STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF REINFORCED

CONCRETE WALL PANEL USING CONCRETE WASTE

AS AGGREGATE UNDER ECCENTRIC LOADING

JERRISLY SULINDAP

B.Eng (Hons) (Civil)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA
2008

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)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

November 2008

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

RESULT AND DISCUSSION 35

4.1 General 35
4.2 Slump test 35
4.3 Concrete cube 36
4.4 Steel fabric test result 40
4.5 Tensile test 42
4.6 Bend Test 43
4.7 Weld strength testl 44
4.8 Lateral displacement profile 46
4.9 Stress and strain 50
4.10 Mode of failure 52

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 56

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

TABLE TITLE PAGE

2.1 Preferred Range of Designated Fabric Type 15

3.1 Resources of materials that used in this project 34
4.1 Concrete cube test result 38
4.2 Comparison of concrete cube stress 38
4.3 Steel fabric test report 41
4.4 Tensile test result 45
4.5 Bend test result 45
4.6 Displacement profile for WP1 and WP2 50
4.7 Displacement profile summary 50
4.8 Detail of strain measurement of longitudinal bar 51

3.1 Tensile test result 28

3.2 Bend test result 28
3.3 Concrete cube result 29
4.1 Wall panel cracking detail 40

7
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

1.1 High risk building 3

1.2 Flowchart of research design 6
2.1 Effective height of wall panel 20
3.1 Experimental work planning 24
3.2 Details of reinforced concrete wall 26
3.3 Wall panel 26
3.4 Material 27
3.5 Steel fabric B7 29
3.6 Drum mixer 30
3.7 Formwork illustration 30
3.8 Formwork 31
3.9 Side elevation of test setup 32
3.10 Arrangement of LVDT 33
3.11 Universal testing machine 34
3.12 Final setup of wall panel 34
4.1 Types of slump 36
4.2 Slump test 36
4.3 Graph of compressive strength development 38
4.4 Graph of compressive strength comparison between concrete cube using
recycle aggregate and natural aggregate 39
4.5 Concrete cube 39
4.6 UTM 500 40
4.7 Steel fabric before and after tensile test 42

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

eccentrically (Benayoune et al, 2006).

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

shows the picture of high rise building.

Figure 1.1: High rise building

1.2 Problem Statement

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

The specific objectives of this propose studies are as follow:

a) To determine the structural behaviour of reinforced concrete wall panel using concrete

waste as aggregate due to eccentric loading.

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

and fixed at the bottom edge.

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

this propose study is shown in figure 1.2.

13
 Identification of material properties

(Concrete waste as course aggregates)

Design concrete waste

Design wall panel

Preparation of wall panel

(2 nos. of wall panel)

Experimental testing

Data analysis

Preparation of report

Presentation

Figure 1.2: Flowchart of Research Design

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

safe reinforced concrete wall structure.

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

as structural element of the wall panel.

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,

eventually creating a stone like material.

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

overall resulting strength and performance of the structure.

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

expands on wetting. Concrete is liable to disintegrate by alkaline and sulphate attack.

2.2 Concrete waste as a coarse aggregate in concrete mix

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

aggregates are concrete, brick and tiles.

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

laboratory-crushed recycled concrete aggregates. This residual mortar alters aggregates

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

drying shrinkage are frequent (Ravindrarajah et al, 1987).

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

parallel to an increase in the proportion of WCAs.

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

concrete (Tu et al, 2006).

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

control concrete and concrete with WCAs.

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

effective water-cement ratio of the recycled aggregate concrete mixes.

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

(Crentsil et al, 2001).

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

construction industry are:

a) Rectangular Mesh

The wire size for main and cross wire between 13mm to 4mm. Both main and cross wire are

200mm centre-to-centre spacing. This type consists of A14 to A4.

b) Long Rectangular Mesh

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.

d) Small Square Mesh

Both wire size for main and cross wire between 13mm to 4mm. Both main and cross wire are

200mm centre-to-centre spacing. This type consists of D13 to D4.

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

Small square mesh

D13 13 100 1328 13 100 1328 20.85
D12 12 100 1131 12 100 1131 17.76
D11 11 100 950 11 100 950 14.91
D10 10 100 785 10 100 785 12.32
D9 9 100 636 9 100 636 9.98
D8 8 100 503 8 100 503 7.9
D7 7 100 385 7 100 385 6.04
D6 6 100 283 6 100 283 4.44
D5 5 100 196 5 100 196 3.08
D4 4 100 126 4 100 126 1.97

23
2.2.4 Advantages of Steel Fabric

There are some advantages using steel fabric as a reinforcement compared to the normal steel bar

in the construction. There are:

a) Savings labour and time.

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

skilled fitters workers and saving of helpers to cut and tie.

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.

c) Reduce cost of construction

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.

2.3 Load bearing walls

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

2.4.1 Slenderness ratio, (H/t)

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

buckling (Seddon et al, 1956).

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

load is about 35% for an increase in h/t from 9 to 27.

Ultimate strength of the panels decreases non-linearly with the increase in the slenderness ratio

(Benayoune et al, 2005).

2.4.2 Aspect Ratio, (H/L)

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

tension resistance of concrete yielded satisfactory strengths.

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).

2.4.4 Reinforcement ratio,  and arrangement

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

the transverse reinforcement ratio increases.

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

bar spacing rules given in Clause 3.12.11. BS 8110: Part 1:1997.

2.5 Theoretical Analysis

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

penned and fixed end condition of wall panel.

Figure 2.1: Effective height of wall panel

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)

Pcr = critical maximum axial load

 cr = critical stress

E = modulus of elasticity

I = least moment of inertia

r = smallest radius of gyration

2.5.2 British Standard (BS 8110: Part 1)

Design for reinforced wall can be refer to clause 3.9.3.

3.9.3.1 Axial forces

The design axial force in a reinforced wall may be calculated on the assumption that the beams

and slabs transmitting force into it are simply supported.

3.9.3.8.2 Reinforced shear walls

29
The deflection of reinforced shear walls should be within acceptable limits if the total height

does not exceed 12 times the length.

3.9.3.7 Slender reinforced walls

3.9.3.7.1 Design procedure. The effects should be assessed in stages as follows.

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

column and designed as such in accordance with 3.8.4.

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

the value of N given by:

 w  0.4 f cu Ac  0.8 Asc f y

Based on this formula, the ultimate load is 1355 kN.

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

(UiTM), Shah Alam.

3.2 Research design

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

Collecting the test data

Analyze data

Report writing

Presentation

Figure 3.1: Experimental Work Planning

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

been ready for testing.

33
 Figure 3.2: Details of reinforced concrete wall panel (all dimension in mm)

Figure 3.3: Wall Panel

3.4 Material Properties

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

Cement type : Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)

Fine aggregate type : Normal (Uncrushed)

Coarse aggregate type : Concrete waste (Crushed)

(a) Concrete waste (b) Fine Aggregate (c) OPC

Figure 3.4: Material

3.5 Concrete Mix Design

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

workability. The detail of the concrete mix design is shown in Appendix.

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

after cut into size of wall panel.

Figure 3.5: Steel Fabric B7

3.7 Mixing Process

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.

Figure 3.6: Drum Mixer

3.8 Formwork preparation

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

after setting steel fabric in place.

Figure 3.7: Formwork illustration

(a) Before (b) After

Figure 3.8: Formwork

3.9 Experiment setup

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.

Figure 3.9: Side Elevation of Test Setup

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

indirectly affect the result of testing.

Figure 3.10: Arrangement of LVDT

40
 Figure 3.11: Universal Testing Machine Figure 3.12: Final setup of wall panel

3.10 Resources

Table 3.1: Resources of materials that used in this project

Item Quantity Price Resources

OPC 2 bags 2 x RM14.20 = Hardware shop
RM25.40
Aggregate ¼ Small lorry RM40 Quarry
Sand ¼ Small lorry RM30 Quarry
Timber 2 sample 2 x RM50 = Timber factory
RM100.00
Nail 1 kg RM3.00 Hardware shop
Steel fabric 2 unit 2 x RM100 Steel factory
= RM200

41
 CHAPTER 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

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.

4.2 Slump Test

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

slump is 60 mm – 180 mm.

Figure 4.1: Types of slump

Figure 4.2: Slump Test

4.3 Concrete cubes

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

before and after compressive strength.

44
 Table 4.1: Concrete cube test results

No. of cube Duration Mass Stress Maximum

(days) (kg) (N/mm2) load (kN)
1 7 2.34 27.96 28.02 279.6
2 2.35 28.07 280.7
3 14 2.36 34.57 33.06 345.7
4 2.38 31.55 315.5
5 28 2.35 36.23 35.68 362.3
6 2.34 35.12 351.2

Table 4.2: Comparison between concrete cube of crushed concrete caste aggregate and normal
aggregate stress (Najwa, 2008)

Description Stress (N/mm2)

Duration Crushed concrete waste Natural aggregate
(days) aggregate
7 28.02 28.56
14 33.06 34.89
28 35.68 36.08

45
 Figure 4.3: Graph of Compressive Strength Development

Figure 4.4: Graph of compressive strength comparison between concrete cube using recycle

concrete aggregate and natural aggregate

(a) Before Testing (b) After Testing

Figure 4.5: Concrete cubes

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.

Figure 4.6: UTM 500

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

CLAUSES/ TYPE MS RESULTS

OF TEST REQUIREMENT
1. DIMENSION

a) Pitch sizes (mm) Longitudinal 100 101.69 99.39

Cross 200 214.00 208.34

b) Wire sizes (mm) Longitudinal 7 6.50 6.86

Cross 7 7.03 7.18

2. CROSS
SECTIONAL
AREA AND MASS
a) Cross-sectional 385 325
area per meter run Longitudinal
(mm2/m) Cross 293 315

b) Nominal mass per 4.32

4.53
square meters
(kg/m2)
3. MECHANICAL
TEST 13.66
a) Strength of weld 9.24
(kN)
485 351
b) 0.43% Proof Longitudinal
Stress (N/mm2) 485 338
Cross
No visual defect
The test piece shall Longitudinal
c) Rebend test observed
not fracture after
No visual defect
rebend Cross observed
Longitudinal
510 761.70 771.94

48
d) Tensile test Cross
510 820.35 837.22
(N/mm2)

4.5 Tensile Test

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.

(a) Before Testing (b) After Testing

Figure 4.7: Steel Fabric Before and After Tensile Test

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

pulled uniformly in tension until it fractures.

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

after tested. The results of bend test show at table 4.5.

(a) Before Testing (b) After Testing

Figure 4.8: Steel Fabric Before and After Bend Test

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

before and after being tested.

(a) Before Testing (b) After Testing

Figure 4.9: Steel Fabric Before and After Weld Strength Test

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

Table 4.5: Bend test result

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

occurs at ultimate load 1380.72 kN.

53
 Figure 4.10: Load versus displacement for WP1

Figure 4.11: Load versus displacement for WP2

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

and left edge.

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)

and 1050 mm (T7) from bottom of the wall panel.

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

is very little torsional effect experienced by the both wall panels.

55
Figure 4.12: Displacement profile for WP1

Figure 4.13: Displacement profile for WP2

56
 Table 4.6: Displacement profile for WP 1 and WP2

Sample CCwA WP1 CCwA WP2 Height

Load P50% P80% P Ultimate P50% P80% Pultimate mm
T1 2.862 4.579 5.724 2.06 3.295 4.119 1400
Displacement

T2 6.991 11.186 13.982 2.676 4.282 5.352 1050

T3 9.418 15.069 18.836 1.619 2.59 3.238 750
T4 8.146 13.033 16.291 0.628 1.005 1.256 375
T5 2.173 3.476 4.345 0.237 0.379 0.471 100

Table 4.7: Displacement profile summary

Sample P Ultimate σ max Location Height

(kN) (mm) (mm)
CCwA 1169.12 18.836 T3 750
WP1
CCwA 1380.72 5.352 T2 1050
WP2

4.9 Stress and Strain

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.

Table 4.8: Detail of strain measurement of longitudinal steel

Sample Ultimate Stress

(kN/m2)

CCwA WP1 15588

CCwA WP2 18409

Figure 4.14: Stress versus Strain for WP1

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

during testing work.

The maximum strain for WP2 occurs at rear longitudinal steel at 750 mm wall height. Rear

longitudinal steel strain at 1050 mm height becomes loose during testing.

4.10 Mode of Failure

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

expected according to theoretical.

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

load for this wall panel was higher by 4%.

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

layer of reinforcement influence the critical load of the wall panel.

60
(a) WP1 failure at height 375 mm (b) Rear of WP1

(c) Side of WP1 (d) Front of WP1

Figure 4.16: Mode of failure for WP1

61
(e) Rear of WP2 (f) Top of WP2

Figure 4.16: Mode of failure for 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

natural aggregate in term of properties studied.

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

aggregate can be as an alternative to replace the shortage natural aggregate. Utilization of

concrete waste also promotes reduction of wastage of construction material.

64
 REFERENCE

Ajdukiewicz, A. and Kliszczewicz, A., (2002), Influence of recycled aggregates on mechanical

properties of HS/HPC, Cement and Concrete Composites, 24, 269–279.

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.

Malaysian Standard, MS 144:2001.

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

3 3.1 Cement Content C3 205 ÷ 0.55 = 373 kg/m³

3.2 Maximum cement content Specified - kg/m³
3.3 Minimum cement content Specified 290 kg/m³
Use 3.1 if ≤ 3.2
Use 3.3 if > 3.1 kg/m³

3.4 Modified free-water/cement _______________________ - 373

ratio
4 4.1 Relative density of Aggregate 2.7 known/assumed
(SSD) Fig 3.3 2410 kg/m³
4.2 Concrete density C4 2410 - 205 - 373 = 1832 kg/m³
4.3 Total aggregate content
5 5.1 Grading of fine aggregate Percentage passing 600µm sieve 65 %
5.2 Proportion of fine aggregate Fig 3.4 35 %
5.3 Fine aggregate content C5
5.4 Coarse aggregate content C5 2410 x 0.35 = 641 kg/m³
2410 – 641 = 1190 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

B.3 Concrete cube B.4 Compression machine

B.5 Materials B.6 Frustum apparatus

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

10.49 -0.65 -1.115 -0.846 -0.296 -0.109 -0.629 -0.699

21.43 -1.12 -1.673 -1.14 -0.48 -0.109 -0.888 -1.103

30.8 -1.373 -2.044 -1.324 -0.591 -0.145 -1.072 -1.324

40.85 -1.626 -2.342 -1.545 -0.665 -0.145 -1.22 -1.471

50.67 -1.806 -2.602 -1.692 -0.739 -0.181 -1.368 -1.692

60.93 -1.915 -2.751 -1.729 -0.813 -0.181 -1.405 -1.765

71.2 -2.059 -2.974 -1.876 -0.813 -0.181 -1.516 -1.876

80.8 -2.204 -3.122 -1.95 -0.887 -0.181 -1.627 -1.949

91.07 -2.348 -3.345 -2.06 -0.96 -0.217 -1.701 -2.096

101.33 -2.457 -3.457 -2.171 -0.96 -0.217 -1.775 -2.17

110.71 -2.529 -3.568 -2.207 -0.96 -0.217 -1.812 -2.244

121.42 -2.674 -3.754 -2.318 -1.034 -0.253 -1.923 -2.354

130.8 -2.746 -3.829 -2.355 -1.034 -0.217 -1.96 -2.427

140.84 -2.854 -3.94 -2.391 -1.071 -0.253 -2.034 -2.501

150.88 -2.963 -4.089 -2.502 -1.145 -0.29 -2.108 -2.611

160.93 -3.035 -4.163 -2.575 -1.145 -0.253 -2.145 -2.648

170.97 -3.071 -4.237 -2.575 -1.108 -0.253 -2.145 -2.722

180.57 -3.179 -4.349 -2.686 -1.219 -0.29 -2.256 -2.795

191.06 -3.288 -4.423 -2.722 -1.219 -0.29 -2.293 -2.869

200.66 -3.288 -4.535 -2.796 -1.256 -0.29 -2.33 -2.942

210.92 -3.396 -4.609 -2.833 -1.256 -0.326 -2.367 -3.016

220.74 -3.396 -4.646 -2.833 -1.219 -0.29 -2.33 -3.016

77
230.79 -3.468 -4.683 -2.87 -1.256 -0.326 -2.404 -3.09

240.61 -3.468 -4.683 -2.833 -1.256 -0.253 -2.367 -3.016

250.43 -3.541 -4.795 -2.943 -1.293 -0.362 -2.478 -3.126

261.14 -3.577 -4.832 -2.906 -1.293 -0.29 -2.478 -3.163

271.19 -3.613 -4.869 -2.98 -1.293 -0.326 -2.478 -3.2

280.79 -3.649 -4.906 -2.98 -1.293 -0.29 -2.478 -3.2

290.83 -3.649 -4.869 -2.943 -1.256 -0.253 -2.478 -3.237

301.1 -3.685 -4.944 -3.017 -1.293 -0.326 -2.515 -3.273

311.14 -3.685 -4.981 -2.98 -1.293 -0.29 -2.515 -3.31

320.74 -3.758 -5.018 -3.09 -1.293 -0.326 -2.515 -3.347

330.56 -3.758 -5.055 -3.09 -1.293 -0.362 -2.589 -3.384

340.38 -3.758 -5.092 -3.09 -1.293 -0.326 -2.552 -3.384

350.87 -3.83 -5.092 -3.09 -1.33 -0.29 -2.552 -3.421

360.24 -3.794 -5.129 -3.127 -1.293 -0.326 -2.589 -3.421

370.74 -3.794 -5.092 -3.09 -1.256 -0.29 -2.589 -3.421

380.78 -3.866 -5.129 -3.127 -1.293 -0.326 -2.589 -3.457

397.07 -3.83 -5.167 -3.127 -1.293 -0.326 -2.626 -3.494

403.32 -4.01 -5.241 -3.201 -1.293 -0.29 -2.626 -3.531

412.47 -4.01 -5.241 -3.201 -1.33 -0.326 -2.626 -3.568

422.29 -4.01 -5.315 -3.238 -1.33 -0.362 -2.7 -3.604

431.45 -4.01 -5.278 -3.201 -1.293 -0.326 -2.626 -3.604

441.27 -4.01 -5.315 -3.201 -1.293 -0.326 -2.626 -3.568

450.86 -4.047 -5.278 -3.201 -1.293 -0.326 -2.626 -3.568

461.13 -4.083 -5.352 -3.238 -1.367 -0.362 -2.663 -3.568

470.95 -4.01 -5.315 -3.201 -1.293 -0.326 -2.663 -3.641

78
480.77 -4.047 -5.315 -3.201 -1.293 -0.326 -2.626 -3.641

490.59 -4.083 -5.352 -3.238 -1.33 -0.362 -2.626 -3.641

500.64 -4.047 -5.352 -3.201 -1.293 -0.326 -2.663 -3.641

510.9 -4.083 -5.39 -3.201 -1.293 -0.398 -2.7 -3.678

524.07 -4.083 -5.39 -3.201 -1.293 -0.362 -2.663 -3.641

533 -4.047 -5.39 -3.201 -1.256 -0.362 -2.663 -3.678

542.6 -4.047 -5.39 -3.201 -1.256 -0.362 -2.626 -3.641

551.3 -4.083 -5.39 -3.238 -1.256 -0.362 -2.663 -3.715

561.12 -4.083 -5.464 -3.201 -1.256 -0.398 -2.663 -3.715

571.17 -4.083 -5.464 -3.201 -1.256 -0.362 -2.7 -3.752

581.44 -4.119 -5.464 -3.238 -1.256 -0.398 -2.663 -3.715

590.59 -4.083 -5.464 -3.201 -1.256 -0.362 -2.7 -3.715

601.08 -4.119 -5.501 -3.238 -1.256 -0.398 -2.7 -3.715

611.12 -4.083 -5.464 -3.201 -1.256 -0.362 -2.663 -3.641

621.17 -4.083 -5.464 -3.201 -1.256 -0.362 -2.663 -3.678

630.99 -4.083 -5.464 -3.201 -1.256 -0.362 -2.663 -3.641

640.58 -4.083 -5.464 -3.238 -1.219 -0.362 -2.626 -3.641

650.63 -4.083 -5.464 -3.201 -1.256 -0.398 -2.7 -3.715

660.67 -4.083 -5.464 -3.201 -1.219 -0.362 -2.626 -3.641

670.72 -4.083 -5.464 -3.164 -1.219 -0.435 -2.663 -3.641

684.33 -4.083 -5.501 -3.201 -1.219 -0.398 -2.626 -3.641

693.71 -4.119 -5.501 -3.164 -1.219 -0.398 -2.626 -3.604

702.63 -4.083 -5.427 -3.127 -1.182 -0.362 -2.552 -3.568

712.68 -4.083 -5.501 -3.164 -1.182 -0.398 -2.626 -3.604

721.83 -4.083 -5.427 -3.127 -1.145 -0.362 -2.552 -3.494

731.43 -4.119 -5.427 -3.09 -1.108 -0.362 -2.552 -3.531

741.25 -4.083 -5.464 -3.127 -1.145 -0.362 -2.552 -3.531

79
750.84 -4.083 -5.501 -3.09 -1.145 -0.398 -2.552 -3.494

760.89 -4.083 -5.464 -3.09 -1.145 -0.398 -2.515 -3.494

771.16 -4.083 -5.464 -3.09 -1.108 -0.398 -2.552 -3.494

780.98 -4.083 -5.501 -3.054 -1.182 -0.435 -2.552 -3.494

790.57 -4.083 -5.464 -3.017 -1.108 -0.398 -2.515 -3.421

801.06 -4.047 -5.464 -2.98 -1.145 -0.435 -2.478 -3.421

811.11 -4.047 -5.464 -2.98 -1.108 -0.435 -2.441 -3.421

820.93 -4.01 -5.464 -2.943 -1.108 -0.435 -2.441 -3.347

830.75 -4.01 -5.464 -2.906 -1.071 -0.435 -2.441 -3.347

840.35 -3.974 -5.427 -2.906 -1.034 -0.435 -2.367 -3.347

850.62 -3.938 -5.427 -2.906 -0.997 -0.435 -2.33 -3.31

860.44 -3.902 -5.39 -2.87 -0.997 -0.435 -2.293 -3.237

870.48 -3.866 -5.352 -2.796 -0.997 -0.398 -2.256 -3.2

880.3 -3.794 -5.315 -2.759 -0.997 -0.435 -2.256 -3.163

890.34 -3.794 -5.315 -2.722 -0.96 -0.398 -2.182 -3.163

900.39 -3.721 -5.278 -2.649 -0.924 -0.398 -2.145 -3.09

910.43 -3.685 -5.241 -2.612 -0.887 -0.398 -2.071 -3.016

920.25 -3.649 -5.241 -2.612 -0.924 -0.435 -2.071 -3.053

930.3 -3.613 -5.241 -2.575 -0.887 -0.435 -2.034 -3.016

940.34 -3.541 -5.129 -2.465 -0.813 -0.398 -1.96 -2.869

950.39 -3.468 -5.129 -2.428 -0.813 -0.435 -1.923 -2.869

960.43 -3.396 -5.055 -2.391 -0.739 -0.435 -1.849 -2.832

970.25 -3.396 -5.018 -2.355 -0.739 -0.398 -1.812 -2.795

980.52 -3.324 -4.981 -2.281 -0.739 -0.435 -1.849 -2.795

990.12 -3.216 -4.944 -2.207 -0.665 -0.398 -1.701 -2.685

1000.16 -3.143 -4.869 -2.207 -0.665 -0.398 -1.701 -2.575

80
1016.23 -3.143 -4.869 -2.171 -0.665 -0.471 -1.627 -2.575

1024.49 -3.071 -4.832 -2.06 -0.628 -0.435 -1.553 -2.538

1035.2 -3.035 -4.758 -2.06 -0.554 -0.398 -1.516 -2.427

1041.67 -3.071 -4.795 -2.06 -0.554 -0.398 -1.516 -2.501

1051.94 -2.999 -4.758 -2.023 -0.554 -0.398 -1.479 -2.464

1061.54 -2.963 -4.721 -1.987 -0.517 -0.398 -1.479 -2.427

1070.69 -2.927 -4.683 -1.987 -0.48 -0.398 -1.442 -2.391

1081.18 -2.927 -4.721 -1.987 -0.517 -0.471 -1.479 -2.391

1091.22 -2.818 -4.646 -1.876 -0.48 -0.398 -1.368 -2.28

1100.82 -2.782 -4.572 -1.803 -0.443 -0.398 -1.294 -2.244

1111.09 -2.782 -4.609 -1.803 -0.443 -0.471 -1.294 -2.28

1121.36 -2.674 -4.498 -1.729 -0.406 -0.398 -1.22 -2.207

1130.95 -2.601 -4.423 -1.656 -0.332 -0.398 -1.146 -2.06

1140.78 -2.529 -4.423 -1.656 -0.332 -0.435 -1.146 -2.06

1150.37 -2.385 -4.312 -1.545 -0.259 -0.398 -0.998 -1.949

1160.64 -2.348 -4.2 -1.435 -0.259 -0.435 -0.961 -1.949

1170.91 -2.204 -4.163 -1.361 -0.185 -0.435 -0.888 -1.839

1180.5 -2.059 -4.014 -1.251 -0.111 -0.398 -0.74 -1.729

1190.55 -1.951 -3.94 -1.177 -0.074 -0.435 -0.666 -1.655

1200.37 -1.806 -3.754 -0.993 0.037 -0.398 -0.518 -1.434

1210.41 -1.59 -3.605 -0.846 0.074 -0.398 -0.37 -1.324

1220.46 -1.301 -3.345 -0.662 0.185 -0.398 -0.185 -1.103

1230.5 -1.084 -3.159 -0.515 0.259 -0.398 -0.037 -0.919

1243.67 -0.759 -2.862 -0.258 0.406 -0.362 0.222 -0.662

1252.38 -0.686 -2.899 -0.221 0.406 -0.398 0.222 -0.662

1261.53 -0.542 -2.713 -0.11 0.517 -0.398 0.37 -0.515

81
1271.57 -0.325 -2.49 0.074 0.591 -0.362 0.555 -0.368

1281.39 -0.108 -2.305 0.331 0.665 -0.398 0.666 -0.221

1291.44 0.145 -2.044 0.478 0.739 -0.398 0.888 -0.037

1301.48 0.397 -1.821 0.662 0.776 -0.362 1.035 0.11

1311.3 0.686 -1.524 0.957 0.924 -0.326 1.294 0.405

1321.34 0.976 -1.338 1.14 1.034 -0.326 1.479 0.552

1331.61 1.301 -0.966 1.361 1.182 -0.362 1.701 0.809

1341.21 1.698 -0.669 1.619 1.293 -0.29 1.997 1.067

1351.25 2.096 -0.223 1.913 1.441 -0.29 2.293 1.398

1360.63 2.601 0.223 2.318 1.662 -0.29 2.589 1.765

1370.89 3.252 0.818 2.796 1.958 -0.217 3.106 2.317

1380.72 4.155 1.673 3.348 2.216 -0.217 3.735 2.906

Load Stress Strain, Strain, Strain,

Cell F1 F2 R2
kN kN/m2 µm/m µm/m µm/m

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

60.93 812.4 114 81 51

71.2 949.3333 121 88 57

82
 80.8 1077.333 138 88 66

91.07 1214.267 166 95 76

101.33 1351.067 168 99 94

110.71 1476.133 188 107 93

121.42 1618.933 224 125 105

130.8 1744 224 116 113

140.84 1877.867 258 141 115

150.88 2011.733 271 141 129

160.93 2145.733 270 130 134

170.97 2279.6 298 144 146

180.57 2407.6 314 164 148

191.06 2547.467 313 147 155

200.66 2675.467 325 150 169

210.92 2812.267 349 153 186

220.74 2943.2 366 160 192

230.79 3077.2 391 167 214

240.61 3208.133 400 189 228

250.43 3339.067 407 191 243

261.14 3481.867 425 193 256

271.19 3615.867 455 198 259

280.79 3743.867 452 206 262

290.83 3877.733 460 209 280

301.1 4014.667 477 205 294

311.14 4148.533 497 216 302

320.74 4276.533 515 246 325

330.56 4407.467 536 247 337

83
340.38 4538.4 529 235 344

350.87 4678.267 556 240 359

360.24 4803.2 561 243 369

370.74 4943.2 575 280 381

380.78 5077.067 598 280 394

397.07 5294.267 601 295 408

403.32 5377.6 612 305 392

412.47 5499.6 621 316 409

422.29 5630.533 638 294 421

431.45 5752.667 646 329 431

441.27 5883.6 661 335 445

450.86 6011.467 652 338 454

461.13 6148.4 689 325 469

470.95 6279.333 691 345 484

480.77 6410.267 715 344 496

490.59 6541.2 714 359 512

500.64 6675.2 736 376 529

510.9 6812 752 376 545

524.07 6987.6 763 396 560

533 7106.667 782 403 566

542.6 7234.667 769 402 574

551.3 7350.667 765 410 584

561.12 7481.6 807 407 593

571.17 7615.6 813 404 603

581.44 7752.533 809 421 618

590.59 7874.533 833 419 628

84
601.08 8014.4 842 429 643

611.12 8148.267 842 439 651

621.17 8282.267 889 455 674

630.99 8413.2 919 468 686

640.58 8541.067 881 454 692

650.63 8675.067 921 460 712

660.67 8808.933 918 463 719

670.72 8942.933 916 478 734

684.33 9124.4 945 485 748

693.71 9249.467 954 504 758

702.63 9368.4 964 508 769

712.68 9502.4 976 503 776

721.83 9624.4 982 525 794

731.43 9752.4 992 530 807

741.25 9883.333 1001 534 821

750.84 10011.2 1028 545 838

760.89 10145.2 1031 548 850

771.16 10282.13 1045 561 865

780.98 10413.07 1054 543 871

790.57 10540.93 1049 555 890

801.06 10680.8 1090 560 906

811.11 10814.8 1096 566 923

820.93 10945.73 1125 588 948

830.75 11076.67 1127 584 956

840.35 11204.67 1127 591 979

850.62 11341.6 1165 606 999

85
860.44 11472.53 1152 606 1015

870.48 11606.4 1183 623 1039

880.3 11737.33 1219 642 1064

890.34 11871.2 1224 635 1085

900.39 12005.2 1244 656 1111

910.43 12139.07 1244 662 1133

920.25 12270 1253 656 1151

930.3 12404 1293 667 1175

940.34 12537.87 1302 692 1206

950.39 12671.87 1328 704 1237

960.43 12805.73 1358 725 1267

970.25 12936.67 1354 714 1285

980.52 13073.6 1389 718 1320

990.12 13201.6 1380 736 1351

1000.16 13335.47 1403 729 1374

1016.23 13549.73 1447 754 1396

1024.49 13659.87 1425 746 1345

1035.2 13802.67 1431 755 1361

1041.67 13888.93 1452 766 1383

1051.94 14025.87 1465 775 1401

1061.54 14153.87 1475 783 1423

1070.69 14275.87 1463 769 1438

1081.18 14415.73 1493 782 1462

1091.22 14549.6 1489 795 1484

1100.82 14677.6 1504 798 1504

1111.09 14814.53 1531 811 1537

86
1121.36 14951.47 1518 806 1550

1130.95 15079.33 1553 824 1586

1140.78 15210.4 1570 834 1616

1150.37 15338.27 1595 842 1644

1160.64 15475.2 1587 837 1665

1170.91 15612.13 1621 858 1701

1180.5 15740 1636 874 1735

1190.55 15874 1656 866 1759

1200.37 16004.93 1688 893 1797

1210.41 16138.8 1708 909 1830

1220.46 16272.8 1727 917 1856

1230.5 16406.67 1760 930 1888

1243.67 16582.27 1784 942 1911

1252.38 16698.4 1804 934 1916

1261.53 16820.4 1804 945 1920

1271.57 16954.27 1813 953 1934

1281.39 17085.2 1831 950 1948

1291.44 17219.2 1862 964 1968

1301.48 17353.07 1859 963 1988

1311.3 17484 1895 984 2016

1321.34 17617.87 1913 979 2034

1331.61 17754.8 1957 995 2059

1341.21 17882.8 1973 1001 2079

1351.25 18016.67 1998 1005 2099

1360.63 18141.73 2053 1017 2139

1370.89 18278.53 2121 1029 2163

1380.72 18409.6 2135 1029 2192

87
 APPENDIX D

D.1 Calculation of ultimate load from British Standard

3.9.3.7 Slender Reinforced Walls

3.9.3.7.1. Design procedure. The effects should be assessed in stages as follows.

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)
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

column and design as such in accordance with 3.8.4.

3.8.4.3 Nominal eccentricity of short column resisting moment and axial forces.

N w  0.4 f cu Ac  0.8 Asc f y

Ac  1000mm  75mm  75000mm 2

f cu  35.68 N / mm 2
d 2
Asc  
4 no. of reinforcement
 (7 ) 2
Asc   2(10)
4
Asc  770mm 2
f y  460 N / mm 2

N w  0.4(35.68)(75000)  0.8(770)(460)

N w  1355kN

Design ultimate axial load = 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

E = 5.5 x (fcu/gm)1/2 / 1000

= 5.5 x (35.58/1.5)1/2 /1000
= 0.0268 kN/mm2

Moment of inertia, I = bh3/12

= 75 (1000)3/12
= 6.25 x 109 mm4

D.2 Bending stress calculation for bend test

90
 a) Cross sample

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