4.6 Article

Numerical Modeling of Concrete Deep Beams Made with Recycled Aggregates and Steel Fibers

期刊

BUILDINGS
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/buildings12050529

关键词

numerical modeling; steel fibers; recycled concrete aggregates; deep beam; tensile softening; shear behavior; web openings

资金

  1. United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) [12N004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A bilinear tensile softening law for concrete with recycled concrete aggregates and steel fibers was developed and validated through numerical simulation models. The study showed that the shear response of the deep beam models is influenced by the steel fiber volume fraction and the shear span-to-depth ratio.
A bilinear tensile softening law that can describe the post-cracking behavior of concrete made with recycled concrete aggregates (RCAs) and steel fibers was developed based on an inverse analysis of characterization test data. Numerical simulation models were developed for large-scale concrete deep beams. The tensile softening laws along with characterization test results were used as input data in the analysis. The numerical deep beam models were validated through a comparative analysis with published experimental results. A parametric study was conducted to investigate the effect of varying the shear span-to-depth (a/h) ratio, steel fiber volume fraction (v(f)), and the presence of a web opening on the shear response. Results of the parametric study indicated that the shear strength gain caused by the addition of steel fibers at v(f) of 1 and 2% was higher in the deep beam models with a lower a/h of 0.8, relative to that of their counterparts with a/h of 1.6. The effect of a/h on the shear strength gain of the solid deep beam models diminished at the higher v(f) of 3%. The solid deep beam models with a/h of 0.8 exhibited a shear strength gain of 78 to 108% due to the addition of steel fibers, whereas their counterparts with the web opening experienced a reduced shear strength gain of 45 to 70%.

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