PSI - Issue 72

Yuriy Panchuk et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 72 (2025) 216–221

219

Table 2. Test results of prisms made of FGC, SGC-1, SGC-2 for low-cycle fatigue FGC СGC -1 CGC-2 η top n cyc η top n cyc η top n cyc 0.96 6 0.95 7 0.88 31 0.96 6 0.95 3 0.88 16 0.95 4 0.93 5 0.86 21 0.95 2 0.93 2 0.86 16 0.95 5 0.92 7 0.85 18 0.95 11 0.91 8 0.85 12 0.94 13 0.90 14 0.82 25 0.94 18 0.89 7 0.82 42 0.93 23 0.89 7 0.82 42 0.93 5 0.89 3 0.80 26 0.92 5 0.89 31 0.80 22 0.92 5 0.88 24 0.78 64 0.92 2 0.87 8 0.78 76 0.91 5 0.86 17 0,78 89 0.91 2 0.86 43 0.6 40 * 0.91 54 0.84 5 0.6 30 * 0.90 25 0.82 42 - - 0.90 >100 0.82 13 - - 0.88 38 0.82 4 - - 0.87 * >500 - - - -

* samples were intentionally brought to destruction From the obtained dependencies (1-3), it is evident that at the limit values they will acquire physical significance. As n cyc → ∞, the value η cyc = 0.906 corresponds to the low-cycle fatigue limits for FGC; η cyc = 0.841 for SGC-1; and η cyc = 0.747 for SGC-2. The low-cycle fatigue of concrete, derived from dependences (1-3), forms a hyperbolic curve on the coordinate axes of “str ess level η cyc - number of load cycles n cyc ” representing the number of cycles the sample withstood before failure (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Low-cycle fatigue of concrete: 1 - FGC; 2 - СGC -1; 3 - СGC -2.