371
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Building structures and materials

Cracking simulation and analysis of the mortise-and-tenon wet joints in Precast reinforced concrete ribbed girder Bridges

, , &
Pages 1314-1328 | Received 04 May 2023, Accepted 26 Sep 2023, Published online: 06 Nov 2023

Figures & data

Figure 1. Joint structure in the 2008 edition of the Ministry of Transport general drawings (mm).

Figure 1. Joint structure in the 2008 edition of the Ministry of Transport general drawings (mm).

Figure 2. Diagram of the test piece reinforcement design and wet joint size (mm).

(a) Design of reinforcing bars in the specimens (b) Details of vertical joint dimensions (c) Details of dimensions of the mortise-and-tenon joints
Figure 2. Diagram of the test piece reinforcement design and wet joint size (mm).

Figure 3. Fabrication process of the specimens.

(a) Fabrication of reinforcement cage (b) Mortise-and-tenon joint treatment (c) Installation of the formwork (d) Casting of the specimens
Figure 3. Fabrication process of the specimens.

Figure 4. Loading design and device.

(a) Loading design (b) Loading device
Figure 4. Loading design and device.

Figure 5. Normal section damage due to the flexure of the specimens.

(a) Straight joint specimen (b) Mortise-and-tenon joint specimen
Figure 5. Normal section damage due to the flexure of the specimens.

Figure 6. Load – displacement curve for the flexural damage test.

Figure 6. Load – displacement curve for the flexural damage test.

Table 1. Cracking load, yield load, peak load, and deflection of the specimen.

Figure 7. Concrete constitutive relationship curve.

(a) Compression damage of the concrete (b) Tensile damage of the concrete (c) Compression damage factor of the concrete (d) Tensile damage factor of the concrete
Figure 7. Concrete constitutive relationship curve.

Table 2. Plasticity parameter values of concrete.

Figure 8. Reinforcement constitutive relationship.

Figure 8. Reinforcement constitutive relationship.

Figure 9. Finite element model.

(a) Model meshing (b) Reinforcing steel skeleton
Figure 9. Finite element model.

Figure 10. Comparison of load – displacement curves.

Figure 10. Comparison of load – displacement curves.

Table 3. Comparison of feature loads and corresponding deflections.

Figure 11. Comparison of tensile damage to the specimens.

(a) Test damage pattern (b) Simulated distribution of tensile damage
Figure 11. Comparison of tensile damage to the specimens.

Figure 12. Tensile damage process on the bottom surface of a mortise-and-tenon joint.

(a) Initial loading (b) Interfacial bonding begins to fail (c) Cracking at the root of the tenon (d) Complete cracking of the interface
Figure 12. Tensile damage process on the bottom surface of a mortise-and-tenon joint.

Figure 13. Tenon size design of finite element simulation (mm).

(a) S-100 (b) S-150 (c) S-200
Figure 13. Tenon size design of finite element simulation (mm).

Figure 14. Load – displacement curves for specimens with different tenon sizes.

Figure 14. Load – displacement curves for specimens with different tenon sizes.

Figure 15. Tensile damage nephogram for tenons of different sizes at the same moment.

(a) S-100 (b) S-150 (c) S-200
Figure 15. Tensile damage nephogram for tenons of different sizes at the same moment.

Figure 16. Calculation of flexural load bearing capacity of the normal section of the single reinforced rectangular section member.

Figure 16. Calculation of flexural load bearing capacity of the normal section of the single reinforced rectangular section member.