Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JERRISLY SULINDAP
1
STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF REINFORCED
CONCRETE WALL PANEL USING CONCRETE WASTE
AS AGGREGATE UNDER ECCENTRIC LOADING
By
JERRISLY SULINDAP
Report is submitted as
the requirement for the degree of
Bachelor Engineering (Hons) (Civil)
2
DECLARATION
I Jerrisly Sulindap, 2006876471 confirm that the work is my own and that appropriate credit
has been given where reference has been made to the work of others.
Signature:……………………………..
Date :……………………………..
ABSTRACT
Steel fabric reinforced concrete wall panel currently use in high rise building especially
construction industry in Klang Valley, Malaysia. However, practices use of recycled concrete
aggregate as coarse aggregate in concrete mix for production of wall panel is very limited as
caused by limited of knowledge. Since that, a better understanding of wall panel using concrete
waste as coarse aggregate is important to wide spread use of concrete waste as course aggregate
and to construct a safety and effective building. Thus, this research will study the structural
behaviour of the reinforced concrete wall panel with recycled concrete aggregate as aggregate.
This research will be carrying out experimentally involve two steel fabric reinforced concrete
wall panel with double layer of steel fabric type B7 with size 75 x 1000 x 1500 mm (Width:
Length: Height). The aspect ratio (h/L) is 1.5 and the slenderness ratio (h/L) is 20. The wall
3
panels construct using concrete Grade 30 Normal Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and recycle
concrete waste as course aggregate with a water cement ratio of 0.55. The wall panel will be
tested under compressive axial load with eccentricity, e = t/6 with fixed at bottom and pinned at
above edge until failure. Information found from this study will enhance the knowledge of
reinforced concrete wall panel.
Experiment result showed that wall panel 1 showed buckling failure where wall panel 2 showed
cracking at top and middle of the wall panel. The average ultimate load of the wall panel is 1274
kN. This value was higher than wall panel using natural aggregate and lower than wall panel
using concrete waste but tested under axial load without eccentric loading. Using concrete
aggregate will increase the ultimate load of the wall panel and wall panel will easier to fail under
eccentric loading. Using concrete waste as course aggregate in construction of wall panel is
better than using natural aggregate as the ultimate load is higher. The structural behaviour is
same with natural aggregate in term of properties studied. Concrete waste as aggregate can be as
an alternative to replace the shortage natural aggregate. Utilization of concrete waste also
promotes reduction of wastage of construction material.
Keyword: concrete wall panel, steel fabric, recycle concrete waste, axial load.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the first place I would like to record special gratitude to my Final Year Project supervisor,
Assoc. Prof. Ir. Dr. Hjh. Siti Hawa Hamzah for his supervision, advice, and guidance from the
very early stage of this research as well as giving me extraordinary experiences throughout the
work. Her guidance, encouragement, advice and dedication inspired me to finish up this thesis
and enrich my growth as a student. The experience gained through this project is very valuable.
I also would like to thanks Assoc. Prof Dr. Ahmad Ruslan Bin Mohd Ridzuan for giving co-
operation in this research. Beside that, thanks to my Final Year Project group member, Hakim,
Najwa and Reimei also to Nurharniza for high co-operation and assistance to done this research
project until complete.
My sincere appreciation to the Faculty of Civil Engineering, UiTM Campus Sham Alam, which
gave me the chance to carry out this project. For laboratory technicians, thank so much for
support and assistance. I appreciate that so much.
4
Last but not least, a special thanks to my parents for their moral or financial support and to all
those who directly and indirectly helping in making this project succesful.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
TABLE OF CONTEN iv
LIST OF TABLE vi
LIST OF FIGURE vii
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Objective of study 4
1.4 Limitation of study 4
1.5 Assumptions 4
1.6 Scope of study 5
1.7 Significant of study 7
LITERATURE REVIEW 8
2.1 General 8
2.2 Material 8
2.2.1 Concrete 8
2.2.2 Concrete waste as coarse aggregate in concrete mix 9
5
2.2.3 Steel mesh or steel fabric as reinforcement 13
2.2.4 Advantages of Steel Fabric 16
2.3 Load bearing wall 17
2.4 Reinforced concrete wall characteristic 18
2.5 Theoretical analysis 20
2.5.1 Secant formula 20
2.5.2 British standard (BS8110: Part 1) 21
METHODOLOGY 23
3.1 Introduction 23
3.2 Research design 23
3.3 Wall panel 25
3.4 Material properties 27
3.5 Concrete mix design 27
3.6 Steel fabric 28
3.7 Mixing process 29
3.8 Formwork preparation 30
3.9 Experiment setup 31
3.10 Resources 34
REFERENCES 58
APPENDIX
Appendix A
A.1 Concrete mix design form
Appendix B
B.1 Crushed concrete waste aggregate
B.2 Sieving machine
B.3 Concrete cube
6
B.4 Compression machine
B.5 Materials
B.6 Frustum apparatus
B.7 Universal testing machine
B.8 Drum mixer
Appendix C
C.1 Data for WP1
C.2 Data for WP2
Appendix D
D.1 Calculation of ultimate load from British Standard
D.2 Bending stress calculation for bend test
LIST OF TABLES
7
LIST OF FIGURES
8
4.8 Steel fabric before and after bend test 43
4.9 Steel fabric before and after weld strength test 44
4.10 Load versus displacement for WP1 47
4.11 Load versus displacement for WP2 47
4.12 Displacement profile for WP1 49
4.13 Displacement profile for WP2 49
4.14 Stress versus strain for WP1 51
4.15 Stress versus strain for WP2 52
4.16 Mode of failure for WP1 54
4.17 Mode of failure for WP2 55
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Concrete has been demand as one’s properties but not an environment friendly material due to its
negative resource consumption nature and harsh environmental impact after it used.
Nevertheless, it remain one of the major construction material where utilized worldwide due to
benefit that it can form various shape of structure with relatively high compressive strength.
Concrete waste was produce by demolition of concrete structure that overcomes their limit of
use.
Growth of the population and urbanization has been increase the utilization of the concrete
(Ridzuan et al, 2005) consequently increase the production of concrete waste. Large amount of
concrete debris where routinely shipped to landfills for disposal become national crisis where
this will cause pollution. Taking the concept of sustainable development into consideration, the
concrete industry needs to apply a variety of strategies concerning future concrete use. In
9
general, aggregates occupy more than half of concrete volume. Without proper, alternative
aggregates being utilize in the near future, the concrete industry globally will consume large
consumption of natural aggregates that will cause destruction of the environment (Tu et al,
2006). Therefore, to find the best replacement for natural aggregates is an important task.
Even through utilization of recycle aggregates has taking place for many years in the concrete
industry, it was never been easy to use the recycle aggregates effectively. Therefore, this research
will use recycled concrete aggregate as coarse aggregate to replace natural aggregate in concrete
mix.
A load bearing wall is a wall structure that carries the weight and force resting upon it. Therefore,
load bearing wall need to have adequate strength to support the weight above it. In the real
situation, majority load from above do not act accurately at the centroid of the walls but act
Nowadays, in the construction of high rise residential building, the load-bearing wall is being use
widely. From this fact, using the concrete waste as course aggregate for construction of load-
bearing wall shall be proposed. Therefore, in order to deepen the knowledge in the production of
reinforced concrete wall panel using concrete waste as course aggregates, the research is
necessary.
This research focuses on the study of the structural behavoiur of the wall panel and recycled
concrete aggregate as a coarse aggregate for concrete mix. The structural capacity and failure
10
mode of the wall under compressive strength with eccentricity will be investigated. Figure 1.1
Steel fabric reinforced concrete wall panel with normal aggregate currently use in high rise
building especially construction industry in Klang Valley, Malaysia. However, practices use of
recycled concrete aggregate as coarse aggregate in concrete mix for production of wall panel is
very limited as caused by limited knowledge. Since that, a better understanding of wall panel
using concrete waste as coarse aggregate is important to wide spread use of concrete waste as
course aggregate and to construct a safety and effective building. Thus, this research will study
the structural behaviour of the reinforced concrete wall panel with recycled concrete aggregate as
aggregate.
11
1.3 Objectives
a) To determine the structural behaviour of reinforced concrete wall panel using concrete
b) To analyze the structural capacity and failure mode of reinforced concrete wall panel due
to eccentric loading.
1.4 Limitations
This study conducted by making some limitation for the scope of work. Reinforced concrete wall
panel samples should have characteristic strength 30N/mm 2 at 28 days. During the testing of the
reinforced concrete wall specimen, the sample should support by the pinned support at the top
1.5 Assumptions
Concrete waste that used in this purpose study assumed has similar properties. No any defect at
the wall panel sample that could influence the reading during testing.
12
1.6 Scope of study
This research will be carrying out experimentally. Two reinforced concrete wall panel with size
75 mm x 1000 mm x 1500 mm (Width: Length: Height) will be designed and prepared. The
aspect ratio (h/L) is 1.5 and the slenderness ratio (h/L) is 20. The reinforcement will be use is
double layer of steel fabric type B7 with size 7 mm longitudinal and 7 mm cross. The wall
samples than subjected to direct compressive load with eccentricity, e = t/6. Thickness of the wall
is 75mm so eccentricity of the wall panel is 12.5mm. The concrete mix will be use concrete
waste as a coarse aggregate for both 10mm and 20mm. The data such as structural capacity and
failure mode under compressive load with eccentricity will be obtaining. This data will used to
understand the structural behaviour of the reinforced concrete wall panel and determine effects of
recycled concrete aggregate in reinforced concrete wall panel structure. The process involve in
13
Identification of material properties
Experimental testing
Data analysis
Preparation of report
Presentation
14
1.7 Significant of the study
This study would present the structural behavior of reinforced concrete wall panel using recycle
concrete aggregate as course aggregate under compressive loading with eccentric loading. This
study would examine whether the reinforced concrete wall panel using concrete waste as course
aggregate have an adequate strength as needed to being use in construction industry. Since the
structural capacity and failure mode identified, further study to toughen the reinforced concrete
wall panel using recycle concrete aggregate as course aggregate can be made. New knowledge of
reinforced concrete wall found from this study will help an engineer to design more efficient and
15
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General
This research will study the structural behaviour of reinforced concrete wall panel with concrete
waste as coarse aggregate. A half scale model will constructed to represent the physical model
and determine effect of recycled concrete aggregate in reinforced concrete wall panel. The model
will construct in the laboratory and use crushed concrete waste as coarse aggregate in concrete
mix.
2.2 Material
Concrete, concrete waste (coarse aggregate) and steel fabric (reinforcement) are the material use
2.2.1 Concrete
Concrete is a name applied to any compositions consisting of sand, gravel, crushed stone, or
other coarse material, bound together with cementitious materials, such as lime or cements.
Concrete solidifies and hardens after mixing and placement due to a chemical process known as
16
hydration. The water reacts with the cement, which bonds the other components together,
Usually the concrete strength grows stronger with age and can be measured at 28 days and
commonly graded due to its compressive strength. The various grades of concrete grouped in
nine categories that based on their characteristic strength in N/mm 2 (BS 8110: Part 1:1997).
Concrete grade C30 (fcu = 30 N/mm2 used in this research. The grade of concrete will affect the
The concrete has advantages such economical in long run as compared to other engineering
material with a high compressive strength. Fresh concrete can be easy handle and molded into
any shape or size according to specified. The disadvantages of the concrete are concrete has low
tensile strength and hence cracks easily. Fresh concrete shrinks on drying and hardened concrete
There is very little recognized use of recycle aggregate in the manufacture of new concrete in
Malaysia according to Ridzuan et al, 2005. Therefore, this research will use recycled concrete
aggregate in concrete mix for wall panel structure. From that, the effectiveness use of recycled
concrete aggregate in reinforced concrete wall panel can be determined. The types of recycled
17
The basic characteristic of concrete waste such as specific gravity, the absorption capacity,
gradation, dry-loose density, soundness and wear resistance are generally worse than natural
aggregates due to the existence of residual mortar and impurities (Crentsil et al, 2001).
Cement mortar attached to the aggregates primary determines the performance of concrete made
absorption and density and can have adverse effects on concrete performance (Tu et al, 2006).
The mortar of the original concrete due to its higher porosity causes an increase in the water
absorption of the recycled aggregate. This higher water absorption capacity cause a wider range
of density variations compared with natural aggregates (Barra et al, 1998). As widely reported,
typical reductions of the order of 10% in compressive strength and up to a 70% increase in
18
Properties of concrete use concrete waste as aggregates are:
a) Fresh concrete
Unit weight decreased in concrete with waste concrete aggregates (WCA) (Topcu et al, 2003).
WCA has a lower specific gravity than normal crushed aggregates. Workability decreased in
Irregular shape influences the workability of the concrete. Coating paste-surrounding recycled
aggregates is around 25% to 60% of the aggregates by volume. It is most notable that the finer
the aggregate, the higher the percentage of paste content. Excessive paste content due to the high
water absorption capacity of recycled aggregates will cause poor workability and large slump-
loss of concrete. Such poor quality further delays the strength development of the resulting
Furthermore, due to the inconsistency of the surface of recycled aggregates, the variation in
concrete properties is larger than when using normal aggregates (NA). Water absorption of waste
aggregates is relatively high compare to the normal aggregate (Crentsil et al, 2001).
19
b) Hardened concrete
The proportion of Concrete waste admixtures increased, unit weight decreased in hardened
concrete with WCAs (Topcu et al, 2003). The unit weight of concrete was decrease in increase
percentages use of WCA. Concrete using WCA is 6% lighter than concretes with normal
aggregates. Increase water cement ratio will decrease the compressive strength decreased in both
According to Ridzuan et al, (2005), the recycle aggregate was more angular with a rough texture
provide better bonding to concrete matrix compare to natural aggregates. Design strength of the
recycled aggregate concrete show higher compressive strength as compared to the corresponding
natural aggregate concrete mixes. The higher compressive strength of the recycled aggregate
concrete attributed to high water absorption of recycled concrete aggregates that reduce the
Long-term durability problem will result in utilization of concrete waste (Zaharieva et al, 2003).
Durability however can be further enhancing by the addition of natural, fine aggregates in the
mixes (Ajdukiewicz et al, 2002). Concrete containing concrete waste as course aggregate part
reduced the abrasion resistance compared to the referred concrete made with normal aggregate
20
2.2.2 Steel mesh or steel fabric as reinforcement
Fabric defined as a crossover arrangement of main wires and cross wire that welded together at
some or all the crossover points. This fabric is an inclusion of grade 500 steel (MS145:2001).
Table 2.1 show the preferred range of designated fabric type. The strength of the mesh is base on
the diameter of the thicker wire. The advantages uses of wire fiber compared to the normal bar in
the construction are such as reduce cost of construction, better quality of steel fixing also saving
of labor, time and binding wire. Four types of standard steel fabric usually uses in the
a) Rectangular Mesh
The wire size for main and cross wire between 13mm to 4mm. Both main and cross wire are
The wire size for main wire is 13-5mm while the cross wire between 8-5mm. Main and cross
wire are 100mm and 400mm centre-to-centre spacing. This type consists of C13 to C5.
21
c) Square Mesh
The wire size for main wire is 13-5mm while the cross wire between 8-7mm. Main and cross
wire are 100mm and 200mm centre-to-centre spacing. This type consists of B13 to B5.
Both wire size for main and cross wire between 13mm to 4mm. Both main and cross wire are
22
Table 2.1: Preferred Range of Designated Fabric Type (MS145:2001).
Main wire Cross wire
Mass
Nominal Nominal Steel area Nominal Nominal Steel area Per Unit
Fabric References wire size (mm2/m) wire size pitch (mm2/m)
pitch Area
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (kg/m2)
Square mesh
A13 13 200 664 13 200 664 10.42
A12 12 200 565 12 200 565 83.88
A11 11 200 475 11 200 475 7.46
A10 10 200 393 10 200 393 6.46
A9 9 200 318 9 200 318 4.99
A8 8 200 252 8 200 252 3.95
A7 7 200 193 7 200 193 3.02
A6 6 200 142 6 200 142 2.22
A5 5 200 98 5 200 98 1.54
A4 4 200 63 4 200 63 0.99
Rectangular mesh
B13 13 100 1328 8 200 252 12.4
B12 12 100 1131 8 200 252 10.90
B11 11 100 950 8 200 252 9.44
B10 10 100 785 8 200 252 8.14
B9 9 100 636 8 200 252 6.97
B8 8 100 503 8 200 252 5.93
B7 7 100 385 7 200 293 4.53
B6 6 100 283 7 200 293 3.73
B5 5 100 196 7 200 293 3.05
Long mesh
C13 13 100 1328 8 400 126 11.41
C12 12 100 1131 8 400 126 9.87
C11 11 100 950 8 400 126 8.44
C10 10 100 785 6 400 71 6.72
C9 9 100 636 6 400 71 5.55
C8 8 100 503 5 400 49 4.34
C7 7 100 385 5 400 49 3.41
C6 6 100 283 5 400 49 2.61
C5 5 100 196 5 400 49 1.93
23
2.2.4 Advantages of Steel Fabric
There are some advantages using steel fabric as a reinforcement compared to the normal steel bar
It is complete freedom from all the mundane fitter's jobs. There is no cutting of bars, no marking
and spacing them out, and above all no laborious tying of binding wires. There is saving of
b) Material Saving
Use of cut-to-size of steel fabric will save the wastage. Depending on the control and supervision
level, the usage of conventional steel bars usually results in wastage of 5% or more. In
additional, with characteristic yield strength of 485 N/mm2 which is greater to that of normal
steel bars, less steel fabric will be use to achieve the same strength.
Since it is savings of labor, time and material used, thus the construction cost also will be
decrease.
24
d) Better quality of steel fixing
The welding of the wires achieved by electric resistance welding with solid-state electronic
control and all the spacing are control by an automatic mechanism of high accuracy.
Load bearing walls are one of the earliest forms of construction. The walls of the lower stories
hold up the roof and upper levels of a building. These load-bearing walls carry in-plane vertical
and horizontal loads, and transfer these loads to the foundation (Wilson et al, 2007).
Depending on the type of building and the number of stories, a load-bearing wall was gauge to
the appropriate thickness to carry the weight above it. A load bearing wall is also one in which a
wall of a structure bears the weight and force resting upon it, as opposed to a curtain wall which
uses the strength of a sub wall and superstructure to carry the weight.
25
2.4 Reinforced concrete wall characteristic
Wall panels under axial load and found that the panels with slenderness ratio (H/t) value less than
20 failed by crushing while those with large slenderness ratio (H/t) value, invariably failed by
Saheb and Desayi (1989) has concluded that the ultimate strength of the wall panel decrease
nonlinearly with increase in slenderness ratio (H/t). They also found that the decrease in ultimate
Ultimate strength of the panels decreases non-linearly with the increase in the slenderness ratio
Saheb, S.M and Desayi, P. (1990) has done the test on 24 reinforced concrete wall panel in two-
way action and concluded that the ultimate strength of the wall panel increase linearly with
aspect ratio.
26
2.4.3 Load eccentricity, e
In eccentricity loading, the rectangular stress distribution in compression together with zero
Seddon (1956) concluded that in eccentricity loading, the rectangular stress distribution in
compression together with zero tension resistance of concrete yielded satisfactory strengths. The
reduction in strength due to eccentricity at 1/6 of the wall thickness was more than 17%.
The accidental eccentricity specified by the code is not to be less than t/6 or 20 mm (BS 8110:
Part 1: 1997).
In the direction transverse to the in-plane load, the strength is directly proportional to amount of
reinforcement (Massicotte et al, 1990). Thus, transverse flexural strength wills increases when
In any part of a reinforced wall where tension develops under the design ultimate loads, the
reinforcement should be arranged in two layers and each layer should be in accordance with the
27
2.5.1 Secant Formula
Since the wall panel in this particular studies tested under eccentric loading, secant formula is the
accurate formula used to predict the structural capacity of the wall panel. Compared using
Euler’s Formula, the maximum buckling load and stress calculated using Secant Formula was
lower. This shows that the structural capacity of the wall panel under eccentric loading lower
than under vertical axial load (without eccentricity). Figure 2.1 showed the effective height for
P e. y c P le
max 1 2 . sec .
A K EI 2
Where:
Le = 0.7L
28
L = length of column (effective height of the wall)
cr = critical stress
E = modulus of elasticity
The design axial force in a reinforced wall may be calculated on the assumption that the beams
29
The deflection of reinforced shear walls should be within acceptable limits if the total height
a) In-plane. Considering only axial forces and in-plane moments the distribution of force along
the wall is calculated by elastic analysis, assuming no tension in the concrete (see 3.9.3.4).
b) Transverse. The transverse moments are calculated (see 3.9.3.3 and 3.9.3.7.3).
c) Combined. Effects a) and b) are combined and each unit length is considered as a slender
3.8.4.3 Nominal eccentricity of short columns resisting moments and axial forces
Short columns usually need only to be designed for the maximum design moment about the one
critical axis. Where, due to the nature of the structure, a column cannot be subjected to
significant moments, it may be designed so that the design ultimate axial load does not exceed
30
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This proposes study classified as laboratory study. All the work conducted to obtain the
necessary data was done experimentally. The experimental work was conducted in Heavy
Laboratory and Concrete Laboratory Civil Engineering Faculty of Universiti Teknologi MARA
Research design eases the implementation on research work. This research design was act as a
guide for carry out this research. The step to conduct the research work is shown in Figure 3.1.
31
Understanding on behavior of concrete
wall panel
Laboratory work
Formwork preparation
Preliminary testing: Trial mix design, slump test, steel
fabric test, compression test of concrete cubes
Construct the concrete wall panels
Testing wall samples
Analyze data
Report writing
Presentation
32
3.3 Wall Panel
In order to achieve the objective of this study, selection of the dimension is important before
constructing the wall panel. In practice, the dimensions of the wall usually used are 150 mm
thick and 3000 mm height. However, for this study, the dimension of wall panel chosen is 75 mm
× 1000 mm × 1500 mm (width: length: height) which half of the original width and height
dimension in the practice. The reinforcement used was double layer of steel fabric type B7. The
aspect ratio (h/L) and slenderness ratio (h/w) of the wall panel are 1.5 and 20 respectively. The
wall panels than subjected to an axial loading with an eccentricity of t w/6 on top. The eccentricity
is about 12.5 mm from the cross section centroidal axis. The detail of the dimension of the wall
panel is show in figure 3.2. Figure 3.3 shows the wall panels after casting and wall that have
33
Figure 3.2: Details of reinforced concrete wall panel (all dimension in mm)
The material properties can affect the strength of the wall panel. Figure 3.4 showed the material
that used. For this research, the wall panel was casting used the properties below:
34
Characteristic strength : 30 N/mm2
Mix design is a selecting the right proportion of cement, water, fine aggregate and course
aggregate to produce the concrete having the specified properties. The properties most usually
specified are the workability of the fresh concrete, the compressive strength at a specified age
and durability. Before constructing the wall panel, the mix design requirement was determined
based on the amounts of material that used. The wall panel designed using concrete Grade 30
with a water cement ratio (w/c) of 0.55. All detail of the design is determined from the specified
clause in the BS 1881: 108: 1983. Slump used in this mix design was slight high compared to
mix design used natural aggregate because use of concrete waste as aggregate require more
35
3.6 Steel Fabric
The reinforcement used was double layer of steel fabric type B7 or B 385 with size 7 mm
longitudinal wires and 7 mm cross wires are 100 mm and 200 mm centre-to-centre spacing. The
steel fabric was tested before used as the reinforcement for wall panel. Both cross and
longitudinal bars of steel fabric were tested on tensile test and bend test. Each test requires two
samples, thus four samples ware prepared. Another two sets of samples were prepared to test the
strength of weld, where each sample must contain the intersection of the cross bar and the
longitudinal bar. All of these testing were required to ensure the real strength of the steel fabric
that used in this experiment meet the specification or not. Figure 3.5 shows the steel fabric B7
36
Cement, water, find aggregate and course aggregate had been mixed using the drum mixer that
provided at the Concrete Laboratory of Civil Engineering Faculty. Before mixing, the entire
ingredient with different amount was prepared as according to the calculations of the concrete
mix design.
Amount of the all ingredients to be mixed should not exceed the maximum amount that can be
support by the drum mixer to avoid wastage. Conduction mixing process was slightly difficult
especially for inexperience person. So that much pursued to conducting mixing process in a
group to ease the work. Figure 3.6 shows the drum mixer that used during the mixing process.
Formwork was design and builds according to dimension of wall panel 75 mm width, 1000 mm
length and 1500 mm height. All work done at Fabrication Laboratory of the Civil Engineering
37
Faculty. The design of formwork is shown in Figure 3.7. Figure 3.8 shows formwork before and
The experimental work involved testing of two reinforced concrete wall panel. Universal Testing
Machine at the Heavy Structure Laboratory was used to determine the structural behaviour of the
wall panel. In this experiment, the load applied was controlled to monitor the performance of the
wall panel.
38
Load applied to the wall panel using 2000 kN capacity of hydraulic jacks. These jacks fixed to
the main testing frame to allow the load being transfer using hydraulic system. A steel spreader
beam and a thick steel plate will used to transfer the load from the jacks to the wall as shown in
Figure 3.9.
Linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) will used to measure small movements or
deformations of the wall panel. The arrangement of the LVDT was show in the figure 3.10. The
wall panel will be loaded in increments up to failure. At each load increment, crack patterns and
deflection will be record. Figure 3.11 shows the Universal Testing Machine that well used for
testing of the wall panel. Figure 3.12 showed the final set-up of wall before testing started.
39
Correct experimental set-up must be ensured to avoid problem occurs during testing. The arms of
the Universal Testing Machine (UTM) may restrict the movement of wall panel. This will
40
Figure 3.11: Universal Testing Machine Figure 3.12: Final setup of wall panel
3.10 Resources
41
CHAPTER 4
4.1 General
This research will investigate the structural behaviour of steel fabric reinforced concrete wall
panel using crushed concrete waste as aggregates under eccentric loading. Mode of failure, crack
pattern, critical load, deflection shape and the relation of the stress-strain curve will identified.
All the data obtained from the experimental work presented into table, graph and figure.
After the fresh concrete produced, slump test is necessary to determine the consistency or texture
of fresh concrete and its uniformity. Consistency refers to freshly mixed concrete of fluidity.
42
Three type of slump, which is true, shear and collapse is clearly show in Figure 4.1. This test was
conduct by using frustum apparatus. Figure 4.2 shows the result of slump test where is about 90
mm and type of slump is shear slump. This result was as according to mix design where design
Concrete cubes were prepared in order to examination the accurateness of concrete mix design
before constructing the wall panel. From that, 6 trial cubes ware prepared and the compressive
43
strength of concrete cubes for 7, 14 and 28 days ware determined. The concrete compressive
strength test was conducted by Auto Test 3000 machine that is available at the Concrete
Laboratory of the Civil Engineering Faculty. The results obtained from the compression test
recorded in Table 4.1 below. Figure 4.3 shows the graph of compressive strength versus number
of days of concrete cube at mould 1, 2 and the average. Figure 4.4 shows the comparison
between cube using recycle concrete aggregate and natural aggregate in compressive strength.
From figure 4.3, the average compressive strength for cubes at 28 days is 36.08 N/mm 2.
Compared to target strength which is 30 N/mm2, the strength of cube is higher 20 %. Inaccurate
batching was one of the reasons of such difference. Another causes identified is the dissimilar
properties of Crushed Concrete waste aggregate used. The higher the strength of Crushed
Concrete waste aggregate used, the higher the strength of concrete cube.
According to theoretical, with a similar concrete mix design, concrete cube using crushed
concrete waste aggregate will have the higher strength compared to using natural aggregate.
Nevertheless, from figure 4.4, an adverse result demonstrated. The concrete cube using natural
aggregate (Najwa, 2008) have higher compressive strength compared to cube using crushed
concrete waste as aggregate. This result may caused by inaccurate batching or different in
concrete mix design. The mode of failure of concrete cubes using crushed concrete waste
aggregate and natural aggregate are cracking and crushed. Figure 4.5 showed concrete cube
44
Table 4.1: Concrete cube test results
Table 4.2: Comparison between concrete cube of crushed concrete caste aggregate and normal
aggregate stress (Najwa, 2008)
45
Figure 4.3: Graph of Compressive Strength Development
Figure 4.4: Graph of compressive strength comparison between concrete cube using recycle
46
4.4 Steel fabric test result
The steel fabric type B385 or B7 was used in this research. The dimension of steel fabric is 100
mm for longitudinal steel and 200 mm for cross steel. This steel fabric was tested on tensile test,
bend test and weld test. Testing was carry out using Universal Testing Machine (UTM 500)
which is available at Concrete Laboratory. Test speed is 5 mm/min. The detail of steel fabric test
is shown in Table 4.3. Figure 4.6 showed the UTM 500 that used for tensile test, bend test and
weld test.
47
Table 4.3: Steel Fabric Test Report
TEST RESULT : Specification for Steel Fabric for the Reinforcement of Concrete
Sample Reference : B7
Fabric Reference : B385
48
d) Tensile test Cross
510 820.35 837.22
(N/mm2)
Tensile properties of bar are covered by BS 4449: 1997. Characteristic strength of the selected
bar determined through tensile test. There are 4 nos of bar have been tasted which is 2 nos of
longitudinal bar and 2 nos of cross bar for this proposed study.
Result of testing showed that the average ultimate tensile stress of cross bar is 766 N/mm 2.
Longitudinal bars showed average ultimate stress is 829 N/mm 2. Compared to the standard
ultimate stress value which is 510 N/mm2, this value of ultimate stress are slightly high.
However, this value of steel fabric that higher than specification no cause any problem as the
higher the ultimate stress, the better the steel fabric. The fracture load for longitudinal steel and
cross steel are 18.3 kN and 19.2 kN respectively. Figure 4.7 shows the steel fabric before and
after tested. The results of the tensile test show at table 4.4.
49
4.6 Bend Test
Bend test will determine any transverse rupture on the metal during bending. For this test, there
are 1 nos of longitudinal sample and 1 nos of cross sample have been tested. Each of the bars
The ultimate stress for longitudinal steel and cross steel are 906.95 N/mm 2 and 1013.43 N/mm2
respectively. The displacement of longitudinal steel and cross steel is 28.26 mm and 30.84 mm
respectively. After testing, it found that no visual defect observed for both samples. This shows
that the reinforcement is satisfied the requirement. Figure 4.8 shows the steel fabric before and
50
4.7 Weld Strength Test
There are three nos of bar have been tested. All of the sample must contain the intersection of the
cross bar on the longitudinal bar. Based on the result, the strength of weld for sample 1, sample
2 and sample 3 are 9.87kN, 13.96kN and 17.15kN respectively. Figure 4.9 shows the steel fabric
51
Table 4.4: Tensile test result
Sample Type of Weight Length Cross Dia- Yield Yield Ultimate Ultimate Fracture Elongation
Ribs (gm) (mm) Section meter Load Stress Load Stress Load (mm)
Area (mm) (kN) (kN) (kN) (N/mm2) (kN)
(mm2)
Cross 1 Diagonal 126.10 505 32.59 6.44 23.00 700 24.59 761.70 18.80 2.83
Long 1 Diagonal 130.50 510 32.47 6.43 24.50 740 26.64 820.35 18.40 5.51
Cross 2 Diagonal 126.10 496 32.36 6.42 24.00 730 24.98 771.94 17.80 3.08
Long 2 Diagonal 126.20 493 32.56 6.44 26.00 800 27.26 837.22 20.00 4.31
Sample Type of Weight Length Cross Diameter Span Ultimate Ultimate Displacement Crack Visible on
Ribs (gm) (mm) Section (mm) (mm) Load Stress (mm) Bend
Area (kN) (N/mm2)
(mm2)
Cross Diagonal 110 440 31.85 6.36 45 1.87 906.95 28.26 None
Long Diagonal 110 440 31.55 6.33 45 2.06 1013.43 30.84 None
52
4.8 Lateral Displacement Profile
Lateral displacement profile of wall panel was analyzed through graph of applied load versus
displacement and graph of applied load versus height. Graph of applied load versus displacement
shows that the displacement profile for both wall samples chance simultaneously in increase of
load applied. Different percentage displacement stated at different height of wall panel. The
details of displacement profile for both wall panel 1(WP1) and wall panel 2 (WP2) shown in the
Figure 4.10, Figure 4.11, Figure 4.12, Figure 4.13, Table 4.6 and Table 4.7.
Graph load versus lateral displacement shows that the ultimate displacement of WP1 is 18.836
mm occur at maximum load 1169.12 kN. The ultimate displacement of WP2 which is 5.352 mm
53
Figure 4.10: Load versus displacement for WP1
Analysis data for WP1 shows that the ultimate displacement is 18.836 mm and occurs at the
middle of wall panel at height 750 mm (T3) from the base of the wall panel. Other readings are
54
5.724 mm, 13.982 mm, 16.291 mm, 4.345 mm, 20.709 mm and 13.708 mm at height 1400 mm
(T1), 1050 mm (T2), 375 mm (T4), 100 mm (T5), 1050 mm (T6) and 1050 mm (T7) from base
of the wall panel. Transducer T6 and T7 were located at height 750 mm and 100 mm from right
Analysis data for WP2 shows that the ultimate displacement is 5.352mm and occurs at height
1050 mm (T2). Other readings are 4.119 mm, 3.238 mm, 1.256 mm, 0.471 mm, 2.626 mm and
3.604 mm at height 1400 mm (T1), 750 mm (T3), 375 mm (T4), 100 mm (T5), 1050 mm (T6)
The WP2 showed the maximum lateral displacement occurs at position T2 where 1050 mm from
base of wall panel, as agreed theoretically. Nevertheless, WP1 stated the maximum lateral
displacement occurs at other position. This position of maximum lateral displacement that not
same as expected was resulted by mistake in experimental setup. The arms of the machine hinder
the lateral displacement of WP1 at position T2. Analysis data of T6, T3 and T7, it showed there
55
Figure 4.12: Displacement profile for WP1
56
Table 4.6: Displacement profile for WP 1 and WP2
Stress and strain profile of wall panel was obtained from strain gauge that placed on the steel
fabric at 1050 mm (0.7H) and 750 mm (0.5H) of wall panel height. Total four strain gauge used
for each wall panel where two on front longitudinal and two on rear longitudinal. Strain versus
stress for both wall panel will plot on graph and analysed.
From the data analysed, the ultimate stress for WP1 and WP2 are 15588 kN/m 2 and 18409 kN/m2
each. It is found that for both wall panels, strain of the rear longitudinal steel is higher than front
57
longitudinal steel for these two samples. This shows that the buckling occurs on rear of wall
panel. The different strain between rear and front of longitudinal steel are about 9 % for WP1 and
53 % for WP2.
(kN/m2)
58
Figure 4.15: Stress versus Strain for WP2
Graph stress versus strain of WP1 shows the maximum strain occurs at 1050 mm of wall height
at rear longitudinal. Both rear and front longitudinal steel strain at 750 mm height becomes loose
The maximum strain for WP2 occurs at rear longitudinal steel at 750 mm wall height. Rear
WP1 showed buckling failure while WP2 was not fail until testing process was stopped.
Nevertheless, cracking occurs at the top and the middle of WP2. Fine cracking that occurs at
59
middle of the wall panel was marked to make it more visible. WP1 showed buckling failure as
The ultimate loads of sample are 1169.12 kN and 1380.72 kN for WP1 and WP2 while the
ultimate stress for WP1 and WP2 are 15588 kN/m 2 and 18409 kN/m2.The ultimate load of WP1
which is 1169.12 kN was lower than theoretical value 1355 kN. The ultimate load of WP2 which
is 1380 kN was higher than theoretical value 1355 kN. The average ultimate load is 1274.92 kN
and average ultimate stress is 16998.5 kN/m2. Both of ultimate load values of wall panel are not
too far from theoretical value. The average ultimate load of wall panel was less than theoretical
value by 6 %. This shows that this value can be conformed as a right result.
In comparison, the average ultimate load of these wall panels which is 1274 kN was higher than
wall panel using concrete waste but tested under axial load without eccentric loading which is
1402 kN (Siti Hajar, 2008) by 10 %. Compared to single reinforcement of wall panel that used
same material and under same testing condition which is 1300 kN (Hakim, 2008), the ultimate
From this comparison, it was concluded that using concrete aggregate will increase the ultimate
load of the wall panel and wall panel will easier to fail under eccentric loading and number of
60
(a) WP1 failure at height 375 mm (b) Rear of WP1
61
(e) Rear of WP2 (f) Top of WP2
62
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The structural behaviour of wall panel samples shows that wall panel 1 showed buckling failure
where wall panel 2 showed cracking at top and middle of the wall panel. Failure mode of the
wall panel was influenced by the experimental set up and material used.
The average ultimate load of the wall panel is 1274 kN. In comparison, this value was higher
than wall panel using concrete waste but tested under axial load without eccentric loading and
higher than wall panel with single layer reinforcement that used same material and tested under
same setup. From this comparison, it was concluded that wall panel was easier to fail under
eccentric loading and number of layer of reinforcement influence the critical load of the wall
panel.
Knowledge gained from this research make us more confident in using concrete waste as
aggregate. Using concrete waste as course aggregate in construction of wall panel is better than
using natural aggregate as the ultimate load is higher. The structural behaviour is same with
63
Using concrete waste as aggregate shall be applied in construction project nowadays.
Organization that manage and supply recycle aggregate shall be formed. Concrete waste as
64
REFERENCE
Barra, M. and Vazquez, E., (1998), Properties of Concretes with Recycled Aggregates:
Influence Of Properties Of The Aggregates And Their Interpretation, Proceedings Of The
International Symposium, Department Of Trade And Industry Conference Centre, London, 19-
30.
Benayoune, A., Samad, A.A.A., Trikha, D.N., Ali, A.A.A. and Ashrabor, A.A., (2005),
Structural behaviour of eccentrically loaded precast sandwich panels, Construction and
Building Materials, 20, 713-724.
British Standard Institution, BS 8110: Part 1: (1997), Walls, Milton Keynes, British Standard
Institution.
Chulan, A.H., 2008, Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Wall Panel Single Layer Steel Fabric
Using Concrete Waste as Aggregate under Eccentric Loading, Final Year Project Report
B.Eng (Civil)(Hons.), Universiti Teknologi Mara, Malaysia.
Crentsil, K.K.S., Brown, T. and Taylor, A.H., (2001), Performance of concrete made with
commercially produced coarse recycled concrete aggregate, Cement and Concrete Research,
31, 707–712.
Hansen, T.C. and Narud, H. (1983), Strength of recycled concrete made from crushed
concrete coarse aggregate, Concrete International, vol. 5, No 1, 79–83, 120–135.
Hasaba, S., Kawamura, M., Toriik, K. and Takemoto, K., (1981), Drying Shrinkage and
Durability of the Concrete Made of Recycled Concrete Aggregate, The Japan Concrete
Institute, vol. 3, pp. 55–60.
Wilson., Robinsonb, A.J. and Balendra, T., (2007), Performance of precast concrete load-
bearing panel structures in regions of low to moderate seismicity, Engineering Structures.
Kiyoshi, E., Kohji, T., Akira, N., Hitoshi, K., Kimihiko, S. and Masafumi, N., Application of
recycled coarse aggregate by mixture to concrete construction, (2007), Construction and
Building Materials, 21, 1542–1551.
Massicotte, B., MacGregor, J. G. and Elwi, A. E., (1990), Behavior Of Concrete Panels
Subjected To Axial And Lateral Loads, Journal of Structural Engineering, 116, 9, 2324-2343.
65
Rahman, S.H.A., 2008, Axial Load Capacity of Crushed Concrete Waste Aggregate (CCwA)
Reinforced Concrete Wall, Final Year Project Report B.Eng (Civil)(Hons.), Universiti
Teknologi Mara, Malaysia.
Ravindrarajah, R. S., Loo, Y.H. and Tam, C.T., (1987), Recycled concrete as fine aggregate
and course aggregate in concrete, Mag. Concr. Res., 39, 141, 214 – 220.
Ridzuan, A. R. M., Ibrahim, A., Ismail, A. M. M. and Diah, A. B. M., (2005), Durability
Performance Of Recycled Aggregate Concrete, Proceedings of The International Conference,
University of Dundee, Scotland, UK, 193-202.
Saheb, S. M. and Desayi, P., (1990), Ultimate strength Of R.C. Wall Panels In Two-Way In-
Plane Action, Journal of Structural Engineering, 116, 5, 1384-1402.
Seddon A.E, (1956), The strength of concrete walls under axial and eccentric loads,
Symposium on strength of concrete structures, Cement and Concrete Association, London.
Su, N. and Wang, B.L., (2000), Study on the engineering properties of recycled aggregate
concrete and recovered aggregate from demolished concrete, Journal of the Chinese Institute
of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, 12, 3, 435–444.
Topcu, I. B. and Sengel, S., (2003), Properties of Concrete Produced With Waste Concrete
Aggregate, Journal of Cement and Concrete Research, 34, 1307-1312.
Tu, T.Y., Chen, Y.Y. and Hwang, C.L., (2006), Properties of HPC with recycled aggregates,
Cement and Concrete Research, 36, 943–950.
Zaharieva, R., Buyle-Bodin, F., Skoczylas, F. and Wirquin, E.,(2003), Assessment of the surface
permeation properties of recycled aggregate concrete, Cement and Concrete Composite, 25,
223–232.
APPENDIX A
66
A.1 Concrete mix design form
Reference or
Stage Item Values
calculation
1 1.1 Characteristic strength Specified 30 N/mm² at 28 days
Proportion defective 5 %
1.2 Standard deviation _____ N/ mm² or no data 6 N/ mm²
Fig 3.1
1.3 Margin (k =1.64 ) 1.64 x 6= 9.64 N/ mm²
C1 or
1.4 Target mean strength (TMS) Specified 30 + 9.64 = 40 N/ mm²
1.5 Cement type C2 OPC/SRPC/RHPC
1.6 Aggregate type: coarse Specified Crushed/uncrushed
Aggregate type: fine Crushed/uncrushed
Table B,
1.7 Free-water/cement ratio 0.60
1.8 Maximum free-water/cement Fig 3.2 - Use the lower value 0. 55
ratio Specified
2 2.1 Slump or Vebe time Specified Slump 60 – 180 mm or Vebe time s
2.2 Maximum aggregate size Specified 20 mm
2.3 Free-water content Table C ___________________ 205 kg/m³
Fine
Cement Water Coarse aggregates
Quantities aggregates
(kg) (kg/L) (kg)
(kg)
67
10mm 20mm 40mm
Per m³ (to nearest 5kg) 373 205 641 397 793
Per trial mix of 0.0066 m³ (6 unit of Cube) 2.46 1.35 4.23 2.62 5.23
Per trial mix of 0.248 m³ (2 unit of Wall Panel) 92.5 50.84 158.67 98.46 196.66
APPENDIX B
68
B.1 Crushed concrete waste aggregate B.2 Sieving machine
69
B.7 Universal Testing Machine B.8 Drum Mixer
APPENDIX C
70
C. 1 Data for WP1
Load T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Cell
kN mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.67 -0.372 -0.361 -0.294 0 -0.072 -0.296 -0.294
16.96 -1.301 -0.686 -0.405 0 -0.036 -0.333 -0.405
23.21 -1.375 -0.65 -0.331 0 -0.036 -0.296 -0.368
30.8 -1.338 -0.506 -0.147 0.185 0.036 -0.074 -0.184
41.07 -1.338 -0.361 0.074 0.369 0.072 0.148 0
51.11 -1.152 -0.072 0.331 0.591 0.145 0.444 0.331
61.6 -1.078 0.145 0.552 0.776 0.181 0.703 0.552
70.98 -0.966 0.361 0.773 0.96 0.217 0.925 0.846
81.02 -0.818 0.578 1.03 1.145 0.29 1.183 1.14
91.29 -0.632 0.831 1.288 1.367 0.362 1.516 1.361
101.11 -0.52 1.048 1.545 1.551 0.398 1.701 1.692
111.38 -0.335 1.373 1.803 1.736 0.471 2.034 1.913
121.2 -0.112 1.626 2.134 1.958 0.543 2.367 2.244
131.02 -0.372 1.915 2.465 2.179 0.616 2.663 2.538
141.06 0.223 2.132 2.649 2.364 0.652 2.921 2.685
150.88 0.372 2.385 2.906 2.586 0.724 3.18 2.942
161.15 0.52 2.637 3.164 2.734 0.76 3.476 3.163
171.19 0.743 2.89 3.458 2.992 0.869 3.772 3.457
181.02 0.892 3.179 3.716 3.177 0.905 4.105 3.678
191.06 1.152 3.468 4.12 3.509 1.014 4.475 4.083
200.88 1.338 3.794 4.378 3.731 1.086 4.881 4.303
210.92 1.635 4.155 4.783 4.026 1.159 5.325 4.671
220.97 2.007 4.625 5.224 4.322 1.267 5.843 5.002
231.24 2.416 5.094 5.702 4.691 1.376 6.361 5.48
241.06 2.676 5.42 6.107 4.987 1.448 6.841 5.738
251.1 2.862 5.709 6.438 5.282 1.557 7.285 5.958
260.92 3.048 6.07 6.806 5.578 1.629 7.803 6.363
271.19 3.197 6.359 7.137 5.873 1.738 8.321 6.547
281.01 3.42 6.684 7.542 6.243 1.847 8.838 6.768
290.83 3.643 7.045 7.947 6.538 1.919 9.43 6.988
300.87 3.754 7.262 8.241 6.871 2.028 9.837 7.172
311.14 3.866 7.515 8.535 7.092 2.1 10.206 7.356
321.18 4.052 7.732 8.83 7.351 2.173 10.65 7.503
330.78 4.163 8.021 9.161 7.61 2.245 11.057 7.65
341.05 4.312 8.274 9.455 7.868 2.354 11.538 7.797
350.87 4.498 8.599 9.823 8.164 2.426 12.019 7.981
71
360.91 4.683 8.816 10.08 8.385 2.498 12.462 8.128
370.96 4.832 9.069 10.375 8.607 2.535 12.869 8.276
380.78 5.129 9.285 10.669 8.829 2.607 13.276 8.459
391.05 5.204 9.466 10.89 9.013 2.643 13.498 8.57
401.09 5.204 9.538 11.037 9.124 2.68 13.646 8.643
410.91 5.204 9.611 11.147 9.272 2.716 13.794 8.79
421.4 5.167 9.683 11.258 9.383 2.752 13.904 8.864
430.78 5.167 9.755 11.368 9.494 2.824 14.015 9.011
441.04 5.092 9.791 11.405 9.567 2.824 14.089 9.048
451.31 5.092 9.791 11.515 9.641 2.861 14.163 9.158
460.91 5.092 9.863 11.589 9.752 2.861 14.237 9.195
471.18 5.055 9.936 11.662 9.826 2.897 14.348 9.269
480.77 5.055 9.972 11.773 9.9 2.933 14.385 9.342
491.04 5.055 9.972 11.81 9.974 2.933 14.459 9.416
501.31 5.018 10.008 11.883 10.048 2.969 14.533 9.452
511.35 5.055 10.08 11.994 10.159 3.005 14.607 9.526
521.17 5.018 10.116 12.03 10.195 3.042 14.644 9.563
531.22 4.981 10.153 12.104 10.306 3.078 14.718 9.636
541.04 5.092 10.225 12.214 10.38 3.078 14.755 9.673
551.3 5.055 10.297 12.251 10.417 3.078 14.829 9.673
561.12 5.055 10.369 12.361 10.528 3.114 14.903 9.71
571.17 5.055 10.369 12.435 10.602 3.15 14.94 9.783
581.21 5.092 10.442 12.509 10.713 3.186 15.014 9.857
591.26 5.018 10.478 12.545 10.713 3.15 15.051 9.857
601.08 5.055 10.514 12.656 10.823 3.223 15.162 9.931
611.12 5.055 10.586 12.729 10.934 3.259 15.199 9.967
621.17 5.055 10.622 12.803 11.008 3.259 15.273 10.004
631.43 5.055 10.694 12.877 11.082 3.259 15.347 10.004
640.81 5.092 10.731 12.95 11.119 3.295 15.384 10.078
650.85 5.055 10.767 12.987 11.193 3.295 15.458 10.151
660.9 5.092 10.803 13.097 11.267 3.331 15.495 10.188
671.16 5.055 10.839 13.134 11.341 3.331 15.569 10.188
681.43 5.055 10.911 13.208 11.378 3.331 15.643 10.262
691.25 5.092 10.947 13.281 11.451 3.368 15.68 10.262
701.29 5.092 11.02 13.355 11.562 3.404 15.753 10.372
710.89 5.092 11.056 13.428 11.599 3.404 15.79 10.372
721.38 5.092 11.092 13.465 11.673 3.404 15.827 10.409
730.98 5.129 11.128 13.576 11.747 3.44 15.901 10.482
741.69 5.129 11.236 13.686 11.784 3.476 16.012 10.519
751.96 5.129 11.236 13.759 11.858 3.512 16.012 10.556
761.56 5.167 11.273 13.796 11.895 3.512 16.086 10.593
771.83 5.167 11.309 13.87 11.969 3.549 16.123 10.666
781.87 5.204 11.381 13.907 12.042 3.549 16.197 10.703
72
791.47 5.167 11.381 13.943 12.116 3.512 16.234 10.74
801.51 5.204 11.417 14.054 12.153 3.549 16.308 10.777
811.33 5.241 11.489 14.127 12.264 3.585 16.345 10.85
821.15 5.241 11.562 14.238 12.301 3.585 16.382 10.85
831.2 5.278 11.634 14.311 12.375 3.657 16.456 10.96
841.46 5.241 11.67 14.348 12.449 3.621 16.53 10.997
851.51 5.278 11.742 14.458 12.523 3.657 16.567 11.034
861.55 5.315 11.778 14.532 12.597 3.657 16.641 11.108
871.82 5.352 11.851 14.642 12.707 3.693 16.715 11.181
881.19 5.352 11.887 14.716 12.744 3.73 16.752 11.255
891.24 5.352 11.959 14.79 12.855 3.73 16.789 11.291
901.06 5.352 12.031 14.9 12.855 3.73 16.863 11.328
911.33 5.352 12.031 14.974 12.855 3.73 16.937 11.365
921.59 5.39 12.104 15.084 12.892 3.766 17.011 11.439
931.41 5.39 12.176 15.121 13.003 3.802 17.048 11.512
941.01 5.427 12.176 15.194 13.04 3.802 17.085 11.549
951.06 5.464 12.248 15.305 13.151 3.838 17.159 11.586
961.55 5.464 12.284 15.378 13.225 3.838 17.196 11.659
971.37 5.464 12.32 15.415 13.261 3.838 17.27 11.696
981.63 5.464 12.429 15.525 13.372 3.874 17.344 11.733
990.78 5.501 12.429 15.599 13.409 3.874 17.381 11.806
1001.05 5.538 12.465 15.673 13.483 3.874 17.455 11.843
1011.1 5.501 12.501 15.746 13.52 3.874 17.492 11.843
1020.92 5.538 12.537 15.82 13.594 3.911 17.566 11.917
1031.18 5.576 12.609 15.93 13.668 3.947 17.639 11.953
1041.23 5.576 12.646 15.967 13.742 3.947 17.676 12.027
1051.27 5.576 12.682 16.077 13.853 3.947 17.75 12.027
1060.87 5.613 12.79 16.151 13.889 3.947 17.787 12.101
1071.14 5.613 12.826 16.261 13.926 3.983 17.898 12.137
1081.18 5.65 12.935 16.372 14.037 3.983 17.972 12.211
1090.78 5.687 12.971 16.482 14.148 4.019 18.046 12.248
1101.05 5.687 13.043 16.556 14.222 4.019 18.157 12.285
1110.87 5.687 13.115 16.666 14.296 4.056 18.231 12.358
1121.13 5.687 13.151 16.776 14.444 4.056 18.379 12.432
1131.18 5.687 13.224 16.923 14.554 4.092 18.49 12.505
1140.55 5.687 13.26 17.034 14.591 4.092 18.564 12.579
1151.04 5.724 13.368 17.218 14.739 4.128 18.749 12.652
1160.86 5.724 13.404 17.328 14.85 4.128 18.86 12.763
1170.68 5.687 13.513 17.475 14.998 4.164 19.045 12.836
1180.73 5.724 13.621 17.77 15.293 4.2 19.341 13.02
1169.12 5.687 13.982 18.836 16.291 4.345 20.709 13.609
73
Load Stress Strain, Strain,
Cell F1 R1
kN kN/m2 µm/m µm/m
0 0 0 0
0.67 8.933333 20 3
16.96 226.1333 32 31
23.21 309.4667 37 41
30.8 410.6667 54 60
41.07 547.6 66 65
51.11 681.4667 77 94
61.6 821.3333 102 107
70.98 946.4 115 144
81.02 1080.267 142 131
91.29 1217.2 114 183
101.11 1348.133 148 190
111.38 1485.067 167 192
121.2 1616 182 211
131.02 1746.933 216 236
141.06 1880.8 213 245
150.88 2011.733 222 275
161.15 2148.667 201 302
171.19 2282.533 251 299
181.02 2413.6 253 321
191.06 2547.467 292 337
200.88 2678.4 260 359
210.92 2812.267 309 368
220.97 2946.267 257 422
231.24 3083.2 338 416
241.06 3214.133 345 432
251.1 3348 370 450
260.92 3478.933 375 478
271.19 3615.867 396 491
281.01 3746.8 403 507
290.83 3877.733 427 536
300.87 4011.6 453 533
311.14 4148.533 459 552
321.18 4282.4 451 577
330.78 4410.4 457 591
341.05 4547.333 480 597
350.87 4678.267 489 613
360.91 4812.133 507 631
74
370.96 4946.133 525 656
380.78 5077.067 530 670
391.05 5214 534 679
401.09 5347.867 545 699
410.91 5478.8 548 709
421.4 5618.667 561 723
430.78 5743.733 543 746
441.04 5880.533 555 764
451.31 6017.467 560 763
460.91 6145.467 566 787
471.18 6282.4 588 803
480.77 6410.267 584 813
491.04 6547.2 591 807
501.31 6684.133 606 822
511.35 6818 606 852
521.17 6948.933 623 861
531.22 7082.933 642 856
541.04 7213.867 635 876
551.3 7350.667 656 909
561.12 7481.6 662 922
571.17 7615.6 656 928
581.21 7749.467 667 949
591.26 7883.467 692 958
601.08 8014.4 704 954
611.12 8148.267 705 972
621.17 8282.267 714 991
631.43 8419.067 718 1009
640.81 8544.133 752 1009
650.85 8678 763 1031
660.9 8812 782 1046
671.16 8948.8 769 1082
681.43 9085.733 765 1070
691.25 9216.667 775 1090
701.29 9350.533 783 1113
710.89 9478.533 769 1117
721.38 9618.4 782 1130
730.98 9746.4 795 1135
741.69 9889.2 798 1179
751.96 10026.13 811 1169
761.56 10154.13 806 1173
771.83 10291.07 824 1184
781.87 10424.93 834 1211
791.47 10552.93 842 1215
75
801.51 10686.8 837 1242
811.33 10817.73 858 1255
821.15 10948.67 874 1258
831.2 11082.67 866 1282
841.46 11219.47 893 1290
851.51 11353.47 906 1303
861.55 11487.33 919 1308
871.82 11624.27 921 1339
881.19 11749.2 918 1361
891.24 11883.2 916 1360
901.06 12014.13 945 1385
911.33 12151.07 954 1387
921.59 12287.87 950 1403
931.41 12418.8 964 1411
941.01 12546.8 963 1413
951.06 12680.8 984 1440
961.55 12820.67 979 1447
971.37 12951.6 995 1456
981.63 13088.4 996 1472
990.78 13210.4 1001 1482
1001.05 13347.33 1009 1510
1011.1 13481.33 1009 1530
1020.92 13612.27 1026 1524
1031.18 13749.07 1028 1544
1041.23 13883.07 1031 1557
1051.27 14016.93 1045 1579
1060.87 14144.93 1046 1586
1071.14 14281.87 1082 1602
1081.18 14415.73 1070 1626
1090.78 14543.73 1090 1634
1101.05 14680.67 1113 1656
1110.87 14811.6 1114 1677
1121.13 14948.4 1165 1694
1131.18 15082.4 1217 1709
1140.55 15207.33 1251 1717
1151.04 15347.2 1303 1747
1160.86 15478.13 1352 1751
1170.68 15609.07 1420 1773
1180.73 15743.07 1482 1782
1169.12 15588.27 1602 1757
76
C.2 Data for WP2
Load T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Cell
kN mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
78
480.77 -4.047 -5.315 -3.201 -1.293 -0.326 -2.626 -3.641
79
750.84 -4.083 -5.501 -3.09 -1.145 -0.398 -2.552 -3.494
80
1016.23 -3.143 -4.869 -2.171 -0.665 -0.471 -1.627 -2.575
81
1271.57 -0.325 -2.49 0.074 0.591 -0.362 0.555 -0.368
0 0 0 0 0
10.49 139.8667 11 29 6
21.43 285.7333 18 33 12
30.8 410.6667 45 41 20
40.85 544.6667 74 55 29
50.67 675.6 80 39 38
82
80.8 1077.333 138 88 66
83
340.38 4538.4 529 235 344
84
601.08 8014.4 842 429 643
85
860.44 11472.53 1152 606 1015
86
1121.36 14951.47 1518 806 1550
87
APPENDIX D
along the wall is calculated by elastic analysis, assuming no tension in the concrete (see
3.9.3.4)
88
b.
Transverse. The transverse moment are calculated (see 3.9.3.3 and 3.9.3.7.3)
c.
Combine. Effect a.) and b.) are combined and each length is considered as a slender
3.8.4.3 Nominal eccentricity of short column resisting moment and axial forces.
N w 0.4(35.68)(75000) 0.8(770)(460)
N w 1355kN
Deflection, L / 250
Deflection, 1000 / 250 4mm
89
Modulus of elasticity, E = 5.5 x (fcu/gm)1/2 / 1000
Where: fcu = 35.68 N/mm2 (from result cube test)
gm = 1.5
1.86 kN
RA RB
49 mm
49mm
M max (1860 N 2)
2
M max 22785Nmm 2
D 4
I
64
6.36 4
I
64
I 80.32mm 4
D 6.36
y 3.18
2 2
22785
3.18
80.32
902.15 N / mm 2
91
b) Cross sample
2.06 kN
RA RB
49 mm
49mm
M max (2060 N 2)
2
M max 25235 Nmm 2
D 4
I
64
6.33 4
I
64
I 78.81mm 4
D 6.33
y 3.17
2 2
25235
3.17
78.81
1015.03N / mm 2
92