Numerical Analysis of Masonry-In Filled Reinforced Concrete Frames

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/352374589
Numerical Analysis of Masonry-In ﬁlled Reinforced Concrete

Frames
Article in Journal of Science and Technology · June 2014

DOI: 10.20428/jst.v19i2.772
CITATIONS READS
6 65
2 authors:
Ibrahim M. H. Alshaikh Nabil Falah

University of Science and Technology, Yemen Technische Universität Hamburg
23 PUBLICATIONS 388 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 55 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ibrahim M. H. Alshaikh on 21 June 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Numerical Analysis of Masonry-Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames
Numerical Analysis of Masonry-Infilled Reinforced

Concrete Frames
(1) (2)
Ibrahim AL-Shaikh , Nabil Falah
Abstract
Analytical studies have been conducted to investigate the performance of
masonry infill reinforced concrete frames under in-plane lateral loading. In this
paper, the experimental results were summarized in concisely, and a constitutive
model is presented for the modeling masonry units, mortar, and the masonry
units/mortar interface in general. 3D finite element models of reinforced concrete
frames have been constructed by ABAQUS software. The concrete damaged
plasticity model provided by ABAQUS is used to simulate the behavior of
concrete. A comparison was performed between the numerical modeling results
and the experimental results, to verify that the finite element models in ABAQUS
are capable of simulating similar behavior to experimental models. There is good
agreements between experimental and numerical results.
Keywords: Reinforced concrete; Infilled frames; Concrete damaged plasticity; Interface
element; Finite element; ABAQUS
1. Introduction
The general codes does not take into account the performance of masonry
infill reinforced concrete frames during the design of these frames and usually fills
these frames by masonry walls, and are often neglected in the design phase [1].
Where is considered this kind of elements architectural elements and of non-
structural [2,3].
Un-reinforced masonry buildings are designed and constructed only for
gravity forces and not for lateral forces. Some conventional designs of un-
reinforced masonry structures have shown acceptable performance during past
earthquakes in previous periods, where masonry structures are used significantly
in Yemen.
(1) Master student, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Science
and Technology, Yemen. Email: . [email protected] m
(2) Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Sana'a University,
Yemen. Email: [email protected]
Journal of S cience& Technology

12
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
These structures respond to the stress of the earthquake by working along the
joints between infill and confinement elements, the straining and sliding of
masonry and confining elements dissipates a significant amount of energy during
an earthquake [4].
Infill walls increase the lateral stiffness of the frames, and be as a means of
transport interior horizontal forces, on the other hand, the infill walls effect the
behavior of the frame where these walls working to reduce the deformations [1].
The experimental test consisted of five reinforced concrete (RC) frames
specimens tested under substantial drift-lateral deflection/story height (9%) to
study the behavior of failure and deformation for the specimens by Ghassan Al-
Chaar et al [5]. Comparisons have been performed between the numerical
modeling results and the experimental results, to verify that the finite element
models are capable of simulating similar behavior to experimental results.
2. Experimental Program
The test consisted of five RC frames specimens tested under substantial
drift-lateral deflection/story height (9%) to study the behavior of failure and
deformation for the specimens [5].
The five specimens have been construction with scaling factor 1:2 due to
the limitation of the research. The five specimens were all single-story and
constructions with different number bays single, double and triple. Material
properties of all experimental models are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Material property of all experimental models [5]
Material Properties
Poisson ratio = 0.2
Compressive strength = 38.438 MPa
Concrete
Modulus of elasticity = 29992 MPa
Density = 2.4 e -9 ton/mm3
Poisson ratio = 0.15
Compressive strength = 12.907 MPa
Block
Modulus of elasticity = 15275.362 MPa
Poisson ratio = 0.3
Yield stress = 338.5 MPa
Reinforcing steel
Modulus of elasticity = 200000 MPa

11
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
The distance between column centerlines is 2,032 mm (bay widths), and

the rectangular columns size are 203x127 mm and 197 x 127 mm for beams. The
infill wall built from a concrete masonry unit, all infill specimens had an aspect
ratio (h/w) of 0.75, and with a slenderness ratio (h/t) of 13.9. The frames were
1,524 mm in the high. The reinforcement details for all specimens were shown in
Figure 1.
3. Numerical Modeling
The most practical way to analysis a structure consisting a large number of
degrees of freedom is the finite element method. It can be performed finite
element analysis by a number of commercial programs. In this research was used
the nonlinear finite element program ABAQUS. That is provision time and cost to
conduct experiments in the laboratory.
Figure 1 The reinforcement details for all specimens (Ghassan Al-Chaar et al. 2002)

12
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
A 3D finite element model of reinforced concrete frames with and without

infill walls has been constructed in ABAQUS/Standard 6.12 according to Ghassan
Al-Chaar et al. [5] as shown in Figure 2.
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 2 The finite element model details (a) Longitudinal and transverse reinforcement (b) Bare
frames (c) Infilled frames
3.1 Materials
3.1.1 Concrete
The plastic-damage model in ABAQUS is used to simulate the
behavior of concrete in columns, beams and concrete masonry unit. That is
based on the proposed models by J. Lubliner et al. [6] and By Jeeho Lee and
Gregory L. Fenves [7], that is capable of predicting the behavior of each of the
compressive and tension for concrete under external pressures.

13
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
Concrete Damaged Plasticity model uses a yield condition based on the yield
function proposed by J. Lubliner et al. [6] and It also includes the modifications
proposed by Jeeho Lee and Gregory L. Fenves [7] to calculate different evolution
of strength under tension and compression, p is the hydrostatic pressure stress and
q is the Mises equivalent effective stress, Figure 3.
Figure 3 Yield surface in plane stress [8]
The coefficient α can be determined from σb0 the biaxial initial yield
compressive stress and σc0 uniaxial initial yield compressive stress, experimental
values for stress are 1.10<σb0 /σc0 <1.16, yielding values 0.08<α<0.12 [6], β it can
be determined from the effective compressive and tensile cohesion stresses.
The damaged in compression and tension are depended on two hardening
variables. The hardening variables are equivalent plastic strains in compression
εc~pl and tension εt~pl . Crushing and micro-cracking in the concrete model are
represented by increasing values of these variables, and the hardening variables
control the evolution of the yield surface.
The stress-strain equation for the Concrete Damaged Plasticity is
represented by the concept developed by Jeeho Lee and Gregory L. Fenves [7] :
σt = (1-dt)E0 (εt-εt~pl ) 1
σc = (1-dc)E0 (εc-εc~pl ) 2

14
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
The degraded response of concrete is described by dc and dt, which are

referred to independent uniaxial damage variables for compression and tension,
respectively. Moreover, are assumed to be functions of the temperature, plastic
strains, and field variables, and 0≤d<1 .
If E0 is the initial elastic stiffness for the concrete material, the stress-strain
relations under uniaxial compression and tension loading are shown in Figure 4.
The Concrete Damaged Plasticity model is a modification of the Drucker–
Prager theory. According to the modifications, the failure surface in the deviatoric
plane does not need to be a circle, and it is governed also for parameter Kc,
Figure 5.
Figure 4 The stress-strain relations for concrete to uniaxial loading (a) In tension (b) In compression. [8]
Figure 5 Yield surfaces in the deviatoric plane [8]
The flows potential for Concrete Damaged Plasticity follows the Drucker–Prager
hyperbolic are shown in Figure 6. The shape is adjusted through the eccentricity

15
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
parameter ϵ , It is a small value that defines the rate of approach of the hyperbola
plastic potential to its asymptote. Where ψ is the dilation angle is measured in the
p-q plane.
Figure 6 Hyperbolic Drucker–Prager flow potential [8]

The Concrete Damaged Plasticity model in ABAQUS can be regularized
using viscoplasticity, therefore allows stresses to be outside of the yield surface,
and as can overcome convergence difficulties by defining a small value for
viscosity parameter.
The compressive stress-strain curve for the concrete obtained from test
experimental conducted by Ghassan Al-Chaar et al. [5], shown in Figure 7.
The stress-strain curve as shown in Figure 8, generally that the tensile
stress increases as a straight line with an increase in tensile strain up to the
concrete cracking. Then the tensile stress reduces as a straight line to zero. The
tensile strength fct for concrete was calculated equal 10% from compressive
strength [9].
45
40
35
30 Concrete for frame
Stress MPa
25
20 Concrete masonry
15
10
5
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004
Strain mm/mm
Figure 7 The stress-strain curve for the concrete in compression.

16
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
Stres s
fct
Stra i n
εto εtu
Figure 8 Stress-strain curve for concrete in tension.

The parameters of Concrete Damaged Plasticity that were used for
modeling concrete in ABAQUS, are shown in Tables 2.
Table 2 The parameters of Concrete Damaged Plasticity
Dilatation angle Eccentricity σb0 /σc0 K Viscosity parameter
7 0.1 1.16 0.7 0.00025
3.1.2 Reinforcement Bars
The idealized stress strain curve as shown in Figure 9, would be more
appropriate to modeling the behavior of reinforcing steel, the reinforcing steel is
modeled as a linear elastic and linear-plastic-hardening material.
The parameters of this model are the stress and strain at the beginning of
yielding and the stress and strain at the ultimate load was obtained from
experimentally stress-strain relations.
Stres s
fu =439 MPa
fy = 338.5 MPa
Stra i n
εy εu
Figure 9 Idealized stress-strain relationship for reinforcing steel material

17
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
3.2 Elements Type

The ABAQUS program contains a large number of different element
types, categorized based on the aspects that characterize the behavior (family,
degrees of freedom, number of nodes, formulation, and integration).
3.2.1 Concrete Elements
The continuum elements in ABAQUS can be used for nonlinear analyses
involving plasticity, contact, and large deformations. They are available for stress,
heat transfer, coupled thermal-stress, etc. ABAQUS program uses numerical
techniques to integrate different quantities over the volume of each the element,
therefore allows complete generality in material behavior. It is also uses Gaussian
quadrature for most of the elements to evaluate the response of the material at
each integration point for each element. Some solid (continuum) elements in
ABAQUS can use reduced or full integration, an option which can have an
important effect on the accuracy of the elements for a specific problem. Reduced
integration reduces the required time for running, especially in three dimensions
models. For example, element type C3D20R has only 8 (2x2x2) in each direction
integration points, while C3D20 has 27 (3x3x3) integration points, therefore the
assembly for element it is approximately 3.5 times lesser for C3D20R than for
C3D20, Figure 10. For this research, the C3D8R element, was used to model
columns, beams and slabs.
(a) (b)
Figure 10 Integration point for elements (a) C3D20 and (b) C3D20R
3.2.2 Reinforcement Bars Elements

The second type is the truss elements, are used in three or two dimensions to
model the slender elements, that support loading only the centerline or along the
axis of the element. For this research, the truss element (T3D2) which is used to
modeling the reinforcing steel in the members of concrete.

18
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
3.2.3 Interface Elements

Masonry wall considered as a composite material that consists from
masonry units and mortar joints, Figure 11(a). For a full analysis of the masonry,
should be modeling all elements for the masonry (masonry units, mortar, and the
masonry units/mortar interface), Figure 11(b). In this way masonry units and
mortar in the joints are modeling by continuum elements whereas the unit-mortar
interface is modeled by interaction elements. It must be taken into account the
following: inelastic properties, the Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio for both
masonry unit and mortar. The interface represents the slip plane and potential
crack with initial stiffness to prevention interpenetration of the continuum (solid)
elements [10].
This enables to study the combined action of unit, mortar and interface.
This model for masonry requires large cost and long time to procedure the
analysis [10], therefore a simplified micro-modeling of masonry was used in this
research, Figure 11(c). In this way masonry units are modeling by continuum
(solid) elements, whereas the behavior of the mortar joints and masonry
unit/mortar interface is lumped in one interaction element, see Figure 12.
Furthermore we can use the macro-modeling by neglects the difference
between masonry units and mortar joints, through taking into account the
properties masonry units and mortar joints in an average through homogenization
techniques [10], Figure 11(d).
Figure 11 Modeling for masonry structures: (a) Masonry sample (b) Detailed micro-modeling (c)
Simplified Micro-modeling (d) Macro-modeling [10]

23
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
M ortar
hb+hm Solid
Block
element
Interface
≡ elements
Solid
Block
element
Figure 12 Modeling of simplified micro-modeling for masonry structures with zero thickness
elements
The normal and shear stiffness required to define the behavior of mortar
joints and masonry unit/mortar interface, can be defined by the following [11]:
Where and are joint stiffness respectively, for normal and shear,
and are modulus of elasticity for unit and mortar, also and are the
shear modulus for unit and mortar, and is the actual thickness for the joints. As
was also calculate the shear modulus by the following [12]:
4
Where is Modulus of elasticity for unit and mortar, and is Poisson's ratio.
To be modeling interface elements in ABAQUS, should be used a specific
type of elements that simulate the behavior of the mortar joints. Cohesive
elements in ABAQUS are preferable for modeling the behavior of adhesives
joints, bonded interfaces.
If the cohesive zone is very thin, and for all practical purposes may be
considered to be of zero thickness, the constitutive response is commonly
described in terms of a traction-separation law, [8].
The specification of generalized traction-separation behavior for surfaces,
this behavior offers capabilities that are very similar to cohesive elements that are
defined using a traction-separation law. However, surface-based cohesive
behavior is typically easier to define and allows simulation of a wider range of
cohesive interactions, [8].
The available traction-separation model in ABAQUS assumes initially
linear elastic behavior, followed by the initiation and evolution of damage. The
elastic behavior is written in terms of an elastic constitutive matrix that relates the

22
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
normal and shear stresses to the normal and shear separations across the interface,
[8].
3.3 Constraints & Interactions
3.3.1 Embedded Elements
The ABAQUS provides a large collection of constraints, whereas in this
research the embedded elements were used to modeling reinforcing steel in
concrete elements, recommended by ABAQUS Manual. Therefore reinforcing
steel be embedded in concrete elements (host elements).
The translational degrees of freedom of the embedded node are
constrained to the interpolated values of the corresponding degrees of freedom of
the host element, [8].
3.3.2 Interactions
Two methods can be used in ABAQUS to modeling the contact. The first
method is contact pair, if there are two surfaces that interact with each other. The
second method is self-contact if there is single surface that interact with itself,
furthermore be used to contact pair to define interactions between bodies.
ABAQUS has several contact formulations. Each formulation is based on the
number of options a contact discretization, assignment of master and slave roles to
the contact surfaces and a tracking approach.
Surface-to-surface discretization considers the shape of both the slave and
master surfaces in the region of contact constraints. The surface-to-surface
formulation enforces contact conditions in an average sense over regions nearby
slave nodes rather than only at individual slave nodes. The averaging regions are
approximately centered on slave nodes, with traditional node-to-surface
discretization the contact conditions are established such that each slave node on
one side of a contact interface effectively interacts with a point of projection on
the “master” surface on the opposite side of the contact interface, [8].
A tracking approach will have a considerable effect on how contact surfaces
interact. In ABAQUS, there are two tracking approaches to calculation the relative
motion for interaction surfaces, the first approach is a finite sliding, it allows any
arbitrary motion of the surfaces and which is the most general. The second is
small sliding, two bodies may be subjected to large motions, however it assumes
there will be relatively little sliding. In ABAQUS cannot be assigned the cohesive

21
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
behavior in the contact pairs using the surface-to-surface discretization and the
finite sliding tracking approaches.
In this research, a traditional node-to-surface discretization and the small
sliding tracking approach was used for modeling the interaction resulting from the
mortar which is located between block units.
The choice of master and slave typically has the effect on the results with a
node-to-surface contact formulation, see Figure 13.
Generally, if a larger surface contacts with a smaller surface, it is best to
choose the larger surface as the master surface and the smaller surface as the slave
surface.
Figure 13 Different master-slave assignments with node-to-surface [8]

3.3.3 Contact Properties
The interaction between surfaces is defined by specify a contact property
model for a contact interaction. Mechanical contact property models include, the
relationship pressure-overclosure that control the motion of the surfaces, a friction
model that specified the resisting tangential motion in the surfaces and a cohesive
behavior that allows modeling the behavior of adhesives joints, [8].
The relationship pressure-overclosure was defined in models for this
research as the hard contact model. In the hard contact, the penetration is not
allowed at each constraint location, there is no end to the magnitude of contact
pressure, which can be transferred between the contact surfaces.
To define the friction model between the contact surfaces, must determine
the friction coefficient which means that there were shear forces will develop in
contact surfaces. For this research, the friction coefficient between concrete
masonry units equals 0.44.
Cohesive behavior is defined in ABAQUS as part of the interaction
properties that are assigned to the contact surfaces. The properties of interface
elements are defined in ABAQUS according to the properties of mortar for the

22
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
experimental test of Ghassan Al-Chaar et al. [5], moreover the equations 3 were
used to specify the behavior of the interface elements, see Table 3.
Table 3 Interface elements properties for the mortar
(MPa/mm) (MPa/mm)
16020 11856
3.4 Boundary Condition and Load Application

The nodes at the bottom surface of the two columns in frame are restrained
in all degrees of freedom. The load was applied as a lateral deflection at the upper-
right of beam as shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14. Boundary Condition and Load Application

4. The Results of Numerical
A comparison was performed between the numerical modeling results and
the experimental results, to verify that the finite element models in ABAQUS are
capable of simulating similar behavior to experimental models .
4.1 Bare-Frame
A 3D finite element model of bare frames has been constructed in
ABAQUS according to experimental models [5].
4.1.1 Effect of Mesh Size
In order to evaluation the effects of meshing on the results, three different
meshing sizes are followed to procedure numerical analysis the frames, they are:
1. Mesh one: the columns and beam were divided into 100 elements,
whereas the reinforcing steel was divided into 326 elements, see
Figure 15(a).

23
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
2.
Mesh two: the columns and beam were divided into 1572 elements,
whereas the reinforcing steel was divided into 326 elements, see
Figure 15(b).
3. Mesh three: the columns and beam were divided into 1572 elements,
whereas the reinforcing steel was divided into 787 elements.
The comparisons of the three meshes are shown in Figure 16. It can be
observed, the Mesh three had a good agreement with the experimental results.
Depending on a comparison, the Mesh three was selected for modeling all finite
element models in the following simulating.
(a) (b)
Figure 15 Different meshes size for concrete (a) Mesh one (b) Mesh two & three.
45
40
35
30
Load (KN)
25 Experimental
20 Mesh 1
15
Mesh 2
10
Mesh 3
5
0
0 50 100 150
Deflection (mm)
Figure 16 The comparisons between the different meshing sizes.
4.1.2 Effect of Element Type
In addition, in order to evaluation the effect of element types on the
results, the element type C3D8 & C3D8R are used to procedure numerical
analysis the frames, Figure 17. It can be observed, the element type C3D8 gives
close results compared with the experimental results. Furthermore the element

24
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
type C3D8R gives a good agreement with the behavior of experimental results,
Figure 17.
Depending on a comparison, element type C3D8R was selected for
modeling all finite element models in the following simulating. Comparison
between deformation in finite element frame and deformation in the experimental
frame are shown in Figure 18.
40
35
30
Load (KN)
25
Experimental
20 C3D8
15 C3D8R
10
5
0
0 50 100 150
Deflection (mm)
Figure 17 The comparisons between the different element type.
(a) (b)
Figure 18 Comparison between deformations (a) Finite element frame (b) Experimental frame.
4.2 Infilled Frame

A 3D finite element model of infilled frames has been constructed in
ABAQUS according to experimental models [5], were selected the element type
C3D8R and the same mesh size as the previously. There is a good agreement with
the behavior of experimental results as shown in Figure 19.
Comparison between deformation in finite element infilled frame and
deformation in experimental infilled frame are shown in Figure 20.

25
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
100
Load (KN) 80
60
Experimental
40
Numerical
20
0
0 10 20 30 40
Deflection (mm)
Figure 19 Comparison between finite element infilled frame and experimental infilled frame.
(a) (b)
Figure 20 Comparison between deformations (a) Finite element infilled frame (b) Experimental
infilled frame.
5. Conclusions
Depending on comparisons that were performed between the numerical
modeling results and the experimental results, it is concluded that:
 The finite element models were able to predict with a good degree of accuracy
the behavior of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frames.
 Meshing sizes have important effect on the behavior of numerical model.
 The use of element C3D8 for modeling frames gives close results compared
with the experimental results. Furthermore the use element C3D8R for
modeling frames gives a good agreement with the behavior of experimental
results.
We recommend researchers to study the effect of the openings and their
places in the infill walls.

26
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
6. References
[1] Amir Saedi Daryan et al. “A Study of the Effect of Infilled Brick Walls on
Behavior of Eccentrically Braced Frames Using Explicit Finite Elements
Method” American J. of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2 (1): 96-104
(2009).
[2] J. Centeno et al. “Shake Table Testing Of Gravity Load Designed Reinforced
Concrete Frames With Unreinforced Masonry Infill Walls” The 14 th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering ,Beijing China (2008).
[3] M. Lupoae et al. “Aspects Concerning Progressive Collapse of a Reinforced
Concrete Frame Structure with Infill Walls” World Congress on Engineering
Vol III , WCE 2011, London, U.K (2011).
[4] Samaresh Paikara1 and Durgesh C. Rai “Confining Masonry Using Pre-Cast
Rc Element For Enhanced Earthquake Resistance” Proceedings of the 8th
U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco,
California, USA (2006).
[5] Ghassan Al-Chaar et al. “Behavior of Masonry-Infilled Nonductile
Reinforced Concrete Frames” Journal Of Structural Engineering Vol.
128:1055-1063(2002).
[6] J. Lubliner et al “A Plastic-Damage Model for Concrete” International
Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 25, pp. 299–329 (1989).
[7] Jeeho Lee and Gregory L. Fenves “Plastic-Damage Model for Cyclic
Loading of Concrete Structures” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol. 124,
no.8, pp. 892–900 (1998).
[8] Dassault Systèmes. ABAQUS Manual, Version 6.12, 2012.
[9] A.H. Nilson et al. “Design Of Concrete Structures”, 14 th edition, McGraw-
Hill, United States (2010).
[10] Lourenço P.B., Rots J.G., Blaauwendraad J. “Two Approaches For The
Analysis of Masonry Structures: Micro And Macro-Modeling”, HERON,
Vol. 40. No.4, p. 313-340 (1995).
[11] Lourenço, P.B. “Analysis of masonry structures with interface elements”,
Report No. 03.21.22.0.01, Delft University of Technology, Delft,
Netherlands, 72 pp (1994).
[12] T. H. G. Megson “Structural And Stress Analysis”, 1st edition, Butterworth-
Heinemann, UK (1996).

27
Vol.(19) No.(2) 2014
View publication stats

Numerical Analysis of Masonry-In Filled Reinforced Concrete Frames

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Numerical Analysis of Masonry-In Filled Reinforced Concrete Frames

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Numerical Analysis of Masonry-In Filled Reinforced Concrete Frames

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Numerical Analysis of Masonry-In ﬁlled Reinforced Concrete

Article in Journal of Science and Technology · June 2014

Ibrahim M. H. Alshaikh Nabil Falah

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Numerical Analysis of Masonry-Infilled Reinforced

Journal of S cience& Technology

Journal of S cience& Technology

The distance between column centerlines is 2,032 mm (bay widths), and

Journal of S cience& Technology

A 3D finite element model of reinforced concrete frames with and without

Journal of S cience& Technology

Figure 3 Yield surface in plane stress [8]

Journal of S cience& Technology

The degraded response of concrete is described by dc and dt, which are

Figure 5 Yield surfaces in the deviatoric plane [8]

Journal of S cience& Technology

Figure 6 Hyperbolic Drucker–Prager flow potential [8]

Journal of S cience& Technology

Figure 8 Stress-strain curve for concrete in tension.

Journal of S cience& Technology

3.2 Elements Type

3.2.2 Reinforcement Bars Elements

Journal of S cience& Technology

3.2.3 Interface Elements

Journal of S cience& Technology

Journal of S cience& Technology

Journal of S cience& Technology

Figure 13 Different master-slave assignments with node-to-surface [8]

Journal of S cience& Technology

3.4 Boundary Condition and Load Application

Figure 14. Boundary Condition and Load Application

Journal of S cience& Technology

Journal of S cience& Technology

4.2 Infilled Frame

Journal of S cience& Technology

Journal of S cience& Technology

Journal of S cience& Technology

View publication stats

You might also like