CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

CHAPTER FOUR
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
4.1 General

In this chapter, the discussion and comparison of resulting data to

twenty beams under static and fatigue loads are presented. In the static test,
twelve beams are tested, two beams of them without lacing reinforcement are
used as a control beams and the rest ten beams with lacing reinforcement. Six
beams are tested under fatigue load, and the remained two beams are used for
trial testing. The process of static and fatigue loading tests are mentioned in
chapter three.

4.2 Static Test Results

Twelve simply supported beams are tested under static loading at four
points loading with imposed displacement control at rate equal to 0.05mm/s as
shown in Figure (3.2). The results are classified to four branches to get a clear
vision on the behavior and performance of laced reinforced concrete beams
under static load as follows:

 The ultimate load capacity, the pattern of crack and the mode of failure.
 Response of load with deflection.
 Response of load with strain.
 Ductility index.
 Support Rotation.
 Flexural Toughness.

Two beams without lacing reinforcement are used as a control beam with
6mm and 8mm stirrup bars diameter. Ten lacing reinforcement concrete

72
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

beams are varied to three types, lacing bar diameter (4mm, 6mm and 8mm),
lacing steel ratio and angle of lacing bar to beam axis ( , and ) as
shown in Table (4.1). It is worth mentioning that the first beam 6SRC had
been damage before testing due to the fall of the actuator, instead of that the
beam 6SRC that managed to use under fatigue test was chosen to test under
static load.

Table (4.1): The parameters of ten lacing reinforced concrete beams

under static load.

Diameter of shear
reinforcement Ratio of lacing reinforcement
Beam symbol (mm)
Stirrup Lacing Angle of inclined lacing bar to horizontal
bar bar
6SRC-S 6 - 0 0 0
6SLRC-S-30 - 6 0.00121 0 0
6SLRC-S-45 - 6 0 0.0019 0
6SLRC-S-60 - 6 0 0 0.002966
6DLRC-S-60 - 6 0 0 0.0059
8SRC-S 8 - 0 0 0
8SLRC-S-30 - 8 0.00211 0 0
8SLRC-S-45 - 8 0 0.00332 0
8SLRC-S-60 - 8 0 0 0.00517
8DLRC-S-45 - 8 0 0.00665 0
8DLRC-S-60 - 8 0 0 0.01
4SLRC-S-60 - 4 0 0 0.00134

73
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

4.2.1 The Pattern of Crack, Ultimate Load Capacity, and Mode of

Failure.

The experimental results of twelve reinforced concrete beams under static

load are given in Table (4.2). The first flexural cracks appeared at the tension
zone within the mid-portion of the beams at which occurs the maximum
bending. The first crack observed by visual inspection. The first crack is
occurred within the load range of (13 kN to 20 kN) when the tensile stress
exceed the rupture modulus of concrete. With further loading, the cracks
growth and additional vertical flexural micro-cracks are form in the middle
part and extended to the compression zone. With the progressing of farther
loading, the cracks width became wider and inclined shear cracks appeared
near of the support. Then horizontal surface cracks appeared under loading
area that lead to crush the concrete and failure. The mode of failure for all the
tested beams is characterized as flexural failure mode. Figures (4.1) to (4.12)
illustrate the cracks pattern of the tested beams. Generally, it is observed that
the growth of cracks within the beam depth and it is increased with the test
progress. The shape of the cracks is parallel and vertical along the depth of the
section up to failure of the beams without lacing (control beam). While the
cracks in beams with lacing reinforcement take form of a semi-curved near
support and vertical shape in the middle of beam. From the test results, it is
observed that the first cracking load enhanced with increasing lacing steel
ratio and inclined lacing angle range between (30º-45º) by about 23.07%,
30.77%, and 46.15% for beams 6SLRC-S-30, 6SLRC-S-60, 6SLRC-S-45,
respectively as compared with control beam 6SRC-S and 30.77%, 53.85%,
and 53.85% for beams 8SLRC-S-30, 8SLRC-S-60, and 8SLRC-S-45,
respectively as compared with control beam 8SRC-S, respectively.
74
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Comparisons have been made between the laced reinforced concrete beams
(LRC) to study the influence of lacing bar diameter, inclined lacing angle and
lacing steel ratio at the appearance of the first cracking load as follows: it is
observed that the first cracking load increase with increasing of lacing bar
diameter by about 6.25%, 17.65% and 5.26% for beams 8SLRC-S-30,
8SLRC-S-60 and 8SLRC-S-45, respectively with respect to beams 6SLRC-S-
30, 6SLRC-S-60 and 6SLRC-S-45, respectively. Also, it is increased with
increasing of inclined lacing angle by about 6.25%, and 18.75%, for beams
6SLRC-S-60, 6SLRC-S-45, respectively with respect to reference beam
6SLRC-S-30 and by about 17.65% and 17.65% for beams 8SLRC-S-60 and
8SLRC-S-45, respectively with respect to reference beam 8SLRC-S-30. And
also it is increased with increasing lacing steel ratio by about 38.46% for beam
6DLRC-S-60 with respect to reference beam 6SRC-S and by about 69.23%
and 84.62% for beams 8DLRC-S-60 and 8DLRC-S-45, respectively with
respect to reference beam 8SRC-S.

75
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Table (4.2): Experimental results (cracking and ultimate loads) for twelve
reinforced concrete beams under static load.

Beam Cracking Ultimate % ⁄ % % increasing

symbols load load ( ) increasing in in ultimate
( ) kN first load respect
kN cracking to control
load respect
to control
6SRC-S 13 85.14 15.27 Ref. Ref.
6SLRC-S-30 16 90.25 17.73 23.07 6
6SLRC-S-45 16 88.97 21.36 46.15 4.5
6SLRC-S-60 17 85.25 19.94 30.77 0.13
6DLRC-S-60 19 93.1 17.18 23.07 9.35
8SRC-S 13 86.72 14.99 Ref. Ref.
8SLRC-S-30 17 92.17 18.44 30.77 6.28
8SLRC-S-45 20 100.61 19.88 53.85 16.02
8SLRC-S-60 20 88.14 22.69 53.85 1.64
8DLRC-S-45 14 101.7 13.77 7.7 17.3
8DLRC-S-60 17 93.6 18.16 30.77 7.93
4SLRC-S-60* 18 91.12 19.75 - -
*without reference.

Figure (4.1): Flexural cracks at the longitudinal face of 8SRC-S beam

after failure.

76
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Figure (4.2): Flexural cracks at the longitudinal face of 6SRC-S beam

after failure.

Figure (4.3): Flexural cracks at the longitudinal face of beam 6SLRC-S-

30 after failure.

Figure (4.4): Flexural cracks at the longitudinal face of beam 8SLRC-S-

30 after failure.
77
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Figure (4.5): Flexural cracks at the longitudinal face of beam 6SLRC-S-

60 after failure.

Figure (4.6): Flexural cracks at the longitudinal face of beam 6DLRC-S-

60 after failure.

Figure (4.7): Flexural cracks at the longitudinal face of beam 8SLRC-S-

60 after failure.
78
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Figure (4.8): Flexural cracks at the longitudinal face of beam 8DLRC-S-

60 after failure.

Figure (4.9): Flexural cracks at the longitudinal face of beam 4SLRC-S-

60 after failure.

Figure (4.10): Flexural cracks at the longitudinal face of beam 6SLRC-S-

45 after failure.
79
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Figure (4.11): Flexural cracks at the longitudinal face of beam 8SLRC-S-

45 after failure.

Figure (4.12): Flexural cracks at the longitudinal face of beam 8DLRC-S-

45 after failure.

80
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

4.2.2 Load-Deflection Response

The load and vertical deflection at mid-span are recorded at each

displacement increment. In general, the displacement control is imposed on
each beam at rate equal to 0.05mm/s to draw the load-deflection curve after
reached the ultimate load which is used to calculation of support rotation.
Through the increasing of imposed displacement, the load and deflection
increased linearly up to yielding load of steel rebar and the cracks developing.
The response of the tested beams increased with increasing the imposed
displacement until reach the peak load then the load decreased rapidly due to
crushing of concrete to announce the failure of the beam. After that, the
displacement is kept imposed to the beam which leads to increase the
deflection of the beam while the load is slightly decreased. Then, the test is
stopped when the load is stabilized and the top surface of concrete is
completely crashing. The load-deflection behavior for tested beams at mid
span is illustrated in Figure (4.13) to (4.24). The response of the beams is
compared to the response of control beam at service load and peak load stage.
The limit of serviceability is about 70% to 75% of the ultimate load, Tan and
Zhao, (2004). In this work, the service load was taken as 70% of the ultimate
load of control beam. From the results, load-deflection curves are found to be
linear up to the point of yielding the flexural steel reinforcement as mentioned
in subsequent section, after which the responses be nonlinear until failure and
it is observed that the load carrying capacity increase with using of lacing bar
by about 6%, 0.13%, 4.5%, and 9.35%, for beams 6SLRC-S-30, 6SLRC-S-
60, 6SLRC-S-45 and 6DLRC-S-60, respectively with respect to beam 6SRC-
S and by about 6.28%, 1.64%, 16.02%, 7.93% and 17.3% for beams 8SLRC-
S-30, 8SLRC-S-60, 8SLRC-S-45, 8DLRC-S-60 and 8DLRC-S-45,
81
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

respectively with respect to beam 8SRC-S as listed in Table (4.2) due to

increasing the confinement of concrete between the two layers of main
reinforcement by using lacing reinforcement technique. On the other hand, the
deflection at service load stage reduced by 8.06%, 13.9%, 12.53%, and
11.46% for beams 6SLRC-S-30, 6SLRC-S-60, 6SLRC-S-45, 6DLRC-S-60,
respectively with respect to control beam 6SRC-S and by about 0.978%,
0.356%, 4.89%, 9.87%, and 5.78%, 8SLRC-S-30, 8SLRC-S-60, 8SLRC-S-45,
8DLRC-S-60 and 8DLRC-S-45, respectively with respect to control beam
8SRC-S. At the ultimate stage the deflection decreasing at the same load level
of control beam by about 42.86%, 17.27%, and 33.7% for beams 6SLRC-S-
30, 6SLRC-S-60, and 6SLRC-S-45, respectively with respect to reference
beam 6SRC-S and by about 53.5%, 23.25% and 53.98%, 8SLRC-S-30,
8SLRC-S-60 and 8SLRC-S-45, respectively with respect to reference beam
8SRC-S due to the above reason. Moreover, there is an additional decreasing
in deflection with the use of double lacing reinforcement in each face of beam
by about 45.3% for beam 6DLRC-S-60 with respect to reference beam 6SRC-
S, and by about 45.09%, and 55.77% for beams 8DLRC-S-60 and 8DLRC-S-
45, respectively with respect to reference beam 8SRC-S as shown in Figures
(4.25) and (4.26), this is due to increasing the lacing reinforcement ratio
contribute leads to an increase the carrying load capacity and the flexural
stiffness of the beams. The beams responses of laced reinforced concrete
beams at service and ultimate loads are listed in Table (4.3).

82
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.13): The load-mid span deflection behavior for beam 6SRC-S.

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.14): The load-mid span deflection behavior for beam

6SLRC-S-30.

83
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.15): The load-mid span deflection behavior for beam

6SLRC-S-60.

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.16): The load-mid span deflection behavior for beam

6SLRC-S-45.
84
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.17): The load-mid span deflection behavior for beam

6DLRC-S-60.

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.18): The load-mid span deflection behavior for beam 8SRC-S.

85
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.19): The load-mid span deflection behavior for beam

8SLRC-S-30.

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.20): The load-mid span deflection behavior for beam

8SLRC-S-60.
86
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.21): The load-mid span deflection behavior for beam

8SLRC-S-45.

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.22): The load-mid span deflection behavior for beam

8DLRC-S-60.
87
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.23): The load-mid span deflection behavior for beam

8DLRC-S-45.

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.24): The load-mid span deflection behavior for beam

4SLRC-S-60.
88
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60 6SRC
50 6SLRC-S-30
40
6SLRC-S-60
30
6SLRC-S-45
20
10 6DLRC-S-60
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.25): The load-mid span deflection curves for beams with 6mm
shear reinforcement bars.

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60 8SRC
50 8SLRC-S-30
40 8SLRC-S-60
30 8SLRC-S-45
20 8DLRC-S-45
10 8DLRC-S-60
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.26): The load-mid span deflection curves for beams with 8mm
shear reinforcement bars.

89
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Table (4.3): Deflection values for tested beams at service, and ultimate
loads.

Deflection with respect

Deflection at Ultimate
load of Control Beam
Deflection at Service

Deflection at Same

Deflection at Same
Load Level of Ref.

Load Level of Ref.

to control beam
% Decrease in

%Decrease in
Beam Symbol

Beam (mm)
Load (mm)

Beam
(mm)

6SRC-S 13.09 Ref. 38.56 Ref. Ref.

6SLRC-S-30 12.035 8.06 28.5 22.03 42.87
6SLRC-S-60 11.27 13.9 32.41 31.9 17.3
6SLRC-S-45 11.45 12.53 40.17 25.56 33.71
6DLRC-S-60 11.59 11.46 34.9 21.09 45.3
8SRC-S 11.25 Ref. 35.86 Ref. Ref.
8SLRC-S-30 11.14 0.978 26.11 16.67 53.5
8SLRC-S-60 11.21 0.356 31.12 27.52 23.26
8SLRC-S-45 10.7 4.89 36.22 16.5 53.99
8DLRC-S-60 10.14 9.87 31.2 19.69 45.09
8DLRC-S-45 10.6 5.78 37.93 15.86 55.77
4SLRC-S-60* - - 32.58 - -
*Without refrence

Comparisons have been made between the laced reinforced concrete beams
(LRC) to study the influence of lacing bar diameter, inclined lacing angle and
lacing steel ratio on the load-deflection response and concluded that the load
carrying capacities are increased with increase of lacing bar diameter, lacing
steel ratio and using inclined lacing angle 30º and 45º more than 60º, while the

90
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

deflection decreases. The comparisons results of LRC beams are discussed

clearly as follow:

4.2.2.1 The Influence of Increasing Lacing Bar Diameter on the Load-

Deflection Response.

From the comparison test results, it is notice that the load carrying capacity
of tested beams is increased while the deflection is decreased with the increase
of lacing bar diameter from 6mm to 8mm in each case of inclined angle of
lacing bar as listed in Table (4.4), this is due to the contribution of the lacing
reinforcement with the main reinforcement leads to an increase the carrying
load capacity of the LRC beams. The amount of increasing is 2.13%, 13.08%
and 3.39% for beams 8SLRC-S-30, 8SLRC-S-45 and 8SLRC-S-60
respectively, as compared with beams 6SLRC-S-30, 6SLRC-S-45 and
6SLRC-S-60, except beam 4SLRC-S-60, it is observed that the ultimate load
of this beam is greater than the other beams with bigger diameter due to
increasing of the compressive strength of the specimen, because of increasing
the age of the beam on the testing day under static loading. While the
deflection of the beams decrease with the increase of lacing bar diameter by
about 21.63%, 54.5% and 21.75% for beams 8SLRC-S-30, 8SLRC-S-45 and
8SLRC-S-60, respectively with respect to beams 6SLRC-S-30, 6SLRC-S-45
and 6SLRC-S-60 at same load level as shown in Figures (4.27), (4.28) and
(4.29).

91
 CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Table (4.4): Comparison of loading and deflection results for beams with
varying lacing bar diameter from 6mm to 8mm.

Ultimate Deflection Deflection %Increasing %Decreasing in

Beam load at at same in ultimate Deflection at
symbol (kN) ultimate load level load respect same load level
load (mm) of ref. to ref. beam of ref. beam
beam
(mm)
6SLRC-S-30 90.25 28.5 Ref. Ref. Ref.
8SLRC-S-30 92.17 26.11 22.336 2.13 21.63
6SLRC-S-45 88.97 40.17 Ref. Ref. Ref.
8SLRC-S-45 100.61 36.22 18.26 13.08 54.5
6SLRC-S-60 85.25 32.41 Ref. Ref. Ref.
8SLRC-S-60 88.14 31.12 25.36 3.39 21.75
4SLRC-S-60 91.12 32.58 22.54 6.88 30.45

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
30 6SLRC-S-30
20 8SLRC-S-30
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.27): The influence of lacing bar diameter on the load-deflection

response for beams with inclined angle 30.

92
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60
50
40
6SLRC-S-45
30
20 8SLRC-S-45
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.28): The influence of lacing bar diameter on the load-deflection

response for beams with inclined angle 45.

100
90
80
70
60
Load (kN)

50
40
6SLRC-S-60
30
20 8SLRC-S-60

10 4SLRC-S-60
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.29): The influence of lacing bar diameter on the load-deflection

response for beams with inclined angle 60.

93
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

4.2.2.2 The Influence of the Inclined Angle of Lacing Bars on the Load-
Deflection Response.

The experimental results reveal that the load carrying capacity increased
with the use of inclined angle of lacing bar of 30º and 45º is more than 60º,
this is because the angle of lacing bar as it approaches 45 degree leads to
increased resistance of the beam to diagonal shear cracks and leads to enhance
the ductility of flexure element and increased the shear capacity of the LRC
beams rather than 60 which have a similar effect to the stirrups angle 90
degree. The percentages of the increasing in the ultimate load are listed in
Table (4.5). The amount of the increase is estimated by 5.87%, 4.36%, 4.6%,
14.15% for beams 6SLRC-S-30, 6SLRC-S-45, 8SLRC-S-30 and 8SLRC-S-
45, respectively, as compared with beams 6SLRC-S-60 and 8SLRC-S-60,
respectively. While, the deflection of the beams become more smaller for
beams of lacing bar angle between 30 and 45 more than 60 by about 31.72%,
20.55%, 39.36% and 42.99% for beams 6SLRC-S-30, 6SLRC-S-45, 8SLRC-
S-30 and 8SLRC-S-45, respectively, with respect to beams 6SLRC-S-60,
8SLRC-S-60 at same load level as shown in Figures (4.30) and (4.31).

94
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Table (4.5): Comparison of loading and deflection results for beams have
variable inclined angle of lacing bars (30º, 45º and 60º).

Ultimate Deflection Deflection %Increasing %Decreasing

Beam symbol load at at same in ultimate in Deflection
(kN) ultimate load level load respect at same load
load of ref. to ref. beam level of ref.
(mm) beam beam
(mm)
6SLRC-S-60 85.25 32.41 Ref. Ref. Ref.
6SLRC-S-30 90.25 22.03 22.13 5.87 31.72
6SLRC-S-45 88.97 25.56 25.75 4.36 20.55
8SLRC-S-60 88.14 31.12 Ref. Ref. Ref.
8SLRC-S-30 92.17 26.11 18.87 4.6 39.36
8SLRC-S-45 100.61 36.22 17.74 14.15 42.99

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60
50
6SLRC-S-60
40
30 6SLRC-S-30
20 6SLRC-S-45
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.30): The influence of inclination angle of lacing bars on the

load-deflection response for beams with 6mm lacing bar diameter.

95
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60
50
8SLRC-S-60
40
30 8SLRC-S-30
20 8SLRC-S-45
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.31): The influence of inclination angle of lacing bars on the

load-deflection response for beams with 8mm lacing bar diameter.

4.2.2.3 The Influence of Increasing Lacing Steel Ratio on the Load-

Deflection Response.

From comparing the results of the tested beams, it is observe that the load
carrying capacity increased with increasing of lacing steel ratio this is due to
increasing the lacing reinforcement contribution leads to an increase the
carrying load capacity and the flexural stiffness of the beams. The percentages
of the increasing in the ultimate load are listed in Table (4.6). The amount of
increasing is 9.2%, 6.19%, and 1.08% for beams 6DLRC-S-60, 8DLRC-S-60,
and 8DLRC-S-45, respectively as compared with beams 6SLRC-S-60,
8SLRC-S-60 and 8SLRC-S-45, respectively. On other hand, the deflection of
the beams become smaller by about 34.65%, 31.75% and 3.53% for beams
6DLRC-S-60, 8DLRC-S-60 and 8DLRC-S-45, respectively with respect to

96
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

beams 6SLRC-S-60, 8SLRC-S-60 and 8SLRC-S-45, respectively at same load

level as shown in Figures (4.32), (4.33) and (4.34).

Table (4.6): Comparison of loading and deflection results for beams with
variable lacing steel ratio.

Ultimate Deflection Deflection %Increasing %Decreasing

Beam symbol load at at same in ultimate in Deflection
(kN) ultimate load level load respect at same load
load of ref. to ref. beam level of ref.
(mm) beam beam
(mm)
6SLRC-S-60 85.25 32.41 Ref. Ref. Ref.
6DLRC-S-60 93.1 34.9 21.18 9.2 34.65
8SLRC-S-60 88.14 31.12 Ref. Ref. Ref.
8DLRC-S-60 93.6 31.2 21.24 6.19 31.75
8SLRC-S-45 100.61 36.22 Ref. Ref. Ref.
8DLRC-S-45 101.7 37.93 34.94 1.08 3.53

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60
50
40 6SLRC-S-60
30
6DLRC-S-60
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.32): The influence of increasing lacing steel ratio on load-

deflection response for beams with 6mm shear reinforcement bar.

97
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60
50
40
30 8SLRC-S-60

20 8DLRC-S-60
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.33): The influence of increasing lacing steel ratio on load-

deflection response for beams with 8mm shear reinforcement bar.

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60
50
40
30 8SLRC-S-45
20 8DLRC-S-45
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.34): The influence of increasing lacing steel ratio on load-

deflection response for beams with 8mm shear reinforcement bar.

98
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

4.2.2.4 The Influence of Increasing Lacing Steel Ratio, Lacing Bar

Diameter and Angle of Inclination Lacing Bar on the Load-Deflection
Response.

The comparison results of the tested beams, it is reveal that the load
carrying capacity increased with increasing of lacing steel ratio, bar diameter
and reduce the inclined angle to 45 degree, this is due to increasing of lacing
reinforcement ratio contribute to an increase the flexural stiffness of the beams
and also, due to increasing the confinement of concrete between the flexural
reinforcement layers and increasing the shear capacity of the LRC beams with
reducing the angle of lacing bar to 45 degree. The amount of the increase is
estimated by 9.24%, and 0.54% for beams 8DLRC-S-45, and 8DLRC-S-60,
respectively, as compared with beam 6DLRC-S-60 and by about 19.29% and
9.79% for beams 8DLRC-S-45 and 8DLRC-S-60, respectively as compared
with 6SLRC-S-60. On other hand, the deflection of the beams become lesser
by about 40.11%, and 15.79% for 8DLRC-S-45, and 8DLRC-S-60,
respectively, with respect to beam 6DLRC-S-60 at same load level and by
about 52.29% and 51.95% for beams 8DLRC-S-45 and 8DLRC-S-60,
respectively as compared with 6SLRC-S-60 as shown in Figures (4.35),
(4.36) and (4.37). The percentages of the increasing in the ultimate load are
listed in Table (4.7).

99
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
6DLRC-S-60
40
30 8DLRC-S-60
20 8DLRC-S-45
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.35): The influence of increasing lacing steel ratio, lacing bar
diameter and inclined angle of lacing bar on load-deflection response for
beams 6DLRC-S-60, 8DLRC-S-60 and 8DLRC-S-45.

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
30 6SLRC-S-60
20
8DLRC-S-45
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.36): The influence of increasing lacing steel ratio, lacing bar
diameter and inclined angle of lacing bar on load-deflection response for
beams 6SLRC-S-60 and 8DLRC-S-45.
100
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60
50
40
30 6SLRC-S-60
20
8DLRC-S-60
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.37): The influence of increasing lacing steel ratio, lacing bar
diameter and inclined angle of lacing bar on load-deflection response for
beams 6SLRC-S-60 and 8DLRC-S-60.

Table (4.7): Comparison of loading and deflection results for beams with
varying lacing steel ratio, lacing bar diameter and angle of inclination
lacing bar.

Ultimate Deflection Deflection %Increasing %Decreasing

Beam symbol load at at same in ultimate in Deflection
(kN) ultimate load level load respect at same load
load of ref. to ref. beam level of ref.
(mm) beam beam
(mm)
6DLRC-S-60 93.1 34.9 Ref. Ref. Ref.
8DLRC-S-45 101.7 37.93 20.9 9.24 40.11
8DLRC-S-60 93.6 31.2 29.39 0.54 15.79
6SLRC-S-60 85.25 32.41 Ref. Ref. Ref.
8DLRC-S-45 101.7 37.93 15.46 19.29 52.29
6SLRC-S-60 85.25 32.41 Ref. Ref. Ref.
8DLRC-S-60 93.6 31.2 15.57 9.79 51.95

101
 CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

4.2.2.5 The Influence of Minimum Lacing Steel Ratio on the Load-

Deflection Response.

A comparison results for beams with minimum lacing steel ratio showed
that although the diameter of lacing bar for beam 4SLRC-S-60 (4mm) is less
than the beam 6SLRC-S-30 (6mm), it had larger carrying load capacity
because the ratio of lacing bar of beam 4SLRC-S-60 is larger than the lacing
steel ratio of beam 6SLRC-S-30 as listed in Table (4.8). This is occurred
because of increasing the compressive strength of the specimen, due to
increasing the age of the beam on the testing day under static loading. It is
considered by 0.96% for beam 4SLRC-S-60 with respect to 6SLRC-S-30,
while the deflection of the beam 4SLRC-S-60 is larger than the beam 6SLRC-
S-30 by 5.79% at same load level of the beam 6SLRC-S-30 due to yielding of
lacing steel bar at beam 4SLRC-S-60 before failure as shown in Figure (4.38).

Table (4.8): Comparison of loading and deflection results for beams with
minimum lacing steel ratio.

Ultimate Deflection Deflection %Increasing %Increasing

Beam symbol load at at same in ultimate in Deflection
(kN) ultimate load level load respect at same load
load of ref. to ref. beam level of ref.
(mm) beam beam
(mm)
6SLRC-S-30 90.25 28.5 Ref. Ref. Ref.
4SLRC-S-60 91.12 32.58 30.15 0.96 5.79

102
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60
50
40 6SLRC-S-30
30
4SLRC-S-60
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)

Figure (4.38): The influence of minimum lacing steel ratio on load-

deflection response.

4.2.2.6 Conclusion of the Load-Deflection Response.

1. The ultimate load of the LRC beams are increased due to using lacing
reinforcement technique which enhance the confinement of concrete
between the two flexural reinforcement layers as compared to RC
beams, while the deflection decreased.
2. Increasing the lacing reinforcement ratio contribution lead to an
increase the flexural stiffness of the LRC beams.
3. The load carrying capacity of the LRC beams are increased due to using
inclined angle of lacing bar 30 and 45 degrees rather than 60 degree
because of increasing the shear capacity of the LRC beams by increase
the resistance of the beam to diagonal shear cracks and leads to enhance

103
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

the ductility of flexure element rather than 60 which have a similar

effect to the stirrups with angle 90 degree.
4. The carrying load capacities of the LRC beams are increased with
increasing lacing bar diameter because of contribution of lacing
reinforcement with the main flexural reinforcement to resist loads.

4.2.3 Load-Strain Response

The strain gauges of steel reinforcement only are considered because the
data logger cannot recognize some types of strain gauges. The load-strain
relation for steel reinforcement are recorded to get a clear concept for the
behavior of laced reinforced concrete beams as shown in Figures (4.39) and
(4.40) and listed in Table (4.9). In this section the performance of strain in
tension bar with load is introduced. In general, it is observed that the strain in
stirrups and lacing steel bars still within the elastic range except beams
6SLRC-S-45 and 8SLRC-S-45 show that the lacing steel bars yielding before
failure load as shown in Appendix C. At service load stages, it is noticed that
the flexural reinforcement sill in elastic range and are recorded by about
(2110 -2790 ) except two beams (6DLRC-S-60 and 6SLRC-S-45), the
tension bar is yielded at service load stage as listed in Table (4.9). Near the
peak load limit, the flexural steel reinforcement is yielded and recorded strain
was about (7283 -9959 ). It is noticed clearly that tension reinforcement
bar delay the yielding with increasing lacing bar diameter with using same
angle of inclined lacing bar as shown in Figures (4.41), (4.42) and (4.43) and
also this resistant increase with increasing lacing steel ratio with the kept of
same lacing bar diameter and inclined lacing angle as shown in Figures (4.44),
(4.45) and (4.46).

104
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

6SRC
60
50 6SLRC-S-30
40 6DLRC-S-60
30
6SLRC-S-45
20
6SLRC-S-60
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Strain (microstrain)

Figure (4.39): Load-strain response for flexural steel reinforcement in

LRC beams of 6mm lacing bar diameter at Mid-Span.

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

8SRC
60
50 8SLRC-S-30

40 8SLRC-S-60
30 8DLRC-S-60
20 8SLRC-S-45
10 8DLRC-S-45
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Strain (microstrain)

Figure (4.40): Load-strain response for flexural steel reinforcement in

LRC beams of 8mm lacing bar diameter at Mid-Span.

105
 CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Table (4.9): Strain values at steel reinforcements.

Location Pure flexure Location Pure flexure

Beam Strain Strain Beam Strain Strain

symbol gauges at gauges at symbol gauges at gauges at
flexural lacing flexural lacing
renf. ( ) renf. ( ) renf. ( ) renf. ( )
Service 2747T 24.4T Service 2903.4T 148.4T

6DLRC-S-
load load
6SRC

9959.03T 464.8 T 9504.56T 969.05 T

60
Near Near
ultimate ultimate
load load
Service 2066.7T damage Service 2790T 515.5T

4SLRC-S-
load load
8SRC

8794.67T 7283.8T 2387.88T

60
Near Near
ultimate damage ultimate
load load
Service 2648.9T 853.6T Service 2895.9T 834.77T
6SLRC-S-

6SLRC-S-

load load
9565.6 T 1922.133 T 9697.9T 2280T
30

45

Near Near
ultimate ultimate
load load
Service 2485T damage Service 2776T 706.1T
8SLRC-S-

8SLRC-S-

load load
9927.1 T 9861.4T 2462T
30

45

Near damage Near

ultimate ultimate
load load
Service 2525T 97.65T Service 2531.5T 313.6T
8DLRC-S-
6SLRC-S-

load load
9915.8 T 866.7 T 9417.2T 1437 T
60

45

Near Near
ultimate ultimate
load load
Service 2641.4T 297.7T
8SLRC-S-

load
9680 T 651.6 T
60

Near
ultimate
load
Service 2110T 341.8T
8DLRC-S-

load
9663.3 T 1416.95T
60

Near
ultimate
load

106
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60
50
40
6SLRC-S-30
30
20 8SLRC-S-30
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Strain (microstrain)

Figure (4.41): Influence of lacing bar diameter on load-strain response for

beams with inclined angle 30.

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60
50
40
6SLRC-S-45
30
20 8SLRC-S-45
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Strain (microstrain)

Figure (4.42): Influence of lacing bar diameter on load-strain response for

beams with inclined angle 45.

107
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60
50
40
30 6SLRC-S-60
20 8SLRC-S-60
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Strain (microstrain)

Figure (4.43): Influence of lacing bar diameter on load-strain response for

beams with inclined angle 60.

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
30 8SLRC-S-45
20 8DLRC-S-45
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Strain (microstrain)

Figure (4.44): Influence of increasing lacing steel ratio on load-strain

response for beams 8LRC-S-45.

108
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40
8SLRC-S-60
30
20 8DLRC-S-60
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Strain (microstrain)

Figure (4.45): Influence of increasing lacing steel ratio on load-strain

response for beams 8LRC-S-60.

120
110
100
90
80
Load (kN)

70
60
50
40 6DLRC-S-60
30
6SLRC-S-60
20
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Strain (microstrain)

Figure (4.46): Influence of increasing lacing steel ratio on load-strain

response for beams 6LRC-S-60.

109
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

4.2.4 Ductility Index

The ductility index is defined as the ratio of deflection at failure (ultimate

deflection) to the deflection at first yielding of tension steel reinforcement for
the tested beams. Table (4.10) illustrated the ductility index for all tested
beams under static load. It is noticed that the ductility index for laced concrete
beams are less than the control beams by about 26.7%, 9.7% and 6.8% for
beams6SLRC-S-30, 6SLRC-S-60 and 6DLRC-S-60, respectively with respect
to reference beam 6SRC-S, except beam 6SLRC-S-45, the ductility index is
increased by 7.6% with respect to control beam 6SRC-S. Also, it is estimated
by about 35.4%, 5.7%, 18.29%, 0.4%, and 13.008% for beams 8SLRC-S-30,
8SLRC-S-45, 8SLRC-S-60, 8DLRC-S-45, and 8DLRC-S-60, respectively
with respect to control beam 8SRC-S. The lacing system causes farther
reduction in ductility index due to confinement of concrete between the two
flexural reinforcement leads to reduce the deflection of LRC beams rather
than the RC beams.

110
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Table (4.10): The ductility index for tested beams under static load.
Beam Yield Ultimate Ductility % Differences
symbol deflection deflection index with respect
(mm) (mm) to control
beam
6SRC-S 16.29 38.56 2.36 Ref.
6SLRC-S-30 16.38 28.5 1.73 -26.7
6SLRC-S-45 15.8 40.17 2.54 +7.6
6SLRC-S-60 15.21 32.41 2.13 -9.7
6DLRC-S-60 15.87 34.9 2.199 -6.8
8SRC-S 14.54 35.86 2.46 Ref.
8SLRC-S-30 16.4 26.11 1.59 -35.4
8SLRC-S-45 15.6 36.22 2.32 -5.7
8SLRC-S-60 15.44 31.12 2.01 -18.29
8DLRC-S-45 15.46 37.93 2.45 -0.4
8DLRC-S-60 14.57 31.2 2.14 -13.008
4SLRC-S-60* 15.6 32.58 2.09 -
*without reference;
4.2.5 Support Rotation
This section included the calculation of support rotation for the RC and
LRC beams under static load. The support rotation is measured from the
equation (4.1), Anandavalli, et al. (2012b) and illustrated in the Figure (4.47):

( ⁄ ) …. (4.1)

Where:

: The support rotation, (degree).

: Deflection at mid-span, (mm).

: The distance between support and concentrated load, (mm).

The support rotation of the tested beams listed in Table (4.11). From the
results, it is notice that the LRC beams with 6mm and 8mm lacing bar
diameters recorded minimum support rotation corresponding to central
deflection at ultimate load as compared to control beams as listed in Table
111
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

(4.11), except LRC beams with lacing bar inclined to 45 degree to

longitudinal axis which have maximum support rotation rather than reinforced
concrete (RC) beams, this is refer to the effectiveness of inclined angle of
lacing bar 45 degree rather than the other angles to giving a greater rotation
angle at failure load. While at end of testing, it is notice that the LRC beams
with 6mm lacing bar diameter recorded minimum support rotation
corresponding to central deflection at end of loading as compared to control
beams by about 17.46%, 28.9%, 43.97%and 7.5% for beams 6SLRC-S-30,
6SLRC-S-45, 6SLRC-S-60 and 6DLRC-S-60, respectively with respect to
beam 6SRC-S as shown in Figure (4.48). And recorded maximum support
rotation by about 4.5%, 26.53%, 17.95%, and 26.93% for beams 8SLRC-S-45,
8SLRC-S-60, 8DLRC-S-45 and 8DLRC-S-60, respectively with respect to
beam 8SRC-S except beam 8SLRC-S-30 recorded minimum support rotation
as shown in Figure (4.49). This discrepancy in the values at the end of the
testing is due to the fact that the test is stopped due to crushing the top surface
of concrete and not to failure of lacing reinforcement in LRC beams. Figures
(4.50), (4.51), (4.52), and (4.53) show the deflection profile along the center
line of beam at ultimate load and end of testing each specimen.

Figure (4.47): The support rotation calculation, Anandavalli, et al.

(2012b).

112
 CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Table (4.11): The support rotation magnitude for the tested beam under
static load.

% the differences with respect

% the differences with respect

Central deflection at ultimate

Central deflection at end of

(Degree) at end of testing

(Degree) at ultimate load

of the control beam

of the control beam

Support rotation

Support rotation
Beams symbols

testing (mm)
load (mm)

(mm)

6SRC-S 38.56 1.84 Ref. 69.55 3.32 Ref.

6SLRC-S-30 28.5 1.36 -26.08 57.48 2.74 -17.46
6SLRC-S-45 40.17 1.92 +4.35 49.56 2.36 -28.9
6SLRC-S-60 32.41 1.55 -15.7 38.98 1.86 -43.97
6DLRC-S-60 34.9 1.67 -9.24 64.43 3.07 -7.5
8SRC-S 35.86 1.7 Ref. 51.33 2.45 Ref.
8SLRC-S-30 26.11 1.25 -26.5 42.85 2.045 -16.5
8SLRC-S-45 38.22 1.82 +7.06 53.78 2.56 +4.5
8SLRC-S-60 31.12 1.5 -11.76 65.02 3.1 +26.53
8DLRC-S-45 37.96 1.8 +5.9 60.56 2.89 +17.95
8DLRC-S-60 31.2 1.5 -11.76 65.33 3.11 +26.93
4SLRC-S-60* 32.58 1.56 - 67.4 3.21 -
*without reference.

113
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

60 6SRC
50 6SLRC-S-30
40 6SLRC-S-60
30 6SLRC-S-45
20
6DLRC-S-60
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Rotation (Degree)

Figure (4.48): Comparison of the Support Rotation for Beam 6SRC with
6LRC Beams.

120
110
100
90
80
70
Load (kN)

8SRC
60
8SLRC-S-30
50
40 8SLRC-S-60

30 8DLRC-S-60
20 8SLRC-S-45
10 8DLRC-S-45
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Rotation (Degree)

Figure (4.49): Comparison of the Support Rotation for Beam 8SRC with
8LRC Beams.

114
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Span (m)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-5

-10

-15
Deflection (mm)

-20

-25 6SRC-S

-30 6SLRC-S-30

-35 6SLRC-S-45

6SLRC-S-60
-40
6DLRC-S-60
-45

Figure (4.50): Deflection profile along beam center line for RC and LRC
beams with 6mm diameter of lacing bar at ultimate load stage.

Span (m)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-10

-20
Deflection (mm)

-30

6SRC-S
-40
6SLRC-S-30
-50
6SLRC-S-45

-60 6SLRC-S-60

6DLRC-S-60
-70

Figure (4.51): Deflection profile along beam center line for RC and LRC
beams with 6mm diameter of lacing bar at end of testing.

115
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Span (m)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-5

-10

-15
Deflection (mm)

-20
8SRC-S
-25
8SLRC-S-30
-30
8SLRC-S-45
-35 8SLRC-S-60
-40 8DLRC-S-45

-45 8DLRC-S-60

Figure (4.52): Deflection profile along beam center line for RC and LRC
beams with 8mm diameter of lacing bar at ultimate load stage.

Span (m)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-10

-20
Deflection (mm)

-30

8SRC-S
-40
8SLRC-S-30
-50 8SLRC-S-45
8SLRC-S-60
-60
8DLRC-S-45
-70 8DLRC-S-60

Figure (4.53): Deflection profile along beam center line for RC and LRC
beams with 8mm diameter of lacing bar at end of testing.

116
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

4.3 Flexural Toughness

Flexural toughness can be measured by taking the area under the load-
deflection curve in flexure for reinforced concrete beams and it is
characteristic as the ability of material to absorb large amount of energy and to
withstand large deformation prior to failure, Al-Ghamdy et al., (1994). The
provision of lacing reinforcement in reinforced concrete beams leads to
increase in flexural strength and decreases in flexural toughness up to
maximum load due to decreases the deflection and area that obtained from
load-deflection curves, except special cases as listed in Table (4.12). While,
there is a variance in values at the end of the tests due to the fact that the test is
stopped due to crushing the top surface of concrete and not to failure of lacing
reinforcement in LRC beams.

Table (4.12): Flexural toughness for RC and LRC beams under static
loading
Beam symbol Area up to %Differences Area up to %Differences
maximum with respect end of with respect
loading to control testing to control
beam beam
6SRC-S 1290.13 Ref. 2540.76 Ref.
6SLRC-S-30 883.7 -31.5 2078.97 -18.17
6SLRC-S-45 1819.4 +41.02 2309.23 -9.11
6SLRC-S-60 1793.19 +38.99 2232.3 -12.14
6DLRC-S-60 1188.03 -7.9 2392.23 -5.8
8SRC-S 567.14 Ref. 5058.4 Ref.
8SLRC-S-30 469.3 -17.25 5962.38 +17.87
8SLRC-S-45 596.006 +5.09 6126.68 +21.12
8SLRC-S-60 366.63 -35.35 5997.89 +18.57
8DLRC-S45 490.4 -13.53 5916.33 +16.96
8DLRC-S-60 294.5 -48.07 4134.016 -18.27
4SLRC-S-60* 430.6 - 892.85 -
*without reference.

117
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

4.4 Fatigue Test Results

Seven simply supported beams are tested under fatigue loading, (the first
one is used for trail). The parameters of the tested beam are listed in Table
(4.13), six lacing reinforcement concrete beams are varied to three types,
lacing bar diameter (6mm and 8mm), lacing steel ratio and angle of lacing bar
to beam axis ( , and ). At each specified cycle, the deflection and
strain at reinforcement steel (flexural and lacing bars) at mid-span are
recorded. The results are discussed into three categories as follows:

 Cracks Pattern.
 Load-Deflection and mid span deflection- cycle responses.
 Strain-Cycle response.

Table (4.13): Parameters for seven beams under fatigue test.

Stirrup and Ratio of lacing reinforcement

Beam symbol lacing bar Angle of inclined lacing bar
diameter to horizontal
(mm)
8SRC-F 8 0 0 0
6SLRC-F-30 6 0.00121 0 0
6SLRC-F-45 6 0 0.0019 0
6SLRC-F-60 6 0 0 0.002966
8SLRC-F-30 8 0.00211 0 0
8SLRC-F-45 8 0 0.00332 0
8SLRC-S-60 8 0 0 0.00517

118
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

The percentage used for the maximum loading is approximately similar to

the percentage of maximum loading used by researchers Shahawy and
Beitelman, (1999), as listed in Table (4.14). The fatigue test parameters are
fatigue life limit Nf, maximum cycle load (PMax), minimum cycle load (PMin),
mean fatigue load( ), amplitude fatigue load ( ), fatigue load
range ( ),load ratio (R), maximum stress ( ), minimum stress ( )
and stress range ( ). Table (4.15) illustrated the loading parameters of high
cyclic frequency. Calculation of maximum and minimum fatigue stress are
shown in Appendix A. These values are taken from machine manual and
depend on the capacity of the machine for each specified frequency as
mansions in chapter three and kept constant for all tested beams. At specified
cycle, the deflection, load and strain in steel reinforcements (flexural and
lacing bars) are recorded and the cracks are marked carefully.

Table (4.14): Static ultimate load and the fatigue loading percent from
ultimate static load

Control beam Ultimate load Fatigue loading percent

(kN) Pmax/Pult Pmin/Pult

6SLRC-S-30 90.25 0.23 0.19

6SLRC-S-60 85.25 0.25 0.2
6SLRC-S-45 88.97 0.24 0.19
8SLRC-S-30 92.17 0.23 0.18
8SLRC-S-60 88.14 0.24 0.19
8SLRC-S-45 100.61 0.21 0.17

119
 CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Table (4.15): Fatigue loading parameters.

Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value

Nf 19 kN R 0.8 1.53
Cycles MPa
PMax 21 kN 2 kN 8.07 MPa

PMin 17 kN 4 kN 6.54 MPa

4.4.2 Cracks Patterns

A few cracks are appeared at mid span in the tension zone. Failure did not
occurred in all tested laced reinforced concrete beams and these beams are
remained within the elastic range and survived the cycles. This is
because the stress range in each cycle did not exceed the tensile strength limit
of the concrete, and the amplitude of stress is not large and sufficient to
fracture each of steel reinforcement and concrete; and also due to the
confinement of concrete lead to increase the resisting of concrete to
compressive fatigue failure, Rabbat et al. (1978), Balaguru, (1981), and
Gerwick, (1981).The shape of the cracks is parallel and vertical along the
depth of beams at mid span. Figures (4.54) to (4.59) show the crack pattern of
the tested beams.

120
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Figure (4.54): Flexural cracks for beam 6SLRC-F-30.

Figure (4.55): Flexural cracks for beam 8SLRC-F-30.

Figure (4.56): Flexural cracks for beam 6SLRC-F-45.

121
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Figure (4.57): Flexural cracks for beam 8SLRC-F-45.

Figure (4.58): Flexural cracks for beam 6SLRC-F-60.

Figure (4.59): Flexural cracks for beam 8SLRC-F-60.

122
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

4.4.3 Load-Deflection and Mid Span Deflection- Cycle Responses

The load-deflection and mid-span deflection curves of six beams at
identified number of cycles (N= 103,104,105,106 and ) are recorded and
drawn in Figures (4.60) to (4.65). At the first stage of load-deflection curves,
the slope of the ascending part is changed until it is reached the maximum
cycle load (PMax). The ascending curve is taking this slope because the applied
load is exceeded the cracking load. For the rest cycles, straight lines with
minimum slope and additional deflection are formed due to the fatigue loading
with a slight degradation in the stiffness. The straight lines in each cycle are
formed from 50 data point. The load-deflection response of beam 8SLRC-F-
60 was stopped to 105 cycles due to overheating of the machine. While the
response of maximum mid-span deflections is divided in two stages appear in
progress of deflection. First stage, the deflection for all beams is kept constant
before 10 cycles except beam 6SLRC-F-30; the deflection is kept constant
before 103 cycles. Second stage, the deflection is increased gradually up to
cycles.

123
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

25

20

15
Load (kN)

First Stage
N=1000
10 N=10000
N=100000
5 N=1000000
N=2000000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection (mm)

(a)
6

5
Displacement (mm)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log (N)

(b)
Figure (4.60): Laced reinforced concrete behavior under fatigue loading;
(a) Load-deflection response; (b) Maximum mid span deflection-cycles
response for beam 6SLRC-F-30.
124
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

25

20

15
Load (kN)

First Stage
N=1000
10
N=10000
N=100000
5 N=1000000
N=2000000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)

(a)
4.5
4
3.5
3
Deflection (mm)

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log (N)

(b)

Figure (4.61): Laced reinforced concrete behavior under fatigue loading;

(a) Load-deflection response; (b) Maximum mid span deflection-cycles
response for beam 8SLRC-F-30.

125
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

25

20
Load (kN)

15 First Stage
N=1000
10 N=10000
N=100000
5 N=1000000
N=2000000

0
0 1 2 3 4
Deflection (mm)

(a)

3.5

3
Deflection (mm)

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log (N)

(b)
Figure (4.62): Laced reinforced concrete behavior under fatigue loading;
(a) Load-deflection response; (b) Maximum mid span deflection-cycles
response for beam 6SLRC-F-45.

126
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

25

20

15 First Stage
Load (kN)

N=1000

10 N=10000
N=100000
N=1000000
5
N=2000000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)

(a)
5
4.5
4
3.5
Deflection (mm)

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log (N)

(b)
Figure (4.63): Laced reinforced concrete behavior under fatigue loading;
(a) Load-deflection response; (b) Maximum mid span deflection-cycles
response for beam 8SLRC-F-45.

127
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

25

20

15
Load (kN)

First Stage
N=1000
10
N=10000
N=100000
5 N=1000000
N=2000000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)

(a)
5
4.5
4
3.5
Deflection (mm)

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log (N)

(b)
Figure (4.64): Laced reinforced concrete behavior under fatigue loading;
(a) Load-deflection response; (b) Maximum mid span deflection-cycles
response for beam 6SLRC-F-60.

128
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

25

20

15
Load (kN)

First Stage

10 N=1000

N=10000
5
N=100000

0
0 1 2 3 4
Deflection (mm)

(a)

3.5

3
Displacement (mm)

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Log (N)

(b)
Figure (4.65): Laced reinforced concrete behavior under fatigue loading;
(a) Load-deflection response; (b) Maximum mid span deflection-cycles
response for beam 8SLRC-F-60.
129
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Comparisons have been done between the laced reinforced concrete beams
(LRC) to study the influence of lacing bar diameter, inclined lacing angle and
lacing steel ratio at the magnitude of the deflection with cycles and concluded
that the deflection of beams is decreased with increasing of lacing bar
diameter, lacing steel ratio and inclination of lacing angle. The comparisons
results of LRC beams are discussed clearly as follows:

4.4.3.1 Influence of Lacing Bar Diameter and Lacing Steel Ratio with
Deflection-Cycles and Load-Deflection Responses.

when the number of cycles is increased it is observed that, the deflection is

decreased with increasing of lacing bar diameter and lacing steel ratio due
confinement of concrete between the two layers of flexural reinforcement and
contribution of lacing bar to resist the applied loading by about 18.45% and
17.45% for beams 8SLRC-F-30, and 8SLRC-F-60, respectively, with respect
to beams 6SLRC-F-30 and 6SLRC-F-60 respectively. Except beam 8SLRC-F-
45, the deflection is increased by 17.65% from beam 6SLRC-F-45 as shown in
Figures (4.66), (4.67) and (4.68).

130
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

Deflection (mm)
4

6SLRC-F-30
1
8SLRC-F-30
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log (N)

(a)

25

20

15
Load (kN)

10
8SLRC-F-30

5 6SLRC-F-30

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection (mm)

(b)
Figure (4.66): Influence of lacing bar diameter and lacing steel ratio on:
(a) Mid span deflection-cycles response; (b) Load-deflection response for
beams with inclined lacing angle 30.

131
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

5
4.5
4
3.5
Deflection (mm)

3
2.5
2
1.5
1 6SLRC-F-45

0.5 8SLRC-F-45
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log (N)

(a)

25

20
Load (kN)

15

10
8SLRC-F-45
5 6SLRC-F-45

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)

(b)
Figure (4.67): Influence of lacing bar diameter and lacing steel ratio on:
(a) Maximum mid span deflection-cycles response; (b) Load-deflection
response for beams with inclined lacing angle 45.

132
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

5
4.5
4
3.5
Deflection (mm)

3
2.5
2
1.5
1 6SLRC-F-60

0.5 8SLRC-F-60
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log (N)

(a)
25

20

15
Load (kN)

10
8SLRC-F-60
5 6SLRC-F-60

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)

(b)
Figure (4.68): Influence of lacing bar diameter and lacing steel ratio on:
(a) Maximum mid span deflection-cycles response; (b) Load-deflection
response for beams with inclined lacing angle 60.

133
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

4.4.3.2 Influence of Inclination Angle of Lacing Bar with Deflection-

Cycles and Load-Deflection Responses.

From the results it is noticed that the deflection is decreased with

increasing of inclined angle of lacing bar due to resisting of lacing bar to
flexural cracks by about 7.34%, 21.95% and 6.17% for beams 6SLRC-F-60,
6SLRC-F-45, and 8SLRC-F-60 respectively, with respect to references beams
6SLRC-F-30 and 8SLRC-F-30, respectively. Except beam 8SLRC-F-45, the
deflection increased by 12.6% rather than beam 8SLRC-F-30 as shown in
Figures (4.69) and (4.70).

4
Deflection (mm)

2 6SLRC-F-60
6SLRC-F-45
1
6SLRC-F-30
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log (N)

(a)

Figure (4.69): Influence of lacing inclined angle on: (a) Maximum mid
span deflection-cycles response; (b) Load-deflection response for beams
6SLRC.

134
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

25

20

15
Load (kN)

10 6SLRC-F-30
6SLRC-F-45
5
6SLRC-F-60

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection (mm)

(b)
Figure (4.69): Influence of lacing inclined angle on: (a) Maximum mid span
deflection-cycles response; (b) Load-deflection response for beams 6SLRC.
5
4.5
4
3.5
Deflection (mm)

3
2.5
2
1.5 8SLRC-F-60
1 8SLRC-F-45
0.5 8SLRC-S-30
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log (N)

(a)
Figure (4.70): Influence of lacing inclined angle on: (a) Maximum mid span
deflection-cycles response; (b) Load-deflection response for beams 8SLRC.

135
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

25

20

15
Load (kN)

10
8SLRC-F-30

5 8SLRC-F-45
8SLRC-F-60
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm)

(b)
Figure (4.70): Influence of lacing inclined angle on: (a) Maximum mid
span deflection-cycles response; (b) Load-deflection response for beams
8SLRC.
4.5 The Strain-Cycles Response

The strain-cycles curves for steel reinforcement are recorded to get a clear
concept for the influence of lacing reinforcement at the response of laced
reinforced concrete beams under fatigue loading as shown in Figures (4.71)
and (4.72). In this section the performance of strain of tension bar at the
beginning of each cycle is presented. It is noticed that the flexural
reinforcement still in elastic range and the strain is recorded by about (197
-944 ). Two stages were appearance in the test progression. First stage, the
strain is kept constant before the cycles range (101-104). Second stage, the
strain is increased gradually up to cycles; except beam 8SLRC-F-45,
the strain is increased gradually up to 105 cycles then it is decreased rapidly
to cycles. From the results, it is noticed that although the use of

136
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

inadequate lacing steel percentage, fatigue loads did not occurs in the steel
reinforcement (flexural and lacing bars) after the appearance of cracks as in
beam 6SLRC-F-30. Also, it is noticed that the lacing steel bars also still
within the elastic range as listed in Table (4.16) and shown in Appendix D.

Table (4.16): The strain values at cycles in lacing steel bars at

mid-span.

Location Pure flexural Location Pure flexural

Beam Strain gauges at Beam Strain gauges at
symbol lacing reinf. ( ) symbol lacing reinf. ( )
6SLRC-F-30 384 8SLRC-F-30 145
6SLRC-F-60 177 8SLRC-F-60 Damaged
6SLRC-F-45 122 8SLRC-S-45 Damaged

1000
900
800
Strain (microstrain)

700
600
6SLRC-F-30
500
6SLRC-F-45
400
6SLRC-F-60
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log (N)

Figure (4.71): The strain-cycles responses for flexural reinforcement at

beams 6SLRC.

137
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PhD Thesis, Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan

1000
900
800
700
Strain (microstrain)

600
500
400
8SLRC-F-30
300
8SLRC-F-45
200
8SLRC-F-60
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log (N)

Figure (4.72): The strain-cycles response for flexural reinforcement at

beams 8SLRC.

138