TORSION, SHEAR AND BENDING

IN REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS

by

Mirza Muhammad Saeed, B.E.

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies

and Research in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Engineering.

Department of Civil Engineering, August, 1962.

McGill University,
Montreal.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express his appreciation for the generous

and painstaking assistance given to him by the following persona:

Professer J.L. de Stein of the Department of Civil Engineering

who acted as research director and offered many helpful suggestions during

the experiment and the writing of this thesis.

Professer V.W.G. Wilson of the Strength of Materials Laboratory

who gave advice and guidance in the manufacture and testing of the frames.

Messrs. G. Matsell, W. Lambert and G. Langille of the Strength

of Materials Laboratory for their back-breaking and good-natured work in

the manufacture of the frames, and for their careful assistance in the

tes ting.

'
Mrs. Klara Brody, Secretary of the Department of Civil Engineering,

who so excellently typed this thesls.

Miss Elizabeth A. Asbury who so generously helped the author with

the editing and proof-reading of this thesis.

The directors of the Mount Royal Paving Company for their

generous donation of concrete, steel moulds and vibrators. The author

is particularly indebted to Mr. M. McNaughton, vice-president, for his

keen interest and valuable advice in concreting the frames.

Mr. V.V. Sokolowsky who spared thirteen full evenings to translate

four long Russian articles.

 This project was made_possible by the Commonwealth Scholarship

awarded to the author by the Canadian Government. The Government of

Pakistan (Public Works Department) where the author is a Government

Officer, provided assistance by treating the author on duty during

the tenure of the award. The author wishes to express his sincere

thanks to both Governments.

 S YN0 P S I S

Tests on four concrete beams with transverse-longitudinal steel

ratio varying from zero to 1.86 are reported. The strength of the rectan-

gular reinforced concrete beams, all of which fail due to direct shear and

torsion, agree favourably with the tensile strength of concrete determined

from indirect tension tests. Initial cracks occurred in all the beams at

a load corresponding to a combined shear stress of 346 psi in an unrein-

forced section under combined bending, shear and torsion.

Results indicate that the shear reinforcement ceases to be fully

Pt
effective as the p+p' ratio approaches and exceeds unity. Moreover the

concept of a transition from elastic to plastic states of stress is proved

by the resulta.

Expressions have been derived for the stresses and unit angle

of rotation for the central section of the beam remaining plane. The

results of the limited number of tests appear to agree well with the

modified theory.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.

I INTRODUCTION
A. The Problem 1
B. Historical Background 3
c. Purpose of Investigation 16

II THEORIES OF TORSION
A. Plain Concrete 18
B. Torsion of Composite Sections 24
C. Torsion of Rectangular Reinforced Concrete
Section Prevented from Warping 38

III TEST ASSEMBLIES

A. Choice of Test Assemblies 42
B. Details of Assemb1ies 43

IV TEST MATERIALS
A. Concrete 49
B. Steel 68

V EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
A. Pre1iminary Arrangement 73
B. Testing of Frames 78

VI EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND COMPARISON WITH THEORY

A. Stress Calculations 80
B. Deflection Calculations 80
C. Rotation Ca1culations 83

VII OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

A. Initial Cracking and General Behaviour 173
B. Stresses 181
c. Deflections and Rotations 182
D. Torque and Reinforcement 186
E. Mo du lus of Rigidity 190
F. General Discussion 193

VIII CONCLUSIONS 195

IX FUTURE RESEARCH 199

APPENDICES

A. Exact Solutions of Torsion Problem 201

B. Methods of Evaluating the Torsion Constant 203
c. Torsion of a Rectangular Bearn with Central Section Plane 205
D. Russian Method of Ultimate Load Analysis of Rectangular
Reinforced Concrete Sections subject to Combined Loadings 213
E. Design of the Frames 223
F. Particulars of Test Beams 227
G. Strain Gage Application 228
H. Strain Gage and Dial Gage Readings 237
J. Sample Calculation - Actual Deflections and Rotations 301
K. Sample Calculation - Determination of Principal Stresses
and Shearing Stress 304
L. Sample Calculation - Theoretical Deflections 306
M. Sample Calculation - Theoretical Rotations 309
N. Sample Calculation - Theoretical Stresses 313
o. Details of Gages and Cracks 315
P. Ultimate Load Analysis of Cracked Section 326

BIBLIOGRAPHY 335

LIST OF TABLES

II 1. Elastic Torsion Theory Constants 20

II 2. Elastic Torsion Theory Constants (Steel) 30
rv 1.. Compressive Strength of C.oncrete at 14 days 56
IV 2. Compressive Strength of Concrete at 28 days 57
IV 3. Tensile Strength of Concrete at 28 days 58
IV 4. Tensile Strength of Concrete at 14 days 58
IV 5. Compression Test (Determination of Modulus of Elasticity 59
6. and Poisson's Ratio) 60
IV 7. Compression Test Resulta 63
IV 8. Flexural Strength of Concrete 67
IV 9. Physical Properties of Steel 69
IV 10.
Tension Test Resulta (Determination of Modulus of
through 70
Elasticity)
IV 13.
VII 1. Results of Tests 179
V' I I 2. Ca1culated Unit Shear Stresses 180
VII 3. Test Resu1ts - Torque and Steel Ratios 188
VII 4. Percentage Resistance Moment of Concrete and Steel 189
VII 5. Modulus of Rigidity (from Torque Detrusion Curves) 192
App. F. Particu1ars of Test Beams 227
H 1 .. 238
through Strain Gage Readings through
H 7. 285
H s. 286
through Dia1 Gage Readings through
H 14. 300
J 1. Dial Gage Readings and Corrections 302

LIST OF GRAPHS

IV 1. Grading Curve - Coarse Aggregates 51

IV 2. Grading Curve - Sand 52
IV 3. Grading Curve for Combined Aggregates 53
IV 5. Compressive Strength Correction Factors for Varying
Height - Diameter Ratios 55
IV 6. Stress -Strain Curves for Concrete 61, 62
through and
Cylinders
IV 8. 64
IV 9.
through Stress-Stra:i..n Curves for Steel Bars 72
IV 12 ..
VI 1. 84
through Load-Stress Curves through
VI 207. 140
VI 208. 141
through Load-Deflection Curves through
VI 237. 161
VI 238. 162
through Torque-Detrusion Curves through
VI 248. 172
VII 1. Ratio of Critica1 Stresses to Tensi1e Strength 178
VII 3. Torque Stee 1 Ratio Curve 178
VII 4. Torque Reinforceœent Ratio Cu~ve (Ideal C~rve) 190
 LIST OF PLATES

Plate I. Reinforcement and Formwork for frame Fl (Ready for

èoncre'tï.ng') 43 A
Plate II. Rein forcement and Formwork for frame F2 (Ready for
concretlng) 43 A
Plate III. Formwork for the frames F and F2 along with raised
1
platform for concret:lng 43 A
Plate IV. Frame F (Finished - being prepared for strain gage
2 78 A
:tns'ta 1la.'tl on)
Plate V.
Test Assembly 78 A
Plate VI.
 NOMENCLATURE AND DEFINITION OF TERMS

The following notations will be used in this thesis unless

explicitly stated:

A Area of cross-section.
Al' A8 Total area of cross-section of longitudinal reinforcement.
A Area of cross-section of one leg of web reinforcement.
v
b Width of rectangular section
b' Horizontal distance between longitudinal reinforcing bars.
b" Width of shear reinforcing cage.
c Permissible compressive stress in concrete.
d Depth of rectangular section.
d' Vertical distance between longitudinal reinforcing bars.
d" Depth of shear reinforcing cage.
D Torsional rigidity of rectangular section.
D Deflection due to flexure.
m
D Deflection due to shear.
s
Dt Deflection due to torsion.
E Modulus of elasticity for concrete.
c
E Modulus of elasticity for steel.
s
f Stress in general.
f Stress in shear reinforcement.
v
f Normal stress in the direction of x-axis.
xx
f Normal stress in the direction of y-axis.
yy
f Normal stress in the direction of z-axis.
zz
fl' f2 Maximum and minimum principal stresses.
F Plastic torsion function.
f'c Ultimate compressive strength of a 6xl2 inch cylinder
at 28 days
ft Tensile strength of concrete.
G Shear modulus of concrete.
c
G Shear modulus of steel.
s
I Moment of inertia.
I
p Moment of inertia of transformed section.
K Constant in general.
kl' k2 Timoshenko's constants for elastic torsion.
1, m, n Direction eosines.
1 Span length.
Torsional resistance moment.
~
~p Contribution of plain concrete section to torsional
resistance moment.
Contribution of plain concrete section to torsional
~PE resistance moment, based on elastic theory.
Contribution of plain concrete section to torsional
resistance moment, based on plastic theory.
Contribution of longitudinal reinforcement to torsional
~L resistance moment.
Contribution of shear reinforcement to torsional
resistance moment.
n Modular ratio = E~/E
S, C
•
N Shear modulus of elasticity.
p Reinforcement expressed as a percentage of cross-sectional
area; Pitch of stirrups.
r Radial coordinates.
R Radius of circular section.
s Pitch of stirrups.
t Permissible tensile stress in steel.
T Torque based on elastic assumptions.
e
T Torque based on plastic assumptions.
p
u, v, w Displacement components along the x, y and z direction
respectively.
x, y, z Cartesian coordinates.

Constants derived from the elastic theory of torsion.

Elastic torsion function (Saint-Venant).

Angle of twist, based on elastic assumptions.
Angle of twist, based on plastic assumptions.
Conjugate torsion function; angle of rotation;
angle of inclination of shear reinforcement to beam
axis.
Angle of twist per unit length.
Normal strains along x, y and z-axès respectively.
rxy' ryz' rzx Shearing strains parallel to xy, yz and zx planes
respectively.
 Modulus of rigidity.
Poisson's ratio.
Unit shear stress.
Shearing stresses parallel to xy, yz and zx planes
respectively.

The equations in each chapter and appendix are designated by a

number only. However, when a reference is made to an equation.in another

chapter, the number of equations will be preceded by the chapter or the

appendix number. Thus equation IV.3 implies equation 3 of chapter IV and

equation M.2 means equation 2 of 4ppendix M.

 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. THE PROBLEM

Although many of the characteristics of reinforced concrete have been

established for simple loading conditions, the more complex problem of its be-

haviour under combined shear and bending, and torsion, shear, and bending re-

mains uncertain.

Torsion of concrete members received little attention until the begin-

ning of this century, mainly because of its complexity. In the design of rein-

forced concrete structures, engineers have to deal with a majority of frame

members which are subject to bending or compression or both. Provision is very

seldom made in ordinary building frames for taking care of the torsional

stresses which develop in a structural member if it is subjected to the action

of couples that lie in planes perpendicular to its axis. The attitude of the

design engineer is to avoid torsional stresses, either to eliminate them en-

tirely, o~ to greatly reduce them by suitably arranging the layout of the struc-

ture. Although torsion of concrete is a problem of less importance than its

bending or compression, there are many structural members in which twisting

forces occur and such forces must not be ignored.

In practice, torsion usually occurs as a secondary effect of bending.

Such torques occur when a bearn is loaded in a plane which does not pass

through the shear centre of the cross-section, or when the beam is curved in

a plane at right angles to the applied loads. The large areas of fenestration

and circular or rounded buildings in modern architecture introduce spandrel

beams and bow girders which are acted on by torques. Longitudinal balcony

girders that support cantilever beams, portico beams and unsupported building
 2

corners are also subject to

torsion because of eccentric-

ity of the loads. The frame

shown in Fig. 1 would, if used

in a vertical position, be sub-

ject to combined bending and

compression; used in the hor- B

izontal position B (as a bal-

cony bearn), would be subject FIG. I.l. RECTANGULAR FRAME

to combined bending, shear and A Portal frame

B Balcony bearn
torsion.

The problem of combined bending and shear with torsion arises essen-

tially out of the monolithic character of reinforced concrete construction.

In a bearn and slab floor, any asymmetry of the loading from the slab produces

torsion in the supporting beams, the extreme case being a continuous bearn with

alternate spans loaded. The deflection of adjacent loaded panels produces

torsional stresses in the floor beams. The Waterloo Bridge and the Royal

Festival Hall are two major reinforced concrete structures in great Britain

in which torsional stresses were considered in the design.

In rectangular rigid space frames, the end moments of a loaded bearn

give rise to bending in the column and torsion in the beams which frame in

the same joint at right angles to the loaded bearn. Continuous windows are

synonymous with modern asthetic architecture, and the engineer is required

to design the spandrel beams to support the eccentric walls above the win-

dows. He has to eliminate excessive deflectiocs to prevent formation of

cracks in the finishes and the masonry, and at the same time, prevent an
 3

overdesign leading to excessive costs.

Rigid frame portals and buildings asymmetric in layout, when subjec-

ted to horizontal wind pressures, constitute problems in torsion of reinforced

concrete members. A skew arch subjected to vertical loads presents a similar

problem. Also the girders or headers next to floor openings, and wall foun-

dation beams in cantilever footings, are examples of members subject to

twisting moments. The most striking example of torsion is the helical stair-

case which has recently been revived in reinforced concrete after a lapse of

a long period.

In countries like Japan and Italy, where earthquakes are frequent

and severe, torsional stresses occur in all parts of the framed structure as

secondary stresses during the earthquake tremors. The same conditions would

exist in case of a nuclear blast.

Cases of torsion of reinforced concrete sections occur frequently,

and under certain conditions the stresses resulting therefrom may be large.

In steel structures the torsional moments are generally not significant but

they can be appreciable in the case of reinforced concrete structures. The

existence of stresses due to such moments has been recognized but very rarely

have efforts been made to proportion members for such stresses until recently.

B. HISTPRICAL BACKGROUND

1. General: Since the beginning of the nineteenth century, the theory of

torsion has been published by several elasticians among whom Navier, Poisson,

Cauchy and Saint-Venant in France, and Wertheim, Henneberg, Prandtl and Weber

in Germany are the most prorninent. Experimenta for determining the torsional
 4

strength of various materials have followed in many countries.

The exact analytic solution of the torsional problem for a circular

bar was obtained by Coulomb in 1784. He assumed that the cross-sections of

the bar remain plane and rotate without any distortion during twist, Coulomb

determined the torsional rigidity of metal and silk threads by torsional

oscillations. He arrived at the following conclusions experimentally: (a) the

angle of twist is inversely proportional to the polar moment of inertia of the

cross section and (b) the maximum shearing stress occurs at points most remote

from the centroid of the cross-section. For sorne 50 years elasticians used

Coulombs formula for all sections:

M = fA- 'CJ
where M = torsional moment on a priam of circular section,
~ = unit angular twist of the section,

/'" = modulus of rigidity,

and J = polar moment of inertia.

The theory as developed by Coulomb was later applied by Navier to

prismatic bars of non-circular cross-secti,:;:r_:.s. He arrived at the same con-

clusions as Coulomb which, though correct for circular se~tions, are

erroneous for non-circular sections being in contradicti.on with the actual

boundary conditions. Experimenta with rectang·.llar bars at later dates have

shown that the cross-sections of the bars do not remain plane èuring torsion

and that the distortion of the rectangular elements on the surface of the

bars is greatest at the middle of the longer sides, i.e. at points which are

nearest to the axis of the bar.

Cauchy was the first to realise in 1829, that the right sections of

non-circular prisme do not continue to the plane sectio::1s whea torque is

 5

applied. He utilized the equations of a sel.f-developed general theory of

elasticity to obtain for a rectangular sectio~:

M = p..r-cr~~/J
where Ix, ly are the two principal moments of inertia. For a square section:

M =}-J't..J and for a very thin rectangle: M =fl 'Lix where rx<<~·

Experimental investigations of Savart, reported in 1829, appeared to substan-

tiate Cauchy's theory.

A decade later Saint-Venant (1839), on examining Cauchy's rather

intricate analysis, found it to be faulty. Correcting it, he obtained for

the rectangle:

M =
In 1843 Saint-Venant published an elaborated version of this aLalysis. He

pointed out that Cauchy' s expression for a rectar..g·ular section, properly

interpreted, indicates a distortion of the initially plane cross-section due,

as Saint-Venant then thought, to the inequality of the adjacent sides of the

rectangle. Saint-Venant's new formula yielded values smaller than those

obtained experimentally and was therefore i.!-.<.:orrec.t. Fot:r years later in

a series of three papers, Sai.nt-\7enant correctly formulateè. the general torsion

problem and solved the rectangle and the ellipse. He based his analysis on

(a) experimental data established by Savat·t, (b) torsion tests made by Duleau

in 1920 on bars of square and circular sections of the same material and the

same moment of inert:i.a and (c) his own tests on two r.1bber prisms, which

led him to the conclusion that cross-sections of rectangular prisms did not

remain plane sections under torsion, and the shearing stresses at the corners

were zero, contrary to the implications of the old theory. He further con-

cluded that (a) the maxi.mum torsional shearing stress arises at those points

on the boundary nearest the centroid, namely at the centre of the long sides,
 6

(b) the shearing stress attains a maximum at the middle of the short sides,

but this maximum is less than that developed at the middle of the long sides,

(c) the stress increases uniformly along the median lines from zero at the

centroid to a local maximum at the center of each side, (d) the shearing stress

increases from zero at the centroid to a maximum at some point intermediate

between the centroid and the corner along the diagonal, (e) the stress is zero

at the corners, and (f) the stress varies approximately as the ordinates to a

parabole. The solutions derived by Saint-Venant for various shapes, including

rectangular, triangular and elliptic, consisted. of complicated mathematical

solutions often involving infinite series.

Lord Kelvin {1867) explained the existence of the maximum

stresses at points on the boundary nearest the centroid, rather than at the

most remote points. His self-noted hydro-dynamical analogue was that the

torsion equations are formal analogues of those defining the irrotational

motion of a non-viscous fluid contained in a prism rotating with constant

angular velocity. Kelvin pointed out that the torsion equations yield

infinite stresses at re-entrant points and zero stress at salient points of

a contour. Saint-Venant was aware of the latter but not of the former. He

had earlier maintained that the distortion, and hence the shear, would be

zero at both re-entrant and salient points~

Boussinesq (1871), introducing the stress function

= ""Ir
r - 1/2 (x 2 + y2) '
where " and are the real and imaginery parts of an analytic function

the torsion function, the conjugate torsion function, and the complex torsion
 7

fur.ction, expressed t2e torsion e.quatior~s in terms of this parameter. Thus,

"'V":Z.. y = -2 over the cross-section,

where if = constant o::t the contour (commonly taken as zero)

and M = -fJ <(JI c'JZ%r)

A
+x c~)J d)( d.2f

=
"-f-'"tfi 'fdxd~
He then pointed out that (a) the first two equations are those characterizing

the steady state laminar flow of a viscous liquid having a ve locity in a pipe

of cross-section identical with that of the r:.on-twisted prism, (b) '\'" =

constant are lines of shearing stress, a1rld (c) the normal derivative of

at a point on suc.h a curve is proportional to the sheari.ng stress at that

point.

Boussinesq 1 s memoir ma·rks the enc of the pe:riod of formulation of

an important theory and disco·v"ery of the salient phenomena associated with .

Saint-Venant's torsion problem. The succe€ding effort has been devoted to

obtaining exact solutions for specifie cross-sections and to effecting and

applying an approximate te.::h~:i.que - analytic, experimental, numerical and

empirical - for studying cross-sectio:n.s lèot amenable to a::1 exact mathematical

solution. The exact solutions affected to date have been detailed in Appendix A.

Prar:.dtl (1903) :i.::.troduced tè.e membrane a::talogy for the sob.:tion of

torsion problems, accordi·n.g to wh:i.ch, if sr elastic membra.:te is stretched over

an opening which has the same shape as th.a c·.coss-section of the bar and is

subject to a small difference of pressure on its two siàes, the differential

equation of this d.eflected bubble has the same form as the differentia!

equation of the stress fu:J.c.tion. The membrane a:nalogy thua offered a means

of actually construc.ting the stress fu:>.ctio:J. surface for any kind of solid
 8

cross-section. The slope of the surface at any point in any direction repre-

sented the magnitude of the shearing stress in the perpendicular direction at

a point directly below on the transverse cross-section. The volume included

between the surface representing the stress function and the transverse cross-

section over which the surface lay was equal to one half of the twisting

moment applied to the bar.

A list of the various methods available for evaluating the

torsion constant has been given in Appendix 13.

2. Reinforced Concrete in Torsion: Experimenta with plain and reinforced

concrete were recorded as early as 1903 at Stuttgart, Germany. Professor

Morsh tested to failure eight cylindrical specimens, 26 ems in diameter of

plain concrete, and some cylinders reinforced with spirals. He noted that

the fracture was on a helical surface, approximately at 45 degrees with

surface elements parallel to the axis and that the torsional moment at

initial cracking was higher than that for unreinforced specimens.

The Stuttgart experimenta by Prof. Bach and Graf (1911) of

thirty-seven test-pieces (circular 40 ems in diameter, square 30 ems by 30 ems,

and rectangular 42 ems by 21 ems) of plain concrete and concrete reinforced

with (a) longitudinal bars, (b) longitudinal bars and rings and (c) longitudinal

bars and spirals, constituted the first thorough investigation of the problem.

The ratio of the torsional shear strength to compressive strength varied

from 0.07 to 0.13. The ratio of the torsional shear strength to the ten-

sile strength varied from 0.92 to 1.75. The highest values were obtained for

the rectangular sections and the lowest for the hollow circular sections. The

maximum stresses were produced at the center of the aides of the rectangular
 9

cross-section (d~b) and their values were:

.Y\. M.,. \Xlj

't, b'l..ci and 'l'l.. - YL bd~
'2-·G
where coefficient
'\ = 3. + a '
and
b + 0'45

~ was the torsional moment, and b, d were the breadth and the depth of the

bearn respectively.

The experimental work following the first German tests consisted

of: a) tests by Prof. Foppl (Munchen) 1911, with 15 tests-pieces of circular

cross-section, 10 ems in diameter, of plain and longitudinally reinforced

concrete; b) tests by Prof. Young (Toronto) 1911, with twelve test-pieces of

square section 12.7 ems x 12.7 ems, and rectangular sections 12.7 by 19.05

and 12.7 by 25.4 ems of plain concrete and concrete reinforced with (i) lon-

gitudinal bars and (ii) longitudinal bars and spirals; c) tests by Prof. Graf

and Morsh (Stuttgart) 1921, with seventeen specimens of circular cross-section

40 ems in diameter of plain concrete and concrete reinforced with (i) longi-

tudina1 bars, (ii) longitudinal bars and stirrups and (iii) longitudinal bars
0
and spirals. In all these experimenta cracks occured at 45 to the rota-

tional axis, indicating a failure due to diagonal tension. Longitudinal or

lateral reinforcement used alone had little effect on the torsional properties,

but when the two systems were combined the effect upon torsional strength

was more pronounced. Spiral reinforcement was the most effective method of

increasing the torsional strength.

Young, Sagar and Hug~es (Toronto) 1921, carried out tests on 12

beams, 5 by 5, 5 by 7-1/2 and 5 by 10 inches in cross-section, all beams

being 5 ft. long of plain concrete and concrete with (a) light longitudinal

reinforcement, (b) medium longitudinal reinforcement and light spiralling and

(c) heavy longitudinal reinforcement and close spiralling. The increase in

 10

the ultimate torque with longitudinal reinforcement was negligible, but the

addition of spiral reinforcement with the longitudinal reinforcement consid-

erably strengthened the section.

Miyamoto (Tokyo) 1927, tested eighty six specimens in torsion at

the Japanese Home Department laboratories. The specimens were of circular

cross-section, 30 ems in diameter in the middle cylindrical portion, and 1.5

meters in total length, provided at both ends with enlarged rectangular heads

40x 40 ems. in section ànd 15 ems. in length. The seventy eight reinforced

concrete test-pieces were divided into 10 groups according to type of rein-

forcement (longitudinal, spiral at varying pitch and inclination and stirrups

at variable spacing). All specimens showed helical cracks at 45 degrees to

the rotational axis. It was noted that the resistance of the reinforced test

pieces was not exhausted at the maximum torque, and with decreasing load the

twist could be further increased, The reinforcing bars did not yield and the

angle of twist was independent of the type of reinforcement. In his analysis

of the sections Miyamoto considered the concrete section to be partially

plastic and assumed a parabolic stress distribution.

Gilkey and Vogt (Colorado) 1928, conducted a series of compres-

sion, flexure, tension and torsion tests to study the effects of variation

in time and nature of curing. They concluded that difference in age and

curing did not have a consistent effect upon the ratio of torsional strength

to the strength in compression, flexure or tension. The torsional strength

was found to be the same as the ultimate tensile strength and was about 9%

of ultimate compressive strength. Poisson's ratio was observed to be 0.20

and the shear modulus of elasticity about 0.40 to 0.45 of the modulus of

elasticity in compression.
 11

Rausch (Berlin) 1929, developed a theory for the strength of rein-

forced concrete in torsion, using the data from tests by Bach and Graf. He

demonstrated the application of his theory to the design of foundation beams.

According to Rausch, the required cross-sectional area of stirrups per unit

length of the member Ast' and the required cross-sectional area of longi-

tudinal bars per unit of the perimeter Asl are:

= =

where Mt is torsional moment, ~ is concrete core area sorrounded by the

stirrups, and t is the permissible steel stress. The stirrups must be of

closed shape, and the longitudinal bars must be well anchored so that they

can offer proper resistance to the tensile forces produced by torrsion.

Turner and Davies (London) 1934, tested six plain concrete beams

of square, rectangular and T-shaped cross-sections, and six reinforced con-

crete beams of square section in torsion at Battersea Polytechnic Institute.

The quality of concrete used for the test-beams varied considerably, thus

affecting the torsional strength of some of the test specimens. They observed

that reinforced specimens cracked at loads a little higher than plain con-

crete and recommended that all sections should be reinforced for torsion in

addition to that necessary for bending and ordinary shear. Longitudinal

reinforcement without any lateral reinforcement and lateral reinforcement

without any longitudinal reinforcement were found to be ineffective. They

advised that torsion reinforcement be spread over evenly, and be as near to

the outer surfaces and as closely spaced as practicable, spacing not exceed-
s-c
ing -;r-where s was the shortest aide and c the cover. According to Turner

and Davies, if the total reinforcement is equally divided longitudinally

and laterally, and is less than 1-1/2 per cent, then

 12

T = T ( 1 + 0.25 p )
e c

Where T is the torque resisted by the effective concrete and steel, T is

e c
the torque resisted by concrete alone, and p is the percentage of reinforce-

ment. A conclusion of practical importance was that torsion increased tension

in the bottom of the beams and the tensile shear component on the vertical

faces. Turner and Davies suggested that a plain unreinforced section, although

it had a theoretical resistance, could not be employed without a minimum amount

of reinforcement to prevent tension cracks.

Anderson (Illinois) 1935, tested in torsion six plain cylinderical

concrete specimens and forty two reinforced concrete specimens, 10 inches

square by 28 inches long. High tensile steel, 1/2 in. diameter for longitudinal

bars, 5/32 in. diameter mild steel circular hoops, and 5/32 in. diameter mild

steel circular 45° spirals were used as reinforcement, separately and in corn-

bination. He concluded that (a) modulus of elasticity in shear of concrete

depended on its ultimate strength, (b) concrete in torsion failed in tension

due to its low tensile strength, (c) the addition of longitudinal reinforce-

ment in corners increased the torsional resistance, (d) the torsional strength

could be further increased by addition of vertical web reinforcement and (e)

the most effective type of reinforcement was the 45° spiral, According to

Anderson, the permissible torsional moment on a rectangular reinforced section

was given by

=
where A is the effective cross-sectional area of the section (area within the

center line of the shear reinforcement), At is the cross-sectional area of

one leg of the web reinforcement, t is the maximum permissible stress in the

web reinforcement and p is the pitch of spiral reinforcement measured paral-

 13

lel to the axis of the bearn. The coefficient À was 2 for circular sections

and approximately 4/3 for square and rectangular sections. The above equation,

also covered Rausch's theory except that)\ equalled 2 for all shapes of cross-

sections.

Gilkey (Ames, Iowa) 1935, tested a large number of plain concrete

specimens in tension, compression and torsion. He based his analysis on the

elastic theory and concluded that the ratio of compressive to torsional strength

varied from 6 to 11, the ratio of flexural to torsional strength from 1.3 to

1.5 and the ratio of tensile to torsional strength from 0.6 to 0.8.

Anderson (Illinois) 1937, conducted sorne further experimenta on

square and rectangular sections. He showed that the ratio of torsional strength

to compressive strength decreased as compressive strength increased.

Marshall and Tembe (London) 1941, experimented with twenty six plain

concrete specimens of circular, rectangular, T-shaped and L-shaped cross-sec-

tions, and 24 rectangular and T-beams with mild steel-reinforcement. They

concluded that plain rectangular specimens showed no cracks at the centre of

the long sides prior to the formation of an instantaneous crack at failure.

Also concrete behaved as an elastic material until its ultimate tensile strength.

Then a redistribution of stress occurred and the member behaved plastically

until it failed, In 1944, Marshall analyzed previous experimental work to

show that consistent values for the ultimate torsional shear stress were ob-

tained if conc.rete was assumed to be an ideal plastic material.

Nylander (Stockholm) 1945, concluded from the tests on sixty beams

under various loading conditions that concrete should be treated as a plastic

material to assess the ultimate strength in torsion. He observed that bending

slightly increased the resistance to torsion. He also gave formulas for var-
 14

ious cross-sections of ideal elastic and ideal plastic materials, besides de-

riving a formula for computing the longitudinal reinforcement in a section sub-

ject to combined bending and torsion.

Fisher and Grassam (London) 1950, conducted a series of twelve tests

on plain concrete specimens, 30 inches long and 7-1/2 inches diameter, under

combined bending and torsion, supplemented by subsidiary tests for the com-

pressive, tensile and flexural strengths of concrete. They used electrical

strain gages to measure the surface strains induced in the specimens. The ad-

dition of a small bending moment did not have any effect on the torsional strength.

Cowan (London) 1951, made tests on (a) plain concrete beams and (b)

beams longitudinally reinforced with steel bars at corners and (c) beams with

varying shear reinforcement. He found a good agreement between the experi-

mental resulta and those computed from the elastic theory. In 1952, Cowan and

Armstrong tested reinforced concrete beams in combined bending and torsion.

They concluded that addition of a small amount of bending to a reinforced

concrete section increased the section's resistance to torsion. Their results

agreed with the maximum stress theory. In 1953, Cowan advanced a theory for

the strength of concrete and reinforced concrete under combined stresses. He

combined Rankine's maximum principal stress and Coulomb's interna! friction

theories and explained the distinct difference between a primary bending and

a primary torsion failure. The theory accounted for the increase in the tor-

sional strength resulting from the addition of bending.

Brown (Auburn, Alabama) 1955, conducted tests under combined shear

and torsion on longitudinally reinforced concrete T-beams without web rein~

forcement. By comparing the strength of T-beams in combined shear and tor-

sion with the strength of similar sections in direct shear, he observed that
 15

at first diagonal cracking the experimental results agreed with the theoretical

torsional strength based on the plastic theory, but generally the theoretical

results were less than actual experimental values.

Studies of torsion in reinforced concrete beams were carried out by

Miss N.N. Lessig and her colleagues during 1948-1956 in U.S.S.R. She studied

two particular failure conditions. The shear force was relatively small in

one case and the failure occurred due to combined effects of torsion and bending.

In the other case bending moment was negligible and failure was due to com-

bined action of torsion and shear. Miss Lessig treated the spiral cracks as

a plastic hinge, the hinge rotation about a skew axis having a flexural and

twisting component. The final failure was due to cracking of concrete after

yielding of both the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. She inves-

tigated a number of different variables and found good agreement between exper-

imental resulta and the analytical relationships proposed by her for the two

cases.

Ernst (Lincoln, Nebraska) 1957, tested eighteen beams with differ-

ent longitudinal and transverse reinforcements. He observed that yield strains

could be developed in longitudinal corner bars as well as in transverse ties

resulting in either a diagonal tension type of fracture or a hybrid failure

in transverse shear and diagonal compression. He also pointed out that there

is a transition from elastic to plastic states of stress as the ratio of

transverse to longitudinal steel approaches unity. Treating the crack as a

hinge, he developed expressions for the plastic ultimate torque.

Zia (Gainsville, Florida) 1960, conducted theoretical and exper-

imental research in torsional strength of prestressed concrete members. He

proposed a modification to Cowan's theory for dual criterion of failure. The

 16

envelope for the Modified Cowan Theory was found to be a closer approximation

to the Mohr's envelope.

Cowan (Sydney) 1960, presented formulas for determining the torsional

shear stresses, diagonal tensile stresses and angle of rotation for several sec-

tions. Most of these formulas form a part of the new Australian concrete code

which provides engineers with sufficient information to design concrete beams

subject to torsion with due consideration to both safety and economy.

C. PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION

As discussed in the previous paragraphs, Cowan proposed a dual

criterion of failure for the behaviour of concrete under combined stresses,

particularly combined bending and torsion. Although Cowan has contributed a

great deal to the subject by extending his theoretical and practical investi-

gations to rectangular reinforced and prestressed concrete sections, the number

of tests performed by him in each case was limited. Also most of the investi-

gators have based their analyses on the elastic theory of torsion which as-

sumes that plane sections warp. However, in a reinforced concrete framed

structure where a secondary bearn frames into a main bearn, the symmetry of

loading prevents warping of the central plane of the main bearn (perpendicular

to the axis of the main bearn and along the axis of the secondary bearn) which

is contrary to the assumptions of the elastic theory.

The objectives of this theoretical and experimental investigation

were to: 1) develop analytic expressions for torsional stiffness and stresses

in concrete and steel, 2) check the vali.dity of the modified elastic theory

with experimental resulta and a comparison with the original elastic theory,

3) determine the effect of the transverse reinforcement on the strength of

 17

the beams under the combined action of torsion, bending and shear, and 4) anal-

yse the beam section for ultimate loads, based on the plastic hinge principle.
 18

CHAPTER II

THEORIES OF TORSION

A. PLAIN CONCRETE

When a member with a circular section is subjected to twisting

moments, plane sections remain plane and the shear strain varies linearly

with the distance from the axis.

It follows from the elastic torsion theory that the twisting mo-

ment M.rP is

M.rp = 1/2 Trf' R'> (1)

where f is the stress at the periphery and R is

the radius of the section.

The angle of twist per unit length is

given by

e = (2)

where G is the shear modulus of elasticity of

c
Fig. II.l Details of
the concrete.
circular section
According to Saint-Venant, when a

non-circular section is twisted the sections which were originally plane

cease to be plane and become warped. Saint-Venant also worked out the prin-

cipal functions required for the solution of torsional problems of rectan-

gular sections. According to his theory, if a rectangular bearn is twisted

through an angle e per unit length, the displacements u, v, w parallel to the

axes x, y and z respectively are:

u = + eyz, v = - ezx and w =e ~ (x,y),

where e = angle of twist per unit length, x and y are distances from the

centroid of the rectangle, and

 19

0 = Saint-Venant's elastic
oO
torsion function

= -x~+ b'l-(~[
Yl:=C
The components of strain are

€:
x
==E
y
=E
z
= rxy = o
rzx _ou+""(:)""_
-'Oz. 'ê>x - (Y+ ~t )e (4)
_ow+"Ov _
r yz - 'D(f -z>z.- (~-x )e
'ô~

The corresponding components of stress are given by

0 t'::l'j::: 0 +z.-z. : : 0 0
e (~ -'X)
(5)
Cc
Gee(~+~)
The maximum shear stresses occur at the middle of the aides on the periphery

of the rectangle, the absolute maximum being at the middle of the longer sides.

7: yz rl e
rr
L..xz
=

= r2
b Ge

d Ge e } (6)

The constants r1 and r2 have been calculated by Saint-Venant and are repro-

duced in Table II. 1. Both component shear stresses vanish at the corners

of the rectangle. The stresses on the circumference of the section are

therefore greatest at the points nearest the axis of the beam and zero at

the points furthest from the axis.

The twisting moment MTPE is

Mm = Sf( 'l<l.,-z. -':1 '"(..,_) d. . d~ = (i)

where ~PE = the torsional resistance moment of plain concrete sections based

on the elastic theory and '~ is a hyperbolic function of the ratio d/b, (Ref.

Table II.l.) Equation (7) gives the angle of rotation produced by the twisting

moment. The relationship between the moment and the maximum shear stress pro-
 20

duced by it is obtained by substituting from equation (6) into equation (7)

(8)

where oi.. is a function of d/b (Ref. Table II.l.).

The two principal planes have an TABLE II.l.

1-'-------;·-·--------T· --·--·---·-····----- ·- -·---
inclination of 45° to the axis, d/b
t-------·---+-- -~ ~ y~
1.0 0.208 0.141 0.675 0.675
and the principal stresses, one
1.2 0.219 0.166 0.759
compressive and the other tensile, 1.4 0.227 0.187 0.822 !
are of the same magnitude as the 1. 5 0.231 0.196 0.848 0.485
1. 6 0.234 0.204 0.869
shear stress.
1.8 0.240 0.217 o. 904
2.0 0.246 0.229 0.930 0.370
2.5 0.258 0.249 0.968 0.297
3.0 0.267 0.264 0.985
5.0 0.292 1 0.291 0.999 0.149

_,__1~-~-:~-'--~: :~~J-~-~-~-~_1 ~; ~~-~-

2 0.074
--

Saint Venant's Approximate Formula.

The Saint-Venant's formulas (exact theory) are very complicated

for purposes of design and experimental investigation and can be replaced

by approximations without any great error. Saint-Venant gave an empirical

formula which differs by less than 4 percent from the correct theoretical

values. If ~ be the maximum shearing stress at the middle of the longer

max
sides, the torsional moment required to produce this stress is

M.rPE (9)

Merriman's Formula.

Merriman, as a result of experimental investigations, proposed

 21

the following formula for the determination of shearing stress at any selected

point (x, y) of a rectangular section:

~
xz = ~[' - (~)j
<t
yz = '2. 'li Y-
b
r ,- (S)]
L
(10)

where 1:1 and ~ are absolute maximum shearing stresses at the middle of the

longer and the shorter sides respectively. This formula gives values within

10 percent of the exact theory for d/b ratios up to 2.

Bach's Methods. r~
Two approximate methods

due to Bach are available for analysing

·~
1

the torsional strength of rectangular

concrete sections in the elastic range. j_--+----- .....d_...~.+.x

The first method assumes a parabolic

variation of the component shear stresses

and gives

rc~-z. = lMo_~ "2r [1 - (?fJl }(ll}

l~7- = 1:~c-)( l~)[t- ~5] -_j
Fig.II.2. Bach s proposed
1
The twisting moment works out to the
parabolic variation of shear stress
form
(t '2.)

For the variation in the component shear stresses Bach also derived a more

complicated relationship which approximates more closely to Saint-Ve~ant's

theory. The equations are

(13}
 22

The equation for the twisting moment required to produce these stresses is

(14)

which differa by lesa than one percent from the resulta obtained by Saint-

Venant's exact theory.

Timoshenko, as quoted by Marshall and Tembe, gives a formula sim-

ilar to Bach's equation (12), the only difference being that the coefficient

2/9 is replaced by a variable coefficient. This formula is

(15)

and the relation between torque and twist is given by

e = T
(16)
7
where N = maximum shear stress at the middle of the longer side

and k2 is a constant for given values of d/b.

The values of constants k and k as calculated by Timoshenko for various

1 2
d/b ratios are as fo1lows:

d/b k1 k2

1.0 0.208 0.141

1.5 0.231 0.196
2.0 0.246 0.229
2.5 0.258 0.249
3.0 0.267 0.263

Timoshenko's formula gives the same resulta as Saint-Venant's exact theory.

Slocum, as quoted by Young, Sagar and Hughes, presents a somewhat

lengthier expression for torque:

bd l bl. + dl.) 'l~c>.x
=
( 4•08 + "2-·1 t) (17)
 23

Circular Section Theory.

This approximate method ignores the warping of the non-circular

sections during torsion and maintains the assumption that the strain is di-

rectly proportional to the distance from the axis. Consequently the maximum

stress occurs at the corners and the minimum stress at the middle of the longer

sides, contrary to the resulta obtained from Saint-Venant's theory and exper-

imental investigations. This theory provides reasonable approximation for

near-circular sections but is seriously in error when applied to rectangular

reinforced concrete sections.

Membrane Analogy.

Prandtl showed that if an elastic membrane, auch as a soap film,

is stretched over an opening of the same shape as the cross-section of the

twisted bar and is subjected to a small difference of pressure on its two

sides, the differentiai equation of this deflected bubble-like soap film has

the same form as the differentiai equation of the stress function 0 (x,y) of

Saint-Venant' s torsion theory. According to Prandtl the differentiai equation

of this deflected soap film (elastic membrane) is

p_
+ s

where x, y and z are rectangular coordinates (x, y being in the plane of the

film and z normal to it), p is the lateral pressure per unit area and S is

the tensile force per unit length in the soap film, assurned to be the same

at all points and in all directions. Equation (17) is identical to Saint-

Venant's equation

+ - "2Ge
 24

if z(x,y) is substituted by 0(x,y) and p/S is replaced by 2Ge. This leads

to the following important relationships between a deflected membrane and a

twisted bar: a) the contour lines of the distended membrane are the lines of

resulting shearing stress on the cross-section of the twisted bar, b) the maximum

slope at a point of the distended membrane is proportional to the magnitude of

the resulting shear stress at the corresponding point on the transverse cross-

section of the twisted bar, c) the torque to which the bar is subjected is

proportional to twice the volume between the distended membrane and the plane

of its outline, d) if the maximum slope at a point referred in b) is ~~ and

the volume mentioned in c) is V, then the actual shearing stress at the point is
0~
---'l~~~-- ~T~E (18)
~v

where ~PE is the twisting moment.

B. TORSION OF COMPOSITE SECTIONS

Payne's Method.

Although many methods exist to

solve Saint-Venant's problem, very little

work has been done on composite sections

composed of two or more different iso-

topic materials or partly isotropie and

x
partly anisotropie materials. Payne's

method to solve the torsion problem

for a bearn of any cross-section con-

sisting of two different isotropie

materials, shown in Fig.II.3, defines

the stresses and deflections as:

Fig.II.3 Composite Section

 25

't~z.. - o<.JJ·l~
~ -ex + è1)
re~... - ot. MJ. l ~ - ><)
and \A - c:X!:j-z. (19)

y - cX.xz
=-
w = o( cb,_._, l'){l ~)
where}J 1 and 01 are the shear modulus and torsion function for the part of
section between c1 and c2, and ~~and 02 correspond to the section inside c2 ;
01 and 02 being functions of x and y. The boundary conditions required to be
satisfied are:

(a) The boundary c1 is free of shear, i.e. on c1:

t cr"''Z.. + 'W\ t~'Z.. -=- 0 (20)

This may be written as

where ir, is the conjugate function to 0, or ~ =0 )

where (21)

(b) Across c2 , the deflection is continuous, i.e. along c2 :

(22)
(c) Across c2 , the tractions are continuous. This may be written as

,.11,. J:,r'l.. + a constant (23)

The values of ~~can be so adjusted that the constant is zero. Then the

expression for the rigidity of the section becomes

D = LfASI.~ dxd~ + 2 ~Si~,. d,~ , (24)

where A is the area enclosed between

1
c1 and c2 and A is the area inside
2
 26

A rectangular reinforced concrete ...

1
6

sèction can be assumed, without much error, to.

consist of two different isotropie materials.

Co
The area of steel being very small as compared )JI ..... ~

with the area of concrete, the steel can be

considered to be uniformly distributed over

s TU\..
the entire width. For the rectangular sect-
.4 )J,.,

ion shown in Fig.II.4, the torsion function

Fig.II.4 Composite
and their constants are
Rectangular Section
oO

~1 = -Y.~ + ~ (A,., s;..,~ "'" \! + s, "c~ h"'h:J) s,..,o<~x

\.25)
ck - - "::J + ~~ (A,., $;" h "'-n::J + S.,_, Co~h o<.,~) s,·"' eX.., x.
wheve ~1'\ - l"l..Y'I-t-1) rr;b

L [J..i 1 Âec.h ~n~) {io.f\J.. (~._~)-Co~ lo<.,c )}

- ,U ... t h (o<V\ ~) - Cotk ( c.<~ c .)
Â:A.Y\

- ( )J.,-iJ.'l-) Aech (c<,c){ ta.v·J, (eX"~)- Cetl-- ~"c)~

A,."' - B71'\ t~Y~h (o<." ~) + LSec~ (-<"' ~)

d4 8,1'\ - L [fp, ~'2ch l otr~%_) - (}i, -,Lll-) Jec-h (o(" C) l {?.b)

- ,Lt,_ t A-._1'1 + Bl.n icu,h ( cXn 'i_)]J

A,.,.. - L ÂecÀ ( cxh {) - &,"' to..\\ ~ (o<" ~)

t- ')Yl+l
L - b2. ('tt)~
c-~Y\"r 1)'!

d3 P2 \. ~C1.Mh ( o<._c)ft:Ov\-\J.l~~ ~) -\}

-fA, {Co~ (cx,c) *~"'~ (<X~"~~)-1}
 27

1
- /J., -6.~ k. l.(n(} { .t_rA.V\h (o<"()- kk lO(hC.)
-?2. ko..~~ lo<Y\~) \ ~lltX. .~)- ka.~h(.o<"c)}
~~ { *~k (o<n\,) - kY\h {.o{~c)}
Therefore

{27)

isotropie rectangular section:

2. u { jk - ( :~.) ~~ -6..J, ~?<~\)} (28)

t - '5 rr L.I
\1-=-0
L'"'+ ,y
Concrete with Longitudinal Reinforcement only:

The general solutions for torsion of composite sections of two

isotropie materials (Ruchadze, Payne) are complicated for use by a design

engineer. Since the volume of the reinforcement constitutes a small pro-

portion of the total volume of the bearn, the problem can be simplified

without an appreciable losa of accuracy by substituting the steel bars by

 28

an equivalent volume of concrete concentrated along the centre lines of the

bars, the equivalent volume being the product of the volume of steel and the

modular ratio.

The component shear stresses at the

centre of each bar at coordinates (± -:\i.,b' 1 ±~d )

1

(Fig. II. 5) in the rectangular section rein-

forced with four longitudinal bars at the

corners are
1
'l'::f'L
:;;:
+x.]')(.:. -!r. b
and
1

';:l':. ~d': ___ ___

1, - __::t,<

~)(Z.. =
G$ e [ ~ - ~ ]x:.\ b' ' 1 l 1

where G is the shear modulus of steel and 0 is

s
Saint-Venant's torsion function obtained from
'j ~~cl
ll 0
'
1
1
0

equation (3).
1-'j
Neglecting the area of concrete Fig.II.5 Rectangular
Section with Longitudinal
displaced, the additional resistance moment
Reinforcement
due to four bars is

(30)

where ~L is the contribution of longitudinal bars to the torsional resist-

ance moment and A is the area of cross-section of all the four bars, The
s
insertion of longitudinal steel bars increases the torsional stiffness in

the ratio of
 29

Torsional Shear Reinforcement.

When subjected to torsion, concrete, being a material of high shear

and low tensile strength, tends to fracture along helical lines parallel

to the direction of principal tensile stresses. The most effective type of

reinforcement is therefore a spiral following the line of principal tensile

stresses.

Cowan pointed out the errors involved in the earlier solutions

due to Rausch and Anderson, the former basing his analysis on the circular

section theory, the latter using Bach's approximate theory. Rausch over-

estimated the effectiveness of reinforcement for the rectangular section.

The distribution of stresses assumed by him was contrary to that occurring

in practice, which is maximum at the middle of the sides and nil at the cor-

ners. Anderson, although he assumed a reasonable stress distribution in

shear reinforcement, underestimated its effectiveness.

By equating the work done by the ...

!
' b
b"
w 1
torsional moment to the strain energy stored ,.........
t:

in the bearn, Cowan obtained a solution based

on the assumptions of the elastic working

J~ 1
~
theory. Neglecting the area of concrete dis-

placed by the reinforcement which is not co-

~--~
c
incident with principal tensile stresses,his

formula for additional torsional moment due

Fig.II.6 Rectangular
to shear reinforcement is
Section with Longitudinal
(31) and Shear R.einforcement

where A
v
= cross-sectional area of one bar of the shear reinforcement,

p = pitch of the stirrups i.nclined at an angle * to the bearn axis,

 30

A == area of concrete enclosed by the reinforcing cage which

equals b"d" for a rectangular section of cage dimensions

b11 and d"

'
E
s = modulus of elasticity of reinforcing steel and
d''
~ = coefficient dependent on
tl'
(Table II.2)

The maximum stress in the stirrup-leg TABLE NO. II.2.

·~

is given by
'{,
\
{ ~--~
)!Rectangulax l
'
!Section ·!
. d11 /b"
where ~, is a coefficient dependent l

' 1
1
1 1.0 o. 675 o. 5636 ' 1. 669
on the ratio d"/b" (Table II. 2). 1

1
1.2 o. 759 0.6159 1. 623
Combining equations (31) and (32) 1.4 0.822 0.6584 1. 602
1
1.6 0.869 0.6942 1. 597
for a rectangular section with ver-
1.8 0.904 0.7250 1.603
tical atirrups and longitudinal re-
2.0 0.930 0.7504 1. 614
inforcement, 2.5 0.968 o. 7986 1. 654
3.0 0.985 0.8322 1. 689
-~-

Circular
•. l'S>?>) Section
0.500 0.5000
1
2.000

In a conventional reinforced concrete beam, the vertical stirrups

resist the vertical component and the longitudinal bars resist the horizontal

component of the diagonal tension. Consequently the volume of thé longi-

tudinal bars per unit length of the beam must at least be equal to that of

the vertical stirrups. Cowan suggested that the minimum total cross-sectional

area of longitudinal steel should be

As ·- (34)

and this reinforcement is assumed to be uniformly distributed around the

circumference of the beam. A bar in each corner of the beam was recom-

mended to be adequate except for the largest beams.

 31

Within the elasti.c limit, before the cracks are formed, the stress

in the shear reinforcement is n times the stress in the surrounding steel.

(n = ~, the modular ratio). The torsional moment resistance of the section

is equal to the sum of the separate resistance moments of concrete, longi-

tudinal steel and the shear reinforcement.

=
M.rPE + M.rt + M.rs
Thus the addition of the shear reinforcement results in an increase in the

torsional resistance moment in the ratio of

Cowan's Modification.

In a rectangular reinforced concrete section, when the ultimate

tensile strength of concrete is reached at the middle of the longer sides,

cracks begin to form at 45° to the axis. Consequently there is a rapid

increase in the stress in the stirrups (or spiral). If concrete is assumed

to be ineffective in shear, in accordance with design practices used by many

European countries, the torsional resistance moment is provided by the longi-

tudinal reinforcement, and a combination of the shear reinforcement in tension

and the concrete in compression. For equilibrium the resultant diagonal

compression in concrete must equal the resultant diagonal tension. The

total resistance moment is

=
The alternative method, based on the American practice of assuming that the

shear reinforcement carries the difference between the total shear and the

shear resisted by the concrete, is more realistic. An analysis of exper-

imenta carried out by Cowan led to resulta that agree well with the ex-

perimental data.
 32

Ultimate Strength of Concrete and Reinforced Concrete in Torsion.

In actual practice, before a bearn fails, a redistribution of

stresses takes place due to inelastic deformation of concrete. Therefore

it is erroneous to evaluate the ultimate torsional strength of concrete

from the elastic theory. This evaluation must be obtained from the plastic

theory of torsion.

If a section, assumed to be fully plastic, is subjected to pure

torsion, then the shear stress is constant throughout the cross-section.

The shearing stress components '"t.:~z and <t'z.x, at a point (x, y) of the cross-

section where the shearing stress has reached the ultimate tensile strength

of concrete, must satisfy the conditions of plasticity

j t-t';]~ + '("2-
'Zx = k. constant (36)

and axial equilibrium

ê{Lxz 0~-z. 0
())( + 0(1
= (3ï)

where K is the ultimate tensile strength of concrete.

The plastic stress fun.ction F(x,y) of the cross-section is

defined by

and (38)

Substituting into equation (35) from equation (37),

k = constant (39)

which is the equation of a surface with a constant slope.

Similar to the elastic membrane (soap film) analogy in problems

of elastic torsion, Nadai suggested the sand-heap analogy for cases of

plastic torsion. If fine sand is heaped on a horizontal piece of plywood,

 33

having the same shape as the cross-section of the bar under torsion, the

sand will assume a surface of constant slope.

-n(+~
The resistance to torsional moments of a fully plastic section is

.. x - r.." ~) dd~
2ff F dx d~
2 x volume of sand heap (40)

The volume of the sand heap for a rectangular section (b x d) =

~ Kb'2..(d-~))where K represente maximum shear stress, which in pure torsion

equals the maximum principal tensile and compressive stresses. Therefore,

for full plasticity

MTPP = (41)

Analyses by Marshall and Nylander showed that assumption of full

plasticity of concrete gives consistent resulta, and therefore full plastic-

ity of concrete has been accepted as an approximation in view of the uncer-

tainty of the shape of the stress-strain diagram of concrete in diagonal

tension. The yield strain of steel is about five times the ultimate tensile

strain of concrete. Therefore the inelastic deformations of concrete are

not accompanied by plastic strains in steel, which remains elastic up to

the point of failure. The ultimate torsional resistance moment of a rein-

forced concrete section is therefore given by the sum of the resistance

moments of steel (elastic) and plain concrete (inelastic).

where ~PP' ~Land ~S are given by equations (41), (30) and (33), the

equation (41) being valid only if the concrete cover is intact. If the

entire cover is cracked, the terms b and d in equation (41) must be

substituted by b" and d11 •

 34

Ernst (1957) selected the following equations from Cowan's work

and adjusted them for the vertical and horizontal reinforcement used in his

tests.

(i) Te
(ii)
=
(43)
(iii)

<t>e =
(iv)
A.., =
At

The equations (43) can be applied to ultimate torque conditions as long as

brittle fracture dominates. Ernst suggested that if the proportions and

quantities of transverse and longitudinal steel are such that the plastic

properties of the steel in the yield strain range dominate failure, the

tension contribution of concrete recedes in significance and plastic

equations should be used to define failure. According to Ernst, if the

quantity of longitudinal steel is equal to or greater than that given by

equation 43(iv), the transverse ties will provide the transverse components

required to resist the diagonal stresses at cracks formed on the sides,

upper and lower surfaces of the beam. The diagonal tension crack on a

side of the beam brings into action a vertical force developed at yield

in the transverse ties.

f ·d'
A" · s'::l
(44)

The transverse fore~ developed at yield in the transverse ties caused by

a diagonal tension crack across the top (or bottom) of the beam is

Av t~ b' (45)
s
 35

These forces act with the transverse component of the diagonal compression

in the concrete on the opposite face to form the internal resisting couple

at the plastic ultimate torque.

MrrP = Fv· kv61 + Fh. k~.d' 1 {46)

where kvb' and k~d' represent the lever arms in terms of the dimensions of
the reinforcement cage. Substitution of equation (44) and (45) in equation

(46) gives

(47)

A comparison of equation (47) with equation 43(i) reveals that concrete is

unreliable for tensile resistance in plastic conditions. Ernst was unable

to make definite conclusions about the relationship between the angle of

twist and other variables. He however suggested the equation

= c Te (45)
b~t.. '
which is similar to Cowan's elastic equation 43(iii) with coefficient C

replacing i~ . The values of C were determined experimentally.

Russian Method of ultimate load analysis of sections subjected to combined

stresses.

Analytical and experimental investigations of strength of rein-

forced concrete rectangular beams subjected to combined torsion and bending,

and combined torsion and shear were carried out by Miss N.N. Lessig and her

colleagues during 1948-1956. An idealized collapse mechanism was formulated

based on development of "spiral" cracks along three sides of the rectangular

beam. This was followed by yielding of the steel and by the rotation of

two adjacent segments of the beam with respect to each other, forming a

plastic hinge. The final failure was due to crushing of concrete after
 36

yielding of both longitudinal and transverse steel.

It was shown that under combined torsion and bending (shearing

force negligible) failure occurred by rotation about an axis approximately

in a horizontal plane normal to the plane of bending moments. Under combined

shear and torsion (bending moments negligible), failure occurred by rotation

about an axis approximately in a vertical plane parallel to the shearing

force. Equations defining ultimate bending moments, shear and torsional

moments were derived using conditions of equilibrium in space. The assump-

tions made were: 1) all reinforcement yielded before cracking occurred,

2) tensile strength of concrete was neglected, 3) transverse shear rein-

forcement was uniformly distributed throughout the bearn, 4) zone of failure

was free of local applied loads, and 5) plane of shear force V and of bending

moment ~ was parallel to the vertical face of the bearn. A section subject

to combined bending and torsion can be analyzed with the following equations:
b

= b
h

Fig. II. 7. Section Deta ls

r-~--~~--------
= {_=.l.rf + f:;, -As.L ~(\ +
~l f~w· Aw b
3:.)
O..
__ 1
y <( \+ ~) (49)

= ~.st. A:!>l:.J:_ . _"l_'l.__

t) . As. 5 ( \ + ~)
1 + o<..
=
')..(I+Y'l-)

= ir(::;:)
 37

and = (49)

where t~,+;~= yield point stress of longitudinal and transverse steel rein-

forcement respectively,

~ = crushing strength of concrete prism approximately equal to

0.85 f'.
c

The equations derived for a section under combined shear and

torsion are

= Mt-
Vh
6
= -h-

=
~ \
\

v v
bd
Fig.II.B. Details
= (50)

\+
=

=
y ( \- ~)

= k~ (ft1:) (1- ~?-Pl-1)

Miss Lessig's method of analysis of a rectangular reinforced concrete

beam under the combined action of bending, shear and torsion has been

detailed in Appendix C.
 38

C. TORSION OF RECTANGULAR REINFORCED CONCRETE SECTIONS WITH CENTRAL SECTION

PREVENTED FROM WARP ING.

Whenever a rectangular section is twisted, the deformation of the

twisted shaft consista of rotation and warping of the cross-sections. Warping

is the same for all cross-sections. There are no axial stresses due to torsion

at any cross-section of the bar. However, in sorne practical cases, one or more

cross-sections of the bar are forced to remain plane by sorne constraint or

symmetry of loading. A local irregularity in stress distribution resulta and

the ordinary equations for simple torsion (without any constraints) can be

applied with sufficient accuracy only at same distances from the cross-section

in question.

If the right end of the bar in

Fig.8 (a) is required to remain plane, the

right edge must be forced to become straight.

This necessitates axial stresses, as indicated

in Fig.S (b). The approximate distribution (!>)

of these stresses is indicated by the shape
Fig. II. 9 Axial stresses
of the distorted edge. Sorne areas must be
caused by constraint in
"pushed in" and others "pulled out". Fig.9 torsion.

indicates the distribution of stresses on the left end of the free body of

the right half of the bearn with the central section forced to remain plane.

Since there is no external force in pure

torsion, the resultant of axial stresses vanishes.

At present the magnitude of the stresses required

cannot be calculated exactly by any of the avail-

able methods. This is a problem in the theory of

Fig.II.lO Distribution
shell structures. However, these stresses are
of axial stresses on
constrained section.
 39

not likely to be high unless conditions are quite unusual. ~~ approximate

solution can be obtained by assuming that axial stress fzz is proportional

to the prevented displacement w. The axial stress becomes negligible at a

relatively short distance from the end in accordance with Saint-Venant's

principle. To simplify the calculations of stresses, the warping of the

section can be assumed to be approximately linear along both axes. These

approximations are satisfied by taking

= -rYlE e ë'NI~ x'8

(51)
= \'Y\ E e ë'NI-z... A
-W\2.
where rn is a factor to be evaluated later. Due to the factor ~ the

stress fzz diminishes with increase of z and becomes negligible within a

certain distance depending on the value of rn (thus satisfying Saint-Venant's

principle). The remaining stress components must be chosen to satisfy the

differentia! equations of equilibrium and the boundary conditions. Appendix])

shows that these requirements are satisfied by taking

= 0 > = 0

(51)

~j = - t E YV\~ e ë~z. ( ~~- l) ( '~~t -~:t)

= -! E e 'M
3 ~
éYVI"!-,
 40

(52)

The factor m can be determined by considering the strain energy of the bar

and calculating m to make this energy a minimum. The total strain energy

= 0 .. (1:4)

ff H'-d~d~ fS ,.1.''-J"<ij

fJp,> ..1" d:J ' ss J>-.. d" dj =

SS)

IJ BC d "'d.:l =
 41

2 2 2
Substitution of the values of A , B , n , H2 , BC and DF, obtained for the

required d/b ratio from equation. (55) into equation (54), resulta in a

fourth degree equation in rn from which rn can be evaluated. The value of

rn thus obtained is substituted in equation (51) to determine the stresses

and in equation (53) to determine the strain energy stored in the bearn.

The angle of twist can be obtained by equating the strain energy stored in

the bearn to the work done by the torque Mt so that

v
where '\fis the angle of twist.

The stresses in steel within the visco-elastic limit can be

obtained by multiplying the stresses in concrete at those points by the

modular ratio of steel and concrete.

 42

CHAPTER III

TEST ASSEMBLIES

A. CHOICE OF TEST ASSEMBLIES

The object of the design of the frames was to provide a simplified

test arrangement and to ensure a failure of each of the test beams in combined

bending, shear and torsion without causing a failure in other elements (con-

necting beams and loading brackets). Combining two test beams into a stat-

ically determinate horizontal frame (by connecting beams at the ends and by

incorporating reinforced concrete loading brackets in each of the test beams)

enabled elimination of any elaborate test set-up that would otherwise be

required. The frame was seated on four horizontal girders resting on the

laboratory floor and could be loaded at any desired eccentricity through a

system of a ball and socket joint under the machine head and an R,S.J,

resting on horizontal rollers on the loading brackets. Thus a known com-

bination of twisting moments, bending moments and shearing forces could be

applied to each of the two test beams simultaneously.

To avoid failure in the connecting and the loading beams, the

design stresses for these elements were limited to 12,000 p.s.i. in steel

and 1,000 p.s.i. in concrete. The main test beams were designed for

stresses of 20,000 p.s.i. in steel and 1,800 p.s.i. in concrete. The

frame was designed to carry a maximum load of 40 kips. The design of the

frame is detailed in Appendix E.

The design of the test beam to carry a load of 20 kips at an

eccentricity of 15 inches required 3/8 inch diameter stirrups at 2-3/8

inch centers to resist calculated shear and torsional stresses. However,

the spacing of the stirrups was varied for the four test-beams to study

the effect of transverse reinforcement on the ultimate strength of the bearn.

 43

B. DETAILS OF ASSEMBLIES

Test Bearn Details

The arrangement of test beams in the frame is detailed in Fig.III.l.

The test beams were 10 x 15 inch in cross-section with beams B , B and B

1 2 3
having 4-No.7 bars and B having 4-No.8 bars at the bottom. Beams B , B
4 2 3
and B had 2-No.S top bars. Bearn B had no web rei~forcement, and the beams
4 1
B , B and B were reinforced with No.3 stirrups at 6, 3 and 1-1/2 inch
2 3 4
centres respectively. The loading brackets and the end beams were provided

with sections of 12 x 12 inches and 13 x 12 inches respective1y. The de-

tails of the reinforcement of the beams is shown in Fig,III.2.

Formwork

The formwork consisted principally of 3/4" thick p1ywood panels

nailed to 2 x 4 inch ribs at suitable spacings. The bottom of the entire

frame was a single unit, which was constructed and suitably stiffened by

2 x 4 inch joists nailed laterally to the continuous 2 x 4 inch joists

supporting the bottom of both the beams. The side panels were prepared

separately and assembled and nailed in position after all the dimensions

and angles had been checked. The tops of the vertical cleats were held

temporarily by 2 x 4 inch lateral braces. The entire formwork was care-

fully levelled using wedges and then cleaned and oiled 48 hours before

the reinforcement was to be placed in the forms. The ,bearn reinforcement

was fabricated and assembled outside the forms, then checked for dimen-

sions and angles. The entire assembly was lifted by the travelling crane

and cautiously lowered into its correct position in the forms on steel

chairs to provide the necessary cover. The tops of the 2 x 4 inch vertical

cleats were then tied together with double strand No.l6 wire to prevent
 43 A

PLATE I
Reinforcement and form-
work for frame F
1
(ready for concreting)

PLATE II
Reinforcement and form-
work for frame F
2
(ready for concreting)

PLATE III
Formwork for frames F
and F along with railed
2
platform for concreting
 4'-o ,, Ll~l""'\''

'~
- - - ~'é_AM B, ( ~~)
+ -

1 1
()
1

A
'1 l'' '? L 111 ,,
--
~ ,, n'' 2.1- 11-!:. ,, 1!.. 11,
A

1
?-.'R~~€1

't
&+B~
~
1
~
--,.;,
: BR.tlcJΕ ilf:t"'Bi,
_,- ~
1
-
1

r
"&
-
:c
ô
- - BEAM B2 (J>!!!.~
=----1
roTE: NoT'ATIONS W/TH tN BRAC~~TS
/NDtCAT'E B~AM NtJMBfR.~ FOR.
fi'Aftt"'E F2. ·

.p.
FIG.III.1. FRAME DETAILS - PLAN .p.
 '6-S
t-' ~
:r
ll:.:-::
-4-
+-1 B-f,
B-1 .:_ SEC.\\()N \-\ .

2-irS
ECT!Ol--/ A·A
"a-S" r-z. ~

Irr
3SïiR.
~
<;"cl
6:\
fC.

fS·

A- ~l
~-2.- s !?CT 101'-1 B· B +---2. s..z.- sec·noN 2-2.
./7..-':tfS _rE-S t-'3 ~
0

~@,'3"c/c.
=t~r3STI~.
'- 1 1 1 1 !...J
1 1f "&sn r;:..

iu
1 1
lli'
'r
1
1
1 1 1
1
11 '-
B-IO 1 1
'
·~

4--tt?
~-~- SEC.TICN A -~\
+--- 3.
B.·:\ S€C.TIO N '!:.3
L"2.-~S I/B-s t--4 ~

B'b
L

!;'r
'-----
1
1

'
1
1
1

:
1 1

1
l
1
1
1
1
I_J

J
"* ~ s riR...
@ l..J.L'' '-/c.
I u ~~S.T\Ia·
@ 1\.'cjc

~4--#8 -l-4 __ '-~-b

..:::t..'-1">'' à.'-~" 'B-4 St:CTION 4-4

&-4~ SECTION E-S

~
V'l

FIG. III. 2. SECTIONAL ELEVATION OF BEAMS

 46

DoUBLE. 'STI<!.A.N D No. Ho

WIRE TlE:S (To PR.EVE.!'-1 T

L"'Tt::lè.AL M~Vt::M€.'1-JT Ot: FOR.MS.)

B~CES
1
1 [
__ _j ___
1-- -- - --- ,.----- --
_.,
~·· TrtiC..I::: t>LY\i'\7"000 \.5''
~ Slt>E'S
...
2 'x4" V!;R:T· CL€A,T~ Id'
~

1 1 1 r J
,, 1 f /_
'2. )1:411 ~OTTOV\ SU PPOR1S
Il
'3,4 TH, PLY WOOD BASE "

FIG.III.3. Details of formwork

any lateral movement of the vertical sides during concreting, After the

lifting hooks were installed, the corners of the forms were strengthened

laterally and diagonally by wire ties. Arrangements for manufacturing the

test cylinders and the flexure specimens were completed simultaneously.

Plates 1 to IIIand Fig.III.3 show the details of the formwork at various

stages.

Concreting

Concrete was received from the Mount Royal Ready Mixed Concrete

Company in a truck and chuted directly into a wheel barrow through a window

at the north end of the laboratory. The wheel barrow could be manoeuvred

into any desired position on a platform which had been built around the

formwork for the two frames. The concrete was placed in two 1ayers, each
 47

layer being deposited continuously around the frame and uniformly tamped

with a steel rod and vibrated with a 3/4 inch square immersion vibrator.

The top surface of concrete was struck with a wooden float and neatly

finished with a steel trowel. The slump of concrete, which decreased from

2-1/2 inches to 1-1/2 inches during the 2-1/2 hour concreting operation~

prevented a smooth finish of the top layer.

Fifty six control cylinders were made in accordance with ASTM

specifications, forty nine of them in 6 x 12 inch cylinderical steel moulds

and the remaining in paraffined cardboard moulds. At least four control

cylinders, two from each layer of concrete, were taken from the three

sections of each of the four test beams. Eight flexure specimens 6 x 6 x 24

inches and four flexure beams 6 x 8 x 39-1/2 inches were moulded according

to ASTM specifications, one from each section as defined for the control

cylinders.

The slump of concrete was checked from time to time using the

ASTM Designation: C 143 ~ 39. The slump decreased gradually from 2-1/2

to 1-1/2 inches at the end of the concreting operation. However the control

cylinders tested did not indicate any variation in strength due to changes

in slump.

Curing:

After the initial set of the concrete had occurred, the tops

of the frames were covered with burlap sacks and kept wet for a period

of two weeks. The control cylinders prepared in cardboard moulds and

the 6 x 8 x 39-1/2 inch flexure beams received an identical treatment,

but the cylinders and the 6 x 6 x 24 i~ch flexure beams prepared in steel

moulds had to be treated differently. For the latter the moulds were
 48

opened after 2 days, cleaned and returned to the Mount Royal Paving Co.

(they could not be retained for a longer period). These cylinders and

beams were covered with wet burlap sacks on all the open sides. Subsequent

tests of the cylinders and beams did not show any appreciable change in

strength due to this differential treatment. The aides of the beam forms

were stripped off after a week and the open faces completely covered with

wet burlap. The flexure beams and cylinders were removed from their moulds

ani similarly covered. The burlap sacks were sprinkled with water at least
four times a day to keep them continuously wet. At 14 days, the compressive

strength of concrete was observed to be 3431 p.s.i. Therefore strengths

in excess of specified 4,000 p.s.i. were expected at 28 days. The curing

was then stopped and the frames allowed to dry as a preliminary preparation

for strain-gage installation.

 49

CHAPTER IV

TEST MATERIALS

A. CONCRETE

The ultimate compressive strength of the concrete required for the

test beams was specified as 4,000 p.s.i. at 28 days. The total quantity of

concrete required for the frames, cylinders and flexure beams was approximately

3 cu.yds. The facilities of the laboratory did not permit the production of the

above quantity of concrete in a reasonable time. The capacity of the mixer

being limited, it would have been necessary to produce a large number of

batches of concrete which would have resulted in variations in the quality of

concrete and its properties. It was therefore decided to obtain concrete of

the required specifications from a local supplier.

The maximum size of the aggregate was specified as 1/2 inch crushed

limestone, with a grading conforming to the A.S.T.M. specifications. The small

aggregate size was selected to avoid honey-combing in the beams, sorne of which

had 3/8 inch diameter stirrups at 1-1/2 inch centres. The aggregate size

specified also partially justified the assumption of concrete as a horoogeneous

material, since the SR-4 A-3 type strain gages had a gage length of 3/4 inch

(being rouch larger than the maximum aggregate size). The gradings of the

coarse aggregate used has been shown i.n Fig. IV .1 along with the corresponding

A.S.T.M. specifications (A.S.T.M. Designation: C 33-61 T). The specifie

gravity of the crushed limestone was 2.71.

Sand was obtained from glacial deposits of granitic origin near

St.Gabriel de Branden, Que, It was a clean quartz sand with no deleterions

substances. The grading of the sand is shown b Fig. IV. 2 along with the

A.S.T,M. Designation: C 33-61 T. The fineness modulus of sand based on minus

 50

sieve 8 material was 2.57. The specifie gravity of the sand was 2.67.

The cement used was Portland Cement type I, obtained from a bulk

supply of the Canada Cement Company, Montreal East, Montreal,

The details of the mix designed to meet the specifications was:

Cement 640 lbs.

Smd 1670 "

1/4 inch crushed lime stone 590 Il

Il
1/2 inch crushed lime stone 890

~a ter 320 "

T o t a 1 4110 lbs./cu.yd.
320
Water - Cement Ratio = 640 = 0.5

The combined grading of the aggregates is shown in Fig.IV.3.

Properties of Concrete

1. Compressive Strength: Concrete cylinders 6 x 12 inches, cured and

capped according to A.S.T.M. method of making and curing concrete compression

and flexure specimens in the laboratory (A.S.T.M. Designation: C-192), were

used as,test specimens to determine the compressive strength of concrete.

The faces of the cylinders, tested at 28 days or later, were machined to

obtain plain smooth faces perpendicular to the cylinder axis.

The cylinders were tested according to A.S,T,M. standard method

of testing compressive strength of molded concrete cylinders (A.S.T,M.

Designation: C 39-61). The crushing strength of cylinders with height -

diameter ratios other than 2 were corrected to the standard cylinder by

* The ratio of the height of the cylinder to its diameter bas a considerable
effect on the compressive strength of concrete. An increase in height will
yield a somewhat lower compressive strength and vice versa.
 '' ''

1 1

' t
 54

applying the correcting factors given in Fig.IV.4.* (Refer -Foot-note page 50).

The Raad Research Laboratory, London has suggested the use of the curve for

ratios between 1 and 2. However, the author considered that very little error

would be involved if the linear relation between correcting factors and ratios

was extrapolated up to an ~ratio of 2.2.

Typical calculations of the strength of cylinders, tested at 14 days

and 28 days, are detailed in Tables IV.l. and 2. The cylinders tested at various

ages indicated a strength of 2600 p.s.i. at 3 days, 2893 p.s.i. at 7 days,

3431 p.s.i. at 14 days and 4176 p.s.i. at 28 days. All cylinders tested at 28

days gave strengths above 4000 p.s.i. but the average excess was 4.75 percent

which does not indicate any appreciable overdesign in the strength of the mix.

2. Tensile Strength: The tensile strength of concrete was determined using

the indirect tension test developed 16 years ago in Brazil and Japan. The

test consisted of crushing cylinderical specimens by placing them horizontally

between the loading surfaces of the testing machine to load the specimens

along two OP,posite generatrices (Fig.IV.4.). The specimens used were the same
LoAc~
as those used in the unconfined compression tests.
Pl-ATE

The tensile strength of concrete ft was given by

f
. 2..P where p was the static concentrated lo;ld
t = lH::.d
applied to the specimen, and d and t the diameter and

Fig. IV .4. the length of the cylinder respectively. The results

of the tension tests are shawn in Table IV.3. The average tensile strength

at 28 days was 323 p.s.i.

3. Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio: The Modulus of Elasticity and

Poisson's Ratio of concrete was determined by the compression test, using

cylinders with four A-3 type linear gages at midheight, two being installed
Correction factor
 TABLE IV, 1. - COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE AT 14 DAYS.

Cylinder Diameter Correction Corrected

Height Fai1ure Actua1
No, Inches After Capping h/d factor Strength
Load Strength
Inches p psi
lbs
104 6 12.50 78,000 2, 7 57 2.080 1.009 2, 782
123 6 12.50 97,000 3,429 2.080 1.009 3,460
52 6 12.50 101,000 3,570 2,080 1.009 3, 602
55 6 12.81 114,000 4,029 2.135 1.015 4,089
91 6 12.63 81,500 2,881 2,104 1.012 2, 916
103 6 12.38 83,000 2,934 2,062 1.007 2,955
101 6 13.00 90,000 3, 181 2.166 1.008 3,238
54 6 13.00 75,000 2,651 2,166 1.018 2,699
113 6 13.00 99,000 3,499 2.166 1.018 3, 562
85 6 13.00 120,500 4,259 2.166 1.018 4,336
25 6 12.88 98,500 3,482 2.146 1.015 3,534
66 6 13.00 111,000 3,924 2.166 1.018 3,995

Average 3, 431 psi

\Jl

"'
 TABLE IV .2. - COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE AT 28 DAYS

Cylinder Di ame ter Height Failure Actual Correction Corrected

No. Inches After Capping Load Strength h/d factor Strength
Inches p lbs psi

74 6 13.00 121,000 4,277 2.166 1.018 4,354

24 6 13.00 111,500 3,941 2.166 1.018 4,012

82 6 13.25 115,000 4,065 2.208 1.023 4,159

83 6 11.63 115,000 4,065 1. 938 0.994 4,041

112 6 11.75 122,500 4,330 1.958 0.996 4, 313

Average 4,176 psi

\.Il
.......
 58

TABLE IV.3. - TENSILE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE AT 28 DAYS

Failure Length Di ame ter Tens. Strength

No. Load t d
p lbs inches inches

12 29,400 11.25 6.0 212 277 *

14 30,000 11.25 6.0 212 283 *
114 31,700 11.25 6.0 212 299 *
81 34,100 11.38 6.0 214 318

61 34,200 11.38 6.0 214 320

125 35,700 11.38 6.0 214 334

Average 324 psi

TABLE IV .4. - TENSILE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE AT 14 DAYS

Fai1ure Length Di ame ter Tens. Strength

No. Load t d
p lbs inches inches

102 26,200 11.63 6,0 219 249

62 32,000 11.63 6.0 219 292

Average 271 psi

* Tensile Strength values not considered for average.

 TABLE IV. 5.

COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS ( FOR MODULUS OF ELASTICITY AND POISSON'S RATIO)

Height 11-7/8 inches Cy linder No. 83

Di ame ter 6 inches Correction Factor 0.998
Height-Diameter Ratio 1. 979
Actual Corrected Average Average Average Secant
Load Stress Stress Axial Horizontal Poisson's Modulus
Kips fe psi psi Strain Strain Ratio Ec psi
r-ins./in. j;--ins ./in.
0 000 000 .ooo .000
6
10 353 352 .lOO .on .llO 3.52 x 10
6
20 707 706 .191 .024 • 126 3. 76 x 10
6
30 1060 1058 .287 .035 . 122 3. 72 x 10
6
40 1413 1410 .363 .051 .141 3. 94 x 10
6
50 1767 1763 .445 .062 .139 4.02 x 10
6
60 2120 2116 .530 .075 .142 4.04 x 10
6
70 2473 2468 .630 .095 .151 3.95x 10
6
80 2827 2821 • 740 .125 .169 3.83 x 10
6
90 3180 3174 1.170 .225 .192 2.68 x 10
6
lOO 3533 3526 1.690 .403 .239 2.04 x 10
6
llO 3887 3879 2.490 1.002 .402 1. 52 x 10

l.n
\0
 TABLE IV. 6,

COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS (FOR MODULUS OF ELASTICITY AND POISSON'S RATIO)

Helght 11-3/4 inches Cy linder No. 22
Dlameter 6 inches Correction Factor 0.996
Height - Diameter Ratio 1. 958

Actual Corrected Average Average Average Secant

Load Stress Stress Axial Horizontal Poisson's Modulus
Kips f psi psi Strain Strain Ratio E psi
c c
)"'- -ins. /in, jA -ins./in,
0 000 000 .000 .000
6
10 353 352 .092 .011 .120 3.83 x 10
6
20 707 704 .181 .024 .133 3. 92 x 10
6
30 1060 1056 .263 .033 '125 4.06 x 10
6
40 1413 1407 .340 .047 . 138 4.19 x 10
6
50 1767 1760 .423 .060 '142 4.21 x 10
6
60 2120 2112 . 500 .071 .142 4. 27 x 10
6
70 2473 2463 .591 .089 .151 4.20 x 10
6
80 2827 2816 • 700 .lll .159 4.04 x 10
6
90 3180 3167 1.113 . 182 .164 2.80 x 10
6
lOO 3533 3519 1.540 .263 . 171 2.23 x 10
3872 6
llO 3887 1.980 .585 .296 1. 91 x 10
6
120 4240 4223 2. 57 5 1.132 .440 L 60 x 10

(j\
0
 63

TABLE IV. 6.

COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS

Height 11-3/4 inches Cy1inder No, 53

Di ame ter 6 inches Correction Factor .998
Height - Diameter Ratio 1. 979 Ultimate Load 113,500 lbs.

Load Actua1 Corrected Average

Kips Stress Stress Axial
psi psi Strain
f-ins. /in,
lQ 000 000 .000
10 353 352 .097
20 707 704 .198
30 1060 1056 .281
40 1413 1407 .349

40 1413 1407 .349

30 1060 1056 .286
20 707 704 ,207
10 353 352 .llO
0 000 000 .047

0 000 000 .047

10 353 352 .107
20 707 704 .201
30 1060 1056 .279
40 1413 1407 .342
50 1767 1760 .422
60 2120 2112 .522
70 2473 2463 • 625

70 2473 2463 • 625

60 2120 2112 .550
50 1767 1760 .476
40 1413 1407 .395
30 1060 1056 • 315
20 707 704 .247
10 353 352 .150
0 000 000 .098

0 000 000 .098

10 353 352 .140
20 707 704 .225
30 1060 1056 .300
40 1413 1407 .348
50 1767 1760 .419
60 2120 2112 • 517
70 2473 2463 • 612
80 2827 2816 • 740
90 3180 3167 1.023
100 3533 3519 1.532
110 3887 3872 1. 947
 65

axially and the remaining two in the horizontal direction circumferentially.

The leads from the strain gages were connected to a Baldwin strain indicator

which had a concrete dummy gage incorporated in its circuit. The strain gage

readings were recorded for each 10 kip 1oad increment and a graph of stress

against strain p1otted for each of the cylinders. These graphs were subse-

quent1y used to determine the values of Initial Modulus of Elasticity, Secant

Modu1us of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio from

E •
tJ_- 0.000050
where E = chord modu1us of Elasticity in p.s.i. calculated to the

nearest 50,000 p.s.i.

= stress corresponding to maximum applied load in p.s.i.,

= stress corresponding to a longitudinal strain of 50 micro-

inches per inch, in p.s.i.

ft-, - E.~;;).
and =
~1 - o.ooooso
where \r = Poisson's Ratio,

E~~= transverse strain at mid-height of specimen produced by

stress f 2 ,

Et., = transverse strain at mid-height of specimen produced by

stress f •
1
6
The secant modulus of elasticity varied from 1.42 x 10 p.s.i,
6 6 6
to 3.50 x 10 p.s.i. at 14 days and from 1.52 x 10 p.s.i. to 4.27 x 10 p.s.i.

at 28 days. The average values of Poisson's Ratio were 0.133 and 0,141 at 14

days and 28 daye respectively. The details of calculations for modulus of

elasticity and Poisson's ratio are given in Tables IV.4. to IV..6.

The modu1ar ratio n can be easi1y calculated from n = Es/Ec,

6
using a constant value of 29.95 x 10 forE •
s
 66

4. Flexural Strength: Eight test beams 6 x 6 x 24 inches and four beams

6 x 8 x 39-1/2 inches were molded and tested according to A.S.T,M. Designation:

C 78- 59'. The flexural strength, e:xpressed in terms of "modulus of rupture"

(which is the maximum tensile [or compressive] stress at rupture) was calculated

from the formula:

f = .!!L
1

where f = stress in the fiber farthest from the neutral axis, in p.s.i.,

M = bending moment at the section in inch- lbs.,

4
1 = moment of inertia of the cross-section in (in.) , and

y = distance from the neutral axis to the farthest fiber.

The flexure formula failed to hold true at stresses near failure.

Therefore modulus of rupture was a fictitious value. However the flexure

formula was convenient for evaluation purposes. According to Troxel and

Davis, the flexural strength of concrete was generally 60 to 100 percent

higher than its tensile strength, and the modulus of rupture ranged from

11 to 23 percent of the compressive strength. The test resulta, shown

in Table IV.7, appear to agree with the above ranges.

All concrete cylinders (compression and indirect torsion test

specimens) and the flexure beams were tested in a 440 kip Baldwin Tate
Emery machine, hydraulically operated.
 TABlE IV. 8. FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CONCRETE,

Average Average Span Maximum Modulus Mode of

No. width depth length load of rupture failure of Ag e
b inches d'inches 1 inches applied fp.s.i. test bearn
p lbs

21 6 6 18 4080 510 I'Xj

14 days
.....
n>
62 6 18 4200 525 Il

~
6
Il)
81 6 6 18 4240 530 ..... Il

1-t\
Il)
11 6 8 30 5440 636 ..... 28 days
rT .....
::r' c
..... 11
31 6 6 18 4800 600 11 n> Il
p.
t'!
.....
51 6 6 18 5200 650 rT
::r'
lt

.....
::s
61 6 6 18 4500 563 a
tl

.....
p.
p.
71 6 6 18 5200 650 "
li>"

Average flexura1 strength at 28 days = 619 p.s.i.

Average flexura1 strength at 14 days = 522 p.s.i.

(J'\
.......
 68

B. STEEL

It was decided to use c.s.A. G 30.1. Because of their increasing

use in reinforced concrete construction, it was decided to use C.S.A. G 30.1.

Intermediate grade deformed bars conforming to A.S.T.M. Designation A 15-54 T.

Properties of Steel

Eight coupons, each 24 inches long, were obtained at random from

the steel used for the frame reinforcement. Two coupons were selected from

each diameter of steel bars used and were tested to determine the physical

properties of steel. The details of simple tension tests have been shown in

Table IV.8.

Young's modulus of elasticity was determined from the tension

tests. Two strain gages were installed parallel to the axes diametrically

opposite to each other on each of the specimens used for these tests (refer

AppendixG'). The resulta of the tests are arranged in Tables IV.9. to 12.

Figures IV.9. to 12 indicate the stress-strain relationship for the four

specimens.

The average tensile strength of steel was 52,400 p.s.i. and

the yield stress 78,998 p.s.i. The modulus of elasticity (secant modulus)
6
was 29.95 x 10 p.s.i.

All the steel bars were tested in the 440 kip Baldwin Tate
Emery Machine.
 69

TABLE IV. 9.

PHYSICAL PROPERTmS OF STEEL BARS,

Specimen Number 1 2 3 4

1. Gage length, original, ins. 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00

2. Gage length failure ins. 10.20 9. 79 9.66 9.69

3. Difference in length, ins. 2.20 1. 79 1. 66 1. 69

4. Diameter original, ins. 1.000 0.875 o. 625 0.375

5. Area, original, sq.ins. o. 7854 o. 6013 0. 3068 0.1105

6, Area fracture, sq.ins. 0.3904 0.2923 .1964 o. 0531

7. Difference in are a, sq.ins. 0.3950 0.3090 0.1104 0.0574

8. Maximum 1oad, lbs. 55.800 48.400 23.800 9.600

9. Yield point, lbs. 36.000 30.000 15.500 7.000

10. Elongation, % 27.50 22.38 20.7 5 21.12

11. Reduction in area, % 50.29 51.39 35.98 51.99

12. Yield Point, p.s.i. 45,837 49,892 50,522 63,348

13. Ultimate tensile strength, p.s.i. 71,047 80,492 77' 57 5 86,878

 70

STEEL TENSION TEST RESULTS

TABLE ri!. 10. TABLE ri!. 11.

Specimen No. 1 Specimen No. 2
Bar Diameter - 1 in. Bar Diameter - 7/8 in.

Load Stress Strain Load Stress Strain

Kips k./in. 2 f.~-ins./in. Kips k./in.2 );. -ins./in.

0 .000 000 0 .000 000

5 6,366 214 5 8.315 276
10 12.732 435 10 16.631 559
15 19.099 649 15 24.946 838
20 25.465 853 20 33.261 1133
25 31.831 1072 22 36.587 1228
30 38.197 1294 24 39.914 1338
32 40.744 1373 26 43.240 1448
34 43.290 1468 28 1559

Yie1d Point Load = 36,000 lbs. Yield Point Load = 30,000 lbs.
6 6
Modulus of E1asticity = 29.62 x 10 Modu1us of E1asticity = 29.87 x 10 p.s.i.
p.s.i.

TABLE ri!. 12 • TABLE ri!. 13.

Specimen No. 3 Specimen No. 4
Bar Diameter - 5/8 in. Bar Diameter - 3/8 in.

Load Stress Strain Load Stress Strain

Kips k./in.
2
j< -ins./in. Kips k./in. 2 f -ins./in.
0 .000 000 0 .000 000
2 6.519 212 1 9.050 297
4 13.038 437 2 18.100 601
6 19.557 656 3 27.149 899
8 26.07 6 868 4 36.199 1203
10 32.595 1087 5 45.249 1502
12 39.113 1299 6 54.299 1802

Yie1d Point Load = 15,500 lbs. Yield Point Load = 7,000 lbs.
6 6
Modu1us of E1asticity = 30.13 x 10 Modu1us of Elasticity = 30.19 x 10 p. s. i.
p.s.i.
 73

CHAPTER V

EXPER !MENTAL PROCEDURE

A. PRELIMINARY ARRANGEMENTS

1. Assemblies: The manufacture of the test assemblies has been detailed in

Chapter III.

After the forms were stripped, the dimensions of the test beams

and loading brackets were checked and found to be satisfactory. However the

externat side of one of the connecting end beams had buldged out by approx-

imately half an inch. This discrepancy was ignored, because the end bearn was

introduced to simplify the test arrangement.

The particulars of the test beams are listed in Appendix F,

2, Strain gage installation and wiring: The frames were allowed to dry for

one complete week before the surface was prepared for strain gage installation.

The frames were made to stand on their sides to facilitate the installation of

the gages on all the available faces. The frames were then turned upside down

to install gages on the remaining face.

The method of installation of gages, rosettes and wiring have

been detailed in Appendix G.

3. Test Arrangement: The frame was lifted with the travelling crane and

lowered, to rest one of the end beams on an ordinary hand trolley. The other

end was maintained well above the floor with the crane. The frame was moved

under the testing machine and manoeuvred longitudinally and laterally until

the plumb bob, suspended from the loading head of the testing machine, was

approximately over the centre of the frame. The frame was then lowered on

to four jacks, one near each corner of the frame. Four steel girders
0
12 x 6 inches were placed approximately at an angle of 45 to the axis of
 74

the main bearn with their center-line passing through the point of intersection
of the bearn axes. Before the frame was finally lowered to the girders, it was

manoeuvred both ways using the hydraulic jacks until the frame was correctly

centered below the machine head. After seating the frame on the girders, the

frame location was checked with respect to the machine head. No discrepancy

was observed in case of frame F but the slight discrepancy observed in case
1
of frame F was eliminated by repeating the process of centering with the
2
hydraulic jacks. The frame was centered such that the longitudinal axis of

the frame was perpendicular to the plane of the main frame of the testing

machine.

4. Loading Arrangement: The arrangement to transfer the load from the testing

machine to the beams consisted of a ball and socket joint and an RSJ supported

on two rollers having welded steel plates resting on the loading brackets. Two

eccentricities were selected for the tests, (a) 7-1/2 inches for total frame

loads not exceeding 20 kips and (b) 15 inches for loads leading up to failure

of the weaker of the two beams. The rollers were set in plaster of Paris

parallel to and at a distance of 7-1/2 inches from the axis of the bearn. The

plates attached to the rollers were levelled, not only individually but also

with respect to each other, to provide level supports for the loading bearn.
The loading bearn was placed and centered on the rollers when the plaster

of Paris had set. Finally the ball and socket joint was positioned on the

loading girder and correctly centered below the head of the testing machine.

The entire setting up of the loading arrangement was done with utmost care

as a slight error in centering the frame with respect to machine head would

lead to much greater errors in the analysis of the final results.

5. Deflection and Rotation Measurement Arrangements: Wooden arms,

1 x 1/2 x 36 inches, were then glued on the top and the bottom of the test
 75

beams, two on each side of the loading bracket, The arms at the top projected

outside the frame and those at the bottom pointed towards the inside, the axis

of the arms being perpendicular to the bearn axis. The arrangement of the arms

is shown in Fig.V.l. The advantage of adopting such an arrangement is that the

true values of deflection and rotation with respect to the ends can be obtained

by simply averaging the sum and the difference of the readings of the top and

bottom dial gages. Rotational deflections are additive to the vertical deflec-

tions at the bottom dial gage, and subtractive from the same at the top gage.

Ames dial gages with a travel of 1 inch and least count of .001 inch were

installed at a distance of 30 inches from the axis of the bearn, one inch inside

the outer edge of the arm. Gages were similarly installed at midspan on the

center line of the beam to read its deflection with respect to the ends (corners

of the frame), The horizontal plane passing through the intersection of the

bearn axes at the top of the frame was taken as the reference plane for the

deflection and rotation readings, Four dial gages were set at the corners

of the frame to read vertical displacements as loads were applied. A very

slight downward movement of the corners was observed, so the readings of all

the gages were corrected linearly. The details of dial gages is shown in
Figures 0.1. and Q.2. in Appendix O. The details of test arrangement is shown

in Figures V.Z.- 3.

AMë.S DIAL
\ ..
~2. 'IC.
"
1 X
GLUED \ 0 ï5T BE.AM
~G
.
WOOD eN ARtt\S

Gi-AGI: tv'\0\JNTêD ~ 1
1
01-1 STANDS.

"
r--------"3-=.:::t:::J=---~-- -···········~..,..-----~---~QI

Fig. V.1. DETAILS OF WOODEN ARMS FOR DEFLECTIO:N MEASUREMENTS

1
 ..-.f--A

~EAM 'B1 (o"f B1:.)

----.----+
\o'')(ts··

loADI NG HEAD
~ AND &ALL. AND
Soci(€T ARRANGEMENT.
l?.ot..LER ('l.''DIA) AND
S'ïE'E.L PLA.TE SET 1 N
~~IV\ ~'S PLASTE.R. 0\= '?A~\S
l'l-'''1(/S'·-

+ B ËA !Vi ~..l.. ( O"i 'B.. )

\o"x. \ s"

1 •• A
Y\F 12..,"' <é/

,,

FIG.V.l. PLAN
......
DETAILS OF TEST ARRANGEMENT (]\
 - ~vl.t\AC.~INE LOA.DrNG
HEAD
/
1 'BÀLL AtùD Soc.KE:T
J A!<RAr-.lq'€"MéNT
./

v..F 1"2.'''1( ~lt

2 ,., D1A. STEEL
/
~0\.Lt..J(S W ITH 6'''1' 1'i."
1 /
PL.A.'ST'E~ 0~ 'PA.R.\S

~
~EE:.L LAT'E'

(ov i~:) ~
BEA. IV\ .'.1!,
(o,.~)
i ~~1
1 l "' 1 1 lo'' v-BEAM
-' i ).
l.
-~
["'. 1
1 1
/
1 1
1 1
1 1 1
''en 1 1 1 1
-- 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1

1'- 3., 1 \'· ~" l

v.;: t7.. ~~~ ~ '' ~ UPPC R T ~)

1 1
/ AT· FllAME CoRNERS

~,

"3'- cb ~

FIÇ.V .2o DETAILS OF THE LOADING ARRANGEMENT

(Sectional Elevation Along AA) .....
.....
 78

B. TESTING OF THE FRAMES

The zero reading of the strain gages was taken and a load of

5,000 lbs. applied, The frame was unloaded and the gages read. The operation

was repeated to seat the strain gages unti1 a steady zero reading was attained.

The exact cases of loading of the frames were as fo11ows:

There were three cases of 1oading for the frame F •

1
Case I: The 1oading deviee was arranged to load the test beams

at an eccentricity of 7-1/2 inches. Loads were app1ied to the frame in incre-

ments of 2 kips and gage readings recorded up to a total load of 22 kips.

Case II: The frame in Case I was un1oaded and the 1oading deviee

rearranged to provide an eccentricity of 15 inches. The rest of the process

was similar to Case I except that loading was continued until beam B fai1ed
1
at a total 1oad of 41 kips.

Case III: The frame was then shifted laterally to apply loads

to beam B through the ball and socket joint and the roller at an eccentricity
2
of 15 inches. The loads were applied in increments of one kip unti1 the beam

failed at 33.5 kips. The dial gage and strain gage readings were recorded

as detailed in Cases I and II.

Frame F There were five cases of loading of frame F2 •

2

Case I:
The Case I was identical to that of frame F except that
1
the frame F2 was loaded up to a total frame load of 20 kips.

Case II: The case II was identical to the corresponding case of

frame F , but it was not possible to continue loading up to the failure of the
1
weaker beam B • Increments in loading had to be stopped at a load of 96 kips
3
when the dial gages started showing excessive deflections and rotations. The
 78 A

PLATE N
Frame F2 {finished - being
prepareà for strain gage
installation)

PLATE V

Test Assembly

PLATE VI

Test Assembly
 79

strain gage readings also indicated that yielding had cornmenced in the stirrups

of beam B •
3
Case III: The dial gages were removed and the frame shifted and

rearranged to load beam B , at an eccentricity of 15 inches. Dial gages were

3
reinstalled. Loads were applied to beam B in increments of 5 kips and the
3
gage readings recorded. The process was continued until B failed at a load
3
of 48 kips.

Case IV: The frame was shifted to load the bearn B in a manner
4
identical to beam B in Case III. Loads were applied to B at an eccentricity
3 4
of 15 inches in increments of 5 kips until the concrete at the forward end of

the loading bracket sheared off at a load of 53 kips.

Case V: The beam B was shifted and the loading deviee rearranged
4
to load the beam at an eccentricity of 12 inches. Loads were applied to B in
4
increments of 5 kips until the bearn failed at a load of 65,4 kips. Gage readings

were recorded similar to the other Cases.

 80

CHAPTER VI

EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND COMPARISION WITH THEORY

A. STRESS CALCULATIONS

The strain gage readings for various loadings for both frames

have been detailed in Tables H. 1. to H.8. in Appendix H • The readings of

the linear strain gages were transformed into stresses by multiplying the

strain-gage readings by the modulus of elasticity.

f = Ex E

where f = the stress intensity,

E = the Modulus of Elasticity, and

é = the measured strain (+for tension and- for compression).

The principal stresses and the shearing stress were calculated from the

rosette readings using the Baumberger's method which gave the principal strains

and the angle of reference directly. A sample calculation for obtaining the

principal stresses, shearing stress and angle of reference has been shown in

Appendix K.

Load-stress curves have been plotted for the bearn points where

strain-gages were applied, and are shown in Figures VI. 1. to VI.207 • The-

oretical stresses have been calculated for each gage-point and the resulta

compared with the actual load-stress curves. A sample calculation to ob-

tain theoretical stresses has been detailed in Appendix N.

B. DEFLECTION CALCULATIONS

The actual deflections of the test beams from the reference

plane were obtained by averaging the sum and the difference of the readings

of the dial gages applied at the top and the bottom of the bearn (Fig.V.l.)

and by making correction ~or the vertical displacement of the supports.

 81

A sample calculation for obtaining the actual deflection at a particular

section of the test bearn B has been detailed in Appendix J,

2

Theoretical deflection of the test bearn consisted of: (a) de-

flection due to flexure, (b) deflection due to shear and (c) deflection due

to torsion. The deflections due to shear and torsion are generally small

for dimensions and types of sections commonly used in practise but in beams

having a high depth-span ratio the deflection due to shear and torsion may

become a considerable percentage of the totel - too large to be neglected

since absolute [rather than relative] displacements are required). The de-

flections due to shear and torsion were determined by the principal of virtual

work.

(a) Deflection due to flexure:

Wl3
DM = c1 E I
c p

where DM = deflection due to flexure,

w = total load on the span,

1 = span of the bearn,

E
c = modulus of elasticity of concrete,
= moment of inertia of the section for positive bending, and
'
a coefficient (C varies with the fixity of the support and
1
with the type of loading whether it is concentrated, dis-
tributed, etc.)

The value of I for a section reinforced for tension only is

p
given by
3
(1+4 nr) bd
I
p = (l+np 12
Es
where n = "EC = modular ratio,
p = tension steel expressed as a percentage of the effective
cross-section area.
 82

For a section reinforced with compression steel the value of ~ is

I
p
= [ 31- k 3 + 31 (1-k) 3 + 3 np (1-k) 2 + 3(n-1)p' (k- d)
d' 2
]

1+2pn+2p'n d'
where k =
d
2 (l+pn+p 'n}

where d = effective depth of the beam,

d' = distance of the centre of gravity of the compression rein-

forcement below the top edge of the beam, and

p' = compression reinforcement expressed as a percentage of the

effective cross-sectional area.

(b) Deflection due to shear:

r
The deflections due to shear can be calculated from

Vv
D
s = 2
A.G dx
where D
s - 0
deflection due to shear,

v = total shearing force on the given section due to given loads,

v = total shearing force on the given section due to a unit load

at the point where deflection is desired,

A = bd = the effective cross-sectional of the beam, and

G = shear modulus of elasticity of concrete,

(c) Deflection due to torsion:

The unit load method can also be used to determine the deflections

due to torsion as

• "2.
J
r !'fi'
T «:. d)l.
}(~
1:)

where = deflection due to torsion,

T = twisting moment at the section due to the applied torque,

t = twisting moment at the section due to a unit torque at the point

where deflection is desired, and
 83

K = the torsion constant

b3 h3
=
3. 6(b 2+, h 2)

where h = the ov~rall depth of the bearn.

Total deflection (theoretical) =

The theoretical deflections have been plotted against the loads in

Figures VI.209 ·t;:o VI •.'237 along with the actual load deflection curves for

comparative studies. A samp1e calcu1ation for theoretical deflection has been

shown in Appendix L.

C. ROTAT ION CALCULAT IONS

The angle of twist is automatically obtained when calculations are

made for actua1 deflections (sample ca1culation in Appendix J). The values

of unit rotations have been plotted against torques in Figures VI.238 to VI.248

The theoretical curves for rotation consist of two curves: (a) indicating the

twist of the section with the central section constrained from warping and

(b) giving the unit rotation with the central section free to warp. The

theoretical rotations obtained from (a) were 11.1 percent less than the

theoretical rotations obtained from (b). The details of theoretical rotation

calculations have been given in Appendix M. The theoretical torque-rotation

curves have been p1otted along with the actual torque-detrusion curves for

direct comparision.
 U:kS
lT iQ rr ~

\.
t!-
~-
j ~ 11
1

~-

j_ 1

'(1
1

1/

Il li r •
i

~l-'
,, L
Je
'

~!
1-+-
lj '
~"-·
. l-1:

1
'
'
1
1
'

~E:. 1- .
t-

" l'l

+----
1

' 1 1

"
[<;;'

~
~ '
\

\
\
l'IR 1'1 t;_ ~

'
1-
..
1

'
1

l1l
'
re '
r-+
-;- r . l'
'
1
. . . d•
'
\ L\
en ~ n~
1
1_1:

1.'
~

1-
1!3 ~1:

~~
. ~
\
j l'"
t LE
1

1 1 1

i
' !\ Il.
(Ji
1
i
l.J
J
1 1
_, ]:'_ œ ~ LI~~u ~ lE eP- ', ... t'_
 l'
fï ' '!1<

IL' 1\ IJ[J

1-
17 7 i/
1

1'\
t f'
+ 1/
[7
1

l'
17!7

~-·
1--.

'
.

1\.

'1
1 i'\
'

- Ill 1- n1
-
T'

II

1!

. . rT (.:. 1:1

1~
1-
_j_.

'
1/

IN .. ' 8
/7 7

. 1..:~.
1
1 ~ lo

,:
rrr;,
]:E p Il Ill fE Il. • ~c1a ~qep jCfafl.
1~
7
7~/
'
11it e ~ l. .

- ' !\{ !\{

- llr

Il! ti ti Il-' a~ Il:'

 : :

t--+--+-+-J-t- t-- -+--+ +-+-H-t-+

' i
 '8 E
:
1~
ln fT.·
Il 1-'
1
1~ 1• l
1
(1
l/,

1\

Il
1 v
Il
1/ 1

1
t-' .
' 1

1'1 1?
l~'ll Iii n'el itn :1 !élt~ a~: t ua11 -
!"' Vl

IR
. . th ,.rr •t .,,.,.
1/
ts l( If\

s s
10
0
lA ~· 1<>

l
-r- !- Il l' 0
' 1.1
1 l'f

Il

li
i,
,,

·IR ' 1:-i

l'l
1-
\
' 1 IL
! 1\
1

1'\

L\
1
~~ lb

1 1'\.

:
! ~\
'
- L
' :
1 1.L' ojJ.'+ \\
\\. 1\

1\
1 1
Il
+1
1

1 i
-
1

ln rr OT Il"•
l"' 1'- ~L 1-' 0
H-~~·~
1+4... L~-~+J~+4
; 1 '

' '

, '·r:
 j
~T· LT h· tl
1 1
1T • 1,.,
"' hl
M LE TT
IJ.' !0•
-1- •l""
t)
1
1

,.-1- ·H
r- r-- (~ F.
1 mn a
1 Il ......
..) IJI
'
tl
v ....
"-Pl 1
1 1 v

"-0
v
v
' v
-+- --~~f±~ 1/
1
v /
v IV

l"-

Vi
t '"' /
l,/
1,1:

,( 1

1/

lLf.l.l_ Il_
1/
1

1
r... ' 1

1~
l
!:3
~ If
1/
1
' ' ln
ll)J_ 1 I IV

1 1 li ~.

81C ~· rp
lts lJ 1

' 1"-
' lh Dl l. 0 LC s
- 1
itl
i
'
-'-t c-t--
1
' 4lJ
- H-: ..;.

:
-
1

1.~ '
1

.K ,1~ ~ A
'4
J:,J .
 -lc ~m
1~
.Ill j,-, h1
~
\~
"'' IAR
Ir b'

.ln
Il"
la
1~
1~

Lr: IAF'i
,
h
1·!" . lA l
[f 1/
1
17
;

1.-, , TT
i""
1 Ir
1/
,

1 1

~ ...
~ .... T 1
1

-+-
1

Tt , 1 1/
l- 1

1-7
1
1/
1
17
F-1

IVV i
1 1
,
1 1 17

R 1'1
l""
}';'

17 . I.L j-J~ ~IS

J~
P~ri fri-t
1 1 1-

IL. • 1l~I 0 ~ e
.
1

+-
, "' '"'
~\,.; ~ !-'

-H-
1 1/ -l-
,, i/ 1/ ·--t-
1

1 1

'
1

IIP t-~
l'l ~~ t-- ' 1/ : ,
1
--
1 1/ 1

1/ 1 --1 1

Il.
rf,
1 r~

,,.
~L ·~ .
 173
CHAPTER VII

OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

A. INITIAL CRACKING AND GENERAL BEHAVIOUR

There are three rnethods of detecting the cracks developed in a

reinforced concrete mernber subjected to combined bending, shear and torsion:

1) visual observations, 2) abrupt changes in the slope of load-stress curves

and 3) abrupt changes in slopes of load-deflection and torque-detrusion curves,

1. Visual observations: The sides of the test beams were checked for hair

cracks with a magnifying glass since hair cracks cannot often be seen with

the naked eye,

Case I

Frame Fl No cracks were observed in B or B •

1 2
Frame F2 The beams B and B were entirely free of any cracks
3 4
whatsoever.

Case II and III

Very minute hair cracks, negligible in length, were developed in the

various beams at total frame loads varying from 26 to 30 kips.

The cracks initiated in bearn B at a frame load of 26 kips, but

1
were not visible to the naked eye up to a frame load of 40 kips.* These

cracks gradually opened out with further increase of loading until

bearn B failed at a total frame load of 41 kips. The cracking commenced

1
on the middle of the longer side on the interior of the frame, followed by

cracks on the bottom, exterior side and the top of the bearn respectively.

Only one single spiral crack traversed the bearn perimeter and crossed the

neutral axis midway between the loading bracket and the supports. The cracks

* The load at which the cracks start propagating has been referred to as the
cracking load.
 174

were steeper on the internat face of the bearn than on the externat face and ran

diagonally upwards towards the loading bracket at the center.

Minute cracks, observed through the magnifying glass, developed

in bearn B at the same load of 26 kips. The cracks followed the general
2
pattern of cracks in B except that the cracking was not localized as in the
1
case of B and several cracks appeared along the bearn span as indicated in
1
Fig. O. 6 in Appendix 0 • The spacing of the cracks varied from 6-1/2" to 9"

on all sides of the bearn. All cracks intersected the stirrups at midheight

on both the faces of the bearn, running vertically upwards towards the loading

bracket. The cracks were steeper on the internat face than on the externat

face. The cracks did not open with increase of loading up to the failure

load for bearn B in Case II. However when B2 was loaded separately, the hair
1
cracks became visible and started widening and propagating at loads above

20 kips until the bearn failed at a load of 34.5 kips (eccentricity • 15 11 ) .

At failure the reinforced concrete beams with or without web reinforcement

had helical cracks at an angle of 45° to the longitudinal axis on the externat
0
face and 40 on the internat face. The cracks were well defined, indicating

failure due to a cleavage fracture.

Frame F2 Very minute cracks could be seen with the help of the

magnifying glass at the middle of the internat face of bearn B at a frame

3
load of 26 kips and at the middle of the internat face of bearn B at a
4
frame load of 28 kips. However the cracks did not become visible up to a
frame load of 42 kips.

The general pattern of cracking was similar to that of B , with

2
the cracks steeper on the interna! face and running vertically upwards

towards the loading bracket, The spacing of the cracks varied from 3" to

9" on all sides of the bearn. The inclination of the cracks was 45° on the

internat face and 40° on the externat face. The cracks were well defined,
 17 5

showing cleavage fracture, and intersected the stirrups near the neutral axis.

Bearn B : The cracks followed the same pattern as in case of bearn B but the
4 3
spacing of the cracks varied from 1-1/2" to 6", The cracks in B and B started
3 4
opening for increase of loads beyond 41 kips. The rate of widening and prop-

agation of cracks was faster for B than for B • When both bearns were loaded
3 4
individually the cracks which had been developed in case II gradually widened

and propagated until failure of the bearn.

2. Load-stress curves: The second method of obtaining the initial cracking

load consists of determining the load at which an abrupt increase in the

steel strain is observed. A study of the load-stress curves for case II

gives the initial cracking load for bearn B as 24 kips for the bottom and
2
interna! faces, 26.5 kips for the external face and 30 kips for the top face

of the bearn.

Similarly for bearn B , the load-stress curves for the steel

3
stirrups indicate an abrupt increase in steel stresses at loads of 28 kips

for the interna! face, 30 kips for the external face and 28 kips for the

top face. In case of B the sarne loads are 28 kips, 32 kips and 31 kips
4
respectively. The loads at which there was an abrupt increase in steel

stress agree very well with the loads at which minute cracks were first

observed in the bearns.

3. Torque-Detrusion and Load-Deflection Curves

The torque-detrusion curves indicate that the test bearns be-

haved elastically up to about 65 to 70 percent of their ultimate loads.

The test bearn B , without any web reinforcement, failed suddenly after
1
very slight yielding, as soon as cracks started propagating. However the
 176

test beams B , B and B , with web reinforcement, exhibited considerable

2 3 4
yielding before failure. The delayed failure indicated the toughness of the

web reinforced members. The points on the torque-detrusion curves, where the

slope of the torque-detrusion curve undergoes a sudden change, give the ini-

tial cracking loads. These loads agree well with the initial cracking loads

for all the four test beams. The initial cracking loads, similarly obtained

from the load-deflection curves, show a good agreement with the test loads

at the visco-elastic limit (at which cracks start propagating).

The minute cracks which could be seen with the magnifying glass

occurred at a load of 26 kips. The torsional shear stress

= Ms
lt 0·'2..31 b'l..d
lOSOO'X. IS
= o· 2.::~.::.1 ~ 1o10 " IS

= '2..81· 4 f=''Sl
and the direct shear stress
v
~ = bjd
~soo
- lox. o·~{,x l"l.·S"

- 5'.9•4 pst
Therefore combined shear stress at middle of interna! side

which is approximately the same as the ultimate tensile strength of concrete

(325 p.s.i.).

At the visco-elastic limit, the combined shear stress (direct

and torsion) will be 525 p.s.i. (if analysed by the elastic methods).

However considering that at the visco-elastic limit, concrete is a plastic

 177

material, the torsional shear stress (according to Nadai's Plastic Theory

of Torsion) is
= ~ ~(d- ;)
\ J.o, ooo '1( 1 5
'>(.
=
~')( td·(,s-'~)
251• \ psi
and the direct shear stress according to the recommendations of ACI-ASCE

Committee 326, is
1o,ooo
= IO ')(.!'2•.'$"

= ~o·o psi
Therefore total shearing stress is

= ~'= + ls
= "2.5 1 . \ + 8 0. 0
= psi

which agrees very well with the ultimate tensile strength of concrete.

The results of the tests on the beams with details of cracking

loads and the ultimate loads have been shown in Table I. The stresses have

been analysed for the cracking load by the plastic methods and results

arranged in Table II. The ratio of the critical torsional and direct

stresses to the tensile strength of concrete have been plotted in Fig.VII.l.

The details of the cracks is shown in Appendix O.

 -
-1
i Jj 1!
ISl
1 1 ;_
'

'
-t ' ..' "'
1
- ,.. .,
1

-T -
Il

1
1 lr-1
1

1 !'\
1"'-

' "'~' ls

-~
;H
CIL
~
H

!til 1'-
1"'\.
-r--
1"'\.

1"'\.
--

1'\.

1-

1.::
li-
IP

v
 TABLE VII. 1. RESULTS OF TESTS

First diagonal Crack* Maximum

Modulus Total
e f1 of bearn Shear Torque Shear Torque
Bearn ins. c
psi. rupture load kips kip•inches kips kip-inches

Bl 15 4176 522 15 150.0 10.25 157.5

B2 15 4176 522 15 10.0 150.0 16.7 5 251.3

B3 15 4176 522 15 10.5 157.5 24.0 360.0

B4 15 4176 522 12 10.5 157.5 32.7 392.4

* Sarne as the cracking load,

1-'
-...!
\0
 TABLE VII.2. CALCULATED UNIT SHEAR STRESSES

Ultimate Ca1cu1ated unit shear stresses *

At first diagonal crack Ratio
Be am Tensile
e Strength Shear Torque Direct Torsion Combined of
ins. psi kips in.-kips psi psi psi Col. 8/Col. 3

B1 15 325 10 150 80 257.1 337.1 1.038

B2 15 325 10 150 80 257.1 337.1 1.038

B3 15 325 10.5 157.5 84 270 354 1.089

B4 15 325 10.5 157.5 84 270 354 1.089

*Stresses based on plastic assumptions

t-'
00
0
 Wl

B. STRESSES

A comparison of the actual and the theoretical load-stress curves

indicates good general agreement between the experimental data and theoretical

values up to the cracking load. The agreement is very good at points where

the concrete does not crack, and the load stress relationship is almost linear

until the cracking of the bearn. The load stress curves for the points where

concrete cracked indicate a readjustment of the stress in the concrete before

the final failure takes place. After the bearn has cracked the experimental

resulta depart from theory at an increasing rate until the bearn fails. There

are a few points at which the actual load-stress curves do not agree within

a reasonable limit with :the theoretical curves. However the actual curves

follow the general trend of the theoretical curves. Therefore it is reasonable

to calculate the diagonal stresses at any point in concrete by the elastic

method up to the cracking load i.e. the load at which minute cracks are first

developed in the concrete (which is approximately 60 to 75 percent of the load

at the visco-elastic limit). The redistribution of stresses after the micro-

scopie cracking of concrete validates the use of the plastic theory. At the

cracking load the stresses due to combined loading appear to agree well with

the ultimate tensile strength of concrete.

A study of the load-stress curves for stirrups indicates that the

web reinforcement does not become effective until the minute cracks develop

on the inner face of the bearns at a load of approximately 26 kips. Almost

all load-stress curves for steel show an abrupt increase in the steel stress

at loads varying between 24 and 28 kips. A similar behaviour is noted in

the load stress-curves for the strain gages and rosettes on the concrete,

showing that the strain-rate increases after the concrete has developed

minute cracks.
 182

C. DEFLECTIONS AND ROTATIONS

The deflection and rotation curves plotted in Fig.VI.209 to VI.243

represent instantaneous values of deflection or rotation respectively. Each

test load was maintained constant for a period of one and a half hours for

frame F to enable reading of the dial and strain gages. This period was
1
however reduced to approximately 20 minutes for frame F2 as there were no

strain-gages on the concrete. The creep of concrete (which is apparent on

comparison of actual deflection curves with the theoretica1 curves) was disre-

garded in p1otting the theoretica1 curves.

1. Deflection of Beams:

Frame F Case I
1

For bearn B the deflections at midspan C are linear and agree

1
reasonably well with the theoretica1 curves. The actual def1ections are

approximate1y 15 to 20 percent higher than the theoretical def1ections, which

is due to creep under sustained 1oading (for a period of 1-1/2 hours). Sim-

0 ®

0 @ ® 0
FIG.VII.2. Reference Boints for Dial Gages
 183

ilar behaviour was observed for deflections at B, B' and A and A'. The

readings of the deflections obtained for sections A and A', although they

compare well with the theoretical deflections at those points, cannot be

relied upon as these sections were very close to the supports.

The behaviour of beam B in deflection under test loads was

2
identical to beam B except that the deflections at D and F were lesa than
1
the theoretical deflections. The deviation from theory at F can be attributed

to the typical support conditions but unfortunately the discrepancy at F cannot

be explained since the actual deflection should at least equal the theoretical

deflection plus the effects of creep.

Case II

The actual deflection curves for both the beams B and B2 agree
1
reasonably we11 with the theoretica1 curves at the sections away from the

supports. The deflections at the supports vary considerably from the theo-

retical deflections, probably due to the support conditions as discussed

for case I. The deflection curves for both beams B and B2 at the inter-
1
mediate sections show a marked change in the curve slope at loads between

12 and 13 kips, which indicates points at which transition takes place from

elastic behaviour to plastic behaviour. The load deflection curves show a

tendency to f1atten at loads near failure, indicating yielding of the beam,

This increase of deflections can be attributed to the behaviour of concrete

in the plastic range and creep under sustained loading (for a period of

1-1/2 hours under each test load).

Case III

The beam B , which had shown cracks in case II, was reloaded
2
to failure. The load-deflection curves indicate that the effect of creep
and plasticity of concrete became more pronounced after the section cracked,

The ratio of the deflections at ultimate loads to the cracking

load deflections at sections A, B and C were 2,03, 2.02, and 2.00 respectively,

giving an average of 2.01.

Frame F Case I
2

The behaviour of beams B and B was identical to that of bearn B2

3 4
in case I. However the deflections in general decreased as the percentage of

longitudinal and transverse reinforcements increased. The deviation of the

actual deflections from the theoretical can be attributed to causes already

discussed for frame F in case I.

1

Case II

The deflections for B and B at midspan C and F agree well with

3 4
the theoretical curve up to frame loads of 24 kips. Minute cracks were ob-

served in the beam at slightly higher loads. When the section cracked, the

effects of creep became more pronounced and the deflections near the failure

load about 200 percent of the theoretical deflections.

For beam B the deflections at B and B' agree reasonably well

3
with the theoretical deflections, the effects of creep and plasticity of

concrete becoming more pronounced when the section cracks. The deflections

at C and C', being on the higher side~vary considerably from the theoretical

deflections within the visco-elastic limit. This departure from theory

becomes more pronounced after the beam has cracked. The actual deflections

at the sections E, E' and F and F' are observed to be less than the theo-

retical deflections up to the cracking point, after which creep causes

excessive deflections and increases the actual deflections by approximately

100 percent above the theoretical values.

 ~5

Case III

The behaviour of beams B and B in case III was identical to that

3 4
of B in case I.
2

The ratio of the deflections at ultimate loads to that at cracking

loads at section C for B are found to be 2.15. The average ratio of ultimate
3
load and cracking point deflections for B is 2.17.
4

2, Rotation of Beams: The torque-twist curves for all the beams show a

gradual slope of the tangent from zero load to loads near failure, and depict

three states:

(a) Elastic State: The angle of twist and the torque are connected linearly

for a major portion of the elastic state, The relation can be considered to

be a parabola whose curvature gradually increases with the torque. The rate

of creep is low for loads up to the cracking point. The rate of creep is

higher for beams of frame F than for beams of frame F because of the longer
1 2
period for which the test load was maintained.

(b) Plastic State: In this stage the distortion is mainly plastic, and the

angle of twist is related parabolically to the twisting moment. The rate of

creep is higher than that for the elastic state, The increased creep in the

plastic range and the plasticity of concrete cause the torque-detrusion

curves to flatten out until failure of the bearn.

(c) Elasto-Plastic State: The elasto-plastic state representa the transition

from the elastic state to the plastic state and is of comparatively shorter

duration than the elastic or plastic stages,

The unit rotation for B is 40 percent higher than the resulta

1
obtained from theory. The resulta for B are similarly 70 percent higher
2
 186

than theoretical rotations. The average ratio of the rotation per unit length

at failure load to the unit rotation at cracking load for beams B and B2 is
1
2.38 and 4.33 respectively. The value of the ratio for B2 is very high because

the rotations are much less than the theoretical rotations within the cracking

limit. The average unit rotation of B is slightly less than that of B showing
2 1
that B had a higher torsional rigidity. The unit rotation of beams B and B
2 3 4
agree well with theory up to torques of 270 kip-inches after which the effects

of creep and plasticity become prominent and large rotations of about .01

radians are noted near the failure loads.

The rotations of B are less than that of B (which in turn are

4 3
less than those for B ) indicating that B was torsionally stiffer than B •
2 4 3
However the increase in torsional rigidity is extremely small and should not

be relied upon in practice.

The theoretical curves plotted along with the actual curves in

Figures VI.238 - 248 indicate clearly the torsional behaviour of the beams

during the tests. The load-deflection and torque-detrusion curves indicate

that up to and near the cracking load for beams of identical cross-section

and span, an increase in the eccentricity of the test-load results in a

decrease in deflection and an increase in rotation.

D. TORQUE AND RE INFORCEMENT

pt
A graph of torque versus -p"'!"+p--:-,- , where pt, p and p' are the

percentage of transverse, longitudinal tensile and compression steel

respectively is shown in Fig.VII.3. The necessary data for plotting the

curve has been organized in Table VII.3. It was not possible to determine

the maximum spacing at which the web reinforcement became effective because

the maximum spacing of the stirrups adopted was 6 inch centers. This can
 187

be verified by conducting expex·iments on beams with pitch of stirrups varying

from 6 inch centers to infinity (i.e. no stirrups at all - as in the case of

bearn B ). The torque steel ratio curves plotted from such a set of experimenta
1
would lead to the determination of maximum spacing at which stirrups become

effective.

However it is noted from the results in Table VII.3. that increasing

the ratio of transverse to longitudinal steel by varying the transverse steel

improves torque capacity. In FigNII.3 . ultimate torques have been plotted

against the transverse - longitudinal steel ratios. The data is insufficient

to ensure accuracy of the horizontal branch of the curve which appears to

Pt
extend to a ratio of 0.3. The slope of the curve increases rapidly
p + p'
up to a transverse-longitudinal steel ratio of 1.0 after which the curve

tends to become flat. Therefore it appears that the torsional strength of

a bearn remains unaltered up to a certain transverse-longitudinal ·steel ratio

Pt
(approximately 0.3 in this case). Further increase of ratio increases
p + p'
the strength of the section. The rate of increase in strength increases up
Pt
to a ratio of 1.00 and then falls rapidly, indicating that the most
p + p'
effective reinforced concrete section in torsion is one in which the percent-

age of transverse reinforcement is equal to that of the longitudinal rein-

forcement.

The ultimate load analysis of the test beams by the Russian

method agrees very well with the actual moments on the cracked section

(Appendix P). Data was avâilable for obtaining the percentages of moments

carried by the concrete and the steel in frame F • However assumptions had
1
to be made for the stresses in concrete and longitudinal steel in frame F •
2
These assumptiops do not introduce any substanttiâl-error·in the magnitùde

of moments resisted by the web reinforcement, and therefore the calculations

 TABLE VII. 3.

TEST RESULTS - TORQUE AND STEEL RATIOS

Test Longitudinal Steel

p Torque at Ultimate
Specimen Transverse steel Top Bot tom
t first crack torque
No. Ti es pt Bars p' Bars p p + p' kip inches kip inches

B1 - 0 - 0 4-No.7 .01600 0 150,.0 157.5

B2 No.3 at 6 in. • 01171 2-No.5 • .00413 4-No.7 .. 01600 .5817 150.0 251.3
cent ers
B3 No.3 at 3 in. .02342 2-No.5. .00413 4-No. 7 .. 01600 1.1634 157.5 360.0
centers
B4 No .. 3 at 1-1/2 .04684 2-No.5. .00413 4-No .. 8 ..02107 1.8587 157.5 392.4
in.centers

For a11 beams, b = 10 inches, d = 15 inches,

b1 = 6. 7 5 Il
d1 = 10.25 Il

'

t-'
00
00
 189

for the torsional moments resisted by the stirrups can be considered reliable,

In beam B which had no web reinforcement, 94.8 percent of the

1
total moment on the cracked section was taken by concrete, the remaining 5.2

percent being shared by the longitudinal steel at the bottom of the section

which constitutes 1.6 percent of the cross-sectional area, Therefore in a

section having an unreinforced web, the torsional strength of concrete is the

only contributing factor to the strength of the section.

In beams B , B and B , the percentage of moments carried by

2 3 4
concrete was practically negligible, showing that at the ultimate load the

moments on the cracked section were resisted by the longitudinal and the

transverse steel. The percentages of the total moments resisted by the

concrete, longitudinal reinforcement and web reinforcement for the various

beams are detailed in Table VII.4.

TABLE VII. 4. PERCENTAGE RESISTANCE MOMENT OF CONCRETE AND STEEL

Longitudinal ~b
Be am Concrete reinforcement reinforcement Total

Bl 94.8 5.2 100.0

B2 3.0 52.4 44.6 100.0
B3 0.3 36.6 63.1 100,0
B4 0.1 39.8 60.1 100.0

It is not possible to make a direct comparison between the three

beams B1, B2 and B (all of which had 4 No 7 bars at bottom) and beam B
3 4
(which had 4 No 8 bars at bottom), However, the results in Table VII.4.
indicate that the percentage of moments resisted by concrete decreases very

rapidly and is negligible when the web reinforcement percentage exceeds one

percent. The percentage of the total moment on the cracked section resisted

by the web reinforcement increases up to a certain optimum limit (which cannot

 190

be ascertained by this series of tests on four beams) and then falls, showing

that the web reinforcement does not remain fully effective as the spacing is

decreased. The percentages of torques resisted by the longitudinal and

transverse steel are very approximate as the stresses assumed in longitudinal

steel may not be the true values (because strain gages were applied to stirrups

only in frame F ). However they are sufficient to show a general trend of the
2
increase of percentage resistance of web reinforcement up to a certain optimum

limit followed by a gradual decrease (as shown in Fig.VII.4).

~ 1
0
1
Q)
;:l 1
,..C" 1
o-
E-l !:l
0 1
(IJ"rr
bO.l-1 1
t'tl u
.l-1 (IJ 1
!:lm
(IJ
U"é 100 1
H <U
(IJ u 1
p.. H
~o
4-1 1
(IJ •M
;:j = 1

,...C"<U
,... 1
0 d 0 ------+---~~-----~-l-
E-!P ... ______L_~-~---~-~"-"'·"
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 pt
p+p' Ratio
FIG. VII.4. Torque Reinforcement Ratio Curve (Ideal Curve)

E. MODULUS OF RIGIDITY

By definition, modulus of rigidity is

Shear stress
G = Shear strain

The difference of strain gage readings recorded for frame F in case I and
1
case II gives the shear strain due to increased torsional moment (due to an

increase of 7-1/2 inches in the eccentricity). If r 1 and r 2 be the strain

gage readings at a particular point of frame F in cases I and II respectively,
1
 191

then

shearing strain = r 11 - r 1

The shearing stress (due to torsion) can be evaluated from

.195 M.r
The calculations for modulus of rigidity gave the fo11owing resulta

Rosettes (Gage Nos.) Modulus of rigidity

6
(601, 602, 603) 2.16 x 10 psi
6
(610, 611, 612) 2.26 x 10 psi
6
(614, 615, 616) 2.46 x 10 psi
6
(618, 619, 620) 1.49 x 10 psi
6
(410, 411, 412) 2.24 x 10 psi
6
(414, 415, 416) 1.87 x 10 psi
6
(418, 419, 420) 2.18 x 10 psi

Unfortunate1y the total loads for frame F in the case I was

1
1imited to a beam 1oad of 10 kips. Therefore it was not possible to ob tain

values of modulus of rigidity in the higher stress range. Values of G could

be obtained for 1oads up to 10 kips and these represent the tangent modulus

of rigidity of the concrete at the lower stress levet. Another possible

method of obtaining the value of G was to evaluate the ratio of the maximum

shearing stress to the shearing strains obtained from the rosette analysis.

This method was a very rough estimation of the value of G since the planes

of maximum shearing stress (theoretical) may not coincide with the maximum

shear stress planes that actual1y existed. However a few ca1culations in-

dicated the modulus of rigidity to vary between 1.25 and 1.60. In an actual

shear stress-strain diagram the modu1us of rigidity would be expected to

decrease gradua1ly with increase in stress. The resu1ts appear to agree

we11 with these variations of the modu1us of rigidity.

 192

The modulus of rigidity may also be determined from the slope of

the torque detrusion curves of the test beams. The torsion constant for a

rectangular section can be evaluated as

k =
The modulus of rigidity can then be obtained by dividing the s1ope of torque-

detrusion curve with the torsion constant, giving values as follows:

TABLE VII .. 5. MODULUS OF RIGIDITY (FROM TORQUE·DETRUSION CURVES)

Bearn Torque e/1 K G*

kip/ins.

B1 225 4.10 3315 1. 986

B2 225 4. 70 3315 1. 732

B3 225 4. 742 3315 1. 718

B4 225 4.615 3315 1. 764

* The modulus of rigidity has been obtained from the equation

G • ~
Ke

for the linear portions of the torque-detrusion curves for the torque of

225 kip-inches. This value of G representa the modulus of rigidity within

the limit of proportionality.

The modulus of rigidity can also be evaluated from the elastic

constants using the equation

E
G • 2 (1+ v-)
6
4.16 x 10
.. 2(1+0.145)
6
• 1.82 x 10

which agrees well with the values of G obtained from the torque-detrusion curves,
 193

The modulus of rigidity obtained from stress-strain calculations

for lower stress range exceeds that evaluated from the torque-detrusion curve

or from the elastic constants E and ~ • The value of G in higher stress range

is less than that obtained from torque-detrusion curves or from the elastic

constants, The value of G obtained from the torque-detrusion curves may be

considered to be the weighted mean of all the concrete in the member, not of

the concrete being subject to biaxial stresses. Since the tangent modulus is

slightly higher for the lower stress range than for higher stress levels, the

modulus of rigidity obtained from the stress-strain calculations may be ex-

pected to be slightly higher than that obtained from the torque-detrusion

curves. Similarly the modulus of rigidity in the higher stress range would

be expected to be less than the values obtained from the torque-detrusion

curves.

F, GENERAL DISCUSSION

The early experimentera preferred the Nadai's plastic theory of

torsion for concrete members, even under short time loading. In some ex-

perimenta on the torsion of prestressed concrete members Saint-Venant's

elastic theory was used in contrast to the plastic behaviour of low strength

concrete used in the earlier research, because high strength concrete exhibits

a very small amount of inelasticity under short time loading. The medium

strength concrete beams used in this experiment were subject to sustained

loads (for a maximum period of one and a half hours in beams B and B and
1 2
about 20 minutes for beams B and B ). Although the effects of creep were
3 4
apparent on comparison of the actual experimental data with theoretical

values (for beams B and B ), the test results (deflection, rotation and
3 4
stresses) favoured the use of the elastic theory up to the cracking load,
 194

modified for the central section remaining plane. After the beam cracked,

the plastic behaviour of concrete led to excessive deflections and rotations

of the beams until the beam failed. Therefore it appears that for medium

strength concrete under short term loadings, the elastic theory should be

used up to the cracking loads and plastic theory for loads beyond the

cracking load. However in case of beams B and B where the beams were
1 2
subject to sustained loadings, the use of plastic theory gives results which

agree well with the experimental data, Therefore it is very probable that

the plastic theory should be used in cases of sustained combined loadings.

The effect of thè sustained loads on the torsional strength of the member

is very important and very little work has been done in this field.
 195

CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUS IONS

The results of this investigation regarding the behaviour of

reinforced concrete sections under cornbined bending, shear and torsion can

be summarized and conclusions drawn as follows:

1) Saint-Venant's elastic theory of torsion modified for

sections remaining plane is applicable to the behaviour of medium strength

concrete members under short time loading up to the ctacking load since the

inelasticity of medium strength concrete is not pronounced under these

conditions.

2) The extremely fine cracks which developed at 60 to 75 percent

of the cracking loads indicate the local failure of concrete in torsion and

shear at the middle of the longer sides, after which a readjustment of

stresses took place and cracks were developed and became visible at the

cracking load. The elastic theory is applicable up to the point where the

microscopie cracks occurred, but the behaviour at the cracking load is

governed by the plastic theory.

3) The ultimate strength of a rectangular reinforced concrete

section without web reinforcement is the same as the cracking strength

(combined moment and shear) determined according to Nadai's plastic theory

of torsion and the recommendations of the ACI-ASCE Committee 326.

4) A concrete member without web reinforcement failed abruptly

under cornbined torsion, shear and bending. The failure occurred in diagonal

tension at the load at which the first crack started propagating, without

yield strains in the longitudinal reinforcement. Only one single spiral

 196

crack was developed and was steeper on the internai face of the bearn than on

the external side. The crack crossed the neutral axis midway between the load

and the support.

5) The web reinforcement in the form of rectangular closed

stirrups caused the delayed failure of the web reinforced member. A sudden

failure can therefore be avoided by suitably reinforcing the web. More than

one spiral crack (indicating cleavage failure) occurs if the bearn web is rein-

forced. The closer the spacing of the stirrups reinforcing the web, the

closer will be the cracks. The provision of the web reinforcement however

does not prevent the formation of cracks in the concrete beams, all of which

crack at approximately the same load.

6) The initial tensile cracking in all the test-beams corre-

sponded to the failure of the beams (with an unreinforced web) in combined

torsion, shear and bending at an average unit shearing stress of 346 psi.

7) The beams B , B and B , with transverse steel cross-

2 3 4
sectional area ratio (pt) lesa than .02342, exhibited diagonal tension

failure at the ultimate load preceded by yield strains in steel (except

for bearn B2).

8) The test resulta indicate a transition from elastic to

plastic states of stress at the ultimate torque as the value of approaches

unity.

9) The torque-detrusion curves depict three states: (a)

elastic state, where the angle of twist bears a parabolic relation to the

torsional moment and the rate of creep is low, (b) a short transition state

from elastic state to plastic state and (c) plastic state where the distortion

is mainly plastic.
10) Up to the cracking load the torque-detrusion curves
 197

show good agreement with the theoretical curves obtained from Saint~Venant's

theory modified for the central section remaining plane. The small discrepancy

is due to creep of concrete. The effects of creep and plasticity of concrete

become more pronounced after the cracking load.

11) The use of web reinforcement has no apparent effect on the

elastic torsional behaviour of a member (torsional properties before the

cracking load).

12) The deflections (flexural + shear + torsional) agree

reasonably well with the theoretical deflections. The deviation from

theoretical values before the cracking load is due to creep of concrete,

and that after the cracking load is due to the change in the cross-section

of the bearn and also creep and plasticity of concrete,

13) The value of the modulus of rigidity of concrete obtained

6
torque~detrusion curves was 1.80 x 10 and compares well with the
6
value of 1.82 x 10 obtained from the elastic constants (from compression

tests of concrete cylinders with electric strain gages). In the lower

stress range, the values of the modulus of rigidity obtained from the strain

gage readings were higher than those obtained from the torque-detrusion

curves or the elastic constants. The values of G in the higher stress

range, obtained from the shear stress-strain calculations based on torques

and rosette readings, were less than the values of G obtained by other

methods. The values of G, however, agree with the general trend of the

stress~strain curves for concrete, being higher at the lower stress levet

and lower at higher stress levet.

14) The ultimate strength of a reinforced concrete member

with web steel is equal to the sum of the cracking moment of the member
 198

and the moment resisted by the longitudinal and the web reinforcement,

Increasing the ratio of transverse to longitudinal steel resulta in an

improvement of the strength of the section under combined loading.

15) Increasing the ratio of transverse to longitudinal steel

by increasing only the transverse reinforcement resulta in improved u1timate

load capacity but the web reinforcement ceases to be fu1ly effective as

approaches and exceeds unity.

16) The combined stresses at the first diagonal cracking

with the torsion, shear and bending stress calculations based on elastic

assumptions were found to average 156 percent of the ultimate tensile

strength. When torsion was based on plastic assumptions, these stresses

were found to be 106 percent of the ultimate tensile strength.

17) The plastic theory gives more reasonable resulta then the

elastic theory in predicting the cracking strength under torsion or combined

shear and torsion, or combined bending, shear and torsion for concrete beams.
 199

CHAPTER IX

FUTURE RESEARCH

An appropriate extension of this experimental and theoretical

study of rectangular reinforced concrete sections under the combined action

of torsion, bending and shear would be:

A. A more exhaustive and detailed examination of the following:

1) Determination of the stresses in steel and concrete and deter-

mination of the angle of twist of the section to check the validity of

modified elastic theory of torsion.

2) Study of the theories of failure as applicable to the problem.

3) Study of the effect of the transverse reinforcement on the

strength of the beam under the combined action of torsion, bending and

shear, and determine

(a) the maximum spacing at which the web reinforcement becomes

effective and

(b) the minimum spaéing at which the stirrups cease to be fully

effective.

4) Determination and comparison of the values of the modulus of

rigidity from:

(a) Load-deflection curves,

(b) Torque-detrusion curves,

(c) Load-stress curves and

(d) Elastic constants.

5) Experimental determination of the ultimate strength of the

section and comparison with the theoretical values obtained by treating

 200

the cracked section as a plastic hinge.

6) Study of the limiting strength of the section from the deflection,

rotation and ultimate strength characteristics.

B. The same problem as reiterated in A but applied to sustained loadings

with particular emphasis on effects of creep.

c. Develop· an ultimate load method for the design of rectangular rein-

forced concrete sections subject to the combined action of torsion, bending

and shear.
 201

APPENDIX A

EXACT SOLUTIONS OF TORSION PROBLEM

Diverse methods have been employed to obtain an exact solution of the

torsion problem. In a particular problem, the geometrie configuration of the

given cross-section fixes the method to be employed, if ease of solution is a

paramount consideration. Sorne of the exact methods adopted are:

1) The Inverse Method: (employed by Saint-Venant for most of his solutions).

2 2
A solution of Laplace's equation equated to 1/2 (x +y ) +constant, yields

the equation of the contour of which ~ is the conjugate torsion function.

2) The method of images: This method was invented by Kelvin and applied to

the torsion problem by Hay.

3) Various versions of Lame's method: (for example the version applied to

torsion by Clebsch). An area bounded by arcs of curves of two mutually

orthogonal families can be considered a rectangle in Lame's curvilinear

coordinates. By Fourier analysis a harmonie function sought in this area

can be represented by an infinite double series of trigonometrie functions

with constant coefficients determined in accordance with the given boundary

conditions.

4) Conformal mapping method: The given cross-section is mapped on an upper

half plane or a unit circle, and the stress or conjugate torsion function

sought is determined by a standard analytic procedure appropriate to the

transformed boundary.

5) Complex variables method: If the boundary conditions can be written in

the form

L co."
..0

z, + a, 'Zn)
n .. o
 202

the complex torsion function is directly discernible as

6) Morris method: If the conformai transformation is known, then the substi-

tution of particular coefficients of the transformation into the appropriate

general formulas yields the complex torsion function.

 203

APPENDIX B

METHODS OF EVALUATING THE TORSION CONSTANT

1. Membrane Analogy

(a) Prantl (1903)

(b) Griffith and Taylor (1917)

(c) Trayer and March (1930)

(d) Nadai (1931)

2. Dissection of Cross-sections into Simplest Possible ShafeS

(a) Bach (1909)

(b) Foppl (1920)

(c) Tuckerman (1924)

(d) Engelman (1929)

(e) Timoshenko (1933)

3. Dissection into Less Simfle ShafeS (with allowances for junctions and effects)

(a) Weber (1921)

(b) Orr (1932)

(c) Lyse and Johnston (1935)

4. Graphical and Relaxation methods

(a) Barstow and Pippard (1922)

(b) Orr and Thom (1931)

(c) Southwel1 (1946)

5. Direct Torsion Tests

(a) Gibson and Ritchie (1914)

(b) Young and Hughes (1924)

(c) Enge1man (1929)

 204

(d) Trayer and March (1930)

6. Photo-Elastic Tests

(a) So1akian and Kareliz (1931)

(b) Hetenyi (1938)

(c) Drucker and Mindlin (1940)

(d) Weller (1941)

7. Electrical and Hydro-dynamica1 Analogies

(a) Kelvin (1867)

(b) Boussinesq (1871)

(c) Redshaw (1946)

8. Exact and Approximate Mathematica1 Solutions

(a) Coulomb (1874)

(b) Saint-Venant (1855)

(c) Green-hill (1879)

(d) Kotter (1908)

(e) Ritz (1908)

(f) Runge (1908)
(g) Galerkin (1919)
(h) Trefftz (1921)
(i) Anderson and Holl (1929)
(j) Polya (1930)
(k) Inglis (1947)
 205

APPENDIX C

TORSION OF A RECTANGULAR BEAM WITH CENTRAL SECTION PLANE

In the discussion of the torsion problem of prismatic beams without

constraints, it was assumed by Saint-Venant that torque is applied by means

of shearing stresses distributed over the ends of the beams in a definite

manner obtained from the solution of equation:

-2G6 (1)

and satisfying the boundary conditions.

Q1 • constant (2)

From the symmetry of loading of the beams, it is evident that the central

cross-section of the beam does not warp but remains plane, which is contrary

to the assumptions made by Saint-Venant in the solution of torsion problem

by the Semi-Inverse method. Renee the stress distribution at this cross-

section must be different from that obtained for rectangular beams. The

solutions of equations (1) and (2) do not apply to the central cross-

section but can be applied with sufficient accuracy for sections at sorne

distance away from the plane of symmetry.

If the cross-sections are free to warp, the distribution of stresses

is given by

Ge (~+x)
ï;z
'tzx •
=
eiel~~-'à) } (3)

and the component displacements are

= and w = €> ~(-x,~) (4)

'
 206

If the warping of the cross-sections designated as displacement w

is prevented, it will result in normal stress f distributed over the cross-

z
section. An approximate solution can be obtained by assuming that f z is
propertional to w and than it diminishes with the increase of distance z from

the middle cross-section. These assumptions are satisfied by taking

f,:z .. = (5)

where m is a factor to be determined later. The stress fz diminishes rapidly

with the increase of z and becomes negligible within a certain distance,
-mz
depending on the value of m in the factor e • The remaining stress compo-

nents must be chosen to satisfy the differential equations of equilibrium

(neglecting body forces).

ôf~)( o't)!~ o~)tz

OX + -o::~
+ o'%.1 = 0

'0~:; 'Cl~~ ore~.

<Q"' + 'Cl~
+ '0'):...
= 0 (6)

o~z.
"1))<. + 'ètt'~-z.
'?::>~
+ t'"()
'O;z
.r :z. 7.
= 0

and the boundary conditions:

)<.
= +: .L
')<.)( + <"t'x,~' \IV\ + rc'"z..•V\
'::) "" .ç~~' VV\ -\- "'(~'L'V'\ + 't')(~ 1 1 (7)

"Z = +, 2. ' V'\ + 'T,c.;::' ). + '"'(;j'l.. • W'l

The lateral surface, being free from external forces and having

normals perpendicular to z-axis, results in

= z. = 0 and

The equation (7)(a) and (b) are therefore identically satisfied and (7) (c)

gives

= 0 (9)
 207

This means that the resultant stress at the boundary is directed along the

tangent to the boundary. This condition must be satisfied since the lateral

surface is free from external forces. .

The stress components that satisfy the differentia! equations of

equilibrium ( 1 6.) and the boundary conditions ('9) are:

0 ç~j = 0
'

·10)

where A .= -X(t

F
H
 208

This stress distribution approaches the stresses in a rectangular

section under pure torsion for large values of z. The stress components ~.z

and 1;z become zero at boundaries x =± a and y =± b respectively. Therefore

the lateral surface of the bar is free from forces and the boundary conditions

(9) are satisfied.

To determine the factor rn for use in the equations (10), the strain

energy of the bearn is considered and the value of rn determined to make this

energy a minimum. The strain energy per unit volume is given by

i ( rxx (~'j + ~~ç"Z"Z + ("LZ .()( )

~-z.:-)

For minimum strain energy,

Therefore

o. (12a)

From equation lO(A), by partial differentiation with respect torn,

-t E M'). e e....Jtr\'Z l ~- W\z.) . A

~ E M e e.-ti\"2. l, - ""'Z.)· B
-~ E Wl a e.-W\"&.(-:2.- M-z.). :o (\?>)

E e ëM% ( \- W\ -:z.) . H
 209

tL t""Q~;J ~ e. "".... VV\5 e'l. -"l.VY\ "Z..

e. 1
s- 'VV\'Z.) A "l...
,
and .:r
)1. ""'0VV\ ·-

~~ = ~ E..,_ W\~ G7.. e.-~>M"Z. ( '2.- Mz) D"l..

"Z. o'W\

- .Jr E.G e' rA e-\1\\'Z. (_"l. -YV\Z) D F

(14)
~ E..,_ W\5 e e(:2.>M 7_ 'Z. ( '2.- Y-v\ ·z-) ~'2-
+ J_"l.. E G "rv'\ e e i.. -'W\'Z /.
\.."2...- mz) :SC..
e.'l... vY\ e"l. e -J.w-. z.. ( \- 'l'vl '%) \1 '2-.
2 2 2 2
Equation (14) shows that A , D , DF, B , BC and H are squares and

products of expressions involving infinite series, but are functions of

x and y only and independent of z. Therefore integration with respect to z

can be carried out before evaluating the coefficients A~ etc.

-
-lJ{.
2 c;!

~
-4
'l..
t>
~

[~ j\('tl( ro~ + CCu.;~ z.1J.::i .. + ~'" raà~

j ()\'V\
.
= 0
VV\ )(
t'l.)t. -\- t'-:a:. "Z. 'Ot"Z.:z. )
'2..( H ...rj ""'bW\
~ -z.lj d')( dv
\J

(15)
Substituting from equation (14) into (15) and integrating with respect to z,
~ çà.

~ ~--[~b m'< H,_ + ~b ""'-(~..+D"-) + 4(_1....,.,(_\>c+DIO)+ ~)A}Ixd_~

-~ -\. == 0 (16)
2 2 2 2
Eva1uating A , B , D , BC, DF an.d H between the limits indicated in equation

(16) and substituting b = 10 inches and d = 15 inches, the following result:

~d~
= - '2. ~. ·4.'~ q ')( \ 0"3
\44
(17)

bsà.~ ~ \Oft:.
- - 9?:.7·5
'!,.bQ
 210

.,()

= - ~ lfi !Zo k, (~h+l)' Sin h (-:~." +!) ~

bl.. s.'\! \< S'iV\ (~Y\+\) ~(l. 4 \
+6 (ii)6 1 ('2-MI)~ \- l2-n+•j'-rrj
V'l-:.o
(-\)Y',
where
( 'l. V'l +\ 5' Co~ h (.'l- 'rH·I ) ~ \1)
The series converge very rapidly and therefore it will be sufficiently

accurate to consider the first three terms of the series.

Therefore - '2.1· ~~2.

oô

b~~ + b~<~'twJi ~. s,"~ (•,., ...')~

1'\-:.o

(J).. hfr~"+')rrJib+'2:S:·l'\~(."l~ +1) Ti~

o0

64{~ ~. \ 'l.h+l
- \,1l)LJk, l'lt~+l)lo 4Su, TT]
Vl:O

- \\3•95
2 3 2
Similarly c = 0.928 x 10 and F = 1.855. Substituting from equation (17)

into equation (16), and solving the fourth degree equation in m, the value

of mis

m = 0.2005 (18)

The strain energy stored in the bearn is given by

v
 211

..-..:2.. q-L.. 2
Substituting for rn, the values of Lxy' ~yz' ~zx and

are

= 2..1 ~· b E.,_ e~

"2. ~ "!> o9 ·1 E .,_ ê-.

1

Therefore total strain energy stored in the bearn is

y (19)
A1so the strain energy stored in the bearn is

v ~
- 2.. ~ (20)
where '{!= angle of rotation = 48 e, and

e = angle of rotation per unit length of the bearn

From equations (19) and (20)

~ ')( -:2...9,544 E
2
e*4.
= 1· Ç:,9 8 0 ')(. 10~ tv\t radians/ inch span. (21)

which gives the unit rotation for a bearn with the central section

prevented from warping. For a bearn with no constrained section, the

unit rotation can be worked out from the exact theory. The angle of

twist per unit length is given by

e
(kl = 0.196
for bd = 1. 5)

........
 2U

Therefore the effect of constraint is to increase the torsional

rigidity of the unreinforced section by 9~7 percent.

 2.13

APPENDIX D

RUSSIAN METHOD OF ULT]MATE LOAD ANALYSIS OF RECTANGULAR REINFORCED CONCRETE

SECTIONS SUBJECT TO COMBINED LOADINGS,

When a rectangular reinforced concrete section is subjected to

the action of combined torsion, bending moment and a shearing force, failure

occurs by rotation about an axis whose direction depends upon the relative

magnitudes of torsion, bending moment and the shearing force. The axis of

rotation can take three possible positions with respect to the sides of the

bearn. The rotational axis may intersect (1) both vertical sides, (2) both

horizontal sides and (3) one vertical and one horizontal side of the bearn.

In cases (1) and (2) the compression zone will be trapezoïdal

and in case (3) it will be triangular. In the former cases cracks open on

three faces of the bearn, the compression zone being situated near the fourt

face. In the latter case cracks open up on all faces which does not usually

occur in practice.

Case r. Ax~s of Rotation Crosses both Vertical Sides of the Bearn: The

rotational axis, which is also the neutral axis of the bearn, can be located

by means of 1) three parameters, 2) distances x and x from the top face

1
of the bearn to the points of intersection of the neutral axis with the
vertical sides of the bearn, and 3) the distance c which is the projection

of the length 1 of the rotational axis AB along the axis of the bearn (Fig.D.ù

The moment of the external forces normal to the cracked section is

M • (1)

where Mt and ~ are the twisting moment and the bending moment respectively,

The shearing force does not contribute to the moment of external forces
FIG. D.l. Details of forces on the cracked section.
(Case I - Axis of rotation crossing both vertical sides)

NOTE: The numbers indicate forces as follows:

1. Compressive force in concrete
2. Tensile force in longitudinal steel
3. Tensile force in horizontal branches of stirrups
4. Tensile force in vertical branches of stirrups

FIG. D.2. Details of forces on the cracked section

(Case II - Axis of rotation crossing both horizontal aides)
 215

because the shearing force does not act eccentrically with respect to the

rotational axis.

The resistance moment of the section assumed to be plane con-

sists of (a) moment due to normal compressive stresses in concrete

(trapezoidal zone):

RM • C Z
c max c

where C • compressive strength of concrete in flexure and

max
Z • statical moment of compressive zone ABED with respect
c
to axis AB

'Zt . c2 + b2
61
2 2
(x + x x + xl)
1

and therefore

RM
c
. c
max
c2 + b2
6l
2
1
2
(x + x x + x )
1
(2)

(b) moment due to forces in longitudinal reinforcement:

t< IV\t.= t.:;. A,. ( h0 - X+')(, )

"'l..
_Q.
.R. (3)

where t
y
.. yield point stress of steel reinforcement, and

A = cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel bars,

s

(c) moment due to forces in horizontal branches of stirrups:

(4)

where t
y.st = yield point stress of stirrup steel,

Ast • area of cross-section of one stirrup leg,

p • spacing of stirrups,

ec = distance parallel to the axis of the beam between the

points of intersection of cracks and the corners of

the beam located away ftom the compressive zone,

 216

a
1
= distance from the axis of the horizontal transverse rein-

forcement to the nearest edge of the bearn, and

(d) moment due to forces in the vertical branches of the stirrups:

R M~tv = t j·~~ ~'* { ( h -x) Cot_c;.< [ ~ C.oto< · ~ - fCÂ'l-}

+lh-"·) Coto<.C h ;_x, ~ 0(.. t - etJ -l:-} ~)
where = angle between the bearn axis and the direction of the crack

(on the vertical side of the bearn) (refer Fig.

a 2 "" distance from vertical transverse reinforcement axis to the

nearest edge of the bearn.

Substituting

The conditions of equilibrium require the externat moments acting

on a plane perpendicular to the neutra! axis to be equal to the internai

resistance moments. Multiplying both sides by 1, the equation can be

written as:

= C~y,OI)'(
C~
~1
b~ ( x ~ + ')(. )(.' + ')( 'l.)
1
+ 't.~·f""\s
1 A ( h0- 'X+'><I
- y) Tb
+ -\::~~ · A~r- · êc: (h -·o..,- X~')(,) I l7)
+ -t . ..&t.. c.2- (l-è)r:b 'l-e)Ch-')(s-...,(h-'><3-_al
:::1 s+. p T l 'l.. \. (.'lk -"><-x 1)'2.. ~
The parameters x and x enter symmetrically in equation (7). Therefore
1
if both sides are differentiated, first with respect to x and then to x ,
1
the right hand side has x replaced by x • The left hand side, being
1
independent of x or x reduces to zero on differentiation. Therefore
1
the results of differentiation with respect to x or x must be equal.
1
This will be true if and only if x = x 1• The equation (7) then reduces to
 217

l.
M.,. b-+ 1\'\t_.c "" c~c..)( (_c.").-\" b'~) ~ + .t~. A1:. (ho-)(.) b

+ t ••• t é2-{ e (~ -a.,-x)+(l-e)B (Hl) -o.J} L~)

Differentiating equation (8) with respect to x,

0 - t
y . A . b - t
s y.st p
ec 2 (9)

The value of~ can be determined from equation (9). Multiplying equation

(9) by ~ and subtracting the result from equation (8),

= ~~c~~ ~)
-t~-A.{h.- i +- b~1e(h-a,- ~)+ ~(1-a)(Hl- ~~\li)
where X = cM~~ ~~h).) ( b + Pe ~1.) (11)
The minimum value of e possible in practise is e• O. Experimenta have

confirmed that the cracks which open a three edges of the beam form a

continuous line. For practical purposes this line can be considered

to be approximate1y straight

The re fore
6 (13)

In equations (11) and (12) the on1y unknown is c which determines

the direction of the neutra1 axis. Theoretica11y the worst direction of

neutra1 axis would occur for minimum values of bending moment and twisting

moment (for a given relationship between bending moment and twisting

moment).
 218

The equation (11) can be written as

c)._
z + p~ bb
lY1t = 'V Mb = t~- A5 (14)
1
+ c
v b
where z - h
0 -z
x

4a
and y
- e x b
(h - al - 2) + 4 (l-e) (1-e- .,->
2
(15)

The values of y and z are little influenced by variations in x,

which in turn is dependent on c. Therefore y and z can be considered to

be independent of c approximately and dMt and ~ wi 11 be zero. By

de dC
differentia ting equation (8) and solving for c,

c.. 1
+ + 'Z h
b \J( P!; 'b (16)

The value of c given by equation (16) corresponds to the theoretically

minimum moments.

In most practical cases y can be approximately taken as

3 ~ e (~-o.,-~) ~ ez. (17)

Substituting for y in equat:lon (14) gives

:l

As. z. + pe ~h
Mt = 'V Mb - t.j· j_ ..... c. (14a)
""V{ b
and
b
c.
= --w 1
+ J .y~ + ;a. ~ (17a)

The order of ca1culations for a practica1 case is recommended as

fo1lows:

1) Determine e from equation 13,

2) Obtain C from equation 16,

3) Determine x and z using equations 12 and 15,

4) Calculate moments using equation 14a,

 219

Case II. Axis of Rotation Crosses both Horizontal Sides of the Bearn (Fig,D.Z)

The moment of the external forces normal to the cracked section is

-c1 + b c
V(--x)-
2 1
(18)

Since the axis of rotation is approximately parallel to the vertical side

of the bearn, the component of bending moment on the cracked section will be

negligible. The height of the compression zone according to this mode of

failure is comparatively small and therefore no appreciable error will be

introduced in assuming the section to be rectangular, The expressions for

moments due to internat forces will be similar to case I except that the

dimensions of cross-section of the bearn b and h get interchanged and the

area of the longitudinal reinforcement at the bottom of the bearn is substi-

tuted by the area of bars located at one side of the bearn (Fig.JD.2)

The quantities C and e for this mode of destruction get replaced by Cb and

eb. Equating externat and internai moments and multiplying by 1,

[tvt~ +V ( ~ -)()] cb = c.,.,Cl\.J( (cb,.-t- h1..) ~ -+- -t. A'!.b (b- a.b -')(.) h

+t~..- t'· c{Q»(_ 6-0.~-x)+ (1-e»)[~(l- Elb)- a.J} (\9)

Differentiating equation (19) with respect to x,

x
Multiplying equation (20) by 2 and subtracting from equation (19),

+ t~,.tc.•{ e»Cb-o..,_- >:,.)+(Ha»)[~ (1-e")- o~~o

Since x is very small, .2. )( ~ b
2.. L. 'l-
 220

(This approximation also increases the factor of safety).

If
Yb = (2.2)
~
then equation (21) can be written as

where
(t.s)
~b =

and

As in case I, eb can be approximately taken as

The worst values of Cb correspond to the conditions of minimum Mt or Q.

By differentiating and showing equation (24),

('2..8)

In most practical cases,

l-:Lb -;- '-') (approxima te ly)

and equation (24) gets reduced to the approximate formula

Vb =
'l..S
The order of calculations for this mode of failure is:

1) Determination of eb from equation (27)

 221

2) Evaluation of Cb from equation (29), followed by determination

of x from equation (26)

3) Calculation of Zb from equation (25)

4) Evaluation of Mt and Q using equation (24a).

ANALYSIS OF POSSIBLE MODES OF DESTRUCTION

An examination of equations (10) for the first mode of destruction

and equation (22) for the second indicates absence of moment component due

to shearing force and bending moment respectively. The destruction according

to the first mode occurs when the bending moment and twisting moment are

acting on the section, and shearing forces are absent or negligible. A

special case would be simple bending: Mt • 0, therefore""f • O. The other

case is pure twisting: ~ = 0 and 'f = oO

The second mode of failure prevails when section is acted upon by

a twisting moment and shearing force, bending moment being entirely absent

or negligible. A special case for this mode is a pure twisting moment

acting on the section, i.e, SF = 0, therefore ~ • O.

The limiting highest value of $ at which destruction according to

the second mode takes place can be determined by putting x • 0 in equation

(20):

Yc = ~0)

Substituting in equation (18) and simplifying the limiting value of ~

~TP .., b Clef ~1)

'-b -t re~b ~ :z.. \
'+ Qlb r"ti"i: · "b -
If the approximate method of analysis is used (equation 18a), the

value of given by

=
-1
 222

If f < ~' the failure of the beam can be expected from combined action of

twisting moment and shearing force, If b/ ~Ç>' the destruction of the bearn
can be attributed to combined bending and torsion.

If a bearn is subject to combined action of bending moment, twisting

moment and shearing force, it is difficult to determine the dominating factors

in advance. According to the first and second schemes, the limiting value of

'\ji;; ~ ~~)at which destruction occurs can be obtained by equating the

torques in equations (18) and (30):

=
~
7- -r f ~ -t-h
-zlo -\- ~to::l b ~
where ~Tf' is the limiting value of '\fJ.

=
(l -
( \-
ffb) '
fr~)
and
}
where lb and lt are distances defined in Fig.D.3.

If ~ <(~TP' failure can occur according to the first mode. If

"'{() 'tr,_then combined torsion and shear will be dominant in causing

destruction.

All the above assumption are based on a theoretical discussion by

Miss N,N. Lessig and have been confirmed experimentally.

,.,
 223

APPENDIX E

DESIGN OF THE FRAMES

Considerations in the selection of the dimensions of the frames

were: (a) the space available within the main screws of the testing machine

and (b) to have a twisting moment - bending moment ratio of 0.5. The prin-

cipal dimensions have been indicated in Fig.III.l. on page 44.

The test beams were designed for a maximum load of 20 kips at

an eccentricity of 15 inches.

A. Test beams: Ultimate compressive strength of concrete f '

c
= 4000 psi

Permissible flexural compressive stress .in concrete c = 0.45 f~ = 1800 psi

Permissible tensile stress in steel t = 20,000 psi.

The modular ratio n was assumed to be 8.

The neutral axis coefficient n and the lever arm coefficient a were
1 1

n = + 20000
~y. ,~00

= 0.418

and o.., = 1 - 0.418

3

= 0.861

The moment of resistance factor

2
Q = MR/bd
= Oo5 n,a,c

= 0.5 x 0.418 x 0.861 x 1800

= 323.9

Maximum Ben ding Moment,

20,000x96
M = 4
 224

= 480,000 in-lb.

Assuming b = 10 inches

d =
480z000
323.9xl0 ,,
1s', ·s
= 12. 18 inches
1
Adopt an overall section of 10xl5 inches,

Effective depth available ;yA

4 • i:tl ~SARS
= 15-2-0.5

= 12.5 inches FIG. E.l. Design Section

Details
Shearing force

V = 10,000 lbs.

Direct shearing stress

v
=bjd
(at middle of longer sides)
10,000
lOxO. 86lxl2. 5

= 92.8 psi

Torsional moment

M.r = 10, 000 x 15 = 150. 000 in-lbs.

Maximum torsional shear stress

= M.r(l5h+9b)
2 2
5b h
(at middle of longer sides)
10,000xl5(225+90)
= 5xl00x225

= 420 psi

The values of direct shear stress and the torsional shear stress

at the middle of the longer side are constant from the loading bracket to

the support. On the inside face of the girder torsion causes diagonal
 225

tension that must be combined with that resulting from direct vertical shear.

On the outside face it is sufficient to consider the difference between the

two stresses since the torsional shear stresses are opposite in sense to the

direct shear stresses.

Maximum shear stress on the inner face of the bearn

= 420 + 92.8
= 512.8 psi

The permissible shearing stress in a section with web reinforcement

= 0.12 fe'

= 480 psi

The maximum shear stress on the inside face exceeds the permissib1e

limit by a very sma11 amount. On the outer face the shear stress is within

permissible limita. Therefore the design section can be treated as satis•

factory. The distribution of shear

stress across the section is shown

in Fig.E.2.

From the Fig.E.2,

513
x = 840 x 10 = 6. 10
and x
392
y 840 x 10 = 4. 67 inches
FIG.E.2. Stress Distribution
It is sufficient to reinforce the inner face of the bearn for

the tensile force (represented by triangle ABC) and continue the same

reinforcement in the form of closed stirrups on all the faces of the

bearn.

The area of shear reinforcement required

[(392/2)x4.67]x48
= 20,000

= 2. 195 sq. ins

 226

Adopt 20 - No.3 stirrups (c1osed type) i.e. No.3 closed type stirrups at

2-3/8 inches centers.

The spacing of the stirrups was varied to study the effect of

transverse reinforcement on the ultimate strength of the bearn. The

spacing of No.3 stirrups adopted for various beams were as follows:

Bearn B = No web reinforcement

1
Bearn B
2 = No.3 stirrups at 6 inches centers

Bearn B = No.3 stirrups at 3 inches centers

3
Bearn B
4 = No.3 stirrups at 1-1/2 inches centers

B. Connecting beams and loading brackets:

The permissible stresses were reduced to

f = 1000 psi
c
and

t = 12,000 psi

to eliminate any chance of failure in these elements. These beams <Bs

and B6) were designed in accordance with standard design practices.

 227

APPENDIX F

PARTICULARS OF TEST BEAMS

FRAME NO,

BEAM NO, B1 B2 B3 B4

Depth of cross-section
D (inches) 15 15 15 15

Breadth of cross-section
b (inches) 10 10 10 10
Effective depth of main
reinforcement (ins.) 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5

Main reinforcement at bottom

A8 t (sq.ins.) 4-No,7 4-No,7 4-No,7 4-No,S

Support steel Ast (sq.ins.) 2-No.5 2-No.5 2-No.5

Depth of support steel below

top face (inches) 2.37 2. 37 2.37

Distance of main steel from

vertical force (inches) 2.5 2.25 2.25 2.25

Web reinforcement No.3 at No.3 at No.3 at

6 in.cen- 6 in.cen- 6 in.cen-
ters ters ters

Average distance between the

stirrup leg (vertical) and
vertical face of bearn a
(inches) 2 1.62 1. 62 1. 62

Average distance between the

stirrup legs (horizontal) and
horizontal face of the bearn
a (inches) 1. 69 1. 69 1. 69
1
Cylinder strength (6x12 inches) 4176 4176 4176 4176
 228

APPENDIX G

STRAIN GAGE APPLICATION

Strain Gage

The stress at any point in a component member of a structure cannot

be measured directly. However, it can be calculated from the strains that

this stress has produced, since for any material, the stress and strain have

a definite relationship which varies from material to material. Strain is

therefore a fundamental engineering phenomenon which exista in all matter at

all times due either to the externat loads or the weight of the matter itself.

Since the seventeenth century, considerable effort has been made

towards perfecting a universal strain gage. The following is the list of

characteristics that would be desired in an ideal strain gage.

1) Ability to indicate strains precisely under static or dynamic

conditions,

2) Small size and weight,

3) Ease of installation to the member being analysed,

4) Capability of remote observation and recording,

5) Independence of the influence of temperature, vibration, humidity,

6) Stability of calibration,

7) Linear response to strain,

8) Low cost,

9) Dependability and

10) The possibility of operation as an individual strain gage, or in

multiple arrangements for compound stresses.

Various mechanical, optical and electric strain gages have been

developed, satisfying as many of the above characteristics as possible. The

 229

best gage available to the stress analyst is the bonded wire resistance strain

gage,

The SR-4 strain gage consists of about 5 inches of 1-mil wire cemented

between two pieces of thin paper, which besides serving as a carrier for ease

in handling also acts as an insulation for the wires from the surface on which

it is to be bonded. The wire, in the form of a grid consisting of a series of

long parallel loops (Fig. G.l.), undergoes a linear variation of electric re-

sistance with strain, In most of the gages a protective layer of felt is used

to cover the top side of the gage.

It is necessary to use small diameter conductors in bonded wire strain

gages, because the force necessary to strain the sensing element must be

transmitted through its surface by shear in the cement or bonding agent, and

unless the surface area per unit length is large, the shear stress in the

cement will be too high to permit correct following of the strains in the

surface to which the conductor is attached.

Since a length of several inches

is usually needed to produce the total re-

r*"'
sistance, it is necessary to wind the wire r-- - - - - -l
______ J:
1
in sorne form of a grid to economize space. '
L--
~
Flat grids consisting of parallel straight
PLAN
portions of wire connected by semi-circu-

lar loops at the ends are used for gage

length of about 3/4 inch, Generally as Wl11!.E

SE.C.TIONAL YIE.W
gage length is decreased, the width in- FIG. G.l. SR-4, A-3 Strain Ga.ge
(not to scale)
creases and the gage factor (ratio of unit

change in resistance to change in strain) is slightly lowered, since part

of the wire of the grid will lie transversally and will therefore not respond
 230

to the strain in the direction of the gage axis. As the manufacturer

calibrates the different types of gages and furnishes the gage factor,

there is no inconvenience. Strain can be calculated from

E = U)

where E. ~ strain in the direction of gage axis,

6'-/L 1

unit change in resistance,

S
m
= manufacturer's gage factor.

The manufacturer usually calibrates the gages under uniaxial stress

conditions on material for which Poisson's Ratio= .285. If the gages are

used in a strain field for which Poisson's ratio is different from that of

calibration, there will be a slight error, which is generally less than 3%

and can be neglected.

Strain Gages Used in Experiment

Since this experiment was to be carried out at ordinary room tem-

perature, a paper base gage which is suitable up to temperature of 180°F

was used. The strain conditions expected in the beams and other test spec-

imens were of two types:

(a) Uniaxial (steel bars, concrete cylinders and test beams where

the strain field is uniaxial),

(b) Biaxial strain with principal axes not known (test beams),

and therefore SR-4, A-3 and AR-2 types of gages, manufactured

by Baldwin-Leme-Hamilton Corporation,were selected to cater

for the two .strain conditions.

The AR-2 rosette is a rectangular rosette, consisting .of three

 231

linear gages, in which one gage is mounted on top of another to cover a smaller

area, Since all the gages are in one plane, more accurate results are obtained

in a region in which strain is varying,

It is a tedious job to determine the strain at a point by directly

measuring the change of resistance of the sensing element and multiplying by t;he

gage factor to obtain unit strain. However, a Baldwin type L strain indicator

available in the testing laboratory permitted the direct reading of unit strains

to the nearest micro-inch,

The Baldwin type L strain indicator operates on a Wheatstone Bridge

principle. The instrument accomodates four externat bridge arms and possesses

a gage factor adjustment dial, range extenders and a balancing slide wire such

that a total continuous range of 62,000 micro-inches per inch is available.

The unit is powered by self contained batteries which can be checked period-

ically by a battery-check switch, and a meter which also serves as the null

indicating deviee for the null system. The balance dial can be read directly

in micro-inches per inch if calibration conditions are maintained. Stated

briefly, the calibration conditions of the instrument are:

1) Static strains,

2) A single active element,

3) Temperature compensation with a dummy gage,

4) Both gages of 120 ohm resistance (gage on test specimen and the

dummy gage),

5) Gage factor dial set correctly,

6) Steel of Poisson's Ratio 0.285,

7) Uniaxial stress field,

8) Batteries which are "freshn,

9) Total balance of indicator,

 232

10) Short 1ead 1engths and

11) The internat resistances in the indicator used to complete the

bridge.

Application of Strain Gages

The application of strain gages to the surface of test specimens

involves two operations:

(a) Surface preparation and cleaning, and

(b) Gage installation.

The surface upon which the strain gage is to be mounted must be

reasonably smooth and even, and free from pits, deep tool marks, or deep

scratches. A high degree of polish is also undesirable, since it will not

permit a good adhesion.

Application of Strain Gages used in Experiment

The forms in which the frames were casted were stripped one week

after concreting, the curing operations continuing for another week. The

frames were then allowed to dry for a week's time, The cylinders and the

flexure beams casted from the same batches of concrete as the frames were

similar1y cured. Although moisture could not be expe1led completely from

the concrete members in such a short interval of time, the possibility of

excessive moisture changes after a week was negligible. However, any

effects of moisture changes on the gages on the test specimen were elimi-

nated by the compensating gage incorporated in the circuit of the strain

gage indicator.

The sides and the bottoms of the beams were very smooth. The

surface areas where the gages were to be installed were ground with fine

emery cloth. The top-sides of the frames, however, were not even and
 233

smooth and had to be ground by a power sander, followed by grinding with

medium and fine grades of emery cloth. The surfaces obtained in both cases

were brushed and cleaned with acetone.

The corresponding surface of the steel bars and stirrups were

filed to eliminate the deformations and obtain a smooth surface for gage

application. These prepared surfaces were protected by cork-pieces with

curved recesses to house the bar and to permit an easy approach to them

after the forms had been stripped. The cork pieces were later easily

removed, but it was necessary to grind the steel surface to eliminate the

rust it had accumulated during the period of curing.

A liberal coat of SR-4 cement was applied to the gage and to a

slightly larger area of the specimen where the gage was to be installed.

The gage was placed gently into the cement, pressed down lightly and the

excess cement under the gage removed by a rolling motion of the finger.

The gages were then held in place by thumb or finger for a period of about

45 seconds, after which the gage remained in place. The A-3 gages were

easier to install than AR-2, which necessitated special care to avoid the

curling of corners. The installed gages were left overnight to dry in

ordinary room conditions of temperature and humidity.

To cancel the effects of temperature and humidity, an A-3 gage

from the same lot (lot No.31) was applied to a concrete cylinder to provide

a durnmy gage for use when reading strains in the concrete. A similar gage

was installed on one of the steel tendons to obtain a dummy gage for use

in the indicator circuit while reading the strain gages on the steel bars and

stirrups.
 234

Lead Wires and Their Attachment

The wiring selected was number 20 solid wire, plastic insulated and

suitable for simple applications in the laboratory. The leads were attached

to the gages by soldered joint connections. A small loop was formed at the

end of each lead. The wire leads from the gage were threaded through these

loops ~ given a few turns to secure them mechanically and soldered

at a low heat by a touch of the iron. The soldering had to be quick to avoid

prolonged heating of the gage lead which could lead to the break of the

connection between the lead wire and the sensing element. After all the

connections were completed, each circuit was tested seperately with an ohm-

meter, Two defective gages were discovered in frame F , and had to be

1
replaced.

The lead wires were fastened down with tape to avoid the breaking

of wire leads off the gages, and also to avoid relative displacement between

the leads as this would have caused capacitance effects leading to errors

in case of an AC circuit. Furthermore the loose leads could also have been

subjected to changes in stress (very often due to their own weight) which

could have produced resistance changes in the leads which cannot be isolated

from those occurring in the gage and therefore tend to give false indication

of strain. A small loop of wire was left at the junction with the gage in

order to prevent a sudden pull (particularly during installation) from being

transmitted and perhaps causing damage to the gage.

Gage Circuits

It was decided to analyse the stresses in concrete and steel as

completely as possible at two sections in each bearn of frame F . Therefore

1
two sections were selected on one side of the plane of symmetry to apply
 235

strain gages to the concrete, and two sections detailed on the other side for

installing gages on the steel bars and stirrups.

Linear A-3 gages were attached to the concrete near the top and bottom

of the section in a horizontal position and at the mid-height of the bearn in a

vertical position, since a uniaxial stress condition was expected at each of

these points. At the points intermediate between those defined above, and at

the middle of the top-sides of the beams, a biaxial state of stress was ex-

pected and therefore AR-2 type rosettes were used. Similarly linear A-3 gages

were installed at predetermined points on the longitudinal bars and the middle

of the sides of stirrups at selected sections.

The gages were grouped into seven circuits, one for the strain gages

on the steel and the rest for those on the concrete' with a maximum of 21 gages

in any circuit. The division of gages into circuits facilitated the use of

the appropriate concrete or steel dummy gage. Each circuit was connected to

a 21 point male Jone's plug. A 21 point fema1e Jone's p1ug was connected to

the strain-indicator through a 21 point si1ver tipped selector switch. The

male plug of the circuit, selected to be read, was connected to the strain

indicator through the selector switch circuit. The gages were then read one

at a time, with the aid of the selector switch, The male plug for a particular

circuit was with-drawn from the female plug as soon as all its gages had been

read. The entire operation was repeated using the male plug of another cir-

cuit, It was tedious to change from one circuit to another as it was nec-

essary to be very cautious about the wooden lever arms (for rotational

measurements) while changing from one circuit to another. It would have

simplified the operations if another selector switch could have been used

for the seven circuits besides the existing one for the gages (in a partic-

ular circuit).
 236

In frame F , no gages were used on the concrete, but gages were

2
installed on the steel bars at points identical to frame F .
1

The layout of the strain gages is detailed in the Appendix O.

 237

APPENDIX H.

STRAIN GAGE AND DIAL GAGE READINGS

The strain gage readings for various cases of loading (ref.Chapter V.

Section B) are detailed in Tables H.l. to H.7. The dial gage readings

are given in Tables H.8. to H.l4.

 TABLE H.l.

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE I.

1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
101 003 007 012 016 020 025 030 035 040 043 045
102 002 007 014 021 027 032 038 045 052 059 065
103 006 012 017 023 029 035 040 047 050 058 065
104 ·004 008 ·012 016 ·022 027 ·032 038 044 051 058
105 000 000 001 002 005 ·007 010 012 014 017 020
106 002 004 007 010 013 015 020 023 026 029 026
107 000 000 002 005 008 010 010 013 016 018 019
108 005 017 027 039 051 063 073 079 089 099 105
109 001 001 003 005 007 007 011 015 017 017 017
110 000 002 007 012 018 022 029 034 036 042 048
111 000 002 002 010 013 019 024 029 034 040 046
112 008 017 048 061 076 088 103 117 131 147 163
113 005 017 037 052 068 083 103 116 131 143 155
114 004 008 013 015 019 021 023 026 029 032 035
115 005 013 023 028 033 037 043 049 056 064 073
116 002 002 007 012 014 016 020 024 025 032 035
117 005 015 022 028 032 037 042 046 051 055 061
118 -003 -003 -006 -012 -019 -025 -033 -039 -046 -054 -056
119 -030 -050 -070 -090 -115 -140 -165 -180 -205 -224 -238

N
l>l
Cf.,
 TABLE H. 1. (Cont 'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO- INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE I.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

201 000 001 004 008 009 012 016 019 022 027 032
202 -002 -005 -009 -013 -017 -021 -025 -030 -035 -039 -045
203 000 002 004 007 010 013 015 015 017 020 022
204 003 018 029 036 043 050 058 066 071 079 088
205 -007 -013 -016 -019 -022 -028 -034 -041 -044 -050 -057
206 002 005 007 009 009 011 012 012 012 018 020
207 007 013 027 043 057 070 085 100 118 135 140
208 000 001 007 027 025 025 037 037 038 045 055
209 -002 -004 -006 -009 -012 -015 -017 -020 -022 -024 -023
210 000 -005 -008 -010 -013 -012 -015 -017 -017 -020 -023
211 -004 -008 -013 -016 -019 -019 -024 -028 -028 -035 -039
212 017 020 036 037 050 065 075 090 105 120 135
213 013 020 026 031 035 040 045 052 060 065 070
214 -005 -009 -009 -012 -020 -023 -027 -032 -039 -047 -044
215 -001 -003 -007 -009 -009 -011 -014 -015 -017 -020 -035
216 002 005 010 014 019 020 025 030 030 037 044
217 016 024 034 044 044 055 066 081 095 098 105
218 000 001 003 007 008 008 012 017 022 027 030

'"'"
1.>>
\0
 TABLE H. L (Cont 1 d)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE I.

1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
301 003 006 008 011 013 018 023 028 033 036 041
302 001 002 005 009 012 015 018 022 026 031 037
303 -on -021 -031 -038 -050 ~061 -064 -076 -081 -096 -109
304 003 007 010 013 015 015 020 023 026 032 038
305 020 020 003 008 013 018 023 027 031 036 040
306 -002 -004 -007 -010 -013 -017 -022 -022 -027 -030 -035
307 -003 -006 -011 -016 -021 -024 -029 -034 -039 -047 -055
308 002 005 010 013 016 020 024 030 032 036 042
309 -005 -009 -013 -016 -021 -026 -032 -037 -045 -053 -061
310 000 000 003 006 009 013 014 020 020 022 025
311 005 009 012 015 019 022 026 029 036 039 043
312 -002 -006 -011 -015 -020 -023 -027 -031 -032 -037 -040
313 -002 -009 -012 -016 -020 -022 -027 -032 -038 -044 -052
314 000 -005 -010 -014 -021 -024 -026 -029 -032 -038 -044
315 -005 -019 -032 -039 -046 -052 -059 -069 -079 -089 -096
316 -002 -003 -007 -010 -013 -013 -016 -019 -021 -023 -025
317 001 003 006 010 012 015 023 028 033 038 042
318 -002 -005 -008 -010 -010 -015 -018 -020 -023 -026 -030
319 021 029 037 046 055 065 075 087 107 130 149
320 001 003 005 005 006 008 010 012 013 015 015
321 002 004 007 012 014 019 024 029 029 034 039

M
~
0
 TABLE H.l. (Cont'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO- INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE I.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

401 008 010 020 029 038 048 058 068 078 085." 093
402 000 005 010 022 028 036 045 053 060 067 074
403 -003 -013 -021 -028 -036 -041 -048 -053 -060 -068 -078
404 003 006 008 013 017 020 023 027 030 036 041
405 006 012 038 088 101 111 160 202 643 730 1122
406 -010 -017 -022 -027 -031 -035 -039 -043 -043 -048 -052
407 -007 -013 -026 -041 -046 -056 -062 -073 -095 -109 -117
408 -001 -003 -007 -011 -015 -017 -019 -027 -031 -035 -039
409 -003 -005 -008 -014 -014 -024 -035 -051 -080 -095 -115
410 -007 -019 -027 -035 -040 -051 ~061 -070 -078 -086 -096
411 -010 -027 -035 -047 -059 -070 -083 -096 -109 -124 -148
412 -001 -003 -003 -005 -007 -10 -010 -011 -013 -015 -018
413 -005 -012 -021 -031 -041 -058 -071 -082 -092 -103 -114
414 -002 -016 -023 -028 -034 -040 -045 -050 -057 -063 -070
415 -003 -007 -014 -018 -028 -036 -043 -045 -052 -057 -067
416 006 008 012 015 017 020 023 028 031 036 041
417 -001 -004 -006 -009 -012 -017 -022 -026 -029 -034 -039
418 -002 -004 -006 -007 -009 -012 -016 -019 -022 -027 -031
419 000 008 022 035 045 055 067 080 093 108 123
420 002 007 010 015 025 025 030 035 043 050 060
421 006 011 018 026 032 038 044 052 060 067 076

N
+="-
t-'
 TABLE H.l. (Cont'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO- INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F l CASE I.

STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)

GAGE NO.
2 4 6· 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

501 006 015 029 043 057 069 081 092 104 113 127
502 000 005 010 015 020 026 032 040 045 051 057
503 001 006 011 016 022 029 033 038 043 048 054
504 -002 -004 -005 -005 -008 -008 -010 -012 -014 -017 -020
505 -002 -005 -005 -008 -010 -012 -015 -020 -022 -027 -030
506 000 -002 -004 -007 -009 -011 -013 -015 -017 -019 -021
507 003 -006 -010 -013 -016 -020 -024 -027 -030 -034 -038
508 -009 -015 -018 -020 -027 -032 -032 -034 -044 -049 -052
509 -013 -023 -042 -053 -063 -07 5 -083 -091 -108 -118 -139
510 000 000 003 032 033 040 045 050 050 054 060
511 -001 -002 -004 -005 -006 -009 -013 -021 -031 -038 -045
512 -020 -047 -058 -076 -092 -110 -135 -0158 -188 -210 -239
513 -011 -020 -036 -049 -071 -091 -111 -134 -166 -189 -213
514 -001 -003 -005 -009 -012 -015 -020 -025 -030 -035 -040
515 000 -005 -010 -012 -015 -020 -025 -030 -034 -038 -042
516 -012 -023 -033 -041 -055 -067 -078 -091 -105 -120 -135
517 -002 -006 -010 -014 -020 -024 -028 -033 -038 -043 -045
518 020 -002 -007 -011 -016 -021 -028 -033 -031 -039 -051
519 003 004 005 007 012 016 020 026 032 036 038
520 007 015 023 029 034 040 047 053 060 068 075
521 010 022 034 046 055 065 077 090 100 113 125

·~
p..
N
 TABLE H.l. (Cont'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE I.

1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
601 006 015 022 030 038 ·049 062 070 078 095 105
602 000 -002 -007 -011 -015 -018 -024 -028 -031 -035 -037
603 000 002 007 012 016 018 022 022 030 037 035
604 002 004 009 017 024 034 041 049 054 061 069
605 004 008 010 012 016 016 018 021 024 027 030
606 -005 -010 -018 -025 -032 -039 -045 -053 -060 -067 -07 5
607 -004 -012 -017 -026 -034 -042 -052 -062 -072 -084 -090
608 -002 -004 -005 -008 -Oll -014 -018 -022 -022 -025 -025
609 -012 -029 -032 -040 -04'6 -055 -065 -079 -090 -102 -102
610 002 006 008 027 030 034 038 043 050 050 060
6ll 003 007 011 018 030 038 038 043 050 057 065
612 -020 -032 -029 -018 -040 -021 -048 -060 -072 -085 -100
613 -010 -018 -025 -035 -044 -056 -069 -083 -096 -110 -124
614 -005 -011 -016 -022 -029 -035 -042 -052 -062 -072 -082
615 -005 -010 -015 -021 -027 -035 -042 -052 -060 -079 -083
616 002 004 006 010 012 015 018 022 026 030 033
617 -003 -006 -010 -015 -021 -026 -030 -034 -036 -041 -046
618 000 000 001 002 008 013 018 023 028 035 041
619 -012 -020 -027 -030 -038 -047 -051 -056 -062 -078 -088
620 000 007 008 012 016 021 027 032 037 042 045
621 008 018 030 066 078 083 096 099 101 108 108

N
+""
I,.V
 TABLE H.l. (Cont' d)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE I.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
701 002 006 010 017 023 028 034 040 043 051 058
702 -002 -005 -005 -008 -010 -012 -012 -010 -014 -018 -022
703 -002 -004 -007 -010 -012 -015 -018 -023 -026 -030 -035
704 000 001 003 005 008 012 015 018 024 030 038
705 -002 -005 -008 -Oll -016 -018 -022 -025 -028 -032 -036
706 -003 -006 -010 -013 -018 -023 -030 -030 -035 -040 -045
707 -003 -006 -010 -013 -017 -021 -027 -030 -035 -043 -046
708 000 -002 -003 -005 -007 -010 -012 -015 -015 -018 -022
709 -003 -009 -011 -013 -016 -026 -026 -036 -039 -048 -047
710 -002 -005 -010 -015 -020 -027 -035 -040 -048 -054 -060
7ll -006 -013 -021 -029 -037 -045 -053 -063 -072 -081 -083
712 iOOO 000 008 018 026 030 033 036 039 043 046
713 -003 -008 -015 -020 -025 -032 -039 -045 -050 -055 -057
714 -004 -008 -012 -015 -018 -021 -025 -034 -036 -041 -041
715 -017 -025 -027 -029 -029 -037 -037 -049 -055 -067 -069
716 -002 -006 -010 -014 -018 -022 -027 -032 -037 -042 -042
717 -007 -009 -014 -019 -024 -029 -034 -039 -045 -051 -057
718 -002 -005 -008 -Oll -017 -020 -023 -026 -030 -034 -038
719 005 015 030 061 066 07 5 088 115 122 128 132
720 000 003 008 011 013 015 018 021 025 028 028
721 004 008 012 017 023 028 033 038 038 048 060

N
.p.
.p.
 TABLE H.2.

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

101 006 010 014 018 022 027 032 038 045 052
102 006 010 016 028 032 038 046 051 056 063
103 003 006 012 020 020 023 029 037 045 054
104 -002 -005 -009 -015 -019 -023 -030 -037 -040 -044
105 -002 -005 -008 -006 -005 -007 -008 -010 -011 -013
106 002 004 006 009 014 018 022 025 027 030
107 002 002 004 oo·6 009 012 014 015 016 016
108 000 002 013 017 038 050 059 066 087 099
109 001 001 002 004 004 004 006 006 008 011
llO 002 004 016 016 029 032 035 035 041 041
111 002 003 003 005 009 014 019 025 033 041
112 002 006 020 034 059 074 086 100 130 146
113 008 017 022 029 037 047 056 071 089 107
114 002 004 007 010 014 017 022 028 033 038
115 006 013 020 027 034 041 049 050 065 073
116 002 005 008 011 013 016 019 023 026 030
117 004 008 012 015 020 025 031 038 043 050
118 -004 -008 -012 -015 -021 -029 -034 -041 -049 -057
119 000 000 -016 -021 -038 -058 -075 -090 -109 -144

N
+""'
V'
 TABLE H.2. (Cont!d)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIFS)
GAGE NO.
22 24 26 28 3.0 3.2 3.4 . 3.6 3.8 40
101 052 062 073 093 117 137 164 190 195 204
102 065 080 113 167 194 199 343 404 447 503
103 064 075 085 095 106 134 304 398 460 543
104 -058 -071 -085 -099 -116 -133 -151 -156 -158 -168
105 -015 -016 -020 -025 -045 -056 -064 -080 -086 -104
106 033 045 057 069 081 093 106 123 141 157
107 018 020 042 088 102 113 164 174 179 186
108 115 143 194 270 303 321 386 421 439 361
109 016 024 035 047 059 070 082 103 125 130
110 043 043 044 067 069 105 100 111 113 118
111 050 056 066 083 100 117 136 156 144 134
112 170 209 252 337 390 428 516 572 625 694
113 123 140 182 237 283 314 402 474 515 565
114 044 050 057 065 075 086 111 121 145 177
115 078 092 105 144 175 201 268 296 314 307
116 034 043 052 069 068 088 146 224 324 471
117 060 071 078 083 093 104 116 129 150 140
118 -066 -076 -087 -100 -114 -137 -151 -166 -182 -197
119 -174 -211 -234 -261 -306 -331 -358 -391 -427 -461

N
+·
"'
 TABlE H.2. (Cont 'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO- INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
z 4 6 s 10 12 14 16 18 20
201 003 007 012 017 021 025 031 035 040 045
202 -002 -005 -008 -012 -015 -018 -022 -025 -029 -033
203 007 003 005 007 010 012 015 018 022 026
204 005 010 024 034 044 055 067 080 094 108
205 -003 -007 -011 -015 -020 -025 -030 -036 -043 -051
206 004 008 013 018 023 028 034 041 047 050
207 008 020 032 044 057 071 085 098 113 128
208 -010 -004 -001 003 006 010 014 017 021
209 -002 -004 -006 -010 -015 -020 -025 -031 -037 -043
210 -003 -007 -Oll -015 -019 -024 -029 -035 -040 -046
211 000 -004 -008 -012 -016 -020 -024 -028 -032 -037
212 002 010 023 034 047 061 076 092 109 125
213 005 015 024 030 038 045 053 060 068 076
214 -012 -020 -027 -034 -042 -050 -058 -066 -075 -084
215 -003 -006 -009 -013 -017 -021 -026 -031 -037 -043
216 002 005 008 011 015 019 024 029 034 039
217 013 013 028 043 059 075 094 110 128 146
218 004 006 010 015 020 026 032 038 044 050

N
.{:'-
-.)
 TABLE H.2. (Cont 'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
201 051 057 063 070 077 084 092 099 107 113
202 -037 -041 -045 -050 -055 -060 -067 -074 -085 -102
203 030 034 038 043 048 053 058 065 073 084
204 122 136 152 168 184 201 218 204 198 180
205 -059 -067 -075 -083 -091 -101 -lll -123 -135 -144
206 056 060 068 074 083 092 101 113 096 081
207 143 158 174 187 202 217 231 247 263 258
208 025 031 038 047 051 058 066 072 080 088
209 -049 -055 -062 -069 -076 -077 -089 -093 -098 -104
210 -051 -057 -063 -069 -076 -083 -091 -100 -108 -117
211 -042 -047 -053 -059 -066 -073 -081 -090 -092 -089
212 141 158 175 192 210 229 250 245 248 242
213 085 095 105 116 126 138 150 163 175 188
214 -093 -101 -110 -118 -126 -140 -154 -168 -182 -202
215 -049 -056 -064 -07 5 -089 -105 -123 -143 -155 -177
216 044 050 056 061 066 072 079 086 093 103
217 166 197 209 222 245 268 292 317 340 375
218 056 063 070 077 084 093 103 110 126 129

N
~
00
 TABLE H.2. (Cont'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
301 003 007 011 014 018 022 026 030 035 040
302 003 007 010 014 017 020 024 027 031 035
303 -002 -004 -016 -027 -039 -050 -071 -090 -108 -123
304 003 007 013 019 025 031 037 044 057 060
305 003 007 012 018 024 030 037 044 051 058
306 -002 -004 -007 -010 -013 -016 -020 -024 -028 -032
307 -004 -010 -016 -023 -030 -035 -042 -049 -060 -068
308 002 005 010 015 020 026 032 038 044 050
309 -003 -008 -012 -016 -021 -026 -031 -036 -041 -046
310 003 006 009 012 015 018 021 024 028 032
311 003 008 012 016 020 025 030 035 040 045
312 -002 -006 -010 -013 -017 -020 -024 -027 -031 -035
313 -002 -005 -009 -013 -018 -024 -030 -036 -043 -059
314 -003 -007 -011 -016 -021 -026 -030 -034 -038 -042
315 -005 -012 -022 -032 -042 -054 -066 -078 -090 -102
316 000 000 -004 -007 -010 -014 -018 -022 -026 -029
317 000 000 -006 -013 -020 -027 -034 -041 -048 -055
318 -002 -005 -009 -013 -017 -021 -026 . -031 -036 -041
319 002 005 010 028 045 062 079 103 121 139
320 000 000 000 000 -002 -003 -005 -007 -009 -010
321 002 007 011 014 017 020 023 027 031 035

N
.p.
1.0
 TABLE H.2. (Cont'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

301 045 050 056 061 068 073 079 080 080 073
302 039 044 049 056 062 067 075 067 062 052
303 -137 -157 -165 -179 -193 -207 -223 -244 -264 -294
304 067 074 081 088 096 102 111 120 130 138
305 065 073 081 089 097 106 115 117 119 115
306 -036 -041 -046 -052 -058 -064 -071 -078 -091 -106
307 -075 -082 -089 -097 -105 -112 -120 -129 -143 -161
308 067 074 082 088 095 102 110 104 104 091
309 -051 -057 -063 -068 -074 -081 -088 -097 -107 -115
310 036 039 044 048 052 058 064 069 065 053
311 050 056 062 068 074 083 093 102 105 113
312 -041 -047 -053 -059 -067 -075 -083 -109 -122 -137
313 -057 -065 -073 -081 -089 -098 -108 -118 -127 -138
314 -046 -052 -058 -065 -072 -082 -092 -102 -107 -094
315 -117 -132 -147 -162 -177 -195 -214 -242 -259 -284
316 -034 -040 -046 -054 -062 -071 -072 -083 -095 -112
317 -062 -072 -097 -207 -305 -452 -902 -1403 -1583 -1950
318 -047 -053 -059 -065 -072 -080 -092 -117 -131 -171
319 157 17 5 193 211 226 240 225 212 215 212
320 -012 -014 -014 -014 -016 -018 -020 -047 -057 -090
321 039 044 049 054 059 066 072 068 064 048

N
VI
0
 TABLE H.2. (Cont 'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) ··· FRAME F CASE II.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
401 003 009 016 024 032 042 052 064 076 089
402 002 008 013 018 023 029 035 041 047 054
403 000 -003 -009 -016 -024 -032 -040 -048 -058 -067
404 002 008 012 017 022 027 032 038 044 050
405 003 008 013 019 026 034 043 053 068 893
406 -005 -008 -012 -016 -020 -025 -030 -035 -041 -046
407 -004 -010 -018 -031 -047 -062 -073 -085 -104 -122
408 -003 -006 -012 -019 -025 -031 -038 -046 -052 -059
409 -004 -008 -016 -025 -036 046 -059 -073 -087 -102
410 -004 -010 -018 -026 -034 -042 -051 -060 -069 -079
411 -002 -005 -013 -023 -038 ··053 -069 -085 -103 -162
412 -001 -003 -006 -010 -014 -019 -024 -028 -ü33 -038
413 -005 -015 -024 -033 -043 -054 -066 -078 -090 -102
414 -003 -008 -014 -020 -027 -034 -042 -049 -056 -064
415 000 -001 -011 -021 -031 -041 -051 -061 -071 -081
416 000 000 000 005 013 018 023 02? 032 040
417 000 000 -004 -009 -009 -014 -022 -030 -038 -047
418 000 000 -008 -013 -017 -022 -026 -031 -034 -039
419 007 019 032 041 051 061 073 086 099 114
420 000 002 005 010 015 020 026 032 039 046
421 004 009 015 021 027 033 039 046 053 060

N
V'l
t-'
 TABLE H.2. (Co·at 'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INC) - FRAME F CASE IL

1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
401 098 108 123 138 154 170 197 214 215 207
402 060 066 073 080 086 093 101 112 123 122
403 -079 -091 -103 -115 -129 -143 -159 -170 -181 -174
404 060 082 109 137 160 189 293 282 290 312
405 1491 g ag e s t o p p e d f u n c t i o n i n g
406 -052 -059 -066 -073 -081 -089 -098 -113 -128 -214
407 -142 -167 -17 6 -194 -205 -226 -244 -264 -286 -329
408 -066 -075 -084 -092 -096 -104 -114 -112 -107 -097
409 -117 -132 -148 -164 -183 -203 -223 -248 -271 -301
410 -091 -105 -121 -136 -151 -167 -182 -198 -214 -230
411 -189 -242 -292 -345 -390 -430 -451 -495 -520 -583
412 -046 -055 -063 -072 -084 -100 -120 -141 -162 -181
413 -115 -128 -140 -153 -167 -181 -198 -215 -235 -262
414 -070 -077 -085 -093 -102 -110 -118 -128 -140 -155
415 -091 -101 -111 -141 -168 -186 -201 -239 -260 -311
416 057 080 110 215 255 320 444 .572 610 710
417 -056 -087 -102 -179 -262 -322 -387 -449 -469 -528
418 -045 -051 -057 -064 -072 -081 -090 -097 -115 -140
419 128 142 158 174 186 211 232 348 366 1289
420 053 061 069 077 085 108 140 168 187 215
421 067 074 083 091 099 105 113 109 105 098

N
\.ll
~-,.;
 TABLE H.2. (f:ont' d\

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
501 013 020 032 043 052 062 075 084 097 112
502 004 010 015 019 021 028 035 040 046 051
503 004 010 016 022 030 038 046 054 062 069
504 000 -002 -002 -007 -010 -012 -016 -020 -024 -027
505 000 -002 -008 -012 -018 -024 -030 -034 -040 -046
506 000 000 -006 -009 -012 -016 ·-021 -025 -028 -032
507 -002 -005 -010 -015 -020 -025 -030 -034 -039 -043
508 -002 -006 -012 -015 -020 -024 -029 -035 -041 -048
509 -005 -010 -023 -039 -048 -055 -070 -085 -088 -llO
510 002 004 008 012 015 019 023 027 032 037
Sll 000 000 -010 -014 -018 -022 -026 -032 -038 -045
512 -004 -010 -025 -042 -059 -078 -101 -118 -143 -170
513 -009 -013 -025 -038 -054 -077 -095 -120 -142 -171
514 -003 -009 -015 -021 -027 -032 -038 -044 -051 -057
515 -002 -005 -010 -014 -018 -022 -027 -031 -037 -043
516 -004 -013 -021 -028 -038 -047 -057 -068 -079 -090
517 -005 -010 -017 -024 -032 -040 -048 -056 -062 -070
518 -002 -005 -010 -016 -022 -028 -036 -044 -052 -061
519 ·002 ·004 007 ·010 ·013 018 \021 ·024 028 032
520 004 009 015 022 029 037 044 052 060 068
521 008 012 022 033 044 056 067 081 094 106

N
Ln
w
 TABLE H.2. (Cont 'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO,
22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
501 127 139 147 162 178 194 210 221 221 216
502 057 065 072 078 084 088 095 101 102 107
503 077 085 094 105 117 130 138 148 158 168
504 -033 -039 -044 -049 -055 -062 -065 -072 -077 -081
505 -052 -062 -070 -080 -092 -llO -128 -143 -159 -175
506 -036 -041 -047 -053 -061 -069 -078 -088 -101 -116
507 -049 -055 -062 -070 -078 -088 -098 -107 -lB -117
508 -057 -065 -072 -079 -086 -095 -106 -119 -133 -153
509 -120 -145 -149 -152 -169 -197 -220 -245 -270 -300
510 043 049 056 063 069 077 085 076 076 068
511 -053 -061 -069 -078 -088 -100 -113 -126 -140 -156
512 -194 -220 -246 -280 -309 -339 -372 -412 -432 -490
513 -205 -237 -268 -310 -345 -382 -422 -467 -515 -565
514 -063 -069 -076 -083 -091 -099 -105 -114 -124 -139
515 -049 -055 -062 -068 -075 -083 -091 -091 -097 -097
516 -102 -114 -129 -144 -161 -181 -206 -236 -276 -318
517 -078 -086 -096 -105 -117 -128 -140 -158 -172 -194
518 -073 -081 -090 -099 -108 -1ll -123 -122 -120 -124
519 036 040 045 050 055 060 066 072 072 070
520 077 085 094 103 113 124 136 149 154 152
521 117 131 145 160 175 190 208 226 231 231

f',.;)
Vl
+=-
 TABLE H.2. (Cont'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) -FRAME F CASE II.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
601 001 010 016 023 031 043 055 068 083 098
602 -002 -006 -Oll -015 -018 -023 -027 -031 ·035 -040
603 000 000 003 006 010 014 019 024 030 036
604 003 008 012 018 024 031 039 047 056 066
605 -003 -004 -010 -015 -017 -022 -027 -030 -035 -040
606 -002 -007 -012 -018 -026 -034 -043 -052 -061 -070
607 000 000 -007 -014 -020 -028 -036 -046 -057 -068
608 -001 -003 -006 -009 -012 -015 -019 -024 -028 -033
609 -007 -012 -020 -030 -041 -052 -064 -076 -089 -102
610 002 005 009 014 020 025 030 036 042 048
611 002 005 008 011 016 021 026 031 037 043
612 -014 -024 -033 -043 -054 -065 -077 -089 -102 -115
613 -007 -014 -023 -032 -044 -056 -070 -086 -101 -118
614 -004 -010 -016 -023 -031 -039 -049 -059 -070 -081
615 -004 -009 -015 -021 -029 -038 -048 -058 -068 -080
616 002 005 009 013 017 022 027 032 037 042
617 004 009 015 021 028 035 043 051 059 067
618 001 003 007 012 018 024 030 037 044 052
619 -004 -012 -020 -028 -036 -044 -053 -063 -074 -086
620 003 007 012 017 022 028 034 041 048 056
621 006 013 021 029 038 048 058 069 081 093

N
\JI
\JI
 TABLE H.2. (Cont 'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
601 113 130 146 160 175 191 213 232 253 288
602 -045 -051 -057 -064 -071 -078 -086 -093 -101 -110
603 042 048 055 062 069 076 083 091 099 116
604 075 085 095 107 119 132 148 165 176 175
605 -046 -052 -058 -064 -070 -078 -086 -094 -107 -120
606 -080 -091 -103 -116 -131 -147 -167 -179 -205 -232
607 -070 -083 -097 -112 -127 -143 -161 -185 -216 -255
608 -037 -042 -047 -053 -059 -065 -071 -077 -078 -071
609 -115 -128 -141 -155 -169 -184 -198 -208 -222 -219
610 054 061 068 075 082 090 098 091 076 058
611 049 055 061 066 071 077 083 089 096 103
612 -129 -144 -159 -175 -191 -207 -224 -239 -255 -273
613 -135 -152 -169 -187 -205 -223 -242 -262 -276 -280
614 -092 -104 -116 -128 -141 -154 -168 -188 -201 -228
615 -094 -109 -127 -146 -166 -198 -213 -243 -270 -305
616 048 055 062 070 078 087 097 107 119 132
617 07 5 085 095 107 121 136 152 171 189 171
618 060 068 077 092 104 117 131 146 170 192
619 -098 -110 -124 -138 -152 -168 -184 -200 -221 -248
620 064 074 085 094 103 116 129 143 160 155
621 105 116 128 135 147 159 170 177 189 202

N
VI
0\
 TABLE H.2. (Cont'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO,
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
701 003 008 013 017 022 027 032 038 044 050
702 -002 -004 -006 -008 -011 -014 -017 -020 -024 -028
703 -003 -006 -010 -013 -016 -021 -026 -031 -035 -040
704 002 004 007 010 013 017 021 028 033 037
705 ·003 006 010 014 017 021 025 030 035 040
706 -002 -005 -009 -014 -019 -024 -029 -034 -039 -043
707 -003 -006 -010 -014 -018 -023 -028 -033 -039 -045
708 -002 -004 -006 -009 -012 -015 -018 -021 -025 -029
709 -003 -008 -013 -018 -022 -026 -031 -036 -041 -046
710 -004 -010 -015 -021 -026 -031 -036 -042 -048 -054
711 -005 -010 -016 -022 -028 -035 -043 -052 -062 -072
712 002 006 010 013 016 019 022 025 029 033
713 -005 -010 -015 -020 -025 -030 -036 -041 -047 -053
714 -002 -005 -008 -011 -014 -017 -020 -024 -028 -033
715 -002 -007 -014 -019 -024 -028 -032 -042 -052 -060
716 -004 -010 -014 -018 -023 -029 -034 -039 -045 -055
717 -006 -009 -017 -024 -031 -038 -045 -053 -062 -072
718 -004 -Oll -015 -020 -025 -030 -035 -040 -045 -050
719 -010 -009 001 009 024 044 055 064 085 096
720 002 006 009 012 013 016 019 022 025 028
721 005 010 015 021 027 032 037 043 050 057

N
\JI
......
 TABLE H. 2. (Cont 'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) -FRAME F CASE II.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO. 36 38 40
22 24 26 28 30 32 34
701 057 065 073 082 091 100 111 120 127 140
702 -033 -038 -044 -050 -057 -065 -073 -091 -118 -128
703 -046 -051 -056 -061 -066 -072 -079 -088 -099 -114
704 042 049 056 064 072 079 087 096 097 098
705 045 050 056 062 068 074 081 090 099 108
706 -047 -052 -056 -062 -068 -074 -080 -087 -095 -104
707 -051 -058 -065 -071 -079 -087 -095 -103 -116 -105
708 -033 -038 -043 -049 -055 -061 -067 -075 -084 -096
709 -051 -056 -061 -067 -073 -079 -086 -093 -100 -108
710 -061 -068 -075 -084 -093 -101 -llO -122 -150 -161
711 -082 -092 -102 -112 -122 -132 -145 -160 -187 -202
712 037 042 047 053 059 066 073 081 074 069
713 -059 -066 -073 -080 -089 -097 -105 -113 -123 -132
714 -038 -43 -049 -055 -061 -067 -074 -081 -088 -098
715 -070 -080 -091 -102 -113 -124 -136 -148 -163 -180
716 -063 -070 -078 -086 -096 -106 -117 -129 -141 -154
717 -082 -092 -104 -116 -129 -143 -157 -173 -190 -211
718 -056 -063 -069 -075 -082 -090 -099 -109 -122 -128
719 119 131 183 237 332 359 459 471 462 438
720 030 034 038 043 048 053 059 065 073 068
721 064 071 079 087 096 105 ll5 126 147 198

N
VI
00
 TABLE H.3.
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO- INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

101 003 006 020 034 039 043 057 068 080 100 107
102 003 007 027 050 070 099 128 154 180 210 226
103 003 007 040 073 114 179 245 302 359 420 489
104 008 016 041 067 088 128 169 200 231 254 284
105 004 004 005 012 014 018 027 033 040 048 052
106 000 000 014 028 035 051 068 080 093 099 109
107 001 003 013 024 027 034 042 051 061 067 075
108 008 016 036 056 071 089 108 127 146 164 184
109 002 004 004 006 006 006 008 011 015 017 020
110 001 005 022 033 043 057 076 083 097 111 125
111 001 002 003 004 004 004 004 008 011 012 016
112 032 095 132 221 285 326 361

N
IJl
ID
 TABLE H.3. (Cont'd}

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO- INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

101 125 136 156 168 182 195 217 309 314 333 347
102 252 275 303 321 345 364 390 431 438 466 490
103 563 627 706 775 848 920 994 1498 1562 1631 1703
104 322 355 396 426 465 503 546 654 717 730 771
105 068 071 086 098 110 117 135 212 226 238 254
106 124 135 150 162 179
107 088 100 118 133 148 172 187 228 240 258 274
108 203 222 246 2.58 278 309 326 360 372 393 411
109 026 024 033 039 057 064 071 112. 117 133 141
110 137 155 167 196 211 211 222 329 346 359 373
111 022 024 025 040 047 044 049 059 067 067 069
112 396 435 471 515 545 589 620 676 711 752 778

N
g
 TABLE H.3. (Cont 'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO- INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
23 24 24-1/2 25 25-1/2 26 26-1/2 27 27-1/2 28
101 372 393 406 421 435 457 462 477 498 513
102 510 537 537 552 563 581 590 606 619 639
103 1798 1879 1919 1960 2021 2080 2132 2222 2351 2533
104 814 853 876 901 924 948 968 995 1018 1045
105 269 288 294 305 312 326 333 343 348 361
106
107 292 309 328 335 342 350 360 371 381 391
108 426 442 452 460 465 472 492 498 505
109 153 161 168 175 186 192 196 207 217
110 390 410 433 443 451 463 475 492 515 532
111 075 080 083 088 094 098 100 113 111 114
112 817 852 877 902 916 931 949 971 999 1020

N
0\
t-'
 TABLE H.3. (Cont'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
28-1/2 29 30 31 31-1/2 32 33

101 528 554 610 661 788 826 950

102 567 677 . 718 772 839 874 986
103 2786 3145 4077 5746 7239 7754 10895
104 1062 1098 1152 1189 1173 1194 1258
105 365 374 389 404 439 444 353
106
107 401 412 446 467 490 502 594
108 513 518 530 539 535 539 564
109 226 237 255 396 457 492 877
llO 548 574 635 675 675 693 749
111 116 121 130 140 177 186 146
112 1043 1066 1122 1172 1205 1231 1356

N
(1'1
N
 TABLE H.3. (Cont 'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO. 6 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 7 8
210 -003 -007 -011 -015 -018 -021 -025 -028 -032 -036
211 -002 -004 -005 -007 -010 -012 -014 -016 -018 -021
212 -001 -003 -004 -005 -007 -009 -012 -014 -016 -018
213 -002 -004 -007 -010 -014 -018 -022 -026 -030 -035
214 -012 -024 -035 -046 -063 -074 -086 -097 -108 -121
215 -007 -015 -021 -028 --035 -043 -051 -057 -064 -073
216 -004 -009 -014 -020 -027 -038 -050 -061 -072 -087
217 -004 -008 -015 -023 -023 -025 -028 -037 -034 -039
218 000 000 -002 -004 -007 -012 -017 -022 -027 -032

N
C\
w
 TA!iLE H.3. (Cont 'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INGRES PER INCH) -FRAME F CASE III.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
210 -041 -047 -049 -052 -054 -057 -060 -062 -068 -071
211 -024 -027 -029 -031 -032 -033 -034 -035 -037 -039
212 -020 -022 -023 -025 -026 -028 -030 -033 -036 -039
213 -039 -043 -047 -052 -057 -062 -067 -074 -080 -084
214 -134 -148 -160 -172 -183 -193 -204 -220 -237 -254
215 -080 -088 -096 -104 -112 -121 -131 -142 -153 -164
216 -104 -119 -132 -145 -156 -167 -178 -193 -208 -226
217 -044 -049 -053 -057 -061 -065 -069 -074 -083 -092
218 -037 -042 -047 -052 -057 -062 -067 -072 -078 -084

N
0\
.p.
 TABLE H.3. (Cont 'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
21 22 23 24 24-1/2 25 25-1/2 26 26-1/2 27

210 -074 -077 -080 -083 -086 -088 -090 -092 -095
211 -039 -040 -042 -044 -045 -045 -046 -046 -047
212 -040 -041 -044 -046 -048 -049 -050 -050 -051
213 -088 -092 -096 -100 -104 -106 -108 -llO -112
214 -271 -288 -300 -312 -326 -333 -340 -348 -356
215 -17 5 -186 -195 -204 -213 -220 -227 -234 -241
216 -244 -262 -280 -299 -318 -326 -334 -342 -350
217 -101 -110 -119 -129 +139 +142 +146 +149 +153
218 -090 -096 -103 -111 -118 -123 -128 -133 -138

N
0\
U'1
 TABLE H.3. (Cont 'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NOo
27-1/2 28 28-1/2 29 30 31 31-1/2 32 33

210 -097 -099 -101 -104 -108 -112 -115 -118 -128
211 -048 -049 -050 -051 -052 -053 -054 -054 -057
212 -052 -053 -054 -055 -055 -056 -058 -060 -062
213 -116 -120 -124 -129 -135 -128 -132 -137 -150
214 -363 -371 -378 -386 -403 -421 -431 -441 -466
215 -247 -251 -257 -263 -275 -287 -294 -301 -318
216 -357 -365 -372 -380 -405 -430 -450 -470 -515
217 +158 +163 +168 +173 +201 +229 +239 +251 +281
218 -143 -148 -153 -158 -168 -178 -191 -203 -233

N
0\
0'\
 TABLE H.3. (Cont'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-lNCHES FER INCH) - FRAME F l CASE III.
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIFS}
STRAIN
GAGE NO.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

301 -003 -006 -009 -012 -015 -018 -022 -026 -030 -030
302 -006 -013 -023 -034 -049 -067 -090 -109 -125 -141
303 -021 -042 -061 -080 -115 -162 -200 -235 -270 -287
304 -007 -014 -024 -034 -046 -059 -072 -083 -094 -107
305 006 013 024 035 070 130 358 420 485 537
306 -003 -005 -005 -006 -008 -010 -011 -013 -015 -017
307 -008 -017 -025 -033 -039 -049 -059 -064 -069 -079
308 -002 -004 -007 -011 -013 -018 -023 -025 -026 -031
309 -004 -009 -016 -024 -029 -031 -034 -036 -038 -047
310 -004 -009 -013 -018 -020 -025 -030 -034 -039 -041
311 000 000 000 001 001 001 001 001 002 003
312 000 000 000 -001 -002 -003 -004 -005 -007 -009
313 000 000 -002 -004 -006 -008 -010 -012 -014 -018
314 -003 -007 -014 -021 -025 -034 -044 -049 -054 -062
315 -014 -028 -038 -049 -062 -072 -082 -093 -104 -105
316 -002 -004 -005 -007 -009 -011 -013 -015 -017 -020
317
318 -016 -033 -063 -090 -120 -155 -190 -220 -250 -275
319 005 010 016 022 032 038 044 050 057 059
320 -006 -012 -023 -034 -046 -058 -072 -081 -091 -104
321 -003 -007 -012 -018 -023 -026 -030 -035 -040 -045

N
0'\
""'
 TABLE H.3. (Cont 'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO. 20
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

301 -036 -042 -044 -047 -049 -052 -055 "::"059 -067 -072
302 -162 -180 -195 -213 -228 -245 -260 -275 -332 -350
303 -334 -380 -410 -437 -466 -493 -522 -550 -643 -692
304 -118 -130 -140 -151 -159 -167 -177 -187 -220 -232
305 600 668 740 818 865 91.5 1002 1092 1125 1155
306 -020 -022 -024 -026 -028 -030 -031 -032 -033 -040
307 -087 -096 -104 -112 -120 -129 -137 -144 -151 -161
308 -035 -038 -040 -043 -045 -048 -049 -050 -050 -050
309 -049 -051 -052 -053 -057 -061 -062 -064 -066 -072
310 -046 -052 -055 -058 -063 -068 -071 -073 -075 -078
311 004 005 006 008 010 013 014 015 015 016
312 -011 -013 -016 -020 -024 -028 -031 -036 -041 -046
313 -020 -023 -024 -026 -028 -031 -033 -036 -046 -048
3 -072 -082 -089 -097 -104 -112 -120 -128 -162 -169
315 -122 -140 -148 -157 -166 -175 -202 -210 -235 -255
316 -023 -026 -029 -033 -035 -037 -040 -043 -046 -049
317
318 -302 -330 -354 -378 -398 -418 -438 -458 -567 -592
319 063 067 072 078 082 087 090 093 096 099
320 -114 -125 -140 -154 -163 -172 -184 -196 -195 -214
321 -049 -053 -057 -060 -063 -067 -070 -078 -086 -095

N
Q"\
():)
 TABLE H.3. (Cont 'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) -FRAME F CASE III.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
21 22 23 24 25 25-1/2 26 26-1/2 27 27-1/2
301 -076 -080 -085 -090 -093 -099 -104 -109 -114 -118
302 -362 -377 -394 -410 -425 -436 -447 -459 -471 -484
303 -718 -769 -793 -824 -844 -865 -884 -903 -924
304 -241 -250 -258 -267 -274 -279 -284 -289 -295 -300
305 1220 1350 1460 1765 1997 2054 2111 2168 2225 2059
306 -041 -042 -046 -050 -050 -052 -054 -056 -058 -060
307 -171 -181 -191 -201 -208 -213 -218 -222 -226 -229
308 -051 -053 -054 -056 -053 -053 -053 -053 -053 -053
309 -072 -072 -075 -079 -079 -080 -081 -082 -084 -086
310 -080 -082 -086 -090 -092 -094 -096 -098 -100 -102
311 018 020 021 023 026 027 028 029 030 030
312 -051 -057 -064 -072 -079 -082 -085 -088 -091 -093
313 -049 -050 -053 -056 -056 -057 -058 -059 -061 -063
314 -174 -180 -186 -192 -202 -205 -208 -211 -214 -217
315 -265 -276 -286 -297 -300 -311 -322 -333 -344 -347
316 -052 -055 -058 -062 -063 -065 -067 -069 -072 -073
317
318 -610 -628 -645 -662 -688 -702 -717 -732 -747 -767
319 103 107 111 115 112 115 118 121 124 121
320 -229 -244 -257 -271 -294 -304 -314 -324 -334 -347
321 -104 -113 -122 -131 -140 -144 -148 -153 -158 -163

"'
\0
 TABLE H.3. (Cont' d)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO. 28 28-1/2 29 30 31 31-1/2 32 33

301 -122 -126 -.130 -145 -160 -170 -182 -205

302 -497 -511 -525 -570 -635 -665 -705 -745
303 -945 -967 -990 -1001 -1013 -1025 -1037 -1065
304 -305 -311 -317 -322 -327 -332 -337 -347
305 1893 1718 1563 1410 1257 1175 1090 985
306 -062 -065 -067 -057 -088 -081 -074 -060
307 -233 -237 -241 -255 -271 -281 -293 -321
308 -053 -053 -053 -0'53 -053 -053 -053 -053
309 -088 -091 -094 -105 -116 -126 -138 -169
310 -104 -107 -llO -114 -115 -119 -125 -140
311 029 028 028 026 023 021 018 011
312 -095 -098 -101 -107 -112 -118 -124 -139
313 -065 -066 -068 -072 -076 -080 -084 -093
314 -220 -223 -227 -233 -240 -249 -260 -282
315 -350 -353 -357 -368 -380 -387 -395 -415
316 -074 -075 -077 -079 -082 -084 -087 -097
317
318 -787 -807 -828 -846 -865 -877 -890 -912
319 118 115 112 094 076 067 057 037
320 -363 -380 -399 -459 -524 -564 -604 -684
321 -167 -171 -175 -199 -223 -230 -244 -274

N
-..!
0
 TABLE H.3. (Cont 1 d)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO- INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

401 001 003 005 007 010 013 017 021 025 029
402 -006 -013 -020 -028 -038 -046 -054 -062 -071 -080
403 -014 -028 -043 -058 -069 -085 -102 -112 -123 -139
404 -016 -033 -045 -058 -128 -181 -233 -268 -303 -290
405
406 -012 -025 -038 -051 -065 -078 -092 -106 -121 -137
407 -016 -033 -053 -073 -095 -116 -139 -162 -186 -214
408 -003 -006 -008 -010 -012 -014 -016 -018 -021 -024
409 -009 -018 -025 -032 -038 -043 -048 -053 -058 -064
410 -006 -012 -016 -021 -021 -021 -021 -023 -026 -031
411 -024 -048 -076 -105 -133 -168 -203 -232 -260 -285
412 -013 -026 -040 -054 -076 -095 -114 -130 -146 -161
413 -010 -018 -027 -036 -047 -058 -067 -074 -082 -094
414 -006 -012 -016 -021 -027 -033 -039 -048 -058 -069
415 -010 -020 -045 -070 -095 -125 -155 -185 -215 -240
416 -006 -012 -019 -026 -033 -042 -051 -060 -069 -075
417 -012 -024 -051 -078 -105 -132 -159 -186 -214 -242
418 -010 -020 -030 -041 -047 -052 -057 -062 -067 -072
419 000 001 002 003 004 005 007 008 009 010
420 -001 -002 -004 -007 -011 -015 -020 -022 -024 -026
421 -002 -004 -007 -011 -017 -024 -030 -035 -040 -046

N
.......
1-'
 TABLE H.3. (Cont'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III.
1
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
STRAIN
GAGE NO.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

401 030 031 033 035 038 040 043 047 051 055
402 -090 -099 -108 -117 -126 -134 -142 -150 -165 -175
403 -154 -167 -180 -192 -205 -219 -235 -253 -272 -292
404
405
406 -152 -168 -183 -198 -214 -230 -246 -263 -291 -313
407 -238 -263 -290 -318 -344 -370 -398 -426 -463 -496
408 -029 -034 -038 -042 -048 -054 -060 -067 -076 -084
409 -071 -078 -083 -088 -094 -101 -106 -111 -116 -121
410 -036 -041 -046 -051 -057 -064 -071 -078 -085 -093
411 -312 -339 -359 -380 -401 -423 -444 -465 -494 -523
412 -176 -191 -200 -209 -218 -227 -236 -260 -284 -308
413 -102 -110 -117 -124 -130 -136 -143 -153 -164 -173
414 -078 -088 -098 -108 -118 -128 -138 -149 -161 -174
415 -270 -300 -325 -350 -375 -400 -420 -440 -527 -545
416 -081 -087 -093 -099 -105 -111 -117 -123 -130 -137
417 -266 -290 -310 -331 -352 -373 -394 -415 -436 -457
418 -077 -082 -087 -092 -097 -102 -107 -112 -116 -120
419 012 014 016 018 020 023 028 033 038 043
420 -028 -030 -032 -034 -036 -038 -040 -042 -044 -046
421 -052 -058 -064 -071 -076 -084 -092 -101 -109 -118

N
--.J
N
 TABLE H.3. (Cont 'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO- INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III.
1
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIFS)
STRAIN
GAGE NO.
21 22 23 24 25 25-1/2 26 26-1/2 27 27-1/2

401 057 059 061 063 065 065 065 065 065 063
402 -185 -194 -202 -210 -218 -223 -228 -234 -240 -246
403 -309 -320 -334 -348 -363 -371 -380 -389 -398 -408
404
405
406 -330 -347 -365 -383 -396 -408 -420 -432 -444 -456
407 -522 -548 -574 -601 -630 -645 -660 -67 5 -690 -705
408 -094 -099 -105 -111 -114 -117 -121 -125 -128
409 -126 -131 -136 -140 -142 -144 -146 -147 -144
410 -103 -113 -123 -133 -135 -138 -140 -143 -149
411 -554 -583 -612 -640 -650 -660 -671 -682 -689
412 -323 -339 -355 -364 -369 -374 -380 -385 -388
413 -182 -191 -199 -204 -207 -210 -212 -214 -212
414 -187 -201 -213 -225 -231 -237 -243 -250 -254
415 -567 -590 -616 -642 -668 -681 -694 -707 -720 -743
416 -144 -151 -158 -166 -173 -177 -182 -187 -192 -206
417 -478 -499 -520 -541 -562 -573 -584 -595 -606 -620
418 -124 -128 -132 -136 -140 -144 -148 -151 -154 -157
419 •046 ·049 049 . 051 053 055 057 059 061 062
420 -048 -050 -052 -054 -056 -057 -058 -059 -060 -061
421 -127 -136 -144 -153 -162 -166 -170 -174 -178 -182

N
.......
w
 TABLE H.3. {Cont 'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III.
1
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
28 28-1/2 29 30 31 31-1/2 32 33

401 061 058 053 048 040 035 030 015

402 -253 -260 -273 -287 -308 -320 -333 -860
403 -416 -423 -448 -468 -501 -516 -536 -580
404
405
406 -467 -477 -504 -533 -570 -593 -615 -668
407 -721 -737 -763 -790 -828 -848 -873 -928
408 -132 -136 -140 -142 -144 -146 -148 -155
409 -141 -137 -133 -128 -123 -113 -103 -083
410 -154 -160 -166 -171 -176 -180 -184 -201
411 -696 -704 -721 -743 -765 -780 -796 -840
412 -391 -398 -405 -419 -434 -443 -453 -476
413 -209 -207 -204 -214 -224 -231 -238 -259
414 -258 -263 -268 -273 -278 -283 -288 -302
415 -766 -790 -815 -855 -900 -930 -960 -1020
416 -220 -234 -248 -261 -275 -285 -295 -323
417 -634 -648 -662 -708 -754 -782 -807 -862
418 -160 -163 -166 -169 -172 -175 -178 -187
419 063 064 065 068 071 075 079 093
420 -062 -064 -065 -067 -068 -069 -070 -075
421 -185 -188 -191 -197 -203 -206 -210 -219

N
-....!
.{:"-
 TABLE H.3. (Cont'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III
1
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
STRAIN
GAGE NO.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

510 -001 -002 -003 -004 -004 -007 -010 -012 -014 -015
511 -003 -006 -010 -015 -018 -029 -036 -040 -045 -048
512 -017 -035 -063 -078 -103 -134 -165 -190 -215 -240
513 -031 -063 -091 -120 -159 -199 -240 -265 -310 -345
514 -006 -013 -023 -033 -048 -068 -088 -103 -ll8 -131
515 -004 -007 -012 -017 -025 -033 -041 -049 -057 -065
516 -019 -039 -054 -070 -089 -109 -127 -144 -159 -180
517 -003 -006 -009 -011 -013 -015 -017 -019 -022 -027
518 -003 -005 -007 -009 -Oll -013 -015 -017 -019 -021
519 -003 -006 -008 -010 -012 -014 -017 -019 -021 -023
520 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010
521 001 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 011 012

N
-....!
\JI
 TABLE H.3. (Cont 'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III
1
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
STRAIN
GAGE NO.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

510 -016 -016 -017 -018 -019 -020 -021 -021 -022 -022
511 -055 -063 -068 -073 -079 -085 -091 -097 -100 -107
512 -263 -287 -315 -343 -368 -394 -416 -438 -465 -495
513 -387 -430 -462 -495 -522 -550 -577 -605 -639 -673
514 -151 -171 -187 -203 -216 -230 -246 -263 -284 -305
515 -077 -089 -096 -103 -110 -117 -124 -132 -140 -148
516 -201 -218 -235 -252 -267 -282 -297 -312 -330 -349
517 -032 -037 -039 -042 -044 -047 -049 -052 -054 -057
518 -023 -025 -027 -029 -031 -032 -034 -035 -037 -038
519 -025 -027 -028 -029 -030 -031 -032 -033 -035 -037
520 011 012 013 014 014 015 016 017 017 019
521 014 015 015 015 017 019 021 023 025 027

N
-..J
0'1
 TABLE H.3. (Cont'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INGRES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III
1
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
STRAIN
GAGE NO.
21 22 23 24 25 25-1/2 26 26-1/2 27 27-1/2

510 -022 -022 -023 -023 -023 -024 -024 -024 -025 -026
511 -111 -115 -121 -127 -132 -134 -137 -139 -142 -144
512 -511 -532 -547 -563 -584 -597 -610 -622 -634 -648
513 -707 -741 -775 -810 -840 -854 -869 -883 -898 -914
514 -327 -349 -371 -393 -411 -420 -429 -438 -448 -459
515 -156 -164 -172 -180 -191 -197 -203 -209 -215 -222
516 -368 -387 -405 -424 -440 -446 -456 -464 -472 -478
517 -060 -063 -066 -069 -072 -073 -074 -07 5 -077 -078
518 -039 -040 -041 -042 -043 -043 -043 -043 -044 -045
519 -039 -042 -044 -046 -047 -048 -049 -050 -052 -051
520 021 023 024 025 027 028 029 030 031 032
521 028 030 031 033 035 036 037 038 039 040

N
-...]
-...]
 TABLE H.3. (Cont 'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE III
1
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
STRAIN
GAGE NO.
28 28-1/2 29 30 31 31-1/2 32 33

510 -027 -028 -029 -030 -031 -032 -032 -032

511 -146 -148 -150 -141 -132 -126 -120 -112
512. -661 -674 -699 -726 -765 -789 -804 -855
513 -930 -946 -963 -1004 -1045 -1070 -1095 -1178
514 -470 -481 -492 -509 -527 -538 -553 -588
515 -229 -236 -243 -252 -261 -266 -270 -279
516 -484 -490 -495 -496 -497 -498 -500 -505
517 -080 -081 -082. -083 -084 -086 -088 -094
518 -045 -046 -047 -048 -049 -050 -051 -053
519 -050 -049 -048 -047 -046 -044 -043 -040
520 033 034 035 036 037 038 040 044
521 041 042 043 043 043 044 045 046

'"'"'"-'
(Xl
 TABLE H.4.

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO- INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
2
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO. 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

1 010 007 009 009 007 -003 005 005 007 009
2 010 002 005 002 000 -012 -007 -009 -013 -012
3 000 -005 000 000 000 -005 -012 -007 -007 000
4 010 010 018 022 022 022 030 037 043 065
5 002 -002 000 000 -005 -008 -003 -003 002 019
6 006 000 006 005 000 -002 000 000 002
7 010 010 013 018 020 022 028 032 038 053
8 006 000 005 002 000 000 003 005 007 058
9 005 003 005 002 000 000 003 003 005 013
10 005 002 004 004 000 001 -001 -001 -005 000
11 -003 -003 -010 -005 -010 -010 -010 -008 -014 -013
12 000 002 000 000 -002 -002 -002 +003 008 039
13 000 003 001 005 002 007 008 016 020 038
14 000 002 000 002 -002 -003 000 -001 -001 -001
15 000 002 -001 000 000 000 000 000 002 010
16 000 002 004 004 006 007 009 013 019 041

N
--.1
\.0
 TABLE H.4. (Cont 'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INGRES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
2
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

1 015 026 040 055 080 095 118 158 177 199
2 -010 -002 003 003 010 018 040 066 085 110
3 000 010 015 020 021 023 032 036 040 049
4 073 093 120 163 242 292 346 465 529 592
5 024 070 107 135 163 180 197 224 248 280
6 010 016 026 033 041 047 058 073 080 093
7 060 080 093 107 117 132 148 161 174 197
8 084 245 325 375 447 503 562 615 675 748
9 015 027 038 050 063 072 080 085 095 105
10 002 008 013 018 018 023 030 047 067 105
11 -005 002 023 028 037 035 055 063 082 095
12 051 073 116 153 261 308 352 409 480 540
13 052 068 090 100 122 133 159 172 187 200
14 003 008 015 019 024 025 032 032 032 024
15 014 019 028 032 036 041 050 052 054 058
16 055 080 134 162 228 262 316 366 426 449

N
00
0
 TABLE H.4. (Cont'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
2
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60

1 224 238 257 284 310 337 394 417 440 467
2 165 209 240 303 337 357 385 402 430 422
3 090 114 140 190 225 253 274 298 336 392
4 615 642 679 730 779 800 822 857 902 1200
5 302 317 334 360 380 391 411 433 453 471
6 104 111 120 145 158 161 198 238 282 318
7 213 228 250 276 298 322 460 516 565 586
8 791 845 898 970 1042 1145 1205 1255 1325 1375
9 128 148 158 181 198 206 235 255 282 305
10 107 175 187 212 233 245 255 278 308 328
11 128 166 183 227 253 290 337 379 425 468
12 638 703 745 794 818 848 880 920 950 1010
13 216 233 243 260 270 283 295 312 340 350
14 028 032 025 030 027 029 027 028 023 027
15 064 074 080 085 090 100 107 119 145 152
16 504 537 565 606 634 670 709 749 7 67 817

N
00
t-'
 TABLE H.4. (Cont 'd)
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
2
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
6i 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

1 509 517 542 575 595 620 707 721 742 765
2 457 465 480 513 540 567 680 694 715 727
3 445 461 488 526 553 579 636 676 715 738
4 1313 1360 1445 1532 1596 1680 2052 2107 2157 2167
5 502 513 532 570 594 627 737 745 770 786
6 378 401 435 480 506 538 633 642 669 698
7 626 652 683 732 763 802 943 958 991 1022
8 1455 1520 1618 1728 1817 1937 2445 2510 2655 2805
9 328 332 347 375 390 411 477 495 508 528
10 355 357 387 408 425 446 552 571 592 615
11 530 560 595 '657 695 737 862 895 925 957
12 1053 1078 1114 1152 1187 1223 1342 1378 1412 1452
13 365 372 385 419 438 467 597 627 652 687
14 037 024 031 032 035 040 059 062 062 068
15 167 169 174 200 209 232 294 312 314 337
16 849 882 926 979 1022 1074 1287 1331 1371 1425

N
00
N
 TABLE H.4. (Cont'd)

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO- INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE II.
2
STRAIN TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96

1 787 815 841 891 915 1000 1017 1000

2 748 772 786 801 817 865 876 885
3 770 805 840 878 915 1016 1043 1093
4 2183 2213 2250 2288 2310 2342 2375 2440
5 813 838 873 894 930 1048 1075 1118
6 740 768 813 873 936 1128 1178 1268
7 1067 1110 1162 1236 1318 1573 1635 1760
8 2957 3125 3263 3392 3498 3710 3855 4080
9 555 573 594 612 635 697 717 7 53
10 647 667 712 762 822 965 1003 1067
11 977 1015 1027 1074 1118 1230 1255 1335
12 1485 1534 1579 1647 1730 1940 2040 2341
13 729 748 780 843 920 1040 1070 1178
14 070 087 092 100 104 122 124 142
15 347 373 384 419 439 512 542 635
16 1466 1524 1576 1676 1767 1969 2004 2109

N
00
w
 TABLES H.5. and 6.

STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASES III and IV.
2
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
STRAIN
GAGE NO. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

1 028 127 227 337 447 527 657 767

2 059 192 317 462 557 659 747 822
3 063 187 408 435 558 668 795 910
4 208 416 611 813 1023 1241 1521 1793
5 031 127 237 350 470 575 700 825
6 055 188 318 433 553 643 738 803
7 069 215 345 472 597 707 827 953
8 116 311 500 715 1025 1135 1385 1600
9 059 117 162 219 280 347 397 469
10 078 143 203 275 355 451 553 633
11 090 195 283 387 490 612 725 840
12 142 272 392 535 679 860 1015 1210
13 050 132 215 306 406 522 608 720
14 037 055 074 094 120 142 160 187
15 -060 -070 -052 -017 032 090 148 823
16 128 275 410 575 740 941 1120 1315

N
CXl
+:'-
 TABLE H. 7.
STRAIN GAGE READINGS (IN MICRO-INCHES PER INCH) - FRAME F CASE V.
2
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
STRAIN
GAGE NO.
10 20 30 40 50 60

9 095 210 345 465 585 705

10 112 235 383 505 637 795

11 136 316 524 706 884 1046

12 218 478 753 1005 1243 1440

13 127 313 410 688 855 1060

14 035 075 117 149 179 224

15 -054 -005 086 173 265 363

16 259 565 922 1239 1522 1729

N
00
VI
 TABLE H.B.
DIAL GAGE READ INGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F CASE I
1
DIAL TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

1 000 000 000 000 005 007 009 012 012 017 017 017
2 000 -003 -005 -009 000 018 012 021 022 027 032 037
3 000 005 007 011 014 021 026 030 033 036 037 084
4 000 011 031 053 081 100 111 147 167 187 210 232
5 000 -007 -002 015 037 046 047 041 062 064 063 065
6 000 010 017 032 040 049 090 042 046 050 054 051
7 000 001 009 017 020 026 027 029 030 034 036 036
8 000 058 138 188 208 216 226 233 246 252 259 268
9 000 080 160 223 243 245 253 257 267 271 274 282
10 000 052 113 164 191 200 213 221 226 225 239 246
11 000 064 125 164 217 253 299 334 350 390 423 449
12 000 037 085 115 130 146 211 180 190 196 208 212
13 000 001 012 026 024 039 045 055 059 072 084 087
14 000 000 000 002 004 009 013 020 022 029 032 034
15 000 007 019 025 048 078 lOO 113 115 131 147 168
16 000 038 081 140 200 241 278 318 371 410 451 480
17 000 079 153 219 260 314 315 414 460 502 544 580
18 000 029 068 112 142 177 187 211 225 250 274 287
19 000 025 060 115 171 220 257 281 344 382 415 453
20 000 034 071 102 124 151 177 198 214 224 236 258
21 000 092 188 263 295 321 343 363 385 405 424 448
22 000 086 187 272 333 388 433 479 520 562 599 648

N
00
0\
 T.Al3LE H. 9.
DIAL GAGE READINGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F CASE II
1
DIAL TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIFS)
GAGE NO.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1 000 000 000 006 006 005 006 007 008 018
2 -003 -007 -004 -008 -009 -028 -041 -041 -027 -018
3 006 015 023 032 029 002 -010 -005 024 032
4 005 013 048 072 094 114 135 162 180 208
5 -010 -024 -039 -056 -052 -020 -012 -034 -060 -097
6 003 009 042 056 068 090 080 080 075 107
7 000 000 000 007 010 013 016 017 020 034
8 000 022 054 059 055 075 085 095 107 121
9 012 045 078 087 091 117 131 147 164 184
10 -010 -018 -015 -014 -022 -005 002 006 008 016
11 048 122 171 204 233 281 315 346 381 419
12 000 005 003 012 011 038 062 058 044 049
13 015 038 064 070 085 106 128 147 165 171
14 000 000 012 019 023 032 042 050 060 067
15 015 033 076 079 090 111 137 139 151 194
16 041 097 158 210 235 259 305 345 451 512
17 050 109 170 210 246 331 397 435 484 512
18 020 042 070 108 129 152 128 2.01 231 265
19 013 035 128 130 184 235 279 335 375 485
20 049 116 166 198 230 252 298 318 382 419
21 021 055 100 121 141 183 215 249 286 326
22 053 104 173 212 246 291 360 402 454 500

-~
00
-"
 TABLE H.9. (Cont 1 d)
DIAL GAGE READINGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F CASE II
1
DIAL TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME(KIPS)
GAGE NO.
22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
1 548 582 631 690 759 804 884 953 1036 1192
2 -002 -002 -003 -003 -058 -059 -014 -012 -012 -013
3 050 050 052 060 057 060 050 055 070 092
4 258 271 293 352 395 430 491 533 585 638
5 -111 -124 -142 -136 -160 -183 -191 -200 -221 -221
6 121 122 127 147 155 15~ 163 168 172 172
7 035 035 035 030 '037 040 047 0~8 0'69 064
8 135 135 141 150 159 165 17 5 178 180 186
9 202 212 219 225 254 246 271 263 258 240
10 018 014 003 -012 -029 -026 -046 -053 -062 -024
11 458 489 538 586 639 671 738 7 50 839 890
12 057 058 049 050 058 063 043 031 -006 -098
13 190 197 200 181 174 183 172 149 160 192
14 069 069 069 050 040 041 037 022 029 030
15 224 240 305 374 411 429 464 499 530 559
16 598 657 774 897 1025 1120 1283 1408 1554 1697
17 565 614 669 719 779 837 967 1094 1244 1457
18 284 305 334 355 376 405 418 440 537 676
19 527 590 696 810 928 990 1171 1300 1438 1600
20 475 507 560 617 688 745 810 870 930 1020
21 364 396 425 488 517 546 611 648 690 735
22 548 582 631 690 759 804 884 953 1036 1192

N
r.,..,
co
 TABLE H.lO.
DIAL GAGE READINGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F CASE III
1
DIAL TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
GAGE NO.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 002 005 011 017 019 031 046 054 061 068
2 015 036 061 092 118 161 204 230 257 296
3 -025 -070 -111 078 040 128 212 252 288 334
4 019 038 068 099 128 166 204 236 269 306
.s 000 000 025 045 068 125 181 220 258 313
6 003 007 013 020 028 053 078 084 090 111
7 000 000 002 004 008 008 008 008 008 009
8 019 038 072 105 128 223 317 377 427 499
9 051 102 211 320 412 537 715 835 955 1083
10 036 072 163 254 364 512 660 786 912 1032
11 006 013 057 090 136 212 276 330 385 438

N
00
\0
 TABLE H.10. (Cont 1 d)

DIAL GAGE READINGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F CASE III
1
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
DIAL
GAGE NO.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 083 094 104 115 125 127 133 135 122 136
2 341 376 408 444 480 511 543 579 603 622
3 381 433 480 527 578 628 673 718 730 788
4 341 373 393 423 453 490 519 548 566 598
5 374 354 478 535 597 623 699 750 751 799
6 131 148 170 211 211 238 253 27 5 298 321
7 009 010 010 010 019 015 015 015 013 015
8 549 605 685 747 800 860 916 982 1037 1099
9 1219 1342 1474 1598 1737 1873 1985 2102 2226 2292
10 1187 1332 1445 1584 1755 1874 1992 2113 2114 2221
11 516 580 636 709 772 837 887 937 937 978

N
\.0
0
 TABLE H. 10. (Cont' d)
DIAL GAGE READINGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F CASE III
1
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
DIAL
GAGE NO.
21 22 23 24 24-1/2 25 25-1/2 26 26-1/2 27

1 136 136 136 137 136 141 142 141 141 141
2. 650 682 721 766 781 808 825 836 866 896
3 835 888 930 1002 1038 108{1. ll08 ll31 ll67 1232
4 627 651 67 5 707 720 739 751 766 779 808
5 861 907 963 1032 1074 1119 1159 1181 1221 1292
6 349 381 405 435 448 471 481 495 507 531
7 014 014 014 012 012 009 009 009 009 009
8 1156 1217 1264 1348 1399 1449 1478 1518 1538 1605
9 2392 2491 2586 2658 2712 2791 2843 2903 2969 3116
10 2340 2458 2628 2797 2842 2981 3016 3074 3187 3307
11 1031 1065 1ll5 1192 1225 1253 1278 1295 1325 1381

N
\0
r-'
 TABLE H.10. (Cont 'd)
DIAL GAGE READINGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F CASE III
1
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
DIAL
GAGE NO.
27-1/2 28 28-1/2 29 30 31 31-1/2 32 33
1 141 142 142 142 142 142 148 149
2 916 942 969 988 1034 1116 1133 1211
3 1256 1289 1338 1273 1318 1415 1457 1500
4 816 829 848 870 906 958 1001 1040 1209
5 1281 1376 1442 1541 1652 1312 1268 1231
6 543 558 575 602 627 652 675 688
7 005 004 002 002 002 002 002 002
8 1639 1688 1745 1819 1939 2147 2199 2388
9 3163 3261 3439 3521 3726 4461 4822 5009
10 3387 3446 3612 3807 4035 4437 4563 4726
11 1410 1442 1478 1533 1615 1746 1823 1864

N
\0
N
 T.A.BLE H. 11.
DIAL GAGE READINGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F CASE I
2
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME(KIPS)

DIAL
GAGE NO. 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

1 000 000 003 022 027 048 089 124 154 198
2 001 012 -023 009 016 005 025 060 081 111
3 005 002 003 024 013 024 046 079 084 098
4 001 013 039 052 109 154 224 312 369 450
5 011 008 023 026 019 019 035 074 066 063
6 001 002 007 013 001 008 023 050 062 069
7 002 002 002 002 000 012 029 055 073 085
8 028 043 llO 123 113 168 193 216 233 260
9 036 055 120 123 118 177 189 216 231 245
10 047 075 110 127 111 2.31 253 299 330 369
11 078 115 170 206 263 350 414 490 555 620
12 055 072 121 119 176 258 298 359 398 396
13 080 109 144 138 238 346 388 482 533 609
14 089 167 147 134 241 359 402 509 557 637
15 023 038 063 101 124 165 225 282 331 391
16 055 076 113 152 187 243 328 419 500 578
17 103 156 223 253 348 462 546 651 730 784
18 088 127 170 172 278 384 442 537 605 689
19 051 070 095 136 167 231 307 406 476 553
20 025 028 037 045 067 097 135 182 222 259
21 044 065 138 169 180 253 305 350 391 455
22 093 135 214 265 275 443 513 603 690 769 N
\0
w
 TABLE H.12.

DIAL GAGE READINGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F CASE II

2
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
DIAL
GAGE NO. 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

1 000 001 007 007 026 043 054 046 046 046
2 000 000 000 005 012 014 014 020 020 028
3 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
4 000 029 056 090 129 167 206 234 289 334
.5 000 000 000 000 000 005 009 012 022 028
6 000 000 001 001 002 003 004 009 016 020
7 000 000 000 000 001 001 001 015 030 039
8 001 012 022 030 038 046 052 057 060 063
9 000 008 009 007 010 008 007 007 001 006
10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
11 022 055 087 113 142 175 208 235 272 318
12 000 000 000 000 000 037 d38 050 052 083
13 004 00\1 017 050 060 104 125 124 167 195
14 000 000 012 037 045 081 097 094 128 148
15 000 000 000 125 127 146 146 150 318 319
16 020 058 108 150 197 251 303 347 408 474
17 034 073 119 155 196 243 295 335 392 440
18 004 015 042 081 100 152 178 185 235 269
19 030 072 127 169 211 250 298 345 417 500
20 000 016 037 053 072 085 lOO 125 164 202
21 000 020 043 067 082 107 125 138 158 178
22 005 042 079 132 175 199 256 287 342 388
N
\.0
+"'
 TABLE H.12. (Cont 1 d)
DIAL GAGE READINGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F CASE II
2
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIFS)

DIAL
GAGE NOo 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

1 014 042 065 083 096 135 135 143 149 154
2 010 030 055 067 059 111 091 125 091 116
3 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 075 146
4 369 453 554 664 703 867 923 1000 1066 1132
5 028 041 072 080 090 092 092 092 082 046
6 027 03-1 047 056 061 068 070 067 064 056
7 057 064 097 113 123 136 139 149 156 158
8 070 073 080 085 091 096 102 104 111 124
9 011 023 051 060 073 074 074 074 074 074
10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
11 379 444 519 579 664 732 796 879 744 1007
12 150 192 220 250 293 327 348 352 352 352
13 278 325 391 398 454 523 562 608 648 691
14 221 256 287 287 369 379 404 436 457 478
15 340 411 478 506 589 642 665 740 883 974
16 552 655 781 880 1050 1150 1288 1447 1648 1805
17 527 61.2 721 822 992 1079 1188 1342 1490 1630
18 358 414 484 498 563 643 694 752 802 859
19 575 698 831 937 1132 1239 1346 1538 1703 1881
20 237 291 393 439 516 565 601 651 707 760
21 212 238 290 311 357 378 413 452 494 543
N
22 si4 609 734 818 978 1051 1170 1319 1443 1560 1,0
V1
 TALLE H.12. (Cont 'd)
DIAL GAGE READINGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F CASE II
2
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)

DIAL
GAGE NO. 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60

1 161 161 175 175 174 174 186 204 204 204
2 039 063 106 023 027 020 047 090 112 147
3 279 354 400 498 597 660 787 907 973 1090
4 1212 1270 1314 1372 1418 1472 1549 1619 1659 1704
5 055 109 148 230 315 362 453 543 592 685
6 058 053 050 -o27 025 021
--
033 031 031 002
7 177 179 179 179 183 188 194 199 199 199
8 129 131 134 141 158 159 161 158 181 182
9 090 090 090 090 090 090 090 090 090 090
10 000 015 052 100 168 215 275 350 400 480
11 1084 1150 1197 1269 1326 1387 1439 1497 1547 1593
12 1771 2000 2118 2297 2465 2605 2785 2960 3092 3132
13 934 999 1061 1148 1243 1319 1414 1512 1587 1672
14 510 542 545 560 581 597 606 619 637 639
15 1121 1240 1281 1407 1530 1613 1753 1853 1958 2062
16 2056 2237 2350 2619 2800 3044 3178 3392 3552 3764
17 1771 2000 2118 2297 2465 2605 2785 2960 3092 3132
18 934 999 1061 1148 1243 1319 1414 1512 1587 1672
19 2137 2322 2470 2762 2937 3140 3397 3600 3765 3992
20 842 902 958 1041 1100 1164 1223 1287 1347 1536
21 653 657 829 916 990 1070 1140 1228 1285 1415
22 1678 1780 1903 2076 2232 2400 2577 2745 2927 3120
N
\0
0\
 TABLE H.12. (Cont td)

DIAL GAGE READINGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F CASE II

2
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)
DIAL
GAGE NO. 62 64 66 68 10 72 74 76 78 80

1 212 214 217 239 239 239 239 532 534 534
2 181 220 249 292 310 338 393 225 270 318
3 1274 1438 1537 1680 1773 1887 1998 1974 2100 2213
4 1761 1812 1881 1965 2053 2153 2249 2536 2604 2651
5 830 931 1020 1109 1190 1258 1327 1178 1273 1358
6 005 0000 0000 0000 0000 100 080 178 218 246
8 653 668 685 705 733 733 744 803 830 836
7 202 202 214 221 226 226 226 264 274 274
9 090 090 090 090 090 090 090 038 038 038
10 635 670 800 915 1000 1082 1181 1112 1250 1370
11 1662 1731 1789 1846 1893 1949 2009 2235 2295 2304
12 0030 057 107 215 280 346 430 048 049 140
13 933 933 933 945 975 987 1001 990 990 990
14 653 668 685 705 733 733 744 803 830 836
15 2317 2421 2592 2630 2770 2915 3081 3491 3334 3762
16 4081 4333 4533 4783 4992 5198 5447 5880 6109 6328
18 1790 1930 2062 2162 2242 2342 2459 2927 3035 3137
17 3532 3730 3972 4143 7340 4523 4746 5720 5920 6120
19 4347 4573 4834 5125 5328 5550 5753 6335 6571 6835
20 1528 1604 1610 1714 1742 1700 1758 2220 2285 2360
21 1562 1643 1730 1850 1920 2022 2112 2672 2780 2878
22 3385 3598 3782 4065 4242 4512 4702 5167 5378 5620 N
\0
-..1
 TABLE H.12. (Cont 'd)

DIAL GAGE READINGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F2 CASE II

TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)

DIAL
GAGE NO. 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96
1 534 534 534 534 549 592 592 604
2 338 378 503 466 655 810 893 960
3 2323 2468 2612 2712 3139 3726 4048 5418
4 2696 2739 2817 2877 3108 3227 3345
5 1436 1539 1638 1716 1993 2447 2626 2858
6 282 330 358 405 475 623 708 815
7 274 278 278 278 286 309 309 309
8 297 300 503 503 452 452 452 452
9 038 038 022 022 018 030 030 030
10 1470 1623 1755 1910 20iJ7 2317 2445 2560
11 2395 2444 2567 2628 2693 2865 2955 3040
12 247 358 480 480 858 1185 1513 1970
13 987 947 908 850 808 708 708 707
14 837 837 844 844 860 875 875 877
15 3882 4072 4359 4690 5167 5720 6347 7048
16 6573 6889 7321 7798 8343 9893 12770 16583
17 6170 6768 7118 7518 8038 8338 8847 9478
18 3301 3432 3611 3827 4070 4632 4852 5145
19 7050 7345 7719 8227 8717 9409 10087 10894
20 2442 2540 2637 2702 2818 3072 3212 3475
21 2992 3108 3252 3435 3622 4122 4308 4590
N
22 5708 5790 6030 6395 6750 7690 8080 8740 \0
Ct)
 TABLE H.l3.
DIAL GAGE READINGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F2 CASE III

TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)

DIAL
GAGE NO. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

1 042 080 110 113 125 135 151 158

2 118 315 380 440 515 595 690 803

3 235 705 1010 1335 1662 2012 2447 3000

5 175 685 998 1299 1640 1988 2440 3030

4 200 554 869 1181 1336 1732 2026 2359

6 000 000 000 000 000 lOO 288 525

7 017 059 161 249 323 353 393 411

8 390 980 1392 1830 2250 2670 3190 3900

9 607 1605 2482 3363 4240 5030 5970 7240

10 535 1520 2423 3237 4140 4920 5890 6990

11 172 461 707 951 1208 1380 1761 2181

N
\0
\0
 TABLE H.14.
DIAL GAGE READINGS (IN TEN THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH) - FRAME F CASE N
2
TOTAL LOAD ON FRAME (KIPS)

DIAL
GAGE NO .. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

1 052 084 105 132 158 179 204 249

2 106 034 021 065 118 178 257 283

3 165 17 5 535 908 1189 1565 1972 2382

4 648 935 1227 1453 1697 2008 2295 2608

5 402 162 145 530 843 1270 1802 2158

6 392 393 522 501 480 392 257 128

7 543 557 560 562 576 576 606 606

8 180 406 595 1049 1420 1868 2441 3187

9 689 1570 2352 2932 3698 4475 5898 6858

10 758 1620 2401 3244 3893 4660 5740 6806

11 634 737 1002 1427 1708 2058 2519 3104

v.>
0
0
 301

APPENDIX J

SAMPLE CALCULATION - ACTUAL DEFLECTIONS AND ROTATIONS

Two dial gages, A at top and

B at bottom, have been set at a dis-

tance of 30 inches from the beam axis

to obtain the deflection and rotations

of the beam (Fig.J,l,). The rotational ~.---~~~-----------A~·

deflections are additive to the vertical
\ j \
\
deflections at the gage B and subtrac- 1 \

tive from the vertical deflection at

the gage A.
\\\ \
\ 1 \ \
\--· -""~""...Y'" .->
\/\
·-············--+--'+-,-·

If A = the reading on the gage at the ~/'

/
/
bottom of the beam, and

B = the reading on the gage at the

top of the beam, then FIG. J.l. Deflection Details

A=d+x+cL (not to scale)

B=d-x+o<..

w.he re
d = vertical deflection of the beam at the section under consideration

due to loads,

x = the rotational deflection at a distance of 30" from center of the beam,

o<. = correction due to the support movement.

Therefore
A+B
d = 2
- 2o<.

A-B
2

A typical set of dial gage readings for beam B at a load of 10 kips have
2
 302

been shown in Table J.l.

TABLE J. 1.

Gage Readings Corrections *

Gage No, 10-4 inches 10- 4 inches

1 027 027
2 -016 024
3 013 018
4 109 014
5 019 010
6 008 003
7 000 000
15 124 024
16 187 018
19 167 010
20 067 003

027 - 000
* Correction at gage 2 • (8 - 1.083) x 10• 4 inches
8
• 024 x 10- 4 inches
4
For the point P, d • [ 1/2 (-016 + 124) - 024 ] x 10- inches
p
• 030 x 10-4 inches
and x • [ 112 (124 + 016) ] x 10 -4 inches
p
• 070 x 10- 4 inches
Simi1arly for the point Q,
d
q
..
082 x 10-4 inches

x
q
.. 4
087 x 10- inches

Therefore rotation between the sections P and Q,

\Ir -4
y P,Q = 1/30 x (087 - 070) x 10 radians
and the rotation per unit 1ength between P and Q,
 303

(087 - 070) x 10-4

= 30 x 1.956
• 0.284 x 10- 4 radians/ft.

The def1ection at mid-span

4
= (109 - 14) x 10- inches
= 095 x 10-4 inches

The absolute def1ections and the unit rotation between various

sections of the beam can be simi1arly obtained.

 304

APPENDIX K

SAMPLE CALCULATION - DETERMINATION OF PRINCIPAL STRESSES AND SHEARING

STRESS

Frame F Case I
1
Rosette (201, 202, 203)

Beam Load = 10 kips

Rosette Readings

201 (a ) 45 micro-inches/inch
10
202 (b ) -33 micro-inches/inch
10
203 (c ) 26 micro-inches/inch
10

The principal strains have been obtained by Baumberger's graphical method,

which has been detailed in Fig.K.l.

The values of principal strains obtained graphically are:

E lO.
1 = 105 micro-inches/inch

€ lO. 2 • ·34 micro-inches/inch

The principal stresses f and f are given by

1 2

1~\Tz. ( E, + \J f'l-)

= 4·1'=>><.10"
(I-O•I4St:)
1 t
\. IOS+O·Iâ,.S -3>4~
],\
= 45'2.· 4
f.,_ = - \-V'"
E ).. l E2. + v-€,)
4 '\b)(IO.b c-~4 +0·14SlloSJ)
(_t-o•I4Sl.)
-79·9

and the shearing stress "t is given by

E
= "2.. (\ + \J'") ( E1 - €'l.)
= '2.$ '!:>· 0
 305

The principal planes are given by

~1 • -41°

and ~2 • -41° + 90 • 49°

The principal planes have been shown dotted in Fig.K.I.

,,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'-St'
b

FIG. K.l.
 306

APPENDIX L

SAMPLE CALCULATION - THEORETICAL DEFLECTIONS

A. Deflections at mid-span:

1) Bearn B
1

For the given bearn B , shown in Fig.(L.1),

1
Steel Ratio
2.41
-2
p = 10 x 12.5 = 1. 925 x 10
,,
Modular Ratio ,, 1 ·s
6
29.95xl0
n = = 7. 212
4.16xl0 6

Neutral axis factor

-2
L~o '0 0
01

~
1+2xl.925x10 x7.212
k = 1o'' ...
-2
2(1+1.925xl0 x7.212)
FIG. 1.1. Bearn Details
= 0.56

The total moment of inertia about the neutral axis

2
1+4x1.925x10- x7.212 3
I = x 10 x (12. 5)
p 2
12(1+1.925xl0- x7.212)
4
= 2223 (in )

The total deflection consists of:

a) Deflection due to flexure

DM = Deflection due to the test load

+ Deflection due to self-load of the bearn

w (96) 3 3
=
1
-x
5 1280 x (96)
48 6 + 384 x 6
4.16 x 10 x2223 4. 16xl0 x2223

= .00198W + .00204 inch c 1 _)

(The coefficient c1 being !
4
for a central concentrated load and
5
for a uniformly distributed load for a simply supported slab).
384
 307

Taking W = 11,000 lbs.

DM = .00198 x 11,000 + .00204 (inch)

= .0238 inch

(b) Deflection due to shear:

--1 X;f
4~

~= 0
dx

= . 000106W x 10- 3

For W = 11,000 lbs

D = .000106 x 11,000 x 10- 3

s
= .00117 inch

(c) Deflection due to torsion:

The value of K is given by

3 3
K
( 10) ( 12 . 5)
= __...;.---'---;;:-'---:.---
3.6(102+12.52)

= 2116

Therefore

= .000473 wx 10- 3 C3 .)
For case I

e = 7.5 inches. Taking W = 11,000 lbs.

3
DT = .000473 x 11,000 x 10-

= .00052 inch
 308

Therefore total deflection

D = .0238 + .00117 + .00052

= .02503 inch

It is noted that deflection due to shear and torsion are 4.67 and 2.08

percent of the total deflection respectively.

The method is identical to that adopted for B except that the moment
1
of inertia was calculated from equation Y\·4 , since the section contained

top steel besicles the tension reinforcement.

c. Deflection at points other than midspan: Q

The deflection curve
of the center ""'F~t--~--
-x-------~-:--~-_j_Ô._><___,_,~~-,D.-c.--_-_-__-__-_-___-;:1---t
line of the bearn assumes the shape of F\g. L .2..
parabola. The deflection at any point at a distance x from the support

can be calculated from the equation:

j,)~ - ~
[g - (~ -><)"]
4
~
4

= 4Dc[
t?.. ~-(!-xJ]
4 2.
~)

The values of x for a particular section of bearn under consideration

i.s known, and therefore the value of D can be easily calculated from the
x
equation C4-:) •
 309

APPENDIX M
SAMPLE CALCULATION - THEORETICAL ROTATIONS

The theoretical torsional resistance moment of a concrete section is

the sum of separate torsional moments of the concrete, the longitudinal rein-
forcement and the shear reinforcement.

a) Resistance Moment of Plain Concrete Section: The resistance moment of

the rectangular plain concrete section 10 x 15 inches

~PE = ~ b~ dG, e
6
= 0.195 (10 3 ) x 15 x 2(1+0.145)
4.16 x 10 e
= 5·22 x 10 9 e (1)

b) Resistance Moment due to Longitudinal Steel: The component shear stresses

at the center of each longitudinal bar

f
xz =
where G = the shear modu1us of steel
s

( 0 = Saint-Venant's torsion funcçion)

Therefore ~

= G e[--'2>< + Lb/3:~\_1:7•)" ~oe.h (':l.YI+!)1T& c;,·VI('l.n~vn-J

f
yz s 'lT~l':lY\+1) Cos.h('2h+0
Yl:::O
Tf&(
"2-b
-,; J
(at x = -2.935 inches and y= 5.125 inches)
 310

The series converges very rapidly. Therefore it is sufficient to evaluate

the first two terms since the omission of the rest of the terms of the series

does not introduce any substantial error.

Substituting values in equation (3)

f
yz
= 32.14 x 10 6 e lbs/in2

Similarly

f
xz
= 26.36 x 10 6 e lbs/in 2

Assuming that the 2-No.S bars at top are effective in torsion and an ex~ct

area of steel is available from the tension steel for resisting torsion,

the rest being utilized for bending,

= 1 As [ f~z. b' + f: z d']

= ~ >< \•2.0 [ !>'2.· 14 ")( s· ~7 + '2~·'36 x lo·?..s x lo' J e
= 27s·~' x 1o~ e
= o· '?.. 7 53>'>(. \o
9
e (2)

c) Resistance Moment due to Shear Reinforcement: Using Cowan's Formula,

Mrs = (.1+'1r)'2. p
For D/B = l·SJ b = o·47<60
Therefore

~s =
").
\o )!._ 1s )( e
= (3)

For B ,
2
p = 6 inches

therefore

Mrs
' .s' '2.
6
'~~- 1o9 e
9
= 0.252 x 10 e in-lbs.
 311

For B3J p 3 inches

therefore
9
M.rs = 0.504 x 10 e in-lbs

For B47 p = 1.5 inches

the re fore
9
M.rs = 1.008 x 10 e in-kips

Prior to the formation of cracks, the resistance moment of the

section

M.r = M.rPE + M.r1 + M.rs (4)

For bearn B
1
9
M.r = 5.22 x 10 e
therefore
10
e = 1.916 x lo- M.r (5)

For bearn B
2
9
M.r = (5.22 + 0.2753 + 0.252) x 10 e
9
= 5. 7473 x 10 e (6)

therefore

e 1. 740 x lo- 10 M.r

For bearn B
3
9
M.r = (5.22 + 0.2753 + 0.504) x 10 e
9
= 5.9993 x 10 e (7)

therefore
10
e = 1.6667 x lo- M.r

For bearn B
4
9
M.r = (5.22 + o.2753 + 1.008) x 10 e
 312

9
= 6.5033 x 10 e
therefore

e = 1.538 x lo- 10 ~ (8)

If it is assumed that the restraint of central section (from warping)

affects the torsional rigidities of the sections proportionately, the theo-

retical values of torsional rigidity of the various beams shall be as follows:

Bearn B
1 = e = 1. 730 x lo- 10 ~

Bearn B
2 = e = 1.571 x 10-
10
~
(9)
Bearn B
3 = e = 1. 505 x 10-
10
~

Bearn B = e = 1.389 x 10-10 ~

4
 313

APPENDIX N

SAMPLE CALCULATION - THEORETICAL STRESSES

The calculation for the theoretical stress for the rosette (314, 315,

316) will illustrate all the steps invo1ved in the analy$is of strain-gages

and rosettes.

For a bearn load of 15 kips,

15,000
Bending moment M • 2 x 17.5 in.lbs.

and bending stréss f = J1L

b I
\SCOC><î• 5 '><. ~~2.
=
'2.. )(. 317+• 1
= 1'"3 '2. li)

Neglecting the small error that would be involved in assuming the

neutral axis to pass through the centre of gravity of the rectangle,

direct shear stress

= 44
The maximum torsional shear stress at middle of long side

'"t'~z.. = ~ E \"\'\ ').. e e-Yv\ '- ( ~ - ')(.'l..)

-tv Çl)~
C>()

+Ge ['2..b(3 S:in h (2Yvrl) ~ Cos('l.'!'l-t'.) TÎ'I<.

,.;L~~o
(2 "'+\)')...Co~hl"l.\'\4-\)119
~b
b

Substituting for m,b,d, E,G, x, y ande (for a 15 kip 1oad at an eccentricity

of 15 inches)

"t'')(z: = 2 6. 2 x 15

• 393 p.s.i. L:s)

Therefore torsional shear stress at point under consideration
 314

= 393
[
S~·7..S -1 •'29
SIO·'l.S
J
= 342 p. s. i. (_4)

Maximum shear stress = L max = jrt;J +

= 392 p.s.L
(S)
and the principal stresses

f\,_= - ~ ± ji!;J + (-r..-cS

Therefore f

and
1
= -66 + 392

-66 - 392
~

=
326 p.s.i.

-458 p.s.i. } (6)

 315

APPENDIX 0

DETAILS OF GAGES AND CRACKS

Figures 0.1 and 0.2 show the details of dial gages. The wooden

lever arrns at the top of the beams have been shown in thick firm lines

whereas those at bottom have been shown in thick broken lines. The numbers

within the circles at the end of the arms indicate the dial gage numbers.

Figures 0.3 through 0~10 give the details of linear strain gages

and rosettes used on the two frames. The details of cracks on all sides of

the beams have been sketched for use in the ultimate load analysis by the

Russian method. The linear strain gages and rosettes havë been indicated

in thick lines as (---) and (~). The cracks have been shown in dotted

lines.

The principal measurements required for the analysis of strain

gage and dial gage readings have been given in all figures.
 316

}'
-
·-t· ~
:.. -

-;r ~

~
~

C'l t'&>
'-"' --------·
-----=®-
c[J
-
cl ~
ç{) ,. 2
9 ..
~ -tl

-.
<(. r
"1:.;.. ~ ~ UJ
'-:t < 1 gQ
-
-1
w
cD
(Ç"---- -
N')
-- -----@)
l ~
(
- - - r:b
\:: ~
---

--·- 1

11 '-~I""U 1 ;.l
~ ïl ~-0 01-:..Q.
@ j
"e ~--- w j ® ';
0
.
0
~ ,, H
l'«
·o ÔG~ ~
<
-1
;t _,ln
~ ~ -
@
'
.::.!
'Π~- ~--- a @
-1
0
- 1. t'\
,__,
- - r:.'\:: pl'\
1_
' IJ

~1
 317

t -
::: _t'. ~
:!
-
' 1\ '~
~
0 1....
e -----@
-@~---- 0
·-
i
(11
dJ $
~9,... ~ ..
ôÇ -c• ~
w ~('(
~ç cO. = 1
c:Q'
+ (i
@ ---:_~
C5 ~----- -

- l' 1"\
1.,: j.l

'
-
-l
-
'
- -4
~ ..... ...__. ..____ ;,v :9
·~
l/) _;;;t:' 1>1'1 ..L:st:..n }}JI
11
N
0
.
' _,Q
0
~
_, ç
,l
~
-v <" - 1
f'l
(.1

-~ --·-
• QI
~ ------cg) '
::...~
- 0
-tr:'
0
1
•
'.g
t:_ 1\ Î... ~ _,
- "- p
- _i 'i7 \

'

- ., -; -, ~
 - 4' -o '· - 1 • '
4-() '• • 1
-{
-~-<

= 1~3/4'•
3'- :2 ,~.a,·· J
--- '

- 1\0"' .. J

,
1
1
1
..... _,./
"2o~C::>
~~9 v..,
\
_.,
-
-
1-- - 201 "· -

"2..~~'2.0'2.. ~04 /
/
',\
/
\, ./"'

,
~ J
-.-1 L \)}
1
1}1
' ,,
(J\

-:l.'-t-. ~2..,,
1

1'- 1o..\. '' 1 1

1 r
\01
:;1/
/
/
\al~
'"l.IC
IL~II ~~~IS'
', '\. "'l..\~
f-. - -
~~~lb
~1 è:.
' ''
"2. 1'"1.. 1

/
//
.... ......
ln'• 1
1'-4~....,·· J 1
'~ tl ali
1 '- 1'i. ·- .
T ..., '- 11'' 1 r
1
~~- 3Y'7....."

Bottœn Plan w
t-'
ry:;
FIG. 0.3 Details of strain gages and cracks - Frame F
1
 - 4'-o " 4'-o'· J
3'- -:L" --1 ""J.,'. ?..,Il
8.!1..".}_ ,,
--"
r
~

1
1
,_

1
1
11-
---
- Ill 11% biO bi/
~
'-.. ................,~.
!--- .
1
/
/
........ ,
IL - yc;;;?'o -T
1

1
c/ 1 '"
lP 1"'l.. 111.. 111
'
....J
1
1

.
P',
6'
~
l 1

.
.L ,, -:2'-4Y'L ,,
--
1 1
1 ~
1 -to.,. _,_

:.. G-<j -J - /

/-- !
1r- t!... l''
-- -
1

3 \D ~
SID SI\ -----1-,L
ID") 1
~""~12- ~
. J '·
"\ \ 411 41L

r- \\ \_ ·
- S12.
.
/
/
/IÎIOS / • •
. -\
\
\
\
"\ 410
/
/

- '3, ,,
1 .J~ ..
1 /' l !'....,......'' --.
\
--!
f-
,, +!,.." ~...
J
~1
Top Plan
r-
1

r-
t:< ,_
'.2.'- 1t')~,,
"::t ,,
!T'
fi,_ .<i
Ji."~·-
1 "

-
..--
--
-
w
.......
\0

FIG. 0.4 Details of strain gages and cracks - Frame F

1
 ~ 1a· ~s~

liS 19
~:1! "S'
1 - J,

Ele-\rat:Jon Bearn B 1 - Interual lside

J_

,,,
"2/- "'}_ '/..o~.''
\-~~·i -
l~(. 1;

1 û~ Il~:
Ji~~~( 9
!'r ~~(:, ~:3...

'
1 ~·
'1 "
14,~
70
--floS"
1cb
fïo7
~.
r:
,~~s._,._ ..-
bdf~9:L -
Jtoo.)
>50
~~
~Y7P,'
set-- 0 *--- ----------._...___
14
,,
.......... _
.
............
_ -i?O'"l.-
-- . . . . . ,~ "4 Ç:,o~ !>
- 0.4 Si ~0:!:>
............. .........
............
. (0 :10~ j!
c::n1
\\~
~
"4
-1- - . . . . ................ _
101 ~,

,/_4'' IL IJ..'
«::!.
1
- f-!1!'

ElevatLon Bea~n B
1 - E:.tterna side
w
N
FIG. O. 5 Details of stn:t:i:n gages and cracks Frame F 0
1
 // / //
/ /
/" \Ob / /
/ 1\\\
(/ t// / t
//
\o"V"f \o8-+-"2.'/~'

Elevation Bearn B - Internal side

h
2

/ / 1
j'
1
\0~ 1 / 1
lt

/
17 //
\'BI~/
1
rh
/ 0~
\(. ..;~,
#

~ /11//1 1 f\06 \4'' '

I.IJ
N
Elevation Bearn B2 - External side 1-'

FIG. 0.6 Details of strain gages and cracks - Frame F

1
 ,f

'•

,
'/~
17
/,"
/
-~·~
-
/

/
/
-t-~~~
1 ~~ .
........

--~--- \,
........

.___.
1'--"' \ /1 r--
1""1-111 !'.." -1
// /
./
/
/ .q..~·

- ... _.,._, i ." \ \.

,._.
--
1
" - . 1\t:y; r-.'- '?J'Ji'
1
\'-ii!....
b'-'i 1h'
'v.:<:::.'/.,_"
'"2... -
-- r-

'
•
- '

'
.
1

1'- c:; .,
~

_,..

~
' (j;j::-1 1/,!.,
-"'
r r--
-
+-
1
......... ~

" ~~A~ l).c

/ / 1

-
'' -- -· - -. - - t S'- - /
r •
"Jl- -
'' .---- L---A
le 1 ' :"'") '4. ~ 11
" '2'h.... '

Top Plan
w
N
FIG. 0.7 Details of strain gages and cracks - Frame F N
2
 L'-9Y.:
"

!f:f a'·

.,_\ ,, ,1
'' ' ','· ' \ \'
\
""'-! "t ,, ' ' \ 1 1 1 / / /
ft / / 1-:;z.!o''
\ ----1-1 /.~:/,... -Il ~/7 1/" ·~3z' ,..:
'', \
-
4--... '..,.
~·
,,
'\
\ 1
\i.
l
'\ \

''-'-
\ '

'
\
\
\
\
1)
l /,. /1
~' 1
/1
.,...,,
/--
1.
1

5'' J
/1
",:~1,
\c
...
- ~...."' -
\...
t' :ir''
~'.':L.'A..'· S'-' , ,..t;' ~-~'/.. '' l ·r

~'-":l..'l
1

• ")...'-9'' '?:/.' 1 "2.! - 10 '/2."

...,_,_ ':l.,ll. ,

l'-9'' .sY~' 'l \

' c.!' \'- ')!/

~~~<')00
l~lb'•
-:~ 1
~
~
1
., 1
......
-$ . .., '-
1 \
·" "" 1
/ / 1
'
----·--------~~- :;;-ç q~ ~
-- 1 \ -,4]/..J J 1 _ /, /
/1'-"S' 1 1' \ '\ \ ..
1-1 ----;1r1- - - · - - ! ----,---~- ' -~- .:::.-.~.-
7 7
................... - / ._.,.......
//' • - - ·/ ..... ' ' \ \... ' - '
/
1 é.. -----
.;"
/
.//
,--r
/'
_....__ _ _ __t./:...., ____J_ __L_L
/ / / 1
1
l
\
!
!
'
\
\
\
'\
\
'\
'
'-
""'
,.
l' ,...._

Bottom Plan

FIG. 0 .. 8 Details of strain gages and cracks - Frame F

2

w
N
w
-
,.
- 3.'-'"J.!.J.,'' 1
~
'r-~ 1'-~'1"
7.! .1Il ?::>'!..::. !
1 -,.

'-< 1'-11"
~Î\'·
,,,.. _, 1 ' " 1
1 11 ::
~
l ~ /"
./

/
'/

s· ,.-//
/

/If 4·,,,.
{

~l . . . . ., . . . . . . . . ._ \ } \, '-- 'i1 IL.,,

~
I

~
t(.' '\.(" ~~-~~8
,10 / / / / /--' 2-o Î' " ' ........ ' ( A

:>'ï 7' ~· / ' j/ / / · "/ ---''-- 1 '

... , ',
.... ' -.....____" ro .
\.,~
,-......... ',
....
//::;...-/ / / / / ///1 ' f'-., ', '-...\ ' ........ 1

.
l\,1~_.,
J. / /
i/
/
~/ _ / / / /'''
ID
"
'- ' - ,
'
'
..........
'-................
'
'- \ , , . , '

t
L / / / / ,,
1

t\'2" \'=41~
' ~ ..,..?> q 1
f

' ~~·~· ~ ..,

1 Elevation Beam B Internal side
3
"3.'-oX:.,

' \. \ - "'\---,. ,--- - - - - l~ . . . . . __ ///- // 1 /r / .

/1 '

\
\
'' '
\\
\
\
\\ 1
/ ,_ r
1
-r--

IQ
/
/
---r
5'?-)., . . .-b../ /,,---4~
1
--

/.,.
/
/
/
/

/
1
1
....

r-:
'
\
'\ '\ 1
1
~/
1 / /
t-...:::::-----kr
/'l.. 1

: \L9~ 1~
'<
"< 1~- 4'1-l: ... , L _.,
Elevation Beam B
3
·- External lde
FIG. 0.9 Details of strain gages and cracks - Frame F w
2 N
..&::-
 1 ., .,

~~.
5 11- l_ ~
"''•

-~--~~--~,~~-~'
' """·~ "\...\. "~ ' ' '' ,, ,
\
'-......... " '\.'
\ '
\ ,,
' ' ',
' ........",,,
' ................, -.;,~
-- /y\~ 1/ ..........
\ .......
/

/
/
/
'~'
'\ '""'
' ,,' ' ........... ~ \. ""'- .... .................. ,

Elev.:>tion Bemn B
4

' .
~'
~
. \
'"', ' ' ',
\. ': . ,
~'\ ' \~
----- l -1
.) ~
1
L c
)1(.
/ /
../
1
1
1-tt ,_
/ 7
L
l'' /
)
1

7 /;;:
/
,/
~4'oil..'
.
/
~

//
/1
"' ~~---~··

, 1

l 1

' \
\ ', '
',, \ ',
x ' \ 1 \f 1
1 1 1
/. 7 /

/
/ 1 1
1 1
lo

" ""' \. ' ... / 1 1 / 1 /

1,..;
. 1 1 "" - ' 1 !1lo 1 ~· Ld
.!\''l
,-

Elev<.'tion Be&!l B - Ezternal s:i.de

4
FIG. 0.10 Details of strain gages and cracks - Frame F V>
2 N
VI
 326

APPENDIX P

ULTIMATE LOAD ANALYSIS OF CRACKED SECTIONS

The ultimate load analysis of the cracked section is based on the

Russian method for sections under combined loading. A study of the cracks

developed in the beams indicates that for all the four beams the rotational

axis crosses both the horizontal sides.

The value of x (the breadth of compression zone) is extremely small.

Therefore the compression zone can be assumed to be rectangular in shape.

Moreover, the entire longitudinal steel at the bottom of the section is

available to resist the tensile forces set up due to moments on the cracked

section. The stress in the longitudinal steel will, however, vary from a

maximum in the bar furthest from the compression zone to a minimum in the

bar nearest the compression zone. Average tensile strain in longitudinal

steel has been calculated from the strain-gage readings (at failure) for

the longitudinal bars. Similarly the average strain values have been

obtained for stirrups crossing the crack. The product of these tensile

strains with the modulus of elasticity of steel bars gives the values of

stresses necessary for ultimate load analysis of the section.

Complete data is available for analysing beams B and B . In

1 2
beams B and B however, the strain readings are available for stirrups
3 4
only, which constitute a major portion of the resistance moment after

concrete has cracked. The concrete on the compression side has been

assumed to be at its ultimate strength. No error is involved in assuming.

the concrete to be at its ultimate strength, since the contribution of

concrete to the resistance of the section is negligible. The values of

tensile stress in longitudinal steel have been assumed to be 26 kips per

 327

FIG. P. L Crack details ~ Be~n B (not to scale)

1

ls'

.. ·l ~o·ttr!'
1
FIG. P.2. Crack details - Bea:n B (not to scale)
2

IS

FIG. P.3. Crack details - Bearn B {not to sce.le)

3

~/
FIG. P.4. to sce.le)
 328

sq.in. and 20 kips per sq. inch for beams B and B respectively. These
3 4
are a very rough approximation and considerable error can result due to

the discrepancy of the assumed values from the actual.

Bearn B : The measurements on the cracked section, treated as a plastic

1
hinge, are shown in Fig. (P.l).

The measured values are:

cb = 46.25 inches
18
and eb = 46.25 = 0.39

However, cb ~ '2.b+h = 55 inGhes

-~

and therefore cb = 35 iuches

18
=
35
= 0. 5 (approx.)

Average strain in longitudinal steel bars at the cracked section

= 403.9 micro inches/inch

Therefore average tensile stress in steel bars

2
= 403.9 x 29.87 = 12.06 kips/in

The average strain in concrete on the compression face at failure

= 165 micro-inches/inch

From the stress ·strain curve, the corresponding strength in direct compression

= 3600 psi

Therefore the flexural compressive strength

= 0.85 x 3600 = 3060 psi

Substituting values for ft (instead of yield point of steel)

and f , the value of x is given by

c
12.06x2.4xl5 - 10.25x35
x = 2 2
= 1. 699 inches
30.6(35 + 15 )
The resistance moment of the cracked section assumed to be plane consista of:
 329

1) moment due to normal compressive stresses in concrete

2 2 2
3060 (35 + 15 ) (1.699)
MR
c = 38.1
x
2

= 1683.0 kip-inches

and

2) moment due to longitudinal forces in steel

MR~..= 12.06 x 2.4 (12.5- 1.699) x 15/38.1

= 93.0 kip-inches

Therefore total resistance moment of the section

= 1683.0 + 93.0

= 1776.0 kip-inches

The moment of the external forces normal to the cracked section

= [(10.25xl5)x35/38.1] + [10.25(5- ,1.699)x35/38.1]

= 10.25 (15+5- 1.699)x35/38.1

= 1723.2 kip-inches

Therefore the resistance moment of the section at failure agrees well with

the moment on the cracked section due to external forces.

Bearn B2 : The measurements of the cracks necessary for the ultimate load

analysis of the section are detailed in Fig.(P.2.)

The measured values give

cb = 39 inches

1 = J 39"l..+ 15....
= 41.8 inches
15
= 39 = 0.385

But Cl) ~ 2b + h = 35 inches

max
 330

15
= 35 = 0.429

Average tensile strain in longitudinal steel

= 775 micro-inches/inch

Therefore average tensile stress in steel bars

= 775x29.87
2
= 23.15 kips/in

Average tensile strain in the stirrups assuming the cracked section

= 210 micro-inches/inch.

Therefore average tensile stress in stirrup steel at failure

= 210 x 30.19
2
= 63.35 kips/in
[ = 17.25 x 10 1
Therefore =-
2xl7.25xl5 3
63.35xO.llxlO
and pb = 23.15x2.4x6

= 0.209

The average compressive strain in concrete at failure is at the ultimate

value. Therefore the value fe' may be taken as 4176 psi and the compressive

strength in flexure is given by

= 0.85 x 4176

= 3550 psi

Substituting for ft, ft fe and eb' the value of x is obtained as

2
23.15x2.4[15x0.209x0.429x35 /10]-17.25xl0
x = 2 2
35.5(35 +10 )

= 0. 138 inch.

The resistance moment of the section assumed to be plane consists of:

1) moment due to normal compressive stresses in concrete

 331

2
2 2 (0.138) x 10- 3
MR = 3550 (35 +15 ) x
c 2x38. 1

= 12. 9 kip-inches

2) moment due to forces in longitudinal steel

MRL = 23.15 x 2.4 (10-2.25-0.138) x 15/38.1

= 166.5 kip-inches

3) moment due to forces in the horizontal branches of stirrups

MR st.h = O.ll x 35 2
63.35 x -6-

= 142.1 kip-inches

Therefore total resistance moment of the section

MR = 12.9 + 166.5 + 142.1

= 321.5 kip-inches

The moment of the externat forces normal to the cracked section

1
M = [
3
;·
5 3 5
x 15 + ;· < ~- o.138)J x ;~. 1
= 342.6 kip-inches.

Therefore there is a good agreement between the resistance moment of the

section (at fai1ure) and the moment on the cracked section due to externa1

forces.

Bearn B : The crack dimensions are shawn i f Fig.(P.3.)

3
The measured values are

cb = 43.5 inches

2 2
1 = 43.5 + 15 = 44.7 inches
18
eb = 44.7
:;: 0.402

But cb ~ 2 x 10 + 15 = 35 inches
max
 332

15
= 35 = Üe429

The stirrup steel has yielded and therefore

ft = 63.35 kips/sq.in.
24xl0 1
= 2x24x5 =3

and = 63.35xO.llxlO = 0 . 372

26x2.4x3

Substituting for ft' ft.st' fe'

2
x = 26x2.4[15x0.372x0.429x35 /10]-24x35
2 2
(35 + 15 )

= 0.026 inch

The resistance moment of the section assumed to be plane consista of ••

1) moment due to normal compressive stresses in concrete

2 2
MR = 3550 (35 + 15 )
c
= 0.6 kip-inch

2) moment due to forces in longitudinal steel

15
MRL = 26 x 2.4[10-2.25-.026] x 38.1
= 189.8 kip-inches.

3) moment due to forces in horizontal branches of stirrups

63.35 x 0.11 1225

x 38.1 0.429 (10-1.62-.026)
3
+(1-0.429) [3.75(1-.429)-1.69].

= 248.4 kip-inches
Therefore total resistance moment of the section

= 0.6 + 189.8 + 248.4

= 438.8 kip-inches

The moment of the external forces normal to the cracked section

 333

M = [24x15+24(5-0.026)] x 35/38.1

= 440.4 kip-inches

Thus there is a good agreement between the resistance moment and the

external moments on the section.

Bearn B : The details of measurements of the cracked section is shown

4
in Fig.(P.4). The measured values are

cb = 39 inches

1 = = 41.8 inches.

18.5 ...
eb = 39 0.47 5

But
'b ~ 2x10+15 = 35
15
and eb = =: 0.429
35

The average stress in the stirrup steel

= 1.209 x 30.19

= 36.5 kips/sq.in.
36.5xO.llxlO
Therefore pb =
24x3. 14xl. 5

28xl0 1
and =
2x28x15 = 3

Substituting for f, ft.st' fe' and eb

2
x = 24x3.14[15+0.355x0.429x35
2 2
/10]-28x35
35.5 (35 + 15 )

= .022 inch.

The resistance moment of the cracked section assumed to be plane consists

of:

1) moment due to normal compressive stresses in concrete

2
MR c = 3550 (35 2+15 2 ) (.OZ 2)
x 2x38.1
 334

== 0.4 kip-inch

2) moment due to forces in longitudinal steel

MR == 20x3.14[10-2.25-.022] x 15/38.1
1
= 229.3 kip-inches

3) moment due to forces in horizontal branches of stirrups

~:!
1
MRst.h= 36.5 x .429 (10-1.62-.022)

+(1-.429)[3.75(1-.429)-1.69]

= 286.2 kip-inches

Therefore total resistance moment of the section

MR = 0.6 + 229.3 + 286.2

= 516.1 kip-inches

The moment of the external forces normal to the cracked section is

M = [28xl5+28(5-.022)] x 35/38.1

== 513.9 kip-inches,

which agrees we11 with resistance moment of the section.

It is noted that good agreement exists between the resistance

moment of the cracked section and the actual moments on the section.

However the agreement in beams B and B cannot be relied on because

3 4
the assumed values of steel stresses in longitudinal bars can be different

from the actual stresses.

 335

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following abbreviations have been used:

A. S. C.E. American Society of Civil Engineers

A. S. T.M. American Society of Testing of Materials

A. C. I. American Concrete lnstitute

 336

1. A.C.I. - A.S.C.E. Shear and Diagonal Ten- A.C.I. Proceedings, Vo1.59,

Committee 326 sion No.l, Jan,l962, pp.l-30,
No.2, Feb.1962, pp.277-
334 and No.3, March 1962,
pp. 352-396.

2. American Society Significance of Tests and A.S.T.M. Special Technica1

of Testing of Ma- Properties of Concrete and Publication, No.169, 1956.
t'erials, Committee Concrete Aggregates
C-9 on Concrete
Aggregates

3. American Society A.S.T.M. Standards,Parts American Society of Tes-

of Testing of Ma- 3 and 4 ting of Materia1s, 1961.
teria1s

4. Anderson, P. Experimenta with Concrete Proceedings, A.S.C.E.

in Torsion Vo1.60, May 1934, pp.641-
652 and Discussion in
Aug.1934, pp.919-922;
Oct. pp.1238-1243, Dec.
1934, pp.l~2-1503.

5. Anderson, P. Rectangu1ar Reinforced A.C.I. Journal, Vo1(9,

Concrete Sections under n.I Sept.-Oct. 1937, Pp•
Torsion I-11.

.6. Anderson, P. Design of Reinforced A.S.C.E. Proceedings

Concrete in Torsion Vo1.63 pt. I,n.S Oct.
1937,pp.1475-1483 and
n. 10 Dec. 1937,pp.2005-
2009.

7. Banks, R.H. Flexural Stresses and M.Eng. Thesis, McGi11

Deflections of a Pre- University, 1956.
stressed Concrete I Bearn

.8. Billig, K. Structural Concrete MacMillan and Co. Ltd.,

New York, 1960

9. Brown, E. I. Strength of Reinforced A.C.I. Journ~l, Vol.26,

Concrete T-Beams under 1954-55, pp.8~9-902
Combined Direct Shear
Torsion

10~ Cowan, H. J. An Elastic Theory for the Magazine of.Concrete

Torsional Strength of Rec- Research (London), Vo1.2,
tangular Reinforced Con- No.4, July 1950, pp.
crete Beams 3-8

' 11. Cowan, H.J. Tests of the Torsiona1 Concrete and Constructional
Strength and Deformation Engineering, (London),
of Rectangular Reinforced Vol.46, No.2, Feb.l951.
Concrete Beams pp.Sl-59
 337

12. Cowan, H.J. and Reinforced Concrete in In.ternational Association

Armstrong, S. Combined Bending and of Bridge and Structural
Torsion Engineers, Fourth Congress
Preliminary Report, Cambridge
1952, p.861

13. Cowan, H. J. Torsion of a rectangular Applied Scientific Research,

isotropie beam reinforced Vol.3, Section A, 1953, pp.
with rectangular helics 344-348
of another material

14. Cowan, H. J. Theory of Torsion Applied Civil Engineer and Public

to Reinforced Concrete De- Works Review, Vol.48, No.
sign 567J Sept.l953, pp.827-
829 and No.568, Oct.l953,
pp.950-952

15. Cowan, H.J. Strength of Plain, Rein- Magazine of Concrete Re-

forced and Prestressed search (London), Vol.S
Concrete Beams Under the n.l4, Dec.l953, pp.75-
Action of Combined Stresses, 86
with Particular Reference
to Combined Bending and
Torsion of Rectangular
Sections

16. Cowan, H.J. The Deformation of Con- Civil Engineer and Public
crete in Compression and Works Review, Vol.49, No.
Torsion 580, Oct.l954, pp.lOS0-
1081

17. Cowan, H. J. Experimenta on the Strength Magazine of Concrete Re-

of Reinforcep and Pre- search (London), Vol.7.
stressed Concrete Beams No,l9, March 1955, pp.
of Concrete Encased Steel 3-20
Joists in Combined Bending
and Torsion
18. Cowan, H. J, Torsion in Reinforced and Proceedings, Institution
Prestressed Concrete Beams of Engineers, Australia
(Sydney), Vol.28 n.9,
Sept.1956, pp.235-240
19. Cowan, H.J. Design of Beams Subject A.C.I. Journal, Vol.31,
to Torsion related to No.7, Jan.l960, pp.591-
the New Australian Code 618

20. Department of Concrete Roads, Design Raad Research Laboratory,

Scientific and and Construction Her Majesty's Stationery
Indus trial Re- Office, London
se arch

21. Ernst, G.C. Ultimate Torsional Prop- A.C.I. Journal, Vol,29,

erties of Rectangular ' No.4, Oct.l957, pp.341-
Reinforced Concrete Beams 356
 338

22. Fisher, D. Strength of concrete in PhD.Thesis, London Univer-

combin.ed bending and tor- sity, 1950
sion

23. Fisher, D. Testing Concrete in Com- Engineering, Vol.l71, Jan.

bined Bending and Torsion 1951, p.21

24. Galbiati, I. V.M. Shear Stresses in Diago- M.Eng. Thesis, McGill Uni-
nally Cracked Reinforced versity, 1958
Concrete Beams

25. Gonnerman, H.F. Compression, flexure and :Proceedings, A.S.T,M., Vol.

and Shuman, E.C. tension tests of plain 28, Pt. II, 1928, p.527
concrete

26. Grassam, N.S. and Tests on concrete with Engineering, Vo1.172, Sept.
Fisher, D. electrical strain gages 1951, pp.356-358

27. Grassam, N.S.J, Experimenta in concrete Proceedings, Institution

under combined bending of Civil Engineers (London)
and torsion Vol.5, Part I, No.2, March
1956, pp.l59-165

28. Harris, c.o. Introduction to Stress The Macmillan Co., New York,
Analysis 1959

29. Hetenyi, M. Handbook of Experimental John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,

Stress Analysi.s New York, 1950

30. Higgins, T.J. A Comprehensive study of American Journal of Physics,

Saint-Venant's Torsion Vol.lO, No.5, Oct.l942,
Problem pp.248-259

31. Humphreys, R, Torsional Properties of Structural Engineer (London),

Prestressed Conc:rete Vol.35, No. 6, June 1957,
pp. 213-224

32. Lessig, N.N. Desig-n anè Construction. 'M:oscow, 1958

of Reinforc.ed Co·."lcrete
Struct·1.1res

33. Lessig, N.N. Determination of Load Proceedings,Concrete and

Carrying Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Ins-
Re.ctangular Reinforced titute, Vo1.5, Moscow,
Co:1crete 1959

34. Lialin, I.M. Experimental Investigation Proc.eedings, Concrete and

of Behaviour of Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Ins-
Reh:forced Concrete Beams ti.tute (Moscow), Vol. 5,
Subjected to Combined Shear 1959
and Torsion

35. Marshall, W. T. Experimenta on Plain and Structural Engineer (Lon-

and Tembe, N.R. Reinforced Concrete in don), Vol.19, No,II, Nov.
Torsion 1941, pp.l77-191
 339

36. Marshall, W, T, The Torsional Resistance Concrete and Construc-

of Plastic Materials with tional Engineer,(London),
Special Reference to Con- Vol.39, Apr.l944, pp.83-
crete 88

37. Measor, E.O. and The Design and Construc- Journal,Institution of

New, D.H. tion of the Royal Festival Civil Engineers (London),
Hall, South Bank Vol.36, No.7, May 1951,
pp.241-318

38. Mitchell, N.B. Jr. The Indirect Tension Test American Society of Tes-
for Concrete ting Materials, ASTM Pre-
print No.lOl, 1961

39. Miyamoto, T, Torsiona1 Strength of Re- Concrete and Construc-

inforced Concrete tional Engineering (TAn-
don), Vo1.22, No. 11,,
1927, pp.637-647

40. Moore, M.B. Principles of Experimental Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

Stress Analysis New York, 1954

41. Murray, W.M. and Strain Gage Techniques Massachussets Institute

Stein, P.K. of Techno1ogy, Cambridge,
Mass., 1957

42. Nadai, A. Plasticity McGraw-Hill Book Co.Inc.,

New York, 1931

43. Nadai, A. Theory of flow and frac- Second Edition, McGraw-

ture of Solids Hil1 Book Co.Inc., New
York, 1950

4A. Parce 1, J. I. and Analysis of Statically Third Edition, John Wiley

Moorman, R.B.B. Indeterminate Structures and Sons, Inc., New York,
1959

45. Payne, L.E. Torsion of Composite Sec- Iowa State College Journal
tions of Science, Vol.23, 1949,
p.381
46. Peabody, D, Reinforced Concrete Struc- Second Edition, John Wiley
tures and Sons, Inc., New York,
1946

47. Perry, c.e. and Strain Gage Primer McGraw-Hill Book Co.Inc.,
Lissener, H.R. New York, 1955

48.Reynolds, C.E. Reinforced Concrete De- Fifth Edition, Concrete

signers Handbook Series, London, 1957

49.Reynolds, C.E. Concrete Construction Second Edition, Concrete

Series, London,l950
 340

50. Richart, F.E., A Study of the Failure of Bulletin No.l85, University

Brantzaeg, A. Concrete under Combined of Illinois, Engineering
and Brown, R.L. Compressive Stresses Experiment Station, Nov.1928

51.. Roark, R,J. Formulas for Stress and Third Edition, McGraw-Hill
Strain Book Co.Inc., New York, 1954

52. Seely, F.B. and Advanced Strength of Mate- Second Edition, John Wi1ey
Smith, J .0. rials and Sons, Inc., New York,
1952

53. Shanley, F.R. Strength of Materials McGraw-Hi11 Book Co.Inc.,

New York, 1957

54. Sutherland, H. Reinforced Concrete Design Second Edition, John Wi1ey

and Reese, C.R. and Sons, Inc., New York,
1956

55. Timoshenko, s. Theory of Elasticity Second Edition, McGraw-

and Goodier, J.N. Hill Book Co.Inc., New
York, 1951

56. Troxel, G.E. and Composition and Properties Mc Gr aw-Hi 11 Book Co. Inc • ,
Davis, H.E. of Concrete New York, 1956

5.7. Turner 1 L. and Plain and Reinforced Con- Institution of Civil En-
Davis, V. C. crete in Torsion with Par- gineers, London, Selected
ticular Reference to Re- Engineering Paper No.l65,
inforced Concrete Beams 1934

58. Young, C.R. Torsional Strength of Rec- School of Engineering Re-

Sagar 1 w. L. and tangular Sections of Con- search Bulletin No.3,
Hughes, C.A. crete, Plain and Rein- University of Toronto,
forced 1922

59. Zia, P.Z. Torsional Strength of Pre- A.C.I. Journal, Vol.32,

stressed Concrete Members No.lO, Apr.1961, pp.1337-
1359

60. Zia, P.Z. Torsional Strength of Pre- PhD Thesis, University of

stressed Concrete Members Florida, Jan, 1960