2019
DOI: 10.28991/cej-2019-03091359
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identification of Crack in Reinforced Concrete Beam Subjected to Static Load Using Non-linear Finite Element Analysis

Abstract: Experimental testing was used widely as a means to investigate the behavior of these individual elements and the effects of concrete strength under different loading types. While this method represents real life responses, it is very time consuming and the use of materials can be quite costly. Recently, the use of finite element analysis (FEA) has increased due to advances in knowledge and the capabilities of computer hardware and software. The utilization of computer software to model the structural elements … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
4
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
2
4
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…From Figures 2 and 3, it can be observed that the predictions of constitutive models by Isojeh et al [22] and EN1992-1-1 [27] are the closest to the numerical results of the present study, while the equations presented by Popovics [25] andMander et al [26] and Fan et al [19], Halahla [23] yield lower and higher values, respectively, than the current study. Hence, the developed constitutive concrete model using the modified Popovics model recommended by Isojeh et al [22] using Equation (2) for calculating Ec was chosen as the basic equation for concrete specimens involving 20% FA content at age of 28 days, to assess the nonlinear (cracking and crushing) behavior of this concrete type for the next stages of this study.…”
Section: Validation Of the Developed Constitutive Model For Gpc Concretesupporting
confidence: 78%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…From Figures 2 and 3, it can be observed that the predictions of constitutive models by Isojeh et al [22] and EN1992-1-1 [27] are the closest to the numerical results of the present study, while the equations presented by Popovics [25] andMander et al [26] and Fan et al [19], Halahla [23] yield lower and higher values, respectively, than the current study. Hence, the developed constitutive concrete model using the modified Popovics model recommended by Isojeh et al [22] using Equation (2) for calculating Ec was chosen as the basic equation for concrete specimens involving 20% FA content at age of 28 days, to assess the nonlinear (cracking and crushing) behavior of this concrete type for the next stages of this study.…”
Section: Validation Of the Developed Constitutive Model For Gpc Concretesupporting
confidence: 78%
“…However, there is a relatively significant difference that can be seen from the relation presented by Popovics [25] and Mander et al [26] referring to the different values of 'n' as explained in Section 2.1. On the other hand, after comparing the stress-strain relationship subjected to FE results of a concrete cube containing 20% FA, numerically obtained in the current study, to other examined constitutive models for compression state of concrete based on Popovics formulations and Eurocode standards, it is proved that the numerical results of the current study have a relatively high approximation with the proposed constitutive models which were found through other empirical functions, especially Eurocode and Popovic relations [22][23][24][25][26][27]. The value of the 'n' parameter for the constitutive model presented by Fan et al [19] in the range of 3-4 is strongly recommended for this concrete type with a low calcium amount.…”
Section: Validation Of the Developed Constitutive Model For Gpc Concretesupporting
confidence: 54%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The load-deflection curve was observed to be trilinear including before the beam cracked, before the steel reinforcement yielded, and at the ultimate state of the beam. The first crack load was estimated at 15 kN which is smaller than the theoretical value of 23.3 kN as shown in the Appendix and this small value is probably due to the convergence criteria which were set at the default value up to the first crack load (Halahla, 2019). A small kink was also recorded in the FEA at load 15 kN while the maximum load and maximum deflection at mid-span were 74 kN and 93.4 mm, respectively which are observed to be very close to the 72 kN and 92.7 mm recorded in the experiment.…”
Section: Load-deflection Responsementioning
confidence: 90%
“…Selain itu juga dalam pemodelan beton tidak memperhitungkan model beton pada daerah tarik. Menurut penelitian Halahla [18], umumnya respon balok beton bertulang akibat beban lentur itu berbentuk trilinier. Linier awal sampai beton retak, linier yang kedua dari beton mulai retak sampai tulangan mulai leleh, dan linier ketiga dimulai dari tulangan leleh sampai balok runtuh.…”
Section: Hasil Dan Pembahasan Respon Beban-lendutanunclassified