Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:
Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la
première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.
Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at
PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.
https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits
L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.
Report (National Research Council of Canada. Division of Building Research), 1954-08-01
READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE.
https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright
NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC : https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=0faebb99-2f38-49d6-86d5-f134b8b33367 https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=0faebb99-2f38-49d6-86d5-f134b8b33367
For the publisher’s version, please access the DOI link below./ Pour consulter la version de l’éditeur, utilisez le lien DOI ci-dessous.
https://doi.org/10.4224/20386680
Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at
Loading Test on Prestressed Concrete Bridge Beam on Sussex Drive
CANADA
DIVISION OF BUILDING RESEARCH
LOADING TEST ON
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BRIDGE BEAM ON SUSSEX DRIVE
by
L. J. Marcon
ANAL YZEO
Prepared for submission to the City of Ottawa
Report Noo 39
of the
Division of Building Research
OTTAWA
The City of Ottawa, through its Department of Works and Planning and the Waterworks Department, has co-operated with the Division of Building Research in a number of research investigations, it is believed to mutual benefit, certainly to the advantage of the Division.
The opportunity of working with the City on the testing of a prestressed beam for the new Bytown Bridges
along the Sussex Drive was therefore welcomed. The new
bridges are adjacent to the Sussex Street headquarters building of the Council, giving access to Green Island on which one of the original temporary offices of the Division was located.
This report is a factual record of the test
procedure and the results obtained. A comparison of the
measured deflection and the ultimate load with the figures
obtained from the designer is also included. The report
was circulated in draft form to those directly concerned for comment, and in its present revised form, incorporates most
of the suggestions received. This assistance in the
preparation of the report is gratefully acknowledged. The report has been written by L. J. Marcon, Junior Research Officer in the Building Design Section of D.B.R., who was in immediate charge of the test beam work, under the supervision of W. R. Schriever, head of the Building Design Section.
Robert F. Legget, Director.
Ottawa,
by L. J. Marcon
Two prestressed concrete highway bridges are at present under construction for the City of Ottawa on Sussex
Street over the Rideau River. They are the largest prestressed
concrete bridges so far built in Canada. General contractor
for the construction of the bridges is Key Construction
Limited of Montreal, Quebec. The beams were designed and are
being built under the supervision of the Pre-Compressed Concrete Engineering Company Limited of Montreal, Quebec.
Each bridge consists of three equal spans.
Three spans 75 feet 6 inches long will form the crossing over
the channel south of Green Island and three spans 89 feet 3
inches long, the crossing over the north channel. In each
span there will be 18 beams which, placed side by side, will
form a bridge deck 65 feet wide. The beams will be
trans-versely prestressed to insure that each span acts as a unit. All tensioning is done by the Magnel-Blaton system.
The Division of Building Research of the
National Research Council is interested in prestressed concrete construction and has already carried out a loading test on a lOO-foot two-span roof beam (Cobourg Army Ordnance Depot). When it was learned that the City of Ottawa was going to use prestressed concrete in the Sussex Street Bridges, the Division approached the City of Ottawa and offered their services in connection with the loading test which was required by the
contract specifications. This was done because of the growing
interest in this new type of construction and in view of the research value of the information to be gained from the
loading test.
The co-operation of the following persons and the staffs of their respective organizations is gratefully
acknowledged: Mr. J. H. Irvine, of the City of Ottawa;
Colonel V.S. Thompson and Mr. J. W. Lucas of the Department
of Public Works; Mr. G. Lapointe, President and Mr. H.P. K?egi, construction superintendent, of the Key Construction Limited (general contractor); and Mr. P. A. Benn, executive vice-president and Mr. V. Sibly, resident engineer of the Pre-Compressed Concrete Engineering Company Limited.
II. DESCRIPTION OF BEAM
A. Design and Test Specifications
The bridge was designed for H20 - s16 truck loads as shown in Appendix B of Specification S6-1952 of the
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Each individual T-beam
was designed to support one half of the above axle loads with an impact allowance of 30 per cent, taking into account a reduction due to lateral distribution as stated in the above CSA Specification, page 13.
The general contract for the construction of
the bridges called for a test of a typical beam. The
performance requirements for the test beam were as follows: "If the selected beam fails to support one-half of
the design axle loads with corresponding impact before cracking and if the deflection of the beam does not show a recovery of at least 75% after removal of twice the specified design load, the beam shall be discarded and another submitted to
the same test. Repeated failure to supply beams
meeting the above requirements will result in the whole batch being discarded and fabrication
stopped until the cause of such failure can be determined".
The contract also stated that the contractor was responsible for providing the test beam and all labour and handling
equipment required to carry out the testing of the beam to destruction, whereas engineering supervision and direction of the testing operation would be provided by the City of Ottawa.
The Division of Building Research of the National Research Council offered to assist the City of Ottawa during
the test by measuring the deflections of the beam during the various loadings.
A beam 75 feet 6 inches long from the south
bridge was used for the test. Typical cross- and
longitudinal-sections of the test beam are shown in Fig. 1.
B. Construction Procedure
A typical prestressed beam was fabricated as
follows. One side of the metal lined form was erected for
its whole length. Reinforcing steel was' then placed and
secured in position. The reinforcing steel consisted mainly
of stirrups, transverse bars in セィ・ top flange and special reinforcing in the diaphragms and end blocks to resist and
cores for the formation of the longitudinal and transverse cable ducts were then installed and secured in place and then the remaining side of the framework installed.
The concrete was mixed at the site and carried from the mixer to the forms in a concrete bucket equipped
with a bottom 、ゥウ」ィセイァ・ gate. Internal and external
vibrators were used in the placing of all the concrete
in beams. High early strength cement was used in all
concrete for prestressed beams.
The forms were removed after about 18 hours and
the rubber cores pulled out. The cables of prestressing
wire were inserted into the ducts by a special winching
machine. The beams were prestressed when the concrete
cylinders reached a strength of 4,000 p.s.i., which usually
required 3 days. The wires were tensioned in pairs by
means of a hydraulic jack and anchored by Magnel-Blaton
sandwich plates. To obtain the necessary prestress of
458,000 lb., 64 high tensile steel wires each of 0.276 in. in diameter were used and stressed to approximately 130,000
p.s.i. each. The elongation produced in the wires was 4.25
in. Tensioning of a 75-foot 6-inch beam resulted in a
camber of about 7/8 in. at the centre of the beam span. The last operation before moving the beams into position was the pressure grouting of the longitudinal cable ducts in order to establish bond and to protect the wires from corrosion and the encasement of the end
anchorages in concrete. For the test beam the pressure
grouting equipment was not available, leading to incomplete
grouting. The beams were then moved to the bridge site by
means of two trailers designed and built for this purpose. The concrete for the test beam was placed on May 25, the forms were stripped on May 26, and the
tension-ing of the prestresstension-ing wires took place on June 3. The
longitudinal ducts were grouted on June 8. The beam was
loaded to destruction on June 29, at an age of 36 days. Concrete and Steel Data.- The owners' specifications
required a minimum ultimate compressive concrete strength
of 5,000 p.s.i. at 28 days. Three test cylinders were
taken during the placing of concrete for each beam. The
average 28-day cylinder strength obtained from the first
19 cylinders was 6,500 p.s.i. Figure 2 shows the
relation-ship of compressive strength of the concrete with time
based on the six cylinders taken from the test beam concrete. The concrete mix placed in the beam had a weight ratio of
1 : 2.13 : 2.81. The average slump was 1.5 in. with a water
content of 4.3 imperial gallons per sack of high early strength cement or a water cement ratio of 0.49 by weight.
The requirements for the prestressing wire were as follows:
Minimum yield strength (0.2% offset) Minimum ultimate tensile strength Maximum working stress
160,000 p.s.i. 217,500 p.s.i. 130,000 p.s.i. The wire actually used for construction exceeded these minimum requirements as can be noted from stress strain
information on Fig. 2A. The actual 0.2 per cent yield
strength is in the neighbourhood of 199,100 p.s.i. and the ultimate strength is approximately 226,300 p.s.i.
The Testing Laboratories of the Public Works
Department designed the concrete mix ヲッセ the beams and also
did all the concrete cylinder testing. The prestressing
wires were also tested in their laboratories.
III. LOADING TEST
A. Types of Loading and Loading Procedure
The test beam was subjected to the following series of loads:
(A) June 23, Dead Load
+
セ Axle Load of H20 - s16 loading+
30% impact.The specifications required that there be no visible cracks under this load, which is larger than CSA Live Load.
(B) June 23, Dead Load
+
2 CSA Live LoadThe specifications required a minimum deflection recovery of 75 per cent.
( C) June 29, Dead Load
+
3 CSA Live LoadTo demonstrate the deflection recovery and crack-closing properties of prestressed
concrete, load C was applied until considerable cracking had developed and then the load was removed.
(D) June 29, Test to Destruction
In order to simplify the loading arrangement, two equal and symmetrically placed loads were used instead of the three loads specified in the H20-S16 loading
representing an actual truck load. The magnitude of the two
loads was computed as to produce the same maximum bending
moments as the three-point truck loading. The beam was
Total Load (two jacks) (1 ) Dead Load + Load to producg an additional
bending moment of 2.5 x 10 in. lb. at
midspan. 23,400 lb.
(2 ) Dead Load
+
1 GSA Live Load 41,600 lb.(3) Dead Load
+1-
2 H20-Sl6 Live Load+
30;&impact 54,200 lb.
(4 ) Dead Load
+
セ H20-Sl6 Live Load+
Load to producg an additional bending moment of2 x 10 in. lb. at midspan. 65,600 lb.
(5) Dead Load + 2 GSA Live Load 74,400 lb.
(6 ) Dead Load
+
3 GSA Live Load 107,000 lb.(7) Dead Load + 4 GSA Live Load 139,800 lb.
(8) Dead Load
+
5 GSA Live Load 172,000 lb.The load was applied by means of two 50-ton precalibrated hydraulic jacks, acting against a reaction weight of about 120 tons of large stone blocks piled on a
platform straddling the beam (Fig. 8). Each jack had its
own pump and pressure gauge, the latter being used to
determine the load applied. Figure 8 shows the general test
set up. The jacks were rented to the contractor by the
Division of Building Research, but at the request of the contractor, operated by the staff of the Division.
B. Deflections and Measurements
Three methods were used to measure vertical deflections of the beam:
(1) dial gauge indicators;
(2) optical level and level rod; and
(3) wire and pulley system.
Deflections were measured by methods (1) and (2) at points
shown in Fig. 1. Some of the deflection apparatus is
shown in Fig. 9. At both ends and at midspan dial gauge
indicators were placed at the outer edges of the top flange
to indicate any rotation of the beam during loading. To
provide lateral stability during the test, and to prevent torsional stresses, vertical greased timber gUides were erected on both sides of the beam, at the ends, and at the
two centre diaphragms. In the actual completed bridge the
beams are restrained from rotating by the adjacent beams and by transverse prestressing.
Deflections up to approximately 1.75 in. were measured at all points with dial indicators and ッセエゥ」。ャ
level. During load series D (test to destruction) the dial
indicators were removed after load 6 to save them from
being damaged. The wire and pUlley system was used at
midspan only, its main purpose being to give the spectators an easy way of observing the amount of maximum deflection. Deflection readings were taken after each load increment was applied.
The Division of BUilding Research supplied
most of the equipment to measure deflections. Personnel
assisting in the test were members of the staff of the Public Works Department (Structures Division and Testing Laboratories) and of the Division of Building Research.
C. Deflection Results
All deflection values are shown after corrections have been made for vertical movement of the end supports
during the test. At the ends and midspan the average
of the two dial gauge readings were always used. Deflection
readings up to and including load number 5 were derived
from dial gauges which can be read to 0.001 in. For
deflections at larger loads the optical level and rod
readings were used with readings to 0.001 ft. Final
corrected deflection results are tabulated in Table I. Figures 3 and 3A show the deflection curves
for load fGr series Band D. Figure 3 also shows the
figures calculated by the designer for loads two, three,
and five. An average of the four deflections recorded for
the same load increment was not used, since deflections recorded after the beam had been cracked were larger than the results obtained before initial cracking had occurred, as illustrated by Fig.
4.
Load series number B included a sustained
application of load 5, Dead Load
+
2 CSA Live Load, fora period Qf 21 hours. Deflection readings were taken at
regular time intervals during and after load application
and are shown in Fig. 5 for the midspan location. During
the 21 hours, the midspan deflection increased- from 1.165
in. to 1.641 in., or by 40.8 per cent. On removal of
the load the midspan deflection decreased from 1.641 in. to 0.308 in., giving an immediate deflection recovery of 81.3% and a recovery of 90 per cent after 6.25 hours. The minimum recovery stipulated in the specifications
was 75 per cent. Readings taken the following morning
showed that the deflections had slightly increased during the night, probably due to temperature and humidity
TABLE I
CORRECTED DEFLECTIONS IN INCHES Load Series A
LOAD GAUGE NUMBER
3
45
& 67
H1
0.170
0.267
0.294
0.272
0.174
2
0.357
0.555
0.555
0.560
0.358
3
0.485
0.756
0.821
0.759
0.487
Load Series B
LOAD GAUGE NUMBER
3
45
& b7
ts1
0.207
0.323
0.355
0.327
0.211
2
0.377
0.585
0.636
0.586
0.375
3
0.488
0.757
0.824
0.761
0.488
I
4
0.615
0.836
1.037
0.951
0.613
5
0.721
0.825
1.165
1.115
0.719
!
I
Load Series CI
I
LOAD GAUGE NUMBER
3
45
& 67
H1
0.217
0.340
0.371
0.338
0.217
2
0.408
0.635
0.692
0.633
0.409
3
0.540
0.836
0.910
0.835
0.539
4
0.670
1.041
1.135
1.037
0.670
5
0.778
1.209
1.321
1.213
0.784
6
1.92
3.24
3.72
3.19
1.92
Load Series DLOAD GAUGE NUMBER
3
45
& 67
ts1
0.215
0.335
0.365
0.335
0.214
2
0.392
0.608
0.663
0.608
0.389
3
0.530
0.825
0.900
0.823
0.528
4
0.683·
1.068
1.169
1.067
0.679
5
0.828
1.352
1.492
1.356
0.816
6
1.96
3.24
3.73
3.30
1.95
7
4.76
8.18
9.33
8.20
4.70
7 1/3 -
11.70
. 13.86
-
-A sound which was probably due to a "stress redistribution" in the beam was heard by one of the testing staff approximately 3 hours after load number 5 was applied. This redistribution of stress is probably responsible for the jog in the deflection curve at the 3.25 hour mark.
Figures 3A and 6 show the load deflection
curves for load series D to destruction. The maximum
deflection immediately before ultimate failure was 13.86 in. The greatest twist of the beam, which was very
small, occurred at midspan. The relative vertical movement
of the two opposite edges was 0.015 in. or an angular twist of 13 minutes.
Cracks and General Observations.- Several shrinkage cracks had been noted before the test in the top flange of the beam, mostly occurring near the location of the transverse
diaphragms. The beam had been cured by placing wet burlap
on the top flange. The beams for the actual bridge were
sprayed with a surface film curing compound solution
immediately after the forms wereremoved. No shrinkage
cracks have been noticed using this method.
In the first phase of the loading test (load series A) the beam fulfilled the first requirement of the test beam specifications by not showing any visible cracks under half of the H20-S16 axle load plus 30 per cent impact.
The first crack in the lower flange during
testing was noticed during load series B, after load 5 had been
applied for 20 hours. The crack occurred at the 31-ft. mark
shown in Fig. 7. On removal of the load the crack closed
up completely •.
During load series C, the crack at the 31-ft.
mark reopened after load 5'was applied. Cracks observed
after the application of load six are shown as a solid line
in Fig. 7. On unloading all the cracks closed up; some of
them, however, remained visible as fine hairlines. There
was some crushing of concrete apparent at the bottom of the main crack.
During load series D, the main crack reopened
after the application of load 3. All other cracks were
still only partly visible as fine hairlines. Load
4
openedthe main crack to approximately 1 mm. with no apparent
change in the size of the other cracks. Load 5 opened up
the main crack to 2 mm., all other cracks to the centre
of the 27-ft. mark began to open up. The degree of cracking
series C), but increased considerably with the application of load 7, the main crack opening up to slightly over 1/2
in. The extended crack pattern due to load 7 is shown in
Fig. 7 by dotted lines. Figure 10 shows the main crack
at load 7.
On reaching a load of approximately 149.000 lb. equivalent to Dead Load + 4.28 CSA Live Load, a wire was heard to snap, which resulted in a drop in jack pressure
corresponding to approximately QTLセPP lb. With continued
pumping up to 147,000 lb. another wire was heard to snap, which again resulted in drop of load of approximately
14,000 lb. The complete collapse of the beam occurred
at approximately 139,000 lb. or Dead Load
+
4.0 CSA LiveLoad. The final failure was due to crushing of the concrete
in the top flange at the 31-ft. mark (as shown in Figs. 7,
11, and 12). Consequently, the maximum load carried by the
beam was 149,000 lb. (Dead Load
+
4.28 CSA Live Load). For possible future tests on concrete core samples, a 5-ft. section of the beam adjacent to the point of failure was removed and taken to the Division ofBuilding Research. An air drill and cutting torch were
used to free the required section. It was later noticed
that the ends of three prestressing wires in the removed section were not cut by a cutting torch, but resembled
the usual cup shape of a tension break. The snapping heard
at the end of the test was probably due to the failure of these wires, with the remote possibility that these wires failed when the beam was tumbled on its side after the test was completed.
E. Grouting
During the loading test it was observed that water from the interior of the beam was dripping from the
main crack at the 31-ft. mark. This started at the time
the crack appeared (load 5 of series B) and continued during load series C and D, but ceased during the intervening
periods of unloading. The amount of water was estimated to
be about half a mortar pail full.
After the beam had been loaded to failure the lower flange was broken up to expose the prestressing wires
and cable ducts. Examination showed that about a 12-ft.
length of the duct was incompletely grouted. At the location
of failure there was only a depth of about 3/4 in. of grout
in the 7.5-in. cable duct. It was from this void that the
water dripped during the test.
In view of the danger of corrosion of the wires and of freezing of the er.closed water during the wintertime the complete grouting of the wire ducts is extremely
important, especially in a cold-climate country. The presence of water in the duct of the test beam, which was the first beam made on this construction site, was,
however, due to special circumstances. The test beam had
been water cured (whereas subsequent beams were cured by spraying them with a surface film curing compound solution) and some of the curing water used for the test beam and also some rain water probably got into the ducts and flowed to its
lowest part at midspan. At the time of grouting of the
test beam the grout mixer and the pressure grouting pump had not yet arrived on the job so that only gravity grouting
could be done. Thus it was not possible to force the grout
through the duct from one end until it came out at the
other end. The grout had to be poured in at both ends until
it flowed out through the centre inspection hole. Although
it then seemed that the duct was completely filled, the cracking of the test beam revealed that some water and possibly air had been trapped, leading to approximately
12 feet of wtres not being covered by grout.
After the grouting of the test beam all beams
were grouted with the pressure grouting equipment. At the
request and in the presence of the owner a number of beams were drilled at different locations to check on the grouting
of the ducts. No voids were detected.
It is interesting to note that the large main crack at the 3l-ft. mark occurred in the zone of incomplete
grouting. The size of this crack and its distance from
adjacent cracks were larger than in the other zones, thus illustrating the effect of the bond between wires and concrete produced by the grout.
IV. Cor·1PARISON WITH DESIGN FIGURES AND CONCLUDING RErvlARKS
A comparison of the measured deflection and ultimate load with the design figures was possible through the kindness of Mr. P.A. Benn, Pre-Compressed Concrete Engineering Co. Ltd., who made the theoretical figures available for inclusion in this report.
The ultimate moment and the ultimate load have been determined according to Professor Magnel1 s theory as
outlined in his book "Prestressed Concrete", Concrete Publications Ltd., London,
1954,
page85.
r.1 ult
=
=
214,000 ?\ b d 2 At
bd
b
=
width of top flange (inches)d
=
distance between top fibre and centroid of wires (inches) At=
Area of tension member (wires) (square inches)A
=
0.2762164=
3.84 in. 24
1\= 3.84 42 x 38 r.1ul t=
214,000 x 3.84 x 42 x 38 2=
31,200,000 in. lb. 42x
38The corresponding force at each jack is: MUI t - MD.\'1.
P ;
a
=
セQLRPPLPPPセ 29.25 x 12- 5,000,000-- -=
74 500 Ib,
.
The total load (two jacks) is:2P
=
149,000 lb.This represents Dead Load
+
4.29 CSA Live Load. Thistheoretical figure, derived from Professor r.1agnel's empirical formula, is very close to the test results
(Dead Load
+
4.28 CSA Live Load). This formula has beendeveloped from the result of tests on twenty-two beams,
differing widely in size and percentage of steel. In
Professor Magnel's paper in the Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Prestressed Concrete, Toronto, 1954, page 8, Figure 9, the results of these tests have been plotted
together with the function Mult
I
bd 2, showing that many results fall close to the line of the function.This report, after a brief description of the design and construction of the 75-foot prestressed concrete beams used in one of the two Sussex Street bridges, covers mainly the loadings applied to the beam, the resulting deflections, the cracks observed, and some general
observations.
It is hoped that this "case record" will be of value to those interested in prestressed concrete.
i
./
'7
r:
/0-
I l 0 II t:.::セゥセセセセ]]MMM]MセM
-=-:=-==---=セ
! - セセZァMセ 1-_- _ _ _ _ n I 0 - - - -- - - --:I:. QセSGBGMMM STUL PLATE r "0/c I I" 72 -10 •c BEARING, 7.5'-4" OVERALL c-:セ 75'-b"'/C ABUTME.NTS v vELE.VATION
·f
TYPICAL BEAM (BEFORE. TENSIONING)r /I 14 - 1/ 14 -, 4"
I
rz'-0" ...t> A , I I JV v PLAN QSセ 40'-30" SKeW BRI!?6£. ScAl.L- %"./-0" ", .セ セLZ[ LOCAT I ON·r
I?EFLE..CTlON POINT'Sセ OPTICAL LElia ROO
e OlAf.. 6At/6E.-FIGURE. I 1(,." 6ROIJTE.D AFTCA n:'NS'loN I Nt! SE.CTION A-A ., I tI SCALE.: 1-1-0
1/
-/
/
/
.3 7 28 セ セooHI 10 セ III セ -/-ooc 1A セ.... '2000 VIセ
セ 0 セ \j 10 !? 20 PAYS 30 a avセrageM COMPR£f>f>IV£ STR£)/GTH (7500 Po 5.1.a MAXIMUM COMf'R£5SIVE. 5TRE)/6TJI 8050 f'.e.r.
a MI/o/IMUM COMf'ReSSIVE. STR£)/GTJI
1950 p.S.l.
(19 CYLIJ./O£J2S)
FIGUT<E. '2
INCRE.ASt.. OF CONCJ:2f.TE. 5TI<E.I-lGTH \VITH TIME...
200,000 III III III セ lJI III 100JOOO -J .... III セ セ '20,000 セ
I
rXP.
X;/
( Ip; IC
YIelDーoOセイi
/
1,-
1/
V/
I
/
/ /j
/
I
,-/
I
/
I
/
セnッャセYTOp
)/
9
セN ,,0 995/17 J /Vo YYセOエjI
/
I
/
!
/
I
/
I
/
I
/
I
/
f
i/
f
;'
I
/
I
/
I
/
I
!
l
t
l
セ
r/
o o '2 4- 0 セ 51RAIN IN 10-3 tn/m 8SAMPI..E. DJAM. 5TI2Ef.JGTII YIUD PT. unuot-JG. 1-10 11-1. 1".5.1. P.$.I. (a'GA..) 994/0 o.'278 '2'24,050 174.1000 4.0 995/l) o.'277 GRGRXNQXセP 198.1000 g.'25 YYセOo 0.277 '228,8IPO 194,000 4.7 • AVEI2,A,GL 0.278 22IP,300 199,000 -/-.2 " 9 Samples tested FfGURf. ZA TYPIC-AI- UtセeNss - STRAIN CU.QVE...5 OF PQE.STI<E.SS/NG \VIRE.
0 0-100 0·'200 0·300 (p W :r 0·400 u z 0 ..50 0 z
-z
O-CDOO 0 -... 0-700 IJ uJ - I u, 0·500 uJ セ o-soo 1-000 1-100 1·'200 ME.A5UP,E..l?CALC U LAT E..D
/
00 lセN
\'
/
COP.RE..CTE..D ME..A5URlD DE..FLE...CTIONS AND CALCULATE.D rn.FLE..CT10N5'
LOAO Se.RIE-SO
'8...
...UtvCRACkcO 8E-AM FIGURE."3
セセio I- 4'3'l"
t
GAUGE- NUME>E....RS 4 Uエセ7
8 LOAD .3 .3 _ _ - - . ; . - - _ + _ TセMMMTMMKMMMz
7 iMMMMMMMMM|KNLiM[MMMKMMMMNNNNNNMMMMMMMLMMjセMMMMMMMiz
obセMMMMMMMMMZy⦅MM⦅K⦅MMMカ⦅MMMMMMM⦅⦅⦅⦅it
セセiMMMMMMMMMMKMM u, ILl セ 10iMMMMMMMMMMMKMMMMMMMMセMMMMMM⦅⦅⦅[ (Jl u . l 5 1 - - - t T - - - + - - - - t - - - t - - - t - t - - - t :r lJ 2 BiMMMMMMMMエMセMMK⦅MM⦅⦅K⦅MMMエ⦅⦅M⦅j⦅Mエ⦅⦅MMM⦅⦅⦅[ '2P = 14')000 i.e. L.OAD AT II I - - - \ c + _ - - _ _ + _ - - - _ _ _ ; 13 QMMMMMMMMMMMMセMKMM⦅[イ⦅⦅MMMMMMMMMMMQ 1'21 - - - + + - - _ + _ - - - _ _ _ ; 14L..- .,.... ...CORRE.GTE..D D E..FLE.GT10 N 5
T E:.5T TO DE5TguCTlON
I-SaO 1-400 1-300
r·
'200 1'100 セ I' 000 :r: U セ 0 - 900z
- 0,800 Z«
uJO'700 co1'-
0 • {,OO セ セo·
500z
2
o-
400 セv
セo-
300 u, uJ D 0''200o- roo
I
/ I
- LOAD SE...p'IE:....Sr-r-7
----'D-A - FIRST LOA[)IN6 B - 21 /-lOUR TEST l-V
C - ruaセ PRIOR, TO .JESTRucTJON T£5T J J...-,c
f-V
V
D - TEST TO DESTRucT {ONJ
Ii
V
V
セb-If V
J
JVI
V
セ
V
セ :..--->Arh
'(
!J.
VI
/l
1/
)
jI
I
セ
h
I
t
1(/
1/
I·50 0 1·400 !·300 o 10 20 30 40 50 100 70 80 セッTCiAL LOAD IN THOUSANDS -f POUNt7S'
LOAO LOAO LOAO l.OAO LOAO
(i)
®
@ @ @increNaセeN .; DEFLEC.TION DUE.. TO REPE.ATE.t7 LOADINGS
\'5°0 1·4°0 \·300 ([l u.l J:
v
\·'200 z Z 1·100 セ (·000 ill co PNセPP セ セoGXPP ... 4: 0'700 セo-
セッッ セ o O'500 til .J U. uJ 0'400 D 0'300 0'2.00 0'100/
V
V
.,
(
LOA t7 1+.3r
l I LOAP セU HQGQセUinI I I I I LOAD'"4 LOAD セS LOAD # I LOA? セGR LOAD #( LOAD COMPLE.TE.LY \REMOVE.D (0'308 IN.)\.<,tJO.,511 •.
セ
I
interv(J!I
iセヲ /5hr:
1 -II
ITIME... DE..FLE...CTtON CURVE...
F 0
8
R E..COV EqY
T E.t;T (LOAD 5'E..R/£.S' 8 L O A 0 . 5 ) o 'ZOO 400 セoo 800 1000 1'200 1400 iセoo MINUTE..'; II
I I I II
I I I II
I I I II
I I I 10 15 '20 '2.5 HouRSFIGURE..
5
7 14 13 ({l ull'2 ::t V
z
-IIz
10 :;Ej9
l!)1--8
ulセW
z uJ ° 6セ
5 {fIz
94
ts
セS
u. IJ..I D '2o
FAILURE..- 13·8bIH.I
I j/
/
/
/
/
1/J
/
..,,/
V
セ ....MMMMMセ
15 30 45 セッ 75 セッ 105 1'20 135 150 TOTAL LOAD IN tセouGsaエMjエZGsof
LB.® ®
@@®
LOAD nunQbeNMセ 8l...!£.l.2....L
..35I
'20 TIME..- INTERVAL IN MINUTE..SLOAD- DEFLE...CTION CURVE.., AT mャエWsセ
LOAD SERI.E.S D TE...ST TO DE:...STRUCTION
セ
I II ' "I
7-'2 7 -'2iセ
T
-I
IPOINT/ -/ B"-AM LOA'"
I
LOAD NO.
to
セ ... j J"'...?
rr
'x / tn
n
•••••••t" ... ... -, ... / .:\
,'\
..セ ...-
I"\
セ
...•.セ
...,•...n
セIT
: ...セ .. \ : "I I セ"
.. -, ...セ セI
)\
> } ,I
\
... 1
...:\ I I I I I / . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I(a.) ,FIRST {MAIN CRACK
(b) OAIPP/N6 rVAT.E-R..
(c) (./LT I MATE..- FAI
£"vR,E....--FIGURE..
7
CRACK FORMATION DUE... TOLOA D S (;. AND
7:
1 PART セャ \VE.. ST EoL E.. VAT ION01
B E.. AM. G RA C.K PAT TE..R
NON 0P
pesIT E..(Photograph courtesy City of ottawa)
pump (on the left)
Fig. 10 Main crack in beam at Load No.7
(west side)
(Photograph courtesy City of Ottawa)
Fig. 12 flange.
Beam after compression failure in top Note base of jack, hinge, and bearing
plate
(PhotographR courtesy City of Ottawa)