Non Linear Finite Element Analysis of Concrete BEAMS using Ansys Software Essay Example For Students

Non Linear Finite Element Analysis of Concrete BEAMS using Ansys Software Essay Chapter 7 non additive finite component analysis of concrete BEAMS utilizing ansys package 7.1Introduction Structural analysis is used to measure the behaviour of technology constructions under the application of assorted tonss. Normally used structural analysis methods include analytical methods, experimental methods and numerical methods. Analytic methods provide accurate solutions with applications limited to simple geometrics. Experimental methods are used to prove paradigms or full graduated table theoretical accounts. However, they are dearly-won and may non be executable in certain instances. Numeric methods are the most sought-after technique for technology analysis which can handle complex geometries besides. Among many numerical methods, finite component analysis is the most various and comprehensive numerical technique in the custodies of applied scientists today. The finite component method has become really popular among applied scientists and research workers as it is considered to be one of the best methods for work outing complex technology jobs expeditiously. There are assorted finite component packages bundles such as ATENA, ABAQUS, Hypermesh, Nastran, ANSYS etc. ANSYS ( Analysis System ) , an efficient finite component bundle is used for nonlinear analysis of the present survey. The chapter discusses the process for developing analysis theoretical account in ANSYS v12.0 and the process for nonlinear analysis of strengthened concrete constructions is discussed. An effort is made to compare the experimental consequences with the consequences obtained from finite component mold. 7.2 Stairss involved in Finite Element analysis Finite element analysis involves three phases of activity: preprocessing, processing and station processing. 7.2.1 Preprocessing In preprocessing the job will travel through the stairss mentioned below: Constructing FEM theoretical account Geometry Construction Mesh Generation ( right component type ) Application of Boundary and burden conditions 7.2.2 Solving Submiting the theoretical account to ANSYS convergent thinker 7.2.3Postprocessing Checking and measuring consequences Presentation of results- stress/strain contour secret plan, burden warp secret plans etc. 7.3Component type used in the theoretical account The below paragraph will discourse the different component type used in the mold of beam with finite component attack. 7.3.1 Concrete ( Solid 65 ) The concrete in RCC plants is straight subjected to compressive tonss, hence to pattern a beam the premier importance will be given for the stress-strain relation in compaction. For the present survey the solid 65 is taken as an component to pattern the concrete. The inside informations of the component are shown in Fig 7.1. Fig 7.1 Solid 65 Element in ANSYS 7.3.2 Roentgeneinforcing steel( 3D spar-Link 8 ) Support is modeled through nexus 8. Associate 8 is an component with three grades of freedom in x, Y, and omega waies as shown in Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.2 Link 8 Element in ANSYS 7.4 Roentgeneal invariables To specify the geometrical parametric quantities of embedded rebars Solid 65 component is used. The known values can be entered for stuff figure ( inside informations of support provided like top bars, underside bars and stirrups etc. ) volume ratio ( ratio of volume of steel to concrete in the component ) and orientation angles ( orientation of the support in the theoretical account ) . The package will let the user to come in three rebar stuffs in the concrete local coordinate system. The support has uniaxial stiffness and the directional orientation is defined by the user. In the present survey the beam is modeled utilizing distinct support. 7.5 Modeling of steel support There are three techniques to pattern steel support in strengthened concrete as shown in Fig 7.11. For the present survey, distinct mold of support is considered, since the support in the distinct theoretical account ( Fig. 7.3a ) uses beam elements. Associate 8 component is used for steel support in the beam. The theoretical account requires the, modulus of snap of steel Es as 210 GPa and Poisson’s ratio ( 0.3 ) . Solar System Planets Essay7.8.2 Failure manners and cleft forms The failure manners and cleft forms are presented in Fig. 7.13 to 7.17. The outline coloring material indicated by ruddy nowadayss first cleft burden, 2nd and 3rd cleft coloring material was observed by green and bluish lineation. The first cleft burden occurred on the ANSYS theoretical account was at 20 to 22 % more than that of experimental value for about all the classs of concrete with different per centums of steel. The flexural clefts were regulating for under reinforced every bit good as balanced subdivisions as shown in Fig. 7.14 was chiefly due to flexing. The typical shear cleft was observed for over strengthened subdivision ( Fig. 7.15 ) , the cleft observed was chiefly due to higher per centum of steel, where the cleft propagated from the support. Finally the failure of sculptural beam with comparing of trial beam is presented in Fig. 7.16 and 7.17. 7.8.3 Deflection of the beam The typical warp observed in ANSYS in presented in Fig. 7.18 and 7.19. The values of warp in ANSYS were 1.3 to 9 % higher than the experimental consequences. The fringy difference in values was due to engaging of elements in the theoretical account. Fig. 7.7 Load Vs Deflection for GPC2 beams ( M30 ) Fig. 7.8 Load Vs Deflection for OPC beams ( M30 ) Fig. 7.9 Load Vs Deflection for GPC2 beams ( M40 ) Fig. 7.10 Load Vs Deflection for OPC beams ( M40 ) Fig. 7.11 Load Vs Deflection for GPC2 beams ( M50 ) Fig. 7.12 Load Vs Deflection for OPC beams ( M50 ) Fig. 7.13 First cleft burden ( Typical )Fig. 7.14 Flexural clefts on the beam ( Typical ) Fig.7.15 Shear clefts on the beam ( Typical )Fig.7.16 Failure of beam ( Typical ) Fig.7.17 Comparison of cleft form in trial beam and ANSYS Fig. 7.18 Deflection of the beam observed in ANSYS 7.9 Drumhead The strengthened concrete beams ( GPC2 and OPC ) are modeled in ANSYS and the parametric quantities studied were first cleft burden, ultimate burden and warp values. The consequences obtained were validated with the bing experimental values. In most of the instances, analytical attack was on conservative side. This alteration observed may be due to the mutual exclusiveness to account the stuff belongingss assigned in the theoretical account as compared with the experimental beam. One more ground may due to the premise done in FE analysis that the bond between the reenforcing steel and concrete is perfect, but this may non be true in existent trial beam, as we notice that there will be some sum of faux pas that has under gone when the burden on the specimen starts.