INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Volume 4, No 3, 2014
Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0

Research article

ISSN 0976 4399

Modeling of a reinforced concrete beam subjected to impact vibration

using ABAQUS
Ali Ahmed
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Stamford University Bangladesh
aliahmed@stamforduniversity.edu.bd
doi: 10.6088/ijcser.201304010023
ABSTRACT
A 3D finite element (FE) analysis technique using ABAQUS is chosen to explore the
dynamic behavior of a beam under impact load. A beam, for which the impact dynamic test
was conducted by Kishi (2004), is selected to develop a solid element FE model. FE analyses
were performed implementing ABAQUS Explicit (2004) programming tool to predict the
dynamic responses under the pressure amplitude introduced by pounding a freefalling steel
hammer. Thirty analyses have been executed changing different parameters, such as damping,
tension and compression stiffness recovery, damage parameter-strain/displacement relations
and friction coefficient to choose the best performing FE analysis model. The high accuracy
definition is confirmed upon extensive examination of the calculated structural responses of
the FE model comparing with the published experimental results (Kishi, 2004).
Keyword: Finite element, explicit dynamic analysis, beam, impact load, damage parameter,
strength recovery.
1. Introduction
The primary concern about the structural failure under anticipated extreme loadings had been
addressed with the many provisions attributed to issues like: (i) attaining member
level/structure level resistance against the code prescribed loads and load combinations (ACI,
2002 and ASCE-7, 2002), (ii) defining all anticipated loads including extreme environmental
loads (Hakuno and Meguro, 1993 and Luccioni, et al., 2004), (iii) attaining structural
integrity and ductility (ASCE-7, 2002), (iv) providing continuity for connections (beam to
column, slab to column, slab to wall, beam to beam, column to column etc.) (Leyendecker
and Burnett, 1976 and Leyendecker and Ellingwood, 1977) and (v) providing some general
statements about resiliency, redundancy and robustness, etc. (ACI, 2002 and ASCE-7, 2002).
Therefore, code-compliant buildings highlight the significance of more investigative study
related to impact loading issues. It is recognized that experimental observations are much
more expensive comparative to its counterpart investigations implementing computer
analyses. In that sense, finite element (FE) analysis can be an option. Thus, a 3D FE analysis
model using ABAQUS was triggered to explicitly explore the dynamic behavior of a
reinforced concrete (RC) structural element. ABAQUS is a very complex FE analysis
program introduced with huge material characteristics and parameters to reproduce high
accuracy in calculations. But there are no clues to assign exact values for those parameters.
Thus, model choosing based on influential material characteristics and behavioral parameters
is an important part of FE analysis before investigating the actual behavior of a structural
element. In this study, thirty analyses have been executed changing different parameters, such
as damping, tension and compression stiffness recovery, damage parameter-strain/
displacement relations and friction coefficient to choose the best performing FE model. The

Received on October, 2013 Published on February 2014

227

Modeling of a reinforced concrete beam subjected to impact vibration using ABAQUS

Ali Ahmed

results of few analyses are to be discussed in this paper. Upon extensive examination of the
calculated structural responses of the FE models comparing with the published experimental
results. This study reveals that FE analysis using proposed model can be applied to explore
dynamic behavior of structural elements subjected to impact vibrations.
2. Modeling technique
2.1. Mesh discretization
A 3D FE mesh of a concrete beam block, steel anchor plate and reinforcement bars are
constructed employing ABAQUS/CAE structural analysis modeling tool (2004) to execute a
dynamic analysis of the RC beam. The dynamic test of the beam was conducted by Kishi and
his colleagues at Muroran Institute of Technology in Japan on March 3, 2003 (Kishi, 2004).
The experimental setup including the pounding steel hammer is shown in Figure 1. As shown
in this test set-up, a rectangular RC beam of 200300 mm cross-section and 3,400 mm long
was positioned horizontally and was supported on two gigues at its both ends with a 3,000
mm span between the two supports (Figure 2). This figure also shows the reinforcement
detailing of the tested beam. Mesh of only one-fourth portion of the beam is constructed for
FE model because of the geometric, loading and support conditions symmetry (Figure 3). In
the FE analysis modeling, the concrete block of the tested beam is idealized by homogeneous
material and modeled with eight-node solid (brick) elements, which are identified as C3D8R
elements in ABAQUS. They are chosen because C3D8R elements with reduced integration
follow the constitutive law integration accurately and very suitable for nonlinear static and
dynamic analyses as well as allow for finite strain and rotation in large-displacement analysis.
These solid elements are used for modeling both the supporting gigue and the pounding steel
hammer. The mesh of solid beam model strictly followed the geometries of the tested beam.
The longitudinal and confinement reinforcement bars are modeled as embedded elements in
concrete block of the beam with 3D beam elements B31. To construct the mesh of the model,
moderately fine mesh is used to obtain close responses to the experimental results. Figure 3
illustrates the mesh pattern of the FE model of the tested beam with reinforcement bars (as
embedded elements), anchoring steel plate and supporting gigue. The total numbers of user
defined nodes and elements in the mesh of the solid element model are 8,103 and 5,929,
respectively.

Figure 1: Impact test setup of the RC beam (Kishi, 2004) implied for the FE modeling

228
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 3 2014

Modeling of a reinforced concrete beam subjected to impact vibration using ABAQUS

Ali Ahmed

300

Figure 2: Reinforcement detailing of the tested beam (Kishi, 2004) used for the model

Figure 3: Mesh configuration of FE model of the beam

2.2. Material properties
Material properties for all elements are specified; however, high-quality material data were
difficult to obtain, particularly for the more complex material models like material damage
properties. The validity of the results is essentially limited by the accuracy and extent of the
material data. Here linear elasticity and nonlinear plasticity of reinforcement steel and
isotropic elasticity in combination with damaged plasticity model of concrete is discussed to
depict a mechanical constitutive model.
2.2.1. Constitutive model of reinforcing bar steel
Steel of the reinforcing bars has approximately linear elastic behavior when the steel stiffness
introduced by the Youngs or elastic modulus keeps constant at low strain magnitudes. At
higher strain magnitudes, it begins to have nonlinear, inelastic behavior, which is referred to
as plasticity. The plastic behavior of steel is described by its yield point and its post-yield
hardening. The shift from elastic to plastic behavior occurs at a yield point on a material
stress-strain curve. The deformation of the steel prior to reaching the yield point creates only
elastic strains, which is fully recovered if the applied load is removed. However, once the
stress in the steel exceeds the yield stress, permanent (plastic) deformation begins to occur.
Both elastic and plastic strains accumulate as the metal deforms in the post-yielding region.
The stiffness of the steel decreases once the material yields. The plastic deformation of the
steel material increases its yield stress for subsequent loadings.
The yield and ultimate strengths were taken for longitudinal steel bars 379 MPa and 581 MPa
and confinement steel bars 373 MPa and 518 MPa with Youngs modulus of elasticity,
229
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 3 2014

Modeling of a reinforced concrete beam subjected to impact vibration using ABAQUS

Ali Ahmed

Es = 20600 GPa and Poissons ratio, = 0.3 from the coupon test results (Kishi, 2004). The
test material properties for steel of the anchor plate and the supporting gigue were not
provided, and they are assumed similar values to those of longitudinal bars.
2.2.2. Constitutive model of concrete
Linear at elastic and nonlinear damaged plasticity model for inelastic states of concrete are
assumed because of concretes low deformability in those both states. The concrete isotropic
damage plasticity model is designed for its arbitrary loading conditions. Degradation of the
elastic stiffness induced by the plastic straining both in tension and compression are taken
into consideration in the material constitutive model.
i) Concrete damaged plasticity model
The material model is a continuum, plasticity based, damaged model for concrete. Damaged
plasticity is assumed to characterize the uniaxial tensile and compressive response of concrete
as shown in Figure 4. At the beginning, the stress-strain relationship is linearly elastic under
uniaxial tension until the value of the failure stress ft0 is reached. Failure stresses in concrete
block is converted to replace microcracks in it. Beyond the state of the failure stress in
concrete, stress-strain response is designed by softening characteristic (Figure 4a).
Under uniaxial compression, the response is linear until the value of initial yield fc0. After
attaining the ultimate stress fcu in the plastic zone, the response of concrete is characterized by
the stress hardening followed by strain softening (Figure 4b). Therefore, concrete stresses
determined unloading from any point on the strain are

(
= E (

)
)(1 d )

f t = E c t tpl (1 d t )
fc

pl
c

(1)
(2)

where Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete. Then, the effective tensile and compressive
cohesion stresses of concrete are estimated as

ft =

ft
= E pl
(1 d t ) c t t

(a) Tension behavior associated

With tension stiffening

(3)

b) Compressive behavior associated

with compression hardening

Figure 4: Concrete damaged plasticity model

230
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 3 2014

Modeling of a reinforced concrete beam subjected to impact vibration using ABAQUS

Ali Ahmed

fc =

fc
= E c c cpl
(1 d c )

(4)

which determine the size of the failure surface. The postfailure behavior of reinforced
concrete represents by means of the postfailure stress as a function of cracking strain
tck and cck , which are defined as the total strain minus the elastic strain corresponding to the
undamaged material, and tension stiffening data are given in terms of the cracking strains.
When unloading data are available, programming automatically converts the cracking strain
values to plastic strain values using the following relationships (ABAQUS/Explicit, 2004):

dt
ft
(1 d t ) E0
dc
fc

(1 d c ) E0

tpl = tck

(5)

cpl = cck

(6)

Property values for the assumed constitutive model of concrete and steel discussed above
were collected from the coupon test results conducted in the laboratory of Muroran Institute
of Technology, Japan (Kishi, 2004). According to the 11 days and 28 days cylinder test
results, the compressive strengths of concrete were 32.3 MPa (taken as yielding strength fc0)
and 39.2 MPa (taken as ultimate strength fcu), and Youngs modulus of elasticity Ec and
Poissons ratio c of concrete were 28.3 GPa and 0.19. The tensile strength of concrete is
estimated as ft0 = 0.6fcu; therefore, ft0 = 3.76 MPa.
The concrete material is also modeled implementing the concrete damaged plasticity
constitutive model; thus, the mesh where reinforcement does not exist is very sensitive to
deformation. To ignore this kind of undesirable mesh deformation, the tensile postfailure
behavior is assumed in terms of a fracture energy cracking criterion by defining a stressdisplacement curve in place of a stress-strain curve shown in Figure 5(a). Accordingly, the
stiffness degradation damage caused by tensile failure (cracking) of the concrete dt is
assumed as shown in Figure 5(b) with compression recovery factor 0. The postfailure tensile
stresses of the proposed model are adjusted by multiplying a constant 1.253 with the
postfailure stresses for corresponding displacements used in the ABAQUS manual
(ABAQUS, 2004). The stiffness degradation damage due to the compressive crushing dc is
assumed to be 50% for corresponding strain 0.001375 with tension recovery factor 0.8.
To provide a 5% fraction of critical damping of the beam, Rayleigh mass proportional
damping can be given as factor = 2n (ignoring stiffness proportional damping factor ),
where is the critical damping and n = 2/T, T is the natural period of the beam which is
taken from the experimental results as 0.0349 sec (Kishi, 2004); thus, = 18.

3. Boundary conditions
As the beams dynamic behavior during experiment was symmetric in both XY and YZ
planes, mesh of the FE beam model is constructed for only one-fourth portion of the original
beam and for half portion of the left support (Figure 6), and the surfaces of XY and YZ
planes of the mesh of the FE model are constrained with symmetric boundary conditions
(BC) in Z and X directions, respectively. General contact surface algorithm is considered to
model the contact behavior of interacting surfaces between the beam and supporting gigue.
When interaction occurs between surfaces of the beam and supporting gigue, both the friction
231
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 3 2014

Modeling of a reinforced concrete beam subjected to impact vibration using ABAQUS

Ali Ahmed

and cohesion coefficients of contact points are set to 0.2 and 0 to consider corresponding
frictional shears and avoid cohesion during interaction.

a) Stress-displacement relation

b) Tension damage model

Figure 5: Postfailure stiffness degradation damage properties of concrete

a) Concrete beam with support system

b) Rebar and anchor plate

Figure 6: Boundary conditions and applied loads on FE models

3.1 Loadings
Gravity loads are applied to the beam by introducing gravitational acceleration g = 9.81
m/sec2 during a linear static response step, and then impact load that was recorded during the
experiment is applied to the middle circular surface area of 150 mm diameter on the top of
the beam model in a nonlinear explicit dynamic analysis step. The applied impact pressure
amplitude is shown in Figure 7.

4. Execution of FE explicit dynamic analysis

4.1. FE analysis
The first step of a finite element analysis using ABAQUS is to discretize the actual geometry
of the structure using a set of finite elements for defining the model of the physical problem
and to create an ABAQUS input file. In this study, model is created graphically using
232
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 3 2014

Modeling of a reinforced concrete beam subjected to impact vibration using ABAQUS

Ali Ahmed

preprocessor software ABAQUS/CAE (2004), which is a complete ABAQUS environment

that provides a simple, consistent interface for creating, submitting, monitoring, and
evaluating form ABAQUS/Standard and ABAQUS/Explicit modeling process. Defining the
geometry and material properties, as well as generating a mesh are done by moving from
module to module and developed a model to generate an input file. However, the input file
generated by ABAQUS/CAE is altered later for defining properties and parameters that are
not supported by ABAQUS/CAE using a text editor. A complete analytical procedure in
ABAQUS usually consists of three stages: i) Preprocessing, ii) Analysis, and iii)
Postprocessing. The sequential progress of these three stages is shown in Figure 8.
The linear static analysis was performed by ABAQUS/Standard in only one increment;
however, the ABAQUS/Explicit (2004) requires a large number of increments because very
small increment of time is required to get the stable solution of equation of motion and keep
the stability limit. The total execution time of the explicit analysis was taken 4 hours 15
minutes by a Pentium 4 computer with 3,000 MHz processor speed.

Figure 7: Amplitude of loading exploited for the FE model of the beam (Kishi, 2004)

Figure 8: Flow chart of a complete ABAQUS analysis

4.2. Analysis results and discussion
Thirty analyses have been executed changing different parameters, such as damping, tension
and compression stiffness recovery, damage parameter-strain/displacement relations, friction
coefficient and mesh size to choose the best performing FE model. However, the results of
few analyses are to be discussed in this section to highlight the models that can predict
acceptable behavior of the tested beam, and those which failed to give realistic results are
discarded. A quick picture of the FE analyses is shown in Figure 9. This figure compares the
233
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 3 2014

Modeling of a reinforced concrete beam subjected to impact vibration using ABAQUS

Ali Ahmed

analytical and experimental results. In Figure 9a, the comparison is based on the midpoint
deflections between measured and estimated by the means of experiment and FE explicit
analyses, respectively. FE model FEA8-1 shows very good agreement of the midpoint
displacements in the elastic region, but in the region where concrete material starts giving
plastic deformation decreasing stiffnesses due to the formation of cracks, analysis shows
deflection waves with very low amplitudes (almost flatten horizontal deflection curve). It
happens because FEA8-1 does not include damage model to consider concrete stiffness
degradations. Thus, although this model matches the maximum deflection limit of the beam
with experimental results, it fails to give exact amplitudes of midpoint displacement waves of
the beam in the plastic region. FEA8-2 model illustrate better results than that predicted by
FEA8-1 because model FEA8-2 considers the damage model for concrete stiffness
degradation. However, the model ignores considering tension stiffness recovery parameter in
the concrete areas where reinforcement bars are not present. The FEA8-2 model predicted the
first wave of deflection curve with minimal amplitude and does not match with experimental
curve. Now, FEA8-3 considers all of the parameters discussed above except damping factors.
This means that the values of Rayleighs damping factors and are taken as 0. This FE
model gives better approximation of dynamic behavior than other two, but the amplitudes of
midpoint displacement waves do not decay after the first wave. The last FE model FEA8-4 is
the best among the all models due to the consideration of all the factors mentioned above
including Rayleighs mass proportional damping factor =18 taking into account of 5% of
critical damping.
Figure 9b shows the comparison between the values of reaction forces at the support of the
tested beam and FE model FEA8-4. The applied impact force reached to peak values at the
beginning and ABAQUS shows sensitivity to this force and was distributed between the
supports through the beam span. However, the peak reaction forces estimated by the FEM8-4
are larger, later reaction forces predicted by the analyses agree very closely with the measured
values.

a) Midpoint displacements of the beam

b) Reaction forces on the support

Figure 9: Comparison between FE analysis and experimental results

234
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 3 2014

Modeling of a reinforced concrete beam subjected to impact vibration using ABAQUS

Ali Ahmed

Figures 4.10a and b illustrate tension damage (cracks) with superimposed experimental beam
cracks (orange colour solid lines) and concrete stiffness degradation contour plots of the half
of beam, where tension damage value 0 indicates concretes elastic behavior, greater than 0
but smaller than 0.4 means formation of microcracks until beginning of concrete yield,
greater than 0.4 but less than 1 concrete contains cracks and 1 defines full concrete failure. In
Figure 4.10, cracks that are away from the midpoint and developed due to the bending effect
of the beam are at initial state for both tested beam and FEA8-4; in addition, the dense cracks
formed mainly due to shear in the middle region of the tested beam are similar with that of
the FEA8-4. However, some cracks formed in between the midpoint and support are not
developed in the exact position of the FE model, FEA8-4 can simulate the dynamic behavior
with sufficient accuracy for executing explicit dynamic analysis of a RC beam.

a) Contour plot of tensile damage with superimposed experimental beam cracks

b) Contour plot of stiffness degradation

Figure 10: Evolution of tensile damage and deformation configuration of concrete at the end
of loading for FEM8-4
Figure 11 shows the contour plot of equivalent plastic strain in rebar and steel anchor plate.
The longitudinal bars and shear rebar of the middle region where impact pressure amplitude
was applied are yielding in tension, but the longitudinal bars did not reach their ultimate
strain values. Additionally, there is a lack of shear rebar in the middle region of the beam that
caused to fail the beam due to excessive shear. The similar effect can be observed in the
tested beam.

Figure 11: Equivalent plastic strain contour plot and deformation configuration of rebar at
the end of the explicit dynamic analysis of FEM8-4
235
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 3 2014

Modeling of a reinforced concrete beam subjected to impact vibration using ABAQUS

Ali Ahmed

5. Conclusions
A close analytical observation of four FE models was done based on material properties and
failure mechanism and their parameters. The comparison of those models with experimental
results showed that FEA8-4 was the best performing model for a RC beam to study dynamic
behavior under impact load.
It is remarkable that this FE analysis model could be used to perform dynamic analysis of not
only individual elements of a RC frame but also RC frame structures (long bridges, singleand multi-storied buildings and others) using ABAQUS.

6. References
1. ABAQUS, (2004), Example problems manual, Version 6.4.1, Hibbitt Karlsson &
Sorensen, Inc., USA.
2. ABAQUS/CAE, (2004), Users Manuals, Version 6.4.1, Hibbitt Karlsson & Sorensen,
Inc., USA.
3. ABAQUS/Explicit, (2004), Theory Manual, Version 6.4.1, Hibbitt Karlsson &
Sorensen, Inc., USA.
4. ACI 318-02/318R-02, (2002), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
5. ASCE 7-02, (2002), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
6. Hakuno, M., and Meguro, K., (1993), Simulation of Concrete-Frame Collapse Due to
Dynamic Loading, Journal of engineering mechanics, 119(9), pp1709-1723.
7. Kishi, N., (2004), Practical Methods for Impact Test and Analysis, Structural
Engineering Series, JSCE, impact problems, No.15 (in Japanese).
8. Leyendecker, E. V., and Burnett, E. F. P., (1976), The Incidence of Abnormal
Loading in residential Buildings, National Bureau of Standards, NBS 98, Washington,
D.C.
9. Leyendecker, E. V., and Ellingwood, B. R., (1977), Design Methods for Reducing the
Risk of Progressive Collapse in Buildings, National Bureau of Standards, NBS 98,
and Washington, D.C.
10. Luccioni, B. M., Ambrosini, R. D., and Danesi, R. F., (2004), Analysis of building
collapse under blast loads, Journal of engineering structures, ASCE, 26, pp 63-71.

236
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 3 2014