P. 1
Draft - Thesis March 2005 FINAL

Draft - Thesis March 2005 FINAL

|Views: 2,098|Likes:
Published by Schalk Marais

More info:

Published by: Schalk Marais on Apr 20, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/25/2013

pdf

text

original

Due to the installation of additional shear reinforcing the shear cracking

was forced to migrate away from the column, causing shear cracks to

grow to the surface outside the shear reinforced zone.

In essence this proves that the installation of additional reinforcing is an

effective way of countering punching shear failure. However, due to the

observed migration of cracking, the support conditions of the slab were

interfering with the mode of failure. Delamination started to occur at the

small bearing plates.

It was thought best to increase the area of load transfer at the supports

before any further testing took place – Fig 7.16.

129

(a)

(b)

Fig 7.16 Revised support conditions: (a) Original support, (b) Revised

Support

Due to the friction in the supports reloading of the repaired panel caused

erratic movements on the load-deflection plots of the corner supports – as

seen in Fig 7.17.

Fig 7.17 Column load vs. Corner Support Deflections

In order to calculate the average support deflection the measurements of

only Corners 2 and 4 were used. The values measured at Corner 3 are

too erratic due to the friction between the tie rod and the slab. The

deflection behaviour of Corner 1 is most likely due to the delamination

and increased slab thickness observed in that quarter of the panel.

130

Fig 7.18 Column load vs. Corner Support Deflections

Fig 7.19 Column load vs. Relative Middle Deflection

From Fig 7.19 the following can be concluded:

0mm to ±7.0mm deflection, 0kN to ±400kN column load

Reloading caused the slab to behave with an initial parabolic curve

settling to a linear response from ±100kN onwards. The two most

important observations for this portion of the test were; firstly, that

delamination of the concrete continued at the supports, despite the

enlarged support area – see Fig 7.20. Secondly, extensive cracking

within the slab was audible without any major crack appearances or

growth on the slab surface.

131

Fig 7.20

Delamination at middle support

±10mm to ±15mm deflection, ±400kN to ±400kN column load

At approximately 400kN the slope of the load-deflection curve

decreased dramatically. A peak value can be observed at

approximately 425kN – Fig 7.19. Post peak the load carrying capacity

of the slab started to decrease with increased deflection.

On the top surface of the slab, as seen in Fig 7.21, the newly formed

shear crack was growing around the last row of shear reinforcing. The

direction of growth is indicated with dotted arrows.

Fig 7.21

Development of the outer shear crack

132

On the soffit of the slab punching of the column could be clearly seen

as well as concrete spalling below the original shear clips – see Fig

7.22.

Fig 7.22

Concrete spalling and punching of the column

±15mm to ±36mm deflection

Punching shear failure of the slab has clearly taken place and it was

decided to sustain the load application. With continued pumping of the

jacks the slab resistance remained fairly constant with very high and

increasing middle deflections.

The behaviour of the slab is similar to bending failure behaviour in

reinforced concrete.

Delamination of the cover concrete became highly defined on the one

end of the slab. Accompanying this, the slab thickness started to

increase as a cone of concrete was being pushed out of the original

slab. This can be clearly seen in Fig 7.23 & Fig 7.24.

133

Fig 7.23

Continued delamination and shear cracking

Fig 7.24

Bulging of the slab

134

Fig 7.24 – continued

Bulging of the slab

Further pumping was stopped and the instrumentation removed. The

jacks were kept extended to support the slab in its bulging form.

In Fig 7.25 the compilation of all the load-deflection curves can be seen.

Fig 7.25 Column Load vs. Relative Middle Deflection

Original Panel & Repaired Panel

135

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->