• 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)