CIVIL ENGINEERING 3J04 REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN

CONCRETE MIX DESIGN PROJECT FINAL REPORT

Professor: Dr. A.G. Razaqpur TA: Ryne Cameron

Submission Date: Friday April 1st, 2011

Group 7 Name Mitchell Knott Doug Kotulak Graeme Langdon Kristin Lee Kim David Leung Wei Lin Yi Liu Theresa Lubianetzky Student Number 0857639 0761272 0647023 0746387 0660075 0771675 0847832 0752850 MACID knottmd kotulad langdog leekik leungdb linw23 liu223 lubianta

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following report is a thorough analysis of failure in a simply supported reinforced concrete beam and a short, axially loaded reinforced concrete column. The concrete structures were poured at the beginning of February, and failure testing was completed in the Applied Dynamics Library by the authors of this report on Monday, March 7, 2011. Prior to actual testing, theoretical calculations were completed by each group member. This report outlines the details of the lab, including graphical representations of beam and column failure, followed by a chapter of discussions from each group member. The reinforced concrete beam was simply supported, and a load was applied at two points in a symmetrical manner. As this load was applied, strain readings were taken at load increments at around 30kN, up to a final load of 285kN. Beyond this point, strain measurements were not recorded in light of safety precautions and time constraints. As cracks formed along the bottom of the beam, a marker was used to trace their shape. Deflection of the beam was also recorded and, although the beam did not experience complete failure, the cracks and deflection it exhibited would not be acceptable in real life situations. Theoretical cracking load and ultimate failure load were calculated as 43.4kN and 219kN, respectively. When the results were compiled and analyzed, the experimental cracking and failure load were 39.5kN and 285kN. Because the predicted failure load under shear was 383kN, which exceeds the expected load at failure for flexure beam, the anticipated mode of beam failure was flexural. This prediction proved to be accurate. The reasons for deviation of experimental from theoretical values are discussed in individual chapters. The reinforced concrete column was continuously loaded biaxially with eccentricities of 10mm in both lateral directions. The columns load at failure was 804kN, as compared with its theoretical failure load of 688kN. Steel reinforcement in the column buckled under compressive stresses in an hourglass shape, as seen in Figure 10. Reasons for this shape and any sources of error can be found in individual discussions.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Objective ................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 1 4.0 Background and Theory............................................................................................................ 1 5.0 Experimental Procedure ............................................................................................................ 4 5.1 Constructing the Beam and Column ..................................................................................... 4 5.2 Beam ..................................................................................................................................... 4 5.2.1 Test Set-up ..................................................................................................................... 5 5.2.2 List of Equipment .......................................................................................................... 5 5.3 Column ................................................................................................................................. 5 5.3.1 Test Setup....................................................................................................................... 6 5.3.2 List of Equipment .......................................................................................................... 6 6.0 Reinforced Concrete Beam ....................................................................................................... 6 6.1 Beam Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 8 6.2 Summary of Results ............................................................................................................ 10 7.0 Reinforced Concrete Column ................................................................................................. 11 7.1 Bresler Method: Calculating Biaxial Loaded Columns ...................................................... 11 7.2 Interaction Diagram ............................................................................................................ 13 8.0 Discussion Yi Liu 0847832 ................................................................................................. 13 8.1 Beam ................................................................................................................................... 13 8.2 Column ............................................................................................................................... 14 8.3 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 14 9.0 Discussion Kristin Lee Kim 0746387 .................................................................................. 15 9.1 Beam ................................................................................................................................... 15 9.2 Column ............................................................................................................................... 16 10.0 Discussion - David Leung 0660075...................................................................................... 17 10.1 Beam subjected to 4-point flexural loading ...................................................................... 17 10.2 Column subjected to axial compression with 10 mm double eccentricity ....................... 18 10.3 Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 18 11.0 Discussion Douglas Kotulak 0761272 ............................................................................... 19 11.1 Beam ................................................................................................................................. 19 11.2 Column ............................................................................................................................. 21 11.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 22 12.0 Discussion Graeme Langdon 0647023 .............................................................................. 22 12.1 Beam ................................................................................................................................. 22 12.1.1 Cracking Moment ...................................................................................................... 23 12.1.2 Ultimate Capacity ...................................................................................................... 23 12.1.3 Shear Capacity ........................................................................................................... 24 12.1.4 Deflection ................................................................................................................... 24 12.2 Column ............................................................................................................................. 24 12.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 25 iii

13.0 Discussion Mitchell Knott 0857639 .................................................................................. 25 13.1 Beam ................................................................................................................................. 25 13.2 Column ............................................................................................................................. 26 13.3 Source of Error ................................................................................................................. 27 13.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 27 14.0 Discussion Theresa Lubianetzky 0752850 ........................................................................ 28 14.1 Beam ................................................................................................................................. 28 14.2 Column ............................................................................................................................. 29 14.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 30 15.0 Discussion: Wei Lin 0771675............................................................................................... 30 15.1 Beam ................................................................................................................................. 30 15.1.1 Observations During Testing ..................................................................................... 31 15.1.2 Observations Subsequent to Testing ......................................................................... 31 15.2 Column ............................................................................................................................. 31 15.3 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 32 16.0 References ............................................................................................................................. 34 Appendix A: Experimental Data (Beam)...................................................................................... 35 Appendix B: Beam Calculations................................................................................................... 36 Appendix B: Column Sample Calculations .................................................................................. 39

iv

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: BEAM SPECIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................ 5 TABLE 2: COLUMN SPECIFICATIONS................................................................................................... 6 TABLE 3: INITIAL BEAM MEASUREMENTS ........................................................................................ 6 TABLE 4: RESULTS OF BEAM TESTING ............................................................................................. 10 TABLE 5: THEORETICAL COLUMN LOAD VALUES ........................................................................ 12 TABLE 6: THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL COLUMN LOADS ............................................. 12 TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL VS. THEORETICAL RESULTS ........................ 27

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: POURING THE BEAM ............................................................................................................ 4 FIGURE 2: BEAM DIMENSIONS .............................................................................................................. 5 FIGURE 3: COLUMN DIMENSIONS ........................................................................................................ 6 FIGURE 4: BEAM AT FAILURE ............................................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 5: BEAM DURING LOADING .................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 6: STRESS VS. STRAIN .............................................................................................................. 8 FIGURE 7: LOAD VS. DEFLECTION ....................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 8: STRAIN PROFILE TOP, CENTRE, BOTTOM....................................................................... 9 FIGURE 9: STRAIN PROFILE TOP, BOTTOM ...................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 10: COLUMN .............................................................................................................................. 11 FIGURE 11: COLUMN CROSS SECTION .............................................................................................. 12 FIGURE 12: INTERACTION DIAGRAM.................................................................................................13 FIGURE 13: COLUMNS IN FAILURE .................................................................................................... 30

Group 7

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This lab is a main component of the Civil Engineering Departments reinforced concrete course, CIV ENG 3J04, at McMaster University. In the lab, a reinforced concrete beam is subjected to two point loads while students observe and record crack formation and beam deflection. Throughout the beam testing, a variety of strain and load measurements are taken. Students use a marker to make crack markings, which later allows comparison of theoretical values to experimental values of cracking load. A reinforced concrete column is also tested under an axial load, and Group 7 conducted the assigned loading with two eccentricities. Students get the chance to see how these eccentricities affect loading of a column and how the column fails. Reinforced concrete elements are very common in a variety of structures, as the combination of concrete and steel provides high strength at relatively inexpensive costs. A reinforced concrete element maximizes compressive strength while the steel bars provide high tensile strength of the final reinforced concrete product. Furthermore, steel is able to help carry some compressive strength, as well as handle creep and shrinkage effects.

2.0 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this lab is to give students an opportunity to put the knowledge gained from lectures to tangible applications. The lab begins with a demonstration on how to construct a reinforced concrete beam, with lab technicians explaining how rebar is tied and how the concrete is vibrated into place. Flexural testing of the beam allows students to compare theoretical predictions of cracking moment, cracking load, ultimate moment, failure load, failure mode, and shear resistance to experimental values. This illustrates how and where cracks develop, how cracks grow with increased loading, and eventually, how beams fail. Like the beam experiment, the column test allows students to compare theoretical and experimental values of the column load and moment capacity. In addition, students can see how the columns fail in compression.

3.0 SCOPE
This lab involves the testing and analysis of reinforced concrete beams and columns. The concrete members were poured in February and left to cure before testing in March. The beam and column specifications were given to each lab member, as each individual had to calculate the cracking moment, ultimate moment, and failure mode of the beam before failure testing in the Applied Dynamics Lab at McMaster University. The beam was loaded and strain readings, as well as crack markings, were recorded at various intervals. The results from the lab were collected and used to conduct further analysis of the beam. The column was loaded all at once until failure. The results of the column test were collected and used to complete further analysis.

4.0 BACKGROUND AND THEORY

Concrete, made primarily of aggregate, water, air, and cement, is an incredibly useful and versatile material in the civil engineering world. It is widely used in beams, columns, and slabs for the construction of a variety of infrastructure projects. Concretes compressive strength is significant, however, it is a brittle material that fails without warning and performs poorly under

04/01/11

CE 3J04

Group 7

tensile stresses. By reinforcing concrete beams and columns with steel bars, these brittle characteristics of concrete are compensated for, as the steel adds tensile strength and ductility to the concrete structure. When steel is in encased in concrete, it is protected from natural elements that would otherwise cause corrosion. The combining of concrete and steel can effectively balance the weaknesses of the two separate materials to create tough, high-strength reinforced concrete slabs, beams and columns that can be used for roofs, highways, canals, foundations, dams, buildings, etc. (Leet 1997). Beams with certain dimensions are typically designed by engineers to resist a predicted factored moment that is likely to be applied during their useful lifetime. Calculations later on confirm amounts of additional reinforcement required for shearing. Canadian engineers who design reinforced concrete utilize the CSA Concrete Design Handbook to ensure that design specifications are met. When beams are bent in flexure, some fibres will experience compression and some will experience tension, regardless of the direction the beam is bent. The neutral axis is essentially one plane within the beam that acts as a meeting point where fibres experience tension to one side of the plane and compression to the other. As long as the applied moment is small enough such that tensile stresses from bending are less than the concretes flexural tensile strength, the beam will not crack. Under these conditions, the stress at a distance y from the neutral axis can be read as

Because concrete is so weak in tension, steel reinforcement is embedded within portions of concrete that experience tension in order to increase ductility of the member. As soon as the moment on a beam creates tensile stresses exceeding to the modulus of rupture, the concrete under tension will crack- this is called the cracking moment of the beam. The distance yt is measured from the centroid of the beams cross-section to the outermost fibre in tension.

At this point, the concrete strength in tension is negligible, and it is acceptable to assume the steel reinforcement carries all tensile stresses in the beam. Cracking of concrete in tension does not constitute failure of the entire beam, since steel is in place to carry tensile stresses that can no longer be held by the cracked concrete. In use, it is common for service loads to cause high enough moments in reinforced concrete beams such that cracking occurs. Ensuring the occurrence ductile failure is a main goal when designing reinforced concrete beams. When beams fail in a brittle manner, rupture occurs quickly and without warning, demonstrating little ability to absorb energy. Ductile failure occurs more gradually, making it plain to see that the beam is deforming, and approaching or exceeding failure. This allows time for assessments or replacement of visibly damaged beams. To ensure that the steel yields prior to concrete yielding and causes ductile failure, beams are designed to be under-reinforced. If beams

04/01/11

CE 3J04

Group 7

are over-reinforced, failure will occur as the compressed concrete crushes and disintegrates before steel has reached its yield point (Leet 1997). Loads and moments that cause eventual flexural failure in beams (like the loading applied to the beam in this lab) also have potential to cause failure by shear. Reinforcements protecting a beam from shear failure are present in the form of multiple stirrups, usually placed at locations where internal shear stresses are likely to exceed concrete shear strength. In reinforced concrete beams that are loaded similarly to the one tested in this lab, internal shearing causes tensile stresses to act at 45-degree angles to the shear planes of the beam. Diagonal tension failure due to shear typically causes brittle, fast-occurring cracks to develop. These cracks are often detrimental and will cause failure of the entire beam. Flexure cracks can trigger the beginning of shear cracking, and this occurs when the applied moment has surpassed the cracking moment (Leet 1997). Concrete columns are astoundingly strong under compression. Unfortunately, any eccentricity in axial or horizontal loading can instil a moment and induce tensile stresses in the column; this is why concrete columns are also reinforced with steel. Steel reinforcements are usually placed symmetrically in the column cross-section to ensure the column is properly strengthened for a variety of possible eccentricities. The direct relationship between the eccentricity, load, and moment is

Columns are often vital in the stability of entire buildings, that is, if one column fails, the rest of the structure will likely experience failure as well. The column in this lab is reinforced with longitudinal bars held together with a lateral wiring fence. This cage prevents the bars from shifting, particularly while the concrete was being poured. Column failure varies depending on its slenderness characteristics and loading type. In shorter columns under axial loading, like the one tested in this lab, the concrete will break and crumble away leaving all compression to be handled by the tall, thin steel supports. Naturally, these supports will buckle under this pressure in an hourglass shape, and the column will quickly and visibly fail.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

Group 7

5.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

5.1 CONSTRUCTING THE BEAM AND COLUMN

Figure 1: Pouring the beam

Prior to pouring the concrete, the lab technicians constructed wood forms then tied the rebar into place. When pouring the concrete into the form, the technicians use a vibrating nozzle, which helps push the concrete around the steel rebar to ensure there are no voids. 5.2 BEAM The lab technicians in the Applied Dynamics Lab completed the entire beam setup. The concrete was poured in February, and was left to cure for just over a month. Prior to testing, the beam was laid across the testing equipment, resting on two pin connection supports that were 2 200 mm apart. The two loading points were rested on the top of the beam, 1 200 mm apart. A diagram of the beam set up can be found in Figure 2. These dimensions were given before the students arrival at the lab, and were re-measured at the beginning of the experiment. The lab technicians applied a load to the beam using a hydraulic jack. At intervals of about 30kN, they would discontinue the applied load so the strain measurements could be taken and the group could inspect the beam for cracking. The load intervals were 39, 55, 74, 110, 152, 182, 213, 219, 228, 239, and 285 kN. As the load increased, the beam began to fail. At higher loads, the strain measurements were not taken because due to safety concerns. The deflection and failure mode of the beam were recognized.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

Group 7

5.2.1 Test Set-up

Figure 2: Beam Dimensions Table 1: Beam Specifications

Beam # 7

Bottom Steel Top Steel Stirrup Spacing B (mm) Number and Size Number and Size (mm) 2M15 2M10 23 @ 100 1200

5.2.2 List of Equipment Reinforced Concrete Beam Strain Gauge Measuring Tape Marker Tinnius Olson Loading Machine Computer

5.3 COLUMN Prior to Group 7 arriving, the lab technicians kindly completed the set up for the column compression test. The concrete was poured in February and was left to cure for a month. Steel caps were placed at each end of the column to evenly distribute the load over the entire upper face. The column was set up in the compression equipment to be axially loaded. The technicians ensured that an eccentricity of 10 mm in both the x-axis and y-axis was set before applying the load to the column. A load was applied at an increasing rate until it failed. The results from the test were recorded by using a computer program that measured the stress and strain.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

Group 7

5.3.1 Test Setup

Figure 3: Column Dimensions

Table 2: Column Specifications

Column # Column Height (mm) Tie Space Ex (mm) Ey (mm) 7 700 200 10 10 5.3.2 List of Equipment Reinforced Concrete Column Riehle 2500kN Press Stress-Strain Gauge Computer

6.0 REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM

Table 3 shows the initial beam measurements. Throughout the loading of the beam, strain measurements were taken and the top, centre and bottom of the beam. These results are accompanied by comments, shown in Appendix A.
Table 3: Initial Beam Measurements

B (mm) Beam 154

H (mm) 345

D (mm) 315

Supports (mm) 2200

Distance Between Loads (mm) 1200

After taking the required measurements of beam dimensions and spacing, loading was applied to the beam. At 39kN, only a hairline crack began to form near the center of the beam. The strain

04/01/11

CE 3J04

Group 7

readings were taken at the top, centre, and bottom gauges on the beam, and a marker was used to outline the crack. The next interval where measurements were taken was at 55kN. More cracks began to appear throughout the bottom side of the beam. These cracks were primarily contained within the bottom half of the beam. At 74kN, the existing cracks grew significantly larger and visible shear cracking began. At 110kN, shear cracking was forming on both ends of the beam and a significantly long crack developed. At this point, the depths all cracks were at least halfway up the beam. Loading continued with breaks at 152, 182, 213, 219, 228, 239, and 285kN to take strain measurements and monitor crack size. The existing cracks continued to grow larger both in length and thickness, and no new cracks appeared after 110kN. Cracking due to compression at the top of the beam began around 228kN. The test was stopped at 285kN, due to time constraints since our beam had yet to completely fail. Although the concrete did not disintegrate and the steel bars were not exposed, the concrete at the top of the beam was crushing and breaking off and there were large, thick tension cracks on the lower half of the beam. Furthermore, the beam showed a very large deflection, which can be seen in Figure 4, below. In reality, the beam would have been considered failed at this point. The final failure of the beam reached by Group 7 is illustrated below.

Figure 4: Beam at Failure

It is important to note that a crack went right through one of the middle strain points. As a result, the readings for the centre strain are skewed.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

Group 7

Figure 5: Beam during loading

6.1 BEAM ANALYSIS Throughout the duration of beam loading, strain measurements were taken at the top, middle and bottom of the beam corresponding to different loads. These results are plotted in Figure 6. As expected, the bottom of the beam experiences the most strain, since the beam is under flexural stress, and the bottom of the beam is essentially being pulled apart.

Stress vs. Strain

5000 Stress (MPa) 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 Strain
Figure 6: Stress vs. Strain

Top Middle Bottom 0 0.005

-0.005

The beam was also connected to a computer for the duration of the lab. The computer continuously calculated the applied load and the deflection of the beam. These results are illustrated in Figure 7, below. Through the elastic region, the theoretical and experimental values are similar. Furthermore, it can be observed that when the load was removed, the beam experienced a permanent deflection of approximately 70mm.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

Group 7

Load vs. Deflection

300.00 250.00 Load (kN) 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 Deflection (mm)
Figure 7: Load vs. Deflection

Experimental Theoretical

Figure 8, below, shows the strain profile of the beam. For every applied moment, three strains were measured at the top, centre and bottom of the beam. These are plotted to create the strain profile. This profile can be used to determine where the neutral axis lies, as the neutral axis is revealed where the strain crosses the vertical axis. It should be noted that these strain profile lines should be linear and not have a sudden change in path. During our experiment, a crack formed through our centre placement node, thus resulting in a significantly inaccurate variation in strain values for the central reading.

Strain Profile Top, Centre, Bottom

Strain (mm/mm) Distance to Extreme Tension Fibre (mm) 0 KNm 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 -1E-17 350 8.2 KNm 24 KNm 39.5 KNm 55 KNm 74 KNm 110 KNm 152.6 KNm 182.5 KNm

-0.02

-0.015

-0.01

-0.005

0.005

Figure 8: Strain Profile Top, Centre, Bottom

04/01/11

CE 3J04

Group 7

Because these readings were a completely false representation of the strain experienced by the beam, Group 7 simply plotted the strain profiles again without the centre measurements, to get a better illustration of the beams actual strain as it varied with applied load. This new representation is illustrated in Figure 9.

Strain Profile Top, Bottom

Strain (mm/mm) Distance to Extreme Tension Fibre (mm) 0 0 KNm 50 100 150 200 250 300 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 350
Figure 9: Strain Profile Top, Bottom

8.2 KNm 24 KNm 39.5 KNm 55 KNm 74 KNm 110 KNm 152.6 KNm 182.5 KNm 213.5 KNm 219 KNm 0 0.005

6.2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Table 4: Results of Beam Testing

Theoretical Experimental Error

Cracking Load (Pcr) 43.4 kN 39.5 kN 8.77%

Ultimate Capacity (Pu) 219 kN 285 kN 30.1%

Shear Capacity (Vr) 383 kN -

Failure Mode Flexure Flexure OK

Deflection 0.88 mm 0.95 mm 7.95%

Table 4 provides a summary of the theoretical and experimental values calculated in the lab. Experimental results are generally consistent with the theoretical values, although the ultimate capacity value was slightly higher than theoretically expected.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

10

Group 7

7.0 REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMN

The force gauge in the hydraulic press was connected to a computer that collected the required data and simultaneously graphed resistance in the column. The column was loaded by the lab technicians continuously until complete failure occurred. At failure, the concrete disintegrated away and the steel buckled, as displayed in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Column at failure

7.1 BRESLER METHOD: CALCULATING BIAXIAL LOADED COLUMNS Group 7s column was biaxially loaded with eccentricities of 10mm in each lateral direction. To complete the analysis of a column subjected to a biaxial load, the highly simplified Breseler Method is used. To find the load (Pr), the equation is

In using this method, the column is essentially analyzed as a uniaxially loaded column with an xdirection eccentricity, a uniaxially loaded column with a y-direction eccentricity, and a pure axially loaded column. These respective values are plugged into the Bresler equation, which solves for column loading capacity.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

11

Group 7

Figure 11: Column Cross Section

The theoretical load calculations for a uniaxial- and axial- loaded column in this lab are illustrated in Table 5. See Appendix B for the sample calculations involved.
Table 5: Theoretical Column Load Values

Prx Pry Pro

807 kN 807 kN 976.4 kN

Since the cross section of the column is symmetric, the uniaxial load in the x and y directions are the same. Substituting these values into the Bresler formula, as seen in Appendix A, a theoretical biaxial load of 688kN is obtained.
Table 6: Theoretical and Experimental Column Loads

Theoretical Biaxial Load Experimental Load Error = 14.5%

688 kN 804 kN

When comparing the theoretical and experimental load, the theoretical load is approximately 14.5% lower than the load that was observed in the lab. A significant factor of this difference is due to the Bresler formula. This formula is a highly simplified method of calculating a biaxialloaded column, and gives a very conservative answer. Because of this, a 14.5% error is quite an acceptable value.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

12

Group 7

7.2 INTERACTION DIAGRAM The interaction diagram, based from theoretical calculations, can be found in Figure 12, below. This diagram shows the relationship between the axial load resistance (along the y-axis) and moment resistance (along the x-axis). The balance point at (21.7 kN.m, 171kN) represents an axial load applied at zero eccentricity. Points above the balance point represent columns that are loaded with small eccentricity, characterized by concrete controlled failure that is initiated by the concrete crushing. Conversely, a point falling below the balance point represents a column loaded with high eccentricity and is characterized by steel-controlled failure.

Interaction Diagram
1200 1000 800 Axial Load, Pr (kN) 600 400 200 0 0 -200 5 10 15 20 25

Pr = 976.4 kN

(Mb,Pb) = (21.7, 171)

Bending Moment, Mr (kN.m)

Figure 12: Interaction Diagram

8.0 DISCUSSION YI LIU 0847832

8.1 BEAM Two point loads were applied to the beam at a uniform rate, and the result was noted and recorded. The applied load was recorded as 39.5 kN when the first crack occurs at the middle region (large moment region). At this point, the concrete was still operating at the service load, but the concrete no longer resists any tension and the tension was transferred to the steel reinforcements. As a result, the neutral axis moves up. The cracking load was calculated to be 43.4 kN, which is about 10% larger than the experimental result. This difference might because of that the equation used for cracking moment calculation was fr = 0.6fc, where the constant 0.6 is actually varies between 0.4 and 0.8 which will affect the value of the cracking moment and furthermore the cracking load.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

13

Group 7

The first diagonal cracks (shear) were observed at angle of approximately 45 to the horizontal axis under 110 kN load near the two supports. As the applied load increases to 182 kN, the tensile steel starts to yield; this can be proved by checking the strain at this point, which was calculated to be 0.0023. The failure load was found to be 285 kN during the experiment, and the theoretical result was 219 kN. There are several reasons might cause this significant difference between the two values. First of all, the theoretical calculation shows that the compression steel did not yield and the ultimate moment and failure load were all calculated based on this assumption. However, by observing the trend of the strain profile of the beam, it seems that the top steel bars may yield at the failure point and this will results a different value of c, which is the distance between top edge and neutral axis, and further affect the ultimate moment and theoretical value of failure load. Secondly, the compression steel was covered by the concrete which makes it invisible on the cross section, so that we cannot measure the actual distance between the top edge and the compression steel; this might affect the result of the theoretical failure moment and load as well. 8.2 COLUMN The short column being tested had a height of 700 mm, a tie spacing of 100mm and was loaded with an eccentricity of 10mm in both x-axis and y-axis. This would induce moment to the column and cause the column fails at a lower vertical load value than if the column was under concentrated axial load. Through the test and analysis of the column, we were able to develop an interaction diagram which represents the relationship of moment and axial load. The theoretical failure load was found to be 688 kN through the detailed calculation in previous chapters, and the experimental ultimate vertical load was 804 kN which was recorded during the column test; the difference between the two value is about 14%. This error might be caused by that we were using the Bresler formula to calculate the biaxial load applied to the column, which is a highly simplified method and further resulted an inaccurate answer. 8.3 CONCLUSION In conclusion, the two tests performed during the experiment represents the failure modes of steel reinforced concrete beam and column under a certain loading condition. The beam was tested under two point loads and was failed by flexural moment, this was proved by the beam calculation which shows that the shear resistance (383 kN) was larger than the failure load (285 kN) which means the beam will fail in flexural moment before the shear failure occurs. The column failed due to crashing of the concrete and buckling of the reinforcing steel bars, and the eccentric compression load was found to be 804 kN at the failure of column during the experiment. This result is less than the theoretical compression load that the column can carry when the moment equals to zero, which shown on the interaction diagram as 976.4 kN, since the steel reinforcing bars had already yield at this point.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

14

Group 7

9.0 DISCUSSION KRISTIN LEE KIM 0746387

9.1 BEAM The reinforced concrete column was set up prior to the commencement of the lab by the lab technicians in the Applied Dynamics Lab. There were some slight differences compared to the specified dimensions given. The original dimensions of the beam were b=150 mm, h= 350 mm, d=325 mm, and 25 mm cover. The actual dimensions of the beam were b= 154 mm, h=346 mm, d=315 mm. Our specified concrete strength was supposed to be 25 MPa, instead the concrete used for the construction of our beam was 35 MPa. Due to these variations, our original predictions were incorrect. So we needed to recalculate the expected cracking moment and failure loads of the beam. The beam was supported by a pin connection on one end and a roller on the other, which is a simply supported case. The loading of the beam was supposed to be 2 concentrated equal point loads. The loading of these loads were not exactly point loads since there were metal plates attached to the top of the beam where the loading machine was applying the load. There were also plates attached to the bottom of the beam by the supports. The loading and supports are supposed to be pin points, but due to the plates of different lengths, it could have caused some variation in the load distribution in the beam. The load was applied by the loading machine and the load was evenly distributed to both loading points, 1200 mm apart. The first crack in the beam occurred at a load of 39.5kN. The theoretical cracking load was 43.3kN. It also occurred in the middle of the beam, which was expected because the highest moment occurs in between the loading points. The cracking at 39.5kN was 3.8kN lower than the expected 43.3kN. It is 8.77% lower than expected. However, this value is acceptable because the value flexural strength, fr, used the coefficient of 0.6. This is only an approximation. The range of flexural strength can range from 0.4 to 0.8. The loading continued to increase. By 74kN there was continuous cracking throughout the section between the two loading points. This region also experiences the highest moment, so this observation is expected. As the loading increased, the cracks that began at the very bottom of the beam and worked their way up. The cracks were first visible at the bottom of the beam because it is the region that experienced the highest tension forces. As the cracks began to appear, they seemed to be occurring at equal distances from one another, as shown in Figure 5. Our group determined it was the stirrup spacing at which the cracks were occurring at. The first shear cracks in the beam occurred at 110kN. As the load increased from this point, the shear cracks grew significantly in length. The shear cracks grew much more quickly than the flexural cracks. This is expected due to the diagonal tension failure that is associated with shear cracks. The shear cracks occurred between the supports to the edge of the point load on both ends. These cracks propagated at an angle of about 45o, while the flexural cracks were relatively straight upwards. The calculated ultimate capacity of the beam was supposed to be 219kN. The experimental ultimate capacity was 285kN. This value is 30.1% higher than the theoretical value. However the crushing at the concrete at the top of the beam occurred around 228kN. If by failure, the crack

04/01/11

CE 3J04

15

Group 7

needed to propagate throughout the entire beam then 228kN is fairly close to the theoretical value. The loading was stopped at 285kN because there were not any signs exhibiting that the beam was going to completely fail. At 285kN, the beam showed visible deflection, significant cracking, and crushing of the concrete on the top of the beam, but it was still pretty much intact. Loading was ceased because it would have taken too much time to fail the beam completely. The beam if loaded until failure, was supposed to fail in flexure. The theoretical shear failure load was 383kN. The theoretical flexure failure load was 219kN. The shear failure load is just under 2 times as great as the flexure failure load. The calculations of the expected values were done using a phi value equal to 1. The normal phi values used in calculations are in place to add as a safety factor to ensure the design of a section will meet minimum requirements. Given that this is a lab, we were not interested in including the safety factor. The strain profiles obtained from the lab show a non-linear distribution, as shown in Figure 8. During the loading, one of the cracks propagated and extended right through the middle of one of the center strain points. The existing crack caused a deviation from accurate value. The strain profile of the beam should be a linearly, increasing line. Through knowledge of equilibrium, the constant strain profile should have been observed. An adjusted strain profile using the bottom and top values was created to show what the profile should have looked like, as shown in Figure 9. The deflection of the beam from the lab was 0.95mm. The theoretical deflection of the beam was 0.88mm. This value was over by 7.95%. The deflection of the beam was not visible for half the loading cases. To be able to deflect the concrete beam required a very large applied load. 9.2 COLUMN The column tested was loaded with an eccentricity of 10mm in the x-axis and y-axis. The existence of eccentric loading means that the beam will experience moment. Some faces of the beam will experience some tension and others will experience compression. The theoretical biaxial load for failure was expected to be 688kN. The observed experimental failure load was 804kN. This is 14.5% higher than our expected theoretical value. However, the Bresler Method used to calculate the theoretical failure load of the column is a conservative method. It is a highly simplified method used for calculating biaxial loaded columns. The column is considered a short column based on theory. Buckling of long columns involved the failure of the entire beam. As shown in Figure 10, local buckling of the steel reinforcement at the bottom of the beam occurred. The buckling of the reinforcing steel occurred between two ties. One of the ties actually snapped during the testing. This was due to the sudden outward force of the buckling steel. The side with the buckling and cracking was under extreme compression. The opposite side to the deformation was experiencing some tension forces. The interaction diagram shows that the maximum compression load the beam could withstand is 976.4kN. The maximum moment the column could withstand is 21.7kNm. Experimentally, the failure load of 804kN was higher than Pro max, which is supposed to be the highest loading value. However, the calculations involving biaxial loading cases follow a conservative method. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to have a failure load greater than the theoretical values.
04/01/11 CE 3J04 16

Group 7

10.0 DISCUSSION - DAVID LEUNG 0660075

10.1 BEAM SUBJECTED TO 4-POINT FLEXURAL LOADING We applied an increasing load to the beam and noticed very small strain values across the top, middle and bottom strain gauges. It was not until a load of 39.5 kN that the first crack was visible. This load corresponded to a cracking moment of 9.75 kNm. Figure 6 illustrates the jump in strain values due to the fact that cracks are forming and it is now allowing for easier separation of the concrete. These cracks were predominantly found in the middle section of the beam at the extreme tension fibres. The reason that the cracks form in between the two point loads is due to the fact that this is the region that experiences the highest bending moment. As the load was increased to 55 kN, we found that the initial crack had propagated and a few new cracks had formed. Further increasing of the load presented further crack propagation and more cracks being formed. Cracking occurred in the shear region of the beam (outside the point load applications) at 110 kN and these cracks were inclined toward the point loads, as shown in Figure 5. The shear cracks propagate toward the applied loads because that is where the stress concentration is. If the beam were to fail due to shear forces, these cracks would reach the point loads and a sudden failure would occur. The tension steel in the bottom of the beam was found to yield at an applied load of 213.5 kN. As the load was further increased, spalling of concrete was noticed and horizontal cracks were forming around the areas of load application. The concrete was starting to break off in the compression zone do to the fact that the compression steel was beginning to buckle. Failure of the beam occurred due to flexure at an applied load of 285 kN, corresponding to an ultimate moment resistance of 71.25 kNm. Though the beam had not been brought to complete failure (due to time constraints) it was still considered to be failed due to the large deflection, as shown in Figure 4. Failure was due to flexure, as predicted by "Beam Calculations" in Appendix A, due to the fact that the moment resistance of the beam was less than the shear resistance. The vertical deflection of the beam was measured at each of the different applied loads and is shown in Figure 7. There is a clear linear relationship between the applied load and deflection up until the point at which the tension steel yields. At this point there is no longer an elastic relationship and the beam enters a state of plastic deformation. The graph begins to enter a slight plateau, illustrating that the beam is still able to continue bending as the applied load remains relatively constant. It was expected that the plateau would be flatter rather than continuing to increase slightly as shown. The further increase in strength can be attributed to strain hardening. The end of the plateau marks the ultimate load resistance (285 kN) and as the load goes back to zero, a permanent deformation of 76 mm is observed. This deformation is a result of the beam going past the elastic zone due to the fact that the tension steel yielded. The overall deflection of the beam was analyzed to compare theoretical deflection to the value obtained in the lab. The theoretical calculations are representative in the elastic region and as such we calculated it up to the point of cracking. At this point there was a measured 0.95 mm of deflection. Comparing this to the 0.88 mm theoretical deflection at the cracking load results in 8% error, which is acceptable for this analysis. Examining the strain profile along the depth of the beam, as shown in Figure 8, we can see that the top of the beam experienced a negative strain and the bottom of the beam experienced a

04/01/11

CE 3J04

17

Group 7

positive strain. Note that the figure should be displaying the negative values of the strains shown. This is evidence of the top of the beam being in compression and the bottom of the beam being in tension. The centre reading seems to be off as the profile should be linear. As noted in our report, there was a crack formed through one of the centre gauge readings and this is likely the cause of the skewed results. As such, another strain profile was created, shown in Figure 9, that neglects the centre reading. The strain along the bottom of the beam is greater than the strain at the top because of the location of the neutral axis. The "Beam Calculations" in Appendix A shows that the neutral axis is closer to the top fibres of the beam. Since the strain profile is linear, the strain in tension must be greater than the strain in compression in order to satisfy the assumption that plane sections remain plane. 10.2 COLUMN SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSION WITH 10 MM DOUBLE ECCENTRICITY The testing of the short column was done by simply subjecting the column to an axial load at a double eccentricity of 10 mm in both x and y directions until failure occurred. This double eccentricity will cause the column to undergo moments as well as the compression load. As the load was increased we noticed that the first cracks appeared near the point of application of the load. These cracks became wider as they propagated down the column along the two faces that formed the corner closest to the applied load. Eventually, at a load of 804 kN, the column failed due to crushing of the concrete and the final result is shown in Figure 10. The reinforcing longitudinal bars buckled and the surrounding concrete had spalled off. Horizontal cracking was found on the opposite corner (the corner furthest from the load) in the centre of the column. These cracks are a result of the moment causing tension in that area. The eccentricities create a bending moment on the column, causing part of the column to undergo compression and part to undergo tension. The area surrounding the corner closest to the applied load was under compression, while the area opposite this was under tension. As shown by "Column Sample Calculations" in Appendix B, the theoretical failure load of the column was 688 kN. The experimental value was found to be 804 kN. This 14.5% error can be attributed to the fact that the Bresler formula used is known to be a very simplified and conservative method. The reason that the bars buckled is because as the concrete fails and begins spalling, the bars lose their lateral support. There is not enough lateral support from the ties because they were not spaced closely enough and Figure 10 shows that one of the ties actually broke. Therefore when the concrete spalls off the column due to failure in compression, the bars no longer have the necessary lateral support to hold them in place and they buckle outwards. 10.3 CONCLUSIONS The cracking moment of the beam was found to be 9.75 kNm. The theoretical calculations provided in Appendix C estimated the cracking moment to be 10.84 kNm. This results in an error of 9%. The error can be attributed to the fact that when calculating the modulus of rupture for use in the cracking moment calculation, the factor of 0.6 is actually a range from 0.4 to 0.8 (as stated by the Lab TA). Due to this variability, the theoretical value for the cracking moment could actually be closer to the yielded result. The ultimate moment resistance of the beam was found to be 71.25 kNm. Theoretical calculations found in Appendix A show that the value should have been 54.68 kNm. The resulting error is about 30%, which is not an acceptable

04/01/11

CE 3J04

18

Group 7

amount of error. It is possible that the distance to the compression steel may not have been exactly 25 mm since we were unable to take this measurement as the steel was covered by concrete. Much like other dimensions were different than the original design, if the depth to the compression steel was different, the calculations would all need to be changed to account for this difference. In any case, it is positive to note that the theoretical calculations were conservative compared to the actual results found. The deflection of the beam at cracking was 0.95 mm, resulting in 8% error that is acceptable for this analysis. The axial load resistance of the short column was found to be 804 kN. The theoretical calculations provided in Appendix B show that the actual axial load resistance for this column should have been 688 kN. The resulting error is 14.5%. As previously mentioned, the Bresler formula used is very simplified and conservative. Since it is known to be conservative and we yielded a conservative result, I will consider the error to be within a reasonable value of what we should have expected when using this formula. Overall I feel that we succeeded in analyzing the behaviour of steel reinforced concrete. We were able to witness the characteristics of the members as presented in lecture. In particular, the significance of under-reinforced beams was presented. We could see how the beam began to deflect greatly after the steel had yielded and this demonstrated its usefulness in the real world. By under-reinforcing the beam you are given fair warning that failure is going to occur. This is better than over-reinforcing, which would likely lead to a shear, brittle failure that could happen very quickly. This lab has given insight on how to safely design beams and columns for use in engineering situations.

11.0 DISCUSSION DOUGLAS KOTULAK 0761272

When designing a structure it is important to consider a number of things such as structural safety and serviceability requirements, functional requirements, economics, durability, and environmental impact. With reinforced concrete beams all of these considerations play a role in the design process. Structural safety plays the major role in limit state design as a potential structural collapse could lead to loss of human life and major economic losses. Also important is serviceability limits which correspond to the structure behaving in a satisfactory manner during its service life. Functional requirements are related to the architectural and structural engineering considerations. With many things it is important to design structures that are efficient, it is important to meet safety requirements but this must be balanced with economics. The durability and environmental impact are important as we work to a more sustainable society. 11.1 BEAM Reinforced concrete beams are designed to carry specific loads to meet the structural safety requirements. Upon the chance of the beam being overloaded the reinforced beam must be designed to fail in a preferred method. In reinforce concrete beams the preferred failure method is flexural failure. Flexural failure occurs when a transversely applied load causes lateral deformation. Concrete has a limited ability to carry tension and cracks once the tensile strength of concrete has been exceeded in the area of the maximum bending moment. To increase the resistance of concrete steel reinforcement will be added to the concrete. For this lab the beam
04/01/11 CE 3J04 19

Group 7

contained two point loads at a spacing of 1200mm and was simply supported at a span of 2200mm. The maximum bending moment from the applied loads was found to occur at the mid span. The maximum cracking moment of the concrete is based off the tensile strength of concrete (3.55MPa) which is found from the compressive strength of concrete (35Mpa), the gross section of moment of inertia (5.27x108mm4), and the distance from the neutral axis to the max tension (172.5mm). From these values the maximum cracking moment was 10.84 kN*m corresponding to a cracking load of 43.4kN. The experimental cracking load was observed to be 39.5 kN. The experimental cracking moment was determined based off when the first cracks were witnessed in the concrete beam. The slight difference in the theoretical and experimental data can be associated to the observations of cracks were done by the human eye. Hence micro cracks could have formed at an earlier load that was not visible. Also the calculation of the concrete tensile strength is based off empirical data so there is a slight variation possible. Since the theoretical is an underestimate of the experimental value it is not of high concern as it will lead to a more conservative design. To increase the resistance of the concrete 2-15M bars were used in the tension zone of the concrete beam which is the bottom section. By applying tension reinforcement to the beam at small loads the concrete and steel will both resist tension. As the beam cracks the bottom fibres reach the tensile strength of concrete and the tensile stresses at the cracked locations are carried by the steel reinforcement. To further increase the moment resistance of the beam the 2-10M bars were used as compressive reinforcement. By adding reinforcement in the compression zone the concrete can resists additional stresses in the compressive zone and allow for increase tension reinforcement beyond the balanced condition. As loading increases in the beam the stress in the tension reinforcement will reach the yield point, in the experiment this corresponds to the applied load of 213.5kN which at the bottom section had a strain of 0.0024 that is greater than the yield strain of 0.0023. This is also concurrent with observations of the cracks, by this point all the cracks had reached middle region of the beam. This demonstrates that the entire moment is being resisted by the steel. In the theoretical calculations the moment resistance was found to be 54.68kNm corresponding to a load of 218.8kN, while in the lab the observed ultimate load resistance was taken as 285kN. We can see that the theoretical load is closer to where the tension steel has strained. This is most likely due to the fact that the theoretical calculation is based off the moment resistance at yielding of the tension steel point. Therefore the theoretical calculation does not take into account the added amount of resistance of the reinforced concrete beam as it continues to deform before ultimate collapse as it experiences inelastic cracked state. In the lab the experiment was stopped at a load of 285kN at this point the beam had experience excessive deformation at the mid span. The mode of failure described here is known as a steel control failure and is the preferred failure mode for concrete beams as it provides an advance warning due to the ductile nature of the failure. It is interesting to note that the cracks formed along the base of the beam at a spacing of 100mm which corresponds to the spacing of the stirrups. This is the result of less concrete at cover at the location of the stirrups to resists the applied loads. The other mode of failure that a reinforced concrete beam must be designed against is shear failure. Shear failure is a concrete controlled brittle failure caused by a shear force from flexure. To prevent against shear enclosed 10M stirrups were placed at 100mm spacing. Stirrups work by carrying the excess shear beyond the concretes shear resistance. Shear reinforcement prevents

04/01/11

CE 3J04

20

Group 7

the occurrence of a sudden brittle failure which would potentially lead to a high loss of life in a structure. Shear reinforcement can increase shear resistance by carrying a proportion of the shear load through a sudden increase in tensile force after the formation of inclined cracking and by limiting the width and spread of inclined cracks. Through theoretical calculations the shear resistance of the beam was found to be 191.5kN corresponding to an applied load of 383kN. This was significantly higher than flexure applied load capacity of 219kN. Hence with the experiment we did not expect to see significant shear cracks or a failure due to shear. We did not see a shear crack on either side of the beam till an applied load of 110kN. The shear crack at mid height of the beam was witnessed to be approximately 45 degrees. This corresponds to the strain profile which is maximum at the neutral axis that is approximately at the mid height of the beam for a load of 110kN.This can be seen in the strain profile graph. The crack forms at an angle of 45 degree as it follows the path of least resistance which occurs at max stress and max strain and from structural mechanics this happens at an orientation of 45 degrees to the horizontal. The crack continues to move up the beam at 45 degrees as the load increases and neutral axis shifts upwards. The neutral axis shifts upwards as the concrete beam cracks, the beam looses its capability to resist tension. The stress block hence shrinks as the cracks grow larger leading to the neutral axis shifting upwards. As predicted in the theoretical calculations the reinforced concrete beam failed due to flexure before the shear cracks led to a shear failure. Shear failure and flexure failure represent two ultimate limit state design factors other serviceability factors such as deflection are important when designing a reinforced concrete beam. If deflection is too large it can lead to uneven roofs, uneven floors, and doors jamming up. The theoretical immediate deflection was calculated to be 0.88mm and the experimental was 0.95mm this minor difference is probably due to rounding or human error. The sustained deflection of the beam after removing the load was approximately 70mm and approximately 84mm before removing the load. The large deflection represents the large amount of warning before the reinforced concrete beam would have collapsed. Other various things to note is a cracked formed through the center placement node causing the strain data to be skewed for the center point. Also when looking at the top, centre, and bottom node placements we see that as expected the highest strain occurred at the bottom node, followed by the middle node. 11.2 COLUMN The column had a square cross section of 150mm by 150mm, was reinforce with 4-15M bars, and 6.35mm diameter ties were used at a spacing of 200mm. It was load at a bi-axial eccentricity of 10mm off the x-axis and y-axis. The theoretical calculations found a pure axial capacity of 976.4kN. The balance condition was calculated to be at an eccentricity of 127mm, an axial load of 171kN, and a moment of 21.7kNm. Any point above the balanced condition represents a column that will fail in concrete controlled failure; any point below the balanced condition represents a column that will fail in steel controlled failure. All though a steel control failure represents a ductile failure and is the preferred method of failure. It was found that since the loading was at an eccentricity less than the balanced condition that the concrete would fail in a concrete controlled failure. This brittle failure was observed in the lab as the concrete suddenly crumbled after one of the ties split near the center of the column. The observed failure load was 804kN which was significantly higher than the theoretical axial load capacity of 688kN. The theoretical load being an underestimate leads to a more conservative answer on the ultimate

04/01/11

CE 3J04

21

Group 7

capacity which is safer. The theoretical estimate is most likely significantly lower as the Bresler formula was used to calculate the answer, which is an extremely simplified method. 11.3 CONCLUSION In conclusion this lab allowed me to gain hands on experience of cracking moment, ultimate moment resistance, flexure failure, shear failure, eccentricity, and axial load capacity of columns. It allowed me to apply the theories I learned in class to practical applications. The beam as predicted failed in flexure oppose to shear and we observed the long amount of time one would have to notice this failure occurring. The cracking load and moment resistance was observed to be nearly the same as the theoretical calculation and erred on the conservative side. The propagation of cracks occurred at the bottom of the beam and worked their way up as the load increased and subsequently the moment increased. Shear cracks were observe to occur at 45degree angle in relation to orientation of max shear and max stress at the center of the beam. With columns we saw the need for the design under a concrete controlled eccentricity to contain a considerable safety factor due to brittle failure occurs with little warning. The lab greatly increased my understanding of beams and columns.

12.0 DISCUSSION GRAEME LANGDON 0647023

Reinforced Concrete is an essential component in civil engineering. Many structures are composed of reinforced concrete beams and columns. The idea behind reinforced concrete is that by adding a small portion of steel bars into concrete, the steel handles the tension loads and helps the concrete with the compression loads. In this lab, students analyzed and compared the theoretical and experimental values of a beam for cracking moment, ultimate capacity, shear and deflection. In addition, students analyzed and compared the theoretical and experimental values for a biaxial loaded column.

12.1 BEAM
The beam was a doubly reinforced section with stirrups spaced at 100mm. The beam was loaded with two equal concentrated loads symmetrically placed on the beam. As a result, the maximum shear occurred at the supports, the maximum moment occurred at the mid span and the maximum deflection occurred at the mid span. The beam was considered a pin-roller connection. Furthermore, throughout the lab the beam was connected to a computer that measured the strain and corresponding load. In addition, manual strain measurements were taken to help develop a strain profile. During the lab, the beam slowly deflected and regular strain measurements were taken. Cracks started forming along the beam at the location of the stirrups. Cracks formed at the stirrups because there is less concrete at the location of the stirrups. As the load increased, the cracks propagated upwards, approximately following the stirrup. Cracks on the ends of the beam, slowly moved inwards due to shear and eventually propagate at a 45-degree angle. This is due to shear and will be explained in the shear section of the discussion. Finally, the load was continuously applied until it was determined that the beam failed in flexure. At one point, a crack formed through the center node where the strain was measured. Once this crack formed, the strain values increased dramatically and there is a noticeable slope change in the strain profile as a result. The reinforcement ratio of a beam is an important factor as it determines if the beam will fail in a ductile or brittle manner. For safety reasons, engineers strive to design a beam to fail in a ductile manner since a large deflection occurs prior to failure. Failure in a ductile manner gives the occupants of the structure

04/01/11

CE 3J04

22

Group 7

plenty of warning as the beam will continue to sag until it breaks. In a brittle failure, the beam will fail without much warning, thus giving the occupants very little time to escape. In this lab, the beam experience ductile failure, as the beam continued to deflect. Finally, the reinforcing bar was welded to a plate in the beam as shown in figure 1. By welding the bars to the plate, this helped ensure that the beam was going to fail in flexure or shear. Furthermore, this ensures that there was adequate bond development length between the concrete and steel reinforcing bar.

12.1.1 Cracking Moment

When a reinforced concrete beam is subjected to bending there are four states; uncracked elastic, cracked elastic, cracked inelastic and ultimate. To determine if the section is uncracked or cracked, the cracking moment of the beam is found and compared to the applied moment. If the applied moment is greater than the cracking moment the section is cracked, otherwise the section remains uncracked. If the applied moment is greater than the moment capacity of the beam then the bail has failed. The cracking moment takes into account three parameters; the modulus of rupture, the moment of inertia of the gross uncracked section and the distance from the centroid of the section to the extreme tension fiber. The modulus of rupture takes into account the tension strength of concrete. Since concrete is extremely weak in tension, when cracks form in concrete, it is typically due to tension stresses, and as a result, the modulus of rupture is an important factor when calculating the cracking moment. The moment of inertia and the distance to the centroid of the extreme tension fiber help form the geometric constraints of the beam. In the lab, the theoretical cracking load was 43.4 kN and an experimental cracking load of 39.5 kN. Although these values are quite close, there is some error when determining the experimental cracking moment. During the lab, when the first large crack appears, that is technically the cracking moment. There is some interpretation in this as people might disagree when they saw the first crack or, someone could miss the crack and interpret the crack much later then when the actual first crack occurred.

12.1.2 Ultimate Capacity

The ultimate capacity of the beam is the maximum amount of moment the beam can handle before it fails. When calculating the ultimate capacity of the beam, essentially set the tension forces equal to the compression forces. Since the beam in doubly reinforced, the first step is to determine if the compression steel yields. If the compression steel yields, than the force of the steel is known, and one can easily take the moment of the tension and compression forces about the neutral axis to find the ultimate capacity. In the lab the compression, steel did not yield and similar triangles are used to determine the stress in the steel, and then find c which is the distance to the neutral axis. Once these values are found, like before, take a moment of the forces to find an ultimate capacity of 219 kN. The theoretical capacity was 285 kN. This is approximately a thirty percent difference. A reason for this difference is that during the calculation, the tension steel yield strength was used and since the compression, steel did not yield a value just less than the yield strength was used. During the experiment, the beam was loaded past the yield point and at failure the stress in the steel lied somewhere in the strain-hardening region. The figure below shows how the strain hardening stress is larger than the yield stress.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

23

Group 7

12.1.3 Shear Capacity

Shear is the other possible mode of failure for this beam. The cracks in the beam start forming at the extreme tension side of the beam. These cracks remain vertical because the force is axial. As the crack propagates up the beam, it takes the path of least resistance so when it reaches the neutral axis the crack is at a 45-degree angle. This is because the maximum shear stress occurs at the center of the beam and for this to occur; the principle axis is rotated on a 45-degree angle. The crack continues to propagate until the extreme compression of side of the beam. The neutral axis shifts upwards with the crack because only the concrete under compression is considered and as the crack propagates up the area below the neutral axis is ignored, since the concrete cannot resist any force. Eventually, the beam will theoretically fail by flexure or by shear. The group calculated a theoretical shear capacity of 383 kN. There was no experimental shear capacity because the beam failed in flexure, which was before the shear capacity could be reached. The stirrups size and spacing provided enough capacity to handle the 285 kN failure load, hence the beam did not fail in shear. In general, though, the shear equations used to calculate the shear capacity are largely empirical and therefore experimentally derived. These equations are adequate for reinforced concrete calculations and conservative enough to use, however, error and uncertainty is present.

12.1.4 Deflection
Deflection of a beam is an important factor in reinforced concrete beams as it specifically pertains to the serviceability limit state. Building level floors is crucial, because, if the floors are sagging, machines can fail to operate and people can perceive the building to be unsafe. The theoretical deflection is 0.88mm and the experimental deflection is 0.95mm. The theoretical deflection was calculated using the cracking load, and the error from the cracking load could be compounded into this calculation.

12.2 COLUMN
The reinforced column had a square cross section with four reinforcing bars, one at each corner. In addition, there was ties space at 200mm that added resistance to the reinforcing bar from buckling out. In the lab, the column was biaxial loaded. This means that the load was placed 10 mm off the x-axis and 10 mm of the y-axis, a figure in the column section of the report illustrates this. Being a biaxial loaded column, there is no known formulas for calculating the load capacity except the highly simplified Breslers method. This moment requires the calculation of the column as if it was only a pure axial load, if it had only one eccentricity in the x-direction and if it had only one eccentricity in the y-direction. These values are substituted into Breslers formulae, resulting in a highly simplified approximation of the

04/01/11

CE 3J04

24

Group 7

load capacity of the column. It is important to note, that the result of this formula gives a conservative answer and can be safely used in analysis and design. It is sometimes recommended to try to avoid biaxial loaded columns in design, due to the uncertainties surrounding this method. After performing the calculations, the theoretical biaxial load was 688 kN and the experimental load was 804 kN. This is an approximately 15% difference which is satisfactory based on the Breslers method and being under the 20% error that was suggested by Professor Dr. A.G. Razaqpur.

12.3 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this lab was very informative as it gave students the opportunity to experimentally view the loading of a reinforced concrete beam and column. Furthermore, it allowed students to compare the theoretical results to the experimental results and get a better understanding of certain errors. In reinforced concrete design, several formulas are experimentally derived and it is important to understand the necessity of resistance factors and being conservative. Overall, this lab was very beneficial to my understanding of reinforced concrete and my future career.

13.0 DISCUSSION MITCHELL KNOTT 0857639

Two compression tests were performed during the lab. The first was performed on a concrete reinforced beam, upon which two equal loads were applied 1200mm apart. The second compression test involved applying an axial load to a 150mm x 150mm steel reinforced concrete column with an eccentricity in both the y and x axis of 10 mm. The purpose of the experiment was twofold. Firstly, to determine the modes of failing given the specific design characteristics of each beam or column. Secondly, to determine the ultimate load and moments at which the structure could resist before failure and in comparison to the theoretical values. 13.1 BEAM The Experiment performed on the beam was to determine whether or not it would fail in shear or flexural deformation also to determine the experimental load at which failure occurs. This failure load then can be compared to the theoretical values for failure in both cases. As the beams was loaded the first sign of disturbance in the beams structure occurred at 39.5 kN.m which was when the first sign of cracking appeared. Theoretically it was expected to occur at 43. kN.m given this data, there is an error of 8.77% between the two values. The loading of the beam continued and over time the cracking continued to expand and travel from the bottom to the top of the beam. The cracking during the loading first began in the location of the highest moment, the center which can be seen in Figure 5. The cracking occurred in the concrete in the tension section once the stress from the load was greater than 3.5 MPa or 10 % of Compressive strength. At the load of 110 kN the first indication of shear failure had appeared, which was a diagonal cracking starting at the bottom heading toward the mid span at the top. The beam design was not expected to fail in shears as the theoretical shear capacity was 383 kN which was higher than the flexural capacity. The load of 285 kN was the maximum load applied to the beam due to time constraints. At this point the beams had not yet reached 100% failure but all signs were leading to flexural failure in the beam. The top mid span of the beam had begun to

04/01/11

CE 3J04

25

Group 7

crack due to high compressive pressure caused by loads. The cracks near the bottoms were continuing to grow with an increase in the total strain. There was a clear pattern throughout the entire experiment with respect to the strain measurement in the beam. As observed the beam contains areas of positive and negative strain which increases as the applied load increases. The strain at the top has negative values indicating shortening in length of the beam from the original length, whereas the middle starts off with negative strain which changes to positive strain after the first three measurements. The most effected strain location was the bottom readings which had a total change of 0.019, this means that the beam had significantly got longer since the beginning of the experiment. 13.2 COLUMN The analysis of the column included calculations to determine the axial load capacity of the column, as well as an interaction diagram for the column. The test on the column was to determine the ultimate axial compression that the column would fail at, given an eccentricity of 10 mm in both directions from the centroid. Although columns are generally known to withstand large compressive loads, if a large moment is applied to the column it can fail under tension. Due to concretes low resistance to tensile forces, reinforced steel bars are there to resist any tension created by moments. Therefore, both compression failure in the concrete and tension failure in the bars must be considered. Once the experiment was complete the data was compared to the theoretical expectation based on the column characteristics. The concrete column dimension can be seen in Figure 2: Beam Dimensions, also shown in the sample calculation in the appendix B our column will be treated as a short column. During the experiment the load was applied starting from 0kN, over time vertical cracks began to appear on the compression side and the column lost a significant amount of strength due to a reduced cross section. The ultimate load was determined to be 804kN, which was 14.5% higher than the theoretical failure load of 688kN. After the load was removed from the column, concrete was removed to make the compression steel visible. It was evident that the steel had failed as the steel bars had buckled; which can only occur after the concrete fails completely. The buckling had occurred significantly, to the extent that the ties had yielded to the point of fracture under tension from the buckling forces in the steel bars. The buckling and the yielding of the ties can be seen in Figure 10: Column. The other side of the column experienced compression as well, proven theoretically in the sample calculation as the c value was 153mm meaning that the entire column of 150mm was in compression. The steel on the other side did not yield as the strain was only 0.001 but the concrete failed as the compressive load increased. Tension yielding did not have to be considered in our column as our moment of 7.95kN was relatively low compared to our axial load. Overall, after analysis of the column, the theoretical and experimental ultimate loads were relatively close. Since our beam was biaxial eccentric loaded the theoretical calculations are highly conservative as there have been limited studies to calculating the moment and load of biaxial eccentricity.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

26

Group 7

13.3 SOURCE OF ERROR Differences in theoretical and experimental results are expected due to sources of error during testing. Sources of error could have been a result of human error or mechanism error. Human error may have occurred when lower loads were being applied to the beams and cracking had begun to occur. It was difficult to see the cracks and they may not have been large enough to see until after the cracking moment had passed. One error in the data for this lab was caused by significant cracking around one of the lower strain measurements. The result of the cracking may have made all the lower strain reading invalid. This occurred at a load of 228kN which is around where potential yielding may have occurred in the tension steel. This error may have increased our experimental load capacity. During the testing of the 10 mm of eccentricity in both y and x axis it was difficult to tell how accurate the placement of the axial load was from the centroid. This could have increased our load capacity if the measurements were less than 10 mm due to reduced moment, resulting in an increased load capacity compared to the theoretical. Also in the theoretical calculation transverse stirrups were not taken into consideration in which could have increased the compressive strength of the column. 13.4 CONCLUSION After both the experiments were successfully completely analysis of the experimental data determined that the ultimate loads for the beam and the column were 285kN and 804kN respectively. However, when referring to the theoretical loads that were calculated while analyzing the characteristics of the structures given, the results showed that the theoretical failure to be 219kN and 688kN. These results prove that designs of concrete are affected by a variety of factors and that the end designs are very conservative, which is anticipated as an increase in the safety factor is beneficial to the design. By comparing the data the safety factors of both the beams and columns are determined at 1.3014 and 1.1686 respectively. For optimal design, the beam should have been designed more efficiently as a 30% overdesign is being too conservative if they were designed for experimental loads applied. The column has an error of 16% which is more reasonable but could still be considered too high for a successful comparison. Beam Theoretical Experimental Error Columns Cracking Load (Pcr) 43. kN 39.5 kN 8.77% Ultimate Capacity (Pu) 688 kN 804 kN 14.5 % Ultimate Capacity (Pu) 219 kN 285 kN 30.1% Failure Mode Shear Capacity (Vr) 383 kN Ultimate Axial Load(Pro) 976.4 kN Failure Mode Flexure Flexure Balance Point (Mb,Pb) Moment Load Deflection 0.88 mm 0.95 mm 7.95%

Theoretical Experimental Error

Compression Compression -

21.7 kN.m 171 kN

Table 7: Summary of Experimental vs. Theoretical Results

Due to time constraints complete failure had not yet occurred but the load that the experiment stops at is a good representation of the ultimate load. The ultimate load would have occurred

04/01/11

CE 3J04

27

Group 7

momentarily as the cracking was occurring at the top mid span, representing a compression failure in the concrete, seen in Figure 4. Also the strain of 0.018 in the tension steel represent near failure, as exceeding 0.02 would have been considered tension failure. Furthermore, the increase in strain would have introduced a larger deflection of 0.95mm resulting in unsatisfactory sagging. All of these signs represent a failure, which allows a conclusion to be made that the beam is inadequate for load carrying. The column failed in concrete and steel controlled compression. The 10mm eccentricities on each side of the beams put the entire cross section of the column in compression. Therefore, the entire load was carried by the concrete and the column was over reinforced. Taking into consideration the many possible types of error and all the variables contributing to the results, the beam and column, both, experimentally exceeded the. This lab shows that overdesigning is beneficial and under reinforcing is also important when designing a safe structure. Overall I feel that we succeeded in analyzing the behavior of steel reinforced concrete and the effects of all there characteristic were clear. We were able to witness the characteristics of the members as presented in lecture. In particular, the significance of under-reinforced beams was presented. We could see how the beam began to deflect greatly after the steel had yielded and this demonstrated its usefulness in the real world. By under-reinforcing the beam you are given fair warning that failure is going to occur. This is better than over-reinforcing, which would likely lead to a shear, brittle failure that could happen very quickly. This lab has given insight on how to safely design beams and columns for use in engineering situations. Overall the analysis was successful.

14.0 DISCUSSION THERESA LUBIANETZKY 0752850

14.1 BEAM The calculations completed prior to lab were unfortunately completely wrong since the actual concrete strength was higher than the expected 25MPa. After re-calculating the expected cracking moment and respective cracking load according to the actual fc, 35MPa, the theoretical values could be compared to those demonstrated experimentally during lab testing. The experimental cracking load (39.5kN) of the beam was not as high as expected (43.4kN), creating an 8.77% error. The cracking load is calculated using beam dimensions and the cracking moment, therefore this error likely comes from one or more of the three variables that govern cracking moment: inertial moment of gross concrete section about the centroidal axis, the distance from the centroid of the gross inertial moment to the outermost fibre in tension, and modulus of rupture of concrete. Because the modulus of rupture of concrete is the most ambiguous value, the error probably springs from this factor in the theoretical calculation. The tensile strength of concrete varies, usually from 8-15% of the magnitude of its compressive strength (Leet 1997). This is because the composition of concrete is irregular, and contains voids and discontinuities, such as microcracks, that may trigger larger crack formation unexpectedly. Small tensile stresses cannot be supported by micro-cracks or voids since air can hold no tensile stress. The actual modulus of rupture varies with fc, however, the general formula 0.6 fc is accepted in the Concrete Design Handbook. It is likely this approximation, next to small human or equipment errors, that accounts for the 3.9kN difference between actual and predicted cracking load values.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

28

Group 7

The initial cracking began in the centre of the bottom of the beam. This makes sense, since the highest moment experienced in the beam occurs roughly at this point. As Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate, the beam cracks were evenly spaced because of the stirrups in place. Stirrups reduce the area of pure concrete and create what is essentially an imperfection, allowing for crack formation. When the loading reached values upwards of 250kN, there was only about an inch at the top of the beam that remained uncracked. The cracked portion of concrete was in tension, meaning this small portion of concrete at the top of the beam was under large compressive stresses. As the beam approached complete failure, this highly compressed concrete began to cave in on itself, as seen in Figure 4. In reality, because safety is accounted for and calculations are often intentionally conservative, the beams ultimate failure should be greater than the predicted value. This was true in the case of Group 7s beam- the beam tested in this lab continued to be tested even after measurements were no longer taken, and the beam still did not crumble into complete failure. This high strength can be explained by the fact that the concrete received for this beam was of higher strength than the one ordered, but also because the steel beams may have been strain hardened. Strainhardened steel will still deform, but keep high strength and ductility past yielding. This added strength can explain why the beam did not fail entirely, but was still permanently deformed. The value of used in this lab was 1.0 in all cases. Usually, concrete design codes will outline proper values as a fraction, which allows for small error in such factors as member size, bar position, workmanship, and strength of the concrete or steel (Leet 1997). By using 1.0, it is assumed that no errors were present in any of these characteristics, which is incredibly unlikely in reality. Because the theoretical shear failure load, 383kN, was far greater than the theoretical ultimate load, 218.8kN, the beam was expected to fail under flexure. The experimental value of ultimate capacity did not match the theoretical value completely, however, the beam still failed in the expected mode. In order to ensure failure in either flexure or shear, the lab technicians welded metal plates to the steel rebar, as seen in the far left photo in Figure 1. This prevented accidental bonding failure at the concrete-steel interface. 14.2 COLUMN The column in this lab was loaded in a biaxial manner, making calculations much more complex. By using the Bresler method, calculations to find theoretical axial load were simplified, although the margin of error was expected to be perhaps a little high. Considering this, the theoretical load of 688kN was not far off from 804kN, presenting only 14.5% error. Sources of error in the column loading are likely due to human and/or technical errors that cause any sort of eccentricity in loading, besides the intended one. Observing the columns failure in Figure 10, the steel bars did not buckle in a perfectly symmetrical manner. Perfect symmetrical failure in real-life applications is truly rather unlikely for reasons similar to beam cracking shape. Concrete is simply a sporadic material; its imperfect composition and void space cause completely unpredictable stress redistribution in essentially every failure instance.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

29

Group 7

The figure below shows that the backside of the column, furthest from the applied load, did not shatter. This figure also shows that the stirrups holding the rebar in place broke open in the middle. Concrete can hold high compressive strengths, but it begins to crack at higher loads, i.e. once the ultimate capacity is reached. This high compression causes the concrete to crack and chip away quickly in a brittle manner. Once the concrete has lost its use, the long, thin steel bars have to quickly support a jolt of compression, which causes the hourglass-type deformation seen in Figure 10 of the lab.

Figure 13: Columns in Failure

14.3 CONCLUSION Concrete beams and columns are two vital members in common infrastructure found in the developed world. Calculations are done with conservative measures and safety factors accounted for, such that no member will ever fail quickly and unexpectedly. This lab proves the importance of knowing the strength of concrete and steel, and the combined capacity and characteristics created when the two materials come together to form reinforced concrete members. This laboratory emphasized the importance of designing not only strong beams, but beams that fail in a particular way. Ductile, steel-controlled failure modes are key in reinforced concrete design, else the failure may occur without warning, much like it did when the column was tested.

15.0 DISCUSSION: WEI LIN 0771675

15.1 BEAM Reinforced concrete beams experience flexural failure due to bending moment because of the weakness of steel in tension o r the weakness of concrete in compression. For safety reasons, i t is important for designers to ensure that, whenever possible, beams are designed to be under-reinforced and fail due to bending moment. If a beam fails in bending and is underreinforced, the beam will experience ductile failure, allowing for occupants to vacate the building prior to collapse. Before testing of the beam in this laboratory experiment, the theoretical ultimate loads for both shear and bending moment failure were compared, and it was determined that the beam should fail in bending. During actual testing, the beam
04/01/11 CE 3J04 30

Group 7

failure method occurred as expected, as the beam experienced steel-controlled flexural failure, with a great deal of warning before complete failure occurred. 15.1.1 Observations During Testing The first flexure crack was observed at the load of 39.5kN, which is 8.77% experimental error, as compared with the theoretical load 43.3kN, which corresponds to the theoretical cracking moment 10.84kN*m applied (refer to Appendix B, Beam Calculations). However, since the human eyes are the only tool used in this lab to monitor cracking, it is possible that smaller cracks had occurred before the 39.5kN load was applied. With the load gradually increasing to 110kN, which is halfway to steel yielding in tension, many shear cracks were observed along the middle neutral axis due to high shear tensions (refer to Figure 4: Beam at Failure). The existing cracks were gradually widening, and new cracks were observed between the existing cracks in the centre of the beam after the load reached 110kN. At a load of 213.5kN, the steel was yielding and the beam deflected. At small loading increments, the cracks opened and deflected in greater amounts after a 219kN load was applied. Horizontal cracks were observed at the top of the centre region. At this point, concrete at the top near the centre was under high compression and crushed, perhaps due to the buckling of the compressive steel. Here, the concrete could not take more loading and crumbled away from the beam. The neutral axis was constantly moving up during the experiment, and the deflected shape of the beam was easily visible. 15.1.2 Observations Subsequent to Testing From Figure 9: Strain profile for top and bottom gauge, I observed that compression steel still maintained a large amount of ductility while the neutral axis moved upward. Although we dont have final bottom gauge reading, I also observed that with the trend, the strain of compression steel down to the surface 25mm from graph would just reach around 0.001 while tension steel reached yielding strain 0.002, which proved that our calculation for ultimate moment is correct. At the applied 213.5kN load, the ultimate stress of the steel occurred, and the concrete reached its maximum strain of approximately 0.0035. The neutral axis shifted upwards by a significant amount because, as the concrete began to crack throughout the upper portion of the beam, it no longer contributed to the beam capacity. Through calculating the shear force at the cracking, I acknowledged that the design strategy is usually to provide very high shear resistance, so that governing factors cause an underreinforced flexural mode of failure. Our shear calculation is based on satisfying CSA clause 11.3.6.3, and we obtained and values. The shear resistance is 34% higher than experimental load 285kN at ultimate state. Furthermore, under clause 11.3.3, the factored shear resistance should not exceed Vrmax, which is equal to 382kN by using 11-5 formula in the CSA A23.3. 15.2 COLUMN Reinforced concrete columns fail in compression under low eccentricities, either by weakness in the concrete or steel. In the event that the axial load is applied at an

04/01/11

CE 3J04

31

Group 7

eccentricity, reinforced concrete columns can also experience flexural failure due to bending moment, because of weakness in the tension or compression of steel and concrete. It is not always possible for designers to ensure that columns will fail due to weakness of the steel, which would provide ductile failure and advanced warning, because it can be difficult to maintain an under- reinforced section for the columns. The column tested in this experiment failed in compression at an axial load of 688kN, with an eccentricity of 1 0 mm on the x a n d y axis. Prior to failure of the column, the steel between the two surfaces of the column began to buckle, and t h e spall of the concrete occurred. Vertical cracks appeared and the column lost a significant amount of strength in a short period of time. Horizontal cracks on the tension side of the column then appeared. When analyzing the column, the eccentricity and depth of the neutral axis were determined for the balanced condition. In the balanced condition, it is assumed that the tension steel reaches its yield strain just as the concrete reaches its maximum strain, 0.0035. Since the e c c e n t r i c i t y 1 0 m m i s l o w e r t h a n t h a t i n the b a l a n c e d c o n d i t i o n , t he column will experience concrete -controlled failure because weakness of concrete in compression causes the concrete to fail prior to yielding of the steel. The theoretical ultimate axial load resistance for the column was determined to be 6 8 8 kN. The ultimate moment resistance of the column was determined using the experimental eccentricity, and was found to be 8 kNm according to Appendix B: Column Calculation. It was therefore determined that the column would fail in compression. 15.3CONCLUSION After completing the analysis for the reinforced beam and column, the theoretical ultimate loads for each t e s t were determined t o b e 2 1 8 . 8 kN and 6 8 8 kN, respectively. The experimentally determined ultimate loads were higher for both the column and the beam, having results of 285kN and 8 0 4 kN, respectively. These results lead to a factor of safety of 1.30 for the beam, and 1.17 for the column. The beam experienced steel-controlled flexural failure, as was estimated in the analysis, because the ultimate load for bending failure was less than the ultimate load for shear failure, and the beam was under-reinforced. The elastic deflection of the beam was 11.4mm and, after complete removal of the load, the permanent deflection was 74 .3 mm. The column experienced concrete-controlled compression failure because the eccentricity of the axial load was less than the balanced eccentricity, and the column was over-reinforced. In comparing the theoretical and experimental axial load resistance of the column and beam, the theoretical value is somewhat lower than the experimental value. It is possible that the theoretical results are lower than the experimental results because of an underestimation of the actual concrete strength. Our groups experimental value is in the range of 20% higher than the theoretical value, except the ultimate experimental load, which is 30% higher than theoretical value. This could be explained by a crack that went right through one of the middle strain points. This experiment involved analyzing reinforced concrete beam and column failure modes and provided an important experience for civil engineering student s. The
04/01/11 CE 3J04 32

Group 7

valuable experience achieved through this experiment provided us with a preliminary concept of how concrete reacts in different loading situations. This will help us gain a better understanding of material and section properties of the combination of concrete and steel.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

33

Group 7

16.0 REFERENCES
Leet, K. (1997). Reinforced Concrete Design, Third Edition. USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

04/01/11

CE 3J04

34

Group 7

APPENDIX A: EXPERIMENTAL DATA (BEAM)

f'c (Mpa) = 35 DEMEC factor = 0.0000079 Load (kN) Deflection (mm) Gauge length Middle 1446 1446 1445 1450 1439 1436 1435 1438 1455 1468 1466 1734

Top Bottom 0 1448 1447 8.2 0.126 1447 1448 24 0.49 1441 1457 39.5 0.95 1456 1487 55 1.8 1422 1545 74 2.7 1413 1582 110 4.33 1393 1632 152.6 6.16 1374 1697 182.5 7.37 1359 1750 213.5 11.4 1306 2138 219 16.46 1272 2934 228 22.76 1208 3644 239 32.06 1179 285 85.76 -failure load (ductile failure) Comments a) first crack (flexure crack) occurs at middle of the beam b) - half way around steel yields (can be proven by calculating strain) - almost all the cracks are in the large moment region (middle) - load goes down a little because of cracking c) first shear crack; one crack on each side d) steel yield point e) one of the measuring points on the middle of the beam is on a crack f) after this measurement: - load drops a bit, then keep increasing right side when P - crack growing at: is 257 kN left side when P is 263 kN middle when P is 266 kN - horizontal crack occurs at the location of point loads when P is 268kN

Comments

a) b) c)

d) e) f)

04/01/11

CE 3J04

35

Group 7

APPENDIX B: BEAM CALCULATIONS

04/01/11

CE 3J04

36

Group 7

04/01/11

CE 3J04

37

Group 7

04/01/11

CE 3J04

38

Group 7

APPENDIX B: COLUMN SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

1) Find Pro ( ( ) )

2) Find the balance load and moment (Pb, Mb)

From similar triangles:

04/01/11

CE 3J04

39

Group 7

Therefore, the reinforcement in As1 has not yielded.

( ( )

( )

( (

) ) ( )(

Therefore, the balanced axial load is 171 KN, and the balanced moment is 21.7 KN.m. These values are shown on the interaction diagram and represent the point where the column changes in failing from compression to tension. 3) Find uniaxial load capacity of column with and eccentricity of 10mm Assume As1 has yielded, hence the fs=fy= 461 MPa, Solve for load in As1 steel. ( If s2 < y then, ) (

Plugging in fs =Es* allows the equation to be isolated for the c value, where s is equal to 0.0035 because of yielding and Es is 200000 MPa. Solve for compression in steel. ( ( ) )

04/01/11

CE 3J04

40

Group 7

Solve compression in concrete with respect to c:

Calculate total load capacity of the concrete and steel:

Calculate Moment resistance for the cross section with respect to c: ( ) ( ) ( )( )

Let Pro *ex = Mr and solve for c, where ex = 10 mm:

Check Assumptions

4) Use Breslers Formula to Calculate Biaxial Loaded Column

04/01/11

CE 3J04

41