Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10 October 2012
Prepared By:
David R. Dearth, P.E.
Page i
10 October 2012
"Analysis of Reinforced Concrete (RC) Beams using Nonlinear Finite Element Techniques"
The purpose of this article is to develop an understanding of the arithmetic involved in the design solution to
analyzing reinforced concrete (RC) beams. This article provides a single source review to outline the steps
necessary to perform analysis of RC beams beginning at the linear elastic region into the nonlinear analyses
and to ultimate failure.
In this analysis no prior knowledge of the cracked RC beam is assumed. The analytical results are compared
to actual test data from a RC beam tested under closely monitored laboratory conditions. A finite element
model is also constructed to produce a simplified nonlinear analysis of the RC beam using MSC Marc.
Introduction
During the process of designing reinforced concrete beams structural engineers typically estimate the
general sizing of the beam using conventional hand equations. These conventional hand analysis approaches
involve using linear elastic equations to compute equivalent, or transformed, cross sectional properties. The
linear elastic approaches have been utilized for many years and have for the most part been very successful.
These elastic equations are limited to estimating the onset of RC beam cracking of the concrete and to some
extent also approximating ultimate failure of the RC beam after initial cracking.
When it is desired to calculate the regions between initial cracking and ultimate failure, nonlinear analysis
techniques are required. When nonlinear approaches are desired, finite element analysis (FEA) techniques
are employed. Before considering taking on the task of calculating the nonlinear response of RC beams,
engineers should have at least a working knowledge of how to perform a conventional linear analysis using
pencil, paper and a calculator. When tasked with performing the nonlinear analysis one most likely will look
at a sample tutorial problem and simply follow the same steps with their particular problem of interest
substituting instructions from the sample tutorial. In essence this simply becomes a case of parroting the
steps outlined in the sample tutorial problem without fully understanding what is going on.
So how might one develop confidence in performing these types of nonlinear analysis problems? The best
way is to locate a sample real life problem with a known, documented solution that one can be work through
using hand calculations and also develop a FEA model.
So the question is.... How can one relate the physical observations witnessed in the environmental test lab
to virtual testing calculated using nonlinear FEA techniques? Or how one can simulate actual physical
testing of RC beams using computer analyses software?
The best approach would be to locate some actual test data. When it comes to verifying the analytical results
from analysis of RC beams there is very little documented information showing results from actual physical
testing under tightly controlled laboratory conditions.
Page 1 of 20
10 October 2012
1,2
A search through the available engineering literature found comprehensive, documented data of actual
physical testing under tightly controlled laboratory conditions of several RC beams performed by Foley and
Buckhouse1. Wolanski2 provides analytical correlation to the laboratory testing with detailed finite element
analysis of the 1997 Buckhouse1 RC beam tests. The investigations performed by Foley and Buckhouse1 are
cited in several other technical papers addressing FEA of RC beams.
Figure 1a shows a sketch of the1997 Buckhouse RC beam geometry, loading and boundary conditions.
Figure 1b shows the layout for the internal reinforcement, rebar & stirrups.
Figure 1a
RC Beam Tested at Marquette University
Figure 1b
RC Beam Reinforcement Layout
Page 2 of 20
10 October 2012
Linear Elastic Uncracked Approach: The linear elastic uncracked method assumes tension stress in
the concrete remains below the cracking limit. Tension stresses are assumed linear elastic and fully
effective in an uncracked concrete section. This method is used to calculate the state of stress and
deflections when the RC beam structure is subjected to normal anticipated service load conditions.
Elastic Cracked Approach: The elastic cracked method assumes concrete tension stress has
exceeded cracking limits and neglects any concrete tension stress. Linear elastic compressive stresses
are balanced by tension stresses in the reinforcement.
Ultimate Cracked Approach: The ultimate cracked method assumes a simplified yielding stress
criterion. For ultimate load carrying strength capability, tension stress in the concrete is assumed
nonexistent and maximum compressive strain is assumed to equal c = 0.003. The balancing tensile
loading is assumed fully carried by the steel reinforcement with the steel at yield.
Stage 1: Linear Elastic Conditions Normal Service Life & Initial Crack Stress
During normal service life conditions no cracking of the concrete is assumed. Stresses and deflections of RC
beams can be performed using a conventional linear elastic approach. For normal service life conditions it
is assumed that stress in the RC remain in the linear elastic range and the only difficulty is computing the
sections properties, EcI, for the RC beam. In computing the section properties, Youngs modulus, Ec, is
taken as the 28 day strength value. The inertia, I, for the composite section of concrete and steel
reinforcement is computed using the conventional transformed section method.
Analysis for the uncracked RC beam can be performed by treating the RC beam as a composite assembly of
concrete and steel reinforcement. A conservative approach is to neglect the stiffness contribution from the
reinforcement and consider the gross section properties of the concrete only. When the steel reinforcement
is included, it is assumed the reinforcement steel maintains intimate contact with the surrounding concrete.
With intimate contact or bonding maintained, the steel reinforcement and concrete will maintain the same
strain compatibility during loading. So long as the maximum tensile stress in the concrete remains below the
maximum the tensile capacity stress of the concrete, fr, (fr is also referred to as the modulus of rupture)
then the RC beam will act as a conventional composite assembly.
To maintain strain compatibility between the steel reinforcement and surrounding concrete, the steel
reinforcement having a greater modulus of elasticity, Esteel > Econcrete, experiences a greater magnitude in
stress distribution across this composite section than does the concrete. The ratio in stresses between the
steel and concrete is called the modular ratio, n. Where n = Esteel / Econcrete. The transformed section
properties for the composite assembly of concrete and steel rebar is computed by replacing the steel area by
an equivalent concrete area.
Figure 2 shows a cross section of the concrete and rebar for the 1977 Buckhouse RC beam tested. For the
cross section shown in Figure 2, the transformed cross sectional properties for the composite assembly is Itr
= 5,138 in4. Appendix A lists detailed arithmetic to compute the properties listed in Figure 2.
Page 3 of 20
10 October 2012
Figure 2
RC Beam Linear Elastic Composite Section Properties
As a general rule of thumb concrete tension stress is approximately 1/10 the compressive values. For the
allowable compressive stress for concrete used, Wolanski2 listed a value of fc = 4,800 psi. ACI 318 9.5.2.33
computes tension stress or modulus of rupture stress, fr, computed based on the maximum compressive
stress using the following:
The onset of initial cracking of the concrete is computed per ACI 9.5.2.3 using the gross section properties.
The threshold cracking stress is computed from ACI 318 equations for the rupture stress, fr. For the gross
section the calculated cracking moment, Mcr, and corresponding equivalent loading Pcr = 4,680 lbs(1.). The
equivalent linear elastic deflections for this applied loading = 0.050.
For Figure 2 transformed section properties the cracking moment, Mcr_tr, and corresponding equivalent
loading Pcr_tr = 5,080 lbs. The equivalent linear elastic deflections for this applied loading = 0.052.
(1.) The calculated value of 4,680 lb is within 4% of the average physical observed loading to crack initiation equal to 4,500 lb.
quoted by Foley and Buckhouse1.
Page 4 of 20
10 October 2012
Stage 2: Elastic Cracked Section - Balanced State of Stress; Concrete & Rebar
Cracks begin to form when the tensile stress in the concrete exceed the maximum capacity of the concrete to
react tension stress at the modulus of rupture, fr. When the maximum tensile stress in the concrete exceeds
modulus of rupture, fr, the cross section is assumed to be "cracked" and all the tensile stress is assumed to be
carried by the steel reinforcement.
When a flexural crack occurs, it begins at the tension face when the tensile capacity is exceeded and the
crack propagates upward until the concrete is in compression. The section properties change as the crack
propagates, causing the increased tensile stress forcing the crack upwards toward the compression region.
Equilibrium is achieved once the crack stops propagating. Compressive stresses are still assumed to remain
in the elastic region.
For the cross section shown in Figure 3, the cross sectional properties for the composite assembly is Icracked
= 1,116 in4. Appendix A lists detailed arithmetic to compute the properties listed in Figure 3. The value of
Icrack it used to compute the instantaneous effective inertia, Ieff per ACI 318 9.5.2.3. This effective inertia is
used for computing deflections after crack initiation.
Figure 3
RC Beam Elastic Cracked Section Properties
Page 5 of 20
10 October 2012
Figure 4
RC Beam Ultimate Cracked Section
(2.) In the Foley and Buckhouse1 testing a theoretical ultimate load capacity value equal to 14,600 lb. is quoted. No
documentation could be found on how this 14,600 lb. value was computed; 13,780 lb. is within 6% of 14,600 lb. Foley and
Buckhouse1 noted the following: The moment due to the dead weight of the beam was subtracted from Mult to give the
moment capacity of the beam due to superimposed live load
Page 6 of 20
10 October 2012
) ]
Figure 5
Comparison of ACI 318 Hand Calculations to 1977 Buckhouse Laboratory Test Data
(3.) When crack initiation calculations are performed using the transformed section properties, Itr, ACI 318 9.5.2.3 instead of
gross section properties, the effective inertia results in slightly lower deflections.
Page 7 of 20
10 October 2012
Figure 6a
Full RC Beam Geometry
Figure 6b
Quarter Symmetric RC Beam Geometry
Page 8 of 20
10 October 2012
The stress-strain curve data for the concrete is shown in Figure 7. The Wolanski2 analysis used a Poissons
ratio for concrete = 0.3. It is recognized that a Poissons value of = 0.18 to 0.2 may be more representative
for concrete and therefore Poissons ratio = 0.2 is used herein. [Poissons ratio at 0.3 or 0.2 resulted in no
discernable difference in the deflection results.]
Figure 7
Concrete Compressive Stress-Strain Data from Wolanski2
Page 9 of 20
10 October 2012
)(
Figure 8.1
Figure 8.2
Page 10 of 20
10 October 2012
Steel Reinforcement
The steel reinforcement (rebar & stirrups) is idealized using Rod/Truss elements with the node points
defined each rebar element sharing common nodes with the concrete solids. This approach is called discrete
idealization of rebar with the concrete. The steel material is defined using the nonlinear stress-strain curve
data listed below. The nonlinear material properties are entered using von Mises yield criteria.
Linear Youngs Modulus, Es = 29,000,000 psi
Poissons Ratio, = 0.3
Yield Stress, Fty, = 60,000 psi
Bi-Linear Elastic-Plastic Modulus, E1 = 2,900 psi (nearly perfectly plastic)
Figure 9 shows the layout for rebar and stirrups (5.) per Figure 1b.
Figure 9
Quarter Symmetric RC Beam Rebar & Stirrups
(5.) In the analysis performed by Wolanski2 an additional stirrup is shown at the mid-span location of the beam. The nonlinear
MSC/Marc FEA model developed herein was processed with and without the additional mid-span stirrup. The net results
were a negligible difference in the solutions.
Page 11 of 20
10 October 2012
Figure 10
Concentrated Nodal Loading Distribution
The MSC/Marc nonlinear solution Load Increment Parameters were set to Adaptive increment type as
shown in Figure 11. The Iteration Tolerance Parameters for convergence were set to Residual Force = 10%.
Figure 11
Adaptive Load Increment Dialog Inputs
Page 12 of 20
10 October 2012
Figure 12
Comparison of MSC/Marc Results to 1977 Buckhouse Laboratory Test Data
Notes:
(6.) The nonlinear FEA MSC/Marc solution contains only 17 output steps using adaptive load stepping
(7.) In the analysis performed by Wolanski2 the iteration parameters were adjusted during selected load steps to ensure the
analytical results better fit the experimental data. Having prior knowledge of the solution to the nonlinear response is not
what is generally available to analysts attempting to predict the response of beams before they are built. For the analysis
outlined herein, no prior knowledge of the solution is assumed and it was decided to perform the analysis by applying the
full ultimate loading and letting the program solution determine what happens in between zero load and full ultimate
loading.
Page 13 of 20
10 October 2012
Figure 13
Maximum Principal Stress Contour Plot
Last Load Step Prior to Crack Propagation
Page 14 of 20
10 October 2012
Figure 14
Crack Propagation Resultant Crack Strain
Page 15 of 20
10 October 2012
Page 16 of 20
10 October 2012
References
1.) Christopher M. Foley and Evan R. Buckhouse, Strengthening Existing Reinforced Concrete Beams
for Flexure Using Bolted External Structural Steel Channels, Structural Engineering Report MUST98-1, January 1998.
2.) Anthony J. Wolanski, B.S., Flexural Behavior of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Beams Using
Finite Element Analysis, Masters Thesis, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin May, 2004.
3.) ACI 318-08, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary ACI Manual of
Concrete Practice, Part 3, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1992.
4.) MSC/Marc Reference Manuals & Finite Element Analysis System: Volumes A, B, C, D" MSC
Page 17 of 20
10 October 2012
LIST OF SYMBOLS
As_eff = equivalent effective area of concrete due to presence of rebar
As_rebar = cross sectional area of each rebar
Aconc = total cross sectional area of concrete section
fc = 28 day compressive strength of concrete
fr = tensile capacity of concrete per ACI 318 9.5.2.3 also modulus of rupture
bc = base distance of concrete section
hc = vertical distance of concrete section
ccrack = c = distance for elastic compression of cracked section
Ec = modulus of elasticity for concrete per ACI 318 8.5.1
Es = modulus of elasticity for steel rebar
Gf = fracture energy
n = modular ratio of steel vs concrete
nrebar = number of rebar
drebar = reference distance to center of area for rebar
Ic_gross = cross sectional moment of inertia for uncracked concrete only
Icrack = cross sectional moment of inertia for cracked composite section
Itr = cross sectional area moment of inertia for uncracked composite section, concrete & rebar
Ieff = effective cross sectional area moment of inertia for composite section per ACI 318 9.5.2.3
Mcr_gross = bending moment to crack initiation based on gross section properties
Mcr_tr = bending moment to crack invitation using transformed cross sectional properties
Mu = bending moment to crack invitation using transformed cross sectional properties
Pcr_gross = loading to crack initiation gross cross sectional properties concrete only
Pcr_tr = loading to crack initiation using transformed cross sectional properties
Pu = maximum loading to ultimate using Whitney stress block cross sectional properties
yc_ref = reference distance to center of area for concrete
ybar = location of center of area for composite section, concrete & rebar
yu = beam deflection due to ultimate loading, Pu and Ieff.
ycr_gross = beam deflection due to crack initiation loading, Pcr_gross and Ic_gross.
ycr_tr = beam deflection due to crack initiation loading, Pcr_tr and Itr.
con_elastic = maximum elastic tension stress of concrete
1 = moment reduction factor
1 = coefficient for depth of equivalent Whitney stress block
au = depth of equivalent Whitney stress block
cu = distance to location of equivalent Whitney stress compression
Page 18 of 20
10 October 2012
Page 19 of 20
10 October 2012
Appendix A
Summary Hand Calculations
& Analysis Notes
Page 20 of 20
10 October 2012
Using ACI 318 8.5.1 modulus of elasticity of the concrete is computed as:
Concrete Modulus
The tensile capacity stress of the concrete, fr, is defined using ACI 318 9.5.2.3. This value fr is also referred
to as the modulus of rupture.
Page A1 of A6
10 October 2012
Steel
Where "n" is modular ratio of Esteel/Econcete. Transform area of Steel to equivalent or effective area of
concrete, As_eff
for each #5 rebar
number of rebar
The location of the centroid of area for the effective composite section, concrete & steel rebar is:
The transformed composite area moment of inertia is computed using parallel axis theorem
[
) ]
Page A2 of A6
10 October 2012
Compute the equivalent loading, P lbs, to just exceed the maximum allowable concrete tension stress to
initiate first cracking.
Recall:
Using bending equation cr_tr = (Mcr_tr *yc)/Itr, where Mcr_tr = Pcr_tr*60 in-lbs
Page A3 of A6
10 October 2012
( )(
( )
The moment of inertia of this transformed area w.r.t. the neutral axis for "cracked" section is calculated
using the following for single reinforcement RC section:
[
Page A4 of A6
10 October 2012
)
)
Page A5 of A6
10 October 2012
Calculate Deflections from Elastic Moment of Inertia Calculations for Cracked Section
At the computed Ultimate Moment capacity, effective inertia is calculated using ACI 318 9.5.2.3. To be
conservative, the gross section properties, Ic_gross, and concrete modulus, Ec, are used.
Recall Ic_gross = 4,860 in4 and Mcr_gross = 280,592 in lbs
[
Where:
) ]
and
Note: When the transformed section properties are used in place of gross properties deflections at ultimate
loading equal -0.548".
Linear Elastic Deflection at Mid-Span using gross section properties =
(
Page A6 of A6