chapter 5 5.pdf · title: microsoft word - chapter 5.doc author: owner created date: 8/11/2006...
TRANSCRIPT
137
Chapter 5
ANALYTICAL WORK
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the analytical component of this investigation. The finite element
analysis was used to investigate the performance of beam-column subassemblages. The
finite element modeling of the subassemblage was performed using Program ANSYS 8.0
(ANSYS, 2003). The test results were used to calibrate the initial finite element model.
Another finite element model was developed to test the performance of a similar
subassemblage with improved reinforcement detailing to overcome deficiencies identified
in the first test.
A time history analysis of prototype frame was performed using program RUAUMOKO
(Carr, 1998). Program RUAUMOKO is developed to carryout analysis of structures
subjected to earthquake and other dynamic excitations taking into account both material
and geometric non-linearity.
5.2 Finite element analysis
Program ANSYS is capable of handling dedicated numerical models for the non-linear
response of concrete under static and dynamic loading. Eight-node solid brick elements
(Solid 65) were used to model the concrete. These elements include a smeared crack
analogy for cracking in tension zones and a plasticity algorithm to account for the
possibility of concrete crushing in compression regions. Internal reinforcement was
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
138
modeled using 3-D spar elements (Link 8) and these elements allow the elastic-plastic
response of the reinforcing bars.
5.2.1 Element types
5.2.1.1 Reinforce concrete
The solid element (Solid 65) has eight nodes with three degrees of freedom at each node
and translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. The element is capable of plastic
deformation, cracking in three orthogonal directions, and crushing. The geometry and
node locations for this element type are shown in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1: Solid65 – 3-D reinforced concrete solid (ANSYS 2003)
The geometry and node locations for Link 8 element used to model the steel reinforcement
are shown in Figure 5-2. Two nodes are required for this element. Each node has three
degrees of freedom, translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. The element is also
capable of plastic deformation.
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
139
Figure 5-2: Link 8 – 3-D spar (ANSYS 2003)
5.2.2 Steel plates
An eight-node solid element, Solid45, was used for the steel plates at the top and bottom
end of column supports. The element is defined with eight nodes having three degrees of
freedom at each node and translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. The geometry
and node locations for this element type are shown in Figure 5-3. A 50 mm thick steel
plate, modeled using Solid45 elements, was added at the support locations in order to
avoid stress concentration problems and to prevent localized crushing of concrete elements
near the supporting points and load application locations. This provided a more even stress
distribution over the support area.
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
140
Figure 5-3: Solid45 – 3-D solid (ANSYS 2003)
5.3 Material properties
5.3.1 Concrete
A nonlinear elasticity model was adopted for concrete. This nonlinear elasticity model is
based on the concept of variable moduli and matches well with several available test data.
For normal strength concrete, a stress-strain model as shown in Figure 5-4 is suggested by
Vecchio and Collins (1986). However, this ideal stress-strain curve was not used in the
finite element material model, as the negative slope portion will lead to convergence
problems. In this study, the negative slope was ignored and the stress-strain relation shown
in Figure 5-5 was used for the material model in ANSYS.
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
141
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Strain
Stre
ss (M
Pa)
Figure 5-4: Stress-strain curve for 40 MPa concrete (Vecchio and Collins, 1986)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Strain
Stre
ss (M
Pa)
Figure 5-5: Simplified compressive stress-strain curve for concrete used in FE model
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
142
5.3.1.1 FEM Input Data
For concrete, ANSYS requires input data for material properties as follows:
Elastic modulus (Ec= 27,897 MPa used in this analysis)
Ultimate uniaxial compressive strength (f’c=40.6 MPa)
Ultimate uniaxial tensile strength (modulus of rupture, fr=2.55 MPa)
Poisson’s ratio (=0.2)
Shear transfer coefficient (t)
Compressive uniaxial stress-strain relationship for concrete.
The elastic modulus of concrete was calculated by using the slope of the tangent to the
stress-strain curve through the zero stress and strain point. The ultimate uniaxial
compressive strength of concrete was taken from the mean value of cylinder test results.
The tensile strength of concrete was assumed to be equal to the value given in the
Australian concrete structures code (AS-3600, 2001). This formula is given in Equation
5-1.
cr ff '4.0 Equation 5-1
The shear transfer coefficient for open cracks, t, represents the conditions at the crack
face. The value of t ranges from 0.0 to 1.0, with 0.0 representing a smooth crack
(complete loss of shear transfer) and 1.0 representing a rough crack (no loss of shear
transfer) (ANSYS, 2003). The value of t used in many finite element studies of
reinforced concrete structures, however, varied between 0.05 and 0.25 (Bangash, 1989;
Hemmaty, 1998; Huyse, Hemmaty and L.Vandewalle, 1994). A number of comparative
analytical studies have been attempted by Kachlakev et al (2001) to evaluate the influence
of shear transfer coefficient. They used finite element models of reinforced concrete
beams and bridge decks with t values within the range 0.05-0.25 and encountered
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
143
convergence problems at low loads with t values less than 0.2. Therefore, a shear transfer
coefficient of 0.2 has been used. However, in a recent study, Stehle (2002) recommended
to use shear transfer coefficient of 0.125. Therefore, for this study, both shear transfer
coefficient of 0.125 and 0.2 were used to derive the theoretical load-displacement
relationship for comparison with experimental results.
For closed cracks, the shear transfer coefficient assumed by both researchers (Kachlakev,
T. Miller, Yim and Chansawat, 2001; Stehle, 2002) found to be equal to 1.0. This
represents the shear stiffness reduction in the model is set to zero. In the analysis crack
closure was not expected, since the specimen was loaded from crack free initial state to
ultimate load monotonously.
5.3.1.2 Reinforcement
Steel reinforcement stress-strain curve for the finite element model was based on the
actual stress-stain curve obtained from tensile tests. The actual stress-strain curve for the
reinforcement is shown in Figure 5-6. However, this stress-strain curve was modified to
improve the convergence of finite element model by removing the negative slope portion
of the curve. Also the zero slope portion after yielding was slightly modified to a mild
positive slope. Figure 5-7 shows the stress-strain relationship used in this study.
Material properties for the steel reinforcement model is as follows:
Elastic modulus- Es = 200,000 MPa, Yield stress- fy = 450 MPa, Poisson’s ratio- =0.3.
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
144
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22
Strain
Stre
ss (M
Pa)
Figure 5-6: Stress-strain curve for steel (obtained from testing reinforcement)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22
Strain
Stre
ss (M
Pa)
Figure 5-7: Modified stress-strain curve for steel (adopted in ANSYS model)
5.3.1.3 Geometry and finite mesh
The test subassemblage was modeled in ANSYS taking the advantage of symmetry across
the width of the flange beam and column. This plane of symmetry was represented using
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
145
relevant constrains in the finite element node points. This approach reduced computational
time and computer disk space requirements significantly.
The beam and column mesh was selected such that the node points of the solid elements
will coincide with the actual reinforcement locations. An additional node points were
provided by sub dividing the mesh, so that a reasonable mesh density was obtained in the
joint regions with recommended aspect ratio of elements.
In the finite element model, solid elements, Solid45, were used to model the steel plates.
Nodes of the solid elements (solid 45) were connected to those of adjacent concrete solid
elements (solid 65) in order to satisfy the perfect bond assumption. Link 8 elements were
employed to represent the steel reinforcement, referred to here as link elements. Ideally,
the bond strength between the concrete and steel reinforcement should be considered.
However, in this study, perfect bond between materials was assumed due to the limitations
in ANSYS. To provide a perfect bond, the link element for the steel reinforcing was
connected between nodes of each adjacent concrete solid elements, so the two materials
shared the same nodes. Figure 5-8 illustrates the element connectivity.
Figure 5-9 shows the finite element model used to simulate the first test. It should be noted
that main reinforcement and shear ligatures in rib beam and column were precisely located
as per the actual first test subassembly. Steel reinforcement for the half beam model was
entered into the model as half the actual area. The finite element model had exactly 7067
total numbers of elements. Consist 5480 solid 65 elements, 1542 link 8 elements and 35
solid 45 elements.
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
146
Concrete solid element (Solid 65)
Link element (Link 8) Solid element (Solid 45)
(a) (b)
Figure 5-8: Element connectivity: (a) concrete solid and link elements; (b) concrete solid and steel solid element
Mesh R/FBar # 01, 02, 03
Main Top R/F
Main bottom R/F(Link 8)
Column R/F (Link 8)
Column & Rib beam shear links (link 8)
Steel plate (Solid 45)
Concrete (Solid 65)
Figure 5-9: Finite element mesh used (selected concrete elements removed to illustrate internal reinforcement)
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
147
5.3.1.4 Boundary conditions and loading
The boundary conditions were exactly simulated as in the test set up shown in Figure 3-20.
Horizontal and vertical restraints, representing a pin connection were applied at the top of
the column. At the end of rib beams, only vertical restrains were provided to simulate the
roller support conditions used in the test. Figures 5-10 and 5-11 show the restraints used in
the finite element model at beam-ends and column top end respectively. Figure 5-10 also
shows an additional reinforcement mesh provided at the end of beam face. This was
provided to prevent any localized crushing of concrete elements near the supporting
points.
Restraints at beam end
Restraints to maintain plane of symmetry
R/F mesh provided at beam support face
Figure 5-10: Rib beam end restraints used in FE model
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
148
Restraints at column top end
Restraints to maintain plane of symmetry
Figure 5-11: Column top end restraints used in FE model
A constant axial load of 200 kN (half of total column load due to symmetry) was applied
to bottom end of the column. The application of gravity loading (1.2G+0.4Q) to the finite
element model was slightly modified to reduce the number of loading steps, thus reducing
the number of analysis stages. The self-weight of the beam was not applied to the beam as
a uniformly distributed load, instead it was applied as a prescribed vertical downward
displacement (1.7 mm) at each the beam support. This will create similar negative bending
moments as shown in Figure 3-23. The program RESPONSE-2000 (Bentz and Collins,
2000) was used to calculate the amount of displacement required to create the adopted
bending moment in the test. More details are given in Appendix D.
The horizontal displacement at the column bottom end was applied in a slowly increasing
monotonic manner, with results recorded every one-millimeter lateral displacement. The
loading was applied in one-millimeter increments up to 75 mm. It was found that after
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
149
several unsuccessful solution runs, the application of lateral load in very small steps is
very important to obtain the full load-deformation curve without convergence problems.
5.3.2 Non-linear solution
In nonlinear analysis, the total load applied to a finite element model is divided into a
series of load increments called load steps. At the completion of each incremental solution,
the stiffness matrix of the model is adjusted to reflect nonlinear changes in structural
stiffness before proceeding to the next load increment. The ANSYS program (ANSYS
2003) uses Newton-Raphson equilibrium iterations for updating the model stiffness.
Newton-Raphson equilibrium iterations provide convergence at the end of each load
increment within tolerance limits. In this study, for the reinforced concrete solid elements,
convergence criteria were based on force and displacement, and the convergence tolerance
limits were initially selected by the ANSYS program. It was found that convergence of
solutions for the models was difficult to achieve due to the nonlinear behavior of
reinforced concrete. Therefore, the convergence tolerance limits were increased to a
maximum of 5 times the default tolerance limits (0.5% for force checking and 5% for
displacement checking) in order to obtain convergence of the solutions.
5.3.2.1 Calibration
As mentioned earlier in chapter 5.3.1.1, the finite element model required calibration with
respect to the shear transfer factor across open cracks. For the calibration process, two
values (0.125 and 0.2) were used for the shear transfer coefficients. The results of the
finite element pushover analysis are compared to the back-born curve of the hysteresis of
the tested subassemblage, in Figure 5-12. A shear transfer coefficient of 0.2 appears to be
best fit.
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
150
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Displacement (mm)
Loa
d (k
N)
Test-1 results0.125 Shear0.2 Shear
Figure 5-12: Load versus displacement-1st test specimen test results and FE results
A plot showing extent of cracking is shown in Figure 5-13. This is at a displacement of 65
mm (3.42 % drift). As described below, the cracking patterns observed in testing and finite
element analysis matched reasonably well.
Plane of Symmetry
Half column width
Location of main cracks
Main top reinforcement curtailed at 1000 mm from column center
(a)
(b)
Figure 5-13: Smeared cracks formed parallel to vertical dashed lines at 65 mm displacement (3.42 % drift)- (a) Top view of full beam, (b) Enlarged part
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
151
As mentioned in chapter 2.5.3, in ANSYS a cracking sign represented by a circle appears
when a principal tensile stress exceeds the ultimate tensile strength of concrete. The
cracking sign appears perpendicular to the direction of the principal stress. The red circles
at each element centroid in the figure have their plane aligned with the plane of cracking.
Hence, what appears to be a dashed line is in fact row of circles with a plane (i.e. plane of
cracking) perpendicular to the plane of beam top surface, indicating flexural cracking.
The yellow dashed line shown in Figure 5-13 is the location of main cracks appeared in
the first test (see Figures 4-2 and 4-3). It should be noted that these main cracks could be
identified among other smeared cracks, by having well defined straight red dashed lines.
For a concrete structure subjected to uniaxial compression, cracks propagate primarily
parallel to the direction of the applied compressive load, since the cracks result from
tensile strains develop due to Poisson’s effect. The red circles on right hand side of the
column (Figure 5-13) appeared perpendicular to the principal tensile strains in the upward
direction at integration points in the concrete elements near the right hand side of column,
where high concentration of compressive stresses occur. These will be referred to as
compressive cracks. These types of cracks were not seen during the test, as these cracks
are formed parallel to the concrete surface. These cracks lead to crushing of concrete at
very high compressive stress. Figure 5-14 shows the compressive stress vector flow
within the whole subassembly and the red arrows show the direction of compressive stress
flow in the rib beam and the flange slab. Figure 5-15 shows the compressive stress
concentration near the column.
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
152
Figure 5-14: Compressive stress vectors flow at 65 mm displacement
Column
Figure 5-15: Compressive stresses direction in the flange slab at 65 mm displacement
Figure 5-16 shows the deformation pattern of first subassembly model at 65 mm lateral
displacement. It is very clear from the deformation pattern that the negative hinging of
beam has shifted away from column face and coincides with the beam top main
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
153
reinforcement curtailment point. This behaviour was observed during the testing as well.
Figures 5-17 and 5-18 show the stress and strain distribution respectively. These
distributions help to identify the hinging locations.
Hinging near R/F curtailment location
Hinging near column face
Figure 5-16: Deformation of subassembly at 65 mm displacement- 1st specimen
Hinge Location at top bar curtailment point
High compressive stress locations
Figure 5-17: Longitudinal stress distribution of subassembly at 65 mm displacement-1st FE model
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
154
High strain point
Figure 5-18: 3rd principal strain distribution of subassembly at 65 mm displacement
Finite element analysis results were used to obtain detail information on concrete and
reinforcement stress variation in different areas of the subassembly. Figure 5-19 illustrates
horizontal and vertical deformation of the rib beam obtained from the finite element
model. During the first test, this type of continuous deformation was not monitored due to
the complexity of instrumentation and the cost involvement. However FEM can be used to
predict such detail information without considerable effort. Horizontal deformation
exhibits sudden change in deformation. This type of deformation cannot happen without
severe cracking. The location and the crack width obtained from the finite element model
are quite similar to the main crack observed during the test. As illustrated in Figure 5-13,
the smeared crack prediction is consistent with discrete flexural cracking predicted by
horizontal deformation graph. The vertical deformation graph (Figure 5-19) shows the
possible plastic hinge location. This matches very well with the experimental observations.
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
155
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Deformation (mm)
Distance from column center (mm)
Vertical
Horizontal
Crack = 6.8 mm
Crack = 1.9 mm
Top R/F cut off point
Figure 5-19: Deformation along the beam at 65 mm displacement-1st FEM results
The reinforcement stress variation along the beam is plotted in Figure 5-20. The finite
element model predicts a peak stress of 639 MPa in one of the mesh reinforcement bars.
Material testing shows that mesh steel used in the subassembly has an ultimate strength of
684MPa. As reported in chapter 4.2.1.3, during the last cycle (75 mm displacement) of the
test, a snapping sound came as a result of breaking internal mesh reinforcement. This
shows that the mesh steel has reached its ultimate strength. FEM analysis could not
achieve a converged solution beyond the 65 mm displacement. It could be expected that if
the FEM analysis was able to run up to 75 mm displacement, similar stress levels would
be obtained.
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
156
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Distance from column center (mm)
R/F
stre
ss (M
Pa) Main Top R/F
Mesh R/F # 01
Mesh R/F # 02
Mesh R/F # 03
Peak stress= 639 MPa
Figure 5-20: Variation of reinforcement stresses along the beam at 65 mm displacement
- 1st FEM results
Figures 5-21 and 5-22 show the stress distribution of top and bottom main reinforcement
along the beam length at lateral displacements of 19, 38, 57 mm and 65 mm, which
correspond to drift ratios of 1%, 2%, 3% and 3.42 %. It can be seen from the plots that the
bottom bar reached the yield stress at 1% drift level, whereas the top bar started yielding
only at 3 % drift.
Figure 5-23 shows the stress variation of longitudinal mesh reinforcement at 19 mm
displacement. It can be seen from the plot that the mesh bars has started yielding just after
the main reinforcement curtailment location. Referring to the Figure 5-21, the main top
reinforcement has reached only about 250 MPa stress level at 19 mm displacement. This is
a clear indication of inadequacy of main top reinforcement length (i.e. curtailment of bars
too close to the joint) provided in the first test subassemblage.
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
157
-500
50100150200250300350400450500
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
Distance from column center (mm)
R/F
stre
ss (M
Pa)
65 mm displacement
57 mm displacement
38 mm displacement
19 mm displacement
Peak stress= 459 MPa
Figure 5-21: Variation of top main reinforcement stresses along the beam at different displacements
- 1st FEM results
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
Distance from column center (mm)
R/F
stre
ss (M
Pa)
65 mm displacement
57 mm displacement
38 mm displacement
19 mm displacement
Peak stress= 521 MPa
Figure 5-22: Variation of bottom main reinforcement stresses along the beam at different
displacements-1st FEM results
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Distance from column center (mm)
Mes
h R
/F st
ress
(MPa
)
Mesh R/F # 01
Mesh R/F # 02
Mesh R/F # 03
Peak stress= 459 MPa
Figure 5-23: Variation of mesh reinforcement stresses along the beam at 19 mm displacement
-1st FEM results
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
158
5.4 The second finite element model
By modifying the first finite element model the second FE model was created. The only
modification made was extending the length of main top reinforcement bar to 1600 mm
from 1000 mm. This modification was based on the observations made during the test
program. It was very clear from the first test that the inadequate length of main top bar
was the reason for the main cracking and subsequent failure. In the second test with the
retrofitted specimen, the extension of CFRP layer on the top flange beyond the curtailment
point of the top bar, led to a significant improvement in the performance.
Further to the above, the Australian code(AS-3600, 2001) recommendation for beams was
considered. According to the clause 8.1.8.6 of AS 3600 (i.e. Deemed to comply
arrangement of flexural reinforcement) the reinforcement curtailment length was
calculated. For this calculation the span length of 9600 mm was considered, as this was the
greater span of the first interior support of the prototype structure. The length of bar
required from the column centre was 3130 mm and the half of this length was rounded to
1600 mm considering the scale factor for test specimen.
The second FE model analysis was performed using the same shear transfer factor (i.e.
0.2), which gave the best match with the test results. The boundary conditions and the load
steps were same as in the first FE model. Figure 5-24 shows the results of the second finite
element pushover analysis. The results are compared to the back-born curve of the
hysteresis of the first test and the results of the first FE model. It should be noted that the
results of the second FE model cannot be directly compared with the results of the
retrofitted specimen.
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
159
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Displacement (mm)
Loa
d (k
N)
Test1 results
Main top bar L=1000 mmMain top bar L=1600 mm
Figure 5-24: Load versus displacement-1st test specimen test results and FE model 1 &2 results
Figure 5-25 shows the deformation pattern obtained from the second FE model at 65 mm
lateral displacement. The second FE model solution converged up to a lateral displacement
of 70 mm. However the results are compared at the maximum displacement obtained in
the first FE model (i.e. 65 mm displacement). The hinging location could not be clearly
identified by the deformation. The vertical deformation of the beam shown in Figure 5-26
was used to identify the hinge location.
Hinging near column face
Hinging near column face
Figure 5-25: Deformation of subassembly at 65 mm displacement- 2nd FE model
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
160
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Deformation (mm)
Distance from column center (mm)
Vertical
Horizontal
Crack = 1.1 mm
Crack = 4.1 mm Top R/F cut off point
Figure 5-26: Deformation along the beam at 65 mm displacement- 2nd FE model
It can be seen from the axial deformation plot shown in Figure 5-26 that the prediction of
cracking at beam top reinforcement curtailment point has reduced significantly. The
cracking near the column face has increased as expected due to the formation of hinge
close to the joint. The vertical and horizontal deformations from photogrammetry
measurements were also consistent with the FE predictions. However, as mentioned
previously these results cannot be compared directly.
Figures 5-27 and 5-28 show the longitudinal stress and strain distributions of the second
subassemblage at 65 mm lateral displacement. It should be noted that the strain contour
range in Figure 5-28 was set equal to that in Figure 5-18. Thus it is possible to compare
the locations of high strain regions in the FE models. The high stress and strain
concentrations were observed only at the column face. High stress region was not seen
near the reinforcement curtailment point, as observed in the first FE model.
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
161
Hinge Location at column face
High compressive stress locations
Figure 5-27: Longitudinal stress distribution of subassembly at 65 mm displacement-2nd FE model
Figure 5-28: 3rd principal strain distribution of subassembly at 65 mm displacement-2nd FE model
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
162
The stress variation along the beam of main top and mesh reinforcement is plotted in
Figure 5-29. The finite element model predicts a peak stress of 511 MPa in one of the
mesh reinforcement bars. This is a stress reduction of 20 % compared to the reinforcement
stresses predicted by the first FE model. However, this highest stress recorded location
was not tallying with the first FE model location. The stress increase in mesh
reinforcement near the main top bar curtailment point was around 450 MPa, which is
acceptable at a very large lateral displacement of 65 mm (3.4 % lateral displacement
level). Therefore, the provided length of top bar in second FE model is considered to be
adequate.
Distance from column centre (mm)-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
R/F
stre
ss (M
Pa) Main top R/F
Mesh R/F # 01Mesh R/F # 02Mesh R/F # 03
Peak stress= 511 MPa
Distance from column centre (mm)-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
R/F
stre
ss (M
Pa) Main top R/F
Mesh R/F # 01Mesh R/F # 02Mesh R/F # 03
Peak stress= 511 MPa
Figure 5-29: Variation of reinforcement stresses along the beam at 65 mm displacement
- 2nd FEM results
Figures 5-30 and 5-31 show the stress distribution of top and bottom main reinforcement
along the beam length at lateral displacements of 19, 38, 57 and 65 mm respectively. It can
be seen that the bottom bar had reached a higher stress level compared to the stress in the
first FE model. This indicates that main top bar length provided is adequate to resist the
bending moments at each displacement level. The bottom bar stress development with the
lateral displacement level has not changed significantly compared to the first FE model.
However, a slight reduction of maximum stress (from 521 to 509 MPa) was noted. This
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
163
reduction in stress must be due to the higher beam stiffness compared to the column in
second FE model due to lesser cracking, resulting in a reduction of beam rotation and
lower reinforcement stresses and strains.
Distance from column centre (mm)-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
R/F
stre
ss (M
Pa) 19 mm displacement
38 mm displacement57 mm displacement65 mm displacement
Peak stress= 484 MPa
Distance from column centre (mm)-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
R/F
stre
ss (M
Pa) 19 mm displacement
38 mm displacement57 mm displacement65 mm displacement
Peak stress= 484 MPa
Figure 5-30: Variation of top main reinforcement stresses along the beam at 65 mm displacement
- 2nd FEM results
Distance from column centre (mm)-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000R/F
stre
ss (M
Pa)
19 mm displacement38 mm displacement57 mm displacement65 mm displacement
Peak stress= 509 MPa
Distance from column centre (mm)-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000R/F
stre
ss (M
Pa)
19 mm displacement38 mm displacement57 mm displacement65 mm displacement
Peak stress= 509 MPa
Figure 5-31: Variation of bottom main reinforcement stresses along the beam at different
displacements- 2nd FEM results
Figures 5-32 and 5-33 illustrate the stress variation of longitudinal mesh reinforcement at
19 mm and 38 mm lateral displacement level respectively. It can be seen from the plot that
the mesh bars have high stress peaks along the beam length in negative bending moment
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
164
area. However, these high stress peaks seen at low drift levels gradually reduced as the
drift level increased. This indicates that at higher drift levels flange slab reinforcement
contributes more for resisting lateral loading.
Distance from column centre (mm)-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
R/F
stre
ss (M
Pa) Main top R/F
Mesh R/F # 01
Mesh R/F # 02
Mesh R/F # 03
Peak stress= 395 MPa
Distance from column centre (mm)-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
R/F
stre
ss (M
Pa) Main top R/F
Mesh R/F # 01
Mesh R/F # 02
Mesh R/F # 03
Peak stress= 395 MPa
Figure 5-32: Variation of mesh reinforcement stresses along the beam at 19 mm displacement
-2nd FEM results
Distance from column centre (mm)-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
R/F
stre
ss (M
Pa) Main top-R/F
Mesh R/F # 01Mesh R/F # 02Mesh R/F # 03
Peak stress= 461 MPa
Distance from column centre (mm)-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
R/F
stre
ss (M
Pa) Main top-R/F
Mesh R/F # 01Mesh R/F # 02Mesh R/F # 03
Peak stress= 461 MPa
Figure 5-33: Variation of mesh reinforcement stresses along the beam at 38 mm displacement
-2nd FEM results
5.5 Time history analysis
A time history analysis of model frame was performed using the program RUAUMOKO
(Carr, 1998), which was designed to carryout the analysis of structures subjected to
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
165
earthquake and other dynamic excitations taking into account both material and geometric
non linearity (P-Delta effects). The models used in this study were non-degrading beam-
column yield interaction surface for columns and modified TAKEDA(Takeda, Sozen and
Nielsen, 1970) hysteresis for the beams. These models are shown in Figures 5-34 and
5-35. Elastic damping is modeled using Rayleigh initial stiffness damping of 5% in mode
1 & 4.
Figure 5-34: Modified Takeda Degrading Stiffness Hysteresis Rule [After (Carr, 1998)]
Figure 5-35: Concrete Beam-Column Yield Interaction Surface [After (Carr, 1998)]
Moment curvature and column interaction diagrams were developed using RESPONSE
2000 (Bentz and Collins, 2000) reinforced concrete sectional analysis program and more
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
166
details are given in Appendix-D. As described in chapter 2.2.2.1, cracked stiffness of the
frame elements were estimated using the method specified by Priestley (1998b).
It is very important to evaluate member properties for the dynamic analysis. The New
Zealand building code (SANZ, 1995) recommends a value for beam stiffness of Ie=0.4Ig
for rectangular sections, and Ie=0.35Ig for T-beam sections. As highlighted by Priestley,
the beam stiffness depends strongly on reinforcement content; therefore use of above
recommendation may lead to significant error in calculating building period and drift
level.
For the analysis, the prototype frame beam members were modeled by using four-hinge
beam members, which can allow for two plastic hinges within the span of the member in
addition to the two hinges at its ends. This beam element was recommended to use to
model gravity dominated beams where under seismic loading in one direction yielding
occurs at one end hinge and at the interior hinge near the other end of the beam while
under reversed loading yielding occurs at the other two hinges.
The prototype frame beam members were modeled by using inelastic beam-column
elements, which take into account the interaction of axial load and bending moment on
strength. The calculation of relevant parameters for time history analysis is presented in
Appendix D.
The time-history analyses were conducted with an ensemble of earthquake records. These
records were obtained from COSMOS Virtual Data Center and European Strong Motion
data Base (COSMOS, 2004). The records were selected on the criteria that they had been
corrected, were on rock or soft soil and were within the range of Richter magnitude-
epicentral distances combinations used by Stehle (2002). An arbitrary classification is
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
167
applied to the groups, with categories of low (1) to extreme (6) seismicity as shown in
Table 5-1.
The maximum inter-storey drift ratios of the time-history analyses using earthquake
ensemble are plotted in Figure 5-36, grouped according to the seismic classification of low
to extreme seismicity. Of most interest is the maximum inter-storey drift ratio as this best
assesses damage. The prototype structure was designed for low seismicity (earthquake
category 1), less than 0.5 interstorey drift level expected. For this level of drift, there will
be no damage as observed in test results. The high level seismicity (category between 4
and 5), less than 4 % interstorey drift is encountered. Hence the structure should be able to
withstand without significant structural damage as observed from the second FE modeling
results with modified reinforcement detail.
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
168
Table 5-1:Definition of earthquake categories
Note: Only EQ’s chosen which have: -vertical and horizontal record -corrected record
Epicentral distance (km) Soil Type: Rock 10-30 30-70 70-120 120-500
Richter Magnitude 4.5-5.5 1 - - - 5.5-6.5 2 1 - - 6.5-7.5 3 2 1 - 7.5-8.5 4 3 2 1
Epicentral distance (km) Soil Type: Soft soil
10-30 30-70 70-120 120-500 Richter Magnitude 4.5-5.5 2 - - - 5.5-6.5 4 2 - - 6.5-7.5 6 4 2 - 7.5-8.5 - 6 4 2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6
Earthquake Category
Dri
ft R
atio
(%)
Time-history resultsAverage plus 2 standard deviations
Figure 5-36: Peak interstorey drift ratio versus earthquake category
Earthquake Category Seismicity 1 Low 2 Moderate 3 High 4 Very High 6 Extreme
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)
169
1. ANSYS (2003). ANSYS v 8.0, Swanson Analysis System, U.S. 2. AS-3600 (2001). Concrete Structures, Standard Association of Australia, Sydney, Australia. 3. Bangash, M. Y. H. (1989). "Concrete and Concrete Structures: Numerical Modeling and Applications." Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd., London, England. 4. Bentz, E. C. and M. P. Collins (2000). RESPONSE-2000 Reinforced Concrete Sectional Analysis Program Manual. 5. Carr, A. J. (1998). RUAUMOKO User Manual, University of Canterbury. 6. COSMOS (2004). Virtual Data Center and European Strong Motion data Base, http://db.cosmos-eq.org/scripts/default.plx, http://www.isesd.cv.ic.ac.uk/. 7. Hemmaty, Y. (1998). Modelling of the Shear Force Transferred Between Cracks in Reinforced and Fibre Reinforced Concrete Structures,. Proceedings of the ANSYS Conference ,Vol. 1, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 8. Huyse, L., Y. Hemmaty and L.Vandewalle (1994). Finite Element Modeling of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams. Proceedings of the ANSYS Conference, Vol. 2,, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 9. Kachlakev, D., T. Miller, S. Yim and K. Chansawat (2001). Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Structures Strengthened with FRP Laminates, Civil and Environmental Engineering, DepartmentCalifornia Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. 10. SANZ (1995). NZS3101: 1995- Concrete Structures Standard, Standards New Zealand, Wellington [2 Vols: Code & commentry]. 11. Stehle, J. S. (2002). The Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Wide Band Beam Frames: Interior Connections, The University of Melbourne, Australia. 12. Takeda, T., M. A. Sozen and N. N. Nielsen (1970). "Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes." Journal of Structural Division, A.S.C.E 96(ST12) : 2557-2573. 13. Vecchio, F. J. and M. P. Collins (1986). "The Modified Compression Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear." ACI Structural Journal, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, March-April 1986, pp. 219-231. 14.
Created with novaPDF Printer (www.novaPDF.com)