Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    1/56

    October 2005

    Vanadium Rebar Case Study

    by Beverly P. DiPaolo, Bradley W. Foust, Edward F. ONeil, Photios Papados, and

    Stanley C. Woodson

    U.S. Army Corps of EngineersEngineer Research and Development Center

    3909 Halls Ferry Road

    Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199

    Prepared for Advanced Technology Institute

    5300 International Boulevard

    North Charleston, SC 29418

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    2/56

    1

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    3/56

    iii

    Contents

    Preface................................................................................................................................ iv

    Conversion Factors, Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement .................................................. v1: Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1

    1.1 Background............................................................................................................... 11.2 Objective................................................................................................................... 1

    1.3 Scope ........................................................................................................................ 1

    2: Parametric Study............................................................................................................ 32.1: Purpose of Study...................................................................................................... 3

    2.2: Approach ................................................................................................................. 3

    2.3: Results ..................................................................................................................... 62.4: Summary ............................................................................................................... 13

    3: Experimental Results ................................................................................................... 14

    3.1 General.................................................................................................................... 143.2 Concrete Materials Testing..................................................................................... 183.3 Steel Rebar Materials Testing................................................................................. 25

    3.4 Concrete Components Testing................................................................................ 27

    3.5 Summary of Testing Program................................................................................. 314: Computations............................................................................................................... 32

    4.1: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 32

    4.2: Material constitutive models ................................................................................. 334.3: Numerical Analysis ............................................................................................... 35

    5: Usage and Risk ............................................................................................................ 42

    5.1: Environmental Statement ...................................................................................... 42

    6: Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 466.1: Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 46

    Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... 48

    References......................................................................................................................... 49Appendix 4.1..................................................................................................................... 51

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    4/56

    iv

    Preface

    The study reported herein was performed by members of the staff of the Geotechnicaland Structures Laboratory (GSL) of the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development

    Center (ERDC) located at the Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi.The investigation was sponsored by the Army Research Laboratory in collaboration with

    Advanced Technology Institute and the Vanadium Technology Program underCooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA-04-GSL-02). The principal

    investigator for this effort was Dr. Paul Mlakar.

    This study was performed under the general supervision of Dr. David W. Pittman,

    Director, GSL, Dr. William P. Grogan, Deputy Director, GSL, Dr. Robert L. Hall, Chief,

    Geosciences and Structures Division (GSD), and Mr. Frank D. Dallriva, Chief, StructuralMechanics Branch (SMB), GSL.

    At the time of publication of this report, Director of ERDC was Dr. James R. Houston,and Commander and Executive Director was COL James R. Rowan, EN.

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    5/56

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    6/56

    1

    1: Introduction

    1.1 BACKGROUND

    Due to recent terrorist activities, structural performance to protect building occupants

    during a blast event, and residual structural integrity to increase survivability after theexplosion are becoming design criteria for specific buildings. For designs using

    conventional construction materials, as the protection level increases, the structural

    system space, weight, and costs also increase. Very high-strength concretes could be usedto mitigate these increases, but may require high-strength reinforcement with high

    ductility to adequately balance cross-sectional behavior, to achieve the design strength or

    to provide the required deformation performance. Vanadium steel rebar may offer thiscombination of high strength and high ductility. Vanadium-alloy high-strength steel

    rebar will be investigated to determine its performance when coupled with very high-

    strength concrete. Vanadium is widely used as a grain refining element in the mini-millsteel industry. The introduction of vanadium into the chemical composition of a steelreinforcement bar provides higher strengths without compromising on ductility or

    formability.

    1.2 OBJECTIVE

    The overall objective of this study was to research very high strength concrete and highstrength vanadium steel reinforcement bar for newly constructed reinforced concrete

    protective structures for United States Army use and also for conventional construction.

    1.3 SCOPE

    The case study was initiated with a parametric analysis to investigate the potential for

    weight, space, and cost savings, and system improvement in the form of increasedprotection level resulting from the substitution of high-performance materials for

    conventional materials. The high-performance materials consisted of high-strength

    concrete (fc 15 ksi) and vanadium steel rebar with a yield stress of at least 75 ksi. Alaboratory experimental program and computational simulations evaluating design

    concepts for structural elements subjected to severe dynamic loadings were alsoconducted.

    Two representative structural components were considered in the parametric analysis; areinforced concrete blast-resistant exterior wall and a reinforced concrete first-floor

    column. Several high-performance material combinations were examined. These

    combinations include the following: 15 ksi compressive strength concrete in conjunctionwith 75 ksi steel reinforcement bar, 15 ksi concrete with 85 ksi steel reinforcement, and

    30 ksi concrete with 100 ksi steel reinforcement. The performances of these material

    combinations were then compared to that of a conventional strength material

    combination; 5 ksi compressive strength concrete with 60 ksi steel reinforcement.

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    7/56

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    8/56

    3

    2: Parametric Study

    2.1 PURPOSE OF PARAMETRIC STUDY

    The analytical parametric study was performed to compare the effectiveness of the high-performance materials of interest with that of standard materials with regard to the blastresponse of reinforced concrete walls and columns.

    2.2 APPROACH

    The U.S. government-owned computer programs ConWep and Wall Analysis Code

    (WAC) were the analytical tools used for the parametric study. Both computer programs

    were developed at ERDC.

    ConWep has many capabilities with regard to predicting the effects of conventionalweapons. For this study, ConWepwas used only for a good approximation of the blast

    loading (pressure and impulse) on selected structural components. ConWep considers the

    effects of the airblast clearing the loaded element in determining the impulse distribution.

    For example, the wall of one bay of a building can be considered as the target area for the

    computation of loads. The dimensions of the entire building can be used as the reflecting

    surface as shown in Figure 2.1.

    Figure 2.1 ConWep Geometry

    WAC was developed initially to compute the SDOF response of masonry walls. It has

    since been adapted to analyze reinforced concrete members (e.g., columns, beams, and

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    9/56

    4

    walls) and allow the use of a user-defined resistance function. Figure 2.2 presents an

    idealized SDOF model of the type used in WAC. Various support conditions

    (combinations of simple, fixed, and free) can be modeled. WAC solves the equation of

    motion for the equivalent system by numerical integration to determine the response-time

    history of a critical point on the structural element (usually at mid-height and mid-width).

    Figure 2.2 Typical SDOF Model

    For this study, analyses were performed for reinforced concrete walls and columns. In

    order to compare the effects of the material strengths on the blast response of the

    elements, it was necessary to define reasonable levels of response to serve as standardsfor comparison. Table 2.1 was taken from the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) DoD

    Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings, and describes potential damage and

    injury for defined levels of protection. In general, a low level of protection corresponds

    to a high level of damage, but not to the point of likely progressive collapse. Conversely,

    a high level of protection corresponds to essentially no structural damage.

    RANGE

    CHARGE

    WALL

    BLAST LOADED WALL

    SDOF MODEL

    kF

    x

    M

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    10/56

    5

    Level of

    Protection

    Potential Structural Damage Potential Door and Glazing

    Hazards

    Potential Injury

    Low Damaged unrepairable.

    Major deformation of non-

    structural elements andsecondary structural members

    and minor deformation of

    primary structural members, but

    progressive collapse is unlikely.

    Glazing will break, but fall

    within 1 meter of the wall or

    otherwise not present asignificant fragment hazard.

    Doors may fail, but they will

    rebound out of their frames

    presenting minimal hazards.

    Majority of

    personnel suffer

    significant injuries.There may be a few

    (

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    11/56

    6

    HLOP High Level of Protection

    MLOP Medium Level of Protection

    LLOP Low Level of Protection

    VLLOP Very Low Level of Protection

    - Ductility Ratio

    - Support Rotation

    Table 2.2 Response Limits

    2.3 RESULTS

    2.3.1 Concrete Wall

    The following structural parameters were used in the analyses of concrete wall elements.

    Building Height = 120

    Building Width = 200 Wall Height = 13 Wall Width = 20 Two Thickness and Reinforcing Schemes:

    a. doubly reinforced 12-inch thick wall

    b. singly reinforced 6-inch thick wall Simple Support End Conditions Standard Building Materials

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    12/56

    7

    - 5 ksi Conventional Concrete- 60 ksi Steel Reinforcement

    High-Performance Building Materials Combinations

    - 15 ksi High-Strength Concrete and 75 ksi Vanadium Steel Reinforcement

    - 15 ksi High-Strength Concrete and 85 ksi Vanadium Steel Reinforcement- 25 ksi High-Strength Concrete and 100 ksi Vanadium Steel Reinforcement

    - 30 ksi High-Strength Concrete and 100 ksi Vanadium Steel Reinforcement

    The original task for the study was to compare the standard building materials with the 15

    ksi concrete and 75 ksi steel (15/75). Later, supplemental calculations were performed

    for higher performance materials. Thus, the results presented below typically use eitherthe standard materials or the 15/75 combination as baselines for comparison.

    Two other parameters required for the study were the explosive charge weight and thestandoff (distance from center of explosive charge to face of structural element). Charge

    weights of 1000, 4000, and 10,000 lbs of TNT were used. The standoff varied dependingon the response limit being achieved, as will be discussed herein.

    Table 2.3 presents the analytical results for concrete walls that are reinforced with #5

    reinforcing bars spaced at 12 inches on-center, in each face of the wall. Such a

    reinforcing scheme is typically termed doubly-reinforced. For each of the two chargeweights (4000 lbs and 10,000 lbs), a standoff was determined that would produce a

    support rotation of approximately 4 degrees for use of the 15/75 materials. The 4-degree

    support rotation corresponds to the defined Low Level of Protection for a wall that doesnot have any special end conditions and is probably typical of most conventional walls of

    similar proportion. For comparison, the same standoffs were used for the wall with the5/60 (5 ksi concrete and 60 ksi reinforcement), the 15/85 (15 ksi concrete and 85 ksi

    reinforcement), and the 25/100 (25 ksi concrete and 100 ksi reinforcement) materials.

    The increasein response (as defined by support rotation) for the 5/60 wall was 34% and38% respectively for the 4000-lb and the 10,000-lb charge weights in comparison to the

    15/75 wall. The responses for 15/85 and 25/100 walls were approximately 12 to 20%less(as indicated by negative signs in the table) than the 15/75 wall.

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    13/56

    8

    Explosive

    Wt.

    TNT

    (lbs)

    Standoff

    (ft)

    Concrete

    Strength

    (ksi)

    Rebar

    Strength

    (ksi)

    Support

    Rotation

    (deg.)

    Percent

    Diff.

    Support

    Rotation

    (%)

    Deflectio

    n (in.)

    Peak

    Pressure

    (psi)

    Peak

    Impulse

    (psi-

    msec)

    4000 100 15 75 4.1 5.6 79 492

    4000 100 5 60 5.5 34 7.5 79 492

    4000 100 15 85 3.6 -11 5.0 79 492

    4000 100 25 100 3.4 -18 4.6 79 492

    10000 170 15 75 4.0 5.4 42 513

    10000 170 5 60 5.5 38 7.5 42 513

    10000 170 15 85 3.5 -12 4.8 42 513

    10000 170 25 100 3.2 -20 4.4 42 513

    Table 2.3 Comparison of Response (4-degree baseline) for 2 Layers of #5 rebar at 12

    Spacing in a 12 thick wall

    Table 2.4 also presents analytical results for concrete walls that are reinforced with no. 5

    reinforcing bars spaced at 12 inches on-center, in each face of the wall. However, for

    each of the two charge weights (4000 lbs and 10,000 lbs), a standoff was determined thatwould produce a support rotation of approximately 12 degrees of the 15/75 materials.

    The 12-degree support rotation corresponds to the defined Low Level of Protection for a

    wall that is of normal proportions, but doeshave end conditions that would allow thedevelopment of large deformation response, including a mechanism known as tension

    membrane. In pure tension membrane, all reinforcement is in tension such that theelement resembles a catenary. The reinforcement must be well anchored into strongsupports in order to develop the tension forces. Such characteristics are somewhat typical

    for blast resistant structures, but sometimes can be found in conventional construction.

    For comparison, the same standoffs were used for the wall with the 5/60, 15/85, and25/100 materials. For the 5/60 material, the increase in response (as defined by support

    rotation) was 29% and 31% respectively for the 4000-lb and the 10,000-lb charge

    weights. As expected, the response was less for the 15/85 (approximately 10%) and

    25/100 (approximately 17%) materials than for the 15/75 material.

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    14/56

    9

    Explosive

    Wt.

    TNT

    (lbs)

    Standoff

    (ft)

    Concrete

    Strength

    (ksi)

    Rebar

    Strength

    (ksi)

    Support

    Rotation

    (deg.)

    Percent

    Diff.

    Support

    Rotation

    (%)

    Deflectio

    n (in.)

    Peak

    Pressure

    (psi)

    Peak

    Impulse

    (psi-

    msec)

    4000 64 15 75 12.1 16.7 305 849

    4000 64 5 60 15.6 29 21.8 305 849

    4000 64 15 85 10.8 -10 14.9 305 849

    4000 64 25 100 10.1 -16 14.0 305 849

    10000 111 15 75 12.0 16.6 143 851

    10000 111 5 60 15.7 31 21.9 143 851

    10000 111 15 85 10.8 -10 14.9 143 851

    10000 111 25 100 10.1 -16 13.9 143 851

    Table 2.4 Comparison of Response (12-degree baseline) for 2 Layers of #5 rebar at 12

    Spacing in a 12 thick wall

    The results presented in Table 2.5 are intended for consideration of the quantity of

    reinforcing steel required to achieve a given support rotation for a given explosive threat.

    For each wall, the area of steel was determined that would allow a response ofapproximately 4 degrees support rotation for a 4000-lb explosive charge at a standoff of

    60 ft. This explosive threat was selected to allow the use of no. 8 reinforcing bars at a

    reasonable spacing. For the 5/60 materials, the total area of required reinforcing steelwas approximately 40% greater than that required for the wall with the 15/75 materials.

    The required area of reinforcing was reduced approximately 11 and 22% for the 15/85and the 25/100 material, respectively.

    Concrete

    Strength

    (ksi)

    Rebar

    Strength

    (ksi)

    Spacing

    (in)

    Area of

    Rebar

    (in/ft)

    Percent

    Diff.

    Area of

    Rebar

    (%)

    Support

    Rotation

    (deg.)

    Deflectio

    n (in.)

    Peak

    Pressure

    (psi)

    Peak

    Impulse

    (psi-

    msec)

    15 75 7 2.69 4.2 5.7 370 922

    5 60 5 3.76 40 4.3 5.9 370 922

    15 85 8 2.37 -12 4.2 5.7 370 92225 100 9 2.10 -22 4.0 5.4 370 922

    Table 2.5 Comparison of Required Area of Rebar to Achieve Support Rotation of 4

    Degrees for Doubly Reinforced 12 Thick Wall Subjected to 4000# TNT at 60

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    15/56

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    16/56

    11

    Concrete

    Strength

    (ksi)

    Rebar

    Strength

    (ksi)

    RebarSpacing

    (in)

    Area of

    Rebar

    (in/ft)

    Percent

    Diff.

    Area of

    Rebar

    (%)

    Deflection

    (in.)

    15 75 #10 3.5 8.69 0.8

    5 60 #11 3 12.49 44 0.8

    15 85 #9 3 8.00 -8 0.77

    30 100 #9 3.75 6.40 -26 0.68

    Table 2.7 Comparison of Required Area of Rebar to Achieve a Ductility Ratio of One

    for a 12 Thick Wall When Subjected to 4000# TNT at 100

    2.3.2 Reinforced Concrete Column

    Reinforced concrete columns are a primary structural component of reinforced concrete

    buildings and are susceptible to blast damage. The analytical results presented hereincompare the response of columns constructed with the material strengths of interest.

    Experimental results reported by Woodson and Baylot (1999) demonstrated that

    conventional reinforced concrete columns will incur heavy damage when subjected to theblast effects of 1000 lbs of C-4 explosives at a standoff of 14 ft. The response is

    considerably less at a standoff of 20 ft. Thus, explosive threats in range of 1000 lbs at 15

    to 20 ft of standoff were considered of interest for this study. Also, larger explosivecharge weights at greater standoff distances were evaluated.

    Table 2.8 indicates the change in response for a 14-inch by 14-inch column reinforced

    with 6 no. 8 reinforcing bars for the 1000 lbs of TNT threat. This column design wasused in all of the column analyses and might be expected in a typical of 4-story office

    building in low seismic zones. The clear height of the column was taken as 12 ft. The

    protective design community has yet to develop definitive criteria for allowable responselimits of reinforced concrete columns; however, for purposes of this study 4 degrees will

    be taken as the baseline. The 20-ft standoff is considered in Table 2.8 as a standoff that

    will cause damage levels typically not considered to cause catastrophic failure of the

    structure. It is observed that the high performance materials decrease the columnresponse (support rotation) by approximately 23 to 42 percent compared to the

    conventional materials. A similar result was observed for the standoff of 15 ft, which

    should be considered to cause heavy damage. It is interesting that the column with the15/75 materials is somewhat optimum for resisting this threat with the baseline response

    of 4 degrees support rotation.

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    17/56

    12

    Standoff

    (ft)

    Concrete

    Strength

    (ksi)

    Rebar

    Strength

    (ksi)

    Support

    rotation

    (deg.)

    Percent

    Diff.

    (Support

    Rotation)

    Deflection

    (in.)

    Peak

    Pressure

    (psi)

    Peak

    Impulse

    (psi-msec)

    20 5 60 2.78 2.7 2157 1438

    20 15 75 2.15 -23 3.5 2157 1438

    20 15 85 1.93 -31 2.4 2157 1438

    20 30 100 1.61 -42 2 2157 1438

    15 5 60 5.2 5 3692 1956

    15 15 75 4 -23 6.5 3692 1956

    15 15 85 3.52 -32 4.4 3692 1956

    15 30 100 2.94 -43 3.7 3692 1956

    Table 2.8 Comparison of Support Rotations for Explosive Threat of 1000 lbs of C-4

    A larger explosive charge weight (4000 lbs TNT) was considered for the results

    presented in Table 2.9. The standoff of 37 ft was determined to induce a support rotationof 4 degrees for the column of conventional materials. Decreases in support rotation of

    28 to 46 percent were observed for the high performance materials.

    Concrete

    Strength

    (ksi)

    Rebar

    Strength

    (ksi)

    Support

    rotation

    (deg.)

    Percent

    Diff.

    (Support

    Rotation)

    Deflection

    (in.)

    5 60 4 5

    15 75 2.9 -28 3.69

    15 85 2.61 -35 3.28

    30 100 2.15 -46 2.7

    Table 2.9 Comparison of Support Rotations for Explosive Threat of 4000 lbs of TNT at

    37

    Table 2.10 presents similar results to that of Table 2.9, but Table 2.10 is for a 10,000-lbcharge weight.

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    18/56

    13

    Concrete

    Strength

    (ksi)

    Rebar

    Strength

    (ksi)

    Support

    rotation

    (deg.)

    Percent

    Diff.

    (Support

    Rotation)

    Deflection

    (in.)

    5 60 4 3.7

    15 75 3 -25 5

    15 85 2.6 -35 3.3

    30 100 2.1 -48 2.6

    Table 2.10 Comparison of Support Rotations for Explosive Threat of 10,000 lbs of TNT

    at 63

    2.4 SUMMARY

    The SDOF analyses consistently indicated significant enhancement to the blast resistance

    of the selected typical reinforced concrete wall and column structural elements. Theresults indicate that a typical 12-inch thick reinforced concrete wall constructed of

    standard concrete and reinforcing materials will incur roughly 30% more response (in

    terms of support rotation) than a similar wall constructed of the 15/75 materials.Additional performance can be expected for the higher level performance 15/85 and

    25/100 materials with a decrease in response of roughly 10 and 20% from that of the

    15/75 material. Even greater percentage differences can be observed in comparison ofthe reduction of reinforcement needed to limit wall response to a specified level.

    For the columns, response of the columns with the high-performance materials was

    compared against that of a column with the standard materials. Somewhat consistently

    over the range of explosive charge weights considered, the 15/75, 15/85, and 30/100materials respectively incurred support rotations approximately 30, 35, and 45 percent

    less than that for the standard materials.

    Whether one considers the standard material or the 15/75 material as a baseline,

    enhancement to blast resistance on the order of at least 30% can be expected for the highperformance materials over the standard material.

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    19/56

    14

    3: Experimental Program

    3.1 GENERAL

    The experimental program was based on two material combinations that each consisted

    of a concrete material and a steel reinforcement bar material. The combinations wereconventional concrete and conventional rebar and very high strength concrete and high

    strength rebar and were designated as Cc-Cr and VHSc-HSr, respectively. The

    combinations were based on mechanical properties of the materials: the compressivestrength of the concrete and the yield strength of the steel rebar material and are as

    described in Figure 3.1.

    The objectives of the experimental program were to:

    Perform required tests of the concrete and steel reinforcement bar (rebar)materials for quality assurance purposes

    Determine actual mechanical properties of materials and compare to standardspecifications

    Verify performance of materials Gain relevant experience with the material combinations prior to determining theexperimental program for the Demonstration Project

    ERDC mix designs for the concrete materials were chosen based on a design concrete

    compressive strength of fc= 5,000 psi (28 day cure) for the conventional concrete and fcof 15,000 psi (56 day cure) for the very high strength concrete. The concrete mix

    constituents and an example of the hardened concrete mesostructure are shown in Figure3.2a and Figure 3.2b for the conventional concrete and the very high strength concrete,respectively.

    Conventional concrete and rebar (Cc-Cr)

    Concrete with compressive strength of fc= 5,000 psiA 615 rebar with yield stress of fy= 60,000 psi

    Very High Strength Concrete and High Strength Rebar (VHSc-HSr)

    Concrete with compressive strength of fc= 15,000 psi

    Rebar with yield stress of fy= 75,000 psi

    Figure 3.1 Concrete Material Steel Reinforcement Bar Material Combinations

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    20/56

    15

    Conventional Concrete Mix Constituents

    1. Type 1 Portland cement2. Fine aggregatesand3. Coarse aggregatelimestone4. Defoaming agent5. High range water reducing agent

    6. Water reducing agent7. Air8. Water

    Very-High-Strength Concrete Mix Constituents

    1. Type 1 Portland cement2. Fine aggregatelimestone3. Coarse aggregatelimestone4. Silica fume5. Fly ash6. High range water reducing agent7. Air8. Water

    Example of Hardened Concrete

    1.5 inch square cross-sectionfrom 6 inch diameter cylinder

    Example of Hardened Concrete

    1.5-inch diameter core cross-section

    from 6 inch diameter cylinder

    (a) Conventional Concrete

    (b) Very High Strength Concrete

    Figure 3.2 Concrete Mix Constituents and Hardened Concrete Appearances

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    21/56

    16

    The steel material used for the reinforcement bars or rebar for the Cc-Cr material

    combination was conventional steel rebar that met the ASTM A615 Grade 60 rebarminimum specified yield stress of fy= 60,000 psi. As high strength vanadium steel rebar

    could not be located in time for the scheduled concrete mixing, batch and placement of

    test specimens, the steel material used for the rebar for the VHSc-HSr material

    combination was 316LN stainless steel Grade 75 rebar that met the ASTM A955 Grade75 rebar minimum specified yield stress of fy= 75,000 psi. For each steel material,

    several 20-ft lengths of #3 and #6 deformed rebar were purchased from commercial

    metals suppliers [ONEAL, Salit].

    The experimental program included mechanical property testing of the concrete and the

    steel materials and small component testing. All testing was quasi-static. The programconsisted of three parts:

    Concrete Materials Testing Steel Rebar Materials Testing Concrete Component Testing

    For the concrete material testing part, tests were performed on hardened concrete

    specimens to determine strengths in major stress/strain states and verify quality control.The tests included:

    Compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens tests Tensile strength tests

    Direct tensile strength of cylindrical concrete specimens tests Splitting tensile strength of cylindrical concrete specimens tests Flexural strength of concrete (modulus of rupture) tests beams

    with square cross-sections

    For the steel rebar materials testing, uniaxial tensile strength tests were performed to

    determine yield stress, ultimate strength and ductility of the conventional and highstrength rebar materials.

    Miscellaneous testing was performed on small hardened reinforced concrete components.The tests included:

    Rebar and bolt pullout tests Reinforced concrete beam flexure strength tests

    Four-point bend 3rd-point loading

    For the test specimens, the mixing and placement of the concrete in the formwork, the

    curing of the concrete test specimens and all testing was performed in the Concrete and

    Materials Branch of the Geotechnical and Structure Laboratory of ERDC in Vicksburg,Mississippi. For each concrete material, the amount of concrete needed for all test

    specimens was 4 cubic feet and due to the size of mixers available, forms were divided

    into three sets and concrete was mixed and placed in three batches. The concrete mixer is

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    22/56

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    23/56

    18

    diameter by 6 inch long cylinder forms and small one-half inch and one inch diameter by

    one inch deep plastic specimen forms for miscellaneous material specimens. Theseforms are shown in Figure 3.4a. Figure 3.4b shows a 6-inch wide by 6-inch deep by 21-

    inch long plastic beam form for a concrete flexure test. A double 12 inch square by 24

    inch deep form and a single 12 inch cube form for embedded rebar pullout testing and a

    12 inch cube form for embedded bolt pullout testing are shown in Figure 3.4c. For thereinforced concrete beam bend test, a 6-inch wide by 6 inch deep by 36-inch long metal

    beam forms is shown in Figure 3.4d.

    Specimens from a specific form were assigned specimen numbers. The numbers

    consisted of a letters representing the concrete or concrete and rebar material type

    designation a batch number and (-if applicable, a sequence number of the specimen in

    the batch, if multiple specimens were placed in the same form type), e.g. Cc2-5 for thefifth cylinder of Cc concrete in batch 2.

    3.2 CONCRETE MATERIALS TESTING

    3.2.1 Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens Tests

    For each concrete material, compressive strength tests were performed on three 6-inch

    diameter by 12-inch long cylinders. One specimen was used from each batch. Reference

    test methods used were ASTM C 39 03 Standard Test Method for CompressiveStrength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens and ASTM C 469 - 02 Standard Test

    Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poissons Ratio of Concrete in Compression.

    As stated in ASTM C39, the compressive strength as determined by this test method is

    (a) Cylinder Forms

    (b) Small Plastic Beam Form for

    Plain Concrete Beam Specimens

    (d) Large Metal Beam Form

    for RC Beam Specimens

    (c) Forms for Rebar and Bolt

    Pullout Test Specimens

    Figure 3.4 Forms for the Concrete Test Specimens

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    24/56

    19

    not a fundamental or intrinsic property of the specific concrete, because compressive

    strength depends on the size and shape of the test specimens, the batching and mixingprocedures, the methods used for sampling, the type of molding and fabrication, the

    temperature, and moisture conditions during curing and the age at testing. However, the

    test was used for quality assurance purposes and values of the compressive strength, fc,

    are used in engineering practice for design purposes.

    The test procedure consists of applying a compressive axial load to a cylinder at a rate

    within a prescribed range specified in the standard test method. The specimen is loadeduntil failure occurs by fracture. All testing was performed using the Baldwin 440,000 lbs

    Universal Testing Machine. The test setup is shown in Figure 3.5a. Specimen

    preparation included demolding of the cylinders and end preparation to ensure parallelend surfaces and axial loading. For the Cc specimens, ends were capped with a sulfur

    compound. A Cc specimen after failure is shown in Figure 3.5b.

    Because the sulfur compound compressive strength is approximately 12,000 lbs andtherefore, less than the expected strength of the VHSc material, the ends of the VHSc test

    specimen cylinders were ground flat. The grinding of a specimen is shown in Figure

    3.6a. For the VHSc material, failure of the cylinders is sudden with the potential fordebris flying outside the boundary of the machine. Therefore, a cage (Figure 3.6b) was

    placed around the specimen to contain pieces that might fracture off at failure of the

    specimen. Figure 3.6b also shows the strain gages that were attached to the specimen andthat were used to obtain data for the static modulus of elasticity and Poissons ratio of

    concrete in compression. As stated in ASTM C469, this data is used in sizing structural

    members, determining quantity of reinforcement and computing stress in the working

    (a) Test Machine and Specimen

    Prior to Compression Test

    (b) Cc Specimen in Machineafter Compression Test

    Figure 3.5 Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Specimens Test Setup and Results

    fc= 4P/d2

    where fc= compressive strength, (psi)

    P= maximum load, (lbs)

    d= diameter, (in)

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    25/56

    20

    stress range of 0-40% of ultimate concrete strength. It was obtained in the case study for

    the computational effort.

    For each test, the compressive strength was calculated by the formula given in Figure 3.5.

    The results of the testing are given in Table 1 and an example of engineering compressive

    stress versus crosshead displacement for the Cc and the VHSc materials is given inFigure 3.7. The compressive strengths of the Cc specimens exceed the design stress of

    5,000 psi. However, all of the compressive strength values for the VHSc specimens are

    less than the design stress of 15,000 psi. On fracture surfaces of specimens of the VHScmaterial, it was discovered that large hydrated cement pieces were contained in the

    concrete matrix and this could account for the reduced strength values. It isrecommended that better quality control of the mixing including sifting of the cement be

    performed in the Demonstration Project to ensure the design concrete compressive

    strength.

    0

    2000

    4000

    6000

    8000

    10000

    12000

    14000

    0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

    Position (in.)

    Stress(psi)

    VHSc

    Cc

    (b) VHSc Specimen: with Strain Gages and with Cage for Specimen

    Debris Containment

    Figure 3.6 VHSc Concrete Cylinder Specimen Preparation and Test Setup

    (a) VHSc Cylindrical Specimenin Grinder

    Figure 3.7 Compressive Strength TestResults - Example: Engineering Stress vs.

    Cross-head Displacement Cc and VHSc

    Cylinder f'c Design

    Concrete Material Specimen Age Compressive Compressive

    ID (days) Strength (psi) Strength (psi)

    Conventional Cc1-1 28 5,500 5,000

    Cc2-1 28 5,900

    Cc3-1 28 5,500

    Very High Strength VHSc1-1 56 13,400 15,000VHSc2-1 56 13,200

    VHSc3-1 56 11,600

    Note 1: ASTM -C39/C 39m-03 and C469-02

    Table 1. Compressive Strength Test Results

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    26/56

    21

    3.2.2 Tensile Strength Tests of Concrete

    Three types of tests were performed to obtain tensile strength data on hardened concrete

    specimens. The tests were:

    Direct Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete to obtain the tensilestrength, S Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete to obtain the

    splitting tensile strength, T

    Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-PointLoading) to obtain Modulus of Rupture,R

    3.2.2.1 Direct Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens Tests

    For each concrete material, direct tensile strength tests were performed on three 6-inchdiameter by 12-inch long cylinders with one cylinder from each batch. The reference test

    methods used was CRD-C 164-92 Standard Test Method for Direct Tensile Strength ofCylindrical Concrete or Mortar Specimens. The test consists of applying an axial tensile

    load at a constant rate within a specified range until failure by fracture of the concreteoccurs. This test is considered to be the most basic test for determining tensile strength.

    For this test, metal caps are required to be cemented to the ends of specimens to provide

    grips and to ensure alignment of the test specimen. However, these caps act as holdingdevices and induce secondary stresses. Because of the capping requirement, this test has

    added expense due to the time and effort involved in the capping process. Another

    disadvantage is that for high strength concrete, failure may occur in the cement betweenthe cap and the concrete and the test then becomes invalid.

    The testing was performed using the Baldwin 440,000 lbs Universal Testing Machine.The test setup is shown in Figure 3.8a with a Cc concrete specimen during loading andjust after fracture. A tested specimen that failed in the concrete is shown in Figure 3.8b.

    (a) Example of Direct Tensile Strength of Cc ConcreteDuring Loading and just after Fracture

    (b) Cc Direct Tensile

    Test Specimen

    Figure 3.8 Direct Tensile Strength Test Setup and Test Specimen

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    27/56

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    28/56

    23

    The splitting tensile strength is calculated by the formula:

    The results of the splitting tensile strength testing are given in Table 3 for both the Cc and

    the VHSc materials. The percent that each splitting tensile strength value is of thecorresponding design compressive strength was calculated and also given in the table.

    (a) Splitting Tensile Test Specimen Holder

    T= 2P/ld

    where T= splitting tensile strength, (psi)

    P= failure load, (lbs)l= length, (in)

    d= diameter, (in)

    (b) Example of Splitting Tensile Strength of Concrete Specimens Test

    Specimen in Test Machine - before and after Test

    (c) Cc Splitting Tensile

    Test Specimen

    Figure 3.9 Splitting Tension Test Setup and Test Specimen

    Cylinder T, Splitting

    Concrete Material Specimen Age Tensile Strength % f'cID (days) (psi)

    Conventional Cc1-2 28 450 9

    Cc2-2 28 435 9

    Cc3-2 28 460 9

    Very High Strength VHSc1-4 56 660 4

    VHSc2-4 56 700 5

    VHSc3-4 56 725 5

    Note 1: ASTM A496/C496M-04

    Table 3. Splitting Tensile Strength Test Results

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    29/56

    24

    3.2.2.3 Flexural Strength of Concrete (Modulus of Rupture) Tests

    For each concrete material, flexural strength tests were performed on three 21 inch long

    plain concrete beams with 6 inch wide by 6 inch deep square cross-sections to determine

    the modulus of rupture. The reference test method was ASTM C 78 - 02 Standard Test

    Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (using Simple Beam with Third-PointLoading). Each beam is simply supported and third point loading is applied at a constant

    rate within a specified range and through bearing blocks until rupture occurs. The test is

    considered valid if the fracture occurs in the middle third of the span length. All of thetesting was performed using the Baldwin 440,000 lbs Universal Testing Machine and the

    test setup is shown in Figure 3.10

    For all test specimens, fracture occurred in the middle third of the span length. Themodulus of rupture was calculated using the following formula:

    Table 4 gives the modulus of rupture and the percent of the design fcfor both the Cc and

    the VHSc materials.

    Figure 3.10 Flexure Strength Test Setup

    R=PL/bd2

    where R= modulus of rupture, (psi)

    P= maximum load, (lbs)L= span length, (in)

    d= depth of specimen, (in)

    Flexure R, ModulusConcrete Material Specimen Age of Rupture % f'c

    ID (days) (psi)

    Conventional Cc1 28 665 13Cc2 28 685 14

    Cc3 28 685 14

    Very High Strength VHSc1 56 1370 9

    VHSc2 56 1195 8

    VHSc3 56 1340 9

    Note 1: ASTM C 78-02

    Table 4. Flexure Strength Test Results

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    30/56

    25

    Results of all three tensile strength tests are consistent with the observations that usually

    values of tensile strength determined by the these test methods are approximately 5-10%of the compressive strength determined by compression tests on cylindrical concrete

    specimens and that strength magnitudes are in the following order:

    S < T < Rdirect tensile splitting tensile modulus of rupture

    3.3 STEEL REBAR MATERIALS TESTING

    Uniaxial tension testing was performed on the conventional and the high strength steel

    rebar materials to determine yield strength, ultimate strength and ductility of thecommercially produced rebar. The reference test methods were ASTM A 370 01

    Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products and E 8

    01 Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials.

    Testing was performed at 70F (room temperature) using an MTS Universal TestingMachine (100 kip load frame and load cell), a one-inch gage length extensometer with a

    maximum percent strain of 18%, and a MTS computer-based data acquisition system.

    The test setup is shown in Figure 3.11a and b. Testing was performed in displacementcontrol mode at a rate of 1/16 inch per minute. The testing conditions are summarized in

    Figure 3.11d. For each material, specimens included No. 6 deformed bars in the as-

    received condition, No. 3 deformed bars in the as-received condition and No. 3deformed bars with a machined necked-down region. Examples of the test specimens for

    both materials are shown in Figure 3.11c

    MTS Universal Testing Machine100 kip Load frame and Load cellQuasi-static Testing

    Displacement ControlRoom Temperature

    Extensometer

    (a) MTS Machine with Test Specimen

    (b) Test Specimen with

    Extensometer

    (d) Test Conditions

    (c) Cr and HSr Test

    Specimen Types

    Figure 3.11 Uniaxial Rebar Tension Test Setup and Conditions

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    31/56

    26

    The engineering stress-engineering strain curves for the No. 3 and the No.6 deformed

    bars in the as-received conditions are given for both the Cr and the HSr materials inFigure 3.12a and Figure 3.12b, respectively. The corresponding tension test data is

    summarized in Table 5. The ASTM minimum yield stress and ultimate strength values

    are also shown in the table. The results indicate that there can be a wide variation in yield

    stress and ultimate strength values; that minimum values may not be acquired, and also,that as-received material may significantly exceed minimum specified values. As the

    rebar in the Demonstration Project will be used in the as-received condition, actual

    strength values should be obtained and used in reinforced component designs instead ofspecified minimum values.

    The engineering stress-engineering strain curves for the No. 3 deformed bars with

    machined necked-down central regions are given for both the Cr and the HSr materials in

    Figure 3.13. The corresponding tension test data is summarized in Table 6. The ASTM

    minimum yield stress and ultimate strength values for unmachined rebar tests are alsoshown in the table. For both materials, yield stress and ultimate strength values are above

    Figure 3.12 Engineering Stress-Engineering Strain Curves Nos. 3 & 6 Deformed Rebars

    - as-received Condition

    0

    20000

    40000

    60000

    80000

    100000

    120000

    140000

    160000

    0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

    Engineering Strain (in/in)

    En

    gineeringStress(psi)

    0

    20000

    40000

    60000

    80000

    100000

    120000

    140000

    160000

    0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

    Engineering Strain (in/in)

    En

    gineeringStress(psi)

    (a) No. 3 Rebars (b) No. 6 Rebars

    HSr #6d

    Cr #6d

    HSr #3d

    Cr #3d

    fy, Yield Stress Ultimate Strength % Elongation

    Bar Size Rebar type Specimen Test ASTM min. Test ASTM min. Test

    ID (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)

    No. 3 Conventional 3C3d 69 60 107 90 >18

    3C4d 68 106 >18

    3C5d 43 81 >13

    High Strength 3H1d 109 75 140 100 >18

    3H2d note 2 139 note 2

    3H3d 111 141 >18

    No. 6 Conventional 6C1d 53 60 66 90 >16

    6C3d 61 100 >18

    High Strength 6H1d 65 75 101 100 >18

    6H2d 74 109 >18

    Note 1: ASTM - minimum values from ASTM A 615 Grade 60 and ASTM A955 Grade 75; Note 2: Error in acquiring strain data

    Table 5 Uniaxial Tension Test Results Nos. 3 & 6 Deformed Rebars as-received Condition

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    32/56

    27

    the minimum specified values and there is little variation in strength value for a given

    material.

    3.4 CONCRETE COMPONENTS TESTING

    As indicated in the test results above, concrete material is much stronger in compression

    than in tension and therefore, reinforcement is needed to resist the tensile stresses

    resulting from induced loads on structural components.Rebar and bolt pullout testing andreinforced beam bending tests were performed to work with embedded metal and

    reinforcement in both of the concrete materials prior to the demonstration project.

    Rebar Pullout Tests: Rebar pullout test specimens were prepared for both material

    combinations. The reference test standards are ASTM C 234 91a and CRD-C 24-01Standard Test Method for Comparing Concretes on the Basis of the Bond Developed

    with Reinforcing Steel. Both single block specimens and specimens split from double

    blocks were used. The forms are shown in Figure 3.4c. For the single block forms, therebars are oriented vertically during concrete placement. The double blocks had two

    embedded rebars. The rebars were in horizontal positions in these forms. One week after

    placement, the double blocks were split along the central horizontal plane into two cube

    specimens with each cube having a centrally located rebar. The blocks were designatedtop and bottom. The cubes from the double forms were used to test if there was a

    difference in pullout strength due to distance that a horizontally oriented bar was

    vertically located during placement of the concrete. Each material combination had fivesingle blocks with embedded rebars and there were three and two double blocks for the

    Cc-Cr and the VHSc-HSr material combinations, respectively.

    The test setup is shown in Figure 3.14a. For the test, the block specimen with the rebar

    oriented vertically is placed on a thin base ring, a square plate with a square cutout for the

    blocks top surface is screwed onto the sides of the block, a fixture to hold the twoLVDTs for displacement measurement is attached by screws to the rebar, a multi-piece

    alignment fixture (shown in Figure 3.14b) is placed on top of the cube, and a hydraulic

    jack is positioned on top of the fixture and connected to the upper end of the rebar by a

    Bar Size - No. 3 fy Ultimate %

    Rebar type Specimen Yield Stress Strength ElongationID (ksi) (ksi)

    Conventional 3C1n 71 113 >18

    3C2n 69 112 >18

    3C3n 73 115 >18

    ASTM A615 Gr601

    60 90

    High Strength 3H1n 89 126 >18

    3H2n 84 124 >18

    3H3n 88 123 >18

    ASTM A955 Gr751

    75 100

    Note 1: ASTM - minimum values for comparison purposes only

    Figure 3.13 Engineering Stress-Engineering

    Strain Curves - No. 3 Deformed

    Rebars Necked Specimens

    0

    20000

    40000

    60000

    80000

    100000

    120000

    140000

    160000

    0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

    Engineering Strain (in/in)

    EngineeringStress(psi)

    Cr #3n

    HSr #3n

    Table 6 Uniaxial Tension Test Results Nos. 3

    Necked Specimens

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    33/56

    28

    segmented nut. The LVDTs are inserted into their holding fixture and put into contact

    with the square plate and zeroed. The rebar is pulled upward as the jack bears on theblock until failure of the concrete occurs. Force and displacement data are recorded. The

    results of the rebar testing for both material combinations are shown in Table 7 and a

    tested specimen is shown in Figure 3.14c.

    (a) Test Specimen with Measuring andTesting Fixtures

    (b) Alignment Pieces

    Figure 3.14 Rebar Pullout Test Setup

    (c) Example - VHSc HSr Rebar PulloutTest Specimen - after Testing

    P, Maximum

    Concrete Material Specimen Rebar Specimen Age Load P averageType

    LocationID (days)

    (lbs) (lbs)Conventional Single - Cc-Cr 1 +56 13,000

    - Cc-Cr 2 +56 13,400

    - Cc-Cr 3 +56 9,800 12,100

    Double Top Cc-Cr 1T +56 16,300

    Cc-Cr 2T +56 13,200

    Cc-Cr 3T +56 14,700 14,800

    Bottom Cc-Cr 1B +56 20,800

    Cc-Cr 2B +56 15,800

    Cc-Cr 3B +56 18,400 18,300

    Very High Strength Single - VHSc-HSr 1 +56 no data

    - VHSc-HSr 2 +56 22,300- VHSc-HSr 3 +56 20,500 21,400

    Double Top VHSc-HSr 1T +56 23,800

    VHSc-HSr 2T +56 29,800 26,800

    Bottom VHSc-HSr 1B +56 27,600

    VHSc-HSr 2B +56 25,200 26,400

    Note 1: ASTM C 900 - 01

    Table 7 Rebar Pullout Test Results

    Note 1: ASTM C 234-91a

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    34/56

    29

    The tabulated values show a variation in pullout force magnitudes for most of the

    specimen type and rebar location combinations. However, in general, higher averageloads were obtained for specimens that had rebars oriented in the horizontal position

    during the concrete placement. For these specimens, the Cc-Cr material combination also

    showed differences in the vertical rebar placement in that pullout forces for the top blocks

    were less than those for the bottom blocks. As rebar bond strength is an importantperformance issue, it is recommended that rebar-concrete bond experiments be performed

    in the Demonstration Project.

    Bolt Pullout Tests: Bolt pullout testing was performed for both the Cc and the VHSc

    concrete materials. The reference test standard is ASTM C 900 - 01 Standard Test

    Method for Pullout Strength of Hardened Concrete. For each concrete material, fiveblock specimens were prepared with two specimens in batch 1 and batch 2 and one

    specimen in batch 3. For each test specimen, a high-strength bolt with a hexagonal head

    and a threaded end was used and the bolt head was embedded in the concrete to aspecified depth. For testing of a specimen, a machined high-strength steel connector rod

    was screwed onto the bolt end and the same procedure was used for the pullout test ashad been used in the rebar pullout tests. The maximum pullout load test results are given

    in Table 8 and show that the VHSc average pullout loads were slightly higher than the Ccloads. Figure 3.15 shows a VHSc bolt pullout test specimen after testing with the

    fractured concrete block and the bolt with concrete material.

    Although the bolt pullout tests provide some information on type of fracture, quality and

    strength of a concrete with shallow embedded inserts, there is significant time and effortinvolved in the testing. Also, further testing would require machined inserts instead of

    bolts to relate test results to the compressive (tension) strength of the concrete. Theseadvantages and disadvantages need to be taken into account if this test method is to be

    considered for inclusion in the Demonstration Project testing program.

    Cube with Bolt P, MaximumConcrete Material Specimen Age Load P average

    ID (days) (lbs) (lbs)

    Conventional Cc1-1 +56 5,100Cc1-2 +56 5,700

    Cc2-1 +56 5,600

    Cc2-2 +56 5,500

    Cc3-1 +56 4,200 5,200

    Very High Strength VHSc1-1 +56 5,200

    VHSc1-2 +56 5,900

    VHSc2-1 +56 6,400

    VHSc2-2 +56 6,400

    VHSc3-1 +56 5,800 5,900

    Note 1: ASTM C 900 - 01

    Table 8 Bolt Pullout Test Results

    Figure 3.15 Bolt Pullout Test Specimens -Example: VHSc Bolt Pullout Concrete

    Test Specimen and Concrete Cone on

    Bolt head after Testing

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    35/56

    30

    Reinforced Concrete Beam Flexure Strength Tests: Concrete beam specimens withtensile reinforcement only were prepared for four-point (3rd-point loading) bend testing.

    The testing method was similar to that in the ASTM C 78 - 02 Standard Test Method for

    Flexural Strength of Concrete (using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading) referencetest standard. The purpose of these tests was to gain experience with concrete placement

    with respect to workability, flowability and compaction of the concretes in forms withreinforcement and in testing reinforced components for the selected concrete mixes. Thedesign of reinforced beams was done on under-reinforced beam basis to try to ensure

    rebar yielding before concrete failure. The manufacturers specified minimum yieldstresses for the No. 3 rebars were used in the design.

    The test setup is shown in Figure 3.16a and testing was performed using the Baldwin440,000 lbs Universal Testing Machine. For both material combinations, the specimens

    underwent some tensile side cracking in the central section before shear failure occurred

    near the support.

    The maximum loads are given in Table 9 and example load time histories are shown inFigure 3.17 for both material combinations. From these results, it is recommended that

    rebar material be tested to obtain actual mechanical properties that then should be used to

    design the reinforced components in the Demonstration Project.

    (b) VHSc-HSr Tested Specimen(a) Test Specimen in Test Machineprior to Testing

    Figure 3.16 Pullout Test Specimens after Testing

    0

    2,000

    4,000

    6,000

    8,000

    10,000

    12,000

    14,000

    16,000

    18,000

    20,000

    0 103 203 303

    Time (sec)

    Load(lbs)

    Figure 3.17 Reinforced Concrete Beam

    Flexure Test Results Example

    RC Beam P, Maximum P, AverageMaterial Specimen Age Load Paverage

    Combination ID (days) (lbs) (lbs)

    Conventional Cc-Cr 1 +56 15,900

    Cc-Cr 2 +56 15,200

    Cc-Cr 3 +56 15,500 15,500

    Very High Strength VHSc-HSr 1 +56 13,200

    VHSc-HSr 2 +56 15,000

    VHSc-HSr 3 +56 12,600 13,600

    Note 1: ASTM C 78-02

    Table 9. RC Beam Test Results - Maximum Loads

    Cc-Cr

    VHSc-HSr

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    36/56

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    37/56

    32

    4: Computations

    4.1 INTRODUCTION

    4.1.1 Objective

    The objective of this effort was to conduct a preliminary assessment of the applicability

    of currently-available constitutive models to the case of high-strength steel reinforcing in

    conjunction with high-strength concrete.

    4.1.2 Technical Background

    Typically, the numerical solution of the continuum equations proceeds by discretizing thespace-variables using the finite element (FE) methods which include incorporating

    constitutive equations and failure models. The constitutive equations and underlying

    failure models are based on actual experiments and vary from purely phenomenologicalto micro-structurally based prediction procedures. Problems with high rates of loading

    (e.g., structures under blast conditions) require such that the solution is advanced in time

    using an explicit time integration scheme. The explicit method, however, is onlyconditionally stable, i.e, the size of the time step is limited by the Courant stability

    criteria and is usually very small.

    ParaDyn is the FE code used in this study. The steps involved in solving applications

    using ParaDyn on scalable computers are: 1) Mesh/grid generation using pre-processing

    software, 2) Partition or spatial decomposition of the solution domain on to desirednumber of processors, 3) Execution of the problem on scalable computers, and 4)

    Gathering and Post-processing results from all the processors, usually referred to by themnemonic abbreviation MPEG.

    Domain decomposition and gathering of results are the primary differences betweenserial and scalable methods. The objective behind partitioning is to balance the

    computational load and optimize communications between processors. For description of

    the implementation of ParaDyn on scalable computers refer to [Appendix 4.1].

    4.1.3 Approach

    Initially, a number of constitutive models were evaluated for both the concrete matrix andthe reinforcement. Due to the nature of the applications to be addressed in this program,

    the constitutive models were restricted to those suited for explicit integration FEanalyses. Special care was given such that these models include the capability of

    differing behavior in tension and compression in the case of the concrete matrix, theinclusion of failure mechanisms and erosion schemes for both the reinforcement and the

    concrete, as well as the inclusion of enhanced material strengths due to strain-rate

    dependencies. It is noted that the concrete constitutive model is suited for normalstrength-concretes or up to 10 ksi (70 Mpa). Experimental data were gathered for the

    normal strength concrete and the reinforcement. These data were obtained either from

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    38/56

    33

    new tests conducted in the laboratory at ERDC or from the literature. The data were

    fitted to the numerical constitutive models and tested such that the behavior of thematerial is replicated within a tolerable limit for simple numerical models. Numerical

    benchmark experiments were also carried out to ensure the valid behavior of these

    models for more complex geometries and load conditions. Subsequently, a FE model was

    generated for the normal strength-steel bar embedded in normal strength-concrete matrix.A pre-test analysis was conducted to estimate the bars pullout force. It is noted that the

    analysis was carried out in a scalable fashion, i.e., the mesh was partitioned and

    distributed to a number of processors and once the actual analysis was completed themesh was reassembled for visualization and numerical-data extraction purposes. In

    addition, a preliminary constitutive model was developed for high strength-concrete. The

    basis for this model is found in the original normal strength-concrete constitutive modelchosen for the study described above. At this point, this constitutive model requires

    further validation that can be derived from controlled laboratory tests under different

    stress/strain environments. Once the validation is completed, the constitutive model canbe used to predict events under quasi-static and dynamic loading conditions.

    4.2 MATERIAL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS

    For the numerical simulations carried out for this study, the concrete matrix is

    represented using a modified nonlinear, elastoplastic, three-invariant, three-parametermodel which was specifically developed for use with concrete [2]. The reinforcement is

    simulated using a modified elastic-plastic model with isotropic hardening and failure

    based on a limiting strain level.

    4.2.1 Concrete

    A modified version of the geologic/concrete model (Model 16) available in DYNA3D-LLNL [3] is used as the constitutive model for the concrete. This is a nonlinear elastic-

    plastic, three-invariant, three-failure surface model as suggested by Willam and Warnke

    [4] and as further modified and implemented to account for dynamic loadingenvironments. This model uses a partly non-associative flow rule, a pressure-volume

    dependent failure criterion in compression, and a fracture energy-based failure in tension.

    The concrete model remains the same for all the analyses carried out for this study. Itshould be noted that rate enhancements for this material are used in all the FE analyses

    conducted. Independent strain rate enhancements are used for the compressive and tensile

    regime, as illustrated in Figure 4.1. These rates are readily available in the literature

    although the fitting methodology of the available data may give rise to slightly differentrate enhancement values (curves).

    In general, for this constitutive model the plastic flow is governed by a failure surfacewhose compressive meridian is determined in part by two of the three functions:

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    39/56

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    40/56

    35

    4.2.2 Reinforcing steel model

    The constitutive model used for the reinforcing steel is an elastic-plastic model with

    isotropic hardening that accounts for strain rate enhancements and failure considerations

    of the reinforcement once a threshold level of strain is reached (Model 24 in

    ParaDyn/Dyna3D). The failure criterion is based on the ultimate effective plastic strainaccumulation limit provided in advance. The equation governing the effective plastic

    strain accumulation is:

    wherepl

    eff and pl are the effective plastic and plastic strains, respectively. It should be

    noted that the original model, as found in the original code, is neither suited to be usedwith one-dimensional elements nor providing ultimate strain-level considerations. The

    modified Model 24 was developed specifically to meet these needs under the auspice of a

    Defense Thread Reduction Agencys (DTRA) Conventional Weapons Effects program.ERDC was instrumental in developing and validating this material model in collaboration

    with APTEC, Inc. Both the original and modified models account for strain rate

    enhancements.

    4.3 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

    4.3.1 Constitutive Model for Normal Strength Concrete:

    A plethora of constitutive models of normal strength concretes are available in the

    literature [5]. Only a few, however, can capture the behavior of concrete accurately in

    both tension and compression by making a distinct effort to precisely model the tensileand compressive meridian. Even fewer, can predict the behavior of concrete structures

    under loadings of interest to the US Army and the Corps of Engineers. The concrete

    model described in an earlier section of this chapter has been scrutinized, numerically

    tested and experimentally verified for simple and complex states of stress and loadingenvironments (ranging from quasi-static to highly non-linear dynamic). One more

    desirable aspect of this model is the fact that although numerically cumbersome, it is,

    nevertheless, a practical model when incorporated correctly in the numerical arena. Inaddition, the experience of using this particular model by the investigators at ERDC and

    the fact that the source code is available for modifications and enhancements makes the

    model even more attractive and applicable for this particular study.

    4.3.2 Constitutive Model Modification for Normal Strength Steels

    As mentioned in section 4.2.2 the constitutive model used for the reinforcing steel is the

    modified models 24 currently found in the ParaDYn/Dyna3D codes. No modificationswere deemed necessary. The parameters extracted from the experimental data, such as

    elastic modulus, yield strength, pairs of pl and pl that describe the plastic regime of

    plplpl

    eff

    tpl

    eff

    pl

    eff dddd 3

    2,

    0== (7)

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    41/56

    36

    the stress-strain curve, and the maximum strain attained before fracture, were directly

    used as input parameters of the numerical model, model 24.

    4.3.3 Constitutive Model Modification for High Strength Steels

    As with the previous case, no modifications were deemed necessary. The parametersextracted from the experimental data for the high strength steel, such as elastic modulus,

    yield strength, pairs of pl and pl that describe the plastic regime of the stress-strain

    curve, and the maximum strain attained before fracture, were directly used as input

    parameters of the numerical model, model 24. In addition, a best fit values for the pl

    and pl pairs gave an estimate of the tangent modulus of the material which in

    conjunction with the maximum strain can be used to describe the behavior of the material

    in the plastic region.

    Modeling of the steel reinforcement can be accomplished using much more sophisticated

    constitutive relations. The fact that the behavior of the model described above is kept to

    the minimum possible complexity and at the same time yields reliable results promptedthe investigator in using this model versus a more sophisticated one

    4.3.4 Preliminary Constitutive Model for High Strength Concrete

    The current constitutive model for normal strength-concrete is only applicable up to 10-ksi compressive strength levels of concrete. The new high strength-concrete is demanding

    compressive strength levels of the order of 15-20 ksi and higher. Thus, the mathematical

    formulation of the current normal strength-constitutive model needs to be enhanced such

    that these levels of strength are included. It is envisioned that the new high strength-

    concrete model will be treated separately compared to that of the normal strength-concrete model. At this time, the formulation of the high strength-constitutive model has

    been completed at the preliminary level. The fact that there are no experimental dataavailable in the biaxial and triaxial states of stress/strain for both compression and tension

    makes the development of this model very preliminary and without validation. The

    volumetric and deviatoric responses of the high strength-concrete need to be investigatedexperimentally and the results implemented in the new numerical model since (as with

    the normal strength-concrete) a three-invariant model is necessary.

    For this study, the approach taken included the modification of the normal strength-concrete mathematical formulae describing the three independent failure surfaces as well

    as other mathematical parameters, e.g. lodes angle which describe the location andmagnitude of these surfaces in stress space. As a first approximation, the tensile meridianwas expanded such that it can accommodate uniaxial, biaxial, and triaxial strengths as

    high as twice as that of the normal strength-concrete envelopes. In addition, the

    compressive meridian was expanded such that the compressive strength magnitude canbe enhanced to two and one-half times the limit strength of the normal strength-concrete

    envelope. The 2:5:2 ratio of the maximum compressive to tensile enhancement was

    necessary to avoid singularity of the two meridians at their intersecting location.

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    42/56

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    43/56

    38

    Figure 4.2. Representative Material fittings in Compression and Tension

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    44/56

    39

    Figure 4.3. Two views of the numerical model used to simulate the pullout test full

    option

    Figure 4.4. Numerical model used to simulate the pullout test half option

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    45/56

    40

    Figure 4.5. Preliminary analysis for normal strength concrete/steel pull-out test damage

    levels at four stages

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    46/56

    41

    Figure 4.6. Damage evolution and transition from symmetric (at early time) to non-

    symmetric (at late time) of the pullout test simulation

    Figure 4.7. Partition of the pullout test for a 16-processor analysis

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    47/56

    42

    5: Usage and Risk

    5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

    The environmental benefits of using vanadium steel rebar were investigated in the case

    study. This investigation was directly related to the results of the parametric analysis thatwas conducted on two representative structural members. It was concluded that the area

    of rebar required for a given threat was decreased by 29-37% for a structural wall slab

    with double reinforcement when utilizing high-strength materials rather thanconventional materials. In this case, the only parameters that were changed were the

    material strengths and the spacing of #8 rebar. The structural members were designed to

    undergo a target support rotation of about 4 degrees, when subjected to the given threat.Figure 5.1 shows the results from this analysis. The figure shows four different material

    combinations ranging from 5 ksi concrete compressive strength coupled with 60 ksi steel

    reinforcement yield stress up to 25 ksi concrete compressive strength coupled with 100ksi steel reinforcement yield stress. From the figure, one can determine that as theconcrete and steel reinforcement strengths increase, the area of rebar required to obtain

    the targeted 4 degree support rotation decreases. This scenario was also the case in

    analyzing a structural wall slab with a single layer of reinforcement. The only differencein this analysis was that the targeted support rotation was 2 degrees instead of 4 degrees.

    Figure 5.2 shows the same trend as Figure 5.1, as the material strengths increase the area

    of rebar required decreases. However, in this case the decrease is even more significant.The percent decrease of the area of rebar required to obtain 2 degrees support rotation for

    a singly reinforced wall slab ranges from 50-70% when higher strength materials are

    utilized.

    From this analysis, one can conclude that using high strength material combinations will

    significantly reduce the total area of steel reinforcement required to meet specifications in

    blast design. In turn, it can be concluded that the less steel that has to be produced in thesteel mill; the less pollution will be distributed into the atmosphere. The energy

    consumption at the steel mill, CO2emissions into the atmosphere, and the number of

    trucks transporting the rebar to the jobsite would all decrease, which should result in apositive impact on the environment.

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    48/56

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    49/56

    44

    5.2MANUFACTURING ASSESSMENT

    Several steel mini-mills across the United States and even Canada were contacted to

    determine which mills are able to produce the vanadium rebar that meets researched

    specifications of this project. This was a collaborative process between key technical

    advisors of the Cooperative Agreement Management Committee (CAMC) and ERDCpersonnel. A request for quote was sent to four mini-mills that specifically stated the

    chemical composition and mechanical properties that were required. Two of the four

    mills responded they could produce the rebar to meet our specifications. Of the two mills,SMI-South Carolina was chosen as the preferred mill. This choice was based on their

    previous experience and their production schedule.

    The non-availability of vanadium rebar could be a potential risk associated with

    vanadium-alloyed steel reinforcement. Currently, very few steel mills produce vanadium

    rebar as an everyday operation. Many have the possibility to do so, but it is not aneveryday occurrence due to lack of demand. One situation where this could be a potential

    risk is a time-dependant project. If a structure needs to be constructed in a timely manner,in todays market, finding a mill to produce the vanadium rebar required would be an

    obstacle due to their production schedules.

    5.3FINANCIAL CHARACTERIZATION

    The costs benefits of using vanadium rebar were considered. Figure 5.3 demonstrates the

    level of protection provided by the same four material combinations as used before. Inthis case, the area of reinforcement was held constant along with member geometry.

    From the figure, one can determine as the material strength increases the support rotationdecreases. For a given threat, area of rebar, and member geometry, the higher strength

    material provides 25-38% decrease in support rotation. If the level of protection of the

    structure required a support rotation no greater than 3.5 degrees, the conventionalmaterial combination would not be sufficient. In order to provide a sufficient facility, one

    would have to increase the member size and the amount of rebar, therefore, increasing

    material and labor cost.

    The higher strength material combination allows the designer to use the smaller member

    sizes while not compromising on protection level provided. In turn, the smaller member

    sizes provide more space to be utilized inside a structure. From an architecturalstandpoint, this could be very important. It could also lead to more savings for the owner

    because less purchased property will be required to build their structure on. In

    conclusion, the less material one has to deal with, the less expensive the facility will be.

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    50/56

    45

    Increased Protection with Same Area of Steel Reinforcement

    Given Threat at 100'

    0

    0.25

    0.5

    0.75

    1

    1.251.5

    1.75

    2

    2.25

    2.5

    2.75

    3

    3.25

    3.5

    3.75

    4

    4.25

    4.5

    4.75

    5

    5.25

    5.5

    5.75

    6

    Material Combinations

    SupportRotation(degrees)

    5 ksi / 60 ksi

    15 ksi / 75 ksi

    15 ksi / 85 ksi

    25 ksi/100 ksi

    Figure 5.3. Increased Protection Provided

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    51/56

    46

    6: Conclusions

    6.1CONCLUSIONS

    The research conducted in this case study provided valuable information for theadvancement of vanadium alloyed steel reinforcement bar and its use as primary

    reinforcement in high-strength concrete. The parametric analysis portrayed the potentialfor weight, space, and cost savings. An increased level of protection can also be obtained

    when utilizing the higher-strength material combination. The results concluded that a

    typical 12-inch thick reinforced concrete wall constructed of standard concrete andreinforcing materials will incur roughly 30% more response (in terms of support rotation)

    than a similar wall constructed of the 15/75 materials. The increased level of response

    gained from using higher-strength materials could lead to the design of smaller membersizes to obtain the same level of response. This could be critical when restrictions on

    member sizes or available space control the design. These savings not only affect the cost

    of the structure, but also have positive implications on the environment. Theadvantageous effects attributable to the reduction in materials result in a healthierenvironment due to less CO2emissions into the atmosphere at the steel mill. Less

    material also results in less transportation of the reinforcement to the jobsite, which in

    turn, results in less fuel consumption and less pollution into the air from the freightcarriers.

    The mechanical properties and hands on experience gained through the experimentaltesting program provided critical information as the program advances into the

    demonstration phase. Necessary quality assurance measures became apparent throughout

    the testing process. These measures will be critical in the demonstration phase in order to

    obtain a quality product and also to design the structural components correctly. Specificmaterial property testing, specifically dynamic material property testing of both the high-

    strength concrete and steel reinforcement, is considered necessary in the demonstration

    phase of the project. These properties are necessary due to the strain-rate sensitivity ofthe concrete and steel materials.

    The computational effort consisted of a preliminary assessment of the applicability ofcurrently-available constitutive models to the case of high-strength steel reinforcing in

    conjunction with high-strength concrete. The initial evaluation concluded that theconcrete constitutive model is suited for normal strength-concretes up to 10 ksi (70 Mpa).

    Experimental data was gathered for the normal strength concrete and reinforcement then

    fitted to the numerical constitutive model and tested such that the behavior of the materialis replicated within a tolerable limit for simple numerical models. Subsequently, a FE

    model was generated for the normal strength-steel bar embedded in normal strength-

    concrete and a pre-test analysis was conducted to estimate the bars pullout force. Inaddition, a preliminary constitutive model was developed for high strength-concrete

    based on the original normal strength-concrete constitutive model. This model requires

    further validation that can be derived from controlled laboratory tests under different

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    52/56

    47

    stress/strain environments. Once the validation is completed, the model will be used to

    predict events under quasi-static and dynamic loading conditions.

    In conclusion, through an extensive parametric, computational, and experimental

    investigation, the mechanical properties of a high-strength and extremely ductile

    vanadium-alloyed steel reinforcement bar were shown to be advantageous when used toreinforce a very-high-strength-concrete. This innovative combination will now be

    investigated for use in newly-constructed reinforced concrete protective structures for

    United States Army use, as well as for conventional construction.

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    53/56

    48

    Acknowledgements

    We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Billy D. Neeley in the selection of and

    providing of the concrete mix designs, Rudy Andreatta in the mixing and placement of

    the concrete specimens, Michael K. Lloyd for specimen preparation, Dan E. Wilson and

    Joe G. Tom for data acquisition setup and specimen testing, Stephen D. Robert forassistance in the parametric analysis, and the ERDC Directorate of Public Works (DPW)

    machine shop personnel for fabrication of test fixtures.

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    54/56

    49

    References

    Standard Methods of Testing:

    ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA USA

    ASTM Designation -

    A 370 01 - Standard Test Methods for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products

    A 615/A 615M 03a Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Billet-Steel

    Bars for Concrete Reinforcement

    A 706/A 706M 03 Standard Specification for Low-Alloy Steel Deformed andPlain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement

    A 955/A955M 05a Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Stainless-

    Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement

    C39/D39M 03 - Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical

    Concrete Specimens

    C79 02 Standard test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple

    Beam with Third-Point Loading)

    C 234 91a Standard Test Method for Comparing Concretes on the Basis of theBond Developed with Reinforcing Steel (CRD-C24-01)

    C 469 02 Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and PoissonsRatio of Concrete in Compression

    C 496/C 496M 04 Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength ofCylindrical Concrete Specimens

    C 900 01 Standard Test Method for Pullout Strength of Hardened Concrete

    E 8 - 01 Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials

    CRD C 164-92 Standard Test Method for Direct Tensile Strength of Cylindrical

    Concrete or Mortar Specimens

    Chen, W.F. Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete, McGraw Hill, New York, 1982.

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    55/56

    50

    Hoover, C.G., DeGroot, A.J., and Pocassini, R.J. ParaDyn: DYNA3D for massivelyparallel computers, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL 53838-94, 1995.

    Logicon RDA. Joint DNA UTP Precision Test Modeling and CEW Structural BenchmarkMeeting, Meeting Proceedings, 1994.

    Malvar, L.J., Crawford, J.E., and Wesevich, J.W. A New Concrete Material Model forDYNA3D, Karagozian and Case, TR 94-14.1, 1994.

    ONEAL Steel, Pearl, MS, ASTM A 615 Deformed Reinforcement Bars: No. 3 and No. 6

    Grade 60, Heat numbers J4-3907 and C4-1060, September 14, 2004.

    Salit Specialty Rebar, Niagara Falls, N.Y., Reinforcement Bars: No. 3 and No. 6 Grade

    75 Type 316LN, Heat numbers G7446, G7907, Invoice 316668, September 13, 2004.

    Whirley, R.G., and Engelmann, B.E. DYNA3D-A Nonlinear, Explicit, Three-Dimensional Finite Element Code for Solid and Structural Mechanics-Users Manual,UCRL-MA-107254 Rev. 1, 1993.

    Woodson, Stanley C. and Baylot, James T., Structural Collapse: Quarter-Scale Model

    Experiments, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, August 1999.

  • 8/13/2019 Vanadium Rebar Case Study.pdf

    56/56

    APPENDIX 4.1

    Dyna3D: A Nonlinear, Explicit, Three-Dimensional Finite Element Code for Solid

    and Structural MechanicsDyna3D is an explicit finite element code for analyzing the transient dynamic response of

    three dimensional solids and structures. The element formulations available include one-dimensional truss and beam elements, two-dimensional quadrilateral and triangular shell

    elements, two-dimensional delamination and cohesive interface elements, and three-

    dimensional continuum elements.

    Many material models are available to represent a wide range of material behavior,

    including elasticity, plasticity, composites, thermal effects, and rate dependence. Inaddition, Dyna3D has a sophisticated contact interface capability, including frictional

    sliding and single surface contact, to handle arbitrary mechanical interactions between

    independent bodies or between two portions of one body. Also, all element types support

    rigid materials for modeling rigid body dynamics or for accurately representing thegeometry and mass distribution of a complex body at minimum cost.

    ParaDyn: A Parallel Nonlinear Explicit, Three-Dimensional Finite-Element Code

    for Solid and Structural Mechanics

    ParaDyn is a parallel version of the Dyna3D computer program, a three-dimensionalexplicit finite-element program for analyzing the dynamic response of solids and

    structures. The ParaDyn program has been used as a production tool for several years for

    analyzing problems which range in size from a few tens of thousands of elements to

    several million elements. ParaDyn runs on parallel computers provided by theDepartment of Defense and the High Performance Computing and Modernization

    Program, Department of Energy Advanced Simulation and Computing Program, and the

    Atomic Weapons Establishment in the UK. In addition to these massively parallelcomputers, ParaDyn has recently been installed on several Linux cluster computers.

    Advances in the development of parallel algorithms for explicit finite-element analysis

    and domain partitioning techniques have led to scalable production applications usingParaDyn. New models are being generated for mesh sizes between one-million and ten-

    million elements. This is an order of magnitude larger than the largest models possible in

    the past. Longer time simulations (problems running for a few million steps) are now

    being run on both massively parallel computers and Linux clusters.

    ParaDyn is a production program and includes a suite of software for automating thepreparation of models and the analysis of results. The DynaPart preprocessing tool

    automates the task of model partitioning and is coupled directly to the research inscalable parallel contact algorithms developed in the ParaDyn program. The development

    of the GRIZ4 visualization tool based on the Mili (Mesh I/O Library) software provides a