The use of high strength materials results in increasingly slender sections
and under these conditions, there are large displacements and strains,
which give rise to the so-called nonlinear effects. The concrete
constitutive relationship is naturally nonlinear and not even isotropic,
since the concrete tensile strength is much lower than that of compression
(about 1/10 of the compressive strength; Carvalho and Figueiredo
Filho, 2014). On the other hand, the steel behavior can be considered
isotropic when the stress-strain relationship becomes nonlinear after
reaching the yield.
Due to these sources of nonlinearity, numerical models are developed
aiming at a more realistic study of these structural systems behavior. This
procedure is encouraged by current design codes ( Stramandinoli,
2007 ). Bratina et al. (2004) emphasize that the evolution of the
numerical methodologies for RC structure analysis has positively
influenced the prediction of the structural behavior.
The search for numerical formulation generalization and efficiency has
prompted the use of distributed plasticity-based methods, commonly
referred to as the Plastic Zone Method (PZM) ( Spacone et al.,
1996 ; Bratina et al., 2004 ; Sousa Jr and Caldas, 2005 ; Sousa Jr
and Muniz, 2007 ; Kostic and Filippou, 2012 ; Parente Jr et al.,
2014). In this approach, formulation considers the strains directly,
allowing the modeling of anisotropic behavior of concrete elements.
Although it is considered to be more accurate, PZM requires intense
computational effort ( Chen and Kim, 1997 ). As an alternative
solution, Scott and Fenves (2006) , Ngo-Huu and Kim (2012) and
others treated the finite element central region as linear-elastic, and in
pre-defined lengths near the nodal points the inelastic behavior was
evaluated.
In contrast, there is the Refined Plastic Hinge Method (RPHM), which
considers plasticity only at the nodal points of the element. Even though it
is simpler, recent research has demonstrated that RPHM presents
considerable accuracy in numerical responses ( Liu et al. 2012b ; Fong
and Chan, 2012 ; Lemes et al., 2016 , Lemes et al., 2017a , Lemes
et al., 2017b , Lemes et al., 2017c ). The classical RPHM approach
starts from a hybrid finite element with pseudo springs at the element
ends whereby the stiffness degradation of these springs is responsible for
the simulation of the physical nonlinearity under the possibility of three
regimes: linear-elastic, elastoplastic and plastic. The linear-elastic regime
contradicts the inherently nonlinear behavior of the concrete under
compression, besides there are no considerations about the cracking in
this methodology ( Lemes et al., 2017b ). In order to correct such
problems, Lemes et al. (2017c) proposed the SCM/RPHM coupling,
where both the bearing capacity and the stiffness were accurately
evaluated, improving the accuracy of the concentrated plasticity-based
analysis.
However, appearing as an option to solve the problem in classical RPHM,
is the introduction of an interaction curve to limit the uncracked state and
the determination of new equations for the stiffness degradation of these
reinforced concrete structures ( Lemes et al., 2016 ). In this sense, Liu
et al. (2012b) and Iu (2016) sought the feasibility analysis of these
structures based on the proposal of Branson and Metz (1963) , and the
stiffness degradation was evaluated by the effective moment of inertia
equation.
In addition to the Branson and Metz (1963) research, several works
( Al-ZaidD et al., 1991 ; Gilbert, 1999 ; Tikka and Mirza,
2005 ; Bischoff, 2005 ) studied the concrete cracking effect on the
behavior of RC elements by proposing explicit equations or modifications
in existing equations for such an evaluation. More recently, Patel et al.
(2015) presented an alternative neural network-based approach for
estimating the effective moment of inertia by means of an explicit
equation. From the results provided by Patel et al. (2015) , it is possible
to verify that there is a better adjustment of the RC beams behavior to the
more precise FEM-based methodologies, if compared to the Branson and
Metz (1963) proposal.
This work presents a RPHM-based approach, where the plasticity effects
are treated in a concentrated way at nodal points. The cracking is treated
together by explicit considerations of the cross section moment of inertia
reduction due to the tensile stresses. In this sense, two proposals are
tested and confronted for the nonlinear analysis of two-dimensional
reinforced concrete structures. The cross section analysis as well as the
definition of the elastic, inelastic, uncracked, cracked and bearing capacity
regimes is done via the Strain Compatibility Method (SCM). In addition, it
is proposed an adjustment for the concrete modulus of elasticity in elastic
regime for the adequacy of the material constitutive relationship to the
presented numerical model.
2 FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION
2.1 Force-displacement relationship
In the present work, a RPHM-based formulation to simulate the
concentrated plasticity in the nodal points is applied. In this case, the
flexural stiffness degradation occurs exclusively at the nodal points. Then,
the method is presented introducing the effect of geometric and material
nonlinearities.
It is important to highlight some considerations involving the finite
element formulation used here:
All elements are initially straight, prismatic and the cross-section
remains plane after deformation;
The effects of global instability that may occur in three-dimensional
problems (e.g., lateral and torsional buckling) are ignored
considering a locking system out of plane;
Large displacements and rigid body rotations are allowed; and
The shear strain effects are ignored.
In the structural system modeling, the hybrid beam-column finite element
of length L, delimited by nodal points i and j ( Figure 1 ), is used. This
element has zero-length pseudo rotational springs (Lps → 0) at its ends,
which are responsible for the plasticity simulation by means of the
parameter Sp, discussed in Section 2.2. The finite element is referenced to
the co-rotational system where the degrees of freedom are the rotations
at nodes i and j, given by θi and θj, and the axial displacement in j, δ. The
terms Mi, Mj and P represent the bending moments and the axial force in
the respective degrees of freedom.
Figure 1
Hybrid finite element referenced to co-rotational system
According to Chan and Chui (2000) , the pseudo-spring’s relative
rotation, ϕp , is defined between the rotation angles of the side connected
to the global node of the element, θp, and that is connected to another
beam-column element. Based on the finite element deformed
configuration, by means of the bending moment action shown in Figure 2 ,
the kinematic, constitutive and equilibrium relationships, respectively, are
written as:
Figure 2
Deformed hybrid finite element
(1)
(2)
(3)
in which Δϕpi and Δϕ pj describe the incremental relative rotation’s
reference to material nonlinearity simulated by the pseudo-springs,
ΔMpi and ΔMpj are the bending moments acting on the spring element
ends i and j, respectively, and ΔMbi and ΔMbj are the bending moments at
the beam member end.
The proper algebraic manipulation of Eqs. (1) , (2) and (3) generate three
systems of equations that represent the equilibrium of the springs in
nodes i and j, as well as the equilibrium in the beam element. These
systems are written in matrix form as follows:
(4)
(5)
(6)
Finally, the condensation of these three matrix relationships into a single
force-displacement relationship for the hybrid finite element, considering
all degrees of freedom, is defined by:
(7)
in which .
The terms k11, k22, k23, k32, and k 33 are components of the beam-column
stiffness matrix element, without the pseudo-springs, described by Lemes
et al. (2017c) as:
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
where P is the internal axial force, A is the cross-section area, Ieq is the
effective moment of inertia according to Branson and Metz (1963) (BM
equation) or Patel et al. (2015) (P equation) proposals, evaluated at
nodal points i and j , and L is the finite element length.
The elasticity modulus of concrete, Ec, is obtained in a particular way. Liu
et al. (2012b) and Iu (2016) used the initial tangent modulus of
elasticity (Eci) as Ec, illustrated in Figure 3 . This ends up overestimating
the value of the modulus of elasticity, since by the nonlinear concrete
behavior under compression, low strain rates imply a reduction of the
modulus of elasticity. On the other hand, the use of the elastic secant
modulus, Ecsi , between 0 and (εcin, f cin) ( Izzuddin and Smith, 2000 )
points, generates conservative results for low strain values. Thus, it is
proposed to use the mean value between Eci and Ecsi for Ec, that is used in
global structural analysis. The values of ε cin and fcin can be easily
calculated considering the Hooke's equation (fc = Eci ε) and NBR-6118
(2014) constitutive relationship, resulting in ε cin = εci/2 and fcin = 0.75fc.
Thus, Ecsi = 1.75 fc/εcin.
Figure 3
Concrete stress-strain relationship under compression: elastic limit strain
and modulus of elasticity
It should be noted in Eqs. (8)-(11) that there is an additional terms related
to bending. This part refers to the consideration of geometric nonlinearity,
which is introduced in this methodology through a simplified formulation
proposed by Yang and Kuo (1994) . The option to define simplified
terms was made by previous numerical studies, where high order terms
had little influence on the global response of the small-sized RC systems
simulated ( Lemes et al., 2017c ).
The co-rotational system transformation to local and global systems as
well as the return mapping strategy adopted here can be seen in Lemes
(2015) .
2.2 Pseudo-springs rotational stiffness
As already mentioned, in the RPHM the cross-section flexural stiffness
degradation, simulating plasticity is done by pseudo-springs. Thus, it is
necessary to obtain stiffness degradation forms for these springs that are
consistent with the material employed in the cross-section. The original
RPHM proposal was developed for steel elements with perfect
elastoplastic behavior. When it comes to RC elements the original
methodology must be modified as proposed in the present work.
Figure 4 illustrates three interaction curves for a specific cross-section: the
full yield curve – indicates the bearing capacity; the initial yield curve –
defines the elastic region; and the initial cracking curve – delimits the
uncracked state of the cross-section. These curves are the result of a
combination of axial force and a bending moment acting around one of
the main axes bending.
Figure 4
Interaction NM Curves and spring rotational stiffness degradation regions
Obviously, an initial cracking curve was not necessary in the original
RPHM proposal ( Chan and Chui, 2000 ), since it was exclusively applied
for structural steel systems. However, in the evolution of the method, it is
noticed the necessity to introduce this curve to better approximate the
actual RC structural behavior as observed by Lemes et al. (2017b) .
In Figure 4 , it is also possible to observe four regions. Thus, expression
definitions for the simulation of pseudo-spring stiffness in each of the
described regions are required.
According to the classical RPHM, three equations define the pseudo-spring
stiffness for the previously mentioned regions. In regions 1 and 2, it is
observed that the section is in an elastic regime. In regions 3 and 4, there
can be noticed that the section is in a stiffness degradation process due to
plastic strains. And finally, for when the fully plastified section occurs
(region 5). For a given axial force-bending moment combination, Sp is
defined as follow:
(12)
(13)
(14)
in which L is the finite element length, Mpr and Mer are the full and initial
yield bending moment reduced by the combined action to an axial force,
and EcIeq is the section’s flexural stiffness, considering the cracking, as
discussed in the next Section 2.3.
Note that, by the value described in Eq. (12), there is no possibility of
simulating cracking in the elastic regime. This adjustment is made in the
following section.
2.3 Concrete cracking approach
As previously pointed out, there is no specific equation for simulating the
cracking using the pseudo-spring’s rotational stiffness, Sp. Thus, it is
intended to use Eq. (12). When the pseudo-spring’s stiffness is infinite, or
numerically treated as such, the limit for Sp → ∞ causes the
terms k22, k 23, k32 and k33 to converge to the values assigned in Eqs. (9),
(10) and (11). Then, for the terms expressed in the equations, the
moment of inertia can be modified following two proposals.
Branson and Metz (1963) proposed a simple equation (BM equation) for
the effective moment of inertia evaluation of RC sections in a cracking
state. This equation is used by some design codes, such as NBR-6118
(2014) , ACI-318 (2008) , among others. The moment of inertia is given
by ( Branson and Metz, 1963 ):
(15)
(16)
where Mcr and M are, respectively, the initial cracking bending moment
and the bending moment acting on the section, I c is the intact section
moment of inertia (initial slope of the bending moment–curvature for zero
axial force with no tensile stress in concrete), and Icr is the cracked
moment of inertia of the section evaluated in the critical point of moment-
curvature relationship (Section 3).
Patel et al. (2015) presented an alternative neural network-based
approach for estimating effective moment of inertia by means of an
explicit equation (P equation), which is described as:
(17)
(18)
where ak, bk, c k, dk and ek are described in Table 1 .
Thumbnail
Table 1
P equation parameters ( Patel et al., 2015 ).
2.4 Nonlinear structural static problem solution
In FEM context, the nonlinear static solver consists of obtaining the
equilibrium between internal and external forces for each load increment
as follows:
(19)
where Fi,g and F e,g, are the global internal and external force vectors,
respectively, λ is the load factor and Fr is the reference load vector.
To solve the global nonlinear static problem, load increment and iteration
strategies are used.
The initial increase of the load parameter, Δλ0, is automatically
determined by the technique of generalized displacement ( Yang and
Kuo, 1994 ). Thus, Δλ0 is calculated as:
(20)
where index 1 indicates the Δλ0 and δU r (tangential nodal displacements)
values obtained in the first loading step, and GSP represents the
Generalized Stiffness Parameter.
In the traditional scheme of the Newton-Raphson method, the parameter
load λ is kept constant throughout the iterative process. Thus, the
equilibrium path can be obtained until a limit point and/or a bifurcation
point is reached. The variation of λ during the iterative cycle enables the
full equilibrium path to be traced. In this work, the minimum residual
displacement norm strategy proposed by Chan (1988) was used. In this
strategy, the correction of the load parameter δλ k is given by the
equation:
(21)
with δUkg being the correction obtained from the application of the
Newton-Raphson method with the conventional strategy of λ increment,
and δUkr the iterative vector displacements resulting from the application
of F r.
Table 2 sequentially describes the solver used here for the nonlinear static
problem.
Thumbnail
Table 2
Numerical strategy for solving the nonlinear structural problem.
3 CROSS-SECTION ANALYSIS
3.1 Materials behavior
To make an accurate analysis of cross-sectional nonlinear behavior under
external loads, a correct description of the materials behavior is required.
The concrete has different mechanical properties for tensile strength and
compression. When tensioned, this material has a tensile strength fcr . It is
also noteworthy that upon reaching fcr stress, the cracking process begins.
For strains exceeding εcr , the concrete loses strength. Thus, many
researchers and even the design codes disregard their contribution when
tensioned ( Sousa Jr. and Caldas, 2005 ; Fong and Chan, 2012 ). In
this study, the constitutive relationship proposed by NBR-6118 (2014) is
used to describe the behavior of concrete under compression; for tension,
this study used the model proposed by Vecchio and Collins (1986) .
That is:
(22)
where εci, εcu and εcr are the strain limits of the nonlinear concrete
behavior, the ultimate strain of the concrete in compression, and the
concrete cracking strain, respectively; fcr is the tensile strength and E tr is
the elastic tensile modulus of the concrete before cracking.
A constitutive relationship that neglects the strain hardening effects and
considers a gradual transition between the elastic and plastic regimes was
used to describe the steel reinforcements behavior
The use of high strength materials results in increasingly slender sections
and under these conditions, there are large displacements and strains,
which give rise to the so-called nonlinear effects. The concrete
constitutive relationship is naturally nonlinear and not even isotropic,
since the concrete tensile strength is much lower than that of compression
(about 1/10 of the compressive strength; Carvalho and Figueiredo
Filho, 2014). On the other hand, the steel behavior can be considered
isotropic when the stress-strain relationship becomes nonlinear after
reaching the yield.
Due to these sources of nonlinearity, numerical models are developed
aiming at a more realistic study of these structural systems behavior. This
procedure is encouraged by current design codes ( Stramandinoli,
2007 ). Bratina et al. (2004) emphasize that the evolution of the
numerical methodologies for RC structure analysis has positively
influenced the prediction of the structural behavior.
The search for numerical formulation generalization and efficiency has
prompted the use of distributed plasticity-based methods, commonly
referred to as the Plastic Zone Method (PZM) ( Spacone et al.,
1996 ; Bratina et al., 2004 ; Sousa Jr and Caldas, 2005 ; Sousa Jr
and Muniz, 2007 ; Kostic and Filippou, 2012 ; Parente Jr et al.,
2014). In this approach, formulation considers the strains directly,
allowing the modeling of anisotropic behavior of concrete elements.
Although it is considered to be more accurate, PZM requires intense
computational effort ( Chen and Kim, 1997 ). As an alternative
solution, Scott and Fenves (2006) , Ngo-Huu and Kim (2012) and
others treated the finite element central region as linear-elastic, and in
pre-defined lengths near the nodal points the inelastic behavior was
evaluated.
In contrast, there is the Refined Plastic Hinge Method (RPHM), which
considers plasticity only at the nodal points of the element. Even though it
is simpler, recent research has demonstrated that RPHM presents
considerable accuracy in numerical responses ( Liu et al. 2012b ; Fong
and Chan, 2012 ; Lemes et al., 2016 , Lemes et al., 2017a , Lemes
et al., 2017b , Lemes et al., 2017c ). The classical RPHM approach
starts from a hybrid finite element with pseudo springs at the element
ends whereby the stiffness degradation of these springs is responsible for
the simulation of the physical nonlinearity under the possibility of three
regimes: linear-elastic, elastoplastic and plastic. The linear-elastic regime
contradicts the inherently nonlinear behavior of the concrete under
compression, besides there are no considerations about the cracking in
this methodology ( Lemes et al., 2017b ). In order to correct such
problems, Lemes et al. (2017c) proposed the SCM/RPHM coupling,
where both the bearing capacity and the stiffness were accurately
evaluated, improving the accuracy of the concentrated plasticity-based
analysis.
However, appearing as an option to solve the problem in classical RPHM,
is the introduction of an interaction curve to limit the uncracked state and
the determination of new equations for the stiffness degradation of these
reinforced concrete structures ( Lemes et al., 2016 ). In this sense, Liu
et al. (2012b) and Iu (2016) sought the feasibility analysis of these
structures based on the proposal of Branson and Metz (1963) , and the
stiffness degradation was evaluated by the effective moment of inertia
equation.
In addition to the Branson and Metz (1963) research, several works
( Al-ZaidD et al., 1991 ; Gilbert, 1999 ; Tikka and Mirza,
2005 ; Bischoff, 2005 ) studied the concrete cracking effect on the
behavior of RC elements by proposing explicit equations or modifications
in existing equations for such an evaluation. More recently, Patel et al.
(2015) presented an alternative neural network-based approach for
estimating the effective moment of inertia by means of an explicit
equation. From the results provided by Patel et al. (2015) , it is possible
to verify that there is a better adjustment of the RC beams behavior to the
more precise FEM-based methodologies, if compared to the Branson and
Metz (1963) proposal.
This work presents a RPHM-based approach, where the plasticity effects
are treated in a concentrated way at nodal points. The cracking is treated
together by explicit considerations of the cross section moment of inertia
reduction due to the tensile stresses. In this sense, two proposals are
tested and confronted for the nonlinear analysis of two-dimensional
reinforced concrete structures. The cross section analysis as well as the
definition of the elastic, inelastic, uncracked, cracked and bearing capacity
regimes is done via the Strain Compatibility Method (SCM). In addition, it
is proposed an adjustment for the concrete modulus of elasticity in elastic
regime for the adequacy of the material constitutive relationship to the
presented numerical model.
2 FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION
2.1 Force-displacement relationship
In the present work, a RPHM-based formulation to simulate the
concentrated plasticity in the nodal points is applied. In this case, the
flexural stiffness degradation occurs exclusively at the nodal points. Then,
the method is presented introducing the effect of geometric and material
nonlinearities.
It is important to highlight some considerations involving the finite
element formulation used here:
All elements are initially straight, prismatic and the cross-section
remains plane after deformation;
The effects of global instability that may occur in three-dimensional
problems (e.g., lateral and torsional buckling) are ignored
considering a locking system out of plane;
Large displacements and rigid body rotations are allowed; and
The shear strain effects are ignored.
In the structural system modeling, the hybrid beam-column finite element
of length L, delimited by nodal points i and j ( Figure 1 ), is used. This
element has zero-length pseudo rotational springs (Lps → 0) at its ends,
which are responsible for the plasticity simulation by means of the
parameter Sp, discussed in Section 2.2. The finite element is referenced to
the co-rotational system where the degrees of freedom are the rotations
at nodes i and j, given by θi and θj, and the axial displacement in j, δ. The
terms Mi, Mj and P represent the bending moments and the axial force in
the respective degrees of freedom.
Figure 1
Hybrid finite element referenced to co-rotational system
According to Chan and Chui (2000) , the pseudo-spring’s relative
rotation, ϕp , is defined between the rotation angles of the side connected
to the global node of the element, θp, and that is connected to another
beam-column element. Based on the finite element deformed
configuration, by means of the bending moment action shown in Figure 2 ,
the kinematic, constitutive and equilibrium relationships, respectively, are
written as:
Figure 2
Deformed hybrid finite element
(1)
(2)
(3)
in which Δϕpi and Δϕ pj describe the incremental relative rotation’s
reference to material nonlinearity simulated by the pseudo-springs,
ΔMpi and ΔMpj are the bending moments acting on the spring element
ends i and j, respectively, and ΔMbi and ΔMbj are the bending moments at
the beam member end.
The proper algebraic manipulation of Eqs. (1) , (2) and (3) generate three
systems of equations that represent the equilibrium of the springs in
nodes i and j, as well as the equilibrium in the beam element. These
systems are written in matrix form as follows:
(4)
(5)
(6)
Finally, the condensation of these three matrix relationships into a single
force-displacement relationship for the hybrid finite element, considering
all degrees of freedom, is defined by:
(7)
in which .
The terms k11, k22, k23, k32, and k 33 are components of the beam-column
stiffness matrix element, without the pseudo-springs, described by Lemes
et al. (2017c) as:
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
where P is the internal axial force, A is the cross-section area, Ieq is the
effective moment of inertia according to Branson and Metz (1963) (BM
equation) or Patel et al. (2015) (P equation) proposals, evaluated at
nodal points i and j , and L is the finite element length.
The elasticity modulus of concrete, Ec, is obtained in a particular way. Liu
et al. (2012b) and Iu (2016) used the initial tangent modulus of
elasticity (Eci) as Ec, illustrated in Figure 3 . This ends up overestimating
the value of the modulus of elasticity, since by the nonlinear concrete
behavior under compression, low strain rates imply a reduction of the
modulus of elasticity. On the other hand, the use of the elastic secant
modulus, Ecsi , between 0 and (εcin, f cin) ( Izzuddin and Smith, 2000 )
points, generates conservative results for low strain values. Thus, it is
proposed to use the mean value between Eci and Ecsi for Ec, that is used in
global structural analysis. The values of ε cin and fcin can be easily
calculated considering the Hooke's equation (fc = Eci ε) and NBR-6118
(2014) constitutive relationship, resulting in ε cin = εci/2 and fcin = 0.75fc.
Thus, Ecsi = 1.75 fc/εcin.
Figure 3
Concrete stress-strain relationship under compression: elastic limit strain
and modulus of elasticity
It should be noted in Eqs. (8)-(11) that there is an additional terms related
to bending. This part refers to the consideration of geometric nonlinearity,
which is introduced in this methodology through a simplified formulation
proposed by Yang and Kuo (1994) . The option to define simplified
terms was made by previous numerical studies, where high order terms
had little influence on the global response of the small-sized RC systems
simulated ( Lemes et al., 2017c ).
The co-rotational system transformation to local and global systems as
well as the return mapping strategy adopted here can be seen in Lemes
(2015) .
2.2 Pseudo-springs rotational stiffness
As already mentioned, in the RPHM the cross-section flexural stiffness
degradation, simulating plasticity is done by pseudo-springs. Thus, it is
necessary to obtain stiffness degradation forms for these springs that are
consistent with the material employed in the cross-section. The original
RPHM proposal was developed for steel elements with perfect
elastoplastic behavior. When it comes to RC elements the original
methodology must be modified as proposed in the present work.
Figure 4 illustrates three interaction curves for a specific cross-section: the
full yield curve – indicates the bearing capacity; the initial yield curve –
defines the elastic region; and the initial cracking curve – delimits the
uncracked state of the cross-section. These curves are the result of a
combination of axial force and a bending moment acting around one of
the main axes bending.
Figure 4
Interaction NM Curves and spring rotational stiffness degradation regions
Obviously, an initial cracking curve was not necessary in the original
RPHM proposal ( Chan and Chui, 2000 ), since it was exclusively applied
for structural steel systems. However, in the evolution of the method, it is
noticed the necessity to introduce this curve to better approximate the
actual RC structural behavior as observed by Lemes et al. (2017b) .
In Figure 4 , it is also possible to observe four regions. Thus, expression
definitions for the simulation of pseudo-spring stiffness in each of the
described regions are required.
According to the classical RPHM, three equations define the pseudo-spring
stiffness for the previously mentioned regions. In regions 1 and 2, it is
observed that the section is in an elastic regime. In regions 3 and 4, there
can be noticed that the section is in a stiffness degradation process due to
plastic strains. And finally, for when the fully plastified section occurs
(region 5). For a given axial force-bending moment combination, Sp is
defined as follow:
(12)
(13)
(14)
in which L is the finite element length, Mpr and Mer are the full and initial
yield bending moment reduced by the combined action to an axial force,
and EcIeq is the section’s flexural stiffness, considering the cracking, as
discussed in the next Section 2.3.
Note that, by the value described in Eq. (12), there is no possibility of
simulating cracking in the elastic regime. This adjustment is made in the
following section.
2.3 Concrete cracking approach
As previously pointed out, there is no specific equation for simulating the
cracking using the pseudo-spring’s rotational stiffness, Sp. Thus, it is
intended to use Eq. (12). When the pseudo-spring’s stiffness is infinite, or
numerically treated as such, the limit for Sp → ∞ causes the
terms k22, k 23, k32 and k33 to converge to the values assigned in Eqs. (9),
(10) and (11). Then, for the terms expressed in the equations, the
moment of inertia can be modified following two proposals.
Branson and Metz (1963) proposed a simple equation (BM equation) for
the effective moment of inertia evaluation of RC sections in a cracking
state. This equation is used by some design codes, such as NBR-6118
(2014) , ACI-318 (2008) , among others. The moment of inertia is given
by ( Branson and Metz, 1963 ):
(15)
(16)
where Mcr and M are, respectively, the initial cracking bending moment
and the bending moment acting on the section, I c is the intact section
moment of inertia (initial slope of the bending moment–curvature for zero
axial force with no tensile stress in concrete), and Icr is the cracked
moment of inertia of the section evaluated in the critical point of moment-
curvature relationship (Section 3).
Patel et al. (2015) presented an alternative neural network-based
approach for estimating effective moment of inertia by means of an
explicit equation (P equation), which is described as:
(17)
(18)
where ak, bk, c k, dk and ek are described in Table 1 .
Thumbnail
Table 1
P equation parameters ( Patel et al., 2015 ).
2.4 Nonlinear structural static problem solution
In FEM context, the nonlinear static solver consists of obtaining the
equilibrium between internal and external forces for each load increment
as follows:
(19)
where Fi,g and F e,g, are the global internal and external force vectors,
respectively, λ is the load factor and Fr is the reference load vector.
To solve the global nonlinear static problem, load increment and iteration
strategies are used.
The initial increase of the load parameter, Δλ0, is automatically
determined by the technique of generalized displacement ( Yang and
Kuo, 1994 ). Thus, Δλ0 is calculated as:
(20)
where index 1 indicates the Δλ0 and δU r (tangential nodal displacements)
values obtained in the first loading step, and GSP represents the
Generalized Stiffness Parameter.
In the traditional scheme of the Newton-Raphson method, the parameter
load λ is kept constant throughout the iterative process. Thus, the
equilibrium path can be obtained until a limit point and/or a bifurcation
point is reached. The variation of λ during the iterative cycle enables the
full equilibrium path to be traced. In this work, the minimum residual
displacement norm strategy proposed by Chan (1988) was used. In this
strategy, the correction of the load parameter δλ k is given by the
equation:
(21)
with δUkg being the correction obtained from the application of the
Newton-Raphson method with the conventional strategy of λ increment,
and δUkr the iterative vector displacements resulting from the application
of F r.
Table 2 sequentially describes the solver used here for the nonlinear static
problem.
Thumbnail
Table 2
Numerical strategy for solving the nonlinear structural problem.
3 CROSS-SECTION ANALYSIS
3.1 Materials behavior
To make an accurate analysis of cross-sectional nonlinear behavior under
external loads, a correct description of the materials behavior is required.
The concrete has different mechanical properties for tensile strength and
compression. When tensioned, this material has a tensile strength fcr . It is
also noteworthy that upon reaching fcr stress, the cracking process begins.
For strains exceeding εcr , the concrete loses strength. Thus, many
researchers and even the design codes disregard their contribution when
tensioned ( Sousa Jr. and Caldas, 2005 ; Fong and Chan, 2012 ). In
this study, the constitutive relationship proposed by NBR-6118 (2014) is
used to describe the behavior of concrete under compression; for tension,
this study used the model proposed by Vecchio and Collins (1986) .
That is:
(22)
where εci, εcu and εcr are the strain limits of the nonlinear concrete
behavior, the ultimate strain of the concrete in compression, and the
concrete cracking strain, respectively; fcr is the tensile strength and E tr is
the elastic tensile modulus of the concrete before cracking.
A constitutive relationship that neglects the strain hardening effects and
considers a gradual transition between the elastic and plastic regimes was
used to describe the steel reinforcements behavior