Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Engineering Advance

Design innovation, efficiency and applications of structural insulated panels: T

A review
Y.H. Mugahed Amrana,b, , Mohamed El-Zeadanic, Yeong Huei Leed, Yee Yong Leee, G. Muralif,
⁎

Roman Feduikg
a
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, 11942 Alkharj, Saudi Arabia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and IT, Amran University, 9677 Quhal, Amran, Yemen
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
d
Department of Civil and Construction Eng., Faculty of Eng. and Science, Curtin Uni. Malaysia, 98009 Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia
e
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota, Sarawak, Malaysia
f
School of Civil Engineering, SASTRA Deemed to be University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India
g
Department of Hydraulic Engineering and the Theory of Constructions, Far Eastern Federal Uni., 690091 Vladivostok, Russia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Structural insulated panels (SIPs) have been applied in building structures as curtain walls since the early 1960s,
Structural insulated panel where the panels typically deliver sufficient composite action to satisfy structural specifications. SIPs have an
Sandwich panel insulation layer that provides high thermal resistance and is placed between concrete wythes and joined using
Steel-concrete-steel mechanical connectors. The need for improved thermal performance and structural efficiency in building con-
Plywood
struction has accelerated the development of precast concrete panels over the past several years. Moreover,
Concrete wythes
innovative high-performance concrete has allowed for lighter and thinner concrete wythes that are capable of
Insulation
Shear connector transferring shear loads between panel layers and minimising localized heat loss. This has encouraged many
Compositeness engineers and builders, in recent years, to utilize current developments in SIP technology for building con-
struction. As such, a systematic review of SIPs is indeed timely and this paper provides a thorough examination
of the design innovation, design geometry components, formulation, degree of compositeness, and properties of
SIPs. Additionally, insights on SIP design and applications were also given to ensure adequate efficiency,
structural integrity, sustainability, comfort, and safety of housing occupants.

1. Introduction
During the 1930s, structural insulated panels (SIPs) were developed
to design and fabricate sandwich panels using stressed-skin for building
construction in the United Kingdom. In 1947, SIPs were manufactured
using plywood as load-bearing wythes sandwiched with paperboard.
Sandwich panel technology before 1960 was limited to aerospace ap-
plications and large scale load-bearing concrete panels constructed as
shell system components for residential buildings in England [1]. In the
later part of 1960, SIPs were used in a number of alternative applica-
tions, such as in buildings, refrigerated storages, and automobile and
shipbuilding industries. It was reported that polystyrenes rigid foams
were used as core material while concrete, plywood and metal sheets
were used to shape SIP wythes. SIPs now fall under the category of
smart industrial building systems (IBS) (Fig. 1) which are widely used
for designing multi-models for easy adaption of prefabricated precast
wall panels to any layout in building construction [2–4]. The global
boom in IBS manufactured construction elements for varied applica-
tions recorded unprecedented prosperity during the 1970s and early
1980s, and the first patent on precast concrete sandwich panels (PCSP)
was recorded by [5] in 1995. A PCSP consists of two concrete wythes
sandwiched with lightweight foam core material in between. The
wythes are connected by either a steel shear connector [6,7], rigid
concrete bridge [8], Glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) [9,10], or

Abbreviations: SIP, Structural insulated panel; CFRP, Carbon fibre reinforced polymer; EPS, Expanded polystyrene; FC, Ferro-cement; SCS, Steel-concrete-steel; UDL,
Uniform distributed load; WWM, Welded wire mesh; OSB, Oriented strand board; RSB, Reinforced steel bar; IBS, Industrial building system; LFC, Lightweight foamed
concrete; NC, Normal concrete; RCSP, Reinforced concrete sandwich panel; PCSP, Precast concrete sandwich panel; PUR, Polyurethane; HSC, High strength concrete;
UHPC, Ultra high performance concrete; FRP, Fibre reinforced polymer; AAC, Autoclaved aerated concrete; GFRP, Glass fibre reinforced polymer; SCC, Self-com-
pacting concrete; VIP, Vacuum insulated panel; GRC, Glass-fibre reinforced concrete; XPS, Extruded polystyrene; FEM, Finite element model
⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, 11942 Alkharj, Saudi Arabia.
E-mail addresses: m.amran@psau.edu.sa, mugahed_amran@hotmail.com (Y.H. Mugahed Amran).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.07.044
Received 30 March 2020; Received in revised form 17 May 2020; Accepted 21 July 2020
Available online 29 July 2020
2352-0124/ © 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al.
Fig. 1. Smart IBS [22].
Fig. 2. Eco-friendly and waterproof SIP wall [23].
carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) [11]. These typical shear
connectors can reduce around 40% of the panel thermal performance
and have the capability to hold concrete wythes together to behave as a
single layer (solid panel) [12]. The panels’ structural behavior is gov-
erned by their stiffness and the strength of the shear connectors, while
the insulation layer controls the thermal insulation performance of
sandwich panels. Sandwich panels, depending on the type of shear
connector used, can behave as semi-composite, non-composite, or fully
composite and this affects the load transfer mechanism of the panels
[9]. Furthermore, PCSP wythes can be formulated using different ma-
terials such as normal concrete [6,7,9,11,13,14], shotcrete concrete
[1,15], steel sheet as skins [16–19], and oriented strand board (OSB)
[20], given that they satisfy the thermal, structural and engineering
design requirements. Studies have reported that sandwich panels pro-
vide sufficient thermal and structural efficiencies, as well as aesthetic
characteristics for various types of structural concrete applications
[21]. As such, sandwich panels have been used as a main outer shell,
interior partitioning wall (Fig. 2), and as floor and roofing systems of
1359
Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379
low to medium rise buildings.
Sandwich panels are commonly designed as precast, prestressed and
non-prestressed, depending on the gravity loads that need to be carried
and transferred. For a multi-storey building, sandwich panels can be
designed as load bearing, while for a single storey building, such panels
can be designed as non-load bearing [21]. In recent years, PCSPs are
intensively used due to their superior characteristics; for instance,
proven durability, high quality, excellent integrity, ability to be as-
sembled easily, and attractive appearance [24]. In addition, several
complexities influence the behaviour of PCSPs, such as material non-
linearity, connection intricacy [25], and interaction between structural
components, leading researchers to extensively investigate such sys-
tems [26]. To meet the demands of this technological era, SIPs may
serve as a sustainable construction material due to their lightweight and
thermal insulation properties. Furthermore, due to a high incremental
interest in SIPs (Table 1), this paper provides a systematic review on the
design innovation, design geometry components, formulation, degree of
compositeness, and properties of SIPs. Furthermore, this paper aims to
review current SIP applications and give insights to enhance their de-
sign efficiency and thermal performance.
2. Design formulation of SIPs
The typical configurations of precast sandwich panels are concrete-
EPS/XPS–concrete, steel–concrete-steel (SCS) and OSB-concrete-OSB
(Fig. 3). Each type is developed to achieve best functionality and re-
main sustainable for green building construction. Moreover, many
factors influence the acceleration of production at construction in-
dustries, including the availability and purchasing of materials, the
number of fabrication machines, and industry area space to allow suf-
ficient time for the prefabricated panels to achieve curing before
moving on to the next batches. Table 2 summarises certain types of
PCSP used to construct wall and slab system applications.
2.1. Concrete-polystyrenes-concrete
In the 1960s, the first set of precast concrete sandwich wall panel
was designed with a double tee that acted as a full-composite aided
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379

Table 1 Table 2
Green and sustainable building initiatives across the world. An extensive review of PCSPs under different loadings.
Country Year Achievement to date Green building Specimen materials Type of test No of Desirable Ref.
database conducted panel system
tested application
United Kingdom 1990 – BREEAM
United States 1993 – Green/IGCC/LEED PC- EPS, XPS-PC Vertical and 6 Wall system [11]
France 1996 16,000 HQE lateral
Finland 1998 – PromisE Steel-LWC-steel Quasi-static 8 Wall beam [19]
Italy 2000 – Protocollo Itaca system
Canada 2000 Projects, 2576 Canada, Green/LEED FC-LWFC-FC Axial and 36 Wall and slab [48]
Mexico More than 94,000 Mexico, LEED flexural systems
Korea 1786 KGBC NPC- EPS,XPS-NPC Axial 50 Wall system [21]
Australia 2003 1900 green rated Green star NC-polystyrene-NC Flexural 6 Slab system [49]
Netherlands – BREEAM Netherlands
Japan 2004 Greater than 500 CASBEE NC-EPS-NC Flexural (service 6 [50,51]
buildings load)
Portugal 2005 Lider A NC-EPS, XPS-NC Flexural (UDL) 9 [52]
New Zealand 153 buildings Green Star NZ NC-polystyrene-NC Shear 8 [53]
Singapore More than 360 projects Green Mark Axial 8 Wall system
Republic of Czech – SB Tool CZ Eccentric 8
China 2006 – Globes GBAS Compression 6
Germany 2007 2800 certificates DGNB Shotcrete - Shear 3 Slab system [54]
India More than 4794 Indian government polystyrene - Flexural 2
buildings Shotcrete 10 [15]
South Africa – Green Star SA Steel-NWC,LWFC- Tension 6 [40]
Malaysia 2008 Greater than 300 projects Green building index Steel Shear 6
Indonesia 2009 – Indonesian NC-polystyrene-NC Axial 3 Wall system [55]
government Steel-LWFC-Steel Axial 6 [18]
Hong Kong Greater than 1000 HKBEAM NC-polystyrene-NC Flexural 6 Slab system [6]
Jordan – EDAMA NC-EPS-NC 4 [56]
United Arab Emirate – Estidama NC-XPS-NC Push-out 14 Wall system [57]
Brazil 2010 Projects, 1308 registered Brazil, Aqua/LEED PC- polystyrene -PC Axial 16 [58]
Steel-FRFC,PFC-Steel Flexural 6 Slab system [17]
OSB-EPS-OSB Bending 8 Wall system [29]
NC-polystyrene-NC Axial 6 [7]
NC-polystyrene-NC Axial and 8 [59]
bending
GFRP-polystyrene- Flexural 10 Slab system [60]
GFRP
Steel-LWFC-Steel Axial 12 Wall system [16]
10 [18]
Steel- XPS -Steel Flexural 19 Slab system [61]

Fig. 3. Design concept of SIP formulation [27].

with solid concrete zones. A sandwich panel consists of two interior and
exterior concrete wythes having high strength sandwiched in between
with a low material strength as shown in Fig. 4. Sandwich panels’
thermal conductivity depends on the U-value of the insulation material
called expanded (EPS) or extruded polystyrenes (XPS) foam, while the
structural efficiency and rigidity is governed by the shear connectors
and the reinforcements of concrete wythes [9,21,28,29]. As such, shear
connectors must have appropriate strength and stiffness to bound
Fig. 4. Concrete-polystyrenes-concrete SIP [31].
concrete wythes together as one solid unit. Also, shear connectors
should be designed with enough cross-sections connected from the
middle of the outer concrete wythes to the inner wythes, thereby conductivity, eco-friendly nature, and high apparent aesthetic value
crossing the insulated layer [30]. Furthermore, the thickness and con- [6,10,26]. Engineers and builders in construction are more likely to use
crete strength of wythes have a major impact on the integration of the PCSPs as compared to steel–concrete-steel (SCS) and oriented strand
concrete sandwich panel as a whole. board (plywood) sandwich panels, as SCS panels suffer from corrosion
PCSPs are widely used due to their advantageous properties, such as and their outer steel face plates are susceptible to wrinkling and local
ability to suit various structural requirements, low thermal buckling, which limit the range of loads that can be resisted. As for

1360
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al.
Fig. 5. SCS SIP - UK homes [45].
plywood-concrete composite panels, they suffer from wetness and en-
vironmental decay [12,20,32]. Indeed, PCSPs are well-known as the
most thermally and structurally efficient system utilized for exterior
walls in multi-storey buildings and other construction infrastructure.
2.2. Steel-concrete-steel
SCS panels, as shown in Fig. 5, basically comprise two outer steel
face sheets sandwiched with either lightweight/normal concrete or
polystyrenes as core material. SCS panels have been in use since the
1980s to assemble harbour and port facilities [33–35]. The most pri-
mary applications of SCS panels are in ship hulls, gravity seawalls,
offshore decks, retaining walls, tube tunnels, floating breakwaters,
nuclear and liquid containers, bridge decks, and structures resistant to
explosions and impact loads [33,36–39]. The benefits of this system are
mainly derived from utilizing the outer steel face sheets as permanent
formwork [40].
Several shear connectors are required to join the outer steel face
plates together, and those shear connectors cross the insulated concrete
thickness. The most common shear connectors of SCS panels are angle
shear connectors [18,37], Bi-steel shear connectors [41], headed shear
connectors [37] and J-shear connectors [42]. Moreover, these shear
connectors display a limited performance when used in panels sub-
jected to shear force as they are not welded to the steel plates as in the
case of the Bi-steel connectors, which are considered the most effective
and functional connector among the other prototypes. Furthermore,
previous studies have focused mainly on investigating SCS panels under
flexural loads (e.g. static and quasi-static loads) and axial loads as
shown in Table 2, and results have shown that the thickness of the outer
steel face plates have a major impact on the overall behaviour of SCS
panels. For instance, the thicker the steel face-plates, the more resistant
they are to applied loads and vice versa; however, the structural per-
formance of the panel is governed by the shear connectors used to hold
the steel sheets together which allows the panel to act as a single solid
unit [34,35,40,43,44]. In general, steel acts as the permanent formwork
for SCS SIPs and is typically able to achieve the required structural
performance.
1361
Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379
Fig. 6. OSB faced SIP - Scotland homes [47].
2.3. OSB-rigid foam-OSB
Plywood composite panels (Fig. 6), also known as OSB-Poly-
styrenes-OSB sandwich panels, are an innovative product for structural
building elements introduced in the mid-1930s, and they comprise full
outer plywood skins called OSB or plywood. In this sort of layered
panel, the insulation material used is generally EPS, XPS or poly-
isocyanurate, and those insulation layers are fully encompassed with
the outer plywood skins that appear after casting as a box filled up by
insulated polystyrenes. In practice, OSB-Polystyrenes-OSB panels are
used to construct floor and roof system components with limited ca-
pacity to resist transverse loads [46]. In other words, when a panel is
installed in a horizontal direction, it must be supported with rafter and
joints while the ultimate distributed load is applied upon the upper OBS
skin to behave as a compression member, while the lower OSB skin
behaves as tension member. Therefore, the panel acts as an “I” steel
beam under horizontal loads [20]. However, when the panel is sub-
jected to vertical and axial loads, studs are practically used to sustain
load transfer from either floor or roof elements. The panel depends on
the OSB skins stiffness to carry vertical loads. Furthermore, builders,
engineers, architects and researchers have reported that the resistance
to lateral loading is governed by the connection of the panels to form a
complete structural frame, and shear connectors’ capacity is sig-
nificantly required to enhance the compositeness of sandwich panels
[29]. Moreover, whenever a building is assembled with this type of
structural system, it is referred to as green housing or sustainable
building system due to its eco-friendly characteristics.
3. SIP components
3.1. Overall thickness
Reducing the thickness of PCSPs is a main focus of current research
and results in resource savings and increased efficiency [62,63]. Fur-
thermore, maintaining the thermal and structural performances of these
panels while attempting to reduce their thicknesses is also vital to en-
sure risk-free and effective cladding elements [64]. Thin elements of
PCSPs are possible to achieve by utilizing composite action and using
anti-corrosive bars. For instance, a wide range of investigations have
concentrated on reducing the weight and thickness of panels with such
techniques, while also guaranteeing high structural and thermal per-
formance [65]. It has been observed that an 80 mm thickness is needed
to afford adequate concrete cover to the entrenched steel bars in or-
dinary concrete wythes [66]. Panels with less than the minimum
standard thickness of concrete wythes are considered an advancement
in thin-PCSP systems design [63]. Moreover, having two wythes of
concrete react together in bending (a fully composite system) would
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379

Table 3
Overall thickness of several works reported by researchers worldwide.
Overall thickness (mm) ‘Wythe thickness (mm) Ref.

Outer Inner Insulation Concrete Reinforcement Connector

65 5 each EPS UHPC Steel fibres None [73]

70 10 each None TRC AR-Glass Mesh Profiled steel sheet [74]
90 Wool GRC Glass fibre Ribs [75]
110 EPS None [76]
15 30 VIP TRC GFRP/CFRP GFRP I sections [77]
120 20 each VIP + PF Insulation [78]
10 each EPS Geopolymer CFRP grid [79]
155 25 40 UHPC Glass fibres CFRP grid [74]
180 15 each PUR GRC AR-Glass Mesh Ties, pins and steel [80]
None [81]
200 25 each FC RPC CFRP GFRP truss-shaped [82]
220 30 each XPS/PUR/EPS Ultra-high strength concrete GFRP/CFRP GFRP plates/ CFRP grid/pins [83]
280 40 80 PUR [84]
230 30 50 FC TRC GFRP grid / CFRP pins [85]
350 30 each PF/EPS TRC BFRP BFRP grid [86]

result in improved efficiency and a thinner design to withstand similar Table 4

applied loads [50]. The goal, as such, is to utilize a connection system Review of the flexural strength of SIPs.
which could deliver satisfactory shear transfer while also lowering the Method of Label of Descriptions of panel Bending moment Ref.
effect of thermal bypass [67]. Cover is another limiting factor for thin testing panel (kNm/m)
PCSPs [68]. The concrete cover is governed by lifting and transporta-
tion purposes together with design needs for protection from fire. At 1st ultimate
crack load
Generally, bolts are cast-in for hoisting purposes and their minimum
capacity
diameters are stated in design codes [69]. For fire protection, a suffi-
cient concrete cover in load-bearing elements ensures adequate struc- M-U1 EPS as a core – 3.3 [86]
tural efficacy as prescribed by design codes [70]. As for non-structural 4-point U-U1 Strong design system – 7.4
bending – – 2.6 6.3 [91]
cladding panels, design code requirements are more relaxed [68,71].
Regular 550 mm long panel 2.8 4.3 [78]
Moreover, SIPs are built to disallow flames from being diffused to large Total 3.7 14.6 – [63]
areas, and a new regulation is recently introduced in the UK to prohibit thickness 2.7 7.5 –
manufactures from utilizing flammable materials in panels that are – 1.7 12.1 [83]
applied in multi-storey buildings of more than 18 m height [72]. P1 Notched 5.0 kg∙m3 8.0 – [81]
P2 – qi = 14.0 kg∙m3 46.0 –
Table 3 illustrates the overall thickness of previous investigations re-
P3 10.0 kg∙m−3 28.1 –
ported in the literature which range from 6.5 cm to 35 cm, with the P4 glued - qi = 32 kg∙m−3 5.0 6.0
thickness of the whythe’s ranging between 0.5 cm and 8 cm. S– Dual connection system 3.01 11.7 [82]
Regular
D– Sole connection system 2.05 6.7
3.2. Thin design Regular
4-point EPS - little attachment 7.01 11.2 [83]
Table 4 demonstrates the strength of thin PCSP fabrications, and bending EPS, great attachment 17.6 30.8
their minimum concrete thickness is frequently calculated by con- and shear XPS + pins 25.94 47.9
testing C-shaped grid + XPS 26.4 48.4
sidering the susceptibility of steel bars to corrosion. As such, thin PCSPs
28.2 88.0
can be achieved by using textile bars that are not susceptible to rusting Average 2C-Grids + XPS 28.2 71.3 [84]
[70]; for instance, using glass fibres reinforced concrete (GRC) together EPS + stodgy bottom + CG 28.3 70.4
with textile bars to form large mats [77]. Apart from concrete, GRC 6.0 13.3
wythes have also been examined in the absence of textile or steel bars – 38.0 50.0 [85]

[75], and textile strengthened concrete composites [87]. Furthermore,

internal wythe’s thickening at connections were carried out where ex-
fabrication materials used like concrete, steel, and plywood skins.
ceptionally thin wythes have been used to enhance connectors and
Concrete wythes are fabricated with structural concrete grade to
concrete [83,88], and panels incorporating mineral wool and EPS as
achieve the required strength and are often designed as either non-
insulation materials were examined as well [75]. Thin sandwich panels
loadbearing walls, loadbearing, or partial bearing walls (exterior
may be insulated using foamed concrete positioned between concrete
bearing wall wythe only). On the other hand, steel sheet face plates and
wythes [84]. Moreover, vacuum insulation panels (VIPs) have also
OSB are prefabricated in their original factories with required specifi-
gained increasing popularity among researchers for being an excellent
cations such as dimensions, thickness, strength, and quality. Each class
insulation material. VIPs have been incorporated in PCSPs with wythes
has its limited capacity to sustain the load transferred from various
ranging from 1.5 cm to 3 cm in thickness [89]. With regards to appli-
parts of the building, and they are usually used to construct major parts
cation, VIPs do provide practical difficulties, suchlike the necessity to
of the building envelope of either single/double storey residential
produce standard sizes to avoid cutting and wastages [89]; yet, these
buildings. However, for high-rise buildings, SIP concrete sandwich
complications do not prohibit their usage on a practical level [90].
panels are usually adapted due to their higher load transfer capacity.
Table 5 describes the typical materials of SIP wythes. In general, wythes
3.3. SIP wythes should provide adequate load transfer and should withstand weathering
processes and termite attacks.
Sandwich panels generally consist of two interior and exterior
wythes. These wythes are classified into three types based on the

1362
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379

Table 5
Typical materials of SIP wythes.
Type of wythes Advantages Disadvantages

Reinforced concrete skin Fire resistant Heavy materials

Non-flammable Not cost-effective
Available material Low thermal performance
Reinforced foamed concrete Lightweight Low load capacity
skin Fire resistant Skilled manpower
Absorb sound
Improve thermal performance
Fibre reinforced polymer Lightweight Potential flammability
(FRP) Impervious to insect Low compressive strength
Waterproof Unable to insulate the core from heat
Requirement of sheetrock to comply
with fire codes
Lacking of acoustic resistance
Calcium silicate board Able to insulate the core from heat Unavailability with large size panels
Providing good axial compressive strength
Cement board Fire resistant Having brittle failure under compressive load
Aluminium and steel Non-flammable Unable to insulate the core from heat Requirement of sheetrock to comply with fire
Lightweight codes
OSB Load bearing; readily available; examined; a wide size of Decrease in structural strength if unprotected against moistness; no fire protection;
panel of 203 × 610 mm should be preserved from white ants; problematic reactiveness to majority of general
adhesive strips
Sheet metal Resilient to ready-mold; structural bearing wall; should be spurred and none-structural system
lightweight; different sizes when made from coil stock
Plywood Lateral strength Availability; charge; restricted sizes; decrease in structural strength if unprotected
against moistness for a lengthy time period; no fire protection; should be preserved
from white ants
Fiber cement siding Resilient to ready-mold, white ants, and flames Availability; weight; testing; limited panel size
Magnesium board Resilient to ready-mold, white ants, and flames Obtainability; examination; restricted sizes
Fiberglass rug gypsum Resilient to white ants and flames None-structural system; restricted size
shielding
Structural composite outer Resilient to ready-mold and white ants; raw materials No fire protection
layers obtainable

3.3.1. Concrete
Concrete is commonly used to fabricate PCSP wythes as shown in
Fig. 7, and they are typically designed as load-bearing wythes where
they provide structural efficiency and thermal performance for the
exterior and interior wall and slab systems. Concrete wythes are gen-
erally reinforced with either steel rebars, welded wire mesh, GFRP, or
CFRP [21,92]. Wythes reinforcement usually come in a wide range of
diameters and lengths [58,93]. The minimum thickness of concrete
wythes and insulated layers, following the requirements of the ACI
design code, are 40 mm and 25 mm, respectively. Concrete wythes must
be thick enough to accommodate the reinforcement running along the
height/length and should provide enough space to install the shear
connectors [94]. In the last two decades, researchers and construction
industries have used normal concrete to cast the external and internal
concrete wythes, and they have rarely used lightweight concrete in the
place of heavy normal concrete (Table 6) [8,9,28,30,39,55]. This is due
to a lack of knowledge about the actual behaviour and performance of
lightweight concrete materials. However, as of now, many researches
have highly recommended and are likely to shift to lightweight con-
crete materials for casting precast applications using foamed concrete,
shotcrete, fibrocement, and polystyrenes or quarry dust aggregates
concrete [15,48,56,95,96].
3.3.2. Profiled steel faces
External profiled steel faces of sandwich panels have become an
appropriate technology product insulated with either concrete or
polystyrene materials as a core. It provides beneficial characteristics to
speed up the assembling of construction applications, as well as the
construction of roof and wall cladding systems for residential and
commercial buildings [103]. It was reported that flexural wrinkling

Fig. 7. Partial cut of PCSP wythes [97].

1363
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379

Table 6 [20].
Strength characteristic of SIP reinforcing materials.
Type of reinforcement bars Material Tensile Compressive Ref. 3.4. Classical reinforcing rebars
strength, strength, MPa
MPa
PCSP wythes are always reinforced with steel bars or welded wire
Steel NC 2.5 24 [26] meshes embedded inside and extended from the tension zone (bottom
FC 1.9 25 [62] wythe) to the compression zone (upper wythe). The reinforcing pro-
0.9 8 [98] ducts are supported with an adequate cover to protect them from cor-
NC NA 28 [99] rosion. Most reinforcing rebars used are welded wire meshes (WWM) or
FC 2.1 26 [68]
SCC 4.3 46 [100]
reinforcing steel bars (RSB) [6,7,95], CFRP [11,109,110], and GFRP
NC NA 45 [46] [111–113] as given in Table 7, and these reinforcing bars are explored
Prestressing steel NA 41 [101] in details in the following subsections.
Carbon textile SCC 3.2 72 [84]
UHPC 18.8 175 [85]
RPC 5.1 147 [82] 3.4.1. Welded wire meshes
AR glass textile FRC 2.1 82 [83] WWM rebars are positioned at mid-thickness of the concrete wythes
HSC 4.5 73 [78] and supported with 15 mm minimum cover as recommended by codes
AR Glass fibres GRC 3.9 78 [75]
of practice (BS8110, ACI318, EC2). Furthermore, WWMs are typically
Fibres Polypropylene HPC 6.0 90 [102]
Coated glass HPFRC 15.3 96 [63] formulated in sizes that range between 50 mm × 50 mm and
Steel UHPC 32 193 [73] 300 mm × 300 mm openings, but sometimes they are manually tied to
suit the design requirements. There are two types of geometries of
WWMs available in the market: (a) rounded bars; and (b) deformed
critically influences the design performance of SCS sandwich panel bars. Such meshes have proven to have long-term durability due to their
applications, particularly when the panel is subjected to lateral pressure high resultant strength, rust free, and sufficient cohesiveness achieved
loading and also suffers from local buckling due to axial load with concrete wythes [117]. Many researchers have stated that several
[104,105]. In both Europe and America, studies have been conducted factors influence the strength, rigidity and compositeness of PCSPs,
on steel sandwich panels to demonstrate the actual behaviour of load such as the diameter of WWMs; the number, spacing, arrangement, and
patterns, boundary conditions, and geometry. Also, those studies have thickness of concrete wythes; type of concrete materials; and tying
investigated the major impacts of wrinkling stresses on the performance layout of the WWMs and shear connectors [8,21,25]. Additionally,
of SCS systems and suggested to overcome this impact by adapting tensile and yield strengths of steel reinforcements have been de-
thicker steel facing sheets and enhancing the connection joints to termined to have a major impact on PCSP to which 250 N/mm2 tensile
achieve structural integrity by means of defeating geometric im- strength of such meshes can reduce its capability to sustain applied
perfections [106]. In addition, foamed concrete [18], and autoclaved loads compared to the panel reinforced with 500 N/mm2 tensile
aerated concrete (AAC) were used as an insulated lightweight concrete strength of WWM rebars as shown in Table 7. Therefore, the tensile
material to satisfy the thermal requirements and structural efficiency. It strength of WWMs must be based on the design requirements of the
was also observed that lightweight concrete has less strength and tends concrete sandwich panel and the structural system that needs to be
to fail in a ductile mode compared to the brittle failure of normal prefabricated either as wall or flooring systems [6,7,26,118].
concrete [107]. The most adapted thicknesses of steel faceplates range
between 0.4 and 0.8 mm [106], where they are usually installed as 3.4.2. Glass fiber reinforced polymer
permanent formworks. Other researchers state that it is structurally GFRP bars were first used to reinforce a bridge deck in Virginia,
important to design the profiled steel faces to be stiff and strong enough United States [102], and with regards to sandwich panels, such bars
to achieve the desired structural strength recommended by codes of possess superior thermal insulation properties when compared to other
practice which can accommodate the characteristics of SCS sandwich reinforcing tools. Furthermore, GFRP bars provide other advantages as
panels [108]. well such as ease of operation, high resistance to chloride, and light
weight [119,120]. However, they also present certain drawbacks as
3.3.3. Oriented strand boards well, such as requiring different design than mild steel, failing in a
Builders tend to design OSB wythes or plywood delamination with linear state, inability to reach yield strength, and inducing brittle failure
thicknesses that would be enough to accommodate the insulation ma- due to concrete crushing. GFRP bars are typically manufactured in
terials. OSB wythes are formed by multi layers of veneer glued with a various diameters (i.e. 4 mm, 6 mm, 8 mm). The rupture strain of GFRP
hot-press. These multi-layers consist of tangential grain orientation and bars ranges between 1.4 and 1.9%, and their modulus of elasticity and
are continuously positioned in a perpendicular direction. Meanwhile, it tensile strength are typically 25% and 2.5 times less than that of mild
is common to set an odd number of veneer wood layers at the central steel, respectively. Moreover, a study on concrete beam specimens re-
axes of the OSB sandwich panel to achieve stability and reduce edge inforced with GFRP bars displayed 1.4–2 times higher strength than in
warp [20]. OSB wythes are considered 2 times stronger than plywood mild steel reinforced concrete beams, but also exhibited higher de-
delamination and 7% less stiff. However, OSB wythes provide a harder flection [121]. Furthermore, a lack of bonding between GFRP bars and
surface and show high resistance to relative humidity. It has been re- concrete affects the deformed finished surface of the panel [122]. It is
ported that 16 mm plywood delamination and 19 mm of OBS wythes recommended that designers and engineers should refer to ACI Building
exhibit similar structural integrity and thermal insulation properties Code [115] when designing sandwich panels. However, in the case of

Table 7
Properties of PCSP reinforcing rebars.
Reinforcing Material Yield Strength (MPa) Tensile Strength (MPa) Elastic Modulus (GPa) Strain at Break % Ref.

GFRP N/A 480–1600 35–51 1.2–3.1 [94,114–116]

CFRP N/A 1720–3690 120–580 0.5–1.9
WWM 216–517 510–548 200 Up to 1.5

1364
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al.
facing design challenges that are not fully and clearly referenced in the
code, it is important to take the option that enhances structural effi-
ciency, thermal performance and structural integrity.
3.4.3. Carbon fiber reinforced polymer
More than ten years ago, specifically in 2003, a primary trial on
prefabricated PCSPs reinforced with CFRP grids instead of steel WWMs
was carried out [11]. CFRP has 14% higher thermal insulation in
comparison with steel meshes and possess adequate structural effi-
ciency [123]. CFRP is normally laid out diagonally between the outer
and inner concrete wythes close to the surface which permits a truss
apparatus to develop. Frankl et al. [11] led a study on six specimens of
PCSP sandwiched with EPS/XPS insulated as cores subjected to axial
and lateral loadings. These specimens were supported with shear grids
of CFRP reinforcements embedded through an internal core layer and
extended to both concrete wythes. The results showed a 100% com-
posite action achievement with the shear grids of the CFRP reinforce-
ments properly maintained with the solid concrete bridges. Shear grids
of CFRP reinforcements have the capacity to afford excellent shear force
and bending moment transferred from the exterior to the interior
concrete wythes [46], and provide an optimum thermal performance,
structural proficiency and quality control for structural concrete/pre-
stressed sandwich panels [110]. At the same time, when FRP bars were
used as main concrete wythes reinforcements, a better shear connection
achievement was observed, together with sufficient thermal insulation
and structural efficacy characteristics for PCSP specimens [57].
3.5. Insulation materials
There are many common and slightly cheap insulation materials
that are available in the market. Each type has its special characteristics
that can provide excellent thermal insulation for all variety of sandwich
panels. The selection of each type depends on the degree level of
thermal insulation performance which can also assure optimum com-
posite action. Moreover, the insulation system should have the capacity
to achieve several functions, such as providing sound and thermal in-
sulations, structural integrity, quality control, and positive environ-
mental and economic aspects. Table 8 shows the properties of different
types of insulation foams, and various insulation materials used in SIPs
are discussed in the following subsections.
3.5.1. Lightweight concrete
Given the strength to weight ratio and thermal performance of
lightweight concrete, it has been utilized as an insulation material for
SCS sandwich panels. Sohel et al. [33] led a study on prefabricated SCS
sandwich panels using lightweight concrete as a core with a density that
is not more than 1450 kg/m3. The fabricated specimens were subjected
to a concentric load, and the cracking patterns and deflection mode
revealed that the observed values and composite action were similar to
those in reinforced concrete slab specimens tested under flexural
loading [40]. Meanwhile, other SCS specimens casted with lightweight
foamed concrete (LFC), having a density of 1000 kg/m3, and tested
Table 8
Technical properties of insulation foams.
Property Type of foam
EPS PUR XPS
Compressive Strength 10 35 20
Density (lb/ft3) 0.90 2.3–2.5 1.5
Permeance per inch 5 2.00 1.1
R-value/in @ 75° F 3.6 6.54 5.0
Common fire rating class 1 1 1
Common fire retardant HBCD TCPP HBCD
Common blowing agent Pentane HFC—245fa HFC—134a
1365
Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379
under compression loading revealed that those panels achieved op-
timum strength, adequate quality control and good bonding between
both steel face plates. Furthermore, LFC has excellent thermal insula-
tion that is up to 40% higher than normal concrete, 40–83% lighter in
weight and 10 times higher in sound absorption, fire resistance, and has
the potential to be designed as a loadbearing wall system [16]. In ad-
dition, several studies have shown that LFC is a suitable material to
insulate SCS sandwich panel systems, where it has a high ductility
mechanism, identical cohesive material that can develop acceptable
bonding when in-situ casting is adapted, and has the ability to reduce
steel sheeting during construction more than normal concrete
[124,125].
3.5.2. Expanded and extruded polystyrenes
These two types of polystyrene are extensively used for insulating
precast/prestressed concrete sandwich panels, and both have high U-
values that would work best to enhance thermal performance and
structural efficiency. Based on an experimental investigation, the den-
sities and compressive strengths of EPS and XPS are “16 kg/m3, 90 kPa”
and “29 kg/m3, 170 kPa”, respectively [11]. The difference between
EPS and XPS insulation materials lies in that EPS materials have a
smoother surface compared to the rough surface of XPS. Furthermore,
XPS insulation materials can increase the shear strength of the panels
by 43% compared to EPS due to their superior adhesive properties
which improve their cohesiveness with concrete wythes and shear
connectors. In other words, XPS has the potential to achieve 100%
composite action. Furthermore, EPS thermal insulation is smaller than
that of XPS as EPS has a U-value of 4.9 while the U-value of XPS is 5.4.
Additionally, around 90% of precast/prestressed concrete sandwich
panels have been insulated with polystyrenes due to their optimum
cost, ability to be cut easily, eco-friendly properties, and excellent in-
sulation performance [59,94,111,116]. Moreover, polystyrene comes in
a variety of thicknesses and has been used successfully in numerous
types of construction applications [9,11,29,49]. Table 9 lists the char-
acteristics of different types of insulation materials throughout their
production and usage processes.
3.5.3. Mineral wool
Mineral wool became a popular insulation material for sandwich
wall panel applications due to their superior characteristics, and ASTM-
C-612 gives recommendation for mineral wool design to ensure ade-
quate sandwich panel thermal performance. The most common type of
mineral wool is slag wool, made of 25% basalts and 75% blast furnaces
of mixed iron ore. Furthermore, other types of mineral wool, called rock
wool, are produced from limestone and rock under furnace heat of
1500C°, which then are maintained into a fibre and inflated with gas in
order to be soft. Hauser et al. [128] used 20 cm mineral wool fibres as
insulation material, and results have shown that such fibres have a
slightly low thermal resistance effect [128]. Table 10 presents a brief
comparison between mineral wool and polystyrene insulation materials
including usage, cost and heat loss.
3.5.4. Polyurethane solid foam
In particular, expanded polyurethane (PUR) is used for insulating
sandwich panels due to their high U-value and several other beneficial
features, such as acoustic properties, energy efficiency, high perfor-
mance and durability, and low cost; and this explains PUR wide use in
fabricating sandwich panel applications [126,128,130,131]. Since
1993, PUR has become a popular technology system apparatus used to
expand thermal performance for structural sandwich wall panel appli-
cations. Moreover, Sharaf et al. [130] tested PCSP with lightweight
concrete wythes and a soft PUR as a core. The sandwich panel speci-
mens were subjected to lateral load (wind load), and the results re-
vealed that a slight reduction was recorded in the panel thickness due to
the use of a soft PUR core [130]. PUR density, strength and stiffness
under a variety of load conditions were examined as well, and findings
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379

Table 9
SIP insulation material properties.
Type of Insulation Material m2 × K/(W × in) ft2×°F × h/(BTU × in) m × K/W Ref.

Lightweight concrete 0.014–0.2 0.1442–0.47 0.06–0.550 [96]

EPS/1.0in (40°–70°) 0.68–0.84 3.85–4.74 0.035–0.042 [126]
XPS/1.0in (40°–72°) Up to 0.88 Up to 5 0.028–0.034
Mineral wool/ 2.0–8.0in 1.3–5.25 0.2–1.6 0.03–0.023 [32]
PUR 1.23–1.41 0.028–0.049,R6.25 0.033–0.057 [127]

have shown excessive reduction in shear deformations that induce a Table 11

reduction in composite action [130–132]. In another study, where the Summary of insulation utilized in PCSPs.
flexural performance of PCSPs with GFRP skins and thermally insulated Total panel size (W∙m−2 × K−1) U- Insulation, Ref.
using PUR supported with ribs was examined. The experimental results (mm) values
have shown 44–140% increments in panel strength and stiffness due to Type Thickness
the ribs provided. These panels were also compared to reinforced (mm)
concrete sandwich panels (RCSP) of similar size, and it was observed
65 3.55 EPS 55 [73]
that the panels with PUR were 9–14 times lighter [131]. Table 11 gives 110 0.35 90 [76]
a brief review of various insulation materials used in SIPs together with 120 0.32 100 [78]
their associated thicknesses and U-values. From the table, it can be seen 121 0.70 41 [7]
125 1.04 25 [62]
that panels with the thinnest thicknesses are those insulated with EPS.
150 0.89 30 [68]
As for panels insulated with PUR, the total panel thickness was 180 mm, 0.09 PF + VIP 90 [67]
while the PUR material thickness was 150 mm. 0.32 EPS 100 [100]
180 0.16 PUR 150 [83]
200 0.31 FC 150 [82]
4. SIP properties 0.32 EPS 100 [11]
203 0.57 51 [101]
0.57 51 [101]
4.1. Interaction mechanism with shear connectors
220 0.31 100 [133]
0.31 100 [11]
An SIP consists of two outer concrete layers (wythes) and a core 230 0.31 FC 150 [84]
layer in between, so that these two wythes are connected to each other 254 0.31 EPS 102 [74]
0.31 102 [99]
using shear connectors. The connection systems are categorised into
255 0.31 102 [120]
two types; non-composite and composite shear connectors. Therefore, 260 0.20 160 [83]
the selection of either type depends on the degree of compositeness that 0.31 100 [134]
needs to be achieved as well as their appropriateness for purpose. In 270 0.22 150 [120]
other words, shear connectors behave as a stiff bridge between exterior 0.22 150 [135]
280 0.41 XPS 76 [136]
and interior concrete layers crossing through an insulation layer [28].
0.20 EPS 160 [85]
As such, shear connectors should have a sufficient diameter (minimum 330 0.08 PF 290
4 mm) to enhance the integrity of the structural system. It is, however,
considered a very important property to transfer loading from the upper
wythe to the lower one without any disturbance to the insulation ma- shear connectors that are usually applied in SIP may be classified as
terial in between. Furthermore, typical shear connectors come in dif- either composite or non-composite as described in the following sub-
ferent production materials, different design configuration and or- sections, and Table 12 shows the design geometry of different shear
ientation action in either one or two directions. connectors.
The main aim of all types of shear connectors is to achieve sandwich
panel compositeness, and this can be checked through experimental
testing, theoretical calculation and numerical simulation. For example, 4.1.1. Composite shear connectors
Zhang [137] has fabricated reinforced PCSPs using three sorts of shear Composite shear connectors are mechanical tools utilized to attach
connectors and observed the thermal performance of each. These shear the concrete wythes together in order to behave as one solid unit and to
connectors included steel truss connectors, nominal thermo-mass con- structurally achieve composite action. For this reason, there are several
nectors, and steel pin connectors. The results of the study revealed that shear connectors designed with suitable configuration layouts such as
the nominal connectors had the capacity of transferring a small rate of wire truss shear connectors [6,9], flat sleeve anchors [10], fibre com-
heat coefficient compared to the other two types, which can be briefly posite rectangles [120,131], small size bent wire connectors [120],
concluded that nominal shear connectors are more stable under any continuous bent bars [6,21], FRP connectors [130], and expanded
circumstantial changes. Meanwhile, the study also revealed that truss perforated plate connectors [10]. Such connectors are formulated with
shear connectors were the most effective among all three connectors inclined angels that range between 35°–65°, with the majority of them
that were tested. Full composite behaviour was effectively achieved by being inclined at 45° to ensure optimum structural efficiency and to
means of using truss shear connectors, while on the other hand, weak provide other beneficial features to sandwich panels, including a re-
connection was seen in the case of steel pin connectors [137]. Briefly, duction in brittleness, stiffness enhancement, load resistance,

Table 10
Comparison of polystyrenes and mineral wool as insulation materials.
Insulation materials Recycling Renewable Embodied Biodegradable Heat loss Cost, in 2007, £s /per m2 Usage Ref.

Polystyrenes (EPS, XPS) High No High No 44 7 Loft, wall, [129], (Industrial guideline)
Mineral wool High No Lower No 22 15 Roof, Floor, wall

1366
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379

Table 12
Material and design geometry of different shear connectors.
Type of shear connector Insulation Ref.

Material Design Thickness (mm)

Steel truss-shaped shear connector 6 [62,65,136]

CFRP 50, 100, 150 [138]

Diagonal anchor 6 [139]

Lattice fiberglass polymer 75 [46]

Tie-connector: FRP

Flat plate 2–3 [101]

MC welded wire girder 75 [46]

connector

Sleeve 2–3 [140]

GFRP 50, 100, 150 [11,113]

(continued on next page)

1367
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al.
Table 12 (continued)
Type of shear connector
Material Design
Pin
FRP: NU-Tie
maintenance of the panel’s actual orientation, crack pattern control,
reduction in deflection mode, and improvement in shear concrete
bridges [3,7,9,30,101,143]. Furthermore, many factors influence the
performance of PCSPs such as the number of shear connectors used,
spacing, diameter chosen and mechanical design shape [69,144,145].
Previous researches have demonstrated that the shear transfer perfor-
mance of connection systems was not based on their materials, but on
their arrangement along longitudinal and transverse directions for pa-
nels designed as two-way slabs, or their arrangement along a long-
itudinal direction only for panels designed as one-way slabs
[13,51,59,60,146]. Furthermore, studies have shown that FRP shear
connectors can achieve 100% composite action [6,10]. Benayoune [6]
carried out theoretical and experimental investigations on PCSP con-
nected using steel truss shear connectors, and results have shown
composite action in the range of 64–95%.
4.1.2. Non-composite shear connectors
When non-composite shear connectors are used, sandwich panels
are prefabricated as none-structural systems, and in such cases, sand-
wich panel wythes act separately. However, some non-composite shear
connectors have the capability to transfer normal forces between
wythes, while others can transfer dead-load to structural wythes.
Moreover, non-composite shear connectors often resist unimportant
shear force so that it can essentially be used in non-bearing sandwich
panels, and such shear force emanates from the need to keep both panel
wythes attached [9]. In addition, shear deformation should not be ne-
glected while checking for either semi- or non-composite actions of
PCSPs. Typical non-shear connectors include M-ties, plastic pins, me-
tallic pins, polyurethane pins, glass fibre reinforced vinyl-ester, and
transfer welded wire ladder connectors [8,11,30,147]. Furthermore, an
experimental study on SCS sandwich panels integrated using welded
stud as shear connectors has revealed that non-composite action was
observed under axial load; however, the tested SCS panels sustained
high load capacity and high ductility, and were able to withstand huge
rotations close to 18° [107]. Additionally, non-load bearing walls are
typically used in single storey houses for which the system can only
resist either dead or service loads [148]. Moreover, when sandwich
panels are designed as one or two-way slabs, they only withstand their
self-weight [149].
1368
Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379
Insulation Ref.
Thickness (mm)
6 [141]
75, 150 [138,142]
4.2. Mechanical properties
The structural performance of SIPs is predominantly dependent on
their mechanical properties. SIPs may be used for wall, roof or slab
elements in building construction. Therefore, their behaviour under
shear, flexural and normal loadings must be examined and well un-
derstood. The mechanical properties of SIPs under shear, flexural and
axial loadings are summarized in Table 13, and the highest strengths
obtained from previous investigations were 138 kN for shear, 90 kN.m
for flexure and 1450 kN for axial compression.
4.3. Thermal performance
SIP insulation materials have excellent thermal properties in con-
trolling indoor temperatures without being affected by external tem-
perature fluctuations. The thermal conductivity of SIPs can be de-
termined via steady-state and transient techniques [162]. For steady-
state techniques, tests comprise guarded hot-plate, cylinder, heat-flow
meter, comparative, direct heating and pipe methods. As for transient
methods, tests include hot wire, hot strip, hot-disk, laser flash, photo-
thermal and photoacoustic approaches. To facilitate ease of calculation,
heat transfer can be determined using steady state methods. Fig. 8 il-
lustrates one directional heat transfer of sandwich panels, and the
thermal conductivity, λ, can be measured as follows;
Q Li W
i = ×
A (Ti Ti + 1 ) mK (1)
where Q is the heat transmitted (Joules per second), A is the contact
area, L is the material thickness, T is the surface temperature and R is
the thermal resistance. Furthermore, Table 14 shows the results of
thermal tests for pervious SIPs, where it can be seen that such panels
have relatively low thermal conductivity values when compared to
concrete walls (0.88 to 1.87 W/mK) and brick walls (0.56 to 0.77 W/
mK).
4.4. Acoustic behavior
Another notable characteristic of SIPs is their acoustical behaviour
in building design, and panels with acoustic proof are usually applied in
aerospace, automobile and railway industries [166]. Acoustic proper-
ties in sandwich panels, and also thermal insulation properties, can be
improved by incrementing air voids in the panel [167]. Shape
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379

Table 13
Mechanical properties under shear, flexure and compression.
Ref. Wythes Insulation Shear connector Applied Loads

Shear Ultimate, kN Flexural Ultimate, kN/m Axial Ultimate, kN

[141] – EPS, XPS BFRP, CFRP, GFRP and solid concrete 5–18
[150] NC EPS and XPS GFRP 19–51
[113] XPS GFRP 21–78
[64] EPS CFRP 25–90
[151] EPS, XPS foam CFRP and GFRP 30–105
[134] EPS, XPS GFRP 49–138
[142] NC EPS, XPS GFRP and CFRP 59–129
[152] FRP XPS GFRP 60–70 60–70
[9] NC – FRP 4.4–22
[153] GFRP skin Polyurethane GFRP 7–28
[154] NC XPS foam GFRP 10–87
[53] EPS Steel 13–20
[51] EPS Steel 14–21
[155] Rigid foam GFRP & concrete 17–95
[17] FC – Steel encased 18–44
[156] NC EPS GFRP 25–45
[133] EPS, XPS foam GFRP 25–75
[157] – Steel 30–36
[71] FC EPS Steel 31–40 250–850
[135] NC EPS BFRP 38–41
[158] XPS GFRP 44–90
[11] XPS, EPS CFRP 45–90
[6] Polystyrene foam Steel 117.3
[159] NC EPS Steel 102–666
[95] FC EPS Steel truss 188–355
[160] FC EPS Steel 250–600
[161] FC – Steel truss 280–441
[144] FC EPS Steel 355–890
[53] NC EPS Steel 400–500
[55] NC EPS Steel 595–930
[7] NC EPS Steel 1051
[26] NC Polystyrene foam Steel 1250–1450

5.1. SIP design codes

The design of SIPs may be performed in line with SIP-EDG01-19S

[170], where design specifications for flexure, shear, compression and
tension or combined members are given. This design guideline includes
details on connections, openings, lateral force-resisting systems, re-
inforced panels, shells and folded plate members. Furthermore, the
American National Standard Institute have come out with a perfor-
mance-based design specifications for SIPs [171], and this standard
provides quality assurance through standardised test methods.
In addition, EN 14,509 [172] covers the design and manufacture of
sandwich panels and is advised by the European Sandwich Panel
Committee, made up of CIB W056 and ECCS TWG 7.9. This committee
has published two reports regarding the optimization of sandwich panel
structures, particularly on openings [173] and stabilization [174].
Nevertheless, European recommendations have been developed re-
cently for sandwich panel fastenings [175], and Table 15 shows the
referred codes for SIP design.
Fig. 8. One directional heat transfer of different materials of sandwich panels
[163].
5.2. Compositeness of SIPs

optimization design has been studied for hybrid sandwich panels to
improve their bending stiffness, fundamental frequencies and sound
transmission loss with certain investigated frequency bands [168].
Previous investigations on the acoustic performance of PCSPs have been
summarized in [169].
5. Degree of compositeness
In this section, a summary of design codes for SIPs is given together
with their different degrees of compositeness and their impact on the
design process.
The degree of composite action depends on the type, stiffness and
number of shear connectors provided between the outer and inner
wythes [177,178]. Such degree of compositeness can be determined by
using the stiffness of shear connectors as stated in design specifications,
and then the stiffness of the core and geometric parameters can also be
added [179]. SIP compositeness is the main goal of the mounted me-
chanical shear connectors, and the degree of compositeness is defined
by their capability to transmit both bending moment and shear loads, or
shear loads only [7]. Several factors influence the incorporation of
concrete wythes in SIPs such as the typical design, number, diameter
size, and spacing of the shear connectors as well as the concrete

1369
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379

Table 14
Thermal properties of SIPs.
Ref. Description Thermal properties

Conductivity, W/mK Resistivity, mK/ Resistance, m2K/W

W

[163] Glass fiber skins with the following cores:

Balsa wood 0.061 16.36 –
Divinycell 0.053 18.80 –
Jute fiber honeycomb 0.101 9.89 –
Glass fiber honeycomb 0.124 8.10 –
Carbon fiber honeycomb 0.169 5.90 –

Jute fiber skins with the following cores:

Balsa wood 0.058 17.12 –
Divinycell 0.051 19.56 –
Jute fiber honeycomb 0.093 10.64 –
Glass fiber honeycomb 0.113 8.87 –
Carbon fiber honeycomb 0.150 6.67 –
[20] Plywood-faced sandwich Panel no. –
The mid-layer was prepared from fiberboard (Shorea spp.) attached with a glue PSW350,12.5
polymeric methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) resin at 1/10 resin content. The outer PSW350,19.9 0.062 16.13
layers were made from boil-proof plywood and weatherproof of 9 mm containing of PSW350,35.4 0.064 15.63
three 3-mm thick strands of 680 kg/m3 density. Two models, PSW400 and PSW350, with PSW350,70.4 0.068 14.71
air-dehydrated of 410 kg/m3 and 340 kg/m3 densities, and sizes of 96.2 and 95.7 mm PSW400,12.1 0.078 12.82
correspondingly, were fabricated. PSW400,19.8 0.069 14.49
PSW400,35.5 0.074 13.51
PSW400,72.5 0.077 12.99
0.087 11.49
[164] Concrete – Styrofoam – concrete
Total thickness of 254 mm
Control – – 2.60–2.95
GFRP – – 2.81–2.96
Less connectors – – 2.95
More connectors – – 3.34–3.69
More studs – – 3.64–3.89
Less studs – – 2.94
Larger connectors – – 4.39–4.96
Smaller connectors – – 2.64–3.03
Less large connectors – – 3.60
More small connectors – – 3.02
[165] 50 mm concrete – 80 mm polyurethane – 200 mm concrete (with hybrid connector) – – 0.842
50 mm concrete – 80 mm polyurethane – 200 mm concrete (without hybrid connector) – – 1.166
50 mm concrete – 100 mm polyurethane – 200 mm concrete (with hybrid connector) – – 1.354
50 mm concrete – 100 mm expanded polystyrene – 200 mm concrete (with hybrid connector) – – 0.677

Table 15 Iexp + Inc

K=
Referred codes of practice for SIP. Ic + Inc (2)
Area Codes Developers Ref. where;
American SIP-EDG01 SIPA [170]
Performance based SIP ANSI/APA [171] K = The level of composite action, %
European EN14509 Eurocode [172] Iexp = Moment of inertia obtained from experimental testing results,
European recommendations ECCS TC 7 & CIB [173–175] mm3
(CIB378,379,418) W56
Inc = Moment of inertia of non-composite action, mm3
Australian IPCA IPCA [176]
Ic = Moment of inertia of composite action, mm

strength of the designed wythes. Furthermore, shear connectors have to
provide sufficient resistance to different types of loads (i.e. axial, ec-
centric, shear, bending and flexural loads), where each load has its
specific load direction. In addition, shear connectors designed for PCSPs
are almost the same for all loads, and these PCSPs are typically designed
and prefabricated to be utilized as wall and slab systems [6,7]. Fig. 9
illustrates the three typical PCSP compositeness under bending; that is,
fully-composite, partially composite and non-composite systems. Pes-
siki and Mlynarczyk [21] have expressed in Eq. (2) the percentage of
composite action achieved by means of the typical shear connectors
used which can show the natural rigidity, stiffness and the incorpora-
tion of concrete wythes that are required to behave as a single layer. In
addition, it could demonstrate the capacity of transferring both shear
force and bending moment or only shear forces.
Furthermore, Benayoune et al. [6] calculated composite action
using the ratio of the finite element model (FEM) analytical prediction
results over the theoretical calculation of investigation records. These
are given in Table 16 together with the degree of compositeness of
various panels as reported in other studies. The three different types of
compositeness in PCSPs are discussed thoroughly in the following
subsections.
5.2.1. Fully-composite
The fully-composite panel is defined by the presence of full inter-
action between the two outer and inner concrete layers (wythes) that
are tied together by adequate mechanical shear connectors. The two
concrete layers (wythes) act as one layer, enabling the transfer of
bending and shear loads from the external concrete layer (wythe) to the
internal one [9–11,21]. In other words, a fully-composite panel is the

1370
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al.
Fig. 9. Typical PCSP compositeness under bending [6].
case when both concrete wythes act integrally and can sufficiently resist
bending.
Based on experimental investigations, a fully-composite panel is
achieved when adequate, stiff and strong horizontal shear connectors
are provided [8,71,181]. Fig. 9(a) displays the actual behaviour of a
fully-composite PCSP where the three layers of the panel act integrally
together, and the bending moment and shear forces are transmitted
from the top concrete wythe to the bottom one without any reduction in
panel strength, stiffness and rigidity. Furthermore, many factors influ-
ence the achievement of structural efficiency in sandwich panels, such
as the properties, number, and spacing of shear connectors [50,182].
Table 17 presents design equations for fully-composite sandwich panels
following the PCI design handbook [29,133]. Nevertheless, most re-
searchers, engineers, designers and builders recommend the use of
shear connectors conservatively to ensure the achievement of structural
efficiency and insulation. For example, the PCI design handbook re-
commends that two-way slabs should have shear connectors laid out
through their longitudinal and transverse directions [13], while one-
way slabs need the shear connectors to be running along their long-
itudinal direction only [14,29,57,76]. However, researchers, engineers
and builders prefer to add up additional shear connectors along one-
way slabs widths by slightly widening the spacing between each in
order to improve their shear transfer and bending moments, and en-
hance the contribution of composite action.
Additionally, several studies have paid particular attention to axi-
ally loaded sandwich panels based on strain variation across the mid-
height thickness of the panel under different stages of axial loading
[62,136] (Fig. 10 and Table 18). From the results, it was revealed that a
slight discontinuation clearly emerged when the panel almost reached
failure. Moreover, the concrete cracking patterns on both concrete
wythes did not take place simultaneously. The tested panels, even after
the appearance of cracks under axial loads, exhibited a similar behavior
to fully-composite ones (92.2%). In addition, Frankl et al. [11,183]
studied the composite action of shear connectors using grid-shaped
Table 16
Degree of compositeness of PCSPs as reported by several researchers.
Panel Configuration, inch (in) Shear Transfer Mechanism
3-2-3 Outer wythes, XPS foam and M−ties bond
2-1-2-1-3 Solid concrete regions and XPS foam bond
3-2-3 Solid concrete regions only
3-2-3 XPS foam bond only
3-2-3 M−ties only
2-1-2-1-2 Solid concrete regions and XPS foam bond
1.6-2-1.6 Solid concrete regions and polystyrene foam
1371
Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379
CFRP. The findings of the study showed that in terms of the initial
stiffness, the 100% degree of composite action was achieved in all of the
experimentally tested specimens. Furthermore, Morcous et al. [184]
designed an NU-tie shear connector with a similar design form to a
truss-shaped connector, and their use in concrete sandwich panels and
GFRP was studied extensively. In terms of ultimate load, the findings
showed that NU-tie specimens nearly achieved full-composite action. In
general, full composite action mainly depends on the orientation of
shear connectors; fabrication material; diameter size; and the arrange-
ment, spacing and numbers of shear connectors [26,53,95,144].
Furthermore, many studies reported that the design geometry of
steel truss-shaped shear connectors displayed maximum effectiveness
and are often utilized to raise the performance of composite action
[26,55,144,185]. Therefore, further research to enhance the perfor-
mance of composite PCSP by providing a greater number of shear
connectors through a smaller space and ensuring a proper orientation
and arrangement is highly-imperative [62,65,179].
5.2.2. Semi-composite
Semi- or partially-composite panels are defined by the semi-inter-
connection between the two concrete layers (wythes). Semi-composite
panels are designed by joining the concrete wythes and the insulated
layer using shear connectors; such as, reinforcing bars, solid concrete
zones and metallic/nonmetallic shear connectors that have the cap-
ability of transferring only the shear load between the two concrete
layers (wythes). Based on experimental and theoretical investigations, a
semi-composite panel is one where the horizontal connection systems
have the capability to transmit 100% of shear and tension forces be-
tween both concrete wythes. In addition, semi-composite sandwich
panels can resist bending moment with degrees varying between 0 and
100%, making their structural integrity between that of a non-compo-
site panel and a fully-composite one [9,10,148]. That is, a semi-com-
posite panel is one where at least one structural concrete wythe is de-
signed to resist bending moment while both concrete wythes are fully
Degree of compositeness, % Ref.
100 [157,180]
94
92
5
10
79
64–95 [6]
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379

Table 17 discrete shear connectors behaved in a semi-composite manner due to a

Typical analysis of a fully-composite panel. variation in temperature between the external and internal concrete
Equations Annotations Ref. wythes, and this prompted the shear deformation and deflection mode
of the concrete wythes [186].
Fs = As × fy AsTension steel reinforcement [66 147] Moreover, when PCSP specimens failed under a flexural load as a
area (For one-way)
2
result of a failure in shear connectors at a time earlier than yielding of
Fs = (8Mu) /l bWall section per 1 m length
(or connector spacing, dThe
the bars and concrete wythes crushing, the system acted as a semi-
s = (0.85 × fcu × b)/(Fs × As) reinforcement depth As (for composite panel [13,121], as shown in Fig. 9(b).
full-composite) Several investigations were also carried out on strengthened small-
Mu = Fs (d - s)/2 FcCompressive force (non- scale light-weight concrete wall panels with 9 mm steel shear con-
composite)
nectors [95,160,185]. The results revealed that the developed system
Fc = 0.85fcu × b × s FsTensile reinforcement force
(full-composite) acted in a partially-composite manner. Moreover, Tomlinson et al.
fcuConcrete compressive [187] examined sandwich panels subjected to axial compression load,
strength where the results have indicated that semi-composite action of about
MuFlexural ultimate moment
31% was achieved with the help of the insulation bond. In addition,
capacity
fySteel yield stress
double tee sandwich wall panels with and without openings were
s Depth of the neutral axis prefabricated and supported with solid zones to function as full com-
when Fc = Fs posite panels [123], and mechanical shear connector were used to at-
tach concrete wythes together along the height of the panels. From the
results, it was seen that this type of shear connector has enough capa-
integral in shear design. city to transfer shear forces, indicating that at least a partial composite
Many types of shear connectors do not achieve fully-composite ac- action was attained. Numerous investigations were also conducted to
tion due to a weakness in their material properties, design configura- study the influence of shear connector type on sandwich panels to
tion, strength or stiffness, and whenever such connectors are used for which it was reported that composite actions were achieved with dif-
any sandwich panels (e.g. SCS [44], concrete-Polystyrenes-concrete ferent levels [7,9,21,157,188].
[6,54], OBS-EPS-OBS [20]), full composite action cannot be achieved,
and the panels behave in a semi-composite manner. Moreover, it was
reported that a rough and thick insulation surface can help transfer 5.2.3. Non-composite
higher shear force as compared to slick/smooth face insulation. This is Non-composite sandwich panels were introduced in the 1980s by
because insulation tends to create a sufficient capacity for transferring Gliech [123]. Initially, sandwich panels were designed as non-compo-
shear force between wythes during striping and handling processes. site systems and referred to as cladding panels. Such panels consist of a
However, this transferred shear force is still unable to achieve compo- thicker, integral wythes that are either hollow slabs or single/double
site action by resisting service loads [48]. Salmon et al. [186] found in tees, a middle insulation layer, and non-structural concrete wythes
their FEM simulation of concrete sandwich panels that the panels with [8,30]. Non-composite panels have few shear connectors to minimize

Fig. 10. Composite action of foam concrete sandwich panel (imported with permission from Amran et al [62,179]).

1372
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379

Table 18
Analysis of the degree of composite action, for panel P2, as an example (imported with permission from Amran et al. [136]).
Near bottom end Mid-span Near top end

Height, Load, kN AD1 = AD4 Difference Degree of AD2 = AD5 Difference Degree of AD3 = AD6 Difference Degree of
H, mm in compositeness, in compositeness, in compositeness,
t1 t2 deflection % t1 t2 deflection % t1 t2 deflection %
curves curves curves
AD1 AD4 AD2 AD5 AD3 AD6

0 0.3 0.020 0 0.0 100.0 0.02 0 0.0 100.0 0.02 0.02 0.0 100.0
750 239.3 1.94 2.16 −11.3 88.7 1.7 1.9 −11.8 88.2 1.2 1.2 0.0 100.0
1500 480.2 3.5 3.96 −13.1 86.9 2.76 3.04 −10.1 89.9 1.7 1.94 −14.1 85.9
2250 762.3 12.84 15.82 −23.2 76.8 15.61 15.02 3.8 96.8 6.98 6.51 6.7 93.3
3000 failure 0 0 Average 88.1 0 0 Average 93.7 0 0 Average 94.8

Annotations: AD1 and AD2 = Lateral-displacement points of inner and outer wythes at near bottom end edge, respectively, under axial load t1 and t2 = inner wythe
and outer wythe, respectively.

Table 19 continuous shear connectors can produce higher composite actions.

Typical analysis of non-composite panels. Besides, composite action is affected by the concrete wythes and bond
Equations Annotations Ref.
between the concrete and insulation material [11,62,144].

Fs1 = As1 × fy As1Tension steel reinforcement area (For
Fc1 = 0.45fcu × bs1 one-way)
Mu1 = Fs1 (d1 - s1)/2 bWall section per 1 m length (or
Mu = 2 × x × Mu1 connector spacing)
Fs = (8Mu)/l2 d1Reinforcement depth As1 (for non-
composite)
Fc1Compression force (non-composite)
Fs1Tensile rebar force (non-composite)
fcuConcrete compressive strength
s1Depth of the neutral axis when
Fs1 = Fc1
cracking patterns during handling and assembling processes. Theore-
tically, non-composite panels are characterized by the absence of in-
teraction between the two concrete layers (wythes). Non-composite
PCSPs are often designed with both concrete wythes linked together
using shear connectors; however, the wythes are unable to transfer
longitudinal shear force as each one behaves independently of the other
as shown in Fig. 9(c). Moreover, non-composite panels can be designed
so that one concrete wythe is capable of resisting service or applied
loads, called the structural wythe, as illustrated in Fig. 9(d) [6]. In
certain circumstances, some designers and builders decide to reduce
shear connectors to minimize the possibility of thermal bridges in the
panel design, and this substantially sacrifices the integral performance
and efficiency of a composite panel structure [11]. Furthermore, a non-
shear connector is commonly used to tie concrete wythes to transfer
compression and tension forces from the non-structural to the structural
wythe during stripping, transportation, storage, and erection, and to
resist loads during the seasons of strong wind and natural seismic
phenomena [59]. Moreover, it has been observed that non-composite
panels require thicker concrete wythes compared to full and semi-
composite panels, as external wythes tend to transfer their weight to the
internal ones through a linkable connector. Table 19 summarises the
classical analysis of non-composite concrete panels based on the for-
mulas provided in the PCI design handbook [133]. In addition,
Woltman et al. [57] reported that the adhesion between the concrete
and the insulation material in the developed layered-panels has con-
siderable effect on the strength at the initial level. Furthermore, Tom-
linson et al. [155] examined the influence of the adhesion strength at
the ultimate level and friction between the concrete and the insulation
material, where almost half of the ultimate strength was caused by the
friction and adhesion. Moreover, other experimental studies examined
the influence of insulation on composite action [142,189], where lower
composite action was displayed by extruded polystyrene (XPS) as a
consequence of lower shear flow capacity. In conclusion, previous in-
vestigations on the shear connector configuration showed that
[147 66] 6. Finite element modelling of SIPs
Resource limitation often inhibit the ability to conduct full-scale
experiments to which computer simulation may provide an alternative
way to investigate several structural parameters of SIPs analytically
[54,98,100,164]. Often, finite element models are developed for de-
tailed analysis to study the structural behavior and thermal perfor-
mance of sandwich panels. Numerical modelling approaches can be
divided into global approximation, discrete three-layer and pre-
dictor–corrector procedures [190]; also often categorized differently as
multilayer theories and effective single-layer theory [191,192]. How-
ever, a previous review [193] concluded that there is not a single nu-
merical model that can be the universal model for all sandwich panels
and only small or moderate deformation can be represented by nu-
merical models.
Due to the increase of computer capability, analysis of 3D models
with complex interactions may be performed using several commer-
cialized numerical packages or software [6,24,112,194]. Table 20
summarizes the capability of finite element analysis in modelling the
structural behavior of sandwich panels. After the validation of such
models, further parametric studies were conducted for equation de-
velopment [64]. Moreover, the majority of the developed finite element
models were compared with experimental data to capture the stress
formation which could not be visualized during experiments
[62,65,136,195]. Concrete walls always contribute predominantly to
heat transfer as the surface area is relatively large [49,53]. Therefore,
the simulation of these sandwich panels also involved thermal perfor-
mance analysis where the heat flow can be modelled to determine the
temperature variation inside and outside of the panels. Numerical in-
vestigation of the thermal performance of sandwich panels has been
conducted [128], and this can further promote their use in green
building construction where energy can be recorded through thermal
simulation.
7. SIP applications
SIPs can be applied in walls (internal and external), roofs and
flooring systems due to their ease of combination with other con-
struction materials. Recently, SIPs have been used in sustainable
building construction to maintain indoor thermal stability and save
energy through minimizing electricity consumption. Roofs and walls
are predominantly exposed to heat transfer mechanism in the building
envelope. SIPs therefore provide a significant reduction in heat transfer
if properly utilized. Most SIPs are applied in residential houses and low
rise commercial buildings, and Table 21 gives a summary of the projects

1373
 Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al.

Table 20
Summary of previous modelling investigations for the structural behavior of sandwich panels.
Ref. Analysis package Description Properties and elements Findings

[24] ANSYS, static nonlinear finite element 4-point bending test for floor, only Elements – 3D solid for concrete wythes and AAC blocks; link8 for steel A reasonable accuracy was achieved for the sliding between
analysis (full Newton-Raphson one quarter of the panel was reinforcement and shear connectors; CONT174 and TARGE170 for the layers.
approach) modelled interface between concrete and AAC blocks. Different friction parameters should be used for better
estimation.
Load – nodal forces applied.

Boundary condition – bottom edges were restrained as simply supported

end condition.

Material – shear transfer coefficients were applied for crack, concrete

[49,53] Seismostruct, static nonlinear finite
element analysis
[64] DIANA, nonlinear macroscale finite
element analysis (Newton Raphson)
Compression test for wall, 4-point
bending test for floor
CFRP panel push out test, only one
quarter of the panel was modelled
tensile strength was assumed 0.1 of its compression strength.
Nonlinear constitutive law for concrete material, elasto-perfectly-plastic
for steel, shear stiffness using equation calculation
Element – concrete and rigid foam using eight-node elements (HX24L);
CFRP using three-side isoparametric solid pyramid (TE12L).
Interface – rigid foam/concrete using 3D interface (Q24IF); carbon
Reached tensile diagonal rupture for wall simulation and was
able to identify trilinear behavior with a small uncracked phase
for flexure behavior.
A design equation of shear flow strengths for CFRP grid/foam
system has been proposed.

1374
fiber-reinforced polymer grid/concrete using T18IF 3D interface
[112] ABAQUS, nonlinear finite element GFRP panel under point load Element – shell S8R for composite skins; hexahedron 3D solid (C3D20R) Failure of the core by cracking do not affect overall stiffness of
analysis (Newton’s method) for core. floor panel
Material – Crushable foam model was used for core of sandwich panel.
[98] ABAQUS/Explicit, Quasi static finite Foamed concrete sandwich panel, Concrete damaged plasticity material model was used. Marginally agreed with experimental results.
element analysis axial compression
[194] ABAQUS, nonlinear finite element Panel under point load 2D (S4R) versus 3D (C3D8) 3D is much more closer to reality
analysis
[196] FEMIX and ABAQUS, hybrid slab constituent materials, Different constituent models were adopted in FEMIX and ABAQUS, Perfect bond reduced computational cost and time, and cohesive
bending test contact surface properties was found important in hybrid slab panels zone model was more accurate
[7,26] LUSAS, nonlinear finite element PCSP wall components 2D isoperimetric plane stress elements to model concrete wythes. An acceptable degree of accuracy was attained between the
[62,65,136,195] analysis Foamed concrete sandwiched wall 2D straight isoperimetric bar element to model steel bars and shear results obtained from FEM idealization models and experimental
components connectors works.
[6] PCSP slab components 4 noded 2D/3D flat shell isoparametric plane stress element to model Good correlation was exhibited between the results obtained
[68] Foamed concrete sandwiched slab concrete wythes from experimental tests and FEM models.
components 2D straight isoparametric bar element to model steel bars and shear
connectors
[197] ABAQUS, nonlinear finite element Fire performance of PCSP Displacement and stress obtained in different temperatures (200, 400, Increasing temperature contributes to the rise of the
analysis 800 °C). displacement and stress and it subsequently reduces the capacity
4 noded 3D flat shell isoparametric plane stress element to model of panel at higher temperature rate.
concrete wythes
2D straight isoparametric bar element to model steel bars and shear
connectors
Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379

with SIP applications. The lightweight characteristics of SIPs enables

them to be applied in building renovation or retrofitting, as it will not

Freezer Chamber, Chill Chamber, Multi Temperature (Freezer/Chiller), Ante Room, Picking Room, Processing
burden the foundation with extra permanent loads. Moreover, a seismic
analysis of SIPs for a school building was conducted and results have
shown the capability of SIPs to be applied in seismic zones [198]. The
applications of SIPs now are shifting to sustainable building develop-
ment. With their excellent thermal performance and structural beha-
vior, it is believed that SIPs can help achieve optimum energy efficiency
for building performance. SIPs serve as wall and roof elements that
have the largest area for heat or weather exposure in the building en-
velope and can be extended to other building elements in the future. As
Chill Chamber, Freezer Chamber, Fish Sorting Area, Loading / Unloading Bay

such, SIPs are now applied towards sustainable building construction,

where it can act as a thermal barrier to minimize the energy used to
stabilize indoor temperatures.

8. Conclusion
Chiller Room, Cold Room, Ante Room, Packing Room
Chiller Room, Cold Room, Ante Room, Packing Room
Office Block, Staff house, worker house, guest house

At the outset of the last century, SIP was simply an idea created to
design and fabricate sandwich panels using stressed-skin panels that
where utilized for buildings construction in the United Kingdom. Few
years later, designers and builders began manufacturing SIPs by enga-
ging plywood as loadbearing wythes sandwiched with paperboard. The
fabrication of SIPs has been enhanced recently through the provision of
Double Storey Worker Quaters

several modifications and development features. For instance, poly-

styrene rigid foams (EPS or XPS) have been utilized as core material,
4 Office Blocks, 28 Houses

54 units of power house

while concrete, plywood and thin metal laminations have been func-
2 blocks, 14 houses

tionally utilized to form SIPs’ external faces (wythes). This SIP system
10″ wall, 10″ roof
6″ wall, 10″ roof

6″ wall, 12″ roof

has performed well over the years and is still in use today.
Furthermore, concrete sandwich panels consist of one insulated
Remarks

layer designed with low-strength and low-density surrounded by two

10″ roof
6″ wall
8″ wall

Room

outer and inner concrete wythes casted with structural concrete. Those
three layers are tied using horizontal mechanical shear connectors
made from either steel, CFRP, and GFRP. The design configuration of
Lanchang, Pahang, Malaysia
Puchong, Selangor Malaysia

Simpang Pulai, Ipoh, Perak

shear connectors has a major influence on achieving structural effi-

Tioman, Johor, Malaysia
Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia

ciency and enhancing the combination capacity of the precast panel.

Grand Pass, Missouri
St. Peter, Minnesota

Missoula, Montana

Meanwhile, concrete wythes are always reinforced with one type of

Bellingham, WA

Sabah, Malaysia
Riau, Indonesia

reinforcement rebars made from similar materials to those of shear

Louisville, CO
Issaquah, WA

connectors. The most challenging problem often faced by researchers

Location

Vietnam
Vietnam

and investigators is how to achieve structural integrity of sandwich

panels; that is, how to ensure a strong bond between the wythes and
core material in between. As such, sandwich panel incorporation be-
26,352 ft2

56,000 ft2
30,000 ft2

36400 m2

haviour is categorised into three types; non-composite actions, partially

5550 m2
1055 ft2
3440 ft2

9600 ft2

134 m2

631 m2
36 m2

composite, and fully-composite. Consequently, compositeness of sand-

Area

wich panels depends on various characteristics such as material prop-

–

–
–
–

erties, number, diameter, spacing and layout of horizontal shear con-

Institutional / educational

nectors in addition to the performance of thermal concrete bridges and

Multifamily-residential

strength of concrete wythes. When an SIP achieves 100% of its integral

incorporation and structural efficiency, it is called a fully-composite
Building type

Family house
Family house
Multipurpose

panel. On the contrary, when an SIP panel fails due to its shear con-
Power house
Agricultural
Commercial

Commercial

Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Residential

Residential

nectors prior to concrete crushing and steel reinforcement yielding, it is

referred to as a non-composite panel. Moreover, an SIP panel is defined
as semi-composite when the degree of composite action ranges between
0% “non-composite” and 100% “fully-composite”.
Native American Center, University of Montana

Tabung Haji Palm Oil Plantation Head Quarter

Numerous researchers worldwide have conducted thorough studies

Hung Vuong corporation coldroom storage
Pearl Izumi, USA Corporate Headquarters

on sandwich panels, and given this review, the majority of those studies
(about 90%) have focused on investigating the behaviour of SIPs using
heavy concrete materials to fabricate panel wythes. That is, existing
Cool Terrace House Pulau Tioman
Projects with SIP applications.

literature have barely touched on the utilization of lightweight concrete

MAFC cold storage warehouse
Cedarwood zero energy home
Evoke quadrant model home

to prefabricate PCSP wythes. As such, future research on sandwich

Lotte-sea logistic coldroom

Solar Hybrid Power House

Tesco distribution centre

Malaysia Army Barrack

panels can attempt to address the followings;

MAFC Worker Quaters
Park row apartments

- To recommend provisions to improve the current thermal efficiency

Plattner farms

of SIPs,
- To utilize standard grades of lightweight concrete as a main material
Table 21

Project

to fabricate wythes of SIP specimens (e.g. Foamed concrete, auto-

claved aerated concrete (AAC), and polystyrene lightweight

1375
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al.
aggregate concrete),
- To design SIP specimens using lightweight concrete that are ac-
ceptable and work best for both wall and floor systems,
- To investigate SIP specimens under varieties of loads that the
buildings often resists such as axial, cyclic, sudden, shear and flex-
ural loadings,
- To enhance the performance of composite PCSP by providing a
greater number of shear connectors with a smaller space and en-
suring a proper orientation and arrangement, and
- To promote, evaluate and extend the use of sandwich panels in
construction industries worldwide.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors greatly appreciate the financial support given by the
Deanship of Scientific Research at Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz
University, Alkharj, Saudi Arabia; and the supervision and assistance
provided by the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering and IT, Amran University, Yemen, for this study.
References
[1] Davies JM. Lightweight Sandwich Construction 2008. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9780470690253.
[2] Zulkefli I. A Preliminary Evaluation of Prefabricated Bathroom for High-Rise
Housing Schemes in Malaysia, Unpubl. Thesis Master Sci. Built Environ. Kuala
Lumpur IIUM; 2007.
[3] Snyder V. Refabricating architecture: how manufacturing methodologies are
poised to transform building construction. J Archit Educ 2005;59:51–2. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1531-314x.2005.00008.x.
[4] Rahim AA, Hamid ZA, Zen IH, Ismail Z, Kamar KAM. Adaptable housing of precast
panel system in Malaysia. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 2012;50:369–82.
[5] Tadros MK, Salmon DC, Einea A. Culp TD. Precast concrete sandwich panels; 1995.
[6] Benayoune A, Samad AAA, Trikha DN, Ali AAA, Ellinna SHM. Flexural behaviour
of pre-cast concrete sandwich composite panel - experimental and theoretical in-
vestigations. Constr Build Mater 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2006.11.023.
[7] Benayoune A, Samad AAA, Trikha DN, Abang Ali AA, Ashrabov AA. Structural
behaviour of eccentrically loaded precast sandwich panels. Constr Build Mater
2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.02.002.
[8] Seeber KE, Andrews R, Baty JR, Campbell PS, Dobbs JE, Force G, et al. State-of-the-
art of precast/prestressed sandwich wall panels. PCI J 1997.
[9] Salmon DC, Einea A, Tadros MK, Culp TD. Full scale testing of precast concrete
sandwich panels. ACI Struct J 1997;94:239–47.
[10] Einea A. Structural and thermal efficiency of precast concrete sandwich panel
systems. United States: Ph.D Diss. Univ. Nebraska - Lincoln; 1992. p. 197.
[11] Frankl BA, Lucier GW, Hassan TK, Rizkalla SH. Behavior of precast, prestressed
concrete sandwich wall panels reinforced with CFRP shear grid. PCI J. 2011.
https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.03012011.42.54.
[12] McCall WC. Thermal Properties of Sandwich Panels. Concr. Int. 1985;7:35–41.
[13] Benayoune A, Ali AAA, Samad AAA, Trikha DN. Flexural analysis of composite
one-and two-way sandwich slabs with truss-shaped connectors; n.d.
[14] Salmon DC, Tadros MK, Culp T. A new structurally and thermally efficient precast
sandwich panel system. PCI J 1994;39:90–101.
[15] Fouad FH, Farrell J, Heath M, Shalaby A, Vichare A. Behavior of the MR Sandwich
Panel in Flexure. ACI Spec Publ 2009;260.
[16] Othuman Mydin MA, Wang YC. Structural performance of lightweight steel-
foamed concrete–steel composite walling system under compression. Thin-Walled
Struct 2011;49:66–76.
[17] Flores-Johnson EA, Li QM. Structural behaviour of composite sandwich panels
with plain and fibre-reinforced foamed concrete cores and corrugated steel faces.
Compos Struct 2012;94:1555–63.
[18] Prabha P, Marimuthu V, Saravanan M, Palani GS, Lakshmanan N, Senthil R. Effect
of confinement on steel-concrete composite light-weight load-bearing wall panels
under compression. J Constr Steel Res 2013;81:11–9.
[19] Sohel KMA, Richard Liew JY, Yan JB, Zhang MH, Chia KS. Behavior of
Steel–Concrete–Steel sandwich structures with lightweight cement composite and
novel shear connectors. Compos Struct 2012;94:3500–9.
[20] Kawasaki T, Kawai S. Thermal insulation properties of wood-based sandwich panel
for use as structural insulated walls and floors. J Wood Sci 2006;52:75–83.
[21] Pessiki S, Mlynarczyk A. Experimental evaluation of the precast concrete sandwich
1376
Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379
wall panels. PCI J 2003.
[22] Ismail M, Bakhary N, Johari SAM, Muda NE. Research Signature of Faculty of Civil
Engineering Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Johor: Johor Bahru; 2018.
[23] Gram M. Xiamen Zhongjingtai Building Materials Co. Ltd, Insul. EPS Sandw. Panel
Manuf.; 2020:17. https://zjteps.en.made-in-china.com/product/lXiEHtoDVxfI/
China-Europe-Standard-EPS-Cement-Solid-Sandwich-Panels-Exterior-Cement-
Board.html.
[24] Al Kashif M, Abdel Mooty M, Fahmy E, Abou Zeid M, Haroun M. Nonlinear
modeling and analysis of AAC in- filled sandwich panels for out of plane loads.
Orld Acad Sci Eng Technol 2012.
[25] Pang SC. A study of in-situ l-connections for precast concrete sandwich panel
building system. Universiti Putra Malaysia 2002.
[26] Benayoune A, Samad AAA, Abang Ali AA, Trikha DN. Response of pre-cast re-
inforced composite sandwich panels to axial loading. Constr Build Mater 2007.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.12.011.
[27] Vinson JR. The behavior of sandwich structures of isotropic and composite ma-
terials. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Pub. Co; 1999.
[28] Metelli G, Bettini N, Plizzari G. Experimental and numerical studies on the beha-
viour of concrete sandwich panels. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 2011;15:1465–81.
[29] Smakosz Ł, Tejchman J. Evaluation of strength, deformability and failure mode of
composite structural insulated panels. Mater Des 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2013.09.032.
[30] Losch ED, Hynes PW, Andrews R, Browning R, Cardone P, Devalapura R, et al.
State of the art of precast/prestressed concrete sandwich wall panels. PCI J 2011.
[31] Manufurer HXM. EPS wire mesh welding sandwich 3D panel. Alibaba. 2008;13.
[32] Jiřičková M, Pavlík Z, Fiala L, Černý R. Thermal conductivity of mineral wool
materials partially saturated by water. Int J Thermophys 2006. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10765-006-0076-8.
[33] Sohel KMA, Liew JYR, Alwis WAM, Paramasivam P. Experimental investigation of
low-velocity impact characteristics of steel-concrete-steel sandwich beams. STEEL
Compos Struct 2003;3:289–306.
[34] Narayan R, Roberts TM, Naji FJ. Design guide for steel-concrete-steel sandwich
construction. Vol. 1: General principles and rules for basic elements, SCI Public,
Steel Construction Institute; 1994.
[35] Liew JYR, Sohel KMA. Structural performance of steel-concrete-steel sandwich
composite structures. Adv Struct Eng 2010;13:453–70.
[36] Liew JYR, Sohel KMA, Koh CG. Impact tests on steel-concrete-steel sandwich
beams with lightweight concrete core. Eng Struct 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.engstruct.2009.03.007.
[37] Oduyemi TOS, Wright HD. An experimental investigation into the behaviour of
double-skin sandwich beams. J Constr Steel Res 1989;14:197–220.
[38] Zuk W. Prefabricated sandwich panels for bridge decks. Transp Res Board Spec
Rep 1974;148:115–21.
[39] Bergan PG, Bakken K, Sandwich design: Asolution for marine structures?. In: Int.
Conf. Comput. Methods Mar. Eng., Oslo, Norway; 2005.
[40] Sohel KMA, Richard Liew JY. Steel-Concrete-Steel sandwich slabs with lightweight
core - static performance. Eng Struct 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.
2010.12.019.
[41] Bowerman H, Gough M, King C. Bi-Steel Design & Construction Guide. Scunthorpe:
British Steel Ltd.; 1999.
[42] Liew JYR, Sohel KMA. Lightweight steel-concrete-steel sandwich system with J-
hook connectors. Eng Struct 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.01.
013.
[43] Subedi NK. Double skin steel/concrete composite beam elements: experimental
testing. Struct Eng 2003;81:30–5.
[44] Dai XX, Richard Liew JY. Fatigue performance of lightweight steel-concrete-steel
sandwich systems. J Constr Steel Res 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.
07.009.
[45] Tracey Bass, First City Builders, ICF Constr. 2018;4. https://www.firstcitybuilders.
com/icf-construction.
[46] Rizkalla S, Hassan T, Lucier G. FRP shear transfer mechanism for precast, pre-
stressed concrete sandwich load-bearing panels. ACI Spec Publ 2009;265.
[47] M. SIPs Self-Build, Eco SIPs Homes - Structural Insulated Panel House Kits, SIPs
Self-Build House Kits. 2020;7. https://www.ecosipshomes.co.uk/.
[48] Radin Sumadi S, Ramli M. Development of lightweight ferrocement sandwich
panels for modular housing and industralized building system; 2008.
[49] Gara F, Ragni L, Roia D, Dezi L. Experimental behaviour and numerical analysis of
floor sandwich panels. Eng Struct 2012;36:258–69.
[50] Bush TD, Wu Z. Flexural analysis of prestressed concrete sandwich panels with
truss connectors. PCI J 1998. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.09011998.76.86.
[51] Bush TD, Stine GL. Flexural behavior of composite precast concrete sandwich
panels with continuous truss connectors. PCI J 1994;39:112–21.
[52] Chen L, Hou HT, Li GQ. Experimental investigations on flexural behavior of
sandwich composite panels. Adv Mater Res 2011;287:810–4.
[53] Gara F, Ragni L, Roia D, Dezi L. Experimental tests and numerical modelling of
wall sandwich panels. Eng Struct 2012;37:193–204.
[54] Kabir MZ. Structural performance of 3-D sandwich panels under shear and flexural
loading. Sci Iran 2005;12:402–8.
[55] Aziz A, Aznieta FN. Structural behaviour of precast concrete sandwich panels with
openings under axial load. Universiti Putra Malaysia 2002.
[56] Carbonari G, Cavalaro SHP, Cansario MM, Aguado A. Flexural behaviour of light-
weight sandwich panels composed by concrete and EPS. Constr Build Mater
2012;35:792–9.
[57] Woltman GD, Tomlinson DG, Fam A. A Comparative Study of Various FRP Shear
Connectors for Sandwich Concrete Walls. In: Adv. FRP Compos. Civ. Eng.,
Springer; 2011: p. 237–40.
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al.
[58] Lee BJ, Pessiki S. Design and analysis of precast, prestressed concrete, three-wythe
sandwich wall panels. PCI J 2007;52:70–83.
[59] Abbaker AE. Structural behaviour of pre-cast concrete sandwich panel under axial
and lateral loading. Universiti Putra Malaysia 1999.
[60] Sharaf T, Shawkat W, Fam A. Structural performance of sandwich wall panels with
different foam core densities in one-way bending. J Compos Mater
2010;44:2249–63.
[61] Mahendran M, McAndrew D. Effects of foam joints on the flexural wrinkling
strength of sandwich panels. Steel Struct 2001;1:105–12.
[62] Mugahed Amran YH, Abang Ali AA, Rashid RSM, Hejazi F, Safiee NA. Structural
behavior of axially loaded precast foamed concrete sandwich panels. Constr Build
Mater 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.01.020.
[63] O’Hegarty R, West R, Reilly A, Kinnane O. Composite behaviour of fibre-reinforced
concrete sandwich panels with FRP shear connectors. Eng Struct 2019. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109475.
[64] Hodicky K, Sopal G, Rizkalla S, Hulin T, Stang H. Experimental and numerical
investigation of the FRP shear mechanism for concrete sandwich panels. J Compos
Constr 2015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000554.
[65] Mugahed Amran YH, Rashid RSM, Hejazi F, Abang Ali AA, Safiee NA, Bida SM.
Structural performance of precast foamed concrete sandwich panel subjected to
axial load. KSCE J Civ Eng 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-1711-6.
[66] P.C.I.B.D. Manual, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL; 2003.
[67] O’Hegarty R, Reilly A, West R, Kinnane O. Thermal investigation of thin precast
concrete sandwich panels. J Build Eng 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.
100937.
[68] Amran YHM, Rashid RSM, Hejazi F, Safiee NA, Ali AAA. Response of precast
foamed concrete sandwich panels to flexural loading. J Build Eng 2016. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.06.006.
[69] Lee BJ, Pessiki S. Thermal performance evaluation of precast concrete three-wythe
sandwich wall panels. Energy Build 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.
2005.11.014.
[70] European Committee for Standardization, Design of concrete structures - Part 1-2:
General rules - Structural fire design, Eurocode 2; 2004.
[71] Mugahed Amran YH, Muhammad Rashid RS, Hejazi F, Safiee NA, Abang Ali AA.
Structural behavior of laterally loaded precast foamed concrete sandwich panel.
Int J Civil Environ Struct Constr Archit Eng 2016;10:255–63.
[72] Constructing Exellence, Building Control Act 2007, Constrcuting Excell; 2010.
[73] Lee JH, Kang SH, Ha YJ, Hong SG. Structural behavior of durable composite
sandwich panels with high performance expanded polystyrene concrete. Int J
Concr Struct Mater 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-018-0255-6.
[74] Hopkins PM, Norris T, Chen A. Creep behavior of insulated concrete sandwich
panels with fiber-reinforced polymer shear connectors. Compos Struct 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.03.038.
[75] Correia JR, Ferreira J, Branco FA. A rehabilitation study of sandwich GRC facade
panels. Constr Build Mater 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.
066.
[76] Enfedaque A, Cendón D, Gálvez F, Sánchez-Gálvez V. Failure and impact behavior
of facade panels made of glass fiber reinforced cement (GRC). Eng Fail Anal 2011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2011.01.004.
[77] Voss S. Dimensioning of textile reinforced concrete structures; 2006, doi: 10.1617/
2351580087.015.
[78] Colombo IG, Colombo M, Di Prisco M. Bending behaviour of textile reinforced
concrete sandwich beams. Constr Build Mater 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.07.169.
[79] Ambily PS, Ravisankar K, Umarani C, Dattatreya JK, Iyer NR. Development of
ultra-high-performance geopolymer concrete. Mag Concr Res 2014. https://doi.
org/10.1680/macr.13.00057.
[80] Rizk E, Marzouk H. New formula to calculate minimum flexure reinforcement for
thick high-strength concrete plates. ACI Struct J 2009. https://doi.org/10.14359/
51663106.
[81] Hegger J, Zell M, Horstmann M. Textile reinforced concrete — Realization in
applications. In: Proc. Int. FIB Symp. 2008 - Tailor Made Concr. Struct. New Solut.
Our Soc.; 2008, doi: 10.1201/9781439828410.ch61.
[82] Flansbjer M, Williams Portal N, Vennetti D, Mueller U. Composite behaviour of
textile reinforced reactive powder concrete sandwich façade elements. Int J Concr
Struct Mater 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-018-0301-4.
[83] Shams A, Horstmann M, Hegger J. Experimental investigations on textile-re-
inforced concrete (TRC) sandwich sections. Compos Struct 2014. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.07.056.
[84] Williams Portal N, Flansbjer M, Zandi K, Wlasak L, Malaga K. Bending behaviour of
novel textile reinforced concrete-foamed concrete (TRC-FC) sandwich elements.
Compos Struct 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.06.051.
[85] Shams A, Stark A, Hoogen F, Hegger J, Schneider H. Innovative sandwich struc-
tures made of high performance concrete and foamed polyurethane. Compos
Struct 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.11.026.
[86] Hodicky K, Hulin T, Schmidt JW, Stang H. Structural performance of new thin-
walled concrete sandwich panel system reinforced with BFRP shear connectors. In:
Proc. 4th Asia-Pacific Conf. FRP Struct. APFIS 2013; 2013.
[87] Dey V, Zani G, Colombo M, Di Prisco M, Mobasher B. Flexural impact response of
textile-reinforced aerated concrete sandwich panels. Mater Des 2015. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.004.
[88] Hou H, Ji K, Wang W, Qu B, Fang M, Qiu C. Flexural behavior of precast insulated
sandwich wall panels: full-scale tests and design implications. Eng Struct 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.11.068.
[89] Voellinger T, Bassi A, Heitel M. Facilitating the incorporation of VIP into precast
concrete sandwich panels. Energy Build 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.
1377
Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379
2014.05.038.
[90] Hegger J, Will N. Textile-Reinforced Concrete: Design Models. In: Text. Fibre
Compos. Civ. Eng.; 2016, doi: 10.1016/B978-1-78242-446-8.00009-4.
[91] Gopinath S, Ramesh Kumar V, Sheth H, Ramachandra Murthy A, Iyer NR. Pre-
fabricated sandwich panels using cold-formed steel and textile reinforced concrete.
Constr Build Mater 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.068.
[92] Amormino G. Precast reinforced concrete wall panels and method of erecting
same; 1987.
[93] Seeber K, Andrews RAY Jr., Jacques FJ, Baty JR, Kourajian P, Campbell PS, Long
RT, Force G, Oehrlein M, Francies S. State-of-the-art of precast/prestressed sand-
wich wall panels, PCI J 1997;42:94–132.
[94] AbdelGhani B. Precast concrete sandwich panel as a building system. Universiti
Putra Malaysia 2003.
[95] Mohamad N, Omar W, Abdullah R. Precast lightweight foamed concrete sandwich
panel (PLFP) tested under axial load: preliminary results. Adv Mater Res
2011;250:1153–62.
[96] Sengul O, Azizi S, Karaosmanoglu F, Tasdemir MA. Effect of expanded perlite on
the mechanical properties and thermal conductivity of lightweight concrete.
Energy Build 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.11.008.
[97] Mohamad N. The structural behaviour of precast lightweight foamed concrete
sandwich panel as a load bearing wall. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 2010.
[98] Goh WI, Mohamad N, Abdullah R, Samad AAA. Finite element analysis of precast
lightweight foamed concrete sandwich panel subjected to axial compression. J
Comput Sci Comput Math 2016. https://doi.org/10.20967/jcscm.2016.01.001.
[99] Chen A, Norris TG, Hopkins PM, Yossef M. Experimental investigation and finite
element analysis of flexural behavior of insulated concrete sandwich panels with
FRP plate shear connectors. Eng Struct 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.
2015.04.022.
[100] Daniel Ronald Joseph J, Prabakar J, Alagusundaramoorthy P. Flexural behavior of
precast concrete sandwich panels under different loading conditions such as
punching and bending. Alexandria Eng J 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.
2016.11.016.
[101] Pessiki S, Mlynarczyk A. Experimental evaluation of the composite behavior of
precast concrete sandwich wall panels. PCI J 2003;48:54–71.
[102] Hulin T, Hodicky K, Schmidt JW, Stang H. Sandwich panels with high perfor-
mance concrete thin plates at elevated temperatures: numerical studies. Mater
Struct Constr 2016. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-015-0712-5.
[103] Mahendran M, McAndrew D. Flexural wrinkling strength of lightly profiled
sandwich panels with transverse joints in the foam core. Adv Struct Eng
2003;6:325–37.
[104] Pokharel N, Mahendran M. An investigation of lightly profiled sandwich panels
subject to local buckling and flexural wrinkling effects. J Constr Steel Res
2005;61:984–1006.
[105] Davies JM, Hakmi MR. Local buckling of profiled sandwich plates. In: Proc. IABSE
Symp. Mix. Struct. Incl. New Mater.; 1990: p. 533–8.
[106] Alkhudery H, Virdi KB. Behaviour of Metal Foam Sandwich Panels. In: Proc.
METNET Semin. 2011; 2011: p. 97–109.
[107] Remennikov AM, Kong SY, Uy B. The response of axially restrained non-composite
steel–concrete–steel sandwich panels due to large impact loading. Eng Struct
2013;49:806–18.
[108] Davies JM, Heselius L. Design recommendations for sandwich panels: CIB working
commission W56 lightweight constructions has prepared additional clauses for
European convention for constructional steelwork, ECCS, recommendations on
design of structural panels. Build Res Inf 1993;21:157–61.
[109] Bakis CE, Bank LC, Brown VL, Cosenza E, Davalos JF, Lesko JJ, et al. Fiber-re-
inforced polymer composites for construction - state-of-the-art review. J Compos
Constr 2002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:2(73).
[110] Hassan TK, Rizkalla SH. Analysis and design guidelines of precast prestressed
concrete, composite Ioad-bearing sandwich wall panels reinforced with CFRP,
grid. PCI J 2010;55:147–62.
[111] Hyun-Do Y, Seok-Joon J, Young-Chan Y. Direct shear responses of insulated
concrete sandwich panels with GFRP shear Connectors. In: Appl. Mech. Mater.;
2012, doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.204-208.803.
[112] Awad ZK, Aravinthan T, Zhuge Y. Experimental and numerical analysis of an in-
novative GFRP sandwich floor panel under point load. Eng Struct 2012;41:126–35.
[113] Woltman G, Tomlinson D, Fam A. Investigation of various GFRP shear connectors
for insulated precast concrete sandwich wall panels. J Compos Constr 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000373.
[114] Mallick PK. Fiber-Reinforced Composites: Materials, Manufacturing, and Design.
CRC Press; 2007.
[115] ACI Committee 440.1R-06, Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete
Reinforced with FRP Bars, Am Concr Inst; 2007.
[116] Uomoto T, Mutsuyoshi H, Katsuki F, Misra S. Use of fiber reinforced polymer
composites as reinforcing material for concrete. J Mater Civ Eng
2002;14:191–209.
[117] Sauter J. Insulated Concrete Sandwich Walls. In: Exter. Wall Syst. Glas. Concr.
Technol. Des. Constr.; 2009, doi: 10.1520/stp20135s.
[118] Dunker FW. Tie anchor for reinforced sandwich panels; 1986.
[119] Larralde J, Silva-Rodriguez R. Bond and slip of FRP rebars in concrete. J Mater Civ
Eng 1993;5:30–40.
[120] Frankl B, Lucier G, Rizkalla S, Blaszak G, Harmon T. Structural Behavior of
Insulated Prestressed Concrete Sandwich Panels Reinforced with FRP Grid; n.d.
[121] Balendran RV, Tang W, Nadeem A, Leung HY. Flexural Behaviour of Sand Coated
Glass-Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Bars in Concrete. In: 29th Int. Conf. Our
World Concr. Struct.; 2004.
[122] Bank LC, Puterman M, Katz A. The effect of material degradation on bond
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al.
properties of fiber reinforced plastic reinforcing bars in concrete. ACI Mater J
1998;95:232–43.
[123] Gleich H. New carbon fiber reinforcement advances sandwich wall panels, Struct
Mag; 2007.
[124] Wright H. The axial load behaviour of composite walling. J Constr Steel Res
1998;45:353–75.
[125] Liang QQ, Uy B. Theoretical study on the post-local buckling of steel plates in
concrete-filled box columns. Comput Struct 2000. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0045-7949(99)00104-2.
[126] A. C578, Standard Specification for Rigid, Cellular Polystyrene Thermal
Insulation, ASTM; 2019.
[127] Wang B, Cheng Y, Liu Y, Chen P, Li D, Ruan R. Properties of rigid polyurethane
foams prepared from recycled aircraft deicing agent with hexamethylene diiso-
cyanate. J Appl Polym Sci 2013;127:1458–65.
[128] Hauser G, Kersken M, Sinnesbichler H, Schade A. Experimental and numerical
investigations for comparing the thermal performance of infrared reflecting in-
sulation and of mineral wool. Energy Build 2013;58:131–40.
[129] Papadopoulos AM. State of the art in thermal insulation materials and aims for
future developments. Energy Build 2005;37:77–86.
[130] Sharaf T, Fam A. Analysis of large scale cladding sandwich panels composed of
GFRP skins and ribs and polyurethane foam core. Thin-Walled Struct
2013;71:91–101.
[131] Fam A, Sharaf T. Flexural performance of sandwich panels comprising poly-
urethane core and GFRP skins and ribs of various configurations. Compos Struct
2010;92:2927–35.
[132] Reis EM, Rizkalla SH. Material characteristics of 3-D FRP sandwich panels. Constr
Build Mater 2008;22:1009–18.
[133] Kim JH, You YC. Composite behavior of a novel insulated concrete sandwich wall
panel reinforced with GFRP shear grids: effects of insulation types. Materials
(Basel) 2015. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma8030899.
[134] Choi KB, Choi WC, Feo L, Jang SJ, Do Yun H. In-plane shear behavior of insulated
precast concrete sandwich panels reinforced with corrugated GFRP shear con-
nectors. Compos Part B Eng 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.
04.056.
[135] Tomlinson D, Fam A. Flexural behavior of precast concrete sandwich wall panels
with basalt FRP and steel reinforcement. PCI J 2015. https://doi.org/10.15554/
pcij.11012015.51.71.
[136] Mugahed Amran YH, Alyousef R, Alabduljabbar H, Alrshoudi F, Rashid RSM.
Influence of slenderness ratio on the structural performance of lightweight foam
concrete composite panel. Case Stud Constr Mater 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cscm.2019.e00226.
[137] Liu R, Zhang K, Tao M. Comparison study on thermal performance of the RC
sandwich panels with different connectors. In: Appl. Mech. Mater.; 2013, doi: 10.
4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.253-255.674.
[138] Choi W, Jang SJ, Do Yun H. Design properties of insulated precast concrete
sandwich panels with composite shear connectors. Compos Part B Eng 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.081.
[139] Xue W, Hu X. State of the art of studies on precast concrete shear wall structures.
Jianzhu Jiegou Xuebao/J Build Struct 2019. https://doi.org/10.14006/j.jzjgxb.
2019.02.003.
[140] Huang J, Dai J. Study on composite action of precast concrete sandwich panels
with plate-type GFRP shear connectors, Jianzhu Jiegou Xuebao/J Build Struct;
2015.
[141] Naito C, Hoemann J, Beacraft M, Bewick B. Performance and characterization of
shear ties for use in insulated precast concrete sandwich wall panels. J Struct Eng
(United States) 2012. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000430.
[142] Soriano J, Rizkalla S. Use of FRP Grid for the composite action of concrete
sandwich panels. In: 11th Int. Symp. Fiber Reinf. Polym. Reinf. Concr. Struct.
Guimaraes; 2013.
[143] Naito CJ, Hoemann JM, Bewick BT, Hammons MI. Evaluation of shear tie con-
nectors for use in insulated concrete sandwich panels. DTIC Document 2009.
[144] Mohamad N, Hassan N. The structural performance of precast lightweight foam
concrete sandwich panel with single and double shear truss connectors subjected
to axial load. Adv Mater Res 2013;634:2746–51.
[145] Gastmeyer R, Donahey RC. GFRP connector and partially precast concrete sand-
wich panel system. ACI Spec Publ 2003;215:103–20.
[146] Deitz DH, Harik IE, Gesund H. One-way slabs reinforced with glass fiber reinforced
polymer reinforcing bars. ACI Spec Publ 1999;188.
[147] Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, PCI design handbook: precast and pre-
stressed concrete; 2010.
[148] Campbell RW, Folding telescopic prefabricated framing units for non-load-bearing
walls; 1998.
[149] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete; 2014.
[150] Oh TS, Jang SJ, Lee KM, Do Yun H. Insulation type effect on the direct shear
behavior of concrete sandwich panel (CSP) with non-shear connectors, Adv Mater
Res; 2013, doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.663.154.
[151] Kazem H, Bunn WG, Seliem HM, Rizkalla SH, Gleich H. Durability and long term
behavior of FRP/foam shear transfer mechanism for concrete sandwich panels.
Constr Build Mater 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.105.
[152] Sousa CF, BJARM, Lameiras AM. Flexural and shear behaviour of precast sandwich
slabs comprising thin walled steel fibre reinforced self-compacting concrete. In:
7th RILEM Int. Conf. Self-Compacting Concr. 1st RILEM Int. Conf. Rheol. Process.
Constr. Mater.; 2013.
[153] Mathieson H, Fam A. Effect of internal ribs on fatigue performance of sandwich
panels with GFRP skins and polyurethane foam core. J Mater Civ Eng 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000992.
1378
Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379
[154] Kim JH, Choi KS. Flexural strength for insulated concrete sandwich wall panel
reinforced with glassfiber-reinforced polymer shear grids: Roughness-induced
mechanical bonding. Mater Res Innov 2015. https://doi.org/10.1179/
1432891715Z.0000000001707.
[155] Tomlinson D, Fam A. Experimental investigation of precast concrete insulated
sandwich panels with glass fiber-reinforced polymer shear connectors. ACI Struct J
2014. https://doi.org/10.14359/51686621.
[156] Pantelides CP, Surapaneni R, Reaveley LD. Structural performance of hybrid
GFRP/steel concrete sandwich panels. J Compos Constr 2008. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2008)12:5(570).
[157] Lee BJ, Pessiki S. Experimental evaluation of precast, prestressed concrete, three-
wythe sandwich wall panels. PCI J 2008. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.
03012008.95.115.
[158] Henin E, Morcous G, Tadros MK. Precast/prestressed concrete sandwich panels for
thermally efficient floor/roof applications. Pract Period Struct Des Constr 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000213.
[159] Carbonari G, Cavalaro SHP, Cansario MM, Aguado A. Experimental and analytical
study about the compressive behavior of eps sandwich panels. Mater Construcción
2013. https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2013.01812.
[160] Mohamad N, Mahdi MH. Testing of precast lightweight foamed concrete sandwich
panel with single and double symmetrical shear truss connectors under eccentric
loading. Adv Mater Res; 2011, doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.335-336.
1107.
[161] Rahman M, Jaini Z. The combined finite-discrete element analysis of precast
lightweight foamed concrete sandwich panel (PLFP) under axial load. In: Proc. Int.
Conf. Adv. Struct.; 2013.
[162] Yüksel N. The review of some commonly used methods and techniques to measure
the thermal conductivity of insulation materials. Insul Mater Context Sustain
2016. https://doi.org/10.5772/64157.
[163] Vitale JP, Francucci G, Stocchi A. Thermal conductivity of sandwich panels made
with synthetic and vegetable fiber vacuum-infused honeycomb cores. J Sandw
Struct Mater 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636216635630.
[164] Woltman G, Noel M, Fam A. Experimental and numerical investigations of thermal
properties of insulated concrete sandwich panels with fiberglass shear connectors.
Energy Build 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.007.
[165] Zhai X, Wang Y, Wang X. Thermal performance of precast concrete sandwich walls
with a novel hybrid connector. Energy Build 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2018.01.070.
[166] Sadri M, Younesian D. Vibroacoustic analysis of a sandwich panel coupled with an
enclosure cavity. Compos Struct 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.
2016.03.024.
[167] Wawrzynowicz A, Krzaczek M, Tejchman J. Experiments and FE analyses on air-
borne sound properties of composite structural insulated panels. Arch Acoust
2014. https://doi.org/10.2478/aoa-2014-0040.
[168] Li Q, Yang D. Mechanical and acoustic performance of sandwich panels with-
hybrid cellular cores. J Vib Acoust 2018;140.
[169] D’Alessandro V, Petrone G, Franco F, De Rosa S. A review of the vibroacoustics of
sandwich panels: models and experiments. J Sandw Struct Mater 2013. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1099636213490588.
[170] SIPA. Structural insulated panel (SIP): Engineering design guide, Structural
Insulated Panel Association, Florida, USA; 2019.
[171] ANSI/APA. Standard for performance-rated structural insulated panels in wall
applications, The Engineered Wood Association (APA), approved by ANSI,
Tacoma, WA; 2018.
[172] EN14509, Self-supporting double skin metal faced insulating panels – Factory
made products – Specifications; 2006.
[173] ECCS TC7 & CIB W56, Preliminary European Recommendations for the Design of
Sandwich Panels with Openings, Rotterdam/Brussels; 2013.
[174] ECCS TC7 & CIB W56, European Recommendations on the Stabilization of Steel
Structures by Sandwich Panels, Rotterdam/Brussels, 2013.
[175] ECCS TC7 & CIB W56, European Recommendations for the design, detailing and
application of fastenings for sandwich panels, Netherland; 2019.
[176] ICPA, Code of practice – incorporating IPCA panel certification scheme, Insulated
Panel Council Australasia Ltd (IPCA); 2017.
[177] Theulen JCM, Peijs AAJM. Optimization of the bending stiffness and strength of
composite sandwich panels. Compos Struct 1991. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-
8223(91)90062-4.
[178] Han B, Qin KK, Yu B, Zhang QC, Chen CQ, Lu TJ. Design optimization of foam-
reinforced corrugated sandwich beams. Compos Struct 2015. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compstruct.2015.04.022.
[179] Mugahed Amran TH. Determination of Structural Behavior of Precast Foamed
Concrete Sandwich Panel, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM); 2016. http://psasir.
upm.edu.my/id/eprint/70170/1/FK 2016 2 - IR.pdf.
[180] Lee BJ, Pessiki S. Design and analysis of precast, prestressed concrete, three-wythe
sandwich wall panels. PCI J 2007. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.07012007.
70.83.
[181] AAA. YH M Amran, Raizal SM Rashid, Farzad Hejazi, Nor Azizi Safiee, Structural
behavior of laterally loaded precast foamed concrete sandwich panel, Int J Civ
Environ Struct Constr Arch Eng 2016;10:255–63.
[182] AAA YH Mugahed Amran, Raizal SM Rashid, Farzad Hejazi, Nor Azizi Safiee,
Structural Behavior of Precast Foamed Concrete Sandwich Panel Subjected to
Vertical In-Plane Shear Loading, J Civil Environ Struct Constr Arch Eng
2016;10:699–708.
[183] Frankl B, Lucier G, Rizkalla S, Blaszak G, Harmon T. Structural behavior of in-
sulated prestressed concrete sandwich panels reinforced with FRP grid. In: Proc.
4th Int. Conf. FRP Compos. Civ. Eng. CICE 2008; 2008.
Y.H. Mugahed Amran, et al.
[184] Morcous G, Tadros MK, Lafferty M, Gremel D. Optimized Nu sandwich panel
system for energy, composite action and production efficiency. In: 3rd Int. Fib
Congr. Exhib. Inc. PCI Annu. Conv. Bridg. Conf. Think Glob. Build Locally, Proc.;
2010.
[185] Mohamad N, Omar W, Abdullah R. Precast Lightweight Foamed Concrete
Sandwich Panel (PLFP) tested under axial load: preliminary results. Adv Mater Res
2011. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.250-253.1153.
[186] Salmon DC, Einea A. Partially composite sandwich panel deflections. J Struct Eng
1995;121:778–83.
[187] Tomlinson D, Fam A. Analysis and parametric study of partially composite precast
concrete sandwich panels under axial loads. J Struct Eng (United States) 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001560.
[188] Bai F, Davidson JS. Analysis of partially composite foam insulated concrete
sandwich structures. Eng Struct 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.
02.033.
[189] Hassan TK, Rizkalla SH. Analysis and design guidelines of precast, prestressed
concrete, composite load-bearing sandwich wall panels reinforced with CFRP grid.
PCI J 2010. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.03012010.147.162.
[190] Noor AK, Burton WS, Bert CW. Computational models for sandwich panels and
shells. Appl Mech Rev 1996. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3101923.
[191] Hohe J, Librescu L. Advances in the structural modeling of elastic sandwich pa-
nels. Mech Adv Mater Struct 2004. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1379
Structures 27 (2020) 1358–1379
15376490490451561.
[192] Hamed E. Modeling, analysis, and behavior of load-carrying precast concrete
sandwich panels. J Struct Eng (United States) 2016. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001490.
[193] Kreja I. A literature review on computational models for laminated composite and
sandwich panels. Cent Eur J Eng 2011. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13531-011-
0005-x.
[194] Pozorska J, Pozorski Z, Janik Ł. Numerical simulations of structural behavior of
sandwich panels subjected to concentrated static loads. J Appl Math Comput Mech
2017. https://doi.org/10.17512/jamcm.2017.2.09.
[195] Amran YHM, Alyousef R, Alabduljabbar H, El-Zeadani M. Clean production and
properties of geopolymer concrete: a review. J Clean Prod 2020. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119679.
[196] Mastali M, Valente IB, Barros JAO. Development of innovative hybrid sandwich
panel slabs: advanced numerical simulations and parametric studies. Compos
Struct 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.05.072.
[197] Sajadian B, Ashrafi H. Fire performance of concrete sandwich panel under axial
load. Pollack Period 2020. https://doi.org/10.1556/606.2020.15.1.5.
[198] Bhatti AQ. Application of dynamic analysis and modeling of structural concrete
insulated panels (SCIP) for energy efficient buildings in seismic prone areas,
Energy Build n.d.;128:164–77.