Back to company website

You are not logged in. Please login or register.

Forum updated

We have recently updated our forums system, and we have cleared all spam topics and users. In case we accidentally deleted your account, please register again. If you miss a topic you have posted before, please let us know.

Post new reply

Cervenka Consulting Forums → ATENA → 2D Pullout Test → Post new reply

Post new reply

Compose and post your new reply

You may use: BBCode Smilies

All fields with bold label must be completed before the form is submitted.

Required information for guests


Required information

Topic review (newest first)

6 Post by gabriela.hulkova

Dear sardarmunim,

the interface material must be assigned to the contact surface. The interface material is never assigned to the lines as you did in your model. I would also recommend you to create the interface in a special layer. In your model, it makes no sense to create the interface at that part. Is there a specific reason why you want to simulate it?

5 Post by sardarmunim01

Yes I have followed the Atena manual for the interface material. I am assigning the material to the joined lines between two surfaces. The model is uploaded here, please have a look. Thanks a lot

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ … sp=sharing

4 Post by pavlo

Hopefully you know that interface should be defined to a surface of zero area with 2 coinciding lines. If not, read the guides carefully. If you still cannot find an answer share your model again

3 Post by sardarmunim01

Thank you for your response. We are still working on the experimental results meanwhile working on the numerical simulation of our model.
I have another querry, while defining the Interface Material between two surfaces, I get this error while generating the mesh. What are the possible reasons for it;

"Surface 5 is probably contact surface and has different material () prototype () than CC2DInterface"

2 Post by pavlo

Hi Sardar,

1. I can assume that it happens because you have only 1 frame element between 2 embedded nodes (one in concrete and another in steel). So of course there is slip in embedded parts and program just interpolates results between two adjacent nodes. I would recommend you to define a "cable" type rebar outside of concrete.

2. The point is that reinforcement is exhausted its strength before concrete cracking. Check stress and strain at steps 147-150.

3. It is again related to steel rapture rather than splitting of rebar. The concrete block is 1m thick and there is nothing unusual that rebar @12mm failed before concrete cracking.

I would also recommend you to make brick mesh.
Just define a 32mm bar and you will get cracks very soon smile

If you have an experiment that doesn't fit your analysis results, let's have a look at the experiment.

1 Post by sardarmunim01

I am trying to get familiar with the ATENA software before I start working on my actual thesis model. And so I analysed a 2D pullout test and confronted these querries;

1. Why is the software giving me slippage values at the unbounded part of the steel rebar (the part that's inside the concrete block hole). It's supposed to only give slippage at the point where bar is embedded inside concrete block.

2. Theoreticlly, the analysis must show the cracks in the cocrete block after failure. But in my case I don't see any cracks.

3. Referring to the graph between Slip and Load. At the end of the analysis, I see an immediate downfall of the curve with load approaching to zero at once. Ideally there should be a gradual downfall of load after the peack value (or failure).

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mOosl … 35kVj14T5Z

Cervenka Consulting Forums → ATENA → 2D Pullout Test → Post new reply