Abaqus - Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beam Experimentation2015

International Conference on Information Sciences, Machinery, Materials and Energy (ICISMME 2015)
Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beam Bending Failure

Experimentation Based on ABAQUS
Deng Sihua1, a, Qie Ze1,b Wang Li1,c
1
Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing China 100044
a
13366015526@163.com, bqieze@hotmail.com, ciamwangli83@yahoo.com.cn
Keywords: Nonlinear analysis; Reinforced concrete beam bending failure experimentation; Finite
element analysis.
Abstract. The nonlinear analysis of a reinforced concrete beam was conducted based on the finite
element analysis software ABAQUS. In this simply supported beam analysis, the plasticity model
of concrete damage in ABAQUS has been introduced thoroughly. Finally, the results of the
experimentation and the ABAQUS analysis were compared in a diagram, accordingly reasons of the
result difference between the two methods were discussed, which can be a useful reference for the
further study of the nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete.
1 Introduction
With the continuous development of finite element theory and computer technology, the
development of finite element analysis software is maturing. ABAQUS, as one of the largest
universal finite element analysis software, is increasingly commonly used in research works and
engineering. Because not only does it have high speed, high accuracy and low cost analysis of
numerical calculation of finite element analysis software, but also has a more user-friendly operator
interface and visualization results, especially when it is used in the nonlinear analysis of reinforced
concrete structure[1].
Now, by a comparison of the test result data and the simulation result data of ABAQUS, we
make a discussion and analysis on the differences, which can be a useful reference for the further
study of the finite element analysis on ABAQUS.
2 Methods
2.1 ABAQUS nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete
The source of nonlinearity of reinforced concrete structures is mainly divided into three
categories[2]material nonlinearity, geometric nonlinearity and boundary conditions nonlinear.
Material nonlinearity refers not only to consider the elastic properties of the linear phase, but also
consider that the nonlinear stage of its plastic properties when we analyze the mechanical properties
of the steel and concrete. In ABAQUS, we achieve the nonlinear characteristics of the material by
definition of steel and concrete constitutive model. In the elastic stage, we enter elastic modulus and
Poisson's ratio of the two materials; But the definition of the plastic stage is different: reinforced
simply enter the plastic stage of stress-strain relationship, however, there are three models can be
chosen in the concrete plastic stage[3]: Concrete Smeared Cracking, Concrete Damaged Plasticity
and Cracking model for concrete in ABAQUS/Explicit. The Plasticity model of concrete damage
has certain advantages: it can be used in the individual load, cyclic loading, dynamic loading and so
on. It has good convergence, so Plasticity model of concrete damage for concrete plastic definition
is commonly used.
The change of boundary conditions (including the contact between the members) in the analysis
process will produce boundary nonlinear problems. Frictional contact of the steel and concrete in
ABAQUS is achieved by Embedded technology. Reinforced unit is embedded in concrete unit by
Embedded technology[4].
Geometric nonlinearity occurs in the case of the size of the displacement affect the structural
response. It only needs to add NLGEOM parameters to STEP options. But the general nonlinear
2015. The authors - Published by Atlantis Press 440
static analysis does not require to select NLGEOM parameters, in order to avoid the tedious amount
of computation.
2.2 Analysis instance of simply supported beam made by reinforced concrete
2.2.1 The establishment of model
This simply supported beam is 1500mm long, with a section of 180mm100 mm. the Concrete
strength is C25. Longitudinal reinforcement and stirrups adopted HPB235 reinforced: see Figure 1
for specific circumstances. In ABAQUS, the concrete adopted C3D8R element and the reinforced
used T3D2 element. We embedded reinforced in concrete element to simulate the bonding
relationship between the reinforced and concrete. In case of stress concentration in beam loading
surface and supports when we apply the load on the beam, we set steel gasket in the acting position
of the force and supports to increase the contact area and stiffness: see Figure 2 for model diagram.
Figure 1 bar arrangement drawing
Figure 2 model diagram

2.2.2 Calculation of the relevant parameters of reinforced concrete
The constitutive model of Reinforcement uses bilinear model: the slope of the rising
stagemodulus of elasticity of steel, namely Esis 245GPa, and horizontal stage is from
0.001 to 0.006 of yield strain, with the yield stress of 245MPa correspondingly. Constitutive model
for concrete axial compressive is based on the model formula suggested by E.Hognestad[5]:
(2.2.2.1)
In which, uniaxial tensile strength of concrete is 14.2 MPa, yield strain is 0.002, and ultimate
strain is 0.0038.
The constitutive model of concrete unidirectional tensile uses the formula in specification for
design of reinforced concrete structure[6]:
(2.2.2.2)
In which, uniaxial tensile strength of concrete is 1.51MPa, and concrete peak tensile strain is
73.6410-6.
3 Analysis results
3.1 Experiment
By design calculations, we determined the cross-sectional dimension, material parameters, amount
of reinforcing steel and other data of the beam, carrying out Simply supported at both ends and
441
loads applying on two points, Test model shown in Figure 1. When testing, we apply stage loading
in accordance with calculated capacity and the load on each point is the same. By controlling
loading speed, we use a dial indicator and displacement gauge to measure the deflection of
reinforced concrete beam, recording corresponding load, while observing the beam cracks and
destruction till the beam completely destroyed. Drawn load-deflection curve shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 load-deflection curve

3.2 Simulation
We apply 3.2MPa of uniform load on the gasket in simply supported beam of reinforced concrete,
namely, a force of 16 kN. See Figure 4 for the result of analysis of Mises stress. The maximum of
Mises stress, 41.16MPa, appears in the gasket of support. Around the gasket of applying force also
appears bigger stress, changing from 3MPa to 14MPa. Similar with arched truss force model of
beam with web reinforcement, the stress distribution between two supports forms Stress arch. Since
the force of beam shoulder is small, Mises stress is smaller, and Mises stress in the bottom of beam
is smaller under the effect of reinforcement.
We apply 3.2MPa of uniform load on the gasket in simply supported beam of reinforced
concrete, namely, a force of 16 kN, therefore, by calculation, the displacement of nodes in the
middle of the beam is 2.210mm(see Figure 5), and its time variation is shown in Figure 6. As we
can see, with the increase of calculation time, span deflection growth gradually accelerated. Since
reinforced concrete in the elastic phase have high strength and strong rigidity, the amount of change
in mid-span of deflection is small in the beginning; after entering the plastic stage, the material
property of reinforced concrete declines, and therefore the acceleration of the deflection of the beam
speeds up, thereby forming an acceleration in the mid-span deflection curve. This shows that the
simulation is of a reliable theoretical basis, very credible.
Figure 4 beam stress
Figure 5 beam displacement
442
Figure 6 mid-span displacement-time curve
4 Comparison and Discussion

In order to carry out analysis and comparison between numerical simulation and test results
conveniently, we use ABAQUS to apply the load step by step, calculating the result, getting the
data of mid-span deflection and drawing the graph. See Figure 7.
Figure 7 mid-span deflection value comparison chart

As can be seen from Figure 7, the varying trends of mid-span deflection with load of ABAQUS
and test results are the same. Before 8kN of load, the beam is in elastic stage with high stiffness and
strength, load values varying linearly with the deflection. And then, it came into the plastic stage,
deflection value adding accelerated. When the load reached the capacity of 24kN, the value of
mid-span deflection is 10.521mm of ABAQUS and 12.795mm of test. In the last, the beam failure.
It can be seen that ABAQUS can be basically consistent with the actual test results, but there are
also differences between the values calculated by the analysis and the test. The reason may be the
following:
(1) Finite element simulations is assumed to have a uniform, isotropic and the same contact form
between cells, however, the constitution of actual concrete is very complex, including cement, sand,
gravel and so on. The Complicated action between them can not be easily replaced by unified form.
(2) In Finite Element Analysis, bond between concrete and steel is processed using the
Embedded Technology, effectively simplifying the modeling, but it can not be achieved with the
increased load of reinforced concrete and changing nature of the friction moment, especially
reinforced slip simulation. This can easily lead to distorted results.
(3) Other factors also affect the results of the analysis such as convergence of Finite Element
Analysis, reasonableness of simulation parameter values, form and quantity of finite element
division and casting quality and loading conditions of beam in test.
443
In short, finite element analysis simulation test of reinforced concrete has a high degree of
similarity with actual situation: despite some differences, the finite element method for nonlinear
analysis of beam test is feasible.
5 Summary
This paper talked about the reasons of differences between the results of numerical analysis and test.
In this paper, we used software ABAQUS to imitate the test of beam: by adopting the model of
concrete damaging and the technology of embedded between steel bar and concrete, we got similar
results with actual test. All those above prove that the finite element software ABAQUS is effective
enough, but how to get exacter results deserves further exploration.
6 Acknowledgements
This research is sponsored by BUCEA Urban Rural Construction and Management Industry
Research Development Collaboration Post Graduate Training Centre.
References
[1] LIU Jing-song, LIU Hong-jun. ABAQUS Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete [J].
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, 2009,(6):69-70,107.
[2] LV Xi-lin, JIN Guo-fang, WU Xiao-han. Reinforced Concrete Structure Nonlinear Theory and
Applications [M]. Shanghai: Tongji University Press, 1997: 55-67.
[3] ZHUANG Zhuo, ZHANG Fan, CEN Song. ABAQUS Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis and
Examples[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2005:123-139.
[4] ABAQUS Analysis Users ManualABAQUS Inc, 2006.
[5] Southeast University etc. Concrete Structure Design Theory[M]. Beijing: China Building
Industry Press, 2008.
[6] Design Principle of Concrete Structures, GB50010 2010.
[7] JIANG Jian-jing, LU Xin-zheng, YE Lie-ping. Finite Element Analysis of Concrete Structures
[M]. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2005.
[8] ZHANG Guo-li, SU Jun. Based on ABAQUS Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete [J].
SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING, 2008,8(20):5620-5624.
444

Abaqus - Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beam Experimentation2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abaqus - Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beam Experimentation2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abaqus - Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beam Experimentation2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Conference on Information Sciences, Machinery, Materials and Energy (ICISMME 2015)

Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beam Bending Failure

Figure 1 bar arrangement drawing

Figure 2 model diagram

Figure 3 load-deflection curve

Figure 4 beam stress

Figure 5 beam displacement

4 Comparison and Discussion

Figure 7 mid-span deflection value comparison chart

You might also like