The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Engineering

TENSION STIFFENING MODEL FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE BASED ON BOND STRESS SLIP RELATION

A Thesis in Civil Engineering by Yun Lin

2010 Yun Lin

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science August 2010

The thesis of Yun Lin was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Andrew Scanlon Professor of Civil Engineering Thesis Adviser

Gordon Warn Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering

Swagata Banerjee Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering

William Burgos Professor of Environmental Engineering and Professor in Charge of Graduate Programs

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

ii

Abstract
Tension stiffening is a structural property of reinforced concrete that refers to the contribution of concrete between cracks to the overall stiffness of the member. In assessing the strength of reinforced concrete sections the tension in the concrete is usually ignored because it contributes little to member strength. However it provides an important contribution to the performance of members at service loads. Tension stiffening can be modeled at the stress-strain level by use of a post-peak degrading modulus of elasticity as first proposed by the first author in 1971. This paper proposes and evaluates a method to evaluate the post-peak parameters of the tension stiffening model based on bond characteristics between concrete and steel.

iii

Table of contents
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION....1 1.1 1.2 Background1 Objective and Scope..2

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Tension Stiffening Mechanism....3 Steel-concrete Bond6 Tension Stiffening Models..6 Finite Element Models8 Harajlis Bond Stress-slip Model9 Summary..10 Introduction...11 Algorithm..11 Two-dimensional Simplification...20 Bond Link Element...21 Mesh and Cracks...25 Example Application of the Model...27

Chapter 3 DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL MODELS11 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

Chapter 4 BEEBY AND SCOTT TEST SPECIMEN........38 4.1 4.2 Develop Tension Stiffening Model....38 Strain Distribution along the Steel Bar...49

Chapter 5 APPLICATION OF THE MODEL...53 5.1 5.2 5.3 Introduction....53 Comparison with CEB Model....53 Effect of Varying Reinforcement Ratio.57

Chapter 6 SUMMARY CONLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.57 6.1 6.2 6.3 Summary57 Conclusion.57 Recommendations..58

References.59 Appendix Bond-slip Relation Chart...61

Chapter 1

Introduction
1.1 Background Reinforced concrete members have been widely use for structural purposes. Tension stiffening refers to tension carrying ability of concrete between cracks, contributing to the stiffness of a reinforced concrete member before the reinforcement yields. If concrete is assumed to carry tension between the cracks only, the reinforcement carries the entire axial load at the crack location. The rigidity of the reinforced member affects the performance of a reinforced member in terms of deflection and crack control. Concrete cracks when the tensile stress limit is exceeded. Cracking causes a softening behavior in plain concrete. As cracking progresses, concrete loses its stiffness at a relatively high rate. However, this softening behavior is counteracted by the steel reinforcing bars in the tension zone of concrete. The tensile stress in concrete gradually decreases as cracking develops. The propagation of cracks is a complicated phenomenon that depends on the interaction between concrete and reinforcement and plays an important role in the analysis of concrete structures. This thesis investigates the development of a tension stiffening model based on bond stress-slip relationships that for can be used in smeared cracking finite element analysis.

1.2 Objective and Scope The objective and scope of this study is to investigate the behavior of concrete between cracks considering bond stress-slip relationships to develop tension stiffening models for reinforced concrete. Tension stiffening models are needed to simulate post-cracking behavior of reinforced concrete which is important for evaluating serviceability and in particular, deflection control.
1

This objective will be achieved within the scope of the following tasks: 1. Literature review 2. Development of analytical models to trace the development of cracking in axially loaded prisms and the effect on overall stiffness. 3. Evaluation of the analytical models using available experimental data 4. Comparison with the CEB tension stiffening model and study of the effect of reinforcement ratio 5. Development of conclusions and recommendations.

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEWS 2.1 Tension Stiffening Mechanism The tension stiffening mechanism is illustrated in Fig 2.1 which shows a prism loaded in tension. As the tensile force P increases cracks form at intervals long the prism. Figure 2.1(a) shows the stress distribution of concrete and steel along the bar length. At individual cracks, the entire force is transferred across the crack by the steel bar. Between cracks, force transfers from steel to concrete through bond stress and the tensile force is carried by both steel and concrete. The total applied force is equal to the sum of the force in the steel and the force in the concrete at any section. At the cracked locations, stress in concrete is assumed to be zero and the entire axial load is concentrated at reinforcement bar. Figure 2.2 shows the stress distribution of the concrete in a section perpendicular to the bar. At a section near to the end of the bar or a cracked location, stress in the concrete is higher closer to the reinforcement bar and lower further away. The distribution gradually becomes uniform at sections away from the crack location.

Fig. 2.1 Stress distribution of concrete and steel along the prism (MacGregor 2009)

Fig. 2.2 Variation of longitudinal stress distribution of concrete in vertical direction

2.2 Steel-Concrete Bond Figure 2.3 shows a picture of a steel-concrete bond. The bond between steel and concrete has three main components: chemical adhesion, friction and mechanical interlock (Wang and Liu 2003). Chemical adhesion is the original bond developed between concrete and steel before any slip occurs. The effect of chemical adhesion is very small and it does not allow any slip. As the steel bar is loaded up to a certain level, chemical adhesion bond cannot provide sufficient bond force and breaks down. As soon as the chemical bond fails, relative movement can occur between concrete and steel. As one of the components of bond force, friction comes into play. The radial forces around the steel bar can create a certain amount of friction forces counteracting the slip effect. Also, mechanical interlock, which is created by the ribs on the bar embedded in the concrete, becomes the most important component as illustrated in Figure 2.3. As the load continuous to increase, the steel bar is elongated more significantly. Poissons ratios effect causes the cross section to decrease. The radial forces are significantly reduced due to that effect, so friction becomes negligible at this stage and leaving the bearing of concrete becomes the primary force transfer mechanism. Cracks begin to form adjacent to steel rebar.

2.3 Tension Stiffening Models Since the early 1970s a number of models have been proposed in the literature to represent the stiffening effect of concrete between cracks for use in smeared crack finite element analyses. (e.g. Scanlon (1971), Scanlon and Murray (1974), Nayall and Rashid, 2006). Figure 2.4 shows the original tension stiffening model developed by Scanlon (1971). In most cases these models, typically referred to as tension stiffening models, have been developed on an empirical basis and
6

validated by comparing computed load deformation response against available laboratory test data. In this paper a methodology is proposed to develop such a model based on consideration of bond characteristics between concrete and steel and progressive cracking under increasing load

Fig. 2.3 Steel-concrete Bond

Figure 2.4 Tensile Stresses in Reinforced Concrete (Scanlon 1971)

Figure 2.5 shows the bond force distribution along the prism. Bond force is larger closer to crack location.

Fig. 2.5 Bond force distribution along the prism

2.4

Finite element model Finite element models for analysis of reinforced concrete have been under development since

the 1960s. Ngo and Scordelis (1967) proposed a discrete crack analysis finite element model for reinforced concrete beams. A unit width of the beam was modeled using plane stress elements. At predefined crack locations, separate nodal points on either side of the crack were defined. Linear bond link elements were used to model bond between the reinforcement and the concrete. Nilson (1971) extended the model incorporating a nonlinear bond-slip relationship with nonlinear material property to increase the accuracy of the model. A nonlinear incremental method was used in his study. De Groot et al. (1981) developed a bond-zone element to distribute bond stress. Keuser and Mehlhorn (1987) introduced a contact element to provide continuous interaction

between concrete and steel. Yankelevsky (1985) proposed a linear bond stress-slip law. G. Chen and G. Baker (2002) use a single spring model to account for bond stress and slippage. Rots and Invernizzi(2002) developed a saw-tooth tension stiffening model with sequential cracks. Lowes et al (2004) created a concrete steel bond model under cyclic loading.

2.5 Harajlis bond stress-slip model Harajli (2002) generated a monotonic envelope bond stress-slip relationship using regression analysis of test data. Using both analytical model and experimental results, he proposed an equation for maximum bond stress and the corresponding slippage. Figure 2.5 shows the local bond stress and slip relationship for axially loaded concrete prisms reinforced with steel bars. The vertical axis U is the local bond stress and horizontal axis is local slip distance. Local bond stress U is increasing in a descending rate instead of linear relationship with slip distance. Equation 2.4.1 shows the relationship between local bond stress and slip distance. The maximum bond stress and the corresponding slip distance 1 are defined in equation 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. The splitting stress is required stress for concrete splitting failure and it is not used in this study. The bond stress slip relationship is used to determine the stiffness for linkage elements in later chapters.

= ( )
1

(2.4.1) (2.4.2) (2.4.3)

= 31.0 (psi) 1 = 0.15 : Clear distance between lugs

2.6 Summary In most cases tension stiffening models have been developed on an empirical basis and verified in terms of overall structural behavior. Models have been developed in this chapter to simulate the load interaction between reinforcement and concrete in tensile zones. In the following chapter, bond stress-slip elements will be used to provide the basis for an overall tension stiffening model based on degrading concrete stiffness under sequential cracking.

Fig. 2.5 Monotonic envelope model (Harajli 2002)

10

Chapter 3

DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL MODEL

3.1 Introduction In this chapter, a finite element model is developed to simulate the response of an axially loaded tensile prism under increasing load. Using a proposed bond stress-slip model, stresses in the prism are monitored and cracks are inserted as the cracking stress is exceeded under increasing load. The model is used to develop a saw-tooth type of tension stiffening model for use in smeared crack finite element analysis. 3.2 Algorithm An increasing tensile stress is applied to the prism. Whenever the maximum stress in the concrete reaches the tensile stress limit, a new series of cracks are inserted to the prisms, crack spacing is shortened and equivalent stiffness of the prism is decreased. 3.2.1 Step 1 The prism is initially assumed to be uncracked and under a uniform strain 1 corresponding to a total axial force causing a stress fc in the concrete and fs in the steel. A uniform strain is considered to be under plane stress with area of concrete Ac and area of steel As . Figure 3.1 shows the stress and strain distribution in axially loaded the prism.

11

a) Stress

b) Strain Fig. 3.1 Stress and strain distribution in uncracked tensile prism

12

As the load P is increased, the stress in the concrete increases until the maximum tensile stress of the concrete is reached . The strain 1 at any cross section is uniform. While increasing the applied load, the tensile stress of concrete will eventually reach the tensile stress limit . = 1 = 1 =

= = + = 1 + 1

Figure 3.2 shows the plot of stress vs. strain in concrete up to the first cracking.

Fig.3.2 Tensile stress vs. Strain in concrete up to the first cracking

13

3.2.2 Step 2 At first cracking, the concrete has reached its tensile strength . It is assumed that at this stage a series of cracks form at a spacing L along the prism, the force is concentrated in the steel bar. Therefore, apply force P to the steel bar embedded in a prism with a length of L (Fig. 3.3). The right end represents the section of the prism mid-way between adjacent cracks. Tensile stress distribution in vertical direction closer to the force end is no longer uniform, and gradually changing to uniform as moving to the middle of the prism (Fig.3.4). In any horizontal path, concrete closer to the steel bar has higher tensile stress and the maximum tensile stress can exceed the tensile stress limit as the load P increases. New cracks are inserted when maximum stress of concrete reaches and new crack spacing becomes L/2. Every time new cracks are inserted to the prism, the equivalent overall prism stiffness is reduced to a new value which means the slope of stress vs. stain diagram is reduced.

Fig. 3.3 Load P applied to reinforcing bar after formation of first series of cracks at spacing
14

Fig. 3.4 Tensile Stress distribution in vertical paths

Apply force P in the prism at 1st crack to the steel. Obtain the stress distribution in the steel bar from the finite element results. Figure 3.5 shows the tensile stress distribution along the steel bar between two cracks. 11 is the average stress in the steel. The average total force in the steel is equal to the product of the average stress in the steel 11 and the area of steel . Total force in the concrete at any section is equal to the difference of total applied force and force in the steel .

Fig. 3.5 Tensile Stress distribution in steel between Cracks

15

Force in the steel = = 11 11 = Average stress in the steel can be obtained from ABAQUS model. = + = Equivalent modulus of elasticity of concrete is reduced to 2 2 = = 2 . 2 = 2 3 = 3

: . L: Total length of the prism.

In figure 3.7, point 2 shows the stress in the concrete when the original total load in step 1 is applied at the steel bar. The new slope is reduced to 2 due to the stiffness loss caused by cracks.
2 = 2 2

Continue increasing applied load to the ABAQUS model to make the maximum stress of concrete reach limit again (point 3). Figure 3.4 shows in any vertical path, the maximum stress in the concrete is always at the layer closest to the steel layer. Figure 3.6 shows the tensile stress distribution of the horizontal path in the concrete closest to steel layer between two cracks. Applied load P is increased until the maximum stress , ( ) reaches the tensile stress limit . Due to the variation of concrete property, crack can take place within the length of , shown in figure 3.6.

16

Fig. 3.6 Tensile stress distribution of the horizontal path in the concrete closest to steel layer between two cracks

At point 3:
3 = 3 2

Figure 3.7 shows shows the plot of average stress of concrete vs. Strain of the composite up to this stage and a new series of cracks is ready to be inserted in step 3.

Fig. 3.7 Average tensile stress vs. Strain up to the second cracking

17

3.2.3 Step 3 Insert new series of cracks to the model. Crack spacing is decreased to L/4. Repeat the procedures in step 2: Increase applied load ( ) so that maximum stress of concrete matches = 11 Average stress in steel (11 ) can be obtained from ABAQUS model.
=

4 =

Equivalent modulus of elasticity of concrete = 4 = 3 4

3 =

Fig. 3.8 Average tensile stress vs. Strain

18

3.2.4 Step 4 Repeat step number 3 until stress in the steel can no longer be increased or crack spacing is too small. A stepped (saw-tooth) stress-strain diagram is completed once all the steps are properly performed until reinforcement bar is yielded. Figure shows a complete saw tooth stress and strain diagram.

Fig. 3.9 Stepped (saw-tooth) stress-strain diagram

19

3.3 Two-dimensional simplification Figure 3.10 shows a simplified two-dimensional Prism model. The model has a 16 inches long prism with 5 x 5 inches cross-section with a number 8 steel rebar though the middle. All parts have a unit width of 1 inch. A realistic model contains a circular cross-sectional steel bar and a block of concrete. For simplicity, Scordeliss two-dimensional model with unit width is used in the modeling. A thin layer of steel is used to model the steel bar so that the 1 unit width model has the same reinforcement ratio. The thickness of the thin layer is the product of the vertical length of concrete and reinforcement ratio.

= h: height of concrete block in two dimensional model [fig. 1] : reinforcement ratio

Fig. 3.10 Prism Dimensions

20

3.4 Bond link element Figure 3.11 shows a sample ABAQUS model of a cracked reinforced concrete beam with two point loads on one third of the beam and its bond stress distribution along the horizontal distance. A fully bonded condition was assumed. In reality, the bond stress curve does not have sudden jumps at the locations of crack. A bond link element which can account for slip effect is needed.

Fig. 3.11 Bond stress distribution for perfect bond condition

A series of spring elements will be added to provide the bond force and a slip distance depending on the local bond force. A stiffness coefficient and the tributary width of each spring gives a combination of bond force and slip distance. 3.4.1 Spring element setup Figure 3.12 shows the spring element setup for the analytical models. Spring elements are spaced out evenly along the prism member. Each spring pair provides the bond force over the distance L.

21

Fig. 3.12 Spring element layout

3.4.2 Stiffness Coefficient of Spring Element Initially, a linear relationship between bond slip and bond stress was assumed which means the bond slip is proportional to bond stress. A single spring was used in each location. Cracking due to a press down effect has not yet occurred. It is reasonable to believe that the vertical movement of steel is very small and negligible. Thus, only horizontal elongations of spring elements are allowed in this model. Load is directly applied to steel. Part of the stress is transferred to the concrete due to bond stress. The horizontal stiffness coefficient of spring element affects the rate of stress transfer between concrete and steel. However, the amount of stress transfer is not directly proportional to the stiffness coefficient K. The force in the spring is the product of stiffness coefficient K and elongation S. Any increment in K value decreases the elongation S. To know how K value is affecting the stress left in the steel in middle of the prism, parametric study of stiffness coefficient K is performed A stress of 6452 psi is applied to the bar at the end of the prism. Perfect bond between concrete and steel is used. In the result, at middle of the prism, the steel has a residual horizontal stress of 1511 psi. Then, fully bonded condition is replaced by a number of evenly distributed spring
22

elements. Figure 3.13 shows the relationship between spring stiffness coefficient K and residual stress in the steel at middle of prism.

Fig. 3.13 Residual stress distribution in the steel bar at the middle of the prism

When the stress reached its minimum value, in this case it is 1665.81 psi, any increment of K has no effect on residual stress. The minimum residual stress is still larger than the case in perfect bond condition. It is because spring element can only provide discrete resistance instead of continuous resistance. Stiffness coefficient K is affecting the amount of stress transferred from steel to concrete. The variation of stress distribution shows exactly how sensitive the solution is to the selected value K. Figure 3.14 shows how stress distribution from the end to the middle of the prism in the concrete varies with different K value. It is assumed that from 50000 to 300000 lb/in is the reasonable range

23

of K in this model because within the range the distribution of the concrete is increasing from zero and being constant when the maximum stress level is reached.

S11 (psi) 600

K = 1E^7 500 K = 1E^6 K = 5E^5 400 K = 3E^5 K = 2E^5 300 K = 1.5E^5 K = 1E^5 200 K = 80000 K = 50000 100 K = 10000 K = 1000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

x (in)

Fig. 3.14 Tensile stress distribution in concrete

In reality, bond slip relationship is not exactly linear as represented by a spring with constant stiffness. Bond slip relationships are different at different locations, even at the same location the relationship changes under different applied loads. Harajlis model (chapter 2) is used to determine variable bond link stiffness for Beeby and Scotts model discussed in chapter 4. Figure 3.14 shows the variation of bond link stiffness as a function of slip. The bond link stiffness is relatively greater when the slip is small. The derivation will be presented in chapter 5. More slippage means more damage due to the relative movement of steel and concrete.

24

Fig. 3.14 Tensile stress distribution in concrete 3.5 Mesh and cracks Figure 3.15 shows the mesh of the prism problem. Rectangular mesh is used for finite element calculations. Smaller mesh is used in steel, because the steel thin layer has a small thickness. Nodal points are needed at the middle of the layer to obtain the stress level at each position. Larger mesh is used in concrete, but the layer closer to the steel has smaller mesh size. In general, smaller mesh size is used at the place where more accurate result is needed. For simplicity, straight through cracks are used in the model as is shown in figure 3.16. A series of cracks will be generated where stress level in concrete passes the limit. Cracks are placed slightly left of the spring element. A very small crack width of 0.0001 inch is used so that it does not affect the mesh layout.
25

Fig. 3.15 Mesh

Fig. 3.16 Bond link element, mesh and Crack

26

3.6 Example application of the model An arbitrary reinforced concrete prism is used as the first analytical model using spring linkage element with constant stiffness. Fig.3.17 shows an axially loaded 32 long prism with a 5 by 5 cross-section reinforced with a number eight steel bar though the middle. Load is applied at each end of the steel bar.

Fig. 3.17 Example Model Assumptions: Linear bond-slip relation (Constant bond link stiffness) Constant spring stiffness K is assumed to be 1.5 105 /.

Material property of concrete is uniform.

Material property: Material property: = = 4000 = 7.5 = 474 = = 60 = = 57000 = 3605000 = = 29000000
27

Dimensions: Thickness = 1 in Cross-sectional area of Concrete = = 5 2 0.155 2 = 4.845 2 Cross-sectional area of Steel = = 0.155 2 Length = 32 in Perform the steps mentioned in chapter 3.2. Step 1 Applied a uniform strain to an uncracked prism and increase the uniform strain to 1 when tensile stress in concrete is reached , 474 psi. = = + = 474 = 1 = 29000000 0.000131 = 3799 = 474 4.845 2 + 3799 0.155 2 = 2885 1 = = 474 1 = Step 2 All the concrete has reached its maximum tensile stress capacity. Cracks can happen at anywhere along the uncracked prism. Insert cracks and make a crack spacing 32. Now the same load 2885 lb is applied at both ends of the steel bar, the stress level in the concrete is reduced due to the stress relief at cracks. Increase the load to 2945 lb, so that the maximum stress in the concrete is reached to again. Figure 3.18 shows the stress contour from ABAQUS result. 474 = = 0.000131 3605000

28

Fig. 3.18 Tensile Stress Contour for 32 crack spacing

Figure 3.19 shows the tensile stress distribution in the steel and average stress in the steel 11 .

Fig. 3.19 Tensile Stress distribution in the steel 11 = 5939 Force in the steel = = 11 = 5939 0.155 2 = 920.5 = + = 2945 = = 2945 920.5 = 2024.5 2 = 0.00745

29

 2 =

2 0.00745 = = 0.000233 32

Equivalent modulus of elasticity of concrete is reduced to 2 2024.5 4.845 2 = 1793362 = = 2 0.000233

2 =

2 = 2 2 = 0.000233 1793362 = 412.5

In figure 3.20, maximum stress of the concrete was reached approximately from 4 in to 28 in of the prism. Figure only shows half of the results due to symmetry. At zero horizontal distance, the stress in concrete is not zero, because there are spring elements placed at both ends of the prism causing an immediate stress transfer at both ends.

Fig. 3.20 Tensile stress distribution of the horizontal path in the concrete closest to steel layer between two cracks

30

Step 3 Additional cracks are assumed to be at 8, 16 and 24 of the prism. New crack spacing is 8. Load is increased to 3131 lb in ABAQUS model to make maximum stress in concrete reach . Stress contour is shown in figure 3.21.

Fig. 3.21 Tensile Stress Contour for 8 crack spacing

Figure 3.22 shows the tensile stress distribution in the steel and average stress in the steel 11 .

Fig. 3.22Tensile stress distribution of steel 11 = 12871 Force in the steel = = 11 = 12871 0.155 2 = 1995 = + = 3131
31

 = = 3131 1995 = 1136 3 = 0.0138 ( ) 3 = 3 0.0138 = = 0.000431 32

Equivalent modulus of elasticity of concrete is reduced to 3 1136 4.845 2 = 544010 = = 3 0.000431

3 =

3 = 3 3 = 0.000431 544010 = 234.5

In figure 23, maximum stress of the concrete was reached approximately at 4, 12, 20 and 28 in of the prism. Figure only shows half of the results due to symmetry.

Fig. 3.23 Tensile stress distribution of the horizontal path in the concrete closest to steel layer between two cracks

Step 4

Additional cracks are inserted at 4, 12, 20 and 28. New crack spacing becomes 4. Load is increased to 3720 lb to make maximum stress in concrete reach . Stress contour is shown in figure 3.24.

32

Fig. 3.24 Tensile Stress Contour for 4 crack spacing

Figure 3.25 shows the tensile stress distribution in the steel and average stress in the steel 11 .

Fig. 3.25 Tensile stress distribution of steel 11 = 20335 Force in the steel = = 11 = 20335 0.155 2 = 3152 = + = 3720 = = 3720 3152 = 568 4 = 0.0212 4 = 3 0.0212 = = 0.000663 32
33

Equivalent modulus of elasticity of concrete is reduced to 4 568 4.845 2 = 176824 4 = = = 4 0.000663

4 = 4 4 = 0.000663 176824 = 117.2

Fig. 3.26 Tensile stress distribution of the horizontal path in the concrete closest to steel layer between two cracks

In step 1, figure 3.4(d) shows that it takes about 4 for the stress in concrete to rise from minimum to maximum. This distance does not change on step 2 and 3. The required load increment is small to form another series of cracks if the crack spacing is greater than 8, which is twice the distance of 4. Once the crack spacing is less than 8, it takes a lot more additional load for the maximum stress in concrete to reach . In this model, crack spacing is still able to reduce to 2, if enough additional load is provided, because spring stiffness is assumed to be constant. In reality, bond link stiffness will be reduced when slippage is increased. When slippage is too large, bond link elements might not be able to provide needed force transfer within a distance shorter than 4. It is suggested that minimum cracks spacing to be taken as 4. A variable stiffness for

34

spring element will be adopted in Beeby and Scotts model. Figure 3.27 shows the stepped (sawtooth) Stress strain diagram for this model.

Fig. 3.27 Stepped (saw-tooth) Stress strain diagram for example model

35

Comparison of bond link elements with different constant stiffness For analytical model with constant spring stiffness, 50000 to 300000lb/in is the reasonable range for stiffness coefficient (K) of spring elements (Fig. 3.14). In the previous calculation, 150000lb/in is used for K value. In the part of study, different k values will be used to determine the sensitivity of K. Figure 3.28 shows that how bond link stiffness K affect the cracking load and displacement. Generally speaking, a prism with higher K value cracks in a faster rate. The faster rate is reflected by a smaller initial cracking load and smaller crack spacing. The saw-tooth form can also be converted to a gradually descending post-peak form by curve fitting and an equal energy criterion, i.e. equal area under the post-peak portion of the stressstrain diagram as shown in Figure 3.29.

ft 500
(psi) 450
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014 0.0016 K= 50000 K=150000 K=250000

Fig. 3.28 Effect of assumed bond element stiffness on stress-strain diagram

36

ft

500

(psi) 450
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014 0.0016 K=150000 K=50000 K=250000

Fig. 3.29 Smoothed post-peak stress-strain diagram

37

Chapter 4

BEEBY AND SCOTT TEST SPECIMEN 4.1 Introduction A simplified two-dimensional model was made to compare with the Beeby and Scotts test specimen (Beeby and Scott 2002). A tension stiffening model was created based on the analytical finite element results. The strain distribution along the steel bar was compared with experimental data to confirm the accuracy of the analytical assumptions and results. 4.2 Development of tension stiffening model Fig.4.1 shows an analytical model for a axially loaded 1600mm long prism with a 120 by 120mm cross-section reinforced with a number five steel bar though the middle. Load is applied at each end of the steel bar. The intention of building this model is to match up the experimental

data with experiment T16B1. Variable Bond link stiffness is used in this analytical model.

Fig. 4.1 Beeby and Scotts test specimen Assumptions: Bond link stiffness K is variable corresponding to the slip distance. Details are presented later in this chapter. Strength of concrete is increasing for each cracking stage.

38

Material property: Material property: = 3091 ; = 60 Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete = = 57000 = 3170000 psi = 21856 Mpa Modulus of Elasticity of steel bar = = 200

Dimensions: Thickness = 1 mm Cross-sectional area of Concrete = 14400 2 Cross-sectional area of Steel = 200 2 Specimen Length = 1600mmn Element type: 2-D, 4 Nodes, Shell element Load stages: 1. 2. 3. 4. 8 KN 20 KN 29 KN 44 KN

Bond link springs: Total number of springs: 130 (65 pairs) Spacing = 2.5 cm

39

Derivation of bond link stiffness coefficient The variable bond link stiffness coefficient will be derived based on the bond stress-slip relationship in Harajli(2002). K is the spring stiffness coefficient equal to the bond force divided by slip distance S. Bond force is equal to the product of bond stress and tributary area at each spring element. Equation (2) can be used to obtain local bond stress to get the bond force needed in equation (3). S : Local slip distance 1 T.A. : Tributary area of each bond link element K : Stiffness coefficient of bond link element = 2 (Mpa) = ( )
1

(Harajli 2002) (Harajli 2002)

(1) (2)

= 0.4 =

( . .)

( ) ( . ) 1

= { 1 (. . )} (1)

(3)

All the parameters in { 1 (. . )} are constant. The only variable for K is slip distance.

The value of bond link stiffness can be calculated if slip is known. All the value of bond link stiffness is tabulated in appendix A from a 0.01 mm to 1.8 mm, where 1.8 mm is 15% of clear lug distance of a number five steel rebar. Table 4.1 shows the different K value for slip distance between 0 and 1 .

40

In the experimental (Beeby and Scott 2002), deflections of the bar at each location along the bar have been recorded. Elongation in the steel bar is normally 10 times larger than the elongation in the concrete at the same horizontal location. A series of slip distances can be generated according to the local deflection of the steel bar. The corresponding series of stiffness K can be obtained from the slip distance and the tabulated stiffness in Appendix A. All stiffness K values have to be regenerated once the applied load is changed which means there are 4 different series of K values at 4 different load stages based on equation (3). The tensile stress limit is assumed to be increasing in the sequential crack stages. For example in step 1 where the first series of crack is about to form, is assumed to be 1.6 Mpa, but in step 2, is assumed to be 1.7 Mpa. In reality, concrete property is not perfectly uniform. Crack will always from at the location with weaker tensile strength first.

Step 1 Assume minimum tensile strength 1 of concrete is 1.6 MPa. 1 = 1.6 = = 0.000073 21856

= = fc Ac + fs As = 0.000073 200Gpa 200mm2 + 0.000073 21856Mpa 14400mm2 200mm2 = 25.5 KN

= 1 = 1 = 1.6

41

Spring K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10 K11 K12 K13 K14 K15 K16 K17 K18 K19 K20 K21 K22 K23 K24 K25 K26 K27 K28 K29 K30 K31 K32

Stiffness(N/mm) 381 396 413 432 453 477 506 539 578 626 687 766 879 1041 1328 2013 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051

Spring K33 K34 K35 K36 K37 K38 K39 K40 K41 K42 K43 K44 K45 K46 K47 K48 K49 K50 K51 K52 K53 K54 K55 K56 K57 K58 K59 K60 K61 K62 K63 K64

Stiffness(N/mm) 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 2013 1328 1041 876 766 687 626 578 539 506 477 453 432 413 396 381

Table 4.1 Stiffness coefficients for spring elements for Beeby and Scotts specimen

42

Step 2 Cracking spacing = 1600 mm, Load = 26 KN Assume the minimum tensile strength of concrete increased to 1.7 MPa. Figure 3.5(b) shows the tensile stress distribution along the steel bar and the average stress in steel 11 .

Fig. 4.2 Tensile stress distribution of steel

Figure 4.2 shows the tensile stress distribution along the steel bar and the average stress in steel 11 . 11 = 46.8 Force in the steel = = 11 = 46.8 2002 = 9260 = + = = 26000 9260 =16740 N Equivalent modulus of elasticity of concrete is reduced to 2 2 = 0.3408 2 = 2 0.3408 = = 0.000213 1600

= 0.000213
43

 16740(144002 2002 ) 2 = = = 2 0.000213 = 5500

2 = 2 2 = 5500 0.000213 = 1.17

In figure 4.3 maximum stress of the concrete was reached approximately from 500 mm to 1100 mm of the prism. According to the experimental results, the next crack will be inserted at 800 mm.

Fig. 4.3 Tensile stress distribution of the horizontal path in the concrete closest to steel layer between two cracks

Step 3 Crack spacing = 800 mm Load = 29 KN Assume minimum tensile strength of concrete is 1.9 MPa. Figure 4.3 shows the tensile stress distribution along the steel bar and the average stress in steel 11 . 11 = 84.5 Force in the steel = = 11 = 84.5 2002 = 16900 = + = = 29000 16900 = 12100
44

Equivalent modulus of elasticity of concrete is reduced to 3 3 = 0.0004

Fig. 4.3 Tensile stress distribution of steel 12100 144002 2002 2 = = = 3 0.0004 = 2130 2 = 2 2 = 2130 0.0004 = 0.85 In figure 4.4 maximum stress of the concrete was reached approximately from 100 mm to 600 mm and 900mm to 1500mmof the prism. According to the experimental results, the next series of cracks will be inserted at 220 mm, 550mm, 1100mm and 1400mm.

45

Fig. 4.4 Tensile stress distribution of the horizontal path in the concrete closest to steel layer between two cracks Step 4 Cracks are modeled at all same locations with experiment T16B1 (Beeby and Scott 2002). Load = 44 KN Figure 4.5 shows the tensile stress distribution along the steel bar and the average stress in steel 11 . 11 = 183.5 Force in the steel = = 11 = 183.6 2002 = 36720 = +

Fig. 4.5 Tensile stress distribution of steel = = 44000 36720 = 7280

46

Equivalent modulus of elasticity of concrete is reduced to 4 4 = 0.000881 7280(144002 2002 ) = = 3 0.000881 = 580

4 =

4 = 2 2 = 580 0.000881 = 0.51

Figure 4.6 shows the diagram using the result from step1-4.
ft (mpa)
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009 0.001

Strain

Fig. 4.6 for Beeby and Scott specimen

47

Figure 4.7 shows the load vs. deflection curve of Beeby and Scott specimen.

Fig. 4.7 Load vs. Deflection for Beeby and Scott specimen

48

4.2 Strain distribution along the steel bar Two sets of analysis were performed. Initially, an arbitrary model was analyzed using a constant element stiffness, K = 15000 lb/in. Comparing with experimental results (Fig. 4.8), the strain distribution pattern is quite similar except the strain in the steel with no crack developed (Fig. 4.9). In the experimental model, the strain in the mid-section is close to uniform which means the stress level is uniform. The real experiment, the bond link stiffness K varies from node to node. K at the middle tends to be smaller than the ones on the sides. Therefore, most of the force transfer occurs at the sides closer to applied force but not in mid-section. In analytical model, a linear relationship was assumed for bond stress and slip distance, same K values has been used at every bond link element. A relatively smaller K allows more force transfer in mid-section. To compare with the results done with constant K, figure 4.10 shows Beeby and Scotts prism with variable bond link stiffness used in the model. The strain diagram looks very close to the experimental result. A more accurate result has been achieved by using a more realistic bond slip model.

49

Fig. 4.8 Strain distribution along the reinforcement at four stages during loading (Beeby and Scott, 2002)

50

900 800

3689 lb
700

reinforcement Strain x 10

600 500

3046 lb

2325 lb
400 300 200 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

1550 lb

distance (in)
Fig. 4.9 Strain distribution along the reinforcement at four stages during loading (Constant K)

51

Fig. 4.10 Strain distribution comparison of Analytical and experimental results (Variable K)

52

Chapter 5

APPLICATION OF THE MODEL 5.1 Introduction In this chapter, comparison of the analytical load vs. Strain plot with two different reinforcement ratio and CEB method are presented. 5.2 Comparison with CEB Method CEB method uses a tension stiffening factor 2 to reduce the overall stiffness EA and is the ratio of cracking load and applied load N (Equation 5.1). Figure 5.1 shows a tensile load vs. strain diagram of finite element analytical results, predicted results using CEB method and steel bar only for Beeby and Scott specimen. () is the uncracked member stiffness. () is the effective member stiffness at different stages. () is the remaining member stiffness when concrete is fully cracked. It is equivalent to the stiffness of the steel bar only. = (
2 )

(Equation 5.1)

The area between the analytical RC curve or CEB curve and steel bar only is the total contribution of concrete to the stiffness. The diagram shows finite element approach is more conservative than CEB approach. That is due to the algorithm of analytical approach. Cracks take place one series at one time instead of propagating steadily. Strain jump occurs when a new crack series takes place without any load increase. The major different occurs when the first series of cracks occurs. A significant stiffness loss due to first series of cracks occurs while the CEB method shows a smooth transition. With increasing load beyond the first series of cracking the two curves are seem to be approximately parallel.

53

Fig. 5.1 Tensile load vs. strain diagram

54

5.3 Effect of varying reinforcement ratio The number 5 steel reinforcing bar was replaced by a number 3 bar with the same Beeby and Scott concrete prism. In comparison, concrete cracks in a faster rate for the member with larger reinforcement ratio. Larger steel bar has a large contact area with concrete and larger ribs. The bond force is relatively higher than the member with smaller reinforcing bars. The larger bond force causes concrete to crack faster and more completely. Therefore, concrete block should contribute more to the whole member due to smaller damage. As mentioned in previous sections, the area between the curve and the straight line represents the total contribution of pure concrete. In figure 5.2, the area is larger for the member with smaller reinforcement ratio. There are also some disadvantages for the member with smaller reinforcement ratio. First is lower tension capacity. They cannot carry as much tension force as the one with larger reinforcement. Second is lower bond force. If the reinforcement ratio is too low, pull-out failure can occur before crack is initiated. A total bond link failure is same as total concrete failure, which means no contribution from concrete.

55

Fig. 5.2 Tensile load vs. strain diagram for models with different reinforcement ratio

56

Chapter 6

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMANDATIONS 6.1 Summary This research investigated the development of a tension stiffening model based on bond stressslip relationships. Based on Harajlis(2002) bond stress-slip relationship, single spring bond link elements with variable stiffness were implemented to provide the basis for an overall tension stiffening model based on degrading concrete stiffness under sequential cracking. Numerical results provided by ABAQUS, a finite element program, were compared with experimental results to establish the validity of the simplifications and assumptions made for the two dimensional axially loaded prism model. The method of constructing an analytical tension stiffening model for an axially loaded reinforced concrete prism with degrading stiffness and sequential cracking algorithm has been described. Models with constant and variable bond link stiffness have been presented for illustration. A tension stiffening saw-tooth stress-strain diagram has been generated in the form proposed by Scanlon and Murray (1974). Development of bond link element is the key factor which has significant influence on the stress distribution of the entire model. Comparisons with experimental results show that using variable bond link stiffness improves the accuracy of modeling. 6.2 Conclusions The finite element approach developed in this thesis can be used to construct a tension stiffening model for axially loaded prism. Both constant stiffness and variable bond link stiffness models were applied. The variable bond link stiffness model was found to produce better correlation with available experimental results. The proposed methodology provides a rational approach for the development of saw-tooth type tension stiffening models.
57

6.3 Recommendations The algorithm can be improved by extending the modeling approach to three dimensional stress states that can be used to evaluate the effects of additional factors such as bar spacing and concrete cover, and other reinforcement materials such as FRP (fiber reinforced polymer materials). Further refinement is also possible in the modeling of bond between concrete and steel. The probabilistic nature of the problem can be addressed by considering spatial variation of tensile strength and modulus of elasticity. The approach could also be extended to flexural members.

58

References: Beeby, A.W., Scott,R. H. (2002). Tension stiffening of concrete,behaviour of tension zones in reinforced concrete including time dependent effects. Technical Report 59, Supplementary Information,The Concrete Society, Camberley DAmbrisi, A. and Filippou, F. C. (1997). Correction studies on an RC frame shaking-table specimen. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., V. 26, 1021-1024. De Groot, A. K., Kusters, G. M. A., and Monnier, T. (1981). Numerical modeling of bond-slip behavior. Heron, Concrete mechanics, V. 26(1B), 1-90. Gilbert, R., and Waner, R. (1978). Tension stiffening in reinforced concrete slabs.ASCE J. Struct. Div., V. 104(12), 1885-1990. Harajli, M. H., Hout, M. and Jalkh, W. (1995). Local bond stress-slip behavior of reinforcing bars embedded in plain and fiber concrete ACI Materials Journal, V. 92, 343-353. Harajli, M. H., Hamad, B. and Kram, K. (2002). Bond-slip response of reinforcing bars embedded in plain and fiber concrete J. Mat. in Civ. Engrg., V. 14(6), 503-511. Keuser, M., and Mehlhorn, G. (1987). Finite element models for bond problems. J. Struct. Eng., V.113(10), 2160-2173. Lin, C. S., and Scordelis, A. C. (1975). Nonlinear analysis of RC shells of general form. J.Struct. Div., V. 101(3), 523-538. Lowes, L. N., Moehle, J. P. and Govindjee, S. (2004) Concrete-Steel bond model for use in finite element modeling of reinforced concrete structures ACI Structure Journal, V. 101, No.4. 501511. Nayal, R., and Rasheed, H. A. (2006). Tension stiffening model for concrete beams reinforced with steel and FRP bars. J. Mat. in Civ. Engrg., V. 19(11) , 1014-1015 Ngo, D. and Scordelis, A.C. (1967) Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beams, ACI Journal, V. 64,152-163 Nilson, A. H. (1971) Internal measurement of bond slip. J. AM. Concr. Inst., V. 69(7), 439-441. Scanlon, A., and Murray, D. W. (1974). Time dependent deflections of reinforced concrete slab deflections. ASCE J. Struct. Div., V. 100(9), 1911-1924. Vebo, A., and Ghali, A. (1977). Moment curvature relation of reinforced concrete slabs.ASCE J. Struct. Div., V. 103(3), 515-531.

59

Yankelevsky, D. Z. (1985). New finite element for bond-slip analysis. ASCE J. Struct. Eng., V. 111(7), 1533-1542. Wang, X., Liu, L. (2003). A strain-softening model for steelconcrete bond Cement and Concrete Research 33, 1669-1673.

60

Appendix STIFFNESS COEFFICIENT WITH CORRESPONDING SLIP DISTANCE FOR BEEBY AND SCOTT SPECIMEN
Bond-Slip Chart for Model#2 with #5 bar Slip(mm) Bond Stress(MPa) Spring Stiffness(N/mm) 0.001 0.49 12145.93 1 0.01 1.22 3050.92 2 0.02 1.61 2012.86 3 0.03 1.89 1578.19 4 0.04 2.12 1327.99 5 0.05 2.32 1161.58 6 0.06 2.50 1041.21 7 0.07 2.66 949.23 8 0.08 2.80 876.15 9 0.09 2.94 816.37 10 0.1 3.07 766.36 11 0.11 3.18 723.76 12 0.12 3.30 686.95 13 0.13 3.40 654.73 14 0.14 3.51 626.26 15 0.15 3.61 600.86 16 0.16 3.70 578.04 17 0.17 3.79 557.39 18 0.18 3.88 538.60 19 0.19 3.96 521.41 20 0.2 4.04 505.61 21 0.21 4.12 491.02 22 0.22 4.20 477.50 23 0.23 4.28 464.94 24 0.24 4.35 453.21 25 0.25 4.42 442.25 26 0.26 4.49 431.96 27 0.27 4.56 422.29 28 0.28 4.63 413.18 29 0.29 4.69 404.57 30 0.3 4.76 396.42

61

Table A - Continued Slip(mm) Bond Stress(MPa) 31 0.31 4.82 32 0.32 4.88 33 0.33 4.94 34 0.34 5.00 35 0.35 5.06 36 0.36 5.12 37 0.37 5.17 38 0.38 5.23 39 0.39 5.28 40 0.4 5.34 41 0.41 5.39 42 0.42 5.44 43 0.43 5.49 44 0.44 5.54 45 0.45 5.59 46 0.46 5.64 47 0.47 5.69 48 0.48 5.74 49 0.49 5.79 50 0.5 5.84 51 0.51 5.88 52 0.52 5.93 53 0.53 5.97 54 0.54 6.02 55 0.55 6.06 56 0.56 6.11 57 0.57 6.15 58 0.58 6.19 59 0.59 6.23 60 0.6 6.28 61 0.61 6.32 62 0.62 6.36 63 0.63 6.40 64 0.64 6.44 65 0.65 6.48

Spring Stiffness(N/mm) 388.70 381.36 374.39 367.74 361.40 355.34 349.55 344.00 338.68 333.58 328.67 323.95 319.41 315.04 310.82 306.74 302.81 299.01 295.33 291.78 288.33 284.99 281.75 278.61 275.56 272.60 269.72 266.92 264.19 261.54 258.96 256.45 254.00 251.61 249.28

62

Table A - Continued Slip(mm) Bond Stress(MPa) 66 0.66 6.52 67 0.67 6.56 68 0.68 6.60 69 0.69 6.64 70 0.7 6.68 71 0.71 6.71 72 0.72 6.75 73 0.73 6.79 74 0.74 6.83 75 0.75 6.86 76 0.76 6.90 77 0.77 6.94 78 0.78 6.97 79 0.79 7.01 80 0.8 7.04 81 0.81 7.08 82 0.82 7.11 83 0.83 7.15 84 0.84 7.18 85 0.85 7.22 86 0.86 7.25 87 0.87 7.28 88 0.88 7.32 89 0.89 7.35 90 0.9 7.38 91 0.91 7.41 92 0.92 7.45 93 0.93 7.48 94 0.94 7.51 95 0.95 7.54 96 0.96 7.58 97 0.97 7.61 98 0.98 7.64 99 0.99 7.67 100 1 7.70

Spring Stiffness(N/mm) 247.00 244.79 242.62 240.50 238.44 236.42 234.44 232.51 230.62 228.77 226.96 225.18 223.45 221.75 220.08 218.44 216.84 215.27 213.73 212.22 210.73 209.28 207.85 206.44 205.06 203.71 202.38 201.07 199.78 198.52 197.27 196.05 194.85 193.66 192.50

63

Table A - Continued Slip(mm) Bond Stress(MPa) 101 1.01 7.73 102 1.02 7.76 103 1.03 7.79 104 1.04 7.82 105 1.05 7.85 106 1.06 7.88 107 1.07 7.91 108 1.08 7.94 109 1.09 7.97 110 1.1 8.00 111 1.11 8.03 112 1.12 8.06 113 1.13 8.09 114 1.14 8.11 115 1.15 8.14 116 1.16 8.17 117 1.17 8.20 118 1.18 8.23 119 1.19 8.25 120 1.2 8.28 121 1.21 8.31 122 1.22 8.34 123 1.23 8.36 124 1.24 8.39 125 1.25 8.42 126 1.26 8.45 127 1.27 8.47 128 1.28 8.50 129 1.29 8.53 130 1.3 8.55 131 1.31 8.58 132 1.32 8.60 133 1.33 8.63 134 1.34 8.66 135 1.35 8.68

Spring Stiffness(N/mm) 191.35 190.23 189.12 188.02 186.95 185.89 184.84 183.81 182.80 181.80 180.82 179.85 178.89 177.95 177.02 176.10 175.19 174.30 173.42 172.55 171.70 170.85 170.02 169.19 168.38 167.57 166.78 166.00 165.23 164.46 163.71 162.96 162.23 161.50 160.78

64

Table A - Continued Slip(mm) Bond Stress(MPa) 101 1.01 7.73 102 1.02 7.76 103 1.03 7.79 104 1.04 7.82 105 1.05 7.85 106 1.06 7.88 107 1.07 7.91 108 1.08 7.94 109 1.09 7.97 110 1.1 8.00 111 1.11 8.03 112 1.12 8.06 113 1.13 8.09 114 1.14 8.11 115 1.15 8.14 116 1.16 8.17 117 1.17 8.20 118 1.18 8.23 119 1.19 8.25 120 1.2 8.28 121 1.21 8.31 122 1.22 8.34 123 1.23 8.36 124 1.24 8.39 125 1.25 8.42 126 1.26 8.45 127 1.27 8.47 128 1.28 8.50 129 1.29 8.53 130 1.3 8.55 131 1.31 8.58 132 1.32 8.60 133 1.33 8.63 134 1.34 8.66 135 1.35 8.68 136 1.36 8.71 137 1.37 8.73 138 1.38 8.76

Spring Stiffness(N/mm) 191.35 190.23 189.12 188.02 186.95 185.89 184.84 183.81 182.80 181.80 180.82 179.85 178.89 177.95 177.02 176.10 175.19 174.30 173.42 172.55 171.70 170.85 170.02 169.19 168.38 167.57 166.78 166.00 165.23 164.46 163.71 162.96 162.23 161.50 160.78 160.07 159.37 158.67

65

Table A - Continued Slip(mm) Bond Stress(MPa) 139 1.39 8.78 140 1.4 8.81 141 1.41 8.83 142 1.42 8.86 143 1.43 8.88 144 1.44 8.91 145 1.45 8.93 146 1.46 8.96 147 1.47 8.98 148 1.48 9.01 149 1.49 9.03 150 1.5 9.06 151 1.51 9.08 152 1.52 9.10 153 1.53 9.13 154 1.54 9.15 155 1.55 9.18 156 1.56 9.20 157 1.57 9.22 158 1.58 9.25 159 1.59 9.27 160 1.6 9.29 161 1.61 9.32 162 1.62 9.34 163 1.63 9.36 164 1.64 9.38 165 1.65 9.41 166 1.66 9.43 167 1.67 9.45 168 1.68 9.48 169 1.69 9.50 170 1.7 9.52 171 1.71 9.54 172 1.72 9.57 173 1.73 9.59 174 1.74 9.61 175 1.75 9.63

Spring Stiffness(N/mm) 157.99 157.31 156.64 155.98 155.32 154.67 154.03 153.40 152.77 152.15 151.54 150.93 150.33 149.74 149.15 148.57 147.99 147.42 146.86 146.30 145.74 145.20 144.66 144.12 143.59 143.06 142.54 142.03 141.51 141.01 140.51 140.01 139.52 139.03 138.55 138.07 137.60

66

Table A - Continued Slip(mm) Bond Stress(MPa) 176 1.76 9.65 177 1.77 9.68 178 1.78 9.70 179 1.79 9.72 180 1.8 9.74

Spring Stiffness(N/mm) 137.13 136.66 136.20 135.74 135.29

67