ASSESSING THE ACCURACY OF LOAD-CARRYING CAPACITY PREDICTIONS

OF ETHIOPIAN STANDARD, COMPRESSIVE FORCE PATH METHOD

AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

MSc THESIS PROPOSAL

TESFAMICHAEL MEKONNEN ABATHUN

APRIL, 2019

ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA

ASSESSING THE ACCURACY OF LOAD-CARRYING CAPACITY PREDICTIONS OF
ETHIOPIAN STANDARD, COMPRESSIVE FORCE PATH METHOD AND FINITE
ELEMENT ANALYSIS

TESFAMICHAEL MEKONNEN ABATHUN

A PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO:

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
SCHOOL OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES, INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING

APRIL, 2019

ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA

 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

BOARDS OF EXAMINERS PROPOSAL APPROVAL SHEET

This is to certify that the thesis proposal entitled “Assessing the Accuracy of Load-Carrying
Capacity Predictions of Ethiopian Standard, Compressive Force Path Method and Finite
Element Analysis” has been carried out by TesfaMichael Mekonnen Abathun Id. No.
PRAMIT/2019/10, has been approved by the research advisor, reviewers, SGS coordinator and
faculty head for the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degrees of masters of science
in Civil Engineering with specialization on Structural Engineering.

TesfaMichael Mekonnen ________________ ______________

Candidate Name Signature Date

Dr. Muftah Ahmed ________________ ______________

Principal advisor Signature Date

Silenat Deriba (MSc) ________________ ______________

Co-advisor Signature Date

Natchimuthu Subramani (Asst. Professor) _______________ ______________

Examiner-1 Signature Date

Solomon Liranso (MSc) _______________ ______________

Examiners-2 Signature Date

Efrem Kiross (MSc) ________________ ______________

Chair Person Signature Date

i
Habtamu Melese (MSc) ________________ _____________
Department Head Signature Date

Democracy Dilla (MSc) ________________ ___________

Post Graduate Coordinator Signature Date

Abera Uncha (PhD) ________________ ____________

Post Graduate Director Signature Date

ii
Table of Contents
Boards of Examiners Proposal Approval Sheet ......................................................................... i

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... iii

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 4

1.3.1 General Objective .................................................................................................... 4

1.3.2 Specific Objectives .................................................................................................. 4

1.4 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 5

1.6 Scope of the Study .......................................................................................................... 5

2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 6

3 Methods and Procedures ..................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Methods........................................................................................................................... 8

3.1.1 Analytical Analysis .................................................................................................. 8

3.1.2 Numerical Analysis .................................................................................................. 8

3.2 Procedures ....................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.1 Experimental Setup and Results .............................................................................. 9

3.2.2 Analytical Analysis .................................................................................................. 9

3.2.3 Numerical Analysis ................................................................................................ 10

4 Work Plan ........................................................................................................................... 11

5 Budget Plan......................................................................................................................... 12

6 References ........................................................................................................................... 13

iii
1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Ethiopian Standard for the design of concrete structures (ES EN 1992:2015) has been
developed within the context of the limit-state philosophy: A structure or member is first
designed so as to exhibit specified performance after attaining its load-carrying capacity, i.e.
when its ultimate limit state is reached; the design is complemented or even revised during a
process of checking whether the structure or member exhibits the desired behavioral
characteristics under service conditions, i.e. at the serviceability limit state.

The design methods adopted by the code are intended to size the cross section of structural
members and specify an amount and arrangement of reinforcement that will safeguard desired
performance characteristics such as load-carrying capacity and ductility. This objective can
only be achieved by ensuring that the load corresponding to shear types of failure is always
higher than that corresponding to flexural capacity. To this end, the sizing of the cross section
and the assessment of the longitudinal reinforcement are linked to flexural capacity, whereas
the associated shear-force diagram underlies the method adopted for specifying an amount and
arrangement of transverse reinforcement that will safeguard against shear failure occurring
before flexural capacity is exhausted (Ahmad et al., 2018).

The concepts underlying the methods adopted by ES EN 1992:2015 assumes that load transfer
at ultimate limit state is accomplished through the development of truss or various forms of
strut-and-tie mechanisms in which the compressive zone and the tension flexural reinforcement
form the longitudinal struts and ties, respectively, stirrups and inclined bars form the web ties
and cracked concrete in the tensile zone (by means of aggregate interlock and dowel action)
allows for the formation of inclined struts. On the basis of these concepts, shear failure is
associated with failure of either the web ties or the inclined struts, whereas the longitudinal
struts and ties are designed such that flexural failure occurs when the concrete strut at the most
critical location reaches its strength (in compression) after yielding of the longitudinal tie at
the same cross section. To determine shear capacity the code employs its own empirical
formulae, the derivation of which is largely based on regression analysis of the available test
data, whereas the calculation of flexural capacity is based on assumptions such as plane cross

1
sections remain plane during bending, full bond between concrete and steel, uniaxial stress–
stain behaviour of concrete in the compressive zone, etc. (Ahmad et al., 2018).

The validity of the truss analogy, which underlies structural concrete design, relies on the
validity of a number of concepts such as, for example, “aggregate interlock,” “dowel action,”
“strain-softening,” etc., which are the prerequisites for cracked concrete to be capable of
transmitting diagonal compression through the tensile zone of a beam-like member at its
ultimate limit state (Kong & Evans, 1987). However, the above concepts appear to be in
conflict with the behaviour of concrete as established from material tests. In fact, “aggregate
interlock” and “dowel action” can only be effected by the shear displacement of the interfaces
of inclined cracks; and yet, the occurrence of such a displacement contrasts experimental
evidence which has established that the cracking processes of concrete involve crack extension
in the direction of the maximum principal stress (compression being considered as positive),
with the crack interfaces coinciding with the plane of the maximum and intermediate principal
stresses and crack-opening occurring in the orthogonal to this plane direction (i.e., in the
direction of the minimum principal stress) (Kotsovos, 1979). On the other hand, strain
softening has been found to reflect secondary testing procedure effects to such an extent that
it has been suggested as more realistic to consider concrete as a fully-brittle material (van Mier,
1987).

Consequently, the need of calibrating these specifications (i.e., aggregate interlock, dowel
action, strain-softening, etc.) with experimental data describing the behavior of reinforced
concrete (RC) beam/column elements leads to an ever-increasing complexity of the code-
adopted design formulae. Moreover, it has been shown that compliance with the fundamental
concrete properties can lead to the development of alternative design methods, such as the
compressive force path (CFP) method, which may be, not only simpler and more efficient, but
also rely on failure criteria derived from first principles (of mechanics), without the need of
calibration through the use of experimental data (Kotsovos, 2014).

The compressive force path method is based on the incorporation of important mechanical
characteristics of concrete such as brittle behaviour, cracking mechanism, sensitivity to triaxial
stress conditions, etc. into beam theory which describes the mechanism of load transfer
accomplished through the bending of the concrete cantilevers forming between consecutive

2
flexural and/or inclined cracks. Failure is considered to be associated with the stress conditions
in the compressive zone and reinforcement is specified to prevent non-flexural (commonly
referred to as shear) types of failure before flexural capacity is exhausted. Unlike the code
methods, the criteria for nonflexural types of failure have been derived from first principles (of
mechanics) without the need of calibration through the use of test data (Kotsovos, 2014).

On the other hand, a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) package is usually considered to be
capable of yielding realistic predictions of the response of a concrete structural form when the
deviation of the predicted from the experimentally measured values of particular structural
characteristics does not exceed a value of the order of 20% of the corresponding measured
quantity. Such structural characteristics usually include the load-carrying capacity, the relation
between applied load and corresponding displacements, reactions or first order deformation
derivatives (e.g. rotations); furthermore, qualitative behaviour pattern matches are also
considered, such as the crack patterns at various load stages and the mode of structural failure.
Moreover, a FEA package is considered to be characterized by objectivity and generality when
it is capable of providing realistic predictions of structural behaviour for any type of structural
concrete configuration, without the need of recalibrating the constitutive model adopted or its
parameters (Cotsovos et al.,2009).

To this end, the present work focuses on assessing the ability of the methods adopted by
Ethiopian Standard for Design of Concrete Structures to provide predictions concerning load-
carrying capacity in agreement with their experimentally established counterparts. A
comparative study is carried out between the available experimental data and the predictions
obtained from (1) Ethiopian Standard (ES EN 1992:2015 Design of Concrete Structures), (2)
Compressive Force Path method, and (3) ABAQUS FEA software package (by employing
static nonlinear push-over analysis).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The adoption of the limit-state philosophy as the basis of current codes of practice for the
design of concrete structures expresses the conviction that this philosophy is capable of leading
to safer and more economical design solutions. However, experimental evidence has been
published that describes the behaviour of a wide range of structural concrete members (such
as, for example, beams, columns, beam-column joints, walls, etc.) for which current methods

3
for assessing structural performance yield predictions exhibiting excessive deviations from the
true behaviour as established by experiment.

On the other hand, the compressive force path method, the development of which is based on
assumptions different (if not contradictory) to those adopted by the available design codes, as
well as FEA software packages that employs nonlinear finite element analysis are being
considered to be capable of predicting the load carrying capacity of RC members/structures.

1.3 Objectives

1.3.1 General Objective

It is the general objective of the current study to provide a comprehensive literature review
about the three methods (i.e., ES EN 1992:2015, CFP & FEA using ABAQUS). This will be
done in order to understand the fundamental concepts that underlies each method.
Understanding the basic ideas that underlies each method is a necessary step towards efficient
application of the methods. It also helps to understand why they are good or bad in predicting
the load carrying capacity of RC members. The main goal of the study is to assess the
capabilities of the methods to realistically predict the load carrying capacity of simply
supported RC beams by comparing the predicted results with their experimentally established
counterparts.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

The study has the following specific objectives:

1. To clearly understand the basic ideas that underlies the three methods

2. To evaluate the closeness of the analysis results with their experimental counterparts

3. To assess the advantages and limitations of each methods

1.4 Research Questions

It is the main theme of this study to compare the capability of the aforementioned methods to
predict load carrying capacity of RC members/structures. More specifically, the following
research questions need to be addressed.

1. What are the basic concepts that underlies each method?

4
 2. Which method of structural analysis give results that are in close agreement with their
experimentally established counterparts?

3. What advantages and limitations do each method have?

1.5 Significance of the Study

The single most important characteristics of any structural member is its actual strength, which
must be large enough to resist, with some margin to spare, all foreseeable loads that may act
on it during the life of the structure, without failure or other distress. This requirement of safety
can only be achieved by using analysis and design methods which are in close agreement with
experimentally established concrete characteristics.

To this end, it is intended that the findings of this study will be used by designers, design firms
and consultants in selecting and applying methods of structural analysis and design. It could
also help authorities to draft and implement building code regulations based on methods which
are in close agreement with fundamental concrete properties. Moreover, RC structural analysis
and design software package developers may use this study as an input to develop computer
codes that will provide analysis and design results which are in close agreement with their
experimental counterparts.

1.6 Scope of the Study

This study will only try to investigate the structural response of simply supported RC beam
elements. This is mainly due to the abundance of experimental data on such types of structural
elements. Simply supported RC beam elements, which are experimentally investigated by
different researchers, will be analytically analyzed using ES EN 1992:2015 and compressive
force path method. The same beam elements will be modelled and analyzed numerically in
ABAQUS nonlinear finite element analysis package. Based on the results obtained from the
analytical and numerical analysis of the beams, a comparative study will be done to determine
the closeness of the results (i.e., load-carrying capacity) with their experimentally established
counterparts. It is beyond the scope of this study to investigate qualitative behaviour pattern
matches, such as the crack patterns at various load stages and mode of structural failure.

5
2 Literature Review
A preliminary literature review has been conducted to prepare this thesis proposal and the most
relevant research papers, which has been published on different journals, are presented
hereafter.

M. D. Kotsovos and K. V. Spiliopoulos (1998) tried to evaluate structural concrete design

concepts based on finite element analysis. The study was done by using a linear finite element
package called FINEL within an iterative procedure based on the Newton-Raphson method.
The study showed that the use of a brittle constitutive model for concrete did not prevent the
prediction of ductile behaviour at the structure level. For the structural forms investigated,
the analysis predicted that the beams designed to the “truss analogy” will fail prematurely in a
brittle manner well before their flexural strength is exhausted. On the other hand, designing
the beams to the compressive force path methods was found to achieve the design objectives
for safety and adequate ductility.

A. Ahmad et al. (2018) (using artificial neural network, ANN) showed that Current code
methods for calculating shear capacity are semi-empirical in that the test data are used for
calibrating the formulation of the theoretical basis of the methods. The resulting formulae are
found conservative: they underestimate shear capacity by an amount ranging between
approximately 15% and 60%. The research also showed that in contrast with code methods,
the formulation of the theoretical basis of the compressive force path method does not require
calibration through the use of test data. The failure criteria have been derived from first
principles and are functions of the strength of concrete of uniaxial compression and tension.
Moreover, unlike the code methods, the compressive force path is capable of identifying both
the location and the causes of failure. An indication of the validity of the method is provided
not only by the fit to the test data which is nearly as close as that of the artificial neural network
procedure for the case of simply supported beams, but also by the realistic predictions of the
load-carrying capacity, location, and causes of failure of the structural elements exhibiting
points of contra-flexure.

T. Ayub and S. U. Khan (2017) tried to validate the concepts of compressive force path
method and ACI (American Concrete Institute) by using shear design provisions. The study
showed that Vc (shear strength of concrete) was better predicted by compressive force path

6
concept as compared to ACI code approach. The experimental failure loads attained by the
beams designed and detailed by both approaches were found comparable to the predicted
failure loads; however, the load predicted by ACI method for shear span to depth ratio (a/d) =
3.5 gave much better results. Moreover, compressive force path model demonstrates the ability
to predict theoretical loads with sufficient accuracy and much lesser shear reinforcement of the
order of 55% on an average; however, it fall short of attaining the desired flexural failure mode,
except for shear span to depth ratio of 4.44.

D. M. Cotsovos et al. (2009) tried to compare the numerical predictions obtained from three
widely used commercial FEA packages, namely ANSYS, LS-DYNA and ABAQUS, as well
as the predictions of a specialized in concrete structures FEA model (RC-FINEL). The study
aimed to investigate the generality and objectivity of the packages available through a
comparative study of the solutions obtained for a number of different problems. The case
studies selected in the research work are initially concerned with the investigation of the
behaviour of two simply supported beams under static monotonic loading applied at their mid-
span. One of the two beams is characterized by ductile behavior whereas the other fails in
brittle manner. The study showed that the FEA packages employing concrete material models
with brittle characteristics (i.e. ABAQUS and RC-FINEL) are found capable of yielding good
predictions in both ductile and brittle types of problems. Whereas, the rest of the packages (i.e.
ANSYS and LS-DYNA) that employ concrete material models with ductile characteristics are
found capable to realistically predicting only ductile types of failure.

Even though, a nonlinear finite-element analysis incorporating a brittle model for the
description of concrete behaviour has already been found capable of yielding realistic
predictions of the response of structural concrete members (Kotsovos and Spiliopoulos, 1998),
none of the aforementioned studies tried to evaluate concrete design code predictions using a
nonlinear finite element package.

7
3 Methods and Procedures

3.1 Methods

The research methods that will be used to undertake the proposed study are (1) Analytical
Analysis, and (2) Numerical Analysis.

3.1.1 Analytical Analysis

The analytical analysis will be done based on ES EN 1992:2015 and compressive force path
method.

ES EN 1992:2015

Simply supported RC beams, which have been experimentally investigated by different

researchers (i.e., Collins & Kuchma, 1999; Grace, 2001; Vecchio & Shim, 2004), will be
analyzed based on the provisions of ES EN 1992:2015 to determine load-carrying capacity of
the members. The results of the analysis will be compared with their experimentally
established counterparts to determine the closeness of the results.

Compressive Force Path (CFP) Method

In the same way, simply supported RC beams, which have beam designed and detailed
according to CFP method and experimentally investigated by different researchers (i.e.,
Kotsovos & Michelis, 1996; Rafeeqi & Ayub, 2013; Ayub & Khan, 2017), will be analyzed
based on CFP methods to determine load-carrying capacity of the members. The results of the
analysis will be compared with their experimentally established counterparts to determine the
closeness of the results.

3.1.2 Numerical Analysis

The same beams, which have been analyzed using ES EN 1992:2015 and compressive force
path method, will be modelled and analyzed in ABAQUS FEA package by employing static
nonlinear push-over analysis to determine load-carrying capacity of the members. Again, the
results of the analysis will be compared with their experimentally established counterparts to
determine the capability of the method in predicting the load-carrying capacity of RC
members/structures.

8
3.2 Procedures

First, for the beams investigated experimentally by different researchers, the experimental
setup and results will be presented. After that, the analytical analysis will be done according to
the specific methods (i.e., ES EN 1992:2015 & CFP) and finally, the beams will be numerically
modelled and analyzed in ABAQUS FEA package.

3.2.1 Experimental Setup and Results

The details which are listed below will be provided for the beams to be analyzed analytically
and numerically.

 Geometry of the beam including reinforcement details

 Material properties of both concrete and reinforcement bars
 Loading and boundary conditions
 Experimental results

3.2.2 Analytical Analysis

The design value of resistance moment will be evaluated with sectional analysis by assuming:

 plane sections remain plane,

 The strain in bonded reinforcement, whether in tension or in compression, is the same
as that in the surrounding concrete.
 the tensile strength of concrete is ignored,
 the compressive stresses in concrete are derived from a parabola-rectangle relation,
 the stresses in the reinforcing steel are derived from an elastic–plastic stress strain
relation with hardening,
 the partial safety factor for the mechanical properties of reinforcing steel equals
γs=1.15, the factor for concrete material properties equals γc=1.5.

The failure mechanism of the specimen is caused due to crushing of concrete after yielding of
reinforcing steel.

The design shear resistance of the section will be calculated by using the formulas provided by
the methods.

9
The design value of shear resistance is VRd = min (VRd, c, VRd, s)

Where - VRd, c is the design shear resistance of concrete and

- VRd, s is the design shear resistance of stirrups

By comparing the calculated values of the applied load related to the design moment resistance
and dictated by the shear resistance, we can conclude the governing load which is the lower.

3.2.3 Numerical Analysis

The numerical analysis, as mentioned earlier, will be done in ABAQUS nonlinear finite
element analysis package by employing static nonlinear push-over analysis. ABAQUS is
chosen due to its capability of providing good predictions of structural responses in both ductile
and brittle types of problems.

Constitutive models for concrete: The concrete model selected for the purposes of this study
is the brittle cracking model, which is available in ABAQUS/Explicit. ABAQUS/Explicit uses
a smeared crack model to represent the discontinuous brittle behavior in concrete. For purposes
of crack detection, a simple Rankine criterion is used to detect crack initiation (i.e. a crack
forms when the maximum principal tensile stress exceeds the specified tensile strength of
concrete). As soon as the Rankine criterion for crack formation is met, a first crack is assumed
to form. The crack surface is taken to be normal to the direction of the maximum tensile
principal stress. Subsequent cracks may form with their surface orthogonal to the directions of
any existing crack surface at the same point. Crack closing and reopening is allowed for (i.e.
cracks can close completely when the stress across them becomes compressive).

Constitutive models for reinforcement: The Steel reinforcement is explicitly included in the
FE model using one-dimensional truss bars under uniaxial tension and compression only.

Constitutive models for concrete-reinforcement interaction: Full bond is assumed between

steel and concrete, i.e., full deformation compatibility at the concrete- reinforcement interface
nodes, with local bond transfer bounded by the tensile capacity of the concrete Gauss points
near the reinforcement.

10
4 Work Plan
The proposed work plan has been divided into 5 tasks spanning 22 weeks. The schedule of
project tasks is shown below.

Project Tasks Weeks

1-8 9-10 11-13 14-16 17-22

Task 1: Literature Review

Deliverable: Literature Review

Task 2: Sampling Plan

Deliverable: Sampling Plan

Task 3: Analytical Analysis

Deliverable: Progress Report

Task 4: Numerical Analysis

Deliverable: Progress Report

Task 5: Data Analysis and Final
Report

Deliverable: Final Report

11
5 Budget Plan
An itemized budget for the project is included here, showing expenditures for each item in
total.

Material and Service Cost

Unit Cost Total Cost
Items Unit Quantity
(Birr) (Birr)

Printing, photocopy and binding - - 1,000 1,000

Rewritable CDs Number 4 25 100

Stationeries materials (pens, A4

- - 1,000 1,000
paper, note books etc.)

Internet - - 1,000 1,000

Software Training - - 3,000 3,000
Sub-Total 1 6,100

Transportation and Per Diem Cost

Transportation Cost - - 3,000 3,000

Sub-total 2 3,000
Total Sum 9,100

Contingency Cost (10%) 910

Total Cost 10,010.00

12
6 References
1. A. Ahmad, G. Kotsovou, D. M. Cotsovos and N. D. Lagaros (2018), “Assessing the
accuracy of RC design code predictions through the use of artificial neural networks”,
International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, Vol. 10, pp 349-365
2. D. M. Cotsovos, C. A. Zeris and A. A. Abbas (2009), “Finite Element Modelling of
Structural Concrete”, ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in
Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Rhodes, Greece, 22–24 June 2009
3. Ethiopian Standard ES EN 1992:2015: Design of Concrete Structures
4. F. J. Vecchio and W. Shim (2004), "Experimental and Analytical Reexamination of
Classic Concrete Beam Tests", Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE Vol. 130(3),
pp 460-469.
5. J. G. M. van Mier (1987), “Multi-axial strain-softening of concrete. Part I: Fracture”,
Material and Structures (RILEM) Vol. 19, pp 179-190
6. Kong F. K. and Evans R. H. (1987), “Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete”. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, London
7. M. D. Kotsovos (1979), “Fracture processes of concrete under generalized stress
states”, Material and Structures (RILEM) Vol. 12, pp 431-437
8. M. D. Kotsovos and P. Michelis (1996), “Behavior of Structural Concrete Elements
Designed to the Concept of the Compressive Force Path”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol.
93, pp 428-436.
9. M. D. Kotsovos and K. V. Spiliopoulos (1998), “Evaluation of structural-concrete
design-concepts based on finite-element analysis”, Computational Mechanics Journal,
Vol. 21, pp 330-338.
10. M. D. Kotsovos (2014), “Compressive Force-Path Method: Unified Ultimate Limit-
State Design of Concrete Structures”. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland
11. M. P. Collins and D. Kuchma (1999), "How Safe Are Our Large, Lightly Reinforced
Concrete Beams, Slabs, and Footings?", ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96(4), pp 482-
490.
12. N.F. Grace (2001), "Strengthening of Negative Moment Region of Reinforced
Concrete Beams Using Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Strips", ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 98(3), pp 347-358.

13
13. S. F. A. Rafeeqi and T. Ayub (2013), “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams
Detailed for Shear in Compliance with Compressive Force Path Method”, NED
University Journal of Research - Structural Mechanics, Vol. X (1), pp 13-30
14. T. Ayub and S. U. Khan (2017), “Behavioral Study of Reinforced Concrete Beams
Designed for Shear Using Compressive Force Path and ACI Code Models”,
International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering Vol. 11, pp 1031-1035.

14