FEA

© All Rights Reserved

56 vues

FEA

© All Rights Reserved

- Carbon reinforced Mg-Al alloys
- ST7006-Design of Bridges.pdf
- CE6702-Prestressed Concrete Structures_2013_regulation.pdf
- 2009_AVinh
- FRP Applicationl
- Load Sustained Rig for Bond Durability Study
- 3EL_en_2011
- Articol - 01_550_carozzi, Colombi Et Al_the Use of Gfrp Grids for Structural
- Composites Brochure
- composite.pdf
- FRPConfinedCircularolumnsUnderSmallEccentricLoading Ghali Kassen Fawzy
- Beam Fabrication
- DiamondWrapHP Info Sheet 2011 03
- PerformanceBasedAnalysis-US.pdf
- A Review of the Repair of Reinforced Concrete Beams
- Comparison of the Interfacial Bond Strength Behaviour using Shear Key
- Eqs
- Formglas FRP Specification v Sept 2011
- IB Paper8 Materials-08a DDS Student
- Mode I Fracture of Epoxy Bonded Composit

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 105

A PROJECT REPORT

on

CONCRETE BEAM USING FRP TENDON

Submitted By

1011020021

of

In

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

1.3.1

General

1.3.2

Ansys

1.3.2.1

Concrete

1.3.2.2

Steel Beam

1.3.2.3

Reinforcement

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

2.3

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

51.

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

I. High ratio of strength to mass density (10 to 15 times greater than steel)

II. Carbon and Aramid fibre reinforcements have excellent fatigue characteristics(as

much as three times higher than steel) However, the fatigue strength ofglass FRP

reinforcement may be significantly below steel's

III. Excellent corrosion resistance and electromagnetic neutrality

IV. Low axial coefficient of thermal expansion, especially for carbon fibre reinforced

composite materials.

I. High cost (5 to 50 times more than steel)

II. Low modulus of elasticity (for Aramid and glass FRP)

III. Low ultimate failure strain

IV. High ratio of axial to lateral strength causing concern for anchorages when using

FRP reinforcement for prestressing

V. Long

term

strength

can

be lower

than

the short-term

strength

for

VI. Susceptibility of FRP to damage by ultra-violet radiation

VII. Aramid fibres can deteriorate due to water absorption

VIII. High transverse thermal expansion coefficient in comparison to concrete

Plastic (CFRP) , Aramid Fibre Reinforced Plastic (AFRP), and Glass Fibre Reinforced

Plastic (GFRP), are compared to steel.

3|Page

1.2.1 Glass:

Two types of glass fibres are commonly used in the construction industry, namelyglass and S-glass. E-glass type is the most widely used GFRP due to its lower cost

as compared to S-glass type, however S-glass has a higher tensile strength. Fresh

drawn glass fibres exhibit a tensile strength in the order of 3450 Mpa, but surface flaws

produced by abrasion tend to reduce the strength to 1700 Mpa. This strength is

furthered graded under fatigue loading due to the growth of flaws and also degrades in

the presence of water. Commercially GFRP prestressing tendons and rods are available

underthe brand names of Isopod by Pulpal Inc. (Canada), IMCa by Imia Reinforced

PlasticsInc. (USA), Jute by Cousin Frere (France), Kodiak by IGI International Grating

(USA),Plalloy by Asahi Glass Matrex (Japan), Polystal by Bayer AG and StragBauAG(Germany), and C-bar by Marshell Ind. (USA).

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).

Carbon

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

1.3.1 General :

There are many software which is use for analysis but Ansys gives more accurate

results compared to other software.

1.3.2 Ansys:

The ANSYS computer program is utilized for analyzing structural components

encountered throughout the current study. Finite element representation and corresponding

elements designation in ANSYS used in this study are discussed:-

The finite element idealization of concrete should be able to represent the concrete

cracking, crushing, the interaction between concrete and reinforcement and the capability

of concrete to transfer shear after cracking by aggregate interlock. In order to investigate

the failure in concrete for prestressed composite steel-concrete beams, three dimensional

elements are to be used.

In the current study, three-dimensional brick element with 8 nodes is used to model

the concrete (SOLID65 in ANSYS). The element is defined by eight nodes having three

degrees of freedom at each node: translations of the nodes in x, y, and z-directions. The

geometry, node locations, and the coordinate system for this element are shown in Figure

1.

6|Page

To represent the steel beam in finite element, 4-node shell element is needed

with three translations in x, y and z in each node to achieve the compatibility condition

with translation in x, y and z in adjacent brick element to it. For this purpose, threedimensional 4-node shell element, which is represented as (SHELL43 in ANSYS) is used,

regardless of the rotations in each nodes. The element has plasticity, creep, stress

stiffening, large deflection, and large strain capabilities. The geometry, node locations,

and the coordinate system for this element are shown in Figure 2.

1.3.2.3Finite element model of reinforcement

To model steel reinforcement in finite element. Three techniques exist these are

discrete, embedded, and smeared. The discrete model (LINK8) is used in this study. The

LINK8 is a spar (or truss) element. This element can be used to model trusses, sagging

cables, links, springs, etc. The 3-D spar element is a uniaxial tension-compression

element with three degrees of freedom at each node: translations of the nodes in

x, y, and z-directions. No bending of the element is considered. The geometry, node

locations, and the coordinate system for this element are shown in Figure 3.

7|Page

1.3.2.4Finite element model of external prestressed tendon

In the present study the prestressing stress was taken as the initial value and

equal to the effective stress .It appears in the analysis as initial strain in link element.

Link8 is used to represent the external cable. Since the cable is located outside the steel

section and the prestressing force is transferred to composite beam through end anchorages

and stiffeners, the cable is connected to beam only at the anchorage or stiffeners.

Steel plates are added at the loading location to avoid stress concentration

problems. This provides a more even stress distribution over the load area. The solid

element (SOLID45 in program) was used for the steel plates. The element is used for the

3-D modelling of solid structures. The element is defined by eight nodes having three

degrees of freedom at each node translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions as shown

in Figure (4).

8|Page

A three-dimensional nonlinear surface-to-surface contact-pair element (CONTA173& TARGE170) was used to model the nonlinear behaviour of the

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).

A nonlinear spring element (COMBIN39 in ANSYS) and (Link8) are used to

represent the shear connectors behaviour. COMBIN39 is used to resist the normal

force between the concrete and steel beam while Link8 works as stirrups in resisting

the vertical shear at concrete layer.

COMBIN39 is a unidirectional element (or nonlinear spring) with nonlinear

generalized force-deflection capability that can be used in any analysis.

The element has longitudinal or torsional capability in 1-D, 2-D,

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.

by Amr a. abdelrahman

Use of carbon fibre reinforced plastic, CFRP, as prestressing reinforcement

for Concrete structures, has increased rapidly for the last ten years. The non-corrosive

Characteristics, high strength-to-weight ratio and good fatigue properties of CFRP

Reinforcement significantly increase the service life of structures. However, the high cost

and low ductility of CFRP reinforcement due to its limited strain at failure are problems yet

to be solved for widespread use of this new material. Use of partially prestressed concrete

members has the advantages of reducing cost and improving deform ability.

CFRP reinforcement should be investigated.An experimental program undertaken at the

University of Manitoba to study the serviceability of concrete beams prestressed by CFRP

reinforcements is reported. Testsare described of eight concrete beams prestressed by

Leadline CFRP bars, produced by Mitsubishi Kasei, Japan, and two beams prestressed by

conventional steel strands. The beams are 6.2 meters long and 330 mm in depth. The

various parameters considered are the prestressing ratio, degree of prestressing, and

distribution of CFRP rods in the tension zone. The thesis examines the various limit states

and flexural behavior of concrete beams prestressed by CFRP bars, including different

modes of failure. The behavior of beams prestressed by CFRP bars is compared to similar

beams prestressed by conventional steel strands.

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

SOLID65 is used for the 3-D modeling of solids with or without reinforcing

bars (rebar). The solid is capable of cracking in tension and crushing in compression. In

concrete applications, for example, the solid capability of the element may be used to

model the concrete while the rebar capability is available for modeling reinforcement

14 | P a g e

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 is a spar which may be used in a variety of engineering applications. This

element can be used to model trusses, sagging cables, links, springs, etc. The 3-D spar

element is a uniaxial tension-compression element with three degrees of freedom at each

node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. As in a pin-jointed structure, no

bending of the element is considered. Plasticity, creep, swelling, stress stiffening, and large

deflection capabilities are included. See LINK8 in the ANSYS, Inc. Theory Reference for

more details about this element. See LINK10 for a tension-only/compression-only element.

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

24 | P a g e

25 | P a g e

3.2.3Meshing

26 | P a g e

The command merge items merges separate entities that have the same

location. These items will then be merged into single entities. Caution must be taken when

merging entities in a model that has already been meshed because the order in which

merging occurs is significant. Merging keypoints before nodes can result in some of the

nodes becoming orphaned that is, the nodes lose their association with the solid model.

The orphaned nodes can cause certain operations (such as boundary condition transfers,

surface load transfers, and so on) to fail. Care must be taken to always merge in the order

that the entities appear. All precautions were taken to ensure that everything was merged

in the proper order. Also, the lowest number was retained during merging.

Commands Used

NUMMRG,NODE To merge all nodes

NUMMRG,KP To merge all keypoints

27 | P a g e

Displacement boundary conditions are needed to constrain the model to get a unique

solution. To ensure that the model acts the same way as the experimental beam, boundary

conditions need to be applied at points of symmetry, and where the supports and loadings

exist. The symmetry boundary conditions were set first.

Solution

Define Loads

Apply

Structural

Displacement

On Lines

(Pick lines) & OK

(Lab2) All

constrained)

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

Solution

Analysis Type

Static & OK

3.2.7 Load Step Method

Step 1

(Go To Main Menu)

Solution

Solution Controls

Basic Enter the values as shown below.

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

35 | P a g e

36 | P a g e

37 | P a g e

SNO.

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

Spacing between tendons: - 25mm

Total Span length

:- 6200mm

Table 1.6- Material Type

Material Type

ANSYS Element

Concrete

Solid 65

Solid 45

Reinforcement

Link 8

The element types for this model are shown in Table 1.6. 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

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

The values of Material Properties is shown in Table 1.8

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

44 | P a g e

3.3.4 Modelling

45 | P a g e

3.3.5 Meshing

46 | P a g e

The command merge items merges separate entities that have the same

location. These items will then be merged into single entities. Caution must be taken when

merging entities in a model that has already been meshed because the order in which

merging occurs is significant. Merging keypoints before nodes can result in some of the

nodes becoming orphaned; that is, the nodes lose their association with the solid model.

The orphaned nodes can cause certain operations (such as boundary condition transfers,

surface load transfers, and so on) to fail. Care must be taken to always merge in the order

that the entities appear. All precautions were taken to ensure that everything was merged

in the proper order. Also, the lowest number was retained during merging.

Commands Used

NUMMRG,NODE To merge all nodes

NUMMRG,KP To merge all key points

47 | P a g e

Displacement boundary conditions are needed to constrain the model to get a unique

solution. To ensure that the model acts the same way as the experimental beam, boundary

conditions need to be applied at points of symmetry, and where the supports and loadings

exist. The symmetry boundary conditions were set first.

Solution

Define Loads

Apply

Structural

Displacement

On Lines

(Pick lines) & OK

(Lab2) All

constrained)

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

Solution

Analysis Type

Static & OK

3.3.9. Load Step Method

Step 1

(Go To Main Menu)

Solution

Solution Controls

Basic Enter the values as shown below.

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

55 | 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

Beam Dimensions:

Spacing between tendons: - 25mm

Total Span length

:- 6200mm

59 | P a g e

Table 1.10- Material Type

Material Type

ANSYS Element

Concrete

Solid 65

Solid 45

Reinforcement

Link 8

The element types for this model are shown in Table 1.10. 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

Three material models were given:

61 | P a g e

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

3.4.5Meshing

66 | P a g e

The command merge items merges separate entities that have the same

location. These items will then be merged into single entities. Caution must be taken when

merging entities in a model that has already been meshed because the order in which

merging occurs is significant. Merging keypoints before nodes can result in some of the

nodes becoming orphaned; that is, the nodes lose their association with the solid model.

The orphaned nodes can cause certain operations (such as boundary condition transfers,

surface load transfers, and so on) to fail. Care must be taken to always merge in the order

that the entities appear. All precautions were taken to ensure that everything was merged

in the proper order. Also, the lowest number was retained during merging.

Commands Used

NUMMRG,NODE To merge all nodes

NUMMRG,KP To merge all keypoints

67 | P a g e

Displacement boundary conditions are needed to constrain the model to get a unique

solution. To ensure that the model acts the same way as the experimental beam, boundary

conditions need to be applied at points of symmetry, and where the supports and loadings

exist. The symmetry boundary conditions were set first.

Solution

Define Loads

Apply

Structural

Displacement

On Lines

(Pick lines) & OK

(Lab2) All

constrained)

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

Solution

Analysis Type

Static & OK

3.4.9 Load Step Method

Step 1

(Go To Main Menu)

Solution

Solution Controls

Basic Enter the values as shown below.

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

The beams were tested using two quasi-static monotonic concentrated loads, 1.0 m

apart. The load was applied under stroke control with a rate of 1.0 mm/min up to the

cracking load and thereafter at a rate of 2.0 mm/min up to failure. The load was cycled

three times between an upper load level of 60 percent of the predicted strength of the

beams, which is equivalent to 1.5 to 2 times the cracking load, depending on the

prestressing level, and a lower load level of 80 percent of the cracking load of the beam.

The second and the third cycles were applied using the same rate of loading as in the initial

cycle. The aim of the repeated loading at the service load limit was to study the deflection,

after loss of beam stiffness due to cracking and the cracking behaviour after stabilization

of cracks.

Table 1.14 Test Program

82 | P a g e

83 | P a g e

84 | P a g e

Beam R-2-.5: was prestressed with the same' force and the same location of bars as

beam T-2-.5. The camber of the beam was 7 mm 36 days after casting. The beam cracked

at 12.7 KN and failed at 56.8 kN. Five cracks were observed in the constant moment zone,

as shown in Fig. 6-9; four of them occurred at load levels ranging between 12.7 and 15.9

KN, while the fifth crack occurred at 23.4 kN with a loud noise.

The load was cycled three times between 10.0 and 24.0 kN. Again the beam failed

by rupture of the bottom Leadline bar, accompanied by flexure and flexure-shear cracks

extending to the top flange of the beam. The load dropped to 22.0 KN and the beam carried

more load until the test was stopped. The deflection at failure was 164.6 mm, or 1135 of

the beam span.

Beam R-4-.5-V: had a 200-mm flange width and was prestressed by four Leadline

bars jacked to 50 percent of the guaranteed strength and located as in beam T-4-.5-V. The

camber of beam R-4-.5-V was measured prior to testing, 40 days after casting, and was

found to be 10.0 mm. The beam had a cracking load of 23.1 kN and five cracks occurred

between 23.4 kN and 30.0 kN,

The beam was cycled between lower and upper load levels of 20.0 and 45.0 kN.

The beam failed by rupture of the bottom Leadline bar at a load level of 90.2 kN

accompanied by a horizontal crack at about 50 mm from the bottom surface of the beam.

The load dropped to 50.9 leN. The beam carried more load until crushing of the concrete

at the top surface of the beam between the two concentrated loads occurred at a load level

of 53.7 kN.

The deflectionof the beam was 186.2 mm, or 1/31 of the beam span. This deflection

was the largest observed deflection compared to that of the other beams prestressed by

Leadline and jacked to 50 percent of the guaranteed ultimate strength. This is attributed to

the type of failure where both the concrete and the Leadline were strained to the full

capacity.

85 | 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.

Modelantonio F. Barbosa And Gabriel O. Ribeiro federal University Of Minas

Geraisdepartment Of Structural Engineering avenida Do Contorno, 842 2o

Andar30110-060 Belo Horizonte - Mg Brazil

2.

3.

Reinforced Concrete Members Maria Antonietta Aiello And Luciano Ombres,

University Of Lecce, Lecce, Italy

4.

Beamsbynolan G. Domenico

Tendons Externally Byle Huangphd Studentschool Of Civil Engineering wuhan

University china

6. Deflection Of Frp Reinforced Concrete Beamsraed Al-Sunna1,2, Kypros

Pilakoutas2, Peter Waldron2 And Tareqal-Hadeed building Research Centre, Royal

Scientific Society, Amman, Jordan.Centre for Cement and Concrete, Department of

Civil and Structural Engineering,University Of Sheffield, United Kingdom.

7.

Reinforcements Dorian P. Tung And T. Ivan Campbell department Of Civil

Engineering, Queen.S University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

8.

Pretensioned With Aramid fiber Reinforced Plastics by Janet M. Lees And Chris J.

Burgoyne

9.

Valsson Varghese

(Elastic Analysis) Byr. Srinivasan And K. Sathiya

90 | P a g e

Prestressing Amer M. Ibrahim1, Saad K. Mohaisen2, Qusay W. Ahmed3

1- Professor, College Of Engineering, Diyala University, Iraq

2- Dr.College Of Engineering, Al-Mustansiriya University, Iraq

3- Structure Engineering Diyala University, Iraq

12. Finite Element Analysis Of An Intentionally Damaged Prestressed Reinforced

Concrete Beam Repaired With Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers by David A.

Brighton submitted To The Graduate Faculty As Partial Fulfilment Of The

Requirements For The Masters Of Science Degree In Civil Engineering

13. Flexural Behaviour Of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Beamsusing Finite

Element Analysis by Anthony J. Wolanski, B.S.

14. Modelling And Behaviour Of Prestressed Concrete Spandrel beamsa Dissertation

submitted To The Faculty Of The Graduate School of The University Of Minnesota

by bulentmercan

15. Nonlinear Analysis Of Rc Beam For Different Shear Reinforcement Patterns By

Finite Element Analysissaifullah, M.A. Hossain, S.M.K.Uddin, M.R.A. Khan And

M.A. Amin

16. Prestressed Concrete Structures Dr. A. K. Senguptadepartment Of Civil

EngineeringIndian Institute Of Technology, Madras

91 | P a g e

- Carbon reinforced Mg-Al alloysTransféré parRichard Sapienza
- ST7006-Design of Bridges.pdfTransféré parmiesty
- CE6702-Prestressed Concrete Structures_2013_regulation.pdfTransféré parShibin Varghese
- 2009_AVinhTransféré parMohamed Omar
- FRP ApplicationlTransféré parMoniruzzaman Moni
- Load Sustained Rig for Bond Durability StudyTransféré paristt
- 3EL_en_2011Transféré parJhon Castro
- Articol - 01_550_carozzi, Colombi Et Al_the Use of Gfrp Grids for StructuralTransféré parbigggred
- Composites BrochureTransféré parEbenezer Samson
- composite.pdfTransféré parKameswara Reddy
- FRPConfinedCircularolumnsUnderSmallEccentricLoading Ghali Kassen FawzyTransféré parAhmd Mhmd
- Beam FabricationTransféré parAnonymous pD2ymRUgu
- DiamondWrapHP Info Sheet 2011 03Transféré parNiko Pani González
- PerformanceBasedAnalysis-US.pdfTransféré parMohinuddin Ahmed
- A Review of the Repair of Reinforced Concrete BeamsTransféré parPankaj_12345678
- Comparison of the Interfacial Bond Strength Behaviour using Shear KeyTransféré parGRD Journals
- EqsTransféré parJustin
- Formglas FRP Specification v Sept 2011Transféré parSrdjan Kosoric
- IB Paper8 Materials-08a DDS StudentTransféré parali381
- Mode I Fracture of Epoxy Bonded CompositTransféré parNipun Dahra
- Fibras naturalesTransféré parSamir Alejandro Machado
- 03Transféré parDoua Abdou
- polymers-06-01810Transféré parhilander2k2
- Innovation in Civil Engineering 369.docxTransféré partalatzahoor
- Stress Analysis of GRP-GRE-FRP Piping.docxTransféré parHmd Mokhtari
- repairoffrpstructures_UK Best Practice overview.pdfTransféré parErnie Ernie
- Ultimate Shear Behavior and Modeling of ReinforcedTransféré parzakaria200811060
- COMPARATIVE STUDY FOR MECHABICALTransféré parmardiana amir
- automobileTransféré parĐặng Quốc Thắng
- Earthquake_damaged_Reinforced_Concre_str.pdfTransféré pararun

- VonMisesCriterion.pdfTransféré parDeepak Ashokan
- SpaceClaim2017_SP0_UsersGuideTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- Nonlinear Elastic Buckling of CFRP Reinforced Steel Cylinders Under Axial CompressionTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- Experimental Evaluation of Ifragmentation Behavior in Single Carbon Fiber CompositeTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- 2004_Progress on Understanding Debonding Prob Using FRP_OB, EK, & OGTransféré parRuxandra Cozmanciuc
- Lagrangian and Eulerian Descriptions in Solid Mechanics and Their Numerical Solutions in Hpk FrameworkTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- CPRP Candidate HandbookTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- SHELL ANALYSIS DESIGN.pdfTransféré parJoseph Johnston
- Modifying the Shear Buckling Loads of.pdfTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- Connection Capacity of Pultruded Gfrp Channels in Multidirectional LoadingTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- Finite Element Method StudiesTransféré parmyusuf_engineer
- BucklingTransféré parHossein Abbassi
- FEM Stress ConceptsTransféré parMuhammad Faris
- Yield CriteriaTransféré parJuan M
- Stress Analysis Pressure VesselsTransféré parflorin
- Vol_6_4_506_519_MUSHTAKTransféré parKarthik Rajashekar
- Experimental Behaviour of Stiffened Concrete-filled Thin-walled Hollow Steel Structural (HSS) Stub ColumnsTransféré parhanlampham
- Mechanical Behaviour and Durability of FRP‐to‐Steel Adhesively‐Bonded JointsTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- Coc Van Thep Can NguoiTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- Nen Mong Nha Cao Tang Nguyen Van Quang1Transféré parhotrongkien
- Dynamic Analysis of a Railway BridgeTransféré parpirathivy
- Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Construction- State of the Art ReviewTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- Effect of Warm Temperatures on Externally Bonded FRP StrengtheningTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- Impact of Environmental and Experimental Parameters on FRP CompositesTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- Effect of Elevated Temperatures on Bond Strength of Steel Reinforcement and Concrete Enhanced With Discrete Carbon FibersTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- Assessing the Effectiveness of Embedding Cfrp Laminates in the Near Surface for Structural StrengtheningTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- Ultimate Capacity of Bonded-Bolted GFRP Connection in GFRP MembersTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- Durability of GFRP Pultruded Profiles Made of Vinylester ResinTransféré parVietnhut Phan
- Durability of FRP for ConstructionTransféré parVietnhut Phan

- FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF COMPOSITE LEAF SPRINGTransféré parIJIERT-International Journal of Innovations in Engineering Research and Technology
- HexPly M21 Global DataSheetTransféré parGuillermo Martínez
- composite materialsTransféré parRavi Teja
- Clock Spring Pipe Repair System PDFTransféré parNeo_1982
- Desmopan BayerTransféré parGabriel Salomon
- Darrin Willis Masters Thesis Corrected Final (1)Transféré parUNsha bee kom
- paper9Transféré parHla Min Htun
- The Possible Possible Automotive Applications Automotive Applications of Glass Microspheres of Glass MicrospheresTransféré parFJNovaes454
- Guidance for FRP Repair & Strengthening of Concrete Substructures (2002) - Guide (5).pdfTransféré parJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Structural Strengthening With BASF FRP - Kalın Kumaş Doyurma Problemli Olabilir DikkatTransféré paraygunbayram
- 4404R_04Transféré parSulaiman Mohsin AbdulAziz
- Glass WorkingTransféré parLakshmi Pratharp
- MTI 129Transféré parSBK
- Hybrid CompositeTransféré parmanoharbyalal
- 7 irf93-140655039257-61Transféré parbrar_harmanpreet01
- DIN 509Transféré parDejan Babic
- (Report) Storage Tanks (Japan)Transféré parRAJENDRA PRASAD
- DSTO-TN-0410Transféré parawhahn898548
- e Glass Technical Property RovingsTransféré parA.Subin Das
- Composite Project b Tech[1]Transféré parYugendra Babu K
- Fiberglass Grating and Structural Products Design ManualTransféré pari_tiberius_m8153
- Study on Impact Strength of Concrete by Using Basalt Fibre (1)Transféré parInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- ISOMAT DOCUMENTATIETransféré parliviubbcel
- vkyTransféré parANKESH SHRIVASTAVA
- Engineering CompositesTransféré parErsen Balcıoğlu
- Composite MaterialsTransféré parsaifo9999
- BasaltTransféré parJyothi Manik
- Hull n ClyneTransféré parKrishna Deo
- 3. materals and fabricationTransféré parVishal Srinivas
- Mei Li ThesisTransféré parVeeraraj Alagarsamy