geser pelat beton satu arah tinjauan dekat tumpuan

2017-01-01_183347

(source: ACI318M-08)

shearoneway

2017-01-01_190703

2017-01-01_190446

2017-01-01_190305

2017-01-01_191243

2017-01-01_190316

2017-01-01_191428

2017-01-01_190328

2017-01-01_191543

using newest versions (Bentz, 2015)

2017-01-10-00_58_03-response-mikeltest2016-mikel-test-2016

2017-01-10-00_53_19-response-mikeltest2016-mikel-test-2016

compared with experimental result by Mikel et al (2016)

2017-01-01_190239

2017-01-01_190203

2017-01-01_190612

for case of reinforced concrete wide-beam or slabs, ACI codes and software from Bentz (1997) given under-estimate results about 26.8% and 38.6% respectively.

in case of normal beams,

shearbeam3

 

 

2017-01-01_194524

2017-01-01_194257

2017-01-01_194250

compare with test result by Mikel,

2017-01-01_194752

still the result shown under estimate about 15,6% however it’s look better than wide-beam case, discrepancy may come from stress discontinuity in disturbed region (?) it may required to conduct 2D or 3D nonlinear FE for studying.

**updates using newest versions (2015)

2017-01-02-05_51_22-response-newbeam1-b25x25-mikel-test

2017-01-02-05_50_21-version2015

Based on Shear-Moment interaction for shear force at V=63.2kN,  shown bending moment M=28.8kN*m still lower than experimental results.

2017-01-02-05_58_28-response

V=53.7kN, M=31.7kN*m

2017-01-10-01_04_41-response-mikeltest2016b-mikel-test-2016

oldest and newest version has shown no slightly different.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s