PSI - Issue 11

Paolo Zampieri et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 11 (2018) 436–443

441

6

Zampieri et al

./ Structural Integ

rity Procedia 0

0 (2018) 000–00 0

4. C

omparison b

etween limit

analysis and

experiment

al testing

a)

b)

c)

d) del

F ig. 7. Collapse m

echanism config

urations of limit

analysis arch mo

Using the pr erimental test icular, the im ulation progr d during the h in Figure 9 displacement mit analysis. onfiguration onfiguration onfiguration onfiguration As can be d ined from ex t analysis d butable to int

oposed calcu . This sectio ages shown am, highlight experimental a, which com d k through co Specifically, 1: n1=1 n2= 2: n1= 4 n2= 3: n1= 4 n2= 4: n1=6 n2= educed from perimental te o not coinci rinsic uncerta

lation proce n provides a in Figure 7 ing that the s test, are also pares the va mparison of limit analysis 18 n3=36; 18 n3=35; 18 n3=31; 18 n3=31; the graph sh sting against t de perfectly. inties in the p

dure, it was comparison illustrate th hifts in the po identified in riation in the the four curv allows four d 0

possible to of the experi e four cracki sition of the limit analysi position of th es relating to ifferent crack .2 ≤d k ≤ .6 ≤d k ≤ re 8, which from limit a ancies howe t define the st ≤d k ≤ ≤d k ≤

analytically mental result ng hinge con cracking hing s. This result e cracking hi experimental ing hinge con 176

simulate the s with the an figurations e es as displace is confirmed nges (n i ; i = testing and f figurations to

behaviour o alytical resul xtracted from ment d k incr by analysis 1,2,3) accord our curves re be identified

f the ts. In the eases, of the ing to lating :

exp part calc foun grap the to li • C • C • C • C

176 189 193

189.2 193.6 220

own in Figu hose obtained The discrep arameters tha

different hi esult of exper considered a nse of real st

nge configur imental testin cceptable an ructures:

ations g and d are

compares the nalysis, the r ver can be ructural respo

obta limi attri