## 4 Experimental Results and Observations
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Specimen**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Test Scenario**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**External Vertical Load (N)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Maximum Measured Deflection**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & **Value (mm)** & **\% of Cage Length** & **Location** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Cage \#1} & 1 & - & 123 & 0.94\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 3 & - & 244 & 1.86\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 6 & - & 345 & 2.63\% & Overhang ends \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Cage \#2} & 1 & - & 110 & 0.84\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 2 & 2157 & 135 & 1.03\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 3 & - & 258 & 1.97\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 4 & 1988 & 299 & 2.28\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 5 & - & 232 & 1.77\% & Overhang ends \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Cage \#3} & 1 & - & 71 & 0.54\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 2 & 1660 & 87 & 0.66\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 3 & - & 1091 & 8.32\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 4 & 1570 & 1192 & 9.10\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 6 & - & 713 & 5.44\% & Overhang ends \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Cage \#4} & 1 & - & 164 & 1.25\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 2 & 1877 & 190 & 1.45\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 3 & - & 1545 & 11.79\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 4 & 2406 & 1561 & 11.91\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 6 & - & 783 & 5.97\% & Overhang ends \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Cage \#5} & 1 & - & 170 & 1.30\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 2 & 2193 & 218 & 1.66\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 3 & - & 1715 & 13.09\% & Midspan \\ \cline{2-6}  & 4 & 4421 & 1723 & 13.15\% & Midspan \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Maximum measured deflection for each test scenario. The properties of Cage #5 were similar to those of Cage #4, except for a reduction in the number of U-bolt connections, as shown in Table 2. The reduction in U-bolts resulted in a decrease in the stiffness of the specimen (see Table 4), but its deformed shape followed the same trend as that of Cage #4. Based on these results, it can be observed that pick-up locations are the most influential factor in reducing deflection in rebar cages, as expected. Comparing test scenario 1 with test scenario 3 for all five specimens, by moving the pick-up points from the two ends to the locations approximately one-fifth of the cage length away from the ends, the specimens' deflection values were reduced. Furthermore, using internal stiffening elements is beneficial and reduces cage deflection, especially when the distance between the pick-up points is increased. Comparing the deflection of Cage #2 and Cage #3 in test scenario 3, adding internal stiffening elements reduced cage deflection by 76%. Also, it was observed that the U-bolt connectors effectively kept the integrity of the cages, and no failure or damage  
Figure 11: Deformed shape of Cage #3 during different test scenarios: (**a**) scenario 1, (**b**) scenario 3, (**c**) scenario 6, and (**d**) scenario 7.  
occurred in the specimens in any of the test scenarios, even under large deformations (over 10% of the cage length). After completing the test scenarios, the specimens fully regained their initial shape without experiencing any permanent distortion or deformation. Additionally, a thorough inspection was carried out on all longitudinal rebars to assess any potential misalignment, following the guidelines outlined in the ACI Guide for Tolerance Compatibility in Concrete Construction [15]. It was found that all rebars complied with the specified limit tolerance of 13 mm. It should be noted that the U-bolt connectors were inspected after each test scenario and remained tightly fit without any slippage. On the other hand, tie-wire connections became loose after tests.