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

63

Nonlinear Analysis of RC Beam for Different

Shear Reinforcement Patterns by Finite
Element Analysis
I. Saifullah1* , M.A. Hossain2 , S.M.K.Uddin3 , M.R.A. Khan4 and M.A. Amin5
1,2,3

Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technolog y (KUET), Khulna-9203,
Bangladesh, email: saifullah0201113@yahoo.com*
4,5
Undergraduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology
(KUET), Khulna-9203, Bangladesh.
Abstract-- S everal methods have been utilized to study the
response of concrete structural components. Experimental
based testing has been widely used as a means to analyze
individual elements and the effects of concrete strength under
loading. The use of finite element analysis to study these
components has also been used. This paper focuses on the
behavior of reinforced concrete beam for different pattern of
shear reinforcement to evaluate the effective shear
reinforcement pattern and also compare the variation in
behavior of reinforced concrete beam for with and without
shear reinforcement with a simulation. To carry out the
analysis, six 3D beams without and with different patterns of
shear reinforcement is built using comprehensive computer
software ANS YS 10 2005 S AS IP, Inc package. The static
non linear analysis is done to find out ultimate capacity,
formation of first crack and its distance from support,
initiation of diagonal crack and its distance from support.
Load deflection response was also closely observed and
compared with the result from theoretical calculation. From
close observation of analyses results it was found that all types
of web reinforcements were almost same effective for static
loading condition.

Index Term-- ANS YS , shear reinforcement, finite element

analysis, diagonal crack.
I. INTRODUCTION
Concrete structural components exist in buildings and bridges
in different forms. Understanding the response of these
components during loading is crucial to the development of an
overall efficient and safe structure. Different methods have
been utilized to study the response of structural components.
Experimental based testing has been widely used as a means
to analyze individual elements and the effects of concrete
strength under loading. While this is a method that produces
real life response, it is extremely time consuming, and the use
of materials can be quite costly. The use of finite element
analysis to study these components has also been used.
Unfortunately, early attempts to accomplish this were also
very time consuming and in feasible using existing software
and hardware.
When a simple beam is loaded, bending moments and shear
forces develop along the beam. To carry the loads safely, the
beam must be designed for both type of forces. Flexural
design is considered first to establish the dimensions of the
beam section and the main reinforcement needed. The beam
is then designed for shear. If shear reinforcement is not

provided, shear failure may occur. Shear failure is

characterized by small deflections and lack of ductility,
giving little or no warning before failure [1]. On the other
hand, flexural failure is characterized by a gradual increase
in deflection and cracking, thus giving warning before total
failure. This is due to ACI Code limitation on flexure
reinforcement. The Design for shear must ensure that shear
failure does not occur before flexural failure [1]. The use of
FEA has been the preferred method to study the behavior of
concrete (for economic reasons). With the advent of
sophisticated numerical tools for analysis like the finite
element method (FEM), it has become possible to model the
complex behavior of reinforced concrete beams [2].
In recent years, however, the use of finite element analysis has
increased due to progressing knowledge and capabilities of
computer software and hardware. It has now become the
choice method to analyze concrete structural components.
The use of computer software to, model these elements are
much faster, and extremely cost-effective. To fully understand
the capabilities of finite element computer software, one must
look back to experimental data and simple analysis. Data
obtained from a finite element analysis package is not useful
unless the necessary steps are taken to understand what is
happening within the model that is created using the software.
Also, executing the necessary checks along the way is key to
make sure that what is being output by the computer software
is valid. By understanding the use of finite element packages,
more
efficient
and
better
analyses can be made to fully understand the response of
individual structural components and their contribution to a
structure as a whole. This paper focuses on the behavior of
reinforced concrete beam for different pattern of shear
reinforcement to evaluate the effective shear reinforcement
pattern and also compare the variation in behavior of
reinforced concrete beam for with and without shear
reinforcement with a simulation.
II. SCOPE
This study is focuses on the numerical simulation technique
of 3D approach of beams of without and with shear
reinforcement of different patterns and also a simulation
and compared with another group experimental and
analytical data. This 3D approach is extensible with making
variation on loading and support condition and is a basis for
the evaluation of the topics of interest for future study

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJE NS

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

64

includes providing the principles and guidelines to aid in the

optimization in a easier manner. The paper may also
provide low laborious procedure for modeling of versatile
RCC like structure.
III.
EXPERIM ENTAL STUDY
A. CRACKS IN CONCRETE MODEL
Concrete crack plots were created at different load levels to
examine the different types of cracking that occurred within
the concrete as shown in Fig. 1. The different types of
concrete failure that can occur are flexural cracks,
compression failure (crushing), and diagonal tension cracks.
Flexural cracks (Fig. 1a) form vertically up the beam.
Compression failures (Fig. 1b) are shown as circles.
Diagonal tension cracks (Fig. 1c) form diagonally up the
beam towards the loading that is applied. Crack develops in
concrete element when the concrete element stress exceeds
modulus of rupture of concrete (tensile strength of concrete).
Crash develops in concrete element when the concrete element
stress exceeds compressive crashing strength of concrete. This
study indicates that the use of a finite element program to
model experimental data is viable and the results that are
obtained can indeed model reinforced concrete beam behavior
reasonably well.

Fig. 2. 3-D failure surface for concrete (William and Warnke 1975)

C. Finite Element Modeling of Steel Reinforcement

Tavarez (2001) discusses three techniques that exist to
model steel reinforcement in finite element models for
reinforced concrete is shown in fig. 3: the discrete model,
the embedded model, and the smeared model.

Fig. 1. T ypical Cracking Signs in Finite Element Models: a) Flexural Cracks,

b) Compressive Cracks, c) Diagonal Tensile Cracks (Kachlakev, et al. 2001)

B. FAILURE CRITERIA FOR CONCRETE

The model is capable of predicting failure for concrete
materials. Both cracking and crushing failure modes are
accounted for. The two input strength parameters i.e., ultimate
uniaxial tensile and compressive strengths are needed to define
a failure surface for the concrete. Consequently, a criterion for
failure of the concrete due to a multiaxial stress state can be
calculated (William and Warnke 1975). A three-dimensional
failure surface for concrete is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 3. Models for Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete (Tavarez 2001):

(a) discrete; (b) embedded; and (c) smeared

D. ANSYS FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

T ABLE I
ELEMENT T YP ES FOR W ORKING MODEL

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

Material Type
Concrete
Steel Plates and
Supports

ANSYS Element
Solid65

Steel Reinforcement

Link8

Solid45

IJE NS

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

Element
Type

Real
Constants
for Rebar 2

Real
Constants
for Rebar 3
0

Solid65

Real
Constants
for Rebar 1
1.0

F. MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Parameters needed to define the material models can be
found in Table III.
3

Solid45

Multilinear Isotropic
Strain
(in/in)
Point 1
0.00049931
Point 2
0.00065
Point 3
0.00080
Point 4
0.001
Point 5
0.0012
Point 6
0.0014
Point 7
0.0016
Point 8
0.0018
Point 9
0.002
Point 10
0.0022
Point 11
0.002219
Point 12
0.003

Stress
(psi)
1800
2158.06
2552.24
2996.43
3347.11
3609.99
3794.94
3913.71
3978.22
3999.57
4000
4000

Concrete
ShrCf-Op
0.3
ShrCf-Cl
1
UnTensSt
474.34
UnCompSt
-1
BiCompSt
0
HydroPs
0
BiCompSt
0
UnTensSt
0
TenCrFac
0

Link8

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

Solid65

Crosssectional
Area (in 2)

0.11

Material Properties

Linear Isotropic
EX
3604974.865
PRXY
0.25

Constants

Initial
Strain
(in./in.)

Solid45

Link8

Real
Constant
set

REAL CONSTANT FOR MODEL

Element
Type

T ABLE II

T ABLE III
MATERIAL MODELS FOR THE CALIBRATION MODEL

Material
Model
Number

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

65

Linear Isotropic
29,000,000
EX
psi
PRXY
0.3

Linear Isotropic
29,000,000
EX
psi
PRXY
0.3

Bilinear Isotropic
Yield Stress
60,000 psi
Tangent
2,900 psi
Modulus
The Solid65 element requires linear isotropic and multilinear isotropic material properties to properly model
concrete. The multi-linear isotropic material uses the von
1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJE NS

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

Mises failure criterion along with the Willam and Warnke

(1975) model to define the failure of the concrete. EX is the
modulus of elasticity of the concrete (Ec), and PRXY is the
Poissons ratio (). The modulus of elasticity was based on
the equation,
Ec

57000fc

66

points are calculated from Equation 2 with 0 obtained from

Equation 3.Last point is defined at fc and 0 =0.003 in./in.
indicating traditional crushing strain for unconfined
concrete.

(1)

with a value of fc equal to 4,000 psi. Poissons ratio was

assumed to be 0.25. The compressive uniaxial stress -strain
relationship for the concrete model was obtained u sing the
following equations to compute the multi-linear isotropic
stress-strain curve for the concrete (MacGregor 1992)
(2)

(3)

Fig. 5. Idealized Stress-Strain Curve of Reinforcing Steel

(4)

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

Fig. 4. Uniaxial Stress-Strain Curve

Fig. 7. Quarter Beam for Model

Fig. 4 shows the stress-strain relationship used for this study

and is based on work done by Kachlakev,et al. (2001).
MacGregor Nonlinear model curve Point 1, defined as ' 0.45
fc is calculated in the linear range (Equation 4). Other
1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJE NS

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

67

Fig. 8. Different types of shear reinforcements

Fig. 10. Mesh of the Concrete, Steel Plate and Steel Support

Element
Type

Material
Number

Real
Constant
Set

Fig. 9. Reinforcement Detailing for Beam Model

Model
Parts

Fig. 11. Reinforcement Configuration and Meshing for T ype 1

T ABLE IV
MESH ATTRIBUTES FOR THE MODEL

Concrete Beam

Steel Plate
Steel Support
Longitudinal
Reinforcement
Shear
Reinforcement

2
2

2
2

N/A
N/A

Fig. 12. Reinforcement Configuration and Meshing for without shear

reinforcement

Link8 elements were used to create the flexural and shear

reinforcement. Only half of the stirrup is modeled because of the
symmetry of the beam. Fig. 10 illustrates that the rebar shares the
same nodes at the points that it intersects the shear stirrups. The
element type number, material number, and real constant set
number for the calibration model were set for each mesh as shown
in Table IV.

Fig. 13. Reinforcement Configuration and Meshing for T ype 2

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJE NS

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

68

5. 28-days Compressive Strength of Concrete,

fc = 4800 psi
The detail of Wolanoskis beam and also the beam for
simulation is given below:

Fig. 14. Reinforcement Configuration and Meshing for T ype 3

Fig. 17. Reinforcement Detailing of Wolanoskis Beam

Fig. 15. Reinforcement Configuration and Meshing for T ype 4

Fig. 18. Load-Deflection curve comparison of ANSYS and Backouse

(1997) [2]

The graph of present analysis of Wolanoskis thesis is given

bellow:

Fig. 16. Different Patterns of Shear Reinforcement in ANSYS

III. A NALYTICAL STUDY

For this purpose it is eventual to compare the develop model
with an existing one. And here this simulation was made by
using the data given by Anthony J. Wolanoski B.S. in his
thesis paper [2]. Where, he used following specification1. Beam size The width and height of beam
were 10 in. and 18 in respectively
2. Clear span length 15 ft
3. Area of steel 0.93 in.2
4. Yield Stress of Steel, fy = 60,000 psi

Fig. 19. Load-Deflection Curve after simulation

The comparison of Wolanoskis analysis and present

analysis are given in table.

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJE NS

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

69

Load at First
cracking (lb)
5118
5216
5212

Centerline
Deflection (in)
0.0529
0.0534
0.0534

Reinforcement
Steel Stress (psi)
3024
2840

Extreme
Tension Fiber
Stress (psi)
530
536

From thesis paper of

Anthony J. Wolanoski
B.S. [2]
Manual
ANSYS
calculation

Model

T ABLE V
COMP ARISON BETWEEN ANTHONY J.W OLANOSKI ANALYSIS AND
P RESENT STUDY BY ANSYS

A.
CRA
CK
DEV
ELO
PED
IN
THE
CON
CRE
TE
BEA
MS

2843.8

525

Simulated
ANSYS

Present
study

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

(c) Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57533 lb)

(d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 61615 lb)

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

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

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

(b) Initiation of Diagonal T ension crack (load 23048 lb)

(b) Initiation of Diagonal T ension crack (load 20423 lb)

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJE NS

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

(c) Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57898 lb)

(c) Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57450 lb)

(d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 62020 lb)

Fig. 21. (a),(b),(c)&(d) represents Cracks Formation in Beam of present
study for Shear Reinforcement T ype 1 in different stages during the
application of load

(d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 61852 lb)

70

Fig. 22. (a),(b),(c)&(d) represents Cracks Formation in Beam of present

study for Shear Reinforcement T ype 2 in different stages during the
application of load

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

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

(b) Initiation of Diagonal T ension crack (load 19949 lb)

(b) Initiation of Diagonal T ension crack (load 17453 lb)

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJE NS

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

( c)

(c) Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57576 lb)

(d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 61880 lb)

Fig. 23. (a),(b)(c)&(d) represents Cracks Formation in Beam of present
study for Shear Reinforcement T ype 3 in different stages during the
application of load

71

Yielding of Reinforcement (load 57451 lb)

(d) Failure of the Concrete beam (load 61964 lbs)

Fig. 24. (a),(b),(c)&(d) represents Cracks Formation in Beam of present
study for Shear Reinforcement T ype 4 in different stages during the
application of load

B. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE

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

Fig. 25. Combined Load-Deflection Curve for Different patterns of shear

Reinforcement

(b) Initiation of Diagonal T ension crack (load 20313 lb)

Load-Deflection Curve is linear with a sharp slope up to

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

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJE NS

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

Model

Centerline
Deflection (in.)

Reinforcing
Steel Stress (psi)

IJE NS

9657

0.054750

9646

9445.5

0.054751

0.05394

2788.5

2772.34

Type 2

4.0340

62020

33

9658

0.0547

2788.4

Type 1

2.31

9686

0.054786

2788.0

Initiation of
diagonal
tension crack

ANSYS

*H Manual
Calculation

ANSYS

* Manual
Calculation

ANSYS

*Manual
Calculation

Load at First
Crack (flexure
crack)
(lb)

Centerline
Deflection
(in.)

Reinforcing
(main bar)
Steel Stress
(psi)

Model

Deflection at Failure (in.)

Load at Failure (lb)

Distance from
support (in.)

Loads (lb)

Without Shear
Reinforcement

61616

51

20423

Distance from
support (in.)

DEFLECTION AT FAILURE LOADS ON THE BASIS OF ANALYSIS

9658

0.054748

2788.6

3.3885

3.6879

2788.5

61852

61880

Type 3

42

37.5

23048

78

Load (lb)

T ABLE VI

Type 4

19949

17453

75

9686

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Load at First
Crack (lb)

3.4608

82.5

75.75

9658

Without shear
reinforcement

Type

61964

36

9646

9657

Type 1

1st crack

20313

Type 2

Type 3
IV.

75

9658

Type 4

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

72

T ABLE VII
COMP ARISON BETWEEN THEORETICAL CALCULATION AND ANSYS

CRACK FORMATION AND DISTANCE OF CRACK FROM SUP P ORT AND

T ABLE VIII
FORMATION OF 1 ST CRACK AND RESP ECTIVE DEFLECTION & STEEL
STRESS IN FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Without Shear
Reinforcement

9686

0.056181

2859.0

Type 1

9658

0.064117

3870.0

Type 2

9646

0.057770

3077.0

Type 3

9657

0.058253

3138.3

Type 4

9658

0.062322

3651.1

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

From present analysis:

Loads on beam
at failure (lb)

T ABLE XI
1 ST CRACK FORMATION DISTANCE FROM SUP P ORT FOR THIS ANALYSIS

62020

Steel Stress at
failure (psi)
60108

Loads on beam
at yielding of
steel (lb)
57703
57533

Deflection at
yielding of steel
(in.)
0.858350

Steel Stress at
yielding of steel
(psi)
60000
60009

Without shear
reinforcement

*Theoretical
calculation

Model

T ABLE IX
FLEXURAL STEEL STRESS ON THE BASIS OF ANALYSIS

60010

0.91714

57898

60143

62020

60004

0.829578

57450

60163

61852

0.884736

57576

61880

60114

60010

Type 1
Type 3

Type 2

61964

60128

57451

0.855752

60004

Type 4

73

A. COMPARISON
From another thesis group [7] performing on Experimental
and Analytical Investigation of Flexural Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Beam got the results as follows:
T ABLE X
1 ST CRACK FORMATION DISTANCE FROM SUP P ORT ( WITHOUT SHEAR
REINFORCEMENT) [7]

1 st Crack Formation

Distance from Support

Lab Test

0.421L

ANSYS

0.414L

1 st Crack Formation

Distance from
Support

Without shear
reinforcement

0.413L

Type 1

0.396L

Type 2

0.437L

Type 3

0.401L

Type 4

0.396L

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

V.
CONCLUSION
The project emanated with an aim to find out the ultimate
load carrying capacity of beams of without and with
different patterns of shear reinforcements and also find out
the different behaviors of beams for different stages of
loading. The project is expected to generate reasonable
solutions of focused problem defined under some parametric
condition. Initially some parameters are chosen for these
beams by analysis with finite element method. The ultimate
load carrying capacity is then determined by without
considering and considering different patterns of shear
reinforcement with a constant flexural reinforcement. After
completing the analysis curves are drawn for without and
with different patterns of shear reinforcement, to find out
various parameters (1st crack formation in beams, initiation

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJE NS

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

of diagonal cracks, failure load etc.) for finding effective

shear reinforcement pattern for beam to this loading
condition. Also a simulation and comparison to another
group is done to the satisfactory use of finite element
modeling in structural components. The following
conclusion can be stated based on the evaluation of the
analyses:

ANSYS 3D concrete element is very good

concerning the flexural and shear crack
development but poor concerning the crushing
state. However this deficiency could be eas ily
removed by employing a certain multi-linear
plasticity options available in ANSYS.

From close observation of analyses results it can be

concluded that all types of web reinforcements are
almost same effective for static loading condition.
VI.

REFERENCES

[1]

Nilson, Arthur H.; Darwin, David; Dolan Charles W., 2006

Design Of Concrete Structures, McGraw-Hill, 13 th Edition.
[2] Wolanski, Anthony J., B.S., 2004, Flexure Behavior of
Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Beams Using Finite
Element Analysis, Faculty of Graduate School, Marquette
University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May.
[3] SAS (2005) ANSYS 10 Finite Element Analysis System, SAS
IP, Inc.
[4] Hossain, M. Nadim, 1998, Structural Concrete; T heory &
Design, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
[5] Nakasone, Y., Yoshimoto, S., Stolarski, T . A., 2006,
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS WIT H ANSYS SOFT WARE,
ELSEVIER, 1 st Published.
[6] Kachlakev, D.; Miller, T.; Yim, S., May, 2001, Finite Element
Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Structures Strengthened With
FRP Laminates, California Polytechnic State University, San
Lius Obispo, CA and Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
for Oregon Department of T ransportation, May.
[7] Nasir-Uz-Zaman, M, Sohel Rana, M, 2009 Experimental And
Analytical Investigation of Flexural Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Beam, Undergraduate Thesis Report, Department of
Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering and
T echnology, Khulna, April.
[8] Willam,K. J. and Warnke, E. P. (1975), Constitutive models
for the triaxial behavior of concrete, Proceedings of the
International Assoc. for Bridge and Structural Engineering , vol
19, pp. 1- 30.
[9] Murdock, L. J., Brook, K. M. and Dewar, J. D., Concrete:
Materials and Practice, 6th Edition, Edward Arnold, London,
1991
[10] American Concrete Institute, Material and General Properties
of Concrete, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, part 1, 1996
[11] T avarez, F.A., (2001), Simulation of Behavior of Composite
Grid Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Explicit Finite Element
Methods, Masters Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Madison, Wisconsin.

1110301-2727 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

IJE NS

74