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

net/publication/331984946

FINITE ELEMENT METHODS I FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF RCC BEAM

Technical Report · December 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 103

1 author:

Gaurav ..
University of Ottawa
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Strengthening of RCC beams using FRP wraps View project

Vibration control of tall buildings View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gaurav .. on 25 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CVG5156 – FINITE ELEMENT METHODS I
Fall 2018

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF RCC BEAM

GAURAV (300037275)

ABSTRACT: Reinforced concrete has become one of the most important building materials
and is widely used in many types of engineering structures. For the efficient use of RCC it is
necessary to know the properties and the behavior of RCC elements under various constrains.
The behaviour of different structural components in the reinforced concrete structure is
complex to understand and crucial for the efficiency and safety of the whole structure. The
response of the structural components has been studied using empirical formulas and
experimental research in laboratory. In this era of computer design, software helps us to verify
the results obtained by empirical equations and understand the response of the structures
under various loadings.

This performed analysis compare the results of the elastic analysis of the reinforced concrete
beam under flexural loading, using the software ABAQUS. The deflection and stresses in the
plain concrete beam and reinforced concrete beam will be compared with theoretical results.

INTRODUCTION

Bending is resisted by the concrete beam in the structure. Due to Bending the upper part of
beam resist compression and lower part resist tensile forces. Beams generally carry vertical
gravitational forces but can also be used to carry horizontal loads. The loads carried by a beam
are transferred to columns, walls, which is then transferred to foundations. The compression
section must be designed to resist buckling and crushing, while the tension section must be
able to adequately resist to the tension. The widely use of the experimental testing is effective
for the analysis of individual elements and the effects of concrete strength under various
loading. But experimental approach is useful for research not for the quick check of the design,
it is time consuming. The use of finite element studies is useful for the study of the structural
components in small time period.
The use of the finite element process was also difficult and time consuming in past without the
use of software. In recent years, the development and improvement of the new software have
increased the progressing knowledge and capabilities of computers for analysis of complex
structural elements. It has now become the choice method to analyse concrete structural
components. The use of computer software to model these elements is much faster and
extremely cost-effective. The goal of this paper is study attempts to compare the results from
elastic analysis of a reinforced beam under transverse loading, using an analysis software
package to that obtained from a normal theoretical analysis

GAURAV
MODEL

Simply supported RCC beam with point loading case was taken for analysis (Fig. 1).
Size of the reinforced concrete beam – 100 × 150 mm, Length – 1000 mm
Steel reinforcement details: 3 rebars of 12 mm dia at bottom, 2 rebars of 8 mm dia at top.

Figure 1. Simply supported beam

FIGURE 2. Beam cross section

Steps followed for the analysis of beam in ABAQUS:

1. Creating parts, assigning material and assigning sections.
2. Creating instances.
3. Defining steps.
4. Applying boundary conditions and loading.
5. Meshing.
6. Assigning job and evaluation of results.

GAURAV
ABAQUS MODELLING

PARTS

The RCC and PCC beams were created as 3-D model in the software. The PCC beam is modelled
as solid homogeneous. The concrete section of the RCC beam is also modelled as solid
homogeneous but the reinforcement can be modelled and wire. Due to the nodes limitations in
the student version the reinforcement was created as wire truss.

MATERIAL

The material used in the analysis is M30 grade cement which has a modulus of elasticity of
2.8e4 MPa and Poisson’s ratio is taken as 0.14 and mass density of concrete is taken as 24
KN/m3. The steel material used in analysis with modulus of elasticity of 2.1e5 MPa and
Poisson’s ratio of 0.3.

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND LOADING

The beam is designed as simply supported, the boundary conditions applied on one side are
pinned and on the other side roller support. In roller support displacements in U2 and U3 are
restricted as the movement of the beam in longitudinal axis U1 (x-axis) was allowed. (FIG 4)

Uniformly distributed load (pressure 5N/mm2) is applied on the beam to obtain the deflections
and stresses on the beam

Figure 4. Boundary conditions, pinned on left and roller on right

GAURAV
ELEMENT TYPE AND MESHING

The element used in the project for the beam is C3D8R, which is a 8-node linear brick having
only one integration point. This can be both an advantage and a disadvantage in the same time,
as it decreases CPU power and duration of the analysis, but for a proper result in terms of
stresses and strains more integration points are better. The meshing of the reinforcement in
the RCC beam can be done by C3D8R which is same as the beam and also as T3D2 in case of the
wire. In our project the reinforcement was designed a wire 3D truss with T3D2 meshing.

MESH SENSITIVITY

The fundamental and accurate method for evaluating a mesh quality is to refine the mesh such
that the critical results are reached, such as the maximum stresses and displacements doesn’t
change at each refinement of the mesh. The initial meshing is done by carrying out various
iterations at different sizes and then the values of the vertical displacements representing as
(U2) and stresses(S11) are verified the mid section of the beam (Red dots). But the limitation of
student version software is 1000 nodes, therefore element size are quite bigger then they
should be and the convergence of the results lacked by 20% to 30%.

Figure 5. Observation point of the results

Varying the element type used and refining the meshing helps in converging the result of the
final solutions. The difference in the C3D8R and C3D8 will be seen in the results.

GAURAV
THEORETICAL RESULTS OF PCC BEAM

Load applied = 500 N/mm

Maximum bending moment, M = 6.25e+7 N-mm
EC = 28684 N/mm2
Neutral axis of beam, y = 100 mm
Moment of inertia, I = bd3/12 = 100*2003/12 = 66666666.67mm4
Maximum compressive stress in concrete = M* y/ I =6.25e+7*100/66666666.67

= 93.75 N/mm2

PCC BEAM ANALYSIS

Figure 6. S11 stresses and deflection of beam with mesh global size 35mm

GAURAV
Table 1. Stresses and deflections in PCC beam
Element type Mesh global size S11 (N/mm2) Deflection, U2(mm)
C3D8R 100 60.99 7.26
80 68.98 5.41
50 69.46 5.58
40 77.91 5.31
35 80.33 5.28
C3D8 35 87.94 4.62

The stress in concrete are converging to the theoretical solution as we were refining the mesh
but the software nodes limitation was reached at global size 33mm.

ANALYSIS OF RCC BEAM

The RCC beam section that have been used reached its maximum capacity and the
reinforcement has yielded, therefore the stresses in the concrete are little higher.

Figure7. deflection in RCC beam

Figure 8. Deflection in the reinforcement

GAURAV
 Figure 9. Stresses in RCC beam concrete

Figure 10. Stresses in the RCC beam concrete

Table 2. Stresses and deflections in RCC beam

Element type Mesh global size S11 (N/mm2) Deflection, U2(mm)

C3D8R for concrete beam 100 55.31 6.42
And 80 62.28 4.79
T3D2 for reinforcement 50 67.38 4.68
40 70.22 4.67
35 72.34 4.57

GAURAV
RESULTS

The results that are obtained for the beam from the finite element analysis in ABAQUS are very
similar to the theoretical solution obtained. The meshing played an important role in
converging the results in finite element analysis of the structural element. First the results
analysis of PCC beam was were obtained by varying the meshing global size. At the mesh global
size of 100mm the stresses obtained in concrete were 60.99 N/mm2 and the deflection was
seen to be 7.26 mm. As we kept going on reducing the mesh size, the results started converging
from 69.99 N/mm2 to 80.33 N/mm2 when the mesh global size was 35 mm. The change in the
mesh element type also helps in converging the result if used correctly depending on the
geometry of the structure. In the RCC beam the same results obtained were satisfactory as we
keep on decreasing the mesh global size from 100 mm to 35 mm. The stresses and deflection
were 55.31 N/mm2 and 6.42 mm respectively when the mesh size was 100 mm. The mesh size
of 35 mm provided the stresses and deflection values as 72.34 N/mm2 and 4.57 mm
respectively. In the PCC beam the values of stresses keep on converging up to the final meshing
size. The stresses in the RCC beam stopped converging to large extent from meshing size 50
mm. Converging of the deflection results in case of RCC beam did not change from coarse to
fine mesh size.

CONCLUSION

The beam analysed in the ABAQUS showed the satisfactory results. The stress results that are
converged in the analysis are very close to the theoretical solutions. The stresses obtained
through analysis can be closer to the solution if the number of restrictions was more than the
1000 nodes. The difference between the conversion of the deflections was not varying as the
mesh size was refined. Finite element analysis using a software can give satisfactory results.
Mesh sensitivity analysis converge the results to the real results if used accordingly to the
element structures.

GAURAV
 References

1. https://ebookpdf.com/abaqus-user-manual-6-13

2. iosrjournals.org/iosr-jmce/papers/ICRTEM/CE/IOSRCE015.pdf

GAURAV

View publication stats