testing of thin shell concrete cones by h. c. …digital.lib.lehigh.edu/fritz/pdf/414_2.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
• TESTING OF THIN SHELL CONCRETE CONES
By H. C. Mehta
1. INTRODUCTION:
Large submersible shells and other components of reinforced
concrete whose dimensions will be many times greater than such elements
studied previously have been envisioned as a part of a total concept
1-6 to utilize the solar energy available in the oceans. The analysis
and design of these structural components pose a challenge due to
several factors, some of which are entirely novel due to locatio~
of the plant. Also, since most of these structures consist of a series
of ring stiffened cylindrical or cone shaped reinforced concrete shells
covered with spherical caps, analysis of such structures requires the
availability of complex computer programs based on finite difference
or finite-element analysis technique. To further extend such programs
so that they are capable to handle loadings in a generalized manner,
inclusion of elastic-plastic strain hardening fracture material model
d k . . f f d h. . . d7 an ·~nemat~cs o concrete racture an crus ~ng ~s requ~re . Also,
to test if such theories will reasonably predict failure behavior in
practice, tests on thin cylindrical shell specimens under monotonically
increasing axial load conditions are required.
The objective of this program is, therefore, to test concrete
cone specimens with widely varying material properties to trace the
load-deformation response, internal stresses and crack propagation
through the elastic, inelastic and ultimate ranges. It has been possible
to vary the properties of concrete and behavior of concrete cones by
polymer impregnation and steel reinforcement as ring stiffening and
~' -2
general mesh reinforcement. The details are given in Tables 2 and 3
and Figs. 1 and 2. The mechanical and fracture behavior for both
reinforced and unreinforced concrete can be tailored to range from
strong linear elastic but brittle to tough and ductile by various
combinations of rubbery and brittle polymers like butyl acrylate and
methyl methacrylate, respectively. Such composite specimens are ideal
for the purpose of comparison with various material models now available
in the NONSAP program.
2. TEST PROGRAM
2.1 Preparation and Casting of Cone Specimens
The concrete cone specimens were cast in two sizes, the big cone
and the small cone,. the nominal dimensions of which are shown in
Figs. 1 and 2. In total, seven batches were made using the same concrete
mix shown in Table 1. The mold comprised of outer and inner thin steel
sheet cones spaced at the top and bottom by circular spacers (Fig. 15).
The concrete mix is made stiff enough so that it can be rodded in the
mold space. Each specimen was cast in three layers with sufficient
intervals in between to allow the mix to settle in the mold and bleed water if
any is to come up, thus giving a denser, uniform concrete. Eight 3x6 in
cylinders were also cast with each of the first four batches to measure
the stress-strain properties. Batches 5, 6 and 7 were cast with the
same mix as above but included wire reinforcement or one· ply of wire
mesh as shown in Table 2 and Figs. 1 and 2. All the specimens were
removed from the mold after 72 hr and kept in moisture room (90-100%
RH) for 28 days. There ~.;rere minimal surface defects observed although
some out of roundness andvariation in thickness were evident. Also,
-3
some cones had uneven bottom surface due to uneven settling of the base
during casting. This was corrected as far as possible by capping the
specimen with special procedure in-situ in the machine.
2.2 Test Set Up
The testing program consisted of a) mechanical tests on 3x6 in
cylinders, b) uniaxial compressive test on conef' (Fig. 3). In both cases, part
of the specimen were impregnated with polymers (Table 3) using the
following procedure.
Cones and cylinders from the same batch were dried in the oven
at 260°F for 72 hr and then soaked at atmospheric pressure in a monomer
bath contained in 55 gallon drum for 45 hr. The excess monomer was
then drained from the tank and hot water was poured in to polymerize
the monomer in the concrete. 0 The water was kept hot for 8 hr (80-90 C)
by bubbling steam into the water. The cones and cylinders were then
taken out from the tank and dried and temperature annealed at 210°F
for 5 hr in the oven. The details of treatment for the various cones
and cylinders from the same batch are given in Table 3 and the drying
impregnation arid percent loading data in Table 4.
2.2.1 Mechanical Tests on 3x6 in Cylinders
Compression (ASTM c39-66) and split tensile (ASTM C496-66) tests
\Yere run on the 3x6 in cylinders using a Baldwin hydraulic tester (300,000
lbf [ 1. 33 NN] capacity). The cylinders in compress ion were capped with
hydrostone to give a smooth and level surface. T\Yo clip gages (averaging
8 strain gages) were attached on either side of the rings fastened 3 in
-4
apart onto the middle portion of the cylinders as shown in Fig. 25. The
readings were automatically fed to an automatic plotter which plotted
the load vs. the deformation during the operation of the tester at
constant hydraulic flow rate. The benefits of this unique setup are
realized in getting post-ultimate load deformation characteristics and
reusing the clip gages which would not be possible with traditional
deformation measuring devices. The tensile load-strain curves were
plotted similarly as the cylinders were loaded in split tension with gages
attached on one side as shown in Fig. 26.
The strength results from the 3x6 in cylinders are shown in
Tables S(a) and S(b), the secant modulus measurements in Table 2 and
the stress-strain curves in compression in Figs. 27 and 28 and load
strain curves in split tension in Figs. 29 and 30, respectively.
2.2.2 Compression Test on Cones
Essentially, the same procedure was used in testing the small
and the big cone. The big cones were tested in 800 kips constant
movement type of machine and thesmall cones in 120 kips constant move
ment universal testing machine, except cones 10 and 11 (Table 2) which
were tested in 300 kips Baldwin constant loading rate machine.
The cones were strain gaged with 0.5-0.67 inch resistant strain
gages in two directions (vertical and circumferential) at top, center
and bottom. The locations and distances for gages on each of the cones
are shown in Figs. 4-14, respectively. The strain gages were attached
both inside and outside of the wall to get as much data as possible on
hoop tension-compression and vertical compression behavior in uniaxial
-5
loading. It was quite difficult to get completely uniaxial loading, as
can be observed from the results. The wires attached to the inside gages
were taken out from two 1/2 in diameter holes drilled on opposite sides
in the middle portion having only compressive stresses. As can be
observed from the data and also from visual observation, the compressive
stresses in this region was much below the ultimate, hoop tension was
minimal and cracks--always initiating in hoop tension at the lower edge~~
rarely passed through these holes. Thus, they did not materially effect
the results. The test setup is shown in Fig. 16. A thin polylthylene
sheet was placed on the base and hydrostone compound of the right
consistency was spread on the sheet. The cone ~vas then lowered and
centered on the hydrostone ring. Hydrostone was then spread on top of
the cone and a plastic sheet was placed on top. The loading head was
then lowered to cap the cone in place under a load of 2000 lbs for the
big cone and 500 lbs for the small cone. The capping compound was then
allowed to set over night before the test. This procedure gave very
consistent results and minimized the friction at both top and bottom.
Cone 7, wnen cast using the above procedure, gave a lower
result than cone 8 as the lower base was highly uneven and could not
be cast satisfactorily using the above procedure. Cone 8, having the
same problem, \vas therefore cast on a thick layer of cement and hydrostone,
the thickness varying to fill up the uneveness. As seen from the results
(Table 2), cone 8 gave almost twice the ultimate load obtained from cone 7.
The strain gages were wired tO a B&F multichannel recorder
and the readings from the load cell and the straingpges \vere recorded
automatically on paper tape for each load increment ranging from 3-10 kips.
.. -6
During the test, it was almost impossible to record the gage readings.
at the ultimate load as it took about a minute to record all the gages
by which time the specimens failed, sometimes totally for unreinforced
specimens or with a high drop in load for reinforced specimens. The
failure characteristics for each type of cones are shown in Figs. 17-24,
respectively.
The readings from the paper tape were transferred onto cards
or magnetic tape and the data was stored in the computer .. A computer
program was written for each cone to get actual load-strain data at
different load increments and plots for various combinations of strain
gage readings vs. load were automatically plotted. A typical calibra
tion of load cell are shown in Table 6. The program and results are
shown in Tables 7-20, respectively. The typical load strain curves
are shown in Figs. 31-100.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1 Test Results on 3x6 in Cylinders
The results for split tension and compression tests are given
in Tables 5(a) and S(b) and stress-strain curves in Figs. 27-30. It is
obvious from the figures and tables that the modulus, strength, ultimate
strain and energy to break are increased dramatically by impregnation
with MtvlA. This is in agreement with data reported previously~ Also,
as reported previously? the stress strain curves show a high degree of
linearity with only a slight tendency to yield at high strains. With
the incorporation of rubbery polymer like butyl acrylate (BA) with the
composition shown in Table 3, the compressive strengths, tensile strengths
-7
and modulus decrease from those obtained by MMA impregnated samples in
h . klO agreement wit prev~ous wor . However, two things are evident: 1) the
drop in tensile strength is not as high as in compression and 2) the
strains at rupture in both compression and tension range between 3-4 times
the nominal concrete strains. The failure is no longer sudden and as
explosive as}~~ impregnated samples. This also confirms the previous
study that by controlling the percent BA in the mixture, a wide range
of stress-strain behavior from brittle to ductile may be obtained.
3.2 Test Results on Cones
The results are presented in order for cones 1-11 in the
appendix~ Instructions to the presentation of results for each cone are
followed by results and typical plots. Reference to the location of
gages are shown in Figs. 3-14.
On observing the test results, the following things are evident:
1. Failure of unreinforced cones A, B, 1, 2, 3 and 4 was semi-
brittle.· It sho-.;ved that the failure started at the lower end
as the maximum hoop tension was attained. This is evident
from the failure mode (Figs. 17,18) and load strain curves for
horizontal gages for these cones. Cones 4 and 5 also failed
in a similar manner but much more explosively (Fig. 22).
2. The load-strain curves for cones 3, 4 and 5 (unreinforced
control and impregnated, Table 2) show exactly the same
behavior with increase in loads and strains by three times,
for impregnated specimens, as observed from results on 3x6 in
cylinders. In all cases, BA incorporated cone showed marked
. ductility \vith strains at corresponding
-8
loads ranging from 2-4 times the MMA impregnated cone. It is
interesting to note that both cones 3 and 4 achieved about the
same ultimate load even though the material strengths were
quite different. This is presumably due to more strain
ability of BA-rich cone. The failure initiating in hoop
tension was curtailed by increasing strainability of the
ductile material of cone 4 so that the cone was able to take
more load. On the other hand, cone 3 achieved such high
strength, primarily through its higher stiffness and strength.
Thus, for such configuration and geometry of cones BA rich,
samples could perform better due to higher strain absorbing
capacity.
3. Since the failure initiates in hoop tension at the bottom,
cones 6 and 11 were wire reinforced with several loops of
0.142 in diameter wire up to 4-1/2 in and 3 in from the
bottom level, respectively. Cones 7-10 were reinforced with
1-ply, 18 gage wire mesh 1/2 in C/C. The details are given
in Fig. 1. From. the load strain curves for cones 5, 6 and 7,
it can be observed that all the cones show the same character
istics. Due to uneven nature of bottom surface for cone 6,
it did not attain the same ultimate load as cone 7 as described
previously. However, the load-strain curves for cone 6
follow the curves for cone 7 almost identically until rupture.
Also, the wire reinforced cone 5 shows the same load-strain
characteristics as mesh reinforced cone 7 and achieved slightly
higher load. However, the characteristics at failure are
quite different in both cases as shown in Figs. 19, 20 and 21.
-9
Extensive shelling off of outer layer at bottom and nonuniform
cracking is observed for wire reinforced cone as compared to
very uniform longitudinal cracking obtained in mesh reinforced
cone, presumably due to uniform reinforcement provided. by the
mesh. The strength obtained was almost three times the un-
reinforced cone strength for both the wire reinforced cone 6
and mesh reinforced cone 8.
4. Essentially, the same load-strain characteristics are I
observed for polymer impregnated wire and mesh reinforced
cones as for nonimpregnated reinforced cones. Mesh reinforced
nonpolymer impregnated cone 9 failed prematurely to give about
the same strength as unreinforced cone B and cone 4. However,
the failure was ductile with gradual drop in load as compared
to total collapse for unreinforced cone. As observed for
mesh and ••ire reinforced cones, impregnated mesh and wire ,
reinforced cones 10 and 11 attained the same strength of 120
and kips as compared to 80-90 kips for polymer impregnated
nonreinforced cones 7 and 8; 30 kips for non-impregnated cones
as shown in Table 2. Thus, there is an additive effect of both
polymer impregnation and wire reinforcement. The failure
characteristics for cones 10 and 11 shown in Figs. 23 and 24,
respectively, lie intermediate between polymer impregnated
unreinforced cones 4 and 5 and wire and mesh reinforced cones
6 and 7. Much more extensive cracking is observed than
reinforced cones due to higher strains achieved at failure,
but the failure modes are similar. In all wire reinforced cones
(treated and non-treated) bond failure with no breakage of wire
was observed in contrast to typical necking failure observed for
steel mesh in all mesh reinforced cones.
-10
5. Some analytical verification of the test data observed for
cones 1 and 2 were tried using the general purpose nonlinear
finite-element analysis NONSAP program developed by the
University of CalifoLnia at Berkeley. The superimposition
of the test data (sho•m in Figs. 31,32) are the solutions
developed for up to 10% fixity. There is quite a variation
observed, probably due to variations in thickness and surface.
defects but, in general, the data tend to follow the ro.ller
support condition.
Further analysis and verification of the data will be carried
out to see if the program could correctly predict the behavior of
polymer impregnated and/or steel reinforced cones. Figures 33: and 34
(A and B) show the results for cones 3, 4 and 5 for gages at center and
bottom, respectively. Similarly, Figs. 35 and 36 (A and B) show the
load-strain curves for cones 6, 7 and 8 and Figs. 37 and 38 (A and B)
show the load strain curves for cones 9, 10 and 11. Analysis on these
typical results will be carried out and superimposed (as shown in
Figs. 31 and 32).
-11 REFERENCES
1. Heronemus, W. E. et al, "Research Applied to Ocean Sited Power Plants," University of Hassachusetts, Amherst, Progress Report NSF/Rfu~/SE/GI-34979/PR/73/3, January 25, 1974, NTIS No. PB-228-067.
2. Heronemus, H. E. et al, "Research Applied to Ocean Sited Power Plants," University of Hassachusetts, Amherst, Progress Report NSF/~~/SE/GI-34979/PR/73/2, July 31, 1973, NTIS No. PB-228-070.
3. Zener, C. et al, "Solar Sea Po\ver," Carnegie-Hellon University Progress Report NSF/RANN/SE/GI-349114/PR/73/1, October 11, 1973, NTIS No. PB-228-069.
4. Zener, C. et al, "Solar Sea Power," Carnegie-Mellon University Progress Report NSF/RANN/SE/GI-394114/PR/74/2, January '25, 1974, NTIS No. PB-228-068.
5. Lavi, A. (Editor), Carnegie-Mellon University Proceedings, Solar Sea Power Plant Conference and Workshop, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl~ vania, June 27-28, NSF/Rfu~/SE/GI-39115, September 1973, NTIS No. PB-228-066.
6. McGowan, J. G., Heroneumus, W. E., Connell, J. W. and Cloutier, P. D., "Ocean Thermal Difference Power-Plant Design," Journal of Engineering for Industry, Transactions, ASME, Paper No. 73-HA/OCT-5, 1974.
7. Chen, W. F., "Reinforced Concrete Constitutive Relations for Application to OTEC Plant Structures," Proceedings, Third Horkshop on Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC), Houston, Texas, May 8-10, 1975, pp. 99-102.
8. Dikeou, J. T. et al, "Concrete-Polymer Haterials," Fourth Topical Report, USBR REC-ERC-72-10, BNL 50328, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, January 1972.
9. Auskern, A. and Horn, H., "Some Properties of Polymer Impregnated Cements and Concretes," Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Vol. 54, pp. 282-285.
10. Chen, W. F. and Dahl-Jorgensen, E., "Polymer-Impregnated Concrete as a Structural Material," Hagazine for Concrete Research, Vol. 26, No. 86, pp. 16-20, March 1974.
Table 1 Mix Details for Concrete
Cement type 1, air entrained
Water
Sand, washed granite
Coarse aggregate, crushed granite }z;" maximum
Slump
Entrained air
-12
94 1bs
42-44 1bs
179 1bs
154 lbs
3-4 in
5%
._13
Table 2
Modulus of Elasticity {x106 esi2
Maximum Average Average Load From From
Cone -if Cone Tyee 4 Treatment3 {kies2 Cones1 Cylinders2
A big cone (1)5 control 76 4.60
B small cone (1) control 33 4.60
1 big cone (2) control 55 4.14 2.56
2 big cone (4) control 50 5.14 3.00
3 small cone (4) control 27 5.33 3.00
4 small cone (2) HMA 90 5.60 6.11
5 small cone (3) MMA/BA (40/60) 84 3.55 3.93
6 big cone (5) control, 190 7.53 wire reinforced
7 big cone (6) control, 89.5 8.11 mesh reinforced
8 big cone (7) control, 175 6.87 mesh reinforced
9 small cone (5) control, 30 4.35 mesh reinforced
10 small cone (6) HHA/BA (60/40) 120 8.64 4.506
mesh reinforced
11 small cone (7) Mr-IA/BA (60/40) 122 13.20 4.506
wire reinforced
1 Modulus of elasticity calculation based on average of strains from middle vertical gages on cones and stresses (up to 50% of ultimate) on nominal area at that end.
2 Secant modulus measured at half the maximum stress on 3x6 in cylinder in uniaxial compression from the respective batches.
3 From treatment details (see Table 3) 4 For nominal dimensions please see Figs. 1, 2 and for gage locations
please see Figs. 3-14. 5Numbers in parenthesis represent the individual batches of the same
mix shm·m in Table 1. 6 Modulus of elasticity for }~l~/BA impregnated cylinders.
Table 3 Details of Treatment
Cone.~.
4
5
10
11
7,8,9
6
Monomer Mixture
M}fA + 10% TMPTMA
MMA/BA (40/60%) + 10% TMPTMA
MMA/BA (60/40io) + 5% TMPTMA
MMA/BA (60/40%) + 5% THPTMA
None II
iplease see Table 2.
Catalyst
0.5% Azobisisobutyronitrile
II
II
II
None II
-14
Reinforcement
None
II
0.142 in diameter wire reinforced base to 3 in (see Fig. 2)
l-p1y, 18 gage wiremesh 1/2 in ¢ to ¢ (see Figs. 1,2)
" Two intertwined 0.142 in diameter wires reinforced base to 4-1/2 in (see Fig. 1).
Table 4 Drying-Impregnation Data for Small Cones
Cone Cone Type Dry Wt. Saturated Wt. % Loading2
4
5
10
11
small cone (2)1
cyl. (2)-1
(2)-2
(2)-3
(2)-4
small cone (3)
cyl. (3)-1
(3)-2
(3)-3
(3)-4
small cone (6)
small cone (7)
40.45 lb
1595 gms
1625 gms
1583 gms
1602 gms
38.6 lb
1525 gms
1557 gms
1548 gms
1559 gms
48.9 lb
49.0 lb
49.40 lb
1696 gms
1714 gms
1685 gms
1697 gms
40.9 lb
1639 gms
1672 gms
1660 gms
1671 gms
51.75 lb
51.6 lb
1 Number in parenthesis represents batch No. 2
2 d _ rsaturated wt.-dry wt.l x 100 o Loa ing - l dry wt. J
Treatment Steps 1. Dried in oven for 72 hr@ 260°F.
2. Soak impregnation in a monomer tank for 45 hr.
3. Hot water-steam polymerization for 8 hr.
6.06
6.33
5.48
6.44
5.93
5.959
7.48
7.38
7.24
7.18
5.83
5.30
4. 0 Dried and temperature annealed at 210 F for 5 hr.
-15
Average
6.06
6.17
7.32
5.83
5.30
-16
Table 5(a) Results of seut Tension Tests on 3x6 in Cylinders
Cone Batch Split Tension Strength No. Tyee Load {lb} {es i}
1 Control 17,650 624
2 Control 15,000 530
3 Control 15' 650 554
3 Control 23,600 835
4 Control 13,950 493
4 Control 14,000 495
2 t-l}1A 58,350 1,851
2 t-!MA 43,000 1,521
3 MMA/BA 44,750 1,583
3 MMA/BA 29,000 1,026
Table 5(b) Results of Comeression Tests on 3x6 in Cylinders
Cone Batch Compressive Str~ss No. Type Load {lb) <esn
1 Control 46' 500 6,578
1 Control 49,000 6,932
2 Control 45,500 6,437
2 Control 45,500 6,437
3 Control 43,750 4,916
3 Control 37,500 5,305
4 Control 39,000 5,517
4 Control 35,750 5,057
2 ~l}1A 123,000 17,400
2 riMA 139,000 19,663
3 HNA/BA 76,250 10,787
3 }IYL:\/BA 81,750 11 '565
Table 6
Load P(kips)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
-17
Typical Calibration of Load Cell for Cone #4 Test
Strain Increment (~e, micro-in/in)
Average
0
196
187
192
195
183
188
188
187
190
191
201
179
193
186 .
189
174
196
189.12
Note: Full Bridge Connection
Red +P
White -P
Black -s Green +S
Strain 6e(micro in/in)/kip = [189.12/5] = 37 .. 8234
--.-----
T
2511 II
II Intertwined 2#•142
11
¢Steel Wire
-18
1 Ply, ';2•c1c, I sJ A I 18 Gage Wire Mesh ..,.,. ____ 3_2_';4,;_
11
____ ..,.~ Both Ways
Sec. A-A Details Of Reinforcement-Wire Reinforced
Sec. 8-8 Details Of ·. Reinforcement- Mesh Reinforced
Fig. 1 Dimension and Reinforcement Details of Big Concrete Cone
0.6511± 0.1 11
I Ply, 1/2
1
:c/c, I B_J A ~ 18 G age vVi r e Mesh ~----------=2=-0.::__:1;--=2=--
11
----i Both Ways
Sec. 8-8 Details Of Reinforcement- Mesh Reinforced
y2•
0.[4211
f Steel Wire
Sec A-A Details Of Reinforcement-Wire Reinforced
Fig. 2 Dimension and Reinforcement Details of Small Concrete Cone·
-19
Fig. 3 Cone Capping and Set Up in the Testing Machine
Cone #1, Big Cone, Control
Vertical Gages Horizontal Gages
x4 x2
x8
24
4,0
~ 14x
Level 3 X ·x-----~---r---12-7/16"
-~ 1 Level 2 :
I 11·-7/8"
Level 1
Note: Measurements along face of wall not vertical.
Fig. 4 Location of Gages
xl8
I N 0
Vertical Gages
x24
x20
Lev~~ 1
Cone #2, Big Cone, Control
x Level 2 5,6
Note: Measurements along face of wall, not vertical.
Fig. 5 Location of Gages
Horizontal Gages
x23
xl9
Level 2 -----~·---·····--·~·-·····
.·
I N .....
Vertical Gages
x4
xl2
Level 2
x20
---~'~-~e 1 1 __
Cone #3, Small Cone, Control
.... t. 27/32" x x Level ----r--r;s 5 • 6 .
6- 6/32"
3x·~ 1,2 \,4 I
...... l X 2 13-31/ 32"
X
~5,1
5-26/32"
1 ~} ~ i4'-:::-~::-::--L_ev_e_l_l_:-:::-...,...,,j...x~19::-:X (j' Note: Measurements along face
of wall, not vertical.
Fig. 6 Location of Gages
;·.'·
Horizontal Gages
x3
xll
Level 2
xl9
Level 1 ' N
N
Vertica 1 Gages
x3
x7 LeveL-l __
xll
I eve 1 2
xl9
Cone #4, Small Cone, MMA
~ 3/411 X X -- r----
6-6/32''
·x---1-· Level 3
... t I
Level 2 14"
Level 1 1-1/J X X . -A ~---------------------~---
!
Note: Measurements along face of wall, not vertical.
Fig. 7 Location of Gages
Horizontal Gages
Level 3 9x+32
--""'L"""ev_,._,el 2 .. .... 17x+33
I N w
Level 1 x = 1/2" long, + = 1" long
Vertical Gages
xl4
xl6 Level__L_
xl8
Level 2
x22
Level 1 ---
Cone #5, Small Cone, MMA/BA
~ ... ~;;yz~_· -~ x Level 3
I 5-3/4"
.. i I
Lev.el 2 13-3/4"
5-31/32"
1-1/J'x Level 1
···l···
Note: Measurements along face of wall, not vertical.·
Fig. 8 Location of Gages
Horizontal Gages
xl3
Level 3
xl7
2 ....... " .....
x21
x23 Leve.~ 1
Cone #6, Big Cone, Control Wire Reinforced
Vertical Gages
x4
~ .. 3/ 4" ·x--r __ t ___ X
Leve~-~---12-1/8"
i xl2 Level 2 25-3/411
I
I
I 3/4'r;('x x Level 1 ....... A .....
I
Level 2 Note: Measurements along face of wall, not vertical.
x20
Level 1 _ Fig. 9 Location of Gages
Horizontal Gages
x3
Level 3
xll
xl3
xl5 Level 2
···-···
xl9
I N V1
Cone #7, Big Cone, Control Mesh Reinforced
Vertical Gages
x4
.. ~ .. 3/411 X X Level
~---r----x8 12''
T.evel 3
i xl2 Level 2
I 1211
I
I -·V X
1" Level 1
... A -
I
Level 2 Note: Measurements along face of wall, vertical. not
x20
__ .1-.~Y.~L.L .. _ Fig. 10 Location of Gages
Horizontal Gages
x3
3 xll
\ xl3) x\5 Leve 2
---------~--·-~--
xl9
:
,'
I N 0\
Vertical Gages
x4
x8 J.evel 3
xl2
xl6 Level 2
x20
Level 1 __ _:::
Cone #8, Big Cone, Control Mesh Reinforced
... ~ . 3/4"
r --r-· 12"
·- ! Level 2 26"
I 1211
I l-174tx Level 1 ···r-
Note: Measurements along face of wall, not vertical.
F~g. 11 Location of Gages
Horizontal Gages
x3
3
I.elzel..2
xl9
I.e.Ycij l
.·
I N -....J
Vertical Gages
x4
x8 -J.AWD-1-~
xl2
x20
Cone #9, Small Cone, Control Mesh Reinforced
.. t ').L8" X X Level 3 1-. -··r-----
6-3 I 8"
i Lev.e 1 2 14-1/4" I
6-1/2"
I . V'x Level 1
'_J/_~'·--
I
Note: Measurements along face of wall, not vertical.
Fig. 12 Location of Gages
Horizontal Gages
x7 -l.evgl 3
xll
Lel.lel 2 .. --.
xl9
'i !.eye] 1
I N 00
Vertical Gages
x4
x8 !.eve 1.~3 __
xl2
Level 2
Cone #10, Small Cone, MMA/BA-Mesh Reinforced
~ _ _sr_x_ X
6-1/2"
Level
f .... t
I Level 2 14-1/2"
Level 1
Note: Measurements along face of wall, not vertical.
Fig. 13 Location of Gages
Horizontal Gages
x3
x7 T.evel 3
_xlL xl5
---bL,eceve-1 2 .. xl9
I N \0
Vertical Gages
x4
Level 3
xl2
Level 2
x20
_ _Le_v.el 1
Cone #11, Small Cone, MMA/BA-Wire Reinforced
... ~ ........ ··-1/2" X X Level 3 i---r--
6-1/2"
: Level 2 14" ..
I 6-l/2"
I - il .
Level 1 l/_2~'x_ x
I I
Note: Measurements along face of wall, not ·vertical.
Fi~. 14 1ocatiop of Gages
Horizontal Gages
x3
x7 -t,e.v.e 1 d
xll
xl5 Lev-e-±--2-------
xl9
~23 Level 1
.,
I w 0
-31
Fig. 15 The Outer and Inner Molds to C?st the Concrete Cones I
Fig. 16 •:. ~ - . - - ~ -
.. . k ·'· .. . · --· . ... .. Test Setup for Big Cone · in 800 ;Cot~.stant. Displacement Machine. Readings from the Straift"' 'Gag~_·3-l.ere._. je.ci _._ .into ·· r--1ultichari·nel B&F and Recorded AutomaticallY", -~n - 'frape'i-..-. T~pEiJ ~- Note the Cast in Place Cap and Polyothyle~e~ Shaets at Top and Bottom to Minimize Friction.
-32
t'
Fig. 17 Cracking (Uniform Longitudinal) Pattern in Unreinforced Big Cone
P.R6 -J. 4llt · \
-~s. 1. ,·-,
Fig. 18 Cracking Pattern in Unreinforced Small Cone; Note the Failure Mode is Same as in Big Cone, Fig. 16.
-33
Fig. 19 Failure of Wire Reinforced Cone; In-Plane Shell Cracking with Falling Off of Outer Shell is Observed
Fig. 20 Failure of Wire Re inforced Cone; the Other Side of Cone Shown in Fig. '19; Due to Eccentric Loading, Some Longitudinal Cracks are Obs erved.
-34
Fig. 21 Failure Mode of Mesh Reinforced ConespVery Uniform Longitudinal Cracking Beginning at Bottom and Quite Different from Wire Reinforced Cone Cracking is Observed.
Fig. 22 Total Collapse is Observed at Ultimate Load for all Unreinforced Polymer Impregnated Cones
' ..
-35
Fig. 23 Total Collapse (Fig. 22) is Prevented by Wire Reinforcement of Polymer Impregnated Cones; Extensive Cracking Observed Before Substantial Load Drop.
Fig. 24 Total Collapse is Also Prevented by Mesh Reinforcement of Polymer Impregnated Cones; Failure Hode is Quite Similar to Non-Impregnated Ne sh Re inforced Cones.
'
. ' -36
Fig. 25 Setup for Compression Test on 3x6 in Cylinders to Measure the Stress-strain Behavior for Impregnated Specimens, the Clip Gages Fly Apart as the Specimens Fail Explosively, Enabling the ·Reuse
of the Clip Gages.
Fig. 26 Setup for Measurement of Load-Strain Behavior in Split-Tension Test
54
48
'-;:;)' 36 a.
...:.:: .._. 30 0 <! 0 _j 24
18
12
6
MMA Impregnated 3" x 6 11 Cylinder--t~~~-r Cone 2 (2-1)
Split-Tensile Load -Strain Curves
~-60/40 BA/MMA( 10°/o TMPTMA) Impregnated 3
11X 6 11 Cylinder
Cone 3 (3-2)
II II , "--Control 3 x 6 Cylmder
Cone 3
C " "c . ontrol 3 x 6 ylrnder Cone 4
250
200
150 z ~ ......... 0 g
100 _j
50
0 140 280 420 560 700 840 980 1120 1260 1400 1540 1680 1820 1960
STRAIN· ( M .in/in)
Fig, 27 Split Tensile Load-Strain Curves for 3x6 in Cylinders from Same Batch.,as Cones (for Cone Identification,,See Table 2)
I w. -....!
60
48
~
~ 30 <{ 0 _J 24
18
12
6
0
MMA Impregnated 3 11
X 6 11 Cylinder, Cone 2 (2-2)
Control Cylinder Cone 4
Split-Tensile Load-Strain Curves
_.....,:-------60/40 BA/MMA ( 10°/o TMPTMA)
Impregnated 311
X 6 11 Cylinder
Cone 3(3-1)
ST.R.AIN (Min/in) ~ ·, . ) .... .
Fig. 28 Split Tensile Load-Strain Curves for 3x6 in Cylinders From Same Batcq as Cones (See Table 2)
250
200
150-z ~ -0 <{ 0
100 _J
50
I w 00
M II 611
Cylinder 20 MA Impregnated 3 Compressive Stress -Strain Curves Cone 2(2-3)
Secant Modulus= .. 18 7.036 x 106 psi
16
-(/) 14 ~ -(/)
(/) w 12 0::: r-(/)
MMA/BA Impregnated Cylinder 10 w > Cone 3 (3-4) (/) Secant Modulus 3.867 x 106 psi (/) 8 Control 311 x 6 11 Cylinder w 0::: Cone 3 a.
6 Secant Modulus 3.786 x 106 psi :2 0 u
4 Control 3 11 x 6 11 Cylinder Cone 4
2 Secant Modulus 3 x 10 6 psi
0 1200 . 2400 3600 4800 6000. 7200 STRA,IN (Min/in)
Fig. 29 Compressive Stress-Strain Curves for 3x6 in Cylinders From Same Bate~ as Cones (See Table 2)'
140
120 -I'() 0 X
100 (\JE
' z ~ ........
80 (/) (/) w 0::: r-(/)
60 w > (/) (/)
40 w a::: a.. :?; 0 u
I w 1.0
20 Compressive Stress- Strain Curves 140
18 120
16
--A II II ,
MM Impregnated 3 6 Cylmder Cone 2 (2-4) .
6
--!'()
0 X
~14 Secant Modulus 3.927 x 10 psi I 00 C\J E -(/)
(/)
w 12 n: r- 80 (/)
w 10 > (/)
8 (/) w
d_"P_ II II , MMA/ rA Impregnated 3 x 6 Cylmder
Cone 3 {3-3) 6
Secant Modulus 3.927 x 10 psi 60
n: Cl. ::! 6 0 (.)
4 Control 3
11 ¢ x 6 11 Cylinder
· Cone 3
Secant Modulus 256 x 106 psi
40
2
~--~--~--~--~-----~--~-------~--~~--~--~--~--~----~0 0 1200 2400 3600 4800 6000. 7200 8400
Fig. 30
STRAIN (Min/in) .,-·- ·
Compressive Stress-Strain Curves for 3x6 in Cylinders from Same Batch.,as Cones (See Table 2)
' z ~ -(/) (/) w n: 1-(/)
w > (/) (/)
w n: Cl.. ::;: 0 u
I -Po
..
...
60
50
40
-(/) 0. .X - 30 Cl <l: 0 _J
20
fO
-41
----~..;:..--Level-l
~ Experimental Data At LeveJ I, Inner Gage I, Cone -2
o Experimental Data At Level I,. Inner Gage ·1, Cone-~ i
Using Friction Element
I o/o E (fixity)
, i' ..
0
0
20 40 60 80 100 . -6
Hoop Strain [ x 10 J Fig. 31 Superimposition of Predicted Load-Strain Curves on Test Data
for Horizontal Gages at Base for Control Big Cones 1~ 2. The Support Conditions are Close to Roller Type Support.
-· -. - ---~- ._ ·-·. ~------ ··-··· . ------- ------· . ·- ---- ___ .,._ ----
60
50
-40 (/)
0..
..::s:. -0 <t g 30
20
10
-42
10°/o E (fixity)
Level 2 · . Roller
0 Experimental Data At Level-2, Inner Gage, Cone-1
ll Experimental Data At Level-2, rnner Gag_e, Cone-2 ·
ll 0
ll
10 20 30 40 50
Hoop Strain [ x 106]
Fig. 32 Superimposition of Predicted Load-Strain Curves on Test Data for Horizontal Gages at Center for Control Big Cones 1, 2
-.90 L -43
Plot Number 8-5 A= MMA Small, Cone 4 8 = MMA/BA Small, Cone 5
80 C =Control Small, Cone 3
-(f) a. ~
70
60
50
-40 a <X: 0 _.J
30
20
10
0 40 60 STRAIN ( IOE-6)
' .. '
2 Horizontal Gages Middle Level
80
Fig. 33(a) . Load-Strain Curves from Two Horizontal Gages at Center Obtained from Test on Cones 3, 4, 5 (Table 2)
100
.. .- 90
80
70
60
U) 50 0..
-0 <l: 0 ..J 40
30
20
10
0
Plot Number B-6 A= MMA Small, Cone 4 8 = MMA/BA Small, Cone 5 C = Control Sma II, Cone 3
200 400
STRAIN (IOE-..6)
-:-44
2 Vertical Gages Middle Level
600
Fig. 33(b) Load-Strain Curves from T\vo Vertical .Gages at Center Obtained from Test on Cones 3, 4, 5 (Table 2)
800
90' -. •
...
80
70
60
-· 50 (/)
a. ~ -0 <( 0 _.J 40
30
20
10
0 roo 200 300
STRAIN (IOE-6)
-45.
Plot Number 8-9 A= M MA Small, Cone, 4 8 = MMA/BA Small co rJt.-5
' C =Control Small; Cone 3
2 Horizontal Gages Lower Level
I 400 500
Fig. 34(a) load-Strain Curves from THO Horizontal Gages at Base Obtained from Test on Cones 3, 4, 5 (Table 2)
,....,ol ::7 -
... .. .. 80
70--
60
-50 (f)
0.. ~ ~
0 ~
0 dO _J,
30
20
0 100 200
-46
Plot Number 8-10 A= MMA Small, Cone 4 8 = MMA/BA Small; Cone 5
· C =Control Small, Cone 3
300
2 Vertical Gages Lower Level
I 400
STRAIN (IOE-6) Fig. 34(b) Load-Strain Curves fro:n T~w Vertical Gages at Base
Obtained fro:n Test on Cones 3, 4, 5 (Table 2)
( 500
. ..,. .. ________ .- ----- ·---···---·-·-. -·--·--.·--· -·- • ·r---·--·---··-···--··-------·- ··•-··---·--·-
260 ..
175
150
125
-.C/)
. 0..
-a roo <t 0 .....1.
75
50
25
0
I·
20 40 60
STRAIN (IOE-6)
-47
Plot Number 8-5 A= Big Cone Wire, Cone 6 8 =Big Cone Mesh, Cone 7 C =Big Cone Mesh, Cone 8
2 Horizontal Gages Middle Level
80 roo 120
Fig. 35(a) Load-Strain Curves from Two Horizontal Gages at Center Obtained from Test on Cones 6, 7, 8 (Table 2)
-(/)
a.
-
175
150
125
oiOO <r 0 _J
75
50
25
0 200
Plot Number 8-6 A= Big Cone Wire, Cone 6 B =Big Cone Mesh, Cone 7 C =Big Cone Mesh, Cone 8
2 Vertical Gages Middle Level
400 600
STRAIN (IOE-6)
800
Fig. 35(b) Load-Strain Curves from Two Vertical Gages at Base Obtained from Test on Cone~ 6, 7, 8 (Table 2)
-48
1000
... ... 200
-(/)
a. ~ -
175
150
125
. o roo <t 0 _J
75
50
25
0 150
Plot Number 8-9 A= Big Cone Wire, Cone· 6 B = Big Cone Mesh, Cone 7 C = Big Cone Mesh, Cone 8
2 Horizontal Gages Lower Level
300 450 600
STRAIN (IOE-6) Fig. 36(a) Load-Strain Curves from T\vO Horizontal Gages at Base
Obtained from Test on Cones 6, 7~ 8 (Table 2)
--- . --------------- ·-- ... ------- . --- .. - ------··. -
-49
750
"· .... 200
_.._ C/)
0.
-
125
150
125
o roo <( 0 _J
75
50
25
0 200 400
-50
Plot Number B-10 A= Big Cone· Wire, Con!a 6 B = Big Cone Mesh, Cone 7 C = Big Cone Mesh, Cone 8
600
2 Vertical Gages Lower Level
800 1000
STRAIN ( IOE-6) Fig. 36(b) Load-Strain Curves from Two Vertical Gages at Base
Obtained from Test on Cones 6, 7, 8 (Table 2)
\
·.
120
100
-80
·-(/) 0.
·-060 <( 0 _J
40
20,
0
c
A
200
Plot Number 8-5 A= Mesh I Control, Cone 9 C =Mesh 2 MMA/BA, Cone 10 8 =Wire I MMA/BA, Cone II
2 Horizontal Gages Middle Level
400 600 BOO
STRAIN ( IOE-6) Fig. 37 (a) Load-Strain Curves from 'ft.;ro Horizontal Gages at Center
Obtained from Test on Cones 9, 10, 11 (Table 2)
-51
1000
,i
.. (20 L-
100-
-(f)
0..
-
80
Ci 60 <I: 0 __j
40
20
0
Plot Number 8-6 A= Mesh I Control, Cone 9 C =Mesh 2 MMA/BA,Cone 10 8 = V/ire I MMA/BA, Cone II
200 400
STRAIN ( IOE-6)
600
-52
2 Vertico I Gages Middle Level ...
800
Fig. 37(b) Load-Strain Curves from THo Vertical Gages at Center Obtained from Test on Cones 9, 10, 11 (Table 2)
I 1000
120
100
80
.__.. 60 o. <l: 0 _J
40
20
0
Plot Number 8 -I 0 A= Mesh I Control, Cone 9 C =Mesh 2 MMA/BA, Cone 10 8 =Wire I MMA/BA, Cone I I
100 200 300
STRAIN (IOE-6)
-53
2 Vertical Gages Lower Level
400
Fig. 38(a) Load-Strain Curves from Two Horizontal Gages at Base Obtained from Test on Cones 9, 10, 11 (Table 2)
8
120
100
. 80
..-:-o tt)
0.. . .X
~60 <( 0 _J
40
20
0
Plot Number B-10 A= Mesh I Control, Cone 9 , C =Mesh 2 MMA/BA, Cone 10 8 =Wire I MMA/BA, Cone II
2 Horizontal Gages Lower Level
-54
150 300 450 600 750
STRAIN (IOE-6) Fig. 38(b) Load-Strain Curves from Two Vertical Gages at Base
Obtained from Test on Cones 9, 10, 11 (Table 2)