Zhengzhou University

School Of Civil Engineering

Test Report On
Reinforced Concrete Beam Test In Lab

Submitted By: Mohammad Sohel

Student Id: 202080040125

Department: Civil Engineering School Of Civil Engineering.

E-Mail:[email protected]

SUBMITTED TO: DR. FAN JIAJUN

SCHOOL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, ZHENGZHOU UNIVERSITY (450001)

EMAIL: [email protected]
Introduction:
The purpose of this report is to present the findings and compliances from a
corroborated concrete ray test conducted in the laboratory. The test aimed to estimate
the structural performance and cargo- carrying capacity of the ray, as well as to assess
its overall geste under colorful lading conditions. The test was carried out in agreement
with applicable norms and procedures to insure accurate and dependable results.

Objectives:
The main objectives of the test were as follows:

Determine the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the reinforced concrete beam.

Evaluate the deflection and deformation characteristics of the beam under increasing
loads.Assess the failure mode and behavior of the beam during the test.

Compare the experimental results with theoretical calculations or design assumptions.

Verify the quality and adequacy of the concrete mix and reinforcing steel used in the beam.

REINFORCEMENT BEAM
Under- corroborated sections relate to corroborated concrete ray parts when the sword
reaches yield strain at loads lower than the cargo at which the concrete reaches failure
strain. Because this section provides sufficient warning before failure, every
independently corroborated ray should be constructed as an under- corroborated
section. sword in an under- corroborated ray section yielding doesn't inescapably
indicate that the structure has failed because significant deviation and ray cracking
generally be before failure, giving inhabitants acceptable time to flee before the section
breaks. The failure in under- corroborated ray section is due to the concrete reaching
its ultimate failure strain of0.0035 before the sword reaches its failure strain which is
much advanced0.20 to0.25. In this case the yield stress of the sword governs the design.
 Analysis of test phenomena
This group's test object is a ray with applicable underpinning. The tensile sword bar
yields first, followed by the concrete being crushed in the contraction zone, and the ray
with acceptable buttressing has apparent rigidity when it breaks. Our platoon delved
the lading and failure of meet corroborated shafts grounded on the forenamed
hypotheticals. First, the instance is in the elastic working stage at the morning of the
lading process. The connection between the concrete's stress and strain is roughly
direct, as seen in Figure 1. Although there have not been any cracks yet, the concrete's
stress and strain in the pressure area are nonlinear as the cargo increases.

Fig: Flexible working phase

If we're observing cracks in a reinforced concrete beam during a lab test, it could
indicate a failure or distress in the beam. Cracking in concrete structures is a common
phenomenon and can occur due to several reasons, including excessive loading, poor
construction practices, material quality issues, or design deficiencies.

Here are a few potential causes and considerations when cracks are observed in a
reinforced concrete beam during a lab test:Overloading: Applying a load beyond the
capacity of the beam can cause cracking. It's essential to ensure that the test loads are
within the design limits of the beam.Insufficient reinforcement: Inadequate or
improperly placed reinforcement can result in cracks. The reinforcing bars play a
crucial role in resisting tension forces, and if they are insufficient, the beam may
crack.Poor concrete quality: If the concrete used in the beam has low strength or
contains defects such as voids or excessive water, it can lead to cracking.
Inadequate curing: Improper curing of concrete can result in reduced strength and
increased susceptibility to cracking. Curing involves maintaining adequate moisture
and temperature conditions for the concrete to develop its full strength.Deficient design:
Flaws in the beam's design, such as inadequate dimensions or improper detailing, can
contribute to cracking. The design should consider the expected loads, support
conditions, and reinforcement requirements.

Environmental factors: External factors like temperature changes, shrinkage, or

expansive soils can induce stresses in the beam, leading to cracking.

When cracks are observed, it's essential to carefully assess their extent, pattern, and
location. This evaluation can provide valuable insights into the causes and severity of
the issue. If the cracks are minor and not affecting the beam's overall performance, they
may not be of significant concern. However, larger or extensive cracks that compromise
the structural integrity or exceed allowable limits should be carefully examined.

To determine the appropriate course of action, it is recommended to consult with a

structural engineer or experienced professional who can inspect the beam, evaluate the
test conditions, and provide specific recommendations based on the observed cracks.

The pressure area's concrete starts to show the first set of cracks with the addition of
furthercargo, specifically between22.60 and31.20 KN. Figure 2 depicts the position and
size of the first group of cracks, the maturity of which are positioned in the middle span.

The internal force of the simply supported ray is harmonious with this internal
force( that is, the bending moment of themid -span section is the largest). The first batch
of cracks in this group varies in range from0.06-0.2 mm. Concrete and the sword bar
will concertedly endure the pressure of delineation after the crack occurs.
 Fig: Concrete exiting work in the tension zone & Crack in the beam.

The number of fractures increased and their range widened as a result of the farther
increasein cargo, the failure of the concrete in the pressure area, and the primary
bearing of the tensile stress by the sword bars, as illustrated in Figure 3The failure
script is depicted in numbers 4 and 5. still, due to the bitsy quantum of underpinning in
this group, the concrete in the contraction zone was crushed after the underpinning had
yielded for a length of time, which lasted for a long period of time. There is no
significant distortion after failure, the failure process is rather slow, and there are clear
warningsigns.The crack illustration towards failure is shown in Figure 6. The bending-
shear combination

zone on both sides produces oblique cracks, as can be seen from the figure, whereas the
pure bending region in the middle produces perpendicular crevices. Eventually,
relatively big cracks are produced by the concrete in the contraction zone.
As observed in the forenamed picture, the concrete is at the stage of elastic distortion
during the first lading phase, and the deviation of the ray has a direct relationship with
the distortion. When the cargo is increased further, nonlinearity starts to show, the
material's stiffness drops, the distortion proliferation exceeds the cargo proliferation,
and the material enters the elastoplastic working stage. The cargo also remains nearly
constant while the deviation snappily rises. At this point, the structure has developed
plastic hinges, and it's about to collapse. This procedure takes longer and gives the
material its plastic characteristics.
It can be seen from the below 4 numbers( banning the two unstable strain needles),
when the cargo is 160- 180KN, as the cargo continues to increase, the stress of the sword
bar will no longer increase, indicating that the sword bar has entered the yield stage.

Strain diagram of mid-span section

At the elastic distortion stage, it's anticipated that the aeroplane section vertical to the
rod's axis is still a aeroplane before and after distortion and that it remains vertical to
the axis after denaturation. The strain value of themid-span section of the first four
stages of lading is commensurable to the distance from the neutral axis, as indicated in
the figure, and as the cargo increases, the strain far and wide grows linearly, as can be
seen from the picture. In other words, the supposition about the aeroplane section is
true.
According to the below computation process, the theoretical outside bending moment is
KNm, but the factual bending moment is 70KNm, which is much larger than the
theoretical value. The yield strength has been reached before, and as the cargo
continues to increase, its strength has snappily approached the ultimate strength, so the
theoretical ultimate bending moment calculated with the design value of the tensile yield
strength of the sword bar is lower than the factual bearing bending moment.

excursus 1

SL1 ray test member computation distance..

THANKS...