Axial and Shear Behavior of

Glass Fiber
Reinforced Gypsum Wall
Panels: Tests
Yu-Fei Wu1 and Mike P. Dare2



JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION
ASCE NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2004
What Is GFRG ?
GFRGS are Gypsum Fiber Reinforced Glass
It is made up of gypsum a waste product of fertilizer industries
as like fly ash.
These are lightweight, hollow-core panels are machine made
using formulated gypsum plaster (Gypcrete) reinforced with
chopped glass fiber
The size of these panels 120mm thick and of 1.02X3.05 m
(or 2.85 m).

These panels are reinforced with glass fibers about
300350 mm long are randomly distributed inside the
panel skins and the ribs in the manufacturing process.

These panels have cavities as shown there about 8
cavities in 2.02 m wide panel
The construction panels are cut/tailored into the
specific design of each wall, including windows and
doors, in a factory

Property name Value Note
Compressive strength
160 kN/m unfilled single leaf glass
fiber reinforced gypsum
panel
Tensile strength 35kN/m
Elastic modulus 3000-6000 MPa
Unit weight 40kg/m2
Thermal expansion
Coefficient

123 106mm/mm/ C

Water absorption 5% By weight after 24 h of
immersion
Thermal resistance

0.36 m2 K/W
1.63 m2 K/W
Unfilled panel
With 35 kg/m3 and R2.5
Rockwool bats infill and
standard
Sound transmission
Coefficient
28 Unfilled panel
45 Concrete filled panel
Fire resistance level 3 h For structural adequacy
DESIGN OF GLASS FIBER
REINFORCED GYPSUM WALL
SYSTEM
The design steps involves
Determination of Axial load capacity through
concentric and eccentric axial tests
Shear Strength under monotonic and cyclic shear loa
test

CONCENTRIC AND ECCENTRIC
AXIAL LOAD TEST
Procedure
The walls were tested in an Amsler compression
machine with a maximum capacity of 5,000 kN
Stiff steel spreader beams were made and used to
spread the load uniformly from the compression
machine to the ends of the test specimens
The eccentricity (ECC) of the axial load was applied to
the wall by placing the roller bars away from the
centerline of the specimen, as shown in Fig.
The compression load was applied to the specimen by
the upward movement of the bottom platen and the
tests were conducted under displacement control
Five LVDTs were used to measure the axial displacements,
out-of-plane displacement, and lateral expansion in the
wall plane
Two types of support conditions were tested. The first
support condition was pinned support at both ends of a
wall, as shown in the test setup of Fig
The second support condition was one fixed end and one
pinned end. For one fixed end and one pinned end
supports, the top roller pin and the bearing steel plate
shown in Fig, were removed to provide a fixed support
Three types of specimens of height 2.85m were tested

Type A-Filled with 25 MPa concrete with one end fixed
and other end pinned
Type B -Filled with 25 MPa concrete both with and
without reinforcement both ends are pinned
Unfilled wall Type C

MONOTONIC AND CYCLIC
SHEAR LOAD:

The unique features of this setup were noted
First, the specimen was tested horizontally (about 1 m
above ground) instead of standing vertically.
Second, the top and bottom steel beams were able to
clamp the edges of the panel and transfer the shear
load uniformly into the panel without crushing the
gypsum plaster, as shown in Fig
Third, the axial load could be adjusted and the axial
load effect on the shear strength could be measured
Fourth, it was relatively simple and inexpensive
compared to other shear tests setups. This simple test
setup proved to be a very successful design.

Panels with two different widths were tested for both
unfilled and concrete filled panels; i.e., 1.52 m wide
with six cavities and 2.02 m wide with eight cavities.
Filled concrete strength is 25 MPa
For the 1.5 m panels, two different designs of
longitudinal with reinforcements
lateral load at the top measured by Load Cell 1;
horizontal displacements by LVDTs 1, 2, and 3,as shown
in Fig
Movements of the test rigs were monitored by Dial
Gauges 1, 2, 3, and 4; and strain gauges at Side
Supports 1 and 2 .

The three LVDTs were used to measure the lateral
deformation of the specimens
The strain gauges on the side supports were used to
measure the longitudinal strains that were calibrated to
give
Axial Forces F1 and F2 in these two side supports. The
summation of F1 and F2 gave the axial load applied on the
test specimens
The two side supports ensured that the test specimens
deformed and failed in a shear mode instead of in a flexural
mode.
Testing was conducted under displacement control of the
hydraulic jack,
Simply pushing (monotonic tests) or pushing and pulling
(cyclic tests) the specimens at the top and measuring all of
the responses.

Type a specimen=1.52 m wide unfilled panel without initial axial
load.
Type b specimen=1.52 m wide unfilled panel with 30 kN/m initial
axial load.
Type c specimen=1.52 m wide unfilled panel with 60 kN/m initial
axial load.
Type d specimen=2.02 m wide unfilled panel without initial axial
load.
Type e specimen=2.02 m wide unfilled panel with 60 kN/m initial
axial load.
Type f specimen=2.02 m wide unfilled panel with 30 kN/m initial
axial load.
Type g specimen=1.5 m wide RC filled (full-length bars) without
initial axial load.
Type h specimen=1.5 m wide RC filled (full-length bars) with 95 kN
initial axial load.
Type i specimen=1.5 m wide RC filled (starter bars) without initial
axial load.
Type j specimen=2.02 m wide RC filled (starter bars) without initial
axial load
The shear capacity calculated from the peak lateral
load of the response charts gave a conservative shear
strength of the unfilled panels

The three 1.5 m concrete filled panels with starter bars
failed by tensile breaking of the GFRG panels
For all of the other concrete filled panels, extensive 45
shear cracking developed before the peak load was
achieved.
Specimens reached the peak load when visible and
substantial longitudinal shear cracks developed in the
panel
Accompanied by the clear sound of plaster tearing off
at the longitudinal cracks.
The lateral load (shear strength) dropped quickly when
the longitudinal cracks developed
Discussion of Test Results
All unfilled panels failed due to plaster crushing, irrespective of
the load eccentricity.
The maximum tested eccentricity was the design eccentricity for
residential house construction in accordance with AS 3600 2001
The concrete filled specimens all failed due to buckling and
flexural tensile breaking of the GFRG walls.
The Euler buckling load for the wall with an effective length of 3
m and without eccentricity is calculated to be approximately
2,000 kN.
Compared to the test results of approximately 1,300 kN, the
difference apparently resulted from the imperfect test
conditionsespecially the inaccurate eccentricity that was
difficult to control in the tests.




Shear test
The typical shear failure mode for the concrete filled
GFRG walls was the longitudinal shear failure in the
gypsum plaster panel between two adjacent concrete
cores (infill).
Substantial slips or relative movements between the
concrete cores and the plaster panel had occurred in
the tests
There were visible 45 shear cracks, developed before
the peak load was reached and shear strength varies
from 19.1 kN/m to 24.5 kN/m.
Conclusion
The in-plane shear and flexural strengths of GFRG walls are
significantly lower than those of a same size RC wall
Therefore, significant wall length is needed to share the lateral
loads.
As a result, GFRG walls are more suitable for residential
construction
The axial and shear capacities of GFRG walls as a walling
member have been obtained from the tests. The test results
illustrated that
1. The compressive strength of 3 m high unfilled walls was
governed by the plaster strength.

The compression strength of a 3 m high concrete filled
wall was governed by out-of-plane buckling
the infill concrete strength and reinforcement inside
the cores had no effect on the compression strength of
the walls
The axial capacity was only affected by the axial load
eccentricity and support conditions.
The shear test setup ensured a shear failure for panels
but also effectively established the relation between
the axial load and additional shear strength due to the
axial load.
The additional shear strength due to the axial load was
found to be about 0.2N.