Structural Performance of Hybrid GFRP/Steel

Concrete Sandwich Panels

Chris P. Pantelides, M.ASCE1; Rajeev Surapaneni2; and Lawrence D. Reaveley, M.ASCE3

Abstract: Precast/prestressed concrete sandwich panels consist of two concrete wythes separated by a rigid insulation foam layer and are
generally used as walls or slabs in thermal insulation applications. Commonly used connectors between the two wythes, such as steel
trusses or concrete stems, penetrate the insulation layer causing a thermal bridge effect, which reduces thermal efficiency. Glass fiber-
reinforced polymer GFRP composite shell connectors between the two concrete wythes are used in this research as horizontal shear
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SERC on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

transfer reinforcement. The design criterion is to establish composite action, in which both wythes resist flexural loads as one unit, while
maintaining insulation across the two concrete wythes of the panel. The experiments carried out in this research show that hybrid
GFRP/steel reinforced sandwich panels can withstand out-of-plane loads while providing resistance to horizontal shear between the two
concrete wythes. An analytical method is developed for modeling the horizontal shear transfer enhancement using a shear flow approach.
In addition, a truss model is built, which predicts the panel deflections observed in the experiments with reasonable accuracy.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE1090-0268200812:5570
CE Database subject headings: Composite structures; Concrete structures; Sandwich panels; Slabs; Walls; Fiber reinforced
polymers; Hybrid methods.

Introduction considered composite. Typical wythe connectors include C-tie,

Z-tie, M-tie, cylindrical metal sleeve anchors, and welded wire
Precast/prestressed concrete sandwich panels are used as exterior trusses. The design of these connectors is based on horizontal
or interior walls for cladding, as bearing walls, or shear walls shear transfer PCI Committee Report 1997.
spanning vertically between foundations and floors or roofs to Although the structural efficiency of composite panels is high,
provide the permanent wall system; in addition, they may span their energy efficiency can be lower than expected because both
steel truss connectors and concrete stems are highly thermally
horizontally between columns as floor slabs. In place, sandwich
conductive materials, as shown in Table 1. It is beneficial, for
panels provide the dual function of transferring load and insulat-
thermal insulation purposes, to use fiber-reinforced polymer
ing the structure, and are designed as either: 1 noncomposite
FRP composites that have low thermal conductivity to penetrate
with one thick structural wythe and a thin nonstructural facing the rigid insulation foam and connect the two concrete wythes of
wythe connected by plastic or steel pins through a layer of insu- a sandwich panel. The objective of this research was to use glass
lation, or 2 composite with two wythes of equal thickness con- FRP GFRP shells as connectors to construct a structurally com-
nected through the insulation with concrete stems or steel trusses posite panel in which both wythes resist out-of-plane loads in
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute PCI Committee Report composite action, while maintaining thermal insulation across the
1997. The two concrete wythes in Fig. 1a are connected with a two wythes, and to evaluate its performance under out-of-plane
glass fiber-reinforced vinylester connector with low shear resis- loads.
tance and are considered noncomposite. The two wythes in Fig. Research has been carried out by Einea et al. 1994 to rein-
1b are connected with a steel truss connector that has sufficient force sandwich panels with FRP composite bent bars either as a
strength and stiffness to transfer the shear forces caused by bend- replacement for steel or to produce truss action inside the sand-
ing between the inner and outer concrete wythes and the panel is wich panel. Candidates for such FRP connectors included a wide
flange FRP beam, FRP diagonal straps, and a prefabricated FRP
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of bent bar connector; the latter was selected and tests showed that
Utah, 122 S. Central Campus Dr., 104 CME, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 the FRP connector provided sufficient strength to develop a high
corresponding author. E-mail: chris@civil.utah.edu
2
Engineer, BHB Consulting Engineers, P.C., 244 West 300 North,
Ste. 202, Salt Lake City, UT 84103. E-mail: rajeevsurapaneni@
rediffmail.com
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Utah, 122 S. Central Campus Dr., 104 CME, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.
E-mail: reaveley@civil.utah.edu
Note. Discussion open until March 1, 2009. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. The manuscript for this paper was
submitted for review and possible publication on April 4, 2007; approved
on November 28, 2007. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites
Fig. 1. Structural configuration of sandwich panels: a non-
for Construction, Vol. 12, No. 5, October 1, 2008. ASCE, ISSN 1090-
0268/2008/5-570576/$25.00. composite; b composite

570 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008

J. Compos. Constr. 2008.12:570-576.

 Table 1. Thermal Conductivity of Materials at 20 C
Relative
Conductivitya conductivity
Material W/m K to EPS
Expanded polystyrene EPS 0.04 1
GFRP composite 0.30 7
Concrete 2.10 52
Steel 60.0 1,500
a
Keller et al. 2006.
percentage of composite action. Salmon et al. 1997 carried out
tests on precast concrete sandwich panels where FRP bent bar
connectors were used for transferring shear forces from one con-
crete wythe to the other. The connectors were truss shaped, some
of which were made of steel for comparison purposes as shown in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SERC on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2a, and others used a glass FRP bent bar as shown in Fig.
2b.
Bank et al. 1997 developed three-dimensional FRP grating
cages for reinforcing concrete elements; they recommended that
the design of the FRP cage should be studied further and alterna-
tive arrangements of the transverse vertical and cross reinforc-
ing members should be considered. Constructability and cost
analysis including life-cycle costs of the three-dimensional FRP
cages were studied by Shapira and Bank 1997; the results of the
cost analysis showed that FRP cages are a competitive alternative
to conventional steel reinforcement.
Whitehead and Ibell 2005 developed continuous FRP rectan-
gular and circular helixes made of aramid FRP composites as
transverse reinforcement for shear resistance. The continuous he-
lixes were used in ordinary FRP-reinforced concrete beams and
FRP-prestressed concrete beams.
Keller et al. 2006 developed a hybrid pultruded GFRP/steel
joint for transferring compression and shear forces in thermal
insulation sections of concrete slab structures. They observed that
the hybrid joint could lead to competitive solutions despite the
relatively high material cost.
The present paper is focused on the structural performance of
hybrid GFRP/steel concrete sandwich panels; the thermal insula-
tion efficiency of the sandwich panels was not examined in this
research. However, a study by Salmon et al. 1997 has shown
that sandwich panels with FRP bent bar connectors had a thermal
efficiency 1.9 times that of panels with concrete stems and 1.2
times that of panels with steel truss connectors.
Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite
Systems
Two GFRP composite systems were used in this study: a unidi-
rectional E-glass fibers with an epoxy matrix, and b unidirec-
Fig. 2. Configuration of existing structural connectors: a steel
connector; b FRP bent bar connector adapted from Salmon et al.
1997
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 / 571
J. Compos. Constr. 2008.12:570-576.
tional E-glass fibers preimpregnated with a urethane matrix. Table
2 shows the tensile properties of both GFRP composite systems
obtained according to ASTM D3039 ASTM 2001. The shear
strength of the GFRP composite laminate was determined by per-
forming V-notch rail shear tests using the setup shown in Fig.
3a. A GFRP flat panel specimen, two layers thick, of dimension
51 mm 102 mm is cut out of a test coupon with a notch length
of 25 mm, as shown in Fig. 3b. The specimen is clamped at the
two short sides and a shear force is applied perpendicular to the
unidirectional fibers in a vertical plane along the notch through
the two grips, as shown in Figs. 3a and b. A strain gauge applied
at the notch parallel to the applied force records the strain. The
shear stress-strain curves for two tests of the epoxy-cured GFRP
composite are shown in Fig. 3c.
Conventional Materials
Mild steel bars 13 mm diam were used as flexural reinforcement
with a measured yield strength f y = 455 MPa. Normal weight con-
crete was used with a compressive strength f c = 28 MPa at the
time of testing. The insulation layer was made of 76 mm thick
expanded polystyrene foam sheets with a compressive strength of
230 kPa and a flexural strength of 520 kPa. A polyurethane dis-
persion compound, which is a highly elastic water-reducible
primer and coating commonly applied to plastics was used as a
binder. The compound was used to immerse the GFRP composite
shells to reduce, to the extent possible, the alkali reaction between
concrete and GFRP composite. A nonabrasive, high-modulus,
high-strength, moisture-tolerant, epoxy paste adhesive was used
to attach the steel reinforcement to the GFRP composite shells for
construction efficiency. The adhesive had a tensile strength of
37 MPa, a modulus of elasticity of 2,830 MPa, and a 1.3% elon-
gation at break.
Assembly and Construction
GFRP Composite Shells
GFRP shells were constructed from epoxy-cured or urethane-
cured glass fiber fabrics. The epoxy-cured fabric was cut in
152 mm 1.22 m strips that were saturated with epoxy resin in a
saturator. The wet fabric strips were wrapped around 152 mm
square steel tubes covered with plastic film, with the unidirec-
tional fibers applied in the hoop direction as shown in Fig. 4a;
this formed the fibers into 152 mm 152 mm 152 mm shells,
two layers thick. For the urethane-cured composite system, the
glass fiber fabric strip came preimpregnated with urethane resin in
a sealed container and the precut strips were used to create the
GFRP shells in a similar manner; water was sprayed during and
after wrapping to cure the urethane resin. The urethane-cured
GFRP shells were further wrapped with shrink wrap for consoli-
dation, as shown in Fig. 4a. The GFRP shells were cured in
place for three days, then separated from the steel tubes and cured
for at least seven additional days. Two 38 mm diameter holes
were drilled on the top and bottom faces of the GFRP shells, as
shown in Fig. 4b. The GFRP shells were placed in the sandwich
panels so that the holes were located in the horizontal plane of the
two concrete layers. The holes facilitated the flow of concrete
during construction and created a concrete stub, which improved
the bond of the concrete outside the GFRP shells to the concrete
 Table 2. GFRP Composite Mechanical Propertiesa
Tensile
GFRP strength
composite Glass f fu
system fabric properties MPa
Epoxy 913 g / m2 617
resin unidirectional
Urethane 879 g / m2 230
resin unidirectional
a
Determined at University of Utah, following ASTM D3039 ASTM 2001.
inside. Observations after testing verified that no spalling of the
concrete outside the GFRP shells had occurred, which would oth-
erwise be highly probable.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SERC on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Hybrid GFRP/Steel Cages
Mild steel bars were used as flexural reinforcement and the GFRP
shells as horizontal shear transfer connectors. A steel bar was
attached to each of the four corners of the GFRP shell using
structural adhesive to form a hybrid cage in the manner shown in
Fig. 5a. A hybrid GFRP/steel cage comprised of four 13 mm
steel bars, 4.57 m long, attached to 15 GFRP composite shells at
the four corners. The bond between steel bars and GFRP shells is
advantageous for construction purposes and structural perfor-
mance. Fig. 5b shows the six hybrid cages constructed after
rigid foam insulation was inserted inside the GFRP shells. Addi-
tional foam insulation was placed outside the GFRP shells during
casting to form the insulation layer between the two concrete
wythes. A small amount of concrete seepage was observed be-
tween the vertical walls of the GFRP shells and the rigid foam
insulation. A foam sealant and use of pultruded GFRP sections,
which have flatter surfaces, could minimize concrete seepage and
improve thermal and construction efficiency.
Sandwich Panels
Four 4.57 m long by 0.61 m wide sandwich panels were built.
Fig. 6 shows a longitudinal section of the panel and the GFRP
shell spacing. Two sandwich panels were reinforced with one
hybrid cage single-cage panels, and two sandwich panels were
reinforced with two cages double-cage panels. The cross section
of the sandwich panels consisted of two 64 mm concrete layers
and a middle 76 mm insulating layer made of expanded polysty-
rene, for a total sandwich panel thickness of 204 mm. Fig. 7a
shows the cross section of a single-cage sandwich panel, and Fig.
Fig. 3. V-notched rail shear test for GFRP plate: a setup; b test
specimen; and c epoxy-cured GFRP laminate shear stress-shear
strain curve
572 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008
J. Compos. Constr. 2008.12:570-576.
Tensile Tensile Ply
modulus strain thickness
Ef fu ti
MPa % mm
25,400 2.4 1.0
16,900 1.4 1.6
7b that of a double-cage sandwich panel. The four panels were
cast in a single casting operation to achieve uniform concrete
properties. Concrete was cast into the formwork containing the
hybrid cages and vibrated until the bottom layer was 64 mm
thick, after which the insulation was placed on the concrete sur-
face; the top layer of concrete was then cast and vibrated and the
panel was cured for a minimum of 28 days.
Composite versus Noncomposite Section Capacity
The criterion used for design of the GFRP shells was to establish
composite action, in which both reinforced concrete wythes resist
flexural loads as one unit, while providing thermal insulation
across the two wythes of the sandwich panel. A strain compatibil-
ity analysis of the single-cage sandwich panel of Fig. 7a shows
that when composite action is achieved Fig. 1b, the theoretical
bending moment capacity for out-of-plane loads is 24 kN/ m. If
insufficient shear transfer is achieved, then noncomposite action
would occur, with both wythes resisting flexural stresses indepen-
dently Fig. 1a; the theoretical bending moment capacity in this
case is 7 kN/ m. Similarly, a strain compatibility analysis of the
double-cage sandwich panel of Fig. 7b shows that when com-
posite action is achieved, the theoretical bending moment capac-
ity is 43 kN/ m, and if noncomposite action were to occur, the
theoretical moment capacity is 11 kN/ m. In these calculations,
the ultimate concrete strain was assumed equal to 0.003 mm/ mm
and a mild steel reinforcement ultimate stress of 1.25f y was as-
sumed to account for strain hardening.
Design of GFRP Shell Connectors
A preliminary estimate of the capacity of the shell connectors for
resisting horizontal shear was based on two additional experi-
ments carried out on the hybrid GFRP/steel cages themselves
without any concrete wythes; the number of steel bars and GFRP
shells was identical to a single cage used in the four tests with
concrete wythes. The same four-point load setup shown in Figs. 6
Fig. 4. GFRP shells: a 152 mm 152 mm plastic covered steel
tubes wrapped with urethane-cured GFRP composite and shrink-
wrap; b epoxy-cured and urethane-cured GFRP shells with 38 mm
diam holes on two opposite faces
 Fig. 5. Hybrid GFRP/steel cages: a steel bar attached to epoxy-
cured GFRP shell; b hybrid GFRP/steel cages with insulation,
showing the 38 mm holes at the top and bottom of the GFRP shells

and 8 was used. The capacity of the GFRP shells observed in the
tests of the cages without the concrete wythes was considered to
be a lower bound for the sandwich panels with the two concrete
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SERC on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

wythes present. Although the actual factor of safety was not

known, it was determined that using this lower bound shear trans-
fer capacity, a sufficient number of GFRP shells was provided to
resist the theoretical flexural shear in the sandwich panels re-
quired for composite action.
After the sandwich panels were tested, a design procedure was
developed, which is described below. The maximum shear flow q
is
VQ
q= 1
I
Fig. 7. Cross-sectional view of insulated hybrid GFRP/steel sand-
where V = flexural shear, I = moment of inertia of the entire cross wich panels: a single cage; b double cage;
section about the neutral axis, and Q = first moment of area of the
cracked section about the neutral axis. The number of GFRP shell
connectors required to resist this shear flow depends on several rail shear test of Fig. 3c, this corresponds to an allowable shear
factors. Push-off tests of sample panels would normally be used stress capacity f e = 20 MPa for the epoxy-cured GFRP composite
to determine the capacity of the GFRP shells as connectors. How- system. The effective area to resist the horizontal shear Ae is
ever, in the present case, push-off tests were not carried out; in- obtained by considering the two longitudinal sides of the GFRP
stead, the capacity of the GFRP composite laminate from the shell of length ls, as shown in Fig. 6, each side consisting of n
V-notch rail shear tests was used to design the GFRP shells as GFRP layers of thickness t j per layer
connectors. Concrete bond to the rigid foam insulation was ig-
Ae = 2lsnt j 2
nored in the design. This can be justified based on observations by
Einea et al. 1994 who carried out push-off tests for sandwich The capacity of each shell to resist horizontal shear is taken as the
panels with the FRP bent bar connector Fig. 2b and found that: product f e Ae. This is conservative, since the V-notch rail
1 the stiffness and ultimate capacity of the connectors determine shear test predetermines that shear failure will occur along the
the amount of composite action in the panels, and b the concrete notch length, whereas the actual shear distribution is parabolic; in
bond to the rigid foam insulation contributes less than 10% of the addition, f e is approximately 40% of the ultimate GFRP laminate
shear transfer capacity. V-notch shear capacity as shown in Fig. 3c. The number of
To obtain composite action while simultaneously limiting GFRP shells N, required in the shear span a shown in Fig. 6, is
shear deformation between the two concrete wythes, a maximum obtained as
shear strain of 1% is imposed on the design of the GFRP com-
posite laminate based on limiting the stress in the GFRP compos- qa
N= 3
ite to remain in the linear range of the material. From the V-notch f eA e
For the single-cage panel, the flexural shear corresponding to the
theoretical bending moment capacity is V = 13 kN; the shear flow

Fig. 6. Longitudinal view of insulated hybrid GFRP/steel sandwich Fig. 8. Epoxy-cured GFRP double-cage sandwich panel at the maxi-
panel showing spacing of GFRP shells mum midspan deflection of 260 mm

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 / 573

J. Compos. Constr. 2008.12:570-576.

 Table 3. Maximum Total Lateral Load, Maximum Midspan Deflection,
and Applied Total Load at Deflection Limit
Applied total
Maximum Maximum load at
applied midspan deflection
total load deflection limit
Specimen kN mm kNa
Epoxy-cured GFRP 25 229 13
single-cage panel
Urethane-cured GFRP 27 235 14
single-cage panel
Epoxy-cured GFRP 43 260 25
double-cage panel
Urethane-cured GFRP 49 192 26
double-cage panel
a
Deflection limit is equal to 25 mm clear span/180.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SERC on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Experimental lateral load versus midspan deflection of hybrid

sandwich panels: a epoxy-cured single cage; b urethane-cured
is obtained from Eq. 1 as q = 36 kN/ m. In this case, n = 2, t j single cage; c epoxy-cured double cage; and d urethane-cured
= 1 mm, ls = 152 mm, and a = 1.83 m, and for the epoxy-cured double cage
GFRP composite system, Eq. 3 gives N = 5.4 GFRP shells. Six
GFRP shells were used in each shear span at a spacing of ls
= 152 mm, one at midspan, and one over each support for a total
load is L / 180. The ACI code also limits the maximum deflection
of 15 shells, as shown in Fig. 6. Similar calculations can be made
of slender concrete walls due to service loads to Lc / 150, where
for the double-cage panel for which V = 24 kN, q = 55 kN/ m, and
Lc = vertical distance between supports ACI 2005 . At a deflec-
N = 4.1 GFRP shells for each of the two cages; six GFRP shells
tion of 25 mm L / 180, the single-cage panels support the loads
were provided in the shear span for a total of 15 shells per cage.
shown in Table 3, which range from 5152% of the maximum
An identical number of GFRP shells were provided for the panels
load; no significant cracks were observed at this deflection. The
with the urethane-cured GFRP system.
first permanent cracks were observed at a deflection of 37 mm
L / 120, in the constant moment region between the two point
loads. The single-cage panels had a ductile tensile failure by
Experimental Results gradual opening of the flexural cracks in the bottom wythe at
large deflections, as shown in Fig. 10.
The sandwich panels were tested under a four-point monotonic
load. The two point loads were spaced 0.76 m apart as shown in
Figs. 6 and 8. The clear span for the single-cage and double-cage Double-Cage Panels
sandwich panels was L = 4.42 m, and the panel was supported on Fig. 8 shows the epoxy-cured double-cage sandwich panel at the
rollers, as shown in Fig. 6. Each cage was instrumented with maximum midspan deflection of 260 mm. The double-cage sand-
strain gauges to measure strains in the steel bars and the GFRP wich panels were reinforced for flexure with a sufficient area of
composite shells; displacement transducers were used to measure longitudinal steel bars to cause concrete crushing at the top fiber
deflections. Table 3 shows the maximum applied total load and in compression, as shown in Fig. 11; however, this occurred long
maximum midspan deflection measured for each of the sandwich after yielding of the longitudinal steel bars and the behavior was
panels. The total lateral load P was applied using a single actuator ductile, as demonstrated in Figs. 8, 9c, and d. At a deflection of
and was measured by a single load cell as shown in Fig. 8. The 25 mm L / 180, the double-cage panels supported the loads
maximum load in Table 3 does not include the weight of the panel shown in Table 3, which range from 5358% of the maximum
itself, which was 8 kN. load. No significant cracks were observed at this deflection. The
first permanent cracks were observed at an approximate deflection
Single-Cage Panels of 44 mm L / 100 in the constant moment region between the
two point loads.
The total lateral load P versus midspan deflection for both single-
cage and double-cage sandwich panels is shown in Fig. 9, and
overall performance is ductile. The number of GFRP shells and
steel bars in the panel has a significant influence on the panel
stiffness and its lateral load capacity. The early variation in lateral
load for single-cage panels in Figs. 9a and b was caused by
debonding of steel bars from GFRP shells near midspan due to
adhesive failure. This debonding was not very significant because
of the bond of the steel bars to the concrete in between the GFRP
shells, and the bond of the concrete outside the GFRP shells to the
concrete inside through the 38 mm concrete stub. The ACI build-
ing code limits the maximum deflection for flat roofs not support-
ing nonstructural elements likely to be damaged by large Fig. 10. Tensile failure of single-cage epoxy-cured hybrid sandwich
deflections ACI 2005; the deflection limit for immediate live panel by opening of flexural cracks in the bottom wythe

574 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008

J. Compos. Constr. 2008.12:570-576.

 Fig. 11. Concrete compression failure in double-cage urethane-cured
hybrid sandwich panel
There was no catastrophic failure in any of the sandwich pan-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SERC on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
els, even though the bottom concrete wythe cracked near mid-
span, as shown in Figs. 10 and 11. At the supports, even at the
maximum midspan deflections shown in Table 3, there was no
evidence of cracks in the concrete or GFRP composite laminate,
or buckling of the GFRP shells. This was determined by removing
the concrete around the cages after testing. Thus, the GFRP shells
were successful as horizontal shear transfer connectors between
the two concrete wythes.
Analytical Results
Horizontal Shear Transfer Capacity
The ultimate moment achieved in the single-cage panel tests was
99% of the theoretical moment capacity assuming composite ac-
tion; for the double-cage panel tests, the ultimate moment
achieved was 97% of the theoretical moment capacity assuming
composite action; thus, the GFRP shells were effective in trans-
ferring the horizontal shear between the two concrete wythes. Eq.
3 could be used in design to determine the number of GFRP
shells required to achieve composite action. This is conservative
because of the reduced value of the allowable stress used in the
design of the GFRP shells, as obtained from the V-notch rail shear
test, and the fact that concrete bond to the rigid foam insulation
was ignored in the design. A multidimensional laminate layout of
the GFRP shells with fibers in the 0, +45, 45, and 90 directions
from the horizontal could lead to improved performance, but this
was not pursued in the present study.
Typical demands for the same panel span height used in the
tests are calculated assuming uniformly distributed unfactored
loads. The uniformly distributed live load for roofs including spe-
cial purpose roofs is between 1.0 and 4.8 kPa; for office building
lobbies, corridors, and offices, the live load is between 2.4 and
4.8 kPa ASCE 2005. The simplified design wind pressure for
walls and roofs of buildings with a height less than 18.3 m, for a
basic wind speed of 193 km/ h is between 1.1 and 1.5 kPa, de-
pending on the roof slope ASCE 2005. Based on the experimen-
tal results at the chosen deflection limit of L / 180 for roofs or
Lc / 150 for slender walls, the capacity of the panels tested is be-
tween 8.0 and 8.6 kPa for the single-cage panels, and 15.4 and
15.8 kPa for the double-cage panels. Thus, the capacity of the
panels is greater than the demand and is satisfactory for design.
Truss Models for Deflection
Truss analogy was used to predict the midspan deflection of the
sandwich panels up to failure. The truss analogy method has been
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 / 575
J. Compos. Constr. 2008.12:570-576.
Fig. 12. Truss analogy model for hybrid sandwich panels
used in the past to model beams reinforced with three-
dimensional FRP gratings Bank et al. 1997. The truss model
was constructed using the configuration of the internal hybrid
GFRP/steel reinforcement shown in Fig. 6, for both single-cage
and double-cage sandwich panels with the cross-sectional details
given in Fig. 7. The truss shown in Fig. 12 was used for this
analysis. The weight of the panels w was included in the analysis
by distributing it to the nodes of the bottom chord. In Fig. 12,
Ts = tension tie with an area equal to the steel area of two 13 mm
steel bars for the single-cage panel, or four 13 mm steel bars for
the double-cage panel; V f = vertical tension tie with an area equal
to four GFRP layers two layers for each of the two vertical sides
for the single-cage panel, or eight GFRP layers double-cage
panel, times the height of the shell 152 mm.
The upper compressive strut denoted as C, has a width of
610 mm and a depth equal to that of the uncracked compression
zone assuming a fully cracked section. D denotes the diagonal
compression strut, which has a thickness equal to the panel width
of 610 mm, and a width of the diagonals equal to 157 cos mm,
which varies according to angle 64, 34, and 27, with a cor-
responding width of 68, 130, and 140 mm.
A bilinear approximation is adopted to model the load-
deflection response. The midspan deflection at yield my was
evaluated using the analytical deflection expression
0.5Pya
my = 3L2 4a2 4
24EcIcr
where Icr = moment of inertia of the fully cracked section, Ec
= modulus of elasticity of the concrete, 0.5Py = half of the total
applied load at yield, L = clear span length 4.42 m, and a
= shear span 1.83 m, as defined in Fig. 6. For the postyielding
portion of the lateral load-deflection behavior, the secant modulus
of the steel bars was used in the truss model; this was evaluated
using the measured strains of the steel bars, which reached maxi-
mum tensile strains up to 1.6%.
Predicted and experimental results are shown in Fig. 13 for
both single-cage and double-cage panels. For the single-cage
panel, the deflection at yield from Eq. 4 is 92% of that shown in
Figs. 13a and b from the tests, whereas for the double-cage
panel, it is 95% of the deflection in Figs. 13c and d from the
tests. Thus, the midspan deflections obtained from the truss analy-
sis are found to be in good agreement with the measured deflec-
tions both at yield and at ultimate conditions.
Conclusions
The GFRP shells developed in this research were successful in
providing greater than needed horizontal shear transfer between

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SERC on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Comparison of experimental lateral load versus midspan
deflection with truss analogy model: a epoxy-cured GFRP single
cage; b urethane-cured GFRP single cage; c epoxy-cured double
cage; and d urethane-cured double cage
the two concrete wythes of insulated sandwich concrete panels,
thus, meeting the design criterion of establishing composite action
under out-of-plane loads. Failure of the four hybrid sandwich
panels tested was ductile and occurred at very large deflections.
An equation was developed to determine the number of GFRP
shells required to provide composite action based on shear flow
principles. The equation yields conservative designs due to the
reduced value of the allowable shear stress used for the GFRP
shells. This stress corresponded to a 1% shear strain in the GFRP
composite, as obtained from V-notch rail shear tests, which is
within the linear range of the material. Concrete bond to rigid
foam insulation was ignored in the design.
Based on the experimental results, capacities for single- and
double-cage panels were found to be satisfactory for design using
typical wind pressures or live load demands for precast concrete
walls, floors, and roofs. Truss analogy, along with an analytical
deflection expression, was used to construct a model of the hybrid
sandwich panels to predict midspan deflections up to failure. The
analytical deflections were found to be in good agreement with
the experimental results.
Future research should consider a multidirectional laminate
layout of the GFRP shells that could lead to improved structural
performance. The structural and thermal characteristics of a steel-
576 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008
J. Compos. Constr. 2008.12:570-576.
free concrete sandwich panel with FRP bars and FRP tendons as
flexural reinforcement, and pultruded FRP square shells as shear
reinforcement should be investigated. An all-FRP cage manufac-
tured as one part is another option that should be considered.
These solutions would result in thermally insulated and corrosion-
resistant precast concrete sandwich panels.
Acknowledgments
The writers are grateful to Eagle Precast Inc. for assistance in
building the test units. The writers acknowledge the donation of
materials by Sika Corp., Air Logistics Corp., and Bayer Materi-
alScience. The writers acknowledge the assistance of Mark Bry-
ant, Dr. Zihan Yan, and Professor Dan Adams of the University of
Utah. The writers acknowledge the constructive comments of the
reviewers.
References
American Concrete Institute ACI. 2005. Building code requirements
for structural concrete and commentary. ACI 318, Farmington Hills,
Mich.
American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE. 2005. Minimum design
loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-05, Reston, Va.
American Society for Testing Materials ASTM. 2001. Standard test
method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composite material.
ASTM Standards, 15.03, ASTM D3039, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Bank, L. C., Frostig, Y., and Shapira, A. 1997. Three-dimensional
fiber-reinforced plastic grating cages for concrete beams: A pilot
study. ACI Struct. J., 946, 643652.
Einea, A., Salmon, D. C., Tadros, M. K., and Culp, T. D. 1994. A new
structurally and thermally efficient precast sandwich panel system.
PCI J., 394, 90101.
Keller, T., Riebel, F., and Zhou, A. 2006. Multifunctional hybrid
GFRP/steel joint for concrete slab structures. J. Compos. Constr.,
106, 550560.
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Committee Report. 1997.
State-of-the-art of precast/prestressed sandwich wall panels. PCI J.,
422, 92134.
Salmon, D. C., Einea, A., Tadros, M. K., and Culp, T. D. 1997. Full
scale testing of precast concrete sandwich panels. ACI Struct. J.,
943, 354362.
Shapira, A., and Bank, L. C. 1997. Constructability and economics of
FRP reinforcement cages for concrete beams. J. Compos. Constr.,
13, 8289.
Whitehead, P. A., and Ibell, T. J. 2005. Novel shear reinforcement for
fiber-reinforced polymer-reinforced and prestressed concrete. ACI
Struct. J., 1022, 286294.