See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338112896

New reinforcement detailing in concrete frame corners of civil defence

shelters

Thesis · December 1996

CITATIONS READS

3 91

1 author:

Morgan Johansson
Chalmers University of Technology
37 PUBLICATIONS   117 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assessment of existing bridge deck slab View project

Blast and Fragment Impacts: Strengthening of reinforced concrete structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Morgan Johansson on 22 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ffi CHAI."TIERS OFTTCHNOTOG
IVERSITY
U1{
Division of Concrete Structures
Publication
96:1

in ConcreteFrameCornersof
Detailing
NewReinforcement
CivilDefenceShelters
FiniteElementAnalysesand Experiments
Non-linear

MorganJohansson

Licentiatethesis

GdteborgNovember1996
 CHALMERSUNIVERSITYOFTECHNOLOGY
OF STRUCTURALENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT
DIVISION OF CONCRETESTRUCTURES

ARBNR: ll06 P u b l i c a t i o9n6 : l

New Reinforcement Detailing in Concrete Frame Comers of Civil Defence Shelters

Non-linear Finite Element Analyses and Expertments

Morgan Johansson

GoteborgNovember1996

Adress: ChalmersUniversityof Technology

Divisionof ConcreteStrucfures
S*{1296 Gijteborg,
Sweden
Telephone: 03i - 772 1000 Telefax 0 3 r- 7 1 2 2 2 6 0
ISSN0349-8581
PREFACE
This studydealswith the reinforcementdetailingof frame comersin civil defenceshelters.
Experimentsand finite element analyses,basedon non-linearfracture mechanics,were
conductedto evaluatea new designproposal.The work presentedin this thesiswas carried
out from November1994to November1996at the Division of ConcreteStructures, Chalmers
Universityof Technology.The projectis financedby the SwedishRescueServiceAgency.

I wish to thankmy supervisor,ProfessorKent Gylltoft, for his guidanceand support.I would

also like to thank Bjdrn Ekengren,M.Sc., and MagnusKjellman, M.Sc., from the Swedish
RescueServiceAgencyfor their encouragingengagement in the project.Specialthanksare
due to Mario Plos,Ph.D.,who was an invaluablesupportin the first yearof the project.For
their joyiul, never ending supportand encouragement, I thank my fellow colleaguesat the
Structural EngineeringDivision. Further, I owe thanks to the staff of the Structural
EngineeringLaboratoryfor their assistancein constructingand testing the frame corner
specimens. Finally, I thankWandaSobko,DiplomaEngineer,and l-arsWahlstrom,Engineer,
for help with frguresandphotos,respectively.

Gciteborg,
November1996

MorganJohansson
CONTENTS
PREFACE
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
NOTATIONS

INTRODUCTION I
l.l Background I
1.2 Aim of theStudy 2

LITERATURESURVEY ^
2.1 FrameCorners A

2.2 FractureMechanicsfor Concrete 6

2.3 InteractionbetweenSteelandConcrete 8

EXPERIMENTS l0
3.1 TestSpecimens l0
3.1.1 Dimensions andreinforcement t0
3.1.2 Materialproperties t2
3.2 TestSet-upandTestProcedure l4
3.3 FailureDevelopment l5
3.3.1 General Observations l5
3.3.2 Specimens with highreinforcement
ratio t5
3.3.3 Specimens with low reinforcement
ratio l5
3.4 TestResults l7
3.5 Discussion 2l

NON-LINEARFINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES AA

4.1 General 24
4.2 MaterialModels 24
4.2.1 Modellingof theconcrete )4
4.2.1.1Thecrackmodelfor tension .A

4.2.1.2The plasticitymodelfor compression 26

4.2.2 Modellingof thereinforcemenr 27
4.2.3 Interactionbetweenreinforcement andconcrete 29
4.3 The NumericalApproach JI

4.4 Analysesof FrameCorners JJ

4.4.1 General JJ
4.4.2 The FE modelfor analysesof generalresponse )+
4.4.3 The FE modelfor detailedanalyses 36
4.4.3.I New reinforcementdetailing 36
4.4.3.2Conventional reinforcementdetailins 39
 4.5 Resultsof theAnalvses 40
4.5.I General 40
4.5.2 FE analyses of generalresponse 4)
4.5.3 DetailedFE analyses 44
4.5.3.I Objectives andpreconditions 44
4.5.3.2New reinforcement detailing 45
4.5.3.3Conventional reinforcementdetailine 52
4.5.4 Comparisons of the FE analyses 55
4.5.4.1Comparison of conventional
andnew reinforcement 55
detailings
4.5.4.2The effectof fractureenergy 58
4.5.4.3Comparisonof planestressandplain strainanalyses 60
4.6 Discussion 6l
4.7 Analysesof a CantileverBeam 65
4.1.1 General 65
4.1.2 The finite elementmodel 67
4.7.3 Resultsof theanalyses 68
4.7.3.1General 68
4.7.3.2Effectof the bond-sliprelation 68
4.1.3.3 Effectof the reinforcementtvpe 70
4.1.4 Discussion 71

CONCLUSIONS 73
5.1 General 73
5.2 Suggestions
for FutureResearch 1^

REFERENCES 15

APPENDIXA Drawingsof TestSpecimens

in the SecondTestSeries

APPENDTXB Concretein Compression

in the FE Analyses
ABSTRACT
The reinforcementdetailingprescribedby the presentSwedishregulationsfor the designof
frame cornersin concretecivil defencesheltersis complicatedwhich makesit difficult to
carryout correctly.Therefore,a simplermethod,by which all reinforcementbarsare spliced
within the comer region,has been worked out. The aim of the study is to evaluatea new
design proposal and determine whether it is appropriateto replace the conventional
reinforcementdetailingwith the new kind.

Eight full-scaletestsof framecornerssubjectedto a negativemoment(closingof the comer)

were carriedout. The parametersvaried in the tests were the reinforcementdetailing,the
reinforcementratio, the reinforcementtype and the configurationof the reinforcement bars.
Finite element analyses,with material models basedon non-linear fracture mechanicsand
plasticity,werecarriedout for framecornerswith the new and the conventionalreinforcement
detailings.Furthermore,the effectsof the weaknessof the constructionjoint, the interaction
betweenreinforcement andconcrete,and the mechanicalpropertiesof the steelreinforcement
wereexaminedusingthis method.

The testsand analysesshowedthat the conventionaland the new reinforcement detailingsfor

practicalpurposesare equivalentwhen using a low reinforcementratio; they indicatedthat
this is also the casewhen using a high reinforcementratio. Accordingly,this work supports
the idea that the new detailingis suitableto use insteadof the conventionalreinforcement
detailing.The analysesshowedthat the bond-sliprelationaffectsthe stiffnessof the structure
and that it also affectsthe total deformationcapacity.However,its effect on the maximum
load capacitywas found to be negligible.Furthermore,it was shown that the mechanical
propertiesof the steelreinforcement can havea significanteffecton the deformationcapacity;
afterthe initial cracking,the weaknessof the construction joint has a negligibleeffecton the
structuralbehaviourof the framecomer.

Keywords:Concrete,framecorners,splicingof reinforcement, non-linearfracturemechanics,

finite elementanalysis,bond,sheltersfor civil defence.

u
NOTATIONS

Roman upper caseletters

A, crosssectionareaof reinforcement
Du componentin stiffnessmatrix
E, Young'smodulusfor concrete
E, Young'smodulusfor steel
F load
I., force camed by reinforcement
Gf fractureenergy
I length
P projectionmatrix

Roman lower caseletters

c cohesion
dF, differentialquantityof force carriedby reinforcement
f(w) softeningfunction
f, compressive strengthof concrete
f,,,ub" compressive cubestrengthof concrete( 150 x 150x 150mm)
f,.,vt compressive cylinderstrengthof concrete(@150x 300 mm)
f,u ultimate strengthof reinforcement
f,, yield strengthof reinforcement
t tensilestrengthof concrete
ft.spt,r cubesplittingstrengthof concrete( 150x 150x 150mm)
i longitudinal direction
lbo, lengthof reinforcementbar
l"b*nt lengthof finite elementrepresenting bar
reinforcement
n normaldirection
r radiusof reinforcementloop
s slip
sm meancrackspacing
.r) slip at the pointwhereyieldingis obtained
t traction(stressvectoractingon a planeor surface),tangentialdirection,time
u displacement
w crackopening
wu ultimatecrack opening
r co-ordinatealongreinforcementbarsin cornerregion
) co-ordinatealongreinforcementbarsin beamand column

N
Greek letters

d stressblock factor
as scalarquantityusedto describethe Drucker-Prager yield surface
ds scalarquantityusedto determinethe hardeningparameter
P yield
stressblock factor,scalarquantityusedto describethe Drucker-Prager
surface
y ratioof ultimatestrengthto yield slrengthof the reinforcement
Tnod modifiedvalueof 1
lnt,,mt valueof l corresponding to "normalratio" steel
A incremental, increment of
A€^na modifiedincremental strain
6 displacement
8,. concretestrain
€n strainat steelhardening
€r steelstrain
e, ultimatesteelstrain
tP,r,^,or plasticstrainin the directionof uniaxialstress
,c hardeningparameter
tt factordescribingthechangein ductilityof reinforcement
n projectionvector
p rcinforcement ratio
o stress
6t, oz, 6: principalstresses
oc concretestress
o, steelstress
T bond stress
! bondstrengthin frictionalphase
Tw maximumbondstrength
Ty bondstressat thepointwhereyieldingis obtained
v Poisson's ratio
0 bu diameter,internalangleof internalfriction
Qo initial angleof internalfriction
VI dilatancyangle
 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
When a concretefranrestructureis constructed, it is usuallycastin two separatestages:first
the casting of the wall, then the casting of the slab. After the casting of the wall, the
reinforcement bars,which will laterbe bentandsplicedinto the slab,stick up into the air, see
Figure la. Accordingto the regulationsof anchoragelength and splicing methodsusedin
Boverket'sHandbookfor ConcreteStructuresBBK 94, Boverket(1994),thesebarsmay be
severalmeterslong. This type of frame cornerreinforcementdetailing can be difficult to
realiseat a building site and is complicatedto carry out correctly.Therefore,it would be an
advantage to usea simplifiedreinforcement detailing.If all the reinforcement
could be spliced
within the comer a.reaa simplerprocedure,with lessrisk of incorrectdetailing,would be the
result,seeFigure 1b.

a)

FigureI Schematicfigure of the constructionof a concreteframe corner using different

reinforcement
detailings:a) splicingin the slab,b) splicingwithin the cornerarea.

The present Swedish regulationsfor the design of civil defence shelters allow the
reinforcementto be splicedin the immediatevicinity of the frame corner,with partsof the
reinforcementspliceextendedinto the corner,SwedishRescueServiceAgency(1994).This
results in a building procedure similar to that described above (Figure 1a) with a
reinforcementdetailing thar is time consumingand quite difficult to carry out correctly.
Consequently, the SwedishRescueServiceAgencywanteda simplerreinforcement detailing
to be usedin frame cornersin civil defenceshelters.Therefore,a new designproposal,in
which all the reinforcement barsare splicedwithin the comerruea,was workedout. To study
the behaviourof splicingin the reinforcedframe cornersof shelters,a researchprojectwas
initiatedar the Division of ConcreteStructuresat ChalmersUniversityof Technology,see
P l o s( 1 9 9 4 ab, ) .

t.2 Aim of the Study

The aim of thisresearch projectis to evaluatea new designproposalandto determinewhether
is
it appropriate to replace the conventionalreinforcement detailingwith the new kind. To do
this, it is necessaryto establishthe servicecriterionthat the final structuremust fulfil. The
load bearingcapacityis of greatimportanceand for safetyreasonsit is also importantthat a
concretestructureshowsa ductilebehaviourthat allowsredistributionof forcesso thata total
collapseof the structurecanbe avoided.To obtainthis, the structuremustbe capableof large
deformations beforefinal failure.Especiallyin a civil defenceshelter,suchductilebehaviour
is of greatimportancein enablingthe structureto withstandsevereimpact loadingwithout
collapse.The servicecriterionset up by the SwedishRescueServiceAgencyis that the new
reinforcement detailingmust withstandloadingat leastas well as the conventionaldetailing
so thata safeandductilestructureis obtained.

To determinewhetherthe servicecriterionis fulfilled, a betterunderstanding of the behaviour

of frame cornersunder loading to failure and of the structural response in the cornerareais
required.Accordingly,two test-series, i.e. a total of eight full-scaletest specimenssubjected
to negative moment (closing of the corner), were carried out, Plos (1994a, b) and
Johansson(1995).The parametersvaried in the testswere the reinforcementdetailing,the
reinforcementratio,the reinforcement typeandthe configurationof the reinforcement bars.

To study the structuralbehaviourof the frame corner more thoroughly,the finite element
methodwas used.Four of the test specimenswere analysedusing materialmodelsbasedon
non-linearfracturemechanicsand plasticity.By usingthis approach,the progressive cracking
and the strainand stressstatescan be followed underincreasedload; which allows a better
understanding of the structuralbehaviourof the framecorner.Onceresultsobtainedusingthe
finite elementmodelshavebeenconfirmedby testresults,the finite elementmethodprovides
a valuabletool for further studies.Accordingly,in combinationwith experiments,finite
element analysessignificantly increasethe feasibility of carrying out parametricstudies.In
addition to the differencein the reinforcementdetailing, the effects that different parameters
haveon the load and deformationcapacityof the frame corner,were studiedfor framecomers
with a low reinforcement ratio,usingthe non-linearfinite elementmethod.The parameters of
interestwere:
. the weakness of theconstruction joint betweenthe first andsecondcastings,
r the bond-sliprelationbetweenthe reinforcementbarsand the sunoundingconcrete,and
r the mechanicalpropertiesof the reinforcingsteelbars.
Furthermore,the consequences of incorrectpositioningof the reinforcementloops in the new
reinforcementdetailing were examined.Detailedanalysesof the effect of the pararneterslisted
above have not been carried out for frame corners with a high reinforcement ratio.

Due to numerical difficulties, it was not possible to study the effect of differencesin the
mechanical properties of the reinforcing steel bars using finite element models of the frame
corner. lnstead,a simpler model of a cantilever beam was used. This model was then also
used to study more thoroughly the effect of drfferent bond-slip relations for structures with
both high and low amounts of reinforcement.

A limitation of the study carried out so far in this project is that all tests and analyseshave
been carried out for static loads. However, a civil defence shelter must withstand impulse
loading such as explosronsand falling buildings. Consequently,the behaviour of the new
reinforcementdetailingwhen subjectedto impulse loading needsto be studied.
) LITERATURE SURVEY
2.r Frame Corners
The bearing capacity of a frame structure dependson the strength of its independentstructural
members. To obtain a ductile behaviour in the structure. considerable redistributions of forces
and deformationsmust be possible.The capacityfor this relies heavily on the detailingof the
joint connections;i.e., the connectionsbetweendifferent members (e.g. beams and columns)
are of great importance for a sound structural behaviour. Thus, a joint connection must be at
least as strong as the structural members connected to it and show a ductile behaviour in the
ultimate limit state. ln this section, studies of different reinforcementdetailings in frame
corners are briefly presented; the term "frame corner" is used to describe a corner joint
connecting two structural members, such as a beam and a column or a slab and a wall, at an
angle of 90o.

Concrete frame comers can be separatedinto two principal types: those subjectedto a positive
moment (opening of the corner) and those subjected to a negative moment (closing of the
corner), see Figure 2. lt has been found by testing that the reinforcement detailing in frame
corners subjectedto positive moment is more sensitive than that in frame corners subjectedto
negativemoment, see Mayfield et al. (1911), Nilsson and l-osberg (1976); consequently,the
main effort of experimental studies has been concentratedon positive moment. Extensive
experimental studies on frame corners subjectedto positive moment have been conducted by
several researchers,see Swann (1969), Mayfield er al. t.1972), Nilsson (1973), Skettrup
et al. (1985). Many different reinforcement detailings with different reinforcement ratios have
been investigated; the experimental work done by Nilsson has resulted in detailing
recommendations, Nilsson (1973),Nilsson and Losberg (1976).

Some studies of frame corners subjected to negative moment have also been reported, see
Swann (1969), Mayfield er al. (1971), Yuan et al. (1982),Znuzou and Haldane (1993),
P l o s ( 1 9 9 4 b ) a n d L u o e t a l . ( 1 9 9 4 ) . A l i t e r a t u r e s u r v e y o fw o r k d o n e , b e f o r e l 9 T 3 , o n c o r n e r s
and joints subjected to positive and negative moment can be found in Nilsson (1973).
However, only tests on frame corners sublectedto a negative moment and with reinforcement
detailings similar to that examined in this study are mentioned here, see Table l. The work of
Plos is of special interest since it has functioned as a basis for the study presented in this
thesis.

a) b)

l=/ J
Figure2 Frame corner subjectedto: a) a positive bending moment and b) a negative
bendingmoment.
TableI Test resultson frame comers with reinforcementdetailingssimilar to that
presented in this study.Efficiencyis definedas the ultimateloadobserved
in the
testdividedby theestimatedloadcapacity.

Researcher Researcher's Detailing Reinforce- Efficiency

reference mentratio
number t%l
S w a n n( 1 9 6 9 ) r03 conventional 3.0 0.78
104 new 0.76
106 new 0.80
Mayfield et al. (1971)l t-3 conventional 0.66 r.25
IA
conventional l.J I

)-z conventional t.27

4A-2 conventional 1.34

2-3 new 0.94

aA
new t.t-t

Luo et al. (199q2 CJSa-4 new r . 3 9t r . 2 3 r.00

CJSa-6 new t.04I 0.82 t.27
CJSb-I new t . 3 9/ 1 . 2 3 1.09
Lightweightconcreteused
'Different
ratiosin column(first value)andbeam(secondvalue)
reinforcement

The framecornerspecimens testedby Swann(1969)had a very high reinforcement ratio.Due

to bearingfailureof the concretewithin the corner,all of his specimens
failedat a valuebelow
estimatedstrength.However,Swannconcludedthata largerefficiencyratiocouldprobablybe
attainedby usinga lower reinforcement ratio or barsof smallerdimensions(Swannusedbars
l9 mm in diameter).

In thetestscarriedout by Mayfieldet al. (1971),light weightconcrerewasused.In all but one

of thetestspecimens the efficiencyratio exceeded unity.Theyconcludedthat in framecorners
subjectedto a negativemomentthe "cornerdetailingis not important".

All specimensreacheda ioadlevelequalto or higherthanestimatedin the testscarriedout by

Luo et al. (1994). It was concludedthat the reinforcementratio togerherwith the yield
strengthof the steel and the compressiveconcretestrengthhad a significanteffect on the
modeof failure.

Sectionswith splicedreinforcementbars are possiblezonesof weakness;therefore,it is a

commonpracticeto splicethe barswherethe momentsareas small as possible.In thecunent
practicefor designof frame structures,the structuraimembersare usuallyrepresented with
their systemlines.Thus, when the assumptionof beamtheoryis used,the largestforcesare
obtainedin the joints; this is the reasonwhy the reinforcement must not be splicedin joint
connections,accordingto Boverket's Handbook for Concrete Structures,BBK 94, see
Boverket (1994). However, the assumption of beam theory is not applicablein a disturbed
regionsuchas a cornerjoint, Collinsand Mitchell (1991).ln a framecomer subjected to
negativemoment,the tensileforcesin the reinforcement barsare,prior to crackingwithin the
corner,very low comparedwith that in the membersconnectingthe joint wherethe plastic
hingesdevelop.Hence.it shouldbe appropriateto splicethe reinforcementbars within the
corner region.To study this alternative,two test serieshave been conductedat Chalmers
Universityof Technology,seePlos (1994b),It was concludedin both staticand fatiguetests
(reinforcement ratio = 0.56 Vo),that splicingof the reinforcement within the cornerareahad
no significanteffect of the behaviourof frame cornerssubjectedto negativemoment.There
were no indicationsof anchoragefailure along the lap lengths.Detailed finite element
analysesusingnon-linearfracturemechanicshavesincebeencarriedout to furtherstudythe
static tests; the analysessupportedthe idea that it would be appropriateto splice the
reinforcement within the cornerarea,seePIos(1995),LundgrenandPlos(1996).Anothertest
seriesof reinforcementdetailingin frame cornersfor civil defencesheltershas also been
carriedout, see Plos (1994a,b). However,since the work is closely relatedto the study
presentedin this thesis,it is not discussedhere;it is insteadtreatedin the Sections3 and 4'
whereit is referredto asthe first testseries.

The constantthreatof earthquakes in someregionsof the world haveled to the dedicationof

significanteffort, in the threepast decades,to the study of structuressubjectedto seismic
loading.The high risk of loss of lives in earthquakes makesit most importantto obtain a
ductilebehaviourin structuressubjectedto this kind of loading.Consequently, the behaviour
of the connections betweendifferentpartsof a stntcture (e.g.beams and columns) is crucial,
sinceit is herethat the largest forces often occur.Therefore, severalresearchers have been
studying beam-column joint connectiOns subjected to seismic loading, e.g. Hanson and
Connor(1967),Paulayet al. (1918),Tsonoset aI. (\991), Robertsonand Dunani (1992),
Cheunget aI. (1993),Restrepoet al. (1995).A parametricinvestigation of thejoint mechanics
for testscarriedout by researchers in the USA, Japanand New Zealand,is presentedin
Bonacciand Pantazopoulou (1993).The behaviourof structuressubjectedto seismicloading
is not dealtwith in thisthesis.

)) Fracture Mechanicsfor Concrete

The fracturemechanicsmodelscommonly used for concreteoriginatefrom studiesof the
initiationandpropagationof a crackin a uniaxialconcretetensiletest.In a concretestructure,
crackingoccursmainly perpendicular to the maximumtensilestresswhenthe tensilestrength
of concreteis reached.In Figure3 the failure development of a crack in a concretespecimen
subjectedto increasingtensiledeformationis sketched;a t)?ical mean stress-displacement
relationfor such a test specimenis shown in Figure 4. When the specimenis loadedin
tension,microcracksform at local weak points (Figure3b) and under increasingload these
microcracksbecome connectedto each other and are localised to a fracture zone at the
weakestsection(Figure 3c). After the maximum load is reached,the tensile strengthin the
fracture zone decreaseswith increasing deformation, while the strain outside the zone
decreases (Figure 3d). Eventually,a true crack that cannottransmitany tensilestressesis
formedin the zone (Figure3e). The concretearoundthe formedcrack,which has never
reached thetensilestrength, of stresses
will thenunloadanda redistribution anddeformations
in the structuretakesplace.

Gr=0 or<f, C, =.fr

(w=0)

11111 lttlt
*T:-----l
/-r------1
tlt*-tt.---l
tlt--it--i
L | | (t+e.)r l- - -l (t+e.)r l--t=l
tlttt-l
ltt--lt*-l t
l_L---__--_) l_' i_L____)
,'JJJJ JJJJT
a) b) c)

6, = f(w,) d.=0
(0<wcx.',) (w > w,)

f-lt t-*:l
t11
l-- -l
t--tl--l (l+e )Ltx
(l-e, )L+r' l-.-i ] -{ J - , , ,>---_
l * - r t' t- - - l
lt-ttl
i-t l- -l
-
vvVv.,

d) e)

Figure3 Stagesin the formationof a crack in a concretespecimensubjectedto increasing

tensiledeformation.

fo' 6.

I - Unloadingre
li at maxlmum
li, -6, = f(w)
-T-
I

AL€cwuw wuw

Figure4 Mean stress-displacement relation for a uniaxial tensile test specimen.The

displacement is separated
into a stress-strain
relationand a stress-crackopening
relation.The areaunderthe softeningcuwef(w)representsthe fractureenerS)Cp.
 Once a fracture zone has formed, the stress transferred through the zone depends upon the
crack opening w'and can be defined as o, - f(w), see Figure 4. Here,f(w1is a function that
describes the softening behaviour of the pure concrete. The area under the softening curve,
/w), represents the energy release when concrete cracks and is, according to Hillerborg
et al. (1916), the mean energy per unit area of a formed crack. This energy is called the
fracture energy and is denoted Gr. Fracture mechanics for concrete and concrete structuresin
general is treatedby Elfgren et al. (1989).

In finite element modelling of cracks in concrete, there are two common concepts for treating
cracks: the discrete crack approach and the smeared crack approach. In this section, only the
principal differences in the two approachesare mentioned. More thorough descriptions of the
discrete and the smeared crack approacheshave been published by for instance Rots (1988)
and Plos (1995). A review ofprevious studiesofconcrete structuresusing the finite element
method can be found in Kwak and Filippou ( 1990).

In the discrete crack approach, the crack is modelled as a geometrical discontrnuity and
separateelements are used to simulate the cracks and the material between the cracks. ln the
fictitious crack model presentedby Hillerborg et al. (1916), the fracture zone is modelled as a
fictitious crack of initial width equal to z.ero.The behaviour of the crack is then describedby a
stress-crackopening relation. The crack band model of Bazant and Oh (1983) is a similar
approach;here the fracturezone is modelled with a band of a given width. However, in this
model, the localiseddeformationsare smearedout within the band, resultingin a responsethat
can be describedby a stress-strainrelation. Thus. the continuum of strainsand stressesare
preserved in the model. Since separate elements are used to model a crack in the discrete
crack approach, the possible crack path must be assumed in advance and the finite element
mesh arranged so that the crack path follows the element boundaries. This is a serlous
drawback of the approach: a great amount of work is required to establish the FE mesh since
the user has to decide where and how the cracks may arise. It also imposes a limitation on the
spontaneouscrack pattem.

According to Rots (1988), the smeared crack approach is the counterpart ofthe discretecrack
approach. Here, the localised non-lineanty of the crack is "smeared" out over the finite
element, i.e. all the matenal deformations, including the crack, is considered in the same
element. Accordingly, a cracked solid is modelled as a continuum allowing the cracked
material to be described with a stress-strainrelation. As this means that the crack pattem need
not be taken into account in advance, the smeared crack approach is a more attractive
procedurethan the discrete crack approach.

2.3 Interaction betweenSteeland Concrete

In a compositematerialsuchas reinforcedconcrete,the interactionbetweenthe reinforcement
bars and the sunoundingconcreteis of greatimportance.The forcestransmittedbetweena
deformedreinforcementbar and the concretecan be describedby a relationbetweenshear
stresses, and the local displacement
alsoknown as bond stresses, (slip) of the bar. According
to Lutz and Gergely (1967), bond is made up of three components:chemicaladhesion,
friction, and the mechanicalinteractionbetweenconcreteand steel.However,accordingto
Gambarovaet al. (1989), adhesionand friction are quickly lost when a bar is loadedin
tension;consequently, the bond stressesfor deformedbarsare transferredmainly by contact
betweenthe reinforcement ribs andthe concrete.The differencein strainof steelandconcrete
causesa reinforcementbar to slip in relation to the surroundingconcrete.According to
Tepfers( I 973),the slip of the reinforcementbar causesboth shearstresses alongthe bar and
stressesnormalto the meansurface.seeFigure5; the normalstresses generatesplittingforces
radiatingout from the bal.

An interfacemodel can be used to describethe constitutiverelation in terms of tractions

actingon the meancontactsurfaceand of localiseddeformationsthat occurin additionto the
overall strainsin the concreteclosestto the reinforcementbar. The generalincremental
traction-displacementrelationfor the interfacecanbe expressed
as

[',-l [','
I Ar,l= | D,,
D,,
D,,
D,,l[Ar,
I
," ll^.I (l)

l Lo,,D., ,,,11^,.1
Lo,,
whereindex / denoteslongitudinaldirection,indexn normaldirection,and index , tangential
directionof the interfacewhich is orientedalongthe meansurfaceof the reinforcement bar.
The tractionand the slip in the tangentialdirectionare often negligible,which resultsin an
approximaterelationaccordingto equation(2). Variousbond-sliprelations,D71in equations
(1) and(2), basedon work carriedout by Eligehausen e/ a/. (1983),can be found in the CEB-
FIP ModelCode.CEB (1993).

[r,, ,,,'l[*,.l
[o,,'l= (2)
LAr,l 14, 4,.lLAr,.j
Researchon the effectof bond in reinforcedconcreteusingnon-linearfracturemechanicshas
been carried out by, among others, Rots (1988), Kwak and Filippou (1990), and
Noghabai( 1995);a reviewof theuseof fracturemechanicsin modellingbondcanbe foundin
Noghabai. For a more thorough description of the bond concept, see CEB (1981),
(1992)andMagnusson(1997).
Engstrcim

a) b)

<_
F,

Figure5 a) Contactstresseson a deformedbar embeddedin concrete.b) Representation

of thesestressesbv tractioncomDonentson the meancontactsurface.
3 EXPERIMENTS
3.1 Test Specimens

3.1.1 Dimensions
andreinforcement
To gain a better understandingof the behaviour of frame corners under loading to failure, two
test series, each containing of four full-scale specimens, were carried out. [n this thesis the
emphasis is on the second test series;more thorough information about the first test series can
be found in Plos (1994a,b). The dimensionsoithe specimensin the secondtest serieswere
the same as in the test series carried out by Plos, and are shown in Figure 6. The test
specimens were reinforced with deformed bars of reinforcement type K500; this type has
higher strength but lower ductility than the Ks 40 S reinforcement used by Plos, see Figure 7.
All four specimenswere cast with the new reinforcement detaiiing shown in Figure 8; that is
all reinforcement bars were spliced within the frame corners. This was accomplished by using
reinforcement loops. The legs of the loops were spliced to the main reinforcement in both the
column and the beam. To compensate for the risk of lower structural strength at the frame
corner due to the construction joint, the reinforcement ratio of the loops was increased by
25 Vo, in accordance with the Swedish Shelter Regulations, Swedish Rescue Service
Agency (1994). However, forthe specimenswith new detailing testedby Plos, the amount of
reinforcement was unequal in the sections adjacent to the frame corner, see Figure 8 and
Table 2.

2150

i l_J,*
2 1 5 0I
A-A

f---..-l Construction

I*l joint

Figure6 Dimensionsof the full scalespecimens

usedin the two testseries.

10
 Tensileforce [kN]
l 50-

150 200
Strain [0-3]

Figure7 Mechanicalpropertiesof 16 mm diameter reinforcementbars of two types:

Ks 40 S usedin the first testseries.Plos (1994a,b), and K500 usedin the second
testsenes.

A, (RV2 andRV4)
1.25A, (RV5-RV8)
0.25A, 1.2A
5,

a) b)

Figure8 Detailingof the reinforcementaccordingto: a) the conventionalmethod,and b)

the new altemative.

Two of the specimens(denoted RV5 and RV6) had a large amount of longitudinal
reinforcement, 5 Ql6, approximatelyequal to the maximum allowed reinforcementratio in
agreement with the SwedishShelterRegulations. The othertwo specimens (denotedRV7 and
RV8) had a longitudinal reinforcementamount of 3 pl0, approximatelyequal to the
correspondingminimum allowed reinforcementratio. The same amount of longitudinal
reinforcementwas used on both the compressiveand tensile sides of the beam and the
column,seeFigure8 andTable2. For eachreinforcement ratio.one specimenwas reinforced
with the splicedreinforcementloopsplacedin contactwith eachother(RV5 and RV7); in the
other specimens, the loops were placedwith spacebetweeneachother (RV6 and RV8), see
Figure9. Drawingsof the specimensin the secondtest seriesis shownin AppendixA; for
furtherinformation,seeJohansson (1995).

lt
T a b l el Reinforcenrent amount and configurations for the test \peclmen\. Thc- sanre
n u m b e r o l r e i n f o r c e m e nbt a r s r i a s p l a c e coi n b o t h t h e c o m p r e s s r r ca n d t h e t e n s i l e
s r d e so f t h c ' b e a r na n d t h e c o l u m n . T h e s p e c i n r e n rse s r e db r p l o : r l ! 1 9 - h . b r a i c
rncluded.

Tcst Bar \umber of rcinforcement bars C o n f i g u r a t r o no 1 ' Rcrnt-rtrcc'mcn1

spc-c
inrcn drarnctcr bearnand r n l r a m e c o f n c r r c r n t o r c c n r c nbtt r : dctailins

fnrnrj c(llu lI n t loctp: ) tn lhcstlrcc.

R\I tt) lr(r lxE

.i
R\ ' l to lr6 -\o/_\5
I
RV3 t0 2r5
-i
RV.1' t0 _\+/t\-'r

RV5 m colilact ltc \\

RV6: s p a c e b e t r , ,e c n nc\\
RV7.] l\+ il] c0ntact llc\\

RVS. _\+ spacc belrr'cen ltc\\

'Rcrnl'olcetlenl
t) pc K s ' 1 0 S u s c - t lP. l r s r l t J 9 - l a .h )
t R a i n i .' ' a e , t t e r t
t) pe K . i ( X )u s e d
'l'hc
nurnberof bnrs \\'erenot equal in t h e h e a n r a n d t h e c o l u n r n . s e e F i g L r r cI

F i g u r e9 Specimens r',ith a large amount of reinforcer.nent{RV-5 and RV6 t. Thc

r e i n f o r c e n r e nlto o p s u e r e s p l i c e dj n c o n t e c t\ \ l t h e 3 c h o t h e r ( l e f t l o r u ' i t h s p a c e
bet',r'een thc loops iright ).

3.1.2 N'Iaterialproperties

T h e s p e c i m e n s\ \ ' e r ec a s t u i t h t h e c o l u m n i n a v e r t i c a lp o s i t i o n .s e e F i g u r e 6 . T o o b t a i n I
constructlon l o i n t . t h c i r l n t e c o l u m n s\ \ e r e c a s tf i r s t a n d l o u r d a y s l a t e rt h c b e a r n sa n t l c o r r r e r .
. l o l n t s$
. ' e r ec a s t .T h e s p e c i m e n s* e r e m a d ei n p a r r s :t h e t \ \ ' o s p e c i m e n st h a t u o u l i i b e d i r e c t l t
c o m p a r e du r t h e a c ho t h e r \ \ ' e r ec a s t a t t h e s a m et i m e a n d u i t h c ( ) n c r . - t ier r r r nt h e s a r n c ' b l t t c h .
C o n c r e t eq u a l i t r K - 1 0 .a c c o r d i n st o B o r e r k e t . H a n d b o o kf r t r c o n c r e t cS t r u c t u r e \B . B K 9 - 1 .: c , r
B o r " e r k e (t 1 9 9 ' 1 ) u. i t h : t t a r g e tc r l i n d e r c o m p r e s s i r es t r e n c t ho i 3 0 \ 1 P a t a s
c h o s e n .F g r t h c -

12
specimens in the secondtest serieswith low reinforcement ratio, a differentconcretequality
wasdelivered for thecastingof the beams.This qualityexhibiteda somewhat highersplitting
and compressivestrengthbut a lower value of Young'smodulusof elasticity.However,the
fractureenergywas only abouthalf that of the ordinaryconcreteof qualityK30. The strength
of the concrete used was determined by tests on cubes ( 150 mm) and cylinders
(0150x 300 mm), according to Swedishstandard, BST Byggstandardiseringen (1987),andis
presented in Table3. The strengthof the was
concrete determined at the ageof 28 daysandon
the day that the specimens were tested.The fractureenergywas determinedaccordingto the
recommendations of RILEM (1985) at a concreteage of between29 and 32 days. The
mechanical propertiesof the reinforcement arepresentedin Figure 10.

Table3 The strengthof the concreteused in the test specimens(mean value of three
specimens).

Test Object 28 days Testingday Fracture

specimen f
J t.split f
" c.cuDe
f ,,qr Ert Age f f
" t , s p t t l " c.cuoe f ,.ryt E c1 Energyr

IMPa lMPa lMPa lGPal ldaysllMPa IMPa lMPa lGPal lN/ml

R V I , R V 2 column J.U 3 4 . 8 23.2 JZ J.l 34.9 23.1
beam 3 . 6 39.4 29.'7 28 3 . 6 39.4 29.7
RV3, RV4 column 58 J.U 29.1 1 9 . 1
beam 56 3 . 6 3 9 . 8 28.1

RV5,RV6 column ).2 J I,J 30.0 2 6 . 6 43 3 . 5 39.9 3 1 . 3 26.9 l3l

beam J.l 35.6 29.8 24.6 39 i. t 36.6 30.6 25.0 110

RV7, RV8 column J.Z 36.6 /- t.) z+.J 34 3.2 J I.J 21.8 24.6 108
beam J.+ 40.1 34.0 23.s 30 3 . 5 4 1 . 6 3 3 . 8 23.5 66
Not determined for the concrete used in the soecimensin the first test series

o, [MPa] Reinforce- En E,
f'u f'u cu

-l tu menttype IMPa] IMPa] [vo] [vo] lGPal

f,, dl6 Ks40S 473 652 J.J I t.5 2t0
pl0 Ks40S 5M o/) 3.5 14.5 atA

016Ks00 561 6s2 2;7 10.0 1 8 9

010Ks00 573 615 2.8 12.0 1 9 1
En e, e,lVal

Figure 10 Mechanicalprop€rtiesof the reinforcementbars (mean value of five specimens).

The valuesof Young'smodulusand the strengthof the steelhavebeencalculated
to correspondto a crosssectionareaof 201 mm2 and 78.5 *rnt for the @16and
@10bars,respectively.

l3
3.2 TestSet-upand TestProcedure
The frame cornerspecimenswere testedin a verticaltest rig, seeFigure I l. The specimens
were braced in the horizontal direction at the loading and support points, allowing
displacements only along the loadingline. The load was appliedby a hydraulicjack and the
magnitudeof the load was measured by a loadcell. The total deflectionalongthe loadingline
was measured by electronicdisplacement transducers.Straingaugeswereusedto measurethe
strainin the reinforcementloops(length6 mm) as well as on the concrete(length60 mm) at
theinsideof theframecorner,seeFigure12.

The load was initially appliedin load incrementsof 5 kN for the specimenswith the low
reinforcementratio and in load incrementsof l0 kN for the specimenswith the high
reinforcementratio. To make it easierto follow the behaviourof the frame cornernearthe
maximum load, the load incrementwas halved when a non-linearstructuralresponsewas
observed(at 25 kN and 120 kN for the specimenswith low and high reinforcementratios,
When large time dependentdeformationsstartedto occur,the load level was
respectively).
keptconstantuntil thedisplacement waslessthan0.01mm/s.

Hydraulic jack
[.oad cell ;Displacement
Pendulum brace -. transducer

Construction
loint

FigureI I Testset-upof framecornerspecimens.

150 200 200

-l
aw | 2
l50-lP! c = straingaugeon
200 lT lf- rernf
orcement
-[ - = Straingauge
on
200 lf
.-p .oncrere
ll
_u_\__r

Figure12 Positionof straingaugeson reinforcement

andon concrete.

14
3.3 Failure Development

3.3.1 Generalobservations
During the initial loading, two pnmary cracks were observedclose to the frame corner in all
the specimens,one in each section adjacentto the corner, see Figure 13. In all specimens
exceptRV5, the first crack was observedat the construction.yoint. When yielding was reached
in the reinibrcement bars, the deformations were concentrated to the frame comer region and
plastic hingesdevelopedon both sidesof the corner for all specimens.AII specimensshowed
ductile behaviour.

,, Crack section II
Construction
.yoint

Figure13 Sectionswhere the two primary cracks were first observedduring the initial
loading.

3.3.2 with high reinforcementratio

Specimens

For specimens RV5 and RV6, very few crackswere observedoutsidethe immediatevicinity
of the framecorner.The behaviourof the two specimenswas similar and the maximumload
wasdeterminedfor both specimens by spallingof the concretesidecoverin the framecorner,
seeFigure14.Accordingto Boverket'sHandbookfor concreteStructures,BBK 94, Boverket
(1994),this failure should not have occuredfor the combinationof bar diameter,bending
radiusof the reinforcement loopsandconcretecoverusedin the specimens. That the concrete
side cover spalled off anyway indicatesthat the recommendations in BBK 94 are not
detailing.Before the spallingoccurred,the largest
applicablefor this kind of reinforcement
cracksfor bothspecimens wereobservedin cracksectionII (accordingto Figure13).

Both specimensobtained considerableplastic rotation and the maximum load was

approximately the same.SpecimenRV5 still showedductilebehaviourwhenthe testhadto be
stoppedbecause of the obliquityof the hydraulicjack. SpecimenRV6 wasdeformeduntil two
of the reinforcementloops were tom off.

3.3.3 Specimenswith low reinforcementratio

ln testsof the specimenswith low reinforcement

ratio, crackswere formedwith a spacingof
approximately 0.2 metersbetweenthemin boththe beamandthe column.The two specimens
behavedsimilarly and the maximum load was the same.The cracks that led to failure

l5
appeared in crack section II for specimen RV7. For specimen RVE. the decisive crack
a p p e a r e d i n s e c t i o n l . a l o n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n j o r n t . s e e F i1g-u5r.eF o r h o t h s p e c i m e n s . r h e f i r s t
c r a c k w a s o b s e r v e di n t h e c o n s t r u c t r o n j o i n t a t a l o a d l e v e l l o * e r t h a n e x p e c t e dr a t a b o u t
l 0 k \ c o r n p a r e dt o a n e r p e c t e dl o a d o f a b o u t 2 0 k \ t . T h i s i n d i c a t e st h a t t h e t e n s t l e\ t r e n g t h
a c r o s st h e c o n s t m c t i o nj o i n t u ' a s l o w e r t h a n i n t h e c o n c r e t ec l o s e t o r t . r v h i c h r e s u l t c di n a
l o c a l i s e du e a k n e s si n t h e c o l u m n a d i a c e n t o t h e c o r l c r a r e a .

For the specimens with lou reinforcement ratio the marrmum load u'as reache{ aftcr.
c 0 n s t d e r a b l ep l a s t r c r o t a t r o n i n t h e \ e c t i o n s a d i a c e n tI o t h e f r a l l e c o r n e r . T h e n t i t x i r n u n t
( l c l i ) l r l l i l l l ( ) ltli l r h t l t h t h c s e s p e c r r l c l ) s\ \ l r s i i r n r t e d b r r u p t u r r ( ) t l h c r c i r ) 1 ' ( ) f c c t l c n
i ll l c c
r r - r n l r ) r c c l r c nl oI o p si n e a c hs p e c i n t e n\ \ e r e t o r n o f f ) .

F i g u r el ' 1 S p e c i r n e nRs\ ' 5 ( l e i r )a n dR V 6 l r i g h t t a tr h ee n do i ' r h er e s r

F i g u r el - 5 S p e c i r n e nRsV 7 ( l e i r )a n dR V 8 r r i s h t r a tr h ee n d( ) 1 ' t hree s r

t6
3.4 TestResults
The structuralbehaviourof the framecomer specimens is describedby the load-displacement
relationand the distributionof tensileforcesalongthe reinforcementbarsin the corner.The
relationsbetweenloadand verticaldisplacement for testspecimens RV5 to RV8 areshownin
Figuresl6 and 17.Exceptfor RV5, all specimenshad someof their reinforcement barstorn
off. A plateaucan be seenclearlyin the load-displacement curvesfor the specimenswith the
low reinforcement ratio.Due to spallingof the concreteside cover,this was not the casefor
the specimenswith high reinforcementratio. The load-displacement relations for test
specimens RVI to RV4, presented by Plos(1994a,b), areshownin Figure18.Thatthe load
capacitiesobtainedfor the specimenswith conventionaldetailingwere higherthan thosefbr
the specimenswith the new detailingis explainedby the unequalcapacitiesof the sections
adjacentto the cornerwith the new detailing,Figure8 and Table 2. The maximumload and
the maximumdisplacement at the end of the testareshownfor all specimens in Table4.

I-,oad,F [kN] + SpecimenRV5

t80 T
+ SpecimenRV6
1 6 0T
140 +
ltn +

r00t
80t
60 1.
40
20

50 t00 r50 200

Displacement,6
[mm]

Figure16 had-displacementrelationsfor the test specimenswith high reinforcement

ratio.
the maximumload capacitywas limited due to spallingof the
In both specimens,
sideconcretecoverin the framecomer.

t1
 Load,F [kN] - speclmen Kv /
fu-
+ Specimen RV8
40

30

20

l0

200 250
Displacement,
6 [mm]

Figurel7 relationsfor the test specimenswith low reinforcementratio.

l,oad-displacement
Both specimenshad their maximum displacement limited by ruptureof the
reinforcementbars.

Load, F [kN] ' Specimen RV I

I80- '.--' SpecimenRV2
._.^.r+.*-
4
r60- ' -j
Specimen RV3
I

140- r - SpecimenR-V4-
"
ffi+r----....
120. ! | 'J- ^t lr
100. ,,f u='4 t/
fl
80- I /a
a
OU* r
\.

a0-!
i
u-t"rrt*' i3$43;.=.-.-.--.c - € trG.'-]?.+.n
L
t
I

150 200 250

Displacement,
6 [mm]

Figure18 l,oad-displacement relationsfor the frame corner specimensof the test series
carriedout by Plos(1994a,b).

18
Table4 Testresultsfor theeightspecimens. RVI to RV4 havebeen
Resultsfor specimens
takenfrom Plos( 1994a.b).

Reinforce- Reinforce- Maximum Displacement Maximum

,1
mentratior mentratlo- load at maxlmum displacement
load

Lv"l [vo) lkNl lmml

RV1 0.75 1.00 6l 165
RV2 0.75/ 1.003 98 165
{< 239
RV3 0.19 u.l5
l 93 144
RV4 0 . 1 9/ 0 . 2 3

RV5 0.63 0.88 147 244

RV6 150 236

RV7 0.14 0.19 42 225

RV8 t67
'Reinforcement
ratioin beam,/column
tReinforcement
ratioin corner(loops)
'Unequalamountof reinforcementin beamandcolumn,seeFigure8 andTable2

The distributionof tensileforcesalongthe reinforcementbarsin the framecornerfor different

loadlevelsis shownin Figuresl9 and 20; the force-curves overlapin the middleof the frame
cornerwherethe reinforcement bars were overlapped.The tensileforce varied in a similar
way for all four test specimens.The highestvaluesof the tensileforceswere reachedin the
crosssectionsadjacentto the corners(sectionsI and tr accordingto Figure l3). For all test
specimens, yielding was initiatedin the reinforcementbars beforethe maximum load was
reached.Measuredstrain(meanvalueover a lengthof 60 mm) in the concreteat the insideof
the framecornerneverexceeded 2.5 10-'and2.0.10-'for the specimens with high and low
reinforcement ratios,respectively.

19
Tensileforce[kN] Specimen
RV5
-.-
120- F = 1 4 7k N , 6 = 2 9 m m
+f=l3lkN,6=20mm
100r /^\.] +F=100kN,6=12mm
*F=60kN.5=5mm
80r
! _ \---\
l _\ -\ \
-----
,/ 1
/?
/

a,, ,/,^"---_r-.

Strain gauge on
0r reinforcement
0 200 r000 1200 1400
Position
x [mm]

Specimen
RV6
Tensileforce[kNl
'
F=150kN,6=33mm
120. + F = 1 3 0k N , 6 = 2 5 m m
'-F = 1 0 0k N , 6 = 1 5m m
100l
-F=60kN,6=7mm
80 I

60 t ,.'
'""
""'
40 r.''
:"
20r-- '
Strain gauge on
0 +--- reinforcement
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Position
x [mm]

Figurel9 Distributionof tensileforcesalongthe reinforcementbarsin the framecornerat

differentloadlevelsfor thesoecimenswith hish reinforcementratio.

20
Tensileforce[kN] Specimen
RV7

)u- -"-
F = 42 kN, 6= 68 mm
+p=40kN,6=28mm
-'-" +
.\ F = 30 kN, d= 12mm
"t...
\ i*F=2okN,6=4mm
\
\ '\
L\\
---\
-\.'\i'
x
,./t-.t.-..------.
\:
\
\ - c = Strain gauge on
*-'
0r ---
0 200 1000 1200 1400 reinforcement
Positionx [mm]

Tensileforce [kN] SpecimenRV8

50 " F=42kN,6=l07mm
+F=40kN,6=56mm
*F=30kN,6=l0mm
+f=19kN,d=7mm

= Straingaugeon
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 reinforcement
x [mm]
Position

Figure20 Distributionof tensileforcesalongthe reinforcementbarsin the frame cornerat

differentloadlevelsfor the specimens
with low reinforcementratio.

3.5 Discussion
In the first test series,carriedout by Plos, the specimenswith conventionalreinforcement
detailingwerefound to havea somewhathigherload capacitythanthosewith new detailing.
This was becauseof the greaterarnountof reinforcement,prescrib€dfor the cross-sectionwith
the constructionjoint (sectionI in Figure 13),that continuedthroughthe other criticalcross-
section(sectionII in Figure 13) for the conventionalreinforcementdetailing.For the new
detailing,the amountof reinforcement crossingsectionII waslessthanthat crossingsectionI,
see Figure 8, which resultedin unequal strengthin the sectionsadjoining the corner.
Consequently, a plastichinge developedonly in the weakercrosssectionof the specimens

2l
with new detailing,and at a lower load than for the specimenswith conventionaldetailing.
Therefore,in the secondtestseries,the adjoiningsectionsof the framecomerweredesigned
to be of equalstrength,seeFigure8. With this modification,plastichingesdevelopedat both
sidesof the framecorner,i.e. a similarbehaviourwasexhibitedfor specimens reinforcedwith
eithertypeof detailing.

In the secondtest series,the specimens with high reinforcement ratio behavedsimilarly.The

maximumload was nearlythe sameand the load-displacement curveswere similar.Because
of the spallingof the concretesidecover in the frame corners,a somewhatlower maximum
load capacitythanexpectedwasobtained.Also, the plateauin the load-displacement relation,
observedfor the specimenswith high reinforcementratio in the first test series,did not
appear. One can assume that when the concrete spalling occurred, the outermost
reinforcementbarsceasedto carry any load and the remainingreinforcementbarswere left to
balancethe compressionforce in the concrete.This meansthat the load capacityof the
structuredecreased andthatthe load-displacement plateauwould appearat a lower loadlevel.
The response of the testspecimens,in particularof specimenRV5, corresponded fairly well to
this assumption.When the maximumload was reached,it fell becauseof the spallingafter
which a plateaucan be discemedin the load-displacement curye for a load of about90 kN.
Thus, theoretically,if the spallinghad not occurred,the specimenswith high reinforcement
ratio probablywould haveobtaineda plateauat the maximumload level.

Both of the specimens with low reinforcementratio, in the secondtestseries,showedsimilu

ductility.The plateauin the load-dispiacement
relationsat maximumloaddid appearclearly
for thesespecimens. The maximumloadswere the sameand the displacements were of the
samemagnitude.There were no indicationsthat the differencein the configurationof the
reinforcement barshad anyinfluenceon the response of the specimens.

Threeof the specimens in the secondtestserieshad somereinforcement barstorn off. The use
of a lessductile reinforcement type, K500, contributedto this behaviour.Thus, if the more
ductilereinforcement typeKs 40 S had beenused,a greaterdeformationbeforecollapseof the
specimens would havebeenobtained.No testswith the conventionalreinforcement detailing
andthe new,lessductile,reinforcement type werecarriedout.

An approximate comparisonwasmadebetweenthe load capacityof the specimens usedin the

secondtest seriesand that of the specimenswith conventionalreinforcement detailingtested
by Plos(specimens RV1 andRV3). Classiccalculationmethodsfor reinforcedbeamanalyses,
with the compressive zonedescribed by stressblock factorsa andp accordingto the Concrete
Handbookdesign,AB SvenskByggtjiinstand CementaAB (1990),wereusedto estimatethe
load capacitiesof the specimens. Estimatedload capacitiesfor the specimenscomparedare
listedin Table5.

22
Table5 Comparison of load capacity between the specimens in the second test series and
the specimens with the conventional reinforcement detailing tested by Plos.
Efficiency is defined as ultimate load observedin test divided by the estimated
maximum load capacity.

Test Test Estimated Maximumload Efficiency

senes specimen maximum load in the tests

tkNl tkNl
RVI t57 115 l.ll

RV3 40 44 l.l0

2 RV5 t65 14',7 0.89

RV6 150 0.91

RV7 -tl A'

i.l4
RV8 A1
1.r4

The estimatedmaximumload capacitieswere lower than thoseobservedin the tests,except

for the specimenswherethe concreteside coverspalledoff (RV5 and RV6). Becauseof the
with high reinforcementratio, a direct
spallingof the concreteside cover for the specimens
comparisoncannotbe made betweenthe specimenswith conventionaland new detailing.
However,the calculatedestimationsindicatethat the load capacityof specimensRV5 and
RV6 would have been somewhathigher than that of specimenRVl, if the spallingof the
concretesidecoverhad not occurred,and providedthe two differentreinforcement detailings
of the specimenswereequivalent.

For the specimenswith low reinforcementratio, a direct comparisonis possible.The

differencesbetweenthe estimatedand the observedmaximumload capacitiesfor specimens
RVl, RV7 and RV8 are similarly small. Furtherrnore,a similar plateau in the load-
displacement relationwas observedin all threespecimens.Accordingly,for the specimens
with low reinforcementratio, approximatelythe sameload and deformationcapacitywere
obtainedwhenusingtheconventionalandthenew reinforcement detailing.
4 NON-LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES
4.1 General
One of the aims of this study was to gain a better understandingof the structural behaviour of
frame corners under loading to failure and of the response in the corner area. One way to
achieve this is by carrying out many experiments in which different pararnetersare varied.
However, not only is this quite expensive but it cannot be counted on to give all the
information needed. Another approach is to make use of the advanced computational
techniquesavailable today. By using the non-linear finite element method, in which the
concrete material models are based on non-linear fracture mechanics to account for cracking,
together with plasticity models for the reinforcement steel and the concrete in compression,
the need for experiments can be geatly reduced. ln such a finite element analysis, it is
possible to evaluate the stressesand deformations of a stmcture more thoroughly than can be
done in an experiment. However, the experiments cannot be completely replaced, since they
are still neededto check that the finite element simulations correspondto the tests.This means
that even if both methods have their advantageswhen used alone, they can become an even
more powerful tool when used together. Accordingly, in combination with the experiments,
the use of non-linear finite element analyses will result in a better understanding of the
mechanical behaviour in a structure during loading to failure.

The test specimenswere analysedusing the finite element programme DIANA, TNO (1993).
Two-dimensional plane stressmodels were used to simulate the concrete.The cracking of the
concrete was modelled using the smeared crack concept with fixed cracks. The non-linearity
of concrete in compression and the steel reinforcement were accounted for by plasticity
models. The specimens were modelled at two different levels of detail. A relatively coarse
mesh, assuming perfect bond between the reinforcement bars and the concrete, was used to
simulate the general responseof the specimens. To compare the new and the conventional
reinforcement detailings a refined element model, taking into account the interaction between
reinforcement and concrete. with a more dense mesh was used. This model was also used to
examine the influence of such parametersas the interaction between the reinforcement and the
concrete, the weakness of the construction joint, and the mechanical properties of the
reinforcing steel. Thorough information about the material data used in the FE analysescan be
found in Johansson(1995. 1996).

4.2 Material Models

4.2.r Modelling of the concrete

4.2.t.1 Thecrack modelfor tension

ln the analyses usedhere,crackingis takeninto consideration by usinga constantstresscut-

off criterion.This meansthat oncethe maximumprincipaltensilestressreachesthe tensile
strength,independent of the otherprincipalstresses,a crack is initiatedperpendicular to the
principal stress,seeFigure 21. The orientationofthe crack is then storedand the material
responseperpendicular to the crack is determinedby a stress-strain relation,reflectingthe
effect of the softeningrelationflw), for the crackedmaterialvolume.Additionalcracksmay

.)A
appearat the samelocationbut their formationis restrictedto a minimum angle(hereset to
60") to previouscracks.Whenthe crackedconcreteis unloaded,the secantunloadingmodulus
is usedas tangentstiffnessso that the strainacrossthe crackis reducedlinearlyto zeroas the
stressapproaches zero, see Figure 22. Thus, in the model used,a crack closescompletely
whenthe stressreacheszero.

To simulatethe softeningcurve of the concrete,a bilinear stress-crack openingrelation,

accordingto recommendations given in Gylltoft (1983),was used,seeFigure23. The fracture
energy,Gp,wastogetherwith the tensilestrength,/,usedto calculatethe valueof the ultimate
crack opening,w,. To get the stress-strain relationfor the concretewherethe reinforcement
barswere modelledassumingperfectbond,the meancrack distance,s- (= 0.2 m), observed
from the testspecimens was used.Approximatestrainvaluesweredeterminedby dividingthe
ultimatecrackopeningby the meancrackdistance.However,asan approximationto consider
the higherstiffnessin the structure,due to the effectsof tensionstiffening,the gradientof the
descending part of the stress-strain
curve was halvedfor the concretewhereperfectbond was
assumed.In the modelswherethe interactionbetweenthe reinforcement and the concreteis
simulatedby using separate elementsfor the reinforcementbarsand the concrete,the crack
distribution is given by the analysis,which means that the tension stiffening effect is
consideredautomatically.Since the smearedcracking of each element representsthe
developmentof one real crack,the stress-strain relationof the crackedconcretedependson
the lengthof the finite element.Therefore,in the areawherethe interactionwas takeninto
account,the crackwidth was dividedby the elementlensthsto determinethe softeninsstress-
strainrelation.

The tensilestrengthin MPa usedin the analyseswas determined,accordingto the CEB-FIP

Model Code.CEB (1993).as

f, =o.to(f,.,r,)''' (3)

where /].""1 was the cylinder compressive strength of the specimens on the testing day, see
Table 3.

a)

yield
Compression
surface Compression
Tensioncut-off yield surface
criterion

Figure2l Tensioncut-off criterionand compression yield surfacein: a) the o-?plane when

6t = 6z > dr , andb) in the o,-orplane (planestress:d; = 0).

z)
 andtension
Fisure22 Stiffnessusedin the analysesfor unloadedconcretein compression

wul6

openingrelationsimulatingthe concretesofteningcurve.The
Figure23 Bilinearstress-crack
shapeof thecurvewasbasedon recommendations givenin Gylltoft ( 1983).

4.2.1.2 The plasticity model for compression

In compression, the responseof the concretewas accountedfor by an elastic-plastic model.

The elasticstress-state was limited by a Drucker-Prager yield surface,seeFigure 21. Once
yieldinghad occuned,an associated flow rule with isotropichardeningwas used.In DIANA,
the Drucker-Prager yield surfaceis evaluatedfrom the currentstressstate,the angleof internal
friction, p, and the cohesion,c, seeAppendixB. When concretein compressionis unloaded,
the initial elasticstiffnessis used,seeFigure22.

The angleof intemal friction in concretewas,in accordance with recommendations given in

the DI.ANA manual,approximated to be d = 30oandthe cohesion,c ,usedin the analyses
was
calculatedas

I - sin0
c = J r.n 1(€ f,n,^,ot) -=------:- (4)
zcos@

26
where/..,,1(€Pun,*,ot)
was the compressivestrengthas a functionof the plasticstralnin the
directionof the uniaxial evaluated
stress, from standarduniaxial testson cylinders,see
Table 3. Poisson'sratio was. accordinqto recommendations in BBK 94. Boverket(1994).
approximatedtov=0.20

The strainhardening of the concrete, weredetermined

specifiedin the analyses, on uniaxial
cylindertestsin whichconcrete from the samebatchas the testspecimenswasused.In these
curvecouldbe registered
teststhe stress-strain whichis why the
only to the maximumstress,
remainingpart of the stress-straincurve was determinedusing the cylindercompression
strengthin accordancewith the ConcreteDesign Handbook,AB SvenskByggdiinstand
CementaAB (1990)and CEB-FIPModel Code,CEB (1993).In the analyses, the strain
hardeningof the compressedconcretewas describedby a cohesion-hardening parameter
relation,seeAppendixB.

4.2.2 Modelling of the reinforcement

The reinforcement bars in the specimens were modelled with either the DIANA option
"embeddedreinforcements" or separatesteel elements using truss elements. In the embedded
reinforcement option, the reinforcement does not have separatedegrees of freedom; instead
the strength and stiffness of the concrete elements are increased in the direction of the
embedded reinforcement. With this model, perfect bond is assumed between the
reinforcement and the surrounding material. When the interaction between the reinforcement
and the concrete was taken into consideration, the reinforcement bars were modelled by
separateelements, using truss elements in combination with interface elements, see Section
4.2.3.The von Mises yield criterion with associatedflow and isotropic strain hardening was
used to describethe constitutive behaviour of the reinforcement. The modulus of elasticity and
the mechanical properties of the reinforcement used in the FE analyses are shown in
Appendix B. The Poisson'sratio was set to 0.3.

When testing a reinforcement bal to obtain its material properties, the plastic deformations
will localise to a short length of the bar once the ultimate strength of the steel material has
been reached. However, the strain in the stress-strainrelation obtained from such a test is
calculated from the extension of the bar divided by the length of the bar. Thus, the locaiised
deformations are smearedout over the whole length of the bar tested. Therefore, to take this
into considerationwhen determining the stress-strainrelation of the steel used in the analyses,
the localised deformations were smeared out over one reinforcement element, which resulted
in a less steepstress-sffainrelation for the softening branch. The strain exceeding the strain at
maximum stresswas modified according to equation (5), see Figure 24.

A€no= ot#, (5)

Here,16o, denotesthe lengthof the reinforcementbar usedwhen determiningthe stress-strain

relation of the steel (= 400 mm) and l,p*n, denoresthe lenglh of the finite element
representingthe bar in the FE analyses(= 50 mm).

27
 Stress,o, [MPa]
800 - ,A€
T--1

600

--o- Originalstress-straini

-r- Modifiedstress-strain

300 350
Strain,e, [l0-3]

Figure24 Determination relationusedin the FE analyses

of the modifiedstress-strain to take
into considerationthe localiseddeformationsof the reinforcementbar after
maximum stress. The modified strain /to,,,i is determined according to
equation(5).

In this work, the importanceof the mechanrcalpropertiesof the reinforcingsteel in the

deformationcapacityof the framecomerwasstudied.The ratio1of the ultimatestrengthiuto
the yield strength,frrcan. accordrngto Oberg(1976),have a considerable effect on the
rotationalcapacityof a structure.A high valueof y, seeequation(6), means thatthe yielding
of the reinforcement barsis more likely to occurover a largerarea,resultingin an enhanced
del'ormation capacityof a structure.

f
'f
(6)

Heref,, and/,, denotethe yield strengthand ultimatestrength,respectively,of the "normal

relation,seeFigure 25. In the detailedFE analyses,
ratio" stress-strain threedifferentstress-
strainrelations denoted"highratio","normalratio"and"low ratio",
ofthe steelreinforcement,
were studied;the "normalratio" corresponded relationof the steelusedin
to the stress-strain
test specimens RV7 andRV8 and the "high ratio" and"low ratio" stress-strain relationswere
evaluatedfrom the "normal ratio" relationusing a factor g accordingto equation(7). For
detailedinformationaboutthe determinationof the "hieh ratio" and the "low ratio" stress-
strainrelations,seeJohansson (1996).

^, mod
tt - -:-- (7)
I

28
o l M Pal
I Stress-strain f" f,,
f',),
relation lMPal lMPal
f
High ratio Jt3 I1.3 1.30 1.1
Normalratio )/J 675 1.18 1.0
Low ratio <7? 608 r.06 0.9

e, [Vo]

Figure 25 Determination of the three different stress-strain relations of the steel

reinforcement used in the detarled FE analyses. The "normal ratio" stress-strain
relation is based on the reinforcement used in test specimens RV7 and RV8,
Johansson(1995).

4.2.3 Interactionbetweenreinforcementand concrete

The interactionbetweenthe reinforcement barsand the surroundingconcretewas takeninto

consideration only in the detailedanalyses.ln the analysesof the generalresponse,perfect
bond was assumed,see Section 4.2.2. ln DIANA, the bond-slip relation betweenthe
reinforcement and the concreteis modelledusinginterfaceelements.The off-diagonalterms
aresetto zeroand a non-linearbond-siiprelationin the longitudinaldirectionis usedtogether
with a linear relation in the normal direction,see equation(8). In the model no normal
expansionis causedby the slip of a bar; thus, radial stressesdo not arise in the concrete
around a bar. Consequently,splitting failures cannot be modelled.Instead,the effect of
splittinghasto be includedin the non-linearbond-sliprelation.

[4,,.lfq (',) o l[^','l

I t=t il | (8)
L^,"1 L 0 D,,lle".l

An exampleof the FE modellingof the reinforcedconcreteusedin the detailedanalysesis

shownin Figure26. The steelreinforcement bars,modelledby trusselements,are positioned
at the edgebetweenthe two concreteelements.Separatenodesare usedto define the truss
elementsand the concreteelementsalthoughthe co-ordinatesof the nodesare identical.
lnterfaceelementsare then usedto model the bond-sliprelationbetweenthe reinforcement
and the concrete.The width i of the interfaceelements(seeFigure26) is initially equalto
zero, while the thickness of the interface elements is equal to the circumferenceof the
reinforcementbars.

Sincethe trusselements,modellingthe reinforcement bars,haveto be positionedat the edge

of the concreteelements,the finite elementmesh is dependenton the positioningof the
reinforcementbars. Consequently,when modelling the interactionbetweenthe reinforcement
and the concrete,a morecomplexfinite elementmeshis usuallynecessarythan when a perfect
bond is assumedand the embeddedreinforcementoption is used.

29
 Bond-slip
14-nodeinterfaceelement
)

Concrete
(4-nodeplanestresselement)
Reinforcementbar
(2-nodetrusselement)

Figure 26 Finite element idealisation in DIANA of reinforced concrete elements using truss
and interface elements.

The bond-slip relation between the reinforcement and the concrete used in the detailed
analyses was approximated according to the CEB-Ftr Model Code, CEB (1993) where the
bond stress,r, is given as a function of the relative displacement,s.

The CEB-FIP Model Code accountsfor the effect of splitting cracks by giving different bond-
slip relations for confined and unconfined concrete.Since no splitting cracks were observedin
the test specimens, "confined concrete" was assumed in the FE analyses. According to
Engstrom (1992), the bond stressdecreasesconsiderably when the reinforcement steel yields,
see Figure 27. ln the bond-slip relation proposed by Engstrom, the bond stress is not given
explicitly, but depends on when the steel reinforcement yields. However, the principal bond-
slip relation for this yield case is similar to the relation given when "unconfinedconcrete"is
assumed; therefore, as an approximation, "unconfined concrete" was assumed for the
reinforcementbars where yielding of the reinforcing steel was likely to occur.

i
I
I
L - -
.M

CEB-FIPModelCode

relationshipaccordingto the CEB-FIPModel Code,CEB (1993)

Figure27 Bond-sress-slip
andthe modifiedmodelaccordingto Engstrcim(1992).

30
 r IMPa]
Bond-stress,

+ "Good"bondcondition
l0
+ "Other"bondcondition

+ "Bad"bondcondition

3
Slip,s [mm]

Figure28 The principaldifferencebetween"good", "other" and "bad" bond conditionsfor

"unconfinedconcrete".CEB ( 1993).

Differentbond-sliprelationswere used in the analysesto study the effect of the structural

behaviourof variousbond conditions."Good" and "other"bond conditionsaccordingto the
CEB-FIP Model Code, CEB (1993), and a third bond-slip relation,denoted"bad" bond
condition,wereused.The "bad" bond conditionwas definedas havinghalf the bondstressat
the sameamountof slip as the "other"bondcondition,seeFigure28. The differentbond-slip
canbe foundin Johansson
relationsusedin the FE analyses (1996).

4.3 The Numerical Approach

In a finite elementanalysis,wherethe non-linearbehaviourof the material,the structure,or
both is takeninto consideration, a systemof simultaneous non-linearequationsresults.The
relationbetweenload and displacement then becomesnon-linear,and the displacement at a
given stageusually dependson previousdisplacements. To solve this system,the load is
subdividedinto increments, seeFigure29. At eachload incrementa linear approximation of
the stiffness,representing a kind of lineansedform of the relationbetweenthe load and the
displacement, is established
andthe correspondrng equilibriumequationsaresolved.Sincethe
stiffnessvaries with the displacement,the internal forces of the structureare not in
equilibriumwith the externalforces;this producesan error in the solution.Therefore,to
minimisethis error,an iterativesolutionprocedureis usedwithin eachload incrementandthe
solutionis refineduntil a specifiedconvergence critenais satisfied.
 o^F

t^F

'-F

Figure29 Increasingerror of the solutionwhen using the incrementalload methodwithout

correctionfor a onedegreeof freedomsystem.

Thereareseveraldifferentiterationmethodsavailablethatcanbe usedin the solutionprocess.

Accordingto TNO (1996),the generalprocedure is the samefor all iterationmethods;the
differenceis in how the stiffnessmatrix is determined. The iterativemethodscan be divided
roughlyinto threecategories: the tangentstiffnessmethod,the initial stiffnessmethodandthe
secantstiffnessmethod,seeFigure30. In the tangentstiffnessmethod,the stiffnessmatrix is
determinedat eachiteration,resultingin a methodthat requiresfew iterations,but thereevery
iteration is relatively time consuming.In the initial stiffness method, the stiffness is
determinedat the beginningof each load step and it is then used throughoutthe whole
iteration processwithin an increment.This method requires more iterations to reach
convergence than the tangentstiffnessmethod.However,sincethe samestiffnessmatrix is
used in each iterationwithin the increment,every iterationis faster.The secantstiffhess
methodusesthe informationfrom previoussolutionsto updatethe inversestiffnessmatrix in
eachiteration,which resultsin a convergence ratesomewhere belweenthat of the tangentand
the initial stiffnessmethods.

In this study,the Modified Newton-Raphsonmeihod(initial stiffnessmethod)and the BFGS

method (secantstiffnessmethod) have been used in combinationwith a displacement
controlledincrementailoading.Experienceindicatesthat thesemethodsprovide a solution
processwith fewer numencaldifficulties,seePlos (1995).A tolerancegiven as a percentage
(usually 0.01 Vo) of the energy norrn was used as the convergencecriterion. Further
information of these iteration methodscan for instancebe found in Bathe (1996) and
TNO (l996).

5.!
t+NF t+ar
F

,F
f

a) b)

I+41..
u

c)

Figure30 Schematicfigure of different iteration methods for a one degree of freedom

system:a) tangentstiffnessmethod,b) initial stiffnessmethod,c) secantstiffness
method.

4.4 Analysesof Frame Corners

4,4.1 General

The frame corner specimenstestedin the secondtest serieswere analysedusing the finite
elementmethod.The analyses werecarriedout at two differentdetaillevels.In the analyses
of
the general response,perfect bond between the reinforcementbars and the concrete was
assumed,using the embeddedreinforcementoption. In the more detailedanalyses,truss
elementsin combinationwith interfaceelementswereusedto simulatethe reinforcement bars
in the region ciose to the frame corner area;thus, the interactionbetweenthe reinforcement
and the sunoundingconcretewas included. Embeddedreinforcementwas used in the
remainingpart of the model, to model the reinforcementbars. In the testsof specimenswith
high reinforcementratio, the side concretecover in the corner area spalledoff. As this
behaviourcouldnot be simulatedin the FE modelsused,thesespecimens wereanalysed using
only the lessdetailedmodel.The specimenswith low reinforcement detailingwere analysed

JJ
using both models.The FE models used do not take into accountthe placementof the
reinforcement bars,i.e. whetherthey arein contactwith eachotheror not.Therefore,the same
modelswereusedin the analyses of the specimenswhetheror not the reinforcement
barswere
in contactwith eachother;i.e. one modelwas usedto simulatespecimens RV5 andRV6, and
anothermodelwas usedto simulatespecimens RV7 andRV8.

Due to numericaldifficulties,the effect of differentmechanicalpropertiesof the reinforcing

steelbarswas not studiedusingfinite elementmodelsof the frame comer.Instead,a simpler
modelof a cantileverbeamwasused,seeSection4.7.This modelwasalsousedto studymore
thoroughlythe effectof differentbond-sliprelationsfor structureswith high and low amounts
of reinforcement.

In the FE analyses,two-dimensionalplane-stress elements,consistingof four-nodequadri-

lateral elementsand three-nodetriangular elements,were used to model the concrete.The
reinforcement barswere modelledusing eitherthe embeddedreinforcement option available
in DIANA or two-node truss elements,see Section4.2.2. Where the reinforcementwas
modelledby trusselements,four-nodeinterfaceelementswereusedto simulatethe interaction
betweenthe reinforcementand the concrete,seeSection4.2.3. A Gaussintegrationscheme
was used:2 x 2 integrationpoints for the four-nodequadrilateralelements,one integration
point for the three-nodetriangularelements,one integrationpoint for the two-nodetruss
elements,andtwo integratron pointsfor the four-nodeinterfaceelements.

the accuracyof the modelwas investigated;

For the detailedanalysesof the frame specimens,
an analysisusinga comparativemodelconsistingof elementsof higherpolynomialorderwere
carriedout. The four-nodeplane stresselements,two-nodetruss elementsand four-node
interfaceelementswere replacedby nine-nodeplane stress elements,three-nodetruss
elementsand six-nodeinterfaceelements,respectively.As the differencein the resultswas
negligible,themodelusingthelowerorderelements waschosen.

4.4.2 The FE model for analysesof general response

The model usedto analysethe generalresponseof the frame cornersconsistedof 158two-

dimensionalplanestresselements,seeFigure31. Sinceembeddedreinforcement was usedto
modelthe reinforcement, the sameelementmeshcould be usedto modelthe test specimens
with both the high and low amounts of reinforcement.The position and amount of
reinforcementbarsusedin the model u'eredeterminedby taking into accountthe anchorage
capacityof the reinforcementaccordingto the simplifiedsplitting stressmodel, AB Svensk
ByggdiinstandCementaAB ( 1990),seeFigure32.

J+
Figure 3l The finite element mesh and the position of steel reinforcement in the model for
analysing the general responseof the frame corner.

v
F-------->
Numberof effectivereinforcement
barswith respectto the anchorage
I capacrty

vl

Numberof @16
Numberof @10

Positiony Positiony
Numberof reinforcement barsin Numberof reinforcementbarsin
modelwith hieh reinforcement
ratio modelwith low reinforcement
ratio

Figure32 Positionand amountof the steelreinforcement when the anchorage capacityhas

beentakeninto account.The steelareausedin the differentsectionsof the model
correspondto the areaof tie numberof reinforcement
barslistedin the diagrams.

35
4.4.3 The FE modelfor detailedanalvses

4.4.3.1 New reinforcementdetailing

To model the geometry of the test specimens, a total of 322 two-dimensional plane stress
elements were used, see Figure 33. Truss elements in combination with interface elements
(a total of 137 each) were used to model more accurately the reinforcement bars within 1.0 m
of the corner, where cracking of the concrete was expected. Outside this area, the
reinforcement bars were modelled with embedded reinforcement, see Figure 34.

The test specimenswere cast with a construction joint, see Figure 6. The test results indicated
thar this joint exhibited a zone of weakness in the matenal in which cracking first occurred,
see Section3.3.3.To model the weaknessof the constructionjoint, a thin row of elementswas
used in which weaker material parameters were given, see Figure 35. In this way, the
constnlction joint was smeared out in the FE model, meaning that any reinforcement bars
placed in the element row simulating the constructionloint would be affected.The straight
reinforcement bars in the column did not reach into the comer area and were not, therefore,
affected by the construction joint. Thus, the straight tensile reinforcement bars in the columns
of the frame cornerstestedwere modelled to end just below the row of elementsmodelling
the constructionjoint, seeFigure 35.

Fieure33 The finite elementmeshof the framecornerwith new reinforcement

detailing.

36
 - = Trusselement
(4@10)

- = Trusselement
(3d10)

"-- = Embedded (3010)

reinforcement

Figure34 Modelling of the reinforcementbars in the frame comer with new reinforcement
detailing.

The concretein the constructionjoint was assumedto have reducedtensilestrengthand

fractureenergyalthoughthe compressivestrengthwas unmodified.Sincethe hrst cracksin
the testspecimenswith low reinforcementratio were observedat a load level approximately
half of that expected,the tensilestrengthof the concretemodellingthe construction joint was
reducedto 5O 9o. The effect of the weaknessin the constructionjoint on the structural
behaviourof the framecomerwasexamined.By modellingtheconstruction joint with a slight
weakness,the first crack was madeto form at the sameplace as in the tests.Therefore,an FE
analysiswith a tensilestrengthand fractureenergyof 90 7o,of that usedin the rest of the
modelwascarriedout.

Row of elements
modellingthe
joint
construction

The straightreinforce-
mentbarsendbelow
the constructionjoint

joint andthe reinforcement

Figure35 Modellingof the construction barsin it

JI
On the constructionsite,it sometimeshappensthat the reinforcement barsare not positioned
accordingto the designers'drawings. In this work, it is of interestto studythe consequences of
incorrectlypositionedreinforcementloops. Therefore,an analysisof reinforcementloops
incorrectlypositionedin the column was carried out, see Figure 36. When using truss
elementsin combinationwith interfaceelements,the elementmesh modellingthe concrete
dependson the reinforcementdetailing, see Section 4.2.3. To use truss elementsin
combinationwith interfaceelementsfor modelling the reinforcementdetailing shown in
Figure36, quite a complicatedfinite elementmeshfor the concreteelementsis necessary. In
the analyseswhere all reinforcementbars in the corner area were modelled with a
combinationof trusselementsand interfaceelements, the crackpropagationin the cornerwas
limited;thus,the slip of the reinforcement in the bendof the reinforcement barswas tolerably
small.This meansthat the assumptionof perfectbond for the bendpart of the reinforcement
loops is appropriate. Therefore,as an approximation,embeddedreinforcementwas usedto
model the loop of the reinforcementbars in the corner area.Parallelto this, a new, less
complicatedelementmeshin the cornerareawasusedto studyits effecton the crackpattern
in thecornerandthe structuralbehaviourof the specimen. seeFigure37.

= Embedded
reinforcement
- =Truss element

Figure36 Positionand modellingof the reinforcementin the corner areafor analysesof

correct(left) and incorrect(right) positionedreinforcementloops.The bendsof
thereinforcement barsweremodelledusingembeddedreinforcement.

Figure37 Differentelementmeshesin the cornerareawhen the loopsof the reinforcement

weremodelledwith embedded reinforcement.

38
4.4.3.2 Conventionalreinforcementdetailing

A comparisonof the new and the conventionalreinforcement detailingswas carriedout. The

reinforcement detailingin the FE model was in accordance with that usedby Plos for test
specimenRV3. The materialparametersfor concreteand reinforcingsteel, includingthe
weakness of the constructionjoint, were identicalto thoseusedin the correspondinganalyses
of the framecornerwith the new reinforcement detailing.To studythe differentdetailingsof
the reinforcementin and near the corner area, a new model with a total of 336 two-
dimensionalplanestresselementswas usedto modelthe geometry,seeFigure38. As in the
model with the new reinforcementdetailing,a combinationof trusselementsand interface
elements(203of each)wereusedto modelthe reinforcement barswithin 1.0m of the comer.
The remaining reinforcementbars were modelled using embeddedreinforcement,see
Fieure39.

Figure38 The finite elementmesh of the frame corner with conventionalreinforcement

detailing.

39
 - = Trusselement(3d10)

= Trusselement( 1@10)

= Embedded (3@10)
reinforcement

Figure 39 Modelling of the reinforcement bars in the frame corner with conventional
reinforcement detailing.

4.5 Resultsof the Analvses

4.5.1 General

Two different iteration methods,the Modified Newton-Raphson method and the BFGS secant
stiffness method, were used in the FE analyses,see Section 4.3. ln the analysesof the general
response,only the Modified Newton-Raphson method was used. However, in the anaiysesof
the refined FE model it was found that fewer numerical problems were encounteredwith the
BFGS secant method; accordingly, this was the main iteration method used. Although the
Modified Newton-Raphson method gave a somewhat smoother load-displacement relation
than that achieved with the BFGS secant method. the difference in the effect of these iteration
methodson the resultswas negligible.seeFigure 40.

Unlessotherwisestated,the following assumptionswere made in the detailed FE analyses:

r bondcondition
r reinforcementtype
. strengthof construction joint
r iterationmethod
"good"(seeSection4.2.3),
"normalratio"(seeSection4.2.2),
5 0 7 c( s e eS e c t i o 4
n . 4 . 3 . l )a, n d
BFGSsecantstiffnessmethod.

It was found that incorrectparameters had

for the modellingof the concretein compression
been used in the FE analyses;this resultedin a strongerand less ductile concrete,see
AppendixB. To examinewhat effect this enor had on the structuralbehaviourof the frame
corner,a comparativedetailedanalysiswith a more accuratestress-strainrelationwascarried
out.The differencein the load-disolacementrelationis shownin Fieure41.

40
 Load,F [kN]
50-

40*

-BFGS
30 T
- Modified
Newton-Raphson
20

10
Tl l

l0 15 20 25 30
Displacement,
6 [mm]

Figure40 Comparisonof the FE analysesof the frame corner with new reinforcement
detailinewhenusinqdifferentiterationmethods.

t-oad, F [kN]
50T
:
ooT
Concretein compression
30 'r usedin the analyses
(0 = 30", K= EP untuiat)

Concretein compression
that should/ravebeenused
( 0 = l o " , r = 1 . 1 6€ P , n , - , o t )

20 30
Displacement,
5 [mm]

Figure4l Comparisonof the FE analyseswhen usingdifferentstress-strain

relationsfor the
concretein compression,
seeAppendixB.

As canbe seen,the incorrectusageof strongerandlessductileconcretehada negligibieeffect

on the structuralbehaviourof the frame comer. The load capacity and the stiffness of the
structurewere, more or less, the same in the FE analysescarried out. This was due to the
smallcompressive zoneobtainedin the structure(about20 mm), which meantthat the inner

A1
+l
lever arm remainedapproximatelythe same,independentof the strengthof the concrete.
Unlessotherwisestated,the resultspresentedin this study are from analysesin which the
incorrect modelling of the concretein compressionwas used. However, the negligible
differencein the behaviourof the structureshownin Figure41, whenusingdifferentvaluesof
theconcretein compression. showsthatthe resultsarestill valid.

4.5.2 FE analysesof the generalresponse

An objectiveof the FE analysesof the generalresponse,besidespredictingthe maximum

load,was to describethe plateauin the load-displacement relationsobservedin the tests.ln
the analysisof the specimens with low reinforcementratio, such a plateauwas obtainedand
the analysiswas disruptedwhen the deformationcapacityof the steel reinforcementwas
almostreached. In the analysisof the specimens
with high reinforcement ratio,yieldingof the
steelreinforcementwas reachedbut, due to numericalproblemscausedby the concretein
compression, the plateaucouldnot be simulated.

With the modelsused,it wasnot possibleto simulatethe spallingof the sideconcretecoverin

the frame comersthat was observedin the testsfor the specimenswith high reinforcement
ratio. Consequently,the maximumload obtainedin the analysisof the generalresponsefor
thesespecimens do not coincidewith the testresults.Instead,the maximumload levelreached
in theseanalysesreflectsthe capacityof the test specimens,providing the spallingof the
concretehad not occurred.The load-displacement relationfor the FE analysesand the test
resultsare comparedin Figures42 and 43. The distributionof tensile forces along the
reinforcement barsin the framecornerfor the analysesand the testsaredisplayedin Figures
44 and 45. The relativelyhigh tensile force obtainedin the middle of the cornerfor the
analysisof the specimens with high reinforcement ratio was due to largecracksin this region.
In the analysisof the specimenswith low reinforcementratio, no crackswere formedin the
corner;this explarnsthe low tensileforcesin the reinforcement barsin this region.

Load,F [kN]

120
100 SpecimenRV5
80 * SWcrnen
nv6
.
60 ]
- FE analysis
40 l
z0

40 50
Displacenent,5
[mm]

Figure42 Comparisonof the FE analysesof the generalresponseand the test resultsfor

the specimens
with high reinforcementratio.

A'
 [nad tkNl
50 I

40+

JU* -- SpecimenRV7
+ Specimen
RV8
20i

l analysis
l0{

60 80
Displacement,
6

Figure43 Comparisonof the FE analysesof the generalresponseand the test resultsfor the
with low reinforcement
specimens ratio.

SpecimenRV5
F = 1.47kN, 6= 29 mm
Tensileforce [kN] SpecimenRV6
120 F = 1 5 0k N , d = 3 3 m m
-'- Planestressanalysis
r00
F = l'76kN, 6= 24 mm
80

60
40

20
Straingaugeon
reinforcement
200 400 t000 1200 1400
Positionx [mm]

Figure44 Distributionof tensileforces along the reinforcementbars in the frame comer.

Resultsfrom the analysisof the generalresponsearecomparedwith resultsfrom
thetestspecimens with hish reinforcement ratio.

43
 -._ SpecimenRV7
Tensionforce [kN] F=40kN, d=28mm
* SpecimenRV6
50-
F=40kN,6=56mm
-"- Planestressanalysis
40
F=40kN,6=23mm
30

)o

10
f, - Strain gauge on
reinforcement
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
P o s i t i o xn I m m l

Figure45 Distributionof tensileforcesalong the reinforcementbars in the frame corner.

Resultsfrom the analysisof the generalresponsearecomparedwith resultsfrom
thetestspecimens with low reinforcement ralio.

4.5.3 Detailed FE analvses

4.5.3.1 Objectivesandpreconditions

ln the detailedFE analyses,the main objectivewas to examine the effect of different

parameters,suchas bond condition,mechanicalpropertiesof the steelreinforcement,and the
weaknessof the constructionjoint, on the maximumload and the deformationcapacityof a
frame cornerstructure.Also, the structuralbehaviourof framecomerswith the new and the
conventionalreinforcementdetailingwas to be compared.In additionthe effect of incorrect
loopsin the new reinforcement
positioningof the reinforcement detailingwasexamined.

As in the analysesof the generalresponse, it was not possibleto predictthe behaviourof the
frame corner throughouttotal failure. All the detailedanalysesof the frame corner were
disrupteddue to numericalproblemswhen the ultimatecompression strengthof the concrete
was reachedat one integrationpoint in the corner area. At this stage,yielding of the
reinforcement barshad occunedand,in somecases,alsostartedto harden.To studythe effect
that different mechanicalpropertiesof the steel reinforcementhave on the frame corner,
substantialhardeningof the steelis presumed.However,in the analysesof the framecorner,
sufficient strain of the reinforcingsteel was not reachedand, therefore,the mechanical
propertystudy was not made with the frame cornermodel. Insteada simpler model of a
cantileverbeamwas usedfor this studv.seeSection4.7.

AA
4.5.1.2 \eureinforcementdetailing

T h c s p e c i m e n su i t h l o r " r e i n f o r c e m e nrta t r o o f t h e s e c o n dt e s t s e r i e s' , r a sa n a l v s e du \ l n s t h c

detarledrnodel. In the i.irststase of the analvses.the bond conditron correspondingto that o1'
t h c t e s t s p e c l m e n sw ' a st o b e d e t e m r i n e dT. w ' o c r i t e n ac a n b e u s e df o r t h i : d e t c r m i n a t i o nt:h e
n r e l t ns p a c i n uo f t h e r n a . l o cr r a c k so b s e r v e di n t h e t e s t s p e c i m e n sa n c lt h e l o a c l - d i s p l a c c n r c r r t
r c l a t i o no b t a i n e di n t h e t e s t s .T h e f o n n e r c n t e r i o n u a s a s s u n r e dt h e t r e t t e ro n e l o u s c \ l n c c
sonrel-actorsof uncertaintr'.such as the fractureenergr and the generalll'stiffer behaviour 01'
l l r r ' F E u n a l r . s r sh.a v e l e s se ff e c t o n i t . T h e c r a c k p a t t e r no f t h e a n a l r s e \ \ \ u \ c ( ) r l t l i r r c trl r r l h
t i l r ' ! r ' r c k p a t t c r n o b t a i n e . li n t h c t c s t s . s e e F i g u r e - 1 6T h e c r a c k p a i l e r n ( r t t h r e n J ( ) 1 l i t r '
l n a l t s t s ) a n c lt h e l o a d - c i r s p l a c e n r er n e tl a t i o n sf o r t h r e e d i f f e r e n tb o n d - s l i pr c l a t i o n s . g o o L i-
" o t h e r ' a n i l " h a d " . s e e S e c t i o n4 . 2 . 3 . r . r ' e r e r a m i n e d .s e e F t - e u r e s . 1t7o - 5 0 .- l ' h eF E a n u l v s i s
assutling "good" bond condition shor'"'edthe best agreementu,ith the mean crack spacrngot'
0 . 1 r - no b s e r v e di n t h e t e s t s .W h e n c o m p a r i n gt h e l o a d - d i s p l a c e n r e rnet l a t i o n s .t h e a n a l v s r :
t u s i n g" b a d " b o n d c o n d i t r o nc o r r e l a t e db e s t n r t h t h e t e s t s .H o w e v e r .a s e x p l a i n c da b o v c -t.h e
crack pattern was assumedto be nrore inrportant whcn dcciding \\'hat bond conclttrr)n\\a\
presentin the test speclmens.Thereiitre. a bond-slip relation corresponrlineto goocl' b0n.l
condition u.'asassumed to be the closest to that of the test specnnenseven though lt $ri\
'good"
s o t t t e w h atto o s t i f f t n c o n r p a n s o nw i t h t h e t e s t s .A c c o r d r n g l y .t h e b o n d c o n c l t t i o nh u s
b e e nu s e cal s a b a s i sw h e n c o m o a r i n st h e F E a n a l v s c s .

Figure ;16 crack patternsobtarned for test specimen s RV7 ( left ) and RV8 ( n-qhr).
 l' ,l tl
tl ' ll tIl t I I
t, l

Figure 47 Crack pattern at the end of the analysis for a frame corner with the new
reinforcement detailing when assuming "good" bond condition.

Figure48 Crack pattern at the end of the analysisfor a frame corner wirh the new
detailingwhenassuming"other"bondcondition.
reinforcement

46
Figure49 Crack pattern at the end of the analysis for a frame corner with the new
reinforcementdetailingwhenassuming"bad"bondcondition.

Load, F [kN]
50 r

40t
I -+ SpecimenRV7
30* +
I
SpecimenRV8
"Good"bond
)o+
! condition
"Other"bond
condition
10
"Bad" bond
condition

20 25 30
Displacement,
6 [mm]

Figure50 Comparison
of the load-displacement
relationsfor threedifferentbondconditions.

The distribution of the tensileforces along the reinforcementloops, in the testsand analyses,
whenyieldingofthe steelreinforcement hasoccurred,arepresented in Figures51 and52.The
differencein the distributedtensileforces,observedfor the differentbond-sliprelations,was

47
dueto the appearanceof majorcracksin the columnand the beamnearthe cornerarea.In the
analysiswhere "bad" bond condition was assumed,the variationof the tensile force was
approximatelylinear.This was becauseof the largespacebetweenthe cracksin the column
andthe beam.For the "good"and "other"bond-conditions, a shift in the tensileforceresulted
dueto the appearanceof a cracknearthe corner,seeFigures47 to 49.

TensileForce[kN] -o- Specrmen

RVl-
50- F=40kN, 6=28nrn l
i+ Specimen RV8
i F =40kN.6=56mm
i- Goodbondcondition
F=43kN,6=18mm

x,^.

c - Strain gauge on
reinforcement
1000 1200 1400
Position
x [mm]

Figure5l Distributionof the tensileforcesalongthe reinforcement

barsin the framecomer
for thetestsandthe FE analvsiswhere"sood" bondconditionwas assumed.

Tensile
Force[kN] "Good" bond condition
50- F=43kN,6=18mm
"Other" bond condition
F = 43 k-|{,6 = 18rnmi
40- / "Bad" bond condition l
F=41 kN, 6=20mm

1000 1200 1400

Position
x [mm]

Figure52 Distribution of the tensile forcesalong the reinforcementbarsin the frame comer
for the FE analyses of differentassumptions of the bondcondition.

48
The effect of the weaknessin the construclionjoint on the structuralbehaviourof the frame
cornerwas examined.By modellingthe construction joint with a slightweakness, the first
crack was madeto form at the sameplaceas in the tests.Therefore,an FE analysiswith a
tensilestrengthand fractureenergyof 90 Vo,of that usedin the restof the model,wascarried
out. The load-displacement relationsof the FE analysesusing different strengthof the
constructionjoint are comparedin Figure 53. The changesin the crack pattern and the
distributionof tensile forces in the frame comer area, causedby the weaknessof the
constructionjoint,areshownin Figures54 and55,respectively.

Load,F [kN]
50r

40+

30r

+ SpecimenRV8
20*
- 50 7ostrength
- 90 7ostrength

l0 t5 20 25 30
Displacement,
d Imm]

Figure53 Compansonof the load-displacement relationsusing different strengthsof the

joint for the framecornerwith new reinforcement
construction detailing.

'r--l
5{ f +
.|vr
I
|i- l

. ' -\ - \\ U4 lri
\VJZ
Itt
\\\t-
t ,l
/
F 'ilrl
\

Figure54 Differencein crack patternin the cornerareawhen using 50 70 strength(left) and

90 7ostrength(righo for the concretein the construction
joinr.

49
TensileForce[kN]
50 7ostrenglh
5ol F=44kN,6=26mm
90 7ostrength
40+ F=44kN,6=26mm

30*

2O'

l0

1- ---

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 t400

Position x [mm]

Figure55 Comparisonof the tensile forces in the frame corner when using different
joint.
for theconcretein the construclion
strengths

When examiningthe consequence of incorrectpositioningof the reinforcement loops,an

approximateapproachwas used to model the reinforcementbars in combinationwith a
simplifiedFE mesh,seeSection4.4.3.1 . The load-displacementrelationscompared in Figure
madewere appropriate.
56 confirm that the approximations The slightlyhigherloadcapacity
obtained,in the analyseswhere the reinforcementloops were modelledusing embedded
reinforcement,wa-sdueto the assumptionof perfectbondin the bend.Whenthe bendof the

Load,F [kN]
50-

40*
- Reinforcement looDs modelled
usingtrusselements
JU-
(onginalmesh)
Reinforcementloopsmodelled
20 using embedded reinforcement
(originalmesh)
Reinforcementloopsmodelled
usingembedded reinforcement
(simplifiedmesh)

70 30
Displacement,
6 [mm]

of
relationsfor differentmodellingschemes
Figure56 Comparisonof the load-displacement
thecornerarea.seeSection4.4.3.1.

50
reinforcement loops was preventedfrom slipping,a somewhathighertensilestrainwith
consequent highertensilestressin the reinforcementbarswas the result.Parallelto this.the
effectof differentelementmeshesfor the crackpatternin the cornerarea,was examined.In
Figure57,theresultingcrackpatterns in thecorner,whenusingtheoriginalandthesimplified
meshshownin Figure37, arecompared.It canbe seenthatthecrackpatternis affectedby the
elementmesh and that the directionof the crackstendsto be parallelto the edgesof the
elements. The effectof the load-displacement relationwhen the reinforcement loopsin tbe
columnarepositioned incorrectis shownin Fieure58.

\t l--t r-.\\*ljf -l
{n-1 r r
\\ \\ \ll I

\ F - iI - \ \\ llF-

lr-
IFI] ill
lr {t ll..i
x:=i ll v/

\ \\ v r \ \\\\)- I

) l)

__*.{i

Figure57 Crackpatternin the framecomer when usingthe original FE mesh(left) and the
simplified mesh (right), see Figure 37. Embeddedreinforcementwas used to
modelthe bendof the reinforcement loops.

Load, F [kN]
5or

40+

Correctpositionof the
30* rehforcementloops
(simplifiedmesh)
l

20* Incorrectpositionof the

reinforcementloops
(simplifiedmesh)

20 30
Displacement,
6 [mm]

Figure58 Comparisonof the load-displacement

relationsfor the frame comer when the
reinforcement
loopsweremodelledin thepositionsaccordingto Figure36.

51
;1.5.3.3 Conventionalreinforcementdetailine

The crack pattern ol a test specimen with low, reinfrtrcement rarro tspeclmen RV-li.
P l o s t l 9 9 ' 1 a .b ) . c a r r i e c ol u t n r t h t h e c o n l e n t i o n a ld e t a r l i n - ies s h o w n i n F i g u r e 5 9 . A l t h o u g h
the rtrength of the concrete and the steel reinforcementused in thrs specimen were not thc
\arlle as ln the FE analtses. a comparison ofthe crack paftern can sttll be ntade. The crack
pattern (at the end of the analvses)and the load-displacementrelation tbr rhe 'good" and rhc
"other" bond conditions are shorvn in Figures60 to 62. The denser
crack pattern obtaineclin
l l t c r t n l i t s c ' so f t h e f r a m ec o r n e ru i t h c o n v e n t i o n arle i n t - o r c e m e dn et t a i J i n gc. o n t p a r c dr r i t h t h c
I t , t l l t ce r r r n c rt t i t h t h c n e u c l e t a r i i n cn. a s d u e t o t h e g r e a t e ra n r o u n to f r c r n i t l r c e r n c nrtn t h r '
\ l ! l r l l l \ o l t h e c o r n e ra r e a .\ e e F i g u r e s- l - 1a n d 3 9 . T h e d i s t r r b u t i o no t ' t h c .t e n s i l el i r r c e su i o n g
the retttlitrcenlcntbars ln the frame corner tbr the FE analvseswhere "good' and "othcr' borrtl
c o n d i t i o n su e r e a s s u m e c al .r e s h o u n i n F i e u r e6 3 .

Filur.r'-5t) Crack pattcrn oi' a test specimen {specinten RV j r carried out u ith thc
c o n v e n t l o n arl e i n f o r c e n t e ndte t a i i i n g p
. i o s t 1 9 9 , 1 ab.) .

52
Figure 60 Crack pattern at the end of the analysis for a frame comer with the conventional
reinforcement detailing when assuming "good" bond condition.

Figure6l Crackpattemat the end of the analysisfor a frame cornerwith the conventional
detailingwhenassuming"other"bondcondition.
reinforcement

53
 I-oad,F [kN]
60 -r

50+

40:

30 -1-
:(
1,, "Good"bond
condition
"Other"bond
20 c91qq9t

l0 \
^

20 30 40
Displacement,
d [mm]

Figure 62 Comparison of the load-displacementrelations for two different bond conditions.

TensileForce IkN] "Good" bond condition

50- F=50kN,6=20mm
"Other"bondcondition
F=50kN, d=20mm

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 I 400

Position x lmml

Figure63 Distributionof the tensileforcesalongthe reinforcementbarsin the framecorner

for the FE analyseswith two differentassumptionsof the bondcondition.

As for the frame corner with new reinforcementdetailing,a comparisonof the effect of
differentweaknessesof theconstructionjoint on the structuralbehaviour,wascarriedout.The
load-displacementrelationsfor different strengthsof the constructionjoint are shown in
Fieure64.

54
 tnad,F [kN]
60-

50r

40-
% strength
30-
- 90 70strength

l0 20 30 40
Displacement,
6 [mm]

Figure 64 Comparison of the load-displacement relations for different strengths of the

constructionloint in the frame comer with conventionalreinforcementdetailing.

4.5.4 Comparisonsof the FE analyses

4.5.4.1 Comparisonof conventionaland new reinforcementdetailings

In Figure65, the load-displacement relationof the FE analysesfor the framecornerwith the

new reinforcement detailingis comparedwith that of the framecornerwith the conventional
reinforcement detailing.The distributionof tensileforcesalongthe reinforcementbarsin the
framecornersfor the analvseswith new and with conventionalreinforcementdetailingare
shownin Figure66.

The structuralbehaviourof the frame cornerswas similar up to a load of about40 kN at

which the reinforcement barsin the frame cornerwith new reinforcement detailingstartedto
yield. Due to the greateramountof reinforcementin the sectronsadjacentto the corner(see
Figures34 and 39), the load capacityof the frame corner with conventionalreinforcement
detailingcontinuedto increaseuntil yielding at a load level just below 50 kN was reached.
Then a load plateausimilar to that observedin the testswas formed for both reinforcement
detailings.The increasein load capacityobtainedfor the frame corner with conventional
detailing, once yielding was reached,was due to substantialhardeningof the steei
reinforcement. The suddenloss of load capacity(approximately7 kN) at a displacement of
about 26 mm was causedby a redistributionof forces. This occurredbecauseof the
propagation of largecracksin the cornerarea,the resultof the critical sectionmovingfrom a
sectionin the column approximately300 mm below the constructionjoint to the section
wherethebeammeetsthecorner,seeFigure67.This behaviourconesponded well with that

55
 toad,F [kN]
60-

50-

40:
- Conventionalreinforcement
30t detailing
- New reinforcement
detailing

t0 20 30 40
Displacement,
d [mm]

Figure 65 Comparison of the load-displacementrelation for frame comers carried out with
new and with conventionalreinforcementdctailing.

Conventionalrein-
TensileForce[kNl
forcement detarling
50-
F=50kN,6=20mm

^A+ New reinforcement

detailing
F=43kN.6=l8mm
30

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

x [mm]
Position

barsin the framecomerfor

Figure66 Comparisonof the tensileforcesof the reinforcement
the frame cornerscarried out with new and with conventionalreinforcement
detailine.

)b
 \ \l
(l
\( si
\\/l I
il

\ NI
\t\ .
,.
l l

|
-
//
- tN
/t- |
+#l - +#t
-x)q I
----+b-l
/ \ \\ \ I

. \\ \({l li {ll!llJl l: I
j
\\\\ \ r +) l!{i it l "-
.\\)l$#)l l"
'\\ \tlx'rlI
I
I
Niiiii#ii]1'
-\\\\ \\ \+lvl lt I
^-\\\\+\\\\\
---::\\\\\\\\
ll
\\\\\\ /t /t ,l
\\\\\\ /t / \\f\X\ \\\\\ / /
\ \\\\\ / / \.\\\)\N\ /l
\Nl . \ \ \ \\N|2
++s+-)\\-
==I:F; f
{--
:' -l * - - - - z
I lF=49
i- ',il l l

/*- tt
lI d = 3 0
- -
----x>*-r + # t l I _ _ _ ? x ) a r _+l # l
;-TfiY]1 .- \ \tf-l

Figure67 Crackpropagationin the cornerareafor the conventionalreinforcement

detailing
at differentloadlevels.

observedfor test specimenRV3, whereplastichingesdevelopedin a regionapproximately

300 mm below the constructionjoint, as well as in the sectionwhere the beam meetsthe
comer, seeFigure 59. The propagationof cracksin the cornerareaalso causedthe tensile
forcesin thereinforcement seeFigure68. The frame
barsin that areato increaseconsiderably,
cornerwith new reinforcement detailingshoweda quite symmetricdistributionof the tensile
forces,with yielding of the reinforcementbars in the sectionsadjacentto the corner.The
distributionof the tensileforcesin the framecomerwith conventionaldetailingwas shiftedto
the left (into the column).This wasbecauseof the unsymmetricamountof reinforcement used
in the sectionsadjacentto the comer,seeFigure39. Yielding of the reinforcement barswas
reachedabout300 mm below the constructionjoint, coincidingwith the sectionwherethe
bentreinforcement bars,extendingfrom the beam,ended.This behaviourcorresponded well
with that observedfor testspecimenRV3, wherea plastichingedevelopedin a sectionbelow
theconstruction ioint. seeFieure59.

5'l
TensileForce[kN] = 55 kN, 6= 26 mm
50 F=50kN,6=28mm
F=49kN,6=30mm
40 F = 49 k'-f{,d= 32 mm

r0-

0* -
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Position
x [mm]

barsin the framecorner

Figure68 Distributionof the tensileforcesalongthe reinforcement
carried out with conventionalreinforcementdetailing.The tensile forces are
shownat the sameloadlevelsasthe crackpattems,seeFigure67.

4.5.4.2 The effect of fracture energy

The importanceof the fractureenergyusedin the analyses was examined.The fractureenergy

was halved and an analysisof the specimenswith high reinforcementdetailing (general
responsemodel) and low reinforcementdetailing (refinedmodel) was carried out. In the
analysisof the specimenswith high reinforcementratio, the changeof stiffnessdue to
crackingoccurredsomewhatearlierthan when the halvedvalue of the fractureenergywas
used.However,the stiffnesswas then independent of the fractureenergy,which resultedin a
slightlylowermaximumloadcapacityat the samedisplacement, seeFigure69. In the detailed
analysisof the specimenwith low reinforcementratio, the effect of the fractureenergywas
somewhatmore distinct;an earlierchangein stiffnesswas observedand it was then slightly
affecteduntil yielding of the steel reinforcementwas reached.Furthermore,the maximum
load capacitybecamelower due to the decreasein fractureenergy;this resultedin a load-
displacement relationbettercorrespondingto that obtainedin the tests,see Figure 70. In
Table 6, the maximum load capacities(and corresponding displacements) obtainedin the
FE analyses,for full and halved fracture energy,are comparedwith the maximum load
observedin the tests.It is importantto note that the maximum load levels obtainedin the
analyses, listedhere,dependon the tensilestressof the reinforcement bars;thus,an analysis
in which the reinforcement barshave obtaineda substantialhardeningwould show a higher
load capacity.This is the casein the anaiysisof the generalresponsefor the specimens with
low reinforcementratio, in which the deformationcapacityof the steelreinforcementwas
almostreached,see Section4.5.2. Therefore,the load levels when the plateauin the load-
displacement relation(i.e. yielding of the steelreinforcement)is reachedare comparedin
Table 7. For the specimens with high reinforcement ratio (both testsand analyses),this load
wasconsidered to havebeenreachedat the maximumload.

58
 L,oad,F ikNl
r 8 0-
1 6 0r
1 4 0*
t20 - -:-
100 * lr TestspecimenRV5
T, + TestspecimenRV6
80+ -/K;.
- Full fractureenergy
60* K
40 I z \\
- Halvedfractureenergy

20
^
0
r0 ^!-ll 30 40 50
Displacement,6
[mm]

Figure69 The effect of fractureenergyin the FE analysisof the generalresponsefor the

specimens with highreinforcement ratio.

t oad,F [kNl
50

40-

30i
+ TestspecimenRV7
+ TestspecimenRV8
- Full fractureenergy
- Halvedfractureenergy

20 30
Displacement,
S [mm]

Figure70 The effect of fractureenergyin the detailedFE analysisfor the specimenswith

low reinforcement ratiowhenassumrng "good"bondcondition.

)v
Table6 Comparisonof the maximum load capacitiesand correspondingdisplacements
obtainedin the FE analyses
andobservedin the tests.

Test Maximumload / Displacement

specimen General response Detailedanalysis Observedin
Full fracture Halvedfracture Full iracture Halved fracturr test
energy energy energy energy

lkNl / [mm] [kN] / [mm] lkNl / [mm] l k N l / [ m m ] lkNl / [mml

RV5 176I 24 111 I 1A
14't I 29
RV6 1 5 0/ 3 3

RV7 49t70 A< I 1a

41t19 42 / t15
RV8 42 I 101

Table7 Comparisonof the loadlevelsandconesponding displacementsin the FE analyses

andthe testswhenthe plateauin the load-displacement
relationwasreached.

Test Load / Displacement

speclmen General response Detailedanalysis Observedin

Full fracture Halved fractur( Full fracture Halvedfracturr test

energy energy energy energy

lkNl / [mm] lkNl / [mm] l k N l / l m m l l k N l / [ m m ] [kN] / [mml

RV5 t16 I 24 111 t 1A
147| 29
RV6 t50/ 33
RV7 40t13 +l I t+ 40t14 39t22
RV8 39t35

4.s.4.3 Comparisonof plane stressand plane strain analyses

In the analysesof the test specimens a stateof planestresswas assumed.However,in a real

civil defenceshelterstructure,a stateof planestrarnis probablya more accurateassumption.
Therefore,to examinethe behaviourof a frame comer when plane strain is assumedan
analysisof a frame cornerwith the new detailingand a low reinforcement ratio was carried
out. As can be seenin Figure 71, the structura.l behaviouris similar for the frame comer
whethera stateof planestressor planestrainis assumed.Consequently, sincethe statein a
realstructureis somewhere betweenplanestressandplanestrain,the analyses assumingplane
stresspresented hereshouldbe valid for the framecornerin a real structure.

60
 Lnad,F [kN]
50=

40-

30+
+ TestspecimenRV7
+ TestspecimenRV8
- Plare stressanalysis
'ot - Planestrainanalysis

l0 l5 20 25 30
Displacement,6
[mm]

Figure7l Comparisonof the load-displacement whereplanestressand

relationsfor analyses
plane strain was assumedfor the specimenswith new detailing and low
reinforcementratio.

4.6 Discussion
The resultsof the FE analyses conesponded quite well with the resultsfrom the experiments,
as can be seenin Section4.5; the behaviourwas similarfor both the maximumloadcapacity
obtained and the stiffness of the structure.Furthermore,the agreementbetween test
observations and FE analyseswas quite good for the crack patternand the distributionof
tensileforcesalong the reinforcementbarsin the frame corner.

Due to the spallingof the concretesidecover,the maximumload obtainedin the analysisof

the specimenswith high reinforcementratio does not coincide with the load capacities
observedin the tests.Instead,the maximum load level reachedin this analysisreflectsthe
capacitythat the test specimenswould have had if the spalling of the concretehad not
occurred.Consequently, a directcompadsonof the maximumloadcapacitiesobservedin the
testsand obtainedin the FE analysiscannotb€ madefor thesespecimens. However,by using
the estimatedload capacitiesin Table 5, an indirectcomparisonis possible;the estimations
listedtherecorrespondwell to the load capacitiesobtainedin the FE analyses.By comparing
the estimatedand observedload capacitiesfor the specimenswith conventionaldetailing
(RVl and RV3) and for the specimensused in the secondtest series(RV5 to RV8), a
statementon the efficiency of the reinforcementdetaiiing can be made.The estimatedload
capacitieslistedin Table5 suggestthat the load capacityof specimensRV5 andRV6 should
have been somewhathigher than that of specimenRVl, and that the load capacityof
specimensRV7 and RV8 should have been somewhatlower than that of specimenRV3.
Accordingly,a comparisonof the maximum load observedfor specimenRVI with the load
obtainedin the FE analysisfor the specimenswith high reinforcement ratio indicatesthat the

bi
conventionaland the new reinforcementdetailingsbehavedapproximatelythe samefor these
This statementis still moreevidentfor the specimens
specimens. with low reinforcement
ratio
becauseof the similaritiesin the load-displacement relationsobservedin the tests with
conventionalandnew reinforcement detailings.

The detailedFE analyses haveshownthat the bond-sliprelationaffectsthe crackpatternin the

framecornerand that the stiffnessof the structureis affectedby the bond-sliprelationup to
the point at which the steelreinforcementyields:the higher the stiffnessof the bond-slip
relation, the higher the stiffness of the structure.This behaviour occurs when the
reinforcement barsslip insteadof stretching,which for a weakerbond-sliprelationresultsin a
lower stresslevel in the reinforcementat the same displacement.Consequently,when
assuminga weak bond-sliprelation,a larger displacement of the frame comer is obtained
when the steelreinforcementstartsto yield. However,onceyielding of the reinforcingsteel
was reachedin the analyses,the effect of the bond-slip relation on the load capacity was
negligible.Sincethe bond-sliprelationassumedin the analysesdeterminedthe meancrack
spacingin the structure,the distributionof the tensileforces along the reinforcementbars
adjacentto the frame cornerwas also affected.When the crackingin the comer areawas
limited, the reinforcementbars positionedinside the corner all showedapproximatelythe
samedistributionof low tensileforces:however,oncelargecrackswereformedin the comer,
the tensileforcesin the reinforcementbarsincreased notably.

Due to the disruptionof the FE analyses,it is difficult to draw conclusionsaboutwhat effect

the bondconditionhason the total deformationcapacityof the framecorner.However,when
a stiffer bond-siiprelationwas assumed,highertensilestrainsin the steelreintbrcement bars
wereobserved.This indicatesthat,if ruptureof the reinforcement barsis the causeof failure,
then the deformationcapacityof the frame cornerwould be lower for a stiffer bond-slip
relation.The maximum concretestrain in compressionwas more or less unaffectedby the
differentbond-sliprelations.

The influenceof the weakness joint in the framecornerwas limited to the

of the construction
initial crackingstageandhadnegligibleeffecton the generalbehaviourof the structure.After
the appearance of the first major crack,the behaviourof the structurewas approximatelythe
same,independentof the strengthmodelledin the joint. The incorrectpositioningof the
reinforcement loops in the column had a limited effecton the behaviourof the framecorner.
The load capacityobtarnedfrom the analyseswas found to be approximatelythe same,
regardless of whetherthe reinforcement loopswerepositionedconectlyor not.

The FE analyseshave shownthat a frame cornermadewith the conventionalreinforcement

detailing may have a somewhathigher load capacitythan a frame corner with the new
reinforcement detailing.This is due to the greateramountof reinforcementpositionedin the
sectionsadjacentto the cornerarea.However,this higher load capacityis only temporary
sincea redistributionof forces,reducingthe load capacityto a level similar to that obrained
whenusingthe new reinforcement detailing,soonoccurs.If the critical crackforms as shown
'12,
in Figure the contributronto the load carryingcapacityof the shortbent bars,extending
from the beaminto the column,would decrease considerably.
In the analyses carriedout, the
weaknessof the constructionJoint was modelledby reductionof the tensile strengthand
fractureenergyin the elementrow next to the comer.Thus,cracksadjacentto the comerwere
madeto propagate within this weaknessin sucha way that the markedbendhad considerable
effect on the load capacity.To simulatewhat would happenif the barsextendingfrom the

62
beam into the column did not have any effect on the critical sectionadjacentto the corner,the
bent pan of them was removed,seeFigure 72. Thereby,the propagationof a largecrack above
the bent bars was simulated in an approximate way. As can be seen in Figure 73, this
modification had a notable effect on the stnrctural behaviour after yielding of the
reinforcement,resulting in a load-displacement relation similar to that obtained in the frame
corner with new detarling. Furthermore, the distribution of tensile forces along the
reinforcement bars in the comer was similar to that obtained when using the new
reinforcement detailing. Consequently,plastic hinges may develop differently in frame
corners made with the new and the conventional reinforcementdetailings. With the new
reinforcementdetailing, plastic hinges always develop adjacent to the corner in both the
column and the beam. However, in a frame comer with the conventional reinforcement
detailing, the main plastic hinge may develop, dependingon the crack propagation.rn the
section below the construction joint where the bent bars, reaching out from the beam, end.
The statementsmade above, treating the effect of the construction joint and the bond-slip
relations on the structural behaviour, hold true also for a frame corner made with the
conventionalreinforcementdetailing.

The analysescarried out with different element meshes in the corner region have shown that
the cracks tend to propagate parallel to the mesh lines. This phenomenon has also been
observedby Rots (1988), who explainsthat it is causedby interlockingbetweenthe elements
and coupling between the integration points. lmprovements can be made by rotating the
element mesh and thereby adapting it to the expected crack directions. However, this
procedureis undesirablesince it may severelydecreasethe simplicity of the mesh generation
when using the smeared crack approach. Therefore, Rots suggestsusing triangular elements
placed in a cross-diagonalmesh, thus increasingthe number of lines which the cracks can
follow, see Figure 74a. However, for the analyses carried out in this study, the use of a
triangular bisectional mesh in the comer probably would have been sufficient, see Figure 74b.
Thesepossibleimprovementsof the elementmesh was not examinedin the analvses,

Possible
crack
path

Part of the barsthat

wasremoved

Figure72 Possiblecrackpathin the column-comerregion.To simulatethe effectof sucha

cnticalcrackin an approximativemannerthe bentpart of the barsextendingfrom
the beaminto the colurnnwasremoved.

63
Load,F [kN]
50-

40

30 -- - Conventionalreinforcement
detailing(modified)
20+ - New reinforcement
detailins

10 -r

20 30
Displacement,
6 [mm]

Figure 73 Load-displacement relation for frame corners carried out with new and with
conventional(modified as shown in Figure 72) reinforcementdetailing.

a) D)

Figure 74 Possible improvement of the simplfied elementmesh (seeFigure 37) in the

comer region to obtarn a more accuratecrackpattem:a) cross-diagonal
mesh,b)
bisectionalmesh.

The two-dimensional planestressmodelsusedin the analyses haveworkedwell up to a load

level correspondingto yielding of the reinforcement;the numericalproblemsencountered
have mostly beencausedby the concretein compression. In accordance with observations
madeby Claesonet al. (1996),it hasbeenfound that oncethe ultimatecompressive strength
of the concretehas beenreached,the gradientof the descending softeningbranchis of great
importancein further simulatingthe behaviourof the structure.This observationholdstrue
relationdescribinsthe cracked
also for the concretein tension:a more sradualstress-strain
concreteintroducesfewer numericalproblemsin the analyses, see Plos (1995).Sincethe
fractureenergyandthetensilestrength determine theultimatecrackopening.andtherebyalso
relation,the valueof the fractureenergycan haveconsiderable
the gradientof the stress-strain
eifecton thefeasibilityof simulatinga problem.Accordingly, fewernumericalproblems were
encountered whenthe reinforcement barsweremodelledusingtrusselements in combination
with interfaceelementsthan when modelling the reinforcementbars using embedded
reinforcement. This was becauseof the more gradualstress-strain relationobtainedfor the
concretesofteningwhen dividingthe ultimatecrack openingby the finite elementlength
insteadof the meancrackspacing,seeSection4.2.1.1.The bond-sliprelationassumed in the
analyses hadno notableeffecton reachingconvergence in the analyses.

The effect of the fractureenergyused in the analyseswas examined.It was found that a
reductionto 50 Voin the fractureenergyhad relativelylittle effect of the structuralbehaviour
in the analysesof the specimenswith either the high or low reinforcementratio; its
importancewas proportionallyhigherfor the specimenswith the low reinforcement ratio. In
conjunctionwith the slightlyhigherloadcapacitiesobtainedin the detailedanalyses compared
to that observedin the tests,this indicatesthat the fractureenergyusedin the analysesmight
have been somewhattoo high. However, it does not affect the results presentedand
conclusions drawnin this study.

4.t Analysesof a Cantilever Beam

4.7.1 General

Due to the numericalproblemsencountered in the FE analysesof the framecorner,it was not

possibleto statewith certaintywhat effectthe bondconditionor the mechanicalpropertiesof
the steelreinforcementhave on the deformationcapacity.Therefore,a simpler model of a
cantileverbeam,with reinforcement barspositionedonly at the tensileside of the structure,
was established,seeFigure75. Part of the connectingcolumn was includedin the modelso
that the anchorageof the reinforcementbars in the column could be modelled.The
reinforcementbarsin the wall were splicedto the reinforcementbars in the beam;the barshad
approximatelythe sameanchoragelength as in the frame comer test specimensand were
providedwith a bendto preventpull-outfailurefrom the wall.

To examinethe effect of the bond conditionon the load and the deformationcapacityof
structuresthat have failed from differentcauses,the analysesof the cantileverbeam were
carried out with two different reinforcementratios. A low amount of reinforcement,
conesponding to 4 010 1p = 0.20),was usedto obtainruptureof the reinforcementbarsanda
higheramount,conesponding to 4 Q16 (p = 0.52), was usedto reach ultimatecompressive
stressin theconcreteshortlyafteryieldingof the reinforcementhad occurred.

65
 aa aa aa aa

i
, 600 \,
l---_--'''___-

A-A

(- Trusselement
I 4 Qtl (4 Qr6)
300I
,
7-
i

300I 700(9s0)

t
300
/

Figure75 Dimensionsof the cantilever bars.

beammodelandpositionof the reinforcement
Amounrof steelreinforcement lengthof the beamwith the high
and anchorage
ratioaregivenbetweenbrackets.
reinforcement

The materialparameters for the steelreinforcementand the bond-sliprelationsusedin the

analysesof the cantileverbeamwere the sameas thoseusedin the column in the detailed
analysesof the frame comer.The sameincorrectparameters for concretein compressionas
usedin theframecomer,seeSection4.5.1andAppendixB, wereusedalsofor thecantilever
beamwith low reinforcement ratio.However,in the analyses of the cantileverbeamwith
higherreinforcement relationfor compressed
ratio,a more accuratestress-strain concretewas
used(@wassetto l0o, seeAppendixB).

ln the analysesof the beamwith low reinforcementratio, the concretein compression never
reachedits ultimatestrength;consequently the use of the incorrectstress-strain
relationhad
negligibleeffecton the results.However,for the cantileverbeamwith higherreinforcement
ratio,crushingof the concretewas the causeof failure,which showsthat it is moreimponant
to simulatethe compressed concreteaccurately.This is why the more accuratestress-strain
relationfor concretein compressionwas used.Further,to examinethe importanceof the
descending branchfor concretein compression,analysesusing a more gradualstress-strain
relation(denotedmodifiedstress-strainreiation)werealsocarriedout, seeFigure76.

66
 Stress.
o, [MPal
30-

-r- Original stress-

strarnrelation
+- Modified stress-
strainrelation

20
Strain,
e. [10'3]

Figure76 Uniaxial stress-strainrelationsfor concretein compressionused in the analysesof

the cantileverbeam with high reinforcementratio. The angle of intemal friction, d,
was set to 10o,seeAppendix B.

4.7.2 The finite element model

To definethe geometryof thebeam,2l5 planestresselements wereused,seeFigure77.The

reinforcementbars and the interactionbetweenthe reinforcementand the concretewere
modelledusing48 trusselementsin combinationwith 48 interfaceelements

r = Node constrainedin
x and y directions

L_
Figure77 Finiteelementmeshandboundaryconditionsof thecantileverbeam.

o/
4.7.3 Resultsof the analyses

4.7.3.1 General

The generalbehaviourof the load-displacement relationof the cantileverbeamwas found to

be independent of the iterationmethod.However,as in the detailedFE analysesof the frame
corner,the resultsobtainedwhen using the Modified Newton Raphsonmethodwere quite
"smooth"while the resultsachievedwhenusingBFGS secantmethodfluctuateda lot. When
using the more robustBFGS secantmethod,it was possibleto analysethe cantileverbeam
with low reinforcement ratio until final failure (ruptureof the reinforcementbars).The load-
displacementrelationfrom the FE analysesof the cantileverbeam with low reinforcemenl
ratio arecomparedfor the two iterationmethodsin Figure78.

Unlessotherwisestated,thefollowing assumptions
weremadein the FE analyses:
r bondcondition - "good"(seeSection4.2.3),
r reinforcementtype = "normalratio"(seeSection4.2.2),and
o iterationmethod = BFGSsecantmethod(seeSection4.3).

t oad,F [kN]

40_

- BFGS secant
method
- Modrfied Newton-
Raphson

r00 150
Displacement,
6 [mm]

Figure 78 Comparison of the effect of the iteration methods used in the FE analysesof the
cantileverbeam.

4,7.3.2 Effect of the bond-sliprelation

Two differentbond-sliprelations,denoted"good"and"other",werecompared in theanalyses

of the cantileverbeam.A comparisonof the load-displacement
relationsfor the differentbond
conditions is shownin Fisures79 and80.

68
 Load,F [k]Jl

40-

- ,'Good,i
bond
condition
- ,,other,'bond
condition

50 100 150
Displacement,
6 [mm]

Figure79 l,oad-displacement relationfor the FE analysesof the cantileverbeamwith low

reinforcementratio for differentbondconditions..

l-oad,F [kN]
i
100 : modrtled stress-
straln relatlon L

80:
l,/-
60* originalstress-
strainrelation - ,'Good"bond

40' condition

y==l_:, - "other' bond

condition

t0 15 20 25
Displacement,
6 [mm]

Figure80 toad-displacement relationfor the FE analysesof the cantileverbeamwith high

reinforcementratio for different bond conditions and different stress-strain
relationsof concretein compression.

69
4.7.3.3 Effect of the reinforcement type

The FE analysesof the cantileverbeam with low reinforcementratio could simulatethe

behaviour of the structureto the extent that the maximum stress value of the steel
reinforcementwas reached.Thus, the effect that different mechanicalpropertiesof the
reinforcingsteelhave on the deformationcapacityof the structurecould be studied.Three
relationsof the steelreinforcement
differentstress-strain werestudiedin the FE analyses, see
Section4.2.2.The resultingload-displacement relationsfor the differentreinforcement
types
arecompared in Figure81.

The abruptshifts obtainedin the analysisassuming"high ratio" were due to a snap-through

behaviour(seeBathe(1996))obtainedwhen the maximumbond stresswas reachedin one of
the interfaceelementsin the regionof the beam closestto the column.This resultedin an
decreaseof the tensileforce (unloading)in the trusselement,modellingthe reinforcement
bars,connectedto the interfaceelement.When the bond stressreachedits minimum value(at
a corresponding slip, sr, accordingto Figure27) oneof the two trusselementsadjacentto the
unloadedtrusselementstartedto hardenwhich resultedin a corresponding increaseof the
externalload,F. In the analyses, the amountof trusselementsthat had reachedyielding,and
thus contributingto a higher deformationcapacity,dependedon whethera snap-through
behaviouroccurredor not. [n the beamswith "low ratio" and "norma]ratio" steel,threetruss
elementsreachedyielding(of which only one elementhardened); in the beamwith "high
ratio" steel,five trusselementsreachedyielding and of these,four elementsalso startedto
harden.

tnad, F [kN]

40-

- ,'High
rario',
- 'rNormalratio''
"[,ow ratio

r00 150
Displacement,
6 [mm]

Figure8 I load-displacement
relationfor the FE analysesof thecantileverbeamfor different
mechanicalpropertiesof the steelreinforcemenr.

10
4.7.4 Discussion

The analysesof a cantileverbeamwerecarriedout to more thoroughlyexaminethe effectsof

differentbond-sliprelationsand the mechanicalpropertiesof the steel reinforcement.The
displacementat final failurein the beamwith low reinforcement ratio,when "other"bond
conditionwas assumed, was approximately 30 % higherthan that obtainedin the beam
assuming"good"bondcondition.This supportsthe indications of the analysesof the frame
corner: a weak bond-sliprelation has a positive effect on the deformationcapacityof a
structurewhen ruptureof the reinforcement barsis the causeof failure.The load capacityof
the beamwas,as for the framecomer,relativelyunaffectedby the bond-sliprelation.In the
beamwith high reinforcement ratio.the bond-sliprelationhad negligibleeffecton both the
maximumload capacityand the deformationcapacity.However,it shouldbe notedthat the
analysesindrcatethat a weakerbond condition has a very minor negativeeffect on the
deformationcapacitywhencrushingof theconcreteis the causeof failure.

When a weakbond conditionwas assumed, the differencein tensilestressbetweenthe truss

elements(modellingthe reinforcementbars) connectedto each other, was less than that
observedwhen assuminga stiff bond condition.This causeda more rapid developmentof a
largeplastichinge in the reinforcement barsonceyieldinghad occurred,which resultedin a
higherdeformationcapacityof the cantileverbeam.ln the analyseswhere crushingof the
concretewasthe causeof failure,the steelreinforcement did not startto harden.In a structure
wherehardeningof the steelreinforcement is followedby crushingof the concrete,the bond-
slip relationmay still affectthe deformatroncapacity.However,it is importantto notethat a
stiff bond-sliprelationha-sa positiveeffecton the crack width in a serviceabilitylimit state,
resultingin morebut smallercracksin a structure; thus,a stiff bond-sliprelationgivesthe
structure a greaterresistanceto corrosion.

The effectof threedifferentmechanicalpropertiesof the steelreinforcement was investigated

in this study.Apart from differencesin the loadcapacity,which weredue to drfferentultimate
strengthsof the reinforcement bars,the deformationcapacitywas noticeablyaffectedby the
mechanical propertiesof the steelreinforcement; the cantileverbeammodelledwith the "high
ratio" steelproduceda displacement at failure approximately50 Volargerthan that obtained
whenusingthe "normalratio" steel.ln the analyses, the increasein the displacementat failure
was not proportionalto the ratio of the differentmechanicalproperties;wherethe "low ratio"
steelwasassumed, the displacement at failurewasapproximately 95 7cof thal obtainedin the
beam which had a "normal ratio" steel. This behaviour is probably partly due to the
discretisationin the finite elementmethod.If a more denseelementmeshhad beenusedto
modelthe regionnext to the column,a largerplasticregionin the steelreinforcement next to
the column had probablybeen obtainedfor the beam with the "normal ratio" steel and,
consequently, the totaldisplacement at failurewould havebeenlarger.Therefore,it is difficult
to make a certain statementof how much the different mechanicalpropertiesof the steel
reinforcement affectthe deformationcapacityof a concretestructure.However,the difference
in total displacement at final failure of approximately50 7c, betweenthe beamswith "high
ratio"and "low ratio" steel,seemsquitereasonable.

When ruptureof the reinforcement barsis the causeof final farlure,the valueof the ultimate
probablyaffectsthe total displacement
strainof the steelreinforcement in the analysesof the
cantileverbeam.For a stnicturewherecrushingof the concreteis the causeof failure, the
importanceof the steelductilitv dependson what strarnvalueshave been reached.If the

11
reinforcement barshavejust startedto yield whenthis happens(asin the cantileverbeamwith
the high reinforcementratio analysedabove)the ductility of the steelhas no effect at all.
However,when the reinforcementbars have startedto harden,the mechanicalpropertiesof
the steelmay be important,sinceit is thesethat determinethe capacityfor redistributionof
forcesin a concrete seeOberg( 1976).
structure,

ln summary,to obtaina ductilestructure,the most importantfactoris the yieldingof the steel

reinforcement; the longerthe reinforcementbars have yieldedbeforefinal failure,the more
ductileis the behaviourobtained.Furthermore, oncea strainlargeenoughto obtainhardening
is reached,the mechanicalpropertiesof the steelcan be of greatimportance;the plastichinges
in a structurethen spreadover a largerareawhich offers an enhanceddeformationcapacity.
The stiffnessof the bond-sliprelationmay affect the deformationcapacity,providedstrain
hardeningof the reinforcingsteelis reached.When ruptureof the reinforcement barsis the
causeof failure,a weakerbond-sliprelation,as mentionedabove,hasa positiveeffecton the
deformationcapacity.However, since a stiffer bond-slip relation resultsin higher tensile
strainsin the steel reinforcement,the steel hardenssooner.Consequently,providedthat
hardeningof the steelreinforcement is reached,a stiff bond-sliprelationmay havea positive
effecton thedeformationcapacitywhencrushingof the concreteis the causeof failure.

72
\ CONCLUSIONS
5.1 General

The reinforcement detailingallowedin the presentSwedishregulations for the designof

frame cornersin concretecivil defencesheltersis complicated,which makesit difficult to
carryout correctly.Therefore,a new designproposalhasbeenstudied.Eight full-scaleframe
cornerssubjectedto a negativemomentwere tested.The parameters variedin the testswere
the reinforcementdetailing, the reinforcementratio, the reinforcementtype and the
configurationof the reinforcementbars. Finite elementanalyses,using non-linearfracture
mechanicsand plasticity, were carried out for frame corners with the new and the
conventionalreinforcementdetailings.Furthermore,the effects of the weaknessof the
constructionjoint, the interactionbetween reinforcementand concrete,the mechanical
propertiesof the steelreinforcement,and incorrectpositioningof reinforcementloops were
examined.

The tests and the FE analysesconductedhave shown that the conventionaland the new
reinforcement detailingsfor practicalpurposesareequivalentfor a framecornerstructurewith
a low amountof reinforcement. Comparisons of testsandFE analyses indicatethat this is also
the casefor a framecornerwith a high amountof reinforcement. Thus,the testsand analyses
supportthe idea that the new alternativeis suitableto use insteadof the conventional
reinforcement detailing.

The testshaveshownthat,whetheror not the reinforcement barsare splicedin contactwith

eachother,thereis no significantdifferencein the behaviourof the framecornermadewith
the new detailing.The concretesidecover spalledoff the framecornerof the specimens with
the high reinforcementratio. This indicatesthat the expressionto determinethe minimum
bending radius of the reinforcementin Boverket's Handbook for ConcreteStructures,
BBK 94, Boverket(1994),shouldnot be usedfor reinforcement detailingsof the t)?e usedin
the new proposal.

To obtain a ductile structure,the most important factor is the yielding of the steel
reinforcement; the longerthe reinforcementbarshave yieldedbeforefinal failure,the more
ductile is the behaviourobtained.However, the bond-slip relation and the mechanical
propertiesof the steel reinforcementcan also have significanteffect on the deformation
capacity.The FE analyseshave shown that the stiffnessof the structureis affectedby the
bond-sliprelationup to the point at which the steelreinforcementstartsto yield: the higher
the stiffnessof the bond-sliprelation,the higherthe stiffnessof the structure.Dependingon
the causeof final failurethe bond-sliprelationcanhavea noticeableeffecton the deformation
capacityof a structure.When ruptureof the reinforcement barsis the causeof final failure,a
weak bond-sliprelationhas a positiveeffect;when crushingof the concreteis the causeof
failureandhardeningof the steelreinforcement is reached,a stiff bond-sliprelationmay have
a positiveeffect. However,when hardeningof the steel reinforcementis not reachedand
crushingof the concreteis the causeof failure,the bond-sliprelationhasnegligibleeffecton
the deformationcapacityof the structure.The maximumloadcapacityis relativelyunaffected
by the bond-sliprelation,independentof the amountof reinforcement.However,a stiffer
bond-sliprelation does have a positive effect on the crack width, resultingin more, but
smaller,cracksin a structurewhich can be positiveconcerningthe risk of corrosionof the

't3
steel reinforcement.It was also shown that the mechanicalproperties of the steel
reinforcement effecton how largethe regionof yieldedreinforcement
can havea considerable
will be; consequently,it can have a significanteffect on the deformationcapacityof a
structure.

The weaknessof the constructionjoint affectsthe structuraibehaviourof the frame corner

only in the initial crackingstage;its effect on the maximumload capacityis negligible.The
FE analyses haveshownthatan incorrectpositioningof the reinforcementloopsin the column
of the framecornerhasa limitedeffecton the maximumloadcapacity.

It hasbeennotedthat the crackshavea tendencyto propagateparallelto the elementmeshes

and,consequently, the crackpatternin a structureis slightlydependenton the elementmesh.
The BFGS secantmethodwas found to be a comparativelyrobust iterationmethod,well
suitedfor the kind of FE analysescarriedout in this study.Fewernumericalproblemswere
encountered in the analyseswhen separateelementswere usedto model the reinforcement
bars:this is dueto the lower sradientin the stress-strain
curveusedfor the crackedconcrete.

5.2 for Future Research

Suggestions

tn this study, tests and FE analyseshave been carried out only for a static loading. However, a
civil defencesheltermust withstand impact loading such as explosionsand falling buildings;
consequently, the behaviour of the new reinforcement detailing when subjected to impact
loading needs to be studied.

The use of reinforcement loops has been examined only in frame comers connecting two
structural members, i.e. a beam and a column. Therefore, an examination of the use of
reinforcement loops in other t)?es of connections,e.g. T-joints or corners with an angle wider
than 90o, would be valuable.

aA
6 REFERENCES
and CementaAB (1990):Betonghandbok
AB SvenskByggtyanst Konstruktion,utg6va2
(Concrete Design,second
Handbook 791pp.
AB SvenskByggqiinst'
edition.In Swedish).

BatheK-J. (1996):FinireElementProcedures. EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey

Prentice-Hall,
1 0 3 7p p .

BazantZ.P. andOh B.H. (1983):Crackbandtheoryfor fractureof concrete. Materialsand

1 9 8 3p, p . 1 5 5 - 1 7 7 .
S t r u c t u r eRs I, L E M ,V o l . 1 6 ,N o 9 3 ,M a y - J u n e

BonacciJ. and Pantazopoulou S. (1993):Parametric of Joint Mechanics.

lnvestigation ACI
V
S t r u c t u r Ja ol u m a l , . 9 0 , N o . 1
1 ,J a n . - F e b .9 9 3p, p .6 l - 7 1 .

BBK 94, Band I,

Boverket (1994): Boverkets handbok for Betongkonstruktioner
Konstruktion(Boverket's BBK 94, Vol. I, Design.In
Handbookfor ConcreteStructures,
Boverket,
Swedish). Byggavdelningen, Sweden185pp
Karlskrona,

(1987),Betongprovning
BST Byggstandardiseringen med SvenskStandard, BST handbok12,
(ConcreteTesting accordingto Swedish Standard,BST Handbook 12. In Swedish).
SIS- standardiseringskommisionen 272 pp.
i Sverigeoch SvenskByggtliinst,

CEB ( 1983): Bond Action and Bond Behaviour of Reinforcement,CEB Bulletin

d ' l n f o r m a t i oln5 l , 1 5 3p p .

CEB (1993): CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Design Code. Thomas Telford, l-ausanne,
437 pp.
Switzerland,

ChenW. F. (1982):Plasticity McGraw-Hill,USA,474pp.

Concrete.
in Reinforced

CheungP. C., PaulayT., Park R. (1993):Behaviourof beam-column joints in seismically

r ,o l . 7 1 ,N o . 8 , 2 0 A p r i l 1 9 9 3p, p . 1 2 9 - 1 3 8 .
Eln g i n e e V
l o a d e dR C f r a m e sT. h eS t r u c t u r a

ClaesonC., Gylltoft K. (1996): SlenderHigh-Strength ConcreteColumnsSubjectedto

Loading.Submitted
Eccentric for publication
in Joumalof Structural
Engineering.

Collins M. P. and Mitchell D. (1991): Prestressed PrenticeHall,

ConcreteStructures.
Englewood Cliffs,New pp.
Jersey, 766.

Elfgren L., editor (1989): FractureMechanicsof ConcreteStructures,From Theory to

Applications.Report of the technicalcommittee90-FMA FractureMechanicsto Concrete
- Application,RILEM. ChapmanandHall, London,407 pp.

Eligehausen R., Popov8.G., BeneroV.V. (1983):Local Bond Sress-slipRelationships

of
DeformedBarsunderGeneraiized October1983,
Excitations.ReportNo. UCB/EERC-83123,
Universityof Califomia,Berkeley,California,i61 pp.

/)
EngstrdmB. (1992):Ductility of Tie Connectionsin PrecastStructures.
Division of Concrete
ChalmersUniversityof Technology,Publication92:1,Gdteborg,452pp.
Structures,

GambarovaP. G. (1989):Steel-to-concrete
bondafterconcretesplitting:testresults.Materials
1989,22,pp. 35-47.
andStructures,

GylltoftK. (1983):Fracture
MechanicsModelsfor Fatiguein Concrete
Structures.
Divisionof
Structural
Engineering,LuleAUniversityof Technology,
DoctoralThesis1983:25D,
210pp.

HansonW. andConnorW. (1967):SeismicResistanceof Reinforced

Concrete
Beam-Column
Divison93(5),pp. 533-560.
Joints.ASCEJoumalof theStructural

HillerborgA., Mod6erM. andPetersson P-E.(1976):Analysisof CrackFormationandCrack

Growth in Concreteby means of FractureMechanicsand Finite Elements.Cementand
ConcreteResearch,Vol.6, No. 6, Nov. 1976,pp. 773-182.

Johansson M. (1995):New Reinforcement Detailingin FrameCornersin Civil Defence

Shelters - Experiments and Fracture Mechanics Analyses, Chalmers University of
Technology,Divisionof Concrete
Structures, 70 pp,
Report95:2,Goteborg,

Johansson M. (1996):Non-linearFiniteElementAnalysesof FrameCornersin Civil Defence

ChalmersUniversityof Technology,
Shelters. Divisionof ConcreteStructures.
Report96:3,
70 pp.
Gciteborg,

Kwak H-G. and Filippou F. C. (1990):Finite ElementAnalysisof ReinforcedConcrete

underMonotonicl,oads.Departmentof Civil Engineering,
Structures Universityof California
Berkeley,Califomia,ReportNo. UCB/SEMM-90/14, I l3 pp.

LundgrenK. and Plos M. (1996): Splicingof Reinforcement

in Frame Corners:Finite
ElementAnalyses.ChalmersUniversityof Technology,Division of ConcreteStructures,
Report96:2,Gtiteborg.13 pp.

Luo Y.H., DurraniA.J.,Bai S., Yuan J. (1994):Studyof Reinforcing Detailof TensionBars

in FrameCornerConnections. ACI StructuralJournal,V. 9l, No. 4, pp. 486-496.

LutzL. A., GergelyP. (1967):Mechanicsof Bond and Slip of DeformedBeusin Concrete.

l , o v . 1 9 6 7 p, p . 7 1 l - 7 2 1 .
A C I J o u r n aN

MagnussonJ. (1997):LicentiateThesisto be publishedin 1997.ChalmersUniversityof

Technology,Division of ConcreteStructures,
Gciteborg.

Mayfreld8., Kong F-K. BennisonA. (197l): CornerlointDetailsin StructuralLightweight

ACI Journal,May 1971,pp.366-312.
Concrete.

Mayfield8., Kong F-K, BennisonA. (1972):StrengthandStiffness

of LightweightConcrete
Corners.ACI Journal,July 1972,pp.420-421.

NilssonI. H. E. (1973):Reinforcedconcretecornersandjoints subjected

to bendingmoment.
DocumentD7:1973,249pp.
NationalSwedishInstitutefor Building Research,

76
 ConcreteComersandJointsSubjected
NilssonI. H. E. andLosbergA. (1976):Rernforced to
BendingMoment.ASCEJoumalof theStructural Division,102(6),pp. 1229-1254.

NoghabaiK. (1995):Spliningof Concretein the AnchoringZone of DeformedBars: A

FracrureMechanicsApproachto Bond. Division of StructuralEngineering,Lulei University
of Technology, Thesis1995:26L.170pp.
Licentiate

M. J. N. (1978):Reinforced
PaulayT., ParkP. Priestley ConcreteBeam-Column JointsUnder
SeismicActions.ACI Journal,Proceedings V. 75,No. I 1,Nov.,pp. 585-593.

fcirramhorniskyddsrum(New Reinforcement
PlosM. (1994a):Ny armeringsskarv Splicefor
Frame Cornersin Civil Defence Shelters.In Swedish).Division of ConcreteStructures,
Chalmers Report94:2,21pp.
Universityof Technology,

in FrameComers-ExperimentalStudies.Nordic
PlosM. (i994b): Splicingof Reinforcement
ConcreteResearch,Publ.no. 14,The NordicConcrete pp 103-121.
Federation,

Plos M. (1995): Applicationof FractureMechanicsto ConcreteBridges - Finite Element

Analyses and Experiments.Division of Concrete Structures,Chalmers University of
Technology,Publication95:3,Gijteborg,127pp.

RestrepoI., ParkR., BuchanonA. H. (1995):Teston Connections of EarthquakeResisting

Precast ReinforcedConcretePerimeter
Framesof Buildings.PCI Journal,July-Aug. 1995.,
p p .4 4 - 6 1 .

RILEM 50-FMC (1985):Determinationof the FractureEnergyof Mortar and Concreteby

Means of Three-pointBend Tests on NotchedBeams.Materialsand Structures,Vol. 18,
pp. 285-290.

RobertsonI. N. andDurraniA. J. (1992):Gravitytoad Effecton SeismicBehaviorof Interior

Slab-Column ACI Structural
Connections. Journal, pp.37-45.
V. 89,No. 1,Jan.-Feb.,

Rots J.G. (1988): ComputationalModelling of ConcreteFracture.Departmentof Civil

Engineering,Delft Universityof Technology,pp. 132.

SkettrupE., StraboJ., AndersenN. H. (1984):ConcreteFrameComers.ACI Joumal,Nov.-

D e c .1 9 8 4p, p . 5 8 7 - 5 9 3 .

Swann R. A., (1969):Flexural Strengthof Comersof ReinforcedConcretePortalFrames.

TechnicalReportTRA 434,CementandConcreteAssociation,London,Nov. 1969,14pp.

SwedishRescueServiceBoard (1994): ShelterRegulations,SR - English edition. Statens

94 pp.
Publication854-168194,
Rriddningsverk,

TepfersR. (1973):A Theoryof Bond Applied to OverlappedTensileReinforcement Splices

for DeformedBars. Division of ConcreteStructures,ChalmersUniversity of Technology,
328 pp.
Publication73:2,Gciteborg,

't'7
TNO (1993): DIANA-5.I. TNO Building and ConstructionResearch- Departmentof
Mechanics,P.O.Box 49,2600AA Delft, The Netherlands.
Computational

TNO (1996): DIANA-6.1. TNO Building and ConstructionResearch- Departmentof

EngineeringMechanicsand lnformation Technology,P.O. Box 49, 2600 AA Delft, The
Netherlands.

TsonosA. G., TegosI. A., PenelisG. Gr. (1992):SeismicResistanceof Type 2 Exterior

Beam-ColumnJoints Reinforcedwith InclinedBars. ACI StructuralJournal.V. 89. No. 1.
Jan.-Feb.1992,pp. 3-12.

Yuan R. L., Mclrlland G. R., Chen,W. F. (1982):Experimentson ClosingReinforced

ConcreteCorners.ASCEJournalof theStructural
Division,108(4),pp.771-179.

Tnuzou A. and HaldaneD. (1993): Detailing reinforcedconcreteclosing cornerjoints for

ductility. Proceedings of the lnstitution of Civil Engineers,Structuresand Buildings,Feb.
1 9 9 3V, o l . 9 9 ,N o . I , p p . 4 3 - 4 8 .

Oberg S. (1976): Armeradebalkars rotationskapacitet

(RotationalCapacityof Reinforced
ConcreteBeams.In Swedish.),Division of ConcreteStructures,Universityof Technology,
Report76:7,54 pp.

78
APPENDIX A Drawingsof the TestSpecimens
in the
SecondTestSeries
The dimensions of the framecomerspecimens are shownin FigureA-1. The amountand
posrtion
of thereinforcementbarsareshownin FiguresA-2 andA-3.

50
ol0
'\ 150
\tl , / l -----t---t
,z
0 3oF ---1'r
<ni300

45y
Construction
Jolnt 2150
0lQ o

150
| # ----jt. -^
,,9 +r)u
1,/ L
so Y I l rso
^^^l

FigureA- I The dimensions

of thetestspecimens.

6-- s2 7 Ql6K500(l=1720)
r=118/>------------
l. 1380 L
5 dl6 K500( I = 1720\

-5p16K500t/=1830)

5 d l 6 K 5 0 0( / = 1 8 3 0)
5016K500(l=1'720)

Concretecover24 mm

FigureA-2 Reinforcement
barsusedin specimens
RV5 andRV6.

AI
 s 2 4 p l 0 K 5 0 0/ r= 2 3 8 0 )

3 dl0 K500( / = 1730)

n
r=l

97

l_Ll 3 d10K500( I = 1840)

39dl0 K500( / = 570)

s l 4 Ql 0 K 5 0 0 3010K500(/=r840)
(/=2090)
3d10K500(/=1750)

Concretecover l5 mm

FigureA-2 Reinforcement
barsusedin specimens
RV7 andRV8

A2
APPENDIX B Concrete in Compressionin the
FE Analyses
The responseof the concretein compression plasticity
was modelledby a Drucker-Prager
yield surfaceis givenby
model.The tbrmulationof the Drucker-Prager

ft-
J @ , K I= eo - u,ft'o - kkl ( Bl )
l-o'

whereois the stressmatrix.The projectionmatrixP andtheprojectionvectorzare givenby

2-r-1000 I
-12-1000 I
-1-12000 I
P: and (82)
0 0 0 600 0
0 0 0 060 0
0 0 0 006 U

The scalarquantitiesd,randp aregivenby

2 s i n0 ( r ) ^ 6cos@n
(83)
u r, = # and P- _
3-sinp(r) J-slnpo

wherep(r) is the angleof internalfriction as a functionof a hardeningparameter,rand @pis

the initial angleof internalfriction.The hardeningof the compressedconcreteis describedby
a relationbetweenthe cohesionanda hardeningparameter. The cohesion,c, is calculatedas

l-dr
c = J(.qt(e;^tu,.,) (B4)
p

Here, /...r(e P,n,^,or)is the compressive strength as a function of the plastic strain in the
direction of the uniaxial stress,evaluated from standardtests on cylinders. In the analysesthe
angle of internal friction was constant; thus, @(r) = Qo= Q and the expressionin equation (B4)
can be written as

l-sin@
c = J,..n1(€ini^Mt )-:--- - (Bs)
zcosp

The hardeningparameter
r is definedas

^F;;a
6 = -J---a t!,n,^,oi (86)
l- dt

BI
where

2 sinry(r)
A, '^ =------------ 187)
3-sinty(r)

is the plasticstrainin the directionof the uniaxialstressand yr is the dilatancyangle.

tP un,^,ot
In the analyses,associated plasticitywas assumed;thus,the dilatancyanglewas set equalto
the angleof intemalfriction,i.e. ry= S.

Accordingto Chen( 1982),thecompressive strengthof concreteis increased by approximately

16 Vowhenthe concreteis subjectedto an equalbiaxial compression stressstate(o2I or = l);
the corresponding strainat maximumstressis increased by approximately10 7o.Thus,a more
ductile stress-strainrelation is obtainedin an equal biaxial compressionstate than in a
uniaxialstressstate,seeFigureB-1. However,with the Drucker-Prager plasticitymodelused
in DIANA, it is not possibleto obtainsuchan increaseof the ductilebehaviourin a biaxial
compression state.lnstead,contraryto what is expected,the resultis a morebrittle behaviour
with a substantialdecreasein the strain at maximum stress.Accordingto Chen, the ratio
betweenthe plastic strains(at maximum stress),obtainedin an equal biaxial compression
stateand a uniaxial compressionstate,should be approximately1.1. However,it can be
shownthatwith the plasticitymodelusedin DIANA this ratio can at mostreacha valueof 0.5
(obtainedwhen t1r= 0o). Consequently,when using this material model for compressed
concrete.a more brittle behaviourof concretein compressionis obtainedfor all stressstates
otherthanthe pureuniaxialone.

1 . 1f6,
Equalbiaxialstress
f, state(d/ I o2= 11
Uniaxialstressstate
(O2=Or=0)

ffin
Hr \when biaxial

L4

FigureB-1 The differencein the stress-strain

relationsfor concretein uniaxial and equal
biaxialcompressionstates,Chen(1982).

The cohesion-hardening parameterrelation used in the FE analysesis determinedto

correspondwith the stress-strain relationfrom a uniaxial test, seeequations(84) and (86).
The valuesof the cohesionand the hardeningparameterboth dependon the angleof internal
friction, f. Thus, P can be set to an arbitraryvalue and still give a stress-strain
relationthat

B2
correspondsto that from the uniaxial test; however, the choice of p also affects the stress-
strain relation in the other stressstates.To obtain an rncreasein compressivestrengthin an
equal biaxial compressionstate,correspondingto that suggestedby Chen (16 Vc),the angleof
internal friction, 0, should be set to approximately 10'. However, according to
recommendations in the DL{NA manual,TNO ( 1993, 1996),the angle of internalfriction was
approximatedto be 30o in the FE analyses.This resulted in a 200 7c increaseof the
compressivestrengthat an equal biaxial compressionstate compared to that in an uniaxial
stressstate. Further, due to a misunderstanding,the hardening parameter r was set to be
equivalentto the plastic strain €t,,,-,o1 when it should have been r = l.9lEtu,,,*iolaccording
to equation(86); thus, the softeningof the concretein compressionoccurredat a lower strain
also for the uniaxral stressstate. To examine the effect of these inconect material parameters
(i.e. @= 30o and K= €Pun,^,ot), an analysisof a frame comer specimenusing more accurate
materialparameters(0= l0', K= 1.16€p,n,-,o1) was carried out, see Section4.5.1.The stress-
strain relations for this analysis and for the concrete used in the other FE analyses are
compared for uniaxial and equal braxial compression states,see Figure B-2.

o. [MPal Concretein compression

used in the analyses
80, (0= 30", K= €P,n,*ior)

Concrete in compression
biaxial that should have been used
60 ( 0 = 1 0 " ,r = l . l 6 t P u n i * , a t )
sressstate
-----;
\
40 biaxial (Chen)
ffin
2O+
uniaxial
HD \when
biaxial

stressstate

6
e.[103]

relationsfor concreteusedin the FE analyses

FigureB-2 The differencein the stress-strain
when it is subjectedto different compressionstates.The corresponding stress-
strainrelationaccordingto Chen(1982)is shownfor comparison.

B3
 Tryckt& Bunden
Vasastadens AB
Bokbinderi
r996
View publication stats