Advertisement

Predicting the response of continuous RC deep beams under varying levels of differential settlement

  • M. Z. NaserEmail author
  • R. A. Hawileh
Research Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the effect of differential support settlement on shear strength and behavior of continuous reinforced concrete (RC) deep beams. A total of twenty three-dimensional nonlinear finite element models were developed taking into account various constitutive laws for concrete material in compression (crushing) and tension (cracking), steel plasticity (i.e., yielding and strain hardening), bond-slip at the concrete and steel reinforcement interface as well as unique behavior of spring-like support elements. These models are first validated by comparing numerical predictions in terms of load-deflection response, crack propagation, reaction distribution, and failure mode against that of measured experimental data reported in literature. Once the developed models were successfully validated, a parametric study was designed and performed. This parametric study examined number of critical parameters such as ratio and spacing of the longitudinal and vertical reinforcement, compressive and tensile strength of concrete, as well as degree (stiffness) and location of support stiffness to induce varying levels of differential settlement. This study also aims at presenting a numerical approach using finite element simulation, supplemented with coherent assumptions, such that engineers, practitioners, and researchers can carry out simple, but yet effective and realistic analysis of RC structural members undergoing differential settlements due to variety of load actions.

Keywords

concrete continuous beams deep beams finite element modeling support settlement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their efforts in improving the state of this manuscript as well as in recommending carrying out future mathematical and numerical based studies.

References

  1. 1.
    Das B M, Sobhan K. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2013Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gunaratne M. The Foundation Engineering Handbook. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang N, Tan K H. Effects of support settlement on continuous deep beams and STM modeling. Engineering Structures, 2010, 32(2): 361–372MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ashour A F. Tests of reinforced concrete continuous deep beams. ACI Structural Journal, 1997, 94(1): 3–12Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Asin M. The Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Continuous Deep Beams. Delft: Delft University Press, 1999Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leonhardt F, Walther R. Deep beams. Deutscher Ausschuss Fur Stahlbeton Bulletin 178, 1970Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rogowsky D M, MacGregor J G, Ong S Y. Tests of reinforced concrete deep beams. Structural Engineering Report, 1983, 83(4): 614–623Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang X H, Xu Y L, Zhan S, Zhu S, Tam H W, Au H Y. Simulation of support settlement and cable slippage by using a long-span suspension bridge testbed. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2017, 13(3): 401–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim Y J, Gajan S, Saafi M. Settlement rehabilitation of a 35-yearold building: Case study integrated with analysis and implementation. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 2011, 16(4): 215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D’Orazio T B, Duncan J M. Differential settlement in steel tanks. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1987, 113(9): 967–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tan K H, Lu H Y. Shear behavior of large reinforced concrete deep beams and code comparisons. Structural Journal, 1999, 96(5): 836–846Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khatab M A, Ashour A F, Sheehan T, Lam D. Experimental investigation on continuous reinforced SCC deep beams and comparisons with code provisions and models. Engineering Structures, 2017, 131: 264–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kong F K, Robins P J, Cole D F. Web reinforcement effects on deep beams. ACI Journal, 1970, 67(2): 1010–1018Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang K H, Chung H S, Lee E T, Eun H C. Shear characteristics of high-strength concrete deep beams without shear reinforcements. Engineering Structures, 2003, 25(10): 1343–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tan K H, Kong F K, Teng S, Weng L W. Effect of web reinforcement on high-strength concrete deep beams. ACI Structural Journal, 1997, 94(5): 572–582Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hawileh R A, El-Maaddawy T A, Naser M Z. Non-linear finite element modeling of concrete deep beams with openings strengthened with externally-bonded composites. Materials & Design, 2012, 42: 378–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang K H, Eun H C, Chung H S. The influence of web openings on the structural behavior of reinforced high-strength concrete deep beams. Engineering Structures, 2006, 28(13): 1825–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barney G B, Corley WG, Hanson J M, Parmelee R A. Behavior and design of prestressed concrete beams with large web openings. PCI Journal, 1977, 22(6): 32–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berardi R, Lancellotta R. Yielding from field behavior and its influence on oil tank settlements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2002, 128(5): 404–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sykora M, Markova J, Mlcoch J, Molnar J, Presl K. Predicting service life of chimneys and cooling towers based on monitoring. In: Hordijk D, Luković M, eds. High Tech Concrete: Where Technology and Engineering Meet. Cham: Springer, 2018, 1671–1679Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laefer D F, Ceribasi S, Long J H, Cording E J. Predicting RC frame response to excavation-induced settlement. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2009, 135(11): 1605–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin L, Hanna A, Sinha A, Tirca L. High-rise building subjected to excessive settlement of its foundation: A case study. International Journal of Structural Integrity, 2017, 8(2): 210–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ANSYS. ANSYS Workbench Documentation. Version 11. Canonsburg: ANSYS Inc., 2007Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abu-Obeidah A, Hawileh R A, Abdalla J A. Finite element analysis of strengthened RC beams in shear with aluminum plates. Computers & Structures, 2015, 147: 36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hawileh R A, Naser M Z, Abdalla J A. Finite element simulation of reinforced concrete beams externally strengthened with short-length CFRP plates. Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2013, 45(1): 1722–1730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Demir A, Ozturk H, Dok G. 3D numerical modeling of RC deep beam behavior by nonlinear finite element analysis. Disaster Science and Engineering, 2016, 2(1): 13–18Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hawileh R A, Abdalla J A, Tanarslan M, Naser M Z. Modeling of nonlinear cyclic response of shear-deficient RC T-beams strengthened with side bonded CFRP fabric strips. Computers and Concrete, 2011, 8(2): 193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Biondini F, Vergani M. Deteriorating beam finite element for nonlinear analysis of concrete structures under corrosion. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2015, 11(4): 519–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hawileh R A, Naser M Z. Thermal-stress analysis of RC beams reinforced with GFRP bars. Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2012, 43(5): 2135–2142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Naser M Z. Response of steel and composite beams subjected to combined shear and fire loading. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 2016Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Naser M Z. Behaviour of RC beams strengthened with CFRP laminates under fire—A finite element simulation. Thesis for the Master’s Degree. Sharjah: American University of Sharjah, 2011Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sakar G, Hawileh R A, Naser M Z, Abdalla J A, Tanarslan M. Nonlinear behavior of shear deficient RC beams strengthened with near surface mounted glass fiber reinforcement under cyclic loading. Materials & Design, 2014, 61: 16–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hawileh R A, Abdalla J A, Naser M Z, Tanarslan M. Finite element modeling of shear deficient RC beams strengthened with NSM CFRP rods under cyclic loading. ACI Special Publications, 2015, 301: 1–18Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    William K J, Warnke E P. Constitutive models for the triaxial behavior of concrete. Proceedings of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, 1975, 19: 1–30Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hognestad E, Hanson N, McHenry D. Concrete stress distribution in ultimate strength design. ACI Journal, 1955, 52(12): 455–479Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB-FIP). CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. Bulletin D’Information, 1993Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nie J, Fan J, Cai C. Stiffness and deflection of steel-concrete composite beams under negative bending. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2004, 130(11): 1842–1851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hamdia K M, Silani M, Zhuang X, He P, Rabczuk T. Stochastic analysis of the fracture toughness of polymeric nanoparticle composites using polynomial chaos expansions. International Journal of Fracture, 2017, 206(2): 215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rabczuk T, Zi G, Bordas S, Nguyen-Xuan H. A geometrically nonlinear three-dimensional cohesive crack method for reinforced concrete structures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2008, 75(16): 4740–4758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rabczuk T, Akkermann J, Eibl J. A numerical model for reinforced concrete structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2005, 42(5–6): 1327–1354CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. Cracking particles: A simplified meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2004, 61(13): 2316–2343CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rabczuk T, Zi G, Bordas S, Nguyen-Xuan H. A simple and robust three-dimensional cracking-particle method without enrichment. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2010, 199(37–40): 2437–2455CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. A three-dimensional large deformation meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2007, 196(29–30): 2777–2799MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. Application of particle methods to static fracture of reinforced concrete structures. International Journal of Fracture, 2006, 137(1–4): 19–49CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Glenn Department of Civil EngineeringClemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringAmerican University of SharjahSharjahUnited Arab Emirates
  3. 3.Materials Science and Engineering Research InstituteAmerican University of SharjahSharjahUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations