Flexural Performance of Lightweight Reinforcedconcrete Slabs

Structures and Buildings
Volume 169 Issue SB4

Flexural performance of lightweight
reinforced-concrete slabs
Al-Rousan
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Structures and Buildings 169 April 2016 Issue SB4
Pages 257269 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.14.00068
Paper 1400068
Received 12/07/2014
Accepted 09/09/2015
Published online 18/11/2015
Keywords: buildings, structures & design/concrete structures/
failures
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved
Flexural performance of
lightweight reinforcedconcrete slabs
Rajai Z. Al-Rousan PhD
Department of Civil Engineering, Jordan University of Science and
Technology, Irbid, Jordan; Department of Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, American University of Ras Al Khaimah, Ras Al Khaimah, UAE
Recent advances in high-performance/high-strength lightweight concrete (HP/HSLWC) have had limited application in
structural construction because of the lack of design and construction guidelines and concerns about material
properties and their impact on performance. Research is needed to address the factors that significantly influence the
design, constructability and performance of HSLWC slabs. After reasonable validation with experimental test results
of companion slabs, non-linear finite-element analysis was conducted with the aim of providing a better
understanding of the effect of concrete compressive strength, ratio of tensile steel reinforcement, ratio of
compression steel reinforcement and slab thickness on the performance of the slabs. The results show that the
current ACI 318-08 provisions for the serviceability requirements of ultimate strength and maximum deflection are
underestimated, although they are adequate for cracking load requirements.
Notation
a
Ec
Es
fc
fr
fy
Icr
Ie
Ig
L
Ma
Mcr
Mn
Pcr
Pu
Py
t
yt
t
u
y
s,ACI
o
s
shear span
modulus of elasticity of concrete
steel modulus of elasticity
concrete compressive strength
modulus of rupture of concrete
steel yielding stress
cracking moment of inertia
effective moment of inertia
moment of inertia of gross concrete section
slab span
maximum applied moment
theoretical cracking moment
moment of resistance of section (nominal strength)
cracking load
ultimate load
steel yielding load
slab thickness
distance of extreme tension fibre from the neutral
axis
shear transfer coefficient
ultimate deflection
yielding deflection
maximum (midspan) deflection at ultimate load
strain
concrete strain at ultimate stress
steel yielding strain
reduction factor
flexural ductility index
tensile steel reinforcement ratio
1.
compression steel reinforcement ratio

stress
Introduction
The use of lightweight coarse aggregates can lead to significant

reductions in the self-weight of concrete. Materials used as
lightweight aggregate include slate, slag, palletised fly ash and
expanded clays and shales (Nilson, 1978). The clays and shales
are mined from the ground and then heated in a kiln. As they
are heated, gases are introduced and the materials expand into
a hard, yet porous, material. The porosity (voids) of the
material is the reason for the lighter weight relative to volume
compared with concrete made with normal coarse aggregates
such as gravel or crushed stone. Lightweight aggregate can
weigh 4050% less than normal coarse aggregate and hardened
concrete made with lightweight coarse aggregate can weigh
20% less than concrete cast using normal coarse aggregate
(Heffington, 2000).
With careful mixture design proportioning, many material
properties of lightweight concrete (LWC), such as compressive
strength, can be the same as traditional normal-weight concrete (NWC). Higher strengths may be limited by the crushing
strength of the lightweight aggregate. The tensile strength,
however, can be 80100% of that of NWC and the modulus of
elasticity can be substantially lower than that of NWC. The
use of high-strength lightweight concrete (HSLWC) is mostly
used in practical structural applications, especially in bridge
girders where the dead load of the structure comprises the
structures main loading component. The lighter unit weight
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF MORATUWA] on [14/11/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
257


Al-Rousan
of high-performance lightweight concrete (HPLWC), combined

with high strength, can lead to several advantages. First, for a
similarly sized section, a longer span can be employed than for
a NWC girder. Conversely, the size of the section can be
reduced to span the same distance.
&
Structural designers tend to look to LWC in order to reduce

the dead load of a structure, which reflects positively on the
structural element size and affords a more valuable strengthto-weight ratio. Generally, the slightly higher cost of LWC is
counterbalanced by size reductions of structural elements,
reduced volumes of concrete and the need for less reinforcing
steel.
Shideler (1957) presented one of the first comprehensive
studies on LWC. Both high- and normal-strength concretes
were tested. The high-strength concrete had a compressive
strength ( fc) of more than 48 MPa. The tested parameters
included compressive strength, creep, drying shrinkage,
modulus of elasticity, bond and flexural strength. Eight lightweight aggregates were used in the testing. Overall, the performance of the LWC was good, and structural-grade concrete
could be produced with each of the aggregates tested.
Martinez Morales (Morales, 1982) tested low-strength LWC
( fc < 27 MPa), moderate-strength LWC ( fc = 2741 MPa) and
high-strength LWC ( fc > 41 MPa). The concrete used in the
study included type I cement and lightweight fines and coarse
aggregate. The 28 d compressive strength of the HSLWC mixes
averaged approximately 55 MPa, and a compressive strength of
24 MPa was achieved at age 1 d. The HSLWC exhibited a
faster strength gain than the other types of LWC. The modulus
of rupture values averaged around 55 MPa for moist-cured
conditions and 3 MPa for dry-cured conditions. Zhang and
Gjrv (1991) studied nine HSLWCs using silica fume as a
pozzolanic admixture. The worst-performing concrete achieved
a compressive strength of 57 MPa at 28 d, and all the mixes
had a compressive strength of 41 MPa by 3 d. The conclusions
of interest were that the ratio of tensile to compressive strength
of the HSLWCs was less than that of NWC and the strength of
the lightweight aggregate was the primary factor controlling
the strength of the HSLWC.
Ahmad and Barker (1991) conducted flexural tests on six
singly reinforced LWC specimens. No lateral reinforcement
was provided in the test specimens. The concrete strength of
the specimens was reported to vary from 5200 psi (36 MPa)
to 11 000 psi (76 MPa) and the ratio of tensile steel content
to balanced steel content (/b) ranged from 018 to
054. From observation of the specimens behaviour and analysis of the research test data, the authors concluded the
following.
&
The ACI equivalent rectangular stress block provided

conservative guidance for flexural capacity of singly
reinforced LWC members.
258
&
Normal- and high-strength specimens exhibited insufficient

ductility when the reinforcement ratio (/b) was greater
than 040; specimens with a strength of 75 MPa exhibited
very low ductility even for low reinforcement ratios (024).
For a constant reinforcement ratio, decreased ductility was
observed with increasing concrete strength.
Burg et al. (1990) were able to develop a HSLWC mix using

just cement and fly ash as the cementitious material. The mix
achieved a strength of 58 MPa at 90 d, 47 MPa at 3 d and
more than 24 MPa at 1 d. The splitting strength was
1734 MPa for dry curing and 3448 MPa for moist curing.
Delsye et al. (2006) investigated the effectiveness of oil palm
shell (OPS) aggregates on the flexural behaviour of six
under-reinforced specimens with varying reinforcement ratios
(052390%). The tested parameters included the cracking
behaviour, deflection characteristics, end rotations and
ductility indices. The test results showed that the flexural
behaviour of OPS specimens agreed well with the current codes
of practice.
The flexural strength and deflection behaviour of a concrete
slab cast with OPS as aggregate and reinforced with a geo-grid
were studied by Muda et al. (2012). Zhang et al. (2014) characterised the flexural performance of cladding panels (i.e. the
deflections and extent of cracking that the elements underwent
under uniform load) and recommended a suggestion for
further analysis. The punching shear resisting capacity of lightweight aggregate concrete slabs with a low reinforcement ratio
was investigated by Youm et al. (2014). Al Qadi et al. (2014)
performed an experimental study on the impact resistance of
OPS LWC with a geo-grid.
The literature review led the author to address the lack of construction and design guidelines, limited applications in bridge
construction and concerns about high-performance/highstrength lightweight concrete (HP/HSLWC) and their impact
on slab performance.
2.
Research significance
In many construction cases nowadays, concrete density plays

an important role and is sometimes more important than the
strength, especially in the case of superhigh-rise buildings and
larger sized and longer span concrete structures. There are
obvious considerable advantages in reducing the density of
concrete by using LWC. The self-weight of concrete accounts
for a very substantial proportion of the total dead load of
structures and hence, by using LWC to cast structural components such as slabs, there will be a great reduction in the
total dead load imposed. A reduction in concrete density for
the same strength level can allow substantial savings in dead
load for structural design and foundations, which can lower
construction costs. This paper addresses and emphasises the
factors that influence the performance, constructability and
design of HSLWC slabs.


Al-Rousan
Compression steel
Y
10@300 mm
Slab thickness
10@300 mm
Tensile steel
1000 mm
2800 mm
2500 mm
680 mm
910 mm
P/2
910 mm
Y
P/2
Figure 1. Slab geometry and reinforcement details
3.
Finite-element modelling
3.1 Specimen details

The work programme consisted of modelling 60 HSLWC slabs,
analysed as simply supported under four-point loading with a
distance of 680 mm between the loading points and 910 mm
between the loading and support points using Ansys v.12, as
shown in Figure 1. The main parameters studied included concrete compressive strength, tensile reinforcement ratio, compression reinforcement ratio () and slab thickness (t). Table 1
show details of the slabs assessed using non-linear finiteelement analysis (NLFEA). The notation used to identify the
slabs is as follows. The letter S indicates a slab specimen, followed by 275, 344, 413, 481, 550, 619 or 688, which represents the compressive strength ( fc) of the slab in MPa. The
letter T represents the tensile reinforcement ratio (), followed
by 1, 2, 3 or 4, representing 8112 ( = 072%), 8116 (130%),
8118 (163%) and 8122 (243%), respectively. Letter C indicates stands the compression reinforcement ratio (), followed
by 0 or 1 to represent no steel bars and 5112 ( = 04%),
respectively. Finally, the value after the letter t represents the
slab thickness (150 mm, 175 mm, 200 mm, 225 mm or
250 mm).
3.2 Element types and material properties
Figure 2 shows the types of Ansys v.12 elements: Solid65,
Solid45 and Link8 elements were used to model the concrete,
steel plates at the supports and load applications, and steel
reinforcement, respectively. Ansys Solid65 is able to predict the
non-linear performance of concrete by using a smeared crack
approach. Also, the model is able to predict the failure of concrete in terms of cracking and crushing failures by defining
ultimate uniaxial compressive and tensile strengths. Therefore,

the model of William and Warnke (1975) was used to calculate
the concrete failure criterion due to a multi-axial stress state as
shown in Figure 3(a). For all slabs, a Poissons ratio of 02 and
shear transfer coefficient (t) of 02 were used (Hemmaty,
1998). The tensile and compressive behaviour of the steel
reinforcement in the simulated models was assumed elastic
perfectly plastic with a yielding strength and Poissons ratio of
413 MPa and 03, respectively (Figure 3(b)). In order to
provide an even stress distribution over the loaded areas,
steel plates were added at loading and supports points. The
behaviour of the steel plates was assumed as a linear elastic
material with a Poissons ratio of 03 and elastic modulus of
200 GPa.
3.3 Modelling methodology and non-linear solution
A full model of the slab with proper boundary conditions was
used, as shown in Figure 1. The Ansys program automated the
minimum and maximum load step sizes. NewtonRaphson
equilibrium iterations provided convergence at the end of each
load increment within tolerance limits equal to 0001. Failure
for each model was identified when the solution for a
00045 kN load increment did not converge.
4.
Non-linear finite-element analysis: results

and discussion
4.1 Validation of the NLFEA

The experimental study reported by Almousawi (2011) was
used for validation of the NLFEA. In that study, six lightweight RC beams were fabricated and tested to failure in order
to study the structural behaviour of lightweight RC slabs of
259


Al-Rousan
Reinforcement
steel bars
Yield stage
Ultimate stage
Slab ID
Tensile
Compressive
fc: MPa
Pcr: kN
Py: kN
y: mm
Pu: kN
u: mm
Displacement
ductility
S275T4C0t150
S344T4C0t150
S413T4C0t150
S481T4C0t150
S550T4C0t150
S619T4C0t150
S688T4C0t150
S275T4C1t150
S344T4C1t150
S413T4C1t150
S481T4C1t150
S550T4C1t150
S619T4C1t150
S688T4C1t150
S275T3C0t150
S344T3C0t150
S413T3C0t150
S481T3C0t150
S550T3C0t150
S619T3C0t150
S688T3C0t150
S275T3C1t150
S344T3C1t150
S413T3C1t150
S481T3C1t150
S550T3C1t150
S619T3C1t150
S688T3C1t150
S275T2C0t150
S344T2C0t150
S413T2C0t150
S481T2C0t150
S550T2C0t150
S619T2C0t150
S688T2C0t150
S275T2C1t150
S344T2C1t150
S413T2C1t150
S481T2C1t150
S550T2C1t150
S619T2C1t150
S688T2C1t150
8122
275
344
413
481
550
619
688
275
344
413
481
550
619
688
275
344
413
481
550
619
688
275
344
413
481
550
619
688
275
344
413
481
550
619
688
275
344
413
481
550
619
688
48
54
59
64
68
73
77
49
55
6
65
7
74
78
46
51
56
61
65
69
73
47
52
57
62
66
7
74
44
49
53
58
62
65
69
44
5
55
59
63
67
71
128
144
157
166
173
18
185
143
158
169
178
185
191
197
99
111
12
127
132
137
143
11
121
129
135
14
145
15
71
8
87
92
97
101
105
79
87
93
98
102
107
11
194
194
188
188
188
188
188
194
194
194
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
194
194
188
188
188
188
188
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
524
59
642
679
71
738
759
585
648
693
729
758
784
806
404
456
491
519
542
563
584
45
494
527
553
575
595
613
292
33
356
378
396
414
431
323
356
38
401
419
436
451
898
872
847
823
799
775
753
935
908
881
855
83
806
782
925
898
872
847
823
799
775
962
935
908
881
855
83
806
954
925
898
872
847
823
799
991
962
935
908
881
855
83
463
45
45
438
425
412
401
482
468
454
455
441
429
416
492
477
464
45
438
425
412
496
482
483
468
455
441
429
524
508
493
479
465
452
439
527
512
497
483
468
455
441
5112
8118
5112
8116
5112
Table 1. Details of NLFEA slabs and summary of analysis results

(continued on next page)
260


Al-Rousan
Reinforcement
steel bars
Yield stage
Ultimate stage
Slab ID
Tensile
Compressive
fc: MPa
Pcr: kN
Py: kN
y: mm
Pu: kN
u: mm
Displacement
ductility
S275T1C0t150
S344T1C0t150
S413T1C0t150
S481T1C0t150
S550T1C0t150
S619T1C0t150
S688T1C0t150
S275T1C1t150
S344T1C1t150
S413T1C1t150
S481T1C1t150
S550T1C1t150
S619T1C1t150
S688T1C1t150
S275T1C0t150
S275T1C0t175
S275T1C0t200
S275T1C0t225
S275T1C0t250
8112
275
344
413
481
550
619
688
275
344
413
481
550
619
688
275
275
275
275
275
42
47
51
55
59
63
66
44
50
55
59
63
67
71
42
47
51
55
59
49
54
58
61
63
65
67
53
58
61
64
66
68
69
49
54
58
61
63
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
199
221
236
248
256
264
274
216
236
251
261
270
277
284
199
221
236
248
256
981
954
925
898
872
847
823
1022
991
962
935
908
881
855
981
954
925
898
872
539
524
508
493
479
465
452
561
545
529
514
499
484
470
539
524
508
493
479
5112
8112
Table 1. Continued
different concrete compressive strengths. Figures 4(a)4(c)

shows the loaddeflection and loadstrain behaviours obtained
by NLFEA and the tested beams. The figures reveal good
agreement between the NLFEA and the experimental test
results reported by Almousawi (2011). This provides a theoretical understanding of the real behaviour of the lightweight RC
beams. The NLFEA models were also calibrated based on test
results of singly and doubly reinforced-concrete flexural beams
reported in the technical literature, as shown in Figures 4(d)
and 4(e). These figures show that the NLFEA was generally in
good agreement with the experimental loaddeflection behaviour reported by Ahmad and Barker (1991) and Ahmad and
Batts (1991). Therefore, the NLFEA was extrapolated to slabs
with different concrete compressive strengths, bottom reinforcement ratios, top reinforcement ratios and slab thicknesses, with
reasonable accuracy as shown in Figures 4(f)4(h). As a result
of the validation, it was decided to use the NLFEA for further
parametric analysis to provide a theoretical understanding of
the flexural behaviour of LWC slabs.
4.2 Loaddeflection behaviour
The slope of the loaddeflection curve was nearly linear and
steep before the occurrence of flexural cracks. After flexural
cracking, the slope of the loaddeflection changed and this
slope remained reasonably linear until the steel reinforcement
yielded, as shown in Figure 5. All the slabs behaved in a
similar manner, typical of flexural NWC slabs. Inspection of

Figure 5(b) shows that the slope of the post-cracking stage
increased with an increase in fc while the ultimate displacement
decreased with increasing fc.
4.3 Loadstrain behaviour
The applied load versus midspan compression strain in the
concrete at the top of the tested LWC slabs with different fc is
shown in Figure 4(b). It is obvious from the figure that the
concrete compressive strain exceeded 3000 and followed the
same pattern displayed by the loaddeflection behaviour. As fc
increased, more strain reduction was observed in the concrete.
Figure 4(c) shows the applied load versus tension strains in the
steel reinforcement of the tested slabs with different fc.
Inspection of Figures 4(b) and 4(c) reveals that the ultimate
steel and concrete strains increased with decreasing fc, while
the ultimate steel strain was almost 17 times the ultimate concrete strain. The results also show that the LWC slabs were
able to achieve their ultimate strain capacity under flexural
loading.
4.4
Influence of concrete compressive strength on

ultimate flexural capacity
Figure 5(b) shows the effect of concrete compressive strength
on the loaddeflection behaviour of LWC slabs. Inspection of
Figure 5(b) reveals that the ultimate load capacity of the
261


Al-Rousan
fc'
Ec
Z
6
2 L
03fc'
X
Z
Rebar
Compression
Y
X
o =
Tension
062 (fc' )
1/2
1
J
2fc'
Ec
Ultimate tensile strength
(a)
(a)
P
fy
Compression
O
Z
6
fy
Tension
Es
2
z
+y
Es
(b)
1
J
Figure 3. Simplified uniaxial stressstrain curves for (a) concrete

and (b) steel reinforcement
Surface coordinate
system
(b)
x
Z
I
Y
X
344 MPa, 413 MPa, 481 MPa, 550 MPa, 619 MPa and
688 MPa, respectively. For slabs with = 243%, the ultimate
flexural capacity was 477 kN.m, 537 kN.m, 584 kN.m,
618 kN.m, 646 kN.m, 672 kN.m and 691 kN.m for
fc = 275 MPa, 344 MPa, 413 MPa, 481 MPa, 550 MPa,
619 MPa and 688 MPa, respectively. Therefore, the effect of
fc on ultimate flexural capacity was more noticeable in slabs
with a higher tensile steel reinforcement ratio.
(c)
4.5
Figure 2. Types of the elements used in the NLFEA: (a) Solid65;

(b) Solid45; (c) Link8
NLFEA slabs increased with an increase in fc for the same .

The ultimate displacement of the NLFEA slabs also slightly
decreased with increasing fc. Figure 6 shows a plot of ultimate
flexural for slabs with different fc. The figure reveals that the
ultimate flexural capacity increased with an increase in fc, and
the improvement in ultimate flexural capacity increased with
increasing . For slabs with = 072%, the ultimate flexural
capacity was 181 kN.m, 201 kN.m, 215 kN.m, 226 kN.m,
233 kN.m, 241 kN.m and 249 kN.m for fc = 275 MPa,
262
Influence of tensile steel reinforcement on ultimate

flexural capacity
Figure 5(a) shows the effect of on the loaddeflection behaviour of the LWC slabs. The figure shows that the ultimate load
capacity of the NLFEA slabs significantly increased with an
increase of for the same fc. Also, the ultimate displacement
of the NLFEA slabs slightly decreased with increasing .
Figure 6 also reveals that the ultimate flexural capacity
increased with an increase in and the improvement in ultimate flexural capacity increased with an increase in fc. For the
slabs with fc = 275 MPa, the ultimate flexural capacity was
181 kN.m, 266 kN.m, 368 kN.m and 477 kN.m for slabs
with = 072%, 130%, 163% and 243%, respectively, and the
improvement was more obvious in slabs with higher fc. In
addition, Figure 5 shows that the tensile steel reinforcement


Al-Rousan
B68.5T4C1
B58.3T4C1
B68.5T4C1
250
B58.3T4C1
250
B50.9T4C1
B50.9T4C1
200
Load: kN
Load: kN
200
150
100
100
50
0
150
50
Experimental
NLFEA
Experimental
NLFEA
0
0
10
15
20 25 30 35
Displacement: mm
(a)
40
45
50
2000
4000
6000
8000
Concrete compression strain:
10 000
(b)
150
B68.5T4C1
250
125
LR11-54
B58.3T4C1
B50.9T4C1
100
Load: kN
Load: kN
200
150
100
75
LR11-24
50
50
0
LR8-51
LR5-19
25
Experimental
NLFEA
0
LR8-22
2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 12 000 14 000 16 000

Steel tension strain:
10
20
(c)
Experimental
NLFEA
30
40
50
Displacement: mm
14
12
Sample 2
125
LJ11-0.47
10
75
Load: kN
LJ8-0.44
100
Load: kN
70
(d)
150
LJ11-0.22
Sample 1
Sample 3
Sample 3
LJ8-0.21
50
4
LJ-0.16
25
0
60
10
20
30
Experimental
NLFEA
40 50 60 70
Displacement: mm
80
90 100
2
0
Experimental
NLFEA
0
10
(e)
20
30
Displacement: mm
40
50
(f)
Figure 4. Validation of NLFEA results with experimental results

of (a)(c) Almousawi (2011); (d) Ahmad and Barker (1991);
(e) Ahmad and Batts (1991); (f) Muda et al. (2012); (g) Zhang
et al. (2014); (h) Youm et al. (2014) (continued on next page)
263


Al-Rousan
35
1200
30
1000
Specimen B-1
800
20
Load: kN
Load: kN
25
Specimen C-1
15
L-SL-C slab
600
400
10
5
0
L-CL-C slab
Specimen A-1
200
Experimental
NLFEA
0
10
20
30
Displacement: mm
(g)
40
50
Experimental
NLFEA
0
10
15
Displacement: mm
(h)
20
25
Figure 4. Continued
ratio has more impact on loaddeflection behaviour as well as

ultimate flexural capacity than the concrete compressive
strength.
4.6
Influence of compression steel reinforcement on

ultimate flexural capacity
Compression steel makes slabs tough and ductile, enabling
them to withstand large moments, deformations and stress
reversals such as might occur during earthquakes.
Compression steel is also very effective in reducing long-term
deflections due to shrinkage and plastic flow. The effect of
compression steel is thus worthy of study. Figure 7 shows the
effect of on the ultimate flexural capacity of the LWC slabs
with different fc and with respect to slabs without compression steel reinforcement. Inspection of Figure 7 reveals that
the ultimate flexural capacity of the slabs with compression
steel significantly decreased with an increase in fc and a
decrease in . Also, the difference in ultimate capacity between
slabs with fc = 275 MPa and = 072243% was significantly
smaller than the difference between the slabs with
fc = 688 MPa. In addition, the difference in ultimate capacity
between slabs with = 072% and fc = 275688 MPa was significantly larger than the difference between the slabs with
= 243%. Therefore, the contribution of the compression
reinforcement steel was more obvious for the slabs with higher
fc and lower due to the change in slab behaviour from a
singly reinforced slab at = 243% to a doubly reinforced slab
at = 072%.
4.7
Influence of concrete strength on displacement

ductility
Ductility is an attractive structural property because it provides
warning of impending failure and allows stress redistribution.
264
The displacement ductility index is defined as the ratio of ultimate deflection to first yield deflection. In most cases, high
ductility ratios designate that a structural member is capable of
undergoing large deflections prior to failure. Table 1 summarises the cracking load, yield load, ultimate load and displacement ductility of all the slabs.
The influence of concrete strength on the displacement ductility of the slabs with different fc and is shown in Figure 8,
revealing that displacement ductility decreased with an
increase in fc. For slabs with = 072%, the displacement ductility was 54, 52, 51, 49, 48, 47 and 45 for slabs with
fc = 275 MPa, 344 MPa, 413 MPa, 481 MPa, 550 MPa,
619 MPa and 688 MPa, respectively. For slabs with 243%,
the displacement ductility was 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 41 and
40 for fc = 275 MPa, 344 MPa, 413 MPa, 481 MPa,
550 MPa, 619 MPa and 688 MPa respectively. Therefore, the
effect of fc on displacement ductility was more noticeable in
slabs with lower . Inspection of Figure 8 also reveals that the
ultimate flexural capacity and displacement ductility had a
direct power and inverse linear relationship with fc,
respectively.
4.8
Influence of tensile steel reinforcement on

displacement ductility
The influence of on displacement ductility is the same as the
influence of fc on displacement ductility, as shown in Figure 8
for slabs without compression steel reinforcement. Inspection
of Figure 8 also reveals that displacement ductility decreased
with an increase in and the reduction in displacement ductility increased with increasing fc. For slabs with fc = 688 MPa,
their ultimate flexural capacity was 54, 52, 49 and 46 for
= 072%, 130%, 163% and 243%, respectively, and the

S275T4C0t150
S275T3C0t150
S275T2C0t150
S275T1C0t150
60
70
= 243%
Ultimate flexural capacity: kN.m
70

Al-Rousan
Load: kN
50
= 163%
40
= 130%
30
= 072%
20
NLFEA results
10
0
fc' = 275 MPa

0
25
50
75
Dispalcement: mm
100
125
60
243
3%
= 16
50
40
= 130
30
= 072
20
10
0
(a)
30
40
50
60
Concrete compressive strength: MPa
70
80
Figure 6. Ultimate flexural capacity vs. concrete compressive

strength for slabs without compression reinforcement ratio
70
60
Load: kN
50
40
S688T4C0t150
S619T4C0t150
S550T4C0t150
S481T4C0t150
S413T4C0t150
S344T4C0t150
S275T4C0t150
30
20
NLFEA results
( = 243%)
10
0
25
50
75
Dispalcement: mm
100
125
(b)
Figure 5. Typical loaddeflection curves for simulated slabs
effect was more obvious in slabs with lower fc. In addition, the
ratio between the displacement ductility for slabs without compression steel reinforcement decreased linearly with a slope
proportional to the increase of fc and decrease of .
4.9
Influence of compression steel reinforcement on

displacement ductility
Table 1 shows the effect of compression steel reinforcement
ratio () on the displacement ductility of the LWC slabs for
different fc and with respect to slabs without compression
steel reinforcement. Inspection of Figure 7(b) reveals that the
displacement ductility ratio of slabs with compression steel
increased rabidly at lower fc (less than 413 MPa) and higher
tensile steel reinforcement ratio ( = 243%); after this limit
the increase in displacement ductility was mild in all the
slabs. Also, the difference in displacement ductility ratio
between slabs with fc = 275 MPa and = 072243% was
significantly smaller than the difference between the slabs

with fc = 688 MPa. In addition, the difference in displacement ductility ratio between slabs with = 072% and
fc = 275688 MPa was significantly smaller than the difference between the slabs with = 243%. This means, for slabs
with the same and fc, the slab with compression steel
reinforcement provides warning of impending failure and
allows more stress redistribution than the slab without compression steel reinforcement.
4.10
Influence of concrete strength on flexural ductility

index
The flexural ductility index (F), defined as the ratio of the
area of the loaddeflection response up to point of failure (Pu)
to the area up to the steel yielding load (Py), is a quantifiable
factor of the post-peak deformation characteristics of a
reinforced-concrete member. The influence of concrete strength
on the flexural ductility index of slabs with different values of
fc and is shown in Figure 9, where it can be seen that displacement ductility decreased with increasing fc. For the slabs
with = 072%, F = 367, 357, 342, 330, 318, 307 and
298 for fc = 275 MPa, 344 MPa, 413 MPa, 481 MPa,
550 MPa, 619 MPa and 688 MPa, respectively. For the
slabs with = 243%, F = 307, 296, 285, 275, 266, 256
and 246 for fc = 275 MPa, 344 MPa, 413 MPa, 481 MPa,
550 MPa, 619 MPa and 688 MPa, respectively. Therefore,
the effect of fc on F was more noticeable in slabs with lower
. Inspection of Figure 9 also reveals that the ultimate flexural
capacity and F had a direct power and inverse linear relationship with fc, respectively. A large value of F reflects the ability
of a member to withstand load while incurring additional
deformation beyond the yielding load stage. This definition is
265


Al-Rousan
56
112
= 243
%
= 16
3%
= 13
0%
=0
72%
106
Displacement ductility (with compression steel)
Displacement ductility (without compression steel)
30
40
50
60
(a)
Displacement ductility
108
104
50
2%
11
3%
48
16
3%
46
24
3%
44
40
38
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 8. Ultimate displacement ductility versus concrete

compressive strength for slabs without compression reinforcement
ratio
= 243%
1030
07
42
70
= 163%
= 130%
= 072%
1025
40
1020
35
1015
30
40
50
60
(b)
70
Figure 7. Effect of compression reinforcement ratio on (a) flexural

capacity and (b) displacement ductility for slabs with different
concrete compressive strength
= 130%
= 072%
25
20
qualitative which can be used to quantify the deflection ductility of flexural critical reinforced-concrete members.
Effect of slab thickness on ultimate load capacity
and corresponding deflection
Figure 10 shows the effect of slab thickness on the ultimate
load capacity and corresponding deflection. The figure reveals
that the ultimate load capacity of the NLFEA slabs increased
with increasing slab thickness for the same . Also, the ultimate displacement of the NLFEA slabs slightly decreased with
an increase in slab thickness. Figure 10 also shows that slab
thickness and ultimate load capacity had a parabolic and
inverse linear relationship with deflection, respectively. In
addition, inspection of Table 1 reveals that displacement ductility decreased with increasing slab thickness. Figure 11 shows
typical NLFEA contours for 150 mm and 250 mm thick slabs,
43%
=2
63%
=1
30
15
266
1035
1010
4.11
52
Flexural ductility index
M (with compression steel)
M (without compression steel)
54
110
30
40
50
60
70
80
Figure 9. Flexural ductility index versus concrete compressive

strength for slabs without compression reinforcement ratio
which reveal that compression strains in the concrete increased

with a decrease in slab thickness.
5.
Comparison with ACI 318-08 (ACI, 2008)
5.1 Cracking behaviour

Initial cracking occurred at 2024%, 1416%, 1112% and
810% of the ultimate load for slabs with = 072%, 130%,
163% and 243%, respectively; that is, the cracking load as a
percentage of ultimate load decreased with increasing .


Al-Rousan
Normalised value w.r.t. slab thickness 150 mm
14
ty
ate
loa
ci
pa
dc
12
MN
MX
im
Ult
Ultim
10
ate d
eflec
tion
08
Ultimate load capacity
Ultimate deflection
06
100
150
200
250
.326E04
.245E04
.147E03
.897E04
.816E04
.612E04
.407E05
.530E04
.110E03
.118E03
(a)
300
Y
Slab thickness: mm
Figure 10. Effect of slab thickness on ultimate load capacity and

corresponding deflection
MN
MX
Also, as shown in Table 1, the cracking load percentage of the

ultimate load increased with an increase in fc and compression
steel reinforcement was found to be a considerable factor in
the cracking load (increasing with an increase in ). The theoretical cracking moment of the slab (Mcr(ACI)) was determined
using the formula recommended in ACI 318-08 (ACI, 2008)
1:
McrACI
fr Ig
yt
where Ig is the moment of inertia of the gross concrete section,

yt is the distance of the extreme tension fibre from the neutral
axis, is a reduction factor equal to 075 for all LWCs and fr,
the modulus of rupture of concrete, is calculated using ACI
318-08 (ACI, 2008) as follows
2:
p
fr 062 f c0
Figure 12 shows the NLFEA cracking moments (Mcr(NLFEA))

plotted against the theoretical cracking moments (Mcr(ACI)).
The ACI 318-08 procedure gives good predictions compared
with the NLFEA results, with an absolute error of less than
2%. Therefore, the reduction factor () of 075 is conservative
for the prediction of cracking moments for LWCs.
.811E05
.573E04
.355E04
.137E04
.299E04
.246E04
.280E05
.464E04
.190E04
.408E04
(b)
Figure 11. Typical NLFEA strain contours for (a) 150 mm and
(b) 250 mm thick slabs
experimental and NLFEA ultimate deflections with the calculated deflection using elastic bending theory as
3:

Ma 2
3L 4a2
24Ec I
in which Ma is the maximum applied moment, a is the shear

span, L is the slab span, Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete and the moment of inertia (I ) is taken as that specified in
ACI 318-08 (ACI, 2008) for the effective moment of inertia (Ie)
given by
4:
5.2 Maximum deflection at service load
The analytical procedure developed for calculation of the
maximum (midspan) deflection (s,ACI) at ultimate for the
tested slabs is not necessarily applicable for reinforced structures made from LWC. Therefore, this study compares the
sACI

Mcr 3
Ig
Ie Icr Ig Icr
Ma
in which Icr and Ig are the moments of inertia of cracked and

gross sections, respectively. Figure 13 shows the NLFEA
maximum deflection versus the ACI maximum deflection.
267


Al-Rousan
30
NLFEA maximum moment: kN.m
NLFEA cracking moment: kN.m
40
35
30
25
20
20
11
10
15
15
20
25
30
35
ACI 318-08 cracking moment: kN.m
40
10
20
30
ACI 318-08 maximum moment: kN.m
Figure 12. Theoretical cracking moment (ACI 318-08 (ACI, 2008))

versus NLFEA cracking moment
Figure 14. Theoretical maximum moment (ACI 318-08 (ACI,

2008)) versus NLFEA maximum moment
NLFEA maximum dispalcement: mm
12
5.3 Ultimate strength

The moment of resistance of the section (i.e. the nominal
strength Mn) was determined using the formula recommended
in ACI 318-08 (ACI, 2008). Figure 14 shows the NLFEA ultimate moments plotted against ultimate moments predicted
using ACI 318-08. It can be seen that the ACI 318-08 provisions underestimate the ultimate moment capacity of LWC
slabs with an average error of 11%. The method of Ahmad
and Barker (1991) underestimated the ultimate moment
capacity of LWC slabs with an average error of 712%, reflecting the fact that the NLFEA results were in the range of the
specimens tested by Ahmad and Barker (1991).
11
1%
11
10
9
10
11
ACI 318-08 maximum displacement: mm
12
Figure 13. Theoretical maximum deflection (ACI 318-08 (ACI,

2008)) versus NLFEA maximum deflection
It was observed that the ACI 318-08 specifications underestimate the maximum deflection of reinforced LWC slabs at ultimate load. Therefore, the design procedure for the maximum
deflection of LWC slabs can be estimated by limiting the
modulus of elasticity by a reduction factor (). Inspection of
Figure 13 reveals that a reduction factor of 090 is conservative
for LWC. Applying the reduction factor () to Equation 3 thus
leads to
5:
268
sACI

Ma 2
3L 4a2
24Ec I
6.
Summary and conclusions
Non-linear finite-element analyses were conducted with the

aim of providing a better understanding of the effect of concrete compressive strength ( fc), ratio of tensile steel reinforcement (), ratio of compression steel reinforcement () and slab
thickness (t) on the performance of lightweight concrete
(LWC) slabs. The findings from this study can be summarised
as follows.
&
&
The ultimate load enhancement of the slab was found to

increase with increases in fc and slab thickness, and this
effect was more obvious for slabs with compression steel
reinforcement for the same . The ultimate load
enhancement of the slab also increased with increases in
and slab thickness, and was more obvious in slabs without
compression steel reinforcement for the same fc.
The displacement ductility of the slabs decreased with
increases in fc and slab thickness, and this was more
obvious for slabs with compression steel reinforcement for

&
&
&
&
the same . The displacement ductility of the slab

decreased an increase in , and this effect was more
apparent in slabs without compression steel reinforcement
for the same fc.
Slab thickness and ultimate load capacity showed a
parabolic relationship and inverse linear relationship with
deflection, respectively.
Guidelines were provided that can be effectively utilised to
specify the optimum concrete compressive strength, tensile
steel reinforcement ratio, compression steel reinforcement
ratio and thickness of LWC slabs with ultimate flexural
capacity and ductility less than the allowable specified
values in ACI 318-08 (ACI, 2008).
The cracking moment capacity of the LWC slabs was
predicted well by ACI 318-08.
The ACI 318-08 specifications were found to underestimate
the maximum deflection and capacity of reinforced-LWC
slabs, with an average error of 11%.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the technical support provided by
Jordan University of Science and Technology.
REFERENCES
ACI (American Concrete Institute) (2008) ACI 318-08: Building
code requirements for reinforced concrete and commentary

(318R-08). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, USA.
Ahmad SH and Barker R (1991) Flexural behavior of reinforced
high-strength lightweight concrete beams. ACI Structural
Journal 88(1): 6977.
Ahmad SH and Batts J (1991) Flexural behavior of doubly
reinforced high-strength lightweight concrete beams with
web reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal 88(3): 351358.
Almousawi AN (2011) Flexural and Shear Performance of High
Strength Lightweight Reinforced Concrete Beams. PhD
thesis, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.
Al Qadi ANS, Al-Kadi QNS and Al-Zaidyeen SM (2014) Impact
strength of oil-palm shell on lightweight concrete slabs
reinforced with a geo-grid. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering 27(10): 5667, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001142.
Burg G, Cichanski WJ and Hoff GC (1990) Selected properties of
three high-strength lightweight concretes developed for
arctic offshore structures. Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Houston, TX. ASME, NY, USA, 3(1): 8592.
Delsye CL, Teo MAM and Kurian JV (2006) Flexural behavior of
reinforced lightweight concrete slabs made with oil palm
shell (OPS). Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology 4(1):
110.
Heffington JA (2000) Development of High Performance
Lightweight Concrete Mixes for Prestressed Bridge Girders.

Al-Rousan
MSc thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX,

USA.
Hemmaty Y (1998) Modeling of the shear force transferred
between cracks in reinforced and fibre reinforced concrete
structures. Proceedings of Ansys Conference, Pittsburgh,
PA, USA, vol. 1, p. 1.
Morales SM (1982) Short-Term Mechanical Properties of
High-Strength Lightweight Concrete. Report Number 82-9.
Department of Structural Engineering, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca,
NY, USA.
Muda ZC, Sharif SFA and Ng JH (2012) Flexural behavior of
lightweight oil palm shells concrete slab reinforced with
geogrid. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering
Research 3(11): 118.
Nilson AH (1978) Design of Prestressed Concrete, 2nd edn,.
Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
Shideler JJ (1957) Lightweight aggregate concrete for structural
use. Journal of the American Concrete Institute 54(1):
299328.
William KJ and Warnke EP (1975) Constitutive model for the
triaxial behavior of concrete. Proceedings of the
International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering 19(1): 174.
Youm KS, Kim JJ and Moon J (2014) Punching shear failure of
slab with lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC) and low
reinforcement ratio. Construction and Building Materials
65(1): 92102.
Zhang MH and Gjrv OE (1991) Mechanical properties of highstrength lightweight concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 88(3):
240247.
Zhang GW, Chen BS, Miao QS, Wu H and Chen P (2014)
Experimental investigation on flexural performance of
autoclaved aerated concrete slab. Proceedings of
International Conference on Mechanics and Civil
Engineering (ICMCE 2014) Asheville, NC, USA,
pp. 10191024.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students. Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing
papers should be 10002000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
269

Flexural Performance of Lightweight Reinforcedconcrete Slabs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flexural Performance of Lightweight Reinforcedconcrete Slabs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures and Buildings

Volume 169 Issue SB4

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

compression steel reinforcement ratio

The use of lightweight coarse aggregates can lead to significant

Structures and Buildings