Issue 73

Z. Xiong et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 73 (2025) 267-284; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.73.18

Materials Concrete

Strain deviator

f b0 /f c0

K

Coefficient of viscosity

α /( ° )

25

0.1

1.16

0.6667

0.0005

Table 2: Plastic properties.

Figure 4: Dimensions of girder-abutment test [21] (Unit: mm).

Elasticity modulus 28-day cylinder f c Elasticity modulus Yield strength Ultimate strength Elasticity modulus Yield strength Ultimate strength 28-day cube f c

31600

Concrete

43.2 52.9 391 545 390 485

198000

Q345

202000

HRB400

Table 3: Material parameters (MPa).

500

Test FEM

400

300

200 Load(kN)

100

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

U(mm)

Figure 5: Validation of FE results.

Figure 6: Comparison of failure modes in test and FE results.

As shown in Figs 5 and 6, the FE results closely match the experimental data from the third-party test. The numerical model exhibits slightly higher stiffness after entering the elastoplastic stage, which may be attributed to the absence of early-stage steel-concrete bonding in the ABAQUS model. In the model, the frictional force compensates for this bonding effect. In the experiment, the adhesive force disappears once the component enters the elastoplastic stage, while friction continues to influence the ABAQUS model, resulting in higher stiffness in the early and mid-stages of the FE analysis. Overall, the modeling approach is consistent with the experimental observations. Fig. 8 illustrates the failure of the concrete in the numerical results, represented by the maximum plastic principal strain contour, which also aligns well with the experimental findings. The numerical model shows the steel girder's pull-out behavior, with cracks forming at the front of the platform and shear cracks along the side of the abutment, accurately simulating the observed failure modes.

271