File:Tests of eighteen concrete columns reinforced with cast iron. (1919) (14581617868).jpg

Identifier: testsofeightee1919122tuck (find matches)
Title: Tests of eighteen concrete columns reinforced with cast iron.
Year: 1919 (1910s)
Authors: Tucker, Jr., J. Bragg, J.G.
Subjects:
Publisher: National Bureau of Standards
Contributing Library: NIST Research Library
Digitizing Sponsor: NIST Research Library

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
n spailing of the concrete outside the spiral spread to suchan extent that any further readings of the columns would havebeen unreliable, they were discontinued, and the instrumentsremoved to prevent their being ruined by the falling concrete. (a) Stress Evenly Distributed.—To determine the angular move-ment of the base of the testing machine, and consequently anybending of the column or unequal distribution of compressionstress a sensitive machinists level was placed upon the test-ing machine base and read during the test at the same time asthe compression readings. Since only one level was availablereadings could not be taken in two directions, which would havebeen preferable. The positions of each end of the bubble in thislevel were read, thus enabling the location of the center of the 3 Johnsons formula 34 000—88 -5 gives a reduction of 10 per cent. (Johnsons Materials of Construction.) L 80 000—700 imperfections mentioned above. Bureau of Standards Technologic Paper No. 122
Text Appearing After Image:
Fig. 6.—Showing column ig ready for testing Reinforced Concrete Columns 17 bubble to be found for each load. The location of the center ofbubble was plotted against applied load for all columns. Thecurves thus obtained were rather irregular and showed no inclina-tion of the platen to move in any definite manner. The largestmaximum deviation showed the base to be turned through anangle of 2.75 minutes, which is extremely small, or a move-ment of 0.096 inch in 10 feet. An increase in the angle of devia-tion at the greatest load at which readings were taken mightreasonably have been expected, since the strain ordinate of thestress-strain diagram commences to increase more rapidly at thispoint. No such indication was evidenced, thus showing that anybend in the stress-strain curves was not due to bending or flexureof the columns. (b) Behavior of Columns Under Load.—The method of failureof all columns was identical. The spalling of small flat particles,the largest being )( of an inch sq

Note About Images