2016
DOI: 10.1590/s1983-41952016000300007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative analysis of design models for concrete corbels

Abstract: ResumoThe main objective of this paper is performing a comparative analysis of some design models for precast concrete corbels. For this, it was analyzed design models from Brazilian (NBR 9062) and European (EUROCODE 2) Codes and a US design handbook (PCI). Moreover, three analytical models showed in the literature are analyzed. The objective of this comparative is identifying the best design models to represent the failure load of concrete corbels by the tie yields or by the concrete crushing. Moreover, it is… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The PCI model was the one that came closest to the experimental results, with an average analytical ultimate load/experimental ultimate load of 1.62 (V u,ana /V u,exp = 1.62), which represents an average error of 62%. In general, all analytical models overestimate the corbel strength and present a high coefficient of variation, between 26.73% and 40.52%, which is in line with the results found by Araújo et al [14]. When comparing the numerical and analytical results, it is possible to highlight the potential of the numerical model in predicting the results, as an average numerical ultimate load/experimental ultimate load of 1.04 was obtained (V u,num /V u,exp = 1.04) and coefficient variation of only 10.94% when using a dilatancy of 48 • .…”
Section: Analytical Models Comparisonsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The PCI model was the one that came closest to the experimental results, with an average analytical ultimate load/experimental ultimate load of 1.62 (V u,ana /V u,exp = 1.62), which represents an average error of 62%. In general, all analytical models overestimate the corbel strength and present a high coefficient of variation, between 26.73% and 40.52%, which is in line with the results found by Araújo et al [14]. When comparing the numerical and analytical results, it is possible to highlight the potential of the numerical model in predicting the results, as an average numerical ultimate load/experimental ultimate load of 1.04 was obtained (V u,num /V u,exp = 1.04) and coefficient variation of only 10.94% when using a dilatancy of 48 • .…”
Section: Analytical Models Comparisonsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…In this item, analytical results of compression strut strength are obtained using the strut and tie models of ABNT NBR 9062:2017 [1], PCI [2] and EN 1992-1-1:2004 [3]. The deduction of the equations used is available in the study by Araújo et al [14]. As one of the purposes is to evaluate the ability of the analytical models to predict the real strength of the corbel, no safety coefficient will be used, and mean values of material properties were considered instead of characteristic values.…”
Section: Analytical Models Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Research articles [1][2][3][4] are devoted to the strength problem of reinforced concrete corbels. The ultimate stress-strain state is investigated, experimental data are presented and their calculation methods analysis is performed in these articles.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%