Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
A B S T R A C T
Historically, lightweight foam concrete (LWFC) has been used in non-structural applications. However, low self-weight, insulating properties and fire resistance make
LWFC an ideal construction material for residential infrastructure, if suitable mechanical properties of strength, stiffness and ductility, as well as durability can be
assured. The development of LWFC for structural use has created a need for a structural system that harnesses these beneficial material properties. In this paper a
LWFC walling system is proposed, tested and analysed with finite elements. Results of quasi-static monotonic pull-over tests as well as cyclic tests indicate that the
proposed precast walling and connection system is likely to both provide predictable structural behaviour as well as adequate resistance for low-rise residential
buildings in regions of low to moderate seismicity.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gvanzijl@sun.ac.za (G.P.A.G. van Zijl).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.09.011
proposed analytical design method for reinforced LWFC wall panels. mass representation. In this contribution, the intention is to demon-
strate the activation of appropriate, energy-dissipating failure me-
2. Precast LWFC walling system chanisms in the walling system through quasi-static laboratory tests, as
has become usual e.g., [13,14]. Also, attention is given here to the role
The proposed LWFC walling system consists of connected precast of inter-element connections in mobilising favourable failure mechan-
reinforced LWFC panels. The factory cast panels are manufactured to isms. In continuation of the results reported here, a computational
fine tolerances while all the electrical conduits and required plumbing model is calibrated and used to extrapolate the results to full-scale
are cast into the panels. The lightweight panels are then transported to three-dimensional buildings, including various arrangements of open-
site and speedily erected on top of a cast NWC slab and protruding ings for doors and windows, fracture-mechanics based consideration for
reinforcement. Bolted mechanical connection boxes (Fig. 2b,e) connect size effect [1], strain rate and appropriate mass distribution. Here, it
the vertical joints between the walls. These mechanical connections has merely been ensured that seismic resistance is adhered to according
utilise embedded anchors and reinforcement within the wall to tie two to standardised simplified equivalent push-over loading [17], and si-
walls together. Reinforcement dowels, grouted across the horizontal milar for both the scale model and the actual building. Successful
connection (Fig. 2a,c,d), bind the wall panels to both the foundation mobilisation of energy-dissipating failure mechanisms leading to duc-
below and floor panels above. These horizontal connections follow the tile shear behaviour of the laboratory walls tested here, demonstrate the
precast connection guidelines outlined in the New Zealand building potential appropriate response of the walling system on full scale. It is
codes [14,18]. This guideline suggests that reinforcement across a likely, but remains to be proven to what extent such mechanisms will be
connection be less that the reinforcement within the wall, to ensure activated on full scale.
failure at the connections where ductility can be confirmed. The test setup schematic is shown in Fig. 3. Two normal weight
It is proposed that the first-floor slab of the LWFC building be concrete (NWC) panels were placed on top of the connected LWFC wall
constructed of hollow-core slabs, grout connected to the top of the panels to replicate the ground slab below and hollow-core floor slab
LWFC panels. The first-floor walls would be placed atop the ground- above the walls. The green arrows represent the self-weight load of the
floor walls and first-floor hollow-core floor slab now in place. This structure above, applied via springs to the top of the wall and dis-
process would be repeated for the second-floor, above which a standard tributed through a 254x 254x 89 (width (mm) x height (mm) x mass (kg/
roof can be built. m length)) structural steel H-section [19]. To simulate the effect of
upper storey weight in the low-rise building, the walls were initially
loaded to an average 0.1 MPa compressive vertical stress, by pre-ten-
3. Physical tests
sioning each pretensioning rod passing through each of the six (three
pairs) of springs at the positions indicated in Fig. 3. During the pull-over
3.1. Wall 1 and 2 pull-over tests
tests, the effective average compressive stress increased to 0.2 MPa
(Wall 2) and 0.4 MPa (Wall 1), which is calculated from the load-cell
Two monotonic pull-over tests and a single quasi-static, cyclic test
recorded force in each of the six rods. The setup simulates an upper
were performed on a pair of connected LWFC wall panels. The selected
restraint of finite stiffness, which is argued to represent flexural stiffness
wall was that of the lowest storey in the prototype LWFC building,
of upper storeys. However, more accurate simulation of the upper re-
outlined in red in Fig. 1. It should be noted that openings are not
straint would be presented by full-scale analysis of the building, in
considered in this experimental programme, but will be included in
follow-up research endeavours. The walls were displaced through a
future research. Due to the nature of the testing and laboratory space
500kN Instron Materials Testing Machine (MTM) and transferred across
available, the overall wall size was scaled down 1:3. Each scaled LWFC
the structural steel section by embedded shear bolts into the top NWC
panel was of the dimensions 1380x 920x150 (mm). The wall width of
panel. The vertical dashed lines indicate the locations of grouted dowels
150 mm was not scaled due to the top-heavy nature of the test setup and
along the horizontal connections, each consisting of a 12 mm diameter,
emphasis on connection testing. It is acknowledged that careful scaling
520 MPa yield stress steel bar, encased in a 40 mm diameter PVC pipe
is required for the experimental results to be representative of actual
and grouted with SikaGrout®212. Wall 1 had three dowels per panel per
behaviour e.g., [12]. The purpose of applying scaling laws is to cor-
interface. The four horizontal connections (boxed in red) are the con-
rectly replicate stresses and failure mechanisms. For seismic action, this
nections that were removed as a variable for the second pull-over test,
requires not only strength and stiffness scaling, but also appropriate
in wall 2. The vertical connection boxes between the two wall panels
are also indicated in Fig. 3. The concrete mix design for both the LWFC
and NWC panels are given in Table 1. Each wall panel was reinforced
with two layers of a local South African (Ref 0.193) steel mesh, com-
prising of 5.6 mm diameter, 520 MPa yield strength steel bar at a grid
spacing of 200 mm x 200 mm, placed with 40 mm cover from each wall
face.
Displacement of the wall was measured at various points via
LVDT’s. These measurements were taken relative to the wall, so as to
limit the effect of unexpected slip within the laboratory setup. The
notation in the legend of Fig. 4, where wall load-deformation responses
are show, is defined as follows: Global displacement is considered as the
overall displacement of the wall including the top and bottom NWC
panels, measured by the difference in LVDT readings A and D of Fig. 3.
In contrast to this, local deformation is the deformation of the LWFC
panels themselves, measured by the difference in LVDT readings B and
C. Finally, top and bottom slip represent the interfacial slip between the
upper NWC panel (LVDT A in Fig. 3a) and the wall upper corner (LVDT
B), and between the wall lower corner (LVDT C) and the bottom NWC
panel (LVDT D) respectively. Positive displacement was decided to be
in the pull-over direction for movement towards and with the Instron
Fig. 1. Proposed LWFC building. MTM.
664
T.P.A. Dunn et al. Journal of Building Engineering 20 (2018) 663–670
665
T.P.A. Dunn et al. Journal of Building Engineering 20 (2018) 663–670
Table 1
Mix volumes utilised for this study detailing both LWFC and NWC for ground
and floor slab panels per cubic metre.
Concrete: LWFC NWC
Fig. 4. Wall responses with (a) three dowel connections per panel, and (b) two dowel connections per panel.
666
T.P.A. Dunn et al. Journal of Building Engineering 20 (2018) 663–670
Fig. 6. Instron vs overall wall displacement applied through cyclic loading according to JRC Scientific and Policy Report [13] for 18 half cycles.
667
T.P.A. Dunn et al. Journal of Building Engineering 20 (2018) 663–670
Fig. 10. Computed wall 1 sensitivities to (a) LWFC compressive strength for a fixed friction angle of 45°, and (b) friction along the interface for a fixed compressive
strength of 25 MPa.
668
T.P.A. Dunn et al. Journal of Building Engineering 20 (2018) 663–670
6. Conclusions
Fig. 11. Compressive principal stress contours, showing crushing at the dowel The response of steel reinforced lightweight foam concrete walls to
connection in the horizontal interfaces. in-plane quasi-static pull-over has been investigated and reported, in
order to demonstrate that it holds potential as construction and mate-
rial. Interconnection of foundations and floors to wall parts, and wall
5. Design model
parts to each other has been a particular focus, in order to demonstrate
its role in mobilising multiple failure mechanisms of rocking, diagonal
Following the results of the sensitivity study, it was hypothesised
cracking, crushing and shear/frictional slipping, whereby significant
that the shear slip failure of the horizontal connections dominate the
energy is dissipated. Experimental testing has been supplemented with
lateral force resistance of the connected precast LWFC walls. Based on
computational modelling. However, calibration to actual full-scale
these results and the overwhelming influence of shear friction and
building response, with realistic window and door opening patterns,
dowel-action due to changes in compressive strength, an analytical
interconnecting orthogonal walls and appropriate mass distribution is
design model has been proposed to predict the lateral force resistance of
currently undertaken in an ongoing research program. From the test
connected LWFC walls.
results reported here on three wall systems, each comprising two in-
The fib Model Code [11] Section 6.3.4 details an expression for the
terconnected wall parts, a dowel-connected foundation and floor with
shear stress design limit ΤRdi across a shear interface intersected by
simulated upper load and constraint, the following conclusions are
dowels. The three-part equation incorporates chemical adhesive
drawn:
bonding and mechanical interlock between the two surfaces , shear
friction across the two surfaces and dowel-action due to the tensile
force and bending moment in the reinforcement across the connection. • The walls exhibited failure mechanisms of rocking, diagonal
cracking, crushing and shear-sliding. More cracking, and thereby
Due to the nature of this structural system it was assumed that the
more energy dissipation is mobilised by increasing the number of
effect of initial adhesive bonding and mechanical interlock across the
dowel connections from two to three per wall panel. Shear-sliding
NWC-LWFC horizontal connection would be overcome before shear
along the wall vertical interconnection plane is also more pro-
friction and dowel-action would dominate the shear stress and re-
nounced with three dowel connections, allowing separate rocking
sistance across the interface. Thus, the original equation was refined to
and an increased number of cracks per wall part.
that in Eq. (2) where the ductile combination of shear friction and
dowel-action are used to determine the lateral force resistance of a • Significantly higher (75%) pull-over resistance and more than
double the lateral sway at ultimate resistance are observed for the
single horizontal connection, giving the lateral force capacity of a
wall with three dowel connections compared with the wall con-
connected wall.
nected with only two dowel connections to the floor and founda-
tions beams per panel.
•
ΤRdi = μ⋅σn + κ1⋅ρ⋅f yd ⋅(μ⋅sinα + cosα ) + κ2⋅ρ⋅ (fyd⋅fcd ) ≤ βc⋅ν⋅fcd (2) No brittle, localised failure occurred, demonstrating sound beha-
viour of the lightly reinforced lightweight foam concrete and con-
Where: nection layouts. The weakest wall shear resistance (132 kN) is a
κ1 is the interaction ("effectiveness") factor factor of more than six times that which is required from standar-
κ2 is the interaction coefficient for flexural resistance ≤ 1.6 dised lateral push-over earthquake design calculations for the re-
σn is the lowest compressive stress, resulting from the normal force gion.
on the interface.
ρ is the degree of reinforcement across the interface ρ = As / Ac
• Quasi-static cyclic testing highlighted the effect on energy dissipa-
tion of dowel connection number and location. It is recommended
f y is the reinforcement steel yield strength that both local and global displacement (rocking) be ensured by
fck characteristic value of compressive strength of concrete balanced connections.
f yd design yield strength of reinforcing steel in tension
and
fcd design value of the cylinder compressive strength of concrete,
• The calibrated computational models capture the failure mechan-
isms of rocking, cracking and shear-sliding, as well as the larger
α is the inclination of the reinforcement crossing the interface energy dissipation by increased cracking and separate rocking al-
βc is the coefficient for the strength of the compression strut lowed by shear-sliding of the separate wall panels along joint in-
1
κ1 =
σs
fy
≤1.0 and ν = 0.55 ( )
30 3
fck
≤ 0.55 terfaces. The models confirm that a balanced connection
Fig. 12. Peak 1, peak 2 and final cracked state for numerical model of wall 1.
669
T.P.A. Dunn et al. Journal of Building Engineering 20 (2018) 663–670
Fig. 13. Peak 1, peak 2 and final cracked state for numerical model of wall 2.
Table 3 1828–1844.
Material factors for interface behaviour. [2] Z.P. Bazant, B.H. Oh, Crack band theory for fracture of concrete, Mater. Struct. 93
(16) (1993) 155–177.
ν 0.55 fck 20 MPa σn 0.065 MPa [3] J.P. De Villiers, G.P.A.G. Van Zijl, A.S. Van Rooyen, Bond of steel reinforcement in
µ 0.6 f yd 520 MPa ρwall1 0.16 % lightweight foamed concrete (LWFC) (Available online, 31 October 2016), Struct.
Concr. Int. J. fib (2017), https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201600019.
κ1 0.5 fcd 22 MPa ρwall2 0.11 %
[4] 10 1 Diana, Diana (Displacement Analyser) user’s manual, in: J. Manie (Ed.),
κ2 1.1 α 90 deg βc 0.4 MPa Element Library. TNO-DIANA, Netherlands, 2016.
[5] T.P.A. Dunn, Precast lightweight foamed concrete walling, a structural system for
low-rise residential buildings Master’s thesis, Stellenbosch University, 〈http://hdl.
handle.net/10019.1/102870〉.
Table 4
[6] T.P.A. Dunn, A.S. Van Rooyen, G.P.A.G. Van Zijl, Reinforced lightweight foamed
Summary of peak lateral force resistances. concrete for seismically resistant low-rise residential buildings, 71st RILEM Annual
Week & ICACMS 2017, Chennai, India, 3rd – 8th September 2017, Vol 3, pp.
Wall 1 Wall 2
269–277.
[7] D. Falliano, D. De Domenico, G. Ricciardi, E. Gugliandolo, Experimental in-
Physical peak [kN] 240 132
vestigation on the compressive strength of foamed concrete: effect of curing con-
Analytical peak [kN] 202 140 ditions, cement type, foaming agent and dry density, Constr. Build. Mater. 165
(2018) 735–749.
[8] J. Grafe, Report issue s0117: optimization of fibre content in foam concrete for
arrangement of vertical and horizontal joints exist and should be the improved fracture behaviour, Tech Report, Institute of Structural Engineering,
Stellenbosch University, South Africa, 2017.
design objective for optimal ductility of in-plane response of the [9] M. Jones, A. McCarthy, Preliminary views on the potential of foamed concrete as a
wall system. structural material, Mag. Concr. Res. 57 (1) (2005) 21–32.
• Sensitivity studies reveal compressive strength to control the initial [10] E. Kearsley, H. Mostert, Designing mix composition of foamed concrete with high
fly ash contents. in: Use of Foamed Concrete in Construction: Proceedings of the
peak pull-over resistance, while the friction coefficient controls the International Conference held at the University of Dundee, Thomas Telford
residual resistance. Publishing, Scotland, UK on 5 July 2005, pp. 29–36.
• The computational results informed an analytical expression, for [11] Model Code, Special activity group 5, fib Bulletin, no. 55, 2010.
[12] P.D. Moncarz, H. Krawinkler, Theory and application of experimental model analyis
lateral resistance, which captures the actual resistance of shear walls
in earthquake engineering, Stanford, California: Report number 50, June 1981, The
manufactured from LWFC as construction material with reasonable John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, 1981.
accuracy. [13] P. Negro, G. Toniolo, JRC scientific and policy report: design guidelines for con-
nections of precast structures under seismic actions, Joint Research Centre
European Commission, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union,
Testing and characterisation of durability properties of R/LWFC are 2012.
essential for appropriate durability design with this new construction [14] NZCS, Guidelines for the use of structural precast concrete in buildings, New
material, which is the focus of current research by the authors. Zealand Concrete Society, Christchurch, University of Canterbury, 1999.
[15] D.K. Panesar, Cellular concrete properties and the effect of synthetic and protein
foaming agents, Constr. Build. Mater. 44 (2013) 575–584.
Acknowledgements [16] K. Ramamurthy, E.K. Nambiar, G.I.S. Ranjani, A classification of studies on prop-
erties of foam concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 31 (6) (2009) 388–396.
[17] SANS 10160-4, Basis of Structural Design and Actions for Buildings and Industrial
The research is funded by The Concrete Institute (TCI) and the Structures -Part 4: seismic Actions and General Requirements for Buildings, South
Department of Trade and Industry of South Africa under THRIP African Bureau of Standards, Pretoria, 2011.
Research Grant TP14062772324. The original prototype LWFC re- [18] P. Seifi, R. Henry, J. Ingham, Panel connection details in existing New Zealand
precast concrete buildings, Bull. N.Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. (2016).
sidential building design is property of Mr Thomas Swana and [19] SAISC, South African Steel Construction Handbook, 8th edition, Institution of Steel
Ukuzwana Project Management Solutions (Pty) Ltd. Polypropylene fi- Construction (SAISC), South African, 2016.
bres were sponsored by Sapy (Pty) Ltd. The grout used at the dowel [20] G. Van Zijl, A. Van Rooyen, M. Mubatapasango, T. Dunn, J. Grafe, Durability and
bond of reinforced lightweight foamed concrete, in: High Tech Concrete: Where
connections was sponsored by Sika South Africa (Pty) Ltd.
Technology and Engineering Meet, Springer, 2017, pp. 2185–2193.
References
[1] Z.P. Bazant, Scaling laws in mechanics of failure, ASCE J. Eng. Mech. 119 (9) (1993)
670