PSI - Issue 66

Umberto De Maio et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 66 (2024) 495–501 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2025) 000–000

499

5

reported in (Carpinteri, 1989), which led to the premature failure of the concrete specimen. Fig. 3b instead shows the crack pattern predicted by the proposed model along with a comparison with numerical and experimental results. The zoomed-in section highlights the crack evolution predicted by the proposed and the other two numerical model taken from the literature, with each path color-coded to correspond to the load-displacement curves (red, green, and blue). The crack paths show differences based on the adopted models for the analyses, with the red curve exhibiting a more pronounced crack growth compared to the green and blue ones. The variations in crack paths correlate with the differences in structural response, as shown in the load-displacement graph.

Fig. 3. Numerical results: (a) loading curve, and (b) crack path.

In Fig. 4 the moving mesh work is well illustrated. In particular, at the left side of the figure, we can see the final motion of the mesh frame with respect to the material frame (fixed frame) due to the crack propagation.

Fig. 4. Comparison between the mesh and material frame.