Structures 59 (2024) 105679

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Flexural response of textile-reinforced sandwich slab with modified

polymeric core
Alein Jeyan Sudhakar, Bhuvaneshwari Muthusubramanian *
Department of Civil Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Chennai 603203, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Concrete sandwich panels are thermally insulative but difficult to erect due to heavy weight and thickness, and
Sandwich slabs also require sufficient clear cover to avoid corrosion. Textile reinforcement is a novel field of research in civil
Textile reinforcement engineering. The size, weight, and cost can be reduced using it as reinforcement in sandwich elements. The past
Fine grained cementitious composites
researchers focus on sandwich slabs with polymeric cores which are prompt to delamination. Thus, this study
Flexure
Deflection
compares the performance of steel mesh, and basalt textile fiber mesh reinforced sandwich slabs with conven­
Composite action tional concrete and expanded perlite board as core materials. The sandwich slabs are tested under flexure in four-
point bending and validated numerically by considering the non-linear characteristics of the material. The
sandwich slabs reinforced with steel and basalt textile fiber mesh have similar load-carrying capacities with
higher deflection of basalt textile mesh-reinforced sandwich slabs. The core material plays a major role than the
type of reinforcement used. Conventional concrete core sandwich slabs did not show any delamination by
enhancing the degree of composite action and mitigated the shear failure without shear connectors than sand­
wich slabs with expanded perlite cores. However, it affects the major property of the sandwich panel due to its
density. Using the cast in-situ method in manufacturing sandwich specimens rather than adopting the slab stock
method avoids delamination by proper bonding between the layers. Thus, textile-reinforced sandwich slabs have
a similar load-carrying capacity as of concrete sandwich panels with steel mesh. The experimental results are
validated well with numerical data.

1. Introduction
Composites are a prevalent field among researchers in civil engi­
neering due to their excellent characteristics. Among the different types
of composites in industry, sandwich elements are the key source of
research among budding researchers due to their thermal comfort, en­
ergy efficiency, reliability, fire resistance, fast and easy construction [1].
Many works were reported on the sandwich element (slab/panels) right
from its development in 1849 by William Fairbairn in constructing
Britannia Tubular Bridge in North Wales [2]. But, using reinforcement
on both sides increases the elements’ weight and size as it requires a
sufficient clear cover to prevent corrosion. It is necessary to take this as a
major point of consideration in developing thin sandwich elements with
improved structural and thermal performance [3]. The PCI committee
describes the types of sandwich elements, insulation, detailing, shear
connectors, and minimum specifications [4]. A novel type of rein­
forcement other than steel reinforcement is required to reduce the size of
the wythe of the sandwich element leading to thin construction [5].
Precast sandwich panels can be used as wall panels instead of brick
masonry due to their insulative characteristics [6]. The precast sand­
wich slab with foam core can be used instead of normal reinforced
concrete slabs in buildings, as suggested by Amran et al. [7] from the
results on the flexural response of precast sandwich slabs with foam core
and shear connectors. The structural behavior of precast sandwich ele­
ments depends on the strength and stiffness of the materials [8]. The
fully composite sandwich elements fail only due to the yielding of re­
inforcements or crushing of concrete [7,9,10]. In an experimental study
conducted by Mughed Amran on precast foamed concrete sandwich
panels (PFCSPs) subjected to out-of-plane loads using lightweight foam
concrete reduces the self-weight as residential buildings, slab self-weight
accounted for approximately 40–60% of the total dead load [11]. The
precast concrete sandwich panels (PCSP) were theoretically and exper­
imentally studied under flexure by Benayoune et al. [12]. In tests, PCSP
acting as slab elements showed very similar failure modes and cracked
patterns to solid slabs, especially when the two concrete halves act
together as a composite unit. As a result of the finite element analysis of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: aj1024@srmist.edu.in (A. Jeyan Sudhakar), bhuvanem@srmist.edu.in (B. Muthusubramanian).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105679
Received 17 July 2023; Received in revised form 25 November 2023; Accepted 29 November 2023
Available online 14 December 2023
2352-0124/© 2023 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Jeyan Sudhakar and B. Muthusubramanian
Fig. 1. Degree of composite action according to the distribution of bending stress.
the PCSP, we could reasonably estimate the experimental
load–deflection curves and strain levels in shear connectors. It was
found that the stiffness of the shear connector was a very important
factor in determining the ultimate strength and composite action. Amran
et al. [13] studied the performance of sandwich panels under flexure
with different construction and end conditions methods. The construc­
tion type influences sample behavior at the initial stage of flexural
loading. As a result, the higher strength was observed in poured concrete
samples compared to sprayed concrete. The failure pattern of the foam
core is influenced based on the edge conditions. Tuwair et al. [14]
evaluated sandwich panels with different polyurethane foams and ribs
in experiments and numerical simulations, and the proposed design was
found to be both engineering and economically feasible. In bending, all
sandwich beams achieved linear-elastic behavior. Due to the remarkable
effect of web layers in the Type 3 construction, it performed better in
strength, flexural, and shear stiffness than any of the other two types.
The polyurethane foam core and the facings formed an excellent bond
during this research.
In a typical concrete wythe, steel reinforcement requires a minimum
thickness of 80 mm [15]. A greater thickness of internal wythe from 80
mm to 160 mm improved the fire performance of insulation [16]. The
sandwich panel is the best level of reducing the carbon footprint by
replacing the cement with other materials for the concrete wythe [17]. It
is possible to reduce embodied energy through thin precast concrete
sandwich panels when compared with reinforced concrete solid panels,
as well as reduce the weight and material of reinforced concrete solid
panels [18]. With high-performance cementitious composites, light and
thin concrete wythes can transfer and resist shear loads [19]. The
response of the sandwich panel with a wythe of 5 mm thickness by Lee
et al.[20] finds higher bending response with poor thermal character­
istics. Flansbjer [21] and Shams [22] reported the considerable perfor­
mance of the thin textile reinforced sandwich panels with polymeric
foam core. It is difficult to fabricate the shear connectors in the sandwich
panels [23]. The bending behavior of textile-reinforced sandwich beams
with different numbers of layers of textiles placed in concrete with
gypsum board and calcium silicate board was evaluated by Smitha et al.
[24] and suggested that the increase in layers of textile reinforcement
improves its performance. Colombo et al. [25] studied the behavior of
textile reinforced sandwich beams under bending. Multiple cracking was
observed upon loading, affecting the textile fabric’s position, the beam’s
thickness, and its geometry. From the observation, it is clear that the
number of layers, position, thickness, and type of material influence the
characteristics.
Only limited work has been reported from the literature on textile-
reinforced sandwich elements, and scarce works have been found
comparing steel reinforcement performance with textile fibers. It’s
important to compare its performance to know its characteristics before
applying it in the industry. When the core materials are considered,
2
Structures 59 (2024) 105679
previous literature mainly focuses on polymeric foam cores like
expanded polystyrene, extruded polystyrene and polyurethane cores;
they are synthetic, have less strength, result in poor bonding, and
require shear connectors to ensure composite action. Also, the major
type of failure is delamination between the layers, even after using the
shear connectors. So, there is a need for using different insulation ma­
terials other than polymeric with improved bonding between layers.
Thus this study focuses on the flexural response of sandwich slabs using
steel mesh and basalt fiber textile reinforced mesh. And using two core
materials, a conventional concrete core and a modified polymeric core
(EPB). No shear connectors are used. The performance of this sandwich
slab element is studied under four-point bending, and is compared based
on the load carrying capacity, failure pattern, degree of composite ac­
tion, deflection, strain, slip data, ductility, stiffness and energy dis­
sipaction. The experimental data obtained is then validated with the
numerical data.
2. The behavior of sandwich slab elements
The sandwich slab elements are assumed to behave according to the
sandwich beam theory. According to its concept, the reinforced wythe
resists flexural bending, and the core resists shear. The major difference
between the ordinary beam theory and sandwich beam theory is that the
deflection due to the shear of the sandwich element is not neglected
[26].
Based on the degree of composite action, it is classified as fully
composite sandwich elements, partially composite or semi-composite,
and non-composite sandwich elements [27]. Its composite behavior
based on the "theory of bending" is shown in Fig. 1.
3. Experimental campaign
This study deals with sandwich slab elements with two re­
inforcements, steel and basalt fiber mesh, with a conventional concrete
core and modified polymeric core. And their performance is compared.
3.1. Materials
The detailed specifications of the materials used for preparing this
sandwich slab are given in this section.
3.1.1. Reinforcement
The steel mesh of 2.3 mm diameter with 25 mm spacing in both warp
and weft direction is used in the top and bottom wythe of the sandwich
section. Basalt fiber is a natural and inert material obtained from basalt
rock by melting it above 1500 ℃. The basalt textile fiber mesh is used as
textile reinforcement with a spacing of 25 mm in both warp and weft
directions. The reinforcement ratio of 1.6% is adapted in the wythe of
A. Jeyan Sudhakar and B. Muthusubramanian Structures 59 (2024) 105679

Table 1 reinforced fine grained cementitious matrix with GGBS as a partial

Property of steel mesh, basalt textile mesh, and chopped basalt fiber. replacement of cement (BFRFGGC). The core of either expanded perlite
Properties Steel mesh Basalt textile Chopped basalt insulation or concrete of 75 mm thickness with no shear connector is
mesh fiber adapted in this study. The detailed schematic representation of the
Density (g/cm3) 7.2 2.7 2.63 specimens is shown in Fig. 4, and the combinations are given in Table 4.
Young’s modulus 134 89.36 79 The casting of the sandwich element is a little complicated process.
(GPa) First, the wooden molds of 900 mm × 600 mm are fabricated and
Tensile yield strength 464 2632.74 - placed above the sheet after greasing, and the bottom wythe reinforce­
(MPa)
Ultimate tensile 639.31 3643.64 2579
ment is placed in its position first attaching to the mould with the help of
strength (MPa) nail at 12.5 mm from the base. Then fine-grained cementitious matrix
% Elongation 4.07 2.15 3.12 (BFRFGGC) is laid for 25 mm as the bottom wythe, and the core material
Mesh size 25 mm × 25 mm 25 mm × 25 mm - is placed directly above it in case of sandwich slabs with EPB cores. But
for sandwich slabs with conventional concrete core (CC) the conven­
tional concrete is poured above the bottom wythe only after its initial
sandwich slabs for both the cases ( steel mesh and basalt textile mesh
setting time say 30 min to avoid the segregation of layers. Further, the
reinforcement). The properties of the steel mesh and basalt textile fiber
top reinforcement is fixed in its position, as 12.5 mm from the top sur­
mesh obtained experimentally are specified in Table 1.
face of the mould with the help of nails attached to the mould. And a
fine-grained cementitious composite (BFRFGGC) is laid for the remain­
3.1.2. Fine grained cementitious matrix
ing depths as top wythe. After 24 h, the specimens were demoulded and
The fine grained cementitious matrix with chopped basalt fiber and
water-cured using gunny bags. After 28 days of curing the specimens are
GGBS (Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag) is used in the wythe in
whitewashed before testing to identify the cracks that appeared. The
this study. GGBS is used as a partial replacement of cement in the
casting of sandwich slabs is shown in Fig. 3(a-d). At the same time,
cementitious matrix. The chopped basalt fiber of 12 mm in length and
casting the fine-grained cementitious matrix seepage from the top wythe
fine aggregate of < 2.36 mm is used in this matrix. The percentage of
chopped basalt fiber added is 0.4% to the volume of the matrix [28], and
cement is partially replaced by a GGBS of 20% (GM). The properties of
chopped basalt fiber used are obtained from the manufacturer and is
given in Table 1. The mix specification adopted in this study is chosen
from the basic studies adapted to fine grained cementitious composites.
The mix considered for this study is with a flow diameter of 166 mm,
compressive strength of 45 N/mm2, split tensile strength of
4.15 N/mm2, and flexural strength of 7.23 N/mm2. It also possess good
thermal characteristics [29]. The detailed specifications of the mix
adapted are given in Table 2.

3.1.3. Conventional concrete

Conventional concrete (CC) with coarse aggregate is used as a core
material. However, it has a higher density and affects the property of the
core material, but it was used for comparison. The concrete of 30 N/
Fig. 2. Expanded Perlite Board.
mm2 (M) is adapted in this study, and its detailed specifications are
given in the Table 2.
Table 3
3.1.4. Expanded Perlite Insulation Properties of expanded perlite board.
It is a natural material made from calcined clay with high thermal
Properties Values
insulative characteristics. Expanded perlite board (EPB) insulation is a
Density (kg/m3) 220
modified polymeric material of lighter weight made from perlite, which
Compressive strength (MPa) 0.49
expands almost twenty times its volume. The expanded perlite board is Flexural strength (MPa) 0.25
directly available as an insulation material in industry and it is directly Thermal conductivity (W/m.K) 0.059
used as a core material. Fig. 2 shows the EPB used. The characteristics of
the expanded perlite board are given in Table 3.
Table 4
Specimen details.
3.2. Details of sandwich slab
Specimen Wythe Reinforcement Core Wythe Core
ID thickness thickness
The sandwich slab of 900 mm × 600 mm is used in this study. The
CMCC BFRFGGC SM CC 25 mm 75 mm
size of the sandwich slabs are chosen based on the design results [30]. CMEPB BFRFGGC SM EPB
The top and bottom wythe’s thickness is 25 mm with reinforcement, and BFCC BFRFGGC BFM CC
either basalt fiber mesh (BFM) or steel mesh (SM) is provided at the BFEPB BFRFGGC BFM EPB
center of the wythe at 12.5 mm. The wythe is made of basalt fiber

Table 2
Mix proportions of fine grained cementitious concrete and conventional concrete.
Mix Cement GGBS (kg/m3) Fine aggregate (kg/m3) Coarse aggregate (kg/m3) Water Superplasticizer (kg/m3) Basalt fiber (kg/m3)
(kg/m3) (kg/m3)

M 416.4 - 798.33 987.63 187.4 4.16 -

GM 363.84 90.96 1654.35 - 191.55 5.34 13.35

3
A. Jeyan Sudhakar and B. Muthusubramanian Structures 59 (2024) 105679

Fig. 3. Casting of Sandwich Slab.

to the bottom wythe along the sides of the sandwich slab with EPB core
is clearly visible in Fig. 3(d).
3.3. Instrumentation
he sandwich slabs are tested under flexure in a four-point bending
technique. This technique is adapted to nullify the effect of shear in the
loading area. The load is applied by means of displacement control at a

Fig. 4. Details of sandwich slab and Position of Mechanical devices.

4
A. Jeyan Sudhakar and B. Muthusubramanian
Fig. 5. Numerical Modelling of the sandwich slab under flexure.
rate of 1.5 mm/min. The strain, deflection, and slip are measured while
testing. Strain gauges of 10 mm were used in the center of the top and
bottom wythe in both lateral and longitudinal directions of the spec­
imen; the strains are recorded in the data logger. The dial gauge with
0.01 least count was used in this study. Four dial gauges are used to
measure the deflection at various points, and four dials are used to
measure the slip between the layers in both lateral and longitudinal
directions.
The strains recorded at the top and bottom wythe in longitudinal and
lateral directions are noted as SH1, SV1, SH2, and SV2, respectively. The
deflections measured at different points are marked as L1, L2, L3, and
L4. The slips measured are SL1, SL2, SL3, and SL4 between the top wythe
– core – bottom wythe in lateral and longitudinal directions, respec­
tively. The schematic representation of the position of mechanical de­
vices in the sandwich element is given in Fig. 4. SH1 and SV1 are placed
in the top wythe in similar positions of SH2 and SV2 in the bottom wythe
Fig. 6. Failure modes of sandwich slab.
5
Structures 59 (2024) 105679
as in Fig. 4.
4. Numerical Modelling
The sandwich slab was modelled to validate it numerically using
ABAQUS software. The non-linear property was assigned to the mate­
rials for exact validation.
4.1. Material modelling
The sandwich slabs are modelled in different parts such as wythe,
core, and reinforcement. The elastic and compression damage plasticity
(CDP) values are given as input in material properties. The elasticity of
89.36 GPa, Poisson’s ratio 0.26 is given as input for basalt textile fiber
mesh. Also, the plasticity values are given starting with the yield point to
obtain the non-linear behavior. The steel mesh is assigned with the
material property of Young’s modulus 134 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of
0.26. Similar to textile reinforcement for steel mesh, the plasticity
properties are also given to find the non-linearity. GM’s elastic and non-
linear properties are 20.56 GPa with a Poisson’s ratio of 0.2. The CDP
values are given as input, indicating the non-linear property of the
material. Input parameters for CDP are "dilation angle (Ψ = 36), biaxial
test to the uniaxial compressive stress (fb0/fc = 1.0), the potential flow
eccentricity (0.1), the proportion of the ultimate compressive stress in
the shape of the deviatory cross section (Kc = 0.667) and the numerical
viscosity parameter (0)". In case of EPB core it requires the parameters
such as the "ratio between the initial yield stress in uniaxial compression
and the initial yield stress in hydrostatic compression sc0/p0c
(compression yield stress ratio), as well as the ratio between the hy­
drostatic tension (0.26 MPa) and the initial yield stress in hydrostatic
A. Jeyan Sudhakar and B. Muthusubramanian
Table 5
Ultimate loads and deflection of the sandwich slab.
Specimen ID Ultimate load (kN)
Experimental Numerical % Difference
CMCC 48 50.02 4.12
BFCC 46 47.89 4.02
CMEPB 24 24.4 1.65
BFEPB 24 26.40 9.52
compression pt/p0c (1.01) (hydrostatic yield stress ratio)". All the ma­
terial properties given as input are obtained experimentally for each
material.
4.2. Loading and Boundary conditions
This model was to validate the experimentally obtained results. The
loads and supports are applied using a rigid body as rollers. The
modelled textile reinforced sandwich slab is shown in Fig. 5. The
boundary conditions are assigned with one end hinged and another as
roller support. The wythe and core elements are mesh as C3D8R, and the
steel and textile reinforcements mesh as T3D2. The entire sandwich slab
assembly with the supports contains 8564 nodes with 3576 elements.
The frictionless hard contact is given as interaction between the supports
and the slab. Tie interaction is given as contact between the layers, and
the reinforcement is embedded. Then the model is set for analysis
through displacement control.
5. Results and discussion
The experimental and numerical results obtained upon flexural
loading of the sandwich slabs with different core and reinforcement
materials are discussed in detail.
5.1. Failure Mode
The different failure modes are identified in sandwich slabs with
different core materials, and the photographs in Fig. 6 represent the
typical failures. The failure pattern is affected based on the type of core
material. Flexural cracks appear on the sandwich slabs (CMCC and
BFCC) with a conventional concrete core, which widens for higher loads.
The widened crack developed through the bottom wythe to till the rear
face resulting in catastrophic failure. The sandwich slabs with steel mesh
as reinforcement and basalt fiber textile mesh as reinforcement have the
same failure mode. And the sandwich slabs with conventional concrete
were brittle due to their low strain capacity resulting in crack widening.
The stress concentration was higher in the crack-prone zones in the
numerical model as in Fig. 6(a,b), and experimentally the cracks ob­
tained in those region validates the CMCC and BFCC sandwich slab.
Further, in the case of sandwich slabs with EPB core, the shear and
flexural cracks are identified on the sides as indicated in Fig. 6. While
casting the sandwich slab with steel mesh, the wythe material seepages
along the sides of the core material and the failure is noticed on the sides
in the seepages parts resulting in mixed mode failure. But in the case of
the BFEPB specimen, accidental seepage was less when compared with
CMEPB. The BFEPB specimens failed under flexure and only in the top,
bottom wythe, and seepages. The failure of seepage concrete is relevant
to shear failure. No cracks are generated on the EPB core; instead, it
resulted in core crushing due to its high compressibility. Even in the
numerical model, as in Fig. 6(c,d), the stress concentration was higher in
the top and bottom wythe, and similarly, the failure that occurred in that
region experimentally validates the numerical model except for CMEPB.
The shear and flexural failure are noticed experimentally due to the
accidental seepage while casting; thus, it couldn’t be validated. But
numerically, both CMEPB and BFEPB show similar performance. The
delamination failure is also noted on the sandwich slab with EPB core,
6
Structures 59 (2024) 105679
Deflection at ultimate load (mm)
Experimental Numerical % Difference
2.98 2.80 6.22
3.17 3.04 4.19
10.71 10.52 1.79
14.4 14.09 2.17
indicating poor bonding similar to the work reported by Raj et al. [31]
on polymeric foam core. However, no cracks are identified in the core
due to its compressibility. The flexural failure modes obtained for CMCC
and BFCC were similar to the normal reinforced concrete slab with
brittle failure. And the major mode of failure in the CMEPB and BFEPB
sandwich slab elements was at the concrete at the sides resulting in shear
failure was similar to inferred studies by Joseph et al. [26,32]. Also, the
cracks developed in the bottom wythe in their study were contradictory
as no cracks were generated in the bottom wythe except for CMCC and
BFCC. But in the cases inferred studies, shear connectors are used to
ensure the composite action between the sandwich slab’s top and bot­
tom wythe, and the same pattern was achieved in our study without
using shear connectors. Thus, it is clear that even without shear con­
nectors, delamination failure can be mitigated by adapting the
cast-in-situ method rather than the slab stock method. The CMCC and
BFCC specimens are cast-in-situ no delamination failure occurred;
however, CMEPB and BFEPB failed under delamination and were
fabricated by the slab stock method. Also, the type of reinforcement used
has no role in failure mode as it was similar in sandwich slabs with steel
mesh and basalt textile fiber mesh.
5.2. Ultimate Load and Deflection
The ultimate load carrying capacity of the sandwich slabs with the
deflection at ultimate load is given in Table 5.
The sandwich slabs with steel and basalt textile mesh showed almost
similar load-carrying capacity. But basalt fiber reinforced specimens
have higher deflection when compared with steel mesh reinforced
sandwich slabs. While considering the core materials, sandwich slabs
with EPB cores have higher deformation than conventional concrete
cores. The difference in ultimate load between CMCC and BFCC is
4.25%, and no difference in ultimate load between CMEPB and BFEPB.
The difference in deflection between CMCC and BFCC, CMEPB, and
BFEPB is 6.3% and 33.93%, respectively. The sandwich slabs with
conventional concrete core had 2 times higher ultimate load carrying
capacity and a lower deflection of 0.27 times than EPB core. Hong et al.
[33] have higher ultimate load and deflection in sandwich specimens
with glass fiber mesh reinforcement than steel mesh but the results
inferred are contradictory. But they have used textile reinforcement as
wrapping in sandwich slabs while casting. Upon validating the experi­
mental and numerical data on ultimate load and deflection at ultimate
load is of 4.12% and 6.22% difference for CMCC, 4.02% and 4.19% for
BFCC, 1.65% and 1.79% for CMEPB and 9.52% and 1.57% for BFEPB
sandwich slabs respectively. Experimental and numerical data differ­
ences may be due to some accidental error while testing. However, a
difference of up to 10% is considered in the good range and acceptable.
Thus the sandwich slab model is validated. The higher deflection of
basalt fiber mesh reinforced sandwich slabs is due to its low modulus of
elasticity. The EPB core is highly compressible, resulting in higher
deflection than sandwich slabs with a CC core.
5.3. Degree of composite action
The degree of composite action of sandwich slab elements was
calculated according to beam theory with the help of load, deflection,
stiffness, and strain [34]. In this research degree of composite action
A. Jeyan Sudhakar and B. Muthusubramanian Structures 59 (2024) 105679

Table 6 between the ultimate load-carrying capacity of fully composite and the
Degree of composite action of sandwich slab elements. non-composite section; thus, the sandwich slab elements are partially
Specimen ID Ultimate load (kN) Degree of composite action (%) composite. However, the conventional concrete core has a higher degree
of composite action due to the cast-in-situ method adapted while cast­
Pexp Pcomposite Pnon-
composite
ing. The sandwich slabs with shear connectors are used to achieve about
40–90% degree of composite action in the inferred studies [34,35,37,
CMCC 48 59.57 13.96 74.63
BFCC 46 62.35 14.56 65.78
38], but, it was contradictory to present research as, a higher degree of
CMEPB 24 59.57 13.96 22.01 composite action is achieved by the cast-in-situ method. Thus, by casting
BFEPB 24 62.35 14.56 19.75 the sandwich elements as cast-in-situ than slab stock method, the degree
of composite action can be increased by using additional shear con­
nectors. In turn, the absence of shear connectors helps reduce the ele­
using ultimate load is adopted [35]. The ultimate load-carrying capacity
ment’s weight.
of the sandwich elements is calculated as per the given Eq. 1. The
calculation of the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the composite and
non-composite section can be referred to from the literature [35,36]. 5.4. Load vs. Deflection
Pnon− composite − Pexperimental
Degree of composite action (%) = X100
Pnon− composite − Pcomposite The deflection at different points on the sandwich slab upon loading
(1) is represented in the form of load vs. deflection graphs in Fig. 7(a-d),
including the numerically obtained data of each specimen for validation.
The results in Table 6 conclude a higher degree of composite action CMCC and BFCC specimens show the same behavior until the ultimate
in conventional concrete cores of about 74.63% and 65.78%. The load with lower deflection due to its brittle nature. Similarly, CMEPB
sandwich slab elements of EPB have composite action of 22.01% and and BFEPB specimens show similar patterns until failure with higher
19.75%. The degree of composite action of all the specimens lies deflection values. L1 and L2 are taken directly below the loading point,

Fig. 7. Load - Deflection curve of sandwich slabs at different points.

7
A. Jeyan Sudhakar and B. Muthusubramanian
Fig. 8. Deflection profile of sandwich slabs at L1 and L2 for different stages of loading.
showing a similar pattern for all samples due to the uniform distribution.
However, L3 and L4 are measured along the minor axis yield line. The
deflection in the major axis is higher when compared to the minor axis.
The load vs. deflection of EPB specimens is high and similar to the
results obtained by Hegarty et al. [18] on sandwich specimens with EPS
foam core. The deflection profile for all the sandwich slab specimens
upon various stages of loading at L1 and L2 is shown in Fig. 8(a-d). It
indicates the even distribution of load at the loading points. The
deflection is lower across the minor axis when compared with the major
axis. The numerically obtained data also validated well with the
experimental data. The deflection is higher in basalt fiber textile rein­
forced specimens due to its low modulus of elasticity and was similar to
the results inferred from Hong et al. [33]. Thus, it is clear that textile
fiber-reinforced specimens show higher deflection. Also, modified
polymeric core (EPB) sandwich slabs have higher deflection due to their
compressibility.
5.5. Load vs. Strain
The typical load vs. strain behavior of all the sandwich slabs along
the major axis and minor axis at the top and bottom wythe is represented
in Fig. 9. The strain is very less at the early stage of loading in the top and
bottom wythe of the sandwich slab elements across the major and minor
axis. Then it started to increase for higher loads. The sandwich slab el­
ements show positive strain at the bottom wythe and negative strain at
8
Structures 59 (2024) 105679
the top in both axes, indicating the tensile and compressive strain,
respectively. Also, the strain is higher at the bottom wythe in the major
axis than at the top wythe. The load vs. strain data obtained experi­
mentally validated well with the numerical data. Also, when compared
with the type of reinforcement basalt fiber textile reinforced sandwich
slab had higher strain than the steel mesh. EPB core-based sandwich
elements had higher strain at lower loads when compared with con­
ventional concrete cores. The sandwich slabs possess tensile strain at the
bottom wythe and compressive strength at the top wythe; this was
similar to the results inferred from Daniel et al. [39], Hong et al. [33],
and Chen et al. [34]. Thus, it is clear that textile reinforcement and EPB
core lead due to higher strain due to its lower modulus of elasticity.
5.6. Load vs. Slip
As the sandwich slabs are made of different materials, it slips on
loading due to the poor bonding between the wythe and core material.
The load vs. slip behavior of sandwich slabs up on flexural loading is
shown in Fig. 10 (a-d). The slip of the sandwich slabs between the layers
is recorded using dial gauges on the major and minor axis. For a
particular load same slip is recorded at the dials between the top wythe
and core, bottom wythe and core, respectively. The slip is higher along
the major axis than the minor axis. The type of reinforcement used does
not influence the slip characteristics. From Fig. 10 (a-d), the sandwich
slabs with EPB cores possess higher slip indicating their non-composite
A. Jeyan Sudhakar and B. Muthusubramanian
Fig. 9. Strain of sandwich slabs along a major and minor axis.
behavior. The slip was much less than the conventional concrete core,
which once again proves its composite nature.
The experimental data validates well with the experimental data.
The larger slip of about 4.11 mm is noted for the BFEPB specimen and
the lowest of 0.38 mm in the case of CMCC specimens. The slip obtained
was similar to the inferred results from Choi et al. [37] and Sohel and
Liew [40]. Thus, the type of reinforcement does not influence the slip of
the sandwich specimens, and EPB-modified polymeric cores possess
higher slips proving their non-composite behavior.
5.7. Ductility Factor
The capability of a material to withstand deformation after its elastic
limit is known as the ductility factor (µ) [41]. It is found from on the Eq.
2,
μ=
Δmax
(2)
Δy
Here, Δmax is the maximum deflection at ultimate load and, Δy is the
deflection at yield load.
The ductility factor of the sandwich slabs with different core mate­
rials and reinforcements is given in Table 7,
The ductility factor reduces by 12.42% than CMCC for BFCC speci­
mens. But it escalated by 8.07% for CMEPB specimens and no difference
9
Structures 59 (2024) 105679
is found for BFEPB specimen when compared to CMCC. Gopinath et al.
[42] and Dong et al. [43] strengthened the reinforced concrete elements
by using textile reinforcements and noticed an improvement in the
ductile factor. But the findings of this research is contradictory as the
textile reinforcement is used in sandwich panel in which the ductility
factor mainly depends on the core material due to its thickness. Thus, it
is clear that the ductility characteristics dropped by using basalt textile
fibers as reinforcement. But by using modified polymeric core (EPB) the
ductility factor improved.
5.8. Stiffness
It is the ability of material to resist deformation. It is calculated from
the Eq. 3.
Vy
Stⅈffness, k = (3)
Δy
Where, Vy is the yield load and Δy is the yield deflection. The stiffness of
sandwich slabs found is given in Table 7. The stiffness of BFCC, CMEPB
and BFEPB dropped by 19.09%, 84.97% and 89.68% respectively than
CMCC. The sandwich slab specimens with EPB core possess lower
stiffness. Shams et al., [22] found negligible effect of shear connectors in
the stiffness of textile reinforced sandwich sections and concludes it
A. Jeyan Sudhakar and B. Muthusubramanian Structures 59 (2024) 105679

Fig. 10. Slip behavior of sandwich slabs at different points.

dissipation is determined for the load vs deflection curve at point L1 and

Table 7
L2 then its average is considered and is given in Table 7. The energy
Ductility, stiffness and energy dissipation of sandwich slabs.
dissipation dropped by 29.02% for BFCC specimens when compared to
Specimen ID Ductility Stiffness (kN/ Energy Dissipation (kN. CMCC. But it alleviated by 38.88% and 119.33% for CMEPB and BFEPB
Factor mm) mm)
specimens respectively than CMCC. Signorini et al.,[44] noticed the
µ k
energy disscipation was higher in textile reinforced strengthened ele­
CMCC 1.61 19.49 42.28 ments. Similarly in this work by using basalt textile fiber as reinforce­
BFCC 1.43 15.77 30.01
CMEPB 1.74 2.93 58.72
ment for sandwich slab the energy dissipation increased. The core
BFEPB 1.61 2.01 92.73 material influences the energy dissipation of a sandwich slab. Thus, the
sandwich slabs with modified polymeric core (EPB) possess greater
energy dissipation capacity than the conventional concrete core. In
mainly depends on the core material and bonding between layer. Similar addition to this textile reinforcement also improved the energy dissi­
to this the results reported on sandwich slabs in this study with EPB core pation capacity of sandwich slabs.
showed a drastic reduction in stiffness. It is due to the lower degree of
composite action. But no much variation is noticed between conven­ 6. Conclusion
tional steel mesh and textile fiber reinforced specimens. Thus, the
stiffness of the sandwich slabs mainly depends on the core material Textile reinforcements help reduce the size, weight, clear cover, and
adapted and degree of composite action. corrosion-resistant structures. EPB, a modified polymeric core, is a
naturally available material that does not require much processing and
5.9. Energy Dissipation can be used as core material rather than other polymeric cores. The
following conclusions are made from the results obtained on the flexural
The energy dissipation capacity of a sandwich slab is the area below response of steel mesh and basalt textile fiber reinforced sandwich slabs
the load vs. deflection curve until failure. In this research the energy

10
A. Jeyan Sudhakar and B. Muthusubramanian
with a conventional concrete core and modified polymeric core (EPB).
i) The type of reinforcement (steel mesh and basalt textile fiber
mesh) does not influence the strength characteristics. However,
the sandwich slab elements made of basalt textile fiber mesh
showed a higher deflection of about 6–33%, depending on the
core material used, than steel mesh due to its low elastic modulus.
The deflection was higher in textile reinforced sandwich elements
with EPB core of about 4–5 times the conventional concrete core.
ii) The conventional concrete core possesses higher strength than
the EPB core but affects the sandwich’s property due to its high
density. It does show any delamination failure as it was cast in the
site directly, resulting in proper bonding between the wythe and
core material. However, under flexure it showed catastrophic
failure at the ultimate load due to its poor strain and brittle na­
ture. But EPB sandwich slab elements had a delamination failure
and flexural failure at the wythe. The EPB core didn’t crack due to
its highly compressible nature.
iii) The sandwich slab elements with conventional concrete core had
a higher degree of composite action of about 60–75%. But, EPB
sandwich slabs are only partially composite. A higher degree of
composite action is found on conventional concrete cores, even
without shear connectors.
iv) The sandwich slab elements resulted in the tensile strain at the
bottom and compressive strain at the top wythe along both major
and minor axes. The type of reinforcement had no role in slip
characteristics. But the EPB core has a major slip of 4.11 mm
along the major axis.
v) The numerical data validated well with the experimental results.
The ductility factor is not much influenced by the type of core
material and reinforcement. The sandwich slabs with EPB core
material shows lower stiffness about 85–90% than conventional
concrete cores. The energy dissipation capacity of the sandwich
slabs is influenced by the type of core material and reinforcement.
Thus, from the above conclusions, basalt fiber textile reinforcement
does not influence its strength characteristics and can be used instead of
steel mesh, reducing the size, density, flexibility, etc. Proper care should
be taken while casting the sandwich elements to avoid accidental
seepage while manufacturing. The major mode of failure, delamination,
can be mitigated by casting them on the site rather than using the slab
stock method, even without using shear connectors. EPB core can be
used instead of other polymeric foam cores as it is a natural material and
doesn’t require much processing. It can be processed while
manufacturing sandwich elements, which may ensure proper bonding
and reduce the slip. Thus, considering the above facts, sandwich ele­
ments can be prepared using textile reinforcements and modified poly­
meric foam cores.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Proença M, Garrido M, Correia JR, Gomes MG. Fire resistance behaviour of GFRP-
polyurethane composite sandwich panels for building floors. Compos Part B: Eng
2021;224:109171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.109171.
[2] Ryall MJ, Stephenson R. Hodgkinson, fairbairn, clark. britannia bridge: from
concept to construction. Proc Inst Civ Eng - Civ Eng 1999;132:132–43. https://doi.
org/10.1680/icien.1999.31738.
[3] Alein JS, Bhuvaneshwari M. Textile reinforced concrete sandwich panels: a review.
SJ 2022;119. https://doi.org/10.14359/51734899.
[4] Einea A, Salmon DC, Fogarasi GJ, Culp TD, Tadros MK. State-of-the-art of precast
concrete sandwich panels. Pcij 1991;36:78–98. https://doi.org/10.15554/
pcij.11011991.78.98.
11
Structures 59 (2024) 105679
[5] O’Hegarty R, Kinnane O. Review of precast concrete sandwich panels and their
innovations. Constr Build Mater 2020;233:117145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.117145.
[6] Daniel Ronald Joseph J, Prabakar J, Alagusundaramoorthy P. Experimental and
analytical investigations on the failure modes of concrete sandwich panels under
axial compression. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 2022:1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19648189.2022.2063948.
[7] Amran YHM, Rashid RSM, Hejazi F, Safiee NA, Ali AAA. Response of precast
foamed concrete sandwich panels to flexural loading. J Build Eng 2016;7:143–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.06.006.
[8] Bush TD, Stine GL. Flexural behavior of composite precast concrete sandwich
panels with continuous truss connectors. Pcij 1994;39:112–21. https://doi.org/
10.15554/pcij.03011994.112.121.
[9] Salmon DC, Einea A, Tadros MK, Culp TD. Full scale testing of precast concrete
sandwich panels. Struct J 1997;94:354–62.
[10] Liew JYR, Sohel KMA. Structural performance of steel-concrete-steel sandwich
composite structures. Adv Struct Eng 2010;13:453–70. https://doi.org/10.1260/
1369-4332.13.3.453.
[11] Amran YHM. Structural behavior of axially loaded precast foamed concrete
sandwich panels. Constr Build Mater 2016;14.
[12] Benayoune A, Samad AAA, Trikha DN, Ali AAA, Ellinna SHM. Flexural behaviour
of pre-cast concrete sandwich composite panel – Experimental and theoretical
investigations. Constr Build Mater 2008;22:580–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2006.11.023.
[13] Ahmad A, Singh Y. Flexural behavior of Expanded Polystyrene core Reinforced
Concrete Sandwich Panels with different construction methods and end conditions,
vol. 34. Elsevier; 2021. p. 2900–11.
[14] Tuwair H, Hopkins M, Volz J, ElGawady MA, Mohamed M, Chandrashekhara K,
et al. Evaluation of sandwich panels with various polyurethane foam-cores and
ribs. Compos Part B: Eng 2015;79:262–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compositesb.2015.04.023.
[15] O’Hegarty R, Reilly A, West R, Kinnane O. Thermal investigation of thin precast
concrete sandwich panels. J Build Eng 2020;27:100937. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jobe.2019.100937.
[16] Jithin PU, Joseph A. Thermal and Structural Behavior of Precast Concrete
Sandwich Panels. In: Marano GC, Rahul AV, Antony J, Unni Kartha G, Kavitha PE,
Preethi M, editors. Proceedings of SECON’22, vol. 284. Cham: Springer
International Publishing; 2023. p. 511–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-
12011-4_40.
[17] Faria Oliveira T, de Carvalho JMF, Castro Mendes J, Zuqui Souza G, Rezende
Carvalho V, André Fiorotti Peixoto R. Precast concrete sandwich panels (PCSP): an
analytical review and evaluation of CO2 equivalent. Constr Build Mater 2022;358:
129424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129424.
[18] O’Hegarty R, Kinnane O, Grimes M, Newell J, Clifford M, West R. Development of
thin precast concrete sandwich panels: challenges and outcomes. Constr Build
Mater 2021;267:120981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120981.
[19] Tawil H, Tan CG, Sulong NHR, Nazri FM, Sherif MM, El-Shafie A. Mechanical and
thermal properties of composite precast concrete sandwich panels: a review.
Buildings 2022;12:1429. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091429.
[20] Lee J-H, Kang S-H, Ha Y-J, Hong S-G. Structural behavior of durable composite
sandwich panels with high performance expanded polystyrene concrete. Int J
Concr Struct Mater 2018;12:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-018-0255-6.
[21] 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;12:71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-018-0301-4.
[22] Shams A, Horstmann M, Hegger J. Experimental investigations on textile-
reinforced concrete (TRC) sandwich sections. Compos Struct 2014;118:643–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.07.056.
[23] Haffke M, Pahn M, Thiele C, Grzesiak S. Experimental investigation of concrete
sandwich walls with glass-fiber-composite connectors exposed to fire and
mechanical loading. Appl Sci 2022;12:3872. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app12083872.
[24] Gopinath S, Gopal R, Lavanya E. Bending properties of textile reinforced concrete
sandwich beams with gypsum and calcium silicate core. J Sandw Struct Mater
2021;16.
[25] Colombo IG, Colombo M, di Prisco M. Bending behaviour of textile reinforced
concrete sandwich beams. Constr Build Mater 2015;95:675–85. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.169.
[26] Daniel Ronald Joseph J, Prabakar J, Alagusundaramoorthy P. Precast concrete
sandwich one-way slabs under flexural loading. Eng Struct 2017;138:447–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.02.033.
[27] Kang J. Composite and non-composite behaviors of foam-insulated concrete
sandwich panels. Compos Part B: Eng 2015;68:153–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compositesb.2014.08.034.
[28] Sudhakar AJ, Muthusubramanian B. Development of basalt fiber reinforced fine-
grained cementitious composites for textile reinforcements. J Compos Sci 2022;6:
396. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs6120396.
[29] Sudhakar AJ, Muthusubramanian B. Thermal characteristics of fine grained
concrete with various percentages of basalt fiber and GGBS. J Therm Anal Calor
2023;148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-023-12011-9.
[30] Elsevier,; 1969. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-02134-2.
[31] Raj S, Ramesh Kumar V, Bharath Kumar BH, Gopinath S, Iyer NR. Flexural studies
on basalt fiber reinforced composite sandwich panel with profile sheet as core.
Constr Build Mater 2015;82:391–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.02.087.
A. Jeyan Sudhakar and B. Muthusubramanian
[32] Daniel Ronald Joseph J, Prabakar J, Alagusundaramoorthy P. Flexural behavior of
precast concrete sandwich panels under different loading conditions such as
punching and bending. Alex Eng J 2018;57:309–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aej.2016.11.016.
[33] Hong J, Zhang S, Fang H, Xu X, Xie H, Wang Y. Structural performance of textile
reinforced concrete sandwich panels under axial and transverse load. Rev Adv
Mater Sci 2021;60:64–79. https://doi.org/10.1515/rams-2021-0015.
[34] Chen A, Yossef M, Hopkins P. A comparative study of different methods to
calculate degrees of composite action for insulated concrete sandwich panels. Eng
Struct 2020;212:110423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110423.
[35] Mohamad N, Khalil AI, Abdul Samad AA, Goh WI. Structural behavior of precast
lightweight foam concrete sandwich panel with double shear truss connectors
under flexural load. ISRN Civ Eng 2014;2014:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/
317941.
[36] Benayoune A, Samad AA, Trikha D, Ali AA, Ellinna S. Flexural behaviour of pre-
cast concrete sandwich composite panel–experimental and theoretical
investigations. Constr Build Mater 2008;22:580–92.
[37] Choi I, Kim J, Kim D, Park J. Effects of grid-type shear connector arrangements
used for insulated concrete sandwich wall panels with a low aspect ratio. J Build
Eng 2022;46:103754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103754.
[38] Choi I, Kim J, Kim H-R. Composite behavior of insulated concrete sandwich wall
panels subjected to wind pressure and suction. Materials 2015;8:1264–82. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ma8031264.
12
Structures 59 (2024) 105679
[39] Daniel Ronald Joseph J, Prabakar J, Alagusundaramoorthy P. Experimental studies
on through-thickness shear behavior of EPS based precast concrete sandwich
panels with truss shear connectors. Compos Part B: Eng 2019;166:446–56. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.02.030.
[40] Sohel KMA, Liew JYR. Behavior of steel–concrete–steel sandwich slabs subject to
impact load. J Constr Steel Res 2014;100:163–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcsr.2014.04.018.
[41] Pam HJ, Kwan AKH, Islam MS. Flexural strength and ductility of reinforced
normal- and high-strength concrete beams. Proc Inst Civ Eng - Struct Build 2001;
146:381–9. https://doi.org/10.1680/stbu.2001.146.4.381.
[42] Gopinath S, Murthy AR, Iyer NR, Prabha M. Behaviour of reinforced concrete
beams strengthened with basalt textile reinforced concrete. J Ind Text 2015;44:
924–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1528083714521068.
[43] Dong Z, Deng M, Zhang Y, Ma P. Strengthening of unreinforced masonry walls
against out-of-plane loads using carbon textile reinforced mortar optimized by
short PVA fibers. Eng Struct 2021;227:111433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2020.111433.
[44] Signorini C, Nobili A, Siligardi C. Sustainable mineral coating of alkali-resistant
glass fibres in textile-reinforced mortar composites for structural purposes.
J Compos Mater 2019;53:4203–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998319855765.