Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20

301BE - Structural

Mechanics Laboratory
tests
Pre-stressed concrete beam and
Concrete Flat Slab
Imran Mazumder SID: 2710356
Gelle SID: 2520489

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

Section 1: Pre-stressed Concrete beam


Introduction
In pre-tensioning the PC strands are tensioned , that are, pulled and elongated, by a
calibrated tensioning apparatus (usually called stressing jack) over a jacking
platform which consists a strong floor and two abutments (Neil, 2012). This method
is primarily preferred in factory production of precast concrete construction. A Prestressed concrete beam used commonly in construction was tested to analyze its
behavior under load in the lab session throughout its load history. The beam was
made with a concrete mixture of 1:1.5:2.7 (cement, sand, aggregate), 10mm
aggregate (3/8") (gravel uncrushed) and 0.41 liter of Cormix Accelerator. Two cubes
were also casted from this mixture to determine its compressive strength. A Dial
gauge was used to measure the deflection and a hydraulic jack to load the beam.
The figure below roughly demonstrates the beam that was tested. It shows position
of shear reinforcements in the beam and the location of the 7mm high tensile wire.

(1) State the recorded tensile force of the wire as shown in the load cell
and explain the reasons why the tensions recorded is less than 40kN.
The tensile stress in the wire was 35.62kN as shown in the load cell. The reason for
the tensile stress to be limited to 40kN could be to reduce the immediate drop in
pre-stress force due to elastic shortening of the concrete (Mosley, Bungey, Hulse,
2007:322). It can also be to ensure that the tensile force doesn't cause the wire to
be permanently deformed. If the wire is cut after tension applied, over stress might
cause concrete shortening meaning when the wire is released, it contracts and
tends to go back to its original length, it might cause the concrete to shorten along
with it. Although this problem is overcome by using debondings, but in any unlikely
event where is hasn't been applied that could be a possibility.
(2) State the recorded compressive strength of the cubes and explain the
reason why this compressive strength value is not considered as fck
2

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

defined in EC2. What is the theoretical value (calculated from the recorded
compressive strength) of fck for the concrete considered?
The compressive strength recorded is 55.6 MPa. The cylinder strength is considered
about 20% less than the cube strength for normal concrete but with higher strength
classes, the cylinder strength achieves a higher proportion of the cube strength (BS
EN 206-1).
Theoretical compressive strength by considering the above explanation is equal to:

c=

Fc
A

c =f ck

f ck ,cube =

556.6 103 N
2
=55.66 N . mm
2
100 100 m

f ck ,Theorical =f ck ,Cylinder =0.8 f ck , cube


2

f ck ,Theorical =0.8 55.66=44.5 N . mm


(EN 1992-1-1- clause 3.1.3)

(3) By using the fck estimated in (2) above and the equations provided in

the EC2, calculate the value of Ec, young modules of concrete.


Ec is calculated based on clause 3.1.3, Table 3.1Stress and deformations
characteristics for normal concrete EC2- Part 1:1 (EN1992-1-1-2004)
Theoretical value of Ec = 36GPa
(4) By using the Ec calculated in (3) calculate:
(i) The Predicted elastic deflections of the beam at the mid-span

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics
3

Using the equation

23 P L
648 EI

from structural engineers pocket book. The equation

will be used to predict the deflection of the beam. The second moment of area of

b d3
the beam was calculated using the formula 12
23 W a3
max=
24 EI

a=

L
3

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

Calculation of second moment of area

I=

1
3
b.h
12

I=

1
3
4
60 160 =20480000 mm
12

Substituting the value of I (Second moment of Area) in the equation for

max

and

assuming values of W we get:


W=1

max

= 0.44mm

W=2

max

= 0.89mm

W=3

max

= 1.34mm

W=4

max

W=5

max 2.23mm

= 1.78mm

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

Testing Beam
(5) The actual Measured deflections for the mid-span section at all the recorded loads
Demec
LOAD
0
2
4
6
8
10

DEFLECTION
0
1.5
3.19
5.29
7.49
9.89

1
2315
2284
2238
2184
2120
2053

2
2011
1999
1982
1966
1941
1921

DEFLECTION
8.88
7.31
5.63
3.69
1.48

1
2084
2135
2174
2226
2275

2
1933
1957
1958
1981
1991

3
2331
2333
2342
2363
2379
2404

4
2210
2230
2266
2320
2367
2424

5
1352
1389
1449
1534
1621
1720

4
2396
2365
2316
2270
2230

5
1673
1614
1537
1462
1391

4
2257
2303
2344
2386
2429

5
1440
1516
1587
1657
1734

UNLOADING
Demec
LOAD
8
6
4
2
0

3
2393
2385
2361
2341
2327

LOADING
TO FAILURE
Demec
LOAD
2
4
6
8
10

DEFLECTION
3.11
5.05
6.82
8.51
10.26

1
2234
2181
2142
2091
2045

2
1972
1959
1945
1930
1918

3
2334
2355
2370
2389
2404

Table 1

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

(6) The actual measured strains for the mid-span section at all the
recorded loads
Demec

LOAD
0

DEFLECTI
ON
0

1.5

3.19

5.29

7.49

10

9.89

1
0
0.000124
93
0.000310
31
0.000527
93
0.000785
85
0.001055
86

2
0
0.0000483
6
0.0001168
7
0.0001813
5

3
0

4
0

5
0

0.000008
06

0.000080
6

0.0001491
1

0.000044
33

0.000225
68

0.0003909
1

0.000128
96

0.000443
3

0.0007334
6

-0.0002821

0.000193
44

0.000632
71

0.0010840
7

-0.0003627

0.000294
19

0.000862
42

0.0014830
4

4
0
0.000124
9
0.000322
4
0.000507
8
0.000669

5
0

UNLOADI
NG
Demec
LOAD
11

DEFLECTI
ON
8.88

1
0

2
0

3
0

7.31

0.000205
53

0.0000967
2

-3.224E05

5.63

0.000362
7

0.0001007
5

3.69

1.48

0.000572
26
0.000769
73

0.0001934
4
0.0002337
4

10

-0.000129
0.000209
6
-0.000266

0.0002378
0.0005481
0.0008503
0.0011365

LOADING
TO
FAILURE
Demec
LOAD
2

DEFLECTI
ON
3.11

1
0

2
0

3
0

4
0

5
0
7

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

5.05

6.82

8.51

10
Table 2

10.26

0.000213
59
0.000370
76
0.000576
29
0.000761
67

0.0000523
9
0.0001088
1
0.0001692
6
0.0002176
2

0.000084
63

0.000185
38

0.0003062
8

0.000145
08

0.000350
61

0.0005924
1

0.000221
65

0.000519
87

0.0008745
1

0.000282
1

0.000693
16

0.0011848
2

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

(7) Curves of both the measured and the predicted central deflections
against load.

Measured and Predicted Central Deflections


12
10
8
Load (kN)

6
4
2
0
0

10

12

Central Deflections (mm)

Figure 1
(8) Curves for both the measured and predicted strains at the top surface
of mid-span section against load.

Measured and Predicted Strains


12
10
8
6

Strains (Pa)

4
2
0
0

Deflection (mm)

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

Figure 2

10

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

(9) Curves representing the measured horizontal strains at various depths


of the mid-span against the section depth for 2W = 4kN, 6kN and the
maximum recorded load during the loading stage.
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

(10) Calculate the value of 2W when the stress at the bottom of the prestressed concrete beam is equal to zero. You may assume a remaining prestress force of 30kN in the steel wire.

P Pe M
+ =
A Zb Zb
3

3010 3010 20 700 w


+

=0
16060
256000
256000
5.47256000=700 w
w=2000 N

2W =4000 N
(11) Compare and discuss the theoretical predicted and the
experimental measured results in (7) and (9) as well as the calculation
in (10).
The theoretical deflection of the beam differed to the experimental deflection of the
beam as shown in fig 1. This was mainly because the deflection equation did not
11

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

account for the wire tendon in the concrete. The wire tendon allowed the beam to
deflect more since it was the one taking the tension in the bottom of the beam.
However the theoretical strain and the experimental strain where almost similar
because the equation took into account the tension in the steel wire. The
discrepancies mainly came from the fact that the remaining tension left in the wire
was assumed to be 30KN.

Concrete Flat Slab


(B.1) Drawing of the crack pattern of the slab
i) When the first major crack is observed: - minor crack was first observed at 2.2KN

ii) At load = 8kN, but the slab actually failed at 7.91KN

12

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

2.1 SLAB CALCULATIONS


(B.2) Calculate the correct value for fck according to EC2 from the
measured cube strength of the concrete.

Fc
A

389.48 10
38.95 Nmm 2
100 100

fck
= compressive strength of cylinder

fck 0.8 fck , cube


(EN 1992-1-1- clause 3.1.1 The cylinder strength is
approximately 80% of the cube strength)

fck 0.8 38.95 31.16 Nmm 2


(B.3) By using the fck estimated in (13) above, the tensile strength of the
steel from test and the measured dimensions of the slab and steel,
calculate the ultimate moment capacities of the slab in two principle
directions (no safety factor is required in the calculation). Explain why the
moment capacities are not equal in the two directions..

13

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics
LOAD VS EXTENSOMETER

Yielding stress Calculation:


The yielding tensile load = 12900 N (according to graph)

yeildin g stress

F 12900

456.24 MPa
A 62
4

Ultimate Moment Capacity Calculation:

fck 31.16 MPa


fy 456.24MPa
2

As

6
9 254.47 mm^ 2
2

14

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

Fc Area 0.8 x b fck


Ft As fy
Fc Ft 0.8 x b fck As fy

254.47 456.24 0.8 x 1000 31.16


FC =Ft 0.8 x b f ck = A S f y

x 4.65mm

Capacity Moment in x-direction:


d= 40 cover 0.5(diameter)
= 40-6- (0.5 x6) = 31mm

Mu Fc Z f b 0.8 x Z
Where Z = d - 0.4x = 31 - (0.4 x 4.56) = 29.14mm

31.16 1000 0.8(4.65) 29.14 3.38kNm


Capacity Moment in y-direction:
d= 40 cover 0.5(diameter)
= 40-8- 0.5(6) = 29mm

15

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

Mu Fc Z f b 0.8 x Z
Where Z = d - 0.4x = 29 - (0.4 x 4.56) = 27.18mm

31.16 1000 0.8(4.65) 27.18 3.15kNm


Explain why the moment capacities are not equal in two directions.
In a two way reinforced slab there are two principal directions X and Y directions.
The moment capacities in this two principle directions are not equal and this
because the two principles are acting at two different effective depths as show in
the diagram below..

16

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

(B.5) Carry out a yield line analysis to find the theoretical collapse load
based on the ultimate moment

External Work
External work = Point Load x Area X Displacement
But displacement = 1, therefore External work = P X A (of each section)
Total External work = P X ((0.5 x 0.5) x 4) = P
Total External work = P

17
Point
of

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

Internal Work
Internal work = (M x 0.5L x ) + (M x 0.5L x ) but = 1
Total internal work = 4 (M x 0.5L) + (M x 0.5L)
Total internal work = 2M + 2M
External work = Internal work
P = 2M + 2M
P = (2 x 3.38) + (2 x 3.15)
P = 13.06 KN
Compare and discuss the theoretical and the measured collapse loads. State any
possible reasons for the deviations between the Measured and the Predicted
results. Clearly state all possible errors in the lab measurements and the limitations
of any theory adopted in the calculations.
The theoretical collapse load is 13.06 KN as compared to the measured value 7.91
KN; this is due to lab experimental error which has not be accounted for during the
calculation of the theoretical value. Also, the major contributing factor for the
deviation between the measured value and the calculated value is the method
adopted in the calculation Yield-line methods. This method of analysis gives an
upper bound solution as it uses energy method in which the external work done by
the point load during a small virtual movement of the collapse mechanism is
equated to the internal work (Structural Analysis 2003: 601). This means that the
solution obtained is either correct or unsafe.
Also, during the calculation process no safety factors were considered and this may
have led higher value being obtained as compared to closer value
Limitations of yield-line method are: Yield-line method generates upper bound solutions.
Yield line method does not give the support reactions along the edges of the slab.
This is a particular issue where the slab is supported by edge beams whose design
is dependent on how the slab transfers load to them.
In Yield-line method, the pattern of fracture is assumed and the correct value may
not be obtained. The Value obtained is always within 10% of the correct value.

18

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

At fracture, yield-line method assumes elastic deformations to be very small


compared to plastic deformations therefore ignored. This assumption means that
fractured slab parts are plane and they intersect in straight line, but this not the
case in most laboratory experiment.

19

Imran Mazumder
Farah Gillie

Structural Mechanics

References:
Amin Ghali, 2003. Structural Analysis: A Unified Classical and Matrix Approach. 5
Edition. CRC Press.
Mosley, Bungey and Hulse, 2007. Reinforced concrete design to Eurocode 2, Sixth
Edition. Hampshire, Palsgrave Macmillan.
Fiona Cobb, 2011. Structural Engineer's Pocket Book, second edition. Oxford,
Elsevier Ltd.

20