Proposal and experimental validation of simplified strut-and-tie models on dapped-end beams

Design of prefabricated footing connection using a coupled hydro‐mechanical finite element model

“…The C and T flows of the physical‐based SSI analyses were also compared to the stochastic TO method to obtain the “optimum” material layout that will be used as the STM. The simulated peak load ( V u ) of the dapped‐end beam (DEB) with the obtained optimum material layout was compared to the simulated and experimental V u of the DEB designed by Mata‐Falcón et al 53 The configuration of the bolt connection (i.e., bolt size and bolt spacing) was then determined using parametric simulations. Subsequently, the performance of the designed prefabricated footing system considering SSI was simulated and compared to a monolithic waffle pod raft.…”

“…Parametric simulations were performed by varying the location of supports and applied concentrated load onto two connected DEBs. The considered prefabricated slab substructure was based on a dapped waffle pod raft section with a depth ( D ) of 600 mm, a beam width ( B ) of 250 mm, and the notch of the DEB ( L DE ) was 350 mm, comparable to that of Mata‐Falcón et al 53 The longitudinal length ( L ) of each DEB was 2000 mm, which was assumed to be sufficient since the extent of the D‐region for both DEB B and DEB T was around 950 mm. The concrete blocks as supports had a length of 350 mm, a width of 175 mm and a height of 175 mm.…”

“…The peak load ( V u ) obtained in the laboratory test conducted by Mata–Falcón et al 53 (specimen DEB 1.6) was compared to the simulated DEB using CDP model (Figure 4) with the same steel reinforcement layout and concrete dimensions with the experiment. This will validate the accuracy of the numerical simulations performed.…”

“…This will validate the accuracy of the numerical simulations performed. The DEB from the experiment of Mata‐Falcón et al, 53 which was adopted in the simulation, had a span of 3300 mm and a rectangular cross‐section of 250 mm by 600 mm, reduced to 250 mm by 300 mm at the end portion (i.e., D‐region). Labels for each reinforcement is presented in Figure 7a, where A sf is the flexural reinforcements, A st is the shear reinforcement, A sh is the horizontal bars at the D‐region, A sv is the vertical stirrups at the D‐region, and A sd is the diagonal stirrups at the D‐region (Figure 7b).…”

“…Material layout and simulation setup of (a) the laboratory test (specimen DEB 1.6) by Mata‐Falcón et al 53 and Mata‐Falcón, 77 and (b) the designed DEB of this study using the innovative combined approach of soil–structure interaction, topology optimization, and strut‐and‐tie model (STM). Dimensions are in millimeters.…”