Utah State University

DigitalCommons@USU
All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies, School of

5-1-2009

Finite Element Modeling of Full Depth Precast

Concrete Transverse Bridge Deck Connections
Jacob Logan Julander
Utah State University

Recommended Citation
Julander, Jacob Logan, "Finite Element Modeling of Full Depth Precast Concrete Transverse Bridge Deck Connections" (2009). All
Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 469.
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/469

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate
Studies, School of at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for
inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized
administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF FULL DEPTH PRECAST CONCRETE

TRANSVERSE BRIDGE DECK CONNECTIONS

by

J. Logan Julander

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

Civil and Environmental Engineering

Approved:

_______________________ _______________________
Dr. Marvin Halling Dr. Paul Barr
Major Professor Committee Member

_______________________ _______________________
Dr. Joseph Caliendo Dr. Byron Burnham
Committee Member Dean of Graduate Studies

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

Logan, Utah

2009
 ii

ABSTRACT

Finite Element Modeling of Full Depth Precast Concrete

Transverse Bridge Deck Connections

by

J. Logan Julander, Master of Science

Utah State University, 2009

Major Professor: Dr. Marvin Halling

Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering

The frequent use of precast concrete panels has been used to decrease the

construction time for bridges. Cracking often occurs at the transverse connections of

these panels, resulting in corrosion, and decreased bridge life. Previous laboratory testing

of these connections was performed at Utah State University for the Utah Department of

Transportation to determine maximum shear and moment capacities, cracking behavior,

and cracking loads for five different connections. Two connections are Utah Department

of Transportation standard connections. These connections are post tensioned and welded

tie connection using shear studs. A different type of welded tie connection using rebar

was also tested, along with two prototype connections using a curved bolt to apply post

tensioning. As part of this research finite element models were created using ANSYS

software to confirm the tested results, and provide models for future analysis.
 iii

Moment-deflection and shear force-deflection curves were created using the

results from the laboratory testing, and were compared with the results from the finite

element analysis. The finite element models produced similar behavior and cracking

loads when compared to the laboratory results. The curved bolt connections were found

to be a good way of applying post tensioning.

(86 pages)
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I would like to thank my wonderful wife, Kaitlin, for all her help and

support. I would like to thank the Utah Department of Transportation for funding this

project. I would also like to thank Scott Porter for all of his assistance in the building and

testing of the specimens.

The members of my graduate committee, Dr. Marvin Halling, Dr. Paul Barr, and

Dr. Joseph Caliendo, have been a great support and fountain of knowledge for this

project, and I would like to thank them.

Lastly, I want to thank Ken Jewkes and Wes Davidson for not only letting me use

their laboratories and equipment, but also for teaching me to weld, use a torch, apply

strain gages, and many other useful skills.

Logan Julander
 v

CONTENTS

Page
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF SYMBOLS ......................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................3

III. LABORATORY TESTING.........................................................................6

Connection Details ...........................................................................6

Shear Specimen Details ...................................................................9
Shear Test Results ..........................................................................11
Flexural Specimen Details .............................................................13
Flexural Specimen Results .............................................................14

IV. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING .............................................................16

Elements and Material Properties ..................................................16

Shear Finite Element Model ..........................................................22
Flexural Finite Element Model ......................................................25

V. RESULTS AND COMPARISON .............................................................28

Shear Finite Element Model Results..............................................28

Flexural Finite Element Model Results .........................................37

VI. CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................50

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................55

APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................55
 vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Shear specimen ultimate capacities .......................................................................11

2 Shear specimen cracking capacities .......................................................................12

3 Flexural specimen moment capacities ...................................................................14

4 Flexural specimen cracking moments ....................................................................15

 vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Curved bolt connection details.................................................................................7

2 Welded tie connection details ..................................................................................8

3 Shear specimen test setup ......................................................................................10

4 Moment specimen test setup ..................................................................................13

5 Shear model creation sequence ..............................................................................23

6 Shear model boundary conditions sequence ..........................................................24

7 Quarter scale flexural model ..................................................................................26

8 Unreinforced key shear force-deflection curves ....................................................30

9 Shear unreinforced welded tie tested cracking sequence .......................................30

10 Shear unreinforced welded tie finite model cracking sequence.............................31

11 Welded stud shear force-deflection curves ............................................................32

12 Shear welded stud tested cracking sequence .........................................................32

13 Shear welded stud modeled cracking sequence .....................................................33

14 Non-post tensioned shear force-deflection curve ..................................................34

15 Shear non-post tensioned tested cracking sequence ..............................................35

16 Shear non-post tensioned modeled cracking sequence ..........................................35

17 Post tensioned shear force-deflection curves .........................................................36

18 Shear post tensioned tested cracking sequence ......................................................37

19 Shear post tensioned modeled cracking sequence .................................................37

20 Post tensioned moment deflection curves ..............................................................39

 viii

21 Flexural post tensioned modeled cracking sequence .............................................39

22 Flexural post tensioned modeled cracking sequence .............................................40

23 Welded stud moment-deflection curves.................................................................41

24 Flexural welded stud tested cracking sequence .....................................................41

25 Flexural welded stud modeled cracking sequence .................................................42

26 Welded rebar moment-deflection curves ...............................................................43

27 Flexural welded rebar tested cracking sequence ....................................................44

28 Flexural welded rebar modeled cracking sequence ...............................................44

29 36 inch curved bolt moment-deflection curves ......................................................46

30 Flexural 36 inch curved bolt tested cracking sequence .........................................46

31 Flexural 36 inch curved bolt modeled cracking sequence .....................................47

32 24 inch curved bolt moment-deflection curves ......................................................48

33 Flexural 24 inch curved bolt tested cracking sequence .........................................49

34 Flexural 24 inch curved bolt modeled cracking sequence .....................................49

 ix

LIST OF SYMBOLS

f’c Compressive strength of concrete

psi Pounds per square inch

lb Pounds

ksi Kips per square inch

E Modulus of elasticity of steel

ν Poisson’s ratio

fy Yield strength

Et Tangential modulus

θ Rebar orientation angle in the XY plane

φ Rebar orientation angle in the YZ plane

Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete

ft Uniaxial tensile cracking stress

fcb Biaxial compressive stress

σh Ambient hydrostatic stress state

f1 Biaxial crushing stress under the ambient hydrostatic stress state

f2 Uniaxial crushing stress under the hydrostatic stress state

βt Shear transfer coefficient for open cracks

βc Shear transfer coefficient for closed cracks

v1r Stiffness multiplier for cracked tensile condition

σmax Maximum normal contact stress

ucn Contact gap at the completion of bonding

 x

τmax Maximum tangential stress

uct Tangential slip at the completion of bonding

η Artificial damping coefficient

β Option indicator for tangential slip under compressive normal contact stress

K Temperature in Kelvin

lb-ft Pound feet

FKN Normal penalty stiffness factor

 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has implemented the use of

Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC). This enables faster placement of concrete

bridge decks and shortens bridge construction time. In ABC, a bridge deck is cast in

manageable sections. These sections are transported to the bridge site and assembled. The

bridge sections are connected to each other by grouted pockets. These connections do not

behave as well as a cast in place deck, and often result in cracking at these grouted areas.

When the concrete in these connections cracks it leads to the corrosion of the steel in the

deck and the supporting members due to the infiltration of water and de-icing chemicals.

Corrosion of the structural members could decrease the life of a bridge significantly.

Cracking also weakens the joint which could lead to failure of the connection.

With the increased use of ABC, UDOT has developed new standard

specifications, and has funded the testing of several of their connections, along with a

new type of connection. This paper gives a brief overview of the results from the

connection testing, but mainly focuses on the finite element modeling of the tested

connections. For an in depth report on the laboratory testing of these connections refer to

“Laboratory Testing of Precast Bridge Deck Panel Transverse Connections for Use in

Accelerated Bridge Construction” by Scott Porter (Porter, 2009).

A finite element model was created using ANSYS (ANSYS, 2007) for each of the

connections tested in the laboratory. The results from the model were compared to the

tested results to better understand the cracking behavior of the connections. The purpose

of this research was to create a preliminary finite element model that when compared and
 2

matched with the tested results gives more information on the cracking behavior of each

connection. This also allows for further analysis without the need of constructed

specimens.
 3

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Finite element modeling is important in the study of precast concrete deck

connections as it aids in evaluating results obtained from laboratory testing. If cracking

can be represented in finite element analysis it would aid and simplify the studies of

precast concrete bridge connections. An accurate working finite element model also

allows for a larger range of analysis without the need of constructing physical specimens.

Different finite element models have been developed to confirm results from

tested material. One common program for testing precast concrete bridges is ANSYS

because of its built-in concrete capabilities and ability to perform nonlinear analysis. This

aids in finding the initial cracking loads, and the location of these cracks.

Research done by Kachlakev, Miller, Yim (2001) on fiber reinforced polymer

(FRP) retrofitted beams compared tested results to both linear and nonlinear finite

element models. Two finite element programs that were used were SAP2000 (Computers

and Structures, 1998) and ANSYS. The result shows that even in the linear range of the

test ANSYS was closer to the test data than was SAP2000. This study tested both a

control specimen and an existing bridge retrofitted with FRP laminates. The control

specimen was tested to verify the efficacy of the finite element analysis. Then the bridge

was modeled and compared with the test results from the existing bridge. The results

indicated that the finite element model was stiffer than the existing bridge because of

minor differences in material strengths and boundary conditions.

 4

In a study performed by Bakhoum (1991), shear behavior between male-to-female

connections were tested and compared with a finite element model. Several connections

were modeled using ADINA (ADINA, 1986) finite element software which is able to

model nonlinearity in different materials and the interface between them. This study is

very helpful toward the process of finite element modeling. Both linear and nonlinear

analysis were performed for the connection. The analysis included a model of the central

part of the shear specimen, and a model of the entire shear specimen. It was determined

that the entire specimen should be modeled when performing the shear analysis in order

to obtain accurate results. The boundary conditions must also be well defined, or the

results may be skewed. The model using linear analysis was approximately two times

stiffer than the tested specimen. The nonlinear model increased the accuracy, but the first

nonlinear model created did not give an accurate failure load. This was not obtained until

accurate material parameters were entered, and proper strain softening and shear transfer

coefficients were considered. The recorded deflections were applied to the model instead

of applying loads. This was done to produce more accurate linear results. In this study

Bakhoum stated that material failure envelopes are used to “establish uniaxial stress

strain laws accounting for multiaxial stress conditions”, and to indicate whether cracking

or crushing has occurred.

Research by Issa et al. (1995a,b; Issa, Yousif, and Issa 1995; 2003) was

performed on grouted female-to-female shear keyway connections. Issa tested different

shapes of shear keyways, and found that the connection with 1-1/4” gap at the top and

1/2” gap at the bottom had the least amount of cracking in the connection. It was also

suggested that post tensioning be applied to allow for proper sealing between the
 5

connections. A finite element model was developed in ANSYS using SOLID65 elements

which are able to model cracking and crushing of the grout. The analysis of the female-

to-female shear keyway showed the major stress concentrations located in the grouting

material along the connection joint and not in the concrete material. The model

experienced cracking at the lower neck, and crushing at the upper neck of the model, with

minor cracks in the concrete. The stress distributions across the connections were similar

to the tested stresses, but the ultimate stress which occurred in the narrow neck of the

connection had much higher stresses.

Sullivan (2007) analyzed transverse connections linearly in the finite element

program SAP2000, and obtained nodal displacements and rotations. These values were

then applied to the finite element model in ANSYS. This method of loading was similar

to the method used by Bakhoum (1991). The loads were applied this way so that the

analysis would be controlled by displacement rather than by an applied force which

allowed for better convergence in the model. This study also used SOLID65 elements to

model the concrete, but in places of irregular geometry SOLID45 elements were used.

These elements were at the location of the connection, and did not have cracking

capabilities.
 6

CHAPTER III

LABORATORY TESTING

Connection Details

Each connection has a basic type of female-to-female shear keyway, with a

different method of connecting the two panels together. Five different connection types

were tested: 1) post tensioned, 2) 36 inch curved bolt, 3) 24 inch curved bolt, 4) welded

rebar, and 5) welded stud.

Three of these connections, the post tensioned, 36 inch curved bolt, and 24 inch

curved bolt connection, have an applied post tensioning to ensure strength across the

grouted keyway. A connection commonly used by DOTs is the post tensioned

connection. In practice post tensioning is applied by feeding either a rod, or cable

longitudinally through the entire panel, and after the shear keyway is grouted the rods are

tightened to apply a force of 300 psi across the face of the connection. In this experiment

a harness was placed on the ends of the specimen and threaded rods connecting each

harness were tightened to apply the required force for the post tensioned connection. An

experimental type of post tensioning was developed by bending a threaded rod, feeding

the rod through a conduit, and after grouting the connection applying the required force

by tightening a nut on either end of the threaded rod. Two different lengths and diameters

were used for these curved bolt connection, a 24 inch length with a 1 inch diameter bolt,

and a 36 inch length with a 7/8 inch diameter bolt. The connection detail for these two

curved bolt sections is shown in Figure 1.

 7

Figure 1. Curved bolt connection detail.

The other two connections tested were the welded rebar, and the welded stud

connections. These connections consist of a 6 inch wide plate cast into each side of a

shear key with a rod welded between them. The plate was tied into the concrete panel by

either a nelson stud or rebar welded to the plate. In this paper the connections will be

referred to as welded rebar (Figure 2 a,b,c) and welded stud (Figure 2 d). In the welded

rebar connection, the rebar extends into the concrete and ties into the panel

reinforcement. The welded stud connection has two nelson studs that provide resistance

against pullout of the plates. Both welded tie connections are nominally spaced at a

maximum of every two feet. Between each of these welded tie portions is an unreinforced

female-to-female shear key. The unreinforced section is shown in Figure 2(e).

 8

(a)

(b) (c)

(d) (e)
(a) Welded rebar (b) Rebar and plate detail (c) Rebar length detail (d) Welded stud
(e) Unreinforced section (Utah Department Of Transportation 2008a)

Figure 2. Welded tie connection detail.

The post tensioned, and welded stud connections are UDOT ABC standard

connections. The welded rebar connection was recently used on a bridge in Weber

County, Utah (UDOT 2007), and Figure 2(a,b,c) were taken from those plans (UDOT

2008a,b,c). The two curved bolt connections were proposed by Hugh Boyle, an engineer

and consultant on this project (personal communication Hugh Boyle).

 9

Shear Specimen Details

The shear specimens consist of a 6 inch wide section of the connection with a

depth of 8.75 inches. The layout for the shear specimens are shown in Figure 3, and have

a similar design to the vertical shear tests performed in previous studies (Issa et al., 2003;

Bakhourn, 1991; Biswas, 1986). However, in these studies there have been problems with

failure occurring outside of the connection due to rotation of the upper and lower flanges.

In order to avoid failure outside of the connection it was suggested that reinforcing rebar

be used to reinforce the weaker areas. In this study #3 rebar sections were used to

reinforce the flange. Another difference between this vertical shear specimen design and

those used in other research is the gap between the flanges and the connection area. This

gap was added to better test the interaction between the connection and concrete. This

moves the area between the flanges and the represented deck away from the connection

allowing for a shear failure angle, and better representation of the bridge thickness. A

deeper gap (approximately three inches) was used for the welded stud and rebar

specimens to allow more room for welding in the connection.

The shear specimens were loaded monotonically to failure using a basic push off

method. The load was applied by two hydraulic rams pulling down on a hollow square

section of steel (Figure 3 b,c). A load cell was placed at the point of loading and a

spherical head was used to maintain a constant downward force despite irregularities in

the specimen or loading equipment. A harness restrained the specimen from rotation and

separating at the connection as is shown in Figure 3. A linear variable displacement

transducer (LVDT) was used to measure deflection, and a 50,000 lb capacity load cell
 10

(a)

(b) (c)

Figure 3. Shear specimen test setup (Porter, 2009).

 11

was used to measure the applied force. The output from both LVDT and load cell were

recorded using the Vishay data acquisition program Strain Smart. These results were used

to obtain the maximum shear force, and to create a load verses deflection curve, from

which a cracking load could be determined.

Shear Test Results

The connection types tested for shear were: 1) post tensioned, 2) post tensioned

keyway without post tensioning, 3) welded stud, 4) welded rebar, and 5) the unreinforced

section of the welded tie connection. The non-post tensioned connection was tested to

calculate the shear force gained from applying post tensioning. The welded rebar

specimens experienced failure in the upper and lower flanges away from the connection.

Because their ultimate capacity was never obtained they are not included in the shear

specimen results. As aforementioned the welded tie connections are comprised of both

welded portion and unreinforced connection. Both were tested separately for shear and an

average force per length is shown in the Table 1.

At least three specimens of each type of connection were tested for ultimate shear

capacity and averaged per foot of connection. In Table 1 these values were normalized to

Table 1. Shear specimen ultimate capacities

Connection Average Ultimate Shear Ultimate Shear Capacity/Capacity
Capacity (lb/ft) of Post Tensioned Connection
Post tensioned 49345 1.00
Non-Post Tensioned 12733 0.26
Welded Stud 42684 0.87
Welded Stud 6” spaced 18” 36055 0.73
Welded Stud 6” spaced 24” 21706 0.44
Unreinforced Portion of Welded Tie 14713 0.30
 12

Table 2. Shear specimen cracking capacities

Connection Average Cracking Shear Cracking Shear/Ultimate Shear
Capacity (lb/ft) Capacity
Post tensioned 42500 0.99
Non-post Tensioned 11000 0.85
Welded Stud 19600 0.42
Unreinforced Portion of Welded Tie 11800 0.40

the post tensioned connection because of its wide use in ABC. The post tensioned

connection had the greatest shear strength. The ratio of the non-post tensioned

connection to the post tensioned is 0.26, and shows the increase that post tensioning

provides. The ratio of the unreinforced section to the post tensioned is 0.30, and when

combined with the welded stud section increases the ratio to 0.44 and 0.73 for a 24 inch

and 18 inch spacing respectively.

During testing a rough approximation of initial cracking was recorded with a

corresponding load. A ratio was calculated of the cracking strength to ultimate capacity

for each connection. The post tensioned had the highest cracking shear strength at 21,250

lb which is approximately 99% of its average ultimate shear strength. The non-post

tensioned connections had the lowest cracking strength at 5,500 lb, or 85% of the average

ultimate capacity for this connection. These two connections experienced failure

immediately after cracking. The welded stud had the second highest cracking strength of

9,800 lbs that accounted for 42% of its average ultimate capacity. The unreinforced

welded tie connection had a cracking strength of 5,900 which occurred at 40% of its

average ultimate capacity.

 13

Flexural Specimen Details

Each of the flexural specimens was 72 inches long, 18 inches wide, and 8.75

inches deep. This was considered an adequately represented section of the bridge deck.

The two welded tie connections had the 6 inch connection in the center, and 6 inches of

the unreinforced keyway on each side. The panels were reinforced with #6 rebar as

specified in the UDOT ABC standards. Additional reinforcement was placed at the

loading point to avoid shear failure away from the connection. These beam specimens

were tested monotonically until failure using four point loading. The load was applied

using hydraulic rams that pulled down on a wide flange beam, which transferred the load

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 4. Flexural specimen test setup (Porter, 2009).
 14

to a load spreader which applied the load at two different points on the specimen. During

initial testing the load spreader’s bearing points were 12 inches from each end, but due to

excessive loads (close to 50,000 lb, the load cells capacity), the bearing points were

moved to 24 inch from each end. This is illustrated in Figure 4. A 50,000 pound load cell

was used to record the applied load, and an LVDT was placed at 27 inches from the right

end of the beam and was used to record deflection.

Flexural Specimen Results

The connection types tested for moment capacity are: 1) welded stud, 2) welded

rebar, 3) post tensioned, 4) 24 inch curved bolt, and 5) 36 inch curved bolt. As the post

tensioned connection is a highly used connection in ABC, the other connections

capacities were normalized to its moment capacity (17,261 lb-ft). The flexural results are

shown in Table 3. As you can see from the table, the 36 inch curved bolt unexpectedly

had the greatest capacity, and a ratio of 1.19 when compared to the post tensioned

connection. The 24 inch curved bolt connection did not perform as well and had a ratio of

0.70 compared to the post tensioned connection. The welded rebar connection had a

higher moment capacity than the post tensioned connection with a ratio of 1.05. The

Table 3. Flexural specimen ultimate capacities

Connection Average Moment Capacity Capacity/Capacity of Post

(lb-ft) Tensioned Connection
Welded Stud 6667 0.39
Welded Rebar 18047 1.05
Post Tensioned 17261 1.00
24-inch Curved Bolt 12079 0.70
36-inch Curved Bolt 20623 1.19
 15

welded stud had the least amount of moment capacity, failing at 0.39 times the post

tensioned ultimate capacity.

Also during flexural testing, approximate cracking moments were recorded and

averaged for each connection. Similar to the shear results the average cracking moment

was compared to the ultimate moment capacity of the connection, and can be found in

Table 4. The welded rebar, and post tensioned connections both had the highest average

cracking moment at 10,400 lb and 10,300 lb respectively, which is approximately 60% of

the ultimate capacity of the two connections. Although the 36 inch curved bolt had the

highest moment capacity of the connections, its cracking moment was lower than the

welded rebar and post tensioned connections (8,100 lb), accounting for 40% of its

ultimate capacity. The 24 inch curved bolt and welded stud connections had the smallest

cracking moment at 4,000 lb and 3,300 lb respectively. The 24 inch curved bolt

connection cracked at approximately 48% of its ultimate moment capacity, and the

welded stud cracked at 52% of its ultimate capacity.

Table 4. Flexural specimen cracking moment

Connection Average Cracking Moment Cracking Moment/Ultimate
(lb-ft) Moment Capacity
Welded Stud 3300 0.52
Welded Rebar 10400 0.60
Post Tensioned 10300 0.61
24-inch Curved Bolt 4000 0.48
36-inch Curved Bolt 8100 0.40
 16

CHAPTER IV

FINITE ELEMENT MODELING

Element and Material Properties

The finite element program ANSYS 11 was used to create and analyze models of

all the tested connections. This software was chosen because of its capacity to model

cracking in concrete. Models were developed for both shear and moment testing, and

load deflection and moment deflection curves were plotted for comparison with the

laboratory testing.

The material properties for the elements used in this analysis are defined by four

different categories: element type, real constant, material model, and key options. The

element types for the models are SOLID65, SOLID45, and LINK8. Real constants are

inputs that describe the geometry for LINK8 elements and rebar specifications for

SOLID65 element. Material models are the linear and nonlinear properties that define the

elements’ behavior. The material models used in this research were linear, bilinear

isotropic hardening, and the built in material model for concrete. Key options (KEYOPT)

inputs determine whether to include or disable certain element functions. Default

KEYOPTs are used for all the elements except SOLID65 and contact elements. Each

element will be described with its corresponding real constants and material models in

the following paragraphs.

LINK8 elements are line elements with three translational degrees of freedom.

These were used to model the steel plate, welded rebar, shear studs, and other rebar

reinforcement within the panel. The real constant input for a LINK8 element is the cross
 17

sectional area. Linear and nonlinear material models were used for the LINK8 element.

The linear model properties are the modulus of elasticity (E) and Poisson’s ratio (ν).

These values for steel are E = 29,000,000 psi and ν = 0.2. Bilinear isotropic hardening

was the model used to simulate yielding in the steel, and had a yielding stress (fy) of

60,000 psi, and a tangential modulus of elasticity (Et) of 2,900 psi. The modulus and

yielding stress are in accordance with UDOT’s specifications for structural steel for these

connections.

SOLID45 components are eight node 3D elements with three translational degrees

of freedom. In this research these elements act as bearing plates to reduce major stress

concentrations in the models at the loading and bearing points. SOLID45 elements do not

have a real constant, and has the same linear material properties as the LINK8 element (E

= 29,000,000 psi, ν = 0.2). These plates are used for modeling purposes, and are not

representative of physical plates used during laboratory testing.

SOLID65 elements are eight node 3D solid elements with three translational

degrees of freedom at each node, and are used to model the concrete and grout. The real

constant for a SOLID65 element indicate the material, volume ratio, and direction of

reinforcement in the element. As opposed to using a line element to model rebar in

discrete locations, a built in reinforcement option, known as smeared reinforcement was

used. This method was implemented to simplify the modeling of reinforcement in the

panel. The material for the smeared reinforcement is input by using the predefined

material model number. The volume ratio is the ratio of the reinforcement volume over

the total element volume (ANSYS, 2007). The direction of the reinforcement is indicated

by two angles (θ and φ). The angle θ is measured from the X to the Y axis, and φ is the
 18

angle to the Z axis. The real constant for the SOLID65 element has the option of

reinforcement in three different directions, but in this analysis only the Y and Z direction

were used. Reinforcement in the X direction was omitted to avoid having the

reinforcement acting at the connection.

Both linear and nonlinear material models were used for SOLID65 elements. The

linear properties include the modulus of elasticity (Ec) and Poisson’s ratio (ν). The

modulus of elasticity for concrete and grout was calculated using the following equation:

57000

where f’c is the uniaxial compressive stress and values for the concrete and grout are

4,000 psi, and 6,000 psi, respectively. These values are the specified compressive

strength for concrete used in ABC, and three day compressive strength indicated by the

grout manufacturers. The Poisson’s ratio for each was taken as 0.3.

The nonlinear material model used for SOLID65 elements was the concrete

model which predicts the failure of brittle materials. A failure surface is defined by five

different stress parameters: uniaxial tensile cracking stress (ft), uniaxial compressive

stress (fc’), biaxial compressive stress (fcb), ambient hydrostatic stress state (σh), biaxial

crushing stress under the ambient hydrostatic stress state (f1), and uniaxial crushing stress

under the hydrostatic stress state (f2).

Concrete tensile tests were performed on cylinders made from the concrete used

in the specimens, resulting in an average tensile strength of 480 psi. Because of

convergence problems in ANSYS, the crushing feature was turned off using a value of -1.
 19

This was done to save computational time and focus on the cracking that occurs within

the specimens. Crushing has been turned off in other studies because it was problematic

towards obtaining an accurate solution (Kachlakev, Miller, and Yim, 2001; Wolanski,

2004). By doing this, the material cracks whenever the principle stress component is

higher than the tensile stress of the concrete and the remaining parameters (fcb, f1, and f2)

are suppressed (ANSYS, 2007).

Three other inputs for the concrete model are shear transfer coefficient for open

cracks (βt), shear transfer coefficient for closed cracks (βc), and stiffness multiplier for

cracked tensile condition (v1r). Shear transfer coefficients range from values of 0.0 to 1.0

with 0.0 representing a smooth crack with no shear transfer, and 1.0 representing a rough

crack that transfers the entire shear. For this analysis βt was set to 0.2 representing a fairly

smooth crack, and βc was set to 0.6 representing a moderately rough crack. A value of 0.2

was suggested in Wolanski (2004) because when βt for an open crack drops below 0.2

convergence is difficult to achieve. The value of the stiffness multiplier for cracked

tensile condition was taken as the default value v1r=0.6.

KEYOPTs are used in SOLID65 elements to help solution convergence.

KEYOPTs are different for each element, and for the SOLID65 elements key option (7)

is used to help convergence when the element is undergoing cracking. KEYOPT(7) was

set to a value of 1 which gives the option to include tensile stress relaxation after

cracking. When a crack occurs in an analysis the stress available at that node drops to

zero, which often causes convergence problems. Stress relaxation allows for a more

gradual reduction helping in obtaining a converged solution.

 20

Initially the concrete to grout contact was modeled as continuous, but analysis

showed that the concrete separating from the grout had a significant impact in the force

deflection curve. In order to model the bond and separation of the concrete and grout

contact pairs with debonding capabilities were implemented. Contact pairs consist of two

elements: a target element (TARGE170) and a contact element (CONTA173). These

elements define the boundary between the surfaces of the concrete and grout, and have

the ability to model delamination of the two surfaces. The TARGE170 elements overlay a

3D solid element and characterize the boundary conditions. These are associated with the

contact elements by sharing a real constant set. The CONTA173 element is able to model

surface to surface contact between 3D solid elements. The stiffness between the surface

and target can be modified to define the bond characteristics.

The real set constants for contact pairs have the option of 26 inputs, however,

only one of these inputs were changed from the default settings. Initial analysis of each

model without using contact pairs had a linear region before cracking that was far more

rigid than the tested specimens. This suggests that there is some softening in this initial

region. To imitate this initial softening, the normal penalty stiffness factor (FKN) was

reduced.

CONTA173 elements have twelve key options available, and five were changed

from their default values (2,5,9,10,12). KEYOPT(12) indicates the initial bond behavior

of the contact pairs. In this analysis the bond is represented as fully bonded by setting

KEYOPT(12) to 5, and the separation is modeled using a cohesive zone material model.

KEYOPT(2) controls the contact algorithm, which was changed to the penalty method as

suggested when KEYOPT(12) is changed to a value of 5. The penalty method is a contact

 21

algorithm which defines the stiffness between the two surfaces as a spring whose

stiffness is equal to the FKN value (ANSYS, 2007). The stiffness was updated after each

iteration by changing KEYOPT(10) to a value of 2. While constructing the model an

initial gap was found between the concrete and grout. This gap was insignificant, but

potentially detrimental to the analysis. Using KEYOPT(9) and (5) equal to 1 the initial

gap was neglected.

In order to allow for separation between the grout and the concrete a Cohesive

Zone Material Model (CZM) was used. This works by a constitutive relationship between

the traction on the interface, and the corresponding separation across the interface

(ANSYS, 2007). The bond between the concrete and grout was defined by using the real

constant for the contact pairs, and the CZM material model inputs.

The CZM model has bilinear behavior by using one of two set options; traction

and maximum separation, or traction and release energy. In this analysis the traction and

maximum separation was used which has 6 input option; maximum normal contact stress

(σmax), contact gap at the completion of bonding (ucn), maximum tangential stress (τmax),

tangential slip at the completion of bonding (uct), artificial damping coefficient (η), and

an option indicator for tangential slip under compressive normal contact stress (β).

Because sliding does not control the separation only σmax and ucn were used in the CZM.

The artificial damping is included to compensate for convergence problems that are

caused by modeling debonding. The damping input has units of time and is multiplied by

the smallest time increment. ANSYS suggests the value be between .1 and .01; in this

analysis the value was taken as the minimum suggested value of .01 for all the models.
 22

A static analysis was performed for each of the models and a full Newton-

Raphson method was used for the nonlinear analysis. The load was divided into multiple

substeps until the final load was achieved. The load step increment was chosen by

ANSYS, so if the solution was not converging at a certain load substep, the increment

decreased until convergence was reached. The number of substeps was increased until a

full analysis was reached for the load step. While developing different models, properties

and meshes were changed, and some analyses would not converge. In order to exit an

analysis that is not converging a maximum number of equilibrium equations was set. This

number was set from 50 to 200 equations depending on the type of connection and

model. The ANSYS code for each model is found in Appendix A.

Shear Finite Element Modeling

In order to obtain a consistent mesh with the differing geometry, the order and

creation of the model and mesh were critical. The process is shown in Figure 5. The

models were divided into a series of quadrilaterals with keypoints inserted at the corners

of these areas as shown in Figure 5(a). From these keypoints a parallel plane of keypoints

were generated, and solids were created between the two planes using the keypoints as

shown in Figure 5(b,c). The individual solids were connected using the ANSYS Boolean

Glue function, and adjacent lines and keyponts were combined into one. By doing this the

individual solids are still able to maintain their different properties. All solids of one type

were selected, and the corresponding properties were assigned before a volume was

meshed.
 23

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5. Shear model creation sequence.

To create line elements such as a shear stud, a line is selected from a volume,

assigned the reinforcement properties, and meshed. Because of this process, the solids

were divided in order to create boundaries where line elements could be assigned. The

welded stud model has a plate on an angle with shear studs perpendicular to the plate. In

order to create a boundary line where the stud was located, certain volumes were divided

at angles creating geometry that is difficult to mesh. At these locations some triangular

meshes were used. Triangular shapes are not recommended for use in SOLID65

elements, and are used only where no other option could be found.

The geometry for the shear models were the same as the geometry for the tested

specimens. SOLID45 elements were used to model a 6” x 6” x 1” bearing plate located at

the loading points, and centered over the connection. Figure 6 shows the steps in applying

the boundary conditions. The bottom plate was fixed against translation in the Y direction

(Figure 6 a), the right and left outside face of the model was fixed against translation in

the X direction (Figure 6 b), and the back face of the model was fixed against translation

in the Z direction (Figure 6 c). The load was applied to the top of the upper plate evenly

distributed at the nodes (Figure 6 d).

 24

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 6. Shear model boundary conditions sequence.

The welded stud connection was created by using LINK8 elements for the steel

plates and shear studs. The steel plate could not be modeled with a plate element because

it has rotational degrees of freedom which would create inconsistencies along the

boundary of the solid elements which have only translational degrees of freedom. The

cross sectional area for the line elements used to model the plates was 1.277 in2 and the

area for the welded studs were 0.2 in2.

UDOT requires that at least 300 psi be applied across the face of the connection

for adequate post tensioning. In the post tensioned model, a horizontal pressure of 300 psi

was applied to the outside left face of the model and an analysis was performed to ensure

that 300 psi was acting across the face of the connection before the vertical load was

applied.

Some properties in the models were changed in order to better model the behavior

of the different connections. The concrete, grout, and steel properties were consistent for

all the shear models. The properties changed were the variables affecting the contact

behavior between the concrete and the grout which are, σmax, ucn, and FKN. The value for

σmax is 480 psi, the same value as the tensile strength for the concrete. ucn was taken as
 25

0.015 inches, representing a relatively small separation between the concrete and grout

upon failure of the bond. The value for FKN that was used was 0.0011 for the shear

specimens. This value is multiplied by the normal contact stiffness resulting in relatively

low contact stiffness. During testing it was observed that the bond between the concrete

and the grout was very weak, and separation often occurred along this boundary. Because

of this weak bond the normal contact stiffness was reduced.

Flexural Finite Element Modeling

The flexural models were created similar to the shear models – keypoints were

created, solids were generated from those keyponts, and assigning and meshing of the

solids was performed. However, due to symmetry, one quarter of the geometry was

modeled in ANSYS, and proper boundary conditions were applied at the plane of

symmetry. The specimen was divided lengthwise along the centerline and then fixed

against movement in the X direction on that face. Likewise, the model was divided

widthwise, and fixed against translation in the Z direction along the face of the divide as

is shown in Figure 7. A 9” x 4” x 1” solid with steel properties was modeled at the

loading and bearing points – on top of the beam 22 inches from the left hand side and at

the bottom left corner – to avoid stress concentrations. The beam was modeled as simply

supported by pinning the nodes along the center of the bearing plate in the Y direction.

This was suggested by Kachlakev, Miller, and Yim (2001) to allow for rotation and avoid

cracking in the concrete around the bearing plate. The load was distributed to the nodes

along the center of the loading plate. The loading plate was moved 12 inches from the
 26

Figure 7. Quarter scale flexural model.

right side for the 24 inch curved bolt model because the 4 inch plate interfered with one

end of the curved bolt. Because of the different geometry of each model, a uniform mesh

could not be obtained, but a one inch element size was attempted for each model.

In order to model the post tensile force for the simple post tensioned models, a

uniform pressure of 300 psi was applied over the area on the right end of the model. A

test was run without applying a vertical force, and the stresses were analyzed to ensure

that 300 psi was acting across the connection.

In the laboratory testing the curved bolt connection was made by bending

threaded rods to a specific curvature and feeding that through oversized conduits across

the connection. After the grout was placed steel plates with holes were placed on the ends

of the rods and nuts were used to tighten the bolt to the post tensile force. This was

modeled in ANSYS using LINK8 elements with steel properties for the curved bolts. The

curved portion of the bolt was simplified as several linear elements, which were

connected to the concrete and grout elements at specific nodes. The post tensioned force

was modeled by applying a temperature differential across the curved bolt elements. A

coefficient of thermal expansion of 12x10-6 in/K was used and temperatures were

changed until an average stress of 300 psi was observed across the connection. In
 27

addition the strain was output for the curved bolt and compared to the strain obtained

through laboratory testing, and final minor temperature adjustments were made to match

the tested strain. For the 24 and 36 inch curved bolt the temperature difference was -115

K, and -130 K, respectively.

The contact pairs behave differently when used in shear dominated analysis and

bending dominated analysis. Some of the contact inputs have been changed for this

reason. The value for σmax remained the same value as the tensile strength of the concrete

(480 psi). Except for the welded stud connection, the value of ucn was kept at 0.015

inches. In this connection the contact gap affected the results significantly whereas the

other connection showed little change. The welded stud had the best results when ucn was

set at 0.016 inches. The value for FKN was changed to from 0.0011 to 0.0036 for the

flexural specimens. Also the cracking coefficients βt , and βc for the welded rebar

connection were changed from 0.2 and 0.6 to 0.9 and 0.9, respectively. Since little

separation occurred between the grout and concrete in this connection the resultant cracks

were very rough.

 28

CHAPTER V

RESULTS AND COMPARISON

Shear Finite Element Model Results

The applied load and deflection were recorded at each incremental loadstep. The

nodal deflection was recorded in the center of the specimen one inch from the right edge

on the top flange. This was the approximate location of the LVDT during the physical

testing. Cracking sequences were also recorded for each connection. The four different

models analyzed in shear are: 1) unreinforced portion of the welded tie, 2) welded stud,

3) non-post tensioned, and 4) post tensioned.

In ANSYS when the principle stress at an integration point in a concrete element

exceeds the tensile stress, cracking occurs. This is modeled by an adjustment of the

material properties and is called a “smeared crack” or region of cracking. Cracking is

available in three orthogonal directions at each integration point which is indicated by a

red (first crack), green (second crack), or blue (third crack) circle. The cracking

represented from the finite element model is not a finite crack, but an area where cracking

occurs. Cracking in multiple directions indicates considerable cracking, and is regarded

as a location where visible cracking can occur. A more detailed description of the finite

element predicted cracking sequence will be given for each connection.

Similar to the tested results, the finite element models also experience cracking in

the flanges away from the connection. However, in the analysis, the arm did not fail, but

continued to crack which did not result in cracking in the connection until very high loads

(nearly double the ultimate load of the tested specimens). To better model the behavior of
 29

the specimens two options were modified. First, the concrete crushing and cracking

capabilities were turned off for all the concrete that was part of the upper and lower

flanges to better localize cracking in the connection. Second, contact pairs were used at

the interface between the concrete and the grouted connection. These changes produced

a behavior in the model that was similar to the tested model.

The result from the unreinforced portion of the welded tie connection is used to

illustrate the accuracy gained from using contact pairs. After each analysis a force

deflection curve was created using the applied load and deflection from each substep. The

deflection was measured at the approximate location where the deflection was recorded

during the laboratory testing. Figure 8 shows the load-deflection curve for the tested

specimens and two results from the ANSYS models. The finite element model without

the contact pairs is approximately 21 times stiffer than the model with contact pairs. The

force-deflection curve of the model with the contact pairs more accurately follows the

approximate curve of the tested specimens.

The model behaved similarly to the tested connections with separation in the

concrete and grout in the upper left and lower right portions of the keyway. After this

initial separation the deflection continued linearly until the ultimate load. The connection

also had cracking comparable to the tested specimens. Figure 9 shows the cracking

sequence of the unreinforced welded tie specimen tested on December 10th. Figure 9(a)

shows the separation of the concrete from the grout in the upper left and lower right

portion of the shear key. Initial cracking starts at the upper right portion of the shear key

and continues at approximately a 45° angle. This crack spreads into the grout at the same

angle and fails along that plane. Figure 10 shows the cracking sequence that ANSYS
 30

predicts. The first initial crack occurs also on the upper right hand side of the shear key.

In Figure 10(b-d) cracking spreads from the right corner of the shear key, and downward

into the deck area, but multiple cracks primarily occur in the upper right hand portion. In

Figure 10(e,f) shows cracking through the grouted portion at approximately a 45° angle.

Unreinforced Key Shear Force-Deflection Curve

16000
14000
12000 5-Dec
10000 15-Dec
Force (lb)

8000 1-Dec
6000 10-Dec
4000 Recorded Crack
2000 ANSYS
0 ANSYS no contact
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Deflection (in)

Figure 8. Unreinforced key shear force-deflection curves.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 9. Shear unreinforced welded tie tested cracking sequence.

 31

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(g) (f)
Figure 10. Shear unreinforced welded tie finite model cracking sequence.

The force deflection curves for the welded stud connections are shown in Figure

11. The finite model for the welded stud connection follows the tests results except for

the December 5th test which has a greater deflection. The points where there are loops in

the curves are when cracking occurs in the flange which caused rotation in the specimen.

This caused the LVDT to rise and fall rapidly, and does not have a correct correlation

with the deflection occurring in the connection. The finite element model follows the

tested results approximately until this point. Once major cracking occurs the modeled

connection has a linear deflection.

The cracking sequence for the welded stud specimen tested on December 10th is

shown in Figure 12. In the figure, initial separation occurs between the concrete and grout

in the upper right hand side of the pocket. Cracking starts at the location of the welded

studs on the left side of the figure as seen in the second picture. This crack continues till
 32

the bottom of the connection, and cracking through the bottom of the grouted portion can

be seen. Another crack forms along on the opposite side along the welded stud. Towards

failure cracking occurs through the grout at an angle of approximately 30°. Many of the

Welded Stud Shear Force-Deflection Curves

30000

25000
Shear Force (lb)

20000
10-Dec
15000 5-Dec

10000 11-Dec
Recorded Crack
5000
ANSYS
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Deflection (in)

Figure 11. Welded stud shear force-deflection curves.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)
Figure 12. Shear welded stud tested cracking sequence.
 33

specimens experienced cracking in the flanges away from the connection, the test from

December 10th experiencing the least amount of cracking in the flanges.

Comparatively ANSYS predicts cracking similar to the tested sequence. Figure 13

show that cracking sequence begin at the point where the welded studs are located. This

figure does not show the separation because it is not considered cracking, but it is to be

noted that separation between the grout and concrete does occur in the finite model.

Figure 13(b) shows the cracking in the grout at approximate a 30° angle. Figure 13(c-e)

shows the cracking continuing down the path of the welded stud, and across the grouted

pocket. Towards the end of the analysis major cracking occurs on the right side of the

model, and upper left portion.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)
Figure 13. Shear welded stud modeled cracking sequence.
 34

Only two specimens of the non-post tension connection were tested for shear.

These were tested to find the strength gained in applying post tensioning to this specific

female-to-female connection. The force-deflection curve for the non-post tensioned

connection is fairly simple, and is shown in Figure 14. The finite element model follows

the curve of the specimen tested on December 11th, but tends to be more rigid than the

tested specimens. Cracking occurs in the model at the point on the graph where the curve

flattens out (approximately 7,400 lb). This agrees with the tested specimens where failure

occurs immediately after cracking.

The cracking sequence for the specimen tested on December 11th is shown in

Figure 15. This is compared with Figure 16 which shows the finite element cracking

sequence. These figures show cracking along the boundary of the grouted pocket, and a

cracking at about a 60° angle.

Non-Post Tensioned Shear Force-Deflection curves

8000
7000
6000
5000
Force (lb)

4000 11-Dec
3000 10-Dec
2000 Recorded Crack
1000 ANSYS
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Deflection (in)

Figure 14. Non-post tensioned shear force-deflection curve.

 35

(a) (b)
Figure 15. Shear non-post tensioned tested cracking sequence.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 16. Shear non-post tensioned modeled cracking sequence.

The finite element analysis for the post tensioned connection closely follows the

results from the specimen tested on December 11th, as shown in Figure 17. The model is

slightly more rigid than the mentioned specimen results, but follows the same trend in

curvature.
 36

The initial cracking is lower than the observed cracking in all tested cases. The

cracking sequence however has a similar pattern in the finite model and the tested results.

The cracking sequence for a specimen tested on December 12th is shown in Figure 18.

Like the non-post tensioned models, the post tensioned models fail shortly after cracking

occurs. All of the tested models experienced cracking in the flanges. Figure 18 shows the

first visible cracks occurring in the flanges, and the cracking in the connection occurring

at the bottom left and top right corners of the connection. These cracks continue toward

the connection at an angle between 30° and 45°, and continue along the boundary

between the concrete and grout. The predicted cracking also begins in the flanges as is

shown in Figure 19 (a). Cracking in the connection begins at the upper right hand side,

and lower left hand side, and continue through the grouted pocket (Figure 19 b-d).

Post Tensioned Shear Force‐Deflection

Curves
35000
30000
Shear Force (lb)

25000 11‐Dec
20000
15000 15‐Dec
10000 3‐Dec
5000
0 Recorded Crack
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 ANSYS

Deflection (in)

Figure 17. Post tensioned shear force-deflection curves.

 37

(a) (b)
Figure 18. Shear post tensioned tested cracking sequence.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure 19. Shear post tensioned modeled cracking sequence.

Flexural Finite Element Model Results

The ultimate load capacities for the laboratory tests were applied to the finite

element models and analyses were performed. The load was recorded at each substep,

and nodal deflections were obtained at a location 27 inches from the left side of the beam,

as was performed during laboratory testing. Moment-deflection curves were created for
 38

each type of connection using these recorded deflections and loads. The five different

connections that were modeled are: 1) post tensioned, 2) welded rebar, 3) welded stud, 4)

36 inch curved bolt, and 5) 24 inch curved bolt. Images of crack progression were

captured for each of the models and compiled into figures. These figures show the

grouted connection with approximately five inches on either side of the connection for

the laboratory tested specimens. Because half of the specimen was modeled in the finite

element analysis, the figures for the predicted cracking show only half of the specimen.

Similar to the shear models, contact pair elements were used to mimic the

concrete to grout bond and add an initial softening that occurs in the tested specimens.

Without the contact pairs the moment-deflection curve for the post tensioned connection

resulted in an initial slope that was approximately 8 times larger than the tested results.

The moment-deflection curves for the post tensioned connection are found in

Figure 20. The ANSYS curve follows the tested curves almost exactly in the linear range

prior to cracking. After cracking the finite element model follows the results from the

specimen tested on January 30th. The cracking moment for the finite element model is

13,982 lb-ft.

Figure 22 shows the cracking sequence calculated by ANSYS, and Figure 21

shows the cracking sequence for the laboratory tested specimen. In the tested specimen

the cracking initiates in the top narrow neck of the connection as shown in Figure 21(a-c).

This crack continues into the concrete, and in the final steps separation occurs at the

bottom between the concrete and the grout. The cracking sequence as predicted in

ANSYS shows the cracking initiating in the concrete at the bottom portion of the

connection as shown in Figure 22(a). This cracking continues upward and along the
 39

connection. Cracking in the grout occurs in the last two steps in the figure, and begins in

the bottom of the grouted pocket and moves upwards.

Post Tensioned Moment-Deflection

Curves
25000 30-Jan

20000 24-Feb
Moment (lb-ft)

15000 25-Feb
27-Feb
10000
Recorded Cracking
5000
ANSYS
0
0 0.5 1
Deflection (in)

Figure 20. Post tensioned moment deflection curves.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 21. Flexural post tensioned tested cracking sequence.

 40

(a)

(b) (c) (d)

(e)
Figure 22. Flexural post tensioned modeled cracking sequence.

The moment-deflection curve for the welded stud model closely follows the tested

results as is shown in Figure 23. The curve follows the connection tested on February 4th,

which is the test with the highest concrete strength. The cracking moment that occurs in

the model is at 1,764 lb-ft, which is relatively low compared to the observed cracking

moment recorded from the tested specimens. However, there is a second point of

cracking where major deflection occurs, and this point is considerably closer to the

observed cracking moment. This happens at 3,284 lb-ft and is recognized as the first

plateau seen on the moment-deflection graph.

The cracking sequence for the laboratory tested and computer modeled specimens

can be seen in Figure 24 and Figure 25, respectively. Observed cracking initiates at the

bottom of the concrete specimen approximately where the end of the welded stud lies.
 41

Cracking continues along the width of the slab, and small cracks can be seen near the

corner of the connection in Figure 24(b). Separation increases in these cracks until the

point of failure.

Cracking in the computer model starts in the elements surrounding the welded

stud. In Figure 25 (b-d) the cracking continues along the area of the welded stud, and the

elements beneath, and starts cracking in the grouted pocket. Toward the end of the

analysis the majority of the multiple cracks that occur are around the welded plate and

along the shear stud.

Welded Stud Moment-Deflection Curves

25000

20000
Moment (lb-ft)

20-Jan
15000
26-Jan
10000 4-Feb
Recorded Cracking
5000
ANSYS
0
0 0.5 1
Deflection (in)

Figure 23. Welded stud moment-deflection curves.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 24. Flexural welded stud tested cracking sequence.
 42

(a)

(b) (c) (d) (e)

(f) (g)

(h)

Figure 25. Flexural welded stud modeled cracking sequence.

Initial testing of the welded rebar modeled proved to produce a similar moment-

deflection curve without using contact elements. This is due to a small linear region

before cracking, where the finite element models proved to be much stiffer without the

contact pairs. Surprisingly the initial cracking calculated in ANSYS occurs around 2,500
 43

lb, while the recorded cracking during the laboratory testing occurs between 7,200 lb-ft to

13,700 lb-ft. A second point of major cracking with an increased deflection occurs at

11,059 lb-ft, which is within the range of the observed cracking. This second point of

cracking is the small plateau seen in the ANSYS moment-deflection curve shown in

Figure 26.

Cracking during testing for the welded rebar connection, shown in Figure 27,

begins in the concrete at the bottom of the grouted pocket where connection plates are

welded. Figure 27(b,c) shows the crack continue along the angle of the plate and into the

concrete. Ultimate failure occurs at an angle that extends from the plate to the loading

point. This cracking sequence is compared with the predicted cracking obtained from the

finite element model shown in Figure 28. The cracking begins in the model near the

corner of the welded plate between the concrete and grout. In Figure 28(b) multiple

cracks occur along the angle of the plate, and the reinforcement. Multiple cracks follow

Welded Rebar Moment-Deflection Curves

25000

20000
Moment (lb-ft)

15000 19-Feb
20-Feb (1)
10000
20-Feb (2)
5000 Recorded Cracking
0 ANSYS
0 0.5 1
Deflection (in)

Figure 26. Welded rebar moment-deflection curves.

 44

the welded rebar further into the concrete, and multiple cracks occur in the concrete in

Figure 28(c-e).

(a) (b) (c)

(d)

Figure 27. Flexural welded rebar tested cracking sequence.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(d)

Figure 28. Flexural welded rebar modeled cracking sequence.

 45

Initial analysis of the 36 inch curved bolt connection resulted in a moment-

deflection curve that was extremely rigid until the point of cracking. After cracking the

model deflected nearly 0.2 inches without additional load, and then followed the trend of

the tested moment-deflection curve until termination of the analysis. The initial cracking

moment was approximately 10,500 lb-ft. In an attempt to improve the results contact

pairs were added along the concrete grout interface. The model with the added contact

pairs had a similar curve to the tested specimen, but at the point of cracking the model

deflected without added load, and resulted in a softer curve than the tested results. The

final consideration in attempting to obtain accurate results was an assumption that the

tested beams had cracking previous to testing. In order to model the beam being cracked,

the model was loaded until the cracking moment, unloaded, and loaded to the full

amount. The moment-deflection curves for the uncracked and cracked models are shown

with the tested specimens in Figure 29. This shows that the curve of the cracked finite

element model follows very closely to the tested results.

The cracking sequence for the tested specimen is illustrated in Figure 30, and

shows the crack starting at the top corner of the grouted key below where the connection

narrows. This crack continues roughly along the path of the curved bolt until the

connection fails along the curved bolt region. The finite element cracking pattern is

somewhat different, and could be accounted for by the way the curved bolt was modeled.

In the tested specimen there was an oversized conduit, and when the tensile force was

applied to the bolt it interacted with the conduit creating a vertical force as

aforementioned. This may not be accurately represented in the ANSYS model because

the curved bolt had direct contact with the concrete, and the tensile force was provided
 46

due to thermal expansion. Cracking does occur in the model above the curved bolt at the

final cracking stages, but initial cracking starts at the bottom of the beam below the left

end of the curved bolt. Figure 31(a) shows the initial cracking around the curved bolt

after the post tensioning is applied. The next cracking occurs at the mentioned location

below the curved bolt. This spreads upwards through the thickness of the modeled deck.

Cracking occurs at this location because after the curved bolt area is put into

compression, this point has the highest tensile stresses.

36" Curved Bolt Moment-Deflection Curves

25000

20000
Moment (lb-ft)

3-Feb
15000
18-Feb
10000 13-Feb
ANSYS (cracked)
5000 Recorded Cracking

0 ANSYS (uncracked)
0 0.5 1
Deflection (in)

Figure 29. 36 inch curved bolt moment-deflection curves.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 30. Flexural 36 inch curved bolt tested cracking sequence.

 47

(a)

(b) (c)

(d) (e)

(f)

(g)
Figure 31. Flexural 36 inch curved bolt modeled cracking sequence.

The 24 inch curved bolt connection had a similar moment-deflection curve as the

36 inch for the modeled specimen. The initial slope for the linear region was very steep,

and at cracking (approximately 9,000 lb-ft) the connection deflects significantly, and then

follows the curve of the tested results. By using contact pairs the cracking moment was

reduced to 8,700 lb-ft and more closely matched the tested results better. Similar to the

36 inch curved bolt connection the 24 inch connection was loaded to the cracking

moment, unloaded, and loaded to the ultimate capacity. The moment-deflection curve
 48

follows the tested specimen, as shown in Figure 32, but lacks the initial rigidity as shown

in the tested specimens. The tested specimens initially have a rigid linear region, then

around 3,000 to 4,000 lb-ft the deflection increases, and a more gradual curve follows.

The modeled analysis does not show this trend.

The cracking sequence for the 24 inch curved bolt connection is similar to the 36

inch curved bolt, where a crack forms at the upper corner of the connection and follows

the curved bolt conduit until failure. The cracking sequence is shown in Figure 32 and

was compared to the ANSYS cracking predictions in Figure 34. The first cracks in

ANSYS happen while the post tensioning is applied. These cracks occur around the

curved bolt area, and when the full 300 psi is achieved across the connection the entire

region above the curved bolt is shown as having initial cracking. After loading is applied

the bottom of the beam directly below the end of the curved bolt. This can be assumed

that comparable cracking will occur for curved bolt connection of varying curvatures.

24" Curved Bolt Moment-Deflection

25000
Curves
20000
Moment (lb-ft)

15000
9-Feb
10000 11-Feb
ANSYS (uncracked)
5000 ANSYS (cracked)
Recorded Crack
0
0 0.5 1
Deflection (in)

Figure 32. 24 inch curved bolt moment-deflection curves.

the model cracks similarly to the 36 inch curved bolt model, where the cracking occurs at
 49

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 33. Flexural 24 inch curved bolt tested cracking sequence.

(a)

(b) (c)

(d) (e)

(f)

Figure 34. Flexural 24 inch curved bolt modeled cracking sequence.

 50

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS

The four shear specimens modeled using ANSYS were: post tensioned, non-post

tensioned, welded stud, and unreinforced section of the welded tie. The finite element

models of the shear specimens showed similar results to tested models. For the non-post

tensioned connection the cracking load predicted by ANSYS was within 10% of the

average cracking load of the tested specimens. The location of the cracking was the same

as the tested cracking pattern as was shown in Figures 9 and 10. The cracking load

predicted in the finite element model of the unreinforced section of the welded tie was

within 2% of the average cracking load for the tested results. The cracking load for the

post tensioned model did not correlate well to the tested specimen cracking loads,

however, the shear force-deflection curve matches the curve of the tested specimen

results as was shown in Figure 17. Similarly the welded studs predicted cracking load

does not have a good correlation with the tested results, but the force-deflection curve

follows the curve of the tested results (Figure 11). All of the shear finite element models

predicted the cracking location correctly. The shear force-deflection curves obtained from

the finite element model closely follow the laboratory tested results. Because the shear

finite element models for the non-post tensioned and unreinforced models for the non-

post tensioned and unreinforced portion of the welded tie produced good results, they

could be used in further analysis.

The five flexural models created in ANSYS were: post tensioned, 36 inch curved

bolt, 24 inch curved bolt, welded stud, and welded rebar. Finite element analysis of
 51

flexural models produced cracking moments, cracking locations, and moment-deflection

curves that were similar to the laboratory tested results. The post tensioned model

experienced a cracking moment that was within 10% of the highest observed cracking

moment. The 36 inch curved bolt model predicted the cracking moment within 4% of the

tested results. The cracking moment predicted by the 24 inch curved bolt model did not

have a good correlation with the tested cracking moment, however the moment-deflecion

curve follows the tested results as was shown by Figure 32.

Both welded tie models had initial cracking occurring within the model, and

noticeable cracking that was referred to as a second crack. The moment at the second

crack in both these models was close to the moment at the first cracks observed during

testing. The welded stud had a predicted cracking moment that was within 2% of the

largest observed cracking moment. The welded rebar had a predicted cracking moment

that was within 20% of the largest observed cracking moment. Because the finite element

model responded similarly to the test specimen, this indicates that internal cracking may

occur in these models at relatively low loads. The models for the post tensioned, 36 inch

curved bolt, welded stud, and welded rebar connections had accurate moment-deflection

curves, and predicted cracking moment.

By observation of the tested specimens and finite element models in flexural, the

internal cracking of the welded tie connections have a lower cracking moment, and

ultimate strength depends more on the concrete strength. The connections with post

tensioning crack at higher loads, and depend more on the bond strength between the

concrete and grout.

 52

Cracking resulted in the flanges of the shear specimens both in the laboratory

testing and in the finite element model for post tensioned and welded stud connections. It

is suggested for further research using similar shear models that the flange width and

depth be increased. It is also suggested that the location where the deflection was

recorded be moved to more accurately capture the connection deflection.

Simple forms of the curved bolt models were created in this analysis, and is

suggested that the model could be improved by simulating the conduit for the curved

bolt. An option for the curved bolt connection would be to place the curved bolt on the

bottom of the section to avoid contact with the wearing surface. It is suggested that

further analysis be performed with the curved bolt section on the bottom of the specimen.

Further analysis is recommended to find the ultimate strengths in ANSYS to

compare with the laboratory tested results. Kachlakev (2001) determined the failure of

the specimen at the point when convergence could no longer be reached after reducing

the load substep to a 1 lb load increment. If the crushing capabilities were utilized

ultimate loads might be determined.

It is suggested that the shear post tensioned, and shear welded stud models be

improved to produce a more accurate cracking load. The model could also be improved

to produce better load deflection behavior, possibly by modifying the contact pairs and

CZM properties.
 53

REFERENCES

ADINA R&D, Inc 1986. Watertown, MA.

ANSYS® Academic Research. 2007. Release 11.0, Help System, ANSYS, Inc.

Bakhoum, M. M. 1991. Shear behavior and design of joints in precast concrete

segmental bridges. Unpublished PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge. 153-191 p.

Biswas, M. 1986. Precast bridge deck design systems. PCI Journal 31(2), March-April,
40-94.

Computers and Structures. 1998. SAP2000 version 7.0: structural analysis program,
Computers and Structures, Inc, Berkeley, California.

Issa, M. A., A. T. Idriss, I. I. Kaspar, and S. Y. Khayyat. 1995a. Full depth precast and
precast, prestressed concrete bridge deck panels. PCI Journal 40(1), January-
February, 59-80.

Issa M. A., A. A. Yousif, M. A. Issa, and S. Y. Khayyat. 1995b. Field performance of

full depth precast concrete panels in bridge deck reconstruction. PCI Journal
40(3), May-June, 82-108.

Issa M. A., A. A. Yousif, and M. A. Issa. 1995. Construction procedures for rapid
replacement of deteriorated bridge decks. Concrete International Journal 17(2),
February, 49-52.

Issa, M. A., C. L. Ribiero do Valle, H. A. Abdalla, S. Islam, and M. A. Issa. 2003.

Performance of transverse joint grout materials in full-depth precast concrete
bridge deck systems. PCI Journal 48(4), July-August, 92-103.

Kachlakev, D., Miller T., and Yim, S. 2001. Finite element modeling of reinforced
concrete structures strengthened with FRP laminates. Report for Oregon
Department of Transportation, Salem.

Porter, S. 2009. Laboratory testing of precast bridge deck panel transverse connections
for use in accelerated bridge construction. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Utah
State University, Logan.

Sullivan, S. 2007. Construction and behavior of precast bridge deck panel systems.
Unpublished PhD dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg.
 54

Utah Department of Transportation. 2007. I-84: US-89 to SR-167, Weber Canyon.

Bridge Deck Replacement Plans, UDOT Structures Division, Salt Lake City,
Utah.

Utah Department of Transportation. 2008a. ABC standards. Full depth precast concrete
deck panel standard drawings
<http://www.dot.state.ut.us/main/uconowner.gf?n=1966945409050115798>
(April 4, 2009), UDOT Structures Division, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Utah Department of Transportation. 2008b. Full depth precast concrete deck panel
detailing manual. < http://www.dot.state.ut.us/main/f?p=100:pg:0::::T,V:2090,>
(April 4, 2009) UDOT Structures Division, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Utah Department of Transportation. 2008c. Full depth concrete deck panels special
provision. < http://www.dot.state.ut.us/main/f?p=100:pg:0::::T,V:2090,> (April
4, 2009) UDOT Structures Division, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Wolanski, A. J. 2004. Flexural behavior of reinforced and prestressed concrete beams

using finite element analysis. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Marquette University,
Milwaulkee.
 55

APPENDIX
 56

SHEAR MODEL CODE

Key (Contact Elements)

!Contact elements TB,CONC,4,1,9,

finish Et,4,targe170 TBDATA,,.2,.6,fgt,-1,,
/clear Et,5,conta173 Mp,ex,5,Ec
/title, Shear Unreinforced Keyopt,5,10,2 Mp,PRXY,5,EMUc
Key Keyopt,5,2,1
/PREP7 Keyopt,5,12,5 Tb,czm,6,1,1,CBDD
!Steel area Keyopt,5,9,1 Tbdata,1,110,.015,,,.01,
area=0.2
! Concrete Elastic Modulus ! Real constants K,1,
Ec=3604997 R,1 K,2,13
Eg=4415201 R,2,area K,3,13,2
! Concrete Poisson ratio R,3,.7854,!1.037e-3 K,4,11,6
EMUc=0.2 R,4,,,.0011,,,, K,5,6.5,6
! Concrete/Grout R,5,,,.0011,,,, K,6,6.5,7
Compressive and Tensile K,7,9.313,7
Strength MP,EX,1,Ec K,8,9.313,10.75
fc=4000 MP,PRXY,1,EMUc K,9,7,12.75
fg=6000 Mp,mu,1,.4 K,10,8.5,14.75
ft=480 TB,CONC,1 K,11,8.5,15.75
fy=60000 TBDATA,,.2,.6,ft,-1,, K,12,0,15.75
fgt=575 K,13,0,14.75
! Elastic Modulus and MP,EX,2,Es K,14,0,12.75
Poisson ratio for steel MP,PRXY,2,EMUs K,15,0,10.75
Es=29e6 MP,EX,3,Es K,16,0,7
EMUs=0.3 MP,PRXY,3,EMUs K,17,0,6
! concrete element TB,BISO,3,,2 K,18,0,2
ET,1,SOLID65 TBDAT,,fy,2900 K,19,9.688,7
KEYOPT,1,3,2 K,20,19.5,7
KEYOPT,1,7,1 MP,EX,4,Eg K,21,19.5,10.75
! steel element MP,PRXY,4,EMUc K,22,19.5,12.75
ET,2,SOLID45 mp,ex,5,Ec K,23,19.5,14.75
! rebar element K,24,19.5,15.75
ET,3,LINK8 Mp,prxy,5,EMUc K,25,19.5,16.75
K,26,19.5,20.75
 57

K,27,19.5,22.75 vglue,all Type,5

K,28,5,22.75 vsel,s,,,20,22 Mat,6
K,29,5,20.75 vglue,all Real,4
K,30,7,16.75 vsel,s,,,8,14 Tshape,quad
K,31,13,16.75 vsel,a,,,19 Esurf,,top
K,32,13,15.75 vglue,all
K,33,10.5,15.75 Allsel,all
K,34,10.5,14.75 Allsel,all Asel,s,,,100,110,5
K,35,12,12.75 Esize,1 Nsla,s,1
K,36,9.688,10.75 Type,4
Lsel,s,,,169,172,3 Mat,1
!Replicate Keypoints Lesize,all,,,3 Real,5
KGEN,2,all,,,,,6 Esurf,,top
!Concrete volumes !—Mesh Grout Allsel,all
V,1,37,38,2,18,54,39,3 Vsel,s,,,20,22 Asel,s,,,26,36,5
V,18,54,39,3,17,53,40,4 Vatt,4,1,1 Nsla,s,1
V,17,53,41,5,16,52,42,6 Vsweep,all Type,5
V,16,52,43,7,15,51,44,8 !—Mesh the Supports Mat,6
V,15,51,44,8,14,50,45,9 Vsel,s,,,18,19 Real,5
V,14,50,45,9,13,49,46,10 Vatt,2,1,2 Tshape,quad
V,13,49,46,10,12,48,47,11 Vsweep,all Esurf,,top
!—Mesh Arms
V,19,55,56,20,36,72,57,21 vsel,s,,,2,4 finish
V,36,72,57,21,35,71,58,22 vsel,a,,,15,17,2 /solu
V,35,71,58,22,34,70,59,23 vsel,a,,,12 !boundary conditions
V,34,70,59,23,33,69,60,24 vatt,5,1,1 allsel,all
V,32,68,60,24,31,67,61,25 vsweep,all asel,s,loc,x,19.5
V,30,66,61,25,29,65,62,26 !—Mesh Concret nsla,s,1
V,29,65,62,26,28,64,63,27 Vsel,s,,,18,22 d,all,ux
vsel,a,,,2,4 asel,s,loc,x
!Grout Pocket vsel,a,,,12 nsla,s,1
V,8,44,72,36,9,45,71,35 vsel,a,,,15,17,2 d,all,ux
V,9,45,71,35,10,46,70,34 Vsel,inve asel,s,loc,z
V,10,46,70,34,11,47,69,33 Vatt,1,1,1 nsla,s,1
blc4,6.5,,6,-1,6 Vsweep,all d,all,uz
blc4,6.5,22.75,6,1,6 Allsel,all asel,s,loc,y,-1
Asel,s,,,45,55,5 nsla,s,1
vsel,s,,,15,17 Nsla,s,1 d,all,uy
vgen,2,all,,,10,,,,,,0 Type,4
vdele,15,17 Mat,1 !apply force
vsel,s,,,20,22 Real,4 Nsel,s,,,324,348
vgen,,all,,,-10,,,,,1 Esurf,,top f,all,fy,-350
Allsel,all nsel,s,,,349,371
vsel,s,,,1,7 Asel,s,,,102,112,5 nsel,u,,,365,366
vsel,a,,,18 Nsla,s,1 nsel,u,,,359
 58

f,all,fy,-175 ET,1,SOLID65
nsel,s,,,365,366 KEYOPT,1,3,2 Tb,czm,6,1,1,CBDD
nsel,a,,,359,372,13 KEYOPT,1,7,1 Tbdata,1,480,.015,,,.01,
f,all,fy,-87.5 ! steel element
ET,2,SOLID45 K,1,
allsel,all ! rebar element K,2,13
!—control parameters – ET,3,LINK8 K,3,13,2
cnvtol,f,,0.05,2,.01 ! Real constants K,4,11,6
nsubst,50 Et,4,targe170 K,5,6.5,6
outres,all,all Et,5,conta173 K,6,6.5,7
autots,1 Keyopt,5,10,2 K,7,9,7
ncnv,2 Keyopt,5,2,1 K,8,9,8.75
neqit,100 Keyopt,5,12,5 K,9,8.25,9.5
pred,on Keyopt,5,9,1 K,10,8.25,13
time,100 Keyopt,5,5,1 K,11,8.75,13.75
solve K,12,8.75,15.75
R,1 K,13,0,15.75
!PT (CONTACT) R,2,area K,14,0,13.75
R,3,.7854,!1.037e-3 K,15,0,13
finish MP,EX,1,Ec K,16,0,9.5
/clear MP,PRXY,1,EMUc K,17,0,8.75
/title, Shear PT R,4,,,.0011,,,, K,18,0,7
/PREP7 R,5,,,.0011,,,, K,19,0,6
!Steel area MP,EX,1,Ec K,20,0,2
area=0.1 MP,PRXY,1,EMUc K,21,10,7
! Concrete Elastic Modulus K,22,19.5,7
Ec=3604997 TB,CONC,1 K,23,19.5,8.75
Eg=4415201 TBDATA,,.2,.6,ft,-1,, K,24,19.5,9.5
! Concrete Poisson ratio K,25,19.5,13
EMUc=0.2 MP,EX,2,Es K,26,19.5,13.75
! Concrete Compressive MP,PRXY,2,EMUs K,27,19.5,15.75
and Tensile Strength MP,EX,3,Es K,28,19.5,16.75
fc=4000 MP,PRXY,3,EMUs K,29,19.5,20.75
fg=6000 TB,BISO,3,,2 K,30,19.5,22.75
ft=480 TBDAT,,fy,2900 K,31,5,22.75
fy=60000 K,32,5,20.75
fgt=575 MP,EX,4,Eg K,33,7,16.75
sc=.002219 MP,PRXY,4,EMUc K,34,13,16.75
sg=.002718 K,35,13,15.75
! Elastic Modulus and TB,CONC,4,1,9, K,36,10.25,15.75
Poisson ratio for steel TBDATA,,.2,.6,fgt,-1,, K,37,10.25,13.75
Es=29e6 K,38,10.75,13
EMUs=0.3 MP,EX,5,Ec K,39,10.75,9.5
! concrete element MP,PRXY,5,EMUc K,40,10,8.75
 59

!Replicate Keypoints Allsel,all Allsel,all

KGEN,2,all,,,,,6 Esize,1 Asel,s,,,21,41,5
!Asel,s,,,116,136,5
V,1,41,42,2,20,60,43,3 !--Mesh Grout Nsla,s,1
V,20,60,43,3,19,59,44,4 Vsel,s,,,24,28 Type,4
V,19,59,45,5,18,58,46,6 Vatt,4,1,1 Mat,1
V,18,58,47,7,17,57,48,8 Vsweep,all Real,5
V,17,57,48,8,16,56,49,9 !--Mesh the Supports Esurf,,top
V,16,56,49,9,15,55,50,10 Vsel,s,,,22,23 Allsel,all
V,15,55,50,10,14,54,51,11 Vatt,2,1,2 Asel,s,,,116,136,5
V,14,54,51,11,13,53,52,12 Vsweep,all !Asel,s,,,21,41,5
Nsla,s,1
V,21,61,62,22,40,80,63,23 !—Mesh RC Type,5
V,40,80,63,23,39,79,64,24 vsel,s,,,2,4 Mat,6
V,39,79,64,24,38,78,65,25 vsel,a,,,14,17,3 Real,5
V,38,78,65,25,37,77,66,26 vsel,a,,,19 Tshape,quad
V,37,77,66,26,36,76,67,27 vatt,5,1,1 Esurf,,top
V,35,75,67,27,34,74,68,28 vsweep,all
V,33,73,68,28,32,72,69,29 !--Mesh Concret finish
V,32,72,69,29,31,71,70,30 Vsel,s,,,22,28 /solu
Vsel,a,,,2,4 !boundary conditions
!Grout Pocket vsel,a,,,14,17,3 allsel,all
V,7,47,61,21,8,48,80,40 vsel,a,,,19 asel,s,loc,x,19.5
V,8,48,80,40,9,49,79,39 Vsel,inve nsla,s,1
V,9,49,79,39,10,50,78,38 Vatt,1,1,1 d,all,ux
V,10,50,78,38,11,51,77,37 Vsweep,all asel,s,loc,z
V,11,51,77,37,12,52,76,36 nsla,s,1
blc4,6.5,,6,-1,6 Allsel,all d,all,uz
blc4,6.5,22.75,6,1,6 Asel,s,,,45,65,5 asel,s,loc,y,-1
!Asel,s,,,118,138,5 nsla,s,1
vsel,s,,,17,21 Nsla,s,1 d,all,uy
vgen,2,all,,,10,,,,,,0 Type,4
vdele,17,21 Mat,1 apply pressure
vsel,s,,,24,28 Real,4 Asel,s,loc,x
vgen,,all,,,-10,,,,,1 Esurf,,top Asel,u,,,2,7
Allsel,all Asel,u,,,13
vsel,s,,,1,8 Asel,s,,,118,138,5 !Asel,a,loc,x,19.5
vsel,a,,,22 !Asel,s,,,45,65,5 !Asel,u,,,73,79,6
vglue,all Nsla,s,1 !Asel,u,,,84
vsel,s,,,24,28 Type,5 sfa,all,1,pres,300
vglue,all Mat,6
vsel,s,,,9,16 Real,4 allsel,all
vsel,a,,,23 Tshape,quad !—control parameters –
vglue,all Esurf,,top cnvtol,f,,0.05,2,.01
nsubst,25
 60

outres,all,all ! Concrete Compressive MP,EX,3,Es

autots,1 and Tensile Strength MP,PRXY,3,EMUs
ncnv,2 fc=4000 TB,BISO,3,,2
neqit,50 fg=6000 TBDAT,,fy,2900
pred,on ft=480
time,50 fy=60000 MP,EX,4,Eg
solve fgt=575 MP,PRXY,4,EMUc
sc=.002585
!apply force sg=.002743 TB,CONC,4,1,9,
Nsel,s,,,352,376 ! Elastic Modulus and TBDATA,,.2,.6,fgt,-1,,
f,all,fy,-600 Poisson ratio for steel Mp,ex,5,Ec
nsel,s,,,377,400 Es=29e6 Mp,prxy,5,EMUc
nsel,u,,,393,394 EMUs=0.3
nsel,u,,,387,400,13 ! concrete element Tb,czm,6,1,1,CBDD
f,all,fy,-300 ET,1,SOLID65 Tbdata,1,480,.015,,,.01,
nsel,s,,,393,394 KEYOPT,1,3,2
nsel,a,,,387,400,13 KEYOPT,1,7,1 K,1,
f,all,fy,-100 ! steel element K,2,13
ET,2,SOLID45 K,3,13,2
allsel,all ! rebar element K,4,11,6
!—control parameters – ET,3,LINK8 K,5,6.5,6
cnvtol,f,,0.05,2,.01 Et,4,targe170 K,6,6.5,7
nsubst,50 Et,5,conta173 K,7,9.313,7
outres,all,all Keyopt,5,10,2 K,8,9.313,10.75
autots,1 Keyopt,5,2,1 K,9,7,12.75
ncnv,2 Keyopt,5,12,5 K,10,7,15.75
neqit,100 Keyopt,5,9,1 K,11,0,15.75
pred,on Keyopt,5,5,1 K,12,0,12.75
time,100 K,13,0,10.75
solve ! Real constants K,14,0,7
R,1 K,15,0,6
!Welded Connections R,2,area K,16,0,2
(Contact) R,3,1.227,!1.037e-3 K,17,9.688,7
R,4,,,.0011,,,, K,18,19.5,7
finish R,5,,,.0011,,,, K,19,19.5,10.75
/clear MP,EX,1,Ec K,20,19.5,12.75
/title, Shear Welded Stud MP,PRXY,1,EMUc K,21,19.5,15.75
/PREP7 Mp,mu,1,.5 K,22,19.5,16.75
!Steel area K,23,19.5,18.75
area=0.2 TB,CONC,1 K,24,19.5,20.813
! Concrete Elastic Modulus TBDATA,,.2,.6,ft,-1,, K,25,19.5,24.75
Ec=3604997 K,26,5,24.75
Eg=4415201 MP,EX,2,Es K,27,5,20.813
! Concrete Poisson ratio MP,PRXY,2,EMUs K,28,6,18.75
EMUc=0.2 K,29,11,18.75
 61

K,30,13,16.75 vsel,a,,,37,38 vsel,a,,,77,83

K,31,13,15.75 vsbw,all vglue,all
K,32,12,15.75 wprot,0,-90 !glue plate and stud
K,33,12,12.75 wprot,40.85537626 Lsel,s,,,49,71,22
K,34,9.688,10.75 wpoff,0,-2.75 Lsel,a,,,176,200,24
wprot,0,90 Lsel,a,,,420,425,5
!Replicate Keypoints allsel,all Lsel,a,,,531,537,6
KGEN,2,all,,,,,2 vsbw,all Lsel,a,,,35,41,2
Lsel,a,,,63,69,2
V,1,35,36,2,16,50,37,3 vsel,s,,,14,15 Lsel,a,,,165,167,2
V,16,50,37,3,15,49,38,4 vsel,a,,,29,30 Lsel,a,,,168,171,3
V,15,49,39,5,14,48,40,6 vsel,a,,,44,45 Lsel,a,,,195,196
V,14,48,41,7,13,47,42,8 vgen,2,all,,,10,,,,,,0 Lsel,a,,,199,295,96
V,13,47,42,8,12,46,43,9 vsel,s,,,14,15 Lsel,a,,,454,479,25
V,12,46,43,9,11,45,44,10 vsel,a,,,29,30 Lsel,a,,,497
vsel,a,,,44,45 Lsel,a,,,607,608
V,17,51,52,18,34,68,53,19 vdele,all Lsel,a,,,624,633,3
V,34,68,53,19,33,67,54,20 vsel,s,,,20 Lsel,a,,,634
V,33,67,54,20,32,66,55,21 vsel,a,,,34,35 Lsel,a,,,649,650
V,31,65,55,21,30,64,56,22 vsel,a,,,51,53 Lsel,a,,,653,654
V,30,64,56,22,29,63,57,23 vgen,,all,,,-10,,,,,1 Lsel,a,,,657,664
V,28,62,57,23,27,61,58,24 Lglue,all
V,27,61,58,24,26,60,59,25 vsel,s,,,20
vsel,a,,,34,35 allsel,all
!Grout Pocket vsel,a,,,51,53 Esize,1
V,8,42,68,34,9,43,67,33 vglue,all
V,9,43,67,33,10,44,66,32 !--Mesh Concret
vsel,s,,,1,3 Vsel,s,,,14,15
Vgen,3,all,,,,,2 vsel,a,,,6,21,15 Vsel,a,,,29,30
vsel,a,,,16,18 Vsel,a,,,20,34,14
blc4,6.5,,6,-1,6 vsel,a,,,31,33 Vsel,a,,,10,11
blc4,6.5,24.75,6,1,6 vsel,a,,,36,38,2 Vsel,a,,,17,18
vsel,a,,,46 Vsel,a,,,21,31,10
wpoff,7,10.75 vsel,a,,,48,50 Vsel,a,,,61,62
wprot,40.85537626,90 vsel,a,,,57,59 Vsel,a,,,71,76,5
Vsel,s,,,4,5 vsel,a,,,66,70 Vsel,a,,,73,74
Vsel,a,,,19,20 vsel,a,,,71,76 Vsel,a,,,87,90
Vsel,a,,,34,35 vglue,all Vsel,a,,,95,97
vsbw,all vsel,s,,,4,5 Vsel,a,,,59,93,34
wprot,0,-90 vsel,a,,,7,13 Vsel,a,,,75,94,19
wprot,-40.85537626 vsel,a,,,19 Vsel,inve
wpoff,5 vsel,a,,,22,28 Vatt,1,1,1
wprot,-40.85537626,90 vsel,a,,,37,47,10 Vsweep,all
vsel,s,,,7,8 vsel,a,,,39,43
vsel,a,,,22,23 vsel,a,,,63,65 !--Mesh Grout
 62

Vsel,s,,,14,15 Lsel,a,,,650,662,4 Real,5

Vsel,a,,,29,30 Lsel,a,,,653,661,4 Tshape,quad
Vsel,a,,,20,34,14 Latt,3,3,3 Esurf,,top
Vatt,4,1,1 Lmesh,all finish
Vsweep,all Allsel,all /solu
!--Mesh the Supports Asel,s,,,21,35,14 !boundary conditions
Vsel,s,,,75,94,19 Asel,a,,,175,310,135 allsel,all
Vatt,2,1,2 Asel,a,,,399,409,5 asel,s,loc,x,19.5
Vsweep,all Asel,a,,,403,408,5 nsla,s,1
!—Mesh NoCrack Nsla,s,1 d,all,ux
Vsel,s,,,10,11 Type,4 asel,s,loc,x
Vsel,a,,,17,18 Mat,1 nsla,s,1
Vsel,a,,,21,31,10 Real,4 d,all,ux
Vsel,a,,,61,62 Esurf,,top asel,s,loc,z
Vsel,a,,,71,76,5 Allsel,all nsla,s,1
Vsel,a,,,73,74 Asel,s,,,31,191,160 d,all,uz
Vsel,a,,,87,90 Asel,a,,,250,266,16 asel,s,loc,y,-1
Vsel,a,,,95,97 Asel,a,,,276,286,5 nsla,s,1
Vsel,a,,,59,93,34 Asel,a,,,429,431,2 d,all,uy
Vatt,5,1,1 Nsla,s,1
Vsweep,all Type,5 !apply force
Mat,6 Nsel,s,,,2092,2116
!Mesh rebar Real,4 f,all,fy,-600
Lsel,s,,,49,71,22 Tshape,quad nsel,s,,,2081,2091
Lsel,a,,,176,200,24 Esurf,,top nsel,a,,,2010,2014
Lsel,a,,,82 nsel,a,,,2117,2121
Lsel,a,,,425 Allsel,all nsel,u,,,2086
Lsel,a,,,531,537,6 Asel,s,,,97,99,2 f,all,fy,-300
Latt,3,2,3 Asel,a,,,177,312,135 nsel,s,,,2080,2086,6
Lmesh,all Asel,a,,,400,410,5 nsel,a,,,2015,2016
!mesh plate Asel,a,,,406,411,5 f,all,fy,-150
Lsel,s,,,35,41,2 Nsla,s,1
Lsel,a,,,63,69,2 Type,4 allsel,all
Lsel,a,,,86 Mat,1 !—control parameters –
Lsel,a,,,107,108 Real,5 cnvtol,f,,0.05,2,.01
Lsel,a,,,120,124,4 Esurf,,top nsubst,100
Lsel,a,,,165,167,2 Allsel,all outres,all,all
Lsel,a,,,179,189,10 Asel,s,,,3,10,7 autots,1
Lsel,a,,,191,195,4 Asel,a,,,23,45,22 ncnv,2
Lsel,a,,,198,203,5 Asel,a,,,173,185,12 neqit,200
Lsel,a,,,206,295,89 Asel,a,,,189,261,72 pred,on
Lsel,a,,,454 Asel,a,,,313 time,50
Lsel,a,,,196 Nsla,s,1 solve
Lsel,a,,,624,633,3 Type,5
Lsel,a,,,634,649,15 Mat,6
 63

!No PT (Contact) R,3,.7854,!1.037e-3 K,15,0,13

MP,EX,1,Ec K,16,0,9.5
finish MP,PRXY,1,EMUc K,17,0,8.75
/clear R,4,,,.0011,,,, K,18,0,7
/title, Shear PT R,5,,,.0011,,,, K,19,0,6
/PREP7 MP,EX,1,Ec K,20,0,2
!Steel area MP,PRXY,1,EMUc K,21,10,7
area=0.1 Mp,mu,1,.5 K,22,19.5,7
! Concrete Elastic Modulus K,23,19.5,8.75
Ec=3604997 TB,CONC,1 K,24,19.5,9.5
Eg=4415201 TBDATA,,.2,.6,ft,-1,, K,25,19.5,13
! Concrete Poisson ratio K,26,19.5,13.75
EMUc=0.2 MP,EX,2,Es K,27,19.5,15.75
! Concrete Compressive MP,PRXY,2,EMUs K,28,19.5,16.75
and Tensile Strength MP,EX,3,Es K,29,19.5,20.75
fc=4000 MP,PRXY,3,EMUs K,30,19.5,22.75
fg=6000 TB,BISO,3,,2 K,31,5,22.75
ft=480 TBDAT,,fy,2900 K,32,5,20.75
fy=60000 K,33,7,16.75
fgt=575 MP,EX,4,Eg K,34,13,16.75
sc=.002219 MP,PRXY,4,EMUc K,35,13,15.75
sg=.002718 K,36,10.25,15.75
! Elastic Modulus and TB,CONC,4,1,9, K,37,10.25,13.75
Poisson ratio for steel TBDATA,,.2,.6,fgt,-1,, K,38,10.75,13
Es=29e6 K,39,10.75,9.5
EMUs=0.3 MP,EX,5,Ec K,40,10,8.75
! concrete element MP,PRXY,5,EMUc
ET,1,SOLID65 !Replicate Keypoints
KEYOPT,1,3,2 Tb,czm,6,1,1,CBDD KGEN,2,all,,,,,6
KEYOPT,1,7,1 Tbdata,1,480,.015,,,.01,
! steel element V,1,41,42,2,20,60,43,3
ET,2,SOLID45 K,1, V,20,60,43,3,19,59,44,4
! rebar element K,2,13 V,19,59,45,5,18,58,46,6
ET,3,LINK8 K,3,13,2 V,18,58,47,7,17,57,48,8
! Real constants K,4,11,6 V,17,57,48,8,16,56,49,9
Et,4,targe170 K,5,6.5,6 V,16,56,49,9,15,55,50,10
Et,5,conta173 K,6,6.5,7 V,15,55,50,10,14,54,51,11
Keyopt,5,10,2 K,7,9,7 V,14,54,51,11,13,53,52,12
Keyopt,5,2,1 K,8,9,8.75
Keyopt,5,12,5 K,9,8.25,9.5 V,21,61,62,22,40,80,63,23
Keyopt,5,9,1 K,10,8.25,13 V,40,80,63,23,39,79,64,24
Keyopt,5,5,1 K,11,8.75,13.75 V,39,79,64,24,38,78,65,25
K,12,8.75,15.75 V,38,78,65,25,37,77,66,26
R,1 K,13,0,15.75 V,37,77,66,26,36,76,67,27
R,2,area K,14,0,13.75 V,35,75,67,27,34,74,68,28
 64

V,33,73,68,28,32,72,69,29 !--Mesh Concret asel,s,loc,x,19.5

V,32,72,69,29,31,71,70,30 Vsel,s,,,22,28 nsla,s,1
Vsel,a,,,2,4 d,all,ux
!Grout Pocket vsel,a,,,14,17,3 asel,s,loc,x
V,7,47,61,21,8,48,80,40 vsel,a,,,19 nsla,s,1
V,8,48,80,40,9,49,79,39 Vsel,inve d,all,ux,!.0015
V,9,49,79,39,10,50,78,38 Vatt,1,1,1 asel,s,loc,z
V,10,50,78,38,11,51,77,37 Vsweep,all nsla,s,1
V,11,51,77,37,12,52,76,36 d,all,uz
blc4,6.5,,6,-1,6 Allsel,all asel,s,loc,y,-1
blc4,6.5,22.75,6,1,6 Asel,s,,,118,138,5 nsla,s,1
Nsla,s,1 d,all,uy
vsel,s,,,17,21 Type,4
vgen,2,all,,,10,,,,,,0 Mat,1 !apply force
vdele,17,21 Real,4 Nsel,s,,,352,376
vsel,s,,,24,28 Esurf,,top f,all,fy,-215
vgen,,all,,,-10,,,,,1 Allsel,all nsel,s,,,377,400
Asel,s,,,45,65,5 nsel,u,,,393,394
vsel,s,,,1,8 Nsla,s,1 nsel,u,,,387,400,13
vsel,a,,,22 Type,5 f,all,fy,-107.5
vglue,all Mat,6 nsel,s,,,393,394
vsel,s,,,24,28 Real,4 nsel,a,,,387,400,13
vglue,all Tshape,quad f,all,fy,-53.75
vsel,s,,,9,16 Esurf,,top
vsel,a,,,23 allsel,all
vglue,all Allsel,all !—control parameters –
Asel,s,,,116,136,5 cnvtol,f,,0.05,2,.01
Allsel,all Nsla,s,1 nsubst,50
Esize,1 Type,4 outres,all,all
Mat,1 autots,1
!--Mesh Grout Real,5 ncnv,2
Vsel,s,,,24,28 Esurf,,top neqit,100
Vatt,4,1,1 Allsel,all pred,on
Vsweep,all Asel,s,,,21,41,5 time,100
!--Mesh the Supports Nsla,s,1 solve
Vsel,s,,,22,23 Type,5
Vatt,2,1,2 Mat,6
Vsweep,all Real,5
Tshape,quad
!—Mesh RC Esurf,,top
vsel,s,,,2,4
vsel,a,,,14,17,3 finish
vsel,a,,,19 /solu
vatt,5,1,1 !boundary conditions
vsweep,all allsel,all
 65

FLEXURAL MODEL
CODE

Rebar Code (Contact)

finish TB,CONC,1 !Create volumes through
/clear TBDATA,,.9,1,ft,-1,, keypoints
/title, Welded Rebar V,1,18,19,2,11,28,20,3
/PREP7 MP,EX,2,Es V,11,28,20,3,10,27,21,4
!Steel area MP,PRXY,2,EMUs V,10,27,21,4,9,26,29,12
area=0.44 MP,EX,3,Es V,9,26,29,12,8,25,24,7
! Concrete Elastic Modulus MP,PRXY,3,EMUs V,4,21,22,5,7,24,23,6
Ec=3604997 TB,BISO,3,,2
Eg=4415201 TBDAT,,fy,2900 V,3,20,31,14,4,21,32,15
! Concrete Poisson ratio V,4,21,32,15,5,22,33,16
EMUc=0.2 MP,EX,4,Eg V,5,22,33,16,6,23,34,17
! Concrete/Grout MP,PRXY,4,EMUc
compressive and tensile V,18,35,36,19,28,45,37,20
strength TB,CONC,4,1,9, V,28,45,37,20,27,44,38,21
fc=4000 V,27,44,38,21,26,43,46,29
fg=6000 TBDATA,,.9,.1,fgt,-1,, V,26,43,46,29,25,42,41,24
ft=480 V,21,38,39,22,24,41,40,23
fy=60000 !add all keypoints
fgt=575 K,1, V,20,37,48,31,21,38,49,32
! Elastic modulus and K,2,35.8125 V,21,38,49,32,22,39,50,33
Poisson ratio for steel K,3,35.8125,3.75 V,22,39,50,33,23,40,51,34
Es=29e6 K,4,33.5,5.75 blc4,,,4,-1,9
EMUs=0.3 K,5,35,7.75 blc4,22,8.75,4,1,9
! concrete element K,6,35,8.75 wpoff,0,0,1.5
ET,1,SOLID65 K,7,33.5,8.75 vsbw,all
KEYOPT,1,3,2 K,8,0,8.75 wpoff,0,0,4.5
KEYOPT,1,7,1 K,9,0,7.75 vsbw,all
! steel element K,10,0,5.75 wpoff,0,1
ET,2,SOLID45 K,11,0,3.75 wprot,0,90
! rebar element K,12,33.5,7.75 vsbw,all
ET,3,LINK8 K,13,36 wpoff,0,0,-6.75
! Real constants K,14,36,3.75 vsbw,all
R,1,3,0.0075,0,90,3,.0075, K,15,36,5.75 wpoff,34.65625
RMORE,90, , , , , , K,16,36,7.75 wprot,0,-90,90
R,2,area K,17,36,8.75 vsel,s,,,21,22
R,3,.7934 !1.227 vsel,a,,,18,42,24
R,4 !Replicate Keypoints vsel,a,,,29,30
MP,EX,1,Ec KGEN,2,all,,,,,3 vsel,a,,,2,6,4
MP,PRXY,1,EMUc KGEN,2,1,17,,,,9 vsel,a,,,9,16
vsbw,all
 66

wpstyl Lsel,a,,,147,250,103 allsel,all

allsel,all Lsel,a,,,258,261,3 asel,s,loc,x,36
vglue,all Lsel,a,,,263,266,3 nsla,s,1
Nummrg,all Lsel,a,,,267,271,4 d,all,ux
numcmp,all Latt,3,3,3 asel,s,loc,z
Lmesh,all nsla,s,1
Lsel,s,,,2,9,7 d,all,uz
Lsel,a,,,59,97,38 !Mesh Concrete
Lsel,a,,,109,116,7 Vsel,s,,,5,6 nsel,s,,,6416
Lsel,a,,,169,187,18 Vsel,a,,,15,17,2 Nsel,a,,,6273,6275
Lsel,a,,,193,215,22 Vsel,a,,,21,37,16 Nsel,a,,,6321,6325
Lsel,a,,,197,207,5 Vsel,a,,,24,27 Nsel,a,,,6338,6342,4
Lsel,a,,,209,210 Vsel,a,,,31,56,25 Nsel,a,,,6265,6376,111
Lsel,a,,,221,226,5 Vsel,a,,,33,34 D,all,UY
Lsel,a,,,229 Vsel,a,,,39
Lesize,all,.75 Vsel,a,,,40,42,2 Nsel,none
Vsel,a,,,59,60 Nsel,s,,,6442
DESIZE,2,2,9999,15,28,1,2 Vsel,a,,,62 F,all,fy,-300
,1,4 Vsel,a,,,10,11 Nsel,none
Vsel,a,,,28,30,2 Nsel,s,,,6282,6284
!Mesh Grout Vsel,a,,,35,36 Nsel,a,,,6349,6353
Vsel,s,,,5,6 Vsel,inve Nsel,a,,,6268,6394,126
Vsel,a,,,15,17,2 Vatt,1,1,1 Nsel,a,,,6366,6369,3
Vsel,a,,,21,37,16 Vsweep,all Nsel,a,,,6268
Vsel,a,,,24,27 F,all,FY,-600
Vsel,a,,,31,56,25 !Mesh Welded Rebar
Vsel,a,,,33,34 Lsel,s,,,35,249,214 allsel,all
Vsel,a,,,39 Lsel,a,,,253,264,11 !—control parameters –
Vsel,a,,,40,42,2 Lsel,a,,,307,313,6 cnvtol,f,,0.05,2,.01
Vsel,a,,,59,60 Latt,3,2,3 nsubst,50
Vsel,a,,,62 Lmesh,all outres,all,all
Vatt,4,4,1 autots,1
!Mopt,pyra,off !Mesh Supports ncnv,2
!Mshkey,1 Vsel,s,,,10,11 neqit,100
!MSHAPE,0,3D Vsel,a,,,28,30,2 pred,on
!DESIZE,1,1,9999,15,28,1, Vsel,a,,,35,36 time,50
2,1,4 Vatt,2,,2 solve
Vsweep,all Vsweep,all
!Post Tensioned(Contact)
!Mesh Plate Nummrg,all
Lsel,s,,,32 Numcmp,all finish
Lsel,a,,,38,40,2 /clear
Lsel,a,,,113,118,5 finish /title, Post Tension
Lsel,a,,,121,125,4 /solu /PREP7
Lsel,a,,,142,143 !boundary conditions
 67

!Steel area MP,EX,1,Ec V,1,19,20,2,12,30,21,3

area=0.44 MP,PRXY,1,EMUc V,12,30,21,3,11,29,22,4
! Concrete Elastic Modulus V,11,29,22,4,10,28,23,5
Ec=3605000 TB,CONC,1 V,10,28,23,5,9,27,24,6
Eg=4415201 TBDATA,,.2,.6,ft,-1,, V,9,27,24,6,8,26,25,7
! Concrete Poisson ratio
EMUc=0.2 MP,EX,2,Es V,2,20,31,13,3,21,32,14
! Concrete Compressive MP,PRXY,2,EMUs V,3,21,32,14,4,22,33,15
and Tensile Strength MP,EX,3,Es V,4,22,33,15,5,23,34,16
fc=4000 MP,PRXY,3,EMUs V,5,23,34,16,6,24,35,17
fg=6000 TB,BISO,3,,2 V,6,24,35,17,7,25,36,18
ft=480 TBDAT,,fy,2900
fy=60000 blc4,,,4,-1,9
fgt=575 MP,EX,4,Eg blc4,22,8.75,4,1,9
sc=.002585 MP,PRXY,4,EMUc
sg=.002743 !Move grout
! Elastic Modulus and TB,CONC,4,1,9, vsel,s,,,6,10
Poisson ratio for steel TBDATA,,.2,.6,fgt,-1,, vgen,2,all,,,10,,,,,,0
Es=29e6 vdele,6,10
EMUs=0.3 Tb,czm,5,1,1,CBDD vsel,s,,,13,17
! concrete element Tbdata,1,480,.015,,,.01, vgen,,all,,,-10,,,,,1
ET,1,SOLID65
KEYOPT,1,3,2 !Keypoints vsel,s,,,1,5
KEYOPT,1,7,1 vsel,a,,,11,12
! steel element K,1, vglue,all
ET,2,SOLID45 K,2,35.5 vsel,s,,,13,17
! rebar element K,3,35.5,1.75 vglue,all
ET,3,LINK8 K,4,34.75,2.5
Et,4,targe170 K,5,34.75,6 MSHAPE,0,3D ! Use
Et,5,conta173 K,6,35.25,6.75 hexahedra
Keyopt,5,10,2 K,7,35.25,8.75 Esize,1
Keyopt,5,2,1 K,8,0,8.75 !Mesh the Grout
Keyopt,5,12,5 K,9,0,6.75 Allsel,all
Keyopt,5,9,1 K,10,0,6 Vsel,s,,,13,17
Keyopt,5,5,1 K,11,0,2.5 Vatt,4,5,1
K,12,0,1.75 Vsweep,all
! Real constants K,13,36,0 !mesh the Supports
R,1,3,.002,90,3,.002,0, K,14,36,1.75 Vsel,s,,,6,12,6
RMORE,90, , , , , , K,15,36,2.5 Vatt,2,1,2
R,2,area K,16,36,6 Vsweep,all
R,3,.44,9.22e-4 K,17,36,6.75
R,4,,,.0036,,,, K,18,36,8.75 !Mesh the Concr
r,5 !Replicate Keypoints Vsel,s,,,13,17
KGEN,2,all,,,,,9 Vsel,a,,,6,12,6
Vsel,inve
 68

Vatt,1,1,1 autots,1 EMUc=0.2

Vsweep,all !lnsrch,1 ! Concrete Compressive
ncnv,2 and Tensile Strength
Allsel,all neqit,50 fc=4000
Asel,s,,,4,24,5 pred,on fg=6000
Nsla,s,1 time,50 ft=480
Type,4 solve fy=60000
Mat,5 fgt=575
Real,4 asel,s,loc,y,9.75 sc=.002219
Tshape,quad nsla,s,1 sg=.002718
Esurf,,top nsel,r,loc,x,24 ! Elastic Modulus and
nsel,r,loc,z,9 Poisson ratio for steel
Allsel,all f,all,fy,-350 Es=29e6
Asel,s,,,61,81,5 EMUs=0.3
Nsla,s,1 asel,s,loc,y,9.75 ! concrete element
Type,5 nsla,s,1 ET,1,SOLID65
Mat,1 nsel,r,loc,x,24 KEYOPT,1,3,2
Real,4 nsel,u,loc,z,9 KEYOPT,1,7,1
Esurf,,top f,all,fy,-700 ! steel element
ET,2,SOLID45
finish allsel,all ! rebar element
/solu !—control parameters – ET,3,LINK8
!boundary conditions cnvtol,f,,0.05,2,.01 Et,4,targe170
nsubst,50 Et,5,conta173
asel,s,loc,x,36 outres,all,all Keyopt,5,10,2
nsla,s,1 autots,1 Keyopt,5,2,1
d,all,ux !lnsrch,1 Keyopt,5,12,5
asel,s,loc,z ncnv,2 Keyopt,5,9,1
nsla,s,1 neqit,100 Keyopt,5,5,1
d,all,uz pred,on
time,100 ! Real constants
asel,s,loc,y,-1 solve !R,1
nsla,s,1 R,1,3,0.009,0,90,3,.009,
nsel,r,loc,x,2 !24 Curved Bolt (Contact) RMORE,90,,!3,.009,,,
d,all,uy R,2,area
finish R,3,.7854,!1.037e-3
Asel,s,loc,x /clear r,4
Asel,u,,,86 /title, 24 inch Curved Bolt !R,5,,,.0036,,,,
sfa,all,1,pres,300 /PREP7
!Steel area MP,EX,1,Ec
allsel,all area=0.44 MP,PRXY,1,EMUc
!—control parameters – ! Concrete Elastic Modulus
cnvtol,f,,0.05,2,.01 Ec=3605000 TB,CONC,1
nsubst,25 Eg=4415201 TBDATA,,.2,.6,ft,-1,,
outres,all,all ! Concrete Poisson ratio
 69

MP,EX,2,Es V,2,20,31,13,3,21,32,14 wprot,0,-90

MP,PRXY,2,EMUs V,3,21,32,14,4,22,33,15 wpoff,0,0,1.5
MP,EX,3,Es V,4,22,33,15,5,23,34,16 vsel,all
MP,PRXY,3,EMUs V,5,23,34,16,6,24,35,17 vsbw,all
TB,BISO,3,,2 V,6,24,35,17,7,25,36,18 wpstyl
TBDAT,,fy,2900 btol,2.5632923e-4
Mp,alpx,3,12e-6 blc4,,,4,-1,9
blc4,10,8.75,4,1,9 !Move grout
MP,EX,4,Eg wpoff,0,0,3 vsel,s,,,1,7,6
MP,PRXY,4,EMUc vsbw,all vsel,a,,,23,25,2
wpoff,0,5 vsel,a,,,29,31,2
TB,CONC,4,1,9, wprot,0,90 vsel,a,,,45,51,6
TBDATA,,.2,.6,fgt,-1,, vsbw,all vsel,a,,,54,59
wpoff,24.76433,-3,-1.75 vsel,a,,,67,68
Tb,czm,5,1,1,CBDD wprot,0,0,56.065 vsel,a,,,70,71
Tbdata,1,480,.015,,,.01, vsel,s,,,21,22 vsel,a,,,80,82
vsbw,all vgen,2,all,,,10,,,,,,0
!Keypoints wprot,0,0,-90 vsel,s,,,1,7,6
K,1, vsel,s,,,9,11 vsel,a,,,23,25,2
K,2,35.5 vsbw,all vsel,a,,,29,31,2
K,3,35.5,1.75 wpstyl,defa vsel,a,,,45,51,6
K,4,34.75,2.5 wpoff,37.71582 vsel,a,,,54,59
K,5,34.75,6 wprot,-31.95315,90 vsel,a,,,67,68
K,6,35.25,6.75 vsel,s,,,10,12,2 vsel,a,,,70,71
K,7,35.25,8.75 vsel,a,,,17,18 vsel,a,,,80,82
K,8,0,8.75 vsbw,all vdele,all,,,1
K,9,0,6.75 wprot,0,0,31.95315 vsel,s,,,2,11,9
K,10,0,6 wpoff,2.6181 vsel,a,,,4,16,4
K,11,0,2.5 wprot,0,0,-26.66721 vsel,a,,,14,30,4
K,12,0,1.75 vsel,s,,,19,20 vsel,a,,,24,27,3
K,13,36,0 vsbw,all vsel,a,,,32,33
K,14,36,1.75 wprot,0,0,26.66721 vsel,a,,,35,38,3
K,15,36,2.5 wpoff,5.00811 vsel,a,,,40,42
K,16,36,6 wprot,0,0,-19.48794 vsel,a,,,44
K,17,36,6.75 vsel,s,,,3,4 vgen,,all,,,-10,,,,,1
K,18,36,8.75 vsbw,all
!Replicate Keypoints wprot,0,0,19.48794 vsel,s,,,2,11,9
KGEN,2,all,,,,,9 wpoff,14.16683 vsel,a,,,4,16,4
wprot,0,0,-10.02097 vsel,a,,,14,30,4
V,1,19,20,2,12,30,21,3 vsel,s,,,1,2 vsel,a,,,24,27,3
V,12,30,21,3,11,29,22,4 vsbw,all vsel,a,,,32,33
V,11,29,22,4,10,28,23,5 wprot,0,0,10.02097 vsel,a,,,35,38,3
V,10,28,23,5,9,27,24,6 wpoff,0,0,-4.375 vsel,a,,,40,42
V,9,27,24,6,8,26,25,7 vsel,s,,,5,6 vsel,a,,,44
vsbw,all vsel,inve
 70

vglue,all lsel,a,,,2 Tshape,quad

vsel,s,,,2,11,9 latt,3,3,3 Esurf,,top
vsel,a,,,4,16,4 Lmesh,all
vsel,a,,,14,30,4 !--Mesh the Supports Allsel,all
vsel,a,,,24,27,3 Vsel,s,,,1,7,6 Asel,s,,,24,67,43
vsel,a,,,32,33 Vsel,a,,,23,36,13 Asel,a,,,78,94,16
vsel,a,,,35,38,3 Vsel,a,,,63,73,10 Asel,a,,,107,122,15
vsel,a,,,40,42 Vsel,a,,,49,50 Asel,a,,,124,133,9
vsel,a,,,44 Vsel,a,,,75,76 Asel,a,,,146,161,15
vglue,all Vatt,2,1,2 Asel,a,,,175,322,147
Vsweep,all Asel,a,,,326,331,5
lsel,s,,,95 Asel,a,,,337,349,3
lsel,a,,,262,272,10 !--Mesh Concret Asel,a,,,353,355,2
lsel,a,,,333,355,22 vsel,s,,,2,11,9 Nsla,s,1
lsel,a,,,410 vsel,a,,,4,16,4 Type,5
lglue,all vsel,a,,,14,30,4 Mat,1
vsel,a,,,24,27,3 Real,5
!--resize lines for meshing vsel,a,,,32,33 Esurf,,top
Lsel,s,length,,6 vsel,a,,,35,38,3
Lsel,a,length,,1.5 vsel,a,,,40,42 finish
Lesize,all,.75 vsel,a,,,44 /solu
Vsel,a,,,1,7,6 !boundary conditions
Lsel,s,length,,9,34 Vsel,a,,,23,36,13 allsel,all
Lsel,a,length,,4 Vsel,a,,,63,73,10 asel,s,loc,x,36
!Lsel,a,,,176 Vsel,a,,,49,50 nsla,s,1
Lesize,all,1 Vsel,a,,,75,76 d,all,ux
Vsel,inve asel,s,loc,z
Allsel,all Vatt,1,1,1 nsla,s,1
Esize,1 Vsweep,all d,all,uz

!--Mesh Grout Allsel,all asel,s,loc,y,-1

vsel,s,,,2,11,9 Asel,s,,,16,19,3 nsla,s,1
vsel,a,,,4,16,4 Asel,a,,,29,63,34 nsel,r,loc,x,2
vsel,a,,,14,30,4 Asel,a,,,71,85,14 d,all,uy
vsel,a,,,24,27,3 Asel,a,,,92,176,84
vsel,a,,,32,33 Asel,a,,,188,210,22 lsel,s,,,95
vsel,a,,,35,38,3 Asel,a,,,214,224,10 lsel,a,,,262,272,10
vsel,a,,,40,42 Asel,a,,,229,237,4 lsel,a,,,333,355,22
vsel,a,,,44 Asel,a,,,246,261,15 lsel,a,,,2
Vatt,4,4,1 Asel,a,,,264,282,18 bfl,all,temp,-115
Vsweep,all Asel,a,,,307,310,3
!--Mesh the Curved Bolt Nsla,s,1 allsel,all
lsel,s,,,95 Type,4 !—control parameters –
lsel,a,,,262,272,10 Mat,5 cnvtol,f,,0.05,2,.01
lsel,a,,,333,355,22 Real,5 nsubst,25
 71

outres,all,all ! Concrete Elastic Modulus TB,CONC,1

autots,1 Ec=3605000 TBDATA,,.2,.6,ft,-1,,
!lnsrch,1 Eg=4415201
ncnv,2 ! Concrete Poisson ratio MP,EX,2,Es
neqit,50 EMUc=0.2 MP,PRXY,2,EMUs
pred,on ! Concrete Compressive MP,EX,3,Es
time,50 and Tensile Strength MP,PRXY,3,EMUs
solve fc=4000 TB,BISO,3,,2
fg=6000 TBDAT,,fy,2900
asel,s,loc,y,9.75 ft=480 Mp,alpx,3,12e-6
nsla,s,1 fy=60000 MP,EX,4,Eg
nsel,r,loc,x,12 fgt=575 MP,PRXY,4,EMUc
nsel,r,loc,z,9 sc=.002219
f,all,fy,-325!crack180 sg=.002718 TB,CONC,4,1,9,
ult325 ! E and PR for steel TBDATA,,.2,.6,fgt,-1,,
Es=29e6
asel,s,loc,y,9.75 EMUs=0.3 Tb,czm,5,1,1,CBDD
nsla,s,1 ! concrete element Tbdata,1,480,.015,,,.01,
nsel,r,loc,x,12 ET,1,SOLID65
nsel,u,loc,z,9 KEYOPT,1,3,2 !Keypoints
f,all,fy,-650 !crack360 KEYOPT,1,7,1
ult650 ! steel element K,1,
ET,2,SOLID45 K,2,35.5
allsel,all ! rebar element K,3,35.5,1.75
!—control parameters – ET,3,LINK8 K,4,34.75,2.5
cnvtol,f,,0.05,2,.01 Et,4,targe170 K,5,34.75,6
nsubst,200 Et,5,conta173 K,6,35.25,6.75
outres,all,all Keyopt,5,10,2 K,7,35.25,8.75
autots,1 Keyopt,5,2,1 K,8,0,8.75
!lnsrch,1 Keyopt,5,12,5 K,9,0,6.75
ncnv,2 Keyopt,5,9,1 K,10,0,6
neqit,250 Keyopt,5,5,1 K,11,0,2.5
pred,on ! Real constants K,12,0,1.75
time,300 !R,1 K,13,36,0
solve R,1,3,0.009,0,90,3,.009, K,14,36,1.75
RMORE,90,,!3,.009,,, K,15,36,2.5
!36 Curved Bolt (Contact) R,2,area K,16,36,6
R,3,.60132,!1.354e-3 K,17,36,6.75
finish r,4, K,18,36,8.75
/clear !R,5,,,.0036,,,, !Replicate Keypoints
/title, 36 inch Curved Bolt KGEN,2,all,,,,,9
/PREP7 MP,EX,1,Ec
!Steel area MP,PRXY,1,EMUc V,1,19,20,2,12,30,21,3
area=0.44 mptemp,1,0 V,12,30,21,3,11,29,22,4
V,11,29,22,4,10,28,23,5
 72

V,10,28,23,5,9,27,24,6 wpoff,0,0,-4.375 vsel,a,,,40,42

V,9,27,24,6,8,26,25,7 vsel,s,,,5,6 vsel,a,,,44
vsbw,all vsel,inve
V,2,20,31,13,3,21,32,14 wprot,0,-90 vglue,all
V,3,21,32,14,4,22,33,15 wpoff,0,0,1.5 vsel,s,,,2,11,9
V,4,22,33,15,5,23,34,16 vsel,all vsel,a,,,4,16,4
V,5,23,34,16,6,24,35,17 vsbw,all vsel,a,,,14,30,4
V,6,24,35,17,7,25,36,18 wpstyl vsel,a,,,24,27,3
btol,5e-4 vsel,a,,,32,33
blc4,,,4,-1,9 vsel,a,,,35,38,3
blc4,22,8.75,4,1,9 !Move grout vsel,a,,,40,42
wpoff,0,0,3 vsel,s,,,1,7,6 vsel,a,,,44
vsbw,all vsel,a,,,23,25,2 vglue,all
wpoff,0,5 vsel,a,,,29,31,2
wprot,0,90 vsel,a,,,45,51,6 lsel,s,,,95
vsbw,all vsel,a,,,54,59 lsel,a,,,262,272,10
wpoff,19.871,-3,-1.75 vsel,a,,,67,68 lsel,a,,,333,355,22
wprot,0,0,66.232 vsel,a,,,70,71 lsel,a,,,410
vsel,s,,,21,22 vsel,a,,,80,82 lglue,all
vsbw,all vgen,2,all,,,10,,,,,,0
wprot,0,0,-90 vsel,s,,,1,7,6 !--resize lines for meshing
vsel,s,,,9,11 vsel,a,,,23,25,2 Lsel,s,length,,6
vsbw,all vsel,a,,,29,31,2 Lsel,a,length,,1.5
wpstyl,defa vsel,a,,,45,51,6 Lesize,all,.75
wpoff,39.40066 vsel,a,,,54,59
wprot,-21.8416,90 vsel,a,,,67,68 Lsel,s,length,,6.5,36
vsel,s,,,10,12,2 vsel,a,,,70,71 Lsel,a,length,,4
vsel,a,,,17,18 vsel,a,,,80,82 Lesize,all,1
vsbw,all vdele,all,,,1 Lsel,s,length,,.25,1.25
wprot,0,0,21.8416 vsel,s,,,2,11,9 Lesize,all,,2
wpoff,3.57277 vsel,a,,,4,16,4
wprot,0,0,-18.29716 vsel,a,,,14,30,4 Allsel,all
vsel,s,,,19,20 vsel,a,,,24,27,3 Esize,1
vsbw,all vsel,a,,,32,33
wprot,0,0,18.29716 vsel,a,,,35,38,3 !--Mesh Grout
wpoff,7.04523 vsel,a,,,40,42 vsel,s,,,2,11,9
wprot,0,0,-13.39733 vsel,a,,,44 vsel,a,,,4,16,4
vsel,s,,,3,4 vgen,,all,,,-10,,,,,1 vsel,a,,,14,30,4
vsbw,all vsel,a,,,24,27,3
wprot,0,0,13.39733 vsel,s,,,2,11,9 vsel,a,,,32,33
wpoff,24.79572 vsel,a,,,4,16,4 vsel,a,,,35,38,3
wprot,0,0,-6.23196 vsel,a,,,14,30,4 vsel,a,,,40,42
vsel,s,,,1,2 vsel,a,,,24,27,3 vsel,a,,,44
vsbw,all vsel,a,,,32,33 Vatt,4,4,1
wprot,0,0,6.23196 vsel,a,,,35,38,3 Vsweep,all
 73

!--Mesh the Curved Bolt Asel,a,,,307,310,3 lsel,s,,,95

lsel,s,,,95 Nsla,s,1 lsel,a,,,262,272,10
lsel,a,,,262,272,10 Type,4 lsel,a,,,333,355,22
lsel,a,,,333,355,22 Mat,5 lsel,a,,,2
lsel,a,,,2 Real,5 bfl,all,temp,-130
!lsel,a,,,410 Tshape,quad
latt,3,3,3 Esurf,,top allsel,all
Lmesh,all !—control parameters –
!--Mesh the Supports Allsel,all cnvtol,f,,0.05,2,.01
Vsel,s,,,1,7,6 Asel,s,,,24,67,43 nsubst,25
Vsel,a,,,23,36,13 Asel,a,,,78,94,16 outres,all,all
Vsel,a,,,63,73,10 Asel,a,,,107,122,15 autots,1
Vsel,a,,,49,50 Asel,a,,,124,133,9 ncnv,2
Vsel,a,,,75,76 Asel,a,,,146,161,15 neqit,50
Vatt,2,1,2 Asel,a,,,175,322,147 pred,on
Vsweep,all Asel,a,,,326,331,5 time,50
Asel,a,,,337,349,3 solve
!--Mesh Concret Asel,a,,,353,355,2
vsel,s,,,2,11,9 Nsla,s,1 asel,s,loc,y,9.75
vsel,a,,,4,16,4 Type,5 nsla,s,1
vsel,a,,,14,30,4 Mat,1 nsel,r,loc,x,24
vsel,a,,,24,27,3 Real,5 nsel,r,loc,z,9
vsel,a,,,32,33 Esurf,,top f,all,fy,-225 !Crack104.5
vsel,a,,,35,38,3 ult225
vsel,a,,,40,42 finish
vsel,a,,,44 /solu asel,s,loc,y,9.75
Vsel,a,,,1,7,6 !boundary conditions nsla,s,1
Vsel,a,,,23,36,13 allsel,all nsel,r,loc,x,24
Vsel,a,,,63,73,10 asel,s,loc,x,36 nsel,u,loc,z,9
Vsel,a,,,49,50 nsla,s,1 f,all,fy,-450 !Crack209
Vsel,a,,,75,76 d,all,ux ult450
Vsel,inve asel,s,loc,z
Vatt,1,1,1 nsla,s,1 allsel,all
Vsweep,all d,all,uz !—control parameters –
cnvtol,f,,0.05,2,.01
Allsel,all asel,s,loc,y,-1 nsubst,100
Asel,s,,,16,19,3 nsla,s,1 outres,all,all
Asel,a,,,29,63,34 nsel,r,loc,x,2 autots,1
Asel,a,,,71,85,14 d,all,uy ncnv,2
Asel,a,,,92,176,84 neqit,100
Asel,a,,,188,210,22 !Asel,s,loc,x pred,on
Asel,a,,,214,224,10 !Asel,u,,,30,34,4 time,200
Asel,a,,,229,237,4 !Asel,u,,,4 solve
Asel,a,,,246,261,15 !sfa,all,1,pres,300
Asel,a,,,264,282,18 !Welded Stud (Contact)
 74

R,4, KGEN,2,all,,,,,3
finish R,5,,,.0036,,,, KGEN,2,1,17,,,,9
/clear
/title, Welded Stud MP,EX,1,Ec !Create volumes through
/PREP7 MP,PRXY,1,EMUc keypoints
!Steel area V,1,18,19,2,11,28,20,3
area=0.2 TB,CONC,1 V,11,28,20,3,10,27,21,4
! Concrete Elastic Modulus TBDATA,,.2,.6,ft,-1,, V,10,27,21,4,9,26,29,12
Ec=3605000 V,9,26,29,12,8,25,24,7
Eg=4415201 MP,EX,2,Es V,4,21,22,5,7,24,23,6
! Concrete Poisson ratio MP,PRXY,2,EMUs
EMUc=0.2 MP,EX,3,Es V,3,20,31,14,4,21,32,15
! Concrete Compressive MP,PRXY,3,EMUs V,4,21,32,15,5,22,33,16
and Tensile Strength TB,BISO,3,,2 V,5,22,33,16,6,23,34,17
fc=4000 TBDAT,,fy,2900
fg=6000 V,18,35,36,19,28,45,37,20
ft=480 MP,EX,4,Eg V,28,45,37,20,27,44,38,21
fy=60000 MP,PRXY,4,EMUc V,27,44,38,21,26,43,46,29
fgt=575 V,26,43,46,29,25,42,41,24
! Elastic Modulus and TB,CONC,4,1,9, V,21,38,39,22,24,41,40,23
Poisson ratio for steel TBDATA,,.2,.6,fgt,-1,,
Es=29e6 V,20,37,48,31,21,38,49,32
EMUs=0.3 Tb,czm,5,1,1,CBDD V,21,38,49,32,22,39,50,33
! concrete element Tbdata,1,480,.016,,,.01, V,22,39,50,33,23,40,51,34
ET,1,SOLID65 blc4,,,4,-1,9
KEYOPT,1,3,2 !add all keypoints blc4,22,8.75,4,1,9
KEYOPT,1,7,1 K,1, wpoff,0,0,1.5
! steel element K,2,35.8125 vsbw,all
ET,2,SOLID45 K,3,35.8125,3.75 wpoff,33.5,3.75
! rebar element K,4,33.5,5.75 wprot,40.85537626,90
ET,3,LINK8 K,5,35,7.75 vsel,s,,,19,22
! Real constants K,6,35,8.75 vsel,a,,,9,10
Et,4,targe170 K,7,33.5,8.75 vsbw,all
Et,5,conta173 K,8,0,8.75 wprot,0,-90
Keyopt,5,10,2 K,9,0,7.75 wprot,-40.85537626
Keyopt,5,2,1 K,10,0,5.75 wpoff,0,4
Keyopt,5,12,5 K,11,0,3.75 wprot,0,90
Keyopt,5,9,1 K,12,33.5,7.75 allsel,all
Keyopt,5,5,1 K,13,36 vsbw,all
K,14,36,3.75 wpoff,0,0,6.75
R,1 K,15,36,5.75 vsbw,all
R,1,3,0.009,0,90,3,.009, K,16,36,7.75 wpstyl
RMORE,90, , , , , , K,17,36,8.75 allsel,all
R,2,area
R,3,1.227 !Replicate Keypoints !Move grout
 75

vsel,s,,,29,34 Mshkey,1 Latt,3,2,3

vsel,a,,,14,16 MSHAPE,0,3D Lmesh,all
vsel,a,,,10,19,9
vsel,a,,,21,22 !Mesh Grout
vgen,2,all,,,10,,,,,,0 vsel,s,,,4,8 !Mesh Supports
vsel,s,,,29,34 vsel,a,,,17 Vsel,s,,,35,37,2
vsel,a,,,14,16 vsel,a,,,50,56 Vsel,a,,,15,16
vsel,a,,,10,19,9 Vatt,4,4,1 Vatt,2,,2
vsel,a,,,21,22 Vsweep,all Vsweep,all
vdele,all,,,1
vsel,s,,,4,8 !Mesh Plate Allsel,all
vsel,a,,,17 Lsel,s,,,24,25 Asel,s,,,25,32,7
vsel,a,,,50,56 Lsel,a,,,32,33 Asel,a,,,42,44,2
vgen,,all,,,-10,,,,,1 Lsel,a,,,68 Asel,a,,,200,207,7
Lsel,a,,,266,272,3 Asel,a,,,84
vsel,s,,,4,8 Lsel,a,,,297 Asel,a,,,212,214
vsel,a,,,17 Lsel,a,,,313,317,4 Asel,a,,,221,222
vsel,a,,,50,56 Lsel,a,,,319,323 Asel,a,,,225,226
vsel,inve Lsel,a,,,325 Nsla,s,1
vglue,all Latt,3,3,3 Type,4
Lmesh,all Mat,5
vsel,s,,,4,8 Real,5
vsel,a,,,17 !Mesh Concrete Tshape,quad
vsel,a,,,50,56 vsel,s,,,1,8 Esurf,,top
vglue,all vsel,a,,,15,17
vsel,a,,,50,56 Allsel,all
!Glue stud and plate Vsel,a,,,35,37,2 Asel,s,,,3,6,3
Lsel,s,,,68 Vsel,a,,,27,28 Asel,a,,,12,19,7
Lsel,a,,,266,272,3 Vsel,a,,,13 Asel,a,,,35,58,23
Lsel,a,,,297 Vsel,a,,,43,49,3 Asel,a,,,61,87,26
Lsel,a,,,311,313 Vsel,inve Asel,a,,,106,113,7
Lsel,a,,,317,325 Vatt,1,1,1 Asel,a,,,123,160,37
Lsel,a,,,38 Vsweep,all Asel,a,,,163,165,2
Lsel,a,,,234 Nsla,s,1
Lglue,all !Concrete without Rebar Type,5
Vsel,s,,,1,3 Mat,1
Lsel,s,length,,6 Vsel,a,,,13 Real,5
Lsel,a,length,,1.5 Vsel,a,,,27,28 Esurf,,top
Lesize,all,.75 Vsel,a,,,43,49,3
Lsel,s,length,,4 Vatt,1,4,1 finish
Lsel,a,length,,7,36 Vsweep,all /solu
Lesize,all,1 !boundary conditions
!Mesh Stud allsel,all
Allsel,all Lsel,s,,,38 asel,s,loc,x,36
Esize,1 Lsel,a,,,234 nsla,s,1
 76

d,all,ux
asel,s,loc,z
nsla,s,1
d,all,uz

asel,s,loc,y,-1
nsla,s,1
nsel,r,loc,x,2
d,all,uy

asel,s,loc,y,9.75
nsla,s,1
nsel,r,loc,x,24
nsel,r,loc,z,9
f,all,fy,-100

asel,s,loc,y,9.75
nsla,s,1
nsel,r,loc,x,24
nsel,u,loc,z,9
f,all,fy,-200

allsel,all
!—control parameters –
cnvtol,f,,0.05,2,.01
nsubst,100
outres,all,all
autots,1
!lnsrch,1
ncnv,2
neqit,200
pred,on
time,50
solve