PSI - Issue 10

C.B. Demakos et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 10 (2018) 148–154

153

C.B. Ddemakos et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (20 8) 0 0 – 000

6

30

25

20

15

10

Loading at gravity direction Loading perpendicular to arch

Force ( kN)

5

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 8. Loading vs displacement variation curves for both loading scenarios on arch structures.

30

25

20

15

10

Loading at gravity direction Loading perpendicular to arch Experimental

Force ( kN)

5

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 9. Loading vs displacement variation curves for both numerical approaches and experimental tests for arch structures.

After the displacement is attained the value of about 10 mm, it seems that an eventual crack in arch disturbs and stops the steep increase of experimental loading and it slightly increases at values close to those attained in numerical models characterized by the loading at gravity direction, until a second crack will finally appear and the arch will fail. Furthermore, the numerical approach with loading acting in gravity direction gives lower upper bending force and more ductile deformation for the same level of stresses compared to the experimental results. It was chosen to just apply experimentally loadings at gravity direction, since the friction developed between sand and cement arch can be considered low in relation to the applied loadings and thus no significant error is done.

5. Conclusions

The curved frame structure was numerically simulated by a non-linear analysis and tested experimentally. The analytical behavior of curved structure was compared with the experimental one. The experimental results obtained in