Simulation study demonstrates crack propagation behaviors in hydraulic concrete under three-point bending, indicating improved method for analyzing fissure interactions.
Hydraulic concrete is prone to cracking and interactive propagation under complex stress, threatening its structural integrity and service life. To address limitations of traditional numerical methods (e.g., mesh dependency in FEM) and imprecision of existing meshless methods for characterizing multi-fissure interactions, this study improved SPH to model double-crack interactions in hydraulic concrete under three-point bending and clarify the underlying mechanisms. A modified SPH framework was developed by introducing a failure parameter (ξ) to refine the kernel function, enabling simulation of particle progressive failure via the Mohr–Coulomb criterion; a three-point bending numerical model of concrete beams containing double precast fissures (induced and obstacle) was established, with simulations under varying obstacle fissure angles (α = 0–75°) and distances (d = 0.02–0.06 m). The results show that the obstacle fissure angles significantly regulate the crack paths: as the α increases, the tensile stress concentration shifts from the obstacle fissure’s middle to its ends, causing cracks to deflect toward the lower end, with a reduced propagation length and lapping time; at an α = 75°, the obstacle fissure’s lower tip dominates failure, forming an “induced fissure–lower end of obstacle fissure–top” penetration mode. The fissure distances affect the stress superposition: a smaller d (e.g., 0.02 m) induces vertical propagation and rapid lapping with the obstacle fissure’s lower end, while a larger d (e.g., 0.06 m) weakens the stress at the induced fissure tip, promoting horizontal deflection toward the obstacle fissure’s upper end and transforming the failure into “upper-end dominated.” This confirms that the improved SPH method effectively simulates crack behaviors, providing insights into multi-fissure failure mechanisms and theoretical support for hydraulic structure crack control and safety evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: