Professional Documents
Culture Documents
are formed in the principal stress direction and are not allowed to change di-
rection with the change in state. This practice leads to crack directions incon-
sistent with the limit state. There is experimental evidence that the crack di-
rections may change in the course of loading. A simple model of forming cracks
in reinforced concrete is proposed. It is assumed that the cracks are formed in
the direction of the major principal tensile strain and that the direction can
change with the change in strains. The proposed model leads to crack direc-
tions which are consistent with the limit state. A numerical algorithm, based
on the proposed model, which is suitable for step-by-step finite element anal-
ysis is also presented. The algorithm is applied to limited available experiments.
INTRODUCTION
2IV
tan 2 9 = * (1)
Nx - Ncy
In conventional analysis techniques, once a crack forms, it is a s s u m e d
that the direction 6 remains constant t h r o u g h o u t subsequent analysis.
(In some cases, a crack m a y close, a n d a n e w or secondary crack m a y
be formed, but with restrictions relative to the inital crack direction.) In
the limit state, on the other h a n d , the crack direction is governed b y
equilibrium conditions a n d is given by (2,3,6,8)
tan 0 = — -. = „ ^ (2)
Nty N* - N y
in which N* and N* represent reinforcement capacities in x a n d indi-
rections, respectively. It can be easily seen that Eqs. 1 and 2, in general,
would not give the same crack direction. The conventional m e t h o d ,
'Prof, of Civ. Engrg., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, N.C. 27695-7908.
2
Research Assh, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh,
N.C. 27695-7908.
Note.—Discussion open until January I, 1985. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Technical and
Professional Publications. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for re-
view and possible publication on June 3, 1983. This paper is part of the Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 8, August, 1984. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9445/84/0008-1735/$01.00. Paper No. 19064.
1735
Nxy
Nxy
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 12/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
N» •N,
Nxy
Nxy
Nv
These are the same assumptions implicitly made in the limit analysis
in Ref. 6. Assumptions 1 and 2 are quite common. Assumption 3 is not
so common and needs further review. This assumption was also made
by Duchon (5), and it is in agreement with the experimental observa-
tions of Vecchio and Collins (12).
Assumption 3 implies that as the principal strain direction changes—
so does the crack direction. The principal strain direction has zero shear
strain, so the shear stresses parallel to the crack are taken to be zero. It
may appear that there is an inconsistency between the two statements
made earlier. If the shear stress parallel to the crack is zero, how would
then the crack direction ever change—or new cracks form? This can be
explained as follows in terms of the physical process. Initially, a crack
is formed in the principal stress direction. This leads to a change in the
stiffness, and consequently to unbalanced stresses. At this stage, there
may be unbalanced shear stress applied parallel to the crack. The prin-
cipal stress direction in concrete is then no longer perpendicular to the
crack direction. If the principal tensile stress in concrete exceeds its ten-
sile capacity, either immediately or after more load is applied, a new
crack would be formed. It is assumed that the original crack is "closed."
This process would continue until the principal tensile stress in concrete
is no longer in excess of its tensile capacity, and the equilibrium is es-
tablished. If we also assume that the tensile capacity of the concrete be-
comes zero after the first crack has been formed, then in the equilibrium
state, both the shear strain and the shear stress parallel to the stabilized
crack would be zero, as envisaged in the original assumption. Same type
of action takes place as more loading is applied. If the application of
further loading is accompanied with change in stiffness properties of the
concrete and the reinforcement due to material nonlinearities, the un-
balanced shear stress would lead to change in the crack direction again.
The assumption 3, therefore, is an idealization of the actual behavior.
Whereas, in the actual behavior the new crack would be formed at dis-
crete intervals of the loading and the old crack would not be completely
closed, the assumption leads to a continuous change, which should closely
approximate the actual discrete change. Philosophically, the implied as-
sumption of the closing of the previous crack can be justified on the
basis of the concept of the "average" crack direction reviewed earlier.
There are two other justifications. One, as shown later, there is experi-
mental evidence (8,11) that the limit state defined by Eq. 2 is reasonable;
and the proposed model is able to achieve it, which the conventional
models would not. Second, it is a simple model and does not need def-
inition of new material parameters. A more sophisticated model would
1737
least on the elemental level. In the global sense, the sequence of loading
may affect the local behavior, because the applied elemental stresses,
themselves are functions of the global stiffnesses, and therefore, of their
variations through any loading sequence. The lack of dependence on the
loading path is an approximation. In most cases, this approximation is
not likely to be critical. This, however, remains to be verified.
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
K = Nx + N^ tan 6 (3a)
N y = N y + N„j cot 6 (3b)
The uniaxial force in concrete parallel to the crack direction is given by
N
(4)
sin 6 cos 8
The corresponding strains are
m (5a)
1738
pxy
i^fSh
(5b)
AyE$
(5c)
hEc '
in which e* and ey are defined as before, «i and e2 are the major and
minor principal strains, respectively, Ax and Ay are the area of reinforce-
ment in x and y directions per unit length of the respective sections, h
is the thickness of concrete, Es and Ec are the elastic modules for steel
and concrete, respectively. We also make use of the following strain
relationships:
€i + e2 = 6 I + ey and ex = t1 cos 2 9 + e2 sin2 (6)
Eqs. 3-6 yield the following equation:
p y (l + npx) tan 4 9 + nxpy tan 3 9 - nypx tan 9 - p x (l + «p y ) = 0 (7)
in which nx = NJNxy) ny = Ny/N^; n = modular ratio = EJEC; px =
Ax/h; and py = 'Ay/h.
Although, we have derived Eq. 7 independently, a similar equation
was reported earlier in Ref. 10. Eq. 7 gives the value of 9 which deter-
mines the crack direction. Once the value of 9 is known, all the other
variables can be readily determined using Eqs. 3-6. It is noted that when
Nx, Ny and N^ are increasing proportionately, and state 2 is main-
tained, the value of 9 does not change.
Axf0-Nx
tan 6 = - ^ (9)
N
Once the value of 0 is known, other variables can be calculated as
before.
NUMERICAL ALGORITHM
From Eq. 12
cos2 20
A0 = [tan 20 - tan 20 - 1]A{e} (14)
1741
concrete was taken to be zero. For each set, theoretical solutions were
obtained using Eqs. 3-9, and numerical solutions were obtained using
the aforementioned algorithm for several values of p. For illustration, p-
6i variations obtained by the two solutions are shown in Fig. 3. In each
case, the theoretical and the numerical solutions are identical. This proves
that the numerical algorithm achieves the same solution iteratively, as
that achieved by the theoretical solutions.
In Table 1, the value of 0 for the elastic state is the one most conven-
tional analysis methods would consider in defining the crack direction.
In the present solution, because the cracking strength of concrete is ne-
glected, the crack direction stabilizes to that for state 2, immediately after
the loading is started. The straight line portion in the p-ex diagrams in
Fig. 3, thus represents state 2. As mentioned earlier, the crack direction
does not change as long as state 2 is maintained. The curved portion of
the p-6i curve represents state 3, which is marked by yielding of the
reinforcement in one of the directions. Within this state the crack direc-
tion continues to change until the reinforcement in the other direction
also yields—which is the beginning of the limit state, state 4. The p-ei
curve in Fig. 3 is terminated at this point. For the cases when 6limit =
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 12/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Tech - Guwahati on 12/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 5.—Comparison of Proposed Model and Vecchio and Collin's (12) Test Spec-
imen PV11
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
APPENDIX.—REFERENCES
1746