钢筋对裂缝宽度的影响英文文献和中文翻译(3)
Bond strength tests were conducted by means of a hand operated hydraulic jack and a custom-built test rig as shown in Fig. 3. The loading scheme is illustrated in Fig. 4. A plastic tube of length 80 mm was provided at the end of the concrete section underneath the transverse reaction to ensure that the bond strength was not enhanced by the reactive (compressive) force (acting normal to the bar). The specimen was positioned so that an axial force was applied to the bar being tested. The restraints were sufficiently rigid to ensure minimal rotation or twisting of the specimen during loading.
Fig. 3 Pull-out test, 16 mm bar unconfined
Fig. 4 Schematic of loading. Note: only test bar shown for clarity
3 Experimental results and discussion
3.1 Visual inspection
Following the accelerated corrosion phase each specimen was visually inspected for the location of cracks, mean crack width and maximum crack width (Sect. 2.3).
While each specimen had a mean target crack width for each bar, variations in this crack width were observed prior to pull out testing. This is due to corrosion and cracking being a dynamic process with cracks propagating at different rates. Thus, while inpidual bars were disconnected, once the target crack width had been achieved, corrosion and crack propagation continued (to some extent) until all bars had achieved the target crack width and pull out tests conducted. This resulted in a range of data for the maximum and mean crack widths for the pull out tests.
The visual inspection of the specimens showed three stages to the cracking process. The initial cracks occurred in a very short period, usually generated within a few days. After that, most cracks grew at a constant rate until they reached 1 mm, 3–4 weeks after first cracking. After cracks had reached 1 mm they then grew very slowly, with some cracks not increasing at all. For the confined and unconfined specimens the surface cracks tended to occur on the side of the specimens (as opposed to the top or bottom) and to follow the line of the bars. In the case of the unconfined specimens in general these were the only crack while it was common in the cases of confined specimens to observe cracks that were aligned vertically down the side—adjacent to one of the links, Fig. 5.
Fig. 5 Typical crack patterns
During the pull-out testing the most common failure mode for both confined and unconfined was splitting failure—with the initial (pre-test) cracks caused by the corrosion enlarging under load and ultimately leading to the section failing exhibiting spalling of the top corner/edge, Fig. 6. However for several of the confined specimens, a second mode of failure also occurred with diagonal (shear like) cracks appearing in the side walls, Fig. 7. The appearance of these cracks did not appear to be related to the presence of vertical cracks observed (in specimens with stirrups) during the corrosion phase as reported above.
Fig. 6 Longitudinal cracking after pull-out
Fig. 7 Diagonal cracking after pull-out
The bars were initially (precasting) cleaned with a 12% hydrochloric acid solution, then washed in distilled water and neutralized by a calcium hydroxide solution before being washed in distilled water again. Following the pull-out tests, the corroded bars were cleaned in the same way and weighed again.
The corrosion degree was determined using the following equation
where G 0 is the initial weight of the steel bar before corrosion, G is the final weight of the steel bar after removal of the post-test corrosion products, g 0 is the weight per unit length of the steel bar (0.888 and 1.58 g/mm for Φ12 and Φ16 mm bars, respectively), l is the embedded bond length.
Figures 8 and 9 show steel bars with varying degree of corrosion. The majority exhibited visible pitting, similar to that observed on reinforcement in actual structures, Fig. 9. However, a small number of others exhibited significant overall section loss, with a more uniform level of corrosion, Fig. 8, which may be a function of the acceleration methodology.