Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A PROJECT REPORT
on
1011020021
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Under the guidance of
Mr. SELVA CHANDRAN PANDIAN (Engineering Manager, Parson Brinckerhoff)
SRM UNIVERSITY
RAMAPURAM
APRIL, 2014
CONTENTS
CHAPTER NO.
TITLE
TABLE OF CONTENT
1.
PAGE
NO.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
vi
ABSTRACT
vii
LIST OF TABLE
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
xii
METHODOLOGY
xiii
INTRODUCTION
1.1
General
1.2
Material Introduction
1.2.1
Glass
1.2.2
Aramid
1.2.3
Carbon
1.2.4
(CFCC)
1.3
General
1.3.2
Ansys
1.3.2.1
Concrete
1.3.2.2
Steel Beam
1.3.2.3
ii
1.3.2.4
External Prestressed
Tendon
1.3.2.5
Steel Plates
1.3.2.6
Interface Surface
1.3.2.7
Representation Of Shear
Connectors
2.
LITERATURE SURVEY
2.1
General
11
2.2
11
12
Concrete Beams
2.4
3.
13
2.4.1
Solid65 Description
14
2.4.2
Link8 Description
17
Element Types
18
ANSYS MODEL
3.1
General
3.1.1
3.2
Model No. 1
3.2.1
Material Properties
18
3.2.2
Modelling
24
3.2.3
Meshing
26
3.2.4
Numbering Controls
27
3.2.5
Boundary conditions
28
3.2.6
Analysis type
28
3.3
3.4
4.
3.2.7
29
3.2.8
Results
34
Model No. 2
3.3.1
Beam Property
39
3.3.2
Real Constants
40
3.3.3
Material Properties
42
3.3.4
Modelling
45
3.3.5
Meshing
46
3.3.6
Numbering controls
47
3.3.7
Boundary conditions
48
3.3.8
Analysis type
48
3.3.9
49
3.3.10
Results
56
Model No. 3
3.4.1
Beam Property
60
3.4.2
Real constants
60
3.4.3
Material Properties
62
3.4.4
Modelling
65
3.4.5
Meshing
66
3.4.6
Numbering controls
67
3.4.7
Boundary conditions
68
3.4.8
Analysis type
68
3.4.9
69
3.4.10
Results
76
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
4.1
General
79
4.2
Test Specimen
79
4.3
Testing Scheme
82
5.
4.4
Material Properties
82
4.5
85
CONCLUSION
89
REFERENCES
90
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to acknowledge all the people who have helped me in the completion
of this dissertation. First and foremost I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my
advisors Selva Chandran Pandian, Engineering Manager, Parson Brinckerhoff for all his
guidance, advice, suggestion and friendship.
I have been incredibly to have the advisors who gave me the freedom to discover
on my own. I would also like to thanks my HOD Mrs. T.CH. Madhavi For all her support
and suggestion. I am also thankful to the department of civil engineering for their support.
Lastly I would like to give a hearty gratitude to my internal guide Mr.
Sivaramakrishanan Asst. Professor of SRM University for all his support, without his help
and suggestions this project work would not have been possible.
ABSTRACT
Concrete prestressed structural components exist in buildings and bridges in
different forms. Understanding the response of these components during loading is
crucial to the development of an overall efficient and safe structure. Different
methods have been utilized to study the response of structural components.
Experimental based testing has been widely used as a means to analyse individual
elements and the effects of concrete strength under loading.
While this is a method that produces real life response, it is extremely time
consuming, and the use of materials can be quite costly. In this paper we used finite
element analysis to study behaviour of these components. The use of computer
software (Ansys) to model these elements is much faster, and extremely costeffective. To fully understand the capabilities of finite element computer software
(Ansys), we look back to experimental data and simple analysis.
Data obtained from a finite element analysis package is not useful unless the
necessary steps are taken to understand what is happening within the model that is
created using the software. Also, executing the necessary checks along the way, is
key to make sure that what is being output by the Ansys is valid.
This paper is a study of prestressed concrete beams using finite element
analysis to understand the response of prestressed concrete beams due to transverse
loading and to analyse the behaviour of FRP material under these circumstances.
vii
This paper also includes the comparison of steel and FRP on the same module and
also gives the final load v/s deflection curve under the both linear and non-linear
properties of the materials.
LIST OF TABLES
SR. NO.
PAGE NO.
1.1
1.2
18
1.3
19
1.4
21
1.5
38
1.6
39
1.7
41
1.8
43
1.9
56
1.10
60
1.11
61
1.12
63
1.13
76
1.14
Test Program
82
1.15
83
1.16
Concrete Properties
83
1.17
84
LIST OF FIGURES
SR.NO.
PAGE NO.
1.
Geometry of Solid 65
2.
Geometry of Shell 43
3.
Geometry of Link 8
4.
Geometry of Link 45
5.
6.
Geometry of Combin 39
10
7.
23
8.
24
9.
25
10.
25
11.
26
12.
26
13.
Behavior of Beam
34
14.
34
15.
Y-Component Displacement
35
16.
35
17.
36
18.
36
19.
37
20.
37
21.
44
22.
45
23.
45
24.
46
25.
46
26.
Elements of Beam
54
27.
54
28.
Stress in X-Direction
55
29.
Stress in Y-Direction
55
30.
57
31.
57
32.
58
33.
58
34.
65
35.
65
36.
66
37.
66
38.
Elements of Beam
74
39.
Stress Pattern
74
40.
Deflection of beam
75
41.
Line Diagram
75
42.
76
43.
77
44.
77
45.
78
46.
78
47.
81
48.
81
49.
84
50.
87
88
List of Abbreviations
SR. NO.
Abbreviation
Full Form
1.
FRP
2.
GFRP
3.
AFRP
4.
CFRP
5.
CFCC
6.
FEM
7.
UX
8.
UY
9.
UZ
10.
MAT
Material
11.
EX
Modulus of Rigidity
12.
PRXY
Poissons Ratio
xii
METHODOLOGY
3.1
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Finite element method was used to study the behavior of pre-stressed beam
using FRP Tendons. Linear and non-linear analyses were carried out to evaluate the stress
in the beam. The finite element modeling of beam was validated with the results available
from literature. The results of experimental investigation were used for validation of the
finite element model. Finite element analyses on the simply supported beam were carried
out and the results are presented. From the analytical investigation, the behavior of FRP
Tendons can be studied.
13
14
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
(REFER ACI440-04R)
Fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites have been proposed for use as
prestressing tendons in concrete structures. The promise of FRP materials lies in their highstrength lightweight, noncorrosive, non-conducting, and nonmagnetic properties. In
addition, FRP manufacturing, using various cross-sectional shapes and material
combinations, offers unique opportunities for the development of shapes and forms that
would be difficult or impossible with conventional steel materials. Lighter-weight
materials and preassembly of complex shapes can boost constructability and efficiency of
construction.
At present, the higher cost of FRP materials suggests that FRP use will be confined
to applications where the unique characteristics of the material are most appropriate.
Efficiencies in construction and reduction in fabrication costs will expand their potential
market. FRP reinforcement is available in the form of bars, grids, plates, and tendons. This
document examines both internal and external prestressed reinforcement in the form of
tendons.
One of the principal advantages of FRP tendons for prestressing is the ability to
configure the reinforcement to meet specific performance and design objectives. FRP
tendons may be configured as rods, bars, and strands as shown in Table. 1.1. The surface
texture of FRP tendons may vary, resulting in bond with the surrounding concrete that
varies from one tendon configuration to another. Unlike conventional steel reinforcement,
there are no standardized shapes, surface configurations, fibre orientation, constituent
materials, and proportions for the final products.
Similarly, there is no standardization of the methods of production, such as
pultrusion, braiding, filament winding, or FRP preparation for a specific application. Thus,
1|Page
FRP materials require considerable engineering effort to use properly. Bakis (1993) has
outlined manufacturing processes. FRP tendons are typically made from one of three basic
fibres. These fibres are aramid, carbon, and glass. Aramid fibres consist of a semi crystalline
polymer known as aromatic polyamide. Carbon fibres are based on the layered grapheme
(hexagonal) networks present in graphite, while glass generally uses either E-glass or Sglass fibres. E-glass is a low-cost calcium-alumino boro silicate glass used where strength,
low conductivity, and acid resistance are important. S-glass is a magnesium- alumino
silicate glass that has higher strength, stiffness, and ultimate strain than E-glass. S- glass
costs more than E-glass, and both are susceptible to degradation in alkaline
environments. Table 1.1 gives properties of typical fibres.
The selection of the fibre is primarily based on consideration of cost, strength,
stiffness, and long-term stability. Within these fibre groups, different performance and
material characteristics may be achieved. For example, aramids may come in low, high,
and very high modulus configurations. Carbon fibres are also available with moduli
ranging from below that of steel to several multiples of that of steel. Of the several fibre
types, glass-based FRP reinforcement is least expensive and generally uses either E-glass
or S-glass fibres. The resins used for fibre impregnation are usually thermosetting and may
be polyester, vinyl ester, epoxy, phenolic, or polyurethane.
The formulation, grade, and physical-chemical characteristics of resins are
practically limitless. The possible combinations of fibres, resins, additives, and fillers make
generalization of the properties of FRP tendons very difficult. Additionally, FRP
composites are heterogeneous and anisotropic. Final characteristics of an FRP tendon are
dependent on fibre and resin properties, as well as the manufacturing process. Specific
details of a particular tendon should be obtained from the manufacturer of the tendon.
2|Page
term
strength
can
be lower
than
the short-term
strength
for
3|Page
1.2.2 Aramid:
Aramid (abbreviation for aromatic polyamide) based FRP products have a
tensile strength in the range of 2650 to 3400 MPa and an elastic modulus of from 73 to
165GPa. AFRP prestressing tendons are produced in different shapes such as spiral
wound,braided, and rectangular rods. It has been reported that there is no fatigue limit
for Aramid fibres, however creep-rupture phenomenon has been observed. Aramid fibres
are also quite sensitive to ultra-violet radiation. Commercially, AFRP prestressing tendons
androds are available under the brand names of Technora by Teijin (Japan), Fibre by Mitsui
(Japan), Arapree by AKZO and Hollands cheBetonGroep (Holland), Phillystran by United
Ropeworks (USA), and Parafil Ropes by ICI Linear Composites (UK).
1.2.3 Carbon:
Carbon fibres can be produced from two materials, namely textile (PAN-based)and
PITCH-based material. The most common textile material is poly-acrylonitrile
(PAN).PITCH-based material is a by-product of petroleum refining or coal coking. Carbon
4|Page
Fibres have exceptionally high tensile strength to weight ratios with strength ranging
from 1970to 3200 MPaand tensile modulus ranging from 270 to 517 GPa. These fibres
also have a low coefficient of linear expansion on the order of 0.2x 10-6 mimiC, and
high fatigue strength. However, disadvantages are their low impact resistance, high
electrical conductivity, and high cost. Commercially available CFRP prestressing tendons
are available under the brand names of Carbon Fibre Composite Cable (CFCC) by
TokyoRope (Japan), Leadline by Mitsubishi Kasai (Japan), Jitec by Cousin Frere (France),
and Bri-Ten by British Ropes (UK).
Fibre
Composite
Cables
(CFCC)
made
in
Japan
by Tokyo
RopeManufacturing Co. use PAN (polyacrylonite) type carbon fibres supplied by Toho
Rayon.Individual wires are manufactured by a roving prepreg process where the epoxy
resin is heat cured. The prepreg is twisted to create a fibre core and then wrapped by
synthetic yarns. The purpose of the yarn is to protect the fibres from ultra-violet radiation
and mechanical abrasion, and also improves the bond properties of the wire to
concrete.Cables are then made from one, seven, nineteen, or thirty-seven wires and are
twisted to allow better stress distribution through the cross-section.
Tokyo Rope currently produces cables with diameters from 3 to 40 mm in any length
up to 600 metres. For 12.5 and 15.2 mm diameter CFCC cables the ultimate tensile strengths
are 2100 and 2150 MPa respectively. Both sizes have a tensile elastic modulus of 137 GPa
and an ultimate tensile failure strain of 1.5 to 1.6%. The thermal coefficient of expansion is
approximately 0.6xl0-6 /C which is about 1/20 that of steel. The relaxation is about 3.5%
after 30 years at 80% of the ultimate load, this is about 50% less than that of steel. Also
pull-out tests show that CFCC has a bond strength to concrete of6.67 MPa, which is more
than twice that of steel.
5|Page
6|Page
7|Page
interface
surface between concrete and steel beam. The contact-pair consists of the contact
between two boundaries, one of the boundaries represents contact, slid and deformable
surface taken as contact surface (CONTA-173 in ANSYS) and the other represents rigid
surface taken as a target surface
(TARGE-170 in ANSYS). Figure 5 shows the geometry of (CONTA173& TARGE170).
or
3-D
applications. The geometry, node locations, and the coordinate system for this element are
shown in Figure 6.
9|Page
10 | P a g e
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE SURVEY
2.1 General
To provide a detailed review of the body of literature related to reinforce and prestressed
concrete in its entirety would be too immense to address in this paper. However, there are
many good references that can be used as a starting point for research (ACI
1978,MacGregor 1992, Nawy 2000). This literature review and introduction will focus
on recent contributions related to FEA and past efforts most closely related to the needs
of the present work.
The use of FEA has been the preferred method to study the behavior of concrete
(For economic reasons). William and Tanabe (2001) contains a collection of papers
concerning finite element analysis of reinforced concrete structures. This collection
contains areas of study such as: seismic behavior of structures, cyclic loading of
reinforced concrete columns, shear failure of reinforced concrete beams, and concrete
steel bond models.
Shing and Tanabe (2001) also put together a collection of papers dealing with
In-elastic behavior of reinforced concrete structures under seismic loads. The
monograph contains contributions that outline applications of the finite element method for
studying post-peak cyclic behavior and ductility of reinforced concrete beam, the analysis
of reinforced concrete components in bridge seismic design, the analysis of reinforced
concrete beam-column bridge connections, and the modeling of the shear behavior of
reinforced concrete bridge structures.
The focus of these most recent efforts is with bridges, columns, and seismic design.
The focus of this thesis is the study of non-prestressed and prestressed flexural members.
AMR A. ABDELRAHMAN(1995) give the basic behavior of prestressed member
with full experimental data and the specification of the section with its dimension and the
11 | P a g e
number of strands used in every section during casting. He also provides the property of
FRP material used in the section and the results obtained after the testing of the section.
The following is a review and synthesis of efforts most relevant to this thesis
discussing FEA applications, experimental testing, and concrete material models.
12 | P a g e
Theoretical models are proposed to predict the deflection prior and after cracking
and the crack width of concrete beams prestressed by Lead lineCFRP bars under service
loading conditions. Crack width is predicted using appropriate bond factors for this type of
reinforcement. A procedure is formulated for predicting the location of the centroidal axis
of the cracked sections prestressed by CFRP bars. In addition, a method is proposed to
calculate the deflection and the crack width of beams partially prestressed by CFRP bars
under repeated load cycles within the service loading range. The deform ability of concrete
beams prestressed by CFRP reinforcement is also discussed. A model is proposed to
quantify the deform ability of beams prestressed by fiber reinforced plastic
reinforcements.The reliability of the proposed methods and the other methods used from
the literature to predict the deflection and the crack width is examined by comparing the
measured and the computed values of the tested beams and beams tested by others.
An excellent agreement is found for the methods predicting the deflection and a good
agreement is found for the crack width prediction. Design guidelines for prestressed
concrete beams with CFRP reinforcement are also presented.
2.3 Finite Element Analysis of Prestressed Concrete Beams By Abhinav S.Kasat &
Alsson varghese
Finite element analysis is an effective method of determining the static
performance of structures for the reasons which are saving in design time cost effective in
construction and increase the safety of the structure. Previously it is necessary to use
advanced mathematical methods in analysis large structures, such as bridges tall buildings
and other more accuracy generally required more elaborate techniques and therefore a
large friction of the designers time could be devoted to mathematical analysis. Finite
element methods free designers from the need to concentrate on mathematical calculation
and allow them to spend more time on accurate representation of the intended
structure and review of the calculated performance (Smith, 1988). Furthermore by using
the programs with interactive graphical facilities it is possible to generate finite element
models of complex structures with considerable ease and to obtain the results in a
13 | P a g e
convenient readily assimilated form.This may save valuable design time. More accurate
analysis of structure is possible by the finite element method leading to economics in
materials and construction also in enhancing the overall safety (DeSalvoand
Swanson,1985).
However in order to use computer time and design time effectively it is important to
plan the analysis strategy carefully. Before a series of dynamic tests carry out in the field
a complete three-dimensional finite element models are developed for a bridges prior to
its testing. The results from these dynamic analyses are used to select instrument positions
on the bridge and predict static displacement. Then, they are calibrated using the
experimental frequencies and mode shapes. The frequencies and mode shapes mainly are
used to provide a basis for the study of the influence of certain parameters on the dynamic
response of the structure the influence of secondary structural elements the cracking of the
deck slabs the effects of long-term concrete creep and shrinkage and soon (Paultre and
Proulx, 1995). Besides more sophisticated methods based on finite element or finite strip
representation have been used by some researchers to study the dynamic behaviour of
bridges Fam(1973) and Tabba (1972)studied the behaviour of curved box section bridges
using the finite element method for applied static and dynamic loads. A threedimensional finite element analysis program was developed for curved cellular structures.
Solutions of several problems involving static and dynamic responses were presented
using the proposed and others sophisticated methods of analysis. An experimental study
conducted on two curved box girder Plexiglas models confirmed here liability of the
proposed methods of analysis.
2.4
behavior. Other cases for which the element is also applicable would be reinforced
composites (such as fiberglass), and geological materials (such as rock). The element is
defined by eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the
nodal x, y, and z directions. Up to three different rebar specifications may be defined.The
concrete element is similar to the SOLID45 (3-D Structural Solid) element with the
addition of special cracking and crushing capabilities. The most important aspect of this
element is the treatment of nonlinear material properties. The concrete is capable of
cracking (in three orthogonal directions), crushing, plastic deformation, and creep. The
rebar are capable of tension and compression, but not shear. They are also capable of plastic
deformation and creep. See SOLID65 in the ANSYS, Inc. Theory Reference for more details
about this element.
Solid 65 Geometry
15 | P a g e
SOLID65
Input Summary
Nodes:-I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P
Degrees of Freedom:-UX, UY, UZ
Real Constants:-MAT1, VR1, THETA1, PHI1, MAT2, VR2,THETA2, PHI2, MAT3,
VR3, THETA3, PHI3, CSTIF
(where MATn is material number, VRn is volume ratio, and THETAn and PHIn are
orientation angles for up to 3 rebar materials)
Material Properties
EX, ALPX (or CTEX or THSX), DENS (for each rebar) EX, ALPX (or CTEX or
THSX), PRXY or NUXY, DENS (for concrete)
Supply DAMP only once for the element (use MAT command to assign material
property set). REFT may be supplied once for the element, or may be assigned on a per
rebar basis. See the discussion in "SOLID65 Input Data" for more details.
Special Features
Plasticity
Large strain
Creep
Stress stiffening
Cracking
Crushing
Adaptive descent
Large deflection
16 | P a g e
LINK8 GEOMETRY
LINK8 Input Summary
Nodes:-I, J
Degrees of Freedom:-UX, UY, UZ
Real Constants:- REA - Cross-sectional areaISTRN - Initial strain
Material Properties
Special Features
Large deflection ,Creep,Large deflection, Plasticity, Stress
stiffening, Swelling , Birth and death
17 | P a g e
CHAPTER 3
ANSYS MODEL
3.1 General
3.1.1Element Types
Table: 1.2- Material Type
Material Type
ANSYS Element
Concrete
Solid 65
Solid 45
Reinforcement
Link 8
The element types for this model are shown in Table 1.2. The Solid65 element was
used to model the concrete. This element has eight nodes with three degrees of freedom at
each node translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. This element is capable of
plastic deformation, cracking in three orthogonal directions, and crushing.
A Solid45 element was used for steel plates at the supports for the beam. This
element has eight nodes with three degrees of freedom at each node translations in the
nodal x, y, and z directions.
A Link8 element was used to model steel reinforcement. This element is a 3D spar
element and it has two nodes with three degrees of freedom translations in the nodal x,
y, and z directions. This element is also capable of plastic deformation.
3.2 Real Constants
The real constants for this model are shown in Table: 1.3. Note that individual
elements contain different real constants. No real constant set exists for the Solid45
element. Real Constant Set 1 is used for the Solid65 element. It requires real constants for
18 | P a g e
rebar assuming a smeared model. Values can be entered for Material Number, Volume
Ratio, and Orientation Angles. The material number refers to the type of material for the
reinforcement. The volume ratio refers to the ratio of steel to concrete in the element. The
orientation angles refer to the orientation of the reinforcement in the smeared model.
ANSYS allows the user to enter three rebar materials in the concrete.
Each material corresponds to x, y, and z directions in the element. The
reinforcement has uniaxial stiffness and the directional orientation is defined by the user.
In the present study the beam is modelled using discrete reinforcement.
Therefore, a value of zero was entered for all real constants which turned the
smeared reinforcement capability of the Solid65 element off. Real Constant Sets 2 is
defined for the Link8 element. Values for cross-sectional area and initial strain were
entered.
Table:1.3- Real Constants
Real Constant
Element Type
Constants
Material
Real
Real
Real
Constants
Constants
Constants
for Rebar
for Rebar
for Rebar
Number
Volume
Ratio
19 | P a g e
1.
Solid 65
Orientation
Angle
Orientation
Angle
Cross-
50.26
sectional
Area
(mm2)
2.
Link 8
Initial
0.0088874
Strain
(mm/mm)
3.2.1 Material Properties
Three material models were given:
1. Material 1 for Concrete
a. Linear Isotropic
b. Concrete
c. Multilinear Elastic
2. Material 2 for Steel Plates
a. Linear Isotropic
3. Material 3 for FRP
a. Linear Isotropic
b. Bilinear Isotropic
20 | P a g e
Element Type
Material Properties
Linear Isotropic
EX
38,480
PRXY
0.2
Multilinear Isotropic
1.
Solid 65
Strain
Stress
Point 1
0.00036
9.8023
Point 2
0.0006
15.396
Point 3
0.0013
27.517
21 | P a g e
Point 4
0.0019
32.102
Point 5
0.00243
33.095
Concrete
ShrCf-Op
0.3
ShrCf-Cl
UnTensSt
5.3872
UnTensSt
-1
BiCompSt
HydroPrs
BiCompSt
UnTensSt
TenCrFac
Linear Isotropic
2.
Solid 45
EX
2,00,000
PRXY
0.3
Linear Isotropic
3.
Link 8
EX
1,87,000
PRXY
0.65
Bilinear Isotropic
Yield Stress
2050
Tang Mod
0.65
22 | P a g e
23 | P a g e
3.2.2Modelling
3.2.2.1Model 1
25 | P a g e
3.2.3Meshing
27 | P a g e
DOF
(DOFs
to
be
(Value) 0
OK
3.2.6 Analysis Type
The finite element model for this analysis is a simple beam under transverse loading.
For the purposes of this model, the Static analysis type is utilized. The Restart command
is utilized to restart an analysis after the initial run or load step has been completed. The
use of the restart option will be detailed in the analysis portion of the discussion.
28 | P a g e
29 | P a g e
Step 2
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Solution Controls
Nonlinear - Enter the values as shown below.
Step 3
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Define Loads
Apply
Structural
Force/Moment Value
On Nodes
30 | P a g e
Step 4
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Load Step Opts
Write LS File
(Value) Load Step file number n, 1 &OK
31 | P a g e
Step 5
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Define Loads
Delete
Structural
Force/Moment Value
On Nodes- Pick All
Step 6
Repeat the procedure from step 1 to step 5 with different load values.
Step 7
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Solve
From LS File
(Value) LSMIN- 1, LSMAX- 6, LSINC- 1
32 | P a g e
Step 8
(Go To Main Menu)
General Post Processor
Read Results
By Pick- Read
Step 9
(Go To Main Menu)
Time History Processor
Add
Nodal Solution
DOF
Choose Y- Component Displacement
Pick middle node & OK
Plot graph
33 | P a g e
3.2.8 Results
34 | P a g e
36 | P a g e
37 | P a g e
Pre-stressing
Percentage Pre-
Midspan
Force, KN
stressing, %
Deflection At
35KN Load(mm)
1.
160
2.
50.12
30
62
3.
83.53
50
20
4.
116.94
70
12
5.
167.06
100
11
3.Model No. 2
Beam Dimensions:
38 | P a g e
:- 6200mm
Material Type
ANSYS Element
Concrete
Solid 65
Solid 45
Reinforcement
Link 8
The element types for this model are shown in Table 1.6. The Solid65 element was
used to model the concrete. This element has eight nodes with three degrees of freedom at
each node translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. This element is capable of
plastic deformation, cracking in three orthogonal directions, and crushing.
39 | P a g e
A Solid45 element was used for steel plates at the supports for the beam. This
element has eight nodes with three degrees of freedom at each node translations in the
nodal x, y, and z directions.
A Link8 element was used to model steel reinforcement. This element is a 3D spar
element and it has two nodes with three degrees of freedom translations in the nodal x,
y, and z directions. This element is also capable of plastic deformation.
3.3.2. Real Constants
The real constants for this model are shown in Table 1.7. Note that individual
elements contain different real constants. No real constant set exists for the Solid45
element. Real Constant Set 1 is used for the Solid65 element. It requires real constants for
rebar assuming a smeared model. Values can be entered for Material Number, Volume
Ratio, and Orientation Angles. The material number refers to the type of material for the
reinforcement. The volume ratio refers to the ratio of steel to concrete in the element. The
orientation angles refer to the orientation of the reinforcement in the smeared model.
ANSYS allows the user to enter three rebar materials in the concrete.
Each material corresponds to x, y, and z directions in the element. The
reinforcement has uniaxial stiffness and the directional orientation is defined by the user.
In the present study the beam is modelled using discrete reinforcement.
Therefore, a value of zero was entered for all real constants which turned the
smeared reinforcement capability of the Solid65 element off. Real Constant Sets 2 is
defined for the Link8 element. Values for cross-sectional area and initial strain were
entered.
40 | P a g e
Real Constant
Element Type
Constants
Material
Real
Real
Real
Constants
Constants
Constants
for Rebar
for Rebar
for Rebar
Number
Volume
Ratio
1.
Solid 65
Orientation
Angle
Orientation
Angle
Cross-
134.52
sectional
Area
(mm2)
2.
Link 8
Initial
0.00356
Strain
(mm/mm)
41 | P a g e
42 | P a g e
Element Type
Material Properties
Linear Isotropic
EX
38,480
PRXY
0.2
Multilinear Isotropic
1.
Solid 65
Strain
Stress
Point 1
0.00036
9.8023
Point 2
0.0006
15.396
Point 3
0.0013
27.517
Point 4
0.0019
32.102
Point 5
0.00243
33.095
Concrete
ShrCf-Op
0.3
ShrCf-Cl
UnTensSt
5.3872
UnTensSt
-1
BiCompSt
HydroPrs
BiCompSt
43 | P a g e
UnTensSt
TenCrFac
Linear Isotropic
2.
Solid 45
EX
2,00,000
PRXY
0.3
Linear Isotropic
3.
Link 8
EX
1,87,000
PRXY
0.65
Bilinear Isotropic
Yield Stres
2050
Tang Mod
0.65
3.3.4 Modelling
3.3.5 Meshing
47 | P a g e
DOF
(DOFs
to
be
(Value) 0
OK
3.3.8. Analysis Type
The finite element model for this analysis is a simple beam under transverse loading.
For the purposes of this model, the Static analysis type is utilized.
The Restart command is utilized to restart an analysis after the initial run or load
step has been completed. The use of the restart option will be detailed in the analysis
portion of the discussion.
48 | P a g e
49 | P a g e
Step 2
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Solution Controls
Nonlinear - Enter the values as shown below.
Step 3
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Define Loads
Apply
Structural
Force/Moment Value
On Nodes
50 | P a g e
Step 4
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Load Step Opts
Write LS File
(Value) Load Step file number n, 1 &OK
51 | P a g e
Step 5
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Define Loads
Delete
Structural
Force/Moment Value
On Nodes- Pick All
Step 6
Repeat the procedure from step 1 to step 5 with different load values.
Step 7
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Solve
From LS File
(Value) LSMIN- 1, LSMAX- 6, LSINC- 1
52 | P a g e
Step 8
(Go To Main Menu)
General Post Processor
Read Results
By Pick- Read
Step 9
(Go To Main Menu)
Time History Processor
Add
Nodal Solution
DOF
Choose Y- Component Displacement
Pick middle node & OK
Plot graph (Graphs are in the end.)
53 | P a g e
3.3.10. Results
54 | P a g e
Conclusion: The failing load for this beam is 95 kN and crack starts developing on the
application 0f 24.5 kN load on the beam
The final deflection in the beam is 169 mm..
The ultimate load carrying capacity for the beam is 102kN.
Table 1.9- Result Comparison:
Sr. No Prestressing Force
1
92
Ultimate
Load(kN)
95
Deflection(mm)
100
104
157
105
112
153
110
113
148
115
117
144
169
56 | P a g e
57 | P a g e
58 | P a g e
:- 6200mm
59 | P a g e
Material Type
ANSYS Element
Concrete
Solid 65
Solid 45
Reinforcement
Link 8
The element types for this model are shown in Table 1.10. The Solid65 element
was used to model the concrete. This element has eight nodes with three degrees of
freedom at each node translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. This element is
capable of plastic deformation, cracking in three orthogonal directions, and crushing.
A Solid45 element was used for steel plates at the supports for the beam. This
element has eight nodes with three degrees of freedom at each node translations in the
nodal x, y, and z directions.
A Link8 element was used to model steel reinforcement. This element is a 3D spar
element and it has two nodes with three degrees of freedom translations in the nodal x,
y, and z directions. This element is also capable of plastic deformation.
3.4.2 Real Constants
The real constants for this model are shown in Table 1.11. Note that individual
elements contain different real constants. No real constant set exists for the Solid45
element. Real Constant Set 1 is used for the Solid65 element. It requires real constants for
rebar assuming a smeared model. Values can be entered for Material Number, Volume
Ratio, and Orientation Angles. The material number refers to the type of material for the
reinforcement. The volume ratio refers to the ratio of steel to concrete in the element. The
60 | P a g e
orientation angles refer to the orientation of the reinforcement in the smeared model.
ANSYS allows the user to enter three rebar materials in the concrete.
Each material corresponds to x, y, and z directions in the element. The
reinforcement has uniaxial stiffness and the directional orientation is defined by the user.
In the present study the beam is modelled using discrete reinforcement.
Therefore, a value of zero was entered for all real constants which turned the
smeared reinforcement capability of the Solid65 element off. Real Constant Sets 2 is
defined for the Link8 element. Values for cross-sectional area and initial strain were
entered.
Table: 1.11- Real Constants
Real Constant
Element Type
Constants
Material
Real
Real
Real
Constants
Constants
Constants
for Rebar
for Rebar
for Rebar
Number
Volume
Ratio
1.
Solid 65
Orientation
Angle
Orientation
Angle
Cross-
157.45
sectional
Area
(mm2)
2.
Link 8
Initial
0.03
Strain
(mm/mm)
1. Material 1 for Concrete
a. Linear Isotropic
b. Concrete
c. Multilinear Elastic
2. Material 2 for Steel Plates
a. Linear Isotropic
3. Material 3 for FRP
a. Linear Isotropic
b. Bilinear Isotropic
62 | P a g e
Element Type
Material Properties
Linear Isotropic
EX
38,480
PRXY
0.2
Multilinear Isotropic
1.
Solid 65
Strain
Stress
Point 1
0.00036
9.8023
Point 2
0.0006
15.396
Point 3
0.0013
27.517
Point 4
0.0019
32.102
63 | P a g e
Point 5
0.00243
33.095
Concrete
ShrCf-Op
0.3
ShrCf-Cl
UnTensSt
5.3872
UnTensSt
-1
BiCompSt
HydroPrs
BiCompSt
UnTensSt
TenCrFac
Linear Isotropic
2.
Solid 45
EX
2,00,000
PRXY
0.3
Linear Isotropic
3.
Link 8
EX
1,87,000
PRXY
0.65
Bilinear Isotropic
Yield Stress
2050
Tang Mod
0.65
64 | P a g e
3.4.4. Modelling
65 | P a g e
66 | P a g e
67 | P a g e
DOF
(DOFs
to
be
(Value) 0
OK
3.4.8 Analysis Type
The finite element model for this analysis is a simple beam under transverse loading.
For the purposes of this model, the Static analysis type is utilized.
The Restart command is utilized to restart an analysis after the initial run or load
step has been completed. The use of the restart option will be detailed in the analysis
portion of the discussion.
68 | P a g e
69 | P a g e
Step 2
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Solution Controls
Nonlinear - Enter the values as shown below.
Step 3
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Define Loads
Apply
Structural
Force/Moment Value
On Nodes
70 | P a g e
Step 4
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Load Step Opts
Write LS File
(Value) Load Step file number n, 1 &OK
71 | P a g e
Step 5
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Define Loads
Delete
Structural
Force/Moment Value
On Nodes- Pick All
Step 6
Repeat the procedure from step 1 to step 5 with different load values.
Step 7
(Go To Main Menu)
Solution
Solve
From LS File
(Value) LSMIN- 1, LSMAX- 6, LSINC- 1
72 | P a g e
Step 8
(Go To Main Menu)
General Post Processor
Read Results
By Pick- Read
Step 9
(Go To Main Menu)
Time History Processor
Add
Nodal Solution
DOF
Choose Y- Component Displacement
Pick middle node & OK
Plot graph (Graphs are in the end.)
73 | P a g e
Fig:-38.Elements of Beam
Fig:-39.Stress Pattern
74 | P a g e
Fig:-40.Deflection of beam
Fig:-41.Line Diagram
75 | P a g e
3.4.10 Conclusion: The failing load for this beam is 97.5 kN and crack starts developing on the
application 0f 31.5 kN load on the beam
The final deflection in the beam is 174 mm..
The ultimate load carrying capacity for the beam is 113kN.
Table 1.13- Result comparison
Sr. No.
Prestressing
Ultimate
Force(kN)
Load(kN)
1
128
113
Deflection(mm)
174
135
117
164
140
124
154
145
130
150
76 | P a g e
77 | P a g e
78 | P a g e
CHAPTHER 4
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
4.1 GENERAL
The experimental program was undertaken to study the flexural behaviour of
prestressed and partially prestressed concrete beams with carbon fibre-reinforced-plastic
(CFRP) prestressing bars. The serviceability limit states in terms of crack width, crack
spacing and deflection prior to and after cracking were examined. The modes of failure and
the ultimate carrying capacity of the beams were also investigated. The test specimens
consisted of eight beams prestressed by CFRP bars and two additional beams prestressed
by conventional steel strands. The parameters considered in this experimental program
were the prestressing ratio and the degree of prestressing. Several control specimens were
tested to evaluate the material properties of the concrete, CFRP reinforcement, and
prestressing steel. This chapter presents details of jacking, testing setup and different
instrumentations used to measure the response of the beams. This chapter also presents the
properties of the materials used in this study based on testing of the control specimens.
4.2 TEST SPECIMENS
Ten pretensioned prestressed concrete T -beams with a total length of 6.2 m and a
depth of 330 mm were tested. The beams were simply supported with a 5.8-m span and a
200-mm projection from each end. The beams had the same span-to-depth ratio as is
typically used by industry for bridge girders. The beams had a flange width varying from
200 mm to 600 mm, as shown in Fig. 47. Eight of the tested beams were prestressed by 8mm Leadline CFRP bars produced by Mitsubishi Kasei, Japan; and two beams were
prestressed by 13-mm conventional steel strands. The beams were reinforced for shear
using double-legged steel stirrups, 6 mm in diameter, uniformly spaced 100 mm apart. The
steel stirrups were tied to two longitudinal steel bars, 6 mm in diameter, 25 mm from the
top surface of the beam. The nominal yield stress of the steel stirrups and longitudinal bars
79 | P a g e
was 400 MPa. The top flange was reinforced by welded wire fabric (WWF) 102xl02, MW
18.7 x MW 18.7 (CPCI Metric Design Manual 1989). The end zone of the beam was
reinforced by two steel plates of 12.5-mm (112") thickness and two steel bars of 10 mm
diameter. The beams had an adequate factor of safety for shear and bond. The variables of
the test program were as follows:
1. Degree of prestressing: two levels of jacking stresses of CFRP bars were used, 50
and 70 percent of the guaranteed ultimate strength of the Leadline as reported by
the manufacturing company
2. Number of Leadline bars: two and four bars were used.
3. Distribution of the Leadline bars in the tension zone: where Leadline bars were
placed in two and four layers, as shown in Fig. 47.
4. Flange width of the beams: two widths were used, 200 mm and 600 mm
Detailed information about the tested beams is given in Table 3.1. The designation
of the beams have the first letter either T, R, or S, refers to T -section of 600-mm flange
width, Rectangular section of 200-mm flange width and beams prestressed by steel
reinforcement, respectively. The first number of the beam designation is either 2 or 4,
which refers to the number of prestressing bars, while the second number, .5 or .7, refers
to the ratio of the jacking stress to the guaranteed ultimate strength. The last letter in the
beam designation, H or V, refers to the configuration of the bars in the tension zone, either
Horizontal or Vertical.
80 | P a g e
81 | P a g e
82 | P a g e
83 | P a g e
Beam R-4-.7: had a 200-mm flange width and a prestressing force identical to that
of beam T-4-.7. The beam was prestressed by four Leadline bars located as in beam T-4.5-V. The measured camber of the beam. on the day of testing, 36 days after casting, was
13 mm. The beam cracked at 32.1 kN and failed at 98.1 kN by rupture of the bottom
Leadline bar.
Five cracks were observed in the constant moment zone, as shown in Fig. 6-7. The
second to fifth cracks occurred at load levels ranging from 34.2 kN to39.0 kN. The beam
was cycled three times between 25.0 and 50.0 kN. At onset of failure, two cracks in the
constant moment zone extended to the top surface of the flange and the load dropped to
zero. The deflection at failure was 164.5 mm, or 1135 of the span of the beam.
Beam T-4-.5-V: had a flange width of 600 mm and was prestressed by four Leadline
bars located at 50, 78, 100, and 128 mm from the bottom fibres of the beam. The Leadline
bars were jacked to 50 percent of the guaranteed strength. Before testing, the camber was
5.5 mm 33 days after casting. The beam cracked at a load level of 27.3 kN and failed at a
load level of 97.9 kN. Five cracks occurred in the constant moment zone as shown in Fig.
6-4. The first three cracks occurred at a load level of 27.3 kN.
The other two cracks occurred at a load level ranging between 29.0 and 33.0 kN.
The beam was cycled three times between lower and upper load limits of 23.0 and 45.0
kN, respectively. The beam was unloaded at 68.6 kN, which is 70 percent of the measured
failure load, and loaded again to failure to evaluate the released elastic and the consumed
inelastic energy of the beam.
The corresponding deflection of the beam at 68.6 kN, before unloading, was 91.8
mm. The behaviour of the beam was not completely elastic as the residual deflection of the
beam at zero load was 10.5 mm.
The energy released at unloading of the beam was mainly elastic. The inelastic
energy consumed by the beam was very small and occurred mainly due to cracking of
concrete. After reloading, the deflection of the beam at 68.6 kN was only 5 percent higher
86 | P a g e
than that before unloading despite the severe cracking of the beam at this load level. This
is attributed to the elastic behaviour of the Leadline. The beam failed by rupture of the
Leadline bar, which is the closest to the extreme tension fibre of concrete, at a load level
of 97.6 kN.
The load dropped to 58.2 kN and increased until the second Leadline bar from the
bottom failed at a load level of 68.2 kN. The load dropped again to 30.8 kN and increased
until the third Leadline bar failed at 43.0 kN.
The load dropped for the third time to 16.8 kN and the test was stopped at a load of
19.2 kN. Before failure, flexural shear cracks were observed outside the constant moment
zone. The deflection of the beam at failure of the first Leadline bar was 171.4 mm, or 1134
of the beam span.
87 | P a g e
88 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
The final results obtained from Ansys are perfectly matching with the laboratory
test done by Amr A. Abdelrahman in University of Manitoba for Serviceability of
Concrete Beams Prestressed by Fiber Reinforced Plastic Tendons in year 1995.
The model prepared in Ansys is showing the same load deflection curve so now we
can say that the finite element testing of CFRP can be done by Ansys and models that we
prepared are exactly behaving like model that they had prepared in laboratory.
The deflection of FRP material having modulus of elasticity 1, 87,000 and poison
ratio 0.65 is calculated under various load and constrained condition and the output of the
activity is giving the real deflection what we assumed to get in laboratory.
As per the final conclusion the FRP prestressed beam are able to take load like other
available material but the main advantage with FRP material is that they are free from
corrosion so we can use them in underground structure and as well as in those areas where
rusting is a big problem.
The ultimate load carrying capacity of the FRP materials are more that steel and it
also undergo less deformation. The behaviour of steel and FRP is shown in figure below.
89 | P a g e
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
8.
9.
91 | P a g e