You are on page 1of 353

Degradation of Shear Performance of Beams due to

Bond Deterioration and Longitudinal Bar Cutoffs

by

Junji Masukawa

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements


for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto

© Copyright by Junji Masukawa 2012


Degradation of Shear Performance of Beams Due to
Bond Deterioration and Longitudinal Bar Cutoffs

Junji Masukawa

Doctor of Philosophy

Graduate Department of Civil Engineering


University of Toronto

2012

Abstract

Experimental and analytical research has been conducted to investigate the degradation

of shear performance of beams due to bond deterioration and longitudinal bar cutoffs.

To achieve the controlled rate of bond degradation, the method of adjustment of the rib

height by machining was adopted. Bond behaviour of the milled bars were measured in

tension stiffening tests with internally installed strain gauges. Maximum bond stresses

for the milled bars were reduced by up to 50% compared to those for normal deformed

bar.

The bond behaviour of the milled bars were compared with those of the bars subjected to

accelerated corrosion. It was confirmed that the stripped bar had the possibility to

simulate corroded bars to some extent. Based on the calculations of average tensile

stresses in the cracked concrete for each specimen, appropriate tension stiffening factors

for each type of bar were suggested and then verified with the 2-dimensional nonlinear

finite element analysis program VecTor2.

ii
Next, eight simply supported beams were tested. In four of them half of the longitudinal

bars were cut off near the supports. Various combinations of normal and machined

reinforcing bars were selected for both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement.

The predicted shear failure load for the cutoff beam based on the general method for

shear design in CSA A23.3-04 was unconservatively estimated. Cutoffs of longitudinal

reinforcement resulted in much more significant drops of shear resistance than did bond

deterioration of reinforcement. The inclinations of diagonal cracks for the cutoff series

were larger than those for the no-cutoff series due to significant concentrations of

longitudinal strains near the cutoff locations.

Finally modifications to the general shear design method in CSA A23.3-04 were

proposed based on the results of VecTor2 analyses for the beam tests. It was found that

the influence of bond deterioration on the shear strength of reinforced concrete member

can be accounted for by adjusting the tension stiffening factor applied to the equation for

β. With respect to bar cutoffs, its influence on shear strength can be expressed by the

strain concentration factor applied to the equation for ε x .

iii
Acknowledgments

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisors, Professor Michael P.


Collins and Professor Evan C. Bentz, for their enthusiasm, their inspiration, their
constructive comments and their continued encouragement throughout this research
project.

I am grateful to Professor Frank J. Vecchio who provided support for my analytical


research. I would also like to extend my appreciation to other committee members:
Professor Shamim A. Sheikh and Professor Denis Mitchell (McGill University) for their
guidance and knowledge.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Giovanni Buzzeo and Christian Amizola from
the machine shop for their excellent and precise work in manufacturing of four internally
gauged reinforcing bars and a number of 6 m long 25M bars with mechanically reduced
rib heights.

I wish to deeply thank those who helped me in the structural lab and in the concrete lab:
Peter Leesti, Renzo Basset, Peter Heliopoulos, Joel Babbin, John McDonald and many
others.

For their friendship and unconditional help, I am grateful to my friends: Almila Uzel,
Adam Lubell, Ted Sherwood and Richard Yee.

The experimental work, especially measurement of Zurich gauges and precise grounding
of 114 stirrups, would not have been possible without help from three undergraduate
students: Luka Matutinovic, Jeffrey Erochko and Graham Potter.

I gratefully acknowledge the financial support through the employee scholarship


program from Kajima Corporation.

I owe special thanks to my parents Hiroshi and Kaneko Masukawa, and especially my
wife, Kaori who has always been supporting me and encouraging me throughout the
difficult time.

Lastly, this thesis is dedicated to my four-year-old son, Kento who was born during this
research project.

iv
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background and scope of the research ................................................................ 1
1.2 Thesis outline....................................................................................................... 5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 7


2.1 Influence of bond on the shear strength............................................................... 7
2.2 Influence of bar cutoffs on the shear strength.................................................... 13
2.3 CSA A23.3-04 standard..................................................................................... 16
2.4 VecTor2; analysis program used in this study................................................... 19

3. EXPERIMENTAL WORK ON TENSION STIFFENING...................................... 23


3.1 Test specimens................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Manufacture of internally-gauged bars.............................................................. 27
3.3 Accelerated corrosion tests ................................................................................ 34
3.4 Test set-up for tension stiffening experiments................................................... 38
3.5 Test results ......................................................................................................... 39
3.5.1 Test results for JT1 ....................................................................................... 40
3.5.2 Test results for other specimens.................................................................... 47
3.5.3 Post-yield strain distributions for JT2 and JT3............................................. 67
3.6 Average stress – average strain relationships of concrete ................................. 70
3.7 Analytical study on the stress – strain relationship of corroded bar.................. 77

4. EXPERIMENTS ON THE SHEAR BEHAVIOUR OF LARGE BEAMS ............. 81


4.1 Test specimens................................................................................................... 82
4.2 Grinding of Reinforcing Bars ............................................................................ 89
4.3 Material properties............................................................................................. 92

v
4.4 Test setup ........................................................................................................... 93
4.5 Test results ......................................................................................................... 96
4.6 Discussion of test results.................................................................................. 110

5. ANALYTICAL WORK ON EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS................................. 116


5.1 Nonlinear finite element analysis of tension stiffening tests ........................... 116
5.1.1 Analysis for normal deformed JT1 ............................................................. 118
5.1.2 Analysis for half-deformed JT3.................................................................. 124
5.1.3 Analysis for plain JT2................................................................................. 126
5.1.4 Analysis for corroded JT4........................................................................... 128
5.2 Nonlinear finite element analysis of the beam tests ........................................ 133
5.2.1 Analysis of normal deformed specimens JB1-N/D/D and JB5-C/D/D ...... 136
5.2.2 Analysis of the specimens with reduced bond reinforcement .................... 141
5.3 Modifications of general method for shear design in CSA A23.3-04 ............. 145
5.3.1 Modification of crack spacing parameter in size effect term for β............. 147
5.3.2 Modification based on equation for aggregate interlock at cracks ............. 152
5.3.3 Simplified modification based on the results in 5.3.2................................. 155

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 164


6.1 Bond behaviour of reinforcing bars with mechanically reduced rib heights ... 164
6.2 Comparison with bond behaviour of reinforcent bars subjected to accelerated
corrosion.......................................................................................................... 167
6.3 Influence of bar cutoff and bond degradation on shear behaviour of large beams
........................................................................................................................ 168
6.4 Suggested modifications to general method for shear design in CSA A23.3-04
........................................................................................................................ 170
6.5 Area of future work.......................................................................................... 171

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 172

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 176


vi
List of Tables

Table 2.1 Models in VecTor2 to be used for the analysis in this study

Table 3.1 Derails of JT series specimens

Table 3.2 Material properties of concrete

Table 4.1 Details of the JB series specimens

Table 4.2 Calculations based on CSA23.3-04 at Failure (fc’=37.2MPa)

Table 4.3 Weight losses due to grinding

Table 4.4 Rib heights of the deformed and half deformed 25M bars

Table 4.5 Material properties of concrete

Table 4.6 Material properties of reinforcements

Table 4.7 Summary of test results

Table 4.8 Comparison of each specimen

Table 4.9 Comparison between test results and CSA23.3-04 general method for JB1
and JB5 (f c’ =37.2MPa)

Table 4.10 Calculations of shear resistance based on CSA23.3-04 at cutoff section of


JB5 with fixing the angle of inclination θ to 53°

Table 5.1 Material properties for the analysis of JT series specimens

Table 5.2 Selected models in VecTor2 for the analysis of JT series specimens

Table 5.3 Tension stiffening factors for the analysis of JT series specimens

Table 5.4 Selected models in VecTor2 for the analysis of JB series specimens

Table 5.5 Parameters for the VecTor2 analysis of JB series specimens

Table 5.6 Results of the perfect bond analysis for JB series specimens

Table 5.7 Predicted loads for shear failure based on the current CSA code

Table 5.8 Crack spacings in longitudinal and transverse directions for JB series

Table 5.9 Predicted loads for shear failure based on the modified size effect term for β

vii
Table 5.10 Predicted failure loads for cutoff series considering strain concentration

Table 5.11 Predicted failure loads based on the modified aggregate interlock equation

Table 5.12 Comparison between rations of β and tension stiffening factor α

Table 5.13 Predicted failure loads based on the simplified modification of β

Table 5.14 Comparison of the predicted to experimental shear failure load ratios

viii
List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Underground surge tank, “the underground Pantheon”, in Tokyo


Metropolitan area

Figure 1.2 Old concrete structure that needs to be evaluated

Figure 1.3 Picture of the east abutment of the de la Concorde overpass taken less than
60 minutes before collapse (left) and picture after collapse due to shear
failure (right)

Figure 1.4 Terminations of reinforcing bars

Figure 1.5 Corroded concrete structures

Figure 2.1 Kani’s test for investigation of various bond qualities

Figure 2.2 Kani’s test of beams without vertical shear force

Figure2.3 Moment and shear stress to shear span ratio relationships for Ikeda’s test

Figure 2.4 Schematic diagram for bond – maximum moment relationship

Figure 2.5 Details and crack pattern for B series in Cairns’s test

Figure 2.6 Details of specimen for Kuchima’s test

Figure 2.7 Results of Ferguson and Matloob’s test

Figure 2.8 Details of specimens for Baron’s test

Figure 2.9 Specimens and results for Ozaka and Suzuki’s test

Figure 2.10 Equations for the Modified Compression Field Theory

Figure 2.11 Tri-linear stress-strain behaviour model for reinforcement

Figure 3.1 Layout of JT series specimens

Figure 3.2 Stress – strain relationships of solid 25M bar

Figure 3.3 A pair of bars cut from each bar

Figure 3.4 Concave milling cutter for 25M bars

Figure 3.5 A pair of “large halves” sawn from two bars

ix
Figure 3.6 Sawing bars along longitudinal ribs

Figure 3.7 A pair of exact halves milled from sawed ones

Figure 3.8 Milling to exact half round

Figure 3.9 Longitudinal grooves machined on each pair of the exact halves

Figure 3.10 Layout of grooves for each pair of halves

Figure 3.11 Machining grooves

Figure 3.12 Pitch of strain gauges

Figure 3.13 Strain gauge and lead wire

Figure 3.14 Strain gauge installations

Figure 3.15 Strain gauge and lead wire

Figure 3.16 Strain gauge installations

Figure 3.17 Glue pairs of the gauged halves

Figure 3.18 Glued bars for JT1, JT4, JT3 and JT2

Figure 3.19 Almost plain bar for JT2 and half deformed bar for JT3

Figure 3.20 Strain readings of the rod for JT1 at tension force P = 150kN

Figure 3.21 Conversion factors from strain to tension force for JT1

Figure 3.22 Accelerated corrosion tests setup

Figure 3.23 Details of specimens JT4 and JT5 for accelerated corrosion tests

Figure 3.24 Stainless anchors for applying current to the reinforcement

Figure 3.25 Time - voltage relationships

Figure 3.26 Time - current relationships

Figure 3.27 Time–resistance relationships

Figure 3.28 Time–calculated corrosion amount relationships

Figure 3.29 Bottom sides of specimens after accelerated corrosion

Figure 3.30 Inside of the specimens split along the longitudinal crack after tension
stiffening tests

x
Figure 3.31 Set-up for tension stiffening test

Figure 3.32 Codes for test results of each specimen

Figure 3.33 JT1 load-elongation relationships

Figure 3.34 Differences between LVDT and SG

Figure 3.35 JT1_TS strain distributions

Figure 3.36 Comparison between JT1_TS and JT1_BB strains

Figure 3.37 JT1_TS steel strains at cracks and midway between cracks

Figure 3.38 JT2 load-elongation relationships

Figure 3.39 JT3 load-elongation relationships

Figure 3.40 JT4 load-elongation relationships

Figure 3.41 JT5 load-elongation relationships

Figure 3.42 JT5 load-elongation relationships with shifted initial points

Figure 3.43 Photos of specimens at 150kN in the 1st cycle of loading

Figure 3.44 Differences between LVDT and SG

Figure 3.45 JT2 load-elongation relationships

Figure 3.46 JT3 load-elongation relationships

Figure 3.47 JT4 load-elongation relationships

Figure 3.48 JT5 load-elongation relationships

Figure 3.49 JT4_CBB comparison between LVDT and SG

Figure 3.50 JT5_CBB comparison between LVDT and SG

Figure 3.51 JT1_TS strains and bond stresses distributions

Figure 3.52 JT2_TS strains and bond stresses distributions

Figure 3.53 JT3_TS strains and bond stresses distributions

Figure 3.54 JT4_TSC strains and bond stresses distributions

Figure 3.55 JT5_TSC strains and bond stresses distributions

Figure 3.56 JT2_TS comparison between TS_strain and BB_strain at cracks

xi
Figure 3.57 JT3_TS comparison between TS_strain and BB_strain at cracks

Figure 3.58 JT4_TSC comparison between TS_strain and CBB_strain

Figure 3.59 JT5_TSC comparison between TS_strain and CBB_strain

Figure 3.60 JT5_TSC comparison between TS_strain and CBB_strain with shift

Figure 3.61 JT4_CBB and JT5_CBB degradation ratios of Young’s modulus

Figure 3.62 JT1_TS maximum and average bond stresses between cracks

Figure 3.63 JT3_TS maximum and average bond stresses between cracks

Figure 3.64 Comparison of maximum and average bond stress at 500 to 1000mm

Figure 3.65 Comparison of maximum and average bond stress for total gauged length

Figure 3.66 JT1_TS bond stress hysteresis

Figure 3.67 JT2_TS bond stress hysteresis

Figure 3.68 JT3_TS bond stress hysteresis

Figure 3.69 JT4_TSC bond stress hysteresis

Figure 3.70 Post-yield load – average strain relationships for JT2_TS and JT3_TS

Figure 3.71 JT2_TS Post-yield strain distribution

Figure 3.72 JT3_TS Post-yield strain distribution

Figure 3.73 Average stress – average strain relationships of concrete at each section

Figure 3.74 Relationship of average stresses between reinforcement and concrete for JT1

Figure 3.75 Initial part of average stress – average strain relationships for JT1

Figure 3.76 Suggested average stress – average strain relationships for each specimen

Figure 3.77 JT4_CBB Frequency of Young’s modulus degradation ratio

Figure 3.78 JT4_CBB Comparison of stress – strain relationships

Figure 3.79 Weibull distributions for three corrosion levels

Figure 3.80 Stress – strain relationships of the bars for three corrosion levels

Figure 4.1 Geometric details of the JB series specimens

xii
Figure 4.2 Distributions of shear force and shear resistance at failure of JB1 and JB5
when fc’ =37.2 MPa

Figure 4.3 Distributions of tension force of longitudinal reinforcements at failure of


JB1 and JB5 when fc’ =37.2 MPa

Figure 4.4 Concave milling cutter for 25M bars

Figure 4.5 Disk sander for US #3 bars

Figure 4.6 Ground 25M bars

Figure 4.7 Ground US #3 bars

Figure 4.8 Ground US #3 bars

Figure 4.9 Stress – strain relationships of reinforcements

Figure 4.10 Loading set-ups

Figure 4.11 Locations of the strain gauges

Figure 4.12 Locations of the linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs)

Figure 4.13 Locations of the Zurich targets

Figure 4.14 Load-Displacement relationships of JB1 to JB4

Figure 4.15 Load-Displacement relationships of JB5 to JB8

Figure 4.16 Crack patterns of JB1 to JB4 after tests (South face)

Figure 4.17 Crack patterns of JB5 to JB8 after tests (South face)

Figure 4.18 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB1

Figure 4.19 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB2

Figure 4.20 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB3

Figure 4.21 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB4

Figure 4.22 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB5

Figure 4.23 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB6

Figure 4.24 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB7

Figure 4.25 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB8

Figure 4.26 Longitudinal strains of Zurich gauges when P=500kN


xiii
Figure 4.27 Longitudinal strains of gauges on longitudinal bars at 65mm from the
bottom when P=500kN

Figure 4.28 Longitudinal strains of gauges on longitudinal bars at 130mm from the
bottom when P=500kN

Figure 4.29 Comparison of calculated and measured longitudinal strains of JB1 for
P=850kN

Figure 4.30 Comparison of calculated and measured longitudinal strains of JB5 for
P=630kN

Figure 4.31 Maximum transverse strains of Zurich gauges when P=500kN

Figure 4.32 Average transverse strains of Zurich gauges at each section when P=500kN

Figure 4.33 Transverse strains of gauges on stirrups when P=500kN

Figure 4.34 Strains of longitudinal bars at peak load

Figure 5.1 Mesh layout for the finite element analysis of JT series specimens

Figure 5.2 Perfect bond analysis for JT1

Figure 5.3 Eligehausen bond model for JT1

Figure 5.4 Eligehausen bond analysis for JT1

Figure 5.5 Analysis of the initial stiffness for JT1

Figure 5.6 Perfect bond analysis for JT3

Figure 5.7 Modification of Eligehausen unconfined bond model for JT3

Figure 5.8 Modified Eligehausen deformed bar model analysis for JT3

Figure 5.9 Perfect bond analysis for JT2

Figure 5.10 Eligehausen smooth bar model analysis for JT2

Figure 5.11 Modified Eligehausen deformed bar model analysis for JT2

Figure 5.12 Perfect bond analysis for JT4

Figure 5.13 Modified Eligehausen and Gan deformed bar model analysis for JT4

Figure 5.14 Modification of Gan unconfined bond model for JT4

Figure 5.15 Custom tri-linear bond model for JT4

Figure 5.16 Custom tri-linear bond model analysis for JT4


xiv
Figure 5.17 Mesh layouts for the mesh sensitivity analysis for JB1

Figure 5.18 Mesh size sensitivity for perfect bond analysis of JB1

Figure 5.19 Perfect bond analysis for JB1 with shrinkage

Figure 5.20 Perfect bond analysis for JB1 with various crack limits

Figure 5.21 Perfect bond analysis for JB1 without shrinkage

Figure 5.22 Mesh layout for the cutoff specimen

Figure 5.23 Perfect bond analysis for JB5 with α = 0.65

Figure 5.24 Perfect bond analysis for JB5 with α = 0.60

Figure 5.25 Comparison between calculated strains and gauge readings of JB1 at 850kN

Figure 5.26 Comparison between calculated strains and gauge readings of JB5 at 630kN

Figure 5.27 Perfect bond analysis for JB2

Figure 5.27 Perfect bond analysis for JB3

Figure 5.28 Perfect bond analysis for JB4

Figure 5.30 Perfect bond analysis for JB6

Figure 5.31 Perfect bond analysis for JB7

Figure 5.32 Perfect bond analysis for JB8

Figure 5.33 Locations of diagonal cracks and stirrups for JB5 and JB6

Figure 5.34 Parameters for the equations of crack spacings

Figure 5.35 Distributions of shear resistance and tension in longitudinal bars for JB5

Figure 5.36 Distributions of shear resistance and tension in longitudinal bars for JB3

Figure 5.37 Comparison of calculated and measured longitudinal strain of JB3 at 820kN

Figure 5.38 Distributions of shear resistance and tension in longitudinal bars for JB7

Figure 5.39 Comparison of calculated and measured longitudinal strain of JB7 at 568kN

Figure 5.40 Distributions of shear resistance and tension in longitudinal bars for JB8

Figure 5.41 Comparison of calculated and measured longitudinal strain of JB8 at 650kN

xv
List of Symbols

a = shear span

ag = specified nominal maximum size of coarse aggregate

As = area of main flexural reinforcement

Av = area of transverse reinforcement

bw = web width

d = effective depth of the section

dv = flexural lever arm ( = max(0.9d , 0.72h) )

Ec = modulus of elasticity of the concrete

Es = modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement

fc ' = concrete cylinder strength

fcr = cracking stress of concrete

fy = yield strength of the reinforcement

Flt = longitudinal force that the flexural tension reinforcement must be able to
develop at the location being checked to support the given loads

h = overall height of the section

ld = development length of deformed bars in tension

Mf = factored applied moment

s = spacing of shear reinforcement

xvi
sz = crack spacing in the transverse direction

sze = effective (or equivalent) crack spacing

Vc = shear resistance attributed to the aggregate interlock on crack surface of


concrete

Vf = factored shear force

Vr = shear resistance of members

Vs = shear resistance provided by the transverse reinforcement

α = tension stiffening factor

εsh = concrete shrinkage

rα = ratio of α to normal deformed bar

rα_ave = ratio of α for member

rα_h = rα for longitudinal bars

rα_v = rα for stirrups

κε = strain concentration factor

θ = angle of average principal compression in the beam with respect to the


longitudinal axis

ρs = longitudinal reinforcement ratio

ρv = transverse reinforcement ratio

xvii
List of Appendices

Appendix I Summary of test results for JT series

Appendix II Summary of test results for JB series

Appendix III Details of calculations for JB series in Table 5.13

xviii
Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background and scope of the research

Human beings have been using concrete in their pioneering architectural achievements
for millennia. The basic ingredients – sand, gravel, cement (binder), and water – were
being mixed at least as far back as Egyptian times. The Romans used it to create such
wonders as the Pantheon in Rome, topped with its 43.3-metre-diameter concrete dome
which, while nearly 2000 years old, is still the world’s largest non-reinforced concrete
dome.

Figure 1.1 Underground surge tank, “the underground Pantheon”, in Tokyo Metropolitan area
(L:177m, W:78m, H:25m) [Edgawa River Office 2011]

1
2
Chapter 1 – Introduction

Concrete is now the most commonly used construction material and can be used for
large-scale structures when reinforced with embedded steel bars. Today over one cubic
metre per person is being annually used around the world. Figure 1.1 is the reinforced
concrete structure of the huge underground surge tank called “the underground
Pantheon” which was built in 2006 to protect the Tokyo Metropolitan Area from floods.
A total of 126,000 m3 of concrete was used for this structure.

Many concrete structures are being built each year and also the number of existing
structures that need to be evaluated for possible structural deficiencies is rapidly
increasing. Many concrete structures were intensively built during the period of rapid
economic growth (1955 to 1973) in Japan and in Canada. Thus, most existing Ontario
bridges were built between 1950 and 1980. These structures were designed according
to older design codes which are now known to be sometimes unconservative.

Figure 1.2 Old concrete structure that needs to be evaluated

The resilience of these constructed facilities is of great importance to the continued


functioning of society. The “resilience” is the ability of structures (and systems) to
keep functioning after severe events have occurred. In order to understand and
improve structural resilience, we must be able to :
- provide practical and useful advice to practicing engineers to ensure that new
3
Chapter 1 – Introduction

structures will behave as we expect them to when designed,


- provide the ability to evaluate existing structures to know which structures need to
have money spent on increasing their resilience.
One key area of resilience is the avoidance of brittle failures. For concrete structures,
shear failures are most common type of brittle failure. These failures:
- happen with little warning (unlike flexure)
- are harder to predict than flexure
- often show a very large reduction in capacity after failure has started to occur (unlike
flexure again), making internal redistribution of loads difficult.

Figure 1.3 Picture of the east abutment of the de la Concorde overpass taken less than 60 minutes
before collapse (left) and picture after collapse due to shear failure (right)
[Johnson et al. 2007] (Red circle shows the location of the left picture.)

Figure 1.3 shows the picture of the abutment of the de la Concorde overpass taken by
the road supervisor less than 60 minutes before the collapse on September 30, 2006 in
Quebec as well as the picture taken just after the collapse due to shear failure. This
shows the suddenness of shear failure and the difficulty of predicting when a shear
failure may occur. The ability to predict shear strength is therefore important for the
overall quality of structural engineering issues. There are many code relationships
internationally to predict shear strength, but unfortunately these often give very
different estimates of shear strength and all can be still improved.
4
Chapter 1 – Introduction

There are some special details in concrete structures, particularly older ones that need
to be better understood. When flexural reinforcement is not needed, the bars are often
cutoff as shown in Figure 1.4, particularly for older structures where labour was
inexpensive compared to materials. For some structures, the bars were terminated to
exactly match the moment diagram because the interaction effects between shear and
moment were not fully understood at that time. Thus many existing structures have
significant terminations of flexural reinforcement in tension regions. Does this impact
shear strength and resilience?

Figure 1.4 Terminations of reinforcing bars

Although the location of bar cutoffs are typically based on design code requirements,
strain concentrations at cutoff locations will still occur and these may have some
influence on the shear behaviour of the structure. The degree of these influence may
change according to the bond conditions of the reinforcement.

For many other older structures, corrosion is a problem. Corrosion causes significant
changes in the surface profiles of the reinforcing bars. Corrosion products occupy a
greater volume than the parent steel and hence push out the surrounding concrete. This
tends to cause longitudinal cracking and spalling of the concrete cover even if the
amount of corrosion products is very small. In addition, when deformed bars corrode,
5
Chapter 1 – Introduction

the relative height of the ribs becomes smaller. As a result, bond between a corroded
bar and the surrounding concrete can deteriorate rapidly. Thus structures subject to
corrosion have reduced bond and this might impact shear strength.

Figure 1.5 Corroded concrete structures

Hence, in order to study the influences of bond degradation and bar cutoffs on the
shear behaviour of reinforced concrete members, a series of beam tests was conducted
with changing bond characteristics of the reinforcement and companion specimens
with and without cutoff of longitudinal bars.

1.2 Thesis outline

In Chapter 2, the past results of some important tests on the influence of bond
characteristics and bar cutoff on the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams are
reviewed. In addition, the current Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standard for
reinforced concrete design (A23.3) and the nonlinear finite element analysis program
used in this study VecTor2 are reviewed.

Chapter 3 describes experimental work on determining the bond behaviour and tension
stiffening properties of reinforcing bars which have three different rib heights. Then
6
Chapter 1 – Introduction

these bond characteristics of non-corroded bars are compared with those of bars which
had been subjected to accelerated corrosion. In addition, to investigate the bond
characteristics of them in more detail, average stresses in concrete were calculated for
each tension stiffening specimen, and then tension stiffening equations for each type of
bar were suggested.

Chapter 4 describes the experimental work which was designed to investigate the
influence of cutoffs of longitudinal bars and bond deterioration of reinforcing bars on
the shear behaviour of large beams. Eight beams, called the JB series, were tested and
in four of them half of the longitudinal bars were cut off. In order to simulate bond
deterioration, the surface profile of the longitudinal reinforcement and the stirrups were
varied by means of grinding down the ribs of the reinforcing bars, so that all the
properties except the bond characteristics remained the same.

In Chapter 5, analytical work based on the test results in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 is
described. At first, in order to verify the tension stiffening factors α for various types
of reinforcements suggested in Chapter 3, the 2-dimensional nonlinear finite element
analysis program VecTor2 is used for the analysis of tension stiffening tests. Then the
bond models for each type of reinforcement are suggested. Next the beam tests in
Chapter 4 are analyzed with VecTor2 based on results of the tension stiffening analysis.
Finally methods for incorporating the influences of bond degradations and the strain
concentration caused by cutoff on the shear strength of the member into the current
CSA A23.3 are proposed

Finally, Chapter 6 presents the conclusions based on the experimental and analytical
studies. Recommendations for changes to existing code shear design provisions and
suggestions for further research are stated.
Chapter 2

Literature review

In the history of shear research, there have been many thousands of shear tests
performed to better understand how shear is resisted in cracked reinforced concrete and,
in addition, many tests performed to better understand the bond behaviour of
reinforced concrete. However, for the specific issue addressed in this thesis, the effect
of bond and bar cutoffs on shear resistance, comparatively few tests have been reported.
This chapter will summarize a subset of these tests and also present the background to
the numerical analysis tools and code-based methods that will be used in this thesis.

2.1 Influence of bond on the shear strength

Kani’s tests
In the 1960’s, Kani at the University of Toronto, when discussing the shear strength of
beams containing only longitudinal reinforcement, stated “the better the bond, the
lower is the load capacity of the beam” [Kani et al. 1979] and initially used a series of
tests done by Leonhardt (1962) to substantiate this claim. These tests [Leonhardt
“Stuttgart shear tests” ~1962] had companion beams with either smooth or deformed
bars. The beams with smooth bars had capacities from 31 % to 93 % higher than those
with deformed bars. Kani tested [Kani et al. 1979] a series of 22 beams to further
investigate the significance of changing bond quality. An intermediate layer of a
vermiculite-cement mix between the reinforcement and the concrete was introduced to

7
8
Chapter 2 – Literature review

the shear span so that the bond could be varied. For the zero bond specimen four
layers of friction tape were wound about the reinforcing bar. Figure 2.1 shows the test
results of the relationships between maximum moment to ultimate flexural moment
ratio and bond strength of pull out tests. The results substantiate Kani’s statement for
this type of beam and also indicate that there is smooth transition from the behaviour
of unbonded beams to that of normally bonded beams.

Figure 2.1 Kani’s test for investigation of various bond qualities

For more proof of his belief that shear strength and bond strength are very closely
linked together, Kani also tested [Kani et al. 1979] a series of the beams with
parabolically varying depth loaded with constant moment so that no shear forces were
applied to the member. Due to the varying effective depth, the flexural reinforcement
stresses would need to change with respect to length to ensure that the constant
moment could be carried at all locations, and these varying reinforcement stresses
would require bond stresses. As shown in Figure 2.2, the beams apparently failed in
shear despite not being subjected to any average shear force thus demonstrating the
correlation between shear and bond. The results are plotted in Figure 2.2 with respect
to c / d (c: half of the width of the parabolically-shaped notch) which is similar to a / d
(a: shear span). These notched beams show the same “valley of shear failure” as
9
Chapter 2 – Literature review

observed for members with varying span lengths.

Figure 2.2 Kani’s test of beams without vertical shear force

Ikeda’s tests
Ikeda (1980) performed experiments of 16 small-scale simply-supported beams with or
without stirrups changing the shear-span-to-depth ratio (a/d) from 1.5 to 5.0. For half
of the beams the bond of the longitudinal reinforcement was eliminated along the
whole span between supports by burying the valleys between reinforcement ribs with
wax, winding vinyl tape on them and coating the surface with grease before casting the
concrete. The cross section of the beams was 10 cm wide and 20 cm high and
effective depth was 18 cm. Three D13 (1.267 cm2) bars were used for longitudinal
reinforcement (ρ = 2.1%) and plain 6 mm (0.3167 cm2) bars for stirrups.

Figure 2.3 Moment and shear stress to shear span ratio relationships for Ikeda’s test
10
Chapter 2 – Literature review

Figure 2.3 shows maximum moment – a/d relationship and maximum shear stress – a/d
relationship. Maximum moments of bonded beams without stirrups drops at a/d = 2.5,
while those of the unbonded beams do not drop. It was suggested that this was due to
the resistance of arch action that allowed the unbonded beams to reach the flexural
capacity. That is, the fewer flexural cracks present in the unbonded beams made it
easier for a strut-and-tie style force resisting mechanism to form and carry the shear all
the way up to the flexural capacity. Note that only for the two beams containing web
reinforcement and tested at a/d of 2.5 was the unbonded member weaker than the
bonded member.

Figure 2.4 Schematic diagram for bond – maximum moment relationship

They showed a schematic diagram for bond – maximum moment relationship as shown
in Figure 2.4. Lines of “no bond” and “high bond” are based on their test results.
They add the line of “poor bond (or smooth bond)”, which is assumed to be beams
with plain longitudinal bars, as an intermediate state between “no bond” and “high
bond”. The “poor bond” is predicted to have larger shear strength than “high bond”.
They believe that if large-diameter longitudinal bars are replaced by smaller-diameter
bars with the same total area the beam with smaller-diameter bars is categorized as
“smooth bond” since the force in reinforcement can be transferred smoothly to
surrounding concrete without inducing severe bond cracks due to less bond stress for
11
Chapter 2 – Literature review

each bar. They recommend that the shape of the ribs for deformed bars should be
designed to transfer the forces as smoothly as possible in a range satisfying the
requirements for development and splices of reinforcement.

Cairns’s test
Cairns (1995) tested 10 beams with half of the longitudinal reinforcing bars exposed
over varying portions of the span. Exposure of reinforcement was intended for the
condition that concrete around reinforcement is broken out during repairs of concrete
beams suffering from chloride-induced corrosion of the reinforcement. In addition, it
can be assumed that exposure of reinforcement is induced by spalling of cover
concrete due to the corrosion of reinforcement.

Exposure of one out of two longitudinal reinforcing bars increased the strength of the
beams designed to fail in shear as shown in Figure 2.6, sometimes by a large margin
due to tied arch action. He suggested a method of estimating the shear strength of
reinforced concrete beams with exposed bars based on semi-empirical expressions for
shear strength in BS 8110, the then-current British Standard. It gives conservative, in
some cases by a substantial margin, estimations of shear strength.

Figure 2.6 Details and crack pattern for B series in Cairns’s test
12
Chapter 2 – Literature review

The three sets of tests described above all suggest that members with poor longitudinal
reinforcement bond, e.g. badly corroded longitudinal bars, should be associated with
higher shear strengths and thus not be safety concerns. These results are not consistent
with intuitive expectations and helped lead to the tests in this thesis to confirm if these
conclusions are true for the more typical case of beams with both longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement and for members with intermediate bond as would be
expected for beams with partial corrosion.

Kuchma’s test
Very few tests are available which study the influence of stirrup bond on shear strength
as opposed to tests investigating bond of longitudinal bars as discussed above.
Kuchma (1987) investigated the use of plain round bars for shear reinforcement. As
shown in Figure 2.5, a single beam which contained deformed stirrups in half the span
and plain round stirrups in the other half span was tested under centre point loading.
The plain round stirrup side exhibited a large diagonal crack at 73% of the calculated
shear capacity based on the simplified method of shear design in CAN-A23.3-M1984.
After diagonal cracking, arch action was observed on the plain round stirrup side, and
the crack continued to widen as the load was increased until the beam failed at 95% of
the prediction on the side with unbonded stirrups. Its maximum load was not
compared with that of a beam with normal deformed stirrups, but Kuchma
recommended that plain round bars should not be used as web reinforcement.

Figure 2.5 Details of specimen for Kuchma’s test


13
Chapter 2 – Literature review

From this brief review of past tests on the influence of bond on shear strength, the tests
satisfying the following conditions are necessary to incorporate its influence into the
process of design:
1) realistic arrangement of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement designed by the
current code,
2) realistic, specific, and quantifiable amount of bond degradation,
3) bond degradation for both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement to enable
evaluation of the relative importance of such bond degradation.

With regard to realistic amounts of bond degradation, based on bond tests using 10M
bars in slabs performed by Stanish, Hooton and Pantazopoulou (1999) at the University
of Toronto, bond strength decreased to half at 14 % loss of weight due to corrosion.
From the results of the bond tests of corroded 20M bars done by Amleh and Mirza
(1999) at McGill University, bond strength reduced to half at 10 % loss of weight due
to corrosion. In both cases as well as other numerous past tests, bond strength dropped
rapidly to almost zero after 50 % loss due to spalling of cover concrete regardless of
the diameter and confinement of the corroded bars. Once the cover concrete is spalled,
the corroded bars act as unbonded bars and must be repaired immediately. Thus up to
50 % will be a realistic amount of bond degradation under practical conditions.

2.2 Influence of bar cutoffs on shear strength

Ferguson and Matloob’s test


Ferguson and Matloob (1959) tested 55 beams with bar cutoffs to investigate the
effects of cutoffs on bond and shear strength systematically. It was reported that
significant reduction (as large as one-third) of the shear strength may be induced by bar
cutoffs.
14
Chapter 2 – Literature review

Figure 2.7 Results of Ferguson and Matloob’s test

They tried to express the degradation of shear strength due to bar cutoff by an equation
in proportion to the product of the distance of cutoff points from supports and the
cross-sectional area ratio of cutoff bars. However they were not able to determine its
proportionality coefficient since the depth of the beams was too small 127 mm (5 in.)
for the evaluation of shear strength and the results were scattered due to too many
variables in each specimen.

Baron’s test
Baron (1966) tested four beams (depth: 203 mm (8 in.)) with bar cutoffs. It was
reported that there was a sudden increase in the total tension in the remaining bars after
the cutoff which resulted in increased shear stresses at that point and a corresponding
reduction in shear strength of the beam. The magnitude of the increase in shear stress
was said to be proportional to the ratio of change in the length of moment arm at the
cutoff point. However since this change is usually less than 5%, it is too small to
account for the significant reduction observed in shear strength.

Figure 2.8 Details of specimens for Baron’s test


15
Chapter 2 – Literature review

Ozaka and Suzuki’s test


Ozaka and Suzuki (1986) tested 39 simply supported beams (height: 450 mm) with
varying longitudinal reinforcement ratios, transverse reinforcement ratios, shear span
ratios, and locations of bar cutoffs. Failure modes were divided into the following four
types; I) shear failure at cutoff prior to yield of longitudinal reinforcement, IIa) yield of
longitudinal reinforcement at cutoff prior to shear failure at cutoff, IIb) yield at
maximum flexural moment prior to shear failure at cutoff, and III) flexural failure
(without shear failure).

Figure 2.9 Specimens and results for Ozaka and Suzuki’s test

Then Ozaka and Suzuki (1987) proposed an equation for shear strength based on the
empirical equation of CEB-1978. They introduced a reduction factor (1 - Lcut/a) for
shear strength provided by concrete ((Lcut : distance from support to cutoff point, a :
shear span) and used the averaged inclination of diagonal cracks in the tests for shear
resistance provided by stirrups. This equation using the experimentally measured
angle yielded good predictions for their test results.

From this review of past tests on the influence of bar cutoff on the shear strength, it can
be stated that bar cutoffs reduce the shear strength of most reinforced concrete
members and that the rate of shear capacity reduction is influenced by the bond
16
Chapter 2 – Literature review

condition of the reinforcement. Thus in addition to the three test conditions mentioned
before, the following two conditions should be added:
4) realistic amount and location of longitudinal bar cutoff designed by the current
code,
5) comparison of cutoff specimens and no-cutoff specimens with various coupling of
bond degradation for longitudinal and transverse reinforcement.

2.3 CSA A23.3-04 standard

General method for shear design


The shear provisions of the Canadian CSA concrete standard (2004) are based on the
Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) by Vecchio and Collins (1986). Figure
2.10 gives the 15 equations used in the MCFT. Solving these equations requires
iteration, hence in the previous edition of the code CSA A23.3-94 (1994) the
inclination θ of the diagonal compressive stresses in the web, and the factor for tensile
stresses in the cracked concrete, β, are given in the format of tables and graphs
depending on the longitudinal straining of the web, εx. Once these two values, θ, β,
were known, the shear strength of the member could be evaluated.

To remove the necessity of using tables and graphs, the simplified MCFT was
proposed by Bentz and Collins (2006) (and Bentz, Vecchio and Collins (2006)), so that
β and θ could be determined directly from simple equations. In the CSA A23.3-04
general method for shear design, the shear resistance for members with stirrups is
obtained from the following equations:

Vr = Vc + Vs + V p ≤ 0.25φc f c ' bw d v + V p (2.3.1)


Vc = φc λ β f c ' bw d v where f c ' ≤ 8 MPa (2.3.2)
Vs = φ s Av f y d v cot θ s (2.3.3)
17
Chapter 2 – Literature review

Equilibrium: Geometric Conditions: Stress-Strain Relationships:


Average Stresses Average Strains Reinforcement

Concrete

Stresses at Cracks Crack Widths

Shear Stress on Crack

Figure 2.10 Equations for the Modified Compression Field Theory [Vecchio and Collins 1986]

θ = 29° + 7000 ε x (2.3.4)

0.40 1300
β= ⋅ (2.3.5)
(1 + 1500 ε x ) (1000 + s ze )

ε x = (M f / d v + V f − V p + 0.5 N f − Ap f p 0 ) 2(E s As + E p Ap ) (2.3.6)


⎧⎪300 mm Av ≥ Av ,min = 0.06 f c ' bw s f y
s ze = ⎨ (2.3.7)
⎪⎩35 s z /(a g +15) > 0.85s z other cases

⎧a g f c ' < 60 MPa



a g = ⎨a g ⋅ (70 − f c ' ) / 10 60 MPa < f c ' < 70 MPa (2.3.8)

⎩0 70 MPa ≤ f c '

where Vr is the factored shear resistance of a member, Vc is the factored shear


resistance attributed to the aggregate interlock on crack surface of concrete, Vs is
the factored shear resistance provided by the transverse reinforcement, Vp is the
vertical component of prestressing force, bw is the web width, dv is the flexural
18
Chapter 2 – Literature review

lever arm ( = max(0.9d , 0.72h) ), d is the effective depth, h is overall height of the
section, φc is the resistance factor for concrete (φc = 0.65), λ is a factor to account
for the density of the concrete, β is a factor to account for aggregate interlock in
concrete members, f c ' is the concrete cylinder strength, Av is the area of
transverse reinforcement, φ s is the resistance factor for reinforcing steel (φs =
0.85), fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement, s is the spacing of shear
reinforcement, θ is the angle of average principal compression in the beam with
respect to the longitudinal axis, Mf is the factored applied moment, Vf is the
factored shear force, Nf is the factored applied axial force (tension positive), Ap is
the area of prestressed tendon, f p0 is the stress in the prestressed reinforcement
when the strain in the surrounding concrete is zero, As is the area of flexural
reinforcement, Es is the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement, Ep is the
modulus of elasticity of the prestressed reinforcement, sze is the effective (or
equivalent) crack spacing, sz is the crack spacing parameter controlled by the
longitudinal reinforcement, and ag is the specified nominal maximum size of
coarse aggregate.

To avoid yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement under combined moment and shear,
the following equation must also be checked:
Flt ≥ M f / d v + 0.5 N f + (V f − 0.5Vs − V p ) cot θ (2.3.9)
where Flt is the longitudinal force that the flexural tension reinforcement must be
able to develop at the location being checked to support the given loads.

Development length of deformed bars


The development length, l d , of deformed bars in tension may be taken as that given
by the following equation, provided that the clear cover and clear spacing of the bars
being developed are at least db:
19
Chapter 2 – Literature review

⎧ fy
⎪0.45 k1k 2 k3 k 4 db Av ≥ Av ,min
⎪ f c '
ld = ⎨ (2.3.10)
⎪0.60 k k k k f y d other cases
⎪ 1 2 3 4
fc '
b

where k1 is the bar location factor (=1.3 for horizontal reinforcement placed in
such a way that more than 300 mm of fresh concrete is cast in the member below
the development length or splice, and =1.0 for other cases), k2 is the coating factor
(=1.5 for epoxy-coated reinforcement with clear cover less than 3db, or with clear
spacing between bars being developed less than 6db, =1.2 for all other epoxy-
coated reinforcement, and =1.0 for uncoated reinforcement), k3 is the concrete
density factor (=1.3 for structural low-density concrete, =1.2 for structural semi-
low-density concrete, and =1.0 for normal-density concrete), and k4 is the bar size
factor (=0.8 for 20M and smaller bars and deformed wires, and =1.0 for 25M and
larger bars). The product k1k2 need not be taken greater than 1.7.

2.4 VecTor2; analysis program used in this study

VecTor2 (Vecchio 1990, Vecchio Nov. 2010) is a two-dimensional nonlinear finite


element analysis program developed at the University of Toronto for reinforced
concrete structures. VecTor2 is based on the Modified Compression Field Theory
(MCFT) by Vecchio and Collins (1986), and the Disturbed Stress Field Model
(DSFM) by Vecchio (2000). The DSFM is conceptually similar to the MCFT, but
extends the MCFT in several respects. Most importantly, the DSFM augments the
compatibility relationships of the MCFT to include crack shear slip deformations.

The use of VecTor2 is facilitated by the pre-processor FormWorks (Wong 2002) and
the post-processor Augustus (Bentz 1996, Bentz Sep. 2009). The detailed information
20
Chapter 2 – Literature review

about the program, theoretical background and models are given in “VecTor2 &
FormWorks User’s Manual” by Wong and Vecchio (2002).

The concrete element used in this study is a four-node rectangular element. This is a
plane stress rectangle with uniform thickness in the out-of-plane direction. The
element, has eight degrees of freedom and allows translation at each node in x and y
directions. Discrete bar elements were used for reinforcement in this study.
Reinforcing bars can be discretely represented with two-node truss elements which
have nodal displacements in two directions and four degrees of freedom. The
monotonic stress-strain response of the reinforcement is modelled with a tri-linear
stress-strain behaviour as shown in Figure 2.11. The strain hardening effect of
reinforcement until rupture is considered in VecTor2.

Figure 2.11 Tri-linear stress-strain behaviour model for reinforcement

Although various material models are available for each analytical option in VecTor2,
default models are selected for as many options as possible in this study. The selected
models as well as the default options are shown in Table 2.1. Non default options are
selected for the models of crack limit for Crack Width Check, Tension Stiffening, and
Bond models.
21
Chapter 2 – Literature review

Table 2.1 Models in VecTor2 to be used for the analysis in this study
Option category Selected model default
Hognestad (Parabora) Yes
Compression Base Curve
Popovics (NSC) No
Compression Post-Peak Modified Park-Kent Yes
Compression Softening Vecchio 1992-A Yes
Modified Bentz 2003
(not used in this thesis)
Yes
Tension Stiffening
Collins-Mitchell 1987 No
Tension Softening Linear Yes
Tension Splitting Not Considered Yes
Confinement Strength Kupfer / Richart Yes
Concrete Dilatation Variable - Kupfer Yes
Cracking Criterion Mohr-Coulomb (Stress) Yes
Crack Shear Check Vecchio-Collins 1986 Yes
Crack Limit= Agg/5 Yes
Crack Width Check Crack Limit= 5 mm No
Crack Limit=10 mm No
Eligehausen Yes
Perfect Bond No
Concrete Bond
Gan No
Custom tri-linear No
Concrete Creep / Relax Not Considered Yes
Concrete Hysteresis Nonlinear w/ Offsets Yes
Steel Hysteresis Seckin Model Yes
Rebar Dowel Action Tassios (Crack Slip) Yes
Rebar Buckling Asatsu Model Yes
Previous Load History Considered Yes
Slip Distortion Walraven Yes
Strain Rate Effects Not Considered Yes
Geometric Nonlinearity Not Considered Yes
Crack Allocation Uniform Spacing Yes

The Crack Width Check is specifically designed for shear-critical reinforced concrete
members with little or no transverse reinforcement. The crack width can be limited to
one-fifth (default option) or one-tenth of the aggregate size, or 1 mm, 2 mm, 5 mm and
10 mm widths. This option can also be neglected by choosing the “Stability Check
Omitted” option. In this study, 5 mm and 10 mm are selected for the crack limits in
addition to the default option.

Tension Stiffening is the average tensile resistance of cracked concrete arising from the
bond with the reinforcement within the cracked regions. Cracked concrete exhibiting
tension stiffening must be within the tributary area of the reinforcement. In VecTor2,
22
Chapter 2 – Literature review

the tributary area of discrete reinforcement elements is delineated by a distance of 7.5


bar diameters from the discrete reinforcement element. The “Collins-Mitchell 1987”
model which was developed for the MCFT is selected in this study.

With regard to Bond, perfect bond, Eligehausen (default), Gan and custom tri-linear
models are selected as the bond stress-slip models for embedded bars. Perfect bond is
assigned a numerically large stiffness and strength to prevent deformation of the bond
element. The Eligehausen model was proposed by Eligehausen et al. (1983), and the
Gan model is a modified Eligehausen model proposed by Gan (2000) at the University
of Toronto. Details of these models are described in Chapter 5.
Chapter 3

Experimental work on tension stiffening

In this chapter, experimental work on determining the bond behaviour and tension
stiffening properties of reinforcing bars which have three different rib heights is
described. Then the bond characteristics of these non-corroded bars are compared with
those of bars which had been subjected to accelerated corrosion.

Bond between concrete and reinforcement is strongly influenced by surface conditions


of the reinforcing bar. Steel corrosion, which is often observed in reinforced concrete
structures under severe environments, causes significant changes in surface profiles of
the bars. Corrosion of reinforcement may be classified as uniform (general) or pitting
(local). Uniform corrosion is mainly considered in this chapter since it has a greater
impact on the bond characteristics of the bars.

Corrosion products occupy a greater volume than the parent steel and hence push out
the surrounding concrete. This tends to cause longitudinal cracking and spalling of the
concrete cover even if the amount of corrosion products is very small. In addition,
when deformed bars corrode, the relative height of the ribs becomes smaller. As a
result, bond between a corroded bar and the surrounding concrete deteriorates rapidly.
Thus it is important to consider bond deterioration when the load capacity of concrete
members with corroded reinforcement is estimated. In fact, it has been often recorded
that bond stresses show more sensitivity to corrosion at early ages than the tensile

23
24
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

strength of the bar does.

Accelerated corrosion methods are usually adopted when research on the influence of
corroded reinforcement is conducted. Although a single bar can be corroded uniformly
under well-controlled conditions using the accelerated corrosion method, it is difficult
to adjust corrosion levels to be uniform when a beam with several bars, and directions
of bars, is subjected to accelerated corrosion. This makes it difficult to evaluate
structural behaviour of reinforced concrete members with corroded reinforcement.

In this thesis, the ribs of deformed bars are milled to half height or almost zero height
with a concave cutter in order to control the bond deterioration level of the
reinforcement. This method makes it possible to change only the bond while keeping
the stress-strain relationships almost unchanged. Plain round bars are not used in this
thesis to avoid the negative influence of different stress-strain relationships on
structural behaviour of the tension stiffening specimens discussed in this chapter and of
the beams discussed in the next chapter. The results are then compared with those of
specimens subjected to accelerated corrosion tests. To measure precisely the
distribution of bond stresses along each type of reinforcing bar embedded in concrete,
strain gauges were internally installed without making any changes to the surface
profile of the bars based on the method developed by Scott and Gill (1987).

3.1 Test specimens

The five test specimens for tension stiffening, series JT, are described in Table 3.1 and
Figure 3.1. The first three specimens, JT1 to JT3, contain non-corroded bars with the
three types of rib heights: normal deformed, half deformed and almost plain.
Specimens JT4 and JT5 contain corroded deformed bars with or without pre-cracking
before the accelerated corrosion was applied. Specimen JT1 was reused as the pre-
25
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

cracked specimen, JT5, after the loading test of the non-corroded JT1 specimen.

A single 25M deformed bar 1750 mm long was located centrally in the cross section of
each concrete cylindrical specimen. The reinforced concrete specimens are 1300 mm
long with 165 mm diameter cross sections. The nominal reinforcement ratio is 2.34%
when calculated based on a solid 25M bar. The stress – strain relationship of the solid
25M bar are shown in Figure 3.2. The bars extended by 225mm beyond the concrete
to enable the specimens to be gripped with the heads of 1000 kN MTS frame.

Closely spaced strain gauges were installed internally along the length of the bars
using techniques described in the next section. It was determined from a pilot test that
the average spacing of the primary cracks for a specimen reinforced with a deformed
bar would about 200 mm. Based on this, it was decided that a strain gauge spacing
equal to the rib spacing of the bar, namely 16.4 mm, would provide a sufficiently
detailed strain distribution to enable local bond stresses to be calculated. This
required 62 gauges to be installed over the central one metre long “gauged length” of
the bar. See Table 3.1. For the specimen reinforced with the plain bar, 31 strain
gauges were used while for the “half deformed” bar a total of 46 gauges were installed.

The Sonotube Builders Tube concrete forms with an inner diameter of 165 mm (6.5
inches) were used and placed horizontally. The longitudinal bar was supported at both
ends of the tube form by circular wooden plates with a center hole. Ready mix
concrete which had a water/cement ratio of 0.54, a slump of 80 mm and a nominal
compressive strength of 25 MPa was cast through small rectangular holes made on the
tube. The concrete contained crushed limestone with a maximum coarse aggregate
size of 10 mm. JT1 (JT5) and JT4 were cast at the same time as the beam specimens
JB1 and JB5 in Chapter 4, and JT2 and JT3 were cast at the same time as JB2 and JB6.
26
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Table 3.1 Details of JT series specimens


Properties of reinforcing bar Properties of concrete
Original Types of Pre- Accelerated Number Original cross Loss of First Yield Apparent Compressive Modulus
Specimen
bar rib heights cracking corrosion of gauges sectional area weight yielding*1 stress*2 modulus*2 strength of rupture
2
(mm ) (%) (kN) (MPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa)
JT1 25M Normal Deformed No No 62 484 0 — — 193 37.5 5.60
JT2 25M Almost Plain No No 31 484 3.5 210 434 188 37.6 5.58
JT3 25M Half Deformed No No 46 484 1.6 214 442 188 37.6 5.58
JT4 25M Normal Deformed No Yes 62 484 5.5 175 362 180 37.5 5.60
JT5 25M Normal Deformed Yes Yes 62 484 6.3 180 372 177 37.5 5.60
*1 Tension force when yielding was observed first at any strain gauges in tension stiffening test
*2 Yield stress and apparent modulus are calculated based on the original cross sectional area (484 mm2)

1,750
225 1,300 225

lead wire lead wire 70


165

150/158 61@16.4=1,000 / 30@32.8=984 150/158 Unit: mm


(45@21.9=984)
(Gauged length)

Figure 3.1 Layout of JT series specimens

Stress - strain relationship of solid 25M bar


700

600

500
Stress (MPa)

400

300

200
Cross sectional Yield stress Ultimate stress Initial stiffness
Type
area (mm 2) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa)
100
25M 500 460 591 197

0 15
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
3
Strain x 10

Figure 3.2 Stress – strain relationships of solid 25M bar


27
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

3.2 Manufacture of internally-gauged bars

The procedures used to manufacture the internally-gauged bars with the three different
rib heights are described in this section.

1) Cut two 1,750mm long bars from each 6,000mm long 25M bar

25M bar
300 1750 1750
Not used
6000
unit: mm
Figure 3.3 A pair of bars cut from each bar

2) Pull each of the bars up to about 0.7fy =150 kN (fy: yield strength of the bars)
This procedure is necessary to straighten each bar and eliminate some residual stresses
which can cause curving of the bar halves cut from the pair of bars.

3) Grind the ribs of bars for JT2 and JT3


A concave milling cutter with 25 mm diameter was used to grind the ribs of round bars
accurately. The rib heights of the “half deformed” bar for JT3 are half (0.90 mm) of
the rib heights of the regular deformed bar (1.80 mm). See Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4 Concave milling cutter for 25M bars


28
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

4) Saw each bar into a “large half” along the longitudinal ribs
Each bar was sawn into a “large half” along the longitudinal ribs (Figures 3.5 and 3.6).

Figure 3.5 A pair of “large halves” sawn from two bars

Figure 3.6 Sawing bars along longitudinal ribs

5) Mill “large half” round bars down to exact half round bars
The sawn pairs of halves were milled to exact half round bars along the longitudinal
ribs, see Figures 3.7 and 3.8.

D/2

Figure 3.7 A pair of exact halves milled from sawed ones

Figure 3.8 Milling to exact half round


29
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

6) Machine longitudinal grooves along the middle of the milled surface


Longitudinal grooves of 4 mm width and 2 mm depth were machined on the milled
surface of each half round bar. In order to avoid the bars from yielding first at the
exposed ends, all the grooved parts of the bars were embedded within the length of the
concrete. Lead wires for the strain gauges were taken outside of the bars through
inclined part of the grooves machined at both ends of 1100 mm long straight parts.
See Figures 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11. The size of the groove means that the cross sectional
area of each bar can be taken as 484 mm2 with the actual reinforcement ratio
accounting for the small hole in the bar to be taken as 2.26%.

Figure 3.9 Longitudinal grooves machined on each pair of the exact halves

25
25
275 50 1,100 50 275
1,750 unit: mm

Figure 3.10 Layout of grooves for each pair of halves

Figure 3.11 Machining grooves


30
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

7) Install strain gauges


The strain gauges (“FLK-2-11” manufactured by TML; Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co.,
Ltd.) were installed alternately on each pair of the halves using a cyanoacrylate
adhesive. The backing of each strain gauge was 1.5 mm wide and 5.5 mm long, and
connected with three enamel-coated lead wires which had a 0.2 mm diameter and
1,000 mm length which was sufficient to pass through the grooves. Each wire was
extended with a 3,000 mm long twisted vinyl lead wire consisting of three 0.4 mm
diameter wires. A 3-wire system was used to eliminate the influence of temperature
variation of lead wires. The published gauge factor for the strain gauge itself was 2.12
and corrected gauge factor for the gauge with lead wires was 2.06. See Figures 3.12,
3.13, and 3.14.

Pitch of strain gauges on Table 3.1

Figure 3.12 Pitch of strain gauges

Figure 3.13 Strain gauge and lead wire Figure 3.14 Strain gauge installations
31
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

8) Accommodate lead wires and fill space with low viscosity epoxy resin.
After the strain gauges were protected with butyl rubber tape, a low viscosity epoxy
resin was used to fill spaces in the groove. It was important to keep the strain gauges
free from epoxy resin in order to measure the strains of the steel bars correctly. A
maximum of 93 enamel-coated wires are accommodated at the end of a groove. The
butyl rubber tapes were also used for protection of the wires at the end points and
bending points of the grooves. See Figures 3.15 and 3.16.

Figure 3.15 Strain gauge and lead wire Figure 3.16 Strain gauge installations

9) Glue pairs of the half bars together with epoxy resin


The two half bars with their internal strain gauges were glued together with epoxy
resin so that the external surface of the bars was identical to that of the original bar.
See Figures 3.17 3.18 and 3.19.

Figure 3.17 Glue pairs of the gauged halves

Figure 3.18 Glued bars for JT1, JT4, JT3 and JT2 (from above)
32
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Figure 3.19 Almost plain bar for JT2 and half deformed bar for JT3 (from above)

10) Testing of internally-gauged bars up to about 0.7fy (150 kN)


Each of four internally-gauged bars was gripped in the 1000 kN MTS Frame and all
strain gauges were connected to the data-logger. Each bar was pulled to about 0.7fy
(150 kN) three times and strains were monitored. This process was necessary for
checking the gauges and for precision calibration of the relation between strain and
tension force for every gauge. While it may be expected that the gauges would require
no additional calibration, recall that the bars are deformed and thus the internal stress
pattern in the bars would depend slightly on whether the gauge was at a rib or not.

Uncalibrated strain readings of the JT1 gauged bar at tension force P = 150 kN are
shown in Figure 3.20 and the microstrain (µε) to tension force (kN) conversion factors
are shown in Figure 3.21. From these figures it can be seen that while one gauge was
significantly miscalibrated, the calibration corrections were generally small. Note that
one microstrain corresponds to about 90 to 95 Newtons of force. The slight average
33
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

trend visible in Figure 3.21 suggests that the cross-sectional area of the gauged bar
varied from one end to the other by about 3%, and this variation, though small, was
fully accounted for using the corrected conversion factors shown Figure 3.21. Bond
stresses were calculated based on the calibrated conversion factors like those shown in
Figure 3.21.

2000

1600
6
Strain x 10

1200

800

400

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Gauge Locations from the top of the specimen (mm)

Figure 3.20 Strain readings of the rod for JT1 at tension force P = 150 kN

0.12
[Tension force (kN)] / [Strain x10 6]

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Gauge Locations from the top of the specimen (mm)

Figure 3.21 Conversion factors from strain to tension force for JT1
34
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

3.3 Accelerated corrosion tests

After the tension stiffening test of JT1, which did not yield the bar, the specimen was
renamed JT5 and, along with JT4, subjected to accelerated corrosion. The target
amount of corrosion was 7.5%. The age of the concrete for JT4 and JT5 was 62 days
when the accelerated corrosion test started. They were put into the accelerated
corrosion tanks which were filled with 5% sodium chloride (NaCl) solution (Figure
3.22). The specimens were half immersed and surrounded by steel mesh cathodes. As
shown in Figure 3.23, both ends of the bars except the gauged parts were coated with
epoxy and also both ends of concrete columns were covered with silicone to protect the
reinforcement outside of the internally gauged part from corrosion. The current was
applied through stainless anchors attached to the bars outside of the concrete (Figure
3.24).

Data logger

1Ω

5% NaCl
Solution
Steel Mesh
Cathode

Figure 3.22 Accelerated corrosion tests setup

1,750
225 1,300 225
silicone sealant
lead wires are silicone sealant silicone sealant on concrete
coated with tape on concrete on concrete
& silicon sealant

165

100 1,000 100


(strain & displacement measurement) 25M rebar
epoxy coating epoxy coating
on rebar on rebar unit: mm
Figure 3.23 Details of specimens JT4 and JT5 for accelerated corrosion tests
35
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Figure 3.24 Stainless anchors for applying current to the reinforcement

The voltage and current were monitored and controlled during the time the specimens
were in the corrosion tanks. The upper limit of the current was set to 0.5 A. When the
current was 0.5 A, the current density (i.e. corrosion rate) was calculated as [(current) /
(surface area to be corroded)] = 0.57 mA/cm2. The currents were initially set to 0.3 A
for both specimens by controlling voltages and re-adjusting to 0.3 A after one day.
Then the voltages were unchanged until the currents reached the upper limits, and then
the voltages were reduced automatically so that the currents would not exceed the
limits (see Figures 3.25 and 3.26).

14 0.6

12 0.5
10
0.4
Voltage (V)

Current (A)

8
0.3
6
0.2
4
JT4 JT4
2 0.1
JT5 JT5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (days) Time (days)

Figure 3.25 Time - voltage relationships Figure 3.26 Time - current relationships
36
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

50 8
7.6%
45 7
7.4%

Corrosion amount (wt%)


40
6
35
Resistance (Ω )

30 5

25 4
20 3
15
2
10 JT4 JT4
5 1
JT5 JT5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (days) Time (days)

Figure 3.27 Time–resistance relationships Figure 3.28 Time–calculated corrosion amount


relationships

Time – resistance relationships are shown in Figure 3.27. The resistance of JT5 was
initially much lower than that of JT4 since JT5 already had four transverse cracks with
the average crack width of 0.05 mm before being placed in the corrosion tank. A
sudden drop of resistance for JT4 was observed at around 20 days. This indicated that
a continuous longitudinal crack occurred throughout a significant part of the specimen
or that discontinuous longitudinal cracks connected and became a single continuous
crack at that time. No similarly large drop of the resistance was seen for JT5 although
a longitudinal crack along the specimen was found after the accelerated corrosion
period. The existing transverse cracks in JT5 would diminish the influence of the new
longitudinal crack on the change of resistance.

Time – corrosion (wt% of non-corroded steel) relationships are shown in Figure 3.28.
The amount of corrosion Wcor (g) was calculated by applying Faraday’s law to the total
electric charge (the current integrated over time) Q (C),

Wcor = Watm · Q / (z · F) (3.3.1)


where Watm=55.85 g/mol and z=2 for iron, and the Faraday constant is F =
9.65x104 C/mol.
37
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

The final calculated amounts of corrosion were 7.6% for JT4 and 7.4% for JT5. The
corrosion rates for both specimens are similar since the current were adjusted to similar
range from 0.3 to 0.5 A by controlling the voltages. The corroded bars which had been
pre-weighed were removed from the concrete after the tension stiffening tests, and then
cleaned with a steel brush in a way that did not damage the internal strain gauges and
lead wires. The measured weight losses of the bars were 5.5 % for JT4 and 6.3 % for
JT5 which were 72% and 85% of the calculated values respectively. These differences
between measured and calculated values are partially due to the care taken to avoid
damaging the strain gauges. In this study, acid solutions, which are normally used for
eliminating corrosion products, were not used to clean the bars.

As shown in Figure 3.29, a single continuous longitudinal crack was observed at the
bottom of each specimen and was 1.2 to 2.0 mm wide, and was filled with corrosion
products throughout the length. Corrosion products can be seen on the longitudinal
crack surfaces from the corroded bar to the bottom of the specimen during accelerated
corrosion. It is possible for some of corrosion products coming out of the crack to
make electrical contact with the steel mesh cathode below the specimen. This could
also be the reason for the difference between the calculated and observed percentage
loss of steel.

Figure 3.29 Bottom sides of specimens after accelerated corrosion (JT4 on top and JT5 below)
38
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Figure 3.30 Inside of specimens split along longitudinal crack after tension stiffening tests
(JT4 on top and JT5 below)

Figure 3.30 shows the inside of each specimen split to semicylindrical halves along the
longitudinal crack after the tension stiffening tests of the corroded specimen. For the
pre-cracked specimen JT5, the corrosion products can be also seen partially on the
opposite side of the longitudinal crack. This indicates that the bond cracks which had
occurred during the tension stiffening test of JT1 were also filled with corrosion
products.

3.4 Test set-up for tension stiffening experiments

For the monitoring of elongations of the internally gauged part (1000 mm long) of the
specimens, two aluminum frames were attached to the specimens through eight pins
with springs and four LVDTs were fixed to the frames (see Figure 3.31). Elongations
at the surface of the concrete cylinders were determined by averaging the
displacements of the four LVDTs. These surface displacements were then compared
with the elongation of the reinforcement found by integrating the readings of the
internally-installed strain gauges. Each specimen was placed in the 1000 kN MTS
39
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

frame with the bare ends of the reinforcing bar being gripped by the heads of the MTS
machine. All the strain gauges and the four LVDTs were connected to the data-logger.
The strains and displacements were set to zero prior to applying any load to the
specimen.

150mm

1000mm

150mm

Figure 3.31 Set-up for tension stiffening test

3.5 Test results

The specimens were loaded to the target tensile force and unloaded a number of times.
The target loads were determined based on the yield load of 230 kN for the original
(not machined) 25M reinforcing bar. The cross section areas of the internally-gauged
rods are 96.8% of the original, so their yielding force would be expected to be about
220 kN. The yielding loads for the 6% corroded rods would be less than 210 kN.

The non-corroded specimens JT2 and JT3 were loaded to about 0.7fy (150 kN) and
about 0.9fy (200 kN) three times each and then pulled beyond the yielding load, while
JT1 was pulled to 150 kN twice, and thus did not experience yielding, and was then
immersed in the accelerated corrosion tank. Corroded specimens JT4 and JT5
(corroded JT1) were loaded to 150 kN and 190 kN three times each, and after the
concrete was removed the bars were weighed to confirm the loss of weight. Then the
corroded bare bars were pulled beyond yielding.
40
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Material properties of the concrete are shown in Table 3.2. To aid identification, the
codes as shown in Figure 3.31 are added to the names of the specimens in the test
results.

Table 3.2 Material properties of concrete


Compressive strength Modulus of rupture
Specimen
at test f c ’ (MPa) at test f cr (MPa)
JT1 37.5 5.60
JT2 37.6 5.58
JT3 37.6 5.58
JT4 37.5*1 5.60*1
*1: f c ’ and f cr for JT4 were the data at the beginning of accelerated corrosion

(specimen)_ (type of test)_(type of test result)

TS: tension stiffening test LVDT:readings of LVDTs


JT1
with non-corroded bar SG:displacements calculated
to
TSC: tension stiffening test from integration of strain
JT5
with corroded bar gauge readings
BB: test of bare bar before TS strain: readings of strain gauges
CBB: test of corroded bare bar bond stress: bond stresses
after TSC

example: JB1_TS_LVDT
Figure 3.32 Codes for test results of each specimen

3.5.1 Test results for JT1

To aid in understanding the results obtained from the tension stiffening test, the first
specimen, JT1, performed on a manufactured bar with full deformations, will be
explained in detail. Figure 3.33 shows the load-deformation response of specimen JT1
up to the load of 150 kN. The three lines on the plot represent the original test on the
bare-bar (JT1_BB_SG) with displacements determined from the internal strain gauges,
and two lines representing the displacements of the reinforced specimen calculated
with either the external LVDTs (JT1_TS_LVDT) or the internal strain gauges
(JT1_TS_SG).
41
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

JT1 Load - elongation relationships


160

140

120

100

Load (kN)
80

60

40 JT1_TS_LVDT
JT1_TS_SG
20
JT1_BB_SG
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Elongation (mm)

Figure 3.33 JT1 load-elongation relationships

As can be seen, the bare-bar results are linear as expected. The two results from the
reinforced specimens show a largely linear response up to first cracking at 41 kN of
applied loads. At this point both displacement plots show a jump in the displacement
as the load decreased slightly from the member extension caused by the cracking.
The second crack occurred at 48 kN applied load, the third at 94 kN and the fourth
crack at 128 kN. At each crack, the load-deformation response can be seen to be
getting closer to the bare-bar response, though the effects of concrete shrinkage have
not yet been accounted for.

One trend that is quickly clear from Figure 3.33 is that contrary to expectations the
member displacements measured by the LVDTs do not agree with the displacements
obtained by integration of the internal strain gauge readings. Figure 3.34 shows this
difference between the strain gauge readings and the average LVDT reading as the load
increases. To explore this, Figure 3.35 shows the distributions of averaged strain
gauge readings for a set of loads for this specimen.
42
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Differences between LVDT and SG


160

140

120

100

Load (kN)
80

60

40
JT1_TS
20
Calculation
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Difference (mm)

Figure 3.34 Differences between LVDT and SG

JT1_TS strain distributions


25kN 41kN (1st crack) 48kN (2nd crack) 94kN (3rd crack) 128kN(4th crack) 150kN

4th crack 1st crack 2nd crack 3rd crack


2000

1500
Strain x 106

1000

500

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

Figure 3.35 JT1_TS strain distributions

As can be seen, even for a 25 kN load, significantly before the first occurrence of
cracking, a significant amount of strain is observed in the gauged ends of the bars.
Shown with the plots at X=0 and X=1300 mm are the strains calculated for the bare bar
outside the reinforced concrete region. Even at 25 kN, the strains in the first and last
strain gauge are similar to those of the bare-bar calculations indicating that the 150 mm
end regions of the specimens were not sufficient to fully transfer the bar force to the
43
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

concrete. While the strain gauges integrate these displacements, they are unlikely to
have yet propagated to the outside concrete surface, and thus the LVDT’s are reading
smaller displacements than the integral of the strain gauges.

If the increase in strain gauge readings beyond that obtained from the middle of the
specimen, where the steel stresses had fully transferred to the concrete, are integrated,
they produce an expected difference between the LVDT and strain gauge readings. If
these are calculated up to a 41 kN load, they plot on Figure 3.34 as the pink squares
shown on that plot. As these squares are consistent with the line on that plot, this
means that the LVDT versus strain gauge discrepancy is a result of the transfer of the
steel stresses to the concrete at both end regions of the gauged part and may be ignored.
Thus for the following comparisons, the integrated strain gauge readings will be used
for comparisons.

Considering Figure 3.35, note the difference in strain profiles at the location of crack 2
between the load of 41 kN and 48 kN. The strains differences, indicate the increase in
bar strains due to the occurrence of crack 2 and, indeed, are centered about the location
of that crack. If the differences in strains in this zone just prior to cracking are
compared to those after cracking, an estimate of the crack width can be made. If this
integration is done, an expected crack width of about 0.07 mm is obtained. Figure
3.33 shows that at the load of 48 kN, the overall average displacement increased by
0.08 mm, or about the same value. Thus the formation of an initial crack of about 0.07
mm in width had an impact on the concrete for a distance of about 150 mm on either
side of the crack. As the bar strains were in excess of the cracking strain of the
concrete, it can be concluded that extensive bond cracking must have accompanied this
crack.

For higher loads, Figure 3.35 shows increasing strains in the bar as well as
44
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

redistributions of the strains as new cracks form. These strains will be used below to
determine bond stresses and tension stiffening values. The strains between the 4th
crack and the 1st crack of JT1_TS were almost constant. This drop in bond was likely
caused by a longitudinal splitting crack which formed between 450 to 520 mm from
the top of the concrete at a total load of 100 kN, well before the 4th crack formed.
Perhaps related to this is the fact that the 4th crack in JT1 was not a full-depth crack and
was observed on only about 3 quarters of the circumference of the circular cross
section. Longitudinal cracks also occurred on JT4_TSC at locations between 500 and
650 mm and between 1,000 and 1,300 mm from the top of the concrete at a load of 100
kN and this also resulted in a loss of bond.

Finally a third interesting comparison can be made from the plots of the strain gauge
readings at a load of 48 kN shown in Figure 3.35. The expected bare bar strain at this
point is about 510 µε yet the maximum strains at a crack are in fact higher than this or
570 and 580 µε for the two cracks present at this load. The differences between
JT1_TSC_strain and JT1_BB_strain at cracks become larger as the loads goes up.
Figure 3.36 shows the differences of strains at cracks between tension stiffening tests
and bare bar tests at a load of 150 kN. The maximum difference at crack was 180 µε.

To explore this, Figure 3.37 shows the strain readings of the reinforcing bar at the
cracks and at the middle of the 1st and 2nd cracks, comparing with those at bare bar test.
The green lines which are shifted by +190 µε from the lines for the bare bar
(JT1_BB_strain) are added to each graph. The unloading curves and the 2nd loading
curves at the 1st, 2nd and 3rd cracks closely agree with the green lines. This suggests
that a compressive strain of not less than 190 µε existed in the reinforcing bar when the
strain gauge readings were set to zero at the beginning of the tension stiffening test.
This initial compressive strain is reasonably assumed to be caused by drying shrinkage
of the concrete.
45
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

JT1_TS_strains at the 4th crack are still getting closer to the green line even at 150 kN.
The inclinations of the unloading curves and the 2nd loading curves are slightly higher
than those of the green lines. This is probably because the locations of the strain gauge
were slightly apart from that of the 4th crack and the 4th crack was not a full-depth one
as described above.

As shown in the bottom plot of Figure 3.37, JT1_TS_strains midway between the 1st
and 2nd cracks is far from JT1_BB_strains even at 150 kN and the inclinations of the
unloading and 2nd loading curves for JT1_TS_strain are much higher than those of
JT1_BB_strain lines. However as shown in Figure 3.36 the residual strains midway
between the cracks after unloading are similar with those at/near the cracks. This
indicates that the compressive strain in the bar due to concrete shrinkage had been
almost released by extensive bond cracks even midway between the cracks during the
loading to 150 kN.

Comparison between JT1_TS and JT1_BB strains


JT1_TS residual strains at 0kN after 1st cycle of 150kN
JT1_TS_strain - JT1_BB_strain at 150kN
4th crack 1st crack 2nd crack 3rd crack
500
400
300
200
Strain x 106

100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

Figure 3.36 Comparison between JT1_TS and JT1_BB strains


46
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Steel strain at the 1st crack Steel strain at the 2nd crack
JT1_BB_strain JT1_BB_strain + 190 µε JT1_BB_strain JT1_BB_strain + 190 µε
JT1_TS_strain JT1_TS_strain

150 150

100 100
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
50 50

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Strain x 106 Strain x 106

Steel strain at the 3rd crack Steel strain at the 4th crack
JT1_BB_strain JT1_BB_strain + 190 µε JT1_BB_strain JT1_BB_strain + 190 µε
JT1_TS_strain JT1_TS_strain

150 150

100 100
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

50 50

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
6 6
Strain x 10 Strain x 10

Steel strain midway between the 1st and 2nd cracks


JT1_BB_strain JT1_BB_strain + 190 µε
JT1_TS_strain

150

100
Load (kN)

50

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Strain x 106

Figure 3.37 JT1_TS steel strains at cracks and midway between cracks
47
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

3.5.2 Test results for other specimens

Similar to the discussion above, the observed load–elongation relationships during the
first full cycle of 150 kN applied tension load for all specimens are shown in Figures
3.38 to 3.42 and pictures of the specimens with crack widths (in mm) at a load of 150
kN are shown in Figure 3.43. Elongations of the tension stiffening test specimens are
calculated from the average of the four LVDTs (TS/TSC_LVDT) and the integration of
internal strain-gauge readings over the gauged length (TS/TSC_SG). They are
compared with the elongations of bare bars (BB/CBB_SG).

The difference between the average LVDT results and integrated strain gauges are
shown in Figure 3.44, and it can be seen that these differences are larger for members
with worse bond properties, consistent with the explanation given above though the
pre-cracked corroded specimen JT5 showed the smallest difference. The reason why
the difference for JT5 was smallest was that the slips were well distributed all over the
pre-cracked specimen and those at both ends of gauged length were reduced to some
extent compared with JT2 and JT4.

In general it can be seen that the half deformed JT3 showed lower stiffness than JT1,
and the plain bar JT2 showed the closest response to the bare-bar response. Specimen
JT4 was similar to the plain bar, but JT5 showed an inconsistent trend due to the zero
point on the plot being reset after corrosion. If the results for JT5 are shifted to
account for the inability of the cracks to close and the release of concrete shrinkage
after the initial cracking loading, Figure 3.42 is obtained and can be seen to more
closely match the bare-bar response. Note that the unloading curve of JT1, shows a
similar pattern with the cracks failing to close as the load was reduced to zero. After
corrosion, these cracks were filled with corrosion products, yet a similar displacement
offset was observed.
48
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

160 160

140 140

120 120

100 100
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
80 80

60 60
Plain Half Deformed
40 JT2_TS_LVDT 40 JT3_TS_LVDT
JT2_TS_SG JT3_TS_SG
20 20
JT2_BB_SG JT3_BB_SG
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Elongation (mm) Elongation (mm)

Figure 3.38 JT2 load-elongation relationships Figure 3.39 JT3 load-elongation relationships
160

140

120

100
Load (kN)

80

60 Deformed Corroded
JT4_TSC_LVDT
40
JT4_TSC_SG
20 JT4_CBB_SG
JT4_BB_SG
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Elongation (mm)

Figure 3.40 JT4 load-elongation relationships


160 160

140 140

120 120

100 100
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

80 80
Deformed Corroded Deformed Corroded
Precracked Precracked
60 60
JT5_TSC_LVDT JT5_TSC_LVDT
40 40
JT5_TSC_SG JT5_TSC_SG
20 JT5_CBB_SG 20 JT5_CBB_SG
JT1_BB_SG JT1_TS_LVDT
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Elongation (mm) Elongation (mm)

Figure 3.41 JT5 load-elongation relationships Figure 3.42 JT5 load-elongation relationships
with shifted initial points
49
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

JB1_TS north face JB2_TS north face JB3_TS north face JB4_TSC north face JB5_TSC north face

JB1_TS south face JB2_TS south face JB3_TS south face JB4_TSC south face JB5_TSC south face

Figure 3.43 Photos of specimens at 150kN in the 1st cycle of loading


50
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Differences between LVDT and DISG


160

140

120

100

Load (kN)
80

60
JT1_TS
40 JT2_TS
JT3_TS
JT4_TSC
20
JT5_TSC

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Difference (mm)

Figure 3.44 Differences between LVDT and SG

The full load–elongation relationships beyond the 1st cycle of 150 kN are shown in
Figures 3.45 to 3.48. The loads of the first yielding at a crack for JT2_TS and JT3_TS
were 210 kN and 214 kN, and those of average yielding were 220 kN and 225 kN.

For the corroded specimen JT4_TSC, the reinforcement slightly yielded at 348 mm
from the top of concrete when the load was 175 kN. The bar also yielded slightly at
479 mm for JT5_TSC when the load was 180 kN. For the corroded bare bars, the first
yielding loads were 175 kN at 348 mm from the top of concrete for JT4_CBB and 179
kN at 1050 mm for JT5_CBB, and the average yielding loads are 196 kN for JT4_CBB
and 185 kN for JT5_CBB.

Load – elongation relationships for the corroded bare bar, JT4_CBB and JT5_CBB,
were measured after tension stiffening tests (see Figures 3.49 and 3.50). The LVDT
and SG were almost identical for both specimens and this proves the accuracy of
internally-installed strain gauges even after undergoing the accelerated corrosion.
51
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

250 250

200 200

150 150

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

100 100

Plain Half Deformed


50 50
JT2_TS_SG JT3_TS_SG

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Elongation (mm) Elongation (mm)

Figure 3.45 JT2 load-elongation relationships Figure 3.46 JT3 load-elongation relationships
200 200

150 150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

100 100

Deformed Corroded
Deformed Corroded Precracked
50 50
JT4_TSC_SG
JT5_TSC_SG

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Elongation (mm) Elongation (mm)

Figure 3.47 JT4 load-elongation relationships Figure 3.48 JT5 load-elongation relationships
250 250

200 200

150 150
Load (kN)
Load (kN)

100 100

50 JT4_CBB_LVDT 50 JT5_CBB_LVDT

JT4_CBB_SG JT5_CBB_SG

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Elongation (mm) Elongation (mm)
Figure 3.49 JT4_CBB comparison between Figure 3.50 JT5_CBB comparison between
LVDT and SG LVDT and SG
52
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Figures 3.51 to 3.55 show the distributions of bar strains and bond stresses in each
specimen including JT1. Strain distributions at key load levels at cracking and
comparisons of strains between the tension stiffening test and bare-bar tests are shown.
The pitch of the strain gauges can be seen to have been sufficiently small to capture the
variation in bar stresses well and should provide good estimates of bond stresses.
Note that as the bond stress calculations are based on a derivative of these strains,
experimental noise would be magnified and thus each plot of strain was produced by
taking an average of two adjacent strain gauge readings and their locations (i.e. the
midpoint between them).

The bond stress distributions shown in Figures 3.51 to 3.55 were calculated by
determining the rate of change of bar strains between each averaged strain gauge result,
converted to a force difference (with the conversion factors like those in Figure 3.21)
and divided by the bar surface area between the gauges. In this calculation, all bars
were assumed to be cylindrical with a diameter equal to the 25.2 mm nominal diameter
of this originally 500 mm2 bar. In order to again reduce scatter, the bond stress
calculated for the bar segment just ahead and behind a given strain gauge was averaged
to produce an average value at that gauge location. Note that the bond stresses are
shown in absolute value. Implicit in the above calculations is the assumption that any
concrete shrinkage strains would be equivalent throughout the test region of the
specimens.

Figures of strain distributions clearly show a change of the shape of the curve after
each crack occurred. For JT1_TS and JT3_TS, the specimens with the best bond
characteristics, the strain distributions between the 1st crack and the 2nd crack showed a
curve similar to a sine curve and the differences between these two cracks were largest.
53
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

JT1_TS strain distributions Deformed


25kN 41kN (1st crack) 48kN (2nd crack) 94kN (3rd crack) 128kN(4th crack) 150kN

2000 4th crack 1st crack 2nd crack 3rd crack

1500
6
Strain x 10

1000

500

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

Comparison between JT1_TS and JT1_BB strains


JT1_TS residual strains at 0kN after 1st cycle of 150kN
JT1_TS_strain - JT1_BB_strain at 150kN
600

400

200
6
Strain x 10

-200

-400

-600
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

JT1_TS_bond stress distributions


25kN 41kN (1st crack) 48kN (2nd crack)

1st crack 2nd crack


8.0
7.0
Bond stress (MPa)

6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

JT1_TS_bond stress distributions


94kN (3rd crack) 128kN (4th crack) 150kN

4th crack 1st crack 2nd crack 3rd crack


8.0
7.0
Bond stress (MPa)

6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

Figure 3.51 JT1_TS strains and bond stresses distributions


54
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Plain
JT2_TS strain distributions
25kN 37kN (1st crack) 50kN (2nd crack) 100kN 150kN 200kN

2500 2nd crack 1st crack

2000
6
Strain x 10

1500

1000

500

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

Comparison between JT2_TS and JT2_BB strains


JT2_TS residual strains at 0kN after 1st cycle of 150kN
JT2_TS_strain - JT2_BB_strain at 150kN
600
500
400
6

300
Strain x 10

200
100
0
-100
-200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

JT2_TS_bond stress distributions


25kN 37kN (1st crack) 50kN (2nd crack)
2nd crack 1st crack
4
3.5
Bond stress (MPa)

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

JT2_TS_bond stress distributions


100 kN 150 kN 200 kN
2nd crack 1st crack
4
3.5
Bond stress (MPa)

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

Figure 3.52 JT2_TS strains and bond stresses distributions


55
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

JT3_TS_strain distributions
Half Deformed
25kN 41kN (1st crack) 50kN (2nd crack) 69kN (3rd crack) 91kN (4th crack) 150kN 200kN

4th crack 2nd crack 1st crack 3rd crack


2500

2000
Strain x 106

1500

1000

500

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

Comparison between JT3_TS and JT3_BB strains


JT3_TS residual strains at 0kN after 1st cycle of 150kN
JT3_TS_strain - JT3_BB_strain at 150kN
500
400
300
200
Strain x 106

100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

JT3_TS_bond stress distributions


25kN 41kN (1st carack) 50kN (2nd crack)
2nd crack 1st crack
7

6
Bond stress (MPa)

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

JT3_TS_bond stress distributions


69kN (3rd crack) 91kN (4th crack) 150 kN 200 kN
4th crack 2nd crack 1st crack 3rd crack
7

5
Bond stress (MPa)

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

Figure 3.53 JT3_TS strains and bond stresses distributions


56
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

JT4_TSC_strain distributions
Deformed Corroded
25kN 50kN 57kN (1st crack) 100kN 150kN 190kN
1st crack
2500

2000
Strain x 106

1500

1000

500

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

Comparison between JT4_TSC and JT4_CBB strains


JT4_TSC residual strains at 0kN after 1st cycle of 150kN
JT4_TSC_strain - JT4_CBB_strain at 150kN
150

100
50
Strain x 106

0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

JT4_TSC_bond stress distributions


25kN 50kN 57kN (1st crack)
1st crack
2
1.8
1.6
Bond stress (MPa)

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

JT4_TSC_bond stress distributions


100kN 150kN
1st crack
2
1.8
1.6
Bond stress (MPa)

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

Figure 3.54 JT4_TSC strains and bond stresses distributions


57
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Deformed Corroded
JT5_TSC_strain distributions Precracked
25kN 50kN 75kN 100kN 150kN 190kN
pre-cracked pre-cracked pre-cracked pre-cracked
2500

2000
Strain x 106

1500

1000

500

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

Comparison between JT5_TSC and JT5_CBB strains


JT5_TSC residual strains at 0kN after 1st cycle of 150kN
JT5_TSC_strain - JT5_CBB_strain at 150kN
100
50

0
-50
Strain x 106

-100

-150
-200

-250

-300
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

JT5_TSC_bond stress distributions


25kN 50kN 75kN
pre-cracked pre-cracked pre-cracked pre-cracked
2
1.8
1.6
Bond stress (MPa)

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

JT5_TSC_bond stress distributions


100kN 150kN
pre-cracked pre-cracked pre-cracked pre-cracked
2
1.8
1.6
Bond stress (MPa)

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

Figure 3.55 JT5_TSC strains and bond stresses distributions


58
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

The figures comparing the tension stiffening test strains (TS_strains) to the bare bar
strains (BB/CBB_strains) in Figures 3.51 to 3.55 are shown in order to see the impact
of shrinkage strains. Differences of strains at cracks between tension stiffening tests
and bare bar tests at the same load show the strains in reinforcement due to drying
shrinkage of concrete. The differences for JT2 and JT3 are 165 µε and 133 µε at 150
kN respectively. These differences became gradually larger as the loading cycle
proceeded and reached 230 µε for JT2 and 190 µε for JT3 at 200 kN just before the
first yielding occurred. This is probably because the tension stiffening was not fully
“pulled out” at the considered locations in the specimens during the initial loading, but
after cycles of load it was gone for the gauge closest to the crack.

To explore this, Figures 3.56 and 3.57 show the strain readings of the reinforcing bar at
the cracks for JT2_TS and JT3_TS, comparing with those at bare bar test. Green lines
which are shifted by +230 µε for JT2 and +190 µε for JT3 from the lines for the
BB_strains are added to each graph. To make comparison with TS_strains clearer, the
green lines are extended beyond 150 kN and TS_strain lines are drawn for only the 1st
cycle to a load of 150 kN and the last stage of loading. All the TS_strain lines get
closer to the green lines as the load goes up during the 1st cycle to 150 kN and almost
correspond with the green lines at the last stage of loading beyond yielding. It should
be noted here that JT2_TS_strain at 479 mm, the left plot in Figure 3.56, shows an
irregular shape just before yielding. This is because yielding of the adjacent section (at
519 mm) affects the strain at 479 mm under displacement control loading.
59
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Steel strain at the 2nd crack Steel strain at the 2nd crack
JT2_BB_strain JT2_BB_strain + 230 µε JT2_BB_strain JT2_BB_strain + 230 µε
JT2_TS_strain JT2_TS_strain
250 250
at 479 mm from the top at 519 mm from the top
(adjacent to the gauge at 479mm)
200 200

150 150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 0 1000 2000 3000
Strain x 106 Strain x 106

Figure 3.56 JT2_TS comparison between TS_strain and BB_strain at cracks

Steel strain at the 2nd crack Steel strain at the 4th crack
JT3_BB_strain JT3_BB_strain + 190 µε JT3_BB_strain JT3_BB_strain + 190 µε
JT3_TS_strain JT3_TS_strain
250 at 508 mm from the top 250 at 289 mm from the top

200 200

150 150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 0 1000 2000 3000
Strain x 106 Strain x 106

Figure 3.57 JT3_TS comparison between TS_strain and BB_strain at cracks

The strains of the bar due to concrete shrinkage for the specimens JT1, JT2 and JT3 are
small for drying shrinkage at this age of the specimens. The reason for this is mainly
that drying shrinkage of concrete was relatively small since the specimens had been
under wet curing for the first fourteen days and their forms were separated a few days
before the tests. The additional reason is that the compressive strain in the
reinforcement due to drying shrinkage must be smaller than the shrinkage strain in
unrestrained concrete and moreover the strain in reinforcement must have been
reduced by the creep of the concrete undergoing sustained tensile stress from early age.
60
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

It should be taken into account that the residual strains in the reinforcement after
unloading contain residual strains due to slip and incomplete closure of cracks as well
as those due to the release from shrinkage. For JT2 and JT3, residual strains tended to
be larger at valleys of the (TS_strain − BB_strain) curves and smaller at the ridges of
them. This is mainly because the restoration of the slip of reinforcement was more
constrained by concrete during unloading the further away from a crack that they were.

Next, for the corroded specimen JT4, (TS_strain − CBB_strain) curve in Figure 3.54 is
all in the negative region. This means that the corroded bar in concrete was stiffer than
the corroded bare bar even at the crack. The compressive strains in the reinforcement
due to concrete drying shrinkage were probably released when the longitudinal crack
occurred during accelerated corrosion. In Figure 3.58, JT4_TSC_ strains are compared
with JT4_CBB_strains. Only the 1st cycles for the loading to 150 kN and 190 kN are
drawn for JT4_TSC_strain curves to make comparison clearer. The line of
JT4_TSC_strain at the 1st crack is parallel to that of JT4_CBB_strain after the 1st
cracking with constant difference. This is perhaps because corrosion products of the
bars in concrete share some portion of tensile force or give constant friction force even
at/near cracks.

Steel strain at the 1st crack Steel strain at first yield


JT4_TSC_strain JT4_CBB_strain JT4_TSC_strain JT4_CBB_strain
200 200
at 495 mm from the top at 348 mm from the top
180 180
160 160
140 140
120 120
Load (kN)
Load (kN)

100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 0 1000 2000 3000
Strain x 106 Strain x 106

Figure 3.58 JT4_TSC comparison between TS_strain and CBB_strain


61
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

With respect to the pre-cracked corroded specimen JT5, the (TS_strain − CBB_ strain)
curve in Figure 3.55 is also all in the negative region and the differences are larger than
those of JT4. The reason of this is probably that although the strain due to concrete
shrinkage was released during the tension stiffening test the residual strain in the
reinforcement due to incomplete closure of cracks and bond cracks were not released
during the accelerated corrosion since the cracks were filled with corrosion products as
described above.

To explore this, Figure 3.59 shows comparison between JT5_TSC_strains and JT5_
CBB_strains. Both curves are almost parallel at higher loads but the differences are
larger than those of JT4. As shown in Figure 3.60, the differences become similar with
those of JT4 if the JT5_TSC_strain curves are shifted to account for the residual strains
due to incomplete closure of cracks and the released strains of 190 µε due to concrete
shrinkage after the tension stiffening test of JT1.

Steel strain at the 1st crack Steel strain at the 4th crack
JT5_TSC_strain JT5_CBB_strain JT5_TSC_strain JT5_CBB_strain
200 200 at 348 mm from the top
at 479 mm from the top
180 180
160 160
140 140
120
Load (kN)

120
Load (kN)

100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 0 1000 2000 3000
Strain x 106 Strain x 106

Figure 3.59 JT5_TSC comparison between TS_strain and CBB_strain


62
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Steel strain at the 1st crack with shift Steel strain at the 4th crack with shift
JT1_TS_strain JT5_TSC_strain JT5_CBB_strain JT1_TS_strain JT5_TSC_strain JT5_CBB_strain
200 200
at 479 mm from the top at 348 mm from the top
180 180
160 160
140 140
120 120

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 -180
0 -180
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Strain x 106 Strain x 106

Figure 3.60 JT5_TSC comparison between TS_strain and CBB_strain with shift

Figure 3.61 shows the degradation in Young’s modulus of the corroded bars at each
gauge location compared with the non-corroded bare bar. Degradation ratios of
JT5_CBB were relatively high near the full-depth pre-crack locations (at 500, 800,
1000 mm from the top) and were more scattered than those of JT4_CBB suggesting
more localized corrosion for a pre-cracked member as one might expect.

Degradations of Young's Modulus


JT4_CBB JT5_CBB
20
standard maximum minimum average
18 specimens : Locations of full-depth pre-cracks on JT5
deviation % % %
16 JT4_CBB 1.59 9.88 3.82 6.35
Degradation ratio (%)

14 JT5_CBB 2.34 13.2 2.18 7.02


12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of the concrete (mm)

Figure 3.61 JT4_CBB and JT5_CBB degradation ratios of Young’s modulus


63
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

The graphs of bond stress distributions in Figures 3.51 to 3.55 showed significant
change of the shape of the curves after each successive crack formed. Bond stresses
became almost zero at crack locations and had two peaks between adjacent cracks. An
irregular peak of bond stress was found 950 mm from the top of the concrete for
specimen JT4_TSC. Similar irregular small peaks were also found for JT5_TSC. The
reason for this would be that although the bond stresses were calculated using the
conversion factors based on the corroded bare bar test the corroded bar in concrete
showed different stiffness from the corroded bare bar due to the contributions of
corrosion products to sharing tensile stress as described above.

In order to compare bond stresses among different specimens, maximum or average


bond stresses were calculated along the entire gauged length and between cracks.

Figures 3.62 and 3.63 shows maximum and average bond stress hysteresis loops
calculated between the cracks during the 1st cycle of loading to 150 kN for JT1_TS and
JT3_TS. Bond stresses at the section between 500 to 800 mm, i.e. between the 1st and
2nd cracks, increased as the load went up, while those at both side sections dropped
suddenly when the 3rd or 4th cracks were formed. This demonstrates that the formation
of new cracks can lower the ability to carry tension stiffening stresses and thus lower
the calculated bond stresses. These drops should not be taken as an indication of bond
failure, but as a decrease in bond demand. Despite this, the drop in calculated bond is
seen to be higher for JT1_TS with the better bond properties than for JT3 half-
deformed specimen suggesting better tension stiffening carrying capacity for the larger
reinforcement deformations.
64
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

JT1_TS_maximum bond stresses JT1_TS_average bond stresses


350 to 500 mm 500 to 800 mm 800 to 1000 mm 350 to 500 mm 500 to 800 mm 800 to 1000 mm

8 5
Deformed Deformed
7
4
6 drop due to
Bond stress (MPa)

Bond stress (MPa)


the 3rd crack
drop due to
5 3 the 3rd crack
drop due to
4 the 4th crack
drop due to
3 2 the 4th crack

2
1
1

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Load (kN) Load (kN)

Figure 3.62 JT1_TS maximum and average bond stresses between cracks

JT3_TS_maximum bond stresses JT3_TS_average bond stresses


300 to 500 mm 500 to 800 mm 800 to 1000 mm 300 to 500 mm 500 to 800 mm 800 to 1000 mm

7 4
Half drop due to the 3rd crack Half drop due to the 3rd crack
6 Deformed Deformed

3
Bond stress (MPa)

5
Bond stress (MPa)

4
2
3

2
1
1 drop due to
drop due to the 4th crack the 4th crack
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Load (kN) Load (kN)

Figure 3.63 JT3_TS maximum and average bond stresses between cracks

Since all the specimens except JT4_TSC had the cracks at 500 mm and 800 mm,
maximum and average bond stresses between these two cracks were compared in
Figure 3.64. Bond stresses were calculated along the entire gauged section for
JT4_TSC as it had only one crack at 500 mm. Maximum and average bond stresses
along the entire gauged length is also shown in Figure 3.65. JT1_TS showed the
highest bond stresses at almost all load levels, however average bond stresses among
65
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

all sections for JT3_TS were highest at over 130 kN where the average bond stress of
JT1_TS were gradually decreasing. This is probably because the half-deformed bar
with half height ribs did not tend to induce the longitudinal cracks under the conditions
of this research. This fact indicates the possibility that the half-deformed bars might
add some ductility to structural members with them. Bond stresses for plain bar
specimen JT2_TS were about twice those for corroded bar specimens JT4_TSC and
JT5_TSC and its curve shapes were quite similar with those of corroded specimens.

Maximum bond stress at 500 to 800 mm Average bond stress at 500 to 800 mm
JT1_TS JT2_TS JT3_TS JT4_TSC JT5_TSC JT1_TS JT2_TS JT3_TS JT4_TSC JT5_TSC
8 5

7
4
6
Bond stress (MPa)
Bond stress (MPa)

5 3
4

3 2

2
1
1

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Load (kN) Load (kN)

Figure 3.64 Comparison of maximum and average bond stress at 500 to 1000mm

Maximum bond stress for total gauged lengh Average bond stress for total gauged lengh
JT1_TS JT2_TS JT3_TS JT4_TSC JT5_TSC JT1_TS JT2_TS JT3_TS JT4_TSC JT5_TSC
8 4
7

6 3
Bond stress (MPa)
Bond stress (MPa)

4 2

2 1

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Load (kN) Load (kN)

Figure 3.65 Comparison of maximum and average bond stress for total gauged length
66
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Bond stress hysteresis loops for each specimen are shown in Figure 3.66 to 3.69. Since
the bond stresses could not be calculated due to large experimental noises in the gauge
readings as the strains approached the yielding points, the bond stress hysteresis curves
are presented only for the cycles of loading to 150 kN. The bond stress hysteresis for
JT5_TSC, the specimen with the lowest yielding load, could not be calculated beyond
the 1st cycle and thus it is not shown.

Maximum of all Average of all Maximum of all Average of all


8 4
Deformed Plain
7 12%dow n 3.5

6 3

Bond stress (MPa)


Bond stress (MPa)

5 2.5

4 2 18%dow n
24%dow n
3 1.5
12%dow n
2 1 24%dow n
37%dow n
1 0.5

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Load (kN) Load (kN)

Figure 3.66 JT1_TS bond stress hysteresis Figure 3.67 JT2_TS bond stress hysteresis

Maximum of all Average of all Maximum of all Average of all


7 2
Half Deformed Corroded Deformed
1.8
6
1.6
10%dow n
Bond stress (MPa)
Bond stress (MPa)

5 16%dow n 1.4
1.2
4
1
3 0.8
12%dow n
21%dow n 0.6 8%dow n
2 8%dow n
0.4
1 20%dow n
0.2 20%dow n
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Load (kN) Load (kN)
Figure 3.68 JT3_TS bond stress hysteresis Figure 3.69 JT4_TSC bond stress hysteresis

Degradation ratios of bond stresses due to the cycles of loadings are shown in each
figure. The ratio for JT2_TS was relatively high, but the shape of the loop for JT2_TS
67
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

was similar with that for JT4_TS. It should be pointed out that bond stresses after the
1st cycle for JT2_TS and JT4_TSC kept almost constant. These facts indicate that the
round bar had the possibility to simulate corroded bars appropriately to some extent.

3.5.3 Post-yield strain distributions for JT2 and JT3

Post-yield strain distributions for JT2_TS and JT3_TS at the red circle marks in Figure
3.70 are shown in Figures 3.71 and 3.72. The reinforcement yielded firstly at cracks at
point A and its average strain reached yield strain at point B. The adjusted yield strain
of the reinforcement was assumed to be 2,550 µε for both specimens accounting for
the initial compressive strain due to concrete shrinkage. The loads at yielding plateau
(point C) for the load – average strain relationship were 225 kN for both specimens.

300

B (average yield)
C D E F G

200
A (yield at cracks)
Load (kN)

100

JT2_TS : Plain bar


0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
3
Average strain x 10
300
B (average yield)
F G
C D E

200
A (yield at cracks)
Load (kN)

100

JT3_TS : Half deformed bar


0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Average strain x 103

Figure 3.70 Post-yield load – average strain relationships for JT2_TS and JT3_TS
68
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

The load at which first yielding occurred at cracks (point A) isn't the same as when
general yielding occurred (from point B to C), indeed the specimen could resist
surprisingly more than fy ⋅As. The yielding starts at a crack, and then proceeds from
there to yield more and more of the bar with a larger yielding section as load increases.
Its rate of expansion for plain bar JT2_TS was larger than that for half deformed
JT3_TS. Even at point G of 231 kN for JT2_TS and 243 kN for JT3_TS, we still have
sections of the bar that are near the yield strain and not much higher although they are
subjected to forces much higher than the yield force. Clearly the tension in the
concrete is still participating in carrying the load between the cracks after yield.

y
A B C D E F G
25000
Plain bar

20000
Strain x 106

15000

10000

5000

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of concrete (mm)

A B C
5000
Magnified plot Plain bar

for A, B and C

4000
Strain x 106

3000
yield
strain

2000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of concrete (mm)

Figure 3.71 JT2_TS Post-yield strain distribution


69
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

A B C D E F G

Half deformed bar


30000
Strain x 106

20000

10000

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of concrete (mm)

A B C
Half deformed bar
5000
Magnified plot
for A, B and C

4000
Strain x 106

3000

yield
strain
2000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Distance from the top of concrete (mm)

Figure 3.72 JT3_TS Post-yield strain distribution

Note that the maximum strain at the crack location is about 33 x 10-3 or 13.4 times
yield strain. At this time the average strain along the bar is 16 x 10-3. So in this case
the strain at crack is around twice the average strain.
70
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

3.6 Average stress – average strain relationships of concrete

In order to investigate the bond characteristics of deformed, half-deformed, plain and


corroded reinforcement in more detail, average stresses in the concrete are calculated
for JT1_TS, JT2_TS, JT3_TS and JT4_TSC, and then are expressed with suggested
relationships.

The initial compressive strains of reinforcement due to concrete shrinkage are


considered in calculating the average strains and the stress at each gauge location in
reinforcement. Average strains and average stresses are calculated for the regions
between ridges or valleys of the strain distributions shown in Figure 3.51 to 3.54 so
that they can represent realistic conditions of a cracked member with a certain average
crack spacing.

The procedures of calculation for average stress in concrete for each specimen are as
follows;
(1) Initial compressive strains of reinforcement due to concrete shrinkage are set as -
190 µε for JT1, -230 µε for JT2, -190 µε for JT3.
(2) Forces in reinforcement at gauge locations are calculated using strain-force
conversion factors.
(3) Forces in concrete at gauge locations are obtained by subtracting the forces in
reinforcement calculated in (2) from total force.
(4) Average strains are calculated in the regions sandwiched with ridges in strain
distributions for JT1 and JT3, and with ridges or valleys for JT2 and JT4 which
have only one or two cracks so that each region can represent a crack condition
with a specific crack space. For example, the following three regions are selected
for JT1; 495 to 805 mm from the top of concrete (between the 1st and 2nd cracks, i.e.
average crack space of 310 mm), 495 to 1017 mm (between the 1st and 3rd cracks,
71
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

i.e. average crack space of 261 mm), and 347 to 1017 mm (between the 4th and 3rd
cracks, i.e. average crack space of 223 mm).
(5) Average stresses of reinforcement and concrete are calculated for the regions
defined in (4).

Figure 3.73 shows average stress – average strain relationships of concrete at each
section for all specimens. They differ from each other even in the same specimen. The
initial concrete stresses which had been caused by the confinement of reinforcement
against concrete shrinkage are 0.80 MPa for JT1, 1.0 MPa for JT2 and 0.83 MPa for
JT3 in tension. The average stress of concrete increases until first cracking and then
decreases whenever a new crack is formed.

The circles shown on each curve indicate the time during the loading when the region
is sandwiched with ridges or valleys of the strain distribution of reinforcement and the
shape of the strain distribution is fixed. The average stresses of concrete in the region
keep almost constant beyond the mark for deformed JT1 and half-deformed JT3. In
contrast the average stresses of concrete continue to decrease even beyond the marks
for plain JT2 and corroded JT4.

When the specimens are unloaded to zero force, the average stresses in the concrete
become negative, i.e. compressive. This is due to contact at crack surfaces and is also
due to friction between concrete and reinforcement against restoration of the slip. The
reason why JT2 has the largest compressive stress would be that the slip of
reinforcement is larger than those of JT1 and JT3 and the friction between concrete and
reinforcement is less deteriorated than that of JT4.

Figure 3.74 shows the relationship of average stresses between reinforcement and
concrete in the region of 347 to 1017 mm for JT1. The initial average stress in
72
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

reinforcement is compressive due to concrete shrinkage contrary to that of the concrete.


The stress in the reinforcement at a crack equals the sum of the average stress in
reinforcement and the average concrete stress multiplied by Ac/As.

Average stress of 495-805 mm (average crack space=310mm) Average stress of 356-977 mm (average crack space=327mm)
Average stress of 495-1017 mm (average crack space=261mm)
Average stress of 347-1017 mm (average crack space=223mm) Average stress of 356-781 mm (average crack space=294mm)

3 3

JT1 : normal deformed JT2 : plain


2.5 2.5

2 2

Average stress (MPa)


Average stress (MPa)

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0

-0.5 -0.5

-1 -1
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Average strain x 106 Average strain x 106

Average stress of 508-792 mm (average crack space=284mm) Average stress of 495-903 mm (average crack space=816mm)
Average stress of 508-1033 mm (average crack space=263mm)
Average stress of 289-1033 mm (average crack space=248mm) Average stress of 217-903 mm (average crack space=686mm)

3 3

JT3 : half deformed JT4 : corroded


2.5 2.5

2 2
Average stress (MPa)

Average stress (MPa)

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0

-0.5 -0.5

-1 -1
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Average strain x 106 Average strain x 106

Figure 3.73 Average stress – average strain relationships of concrete at each section
73
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Average stresses of reinforcement and concrete of 347-1017mm


1: Average stress of reinforcement
2: (Average stress of concrete) x Ac / As
1+2 (= Load / As, or stress of reinforcement at crack)
350

300

250

200
Stress (MPa)

150

100

50

-50

-100
-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Strain x 106

Figure 3.74 Relationship of average stresses between reinforcement and concrete for JT1

Next the attempts to express average stress – average strain relationships for concrete
with analytical equations will be explained. The stiffness of uncracked concrete Ec is
calculated from the average stress – average strain relationship at the middle region of
the specimens where strains were uniformly distributed until cracking. At the middle
region of the specimen the forces in the reinforcement are fully transferred to the
whole section of the concrete and the strains are uniformly distributed until cracking.
Also initial strains where concrete stresses equal zero are calculated.

Figure 3.75 shows initial part of average stress – average strain relationships in each
region for JT1. The stiffness of uncracked concrete Ec is 30,000 MPa based on the
initial stiffness of the middle region from 495 to 805 mm. This value of Ec is also
fitted to JT2, JT3 and JT4. The initial compressive strains where concrete stresses
equal zero are 217 µε for JT1, 263 µε for JT2 and 218 µε for JT3, and cracking
stresses are 2.53 MPa for JT1, 2.52 MPa for JT2, 2.52 MPa for JT3 and 2.40 MPa for
JT4 respectively. Thus the first cracking loads for JT1, JT2 and JT3 are explained with
74
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

the almost same cracking stress. Relatively lower cracking stress for JT4 would be due
to the longitudinal crack formed during the accelerated corrosion.

Average stress - average strain relationship of concrete for JT1


Average stress of 495-805 mm (average crack space=310mm)
Average stress of 495-1017 mm (average crack space=261mm)
Average stress of 347-1017 mm (average crack space=223mm)
Average stress of 150-1150 mm (whole gauged length)
Ec=30000 MPa
3

2.5

2
Stress (MPa)

1.5

0.5

0
-217
-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100
Strain x 106

Figure 3.75 Initial part of average stress – average strain relationships for JT1

The apparent stiffnesses in other regions become lower on the way to the first cracking
point since the average strains near both ends of each region are higher than those of
the middle due to incomplete transfer of the force in reinforcement into concrete. In
addition relatively high sustained bond stresses caused by concrete shrinkage had been
applied between reinforcement and concrete near both ends of the concrete specimens.
This resulted in the bond deterioration near end regions of the specimen and would
elongate the length of the incomplete transfer region. The apparent average stresses of
concrete at cracking also become lower for the regions other than the middle due to the
higher average strain of reinforcement. This indicates that the cracking strength and
uncracked stiffness of the concrete in tension stiffening specimens are estimated lower
if the average strain is measured only at both ends of the specimen.
75
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

The decreases in average concrete stress after the first cracking are expressed with the
following commonly used equation which was suggested by Vecchio and Collins
(1986);
α ⋅ f cr
fc = ( β = 500) (3.6.1)
1 + β ⋅ ε cf

where fc : average concrete stress after cracking, fcr : fc at the first cracking, εcf :
average concrete strain, α : to be changed so as to fit test results, β : fixed to 500.
Note that in the original 1986 MCFT paper, the value of β was suggested as 200
but by 1987 [Collins and Mitchell 1987], it was recommended to be taken as 500,
and this value will be used here.

In addition the following modified equation is also adopted;


α ⋅ f cr
fc = (α = 1.0 ) (3.6.2)
1 + β ⋅ (ε cf − ε cr )

where εcr : average stress at the first cracking, α : fixed to 1.0, β : to be changed so
as to fit test results.
εcf in denominator of Eq. (3.6.1) is modified to (εcf – εcr) in Eq. (3.6.2) for better fitting
to the curves from the first to second cracking.

The suggested average stress – average strain relationships are plotted for each
specimen in Figure 3.76 along with two curves for the smallest crack space and for the
whole gauged length. The curves of test results are plotted only for the loading parts of
the first cycle of each load step. The suggested values for α in Eq. (3.6.1) are 0.80 for
JT1, 0.70 for JT2, 0.76 for JT3 and 0.45 for JT4 respectively. The suggested values for
β in Eq. (3.6.2) are 1300 for JT1, 2000 for JT2, 1600 for JT3 and 7500 for JT4. The
curves of Eq. (3.6.2) fit well to the test results for all strains and the curves of Eq.
(3.6.1) also fit well to the test results after the 2nd of 3rd cracking.
76
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Note that the concept of varying the parameter β has been published in the past [Bentz
2005], and Bentz’s method suggests that for specimen JT1, the value of beta could be
expected to be 980 rather than the 500 used in Equation 3.6.1. Thus the values listed
above are not as different from expectations as they first appear.

Average stress of 150-1150 mm (whole gauged length) Average stress of 150-1150 mm (whole gauged length)
Average stress of 347-1017 mm (average crack space=223mm) Average stress of 356-781 mm (average crack space=294mm)
Eq. (3.6.1) α=0.80, β=500
Eq. (3.6.1) α=0.70, β=500
Eq. (3.6.2) α=1.0 , β=1300
Eq. (3.6.1) α=1.0, β=500, fcr = 0.33 f 'c = 2.02MPa Eq. (3.6.2) α=1.0 , β=2000

3 3
JT1 : normal deformed JT2 : plain
2.5 2.5

2 2
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
-217
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 -263 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Strain x 106 Strain x 106

Average stress of 150-1150 mm (whole gauged length) Average stress of 150-1150 mm (whole gauged length)
Average stress of 289-1033 mm (average crack space=248mm) Average stress of 217-903 mm (average crack space=686mm)
Eq. (3.6.1) α=0.76, β=500 Eq. (3.6.1) α=0.45, β=500
Eq. (3.6.2) α=1.0 , β=1600 Eq. (3.6.2) α=1.0 , β=7500

3 3

JT3 : half deformed JT4 : corroded


2.5 2.5

2 2
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
-218
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Strain x 106 Strain x 106

Figure 3.76 Suggested average stress – average strain relationships for each specimen
77
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Typical cracking stress of concrete is expressed as 0.33 f c ' , or 2.02 MPa for JT1.
This value is 0.80 of the actual cracking stress in the test for JT1 (=2.53 MPa). Thus as
shown as the green line on the JT1 graph in Figure 3.76 the suggested value of α in Eq.
(3.6.1) equals 1.0 for JT1 if 0.33 f c ' is used for the cracking stress.

3.7 Analytical study on the stress – strain relationship of corroded bar

In order to investigate the stress – strain relationship of corroded bare bar in detail,
analytical studies on the behaviour of bare bars with non-uniform cross sectional areas
were conducted using a Weibull function as an approximation;
α −1
α⎛x⎞
f ( x ) = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
α
⋅ e −( x / β ) (3.7.1)
β ⎝β ⎠
where α and β are constant.

As shown in Figure 3.61, Young’s modulus degradation ratios of the corroded bars
were not uniform. The frequency of Young’s modulus degradation at each strain gauge
for JT4_CBB is shown in Figure 3.77. The shape of its distribution looks similar to a
Weibull distribution which has an asymmetric shape with a longer tail on the smaller
side of the mean. Therefore the probability density distribution of JT4_CBB was
approximated with a Weibull distribution determining the values of α and β by a least
square method (also shown in Figure 3.77). Since the Weibull distribution has long
tails, the probability densities under 0.5% were rounded down to zero. The correlation
coefficient of both distributions was 0.971.
78
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Frequency of Young's modulus degradation for JT4_CBB


0.30

JT4_CBB
0.25
Approximation with Weibull distribution

Probability density 0.20


Weibull function:
0.15 α =64.9, β =94.4

0.10
Correlation coefficient = 0.971
0.05

0.00
80 85 90 95 100
Young's modulus degradation ration at each strain gauge (%)

Figure 3.77 JT4_CBB Frequency of Young’s modulus degradation ratio

Then, the stress – strain relationship of the bar with this Weibull distribution was
simulated. Assuming that the Young’s modulus at each location represents the
effective cross-sectional area which resists tension force, the Young’s modulus
degradation ratio equals the loss ratio of the effective cross-sectional area. Each value
of probability density can be regarded as the length ratio of the portion of the bar with
each cross-sectional area. The analysis was compared with the test results of
JT4_CBB (Figure 3.78). The analysis curve fitted well to both of JT4_CBB_LVDT
and JT4_CBB_SG. To sum up, it appears that the stress – strain relationship of a
corroded bar can be approximated reliably with a Weibull distribution.

Since JT4_CBB_LVDT and JT4_CBB_SG seemed to be affected beyond the strain of


4.5×10-3 by detaching of the two halves of the composite bar, the comparison between
analysis and the test result was terminated at that strain. However the stress – strain
relationship model can be simulated until the rupture of the bar. In the Weibull
function, α represents the scattering of the distribution and β represents the x value at
the peak of the probability density curve. If the values of α and β for a certain
structure are known or predicted based on the past tests, the stress – strain relationships
of the reinforcements can be simulated.
79
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

JT4_CBB Stress - strain curves


JT4_CBB_LVDT JT4_CBB_DISG
JT4_CBB_Weibull Non-corroded bar
500

400

Stress (MPa)
300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4
3
Strain x 10

Figure 3.78 JT4_CBB Comparison of stress – strain reltionships

For example, when α and β are given to the three corrosion levels as shown in Figure
3.79, the stress – strain relationships for the bars with those corrosion levels are
calculated as shown in Figure 3.80. If this method is based on numerous recorded data
points of actual corroded structures and the database of α and β are built up, the
method of this analysis will be of great help for the prediction of the structural
performance of the concrete structures with corroded reinforcement.

Frequency of Young's mosulus degradation for three corrosion levels


0.30

Corrosion level 1 (JT4_CBB)


0.25 Corrosion level 2 ( α =40, β =85)
Corrosion level 3 ( α =20, β =70)
Probability density

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Young's modulus degradation ratio at each strain gauge (%)

Figure 3.79 Weibull distributions for three corrosion levels


80
Chapter 3 – Experimental work on tension stiffening

Initial part of stress - strain relationships


500

450

Load / Original cross-sectional area (MPa)


400

350

300

250

200

150 non corroded bar


Corrosion level 1
100
Corrosion level 2
50 Corrosion level 3

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Strain x 103

Whole Stress - strain relationships of corroded bars


700

600
Load / Original cross-sectional area (MPa)

500

400

300

non corroded bar


200
Corrosion level 1
Corrosion level 2
100
Corrosion level 3

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
3
Strain x 10

Figure 3.80 Stress – strain relationships of the bars for three corrosion levels
Chapter 4

Experiments on the shear behaviour of


large beams

This chapter describes the experimental work which was designed to investigate the
influence of cutoffs of longitudinal bars and bond deterioration of reinforcing bars on
the shear behaviour of large beams. Bar cutoffs often occur in actual structures and
although the location of such cutoffs are typically based on design code requirements,
a strain concentration at cutoff locations will still occur and it may have some
influence on the shear behaviour of the structure.

In addition, bond deterioration can be caused by corrosion of the reinforcing bars and
this may also impact the shear behaviour. However, since the rate of natural or
electrically-accelerated corrosion will be non-uniform along the length of the bars, the
rate of bond deterioration will also not be uniform in such tests making interpretation
difficult. Thus, it can be difficult to investigate the influence of bond deterioration on
shear behaviour using corroded rebars in a repeatable and consistent manner.

In this chapter, eight beams, called the JB series, were tested. Half of the longitudinal
bars were cut off in four of the beams. In order to simulate bond deterioration, the
surface profile of the longitudinal reinforcement and the stirrups were varied by means
of grinding down the ribs of the reinforcing bars, so that all the properties except the
bond characteristics remained the same. Firstly the test specimens, ground bars,

81
82
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

material properties and test setup are explained and then the test results are described
and discussed.

4.1 Test specimens

The properties of the eight test specimens were all the same except for the surface
profile of the reinforcement and the occurrence of bar cutoffs. All the JB series beams
have a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 1.70% at mid-span and a transverse
reinforcement ratio of 0.105% (Av·fy/(bw·s) = 0.520 MPa (75 psi)), or about 40% more
than the minimum shear reinforcement specified by the CSA code. Note that the
selected quantity of stirrups is about the minimum required by the AASHTO LRFD
code.

Table 4.1 shows the details of the JB series specimens, and Figure 4.1 shows the
geometric details of the specimens. The dimensions of the specimens are 5.4 m in span
on centers of supports (6.0 m in overall length), 450 mm in width, and 750 mm in
overall depth. Five of the ten bottom 25M longitudinal bars in specimens JB5 to JB8
were cut off 1,700 mm from the mid-span location. Since the location where the
bending moment becomes half of its mid-span value is 1,350 mm from the mid-span,
the cutoff points are at 350 mm (14 times the bar diameter) beyond where they are
needed for flexure alone.

In Table 4.1 it can be seen that the specimens are numbered JB1 to JB8, but also that a
code has been prepared to help define the beams. The code has three letters with the
first either N for no cutoffs or C for cutoffs. The second letter is D for deformed
longitudinal bars, H for “half-deformed”, and P for plain bars. The third letter is D for
deformed stirrups or P for plain stirrups. Thus JB6 has a code of C/D/P as it has
cutoffs, has deformed longitudinal bars and plain stirrups.
83
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Table 4.1 Details of the JB series specimens

Shear Total Longitudinal bars Stirrups


Width Effective
Span span depth
Specimen Code b depth Cutoffs
L (mm) a h Surface Surface
(mm) d (mm) Amount Amount
(mm) (mm) profile profile
US#3
JB1 N/D/D 5,400 450 2,700 750 653 No 10-25M Deformed @300 Deformed
ρ s =1.70% ρ v =0.105%

US#3
JB2 N/D/P 5,400 450 2,700 750 653 No 10-25M Deformed @300 Plain
ρ s =1.70% ρ v =0.105%

US#3
JB3 N/P/P 5,400 450 2,700 750 653 No 10-25M Plain @300 Plain
ρ s =1.70% ρ v =0.105%

US#3
JB4 N/H/P 5,400 450 2,700 750 653 No 10-25M Half @300 Plain
ρ s =1.70% Deformed ρ v =0.105%

US#3
JB5 C/D/D 5,400 450 2,700 750 685 / 653* Cutoffs 5/10-25M Deformed @300 Deformed
ρ s =0.81 / 1.70%* ρ v =0.105%

US#3
JB6 C/D/P 5,400 450 2,700 750 685 / 653* Cutoffs 5/10-25M Deformed @300 Plain
ρ s =0.81 / 1.70%* ρ v =0.105%

US#3
JB7 C/P/P 5,400 450 2,700 750 685 / 653* Cutoffs 5/10-25M Plain @300 Plain
ρ s =0.81 / 1.70%* ρ v =0.105%

US#3
JB8 C/H/P 5,400 450 2,700 750 685 / 653* Cutoffs 5/10-25M Half @300 Plain
ρ s =0.81 / 1.70%* Deformed ρ v =0.105%

*Values near supports and at mid-span respectively


84
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

150 19 @ 300 150

A 250

150 A’ 150
300 2,700 2,700 300
6,000

Specimens JB1 to JB4

150 19 @ 300 150


B 250

150 B’ 150
300 1,000 3,400 1,000 300
6,000
Specimens JB5 to JB8
60
60

2 – 15M 2 – 15M

#3 @ 300mm #3 @ 300mm
625
560
750

750

2 layers of
2@65

5 – 25M 5 – 25M
65

65 4@80 65 65 4@80 65
450 450

Cross section A-A’ Cross section B-B’


note: longitudinal bars without cut-offs were extended to the end of the framework.

Figure 4.1 Geometric details of the JB series specimens


85
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2 show the calculations of shear resistance for JB1 and JB5
based on the general method of CSA23.3-04 11.3.6.4 when the concrete compressive
strength fc’ equals 37.2 MPa (compressive strength at the day of test for JB1 and JB5).
The location of the “anchor check point” on Table 4.2 is (h – d)·cotθ from the end of
support plate. The distribution of tension forces in the longitudinal reinforcement
based on Table 4.2 are shown in Figure 4.3. The shaded areas in Table 4.2 represent
the critical locations for shear and moment.

For JB5, the cutoff locations define the critical section where the shear resistance is
very close to the yielding load of the longitudinal bars. The table shows that JB5 is
predicted to be critical with flexural yielding at the cutoff point, but with a shear
strength at this location only 1.2 % higher than the flexural capacity. If the concrete
strength was equal 34.9 MPa, both a shear failure and a yielding failure of the
longitudinal bars would be predicted to occur simultaneously at the cutoff location.

As can be seen in Figure 4.2 and 4.3, the distribution of shear capacity and flexural
capacity more closely match the demands in beam JB5 with the bar cutoffs
demonstrating the improved structural efficiency possible with the use of cutoffs.
Note that in Figure 4.2, the applied shear force has been reduced linearly within a
distance of dv from the centre of the load and dv from the centre of the supports as
recommended by Bentz (2000) to simplify comparisons of shear and flexural failures.
86
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Table 4.2 Calculations based on CSA23.3-04 at Failure (fc’=37.2MPa)

JB1 Anchor ℓd from dv from dv from


Support check end of support loading Midspan
f' c =37.2 MPa, fy _trans =494 MPa, fy _longi =460 MPa
point bar plate plate
Distance from support m 0 0.228 0.555 0.662 1 1.43 1.86 1.99 2.7
d mm 653 653 653 653 653 653 653 653 653
dv mm 587 587 587 587 587 587 587 587 587

Point load at predicted failure : P kN 881


M due to selfweight : M _sw kNm -0.4 4.3 10.3 12.1 17.1 22.2 25.8 26.6 28.6
V due to selfweight : V _sw kN 21.5 19.6 17.0 16.2 13.5 10.1 6.71 5.66 0
M due to point load : M _pl kNm 0 101 245 292 441 629 817 876 1190
V due to point load : V _pl kN 441 441 441 441 441 441 441 441 0
Moment due to P and selfweight : M _total kN -0.4 105 255 304 458 651 843 902 1218
Shear force due to P and selfweight : V _total kN 462 460 458 457 454 451 447 446 0
-3
ε x x10 0.495 0.495 0.495 0.626 0.792 0.956 1.007 1.053
β 0.230 0.230 0.230 0.206 0.183 0.164 0.159 0.155
θ deg 32.5 32.5 32.5 33.4 34.5 35.7 36.0 36.4
Vc kN 370 370 370 332 295 265 257 250
Vs kN 217 217 217 209 200 192 189 187
Calculated shear strengh V r =V c + V s ) kN 587 587 587 542 495 457 446 437
Surplus shear capacity V r – V _total kN 130 88 44 9 0
2
Effective area of longitudinal bars : A s mm 1754 3088 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000
Tension at effective yielding of longi. bars: F lty kN 807 1421 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300

Tension due to M _total : M _total /d v kN 179 434 517 779 1109 1436 1537 2074
Tension due to shear : (V _total – 0.5V s ) cotθ kN 553 549 548 530 509 489 483 0
Tension of longi. bars due to moment and shear : F lt kN 732 983 1065 1310 1618 1925 2020 2074
Effective stress in longitudinal bars : σ s MPa 237 197 213 262 324 385 404 415
-3
Effective strain in longitudinal bars : ε s x10 1.203 0.998 1.081 1.330 1.643 1.954 2.050 2.106
Surplus tension capacity of longitunal bars : F lty – F lt kN 689 1317 1235 990 682 375 280 226

JB5 Anchor ℓd from dv from dv from


Cut-off ℓd from
Support check end of support loading Midspan
f' c =37.2 MPa, fy _trans =494 MPa, fy _longi =460 MPa point cut-off
point bar plate plate
Distance from support m 0 0.166 0.555 0.692 1 1.43 1.86 1.99 2.7
d mm 685 685 685 685 685 663 653 653 653
dv mm 617 617 617 617 617 597 587 587 587

Point load at predicted failure : P kN 836


M due to selfweight : M _sw kNm -0.4 3.1 10.3 12.6 17.1 22.2 25.8 26.6 28.6
V due to selfweight : V _sw kN 21.5 20.1 17.0 16.0 13.5 10.1 6.7 5.66 0
M due to point load : M _pl kNm 0 69 232 289 418 597 775 831 1129
V due to point load : V _pl kN 418 418 418 418 418 418 418 418 0
Moment due to P and selfweight : M _total kN -0.4 72 242 302 435 619 801 857 1157
Shear force due to P and selfweight : V _total kN 439 438 435 434 431 428 425 424 0
-3
ε x x10 0.937 0.937 0.937 1.155 0.991 0.908 0.956 1.000
β 0.166 0.166 0.166 0.146 0.161 0.169 0.164 0.160
θ deg 35.6 35.6 35.6 37.1 35.9 35.4 35.7 36.0
Vc kN 281 281 281 248 264 273 265 258
Vs kN 202 202 202 191 193 194 192 190
Calculated shear strengh V r =V c + V s ) kN 484 484 484 439 457 467 457 448
Surplus shear capacity V r – V _total kN 50 8 29 42 33
2
Effective area of longitudinal bars : A s mm 877 1362 2500 2500 2500 3750 5000 5000 5000
Tension at effective yielding of longi. bars: F lty kN 403 626 1150 1150 1150 1725 2300 2300 2300

Tension due to M _total : M _total /d v kN 118 393 489 706 1037 1364 1460 1970
Tension due to shear : (V _total – 0.5V s ) cotθ kN 471 467 465 444 457 462 456 0
Tension of longi. bars due to moment and shear : F lt kN 589 860 955 1150 1494 1826 1916 1970
Effective stress in longitudinal bars : σ s Mpa 432 344 382 460 398 365 383 394
-3
Effective strain in longitudinal bars : ε s x10 2.195 1.747 1.938 2.335 2.022 1.854 1.945 2.000
Surplus tension capacity of longitunal bars : F lty – F lt kN 38 290 195 0 231 474 384 330
Development length of 25M : ℓ d = 855 mm
87
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Distribution of shear force and shear resistance at failure of JB1


Centre Point Load : P=881kN
700
600 Shear resistance : Vr
500
Shear (kN)

400 Shear force : V_total

300
200
100
0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
Distance from support (m)

Distribution of shear force and shear resistance at failure of JB5


Centre Point Load : P=836kN
700
600
500 Shear resistance : Vr
Shear (kN)

400 Shear force : V_total


300
200
100
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
Distance from support (m)

Figure 4.2 Distributions of shear force and shear resistance at failure of JB1 and JB5
when fc’=37.2 MPa
88
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Distribution of tension force of longitudinal reinforcement at failure of JB1


Centre Point Load : P=881kN
3000

2500 Tension at effective yielding of longitudinal bars : Flty


(kN)

2000
(kN)
force

1500
Shear

Demand on longitudinal bars


Tension

1000
due to moment and shear : Flt
500

0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
Distance from support (m)

Distribution of tension force of longitudinal reinforcement at failure of JB5


Centre Point Load : P=836kN
3000

2500
Tension force (kN)

Tension at effective yielding


2000
Shear (kN)

of longitudinal bars : Flty


1500

1000 Demand on longitudinal bars


due to moment and shear : Flt
500

0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
Distance from support (m)

Figure 4.3 Distributions of tension force of longitudinal reinforcements at failure of JB1 and JB5
when fc’=37.2 MPa
89
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

4.2 Grinding of Reinforcing Bars

In order to change the surface profile of the bars, ribs were ground to half of the height
(called half deformed) or to almost zero (plain). Manufacture of the ground bars are
described in this section. The surface profile of the bars was changed by means of
grinding transverse ribs using a 1-inch-diameter concave milling cutter for 25M bars
(shown in Figure 4.4) and a disk sander for US #3 bars (Figure 4.5).

Figure 4.4 Concave milling cutter for 25M bars

Figure 4.5 Disk sander for US #3 bars

Figure 4.6 shows the ground 25M bars and Figure 4.7 shows the ground US#3 bar. As
shown in Figure 4.8, the US#3 stirrup bars were only ground down on the vertical
section of the stirrups to ensure the same end anchorage performance as standard
stirrups. A small proportion of the longitudinal ribs were retained to avoid reducing
the yield strength of the bars in any significant way.
90
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Table 4.3 shows the weight loss due to grinding. Note that the measured weights of
original bar before grinding are 95.5% of standard for 25M bar and 96.6% for US#3.
Table 4.4 shows the measured height of the ribs for the deformed and half deformed
25M bars. Average rib height (0.9 mm) of the half deformed bars is just one half of the
rib height (1.80 mm) of the deformed bars.

Full ground (plain) 25M bar

Half deformed 25M bar

Figure 4.6 Ground 25M bars

Figure 4.7 Ground US #3 bars

Ground part

Figure 4.8 Ground US #3 bars


91
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Table 4.3 Weight losses due to grinding


Half deformed 25M
before grinding after grinding difference weight loss
No.
kg/m kg/m kg/m %
1 3.750 3.641 0.109 2.90
2 3.750 3.691 0.059 1.57
3 3.759 3.691 0.068 1.80
4 3.750 3.706 0.044 1.18
Average 3.752 3.682 0.070 1.86

Full ground 25M


before grinding after grinding difference weight loss
No.
kg/m kg/m kg/m %
1 3.750 3.626 0.124 3.29
2 3.735 3.618 0.118 3.15
3 3.750 3.618 0.132 3.53
4 3.735 3.606 0.129 3.46
Average 3.743 3.617 0.126 3.36

Full ground US#3


before grinding after grinding difference weight loss
No.
g/m g/m g/m %
1 539.2 500.4 38.7 7.18
2 536.3 501.8 34.5 6.44
3 542.9 511.2 31.6 5.82
4 542.3 511.2 31.1 5.73
5 537.6 504.1 33.6 6.24
Average 539.7 505.7 33.9 6.28

Table 4.4 Rib heights of the deformed and half deformed 25M bars
Half deformed 25M
diameter diameter
No. rib height
of valley of ridge
mm mm mm
1 24.14 26.32 1.09
2 24.28 26.61 1.17
3 24.25 26.45 1.10
4 24.17 25.81 0.82
5 24.06 26.20 1.07
6 24.07 25.59 0.76
Non-ground (normal) 25M 7 24.19 25.74 0.77
diameter diameter 8 24.25 25.98 0.87
No. rib height
of valley of ridge 9 24.25 26.03 0.89
mm mm mm 10 24.16 25.70 0.77
1 24.17 27.77 1.80 11 24.24 25.53 0.65
2 24.14 27.76 1.81 12 24.17 25.73 0.78
3 24.16 27.75 1.80 13 24.33 25.69 0.68
4 24.05 27.76 1.86 14 24.19 26.34 1.08
5 24.16 28.06 1.95 15 24.13 25.56 0.72
6 24.12 27.69 1.79 16 24.28 26.69 1.21
7 24.05 27.62 1.79 17 24.45 25.87 0.71
8 24.10 27.66 1.78 18 24.16 26.19 1.02
9 24.11 27.46 1.68 19 24.22 25.66 0.72
10 24.05 27.60 1.78 20 24.31 26.44 1.07
Average 24.11 27.71 1.80 Average 24.22 26.01 0.90
Coefficient Coefficient
0.20% 0.56% 3.83% 0.38% 1.43% 20.3%
of variation of variation
92
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

4.3 Material properties

Ready mix concrete which had a water/cement ratio of 0.54, a slump of 80 mm and a
nominal compressive strength of 25 MPa was used for all of the beams. The concrete
contained crushed limestone with a maximum coarse aggregate size of 10 mm. The
material properties of concrete used in the JB series are listed on Table 4.5. The
concrete beams were cast two at a time, namely JB1 and JB5, JB2 and JB6, JB3 and
JB7, and JB4 and JB8.

Table 4.5 Material properties of concrete

Compressive strength Modulus of rupture Concrete age


Specimen
at test f' c (MPa) at test f cr (MPa) at test (days)
JB1 / JB5 37.2 5.60 49 / 54
JB2 / JB6 35.2 5.58 32 / 35
JB3 / JB7 35.3 5.65 29 / 33
JB4 / JB8 30.8 5.49 30 / 32

Table 4.6 and Figure 4.9 summarize the material properties of the reinforcements used
in the JB series. For additional information, the yield load of full ground (stripped)
US#3 was 97.3 % of the original US#3 regardless of the 6.26 % weight loss.

Table 4.6 Material properties of reinforcements


Cross-Sectional Yield Ultimate Young's Strain at
Rebar Type Area Stress Stress Modulus Strain Hardening
2 -3
mm MPa MPa GPa x10
US#3 71 494 597 210 29
15M 200 453 619 195 17
25M 500 460 591 197 15
93
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

700

600 25M
500

Stress (MPa)
400 US#3
15M
300

200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Strain (mm/m)

Figure 4.9 Stress – strain relationships of reinforcements

4.4 Test setup

As shown in Figure 4.10, all of the specimens were tested under 3-point loading. A
downwards point load at the mid-span was applied through a pin and 2-inch thick steel
plate. Both ends of the beams rested on steel plates with a roller which allowed
rotation and horizontal displacement.

head of loading machine


providing horizontal restraint
South Face 2 in. thick plate pin
250
750

150 150

roller roller
300 300
6000

Figure 4.10 Loading set-ups

In order to monitor the strain distribution of the reinforcing bars, 14 strain gauges were
mounted on the reinforcing bars for each of JB1 to JB4, while 22 strain gauges were
used for each of JB5 to JB8. Figure 4.11 shows the locations of the strain gauges.
94
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

For the monitoring of displacements, 10 linearly variable differential transformers


(LVDTs) were used in the vertical direction, 2 LVDTs in the horizontal direction, and 8
LVDTs in the diagonal direction (Figure 4.12). The eight diagonal LVDTs were used
to monitor the overall shear deformation of the beams.

Strain gauge locations for JB1-4 (All the strain gauges for the stirrups are on the South face.)
150 19 @ 300 North Face 150

West
East

SS6 SS8 SS13 SS15

L2C2 L2C10 L2C19


L1C2 L1N4 L1S6 L1N8 L1C10 L1S15 L1C19

0 400 1100 1700 2350 3000 4300 5600 6000

South Top View


L1S6 L1S15

West
East

L1C2 L2C2 L1C10 L2C10 L1C19 L2C19

L1N4 L1N8

North
Strain gauge locations for JB5-8
150 19 @ 300 North Face 150

West
SS5 SS6 SS8 SS13 SS15 SS16
East

L2S5 L2C6 L2N8 L2C10 L2N13 L2S16


L1C2 L1N4 L1S5 L1C6 L1N8 L1C10 L1N13 L1S16 L1N17 L1C19

0 400 1200 1400 1800 2200 3000 3800 4600 4800 5600 6000

South Top View


L1S5 L2S5 L1S16 L2S16
West
East

L1C2 L1C6 L2C6 L1C10 L2C10 L1C19

L1N4 L1N8 L2N8 L1N13 L2N13 L1N17


North

Figure 4.11 Locations of the strain gauges


95
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

North Face 1500 1500


650 650
50

600
S-E- S-E- S-ME- S-ME- S-MW- S-MW- S-W- S-W-
BETW BWTE BETW BWTE BETW BWTE BETW BWTE

600
H-E V-S-E V-S-ME 100 V-S-C V-S-MW V-S-W H-W
V-N-E V-N-ME V-N-C V-N-MW V-N-W

300 4@1350 300

Top View
V-S-E V-S-ME V-S-C V-S-MW V-S-W

South

West
East

H-E H-W
North
V-N-E V-N-ME V-N-C V-N-MW V-N-W

Figure 4.12 Locations of the linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs)

In addition, 100 Zurich targets were attached on each beam (Figure 4.13).
Distributions of horizontal, vertical and diagonal strains of each grid were obtained
from the Zurich gauge readings at each load step.

South Face
1100 3800 1100
50
1 20

200 21 44
750

45 72
200

73 100

100
300 27@200 300
6000

Figure 4.13 Locations of the Zurich targets

At about seven or eight “load stages” the application of the load was halted to permit
measurement of the movements of the Zurich targets, marking of new cracks,
measurement of crack widths, and photographing of the crack patterns. During each
load stage, the applied load was decreased by about 5 to 10% to minimize creep
deformations during the reading of the Zurich gauges and ensure safety of the testing
personnel.
96
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

4.5 Test results

The test results of the JB series are summarized in Table 4.7. The central point load
versus mid-span displacement relationships of each specimen are shown in Figure 4.14
and 4.15. All specimens failed in shear. Relationships of peak loads of each specimen
were JB1 > JB2 > JB4 > JB3 > JB5 > JB8 > JB6 > JB7. JB3 which has plain
longitudinal reinforcements and plain stirrups showed the lowest peak load and
displacement among the no-cutoff series. JB7 which has plain longitudinal
reinforcements and plain stirrups had also the lowest peak load and displacement
among the cutoff series. It should be pointed out that JB8 which has half-deformed
longitudinal reinforcements and plain stirrups had the second highest peak load and the
largest displacement among cutoff series specimens.

Table 4.7 Summary of test results

Peak Failure Shear crack


Distance
Average
from mid- Incline of Incline of Average
Longitudinal spacing
Specimen Cutoff Stirrups span to upper part lower part incline of
bars Load Disp. Load Disp. of shear
centre of of shear of shear shear
cracks at
shear crack crack crack
mid-depth
crack
kN mm kN mm mm mm degree degree degree

JB1-N/D/D No Deformed Deformed 913 26.2 911 26.5 1030 320 18 53 36

JB2-N/D/P No Deformed Plain 873 28.3 872 28.5 1750 360 20 46 33

JB3-N/P/P No Plain Plain 825 20.6 806 23.0 1390 330 19 37 28


Half
JB4-N/H/P No
Deformed
Plain 841 24.7 825 25.3 1750 350 16 36 26

JB5-C/D/D Cutoff Deformed Deformed 726 20.1 697 21.0 1580 370 53 53 53

JB6-C/D/P Cutoff Deformed Plain 629 16.7 614 17.9 1740 420 20 66 43

JB7-C/P/P Cutoff Plain Plain 593 14.2 567 19.8 1800 470 24 58 41
Half
JB8-C/H/P Cutoff
Deformed
Plain 696 24.2 693 24.4 1710 350 16 46 32
97
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

No cutoff series JB1 to JB4


1000
JB1(913kN)
JB2(873kN)
900

800 JB4(841kN)

Centre Point Load (kN)


700
JB3(825kN)
600

500

400

300 JB1-N/D/D
JB2-N/D/P
200
JB3-N/P/P
100 JB4-N/H/P

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Midspan Diplacement (mm)

Figure 4.14 Load-Displacement relationships of JB1 to JB4


(X marks indicate peak loads of each specimen)

Cutoff series JB5 to JB8


1000

900

800 JB5(726kN)
JB6(629kN) JB8(696kN)
Centre Point Load (kN)

700

600

500 JB7(593kN)

400

300 JB5-C/D/D
200 JB6-C/D/P
JB7-C/P/P
100
JB8-C/H/P
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Midspan Diplacement (mm)

Figure 4.15 Load-Displacement relationships of JB5 to JB8


(X marks indicate peak loads of each specimen)

From Fig 4.14, it can be seen that the load-deformation response of the three
specimens with plain stirrups (JB2, JB3, and JB4) were almost identical and slightly
below that of the member with deformed stirrups, (JB1). The same observation can be
made about Figure 4.15. Plain stirrups made the stiffness of the beams lower, but plain
or half-deformed longitudinal bars did not affect the stiffness at least until splitting
98
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

cracks along the longitudinal bars towards the support plates developed.

The crack patterns of each specimen can be seen in the photographs shown in Figure
4.16 and 4.17. The crack widths shown in the photographs (in millimetres) were
measured at the last Zurich load stage prior to failure. In all the specimens except JB1,
the main shear cracks had a significant width and then extended to the loading plates
and support plates. When they finally reached the loading/support plates, the
specimens failed in shear. The stirrups which crossed the main shear crack ruptured
only in JB5 just before shear failure. Only JB7 failed silently without the audible
sound when the load started to drop. The splitting crack along the level of the
longitudinal reinforcement in JB7 occurred gradually.

As for JB1, the concrete in the compression zone near the loading plate had crushed
and popped up just before the width of the major diagonal crack became very wide.
The shear crack of JB1 did not reach to the support plate.

Among the cutoff series specimens, the main shear cracks of JB5 and JB6 which have
deformed longitudinal reinforcement crossed the longitudinal bars just around the
cutoff points, but those of JB7 and JB8 which have plain or half-deformed longitudinal
steel crossed the longitudinal bars at about 250 mm closer to the supports than the
cutoff points. The lower bond of the longitudinal reinforcement in these two beams
apparently lowered the strain concentration at the cutoff points.

The distributions of the following seven types of strains along the span of each
specimen are shown in Figure 4.18 to 4.25; 1) longitudinal strains from Zurich gauges
at the height of 100 mm from the bottom, 2) maximum transverse strains of Zurich
gauges at each section, 3) maximum shear strains from Zurich gauges, 4) strains from
gauges on longitudinal reinforcement at a height of 130 mm from the bottom, 5) strains
99
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

from gauges on the longitudinal reinforcement at a height of 65 mm from the bottom


face, 6) strains from the gauges on stirrups. Red dashed lines shown on the graphs of
4) 5) and 6) above is the yield strain of each type of reinforcement.
Comparison of these strains among eight specimens will be discussed in the next
section.
JB1-N/D/D

JB2-N/D/P

JB3-N/P/P
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

JB4-N/H/P

Figure 4.16 Crack patterns of JB1 to JB4 after tests (South face)
Crack widths were measured at the last Zurich stage.
100
JB5-C/D/D

JB6-C/D/P

JB7-C/P/P
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

JB8-C/H/P

Figure 4.17 Crack patterns of JB5 to JB8 after tests (South face)
Crack widths were measured at the last Zurich stage.
101
102
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Figure 4.18 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB1


103
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Figure 4.19 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB2


104
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Figure 4.20 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB3


105
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Figure 4.21 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB4


106
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Figure 4.22 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB5


107
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Figure 4.23 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB6


108
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Figure 4.24 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB7


109
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Figure 4.25 Strain distributions of Zurich and gauges on rebars of JB8


110
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

4.6 Discussion of test results

Comparison of loads and displacements at peak resistance and degree of inclination of


shear crack of each specimen is shown in Table 4.8. Peak loads of the cutoff series
specimens were 23% lower than the no-cutoff series specimens on average. This
difference is much higher than the differences due to bond effects within JB1 to JB4 or
JB5 to JB8. This indicates that cutoffs of longitudinal reinforcement could result in a
much more significant drop of shear resistance than bond deterioration of
reinforcement.

The average angle of shear crack inclinations among the cutoff series specimens is
larger by a degree of 11.6 than that of the no-cutoff series. This increase seemed to be
caused by the concentration of strains in the longitudinal reinforcement due to the
cutoffs. In order to compare the strains of all specimens, longitudinal strains at centre
point load P = 500 kN are shown in Figure 4.26 to 4.28. It can be seen that significant
concentration of longitudinal strains was observed near the bar cutoff points in JB5 to
JB8.
Table 4.8 Comparison of each specimen
Change in
Displacement
Peak load Average inclination
at peak load
Specimens to be compared of shear crack

Ratio Average Ratio Average Degree Average

JB5-C/D/D / JB1-N/D/D 79% 76% 18

Comparison between JB6-C/D/P / JB2-N/D/P 72% 59% 10


77% 76% 11.6
no-cut-off and cut-off 72% 69% 13
JB7-C/P/P / JB3-N/P/P

JB8-C/H/P / JB4-N/H/P 83% 98% 6

JB2-N/D/P / JB1-N/D/D 96% 108% -3


Comparison within
JB3-N/P/P / JB1-N/D/D 90% 93% 78% 93% -8 -6.5
no-cut-off series
JB4-N/H/P / JB1-N/D/D 92% 94% -10

JB6-C/D/P / JB5-C/D/D 87% 83% -10


Comparison within
JB7-C/P/P / JB5-C/D/D 82% 88% 71% 92% -12 -14.3
cut-off series
JB8-N/H/P / JB5-C/D/D 96% 120% -21
111
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Longitudinal Strains of Zurich Gauges at 100mm high from the Bottom when P=500kN

JB1-N/D/D JB2-N/D/P JB3-N/P/P JB4-N/H/P JB5-C/D/D JB6-C/D/P JB7-C/P/P JB8-C/H/P


2.5

2.0
Strain (mm/m)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from West End (m)

Figure 4.26 Longitudinal strains of Zurich gauges when P=500kN

Strains of Longitudinal Reinforcements at 65mm high from the Bottom when P=500kN

JB1-N/D/D JB2-N/D/P JB3-N/P/P JB4-N/H/P JB5-C/D/D JB6-C/D/P JB7-C/P/P JB8-C/H/P


1.6
1.4
1.2
Strain (mm/m)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from West End (m)

Figure 4.27 Longitudinal strains of gauges on longitudinal bars


at 65mm from the bottom when P=500kN

Strains of Longitudinal Reinforcements at 130mm high from the Bottom when P=500kN

JB1-N/D/D JB2-N/D/P JB3-N/P/P JB4-N/H/P JB5-C/D/D JB6-C/D/P JB7-C/P/P JB8-C/H/P


1.4
1.2
Strain (mm/m)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from West End (m)

Figure 4.28 Longitudinal strains of gauges on longitudinal bars


at 130mm from the bottom when P=500kN
112
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Comparisons of shear resistances and angles of shear crack inclination between test
results and calculations based on the general method in CSA23.3-04 11.3.6.4 are
shown in Table 4.9. The angle of shear crack inclination was assumed to be similar to
that of the diagonal compressive stress. The prediction of the CSA code corresponds
with the test results for JB1, but less so for JB5. The CSA prediction of peak load for
JB5 was overestimated by 15%. The angle of shear crack inclination based on CSA
code was 70% of the test result. Since Vs is a function of cotθ, this difference of 30%
in angle θ will have a large influence on Vs. Higher values of θ result in lower values
of Vs.

Table 4.9 Comparison between test results and CSA23.3-04 general method
for JB1 and JB5 ( f c’ =37.2MPa)
Peak load Inclination of shear crack
Specimen
Test results CSA23.3-04 CSA/Test ratio Test results CSA23.3-04 CSA/Test ratio
JB1-N/D/D 913kN 881kN 96% 36° 36° 100%
JB5-C/D/D 726kN 836kN 115% 53° 37° 70%

As shown in Table 4.10, if the angle of inclination θ is assumed to be independent of εx


and taken as the experimentally observed value of 53º, the shear resistance of JB5 is
calculated to be 732 kN which is 101 % of the test value of 726 kN.

Table 4.10 Calculations of shear resistance based on CSA23.3-04 at cutoff section


of JB5 with fixing the angle of inclination θ to 53°
P Mf Vf εx β θ Vc Vs V r V r -V f (V f -0.5V s )cot θ M f /d v F lt F lty F lty -F lt
-3
kN kN kN x10 0 deg kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN

732 383 380 1.001 0.160 53 271 109 380 0 245 622 867 1150 283

Comparisons between calculated and measured longitudinal strains of JB1 and JB5 at
the final stage of Zurich readings are shown in Figure 4.29 and 4.30. Since the centre
point loads were kept to 850 kN (=93 % of peak load) for JB1 and 630 kN (=87 % of
113
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

peak load) for JB5 during the final stages of Zurich measuring, calculations based on
the CSA code were done using these actual point loads.

Strains of Zurich gauges correspond to those of strains of the longitudinal bars. The
red line of calculated strains in the longitudinal bars due to the total applied moments
and shear forces intersect at about the middle of the zigzag line of Zurich strains for
each specimen. The strain concentrations beyond the yield strain are observed between
cutoff points and supports on both sides of JB5. This will probably be the main reason
for the large angle of inclination θ and lead to the unconservative predictions of shear
resistance of structures which have cutoffs of longitudinal reinforcements.

The Zurich strain measured at 0.8 m from west end of JB1 is also more than twice the
calculated strain caused by several cracks crossing this particular gauge length. This
indicates that anchorage of the longitudinal reinforcement should be designed with
enough margin of safety even at the supports of simple beams.

Comparison between calculated and mesured longitudinal strains of JB1 for P = 850 kN
Calculated strain of longitudinal bars due to moment and shear Strains of gauges on longitudinal bars at 130mm from bottom
Calculated strain of longitudinal bars due to only moment Strains of gauges on longitudinal bars at 65mm from bottom
Longitudinal strains of Zurich gauges at 100mm from bottom
3.500

3.000

2.500 Yield strain of longitudinal reinforcements


Strain (mm/m)

2.000

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Distance from west end (m)


Figure 4.29 Comparison of calculated and measured longitudinal strains of JB1 for P = 850 kN
114
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Comparison between calculated and mesured longitudinal strains of JB5 for P = 630 kN
Calculated strain of longitudinal bars due to moment and shear Strains of gauges on longitudinal bars at 130mm from bottom
Calculated strain of longitudinal bars due to only moment Strains of gauges on longitudinal bars at 65mm from bottom
Longitudinal strains of Zurich gauges at 100mm from bottom
3.500

3.000

2.500 Yield strain of longitudinal reinforcements


Strain (mm/m)

2.000

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from west end (m)
Figure 4.30 Comparison of calculated and measured longitudinal strains of JB5 for P = 630 kN

When the transverse strains under a central point load of P = 500 kN are examined,
JB8-C/H/P shows the highest concentration near cutoff points as shown in Figures 4.31
to 4.33. However the peak load of JB8 was higher than those of JB6-C/D/P and JB7-
C/P/P. Strains of longitudinal bars near the supports at peak load were around 1,000µε
for JB8 (see Figure 4.34), which was higher than those for other specimens, and crack
pattern of JB8 was symmetric and arch-shaped (see Figure 4.17). These facts suggest
that a tied arch partially formed in JB8 and this led to relatively high peak load and
large displacement as compared to the other tests.

Maximum Transverse Strains of Zurich Gauges at Each Section when P=500kN

JB1-N/D/D JB2-N/D/P JB3-N/P/P JB4-N/H/P JB5-C/D/D JB6-C/D/P JB7-C/P/P JB8-C/H/P


4.5
4.0
3.5
Strain (mm/m)

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from West End (m)

Figure 4.31 Maximum transverse strains of Zurich gauges when P=500kN


115
Chapter 4 – Experiments on the shear behaviour of large beams

Average Transverse Strains of Zurich Gauges at Each Section when P=500kN

JB1-N/D/D JB2-N/D/P JB3-N/P/P JB4-N/H/P JB5-C/D/D JB6-C/D/P JB7-C/P/P JB8-C/H/P


1.8
1.6
1.4
Strain (mm/m)

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from West End (m)

Figure 4.32 Average transverse strains of Zurich gauges at each section when P=500kN

Strains of Transverse Reinforcements when P=500kN

JB1-N/D/D JB2-N/D/P JB3-N/P/P JB4-N/H/P JB5-C/D/D JB6-C/D/P JB7-C/P/P JB8-C/H/P


2.5

2
Strain (mm/m)

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from West End (m)

Figure 4.33 Transverse strains of gauges on stirrups when P=500kN

Strains of Longitudinal Reinforcements at 65mm high from the Bottom at Peak Loads

JB1-N/D/D JB2-N/D/P JB3-N/P/P JB4-N/H/P JB5-C/D/D JB6-C/D/P JB7-C/P/P JB8-C/H/P


3.5
3
2.5
Strain (mm/m)

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from West End (m)

Figure 4.34 Strains of longitudinal bars at peak load


Chapter 5

Analytical work on experimental results

In this chapter, analytical work based on the test results in previous chapters is
described. At first, to verify the tension stiffening factors α for various types of
reinforcements suggested in Chapter 3, the 2-dimensional nonlinear finite element
analysis program VecTor2 is used for the analysis of the tension stiffening tests. Then
bond models for each type of reinforcement are suggested. Next the beam tests in
Chapter 4 are analyzed with VecTor2. Finally based on the results of this analytical
work, modifications of the general method for shear design are proposed to account for
the effect of bond deterioration and the cutoffs.

5.1 Nonlinear finite element analyses of tension stiffening tests

The tension stiffening specimens in Chapter 3 are modeled for the 2-dimensional
nonlinear finite element analysis program VecTor2. Mesh layouts are shown in Figure
5.1. The thicknesses of concrete elements are changed as a function of the distance
from the reinforcement to account for the circular cross section. The reinforcement is
modeled with truss elements and contact elements for bond are introduced between
reinforcement and the concrete. Material properties of concrete and reinforcement are
listed in Table 5.1. Nodal loads are applied to the end of reinforcement with an
increment of 1 kN.

116
117
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Depth of rectangular elements


Average strain monitored in this section

12@13.75=165
26@25=650

Figure 5.1 Mesh for finite element analyses of JT series specimens

Table 5.1 Material properties for the analysis of JT series specimens

JT1 JT2 JT3 JT4


2
Cross section of reinforcement mm 484 484 484 484
Yielding stress of reinforcement MPa 460 460 460 405
Ultimate stress of reinforcement MPa 591 591 591 530
Stiffness of reinforcement GPa 193 188 188 180
Initial stiffness of concrete GPa 30 30 30 30
Age of concrete at test days 33 47 48 97
Compressive strength of concrete MPa 37.5 37.6 37.6 37.5
Cracking strength of concrete MPa 2.53 2.52 2.52 2.40
Concrete shrinakge ξ sh x 10
-6
217 263 218 0

Although various choices are selectable for each analytical option in VecTor2, default
models are selected for as many options as possible in the following analyses. The
selected models are shown in Table 5.2. Non default options are selected only for the
models of compression base curve, tension stiffening and bond. Popovics model for
normal strength concrete is selected to set the initial stiffness of concrete to the specific
value (30,000 MPa) which is confirmed to be well fitted to the test data in Chapter 3.
Commonly used Collins-Mitchell 1987 model expressed as Eq. (3.6.1) is selected for
tension stiffening to confirm the suggested tension stiffening factors α for the equation.
Since α itself is unchangeable in VecTor2, the cracking stress is changed in proportion
to α instead. Although the first cracking loads are affected, concrete stresses after
cracking can be expressed appropriately. As for concrete bond, perfect bond,
118
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Eligehausen (default), Gan and custom tri-linear models are selected according to the
type of reinforcement for each specimen.

Table 5.2 Selected models in VecTor2 for the analysis of JT series specimens
Option category Selected model default
Compression Base Curve Popovics (NSC) No
Compression Post-Peak Modified Park-Kent Yes
Compression Softening Vecchio 1992-A Yes
Tension Stiffening Collins-Mitchell 1987 No
Tension Softening Linear Yes
Tension Splitting Not Considered Yes
Confinement Strength Kupfer / Richart Yes
Concrete Dilatation Variable - Kupfer Yes
Cracking Criterion Mohr-Coulomb (Stress) Yes
Crack Shear Check Vecchio-Collins 1986 Yes
Crack Width Check Crack Limit (Agg/5) Yes
Perfect Bond No
Eligehausen Yes
Concrete Bond
Gan No
Custom tri-linear No
Concrete Creep / Relax Not Considered Yes
Concrete Hysteresis Nonlinear w/ Offsets Yes
Steel Hysteresis Seckin Model Yes
Rebar Dowel Action Tassios (Crack Slip) Yes
Rebar Buckling Asatsu Model Yes
Previous Load History Considered Yes
Slip Distortion Walraven Yes
Strain Rate Effects Not Considered Yes
Geometric Nonlinearity Not Considered Yes
Crack Allocation Uniform Spacing Yes

5.1.1 Analysis for normal deformed JT1

The analysis for normal deformed bar specimen JT1 is firstly described. Average
strains in a 1000 mm long gauged section of the mesh are compared with the test
results of averaged strain gauge readings over the whole gauged section and over the
section sandwiched between cracks. The test results are shown as the skeleton curves
of the repeated loading cycles.
119
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Perfect bond analysis of JT1 Perfect bond analysis of JT1


JT1_TS_SG 150-1150 mm JT1_TS_SG 150-1150 mm
JT1_TS_SG 347-1017 mm JT1_TS_SG 347-1017 mm
Perfect bond, α=1.0, without shrinkage Perfect bond, α=1.0, without shrinkage
Perfect bond, α=1.0, with shrinkage of 217µε Perfect bond, α=1.0, with shrinkage of 217µε
Perfect bond, α=0.80, with shrinkage of 217µε Perfect bond, α=0.80, with shrinkage of 217µε
150 250

125
200

100
150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
75

100
50

50
25

0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0 1 2 3
3 3
Average strain x 10 Average strain x 10

Figure 5.2 Perfect bond analysis for JT1

At first, the effect of concrete shrinkage is analyzed. As shown in Figure 5.2, if


concrete shrinkage is not considered the first cracking load is predicted as 62 kN which
is 50% higher than the measured value. The stiffness before cracking in the analysis is
almost identical to that of the curve for 347–1017 mm section. When a concrete
shrinkage of 217 µε is applied to all concrete elements, the initial average strain of the
reinforcement becomes -190 µε (i.e. in compression) and the cracking load is 42 kN.
These values are almost identical to the observations in the test. The curve on the
graph is shifted to +190 µε so that all the curves start from the origin for easier
comparison. All the graphs with concrete shrinkage are shifted to the origin hereafter.
The stiffness after cracking is estimated higher than the test. Then the cracking stress
of the concrete is reduced to 80 % to consider the suggested tension stiffening factor α
= 0.80. Perfect bond which does not allow slip between concrete and reinforcement is
selected for the contact elements. Although the cracking load is estimated as low as
80% of the test value, the analysis curve shown as a red line provides a good fit to the
test results after cracking.
120
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Eligehausen bond stress - slip relationship for JT1


17.5

15
Confined
12.5

Bond stress τ (MPa)


10

7.5
Unconfined
5

2.5

0
0 5 10 15 20
Slip ∆ (mm)

Figure 5.3 Eligehausen bond model for JT1

Next the default option “Eligehausen model” which is proposed by Eligehausen et al.
(1983) is selected for concrete bond. Its bond stress – slip relationships are described
by an ascending non-linear branch, a constant bond stress plateau, a linearly
descending branch, and a sustained residual stress branch. They are expressed with the
following equations and the bond stress – slip relationship for JT1 is shown in Figure
5.3.

The confined stress – slip ( τ – ∆ ) relationship is summarized as follows:

⎧τ p1 ( ∆ / ∆ p1 ) γ for ∆ ≤ ∆ p1

⎪τ p 2 for ∆ p1 < ∆ ≤ ∆ p 2

τ =⎨ ⎡ ∆ − ∆ p2 ⎤ (5.1.1)
⎪τ p 2 − ⎢ ∆ − ∆ (τ p 2 − τ pf )⎥ for ∆ p 2 < ∆ ≤ ∆ p 3
⎪ ⎢⎣ p 3 p2 ⎥⎦
τ
⎪⎩ pf for ∆ p 3 < ∆

⎛ d b ⎞ f 'c
where τ p1 = ⎜ 20 − ⎟ (5.1.2)
⎝ 4 ⎠ 30
τ p 2 = τ p1 (5.1.3)
121
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

⎛ S ⎞ f 'c
τ pf = ⎜ 5.5 − 0.07 ⎟ (5.1.4)
⎝ H ⎠ 27.6

f 'c
∆ s1 = (5.1.5)
30
∆ p 2 = 3.0 mm (5.1.6)
∆ p3 = S (5.1.7)
γ = 0.4 (5.1.8)
d b = 25.2 mm, S = 17.6 mm, H = 1.26 mm (5.1.9).
The rib spacing S and rib height H for deformed bar are automatically computed in
VecTor2 based on the reinforcement diameter d b . Bond strength is proportion to the
square root of compressive concrete strength, f 'c .

The unconfined stress – slip ( τ – ∆ ) relationship is summarized as follows:

⎧τ s1 (∆ / ∆ s1 )γ for ∆ ≤ ∆ s1

⎪⎪τ s 2 for ∆ s1 < ∆ ≤ ∆ s 2
τ =⎨ ⎡ ∆ − ∆ s2 ⎤ (5.1.10)
⎪τ s 2 − ⎢ ∆ − ∆ (τ s 2 − τ sf )⎥ for ∆ s 2 < ∆ ≤ ∆ s 3
⎪ ⎣ s3 s2 ⎦
⎪⎩τ sf for ∆ s 3 < ∆

f 'c ⋅c
where τ s1 = 0.748 ≤ τ p1 (5.1.11)
db
τ s 2 = τ s1 (5.1.12)

f 'c ⋅c
τ sf = 0.234 ≤ τ pf (5.1.13)
db
⎡ 1 ⎛ τ ⎞⎤
∆ s1 = ∆ p1 exp ⎢ ln⎜ s1 ⎟⎥ (5.1.14)
⎜ ⎟
⎣⎢ α ⎝ τ p1 ⎠⎦⎥
∆ s2 = ∆ p2 (5.1.15)
∆ s3 = ∆ p3 (5.1.16).
The clear cover of reinforcement c is 70 mm for JT1.
122
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

The Eligehausen model is a function of the confinement pressure factor β (0 ≤ β ≤ 1)


and is linearly interpolated between the unconfined (β = 0) and confined (β = 1)
reference bond stresses and slips. β is set to 0 for the tension stiffening tests of
unconfined reinforcement. The maximum bond stress for unconfined concrete is 7.6
MPa and is almost identical to the maximum bond stress observed in the test of JT1
(see Figure 3.62).

As shown in Figure 5.4, in the case when α equals 0.80 which is the same for perfect
bond, stiffness over the load of 60 kN becomes slightly lower than that for perfect
bond analysis. When α is increased to 0.90, the analysis curve fits well to the test
results over the load of 80 kN. Thus the suggested tension stiffening factor α will be
0.80 to 0.90 when an appropriate bond model is used. This range from 0.80 to 0.90 for
α should be applicable to other specimens if appropriate bond models are selected for
each type of reinforcement.

Eligehausen bond analysis of JT1 Eligehausen bond analysis of JT1


Perfect bond, α=0.80, with shrinkage of 217µε JT1_TS_SG 150-1150 mm
JT1_TS_SG 347-1017 mm
Eligehausen, α=0.80, with shrinkage of 217µε Perfect bond, α=0.80, with shrinkage of 217µε
Eligehausen, α=0.80, with shrinkage of 217µε
Eligehausen, α=0.90, with shrinkage of 217µε Eligehausen, α=0.90, with shrinkage of 217µε
100 250

80 200

60 150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

40 100

20 50

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8
Average strain x 103 Average strain x 103

Figure 5.4 Eligehausen bond analysis for JT1


123
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Analysis of initial stiffness for JT1


JT1_TS_SG 150-1150 mm
JT1_TS_SG 347-1017 mm
Eligehausen, bond at all length
Eligehausen, unbond at 150mm long end region
100

80

60
Load (kN)

40

20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Average strain x 103

Figure 5.5 Analysis of the initial stiffness for JT1

In all analyses the initial stiffness before cracking is higher than that of the curve for
the whole gauged section. As described in Chapter 3, relatively high bond stresses
were being applied to the end regions of the specimens at early ages since the
compressive strains in the reinforcement induced by concrete shrinkage had been
released at end regions of the reinforcement. This bond stress deteriorated the bond
between the concrete and the reinforcement in the end region. Although the actual
bond deterioration length seems to be 200 to 300 mm long at each end based on the
pre-cracking strain distributions in Figure 3.35, the specimen with the 150 mm long
unbonded region at both ends of reinforcement is analyzed for simplicity. The initial
stiffness of the unbonded analysis is similar with that of the curve for the whole gauged
(150 to 1150 mm) section as shown in Figure 5.5. This must be applied to all other
specimens including JT4 which had suffered from bond deterioration due to concrete
shrinkage before the longitudinal crack was formed during accelerated corrosion. It is
also found that the bond deterioration at the end regions does not have a significant
effect on the stiffness after cracking when the two analysis curves are compared in
124
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Figure 5.5. Therefore the difference of initial stiffness between analysis and test will
not be considered as a serious issue for the other specimens, either.

5.1.2 Analysis for half-deformed JT3

Based on the analysis for JT1, concrete shrinkage of 218 µε is applied for all analyses.
The tension stiffening factor α suggested in Chapter 3 is 0.76 for perfect bond of the
half-deformed bar. As shown in Figure5.6, the first cracking load of 41 kN for perfect
bond with α = 1.0 equals the test results and the curve for perfect bond with α = 0.76
fits to the test results after cracking.

Perfect bond analysis of JT3 Perfect bond analysis of JT3


JT3_TS_SG 150-1150 mm JT3_TS_SG 150-1150 mm
JT3_TS_SG 289-1033 mm JT3_TS_SG 289-1033 mm
Perfect bond, α=1.0, with shrinkage of 218µε Perfect bond, α=1.0, with shrinkage of 218µε
Perfect bond, α=0.76, with shrinkage of 218µε Perfect bond, α=0.76, with shrinkage of 218µε
150 250

125
200

100
150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

75

100
50

50
25

0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 0 1 2 3 4
Average strain x 103 Average strain x 103

Figure 5.6 Perfect bond analysis for JT3

As shown in Figures 3.62 and 3.63 the maximum bond stress of JT3 is about 83 % of
that of JT1. Since the maximum stress of unconfined bond in Eligehausen model is
proportional to c (see Eq. (5.1.11)), c is changed to adjust the maximum bond stress
in this analysis. For JT3 c is changed from 70 mm to 50mm (see Figure 5.7). The
tension stiffening factors α are fixed to 0.80 and 0.90 for Eligehausen model based on
125
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

the range confirmed in the analysis for JT1. As shown in Figure 5.8 the analysis curve
fits well to the test results.

Modification of Eligehausen unconfined bond model Modification of Eligehausen unconfined bond model
Unconfined, c=70 mm for normal deformed JT1 Unconfined, c=70 mm for normal deformed JT1
Unconfined, c=50 mm for half-deformed JT3 Unconfined, c=50 mm for half-deformed JT3
Unconfined, c=17.6 mm for plain JT2 Unconfined, c=17.6 mm for plain JT2
Unconfined, c= 4.4 mm for corroded JT4 Unconfined, c= 4.4 mm for corroded JT4
10 10

8 JT1 8

JT3 JT1
6 6
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
JT3

4
JT2 4
JT2

JT4
2 2
JT4

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 5 10 15 20
Average strain x 103 Average strain x 103

Figure 5.7 Modification of Eligehausen unconfined bond model for JT3

Modified Eligehausen bond analysis of JT3 Modified Eligehausen bond analysis of JT3
JT3_TS_SG 289-1033 mm JT3_TS_SG 289-1033 mm
JT3_TS_SG 150-1150 mm JT3_TS_SG 150-1150 mm
Eligehausen, α=0.80, c=50 mm, with shrinkage of 218µε Eligehausen, α=0.80, c=50 mm, with shrinkage of 218µε
Eligehausen, α=0.90, c=50 mm, with shrinkage of 218µε Eligehausen, α=0.90, c=50 mm, with shrinkage of 218µε
100 250

80 200

60 150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

40 100

20 50

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 1 2 3 4
Average strain x 103 Average strain x 103

Figure 5.8 Modified Eligehausen deformed bar model analysis for JT3
126
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

5.1.3 Analysis for plain JT2

The concrete shrinkage of 263 µε is applied for the analysis of JT2-TS. The suggested
tension stiffening factor α is 0.70 for perfect bond of the plain bar. As shown in Figure
5.9, the first cracking load of 37 kN for perfect bond with α = 1.0 equals the test results
and the curve for perfect bond with α = 0.70 fits to the test results after cracking.

Then the smooth bar option for the Eligehausen model used in VecTor2 is selected.
The maximum bond stress is held to 1.05 MPa. A large slip occurs from the beginning
and the stiffness of analysis curve is much lower than the test results (see Figure 5.10).
Since a single crack is formed and the concrete remained uncracked in other elements
the stiffness after cracking is higher than that of the test.

Next the deformed bar option for the Eligehausen model is chosen like the analysis of
JT3. The maximum bond stress of JT2 is about half of that of JT1 as shown in Figure
3.62. Thus the equivalent clear cover c is set to 17.6 mm and α to 0.80 and 0.90 for
JT2 (see Figure 5.7). As shown in Figure 5.11 the analysis curve fits well to the test
results considering that the stiffness of test results over 150 kN is lower than the
analysis due to repeated loading.

Although the yielding stress of reinforcement is kept the same as that for JT1, yielding
load and post-yield curve fit well to the test results. This is also true for JT3. Thus
even if the transverse ribs of reinforcement are stripped almost no impact on the
yielding loads is observed.
127
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Perfect bond analysis of JT2 Perfect bond analysis of JT2


JT2_TS_SG 150-1150 mm JT2_TS_SG 150-1150 mm
JT2_TS_SG 356-781 mm JT2_TS_SG 356-781 mm
Perfect bond, α=1.0, with shrinkage of 263µε Perfect bond, α=1.0, with shrinkage of 263µε
Perfect bond, α=0.70, with shrinkage of 263µε Perfect bond, α=0.70, with shrinkage of 263µε
150 250

125
200

100
150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
75

100
50

50
25

0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 0 1 2 3 4
Average strain x 103 Average strain x 103

Figure 5.9 Perfect bond analysis for JT2

Eligehausen smooth bar analysis of JT2 Eligehausen smooth bar analysis of JT2
JT2_TS_SG 150-1150 mm JT2_TS_SG 150-1150 mm

JT2_TS_SG 356-781 mm JT2_TS_SG 356-781 mm

Eligehausen smooth bar, α=0.9, with shrinkage of 263µε Eligehausen smooth bar, α=0.9, with shrinkage of 263µε
100 250

80 200

60 150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

40 100

20 50

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 1 2 3 4
Average strain x 103 Average strain x 103

Figure 5.10 Eligehausen smooth bar model analysis for JT2


128
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Modified Eligehausen bond analysis of JT2 Modified Eligehausen bond analysis of JT2
JT2_TS_SG 150-1150 m m JT2_TS_SG 150-1150 m m
JT2_TS_SG 356-781 m m JT2_TS_SG 356-781 m m
Eligehaus en, α=0.80, c=17.6 m m , with s hrinkage of 263µε Eligehaus en, α=0.80, c=17.6 m m , with s hrinkage of 263µε
Eligehaus en, α=0.90, c=17.6 m m , with s hrinkage of 263µε Eligehaus en, α=0.90, c=17.6 m m , with s hrinkage of 263µε
100 250

80 200

60 150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
40 100

20 50

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 1 2 3 4
Average strain x 103 Average strain x 103

Figure 5.11 Modified Eligehausen deformed bar model analysis for JT2

5.1.4 Analysis for corroded JT4

No concrete shrinkage is considered for JT4 due to the longitudinal cracks noted in
Chapter 3. As shown in Figure 5.12, the first cracking load of 57 kN for perfect bond
with α = 1.0 equals the test results and the curve for perfect bond with the suggested α
= 0.45 fits to the test results after cracking. The test curves are somewhat different
from the analysis before cracking. This is because the large slip started before the first
cracking.

Then the Eligehausen model for deformed bar with reduced clear cover c is attempted.
Since the maximum bond stress of JT4 in Figure 3.62 is a quarter of that of JT1, the
equivalent c = 4.4 mm and α = 0.90 are applied in analysis (see Figure 5.7). As shown
in Figure 5.13, the analysis is much stiffer than the test after cracking. Based on Figure
3.69, both maximum and average bond stresses dropped just after cracking and
decreased as the load goes up. This decrease is not considered in Eligehausen model.
129
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Perfect bond analysis of JT4 Perfect bond analysis of JT4


JT4_TSC_SG 150-1150 mm JT4_TSC_SG 150-1150 mm
JT4_TSC_SG 217-903 mm JT4_TSC_SG 217-903 mm
Perfect bond, α=1.0 , without shrinkage Perfect bond, α=1.0 , without shrinkage
Perfect bond, α=0.45, without shrinkage Perfect bond, α=0.45, without shrinkage
150 250

125
200

100
150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
75

100
50

50
25

0 0
0 0.254 0.508 0.762 1.016 1.27 1.524 0 1 2 3
Average strain x 103 Average strain x 103

Figure 5.12 Perfect bond analysis for JT4

Modified Eligehausen & Gan bond analysis of JT4 Modified Eligehausen & Gan bond analysis of JT4
JT4_TSC_SG 150-1150 mm JT4_TSC_SG 150-1150 mm
JT4_TSC_SG 217-903 mm JT4_TSC_SG 217-903 mm
Eligehausen, α=0.90, c=4.4 mm, without shrinkage Eligehausen, α=0.90, c=4.4 mm, without shrinkage
Gan, α=0.90, c=4.4 mm, without shrinkage Gan, α=0.90, c=4.4 mm, without shrinkage
150 250

125
200

100
150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

75

100
50

50
25

0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 0 1 2 3
Average strain x 103 Average strain x 103

Figure 5.13 Modified Eligehausen and Gan deformed bar model analysis for JT4
130
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Gan unconfined bond stress - slip relationship for JT4


Unconfined, c=70 mm for normal deformed JT1
Unconfined, c=4.4 mm for corroded JT4
8

Load (kN)
4

2
JT4

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Average strain x 103

Figure 5.14 Modification of Gan unconfined bond model for JT4

Next the Gan model is selected. It is the modified unconfined bond model proposed by
Gan (2000). The Gan confined bond stress – slip relationship is the same as the
Eligehausen confined bond model, and the unconfined bond stress – slip relationship is
described by an ascending non-linear branch, a descending linear branch, and a
sustaining residual stress branch. As shown in Figure 5.14, it has no constant plateau
and is summarized as follows;

⎧τ s1 (∆ / ∆ s1 ) γ for ∆ ≤ ∆ s1
⎪ ⎡ ∆ − ∆ s1 ⎤

τ = ⎨τ s1 − ⎢ (τ s1 − τ sf )⎥ for ∆ s1 < ∆ ≤ ∆ s 2 (5.1.17)
⎪ ⎣ ∆ s 2 − ∆ s1 ⎦
⎪⎩τ sf for ∆ s 2 < ∆

f 'c ⋅c
where τ s1 = 0.748 ≤ τ p1 (5.1.18)
db
τ s 2 = 0.15τ s1 (5.1.19)
τ sf = τ s 2 (5.1.20)
⎡ 1 ⎛ τ ⎞⎤
∆ s1 = ∆ p1 exp ⎢ ln⎜ s1 ⎟⎥ (5.1.21)
⎢⎣ α ⎜⎝ τ p1 ⎟⎠⎥⎦
131
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

∆ s 2 = 2.0 mm (5.1.22)
∆ s3 = ∆ p3 (5.1.23).

As shown in Figure 5.13, the analysis result of Gan model with c = 4.4 mm and α =
0.90 is almost identical to that of Eligehausen model with the same c and α. Although
the results of analysis are not shown, this is also true for other specimens JT1, JT2 and
JT3. This would be because the rate of descending branch in the Gan unconfined bond
model is too low to affect the results.

Therefore the custom tri-linear model shown as Figure 5.15 is attempted. It has the
same peak bond stress τ s1 as modified Gan model in Figure 5.14, but ∆ s 2 is reduced to
0.2 mm which is 1/10 of Gan model. The result of analysis shown in Figure 5.16 fits
quite well to that of the test both before and after cracking.

Custom tri-linear bond model for JT4 Custom tri-linear bond model for JT4
Gan Unconfined, c= 4.4 mm for corroded JT4 Gan Unconfined, c= 4.4 mm for corroded JT4
Custom tri-linear model for corrded JT4 Custom tri-linear model for corrded JT4
2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Average strain x 103 Average strain x 103

Figure 5.15 Custom tri-linear bond model for JT4


132
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Custom tri-linear bond analysis of JT4 Custom tri-linear bond analysis of JT4
JT4_TSC_SG 150-1150 mm JT4_TSC_SG 150-1150 mm
JT4_TSC_SG 217-903 mm JT4_TSC_SG 217-903 mm
Custom tri-linear, α=0.80, without shrinkage Custom tri-linear, α=0.80, without shrinkage
Custom tri-linear, α=0.90, without shrinkage Custom tri-linear, α=0.90, without shrinkage
100 250

80 200

60 150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
40 100

20 50

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 1 2 3
Average strain x 103 Average strain x 103

Figure 5.16 Custom tri-linear bond model analysis for JT4


133
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

5.2 Nonlinear finite element analysis of the beam tests

The tension stiffening factors for normal-deformed, stripped (plain) and half-deformed
bars were suggested based on the test results in Chapter 3 and verified to be applicable
to VecTor2 with the perfect bond model in the last section. They are listed in Table 5.3.
In this section, the JB series beam specimens described in Chapter 4 are analyzed with
VecTor2 using the factors in Table 5.3. The reinforcement is modeled with truss
elements and contact elements are introduced between reinforcement and concrete.
Self-weight and concrete shrinkage were applied in advance and the displacements
were set to zero before displacement loading starts.

Table 5.3 Tension stiffening factors for the analysis of JT series specimens
Type of reinforcement Deformed Plain (stripped) Half-deformed
Tension stiffening factor ; α 0.8 0.7 0.76
ratio of α ; r α 1.0 : 0.875 : 0.95

Default options are selected for most of the analysis parameters in VecTor2. The
selected options are shown in Table 5.4. Non default options are selected only for the
tension stiffening, concrete bond and the crack width check. Perfect bond is mainly
selected for the concrete bond model. The crack width check serves to reduce average
compressive stresses when crack widths exceed a specified limit. The default crack
limit (CL) for the check is (maximum aggregate size)/5, that is 2 mm. In addition to
the default value, the options of 5 mm and 10 mm are selected. (Note that the default
crack limit has changed to (maximum aggregate size)/2.5 (= 4 mm for the JB series) in
the latest version 3.5 of VecTor2 as of Jan. 2012.) Regarding the tension stiffening, the
cracking strength is changed in proportion to α in the same way as the analysis for JT
series since α itself is unchangeable in VecTor2.
134
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Table 5.4 Selected models in VecTor2 for the analysis of JB series specimens

Option category Selected model default


Compression Base Curve Hognestad (Parabora) Yes
Compression Post-Peak Modified Park-Kent Yes
Compression Softening Vecchio 1992-A Yes
Tension Stiffening Collins-Mitchell 1987 No
Tension Softening Linear Yes
Tension Splitting Not Considered Yes
Confinement Strength Kupfer / Richart Yes
Concrete Dilatation Variable - Kupfer Yes
Cracking Criterion Mohr-Coulomb (Stress) Yes
Crack Shear Check Vecchio-Collins 1986 Yes
Crack Limit= 2 mm(=Agg/5) Yes
Crack Width Check Crack Limit= 5 mm No
Crack Limit=10 mm No
Concrete Bond Perfect Bond No
Concrete Creep / Relax Not Considered Yes
Concrete Hysteresis Nonlinear w/ Offsets Yes
Steel Hysteresis Seckin Model Yes
Rebar Dowel Action Tassios (Crack Slip) Yes
Rebar Buckling Asatsu Model Yes
Previous Load History Considered Yes
Slip Distortion Walraven Yes
Strain Rate Effects Not Considered Yes
Geometric Nonlinearity Not Considered Yes
Crack Allocation Uniform Spacing Yes

To study the sensitivity of mesh size the analyses for JB1 were conducted using the
three types of mesh size, or coarse, medium and fine. Mesh layouts are shown in
Figure 5.17 and the comparisons of the analysis results for each mesh are shown in
Figure 5.18. The options and parameters used for the analyses will be described in the
next section. The curves for the medium mesh and the fine mesh are almost identical
to the test result, while that for the coarse mesh moves apart from others as the load
approaches to the peak load. Thus the medium size mesh will be used in this study.
135
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Coarse mesh

2@65 10@62=620 2@60

3@150=450 24@100=2400 150


Medium mesh
10@62
2@65

40@75=3000

Fine mesh
8@50 35 4@30
6@32.5

60@50=3000

Figure 5.17 Mesh layouts for the mesh sensitivity analysis for JB1

Mesh Size Sensitivity for Pefect Bond Analysis of JB1


JB1 Test
Coarse Mesh, α = 0.65, No Shrinkage, Crack limit = 10mm
Medium Mesh, α = 0.65, No Shrinkage, Crack limit = 10mm
Fine Mesh, α = 0.65, No Shrinkage, Crack limit = 10mm

1200

1000
Centre Point Load (kN)

800

600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Midspan Displacement (mm)

Figure 5.18 Mesh size sensitivity for perfect bond analysis of JB1
136
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

It should be noted here that in the analyses of no-cutoff series the specimens were
predicted to fail when horizontal cracks developed along the longitudinal
reinforcement beyond the supports and reached the ends of the beams although the
horizontal cracks stopped before the supports in the tests. When the cracks go beyond
the supports, the stiffness of the load – displacement curve sometimes increased
“unnaturally”. Therefore the analyses were stopped when the cracks along the
longitudinal reinforcement went beyond the supports or when the stiffness of the
analysis curve increased unnaturally.

5.2.1 Analysis of normal deformed specimens JB1-N/D/D and JB5-C/D/D

The normal-deformed beam specimens without cutoffs, JB1-N/D/D, and with cutoffs,
JB5-N/D/D are analyzed first. Since the concrete used for JB1 and JB5 are the same as
that for JT1 and compressive strength at the ages of both tests are almost the same, the
same value of 2.53 MPa is used for the original cracking stress of concrete for JB1 and
JB5. With regard to the concrete shrinkage εsh, the value of 217 µε observed in the
tension test of JT1 is adjusted for JB series spacimens based on the following equation
(Collins and Mitchell 1997).

⎛ t ⎞
ε sh = −k s k h ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ 0.51×10
−3
(5.2.1)
⎝ 35 + t ⎠
where t is the drying time in days (t =) and ks and kh are correction factors for relative
humidity. ks depends on the volume surface-area ratios and drying time (ks = 0.23 for
JB series, 1.0 for JT1) and kh is related with ambient humidity and is constant for both
specimens.

The drying time t is 20 days on average for the JB series and 14 days for JT1. The
correction factor ks is 0.23 for JB1 and 1.0 for JT1. Substituting these values to the Eq.
(5.2.1), the typical concrete shrinkage for the JB series beams is estimated to be about
60 µε.
137
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Perfect Bond Analysis of JB1 with Shrinkage Perfect Bond Analysis of JB1 with Shrinkage
JB1 Test JB1 Test
Perfect Bond, α = 0.8, Shrinkage = 60µε, Crack limit = 2mm
Perfect Bond, α = 1.0, No Shrinkage, Crack limit = 2mm
Perfect Bond, α = 0.8, Shrinkage = 60µε, Crack limit = 5mm
Perfect Bond, α = 0.8, Shrinkage = 60µε, Crack limit = 2mm Perfect Bond, α = 0.8, Shrinkage = 60µε, Crack limit = 10mm

1000 1000

900 900

800 800

700 700
Centre Point Load (kN)

Centre Point Load (kN)


600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Midspan Displacement (mm) Midspan Displacement (mm)

Figure 5.19 Perfect bond analysis for JB1 Figure 5.20 Perfect bond analysis for JB1
with shrinkage with various crack limits

Firstly, as shown in Figure 5.19, the perfect bond analysis is compared with the test
results considering the tension stiffening factor α and the predicted concrete shrinkage.
The cracking strength of concrete is reduced to 80% based on the suggested tension
stiffening factor α = 0.80 for JT1. The stiffness of the analysis curve for α = 0.80 and
shrinkage of 60 µε fits well to that of the test result.

Since the predicted shear failure occurred much earlier than the test in the above
analysis with the default crack limit (CL) of 2 mm for the crack width check, the
analyses with CL = 5 and 10 mm were done. As shown in Figure 5.20, the larger the
crack limit, the higher the predicted shear failure load. The analysis curve for CL = 10
mm fits well to the test result.
138
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Perfect Bond Analysis of JB1 without Shrinkage


JB1 Test

Perfect Bond, α = 0.65, No Shrinkage, Crack limit = 10mm

All default option, No shrinkage, fcr = 0.33 f c '

1000

900

800

700
Centre Point Load (kN)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Midspan Displacement (mm)

Figure 5.21 Perfect bond analysis for JB1 without shrinkage

The concrete shrinkage is taken into account in the above analysis, however it is
usually ignored in the structural analysis of beams. If the concrete shrinkage is ignored,
the tension stiffening factor α for the best fitting to the test result becomes 0.65 for JB1.
The analysis result is shown in Figure 5.21 and compared to the curve for the analysis
with all default options ignoring the concrete shrinkage. The analysis curve for α =
0.65 fits perfectly to the test results, while the stiffness of the analysis curve with all
default options (blue line) ignoring the concrete shrinkage is larger than the value
observed in test. Thus the concrete shrinkage can be incorporated in the analysis by
reducing the tension stiffening factor, and in reverse the tension stiffening factors are
affected by concrete shrinkage. The concrete shrinkage will be ignored in the analyses
hereafter.
139
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Cutoff specimen

10@62=620

14@75=1050 3@83.33 50 22@75=1650

Figure 5.22 Mesh layout for the cutoff specimen

Next the perfect bond analysis with α = 0.65 and CL = 2, 5 and 10 mm are done for the
cutoff specimen JB5-C/D/D. Mesh layout for the cutoff specimen is shown in Figure
5.22. As shown in Figure 5.23, the initial stiffness of the analysis is slightly higher
than the test result. In contrast to the analysis of JB1, the analysis with CL = 5 and 10
mm overestimates the shear capacity, while the analysis with the crack limits of 2 mm
fits well to the test results. If α is reduced to 0.60 and CL is set to 2 mm, the analysis
curve fits perfectly to the test (see Figure 5.24).

Perfect Bond Analysis of JB5 with α =0.65 Perfect Bond Analysis of JB5 with α =0.60
JB5Test
JB5Test
Perfect Bond, α = 0.65, No Shrinkage, Crack limit = 2mm
Perfect Bond, α = 0.65, No Shrinkag, Crack limit = 5mm
Perfect Bond, α = 0.60, No Shrinkag, Crack limit = 2mm
Perfect Bond, α = 0.65, No Shrinkag, Crack limit = 10mm

900 800

800 700

700
600

600
Centre Point Load (kN)

Centre Point Load (kN)

500

500
400
400

300
300

200
200

100 100

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Midspan Displacement (mm) Midspan Displacement (mm)

Figure 5.23 Perfect bond analysis for JB5 Figure 5.24 Perfect bond analysis for JB5
with α = 0.65 with α = 0.60
140
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Comparison between Calculated Strains and Gauge Readings of JB1 at 850 kN


Horizontal strains of Zurich gauge at 100 mm from bottom
Strains of gauges on longitudinal bars at 65mm from bottom
Effective strain in longitudinal reinforcement based on CSA23.3 (from Figure 4.29)
Average strains in longitudinal reinforcement elements at 65mm from bottom (VecTor2 analysis)
Average of horizontal strains in concrete elements at 0 to 130 mm from bottom (VecTor2 analysis)
6

5
Strain (mm/m)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from west end (m)

Figure 5.25 Comparison between calculated strains and gauge readings of JB1 at 850kN

Comparison between Calculated Strains and Gauge Readings of JB5 at 630 kN


Horizontal strains of Zurich gauge at 100 mm from bottom
Strains of gauges on longitudinal bars at 65mm from bottom
Effective strain in longitudinal reinforcement based on CSA23.3 standard (from Figure 4.30)
Average strains in longitudinal reinforcement elements at 65mm from bottom (VecTor2 analysis)
Average of horizontal strains in concrete elements at 0 to 130 mm from bottom (VecTor2 analysis)
6

5 -3
Average of horizontal concrete strains in hashed area = 2.9 x 10
-3
Average of logitudinal reinforcement strains in hashed area = 1.6 x 10
Strain (mm/m)

4 Effective strain in longitudinal reinforcement at cut-off = 1.7 x 10


-3

0
Cut-off Cut-off
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from west end (m)
Figure 5.26 Comparison between calculated strains and gauge readings of JB5 at 630kN

Thus α = 0.65 and CL = 10 mm are the best for JB1 and α = 0.60 and CL = 2 mm for
JB5. The only difference between JB5 and JB1 is whether cutoffs of the longitudinal
reinforcement exist or not. Figures 5.25 and 5.26 show comparisons between the
calculated strains in VecTor2 analyses and the gauge readings in the tests at 850 kN for
JB1 and 630 kN for JB5. In the analysis the specimens are preloaded to 900 kN for
JB1 and 700 kN for JB5, and then unloaded to 850 kN for JB1 and 630 kN for JB5 to
141
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

compare the stains measured at the final stage of Zurich readings shown in Figures
4.29 and 4.30. Effective strains in longitudinal reinforcement based on CSA A23.3
standard are also shown for reference.

For both specimens, the brown lines of the average strains in longitudinal
reinforcement (truss elements) at 65 mm from bottom are very close to the blue lines
of horizontal strains in concrete elements in contact with the truss elements except near
cutoff points in JB5. High concentration of horizontal strains in the concrete is
predicted at the cutoff, and the average strain in the hashed area is 2.9 × 10-3. This is
equivalent to the Zurich reading at the cutoff (4.7m from west end), and is 1.8 times
the average steel strains in the hashed area and 1.7 times the effective strain based on
CSA A23.3. It is likely that the strain concentrations at the cutoffs make the
differences in α and CL between JB1 and JB5.

5.2.2 Analysis of the specimens with reduced bond reinforcement

The rest of the six specimens with non-normal-deformed reinforcement are analyzed
using the perfect bond model with adjustment of the tension stiffening factor α. The
adjustment are made based on the ratios of α (rα) for plain (stripped) and half-
deformed bars against that for the normal deformed bar. The ratio of α for
stripped/plain US #3 bar has not been derived directly from the tension stiffening test,
but is assumed to be the same as that for the stripped 25M bar in Table 5.3. The
tension stiffening factor α for each specimen is adjusted by multiplying α for the
normal-deformed specimen (JB1 or JB5) by the ratio of α for member rα_ave. rα_ave is
assumed to be simply expressed as the average of rα for longitudinal bars (rα_h) and rα
for stirrups (rα_v) as shown in Table 5.5. Cracking stress of 2.53 MPa for JB1 and JB5
is corrected for the other specimens in proportion to the modulus of rupture for each
specimen in Table 4.5.
142
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Table 5.5 Parameters for the VecTor2 analysis of JB series specimens

JB1- JB2- JB3- JB4- JB5- JB6- JB7- JB8-


Specimen
N/D/D N/D/P N/P/P N/H/P C/D/D C/D/P C/P/P N/H/P
Ratio of α for longitudinal bars ; r α_h 1.0 1.0 0.875 0.95 1.0 1.0 0.875 0.95
Ratio of α for stirrups ; r α_v 1.0 0.875 0.875 0.875 1.0 0.875 0.875 0.875
Ratio of α for member ; r α_ave = (r α_h + r α_v )/2 1.0 0.938 0.875 0.913 1.0 0.938 0.875 0.913
α for no-cut-off series ; α = 0.65 x r α_ave 0.65 0.609 0.569 0.593 – – – –
α for cut-off series ; α = 0.60 x r α_ave – – – – 0.60 0.563 0.525 0.548
Compressive strength of concrete (MPa) 37.2 35.2 35.3 30.8 37.2 35.2 35.3 30.8
Modulus of rapture of concrete (MPa) 5.60 5.58 5.65 5.49 5.60 5.58 5.65 5.49
Cracking stress ; f cr (MPa) 2.53 2.52 2.55 2.48 2.53 2.52 2.55 2.48
Reduced cracking stress for analysis ; α x f cr (MPa) 1.64 1.54 1.45 1.47 1.52 1.42 1.34 1.36
Cross sectional area of stirrups ; Av (mm2) 142.5 138.8 138.8 138.8 142.5 138.8 138.8 138.8
Crack limit for crack width check ; CL (mm) 10 10 10 10 2 2 2 2

The cross sectional area of the stripped US#3 bar is reduced to 97.3% (69.4 mm2) of
the original area based on the degradation ratio of yielding loads in the tension tests of
the bars. Mechanical properties of stripped or half-deformed 25M bars are kept the
same as the original deformed 25M bar since no distinct difference in yield stress was
observed in the tension stiffening test in Chapter 3. Crack limits for the crack width
check are kept the same as those for JB1 and JB5, or 10 mm for no-cutoff specimens
and 2 mm for cutoff specimens.

Comparison between the perfect bond analysis and the test results are shown in Table
5.6 and in Figures 5.27 to 5.32. The analysis curves fit well to the test results until the
stripped stirrups yield extensively. The peak loads in the analysis agree well with the
test results and are 98.4 % of those for the test on average except JB6-C/D/P. Thus the
perfect bond analysis based on the reduced α listed in Table 5.5 can predict correctly
the peak load and stiffness of the beam specimens with non-normal-deformed
reinforcement. The crack spacings are automatically calculated in the VecTor2
analyses. Although the calculated values shown in Table 5.6 are higher than the
observed ones in the tests, all the ratios are around 180%. Thus the influence of bond
degradation on the crack spacing can be simulated with the reduced α to some extent.
143
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Table 5.6 Results of the perfect bond analysis for JB series specimens

JB1- JB2- JB3- JB4- JB5- JB6- JB7- JB8-


Specimen
N/D/D N/D/P N/P/P N/H/P C/D/D C/D/P C/P/P N/H/P

Peak load in the perfect bond analysis of VecTor2 (kN) 899 843 824 814 704 676 599 691
Peak load in test (kN) 913 873 825 841 726 629 593 696
Peak load in Analysis / Peak load in test 98.5% 96.6% 99.9% 96.8% 97.0% 107% 101% 99.3%
Crack spacing calculated at mid-depth of critical section 591 620 611 627 681 679 801 646
Observed value of crack spacing in test 320 360 330 350 370 420 470 350
Crack spacing in Analysis / observed value in test 185% 172% 185% 179% 184% 162% 170% 185%

1000 1000

900
JB2-N/D/P 900
JB3-N/P/P
800 800

700 700

Centre Point Load (kN)


Centre Point Load (kN)

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

JB2 Test JB3 Test


200 200

100
Perfect Bond, α = 0.609, 100
Perfect Bond, α = 0.569,
Crack limit = 10mm Crack limit = 10mm
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Midspan Displacement (mm) Midspan Displacement (mm)

Figure 5.27 Perfect bond analysis for JB2 Figure 5.28 Perfect bond analysis for JB3

1000 800

900
JB4-N/H/P JB6-C/D/P
700

800
600
700
Centre Point Load (kN)
Centre Point Load (kN)

500
600

500 400

400
300

300

JB4 Test
200 JB6Test
200

Perfect Bond, α = 0.593, 100 Perfect Bond, α = 0.563,


100
Crack limit = 10mm Crack limit = 2mm

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Midspan Displacement (mm) Midspan Displacement (mm)

Figure 5.29 Perfect bond analysis for JB4 Figure 5.30 Perfect bond analysis for JB6
144
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

y y
800 800

JB7-C/P/P JB8-C/H/P
700 700

600 600

Centre Point Load (kN)


Centre Point Load (kN)

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 JB7Test 200 JB8Test

100 Perfect Bond, α = 0.525, 100 Perfect Bond, α = 0.548,


Crack limit = 2mm Crack limit = 2mm

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Midspan Displacement (mm) Midspan Displacement (mm)

Figure 5.31 Perfect bond analysis for JB7 Figure 5.32 Perfect bond analysis for JB8

Figure 5.33 Locations of diagonal cracks and stirrups for JB5 and JB6
(Red line: effective stirrups for diagonal cracks)

The peak load in the analysis of JB6 is 107% of the test result. The reason why the
peak load of the JB6 test is lower than the analysis seems to be the location of the
diagonal crack. As shown in Figure 5.33, the diagonal crack in JB5 developed close to
the cutoff point, while that in JB6 it developed at about 100 mm away from the cutoff
at a location, where a pair of strain gauges was placed on one of the longitudinal bars.
Two stirrups effective for each diagonal crack are located at both the upper and lower
half of it in JB5, but they are only at upper half of it in JB6. This results in reducing
the effectiveness of stirrups for the diagonal crack of JB6 and probably leads to the
145
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

lower peak load. Since the angle of the diagonal cracks at cutoff points are relatively
high as observed in Chapter 4, a small difference in the locations of the diagonal cracks
can make a large difference in the effectiveness of stirrups. This indicates that spacing
of stirrups near cutoff points should be kept sufficiently small, say about a quarter of
the effective shear depth dv.

5.3 Modifications of the general method for shear design in CSA


A23.3-04

Based on the current general method for shear design in the CSA A23.3-04 standard,
the non-factored shear resistance Vr for non-prestressed concrete beams without axial
load can be computed from the following equations assuming nominal resistances
(material resistance factors = 1.0):

Vr = Vc + Vs (5.3.1)
Vc = β f c ' bw d v (5.3.2)
Vs = Av f y d v cot θ s (5.3.3)

0.40 1300
β= ⋅ (5.3.4)
(1 + 1500 ε x ) (1000 + s ze )

ε x = (M _ total / d v + V_ total ) (2 E s As ) (5.3.5)


θ = 29° + 7000 ε x (5.3.6)
where f c ' ; compressive strength of concrete, bw; minimum effective web width (= 450
mm), dv; effective shear depth, Av; area of stirrup (= 143 mm2), fy; yield stress of stirrup
(= 494 MPa), s; spacing of stirrup (= 300 mm), s ze ; equivalent crack spacing, M_total ;
moment due to loads and self-weight, Vf ; shear force due to loads and self-weight, Es;
modulus of elasticity of longitudinal reinforcement, and As; area of longitudinal
reinforcement on the flexural tension side.
146
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

For the JB series specimens which contained about 140% of the CSA minimum
transverse reinforcement required by Av = 0.06 f c ' bw s f y (= 102 mm2), the equivalent
crack spacing parameter s ze in Equation (5.3.4) can be taken as equal to 300 mm.

The predicted shear failure loads, P, at the critical section of each specimen based on
the current CSA code are shown in Table 5.7. Yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcement for JB5 and JB7 is ignored here. The predicted shear failure loads based
on this current code are 881 kN for JB1-N/D/D and 846 kN for JB5-C/D/D, which are
96.5% and 117% of the experimental failure loads. The CSA predicted failure loads
for the cutoff specimens are 126% of the experimental failure loads on average and are
thus too high. In addition, the effect of the bond degradation of reinforcement on the
failure load cannot be taken into account in the current code. In the following section,
modifications of the general method for shear design are proposed to account for the
detrimental effects of bar cutoffs and bond deterioration.

Table 5.7 Predicted loads for shear failure based on the current CSA code
JB1- JB2- JB3- JB4- JB5- JB6- JB7- JB8-
Specimen
N/D/D N/D/P N/P/P N/H/P C/D/D C/D/P C/P/P N/H/P
Location d v from loading plate Cut-off point
Distance from support m 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
d mm 653 653 653 653 685 685 685 685
d v mm 587 587 587 587 617 617 617 617
Development length of longitudinal bar : ℓ d mm 855 879 1756 1137 855 879 1756 1137
Point load at predicted failure : P kN 881 865 865 842 846 830 748 809
Failure load at test : P test kN 913 873 825 841 726 629 593 696
P / P test 96.5% 99.0% 105% 100% 117% 132% 126% 116%
Moment due to P and selfweight : M _total kN 902 886 886 863 440 432 391 422
Shear force due to P and selfweight : V _total kN 446 438 438 427 437 429 388 418
ε x x10-3 1.007 0.988 0.989 0.963 1.168 1.147 1.402 1.119
θ deg 36.0 35.9 35.9 35.7 37.2 37.0 38.8 36.8
β 0.159 0.161 0.161 0.164 0.145 0.147 0.129 0.149
V c kN 257 253 253 240 246 242 212 230
V s kN 189 185 185 187 191 187 175 188
Calculated shear resistance V r =V c + V s kN 446 438 438 427 437 429 388 418
Surplus shear capacity V r – V _total kN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
Effective area of longitudinal bars : A s mm 5000 5000 5000 5000 2500 2500 1851 2500
Tension at effective yielding of longitudinal bars: F lty kN 2300 2300 2300 2300 1150 1150 851 1150
Tension of longitudinal bars : F lt kN 2020 1985 1986 1933 1164 1146 1008 1117
-3
Effective strain in longitudinal bars : ε s x10 2.050 2.016 2.017 1.963 2.364 2.327 2.764 2.267
Surplus tension capacity of longitunal bars : F lty – F lt kN 280 315 314 367 -14 4 -156 33
147
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

5.3.1 Modification of crack spacing parameter in size effect term for β

In Equation (5.3.4), 1300 /(1000 + s ze ) is the size effect correction for the shear
strength of a member without stirrups. sze is the equivalent crack spacing parameter.
Although sze should be assigned a constant value of 300 mm for the entire JB series
specimens according to the current code, it will be computed from the average spacing
of the diagonal cracks with the inclination of θ, smθ, which is used in the modified
compression field theory (MCFT).

The spacing of the inclined cracks will depend on the crack control characteristics of
both the longitudinal and the transverse reinforcement. It is suggested in the MCFT
that the average spacing of the diagonal cracks can be taken as
⎛ sin θ cosθ ⎞
s mθ = 1 ⎜⎜ + ⎟⎟ (5.3.7)
⎝ s mx s mv ⎠
where smx and smv are the crack spacings indicative of the crack control characteristics
of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, respectively. These crack spacings
can be estimated from the following equations:

⎛ s ⎞ d
smx = 2 ⎜ c x + x ⎟ + 0.25k1x bx (5.3.8)
⎝ 10 ⎠ ρx

⎛ s ⎞ d
smv = 2 ⎜ cv + ⎟ + 0.25k1 y bv (5.3.9)
⎝ 10 ⎠ ρv
where ρ x =As/Ac and ρ v =Av/(bw s) , and k1x and k1v are 0.4 for normal-deformed bar or
0.8 for normal plain bar, and cx, cv, sx, dbx and dbv are illustrated in Figure 5.34.

For members with no transverse reinforcement, smx will equal smθ sin θ , that is the
longitudinal component of smθ. In this study, assuming that the equivalent crack
spacing parameter for members with transverse reinforcement can be expressed in a
similar way, s z is defined as follows;
s z = s mθ sin θ (5.3.10).
148
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

dbv dbv

375

375
cv cv
CL CL

cx
sx cx
375

375
dbx sx
dbx

225 225 225 225


CL CL
Cross section of no-cut-off region Cross section of cut-off region

Figure 5.34 Parameters for the equations of crack spacings

Then sze is redefined here as


sz
s ze = 300 ⋅ (5.3.11)
s z _ JB1

where sz_JB1 is sz for JB1. s ze for JB1 equals 300 mm as the default value for the
normal-deformed and no-cutoff member.

Thus the bond characteristics of the reinforcement and the geometrical changes, such
as cx, sx, dbx and ρx, in the cross sections due to cutoff can be incorporated into the
crack spacings. The values of k1x and k1v for the stripped and half-deformed bars are
calculated by means of linear interpolation based on the ratios of the tension stiffening
factors, rα, listed in Table 5.3, assuming that rα for the normal plain (not stripped but
originally plain) bar is 0.7. The parameters in Equations (5.3.8) and (5.3.9) and the
calculated values of smx and smv for the entire JB series are shown in Table 5.8.
149
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Table 5.8 Crack spacings in longitudinal and transverse directions for JB series
Specimen JB1- JB2- JB3- JB4- JB5- JB6- JB7- JB8-
N/D/D N/D/P N/P/P N/H/P C/D/D C/D/P C/P/P N/H/P
c x (mm) 232 232 232 232 297 297 297 297
s x (mm) 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
d bx (mm) 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2
ρx 1.48% 1.48% 1.48% 1.48% 0.741% 0.741% 0.741% 0.741%
k 1x 0.40 0.40 0.567 0.467 0.40 0.40 0.567 0.467
2(c x +s x /10) (mm) 481 481 481 481 611 611 611 611
0.25k 1x d bx / ρ x (mm) 170 170 241 198 340 340 482 397
s mx (mm) 651 651 722 679 951 951 1093 1008
c v (mm) 173 173 173 173 173 173 173 173
s (mm) 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
d bv (mm) 9.53 9.40 9.40 9.40 9.53 9.40 9.40 9.40
ρv 0.106% 0.103% 0.103% 0.103% 0.106% 0.103% 0.103% 0.103%
k 1v 0.40 0.567 0.567 0.567 0.40 0.567 0.567 0.567
2(c v +s/10) (mm) 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405
0.25k 1v d bv / ρ v (mm) 902 1295 1295 1295 902 1295 1295 1295
s mv (mm) 1307 1700 1700 1700 1307 1700 1700 1700

Then smθ is computed from Equations (5.3.6) and (5.3.7) at the critical section. Then
sze is calculated from Equations (5.3.10) and (5.3.11). By substituting it to Equation
(5.3.4), β is obtained. The values of these parameters and the predicted loads of shear
failure, P, at the critical section of each specimen are shown in Table 5.9. Yielding of
the longitudinal reinforcement for JB7 is ignored here. The development length of the
normal deformed bar is calculated from CSA A-23.3 12.2.3 and those for half-
deformed and stripped bars are increased in inverse proportion to the degradation ratio
of the maximum bond stresses observed in the tension stiffening tests described in
Chapter 3.

Since the ratio of the predicted failure load to the test result, P / P_test is the lowest for
JB1 among the no-cutoff specimens, the effect of the bond degradation on the decrease
of the failure load cannot be fully evaluated. This is probably because the changes in
crack spacings due to bond degradation of reinforcement are too small to be treated as
the size effect.
150
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Table 5.9 Predicted loads for shear failure based on the modified size effect term for β
JB1- JB2- JB3- JB4- JB5- JB6- JB7- JB8-
Specimen
N/D/D N/D/P N/P/P N/H/P C/D/D C/D/P C/P/P N/H/P
Location d v from loading plate Cut-off point
Distance from support m 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
d mm 653 653 653 653 685 685 685 685
d v mm 587 587 587 587 617 617 617 617
Development length of longitudinal bar : ℓ d mm 855 879 1756 1137 855 879 1756 1137
Point load at predicted failure : P kN 881 857 851 832 828 802 716 779
Failure load at test : P test kN 913 873 825 841 726 629 593 696
P / P test 96.5% 98.1% 103% 98.9% 114% 127% 121% 112%
Moment due to P and selfweight : M _total kN 902 878 873 854 431 418 375 407
Shear force due to P and selfweight : V _total kN 446 434 431 422 427 414 371 403
ε x x10-3 1.007 0.979 0.973 0.952 1.144 1.109 1.343 1.079
θ = 29 + 7000 ε x deg 36.0 35.9 35.8 35.7 37.0 36.8 38.4 36.6
s θ mm 657 726 777 748 804 909 972 940
s z = s θ · sinθ mm 387 426 454 436 484 544 603 560
s ze = 300 · s z / s z_ JB1 mm 300 330 353 339 376 422 468 435
0 .40 1300
β = ⋅ 0.159 0.158 0.156 0.160 0.139 0.137 0.117 0.138
(1 + 1500 ε x ) (1000 + s ze )
V c kN 257 248 245 235 236 226 194 213
V s kN 189 186 186 187 192 189 178 190
Calculated shear resistance V r =V c + V s kN 446 434 431 422 427 414 371 403
Surplus shear capacity V r – V _total kN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
Effective area of longitudinal bars : A s mm 5000 5000 5000 5000 2500 2500 1851 2500
Tension at effective yielding of longitudinal bars: F lty kN 2300 2300 2300 2300 1150 1150 851 1150
Tension of longitudinal bars : F lt kN 2020 1967 1955 1911 1139 1107 965 1075
-3
Effective strain in longitudinal bars : ε s x10 2.050 1.997 1.985 1.940 2.313 2.247 2.645 2.183
Surplus tension capacity of longitunal bars : F lty – F lt kN 280 333 345 389 11 43 -113 75

As for the cutoff specimens, the predicted failure load for JB5, 828 kN, is lower than
the failure load of 846 kN based on the original CSA A23.3-04, but is still much higher
than the test result. In the previous section 5.2.1, it was noted that strain
concentrations in the longitudinal reinforcement at cutoffs would make differences in
the peak load in the tests as well as the parameter for the VecTor2 analysis. Thus the
strain concentration factor, κε, is introduced for the cutoff specimens.

As a result, Equations (5.3.4) and (5.3.6) can be taken as


0.40 1300
β= ⋅ (5.3.12)
(1 + 1500 κ ε ε x ) (1000 + s ze )

θ = 29° + 7000 κ ε ε x (5.3.13).


151
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Table 5.10 Predicted failure loads for cutoff series considering strain concentration
JB5- JB6- JB7- JB8-
Specimen
C/D/D C/D/P C/P/P N/H/P
Location Cut-off point
Distance from support m 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
d mm 685 685 685 685
d v mm 617 617 617 617
Development length of longitudinal bar : ℓ d mm 855 879 1756 1137
Point load at predicted failure : P kN 698 678 598 660
Failure load at test : P test kN 726 629 593 696
P / P test 96.2% 108% 101% 94.9%
Moment due to P and selfweight : M _total kN 366 356 316 347
Shear force due to P and selfweight : V _total kN 363 352 313 344
Strain concentration factor : κ ε 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
κ ε ·ε x x10-3 1.554 1.511 1.812 1.473
θ = 29 + 7000 κ ε ε x deg 39.9 39.6 41.7 39.3
s θ mm 798 899 962 931
s z = s θ · sinθ mm 508 567 635 585
s ze = 300 · s z / s z_ JB1 mm 395 440 493 454
0.40 1300
β = ⋅ 0.112 0.111 0.094 0.111
(1 + 1500 κ ε ε x ) (1000 + s ze )
V c kN 189 182 154 172
V s kN 173 170 158 172
Calculated shear resistance V r =V c + V s kN 363 352 313 344
Surplus shear capacity V r – V _total kN 0 0 0 0
2
Effective area of longitudinal bars : A s mm 2500 2500 1851 2500
Tension at effective yielding of longitudinal bars: F lty kN 1150 1150 851 1150
Tension of longitudinal bars : F lt kN 924 901 775 878
-3
Effective strain in longitudinal bars : ε s x10 1.877 1.829 2.127 1.783
Surplus tension capacity of longitunal bars : F lty – F lt kN 226 249 76 272

As shown in Table 5.10, κε = 1.6 gives the equivalent values of P / P_test for both JB1
and JB5. However the predicted failure load for JB7-C/P/P is still high compared to
the failure load of JB6, which fails at lower load than the prediction in the VecTor2
analysis.
152
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

5.3.2 Modification based on equation for aggregate interlock at cracks

In order to incorporate the crack spacing parameter into Equation (5.3.4) more directly,
let’s get back to the derivation of Equation (5.3.4) (Bentz and Collins (2006) and Bentz,
Vecchio and Collins (2006)). In the MCFT, the maximum aggregate interlock (vci,
MPa) which may be resisted for a given crack width (w, mm) and aggregate size (ag,
mm) can be taken as

0.18 f c '
vci = (5.3.14).
24
0.31 + ⋅w
(16 + a g )

The crack width, w, can be taken as the product of the principal tensile strain, ε1, and
the average spacing of the diagonal cracks, smθ. Thus
w = sθ ⋅ ε 1 (5.3.15).

To skip iterative steps necessary in the MCFT, the next linear function of εx for an
equivalent crack spacing (sze) of 300 mm is introduced as a simplified equation for the
nonlinear relationship between crack width and longitudinal strain for the general
method of shear design in CSA A23.3-04:
w = 0.2 + 1000ε x ( s ze = 300 mm) (5.3.16).

The aggregate size, ag , is fixed to 19 mm for the sections which are containing at least
the minimum transverse reinforcement in CSA A23.3-04. By substituting Equation
(5.3.16) and ag = 19 into Equation (5.3.14), the following is obtained for the shear
strength of a member without stirrups and an equivalent crack spacing sze = 300 mm:

0.18 f c '
vci =
0.31 + 0.69 ⋅ (0.2 + 1000ε x )
(5.3.17).
0.40
= ⋅ fc '
(1 + 1500 ε x )

Thus 0.40 /(1 + 1500 ε x ) in Equation (5.3.4) has been derived.


153
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Equation (5.3.16) is applicable only for s ze = 300 mm, but crack width is directly
proportional to crack spacing based on Equation (5.3.15). Therefore in this section it is
assumed that Equation (5.3.16) can be extended for crack spacings varied from 300
mm due to bond degradation of reinforcement by expressing the following:
w = (0.2 + 1000ε x ) ⋅ s ze 300 (5.3.18).

Then the strain concentration factor, κε , is introduced again to εx for the cutoff
members, and the equivalent crack spacing sze is also redefined again as (5.3.8) so that
s ze for JB1 equals 300 as the default value for the normal-deformed and no-cutoff
member. The crack width, w, can be taken as
w = (0.2 + 1000 κ ε ε x ) ⋅ s z s z _ JB1 (5.3.19).

By substituting this to Equation (5.3.14) with remaining ag = 19, the shear strength of a
member without stirrups for crack spacings varied from 300 mm due to bond
degradation of reinforcement and cutoffs of longitudinal bars can be taken as
vci = β fc ' (5.3.20)
0.18
β= (5.3.21).
0.31 + 0.69 ⋅ (0.2 + 1000 κ ε ε x ) ⋅ s z s z _ JB1

In the same way as the last section, smθ is computed from Equations (5.3.6) and (5.3.7)
at the critical section of each specimen using the values of smx and smv in Table 5.8, and
then sze is calculated from Equations (5.3.10) and (5.3.11). By substituting it to
Equation (5.3.21), β is obtained. For the cutoff specimens, the strain concentration
factor, κε , is set to 1.4 so that the ratio of the predicted loads of shear failure to the
peak load at test, P / P_test, for JB5-C/D/D is equivalent to that for JB1-N/D/D. The
results of the calculation are shown in Table 5.11.
154
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Table 5.11 Predicted failure loads based on the modified aggregate interlock equation

JB1- JB2- JB3- JB4- JB5- JB6- JB7- JB8-


Specimen
N/D/D N/D/P N/P/P N/H/P C/D/D C/D/P C/P/P N/H/P
Location d v from loading plate Cut-off point
Point load at predicted failure : P kN 879 839 824 811 698 665 580 645
Failure load at test : P test kN 913 873 825 841 726 629 593 696
P / P test 96.2% 96.1% 99.8% 96.5% 96.1% 106% 97.8% 92.7%
Moment due to P and selfweight : M _total kN 900 860 845 833 366 349 307 340
Shear force due to P and selfweight : V _total kN 445 425 417 411 362 346 303 336
Strain concentration factor : κ ε 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
-3
κ ε ·ε x x10 1.004 0.959 0.942 0.929 1.359 1.297 1.538 1.261
θ = 29 + 7000 κ ε ε x deg 36.0 35.7 35.6 35.5 38.5 38.1 39.8 37.8
s θ mm 657 728 778 750 798 900 964 932
s z = s θ · sinθ mm 386 425 453 435 497 555 617 571
s ze = 300 · s z / s z_JB1 mm 300 330 352 338 386 431 479 444
0.18
β= 0.158 0.152 0.146 0.152 0.107 0.101 0.081 0.100
0.31 + 0.69 ⋅ (0.2 + 1000 κ ε ε x ) ⋅ s z s z _ JB1
V c kN 255 238 230 223 181 166 134 155
V s kN 190 187 187 188 182 180 169 181
Calculated shear resistance V r =V c + V s kN 445 425 417 411 362 346 303 336
Surplus shear capacity V r – V _total kN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
Effective area of longitudinal bars : A s mm 5000 5000 5000 5000 2500 2500 1851 2500
Tension at effective yielding of longitudinal bars: F lty kN 2300 2300 2300 2300 1150 1150 851 1150
Tension of longitudinal bars : F lt kN 2014 1926 1891 1863 935 893 761 867
-3
Effective strain in longitudinal bars : ε s x10 2.044 1.955 1.920 1.892 1.899 1.814 2.086 1.761
Surplus tension capacity of longitunal bars : F lty – F lt kN 286 374 409 437 215 257 91 283

The predicted failure loads agree well with the test results except for JB6-C/D/P and
JB8-C/H/P. This matches the fact that JB6-C/D/P failed at a lower load than the
prediction in the VecTor2 analysis, and JB8-C/H/P failed at relatively high loads since
a tied arch partially formed in JB8-C/H/P. The P / P_test values also agree with the
results of the VecTor2 analysis listed in Table 5.6 except for JB8-C/H/P. This is
because the effect of a tied arch on the peak load can be accounted for in the VecTor2
analysis, but not in the equations here. It should be out of the range covered in the
design code and be treated as an additional margin of safety.
155
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

5.3.3 Simplified modification based on the results in 5.3.2

Considering that the peak test load is relatively high for JB8 and low for JB6, the
predictions of the failure loads based on Equation (5.3.21) coincide rather well with the
test results. However, it is difficult to calculate the crack spacing parameters, smx, smv,
smθ, sz and sze. Equation (5.3.21) is simplified in this section.

The ratios of β, rβ, for the no-cutoff series specimens at the constant strain of 0.001 for
εx are shown in Table 5.12 and compared with the ratios of α for members, rα_ave, listed
in Table 5.5. Although rα_ave is simply expressed as the average of the ratio of α for
longitudinal bars (rα_h) and that for stirrups (rα_v), the values of rβ are almost identical
to the corresponding rα_ave. In the MCFT, the following relationships must be also
satisfied for the equilibrium when the stirrups yield:
0.33 α ⋅ cot θ
vci = ⋅ fc ' (5.3.22).
1 + 500 ε 1

As shown in this equation, vci is in proportion to the tension stiffening factor, α, and
this is consistent with the relationships between rα_ave and rβ in Table 5.12.

Table 5.12 Comparison between rations of β and tension stiffening factor α

Specimen JB1- JB2- JB3- JB4-


N/D/D N/D/P N/P/P N/H/P
-3
ε x x10 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.18
β= 0.159 0.148 0.141 0.145
0.31 + 0.69 ⋅ (0.2 + 1000ε x ) ⋅ s z s z _ JB1
Ratio of β ; r β 1.0 0.930 0.885 0.911
Ratio of tension stiffening factor α for member ; r α_ave 1.0 0.938 0.875 0.913

Thus β can be expressed as the product of rα_ave and β_JB (β_JB1 is β for JB1), and
Equation (5.3.21) can be simplified to
156
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

β = β _ JB1 ⋅ rα _ ave
0.18 ⋅ rα _ ave
=
0.31 + 0.69 ⋅ (0.2 + 1000 κ ε ε x ) ⋅ s z _ JB1 s z _ JB1

0.40 ⋅ rα _ ave
= (5.3.23).
(1 + 1500 κ ε ε x )

In the same way as the previous sections, the predicted failure loads at the critical
section of the entire JB series specimens are calculated as shown in Table 5.13. For the
cutoff specimens, the strain concentration factor, κε , is set to 1.7 so that P / P_test for
JB5-C/D/D is equivalent to that for JB1-N/D/D. This value matches the strain
concentration ratio observed in both the VecTor2 analysis and the Zurich reading at the
cutoff in JB5 test (see Figure 5.26). All of the failure loads predicted by simplified
Equation (5.3.23) agree well with those by Equation (5.3.21) listed in Table 5.11.

Table 5.13 Predicted failure loads based on the simplified modification of β


JB1- JB2- JB3- JB4- JB5- JB6- JB7- JB8-
Specimen
N/D/D N/D/P N/P/P N/H/P C/D/D C/D/P C/P/P N/H/P
Location d v from loading plate Cut-off point
Point load at predicted failure : P kN 881 843 820 812 700 672 585 650
Failure load at test : P test kN 913 873 825 841 726 629 593 696
P / P test 96.5% 96.5% 99.4% 96.6% 96.4% 107% 98.7% 93.4%
Moment due to P and selfweight : M _total kN 902 864 842 834 367 353 310 342
Shear force due to P and selfweight : V _total kN 446 427 416 412 363 349 306 339
Strain concentration factor : κ ε 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
κ ε ·ε x x10-3 1.007 0.964 0.939 0.930 1.654 1.591 1.885 1.543
θ = 29 + 7000 κ ε ε x deg 36.0 35.7 35.6 35.5 40.6 40.1 42.2 39.8
Ratio of α for member ; r α_ave 1.0 0.938 0.875 0.913 1.0 0.938 0.875 0.913
0.40 ⋅ rα _ ave
β = 0.159 0.153 0.145 0.152 0.115 0.111 0.091 0.110
(1 + 1500 κ α ε x )
V c kN 257 240 228 224 194 182 151 170
V s kN 189 186 188 188 169 167 155 169
Calculated shear resistance V r =V c + V s kN 446 427 416 412 363 349 306 339
Surplus shear capacity V r – V _total kN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
Effective area of longitudinal bars : A s mm 5000 5000 5000 5000 2500 2500 1851 2500
Tension at effective yielding of longitudinal bars: F lty kN 2300 2300 2300 2300 1150 1150 851 1150
Tension of longitudinal bars : F lt kN 2020 1935 1884 1865 921 888 754 860
-3
Effective strain in longitudinal bars : ε s x10 2.050 1.964 1.913 1.893 1.870 1.803 2.069 1.747
Surplus tension capacity of longitunal bars : F lty – F lt kN 280 365 416 435 229 262 97 290
157
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Distribution of shear force and shear resistance at failure of JB5


Centre Point Load : P=700 kN
700
d v from support plate d v /2 d v /2
600
Shear resistance : V r
Shear (kN) 500
400
300 Shear force : V _total

200
100
0 cut-off
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
Distance from support (m)

Distribution of tension force in longitudinal reinforcement at failure of JB5


Centre Point Load : P=700 kN
3000

2500
Tension force (kN)

Tension at effective yielding


2000 of longitudinal bars : F lty
1500

1000
Demand on longitudinal bars
500 due to moment and shear : F lt
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
Distance from support (m)

Figure 5.35 Distributions of shear resistance and tension in longitudinal bars for JB5

The distributions of applied shear force and shear resistance and the distributions of
tension force in the longitudinal reinforcement at the predicted failure loads are shown
in Figure 5.35 for JB5-C/D/D. For the cutoff specimens, the strain concentration factor
κε = 1.7 is applied to the region within the distance of dv/2 from the cutoff locations
considering the dispersion of the centre location of the diagonal crack at cutoff. It
should be noted that the point of dv/2 outward from the cutoff coincides with the point
of dv inward from the support for the cutoff specimens. The critical sections for shear
are between 1.0 to 1.31 m from the support. This is consistent with the fact that the
centre of the diagonal crack is at 1.12 m from the support at the test.
158
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Distribution of shear force and shear resistance at failure of JB3


Centre Point Load : P=820 kN
700
600
Shear (kN)
500 Shear resistance : V r

400 Shear force : V _total


300
200
100
0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
Distance from support (m)

Distribution of tension force in longitudinal reinforcement at failure of JB3


Centre Point Load : P=820 kN
3000

2500 Tension at effective yielding of longitudinal bars : F lty


Tension force (kN)

2000 M _total = M cr
Cracked area in test
1500
Demand on longitudinal bars
1000 due to moment and shear : F lt

500

0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
Distance from support (m)

Figure 5.36 Distributions of shear resistance and tension in longitudinal bars for JB3

As for the no-cutoff specimen with plain reinforcement, JB3-N/P/P, the critical sections
for shear are at both 0.66 m (dv from the edge of the support plate) and 2.0 m (dv from
the edge of the loading plate) from the support, and the surplus shear capacity remains
quite low between these two points (see Figure 5.36). This indicates that the shear
failure can occur almost all over the length except the neighbourhoods of the loading
plate and support plate. Since the surplus tension capacity of the longitudinal
reinforcement at the anchor check point is only 39 kN, the peak load for JB3 are close
to the load for the break of bond at the support. This might lead to the slightly high
percentage of P / P_test (=99.4 %). The anchor check point is (h - d)·cotθ from the edge
159
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

of the support plate (= 0.22 m from the support) based on CSA A23.3-04, and the
effective area of the longitudinal reinforcement is reduced according to the
insufficiency of the development length.

The readings of strain gauges on the longitudinal reinforcement at 65 mm from the


bottom face of the beam are compared with two calculated longitudinal strains at the
predicted failure load P = 820 kN. As shown in Figure 5.37, the red line represents the
calculated effective strains in the longitudinal reinforcement with the reduction of the
cross-sectional area in inverse proportion to the insufficiency ratio of the development
length at each point. The blue line represents the calculated strains based on the actual
cross-sectional area without reduction. The reading of the strain gauge at 0.1 m from
the support (0.4 m from west end) is between the two lines of the calculated strains.
This also proves that the anchorage of the longitudinal reinforcement is close to failing
at the peak load for JB3.

Comparison between calculated and mesured longitudinal strains of JB3 at 820 kN


Calculated effective strain in longitudinal bars with reduction of As according to insufficiency of development length
Calculated strain in longitudinal bars without reduction of As according to insufficiency of development length
Readings of strain gauges on longitudinal bars at 65mm from bottom
3.000

Yield strain of longitudinal reinforcements


2.500
Strain (mm/m)

2.000

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Distance from west end (m)


Figure 5.37 Comparison of calculated and measured longitudinal strain of JB3 at 820 kN
160
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Distribution of shear force and shear resistance at failure of JB7


Centre Point Load : P=568 kN
700
d v from support plate d v /2 d v /2
600
Shear (kN) 500 Shear resistance : V r
400
300
Shear force : V _total
200
100
0 cut-off
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
Distance from support (m)

Distribution of tension force in longitudinal reinforcement at failure of JB7


Centre Point Load : P=568 kN
3000

2500 Tension at effective yielding


Tension force (kN)

of longitudinal bars : F lty


2000

1500 M _total = M cr Cracked area in test

1000
Demand on longitudinal bars
500 due to moment and shear : F lt

0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
Distance from support (m)

Figure 5.38 Distributions of shear resistance and tension in longitudinal bars for JB7

For the cutoff specimen with plain reinforcement, JB7-C/P/P, the most critical section
moves from 1.0 to 0.69 m from the support (see Figure 5.38) and this results in a
decrease of the predicted failure load from 585 kN in Table 5.13 to 568 kN (P / P_test =
95.7 %). At P = 568 kN, the tension force in the longitudinal reinforcement (Flt)
exceeds the tension at effective yielding of the reinforcement (Flty) by 27 kN at the
anchor check point (at 0.15 m from the support). This means that the bond failure of
the longitudinal reinforcement occurs near support. However Flt equals Flty at 0.3 m
from support, where the applied moment equals the calculated cracking moment Mcr (=
90 kNm), and Flt is lower than Flty by 50 kN at 0.6m from support, the boundary for the
161
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

cracked area of the specimen at the test. Therefore there probably existed some margin
of the tension force in the longitudinal reinforcement at test. As shown in Figure 5.39,
the readings of the strain gauges near supports are almost zero.

Comparison between calculated and mesured longitudinal strains of JB7 at 568 kN


Calculated effective strain in longitudinal bars with reduction of As according to insufficiency of development length
Calculated strain in longitudinal bars without reduction of As according to insufficiency of development length
Readings of strain gauges on longitudinal bars at 65mm from bottom
3.000

2.500
Yield strain of longitudinal reinforcements
Strain (mm/m)

2.000

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from west end (m)
Figure 5.39 Comparison of calculated and measured longitudinal strain of JB7 at 568 kN

As for the cutoff specimen with half-deformed longitudinal reinforcement, JB8-C/H/P,


the critical sections for shear are almost the entire region between 0.69 m and 1.31 m
from support (see Figure 5.40). This would make the high shear strains disperse all
over the relatively wide area without excessive concentration and lead to relatively
high peak load and large displacement of JB8. Actually, the readings of the Zurich
gauge in the transverse direction at P = 500 kN for JB8 are relatively high in the wide
range near the cutoff points compared with other specimens as shown in Figures 4.31
and 4.32 in Chapter 4. The anchorage of the longitudinal reinforcement for JB8 is also
close to the limit at the shear failure load. As shown in Figure 5.40, the reading of the
strain gauge at 0.1 m from the support is high, and this is probably because a tied arch
was partially formed in JB8.
162
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

Distribution of shear force and shear resistance at failure of JB8


Centre Point Load : P=650 kN
700
d v from support plate d v /2 d v /2
600

Shear (kN) 500 Shear resistance : V r


400
300 Shear force : V _total
200
100
0 cut-off
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
Distance from support (m)

Distribution of tension force in longitudinal reinforcement at failure of JB8


Centre Point Load : P=650 kN
3000

2500
Tension force (kN)

Tension at effective yielding


2000 of longitudinal bars : F lty
1500

1000 Demand on longitudinal bars


due to moment and shear : F lt
500

0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
Distance from support (m)
Figure 5.40 Distributions of shear resistance and tension in longitudinal bars for JB8

Comparison between calculated and mesured longitudinal strains of JB8 at 650 kN


Calculated effective strain in longitudinal bars with reduction of As according to insufficiency of development length
Calculated strain in longitudinal bars without reduction of As according to insufficiency of development length
Readings of strain gauges on longitudinal bars at 65mm from bottom
3.000

2.500 Yield strain of longitudinal reinforcements


Strain (mm/m)

2.000

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from west end (m)
Figure 5.41 Comparison of calculated and measured longitudinal strain of JB8 at 650 kN
163
Chapter 5 – Analytical work on experimental results

As shown in Table 5.14, the predictions based on the VecTor2 analyses, the proposed
simplified modification and the current CSA code are compared. The predicted to
experimental shear failure load ratios computed from the suggested simplified
modification (Eq. (5.3.23)) had an average value of 97.7% with a standard deviation of
4.0%. These values, especially for JB3 and the cutoff series, were much improved
compared to the current CSA predictions with an average value of 111% with a
standard deviation of 13%.

Table 5.14 Comparison of the predicted to experimental shear failure load ratios

JB1- JB2- JB3- JB4- JB5- JB6- JB7- JB8- Standard


Specimen Average
N/D/D N/D/P N/P/P N/H/P C/D/D C/D/P C/P/P N/H/P deviation
Failure load at test : P test kN 913 873 825 841 726 629 593 696
Predicted failure load : P kN 899 843 824 814 704 676 599 691
VecTor2
P / P test 98.5% 96.6% 99.9% 96.8% 97.0% 107% 101% 99.3% 99.6% 3.6%

Simplified Predicted failure load : P kN 881 843 820 812 700 672 568 650
modification P / P test 96.5% 96.5% 99.4% 96.6% 96.4% 107% 95.7% 93.4% 97.7% 4.0%
Predicted shear failure load : P kN 881 865 865 842 846 830 748 809
CSA A23.3
P / P test 96.5% 99.0% 105% 100% 117% 132% 126% 116% 111% 13%
Chapter 6

Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter presents the conclusions based on the experimental and analytical studies
in this thesis. The research on the degradation of structural performance due to bond
deterioration and cutoffs of longitudinal reinforcing bars is summarised and the most
important findings are stated. Recommendations for changes to the current Canadian
shear design code and suggestions for further research are given.

6.1 Bond behaviour of reinforcing bars with mechanically reduced rib


heights

In order to evaluate the influence of bond degradation on structural performance, bond


degradation of the reinforcing bars must be well controlled and its deteriorated bond
behaviour must be well understood from bond testing. To achieve the controlled rate
of bond degradation, the method of adjustment of the rib height by machining was
adopted in this study. The transverse ribs of deformed bars were milled to half height
(called as “half-deformed”) or almost zero height (called as “stripped” or “plain”) with
a concave cutter in order to control the bond deterioration level of the reinforcement,
while the longitudinal ribs were not removed. This method made it possible to change
only the bond while keeping the stress-strain relationships almost unchanged. There
were no clear differences in yield loads for 25M bars among three types of rib height,
and was only a 2.7 % difference for US#3 bars between deformed and stripped bars in

164
165
Chapter 6 – Conclusions and Recommendations

spite of a 6.3% weight loss due to grinding.

Bond behaviour of the bars with adjusted rib heights were measured in tension
stiffening tests. In order to measure precisely the distribution of bond stresses along
each type of reinforcing bar embedded in concrete, strain gauges were internally
installed without making any changes to the surface profile of the bars based on the
method developed by Scott and Gill (1987).

Maximum bond stresses for half-deformed and stripped bars were 85% and 50% of
that for normal deformed bar, respectively. These ratios agree with the target range of
“up to 50 % degradation of bond that should be considered in practical conditions” as
described in Chapter 2. With respect to the average bond stresses in the 1 m long
gauged section, the deformed bar showed the highest bond stress at lower loads,
however the average bond stresses for half-deformed bar were highest at over 60% of
the yield load. This is probably because the half-deformed bar with half height ribs did
not tend to induce longitudinal cracks under the conditions of this research. This fact
indicates the possibility that bars with smaller than standard deformations might add
some ductility to the structural members constructed with them due to less tendency of
rapid bond degradation caused by longitudinal cracks.

Post-yield strain distributions for the half-deformed and stripped bars were also
investigated. The yielding of the bar started at a crack, and then proceded from there
to yield more and more of the bar with a larger and larger yielding section as the load
increased. The rate of spreading of the yield region for the stripped bar was larger than
that for the half-deformed bar. Even at over 10% average elongation, there still existed
regions of the bar where the strains remained close to the yield value even though they
were subjected to forces much higher than the yield force. Clearly in these regions
tension in the concrete was still carrying a significant part of the tension load.
166
Chapter 6 – Conclusions and Recommendations

In order to investigate the bond characteristics of the tension stiffening specimens in


more detail, average stresses in concrete were calculated for each tension stiffening
specimen. The initial compressive strains of reinforcement due to concrete shrinkage
were considered in calculating the average strains and the stress at each gauge location
in the reinforcement. The decreases in average concrete stress after the first cracking
were expressed with the commonly used equation (Eq. (3.6.1)) of the form first
proposed by Vecchio and Collins (1986), and also by a new equation including the new
tension stiffening factor β in its denominator (Eq. (3.6.2)).

When the actual cracking stresses measured in the tests are used for Eqs. (3.6.1) and
(3.6.2), the suggested values for α in Eq. (3.6.1) or β in Eq. (3.6.2) are α=0.80 or
β=1300 for normal deformed bar, α=0.70 or β=2000 for stripped bar, and α=0.76 or
β=1600 for half-deformed bar, respectively. The curves of Eq. (3.6.2) fit quite well to
the test results through all the strains and the curves of Eq. (3.6.1) also fit well to the
test results after the formation of two or three cracks.

Typical cracking stress of concrete is expressed as 0.33 f c ' , or 2.02 MPa for the
specimen with a normal deformed bar. This value is 80% of the actual cracking stress
in the test (=2.53 MPa). If 0.33 f c ' is used for cracking stress, the suggested value of
α in Eq. (6.1) equals 1.0 for normal deformed bars, and this agrees with the value
suggested by Vecchio and Collins (1986). Likewise, the tension stiffening factor α
becomes 0.875 for stripped bar and 0.95 for half-deformed bar.

In order to verify these tension stiffening factors α for various types of reinforcement,
the 2-dimensional nonlinear finite element analysis program VecTor2 was used for the
analysis of the tension stiffening tests. Since α itself is unchangeable in VecTor2,
cracking stress was changed in proportion to α. Although the first cracking loads were
affected, concrete stresses after cracking could be expressed correctly. The results of
167
Chapter 6 – Conclusions and Recommendations

the tension stiffening tests were successfully simulated by using a perfect bond model
with the tension stiffening factors α suggested above. The default bond model in
VecTor2, the Eligehausen model, was also used for the analysis. The Eligehausen
model was applicable to the stripped and half-deformed bars as well as the normal
deformed bar by adjusting the maximum bond stresses in the model to those observed
in the tests.

6.2 Comparison with bond behaviour of reinforcing bars subjected to


accelerated corrosion

The bond behaviour of the reinforcing bars with mechanically reduced rib heights were
compared with those of reinforcing bars subjected to accelerated corrosion with 7%
loss of weight. The maximum bond stress for the corroded bar was half of that for the
stripped bar and the bond behaviour for both were quite similar. This indicates that the
stripped bar had the possibility to simulate corroded bars appropriately to some extent.
The suggested values for α in Eq. (3.6.1) or β in Eq. (3.6.2) are α=0.45 or β=7500.
The same tension stiffening factor α was suitable for the perfect bond model in
VecTor2.

In addition, analytical studies on the behaviour of corroded bare bars with non-uniform
cross sectional areas were carried out using a Weibull distribution as an approximation.
As a result, the probability density of Young’s modulus degradation ratio measured at
each strain gauge location for the 7% corroded bar was able to be approximated using
a Weibull function with correlation coefficient of 0.971. The Young’s modulus
degradation ratio equals the loss ratio of the effective cross-sectional area, and each
value of probability density can be regarded as the length ratio of the portion of the bar
with each cross-sectional area. Hence the stress – strain relationship of corroded bars
can be approximated with a Weibull distribution. If this method is confirmed based on
168
Chapter 6 – Conclusions and Recommendations

numerous measurements of actual corroded structures and a database of the two


parameters for the Weibull function linked to the structural and environmental details
of structures are built up, this method of analysis could be of great help in the
prediction of the structural performance of concrete structures with corroded
reinforcement.

6.3 Influence of bar cutoff and bond degradation on shear behaviour


of large beams

In order to investigate the influence of cutoffs of longitudinal bars and bond


deterioration of reinforcing bars on the shear behaviour of large beams, eight beams
were tested and in four of them half of the longitudinal bars were cut off. Normal
deformed, half-deformed and stripped (plain) 25M bars were used for the main
longitudinal bars, and normal deformed and stripped US#3 bars were used for the
stirrups. The beams with normal deformed reinforcement are designed based on the
general method for shear design in CSA A23.3-04. The no-cutoff beam with normal
deformed reinforcement was designed to fail in shear at dv from the loading plate,
while for cutoffs specimen with normal deformed reinforcement the cutoff locations
defined the critical section where the shear resistance is very close to the yielding load
of the longitudinal bars.

All the beams failed in shear in the tests. For the no-cutoff beam with normal
deformed reinforcement, the predicted load of shear failure based on the Canadian
code was 96.5% of the peak load at test. On the other hand, the predicted failure load
for the normal deformed cutoff beam was 117% of the test. Obviously the predicted
load of shear failure for the cutoff beam was too high.

Peak loads of cutoff series specimens were 23% lower than the no-cutoff series
169
Chapter 6 – Conclusions and Recommendations

specimens on average. This difference was much higher than the reductions in shear
strength due to bond degradation within the no-cutoff series (=7% on average) or those
within the cutoff series (=12% on average). This indicates that cutoffs of longitudinal
reinforcement can result in much more significant drops of shear resistance than those
caused by bond deterioration of reinforcement. The inclinations of diagonal cracks for
the cutoff series were larger than those for the no-cutoff series. This was caused by
significant concentrations of longitudinal strains which were observed near the cutoff
points, and resulted in significant reductions of shear resistance for the cutoff series.

VecTor2 analyses using the perfect bond model were also conducted for the beam tests.
Considering concrete shrinkage, the same values of α as the tension stiffening test was
able to be applied to the no-cutoff beam with normal deformed reinforcement. It was
confirmed that the concrete shrinkage can be incorporated in the analysis by reducing
the tension stiffening factor, and in reverse the tension stiffening factors are affected by
concrete shrinkage. By adjusting the crack limit for “Crack Width Check”, one of the
analysis options in VecTor2, as well as the tension stiffening factors including the
influence of concrete shrinkage, the behaviour of the beam with cutoff bars and normal
deformed reinforcement was predicted well using VecTor2 analysis. Strain
concentrations in the concrete at the cutoff point were also observed in the analyses
and the strain concentration ratio was about 1.7, which was consistent with those
measured from the tests.

For the VecTor2 analysis of the beams with reduced deformation reinforcement, the
tension stiffening factor α for each specimen was adjusted by multiplying α for
normal-deformed specimen by the ratio of α (rα) for the member. The ratio of α for
the member was assumed to be simply expressed as the average of rα for the
longitudinal bars and rα for the stirrups. The load – displacement curve of the analysis
with this averaged ratio of α (rα_ave) fitted well to the test results until the stripped
170
Chapter 6 – Conclusions and Recommendations

stirrups yielded extensively. The peak loads in the analysis were 98.4 % of those in the
tests on average except for one cutoff beam which was somewhat outside this range.

One cutoff beam failed at a lower load than the others because its diagonal crack
started not at the cutoff like the others but at a distance of 100 mm from the cutoff
location with the effectiveness of the stirrups being lower than that for other cutoff
beams. Since the angle of the diagonal cracks at the cutoff points was relatively high,
a small difference in the location of the diagonal crack can make a large difference in
the effectiveness of stirrups in terms of how many stirrups crossed the critical diagonal
crack. This indicates that the spacing of stirrups near bar cutoff points should be
efficiently small, say about a quarter of the effective shear depth dv.

The cutoff beam with half-deformed longitudinal bars failed at relatively high load
since a tied arch partially formed. This would be related with the fact that the half-
deformed bars did not tend to induce the longitudinal cracks in the tension stiffening
test and consequently might add some ductility to the structural members with them. It
should be out of the range covered in the design code and be treated as an additional
margin of safety.

6.4 Suggested modifications to general method for shear design in


CSA A23.3-04

After an analytical study examining modified equations for the general shear design
method in CSA A23.3-04 using crack spacings listed in Table 5.8 for each beam
specimen, it was found that the influence of bond deterioration on the shear strength of
reinforced concrete member can be represented by the averaged ratio of tension
stiffening factor (rα_ave). With respect to bar cutoffs, its influence on the shear strength
can be expressed by a strain concentration factor (κε) of 1.7 for the longitudinal strain
171
Chapter 6 – Conclusions and Recommendations

( ε x ) used for the calculation of shear resistance. For the cutoff specimens, the strain
concentration factor κε = 1.7 should be applied to the region within a distance of dv/2
from the cutoff locations considering the dispersion of the centre location of the
diagonal crack at the cutoff. As shown in Table 5.14, the predicted to experimental
shear failure load ratios computed from the suggested equation (Eq. (5.3.23)) had an
average value of 97.7% with a standard deviation of 4.0%. These values were much
improved compared to the current CSA predictions with an average value of 111%
with a standard deviation of 13%.

Finally, distributions of shear resistance and tension force in longitudinal bars were
computed for each beam specimen with the suggested modifications of the general
method for shear design in CSA A23.3-04. As a result, the structural behaviour of each
beam can be explained with them appropriately.

6.5 Area of future work

• In this study, only 25M bars were used for the tension stiffening tests, however
reinforcing bars with a wider range of diameters should be tested.
• A method using a Weibull approximation of the stress – strain relationships for
corroded bars is suggested in this thesis. This method should be verified based on
data from actual corroded structures.
• The influence of bar cutoffs on the shear strength could depend on locations of
cutoffs and amount of cutoff reinforcement as well as concrete strength and
specimen size. These factors should be further examined experimentally and
analytically.
• The suggested modifications to the general method for shear design in CSA A23.3-
04 should be verified based on a wider range of tests with a number of parameters
including bar size, amount of cutoff reinforcement and concrete strength.
References

[1] AASHTO LRFD [2004] Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary, Third
Ed., American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials,
Washington, 1264 pp.

[2] Amleh L., and Mirza S., (1999). “Corrosion Influence on Bond Strength
between Steel and Concrete”. ACI structural Journal, Vol.96, No.3, pp.415-423

[3] Baron, M.J., (1966), “Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams at Points
of Bar Cutoff”, ACI Journal, Vol.63, No.6, pp.127-134

[4] Bentz, E.C., (September 2009). “Augustus-Finite Element Analysis of


Reinforced Concrete Post- Processor for VecTor2 and TRIX”,
http://www.civ.utoronto.ca/vector/

[5] Bentz, E.C., (2000). "Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members,"


PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto.

[6] Bentz, E.C., (2005). “Explaining the Riddle of Tension Stiffening Models for
Shear Panel Experiments”. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 131,
No.9., pp. 1422-1425

[7] Bentz, E.C., and Collins, M.P. (2006). “Development of the 2004 Canadian
Standards Association (CSA) A23.3 Shear Provisions for Reinforced Concrete”.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol.33, pp.521-534

[8] Bentz, E.C., Vecchio, F.J., and Collins, M.P. (2006). “Simplified Modified
Compression Field Theory for Calculating Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Elements”. ACI Structural Journal, Vol.103, No.4, pp.614-624

172
173
References

[9] Cairns, J., (1995). “Strength in Shear of Concrete Beams with Exposed
Reinforcement”. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures &
Buildings, Vol.110, No.2, pp.176-185

[10] Collins, M.P., and Mitchell, D., (1997). “Prestressed Concrete Structures”,
Response Publications, Canada

[11] CSA Committee A23.3, “Design of Concrete Structures (CSA A23.3-04),”


Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, 2004, 214 pp.

[12] Edgawa River Office’s website, (2011),


“http://www.ktr.mlit.go.jp/edogawa/project/gaikaku/”

[13] Eligehausen, R., Popov, E.P., and Bertero, V.V., (1983). “Local Bond Stress-
Slip Relationship of Deformed Bars under Generalized Excitations”, EERC
Report 83-23, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, California.

[14] Ferguson, P.M., and Matloob, F.N., (1959). “Effect of Bar Cutoff on Bond and
Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams”, ACI Journal, Vol.56, No.4, pp.
5-23.

[15] Gan, Y., (2000). “Bond Stress and Slip Modeling in Nonlinear Finite Element
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures”, Masters Thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 251 pp.

[16] Ikeda, S., and Uji, K. (1980). “Studies on the Effect of Bond on the Shear
Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beams.” Journal of JSCE, 293, pp.101-109

[17] Johnson, P.M., Couture, A., and Nicolet, R., (2007). “Report of the
Commission of Inquiry into the Collapse of a Portion of the de la Concorde
Overpass”, Bibliotheque et Archives Nationales du Quebec, Library and
Archives Canada
174
References

[18] Kani, M.W., Huggins, M.W., and Wiltkopp, P.F. (1979). “Kani on shear in
reinforced concrete”. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
Canada, 225 pp.

[19] Kuchma, D.A., (1987). “Plain Round Bar Shear Reinforcement of Concrete
Beams”. Degree of Bachelor of Applied Science, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto

[20] Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R. (1962). “Contributions to The Treatment of The
Problems of Shear in Reinforced Concrete Construction: Stuttgart Shear Tests,”
Beton-und Stahlbetonbau, Translation by C.V. Amerongen (1964), Cement and
Concrete Association, London, C&CA Library Translation Cj.111, 134 pp.

[21] Ozaka, Y., Suzuki, M., et al. (1986). “Effect of Bar Cutoff on Shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Beams”. Journal of JSCE, No.366, pp.133-142, (in
Japanese)

[22] Ozaka, Y., Suzuki, M., et al. (1987). “Evaluation of Shear Strength for
Reinforced Concrete Beams with Bars Terminated in Tension Zones and its
Application to Design”. Journal of JSCE, No.378, pp.89-96, (in Japanese)

[23] Scott, R.H., and Gill, P.A.T., (1987). “Short-Term Distributions of Strain and
Bond Stress Along Tension Reinforcement”. The Structural Engineer, Vol.
65B, No.2, pp.39-44

[24] Stanish K., Hooton R. D., and Pantazopoulou S. J. (1999). “Corrosion Effects
on Bond Strength in Reinforced Concrete”. ACI Structural Journal, Vol.96, No.
6, pp.915-921

[25] Vecchio, F.J., and Collins, M.P., (1986). “The Modified Compression Field
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subject to Shear”, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 83, Iss.2, pp. 219-231.
175
References

[26] Vecchio, F.J., (2000). “The Disturbed Stress Field Model for Reinforced
Concrete: Formulation”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 126,
No.9, pp. 1070-1077.

[27] Wong, P.S., and Vecchio, F.J., (2002). “VecTor2 and FormWorks User’s
Manual”, Technical Report, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Toronto.

[28] Vecchio, F. J. [Nov. 2010] VecTor2 Analysis Group web site,


“http://www.civ. utoronto.ca/vector/”.
Appendices

Appendix I Summary of test results for JT series.................................................. 177

JT1 .................................................................................................. 177

JT2 .................................................................................................. 188

JT3 .................................................................................................. 196

JT4 .................................................................................................. 205

JT5 .................................................................................................. 214

Appendix II Summary of test results for JB series.................................................. 225

JB1 .................................................................................................. 225

JB2 .................................................................................................. 238

JB3 .................................................................................................. 252

JB4 .................................................................................................. 266

JB5 .................................................................................................. 280

JB6 .................................................................................................. 292

JB7 .................................................................................................. 303

JB8 .................................................................................................. 315

Appendix III Details of calculations for JB series in Table 5.13 ............................. 328

176
177
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT1 Data for Figure 3.33


JT1_TS JT1_TS JT1_TS JT1_TS JT1_TS JT1_TS JT1_TS JT1_TS JT1_BB JT1_BB JT1_BB
LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD
_LVDT _SG _LVDT _SG _LVDT _SG _LVDT _SG _SG _SG _SG
(kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)
0.0 0.000 0.000 89.0 0.529 0.729 134.4 1.178 1.378 -0.2 0.264 0.290 0.0 0.000 141.3 1.523 63.1 0.664
1.0 0.010 0.002 89.7 0.529 0.735 133.9 1.180 1.381 1.6 0.262 0.293 1.8 0.032 143.2 1.545 61.2 0.645
3.7 0.007 0.007 87.6 0.536 0.743 132.5 1.196 1.384 5.5 0.270 0.302 4.3 0.060 145.2 1.566 59.4 0.627
8.1 0.012 0.016 91.3 0.545 0.760 135.1 1.198 1.399 9.9 0.287 0.315 6.9 0.088 146.9 1.587 57.5 0.608
8.4 0.009 0.019 92.1 0.550 0.764 136.6 1.209 1.410 13.8 0.296 0.333 9.4 0.116 148.8 1.605 55.7 0.586
9.6 0.012 0.021 93.8 0.557 0.774 138.1 1.225 1.414 17.3 0.314 0.358 12.0 0.144 149.6 1.606 53.9 0.566
13.4 0.014 0.035 85.4 0.646 0.837 136.4 1.214 1.416 21.3 0.345 0.389 14.8 0.172 150.9 1.620 51.9 0.548
17.3 0.019 0.048 85.5 0.655 0.838 137.3 1.223 1.419 25.1 0.371 0.444 17.5 0.200 150.6 1.620 49.8 0.526
19.3 0.020 0.056 85.1 0.651 0.839 136.6 1.219 1.422 32.3 0.431 0.530 20.1 0.228 150.6 1.630 47.7 0.504
18.5 0.029 0.058 86.7 0.665 0.852 138.4 1.240 1.435 40.0 0.495 0.598 22.6 0.256 148.8 1.589 45.8 0.481
22.4 0.024 0.068 90.1 0.686 0.874 139.6 1.239 1.441 46.6 0.546 0.641 25.3 0.285 147.0 1.569 43.7 0.462
26.4 0.030 0.083 93.5 0.703 0.895 139.8 1.236 1.441 49.6 0.583 0.663 28.0 0.313 145.3 1.548 41.9 0.439
29.6 0.046 0.098 95.3 0.721 0.911 138.4 1.249 1.444 49.5 0.580 0.664 30.6 0.340 143.2 1.527 40.2 0.419
33.4 0.036 0.116 96.7 0.735 0.925 139.5 1.253 1.451 53.6 0.609 0.725 33.2 0.369 141.5 1.508 38.0 0.400
37.4 0.040 0.132 98.1 0.759 0.937 140.4 1.251 1.457 61.3 0.670 0.810 35.8 0.390 139.6 1.489 36.1 0.377
41.5 0.060 0.157 99.2 0.764 0.946 141.0 1.251 1.463 67.6 0.727 0.884 37.7 0.418 138.0 1.470 38.5 0.401
37.6 0.102 0.207 99.9 0.767 0.957 143.4 1.276 1.478 76.8 0.793 0.958 40.4 0.447 135.8 1.450 36.5 0.381
36.2 0.121 0.216 98.2 0.772 0.964 143.8 1.278 1.485 83.9 0.851 1.034 43.1 0.474 134.1 1.427 34.7 0.362
40.0 0.114 0.228 99.7 0.784 0.973 144.6 1.288 1.493 92.5 0.918 1.101 45.6 0.503 131.9 1.408 32.9 0.342
43.8 0.136 0.242 103.4 0.800 0.997 145.3 1.298 1.500 98.1 0.951 1.126 48.5 0.530 130.1 1.385 31.1 0.322
47.6 0.151 0.277 104.8 0.817 1.010 146.3 1.304 1.508 99.7 0.979 1.136 50.8 0.559 128.1 1.366 29.1 0.303
41.0 0.214 0.320 107.0 0.836 1.032 147.3 1.310 1.516 99.4 0.970 1.137 53.5 0.587 126.1 1.343 27.2 0.282
40.8 0.226 0.322 108.3 0.849 1.042 147.4 1.314 1.522 104.3 1.016 1.213 56.2 0.615 124.1 1.323 25.3 0.263
40.3 0.227 0.327 108.9 0.854 1.049 148.4 1.330 1.529 112.5 1.074 1.285 58.6 0.643 122.3 1.302 23.5 0.241
44.3 0.237 0.342 109.6 0.860 1.055 148.9 1.335 1.536 122.4 1.151 1.358 61.6 0.671 120.3 1.284 21.7 0.222
46.6 0.249 0.352 107.8 0.869 1.059 149.3 1.338 1.542 131.1 1.215 1.433 64.3 0.699 118.6 1.262 19.8 0.202
50.6 0.269 0.376 107.6 0.869 1.063 149.6 1.345 1.545 138.8 1.269 1.474 66.8 0.727 116.6 1.242 17.7 0.181
54.4 0.286 0.409 111.6 0.892 1.085 145.9 1.339 1.520 142.8 1.304 1.509 69.3 0.755 115.0 1.222 16.0 0.160
53.5 0.291 0.421 114.0 0.909 1.106 142.5 1.314 1.509 146.5 1.346 1.544 71.8 0.783 113.3 1.204 14.1 0.141
53.3 0.300 0.422 115.3 0.916 1.120 142.3 1.318 1.509 149.6 1.366 1.568 74.4 0.809 111.3 1.185 12.2 0.119
55.7 0.297 0.433 117.9 0.946 1.144 142.0 1.318 1.508 147.6 1.365 1.569 76.9 0.838 109.5 1.164 10.4 0.100
59.5 0.314 0.454 119.1 0.959 1.160 137.0 1.289 1.474 148.3 1.364 1.557 79.6 0.866 107.8 1.145 8.4 0.081
58.0 0.321 0.463 119.5 0.965 1.163 134.1 1.275 1.459 137.5 1.303 1.480 82.1 0.894 106.0 1.126 6.7 0.061
60.2 0.336 0.473 117.4 0.967 1.168 129.9 1.243 1.414 129.1 1.241 1.424 84.8 0.922 104.1 1.107 4.8 0.043
63.9 0.339 0.490 121.1 0.991 1.194 123.3 1.198 1.365 122.4 1.195 1.369 87.5 0.950 102.0 1.086 2.9 0.022
65.0 0.347 0.497 121.9 0.994 1.199 117.0 1.149 1.332 113.3 1.126 1.299 89.9 0.978 100.2 1.064 0.8 0.002
63.3 0.351 0.504 122.6 1.003 1.205 112.9 1.120 1.282 105.4 1.059 1.243 92.6 1.006 98.2 1.044
63.3 0.353 0.506 123.8 1.005 1.213 103.9 1.048 1.241 100.6 1.020 1.221 95.0 1.033 96.6 1.024
66.9 0.375 0.522 125.3 1.026 1.227 100.0 1.020 1.210 99.4 1.009 1.188 97.6 1.062 94.8 1.005
68.6 0.371 0.532 126.5 1.031 1.237 95.8 0.977 1.141 95.4 0.976 1.140 100.3 1.089 93.1 0.986
70.0 0.384 0.540 127.0 1.039 1.248 88.6 0.911 1.094 88.3 0.910 1.058 102.9 1.117 90.8 0.967
68.2 0.380 0.550 127.5 1.048 1.256 81.7 0.849 1.004 77.4 0.804 0.971 105.5 1.145 89.1 0.944
71.9 0.388 0.565 125.0 1.086 1.289 70.0 0.755 0.907 71.5 0.750 0.920 108.2 1.174 87.2 0.925
73.0 0.399 0.571 126.4 1.099 1.303 61.4 0.672 0.825 65.5 0.695 0.856 110.9 1.203 85.3 0.905
74.7 0.409 0.583 125.4 1.108 1.307 54.2 0.616 0.768 59.6 0.636 0.791 113.5 1.230 83.5 0.885
73.0 0.414 0.591 125.1 1.113 1.306 50.3 0.579 0.744 53.4 0.590 0.732 116.0 1.257 81.9 0.866
72.9 0.415 0.594 126.8 1.118 1.317 46.2 0.535 0.679 50.0 0.552 0.715 118.6 1.284 79.7 0.848
77.0 0.430 0.612 128.4 1.134 1.328 38.5 0.491 0.607 45.6 0.513 0.657 120.9 1.311 77.8 0.824
80.2 0.447 0.632 129.5 1.135 1.335 32.6 0.441 0.557 38.8 0.464 0.570 123.3 1.339 76.1 0.806
77.8 0.450 0.642 129.9 1.139 1.340 28.4 0.414 0.517 28.8 0.381 0.448 126.0 1.367 73.9 0.785
81.7 0.457 0.656 131.1 1.151 1.346 23.5 0.374 0.468 16.5 0.325 0.345 128.7 1.394 72.1 0.762
85.4 0.490 0.685 131.4 1.151 1.352 16.8 0.351 0.405 3.6 0.264 0.291 131.1 1.422 70.3 0.743
86.2 0.493 0.690 132.9 1.158 1.360 10.2 0.312 0.345 0.4 0.256 0.284 133.6 1.449 68.5 0.724
86.5 0.506 0.705 133.0 1.166 1.366 2.4 0.281 0.306 136.3 1.478 66.6 0.704
88.1 0.512 0.716 134.1 1.169 1.375 1.2 0.270 0.301 139.1 1.504 64.8 0.685
178
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT1 Readings of strain gauges


Distance Strain JT1_TS_ JT1_TS_ JT1_TS_ JT1_TS_ JT1_TS_ JT1_TS_ Residual Distance Strain JT1_BB_
from top gauge strain strain strain strain strain strain strain from top gauge strain
of conc. No. at 25kN at 41kN at 48kN at 94kN at 128kN at 150kN at 0kN of conc. No. at 150kN
(mm) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (mm) (x10-6)
152 JT1-1 257 387 536 865 1236 1439 308 152 JT1-1 1597
168 JT1-2 259 407 451 855 1235 1410 256 168 JT1-2 1612
185 JT1-3 245 382 419 752 1098 1248 159 185 JT1-3 1604
201 JT1-4 243 393 434 816 1223 1384 287 201 JT1-4 1602
217 JT1-5 204 357 392 731 1146 1313 224 217 JT1-5 1615
234 JT1-6 185 330 368 717 1189 1366 293 234 JT1-6 1595
250 JT1-7 136 290 321 616 1047 1197 211 250 JT1-7 1473
266 JT1-8 139 305 338 684 1225 1404 330 266 JT1-8 1605
283 JT1-9 89 265 296 616 1156 1328 261 283 JT1-9 1626
299 JT1-10 80 262 293 645 1252 1453 332 299 JT1-10 1614
315 JT1-11 59 242 272 610 1199 1443 286 315 JT1-11 1629
332 JT1-12 58 233 264 629 1357 1603 332 332 JT1-12 1621
348 JT1-13 44 190 216 574 1399 1675 318 348 JT1-13 1629
364 JT1-14 42 182 211 597 1405 1654 289 364 JT1-14 1609
381 JT1-15 39 163 196 611 1435 1692 321 381 JT1-15 1609
397 JT1-16 38 185 232 698 1429 1658 289 397 JT1-16 1611
413 JT1-17 34 210 268 787 1450 1682 308 413 JT1-17 1615
430 JT1-18 36 259 318 830 1429 1628 246 430 JT1-18 1564
446 JT1-19 36 332 420 1018 1503 1711 303 446 JT1-19 1597
462 JT1-20 38 373 444 987 1481 1691 258 462 JT1-20 1615
479 JT1-21 36 468 565 1115 1533 1756 285 479 JT1-21 1608
495 JT1-22 36 481 577 1138 1515 1738 269 495 JT1-22 1601
511 JT1-23 37 478 567 1087 1511 1735 265 511 JT1-23 1603
528 JT1-24 39 441 529 1092 1514 1750 304 528 JT1-24 1635
544 JT1-25 36 424 524 1047 1412 1653 269 544 JT1-25 1616
560 JT1-26 38 338 413 903 1362 1607 317 560 JT1-26 1615
577 JT1-27 33 281 374 867 1242 1480 275 577 JT1-27 1602
593 JT1-28 33 226 303 742 1160 1397 311 593 JT1-28 1611
609 JT1-29 37 170 248 692 1083 1309 307 609 JT1-29 1620
626 JT1-30 36 151 231 673 1078 1301 375 626 JT1-30 1621
642 JT1-31 34 108 172 532 907 1114 288 642 JT1-31 1611
658 JT1-32 40 110 201 648 1046 1258 431 658 JT1-32 1621
674 JT1-33 36 89 187 569 903 1096 278 674 JT1-33 1627
691 JT1-34 36 82 256 747 1121 1327 398 691 JT1-34 1614
707 JT1-35 38 83 284 732 1076 1287 288 707 JT1-35 1629
723 JT1-36 37 77 383 912 1288 1504 327 723 JT1-36 1624
740 JT1-37 36 76 428 907 1282 1516 297 740 JT1-37 1618
756 JT1-38 36 76 443 976 1328 1541 241 756 JT1-38 1606
772 JT1-39 36 75 575 1130 1546 1790 318 772 JT1-39 1636
789 JT1-40 38 79 557 1090 1466 1698 225 789 JT1-40 1643
805 JT1-41 38 72 598 1187 1570 1792 301 805 JT1-41 1616
838 JT1-43 38 80 544 1097 1468 1691 294 838 JT1-43 1610
870 JT1-45 39 86 399 1012 1342 1550 304 854 JT1-44 1598
887 JT1-46 24 94 312 990 1353 1572 335 870 JT1-45 1641
903 JT1-47 39 97 252 943 1310 1525 336 887 JT1-46 1641
919 JT1-48 43 131 240 1005 1373 1604 323 903 JT1-47 1637
952 JT1-50 51 182 239 1029 1364 1612 271 919 JT1-48 1652
968 JT1-51 42 177 217 1050 1515 1741 309 936 JT1-49 1629
985 JT1-52 73 218 260 1074 1438 1695 272 952 JT1-50 1646
1001 JT1-53 81 227 260 1098 1503 1755 256 968 JT1-51 1631
1017 JT1-54 118 255 293 1166 1620 1836 326 985 JT1-52 1660
1050 JT1-56 155 278 316 1082 1479 1758 346 1001 JT1-53 1638
1066 JT1-57 150 271 303 988 1320 1514 203 1017 JT1-54 1660
1083 JT1-58 205 327 365 1065 1350 1545 246 1050 JT1-56 1655
1115 JT1-60 221 351 392 1010 1297 1493 230 1066 JT1-57 1632
1132 JT1-61 238 364 403 1097 1315 1489 227 1083 JT1-58 1653
1148 JT1-62 239 376 421 984 1242 1426 192 1099 JT1-59 1629
1115 JT1-60 1643
1132 JT1-61 1628
1148 JT1-62 1617
179
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT1 Bond stresses S


Distance Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond
from top stress stress stress stress stress stress
of conc. at 25kN at 41kN at 48kN at 94kN at 128kN at 150kN
(mm) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa)
176 0.49 0.32 2.42 2.73 2.66 3.88
193 1.03 0.71 0.80 1.08 0.67 0.70
209 1.81 1.62 1.68 2.22 0.21 0.79
225 2.02 1.81 1.89 2.75 0.50 0.24
242 1.83 1.18 1.32 1.67 0.53 0.51
258 1.94 1.48 1.63 1.81 0.51 0.65
274 2.17 1.80 1.88 1.90 0.37 0.88
291 1.62 1.23 1.28 0.89 1.10 2.76
307 0.94 0.94 0.97 0.47 2.51 4.56
323 0.65 1.46 1.52 0.99 5.34 6.68
340 0.55 1.83 1.91 1.12 4.60 5.25
356 0.37 1.33 1.23 0.31 2.01 1.82
372 0.16 0.39 0.06 2.59 1.38 0.73
389 0.16 0.88 1.64 4.92 0.56 0.27
405 0.08 2.30 3.00 5.95 0.91 0.03
421 0.03 3.73 4.55 7.17 2.03 1.21
438 0.05 4.16 4.88 6.68 1.37 1.05
454 0.01 4.32 4.62 3.98 0.47 0.80
470 0.04 4.43 5.03 4.52 1.21 1.73
487 0.01 2.22 2.56 2.42 0.52 0.81
503 0.05 0.68 0.99 1.70 0.91 0.72
519 0.01 1.93 1.93 2.11 2.57 2.15
536 0.02 2.81 2.83 4.03 4.38 3.92
552 0.04 4.28 4.60 6.26 5.26 5.06
568 0.12 4.52 4.59 5.95 6.44 6.57
585 0.03 4.04 4.27 6.15 6.64 7.05
601 0.09 3.39 3.64 4.62 4.67 5.22
617 0.02 2.46 2.68 4.10 4.64 5.24
634 0.06 1.85 1.89 3.23 3.61 4.12
650 0.09 1.09 0.29 0.10 0.84 1.30
666 0.05 0.85 1.25 2.37 1.16 0.77
683 0.04 0.61 2.72 4.71 4.49 4.70
699 0.03 0.21 3.95 5.74 5.93 6.40
715 0.01 0.21 4.84 6.09 6.69 7.28
732 0.03 0.11 3.77 4.58 4.80 5.24
748 0.03 0.02 3.68 5.11 5.40 5.53
764 0.01 0.01 4.35 5.38 6.32 6.69
781 0.07 0.03 2.36 2.88 2.66 2.57
797 0.04 0.04 0.90 0.68 0.11 0.30
813 0.08 0.24 2.36 2.12 2.38 2.42
830 0.08 0.24 2.36 2.12 2.38 2.42
846 0.07 0.16 4.18 2.48 3.39 3.81
862 0.07 0.16 4.18 2.48 3.39 3.81
879 0.08 0.29 4.04 1.76 1.16 1.10
895 0.32 0.86 3.90 1.01 0.32 0.02
911 0.35 1.37 1.60 1.15 2.05 2.36
928 0.18 1.62 0.29 1.48 1.80 2.20
944 0.18 1.62 0.29 1.48 1.80 2.20
960 0.40 1.31 0.08 1.63 2.95 3.19
977 1.06 1.47 1.08 1.40 0.76 1.34
993 1.47 1.52 1.31 2.35 2.84 2.57
1009 1.39 1.04 0.96 0.66 1.60 0.37
1026 1.28 0.82 0.81 2.34 3.94 3.34
1042 1.28 0.82 0.81 2.34 3.94 3.34
1058 1.49 1.25 1.26 1.20 3.81 5.80
1075 1.66 1.68 1.77 0.71 2.27 3.91
1091 1.09 1.30 1.41 0.12 0.80 0.95
1107 1.09 1.30 1.41 0.12 0.80 0.95
1124 1.18 1.38 1.52 0.80 0.64 0.96
180
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT1_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-1 (uE) JT1-2 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-3 (uE) JT1-4 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-5 (uE) JT1-6 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500

JT1-7 (uE) JT1-8 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 500 1000 1500 2000
181
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT1_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-9 (uE) JT1-10 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-11 (uE) JT1-12 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-13 (uE) JT1-14 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-15 (uE) JT1-16 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
182
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT1_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-17 (uE) JT1-18 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-19 (uE) JT1-20 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-21 (uE) JT1-22 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-23 (uE) JT1-24 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
183
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT1_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-25 (uE) JT1-26 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-27 (uE) JT1-28 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-29 (uE) JT1-30 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500

JT1-31 (uE) JT1-32 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500
184
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT1_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-33 (uE) JT1-34 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 500 1000 1500

JT1-35 (uE) JT1-36 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-37 (uE) JT1-38 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-39 (uE) JT1-40 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
185
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT1_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-41 (uE) JT1-43 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-45 (uE) JT1-46 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-47 (uE) JT1-48 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-50 (uE) JT1-51 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)
Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
186
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT1_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-52 (uE) JT1-53 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120

Baldwin Load (kN)


Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-54 (uE) JT1-56 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-57 (uE) JT1-58 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)
Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

JT1-60 (uE) JT1-61 (uE)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
187
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT1_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-62 (uE)

160

140

120
Baldwin Load (kN)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000

LVDTNE (mm) LVDTSE (mm)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

LVDTNW (mm) LVDTSW (mm)

160 160

140 140

120 120
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
188
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT2 Data for Figure 3.38


JT2_TS JT2_TS JT2_TS JT2_TS JT2_TS JT2_TS JT2_TS JT2_TS JT2_BB JT2_BB JT2_BB
LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD
_LVDT _SG _LVDT _SG _LVDT _SG _LVDT _SG _SG _SG _SG
(kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)
0.0 0.000 0.000 67.3 0.474 0.879 74.2 0.499 0.984 68.6 0.475 0.898 0.0 0.000 95.6 1.057 91.2 0.986
2.0 0.007 0.007 87.7 0.626 1.083 50.0 0.345 0.762 72.6 0.509 0.938 1.9 0.038 97.6 1.075 89.4 0.968
5.9 0.009 0.020 104.8 0.748 1.280 26.8 0.222 0.555 76.9 0.542 0.985 4.0 0.062 100.3 1.104 86.6 0.948
9.8 0.014 0.029 130.1 0.910 1.490 4.2 0.134 0.399 81.0 0.572 1.028 6.4 0.089 101.6 1.120 85.1 0.921
15.9 0.019 0.039 144.5 1.000 1.604 0.4 0.123 0.390 85.1 0.606 1.073 9.3 0.107 104.4 1.141 82.6 0.899
20.8 0.025 0.054 149.9 1.033 1.640 5.9 0.127 0.407 89.0 0.637 1.116 10.6 0.134 106.5 1.172 80.0 0.873
26.0 0.030 0.068 140.4 1.016 1.600 28.5 0.191 0.530 93.2 0.669 1.159 13.2 0.150 108.4 1.194 77.7 0.844
26.1 0.030 0.070 124.6 0.939 1.489 49.7 0.325 0.705 97.3 0.698 1.205 15.4 0.175 110.4 1.215 75.5 0.821
28.0 0.035 0.082 107.4 0.811 1.321 70.1 0.485 0.967 101.4 0.725 1.248 17.0 0.201 112.3 1.237 73.2 0.796
36.2 0.042 0.143 89.4 0.667 1.125 95.7 0.687 1.234 105.6 0.757 1.293 18.2 0.216 114.0 1.260 70.6 0.771
31.3 0.122 0.206 68.7 0.514 0.913 122.5 0.876 1.501 109.5 0.787 1.336 20.2 0.230 116.0 1.274 68.5 0.742
31.7 0.124 0.211 46.5 0.360 0.706 145.9 1.040 1.733 113.6 0.817 1.378 20.7 0.246 117.9 1.300 66.8 0.719
38.8 0.157 0.243 25.0 0.233 0.517 161.5 1.142 1.898 117.8 0.848 1.422 21.8 0.258 119.4 1.319 64.0 0.698
44.9 0.190 0.320 5.8 0.149 0.393 184.4 1.291 2.109 121.9 0.876 1.465 23.3 0.272 122.3 1.338 61.9 0.671
39.6 0.270 0.404 0.0 0.131 0.372 199.4 1.392 2.215 126.0 0.903 1.508 24.5 0.287 123.9 1.361 59.6 0.647
39.4 0.271 0.405 16.5 0.162 0.427 198.6 1.401 2.206 129.9 0.933 1.551 26.7 0.302 125.4 1.385 57.5 0.624
39.2 0.271 0.406 37.7 0.259 0.566 178.1 1.308 2.088 134.0 0.962 1.595 27.4 0.319 127.9 1.404 55.1 0.597
47.0 0.306 0.441 59.5 0.414 0.815 161.1 1.174 1.894 138.3 0.987 1.637 30.4 0.333 128.6 1.426 53.5 0.576
52.2 0.341 0.512 80.0 0.572 1.006 144.0 1.020 1.721 142.3 1.018 1.681 32.3 0.358 131.8 1.443 50.6 0.556
61.8 0.403 0.617 100.0 0.716 1.242 128.1 0.888 1.544 146.6 1.049 1.725 33.7 0.379 133.6 1.472 49.0 0.535
67.8 0.443 0.689 127.8 0.903 1.509 106.0 0.711 1.317 151.1 1.081 1.770 34.9 0.399 135.4 1.497 46.0 0.503
75.7 0.494 0.770 148.0 1.029 1.652 85.4 0.557 1.089 155.1 1.110 1.814 36.3 0.410 136.9 1.511 43.9 0.475
74.9 0.509 0.782 150.3 1.043 1.664 60.7 0.391 0.857 159.4 1.141 1.857 37.9 0.426 138.8 1.530 42.1 0.448
74.9 0.508 0.792 132.1 0.978 1.544 36.2 0.254 0.639 163.5 1.169 1.899 39.7 0.443 140.5 1.548 40.1 0.428
82.3 0.543 0.853 107.4 0.791 1.281 11.4 0.149 0.435 168.0 1.198 1.943 41.0 0.465 142.5 1.567 37.7 0.407
88.0 0.582 0.922 81.0 0.584 1.025 0.4 0.120 0.392 172.1 1.228 1.986 42.3 0.477 145.6 1.593 35.3 0.380
92.2 0.612 0.975 55.9 0.404 0.757 5.7 0.124 0.411 176.5 1.255 2.029 43.3 0.490 147.8 1.627 32.1 0.355
98.8 0.668 1.054 24.3 0.216 0.484 30.1 0.192 0.517 180.9 1.288 2.070 45.3 0.504 150.0 1.645 30.5 0.322
99.5 0.683 1.067 1.2 0.132 0.371 49.3 0.326 0.710 186.6 1.326 2.125 45.7 0.517 149.9 1.645 28.1 0.302
98.8 0.684 1.057 -1.1 0.125 0.370 66.7 0.453 0.927 191.1 1.358 2.165 47.5 0.528 148.9 1.617 25.7 0.276
105.6 0.719 1.124 7.3 0.131 0.378 94.4 0.673 1.214 195.6 1.390 2.206 48.5 0.551 146.0 1.600 23.6 0.252
113.4 0.770 1.210 -0.2 0.115 0.348 115.9 0.831 1.457 200.4 1.420 2.247 50.1 0.565 143.4 1.571 20.9 0.229
120.9 0.823 1.292 3.4 0.117 0.357 144.8 1.029 1.742 204.5 1.447 2.288 52.6 0.580 141.3 1.545 18.2 0.196
125.3 0.859 1.337 22.8 0.175 0.439 170.1 1.199 1.994 208.8 1.477 2.328 54.5 0.609 138.6 1.518 15.9 0.166
123.5 0.857 1.337 40.3 0.278 0.602 189.5 1.328 2.170 212.5 1.508 2.382 56.7 0.629 136.0 1.490 13.7 0.143
129.1 0.880 1.381 52.9 0.369 0.722 199.0 1.394 2.231 216.5 1.552 2.475 58.0 0.654 133.0 1.462 11.5 0.123
134.5 0.918 1.448 64.7 0.456 0.855 196.6 1.402 2.197 224.5 1.742 2.668 59.9 0.670 131.1 1.434 8.5 0.092
142.6 0.974 1.541 76.0 0.544 0.993 153.6 1.082 1.758 226.4 1.822 2.781 62.1 0.691 128.6 1.408 9.8 0.119
149.5 1.022 1.609 100.9 0.724 1.242 91.0 0.582 1.084 229.0 1.921 2.943 63.6 0.714 125.5 1.378 8.1 0.083
148.6 1.031 1.613 121.3 0.861 1.466 42.2 0.272 0.679 224.0 2.077 3.238 65.7 0.732 123.5 1.344 5.3 0.055
148.0 1.028 1.611 144.5 1.008 1.646 9.8 0.140 0.412 224.8 2.316 3.487 66.7 0.754 121.4 1.327 3.3 0.023
142.1 1.016 1.586 154.0 1.064 1.713 1.1 0.119 0.389 225.0 2.397 3.659 68.4 0.769 119.6 1.303 -0.2 0.000
125.1 0.946 1.501 168.3 1.157 1.863 4.2 0.121 0.395 224.4 2.573 3.941 70.3 0.789 118.6 1.282
110.6 0.870 1.390 183.3 1.257 2.020 12.9 0.136 0.413 225.9 2.662 3.995 72.3 0.810 116.6 1.269
96.4 0.773 1.247 197.0 1.358 2.161 19.9 0.152 0.436 225.9 2.872 4.053 73.5 0.826 113.6 1.251
83.0 0.671 1.098 200.4 1.389 2.192 25.8 0.172 0.466 225.5 3.012 4.065 75.3 0.840 112.0 1.218
64.9 0.531 0.926 197.0 1.386 2.184 30.8 0.194 0.500 226.0 3.136 4.090 77.1 0.862 109.5 1.197
46.0 0.401 0.751 196.6 1.386 2.184 35.3 0.219 0.541 226.8 3.409 4.462 79.6 0.884 106.8 1.169
25.1 0.266 0.559 196.8 1.386 2.180 39.3 0.250 0.582 226.5 3.580 4.794 82.4 0.907 104.1 1.144
7.0 0.171 0.411 196.0 1.382 2.173 43.3 0.283 0.621 227.0 3.997 5.173 84.7 0.938 103.0 1.115
-1.0 0.137 0.371 169.6 1.257 1.996 47.8 0.316 0.671 227.1 4.335 5.689 85.5 0.952 99.8 1.098
0.6 0.134 0.379 148.9 1.096 1.808 51.9 0.351 0.715 227.6 4.739 5.824 87.4 0.967 99.0 1.081
20.1 0.185 0.445 140.5 1.017 1.672 55.8 0.382 0.758 227.6 4.871 5.880 89.8 0.990 96.3 1.051
37.9 0.270 0.558 119.5 0.841 1.444 60.3 0.411 0.808 91.8 1.010 95.2 1.024
52.3 0.366 0.710 94.8 0.646 1.190 64.5 0.447 0.856 93.8 1.037 92.8 1.011
189
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT2 Readings of strain gauges


Distance Strain JT2_TS_ JT2_TS_ JT2_TS_ JT2_TS_ JT2_TS_ JT2_TS_ Residual Distance Strain JT2_BB_
from top gauge strain strain strain strain strain strain strain from top gauge strain
of conc. No. at 25kN at 37kN at 50kN at 100kN at 150kN at 200kN at 0kN of conc. No. at 150kN
(mm) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (mm) (x10-6)
160 JT2-1 293 447 587 1144 1661 2219 338 160 JT2-1 1649
193 JT2-2 232 396 539 1101 1621 2183 360 193 JT2-2 1637
225 JT2-3 139 333 474 1054 1602 2181 413 225 JT2-3 1667
258 JT2-4 84 259 402 997 1559 2156 457 258 JT2-4 1629
323 JT2-6 58 131 314 938 1521 2139 518 291 JT2-5 1662
356 JT2-7 44 85 282 932 1530 2143 459 323 JT2-6 1651
389 JT2-8 47 80 379 999 1568 2161 403 356 JT2-7 1664
421 JT2-9 104 128 525 1139 1696 2291 430 389 JT2-8 1640
454 JT2-10 55 80 561 1137 1685 2277 328 421 JT2-9 1672
487 JT2-11 38 63 667 1266 1821 2423 285 454 JT2-10 1661
519 JT2-12 54 89 673 1250 1790 2373 255 487 JT2-11 1660
552 JT2-13 40 72 669 1283 1848 2450 318 519 JT2-12 1650
585 JT2-14 87 148 595 1205 1743 2335 412 552 JT2-13 1686
617 JT2-15 44 147 472 1090 1663 2248 424 585 JT2-14 1658
650 JT2-16 29 248 469 1070 1660 2274 437 617 JT2-15 1638
683 JT2-17 31 325 487 1064 1611 2184 363 650 JT2-16 1667
715 JT2-18 62 432 576 1150 1689 2266 379 683 JT2-17 1586
748 JT2-19 34 516 677 1239 1791 2369 330 715 JT2-18 1635
781 JT2-20 32 461 596 1178 1712 2275 269 748 JT2-19 1648
813 JT2-21 35 507 673 1235 1795 2382 337 781 JT2-20 1624
846 JT2-22 30 373 526 1098 1635 2211 333 813 JT2-21 1653
879 JT2-23 36 307 468 1074 1648 2263 409 846 JT2-22 1593
911 JT2-24 65 248 424 1060 1634 2267 501 879 JT2-23 1664
944 JT2-25 37 132 310 990 1598 2231 505 911 JT2-24 1668
977 JT2-26 33 111 284 982 1586 2190 500 944 JT2-25 1669
1009 JT2-27 41 144 332 1009 1615 2212 479 977 JT2-26 1670
1042 JT2-28 54 216 397 1038 1618 2206 434 1009 JT2-27 1659
1075 JT2-29 74 270 439 1063 1640 2220 387 1042 JT2-28 1674
1107 JT2-30 146 338 508 1107 1675 2253 349 1075 JT2-29 1651
1140 JT2-31 221 380 541 1123 1676 2250 312 1107 JT2-30 1669
1140 JT2-31 1639
190
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT2 Bond stresses


Distance Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond
from top stress stress stress stress stress stress
of conc. at 25kN at 37kN at 50kN at 100kN at 150kN at 200kN
(mm) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa)
209 2.68 2.24 2.25 1.78 1.16 0.70
242 1.72 2.29 2.04 1.41 0.79 0.30
274 0.65 2.24 1.65 1.16 0.83 0.55
307 0.65 2.24 1.65 1.16 0.83 0.55
340 0.51 1.53 0.24 0.07 0.21 0.17
372 0.42 0.07 2.70 2.37 1.90 1.53
405 0.58 0.37 3.66 2.86 2.23 1.97
438 0.51 0.58 2.83 2.28 2.04 2.06
470 0.58 0.49 2.29 2.25 2.22 2.28
503 0.01 0.15 0.94 1.04 1.02 0.89
536 0.31 0.59 0.78 0.48 0.50 0.53
568 0.34 1.20 2.29 1.84 1.67 1.62
601 0.47 1.55 2.71 2.63 1.98 1.82
634 0.62 2.54 0.85 1.16 0.79 0.56
666 0.19 3.36 1.31 0.98 0.56 0.40
699 0.31 3.26 2.55 2.08 1.57 1.19
732 0.26 1.85 1.73 1.50 1.33 1.09
764 0.26 0.18 0.16 0.25 0.28 0.25
797 0.00 0.82 0.60 0.60 0.42 0.15
830 0.01 2.50 2.37 2.00 1.79 1.36
862 0.30 3.02 2.94 2.27 2.06 1.58
895 0.31 2.78 2.49 1.55 1.16 0.75
928 0.27 2.73 2.61 1.45 0.92 1.02
960 0.24 1.08 1.02 0.47 0.21 0.74
993 0.23 1.02 1.18 0.68 0.48 0.04
1026 0.47 2.02 1.93 0.99 0.54 0.26
1058 1.09 2.19 1.94 1.15 0.82 0.62
1091 2.12 2.07 1.92 1.23 0.96 0.86
191
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT2_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT2-1 (uE) JT2-2 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT2-3 (uE) JT2-4 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT2-6 (uE) JT2-7 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT2-8 (uE) JT2-9 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
192
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT2_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT2-10 (uE) JT2-11 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT2-12 (uE) JT2-13 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT2-14 (uE) JT2-15 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)
Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT2-16 (uE) JT2-17 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
193
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT2_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT2-18 (uE) JT2-19 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT2-20 (uE) JT2-21 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT2-22 (uE) JT2-23 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT2-24 (uE) JT2-25 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
194
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT2_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT2-26 (uE) JT2-27 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT2-28 (uE) JT2-29 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT2-30 (uE) JT2-31 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
195
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT2_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


LVDTNW (mm) LVDTSW (mm)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

LVDTNE (mm) LVDTSE (mm)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
196
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT3 Data for Figure 3.39


JT3_TS JT3_TS JT3_TS JT3_TS JT3_TS JT3_TS JT3_TS JT3_TS JT3_BB JT3_BB
LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD
_LVDT _SG _LVDT _SG _LVDT _SG _LVDT _SG _SG _SG
(kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)
0.0 0.000 0.000 73.2 0.771 0.960 151.0 1.342 1.666 79.3 0.809 1.012 0.0 0.000 125.1 1.372
2.8 0.001 0.007 54.9 0.591 0.771 166.3 1.478 1.801 85.0 0.862 1.072 1.1 0.042 123.6 1.344
8.5 0.001 0.011 38.1 0.441 0.602 182.8 1.638 1.987 90.7 0.916 1.132 5.7 0.083 121.0 1.316
11.1 0.003 0.016 26.7 0.343 0.517 199.9 1.821 2.130 96.4 0.969 1.191 10.0 0.114 118.4 1.290
13.6 0.003 0.024 16.4 0.276 0.402 198.0 1.836 2.132 102.1 1.023 1.252 12.7 0.172 115.9 1.264
18.5 0.008 0.033 3.0 0.197 0.321 194.6 1.859 2.057 107.8 1.079 1.312 19.4 0.236 113.9 1.240
21.9 0.011 0.044 0.3 0.179 0.299 167.4 1.686 1.843 113.5 1.133 1.372 24.2 0.289 111.9 1.219
25.4 0.014 0.052 14.4 0.194 0.362 131.9 1.368 1.511 119.5 1.189 1.431 30.0 0.370 108.8 1.188
24.8 0.014 0.056 34.8 0.340 0.555 85.4 0.872 1.037 125.0 1.241 1.488 36.0 0.425 106.8 1.162
27.4 0.014 0.059 60.7 0.537 0.820 79.3 0.817 0.933 130.9 1.295 1.546 38.7 0.429 104.3 1.138
27.2 0.016 0.061 78.9 0.705 1.004 28.4 0.353 0.410 136.8 1.350 1.605 41.0 0.460 101.6 1.116
31.7 0.019 0.077 99.0 0.879 1.192 1.1 0.186 0.264 143.0 1.408 1.665 43.0 0.484 99.5 1.098
36.4 0.023 0.093 123.8 1.093 1.417 0.0 0.178 0.260 149.1 1.462 1.723 45.7 0.512 96.6 1.053
40.5 0.027 0.110 144.8 1.267 1.588 24.1 0.286 0.429 155.0 1.516 1.782 47.6 0.532 93.7 1.015
35.7 0.063 0.165 148.3 1.317 1.583 50.8 0.500 0.729 161.0 1.574 1.841 50.0 0.551 89.8 0.970
38.3 0.063 0.172 145.3 1.303 1.597 75.5 0.734 0.998 167.4 1.627 1.899 52.3 0.582 85.8 0.923
42.9 0.071 0.196 149.1 1.325 1.620 106.3 1.023 1.324 173.4 1.684 1.957 56.3 0.633 83.1 0.886
49.5 0.106 0.247 148.8 1.325 1.616 144.3 1.373 1.717 179.9 1.739 2.015 59.4 0.670 78.7 0.844
46.9 0.218 0.333 133.3 1.269 1.475 181.9 1.710 2.031 186.1 1.794 2.073 63.1 0.708 74.7 0.801
46.5 0.215 0.344 109.9 1.107 1.303 200.1 1.867 2.151 192.6 1.851 2.130 65.6 0.736 72.3 0.782
46.5 0.216 0.343 90.8 0.924 1.109 197.8 1.877 2.165 198.9 1.904 2.185 70.8 0.777 68.6 0.730
47.8 0.216 0.351 68.3 0.698 0.865 176.9 1.774 1.968 205.1 1.958 2.243 72.7 0.823 63.6 0.686
52.0 0.231 0.367 45.9 0.485 0.632 139.9 1.442 1.618 211.0 2.013 2.300 78.0 0.870 59.0 0.630
55.7 0.248 0.401 24.3 0.305 0.412 102.4 1.039 1.220 215.9 2.066 2.353 82.5 0.918 55.5 0.603
60.9 0.268 0.443 -0.2 0.175 0.287 79.5 0.814 0.924 215.5 2.084 2.370 86.1 0.950 52.7 0.572
65.1 0.284 0.488 0.3 0.167 0.286 33.0 0.385 0.484 219.9 2.145 2.424 88.7 0.991 50.6 0.550
69.7 0.306 0.530 14.9 0.196 0.344 2.9 0.190 0.293 223.4 2.223 2.506 92.4 1.017 48.2 0.522
63.6 0.423 0.596 27.0 0.282 0.464 -0.4 0.177 0.284 226.6 2.324 2.595 94.3 1.042 44.6 0.475
62.8 0.425 0.600 48.0 0.436 0.700 1.9 0.177 0.322 226.3 2.497 2.953 96.3 1.064 39.9 0.421
68.9 0.439 0.635 72.1 0.651 0.945 43.4 0.452 0.712 224.6 2.953 3.462 98.8 1.087 35.0 0.373
74.6 0.467 0.675 95.0 0.859 1.174 83.9 0.819 1.109 224.4 3.490 3.741 100.9 1.137 31.7 0.329
79.5 0.499 0.724 118.6 1.066 1.399 113.5 1.101 1.444 226.5 4.156 4.610 104.9 1.193 27.2 0.282
84.9 0.531 0.777 142.8 1.268 1.597 156.8 1.506 1.912 225.0 4.683 5.128 109.8 1.230 23.5 0.233
90.7 0.569 0.843 151.1 1.337 1.633 198.5 1.868 2.178 227.3 5.474 5.990 114.0 1.260 18.3 0.182
86.4 0.682 0.919 150.3 1.334 1.635 200.3 1.884 2.182 227.9 5.620 6.173 116.3 1.305 14.5 0.132
85.6 0.686 0.920 146.9 1.336 1.595 195.8 1.879 2.126 228.0 5.784 6.420 120.8 1.348 8.3 0.089
90.5 0.705 0.960 132.4 1.274 1.525 153.1 1.571 1.724 228.4 5.946 6.630 123.8 1.390 6.0 0.061
97.3 0.772 1.026 120.0 1.192 1.405 107.4 1.095 1.274 228.5 6.132 6.828 129.5 1.447 4.3 0.043
102.9 0.814 1.085 98.1 0.996 1.191 74.1 0.751 0.895 228.4 6.248 6.918 135.5 1.503 2.4 0.028
111.3 0.891 1.174 78.1 0.794 0.981 41.5 0.456 0.599 229.3 6.372 7.035 138.5 1.535 0.0 0.003
120.0 0.974 1.258 56.8 0.581 0.740 13.4 0.235 0.320 229.3 6.512 7.143 141.3 1.560
124.6 1.025 1.305 33.4 0.372 0.491 0.0 0.177 0.285 228.9 6.607 7.196 143.3 1.582
124.1 1.034 1.305 1.4 0.176 0.285 0.1 0.180 0.278 229.8 6.727 7.296 145.9 1.611
122.4 1.034 1.303 0.3 0.165 0.279 8.4 0.185 0.300 229.5 6.869 7.409 149.0 1.643
127.4 1.053 1.348 1.2 0.161 0.279 16.3 0.235 0.350 227.0 7.088 7.600 147.0 1.616
134.0 1.120 1.406 -0.2 0.144 0.252 22.9 0.294 0.407 225.8 7.214 7.783 145.1 1.598
140.4 1.224 1.503 2.3 0.144 0.263 28.5 0.350 0.466 227.1 7.404 7.925 142.8 1.565
149.6 1.284 1.577 12.5 0.182 0.298 34.1 0.400 0.526 228.4 7.566 8.036 140.6 1.547
148.3 1.291 1.579 17.9 0.221 0.347 40.1 0.446 0.587 229.4 7.696 8.168 138.1 1.519
148.1 1.307 1.587 27.7 0.300 0.446 45.5 0.488 0.648 229.4 7.897 8.365 136.0 1.481
141.5 1.290 1.533 41.0 0.411 0.598 51.4 0.541 0.708 134.4 1.470
133.0 1.252 1.480 59.0 0.542 0.790 56.9 0.596 0.768 133.1 1.445
118.6 1.166 1.377 77.3 0.709 0.966 62.5 0.650 0.830 131.3 1.425
104.8 1.061 1.261 97.6 0.892 1.197 67.9 0.704 0.891 128.6 1.408
89.8 0.928 1.119 123.1 1.121 1.436 73.6 0.756 0.952 127.3 1.391
197
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT3 Readings of strain gauges


Distance Strain JT3_TS_ JT3_TS_ JT3_TS_ JT3_TS_ JT3_TS_ JT3_TS_ JT3_TS_ Residual Distance Strain JT3_BB_
from top gauge strain strain strain strain strain strain strain strain from top gauge strain
of conc. No. at 25kN at 41kN at 50kN at 69kN at 91kN at 150kN at 200kN at 0kN of conc. No. at 150kN
(mm) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-7) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (mm) (x10-6)
158 JT3-1 214 381 473 648 925 1450 1949 238 158 JT3-1 1624
180 JT3-2 175 342 438 606 938 1454 1956 266 180 JT3-2 1630
202 JT3-3 134 319 417 583 962 1473 1964 313 202 JT3-3 1622
224 JT3-4 89 270 368 531 965 1479 2030 312 224 JT3-4 1649
267 JT3-6 48 177 278 434 952 1581 2158 321 267 JT3-6 1607
289 JT3-7 46 134 243 406 1074 1757 2349 324 289 JT3-7 1627
311 JT3-8 40 108 212 373 1051 1731 2361 311 311 JT3-8 1630
333 JT3-9 40 85 173 333 1071 1732 2288 327 333 JT3-9 1609
377 JT3-11 38 69 219 409 1005 1669 2213 381 355 JT3-10 1650
399 JT3-12 34 64 282 476 962 1559 2086 354 377 JT3-11 1642
420 JT3-13 38 65 384 596 993 1588 2136 328 399 JT3-12 1603
442 JT3-14 33 59 450 665 1026 1614 2178 285 420 JT3-13 1609
464 JT3-15 33 62 581 806 1075 1684 2247 262 442 JT3-14 1655
486 JT3-16 32 58 581 812 1093 1738 2317 249 464 JT3-15 1603
508 JT3-17 37 67 669 899 1123 1789 2388 267 486 JT3-16 1656
530 JT3-18 33 59 530 749 1024 1667 2225 255 508 JT3-17 1656
552 JT3-19 42 99 556 791 1035 1689 2279 361 530 JT3-18 1610
573 JT3-20 31 59 440 660 909 1567 2135 298 552 JT3-19 1617
595 JT3-21 28 51 340 549 779 1403 1971 281 573 JT3-20 1663
617 JT3-22 30 76 302 521 763 1426 2014 396 595 JT3-21 1623
639 JT3-23 32 89 247 443 688 1333 1929 383 639 JT3-22 1682
661 JT3-24 28 112 260 436 677 1283 1869 350 661 JT3-23 1640
683 JT3-25 29 158 318 501 749 1358 1949 335 683 JT3-24 1641
705 JT3-26 30 236 382 585 847 1472 2057 298 705 JT3-25 1686
727 JT3-27 29 304 455 657 909 1524 2109 279 727 JT3-26 1646
748 JT3-28 31 389 531 737 1021 1663 2254 269 748 JT3-27 1687
770 JT3-29 31 482 661 903 1158 1802 2398 256 770 JT3-28 1684
792 JT3-30 26 461 612 819 1094 1692 2248 191 792 JT3-29 1642
814 JT3-31 27 430 605 845 1098 1737 2339 270 814 JT3-30 1641
836 JT3-32 29 354 494 720 982 1623 2212 271 836 JT3-31 1689
858 JT3-33 30 241 389 644 876 1501 2083 300 858 JT3-32 1659
880 JT3-34 30 178 308 603 829 1451 2044 340 880 JT3-33 1682
901 JT3-35 31 120 222 598 862 1490 2074 403 901 JT3-34 1687
923 JT3-36 30 93 154 616 865 1479 2027 337 923 JT3-35 1639
945 JT3-37 33 83 124 649 897 1517 2084 313 945 JT3-36 1641
967 JT3-38 32 76 119 735 997 1628 2206 287 967 JT3-37 1668
1011 JT3-40 37 99 172 840 1104 1758 2355 253 989 JT3-38 1656
1033 JT3-41 42 131 216 821 1125 1826 2457 263 1011 JT3-40 1672
1054 JT3-42 50 178 255 751 999 1622 2228 250 1033 JT3-41 1714
1076 JT3-43 69 228 306 716 924 1572 2201 281 1054 JT3-42 1630
1098 JT3-44 111 274 354 728 914 1474 2082 269 1076 JT3-43 1648
1120 JT3-45 153 307 384 691 881 1437 2003 239 1098 JT3-44 1666
1142 JT3-46 191 340 420 696 887 1441 1982 225 1120 JT3-45 1655
1142 JT3-46 1657
198
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT3 Bond stresses


Distance Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond
from top stress stress stress stress stress stress stress
of conc. at 25kN at 41kN at 50kN at 69kN at 91kN at 150kN at 200kN
(mm) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa)
191 2.22 1.83 1.73 1.93 0.73 0.45 1.00
213 1.73 2.24 2.15 2.27 0.94 1.98 2.81
235 1.11 2.39 2.26 2.31 0.88 3.73 4.48
257 1.11 2.39 2.26 2.31 0.88 3.73 4.48
278 0.70 2.19 2.09 2.09 1.87 3.57 4.46
300 0.19 1.60 1.83 1.82 1.25 1.62 1.79
322 0.11 0.93 0.40 0.19 0.38 1.05 1.85
344 0.07 0.52 1.06 1.65 1.64 2.27 2.82
366 0.07 0.52 1.06 1.65 1.64 2.27 2.82
388 0.02 0.32 2.78 3.37 0.37 1.61 1.87
410 0.02 0.12 4.36 4.91 0.54 0.57 0.18
431 0.10 0.13 4.75 5.15 1.59 1.44 1.85
453 0.08 0.06 4.39 4.80 2.02 2.98 3.31
475 0.03 0.03 2.62 2.79 1.04 2.25 2.63
497 0.38 0.07 0.43 0.32 0.35 0.34 0.54
519 0.33 0.48 1.79 1.71 1.35 1.08 0.88
541 0.48 0.43 2.70 2.65 2.77 2.79 2.63
563 0.21 0.66 4.30 4.76 5.40 5.91 6.34
584 0.20 0.29 4.06 4.69 4.92 5.63 5.76
606 0.02 0.81 2.51 3.04 2.98 3.30 3.03
628 0.02 0.81 2.51 3.04 2.98 3.30 3.03
650 0.05 1.29 0.14 0.51 0.42 0.97 0.53
672 0.02 2.50 2.49 2.67 2.97 2.74 2.77
694 0.01 3.47 3.27 3.80 4.01 4.08 3.82
716 0.00 3.88 3.70 3.99 4.30 4.55 4.73
737 0.03 4.18 4.43 4.92 5.16 5.57 5.92
759 0.03 3.29 3.77 4.31 4.25 4.11 4.17
781 0.09 0.56 0.73 0.89 0.93 0.73 0.80
803 0.01 2.07 2.24 2.02 2.23 1.75 1.64
825 0.06 4.08 4.64 4.32 4.90 4.84 4.99
847 0.04 4.78 5.28 4.22 4.98 5.47 5.65
869 0.03 3.86 4.61 2.21 2.28 2.60 2.64
890 0.02 2.67 4.17 0.34 0.39 0.41 0.30
912 0.03 1.51 3.14 1.27 1.52 1.77 1.82
934 0.05 0.69 1.70 2.29 2.28 2.48 2.78
956 0.07 0.04 0.06 2.31 2.71 3.12 3.43
978 0.12 0.58 1.23 2.23 2.55 3.16 3.63
1000 0.12 0.58 1.23 2.23 2.55 3.16 3.63
1022 0.24 1.36 1.72 0.01 0.17 0.32 0.74
1043 0.56 2.42 2.45 1.87 3.10 3.64 3.21
1065 1.16 2.54 2.50 1.49 3.48 4.81 4.68
1087 1.87 2.23 2.23 0.88 2.01 4.24 4.75
1109 2.14 1.90 1.90 0.73 0.90 2.19 3.46
199
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT3_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT3-1 (uE) JT3-2 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
JT3-3 (uE) JT3-4 (uE)

300 300

250 250

Baldwin Load (kN)


Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT3-6 (uE) JT3-7 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT3-8 (uE) JT3-9 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
200
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT3_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT3-11 (uE) JT3-12 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT3-13 (uE) JT3-14 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT3-15 (uE) JT3-16 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT3-17 (uE) JT3-18 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
201
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT3_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs

JT3-19 (uE) JT3-20 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT3-21 (uE) JT3-22 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
JT3-23 (uE) JT3-24 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT3-25 (uE) JT3-26 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
202
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT3_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT3-27 (uE) JT3-28 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT3-29 (uE) JT3-30 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT3-31 (uE) JT3-32 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT3-33 (uE) JT3-34 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
203
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT3_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT3-35 (uE) JT3-36 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT3-37 (uE) JT3-38 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT3-40 (uE) JT3-41 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT3-42 (uE) JT3-43 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
204
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT3_TS Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT3-44 (uE) JT3-45 (uE)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

JT3-46 (uE)

300

250
Baldwin Load (kN)

200

150

100

50

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

LVDTNW (mm) LVDTSW (mm)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

LVDTNE (mm) LVDTSE (mm)

300 300

250 250
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
205
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT4 Data for Figure 3.40


JT4_TSC JT4_TSC JT4_TSC JT4_TSC JT4_TSC JT4_TSC JT4_TSC JT4_TSC JT4_BB JT4_BB
LOAD _LVDT _SG
LOAD _LVDT _SG
LOAD _LVDT _SG
LOAD _LVDT _SG
LOAD LOAD
_SG _SG
(kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)
0.0 0.000 0.000 135.8 0.941 1.487 64.5 0.499 0.673 127.4 0.969 1.418 0.0 0.000 132.4 1.464
2.5 0.004 0.006 129.3 0.905 1.416 50.0 0.405 0.539 143.6 1.079 1.594 2.2 0.040 134.8 1.491
7.4 0.006 0.013 115.5 0.813 1.265 42.8 0.363 0.444 149.0 1.115 1.654 4.6 0.068 137.4 1.518
12.4 0.012 0.021 109.6 0.776 1.201 25.3 0.266 0.256 163.9 1.215 1.815 7.2 0.095 140.1 1.547
16.3 0.016 0.029 99.9 0.709 1.105 16.6 0.223 0.166 174.8 1.289 1.933 9.7 0.123 142.6 1.574
19.9 0.019 0.037 98.0 0.697 1.052 0.4 0.158 0.051 190.3 1.401 2.093 12.0 0.151 145.2 1.603
23.7 0.022 0.044 76.5 0.554 0.823 2.9 0.157 0.057 188.1 1.410 2.081 14.8 0.179 147.4 1.626
27.0 0.032 0.064 65.3 0.484 0.702 12.6 0.178 0.117 146.9 1.169 1.637 17.6 0.208 149.3 1.642
40.6 0.035 0.123 50.0 0.389 0.551 17.8 0.210 0.171 128.0 1.056 1.389 20.2 0.235 150.0 1.644
48.0 0.025 0.206 47.7 0.377 0.528 27.3 0.274 0.282 101.0 0.887 1.125 22.6 0.265
47.2 0.025 0.211 33.9 0.301 0.367 32.6 0.307 0.342 97.4 0.861 1.025 25.3 0.292
57.0 0.024 0.271 27.1 0.266 0.298 43.2 0.369 0.462 49.6 0.537 0.526 27.9 0.320
51.2 0.104 0.350 12.6 0.200 0.158 48.5 0.402 0.520 34.5 0.435 0.335 30.3 0.348
50.5 0.132 0.371 3.9 0.166 0.086 59.3 0.469 0.640 2.8 0.239 0.039 32.8 0.376
52.9 0.144 0.385 14.1 0.174 0.147 64.5 0.501 0.699 0.2 0.224 0.029 35.4 0.404
58.3 0.180 0.436 22.3 0.221 0.230 75.3 0.565 0.818 12.5 0.267 0.134 38.1 0.431
60.4 0.194 0.458 38.2 0.322 0.422 80.7 0.598 0.879 17.9 0.306 0.195 40.7 0.459
63.6 0.228 0.507 46.6 0.371 0.491 91.5 0.661 0.997 29.0 0.377 0.316 43.2 0.488
63.7 0.255 0.536 56.9 0.434 0.613 97.0 0.693 1.058 34.3 0.412 0.377 45.8 0.516
66.8 0.292 0.579 64.1 0.478 0.696 105.6 0.744 1.152 45.2 0.479 0.498 48.2 0.538
68.7 0.310 0.599 80.0 0.569 0.866 110.9 0.778 1.212 61.3 0.581 0.681 50.3 0.555
72.3 0.344 0.643 87.9 0.614 0.963 122.0 0.845 1.328 66.9 0.613 0.741 50.0 0.549
74.0 0.365 0.668 100.4 0.686 1.076 127.1 0.880 1.387 77.3 0.679 0.863 51.7 0.584
75.5 0.387 0.696 107.6 0.732 1.177 138.3 0.951 1.503 93.8 0.780 1.046 54.6 0.612
77.7 0.400 0.717 126.8 0.852 1.381 144.3 0.986 1.560 99.1 0.816 1.105 57.1 0.640
82.0 0.427 0.762 139.0 0.932 1.507 152.6 1.042 1.647 108.4 0.875 1.212 59.8 0.668
84.0 0.441 0.786 150.3 1.011 1.603 158.5 1.080 1.705 113.8 0.909 1.270 62.1 0.695
87.7 0.470 0.830 148.8 1.020 1.600 168.6 1.158 1.824 124.4 0.976 1.389 64.6 0.724
89.3 0.484 0.853 132.9 0.950 1.453 173.8 1.198 1.879 129.8 1.010 1.448 67.4 0.751
92.5 0.508 0.893 127.1 0.913 1.393 175.9 1.226 1.904 145.6 1.119 1.626 70.0 0.778
94.4 0.521 0.913 113.4 0.820 1.239 178.8 1.244 1.934 155.9 1.191 1.725 72.6 0.807
97.7 0.546 0.954 107.9 0.785 1.184 183.1 1.284 1.988 161.3 1.225 1.797 75.0 0.835
99.5 0.560 0.976 98.8 0.722 1.066 185.4 1.306 2.013 177.5 1.334 1.971 77.4 0.863
98.5 0.582 0.984 89.6 0.661 0.961 189.1 1.346 2.062 188.0 1.407 2.087 80.1 0.890
98.5 0.602 0.984 70.4 0.535 0.747 190.4 1.360 2.071 189.4 1.426 2.099 82.4 0.916
98.2 0.597 0.984 59.0 0.463 0.628 186.6 1.369 2.055 179.8 1.397 2.011 85.0 0.945
103.4 0.615 1.026 47.6 0.389 0.458 180.5 1.352 1.997 163.1 1.283 1.829 87.5 0.973
106.8 0.634 1.065 27.3 0.276 0.256 154.9 1.186 1.704 157.6 1.247 1.768 90.1 1.000
108.5 0.644 1.086 1.1 0.158 0.055 137.6 1.086 1.504 147.1 1.183 1.647 92.5 1.028
111.9 0.667 1.126 9.1 0.162 0.103 105.4 0.890 1.156 131.0 1.091 1.465 95.2 1.055
113.4 0.679 1.146 27.4 0.267 0.299 98.6 0.846 1.044 125.9 1.058 1.403 97.6 1.077
116.8 0.705 1.186 38.6 0.337 0.418 50.5 0.527 0.524 115.4 0.992 1.284 99.6 1.103
118.5 0.717 1.207 51.2 0.413 0.563 32.8 0.409 0.327 100.9 0.898 1.127 100.0 1.098
122.0 0.744 1.247 63.9 0.490 0.712 2.1 0.222 0.043 97.5 0.877 1.082 102.0 1.129
123.5 0.757 1.268 89.1 0.639 0.981 2.8 0.211 0.049 86.9 0.806 0.961 104.5 1.158
124.9 0.772 1.284 96.1 0.681 1.052 15.4 0.270 0.162 70.9 0.697 0.781 107.0 1.187
123.9 0.775 1.284 108.4 0.755 1.201 20.7 0.307 0.222 65.5 0.661 0.719 109.6 1.214
128.1 0.802 1.325 119.6 0.823 1.308 31.5 0.375 0.342 54.8 0.587 0.600 112.1 1.243
129.6 0.812 1.345 139.9 0.953 1.522 47.6 0.472 0.523 39.1 0.479 0.420 114.7 1.270
133.5 0.837 1.386 148.3 1.005 1.599 52.9 0.505 0.582 33.5 0.444 0.362 117.3 1.298
135.4 0.852 1.407 129.0 0.929 1.391 68.8 0.602 0.762 17.8 0.336 0.190 119.8 1.326
140.4 0.893 1.467 115.6 0.840 1.243 79.5 0.667 0.882 6.5 0.267 0.078 122.4 1.353
145.3 0.935 1.526 100.5 0.741 1.107 95.3 0.765 1.060 0.6 0.236 0.028 125.0 1.381
150.0 0.982 1.583 97.3 0.716 1.034 100.9 0.799 1.107 127.2 1.409
148.1 0.991 1.580 72.1 0.548 0.769 116.5 0.900 1.298 129.8 1.436
206
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT4 Data for Figure 3.40


JT4_CBB JT4_CBB JT4_CBB
LOAD _SG
LOAD _SG
LOAD _SG

(kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)


0.0 0.000 132.0 1.510 200.3 2.851
2.6 0.036 134.5 1.543 202.0 2.882
5.1 0.063 136.9 1.569 203.1 2.907
7.6 0.093 139.5 1.598 202.8 2.954
10.0 0.121 142.0 1.628 202.8 2.982
12.6 0.146 144.5 1.658 203.5 3.088
15.2 0.176 147.3 1.687 203.4 3.165
17.7 0.204 149.6 1.717 203.3 3.178
20.1 0.233 151.0 1.727 203.0 3.189
22.6 0.259 153.4 1.760 203.0 3.199
24.9 0.287 156.0 1.789 202.9 3.213
27.5 0.315 158.5 1.819 203.6 3.230
30.0 0.344 161.0 1.849 203.6 3.237
32.5 0.373 163.4 1.876 201.1 3.219
35.2 0.402 166.0 1.905 200.3 3.217
37.6 0.431 168.5 1.933 199.4 3.216
40.1 0.461 170.8 1.963 196.9 3.214
42.4 0.485 173.1 1.989 199.4 3.252
44.9 0.514 175.5 2.018 201.9 3.285
47.4 0.544 177.8 2.046 203.8 3.447
49.9 0.569 180.0 2.071 203.8 3.579
51.6 0.583 182.5 2.098 203.6 3.685
51.6 0.581 184.9 2.125 203.4 3.721
54.0 0.619 187.1 2.152 203.6 3.758
56.9 0.650 189.5 2.178 203.5 3.775
59.4 0.679 191.5 2.210 202.9 3.785
61.9 0.709 194.0 2.246 203.8 3.808
64.0 0.734 196.3 2.435 203.6 3.823
66.6 0.761 196.6 2.458 203.6 3.841
69.3 0.791 196.3 2.463 204.0 3.858
71.8 0.823 194.0 2.447 204.3 3.902
74.5 0.851 192.6 2.445 204.9 3.967
76.9 0.881 194.9 2.478 204.9 4.011
79.4 0.909 197.3 2.505 203.6 4.026
82.0 0.936 199.5 2.536 205.1 4.070
84.6 0.967 199.9 2.551 205.6 4.120
87.1 0.995 200.0 2.590 205.9 4.238
89.5 1.025 199.9 2.599 205.9 4.348
92.2 1.055 200.5 2.618 206.1 4.465
94.9 1.082 200.9 2.632 206.1 4.540
97.2 1.115 200.9 2.641
99.7 1.141 201.4 2.651
100.4 1.140 202.0 2.681
102.9 1.176 201.1 2.688
105.3 1.207 201.5 2.710
107.6 1.234 201.4 2.724
110.0 1.261 199.3 2.704
112.4 1.289 197.0 2.685
114.8 1.315 196.3 2.675
117.0 1.341 198.6 2.708
119.5 1.368 201.4 2.741
122.0 1.398 203.0 2.779
124.5 1.427 202.9 2.839
127.1 1.459 203.0 2.855
129.8 1.487 203.6 2.877
207
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT4 Readings of strain gauges


Distance Strain JT4_TSC_ JT4_TSC_ JT4_TSC_ JT4_TSC_ JT4_TSC_ JT4_TSC_ Residual Distance Strain JT4_BB_ Distance Strain JT4_CBB_
from top gauge strain strain strain strain strain strain strain from top gauge strain from top gauge strain
of conc. No. at 25kN at 50kN at 57kN at 100kN at 150kN at 190kN at 0kN of conc. No. at 150kN of conc. No. at 150kN
(mm) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (mm) (x10-6) (mm) (x10-6)
152 JT4-1 126 413 529 989 1562 2063 27 152 JT4-1 1621 152 JT4-1 1697
185 JT4-3 99 378 513 974 1543 2059 47 168 JT4-2 1631 185 JT4-3 1686
201 JT4-4 88 357 498 975 1560 1990 58 185 JT4-3 1593 217 JT4-5 1714
217 JT4-5 76 337 495 962 1543 2046 43 201 JT4-4 1650 234 JT4-6 1740
234 JT4-6 67 319 496 989 1587 2047 75 217 JT4-5 1633 332 JT4-12 1750
332 JT4-12 41 222 494 1009 1605 2057 95 234 JT4-6 1659 348 JT4-13 1836
348 JT4-13 38 208 505 1080 1717 2348 95 283 JT4-9 1648 364 JT4-14 1727
364 JT4-14 35 185 490 1017 1606 2030 82 299 JT4-10 1663 397 JT4-16 1735
397 JT4-16 34 165 496 1036 1630 2093 85 315 JT4-11 1659 413 JT4-17 1781
413 JT4-17 33 153 497 1092 1702 2194 89 332 JT4-12 1633 430 JT4-18 1754
430 JT4-18 32 143 505 1061 1661 2133 85 348 JT4-13 1741 446 JT4-19 1762
446 JT4-19 32 126 498 1098 1700 2182 88 364 JT4-14 1661 495 JT4-22 1727
495 JT4-22 31 101 501 1066 1653 2120 86 381 JT4-15 1681 528 JT4-24 1653
528 JT4-24 30 86 476 1028 1590 2033 87 397 JT4-16 1646 544 JT4-25 1731
544 JT4-25 32 85 473 1083 1669 2132 84 413 JT4-17 1681 577 JT4-27 1727
560 JT4-26 31 83 479 1056 1637 2098 86 430 JT4-18 1638 593 JT4-28 1707
577 JT4-27 30 80 440 1051 1646 2118 76 446 JT4-19 1687 609 JT4-29 1724
593 JT4-28 30 77 454 1051 1638 2099 85 462 JT4-20 1652 626 JT4-30 1707
609 JT4-29 32 78 416 1032 1631 2105 84 479 JT4-21 1668 642 JT4-31 1767
626 JT4-30 31 76 430 1038 1630 2100 87 495 JT4-22 1630 772 JT4-39 1714
642 JT4-31 31 75 403 1036 1655 2151 84 511 JT4-23 1648 821 JT4-42 1699
772 JT4-39 22 80 270 909 1536 2112 90 528 JT4-24 1546 854 JT4-44 1656
821 JT4-42 32 105 258 876 1513 2017 108 544 JT4-25 1638 887 JT4-46 1697
854 JT4-44 32 123 259 841 1467 1947 100 560 JT4-26 1615 903 JT4-47 1725
887 JT4-46 31 159 291 857 1491 1985 84 577 JT4-27 1627 919 JT4-48 1682
903 JT4-47 35 173 299 861 1507 2016 77 593 JT4-28 1625 936 JT4-49 1686
919 JT4-48 20 176 298 839 1460 1947 47 609 JT4-29 1625 952 JT4-50 1707
936 JT4-49 39 217 337 875 1492 1983 62 626 JT4-30 1628 968 JT4-51 1756
952 JT4-50 42 239 359 896 1508 1997 49 642 JT4-31 1638 1001 JT4-53 1725
968 JT4-51 46 278 403 954 1578 2080 57 658 JT4-32 1606 1017 JT4-54 1746
1001 JT4-53 52 294 414 950 1553 2043 39 674 JT4-33 1650 1034 JT4-55 1723
1017 JT4-54 58 309 420 961 1561 2042 34 691 JT4-34 1607 1083 JT4-58 1739
1034 JT4-55 63 324 439 968 1559 2044 26 707 JT4-35 1639 1132 JT4-61 1629
1083 JT4-58 89 368 479 1000 1586 2051 19 723 JT4-36 1622 1148 JT4-62 1741
1132 JT4-61 122 394 487 975 1522 1971 -8 740 JT4-37 1633
1148 JT4-62 154 439 537 1034 1609 2051 15 756 JT4-38 1598
772 JT4-39 1576
789 JT4-40 1594
805 JT4-41 1585
821 JT4-42 1594
838 JT4-43 1580
854 JT4-44 1576
870 JT4-45 1592
887 JT4-46 1578
903 JT4-47 1614
919 JT4-48 1571
936 JT4-49 1569
952 JT4-50 1567
968 JT4-51 1634
1001 JT4-53 1586
1017 JT4-54 1573
1034 JT4-55 1577
1050 JT4-56 1598
1066 JT4-57 1587
1083 JT4-58 1574
1099 JT4-59 1461
1115 JT4-60 1596
1132 JT4-61 1519
1148 JT4-62 1575
208
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT4 Bond stresses


Distance Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond
from top stress stress stress stress stress
of conc. at 25kN at 50kN at 57kN at 100kN at 150kN
(mm) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa)
197 0.84 1.35 0.70 0.52 0.35
242 0.47 1.19 0.30 0.09 0.21
283 0.32 1.08 0.14 0.30 0.34
319 0.27 1.10 0.11 0.41 0.46
360 0.11 0.92 0.29 0.50 0.45
381 0.05 0.79 0.12 0.63 0.62
401 0.07 0.83 0.06 0.74 0.78
421 0.05 0.85 0.18 0.56 0.49
446 0.01 0.75 0.11 0.46 0.37
474 0.00 0.59 0.10 0.17 0.12
503 0.01 0.50 0.16 0.10 0.07
536 0.00 0.42 0.97 0.17 0.09
560 0.03 0.27 0.79 0.47 0.27
581 0.01 0.14 0.49 0.43 0.23
601 0.05 0.08 0.81 0.49 0.30
617 0.02 0.14 0.78 0.52 0.37
662 0.06 0.03 1.13 0.94 0.73
715 0.02 0.19 0.99 0.87 0.63
772 0.06 0.43 0.56 0.69 0.42
834 0.08 0.91 0.24 0.43 0.27
866 0.01 1.06 0.61 0.33 0.38
891 0.14 0.86 0.53 0.37 0.54
911 0.11 1.14 0.93 0.39 0.00
928 0.44 1.86 1.73 1.36 0.76
944 0.46 1.89 1.82 1.47 0.84
964 0.21 1.40 1.38 1.15 0.73
985 0.24 0.92 0.80 0.67 0.27
1005 0.30 0.75 0.60 0.47 0.02
1034 0.47 0.91 0.95 0.71 0.46
1066 0.65 0.90 0.91 0.74 0.59
1099 0.88 0.95 0.90 0.71 0.52
209
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT4_TSC Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs

JT4-1 (uE) JT4-3 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT4-4 (uE) JT4-5 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT4-6 (uE) JT4-12 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT4-13 (uE) JT4-14 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
210
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT4_TSC Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT4-16 (uE) JT4-17 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT4-18 (uE) JT4-19 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
JT4-27 (uE) JT4-28 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT4-29 (uE) JT4-30 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
211
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT4_TSC Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT4-31 (uE) JT4-39 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT4-42 (uE) JT4-44 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT4-46 (uE) JT4-47 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT4-48 (uE) JT4-49 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
212
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT4_TSC Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs

JT4-50 (uE) JT4-51 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT4-53 (uE) JT4-54 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT4-55 (uE) JT4-58 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT4-61 (uE) JT4-62 (uE)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
213
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT4_TSC Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


LVDTNW (mm) LVDTSW (mm)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

LVDTNE (mm) LVDTSE (mm)

250 250

200 200
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
214
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT5 Data for Figure 3.41


JT5_TSC JT5_TSC JT5_TSC JT5_TSC JT5_TSC JT5_TSC JT5_TSC JT5_TSC JT5_CBB JT5_CBB JT5_CBB
LOAD _LVDT _SG
LOAD _LVDT _SG
LOAD _LVDT _SG
LOAD _LVDT _SG
LOAD _SG
LOAD _SG
LOAD _SG

(kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)
0.0 0.000 0.000 100.4 0.905 0.972 150.1 1.566 1.562 23.3 0.297 0.146 0.0 0.000 135.9 1.588 191.5 4.102
2.9 0.001 0.007 121.5 1.112 1.251 147.6 1.542 1.509 32.7 0.385 0.247 2.7 0.038 138.5 1.616 191.5 4.149
5.2 0.003 0.012 134.0 1.225 1.356 120.5 1.264 1.178 37.7 0.433 0.301 5.1 0.068 140.9 1.649 190.0 4.161
8.0 0.008 0.019 150.0 1.380 1.511 103.4 1.092 1.016 47.8 0.535 0.413 7.5 0.096 143.0 1.675 189.4 4.167
12.2 0.015 0.027 149.3 1.375 1.484 96.6 1.019 0.927 52.8 0.583 0.467 10.0 0.121 145.4 1.701 189.6 4.179
14.8 0.024 0.038 135.5 1.261 1.331 82.4 0.877 0.767 62.8 0.681 0.576 12.4 0.151 147.6 1.728 190.4 4.196
18.4 0.037 0.053 112.5 1.031 1.042 57.1 0.627 0.504 68.1 0.735 0.636 14.9 0.179 150.1 1.755 190.5 4.217
21.8 0.054 0.074 99.8 0.907 0.925 49.8 0.554 0.444 78.3 0.838 0.749 17.5 0.207 152.5 1.785 191.0 4.241
24.4 0.081 0.092 72.7 0.635 0.615 42.5 0.487 0.343 83.3 0.890 0.808 20.0 0.236 155.1 1.814 191.5 4.265
24.7 0.082 0.095 50.0 0.408 0.426 33.4 0.403 0.257 93.3 0.991 0.920 22.4 0.266 157.5 1.841 191.4 4.379
40.5 0.210 0.254 39.4 0.313 0.263 16.3 0.259 0.078 98.3 1.043 0.977 25.0 0.293 160.0 1.870 188.1 4.432
49.1 0.293 0.329 0.1 0.076 0.036 3.6 0.176 -0.010 108.1 1.142 1.069 27.5 0.323 162.3 1.900 189.4 4.468
48.6 0.307 0.336 0.5 0.075 0.031 3.3 0.154 -0.012 113.3 1.191 1.123 30.0 0.353 164.8 1.928 190.8 4.505
55.2 0.355 0.422 0.3 0.065 0.026 9.1 0.172 0.015 123.3 1.289 1.231 32.5 0.382 167.0 1.958 191.8 4.561
74.4 0.551 0.617 0.3 0.065 0.035 19.0 0.244 0.097 128.1 1.342 1.309 35.0 0.410 169.5 1.985 192.3 4.622
75.0 0.561 0.623 -2.6 0.073 0.020 23.7 0.289 0.146 137.6 1.435 1.414 37.6 0.440 171.8 2.013 192.8 4.713
74.9 0.568 0.644 -3.7 0.068 0.017 33.6 0.382 0.253 142.5 1.484 1.468 40.1 0.470 174.1 2.041 192.8 4.801
83.7 0.644 0.738 0.1 0.076 0.023 38.7 0.429 0.304 150.0 1.561 1.544 42.5 0.499 176.4 2.070 193.0 4.873
97.8 0.795 0.891 0.2 0.077 0.023 48.4 0.525 0.416 154.8 1.606 1.605 44.9 0.527 178.8 2.094 193.0 4.910
100.1 0.828 0.911 0.0 0.074 0.013 51.2 0.552 0.437 164.8 1.701 1.713 47.5 0.555 181.0 2.137 189.3 4.936
98.7 0.831 0.910 0.4 0.074 0.013 61.3 0.654 0.545 169.5 1.749 1.764 50.0 0.586 183.4 2.211 189.5 4.958
100.8 0.845 0.957 5.7 0.079 0.033 66.0 0.703 0.599 178.9 1.842 1.867 52.5 0.615 185.6 2.277 191.8 4.988
122.8 1.059 1.181 10.8 0.091 0.043 75.6 0.798 0.692 183.3 1.887 1.915 55.1 0.643 185.4 2.444 193.9 5.039
125.3 1.089 1.201 20.6 0.142 0.102 80.2 0.847 0.755 188.0 1.950 1.968 57.6 0.675 184.9 2.530 194.3 5.086
128.0 1.123 1.262 25.5 0.181 0.148 89.5 0.944 0.875 183.9 1.927 1.920 60.1 0.702 184.8 2.569 194.1 5.902
138.1 1.219 1.374 34.6 0.263 0.242 94.4 0.989 0.925 174.4 1.838 1.827 62.8 0.731 185.0 2.618 194.0 5.956
149.8 1.351 1.492 39.6 0.310 0.294 102.8 1.075 1.019 169.8 1.792 1.776 65.2 0.762 185.3 2.667 193.8 6.010
148.0 1.348 1.481 49.3 0.405 0.407 107.9 1.124 1.074 160.8 1.702 1.679 67.6 0.791 185.8 2.696 194.3 6.062
142.9 1.321 1.371 50.0 0.415 0.410 117.9 1.224 1.186 155.9 1.655 1.624 70.0 0.817 186.4 2.735 195.0 6.230
111.0 1.023 1.076 55.9 0.469 0.481 122.4 1.271 1.240 147.3 1.569 1.530 72.4 0.846 186.6 2.770 194.8 6.303
98.0 0.895 0.902 59.7 0.507 0.524 132.1 1.367 1.349 142.5 1.520 1.475 74.8 0.874 187.0 2.808 194.9 6.433
66.8 0.586 0.565 69.0 0.594 0.623 136.6 1.411 1.399 132.6 1.419 1.366 77.3 0.902 187.5 2.850 195.1 6.577
50.6 0.430 0.410 74.1 0.646 0.682 146.3 1.506 1.486 127.9 1.370 1.310 79.9 0.932 187.6 2.879 195.1 6.634
22.2 0.203 0.152 84.2 0.747 0.794 150.0 1.544 1.536 118.0 1.267 1.197 82.4 0.961 187.8 2.932 195.0 6.870
1.3 0.086 0.051 89.2 0.796 0.848 156.8 1.609 1.617 113.6 1.221 1.147 85.0 0.992 188.0 2.982 194.9 7.053
23.8 0.150 0.190 100.0 0.902 0.966 162.0 1.660 1.673 104.3 1.127 1.043 87.3 1.021 188.0 3.042 195.5 7.270
50.1 0.396 0.419 102.3 0.921 0.992 171.5 1.754 1.779 100.0 1.083 1.005 89.7 1.050 188.6 3.105 195.6 7.461
60.0 0.495 0.573 111.4 1.012 1.097 176.5 1.799 1.831 90.4 0.988 0.889 92.1 1.077 189.1 3.150 195.6 7.585
94.1 0.826 0.929 116.3 1.057 1.149 186.4 1.903 1.944 85.4 0.933 0.831 94.7 1.106 189.4 3.189 196.0 7.705
100.6 0.888 0.969 125.3 1.147 1.251 186.6 1.928 1.949 75.7 0.835 0.722 97.0 1.135 189.9 3.229 195.5 7.882
135.9 1.228 1.390 129.9 1.188 1.297 164.1 1.715 1.670 70.6 0.785 0.667 99.6 1.163 190.1 3.263 195.8 7.972
148.9 1.346 1.499 139.0 1.277 1.395 151.9 1.595 1.572 60.9 0.688 0.562 102.1 1.194 190.5 3.302 195.9 8.084
140.3 1.296 1.370 143.9 1.325 1.450 133.8 1.413 1.336 55.9 0.638 0.506 104.5 1.224 191.0 3.363 195.6 8.170
111.9 1.022 1.086 150.9 1.417 1.529 120.3 1.273 1.196 50.0 0.578 0.448 106.8 1.249 191.0 3.438 196.0 8.261
100.1 0.907 0.989 155.6 1.462 1.580 99.8 1.065 0.998 45.0 0.533 0.387 109.0 1.277 189.5 3.496 195.9 8.368
97.4 0.877 0.835 165.9 1.567 1.691 97.0 1.034 0.930 34.9 0.438 0.279 111.5 1.304 187.5 3.497 196.0 8.487
49.7 0.409 0.434 170.8 1.622 1.752 73.2 0.793 0.667 30.5 0.396 0.231 114.1 1.333 188.0 3.530 196.4 8.622
39.3 0.314 0.286 173.8 1.671 1.757 63.3 0.691 0.559 20.4 0.310 0.129 116.5 1.362 188.5 3.589 196.5 8.785
0.4 0.078 0.041 175.8 1.687 1.786 47.5 0.538 0.389 15.4 0.270 0.087 119.1 1.390 189.0 3.645 196.5 8.925
-0.3 0.074 0.039 184.4 1.778 1.873 33.4 0.407 0.242 5.6 0.203 0.007 121.5 1.421 189.8 3.711 196.5 9.037
29.2 0.203 0.233 186.9 1.814 1.900 9.7 0.219 0.017 0.6 0.174 -0.023 124.1 1.451 190.4 3.780 196.9 9.136
44.2 0.349 0.383 188.9 1.892 1.958 0.0 0.161 -0.022 126.5 1.484 190.9 3.839 197.0 9.225
60.5 0.497 0.581 184.0 1.889 1.915 2.3 0.150 -0.023 128.9 1.511 191.4 3.906 197.0 9.309
76.5 0.651 0.728 177.5 1.837 1.831 8.3 0.175 0.009 131.1 1.538 191.5 3.970 197.0 9.693
97.6 0.879 0.954 166.9 1.733 1.723 18.5 0.254 0.097 133.4 1.562 191.6 4.029
215
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT5 Readings of strain gauges


Distance Strain JT5_TSC_ JT5_TSC_ JT5_TSC_ JT5_TSC_ JT5_TSC_ JT5_TSC_ Residual Distance Strain JT5_CBB_
from top gauge strain strain strain strain strain strain strain from top gauge strain
of conc. No. at 25kN at 50kN at 75kN at 100kN at 150kN at 190kN at 0kN of conc. No. at 150kN
(mm) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (x10-6) (mm) (x10-6)
152 JT1-1 110 306 595 884 1457 1903 26 152 JT1-1 1632
168 JT1-2 101 294 576 862 1447 1887 59 201 JT1-4 1679
185 JT1-3 79 260 540 833 1428 1898 52 217 JT1-5 1680
201 JT1-4 72 257 541 837 1434 1910 65 234 JT1-6 1733
217 JT1-5 63 249 535 833 1431 1904 59 266 JT1-8 1726
234 JT1-6 61 267 564 869 1476 1967 75 283 JT1-9 1744
266 JT1-8 59 300 604 906 1498 2017 62 299 JT1-10 1717
283 JT1-9 59 316 619 921 1518 2054 74 315 JT1-11 1735
299 JT1-10 61 323 615 904 1486 1954 64 332 JT1-12 1727
315 JT1-11 67 344 636 932 1517 1992 52 348 JT1-13 1747
332 JT1-12 75 360 646 932 1510 1981 52 364 JT1-14 1709
348 JT1-13 87 387 677 971 1555 2040 48 397 JT1-16 1717
364 JT1-14 93 392 680 970 1556 2058 41 413 JT1-17 1736
381 JT1-15 92 376 661 949 1529 1992 38 430 JT1-18 1668
397 JT1-16 89 355 633 914 1487 1977 28 446 JT1-19 1719
413 JT1-17 96 354 641 934 1522 1995 47 479 JT1-20 1800
430 JT1-18 92 344 626 903 1455 1958 30 511 JT1-23 1780
446 JT1-19 95 341 618 899 1470 1923 30 528 JT1-24 1772
462 JT1-20 100 365 664 961 1552 2014 32 544 JT1-25 1758
479 JT1-21 108 387 684 976 1562 2211 36 560 JT1-26 1706
495 JT1-22 105 391 696 999 1595 1869 33 577 JT1-27 1710
511 JT1-23 102 383 677 965 1544 2140 30 609 JT1-29 1745
528 JT1-24 92 372 674 972 1569 1959 37 642 JT1-31 1701
544 JT1-25 91 350 641 924 1495 1984 45 658 JT1-32 1747
560 JT1-26 77 311 605 897 1488 1967 56 723 JT1-36 1726
577 JT1-27 70 290 580 864 1441 1906 47 789 JT1-40 1820
593 JT1-28 65 259 546 840 1443 1970 78 854 JT1-44 1713
609 JT1-29 62 254 549 849 1471 1999 74 870 JT1-45 1737
642 JT1-31 68 251 545 849 1467 1987 89 887 JT1-46 1784
658 JT1-32 63 254 546 850 1479 1969 73 903 JT1-47 1740
674 JT1-33 62 260 542 826 1417 1929 58 919 JT1-48 1693
691 JT1-34 66 280 565 853 1440 1895 59 952 JT1-50 1845
707 JT1-35 74 303 590 877 1465 1953 65 985 JT1-52 1912
723 JT1-36 78 321 611 898 1486 1896 42 1017 JT1-54 1841
740 JT1-37 84 335 626 915 1507 66 1050 JT1-56 1869
756 JT1-38 90 364 656 941 1523 1962 43 1083 JT1-58 1754
772 JT1-39 99 378 675 965 1547 2054 49
789 JT1-40 109 401 703 1001 1600 2009 44
805 JT1-41 120 412 713 1007 1596 2076 43
838 JT1-43 107 370 658 941 1513 2019 40
854 JT1-44 98 352 635 917 1486 1942 54
870 JT1-45 99 346 637 929 1521 2015 80
887 JT1-46 96 318 597 884 1474 1946 11
903 JT1-47 97 322 612 907 1505 2001 70
919 JT1-48 102 340 640 937 1510 1906 56
952 JT1-50 110 360 665 970 1607 2131 81
968 JT1-51 119 381 667 950 1526 1971 25
985 JT1-52 121 397 708 1010 1620 2100 42
1017 JT1-54 137 428 741 1040 1647 2011 28
1050 JT1-56 130 411 728 1037 1658 2117 40
1066 JT1-57 122 396 688 973 1556 2033 31
1083 JT1-58 122 386 690 988 1584 2025 23
1115 JT1-60 124 361 667 965 1562 2013 47
1148 JT1-62 145 381 658 934 1505 18
216
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT5 Bond stresses


Distance Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond
from top stress stress stress stress stress
of conc. at 25kN at 50kN at 57kN at 100kN at 150kN
(mm) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa)
180 0.92 1.26 1.50 1.41 1.37
201 0.65 0.54 0.57 0.54 0.65
217 0.27 0.50 0.61 0.52 0.20
234 0.08 1.06 1.22 1.13 0.74
250 0.08 1.06 1.22 1.13 0.74
266 0.01 0.89 0.76 0.47 0.19
283 0.17 0.91 0.58 0.28 0.06
299 0.36 1.08 0.81 0.61 0.38
315 0.55 1.26 1.07 0.87 0.69
332 0.64 1.29 1.29 1.30 1.49
348 0.41 0.36 0.43 0.53 0.85
364 0.00 0.92 1.11 1.26 1.48
381 0.00 0.92 1.11 1.26 1.48
397 0.19 0.27 0.06 0.02 0.01
413 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.19 0.44
430 0.04 0.12 0.23 0.36 0.49
446 0.09 0.52 0.65 0.62 0.49
462 0.09 0.52 0.65 0.62 0.49
479 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.13
495 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.13
511 0.20 0.42 0.39 0.37 0.37
528 0.36 1.27 1.21 1.12 0.89
544 0.49 1.67 1.51 1.25 0.61
560 0.39 1.22 1.15 0.96 0.47
577 0.24 1.05 1.11 0.86 0.24
593 0.24 1.05 1.11 0.86 0.24
609 0.03 0.30 0.24 0.02 0.31
626 0.03 0.30 0.24 0.02 0.31
642 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.23 0.40
662 0.17 0.98 0.90 0.60 0.09
691 0.30 1.14 1.13 0.93 0.44
723 0.38 1.05 1.00 0.87 0.50
756 0.30 0.64 0.58 0.53 0.31
789 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.13
821 0.06 0.48 0.45 0.37 0.16
850 0.11 0.94 1.11 1.08 0.89
870 0.14 1.18 1.48 1.51 1.50
887 0.16 0.25 0.82 1.29 1.59
903 0.24 0.75 1.21 1.44 1.67
924 0.11 0.27 0.01 0.37 0.65
952 0.26 0.64 0.49 0.18 0.32
985 0.31 0.72 0.89 0.95 0.91
1017 0.02 0.00 0.15 0.37 0.70
217
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT5_TSC Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-1 (uE) JT1-2 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT1-3 (uE) JT1-4 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT1-5 (uE) JT1-6 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT1-8 (uE) JT1-9 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
218
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT5_TSC Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-10 (uE) JT1-11 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
JT1-12 (uE) JT1-13 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT1-14 (uE) JT1-15 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
JT1-16 (uE) JT1-17 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
219
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT5_TSC Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-18 (uE) JT1-19 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
JT1-20 (uE) JT1-21 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
JT1-22 (uE) JT1-23 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
JT1-24 (uE) JT1-25 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
220
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT5_TSC Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-26 (uE) JT1-27 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
JT1-28 (uE) JT1-29 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT1-31 (uE) JT1-32 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT1-33 (uE) JT1-34 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
221
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT5_TSC Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-35 (uE) JT1-36 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT1-38 (uE) JT1-39 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
JT1-40 (uE) JT1-41 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT1-43 (uE) JT1-44 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
222
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT5_TSC Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-45 (uE) JT1-46 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT1-47 (uE) JT1-48 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT1-50 (uE) JT1-51 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT1-52 (uE) JT1-54 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
223
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT5_TSC Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


JT1-56 (uE) JT1-57 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT1-58 (uE) JT1-60 (uE)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

JT1-62 (uE)

200
180
160
Baldwin Load (kN)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
224
Appendix I - Summary of test results for JT series

Specimen: JT5_TSC Graphs for readings of strain gauges and LVDTs


LVDTNE (mm) LVDTSE (mm)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

LVDTNW (mm) LVDTSW (mm)

200 200
180 180
160 160
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
225
Appendix II - Summary of test results for JB series

JB1-N/D/D Progress of cracks at each load stage (red lines)

P = 350 kN

P = 500 kN

P = 650 kN

P = 800 kN

P = 900 kN

After failure
226
Appendix II - Summary of test results for JB series

Specimen: JB1 Data for Load - Dispalacement Relationships


Disp. Load Disp. Load Disp. Load Disp. Load Disp. Load
(mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN)
0.00 0.9 1.96 205.5 7.57 479.5 15.41 777.0 22.01 879.0
0.09 10.0 2.08 214.5 7.57 480.0 15.61 781.5 21.99 879.0
0.13 18.8 2.22 223.7 7.67 489.0 15.81 787.0 21.79 869.5
0.08 16.4 2.37 231.9 7.78 496.5 16.01 791.0 21.79 860.5
0.14 24.8 2.52 240.4 7.89 505.5 16.22 795.0 21.88 857.0
0.17 31.0 2.69 249.4 8.03 514.5 16.29 796.5 21.97 857.5
0.19 34.5 2.78 254.5 8.17 523.0 16.31 798.0 22.04 857.0
0.23 37.6 2.95 263.7 8.33 532.0 16.50 799.0 22.08 850.5
0.25 42.6 3.13 273.2 8.52 540.5 16.71 807.0 22.07 849.0
0.27 43.9 3.29 282.4 8.71 548.5 16.56 797.0 22.22 858.0
0.29 50.0 3.45 291.6 8.90 555.5 16.35 782.0 22.35 866.0
0.31 49.2 3.61 300.2 9.10 563.0 16.19 770.0 22.52 875.0
0.37 58.6 3.76 309.5 9.28 571.0 16.13 760.5 22.72 884.0
0.46 67.6 3.94 319.1 9.47 581.5 16.12 756.5 22.90 874.0
0.46 69.8 4.12 328.1 9.67 590.5 16.10 750.0 22.99 864.5
0.42 62.6 4.29 337.2 9.87 599.5 16.22 755.0 23.02 865.0
0.42 62.5 4.48 346.3 10.06 607.0 16.22 751.5 23.23 869.5
0.42 62.0 4.53 347.9 10.25 615.5 16.20 748.5 23.43 874.5
0.44 62.5 4.54 351.2 10.44 624.0 16.37 757.5 23.62 880.5
0.44 61.8 4.47 342.2 10.63 633.0 16.37 758.0 23.82 884.0
0.46 64.2 4.43 332.3 10.84 639.5 16.42 761.0 24.03 888.5
0.56 74.4 4.36 322.8 11.01 646.0 16.56 769.0 24.22 891.5
0.61 83.9 4.44 322.2 11.08 647.5 16.68 777.5 24.42 896.0
0.72 92.9 4.44 321.7 11.09 647.5 16.84 787.0 24.63 898.5
0.72 94.5 4.46 321.4 11.08 643.0 17.03 795.0 24.83 902.5
0.70 92.3 4.49 323.1 11.09 635.0 17.21 803.0 25.04 904.5
0.71 91.1 4.52 327.8 11.12 624.5 17.36 810.0 25.24 905.0
0.72 91.7 4.63 336.9 11.08 615.5 17.56 817.0 25.43 907.0
0.71 91.3 4.73 346.0 11.12 615.0 17.69 820.0 25.63 910.0
0.71 90.5 4.84 354.4 11.12 613.0 17.89 825.0 25.84 910.5
0.78 99.4 4.95 364.4 11.11 607.0 17.89 826.0 26.04 911.5
0.77 102.2 5.09 373.5 11.11 607.5 18.07 829.5 26.24 913.0
0.84 110.4 5.25 383.5 11.22 616.0 18.28 835.0 26.45 910.5
0.93 121.8 5.42 393.2 11.33 625.0 18.48 843.5 28.98 855.0
0.99 130.1 5.61 403.0 11.44 634.0 18.68 848.5
1.08 139.9 5.81 411.5 11.58 643.0 18.87 853.5
1.19 150.4 5.95 419.5 11.71 651.5 19.02 852.5
1.31 160.3 6.12 428.5 11.86 660.5 19.19 855.0
1.37 169.1 6.30 436.5 12.03 669.0 19.39 861.0
1.48 177.8 6.45 445.0 12.19 678.5 19.58 863.0
1.54 182.1 6.62 454.5 12.38 687.0 19.78 865.5
1.63 188.5 6.82 463.0 12.58 696.5 19.98 868.0
1.76 197.8 6.99 472.5 12.77 704.0 20.14 873.0
1.81 200.8 7.18 481.5 12.96 709.5 20.34 877.0
1.79 191.7 7.37 490.5 13.17 709.5 20.53 881.0
1.72 182.3 7.40 492.5 13.38 713.0 20.72 883.0
1.73 182.7 7.46 494.0 13.58 718.0 20.92 885.5
1.74 182.0 7.56 499.0 13.78 725.5 21.12 881.5
1.76 181.7 7.59 500.5 13.98 732.5 21.32 885.0
1.75 180.4 7.35 493.0 14.19 740.0 21.52 888.5
1.75 179.8 7.28 477.0 14.39 746.0 21.71 891.5
1.75 180.0 7.48 478.0 14.59 752.0 21.83 893.0
1.84 190.1 7.49 477.0 14.80 758.5 22.02 895.0
1.84 192.8 7.54 478.5 15.00 764.5 22.22 897.5
1.96 203.0 7.53 476.5 15.20 771.0 22.04 889.0
227
Appendix II - Summary of test results for JB series

Specimen: JB1
Readings of LVDTs

WestCenter Displacement (mm) Center Displacement (mm)

1000 1000
900 900
800 800
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

EastCenter Displacement (mm)

1000
900
800
Baldwin Load (kN)

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25

West Support Displacement (mm) East Support Displacement (mm)

1000 1000
900 900
800 800
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)

700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
228
Appendix II - Summary of test results for JB series

Specimen: JB1
Readings of LVDTs

West Shear Strain (mm/m) WestCenter Shear Strain (mm/m)

1000 1000
900 900
800 800
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5

EastCenter shear Strain (mm/m) East shear Strain (mm/m)

1000 1000
900 900
800 800
Baldwin Load (kN)

Baldwin Load (kN)


700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Specimen: JB1 Test Data for Figure 4.18

Longitudinal Strains of Zurich Gauges at 100 mm high from the bottom


Location (m) 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 2.000 2.200 2.400 2.600 2.800 3.000 3.200 3.400 3.600 3.800 4.000 4.200 4.400 4.600 4.800 5.000 5.200 5.400 5.600
70kN 0.001 -0.034 0.019 -0.001 -0.005 -0.018 0.006 0.038 0.036 0.004 0.091 0.022 0.088 0.056 0.056 0.078 0.017 0.037 0.083 -0.005 0.081 0.025 -0.001 0.024 0.021 0.021 -0.035
100kN 0.018 -0.010 0.032 0.063 -0.012 0.006 0.043 0.154 0.087 0.040 0.145 0.193 0.134 0.029 0.119 0.065 0.003 0.010 0.069 -0.025 0.027 0.082 -0.026 0.020 -0.004 0.043 -0.103
200kN 0.015 0.005 0.081 0.007 0.006 0.069 0.094 0.105 0.164 0.040 0.186 0.310 0.407 0.193 0.247 0.218 0.198 -0.038 0.160 -0.079 0.139 0.155 -0.042 0.060 0.010 0.056 0.029
350kN -0.003 -0.001 0.074 0.121 -0.028 0.170 0.192 0.099 0.394 0.594 0.446 0.732 1.089 0.499 0.714 0.814 0.653 0.391 0.419 -0.108 0.396 0.190 -0.039 0.150 0.037 0.108 -0.023
500kN 0.060 0.009 0.136 0.138 0.056 0.495 0.333 0.716 0.770 0.857 1.084 1.180 1.549 0.809 1.003 1.285 1.178 0.597 0.760 0.082 0.796 0.247 -0.009 0.167 -0.040 0.017 -0.030
650kN 0.023 0.009 0.155 0.244 0.485 0.721 0.787 0.970 1.580 0.960 1.498 1.516 2.116 1.134 1.238 1.621 1.634 1.208 1.048 0.615 1.247 0.682 0.514 0.480 0.036 0.053 0.007
800kN -0.016 0.213 1.588 0.708 0.813 1.000 1.315 1.150 1.904 1.304 1.859 1.842 2.631 1.449 1.423 1.993 2.049 1.619 1.391 0.724 1.898 0.871 0.689 1.144 0.232 0.720 0.010
900kN -0.093 0.864 2.213 0.641 0.935 0.855 1.910 1.354 2.230 1.647 1.935 2.071 3.031 1.625 1.561 2.215 2.268 2.053 1.740 0.761 2.226 1.117 0.869 1.892 0.083 1.294 0.032

Maximum Transverse Strains of Zurich Gauges at Each Section


Location (m) 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900 1.100 1.300 1.500 1.700 1.900 2.100 2.300 2.500 2.700 2.900 3.100 3.300 3.500 3.700 3.900 4.100 4.300 4.500 4.700 4.900 5.100 5.300 5.500 5.700
70kN 0.013 -0.071 -0.037 -0.046 -0.021 0.014 0.002 -0.006 -0.036 -0.038 0.041 -0.029 -0.004 0.049 0.025 0.012 0.071 0.256 0.012 0.039 0.045 0.035 0.063 0.000 0.003 -0.041 0.070 -0.060
100kN -0.006 -0.010 0.024 0.011 -0.009 -0.029 0.017 0.022 -0.023 -0.028 0.071 0.001 0.021 0.031 0.055 0.008 0.065 0.016 -0.042 -0.033 0.011 0.011 0.030 -0.015 -0.012 -0.030 -0.030 0.003
200kN 0.036 0.000 -0.041 0.017 0.011 0.019 -0.002 0.024 0.016 0.019 0.022 0.118 0.021 0.029 0.015 0.055 0.172 0.038 -0.004 0.058 0.035 -0.007 0.341 -0.003 -0.026 -0.003 -0.016 -0.027
350kN 0.022 -0.023 -0.020 0.036 0.001 0.014 0.074 0.055 0.040 0.011 0.088 0.042 0.097 0.072 0.047 0.149 0.192 0.048 0.030 0.003 0.039 0.019 0.028 0.016 -0.012 -0.004 0.086 0.001
500kN -0.037 0.022 0.027 0.067 0.105 0.041 0.102 0.078 0.065 0.142 0.238 0.323 0.137 0.150 0.098 0.221 0.175 0.069 0.012 0.187 0.071 0.152 0.148 0.061 -0.001 0.050 -0.093 -0.153
650kN 0.015 -0.003 -0.017 0.025 -0.009 0.111 0.190 0.659 1.113 1.217 0.767 1.134 0.436 0.170 0.051 0.304 0.190 0.200 0.169 0.684 0.569 1.264 0.804 0.553 -0.002 0.037 0.157 -0.097
800kN -0.054 -0.021 0.717 5.400 5.813 7.052 5.744 3.674 3.185 2.220 1.364 2.131 1.227 0.218 0.104 0.664 1.166 1.005 1.819 2.420 3.040 4.509 3.699 2.590 1.923 1.380 -0.093 -0.050
900kN -0.024 -0.073 2.197 12.029 11.477 14.459 12.103 8.837 7.660 6.381 4.867 2.692 1.961 0.256 0.051 0.866 2.314 4.409 6.792 7.315 11.757 13.797 13.279 12.107 6.908 7.129 -0.115 -0.190
Appendix II - Summary of test results for JB series

Average Transverse Strains of Zurich Gauges at Each Section


Location (m) 1.100 1.300 1.500 1.700 1.900 2.100 2.300 2.500 2.700 2.900 3.100 3.300 3.500 3.700 3.900 4.100 4.300 4.500 4.700 4.900
70kN -0.030 -0.045 -0.022 -0.145 -0.047 -0.064 -0.025 -0.036 -0.031 -0.007 -0.006 -0.004 0.022 0.055 -0.022 -0.007 -0.002 -0.011 0.002 -0.029
100kN -0.031 -0.040 -0.023 -0.024 -0.053 -0.056 -0.024 -0.014 -0.005 -0.006 0.013 0.001 0.010 -0.027 -0.074 -0.053 -0.018 -0.022 0.006 -0.034
200kN -0.018 -0.012 -0.017 -0.023 -0.011 0.004 -0.014 0.030 -0.050 -0.008 0.004 0.016 0.082 -0.008 -0.051 0.012 0.011 -0.009 0.109 -0.014
350kN -0.017 -0.013 0.026 0.009 0.009 -0.003 0.009 0.001 0.042 -0.002 0.003 0.030 0.073 -0.027 -0.041 -0.013 0.020 -0.005 0.024 -0.013
500kN 0.030 0.007 0.058 -0.006 0.019 0.045 0.118 0.095 0.100 0.033 0.046 0.084 0.104 0.021 -0.006 0.040 0.060 0.061 0.084 -0.007
650kN -0.027 0.020 0.050 0.194 0.386 0.559 0.452 0.383 0.189 0.016 -0.011 0.059 0.047 0.074 0.079 0.205 0.246 0.437 0.426 0.187
800kN 2.342 2.316 1.893 1.858 1.632 1.384 1.083 0.879 0.466 -0.003 -0.001 0.238 0.384 0.493 0.793 1.304 1.565 1.559 1.784 1.279
900kN 5.128 4.818 3.982 4.835 4.341 3.443 2.506 1.858 0.691 -0.059 -0.080 0.467 1.144 2.074 3.480 4.687 5.581 5.259 6.077 5.832

Maximum Shear Strains of Zurich Gauges at Each Section


Location (m) 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 2.000 2.200 2.400 2.600 2.800 3.000 3.200 3.400 3.600 3.800 4.000 4.200 4.400 4.600 4.800 5.000 5.200 5.400 5.600
70kN 0.081 0.061 -0.030 -0.042 -0.333 -0.010 -0.072 0.046 0.025 -0.079 0.034 -0.031 -0.054 0.032 0.020 -0.344 -0.053 -0.178 -0.026 -0.024 -0.082 0.119 -0.122 -0.051 -0.060 -0.079 0.088
100kN -0.022 0.040 -0.048 0.046 -0.356 0.022 -0.024 0.025 -0.034 -0.112 0.035 0.038 -0.058 0.049 -0.024 -0.277 -0.081 -0.223 -0.018 0.022 -0.076 -0.063 -0.056 -0.040 0.037 -0.035 0.007
200kN -0.041 0.058 -0.051 -0.064 -0.369 -0.090 -0.037 -0.026 -0.028 -0.179 0.035 -0.054 0.250 -0.100 -0.022 -0.278 -0.065 -0.283 -0.035 -0.010 -0.135 -0.075 -0.127 -0.051 0.025 -0.026 0.028
350kN -0.037 0.073 -0.056 -0.035 -0.365 -0.048 -0.080 0.024 -0.032 -0.346 -0.060 -0.169 -0.390 -0.178 0.096 -0.096 -0.119 -0.326 -0.073 -0.068 0.079 -0.108 -0.076 -0.037 0.075 -0.006 0.252
500kN -0.012 0.012 -0.056 -0.064 -0.378 -0.105 -0.058 -0.214 -0.261 -0.557 -0.207 -0.497 -0.636 -0.315 0.257 0.285 0.269 -0.263 0.111 0.059 0.058 -0.104 -0.112 0.074 0.077 0.034 0.005
650kN 0.021 -0.004 -0.103 -0.099 -0.395 -0.405 -0.722 -1.328 -1.873 -1.582 -0.926 -1.344 -0.833 -0.401 0.500 0.805 0.665 0.399 0.596 0.853 1.132 1.279 0.938 0.234 -0.063 -0.189 0.129
800kN -0.096 -0.594 -3.676 -3.985 -4.649 -2.287 -3.465 -2.360 -3.628 -2.953 -1.873 -2.214 -1.056 -0.650 0.813 1.988 1.721 1.142 1.541 2.259 2.805 2.357 3.354 1.386 1.650 1.049 0.076
900kN -0.078 -1.775 -7.278 -7.127 -8.035 -2.876 -6.694 -3.478 -6.365 -5.281 -2.561 -3.033 -1.293 -0.748 1.041 3.199 2.823 2.620 3.069 5.048 7.689 3.280 10.683 5.415 5.830 4.410 0.062

Readings of Strain Gauges on Reinforcement


Gauge No. L1C2 L1N4 L1S6 L1N8 L1C10 L1S15 L1C19 L2C2 L2C10 L2C19 SS6 SS8 SS13 SS15
Location (m) 5.6 4.9 4.3 3.65 3 1.7 0.4 5.6 3 0.4 4.35 3.75 2.25 1.65
500 kN 0.005 0.144 0.641 1.077 1.324 0.662 -0.006 0.008 1.217 -0.067 -0.043 -0.015 0.488 -0.020
700 kN 0.021 0.881 1.065 1.599 1.753 1.329 -0.001 0.007 1.699 0.063 0.088 0.017 1.666 0.003
800 kN 0.100 1.353 1.461 1.987 1.991 1.636 0.072 0.049 1.949 0.068 0.644 0.022 2.160 0.206
900 kN 0.376 1.848 2.083 2.352 2.226 2.061 0.322 0.357 2.180 0.713 0.839 0.021 2.389 0.303
913 kN 0.394 1.954 3.325 2.401 2.184 2.124 0.344 0.649 2.204 0.553 1.004 0.012 2.388 0.378
229
Specimen: JB1
Load Stage 1
Total Load = 70 kN Vertical, Lateral and Diagonal Strains of Zurich Gauges [mm/m]

P
1 -0.02 2 -0.01 3 -0.02 4 -0.03 5 -0.03 6 -0.07 7 -0.04 8 -0.03 9 -0.04 10 0.02 11

-0.02 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 -0.09 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 -0.03

0.04

-0.03
-0.07
-0.02
-0.01
-0.04
-0.04
-0.03
-0.07
-0.05
-0.04

West -0.35 -0.01 -0.02 0.00 0.01 -0.02 0.03 -0.04 -0.02 -0.02
21 0.01 22 0.00 23 -0.04 24 -0.01 25 -0.02 26 0.01 27 -0.03 28 -0.05 29 -0.03 30 0.01 31 0.17 32 -0.06 33

-0.03 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.03 -0.04 -0.01 0.09 -0.03 -0.01 0.00 -0.02

0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00

-0.04
-0.05
-0.02
-0.05
-0.05
-0.09
-0.06
-0.03
-0.03

0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.01
45 0.06 46 -0.02 47 0.00 48 -0.02 49 -0.28 50 0.00 51 0.00 52 0.00 53 0.00 54 -0.05 55 0.03 56 0.00 57 0.03 58 0.05 59
Appendix II - Summary of test results for JB series

-0.09 -0.05 0.04 0.03 -0.03 -0.01 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.01

0.01
0.05
0.02

-0.07
-0.07
-0.07
-0.03
-0.07
-0.05
-0.37
-0.06
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.02

-0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.00 -0.01 -0.01
73 0.00 74 -0.03 75 0.02 76 0.00 77 -0.01 78 -0.02 79 0.01 80 0.04 81 0.04 82 0.00 83 0.09 84 0.02 85 0.09 86 0.06 87

P
10 0.02 11 0.04 12 -0.03 13 -0.04 14 -0.01 15 -0.02 16 0.00 17 0.01 18 -0.06 19 0.02 20

-0.03 -0.03 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00
0.00

-0.05
-0.04
-0.01
-0.04
-0.02
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.05
-0.03

-0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.08 -0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.02 East
32 -0.06 33 0.02 34 0.14 35 0.09 36 -0.01 37 0.02 38 0.07 39 0.06 40 0.03 41 0.04 42 0.02 43 -0.02 44

-0.02 -0.03 -0.01 -0.03 -0.07 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.05 0.01 0.02 0.00

0.00
0.07

-0.03
-0.01
-0.07
-0.04
-0.06
-0.01
-0.03
-0.01
-0.05
-0.08
-0.04

0.01 -0.01 0.04 -0.03 -0.02 0.00 0.01 -0.02 0.01 0.10 0.04 0.02
58 0.05 59 0.03 60 0.04 61 0.01 62 0.04 63 0.04 64 0.03 65 0.05 66 0.03 67 0.02 68 -0.01 69 0.01 70 0.01 71 0.00 72

0.01 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.05 -0.06 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.02
0.00

0.05
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.26
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.00
0.07

-0.05
-0.06

-0.01 0.00 -0.28 -0.03 -0.17 0.03 0.02 -0.03 0.06 -0.07 -0.03 -0.02 0.03 0.11
86 0.06 87 0.06 88 0.08 89 0.02 90 0.04 91 0.08 92 -0.01 93 0.08 94 0.02 95 0.00 96 0.02 97 0.02 98 0.02 99 -0.04 100
230
Specimen: JB1
Load Stage 2
Total Load = 100 kN Vertical, Lateral and Diagonal Strains of Zurich Gauges [mm/m]

P
1 -0.01 2 0.01 3 -0.01 4 -0.03 5 -0.04 6 -0.04 7 -0.04 8 0.04 9 -0.11 10 -0.07 11

0.00 0.01 -0.02 0.00 0.01 -0.05 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.02

0.02
0.02
0.07
0.00

-0.01
-0.06
-0.02
-0.03
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03

West -0.36 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.01 -0.03 0.03 -0.02 -0.05 -0.04
21 0.02 22 0.03 23 0.00 24 0.02 25 0.00 26 0.05 27 -0.01 28 -0.04 29 0.05 30 -0.01 31 0.06 32 -0.06 33

0.02 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.00 -0.01 -0.02

0.02
0.01
0.01

-0.05
-0.03
-0.03
-0.05
-0.07
-0.09
-0.07
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02

0.01 -0.02 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.02 -0.01
45 0.19 46 -0.02 47 0.02 48 0.04 49 -0.29 50 0.03 51 -0.01 52 0.02 53 0.48 54 -0.01 55 0.05 56 0.04 57 0.02 58 0.07 59
Appendix II - Summary of test results for JB series

0.02 -0.05 0.03 -0.05 -0.05 -0.03 0.03 -0.01 0.01 -0.04 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.00
0.02
0.03
0.05

-0.01
-0.01
-0.04
-0.07
-0.04
-0.03
-0.05
-0.05
-0.07
-0.05
-0.07
-0.03

0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.04 -0.01 0.05
73 0.02 74 -0.01 75 0.03 76 0.06 77 -0.01 78 0.01 79 0.04 80 0.15 81 0.09 82 0.04 83 0.15 84 0.19 85 0.13 86 0.03 87

P
10 -0.07 11 -0.06 12 -0.06 13 -0.08 14 -0.05 15 -0.04 16 -0.01 17 -0.01 18 -0.11 19 -0.01 20

-0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.06 0.00 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01

0.00
0.02
0.01

-0.03
-0.03
-0.02
-0.04
-0.03
-0.01
-0.03
-0.04

-0.04 -0.01 -0.03 -0.02 0.07 -0.03 -0.02 -0.02 -0.06 0.01 East
32 -0.06 33 0.01 34 -0.03 35 0.05 36 -0.05 37 -0.01 38 -0.02 39 0.04 40 0.03 41 0.01 42 0.02 43 0.00 44

-0.02 -0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.05 0.01 -0.05 0.01 -0.04 0.02 0.03 0.00

0.01
0.01
0.06
0.03

-0.02
-0.06
-0.05
-0.07
-0.05
-0.08
-0.02
-0.07
-0.04

-0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 -0.01 -0.03 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04
58 0.07 59 0.03 60 0.05 61 0.00 62 0.03 63 0.02 64 0.02 65 0.01 66 0.03 67 -0.02 68 0.00 69 0.02 70 0.00 71 0.00 72

0.00 0.03 0.02 -0.05 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.00

0.03
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00

-0.01
-0.02
-0.04
-0.13
-0.06
-0.05
-0.01
-0.03
-0.03

0.05 0.00 -0.26 -0.03 -0.23 0.02 0.00 -0.06 -0.02 -0.04 -0.03 -0.01 0.00 0.01
86 0.03 87 0.12 88 0.06 89 0.00 90 0.01 91 0.07 92 -0.02 93 0.03 94 0.08 95 -0.03 96 0.02 97 0.00 98 0.04 99 -0.10 100
231
Specimen: JB1
Load Stage 3
Total Load = 200 kN Vertical, Lateral and Diagonal Strains of Zurich Gauges [mm/m]

P
1 -0.02 2 -0.04 3 -0.06 4 -0.05 5 -0.09 6 -0.09 7 -0.11 8 -0.15 9 -0.19 10 -0.17 11

-0.01 -0.02 -0.04 -0.02 0.01 -0.09 -0.02 0.00 -0.33 -0.06

0.00
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

-0.01
-0.04
-0.02
-0.17
-0.03
-0.01

West -0.38 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.02 -0.06 -0.02 -0.06 -0.08 -0.07
21 0.01 22 0.03 23 -0.03 24 0.00 25 -0.02 26 0.02 27 -0.04 28 -0.07 29 -0.03 30 -0.04 31 -0.03 32 -0.03 33

0.03 0.03 0.07 0.00 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.16 0.03

0.02
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.03
0.00

-0.04
-0.02
-0.05
-0.02
-0.05

-0.02 -0.04 -0.01 -0.03 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 -0.05 -0.01 0.00 -0.02 -0.07
45 0.06 46 -0.01 47 0.03 48 -0.01 49 -0.26 50 0.03 51 0.00 52 0.00 53 0.04 54 -0.04 55 0.06 56 0.17 57 0.34 58 -0.03 59
Appendix II - Summary of test results for JB series

0.02 -0.05 0.05 0.00 -0.02 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.16 -0.05

0.04
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02

-0.05
-0.08
-0.05
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.03
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02

-0.03 0.00 0.02 -0.04 0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.02 0.06 -0.01 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.03
73 0.01 74 0.00 75 0.08 76 0.01 77 0.01 78 0.07 79 0.09 80 0.10 81 0.16 82 0.04 83 0.19 84 0.31 85 0.41 86 0.19 87

P
10 -0.17 11 -0.16 12 -0.14 13 -0.15 14 -0.13 15 -0.08 16 -0.06 17 -0.07 18 -0.14 19 -0.05 20

-0.06 -0.06 -0.03 0.01 -0.05 -0.05 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.02

0.05
0.03
0.04
0.00

-0.03
-0.01
-0.02
-0.01
-0.01
-0.03
-0.01

-0.07 -0.08 -0.03 -0.04 0.01 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.06 0.01 East
32 -0.03 33 -0.05 34 -0.01 35 0.02 36 -0.07 37 -0.08 38 -0.01 39 0.03 40 0.01 41 -0.02 42 0.01 43 -0.02 44

0.03 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.06 -0.02 -0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01

0.03
0.00
0.17
0.06
0.00
0.34
0.00

-0.01
-0.06
-0.02
-0.01
-0.03
-0.01

-0.07 -0.02 0.00 -0.07 -0.03 0.00 -0.02 -0.12 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.04
58 -0.03 59 0.01 60 0.13 61 0.01 62 0.03 63 0.06 64 0.02 65 0.04 66 0.02 67 -0.02 68 0.02 69 -0.01 70 -0.02 71 0.02 72

-0.05 0.07 0.08 0.02 -0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.02

0.02
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.00

-0.02
-0.13
-0.01
-0.03
-0.03
-0.02
-0.03

0.03 0.05 -0.20 0.00 -0.29 0.03 -0.01 -0.01 -0.04 -0.08 -0.04 -0.01 0.00 0.05
86 0.19 87 0.25 88 0.22 89 0.20 90 -0.04 91 0.16 92 -0.08 93 0.14 94 0.16 95 -0.04 96 0.06 97 0.01 98 0.06 99 0.03 100
232
Specimen: JB1
Load Stage 4
Total Load = 350 kN Vertical, Lateral and Diagonal Strains of Zurich Gauges [mm/m]

P
1 -0.09 2 -0.10 3 -0.13 4 -0.16 5 -0.19 6 -0.26 7 -0.23 8 -0.29 9 -0.36 10 -0.35 11

-0.03 -0.03 -0.07 -0.05 -0.02 -0.08 -0.06 0.01 -0.07 -0.09

0.01
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.09
0.10

-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04

West -0.40 -0.06 -0.08 -0.07 -0.05 -0.11 -0.06 -0.03 -0.12 -0.12
21 0.01 22 -0.02 23 -0.06 24 -0.03 25 -0.01 26 -0.01 27 -0.05 28 -0.06 29 0.02 30 0.07 31 0.00 32 0.07 33

0.01 -0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.00 -0.05 -0.02 0.25 -0.06 0.20 0.37 0.07

0.04
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.00

-0.03
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.02

-0.03 -0.04 -0.01 -0.04 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 -0.09 -0.03 0.07 -0.02 -0.10
45 0.13 46 -0.01 47 0.04 48 0.03 49 -0.22 50 0.02 51 0.07 52 0.02 53 0.11 54 0.35 55 0.01 56 0.60 57 0.77 58 -0.04 59
Appendix II - Summary of test results for JB series

0.00 -0.07 0.04 0.04 -0.02 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.13 0.28 0.15 0.40 0.41 0.01

0.02
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.03
0.05

-0.02
-0.02
-0.07
-0.05
-0.05
-0.01
-0.04
-0.03
-0.05

-0.03 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.10 0.18 0.09 0.24 0.39 0.11
73 0.00 74 0.00 75 0.07 76 0.12 77 -0.03 78 0.17 79 0.19 80 0.10 81 0.39 82 0.59 83 0.45 84 0.73 85 1.09 86 0.50 87

P
10 -0.35 11 -0.32 12 -0.30 13 -0.28 14 -0.25 15 -0.20 16 -0.15 17 -0.13 18 -0.10 19 -0.11 20

-0.09 -0.08 -0.06 -0.01 -0.07 -0.11 -0.07 -0.05 -0.05 -0.02

0.02
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02

-0.03
-0.04
-0.12 -0.09 -0.11 -0.09 -0.06 -0.07 -0.06 -0.05 -0.08 -0.01 East
32 0.07 33 0.10 34 -0.01 35 0.02 36 -0.06 37 -0.07 38 -0.01 39 0.00 40 -0.01 41 -0.02 42 0.01 43 -0.02 44

0.07 0.15 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.01 -0.02 -0.05 -0.01 0.01 -0.03

0.07
0.00
0.19
0.02
0.02

-0.08
-0.11
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.01
-0.02

-0.10 0.13 -0.01 -0.07 -0.06 -0.03 -0.06 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.05
58 -0.04 59 0.59 60 0.34 61 0.29 62 0.20 63 0.18 64 0.01 65 0.09 66 0.06 67 0.00 68 -0.03 69 0.03 70 -0.01 71 0.00 72

0.01 0.27 0.13 0.12 0.16 0.16 -0.05 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 -0.02

0.05
0.15
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.09
0.00

-0.05
-0.02
-0.12
-0.03
-0.01
-0.03
-0.02

0.11 0.37 0.12 0.19 -0.16 0.10 -0.03 0.10 -0.03 -0.08 -0.03 -0.02 0.02 0.23
86 0.50 87 0.71 88 0.81 89 0.65 90 0.39 91 0.42 92 -0.11 93 0.40 94 0.19 95 -0.04 96 0.15 97 0.04 98 0.11 99 -0.02 100
233
Specimen: JB1
Load Stage 5
Total Load = 500 kN Vertical, Lateral and Diagonal Strains of Zurich Gauges [mm/m]

P
1 -0.13 2 -0.19 3 -0.22 4 -0.25 5 -0.28 6 -0.36 7 -0.39 8 -0.16 9 -0.56 10 -0.54 11

-0.03 -0.03 -0.07 -0.06 -0.07 -0.04 -0.12 0.03 -0.12 -0.10

0.03
0.00
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.03
0.24
0.13

-0.01
-0.03
-0.02

West -0.40 -0.08 -0.09 -0.06 -0.05 -0.11 -0.07 -0.12 -0.18 -0.13
21 0.02 22 0.00 23 -0.02 24 -0.02 25 -0.04 26 0.05 27 -0.03 28 0.04 29 -0.07 30 0.22 31 0.03 32 0.24 33

0.03 0.00 -0.02 0.04 -0.01 0.16 0.06 0.54 -0.04 0.48 0.61 0.22

0.03
0.07
0.10
0.04
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.15
0.06

-0.05
-0.04
-0.03

-0.03 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 -0.04 0.01 -0.04 -0.02 -0.03 0.11 -0.03 -0.10
45 0.13 46 0.04 47 0.07 48 0.00 49 -0.23 50 0.27 51 0.04 52 0.50 53 0.15 54 0.77 55 0.01 56 1.05 57 1.20 58 -0.02 59
Appendix II - Summary of test results for JB series

0.02 -0.02 0.06 0.09 -0.04 0.22 0.12 0.39 0.41 0.53 0.49 0.90 0.69 0.08

0.02
0.01
0.01
0.14
0.08
0.32
0.14
0.10

-0.04
-0.05
-0.04
-0.02
-0.05
-0.01
-0.02

0.01 -0.01 0.03 0.03 -0.01 0.11 0.06 0.18 0.15 0.27 0.28 0.41 0.62 0.21
73 0.06 74 0.01 75 0.14 76 0.14 77 0.06 78 0.49 79 0.33 80 0.72 81 0.77 82 0.86 83 1.08 84 1.18 85 1.55 86 0.81 87

P
10 -0.54 11 -0.50 12 -0.46 13 -0.43 14 -0.41 15 -0.35 16 -0.25 17 -0.22 18 -0.22 19 -0.15 20

-0.10 -0.11 -0.09 -0.03 -0.09 -0.08 -0.07 -0.05 -0.07 -0.09

0.05
0.05
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.09
0.04
0.06

-0.03
-0.02
-0.13 -0.11 -0.14 -0.13 -0.10 -0.12 -0.10 -0.08 -0.04 -0.02 East
32 0.24 33 0.18 34 0.02 35 0.06 36 -0.06 37 0.00 38 -0.04 39 -0.01 40 -0.03 41 -0.03 42 -0.01 43 -0.05 44

0.22 0.18 0.07 0.10 0.01 0.11 -0.07 0.03 -0.03 0.00 -0.03 -0.02

0.15
0.06
0.17
0.01
0.06
0.15
0.06
0.00
0.05

-0.02
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06

-0.10 0.29 0.10 0.06 -0.05 0.07 -0.09 0.08 -0.11 -0.05 0.04 0.05
58 -0.02 59 0.91 60 0.56 61 0.52 62 0.24 63 0.50 64 -0.09 65 0.35 66 0.18 67 -0.05 68 0.01 69 0.00 70 -0.01 71 0.02 72

0.08 0.37 0.20 0.22 0.18 0.23 -0.06 0.23 0.16 0.02 0.04 0.02 -0.01 -0.05

0.10
0.22
0.09
0.07
0.19
0.07
0.15
0.07

-0.02
-0.03
-0.14
-0.07
-0.03
-0.09
-0.15

0.21 0.63 0.48 0.49 -0.08 0.34 0.00 0.28 0.06 -0.09 -0.01 -0.03 0.02 -0.05
86 0.81 87 1.00 88 1.28 89 1.18 90 0.60 91 0.76 92 0.08 93 0.80 94 0.25 95 -0.01 96 0.17 97 -0.04 98 0.02 99 -0.03 100
234
Specimen: JB1
Load Stage 6
Total Load = 650 kN Vertical, Lateral and Diagonal Strains of Zurich Gauges [mm/m]

P
1 -0.17 2 -0.22 3 -0.26 4 -0.26 5 -0.32 6 -0.48 7 -0.48 8 -0.58 9 -0.80 10 -0.71 11

-0.02 -0.07 -0.06 -0.09 -0.04 -0.03 0.11 0.45 -0.17 -0.14

0.00
0.02
0.00
0.24
0.13
0.44

-0.01
-0.02
-0.01
-0.13
-0.08

West -0.42 -0.07 -0.07 -0.06 -0.07 -0.16 -0.04 -0.13 -0.18 -0.14
21 0.00 22 -0.02 23 -0.03 24 -0.01 25 0.01 26 0.03 27 0.01 28 -0.03 29 0.28 30 0.51 31 -0.05 32 0.50 33

0.02 0.01 0.20 0.34 0.10 0.23 0.72 1.48 0.48 1.09 0.82 0.30

0.03
0.11
0.19
0.05
0.46
0.77
0.17

-0.02
-0.01
-0.10
-0.12
-0.02
-0.01

-0.04 -0.04 -0.01 0.00 -0.05 -0.03 -0.10 -0.10 -0.04 -0.05 -0.02 -0.10
45 0.14 46 0.01 47 0.05 48 0.03 49 0.00 50 0.44 51 -0.02 52 0.48 53 0.66 54 1.18 55 -0.09 56 1.76 57 1.61 58 0.07 59
Appendix II - Summary of test results for JB series

0.04 -0.01 0.10 0.12 0.32 0.51 0.73 1.46 2.10 1.65 1.21 1.82 1.00 0.21

0.02
0.00
0.66
1.11
1.22
0.35
1.13
0.15
0.01
0.05

-0.03
-0.06
-0.06
-0.03
-0.04
0.06 -0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.13 0.23 0.26 0.28 0.48 0.82 0.28
73 0.02 74 0.01 75 0.15 76 0.24 77 0.49 78 0.72 79 0.79 80 0.97 81 1.58 82 0.96 83 1.50 84 1.52 85 2.12 86 1.13 87

P
10 -0.71 11 -0.67 12 -0.59 13 -0.54 14 -0.51 15 -0.41 16 -0.30 17 -0.21 18 -0.21 19 -0.12 20

-0.14 -0.20 -0.15 -0.04 -0.10 -0.18 0.06 -0.09 -0.08 -0.07

0.07
0.17
0.57
0.05
0.02
0.05

-0.13
-0.08
-0.07
-0.03
-0.14 -0.08 -0.15 -0.13 0.02 0.09 -0.01 -0.02 0.39 -0.10 -0.02 East
32 0.50 33 0.34 34 0.10 35 0.12 36 0.08 37 0.27 38 -0.10 39 0.31 40 -0.06 41 -0.06 42 0.00 43 -0.06 44

0.30 0.23 0.08 0.05 -0.07 0.00 -0.06 -0.26 -0.06 -0.03 0.01 -0.03

0.17
0.68
1.26
0.46
0.00
0.04

-0.01
-0.06
-0.01
-0.05
-0.05
-0.01
-0.05

-0.10 0.52 0.25 0.16 0.33 0.60 0.63 0.87 1.22 0.23 0.03 0.02
58 0.07 59 1.32 60 0.82 61 0.54 62 0.63 63 0.36 64 0.61 65 0.13 66 0.99 67 0.25 68 0.01 69 -0.02 70 0.02 71 0.04 72

0.21 0.44 0.17 0.22 0.22 0.27 -0.11 0.35 0.20 -0.04 0.05 0.03 0.20 -0.06

0.01
0.05
0.30
0.19
0.20
0.12
0.18
0.00
0.80
0.55
0.00
0.16

-0.06
-0.03
-0.10

0.28 0.94 0.97 0.89 0.45 0.47 0.75 0.36 1.08 0.89 0.28 -0.04 0.01 0.07
86 1.13 87 1.24 88 1.62 89 1.63 90 1.21 91 1.05 92 0.62 93 1.25 94 0.68 95 0.51 96 0.48 97 0.04 98 0.05 99 0.01 100
235
Specimen: JB1
Load Stage 7
Total Load = 800 kN Vertical, Lateral and Diagonal Strains of Zurich Gauges [mm/m]

P
1 -0.12 2 -0.17 3 -0.25 4 -0.34 5 -0.44 6 -0.60 7 -0.56 8 -0.22 9 -0.99 10 -1.00 11

-0.03 -0.07 2.37 1.34 0.47 0.87 0.53 1.06 0.11 -0.18

3.67
1.66
0.22
1.36
0.54
1.23

-0.04
-0.02
-0.05
-0.17
-0.11

West -0.45 -0.12 -0.19 1.11 0.27 -0.19 0.22 -0.15 -0.17 -0.12
21 -0.06 22 -0.12 23 -0.14 24 -0.16 25 1.05 26 -0.06 27 -0.06 28 0.48 29 0.08 30 0.81 31 -0.06 32 0.63 33

-0.03 0.82 4.87 4.37 3.40 0.12 2.00 2.75 0.54 1.85 1.04 0.53

1.25
7.05
5.74
0.05
2.22
0.89
0.22
0.00

-0.06
-0.05
-0.06
-0.04
-0.03

-0.10 -0.15 0.29 2.08 -0.07 -0.05 -0.14 -0.20 -0.04 -0.28 -0.01 -0.12
45 0.00 46 -0.10 47 -0.09 48 0.30 49 1.88 50 0.28 51 -0.08 52 0.30 53 1.44 54 1.10 55 -0.06 56 2.39 57 2.01 58 0.12 59
Appendix II - Summary of test results for JB series

0.03 0.52 3.78 5.13 4.56 0.50 1.64 2.87 3.92 2.40 2.19 2.73 1.34 0.34

0.72
5.40
5.81
1.96
3.18
1.71
0.99
2.13
0.20
0.10

-0.05
-0.02
-0.08
-0.01
-0.05

-0.07 -0.07 0.10 1.14 -0.09 0.11 0.02 0.51 0.29 0.20 0.32 0.52 0.97 0.32
73 -0.02 74 0.21 75 1.59 76 0.71 77 0.81 78 1.00 79 1.31 80 1.15 81 1.90 82 1.30 83 1.86 84 1.84 85 2.63 86 1.45 87

P
10 -1.00 11 -0.89 12 -0.74 13 -0.69 14 -0.59 15 -0.46 16 -0.30 17 -0.23 18 -0.26 19 -0.09 20

-0.18 -0.29 -0.21 0.09 0.34 0.16 1.00 -0.09 0.16 -0.09

0.13
0.06
1.00
1.82
1.39
3.04
0.07
0.66
0.01

-0.17
-0.11
-0.12 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.92 1.37 0.97 1.82 -0.02 0.41 East
32 0.63 33 0.56 34 0.38 35 -0.01 36 0.21 37 0.39 38 -0.13 39 0.65 40 -0.06 41 0.11 42 -0.04 43 -0.06 44

0.53 0.21 0.02 -0.03 -0.24 -0.02 -0.04 -0.10 0.90 -0.07 0.43 -0.05

0.22
0.00
2.42
0.00
4.51
3.70
1.24
1.92

-0.08
-0.07
-0.02
-0.08
-0.02

-0.12 0.87 0.85 0.05 0.69 1.52 1.73 2.70 3.26 3.29 1.06 1.44
58 0.12 59 1.77 60 1.62 61 0.28 62 0.90 63 0.27 64 1.12 65 0.05 66 0.47 67 1.50 68 -0.29 69 0.87 70 -0.06 71 0.00 72

0.34 0.53 0.19 0.05 0.21 0.28 -0.30 0.42 0.18 -0.17 0.13 -0.20 -0.04 -0.06

0.10
0.66
1.17
0.50
0.64
0.10
1.66
0.10
0.99
2.59
0.05
1.38

-0.05
-0.09
-0.05

0.32 1.34 2.18 1.77 1.36 0.87 1.96 1.27 0.96 3.01 1.52 1.45 1.01 0.02
86 1.45 87 1.42 88 1.99 89 2.05 90 1.62 91 1.39 92 0.72 93 1.90 94 0.87 95 0.69 96 1.14 97 0.23 98 0.72 99 0.01 100
236
Specimen: JB1
Load Stage 8
Total Load = 900 kN Vertical, Lateral and Diagonal Strains of Zurich Gauges [mm/m]

P
1 -0.08 2 -0.14 3 -0.23 4 -0.34 5 -0.48 6 -0.68 7 -0.68 8 -0.93 9 -1.37 10 -1.35 11

-0.03 -0.10 5.08 3.41 1.79 3.48 1.87 2.08 0.33 -0.24

0.03
0.01
0.02
8.84
5.23
2.02
4.87
2.03
1.96
-0.35
-0.25

West