4.7 Article

Reinforcement-concrete bond in discrete modeling of structural concrete

This research proposes a mathematical method to scale the reinforcement-concrete bond-slip relationship in a beam lattice modeling framework. By using stochastic analysis and a simplified generalized approach, the interaction between the reinforcing bar and surrounding concrete can be modeled at the macroscale. The model has been validated through various pull-out tests and has shown the ability to capture the fundamental fracture mechanisms in reinforced concrete.
The bond between concrete and reinforcement is one of the critical parameters influencing the structural behavior of reinforced concrete (RC). This research proposes a mathematical methodology to scale the reinforcement-concrete bond-slip relationship in a beam lattice modeling framework. A simplified, generalized approach based on stochastic analysis is proposed to model the interaction between the reinforcing bar and surrounding concrete at the macroscale. The approach considers the randomness of the lattice mesh and the mesh size and adopts an analytical model for the interface assuming the pull-out failure of reinforcement as input, thereby including also the mesoscale geometric effect of ribs. By using the geometric configuration of Delaunay triangulation in the random lattice mesh, the interface elements can reproduce the basic conical stress transfer mechanism in concrete. Consequently, depending on boundary conditions, and without changing the interface properties, a splitting failure and bond-slip relation for splitting failure can be predicted. The model is systematically validated in different types of pull-out tests, through flexural and finally shear tests. With limited input (properties of the concrete and analytical equation for pull-out failure), having a (strong) physical background, the model was shown to capture the fundamental fracture mechanisms in RC under different loading and confinement conditions.

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

4.7
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