gothenburg diana users meeting april 25-26 2013 final-1

7/27/2019 Gothenburg DIANA Users Meeting April 25-26 2013 Final-1

1/259

1

International DIANA Users Meeting

Chalmers University of Technology

Gothenburg, Sweden

Opening - WelcomeInternational

DIANA Users Meeting

Ane de Boer

DIANA Users Association &Ministry of Infrastructure, The Netherlands



Gothenburg, Sweden

Why Gothenburg-Sweden after

London-UK, NijmegenNL, Essen-Germany, Porto-Portugal,

Trondheim-Norway, Delft-NL, Brescia-Italy

-- DIANADIANA UsersUsers inin SwedenSweden

-- LocalLocal arrangementsarrangements:: LundgrenLundgren andand HanjariHanjari


2/259

2



Gothenburg, Sweden

Gothenburg well-known city

Volvos hometown & Factories

Ferry link to Danmark


Sport events like: Indoor European Championship Athletics

Speed skating track



Gothenburg, Sweden

Activities Users Association

in cooperation with TNO DIANA BVDevelopment meetings:

Since 1984, the foundation year of the Users Association

-General meetings at the Users offices in The Netherlands,

including Technical meetings in the Netherlands twice a year since 2000

-International Users Meeting since London 2004

- Users Association open for International Members since 2005,

so join us, a registration form at the registration desk of this Meeting!

-Activities:In cooperation with CUR-NL: Concrete Mechanics Applications 2003 [CD],

Advanced FE analyses (CUR2003-1;NL) & Design in 3D(2008-1;NL)

Wish Lists: International User Wish List since User Meeting 2005

DIANA User Advisory Board: short, mid and longterm wishes

Set-up of a User Database of articles, presentations around DIANANLFEA Guideline: Girders published 18 April 2013!!


3/259

3



Gothenburg, Sweden

NLFEA Guidelines / Safety Formats EC2-MC2010

Safety Formats Slabexperiments Stevinlab; Framcos8 - Belletti etc.

Pu/Pu,experiment

E

C

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

LevelI

LevelII

LevelIV

-PF

LevelIV-GRF

LevelIV

-ECO

V

Run-Mea

n

Experim

ent

NumericalAnalytical

MC2010

Henrik Schlune: Chalmers PhD Thesis Alternative Safety Formats

Experiment



Gothenburg, Sweden

Location of this meeting Hosting this meeting:


Concrete Structures, Division of Structural Engineering

Chalmers Teknik Park


4/259

4



Gothenburg, Sweden

Social Event

17:00 City / Harbour guided Tour

start: Teknik Park

finish: Tvkanten

19:30 Dinner Restaurang Tvkanten



Gothenburg, Sweden

Wijtze Pieter Kikstra, Scientific Employee

Gerd-Jan Schreppers, General Director

Opportunity meeting TNO DIANA BV people

Opportunity meeting DIANA Users Association people

Nynke Vollema Henco Burggraaf

Ane de Boer

Opportunity to meet other DIANA Users !!


5/259

Structural Engineering Concrete Structures

t'


Z^

h&D

^

D

E

&

d


6/259


h


7/259


/


^

W

^


8/259


d


-tn

c

tttn

tt

-c fa

^

h

&


9/259


[mm]

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0 5 10 15

D

^

&

1.0

c/fcc

0.5

05 10

[mm]tn

tt

-c fa


^

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 2 4 6 8 10

Active slip [mm]

Without stirrups

Load [kN]

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 2 4 6 8 10

Load [kN]

Active slip [mm]

With two stirrups

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 2 4 6 8 10

Load [kN]

Active slip [mm]

With four stirrups

FEAExp.


10/259


z

0

5

10

15

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0

5

10

15

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

tt[MPa]

tt[MPa]

ut[mm]

ut[mm]

s

s


>

250


11/259


0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10

Load [kN]

l+ r[mm]

B, B

S

S Exp.

FEA, edge

FEA, centre

720720

l r

edge centre



12/259


Bond - slip in centre slice(2)

0

10

20

0 0.5 1 1.5

0

10

20

0 0.5 1 1.5

0

10

20

0 0.5 1 1.50

10

20

0 0.5 1 1.5

0

10

20

0 0.5 1 1.5

0

10

20

0 0.5 1 1.5

0

10

20

0 0.5 1 1.50

10

20

0 0.5 1 1.5

0

4

8

12

16

0 0.5 1 1.5

Bond [MPa]

Slip [mm]


d

/


13/259



Force [kN]

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 2 4 6 8 10Slip [mm]

Exp.

FEA

Yield force

/

Force [kN]

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 2 4 6 8 10Slip [mm]

Exp.

FEA

Yield force

,


14/259


t


/

^

Z


15/259


D

/

Z

^

h

DW

-

-

-

-

-

-

- -

-

-

-

D


&

Z

^

/

d


16/259


W E

&


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 50 100 150

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 50 100 150

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 50 100 150

crack width [mm] crack width [mm] crack width [mm]

Analysis, corrosion equal around the rebar

Analysis, corrosion localized at the crackExp. Andrade et al.

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3Mass loss [%]

II: c = 20mm, 100Acm-2

Mass loss [%]III: c = 30mm, 100Acm

-2Mass loss [%]

IV: c = 20mm, 10Acm-2


17/259


W


18/259


K

r


K

r

x


19/259


)2()1( 22 xrxrry rs ++=

K

r

x

y

s

&


)2()1( 22 xrxrry rs ++=

K

r

x

y

urcor s

&

Z


20/259


)2()1( 22 xrxrry rs ++=

K

r

x

y

urco

r s

&

Z


)2()1( 22 xrxrry rs ++=

K

r

x

y

urcor s

&

Z

r

s s


21/259


)2()1( 22 xrxrry rs ++=

K

r

x

y

urco

r s

&

Z

r

x


)2()1( 22 xrxrry rs ++=

K

r

x

y

urcor s

&

Z

r

x

y


22/259


)2()1( 22 xrxrry rs ++= e

Vxrxrry rsext

++=

)2)(1( 22

K

r

x

y

urco

r s

&

Z

r

x

y

yext

s s


)2()1( 22 xrxrry rs ++= e

Vxrxrry rsext

++=

)2)(1( 22

K

r

x

y

urcor s

&

Z

r

x

y

yext

urco

r

s s


23/259


D


^

/

Reinforcement bar


24/259


K

&

s


&

&

d d /E

^sW

d


25/259


tn

tt

-c fa

&

h


/

tn

tt

-c fa

>


26/259


/

s

D


27/259

Fibre reinforced concrete in dapped-end

beams

s^

'

DE

,

D Z'

d


28/259

3

/

K

D

Fibre reinforced concrete in dapped-end beams

Introduction

E.V. Sarmiento et al.

> Motivation

Application for FRC

/

K

D

W

Dapped-end beams project > Previous experience(1)

witho

utfibres

1% Steel fibres

4Fibre reinforced concrete in dapped-end beams E.V. Sarmiento et al.


29/259

/

K

D

W


1% Steel fibres

5Fibre reinforced concrete in dapped-end beams E.V. Sarmiento et al.

1%Steelfibres

/

K

D

W


Fibre reinforced concrete in dapped-end beams E.V. Sarmiento et al.

6


30/259

7

/

K

D

W

>


Dapped-end beams project


> Limitations(1)

>

K

K

&

8

/

K

D

W

>


Dapped-end beams project


> Limitations(2)

&


31/259

9

/

K

D

W

>

&

^


Finite Element Analysis


> Study case(1)

10

/

K

D

W

>

&

^


Finite Element Analysis


> Study case

^WE


32/259

11

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D


> Model descriptionFinite Element Analysis

Supports and loading

Simple supports

Interface elements

Loading control

Force load

Displacement load

Mesh size

Element size 25x25

Element size12.5x12.5

12

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D


> Materials / geometries(1)Finite Element Analysis

Concrete in tension

Multi-linear tension softening curve

Fibre reinforced concrete

Crack modeling

Semeared crack approach with Rotating crack model

Concrete in compresionIdeal

Elements

Eight-node quadrilateral plane stress elements (CQ16M)

RILEM Design methods for steel fibre

reinforced concrete. --design method


33/259

13

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D



Reinforcement

Strain hardening model

Yield stress: 566 Mpa

Modulus of elasticity: 200 000 MPa

Ultimate strain and stress at ultimate strain: 7.5, 589 MPa

14

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D



Bond properties

All Embedded reinforcement

Option 2 - BAR in Plane stress

Reinf with slip: Truss elements (CL6TR)

Line-plane interface elements (CQ22IF)

Bond-slip + Embedded reinforcement

Option 1

Reinf with slip: Truss elements (CL6TR)

Line interface elements (CL12I)

David Fall et al.Non-linear finite element analysis of steel fibre

reinforced beams with conventional r einforcement. BEFIB2013


34/259

15

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D

Z


> Results and discussionFinite Element Analysis

Control method

Step size

Convergence norm

Mesh size

Concrete strain limit

Bond properties

16

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D

Z



Control method


35/259

17

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D

Z



Control method

Displacement control Force control

Principal strain

4mm deflection

Principal strain6mm deflection

18

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D

Z



Step size


36/259

19

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D

Z



Step size

0.5mm step size

0.1mm step size

0.2mm step size


20

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D

Z



Convergence norm


37/259

21

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D

Z



Convergence norm Principal strain6.8mm deflection

Displ norm0.05

Displ norm0.02

Displ norm0.01

Force norm0.1

22

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D

Z



Mesh size


38/259

23

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D

Z



Mesh size

25x25mm el. size 12.5x12.5 el. size



24

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D

Z



Concrete strain limit


Strain limit 0.025 Strain limit 0.050


39/259

25

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D

Z



Bond properties

26

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D

Z



Bond properties

Embedded reinforcements Bond slip reinforcements



40/259

27

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D

Z

^


Summary


In general, the maximum load is under a certain limit

well described

The model underestimates the loads at large

deflections

The crack pattern is poorly described

The bond slip properties have to be improved

Dependency on the mess alignment

Other material models for FRC need to be evaluated

Thank you for your attention

E.V. Sarmiento et al.Fibre reinforced concrete in dapped-end beams

/

K

D

W

>

&

^

D

D

Z

^

28


41/259

Fatig

ueAna

lysisof

BasculeBridgeDetail

Coenvan

derVliet/PeterKonijnenbe

lt

ArcadisNetherland

s

Im

aginetheresult


42/259

C

ontents

Project

Fatigue

Appro

ach

FEModels&Results

FatigueVerification

RelatedTopics

DianaUserMeeting|April25/2

6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia

2


43/259

Project


44/259


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia

4


45/259


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia

5

Antwerp


46/259


62013|ARCADIS2013

Dia

6

Deurganck

dok

DeurganckdokSluice

Waas

landHarbour


47/259

Deurganckdoksluis

PortofAntwerp

Dia

7

Length:

500m

Width:

68m

BridgeSpan:

70m

Construction

Start

2011

Delivery

2016

Partiesinvolved:

Client:

BelgianDe

p.Of

MobilityandPublic

Works

Contractor:THVWaas

landsluis


48/259

BasculeBridg

es


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia

8


49/259

BasculeBridg

es


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia

9

axis

castpiece


50/259

BasculeBridg

es


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia10

axis

castpiece


51/259

Fatigue


52/259

Fatiguegen

eralprinciple

Cyclicloadin

greducesstreng

th

Strengthred

uctionrelatedto

log(N)

Miner:6(ni/N

i)1

Stresspeaksatnotchesetc.


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia12


53/259

Fatiguegen

eralprinciple


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia13


54/259

Fatigue-weld

s

Welds:locald

isturbancesof

stressdistrib

ution

Stresstrajec

toriesand

concentratio

ns

Stresspeak

dependsonweld

detail


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia14


55/259

Fatiguewelds

Residualstressesequalyield

strength

Vmax=fy,Vmin=fy-'V

Stresslevel

notimportant


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia15


56/259

Fatiguewelddetails


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia16


57/259

Fatiguedeta

ilcat.strength


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia17


58/259

Fatiguebasematerial

Stressreliev

ed:noresidual

stresses

Stresslevel

doesmatter

Fatiguestrengthdependson

stresslevel(N=Vmin/Vmax

)

compone

nt(bending,

tensionc

ompression,

shear)


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia18

'V

V

max

V

min


59/259

Approa

ch


60/259

Step1:globalloca

l

Translateglo

balstructural

behaviourto

localbehaviour

aroundpivotpoint

Balancedloadcaseonlocal

model

Supportstotakeunbalance


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia20


61/259

Step1:globalloca

l

Unitloadsatmodelboundaries

Memberforc

esfromglobal

modelloa

dfactorsinload

combinations

Fatigueverificationofwelds

aroundpivotpoint


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia21


62/259

Step2:localdetail

Translateloc

alstructural

behaviourto

correctstress

stateindeta

ilmodelofcast

piece

Supportstotakeunbalance


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia22


63/259

Step2:localdetail

Stressesatsectionsinlocal

modelloa

dsindetailmode

l

Fatigueverificationatfillets


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia23


64/259

FiniteE

lemen

tModels&

Results


65/259

Model

1:shells

Purposevsmodelspecs

Provideproperboundaryconditionsfordetailmodel

Geom

etry:globalshapesufficient

Mesh

:onlyfineeleme

ntsincastpiece

area

Enabled

etailedfatigueve

rificationofweldsaroundcastpie

ce

Geom

etry:accurate,u

ptomanandmo

useholes

Mesh

:fineelementsa

teverycriticalsp

ot


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia25


66/259

Model

1:shells

Purposevsmodelspecs

Provideproperboundaryconditionsfordetailmodel

Geom

etry:globalshapesufficient

Mesh

:onlyfineeleme

ntsincastpiece

area

Enabled

etailedfatigueve

rificationofweldsaroundcastpie

ce

Geom

etry:accurate,u

ptomanandmo

useholes

Mesh

:fineelementsa

teverycriticalsp

ot


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia26

prima

ryscope


67/259

Model

1:shells

Elementsize

andgradingoptimumbetween

modelsize

peakstre

ssaccuracy

Result

symmetricallineargrading2575foreveryedge

refineme

ntf

actor2


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia27


68/259

Model

1:shells


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia28


69/259

Model

1:shells


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia29


70/259

Model

1:shells


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia30


71/259

Model

1:shells


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia31


72/259

Model

1:shells


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia32


73/259

Model

1:shells

Modelverific

ation

SOLforinidividual(unity)

loadcases

DeformationscomparedtoSciamodel

Results

Firstimpressionbasedon

VonMisesstres

sesandprincipal

stresses

Fatigueverificationbased

onstressrange

alongsection


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia33


74/259

Model

1:shells


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia34


75/259

Model

1:shells


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia35


76/259

Model

1:shells


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia36

'V


77/259

Model

2:solid

s


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia37


78/259

Model

2:solid

s


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia38


79/259

Model

2:solid

s


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia39


80/259

Model

2:solid

s


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia40

shellstresse

s

translatedin

to

lineloads

appliedto

beams

connectedto

shells

connectedto

solids

beams

shells

loadapplication


81/259

Model

2:solid

s


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia41

fatigue:allstress

co

mponentsin

re

levantelements


82/259

FatigueVerific

ation


83/259

Fatigueverific

ation

Hotspotstre

ss

realisticgeometry(3Dvolume)

extrapola

tionofstresstow

ardsweldtoe

Nominalstre

ss

Bernouillimodels

V=n/t+6m/

t2


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia43


84/259

Shellm

odelvsreality


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia44

realstresses


85/259

Shellm

odelvsreality


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia45

realstresses


86/259

Shellm

odelvsreality


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia46

shellstresses


87/259

Shellm

odelvsreality


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia47

whichsection?

1

2

3


88/259

Shellm

odelvsreality


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia48

whichsection?

1

2

3


89/259

Shellm

odelvsreality


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia49

whichstressc

omponents,

andwhere?

Vnn;top

Vns;mid/Wn;mid

Vnn;bot

2/3!


90/259

Shellm

odelvsreality


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia50

checkthes

e

stressesas

well!


91/259

Fatiguestreng

th

N=C'V-m

Openingand

closingi.c.w.

windgoverning

n=310000

cycles

n/N1designmodification

checkconse

quences:update

model

iterativeprocess


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia52


93/259

Wishfu

lthinking


94/259

Thiswouldbe

nice

automatedd

eterminationofs

tressrange'V

cyclecounte

rbasedonsucce

ssiveloadcases

resultsinshiftedsection(e.g.fromcenterline

toweldtoe)

automatedfatigueverification

basematerial

VmaxandVmin

Stren

gthparsffatandm

Resu

lt:n/N

alongwe

lds


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia54


95/259

Thiswouldbe

nice

automatedfatigueverification

alongwe

lds

weld

modelledasshe

ll-interface(alreadypresentinDIANA)

detailcategoryasmaterialparameter

stresscomponentsno

rmalandtangentialtoweld

result:n/N


6

2013|ARCADIS2013

Dia55


96/259

Imagine

theresult

Dia56DianaUserMeeting|April25/2

6

2013|ARCADIS2013


97/259

Study of the behaviour of reinforced concrete

slabs subjected to concentrated loads near

supports

B. BELLETTI*, C. DAMONI*, M.A.N. HENDRIKS #

* University of Parma, Italy + Delft University of Technology,The Netherlands

#Norwegian University of Science and Technology,Norway

8th InternationalDIANA Users Meeting

25-26 April 2013

Chalmers University of TechnologyGothenburg - Sweden

OUTLINES

Background and aim of the research

Cases studies analyzed: experimental program

Finite element model

Evaluation of the carrying capacity of the RC slabs analyzed:

Final remarks

One way shear resistance

(Model Code 2010)

Punching resistance

(Eurocode2, Regans formulation, CSCT )

Bending resistance

(Yield line theory)

Nonlinear finite element analyses

-Sensitivity study

-Levels of Approximation Model Code 2010


98/259

The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment initiated a

project to re-evaluate the carrying capacity of existing bridges andviaducts

- increased traffic in the last years- reallocation of emercency lanes to traffic lanes- need for additional traffic lanes

JoostWalraven Sal, 25 October 2010.

Why

For a certain amount of Dutch bridges andother infrastructures the safety verificationsare not satisfied if the usual analyticalprocedures are adopted

The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and theEnvironment proposed to make a structuralassessment ofexisting structures throughthe use of nonlinear finite elementanalyses

Final release of a document containing guidelines for nonlinear finiteelement (NLFE) analyses of reinforced and prestressed concrete

elements


99/259

NLFEA represent a powerful instrument for structural assessment

The results of NLFEA strongly depend on the modelling choices

big scatter in the results for the same structure analyzed by several

analysts

Guidelines for NLFEA to be followed by all users in order to obtain

reliable and safe results is of big importance

The project well matches with the philosphy of the Model Code 2010:

Carrying capacity of concrete elements evaluated with different Levels of

Approximation adopting analytical calculations and NLFE analyses: the

accuracy of the results increases if NLFE analyses are adopted.

The carrying capacity of 3 RC slabs tested at TuDelft has been evaluated with:-NLFEA (following the Dutch guidelines)-anal tical calculations

LevelI

LevelII

LevelIII

LevelIV

complexity, effort, level of detail

precisio

nofevaluation

Analytical procedures for the evaluation of thedesign resistance

NLFE analyses for the structural behavior prediction

The design resistance is obtained byapplying Safety Format Methods

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

[N/mm2]

[-]

Simple and continuous support

S1T1:10mmfeltP50-8mmplywood

S1T2:10mmfeltP50-8mmplyw ood

S4T1:15mmfeltN100-8mmplywood

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

[N/mm2]

[-]

Support 3

S1T1:5mmfelt P50

S1T2:5mmfelt P50

S4T1:5mmfelt P50

Felt and plywood

5000

600

650

600

650

1250

1250

Simple support

Continuoussupport

Dywidag bars(Support 3)

Lantsoght, E., 2012. Shear tests ofReinforced Concrete SlabsExperimental data of Undamaged Slabs06-01-2012. Technical Report, Stevinlaboratory, Delft University ofTechnology.

18 slabs tested 2500 x 5000 x 300 mm 3 chosen as cases studies: S1T1, S1T2, S4T1


100/259

S1T1

100

250

300

20/12010/240

10/240

10/240

20/12020/120

A-A

B-B

50

10/240 10/240

20/120

265300

20/120

20/120 10/240

265300

50

1 sheet 200 x 5 mm

felt P50

200 x 200 x10 mm

steel profile

P

3DYWIDAGBARS36300

600 2700 900 500

200 x 8 mmplywood

2 layers of 100 x 5 mmfelt P50

HEM 300

Bottom side

A-A B-B

5000

2500

200

200

F pre-stressed dywidag =3*15

kN

S1T2

100

250

300

20/12010/240

10/240

10/240

20/12020/120

A-A

B-B

50

10/240 10/240

20/120

265300

20/120

20/120 10/240

265300

50

P

3DYWIDAGBARS36300

2700 900 500600

1 sheet 200 x 5 mm

felt P50

200 x 200 x10 mm

steel profile

200 x 8 mmplywood

2 layers of 100 x 5 mmfelt P50

HEM 300

Bottom side

A-A B-B

5000

2500

200

200


kN


101/259

S4T1Bottom sideA-A B-B

5000

2500

300

300

250300

20/12010/125

10/24010/25010/25010/125

20/12010/12510/240 10/25010/25010/125

125

A-A

B-B

10/240 10/250

20/120

20/120

20/120 10/125

300

265

50

265300

50

P

3DYWIDAGBARS36300

600 2700 900 500

1 sheet 200 x 5 mm

felt P50

200 x 200 x10 mm

steel profile

200 x 8 mmplywood

3 layers of 100 x 5 mmfelt N100

HEM 300


kN

CRACK PATTERN AT FAILURE, FAILURE MODE AND ULTIMATELOAD

S1T1 S1T2 S4T1

Ec: 30910 Mpa

fc: 29.7 Mpa

ft: 2.8 MPa

Failure: one-way shearPu,exp : 954 kN

Ec: 30910 Mpa

fc: 29.7 Mpa

ft: 2.8 MPa


Ec: 34930 Mpa

fc: 42.9 Mpa

ft: 3.8 MPa



102/259

Analytical calculation

Numerical procedure

One-way shear

resistance

Model Code 2010Level I- II Approximation

Bending resistance Yield line method

Safety format methods for NLFEanalysesin order to reduce the peak load values toobtain the DESIGN SHEARRESISTANCE

Punching resistanceEurocode 2

Regans formulation

Critical Shear Crack Theory (Muttoni)

NLFE analyses Model Code 2010Level IV Approximation

Sensitivity study

-shell / brick model-parametric study on sensitiveparameters of the crack model

BEFORE STARTING WITH THE MODELLING IT IS IMPORTANT TO FEEL, THANK TO CIVIL

ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE, WHICH SHOULD BE THE STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR

RC slabs treated as beams without shear reinforcement with an effective widthbeff

45 4

5

1500

45

1288

1500

S1T1 S1T2 S4T1

Analytical calculation: One-way shear resistance

Level I and II Approximation provided by Model Code 2010

eff

c

ck

vc,Rd zbf

kV

=

-

+

+=

+=

zk1000

1300

15001

4.0k

z25.11000

180k

dgx

IILevel,v

ILevel,v

+= Ed

l

Ed

ss

x Vz

M

AE2

1

Design shearresistance

75.0

d16

32k

gdg

+=

Model Code 2010


103/259

Analytical calculation: Punching resistance

Eurocode 2 effRdcRdc duvV =

effd4b2a2u ++=

( ) 3/1ckc,RdRdc f100kCv =

cc,Rd /18.0C =

effd

2001k +=

tl =

Regan 2R1RR PPP +=

tt2

ll1

d5.1bd5.1u

d5.1ad5.1u

++=

++=

Eurocode 2a

b

1.5dl

1.5dt

Regan

1.5dt

1.5dl

4

lsl

d

500=

4

t

std

500=

3cklcl f10027.0v =

3cktct f10027.0v =

t1ctstl2clsl1R duv2duvP +=

l2clsl

v

l2R duv

a

d2P =

controlperimeter

Analytical calculation: Punching resistance

Critical Shear Crack Theory(CSCT)

dg

c

R

c

R

kd125.04.0

1

du

V

+=

=

Failure criterion

rotation of the slab chosen as controlparameter since the opening of the criticalshear crack reduces the strength of theinclined concrete compression strut thatcarries shear and eventually leads to thepunching shear failure

Muttoni A. (2008) Punching ShearStrength of Reinforced Concrete Slabswithout Transverse Reinforcement, ACIStructural Journal, V. 105, No. 4, 440-450.

S1T1

1. An linear elastic (LE) finite element analysis (mesh with shell elements) carried out to

determine the maximum shear force vmax,el and the control perimeter u;

2. a NLFE analysis (mesh with shell elements) carried out to determine the rotation ;

3. from the intersection between the results of NLFE analysis and the failure criterion the

failure load is determined.

MAIN STEPS FOLLOWED:


104/259

XZ

Analytical calculation: Punching resistanceCSCT

S1T1

1. Calculation of maximum shear force vmax,el and control perimeteru

2D finite element model

(Software used: DIANA)

m257.0ddd yx ==

m/N3.759257.02950v elmax, ==

m32.1

3.759

1000

v

Qu

elmax,

===

Principal shear stress

detected from LE analysis:

Control perimeter u:

Applied load in LE analysis

Analytical calculation: Punching resistance CSCTS1T1

2. Evaluation of rotation

-0.004

-0.002

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0 1 2 3 4 5

Rotatio

ny

Distance [m]

P = 500 kN

P=750 kN

P=1000 kN

Point1

Point2

Point 1 Point 2

Rotation = difference between the rotations of

the slab at two points: Point 1 and Point 2.

Point 1: located at the centroid of the applied

load.

Point 2: chosen so that the maximal relative

rotation is obtained .

NLFLE analysis

is not the same at each load step

Arbitarly chosen max at P=750 kN


105/259

Analytical calculation: Punching resistance CSCTS1T1

3. Determination of failure load

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 5 10 15 20

/c

d kdg

Failure criterion

NLFEA results

Failure load P= 793 kN

)63.12571320(/P

)f3.0du(/P/ cc

=

=

)kd125.04.0(/1/ dgcR +=

Pfailure=793 kN

NLFE analysis

Failure criterion

Analytical calculation: Bending resistance Yield line method

a b

c

c

a b

c

c

a b

c

c

xl xr

y

y

Collapse mechanism 1

y

y


xl xr


xr




==

++++= ++

1cve

yyyyxrxxrxxlxVi

PL

bm2am2c2mc2mc2mL

==

+++= +

2cve

yyyyxrxxrxVi

PL

bm2am2c2mc2mL

==

++= ++

3cve

xrxxrxxlxVi

PL

c2mc2mc2mL

Pc1=2198.22kN

Pc2=790.7 kN

Pc3=1970.5 kN

S1T1

Yield pattern of collapsemechanism 2 in agreement withexperimental crack patetrn

Different collapse mechanisms considered, according to the kinematic theorem of limit analysis


106/259

Analytical results

Ultimate load P values [kN]

Minimum load value detected analytically: one-way shear

Measured mechanicalproperties used in calculations

(c=1, s=1)

Some remarks: it has been assumed a direct correspondance between minimum strength

(analytically obtained) and actual failure mode.

Fpe

FpeFpe

uz

Software used: DIANA 9.4

MESH

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

CONVERGENCE

CRITERION:

displacement control

Newton Raphson based on

force (10-2) and energy (10-3)

Model with

brick elements


107/259

Software used: DIANA 9.4

MESH

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

CONVERGENCE

CRITERION:

displacement control

Newton Raphson based on

force (10-2) and energy (10-3)

Model with shell

elementsS1T1

4_NL

XYZ Fpe

Fpe

Fpe

( )( ) ( )( )

( )( ) ( )( )

nstt1ins

tt1i

211

1

211

211211

1

~

+

+

+

+

= ++++

Total strain crack models

Multi-axial stress state:

Reduction of fc due to lateral cracking-(Vecchio, F.J., Collins, M.P.: Compression response of

cracked reinforced concrete. Journal StructuralEngineering, 1993, 119, 3590^3610)

Constitutive laws

up

Rotating

Fixed

=

nssnns

s

snns

sns

snns

nsn

snns

n

G

EE

EE

D

00

011

011

=shear retention factor (variable)(linearly decreasing from 1 to 0 as a

function ofEand n

snns, =Poissons ratio

(variable)

GGns =

Gc=250Gf(Nakamura, H., Higai, T.,2001. CompressiveFracture Energy andFracture Zone Length ofConcrete. Modeling ofinelastic behaviour of RCstructures under seismicloads, P.Benson ShingTada-aki Tanabe (eds))

Gf=73fc0.18 (Model Code 2010)

For 3D modelling with brick elements total strain crack models implemented in standard software are

not powerful as in 2D modelling!


108/259

Nonlinear finite element analyses 2D modelS1T1

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 10 20 30 40

Load(kN)

deflection (mm)

Shell model

Experimental

Brick model

Yielding bottom f20

Yielding BOTF10T

Crushing of concrete

Punching (Regan)

One-way shear Model Code 2010 (Level II)

Yielding bottom 20 l

Punching (Eurocode 2)

Yield lineCSCT

S1T1

As expected the shellmodel is not able toproperly describe the shearfailure of the slab andsubstantiallyoverestimates thecapacity of the slab

(first) surfaceinonmodel set:.681E-2.518E-6

tsshown:edtonodes

.588E-

.8E-3

0

0. 5

1

1. 5

2

2. 5

3

0 0.0 0 0 5 0. 0 01 0 .0 0 1 5 0. 0 02 0 .0025

[N

/mm

2]

0

0 .5

1

1 .5

2

2 .5

3

0 0 .00 0 5 0.0 01 0 .0 0 1 5 0 .0 0 2 0 . 0 0 25

[

N/mm

2]

The other slabs (S1T2and S4T1) have been

analyzed only with 3Dmodels


0

400

800

1200

1600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Load[kN]

Deflection [mm]

ANALYSIS B

ANALYSIS C

ANALYSIS D

ANALYSIS E

ANALYSIS F

Experimental

S1T1

0

400

800

1200

1600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Load[kN]

Deflection [mm]

ANALYSIS B

ANALYSIS C

ANALYSIS D

ANALYSIS E

ANALYSIS F

Experimental

S1T2

0

400

800

1200

1600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Load[kN]

Deflection [mm]

ANALYSIS B

ANALYSIS C

ANALYSIS E

Experimental

ANALYSIS A

S4T1

Parametric study: combined the main sensitive parameters of the crack model

ANALYSIS B =analysis that better fit with experiments for all slabsChosen as reference for the application of safety format methods

Model with brick elements


109/259

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 .0 0 00 0 .0 0 05 0 .0 01 0 0 .0 0 15 0 .0 02 0

[N/mm2]

S4T1

0

400

800

1200

1600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Load[kN]

Deflection [mm]

ANALYSISB

Experimental

S4T1

Pmax=883 kN

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 0. 0005 0. 001 0. 0015 0. 002 0. 0025

[N/mm2]

S1T2

0

400

800

1200

1600

0 5 10 15 20 25

Load[kN]

Deflection[mm]

ANALYSISB

Experimental

S1T2 Pmax=1020 kN


ANALYSIS B: crack pattern at failure

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 0 .0 00 5 0 .0 01 0 .0 01 5 0 .0 02 0 .0 02 5

[N/mm

2]

One-way shear failure(as detected in

experiments)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 0 .0 00 5 0 .0 01 0 .0 01 5 0 .0 0 2 0 . 00 2 5

[N/mm2]

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 0 . 0 00 5 0 . 00 1 0 . 00 1 5 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 2 5

[N/mm

2]

S1T1

0

400

800

1200

1600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Load[kN]

Deflection [mm]

ANALYSISB

Experimental

S1T1

Pmax=907 kN

a b

c

c

a b

c

c

a b

c

c

xl xr

y

y


y

y


xl xr


xr

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 0 .0 00 5 0 .0 01 0 .0 01 5 0 .0 02 0 .0 02 5

[N/mm2]

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 0 . 00 0 5 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 1 5 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 2 5

[N/mm

2]

S1T1 Strain values in the 10 transversal bars atthe bottom of the slab at peak load

The failure load strongly depends on boundary condition modelling (e.g. interface elements

stiffness, etc.). For real cases it could be quite difficult to have these data.


110/259

Effective width beffused for the shear strength calculatiuon.

45 4

5

1500

45

1288

1500

S1T1 S1T2 S4T1

Effective width as a resul from NLFEA, as used in the analytical calculations and as

observed in the experiments

Overall results

Ultimate load P values [kN]

Minimum load value detected analytically: one-way shear

The failure mode detected analytically and from NLFE analyses is

consistent with the experimental failure mode

Measured mechanicalproperties used in calculations

(c=1, s=1)


111/259

Design shear resistance: Levels of Approximation Model Code 2010

Evaluated the DESIGN SHEAR RESISTANCE of the slabs applying the Levels ofApproximation:

GRF

PF

ECOV

Mean mechanical properties as input data in NLFEA

Design mechanical properties as input data in NLFEA

Mean mechanical properties +Characteristic mechanical properties

as input data in NLFEA

3 SAFETY FORMAT METHODS proposed by MC2010 to reduce the peakload obtained from NLFEA in order to determine the design shear resistance

Analytically: Level I-IIApproximation

Design mechanical properties used incalculations(c=1.5, s=1.15)

From NLFE analysis: Level IV Approximation

1. Partial Factor Method (PF)2. Global Resistance Factor Method (GRF)

3. Estimation of Coefficient of Variation Method (ECOV)

( ),...fRR dd =

( ) ( ) ( )

27.1

,...fR

06.12.1

,...fR,...fRR mm

RdR

md =

=

=

Peak load obtained from NLFEA

Peak load obtained from NLFEA

( ) ( )

RdR

md

kkmm

RR

;,...fRR,,...fRR

=

== ( )

( )

=

=

km

RRR

RRln65.1

18.38.0exp

Vexp

Peak loads obtained from NLFEA

Design shear resistance: Levels of Approximation: overall

results

Model Code

2010

LevelI Level II Level IV

PFLevelIV

GRFLevelIV

ECOVAnalysis B Exp

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pu/Pu,ex

p[%]

S1T1

Level I LevelII LevelIV

PF

Level IV

GRF

LevelIV

ECOVAnalysis B Exp

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pu/Pu,e

xp[%]

S1T2

LevelI Level II LevelIV

PF

LevelIV

GRFLevelIV

ECOVAnalysis B Exp

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pu/Pu

,exp[%]

S4T1

Level I- II Level IV (PF- GRF- ECOV) Analysis B (no safety format) Experimental (100%)

Pu/Pexp [%]

Good agreement with Model Code 2010 philosophy:

by increasing the Level of Approximation the design resistance

increases

From Level II to Level IV: Increase ranging from 69% to 87


112/259

Three slabs subjected to concentrated loads near supports have been analyzed.The carrying capacity of each slab has been determined with NLFE analyses and

with analytical procedures.

For all slabs the lowest resistance value calculated analytically is the one-way shear

resistance, in accordance to experimental test observations.

However, S1T1 and S1T2 also showed a fully developed flexural cracking pattern at

failure. For S1T1 the critical collapse mechanism calculated with the yield line

method is in agreement with the crack pattern observed in experimental test at

failure.

The results ofNLFEA strongly depend on the modeling choices made by the analyst,

especially with regards of relatively simple crack models.

The availability ofguidelines on how to properly perform NLFE analyses is of big help

for analysts.

The results obtained well fit with the philosophy of the Model Code 2010: by

increasing the approximation level the shear resistance of the slabs increases.

Once the finite element model is properly validated, the structural assessment carried out

with multiple approximation levels can be of benefit for intervention plans on existing

structures (e.g. maintenance, repair, demolition etc.)

The authors acknowledge the Dutch Ministry of

Transport, Public Works and Water Management

for supporting this research.


113/259

^ /EhD

DK>>/E'K&KE,s/KhZK&EdhZ>>zKZZKZ/E&KZDEd/E

KEZd^dZhdhZ>DDZ^E^

Dd

'

d'

^

K

>

d

d

d

E

&


114/259

^

d t

^

'

W

W>

^

^

^

ZE

D

,


115/259

^

d

^

d

/


116/259

^

d

^

d


117/259

^

/

Z^

^

d &&


118/259

^

^


119/259

^

& ^

d>dZh

^

d,

d

&YDD

/ d>/&

^

& DW

^ K

d

&

&/D D

^

W


120/259

^

DW

&/

&

,

DW DW 'W 'E

Z///

Z/s

Zs//

y//

y///

&/

^

DW

^


121/259

^

Z&

W

^

Z

&

W


122/259

^

D&

^

D

&


123/259

^

W

^

,

>

D


124/259

^

D

D

&


125/259

7KHXVHRI',$1$

IRUQRQOLQHDU)(DQDO\VLV

LQWKHDGYDQFHGFRQFUHWH

VWUXFWXUHVFRXUVHDW&KDOPHUV

Mario PlosDivision of Structural EngineeringChalmers University of Technolog

Sweden

1RQOLQHDU)($RIFRQFUHWHVWUXFWXUHV

FEM - Finite element method

PU

p, u

x

yxy

Long tradition at Chalmers Today: engineering practice


126/259


FEM - Finite element method Fracture mechanics and bond modelling

F

L

=f(w)

w

wwu

FsFs +dFsFs

tltn

FsFs +dFsFs

vidhftning

utdragsbrott

glidning


FEM - Finite element method Fracture mechanics and bond modelling Non-linear analysis of concrete structures


127/259


FEM - Finite element method Fracture mechanics and bond modelling Non-linear analysis of concrete structures Important part of our research methodology

0DVWHUSURJUDPPH

Structural Engineering and Building Technology


128/259

0DVWHUSURJUDPPH


From learning outcomes:

Understanding of structural behaviour

Ability to do structural idealisation and to chooseappropriate models

Ability to work methodically with modern tools

Structuralsystems

FEM basics* Timber

engg.

FEMstructures *

Geo-technics*

Structura

l

concrete

Structuraldesign *

Concrete

structures

Steel

structur

e

Structuraldynamics*

Building technologyand services engineering

Materialperformance

Heat, moistureengineering

Sustainable building- competition*

Sound &vibration*

Build. acoust &commun noice*

Buildingphysics

Indoor climateand HVAC

Masters Thesis

0DVWHUSURJUDPPH


FEM in education:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 50 100 150 200

q [kN/m]

[mm]

a

b

c

d e


129/259

7KHFRXUVH&RQFUHWH6WUXFWXUHV

Final course in master programme

Preparing for: Long-lasting career as practising Structural Engineer Master thesis and research career

Contents: Continuous beams and columns

Finite element analysis of concrete structures Restraint cracking and time-dependent deformations


Finite element analysis of concrete structures: Lectures and group exercises FEM project in DIANA


130/259


Learning outcome

Use of FEA in different stages(from conceptual design to assessment)

To choose suitable element types, BC:s and loading

Previous course: To design reinforcement from linear analysis Basic theory and experience in nonlinear analyses-Nonlinear concrete material, localisation-Modelling of reinforcement, how different choices affectthe results

-Understanding and interpretation of analysis results


Lectures and exercises

Concrete cracking and concrete modelingReinforcementconcrete interaction

Modeling on various levelsNon-linear FE analysisMaterial response in 3DFEA in practice

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

2b

2a

M[kNm]

[mm]


131/259

)(0SURMHFWLQ',$1$DQG);

qk

gk

z

z^

z&

&&

Reinforce-

mentM

M


Part 1 Analysis of continuous beam

Leaflet to followWell defined analysis

-Beam elements

-Embedded reinforcement-Total Strain Crack Modelwith rotating cracks

Focus on:-Understand what I do-Verification-Interpretation of results


132/259


Part 2 Group specific investigation

Independent workOpen problem-Find relevant information-Comprehend-Model and analysis ontheir own

Focus on:-Learn independently-Teach student colleagues-Learn from each other

Boundary conditions

Frame joints

Safety evaluation

Shrinkage

Prestress

Creep

Temperature effects

Slab modelling

Loading

Material models


Our experience

Using Diana and FX+ works in generalMore user-friendly pre- and postprocessor desirable

-improved integration: FX+, MeshEdit & Diana solver

Great preparation for master thesis!

The analysis of continuous beam:-Fits well within the course-Results hard to comprehend-Not full benefit of FE posibility-Continuum analysis would fitbetter in the MP progression


133/259


Discussion

How can we develop the project?How can we improve our education regarding FEA of concretestructures?

7KDQN\RX


134/259

&KDOOHQJH WKHIXWXUH

'HOIW8QLYHUVLW\ RI7HFKQRORJ\

)(0DQDO\VLVRIUHLQIRUFHGFRQFUHWHGHFNVZLWKFRPSUHVVLYHPHPEUDQHDFWLRQ

&RUYDQGHU9HHQ'HOIW8QLYHUVLW\ RI7HFKQRORJ\

*HUW-DQ%DNNHU:LWWHYHHQ%RV

Shear in reinforced concrete slabs

2YHUYLHZ

,QWURGXFWLRQ

3UREOHPGHILQLWLRQ

FRPSUHVVLYHPHPEUDQHDFWLRQ

2YHUYLHZRIILQLWHHOHPHQWPRGHOV )LQLWHHOHPHQWPRGHOVLQFOXGLQJFRPSUHVVLYHPHPEUDQHDFWLRQ

3UDFWLFDOH[DPSOH

&RQFOXVLRQVUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV


135/259


7UDIILFORDGLQJSDVWDQGSUHVHQW(&

Lane 1

F = 4 x 150 kN

Lane 2

F = 4 x 100 kN

Lane 3

F = 4 x 50 kN

Left over area

side view

top view configuration 1

Lane 1

q = 0,8 x 4 x DAF k N/m2F = 12 x 0,8 x 50 x DAF kN

Lane 3

Left over area


LOAD MODEL ACCORDING TO VOSB 1963 LOAD MODEL ACC ORDING TO NEN-EN 1991-2

Lane 1

q = 4 x DAF kN/m2

Lane 2

q = 4 x DAF kN/m2F = 12 x 50 x DAF kN

Lane 3

Left over area

side view


Lane 2

q = 0,8 x 4 x DAF k N/m2F = 12 x 0,8 x 50 x DAF kN

q = 0,8 x 4 x DAF k N/m2

q = 0,8 x 4 x DAF k N/m2

q = 4 x DAF kN/m2

q = 4 x DAF kN/m2

DAF stands for

Dynamic Amplication Factorsquare 400 x 400 mm


for local failure mode

2m

2m

0,5m

0,5m 0,

5m

1 m 4 m

rectangle 320 x 250 mm

1,2 m

q = 1 9 kN/m2

q = 2 2,5 kN/m2

q = 2 2,5 kN/m2

q = 2 2,5 kN/m2

rectangle 350 x 600 mm

2 = 1,0 for less then 3 lanes2 = 1,4 for 3 or more lanes

F = 2 x 200 kN

1 = 1,0 for less then 3 lanes1 = 1,15 for 3 or more lanes


%ULGJH'HFNWKLFNQHVVSDVWDQGSUHVHQW

10-150

12-150

1200

160

build in the 70's

12001200

top layer

compression layer

formwork

edge beam

in-situ concrete

1 2 - 1 5 0

1 6 - 1 0 0

1 2 0 0

230

n e w t o b u i ld b r i d g e s


136/259


&RPSUHVVLYH PHPEUDQH DFWLRQ &0$

DOORZHG LQ5(,1)25&(''HFNV&DQDGLDQ+LJKZD\ %ULGJH'HVLJQ&RGH

8.+LJKZD\ $JHQF\ 6WDQGDUG%'

1HZ=HDODQG

tensile membrane

actionaction

compressive membrane

bending action

central deflection

applie

dloa

ding

VWUHQJWK LQFUHDVH E\ FRPSUHVVLYHPHPEUDQH DFWLRQ


3DUWO\KRUL]RQWDOUHVWUDLQHGPRGHO

3DUWO\ UHVWUDLQHG HIIHFWUHLQIRUFHG WUDQVYHUVH

EHDPV

1RUHVWUDLQ IUHH

)XOO\ UHVWUDLQHG HIIHFWWUDQVYHUVHSUHVWUHVVLQJ

DQGEHDPV

12 L

12 L

k k

k = 0

elongation of the slab

k = infinite


137/259


9DULDWLRQRI3XQFKLQJORDGZLWKUHLQIRUFHPHQWUDWLR

VFDOH%DWFKHORU HWDO


2YHUYLHZRIILQLWHHOHPHQWPRGHOV

/LQHDUHODVWLFEHKDYLRU

&RPSDULVRQPRGHOV

1RQOLQHDUEHKDYLRU

7KHPRGHOPXVWEHDQRQOLQHDUPRGHO

&UDFNLQJRIWKHFRQFUHWHLVLPSRUWDQW

3ODVWLFLW\RIVWHHODQGFRQFUHWH

6RIWHQLQJFRQFUHWH


138/259


'EHDPPRGHO/%(1

L

X

Y

flexural reinforcementdistributed loadshear reinforcement (if needed)

0,5h-d'

L7BEN beam elements


'SODQHVWUHVVPRGHO&40

0,5L

symmetryaxes

flexural reinforment

shear reinforcment (if needed)distributed load

X

Y

CQ16M plane stresselements


139/259


'FXUYHGVKHOOPRGHO&46

Y

X

Z

0,5L

0,5b

0,5h-d'

shear reinforcement (if needed)

flexural reinforcement

distibuted load

symmetryaxes

symme

tryaxe

s

CQ40S curved shell elements


'VROLGVPRGHO&+;

symmetry

axis

symmetry

axis

Y

X

Z

CHX60 solid elements

flexural reinforcement

distibuted load

shear reinforcement (if needed)

0,5L

0,5bhd


140/259


$[L V\PPHWULFPRGHO&4$

y

x z

2D slice modeled in DIANA

loaded area

concrete slab

reinforcement grid

axi-symmetric model

loadingreinforcement gridc

entreoftheplate

CQ16Aelements

support


&RPSDULVRQRIWKHPRGHOV

inp ut graphical ou tpu t real ist ic mode l p un ch b eh av iour calculat io n time

2D beam model ++ -- + irrelevant ++

2D plane stress model + + + irrelevant +

3D curved shell model o - + -- o

3D solids model - ++ ++ o --

axi-symmetric model+ + -* ++ +

* : rectangular slabs cannot be modelled with this model

)RUEHQGLQJIDLOXUHWKH'SODQHVWUHVVPRGHOLVWKHEHVW

RSWLRQ

)RUDFRPELQDWLRQRISXQFKLQJVKHDUDQGEHQGLQJIDLOXUHWKH

D[L V\PPHWULFPRGHOLVWKHEHVWRSWLRQ


141/259


0DWHULDOSURSHUWLHV

7RWDOVWUDLQURWDWLQJFUDFNPRGHO

%ULWWOHDQG+RUGLMN 7HQVLRQVRIWHQLQJ

,GHDOSODVWLFLQFRPSUHVVLRQ

,GHDOSODVWLFIRUUHLQIRUFHPHQW


%HQGLQJIDLOXUHLQFOXGLQJ&0$

)(0RGHO

0,5L

symmetryaxis

flexural reinforment

shear reinforcment (if needed)distributed load

CQ16M plane stresselements

y


142/259


5HVXOWV)(PRGHOIOH[XUDOIDLOXUHZLWK&0$

5HVXOWVDIIHFWHGE\VRIWHQLQJFKRLFH


5HVXOWV)(PRGHOIOH[XUDOIDLOXUHZLWK&0$

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4

central deflection in mm

loadin

kN/m

Finite element model

Park's ultimate load

Analytical ultimate

load

,QFUHDVHRIFRPSUHVVLYH]RQH


143/259


:KHHOORDGRQFRQFUHWHGHFN


$[L V\PPHWULFPRGHOGLIIHUHQWVRIWHQLQJ

DQR&0$

E&0$UHVWUDLQHG


144/259


$[L V\PPHWULFPRGHOSXQFKLQJVKHDU

/2$'

GHIOHFWLRQ

&ODPSHGUHVWUDLQHGPRGHO

%ULWWOHEHKDYLRXUIRUFHFRQWUROOHG


3UHGLFWLRQV$[L V\PPHWULFPRGHO

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4

central deflection in mm

loadinkN

finite element model

punch capacity according

to the Dutch code

predicted punch failure


145/259


(QKDQFHPHQWUDWLR&0$ZLWKRXW&0$

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4

re i n forc e me nt ra t i o i n %finite element model

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

fc u i n N / mm2 finite element model

5HLQIRUFHPHQWUDWLR&RQFUHWHFRPSUHVVLYHVWUHQJWK03D


(IIHFWERXQGDU\FRQGLWLRQUHVWUDLQHGIDFWRU

cen

treo

fthep

late

loading

nodes are tyed to have the same displacement in x-directionsprings to set the grade of lateral restrainedness

reinforcement grids


146/259


(IIHFWUHVWUDLQHGIDFWRURQXOWLPDWHORDG

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0,0

E+00

5,0

E+05

1,0

E+06

1,5

E+06

2,0

E+06

2,5

E+06

3,0

E+06

3,5

E+06

4,0

E+06

4,5

E+06

5,0

E+06

spring stiffness in N/mm

ultimateloadinkN/m

total horizontal restrained

Finite lement model

total horizontal restrained

analytic solution

tth


3UDFWLFDOH[DPSOH

160

10 - 15012 - 150

117

1200

fcu = 55 N/mm2fs = 350 N/mm2d = 117 mm

600

loaded area 600 x 350


147/259


7UDGLWLRQDOFDOFXODWLRQQR&0$

%HQGLQJ N1

3XQFKLQJVKHDUIDLOXUH N1

7KHZKHHOORDGFDSDFLW\SUHVFULEHGE\WKH'XWFK

FRGHLV[N1

7KHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWLVQRWPHW


&0$LQFOXGHG

%HQGLQJ N1

)LQLWHHOHPHQWPRGHO N1

3XQFKLQJVKHDUIDLOXUH N1

1RWHSXQFKLQJVKHDULVQRUPDOO\DOZD\VJRYHUQLQJEXWORDGHGDUHDLVUHODWLYHO\ODUJHFRPSDUHGWRVSDQ


148/259


&RQFOXVLRQV ,IDFODPSHGFRQFUHWHVODELVODWHUDOUHVWUDLQHGFRPSUHVVLYHPHPEUDQH

DFWLRQHQKDQFHVWKHEHDULQJFDSDFLW\

$QRQOLQHDUILQLWHHOHPHQWPRGHOFDQSUHGLFWWKHEHDULQJFDSDFLW\

LQFOXGLQJFRPSUHVVLYHPHPEUDQHDFWLRQ

3DUWO\KRUL]RQWDOUHVWUDLQHGVWUXFWXUHVFDQDOVREHPRGHOHGE\DGMXVWLQJ

WKHERXQGDU\FRQGLWLRQV

8VLQJILQLWHHOHPHQWPRGHOVLWFDQEHVKRZQWKDWWKHGHFNVRI=,3JLUGHU

EULGJHVFRPPRQO\IRXQGLQWKH1HWKHUODQGVFDQZLWKVWDQGWKHZKHHO

ORDGVSUHVFULEHGE\WKHODWHVW(XURFRGHV

&KRLFHRIWKHVRIWHQLQJFXUYHJUHDWO\DIIHFWWKHXOWLPDWHORDGFDOLEUDWLRQ

RISDUDPHWHUVQHFHVVDU\



149/259

Non-linear finite element analysis of steel

fibre reinforced concrete in combination

with conventional reinforcement

David Fall and Karin Lundgren


DIANA Users Meeting 2013 1/27

Modeling of SFRC-beams

Four point bending:

6


150/259

ModelingofSFRC-beams

Fourpointbending:

6


151/259


Twodimensionalplain-stressmodel

Deformationcontrolledphasedanalysis

Reinforcementrepresentedbytrusselements

Interfaceelements

Smearedcrackapproach

Rotatingcracks

ModelingofSFRC-beamsDIANAUsersMeeting20134/27


ModelingofSFRC-beamsDIANAUsersMeeting20135/27


152/259

Materialinput

Concreteintension

012345Crackwidth,w[mm]

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Stress[MPa]

Vf=0.50%

Vf=0.25%

Vf=0%

Reinforcement

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18Straini[-]

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Stressis

[MPa]

6

8

MaterialinputDIANAUsersMeeting20136/27

Materialinput

Bondstressvs.slip

sys4s3 36912Slip[mm]

f,pl

f

y

0

4

8

12

16

20

Bondstress[MPa]

Originalmodel

Engstrom



153/259

Materialinput

Prioryielding:

OriginalModified

Vf=0.50%,applieddeformation2.7mm(prioryield.)


Materialinput

Prioryielding:

OriginalModified

Afteryielding:

Vf=0.50%,applieddeformation2.7mm(prioryield.)and14mm(afteryield.)



154/259

Results:Generalbehavior

0510152025Deflection[mm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Load[kN]

Experiment

FE

MC2010

Vf=0%

0510152025Deflection[mm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Load[kN]

Experiment

FE

MC2010

Vf=0.50%

Load-deflection(mid-span)

ResultsDIANAUsersMeeting20139/27

Results:Vf=0.25%



155/259

Results:Vf=0.25%


Results:Vf=0.25%



156/259

Results:Vf=0.25%


Results:Vf=0.25%



157/259

Results:Vf=0.25%


Results:Vf=0.25%



158/259

Results:Vf=0.25%


Results:Vf=0.25%



159/259

Results:Vf=0.25%


Results:Vf=0.25%



160/259

Conclusions

TheeffectofSFRC,seeninexperiments,canbeestimatedwithFE-analysis.

ConclusionsDIANAUsersMeeting201321/27

Conclusions


CrackpatternsagreewhencomparingexperimentsandFE-analyses.



161/259

Conclusions



Utilizingabond-stressmodelwherethebondstressisreducedpostyielding,resultedinmorelocalizedcrackpatterns.


Conclusions



Utilizingabond-stressmodelwherethebondstressisreducedpostyielding,resultedinmorelocalizedcrackpatterns.

MC2010underestimatesthebeneficialeffectsfromsteelfibresforthesebeams.Theunderestimationincreaseswithincreasedfibre content.



162/259

Furtherwork

FurtherworkDIANAUsersMeeting201322/27

Furtherwork

Spanlength,l=2.2m.Thickness,t=80mm.Deflectionmeasuredin28

pointsontopsurfaceStraingaugesatsupportsfor

measuringreactionforcesUnsymmetricreinforcement



163/259

Furtherwork

Spanlength,l=2.2m.Thickness,t=80mm.Deflectionmeasuredin28

pointsontopsurfaceStraingaugesatsupportsfor

measuringreactionforcesUnsymmetricreinforcement

#ReinforcementbarsSteelfibresTextile

TypeCR36--TypeCFR360.5%-TypeFR3-0.5%-TypeBTRC3--BasaltTypeGTRC3--AR-Glass


Furtherwork



164/259

Furtherwork

050100150

0

20

40

60

80

100

Deflection[mm]

Load

[kN]

Conv.+SFRCConv.SFRC


Furtherwork

050100150

0

20

40

60

80

100

Deflection[mm]

Load

[kN]

Conv.+SFRCConv.SFRC



165/259

Furtherwork:Materialtesting

Compressivetest

RILEM-beams

Uniaxialtensiontest

Tensiontestofreinforcementbars


Furtherwork:Modelling

Pre-testmodelsJiangpengShuandKamyabZandi

Detailednon-linearsolidmodellingJiangpengShu

ModellingoftextilereinforcedconcreteNatalieWilliamsPortalandKamyabZandi

Non-linearshellmodellingMasterThesis

PractitionersapproachMasterThesis

ModellingofRILEM-beamsDavidFall



166/259

Projectpartners

[email protected]

ProjectpartnersDIANAUsersMeeting201327/27


167/259

d

1

Structural appraisal existing box girders

8th International DIANA Users Meeting, Gothenburg, April 25-26, 2013 Henco Burggraaf,TNO, The Netherlands

Contents

Introduction

Linear 2.5D analysis

Linear 3D analysis

Non-linear 3D analysis

Conclusions

HencoBurggraaf Existing box girders

2


168/259

d

Introduction

2007: recognition of risk that concrete structures, designed before

1974, may have insufficient shear capacity

Dutch building codes:

VB 74: reduction of shear strength due to higher steel qualities

VBC 1990 + VBC 1995: further reduction of shear strength

Lack of shear capacity may give a brittle failure mechanism, without

warning


3

Introduction

Bridges in the Netherlands


4


169/259

d

Introduction

Assessment of each concrete structure would require too much time

How can the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment

guarantee the structural safety of their concrete structures?


5

Approach

Corporation between Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and

Environment, TU Delft, TNO and engineering companies

Risk controlled and phased approach

Quick Scans and qualitative classification

Advanced analyses

Fundamental approach

Looking for evidence of hidden reserves

Research outside the codes and on the edges of available knowledge


6


170/259

gothenburg diana users meeting april 25-26 2013 final-1

Documents