PSI - Issue 41

Umberto De Maio et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 41 (2022) 598–609 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

607

10

2020) equal to 4.73%. On the contrary, a better prediction of the average crack spacing is obtained by the smeared crack model ((Rimkus et al., 2020)). However, the deviation predicted by the proposed model with respect to the experiment presents a maximum value of about 6.44%.

Table 5. Crack spacing comparison with the present and available results. Maximum crack spacing m s

Average crack spacing a s

Present Model

Rimkus Model Experiment

Present Model

Rimkus Model Experiment

137.50

135.00

141.70

90.00

100.50

96.20

Fig. 8. Crack patterns of the tested beam at different load levels (Points A, B, and C of Fig. 7a).

4. Conclusions In this work, the analysis of the cracking behavior in reinforced concrete structures subjected to quasi-static loading conditions has been performed by using an integrated numerical model. This model is based on a diffuse interface model and an embedded truss model to capture damage phenomena in the concrete phase and bond behavior between concrete and rebars, respectively. RC structural elements under tensile and flexural loads have been involved to perform numerical simulations. The results predicted by the proposed model, in terms of load-carrying capacity, crack width, and crack spacing, are suitably compared with experimental and numerical results. The numerically predicted structural responses, in terms of load-displacement and bending moment-curvature curves, of the tested structural elements, are in good agreement with the experiments. Moreover, the crack patterns are represented in a realistic manner preserving the discrete nature of cracking phenomena thus resulting similar to the experimental ones. The crack width and crack spacing of RC structural elements predicted by the adopted model at the serviceability limit state are in good agreement with that computed by the experimental test.