OVER-REINFORCED BEAM

First of all, it has been done an analysis about the influece of the
reinforcement on the beams ductility. For this propose, 3 cases were
evaluated: the tutorial case (2 steel bars of 1060mm 2), a reinforced beam
with 2x6 steel bars of 1060mm 2, and a reinforced beam with 2x15 steel bars
of 1060mm2. Figure 1 shows the load-displacement curve obtained.

Load - Displacement
140.00
120.00
100.00
2x1 steel

80.00

Load (KN)

2x15 steel

60.00

2x6 steel

40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00 10.00

Displacement (mm)

Figure 1: Load-displacement curve obtained.

It can be appreciated how the increment of the reinforcement makes also

increasing the failure load from 91.38 KN in the first case to 110.9 KN in the
second and to 131.4 KN in the third one. That entails a 21% and a 44%
respectively. In the same way, it is showed how the highest load supported
is bigger in the reinforced case, but the displacement until reaching the
inelastic zone is lower, going from 4.28mm to 3.33mm and 2.39mm
respectively. Thus, it can be seen the increment of the ductility with the
reinforcement.
For this coursework the reference has been the 2x15 steel bars reinforced
beam and the three parameters to study were have been: mesh size,
fracture energy and shear retention factor.
The analysis of the mesh size has been carried out studying 3 cases: small
mesh (0.01m), original mesh (0.08m) and big mesh (0.2m). Loaddisplacement curves are shown in Figure 2.

Load - Displacement

Load (KN)

160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00

Small Mesh
Normal Mesh
Big Mesh

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00 12.00

Displacement (mm)

Figure 2: Curva Carga-Desplazamiento para los 3 tipos de malla.

It can be appreciated how the 3 meshes simulate with sureness the lineal
behavior zone of the problema. Taking the smallest mesh as the most
accurate one, the mximum load varies from 121.9 KN to 131.4 for the
original one and 139.5 KN for the biggest one, entailing an 8% and a 14%
deviation. It's worthy to distinguish that the smallest mesh was 8 times
smaller than the original one and has improved an 8%, while on the other
hand the biggest mesh was just 2.5 bigger and its result has gone to a 14%
over the predicted. Furthermore, in the non-linear zone the biggest mesh
does not follow the main trend of the other two.
The biggest displacement given differs in function of the case, being bigger
for the bigger mesh. With the small mesh is 8.07 mm, 8.55 mm with the
original one and 11.57 mm with the biggest one; that makes a 6% and a
43% respectively. In this case it can be seen how the biggest mesh gets
totally discarded, being that the numerical result and the trend, both differ
from the expected results.

Figure 3: Displacements for original (1), big (2) and small (3) mesh.

Figure 4 shows the crack pattern after Step 40 of each 3 meshes.

Figura 4: Crack pattern for original (1), big (2) and small (3) mesh.

In spite of the difference in the magnitude between them, the trend

observed is similar. The fracture starts near the control point, in the middle
of the beam, and gets expanded in clockwise rotation trying to point to the
load.

For the Fracture Energy (FE) analysis it has been taken as standard value
the one given in the tutorial (6.235x10 -5MN/m). From this value, in has been
generated two cases with lower FE: 5.6115x10 -5 MN/m (90%) and 4.6763x105
MN/m (75%); and three cases withhigher FE: 6.8585x10 -5 MN/m (110%),
7.7938x10-5 MN/m (125%) and 12.45x10-5 MN/m (200%). Figure 5 shows the
load-displacement curves.

Load - Displacement
140.00
120.00
100.00

Standard FE
75% FE

80.00

Load (KN)

90& FE
110% FE

60.00

125% FE
40.00

200% FE

20.00
0.00
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

Displacement (mm)

Figure 5: Load-displacement curve for different FE cases.

Broadly, it can be seen that with a higher FE, the relationship loaddisplacement is bigger in the lineal behaviour. However, in the non-linear
zone the behavior changes and the highest ductilities are given in the lower
FE being the 75% FE the one with highest load-displacement rate. Figure 6
shows just the 200%, the standard and the 75% for a better view.

Load - Displacement
140.00
120.00
100.00
Standard FE

80.00

Load (KN)

75% FE

60.00

200% FE

40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

Displacement (mm)

Figure 6: Load-displacement curve for different FE cases.

It can be seen how in the linear zone a bigger FE allows a bigger load for the
same displacement. However, in the non-linear zone happens just the
opposite because the concrete has lost its cohesion and the beam starts to
behave as the reinforcement. Further, for the 75% FE it can be shown a
plateau in the central zone. This zone is typical of under-reinforced beams,
being the transition zone between the elastic and the steel behaviour: the
cracking concrete zone.
In respect of the crack pattern and displacements, Figure 7 shows how the
crack pattern is similar in all cases after step 40. It can be seen again the
same trend, with vertical lines near the load point and turning in clockwise
rotation as they get away from the center. The main difference is the
displacements field in the 75% FE, in which it is bigger.

Figure 7: Crack pattern and displacements for standard, 75% and 200% FE.

Finally, it has been analyzed the behavior of the over-reinforced beam

changing the shear retention factor. Originaly, this factor was Hyperbola A,
having two more options: Hyperbola B and Linear. Figure 8 shows the
load-displacement for the 3 cases.

Load - Displacement
140.00
120.00
100.00
Hyperbola A

80.00

Load (KN)

Linear
Hyperbola B

60.00

SR fixed = 0
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Displacement (mm)

Figure 8: Crack pattern and displacements for standard, 75% and 200% FE.

One of the most important features of the cracking model is that, whereas
crack initiation is based on one fracture mode, the postcracked behavior has
to include a second mode. The crack shear modulus is reduced as the crack
opens. So depending on the shear retention model in which the postcracked
shear stiffness is defines as a function of the opening strain across the
crack; the shear retention model must be defined in the cracking model.
Therefore, depending on the variation mode selected, the behavior will be
one of the three of Figure 8. Finally, it has to be highlighted that zero has
NOT to be selected ever as Shear Retention Factor. It will supose concrete to
pass just in one mode for both zones, without considering the cohesion of
the material.
For this 4 cases, Figure 9 shoes the crack pattern and the displacements
field.

Figure 9: Crack pattern and displacements for Hiperbola A, hyperbola B, Lineal and
zero shear retention factor.

CONCLUSIONS
The increment of reinforcement increases the ductility of the beam.
The mesh size is totally related with the results. A big mesh will skip more
data than a small one.
The relationship between the variation of the mesh size and the results is
not linear.
The crack pattern is the same regardless of the changes you do in the
material.
A higher Fracture Energy allows a higher maximum load before cracking,
but once it happens, the ductility of the concrete decreases quickly.
Displacements with low Fracture Energy are bigger than with high Fracture
Energy.
During a load experiment with reinforced beams, we can see three zones:
-A first zone of elastic behaviour
-A second zone where the concrete starts cracking
-A final zone where the beam starts behaving as steel because the
concrete has lost the cohesion.
Depending on the kind of Shear Retention Factor chosen, the behaviour of
the beam in the elastic and non-elastic zones will change. It is important to
choose it well, because it will correspond the behaviour of the cracking
areas after start cracking.