a new approach to numerical modeling of the frp material ... · since this research is an approach...
TRANSCRIPT
Fourth International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE2008) 22-24July 2008, Zurich, Switzerland
- 1 -
1 INTRODUCTION
First step is making the numerical models for the main materials such as concrete or masonry blocks in FEM software and verify them by the existing experimental/laboratory specimens. The second step is to build the existing structure or a part of the structure using the proper boundary conditions and load pattern and if possible verify them by existing evaluations. The final step is to create the retrofitted models and compare them to gain the better results.
Since this research is an approach to numerical modeling, it was assumed that the experimen-tal specimens are already evaluated. The below flowchart (Figure 1) shows the procedure of modeling the concrete or masonry structure and retrofitting with FRP material using rebar sur-faces.
A new approach to numerical modeling of the FRP material attached to the concrete or masonry structures using explicit dynamic finite elements method Nima Taghi bekloo Nimavar ArtaVage consulting engineers, Vice president/Structural engineer, Iran
ABSTRACT: During the past decade polymer materials and specially FRP material is one the famous strengthening and retrofitting materials, and due to its weightlessness it is becoming a favorite to earthquake engineers. Hence knowing the behaviors, advantages and also disadvan-tages of the FRP is a must; the common method for designing the FRP materials is more like reinforced concrete design in elastic behavior (L. Podolka and J. Kolísko, 2005 and H. Saadat-manesh and A.M. Malek, 1998). Since the rebar in reinforced concrete is continuous and has frictional behavior and most of all has got the yield point about 10 times more than concrete, the design methods are quite suitable for concrete structures. However using the FRP materials mostly is local and not continuously; also FRP materials have the yield point more than the steel materials with a too narrow plastic range which may cause a brittle cracking especially in mod-erate and high earthquakes. Also locally strengthening the structure may cause stress concentra-tions and crack propagation on the regions that has no strengthening around the strengthened re-gion. Hence realizing the structure behaviors before and after FRP assembling is essential and need some special considerations. This research represents a method for numerically modeling the FRP stripes on concrete or masonry structures and evaluates the behavior of these structures before and after retrofitting. The main advantages of this method are the time saving, low cost and ability to make several models and investigate them for reaching the better resolutions. This research contains a Finite Element method to model the structure either with the FRP stripes or without them.
Figure
2 NU
Thspecipropaseverdisco
Figureanalysanalys
Figure
e 1- Progress
UMERICAL
he very first men has beeagation in teral calibrationovered eventu
e 2- Right to Lsis (Damage),sis (Tresca flo
e 3- Stress vs.
flowchart
L ANALYSI
specimen isen built withension and cns and verifiually. Figure
Left: -beginnin, -End of analyow)
. Strain diagra
S
a 20x20 cmh concrete prcompressionications withe 2 and Figur
ng of the analysis (Damage
am as conclud
- 2 -
m concrete broperty such
(ABAQUS/h laboratory sre 3 show the
lysis (Damage, red counter i
ded from nume
block under tas concrete
/CAE documspecimens, the final concre
e), -During theindicates com
erical analysis
the pressure damaged pl
mentation, She concrete pete block beh
e analysis (Dampression/tensi
s
on top sidelasticity and
Sec. 18.5.3). parameters whavior.
amage), -Durinion crack), -E
. This crack After
will be
ng the nd of
Ththe ucumeanalyuse th
In in Fig
Figure
Thfor thbeen ment kg/ming thspeci
Figureanalysthe en
his procedurese of drucke
entation, Secyze it with thhe explicit inthis research
gure 4.
e 4- Left: Con
he bottom fache upper facemodeled byhas got the
m3 and 5e5 kghe laboratoryfications. Fig
e 5- Up: Specsis (Tresca strnd of the analy
e can be perer-prager plas. 30.1.5). Ho
he same matentegration insh the assume
ncrete frame a
ce has been re; the mortar
y surface elemrebar of 0.0
g/cm2 of youny test conclugure 5 and F
imen with FRress), Middle: ysis (Displace
rformed for msticity instea
owever the merial propertistead of impld structure is
and infill, Righ
restraint for ar has been sments includ03 cm2 eachng modulus w
usions, the reFigure 7 show
RP, Down: SpeSpecimen at t
ement)
- 3 -
masonry maad of concretmain concern
es. It has to licit integratis a concrete
ht: Concrete fr
all translatinimulated wit
ding rebar arrh 1 cm at horwith 5% poi
ebar specificaw the specim
ecimen withouthe end of the
terials eitherte damaged p
n is to build thbe noticed thion. frame with c
frame and infil
ng DOF’s; a dth slip rate frangement. Irizontal direcsson ratio. Itations shall bens behavior
ut FRP; Left: e analysis (Tre
r. The majorplasticity (Ahe structure hat, it would
concrete bloc
ll + FRP stripe
displacemenfriction. The It’s assumedction with tht has to be stabe revised byr during anal
Specimen at tesca stress), R
r different mBAQUS/CAor part of th
d be much be
ck infill as sh
e as indicated
nt has been apFRP materi
d that the FRhe density ofated that cony the real malyzing.
the beginning Right: Specime
may be AE do-
at and tter to
howed
pplied al has
RP ele-f 1000 nsider-aterial
of the
en at
- 4 -
Figure 6 shows an experimental test specimen which is in well collation with numerical in-vestigations.
Figure 6- Crack patterns of the experimental test specimen. (Hernán Santa Maria, Pablo Alcaino and Carl Luders, 2006)
The summarized conclusion is being described below:
Table 1- Comparison between two specimens
Specimens Max. Stress (Tresca) Avg. Stress (Tres-ca)
Max. Damage Avg. Damage
Specimen With FRP 84 kg/cm2 28 kg/cm2 8.5% 3.5% Specimen Without FRP 62 kg/cm2 16 kg/cm2 9.8% 1%
Figure 7- Base shear vs. Displacement
It has been concluded that by stiffening the structure the stress magnitude for a certain dis-placement will be increased and crack propagation significantly changes and not necessarily in
good shall
Anment
FigureTensi(time=mericMaria
Thbeen regiothe da
Figure
manner. Sinbe taken pla
nother exampon the top su
e 8- Top-Lefton cracks in s=2), Bottom-M
cal and experima, Pablo Alcain
he stiffened sconcluded tn in both tenamage area i
e 9- Base shea
nce this repoace in anotherple is a 20 curface (Figu
: tension crackstructure stiffeMiddle: Compmental specimno and Carl L
structure hasthat using thnsion or overin over all da
ar vs. Displace
ort contains r report with
cm thicknessre 8).
ks in structureened with FRPpression-Tensimens, Crack paLuders, 2006)
got two FRhe FRP in thir all damageamage will in
ement in two
- 5 -
only the moh accurate spes concrete w
e stiffened witP (time=3), Boion cracks in satterns of the e
RP stripes on is structure w
e. It also reduncrease and c
specimens
odeling methecifications.all attached
th FRP (time=ottom-Left: tenstructure (timeexperimental
both sides wwith this speuces the damconcentrate a
hod, the engi
to the groun
=2), Top-Middnsion cracks ie=3), Right: Ctest specimen
with 45 degrecification w
mage area in around the F
ineering judg
nd under disp
dle: Compressin structure Comparison ofn. (Hernán San
ree of angle. will reduce th
tension. HowRP stripe.
gment
place-
sion-
f Nu-nta
It has he red wever
- 6 -
Figure 9 shows that the capacities of two specimens are the same, however there is some ma-jor difference in the behavior after the crack acquires and the strengthened specimen resist more than the other one.
3 CONCLUSION
Numerical investigations of structures strengthened by FRP materials is possible if only the behavior of the structure could be identified before and after FRP retrofitting accurate way and fast as well.
The FRP stripes can be simulated using surface elements with rebar definition in any direc-tion (between 0 to 180 degree).
Since the analysis is time consuming, it’s important to build the model with care and choos-ing the right elements and material properties such as shell or solid elements either quad or tri elements. It has to be noticed that tri elements are much more time consuming than quad ele-ments especially in conjunction with FRP surface elements and sometimes it’s about 5 times more.
The contact between FRP stripes and concrete or masonry material has much more strength than the material itself, hence the FRP stripes shall be embedded on the structure surface. How-ever the contact can be simulated as slips or shear rate or even frictional contact regarding the type of resin to be used (ABAQUS/CAE documentation, Sec. 30.1.5).
4 REFERENCES
L. Podolka and J. Kolísko 2005, Experience with strengthening structures using the pre stress FRP materials, 2005 International Institute for FRP in Construction.
H. Saadatmanesh and A.M. Malek 1998, Design guidelines for flexural strengthening of RC beams with FRP plates, Journal of composites for construction.
Hernán Santa Maria, Pablo Alcaino and Carl Luders 2006, Experimental response of maso-nry walls externally reinforced with carbon fiber fabrics
ABAQUS/CAE documentation, Sec. 18.5.3-Concrete damaged plasticity. ABAQUS/CAE documentation, Sec. 30.1.5-Contact property, Frictional behavior ABAQUS/CAE documentation, Sec. 18.3.1-Extended Drucker-Prager models.