# Force Performance Analysis and Numerical Simulation of Assembled Ribbed-Slab Abutments
## 3 Assembled Ribbed-Slab Abutment Model Validation and Foundation Model Analysis
### Development and Validation of Numerical Analysis Models
#### 3.1.2 Validation of FE Models  
To verify the accuracy of the FE model, the computational results of the flanged ARBA model were compared with the experimental results.  
Load and displacement conditions  
Table 5 depicts the comparison between the relevant data from the FE model of the ARBA with a flange connection and the results from the tests.  
The table highlights that the FE results were slightly better than the data measured in the tests. Its initial cracks appear at the joints of the structure. This can be attributed to the real-world construction of the structure in the actual project, which could not achieve the ideal conditions of numerical simulation. In particular, the results of the ultimate load and ultimate displacement were slightly larger than the data measured in the test. This was primarily due to the issues prevalent in construction process in practical applications, where the bonding quality between the flange and the concrete joints in the span of the test member was poor. This can lead to the sudden destruction of the flange and the concrete joints in the span in later stages of loading, accompanied by prying effects. In contrast, the numerical simulation assumes an ideal state, with excellent bonding quality between the flange and concrete, leading to the FE model yielding a higher ultimate load and the ultimate displacement values than the experimental model. Nevertheless, the final results of the FE model align well with the test results, only exhibiting an error of approximately 6%, which meets the necessary engineering accuracy requirements.  
Distribution of cracks  
Figure 9 illustrates an overall crack comparison between the FLP3 adjustment FE model and the test model. The damage mode and crack distribution of the FLP3 adjustment FE model were more consistent with the actual test model. The primary damage mode of the FE model was diagonal crack damage, largely concentrated in the diagonal crack at the connection between the loading point of the platform cap and the ribbed-plate, as well as the back wall near the center of the span. The test model exhibited detachment at the contact between the flange and concrete in the middle of the span. It was hypothesized that this was largely due to the poor welding of the cage to the flange and the presence of a thick protective layer of concrete during construction, causing p  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Materials** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Elasticity** \\ **(MPa)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Yield Strength** \\ **(MPa)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Tensile Strength** \\ **(MPa)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Poisson’s** \\ **Ratio** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Flange plate & Q345 & \(2.06\times 10^{-5}\) & 350 & 495 & 0.3 \\ rebar & HRB400 & \(2.05\times 10^{-5}\) & 400 & 540 & 0.3 \\ Bolts, gaskets & 4.8 steel & \(2.00\times 10^{-5}\) & 320 & 400 & 0.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Steel material parameter.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Model** & **Test Model** & **FE Model** & **Tolerance (\%)** \\ \hline Cracking load (kN) & 800 & 816 & 2 \\ Ultimate load (kN) & 2350 & 2471 & 5 \\ Limit displacement (mm) & 4.9 & 5.1 & 4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Comparison of FLP3 test and FE model data.