Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2020, Vol. 14 Issue (5) : 1180-1195     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0661-0
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Performance of fixed beam without interacting bars
Aydin SHISHEGARAN1, Behnam KARAMI2, Timon RABCZUK3,4(), Arshia SHISHEGARAN5, Mohammad Ali NAGHSH6, Mohammreza MOHAMMAD KHANI1
1. School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran 13114-16846, Iran
2. International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Tehran 19537-14453, Iran
3. Division of Computational Mechanics, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
4. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
5. School of Civil engineering, Islamic Azad University, Tehran 1987745815, Iran
6. School of Civil Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 8415683111, Iran
Download: PDF(3668 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Increasing the bending capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) elements is one of important topics in structure engineering. The goal of this study is to develop a transferred stress system (TSS) on longitudinal reinforcement bars for increasing the bending capacity of RC frames. The study is divided into two parts, i.e., experimental tests and nonlinear FE analysis. The experiments were carried out to determine the load-deflection curves and crack patterns of the ordinary and TSS fixed frame. The FE models were developed for simulating the fixed frames. The obtained load-deflection results and the observed cracks from the FE analysis and experimental tests are compared to evaluate the validation of the FE nonlinear models. Based on the validated FE models, the stress distribution on the ordinary and TSS bars were evaluated. We found the load carrying capacity and ductility of TSS fixed beam are 29.39% and 23.69% higher compared to those of the ordinary fixed beams. The crack expansion occurs on the ordinary fixed beam, although there are several crack openings at mid-span of the TSS fixed beam. The crack distribution was changed in the TSS fixed frame. The TSS fixed beam is proposed to employ in RC frame instead of ordinary RC beam for improving the performance of RC frame.

Keywords transferred stress system      bending capacity      crack opening      crack propagation      FE nonlinear model      stress distribution     
Corresponding Author(s): Timon RABCZUK   
Just Accepted Date: 25 August 2020   Online First Date: 20 October 2020    Issue Date: 16 November 2020
 Cite this article:   
Aydin SHISHEGARAN,Behnam KARAMI,Timon RABCZUK, et al. Performance of fixed beam without interacting bars[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 1180-1195.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-020-0661-0
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2020/V14/I5/1180
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Aydin SHISHEGARAN
Behnam KARAMI
Timon RABCZUK
Arshia SHISHEGARAN
Mohammad Ali NAGHSH
Mohammreza MOHAMMAD KHANI
Fig.1  The considered RC frame. (a) The applied static load to the RC fixed frame; (b) the moment diagram and deformed shape of the RC fixed frame; (c) the divided section of the RC frame; (d) the moment and axial force of the divided frame (the fixed beam with two short columns).
Fig.2  The fixed Ordinary frame. (a) Detail of the ordinary fixed frame (unit: cm); (b) the sections of beam and columns.
Fig.3  Detail of the fixed TSS frame (unit: cm).
Fig.4  Justifying and proving the hypothesis of this study. (a) The stress distribution on the TSS longitudinal bar; (b) the stress distribution on ordinary longitudinal bar; (c) presenting superposition for justifying TSS method.
Fig.5  Flowchart for carrying out this study.
Fig.6  Stress-strain test of steel bar. (a) Dimensional geometry of the prepared steel bar for extend meter test; (b) extend meter test for prepared steel bar.
Fig.7  The detail of experimental samples. (a) The longitudinal reinforcement bars and molding the ordinary fixed frame; (b) the longitudinal reinforcement bars of TSS fixed frame; (c) molding the sample; (d) the schematic of test setup; (e) the actual test setup.
Fig.8  The behavior of concrete under (a) uniaxial loading in tension and (b) compression.
the status variable unit value
yield stress stress MPa 400
strain % 0.4
ultimate limit stress MPa 540
strain % 27
Tab.1  Yield parameters of steel bars
Fig.9  The considered behavior for steel bar and the obtained results of behavior of streel bar from experimental test.
dilation angle, ψ() plastic potential eccentricity, ε stress ratio, σb0/σc0 shape of the yielding surface, Kc viscosity parameter, μ
31 0.1 1.16 0.667 0.0001
Tab.2  The considered plasticity parameters in the CDP model
compressive behavior compressive damage parameter
stress (MPa) crushing inelastic strain dc crushing strain
13.7 0.00000 0.000 0.00000
16.3 0.00010 0.001 0.00010
17.4 0.00015 0.005 0.00015
18.4 0.00020 0.009 0.00020
21.9 0.00040 0.029 0.00040
23.5 0.00050 0.042 0.00050
30.0 0.00150 0.265 0.00150
27.3 0.00200 0.437 0.00200
17.7 0.00250 0.680 0.00250
14.8 0.00260 0.737 0.00260
8.1 0.00280 0.862 0.00280
Tab.3  The considered compressive behavior for concrete
tensile behavior tensile damage parameter
stress (MPa) cracking inelastic strain dt cracking strain
3.3 0.00000 0 0.00000
2.3 0.00006 0.11 0.00006
1.0 0.00024 0.38 0.00024
0.0 0.00120 0.95 0.00120
Tab.4  The considered tensile behavior for concrete
Fig.10  A schematic for FE nonlinear model.
Fig.11  Connecting beam element to solid element using the coupling constraint method for simulating no interaction parts of TSS steel bars.
Fig.12  Load- deflection results of ordinary beam and TSS beam. (a) The obtained load-deflection performance of ordinary fixed beam from tests and FE nonlinear analyses; (b) the obtained load-deflection performance of the TSS fixed beam from tests and FE nonlinear analyses.
Fig.13  The crack expansion in each sample. (a) The crack expansion on the ordinary fixed frame; (b) the cracks expansion on the md-span of the TSS fixed frame; (c) the crack openings on the mid-span of the TSS fixed frame.
Fig.14  The crack expansion in each sample. (a) The cracked ordinary fixed frame; (b) the cracked TSS fixed beam.
Fig.15  The stress of longitudinal reinforcement bars. (a) The distributed stress of the longitudinal reinforcement bars of the ordinary fixed frame; (b) the distributed stress of the longitudinal reinforcement bars of the TSS fixed frame.
1 W Figeys, E Verstrynge, K Brosens, L Van Schepdael, J Dereymaeker, D Van Gemert, L Schueremans. Feasibility of a novel system to prestress externally bonded reinforcement. Materials and Structures, 2011, 44(9): 1655–1669
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-011-9725-x
2 R Kotynia, S Cholostiakow. New proposal for flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using CFRP T-shaped profiles. Polymers, 2015, 7(11): 2461–2477
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym7111524
3 C G Papanicolaou, T C Triantafillou, M Papathanasiou, K Karlos. Textile reinforced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening material of URM walls: Out-of-plane cyclic loading. Materials and Structures, 2007, 41(1): 143–157
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9226-0
4 T M Pham, H Hao. Review of concrete structures strengthened with FRP against impact loading. Structures, 2016, 7: 59–70
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2016.05.003
5 H M Tanarslan. Flexural strengthening of RC beams with prefabricated ultra high performance fiber-reinforced concrete laminates. Engineering Structures, 2017, 151: 337–348
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.08.048
6 H A Rasheed, J Abdalla, R Hawileh, A K Al-tamimi. Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with externally bonded Aluminum Alloy plates. Engineering Structures, 2017, 147: 473–485
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.05.067
7 M J Esfandiari, H Rahimi Bondarabadi, N S Sheikholarefi, S H Dehghan Manshadi. Numerical investigation of parameters influencing debonding of FRP sheets in shear-strengthened beams. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 2018, 22(2): 246–266
https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2016.1186117
8 M R Ghasemi, A Shishegaran. Role of slanted reinforcement on bending capacity SS beams. Vibroengineering PROCEDIA, 2017, 11: 195–199
https://doi.org/10.21595/vp.2017.18544
9 N Elmessalami, A El Refai, F Abed. Fiber-reinforced polymers bars for compression reinforcement: A promising alternative to steel bars. Construction & Building Materials, 2019, 209: 725–737
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.105
10 T Rabczuk, J Eibl. Numerical analysis of prestressed concrete beams using a coupled element free Galerkin/finite element approach. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2004, 41(3–4): 1061–1080
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2003.09.040
11 O Chaallal, M J Nollet, D Perraton. Strengthening of reinforced concrete beam s with extern ally bonded fiber-reinforced-plastic plates: Design guidelines for shear and flexure. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 1998, 25(4): 692–704
https://doi.org/10.1139/l98-008
12 C A Ross, D M Jerome, J W Tedesco, M L Hughes. Strengthening of reinforced concrete beams with externally bonded composite laminates. Structural Journal, 1999, 96(2): 212–220
13 H Y Lee, W T Jung, E Chung. Flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete beams with pre-stressed near surface mounted CFRP systems. Composite Structures, 2017, 163: 1–12
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.12.044
14 A Shishegaran, M R Ghasemi, H Varaee. Performance of a novel bent-up bars system not interacting with concrete. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2019, 13(6): 1301–1315
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-019-0552-4
15 T Rabczuk, G Zi, S Bordas, H Nguyen-xuan. A geometrically nonlinear three dimensional cohesive crack method for reinforced concrete structures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2008, 75(16): 4740–4758
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.06.019
16 T Rabczuk, T Belytschko. Application of particle methods to static fracture of reinforced concrete structures. International Journal of Fracture, 2006, 137(1-4): 19–49
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-005-3075-z
17 A Shisehgaran, F Daneshpajoh, H Taghavizade, S Mirvalad. Developing conductive concrete containing wire rope and steel powder wastes for route deicing. Construction & Building Materials, 2020, 232: 117184
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117184
18 ASTM standard A 370. Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2015
19 BS EN 12390-3. Testing Hardened Concrete. Part 3: Compressive Strength of Test Specimens. London: BSI, 2009
20 BS EN 12390-1. Testing Hardened Concrete. Part 3: Shape, Dimensions and Other Requirements for Specimens and Moulds. London: BSI, 2000
21 BS EN 12390-2. Testing Hardened Concrete. Part 3: Making and Curing Specimens for Strength Tests. London: BSI, 2009
22 S Zhou, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. Phase-field modeling of fluid-driven dynamic cracking in porous media. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2019, 350: 169–198
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.03.001
23 S Zhou, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. Phase field modeling of brittle compressive-shear fractures in rock-like materials: A new driving force and a hybrid formulation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2019, 355: 729–752
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.06.021
24 S Zhou, T Rabczuk, X Zhuang. Phase field modeling of quasi-static and dynamic crack propagation: COMSOL implementation and case studies. Advances in Engineering Software, 2018, 122: 31–49
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.03.012
25 S Zhou, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. A phase-field modeling approach of fracture propagation in poroelastic media. Engineering Geology, 2018, 240: 189–203
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.04.008
26 S Zhou, X Zhuang, H Zhu, T Rabczuk. Phase field modelling of crack propagation, branching and coalescence in rocks. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2018, 96: 174–192
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2018.04.011
27 Dassault Systems Simulia Corp. ABAQUS Analysis User’s Manual 6.10-EF. 2010
28 F E A Finite Element Analyses. Abaqus/CAE Version 6.13: Computer Aided Engineering. Dassault Systemes. 2013.
29 V Birtel, P Mark. Parameterised finite element modelling of RC beam shear failure. In: ABAQUS Users’ Conference. Cambridge, MA, 2006, 95–108
30 H G Kwak, J W Hwang. FE model to simulate bond-slip behavior in composite concrete beam bridges. Computers & Structures, 2010, 88(17–18): 973–984
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2010.05.005
31 T Rabczuk. Computational methods for fracture in brittle and quasi-brittle solids: State-of-the-art review and future perspectives. ISRN Applied Mathematics, 2013, 2013: 332–369
https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/849231
32 A Shishegaran, A Amiri, M A Jafari. Seismic performance of box-plate, box-plate with UNP, box-plate with L-plate and ordinary rigid beam-to-column moment connections. Journal of Vibroengineering, 2018, 20(3): 1470–1487
https://doi.org/10.21595/jve.2017.18716
33 A Hillerborg, M Modéer, P E Petersson. Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cement and Concrete Research, 1976, 6(6): 773–781
https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(76)90007-7
34 European International Concrete Commission. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. London: Thomas Telford Ltd., 1990
35 J Szarliñski, A Winnicki, K Podleœ. Constructions of Concrete in Plastic States. Krakow: Krakow University of Technology, 2002
36 S T Pietruszczak, Z Mroz. Finite element analysis of deformation of strain-softening materials. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1981, 17(3): 327–334
https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1620170303
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Zohreh SHEIKH KHOZANI, Khabat KHOSRAVI, Mohammadamin TORABI, Amir MOSAVI, Bahram REZAEI, Timon RABCZUK. Shear stress distribution prediction in symmetric compound channels using data mining and machine learning models[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 1097-1109.
[2] Weihua FANG, Jiangfei WU, Tiantang YU, Thanh-Tung NGUYEN, Tinh Quoc BUI. Simulation of cohesive crack growth by a variable-node XFEM[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(1): 215-228.
[3] Aydin SHISHEGARAN, Mohammad Reza GHASEMI, Hesam VARAEE. Performance of a novel bent-up bars system not interacting with concrete[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 1301-1315.
[4] HIRSHIKESH, Sundararajan NATARAJAN, Ratna Kumar ANNABATTULA. A FEniCS implementation of the phase field method for quasi-static brittle fracture[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(2): 380-396.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed