Field test and numerical modelling of RC slabs at different scaled distances with two types of external reinforcement

S. Martínez-Almajano, R. Castedo, Lina Ma López, Anastasio P. Santos, M. Chiquito, A. Alañón, C. Reifarth
{"title":"Field test and numerical modelling of RC slabs at different scaled distances with two types of external reinforcement","authors":"S. Martínez-Almajano, R. Castedo, Lina Ma López, Anastasio P. Santos, M. Chiquito, A. Alañón, C. Reifarth","doi":"10.2495/cmem-v9-n3-201-212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This work deals with the response of eight reinforced concrete (RC) slabs, made at full-scale, some of them with the addition of externally bonded fibre reinforced polymer (FRP). The reinforcements were placed in all cases on the face opposite to the explosive detonation. Three scaled distances have been used from 0.83 m/kg1/3, in one test with no extra reinforcement; four tests were made with a scaled distance of 0.42 m/kg1/3: one without extra reinforcement, two with carbon fibre reinforcement (CFRP) and one with the E-glass fibre reinforcement (GFRP); finally, 0.21 m/kg1/3, in three trials, one without extra reinforcement, one with carbon fibre reinforcement and one with the E-GFRP. The first slab, used for calibration of the numerical models, was instrumented with pressure and acceleration sensors. For the validation of the other seven slabs, the damage surfaces on both sides of the slabs are used. In terms of numerical simulation performed with LS-DYNA, several models covering different solutions such as smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) or load blast enhanced have been performed for the description of the explosive, as well as the use of CSCM material models for concrete to analyse the best available solutions. The steel was modelled with the piecewise linear plasticity material, while the material laminated composite fabric was used for the FRP. Reinforcement with CFRP resulted in a generally reduced damage area on both surfaces. All models show a good correlation, including nonspherical charges made with SPH models, with the test results when comparing them with respect to acceleration and surface damage. SPH models work well for the high and medium scaled distance, but not so good for the shorter scaled distance.","PeriodicalId":36958,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements","volume":"257 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2495/cmem-v9-n3-201-212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This work deals with the response of eight reinforced concrete (RC) slabs, made at full-scale, some of them with the addition of externally bonded fibre reinforced polymer (FRP). The reinforcements were placed in all cases on the face opposite to the explosive detonation. Three scaled distances have been used from 0.83 m/kg1/3, in one test with no extra reinforcement; four tests were made with a scaled distance of 0.42 m/kg1/3: one without extra reinforcement, two with carbon fibre reinforcement (CFRP) and one with the E-glass fibre reinforcement (GFRP); finally, 0.21 m/kg1/3, in three trials, one without extra reinforcement, one with carbon fibre reinforcement and one with the E-GFRP. The first slab, used for calibration of the numerical models, was instrumented with pressure and acceleration sensors. For the validation of the other seven slabs, the damage surfaces on both sides of the slabs are used. In terms of numerical simulation performed with LS-DYNA, several models covering different solutions such as smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) or load blast enhanced have been performed for the description of the explosive, as well as the use of CSCM material models for concrete to analyse the best available solutions. The steel was modelled with the piecewise linear plasticity material, while the material laminated composite fabric was used for the FRP. Reinforcement with CFRP resulted in a generally reduced damage area on both surfaces. All models show a good correlation, including nonspherical charges made with SPH models, with the test results when comparing them with respect to acceleration and surface damage. SPH models work well for the high and medium scaled distance, but not so good for the shorter scaled distance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种外配筋的RC板在不同比例距离下的现场试验与数值模拟
这项工作涉及8块钢筋混凝土(RC)板的响应,按全尺寸制作,其中一些添加了外部粘合纤维增强聚合物(FRP)。增援部队在所有情况下都部署在爆炸地点对面。在一次试验中,从0.83 m/kg1/3开始使用了三个缩放距离,没有额外的加固;在0.42 m/kg1/3的比例距离下进行了4次试验:1次不加筋,2次碳纤维增强(CFRP), 1次e -玻璃纤维增强(GFRP);最后,0.21 m/kg1/3,在三个试验中,一个没有额外的加固,一个碳纤维加固和一个E-GFRP。第一块板子上装有压力和加速度传感器,用于数值模型的校准。对于其他7块板的验证,使用板的两侧损伤面。在LS-DYNA进行的数值模拟方面,几个模型涵盖了不同的解决方案,如光滑颗粒流体动力学(SPH)或负载爆炸增强,已经执行了炸药的描述,以及使用CSCM材料模型的混凝土来分析最佳可行的解决方案。钢材采用分段线性塑性材料建模,而材料层压复合织物用于FRP。用CFRP加固导致两个表面的损伤面积普遍减少。所有模型,包括SPH模型产生的非球形电荷,在比较加速度和表面损伤时,都显示出与试验结果的良好相关性。SPH模型对中高比例尺距离效果较好,但对较短比例尺距离效果不佳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
33 weeks
期刊最新文献
IndianFoodNet: Detecting Indian Food Items Using Deep Learning CFD Simulation of Premixed Flame in Counter Burner under the Influence of a Magnetic Field Chest Freezer Performance with Non-Condensable Gases Stress Distribution in Cantilever Beams with Different Hole Shapes: A Numerical Analysis Combined Impact of Joule Heating, Activation Energy, and Viscous Dissipation on Ternary Nanofluid Flow over Three Different Geometries
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1