PSI - Issue 70

Siddesh K N et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 70 (2025) 231–238

236

and higher deflections at lower loads, suggesting reduced stiffness and early cracking. The weakened performance is due to excessive cement replacement and impurities in Al Dross, which dilute the binder content and hinder pozzolanic reactions. The resulting matrix is more porous and less durable. Beams with 1% – 3% Al Dross display ductile failure with gradual deflection and better stress redistribution. In contrast, beams with 4% – 5% exhibit brittle failure, with sudden deflection increases and reduced crack resistance. An optimal Al Dross replacement level of 1% – 2% improves flexural strength, stiffness, and ductility. Higher levels compromise performance and structural integrity.

Fig. 6. Load v/s Deflection Plot of beams 3.3. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Experimental Results Comparison:

To validate the experimental findings, Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was conducted using ANSYS software to simulate the behaviour of reinforced concrete beams with varying percentages of aluminum dross (Al Dross) replacement. The FEA results were compared with the experimental data (table.2) to assess the accuracy and reliability of the numerical model.

Table 2. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Experimental Results Comparison

Parameter

0% Al Dross 1% Al Dross 2% Al Dross 3% Al Dross 4% Al Dross

5% Al Dross

Max Load (Exp) Max Load (FEA)

146 kN 148 kN

151 kN 153 kN

147 kN 149 kN

132 kN 134 kN

116 kN 118 kN

112 kN 114 kN 1.98 mm 1.95 mm

Deflection at Max Load (Exp) Deflection at Max Load (FEA) Failure Mode (Experimental)

3.75 mm 3.25 mm 3.80 mm 3.68 mm 2.95 mm 3.70 mm 3.20 mm 3.75 mm 3.65 mm 2.90 mm

Ductile Ductile

Ductile Ductile

Ductile Ductile

Ductile Ductile

Brittle Brittle

Brittle Brittle

Failure Mode (FEA)

The FEA results closely match the experimental data, with a maximum deviation of 1.5% in load-carrying capacity. Both FEA and experimental results show that beams with 1% and 2% Al Dross replacement achieve higher maximum loads compared to the control beam (0% Al Dross). Beams with 4% and 5% Al Dross replacement exhibit a significant reduction in load-carrying capacity in both FEA and experimental results. The deflection values from FEA are in close agreement with the experimental data, with a maximum deviation of 2%. Beams with 1% to 3% Al Dross replacement show lower deflection values compared to the control beam, indicating improved stiffness. Beams with 4% and 5% Al Dross replacement exhibit higher deflection values, indicating reduced stiffness. Both FEA and experimental results indicate ductile failure for beams with 0% to 3% Al Dross replacement. Beams with 4% and 5% Al Dross replacement show brittle failure in both FEA and experimental tests. The close agreement between FEA and