Page 160 - Riem-Vol6_nº3

505 IBRACON Structures and Materials Journal • 2013 • vol. 6 • nº 3
F.M. ALMEIDA FILHO | M. K. EL DEBS | A.L.H.C. EL DEBS
4. Analysis and discussion
The numerical model had the same parameters of the experimental
one, like modulus of elasticity and the applied load, justifying the
development of one model for each series. In the contact evaluation,
the numerical results were compared with those given by Eq. 4 [12].
(4)
40
sσ
u  and
sA
uP
k sσ 
Figure 10 shows the measurement points adopted for the bond
stress evaluation.
The evaluated stresses were obtained by the contact elements
on the interface and by the concrete elements under the con-
tact surface.
4.1 SCC1 and OC1 series
Figure 11 shows the variation of the bond stresses at the steel-
concrete interface during the substep of the failure load.
Figure 12 shows the principal stresses in the normal direction of
the cross section for the numerical beam model. Also, the detail
Table 4 – Specimens division for tests
Model Pu
(kN)
δu
(mm)
su
(mm)
D
(mm) FKN FKT τu
(MPa)
B-SCC-C30-B10
B-SCC-C30-B16
B-SCC-C60-B10
B-SCC-C60-B16
B-OC-C30-B10
B-OC-C30-B16
B-OC-C60-B10
B-OC-C60-B16
32.66
61.99
42.35
92.48
33.49
70.77
41.58
90.84
3.97
6.59
27.08
40.96
3.82
7.32
29.87
42.95
0.398
0.938
0.096
0.215
0.295
0.758
0.068
0.660
12.0
18.0
31.0
50.0
12.0
18.0
31.0
50.0
3
40
0.0001
0.0001
3
40
0.0001
0.0001
1/0.15
1
1
1
1/0.15
1
1
1
13.00
11.57
16.86
17.25
13.33
13.20
16.55
16.95
Figure 8 – Numerical approaches of the experimental tests for SCC1 and OC1