I model three simple-support RC beams with these properties:
a) Without any rebar (Just concrete)
b)Common RC beam with compressive and tensile reinforcement
c) RC beam with FRP (Full wrapping in shear span)
Dimension of beams :0.4 m width ,0.5 hieght, two F18 mm in top an 2 in bottom, Fc=30Ma,Fy=240Mpa
(Reinforced concrete asymmetric rectangular section – rcars)
and after push over analysis ,it was observed that all of the beams have a same ultimate deflection (deflection correspond to ultimate load, beneath the peak=15.5 mm) and there is have very negligible difference between ultimate loads of second and third beams(Respectively 880, 998 and 1000, only 2 KN difference between second and third).
If you wish, I will send you my files, and you can judge yourself.
Is this true that no difference exist between ultimate deflection of a beam with no longitudinal rebars and RC beam with frp ?
Similar results for three different beams
- seismosoft
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: 06 Jul 2007, 04:55
Re: Similar results for three different beams
Your three 4-hinge beams do indeed feature similar behaviour, owing to the mechanical characteristics of such structure and to the displacement-controlled loading you have applied.
The material strains, however, are likely to be quite different, did you have a look at them? (define some strain-stress points to check this)
Further, if you consider different boundary conditions (e.g. fully restrained supports and/or ditributed loading), you should get much varied results.
You should also try a finer meshing, as recommended by the Help System.
Seismosoft Suppport
PS: we hope you will agree that the original title of your post ("A fatal error in SeismoStruct's results") was slightly unjustified, to say the least..
The material strains, however, are likely to be quite different, did you have a look at them? (define some strain-stress points to check this)
Further, if you consider different boundary conditions (e.g. fully restrained supports and/or ditributed loading), you should get much varied results.
You should also try a finer meshing, as recommended by the Help System.
Seismosoft Suppport
PS: we hope you will agree that the original title of your post ("A fatal error in SeismoStruct's results") was slightly unjustified, to say the least..