This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Group D S Beam
Group F: Tension Beam
No cracks were seen until a load of 40 bars was applied. As it can be seen in the photo above, the cracks on the tension beam started from the bottom and slowly progressed upwards from time to time as the load increases. Many major cracks can be seen. As soon as it hits its ultimate failure stress of 180 bars, the bottom of the tension beam fails. This is because the bottom of the beam was not reinforced well enough.
Jeremy Chang – 005024 Group D S Beam Shear Beam Group D: Shear Beam For the shear beam. prominent major cracks can be observed from the sides of the beam as shown in the photo above. Once it failed. the cracks started from the sides and it slowly moves towards the middle as the loading increases. Small cracks can be seen at the bottom of the beam unlike major cracks in the tension beam. Not many cracks can be seen in this beam as . the lowest of the three beams. Its ultimate failure stress was at 175 bars.
This happens because the beam was poorly reinforced. .Jeremy Chang – 005024 Group D S Beam compared to the other beams.
Being a compression beam.Jeremy Chang – 005024 Group D S Beam Compression Beam Group E: Compression Beam For this beam. the minor cracks were seen starting from the bottom of the beam. 320 bars. This is because the bottom of the beam was . The compression beam ‘explodes’ during failure and major cracks can be seen at the top of the beam. it failed as the top of the beam was crushed. its ultimate failure stress was expected to be the highest amongst the three beams. As the experiment progressed. the cracks progressed upwards towards the top of the beam but before reaching the top.
not many major cracks can be seen. .Jeremy Chang – 005024 Group D S Beam over-reinforced and thus. Instead. the top of the beam is crushed during failure.
Improper reading of dial gauge. This tallies with the hypothesis made before the experiment. measurements taken at side angles Varying moisture conditions of the concrete due to the surrounding temperature. extremely wet or dry during the day or time.Jeremy Chang – 005024 Group D S Beam Errors • Before conducting the experiment. • • • • Reading uncertainties occur when hydraulic jack meter fluctuates. human error (parallax error) should be taken into account. such as pre-loading is ignored. The micro-strains measured from the first three DEMEC pips (a.. Mistakes might have been made during calibration. External factors. • When taking the readings for deflection and the strain.b and c) were all negative values and this represents compression in . the DEMEC gauge should be calibrated in order to measure the strain.e.. the higher the value of deflection. i. • • Findings from the experiment It is found that the higher the load applied onto the beam. Assumptions • The beam was casted and prepared perfectly by the lab assistant. This is due pressure leakage of the hydraulic jack.e. The DEMEC pips were all placed correctly without any errors. The beam might also not have been placed in the right place before the experiment and the middle of the beam might also have been marked wrongly. i.
2H16 rebars were used and hence. The other two DEMEC pips (d and e) clearly show tension strains in the bottom part of the beam. there were a few anomalies in the graph. Before the experiment. the expected results were obtained. Hence. design calculations were made for both the rebar cases. Deflection. the actual beam had a higher value as shown in the gradient of the graph of P vs. It is found that the actual beam has a higher strength than that of the design and it also has a lower straingradient. In terms of Load vs. In the shear beam. The shear beam fails too quick as it is very under reinforced. 40 and 60 bars. However. This is also demonstrated in the strain-gradient where the actual one has a smaller strain gradient at PRD. it can be said that the theoretical prediction did not tally with the actual beam as it did not take into account factors such as the curing process of the concrete. when . Conclusion In a nutshell. When the strains were plot in accordance to their respective DEMEC pip distances. the actual calculations made for the shear beam is compared with the design calculation of the same rebar case. Strain Gradient. some anomalies were found in the thru-depth strains and this might be due to errors such as human errors. the overly reinforced compression beam barely shows any warning signs and it just ‘explodes’ at the top of the beam.Jeremy Chang – 005024 Group D S Beam that section of the beam. The most prominent one during the first three loads which are 20. This is because the actual beam has been allowed to cure and strengthen where as the design calculations did not take into account the increase in strength of the concrete during curing. It is found that the Iu for both design and actual are almost the same value but for the I c value. On the other hand.
corrections and adjustments can be made before the beam completely fails. it should be designed in accordance to the tension beam because there are plenty of signs before failure happens.Jeremy Chang – 005024 Group D S Beam designing a beam. The diagram shows that plenty of cracks can be seen before it fails and thus. .