PSI - Issue 64

Tom Molkens et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 64 (2024) 1484–1491 Tom Molkens & Mona El-Hallak Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

1490

7

For the Ø16 bar above, the slip has already been measured at a load of 320 or 310 kN, this slip is only partially recovered on unloading to then reach the same value on reloading at the same load as during the first cycle. Both spans show a very similar deflection curve in Figure 3a, but are clearly different in Figure 3b. The maximum values achieved are 529 and 381 kN, the latter being a low value and the difference in deflection is further explained in the failure mode description. The influence of a larger bar diameter of 20 mm is not visible in Figure 3c, which even shows a low initial slip value of 280 kN. However, Figure 3d shows a comparatively higher initial measured slip value of 405 kN. It is also curious that for the test in Figure 3c, the initial value of slip on reloading is only reached at a higher load of 320 kN. While there are virtually no deformation differences between the two test fields in Figure 3c, this is the case in Figure 3d, although less pronounced than in Figure 3b. The maximum loads achieved are 530 and 500 kN, which are close enough to be considered reliable results. The ratio of the measured response of the left end, centre, and right end supports to the theoretical value from a linear elastic analysis (indicated by end and centre) has been plotted in Figure 4 using the same methodology as before.

a)

b)

c)

d) Figure 4. Reaction ratios and redistribution factor (max value = 1) in the function of the total reaction, , results of both tests with upper bar Ø16 in a), b) and upper bar Ø20 in c) and d).