Beam Test...watch beam failure in slow-motion! 

I kept waiting for it to break, and send a splinter through Blue Hat's forehead.

Fuck it

don't you get it? these dudes live on the edge...

same here haha

Maybe, but you have to remember that the load press is designed to stop applying load once a certain yield is reached. so at final failure, the load was removed. In a real application the load would have continued to be applied, until free fall of the bridge.

It's a controlled pressure. When the samples break, the hydraulic machine stops.

It was purposely designed as an under-reinforced or balanced design beam. Which means the steel tension reinforcement yields first (and slowly), before the concrete in compression. If it had been over-reinforced, the concrete would have yielded explosively before the steel reinforcement and should be avoided for obviously reasons.

popogast who won the pot?

Yeah, that's helpful for anyone still using neanderthal units.

@@Kalumbatsch like me

Wait, did you put an extra 3 in there by mistake in the last one or am I stoned? Not mathing well right now 🤣

Also I i think it is 18.3 tons if anyone is interested and doesn't want to type on a search bar 🤣 Again I may be wrong and just being dumb as shit 😂

I was wondering 💭

😑yep

Two days is not long enough for a bureaucracy to get moving. I am sorry, it probably cost lives.

Well it isn’t painted so your incorrect.

And without safety shield or safety glasses.

Ahh it's ok they went to university lol

Was thinking the same thing, the clap at the end is then all being like “yay we didn’t die on this one, next one boys”

Episodic spalling shrapnel events are fairly uncommon beyond teacup saucer range, I expect.

This is pre-stressed concrete, not reinforced concrete. The beam has internal cables which have a designed load applied to them prior to casting the concrete. These cables have placed the surrounding concrete in a "super-compressive" state and are absorbing the tensile load at the bottom of the beam. A standard reinforced beam would have failed sooner and more dramatically.

Maxwell Goodacre o

Yes... we saw.

Ty

Thanks

Maxwell Goodacre Which is the best crack?

Same thoughts i am having ..sheesh

I guess they know that steel bends and concrete gets smashed with no flying objects...

lol

@@refuztosay9454 ?

neeeeeeeeeerrrrrd

Its normal thing for reinforced concrete. There is no fail at 66kN. Concrete cracks because it can't handle tension, but rebars can handle tension.

@@SAIGUK More accurately, because it lacks the elasticity of the steel rebar.

​@@nairdacharles9492 Can't agree. Concrete has elastic modulus for tension and compression. Elastic modulus is nonlinear. But concrete cracks only because of lower ultimate tensile strength.

You mean paint it and ship it lol.

This is what engineers do when we are bored. Frack it'..................Lets go break something in the test lab!

It teaches us the limits of materials. That's why nobody who has some experience with engineering and construction can, in the right mind, believe the official story of 911 and the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Not sure, a square hollow though is extremely strong as to the way it transfer forces around and I only know that from randomly watching a RU-vid vid yesterday that was explaining some inherent failure in I beams. Might be worth searching with those search terms. I wonder if it had tensioned steel cables within.

Don't forget your shear and bending moment diagrams.

Smart ass

Don't forget the sexy elastic curve.

I think we all know this is missing a crucial axial force diagram

And one is walking around..

*no safety glasses

Eh no these lads are what you call invincible gobshites

Yes , if you know what you doing.

@@bahn5ee but you dont know what you're not doing.

They had helmet.

Almost certainly steel reinforcement springing back and pulling it back into place. Wood also does this, by the way - when it loses moisture horrible looking cracks start to appear, then when the moisture content goes back up it seals back up perfectly like they were never there.

***** In any beam of any material, having a deep midsection like the one in this video will determine the overall strength and longevity of the beam. It seems like you might understand the concept of what I'm talking about, but think about a ruler standing on its side. You can bend it, but not much. Now add a second ruler standing the same way to increase the depth. It's nearly impossible to break when you try to bend. In terms of a crack in a beam/column on an actual bridge, only severe cracks will determine whether the bridge will need to be condemned. Small cracks could mean anything. As long as the bridge is under similar loading at all times, the crack should remain the same. If the bridge is in severe weather conditions, any crack is a problem. Cracks can be fixed fairly easily. Like any structure, maintenance needs to be done. As long as the student is standing a good 10 feet away, there won't be a problem. If your beam is exploding, then your construction is definitely questioned. I think a bolt failure on a steel beam could definitely cause damage to someone no matter how far away they stand.

+Ozzie Wozzie Original -- you were reading my mind with these questions

The deeper the belly on the concrete beam the stronger it will be since the neutral point will be able to shift deeper into the beam. concrete being ~ 12 times stronger in compression than tension. Not sure if that helps with your question.

This reminds me of how a steel rod is put into guitar necks, at a curve. Then it tightened to straighten out the neck, which would otherwise bend due to the tension of the guitar strings. When the curved rod is tightened, it wants to straighten, and this gives the "underside, if you will" a "lift". The greater the curve, the greater the lift.

Ozzie Wozzie Original im not a smart man by any means but im assuming the purpose for tests like this is to put a structure under a much larger load then it would ever see under practical use, much in the same way osha tests safety equipment? Am i wrong? My question to you is do you think the beam would perform better if you filled it with self expanding foam or something to that nature?

Don't need safety shields for concrete, the moment the material gives.. The pressure is gone.

gowd sake you basically wear what the main guy in charge wants to supply

It's over six minutes of watching it fail and I'd say that's slow enough. 6:12 it is in slow motion and shows the break.

If it makes you feel any better, this was a contest between engineering schools to find the best design for a certain set of parameters. We will never know if it was a success or not because we do not know the results of the other teams.

and the beam was shaped with the load points in mind.

@@MrZoomZone Not 'shaped' enough then.

@@FairladyS130 it would depend on the design load. Perhaps this was already 200% of the3 design, so it performed well at that point.

Plus, as I recall from my own destructive testing days, heavy hammering with one of dad's best by ten/eleven year old boys (later I may admit to penny testings on the rails).

I noticed that too. These boys are playing in the sandbox but they've not experienced the jobsite.

It’s concrete it just crumbles

It was not their first beam. That day.

it crumbles and much safer with the gradual force.

It does not fall down or explode when it cracks trough. the load is released because it's a press and not an object on top ☺️

The whole idea about designing safe concrete structures is to avoid catastrophic failure. A well designed concrete part is going to greatly deform before eventual failure of the compression zone (this is beautifully shown in this example actually). The whole idea about this is that it gives of a warning effect leaving time to evacuate the structure when it is overloaded or failing. When a beam instantly breaks, it could indeed be a lot more catastrophically!

It also has to do with how the load is applied. Unlike a hydraulic press or something where the force is always applied, here, the force is applied because the block is being driven down by giant jackscrews at slow, fixed rate. It couldn’t shoot down even if it wanted to

yes exactly

Well spotted, it might be. My OLED TV has something called pixel shift, what you see here might be that in action.

Play with Junk No. That is the substance you are using 🤣

holy shiit!

So long as you're not inside the beam when it implodes, you're golden.

Yet somehow we manage 25mil for gender studies in Pakistan, 20 mil for the effects of downed trees in forest, and 20 mil for for office furniture, among other things. While, as you pointed out, bridges are crumbling, infrastructure is is hanging on by couple strands, and our vets are sleeping on concrete. How did we get here? (Rhetorical) Engineers are going to be hard to come by when are children our taught 1+1=3 because reeecist. Take it easy man

What we need is more bridge builders. One engineered can design a bridge and use it a dozen times albeit modified to the conditions. It takes a LOT of workers a LOT longer to build just one.

Stop crying

@@shortthrow50 it's a comment not a dick....don't take it so hard

i had to go re-watch.. but yeah that is kind nutty..? maybe something to do with refresh and the camera?

Probably a plasma or other technology that suffers froms burn in and has a technology to shift the pixels a bit in order to prevent burn in

The beams are supported on triangular shaped structure which looks like a book end. The support structures must be bolted to the floor, which is made of embedded beams and concrete. Yes the floor is probably 10-12 feet thick of reinforced concrete.

I believe there was a rapid change in tension sensor reading.

And the crack formation happens are very high velocities

in real life the load is distributed on wider span, it's not the missile falling straight down; even truck standing on the road distributes the load between front and rear wheals

Right. I understand that this tests an extreme, and I understand there is a point to that but some more realistic testing would be quite interesting to see, as would other extremes, like a full spread of the pressure application. I'd imagine a beam like this would be able to take a fair amount of crushing force before it just collapses. I wonder how these would do with say, 100 feet of earth on top of them, used as the ceiling of a bunker. Too many edibles tonight.

@@HitLeftistsWithHammers Actually there isn't much difference as far as the failure mode of this beam goes. The loading model for point loads vs linear loads is somewhat different but in the end it comes down to exeeding the compression capacity in the top or tension capacity in the bottom. That being said structures are always designed according the normative loads that are to be expected. (e.g. an column on a beam or floor could be represented as a point load wheras everyday use or snow is represented as a linear or areal load)

@@casb2480 That's interesting to me. This isn't the same, but I'm reminded that the service strength testing of fire department ground ladders was accomplished by the application of point loads rather than distributed. My knowledge of that subject is quite dated, but here is a picture of current testing procedures, so it's done the same way now. www.ul.com/services/fire-department-ground-ladders-testing

@@elizabetholiviaclark also, for the sake of practicality; it’s far easier to do testing like this as opposed to applying linear loads

Given the current focus on redirecting of resources for social progress, initial colonization will likely take another several generations. Much longer if the effort is via a centralized global one, such as a UN Space Agency. It could happen within the next couple decades if accomplished by private efforts and funding. Mars is for the taking to the first private group that colonizes regions.

Anyone who thinks living on Mars will be like living on our blue planet is smoking wacky weed. Never going to happen.

@@tigerseye73 Wait, what do you mean exactly? The laws of physics are the same on Mars as everywhere else, concrete is still good for what concrete is good for, steel is still good for what steel is good for etc.

@@CoconutSundae The effort required to do what you dream of is almost insurmountable. Establishing cities on an almost airless oxygen deprived and dry planet is not going to happen. Why would any population of a sane life form even consider leaving a life giving planet like our earth, to relocate to such a baron and un-cooperative planet like Mars? We need to protect our own planet, our Mother, who provides us with what we need to live. Build your environment friendly cities on this planet. Visit Mars if you wish, then come home to your Mother planet having gained prospective and appreciation for what this earth already provides for us. And protect her from harm.

Concrete crumbles and slowly if force is applied gradually.

D. Ryan Shaw i tried to look up what "kn" stood for before i commented and it was way beyond my ability of understanding. But i would think it was far greater than that?

Jeff Williams I believe a kilonewton is around 220 lbs of force or so. My line of work requires equipment that is rated at 23kn's or greater and I'm pretty sure that's right around 5000lb's. So 1 kn would be about 220 lbs

first thing I thought too, they must not have OSHA in Canadialand.