International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 10, October 2014)

Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced and Pre-Tensioned

Concrete Beams
Nimiya Rose Joshuva1, S. Saibabu2, P. Eapen Sakaria3, K. N. Lakshmikandhan4, P. Sivakumar5
1

M.Tech Student, 3Head of Department, Department of Civil Engineering, SAINTGITS College of Engineering, Kottayam,
Kerala, India
2
Sr. Principal Scientist, 4Scientist, 5Chief Scientist, CSIR-SERC, Chennai, India
The use of computer software to model the elements has
been proved to be convenient, faster and extremely costeffective compared to experimental analyses. This study
presents an analytical investigation of the nonlinear
behaviour of reinforced and pre-tensioned concrete beams
in the finite element software package ANSYS 12.0.

Abstract Concrete is strong in compression but weak in

tension. Reinforced concrete, in which steel rods are provided
to resist tensile stresses, however, does not meet the
satisfactory structural demands. The concept of prestressing
was introduced to generate compressive stresses in concrete
prior to loading, by means of prestressing tendons inserted in
the member. These compressive stresses resist the tensile
forces, thereby effectively increasing the tensile strength of the
concrete member. In this study, reinforced and pre-tensioned
concrete beams are analysed for their nonlinear behaviour
under external loading using the finite element method of
analysis. ANSYS 12.0, an efficient finite element software
package, is used for the analysis of the concrete members.
Load-deflection responses, variations of stresses in concrete
and steel and the crack patterns at critical stages of loading
are studied. The numerical predictions are compared to the
data obtained using the theories of structural analysis. In
comparison to the theoretically predicted data, the numerical
method of analysis using ANSYS was seen to satisfactorily
predict the behavioural responses of the beams up to ultimate,
but was not as effective in predicting the strain variation in
the prestressing tendons.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature survey was carried out to comprehend the
nonlinear behaviour of reinforced and prestressed concrete
beams and the applicability of the finite element software
packages in simulating the nonlinear behaviour of the
beams. Barbosa and Rebeiro, (1998) considered the
practical application of nonlinear models in the analysis of
reinforced concrete structures and the consequences of
small changes in modelling. The best results were obtained
from the elastoplastic-perfectly plastic, work-hardening
models that reached ultimate loads, very close to the
predicted values. It was also concluded that the highest
analysis loads could be considered as the ultimate loads of
the models and the actual beams. Revathi and Menon,
(2005) conducted finite element and experimental studies
on under-reinforced, over-reinforced and shear test beams
in ANSYS, to validate the potential of numerical
simulation in predicting the nonlinear response of the
elements. The numerical and test results were seen to
compare well. The ductile behaviour of under-reinforced
beams and the brittle mode of failure in the over-reinforced
and shear beams were produced well by the numerical
model. The crack patterns of the specimens were also seen
to be in good correlation with the patterns obtained from
the numerical analysis. The study recommended the use of
convergence criteria in terms of force to get more reliable
and accurate results. Dahmani, Khennane, et.al., (2010)
conducted an investigation into the applicability of ANSYS
software for analysis and prediction of crack patterns in RC
beams and the advantage of performing numerical
simulation instead of experimental tests. For this purpose,
different phases of the behaviour of the FE model of an RC
beam was studied from initial cracking to failure of the
beam.

Keywords finite element analysis, prestressed concrete

beams, reinforced concrete beams.

I. INTRODUCTION
The efficient application of concrete structures requires
an understanding of their response to a variety of loadings.
There are a number of approaches for the study of the
behaviour of concrete structures, viz., experimental,
numerical, theoretical, etc. Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
is a numerical one which provides a tool that can accurately
simulate the behaviour of concrete structures. Finite
Element Analysis, as used in structural engineering,
determines the overall behaviour of the structure by
dividing it into a number of simple elements, each of which
has well-defined mechanical and physical properties. A
number of commercial finite element analysis codes are
available (ABAQUS, ATENA, ANSYS, NASTRAN,
Hypermesh, etc.) for the analytical study of structures.

449

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 10, October 2014)
The entire load-deformation response produced
correlated well with the hand-calculated results and it was
inferred that failure model of concrete adopted by ANSYS
was adequate to determine the nonlinear response of
reinforced concrete structures. Fanning, (2001) studied the
experimental load-deflection response of ordinary
reinforced concrete beams and post-tensioned concrete Tbeams and used it to assess the suitability of numerical
modelling implemented in the FE software ANSYS, in
predicting the ultimate response of RC beams. The
correlation of test and numerical data was found to depend
on the values of linear and nonlinear material properties
assigned to the materials, most importantly the Youngs
modulus of elasticity of concrete and the yield strengths of
the reinforcing bars and the post-tensioning tendons.
Anthony J. Wolanski, (2004) in his thesis work, studied
reinforced and prestressed concrete beams using Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) to understand their loaddeformation response. The results were compared to
experimental data. Characteristic points on the loaddeformation curve predicted using FEA were then
compared to theoretical results. The nonlinear analysis of
the model yielded results that compared well to the
calculated values. Bursting was also seen to occur in
concrete at the area of prestressing where maximum stress
and localised cracking were observed. It was concluded
from the work that the failure mechanism of the beams
could be modelled well using the finite element package.

In the finite element modelling of the beam, concrete,

steel support and loading plates and the steel reinforcing
bars were represented using SOLID65, SOLID45 and
LINK8 elements respectively. Shear reinforcements were
neglected. The SOLID65 element required linear isotropic
and multilinear isotropic material properties to be defined.
Table I summarises the material properties assumed for
reinforced concrete.
Table I
Material Properties Of Concrete

III. ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM

The RC beam of concrete grade M25 is 150mm x
300mm in cross-section and simply supported over a span
of 3m. The beam is loaded symmetrically at third points
along its span. Internal longitudinal reinforcement consists
of two numbers of 20mm diameter Fe415 bars placed at an
effective cover of 25mm. Two-legged 8mm diameter
Fe415 stirrups are provided at a spacing of 50mm c/c as
shear reinforcement. The hangar bars have a diameter of
10mm and are placed at a cover of 25mm. Fig. 1 shows the
dimensional details of the RC beam.

Density of concrete

2.5485 x 10-6 kg/mm3

Modulus of Elasticity

25000 N/mm2

Uniaxial cracking stress

3.5 N/mm2

Poissons Ratio

0.2

Open shear transfer

coefficient
Closed shear transfer
coefficient
Uniaxial crushing stress

0.3

Biaxial crushing stress

Hydrostatic pressure

Hydrostatic biaxial
crushing stress
Hydrostatic uniaxial
crushing stress
Tensile crack factor

1
-1

0
0.6

The compressive uniaxial stress-strain relationship for

concrete was obtained using the equations developed by
MacGregor (1992). Fig. 2 represents the stress-strain
relationship of reinforced concrete. The steel plates were
modelled as linear isotropic materials with modulus of
elasticity of steel (2 x 105 N/mm2) and Poissons ratio (0.3).
The reinforcing steel was assumed to have bilinear
isotropic properties with yield stress of 415 N/mm2 and
hardening modulus 20 N/mm2. Linear isotropic properties
of the steel rebars were the same as that of the steel plates.

Fig. 1 Dimensional Details Of The Reinforced Concrete Beam

450

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 10, October 2014)
Therefore, it was concluded that failure of the beam had
taken place and 119.58kN was taken as the failure load for
the model.
The first crack in the FE model was a flexural crack
(vertical) in the constant moment region of the beam,
formed at 18.8025kN. The deflections and stresses in the
beam were seen to increase with loading. Cracking also
progressed consequentially and was observed to increase in
the constant moment region before it spread out towards
the supports in the form of diagonal cracks. The beam was
seen to fail due to excessive cracking of concrete in the
tension side. Therefore, failure of the beam was attributed
to flexural failure and yielding of the steel reinforcement.
The ultimate mid-span deflection of the model was 20mm
at 119.58kN. The numerical crack and stress distributions
at ultimate load are illustrated in Fig. 4.

Fig. 2 Stress-Strain Relationship Of Concrete

The beam and steel plates were modelled using separate

volumes. The beam was meshed such that it consisted of
square or rectangular elements of size 25mm. The
necessary mesh attributes were set before the volumes were
meshed. Fig. 3 shows the meshed beam in ANSYS.
Merging of nodes and key points were carried out to avoid
errors due to multiple nodes at the same location. The
longitudinal reinforcement bars were then modelled by
creating individual link elements through the nodes of the
concrete volume mesh at the desired depth after setting the
rebar element attributes. The supports were modelled such
that roller and hinged supports were created at either ends
of the beam. Selfweight of the concrete beam was taken
into account by providing the value of acceleration due to
gravity (9.81m/s2). The external loads were applied as
concentrated forces distributed equally among the nodes
forming the centre line of the two loading plates located at
third points along the span.

Fig. 4 Crack Distribution In The Beam At Failure

Using the data obtained from the numerical analysis of

the beam, mid-span deflection, compressive stress in
concrete and stress in the reinforcing steel were plotted
against the applied load and compared with theoretical
computations of the same. From Fig. 5, it is seen that the
ANSYS model has captured the entire load-deflection
response of the beam from zero loads up to failure. The
curve exhibits three approximately straight segments
reflecting three different stages during the loading process.
The initial linear portion of the curve represents the elastic
uncracked region where the numerical and theoretical
results are seen to compare well. The sudden change in
linearity represents commencement of cracking in the
beam. The initial cracking load, obtained as 20.65kN from
the finite element analysis and 20.16kN from the structural
analysis of the beam, also show good agreement in values.
The nonlinear region that follows represents the behaviour
of the beam in the cracked stage, where cracking
propagates throughout the constant moment region,
reducing the stiffness of the section. The effective concrete
area thus decreases and the steel reinforcement bears the
tensile stresses developed. This leads to a faster rate of
increase of deflections with applied load. The theoretical
curve in this region is observed to deviate from the ANSYS
curve. The transition from the second stage to the third
stage marks the start of yielding of reinforcement.

Fig. 3 Meshed Beam

For the analysis of the model, the static analysis type

was utilized. Prestress effects were not considered and the
analysis was carried out for Small Displacement Static
condition. The rest of the commands were set to ANSYS
defaults. The beam was analysed with its self-weight and
the loads in one load step. The analysis was seen to
terminate at the sub step corresponding to 119.58kN due to
non-convergence of solution.
451

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 10, October 2014)
Classical reinforced concrete theory predicted the
yielding to commence at 115.3kN which is observed to be
consistent with the change in slope of the numerical curve
at 116.77kN. The finite element model was assumed to fail
in flexure shortly after yielding of steel due to excessive
cracking in the beam at a load of 119.58kN producing an
ultimate deflection of 20.3mm.

Fig. 6 Load Vs Compressive Stress In Concrete

Fig. 5 Load Vs Mid-Span Deflection

Fig. 6 shows a plot between the applied load and stress

in the extreme concrete fibre under compression. The
theoretical computation of compressive stress in the top
concrete fibre was carried out only up to initial cracking in
the beam owing to lack of formulations that accounted for
the reduction in effectiveness of the section due to
cracking. In the uncracked stage, the theoretical and
ANSYS curves are seen to compare well. The numerical
curve beyond that stage represents nonlinear variation of
stress with load with an ultimate compressive stress value
of 25.08N/mm2 in concrete at failure.
The variation of steel stress with applied load is
represented in Fig. 7. The plot shows good agreement
between the analytical values and the results from
theoretical computations. Stress in the tensile reinforcement
increases linearly with load, at a faster rate beyond initial
cracking of the beam compared to that in the uncracked
stage. The theoretical computation of steel stress was
terminated at yield stress of steel (415N/mm2) due to the
lack of means to compute the stress beyond yielding of
steel. The ultimate value of steel stress at failure of the
beam was observed to be 419.76N/mm2 from the finite
element analysis.

Fig. 7 Load Vs Stress In Reinforcing Steel

IV. ANALYSIS OF PRE-TENSIONED CONCRETE BEAM

The pre-tensioned concrete beam of grade M40 is
150mm x 300mm in cross-section with a simply supported
span of 3m and loaded symmetrically at third points along
the span. Internal prestressing is provided through two
numbers of straight, 7 ply 12.7mm diameter prestressing
strands placed at an eccentricity of 100mm and tensioned to
80kN each. Internal longitudinal reinforcement consists of
two numbers of 8mm diameter Fe415 bars placed at 25mm
from the soffit of the beam. Two-legged 8mm diameter
Fe415 stirrups are provided at a spacing of 150mm c/c as
shear reinforcement. The hangar bars have a diameter of
8mm and are placed at an effective cover of 25mm. Fig. 8
shows the dimensional details of the beam.

452

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 10, October 2014)
The stress-strain curve for prestressing steel was
developed using the following equations (Anthony J.
Wolanski, 2004).
ps 0.008 : fps = 28000ps (ksi)
ps > 0.008 : fps = 268 -

<0.98fpu (ksi)

Fig. 8 Dimensional Details Of The Pre-Tensioned Concrete Beam

Where fpu is the ultimate strength of the prestressing

tendons, taken as 1771.58N/mm2 or 256.974ksi. The values
obtained in units of ksi were then converted to SI units and
used for the analysis. Fig. 10 shows the stress-strain
relationship for the prestressing strands.

Finite element model for the analysis of the pretensioned concrete beam is very similar to the RC beam
model. Numerical modelling was carried out neglecting the
tensile and shear reinforcements. The initial effective strain
of 0.0035328 was entered in the Real Constant set for the
prestressing strands in addition to the cross-sectional area.
Table II lists the material properties of the prestressed
concrete.
Table II
Material Properties Of Prestressed Concrete

Density of concrete

2.3955 x 10-6 kg/mm3

Modulus of elasticity

36049.965 N/mm2

Uniaxial cracking stress

4.427 N/mm2

Poissons Ratio

0.2

Open shear transfer

coefficient

0.3

Closed shear transfer

coefficient

Uniaxial crushing stress

-1

Biaxial crushing stress

Hydrostatic pressure

Hydrostatic biaxial
crushing stress

Hydrostatic uniaxial
crushing stress

Tensile crack factor

0.6

Fig. 9 Stress-Strain Curve For Prestressed Concrete

Fig. 10 Stress-Strain Curve For Prestressing Steel

For the analysis of the model, prestress effects were

included and the analysis was carried out in a number of
load steps as listed in Table III. The analysis was seen to
terminate at the sub step corresponding to 143.6kN due to
non-convergence of solutions. Hence, it was concluded that
failure of the beam had taken place at 143.6kN.

The stress-strain relationship of concrete was obtained

using the equations developed by MacGregor (1992) and is
shown in Fig. 9. Modulus of elasticity for the type of
strands used in the analysis was taken as 195000MPa as
specified in IS 1343:1980 and Poissons Ratio as 0.3.

453

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 10, October 2014)
Table III
Load Steps For The Analysis Of Pre-Tensioned Beam

Beginning
Time (N)

Time
at the
End of
Load
Step
(N)

Load
Step

Number
of Sub
steps

Prestress

Selfweight

36600

18300

36600

56000

9700

56000

58000

50

40

58000

80000

100

220

80000

100000

100

200

100000

120000

100

200

120000

140000

100

200

140000

143600

10

60

60

Failure of the beam at 143.6kN produced an ultimate

mid-span deflection of 39.63mm. The crack distribution in
the beam at failure is illustrated in Fig. 11.

Load
Increment
(N)

Fig. 11 Crack Distribution In The Beam At Failure

From the numerical study carried out, the response of the

beam to loading in terms of deflection, compressive stress
in the extreme concrete fibre and steel strains was
evaluated.

Fig. 12 Load Vs Mid-Span Deflection

Fig. 12 shows the load-deflection response of the beam.

The FE analysis is seen to predict the entire behaviour of
the beam up to failure, the results closely related to the
theoretically predicted values. Initially, the beam deflection
increases linearly with the applied load. On appearance of
flexural cracks at approximately 25% of the ultimate load,
the beam stiffness is reduced after which the deflections
again increase linearly, but at a faster rate. This continues
till yielding of the internal reinforcement at approximately
119.7kN as predicted by the theoretical analysis. After the
section becomes sufficiently plasticized, the deflection
increases substantially with very small increase in load.
The beam shows considerable ductility at ultimate after
which it was observed to fail in flexure due to excessive
cracking of concrete and yielding of tension steel
producing an ultimate deflection of 38.54mm.
The variation of compressive stress at the top concrete
fibre at mid-span section with load is shown in Fig. 13. The
theoretical computations were carried out only in the
uncracked stage where the linear curve was seen to
compare well with the numerical results.

Camber in the beam at the mid-span section due to

application of prestress was observed to be 1.042mm. As
the load was increased, tensile stresses were induced in the
bottom concrete fibres due to development of bending
stresses. A stage was reached when the compressive stress
in concrete at the soffit was balanced by the flexural tensile
stresses so that the net stress was zero. The load at this
stage is called decompression load and was observed to be
36.6kN. With further increase in load, the tensile stresses at
the soffit of the beam increased. At a load of 57.72kN, the
tensile stress approximately equalled the flexural strength
of concrete and flexural (vertical) cracking was observed to
commence in the constant moment region of the numerical
model. As the loading on the beam progressed, vertical
cracking was seen to propagate throughout the flexure zone
and subsequently towards the supports in the form of
diagonal cracks. Later, multiple cracking was also observed
at the same location.
454

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 10, October 2014)
The numerical curve, after commencement of cracking
in the beam, was seen to follow a highly nonlinear profile
till failure of the beam at which the compressive stress in
concrete was noted to be 40.93N/mm2.

V. COMPARISON OF REINFORCED AND PRE-TENSIONED

CONCRETE BEAMS
Fig. 15 shows the load-deflection responses of the
reinforced and pre-tensioned concrete beams predicted
using finite element analysis. The numerical models were
seen to be capable of producing the entire load-deflection
behaviour of the beams till failure. The reinforced concrete
beam model produced a linear curve till a load of 18.8kN
after which it cracked. The linear portion of the curve for
the pre-tensioned concrete beam extended to 57.72kN,
providing a much higher service load range. This is
attributed to the pre-compression applied to concrete which
in turn effected in increased service load capacity. Both the
beam types exhibited sudden increase in deflections beyond
initial cracking, up to 1.6mm approximately. This was
followed by a nearly linear portion again where the pretensioned concrete beam was observed to register a higher
rate of increase of deflections compared to the reinforced
concrete beam. A sudden change of slope followed by a
nonlinear curve in the response of the reinforced concrete
beam indicated yielding of the steel reinforcement to
commence at a load of 116.77kN whereas this was not as
pronounced in the case of pre-tensioned concrete beam
which showed more ductility. Both the beams failed in
flexure due to yielding of steel and excessive cracking in
the tension zone. The pre-tensioned concrete beam
produced a higher ultimate load capacity of 143.54kN in
comparison to 119.58kN of the RC beam.

Fig. 13 Load Vs Compressive Stress In Concrete

The strain in the prestressing strands exhibited

approximately bilinear variation with load, the rate faster
after the onset of cracking. The theoretical and numerical
predictions compared almost well up to steel yielding load.
The numerical prediction of steel strain extended up to
failure load where the ultimate strain was obtained as
0.0089. However, it was noticed that the FE model
produced an initial effective strain value of 0.00336, a
value lower than the applied effective prestrain of
0.0035328, the reason for which is unclear. Fig. 14 shows
the plot of load vs strain in the prestressing strands.

Fig. 15 Load Vs Mid-Span Deflection

The comparison of the numerical prediction of the

variation of compressive stress in the extreme concrete
fibres at the mid-span section, in the reinforced and pretensioned concrete beams is shown in Fig. 16. The curves
represent linear variation of stresses up to commencement
of cracking.

Fig. 14 Load Vs Strain In Prestressing Strands

455

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 10, October 2014)
The curves, beyond the stage of initial cracking, are seen
to show uneven increase in stress which reaches an ultimate
of 25.08N/mm2 for the RC beam and 40.5N/mm2 for the
pre-tensioned concrete beam. The correctness of the curves
cannot be assured as the beams have been modelled under a
number of approximations. Fine tuning the model can
result in better solutions.

VI. CONCLUSIONS
In the present study, the response of reinforced and pretensioned concrete beams to vertical loading was
investigated using the finite element software package
ANSYS 12.0. The load-deflection response, variations of
stresses in concrete and strains in the steel reinforcements
and prestressing tendons with increasing loads were
evaluated and compared to theoretical data obtained using
the theories of structural analysis. In comparison to the
theoretically predicted data, the numerical method of
analysis using ANSYS was seen to satisfactorily predict the
behavioural responses of the beams up to failure. However,
a discrepancy was observed in the initial value of effective
prestrain in the tendons predicted by the numerical
analysis, the reason for which is unclear. The variation of
compressive stress in concrete beyond the stage of initial
cracking could not be estimated using the theories of
structural analysis owing to the absence of formulations
that took into account the decreasing effectiveness of the
section in the cracked stage. On comparing the behaviour
of the RC beam with that of the prestressed concrete beam,
the advantage of prestressing was verified as the
prestressed concrete beam was seen to show a higher
service load range and higher ultimate load capacity.

Fig. 16 Load Vs. Compressive Stress In Concrete

Fig. 17 depicts the variation in steel strain in the bonded

reinforcement with the applied load. The prestressing
tendons show an initial effective stain of 0.00335. From the
figure, the curves for both the beam types are observed to
have similar bilinear profiles. The curves show a small rate
of strain increase in the uncracked, elastic region. The rate
of strain increase, however, rapidly develops in the
cracked, inelastic region, with a major portion occurring
just after cracking. Ultimate strains in the reinforcement bar
and the prestressing strands in the reinforced and pretensioned concrete beams were found to be 0.002 and
0.0089 respectively.

Acknowledgement
The paper is published with the permission of the
Director, CSIR-SERC, Chennai, India. The help rendered
by Shri. K. Saravana Kumar, Scientist is acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]
Fig. 17 Load Vs Strain In Steel

456

Antonio F. Barbosa and Gabriel O. Ribeiro, Analysis Of Reinforced

Concrete Structures Using Ansys Nonlinear Concrete Model,
Computational Mechanics, New Trends And Applications,
Barcelona, Spain 1998.
P. Revathy and Devdas Menon, Nonlinear finite element analysis of
reinforced concrete beams, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
32, No.2 , June-July 2005, pp. 135-137.
L. Dahmani, A. Khennane and S. Kaci, Crack Identification in
Reinforced Concrete Beams using Ansys Software, Strength of
Materials, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2010, pp. 232-244.
R. Srinivasan and K. Sathiya, Flexural Behaviour of Reinforced
Concrete Beams Using Finite Element Analysis (Elastic Analysis),
Bulletin of the Polytechnic Institute of Jassy, Vol. LVI (LX), No. 4,
2010, pp. 31-42.
I. Saifullah, M. Nasir-uz-zaman, S.M.K. Uddin, M.A. Hossain and
M.H. Rashid, Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Flexural
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam, International Journal of
Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS, Vol: 11 No: 01, February
2011, pp. 146-153.
Vasudevan. G and Kothandaraman.S, Parametric study on Nonlinear
Finite Element Analysis on flexural behaviour of RC beams using
ANSYS, International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering,
Vol. 2, Issue 1, 2011, pp.98-111.

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 10, October 2014)
[7]

Kiang-Hwee Tan and Chee-Khoon Ng, Effects of Deviators and

Tendon Configuration on Behaviour of Externally Prestressed
Beams, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 94-S02, January-February
1997, pp. 13-21.
[8] B. K. Diep and H. Umehara, Non-linear Analysis of Externally
Prestressed Concrete Beams, Electronic Journal of Structural
engineering, No.2, 2002, pp.85-96.
[9] S.K. Padmarajaiah and Ananth Ramaswamy, A finite element
assessment of flexural strength of prestressed concrete beams with
fibre reinforcement, Elsevier Cement & Concrete Composites, Vol.
24, 2002, pp. 229241.
[10] Sakdirat Kaewunruen and Alex M. Remennikov, Nonlinear Finite
Element Modelling of Railway Prestressed Concrete Sleeper, The
Tenth East Asia-Pacific Conference On Structural Engineering And
Construction, Bangkok, Thailand, August 2006, pp.323-328.
[11] Amer M. Ibrahim, Huda M. Mubarak, Finite Element Modeling of
Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beam with External Pre-stressed,
European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.30, No.1 (2009),
pp.177-186.

[12] P. Fanning, Nonlinear Models of Reinforced and Post-tensioned

Concrete Beams, Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
2 (2001), pp.111-119.
[13] Anthony J. Wolanski, Flexural behaviour of Reinforced and
Prestressed Concrete Beams using Finite Element Analysis, Thesis
Report, Marquette University (2004).
[14] Prabhakara Bhatt, Prestressed concrete design to Eurocodes, 5 th
Edition, Spon Press, 2011.
[15] N. Krishnaraju, Prestressed Concrete, 5th Edition, Tata McGraw Hill,
2012.
[16] IS 456-2000 : Indian Standard Code of Practice for Plain and
Reinforced Concrete
[17] IS 1343-1980 : Indian Standard Code of Practice for Prestressed
Concrete
[18] IS 6006-1983 : Indian Standard Specification for Uncoated Stress
Relieved Strand for Prestressed Concrete
[19] ANSYS 12.0 Tutorials, University of Alberta.
[20] ANSYS 12.0 Help

457