response or of the
reduction in the elastic stiffness caused by inelastic straining under predominantly
compressive stress.
3.4.3 Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model
The Concrete Damaged Plasticity model in Abaqus:
 Provides a general capability for modelling concrete in all types of structures;
 Uses concepts of isotropic damaged elasticity in combination with isotropic tensile and
compressive plasticity to represent the inelastic behavior of concrete;
 Can be used for plain concrete, even though it is intended primarily for the analysis of
reinforced concrete structures;
 Is designed for applications in which concrete is subjected to monotonic, cyclic, and/or
dynamic loading under low confining pressures;
 Allows user control of stiffness recovery effects during cyclic load reversals;
 Can be defined to be sensitive to the rate of straining;
 Requires that the elastic behavior of the material be isotropic and linear
Uniaxial Behavior
The model assumes that the uniaxial tensile and compressive response of concrete is
characterized by damaged plasticity, as shown in Figure 313 and Figure 314.
Figure 313 Uniaxial tension behavior of concrete.
24
Figure 314 Uniaxial compression behavior of concrete
Under uniaxial tension the stressstrain response follows a linear elastic relationship
until the value of the failure stress,
0 t
o is reached. The failure stress corresponds to the onset
of microcracking in the concrete material. Beyond the failure stress the formation of micro
cracks is represented macroscopically with a softening stressstrain response, which induces
strain localization in the concrete structure. Under uniaxial compression the response is linear
until the value of initial yield,
0 c
o . In the plastic regime the response is typically
characterized by stress hardening followed by strain softening beyond the ultimate stress,
cu
o .
When the concrete specimen is unloaded from any point on the strain softening
branch of the stressstrain curves, the unloading response is weakened: the elastic stiffness of
the material appears to be damaged (or degraded). The degradation of the elastic stiffness is
characterized by two damage variables, d
t
and d
c
, which are assumed to be functions of the
plastic strains, temperature, and field variables: The damage variables can take values from
zero, representing the undamaged material, to one, which represents total loss of strength.
In Abaqus the damage variables are treated as nondecreasing material point
quantities. At any increment during the analysis, the new value of each damage variable is
obtained as the maximum between the value at the end of the previous increment and the
value corresponding to the current state.
The stressstrain relations under uniaxial tension and compression loading are, respectively:
),
~
( ) 1 (
),
~
( ) 1 (
0
0
pl
c c c c
pl
t t t t
E d
E d
c c o
c c o
=
=
(34)
25
Here,
E
0
= Initial (undamaged) elastic stiffness of the material,
d
t
= Tensile damage parameter,
d
c
= Compressive damage parameter,
pl
t
c
~
= Tensile equivalent plastic strain,
pl
c
c
~
= Compressive equivalent plastic strain,
c
= Uniaxial compressive strain,
t
= Uniaxial tensile strain,
c
= Stress corresponding to strain
c
t
= Stress corresponding to strain
t
The effective tensile and compressive cohesion stresses are defined as
),
~
(
) 1 (
),
~
(
) 1 (
0
0
pl
c c
c
c
c
pl
t t
t
t
t
E
d
E
d
c c
o
o
c c
o
o
=
=
=
=
(35)
Uniaxial cyclic behavior
Under uniaxial cyclic loading conditions the degradation mechanisms are quite
complex, involving the opening and closing of previously formed microcracks, as well as
their interaction. Experimentally, it is observed that there is some recovery of the elastic
stiffness as the load changes sign during a uniaxial cyclic test. The stiffness recovery effect,
also known as the unilateral effect, is an important aspect of the concrete behavior under
cyclic loading. The effect is usually more pronounced as the load changes from tension to
compression, causing tensile cracks to close, which results in the recovery of the compressive
stiffness. The Concrete Damaged Plasticity model assumes that the reduction of the elastic
modulus is given in terms of a scalar degradation variable d as
E = (1 d) E
0
(36)
where,
E = Elastic modulus corresponding to damaged material.
E
0
=
Initial (undamaged) modulus of the material.
This expression holds both in the tensile (
11
> 0) and the compressive (
11
< 0) sides
of the cycle. The stiffness degradation variable, d, is a function of the stress state and the
uniaxial damage variables, d
t
and d
c
. For the uniaxial cyclic conditions Abaqus assumes that
26
(1 d) = (1 s
t
d
c
) (1 s
c
d
t
), (37)
s
t
= 1 w
t
r*(
11
); 0 w
t
1,
s
c
= 1 w
c
(1 r*(
11
)); 0 w
c
1, (38)
(39)
where,
s
t
and s
c
are functions of the stress state that are introduced to model stiffness recovery effects
associated with stress reversals.
Figure 315 Illustration of the effect of the compression stiffness recovery parameter w
c
.
The weight factors w
t
and w
c
, which are assumed to be material properties, control the
recovery of the tensile and compressive stiffness upon load reversal. To illustrate this,
consider the example in Figure 315, where the load changes from tension to compression.
Assume that there was no previous compressive damage (crushing) in the material; that is,
pl
c
c
~
= 0and d
c
= 0. Then
(1 d) = (1 s
c
d
t
) = (1 (1 w
c
(1 r*(
11
)) d
t
), (310)
In tension (
11
> 0), r* = 1; therefore, d = d
t
as expected.
In compression (
11
< 0), r* = 0, and d = (1 w
c
)d
t
. If w
c
= 1, then d = 0; therefore, the
material fully recovers the compressive stiffness (which in this case is the initial undamaged
stiffness, E = E
0
). If, on the other hand, w
c
= 0, then d = d
t
and there is no stiffness recovery.
Intermediate values of w
c
result in partial recovery of the stiffness.
27
Defining Tension Stiffening
The postfailure behavior for direct straining is modelled with tension stiffening
(section 3.3), which allows defining the strainsoftening behavior for cracked concrete. This
behavior also allows for the effects of the reinforcement interaction with concrete to be
simulated in a simple manner. Tension stiffening is required in the Concrete Damaged
Plasticity model. Tension stiffening can be specified by means of a postfailure stressstrain
relation or by applying a fracture energy cracking criterion. In reinforced concrete the
specification for postfailure behavior generally means giving the postfailure stress as a
function of cracking strain,
ck
t
c
~
.
Figure 316 Illustration of the definition of the cracking strain.
el
t t
ck
t 0
~
c c c = , (311)
Here,
0 0
/ E
t
el
t
o c = .
t
= Strain at any point above
t0
t
= Stress corresponding to strain
t
E
0
= Initial (undamaged) elastic stiffness of the material.
The cracking strain is defined as the total strain minus the elastic strain corresponding
to the undamaged material. Illustration of the definition of the cracking strain used for the
definition of tension stiffening data is shown in Figure 316.To avoid potential numerical
28
problems, Abaqus enforces a lower limit on the postfailure stress equal to one hundredth of
the initial failure stress: 100 /
0 t t
o o > .
The choice of tension stiffening parameters is important since, generally, more
tension stiffening makes it easier to obtain numerical solutions. Too little tension stiffening
will cause the local cracking failure in the concrete to introduce temporarily unstable
behavior in the overall response of the model.
Defining Compressive Behavior
Stressstrain behavior of plain concrete can be defined in uniaxial compression
(Figure 317) outside the elastic range. Compressive stress data are provided as a tabular
function of inelastic (or crushing) strain,
in
c
c
~
, and, if desired, strain rate, temperature, and
field variables. Positive (absolute) values should be given for the compressive stress and
strain.
Figure 317 Definition of the compressive inelastic (or crushing) strain.
The stressstrain curve can be defined beyond the ultimate stress, into the strain
softening regime. Hardening data are given in terms of an inelastic strain,
in
c
c
~
, instead of
plastic strain,
pl
c
c
~
. The compressive inelastic strain is defined as the difference between the
total strain and the elastic strain corresponding to the undamaged material,
29
el
c c
in
c 0
~
c c c = , (312)
where
0 0
/ E
c
el
c
o c = .
c
= Strain at any point above
c0
c
= Stress corresponding to strain
c
E
0
= Initial (undamaged) elastic stiffness of the material.
The definition of the compressive inelastic (or crushing) strain used for the definition
of compression hardening data is shown in Figure 317.
Plastic flow
The Concrete Damaged Plasticity model assumes nonassociated potential plastic
flow. The flow potential G used for this model is the DruckerPrager hyperbolic function:
o tan ) tan (
2 2
0
p q G
t
+ e = , (313)
Where,
) , (
i
f u is the dilation angle measured in the pq plane at high
confining pressure;
o
t i t
pl
t
f
=
=
c
o u o
~
0
) , (
is the uniaxial tensile stress at failure, taken from the user
specified tension stiffening data; and
) , (
i
f u e is a parameter, referred to as the eccentricity, that defines the
rate at which the function approaches the asymptote (the flow
potential tends to a straight line as the eccentricity tends to
zero).
This flow potential, which is continuous and smooth, ensures that the flow direction is
always uniquely defined. The function approaches the linear DruckerPrager flow potential
asymptotically at high confining pressure stress and intersects the hydrostatic pressure axis at
90. The default flow potential eccentricity is = 0.1, which implies that the material has
almost the same dilation angle over a wide range of confining pressure stress values.
Increasing the value of provides more curvature to the flow potential, implying that the
dilation angle increases more rapidly as the confining pressure decreases. Values of that are
significantly less than the default value may lead to convergence problems if the material is
subjected to low confining pressures because of the very tight curvature of the flow potential
locally where it intersects the paxis.
30
Yield function
The model makes use of the yield function of Lubliner et. al (1989), with the
modifications proposed by Lee and Fenves (1998) to account for different evolution of
strength under tension and compression. The evolution of the yield surface is controlled by
the hardening variables,
pl
t
c
~
and
pl
c
c
~
. In terms of effective stresses, the yield function takes
the form ()
F =
( ) ( )
max max
1
3 0
1
pl pl
c c q p o  c o o o c
o
 
+ =

\ .
(314)
( )
( )
( )
( )
0 0
0 0
/ 1
;0 0.5,
2 / 1
(1 ) (1 ),
3(1 )
,
2 1
b c
b c
pl
c
c
pl
t t
c
c
K
K
o o
o o
o o
o c
 o o
o c
= s s
= +
(315)
Figure 318 Yield surface in plane stress.
31
Here,
max o
is the maximum principal effective stress;
b0
/
c0
is the ratio of initial biaxial compressive yield stress to initial
uniaxial compressive yield stress (the default value is 1.16);
K
c
is the ratio of the second stress invariant on the tensile meridian,
q(TM), to that on the compressive meridian, q(CM), at initial
yield for any given value of the pressure invariant p such that
the maximum principal stress is negative, 0
max
< o
; it must
satisfy the condition 0 . 1 5 . 0 s <
c
K (the default value is
2/3);see Figure 319.
)
~
(
pl
t t
c o is the effective tensile cohesion stress; and
)
~
(
pl
c c
c o
is the effective compressive cohesion stress.
Figure 319 Yield surfaces in the deviatoric plane, corresponding to different values of K
c
.
Visualization of crack directions
Unlike concrete models based on the smeared crack approach, the Concrete Damaged
Plasticity model does not have the notion of cracks developing at the material integration
point. However, it is possible to introduce the concept of an effective crack direction with the
purpose of obtaining a graphical visualization of the cracking patterns in the concrete
structure. Following Lubliner et. al. (1989), it is assumed that cracking initiates at points
where the tensile equivalent plastic strain is greater than zero,
pl
t
c
> 0, and the maximum
principal plastic strain is positive. The direction of the vector normal to the crack plane is
32
assumed to be parallel to the direction of the maximum principal plastic strain. This direction
can be viewed in the Visualization module of Abaqus/CAE.
3.5 Material Model for Reinforcement
The material models used for defining the elastic and plastic behavior of reinforcing
steel are linear elasticity and classical metal plasticity models respectively. The material
model for elastic behavior, i.e. linear elasticity has already been explained under the heading
of material model for concrete.
3.5.1 Classical Metal Plasticity
The classical metal plasticity models:
 Use Mises or Hill yield surfaces with associated plastic flow, which allow for
isotropic and anisotropic yield, respectively;
 Use perfect plasticity or isotropic hardening behavior;
 Can be used when ratedependent effects are important;
 Are intended for applications such as crash analyses, metal forming, and general
collapse studies.
The Mises yield surface is used to define isotropic yielding. It is defined by giving the value
of the uniaxial yield stress as a function of uniaxial equivalent plastic strain.
Isotropic hardening
Isotropic hardening means that the yield surface changes size uniformly in all
directions such that the yield stress increases (or decreases) in all stress directions as plastic
straining occurs. Abaqus provides an isotropic hardening model, which is useful for cases
involving gross plastic straining or in cases where the straining at each point is essentially in
the same direction in strain space throughout the analysis. Although the model is referred to
as a hardening model, strain softening or hardening followed by softening can be defined.
If isotropic hardening is defined, the yield stress,
0
, can be given as a tabular function of
plastic strain and, if required, of temperature and/or other predefined field variables. The
yield stress at a given state is simply interpolated from this table of data, and it remains
constant for plastic strains exceeding the last value given as tabular data.
33
Chapter 4 BondSlip Model
4.1 General
In a reinforced concrete beam, the flexural compressive forces are resisted by concrete,
while flexural tensile forces are provided by reinforcement. For this process to exist there
must be a force transfer, or bond, between the two materials. The existence of the bond is the
basic condition for these two materials to work together as a kind of composite material.
Without bond, the rebar would not be able to resist any external load, and the RC beam
would behave exactly like a plain concrete member does.
Because of its importance, the bondslip relationship is considered in most of the design and
analysis efforts involving RC. Researchers have conducted numerous studies to characterize
the constitutive bondslip relationship. In the finite element analysis field, many different
methods were also employed to represent the nature of the interaction between the concrete
and reinforcement. This chapter consists of a review of methods available in literature for the
simulation of bondslip.
4.2 Existing Studies
Currently there are three different FE models which are widely used to simulate
reinforced concrete bondslip behavior. They are
 Embedded models,
 Distributed models and
 Discrete models
4.2.1 Embedded models
When using the embedded modelling technique, the rebar is considered as an axial
member that is built into the concrete element. Because the rebar is embedded, the rebar has
the same displacement as the concrete element. Perfect bond is assumed in this modelling
technique, so that the two materials are assumed to work together completely as one unit.
4.2.2 Distributed models
When using the distributed modelling technique, the reinforcement is assumed to be
smeared into every element of the concrete (as is the case for the smeared cracking concrete
model described in Chapter 3). Compared to the embedded model, in which the contribution
of the concrete and steel is calculated independently, for the distributed modelling technique,
the rebar is transferred to an equivalent amount of concrete and the RC is considered as a
homogeneous material in this model. Perfect bond is assumed for this technique.
34
4.2.3 Discrete models
For the discrete modelling technique, separate, distinct elements are used to represent
the concrete and the reinforcement. For instance, it is sometimes convenient to use a solid
finite element to represent the concrete and to use a beam element to simulate the reinforcing
bars. In the discrete model, concrete and steel are two totally independent parts. For this
modelling technique, special elements must be placed at the interface between the concrete
and steel to represent the bond mechanism.
The discrete model is the only model of the three which can consider the bond slip
mechanism directly, so it is very useful in more accurate RC simulations, despite the fact that
the modelling process for this technique is the most complex. Few discrete models are
discussed below,
4.2.3.1 Spring model
A connecting element was first used by Nilson in 1968. He introduced a double spring
element to model the bond slip phenomena, as shown schematically in Figure 41. This
double spring element consisted of two springs, one acting parallel to the bar axis and one
acting perpendicular to it (Nilson 1968).
Figure 41 Spring Model (Nilson 1968)
These two springs were used to transmit normal and shear forces between the nodes
of concrete and reinforcement. The springs were not considered to have dimension, and their
stiffness were necessarily based on the characteristics of the bond slip relationship.
4.2.3.2 Layered model (Bresler & Bertero, 1968)
In 1968, Bresler and Bertero developed a layered model to represent the bond.
Because bond only occurs in concrete closest to the steel bar, they divided the concrete into
35
two regions, an inner "boundary layer" and an outer layer of undamaged concrete, as shown
in Figure 42.
Figure 42 Layered model by Bresler, 1968
The thickness of the boundary layer was assumed to be 0.4 times the rebar diameter.
The boundary layer was assumed to consist of a special homogenized material which
included the bond slip relationship, instead of just normal concrete material. This layer was
able to transfer the stress and displacement from the reinforcement to the concrete. (Bresler
and Bertero,1968).
4.3 Simulation in ABAQUS
Simulation of all the above kind of models to study the bond slip behavior can be
performed in ABAQUS. It provides various methods for simulating this contact, such as
constraints, contact elements, and connector elements in its interaction module. Few of the
methods available are described below,
4.3.1 Embedded Element
An embedded element in ABAQUS is used to specify that an element or group of
elements is embedded in another "host" element or group of elements (ABAQUS, 2010). The
translational degrees of freedom of the embedded node are constrained to the interpolated
values of the corresponding degrees of freedom of the host element whose response will be
used to constrain the translational degrees of freedom of the embedded nodes (i.e., nodes of
embedded elements). This means that it can be used to simulate only a perfect bond condition
i.e. no bondslip.
4.3.2 Friction
Friction is another modelling tool available in ABAQUS that is commonly used to
describe the behavior of the contacting surfaces. The basic equation for the friction model is
c
=
p
, where
c
is critical shear stress at which sliding of the surfaces starts, is the
Boundary Layer
Reinforcement
36
coefficient of friction and p is the contact pressure between the two surfaces. Figure 43
summarizes the behavior of the friction model in ABAQUS. There is only a very small
amount of slip allowed between the two contact faces before the shear stress across the
interface equals the limiting frictional stress,
p
(ABAQUS 2010).
Figure 43 Frictional Behavior in ABAQUS
The transmission of the shear forces caused by friction is very similar to the bond
behavior exhibited between concrete and steel. The advantage of using a friction model is
that it is defined through a facetoface contact, unlike the spring element, which can only
connect two nodes (rather than surfaces). A friction model's shortcoming, though, is also very
obvious that it can simulate neither the nonlinear bond behavior, nor the degradation portion
of the bond behavior.
4.3.3 Spring Element
A spring element, whose stiffness is based on a force displacement relationship, is a
special element available in ABAQUS. This element behaves like an actual spring, and it is
obviously the best choice for implementation of the double spring bond model described in
section 4.2.3.2. The spring behavior can be defined in a linear manner by inputting a stiffness
value, or it can be defined in a nonlinear fashion by supplying pairs of forcerelative
displacement values. The deficiency related to using a spring element is that the degradation
portion of the bondslip relationship cannot be simulated using this method.
4.3.4 Translator
A translator is a type of connector in ABAQUS which provides a slot constraint
between two nodes and aligns their local directions. The translator connection is best
interpreted when node b is located at the centre of the device enforcing the constraint
(ABAQUS, 2010). Figure 44 shows its basic behavior.
Shear Stress
Slipping Friction
Total Slip
37
Figure 44 Translator Type of connector (ABAQUS,2010)
As can be seen in Figure 44, the relationship between the blue and yellow parts is
very similar to the relationship between reinforcement and concrete in an RC member. The
only available component of relative motion in the translator is u1, which is translation in the
direction parallel to the blue bar axis. Two parts can have a relative displacement in this
direction. The interaction between parts in other directions (other than the u1 direction) in a
translator is considered as a hard contact, or masterslave relationship (i.e., the degrees of
freedom of node b are all constrained to be the same as those for node a).
4.4 Summary
Tensionstiffening and bondslip cause opposite effects on the response of RC members.
While tensionstiffening, which accounts for the concrete tensile stresses between cracks,
increases the stiffness of the member, bondslip leads to a stiffness reduction. In lightly
reinforced beams, these effects can cancel each other at certain load stages, thus, leading to
the erroneous impression that they can be neglected in the analysis. Since bondslip increases
with loading, while tensionstiffening does not, consistent results can only be obtained when
both effects are included in the model. Moreover, the effect of bondslip clearly outweighs
the contribution of tensionstiffening in heavily reinforced beams and beamcolumn joint
subassemblages. In these cases the exclusion of the bondslip effect can lead to significant
overestimation of the stiffness of the member.
From the above study the translator type element as shown in Figure 44 seems to be
the closest possible simulation technique to simulate bondslip behaviour.
38
Chapter 5 Meshing
5.1 General
The meshing process splits continuous geometry into finite elements. The type of
elements created in this process depends on the type of geometry meshed, the type of
analysis, and sometimes on our preferences. Degree of fineness of mesh and type of elements
chosen affects the analysis results. This chapter is aimed at studying the effects of meshing on
analysis results.
5.2 Element Description
For the accurate modelling and analysis of a problem it is very important to have a
good knowledge about the type of elements to be used. Abaqus has an extensive element
library to provide a powerful set of tools for solving the problem. Five aspects of an element
characterize its behavior:
Family Formulation
Degrees of freedom Integration
Number of nodes
The element name identifies each of the five aspects of an element.
5.2.1 Family
Figure 51 shows the element families that are used most commonly in a stress
analysis. One of the major distinctions between different element families is the geometry
type that each family assumes.
Figure 51 Types of elements available in ABAQUS
39
The first letter or letters of an elements name indicate to which family the element
belongs. For example, S4R is a shell element, T3D2 is a truss element, and C3D8I is a
continuum element.
5.2.2 Degrees of freedom
The degrees of freedom are the fundamental variables calculated during the analysis.
For a stress/displacement simulation the degrees of freedom are the translations and rotations
at each node. Degree of freedom is related to the dimension of the element and is expressed
as 1D, 2D or 3D in the name.
5.2.3 Number of nodes and order of interpolation
Displacements are calculated at the nodes of the element. At any other point in the
element, the displacements are obtained by interpolating from the nodal displacements.
Usually the interpolation order is determined by the number of nodes used in the element.
Elements that have nodes only at their corners, such as the 8node brick shown in Figure
52 (a), use linear interpolation in each direction and are often called linear elements or first
order elements.
In Abaqus/Standard elements with midside nodes, such as the 20node brick shown in
Figure 52(b), use quadratic interpolation and are often called quadratic elements or second
order elements.
(a)Linear Hexahedral element (b) Quadratic hexahedral element
Figure 52 Linear and Quadratic hexahedral element.
(a)Linear tetrahedral element (b) Quadratic tetrahedral element
Figure 53 Linear and Quadratic tetrahedral element.
The number of nodes in an element is clearly identified in its name. The 8node brick
element is called C3D8, and the 4node shell element is called S4R.
40
5.2.4 Formulation
An elements formulation refers to the mathematical theory used to define the
elements behavior. In the Lagrangian material description of behavior, the element deforms
with the material. Almost all stress/displacement elements in Abaqus are based on the
Lagrangian formulation. Elements with alternative formulations are identified by an
additional character at the end of the element name. For example, the continuum, beam, and
truss element families include members with a hybrid formulation (to deal with
incompressible or inextensible behavior); these elements are identified by the letter H at the
end of the name (C3D8H or B31H).
5.2.5 Integration
Abaqus uses numerical techniques to integrate various quantities over the volume of
each element, thus allowing complete generality in material behavior. Using Gaussian
quadrature for most elements, Abaqus evaluates the material response at each integration
point in each element. Some continuum elements in Abaqus can use full or reduced
integration, a choice that can have a significant effect on the accuracy of the element for a
given problem. Abaqus uses the letter R at the end of the element name to label reduced
integration elements. For example, C3D8R is the 8node, reducedintegration, 3 dimensional,
solid element.
Figure 54 shows the description of name of the elements used for the purpose of stress
analysis;
Figure 54 Description of element names.
5.3 Mesh Size
With modern finite element tools it is not difficult to represent results as colour
pictures. However, the correctness of the results is actually the cornerstone of the simulation.
The correctness of the numerical results crucially depends on the element quality itself. There
are no general rules which can be applied to just decide which element shape should be
preferred but there do exists some basic principles which can be very helpful in avoiding
41
simulation errors and in judging the validity of the results. In this section we compare
analytical results with some finite element results coming from a mesh of tetrahedral and
hexahedral elements using different mesh sizes.
5.3.1 Comparative study on different mesh sizes
Considering a cantilever beam of 2 m length subjected to a load of 26 kN at the free end
over area 300 300 mm (Figure 55). Elastic material properties are assumed for concrete,
which is assumed to be M25 with modulus of elasticity 25000 N/mm
2
.
Figure 55 Dimension of beam.
Having settled on a certain mesh density, we mesh the part with first order hexahedral
and second order hexahedral first order tetrahedral and second order tetrahedral elements as
shown in Figure 56, Figure 57, Figure 58 and Figure 59 respectively.
The finiteelement model will not return to the same displacement field as in the
continuous model because firstorder or second order elements can only return a
displacement field which is piecewise linear or quadratic. Of course, if elements are
sufficiently small complex displacement fields can be well approximated by piecewise linear
or quadratic distribution of displacements. This is the essence of finiteelement
approximation.
Figure 56 Effect of mesh density on displacement field (linear hexahedral elements)
300 mm
300 mm
2000 mm
300 mm
42
Figure 57 Effect of mesh density on displacement field (quadratic hexahedral elements)
Figure 58 Effect of mesh density on displacement field (linear tetrahedral elements)
Figure 59 Effect of mesh density on displacement field (Quadratic tetrahedral elements)
43
Figure 57 to Figure 59 shows us a comparison of 3 different finite element model of
the same problem. The problem is of a cantilever beam loaded at its free end. The modelling
is done by variation in mesh size and type of elements used. The finite element models are
prepared by providing 2, 4 and 6 elements depth wise.
Table 51 Variation of displacement according to different mesh density
Displacement(u2)
Mesh Density(No. of elements along depth)
2 4 6
Linear Hexahedral 3.376 mm 3.913 mm 3.825 mm
Quadratic Hexahedral 2.549 mm 3.675 mm 3.675 mm
Linear Tetrahedral 1.901 mm 3.325 mm 3.473 mm
Quadratic Tetrahedral 2.574 mm 3.682 mm 3.679 mm
Analytical Solution
Based on elastic formulation the deflection at the free end of a cantilever beam subjected to a
point load is given by
3 2
( )
3 2
Px Px
l x
EI EI
A = +
where,
P = Applied Load = 26 kN
l = span length = 2 m
x = distance of load from support = 1.85 m
E = Modulus of Elasticity = 25000 MPa
I = Moment of Inertia of beam = 675000000 mm
3
Hence,
D = 3.65 mm
Table 52 Percent error in displacement as compared to analytical results.
Percent Error in Displacement
Mesh Density(No. of elements along depth)
2 4 6
Linear Hexahedral 7.44% 7.29% 4.87%
Quadratic Hexahedral 30.11% 0.76% 0.76%
Linear Tetrahedral 47.88% 8.84% 4.78%
Quadratic Tetrahedral 29.43% 0.95% 0.87%
5.3.2 Observations
By meshing a part with a certain type of element and using a certain size and shape,
additional constraints are imposed on the part. The meshed part must conform to applied
loads and restraints. But being meshed, it must also conform to constraints imposed by
meshing. In other words, deformation must satisfy loads and restraints and be piecewise
44
linear. Because the meshed part has the additional constraints, the process of meshing makes
it stiffer.
The amount of additional stiffness depends on the element and their size. Firstorder
elements require that the displacement field be piecewise linear. This is more restrictive than
in secondorder elements where the displacement field must be piecewise parabolic. Larger
elements add more stiffness than small ones. However, the effect of added stiffness (call it
artificial stiffness) always accompanies finiteelement models. The effect of artificial
stiffness is small but demonstrable in most cases, even with a reasonably wellrefined mesh.
 Percentage error for quadratic elements is found out to be less than 1% when mesh
density provided is such that number of elements along depth 4.
 Percentage error in displacement for all the elements studied except linear
hexahedral is found to be greater than 30% when mesh density provided is such
that number of elements along depth is equal to 2.
 Linear hexahedral element is found to be more consistent compared to other
elements for all the mesh densities studied such that percentage error in
displacement for linear hexahedral element is in between 4% to 7.5%.
45
Chapter 6 Finite Element Model Development
6.1 General
The finite element method is a general method of structural analysis in which the
solution of a problem in continuum mechanics is approximated by the analysis of an
assemblage of finite elements. These elements are interconnected at a finite number of nodal
points and represent the solution domain of the problem. The finite element method is now
well accepted as the most powerful general technique for the numerical solution of stress
analysis of solids. But for the purpose of nonlinear analysis, the accuracy and reliability of
the solution depends upon the accuracy of the proposed material models and constitutive
relations that are utilized to depict the behavior of material in different loading condition.
This chapter aims at:
1. Briefly discussing the procedure adapted by ABAQUS v6.9 for the nonlinear analysis of
a structure.
2. Studying parameters influencing the response of the structural member such as tension
stiffening, damage ratios etc.
3. Validating the chosen material models and constitutive relations, by comparing the
simulated results with experimental results.
4. Presenting the stress analysis results of beams and columns.
6.2 Analysis: Procedure and Theory
The stress analysis was carried out using FEM based software ABAQUS. The section
was assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous. Concrete was discretized using C3D8 (8
node linear brick) element, and reinforcement was discretized using T3D2 elements available
in ABAQUS. A perfect bond was assumed to be between reinforcement and concrete.
Finite element modelling of a problem in ABAQUS can be carried out in following
manner,
Step 1. Geometric modelling of the problem.
Step 2. Material modelling of materials.
Step 3. Defining interaction between various parts.
Step 4. Meshing.
Step 5. Applying loads and boundary conditions.
Step 6. Analysis.
46
6.2.1 Geometric modelling
A finite element model in Abaqus can be defined as an assembly of part instances. A
physical model is typically created by assembling various components. The assembly
interface in Abaqus allows us to create a finite element mesh using an organizational scheme
that parallels the physical assembly.
Terminology
Part: A part is a finite element idealization of an object. Parts are the building blocks
of an assembly and can be either rigid or deformable. Parts are reusable; they can be
instanced multiple times in the assembly. Parts are not analysed directly; a part is like a
blueprint for its instances.
Example: A reinforced concrete beam is an assemblage of two parts, steel
reinforcement and concrete. So these two parts can be modelled separately as shown in
Figure 61 and then combined to form a single unit in the assembly.
Figure 61 Geometric modelling of reinforced beam components in ABAQUS
47
Part instance: A part instance is a usage of a part within the assembly. All
characteristics (such as mesh and section definitions) defined for a part become
characteristics for each instance of that part they are inherited by the part instances. Each part
instance is positioned independently within the assembly. In Figure 62 it can be seen that 2
different part instances (shown in red) have been made from the same part Reinforcement
and positioned independently within the assembly.
Assembly: An assembly is a collection of positioned part instances. An analysis is
conducted by defining boundary conditions, constraints, interactions, and a loading history
for the assembly. Figure 62 shows us the assembly of different part instances into a single
unit.
Figure 62 Assembly of different part instances.
6.2.2 Material Modelling
Material modelling is discussed in detail in chapter 3. Here a brief overview of the
application of material models to various structural components in ABAQUS has been
shown.
Defining materials
Materials are defined by:
 Selecting material behaviours and defining them; and
 Combining complementary material behaviours such as elasticity and plasticity.
The material library in Abaqus is intended to provide comprehensive coverage of linear
and nonlinear, isotropic and anisotropic material behaviours. Material behaviours that have
been utilized in this dissertation fall into the following general categories:
48
 general properties (density);
 elastic mechanical properties;
 inelastic mechanical properties;
Figure 63 Modelling of concrete in ABAQUS v6.9
The material definition is formed with the help of Property module in ABAQUS.A
screenshot of the definition of concrete model is shown in Figure 63. The elastic and plastic
behavior of concrete has been defined in the same material model as shown in Figure 63,
thus simulating its complete behavior.
6.2.3 Interaction
The Interaction module in ABAQUS allows us to define interaction between different
part instances.
6.2.4 Meshing
Meshing is discussed in detail in chapter 4. Here a brief overview of the application of
mesh to various structural components in ABAQUS has been shown.
49
The Mesh module allows us to generate meshes on parts and assemblies created
within Abaqus/CAE. Various levels of automation and control are available so that mesh that
meets the needs of our analysis could be created. As with creating parts and assemblies, the
process of assigning mesh attributes to the model such as seeds, mesh techniques, and
element types is feature based. As a result it is possible to modify the parameters that define a
part or an assembly, and the mesh attributes that you specified within the Mesh module are
regenerated automatically.
The Mesh module provides the following features:
 Tools for prescribing mesh density at local and global levels.
 Model colouring that indicates the meshing technique assigned to each region in the
model.
 A variety of mesh controls, such as:
Element shape
Meshing technique
Meshing algorithm
Adaptive remeshing rule
 A tool for assigning Abaqus/Standard and Abaqus/Explicit element types to mesh
elements. The elements can belong either to a model that you created or to an orphan
mesh.
 Tools for refining the mesh and for improving the mesh quality.
 A tool for saving the meshed assembly or selected part instances as an orphan mesh part.
All the above options can be accessed from the mesh module toolbox as shown in Figure
64.
Figure 64 The Mesh Module Toolbox
The mesh module toolbox should be utilized for the proper assignment of meshing controls
and elements type to the model.
6.2.5 Applying load and boundary condition
For the proper simulation of the physical model it is very important to exactly know
the type of loads acting on the structure and to assess the type of boundary condition
50
prevailing in the structure. Simulation of prescribed conditions (load and boundary
conditions) can be done in ABAQUS with the help of Load module.
Prescribed conditions in Abaqus/CAE are stepdependent objects, which mean that
the analysis steps in which they are active must be specified. Load, boundary condition, and
predefined field managers can be used to view and manipulate the stepwise history of
prescribed conditions.
All the Load module tools can be accessed through either the main menu bar or the
Load module toolbox. Figure 65 shows the icons for all the load tools in the Load module
toolbox.
Figure 65 The Load module toolbox.
6.2.6 Analysis
Once all of the tasks involved in defining a model (such as defining the geometry of the
model, assigning section properties, and defining contact) are finished, the Job module could
be used to analyse the model. The Job module allows us to create a job, to submit it to
Abaqus/Standard or Abaqus/Explicit for analysis, and to monitor its progress. If desired,
multiple models and jobs can be created, run and monitored simultaneously. Job manager can
also be utilized to check our model for any discrepancies.
Figure 66 Job Manager Window
51
6.3 Experimental Data (Bresler & Scordelis, 1963)
The series of beams tested by Bresler and Scordelis, owing to the high quality of testing
and results, is often used for benchmark purposes. The beams were designed and loaded such
as to be critical in shear, being heavily reinforced for flexure and containing light amount of
shear reinforcement. The shear reinforcement ratios ranged from 0.00 to 0.02%.The beams
were simply supported and subjected to a midspan load, producing a shear spandepth ratio
ranging from 3.3 to 5.8. The effective depth of the bottom longitudinal reinforcement d was
457 mm for all beams. The yield strength of No. 9 bars was 555 MPa.
Figure 67 Experimental Setup (Bresler & Scordelis, 1963)(1 = 25.4 mm)
Beam OA1 was modelled for finite element analysis. It had a c/c span of 3658 mm
with a rectangular c/s of 310 mm556 mm. A detailed sketch of the experimental setup is
shown in Figure 67.
Elevation of Beam CrossSection
Figure 68: Dimensioning of BeamOA1 (Bresler & Scordelis, 1963)(all dimensions in mm)
230 230
1829 1829
310
556
63.5
63.5
Load P
2#9 bars in each layer.
52
6.3.1 Test Procedure
The loading arrangement and instrumentation is shown in Figure 67. A 203 mm
spherical loading block was used at the load point. One end of the beam was supported on a
152.4 mm spherical bearing block while other end was supported on a 76.2 mm diameter
roller. Midspan deflections were obtained by a simple dial gage with a least count of 0.0254
mm, supported by a floor stand and bearing on the bottom of the beam at midspan was used.
The beams were first loaded to about 30 percent of ultimate in two or three
increments and then the load was removed. The load was reapplied in 68.9 MPa increments
to a point near failure and then in 34.45 MPa increments until failure occurred. Deflection
readings were taken at the beginning and end of each load increment.
6.4 Analysis of Beam
This section deals with, the various input data used for carrying out the analysis, the
results obtained and the validation of the results.
Beam OA1 was made of Grade 3500 concrete. The compressive cylinder strength of
the concrete was 22.6 MPa. A point load of 350 KN was applied at middle portion of the
beam with the help of a loading block kept on a plate of dimension 310310 mm. The beam
was simply supported. Tensile reinforcement was 428.7 mm diameter bars of yield strength
of 552 MPa. Figure 68 shows a detailed sketch of BeamOA1 used for analysis.
Finite element modelling of the same beam was done in ABAQUS CAE v6.9. The
concrete is simulated with 3D deformable solid (Beam Element), and the reinforcement with
3D deformable wire (Truss Element).A screen shot of the part module while defining the
above two parts is shown in Figure 610, also Figure 69 shows a meshed view of the beam
model generated in ABAQUS for analysis.
Figure 69 Meshed view of the beam
53
(a) Beam (b) Reinforcement
Figure 610 Window for defining part.
6.4.1 Load and Boundary Condition
The applied loading consisted of point load at mid length of beam as shown in Figure
68. The load was applied in small increments automatically by ABAQUS to overcome
numerical instability difficulties that could have occurred had a large load been applied
suddenly. The two ends of the beam were taken to be pinned and a perfect bond was assumed
between concrete and steel. The behavior in compression was assumed to be elastic up to a
stress level of 0.3 times the peak value.
6.4.2 Concrete Material Model Definition
For uniaxial compressive behavior of concrete, the shape given by the formulation of
Vecchio and Collins (1982) for transversely cracked concrete was used, and for tension a
bilinear idealization was used.
Basic material properties for concrete
Density = 2.5e6 kg/mm
3
Characteristic Strength f
c
= 3.27 kips/in
2
= 22.6 MPa
Modulus of elasticity E
c
= 25000 N/mm
2
Poissons ratio = 0.2
54
Compressive behavior
Vecchio and Collins (1982) recommended a stressstrain relationship, for
transversely cracked concrete:
[ (
) (
where
, is the average transverse strain measured on a gauge length that includes one or
more cracks and
increases.
Tensile behavior
Tensile strength was assumed to be 10% of the compressive strength. After the
ultimate point the softening branch is depicted by a linear plot which also symbolizes the
amount of tension stiffening to be considered for the element.
Figure 611 Stress Strain Curve for Concrete
Three material models for the purpose of simulation of behaviour concrete in ABAQUS
v6.9 were studied, namely
tan =E
0
f
c
0.3f
c
0.1f
c
0
55
 Linear Elastic Model
 Concrete Smeared Cracking Model
 Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model
These material models have been discussed in detail in chapter 3. Here the material
parameters needed to define these models in ABAQUS have been calculated.
6.4.2.1 Linear Elasticity Model
To define this model it is required to provide the values of density, modulus of
elasticity and poissions ratio of the material.
Density = 2.5e6 kg/mm
3
Modulus of Elasticity (E
o
)
= 25000 MPa
Poissions Ratio () = 0.2
6.4.2.2 The Concrete Smeared Cracking Model Parameters
Formulation for calculation of the basic material properties has been described in
preceding section. In this section the input tables have been calculated which are required for
defining the material in ABAQUS v6.9.
Compression Hardening Table
Behaviour of concrete in compression is defined by giving compressive stress and
corresponding compressive plastic strain in tabular form. The compressive stress strain graph
as shown in Figure 612 is calculated with the help of equation 61.
Figure 612 Compressive behaviour of concrete
56
Maximum strain in concrete in compression is taken as 0.0035. Plastic Strain is calculated by
deducting the elastic strain corresponding to the initial modulus of elasticity (E
o
) from the
total strain as shown in Figure 612. First value in the table corresponds to the elastic limit
point and thus the plastic strain at that point is zero.
Table 61 Compression Hardening Table
Compressive
Stress(N/mm
2
)
Plastic Strain
6.78 0
8.136 0.000075
11.526 0.000139
14.464 0.000221
16.950 0.000322
18.984 0.000441
20.566 0.000577
21.696 0.000732
22.374 0.000905
22.600 0.001096
22.374 0.001305
21.696 0.001532
20.566 0.001777
18.984 0.002041
16.950 0.002322
14.464 0.002621
11.526 0.002939
8.136 0.003275
Tension Stiffening
The tension stiffening curve is assumed to be linear.
Figure 613 Tension Stiffening
57
sigma/sigma_c: Fraction of remaining stress to stress at cracking.
epsilonepsilon_c: Absolute value of the direct strain minus the direct strain at cracking.
Table 62 Tension Stiffening Table
sigma/sigma_c epsilonepsilon_c
1 0
0 0.001
The choice of tension stiffening parameter is important as it helps in stability of the
solution process. Giving more tension stiffening to the model will help you get a stable
solution but will decrease the amount of straining in the structure and thus the deflections. So
before conducting the validation process for any kind of problem a parametric study has to be
carried out so as to find a value of the tension stiffening parameter that would make the
solution process to be stable and follow the correct equilibrium path as defined by
experimental data.
Figure 614 shows us the load displacement graph of the model with various tension
stiffening values compared to the experimental values. Here the strain required to reach a
stress value of zero from failure point is termed as TS, so TS001 implies that the strain TS is
0.001. From the graph it can be seen that a value of TS = 0.001 make the solution process to
follow the correct equilibrium path as defined by the experimental data. The same has been
used for further study.
Figure 614 Comparison of load deflection graph for various values of tension stiffening
(Concrete Smeared Cracking).
58
6.4.2.3 The Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model Parameters
Tomasz et al. (2005) conducted laboratory test in order to identify the constitutive
parameters of M50 grade concrete. These parameters are essential in damaged plasticity
model. In this study the value of dilation angle and eccentricity has been taken from this
study. Rests of the values are taken to be the default values as provided by ABAQUS.
Table 63 Concrete Damaged Plasticity model parameters (Tomasz et al 2005)
Property
Dilation
Angle
Eccentricity
bo
/
co
K
Viscosity
parameter
Value 30 1.0 1.12 0.66 0
Compression Hardening Table
Derivation of the compression hardening table is done in the same way as described
in section 6.4.2.2 for Concrete Smeared Cracking model.
Table 64 Compression hardening table.
Yield Stress(N/mm
2
) Inelastic Strain
6.78 0
8.136 0.000075
11.526 0.000139
14.464 0.000221
16.950 0.000322
18.984 0.000441
20.566 0.000577
21.696 0.000732
22.374 0.000905
22.600 0.001096
22.374 0.001305
21.696 0.001532
20.566 0.001777
18.984 0.002041
16.950 0.002322
14.464 0.002621
11.526 0.002939
8.136 0.003275
Tension Stiffening
A parametric study was carried out to estimate the correct amount of tension
stiffening required in the structure. Too little (TS < 0.002) tension stiffening will cause the
local cracking failure in the concrete to introduce temporarily unstable behavior in the overall
response of the model as seen from Figure 615. Here the strain required to reach a stress
value of zero from failure point is termed as TS, so TS001 implies that the strain TS is 0.001.
59
Figure 615 Comparison of beam OA1 results for different tension stiffening property
(Concrete Damaged Plasticity).
Here it can be seen that more tension stiffening makes it easier to obtain numerical solutions
and a value of TS greater than 0.003 gives us stable behavior of overall response.
Table 65 Tension Stiffening Table for Concrete
Yield Stress(N/mm
2
) Cracking Strain
2.5 0
0.1 0.003096
60
6.4.3 Material Properties for reinforcing steel
Material properties for reinforcing steel are directly taken from the graphs and values as
provided by Bresler and Scordelis (1963).
Table 66 Material properties for reinforcing steel
Property Value
Yield Stress 552 MPa
Density 7.85E006 kg/mm
3
Modulus of Elasticity 205000 N/mm
2
Poissons ratio 0.3
Tensile and Compressive Behaviour
Yield Stress(MPa) Plastic Strain
552 0
690 0.01124
738.3 0.01724
899.5 0.04724
917.7 0.05724
952.2 0.07724
855.6 0.11724
745.2 0.12824
6.4.4 Validation of Concrete Material Models
The detail of the experiment and F.E.M. analysis has been discussed in previous
sections. In this section by the comparison of the experimental results to that of analytical
results the material models are validated. The results are presented in the form of Load v/s
deflection plot. The deflections were noted at mid span.
Figure 616 Comparison of results.
61
From Figure 616 it can be seen that the smeared cracking model almost follows the
same equilibrium path as is described by the experiment whereas and the Concrete Damaged
Plasticity model is stiffer, this could be because a higher value of tension stiffening is sed to
stabilize the results. It has to be noted that the experiment was carried out in such a way that
there was no bond slip, hence the results are in well agreement even with the use of
embedded region as constrain between steel and concrete. If there is bond slip then that has to
be modelled accordingly.
6.5 Analysis of BeamColumn Joint
In the analysis of reinforced concrete moment resisting frames the joints are generally
assumed as rigid. In Indian practice, the joint is usually neglected for specific design with
attention being restricted to provision of sufficient anchorage for beam longitudinal
reinforcement. This may be acceptable when the frame is not subjected to earthquake loads.
But when these frames are subjected to dynamic loads the poor design practice of beam
column joints is compounded by the high demand imposed by the adjoining flexural
members (beams and columns) in the event of mobilizing their inelastic capacities to
dissipate seismic energy. Unsafe design and detailing within the joint region jeopardizes the
entire structure, even if other structural members conform to the design requirements.
The moment resisting frame is expected to obtain ductility and energy dissipating
capacity from flexural yield mechanism at the plastic hinges. Beamcolumn joint behavior is
controlled by bond and shear failure mechanisms, which are weak sources for energy
dissipation. The performance criteria for joints under dynamic actions may be summarized as
follows:
 The joint should have sufficient strength to enable the maximum capacities to be
mobilized in the adjoining flexural members.
 The degradation of joints should be so limited such that the capacity of the column is not
affected in carrying its design loads.
 The joint deformation should not result in increased storey drift.
A 3D finite element model of a reinforced concrete beam column joint is discussed in this
section. The geometry of this model is taken from the tests conducted by Beres et al. (1992).
Figure 617 shows us a detailed sketch of the beam column experiment. Figure 618 shows
the 3D profile of the model in the CAE environment of ABAQUS. The concrete was
modelled by linear, reduced integration, 3D solid element and reinforcement was modelled
by linear, 3D truss element of ABAQUS.
62
Note: Dimensions are in inches (1 = 25.4 mm)
Figure 617 Specimen design and test results of Beres et al. (1992).
Figure 618 Geometry of the Model in ABAQUS
6.5.1 Material Properties
Concrete Damaged Plasticity model is used for concrete and classic metal plasticity
for steel. These models have been described in detail in chapter 3. Table 67 shows the
concrete material properties used in this model and Table 68 shows the steel material
properties used in this model.
63
Table 67 Concrete Damaged Plasticity model parameters
Property Value Property Value
Density 2.5e6 Dilation Angle 30
Characteristic Strength 22.6MPa Eccentricity 1
Modulus of elasticity 25000 N/mm2 f
bo
/f
co
1.12
Poissons ratio 0.2 K 0.66
Viscosity parameter 0
Compression Tension
Yield Stress
(MPa)
Inelastic
Strain
Damage Parameter
Yield
Stress
(MPa)
Cracking
Strain
Damage
parameter
16.950 0.000000
0 2.260 0.00000 0
18.984 0.000441
0.077 2.086 0.00046 0.077
20.566 0.000577
0.154 1.912 0.00092 0.154
21.696 0.000732
0.231 1.738 0.00138 0.231
22.374 0.000905
0.308 1.565 0.00185 0.308
22.600 0.001096
0.385 1.391 0.00231 0.385
22.374 0.001305
0.462 1.217 0.00277 0.462
21.696 0.001532
0.539 1.043 0.00323 0.539
20.566 0.001777
0.616 0.869 0.00369 0.616
18.984 0.002041
0.693 0.695 0.00415 0.693
16.950 0.002322
0.77 0.522 0.00462 0.77
14.464 0.002621
0.847 0.348 0.00508 0.847
11.526 0.002939
0.924 0.174 0.00554 0.924
8.136 0.003275
1 0.000 0.00600 1
Table 68 Steel Plasticity Model Parameters
Property Value
Yield Stress 552 MPa
Density 7.85E006 kg/mm
3
Modulus of Elasticity 205000 N/mm
2
Poissons ratio 0.3
Tensile and Compressive Behaviour
Yield Stress(MPa) Plastic Strain
552 0
690 0.01124
738.3 0.01724
899.5 0.04724
917.7 0.05724
952.2 0.07724
855.6 0.11724
745.2 0.12824
64
6.5.2 Load and boundary condition
The applied loading consisted of a shear displacement imposed at the exposed end of
the cantilever beam as shown in. The load was applied in small increments automatically by
ABAQUS to overcome numerical instability difficulties that could have occurred had a large
load been applied suddenly. The two ends of the column were taken to be pinned and a
perfect bond was assumed between concrete and steel.
Figure 619 Load History (Beres et al., 1992).
6.5.3 Results
The observed crack patterns are compared with the computed global damage patterns in
Figure 620. The computed damage patterns show localized zones of severe damage that are
comparable to discrete crack zones. The orientation of these patterns follows that observed in
the laboratory with cracking near the top (or bottom) face of the beam developing
approximately perpendicular to the axis of the beam and becoming more inclined as the
crack propagates towards midheight of the beam. These damage patterns are similar to
those observed after experimentation but are not exactly the same. The degree of fineness of
the computed cracking patterns increases with increasing the density of the mesh provided.
ABAQUS calculates the displacement values at the integration point of every element and
formulates the further stresses and strains depending on these calculated displacements.
Crack is assumed to initiates at points where the tensile equivalent plastic strain is greater
65
than zero and the maximum principal plastic strain is positive. When the stain at any
integration point reaches the cracking strain then that element is assumed to be failed and
thus cracks initiate and propagate through these elements. So the crack width depends on the
size of element taken in the finite element model. Thus, it is necessary to take the size of
element less than the expected crack widths that are likely to form in actual structure.
Further, proper modelling of the bondslip behaviour is required to get the analysis
results as close as possible to the experimental results. Modelling RCC with perfect bond in
between concrete and steel leads to overestimation of the structural response as it increases
the stiffness of the structure and it also leads to greater distribution of the tensile stresses near
the bond zone as there is no slip in between concrete and steel. This in turn results in
formation of the cracks at loads greater than the actual cracking loads encountered during
experimentation and distribution of the cracks over a greater area as the strains are distributed
over a larger zone.
(a) Experimental Result Beres et al. (1992) (b) Result from ABAQUS
Figure 620 Tensile Damage in concrete.
However, as suggested by the concrete damage patterns presented in Figure 620, failure
results from failure of the connection in shear rather than from flexural failure. This can be
seen from the contour damage plot in Figure 620 presenting a greater damage at the joint
location with green contours and less damage at the junction of the beam with column with
blue contours. This is a good representation of the failure mode observed in the laboratory.
66
Chapter 7 Comparison of Concrete Material Models
7.1 General
Two material models of concrete are used in this study which are,
 Concrete Smeared Cracking Model
 Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model
Both of these models have been discussed in detail in Chapter 3. In this chapter a
detailed comparison of both the models is presented. Dimensioning of the two beams
undertaken for this study tested by Bresler & Scordelis (1963) and Burns & Seiss (1962) is
shown in Figure 71 and Figure 72 respectively. The first beam that was tested by Bresler &
Scordelis (1963) was made of Grade 3500 concrete. The compressive cylinder strength of the
concrete was 22.6 MPa. A point load of 350 KN was applied at middle portion of the beam
with the help of a loading block kept on a plate of dimension 310310 mm. The beam was a
simply supported beam with a clear span of 3658 mm and crossection of 310556 mm. It
consisted of tension reinforcement in two layers of 227.8 mm bars in each layer. To prevent
the bond failure they had applied special anchor nuts at both ends of the reinforcement.
Figure 71 Dimensioning of BeamOA1 (Bresler & Scordelis, 1963) (all dimensions in mm)
Figure 72 Dimensioning of Beam J1 (Burns & Seiss, 1962) (all dimensions in mm)
230 230
1829 1829
310
556
63.5
63.5
Load P
2#9 bars in each layer.
152.4 152.4
1829 1829
203.2
508
50.8
Load P 2#8 bars
67
The second beam that was tested by Burns & Seiss (1962) was made of Grade 3500
concrete. The compressive cylinder strength of the concrete was 22.6 MPa. A point load was
applied at middle portion of the beam with the help of a loading block kept on a plate of
dimension 200200 mm. The beam was a simply supported beam with a clear span of 3658
mm and crossection of 203.2508 mm. It consisted of tension reinforcement in one layer of
225.4 mm bars. 9.525 mm diameter stirrups were also provided at a spacing of 152.4 mm.
The above two beams were modelled in a simillar fashion in ABAQUS as described in
chapter 6. Material model parameters used are also same as calculated in section 6.4.2 and
section 6.4.3 as the grade of concrete and steel used in experiments is same.
7.2 Comparison Based On Equilibrium Path
The first and foremost requirement of a material model is to properly depict the behavior
of material and help the solution algorithm to follow exact equilibrium path. This comparison
is being done with reference to two beams. The first one which is tested by Bresler &
Scordelis (1963) is having heavy flexural reinforcement and no shear reinforcement. Another
beam tested by Burns & Seiss (1962) is also used which is having flexural as well as shear
reinforcement.
Figure 73 Computed and observed load displacement history for (Bresler & Scordelis,
1963) beam without shear reinforcement.
From Figure 73 it can be seen that both the models behave in a similar fashion for the
beam without shear reinforcement that was tested by Bresler & Scordelis (1963) as they had
made special arrangement to secure the bond between reinforcement and steel and thus
justifying the embedded technique used in finite element modelling of the bond between
concrete and steel. Concrete Dameged Plasticity model adds more stiffeness to structure.
68
But when simulation of a beam with longitudinal reinforcement and stirrups (Burns &
Seiss, 1962) was done it was seen that the response of the finite element model was stiffer
than as observed during experiment. This might be because of the reason that a perfect bond
was assumed between concrete and steel in ABAQUS model whereas there is some finite
amount of slip in actual experiment.
Figure 74 Computed and observed load displacement history for (Burns & Seiss, 1962)
beam with shear reinforcement.
It can be seen from Figure 74 that Concrete Damaged Plasticity model was able to
predict the response of beam even after the ultimate load has reached whereas with the use of
Concrete Smeared Cracking model the analysis stopped at the ultimate point and was not able
to continue further. Thus it can be concluded that Concrete Damaged Plasticity model is more
suited for analysis in which it is required to study the response of structure to the point of
collapse.
7.3 Comparison Based on Crack Visualization
Formation of cracks in concrete structural element could be visualized if Concrete
Damaged Plasticity model is used to define the behavior of concrete. For the purpose of
visualization of cracks it is prerequisite to define the tensile damage parameters discussed in
section 3.4.1.3. Crack is assumed to initiates at points where the tensile equivalent plastic
strain is greater than zero and the maximum principal plastic strain is positive. The direction
of the vector normal to the crack plane is assumed to be parallel to the direction of the
maximum principal plastic strain. This direction can be viewed in the Visualization module
of Abaqus/CAE with the help of DAMAGET field output variable as shown in Figure 75.
69
Figure 75 Crack visualization with the help of Concrete Damaged Plasticity model.
Whereas when the analysis is performed by taking smeared cracking model for
concrete, visualization of cracks could not be achieved with the help of DAMAGET field
output variable as there is no provision of providing damage definition while defining the
Concrete Smeared Cracking model. Thus DAMAGET variable would give us a contour of
zero values throughout when activated in visualization module as shown in Figure 76.
Figure 76 Crack visualization with the help of Concrete Smeared Cracking model.
Hence, Concrete Damaged Plasticity model should be used if it is required to study
cracks in the model.
7.4 Comparison Based On Meshing and Tension Stiffening
The analytical results of the response of reinforced concrete structures are greatly
influenced by the size of the finite element mesh and by the amount of tension stiffening of
concrete. Taking larger values of the tension stiffening parameter would lead to
overestimation of the stiffness of the model whereas smaller values of this parameter lead to
convergence difficulties and instability in solution process as is depicted from Figure 614
and Figure 615. Further the element size taken also affects the solution process as is
discussed in chapter 5.
A sample beam as studied by Burns & Seiss (1962) (Figure 72) is modelled here to
study the effect of these two parameters on the behavior of beam and accuracy of results.
Eighteen models were made with different combination of the tension stiffening parameter
and element sizes in ABAQUS v6.9. Each model has been given a name that corresponds to
the combination of the tension stiffening parameter and element sizes in it, such as
70
TS001_M5050 which means that the tension stiffening parameter value is 0.001 and the
element is of size 50 mm, similarly TS006_M7575 means that the tension stiffening
parameter value is 0.006 and the element is of size 75 mm.
In Table 71 the maximum displacement and the corresponding load factor for the
eighteen different models made by using smeared cracking model for concrete have been
documented. These values were taken from ABAQUS on termination of the solution process.
Table 71 Effect of Tension stiffening and element size on analysis using Concrete Smeared
Cracking.
SMEARED
CRACKING
Max.
Displacement(mm)
Load Factor
TS001_M5050 1.185 0.315
TS001_M7575 5.051 0.708
TS001_M100100 15.409 0.974
TS002_M5050 0.737 0.253
TS002_M7575 3.336 0.621
TS002_M100100 14.377 0.969
TS003_M5050 2.695 0.571
TS003_M7575 4.237 0.758
TS003_M100100 5.916 0.913
TS004_M5050 2.051 0.506
TS004_M7575 5.538 0.922
TS004_M100100 4.547 0.819
TS005_M5050 1.852 0.482
TS005_M7575 4.977 0.880
TS005_M100100 1.267 0.856
TS006_M5050 6.079 1.008
TS006_M7575 5.380 0.939
TS006_M100100 10.287 1.018
From the above table it can be seen that the smeared cracking model is very much
sensitive to the value of the tension stiffening parameter provided and the element size taken.
Analysis process is not able to reach the actual collapse load or failure load (i.e. when the
Load Proportionality Factor (LPF) = 1) when smaller finite elements are used i.e. the size of
50 mm and 75 mm until the value of tension stiffening parameter is increased to a higher
value i.e. greater than 0.006. Also it can be seen from the above table that for a given tension
stiffening parameter increasing the element size helps in achieving a LPF of 1.
71
Figure 77 shows us the variation of LPF with tension stiffening parameter for
Concrete Smeared Cracking model by using different element sizes.
Figure 77 Variation of LPF with tension stiffening parameter (Concrete Smeared Cracking).
It can be seen from Figure 77 that the model is able to predict the actual collapse load
or failure load (i.e. when the LPF = 1) with varying combinations of element size and tension
stiffening parameter. Smaller elements require a higher tension stiffening parameter whereas
larger elements can suffice with smaller values of tension stiffening parameter. As it has been
concluded from the results shown in section 5.3 larger elements add more stiffness to the
structure and as seen from Figure 614 and Figure 615 that increasing the tension stiffening
parameter also increases the stiffness of the structure, so a good combination of these two
parameters is required so that the solution follows the correct equilibrium path.
In Table 72 the maximum displacement and the corresponding load factor for the
eighteen different models made by using Concrete Damaged Plasticity model for concrete
have been documented. These values were taken from ABAQUS on termination of the
solution process.
It can be seen from table 72 that even Concrete Damaged Plasticity model is
sensitive to the value of the tension stiffening parameter provided and the element size taken
but the variation in results is not as much as is seen in Concrete Smeared Cracking model.
The model closely enough predicts the collapse load with different size of elements above
tension stiffening parameter value of 0.002.
72
Table 72 Effect of Tension stiffening and element size on analysis using Concrete Damaged
Plasticity.
DAMAGED
PLASTICITY
Max.
Displacement(mm)
Load Factor
TS001_M5050 1.782 0.325
TS001_M7575 1.450 0.326
TS001_M100100 1.756 0.355
TS002_M5050 7.451 0.863
TS002_M7575 2.986 0.890
TS002_M100100 11.430 0.910
TS003_M5050 6.939 0.858
TS003_M7575 13.500 0.962
TS003_M100100 4.797 0.920
TS004_M5050 7.112 0.903
TS004_M7575 11.310 0.962
TS004_M100100 11.740 0.903
TS005_M5050 9.010 0.964
TS005_M7575 6.260 0.875
TS005_M100100 11.240 0.910
TS006_M5050 17.800 1.024
TS006_M7575 7.075 0.986
TS006_M100100 12.040 0.935
Figure 78 Variation of LPF with tension stiffening parameter (Concrete Damaged
Plasticity).
73
From the above study it can be concluded that Concrete Damage Plasticity model is less
sensitive to the value of the tension stiffening parameter provided and the element size taken
as compared to the Concrete Smeared Cracking model. Also, Concrete Damage Plasticity
model provides us with better combinations of tension stiffening parameter and element size
as we can get the correct collapse loads with the help of lower combinations which provide
less extra stiffness to the structure.
 For damaged plasticity model, if tension stiffening parameter is less than 0.002, the
failure load stated by the FEM model is 1/3
rd
of the actual failure load observed from
experimental data.
 For damaged plasticity model, when the tension stiffening strain is greater than 0.002, the
variation between FEM and the experimental results is observed to be below 10%.
 For smeared cracking model, the variation for the LPF is around 40% for a constant
tension stiffening parameter, when the element size increases from 50 mm to 100 mm
whereas for damaged plasticity model the variation is negligible.
7.5 Comparison Based on Response to cyclic behavior
Concrete Damaged Plasticity model uses concepts of isotropic damaged elasticity in
combination with isotropic tensile and compressive plasticity to represent the inelastic
behavior of concrete and is designed for applications in which concrete can be subjected to
monotonic, cyclic, and/or dynamic whereas Concrete Smeared Cracking model is designed
for applications in which the concrete is subjected to essentially monotonic straining.
CDP also allows user control of stiffness recovery effects during cyclic load reversals
whereas there is no such provision in Concrete Smeared Cracking model.
Thus if the analysis consists of application of cyclic and/or dynamic application of load
to the structure than Concrete Damaged Plasticity model is more suited for the analysis.
74
Chapter 8 Summary and Conclusion
8.1 Summary
The objective of this dissertation is to study the effect of different material model
parameters and finite element techniques on the RC beams and RC beam column joints
subjected to dynamic loading. Concrete and reinforcing steel are represented by separate
material models which are combined together with a model of the interaction between
reinforcing steel and concrete through embedded technique to describe the behavior of
reinforced concrete material. The plastic material behavior of concrete is described by two
material models i.e. Concrete Smeared Cracking and Concrete Damaged Plasticity model.
Effect of meshing and type of element chosen for stress analysis viz. first order
hexahedral and second order hexahedral first order tetrahedral and second order tetrahedral
elements are studied with the help of a cantilever beam. Twelve different models with three
mesh densities viz. two, four and six elements along the depth and four types of elements viz.
first order hexahedral, second order hexahedral, first order tetrahedral, second order
tetrahedral elements were analysed for this study as is presented in Chapter 5.
Stress Analysis is done for two different experiments carried out by Bresler & Scordelis
(1963) and Burns & Seiss (1962). The first beam that was tested by Bresler & Scordelis
(1963) had no shear reinforcement and the second beam that was tested by Burns & Seiss
(1962) had shear reinforcement. Clear span for both the beams were same. Validation of the
two material models of concrete is done with respect to the two beams. Also, a beam column
joint was analysed by taking Concrete Damage Plasticity model, which was sbjected to a
cyclic load applied at the tip of the beam. The detail of modelling and validation is povided in
Chapter 6.
Finally a comparison of the two material models of concrete by analysing two
different beams tested by Bresler & Scordelis (1963) and Burns & Seiss (1962) respectively
is done. For the purpose of comparison based on the effect of combination of mesh size and
tension stiffening parameter on the analysis, eighteen different models were made by taking
three different mesh densities viz. 50 mm, 75 mm and 100 mm element sizes respectively and
six different tension stiffening parameter values ranging from 0.001 to 0.006 as is
documented in Chapter 7.
8.2 Conclusion
The correlation studies between finite element analysis results and experimental results,
and the parametric studies associated with them lead to the following conclusions:
75
1. For the present study, it is noted that as the mesh density increases stiffness of the
member decreases.
 It is observed during the study that quadratic elements are computationally
expensive but give more accurate results.
 Percentage error for quadratic elements is found out to be less than 1% when mesh
density provided is such that number of elements along depth 4.
 Percentage error in displacement for all the elements studied except linear
hexahedral is found to be greater than 30% when mesh density provided is such
that number of elements along depth is equal to 2.
 Linear hexahedral element is found to be more consistent compared to other
elements for all the mesh densities studied such that percentage error in
displacement for linear hexahedral element is in between 4% to 7.5%.
2. Finite element model will reach a stabilized value for the tension stiffening parameter
value less than 0.002 when smeared cracking model is used. But it is noted that when
damaged plasticity model is used the solution is stabilized only when the tension
stiffening parameter value is greater than 0.002.
 By the use of smeared cracking model, it is noted that variation of stiffness is
found to be negligible i.e. less than 1%, between experimental value and the value
obtained from the finite element model with tension stiffening parameter 0.001.
Variation noted is around 10% with tension stiffening parameter value of 0.002.
 By the use of damaged plasticity model, it is noted that variation of stiffness is
around 10% between experimental value and the value obtained from the finite
element model with tension stiffening parameter 0.003, at which the first stable
solution is obtained.
 It is observed that there is 12.2% increase in the stiffness of structure when
tension stiffening parameter is increased from 0.003 to 0.01 respectively.
3. Smeared cracking model is not following a consistent pattern of variation in load
proportionality factor (LPF) neither with element size nor with tension stiffening
parameter, whereas damaged plasticity model is having almost same paternal
variation for LPF with the variation of both element size and tension stiffening
parameter.
76
 For damaged plasticity model, if tension stiffening parameter is less than 0.002, the
failure load stated by the FEM model is 1/3
rd
of the actual failure load observed from
experimental data.
 For damaged plasticity model, when the tension stiffening strain is greater than 0.002, the
variation between FEM and the experimental results is observed to be below 10%.
 For smeared cracking model, the variation for the LPF is around 40% for a constant
tension stiffening parameter, when the element size increases from 50 mm to 100 mm
whereas for damaged plasticity model the variation is negligible.
Based on the above observations it can be concluded that proper understanding of the
material model parameters and modelling techniques is important for the simulation of RC
structural members under any kind of loading. Especially for the case of nonlinear analysis
even a slight variation in material model parameters or meshing techniques could lead to
significant deviation of analysis results from actual equilibrium path. Thus extensive amount
of study must be carried out before choosing a material model for a particular type of
analysis.
8.3 Recommendations for Further Work
In present study various kinds of modelling techniques available in ABAQUS v6.9 to
model reinforced concrete structure subjected to monotonic or cyclic loading have been
studied in detail. A material model for concrete and steel has been recommended and various
methods used to model bondslip behaviour of reinforced concrete in ABAQUS v6.9 have
been documented.
Present study does not incorporate modelling of bondslip in structural elements. This
has led to some overestimation of stiffness. Therefore for proper and accurate modelling of
reinforced concrete there is a need to model this behaviour.
Current work on material models and modelling techniques can be extended to the next
phase by conducting a comparative study of the available bondslip models in ABAQUS
v6.9 and then including the best suited bondslip model in finite element model of RC
subassemblages. Further a detailed study on full scaled model of RC frames subjected to
dynamic loading can be conducted with the help of ABAQUS.
77
Bibliography
ABAQUS standardusers manual. (2009). Pawtucket, R.I.: Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen.
Arnesen, A., Sorensen, S., & Bergan, P. (1980). Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete.
Computers & Structures, Vol. 12, pp. 571579.
Beres, A., White, R. N., & Gergely, P. (1992). Seismic Performance of Interior and Exterior
BeamtoColumn Joints Related to Lightly RC Frame Buildings: Detailed
Experimental Results. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ithaca, New
York.
Biddah, A., & Ghobarah, A. (1999). Modelling of Shear Deformation and Bond Slip in
Reinforced Concrete Joints. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol.7, No. 4, pp.
413432.
Bresler, B., & Bertero, V. (1968). Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Under Repeated Load.
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, pp. 15671590.
Bresler, B., & Scordelis, A. (1963). Shear Strength of Reinfirced Concrete Beams. ACI
Journal, Vol. 60, pg. 5172.
Burns, N., & Seiss, C. (1962). Load deformation characteristics of beamcolumn connections
in reinforced concrete. Department of Civil Engineering,University of California,
Berkley.
de Borst, R., & Nauta, P. (1985). NonOrthogonal Cracks in a Smeared Finite Element
Model. journal of Engineering Computations, Vol. 2, pp. 3546.
Franklin, H. (1970). NonLinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frames and Panels.
Division of Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics,University of California,
Berkeley.
Gilbert, R., & Warner, R. (1978). Tension Stiffening in Reinforced Concrete Slabs. Journal
of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. ST12, pp. 18851900.
Kupfer, H., Hilsdorf, H., & Rsch, H. (1969). Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stresses.
ACI Journal, Vol. 66, pp. 656666.
78
Lowes, L., & Altoontash, A. (2003). Modeling ReinforcedConcrete BeamColumn Joints
Subjected to Cyclic Loading. ACSE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 129, No.
12, pp. 16861697.
MacGregor, J. G. (1988). RC Mechanics and Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Mander, J., Priestley, M., & Park, R. (1988). Theoretical StressStrain Model for Confined
Concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 8, pp. 18041826.
Masi, A., Santarsiero, G., & Moroni, C. (2008). BEHAVIOUR AND STRENGTHENING
OF RC BEAMCOLUMN JOINTS:. World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Beijing, China.
Nayak, G., & Zienkiewicz, O. (1972). ElastoPlastic Stress Analysis. International Journal of
Numerical, Vol. 5, pp. 113135.
Ngo, D., & Scordelis, A. (1967). Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beams.
Journal of ACI, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 152163.
Nilson, A. (1972). Internal Measurement of Bond Slip. Journal of ACI, Vol. 69, Title No. 7,
pp. 439441.
Park, P., & Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced Concrete Structures. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Paulay, T., Park, R., & N., P. M. (1978). RC Beam Column Joints under Seismic Actions.
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 75, No. 11, pp. 585593.
Popovics, S. (1969). A Review of StressStrain Relationships for Concrete. Journal of ACI,
Vol. 66, No. 5, pp. 756764.
Rajagopal, K. (1976). Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beams, BeamColumns and
Slabs by Finite Elements. Ph.D. Dissertation, Iowa State University.
Rajagopal, K. (1976). Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beams, BeamColumns and
Slabs by Finite Elements. Iowa State University.
Rashid, Y. (1968). Analysis of Prestressed Concrete Pressure Vessels. Nuclear Engineering
and Design, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 334344.
79
Scordelis, A., Ngo, D., & Franklin, H. (1974). Finite Element Study of Reinforced Concrete
Beams with Diagonal Tension Cracks. ACI Publication SP42.
Viwathanatepa, S., Popov, E., & Bertero, V. (1979). Seismic Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Interior BeamColumn Subassemblages. Earthquake Engineering
Research Centre, University of California, Berkeley.
Walker, S. (2001). Seismic Performance of Existing RC BeamColumn Joints. MSCE thesis,
University of Washington, Washington.
Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.
Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbitpenerbit terkemuka.
Batalkan kapan saja.