See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304242795

LOAD TESTING ON A REINFORCED PRECAST SLAB SYSTEM FOR

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

Conference Paper · January 2000

CITATIONS READS

2 542

2 authors, including:

Chintha Jayasinghe
University of Moratuwa
63 PUBLICATIONS   251 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Influence of Indoor Environment on Sick Building Syndrome View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chintha Jayasinghe on 22 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 LOAD TESTING ON A REINFORCED PRECAST SLAB
SYSTEM FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
by
c. Jayasinghe, A. A. D. A. J. Perera
ABSTRACT
Reinforced concrete floor slab is a considerable
expenditure for multi storey residential
buildings. Often either one way or two way
reinforced concrete slabs are used. One of the
main disadvantages of these slabs is the
inefficient use of steel and concrete. The
formwork and falsework for these slabs need
rubber wood and bamboo which are gradually
becoming scarce. In order to overcome these
problems, an alternative precast reinforced
concrete beam slab system is proposed. This
consists of precast beams and slab panels. The
beam can span up to a length of 3.6 m. These
are located at 1.5 m centres. The slab panels of
length 1.5 m x 0.3 m width x 0.075 m thickness.
These are later placed on precast beams and
connected by insitu concrete. These slabs are
shaped in a special way so that the overall
thickness of the slab is 75 mm with insitu
concrete. This system is quite cost effective due
to low usage of concrete, steel and formwork.
For the structural design of this special slab
system, the guidelines given in BS 8110: Part 1
were used. In order to check the validity of
using the guidelines given in BS 8110: Part 1, a
detailed load testing programme was carried
out. This paper provides a comprehensive
coverage for the load testing programme. It also
explains the interpretation of results to
determine the overall behaviour of the slab
system. The load test results are also used to
determine the dynamic performance of the slab
system when subjected to impact loads. The
construction details of the beam slab system
used for load testing programme is also given
briefly. With this load testing, it will now be
possible for the structural design engineers to
design and use this structurally efficient and
also cost effective precast reinforced concrete
beam slab systems for residential buildings.
96
1. INTRODUCTION:
The alternative reinforced concrete precast beam
slab system consists of precast slab panels as
shown in Figure 1 and precast beam spaced at
1.5 m. The section size of the precast beam will
depend on the span. The section used for a span
of 3.6 m is 200 mm depth and 125mm width. In
the composite precast reinforced concrete beam
slab system, precast slab panels and precast
beams are assembled to form a slab and the
structural continuity is provided by using insitu
cast concrete. Therefore, it is absolutely
necessary to ensure that the composite system
can resist loads up to ultimate loads without
bond failures between precast and insitu cast
concrete. It is also important to ensure that the
composite slab can behave satisfactorily with
respect to serviceability limit state of cracking
and deflections. If satisfactory behaviour is
observed for a prototype slab which has been
designed for BS8110: Part 1: 1985 guidelines, it
would be possible to use those guidelines for the
design of similar composite slabs having
different spans and also supporting imposed
loads of different magnitudes.
FIGURE 1: PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB PANEL
2. OBJECTIVES:
The main objectives of the research presented
are:
1. To determine the actual load carrying
capacity of individual slab panels.
Dr. (Mrs.) C. Jayasinghe, Senior Lecturer, Depi of Civil
Engineering, University of Moratuwa
Dr. A. A. D .A. J. Perera, Senior Lecturer, Oept of Civil
Engineering, University of Moratuwa
2. To determine the load sharing characteristics Determination of the behaviour of a full scale
of precast panels when interconnected with model under ultimate and service loading was
insitu concrete. conducted by casting a composite slab of
dimensions 3.0m x 3.6 m with a precast beam
3. To determine the actual load carrying
at the centre as shown in Figure 4. Both the
capacity of the composite floor system.
ultimate and service loads were applied on the
4. Determination of effectiveness of floor full scale composite slab and the deflections
screed on the load sharing characteristics of were observed.
precast floor panels and also on reducing the
deflection of precast panels.
5. To determine the vibrational characteristics
based on deflection properties of composite
slab system.

3. METHODOLOGY fiGURE 4: ARRANGEMENT Of CRACK CONTROLLING

REINFORCEMENT PROVIDE WITHIN INSITU CAST CONCRETE
OVER MASONRY WALL
Load testing on individual precast slab panels
was carried out using the arrangement shown in 4. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
Figure 2. The panel was loaded with two point
FOR COMPOSITE SLABS
loading and the corresponding deflection was
observed for each loading step until failure. In order to fulfil the above objectives, a detailed
experimental programme was carried out.

'--T"r----~~~
1 .• Igirder 4.1 Testing of individual precast
-, panels
i 2~ialgaUge
T The individual precast floor panels should be
able to support the construction loads and the
fiGURE 2: TESTING ARRANGEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL
PRECAST SLAB PANEL loads at service when supported at the ends.
For this, load testing was carried out on
In order to determine the load sharing
individual precast slab panels. The precast
characteristics, five precast panels were used to
panels should be strong enough to carry the
form a slab of thickness 75 mm as shown in
loads during construction and at service. A
Figure 3. Two such composite slabs consisting
uniformly distributed imposed load of 1.5 kNI
of five panels were cast by supporting the
m2 can be considered for dwelling units. The
precast slab panels on walls. One of them was
concentrated load that could be expected at
provided with a screed concrete and the other
service is 1.4 kN (BS 6399 : Part 1: 1984). It is
without a screed concrete. These composite
shown later that an individual panel need to
slabs were loaded to the ultimate concentrated
carry only 2/3 of this load (Section 4.2). The
load and observed the load sharing
corresponding design bending moment due to
ch aractenstIcs b ase d on dfle ection 0f eac h pane. I
self weight of the slab and the imposed load can
X
_"""'I be calculated as 0.972 kNm (Section 4.1.2).
IAJ I+- precast slab panels
(supponed on masonry w:I.Ib)
The precast panels used for the load testing had
x~ ---"""" three 6 mm diameter mild steel bars provided in
XI£] .....---PaneIJ the longitudal direction and 6 mm diameter
mild steel bars at 150 mm c ic provided in the
transverse direction. These reinforcement
requirements were determined as specified in
BS 8110 :Part 1: 1985.
Plan view 1 ....__Load
4.1.1 Casting of precast panels
I

i o 1 Slab panels were precast using reusable moulds.

These moulds were made in such a way that the
Elevation
X Location of dial gauges moulds could be removed approximately 2
FIGURE 3: TESTING ARRANGEMENT FOR LOAD SHARING hours after the casting of concrete. The concrete

97
mix was 1:2:3:1 of cement, sand, 20 mm It can be seen from Table 1 that the maximum
aggregates and 8 mm chips. A reasonably well deflection corresponding to a load of 0.36
graded aggregate mix was obtained by mixing 8 Tonnes obtained from panel testing is 2.2 mm,
mm chips with 20 mm nominal size aggregates. thus less than span/250 (or 20 mm whichever is
Hand mixing was used for mixing of concrete to less) specified in Cl 3.4.6.3 of BS 8110 : Part 1
simulate typical site conditions prevailing at :1985 (1410/250 = 5.64 mm). Thus, the
small construction sites. deflection requirement can be satisfied even
when ultimate loads are acting on the panel.
4.1.2 Testing of individual precast panels
4.1.3 Cracks at service conditions
The testing of individual precast panels was
carried out using the arrangement shown in The minimum load that caused a crack of width
Figure 2 so that the span of the slab panel was 0.3 mm in these three slabs was 0.48 Tonnes.
1.41 m. This IDading creates a constant bending The location of the crack was close to the mid
moment in the mid region due to imposed loads span. This corresponds to a bending moment of
between the two point loads. Thus, the precast 1.23 kNm. This is much higher than the
slab is likely to fail at the weakest point in the maximum service bending moment caused by a
mid region. The results are given in Table 1. A load of 1.4 kN at the1centre which can be
typical load deformation curve for a panel is calculated as 1.4 x 1.44 + 0.523 x 1.4F /8 =
given in Chart 1. 0.623 kNm. This moment is less than the
cracking moment of 1.23 kNm and load sharing
It is shown that the design bending moment would further benefit as would be shown in
due to a concentrated load of 1.4 kN acting at Section 4.2. The dead load, of the precast panel is
the centre ?f a panel is 0.972, kNm (B.M. = 0.523 kN/m.
1.6x1.4x1.44 + 1.4 x0.523x1.41-/8). When the
panel is loaded with two point loading, this 4.1.4 Ultimate load carrying capacity
moment is caused by a total load of 0.358 Tonnes
(3.58 kN). The minimum ultimate load of the three panels
tested was 0.60 Tonnes. The maximum bending
TABLEl
moment due to 0.6 Tonnes acting at two points;
LOAD DEFORMATION RESULTS FOR PRECAST
SLAB PANELS = (0.6/2)x9.8lx0.47+0.523x1.4F /8 = 1.513kNm.
Load Deflection of Deflection of Deflection of The design ultimate moment due to self weight
(kg) panel No 1 (mml panel No 2 (rnrn) panel No 3 (rnrn and a load of 1.4 kN at the centre is 0.972 kNm.
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Thus the actual strength exceeds the required
40 0.04 0.08 0.00 ultimate strength by a considerable margin.
80 0.14 0.19 0.12 Load sharing as described in Section 4.2 would
120 0.28 0.27 0.18 further benefit this effect.
160 0.50 0.37 0.26
200 0.66 0.62 0.32 4.2 Testing of precast slabs for load
240 0.85 0.80 0.41
sharing
280 l.07 l.23 0.52
320 l.42 l.60 0.68 Although it is possible for a slab panel to carry
360 l.95 2.22 0.99 the design service loads without significant
400 2.84 3.24 1.37 deflection, it is important to ensure that precast
440 3.50 3.97 2.12 slabs behave as one unit when joined together
480 4.67* 5.23 2.84* with insitu concrete. For this purpose, the load
520 5.21 5.93 3.64 sharing characteristics of composite slabs were
560 6.05 6.80 4.24 determined.
600 10.77** 7.62* 4.88
8.16 5.54 4.2.1. Casting of composite slabs
640 -
680 - 8.92 5.98 In order to determine the load sharing
700 - Failure - characteristics, five precast panels were used to
720 - 6.53** form a slab of thickness 75 mm as shown in
load at first crack of 0.3 mm in width Figure 3. In order to prevent early thermal
failure load cracking and shrinkage cracking in insitu cast

98
concrete, the reinforcement similar to those TABLE 2
shown in Figure 4 was used. It was found that VARIATION OF DIAL GAUGE READINGS WITH CHANGES
the use of 20 mm crushed aggregates was not IN SURROUNDING TEMPERATURE
possible for the insitu cast concrete since at some
Temperature Dial gauge A Dial gauge B Dial gauge C
places the thickness of insitu concrete was (mm) (rnrn) (mm)
limited to 20 mm. Even when chips were used
28.0 30.55 10.88 5.86
as coarse aggregates, an extremely workable mix
with high cement content was required to 28.5 30.55 10.88 5.86
provide a satisfactory finish for insitu cast 29.0 30.55 10.88 5.87
concrete. Thus, the mix used for insitu concrete 30.0 30.56 10.88 5.87
was 1.5:2.5:3.5 of cement, sand and chips. Two 30.5 30.56 10.89 5.87
slabs consisting of five panels were cast by
supporting the precast slab panels on walls. In order to determine the load sharing
One of them was provided with a screed characteristics, a point load of 1.6 x 1.4 kN = 2.24
concrete of 1:3:3 cement, sand and 8 mm chips kN was applied at the central panel with 25 kg
to determine the effects ofa strong screed on load increments. Five minutes were allowed to
load sharing characteristics. It should be noted lapse between two consecutive load increments.
that the cost of this screed concrete is The load deflection readings obtained for this
approximately the same as 1:6 cement sand load test are given in Table 3.
mortar, since the cost of 8 mm chips is
approximately same as the cost of sand. TABLE 3
LOAD SHARING IN A PRECAST SLAB CONNECTED BY
Such screeds can be used instead of 1:4 or 1:5 INSITU CONCRETE WHEN AN INTERIOR PANEL WAS
cement sand for rendering purposes especially LOADED (WITHOUT A SCREED)
when tiles are used as the decorative floor finish.
Load Deflection (mm)
It is also possible to give a smooth floor finish
(kg)
for such screeds with cement float as usually
done with cement sand mortar renderings. Dial gauge A Dial gauge B Dial gauge C
loading un loading un un
4.2.2 Load testing of composite slabs loading loading loading loading
without screed 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
25 0.000 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
The load testing was carried out at an age of 50 0.025 0.010 O.OlD 0.010 0.010 0.010
about one month after casting. In load testing, it 75 0.005 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.015 0.015
is important to consider the effects of 100 0.0075 0.Q15 0.0175 0.020 0.020 0.020
movements caused by environmental 125 0.010 0.020 0.020 0.0225 0.025 0.Q25
temperature changes which can alter the 150 0.015 0.0225 0.0275 0.030 0.030 0.0325
thermal gradient across the depth of 175 0.020 0.025 0.0325 0.0325 0.035 0.035
construction. Thus, the slab formed by 200 0.020 0.0275 0.0375 0.0375 0.040 0.040
connecting five precast panels by insitu concrete 225 0.0225 0.030 0.040 0.045 0.045 0.0475
250 0.030 0.030 0.045 0.045 0.0525 0.0525
was left for 24 hours after fixing the dial gauges.
Dial gauge readings were recorded from 0800 It can be seen from the deflections that there was
hours until 1800 hours which was the duration a significant load transfer to the adjacent panels.
in which the load test readings were recorded. The ratio of load carried by each panel can be
The temperature readings and the variation of calculated using the equation given below
dial gauge readings are given in Table 2, where which gives the percentage of load carried by a
the dial gauges were mounted at locations A,B,C panel.
as shown in Figure 3.
Percentage of load carried
The values given in Table 2 indicate that there is
=~x
W, 10001 8,
=~xIOO% (Moss,1993)
a possibility for a change of about 0.01 mm in LW,
-;0,
L8,
the dial gauge reading due to a temperature
change of 2.5"C. Since, the temperature of the where Wr = the load on rth beam
laboratory remained within 28° C and 30 C n
o r
= the deflection of the rth beam
during the load testing, changes to dial gauge IW r
= sum of the corresponding beam
readings due to such temperature variation loads
were ignored. IO r
= the sum of corresponding beam
deflections

99
For example, the maximum deflections given in TABLES
Table 3 are 0.03 mm, 0.045 mm and 0.0525 mm LOAD SHARING CHARACTERISTICS OF PRECAST SLAB
for dial gauge locations A, Band C, respectively. PANELS WITHOUT A SCREED WHERE ONLY THREE
If a total of five panels share the loads, then the PANELS PARTICIPATE IN LOAD SHARING

load carried by the panel at the centre is 10.0525 Panel % load taken by a panel
/ (0.0525 + 2 x 0.045 + 2 x 0.03)1x 100% = 25.9%.
Panel2 31.5%
Panel3 37.0%
TABLE 4

LOAD SHARING CHARACTERISTICS OF PRECAST

SLAB PANELS WITHOUT A SCREED WHERE FIVE It may be reasonable to suggest that only 40% of
PANELS PARTICIPATE IN LOAD SHARING the concentrated load is taken by an interior
panel when a concentrated load acts on it with
Panel % load taken by a panel
the guidelines given in Cl5.2.2.2 of BS8110: Part
Panel 1 14.8% 1 : 1985being effective.
Panel 2 22.2%
Panel 3 25.9% There is a possibility for the concentrated load
to act on an edge panel where the precast panels
only on one side will participate in load sharing.
According to Table 4, it may be reasonable to In order to determine the load sharing
suggest that only 30% of the concentrated load characteristics under such circumstances, a
is taken by an interior panel when the point load of 1.6 x 1.4 kN = 2.24 kN was applied
concentrated load acts on it. In this case, a total on an edge panel with 25 kg load increments.
of five precast panels have participated in the The load deflection readings obtained for this
load sharing. Panel I, Panel 2 and Panel 3 are in load test are given in Table 6.
accordance with Figure 3.

However, the guidelines given in Cl 5.2.2.2of BS TABLE 6

8110: Part 1 : 1985 can be more restrictive than LOAD SHARING IN A PRECAST SLAB CONNECTED BY
this. For concentrated loads acting on slabs, the INSITU CONCRETE WHEN AN EDGE PANEL WAS LOADED
width of the slab assumed to contribute to the (WITHOUT A SCREED)
support of concentrated loads should not exceed
Load Deflection (mrn)
the width of three precast units and joints plus (kg)
the width of the loaded area. This means that it
is safer to assume that only three panels Dial gauge A Dial gauge B Dial gauge C
participate in load sharing. loading un loading un un
loading loading loading loading
There is an additional restriction in the same
0 0.000 0.0125 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
clause which states that the width of the slab
25 0.010 0.Q175 0.005 0.0125 0.005 0.000
supporting the concentrated load shall not
50 0.020 0.0275 0.010 0.015 0.0075 0.0025
extend more than a quarter of the span on either
75 0.030 0.040 0.0175 0.020 0.010 0.010
side of the loaded area. This width is (1500 - 40)
100 0.0425 0.050 0.Q25 0.0275 0.015 0.010
x 0.25 = 365 mm on each side for the slab under
125 0.055 0.060 0.0325 0.0475 0.020 0.020
consideration. With this restriction also, it may
150 0.065 0.070 0.0375 0.0475 0.0225 0.Q25
be reasonable to assume that three panels
175 0.075 0.085 0.045 0.055 0.0275 0.030
participate in load sharing. In this case, the total 200 0.090 0.095 0.055 0.060 0.030 0.035
width of 900 mm given by three precast panels 225 0.100 0.105 0.060 0.0625 0.035 0.035
consist of a width of 170 mm for the loaded area. 250 0.110 0.11 0.065 0.065 0.040 0.040

If these guidelines are considered, it may be

appropriate to consider that only three panels
participate in resisting the concentrated loads.
Thus, the load sharing characteristics can be
calculated considering deflections for the central
panel and the two panels on either side. For this
purpose, the load deformation data given in
Table 3 can be used. The load sharing values
under these conditions are given in Table 5.
The load sharing characteristics calculated by
considering that three panels participate in load
sharing are given in Table 7. The load sharing
characteristics calculated by considering that
only two panels participate in load sharing are
given in Table 8. In this case, the number of
panels participating in load sharing is in
agreement with Cl 5.2.2.2 of BS 8110 : Part 1 :
1985.

100
 TABLE 7 this case, a total of five precast panels have
LOAD SHARING CHARACTERISTICS WITH AN EDGE participated in the load sharing.
SLAB PANEL LOADED WHERE THREE PANELS TABLE 10
PARTICIPATE IN LOAD SHARING
(SLAB WITHOUT A SCREED) LOAD SHARING CHARACTERISTICS OF PRECAST SLAB
PANELS WITH A SCREED WHEN AN INTERIOR PANEL WAS
Panel % load taken by a panel LOADED WHERE ONLY THREE PANELS PARTICIPATE IN
LOAD SHARING
Panel 1 51.1%
Panel 2 30.2% Panel % load taken by a panel
Panel 3 18.7% Panel 2 31.6%
Panel 3 36.8%
TABLES It may be reasonable to suggest that only 40% of
LOAD SHARING CHARACTERISTICS WITH AN EDGE the concentrated load is taken by an interior
SLAB PANEL LOADED WHERE ONLY TWO PANELS panel when a concentrated load acts on it with
PARTICIPATING IN LOAD SHARING the guidelines given in Cl5.2.2.2 of BS 8110: Part
(SLAB WITHOUT A SCREED)
1 : 1985 being effective.
Panel % load taken by a panel TABLE 11
Panel 1 62.8% LOAD SHARING CHARACTERISTICS WITH AN EDGE
Panel 2 37.2% SLAB PANEL LOADED WHERE THREE PANELS
PARTICIPATE IN LOAD SHARING
(SLAB WITH A SCREED)
It may be reasonable to suggest that only 2/3 or
66.67% of the concentrated load is taken by an Panel % load taken by a panel
edge panel when a concentrated load acts on it Panel 1 50.0%
with the guidelines given in Cl5.2.2.2 of BS 8110 Panel 2 32.0%
: Part 1 : 1985 being effective. Panel 3 18.0%
TABLE 12
4.2.3 Load testing of composite slabs with
LOAD SHARING CHARACTERISTICS WITH AN EDGE
screed SLAB PANEL LOADED WHERE ONLY TWO PANELS
PARTICIPATE IN LOAD SHARING
Load sharing characteristics have been (SLAB WITH A SCREED)
determined on a composite slab with 1:3:3
cement sand and 8 mm chips screed. This Panel % load taken by a panel
screed could either be used as the base for tiling Panel 1 60.9%
or it could be given a smooth finish with cement Panel 2 39.1%
float. It may be reasonable to suggest that only 2/3 or
66.67% of the concentrated load is taken by an
In order to determine the load sharing
edge panel when a concentrated load acts on it
characteristics, a load test was carried out which
with the guidelines given in Cl 5.2.2.2 of BS 8110
was similar to that carried out for the slab : Part 1 : 1985 being effective.
without a screed. The results (deflection) of this
load test was used to determine the load sharing In practice, it is unlikely to specify different
characteristics. The results are given in Tables reinforcement details for edge panels and
9,10,11 and 12. interior panels when only normal site
TABLE 9 supervision is available. Therefore, it may be
safer to recommend that only 2/3 or 66.67% of a
LOAD SHARING CHARACTERISTICS OF PRECAST SLAB
concentrated load would be carried by a panel
PANELS WITH A SCREED WHEN AN INTERIOR PANEL WAS
LOADED WHERE FIVE PANELS PARTICIPATE IN LOAD when load sharing is available. This value can
SHARING be used for slabs with or without a screed for
both edge and interior panels.
Panel % load taken by a panel
Panel 1 12.0% 4.2.4 Deflection of a precast panel with load sharing
Panel 2 24.0%
It is necessary to show that the deflection of a
Panel 3 28.0%
panel subjected to a concentrated load is within
the allowable limits when load sharing is
It may be reasonable to suggest that only 30% of available. Then the maximum service bending
the concentrated load is taken by an interior moment due to a concentrated load of 1.4 kN
panel when the concentrated load acts on it. In can be calculated as follows.
101
Dead load = 0.3 x 0.075x24 = 0.54 kN / m
Superimposed dead load = 0.5xO.3= 0.15 kN/m
Service bending moment due to the
concentrated load assuming that 2/3 of the
imposed load is resisted by a panel
= 1(0.54 + 0.15) x 1.462/81 + 11.4x 0.667 x 1.46/
41 = 0.525 kNm
It would be possible to calculate the deflection
corresponding to a bending moment of 0.525
kNm by using the results obtained for load
testing of individual panels. This would be an
approximate 'calculation since the loading is
different. The relevant calculations are given
below.
0.525 = (W/2) x 0.47 + 0.523 x 1.412/8
W = 1.68 kN = 171 kg.
The maximum deflection corresponding to a
load of 200 kg (>171 kg) can be obtained from
Table 1. This value is 0.66 mm. This is much
lower than the allowable deflection of span/250
= 1460/250 = 5.84 mm. It can be seen from the
load deflection curve give'n in Chart 1 that in
this load range, the load deflection behaviour is
approximately linear.
4.3 Load testing of composite slab
system
When precast products are introduced, it is
important to ensure that those can be designed
using either existing or new mathematical
models. In this particular instance, it would be
useful to determine whether the composite slab
system can be designed by using the guidelines
given in BS8110: Part 1: 1985. These guidelines
could be used provided that the composite slab
consisting of precast units connected by insitu
concrete remains as one unit without any bond
failures between insitu and precast concrete
even when loaded to the ultimate limit state. If
this can be established, the guidelines given in
BS 8110 : Part 1 : 1985 are sufficient to design a
precast composite slab system of this nature for
other span lengths and any other imposed load
condition. In order to determine the actual
behaviour of a composite slab, a load test was
carried out on a full scale slab.
4.3.1 Casting of composite slab
A composite slab of 3.0 m x 3.6 m was
constructed as shown in Figure 5. An isometric
view of a similar system is given in Figure 6. In
102
order to simulate the actual conditions, a precast
beam was used at the centre. The panels were
supported on walls on either side and on the
centre beam. A length of 3.6 m was selected for
the beam since it is considered as the maximum
length that can be precast and lifted to the
position with ease by six people. The weight of
the beam is about 180 kg. The beam section
used is shown in Figure 6. The reinforcement
I
~ r---'
)( )( X
I 2
0;.,l.ug 30ntbe 61h p:ll[el
es
I--
-
1,2,3 - dial gauge locations
FIGURE 5: FULL SCALE MODEL OF THE COMPOSITE SLAB
spacer bars at 1.0 m intervals
6 mm mild steel bars provided to resist handling stresses
200mm
~ 125 mm. 10 mm diameter longitudinal reinforcement
FIGURE 6: REINFORCEMENT ARRANGEMENT FOR THE PRECAST BEAM
was determined as specified in BS 8110: Part 1:
1985. The arrangement of crack controlling
reinforcement is shown in Figure 7.
The slab construction involved the following
steps:
1. Construction of walls that supported the
precast slabs.
2. Placing of the precast beam on walls; for this
four people were involved. The time taken
was about half an hour.
3. Placing of precast slabs on the precast beam
and walls on either side to form the slab; for
this three people were involved and the time
taken was about one hour.
4. Placing of crack controlling reinforcement
and then placing of insitu concrete of
1.5:2.5:3.5cement, sand and 8 mm chips to
connect the precast components. For this,
two people were involved and the time
taken was about 4 hours.
Curing was started 24 hours after the casting of
the slab and was continued for 14 days.
4.3.2 Effects of temperature variation
In order to determine the effects of temperature
variation on the dial gauge readings of the
composite slab, readings of three dial gauges
fixed as shown in Figure 5 were monitored.
Since the laboratory used for the full scale model
testing was well sheltered, only small
temperature variations were recorded.
4.3.3 Load testing of composite slab
Twenty eight days after casting of insitu
concrete, a load test was carried out. There was
an important difference between a normal load
test that would be carried out for structural
appraisal of an existing slab and this particular
case. In a normal load test, the attention should
be focused on assessing whether the slab could
carry the dead and imposed loads with a
sufficient margin of safety. In this particular
case, the attention was focused on the behaviour
of the slab, specially the chances for
disintegration of insitu concrete from precast
concrete. Therefore, the ultimate load intended
to apply was not 1.25 x imposed load as
recommended in Cl 9.5.2 of BS 8110 : Part 2 :
1985, but 0.4 x dead load + 1.4 x superimposed
dead load + 1.6 x imposed load .. This is
equivalent to 1.4 gk + 1.6 qk' the ultimate load,
when self weight of the beam slab system was
considered. The corresponding loads can be
calculated as follows:
1. Dead load of the slab =::0.075 x 24 =::1.8kN/m2
2. Superimposed dead load =::0.5 kN/m2
3. Imposed load =::1.5 kN/m2
Total load required =::0.4 x 1.8 + 1.4 x 0.5 + 1.6 x
1.5 =::3.82 kN/m2
The load required over one panel of 0.3 m x 1.5
m =::0.3 x 1.5 x 3.82 =::1.719kN
For the load testing, gunny bags were filled with
25 kg of dry sand and arranged in such a way as
one bag to be spread over an area of
approximately 300 mm x 500 mm. Thus, when
the whole slab is covered by one layer of sand
bags, it involved six loading steps. The
equivalent load was 1.635 kN/m2 (0.025x 9.81/
(0.5 x 0.3)). At each load increment, deflections
of dial gauges placed at locations shown in
Figure 5 were recorded.
103
When the second layer of sand bags were
completed, the load was 3.27 kN / m2 (1.635x 2).
This is more than 1.25 times the addition of
design live load of 1.5 kN/m2 and an allowance
of 0.5 kN /m2 for finishes which is (0.5 + 1.5) x
1.25 =::2.5 kN / m-. Thus, the applied load is
30.8% more than the required. In order to
determine the performance of the slab at
ultimate limit state, a load of 3.82 kN /m2 should
be applied. This load is equivalent to 175 kg per
panel of area 0.3 m x 1.5 m. For the load test, a
total of 9 bags, each weighing 25 kg, were
applied over an area of 0.3 m x 1.5 m. The
corresponding load is 225 kg, which is more
than the estimated ultimate load by 28.5%.
Loading cycle No 1: Load the slab to ultimate
load given by three layers of sand bags. At the
end of each load increment, an interval of five
minutes was allowed before recording the
readings. There were 18 load increments for a
loading operation. Then the slab was unloaded
gradually following the loading sequence in the
reverse order.
The results of load test cycle No.1 is presented
in Table 13. The load deflection curves for all
three loading cycles are given in Charts 2,3 and
4.
,, , " ~,
,, ,
+r
'.
Chart 1: load deformation curve for precast slab panel No 1
•., ·+11+ H·
"~'I. -t-
H
F+
"
Chart 2: Deflection
--.
va load increment for the composite slab - Loading cycle No 1
 -4- +-1-
"~.-

'-~
+~~ ++
I I
r'
-r-!
-I
I" . --+ - +

- -~- 1-1---1-
-,. 1-+ -;

'. '.

Chart 3: Deflection vs load Increment for the composite slab: loading cycle No: 2 Chart 4: Deflectton va load Increment for the composlt slab: Loading cycle No: 3

The maximum deflection recorded at the centre The load test was carried out in the following
of a beam was about 0.72 mm as indicated in sequence as stated in Cl 9.5.2 of BS 8110 : Part 2 :
Table 13. The allowable deflection is given as 1985.
span/250 in BS 8110: Part 1 : 1985. In this case,
the allowable deflection is 3600/250 = 14.4 mm Loading cycle No 2: Repeat the load test as
at the centre of the precast beam. No cracks given in loading cycle No 1 with a lapse of at
were observed during the load test and it is least one hour from loading cycle No l.
unlikely for any cracks to occur with deflections Loading cycle No 3: Repeat the load test as
as low as 0.72 mm. above, but sustain the load for 24 hours before
In this load test, the recovery was very good. unloading.
The percentages of recovery are not calculated The deflection versus load increment Charts 2 to
since the total deflections observed are of quite 4 can be used to obtain the load deformation
low magnitude than the allowable values as behaviour as well. For this only four deflection
stated in CI9.5.4 of BS 8110: Part 2: 1985. readings can be used, which are at the load
TABLE 13
increments of 0,6, 12 and 18. These correspond
to the application of each layer of sand bags
DEFLECTIONS IN THE LOADING CYCLE NO 1 OF FULL
SCALE LOAD TESTING
covering the whole slab. It can be seen that the
load deformation behaviour given by the above
Load Deflection (mm) four points are approximately linear up to the
ncre- Dial gauge 1 Dial gauge 2 Dial gauge 3 ultimate design loads.
men!
loading un loading un loading un
loading loading loading 4.4 Conclusions of Load Testing
0 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.085 0.000 0.080
1 0.045 0.106 0.045 0.145 0.035 0.110 In the load testing carried out, precast panels
2 0.070 0.136 0.085 0.200 0.080 0.165 connected with insitu concrete are used to
3 0.120 0.186 0.125 0.240 0.100 0.180 determine the load sharing characteristics. The
4 0.135 0.206 0.155 0.275 0.145 0.230 load testing on a full scale model composite slab
5 0.160 0.236 0.170 0.295 0.150 0.240 was used to determine the behaviour when
6 0.165 0.246 0.180 0.315 0.175 0.265 subjected to ultimate loads.
7 0.210 0.356 0.235 0.370 0.200 0.295
8 0.235 0.386 0.285 0.420 0.250 0.345 4.4.1 Precast slab panels
9 0.320 0.426 0.315 0.460 0.260 0.365
0.495 0.415 The precast slab panels should be designed for
10 0.320 0.446 0.355 0.305
dead weight, construction loads, superimposed
11 0.360 0.466 0.370 0.515 0.315 0.420
0.530 dead loads and imposed loads. When designing
12 0.360 0.476 0.385 0.345 0.450
precast panels for concentrated imposed loads,
13 0.420 0.531 0.450 0.585 0.375 0.475
0.520 the effects of load sharing can be taken into
14 0.440 0.553 0.510 0.635 0.435
0.460 0.535 aCCOHnt. On the basis of results obtained, it is
15 0.510 0.585 0.560 0.665
0.580 suggested that only about 40% of a concentrated
16 0.530 0.590 0.630 0.700 0.535
0.555 load will be carried by an interior panel. For an
17 0.580 0.590 0.670 0.715 0.585
edge panel, this value will be about 2/3 or
18 0.585 0.590 0.705 0.720 0.605 0.610
66.67% with only the adjacent panel sharing the
load. Thus, 2/3 or 66.67% can be used for
104
design purposes, which gives a conservative
result for interior panels.
It was shown, that the load deflection behaviour
of a slab panel is almost linear for the bending
moments that can be expected under service
conditions. It was also shown that with a
structural screed laid on precast panels, the
deflection of panels can be reduced to a certain
extent. This reduction in deflection is in the
range of 40%. The load sharing characteristics
of slabs with a screed is more or less similar to
the slabs without a screed. Thus, it could be
stated that a strong screed could contribute to
improve the stiffness of precast slab panels,
which are connected with insitu cast concrete as
in this case.
4.4.2 Behaviour of composite slabs
The composite slab consisting of precast beams
and slabs connected with insitu concrete has
shown an excellent behaviour even under
ultimate limit state loads. Not a single crack
was developed by the composite slab system
even when loaded beyond the ultimate loads.
There were no bond failures between insitu and
precast concrete. This indicates that this
composite slab system can be designed with
confidence by using the guidelines and design
principles given in BS 8110 : Part 1 : 1985. This
will be extremely useful when the same slab
system is adopted in other buildings with
different magnitudes of imposed loads and also
with different span lengths.
4.5 Vibration Response of Precast
Composite Slab System
The problem of occupant induced vibrations in
buildings is one of growing importance. Until
recently, this problem was thought to be
confined to floors of timber or light steel
construction (William & Waldron, 1994). When
light concrete floors are used, those can be
sufficiently light and flexible to give rise to
levels of vibration where the resulting motions
may be of significant amplitude to cause
discomfort to building occupants. In Cl 2.2.3.5
of BS 8110 : Part 1 : 1985, it is stated that
discomfort or alarm to occupants due to
vibrations in flexible components should be
paid special attention.
Assessment of floor vibrations requires
knowledge of the level of vibrations that will
cause disturbance, the dynamic characteristics
105
of the floor and the response of the floor to
occupant loadings. For the proposed precast
beam slab system also, it was considered
appropriate to check the dynamic characteristics
by using a suitable method.
The dynamic characteristics of a floor is
generally stated by using the natural frequency
of vibration. An approach often used for one
way spanning composite floors was the
equivalent beam method in which a steel joist
and an appropriate width of floor is used to
calculate the section properties of a composite
floor. The natural frequency, fo' could then be
found by the formula for a simply supported
beam.
where
E = elastic modulus
I = second moment of area of the equivalent
section (transformed to a single material)
m = mass per unit length
= the span of the slab
It was stated by William and Waldron (1994)
that the equivalent beam method can
underestimate the correct frequency for concrete
floors by about 50%.
For the present study, a different approach is
adopted since the actual deflection
measurements are available as load test results.
It was stated by Schuller (1990) that the natural
period of vibration of a floor (T) could be
estimated by treating the uniformly loaded
structure as an equivalent one degree system, as
in the case of an inverted pendulum. For a
single degree system, the following
relationships could be used to find the
fundamental natural period (T).
T = 21r~~ = 21r~~g = 2.006..{i. = c..{i.
where,
~ = the maximum static deflection caused by
dead and live loads when vibrating
W = the weight of the structure
m = the mass of the structure
k = the stiffness of the structure.
The value of constant C is generally less than
2.006 and varies between 1.6 to 2.006 with 1.87
being a recommended value for most of the
 floors. For the proposed slab, C = 2.006 was
used since it gives a maximum value for the
natural period. A natural period of vibration
above 0.2 seconds can lead to resonance.
The service loads on the composite slab consist
of a self weight of 0.075 x 24 = 1.8 kN /m 2
(ignoring the self weight of the beam), a
superimposed dead load of 0.5 kN /m2 and an
imposed load of 1.5 kN/m 2 • The corresponding
maximum static deflection can be obtained from
the results of the load test.
The total loads of the slab = 1.8 + 0.5 + 1.5 = 3.8
kN/m 2
The corresponding load acting on an area of 0.3
m x 1.5 m = 3.8 x 0.3 x 1.5 = 1.71 kN.
The instantaneous deflection observed during
load testing due to a load of 150 kg on an area of
0.3 m x 1.5 m is 0.385 mm. This can be obtained
from Table 13 where a 150 kg load corresponds
to 12th load increment.
The deflection corresponding to a load of 1.71
kN over 0.3 m x 1.5 m area can be calculated
assuming that the slab behaves linearly elastic.
Thus, the corresponding deflection is (0.385 x
1.71)/(0.15 x 9.81) = 0.447 mm. The natural
period of vibration corresponding to a
deflection of 0.447 mm is 2.006 x (0.000447) =
0.0424 seconds.
The estimated natural period of vibration of the
floor system is only 0.0424 seconds. This is
much lower than 0.2 seconds considered as the
limiting value. Thus, there is no possibility for
resonance which can lead to amplification of
vibrations. Another useful aspect of this floor
system is that the deflections obtained are
extremely small giving low deflection/ span
values. For this floor, the deflection/span ratio
under service conditions is 0.447 /3600 = 1/8053.
Thus, the amplitude of vibrations will also be
extremely small. This means that the chances of
vibrations of such amplitudes being felt by
occupants would also be very remote.
Therefore, it may be reasonable to suggest that
the composite slab system will not have any
undesirable vibrational behaviours under
service loads.
4.6 Conclusions
It is shown that the precast composite slab
system can be adopted as a floor slab by
performing detailed design calculations as
106
View publication stats
specified in BS 8110 : Part 1 : 1985. The
behaviour of individual precast panels were
experimentally determined and it was shown
that the load deformation behaviour would be
extremely satisfactory.
The behaviour of a full scale model of a
composite slab was checked with load testing.
This slab consisted of a precast beam and slab
panels connected by insitu cast concrete. It was
found that the behaviour was quite satisfactory
with low deflections even when loaded beyond
the ultimate design loads. It did not show any
kind of bond failures between insitu cast and
precast concrete even when loaded beyond the
ultimate limit state loads. Thus, it could be
stated that the composite precast reinforced
concrete beam slab system can be designed with
confidence in accordance with the guidelines
given in BS 8110: Part 1 : 1985.
Although this slab system can be considered as
light weight, it will not have any undesirable
vibrational characteristics since the stiffness of
the composite slab system is quite high.
5. REFERENCES
BS 6399: Part 1: 1984, Code of practice for dead
and imposed loads, B.S.I., London.
BS 8110 : Part 1 : 1985, British Standard for
Structural Use of Concrete, B.S.I., London.
BS 8110 : Part 2 : 1985, British Standard for
Structural Use of Concrete, B.S.I., London.
Bungey, J. H. (1982), The Testing of Concrete in
Structures, Surrey University Press, United
Kingdom, 207 p.
Jayasinghe C. (1999), Alternative Building
Materials and Methods for Sri Lanka, PhD Thesis.
Moss R. M., (1993), "Load testing of beams and
block concrete floors", Proceedings of Institute
Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings, 99,
May, pp 211-223.
Schueller, W., Vertical building structure, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, U.S.A., 658 p .
Williams, M. S., Waldron, P. (1994), "Evaluation
of methods of predicting occupant induced
vibrations in concrete floors ", The Structural
Engineer, Vol. 72, No. 20, pp 334-340.