For flexure and bond failure in beams, finite element models were validated. For the model to validate the flexural investigation, a mesh sensitivity analysis was done. The created model is subsequently validated for bond study. Table II represents ultimate values for load v/s deflection obtained from experimental study.
After a FE model was created to replicate a regulated or uncorroded beam, the validation process was started. The perfect bond model was initially chosen because it was simpler than other bond model techniques and accurately represented the controlled beam in terms of the results of the experiments. However, it was unable to accurately reflect the experimental investigation when employed with a corrosion-damaged model. Later, other approaches to bond interaction for the controlled and corroded models were tested. For both circumstances, the cohesive interaction strategy worked successfully. The effect of corrosion in reinforcement, cover and bond was then incorporated in the study. The graph of load versus deflection in the Fig. 6 shows a very reliable agreement between the experimental and numerical observations.
The regulated beam curve from the FE simulation increased linearly up to a load of 37 KN before significantly decreasing after that. The first crack, which releases energy when the beam has lost its elasticity and has been supported up to its maximum flexural capacity, is what caused the abrupt decrease in load. Although the bottom of the beam became weak in tension due to cracks, the loss in curve was not severe for the corroded example. The concrete cracking that first caused the beam rigidity to decline was eventually replaced by the rebar’s eventual yield. FE findings and deflection showed that the capacity of the corroded beam was lower than that of the controlled beam. As indicated in the following Fig. 7, additional validation was performed between two deteriorated beams with varied degrees of corrosion.
When compared to the FE results for the controlled beam, the drop in curve was significantly less in the 2.5 percent corroded beam. However, the curve for a 10% corroded beam by (Pandit et al. 2019) shows a significant loss in bond capacity or reinforcement that has achieved its maximum yield capacity as shown in Fig. 8. The plot for a beam with a 10 percent corrosion rate shows no apparent rise or fall, which led to the conclusion above. However, many other factors, like cracks and shear, may also have an impact on the results and will be taken into consideration in future research.
The variation of the deflection value for controlled model is 4.1% from the experimental study using the cohesive surface interaction approach and about 4.9% for the corroded bond study.
4.1.1 Influence of the Concrete Capacity
The material parameters which are necessary for input in the model but, not available from the experimental study are then calculated from the material models recommended by CEB-FIP Model Code (2010). The standard model code contains many important mechanical parameters for various strengths of the concrete. The bond strength for beams were obtained using the analytical model for different grades of concrete as shown in the Fig. 9 below. it could be noted that the models for greater concrete capacity and rigidity possess larger bond strength for initial stage of rebar corrosion when compared with lesser grade assigned models. The significant increase in bond capacity with the higher grade of concrete could be resulted from more resistivity to cracks in cover of concrete and also the confining stress. Figure.9 represents bond strength variation with respect to concrete strength.
4.2 Analyses for Mesh Sensitivity
To study the influence of mesh sizes, the same FE models validated earlier are adopted with varied sizes of mesh for different parts of beam assembly. In the first approach, the mesh size for both concrete and steel parts were modified for three distinct sizes of 8, 25 and 40mm. The Figure.10 shows that the outcomes of Abaqus analyses for three different mesh sizes did not considerably alter the results.
The study has been carried out in two distinct approaches:
1. The Mesh Size Was Maintained Equal For Both Concrete And The Reinforcement Parts.
2. The Mesh Size Of Concrete And Reinforcement Were Kept Unequal.
Furthermore, it is understood that it would be better for the study if the mesh sizes for the steel and concrete were identical or slightly closer. When compared to mesh sizes of 40mm, the 8mm mesh size did somewhat improve the outcomes. 8mm mesh size was used for the research. As crack path and position are mesh dependent and the present study is in agreement with the previous study of (B Sanz et al).
In the other approach, the same FE model of beam with 2.5% corrosion was used for validation. The FE model was incorporated with varied mesh sizes for concrete and steel. The
results obtained using this technique is as shown in the Fig. 11, It is observed that on providing of varying mesh sizes for concrete and steel led to increase in deflection for constant load range (20kN – 30kN) and the curve pattern for varying mesh sizes was not in agreement with the experimental results of (Pandit et al. 2019).
4.3 Parametric Study
The parametric analyses have been performed in order to understand the influence of different parameters on bond behaviour and the residual capacity of the beams when subjected to distinct levels of corrosion. The analytical and FE models constructed and validated in the above studies were used for the present study. The parameters required for analytical study of capacity or deterioration of bond in control beam models which were experimentally tested by (Pandit et al. 2019) are as tabulated in Table III below.
Table III Parameters used for analytical model
Parameters | Value |
Friction Coefficient of Interface ( \({{\mu }}_{0}\) ) | 0.8 (Initial) |
Compressive Strength of Concrete ( \({f}_{c}^{{\prime }}\) ) | 20 MPa |
Ratio of Cover to Rebar Diameter ( C/d ) | 1 (for cover of 20mm) |
Ratio of the volume of corrosion by-products to original steel volume (n) | 2 |
Stress at interface due to Chemical Adhesion ( \({F}_{a}\) ) | 2 MPa |
4.3.1 Influence of Corrosion Damages on FE Model
In this FE analysis, two different damages induced by corrosion was incorporated as listed below:
1. Reduction In C/s Area Of Steel Rebar.
2. Deterioration Of Bond.
The boundary conditions between concrete and steel typically determine crack patterns. (Chen E et al. 2015) One of the two corrosion damage parameters mentioned above was only included in the model at a time during the FE study. One at a time consideration made it simpler to determine the unique effects of damage on the flexural behaviour of FE models. For this parametric research, the 2.5 percent corroded FE beam model proven above was used. After that, FE analyses were carried out as shown below:
1.First, only 2.5% reduction in c/s area of steel rebar part (marked as FE2.5%Area).
2.Secondly, the bond deterioration parameters for 2.5% corroded beam were only specified in the model (marked as FE2.5%Bond).
3.Later, multiple corrosion damage factors were simultaneously incorporated to FE model (marked as FE2.5%All).
The laboratory results for the control beam and the beam with 2.5 percent corrosion are shown in Fig. 12. FE analyses for controlled beam, c/s area decrease, bond deterioration, and ultimately, the FE analysis for all corrosion-related damages when specified simultaneously in the model.
The flexural response of the 2.5 percent corroded beam in the FE analysis did not deviate significantly from the experimental research on the control specimen till yield limit. However, the reduction in rebar cross-section would only have a substantial impact on the flexural behaviour once the beam reached its yield limit. Therefore, until the yield limit, there was little difference between the control and corroded beams. The results of FE2.5 percent Bond demonstrated a significant.
Degradation in bond strength. Further, it could be inferred from the study that the structural deterioration of RC Beams induced by corrosion is mainly due to the reduction in bond capacity. The results of FE analysis (for FE2.5%All) indicates the reduction in both stiffness and the capacity.