Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Shear and Moment Behavior of Composite Concrete Beams PDF
Shear and Moment Behavior of Composite Concrete Beams PDF
Shear and Moment Behavior of Composite Concrete Beams PDF
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BAGHDAD IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF
PHILOSOPHY IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING
Signature:
Name: Prof. Dr. Khalid S. Mahmoud
Date: / 12 / 2000.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
i
ABSTRACT
ii
NOTATIONS
iii
G: secant shear modulus.
Gf: fracture energy exerted.
I: moment of inertia of the member.
i and j : specify the location of the integration points.
Id: desired number of iterations.
It-1: number of iterations required at last (t-1)th increment.
J: the Jacobian matrix relating the natural coordinate derivatives to the
local coordinate derivatives.
j: iteration counter.
kd : secant stiffness of dowel action against core.
Kh : local horizontal direction stiffness.
ks and kn : the shear and the normal stiffness coefficients, respectively.
Kv : local vertical direction stiffness.
Lb : the length of the steel bar element.
Mn : ultimate flexural strength.
Mu : factored moment at section.
n = Es/Ec modular ratio.
N: total number of nodal points in the problem.
Ni : the shape functions.
Nuc : the factored tensile force.
s: the spacing of shear reinforcement.
t: subscript denotes the current load step.
u: bond stress.
v: shear carried by concrete plus shear reinforcement.
vc : shear carried by concrete.
Vc and Vs: nominal shear strength provided by concrete and shear reinforcement,
respectively.
Vd : the total vertical shear at the point considered due to the design load.
vdh : design horizontal shear stress.
Vn : horizontal shear strength.
Vn: ultimate shear strength.
Vnh : nominal horizontal shear strength.
vu : average shearing stress.
Vu : factored shear force at section considered.
wi and wj : the corresponding weight factors (wi = wj = 2).
x’ and y’: material (local) coordinates.
Αs: reinforcement for direct tension.
ΔF: load increment.
Δ: dowel displacement.
Εs: steel modulus of elasticity.
αf : angle of reinforcement inclination.
εc: average principal compressive strain in concrete.
εcr: concrete cracking strain.
εcu: ultimate compressive strain in concrete.
εh and εv : relative displacements between points (i) and (j) in the local
horizontal and vertical directions.
εm: strain corresponding to the maximum stress.
εo : uniaxial strain corresponding to the ultimate strength.
εsu: ultimate steel strain.
iv
εsx’ : the average strain in the reinforcement.
ε t: average principal tensile strain in concrete.
ε1f and ε2f: equivalent uniaxial strains.
φ: strength reduction factor (0.85 for shear).
λ: the correction factor related to unit weight of concrete.
μ: coefficient of friction.
ν: Poisson’s ratio.
θ: the angle between global and local coordinate of the element.
θc: angle between global and local coordinates of the concrete element.
θs: angle between the x’-direction of the steel reinforcement and the local
x-axis of the concrete element.
ρ: ratio of reinforcement.
ρv : the ratio of tie reinforcement area to area of contact surface.
ρx and ρy : the reinforcement ratio in x’ and y’ directions, respectively.
σ1 : major principal stress.
σ2 : miner principal stress.
σc: average principal compressive stress in concrete.
σh and σv: relative linkage forces between point (i) and (j) in the local horizontal
and vertical directions.
σ t: average principal tensile stress in concrete.
σx : normal stress component.
σy : normal stress component.
τxy : shearing stress component.
ζσ and ζε: stress and strain softening coefficients of concrete, respectively.
{δ}: displacement vector.
{ε}: strain vector.
{σ}: stress vector.
v
CONTENTS
ACNOWLEDGEMENT..............................................................................................i
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................ii
NOTATIONS.............................................................................................................iii
CONTENTS...............................................................................................................vi
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General..................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 Composite concrete beam...............................................................................1
1.1.2 The shear connector........................................................................................2
1.1.3 Partial composite action..................................................................................3
1.2 Advantages and disadvantages.............................................................................5
1.2.1 Advantages.....................................................................................................5
1.2.2 Disadvantages.................................................................................................6
1.3 Objective and scope..............................................................................................6
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................8
2.2 Composite concrete beam tests............................................................................8
2.3 Shear transfer tests...............................................................................................9
2.3.1 Characteristics of the shear plane................................................................14
2.3.2 Characteristics of the reinforcement............................................................14
2.3.4 Concrete strength.........................................................................................17
2.3.5 Direct stress parallel to the shear plane........................................................17
2.3.6 Direct stress transverse to the shear plane....................................................18
2.3.7 Cyclic shear transfer.....................................................................................19
2.3.8 Slant shear test..............................................................................................20
2.3.9 Strut-and-tie model.......................................................................................21
2.3.10 Dynamic shear transfer...............................................................................21
CHAPTER THREE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN
3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................23
3.2 Design of composite concrete beam...................................................................23
3.2.1 Vertical shear strength..................................................................................24
3.2.2 Horizontal shear strength..............................................................................25
3.2.3 Ties for horizontal shear...............................................................................26
vi
3.2.4 Design of slab...............................................................................................26
3.2.5 Effective flange width..................................................................................26
3.2.6 Deflections...................................................................................................27
3.2.7 Uplifts..........................................................................................................28
3.2.8 Continuity....................................................................................................29
3.2.9 Allowable stresses, moduli of elasticity, and load factors...........................30
3.2.10 Differential shrinkage and creep................................................................30
3.3 Shear friction......................................................................................................31
3.3.1 General considerations.................................................................................31
3.3.2 Shear-friction concept .................................................................................31
3.3.3 Shear-transfer design methods.....................................................................32
3.3.4 Shear-friction design method.......................................................................32
3.3.5 Coefficient of friction...................................................................................33
3.3.6 Maximum shear-transfer strength.................................................................35
3.3.7 Normal forces...............................................................................................35
3.3.8 Additional requirements...............................................................................36
3.4 Analysis of composite section............................................................................36
3.5 Construction methods.........................................................................................37
3.5.1 Intentional roughening..................................................................................37
3.5.2 Shoring and unshoring..................................................................................38
CHAPTER FOUR
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND BEHAVIOR OF MATERIALS
4.1 General...............................................................................................................41
4.2 Concrete in uniaxial state...................................................................................41
4.2.1 Concrete stress-strain behavior in uniaxial compression.............................41
4.2.1.1 General characteristics...........................................................................41
4.2.1.2 Review of analytical relations................................................................43
4.2.2 Concrete stress-strain behavior in uniaxial tension......................................43
4.2.2.1 General...................................................................................................43
4.2.2.2 Review of experimental work and analytical relations..........................44
4.2.3 Present model...............................................................................................46
4.3 Concrete in biaxial state.....................................................................................48
4.3.1 Poisson’s ratio..............................................................................................49
4.4 Stress-strain behavior of reinforcing steel..........................................................50
4.4.1 Review of analytical relations......................................................................52
4.4.2 Estimation of reinforcing steel properties....................................................52
4.4.3 Present model...............................................................................................54
4.5 Tension related phenomena in reinforced concrete............................................54
vii
4.5.1 Tension stiffening.........................................................................................54
4.5.1.1 Definition................................................................................................54
4.5.1.2 Modeling.................................................................................................56
4.5.2 Bond and bond slip........................................................................................57
4.5.2.1 Definition................................................................................................57
4.5.2.2 Bond stress-slip relation.........................................................................58
4.6 Shear transfer across the crack...........................................................................61
4.6.1 Aggregate interlock......................................................................................61
4.6.2 Dowel action.................................................................................................62
4.6.3 Concrete strength parallel to crack...............................................................65
4.7 Friction slip and separation.................................................................................65
CHAPTER FIVE
FINITE ELEMENT IDEALIZATION
5.1 Introduction........................................................................................................68
5.2 Finite element idealization of reinforced concrete members.............................69
5.3 Representation of concrete.................................................................................70
5.3.1 Four-node isoparametric quadrilateral element............................................71
5.3.2 Modeling of cracked concrete......................................................................72
5.4 Modeling of the reinforcement...........................................................................73
5.4.1 Discrete reinforcement.................................................................................73
5.4.2 Embedded reinforcement.............................................................................74
5.4.3 Distributed reinforcement............................................................................75
5.4.4 Modeling of the reinforcement in the present study....................................75
5.5 Linkage element.................................................................................................77
5.6 Interface element................................................................................................79
5.7 Nonlinear analysis..............................................................................................81
5.8 Model description...............................................................................................82
5.8.1 Biaxial strength envelope.............................................................................83
5.8.1.1 Biaxial compression region....................................................................83
5.8.1.2 Compression-tension region...................................................................84
5.8.1.3 Biaxial tension region.............................................................................85
5.8.2 Material stiffness matrix...............................................................................87
5.8.2.1 Poisson’s ratio........................................................................................89
5.8.3 State determination.......................................................................................89
5.9 Solution algorithm...............................................................................................90
5.10 Load increment.................................................................................................92
5.11 Convergence criterion......................................................................................93
viii
5.12 Verification of the program..............................................................................94
5.12.1 Shallow beam OA1.....................................................................................94
5.12.2 Tension specimen UC-15...........................................................................97
5.12.3 Shear transfer specimen CB2M..................................................................98
CHAPTER SIX
ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE BEAMS
6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................102
6.2 Revesz tests.......................................................................................................102
6.3 Saemann and Washa tests.................................................................................104
6.3.1 Finite element idealization..........................................................................107
6.3.2 Discussion of results...................................................................................109
6.4 Parametric study...............................................................................................117
CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Conclusions......................................................................................................124
7.2 Recommendations............................................................................................125
REFERENSES.........................................................................................................126
ix
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General:
Composite construction consists of using two materials together in one
structural unit and using each material to its best advantage. The number
of combinations is almost endless; steel and concrete, timber and
concrete, timber and steel, precast and cast-in-place concrete, etc.
Composite construction is generally economic when a floor or
bridge deck is desired to be in situ, as opposed to precast, and its total
depth is required to be less than for in situ reinforced concrete
construction, or when durability (absence of cracks at working loads) is
required (e.g. bridge decks).
1
cast-in-place slab be
h
precastbeam
precast beam
bw
2
Cast-in-place
Cast-in-place
Precast
Precast
Cast-in-place Cast-in-place
Precast Precast
Cast-in-place Cast-in-place
Precast Precast
Cast-in-place Cast-in-place
Hollow
Precast box
Precast
x No interaction
L Full interaction
ds slip
dx
x x
δmax
L x
No interaction
Partial interaction
Fig. (1.3) Slip and partial interaction for two rectangular beams
(Johnson, 1975).
Fig. (1.4) shows the strain diagram in composite concrete beam with
different types of interaction. It can be seen that for the case of no
interaction, each of the beam and slab act separately (Fig. (1.4a)). While
the composite beam with full interaction behave as a single monolithic
beam (Fig. (1.4c)). The behavior of a partially composite beam is in
between (Fig. (1.4b)).
The evaluation of the strength of the joint between precast concrete
beams and cast-in-place concrete slabs has been the subject of
considerable research. However, the behavior of the joint during the
loading has not been well studied by previous researchers. When the joint
in a composite concrete girder is unable to transmit all internal forces
from one part of the section to the other part in the same manner as if the
entire section were structural concrete cast in one piece, the girder is only
partially composite with stiffness characteristics between those of a fully
composite and a two-piece girder.
Current design methods rely heavily on empirically derived
equations based on experimental results of ultimate strength tests of the
joint.
4
(a) (b) (c)
5
7. Precast beam can be inspected before it is erected and there is an
opportunity to reject any substandard work before incorporation in the
structure.
In addition to that, the principal advantage of composite construction
is that significantly stiffer and stronger beams can be obtained as
compared to the same members without composite action. Also when
using precast construction in seismic zones, the composite slab or topping
is normally required in order to serve as a diaphragm connecting the
varies units.
1.2.2 Disadvantages:
There are, of course, disadvantages, which may be summarized as
follows:
1. The joint between the precast beam and the cast-in-situ deck needs a
special design and a preparation before casting the deck.
2. Some additional reinforcement may be required for lifting and
transporting precast beams. It has to be appreciated that a precast
beam has to be designed not only to function as part of a total
structure but also for the load condition pertaining during lifting and
transport.
3. If the beams are large in size problems can arise concerning
transportation and lifting costs.
6
The present work is devoted to the study of the behavior of
reinforced concrete composite beams during short term loading using
finite element method to analyze them.
7
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction:
In this chapter a review is made in the available previous experimental
works conducted on composite concrete beams in which a cast-in-place
concrete slab is attached to a precast concrete beam by means of shear
connectors. Experimental works done on shear transfer between two
concretes are also reviewed.
8
A pilot test program of limited scope was undertaken by Grossfield
and Birnstiel (1962) to study the effect of three joint treatment methods
and the problems of instrumentation. Six composite beams and two
monolithic beams were tested. Two levels of horizontal shearing stress at
the joint were produced by varying the width of the contact surface
between the web and flange. The average age of the beam specimens at
testing was 5 months. Load was applied to the specimens at two points.
Vertical deflection, strains and slip measurements were made after each
increment of load until beam collapsed.
Saemann and Washa (1964) tested 42 T-beams. The tests, at the
University of Wisconsin, were designed as an attempt to provide
information on several variables:
1. Degree of roughness of contact surface.
2. Length of shear span.
3. Percentage of steel across the joint.
4. Effect of shear keys.
5. Position of the joint with respect to the neutral axis.
6. Concrete compressive strength.
All beams were tested 28 days after the slabs were cast, 35 days after
the webs were cast. Center deflections, strains, and slips along the joint
were measured. Results obtained indicated complex relations between
roughness of surface joint, percent steel across joint, and shear span.
An investigation of the strength of the joint, between a precast
concrete beam and a cast-in-place slab, when the composite beam was
subjected to repeated loading, has been done by Badoux and Hulsbos
(1967). The test program included 29 beams and the principal variables
were the amount of the ratio of the shear span to the effective depth of the
beam. Equations have been presented which yield a conservative
allowable stress for the horizontal shear in composite members under
repeated loads.
9
proposed that the reinforcement needed to transfer shear across the cracks
be designed using the “Shear-Friction” method of design.
Provisions for the shear transfer reinforcement design using the
shear-friction method were subsequently included in the American
Concrete Institute, ACI, Building Code 318M-95. These provisions were
based on the test data obtained in monotonic loading tests of specimens
made from normal weight natural aggregates. Subsequent tests (Mattock
et al., 1976) showed that the shear transfer strength of lightweight
concrete under monotonic load is inferior to that of normal weight
concrete of the same compressive strength. It was, therefore, proposed
(Mattock et al., 1976) that the shear transfer strength of all-lightweight
concrete and of sand-lightweight concrete be taken, respectively, as 0.75
and 0.85 times the shear transfer strength of normal weight concrete of
the same compressive strength and having the same reinforcement.
Shear transfer across a definite plane must frequently be considered
in the design of precast concrete connections (Birkeland and Birkeland
1966, Mast 1968). A continuing study of the factors affecting shear
transfer strength was in progress at the University of Washington. Factors
so far included in the study were as follows:
1. The characteristics of the shear plane.
2. The characteristics of the reinforcement.
3. The concrete strength.
4. Direct stresses acting parallel and transverse to the shear plane.
5. Cyclic shear transfer.
The influence of the first three factors has been studied in tests
(Hofbeck et al., 1969) of monolithically cast “push-off” specimens as
seen in Fig. (2.1a). Tests (Chatterjee 1971, Vangsirirungruang 1971) to
study the influence of direct stresses acting parallel and transverse to the
shear plane were made on the “pull-off” and modified puss-off specimens
shown in Figs. (2.1b) and (2.1c), respectively.
Mattock et al. (1975) studied the effect of moment and normal force
in the shear plane on single direction shear-transfer strength. Tests were
reported of corbel type push-off specimens and of push-off specimens
with tension acting across the shear plane (Fig. (2.2)). To study the
influence of cyclic shear transfer, tests (Mattock, 1981) were made on a
crack in monolithic concrete or an interface between concretes cast at
different times. A typical specimen and the arrangements for test are
shown in Figs. (2.3) and (2.4), respectively.
10
P P Shear transfer P
reinforcement
Shear plane
P P P
Fig. (2.1) Shear transfer test specimens: (a) push-off; (b) pull-off;
(c) modified push-off (Mattock et al., 1975).
Shear plane
V V
Shear plane
Bolts
V
(a) (b)
Fig. (2.2) Push-off specimens with moment or tension across shear plane
(a) corbel type, (b) tension type (Mattock et al., 1975).
11
190.5 mm 190.5 mm
Shear plane
381 mm 254x127 mm
Shear transfer
reinforcement
190.5 mm
Faces “A”
Section
In all cases, the shear transfer reinforcement crosses the shear plane
at right angles and is securely anchored so that it can develop its yield
strength in tension. Additional reinforcement was provided away from the
shear plane, to prevent failures other than along the shear plane. For
convenience, the ultimate shear strengths were expressed as average
shearing stresses (vu), obtained by dividing the ultimate shear force (Vu)
by the area of the shear plane.
12
Fig. (2.4) Arrangement for test (Mattock, 1981).
13
2.3.1 Characteristics of the shear plane:
Mast (1968) pointed out the need to consider the case where a crack may
exist along the shear plane before shear is applied. Such cracks occur for
a variety of reasons unrelated to shear, such as tension forces caused by
restrained shrinkage or temperature deformations or accidental dropping
of a member.
A crack in the shear plane reduces the ultimate shear strength of
under-reinforced specimens (Fig. (2.5)). The decrease is greater in the
push-off specimens than in the pull-off specimens. The shear strength of
the initially cracked specimens is not directly proportional to the amount
of reinforcement.
14
ρfy (MPa)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 1 2 3 4 5
10
1400 PUSH-OFF TESTS PULL-OFF TESTS
9
1200 Uncracked 8
Uncracked
1000 7
vu 6
800 vu
(psi) Initially cracked 5 (MPa)
600
in shear plane
4
3
400
Initially cracked 2
200
fc’ = 4000 psi (345 MPa)
fy = 50 ksi (345 MPa) in shear plane 1
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800
ρfy (psi)
ρfy (MPa)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10
1400 PUSH-OFF TESTS
9
1200
Bar size varies, 8
spacing constant 7
1000
vu 6
vu
800
(psi) (MPa)
5
600 4
Bar size constant,
spacing varies 3
400
Fig. (2.6) Effect of stirrup bar size and spacing on the shear transfer
strength of initially cracked push-off specimens (Mattock and
Hawkins, 1972).
15
ρfy (MPa)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10
1400 PUSH-OFF TESTS
9
1200
fc’ =4000 psi (27.5 MPa) 8
1000 7
vu 6
vu
(psi) 800
5 (MPa)
600
fc’ = 2500 psi (17.2 MPa) 4
3
400
2
fy = 50 ksi (345 MPa)
200
Specimens initially cracked 1
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
ρfy (psi)
10
1400 UNCRACKED INITIALLY CRACKED
9
Push-off tests
1200
8
Push-off tests
1000 7
vu 6
(psi) 800 vu
5
(MPa)
600 4
Pull-off tests 3
400
Pull-off tests
2
200
1
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 1000
ρfy (psi)
16
2.3.4 Concrete strength:
The effect of variation in concrete strength on the shear strength of
initially cracked push-off specimens is illustrated in Fig. (2.8). For values
of ρfy below about 4.14 MPa (600 psi) the concrete strength does not
appear to affect the shear transfer strength. For higher values of ρfy the
shear strength is lower for the lower strength concrete. The concrete
strength therefore appears to set an upper limit value of ρfy, below which
the relationship between vu and ρfy established for 28.1 MPa (4000 psi)
concrete would hold for any strength of concrete equal to or greater than
the strength being considered, and above which the shear strength
increases at a lesser rate for concrete strength being considered.
17
ρfy (MPa)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
16
Initially cracked,
Concrete failure Modified push-off tests
2000 14
envelope
12
vu 1500
10 vu
(psi)
Uncracked, (MPa)
Modified push-off tests 8
1000
6
Uncracked,
Push-off tests
4
500
Initially cracked, fc’ =4000 psi (27.5 MPa) 2
Push-off tests fy = 50 ksi (345 MPa)
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
ρfy (psi)
Fig. (2.9) Effect on shear transfer strength of direct stress acting transverse
to the shear plane (Mattock and Hawkins, 1972).
For specimens cracked along the shear plane before being loaded in
shear, the shear strengths of the push-off and the pull-off specimens were
essentially the same for any given value of ρfy. This is important
practically, since it indicates that direct stresses parallel to the shear plane
may be ignored in design for shear transfer, if the design is based on the
relationship between vu and ρfy obtained in tests of initially cracked
specimens.
18
quantity and arrangement of reinforcement has been studied by Mattock
et al. (1975). Corbel type push-off specimens and push-off specimens
with tension acting across the shear plane have been used. It was found
that:
1. Moments in the shear plane less than or equal to the flexural ultimate
moment of the shear plane do not reduce the shear transfer strength.
2. Tension across the shear plane results in a reduction in shear transfer
strength equal to that, which would result from a reduction in the
reinforcement parameter (ρfy) by an amount equal to the tension
stress.
19
2.3.8 Slant shear test:
The most important aspect of the joining of two concretes is the strength
of the bond that can be achieved. This bond is crucial, as it determines
what forces can be transferred across the junction between the two
concretes. These forces arise mainly from strains in the additional
longitudinal reinforcement due to external loading; however, they may
also be caused by shrinkage and temperature differentials. The strength of
a junction between concretes cast at different times can be investigated by
a slant shear test. Impact tools are frequently used to roughen concrete in
practice (Cheong and MacAlerey, 2000).
Climaco (1990) has shown that the degree of roughening is relatively
unimportant as long as a reasonably rough surface is obtained, and
excessive damage to the concrete (i.e., cracking of the matrix or
dislodging of aggregate particles) is avoided.
Cheong and MacAlerey (2000) presented a description on an
experimental investigation into the behavior of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened by jacketing. Static and dynamic loads tests to failure were
carried out on 61 slant shear prisms and 13 jacketed reinforced concrete
T-beams. The concrete used in jacket was preplaced aggregate concrete.
The strength of the bond between preplaced aggregate concrete and plain
concrete was assessed by slant shear tests and a Mohr-Coulomb-type
failure envelope was derived. An example of the test results plotted for
fcu = 45 N/mm2 concrete is shown in Fig. (2.10).
Shear stress
τ 14
2
(N/mm )
12 φ angle of
friction
10
Cohesion
2
c
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Normal stress (N/mm2)
21
Fig. (2.11) Specimen geometry (Fronteddu et al., 1998).
22
CHAPTER THREE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
AND DESIGN
3.1 Introduction:
It is always a big boost for any new construction method when a major
specification writing body incorporates the new construction method into
its latest code revision. For composite construction, this breakthrough
came in 1944. The American Association of State Highway Officials
included composite construction into its specifications.
Today several specifications and codes are dealing with and have
recommendations for the design and construction of composite concrete
beams. These recommendations apply to composite concrete beams
subjected primarily to static loads.
This chapter presents methods of construction and rules for design of
composite concrete beams. These rules are based generally on the ACI
Code “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI
318M-95)”.
24
3.2.2 Horizontal shear strength:
In a composite member, full transfer of horizontal shear force should be
assured at contact surfaces of interconnected elements.
Unless calculated in accordance with 17.5.3, design of cross sections
subjected to horizontal shear shall be based on:
Vu ≤ φVnh .......(3.2)
26
3- One-quarter of the span length.
4- Isolated beam shall have a flange thickness not less than ½ width
of web and an effective flange width not more than four times the
width of web.
3.2.6 Deflections:
The composite beam is stiffer, and consequently it deflects less than the
noncomposite beam of the same size. Deflections are computed by elastic
analysis using formulas found in specifications.
Live load deflection is always carried by the composite section.
Dead loads are not so simple. Dead load deflections largely depend on the
construction method. If the beam is shored, the dead load is carried by the
false work. If the beam is not shored, the dead load is carried by the bare
beam and dead load deflections should be checked.
In concrete-concrete composite member, long-term loading must be
considered. If shoring is used, the composite member may be considered
as equivalent to a monolithic cast-in-place member for deflection
purposes (Cook, 1977). The effects of shrinkage and creep can be
accounted for by using an amplification factor to compute the additional
deflection due to long-term effects. If shoring is not used ACI Code states
that if the member meets minimum thickness requirements, deflections
occurring after the beam become composite need not be calculated.
However, the precast beam must be investigated for long-term effects
prior to the beginning of effective composite action.
Prior to the adoption of the strength method of design by ACI Code,
concrete sections were larger and stiffer and consequently had smaller
deflections. With the use of the strength method, plus higher strength
steels and concrete, members have become more slender, so that
deflection and crack control have become serous considerations.
The familiar formulas for deflection are used with concrete.
However, those formulas include E, the modulus of elasticity, and I, the
27
moment of inertia of the member. When designing and building with
most other materials, the values of E and I are constant. However, in
concrete structures, both of these factors become variables.
3.2.7 Uplifts:
Virtually every specification writing body recognizes the tendency of the
slab virtually to separate from the beam under some types of loading.
During investigations of bonded-aggregate composite beams, Cook
(1977) found those concentrated loads at mid-span often caused a visible
loss of bond at the beam-ends at relatively low load levels.
Although most codes recommend the use of a connector designed to
prevent uplift, none specifies any computation or recommended limits for
the uplift connectors.
The ACI Code permits a closed-loop stirrup (Fig. (3.2a)), which
furnishes good uplift resistance. Other configurations of the stirrups can
also be used such as extended stirrups (Fig. (3.2b,c&d)) to provide
adequate embedded length, truss type (Fig. (3.2g)), welded wire fabric
(Fig. (3.2e)), inverted stirrup (Fig. (3.2f)), and single bar (Fig. (3.2h)).
The shear connection in the concrete-concrete composite beam
comes from two sources:
1- Intentional roughening of the top surface of the precast unit.
2- Ties or extended stirrups across the beam-slab interface.
28
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Fig. (3.2) Stirrup configurations (a) closed-loop stirrup, (b) out extended
stirrup, (c) in extended stirrup, (d) right extended stirrup,
(e) welded wire fabric, (f) inverted stirrup, (g) truss type, and
(h) single bar.
3.2.8 Continuity:
Determination of moments, shears, and thrusts- Moments, shears, and
thrusts produced by external loads should be determined by elastic
analysis. For the purposes of such analysis, the moment of inertia of the
gross composite section may be used throughout the length of the beam.
29
2. When the slab is continuous at the supports of beams, reinforcement
should be provided sufficient to prevent excessive cracking of the
slab.
30
two concretes with regard to shrinkage and creep is significant.
Differential shrinkage and creep cause a reduction in the cracking
moment under load but have a negligible effect on the ultimate strength
of a composite member (Sabnis, 1979).
31
3.3.3 Shear-transfer design methods:
The shear-friction design method presented in Section 11.7.4 is based on
the simplest model of shear-transfer behavior, resulting in a conservative
prediction of shear-transfer strength. Other more comprehensive shear-
transfer relationships provide closer predictions of shear-transfer strength.
The performance statement of 11.7.3 “…any other shear-transfer design
method…” includes the other methods within the scope and intent of
11.7.
Vu ≤ φA vf f y μ .......(3.5)
32
[
Vu ≤ φ A vf f y sin α f μ + A vf f y cos α f ] .......(3.7)
33
Shear plane slip
(assumed crack) Vu
Shear friction Vu
reinforcement
Vu
Avf fy μ
Avf fy
Avf fy
Vn = Avf fy μ
Vu
αf
Αvf fy sinαf μ
αf Avf fy
Avf fy sinαf
Avf fy
Avf fy cosαf
34
ρfy (psi)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
1600
Test Results
10
1400
Modified 1200
8
Shear-Friction
Method 1000
Vn/Ac (MPa)
Vn/Ac (psi)
Vn/Ac Limit 800
4 600
1.4 1.0 0.8 μ=0.6
400
2
Shear-Friction 200
Design Method
0 0
0 2 4 6 8
ρfy (MPa)
35
is recommended, although not generally required, that the member be
designed for a minimum direct tensile force at least 0.2Vu in addition to
the shear. This minimum force is required for design of connections such
as brackets or corbels (see 11.9.3.4), unless the actual force is accurately
known. Reinforcement must be provided for direct tension according to
11.7.7, using As = Nuc/φfy where Nuc is the factored tensile force.
Since direct tension perpendicular to the assumed crack (shear
plane) detracts from the shear-transfer strength, it follows that
compression will add to the strength. Section 11.7.7 acknowledges this
condition by allowing a “permanent net compression” to be added to the
shear-friction clamping force (Avffy). It is recommended, although not
required, to use a reduction factor of 0.9 for strength contribution from
such compressive loads.
37
using a solution of one part muriatic acid to four parts water. When the
scrubbing has progressed enough to provide the required roughening, the
surface should be flushed with water, to which a small amount of
ammonia has been added, to remove all traces of the acid.
Raking the plastic concrete or chiseling hardened concrete surfaces
also can be used.
Intentional roughness may be assumed only when the interface is
roughened with full amplitude of approximately 5 mm. Methods of
obtaining this intentional roughness are spelled out.
Practically, a complete design for the beam stem will include
vertical ties or stirrups for web reinforcement. All that remains is to detail
the ties so that they extend for enough up into the slab to be effective in
transmitting the horizontal shear. The shear connector check then reduces
to a simple check of whether the intentional roughening is required to
supplement the shear reinforcement.
The vertical ties can have any of several configurations, but the
closed loop is usually considered the most effective because it provides
very good uplift resistance. This assumes that there is enough room to
provide the full-embedded length of the bar.
39
Table (3.1) Comparison between the available specifications and codes.
4.1 General:
Reinforced concrete is a composite material made up of concrete and
steel. The stress-strain relationship for steel is very well defined.
Concrete, however, is heterogeneous and has completely different
properties in tension and in compression.
To model a reinforced concrete specimen, it is not only necessary to
model the concrete and the steel correctly but their interaction as well.
This involves the tension stiffening effect in concrete due to bond slip
between the concrete and steel and the effect of dowel action and shear
due to the reinforcement.
41
σ
ft
εcu εm
εcr ε
fc’
1- Compressive strength:
It is the average maximum stress obtained from conventional testing
of concrete specimens, usually denoted by (fc’) for standard (150x300
mm) cylinder strength.
2- Initial elastic modulus (Eci):
It is the initial slope of the stress-strain curve or may be considered,
due to experimental difficulties, as the secant modulus (Ecn) measured
at a stress of 0.4fc’. The ACI Code suggested an empirical formula for
normal weight concrete to estimate this parameter:
E cn = 4700 f c′ .......(4.1)
3- The strain corresponding to the maximum stress (εm):
This parameter may not vary much with compressive strength but it is
much affected by testing procedures and strain rates. The results of
most conventional tests have provided its values in the range of
(0.0015-0.0022).
4- Ultimate unconfined strain (εcu):
It is very much affected by the type of testing machine. Investigators
have shown it to be in the range of (0.0022-0.0042) for different
strength. However, it is considered in practice to be 0.003 (ACI Code).
42
4.2.1.2 Review of analytical relations:
Since 1899, many mathematical functions have been proposed to
represent the ascending part of the stress-strain relation in compression
(e.g. parabola, hyperbola, ellipse, cubic parabola, sine wave, etc.)
(Hognestad, 1957). The importance of introducing the descending part
was recognized in early fifties.
Since then, many equations were proposed to represent the complete
stress-strain relation. These are found in several forms (parabolic-linear
relation (Hognestad, 1951), exponential relations (Smith and Young
1956, Sturman et al. 1965), fractional relation (Desayi and Krishnan,
1964), and polynomial function (Kabaila, 1964)). Other investigators
proposed similar equations with certain changes, modifications, and
refinements (Saenz 1964, Tulin and Gerstle 1964, Basu 1967, Kayal
1984, Medland and Taylor 1971, Al-Sabah and Al-Ne’aimi 1988, Smith
and Orangun 1969, Gangadharam Reddy 1980, Wang et al. 1978,
Carreira and Chu 1985, Tsai 1988). In spite of the large amount of
equations provided, several investigators used some idealized relations
due to their simplicity in nonlinear analysis programs (elastic-perfectly
plastic relations (Lin and Scordelis 1975, Seniwongse 1979), and
piecewise linear relations (Aldstedt and Bergan 1978, Zeris and Mahin
1988, Holzer et al. 1979)). A complete review of these equations is
presented by Rasheed (1990).
43
formation of cracks, the compatibility of deformations between the steel
and concrete is not maintained. The accumulation of the strain differences
produces relative displacements (slip) between the steel and concrete. The
width of a crack at the steel is provided by the sum of the two slips
reaching the crack from either side. This emphasizes that the cracking
phenomenon is governed by the slip.
Cracking is the most distinctive feature of the nonlinear behavior of
reinforced concrete structures. It affects both local behavior such as bond
slip and tension stiffening and global behavior such as stiffness
distribution along the member. This process is governed by concrete
tensile properties and it needs to be clearly understood and properly
formulated together with its relevant phenomena.
44
Tension softening may be defined here as the slop of the descending
branch of the stress-strain relation, which is continuously degrading as
strain increased. Analytically, attention has been given to propose
idealized tension-softening model in which concrete may exhibit gradual
decrease of stress with progressive cracking and crack widening. Such
models were rather simplified due to the lack of sufficient experimental
data. Hillerborg et al. (1976) were the first to introduce analytically the
tension-softening behavior through their fictitious crack model on the
basis of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Several parameters were
used to represent tension softening behavior namely, the tensile strength
(ft’), the initial modulus (Eci), the open crack strain (eo), the fracture
energy exerted (Gf), and other parameters defining the shape of the
softening branch.
All of the proposed σ-w (or displacement δ) relations, except for the
linear one, show qualitatively the same behavior. The first part of these
relations is very steep, whereas the second part is more flat. In addition,
most practical applications are not very sensitive to the exact shape of the
σ-w relation (Karayannis, 2000).
The simplest forms of such idealized models were of linear
descending branch (Bazant and Oh, 1983), Fig. (4.2a), of bilinear and
trilinear descending branches, Fig. (4.2b) and (4.2c). More complex
models having nonlinear descending branches are also available as
exponential functions (Gopalaratnam and Shah 1985, Reinhardt et al.
1986) and a power function (Reinhardt et al., 1986), Fig. (4.2d).
The cracking strain (εcr) cannot be easily measured during
conventional tensile tests. It is highly sensitive to many conditions (rate
of straining, effect of age, testing method, aggregate characteristics,
shrinkage, etc.). Medland and Taylor (1971) adopted a value of
(εcr= 0.0001). A good survey of the available literature measuring (εcr) by
different methods was done by Al-Rawi (1986).
45
f C1 fC1
f Cr f Cr
EC EC
ε Cr ε m ε1 ε Cr ε m ε1
(a) (b)
f C1 fC1
f Cr f Cr
EC EC
ε Cr ε m ε1 ε Cr εm ε 1
(c) (d)
46
where
2f c' f cr
Ec = ε cr = f cr = 0.33 f c'
εo Ec
and
σt and εt are average principal tension stress and strain in concrete,
respectively; Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete ( initial tangent
stiffness); fcr and εcr are concrete cracking stress and strain, respectively.
After cracking, concrete in tension is made to reflect tension
softening and tension stiffening effects together through the following
relation:
f cr
σt = .......(4.4)
1 + 200ε t
ε
Cupfer 1969
Vecchio and Collins 1986
fcr
Ec
εcr ε
47
4.3 Concrete in biaxial state:
Concrete is an anisotropic material, and its properties are significantly
influenced by the presence of confinement. Fig. (4.4) shows the results of
a typical concrete specimen subjected to biaxial compression. It is
observed that both an increase in strength and ductility results due to the
confinement of the orthogonal stress. For the case of tension-compression
(Fig. (4.5)), a substantial reduction in tensile strength results in the
presence of the compressive stresses. Under biaxial tension, the tensile
strength is independent of the stress ratio (Fig. (4.6)).
σ1
1.4
f c'
1.2
1.0
0.8
+σ1 0.6
σ1/σ2
-1/0
+σ2 0.4
-1/-1
0.2 -1/-0.52
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Strain mm/m
Fig. (4.4) Stress-strain relationships of concrete under biaxial
compression (Kupfer et al., 1969).
σ1
1.2 f c'
1.0
0.8
0.6 +σ1
σ1/σ2
-1/0 0.4
+σ2
-1/0.204
-1/0.052 0.2
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2
Strain mm/m
Fig. (4.5) Stress-strain relationships of concrete under combined
tension and compression (Kupfer et al., 1969).
48
0.10 σ1
f c'
0.08
0.06
+σ1
σ1/σ2 0.04
+σ2
1/0
1/1 0.02
1/0.55
49
constant value of Poisson’s ratio is usually assigned, ranging from 0.15
to 0.2.
0.2 σ2/fc’
σ1/fc’
0.0
-1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
50
σ2
σ1
Strain
52
σs σs
Es’
fy fy
Es Es
εy εsu εs εy εsu εs
(a) (b)
σs σs
fy Es’ fy Es’
Es Es
εs εsu εs εy εsu εs
(c) (d)
σs σs
fy fy Es’
Es Es
εy εsu εs εsu εs
(e) (f)
53
Elastic modulus (Es):
This parameter is the most important property of reinforcing steel since
steel is elastic in the working load range of reinforced concrete structures.
It has a value ranging between 186,000 – 207,000 MPa but it is usually
considered as 200,000 MPa for practical purposes.
54
it. In 1908, Mörsch explained that cracked concrete has the ability to
decrease strain in reinforcement due to tensile stresses in the concrete
between the cracks. This phenomenon was later called “tension
stiffening“ (Abrishami and Mitchell, 1996).
It was recognized in cracked reinforced concrete members that the
tensile force carried across cracks by reinforcement is gradually
transferred to concrete by bond on each side of these cracks. The
contribution of concrete between the cracks to the overall member
stiffness is called tension stiffening which is quite significant in
reinforced concrete beams under service loads due to the significant size
of tension zone.
Bond behavior is a key aspect of tension stiffening to transfer tensile
stresses to the concrete. The distributions of steel stress (fs), concrete
stress (fc), and bond stress (u) in a tension specimen are shown in Fig.
(4.11).
Crack
N N
(a) Cross-section
fs
f
(b)
fc
(c)
u′
(d)
55
4.5.1.2 Modeling:
The first studies done on numerical analysis of reinforced concrete
structures assumed concrete to be an elastic-brittle material in tension,
Fig. (4.12a). When cracking occurred, the stress normal to the crack
direction was immediately released and dropped to zero. It was soon
discovered that this procedure leads to great convergence difficulties and
more importantly, to results that strongly depend on the size of the finite
elements used in the analysis.
Tension stiffening depends on many factors such as the bond
characteristics and the tensile strength of concrete, the crack spacing, the
reinforcement bar sizes and arrangements, and the angle between bars
and cracks (Gilbert and Warner, 1978). It can be incorporated into the
computational model in two indirect ways:
a) Assuming that the loss of tensile strength in concrete occurs gradually
after cracking.
b) Modifying the steel-strain curve.
To account for the tension carried by the concrete, Scanlon (1971)
used a stepped response for concrete in tension (Fig. (4.12b)). Lin (1973)
modified Scanlon’s approach and used a gradual unloading model for
concrete in tension (Fig. (4.12c)).
Scanlon’s and Lin’s approaches are generally termed the concrete
referred method because the tension is taken care by lumping the tension
stiffening into the concrete. This approach has the disadvantage that
neither the concrete stress nor the steel stress is exact. Furthermore, it
does not take into account the direction and the location of the
reinforcement in the member relative to the cracks (Chan, 1983).
Another approach used by Gilbert and Warner (1978) is generally
termed the steel referred method (Fig. (4.12d)). The additional tension
carried by the concrete is lumped at the steel level resulting in an added
stiffness of the steel. The stress in the concrete is exact at the crack.
However, the steel stress is magnified to include the tension in the
concrete. Unlike the concrete referred method, this model takes into
account the direction of the steel reinforcement and the location of the
steel reinforcement in the member (Chan, 1983).
Bortolotti (1991) stated that the first cracking load is increased
considerably when reinforcement is embedded on concrete specimens
subjected to direct tension. Based on analytical approach, he suggested a
critical reinforcement ratio where beyond it the reinforced concrete
56
specimens show ductile behavior. However, this statement needs
experimental validation.
Herein, the tension stiffening effect is taken into account as
indicated in Fig. (4.3).
fC1 fC1
f Cr f Cr
EC EC
ε Cr ε1 ε Cr ε m ε1
(a) (b)
f C1
σs
f Cr
EC Es
ε Cr εm ε 1 εs
(c) (d)
57
1- Chemical adhesion.
2- Friction.
3- Mechanical interaction between concrete and steel.
Bond of plain bars depends mainly on the first two factors.
Deformed bars, however, depend on the first two factors for bond only at
early loading stages beyond which the mechanical interaction becomes
predominant.
As a result of the transfer of stress by the mechanical interaction
relative movement or bond slip takes place. Such slip in deformed bars
could be a result of the following factors (Lutz and Gergely, 1967):
1- The ribs can push the concrete away from the bar.
2- The ribs can crush the concrete.
However, Mirza and Houde (1979) in their study of bond slip
relationship point out that no concrete crushing has taken place after
closely examining bond slip specimens used in their study. They
conclude that internal cracking of the first layer of the concrete
surrounding the bars and bending and / or cracking of the small concrete
teeth near the bar lugs are the real cause of bond slip.
What is important here, however, is the fact that the bond slip
mechanism has a great influence on the finite element solution due to its
major influence on the tensile cracks width and spacing, and on the
distribution of concrete stresses in partially cracked members.
Bond stresses are generally caused to develop in reinforced concrete
members due to either general behavior represented by flexural variation
(the presence of shear forces), or local behavior between adjacent cracks.
58
vary significantly from these derived by direct tension studies, due to the
difference in the testing procedure resulting in highly localized slips for
the pullout tests and low averaged slips along the bars for the direct tests,
which seems more realistic to be applied to reinforced concrete members
having well developed bars.
The bond stress-slip curves may be divided into two parts, a linear
part in which the bond is developed through chemical adhesion and
friction between concrete and steel, the maximum bond stress developed
by this mechanism being in the range (1 – 2 MPa), and a nonlinear part
which the bond is developed mainly through mechanical interlock
between steel bar ribs and surrounding concrete (Abdel-Halim and
Alostaz, 1998).
Two types of bond failure was seen (Hertz, 1982):
(i) For large concrete section or confined concrete, crushing of concrete
in front of steel ribs will yield pullout failure. Thus, concrete
compressive strength is the major factor governing such type of
failure.
(ii) For thin section (i.e., with small concrete cover), concrete between
transverse cracks will be exerted to compressive stresses causing
tensile strains in the radial direction, subsequently, splitting crack will
develop in the bar direction depending on tensile capacity of concrete.
Hence, confinement of concrete may inhibit this type of failure and
bar pullout will occur (Soroushian et al., 1991).
Essa (1990) conducted three types of tests (concentric pullout test,
tension specimen test, and tension (splice) pullout test) to evaluate the
bond strength in certain types of specimens and to compare their bond
performance between those cast in hot weather conditions and those cast
in temperate weather condition. He concluded that hot ambient decrease
the bond strength of medium water-cement ratio mixes and increases
moderately the bond strength of high water-cement ratio mixes.
Studying the effect of concrete compressive strength on bond
strength, Azizinamini et al. (1993) test four pairs of beam specimens. For
each pair of test specimens, all variables were kept constant except
concrete compressive strength. The results indicate that normalized bond
strength (u / f c' ) decreases as concrete compressive strength increases.
In general, the bond behavior, of the main reinforcements in
reinforced concrete beams, improves with the increase in the embedded
length and the bottom cover. However, the test results (Abdel-Halim and
59
Alostaz, 1998) indicate that there are certain embedded length and bottom
concrete cover beyond which there is no significant improvement of bond
behavior.
For a deformed reinforced bar, deformation pattern has virtually no
effect on bond strength when a splitting failure of the concrete governs
(Darwin et al. 1992, Darwin and Graham 1993). It behaves as a wedge
due to the nature of the loading it imposes on the concrete, causing the
concrete to split. The wedging action is not sensitive to the details of the
deformation pattern. Under condition of increased confinement (as in a
standard pullout test or with the addition of transverse reinforcement or
higher concrete cover and bar spacing), the greater the rib bearing area,
the higher the bond strength. Thus, with additional confinement provided
by either transverse reinforcement or additional concrete, bond strength
increases significantly with increases in the relative rib area (Darwin and
Graham, 1993).
If a bar embedded in a large concrete piece, due to concrete
shrinkage, restrained by the steel, some self-stresses appear around the
bar. In the plane perpendicular to the bar axis, the radial stress is a
compressive stress, while the orthoradial one is a tensile stress. As the
steel bar diameter increase, the test results show that the compressive
confining stresses decrease while the tensile stresses increase. Thus, bond
between steel and concrete decreases with the increase in the bar diameter
(De Larrard et al., 1993).
Based on the experimental results presented by Darwin and Graham
(1993), a bilinear relationship between bond stress and bond slip is
adopted, Fig. (4.13). The mathematical model for the secant stiffness of
bond-slip is:
k s = 25 Δ s Δ s ≤ 0.2mm
5
ks = Δ s ≥ 0.2mm .......(4.5)
Δs
60
6
5
Bond stress (MPa)
4
3 ks
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Bond slip (mm)
61
been represented by a saw-tooth shape (Jimenez et al., 1978) and by a
series of parabolic segments (Fardis, 1979).
A more recent model (Walraven, 1981) suggests that concrete is a
two-phase material of aggregate and cement matrix, which can be
modeled as a distribution of rigid spheres of a range of sizes embedded to
various depths within a deformable rigid-plastic matrix. Shear forces and
direct compression forces are obtained from equilibrium when a given
shear displacement and crack widening occurs. Hence, for a known direct
stiffness restraining crack widening, the crack displacement path and the
shear stiffness can be obtained. The complex probabilistic expression
derived to predict the chances of finding a particular sized aggregate
particle at a particular embedded depth is replaced by a simpler bilinear
expression.
In this model, shear forces are resisted by a combination of crushing
and sliding of the rigid spheres into and over the softer cement matrix;
contact and interaction between spheres projection from opposite crack
faces is not considered.
Millard and Johnson (1984) devised new type tests to study
interlocking of the aggregate particles protruding from each face of a
crack. They concluded that the aggregate mechanism results from a
combination of crushing and overriding of the crack faces and can be
predicted if the normal stiffness that restrains crack widening is known.
62
would predominate. However, it has been recognized (Mills, 1975) that
significant deformation of the concrete does occur, so that flexure of the
dowel bar within the concrete is the principal action. This has been
modeled (Millard, 1983) by considering the dowel bar as a beam on
elastic foundation.
Test of a new type has been devised (Millard and Johnson, 1984) to
study the dowel action mechanism and the results were compared with
several theoretical models. The initial shear stiffness and ultimate
strength due to dowel action were successfully predicted from theoretical
models and an exponential curve was used to describe the intermediate
behavior.
In reviewing studies on dowel behavior, distinction should be made
between the behavior of dowel bars in action against concrete core and
against concrete cover. In the beam shown in Fig. (4.14), the left dowel
bars are pushing against core and the right ones against cover. In action
against core (Soroushian et al., 1986), the dowel bar behaves like a beam
on elastic foundation. The ultimate dowel load is reached when concrete
underneath the bar split under bearing stresses. In the case of dowel bars
acting against concrete cover (Soroushian et al., 1987), the bar initially
behaves like a beam on elastic foundation, but the behavior changes when
cover splits from the core. After cover spalling, the bar acts like a beam
supported on the closest stirrup to the crack. Depending on the size and
yield strength of the dowel bar, tensile strength of concrete, and location
and yield strength of the closest stirrup, the ultimate load may be reached
by one or a combination of the following action: split cracking of cover,
flexural yielding of dowel bar, or tensile yielding of stirrup.
(a) (b)
Fig. (4.14) Dowel action (a) against concrete core, (b) against
concrete cover.
63
Cyclic test results (Soroushian et al., 1988) indicate that the stiffness
and energy dissipation capacity of dowel bars deteriorate severely with
repetition of inelastic load cycles. Degradation of strength was, however,
observed to be negligible especially in larger dowel bars. It was also
observed that the interface crack width grows progressively under
inelastic load cycles.
Tests (Poli et al., 1993) on block-type specimens, reinforced with a
single, long dowel close to concrete surface and acting against either
concrete core or cover resulted in force-displacement curves,
displacement and curvature diagrams along the axis of the bar and initial
stiffness verses bar diameter.
The experimental data presented by Poli et al. (1993) will be utilized
to proposed the following simplified mathematicl model for the secant
stiffness of dowel action against core (kd):
20 + 5(d b −14)
kd = Δ Δ ≤ 1.5 mm
1.5
20 + 5(d b − 14)
kd = Δ ≥ 1.5 mm .......(4.6)
Δ
100
Experimental
Proposed
80
Shear force ( kN )
db=24 mm
60
40 db=18 mm
20 db=14 mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Dowel displacement ( mm )
64
4.6.3 Concrete strength parallel to crack:
After cracking has taken place, the concrete parallel to crack direction is
still capable of resisting either tensile or compressive stresses. When it is
subject to tension, a pure linear elastic behavior is assumed (Hu and
Schnobrich, 1990) and a second crack normal to the first one may be
found. In other hand, when it is subjected to compression, experimental
results show that the tensile cracks have caused a degrading effect on the
compressive strength. Consequently, the concrete will be weaker and a
modification is needed on the compressive strength parallel to the crack.
Several formulas have been proposed to determine the degraded
compressive strength (Cervenka 1985, Vecchio and Collins 1986,
Vecchio 1989, Kollegger and Mehlhorn 1990). Generally, tests at the
university of Toronto (Vecchio and Collins, 1986) lead to relate the
reduction in (fc’) of cracked concrete to the transverse tensile strain. Other
tests at the University of Kassel (Kollegger and Mehlhorn, 1990) yield a
conclusion that this reduction is function of the transverse tensile stress
and do not exceed 20%.
65
The Tassion and Vintzèleou (1987) model is an example of an empirical
model. It covered two types of interfaces, the rough interface and the
smooth interface, for normal stresses ranging up to 2 MPa. Fronteddu et
al. (1998) utilized their experimental results from displacement controlled
shear tests on concrete lift joint specimens with different surface
preparations, to propose an empirical interface constitutive model based
on the concept of basic friction coefficient (μb) and roughness friction
coefficient (μi):
λ dμ b + χiμi
μ= .......(4.7)
1 − λ d χiμ bμi
66
Based on the experimental results presented by Fronteddu et al.
(1998), a bilinear relationship between shearing stress and slip is adopted,
Fig. (4.13).
0.02
Slip (mm)
67
CHAPTER FIVE
FINITE ELEMENT IDEALIZATION
5.1 Introduction:
During recent years, interest in nonlinear analysis of concrete structures
has increased steadily, because of the wide use of plain, reinforced, and
prestressed concrete as a structural material, and because of the
development of relatively powerful finite element procedures (Bathe,
1996). If a realistic nonlinear analysis of a concrete structure can be
carried out, the safety of the structure is increased and the cost can
frequently be reduced.
There are number of factors that have prevented the wider
acceptability of nonlinear finite element analysis procedures in the
analysis of concrete structures. A first important consideration is that the
constitutive properties of concrete have not as yet been identified
completely, and there is still no generally accepted material law available
to model concrete behavior. A second important factor is that nonlinear
finite element analysis of concrete structures can be very costly and may
require considerable user expertise. The high cost of nonlinear analysis of
concrete structures is largely due to the difficulties encountered in the
stability and accuracy of the solutions. These difficulties, however, are a
direct consequence of the specific numerical implementation of the
concrete nonlinearities.
A completely rational analysis of reinforced concrete structures for
internal stresses and displacements is made difficult by several factors.
These include (a) the nonhomogeneus nature of the construction, (b) the
nonlinear response of the material to load, (c) relative slip which occurs
between concrete and reinforcement, (d) progressive destruction of bond
in local areas, and (e) the profound influence of progressive cracking. The
member to be studied frequently is defined by a highly irregular boundary
as a result of cracking. The applied load may be concentrated, distributed
uniformly or nonuniformly, or may be applied in the form of bond stress
distributed in a complex way along the steel-concrete interface. In spite of
these complications, a refined analysis is necessary to understand such
phenomena as shear, diagonal tension, and other complex failure modes.
The analysis of reinforced concrete members may be approached on
a one, two, or three-dimensional basis. For members which are long
relative to their depth and width, and which remain uncracked, the
68
significant stresses are mostly in the direction parallel to the axis except
in the vicinity of concentrated loads or reactions. The usual one-
dimensional analysis is satisfactory. After cracking, however, even
members of ordinary proportion are composed of sub-elements, which
may have length and depth of the same order. A realistic analysis must
recognize that the state of stress is at least two-dimensional. Although in
many cases the width of the element to be analyzed is of the same order
as the length and depth, the reinforcement is often more or less uniformly
distributed across that width. Loads and reactions often act only in the
vertical plane. In such circumstances, stresses in the third principal
direction are nearly zero, and analysis for two-dimensional stress is
satisfactory.
Classical methods of analysis cannot cope with the complications
described. Application of the methods of two-dimensional elasticity and
plasticity is limited to cases so idealized as to bear little relation to the
member under study. Simplified representations such as the truss analogy
and the tooth analogy, sometimes used for studying concrete beam
behavior, cannot possibly represent true conditions.
The development of the finite element method for analysis of
structural continua offers a powerful tool to be used in understanding the
behavior of reinforced concrete. Originally developed in the aircraft
industry, it has been applied to the analysis of civil engineering structures
for the last four decades. Details of the finite element method can be
found in a number of textbooks (Bathe 1996, Chandrupatla and
Belegundu 1997).
Ngo and Scordelis (1967) suggested finite element analysis of
reinforced concrete structures. They studied simple beams using two-
dimensional triangular finite elements along with special bond-link
elements to give steel-concrete interaction. Linear analysis was made on
beams with predefined crack patterns.
69
1- Plane stress elements to represent concrete.
2- Line elements to represent reinforcement.
3- Linkage elements to represent the bond between concrete and
reinforcement and the dowel action.
4- Interface elements to represent shear-transfer.
70
the second approach is costly, for it requires a great deal of computational
effort.
Some investigators (Ngo and Scordelis 1967, Nilson 1968, Cedolin
and Nilson 1978) used the constant strain triangular element in their
analysis of two-dimensional reinforced concrete problems by finite
element method. Many of them (Bergan and Holand 1979, Bathe et al
1989, Vecchio 1989, Ayoub and Filippou 1998) used the four-noded
isoparametric element. Others preferred the improved four-noded
isoparametric element (Al-Sabah, 1983) or the higher order elements
(Bathe et al. 1989, Gajer and Dux 1989).
Y y
y
2
1
x θ
θ
X x
(a) (b)
2 2
[ K ] = ∑∑ w i w j (det J ) ij [ B]Tij [ D]ij [ B]ij .......(5.2)
i =1 j=1
72
significantly extended, leading to the fictitious crack model and to the
crack band model. Based on the crack band model, two crack models can
be distinguished, the fixed crack model and the rotating crack model. In
both models a crack is initiated when the maximum principal stress
violates the tensile strength and the initial orientation of the crack is
normal to the maximum principal strain. In the fixed crack model the
crack plane is fixed during the total analysis process. On the other hand,
the rotating crack model allows the crack plane to rotate. If the axes of
principal stress do not change during the total analysis process, there will
be no difference between the two models, however if the axes change
after the crack is initiated, the responses of both models will be different.
From the physical point of view the rotating crack model seems
more reasonable than the fixed crack model. First, in the fixed crack
model a shear retention factor has to be chosen to decide the shear
stiffness, which sometimes is quite delicate. Second, the shear strain may
arise along the crack plane, which will lead to the shear stress over the
crack plane, consequently, the residual normal stress may exceed the
tensile strength in a direction inclined to the existing crack plane. These
two inconveniences do not exist in the rotating crack model, in which the
tangential shear stiffness automatically arises from the requirement of
coaxiality between principal stress and principal strain, and then the
possibility that normal stress violates the crack criterion in a direction
inclined to the crack plane is removed. Among existing concrete crack
simulation models the rotating crack model is certainly one which lends
itself to a relatively simple implementation; it is therefore of interest to
evaluate its simulation capabilities. In this work the rotating crack model
is adopting in representing cracked concrete.
73
Herein, the use of discrete element model permits to represent bond
slip between concrete and reinforcement. This model is proved to be
helpful to study the effect of lumped or discrete reinforcement with a
certain layout on the behavior of reinforced concrete structures. Also it is
suitable for discrete crack representing.
In this method, the stiffness of the steel element is calculated
according to the type of the element, and then added to the global
stiffness of the structure.
(a) (b)
74
computational effort increases rapidly until the solution is
computationally prohibitive.
(a) (b)
⎡ c2 sc − c 2 − sc⎤
⎢ ⎥
s2 − sc − s2 ⎥
[K ] =
EbAb ⎢
.......(5.3)
Lb ⎢ sc⎥
b G
c2
⎢ ⎥
⎣ s2 ⎦
75
where
Eb is the secant modulus for the steel reinforcement; Ab and Lb are the
area and length of the steel bar element, respectively; c = cosθ, s =
sinθ, θ is the angle between global and local coordinate of the bar.
2- The integration points are chosen to be the controlling point.
Uniaxial stress-state is assumed in each reinforced direction.
Fig. (5.5) shows a typical plane stress element. At the integration
point P, the element is reinforced in both x’ and y’ directions.
The incremental constitutive matrix for the reinforcement [Ds]L in
the material coordinate x’ and y’, can be written as:
⎡ρ x E sx 0 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
'
[D ]
s L =⎢ 0 ρ y E sy ' 0 ⎥ .......(5.4)
⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥⎦
⎣
'
where fsx’ and εsx’ is the average stress and strain in the reinforcement,
respectively. Esy’ is determined in similar manner.
Transformation must be applied to convert the reinforcement
stiffness to the global system:
[D ]
s G
= [Ts ] [D s ]L [Ts ]
T
.......(5.6)
76
vj
x′
uj
y′
j
vi
i ui
x’
y’
θ
77
and the dowel action in discrete crack representation, and will be used, in
this research, to connect between concrete and concrete elements. A
linkage element may be thought as being composed of two orthogonal
springs each with a given stiffness depending on the phenomenon they
describe. The linkage element has no physical dimensions at all, and only
its mechanical properties are of importance. Fig. (5.6) shows such an
element oriented at an arbitrary angle (θ) relative to the global coordinate
system.
y’ x’
θ
j
⎧σ h ⎫ ⎡ K h 0 ⎤ ⎧ε h ⎫
⎨ ⎬=⎢ ⎨ ⎬ .......(5.7)
⎩σ v ⎭ ⎣ 0 K v ⎥⎦ ⎩ε v ⎭
or
{σ} = [C]{ε}
78
where σh and σv are relative forces; εh and εv are relative displacements
between points (i) and (j) in the local horizontal and vertical directions
and are positive when they are tension. The strains and the global
displacements are related by the displacement transformation matrix [A]:
79
translational degrees of freedom per node have been considered. The
displacement vector is:
{δ} = [u v]T .......(5.12)
The strains are the relative displacements at the top and bottom of
the element. The strain vector is defined as:
{ε} = [Δu Δv]T .......(5.13)
The relevant stress vector is:
{σ} = [σ u σ v ]T .......(5.14)
The material modulus matrix is defined as:
[D] = ⎡⎢ s
k 0⎤
⎥ .......(5.15)
⎣ 0 k n⎦
Where ks and kn are the shear and the normal stiffness coefficients,
respectively. The values of stiffness coefficients can be obtained from
Chapter (4).
The strain matrix is defined as:
[B] = [− [I]N1 − [I]N 2 [I]N1 [I]N 2 ] .......(5.16)
where [I] is identity matrix of order (2x2), and Ni are the shape functions.
The stiffness matrix is calculated as:
[K L ] = ∫ [B] ⋅ [D] ⋅ [B] ⋅ dx
T
.......(5.17)
Two Gauss points have been used to calculate the stiffness matrix.
The stiffness matrix in the global coordinate system has been calculated
as:
[K G ] = [T ]T ⋅ [K L ] ⋅ [T ] .......(5.18)
where [T] is the transformation matrix.
Y
y x
l
ζ
j
ζ = −1 ζ=1
k
i θ
X
80
5.7 Nonlinear analysis:
In general, structures exhibit nonlinear behavior if either of the following
conditions are violated: (i) linear stress-strain relationship, and (ii) linear
strain-displacement relationship. The nonlinear behavior caused by the
violation of the first condition or the second condition is called material
nonlinearity or geometrical nonlinearity respectively.
Both behaviors of nonlinearity can exist in structural problems.
However, the effect of the geometrical nonlinearity is of minimal effect in
reinforced concrete structures, which are relatively bulky. Hence, only the
effect of the material nonlinearity is considered in the present analysis.
The nonlinear material properties considered in the present analysis
are:
1. Nonlinear stress-strain relationship of concrete.
2. Cracking of concrete.
3. Yielding of reinforcement.
4. Bond slip.
5. Post cracking shear transfer by aggregate interlock and dowel
action.
6. Friction slip.
7. Separation.
In the stiffness formulation, the nonlinear stress-strain dependent
equilibrium equation can be written as:
81
For reinforced concrete, the behavior is path dependent or tracing the
loading path is desired. Thus, an incremental-iterative technique and the
secant stiffness approach are utilized as a solution algorithm for the
present study. The system of the secant equilibrium equations obtained at
each iteration is solved for nodal displacements using the Gauss
elimination solver for symmetric banded equations.
The predominant stress-state of many reinforced concrete structures,
such as panels, beams, and shear walls, is that of plane stress. Many
constitutive models have been proposed for the nonlinear finite element
analysis of reinforced concrete structures under plane stress conditions.
These can be classified into orthotropic models, nonlinear elastic models,
plasticity models, endochronic models, fracture mechanics models, and
micromodels such as the microplane and nonlocal continuum model. Few
of the models, however, have been used to simulate the nonlinear load-
displacement behavior of different types of structural elements under
various stress combinations to permit an assessment of their general
applicability.
Among concrete constitutive relations orthotropic models strike a
balance between accuracy and economy. These models are generally
based on the concept of “equivalent uniaxial strain” by Darwin and
Pecknold (1977). The models proposed to date differ in the description of
the biaxial failure envelope the uniaxial equivalent stress-strain relation,
Poisson’s ratio, and the tension-compression behavior. From an extensive
experiment study by Vecchio and Collins (1986), Vecchio (1990, 1992)
developed an orthotropic concrete model with compressive strength
degradation as a function of tensile strain after cracking. In another model
by Balakrishnan and Murray (1988 a,b,c) the degradation in compressive
strength is a function of tensile stress at cracking.
Ayoub and Filippou (1998) proposed a model that is an extension of
the orthotropic models by Vecchio, and Balakrishnan and Murray.
Herein, a brief description of the salient features of the model (which has
been adopted in this thesis) and its numerical implementation.
82
model, yields better agreement between analytical and experimental
failure loads for shear panels and deep beams. In the alternative approach
of the “fixed crack“ concept, the axes of orthotropy are fixed once a crack
has formed in one direction. This approach yields analytical failure loads
that overestimate experimental data by a large margin (Crisfield and
Wills, 1989).
In the proposed model, the unloading of elements in softening
regions of the finite element mesh takes place elastically along the
original loading path. While this is grossly inaccurate from the material
response standpoint, it does not affect significantly the monotonic
behavior of well-reinforced concrete structures for the following reasons:
(1) in reinforced concrete structures with commonly used amount of
reinforcement, the softening of concrete is balanced by a stress increase
in the reinforcement; and (2) tension softening involves small strains and
thus does not have significant influence on global deformations.
Under a biaxial stress state the strength in one direction of
orthotropy is a function of the magnitude and sign of the stress in the
orthogonal direction. A complete description of the model hinges on the
definition of a biaxial strength envelope, which relates the concrete
strength in each principal direction to the current principal stress ratio.
Concrete cracking is an important factor in the behavior of
reinforced concrete members. In plain or lightly reinforced concrete
members, a single crack propagates and dominates the global response. In
heavily reinforced members, stresses can be transmitted across cracks
through bonded reinforcing steel and several cracks form in the specimen
before failure. As cracking progresses, the load-displacement response of
the member softens until it attains the ultimate strength.
In summary, the ingredients of a complete orthotropic concrete
material model are: (1) a biaxial strength envelope; (2) a uniaxial stress
strain relation in the direction of orthotropy; (3) a crack model; (4) the
definition of the material stiffness matrix; and (5) a consistent numerical
determination strategy.
83
accuracy relative to the experimental data of Kupfer et al. (1969). The
principal stresses in two orthogonal directions are denoted by σ1 and σ2
with σ1 ≥ σ 2 . The following equations define the failure surface:
− σ2 − σ2 2
K c1 = 1 + 0.92( ) − 0.76( )
f c′ f c′
−σ −σ
K c 2 = 1 + 0.92( 1 ) − 0.76( 1 ) 2 .......(5.20)
f c′ f c′
σ1p = K c1ε0
σ2 p = K c 2 ε0 .......(5.21)
ε1p = K c1ε 0
ε2 p = K c 2 ε0 .......(5.22)
where εo= uniaxial strain corresponding to the ultimate strength. It
follows readily that the above relations result in a symmetric state of
stress and strain under equal biaxial compression.
84
failure curve in Eq. (5.23) with the straight line passing through the origin
and the current stress state (Fig. (5.9)).
After cracking takes place in one direction, concrete can still carry
compressive stresses in the direction orthogonal to the crack. There is
experimental evidence, however, that the concrete compressive strength
is reduced by lateral tensile strains (Vecchio and Collins, 1982). In the
proposed model, the reduction of concrete compressive strength depends
on the tensile stress at the instant of initial cracking and not on the lateral
tensile strain. This proposal, which dates back to the work of
Balakrishnan and Murray (1988a), assumes that concrete is permanently
damaged at the instant of crack formation. The reduction in concrete
compressive strength after cracking in the orthogonal direction is defined
by the following relations suggested by Belarbi and Hsu (1995):
⎡ ⎛ ε ⎞ ⎛ ε ⎞2 ⎤ ε2
σ 2 = ζ σ f c ⎢2⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟ ⎥
'
if ≤1
⎢⎣ ⎝ ζ ε ε o ⎠ ⎝ ζ ε ε o ⎠ ⎥⎦ ζ εεo
⎡ ⎛ ε ζ ε − 1 ⎞2 ⎤ ε2
σ 2 = ζ σ f c ⎢1 − ⎜⎜ 2 ε o ⎟⎟ ⎥
'
if 〉1 .......(5.24)
⎣⎢ ⎝ 2 ζ ε − 1 ⎠ ⎦⎥ ζ ε
ε o
85
0.2
0.0
-0.4
Kupfer 1969
Ayoub and Filippou 1998 -0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
⎛ σ ⎞ σ1
σ1 = f t ⎜⎜1 + 0.5 2' ⎟⎟
⎝ fc ⎠
tensile cracking
ft
feq
current state
0.5ft
σ2
σ2 = -fc’
compression crushing
86
εi
feq
εο ζεεo
εcr σi
curve b ζσfc’
curve a
fc’
where {σ} and {ε} are stress and strain vectors, respectively; [D]L is a
local material stiffness with the form:
87
Inclination of principal compressive srressn,θ1)strain
50
θ1
40
30
(degree)
20
θ1)stress=θ1)strain+10 0
10 θ1)stress=θ1)strain
θ1)stress=θ1)strain-10 0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Inclination of principal compressive strain,θ1)strain
(degree)
⎡ E1 ν E1 E 2 0⎤
1 ⎢ ⎥
[D]L = ν E1 E 2 E2 0⎥ .......(5.28)
1 − ν2 ⎢
⎢ 0 0 G ⎥⎦
⎣
(
G = E1 + E 2 − 2ν E1 E 2 K/ 4 ) .......(5.29)
The global material stiffness matrix is derived from the local material
stiffness matrix by rotation transformation matrix according to:
88
where [T] is a rotation transformation matrix between principal strain
axes and global axes:
⎡ c2 s2 cs ⎤
[T ] = ⎢⎢ s 2 c 2 − cs ⎥⎥ .......(5.31)
⎢⎣ − 2cs 2cs c 2 − s 2 ⎥⎦
ν i = ν o ⎢1 + 1.5⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ .......(5.33)
⎢⎣ ε
⎝ ⎠ ⎦
ip ⎥
where νo is the initial value; εi is the equivalent uniaxial strain in direction
i; and εip is the strain corresponding to peak stress in direction i according
to Fig. (5.10). An upper bound value of 0.5 is imposed on νi, which
corresponds to incompressible behavior.
89
j
γ xy
tan 2θ = .......(5.34)
εx − εy t
⎨ ⎬ =⎨ ⎬ + 2 ⎢ ⎥ ⋅ ⎜ ⎨ε ⎬ − ⎨ε ⎬ ⎟ .......(5.36)
ε ε
⎩ 2 f ⎭ t ⎩ 2 f ⎭ t −1 1 − ν ⎣ ν 1 ⎦ ⎝ ⎩ 2 ⎭ t ⎩ 2 ⎭ t −1 ⎠
4- With the approximate stress state from the previous iteration determine
the uniaxial stress-strain relation in the principal strain direction. This
determination depends on the quadrant of the biaxial strength
envelope in which the current stress-state falls.
5- With the current equivalent uniaxial strains and stiffness values (E1 and
E2), determine the current stresses in the principal strain directions (σ1
and σ2). These stresses are not exact and will be subsequently
corrected. At this stage they are supposed to yield the approximate
location of the current state in stress space.
j j
(
σ1 t = σ1 t −1 + E1 ⋅ ε1f t − ε1f t −1
j
)
( )
.......(5.37)
σ 2 t = σ 2 t −1 + E 2 ⋅ ε 2 f t − ε 2 f t −1
j j j
90
2. State the iterative loop (j=1).
3. Solve the linear system of equations for the incremental displacement
{ΔU}tj as follows:
{ΔU} = [K ] {ΔF}
j
t
−1 j
t .......(5.39)
Add incremental displacement to total displacement vector {U}.
4. For each Gauss point, evaluate the corresponding strain.
5. Calculate the stresses using the process of state determination.
6. Repeat steps (4-5) for each Gauss point in an element. Calculate the
equilibrium nodal force vector for that element by evaluating the
volume integral (numerically) of the computed total stresses over that
element:
{R } = [B] {σ}dvol.
∫
T
e .......(5.40)
vol
7. Repeat steps (4-6) for each element in the structure. Assemble the total
available force vector {R}, where
∑{
E
{R} t
j
= Re} .......(5.41)
e =1
91
processes of concrete, the use of the true incremental tangent stiffness
matrix is often undesirable. The global stiffness matrix is assembled
using the secant (positive) material moduli and thus solution schemes
have to rely heavily on iterative procedures (Fig. (5.12)).
Load
Deflection
92
The failure load is predicted quite accurately by the sudden increase
in the unbalanced forced in the last stage of loading.
∑
N
({ΔU } )
i
j 2
t
i =1
* 100 ≤ Tolerance .......(5.44)
∑({
N
U i })
2
i =1
∑
N
({ΔFi }t ) 2
j
i =1
* 100 ≤ Tolerance .......(5.45)
∑{ }
N
( Fi ) 2
i =1
93
φ t ΔU t
≤ Tolerance ......(5.46)
R U t −1
A tolerance of 1/100 is found satisfactory throughout this study.
In addition to the convergence tolerances described above, a ceiling
is provided to limit the number of iterations (equal 30) performed for
each load step in case convergence tolerances provided are too stringent.
94
START
INPUT DATA
LOAD INCREMENT
ITR = ITR + 1
COMPUTE STRUCTURAL
YES
ITR = 2 STIFFNESS WITH SECANT
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
NO
CALCULATE UNBALANCED
LOAD VECTOR
CHECK YES
MAX
ITR
NO
NO CHECK
CONVER.
YES
PRINT RESULTS
(DISPLACEMENTS, STRESSES, FORCES)
95
deflection curves, where the analytical results approach the experimental
curve very closely.
425.45
95.25
95.25
310 228.6 3656 mm 228.6
4 φ 28.5 mm
(φ 9 bars) fy = 551.6 Mpa (80 ksi) fc’ = 22.55 Mpa (3.27 ksi)
Es = 206850 Mpa (30000 ksi) ft = 3.96 Mpa (0.575 ksi)
Ec = 20000 Mpa (assumed)
εc = 0.0022 (assumed)
196
133
5
4
4
3
3
2
2 1
1
i : Node no.
i : Element no.
96
350
300
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100 Experimental
Present study
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mid-span deflection (mm)
97
N
100
80
60
N (kN)
1500 mm
40
Test result
95 Present study
20
170 Bare bar
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Elongation (mm)
N
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. (5.17) Tension specimen UC-15, (a) Dimensions, (b) Finite element
mesh, (c) Comparison of test results and predicted response.
98
prevent failure of the specimen away from the shear plane, details of the
specimen geometry and reinforcement are shown in Fig. (2.3). The
specimen was cracked in the shear plane before being subjected to shear
loading.
The specimen was tested in the specially constructed two-part frame
shown in Fig. (5.18). Opposite sides of the specimen were attached to the
parts of the frame by gripping plates. The shearing forces were provided
by the diagonally opposed pairs of 266880 N (60 kips) capacity hydraulic
center hole rams X and Y in Fig. (5.18). Failure was considered to have
occurred when the shear could not be increased further and both slip and
separation increased rapidly.
The specimen model in Fig. (5.19) consists of 144 four-node
isoparametric quadrilateral concrete elements. The reinforcement is
represented with 108 truss bar elements. 18 linkage elements are used to
link stirrup reinforcement bars to concrete elements, while other bars are
perfectly bonded to concrete elements. The shear plane is represented
with 9 shear-transfer interface elements.
The analytical response of the shear transfer specimen CB2M is
compared with the experimental measurements of Mattock (1981) in Fig.
(5.20). The results obtained by finite element analysis agree well with the
experimental response of the specimen.
Fig. (5.21) shows a comparison between the experimental response
of the composite initially cracked shear transfer specimen CB2M and the
response of the monolithic initially cracked shear transfer specimen
MN2M tested by Mattock too. It can be seen that under monotonic
loading the behavior and strength of the initially cracked composite
specimens with good bond at the interface, was very similar to that of the
initially cracked, monolithic concrete specimens.
99
182
144
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
100
250
200
Shear (kPa)
150
100
Experimental
50 Present study
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Slip (mm)
Fig. (5.20) Comparison between experimental and analytical
response of shear transfer specimen CB2M.
250
200
Shear (kN)
150
100
101
CHAPTER SIX
ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE BEAMS
6.1 Introduction:
Several experimental investigations of composite concrete beams were
done in literature. Unfortunately, some of these investigations are not
available in Iraq. Also some of the available tests concentrated only on
specific aspects of the structural problem and their experimental data is
usually incomplete. In this chapter, the computer program (MHND) is
used to analyze several composite concrete beams, which were tested by
others, and comparisons between the experimental and finite element
results are shown. Also, a parametric study deals with shear and moment
capacity of a composite concrete beam is presented.
546.1 mm
38.1
in-situ
203.2 mm
152.4
76.2
639
420
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
Fig. (6.3) represents the load mid-span deflection curve of the beam
considered. Comparison with experimental results indicates a close
agreement till about 80% of the ultimate load. A stiffer behavior of the
theoretical model was observed during the next load increments. This
discrepancy of results may be reasoned due to the tension stiffening
adopted in this research which is not suitable for poor reinforced
103
concrete. However, since this phenomenon only produce secondary
effects, the analytical ultimate load level (382 kN) is detected quite well
compared with the experimentally observed of 379.4 kN, with an error of
only 0.7%.
400
300
Load (kN)
200
Experimental
0
0 40 80 120 160
Deflection at mid-span (mm)
FIG. (6.3) load mid-span deflection curve of the beam tested by Revesz.
104
for 0.20 but #3 bars were used instead of #4 bars. As the nominal steel
percentage decreased from 0.11 to 0.06 half of the #3 bars were cut off
25.4 mm (1 in.) below the joint. In summary, the information on the steel
bars crossing the joint is given in Table (6.1). Percentage of steel was
calculated by dividing the area of all stirrups crossing the joint by the
total joint area.
101.6 381
431.8
Cage stirrup
152.4
50.4 50.4
152.4 φ 25 bars
P P
2 304.8 2
Fig. (6.5) Arrangement of stirrups (#4 bars) in beams having the maximum
percentage of stirrup steel across the joint (Saemann and Washa,
1964)
105
Properties of the reinforcing steel are given in Table (6.2). Cage
stirrups were added to reduce shear stresses below the joint. All steel
members of the reinforcement unit were welded together.
Seven days after the webs were made the slabs were cast. All beams
were tested 28 days after the slabs were cast, 35 days after the webs were
cast. Beams were supported and loaded as shown in Fig. (6.5).
The measured central deflection with respect to the applied load are
shown in Fig. (6.6) for beams have 2.438 m (8 ft) clear span, and with
different percentage steel across the joint. The curves show, in general,
that for an intermediate surface roughness the maximum load increased
from about 232 kN to 356 kN as the percent steel across the joint
increased from zero to 1.02 percent. However, the beams behavior
(central deflection) were almost identical when the load is below 200 kN.
This means that the reinforcement crossing the joint (stirrups) has no
observable effect on the composite beam behavior as the bond between
the two concretes does not broken, and its effectiveness begins after a
crack forms in the joint (dowel action).
106
400
350
0.51% 1.02%
0.20%
300 0.11%
0.06%
250
Load (kN)
0%
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Deflection (mm)
Fig. (6.6) Measured central deflection with respect to the applied load
for beams with different percentage steel across the joint.
107
A
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
i Interface element
: Node no.
Bar element
i : Element no.
Fig. (6.7) Finite element discretization of a beam tested by Saemann and Washa.
An incremental load is applied at node 310. The number of
increments depends on the ultimate strength of the beam, and ranges
between 40 and 50 increments.
109
when they reach the horizontal joint. However, after additional loading
some of the cracks continued horizontally below the contact surface
toward the load point. Examination of failure done by Saemann and
Washa indicated that in most cases some concrete from the web adhered
to the flange.
Shearing stresses, slips, normal stresses, and separations at the joint
for beam 16C (zero steel percent across the joint) and beam 10A (1.02%
steel percentage across the joint) are shown in Figs. (6.14) and (6.15),
respectively, for a series of increasing loads. The curves show that the
values increasing as the load increased, that maximum shearing stresses
and slips are usually located about 900 mm from the left end of the beam,
and that separations (loss of bond) are started at relatively low load levels
at the beam end. This agrees well with the results of Cook’s investigation
(1977) of bonded-aggregate composite beams.
Also, it can be notice that the shearing stresses and the normal
stresses between the two concretes decrease with the increase in the steel
percentage across the joint.
110
400
Experimental
350 Present study
300
250
Load (kN)
200
150
100
50
1 2 3 4 Deflection (mm)
0 5 mm
Fig. (6.8) Comparison between experimental and present study results.
450
400
200 50 kN
150 100 kN
150 kN
100
200 kN
50
234 kN
0
-0.0008 -0.0004 0.0000 0.0004 0.0008
Normal strain (mm/mm)
450
400
Distance above bottom (mm)
350
250 30 kN
50 kN
200
100 kN
150
150 kN
100 200 kN
50 250 kN
305 kN
0
-0.0012 -0.0008 -0.0004 0.0000 0.0004 0.0008 0.0012
Normal strain (mm/mm)
400
Distance above bottom (mm)
350
250 30 kN
50 kN
200
100 kN
150
150 kN
100
200 kN
50 234 kN
0
-16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Normal stress (MPa)
450
400
Distance above bottom (mm)
350
Applied load
300
30 kN
250 50 kN
200 100 kN
150 kN
150
200 kN
100
250 kN
50
305 kN
0
-20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4
Normal stress (MPa)
Fig. (6.12) Normal stresses distribution at section A-A in
beam with 1.02% steel across the joint, showing
two-beam action.
113
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
i Interface element
: Node no.
Bar element
i : Element no.
Fig. (6.13) Prediction of cracking by the finite element method at the ultimate load for beam 16C (zero percentage steel).
0 0.00
Shearing stress (MPa)
-0.02
-1
-0.04
Slip (mm)
-2 -0.06
-3 -0.08
-0.10
-4
-0.12
-5 -0.14
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Distance from left end of the beam (mm) Distance from left end of the beam (mm)
(a) (b)
1 0.01
0 0.00
-1 -0.01
-2 -0.02
-3 -0.03
-4 -0.04
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Distance from left end of the beam (mm) Distance from left of the beam (mm)
(c) (d)
Fig. (6.14) Distribution of (a) shearing stresses, (b) slips, (c) normal stresses, and (d) normal separations across the
joint for beam 16C (zero steel percentage) under concentrated load.
0 0.00
Shearing stress (MPa)
-0.02
-1
Slip (mm)
-0.04
-2 -0.06
-0.08
-3
-0.10
-4 -0.12
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Distance from left end of the beam (mm) Distance from left end of beam (mm)
(a) (b)
1 0.01
0 0.00
-1 -0.01
-2 -0.02
-3 -0.03
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Distance from left end of beam (mm) Distance from left of the beam (mm)
(c) (d)
Fig. (6.15) Distribution of (a) shearing stresses, (b) slips, (c) normal stresses, and (d) normal separations across the joint for
beam 10A (1.02% steel percentage) under concentrated load.
6.4 Parametric study:
The position of the concentrated load affects the distribution of the
shearing stresses (or slips) and the normal separations at the joint. The
maximum shearing stress occurs between the position of the
concentrated load, while the same distribution can be seen away from
the load, Fig. (6.16) and (6.17) respectively.
When an incremental uniformly distributed load (U.D.L.) is
applied on the composite concrete beams with different percentage of
steel across the joint between the precast web and the cast-in-place
slab, the differences in the responses of the beams (midspan
deflections) are less than 1%. Fig. (6.18) shows the calculated midspan
deflections of the beam 16C (zero steel percent) and the beam 10A
(1.02% steel percent).
Fig. (6.19) shows the shearing stresses, slips, normal stresses, and
normal separations at the interface between the precast beam and the
cast-in-place slab under the ultimate uniformly distributed load
(U.D.L. = 130 kN). The curves show that the maximum shearing stress
and slip are located about 600 mm from the left end of the beam, and
there is no reparation between the two elements.
1
1 2 3
Shear stress (MPa)
-1
-2 1 2 3
-3
-4
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Distance from left end of the beam (mm)
117
1 2 3
0.01
Normal separation (mm)
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04 1 2 3
-0.05
-0.06
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Distance from left end of the beam (mm)
Fig. (6.17) Variation of normal separation at the joint with
location of concentrated load.
140
120
100
U.D.L. (kN/m)
80
60
Steel percentage
40
0%
20 1.02%
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Central deflection (mm)
118
0 0.00
Shearing stress (MPa)
-0.02
-1
Slip (mm)
-0.04
-2 -0.06
-0.08
-3
-0.10
-4 -0.12
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Distance from left end of the beam (mm) Distance from left end of the beam (mm)
(a) (b)
0 0.00
-1 -0.01
-2 -0.02
-3 -0.03
-4 -0.04
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Distance from left end of the beam (mm) Distance from left end of the beam (mm)
(c) (d)
Fig. (6.19) Distribution of (a) shearing stresses, (b) slips, (c) normal stresses, and (d) normal separations across the joint
for beam 16C (zero steel percentage) under ultimate uniformly distributed load (U.D.L.=130 kN/m).
Conventionally, a reinforced concrete beam has an ultimate shear
and flexural strength (Vn and Mn) as follows (ACI Code):
Vn = Vc + Vs .......(6.1)
where
⎛ Vd⎞b d
Vc = ⎜⎜ f c' + 120ρ w u ⎟⎟ w ≤ 0.3 f c' b w d .......(6.2)
⎝ Mu ⎠ 7
Vu d
& ≤1
Mu
A v f yd 2 '
Vs = ≤ fc bwd .......(6.3)
s 3
⎛ f ⎞
M n = ρbd 2 f y ⎜⎜1 − 0.59ρ y' ⎟⎟ .......(6.4)
⎝ fc ⎠
120
180
140
Experimental
120
Present study
ACI Code
100
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Steel percentage (%)
180
Ultimate moment capacity (kN.m)
160
140
Experimental
Present study
120 ACI Code
100
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Steel percentage (%)
Fig. (6.21) Variation of ultimate moment capacity with steel
percentage across the joint.
121
Table (6.3) Ultimate capacity.
Ultimate moment
Steel fc’, Ultimate shear capacity, Ultimate shear stress,
Beam capacity,
across MPa kN Mpa
kN.m
joint,
ACI Present ACI Present ACI Present Shear
No. Series % Web Slab Exper. Exper. Exper.
Code study Code study Code study friction
10 A 1.02 21.1 19.8 160 163 164 131 178 179 3.500 6.442 6.703 3.299
5 C 0.51 20.8 22.5 162 163 162 131 178 177 2.700 6.442 6.695 1.649
5 D 0.20 23.4 24.7 164 155 155 138 170 170 2.153 6.146 6.378 0.825
12 C 0.11 20.6 23.9 164 140 140 132 154 154 2.044 5.552 5.721 0.584
14 C 0.06 21.6 19.8 160 126 126 132 138 138 0.600 4.987 5.113 0.292
16 C 0.00 20.9 21.1 161 106 107 130 116 117 0.600 4.180 4.364 0.000
Table (6.4) shows a comparison in the ultimate shear force for the
beams 16C and 10A with different provided stirrups. It can be shown that
the ACI Code gives different values compared with the predicted in this
study.
123
CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Conclusions:
The following conclusions can be drawn from the present study:
ACI Committee 318, (1995). “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
(ACI 318-95).” American Concrete Institute, Detroit,.
Azizinamini, A., Stark, M., Roller, J. J., and Ghosh, S. K. (1993). “Bond Performance
of Reinforced Bars Embedded in High-Strength Concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 90(5), 554-
561.
126
Badoux, J. C., and Hulsbos, C. L. (1967). “Horizontal Shear Connection in Composite
Concrete Beams under Repeated Loads.” ACI J., 64(12), 811-819.
Balázs, G. L. (1993). “Cracking Analysis Based on Slip and Bond Stresses.” ACI
Mat. J., 90(4), 340-348.
Bathe, K. J., Walczak, J., Welch, A., and Mistry, N. (1989). “Nonlinear Analysis of
Concrete Structures.” Comp. Struct., 32(3/4), 563-590.
Bazant, Z. P., and Cedolin, L. (1979). “Blunt Crack Band Propagation in Finite
Bazant, Z. P., and Oh, B. H. (1983). “Crack Band Theory and Fracture of Concrete.”
Mat. & Struct.; Res. & Test. (RILEM, Paris), 16(93), 155-177.
Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. C. (1994). “Constitutive Laws of Concrete in Tension and
Reinforcing Bars Stiffened by Concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 91(4), 465-474.
Bergan, P. G., and Holand, I. (1979). “Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Concrete
Structures.” Comp. Meths. Appl. Mech. Eng., 17/18, 443-467.
127
Bresler, B., and Scordelis, A. C. (1964). “Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Beams.” Series II. SESM Report No. 64-2, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, (Cited
according to Ahmad and Bangash, 1987).
British Standards Institution (BS 5400: Part 4: 1978), “Steel, Concrete and Composite
Bridges; Part 4. Code of Practice for Design of Concrete Bridges.” London, 48.
Cervera, M., Hinton, F., and Hassan, O. (1987). “Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Plate and Shell Structures Using 20-Noded Isoparametric Brick Elements.”
Comp. Struct., 25(6), 845-869.
Chang, W. F., and Ferguson, P. M. (1963). “Long Hinged RC Columns.” ACI J.,
60(1), 1-26.
Cook, J. P. (1977). “Composite Construction Methods.” John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 330.
128
Cook, R. D. (1989). “Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis.” 3rd.
Edition, John Wiley and Sons, London,.
Darwin, D., and Graham, E. K. (1993). “Effect of Deformation Height and Spacing on
Bond Strength of Reinforcing Bars.” ACI Struct. J., 90(6), 646-657.
Darwin, D., and Pecknold, D. A. (1997). “Nonlinear Biaxial Stress Strain Law for
Concrete.” J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 103(2), 229-241.
De Larrard, F., Schaller, I., and Fuchs, J. (1993). “Effect of Bar Diameter on the Bond
Strength of Passive Reinforcement in High-Performance Concrete.” ACI. Mat. J.,
90(4), 333-339.
Dei Poli, S., Di Prisco, M., and Gambarova, P. G. (1993). “Cover and Stirrup Effects
on the Shear Response of Dowel Bar Embedded in Concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 90(4),
441-450.
Desayi, P., and Krishnan, S. (1964). “Equation for the Stress-Strain Curve of
Concrete.” ACI J., 61(3), 345-350.
Essa, Mahdi S. (1990). “The Effect of Hot Weather Concreting on Bond Strength
between Concrete and Steel.” Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Baghdad,
157.
Evans, R. H., and Marathe, M. S. (1968). “Microcracking and Stress-Strain Curves for
Concrete in Tension.” Mat. Struct.; Res. and Test., (RILEM, Paris), 1(1), 61-64.
Fardis, M. N., and Buyukozoturk, O. (1979). “Shear Transfer Model for Reinforced
Concrete.” J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 105(2), 255-275.
Fronteddu, L., Léger, P., and Tinawi, R. (1998). “Static and Dynamic Behavior of
Concrete Lift Joint Interfaces.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 124(12), 1418-1430.
129
Gajer, G., and Dux, P. (1989). “A Damage-Sensitive Loading Algorithm for the
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures.” Comp. Struct., 32(2), 493-496.
Gangadharam, D., and Reddy, K. N. (1980). “Effect of Cover Upon the Stress-Strain
Properties of Concrete Confined in Steel Binders.” Mag. Concrete Res., 32(112), 147-
155.
Ghosh, S. K., Fanella, D. A., and Rabbat, B. G. (1996). “Notes on ACI 318-95
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.” 6th. Edition, Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, Illinois, USA.
Grossfield, B., and Birnstiel, C. (1962). “Tests of T-Beams with Precast Webs and
Cast-in-Place Flanges.” ACI J., 59(6), 843-851.
Hertz, K. (1982). “The Anchorage Capacity of Reinforcing Bars at Normal and High
Temperatures.” Mag. Concrete Res., 34(121), 213-220.
Holzer, S. M., Somers, Jr. A. E., and Bradshaw, J. C. (1979). “Finite Response of
Inelastic RC Structures.” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 105(1), 17-33.
130
Hwang, S. J., Yu, H. W., and Lee, H. J. (2000). “Theory of Interface Shear Capacity
of Reinforced Concrete.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 126(6), 700-707.
Iraqi Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (Code 1/1987), Building
Research Center, Scientific Research Council, Baghdad, Republic of Iraq, 68.
Jimenez, R., Gergely, P., and White, R. N. (1978). “Shear Transfer across Cracks in
Reinforced Concrete” Ithaca (N.Y.), Cornell University, 357, Report 78-4, (Cited
according to Millard and Johnson, 1984).
Kayal, S. (1984). “Finite Element Analysis of R.C. Frames.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE,
110(12), 2891-2908.
Kolleger, J., and Mehlhorn, G. (1990). “Material Model for the Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Surface Structures.” Computational Mech., 6, 341-357.
Kroenke, W. C., Gutzwiller, M. J., and Lee, R. H. (1973). “Finite Element for
Reinforced Concrete Frame Study.” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 99(7), 1371-1390.
Kupfer, H., Hilsdorf, H. K., and Rusch, H. (1969). “Behavior of Concrete under
Biaxial Stresses.” ACI Struct. J., 66(2), 656-666.
Lazaro, A. L., and Richards, Jr. R. (1973). “Full Range Analysis of Concrete Frames.”
J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 99(8), 1761-1783.
131
Lin, C. S. (1973). “Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Shells.”
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., UC-SESM Report No.
37-7, (Cited according to Chan, 1983).
Mattock, A. H. (1981). “Cyclic Shear Transfer and Type of Interface.” J. Struct. Div.,
ASCE, 107(10), 1945-1964.
Mattock, A. H., Johal, L., and Chow, H. C. (1975). “Shear Transfer in Reinforced
Concrete with Moment or Tension Acting Across the Shear Plane.” PCI J., 20(4), 76-
93.
Mattock, A. H., Li, W. K., and Wang, T. C. (1976). “Shear Transfer in Lightweight
Reinforced Concrete.” PCI J., 21(1), 20-39.
Nam, C. H., and Salmon, C. G. (1974). “Finite Element Analysis of Concrete Beams.”
J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 100(12), 2419-2432.
132
Ng, S. F., Cheung, M. S., and Zhao, J. Q. (1993). “A Materially Nonlinear Finite
Element Model for the Analysis of Curved Reinforced Concrete Box-Girder Bridges.”
Can. J. Civ. Eng., 20, 754-759.
Pauley, T., Park, R., and Phillips, M. H. (1974). “Horizontal Construction Joints in
Cast-in-Place Reinforced Concrete.” Shear in Reinforced Concrete, Detroit, American
Concrete Institute, ACI Special Publication SP-42. 2, 599-616, (Cited according to
Millard and Johnson, 1984).
Reinhardt, H. W., Cornelissen, H. A., and Hordijk, D. A. (1986). “Tensile Tests and
Failure Analysis of Concrete.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 112(11), 2462-2477.
Russo, G., Zingone, G., and Romano, F. (1990). “Analytical Solution for Bond-Slip
of Reinforcing Bars in R. C. Joints.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 116(2), 336-355.
133
Seniwongse, M. (1979). “The Deformation of Reinforced Concrete Beams and
Frames up to Failure.” Struct. Eng., 57B(4), 77-81.
Smith, I. M., and Griffiths, D. V. (1998). “Programming the Finite Element Method.”
3rd. Edition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, England, 534.
Smith, G. M., and Young, L. E. (1956). “Ultimate Flexural Analysis Based on Stress-
Strain Curves of Cylinders.” ACI J., 53(6), 597-609.
Soroushian, P., Obaseki, K., Baiyasi, M. I., El-Sweidan, B., and Choi, K. B. (1988).
“Inelastic Cyclic Behavior of Dowel Bars.” ACI Struct. J., 85(1), 23-29.
Soroushian, P., Obaseki, K., Rojas, M., and Najm, H. S. (1987). “Behavior of Bars in
Dowel Action Against Concrete Cover.” ACI Struc. J., 84(2), 170-176.
Soroushian, P., Obaseki, K., Rojas, M., and Sim, J. (1986). “Analysis of Dowel Bars
Acting Against Concrete Core.” ACI J., 83(4), 642-649.
Sturman, G. M., Shah, S. P., and Winter, G. (1965). “Effect of Flexural Strain
Gradients on Microcracking and Stress-Strain Behavior of Concrete.” ACI J., 62(7),
805-822.
Tulin, L. G., and Gerstle, K. H. (1964). Discussion of “Equation for the Stress-Strain
Curve of Concrete.” by Desayi and Krishnan, ACI J., 61(9), 1236-1238.
134
Vecchio, F. J. (1992). “Finite Element Modeling of Concrete Expansion and
Confinement.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 118(9), 2390-2405.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (1986). “The Modified Compression Field Theory
for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear.” ACI J., 83(2), 219-231.
Wang, P. T., Shah, S. P., and Naaman, A. E. (1978). “Stress-Strain Curves of Normal
and Lightweight Concrete in Compression.” ACI J., 75(5), 603-611.
135
APPENDIX A
200 kN
1600 mm
bf
E = 20000 MPa hf
ν = 0.15
H
bw = 40 mm
bf = 40 → 200 mm
bw
hf = 40 mm
H = 200 mm Cross-section
A-1
ﺳﻠﻮآﻴﺔ اﻟﻘﺺ واﻟﻌﺰم ﻟﻸﻋﺘﺎب اﻟﺨﺮﺳﺎﻧﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺮآﺒﺔ
اﻟﺨﻼﺻﺔ:
ﻟﻐ ﺮض ﻣﻌﺮﻓ ﺔ ﻣﻘ ﺪار ﺗﺤﻤ ﻞ ﻋﺘ ﺐ ﺧﺮﺳ ﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺮآ ﺐ و اﺳ ﺘﺠﺎﺑﺘﻪ اﻟﻼﺧﻄﻴ ﺔ ﻟﻸﺣﻤ ﺎل
اﻟﺴﺘﺎﺗﻴﻜﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺆﺛﺮة ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ،ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻪ ﺑﻮاﺳ ﻄﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﺳ ﺒﺔ اﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴ ﺔ و ﺑﺎﺳ ﺘﻌﻤﺎل ﻃﺮﻳﻘ ﺔ
اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﻤﺤﺪدة .ﻋﺪة ﻋﻼﻗﺎت ﻻﺧﻄﻴﺔ اﻋﺘﻤﺪت ،آﺎﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ اﻟﻼﺧﻄﻴ ﺔ ﺑ ﻴﻦ اﻹﺟﻬ ﺎد و
اﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎل ﻟﻤﺎدة اﻟﺨﺮﺳﺎﻧﺔ ،آﺬﻟﻚ ﻟﻤﺎدة اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺪ ،اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻗﻮة اﻟ ﺮﺑﻂ و اﻻﻧ ﺰﻻق ﺑ ﻴﻦ
ﺣﺪﻳ ﺪ اﻟﺘﺴ ﻠﻴﺢ و ﻣ ﺎدة اﻟﺨﺮﺳ ﺎﻧﺔ اﻟﻤﺤﻴﻄ ﺔ ﺑ ﻪ ،اﻟﻌﻼﻗ ﺔ ﺑ ﻴﻦ ﻗ ﻮى اﻟﻘ ﺺ و اﻻﻧ ﺰﻻق
اﻟﺤﺎﺻﻞ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺳﻄﺢ اﻟﺘﻤﺎس ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﺘﺐ اﻟﻤﺴﺒﻖ اﻟﺼﺐ و ﺧﺮﺳ ﺎﻧﺔ اﻷرﺿ ﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺼ ﺒﻮﺑﺔ
ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴًﺎ ،اﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ اﻟﻮﺗﺪي ﻟﺮاﺑﻄﺎت اﻟﻘﺺ.
ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴ ﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﺮﺳ ﺎﻧﺔ ﺗ ﻢ اﻋﺘﻤ ﺎد ﻧﻤ ﻮذج اﻟﻌﻼﻗ ﺎت اﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻨﻴ ﺔ ﻟﻠﻤ ﺎدة اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔ ﺔ
ﺑﺎﻻﺗﺠﺎهﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺎﻣﺪﻳﻦ .و ﺗﻢ ﺗﻤﺜﻴ ﻞ اﻟﺘﺸ ﻘﻖ ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﺨﺮﺳ ﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘ ﺔ اﻟﺸ ﻘﻮق اﻟﻤﻮزﻋ ﺔ
اﻟ ﺪاﺋﺮة .ﺗ ﻢ اﻋﺘﺒ ﺎر ﺣﺪﻳ ﺪ اﻟﺘﺴ ﻠﻴﺢ ذو ﻣﻮاﺻ ﻔﺎت أﺣﺎدﻳ ﺔ اﻻﺗﺠ ﺎﻩ ،و ﺑﺎﺗﺠ ﺎﻩ ﻗﻀ ﺒﺎن
اﻟﺘﺴﻠﻴﺢ.
ﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴ ﻞ اﻟﺨﺮﺳ ﺎﻧﺔ ﺗ ﻢ اﺳ ﺘﻌﻤﺎل ﻋﻨﺼ ﺮ اﻹﺟﻬ ﺎد اﻟﻤﺴ ﺘﻮي ﻋﻨ ﺪ اﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴ ﻞ اﻟﻌﺘ ﺐ
اﻟﻤﺮآ ﺐ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘ ﺔ اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻ ﺮ اﻟﻤﺤ ﺪدة .ﺣﺪﻳ ﺪ اﻟﺘﺴ ﻠﻴﺢ ﻣُﺜ ﻞ ﺑﻌﻨﺼ ﺮ أﺣ ﺎدي اﻻﺗﺠ ﺎﻩ .و
ﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴ ﻞ اﻟ ﺮﺑﻂ واﻻﻧ ﺰﻻق و اﻟﺘ ﺎﺛﻴﺮ اﻟﻮﺗ ﺪي ﺗ ﻢ اﺳ ﺘﻌﻤﺎل ﻋﻨﺼ ﺮ وﺻ ﻠﻲ ذو ﻧﺎﺑﻀ ﻴﻦ
ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻣﺪﻳﻦ .ﻗﻮى اﻟﻘﺺ و اﻻﻧﺰﻻق ﻣُﺜﻠﺖ ﺑﻌﻨﺼﺮ اﻟﺴﻄﺢ اﻟﺒﻴﻨﻲ.
و ﻹﺟ ﻞ اﻟﺘﺤﻘ ﻖ ﻣ ﻦ ﺻ ﺤﺔ و ﺻ ﻼﺣﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﻼﻗ ﺎت اﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻨﻴ ﺔ اﻟﻤﺴ ﺘﻌﻤﻠﺔ ﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴ ﻞ
اﻟﻤ ﻮاد و اﻟﺘ ﺄﺛﻴﺮات اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔ ﺔ ،و اﻟﺒﺮﻧ ﺎﻣﺞ اﻟﻤﻜﺘ ﻮب ﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴ ﻞ ﻋﺘ ﺐ ﺧﺮﺳ ﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺴ ﻠﺢ
ﻣﺮآﺐ ،ﺗﻤﺖ اﻟﻤﻘﺎرﻧﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﺒﺮﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮرة ﻟﺒﻌﺾ اﻟﻨﻤﺎذج اﻟﺨﺮﺳﺎﻧﻴﺔ.
ﺗﻢ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﺼﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺪراﺳ ﺔ ﻣ ﻊ ﻣ ﺎ ه ﻮ ﻣﺘ ﻮﻓﺮ ﻣ ﻦ
ﻧﺘ ﺎﺋﺞ ﻟﻠﻔﺤ ﻮص اﻟﻤﺨﺘﺒﺮﻳ ﺔ ﻻﻋﺘ ﺎب ﺧﺮﺳ ﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﺮآﺒ ﺔ .اﻟﻨﺘ ﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﺼ ﻠﺔ آﺎﻧ ﺖ
ﻣﻘﺎرﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﺒﺮﻳﺔ.
ﺗﻢ ﻋﺮض دراﺳﺔ ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﺔ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺘﺤﻤﻞ اﻟﻌﺘﺐ اﻟﺨﺮﺳﺎﻧﻲ اﻟﻤﺮآﺐ ﻟﻠﻘﺺ وﻋ ﺰم
اﻻﻧﺤﻨﺎء.