Some Mooted Questions in Reinforced Concrete Design eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 181 pages of information about Some Mooted Questions in Reinforced Concrete Design.

Some Mooted Questions in Reinforced Concrete Design eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 181 pages of information about Some Mooted Questions in Reinforced Concrete Design.
“As these 3 columns were made of a concrete much superior to that in any of the other columns made from 1:2:4 or 1:2:3-1/2 mix, they cannot satisfactorily be compared with them.  Failures of all plain columns were sudden and without any warning.”

Now, Mr. Godfrey, instead of taking columns A1 to A3, selects for his comparison W1 to W3, made, as Mr. Withey distinctly states, with an especially superior concrete.  Taking columns, A1 to A3, for comparison with the reinforced columns, E1 to E3, the result shows an average of 2,033 for the plain columns and 2,438 for the reinforced columns.

Again, taking the third series of tests referred to by Mr. Godfrey, those at Minneapolis, Minn., it is to be noticed that he selects for his criticism a column which has this note as to the manner of failure:  “Bending at center (bad batch of concrete at this point).”  Furthermore, the column is only 9 by 9 in., and square, and the stress referred to is calculated on the full section of the column instead of on the strength within the hooping, although the latter method is the general practice in a hooped column.  The inaccuracy of this is shown by the fact that, with this small size of square column, more than half the area is outside the hooping and never taken into account in theoretical computations.  A fair comparison, as far as longitudinal reinforcement is concerned, is always between the two plain columns and the six columns, E, D, and F.  The results are so instructive that a letter[Q] by the writer is quoted in full as follows: 

     “SIR:—­

“In view of the fact that the column tests at Minneapolis, as reported in your paper of December 3, 1908, p. 608, are liable because of the small size of the specimens to lead to divergent conclusions, a few remarks with reference to them may not be out of place at this time.
“1.  It is evident that the columns were all smaller, being only 9 in. square, than is considered good practice in practical construction, because of the difficulty of properly placing the concrete around the reinforcement.
“2.  The tests of columns with flat bands, A, B, and C, in comparison with the columns E, D and F, indicate that the wide bands affected the placing of the concrete, separating the internal core from the outside shell so that it would have been nearly as accurate to base the strength upon the material within the bands, that is, upon a section of 38 sq. in., instead of upon the total area of 81 sq. in.  This set of tests, A, B and C, is therefore inconclusive except as showing the practical difficulty in the use of bands in small columns, and the necessity for disregarding all concrete outside of the bands when computing the strength.
“3.  The six columns E,
Copyrights
Project Gutenberg
Some Mooted Questions in Reinforced Concrete Design from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.