Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Flexural behavior of large scale semi-precast reinforced concrete T-beams T

made of natural and recycled aggregate concrete
Mohamed F.M. Fahmya, , Lamiaa K. Idrissb
⁎

a
Dept. of Civil Eng., Faculty of Eng., Assiut Univ., Assiut, Egypt
b
Higher Institute of Engineering and Technology, El-Menia, Egypt

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study aimed to investigate the flexural behavior of T-section semi-precast reinforced concrete (RC) beams
T-beams composed of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) and natural aggregate concrete (NAC). The experimental pro-
RAC blocks gram consisted of four large-scale T beams, including three semi-precast T-beams and a reference RC T-beam
Recycled aggregate made of traditionally cast high strength natural aggregate concrete (HSNAC). The web of all the semi-precast
Filler
beams composed of a precast U-shaped part, which contained the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement and
Semi-Precast
Flexural
was cast of HSNAC, and an inner RAC core. Normal strength RAC (NSRAC) or high strength RAC (HSRAC) was
used as web core filler, and HSNAC or HSRAC was used for the beam flange. Two techniques were adopted to fill
the web core: the traditional concrete casting and the placement of well-sized precast concrete blocks. The
results indicated the applicability of RAC and NAC in one section to achieve comparable strength, deformability,
and failure mode to those of the monolithically cast beam with NAC. In addition, using precast RAC blocks as
filler in the web core of RC beams is a promising construction technique, which can be adopted as a critical
design parameter to control development, propagation, and width of flexural and shear cracks to a large extent.

1. Introduction members has been studied by others [19,3,26,8].

Since the recognition of concrete, the concrete industry has con-
tributed to the construction of many traditional and important struc-
tures. With the aging of existing reinforced concrete (RC) buildings/
bridges, many of them need to be replaced due to various reasons, and
there is an urgent need to increase the number of buildings to the high
number of the earth's population. Therefore, it is necessary to recycle a
large amount of construction waste, which is difficult and unfavorable
to disposal costs [24]. For future generations, the protection of natural
resources of aggregates has become an inevitable necessity to protect
the environment and achieve sustainable development. Therefore,
many researchers have conducted a variety of studies to determine the
possibility of using construction waste in modern buildings. Compared
with the behavior of natural aggregate (NA) concrete, several experi-
mental studies considered the behavior of medium and high strength
recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) under different loading conditions
[7,10,24,23,30,9]. Others have studied the effect of the replacement
ratio of coarse and fine aggregate on the behavior of RAC
[25,18,13,31]. On the other hand, the study of the flexural behavior of
RAC structural members has triggered the interest of researchers
[27,19,17,34,4,38,2]. Similarly, the shear behavior of RAC structural
A number of studies have shown that the durability of recycled
concrete is not as good as that of natural aggregate concrete (NAC)
[14,21,32,11,12,16]. In addition, the shrinkage rate of recycled con-
crete is larger than that of NAC, and its growth rate is directly related to
the concentration of recycled aggregate (RA) [37,28,15,6]. From the
perspective of durable structure, RA should come from high quality
concrete, such as the demolition parts of prefabricated or pre-stressed
concrete structure [31,13,5]. Due to the diversity of RAC sources, this
suggestion/limitation may be an obstacle to the wide application of
RAC in the production of structural components. Other studies have
also discussed the possibility of using mineral admixtures to improve
the overall durability of RAC [16], however, this may require additional
construction costs. On the other side, in the design of RAC beams, the
most important constraint factor is the potential mid-span deformation
caused by its low effective modulus of elasticity. With the increase of
cross section height, this can be easily compensated; some experimental
studies have considered this behavior [29]. However, this solution may
oppose the international community's call for sustainable societies by
reducing carbon emissions, or may adversely affect the seismic response
of modern structures due to structural weight gain.
The RAC application in the precast structural systems is a promising

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mfmf1976@yahoo.com, m.fahmy@aun.edu.eg (M.F.M. Fahmy).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109525
Received 23 February 2019; Received in revised form 7 August 2019; Accepted 7 August 2019
Available online 20 August 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

opportunity and can provide designers with the ability to properly

deploy RAC without affecting the long lifecycle of modern structures. In
addition, the combination of RAC and precast technology can achieve
the purpose of reducing construction cost by using appropriate RAC
grade. This was put forward by Xiao et al. [35] by dividing the cross
section of the column into an external precast hollow section and an
internal core cast on-site using RAC. This has been suggested as a
reasonable solution to reduce the chance of shrinkage of the RAC and
accelerate the construction process. Obviously, it is possible to choose
the appropriate concrete grade as the inner core of RC columns under
combined axial and lateral loads is a low stress area, so Xiao et al. [35] (a) Recycled aggregate obtained from crushed
filled the column core with low strength RAC. Recently, Yang et al. [39] demolished concrete cubes and cylinders
proposed a new type of T-shaped semi-prefabricated beams consisting
of two parts: the outer part contains a high-performance U-shaped Coarse recycled Fine recycled
concrete, steel stirrups, and a longitudinal steel shape, and the inner aggregate aggregate
part was poured in-situ with traditional concrete strength. Wu et al.
[33] proposed the use of a green technique, in which external steel
tubes were filled with precast concrete blocks made of coarsely crushed
demolished concrete lumps. The test results strongly support the future
adoption of such construction technology because it behaves similarly
to that of traditional concrete-filled steel tube columns.
The aim of this study was two-fold: the first was to examine the
flexural behavior of semi-prefabricated T-beams, in which NA was used (b) Separation of the recycled aggregate to coarse and
to produce U-shaped web as the precast part of the beam to be filled on- fine aggregate using sieve of 5mm size
site with RAC, and the second was to find out the change in the flexural
Fig. 1. Recycled coarse aggregate used in the production of NSRAC and HSRAC.
behavior of semi-precast beams with precast RAC blocks (segments) as
filler. Precast RAC blocks were used as filler to determine pre-cracked
sections, so as to control the development of cracks and the beam de- Table 1
formability. In addition, the construction of 100% prefabricated system Basic property of the aggregate used.
can generally be accelerated, and the on-site labor work can be reduced. Aggregate type Crush Unit weight Specific Water absorption
Furthermore, the use of precast RAC blocks as filler can make the index (%) (t/m3) gravity rate (%)
structure easier to dismantle and faster to restore the constituent ma-
Coarse Recycled 22.1 1.34 2.50 2.17
terials in the future. The experimental program included three large- Natural 14.8 1.62 2.55 0.80
scale semi-precast beams with RAC filler of different grades compared Fine Natural – 1.68 2.60 1.00
with that of a conventionally cast high strength NAC (HSNAC) beam.
All the semi-precast beams were designed according to the traditional
design method of RC beams. The results included the failure mode, the due to the irregular texture of the RCA. It is worth noting that although
load-deflection response, and the strain distribution along the long- the water absorption ratio of the coarse recycled aggregate was low, it
itudinal beam reinforcement. was necessary to use additional water in concrete mix design to con-
sider its effect. On the other side, in order to ensure high strength RAC,
2. Materials sikament was used as water-reducer, and its content (2.5% of the ce-
ment content) was taken into account when calculating the total water
This section describes the materials used to produce all the test content. In addition, silica-fume was used in the design of HSRAC: 5%
beams and lists their mechanical properties. of the cement content was replaced by silica-fume.
HSNAC was prepared with natural coarse aggregate and fine ag-
2.1. Concrete gregate, and the design cubic compressive strength of 28-day-old con-
crete was 50 MPa. Properties of the natural aggregate are shown in
In this study, recycled coarse aggregate was produced from a large Table 1. Similar to HSRAC mixing design, sikament was 2.5% of the
number of pretested concrete cubes and cylinders, which are usually cement content, and 5% of the cement weight was replaced by silica
provided by construction companies to the Concrete Structure fume. The HSNAC was used for the reference beam, the U-shaped parts
Laboratory of Assiut University, Egypt, to assess the mechanical prop- of the webs of all the semi-precast beams, and the flange of a semi-
erties of concrete used in real construction projects; see Fig. 1. RCA was precast beam. Details of the concrete mix are shown in Table 2.
obtained by crushing the pre-tested cubes and cylinders with an electric The compressive strength was determined by the average test results
crusher. The regenerated aggregate consisted of fine and coarse com- of three standard cubes with 150 mm side length, and the tensile
ponents, which were separated by a sieve of 5 mm size: the coarse ag- strength was determined by the splitting test of three standard cylinders
gregate was retained on a sieve of 5 mm size. The design compressive with 150 mm diameter and 300 mm length. The compressive strength
strength of common RC structures in Egypt is usually between 25 and and tensile strength of concrete were measured using a testing machine
40 MPa, and the aggregate used is natural and obtained from areas with a capacity of 1500 kN. Table 3 includes the 28-day test results of
approved by the government. In this study, two grades of RAC concrete cubic and cylindrical specimens for each test beam. It is worth men-
were designed to fill the web core of three semi-precast beams: normal tioning that the curing conditions of cubes and cylinders were similar to
strength RAC (NSRAC) and high strength RAC (HSRAC) with design those of the corresponding test beams. This can explain the observed
concrete cube compressive strengths of 25 MPa and 50 MPa, respec- lower compressive strengths than the designed compressive strengths of
tively. Table 1 shows the basic properties of the rough part of RAC for HSNAC and HSRAC. The test results of the concrete cubes and the
both NSRAC and HSRAC. The mixing characteristics of NSRAC and concrete cylinders, which were cured in water for 28-days, are given in
HSRAC are shown in Table 2. Coarse aggregate in both mixes was 100% Table 3.
RCA; and both grades required more sand than that can be used in NAC

2
M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

Table 2
Mixing components of the different concrete types.
Concrete type RCA replacement percentage (%)* Cement (kg/m3) Sand (kg/m3) NCA (kg/m3) RCA (kg/m3) Water (kg/m3) Silica fume (kg/m3) Sikament (kg/m3)

HSC 0 475 500 1200 0 166 25.0 12.5

HSRAC 100 507 1020 0 673 155 27.0 13.4
NSRAC 100 396 804 0 846 217 0.0 0.0

Note: RCA is recycled coarse aggregate, NCA is natural coarse aggregate, HSC is high strength concrete, HSRAC is high strength recycled aggregate concrete, and
NSRCA is normal strength recycled aggregate concrete.

Table 3 ACI 318-14 code (equal to 167 kN). That is, the shear reinforcement
Compressive strength and tensile strength of concrete after 28 days curing. ensured a flexural dominant failure mode. The ratio of shear span to
Specimen Average concrete compressive Average concrete tensile
depth ratio (a/d) is equal to 3, where a is the shear span of the test
strength (MPa) strength (MPa) beam.
The first beam was designed as a reference RC T-beam constructed
U C F U C with high strength concrete (HSC). Designation of this beam is T.N50,
T.N50 38.8 38.8 38.8 2.8 2.8
in which T indicates traditionally cast beam and N50 refers to natural
C.R50-F.N50 40.4 49.6 40.4 3.0 3.5 aggregate concrete of a cubic compressive strength equal to 50 MPa.
C.R25-F.R50 46.8 26.5 36.1 3.4 2.3 The other three beams were semi-precast T-beams, in which different
C.RB25-F.R50 40.9 18.1 40.9 2.9 1.9 types and grades of concrete were considered for examination, as
shown in Fig. 2(c–e). Precisely, the beam web was divided into two
Note: U denotes the outer precast part, C refers to the web core, F points to the
parts, i.e. the outer precast U-shaped part and the web core. The U-
beam flange, T is traditionally cast, N is natural, R is recycled, B is block, and 25
and 50 are the design compressive strength.
shaped part included both the flexural and shear reinforcement and was
cast with HSNAC. The web core was cast using normal strength RAC
2.2. Steel (NSRAC) or high strength RAC (HSRAC) for two beams, and precast
NSRAC blocks of 300mmx200mmx140mm were used to fill the web
Reinforcement details of the test beams were made of steel bars with core of the third beam. For the beam flange, HSNAC was used for one
diameters of 8 mm, 10 mm, and 12 mm. Uniaxial tension tests were semi-precast, and HSRAC was used for the other two beams. Therefore,
carried out on a testing machine with a capacity of 300 kN to determine the designation of the three semi-precast beams consists of two sets to
mechanical properties of all the steel types. Table 4 lists the yielding/ illustrate the types and grades of concrete used to cast the beam web
proof strength and ultimate strength of all the steel bars. core (C) and the beam flange (F). The first set is related to the web core,
consisting of the letter C (core) and R50 or R25, in which R represents
RAC with a designed compressive strength of 50 MPa or 25 MPa, re-
3. Experimental program spectively. The letters RB are used to specify that the web core was
filled with precast recycled concrete blocks. The second set introduces
Four large-scale T-beams were fabricated and tested under four- the types and grades of the concrete flanges, consisting of the letter F
point loading test. All the beams had a T-shaped section with the same (flange) and N50 or R50, in which N and R are NAC and RAC, re-
concrete dimensions: the beam thickness was 630 mm, the width and spectively, and 50 is the design compressive strength in MPa. For ex-
the thickness of the flange were 500 mm and 100 mm, respectively, and ample, the web core and the flange of the C.R50-F.N50 beam were RAC
the thickness and the width of the web were 530 mm and 250 mm, and NAC, respectively, with designed compressive strengths of 50 MPa.
respectively. Such type of beams can be used in the construction of For the C.RB25-F.R50 beam, the web core was precast RAC blocks of
precast RC T-beam bridges across short-width obstacles such as water 25 MPa designed compressive strength, and the beam flange was RAC
channels, and the beam flange shall be provided with shear connectors with 50 MPa designed compressive strength.
to achieve the required composite action to the concrete deck. All test
beams were designed in accordance with ACI 318-14 [1]. The flexural
reinforcement bars of all the beams were seven steel bars of a diameter 3.1. Casting of the test beams
of 12 mm, i.e. total cross-section area was 792 mm2, which was higher
than the minimum flexural reinforcement (419 mm2). The compression One of the test beams was cast in accordance with the well-known
reinforcement consisted of 2 steel bars with a diameter of 12 mm and steps of the traditional casting technique, in which steel cage was firstly
four steel bars with a diameter of 10 mm, see Fig. 2. The steel re- produced according to the details of a predesigned tension, compres-
inforcement was designed to ensure a tension-controlled response sion, and shear steel reinforcements. The steel cage was placed in a steel
(when the compressive strain reaches 0.003, the maximum tensile mold, while hardened cement-based pieces were used to ensure the
strain shall be equal to or greater than 0.005). Transverse reinforcement required thickness of the concrete cover layer around the steel cage.
with 8 mm diameter and spacing of d/4 (d is the beam effective Finally, the concrete mix prepared in the laboratory was poured into
depth = 570 mm) was adopted. Hence, the flexural capacity (equal to the steel mold; see Fig. 3(a–c).
268 kN) calculated from the shear strength of the test beams exceeded For the semi-precast beams, the details of the cage were the same to
that determined by the rectangular stress block method according to those of the T.N50 beam, but the casting steps were different.
Additional internal steel mold was necessary to create the beam web
Table 4 core, so it was carefully manufactured to meet the required dimensions
Mechanical properties of the reinforcement bars. (150 mm width and 400 mm depth). After placing the steel cage and
Rebar diameter Yield strength Ultimate strength Elastic modulus satisfying the required concrete cover, HS concrete containing natural
(mm) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) aggregate was poured on the bottom tension side of the beam and the
pouring depth was 130 mm. Then, the inner steel mold was placed to
8 305 451 200
create the web core. In order to avoid uplifting of the internal mold
10 578 678 200
12 509 645 200 during the compaction process of the cast concrete, lateral supports
(steel angles) with vertical legs were affixed to the steel mold, as shown

3
M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

P/2 P/2
200 1750 500 1750 200

8 / 141 mm 8 / 141 mm 8 / 141 mm

630
96 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 415 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 96
104 104 104104
200 4000 200

(a) Reinforcement details of all beams

500
2 d 12 2 d 12 2 d 12
100

100
100
2 d 10

2 d 10

2 d 10

2 d 10
2 d 10

2 d 10
HSC

NS-RAC
HS-RAC
HSC
630

630
630

130
130

7 d 12 7 d 12 7 d 12
250 250 250
(b) T.N50 beam (c) C.R50-F.N50 beam (d) C.R25-F.R50 beam
500
2 d 12 Additional part
100
2 d 10

2 d 10

HS-RAC
joining the
stirrup’s legs
NS-RAC

NS-RAC prism
630

(300*140*200)
130 200

NS-RAC prism
(300*140*200)

7 d 12 Open stirrup
250
d 8 / 141 mm
(e) C.RB25-F.R50 beam (f) Stirrups details
Fig. 2. Schematic drawings for the reinforcement details and concrete dimensions of all beams.

in Fig. 4(a); this technique helped also to ensure the accurate thickness
of the concrete cover around the internal steel mold. Fig. 4(b) shows the
casting of the U-shaped part. After the final setting time of the precast
concrete part passed, the internal steel mold was removed (Fig. 4(c)).
Therefore, the concrete casting process can be completed according to
the type of concrete required for the web core and the flange of the test
beam. It is noteworthy that open stirrups were used to facilitate the
placement and removal of the internal steel mold, see Fig. 4(d).
Therefore, before casting the beam, each stirrup was joined to an
additional part that completed the closed shape of the stirrup, as shown
in Fig. 2(f) and Fig. 4(d).
Another casting process is proposed, which provides a reasonable
solution to accelerate the construction steps of semi-precast structures
and also 100% precast structures. After the U-shaped part was cast,
precast plain concrete blocks can be used to fill the web core. These
concrete blocks were prepared according to the size of the web core. In
this study, concrete blocks were prepared one day before the web core
of the semi-precast beam was cast. According to the required

(a) Prepared steel cages (b) Placement of (c) Traditional

for the test beams the steel cage in a cast beam
casting mold
Fig. 3. Traditional casting process of the T.N50 beam.

4
M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

Steel angles
with vertical
legs

The web core after

removing the mold

(a) Placement of (b) Casting of the (c) Removal of the (d) Transverse
inner steel mold outer U shape part inner steel mold reinforcement of the
of the beam beam flange, and RAC
casting of the web core
Fig. 4. Casting process of the semi-precast C.R50-F.N50 and C.R25-F.R50 beams (cast-in-situ RAC for the web cores, and the flanges were cast-in-situ with NAC and
RAC, respectively).

(a) Placement of (b) A whole row of (c) Grouting the (d) After filling the web
the first row of the the internal precast first row of the core with the RAC
internal precast concrete blocks RAC blocks blocks, the beam flange
concrete blocks was ready to be cast
Fig. 5. Casting process photos of the semi-precast C.RB25-F.R50 beam (precast RAC blocks at the web core and cast-in-place RAC at the flange of the beam).

dimensions, the wood mold was 145 mm in width, 300 mm in length, readings of all the instruments used in the loading process. The loading
and 200 mm in height (internal dimensions). After removing the in- rate was 50 kN/min, which was the suitable loading speed for observing
ternal steel mold in the C.RB25-F.R50 beam, concrete blocks were the cracking process. The loading rate of all the test beams was the
placed to fill the bottom half of the beam web core, as shown in Fig. 5(a, same.
b). High fluidity cement-based grouting was used to fill any gap be-
tween the concrete blocks or between all the precast parts of the web,
Fig. 5(c). Then, the upper half of the web core was filled with concrete 4. Experimental results and discussion
blocks, which were also grouted, Fig. 5(d). Ultimately, the beam flange
was cast with HSRAC. The compressive strengths of the U-shaped parts of the C.R50-F.N50
and C.RB25-F.R50 beams were comparable to that of the reference
beam, but the C.R25-F.R50 beam had a compressive strength 12%
3.2. Test setup and instrumentation
higher than the average of the test results, as shown in Table 3. For the
flange of the test beams, the variation of the concrete compressive
All the beams were tested on a 5000 kN testing machine. Each beam
strength with respect to the reference beam was ( ± 5%). Hence, the
was supported on hinge and roller supports that were spaced at
main influential parameters were the characteristics of the concrete
4000 mm. The machine load was divided into two point loadings using
that filled the web core (high or normal strength RAC) and the tech-
a rigid spreading beam, as shown in Fig. 6(a). The distance between the
nique to fill the web core (cast-in-situ or precast concrete units). In
central lines of the applied loads was 500 mm. A load cell of 5000 kN
terms of the performance of the reference beam, the test results of the
capacity was used to measure the applied load, and seven linear vari-
semi-precast beams were evaluated considering the observed crack
able displacement transducers (LVDTs) were installed on the beam to
patterns, the recorded tensile axial strains in the main steel reinforce-
measure the beam deflection at five points along the beam span in-
ment, the measured compressive strains of concrete, the final failure
cluding the mid-span point, and to measure the crack width at two
modes, the load-deflection relationships, and the distribution of the
sections (i.e. the mid-span section and the section at the applied load).
axial strains along the beam cross-section at the beam mid span. Table 5
In addition, a strain gauge was attached to the outermost compression
summarizes the characteristic parameters of the load-deflection re-
face of the beam at the middle cross section, and another strain gauge
sponse including the initial flexural cracking load, the steel yield load,
was affixed at 160 mm distance from the compression face of the beam
and the maximum flexural strength and the corresponding beam de-
at the same cross-section. Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 6(b), 11 strain
flections of all the test beams.
gauges were connected to the middle steel bar of the outer layer of the
tensile reinforcement. Data acquisition system was used to collect the

5
M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

Testing machine
Load cell

Load cell
Spreading beam

Specimen

LVDTs
Data acquisition system

(a) Photos for test setup and

Applied Load

Load cell
Spreading beam
SG12
SG 13
Vl. LVDT Vl. LVDTs Vl. LVDT
Crack width measure
SG11 SG10 SG9 SG8 SG7 SG6 SG5 SG4 SG3 SG2 SG1

250 500 500 250 250 250 250 250 250 500 500 250
Roller mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
support Hinge
support
Data
acquisition
system
(b) Schematic drawing

Fig. 6. Test set-up and instrumentation of the test specimens.

4.1. Crack pattern
The first cracking of the reference beam (T.N50) was at an applied
load of 80 kN, and it was observed at the pure flexural zone. Compared
with the reference beam, when the web core of the semi-precast C.R50-
F.N50 beam was HSRAC, the first cracking load increased by 23%. On
the other hand, the semi-precast beams with NSRAC at the web core
cracked initially under lower loads, i.e. 58.8 kN and 53.8 kN for the
C.R25-F.R50 and C.RB25-F.R50 beams, respectively. This can obviously
be attributed to the mechanical characteristics of the RAC used in the
web core. For the C.RB25-F.R50 beam, the existence of pre-cracked
sections at the interfaces between adjacent RAC blocks can be another
reason for the observed early cracking: the beam section at the interface
between the concrete blocks can be regarded as a T-section with hollow
web core. The initial cracking load of this beam was calculated twice
according to the section transformation method, i.e. one considering
the whole T-section and the other considering the T-section with hollow
web core. The area of different types of RAC and steel bars were re-
placed with equivalent areas of NAC having the same axial stiffness.
Mander et al. [22] model and the Xiao et al. [36] model were adopted
to define the elastic modulus of NAC and RAC, respectively. The cal-
culated initial cracking loads were 60.2 kN and 55 kN for the whole
section and the hollow web core section of this beam, respectively. That
is, neglecting the existence of pre-cracked sections at the interfaces of
the concrete blocks caused an overestimation of 12% in the first
cracking load. The initial cracking load of the T.N50, C.R50-F.N50, and

Table 5
Characteristic points on the load-deflection relationship of the test specimens.
Specimen Cracking Yielding Maximum

Pcr (kN) δcr (mm) Ki (kN/mm) Initial local yielding The end of the elastic stage Pmax (kN) δmax (mm)

Py,i (kN) δy,i (mm) Py (kN) δy (mm) Ky(kN/mm)

T.N50 80.0 1.65 48.4 181 6.67 250.0 9.78 25.6 317.5 126.4
C.R50-F.N50 98.5 1.67 59.1 223.8 8.47 283.8 11.1 25.6 361.3 129.0
C.R25-F.R50 58.8 1.68 35.0 161.3 6.76 250.0 11.7 21.4 317.5 67.4
C.RB25-F.R50 53.8 1.55 34.7 212.5 8.99 300.0 13.8 21.7 348.8 110.0

6
M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

(a) T.N50
248
227 302 231
197 278 178 160 180 160 240
180 155 181 178
223 91 80
120
152
180 120 210 220243
113 170 222
225 226 173 250 199
200 120 175 205 210
165 208 260
280 170 155 165 178 225 173 245
270 190
249

(b) C.R50-F.N50
260
160 197
140 173
208 153 172
190 135 100 115
151 229 239
150 128 206
115 124 178 290
220 168 185 126
173 141 279
155
131
140 220 157 239

120

(c) C.R25-F.R50
105210
110 148 267 135
235 75 236
247 216 196
177 60 60 224 247
185 200 180
208 266 206
100 150 100
195 162 264 136 123
225 85 96 222
236 210 190
166 203

178 162

(d) C.RB25-F.R50

160
222 190
203 86 121
130 123
80 220 78 133
130 83
211 220 68 208
180 134 117 213
135 97 220
103 198 133
80 217 211
215 86
210

228
125
77 85
132 236 236

Fig. 7. Crack patterns of the test beams up to the yielding load of the reference beam (black cracks correspond to the initial local yield load, and blue cracks represent
the new and propagated cracks after the initial yield load). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

C.R25-F.R50 beams were also determined, which are equal to 69 kN,
73.5 kN, and 66.0 kN, respectively. The experimental results and the
theoretical calculations reveal that the serviceability limit of semi-
precast RC beams was greatly influenced by the grade of RAC in the
web core and the casting technique.
Since different types and grades of concrete were used in the semi-
precast beams, it was necessary to carefully track the observed changes
in crack development and propagation. Fig. 7 shows the crack patterns
of all the test beams under two different load levels. Black and blue
represent the cracks developed up to 181 and 250 kN, respectively,
which were the initial local yield load and the yield load of the re-
ference beam. These values were defined based on the recorded read-
ings of the strain gauges attached along the longitudinal beam re-
inforcement, as it will be discussed in the following section. The crack
pattern of the T.N50 beam up to 181 kN was characterized by multiple
flexural cracks in the pure bending zone, some of which extended up-
ward to nearly 450 mm of the beam height. In addition, most of the
flexural-shear cracks between the applied loads and the beam supports
extended to more or less 400 mm in height. At an applied load of
250 kN, additional flexural and flexural-shear cracks occurred between
the applied loads and the beam supports, i.e. out of the pure flexural
zone, and some flexural-shear cracks were observed to reach the bottom
of the beam flange. However, when HSRAC was in the web core of the
semi-precast C.R50-F.N50 beam, there were fewer flexural and flexural-
shear cracks. In addition, spacing between cracks that came close to the
flange of the beam seemed to be wider. Considering the influence of the
grade of RAC, the overall evaluation of NSRAC in the web core of the
C.R25-F.R50 beam revealed that its crack morphology was similar to
that of the reference beam under 250 kN load. Nevertheless, the
number of the flexural cracks in the bending zone was still lower than
that of the reference beam. On the other hand, the C.RB25-F.R50 beam
with prefabricated NSRAC blocks had several closely spaced flexural
cracks in the pure bending zone and few flexural-shear cracks in the
other parts of the beam. Furthermore, compared with the crack patterns
of the C.R25-F.R50 and the T.N50 beams, the use of precast NSRAC
blocks ensured that cracks distributed within a shorter length of the
beam span, and the cracks out of the pure flexural zone were mostly
arrested from extending to the flange of the beam.
Fig. 8 shows the crack pattern of the test beams after reaching the
yield load and was plotted in red. Additional flexural cracks appeared in
the pure bending zone of the T.N50, C.R50-F.N50 and C.RB25-F.R50
beams, some of which extended upward to the flange of the beams. In
addition, some flexural-shear cracks developed near the beam supports
and propagated along the direction of the applied loads. On the other

7
M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

(a) T.N50
289 282
248 260 270
227 302 231 201 260
197
180 155 278 178 160 180 160 240 280
181 178
223 91 80
120
180 120 210 220243
280 283 152
113 170 222
225 226 173 250 199 280
200 120 175 205 277 210
165 208 260
280 170 155 165 178 225 173 245
270 190
249

(b) C.R50-F.N50
360 345
347 350
310 260
370 263
300
132 310 140 370 160 197 305 308
173 370 300
208 153 172 288
190 135 100 115
151 280
330 290 229 239
150 370 128 206
115 124 178 290 334 330
295 220 168 258 370 185 126
173 141 330 279
155
131
140 220 370 370 157 239
355 270 370 300
320
120

(c) C.R25-F.R50
306 298
105210
110 148 267 135
266 235 262 75 236 279 254
247 216 196
177 60 60 224 247
185 200 180
208 266 206
100 150 100
195 162 264 136 123
316 225 310 85 96 222 315
236 286
269
210 190 203
166

178 162

(d) C.RB25-F.R50
160
300 222 215 190
203 86 121
278 130 123
80 220 78 133
130 302 328
323 83 208 328
211 220 68 301
180 134 117 270 213 302 302
135 97 220 302
288 302103 198 133
80 217 331 211
215
210

318
270 318
228
77 85
314 132 125 86 236 236

Fig. 8. Crack patterns of the test beams after yielding of the reference beam.

hand, the C.R50-F.N50 and C.R25-F.R50 beams experienced the de- strains (SG12) measured at the outermost fiber of the beam compres-
velopment of flexural cracks that reached 300 mm in depth, but could sion side and the applied load; see Fig. 6(b). This relationship of all the
not grow further, and similarly the observed new flexural-shear cracks. test beams was almost bilinear. The slope of the first linear part varies
It is noteworthy that the cracks encountered after yielding were ob- depending on the characteristic strength of the concrete web, and its
served at different deflection levels of the test beams. end corresponded to the yield load; Table 5 lists the yield load of all the
test beams. The higher the compressive strength of the web core, the
higher the slope of this part. After steel yield, the test beams had the
4.2. Axial strains
same slop of the second branch of the load-strain relationship, which
can be attributed to a small difference in concrete compressive strength
Fig. 9 shows the relationship between the induced axial strain in the
at the flange of the beams. In addition, the measured compressive strain
main reinforcement and the applied load of all the test beams. Ob-
of all the test beams increased significantly. Fortunately, the SG12 of
viously, the strain gauges SG3 to SG9 along the longitudinal re-
the C.R25-F.R50 beam worked to the end of the test, and its maximum
inforcement of the beam recorded a significant increase in the tensile
compressive strain was about 4800με. This can be attributed to the
strains of the beam after the steel bar yielded. Generally, the tensile
concentration of critical flexural cracks at some sections due to the low
strain of the steel bars in the pure bending zone was about 20–25 times
strength of the concrete used in the web core, which led to a severe
the yield strain (2000με). When the web core of the semi-precast beams
increase in the steel tensile strains, which was associated with a con-
was HSRAC (Beam C.R50-F.N50), strain gauges SG3 and SG4 recorded
siderable increase of the compression strain compared with the other
more than 25 times the yield strain; see Fig. 9(b). On the other hand,
beams. The concrete resistance on the compression side of the beam
the tensile strains of the precast beams with cast-in-situ NSRAC or
deteriorated at a beam deflection of 68 mm, and then the beam showed
precast NSRAC blocks at the web core were equal to 12–16 times the
a decrease in the flexural strength. For the other beams, although the
steel yield strain. General conclusion, the longitudinal reinforcement
strain gauges broken at the deflection of 50–60 mm, which was less
had a comprehensive contribution to the deflection of all the test
than the maximum deformability of the beams, the corresponding
beams.
strain readings were 2000–3500με. That is, with further loading,
Fig. 10 shows the relationship between the concrete compression

8
M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

400
350 (a) (c)
300

Applied load (kN)

250 T.N50 C.R25-F.R50
200 SG1 SG2 SG3
150 SG4 SG5 SG6 SG1 SG2 SG3
100 SG7 SG8 SG9 SG4 SG5 SG6
50 SG10 SG11 SG7 SG8 SG9
0
400
350
(b)
Applied load (kN)

300 (d)
250
C.R50-F.N50 C.RB25-F.R50
200
150 SG1 SG2 SG3 SG1 SG2 SG3
100 SG4 SG5 SG6 SG4 SG5 SG6
SG7 SG8 SG9
50 SG7 SG8 SG9
SG10 SG11
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Axial strain (µ ) Axial strain (µ )
Fig. 9. Applied load versus the tensile axial strain of all the test beams.

400 4.5. Pre-cracking stiffness

350
Applied load (kN)

300 As mentioned in the previous sections, the use of NSRAC in the web
250 core of two test beams was associated with a decrease in the cracking
SG12 (RH)
(T.N50) 200 load. The cracking load (Pcr) and the corresponding displacement (δcr)
(C.R50-F.N50) of all the test beams are listed in Table 5. The table also includes the
SG12 (UH-CRH-FH) 150
(C.R25-F.R50) pre-cracking stiffness (Ki) of the test beams, which was determined as
SG12 (UH-CRN-FRH) 100
Ki = Pcr/δcr. It is obvious that Ki is sensitive to the concrete grade used
SG12 (UH-CRNB-FRH)
(C.RB25-F.R50) 50 in the beam web core: when the web core was HSRAC (Beam C.R50-
0 F.N50), the pre-cracking stiffness was 22% higher than that of the re-
-6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 ference T.N50 beam. On the other hand, the pre-cracking stiffnesses of
Axial strain ( ) the C.R25-F.R50 and C.RB25-F.R50 beams were about 28% lower than
Fig. 10. Compressive strain at the beam mid span versus the beam maximum that of the reference beam, which was due to the low concrete prop-
deflection. erties of the web core.

concrete strains can exceed these values. 4.6. Yielding load

4.3. Failure mode
The test time after achieving the yield load of the beams was shorter
than that of the previous loading stage due to the rapid propagation and
widening of cracks and the development of additional cracks. The
concrete crushing of all the test beams was observed. That is, all the
beams experienced a perfect flexural failure mode, starting from the
yield of the main reinforcement and after reaching a reasonable de-
formation level, concrete finally crushed. Fig. 11 shows photographs of
the ultimate failure mode of the test beams. Note that the longitudinal
main reinforcement of any tested beam did not fracture until the end of
the test.
4.4. Load-Deflection relationship
Fig. 12(a, b) present the relationship between the beam mid-span
deflection and the applied load for the semi-precast C.R50-F.N50 beam
and the C.R25-F.R50 and C.RB25-F.R50 beams, respectively. The load-
deflection response of the reference beam was plotted on both figures
for comparison. The effects of the studied parameters on the pre-
cracking stiffness, the beam elastic stiffness, the yield load, the max-
imum flexural strength, and the maximum beam deformability are
thoroughly discussed as follows:
Table 5 summarizes the initial local yield load (Py,i), the yield load
(Py) of the test beams and the corresponding mid-span deflection. As
shown in Fig. 13, it was helpful to define both loads by plotting the
axial strain measured along the longitudinal steel bar of the beam under
different load levels and superimposing the horizontal line representing
the yield strain (2000με) on the same graph. The initial local yield load
refers to the load that caused the yield strain at a section or simulta-
neously at several sections along the beam. The yield load, typically,
defines the end of the elastic stage of the beam load-deflection re-
lationship. Under this load, most of the length of the outermost ten-
sioned steel bar of the test beams reached the yield strain value. In
addition, the strain distribution curve may defeat losing its regularity
due to a sudden increase in the strain readings at one or more sections
along the beam span. From Table 5, the initial yield load of the C.R25-
F.R50 beam was the lowest, but its yield load was almost equal to that
of the reference beam. The initial and yield loads of the semi-precast
C.R50-F.N50 and C.RB25-F.R50 beams were higher than those of re-
ference beam: the increases in the initial yield load were 24% and 17%,
respectively, and the increases in the yield load were 14% and 20%,
respectively. Obviously, the increase in the yield load was due to the
increase in the initial yield load, which was mainly dependent on the
crack distribution within the flexural zone. Fig. 7 shows that there were
a limited number of flexural cracks in the pure bending zone of the
C.R50-F.N50 and C.RB25-F.R50 beams compared with the other two
beams under 181 kN load. Namely, most of the flexural zone was intact,
so the main steel bars and the surrounding concrete resisted the applied

9
M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

(a) T.N50

(b) C.R50-F.N50

(c) C.R25-F.R50

(d) C.RB25-F.R50

Fig. 11. Final failure mode of the test beams.

400 4.7. Elastic stiffness

350 (a)
Obviously, as can be seen from Fig. 12, the elastic responses of all
Applied load (kN)

300
250 beams were roughly the same. Table 5 lists the calculated elastic stiff-
200 ness (Ky) of all the test beams; Ky = Py/δy, where Py and δy are the beam
150 yield load and the corresponding deflection. The ratio of the elastic
RH
T.N50 stiffness of the C.R50-F.N50 beam to that of the reference beam showed
100
50 C.R50-F.N50
UH-CRH-FH that they shared exact elastic stiffnesses. However, when the web core
0 was filled with NSRAC, this ratio was lower than unity. For example, a
400 reduction of approximately 15% was found between the elastic stiffness
350 (b) of the C.R25-F.R50 and C.RB25-F.R50 beams and that of the T.N50
beam.
Applied load (kN)

300
250
200
150 4.8. Maximum flexural strength
RH
T.N50
100 C.R25-F.R50
UH-CRN-FRH
The load–deflection relationship, shown in Fig. 12, shows that the
50 C.RB25-F.R50
UH-CRNB-FRH
flexural strengths of all the semi-precast beams were higher than that of
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130140 the reference beam, except the C.R25-F.R50 beam almost reached the
Mid span deflection (mm) same flexural strength of the reference beam. The flexural strength of
the C.R50-F.N50 and C.RB25-F.R50 beams increased by 11.4% and
Fig. 12. Load-deflection curve of the reference beam compared with those of 9.8%, respectively, compared with the reference beam, as seen in
the semi precast beams made of (a) HSRAC and HSC and (b) NSRAC, HSRAC, Table 5. The increase in the yield load seems to be the reason for the
and HSC. increase in the flexural strength of these beams. The yield loads of the
two beams increased by 13.5% and 20%, respectively. In other words,
load and thus a delay in the yield of the steel bars was observed. Under according to the increase of the yield load, the post-yield stage moved
the applied loads of 100 kN and 150 kN, Fig. 13 also shows that the upward. The C.R25-F.R50 beam had a typical yield load and maximum
strain values of the C.R50-F.N50 and C.RB25-F.R50 beams along the flexural load of the reference beam.
beam span were the lowest compared to the other beams. For the two semi-precast beams with NSRAC web core, although the
material characteristics of all parts of the cross-section were compar-
able, they displayed different flexural strengths. In fact, the C.RB25-

10
 M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

5000 5000 Fig. 13. Strain distribution along the beam

4500 RH
T.N50
P = 50 kN UH-CRN-FRH
4500 C.R25-F.R50 P=50 kN
tensile reinforcement at different loading
P = 100 kN P=100 kN
4000 4000 levels for all specimens (Note: the unequal

Axial strain ( )
P = 150 kN P=150 kN
(c)
Axial strain (µ )

3500 (a) P = 200 kN 3500 P=200 kN distribution of the strain records at the ap-
3000 P = 250 kN 3000 P=250 kN
2500 P = 275 kN 2500 P=275 kN plied point loads of the C.R50-F.N50 beam
2000 2000 was attributed to that strain gauge 7 (as
1500 1500 shown in Fig. 6(b)) was not directly inter-
1000 1000 sected by a critical flexural crack, as shown
500 500 in Fig. 7(b), Fig. 8(b), and Fig. 11(b)).
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance from the roller support (mm) Distance from the roller support (mm)
5000 5000 P= 50 kN
P= 50 kN
4500 UH-CRH-FH
C.R50-F.N50
P= 100 kN
4500 UH-CRNB-FRH
C.RB25-F.R50 P=100 kN
4000 4000

)
P=150 kN
Axial strain (µ )

P= 150 kN
3500 (b) P= 200 kN 3500 (d) P=200 kN

Axial strain (
3000 P= 250 kN 3000 P=250 kN
P= 275 kN 2500 P=275 kN
2500 P= 300 kN P=300 kN
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance from the roller support (mm) Location of strain gauges (mm)

F.R50 beam contained pre-determined cracked sections, which were
hidden in the web core according to the size of the concrete blocks used.
This was helpful to produce a good distribution of the flexural cracks,
which in turn ensured lower induced strains in the longitudinal re-
inforcement, as shown in Fig. 13(c and d). Therefore, the elastic stage of
the C.RB25-F.R50 beam ended at 300 kN, which was the highest yield
load reached by all the test beams.
Ultimately, further research is necessary to examine the possibility
of using concrete blocks of different sizes and concrete grades to en-
hance the performance of semi-precast beams.
4.9. Ultimate deformability
It was planned to remove the applied load on the test beams when
the beam flexural strength decreases to 80% of the maximum achieved
strength. However, three test beams (T.N50, C.R50-F.N50, and C.RB25-
F.R50) were loaded up to the maximum available clearance between
the bottom beam surface and the lower head of the test machine. The
load on the C.R25-F.R50 beam was stopped to avoid any instability
problems because of the obvious enlargement of the flexural cracks in
the pure bending zone. For a fair comparison between the test beams,
Table 5 includes the deflection of all the test beams under the maximum
flexural strength. Obviously, both the C.RB25-F.R50 and C.R50-F.N50
beams showed a quite similar deformability to that of the reference
beam; however, when cast-in-situ NSRAC material was used in the web
core of the semi-precast beam, Beam C.R25-F.R50 failed to do the same.
Since the cross-section of any of the test semi-precast beams was
composed of two types of concrete of equal or different grades, it would
be interesting to explore all possible causes/effects that led to the un-
equal maximum deformation capacity.
Fig. 14 presents the relationship between the axial tensile strain of
the longitudinal beam reinforcement and the beam deflection measured
at different beam sections. The starting point of the inelastic stage (the
post-yield stage) was defined on each part of the figure via a vertical
line corresponding to the yield deflection (δy) of the beam. From this
figure, the longitudinal beam reinforcement had two different re-
sponses to the applied loads in the inelastic stage of loading. The first
type of response was for the C.RB25-F.R50 beam (Fig. 14(d)), in which
the gauges SG4 to SG8 at the middle zone of the beam showed a si-
multaneous steep rise. Then, when the beam deflected about 20 mm
and further, the rate of increase became lower. When the beam de-
flection was about 65 mm, the gauges SG3 and SG9 showed a sudden
increase in the axial strains. This response indicated that the pre-in-
troduced cracked sections in the web core triggered several sections
along the span of the beam to contribute to the beam deformability at
the same time. Fig. 15(a, b) displays the cracks in the web core and the
cracks observed on the side surfaces of the U-shaped part. Obviously,
the web core had wide cracks at the interfaces of the concrete blocks,
which corresponded to the cracks early developed on the side surface of
the U-shaped part. Consequently, limited damage level was observed on
the beam tension side. The second type of response is shown in
Fig. 14(c), and it was observed for the semi-precast C.R25-F.R50 beam,
in which the web core was filled with cast-in-situ NSRAC. The strain
readings of two gauges suddenly increased at the same time. With
further loading, other gauges contributed one by one to the deform-
ability of the beam at different deflection values through the rapid in-
crease in strain readings. That is, there was a stress concentration at the
beam sections that early contributed to the beam deformability.
Therefore, this beam exhibited an early degradation of the flexural
strength.
Although the steel strain-deflection relationship of the reference
beam was similar to that of the C.RB25-F.R50 beam to some extent;
however, the rate of increase in the axial strain of all beam sections was
lower, as shown in Fig. 14(a). In other words, the longitudinal beam
reinforcement at the examined sections gradually contributed to the
beam deformability. The reinforcement of the C.R50-F.N50 beam, in
which the web core was HSRAC, exhibited to somewhat a mixed be-
havior between the first response and the second response [Fig. 14(b)],
which was attributed to the mechanical characteristics of the concrete
core compared with those of the C.R25-F.R50 beam.
4.10. Ductility ratio
The displacement ductility ratio of the test beams is an important
design parameter to measure the deformation capacity of inelastic
members. It can be defined as the ratio of the maximum deflection to
the deflection of the beam when the steel is yielded. Based on the test
results shown in Table 5, the ductility ratios of the T.N50, C.R50-F.N50,
C.R25-F.R50, and C.RB25-F.R50 beams were calculated to be equal to
12.9, 11.6, 5.8, and 8.0, respectively. This result refers to the RAC grade
used in the web core as a critical design parameter, where the use of
HSRAC was associated with a reduction of 10% in the beam ductility
ratio with respect to the result of the reference beam. However, the use
of low strength RAC resulted in a 55% reduction of the beam ductility.

11
M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

50000
(a) RH
T.N50 ((c)) UH-CRN-FRH
C.R25-F.R50
40000 40000 One after one

Axial strain ( )

)
Gradual steep increase
SG3

Axial strain (
30000 30000
SG3
increasing rate SG4
SG4
20000 SG5
20000 SG5
SG6 SG6
10000 SG7
10000 SG7
SG8 SG8
SG9 SG9
0 0
50000 0 25 (b) 50 75 100 125 50000
150
UH-CRH-FH UH-CRNB-FRH
C.R50-F.N50
Mid span deflection (mm) Simultaneous (d
(d)
and deflection
Mid span
C.RB25-F.R50
(mm)
40000 40000
Simultaneous and steep increase

)
)

steep increase

Axial strain (
Axial strain (

30000 30000
SG2 SG3
SG3 SG4
20000 SG4
20000 SG5
SG5 SG6
10000 SG6
10000 SG7
SG7 SG8
SG8 0 SG9
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Mid span deflection (mm) Mid span deflection (mm)

Fig. 14. Strain distribution along the beam tensile reinforcement at different loading levels for all specimens.

(a)

(b)

Precast concrete blocks

Fig. 15. The outer cracks (a) and the inner cracks (b) of the C.RB25-F.R50 beam.

This reduction can be controlled using precast concrete blocks in the
web core, which successfully increased the ductility ratio of the beam
by 38% compared to the semi-precast beam filled with cast-in-place
NSRAC.
When the maximum compressive strain was 0.003, the
corresponding maximum axial strain of the most tensioned longitudinal
reinforcement was above 0.03 for all beams, and the ratios of the
measured deflections to the corresponding maximum deflections of the
test beams were 0.35, 0.52, 0.66 and 0.56 for the T.N50, C.R50-F.N50,
C.R25-F.R50, and C.RB25-F.R50 beams, respectively. Obviously, the

12
M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

400 than those of the precast U-shaped part, see Fig. 17(a & c).
(a)
350
5. Evaluation of the beam flexural strength
300
Applied load (kN)

250 Fig. 18 shows the strain distribution through the beam depth at the
200 mid-span section under different load levels. All parts of the figure re-
vealed the linear strain distribution along the depth of the beam. That
150
is, the use of different types/grades of concrete and different casting
100 techniques did not significantly affect the well-known behavior of
UH-CRH-FH
C.R50-F.N50
monolithically cast RC beams. So, the flexural strength of the semi-
50 C.RB25-F.R50
UH-CRNB-FRH precast beams can be determined by the existing methods such as the
0 fiber section method and design codes approaches. This figure also
0 5 10 15 20
Crack width at the beam mid span (mm) confirms the slight difference in the depth of the neutral axis of the test
beams measured from the upper side of the beam because they had
400 comparable compressive strengths at the beam flange. In addition, the
350
(b) semi-precast beam design satisfied the conditions of tension-controlled
section. The flexural capacities of the test beams were determined in
300
Applied load (kN)

250
200
150
RH
T.N50
100
C.R50-F.N50
UH-CRH-FH
50
UH-CRNB-FRH
C.RB25-F.R50
0 crete; (3) a full interaction (perfect bond condition) was assumed be-
0 5 10 15
Crack width at the loading point (mm)
Fig. 16. Applied load versus crack width at the beam mid span for the test
beams.
semi- precast beams can achieve acceptable ductility after meeting the
design requirements of the design codes. This is a good indication for
using axial tensile strain of 0.005 as a reasonable limit to determine the
reinforcement ratio to realize the required tension control performance.
However, further research should be conducted to ensure that the
ductility ratio is comparable to that of conventionally cast beams.
4.11. Crack width
Crack width is one of the important design indices to measure the
serviceability of RC structural elements. Fig. 16 shows the relationship
between the crack width of two sections (i.e. the mid-span section and
the loading point section) and the applied load. According to the crack
patterns of the test beams, it was observed that the C.R50-F.N50 and
C.RB25-F.R50 beams cracked approximately at the mid-span section.
Along with the reference beam, the C.R50-F.N50 and C.RB25-F.R50
beams experienced the development of a major flexural crack at the
loading point section. The clear difference was in the post-yielding
stage. The two parts of Fig. 16 show that the width of the developed
cracks of the C.RB25-F.R50 beam was the lowest.
The strain readings are directly related to the width of the devel-
oped cracks, so Fig. 17(a & c) present the maximum measured axial
strains and the average of the induced strains along the entire length of
the steel bar of the test beams, respectively. In order to compare among
the test beams before the steel bars yield, the maximum limit of the
horizontal axis in Fig. 17(b & d) is 3000με. Fig. 17(c) shows that the
measured stains of the reference beam and the C.R25-F.R50 beam
under any load were comparable and higher than those of the other
beams. This result highlighted that the use of NSRAC in the web core
could reach a comparable serviceability limit to that of the reference
beam; Fig. 17(d) confirmed this conclusion. Furthermore, Fig. 17(b & d)
declare that the use of NSRAC blocks as filler was associated with lower
axial strains with respect to the reference beam. Ultimately, the width
of the developed cracks can be highly controlled by filling the web core
with precast concrete blocks or concrete with higher characteristics
accordance with both the fiber section method and ACI 318-14 code.
5.1. Fiber section method
The following assumptions were considered: (1) the strain dis-
tribution along the beam depth was linear; (2) perfect bond condition
was assumed between the steel reinforcement and surrounding con-
20
tween the different parts of any of the tested semi-precast beams (4)
compressive stresses on concrete fibers were determined using Mander
et al. [22] model and the Xiao et al. [36] model for NAC and RAC,
respectively [Fig. 19(a)]; (5) concrete compressive strength was defined
using the experimental results given in Table 3; however, a modifica-
tion according to Kotsovos [20] model was adopted to consider the
development of triaxial stress condition rather than the uniaxial stress
state; (6) the tensile contribution of uncracked concrete was neglected;
and (7) The stress-strain behavior of steel was assumed bilinear as
shown in Fig. 19(b), and characteristics of all steel bars are summarized
in Table 4. The cross-section flexural strength was calculated at an ul-
timate compressive strain of 0.0035 με for all the test specimens. To
increase the accuracy of calculating the flexural strength, the beam
section was divided into several strips every 10 mm, as shown in
Fig. 19(c).
The proposed fiber section can safely predict the flexural strength
(Pfib) of the test beams, where the ratios between the predicted values to
the experimental results were ranged between 0.87 and 0.99, as shown
in Table 6. A higher accuracy in calculating the flexural response of
such semi-precast beams can be guaranteed when other design influ-
ential parameters such as the interaction between the precast parts and
the cast-in-situ concrete or concrete blocks are considered; see
Fig. 15(a, b), which show that the crack map of the precast U-shaped
part was different from that of the web core.
5.2. ACI 318-14 code
For ACI 318-14 code, the above assumptions were also followed
except that the ACI rectangular block was assumed for the stress dis-
tribution at the beam compression side (the maximum mean compres-
sion stress equal to 0.85 of the measured concrete compressive
strength), the ultimate concrete strain is 0.003 at the compression side,
and the steel reinforcement has the elastic-perfectly plastic behavior. To
consider the hardening effect of the longitudinal reinforcement, the
probable flexural strength was determined according to steel stress
equal to 1.25 times the steel yield strength (ACI 318-14). Table 6
summarizes the calculated nominal flexural strength (Pn.), and the
probable flexural strength (Pprob.).
Using the ACI 318-14 code, unsurprisingly, Pn. of any of the test
beams was lower than the maximum achieved flexural strength as steel
hardening was not considered. On the other hand, the calculated

13
M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

400 400
RH
T.N50
350 350
UH-CRH-FH
C.R50-F.N50

Applied load (kN)

Applied load (kN)

300 300 UH-CRN-FRH
C.R25-F.R50
2500 250 UH-CRNB-FRH
C.RB25-F.R50
2000 200
1500 RH
T.N50 150
C.R50-F.N50
UH-CRH-FH
100 100
C.R25-F.R50
UH-CRN-FRH
50 (a) 50 (b)
C.RB25-F.R50
UH-CRNB-FRH
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Maximum axial strain (µ ) Maximum axial strain (µ )

400 400
RH
T.N50
350 350
3000 300 UH-CRH-FH
C.R50-F.N50
Applied load (kN)

Applied load (kN)

2500 250 UH-CRN-FRH
C.R25-F.R50
2000 200 C.RB25-F.R50
UH-CRNB-FRH
RH
T.N50
1500 150
UH-CRH-FH
C.R50-F.N50
1000 100
(c) UH-CRN-FRH
C.R25-F.R50
(d)
500 UH-CRNB-FRH
C.RB25-F.R50 50
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Average axial strain ( ) Average axial strain ( )
Fig. 17. (a) Maximum measured axial tensile strain, (b) Magnified part of Fig. 17(a), (c) average of the induced tensile strains, and (d) Magnified part of Fig. 17(c)
along the longitudinal beam reinforcement.

700 700
RH P= 100 kN UH-CRN-FRH P= 100 kN
T.N50
Cross section depth (mm)

600 600 C.R25-F.R50

P= 150 kN P= 150 kN
500 500
P= 200 kN P= 200 kN
400 400
300 P= 250 kN 300 P= 250 kN

200 200
100 (a) 100 (c)
0 0
700 700
UH-CRH-FH P= 100 kN UH-CRNB-FRH
C.RB25-F.R50 P= 100 kN
600 C.R50-F.N50
Axial strain (µ ) 600 Axial strain (µ )
Cross section depth (mm)

P= 150 kN P= 150 kN
500 P= 200 kN 500 P= 200 kN
P= 250 kN P= 250 kN
400 400
P= 275 kN P= 275 kN
300 P= 300 kN 300 P= 300 kN
200 200
100 100
(b) (d)
0 0
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000-2000 0 2000 4000 6000
Axial strain (µ ) Axial strain (µ )
Fig. 18. Strain distribution through the beam depth at the beam mid span section at different load levels.

probable strength to the experimental measured flexural strength sustainability and durability. In order to reduce the construction cost,
(Pmax,exp) ratio (Pprob/Pmax,exp.) was slightly conservative for the C.R50- NSRAC can be used for the web core. Filling the core with RAC blocks
F.N50 and C.RB25-F.R50 beams; as shown in Table 6. instead of cast-in-situ RAC can ensure high deformation and con-
trollable damage level. In addition, it can accelerate the construction of
100% precast systems. However, further examination is still required to
6. Consideration for the construction of semi precast RC beams
define the shear behavior of such type of beams and set design-based
with RAC
details of the concrete blocks (segments) inside the web core.

Design engineers are recommended to use RAC in the core web of

semi precast beams, while the other parts of the beam should be based
on NAC. This may be an alternative to replace a part of NA with RA in
the concrete mix to meet the durability requirements. That is, the web
core could be 100% RAC, which should be enclosed by NAC that in-
cludes the reinforcement cage of the beam to ensure the required
7. Conclusions
The results showed that the integrity of the semi-precast beams was
verified whether cast-in-situ RAC or precast RAC blocks were used as
filler. In addition, RAC blocks were very effective in controlling the

14
M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525

E= 0.01 Es

Mander et al. (1988) model

for NAC
Xiao et al. (2005) model for
RAC

Es
co c s
c
y

(a) Concrete stress-strain relationship (b) Steel stress-strain relationship

bf
c
Fs4
tf z
,
Fs3
N N

Fs2
s2
s1
Fs1
bw
(c) Fiber section and strain and stress distribution
Fig. 19. Fiber section method to determine the flexural strength of the test beams.

crack pattern of the semi-precast C.RB25-F.R50 beam, which achieved a
comparable flexural response to that of the reference beam. Several
conclusions were drawn from the test results and summarized as fol-
lows:
1. Following the design guidelines for traditionally cast RC beams;
flexural was the main failure mode of all the semi-precast beams
tested. Compared with the reference beam, the following observa-
tions were realized:
• The number of flexural and flexural-shear cracks, crack spacing, and
crack propagation depend on the RAC grade used in the web core.
• Using precast NSRAC blocks as filler for the web core positively
changed the crack map. The number of flexural-shear cracks ex-
tending to the flange of the C.RB25-F.R50 beam was the least.
2. The initial cracking load and the elastic stiffness of the test semi-
precast beams were dependent not only on the concrete mechanical
characteristics of the external U-shaped part, but also on the grade
of the RAC filler (NSRAC or HSRAC) in the web core. The higher the
tensile strength of the concrete filler, the higher the initial cracking
load and the elastic stiffness of the semi-precast beam.
3. The use of concrete blocks inside the web core of the C.RB25-F.R50
beam introduced internal pre-cracked sections, which further re-
duced the initial flexural cracking load besides the use of the low
grade concrete blocks.
4. The grade of the concrete filler had no negative impact on the beam
yielding load.
5. Deformability of the semi-precast beam filled with cast-in-place low-
grade RAC was lower than that of the semi-precast beam filled with

Table 6
Evaluation of the flexural capacity of the test beams using ACI 318–14 code and the fiber section approach.
Specimens Fiber section ACI318-14

Pfib. (kN) Pfib./Pmax,exp Pn (kN) Pn/Pmax,exp. Pprob. (kN) Pprob./Pmax,exp.

T.N50 315 0.99 263 0.83 325 1.02

C.R50-F.N50 315 0.87 263 0.73 325 0.90
C.R25-F.R50 306 0.96 262 0.83 324 1.02
C.RB25-F.R50 309 0.89 263 0.75 326 0.93

15
M.F.M. Fahmy and L.K. Idriss
high-grade RAC. On the other hand, the proposed filling technology
using low grad precast RAC blocks successfully achieved the same
deformation capacity as the reference beam. However, the interac-
tion between the concrete blocks and the inner surface of pre-
fabricated parts, the size of the concrete blocks, and the configura-
tion along the length and depth of the beam are design influential
parameters that should be studied.
6. The semi-precast beams with different types of concrete flanges
(NAC and RAC) made of comparable compressive strengths to that
of the traditionally cast RC beam achieved approximately the same
flexural strength.
7. The linear strain distribution of the mid-span section of all the test
beams was observed before the steel bars yield, indicating the ap-
plicability of the available theoretical approaches to calculate the
flexural strength of semi-precast beams made of NAC and RAC with
reasonable accuracy.
In general, the performance of the semi-precast beam filled with
precast reinforced concrete blocks indicates that further tests and nu-
merical evaluation are needed. This technology can greatly improve the
deformability of RC beams, reduce the contribution of shear or shear-
flexural cracks to the beam deformability, reduce the construction cost
of modern structures, and promote the application of RAC in 100%
precast structures.
Declaration of Competing interest
The authors have no conflict of interest whatsoever.
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109525.
References
[1] ACI. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318–14) and
Commentary, American Concrete Institute, 38800 Country Club Drive. Michigan:
Farmington Hills; 2014. p. 48331.
[2] Alnahhal W, Aljidda O. Flexural behavior of basalt fiber reinforced concrete beams
with recycled concrete coarse aggregates. Constr Build Mater 2018;169:165–78.
[3] Aly S, Ibrahim M, Khattab M. Shear behavior of reinforced concrete beams casted
with recycled coarse aggregate. Eur J Adv Eng Technol 2015;2(9):59–71.
[4] Arezoumandi M, Smith A, Volz JS, Khayat KH. An experimental study on flexural
strength of reinforced concrete beams with 100% recycled concrete aggregate. Eng
Struct 2015;88:154–62.
[5] Brandes MR, Kurama YC. Use of recycled concrete aggregates in precast/prestressed
concrete. Proc Eng 2016;145:1338–45.
[6] Bravo M, de Brito J, Evangelista L, Pacheco J. Durability and shrinkage of concrete
with CDW as recycled aggregates: benefits from superplasticizer’s incorporation and
influence of CDW composition. Constr Build Mater 2018;168:818–30.
[7] Breccolotti M, Materazzi AL. Structural reliability of eccentrically-loaded sections in
RC columns made of recycled aggregate concrete. Eng Struct 2010;32(11):3704–12.
[8] Chaboki HR, Ghalehnovi M, Karimipour A, de Brito J, Khatibinia M. Shear beha-
viour of concrete beams with recycled aggregate and steel fibres. Constr Build Mater
2019;204:809–27.
16
Engineering Structures 198 (2019) 109525
[9] Chen J, Wang Y, Roeder CW, Ma J. Behavior of normal-strength recycled aggregate
concrete filled steel tubes under combined loading. Eng Struct 2017;130:23–40.
[10] Choi WC, Yun HD. Compressive behavior of reinforced concrete columns with re-
cycled aggregate under uniaxial loading. Eng Struct 2012;41:285–93.
[11] De Brito J, Ferreira J, Pacheco J, Soares D, Guerreiro M. Structural, material, me-
chanical and durability properties and behaviour of recycled aggregates concrete. J
Build Eng 2016;6:1–16.
[12] Dimitriou G, Savva P, Petrou MF. Enhancing mechanical and durability properties
of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr Build Mater 2018;158:228–35.
[13] Erdem S, Blankson MA. Environmental performance and mechanical analysis of
concrete containing recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) and waste precast concrete as
aggregate. J Hazard Mater 2014;264:403–10.
[14] Evangelista L, De Brito J. Durability performance of concrete made with fine re-
cycled concrete aggregates. Cem Concr Compos 2010;32(1):9–14.
[15] Gonzalez-Corominas A, Etxeberria M. Effects of using recycled concrete aggregates
on the shrinkage of high performance concrete. Constr Build Mater
2016;115:32–41.
[16] Guo H, Shi C, Guan X, Zhu J, Ding Y, Ling TC, et al. Durability of recycled aggregate
concrete–a review. Cem Concr Compos 2018;89:251–9.
[17] Kaarthik M, Subrmanian K. Flexural behavior of concrete beams using recycled fine
aggregate and steel fibres. In: International Conference on Biological, Civil and
Environmental Engineering (BCEE-2014) March, vol. 17, No. 18; 2014. p. 2014.
[18] Knaack AM, Kurama YC. Design of normal strength concrete mixtures with recycled
concrete aggregates. In: Structures Congress; 2011. pp. 3068–79.
[19] Knaack AM, Kurama YC. Behavior of reinforced concrete beams with recycled
concrete coarse aggregates. J Struct Eng 2014;141(3):B4014009.
[20] Kotsovos GM. Assessment of the flexural capacity of RC beam/column elements
allowing for 3D effects. Eng Struct 2011;33(10):2772–80.
[21] Kou SC, Poon CS. Enhancing the durability properties of concrete prepared with
coarse recycled aggregate. Constr Build Mater 2012;35:69–76.
[22] Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[23] Martins P, Brito JD, Rosa A, Pedro D. Mechanical performance of concrete with
incorporation of coarse waste from the marble industry. Mater Res
2014;17(5):1093–101.
[24] Peng GF, Huang YZ, Wang HS, Zhang JF, Liu QB. Mechanical properties of recycled
aggregate concrete at low and high water/binder ratios. Adv Mater Sci Eng
2013;2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/842929.
[25] Poon CS, Lam CS. The effect of aggregate-to-cement ratio and types of aggregates on
the properties of pre-cast concrete blocks. Cem Concr Compos 2008;30(4):283–9.
[26] Rahal KN, Alrefaei YT. Shear strength of longitudinally reinforced recycled ag-
gregate concrete beams. Eng Struct 2017;145:273–82.
[27] Sato R, Maruyama I, Sogabe T, Sogo M. Flexural behavior of reinforced recycled
concrete beams. J Adv Concr Technol 2007;5(1):43–61.
[28] Silva RV, De Brito J, Dhir RK. Prediction of the shrinkage behavior of recycled
aggregate concrete: a review. Constr Build Mater 2015;77:327–39.
[29] Silva RV, De Brito J, Evangelista L, Dhir RK. Design of reinforced recycled aggregate
concrete elements in conformity with Eurocode 2. Constr Build Mater
2016;105:144–56.
[30] Sivakumar N, Muthukumar S, Sivakumar V, Gowtham D, Muthuraj V. Experimental
studies on high strength concrete by using recycled coarse aggregate. Int J Eng Sci
2014;4(01):27–36.
[31] Soares D, De Brito J, Ferreira J, Pacheco J. Use of coarse recycled aggregates from
precast concrete rejects: mechanical and durability performance. Constr Build
Mater 2014;71:263–72.
[32] Thomas C, Setién J, Polanco J, Alaejos P, De Juan MS. Durability of recycled ag-
gregate concrete. Constr Build Mater 2013;40:1054–65.
[33] Wu B, Peng CW, Zhao XY, Zhou WJ. Axial loading tests of thin-walled circular steel
tubes infilled with cast-in-place concrete and precast segments containing DCLs.
Thin-Walled Structures 2018;127:275–89.
[34] Xiao JZ, Pham TL, Wang PJ, Gao G. Behaviors of semi-precast beam made of re-
cycled aggregate concrete. Struct Des Tall Special Build 2014;23(9):692–712.
[35] Xiao J, Huang X, Shen L. Seismic behavior of semi-precast column with recycled
aggregate concrete. Constr Build Mater 2012;35:988–1001.
[36] Xiao J, Li J, Zhang C. Mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete under
uniaxial loading. Cem Concr Res 2005;35(6):1187–94.
[37] Xiao J, Lu D, Ying J. Durability of recycled aggregate concrete: an overview. J Adv
Concr Technol 2013;11(12):347–59.
[38] Xiao JZ, Pham TL, Ding T. Shake table test on seismic response of a precast frame
with recycled aggregate concrete. Adv Struct Eng 2015;18(9):1517–34.
[39] Yang Y, Xue Y, Yu Y, Ma N, Shao Y. Experimental study on flexural performance of
partially precast steel reinforced concrete beams. J Constr Steel Res
2017;133:192–201.