European Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-216X Vol.58 No.4 (2011), pp.582-592

© EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2011
http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm

Flexural Behavior of Lightweight Concrete Beams

Muyasser M. Jomaa’h
Civil Engineering Department – University of Tikrit

Hosam A. Daham
Civil Engineering Department – University of Tikrit
E-mail: Hosam_abdcivil@yahoo.com

Saad M. Rao’of
Civil Engineering Department – University of Tikrit

Abstract

This paper presents an investigation on the flexural behavior of reinforced concrete

beams produced from limestone aggregates. A total of 6 beams with varying limestone
course aggregate ratios (The percentages of replacement of natural aggregate with
limestone aggregate were 0%, 50%, and 100% take average of each 2 beams) were
fabricated and tested. Data presented include the deflection characteristics, cracking
behavior, and development of the strains in steel bars. The investigation revealed that the
flexural behavior of reinforced normal weight concrete beams was comparable to that of
other lightweight concretes and the experimental results compare reasonably well with the
F.E method. This comparison between analytical and experimental results confirms that the
proposed numerical analysis method is appropriate for estimating failure behavior for
normal and lightweight RC of beams.

Keywords: Lightweight Concrete Beam, Flexural Behaviour

1. Introduction
Since concrete is the most important part in structural construction, the aggregate content should be in
a form of good strength for structural purposes. The aggregate itself is categorized as fine and course
aggregate. Density of the normal concrete is in the order of 2200 to 2600 kg/m3.This heavy self weight
will make it to some extent an uneconomical structural material. Attempts had been made in the past to
reduce the self-weight of concrete (the lightweight concrete density varies from 300 to 1850 kg/m3).
(1)
In this study, the scope of research will be focused on the use of coarse aggregate using
limestone material. Limestone is one of the aggregate to be used in concrete, other than that are granite,
basalt, Quardz, Gneis, Gabbro, Sand stone, Felsit ect. Limestone is produced from crushed quarry rock.
Production and processing involves mining rock from a suitable location then crushing, screening and
washing it to obtain the proper cleanliness and gradation. The aggregate is then stockpiled and finally
shipped to the site for use in a wide variety of construction applications.
Structural lightweight-aggregate concrete must be made with lightweight aggregates
conforming to ASTM C 330, and has a compressive strength not less than 17.2 MPa at 28 days of age.
Flexural Behavior of Lightweight Concrete Beams 583

Also weight of Structural lightweight-aggregate concrete must be not exceeding 1842 kg/m3 as
determined by ASTM C 567.

2. Literature Review
Lightweight concrete (LWC) is generally used to reduce the dead load of a structure, thus, to reduce
the risk of earthquake damages to a structure since the earthquake forces are proportional to the mass
of those structures (Yasar et al., (2)). It can also be used for load bearing structural elements (Kiliç et
al. (3)). The reduction in dead load of structure due to the use of LWC also results in a decrease in the
cross section of steel reinforced columns, beams, plates and foundations (Topcu, (4)).
Because of having large number of voids in the aggregate, LWC possesses a relatively higher
thermal insulating efficiency than the normal weight concrete (NWC). LWC can be used for both
structural and non-structural applications (Al-Jabri et al., (5)). A laboratory research (Gunduz, (6))
showed that the cube compressive strength of LWC concrete, having a 1376 kg/m3 fresh density made
with only pumice aggregate, rises up to 14 MPa at 28 days of curing time. A higher compressive
strength of LWC made with pumice is seemed to be impossible since the compressive strength of its
uncrushed stone restraints it. However, by adding some mineral admixtures, using higher dosage of
cement and superplasticizer and decreasing the water to cement ratio, make possible to produce
somewhat high strength LWC from scoria aggregates (Kiliç et al., (3)).Moreover, Al-Khaiat and
Haque, (7) produced a LWC concrete with a 50 MPa cube compressive strength and 1800 kg/m3 fresh
density.I˙lker Bekir Topc-ua and Tayfun Uygunog lu (8) Investigated physical and mechanical
properties of LWC produced with diatomite and pumice lightweight aggregates after autoclave curing
investigated.
The compressive strength of LWC depends on a variety factors. These are the strength of
aggregate stone, type of coarse, medium, fine and very fine aggregates, concrete composition, mineral
admixtures, cement quantity, water-cement ratio, curing conditions of hardening etc.

3. Experimental Program (Materials and Mix Proportions)

3.1. Materials
3.1.1. Limestone
In this research, the sample of aggregate (4 kilogram) is taken from Al-Siniya city at Salahdeen
Governorate as shown in figure (1). The test was carried out at laboratory of Tikret University. The
aggregate taken from that crushing factory was screened on a 25mm sieve and subjected to the tests in
order to ensure conformity of this material to the ASTM C330-00(9) requirements and recombined
according to the grading requirements for lightweight aggregates for structural concrete at ASTM
C330-00 as shown in table (1) In order to preclude segregation of a coarse aggregate.

Figure 1: Sample of limestone aggregate for Sieve Analysis Test.

584 Muyasser M. Jomaa’h, Hosam A. Daham and Saad M. Rao’of
Table 1: Position of Sieve size

Sieve size mm Cumulative passing % Cumulative passing % ,ASTM

25.0 mm (1 in.) 100 95–100
12.5 mm (1⁄2 in.) 35.82 25–60
4.75 mm (No. 4) 9.54 0–10

Several physical and chemical properties were determined for limestone coarse aggregate.
Table (2) shows the results of tests of chemical and mineral analysis of limestone aggregate.

Table 2: Chemical composition of limestone aggregate

Composition % by Weight
SiO2 65.41
CaO 8.87
SO3 0.31
Fe2O3 2.09
Gypsum 6.79

3.1.2. Normal Weight Coarse Aggregate

Normal weight natural course aggregate from Tikrit region was used as coarse aggregate. Before its
incorporation into the concrete mix, coarse aggregate was sieved on 25 mm sieve. The grading of the
coarse aggregate conformed to the requirements of ASTM C33-01(10) as shown in Table (3) ;Physical
and chemical tests on coarse aggregate used throughout this work are shown in Table (4).

Table 3: Grading of normal weight coarse aggregate

Sieve size Cumulative passing % Limit of ASTM c33-01

37.5 mm (11⁄2 in.) 100 100
25.0 mm (1 in.) 95.52 95 to 100
12.5 mm (1⁄2 in.) 33.67 25 to 60
4.75 mm (No. 4) 3.22 0 to 10
2.36 mm (No. 8) 1.09 0 to 5

Table 4: Chemical and physical properties of normal weight coarse aggregate

Properties Test Results

Specific gravity 2.60
Absorption % 2.3
Dry loose unit weight, kg/m3 1593
Sulfate content (as SO3), % 0.08

3.1.3. Fine Aggregate

These size fractions of aggregates are composed primarily of processed or naturally occurring cellular
materials of mineral origin which (a) are suited to the production of structural lightweight concrete, (b)
are properly graded with 85 to 100 percent passing the No. 4, (c) have a dry, loose weight not
exceeding (1120 kg/m3); and (d) comply with all other requirements of ASTM C 330. The analysis for
the grading of fine aggregate shall be within the limits specified as Table (5) below:-

Table 5: Grading of fine aggregate

Sieve size Cumulative passing % Limit of ASTM c330-00

9.5 100 100
4.75 91 100-90
2.36 75 95-60
Flexural Behavior of Lightweight Concrete Beams 585
Table 5: Grading of fine aggregate - continued

1.18 66 70-30
0.600 58 34-15
0.300 19.5 20-5
0.150 9.25 10-0
0.075 0.25 5-0

3.1.4. Cement
The concrete mix was made with Iraqi ordinary Portland cement type (UCC, TASLUJA), this type
used in all mixes throughout this work .Cement, sand and coarse aggregates were 1:2: 4 in proportion
by weight. The chemical and physical properties of this cement are present in Table (6). Test results
indicate that the adopted cement conformed to the Iraqi specification No. 5/1984. (10)

Table 6: Physical and chemical properties of cement

Limit of Iraqi specification No.

Oxides composition Content %
5/1984
Silica, SiO2 13.4 % 21 % Max.
Alumina, Al2O3 4.6 % 8 % Max.
Iron oxide, Fe2O3 ---- 6 % Max.
Magnesia, MgO --- 5 % Max.
Sulfate, SO3 1.1 % 2.8 % Max.
Loss on Ignition, (L.O.I) 0.95 % 4 % Max.
Insoluble material 1.05 % 1.5 % Max.
Lim Saturation Factor, (L.S.F) 0.9 (0.66-1.02)
Limit of Iraqi specification No.
Physical Properties Test Results
5/1984(46)
Specific surface area (Blaine method) 301.5 250 m2/kg lower limit
Setting time (vacate apparatus) 0:55 Not less than 45 min
Initial setting, hrs : min 7:00 Not more than 10 hrs
Final setting, hrs : min
Compressive strength MPa For 3-day 28.7 15 MPa lower limit

3.1.5. Steel Reinforcement

The reinforcing steel of the type Ukrainian deformed steel bars (10mm, 6mm).Table (7) shows the
details of steel reinforcements.

3.1.6. Water
Water shall comply with the requirements of ASTM; it shall be clean and free from materials
deleterious to concrete in the plastic and hardened state and shall be from a source approved by the
S.O.

3.2. Mix Proportions

For the purpose of the current investigation, LWA were used as full and half replacement for the
normal weight aggregate in the manufacture of lightweight concrete. The materials used in the mix
were Ordinary Portland Cement (ASTM Type 1), river sand, LWA and potable water. The properties
of LWA used are presented in Table 2 and 3. In addition, the properties of normal weight aggregate
were also provided for comparison purposes. All mixes had an ordinary Portland cement of 410 kg/m3
content, fine aggregate of 240 kg/m3 and (LWA) content of 976 kg/m3 and water content of 193 kg/m3
with a water/cement ratio of 0.47. The beam specimens were cast along with companion cubes in cast-
iron moulds of 150 mm cubes moulds to measure the compressive strength of concrete, figure (2) show
586 Muyasser M. Jomaa’h, Hosam A. Daham and Saad M. Rao’of

this Cubes. All the beams and companion cubes were compacted properly. Figure (3) show the cubic
test.

Figure 2: Cubes Moulds Figure 3: Cubic Test

3.2.2. Reinforced Concrete Beam Details

A total of 6 beams were fabricated and tested. The beams were designed as under-reinforced beams.
Two beams were have fully normal coarse aggregate (denoted with ‘NW’), the other two beams were
have fully light weight coarse aggregate (denoted with ‘LWAF’) and the last two beams were have
50% light weight coarse aggregate (denoted with ‘LWAH’). The width (B) and effective depth (d) of
the beams were maintained at 150 mm and 200 mm respectively for all beams. The beam details are
shown in Table (7) and Figure (4). The yield strength, fy for the tension steel bars were (404 N/mm2
for 6mm diameter bars and 414 N/mm2 for 10 mm diameter bars).

Figure 4: Tested Beam Details

200

100 120 500 200 500 120 100 150

All dimensions in (mm) Cross section

Table 7: Material Properties Used in the Beams.

Material Property Beam NW Beam LWAH Beam LWAF

Reinforcing Steel Yield Strength (MPa) 414 414 414
Young's Modulus (MPa) 200 ×103 200×103 200×103
Poisson's Ratio Area: 0.3 0.3 0.3
Top Reinforcement 2Ø10 2Ø10 2Ø10
Bottom Reinforcement 2Ø10 2Ø10 2Ø10
Stirrups Yield Strength (MPa) 404 404 404
Young's Modulus (MPa) 200 ×103 200 ×103 200 ×103
Poisson's Ratio 0.3 0.3 0.3
Area: Ø6@ 200mm Ø6@ 200mm Ø6@ 200mm
Concrete Young's Modulus (MPa) 27.57 ×103 19.48×103 16.16×103
Compressive Strength (MPa) 25 20.6 17.5
Flexural Behavior of Lightweight Concrete Beams 587

3.2.3. Beam Fabrication, Instrumentation and Testing

All the six beams were tested after casting in metal formwork (figure (5)) in a specially constructed test
frame for the purpose. The test set up is capable to test the beam specimen 1.5 m length. The beam,
supported on simple supports at 0.12m from both ends, is subjected to single-point loads. Before
testing commenced, a load cell was installed at the top surface of the mid-span for measuring the force
in (kN); dail gauge were used for measuring the mid-span deflections. The test was carried out using
1,000 kN hydraulic machine until failure.

Figure 5: Metal Formwork and Steel Reinforcements

3.2.4. Concrete (Stress-Strain Curve)

Two numerical expressions are used to predict the stress-strain curve for normal concrete using the
numerical expression suggested by Hognestad (11) given as:-
  ε   ε 
2

f c = f  2 
c
'
 −    for 0 (1)
  ε o   εo  
 ε − εo 
f c = f c' − 0.15f c'   for 0 < ε ≤ ε o (2)
 ε cu − ε o 
Another expression suggested by Desayi and Krishnan (12) is also used, given as:
, Where fc =stress in concrete, =peak concrete stress, =strain in concrete,

=strain corresponding to peak concrete stress, =ultimate concrete strain. And the initial tangent
modulus Eo is then computed as (Bangash (13))
dfc f c'
Eo = ε−o = 2
ds εo
For the lightweight concrete, Numerical expression (3) was used to construct the uniaxial
compressive stress-strain curve for lightweight concrete in this study
4 3
ε  ε  ε 
f c = (2β − 3) c  + (4 − 3β  c  + β  c  (3)
ε o  εo  εo 
In which fc is the concrete stress, εc is the concrete strain and β=Eitm
In the case of lightweight concrete, the equation to calculate elastic modulus, Eitm, proposed by
Wang et al (14) was eq.4
Eitm=2.1684 (4)
The concrete strain at peak stress, εo, in the case of lightweight aggregate concrete, was
calculated by (3) proposed by Almusallam and Alsayed (15).
ε o = (65.57f c'0.44 − 6.748) x 10 −5
588 Muyasser M. Jomaa’h, Hosam A. Daham and Saad M. Rao’of

in which is the concrete compressive strength. Once the value of is known, and Eitm can easily
be determined. Also the two input strength parameters, ultimate uniaxial tensile and compressive
strength, were needed to define a failure surface for the concrete. The poisson’s ratio for the concrete
was assumed to be 0.2. The shear transfer coefficient of open crack βt= 0.5 (16) and the shear transfer
coefficient of closed crack βc = 0.8 (16). Figure (6) show the stress-strain curve for normal and full,
half lightweight aggregate used in this study.

Figure 6: Stress-Strain Curve for Different Cases

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results
The tested beams (figure 7) and finite element ANSYS (17) results of force versus mid span
displacement curves of six specimens (average each two specimens) are shown in (Figure 8 a,b,c).
Finite element analysis results show similar trends to the tested results.
Figures show the comparison between the ANSYS calculated results and the tested results of
three specimens NW, LWAH, and LWAF. The analytical peak load values for the three specimens are
within 10 % bigger than their peak tested load values

Figure 7: Beam under Test

Flexural Behavior of Lightweight Concrete Beams 589
Figure 8: Load-Deflection Curve

(a) NW (b) LWAH

(c) LWAF

4.2. Deflection Behavior

From the load-deflection curve, four distinct stages can be defined for the all beams. The first
corresponds to the part of the curve up to the elastic limit. This stage the beam behaves elastically, and
the load-deflection relation is linear, the extent of this stage depends mainly on the physical properties
of the beams. In the second stage, flexural cracks formed, the change in slope of the load-deflection
curve was observed and this slope remained fairly linear until the third stage started which represent
redistribution of stresses in concrete, speared cracks in beams and beginning of steel work, then the
forth stage starting until yielding of the steel reinforcement took place, in this stage, it can be seen that
the load-deflection is a straight line toward horizontal when failure approaches. For NW the first stage
represents about 11.5% while second stage represents about 34.5 %, third stage represents about 46%,
and the forth stage represent about 8%. For LWAH the first stage represents about 13.5% while second
stage represents about 68 %, third stage represents about 13.5%, and the forth stage represent about 5
%. For LWAF the first stage represents about 15% while second stage represents about 44.7 %, third
stage represents about 30%, and the forth stage represent about 10.3 % .
590 Muyasser M. Jomaa’h, Hosam A. Daham and Saad M. Rao’of

4.3. Crack Pattern (Experimental and Theoretical)

The cracking pattern in all beams (NW, LWAH, and LWAF) can be obtained using the
Crack/Crushing plot option in F.E method. Concrete crack/crush plots were created at different load
levels to examine the different types of cracking that occurred within the concrete as shown in Figure
(9). The different types of concrete failure that can occur are flexural cracks, compression failure
(crushing), and diagonal tension cracks. Flexural cracks (Figure 9 a) form vertically up the beam.
Compression failures (Figure9 b) are shown as circles. Diagonal tension cracks (Figure 9 c) form
diagonally up the beam towards the loading that is applied.
The initial cracking of the beam in the FE model corresponds to a load that creates stress just
beyond the modulus of rupture of the concrete. The stress increases up then the first crack occurs. This
first crack occurs in the constant moment region, and is a flexural crack. In the non-linear region of the
response, subsequent cracking occurs as more loads are applied to the beam. Cracking increases in the
constant moment region, and the beam begins cracking out towards the supports. Also, diagonal
tension cracks are beginning to form in the model.
This study indicates that the use of a finite element program to model experimental data is
viable and the results that are obtained can indeed model reinforced concrete beam behavior reasonably
well.

Figure 9: Cracking Signs in Finite Element Models with Experimental Test: a) Flexural Cracks, b)
Compressive Cracks, c) Diagonal Tensile Cracks

Exp. Exp. Exp.

F.E.M. F.E.M. F.E.M.

(a) (b) (c)
Flexural Behavior of Lightweight Concrete Beams 591

4.4. Discussion on the Numerical Results

The comparison indicates that the finite element model used in this study is capable of predicting the
experimental behavior of the specimens when these are subjected to a concentrated load. Therefore, the
behaviors of normal and lightweight concrete beams are discussed in detail based on the numerical
results.

4.4.1. Development of the Strains in Steel Bars

The load–strain responses in longitudinal steel for three specimens are plotted by the finite element
results in figure (10). The load–strain responses for beams are captured well by the numerical
simulation.
The steel strains were measured at every load increments. From figure we can recognize three
stages, first stage at service loads; second stage at first cracks appears and spread these cracks in beam.
And the third stage represent the period of redistribution of stresses in beam just before yield of steel.
Table (8) shows the resultant of the strain in steel for these three stages.

Figure 10: Load-Strain Curve

Table 8: Strain Resultant in Steel for Different Cases

Beam Type First Stage Second Stage Third Stage

NW 0.00003 - 0.000045 0.00008 - 0.00024 0.00024 - 0.00112
LWAH 0.00003 - 0.000045 0.00008 - 0.00048 0.00048 - 0.0013
LWAF 0.00003 - 0.000045 0.00008 - 0.00052 0.00052 - 0.0015

5. Conclusion
The test conducted in this study on normal weight concrete NW and lightweight concrete LWAH;
LWAF may be finished with the following conclusions;
The results of this study show that the elastic stage and beginning of first cracks stages of
normal weight concrete beams was smaller than others stages. While the results of the lightweight
concrete beams show this stage was longer than other stages. The steel for lightweight concrete beams
yielded before the steel in normal weight concrete beams. Also we can conclude that the same behavior
of cracks spread, appears of crush in concrete, and failure behavior for lightweight and normal weight
of reinforced concrete beams but at different loads.
The presented finite element model is capable of producing results in good agreement with
previous published test results and it can be confidently used in design and analysis situations.
592 Muyasser M. Jomaa’h, Hosam A. Daham and Saad M. Rao’of

Reference
[1] M.S. Shetty, “Concrete Technology, Theory and Practice” 16th edition 2005, published by
S.Chand and Company Ltd., pp.504-506,510,516.
[2] Yasar E, Atis CD, Kilic A, Gulsen H. “Strength Properties of Lightweight Concrete Made with
Basaltic Pumice and Fly Ash”. Mater. Lett. 2003, 57: 2267-2270.
[3] Kiliç A, Ati_ CD, Ya_ar E, Özcan F. “High Strength Lightweight Concrete Made with Scoria
Aggregate Containing Mineral Admixtures”. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33: 1595-1599.
[4] Topcu IB. “ Semi-Lightweight Concretes by Volcanic Slags”. Cem. Concr. Res. 1997, 27: 15-
21.
[5] Al-Jabri KS, Hago AW, Al -Nuaimi AS, Al -Saidy AH. “Concrete Blocks for Thermal
Insulation in Hot Climate”. Cem. Concr. Res. 2008, 35: 1472-1479.
[6] Gunduz L. “The Effects of Pumice Aggregate/Cement Ratios on The Low-Strength Concrete
Properties”. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22: 721-728.
[7] Al-Khaiat H, Haque MN. “Effect of Initial Curing on Early Strength and Physical Properties of
Lightweight Concrete”. Cem. Concr. 1998, Res. 28: 859-866.
[8] I’lker Bekir Topc-ua, Tayfun Uygunog lu, “Properties of Autoclaved Lightweight Aggregate
Concrete” Building and Environment, Vol. 42, 2007, pp. 4108–4116.
[9] ASTM C330– 00, “Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Structural Concrete"
[10] ASTM C 33 – 01, “Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates" (I.O.S), Iraqi specification
No. 5/1984.
[11] Hognestad, E.A.,. “A Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load on Reinforced Concrete
Members”, Eng. Exp. Station, Bull. No. 399, University of Illinois, Urbana Illinois, 1951,
49:22.
[12] Desayi, P. and S. Krishnan,. “Equation for Stress Strain Curve of Concrete”, Int. ACI. Proc.,
1964, 3:345-350
[13] Bangash, M.Y.H.,. “Concrete and Concrete Structures: Numerical Modeling and Applications”,
Elsevier Applied Science, London and New York. (1989)
[14] Wang P.T., Shah S.P., Naaman A.E.. "Stress-Strain Curve for Normal and Lightweight
Concrete in Compression". American Concrete Ins. J. Proceeding, 75(11), 1978, pp.603-614.
[15] Almusallam T.H., Alsayed H.. "Stress-Strain Relationship of Normal, High-Strength and
Lightweight Concrete". Magazine of Concrete Research, 47 (169),
[16] Al-Darzi S. Y. Kasim “Effect of Concrete Nonlinear Modeling on The Analysis of Push-Out
Test by Finite Element Method” Journal of Applied Sciences ISSN, 743-747,2007
[17] Saeed Moaveni "Finite Element Analysis Theory and Application with ANSYS", Prentice Hall
International Series, 3rd Edition, 2008.