Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 11 – uploaded by Hilal Hassan

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 9: Total deformation of the FE models.

Figure 9 Total deformation of the FE models.

Related Figures (15)

Figure 1: Details of tested beam-column joint (dimensions in mm and @ denotes the rebar diameter). approximate solutions for a variety of engineering problems [23]. In this research, 3D finite element modeling was T he finite element method (FEM) is a numerical method to solve integral or differential equations and also to obtain conducted using ANSYS 18.2 software. This section presents the analytical approach and assumptions used in the analysis and the elements and material models selected from the software library. Element SOLID 65 is used for the simulation of concrete. SOLID 65 is an eig in the x, y, and z directions. The Solid 65 creep, and crushing concrete. Element LI ht nodes element, where each node has three translation nodal degrees of freedom element can estimate cracking in three principal directions, plastic deformation, NK 180 was used for the simulation of steel and GFRP rebar. The element is a uniaxial compression-tension element with three degrees of freedom at each node; the translations in the nodal directions x, y, and z. Element SOLID 185 is used for the simulation of loading and bearing plates. This element is characterized by eight nodes with three translations nodal d egrees of freedom in the nodal cartesian directions x, y, and z [7, 24-28]. An experimentally tested beam-column joint was used from literature to validate numerical analysis via ANSYS software [29]. The dimension of the tested joint is shown in Fig. 1. The flexural reinforcement of the beam was five longitudinal rebars with a diameter of 19.5 mm top and bottom and rectangular stirrups with a bar diameter of 11.3 mm every 100 mm. The reinforcement steel of the column was eight longitudinal rebars with a bar diameter of 15.9 mm and rectangular stirrups with 11.3 mm diameter every 90 mm.
Figure 1: Details of tested beam-column joint (dimensions in mm and @ denotes the rebar diameter). approximate solutions for a variety of engineering problems [23]. In this research, 3D finite element modeling was T he finite element method (FEM) is a numerical method to solve integral or differential equations and also to obtain conducted using ANSYS 18.2 software. This section presents the analytical approach and assumptions used in the analysis and the elements and material models selected from the software library. Element SOLID 65 is used for the simulation of concrete. SOLID 65 is an eig in the x, y, and z directions. The Solid 65 creep, and crushing concrete. Element LI ht nodes element, where each node has three translation nodal degrees of freedom element can estimate cracking in three principal directions, plastic deformation, NK 180 was used for the simulation of steel and GFRP rebar. The element is a uniaxial compression-tension element with three degrees of freedom at each node; the translations in the nodal directions x, y, and z. Element SOLID 185 is used for the simulation of loading and bearing plates. This element is characterized by eight nodes with three translations nodal d egrees of freedom in the nodal cartesian directions x, y, and z [7, 24-28]. An experimentally tested beam-column joint was used from literature to validate numerical analysis via ANSYS software [29]. The dimension of the tested joint is shown in Fig. 1. The flexural reinforcement of the beam was five longitudinal rebars with a diameter of 19.5 mm top and bottom and rectangular stirrups with a bar diameter of 11.3 mm every 100 mm. The reinforcement steel of the column was eight longitudinal rebars with a bar diameter of 15.9 mm and rectangular stirrups with 11.3 mm diameter every 90 mm.
Figure 2: Load history for the reversed cyclic load [29]. A, Sobhy et ahi, Frattura ed Integrita Strutturale, 57 (2021) 70-81; DOI: 10.3221 /IGF-ESIS.57.07
Figure 2: Load history for the reversed cyclic load [29]. A, Sobhy et ahi, Frattura ed Integrita Strutturale, 57 (2021) 70-81; DOI: 10.3221 /IGF-ESIS.57.07
Figure 3: Finite element model details of the studied joint.
Figure 3: Finite element model details of the studied joint.
Figure 4: FE model results; a) Load-story drift relationship of FE model and b) FE VS Experimental Load-drift envelope
Figure 4: FE model results; a) Load-story drift relationship of FE model and b) FE VS Experimental Load-drift envelope
Al Sobhy et ali, Frattura ed Integrita Strutturale, 57 (2021) 70-81; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.57.07 Figure 5: Geometric and reinforcement details of beam-column joints; a) Joint Geometry and reinforcement, b) Reinforcement of S1, c) Reinforcement of H1; and d) Reinforcement of G1. (dimensions in mm, s denotes steel rebar, and f denotes GFRP rebar).
Al Sobhy et ali, Frattura ed Integrita Strutturale, 57 (2021) 70-81; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.57.07 Figure 5: Geometric and reinforcement details of beam-column joints; a) Joint Geometry and reinforcement, b) Reinforcement of S1, c) Reinforcement of H1; and d) Reinforcement of G1. (dimensions in mm, s denotes steel rebar, and f denotes GFRP rebar).
was used to model the loading and bearing plates. Finite element analysis requires meshing of the model; hence the models are divided into many small elements. Convergency analysis was performed in order to balance the results accuracy, the solution time, and storage file size. After several trials, it was found that meshing the model with an element size of 50 x 50 x 50 mm has obtained good results with 3D concrete elements SOLID 65 and hexagonal sweep mesh option. The finite element model of beam and column is shown in Fig. 6.
was used to model the loading and bearing plates. Finite element analysis requires meshing of the model; hence the models are divided into many small elements. Convergency analysis was performed in order to balance the results accuracy, the solution time, and storage file size. After several trials, it was found that meshing the model with an element size of 50 x 50 x 50 mm has obtained good results with 3D concrete elements SOLID 65 and hexagonal sweep mesh option. The finite element model of beam and column is shown in Fig. 6.
Figure 6: Components of the FE model. The concrete was connected to the reinforcement steel or FRP bats in ANSYS using bonded contact. The concrete was bound to the loading and bearing plates by merging the coincide nodes at the interface between them. To simulate hinged support condition at the lower column end and roller support condition at the upper ends of the column, restraints were applied, as shown in Fig. 7a. Table 1: Mechanical characteristics of concrete, steel reinforcement and GFRP reinforcing bars materials.
Figure 6: Components of the FE model. The concrete was connected to the reinforcement steel or FRP bats in ANSYS using bonded contact. The concrete was bound to the loading and bearing plates by merging the coincide nodes at the interface between them. To simulate hinged support condition at the lower column end and roller support condition at the upper ends of the column, restraints were applied, as shown in Fig. 7a. Table 1: Mechanical characteristics of concrete, steel reinforcement and GFRP reinforcing bars materials.
Figure 7: Boundary conditions and the applied loads of the FE model. A, Sobhy et alii, Frattura ed Integrita Strutturale, 57 (2021) 70-81; DOL: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.57.07
Figure 7: Boundary conditions and the applied loads of the FE model. A, Sobhy et alii, Frattura ed Integrita Strutturale, 57 (2021) 70-81; DOL: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.57.07
Figure 8: Load history for the reversed cyclic load. Beam-column joint models have been analyzed under reversed cyclic load. As seen in Fig. 7b, the cyclic reversed load has applied to the upper end of the beam, while the column head has been subjected to a constant axial load with a magnitude of 140 kN, which was maintained constant in all loading cycles. The history of the reversed cyclic load was used similar to the experimental work performed by Paknejadi, [34], as seen in Fig. 8.
Figure 8: Load history for the reversed cyclic load. Beam-column joint models have been analyzed under reversed cyclic load. As seen in Fig. 7b, the cyclic reversed load has applied to the upper end of the beam, while the column head has been subjected to a constant axial load with a magnitude of 140 kN, which was maintained constant in all loading cycles. The history of the reversed cyclic load was used similar to the experimental work performed by Paknejadi, [34], as seen in Fig. 8.
Figure 10: Load-story drift relationship of steel model S1. GFRP-Reinjorced Model (G1)
Figure 10: Load-story drift relationship of steel model S1. GFRP-Reinjorced Model (G1)
Figure 11: Load-story drift relationship of GFRP model G1. Al. Sobhy et alii, Frattura ed Integrita Strutturale, 57 (2021) 70-81; DOL: 10.3221 /IGF-ESIS.57.07
Figure 11: Load-story drift relationship of GFRP model G1. Al. Sobhy et alii, Frattura ed Integrita Strutturale, 57 (2021) 70-81; DOL: 10.3221 /IGF-ESIS.57.07
Figure 12: Load-story drift relationship of Hybrid model H1.
Figure 12: Load-story drift relationship of Hybrid model H1.
Figure 14: Cumulative energy dissipated for the models. Figure 13: Comparison between load vs. story drift envelopes of all models.
Figure 14: Cumulative energy dissipated for the models. Figure 13: Comparison between load vs. story drift envelopes of all models.
The cumulative energy dissipated was measured in successive load-displacement cycles by summing the dissipated energy during the reverse cyclic load analysis. The energy dissipated during the cycle is calculated as the area occupied by the hysteretic loop in the load-displacement graph. Fig. 16 displays cumulative dissipated energy plots vs. story drift for the models analyzed. It can be found that the GFRP reinforced model, i.e., G1 has around 2.5% of the standard steel-reinforced model $1 capacity of energy dissipation before failure.
The cumulative energy dissipated was measured in successive load-displacement cycles by summing the dissipated energy during the reverse cyclic load analysis. The energy dissipated during the cycle is calculated as the area occupied by the hysteretic loop in the load-displacement graph. Fig. 16 displays cumulative dissipated energy plots vs. story drift for the models analyzed. It can be found that the GFRP reinforced model, i.e., G1 has around 2.5% of the standard steel-reinforced model $1 capacity of energy dissipation before failure.
Related topics:
Materials ScienceStructural EngineeringCyclic LoadingBeam Column JointHybrid Reinforcement
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved