Issue 50

I. Dakanali et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 50 (2019) 370-382; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.50.31 373 T Figure 3 : (a) Marble blocks; (b) Filling the hole with cement paste; (c) The titanium bar is driven into the hole. The second experimental test class (2 nd class) follows the same main idea. Now the lower half of the hole is filled with an appropriate amount of paste for achieving the same area of connection. The bar is inserted in the full height of the hole, although anchored only for its lower half, with the bar and paste being visible and easily accessible from the bottom end of the specimen (Figs.4c, 5e). The last class of tests (3 rd class) retains the 1 st class specimens’ configuration but the frame in this case does not pull out the bar but presses it into the marble block. The marble, in this test, is supported on the rigid plate (Fig.4c). The main goal of the alternative specimens and test procedure (2 nd and 3 rd class) is to isolate the tested area from the supporting system’s influence. All tests were quasi-static, implemented under displacement-control conditions at a rate equal to 0.2 mm/min. The load was applied monotonically up to the removal of the bar. For the measurement of the axial strain along the bar an Instron- Dynamic Extensometer of gauge length equal to 12.5 mm was used. The bar’s movement was measured by a calibrated LVDT (Linear Variable Differential Transformer) in contact with the bar’s lowest end (Fig.4c). While for the 2 nd class of specimens the bar was directly accessible at their bottom surface (Fig.5e), for the 1 st and 3 rd classes, the LVDT was inserted into the empty part of the through hole, from the bottom surface of the specimen until it reached the bar’s lowest end . For the acoustic emission recordings, 8 acoustic sensors are mounted around the marble near the surface between the paste and the marble, where the potential signals are expected (Fig.5). For comparison purposes, the anchoring length of the bar is 7.5 cm for all the specimens. The experiments were performed after a 28-days curing period for the paste. Figure 4: Testing configuration: (a) Rigid plate, supporting bars; (b) marble and titanium bar’s restriction; (c) the 3 different experimental approaches. E XPERIMENTAL RESULTS Standard data he diagrams in Fig.6 show the time variation of the load for all 3 test classes. The curves of the 1 st class tests (Fig. 6a) include a first linear segment. Before reaching the maximum load, the curve changes inclination. It is notice- able that when the connection loses its integrity (maximum load) there is a characteristic load drop. The respective frame’s jaw central hole rigid plate 4 perimetric supporting bars (a) rigid plate restriction of titanium bar 1 st class 2 nd class 3 rd class bar bar bar rigid plate paste paste paste marble marble marble LVDT LVDT rigid plate (a) (b) (c) (b) (c) ½ h ½ h ½ h ½ h