## 4 Test Results and Discussion
### Major Axis Test  
Figure 10 demonstrates the normalised bending moment versus deflection for unreinforced, 200 mm and 300 mm reinforcement types under monotonic flexural tests. The 200 mm reinforcement type provided the highest flexural strength compared to the other two types. The normalized bending moment capacity for each specimen is tabulated in Table 3. Factors responsible for some differences in the results for the same specimen types could be either typical shortcomings during the set-up adjustment or probable various initial geometric imperfections associated with the manufacturing processes.  
Figure 10: _Cont._  
Both the distortional and local buckling were observed during major axis testing of the unreinforced frames (Figure 11). According to the observations, some notches were observed along with the failure mechanism at the local buckling zones.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Test Specimen** & **Normalised Ultimate Bending Moment (\(\frac{M}{\sigma_{y}\times\mathcal{Z}}\))** \\ \hline SMJM-Test1 & 0.330997561 \\ \hline SMJM-Test2 & 0.342394439 \\ \hline SMJM-Test3 & 0.325000724 \\ \hline Average & 0.332797575 \\ \hline Standard deviation & 0.008835461 \\ \hline
200 RMJM-Test1 & 0.379727867 \\ \hline
200 RMJM-Test2 & 0.391261742 \\ \hline
200 RMJM-Test3 & 0.388300744 \\ \hline Average & 0.386430118 \\ \hline Standard deviation & 0.005990158 \\ \hline
300 RMJM-Test1 & 0.354944611 \\ \hline
300 RMJM-Test2 & 0.361971684 \\ \hline
300 RMJM-Test3 & 0.356490403 \\ \hline Average & 0.357802233 \\ \hline Standard deviation & 0.003692643 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: The ultimate normalized bending capacity of specimens in the major axis test.  
Figure 10: Normalized bending moment–deflection about major axis curves: (**A**) SMJM; (**B**) 200 RMJM; (**C**) 300 RMJM.  
When the reinforced specimens with 200 mm reinforcing pitch were subjected to the monotonic displacement control test on the major axis, local buckling, as well as a combination of both local and distortional buckling, occurred during the experiments. The yielding notches were also observed as crippling signs in some areas (Figure 12).  
Figure 11: The observed failure mode for unreinforced specimens during the major axis test: (**A**) SMJM-test1; (**B**) SMJM-test2; (**C**) SMJM-test3.  
Following the experimental investigation, the reinforced specimens with 300 mm reinforcing pitch were subjected to the major axis displacement control monotonic test (Figure 13). The governing failure mode at these tests was also the distortional and local buckling.  
Figure 12: The observed failure mode for reinforced specimens with 200 mm reinforcing pitch during the major axis test: (**A**) 200 RMJM-test1; (**B**) 200 RMJM-test2; (**C**) 200 RMJM-test3.  
To compare the flexural behaviour of the uprights, the mean curves shown in Figure 14 presented the effect of reinforcements with respect to the average normalized bending. According to Figure 14, it is clear that using reinforcements improves both the ultimate capacity and deflection of the specimens; however, this improvement has been enhanced by using the 200 mm reinforcement type. Figure 14 shows the 200 mm pitch improved the flexural behaviour of the uprights and also increased the bending capacity.  
The reported experimental results show the effectiveness of the presence of reinforcements. Figure 15 compares the different reinforcement types used. In Figure 15, the 200 mm reinforcement type showed 13.8% and 7.35% enhanced capacity compared to the non-reinforced and 300 mm reinforcement types. The results show that the 200 mm reinforcement type is enhanced by using the 200 mm reinforcement type.  
type, respectively. The 300 mm type showed 6.97% improvement in bending capacity compared to the unreinforced specimen. Typically, the failure modes which were observed in the major axis experimental tests were local and distortional bucklings.