Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
By
SAMTA S. KUBDE
Roll No:- 13CE65R09
Instructor
0
CONTENTS
1
1. CONCRETE MIX DESIGN
MIX DESIGN FOR M25 GRADE OF CONCRETE (AS PER IS 10262:2009)
=188 liters
2
(Zone II)
for water-cement ratio of 0.50 =0.62
In this case w/c ratio = 0.45
Therefore, as water-cement ratio is lowered by 0.05, the proportion of volume of coarse aggregate is
increased by 0.01 (at the rate of -/+ 0.01 for every 0.05 change in water-cement ratio)
MIX CALCULATIONS:
The mix calculations per unit volume of concrete shall be as follows:
a) Volume of concrete = 1 m3
b) Volume of cement =
X
= . X
= 0.136 m3
c) Volume of water = X
= X
= 0.188 m3
f) Mass of fine aggregate = e x Volume of coarse aggregate x Specific gravity of fine aggregate x
1000
= 0.676 X 0.37 X 2.6 X 1000
= 650 kg
Corrections:
Increase in fine aggregate content= 1%
Corrected mass of fine aggregate = 650*1.01 = 657 kg
Therefore , reduction in water content=188-7=181 kg
3
d) Coarse aggregate = 1192 kg
e) Water-cement ratio = 0.45
1. Design stipulations:-
Grade of Concrete = M30
Maximum Nominal size of aggregate = 20mm
Type of Cement = PPC 43 Grade Confirming to IS
8112
Workability = 50-60 mm Slump
Quality control = good
Exposure = moderate
Minimum cement Content =320 kg/m3
Maximum Water Cement ratio =0.45
Method of Concrete placing =Manual
Degree of Supervision =Good
Type of Aggregate =Crushed Angular aggregate
Maximum Cement Content =450 kg/m3
2. Test Data for Materials
Cement used = 43 Grd
Specific gravity of fine aggregate (Sfa) =2.6
Surface moisture of course aggregate = nil
Surface moisture of fine aggregate = nil
Water absorption of Coarse aggregate =0.8%
Specific gravity of cement , Sc =3.08
Specific gravity of course aggregate (Sca) =2.80
Water absorption of Fine aggregate =0.5%
3. Target Mean Strength
fct = fck +s*t
=(30+5*1.65) N/mm2 (Table 1 of IS
10262:2009)
=38.25 N/mm2
4. Water Cement Ratio
28 days cube strength for concrete = 41.7-46.6 N/mm2 (Curve c in fig 2 of
IS 10262:1982)
4
w/c = 0.38 (less than .45 ok)
5
=188.23/1 * 1/1000
=0.188 m3
Volume of All in aggregates =1-0.161-0.188
=0. 651 m3
Mass of Coarse Aggregates =0.644*0.651*2.8*1000
=1174 kg
Mass of Fine Aggregates =0.356*0.651*2.6*1000
=602.50
Corrected Mix Proportion
Corrected for moist fine aggregate =1% of weight of fine aggregate
a) Fine Aggregate =603 *1.01
=609 kg/m3
b) Coarse Aggregate =1174 kg/m3
c) Water Cement ratio =0.38
d) Water = 188 - 6
=182 kg/m3
e) Cement = 495 kg/m3
6
Test Result: M30 Concrete
Testing after 28 days
Crushing Comp. Crushing Comp.
Mean Mean
Cube No Load Strength Cylinder Load Strength
(ton) (ton)
(ton) (MPa) (ton) (MPa)
1 109 1 59.5
2 106 106.6 46.48 59.5 33.03
3 105
7
Section Modulus Z
= 100*1002/6
=1.67 x 105 mm3
Flexural Strength = P*9.81*L/(3*Z)
Test Result: M25 Concrete
Total Ultimate Load(2P) Flexural Tensile Strength
Specimen
Kg N/mm2
1 1245 5.49
2 1285 5.66
3 1275 5.62
Test Result: M30 Concrete
Total Ultimate Load(2P) Flexural Tensile Strength
Specimen
Kg N/mm2
1 1345 5.93
2 1550 6.83
3 1430 6.30
8
cylinder, tested on its side in diametric compression, as shown in following figure. If the load is applied
along the two symmetric lines joining outer longitudinal surface of cylinder, then an element on the
vertical diameter of the cylinder is subjected to a vertical compressive stress of: Vertical compression, c
Horizontal tension,
=
( )
Where, P is the applied compressive load, L the cylinder length, D the cylinder diameter. It is not
practical to apply a true line load along the top and bottom of the specimen, partly because the specimen
sides are not sufficiently smooth, and partly because this would induce extremely high compressive
stresses near the points of load application. Therefore, the load is usually applied through a narrow
bearing strip of relatively soft material
Observations shows that, Splitting tensile strength is 5 to 12% higher than the direct tensile
strength.
Experimental Set-up:
9
Test Result:
Ultimate Load Split Tensile Strength
Grade of Concrete
Ton N/mm2
2 13.5 10 /( 300
M 25 13.5
150) = 1.91
2 15.5 10 /( 300
M 30 15.5
150) = 2.19
Crack Pattern:
10
4. The split tensile strength test is not very useful for low-strength materialsl because such
specimens suffer considerable deformation during the test, which alters the distribution of
stresses.
11
PROCEDURE:
The cylindrical specimen of 150 mm dia and 300 mm height is taken. Dial gauge at a gauge
length of 200mm was fixed. Then the values of axial shortening were taken for different load values from
the dial gauge.
Experimental results:
Gauge length = 200 mm.
12
Stress Strain Plot
20
Stress
15 vs Strain
Plot
Stress
10
0
Strain
-0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014 0.0016
8
Stress vs
6 Strain
Plot
Stress
0
Strain
0 0.0000020.0000040.0000060.0000080.000010.0000120.0000140.000016
13
3. STRENGTH DETERMINATION TESTS ON CONCRETE- INDIRECT
TESTS
NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTS
A. ULTRA SONIC PULSE VELOCITY METHOD
OBJECTIVE
This test gives the qualitative estimation of concrete. Without breaking the
specimen of concrete one can assess the quality of the concrete after casting at hardened stage.
Quality of concrete is assessed comparing with the values given in IS: 13311 (Part 1) - 1992.
PRINCIPLE OF TESTING
An ultrasonic (acoustic) wave is generated by exciting a piezoelectric material
with a high-amplitude, transient electrical pulse from a high-voltage, high-current pulsar. The
short burst of ultrasonic energy from the crystal is transmitted into the concrete and impinges
upon the various interfaces within. The change in acoustic impedance at the various interfaces,
air voids, water-filled voids, reinforcing bars, cracks, de-laminations and other interfaces or
inclusions within the concrete causes a portion of the input energy to reflect (echo) back to the
surface. There the energy is detected by a second piezoelectric element. A larger portion of the
energy continues to travel forward, strike other interfaces and return an amount of energy based
on (1) the area of the reflecting surface, (2) the angle of the reflecting surface, and (3) the
acoustic impedance of the reflecting material. The time for the echo to return is measured with
the accurate time base of an oscilloscope.
The wave velocity depends upon the elastic properties and mass of the medium, and
hence if the mass and velocity of wave propagation are known it is possible to assess the elastic
properties. For an infinite, homogeneous, isotropic elastic medium, the compression wave
velocity is given by:
= /
where, V=compression wave velocity (km/s)
(1 )
K= (1 + )(1 2)
14
=density (kg/m3) and v =dynamic Poissons ratio.
15
Test Results for M25 grade of Concrete
16
UPV results with compressive loaded M25 grade cube
UPV Reading
Load Velocity (km/s)
(s)
Ton
0 33.33 4.50
10 33.26 4.51
20 33.19 4.52
30 33.11 4.53
40 32.97 4.55
50 33.11 4.53
60 33.11 4.53
70 33.26 4.51
80 33.41 4.49
90 34.17 4.39
100 36.41 4.12
Load vs UPV Plot
Load vs UPV
4.6
4.55
4.5
4.45
4.4
UPV (km/s)
4.35
4.3
4.25
4.2
4.15
4.1
4.05
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Load (ton)
17
OBSERVATION AND COMMENTS:
1. As concrete is inherently heterogeneous it is essential that path length should be sufficiently long
to avoid the effect of heterogeneity of the material .Here the test is conducted on the cube sample
which has significantly smaller length which may lead to erroneous results.
2. The surface should be smooth enough to maintain good contact between specimen and face of
each transducer. The use of coupling medium may also affect the result.
47
46.5
46
45.5
45
20 21 22 23 24 25
Mean Rebound Number
20
Rebound Number vs Compressive Strength
43.5
43
42.5
42
41.5
41
40.5
26.2 26.4 26.6 26.8 27 27.2 27.4 27.6
Mean Rebound Number
21
4. DESIGN AND TESTING OF R.C.C T BEAM
OBJECTIVE:
To determine the flexural behavior of RCC T-Beam under two point load.
To determine the elastic and plastic moment carrying capacity of T beam.
Given data:
Overall depth of beam (D) =250mm
Depth of flange (Df) =80 mm,
Web thickness (bw) =150 mm
Flange width (bf) =350 mm,
Grade of concrete M25
Loading Arrangements
Design calculations:
Effective Span , L_eff = 3.0 m
Depth of Flange, Df = 80 Mm
Effective Cover = 25 mm
22
Yield strength of main steel, fy1 = 415 N/mm
Steel In Web
23
Moment of Resistance of Section , Mu = 0.87 fy Ast *(d-0.42
Xu)
M.R = 25.57 kN-m
_v > _c
24
BAR BENDING SCHEDULE
Cutting Total
Bar dia Spacing No. of
Sl No Bar Name Shape Length Length
mm Mm Bars
Mm M
1 12 Longitudinal - 3 3442 10.326
2 6 Transverse 150 23 396 9.108
Closed
3 6 150 23 744 17.112
Stirrups
4 6 Hanger - 4 3346 13.384
Experimental Setup
DIAL-GAUGE POSITION FOR BENDING TEST
Experimental Results
Cube & Cylinder Compression test of concrete
Testing after 28 days
Crushing Comp. Mean Crushing Comp. Mean
Cube No Load Strength Comp. Cylinder Load Strength Comp.
(T) (MPa) Strength (T) (MPa) Strength
25
(MPa) (MPa)
1 97 42 1 37 20.53
2 87.5 37.89 41.09 2 51 28.31 26.83
3 100.5 43.38 3 57 31.64
26
Load Vs Deflection curve at one third point(DF-1)
6000
Load vs
5000 Displacemen
t Plot
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
27
Load Vs Deflection curve at one third point(DF-3)
28
6000 5.274
6600 5.8012
Deflection @
Mid Point
Load Deflection Load vs Theoretical Deflection
At Mid Point
(Kg) (mm)
7000
0 0
Load (kg)
6000
600 0.606
Load vs
1200 1.212 5000 Theoretical
Deflection
1800 1.818 4000
2400 2.424
3000
3000 3.03
2000
3600 3.636
4200 4.242 1000
4800 4.848 0
0 2 4 6 8
5400 5.454 Theoretical Displacement (mm)
6000 6.06
6600 6.666
Demech Readings
Load(kg) 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Position-1 2140 2136 2130 2117.5 2130 2170
Position-2 2140 2135.6 2120 2137.5 2149 2150
Position-3 2150 2157 2155 2120 2195 2197
Position-4 2166 2167.5 2220.5 2154 2185 2215
29
Position-3 2170 2206 2230 2200 2217.5 2287
Position-4 2242.5 2245 2255 2286 2273 2617.5
Calculated Strain from Demech Gauge Reading
Load (kg) Position-1 Position-2 Position-3 Position-4
0 0 0 0 0
600 -0.00004 -4.4E-05 7E-05 1.5E-05
1200 -0.0001 -0.0002 5E-05 0.000545
1800 -0.000225 -2.5E-05 -0.0003 -0.00012
2400 -0.0001 9E-05 0.00045 0.00019
3000 0.0003 1E-04 0.00047 0.00049
3600 -0.00019 0.00029 0.0002 0.000765
4200 -0.00027 0.00046 0.00056 0.00079
4800 -0.00028 0.00012 0.0008 0.00089
5400 -0.0002 0.000125 0.0005 0.0012
6000 -0.000225 0.00038 0.000675 0.00107
6600 0.00076 0.000825 0.00137 0.004515
-100 3600
4200
-150 4800
5400
-200
6000
-250
Strain
30
OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS:
1. The experimental deflection is found to be significantly varying from theoretical
deflection due to heterogeneity of concrete.
2. The load at which the crack is visible is found to be 1800 kg. Thus it can be said that
beam behaves elastically upto this loading. The maximum theoretical deflection is found
to be less than the experimental deflections. This can be due to the fact that theoretical
deflections are calculated considering homogenous section but concrete is heterogeneous.
3. At the beginning, the applied moment is less than the cracking moment hence the entire
section contributes in resisting the moment. The tension in steel suddenly increases when
the applied moment exceeds the cracking moment and the tensile stress in concrete
becomes more than its permissible flexural strength. The stiffness of beam reduces
causing faster propagation of crack and collapse of beam. Since the section is under
reinforced, there is no catastrophic failure.
4. The upward shift of neutral axis is observed and can be interpreted from the strain
variation curve along the depth.
5. It is observed that the cracks initiate in the middle third part of beam which is subjected
to flexure stress only. Hence the cracks are vertical and they propagate towards the top of
the beam. Beyond this part some cracks are developed due combination of shear and
flexure.
6. The compressive strength of concrete is found to be higher than the expected strength.
This is because the factor of safety and the confidence level are considered while
calculating the strength of concrete. Also the experimental failure load 7000kg is higher
than the theoretical failure load 4800kg for the same reason.
31
5. RECTANGULAR REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM
Experimental setup
The beam used for the study has an effective length of 3m and a cross section of 150*250 mm2.
The reinforcing steel in the tension region used is 3-12 . The beam is assumed to be singly
reinforced and hence the support reinforcement provided for hanging the stirrups will be
neglected from the moment of resistance calculations. To ensure that the top reinforcement does
not contribute to the moment of resistance they were cut at equal intervals. This however does
not ensure that the top reinforcements will not take any load. Hence a small amount of load will
be carried by the top reinforcements but for the sake of simplicity it is neglected. Minimum shear
reinforcement is provided throughout except near the supports. A two point loading scheme is
used. Equal concentrated vertical loads are applied at one-third span from both the supports. This
gives rise to a pure flexure state in the middle third region. Figure below shows the experimental
setup.
Experimental Setup
In the figure L =3000 mm. The load P is slowly increased to study the appearance of first cracks
and the ultimate failure. Figure 2 shows a cross section of the beam.
32
The clear cover used in the beam is 25mm.
Experimental Results:-
For the determination of the compressive strength of the concrete three cubes of
length 150mm and three cylinders of 150mm diameter and 300 mm length were tested. The test
results are given in Table.
For cubes-7 Days Strength
Mean Mean
Crushing Comp. Crushing Comp.
Comp. Comp.
Cube No Load Strength Cylinder Load Strength
Strength Strength
(T) (MPa) (T) (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
1 58.5 24.5 1 29 16.1
2 60 26.16 25.62 2 27 15.0 16.94
3 60.5 26.2 3 35.5 19.71
For Cylinders
33
R=150,
3 17671.459 55 30.53
h=300
As expected the average compressive strength of concrete is higher for cubes. According to
existing research the value of cylinder should be around 70 % the compressive strength of
compressive cube strength. In this case it is 65.72%. According to IS:456 the characteristic
strength of concrete is defined in terms of compressive cube strength. So the cube compressive
strength is considered as the compressive strength of the concrete. The average compressive
strength of concrete from the 28 day compressive strength is 45 MPa. The grade of steel used in
the beam was Fe415.
DESIGN OF RC RECTANGULAR BEAM- BEAM
Effective Span , L_eff = 3.0 m
Width , b = 150 mm
Effective Cover = 25 mm
34
Moment of Resistance Calculations
Total Estimated Load that can be applied over the beam = 31.77 kN
35
Minimu Shear Reinforcement is required
36
Theoretical Displacement
Calculations
Deflection
Deflection
Load (kg) @ Mid
@ 1/3 Point
Point
0 0 0
600 0.073563218 0.0845977
1200 0.147126437 0.1691954
1800 0.220689655 0.2537931
2400 0.294252874 0.33839081
3000 0.367816092 0.42298851
3600 0.44137931 0.50758621
4200 0.514942529 0.59218391
4800 0.588505747 0.67678161
5400 0.662068966 0.76137931
6000 0.735632184 0.84597701
6600 0.809195402 0.93057471
7200 0.882758621 1.01517241
6000
DG-2
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement (mm)
37
Strain Gauges Readings:-
Strain gauge orientations:-
Strain Gauge 1(Bottom) Strain Gauge 2 (Center) Strain Gauge 3 (Top)
Load (kg) Gauge-1 Strain Gauge-2 Strain Gauge-3 Strain
0 16001 0 248 0 607 0
600 15933 -0.000068 244 -0.000004 622 0.000015
1200 15922 -0.000079 243 -0.000005 670 0.000063
1800 15907 -0.000094 242 -0.000006 731 0.000124
2400 15900 -0.000101 239 -0.000009 781 0.000174
3000 15905 -0.000096 237 -0.000011 836 0.000229
3600 15903 -0.000098 230 -0.000018 889 0.000282
4200 15889 -0.000112 227 -0.000021 952 0.000345
4800 15883 -0.000118 219 -0.000029 1001 0.000394
5400 15874 -0.000127 216 -0.000032 1055 0.000448
6000 15870 -0.000131 215 -0.000033 1123 0.000516
6600 15861 -0.00014 213 -0.000035 1178 0.000571
7200 15855 -0.000146 209 -0.000039 1226 0.000619
100
For 0 kg
80
For 600 kg
60
For 1200 kg
40
For 1800 kg
20 For 2400 kg
0 For 3000 kg
-0.0002 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 For 3600 kg
-20
For 4200 kg
-40
For 4800 kg
-60
For 5400 kg
-80
For 6000 kg
-100
38
Demech Gauge readings:-
At 1/3rd Span
Demech Reading
Load Position - Position - Position - Position - Position - Position - Position -
(kg) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 830 847 840 842 857 854 853
600 885 839 838 822 847 848 854
1200 875 837 832 870 855 869 862
1800 812 825 830 844 858 853 874
2400 844 818 826 843 885 889 898
3000 846 825 847 852 912 942 940
3600 825 844 848 874 924 975 994
4200 836 821 858 895 958 995 999
4800 840 837 878 925 975 998 1015
5400 837 820 866 910 965 1012 1038
6000 828 825 866 925 990 1042 1068
6600 798 815 882 930 1014 1055 1089
7200 776 784 886 971 1040 1091 1121
39
5400kg 0.00007 -0.00027 0.00026 0.00068 0.00108 0.00158 0.00185
6000kg -0.00002 -0.00022 0.00026 0.00083 0.00133 0.00188 0.00215
6600kg -0.00032 -0.00032 0.00042 0.00088 0.00157 0.00201 0.00236
7200kg -0.00054 -0.00063 0.00046 0.00129 0.00183 0.00237 0.00268
-200
-250
Strain
At Mid Span
Demech Readings
Load (kg) 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600
Position-1 2040 2035 2035 2009 1997 1980 2084
Position-2 2109 2025 2097.5 2092 2081 1986 2075
Position-3 2037 2028 2020 2027.5 2017.5 1940 2044.5
Position-4 2078 2080 2087.5 2097 2097.5 2121.5 2026
Position-5 2053 2041 2072.5 2077.5 2086 2115 2019
Position-6 2067 2067.5 2075 2095 2181 2157.5 2079
Position-7 2022 2046 2070 2104 2152 2187.5 2020
40
Position-3 2035 2049 2049 2047.5 2060.5 2066
Position-4 2142 2056 2059 2072.5 2087 2025
Position-5 2143 2058 2077.5 2002 2025 2090
Position-6 2150 2021 2043 2073 2093.5 2085
Position-7 2245 2087 2300 2051 2060 2095
41
Strain Distribution Along the Depth
600
0
-0.002 -0.001 1200
-20 0 0.001 0.002 0.003
1800
-40
2400
-60
3000
-80
3600
-100
4200
-120 4800
-140 5400
-160 6000
-180 6600
Strain
NUMERICAL SIMULATION
Since the representative sample has not been subjected to stress-strain behavior study both in compression
and tension, the stress-strain/crack opening curves for the uni-axial compression and uni-axial tension
tests is generated using available empirical relations. To generate the stress-strain curve in uni-axial
compression, the empirical equations given in Popovics (1973), specifically Eqns. (2) and (3) is used. To
define the stress-crack opening behavior in tension, equations 1, 2 and 3 in "Determining the Tensile
Stress-Crack Opening Curve of Concrete by Inverse Analysis", by Jos Luiz Antunes de Oliveira e
Sousaet al Ref: 10.1061/ASCE 0733-9399(2006) 132:2(141) are used.
42
CALCULATIONS
= 2.13 Mpa
Post Peak Tensile Behaviour
= 0.0000591
1 = fcr ( _cr /
Estmation of Post peak stress , 1)^0.4
N = 3.37862
43
Failure Pattern
Load vs Displacement
44
OBSERVATION AND COMMENTS:
1. Numerical Simulation shows ultimate load as 5.6 Ton which is in between the experimental and
theoretical values (74% of actual ultimate load and 1.75 times the theoretical value)
2. The cracking pattern in the numerical and experimental model was found to be similar.
3. Since the model is a continuum, numerical simulation may not be reliable until all the
nonlinearities in concrete behavior are not incorporated in simulation.
Objective:
One concrete beam of cross section 180 mm x 200 mm is designed for post-tensioning and its is
tested under two point loads. Experimental results and theoretical results are compared.
Details of Beam:
Cross sectional dimensions: 150 mm x 200 mm.
Beam span = 3000 mm.
Grade of Concrete: M25.
Cube & Cylinder Compression test of concrete
Testing after 7 days
Mean Mean
Crushing Comp. Crushing Comp.
Comp. Comp.
Cube No Load Strength Cylinder Load Strength
Strength Strength
(T) (MPa) (T) (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
1 60 26.16 1 33 18.32
2 66.5 29 26.72 2 35 19.43 19.06
3 57.5 25 3 35 19.43
45
Testing after 28+7 days
Mean Mean
Crushing Comp. Crushing Comp.
Comp. Comp.
Cube No Load Strength Cylinder Load Strength
Strength Strength
(T) (MPa) (T) (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
1 106 46.22 1 65 36
2 124 54.06 49.85 2 49.5 27.48 27.64
3 113 49.27 3 35 19.43
Diameter of tendons = 5 mm
Number of tendons = 3
Effective Cover, = 75 mm
46
Moment of Inertia, I = 195.31x 10^6 mm
Stress at Transfer
To have the zero stress at the top fibre when only pre-stress is
applied:
Maximum Eccentricity, e = 50 Mm
= 16677 N
47
Maximum Imposed Load Stress, at bottom = -2.1511 N/mm
Ultimate Imposed Load Moment for zero soffit stress, Ml = -3361050.00 N-mm
= -3.36 kN-m
Considering Two Point loading, Moment at mid span M=w*l/3
Total Estimated Load that can be applied over the beam = 6.72 kN
Total Estimated Load that can be applied over the beam = 16.10 kN
48
Ap fp / bd fck = 0.1320
xu/d = 0.2804
xu = 49.063 Mm
Moment of Resistance of the section M,
Ap fpu * (d - 0.42 xu ) = 11.64 kN-m
Total Estimated Load that can be applied over the beam = 23.27 kN
= 2.28 Mm
= 1.99 Mm
49
EI
= 0.48 Mm
( 7/81 )PeL /
Deflection at one third point = EI
= 0.40 Mm
= constant = 1/12 for middle & 7/108 for the one third point.
Icr = 1/3 b x + e As r
b x/2 = e As (d-x)
=> x = 30.2 Mm
Ec = 25000 N/mm
50
Estimated Values Deflections
Mom Deflection at one third point
Deflection at mid point (mm)
ent (mm)
Total Load at Prestr Uncrac Crack Pre- Uncrac Crack
(KG) middl ess ked ed Total stress ked ed
Total
e (K (Upwa Sectio mm (Upwa Sectio
N-m) rd) Section n rd) Section n
Cracking
8.05 kN-m
Moment =
- -
0.0000
0 0.00 0.40 0.398 0.48 0.0000 0.480
0
47 30
- -
0.1706
200 1.00 0.40 0.227 0.48 0.1963 0.284
7
80 03
- -
0.3413
400 2.00 0.40 0.057 0.48 0.3925 0.087
3
14 76
0.5120 0.113 0.108
600 3.00 0.40 0.48 0.5888
0 53 50
0.6826 0.284 0.304
800 4.00 0.40 0.48 0.7851
7 20 77
1000 5.00 0.40 0.8533 0.454 0.48 0.9813 0.501
51
3 86 04
1.0240 0.625 0.697
1200 6.00 0.40 0.48 1.1776
0 53 30
1.1946 0.796 0.893
1400 7.00 0.40 0.48 1.3739
7 20 57
1.3653 0.966 1.089
1600 8.00 0.40 0.48 1.5701
3 86 84
3.280 2.882 4.218 3.737
1800 9.00 0.40 0.48
76 29 11 82
5.718 5.319 7.352 6.871
2000 10.00 0.40 0.48
32 85 13 83
8.155 7.757 10.48 10.00
2200 11.00 0.40 0.48
89 42 614 584
10.59 10.19 13.62 13.13
2400 12.00 0.40 0.48
345 498 015 985
Experimental Results:-
Theoretical Theoretical
Load Values @ Values @
(kg) 1/3rd Point Mid Point
(mm) (mm)
0 -0.39847 -0.4803
200 -0.2278 -0.28403
400 -0.05714 -0.08776
600 0.113531 0.108502
800 0.284198 0.304769
1000 0.454864 0.501036
1200 0.625531 0.697302
1400 0.796198 0.893569
1600 0.966864 1.089836
52
1800 2.882286 3.737816
2000 5.319851 6.871829
2200 7.757417 10.00584
2400 10.19498 13.13985
2600 12.63255 16.27387
2800 15.07011 19.40788
3000 17.50768 22.54189
3500 Deflection-1
Load (kg)
3000
2500 Deflection-2
2000
Deflection-3
1500
1000
500
0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement (mm)
53
Calculated Strains from Demech Gauge Reading
Load (kg) Position-1 Position-2 Position-3 Position-4 Position-5 Position-6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
600 -0.0006 -0.00004 -2E-05 0.00004 0.00089 0.00211
1200 0.00027 0.00087 0.0009 0.00166 0.00206 0.00519
1800 0 0.0002 0.00023 0.0017 0.00318 0.00676
2400 -0.00075 0.00004 0.00014 0.0018 0.00488 0.00963
3000 -5E-05 0.00026 0.00089 0.00177 0.00544 0.01831
1800
-150 2400
3000
-200
-250
Strain
54
3. The pattern of load-displacement curve for theoretical and experimental values is almost similar.
But the theoretical values differ from experimental values due to conservative effect of bilinear
formula used for theoretical deflections , heterogeneity of concrete and unsymmetry of tendons.
4. The net deflection is calculated by subtracting the upward deflection due to the
prestressing force from the downward deflection due to the applied load.
5. Initially the deflection is small and almost linear but after the section is cracked the deflection
increases rapidly as shown by load- deflection curve. Before cracking entire section was
considered while calculating the deflection but after cracking bilinear formula was used to
calculate the cracked section deflection.
55
Ry = 21.1 mm
Zz = 212 cm3
Zy = 27.4 cm3
Plastic modulus:-
Calculations
Deflection:
56
Deflection at middle (23/648)xPl3/EI
Deflection at one third point (5/162)xPl3/EI
Length of the beam, L 2850 mm
Loading arrangement:
Experimental Procedure:
Steel Beam was full of rust. To attach strain gauge it is cleaned with acetone. Then BKCT 3
strain gauges were attached with adhesive. It is tested under the two point loading condition
in UT machine.
Load vs Deflection
Theoretical Theoretical
Experimental Results
Deflection Deflection
Load(kg)
@ Mid @ 1/3 Dial 1 @ one Dial 2 @ Mid Dial 3 @ 2/3rd
Span Span third point point point
Dial Deflection Dial Deflection Dial Deflection
-1 (mm) -2 (mm) -3 (mm)
0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 250 0 310 0 595 0
600 1.14E+00 9.92E-01 298 0.48 365 0.55 645 0.5
1200 2.28E+00 1.98E+00 345 0.95 415 1.05 685 0.9
1800 3.42E+00 2.98E+00 390 1.4 465 1.55 731 1.36
57
2400 4.56E+00 3.97E+00 430 1.8 515 2.05 785 1.9
3000 5.70E+00 4.96E+00 480 2.3 670 3.6 820 2.25
3600 6.84E+00 5.95E+00 520 2.7 715 4.05 859 2.64
3500 Deflection @
Mid Span
3000 Theoretical
Deflection @
2500
1/3 Span
2000 Observed
Deflection@1
1500 /3rd Point
1000 Observed
Deflection@
500 Mid Point
0
0.00E+00 2.00E+00 4.00E+00 6.00E+00 8.00E+00
Displacement (mm)
Here in the above figure, the deflection (experimental data) at one third & two third point
coincides because of the symmetry in loading and geometry and material is observed to be
having homogeneity . So, the blue & green line overlaps each other.
Strain Gauge Data
Strain gauge orientation is as follows:-
Sl. No. of strain gauge Position
Strain gauge No. - 1 At the web in the middle of the beam and 50 mm towards bottom flange
from centroidal axis of beam
Strain gauge No. 2 At the web in the middle of the beam and at the centroidal axis of beam
Strain gauge No. 3 At the web in the middle of the beam and 50 mm towards top flange from
centroidal axis of beam
Strain gauge No. 4 At the middle of the beam in longitudinal direction of beam at the top of the
flange
Strain gauge No. 5 At the middle of the beam in transverse direction of beam at the top of the
flange
58
Strain gauge in Web
SG SG SG
Load
Reading Strain (1) Reading Strain (2) Reading Strain(3)
bottom (1) middle (2) top (3)
0 25176 0 21005 0 6549 0
600 25201 0.000025 21006 0.000001 6531 -0.000018
1200 25220 0.000044 21007 0.000002 6520 -0.000029
1800 25238 0.000062 21004 -0.000001 6504 -0.000045
2400 25264 0.000088 21008 0.000003 6563 0.000014
3000 25282 0.000106 21008 0.000003 6586 0.000037
3600 25297 0.000121 21005 0 6645 0.000096
SG Reading
3500 bottom (1)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-0.0001 -0.00005 0 0.00005 0.0001 0.00015
Strain
59
3000 16937 0.000041 20357 0.002098
3600 16940 0.000044 20364 0.002105
3500 SG Reading 5
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
Strain
1800 SG Reading 4
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.000036 0.000038 0.00004 0.000042 0.000044 0.000046
Strain
60
Strain
60
Distribution Plot In Depth Direction
Depth Direction
40
-40
-60 Strain
61
4. The theoretical deflections are higher than the experimental deflections because the exact
material parameters of beam are unknown and also improper fixity of strain gauges due to rust.
Column was tested with concentric loading over the column head without any cap. Necessary
arrangements were done to avoid stress concentration at the top. Strain gauge and dial gauge
readings are recorded for each load increment.
DESIGN OF COLUMN
Minimum eccentricity
ex min = Greater of (Lex/500 + D/30) and 20 mm = 20.00 mm
ey min = Greater of (Ley/500 + b/30) and 20 mm = 20.00 mm
0.05D = 10 < 20 mm (=ex min)
62
0.05b = 10 < 20 mm (=ey min)
Hence, the equation given in cl.39.3 of IS 456 is applicable for the design here
Ultimate Load
Pu = 0.4 fck Ac + 0.67 fy Asc
Therefore, Pu = 801.31 kN
Pu = 80.1 ton
Experimental Results
Testing after 28 days
Crushing Comp.
Mean
Cube No Load Strength
(T)
(T) (MPa)
1 97
2 100.5 98 42.7
3 96.5
0 55 30 0 0
10 74 31 19 1
20 78 44 23 14
63
30 79 45 24 15
40 92 45 37 15
50 102 45 47 15
60 124 45 69 15
70 140 45 85 15
40
30
Deflection in
20
Direction -2
10
0
-10 0 50 100
Deflection (mm)
64
Stress vs Strain Plot
1400 Longitudinal Strain-
1200 1 (x10e-6)
1000
Longitudinal Strain-
800 2 (x10e-6)
Stress (N/mm2)
600
Lateral Strain -1
400 (x10e-6)
200
Lateral Strain -2
0 (x10e-6)
0 5 10 15 20
Strain
65
9. CORE SAMPLING AND TESTING OF CONCRETE
OBJECTIVE:
Assessment of strength , Study of aggregates used in the mix design, assessing probable
causes of failures in the structure with the study of the representative sample.
CONCEPT:
Cores are usually cut by means of a rotary core sampler with diamond studded bits. In this way, a
cylindrical specimen is obtained usually with its ends being uneven, parallel and sometimes with
embedded pieces of reinforcement according to the locations from where the sampling is done. Rebar
locater can be used to locate the reinforcement steel before core cutting. This prevents structural damage
to the RCC member by avoiding the reinforcement in cutting. The cores are smoothened and tested using
standard compression testing methods to determine the compressive strength and to arrive at equivalent
cube strength of concrete.
Experimental setup:
Core Sampler
Grade Of concrete: M30
Core Sampling - Experimental Results
Estimate of
Avg Height Of Ultimate Correct Avg
Cube
Sample Diamete Sample( H/D Stress ion Strengt
strength(N/
r(mm) mm) (N/mm2) Factor h
mm2)
66
Specimen-3 65.2 152.0 2.3 17.7 1.0
67
Fig: Force vs. Displacement of the core cutter.
68
OBSERVATION AND COMMENTS:
1. In this test, the ultimate strength of the cylindrical sample was found to be 18.5 MPa. So, the
approximate cube strength = 1.25*18.5=23.1 MPa which is much less than the actual values
which was 30 MPa theoretically and 37.64 experimentally.
2. This variation in results may be due to the internal damage that must have been caused while
cutting the core or might be samples were taken from weaker section.
3. This test is done generally for the health monitoring as well as quality checking of the existing
structures or partially failed structures which is still under service condition.
4. In this test, initially the rebar locator is used to identify the locations of the reinforcements in the
structural systems & then the core cutter is used there to collect the sample by avoiding the
reinforcement. Generally in the core cutter sample the reinforcements are avoided so that the
strength of the structural systems does not decrease drastically.
OBJECTIVE:
To determine the Natural frequency of the shear frame model using Roving Hammer and FFT Analyser
(PULSE Labshop software).
Impact hammer testing is a method of testing that allows us to calculate the natural frequencies (modes),
modal masses, modal damping ratios and mode shapes of a test structure. This is commonly done using
either roving impact hammer testing or roving accelerometer testing.
In theory, impact given to structure is a perfect impulse lasting for very short time. This would result in
constant amplitude in the frequency domain. But practically such an impulse is not possible. Instead, a
known contact time is directly linked to the frequency content of the force applied. Hence some suitable
number of impacts were applied at each of the several points using roving hammer to get the response of
structure through accelerometer fixed at location where response is desired.
69
NUMERICAL MODEL
A numerical simulation is done for modal analysis. Shell element is used to model the structure. Abaqus
6.3 is used for numerical modeling.
70
OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS:
1. Due to very high computational time and efforts convergence analysis is not done. Hence the
results obtained for frequency is not accurate and experimental results and numerical
simulation results differ from each other. The difference in results may also be due to
difference in simulation of real connections and numerical connections.
2. The experimental results obtained from PULSE Labshop were fed in the Emiscope software
to obtain the natural frequency.
OBJECTIVE:
To study the seismic response of frame system model by shake table excitations.
CONCEPT:
This is a device for shaking structural models or building components with a wide range of simulated
ground motions, including reproductions of recorded earthquakes time-histories.
The setup is typically consist of a rectangular platform that is driven in up to six degrees of freedom
(DOF) by servo-hydraulic actuators. Test specimens are fixed to the platform and shaken. Using data
from transducers connected to the model, it is possible to interpret the dynamic behavior of the model.
71
INPUT ACCELERATION ( BASE EXCITATION)
0.0018
0.0016
Acc-
0.0014 YY(g)
Acceleration (g)
Acc-
0.0012
ZZ(g)
0.001 Acc-
XX(g)
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (s)
1. The model was subjected to different base excitations: i) X-direction (single DOF) , ii) Y-Z
directions (Combination of DOFs) , iii) X-Y-Z directions .
2. The time history data for ground acceleration are given as input. The fig. above shows the input
ground acceleration.
3. To obtain the displacements of the model, feedback mechanism, that is, accelerometers must be
fixed at different locations on the model.
4. Thus, shake table can be used to study the dynamic response of the structure.
72
REFERENCES
73