In this part, cubic concrete specimens with rebars at the center were symmetrically subjected to uniaxial loading perpendicular to the cross-section of the rebars. This structure is observed in a concrete structure where a compressive cyclic loading is exerted perpendicular to rebars in the concrete. These properties are very obvious at beam–column joints and also where the beam is buried in the concrete shear wall. In beams attached to the shear wall, the compressive and/or tensile load inside the shear wall is perpendicular to the direction of the beam rebars buried in the wall. Furthermore, the axial force of the beam and/or column has a similar structure in terms of loading for column or beam rebars located in the center of the connection. In this section, the crack propagation in the concrete was studied according to the compressive cyclic loading perpendicular to the direction of the rebars and the failure mechanism of the specimen.
Studies have shown that the existence of rebars in concrete holes causes certain changes in the major cracks, failure path, and the failure mechanism of the specimens. The key changes in microcracks occur around the buried rebar. In holes with a surface area less than 1.3% of the concrete surface area, the failures are similar to those in the conventional concrete specimens. Besides, the existence of rebars does not significantly affect the compressive strength and crack path relative to the specimen with an empty hole. A more detailed investigation revealed that in addition to the original cracks in the FSCC formed at the time of failure, other cracks are also formed due to the presence of the rebar around the hole (Fig. 8). Considering that the direction of loading is perpendicular to that of the rebar inside the cubic specimen, it is expected that new cracks will be formed due to the difference between the mechanical properties of the rebar and concrete. As seen, cracks have been formed around the rebar perpendicular to the loading direction of the specimens. In fact, in addition to the shape and structure of crack planes in a healthy cubic specimen, new crack planes are created in these models in such a way that the normal vector of the plane is along the loading direction.
At the beam–column joint site or where the concrete beams pass through the shear wall, few rebars are placed similar to the experimental structure modeled in the specimens perpendicular to the compressive load. In this study, one, two, and three rebars with a diameter of 22 and 32 cm were placed in the cubic specimens to investigate the failure conditions (Fig. 9).
Given the diameter of the rebars, the holes were selected at a suitable distance relative to the largest aggregates. Considering the number and difference in the tensile behavior between rebar and concrete, it is expected that the cracks perpendicular to the loading direction can be seen in the space between the rebars. In fact, in addition to the common cracks at the beam–column joint site due to the loads, microcracks are formed in the direction perpendicular to the compressive force axis in the space between the rebars.
Investigation of the failure structure of the specimens showed that when more than one rebar is used, the depth and effectiveness of the crack between two rebars almost doubled. Moreover, major cracks develop in the areas between the other two rebars and separated from the concrete and reduced by increasing fiber. Although these areas at the connection core may not be broken, they show a much less strength than the concrete. In the specimens under study, the removal of the rebars from the concrete specimen shows that when three rebars are used, the friction of the middle rebars is about 60% of the lateral rebars after the concrete failure. This finding indicates slightly higher separation of the middle rebars than that expected. Finally, the results show that the fibers, instead of the edges, have a greater effect on cracking in the middle part of the samples.
Seven models were investigated to simulate the concrete core behavior in the beam–column joint under uniaxial compressive cyclic loading (Fig. 10). These models were developed with three different mix designs and three compressive strengths. Table 2 presents a decrease in the compressive strength because of the existence of a hole and/or rebar in the concrete specimens according to the provided models.
According to the results, due to the presence of cracks and crack length reduction in the reinforced concrete, the concrete between the rebars has a lower strength than the concrete without rebars. The compressive strength reduction is dependent on the diameter, number, and distance of rebars. The compressive strength of the concrete is reduced with decreasing the distance between the rebars. Besides, the compressive strength is reduced with increasing the diameter of rebars and hole in the specimen.
Table 2
Compressive strength of specimens with different percentage of fiber and different steel rebars
Name | Compressive strength (MPa) |
FSCC | M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 |
NC1 | 27 | 24 | 23.5 | 22.5 | 21 | 27.5 | 25.5 | 42 |
NC2 | 30 | 26 | 24.5 | 24 | 22.5 | 31 | 29 | 28 |
NC3 | 33 | 31.5 | 30 | 30 | --- | 33.5 | 31 | 31 |