You are on page 1of 72

Large Scale Tests on Reinforced Concrete

Bridge Deck Slabs

Essais à grande échelle sur des Dalles de
Roulement des Ponts en Béton Armé

Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Institut de Structures
Laboratoire de Construction en Béton (IS-BETON)

Rui Vaz Rodrigues
Prof. Dr Aurelio Muttoni

9 mai 2006

This research is funded by the Swiss Federal Roads Authority (OFROU)

and by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT)

Table of contents

A-1 Introductory remarks.............................................................................................. 1
A-1.1 Aim ......................................................................................................................... 1
A-1.2 Acknowledgements................................................................................................. 1

A-2 Description of the slabs ........................................................................................... 3
A-2.1 Test concept and overview ..................................................................................... 3
A-2.2 Geometry and reinforcement .................................................................................. 4
A-2.3 Construction of specimens...................................................................................... 7
A-2.4 Material properties.................................................................................................. 8
Concrete......................................................................................................................... 8
Reinforcement ............................................................................................................. 11

A-3 Experimental set-up and procedure .................................................................... 13
A-3.1 Reaction frames and load application................................................................... 13
A-3.2 Preparation of slabs............................................................................................... 18
A-3.3 Continuous measurements .................................................................................... 19
A-3.4 Demountable deformeter measurements .............................................................. 23
A-3.5 Test procedure ...................................................................................................... 24

A-4 Results..................................................................................................................... 27
A-4.1 Analysis and presentation of data ......................................................................... 27
A-4.2 Test DR1-a............................................................................................................ 29
A-4.3 Test DR1-b............................................................................................................ 37
A-4.4 Test DR1-c............................................................................................................ 40
A-4.5 Test DR2-a............................................................................................................ 43
A-4.6 Test DR2-b............................................................................................................ 51
A-4.7 Test DR2-c............................................................................................................ 56
A-4.8 Test PR1................................................................................................................ 61

A-5 Conclusions............................................................................................................. 63
A-5.1 Tests on bridge deck cantilevers........................................................................... 63
A-5.2 Punching shear test with simulation of vehicle wheel.......................................... 66

Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 67

i

.

practical rules such as the location of control perimeters should be proposed. Introductory remarks A-1 Introductory remarks A-1. The application of failure criteria for shear and punching shear (Muttoni 2003. Dr. without size-effect. 1 . to whom I would like to express my gratitude for his advice and encouragement provided. rotations. The tests were performed at full scale. I wish to thank to all the field staff of the Structures Laboratory of the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne for their support provided to the experimental activities. and others) is investigated for the obtained test results. Aurelio Muttoni. The financial support granted by the Swiss Federal Roads Authority (FEDRO) and by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT / BD 13259 / 2003) is gratefully acknowledged. under concentrated loads.2 Acknowledgements This research was performed at the Structural Concrete Laboratory (IS-BETON) of the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. A-1. under the supervision of Prof. These measurements can be used to compare with results from non linear finite element analysis or other models. The objective of the punching shear test is to compare the case of punching shear with a vehicle wheel with the case of punching shear with a concrete column. From the obtained results of cantilevers failing in shear or punching shear. Measurements of the surface strains. This could contribute to a more accurate assessment of bridge deck slabs failing in shear or punching shear. deflections.1 Aim The main objective of the tests on bridge cantilevers is to study the actual behavior of bridge deck cantilevers without shear reinforcement. variation of slab thickness and geometry of the critical crack were made.

.

The schematic distribution of the contact 3 . The reinforcement ratio is calculated at the clamped edge. under four cantilever loading patterns concentrated loads Figure A-2. Table A-2. The subsequent tests were performed using only two or one concentrated loads to better focus on shear and punching shear failure modes. x a) Bridge girder with b) Full scale model under c) Test DR1a.1.1: Parameters for tests on cantilevers Number of concentrated Reinforcement ratio for top bars along x at the Slab Test loads clamped edge DR1-a 4 DR1 DR1-b 2 0.60% DR2-c 1 The reinforcement ratio of slab DR1 is representative of an elastically dimensioned reinforced concrete cantilever using the traffic loads prescribed by the Eurocode 1 (2003). figure A-2. as shown in figure A-2. Concerning the punching shear test. The reinforcement ratio of the slab DR2 was reduced to validate the models described by (Muttoni 2003) for lower reinforcement ratios. None of the slabs has an edge beam. The central support for case a) at figure A-2.1 Test concept and overview The cantilevers are full scale models of part of a reinforced concrete bridge box girder. Description of the slabs A-2 Description of the slabs A-2. for the top bars at the transversal direction (bars along x axis).1: Test concept and load arrangement for the bridge cantilevers Table A-2.78% DR1-c 1 DR2-a 2 DR2 DR2-b 2 0. The flat jack is made of a copper sheet envelope with water inside. Both slabs have the same reinforcement layout and similar concrete properties. two and four concentrated loads. Two slabs (DR1 and DR2) were tested under loading patterns of one. The applied loads for test DR1-a are the twin axle loads prescribed by the Eurocode 1 (2003) with all dimensions reduced by 3/4.1 shows the main parameters for the tests on cantilevers.2 is a flat jack.2 compares two types of punching shear tests.

For slab DR2. The thickness of the cantilevers is 0. For slab DR1.2 Geometry and reinforcement The figures A-2. the transversal reinforcement of the top layer at the fixed end consists of 14 mm diameter bars at 75 mm spacing (reinforcement ratio ρ = 0. The cantilevers have a span of 2.2: Two punching shear experiments The reinforcement ratio at the top layer in both directions for slab PR1 and PG-10 is equal to 0. 4 . The top transversal reinforcement is reduced to 16 mm diameter bars at 150 mm spacing at halfway of the span.4 illustrate the dimensions. A-2. For case b) the central support is a concrete column. No vertical shear reinforcement was provided between the free edge and the fixed end.3 and A-2. the transversal reinforcement of the top layer at the fixed end consists of 16 mm diameter bars at 75 mm spacing (reinforcement ratio ρ = 0. at the region near the cantilever edge. The contact pressures are not uniform and tend to increase near the column edge as the deflection of the slab increases.78 meters (distance from the fixed end to the tip of the cantilever) and a total length of 10.00 meters.6%).78%).38 meters at the fixed end. The concrete cover is 30 mm.19 meters at the free edge and 0. For case a) the contact pressures at the interface a-b are approximately constant up to the failure of the slab. The top transversal reinforcement is reduced to 14 mm diameter bars at 150 mm spacing at halfway of the span. Guandalini (Guandalini 2005) tested a reinforced concrete slab with a concrete column as a central support (PG-10). Chapter A-2 pressure is indicated.33%. This value is representative of the bottom reinforcement at both directions for cantilevers. The bottom reinforcement in both directions and the top longitudinal reinforcement consists of 12 mm diameter bars at 150 mm spacing for both slabs DR1 and DR2. An edge reinforcement consisting of 12 mm diameter bars at 150 mm spacing was added along the side edges (y = 0 and y = 10. the reinforcement layout and the applied loads for slabs DR1 and DR2. Contact pressure at interface Contact pressure at interface σ σ a b a b a b a b Concrete column Flat jack (copper sheet envelope with water inside) a) Punching shear with flat jack simulating a b) Punching shear with concrete column vehicle wheel (test PR1) (Guandalini 2005) Figure A-2.0 m). This report presents only the results of the punching shear test with a flat jack (test PR1).

reinforcement layout and applied loads [mm] 5 . Description of the slabs Slab DR1 Ø12 s=150 Ø16 s=150 Ø16 s=150 hook Ø22 5 Ø 22 1300 Ø12 s=150 Test 950 Q/2 DR1b 900 Q/2 5000 Ø12 s=150 Test DR1a Ø12 s=150 Q/4 Q/4 A A 900 Q/4 Q/4 940 1440 Test 5000 300 DR1c Q 1250 300 y x 2800 1300 4200 vertical prestressing A-A Steel plates t = 30 mm 190 380 1420 2780 Figure A-2. Dimensions.3: Slab DR1.

4: Slab DR2. The average effective depth between both directions at the top layer is 210 mm. The reinforcement at the top layer consists of 10 mm diameter bars at 115 mm spacing for both directions (reinforcement ratio ρ = 0.Chapter A-2 Slab DR2 Ø12 s=150 Ø14 s=150 Ø14 s=150 hook Ø22 5 Ø 18 1300 Ø12 s=150 Test 950 Q/2 DR2b 900 Q/2 Ø12 s=150 5000 Test DR2a Ø12 s=150 Q/2 A A 900 Q/2 5000 300 Test DR2c Q y 1250 300 x 2800 1300 4200 vertical prestressing A-A Steel plate t = 30 mm 190 380 1420 2780 Figure A-2.5 shows the reinforcement layout and geometry of slab PR1. reinforcement layout and applied loads [mm] Figure A-2.33%). Dimensions. The reinforcement at the bottom layer 6 .

Dimension and reinforcement layout [mm] A-2. After casting.156 m2. The casting of each slab required approximately 14 square meters of concrete. A conveyor belt was used to efficiently dispose the concrete in the formwork (fig.5: Slab PR1. The central support consists of a circular flat jack with a nominal surface of 0. The surface of the slab was leveled and smoothed with the help of a ruler and a mason’s mortar board. Slab DR1 was cast on the 27th of April of 2005 and slab DR2 was cast on the 4th of October of 2005. Metallic hollow cylinders were fixed to the bottom of the formwork to create the holes required to apply loads on the cantilever.2 shows the results of the slump and flow table tests. The concrete cover is 30 mm. A-2. About thirty concrete cylinders were cast for each slab using the same batch of concrete. the slab was covered with a plastic sheet to maintain a moist environment. Description of the slabs consists of 8 mm diameter bars at 115 mm spacing for both directions.3 and A-2. The table A-2. Water was sprayed onto the slab during the period of curing. The formwork was partially removed two weeks after casting to allow the vertical prestressing of the fixed end (figs. Both slabs were cast at the Laboratory of Structures of the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. The concrete was made at a factory outside of the Structures Laboratory and was transported by a concrete mixer truck. Three weeks after casting the entire formwork was removed. North Ø8 s=115 Ø10 s=115 Ø8 s=115 A-A Test PR1 A A 3000 250 Circular flat jack Ø 446 Ø10 s=115 3000 South Figure A-2.3 Construction of specimens Figure A-2. A total prestress force of 7 MN ensured that the fixed end was well clamped. No vertical shear reinforcement was provided.6 c). The slump and flow table tests were performed before the casting of the slab. Three shuttle trips were required to cast each slab.6 shows some steps of the construction of slabs DR1 and DR2. The plywood formwork surface in contact with concrete was impregnated with mould oil prior to the setting of reinforcement. Two concrete vibrators were used to correctly place the concrete. A-2.4). 7 .

the concrete tensile strength (fct) and the Young’s modulus (Ec).4.3 indicates the average value and the coefficient of variation of the mechanical properties at the time of failure. DR2 and PR1. respectively. Concrete cylinders were cast for each slab using the same batch of concrete.2. Figure A-2. The table A-2. The measured properties are the concrete compressive strength. The maximum size of the aggregate is 16 mm. after (Fernández Ruiz 2005). Figure A-2. Each concrete cylinder had a diameter Ø = 159 mm and height of h = 320 mm. The water-cement ratio is 0.6 show the results of tests on concrete cylinders for slabs DR1. The mechanical properties at the time of testing are calculated using fitted equations of form a·daysb+c.6: Construction of slabs DR1 and DR2 A-2.5 and A-2. the Young’s modulus and the apparent density. The mechanical properties were measured with tests on concrete cylinders.4 Material properties Concrete The composition of concrete used for slabs DR1 and DR2 is indicated in table A-2.54 for both slabs. The tests were performed at the Laboratory of Construction Materials (LMC) of the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.7 (2) shows the measured stress-strain curve in compression for concrete of slab DR1. Chapter A-2 a) Construction of plywood formwork b) Plywood formwork and reinforcement c) Casting and vibration of concrete d) Leveling of surface Figure A-2.7 (1) shows the time evolution of the concrete compressive strength (fc). 8 . Tables A-2. the tensile strength. A-2.

94 36. Description of the slabs Table A-2.11 36. (2) Stress-strain curve of concrete in compression after tests performed by (Fernández Ruiz 2005) 9 .0% 42.02 36.12.8% 41.05.08.09 DR1-b 28.54 DR2-c 24.2: Composition of 1 cubic meter of concrete and results of tests on fresh concrete Sand 0-4 Gravel 4-8 Gravel 8-16 Cement Water Slump test Flow table test Slab [kg] [kg] [kg] [kg] [kg] [mm] [mm] DR1 753 604 661 325 174 20 360 37% 30% 33% W/C = 0.98 3.2005 114 7.5% 0.6% 8.82 3.3% 5.2005 76 3.3% 40.3% 4.3% 0.2006 105 15.8% 35.2% 39.2004 47 4.6% 38.01.54 Table A-2.2005 92 5.3: Concrete properties at the time of failure (average value and coefficient of variation) Compressive strength Tensile strength Young’s modulus Test Date Number of days (fc) (fct) (Ec) [MPa] [MPa ] [GPa ] 39.2006 112 4.07.0% (1) (1) fc [MPa] Slab DR1 Ec [GPa] fc [MPa] Slab DR2 Ec [GPa] 60 40 60 40 Ec Ec 35 35 50 50 DR2-c 30 30 40 fc 40 fc 25 25 30 DR1-c 20 30 DR2-b 20 DR1-a DR2-a 15 15 20 20 DR1-b 10 10 10 10 fct 5 fct 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time [ number of days ] Time [ number of days ] (2) (1) Stress [MPa] Slab DR1 Ec [GPa] fc [MPa] Slab PR1 35 34 days 60 Ec 35 30 44 days 50 30 25 25 40 20 26 days fc 20 30 15 PR1 15 20 10 10 5 10 5 fct 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Strain [‰] Time [ number of days ] Figure A-2.14 37.3% 4.07.92 3.3% 4.8% 4.0% 4.91 3.1% 8.11 2.23 31.01.26 DR2-a 09.2005 66 4.9% 0.2% 4.39 DR2-b 17.13 36.03 DR1-a 12.54 753 604 661 325 174 DR2 15 320 37% 30% 33% W/C = 0.0% 3.16 DR1-c 19. DR2 and PR1.17 2.3% 8.7: (1) Evolution of mechanical properties of concrete with time for slabs DR1.42 3.84 PR1 24.14 37.

12.2004 47 2.01.30 2.43 115/04/LMC 24.42 112/04/LMC 19.09.4: Results of tests on concrete cylinders (slab DR1) Compressive strength Tensile strength Young’s modulus Apparent Report Date Number of days (fc) (fct) (Ec) density [MPa] [MPa ] [GPa ] [t/m3] Casting 27.05.43 226/05/LMC 09.10 2.50 2.70 2.2005 66 3.2005 135 3.44 124/05/LMC 25.12.2004 47 2.2005 28 2.43 227/05/LMC 09.60 2.30 2.00 2.40 2.2005 66 3.42 Table A-2.00 2.44 298/05/LMC 09.44 115/04/LMC 24.2005 135 39.2005 66 38.09.90 37.50 2.12.45 171/05/LMC 01.44 224/05/LMC 09.09.00 2.43 172/05/LMC 01.00 2.40 36.30 34.Chapter A-2 Table A-2.10 38.43 098/04/LMC 05.00 2.00 - 299/05/LMC 09.44 005/06/LMC 17.2004 42 35.05.30 2.2004 42 33.07.00 0.2005 66 3.05.00 - 124/05/LMC 25.44 006/06/LMC 26.50 2.2005 65 39.2005 0 0.2005 65 35.2005 28 2.2005 66 37.44 227/05/LMC 09.05.20 2.09.09.05.2006 114 3.20 39.43 098/04/LMC 05.2005 135 46.70 32.40 36.60 2.43 124/05/LMC 25.44 298/05/LMC 09.60 36.2005 135 3.2005 135 45.2004 0 0.43 112/04/LMC 19.00 0.44 298/05/LMC 09.45 224/05/LMC 09.2006 105 3.50 2.50 2.2005 65 2.2005 0 0.07.44 172/05/LMC 01.07.2004 47 2.05.43 Table A-2.01.20 2.43 10 .2004 28 31.44 227/05/LMC 09.5: Results of tests on concrete cylinders (slab DR2) Compressive strength Tensile strength Young’s modulus Apparent Report Date Number of days (fc) (fct) (Ec) density [MPa] [MPa ] [GPa ] [t/m3] Casting 04.2005 135 2.90 30.2005 66 41.05.2005 28 36.2005 65 36.43 007/06/LMC 26.00 36.20 2.2006 114 42.60 2.2006 114 42.00 2.2004 28 31.01.12.2005 28 32.50 36.01.2006 114 43.05.50 2.00 2.00 35.2005 135 38.2005 65 3.05.04.50 37.04.2005 28 37.44 004/06/LMC 17.40 36.07.44 172/05/LMC 01.00 2.05.09.45 125/05/LMC 25.2006 105 41.50 2.05.09.00 2.43 008/06/LMC 26.50 2.40 35.10 2.01.50 2.07.05.10.01.07.50 2.80 33.42 227/05/LMC 09.45 170/05/LMC 01.07.07.09.70 2.2005 65 2.44 125/05/LMC 25.00 099/04/LMC 05.05.50 2.2005 28 2.00 31.10 2.50 2.00 2.05.00 0.00 2.12.1 2.44 171/05/LMC 01.2004 28 29.10 2.00 2.30 2.05.45 299/05/LMC 09.43 112/04/LMC 19.00 0.00 0.12.45 172/05/LMC 01.2005 65 3.2005 65 37.45 125/05/LMC 25.05.44 299/05/LMC 09.70 2.10 2.6: Results of tests on concrete cylinders (slab PR1) Compressive strength Tensile strength Young’s modulus Apparent Report Date Number of days (fc) (fct) (Ec) density [MPa] [MPa ] [GPa ] [t/m3] Casting 07.2005 135 3.44 226/05/LMC 09.2005 28 2.45 124/05/LMC 25.44 125/05/LMC 25.2006 105 3.45 005/06/LMC 17.2005 28 35.50 2.1 2.44 006/06/LMC 26.05.2004 42 32.00 0.43 115/04/LMC 24.60 34.44 170/05/LMC 01.01.

53 1. . .4% 8.30 1.90 1.2% 2.5% hot-rolled 534 644 10.4% 0.10 810 150 * Offset yield-point at 0.15 10 .7: Mechanical properties of reinforcement Deformation under Diameter Yield Strength Tensile strength Slab maximum load ft/fy Steel type (Ø) (fy) (ft) (εu) [mm] [MPa] [MPa] [%] 499 600 10. .10 1.3% 0.18 660 150 PR1_10_2 10 566 648 10. The stress-strain curves are shown in figure A-2.18 525 150 DR2_12_3 12 461* 576 5.38 1.0% 6.61 1.29 150 DR2_18_1 18 541 639 11.54 1.66 1.5% hot-rolled 505 591 11.91 1.18 18 .16 790 150 DR1_12_2 12 539 630 8.22 670 150 DR1_12_1 12 542 628 9. .1% 0. The strains were measured using extensometers with a measurement length of 150 mm.1% hot-rolled * Offset yield-point at 0.10 625 150 PR1_12_2 12 568 624 11.53 1.7.17 470 150 DR2_14_4 14 500 585 8.1% 4.2% 0. along with the surface of the reinforcement bars and the dimension of the ribs.11 1.1% 28.8% 0.80 1.20 660 150 DR1_22_2 22 533 646 12.59 1.3% 12.5% hot-rolled 469* 580 5.16 DR1 12 0.33 1.51 1.09 1.20 16 4.2% 4.24 DR2 12 6.8. All the bars are of type B500B accordingly with the Swiss code SIA 262 (2003).8% cold formed 541 639 11.25 1.04 1.2% 6.6% 0.10 12 0. - hot-rolled PR1 566 622 8.21 660 150 DR1_22_3 22 534 642 9.17 470 150 DR2_12_1 12 500* 588 5.23 670 150 DR1_16_4 16 482 590 11.39 1.16 790 150 DR1_22_1 22 536 644 10. Table A-2.39 1.50 1.25 150 DR2_12_4 12 445* 575 4.45 1. Description of the slabs Reinforcement The reinforcement bars where tested in tension at the Laboratory of Mechanical Metallurgy of the Ecole Polytechnique Féderale de Lausanne. The mechanical properties are indicated in table A-2. - hot-rolled 566 648 9. The loading speed was 10 MPa/s.18 670 150 DR1_16_2 16 516 610 9.05 1.54 1.19 1.2% strain Table A-2. All the bars are hot-rolled except for bars with 12 mm of diameter for slab DR2.0% 1.92 1.73 1.4% 1.8: Results of tests on reinforcement Deformation Nominal Yield Tensile Distance Measurement under Test Diameter Strength strength ft/fy between length with maximum load (Ø) (fy) (ft) anchorages extensometer (εu) [mm] [MPa] [MPa] [%] [mm] [mm] DR1_16_1 16 519 612 10.8 indicates the detailed results for each tensile test.18 670 150 DR1_16_3 16 480 590 11.16 500 150 DR2_14_2 14 502 592 10.21 22 0.95 1. Table A-2.2% 15.2% strain 11 .17 14 3.92 1.2% hot-rolled 541 629 9.17 790 150 DR1_12_4 12 543 630 9.20 660 150 DR2_14_1 14 517 600 16.15 595 150 PR1_12_1 12 565 621 9.0% 2.18 470 150 DR2_14_3 14 501 588 9.

4 15.7 12.8 10.3 mm 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Strain [%] Figure A-2.6 mm Stress [MPa] Slab DR2 Ø 14 Stress [MPa] Slab DR2 Ø 12 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Strain [%] Strain [%] Stress [MPa] Slab PR1 Ø 12 9.8: Stress-strain curves for steel bars 12 .5 mm 11.8 mm Stress [MPa] Stress [MPa] Slab DR1 Ø 12 Slab DR1 Ø 16 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Strain [%] Strain [%] 13.Chapter A-2 15.7 17.9 mm 10.3 13.

The distance between the center points of the loads is of 1440 mm in the transversal direction and 900 mm in the longitudinal direction. Four concentrated loads were applied using square steel plates of 300 x 300 x 30 mm. 13 . The load was transmitted to the concentrated loads by one steel beam in the transversal direction and four channels in the longitudinal direction. a) Prestressing set-up b) Detail of bench and nut Figure A-3.1 Reaction frames and load application Figure A-3. The prestress was applied three weeks after casting. The forces were measured at the four applied loads and at the bar above the hydraulic jack. A hand pump was used in all tests. These dimensions correspond to 3/4 of the dimensions of the twin axle loads prescribed by Eurocode 1 (2003).2 shows the test set-up for test DR1-a. A hollow hydraulic jack introduced a self-equilibrated stress state in the system. Steel bars of 75 mm of diameter were anchored below the strong floor and above the hydraulic jack. A-3. This allowed for redundancy in the system and to know the effective force at each of the four concentrated loads. A cylindrical opening of 120 mm of diameter was created in the center of the slab. A total prestress force of 7 MN was applied at the nine bars behind the fixed end to ensure that the slab was properly clamped. Figure A-3. Experimental set-up and procedure A-3 Experimental set-up and procedure All tests have been performed at the Structural Laboratory of the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.1 shows the prestressing set-up used to clamp the fixed end of the cantilever. with dimensions reduced by 3/4.1: Prestressing of the fixed end of cantilevers DR1 and DR2 Figure A-3. Only two concentrated loads were applied.3 illustrates the test set-up for test DR1-b. Spherical nuts and washers were used to accommodate rotation at the anchorage point of the steel bars. The distance between the concentrated loads is of 900 mm in the longitudinal direction. This loading pattern corresponds to half of the loading pattern prescribed by the Eurocode 1 (2003).

Chapter A-3 DR1-a A 900 10000 A Steel plate 250 x 300 x 75 Macalloy Bar 1030 Ø =75 mm A-A Spherical nut and washer Load cell Hollow hydraulic jack Bieri Ø = 350 Steel plate 500 x 500 x 80 Prestressed bars Steel beam 1800 x 600 x 600 1915 Channels Coupler Steel plates 300 x 300 x 10 Load cells 190 190 Concrete block 400 x 800 x 1100 1440 400 1100 Strong floor Concrete block 250 x 400 x 1100 Steel plate 300 x 250 x 75 Steel plate 500 x 500 x 80 Spherical washer Spherical nut 1420 2780 4200 Figure A-3.2: Test set-up for test DR1-a [mm] 14 .

3: Test set-up for test DR2-a [mm] 15 . Experimental set-up and procedure DR2-a A 900 10000 A Macalloy Bar 1030 Ø =75 mm Spherical nut and washer A-A Steel plate Load cell 250 x 300 x 75 Prestressed bars Hollow hydraulic jack Bieri Ø = 350 Steel plate 500 x 500 x 80 1595 Steel beam 1800 x 600 x 600 Load cells 190 190 Concrete block 400 x 800 x 1100 1100 Strong floor Concrete block 250 x 400 x 1100 Steel plate 500 x 500 x 80 Steel plate 300 x 250 x 75 Spherical washer Spherical nut 1420 2780 4200 Figure A-3.

4: Test set-up for tests DR1-b and DR2-b [mm] Figure A-3. The loads were applied near the short free edge of the cantilever.Chapter A-3 DR1-b DR2-b A 900 950 10000 A Macalloy Bar 1030 Ø =75 mm A-A Spherical nut and washer Steel plate 250 x 300 x 75 Load cell Prestressed bars Hollow hydraulic jack Bieri Ø = 350 Steel plate 500 x 500 x 80 1595 Steel beam 1800 x 600 x 600 Steel plates 300 x 300 x 10 Load cells 190 190 Concrete block 400 x 800 x 1100 1480 1100 Strong floor Concrete block 250 x 400 x 1100 Steel plate 300 x 250 x 75 Steel plate 500 x 500 x 80 Spherical washer Spherical nut 1420 2780 4200 Figure A-3. 16 .4 illustrates the test-set up for test DR1-b and DR2-b. Only two concentrated loads were applied. as in the case of test DR2-a.

5: Test set-up for tests DR1-c and DR2-c [mm] Figure A-3. 17 . Only one concentrated load was applied near the short free edge of the cantilever. Experimental set-up and procedure DR1-c DR2-c A 1400 10000 A Prestressed bars A-A Steel plate Macalloy Bar 1030 Ø =75 mm 250 x 300 x 75 Spherical nut and washer Load cell Hollow hydraulic jack Bieri Ø = 350 745 Steel plate 300 x 300 x 10 190 190 Concrete block 1100 400 x 800 x 1100 1480 Strong floor Concrete block 250 x 400 x 1100 Steel plate 300 x 250 x 75 Steel plate 500 x 500 x 80 Spherical washer Spherical nut 1420 2780 4200 Figure A-3.5 illustrates the test set-up for test DR1-c and DR2-c.

only the elements in the cantilever part are considered. The central support was a flat jack.13) and the position of all sensors were printed on full scale paper of the size of the slab and marked on the bottom and top surfaces. For the tests on cantilevers. During the test the water volume was kept constant. • The measuring grids (fig.156 m2 and the nominal diameter 446 mm.1: Self. At each of the four sides of the slab.2 Preparation of slabs After the introduction of the prestressing behind the fixed end to ensure that the slabs DR1 and DR2 were properly clamped.weight of the test rig Test Self-weight [kN] DR1-a 32. DR2-b. The following procedure was used to install the sensors: • The entire cantilever was painted using dispersion white paint. The flat jack is made of a copper sheet envelope with water inside. A-3. Table A-3. The loads were applied using four hydraulic jacks below the strong floor. The nominal surface is 0. The force was measured using four load cells between the jacks and the strong floor. two openings were created to allow the introduction of the forces.8 A-3. DR2-a 22. • The aluminum measuring targets of the demountable deformeter grid were glued to the concrete surface using synthetic rapid hardening glue. Chapter A-3 PR1 780 1200 780 3000 250 Flat jack RHS 300/200/16 1320 Concrete block Strong floor 750 x 750 x 1040 Load cell Hydraulic jack a) Test set-up for test PR1 b) Flat jack Figure A-3. • The surface was cleaned with compressed air and smoothed with a sanding block at the locations of the sensors.1 DR1-c. DR2-c 6. The self-weight of the steel elements of the test rig is indicated in table A-3.2 DR1-b. the sensors were installed for each test.6: Test set-up for test PR1 [mm] Figure A-3. 18 .7 PR1 16. Before the test the flat jack was completely filled with water.6 shows the test set-up for test PR1.1.

Experimental set-up and procedure

• The aluminum supports of the omega-shaped extensometers were glued to the
concrete surface using a two component glue, X60.
• The slab was perforated along the cantilever thickness with a 8 mm drill at the
measuring locations (only for slab DR2, fig. A-3.9).
• The positions of the demountable deformeter were numbered.
• The omega-shaped extensometers, the LVDTs and the inclinometers were installed
along with their cables.
• Three computers were installed, one for the omega-shape extensometers, LVDTs
and load cells, one for the measurements of the demountable deformeter and one
for the inclinometers.
• All measuring devices were tested by individually moving them and controlling the
response on the computer.
• All measuring devices were zeroed.
• A light load of about 50% of cracking was applied to ensure that all measures were
properly saved in the results file.

A-3.3 Continuous measurements
The following values were continuously measured during the tests:
• The forces were measured using load cells (figs. A-3.2 to A-3.6).
• The deflections were measured using LVDTs (figs. A-3.7 and A-3.11).
• The strains on the concrete surface were measured using omega-shaped
extensometers (figs. A-3.8, A-3.9 and A-3.11).
• The rotations of slab were measured using inclinometers (figs. A-3.8, A-3.9 and A-
3.11).
• The variation of the thickness of the slab was measured using LVDTs (fig. A-3.9).
• The time was measured with the clock of the computers.
The minimum time interval between two measures is of 10 seconds. The oil pressure
was measured for all tests as a redundant value. The figure A-3.10 illustrates the top
surface of slab DR2 during test DR2-c.
LVDT 5 LVDT 5

LVDT 5
LVDT 20 LVDT 20 LVDT 20 LVDT 20 LVDT 20 LVDT 20 LVDT 20 LVDT 20 LVDT 20
LVDT with ± 5 mm gauge length
LVDT 20
LVDT with ± 20 mm gauge length
LVDT 50
1200 LVDT with ± 50 mm gauge length
160 LVDT 100
LVDT 20 LVDT 20 LVDT 50 LVDT 50
LVDT 100
LVDT 50 LVDT 50 LVDT 20 LVDT 20 LVDT with ± 100 mm gauge length

1160
LVDT 20 LVDT 50 LVDT 100 LVDT 100 LVDT 100 LVDT 100 LVDT 100 LVDT 50 LVDT 20

1419 1132 1002 1336 1336 1002 1132 1419

Figure A-3.7: Deflection measurements for all tests on cantilevers (DR1-a, DR1-b, DR1c,
DR2-a, DR2-b and DR2-c) [mm]

19

Chapter A-3

Top surface Bottom surface

DR1-a

100

Top surface
Bottom surface

DR1-b

Top surface Bottom surface

DR1-c

inclinometer ± 10° inclinometer ± 10° Omega-shaped extensometer

Figure A-3.8: Inclinometers and omega-shaped extensometers for tests DR1-a, DR1-b and
DR1-c [mm]

20

Experimental set-up and procedure

Top surface Bottom surface

DR2-a

Top surface Bottom surface

DR2-b

Top surface Bottom surface

DR2-c

inclinometer ± 10° inclinometer ± 10° Omega-shaped extensometer

LVDT (tickness measurement LVDT (tickness measurement across Ø 8 mm drilled openning)
with embedded unbonded bar)

Figure A-3.9: Inclinometers, omega-shaped extensometers and LVDTs used to measure the
variation of the tickness of the cantilever (tests DR2-a, DR2-b and DR2-c)

21

The LVDTs for tests on slabs DR1 and DR2 were arranged in a grid and measured the deflection from the strong floor (fig. This prevented the LVDT to be accidentally 22 . omega-shaped extensometers and LVDTs for test PR1 For the tests performed on slab DR1. A-3.Chapter A-3 demountable deformeter measurements LVDT (measurement of the tickness of the cantilever) inclinometer omega-shaped extensometer Figure A-3. the omega-shaped extensometers were placed almost exclusively in the region between the concentrated loads and the clamped edge. For slab PR1. the omega-shaped extensometers were placed in the radial direction along three lines and in the tangential direction along one line (fig. For tests performed on slab DR2. A-3.11: Inclinometers. the omega-shaped extensometers were placed in the zones where the largest flexural strains where expected.10: Top surface of slab DR2 during test DR2-c PR1 Top surface Bottom surface North North b West a East West East c South South inclinometer ± 10° inclinometer ± 10° Omega-shaped extensometer LVDT (vertical deflection) Figure A-3.11). Each LVDT was fixed to a structure that was prestressed to the strong floor.7).

as explained in chapter 4. A-3.6). The displacements between the top end of the bar and the top surface of the concrete slab are measured using LVDTs. inclinometers were placed along the perimeter of a circle with diameter of 1380 mm (fig. For test PR1. The LVDTs on the top surface were fixed to a rigid aluminum structure. The idea of the first system consists of using a vertical metallic bar of small diameter that is not bonded to concrete (fig. DR2-b and DR2-c.9 and A-3. A-3.9). inclinometers were placed between the concentrated loads and the fixed end (figs. A-3.8. A-3. A-3. b.17 mm for test DR1-a at the failure load.11 at each inclinometer.12a). between the top and bottom surfaces of the slab.11 are the bearing points of the aluminum structure. Two systems were used. If a shear crack forms. The second system (fig. The LVDTs were also used to measure the variation of the thickness of the slab for the tests on slab DR2 (fig. The measurements with demountable deformeters were only made for tests DR1-a. DR2-a.3% when compared with the measured deflection at the tip of the cantilever. A-3. The maximum deflection measured at these locations was of 0. The value of this displacement is equal to the variation of the thickness of the slab. Experimental set-up and procedure displaced during the tests. This point is where the bar is anchored to concrete.11). For the tests on cantilevers. A small circular plate is welded in the bottom end of the bar. The rotation vector is indicated in figs. A-3. anchorage point anchorage point LVDT with ± 5 mm LVDT with ± 5 mm Ø 8 mm openning embedded metallic bar Ø 2 mm with plastic duct metallic bar anchorage point anchorage point a) Bar with plastic duct b) Bar across cylindrical opening Figure A-3.12a) are sensible to the friction between the metallic bar and the plastic duct.4 Demountable deformeter measurements Figure A-3. Each line in the grid drawings represents a measurement. Three measuring lengths were used (500 ± 5 mm. This value represents only 0.12: Two systems for measuring the variation of the thickness of the slab The rotations were measured using inclinometers.11). Two LVDTs were placed behind the clamped edge. For slab PR1. A-3. There is a plastic duct around the metallic bar. the water pressure in the flat jack was measured at each load step (fig. A- 3. The points a. The metallic bars have to be fixed to the formwork before casting. The measuring grid represents a highly redundant truss. 300 ± 5 and 23 . and c in figure A-3. For slab PR1. The redundancy allows the random measuring errors to be distributed. A-3. the LVDTs measured the deflection of the slab at both top and bottom surfaces (fig.9).12b) is simpler and consists of using a LVDT that directly measures the displacements across small cylindrical openings.13 shows the measuring grids used to determine the in-plane deformations of both top and bottom surfaces of the cantilevers.8 and A-3. The measurements using the first system (fig. A-3. A drill of 8 mm of diameter and a length of about 450 mm was used to perform the cylindrical openings. the top end of the bar will be vertically displaced.

DR2-a. These measurements were used to account for the temperature changes and drift in the demountable deformeter. Chapter A-3 100 ± 5 mm) and two demountable deformeters with accuracy of 5 μm. For each load stage the order of the procedures is the following: • The frequency of continuous measurements is increased prior to increasing the load. • Photographs are taken of the crack pattern and of other interesting aspects. recorded and controlled in the computer. Any unexpected event is registered in the lab journal. These measurements correspond to load stage 0 and load stage 1. • The openings of the cracks are measured using a magnifying glass. DR1-c. Measurements of an invar standard were taken approximately every twenty measurements. DR2-a. The measuring grid was measured two times at undeformed position. A-3. During the test the sequence of the procedures is controlled using a check-list. DR2-b and DR2-c. • A complete set of demountable deformeter readings is taken. For tests DR1-b. The cantilever was afterwards taken to failure. After failure the slabs were cut into two or more parts and the geometry of the critical shear crack was mapped. DR2-b and DR2-c the geometry of the critical shear crack was three dimensionally mapped. At this point of load stage the deflections of the slab were stable. • The cracks are drawn and numbered using a heavy marker. For test DR1-a. • At the end of the loading of the structure the pressure is locked-off in the hydraulic cylinders. 24 .5 Test procedure The operations related to demountable deformeter readings are only applicable to tests DR1-a. This was performed by isolating the upper part of the slab (separated from the lower part by the surface defined by the shear crack). the cantilever was subjected to one hundred load cycles at a load level of about 410 kN. The distances from the ground to the failure surface were then measured using an optical laser and a measuring grid with about six hundred measuring positions.

Experimental set-up and procedure top surface DR1-a 500 x 500 grid 300 x 300 grid bottom surface 500 x 500 grid 300 x 300 grid top surface bottom surface DR2-a 100 along line 100 along line 300 x 300 grid 300 x 300 grid top surface bottom surface DR2-b 100 along line 100 along line 300 x 300 grid 300 x 300 grid top surface bottom surface DR2-c 100 along line 100 along line 300 x 300 grid 300 x 300 grid Figure A-3.13: Measuring grids for demountable deformeters (bottom surface as seen from above) [mm] 25 .

.

1 2.3 2.8 3.6 3.9 1.6 1.5 2.7 2. for load stages of tests DR2-a.3 0. the standard deviation of measurements made from the bottom side is always larger than the standard deviation from the top side.0 5.1 Analysis and presentation of data The values of the applied forces were measured simultaneously at load introduction plates and at the Ø 75 mm steel bar for tests DR1-a (fig. DR1-b (fig. DR2-a (fig.9 DR2-b 300 bottom 5.7 3.4 8.2).4 1.1 shows the dispersion of the corrections for two 27 .8 3.9 Table A-4.3 7.4 Average of all grids 2.6 3. For the other measuring grids (table A-4.0 500 top 7. This can be explained because of the uncomfortable measuring position (upside-down).7 3.3 10.1).3 4.0 4.2: Standard deviation of corrections for demountable deformeter readings.1 3.4 1.3 3.0 4.5 2.4 1. A-3.5% and for slab DR2b less than 1%.3 1.6 1. The principal strains are calculated from the demountable deformeter measurements of the measuring grid (fig. for slab DR2a less then 1.6 1. The correct value of the measurement was determined from the truss analysis.7 2.6 3.4 5.8 For test DR1-a the standard deviation of the corrections applied to the 300 mm measuring grid are smaller than those applied to the 500 mm measuring grid (table A-4.7 3.9 5.9 DR2-c 300 top 1.3 5.6 7. Figure A-4.5 3. The highly redundant measuring grid allows the measured values to be corrected.4 4.1 3.9 5.6 8.4). The measured forces at the load introduction plates are only used to calculate the distribution of the total force among the point loads. The standard deviation is calculated without consideration of the gross errors.2 7.3 7. A-3.3 2.8 6. Muttoni 2004). Results A-4 Results A-4.3) and DR2-b (fig. A-3. Very small differences are obtained.6 7.9 8.2).4 2.5 3.3).6 4.6 6.0 2.4 5.9 2. For slab DR1a the differences are less than 3%.1: Standard deviation of corrections for demountable deformeter readings.5 1. DR2-b and DR2-c Grid #0 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 Average [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] DR2-a 300 bottom 7.1 7.5 1.4 7.2 5. Very few gross errors were found.1 2.7 DR2-b 300 top 2.5 3.2 1. A-3.3 7. for load stages of test DR1-a Grid #0 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 # 8 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14 # 15 # 16 Average [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] [μm] 300 bottom 4.1 2.2 5.1 7.1 2.8 2.1 7.8 300 top 3. Tables A-4.7 3.13). A-3.6 2. The stiffness of the truss bars with gross errors was reduced to zero.7 1.1 and A-4.2 show the standard deviation of the corrections for each test and for each load stage. Table A-4.8 Average of all grids 4.3 3. The calculations of the corrections and principal strains are described in (Vaz Rodrigues.2 8.0 2.1 500 bottom 13.7 2.9 2.7 1. for slab DR1b less than 1%.1 DR2-a 300 top 1.5 2.7 3.5 6.5 1.4 3.8 3. These procedures were adapted to the grid dimensions used in the present experiments.8 2.9 7.2 1.5 3.7 DR2-c 300 bottom 4.2 4.7 3. The same force value should be obtained for the sum of the measured forces at the load introduction plates and for the measured force at the Ø 75 mm steel bar.3 3.7 2.5 3.

• The principal strains on top and bottom surfaces. • Plots showing the variation of thickness of slab until failure (only for tests DR2-a. The evolution of the rotations is represented from the measurements of the inclinometers.05 0 0. above the hollow hydraulic jack.20 -0.0266 ‰ normal distribution 50 σ = 0.2 μm (0.20 Correction Correction Figure A-4.9 μ mm 50 σ = 0.20 -0. 28 .05 0 0. for three representative chosen load stages (only for tests DR1-a. top DR1-a 500 x 500. A diagram is provided with the evolution of the residual and under load crack openings and deflection under increasing cycles. at the beginning of the load stage.15 0. • A sectional view of the cantilever showing the position of the shear cracks. DR2-b and DR2-c).20 -0.15 0. The behavior under service loads was investigated in test DR1-a.3 μ mm σ = 0.10 0. under a total load of approximately 410 kN and at a low number of cycles (one hundred cycles).15 -0.10 -0. DR2-a. at the end of the demountable deformeter measurements and at the end of the load stage.05 0. Magnified photos of the crack openings under and without load are shown.05 0. with the cracks on background. The evolution of the surface strains measured on the concrete surface with the omega- shaped extensometers is also represented. The average standard deviation of the corrections is 4. The normal distribution is represented using the average and standard deviation of the corresponding load stage. Frequency Frequency 70 70 DR1-a 300 x 300. DR2-a.10 -0.15 -0. DR1-c. The force Q is the measured on the Ø 75 mm steel bar that applied the total load. • Level curves of the shear failure surface (only for tests DR1-b. DR2-b and DR2-c).Chapter A-4 extreme cases.10 0. The self weight of the slab and test rig is not included in the diagrams. • Tables with force values and deflection values at key locations. bottom 60 Load stage # 1 60 Load stage # 0 60 σ = 13.01 ‰) for all grids and tests. • A photo of the failure. DR2-b and DR2-c).0031 ‰ 40 40 normal distribution 30 30 24 30 19 20 20 12 10 8 9 7 10 5 10 3 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 [ μ mm ] 0 [ μ mm ] -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 [‰] [‰] -0.1: Two load stages with large and small dispersion of corrections The following results are presented for the tests: • Force-deflection curves and force-time curves.

3: Test DR1-a: Shear failure 29 . after cutting of the slab A-A free edge c) Side view (after cutting the of the slab) Figure A-4.07 12:00 12.07 00:00 date and time [day.month hour:minute] A Q [kN] 3 1400 Q 1200 Q11 w3 fixed end Q12 1000 2 800 1 w2 600 Q21 Q22 400 w1 200 free edge A 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Q = Q11+ Q12 + Q21 + Q22 w1 [mm] Figure A-4.07 12:07 11.2 Test DR1-a Q [kN] failure 3 1400 ls #16 1200 ls #15 1000 800 ls #13 Q 600 1 50 load cyles 2 50 load cyles ls #12 ls #10 400 200 ls #14 0 01.07 12:23 04.07 11:47 01.07 11:31 04.07 10:19 04.07 10:55 04.07 12:00 13.07 00:00 12.2: Test DR1-a: Load history and load-deflection curve free edge A-A a) Side view (after failure) b) View from below. Results A-4.07 00:00 11.07 11:11 01.

1 2.7 0.0 0.0 28% E 413.6% 14.0 29% M 406.9 22.7% 27.8% 30.4 4.3% 24.4% 19.4 4.6% 30.6 0.1 100% ML FL 1397.4 4.8% 28.0% 25. .4% 18.7 20.5 4.7% 30.1% 8.0% 31.8 95% M 1303.3% 40.9 2.9% 31.8 60% E 19.7 4.5 9.4 2.7% 27.4 1% E 629.2 24.9% 26.0% 34.4% 18.8 6.5 7.4% 25.9 1% M 17.5 44% M 597.1% 28.2 4.8% 37.0 1. M : End of demountable deformeter measurements .7 62% B #13 862.4 4.0 2.9% 8.0% 25.5% 41.0 29% E 5.6 12.1 19.8% 30.0 1.1 1.8 0.3% 65.6% 18.0 2.5 1.9 1.7% 27.8 0.8% 0.7 16.5 1.0 30% B #5 411.1 7.6% 41.8 27% E 1.2 12.8 3.6% 24.7 17.3 3.0 29% E 14. .1 7.3 0% M 6.9% 8.7% 8.1 1.9% 30.2% 26.3 17.4 4.5 1.4 4.9% 31.6% 18.7% 30.0 1.9 0.1% 8.1 28.7% 30. FL : Failure Load 30 .1 6.5% 30.2 0.9 24.5 4.9% 22.5 1.0 29% E 6.9% 30.4% 25.5% 41.5% 30.5% 18.9% 8.2 18.2 3.0 #1 10.4 3.0% 31.9% 22.8 1% B #14 17.1% 16.8 18.4 1% B #11 19.6 18.5 2.1 4.0 1.9% 28.9% 22.0 0.4% 66.0 5.2 0% M 1.1 1.6 17.9% 31.5% 24.2 0.7% 30.7% 14.1 15.3 0% B #6 3.5 22.2% 19.0 5.3 1.4 20.8% 8.3% 66.4 0% M 2.7 0.8% 34.7 1.8% 17.4% 17.7 0.3 0% E 422.6 7.9 0.0 7.5 19% E 399.2 6.2% 28.0% 31.6% 14.7% 25.7 22.9% 30.9 19.1% 8.9% 8.4 0.8% 31.6 3.0% 16.3: Test DR1-a: Evolution of some measured values Load Q Q11 / Q Q12 / Q Q21 / Q Q22 / Q w1 w2 w3 Q / QFL Remark stage [kN] .5 0.1 0.4% 20.6 4.5 45% B #12 616.9% 30.0% 0.4 2.1 100% FL B : Beginning of load stage .4% 3.0 78% B #15 1073.3 12.2 0.8 15.4 1% M 20.9% 26.0 30% B #8 412.0 19.3 17.5% 32.0 1.0% 24.7% 27.9% 31.5 18.3% 32.8 93% E ML 1397.2 22.1% 28.0% 31.5 24.1 9.1 1.7 0.6% 30. .9% 30.7% 27.9 0.0 29% B #7 402.8 29% B #3 383.0 278.0 20.4% 19.7% 18.6% 69.0% 20.2% 19.1 2.4 22.8% 28.7% 30.2% 20.1 0.7% 32.3 27.7 19.8% 29.5 20% B #2 265.0 75% E 1361.1% 8.1% 34.0 27.2 0% E 413.4 4.3% 21.4% 24.3% 21.2 22.4 0.7% 32.0 29% M 399.6% 32.0 18.1% 28.2 24.4% 20.7 24.2% 28.0 19.2 0% B #4 0.2 2.7 27.1 0.2% 3.2% 28.0% 8.4 17.8 27% M 373.6% 69.7 3.1 1.1 0.4 1.5 9.7% 30.0 5.5 0.2% 16.0 19.0 3.4 2.9 30% B #10 420.4 0% E 406.4% 19.0% 6.0 77% M 1047.3% 21.4 2.2% 26.9 0.2 2.4 0.0% 31.4 4.6% 3.9 30% M 411.7 62% M 841.2 4.7% 30.4% 32.7% 25.0 29% M 386.2 3.1% 26.7 97% B #16 1328. ML : Maximum load .8% 26.2 18. E : End of load stage .5 1.5 19% M 258.1% 5.6 43% E 871.1 28.4 1.1% 31. [mm] [mm] [mm] % - #0 4.9 18.7 18.4 1.6% 27.5% 18.0% 31.2 2.0 1.9% 8.9 1% E 1084.0 19.1% 25.4 0% B #9 4.5% 18.2 6.0 3.3 2.5% 18.Chapter A-4 Table A-4.9% 6.5 0.3% 24.0 0.

15 mm / m Figure A-4. Results ls # 10 Q / QFL= 0.4: Test DR1-a: Crack pattern and tensile principal strains on the top surface 31 .75 mm / m ls # 16 Q / QFL= 0.77 Q [kN] 1400 1000 600 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 3.84 mm / m ls # 15 Q / QFL= 0.95 Q [kN] 1400 1000 600 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 8.30 Q [kN] 1400 1000 600 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 0.

Chapter A-4 ls # 10 Q / QFL= 0.0.5: Test DR1-a: Crack pattern and compressive principal strains on the top surface 32 .77 Q [kN] 1400 1000 600 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 w1 [mm] ε MIN = .05 mm / m ls # 16 Q / QFL= 0.30 Q [kN] 1400 1000 600 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 w1 [mm] ε MIN = .1.1.68 mm / m Figure A-4.95 Q [kN] 1400 1000 600 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 w1 [mm] ε MIN = .25 mm / m ls # 15 Q / QFL= 0.

30 Q [kN] 1400 1000 600 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 0.75 mm / m ls # 16 Q / QFL= 0.95 Q [kN] 1400 1000 600 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 8.6: Test DR1-a: Crack pattern and tensile principal strains on the bottom surface (as seen from above) 33 .25 mm / m Figure A-4. Results ls # 10 Q / QFL= 0.77 Q [kN] 1400 1000 600 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 w1 [mm] ε MAX =+ 3.73 mm / m ls # 15 Q / QFL= 0.

2 #13 0.00 Figure A-4.5 #16 1.57 mm / m ls # 15 Q / QFL= 0.0.77 Q [kN] 1400 1000 600 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 w1 [mm] ε MIN = .1 #12 0.3 #15 0.95 Q [kN] 1400 1000 600 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 w1 [mm] ε MIN = .Chapter A-4 ls # 10 Q / QFL= 0.3.6 mm / m crack openings e Load e step [mm] #10 0.7: Test DR1-a: Crack pattern and compressive principal strains on the bottom surface (as seen from above) 34 .1.11 mm / m ls # 16 Q / QFL= 0.30 Q [kN] 1400 1000 600 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 w1 [mm] ε MIN = .

02 mm 0.4 0. Results (1) (2) deflection w1 [mm] strain Ω [‰] 1 Q = 410 kN 9 3 Q = 410 kN 0.6 Q = 0 kN 0.04 mm 0.08 mm 3 1 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Number of load cycles Number of load cycles (2) top surface strain Ω 2 [‰] 1 Q = 410 kN Ω1 0.2 Ω2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 w1 Number of load cycles Figure A-4. (2) Evolution of maximal strains measured with omega-shaped extensometers on the concrete surface (length of measurement: 100 mm).08 mm 0.1 mm 2 5 Q = 0 kN Q = 0 kN 0.15 mm 7 0.08 mm 0.8 0.05 mm bottom surface 0.15 mm a) Residual crack opening (Q ≈ 0 kN) b) Crack opening under load (Q ≈ 410 kN) Figure A-4.1 mm 0.9: Test DR1-a: Maximal crack openings at the top surface of the cantilever after the load cycles 35 .8: Test DR1-a: (1) Evolution of the deflection with number of load cycles. The associated crack openings are indicated crack opening: crack opening: 0.

10: Test DR1-a: (1) Strains measured on the surface of the slab with omega-shaped extensometers (100 mm length) . (3) Crack openings measured with magnifying glass 36 . (2) Deflections measured with LVDTs.20 # FL 10 # 16 #13 0.40 # 13 5 #16 1.20 # 15 #15 0.15 #12 0.Chapter A-4 A A (3) crack openings ε [‰] Load a 20 Step [mm] 15 (1) A-A #10 0.20 # 12 0 # 10 a 1 2 3 0 1 Flexural crack # 10 2 Shear crack # 12 -1 # 13 3 Shear crack (FAILURE) # 15 -2 # 16 (1) # FL -3 ε [‰] 0 # 10 20 # 12 # 13 40 # 15 60 (2) # 16 80 # FL w [mm] Figure A-4.

2 2.7 7.0 0.3% 49.1 17.9 101% ML FL 1024.0 3.7% 6.7 96% ML 1030.0% 61.0 #2 403.0 50.9 50.5 50.4: Test DR1-b: Evolution of some measured values Load Q Q11 / Q Q12 / Q w1 w2 w3 Q / QFL Remark stage [kN] .8% 29.7 18.9 100% FL ML : Maximum load . FL : Failure Load Figure A-4.3% 49.2% 49.2 3.11: Test DR1-b: Load history and load-deflection curve Table A-4.2% 49.3% 49.1 50. Results A-4.0 3.0% 0. .0 0.7% 11.7 58% #4 790. [mm] [mm] [mm] [%] - #1 6.8% 29.0 39% #3 595.0 1.9 18.7% 18.3% 49.5 39.3 Test DR1-b Q [kN] Q [kN] 1200 Q = Q11 + Q12 1200 failure Q ls 5 1000 1000 w3 Q11 Q12 Q ls 4 800 800 w2 ls 3 600 w1 Q11 ~ Q12 600 Q11 ~ Q12 ls 2 400 400 200 200 ls 1 0 0 15:21 15:36 15:50 16:04 16:19 16:33 16:48 17:02 17:16 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 w1 [mm] time [hour:minute] Figure A-4.8 1.4 50.6 11.12: Test DR1-b: Side view of the shear crack after failure 37 .7% 28.0 50.6 77% #5 984.1 3.

2 #5 0.4 Figure A-4.Chapter A-4 top surface ls # 5 Q / QFL= 0.13: Test DR1-b: Crack pattern 38 .96 Q [kN] 1200 800 400 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] bottom surface crack openings Load e step [mm] e #4 0.

4 #3 crack openings #4 -0. Results A equidistance of level curves: 20 mm (1) A ε [‰] 6 (2) # FL 4 #5 #4 #3 2 #2 A-A 0 a b 0 #2 (4) -0. (2) Strains measured on the surface of the slab with omega-shaped extensometers (100 mm length).2 0.1 12 θ [mrad] (3) # FL #4 0. (4) Crack openings measured with magnifying glass 39 .14: Test DR1-b: (1) Level curves of the shear crack.8 #5 Load a b # FL Step [mm] [mm] -1.3 0.2 0.2 ε [‰] #2 0.4 8 #4 #3 4 #2 0 #1 Figure A-4.2 #5 #5 0. (3) Rotations measured with inclinometers.15 0.1 (2) #3 0.

5 11.0 0.8 3.5 1.3 2.2 14.4 3.16: Test DR1-c: Side view of the shear crack after failure 40 .9 1.4 103% ML FL 910. FL : Failure Load Figure A-4.3 3.0 24.5: Test DR1-c: Evolution of some measured values Load stage Q w1 w2 w3 Q / QFL Remark [kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] [%] - #0 4.7 87% ML 938.4 23% #2 401.0 0.6 0.3 2.6 0.7 64% #4 789.5 100% FL ML : Maximum load .9 44% #3 586.2 14. Chapter A-4 A-4.0 #1 208.4 Test DR1-c Q [kN] Q [kN] 1000 w3 1000 failure Q w2 Q ls 4 800 800 w1 ls 3 600 600 Q ls 2 400 400 ls 1 200 200 ls 0 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 14:24 14:38 14:52 15:07 15:21 15:36 15:50 16:04 16:19 16:33 16:48 17:02 w1 [mm] time [hour:minute] Figure A-4.7 5.4 0.6 18.0 24.7 11.1 6.15: Test DR1-c: Load history and load-deflection curve Table A-4.

17: Test DR1-c: Crack pattern 41 . Results top surface ls # 4 Q / QFL= 0.87 Q [kN] 1000 800 400 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] bottom surface crack openings Load d step [mm] #4 0.25 #5 0.4 d Figure A-4.

(4) Crack openings measured with magnifying glass 42 .2 # FL -5 ε [‰] θ [mrad] # FL 12 (3) #4 #3 8 #2 #1 4 0 Figure A-4.18: Test DR1-c: (1) Level curves of the shear crack.Chapter A-4 A (1) equidistance of level curves: 20 mm ε [‰] 4 (2) A 3 # FL 2 #4 1 #3 #2 A-A #1 0 a (4) crack openings 0 Load a -1 stage [mm] -2 #1 #1 0. (2) Strains measured on the surface of the slab with omega-shaped extensometers (100 mm length). (3) Rotations measured with inclinometers.04 -3 (2) #2 #3 #2 #3 0.06 0.06 -4 #4 #4 0.

6: Test DR2-a: Evolution of some measured values Load stage Q Q11 / Q Q12 / Q w1 w3 Q / QFL Remark [kN] .2% 48.1% 48.2 73% B #4 664.1 14. Results A-4.2% 48.12 09.5 0.8 51.2 69% M 650.3 0.5 0.2% 48.5 2.8% 15.8% 26.7% 49. .12 09.2 1.7 3.4 51.3% 1.7% 49.3 48% E 698.8% 15.8% 26.8% 22.2 68% E ML 961.5 37% AFT B : Beginning of load stage .2 16% M 117.3 56% B #3 474.1 0.5 Test DR2-a Q [kN] Q [kN] 1200 A Q = Q11 + Q12 1200 failure 1000 w3 Q 1000 Q11 Q12 800 800 ls 4 w1 Q11 Q 600 600 ls 3 Q11 A Q12 Q12 400 400 200 200 ls 2 ls 1 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 08.12 08.3 49% M 462.0 0% 153.12 09.9 50.12 08.1 51.12 09.8% 15.5 100% FL AFT 359.19: Test DR2-a: Load history and load-deflection curve Table A-4.9% 9.5 50.2 1.5 100% ML FL 961.1% 48.2% 48.3% 1.12 09.12 08.5 51.month hour:minute] Figure A-4.4 51.2% 48.3% 1.8 51.6 2.7 3.1% 48.9% 9. M : End of demountable deformeter measurements .6 51. ML : Maximum load .2 1. FL : Failure Load.3 51. AFT: After Failure 43 .2% 48.12 09.9% 9.2 16% B #2 153. [mm] [mm] [%] - #1 2.7% 49.2 12% E 535. E : End of load stage .7 51.0 50.12 08.1 0.6 2.12 w1 [mm] 12:00 14:24 16:48 19:12 21:36 00:00 02:24 04:48 07:12 09:36 12:00 date and time [day.

Chapter A-4 a) Sectional view A-A A-A b) View from below c) View of the internal failure surface (upper lip of the shear crack) Figure A-4.20: Test DR2-a: Views of the shear crack after cutting the slab 44 .

Results ls # 2 Q / QFL= 0.2 mm / m Figure A-4.21: Test DR2-a: Crack pattern and tensile principal strains on the top surface 45 .69 dr2a Q [kN] 1200 800 400 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 3.16 Q [kN] 1200 800 400 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 0.49 dr2a Q [kN] 1200 800 400 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 1.8 mm / m ls # 4 Q / QFL= 0.1 mm / m ls # 3 Q / QFL= 0.

56 dr2a Q [kN] 1200 800 400 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MIN = .05 mm / m ls # 3 Q / QFL= 0.22: Test DR2-a: Crack pattern and compressive principal strains on the top surface 46 .0.Chapter A-4 ls # 2 Q / QFL= 0.69 dr2a Q [kN] 1200 800 400 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MIN = .1.3 mm / m Figure A-4.47 mm / m ls # 4 Q / QFL= 0.0.16 Q [kN] 1200 800 400 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MIN = .

06 mm / m ls # 3 Q / QFL= 0.16 Q [kN] 1200 800 400 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 0.69 dr2a Q [kN] 1200 800 400 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 1.32 mm / m Figure A-4.23: Test DR2-a: Crack pattern and tensile principal strains on the bottom surface (as seen from above) 47 . Results ls # 2 Q / QFL= 0.57 mm / m ls # 4 Q / QFL= 0.49 dr2a Q [kN] 1200 800 400 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 0.

1 #4 0.49 mm / m crack openings Load d step [mm] #3 0.0.49 Q [kN] 1200 800 400 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MIN = .Chapter A-4 ls # 2 Q / QFL= 0.08 mm / m ls # 3 Q / QFL= 0.24: Test DR2-a: Crack pattern and compressive principal strains on the bottom surface (as seen from above) 48 .2 Figure A-4.1.3 mm / m ls # 4 Q / QFL= 0.69 Q [kN] 1200 800 400 d 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MIN = .16 Q [kN] 1200 800 400 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MIN = .0.

Results A (1) equidistance of level curves: 20 mm ε [‰] 6 A 5 (2) # FL #4 4 #3 #2 3 2 1 A-A 0 a b c (4) 1. (4) Crack openings measured with magnifying glass 49 .08 -1 #3 #4 0.2 0. (2) Strains measured on the surface of the slab with omega-shaped extensometers (100 mm length).3 0.25: Test DR2-a: (1) Level curves of the shear crack.02 -0.5 stage [mm] [mm] [mm] 0 #2 0.2 -1.2 0.5 #2 #3 0.5 ε [‰] (2) crack openings 1 Load a b c 0. (3) Rotations measured with inclinometers.5 #4 # FL 14 θ [mrad] 12 10 (3) # FL 8 #4 6 #3 4 #2 2 0 Figure A-4.1 0.

5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0 # FL 0.9 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 #4 # FL 0.3 0.3 0.Chapter A-4 measured with embedded unbonded bar ( ) 0 #3 0.2 0 0.0 Δh [mm] Figure A-4.5 0.3 1.2 0.7 # FL 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.6 0.26: Test DR2-a: Measurements of the variation of the thickness of the slab 50 .4 0.4 Δh [mm] Δh [mm] 0.8 0.

9 0.2% 48.4 51.0 51.0% 49.8 7.0 0.9% 22.8% 17. Results A-4.1 2.8 29% B #2 226.5 70% B #4 581.5 67% E 696.7% 12.6 50.4 0.1% 48.0% 48.7 10.4% 48.9% 49.28: Test DR2-b: Side view of the shear crack after failure 51 .2% 48.0 2.2 3.0 0.1% 33.6% 12.8 3.6 0.0 3.2 3.0% 49.6 52.1 51.1 1.3 51.1 78% E 773.1% 48.9% 49.0% 26.8 20. ML : Maximum load .6% 3.7 87% E ML 856.8% 17.0% 26.3 2.4% 48.2% 48.1 10.6 50.1% 48.6 100% ML FL 856.7 51.6 100% FL B : Beginning of load stage .6 16% E 495.8 20. M : End of demountable deformeter measurements .0% 26.9 56% M 471.0 10.2 51.9% 21.5 68% M 570.2 51.0% 4.6 3.7 7.8 3.8 13.1 13.3 15. FL : Failure Load Figure A-4.7: Test DR2-b: Evolution of some measured values Load Stage Q Q11 / Q Q12 / Q w1 w2 w3 Q / QFL Remark [kN] .6 52.4 15.9 58% B #3 476.5 1.6 7.0 0% 247.5 51.9% 22.3% 48.4% 47.0 15.1 81% B #5 667.3 4.6 90% B #6 752.3 4.2 2.0% 48.1% 33. [mm] [mm] [mm] [%] - #1 1.3 51.0% 49.1 78% M 665.27: Test DR2-b: Load history and load-deflection curve Table A-4. E : End of load stage .5 0.1 2.9 55% E 603.4 51.6 1.2 52.7 88% M 743.0% 4.8% 16.1 13.6% 12.8 51.8 51. .7 26% M 141.6 1.6 Test DR2-b Q [kN] Q = Q11 + Q12 Q [kN] 900 900 failure Q ls 6 Q11 w3 Q12 800 800 dr2b ls 5 700 700 w2 ls 4 600 600 w1 ls 3 500 Q11 500 Q12 Q11 Q 400 400 Q12 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 09:36 14:24 19:12 00:00 04:48 09:36 14:24 19:12 w1 [mm] time [hour:minute] Figure A-4.

95 mm / m ls # 5 Q / QFL= 0.0.78 Q [kN] 900 700 500 300 0 0 10 20 30 40 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 2.Chapter A-4 tensile strains compressive strains ls # 3 Q / QFL= 0.1 mm / m ε MIN = .56 Q [kN] 900 700 500 300 0 0 10 20 30 40 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 0.3.2.29: Test DR2-b: Crack pattern and principal strains on the top surface 52 .41 mm / m ε MIN = .84 mm / m ε MIN = .84 mm / m ls # 6 Q / QFL= 0.88 Q [kN] 900 700 500 300 0 0 10 20 30 40 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 2.1.17 mm / m Figure A-4.

2 Figure A-4.79 mm / m Load f step [mm] #3 0.30: Test DR2-b: Crack pattern and principal strains on the bottom surface (as seen from above) 53 .15 #6 0.91 mm / m ε MIN = .88 Q [kN] f 900 700 500 300 0 0 10 20 30 40 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 1.21 mm / m crack openings ε MIN = .78 Q [kN] 900 700 500 300 0 0 10 20 30 40 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 0.48 mm / m ε MIN = .0. Results tensile strains compressive strains ls # 3 Q / QFL= 0.0.47 mm / m ls # 5 Q / QFL= 0.75 mm / m ls # 6 Q / QFL= 0.0.04 #4 0.1 #5 0.56 Q [kN] 900 700 500 300 0 0 10 20 30 40 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 0.

1 0.15 0.1 Q / QFL= 1.04 900 0.5 # FL 0 Δ h [mm] 0 0.25 300 0 0 10 20 30 40 0 0 10 20 30 40 0.3 0.01 0.02 -0.2 0.4 # FL 0.02 Δ h [mm] Δ h [mm] ls # 6 0.06 900 700 700 0.05 0 0 loaded surfaces Figure A-4.05 Q [kN] Q [kN] 0.1 0.2 0.02 0.3 0.08 0.45 Q / QFL= 0.3 0.3 700 500 500 300 0.1 Δ h [mm] 0.4 0.68 Q / Q =FL0.4 0.00 0.88 ls FL 0.5 loaded surfaces Δ h [mm] Figure A-4.3 0.2 Δ h [mm] 0.04 w1 [mm] 0.4 0.35 900 0.08 900 700 0.02 0 0 -0.06 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.06 Q / QFL= 0.01 -0.1 0.78 0.Chapter A-4 fixed end #4 #5 #6 # FL # FL # 6 # 5 # 4 #3 measured with embedded unbonded bar ( ) measured along Ø 8 mm aperture ( ) #4 #5 #6 # FL #4 #5 0 0 0.1 0.03 500 500 300 300 0.02 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 w1 [mm] w1 [mm] 0.32: Test DR2-b: Measurements of the variation of the thickness of the slab (interpolated values on all points inside the measurement zone) 54 .5 0.4 0 #4 #5 #6 0.31: Test DR2-b: Measurements of the variation of the thickness of the slab Δ h [mm] Δ h [mm] ls # 4 ls # 5 0.2 0.3 Δ h [mm] #6 0.04 0.2 w1 [mm] 0.4 Q [kN] fixed end Q [kN] 0.

5 #5 #6 # FL 16 θ [mrad] 14 12 (3) # FL 10 #6 8 #5 6 #4 4 #3 2 #2 0 #1 Figure A-4.5 #1 #2 -1 #3 #4 -1.02 8 (2) #2 #3 0.5 1 (2) 0.1 0. Results A (1) equidistance of level curves: 20 mm (4) crack openings Load b c d ε [‰] 12 Stage [mm] [mm] [mm] 10 A #1 0.3 #4 #6 0. (3) Rotations measured with inclinometers.4 0.1 0. (4) Crack openings measured with magnifying glass 55 .1 0.2 # FL #6 #4 0.3 0.1 0.5 0 -0. (2) Strains measured on the surface of the slab with omega-shaped extensometers (100 mm length).5 4 #3 #2 #1 2 0 A-A b c d 2 ε [‰] 1.3 6 #5 #5 0.2 0.5 0.04 0.04 0.1 0.33: Test DR2-b: (1) Level curves of the shear crack.04 0.1 0.

FL : Failure Load.3 16.9 2. ML : Maximum load .34: Test DR2-c: Load history and load-deflection curve Table A-4.0 12.5 0.1 3.7 33% M 237.4 92% AFT1 AFT2 596.35: Test DR2-c: Side view of the shear crack after failure 56 .7 35% B #2 240.2 2.4 3.0 67% M 471. 3: After failure Figure A-4. AFT1.5 19.5 34.4 16.3 13.9 13.4 25.0 0.3 2.6 53% AFT3 B : Beginning of load stage . M : End of demountable deformeter measurements .1 2.8 19.4 0.6 21.4 25.1 25.3 2.5 101% ML FL 719.2 2.8 0. E : End of load stage .5 25.3 12.5 100% FL AFT1 664.0 1% 254.7 16.3 13.2 16.0 8.1 2.8: Test DR2-c: Evolution of some measured values Load stage Q w1 w2 w3 Q / QFL Remark [kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] [%] - #1 3. 2.7 33% E 498.8 86% B #4 594.1 3.2 83% AFT2 AFT3 384.0 69% B #3 480.4 3.1 3.9 2.2 8.3 19.4 16.2 3.2 8.0 0.5 3.0 66% E 620. Chapter A-4 A-4.8 2.7 Test DR2-c Q [kN] 800 800 Q [kN] failure 700 AFT1 700 w3 Q ls 4 AFT2 Q 600 w2 600 ls 3 500 w1 500 Q 400 AFT3 400 300 300 ls 2 200 200 100 100 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 10:48 12:00 13:12 14:24 15:36 16:48 18:00 19:12 w1 [mm] time [hour:minute] Figure A-4.8 82% E ML 726.3 12.8 83% M 589.5 0.

0.0.0.55 mm / m ε MIN = .83 Q [kN] 800 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 3.33 Q [kN] 800 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 0.64 mm / m Figure A-4.36: Test DR2-c: Crack pattern and principal strains on the top surface 57 .67 Q [kN] 800 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 2.2 mm / m ε MIN = .19 mm / m ls # 3 Q / QFL= 0.5 mm / m ls # 4 Q / QFL= 0.24 mm / m ε MIN = . Results tensile strains compressive strains ls # 2 Q / QFL= 0.

0.28 mm / m ls # 3 Q / QFL= 0.83 Q [kN] e 800 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 1.0.Chapter A-4 ls # 2 Q / QFL= 0.03 mm / m ε MIN = .15 #4 0.33 Q [kN] 800 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 0.37: Test DR2-c: Crack pattern and principal strains on the bottom surface (as seen from above) 58 .18 mm / m ε MIN = .4 Figure A-4.61 mm / m crack openings Load e step [mm] #3 0.53 mm / m ls # 4 Q / QFL= 0.67 Q [kN] 800 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] ε MAX = + 1.0.97 mm / m ε MIN = .

38: Test DR2-c: (1) Level curves of the shear crack.2 #1 crack openings -0. (2) Strains measured on the surface of the slab with omega-shaped extensometers (100 mm length).05 -1.2 0 (4) -0. (4) Crack openings measured with magnifying glass 59 .2 ε [‰] #3 0.4 #2 a b c #3 Load -0.04 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 #4 Stage [mm] [mm] [mm] -0.04 0.15 #4 0.8 # FL #1 0.04 -1 (2) #2 0. (3) Rotations measured with inclinometers. Results A (1) equidistance of level curves: 20 mm ε [‰] 6 (2) 5 4 # FL #4 A #3 3 #2 2 #1 1 0 A-A a b c 0.4 0.2 12 θ [mrad] 10 8 (3) # FL 6 #4 4 #3 2 #2 0 #1 -2 Figure A-4.2 0.2 0.

4 Q [kN] 0.03 200 200 0 0 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] 0.1 #2 measured along Ø 8 mm aperture ( ) 0 Δ h [mm] 0.2 0.1 loaded surface 0.6 0.05 -0.3 Δ h [mm] Figure A-4.02 0.06 Q / QFL= 1.4 0 10 20 30 w1 [mm] 0.04 800 0.8 0.6 0.08 ls # 4 0.2 #4 #3 0.2 0.2 0 0 Figure A-4.01 0 0.3 0.3 0 Δ h [mm] 0.4 0.02 loaded surface 0 Δ h [mm] Δ h [mm] 0.2 fixed end 0.7 1.3 0.8 ls AFT2 1.83 1.15 600 600 400 400 0.3 0.2 600 400 0.39: Test DR2-c: Measurements of the variation of the thickness of the slab Δ h [mm] Δ h [mm] 0.Chapter A-4 fixed end # FL # FL #4 # FL #4 #3 #2 Δ h [mm] #4 #3 #3 #2 #2 0.5 200 400 0 200 1 0 10 20 30 0 w1 [mm] 0.1 0 # FL 0.9 2 ls AFT1 0.92 Q / QFL= 0.01 -0.83 0.2 0.1 w1 [mm] 0.07 ls FL Q / QFL= 0.40: Test DR2-c: Measurements of the variation of the thickness of the slab (interpolated values on all points inside the measurement zone) 60 .1 0.1 Δ h [mm] measured with embedded unbonded bar ( ) 0 # FL 0.1 0.6 800 Q [kN] 600 800 1.00 0.2 0.8 Q / QFL= 0.05 Q [kN] Q [kN] 800 0.

05 19.9 12.0 0.1 599.7 430 24% 25% 26% 25% 0.1 450 25% 25% 26% 25% 13.0 #1 126.1 37.2 11.1 10.7 49.9 31.1 31.9 49.9 25.9 51.0 0.4 299.2 25% #8 331. The diameter d0 is calculated from the force V and the pressure p at each load stage: d 0 = 4 ⋅ V (π ⋅ p ) . θ2.3 1.9: Test PR1: Evolution of some measured values Load Q V p d0 QN / Q QS / Q QW / Q QE / Q θ1 θ2 θ3 θ4 ψ NS ψ EW Q/QFL Rem.9 43% #3 319.1 12.0 472 25% 25% 25% 25% 61.3 0.2 34.[mrad][mrad][mrad][mrad] [mrad] [mrad] [%] - #0 15.6 467 25% 25% 25% 25% 53. V is equal to the sum of the forces applied by the jacks (QN.7 36.0 39.0 0. Table A-4.4 -3.6 38.8 88.4 51. A-4.3 2.1 202.7 -1. QW and QE) with the self weight of the slab and test rig (about 73 kN).8 11.2 37.3 14.05 24.3 445 24% 25% 26% 25% 8.2 594.1 33.05 19. .9 29. .9 80% #5 469.3 42.3 9.4 -1.1 25% 25% 25% 25% 64.4 0.2 1.0 0.1 404.4 38.1 44.5 89% #6 547.3 104% #7 129.9 13.41: Test PR1: Load history and load-deflection curve The force on the central support is V.3 33.9 392.1 64.3 13. .5 38. The pressure p was measured at each load stage with a pressure gauge.1 542.7 453 24% 25% 26% 25% 21.5 33.3 35.1 30.1 2.8 Test PR1 V [kN] ψ ψ = θ 1 + θ3 V [kN] N-S N-S 2 south north 700 700 d 0 ls 6 failure 600 V failure 600 ls 9 QN ls 5 500 500 north ls 4 ls 8 θ1 400 400 ls 3 300 QW θ4 V θ2 300 west east QE ls 2 ls 7 200 200 θ3 100 south 100 QS 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 19.0 17.05 24.0 620.2 63% #9 521.6 56.0 10.5 614. FL : Failure Load 61 .0 12. The rotations θ1.5 6.7 39.7 445 19% 22% 30% 29% 0. Results A-4.4 100% FL ML : Maximal load .8 48.0 0.0 475 25% 25% 26% 24% 49.05 19.0 463 24% 25% 26% 25% 46.0 35.1 19.3 24% #2 226.8 5.0 -2.1 23.3 61% #4 420.05 24. stage [kN] [kN] [bar] [mm] .5 25% 25% 25% 25% 64. QS. θ4 are measured with the inclinometers.1 -3. The rotation ψN-S is the average of the rotations θ1 and θ3 and the rotation ψE-W is the average of the rotations θ2 and θ4.0 49.4 63.2 64.month hour:minute] Figure A-4.05 09:36 10:33 11:31 12:28 13:55 14:24 14:52 ψN-S [mrad] date and time [day.3 23.5 3.3 199.0 5. θ3.0 0.4 99% ML 541.4 20.8 103% ML FL 526.0 9. Very large rotations were obtained near failure (fig.9 493.0 437 25% 25% 26% 24% 3.41).0 6.

5 #2 10 #3 1.2 (3) #7 #6 0 maximal crack openings at top surface #1 #2 a #5 -0.0 30 #7 10.east) # FL #9 #8 0.2 ε [‰] Flat jack V 1 (1) 0. (1) Strains measured on the surface of the slab with omega-shaped extensometers (100 mm length).Chapter A-4 A A ε [‰] 40 35 (1) # FL 30 25 #9 (west .east) #8 #7 #6 #5 #4 20 15 A-A 10 #3 5 #2 0 -5 a North South 1.4 stage [mm] #1 0 #2 0.4 0. (2) Deflections measured with LVDTs.6 (west . (3) Crack openings measured with magnifying glass 62 .2 Load #3 #4 -0.8 0.42: Test PR1: Crack pattern on the top surface.0 #7 #6 (2) 50 #8 60 #9 70 # FL w [mm] 80 Figure A-4.20 #4 #5 20 #5 5.10 #3 #4 1.0 40 #9 10.0 #8 10.

as explained in figure A-5. Table A-5. Note that the self- weight of the test rig (table A-3. Test DR1-a had the highest failure load and the largest deflection w. Conclusions A-5 Conclusions A-5. Figure A-5.1 shows the load-deflection curves for all the six tests. The measuring location of the deflection w is indicated in the same figure. The deflections are indicated instead. for the sectional view A – A. The shape of the shear crack is indicated in figure A-5.1.1 summarizes the obtained results on all tests on bridge deck cantilevers.1: Force-deflection curves for all tests on cantilevers 63 . measured at the tip of the cantilever.1) is not included in the force values.78 % North edge 2 1025 Fixed end Shear DR1-c South edge 1 910 Fixed end Shear DR2-a Centre 2 961 Fixed end Shear DR2-b 0. For test DR1-a.1 Tests on bridge deck cantilevers Table A-5. - DR1-a Centre 4 1397 Cantilever edge Shear DR1-b 0. the rotations were not measured.2 for all tests on cantilevers.1: Summary of the obtained results Reinforcement Location of Number of Failure Load Mode of Test Failure location ratio *) loads (along y) loads (QR) failure [kN] .60% North edge 2 857 Fixed end Shear DR2-c South edge 1 719 Fixed end Shear *) At the top transversal reinforcement (bars along y) at the clamped edge y A A A A A A south edge north edge south edge north edge x DR1-c DR1-a DR1-b DR2-c DR2-a DR2-b Q Q/4 Q/4 Q/2 Q/2 Q/2 Q/2 Q Q/2 Q/2 Q/4 Q/4 w w w w w w A A A A A A 1600 Q [kN] 1600 Q [kN] DR1-a 1200 1200 DR2-a DR1-b DR2-b 800 800 DR2-c 400 400 DR1-c w [mm] w [mm] 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Figure A-5. The strains on the concrete and the rotations are represented using the same scale for all tests.

1 ε [‰] #3 0.2 # 10 4 #3 #5 0.06 -0.06 #2 #3 0.3 0.5 ε [‰] 1 crack openings 0 Load a a b c 0.5 ε [‰] # FL 0 #1 0.04 0.2 0.1 0.4 20 # 12 #2 # 13 0 #1 40 # 15 60 (1) # 16 80 # FL w [mm] DR1-c DR2-a # FL # FL ε [‰] ε [‰] (2) #4 #3 A-A 6 (2) #4 #3 A-A 4 #2 4 #2 2 2 0 #1 0 a a b c (4) (2) (4) crack openings 1.2 0.3 # FL ε [‰] 12 10 (2) #6 #5 #5 0.2 0.5 #2 crack openings -0.05 #2 #3 0.4 #2 (4) # 12 -0.5 6 (2) #3 #2 #2 4 2 #1 A-A 4 2 #1 A-A 0 0 d c d a b c 2 0 (4) ε [‰] -0.2 0.5 #2 0.04 0.02 #3 0.04 0 #2 0.2 0.2 # FL #4 0.2 -1.20 10 # 15 ε [‰] (2) #4 #15 #16 0.1 0.08 -2 #1 #4 0.15 -1 #3 #4 0.02 #2 0.15 # FL # FL #12 0.04 -0.1 0.5 #5 #6 # FL 16 θ [mrad] 14 12 (3) # FL 12 θ [mrad] 10 8 #6 #5 10 8 (3) # FL #4 6 #4 6 4 #3 4 #3 2 #2 2 #2 0 #1 0 #1 -2 Figure A-5.5 #1 (2) #2 0. (2) Strains measured on the concrete surface with omega-shaped extensometers (100 mm length).3 0.1 0.1 0.5 #4 -3 (2) #2 # FL #3 14 θ [mrad] -4 #4 12 10 (3) # FL 8 #4 # FL 6 -5 #3 ε [‰] 4 #2 2 θ [mrad] # FL 12 (3) #4 0 #3 8 #2 #1 4 0 (4) DR2-b crack openings DR2-c Load b c d Stage [mm] [mm] [mm] #1 0.2: Sectional views of all tests on bridge deck cantilevers: (1) Deflections measured with LVDTs. (4) Crack openings measured with magnifying glass 64 .8 1 (2) -1.15 0.5 0.1 #3 0.2 0.1 0.04 0. (3) Rotations measured with inclinometers.04 0.2 0.20 # 16 #5 #13 0.2 -1 #3 #4 0.8 #3 -1 #4 crack openings # 13 3 Shear crack (FAILURE) -1.1 0.4 0.4 #1 1.3 0.4 0.1 8 #4 0 #4 0.40 1.Chapter A-5 (3) DR1-a DR1-b crack openings ε [‰] Load a 20 Step [mm] 15 (2) A-A #10 0.3 ε [‰] #4 8 6 #4 #3 #6 0.5 Load stage [mm] stage [mm] [mm] [mm] -1 #1 0.2 #4 -1.2 ε [‰] # 15 #5 -2 # 16 (2) # FL Load a b (2) # FL θ [mrad] (3) # FL Step [mm] [mm] -3 12 #5 #2 0.20 5 # 13 # 12 6 4 #3 #2 A-A 2 0 # 10 0 a a b 1 2 3 1 Flexural crack 0 # 10 2 Shear crack 0 -0.1 0.2 #3 #4 Load a b c Stage [mm] [mm] [mm] 0.2 0.04 0.

an important shear crack was found in the region between the clamped edge and the concentrated loads (DR1-a. Behavior at failure • The cantilevers always failed in shear.6 mm at all locations and for all load levels. namely over the clamped edge and under the applied loads. At failure.8 mm. at the load stage prior to failure.8 mm for test DR1-a. the failure load decreases with the reinforcement ratio.2). • The surface defined by the failure crack resembles for all tests to a flat truncated conical surface. 2.0 mm. in a non ductile manner. Besides from this crack. A-5. For test DR1-a the failure took place at the concentrated loads near the cantilever edge. • The location of the shear failure was always in the region between the loads and the clamped edge. • The critical shear cracks do not seem to form from the existing flexural cracks (fig. • No or very limited yielding occurred for the other tests.3 mm for test DR1-c to 1. at failure. significant yielding occurred in top and bottom reinforcement. 65 . The cracks with maximal openings at the bottom surface are always located below the applied loads. Yielding of flexural reinforcement Based on the analysis of the crack openings.2).2 mm for test DR2-b and DR2-a to 1. d in fig. e in fig. A-5. • For tests performed with the same number of loads. the crack openings at the clamped edge for top bars along x was of 1. • The maximal crack openings measured on the bottom surface. the crack opening at failure was of 1. two or four). Conclusions The following conclusions can be drawn for the performed tests on cantilevers: 1. • The maximal crack openings on the top surface. Formation and openings of flexural cracks • The first flexural crack has always appeared on the top surface at the clamped edge (cracks along y).0 mm for test DR1-a. • For the tests performed on the same slab. The cracks with maximal openings at the top surface are always located at the clamped edge (cracks along y). range from 0.2). • For test DR1-a the shear crack that provoked the failure is indicated (DR1-a. These cracks are normally oriented along the cantilever span (cracks along x). It appears that a process of formation of the shear crack in this region was in progress. it can be concluded that: • For test DR1-a. A-5. with crack openings at failure smaller than 0. without leading to a shear failure. range from 0. omega-shaped extensometers and measurements with demountable deformeter. 3. the failure load increases with the number of applied loads (one. For bottom bars along y under the edge loads.

the shear failure produced in a rather slow way. The increase was more pronounced at section A – A. The diameter sensibly increases along the load stages.2 Punching shear test with simulation of vehicle wheel The following conclusions can be drawn for the punching shear test PR1.56 · QFL). • An increase due to load cycles was also observed in the maximal crack openings at the clamped edge. The variation of the slab thickness was recorded during the decrease of the load after failure.3 mm (about 30%) after the cyclic loading. At maximal load. • The diameter of the contact surface between the flat jack and the concrete slab is calculated for each load step from the values of the force and pressure. Chapter A-5 4.1 and 0. with simulation of a vehicle wheel with pneumatic pressure: • Slab PR1 failed in punching shear in presence of very large crack openings directly above the loaded surface (crack opening of 10.49 · QFL). The increase of thickness concentrated in half-circular region around the concentrated load. • Tensile stresses have appeared on the radial direction on the bottom side of the slab. Behavior under service load A cyclical loading of the cantilever took place under the loading patterns of test DR1-a before going to failure.05 mm.83 · QFL) the maximal variation of the thickness was of about 2 mm. near the central support.67 · QFL). between the load and the clamped edge. the maximal variation of thickness was of about + 0. • For test DR2-c the thickness of the slab has increased after load stage # 3 (Q = 0. After the maximal load was attained. At the bottom surface under the applied loads an increase was observed in the maximal and residual crack openings respectively of 0. Variation of slab thickness and propagation of shear crack • For test DR2-a.5 mm. the maximal variation of thickness was of about + 0. This was observed at very large rotations.02 to 0.25 mm.3 mm to 8. At maximal load. 66 . • For test DR2-b the thickness of the slab has increased after load stage # 3 (Q = 0. • A very large plateau is observed in the force-rotation diagram.15 mm. the maximal variation of thickness was of about + 0. 5.0 mm). between the load and the clamped edge. At load step AFT2 (Q = 0. The following conclusions can be drawn: • The deflection at the tip of the cantilever increased from 6.1 mm to 0. A-5.8 mm. About one hundred cycles ranging from Q = 0 to 410 kN were performed. near failure. of 0. The increase of thickness was more pronounced at the section A – A. At maximal load. the thickness of the slab has increased after load stage # 3 (Q = 0.04 to 0. however with larger values at section A – A. The increase of thickness was approximately distributed around the applied load.

Influence des déformations plastiques de l'armature de flexion sur la résistance à l'effort tranchant des poutres sans étriers. 2003. Bibliography Bibliography Eurocode 1 . 3380 (2005). No 2. September. 2006. 114p. August. .. . Guandalini S. IBK Publikation SP-015. Lausanne. Rapport d'essai. Muttoni A. 2004. EPFL . Zurich. IS-BETON. Essai d'un porte-à-faux de pont sous charge concentrée. Beton. . 2005. Vaz Rodrigues R. Lausanne. Actions on structures – Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges.. Lausanne. Germany.. 67 . January. Rapport d'essai. 2002. IS-BETON. . N. Vol. Poinçonnement symétrique des dalles en béton armé. Vaz Rodrigues R. Muttoni A.. 2004. Schubfestigkeit und Durchstanzen von Platten ohne Querkarftbewehrung. Vaz Rodrigues R. Plain concrete behaviour under uniaxial compression. pp.und Stahlbetonbau. 2003. Feb. Switzerland. Berlin. Thèse de doctorat. . Essais de poinçonnement symétrique des dalles en béton armé sans armature à l'effort tranchant. SIA 261 . Muttoni A. IS-BETON. EN 1991-2. Suisse. 74-84. 289 pp.Actions sur les structures porteuses.IS-BETON. Fernández Ruiz M. Shear Strength of RC Bridge Deck Cantilevers. . . Muttoni A. 98.. pp. Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Slabs.. décembre. Lausanne. 2005. PhD thesis. Suisse. 2003. 6th International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering. Lausanne. 2007 Vaz Rodrigues R. SIA . n° 3739. 160-161. . Guandalini S. Switzerland.