CE 3100: Structural Engineering Lab

February 4

2013
Behavior of axially loaded short column

Group C1: CE09B014, CE10B016, CE10B047, CE10B075

EXPERIMENT NO. 2: Behavior of axially loaded short column

Aim: To study the behavior of axially loaded short reinforced concrete column Details of test specimen: Provide a neat sketch of the test specimen along with its dimensions and relevant geometric properties

Apparatus used: List the apparatus used in the experiment and describe them briefly Background: Brief description of the response of the reinforced concrete columns a. Short column Failure of short column is primarily characterised by material failure. The stress
is uniform across the surface during failure. Thus it doesnt undergo any lateral deformation. This mode of failure can also be called as compression failure in a generic structural element. . If the short column is subjected to eccentric loading bending moment is generated. Due to the combined effects of axial load and moment a short column may have material failure similar to a slender column.

b. Eccentrically loaded column Eccentricity in the compressive loading in the direction of

longitudinal axis of the column leads to bending moments along with usual compressive stresses. When the eccentricity exceeds the balanced eccentricity Eb, Tension Failure occurs. The depth of the neutral axis is less than that of the balanced depth. The longitudinal steel in the outermost row on

the left of the neutral axis yields first. Gradually, with the increase of tensile strain, longitudinal steel of inner rows, if provided, starts yielding till the compressive strain reach 0.0035 at the right edge.

Assumptions in the analysis of reinforced concrete columns and its implications:

Maximum compressive strain in concrete in axial loading is 0.002 All columns shall be designed for minimum eccentricity equal to the unsupported length of the column/ 500 plus lateral dimensions/30, subject to a minimum of 20 mm. This is to ensure that there will inevitably result a bending moment, since we dont have ideal concentric columns. Ex min greater of (l/500 + D/30) or 20 mm; Ey min greater of (l/500 + b/30) or 20 mm;

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

Factored concentric load applied on short tied columns is resisted by concrete of area Ac and longitudinal steel of areas Asc effectively held by lateral ties at intervals . Assuming the design strengths of concrete and steel are 0.4fck and 0.67fy, respectively, as explained in the assumptions, we can write Puo = 0.67fy Asc + 0.4fck Ac; Where, Pu = factored axial load on the member, fck = characteristic compressive strength of the concrete, Ac = area of concrete, FY = characteristic strength of the compression reinforcement, and Asc = area of longitudinal reinforcement for columns

Ultimate axial load, Puo = 0.67fckAc + fscAsc, fsc = 0.9fy, stress corresponding to a strain of 0.002 Discuss the role of lateral ties and modes of failure of the column.
Lateral ties are transverse reinforcing bars with internal angles not exceeding 135 degrees. The lateral ties are provided to ensure that every longitudinal bar nearest to the compression face has effective lateral support against buckling. The ties hold the concrete core together and make it act together with longitudinal reinforcement bars. There are a few guidelines in the design of the lateral ties: (a) Transverse reinforcement shall only go round corner and alternate bars if the longitudinal bars are not spaced more than 75 mm on either side. (b) Longitudinal bars spaced at a maximum distance of 48 times the diameter of the tie shall be tied by a single tie and additional open ties for in between longitudinal bars. (c) For longitudinal bars placed in more than one row:

(i) Lateral ties are provided for the outer-most row in accordance with (a) above, and (ii) no bar of the inner row is closer to the nearest compression face than three times the diameter of the largest bar in the inner row. (d) For longitudinal bars arranged in a group such that they are not in contact and each group is adequately tied as per (a), (b) or (c) above for the compression column as a whole may be provided assuming that each group is a single longitudinal bar for determining the pitch and diameter of lateral tie. The diameter of such a tie should not, however, exceed 20 mm.

Sketch of experimental setup: Neat sketch of the setup showing the location of the steel pellets and loading

Procedure: List the procedure followed to collect the required data The specimen (short reinforced concrete column) is placed in position; the loading is applied in the increments of 5 tonnes leaving sufficient time taking reading using DEMEC deformation gauge, deformation is measured, which consists of an analogue attached to an Invar bar. For measuring the displacement, a fixed conical point is mounted at one end of the bar, and a moving conical point is mounted on a knife edge pivot at the opposite end.

A setting out bar is used to position pre-drilled stainless steel discs which are attached to the structure using a suitable adhesive. Each time a reading has to be taken, the conical points of the gauge are inserted into the holes in the discs and the reading on the dial gauge noted. In this way, strain changes in the structure are converted into a change in the reading on the dial gauge. For every 5 N/mm2 increment the readings are measured using DEMEC gauge and noted. At 50 N/mm2 the increment of 5 is stopped and continuously increased till the failure, which generally happens at 65 N/mm2.

Buckling of reinforced rebar shall occur in between two lateral ties spread in all the directions.

Observation: 1. Table 1: Readings from the DEMEC gauge at various locations

Load, kg x 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1 2.429 2.482 2.495 2.419 2.435 2.45 2.475 2.457 2.523 2.543 2.534 2.625

Face A 2 2.468 2.463 2.48 2.496 2.504 2.54 2.557 2.544 2.581 2.4 2.704 2.695

3 2.484 2.488 2.419 2.43 2.539 2.553 2.58 2.56 2.603 2.644 2.542 2.685

4 2.378 2.202 2.445 2.458 2.487 2.52 2.544 2.535 2.62 2.634 2.434 2.781

DEMEC gauge reading, mm Face B Face C 5 6 7 8 2.341 2.389 2.485 2.54 2.17 2.236 2.49 2.547 2.494 2.439 2.498 2.559 2.419 2.487 2.405 2.573 2.45 2.49 2.515 2.59 2.47 2.514 2.52 2.607 2.506 2.54 2.525 2.603 2.485 2.556 2.512 2.593 2.569 2.59 2.525 2.635 2.605 2.639 2.56 2.647 2.625 2.66 2.647 2.594 2.715 2.715 2.621 2.68

9 2.502 2.538 2.539 2.554 2.547 2.559 2.589 2.574 2.59 2.626 2.649 2.67

10 2.465 2.455 2.458 2.43 2.453 2.444 2.448 2.442 2.429 2.443 2.673 2.45

Face D 11 2.577 2.578 2.593 2.579 2.611 2.595 2.592 2.564 2.593 2.598 2.634 2.62

12 2.379 2.376 2.385 2.389 2.4 2.385 2.392 2.389 2.4 2.407 2.415 2.44

2. Figure 1: Sketch of Crack pattern on the four faces of the column: Face A Face B Face C Face D

Detailed Calculations: 1. Table 2: The value of the strains at various locations Load, kg 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 265 330 -50 30 105 230 140 470 570 525 980

Face A 2
0 -25 60 140 180 360 445 380 565 -340 1180 1135

Strain at various location, (*10-6) Face B Face C 5 6 7 8

0 -855 765 390 545 645 825 720 1140 1320 1420 1870 0 -765 250 490 505 625 755 835 1005 1250 1355 1630 0 25 65 -400 150 175 200 135 200 375 810 680 0 35 95 165 250 335 315 265 475 535 270 700

9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

10
0 265 330 -50 30 105 230 140 470 570 525 980

Face D 11
0 -25 60 140 180 360 445 380 565 -340 1180 1135

12
0 20 -65000 -65000 -65000 -65000 -65000 -65000 -65000 -65000 -65000 -65000

0 0 20 -880 -65000 335 -65000 400 -65000 545 -65000 710 -65000 830 -65000 785 -65000 1210 -65000 1280 -65000 280 -65000 2015

2. Figure 2: Plot of load vs. mean strain (Compare theoretical prediction with that observed experimentally)

Fig: 2 Plot of load vs. mean strain

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Avg Strain A Avg Strain B Avg Strain C Avg Strain D

3. Figure 3: Plot of load vs. strain at level 1 for various faces

Fig:3 Plot of load vs. strain at level 1

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 level 1,A level 1,B level 1,C level 1,D

4. Figure 4: Plot of load vs. strain at level 2 for various faces

Fig:4 Plot of load vs. strain at level 2

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 -0.1 -0.2 10 20 30 40 50 60 Face A Face B Face C Face D

5. Figure 5: Plot of load vs. strain at level 3 for various faces

Fig: 5 Plot of load vs. strain at level 3

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 -0.1 -0.2 10 20 30 40 50 60 Face A Face A Face A Face A

6. Figure 6: Plot of load vs. strain at various levels in face A

Figure 6: Plot of load vs. strain at various levels in face A

0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 -0.05 0 -0.1 10 20 30 40 50 60 level 1 level 2 level 3

7. Figure 7: Plot of load vs. strain at various levels in face B

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3

Figure 7: Plot of load vs. strain at various levels in face B

level 1 level 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 level 3

8. Figure 8: Plot of load vs. strain at various levels in face C

Figure 8: Plot of load vs. strain at various levels in face C

0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 -0.05 -0.1 10 20 30 40 50 60 level 1 level 2 level 3

9. Figure 9: Plot of load vs. strain at various levels in face D

Figure 9: Plot of load vs. strain at various levels in face D

0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 level 1 level 2 level 3

Plot of load vs. mean strain at various levels of all face

0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 -0.05 -0.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Avg strain 1 Avg Strain 2 Avg Strain 3

Discussion:
Comment on the observed vs. expected behavior, the nature of the moments on the column (if any), variation of strain at various levels of a given face and crack pattern. A linear relationship between the load and the strain is observed to be linear. The column fails at an ultimate load of 77 tonnes. The predominant mode of failure is crushing in the top one third of the column. Spalling of cover concrete was observed during the failure. The reinforcement became exposed and buckling in all 4 longitudinal bars between the stirrups was clearly visible. The applied load was shared by both the steel and concrete. The longitudinal reinforcement bars which are impending to buckle under the compressive load restrained in the lateral direction by stirrups. Therefore local buckling occurred on longitudinal reinforcement bars between two stirrups. The steel pushed out the concrete cover which is seen as spalling and eventually the concrete crushed under the load as whole load had been transferred to concrete and steel became ineffective after buckling. The mode of failure of the column was more ductile till the steel got buckled then, concrete failed almost suddenly showing its brittle nature. This was theoretically expected and therefore the behavior is in track with the theory. Uneven strain values shifting from positive to negative and vice-versa were obtained for different faces since perfect verticality of the column cannot be assured under testing conditions. A small eccentricity is probable which leads to tension development in some of the faces.