IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Theoretical prediction of punching shear
Punching shear behaviour of solid and bubble capacity of flat slabs without shear
reinforcement strengthened by concrete
reinforced light Weight aggregate concrete two- topping
Daniel ereš and Katarína Gajdošová

way slabs - Strength prediction of a bottle-shaped strut

for evaluating the shear capacity of
reinforced concrete deep beam
To cite this article: Maha habeeb et al 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 584 012013 Avinash Kumar and R S Jangid

- Effect of using column capital on the

punching shear strength of flat slab-edge
column connection under eccentric loading
Attaa H. Jasim and Haider K. Ammash
View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 103.123.41.174 on 28/09/2023 at 01:00

International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Technologies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 584 (2019) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/584/1/012013

Punching shear behaviour of solid and bubble reinforced light

Weight aggregate concrete two-way slabs

Maha habeeb1, Adel A Al-Azzawi2, and faiq Al- Zwainy3

1 Faculty of Engineering, Al- Nahrain University, Iraq. Email:

Eng.maha97@yahoo.com
2 Faculty of Engineering, Al- Nahrain University, Iraq. Email:
Dr_adel_azzawi@yahoo.com
3 Faculty of Engineering, Al- Nahrain University, Iraq. Email:
Faiq_faiqmohmed@yahoo.com
Abstract. Punching shear is the most important problem in flat slabs, which usually required
reducing the self-weight of the slab. A lightweight concrete as well as the bubble deck
technology were used to allow for lighter self-weight of the structure. This study aims to
investigate the use of lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC) with the bubble deck technology
in flat slab. The behavior of two- way LWAC voided slab (with and without shear reinforcement)
under punching shear effect with respect to solid normal weight and solid LWAC specimen were
studded. The behavior of six specimens having the same dimensions, slab thickness and flexural
steel reinforcement were studded. The main changed variables were concrete type, percent of
void and punching shear reinforcement existence. The results show that the load carrying
capacity for light weight aggregate concrete voided slab without shear reinforcement decreased
by (60%, 53%) with respect to solid normal weight and solid LWAC slabs without shear
reinforcement respectively. In addition, the load carrying capacity for LWAC voided slab with
shear reinforcement decrease by (67%, 47%) with respect to solid normal weight, solid LWAC
slabs with shear reinforcement respectively. Also, for lightweight aggregate concrete, solid and
voided slab, shear reinforcement existence did not significantly increase the slab capacity for
punching shear. But cause a reduction in maximum deflection with respect to slabs without shear
reinforcement.

1. Introduction
In a reinforced concrete structure, the span between columns is the main design limitation of the slab. To
design a large slab span between columns, peripheral beams and/or very thick slabs are required. Which
leads to increase the weight of the structure because of large amounts of used concrete (1). Another option
for reducing weight is the bubble deck technology which uses spheres made of recycled industrial plastic
to create air voids while providing strength through arch action. It attempts to utilize the positive aspects
of concrete slab construction while minimizing the negative attributes of solid slabs by lightening the self-
weight of the structure (2). Many experimental investigations were conducted on voided slab. But, there
is no research study on the behavior of lightweight concrete voided slab.
The use of lightweight concrete (LWC) and voids can reduce the self-weight of structures. So, the cross
sectional area of structural member will be reduce too.

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Technologies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 584 (2019) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/584/1/012013

2. Experimental work
A real flat slab system with dimensions of (7.5*7.5) m supported on columns only, represent the prototype
in this research. Its zero-point moment lies approximately at (0.22 L) from the column axis. the punching
shear specimen represent the column strip with scale of 1/3 which exposed to punching shear due to
column of square cross section, that have the scaled dimension equal to (10*10) cm. The experimental
work consists of six two way flat slabs specimens. Simply supported along all edges with dimension equal
to (1100*1100*100) mm and designed to fail in punching shear.
A series of tests is carried out, including raw materials, fresh and hardened concrete, as well as tests
conducted on specimens under punching shear loads.

2.1. Materials

2.1.1 Lightweight aggregate

Light Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA) is a porous ceramic product with a uniform pore structure and
density ranges from 600 kg/m3 to 1900 kg/m3 see plate (1). It is manufactured in Rotary kilns from raw
materials containing clay minerals, between 1100 °C and 1200 °C, resulting in a significant increase in
volume due to expansion (3). Structural LECA of gradations 0-8 mm was used to produce the concrete
for light weight aggregate specimen. Its bulk dried density equal to 740 kg/m3.

(a) (b)
Plate ൢ. (a) Ordinary leca. (b) Structural leca.

The LECA pebbles internal cellular structure with thousands of air-filled cavities gives thermal and sound
insulation properties. Leca aggregate is chemically neutral, with pH of (7-7.2). It does not affect or be
affected by other materials, and even preserves materials intact from chemical hazards (4).

2.1.2. Reinforcement
In order to achieve punching failure and to prevent bending failure in the slab specimens. A constant
reinforcement ratio, (which was more than what normally used in practice) was selected. Steel bar of 10
mm in diameter, spaced at 65 mm in two directions was used. For punching shear reinforcement, a three
vertical bars 6mm in diameter, mechanically anchored at each ends at an angle of 90 degrees. Each three
bars were welded on via hooks to steel rail have the dimension (20*1.25) cm as shown in plate (2).
Reinforcement arranged at three control perimeter lies at 0.5d, d and 2d from column face as shown in fig
(1).

Plate 2. Shear reinforcement Figure 1. Shear reinforcement Arrangement

2
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Technologies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 584 (2019) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/584/1/012013

2.1.3. Plastic Spheres

Oval with dimensions of (80*80*40) mm made from plastic were manufactured and used. The void should
be covered by concrete from all direction with at least one ninth of the ball diameter"(5). Which mean
that the maxitmum bubble diameter that could use in a voided slab equal to (0.82 * overal depth of the
slab). Figure (2a,b) shows specimens detals.

(a) Voided slab without shear reinforcement

(b) Voided slab with shear reinforcement

Figure 2. Specimens details (a) specimens without shear reinforcement (b) specimen with shear
reinforcement

2.2. Mix proportions

Two types of concrete were used in preparing the specimens:
(1)Normal weight concrete was used for casting two solid control specimen. Ordinary Portland
cement, Natural sand and normal weight gravel was used as shown in table (1).
(2) Lightweight aggregate concrete was used to cast all other specimens. Ordinary Portland cement,
Natural sand and LECA was used (6). As shown in table (1).

Also, to improves the physical and mechanical performance of concrete. High performance concrete hyper
plasticizer (HP 580) Epsilone HP 580 was used (7). The Basic mechanical properties for concrete,
reinforcement and aggregate were obtained laboratory. To obtained the mechanical properties of the
hardened concrete. A (150×150×150 mm) cubic samples and standard concrete cylinders with dimension
(150×300 mm) where tested to obtain the compressive strength and Split tensile strength according to
ASTM C496 (8). Also, a Prism concrete specimen with dimension (10*10*40) cm where tested to
determine the flexural strength capacity, and the same cylindrical samples that used to determine the split
tensile strength was tested to find modulus of elasticity first. Specimens details and mechanical properties
are shown in table (2).

3
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Technologies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 584 (2019) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/584/1/012013

Table 1. Mix proportion for normal and light weight concrete

HP580 L/mᵌ
Water L/ mᵌ
Compressiv
e Strength
(fc), MPa

Content,

Content,

Content,

Content,
Mix No.

concrete

Cement

Gravel
LECA
Kg/mᵌ

Kg/mᵌ

Kg/mᵌ

Kg/mᵌ
Sand
type

normal
1 40 325 550 _ 1300 146 0.9
weight
light
2 40 550 550 500 _ 133 0.57
weight
Table 2. Specimens’ details and mechanical properties

comp. strength

total reduction
reinforcement
slab thickness

weight due to

weight due to
reduction in

reduction in

lightweight
dimension

id d %
voided %

Ec (Mpa)
Fr (Mpa)

Ft (Mpa)
Labeling

bubble
t(mm)

cubic
shear
No.

D/t

%
1 SNW 1 100 without 0 0 0 48.7 6.4 3.877 28318.3 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 SNW 2 100 with 0 0 0 49.0 6.8 4.013 28322.5 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 SLW 1 100 without 0 0 0 42.1 3.5 2.222 11292.2 0.00 33.14 33.14
4 SLW 2 100 with 0 0 0 40.7 3.2 2.207 11845.8 0.00 32.25 32.25
80*80*
5 BLW 1 100 without 0.8 20.9 39.8 3.1 2.033 11671.0 20.95 36.34 57.29
40
80*80*
6 BLW 2 100 with 0.8 20.1 39.6 3 2.01 10769.0 20.06 36.37 56.42
40

2.3. Tests

2.3.1. Test setup and measurements

The tests were done by using a universal testing machine of high load (1000 kN). A steel frame (used to
support the slab specimen, act as simply support on all sides.) with dimension of (1000*1000*90) mm
welded to a stiff steel beam that fixed to the fitted center of main hydraulic jack and piston of testing
machine. The stiff steel beam, the steel frame and the specimen move upward as one unit with the
movement of the piston.
Vertical deflection due to specimen loading was measured at three points by using digital dial gauges with
Accuracy equal to (0.001 or 0.01) mm. These points were allocated at: center of the tested slab (C) on the
tension face while the other two points allocated at distance (0.375L,0.25L from the support center) on
the compression face. The readings from these gauges can be recorded for each (0.1 kN). A set of reading
ranged from (50-150) were selected depending on the magnitude of ultimate load and severity of changes
in load–deflection curve patterns.
To measure the strain in steel reinforcement during the test, two steel strain gages were used on bending
reinforcement for (SNW1, SNW2, SLW1, SLW2) specimen. To register the values of stress in
reinforcement at failure. To indicate whether the slab failure is due to punching shear or bending.
Before testing, specimens were prepared by painting them to show a clearer picture of crack plate (3a).
The position of load, support, dial gauges and concrete strain gages were marked also. After the concrete
strain gages fitting, the specimen placed at the exact location on the support. Then the dial gauges centered
in their position. As shown in plate (3b)

4
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Technologies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 584 (2019) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/584/1/012013

(a) (b)

Plate 3. (a) Model preparing before test. (b) Loading setup (model after testing before releasing).
Specimens were tested under a static load to study their punching shear behavior as shown in figure (3).
The load was applied in load control mode at a load rate of 5 kN/min, and the strain gauges' data were
collected by a data acquisition system. Plate (4) represent the specimen after failure.

Figure 3. Punching shear setup.

Plate 4. Punching shear specimen after test.

2.3.2. Test results

ACI 318-14 Code and the Euro code 2 were adopted in analyzing and discussing the results of this study.
All the factors influencing the section resistance to the punching shear force according to ACI 318-14
Code or Euro code were fixed. The parameters are (concrete compressive strength, the flexural
reinforcement ratio ρ, the thickness of the slab, and the ratio of the dimension of supporting column to the
effective depth of slab). To give a clear extent to the effect of changing concrete type on the behavior of
the section, to be study and know.
In ACI318-14 code, the critical section is parallel to the column face at a distance equal to half the effective
depth of the slab (9). While the Euro code take the critical section at 1.5d to 2.0d from the face of the
column (10). A critical distance between O.5d- 2d were studded in this research. As shown in figure (4).

5
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Technologies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 584 (2019) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/584/1/012013

(a) ACI 318 (b) Eurocode 2

Figure 4. Control perimeter specified in ACI 318 and Eurocode2.

3.1. Ultimate Load Capacity and maximum Deflection

Table (3) shows all specimens details, ultimate punching shear load and deflection. The results show that:

Table 3. Specimen's details, ultimate load and deflection.

Pu ultimate load
bubble diameter

Max. deflection
As (mm2) at 2d
As (mm2)at 1/2
reinforcements
Slab Thickness

As (mm2) at d

Compression
d u=700mm

u=1000mm

u=1600mm
voided %
Labeling

strength
H (mm)
shear

(mm)
(kN)
No.

d/t

1 SNW 1 100 without 0 0 0 0 0 0 48.7 195.4 10.66

2 SNW 2 100 with 0 0 0 452.57 452.57 452.57 49.0 255.5 12.9
3 SLW 1 100 without 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.1 168 11.81
4 SLW 2 100 with 0 0 0 452.57 452.57 452.57 40.7 159.8 10.2
5 BLW 1 100 without 80*80*40 20.9 0.8 0 0 0 39.8 79.1 12
6 BLW 2 100 with 80*80*40 20.1 0.8 452.57 452.57 452.57 39.6 84.8 8

x The existence of shear reinforcement causing an increase in slab loading capacity for
specimen with same concrete type. The increase in the failure load for solid normal weight,
bubble light weight concrete equal to (23.5% and 6.7%) respectively. But the solid light
weight specimen shows an (4.9%) increase in loading carrying capacity for slab without shear
reinforcement. This may be attributed to the slight difference in compressive strength of
normal and light weight concrete.
x The failure load of specimens was ranged from (255.5 to 79.1) kN as shown in table (3). So,
the reduction percent in load caring capacity between specimens with different concrete type
was as shown in table (4).
Table 4. Reduction percent in load caring capacity

Specimen with shear Specimen without shear

No. The comparison between
reinforcement reinforcement
1 normal and light weight concrete 68.3%. 14%
2 normal and bubble light weight 35.3%. 59.5%
3 solid and voided light weight 51.7 %. 52.9%

6
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Technologies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 584 (2019) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/584/1/012013

x For light weight concrete solid and voided slab, specimen without shear reinforcement show
maximum deflection larger than slabs with shear reinforcement. Even though, the punching
shear reinforcement existence did not significantly increase the slab capacity for punching
shear because of light weight concrete properties control the failure criteria. That's mean,
shear reinforcement existence increases the deformation capacity for the specimen. But the
effect of reduced mechanical properties of lightweight concrete (relative to normal weight
concrete with the same compressive strength) govern the failure criteria.
While in the normal weight concrete, things seem to be reversed. Punching shear
reinforcement existence gave maximum deflection larger by (17.4%). which can be explained
by the significantly increase in slab capacity by (23.5%).
x The failure load was ranged from (234 to 79.1) KN as shown in table (2). Which gives 68.3%
reduction percent between normal and lightweight concrete. 35.3% between normal and
bubble lightweight. And 51.7 % between solid and voided lightweight for specimen with
shear reinforcement. While the reduction percent for slabs without shear reinforcement was
(14%, 59.5% and 52.9%) respectively.
x For normal weight concrete, punching shear reinforcement existence gave maximum
deflection larger by (17.4%). Which can be explained by the significantly increase in slab
capacity with (23.5%) increase on the failure load.
x For lightweight concrete solid and voided slab, specimen without shear reinforcement show
maximum deflection larger than slabs with shear reinforcement. Even though, the punching
shear reinforcement existence did not significantly increase the slab capacity for punching
shear.

3.2. Load deflection curves

The central deflection values are plotted against loading for the six models together to explain the
differences in behavior more clearly as shown in figure (5).

300 SNW1
SNW2
250
SLW1
200 SLW2
loading (kn)

BLW1
150 BLW2

100

50

0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
deflection (mm)

Figure 5. Load-central deflection curve for case one specimen.

1. In general, the load–deflection curve for all specimens shows identical behaviors which seems to be
straight with linear relationship until reaching the peak load. Which could be attributed to symmetry for
all specimens in geometry of supports and arrangement and applied load. Although, there is a clear
difference between the magnitude of maximum load and deflection that occurred before failure because it
depends on slab stiffness.
2. All specimens with shear reinforcement before reaching failure load show less deflection at the same
load level compare to the specimen have the same geometrical and mechanical properties but without
shear reinforcement.
The load deflection curve for all six specimens individual are shown in Figure (6). Three curves
represented the three points where deflection was measured (٠.5L, 0.375L and 0. 25L) are shown.
1. The deflation for all solid specimens (normal and lightweight), at point 0.375L shows an asymptotic
performance and values close to central deflection. While at 0. 25L the deflection shows less magnitude

7
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Technologies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 584 (2019) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/584/1/012013

than central deflection but with the same behavior. But for lightweight voided specimen the deflection at
the three-point show an identical behavior with very close value.
That is means, for lightweight voided specimen. The area around column, which extended a distance equal
2. d from column face in all directions, was moving as a single block and expressing a deflection at the
same level approximately. So the punching shear stresses were concentrated at the first row of voids. That
located after the solid area around column, and represent the first weakness area.

SNW1 WITHOUT S.RE. SNW2 WITH S.RE.

250 300 C
C 250
200 0.25L
0.25L
200 0.125L
LOAD (KN)

LOAD (KN)
150
0.375L
150
100
100
50 50

0 0
0 5 10 0 5 10
DEFLECTION (MM) DEFLECTION (MM)

SLW1 WITHOUT S.RE. SLW2 WITH S.RE.

C
200 200
C 0.25L
150 0.25L 150 .125L
LOADING (KN)

LOAD (KN)

0.375L
100 100

50 50

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15
DEFLECTION (MM) DEFLECTION (MM)

BLW1 WITHOUT S.RE. 100 BLW2 WITH S.RE.

100
C 80
80
0.25L
LOAD (KN)

60
LOAD (KN)

60 0.125L

40 40 C

20 0.25L"
20
0.125L
0
0
0 5 10 15
0 5 10
DEFLECTION (MM) DEFLECTION (MM)

Figure 6. Load deflection curve for individual specimen continue.

8
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Technologies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 584 (2019) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/584/1/012013

3.3.Toughness and deformation factor

The material toughness is the maximum amount of energy it can absorb before fracturing [11]. The term
"toughness" represented by the area of the post cracking region under the load deflection curve. [12] Also,
the percent of deflection that accord after first crack was calculated to measure specimen's ability to show
significant deformation before rupture. Table (5) show toughness value and deformation factor for first
case specimen.
∆∆
Deformation factor = * 100 (1)
∆

The material toughness is the maximum amount of energy it can absorb before fracturing (11). The term
"toughness" represented by the area of the post cracking region under the load deflection curve (12) Also,
the percent of deflection that accord after first crack was calculated to measure specimen's ability to show
significant plastic deformation before rupture. Table (5) show toughness value and plastic deformation
percent for first case specimen.

Table 5. Toughness and plastic deformation percent for first case specimen.

deflection deflection
deformation
concrete Cracking at first ultimate at
toughness factor
Labeling density load crack load ultimate
(kN*mm) ∆ − ∆
kg/m3 (KN) load (kN) load
(mm) (mm) ∆
SNW 1 2281.5 27192.98 57 1.5 195.4 6.6 77
SNW 2 2314.7 42215.14 55 1.5 255.5 8.4 83
SLW 1 1727.5 30371.99 35 1.75 168 7.9 78
SLW 2 1739.1 18019.61 55 2.35 159.8 6.8 66
BLW 1 1686.9 3633.301 57 2.5 79.1 5. 9 58
BLW 2 1686.6 1702.24 54 1.8 84.8 3.4 48

1- For normal weight concrete solid slab, shear reinforcement existence leads to make the slab more tough
and ductile by percent equal to (155%, 107%), respectively.
2- For light weight concrete, shear force existence reduces the toughness of slab by (40.7%, 53.2%) for
solid and voided slab, respectively.
3- Lightweight concrete solid slab without shear reinforcement (SLW1) absorbed energy larger than solid
normal weight (SNW1) by (11.7%). But (SNW2) slab showed higher energy absorption reached to (234%)
than (SLW2) because of shear reinforcement effect.
4- Brittle materials have small toughness, because large elastic and plastic deformations lead to absorb
large amounts of energy [13]. This means that shear reinforcement existence makes normal weight
concrete more ductile while the void and shear reinforcement existence with light weight concrete creating
a more brittle specimen.

3.4 Crack pattern

As the specimens start to be loaded, the punching shear force is transferred from column through
surrounding slab concrete. Immediately after the stresses with in the concrete reach the ultimate tensile
stress, first crack forming. When the loading continuo to increase, the other cracks forming at the slab
central region. Cracks start to extended away from the area where higher values of tensile stresses towards
the edges of the slab where lower stresses existence until rupture accord.
In general, the behavior of normal weight concrete specimen was different from lightweight concrete.
Because of the high percent of small void existence in lightweight aggregate structure (leca). Which leads
to different failure crack mode.

9
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Technologies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 584 (2019) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/584/1/012013

In lightweight concrete, there is a flexural crack noticed on the compression side in addition to column
penetration crack. Also, in tension sides there is a clear cracks map with no damaged zone.
While in normal weight concrete, there is no flexural cracks on the compression side. The only crack is
the crack formed due to column penetration. But in tension face there is a clear damaged zone. plate (5)
show crack patron for all specimen.
SNW2 SLW 1
SNW1

SLW2 BLW1 BLW2

Plate 5. Crack patron for all specimen in case one.

3.5. Failure Zone and Failure Angles

The failure modes for slabs with punching shear reinforcement have several different cases. The position
of the effective control perimeter changes depending on concrete mechanical properties, bending
reinforcement ratio, shear reinforcement type and ratio (13).
The mode of punching failure was typically pyramid in shape. Which produce an angle ( ) with the
tension face of the slab as shown in Fig. (7) (14). Where the distance between columns face to failure
perimeter denoted by (Y). And the specimen plan direction named (N, S, E, W) which represent (north,
south, east, west) directions.
The angle magnitude ranges between 20° and 45°. Which depends on the type and ratio of flexure and
shear reinforcement on the slab (14).

 
Figure 7. Punching shear failure angle.

Figure (8) shows the failure zone and the effective control perimeter position for all slab specimen in this
case. Also table (6) show the magnitude of failure angle and the extend of punching zone in all direction .

10
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Technologies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 584 (2019) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/584/1/012013

SLW1
SLW2

Figure 8. Failure zone and angle.

11
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Technologies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 584 (2019) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/584/1/012013

Table 6. Critical perimeter and failure angles.

YN YS YE YW Perimeter Failure Angles

Labeling
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
N S E W
SNW 1 - 290 410 - 760 - 19 13.7 -
SNW 2 370 - 410 310 1410 15.1 - 13.7 17.9
SLW 1 250 150 210 200 2020 21.8 33.7 25.5 26.6
SLW 2 230 220 260 - 2030 23.5 24.5 21 -
BLW 1 210 160 170 200 1880 25.5 32 30.5 26.6
BLW 2 200 230 - 180 1420 26.6 23.5 - 29

4. Conclusion
x The load carrying capacity for lightweight voided slab without shear reinforcement decreased by
(60%, 53%) with respect to solid normal weight, solid lightweight slabs without shear
reinforcement respectively.
x The load caring capacity for lightweight voided slab with shear reinforcement decrease by (67%,
47%) with respect to solid normal weight, solid lightweight slabs with shear reinforcement
respectively.
x For voids ratio equal to (20%), the shear reinforcement existence leads to reduce the deflection
magnitudes at ultimate load by (25%, 32.3%) for slabs with hook, shear reinforcement with
respect to solid normal weight and solid light weight control specimen without shear
reinforcement respectively.

x For normal weight concrete, shear reinforcement existence leads to make the slab more tough and
ductile by percent equal to (155%, 107%) respectively. But for lightweight concrete, shear
reinforcement existence reduces the toughness of slab by (40.7%, 53.2%) for solid and voided
slab respectively.
x In lightweight concrete, there is a flexural crack are noticed on the compression side in addition to
column penetration crack. Also, in tension sides there is a clear cracks map with no damaged
zone. While in normal weight concrete, there is no flexure cracks on the compression side. The
only crack is the crack formed due to column penetration. But in tension face there is a clear
damaged zone.

References
[1] Singh M., Saini B 2018, "Analytical and Experimental Study of Voided Slab. In: Singh
H., Garg P., Kaur I. (eds) Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Sustainable
Waste Management through Design. ICSWMD 2018. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering,
vol 21. Springer, Cham
[2] Chung, Joo-Hong, et al. "Two-Way Flexural Behavior of Donut-Type Voided
Slabs."International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials 12.1 (2018): 26.
[3] Leca [web source] URL https://leca.ae/
[4] Leca.co.uk [web source] URL https://www.leca.co.uk/ properties-of-leca
[5] BubbleDeck Head Office UK, (2008) " BubbleDeck Voided Flat Slab Solutions
/Technical Manual & Documents ", Sole United Kingdom and Channel Islands
Distributor.

12
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Technologies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 584 (2019) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/584/1/012013

[6] ACI Committee 211. 2-98 "Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Structural
Lightweight Concrete (ACI 211.2-91)." American Concrete Institute, 1998.
[7] Weber [web source] URL https://issuu.com/e-weber/docs/product
[8] ASTM C496-86 (2004): “Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens”. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04-02, (2004), PP.259-
262.
[9] ACI Committee 318, (2014). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318M-14) and Commentary (ACI 318RM-14), American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, 503PP.
[10] Eurocode 2 - BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Design of concrete structures. General rules and
rules for buildings published by the British Standards Institution (BSI).
[11] Wikipedia [web source] URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/toughness
[12] Scancemmaterials , [web source] URL: http://www.scancemmaterials.com /pdf/
Scanfibre / - Flexural Toughness Testing.pdf
[13] Oukaili, Nazar K., and luma F. Huseen (2016). "punching shear strength of bubble decks
under eccentrical load."
[14] Fernández Ruiz, Miguel, and Aurelio Muttoni. , 2010 "Performance and Design of
Punching-Shear Reinforcing Systems." 3rd fib International Congress. No. EPFL-CONF-
163107.

13