People | Locations | Statistics |
---|---|---|
Naji, M. |
| |
Motta, Antonella |
| |
Aletan, Dirar |
| |
Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
Ertürk, Emre |
| |
Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
Kononenko, Denys |
| |
Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
Bih, L. |
| |
Casati, R. |
| |
Muller, Hermance |
| |
Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
Azam, Siraj |
| |
Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
Blanpain, Bart |
| |
Ali, M. A. |
| |
Popa, V. |
| |
Rančić, M. |
| |
Ollier, Nadège |
| |
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
Landes, Michael |
| |
Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
You, Ruilin
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (4/4 displayed)
- 2022Comparison study of crack propagation in rubberized and conventional prestressed concrete sleepers using digital image correlationcitations
- 2019Benefit of damping in structural concrete for railway structures and track components
- 2019Nonlinear finite element analysis for structural capacity of railway prestressed concrete sleepers with rail seat abrasioncitations
- 2017Influences of surface abrasions on dynamic behaviours of railway concrete sleepers
Places of action
Organizations | Location | People |
---|
article
Comparison study of crack propagation in rubberized and conventional prestressed concrete sleepers using digital image correlation
Abstract
<jats:p> Rubber concrete (RC) has been confirmed to be suitable for concrete sleeper production. This paper studies the cracking behaviour of conventional and rubber-reinforced concrete sleepers based on the results of an experimental program. The cracking behaviour in the pure bending zone was analysed up to a load of 140 kN. The crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) was accordingly measured using a digital image correlation (DIC) method. The DIC results show that the rubber prestressed concrete sleeper (RPCS) has a resistance against crack initiation that is 20% greater than that of the conventional prestressed concrete sleeper (CPCS) under the same loading condition; however, due to the higher crack growth rate of the RPCS, the first crack detected by the operator forms at 60 kN, which corresponds to a strength approximately 9% lower compared with the 65 kN load at which the first crack is detected in the CPCS. Before the first crack (60 kN), the RPCS has a deflection 35% lower than that of the CPCS, but after cracking, at loads of 80 kN, 100 kN and 140 kN, the RPCS has a deflection 15%, 4% and 24% higher than that of the CPCS, respectively. </jats:p>