Structures & Materials 3 CO CRETE TESTI G LABORATORY REPORT : (Group: A, T Beam) , Beam b d h Figure 1: General diagram of beams.

Not to scale DISCUSSION Behaviour of beam The T beam allocated for our group was an under reinf orced beam loaded in fourunder-reinforced four point bending as shown in Figure 1. The dimensions for this beam are as follows: depth=, width=, effective length=an d distance from each support through the rig=. The internal beam consists of two H6 bars at the top and two H10 at the bottom circulated by H8 shear links. The beam was previously loaded to first cracking of 13kN by us. The 2nd group restar ted the loading with a gradual load increment of 5kN from 0kN to 50kN, taking th e beam nearly to failure. The failure load hit at 76kN. Figure 2: General Idea s howing where the cracks start to grow Maximum Deflection

As the load was increased to the beam via a hydraulic jack, the dial gauge measu ring the deflection was found to be increasing from 6.11mm to 6.50mm. Beam was f ound to fail on the tension side where cracks were more concentrated in the midd le part of the beam showing that maximum deflection occurred in the mid span. Th e concrete strength in the compression side is only partially utilized because o f its capability to resist compression. Crack patterns When the load is graduall y applied onto the beam from 0kN to 13kN, there were no cracks observed, until i t reaches 13kN, hairline cracks started to appear around the tension zone of the beam. Loads are gradually increased until 15kN where more hairline cracks are v astly spread. After recording the initial cracks, we pass the experiment to the 2nd group, and continue loading to 50kN Figure 3: General picture showing how cracks trail through the beam

Failure Mode The mode of failure is determined by the amount of reinforcement pr ovided to the beam. There are two types of failure mode that will occur. The fir st type of failure mode is where too much reinforcement is provided to the beam. This type is known to be the Over-Reinforced where failure will explosive. This i s an unsafe experiment. On the contrary, the second type will fail upon the firs t yield of reinforcement, which is also relevant to our beam. This is namely the Under-Reinforced due to the ductility of the beam. As seen from the experiment, i nitial crack occurred at 13kN. Upon increasing the load, the steel will yield an d thus increasing the amount of cracks. The cracks in the tensile zone occur as a result of the reinforce bars that resists the tensile stresses. The correspond ing load distribution leads to more deformations and cracking, propagating towar ds the compression zone. Large amount of cracking governs the beam to fail at 80 kN. Evidently, this is a safer experiment than the former. When the T beam is be ing loaded to failure, unexpectedly the T beam exploded. It is because the concret e was too stiff, therefore the beam failed due to its curvature. Forcing the con crete to explode ASSESSMENT OF ERRORS AND ASSUMPTIONS Errors: Reading uncertaint ies occur when hydraulic jack meter fluctuates. This is due pressure leakage of the hydraulic jack. Improper reading of dial gauge, i.e., measurements taken at side angles Varying moisture conditions of the concrete due to the surrounding t emperature, i.e., extremely wet or dry during the day or time. Assumptions made: Assume that compression of the concrete behaves linearly elast ic.

COMPARISON OF DESIGN AND ACTUAL THEORY WITH THE EXPERIMENT Our results were only taken between 0kN and 15kN of the beam which fails under tension, therefore the re would only be considering the experimental behaviour up to the applied cracki ng load and will be comparing the stiffness based on Iu. The applied cracking lo ad, Pc, found in the experiment was 13.38kN, including self weight of the beam a nd rig. The Pc for the design theoretical predictions was 8.86kN and for the act ual theoretical predictions was 19.8kN. The ultimate applied load resistance, Pr d, found in the experiment 76.38kN, including self weight of the beam and rig. T he Prd for the design theoretical predictions was 47.17kN and for the actual the oretical predictions was 53.2kN. Therefore it shows that the experimental beam i s stronger than both the actual and design theoretical results. The graph plotti ng load against deflection shows the experimental results with a gradient of 38. 71 for load against deflection for the part of the graph leading up to experimen tal applied cracking load. This compares with the design theoretical predictions value of the gradient of load and deflection of 55.97. Also the actual theoreti cal predictions value of the gradient of load and deflection is 67.60. As the gr adient of load and deflection is based on the stiffness of the Iu The graph plot ting load against strain-gradient shows the experimental results with a gradient of 9x(10^6) for load against strain-gradient for the part of the graph leading up to experimental applied cracking load. This compares with the design theoreti cal predictions value of the gradient of load and strain-gradient of 11.41x (10^ 6). Also the actual theoretical predictions value of the gradient of load and st rain-gradient is 13.73x (10^6). As the gradient of load and strain-gradient is b ased on the stiffness of the Iu

Load Vs Strain Gradient Graph 60 50 40 Load (kN) 30 Experimental 20 Theoretical Predictions 10 Actual Predictions 0 0.0E+00 5.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.5E-05 2.0E-05 Strain-gradient (mm-1) Strain Vs Distance Graph

0 -5.0E-04 -4.0E-04 -3.0E-04 -2.0E-04 -1.0E-04 0.0E+00 -100 2.38 kN -200 5.38 kN -300 10.38 kN -400 1.0E-04 0.38 kN Distance from top of beam to DEMEC pips (mm) 12.38 kN -500 14.38 kN -600 Thru-depth Strains CONCLUSION As examined, the under-reinforced concrete beam initially cracked at 13kN and propagates towards the compression zone, resulting beam to fail at appr oximately 76kN. The crack starts to appear from the mid-span of the beam showing that it is the maximum sagging moment. With the presence of the shear links, fl exural cracks were seen to propagate in a slow rate.