Journal of Building Engineering 20 (2018) 663–670

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Investigating a reinforced lightweight foamed concrete walling system for T

low-rise residential buildings in moderate seismic regions
⁎
Trevor P.A. Dunn, Gideon P.A.G. van Zijl , Algurnon S. van Rooyen
Department of Civil Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Corner of Joubert and Banhoek Streets, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa

A B S T R A C T

Historically, lightweight foam concrete (LWFC) has been used in non-structural applications. However, low self-weight, insulating properties and fire resistance make
LWFC an ideal construction material for residential infrastructure, if suitable mechanical properties of strength, stiffness and ductility, as well as durability can be
assured. The development of LWFC for structural use has created a need for a structural system that harnesses these beneficial material properties. In this paper a
LWFC walling system is proposed, tested and analysed with finite elements. Results of quasi-static monotonic pull-over tests as well as cyclic tests indicate that the
proposed precast walling and connection system is likely to both provide predictable structural behaviour as well as adequate resistance for low-rise residential
buildings in regions of low to moderate seismicity.

1. Introduction to a 150% increase in fracture energy, Gf – identified by De Villiers et al.

Lightweight foamed concrete is a low-density concrete in develop-
ment for structural use. The goal for the structural use of LWFC is to
harness the insulation and fire risk reduction properties of the material
for residential construction. The current uses of LWFC are geotechnical
applications and non-structural insulation purposes, but an overview by
Ramamurthy et al. [16] reflects a trend in mechanical and durability
properties that hold potential for structural application. LWFC is man-
ufactured by adding a pre-formed foam of entrapped air and protein
based agent, or synthetic agent, (Panesar [15]) Falliano et al. [7] to a
cement, fly-ash and water paste. Both the low-density foam and zero-
aggregate concrete contribute to the lightweight nature of the material.
Recent developments by Kearsley and Mostert [10], and the in-
vestigation into the structural use of LWFC by Jones and McCarthy [9]
have required further investigation into specific structural engineering
application of LWFC.
The material properties of LWFC are considerably different to
normal weight concrete (NWC) and differ with regards to tensile
strength, compressive strength and fracture energy. Direct substitution
of LWFC in place of NWC is not advised. The work of De Villiers et al.
[3] confirmed that although the compressive strength of LWFC is within
a tolerable range to that of NWC, the low fracture energy and tensile
strength will lead to brittle failure and poor reinforcement bond. De
Villiers concluded by suggesting that Polypropylene fibre addition may
improve brittle bond behaviour by bridging micro cracks at the re-
inforcement-LWFC interface. This hypothesis was confirmed by Grafe
[8] who found that adding 0.35% by volume Polypropylene fibres lead
[3] as the main cause of poor bond in reinforced LWFC. This material
development of LWFC now requires the development of a system for its
structural use
Current low-rise residential infrastructure in the Western Cape of
South Africa comprise mainly of URM buildings. These three-four
storey buildings are unlikely to conform to the SANS 10160-4:2017
seismic design criteria and are susceptible to the low-moderate peak
ground acceleration of ag = 0.15∙g predicted for the area. A steel re-
inforced LWFC (R/LWFC) walling system in place of URM construction
aims to take advantage of the thermal, acoustic and fire-resistant
properties of LWFC. This structural system aims to avert the govern-
ment housing backlog that currently exists through high quality, high
output factory production. In addition, the proposed system aims to
ensure adequate seismic resistance of the residential structures.
This study proceeds to identify a prototype LWFC building and
propose a structural system of load-bearing precast LWFC walls. The
proposed walling system will be explained alongside the rationale for
the connection design. The target building and scope of the study is
focussed on the Western Cape in South Africa and aims to provide a
structural system for the use of LWFC that is seismically sufficient.
This paper reports on a study of three precast LWFC wall tests to
better understand both the mechanical behaviour of reinforced LWFC
and the proposed structural system. The walls were tested under pull-
over monotonic and quasi-static loads, according to the precast con-
crete connection testing regime developed in the Negro and Toniolo
[13] . The physical test results were later interrogated via numerical
analysis and normalisation comparison. The paper is concluded with a

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gvanzijl@sun.ac.za (G.P.A.G. van Zijl).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.09.011

Available online 15 September 2018

2352-7102/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.P.A. Dunn et al.
proposed analytical design method for reinforced LWFC wall panels.
2. Precast LWFC walling system
The proposed LWFC walling system consists of connected precast
reinforced LWFC panels. The factory cast panels are manufactured to
fine tolerances while all the electrical conduits and required plumbing
are cast into the panels. The lightweight panels are then transported to
site and speedily erected on top of a cast NWC slab and protruding
reinforcement. Bolted mechanical connection boxes (Fig. 2b,e) connect
the vertical joints between the walls. These mechanical connections
utilise embedded anchors and reinforcement within the wall to tie two
walls together. Reinforcement dowels, grouted across the horizontal
connection (Fig. 2a,c,d), bind the wall panels to both the foundation
below and floor panels above. These horizontal connections follow the
precast connection guidelines outlined in the New Zealand building
codes [14,18]. This guideline suggests that reinforcement across a
connection be less that the reinforcement within the wall, to ensure
failure at the connections where ductility can be confirmed.
It is proposed that the first-floor slab of the LWFC building be
constructed of hollow-core slabs, grout connected to the top of the
LWFC panels. The first-floor walls would be placed atop the ground-
floor walls and first-floor hollow-core floor slab now in place. This
process would be repeated for the second-floor, above which a standard
roof can be built.
3. Physical tests
3.1. Wall 1 and 2 pull-over tests
Two monotonic pull-over tests and a single quasi-static, cyclic test
were performed on a pair of connected LWFC wall panels. The selected
wall was that of the lowest storey in the prototype LWFC building,
outlined in red in Fig. 1. It should be noted that openings are not
considered in this experimental programme, but will be included in
future research. Due to the nature of the testing and laboratory space
available, the overall wall size was scaled down 1:3. Each scaled LWFC
panel was of the dimensions 1380x 920x150 (mm). The wall width of
150 mm was not scaled due to the top-heavy nature of the test setup and
emphasis on connection testing. It is acknowledged that careful scaling
is required for the experimental results to be representative of actual
behaviour e.g., [12]. The purpose of applying scaling laws is to cor-
rectly replicate stresses and failure mechanisms. For seismic action, this
requires not only strength and stiffness scaling, but also appropriate
Fig. 1. Proposed LWFC building.
664
Journal of Building Engineering 20 (2018) 663–670
mass representation. In this contribution, the intention is to demon-
strate the activation of appropriate, energy-dissipating failure me-
chanisms in the walling system through quasi-static laboratory tests, as
has become usual e.g., [13,14]. Also, attention is given here to the role
of inter-element connections in mobilising favourable failure mechan-
isms. In continuation of the results reported here, a computational
model is calibrated and used to extrapolate the results to full-scale
three-dimensional buildings, including various arrangements of open-
ings for doors and windows, fracture-mechanics based consideration for
size effect [1], strain rate and appropriate mass distribution. Here, it
has merely been ensured that seismic resistance is adhered to according
to standardised simplified equivalent push-over loading [17], and si-
milar for both the scale model and the actual building. Successful
mobilisation of energy-dissipating failure mechanisms leading to duc-
tile shear behaviour of the laboratory walls tested here, demonstrate the
potential appropriate response of the walling system on full scale. It is
likely, but remains to be proven to what extent such mechanisms will be
activated on full scale.
The test setup schematic is shown in Fig. 3. Two normal weight
concrete (NWC) panels were placed on top of the connected LWFC wall
panels to replicate the ground slab below and hollow-core floor slab
above the walls. The green arrows represent the self-weight load of the
structure above, applied via springs to the top of the wall and dis-
tributed through a 254x 254x 89 (width (mm) x height (mm) x mass (kg/
m length)) structural steel H-section [19]. To simulate the effect of
upper storey weight in the low-rise building, the walls were initially
loaded to an average 0.1 MPa compressive vertical stress, by pre-ten-
sioning each pretensioning rod passing through each of the six (three
pairs) of springs at the positions indicated in Fig. 3. During the pull-over
tests, the effective average compressive stress increased to 0.2 MPa
(Wall 2) and 0.4 MPa (Wall 1), which is calculated from the load-cell
recorded force in each of the six rods. The setup simulates an upper
restraint of finite stiffness, which is argued to represent flexural stiffness
of upper storeys. However, more accurate simulation of the upper re-
straint would be presented by full-scale analysis of the building, in
follow-up research endeavours. The walls were displaced through a
500kN Instron Materials Testing Machine (MTM) and transferred across
the structural steel section by embedded shear bolts into the top NWC
panel. The vertical dashed lines indicate the locations of grouted dowels
along the horizontal connections, each consisting of a 12 mm diameter,
520 MPa yield stress steel bar, encased in a 40 mm diameter PVC pipe
and grouted with SikaGrout®212. Wall 1 had three dowels per panel per
interface. The four horizontal connections (boxed in red) are the con-
nections that were removed as a variable for the second pull-over test,
in wall 2. The vertical connection boxes between the two wall panels
are also indicated in Fig. 3. The concrete mix design for both the LWFC
and NWC panels are given in Table 1. Each wall panel was reinforced
with two layers of a local South African (Ref 0.193) steel mesh, com-
prising of 5.6 mm diameter, 520 MPa yield strength steel bar at a grid
spacing of 200 mm x 200 mm, placed with 40 mm cover from each wall
face.
Displacement of the wall was measured at various points via
LVDT’s. These measurements were taken relative to the wall, so as to
limit the effect of unexpected slip within the laboratory setup. The
notation in the legend of Fig. 4, where wall load-deformation responses
are show, is defined as follows: Global displacement is considered as the
overall displacement of the wall including the top and bottom NWC
panels, measured by the difference in LVDT readings A and D of Fig. 3.
In contrast to this, local deformation is the deformation of the LWFC
panels themselves, measured by the difference in LVDT readings B and
C. Finally, top and bottom slip represent the interfacial slip between the
upper NWC panel (LVDT A in Fig. 3a) and the wall upper corner (LVDT
B), and between the wall lower corner (LVDT C) and the bottom NWC
panel (LVDT D) respectively. Positive displacement was decided to be
in the pull-over direction for movement towards and with the Instron
MTM.
T.P.A. Dunn et al. Journal of Building Engineering 20 (2018) 663–670

Fig. 2. Proposed LWFC precast connec-

tions. a) Elevation and sectional view of
grouted horizontal connection. b) Steel
connection box and attached embedment
anchors. c) Reinforcement and mould for
top and bottom NWC panels. NOTE: Extra
shear reinforcement at grout duct and shear
transfer bolts. d) Grouting of a single con-
nection in the top NWC panel, (shear
transfer bolts for applied load are shown
protruding from the member, the top of a
grouted reinforcement bar is visible). e)
LWFC wall panel section showing eventual
placement of connection box within cast
voids for the vertical connection, embedded
connection anchors are shown at the centre
of the wall.

Fig. 3. (a) Physical test setup schematic, showing top and

bottom NWC panels and connection boxes. Green arrows
indicate points of applied vertical, upper self-weight load.
Black arrows indicate direction and placement of lateral
displacement transducers. Dashed lines indicate points of
grouted- dowel connections, the red rectangles indicate
which connections are removed for wall 2. (b)
Reinforcement of each connector along the central vertical
joint, with 12 mm diameter steel bar of 520 MPa yield
strength. (c) Illustration of full setup, including spring-
supported vertical pretensioning.

665
T.P.A. Dunn et al. Journal of Building Engineering 20 (2018) 663–670

Table 1
Mix volumes utilised for this study detailing both LWFC and NWC for ground
and floor slab panels per cubic metre.
Concrete: LWFC NWC

Target casting density [kg/m3] 1600 2400

Base mix density [kg/m3] 1705 N/A
CEM II−52.5 [kg] 371.8 378.0
Fly-ash, class S [kg] 743.7 122.5
Coarse aggregate 6–9 mm [kg] 0 769.5
Polypropylene fibre [kg] 4.1 0
Malmesbury sand [kg] 0 972.0
Water [Litre] 479.7 180.0
Foam [kg] 4.8 N/A
Super plasticiser [kg] 0 7.6

The pull-over load-displacement results of the two walls are shown

in Fig. 4. Four distinct regions of nonlinear displacement were observed
in the displacement graphs for the walls with three dowels per panel,
per interface. These regions are: 1. cracking at the bottom horizontal
connection, 2. initial rotation and lifting of both wall panels 3. in-
Fig. 5. (a) Separate wall panel rotation with 3 dowel connections, versus (b)
dividual panel rotation and 4. slip along the top and bottom horizontal
wall panels rotating together as a single unit in two dowel connections per
connections, the failure mechanisms within the walling system. The panel per interface.
separate rotation of the two wall panels (stage 3) is shown in Fig. 5a. In
the second wall (Fig. 4b) with only two dowels per panel per interface,
stage 3 of individual panel rotation, requiring slip along the vertical The seismic resistance of the prototype low-rise LWFC building was
joint, was significantly less, and the wall panels rotated as a unit, as analysed according to the static lateral force procedure in [17]. The
shown in Fig. 5b. reader is directed to Dunn et al. [6] for detailed calculations. For the
It is hypothesised that the individual panel rotation of wall 1 is a scaled building in the Cape Town region of the Western Cape, with
positive design feature, allowing extra local displacement and energy moderate earthquake acceleration, local soil type, reinforced concrete
dissipation without global structural failure. The final nonlinear dis- wall behaviour and low estimated first vibration period, or high fre-
placement region can be attributed to dowel action and crushing of the quency, the base shear is calculated to be 19.4 kN , compared with the
neighbouring grout and LWFC at the grouted horizontal connections. ultimate resistance of the weakest wall configuration of 132kN .
This was later confirmed via numerical analysis.
In the wall with two dowels per panel per interface (Fig. 4b), an
3.2. Wall 3 cyclic test
overall reduction in peak lateral force resistance from 240kN for to
132kN is seen, and ascribed to reduced dowel resistance. The total
The second physical test, wall 3, was conducted to evaluate the
shearing displacement before horizontal connection slip failure, i.e.
energy dissipation capabilities of the connected walls. This quasi-static
stage 4 on Fig. 4a and b was reduced from 10mm (Figure 4a) to 7mm for
test was conducted according to the same Joint Research Centre
the less ductile wall (Fig. 4b). Apart from the difference in wall panel
European Commission (JRC) scientific and policy report [13]. Three
rotation and slip along the vertical joint, the nonlinear displacement
push-pull cycle groups were applied to the wall via the same test setup
mechanisms compare to those of the three-dowel wall, with partici-
in Fig. 3. Each group of three cycles increased in amplitude to gauge the
pating slip along bottom and top interfaces, as well as shear deforma-
force-displacement response where the initial amplitude and increase
tion of the LWFC walls. The wall tests therefore indicate that the lo-
were based on the monotonic response of the first physical test, wall 1.
cation and number of connections has a significant influence on the
The wall total displacement (LVDT A, Fig. 3) and wall shear (B-C)
resistance, and displacement behaviour, and likely energy dissipation
deformation are compared to the Instron MTM crosshead displacement
capacity of the precast wall system.
in Fig. 6. The latter was used to control the test, as it was not possible to

Fig. 4. Wall responses with (a) three dowel connections per panel, and (b) two dowel connections per panel.

666
T.P.A. Dunn et al.
Fig. 6. Instron vs overall wall displacement applied through cyclic loading according to JRC Scientific and Policy Report [13] for 18 half cycles.
Fig. 7. Force-displacement hysteresis loops for cycle groups 1, 2 and 3.
control with the LVDTs mounted on the wall. Clearly a significant dif-
ference was recorded between the Instron and the actual wall dis-
placement, due to flexibility and gaps in the total loading chain.
Nevertheless, reasonable wall total displacement and shearing de-
formation cycles were achieved.
Fig. 7 shows the wall load versus total displacement cycles. Rea-
sonable energy dissipation is indicated by the open load-displacement
cycles at load reversal. The amount of energy dissipated was calculated
as the area of each force-displacement hysteresis loop (Fig. 7). It was
observed that due to slip in the test setup, the push half-cycle was of a
lower amplitude than the pull half-cycle. In Fig. 8 each of these half-
cycles are converted into a normalised, dimensionless energy dissipa-
tion bar graph. For this purpose, the integrated area enclosed within
each force-displacement half cycle is divided by that cycle’s elasto-
plastic (rectangular) half-cycle area, defined by the cycle’s peak force
times the corresponding ultimate displacement, following Negro and
Toniolo [13]. The graph expresses the portion of fully plastic load-de-
formation dissipated in each half cycle.
Fig. 8. Specific energy histogram providing a comparison between local (wall
shear) and global (wall total displacement) energy dissipation. Energy values
are normalised by their respective elastic-plastic cycles.
667
Journal of Building Engineering 20 (2018) 663–670
Results indicate that global specific energy dissipation is relatively
constant, while the local (wall shear) energy dissipation portion of
elastic-plastic energy increases steadily as the wall is further displaced.
Note that the global (total) wall energy dissipation includes the wall
shear as well as the slip in the upper and lower interfaces between the
wall and the beams/panels representing floors/foundation. In contrast
the local (wall shear deformation) wall energy excludes these me-
chanisms, and includes only the cracking within the wall panel itself
that enables its distortion or shearing deformation. Had the cycles been
increased further, i.e., beyond the overall displacement where slip in
the upper and lower interfaces become dominant as observed in Walls 1
and 2 (stage 4 in Fig. 4), the portion of specific energy dissipated by the
local wall might reduce, emphasising the various contributions to in-
elasticity in the wall system.
4. Numerical analysis
The scaled wall was modelled in Diana FEA © via a total-strain
rotating crack nonlinear material model, under a displacement con-
trolled analysis. The purpose of the analyses was to study sensitivities to
LWFC material strength, fracture energy, friction along the LWFC wall
and foundation/floor interface, as well as the number of dowels and
dowel diameter, without the need to perform a large number of time
consuming, expensive physical experiments. Obtaining reasonable
agreement between the two physical wall tests and computed results
was considered sufficient, whereupon sensitivity studies were per-
formed to ascertain main mechanisms for the derivation of design
guidelines.
A plane stress analysis was carried out under phased analysis. In the
first phase the vertical applied and self-weight load of the structure was
applied while the lateral displacement applied step-wise in the second
phase [4].
The LWFC material model was characterised to material test results
of de Villiers et al. [3] and Grafe [8], summarised by Van Zijl et al. [20]
and detailed in Dunn [5]. Compressive strength, tensile strength and
fracture energy values were determined via laboratory tests according
to SANS specifications. The final density and compressive strength of
the wall was determined through core drilling of the walls post testing.
A summary of these mechanical properties as well as the relevant finite
element model (FEM) input parameters are listed in Table 2.
The connection interfaces were assumed to be high friction, zero-
tension interfaces to allow for tensile gapping, this unitary friction
coefficient was not tested. Other simplifications in the numerical model
were the connections and angle of embedded reinforcement at the
vertical connection boxes. The overall scale of the wall and 25mm
quadrilateral finite element mesh made it difficult to model the con-
nection box within the wall. As a simplification, straight embedded
reinforcement bars were prescribed and evaluated across the
T.P.A. Dunn et al. Journal of Building Engineering 20 (2018) 663–670

Table 2 connection in a similar way to that of the horizontal grouted connec-

LWFC Material properties and Finite Element model input values [4]. tion. The vertical load was applied as a distributed load across the
LWFC Panel: Total strain rotating crack model structural steel member and virtual springs were placed in accordance
with the physical tests. The wall FE schematisation is shown in Fig. 9.
Young’s Modulus,E 9.59 Fracture Energy, Gf 69.32 The crack band theory was used [2] for objective energy dissipation,
[GPa] [N/m]
i.e., independent of the element size. The selected finite element size of
Poisson’s Ratio, ν 0 Density, ρ [kg/m ]3
1579
Tension: Hordijk softening curve Compression: Maekawa compressive stress-
25 mm complies with the maximum equivalent length required to
(Diana, 2012) strain curve (Diana, 2012) prevent snap-back within an element, governed by
Tensile Strength ftux 1.41 Compressive Strength 22.02
= ftuy [MPa] fcux = fcuy [MPa] Gf E
Horizontal and vertical connections: Von Mises plasticity model h≤
ft2 (1)
Young’s Modulus, E 210 Yield stress, σy [MPa] 520
[GPa]
Steel Density, ρ [kg/ 7850 Hardening function None with Gf the fracture energy, E is the Young’s modulus and ft is the
m3] tensile strength. Element size dependence analyses were performed in
Horizontal and vertical connections: bond-slip interface
the form of the in-plane shearing response of a wall, converging to
Area, A [mm2] 113.1 Y12 Rebar, Diameter 12
[mm]
insignificant change in the solution for element sizes below 30 mm.
Normal Stiffness 1.3392e10 Shear Stiffness 1.3392e9 The LWFC wall mesh reinforcement and NWC reinforcement bar
Modulus [N/m3] Modulus [N/m3] reinforcement were modelled as embedded, fully bonded reinforcement
Bond-slip interface failure model [4], and assigned Von Mises plasticity material behaviour with para-
Parameter C, [N/m2] 3.5e9 Shear slip at start [m] 0.0028
meters as given in Table 2. The dowels for connection along the hor-
Grid reinforcement
Bar Diameter x [m] 0.0112 Bar Diameter y [m] 0.0112 izontal interfaces were also assigned Von Mises plasticity behaviour,
Bar spacing x [m] 0.2 Bar spacing y [m] 0.2 but a bond-slip formulation was used with the parameters given in
Horizontal and vertical connections: frictional interface material properties Table 2. This is considered essential to capture the wall uplift and slip
Interface Type 2D Line Opening Model Gapping-brittle, along the dowels during the observed wall rocking. The bond-slip
zero tension
Normal Stiffness 5.44e10 Shear Stiffness 2.72e10
model was calibrated against beam-end bond tests on similar LWFC
Modulus [N/m3] Modulus [N/m3] performed by de Villiers et al. [3].
Coulomb Friction model at connections Fig. 10 summarises wall 1 computed response sensitivities to shear
Cohesion [N/m2] 0 Friction Angle [deg] 45 pull-over, firstly to the compressive strength of the LWFC (Fig. 10a),
Dilatancy Angle [deg] 0
and to friction along the interfaces. The initial peak resistance, as well
Concrete foundation: linear elastic isotropic
E0 [GPa] 36 V 0.2 as the residual shearing resistance are shown to be reduced with lower
ρ [kg/m³] 2400 compressive strength, ascribed to crushing at the dowel connections –
see Fig. 11. In contrast, lower friction does not reduce the initial peak
resistance, but leads to significantly lower residual resistance.
Sensitivity to the number of dowels was shown by FE analyses to be
significant, as was clear from the physical experiments, comparing wall
1 to wall 2 behaviour. For more detail, the reader is referred to Dunn
[5]. Sensitivity to LWFC tensile strength and fracture energy, dowel
diameter was also analysed, but shown to be less significant than
compressive strength, friction and number of dowels.
The FE analyses simulated the observed mechanisms of inelasticity,
i.e., wall shear cracking, slip along the top and bottom interface. The
difference in individual panel rotation of wall 1 versus the rotation of
the two panels together in wall 2 due to reduced number of dowels, was
also captured [6]. Figs. 12 and 13 give a visual description of the rea-
Fig. 9. Un-meshed FE model of the laterally displaced wall. listic wall response of the numerical models. The first and second peak
crack output is shown alongside the final cracked state of the respective
physically tested wall.

Fig. 10. Computed wall 1 sensitivities to (a) LWFC compressive strength for a fixed friction angle of 45°, and (b) friction along the interface for a fixed compressive
strength of 25 MPa.

668
T.P.A. Dunn et al.
Fig. 11. Compressive principal stress contours, showing crushing at the dowel
connection in the horizontal interfaces.
5. Design model
Following the results of the sensitivity study, it was hypothesised
that the shear slip failure of the horizontal connections dominate the
lateral force resistance of the connected precast LWFC walls. Based on
these results and the overwhelming influence of shear friction and
dowel-action due to changes in compressive strength, an analytical
design model has been proposed to predict the lateral force resistance of
connected LWFC walls.
The fib Model Code [11] Section 6.3.4 details an expression for the
shear stress design limit ΤRdi across a shear interface intersected by
dowels. The three-part equation incorporates chemical adhesive
bonding and mechanical interlock between the two surfaces , shear
friction across the two surfaces and dowel-action due to the tensile
force and bending moment in the reinforcement across the connection.
Due to the nature of this structural system it was assumed that the
effect of initial adhesive bonding and mechanical interlock across the
NWC-LWFC horizontal connection would be overcome before shear
friction and dowel-action would dominate the shear stress and re-
sistance across the interface. Thus, the original equation was refined to
that in Eq. (2) where the ductile combination of shear friction and
dowel-action are used to determine the lateral force resistance of a
single horizontal connection, giving the lateral force capacity of a
connected wall.
ΤRdi = μ⋅σn + κ1⋅ρ⋅f yd ⋅(μ⋅sinα + cosα ) + κ2⋅ρ⋅ (fyd⋅fcd ) ≤ βc⋅ν⋅fcd
Where:
κ1 is the interaction ("effectiveness") factor
κ2 is the interaction coefficient for flexural resistance ≤ 1.6
σn is the lowest compressive stress, resulting from the normal force
on the interface.
ρ is the degree of reinforcement across the interface ρ = As / Ac
f y is the reinforcement steel yield strength
fck characteristic value of compressive strength of concrete
f yd design yield strength of reinforcing steel in tension
and
fcd design value of the cylinder compressive strength of concrete,
α is the inclination of the reinforcement crossing the interface
βc is the coefficient for the strength of the compression strut
1
κ1 =
σs
fy
≤1.0 and ν = 0.55 ( )
30 3
fck
≤ 0.55
Fig. 12. Peak 1, peak 2 and final cracked state for numerical model of wall 1.
Journal of Building Engineering 20 (2018) 663–670
Utilising the analytical model input values in Table 3, the analytical
model results were 20% lower than the measured peak force value of
wall 1 and 6% higher than that of wall 2. The two analytical models had
degree of reinforcement values of ρwall1 = 0.16% and ρwall2 = 0.11%
which provided the substantial difference in resistance across the in-
terface. Table 4 compares the peak lateral resistance for the physical
tests and analytical models.
6. Conclusions
The response of steel reinforced lightweight foam concrete walls to
in-plane quasi-static pull-over has been investigated and reported, in
order to demonstrate that it holds potential as construction and mate-
rial. Interconnection of foundations and floors to wall parts, and wall
parts to each other has been a particular focus, in order to demonstrate
its role in mobilising multiple failure mechanisms of rocking, diagonal
cracking, crushing and shear/frictional slipping, whereby significant
energy is dissipated. Experimental testing has been supplemented with
computational modelling. However, calibration to actual full-scale
building response, with realistic window and door opening patterns,
interconnecting orthogonal walls and appropriate mass distribution is
currently undertaken in an ongoing research program. From the test
results reported here on three wall systems, each comprising two in-
terconnected wall parts, a dowel-connected foundation and floor with
simulated upper load and constraint, the following conclusions are
drawn:
• The walls exhibited failure mechanisms of rocking, diagonal
cracking, crushing and shear-sliding. More cracking, and thereby
more energy dissipation is mobilised by increasing the number of
dowel connections from two to three per wall panel. Shear-sliding
along the wall vertical interconnection plane is also more pro-
nounced with three dowel connections, allowing separate rocking
and an increased number of cracks per wall part.
• Significantly higher (75%) pull-over resistance and more than
double the lateral sway at ultimate resistance are observed for the
wall with three dowel connections compared with the wall con-
nected with only two dowel connections to the floor and founda-
tions beams per panel.
•
(2) No brittle, localised failure occurred, demonstrating sound beha-
viour of the lightly reinforced lightweight foam concrete and con-
nection layouts. The weakest wall shear resistance (132 kN) is a
factor of more than six times that which is required from standar-
dised lateral push-over earthquake design calculations for the re-
gion.
• Quasi-static cyclic testing highlighted the effect on energy dissipa-
tion of dowel connection number and location. It is recommended
that both local and global displacement (rocking) be ensured by
balanced connections.
• The calibrated computational models capture the failure mechan-
isms of rocking, cracking and shear-sliding, as well as the larger
energy dissipation by increased cracking and separate rocking al-
lowed by shear-sliding of the separate wall panels along joint in-
terfaces. The models confirm that a balanced connection
669
T.P.A. Dunn et al. Journal of Building Engineering 20 (2018) 663–670

Fig. 13. Peak 1, peak 2 and final cracked state for numerical model of wall 2.

Table 3 1828–1844.
Material factors for interface behaviour. [2] Z.P. Bazant, B.H. Oh, Crack band theory for fracture of concrete, Mater. Struct. 93
(16) (1993) 155–177.
ν 0.55 fck 20 MPa σn 0.065 MPa [3] J.P. De Villiers, G.P.A.G. Van Zijl, A.S. Van Rooyen, Bond of steel reinforcement in
µ 0.6 f yd 520 MPa ρwall1 0.16 % lightweight foamed concrete (LWFC) (Available online, 31 October 2016), Struct.
Concr. Int. J. fib (2017), https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201600019.
κ1 0.5 fcd 22 MPa ρwall2 0.11 %
[4] 10 1 Diana, Diana (Displacement Analyser) user’s manual, in: J. Manie (Ed.),
κ2 1.1 α 90 deg βc 0.4 MPa Element Library. TNO-DIANA, Netherlands, 2016.
[5] T.P.A. Dunn, Precast lightweight foamed concrete walling, a structural system for
low-rise residential buildings Master’s thesis, Stellenbosch University, 〈http://hdl.
handle.net/10019.1/102870〉.
Table 4
[6] T.P.A. Dunn, A.S. Van Rooyen, G.P.A.G. Van Zijl, Reinforced lightweight foamed
Summary of peak lateral force resistances. concrete for seismically resistant low-rise residential buildings, 71st RILEM Annual
Week & ICACMS 2017, Chennai, India, 3rd – 8th September 2017, Vol 3, pp.
Wall 1 Wall 2
269–277.
[7] D. Falliano, D. De Domenico, G. Ricciardi, E. Gugliandolo, Experimental in-
Physical peak [kN] 240 132
vestigation on the compressive strength of foamed concrete: effect of curing con-
Analytical peak [kN] 202 140 ditions, cement type, foaming agent and dry density, Constr. Build. Mater. 165
(2018) 735–749.
[8] J. Grafe, Report issue s0117: optimization of fibre content in foam concrete for
arrangement of vertical and horizontal joints exist and should be the improved fracture behaviour, Tech Report, Institute of Structural Engineering,
Stellenbosch University, South Africa, 2017.
design objective for optimal ductility of in-plane response of the [9] M. Jones, A. McCarthy, Preliminary views on the potential of foamed concrete as a
wall system. structural material, Mag. Concr. Res. 57 (1) (2005) 21–32.
• Sensitivity studies reveal compressive strength to control the initial [10] E. Kearsley, H. Mostert, Designing mix composition of foamed concrete with high
fly ash contents. in: Use of Foamed Concrete in Construction: Proceedings of the
peak pull-over resistance, while the friction coefficient controls the International Conference held at the University of Dundee, Thomas Telford
residual resistance. Publishing, Scotland, UK on 5 July 2005, pp. 29–36.
• The computational results informed an analytical expression, for [11] Model Code, Special activity group 5, fib Bulletin, no. 55, 2010.
[12] P.D. Moncarz, H. Krawinkler, Theory and application of experimental model analyis
lateral resistance, which captures the actual resistance of shear walls
in earthquake engineering, Stanford, California: Report number 50, June 1981, The
manufactured from LWFC as construction material with reasonable John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, 1981.
accuracy. [13] P. Negro, G. Toniolo, JRC scientific and policy report: design guidelines for con-
nections of precast structures under seismic actions, Joint Research Centre
European Commission, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union,
Testing and characterisation of durability properties of R/LWFC are 2012.
essential for appropriate durability design with this new construction [14] NZCS, Guidelines for the use of structural precast concrete in buildings, New
material, which is the focus of current research by the authors. Zealand Concrete Society, Christchurch, University of Canterbury, 1999.
[15] D.K. Panesar, Cellular concrete properties and the effect of synthetic and protein
foaming agents, Constr. Build. Mater. 44 (2013) 575–584.
Acknowledgements [16] K. Ramamurthy, E.K. Nambiar, G.I.S. Ranjani, A classification of studies on prop-
erties of foam concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 31 (6) (2009) 388–396.
[17] SANS 10160-4, Basis of Structural Design and Actions for Buildings and Industrial
The research is funded by The Concrete Institute (TCI) and the Structures -Part 4: seismic Actions and General Requirements for Buildings, South
Department of Trade and Industry of South Africa under THRIP African Bureau of Standards, Pretoria, 2011.
Research Grant TP14062772324. The original prototype LWFC re- [18] P. Seifi, R. Henry, J. Ingham, Panel connection details in existing New Zealand
precast concrete buildings, Bull. N.Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. (2016).
sidential building design is property of Mr Thomas Swana and [19] SAISC, South African Steel Construction Handbook, 8th edition, Institution of Steel
Ukuzwana Project Management Solutions (Pty) Ltd. Polypropylene fi- Construction (SAISC), South African, 2016.
bres were sponsored by Sapy (Pty) Ltd. The grout used at the dowel [20] G. Van Zijl, A. Van Rooyen, M. Mubatapasango, T. Dunn, J. Grafe, Durability and
bond of reinforced lightweight foamed concrete, in: High Tech Concrete: Where
connections was sponsored by Sika South Africa (Pty) Ltd.
Technology and Engineering Meet, Springer, 2017, pp. 2185–2193.

References

[1] Z.P. Bazant, Scaling laws in mechanics of failure, ASCE J. Eng. Mech. 119 (9) (1993)

670