Issue 30

O. Sucharda et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 30 (2014) 375-382; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.30.45 379 Beam number Ultimate load Midspan deflection P u, Test [kN] P u, Calc [kN] P u, Test /P u, Calc w u, Test [mm] w u, Calc [mm] w u, Test /w u, Calc OA1 331 315 1.05 9.1 6.7 1.37 OA2 320 308 1.04 13.2 11.2 1.18 OA3 385 334 1.15 32.4 24.5 1.32 Mean 1.08 Mean 1.29 Table 5: Comparison of the numerical calculations and experiments – alternative 2. Load 48 kN OA1 Load 224 kN OA1 Load – collapse OA1 Figure 4: Failure in a beam, OA1. Figure 5 : Load – displacement diagram for beams OA Load 76 kN OA2 Load 31 kN OA3 Load 220 kN OA2 Load 212 kN OA3 Load collapse OA2 Load collapse OA3 Figure 6: Failure in a beam. OA2 (left) and OA3 (right). Fig. 5 shows the final comparison of work diagrams for the beams obtained in the numerical calculation. Fig. 4 and 6 show three typical loading conditions where cracks develop in each beam. The first condition is development of cracks next to the lower edge of the beam. The second condition is development of tensile cracks along the lower edge immediately before creation of a shear crack. The third condition is a collapsing beam. S TOCHASTIC MODELLING ehaviour of beams under load was analysed in detail in a stochastic modelling. The objective was to find out impacts of some input data which enter the calculation as a histogram onto the total bearing capacity. The stochastic modelling was carried out using LHS as a method and FReET [7] as a software application. Statistic parameters were described using the recommendations specified in JCSS [12] and ISO [11]. Tab. 6 and 7 list the chosen B