Name-Sudhansh Anand CE3100-Structural Lab

Roll No.- CE19B091 RC Lab-2

Aim: - To study the behavior of axially loaded short reinforced concrete columns. Details of the
test specimen

The sketch below represents the test specimen used along with its dimensions and geometric
properties Geometric Properties

Apparatus used: -
• 12 Steel Pellets on all 4 faces to measure the displacement levels.
• Bearing plates and cement mortar: To join the column specimen with the loading machine
• High-capacity long column machine with a hydraulic jack to apply load on the specimen. The
machine had a control unit to monitor the load applied.
• DEMEC: Demountable mechanical strain gauges to measure displacement between two
consecutive points

Background: -
Short Columns: Short columns are columns with a slenderness ratio of less than 12. The axial
shortening of the column increases linearly up to 80% of the ultimate load. In general, the
longitudinal steel would have reached the yield condition at the ultimate load level. Without
transverse reinforcement, failure will be sudden and brittle due to the crushing and shearing of
concrete accompanied by buckling of longitudinal bars.

Long Column: A long column is a vertical structural element designed to resist compressive loads. It
is much taller than it is wide and can be made of materials such as steel, concrete, or wood. The
behavior of long columns is governed by buckling, which occurs when the column is loaded beyond
its capacity to resist compressive loads, causing it to buckle or fail. Designing long columns requires
taking into account various factors such as material properties, column geometry, and loading
conditions. They are commonly used in buildings, bridges, and towers, and their design and
construction are critical to ensuring the safety and stability of these structures.
Name-Sudhansh Anand CE3100-Structural Lab
Roll No.- CE19B091 RC Lab-2

Eccentrically loaded column: Eccentric loading occurs when the load applied does not pass
through the centroid of the cross‐section. The mode of failure depends on the eccentricity of
loading. If e is less, compression behavior is predominant leading to compression failure and if e is
high flexural behavior is predominant leading to tension failure. In balanced failure, the yielding of
the outermost row of longitudinal steel and attainment of max compressive strength occur
simultaneously

Assumptions for the experiment:

• The column is assumed to be perfectly straight and under pure uniaxial compression.
• The column has constant flexural rigidity i.e. cross-section of the column is assumed to be
uniform.
• The surface of the column is perfectly plane to not generate any moments from small lateral
deflections. The concrete is homogeneous and in the elastic region.
• Loading is centric but errors may occur during the experiment.
• Equilibrium and compatibility conditions are met.
• Bonding between steel and concrete is perfect but, in real situations, this is not true.
• Distribution of stresses is according to constitutive relations developed.

Role of lateral ties:

• It prevents longitudinal reinforcement bars from buckling,
• It resists the shear force and hence contributes to avoiding shear failure.
• It confines the concrete core to provide sufficient ductility or deformability, and
• It restrains the spliced bars and hence prevents their slip
Name-Sudhansh Anand CE3100-Structural Lab
Roll No.- CE19B091 RC Lab-2

Modes of failure:
• Compression Failure: The column is an element that transfers the weight of a structure as
axial stress to the foundation or supporting element. Concrete capable of carrying the
compressive load is dominant in carrying loads whereas in other elements such as beams
compressive stress is taken only by part of the section. Reinforcement is also provided to
columns where it is not possible for concrete to carry the whole load or as nominal
reinforcements. The column can fail in compression due to the increase of the axial stress
than its capacity.
• Buckling Failure: Buckling failure is the other basic mode of failure of columns in addition
to crushing failure of columns. The effective height of the column is considered based on its
pattern of bucking. Additional bending moment of the column slenderness of the column is
considered in the design.
• Shear Failure: Lateral loads in a structure are carried by vertical elements such as columns
and shear walls. When there are no shear walls, columns carry these lateral loads. Lateral
loads are generated by winds, earthquake loads, from retaining structures, etc. Shear links
are provided to columns based on the shear forces exerted on them. Further, the size of the
columns is increased in the direction of shear to increase the shear capacity.

Brief derivation of the ultimate axial load capacity of short column:

Po= Cs + Cc = fcc Ac + fscAsc = fcc Ag + (fsc – fcc)Asc

The permissible stress as per limit state design is 0.67 fck (characteristic strength for concrete) as per
Indian Standard Codes, IS 456:2000. Accounting for a factor of safety of 1.5, we get the permissible
stress as 0.446fck. The permissible stress for steel is 0.87fy (yield strength of steel). Therefore,

Puo = 0.67* fck *Ac + fsc *Asc

where fsc=0.9*fy
Asc = area of cross-section of steel bars
Cs = load capacity for compression of steel
Cc = load capacity for compression of concrete
fck = compressive strength of concrete as per experimental data
fy = yield strength of steel.
fcc = limit state compressive strength of concrete
Ac = area of cross-section of concrete
fsc = compressive strength of steel

Procedure:
1. The characteristic Strength of concrete is determined in a UTM. Using the derived value, we
use Pu = 0.67 fckAc + fscAsc to determine the theoretical maximum load-carrying capacity of
the column.
2. The DEMEC readings are noted on all 4 faces at 3 different levels when the column is under
no-load condition.
3. The DEMEC readings thereafter are calculated after every 5 tonnes of the incremental load
until the total load reaches 50 tonnes.
4. After this, the incremental load is made slow as cracks start appearing. The load is increased
till the column fails by crushing of concrete and local buckling of the longitudinal
 Name-Sudhansh Anand CE3100-Structural Lab
Roll No.- CE19B091 RC Lab-2

reinforcement bars. The final reading of the control unit gives observed capacity of the
column.

Observations:

Table – 1: Readings from the DEMEC gauge at various locations

Load Face A (mm) Face B (mm) Face C (mm) Face D (mm)

(Tonnes) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0 -0.165 -0.308 -0.346 -0.169 -0.254 -0.267 -0.16 -0.269 -0.299 -0.21 -0.25 -0.31
5 -0.13 -0.27 -0.313 -0.17 -0.244 -0.259 -0.141 -0.221 -0.305 -0.19 -0.21 -0.28
10 -0.107 -0.251 -0.273 -0.147 -0.217 -0.235 -0.137 -0.165 -0.275 -0.16 -0.18 -0.28
15 -0.068 -0.211 -0.255 -0.137 -0.198 -0.229 -0.142 -0.199 -0.286 -0.15 -0.18 -0.28
20 -0.052 -0.217 -0.25 -0.135 -0.207 -0.216 -0.161 -0.219 -0.269 -0.14 -0.14 -0.25
25 -0.018 -0.175 -0.219 -0.116 -0.176 -0.191 -0.139 -0.175 -0.258 -0.11 -0.11 -0.23
30 0.029 0.344 -0.192 -0.076 -0.142 -0.164 -0.122 -0.135 -0.224 -0.09 -0.05 -0.23
35 0.06 -0.118 -0.179 -0.064 -0.136 -0.147 -0.107 -0.105 -0.21 -0.06 -0.02 -0.18
40 0.081 -0.081 -0.159 -0.039 -0.116 -0.123 -0.072 -0.095 -0.169 -0.04 -0.02 -0.14
45 0.118 -0.052 -0.136 -0.025 -0.098 -0.091 -0.063 -0.075 -0.156 -0.01 -0.08 -0.15
50 0.145 -0.022 -0.119 -0.001 -0.079 -0.062 -0.052 -0.049 -0.099 0.023 0.11 -0.1
Name-Sudhansh Anand CE3100-Structural Lab
Roll No.- CE19B091 RC Lab-2

Detailed Calculations:

Table – 2: The value of the strains at various locations

Strain = Relative Displacement / Distance between pellets
Strain = (DEMECi+1 - DEMECi)/ 200 * 10^6 [in 10^-6]

Strain (*10^-6)
Load
(Tonnes) Face A Face B Face C Face D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 175 190 165 -5 50 40 95 240 -30 100 170 135
10 290 285 365 110 185 160 115 520 120 210 330 160
15 485 485 455 160 280 190 90 350 65 280 325 145
20 565 455 480 170 235 255 -5 250 150 325 540 285
25 735 665 635 265 390 380 105 470 205 465 710 420
30 970 3260 770 465 560 515 190 670 375 590 965 425
35 1125 950 835 525 590 600 265 820 445 725 1115 680
40 1230 1135 935 650 690 720 440 870 650 855 1130 855
45 1415 1280 1050 720 780 880 485 970 715 990 845 810
50 1550 1430 1135 840 875 1025 540 1100 1000 1145 1785 1045

Plot of load vs. mean strain:

The experimental strain can be obtained as εobs = (DEMECload − DEMECno load)/ 200
The theoretical strain can be obtained as εtheo = P/AE

Load Experimental Theoretical

(Tonnes) Strain (*10^- Stress strain (*10^-
6) (N/mm^2) 6)
0 0.00000 0 0
5 110.41667 2.18 83.6504559
10 237.50000 4.36 167.3009118
15 275.83333 6.54 250.9513677
20 308.75000 8.72 334.6018236
25 453.75000 10.9 418.2522795
30 812.91667 13.08 501.9027354
35 722.91667 15.26 585.5531913
40 846.66667 17.44 669.2036472
45 911.66667 19.62 752.8541031
50 1122.50000 21.8 836.504559
Name-Sudhansh Anand CE3100-Structural Lab
Roll No.- CE19B091 RC Lab-2

Graphs:
Load Vs Mean Strains (Observed & Theoretical)
1200.00000

1000.00000

800.00000
Strain (*10^-6)

600.00000

400.00000

200.00000

0.00000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Load (tonnes)

Experimental Strain (*10^-6) Theoretical

strain (*10^-6)

Load vs Strains at Level 1

1800

1600

1400

1200
Strain (*10^-6)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-200
Load (Tonnes)

Level 1 Face A Level 1 Face B Level 1 Face C Level 1 Face D Level 1 Mean strain
Name-Sudhansh Anand CE3100-Structural Lab
Roll No.- CE19B091 RC Lab-2

Load vs Strains at Level 2

3500

3000

2500
Strain (*10^-6)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Load (Tonnes)

Face A Face B Face C Face D Mean strain

Load vs Strains at Level 3

1200

1000

800
Strain (*10^-6)

600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-200
Load (Tonnes)

Level 3 Face A Level 3 Face B Level 3 Face C Level 3 Face D Level 3 Mean strain
Name-Sudhansh Anand CE3100-Structural Lab
Roll No.- CE19B091 RC Lab-2

Load vs Strains on Face A

3500

3000

2500
Strain (*10^-6)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Load ( Tonnes)

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Mean Strain

Load vs Strains on Face B

1200

1000

800
Strain (*10^-6)

600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-200
Load (Tonnes)

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Mean Strain

Name-Sudhansh Anand CE3100-Structural Lab
Roll No.- CE19B091 RC Lab-2

Load vs Strains on Face C

1200

1000

800
Strain (*10^-6)

600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-200
Load (Tonnes)

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Mean Strain

Load vs Strains on Face D

2000
1800
1600
1400
Strain (*10^-6)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Load (Tonnes)

Face D Level 1 Face D Level 2 Face D Level 3 Face D Mean Strain

Name-Sudhansh Anand CE3100-Structural Lab
Roll No.- CE19B091 RC Lab-2

Discussion:

1. Experimental Ultimate load = 62.8 tonnes

Theoretical Ultimate load = 56.24 tonnes Design Ultimate load = 47.04 Tonnes
2. The experimental ultimate load exceeded the theoretical value by approximately 11.67%. It is
likely that this difference could be attributed to variations in the compressive strengths of the
concrete cube sample and the specimen tested.
3. The calculated design capacity was determined to be approximately one-third of the actual
experimental strength. This discrepancy can be attributed to the partial safety factors
incorporated into Limit State Design (IS456:2000), which results in design values being
significantly lower than actual capacities.
4. With the exception of a few cases, the load-strain graphs closely resembled the theoretical
predictions, which were predominantly linear in nature
5. In some cases, eccentricity in certain loading directions may be responsible for discrepancies
between the observed data and theoretical predictions. Additionally, minor deviations could
potentially arise due to instrumental errors.
6. The primary mode of failure in the specimen was the crushing of the concrete, as evidenced by
the predominance of vertical cracks. The absence of lateral confinement due to supports was
also apparent, as there were no indications of significant bending stresses. This is consistent with
the fact that the specimen was a short column, which minimized the effect of bending on the
overall failure mechanism.
Photos Captured During Experiment:
Name-Sudhansh Anand CE3100-Structural Lab
Roll No.- CE19B091 RC Lab-2
Name-Sudhansh Anand CE3100-Structural Lab
Roll No.- CE19B091 RC Lab-2
Name-Sudhansh Anand CE3100-Structural Lab
Roll No.- CE19B091 RC Lab-2