4.6 Article

Strut-and-tie and finite element modelling of unsymmetrically-loaded deep beams

期刊

STRUCTURES
卷 36, 期 -, 页码 805-821

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.12.037

关键词

Unsymmetrical loading; Deep beams; Strut-and-tie model

资金

  1. Singapore Ministry of National Development
  2. National Research Foundation under L2 NIC Award [L2NICCFP1-2013-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a strut-and-tie model for unsymmetrically-loaded deep beams by simplifying the problem and using a minimum strain-energy criterion to define the optimal geometry. The model is validated against test results and finite element models, and is capable of accurately predicting the behavior of both symmetric and unsymmetric deep beams.
A strut-and-tie model (STM) for unsymmetrically-loaded deep beams is proposed in this paper through simplifying the unsymmetrical problem into symmetrical and anti-symmetrical problems. This analytical solution starts with derivations of principal compressive stress fields based on the theory of elasticity. Furthermore, a minimum strain-energy criterion is adopted to define the optimal STM geometry from the stress field, including the dimensions of struts and nodal zones, and strut angles. The proposed STM is validated against 140 test results, including 14 unsymmetrically-loaded deep beams and 126 symmetric deep and short beams, and finite element models (FEMs) for the 14 unsymmetrical deep beams. The FEM is also used to simulate the load-displacement relationships of unsymmetrical deep beams that could not be modelled by STM. In addition, a worked example is presented to demonstrate in detail the procedure of analysing an unsymmetrically-loaded deep beam using the proposed solution. In summary, the STM predictions are in good agreement with experimental results and FEM predictions. Therefore, the proposed STM is capable of giving accurate and consistent predictions for both symmetrical and unsymmetrical deep and short beams.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据