Full-scale flexural testing of slabs

made of modular structural concrete

insulated panels

Mahesh Acharya, Karma Gurung, and Mustafa Mashal

T
he structural concrete insulated panel (SCIP)
technique was initially called “thin-shell sandwich
panel” construction. It was developed in the late
1960s by Victor Weismann in Pasadena, Calif.1 SCIPs are
used as slab and wall systems in a variety of structures. They
can be considered for fast and economical construction of
low-rise buildings. In this study, a novel precast concrete
approach for modular SCIPs is proposed for use in residen-
tial homes and low-rise structures.

Background
■ This study presents a novel type of structural con-
crete insulated panel that can be fabricated with A typical SCIP is composed of an insulated core made of
modular, off-the-shelf components for use in residen- expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam flanked on both sides
tial homes and low-rise structures. by galvanized steel wire mesh, with the two sides of mesh
held together using diagonal steel shear connectors. A layer
■ Benefits of this structural concrete insulated panel of concrete is applied on each side of the panel to provide
include time savings during construction, lightweight structural resistance. The concrete layer is generally 1 to
members, and using recycled components. This 2 in. (25.4 to 50 mm) thick and has a 28-day compressive
technology allows for fabrication on-site, which is strength of 3000 to 4000 psi (20 to 28 MPa). Over the
beneficial for reconstruction needs in areas affected years, many versions of SCIPs have been developed by
by natural disasters. various manufacturers around the world. Figure 1 shows
the details of a SCIP produced in the United States by
■ Full-scale test specimens were fabricated and tested producer A.
to investigate flexural behavior, strength, ductility,
and failure mechanisms. The test program included A typical SCIP manufactured by producer A uses modular,
three short-span specimens, three medium-span off-the-shelf materials that are readily available. The
specimens, and five long-span specimens. Of the key elements consist of a recycled EPS core, cold-rolled
long-span specimens, two were fabricated with addi- galvanized steel mesh, and a diagonal truss connector. The
tional reinforcement in the splice region. panels use Type I EPS that complies with ASTM C5782 for

PCI Journal | March–April 2022 55

 Figure 1. Details of a structural concrete insulated panel from producer A in the United States. Note: EPS = expanded
polystyrene.

the insulation core (Fig. 2). The core has a maximum density The EPS core is flanked on both sides using a 1 by 1 in. (25.4
of 1.0 lb/ft3 (16 kg/m3) and a modulus of elasticity of 180 by 25.4 mm), cold-rolled, 14 gauge (1.63 mm) galvanized
to 220 psi (1.24 to 1.52 MPa). The blocks of EPS used to wire mesh. The mesh complies with the ASTM A10643
produce the panels are generally 6 in. (152 mm) wide and standard. The wire mesh has a screed system installed, which
10 ft (3 m) long and have a varying thickness of 3 to 11 in. allows for easy application of concrete. To ensure that a
(76 to 280 mm). Two EPS blocks can be combined to produce uniform layer of concrete is applied on the panels, the wire
panels longer than 10 ft. mesh has two screed ribs 12 in. (300 mm) off center on both

Expanded polystyrene blocks Diagonal shear connectors and trusses

Figure 2. Off-the-shelf components of structural concrete insulated panels from producer A.

56 PCI Journal | March–April 2022

sides (Fig. 1). A spacing of 0.5 in. (12.5 mm) is maintained Previous research
between the EPS and the mesh to ensure that the mesh
achieves sufficient concrete embedment and cover. Although there have been numerous applications of SCIP
technology in the past,6 SCIPs have not been extensively
The two layers of mesh are held together using a 3∕16 in. investigated by researchers. Following is a brief review of
(4.76 mm) galvanized steel wire truss (Fig. 2), commonly the limited number of experimental and analytical studies
referred to as shear connectors. The truss connectors meet available on the performance of SCIPs.
ASTM A951,4 ASTM A1064,3 and ASTM A6415 spec-
ifications. These truss connectors are typically used in Kabir7 investigated the flexural and shear loading on bearing
the horizontal mortar joints for masonry walls to provide walls and floor slabs made of SCIPs. The research presented
enhanced shear resistance. In the panel shown in Fig. 1, load-deflection plots and the failure mechanism for SCIPs.
the diagonal bars transfer the longitudinal shear stress The research concluded that in the linear elastic zone,
in between the two load-bearing faces. The shear trusses basic equations from reinforced concrete mechanics can be
are spaced every 6 in. (152 mm) and are sandwiched in applied to predict the stresses and strength of the panels.
between the two EPS blocks. They are tied to the mesh
using a pneumatic hog ring tie. There is a tolerance for a Matz et al.8 presented structural design and detailing consid-
mesh of ¼ in. (6.35 mm) overall. The trusses are a standard erations for buildings made of SCIPs. Kabir et al.9 studied
size, and they help maintain a uniform distance between the nonlinear seismic response of steel frames with SCIP
the mesh because the height of the truss is essentially equal infills and demonstrated that such a system can be feasible
to the width of the core. in seismic zones.

A portable hydraulic jig press is used to assemble the EPS, Fouad et al.10 conducted experimental testing of full-scale
steel mesh, and truss to produce a SCIP core. The portable jig slab and wall panels under gravity loads. The specimens
press in this study has the capacity to produce panels that are lacked proper detailing and edge constraints, which led to
2 to 4 ft (0.6 to 1.2 m) wide, 10 to 18 ft (3 to 5.5 m) long, and premature shear failure under flexural testing. The research-
6 to 13 in. (150 to 330 mm) thick. ers proposed some analytical methods for estimating the
flexural strength of the panels.
There have been many applications of SCIPs produced by
various manufacturers for residential and military buildings in Rezaifar et al.11 conducted shake table testing to inves-
Europe, the Middle East, New Zealand, the United States, and tigate the dynamic behavior of a full-scale single-story
elsewhere. Figure 3 shows a typical construction sequence structure built with SCIPs. In another study, Rezaifar et al.12
using SCIPs. The shotcrete has a 28-day compressive strength conducted shake table testing of a scaled four-story building
of 3000 to 4000 psi (20 to 28 MPa) for on-site application. with SCIPs. Both studies showed considerable resistance of
The concrete layers could be applied either by hand or by SCIPs during high-level earthquake vibrations.
using the shotcrete technology, which can be either a dry or
wet process, depending on the application and availability of Mashal6 and Mashal and Filiatrault1 used extensive nonlinear
local resources and equipment. In a dry-mix process, the dry static and dynamic analyses to quantify the seismic per-
cementitious mixture is blown through a hose to the nozzle formance factors for SCIPs. Their research concluded that
and water is injected immediately. In a wet-mix process, the SCIPs have great resistance and potential for use in seismic
ready-mixed concrete is pumped to the nozzle and com- zones.
pressed air is introduced at the nozzle to impel the mixture
onto the receiving surface. Generally, a dry application is El Demerdash13 carried out full-scale monotonic and cyclic
preferred. When a dry application is used, the water and testing of slabs and walls made of SCIPs with different
prebagged shotcrete material are mixed at the nozzle before concrete applications (for example, hand-applied versus
the mixture is sprayed. pneumatically applied methods). The research also presented
analytical finite element modeling for predicting the
SCIPs offer many advantages, such as faster construction, behavior of SCIPs under various loading scenarios.
more-lightweight members (due to the lack of a solid core),
superior quality, good thermal insulation, enhanced sound Joseph et al.14 studied the flexural behavior of SCIPs under
insulation, recycled components (for example, EPS blocks), punching and bending. This study found that such loading
and reduced environmental impact. In addition, the reduction can significantly alter the behavior of SCIPs.
in construction time, building equipment, concrete formwork,
and skilled labor results in an economical and cost-effective Gurung15 conducted full-scale testing of modular SCIPs.
alternative for low-rise residential structures as well as other This research introduced precasting technology for SCIPs
structures. SCIPs can be combined with traditional concrete and presented analytical equations and detailing consid-
or steel frames for certain structures subjected to higher erations for buildings located in seismic and nonseismic
gravity or lateral loads. regions.

PCI Journal | March–April 2022 57

 Transporting SCIP cores Storage of cores on-site Formwork for wall footing

Starter reinforcing Erection of SCIP cores Opening for a window

bars for the walls

Installation of utility conduits Placement of first floor Erection of first floor walls

Shotcreting exterior walls Backfilling of basement walls Shotcreting of interior

walls and floors

Figure 3. Typical construction sequence for a residential house using structural concrete insulated panels.
Note: SCIP = structural concrete insulated panel.

and connecting the trusses and side mesh. The modular technol-
Study objectives ogy allows fabrication of the panels on-site, without the need
for a production facility. This is important for reconstruction
Among several types of SCIPs manufactured around the world, efforts in areas affected by natural hazards such as earthquakes
this study is focused on the SCIPs manufactured by producer A and hurricanes. The SCIPs from producer A in this study can
(Fig. 1) in the United States. This particular panel is a modular be made on-site or transported as individual components,
version of a SCIP in the sense that off-the-shelf materials are depending on the location and availability of resources. The
used to produce the cores. Conventional SCIPs are fabricated individual components could be assembled into panels using a
in a production plant with sophisticated processes for welding portable hydraulic jig press and pneumatic hog rings.

58 PCI Journal | March–April 2022

SCIPs are not limited to resisting gravity loads; they can also • compare the strength and deflection of modular SCIPs
be used as shear walls. against requirements from U.S. building codes

Mashal et al.16 carried out full-scale testing of cantilever • quantify the composite action for modular SCIPs
SCIPs under in-plane quasi-static cyclic loading. The wall-
to-footing connection was a socket connection (Fig. 4). Description of test specimens
The specimens showed ductile behavior under lateral loads.
Figure 4 presents a concept for the slab-to-wall connection The novel precast concrete approach for modular SCIPs
where the joint between the panels is spliced to emulate proposed in this study uses technology that is similar to
monolithic construction and behavior. The connection tilt-up construction, which is common in the precast concrete
features an L mesh and no. 3 (10M) hairpins, which can be industry for the construction of sandwich wall and slab
designed and detailed similar to a wall-to-slab connection panels. Precast concrete technology allows for the user to take
for a monolithic structure. full advantage of faster construction for SCIPs. It improves
the final quality of the panels, accelerates construction, and
There are very limited experimental data available for eliminates the need to spray concrete on-site. In addition, it
modular SCIPs. Following are the objectives of this research: reduces the on-site labor and equipment costs. This study
considered two sets of specimens for experimental testing:
• demonstrate a novel precast concrete approach for con- SCIPs without additional splice reinforcement and SCIPs
struction of SCIPs with additional splice reinforcement. These sets are described
further in the following sections.
• present detailing considerations to enhance the perfor-
mance of SCIPs under flexural loading The test specimens in this research were 4 ft (1.2 m) wide,
6 in. (152 mm) thick, and 10 to 18 ft (3 to 5.5 m) long. For
• experimentally test full-scale SCIPs under the four-point each specimen, the EPS blocks were 6 in. wide, 4 in. (100 mm)
bending test thick, and 10 ft long. The 14-gauge (1.63 mm) wire mesh used
on both sides of the EPS blocks was spaced 1 in. (25.4 mm)
• identify relevant failure mechanisms for modular SCIPs apart in both the transverse and longitudinal directions. The
under flexural loading shear trusses were 3∕16 in. (4.7 mm) in diameter and spaced 6 in.
apart. The concrete layer on each side was selected to be 1 in.
• propose an adequate splicing detail for modular SCIPs thick; however, the concrete skin thickness could be greater
with spans longer than 10 ft (3 m) than 1 in. based on the total thickness of panel. Experimental

Wall to footing Wall to slab

Figure 4. Typical connection detail for structural concrete insulated panels. Note: EPS = expanded polystyrene. No. 3 = 10M;
1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m.

PCI Journal | March–April 2022 59

 studies on other types of SCIPs by El Demirdash13 used thicker Table 1. Testing matrix for structural concrete
concrete skins (for example, 1.75 in. [44.5 mm]). insulated panels without additional splice
reinforcement
SCIPs without additional splice
Span
reinforcement Specimens Dimensions, in. Clear span, ft
length

In the first set of specimens, three different spans were Short A-1, A-2, A-3 123 × 49 × 6 10
selected to study the out-of-plane flexural behavior of modular
SCIPs. The three different spans were classified as short span, Medium B-1, B-2, B-3 171 × 49 × 6 14
medium span, and long span, with lengths of 10, 14, and 18 ft Long C-1, C-2, C-3 219 × 49 × 6 18
(3, 4.3, and 5.5 m), respectively. For each span, three identical
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.305 m.
specimens were produced. The short-span specimens were
labeled A-1, A-2, and A-3; the medium-span specimens were
labeled B-1, B-2, and B-3; and the long-span specimens were detail for SCIPs; however, there is limited experimental work
labeled C-1, C-2, and C-3. Table 1 presents the testing matrix available to validate the adequacy of the splice with mesh
for specimens without additional reinforcement. without additional reinforcing bars. The splice mesh used
in this set of specimens was similar to the mesh used on the
Given their shorter length, the short-span SCIP cores did not skins of the SCIP core.
have to be spliced; however, the medium- and long-span cores
were spliced using flat mesh on each side of the panel and the Figure 6 illustrates a typical cross section of the specimens
EPS blocks were staggered (Fig. 5). This is a typical splicing used in this study. The edges of the panels were confined to

Plan view of a long-span SCIP core

Section view at the splice location

Figure 5. Typical splice detail without additional reinforcing bars. Note: EPS = expanded polystyrene; SCIP = structural concrete
insulated panel. 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m.

60 PCI Journal | March–April 2022

avoid premature failure caused by out-of-plane buckling of The ultimate moment capacity of the short-span specimen
the diagonal bars, which was first observed by Fouad et al.10 was used to determine the amount of additional reinforcement
This is a detailing consideration meant to enhance structural required to provide an adequate splice. Panels were assumed
performance. The edges of the panel were confined using a to have a fully composite section to determine the amount of
U mesh along with a 0.5 in. (12.5 mm) thick concrete skin additional reinforcement required. The reinforcing bars were
(Fig. 7). The U mesh was identical to the wire mesh used on extended as required to achieve full development length as
each side of the core. required by the American Concrete Institute’s Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Com-
SCIPs with additional splice reinforcement
Table 2. Testing matrix for structural concrete
Two additional long-span specimens were produced for insulated panels with additional splice reinforcement
testing. These specimens incorporated additional reinforce-
Span length Specimens Dimensions, in. Clear span, ft
ment of Grade 60 (413 MPa), no. 3 (10M) reinforcing bars in
the splice region. These specimens are referred to as modified Long S-1, S-2 219 × 49 × 6 18
long spans (Table 2). The modified long-span specimens were
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.305 m.
labeled S-1 and S-2.

Figure 6. Cross section of a typical slab specimen. Note: 1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m.

Figure 7. Modular structural concrete insulated panel cores without additional reinforcement in the splice zones.

PCI Journal | March–April 2022 61

 mentary (ACI 318R-19)17 to avoid pullout failure. Figure 8 placed in a staggered orientation (Fig. 9). Similar to S-1, the
presents the splice details for the modified long spans. bars were tied between the mesh and the EPS core.

For the additional reinforcing bars in the splice region, two Concrete mixture design
configurations were explored. For the preparation of S-1, and construction technology
seven Grade 60 (413 MPa), no. 3 (10M) bars were used at
8 in. (203.2 mm) center to center (Fig. 9). The bars were tied Instead of using the traditional shotcrete process, we used an al-
in between the mesh and the EPS core. For S-2, nine Grade ternative precast concrete approach to prepare the specimens. A
60, no. 3 bars were used at 6 in. (152 mm) center to center, self-consolidating concrete (SCC) with a high-strength mixture

Figure 8. Typical splice detail with additional reinforcing bars. Note: EPS = expanded polystyrene. No. 3 = 10M.

Specimen S-1 Specimen S-2

Figure 9. Modular structural concrete insulated panel cores with additional reinforcement in the splice zones.

62 PCI Journal | March–April 2022

was used for the concrete wythes, with a target compressive After this uniform bottom layer was obtained, the fabri-
strength of at least 6000 psi (41 MPa). This compressive cated panel was placed on top of the concrete layer. It was
strength is consistent with what was used for the production of important to make sure that the panel was placed properly
tilt-up panels in the precast concrete industry. The ACI 211.118 inside the precasting bed to maintain the required cover
absolute volumetric method was used to design and produce the concrete on each side. The top layer of concrete was placed
SCC mixture (Table 3). A high-range water-reducing admixture without any delays, and then the concrete surface was
was used to achieve high workability for the concrete mixture finished. The screed rib, placed in the mesh as a guide, was
without compromising compressive strength. used to provide a uniform 1 in. (25.4 mm) thick top layer of
concrete cover.
The SCC mixture was designed to have an average spread
of 23.5 in. (597 mm). Other properties of the SCC mixture A plastic liner was used to cover the concrete. The specimen
considered in this research are listed in Table 4. was then cured inside the bed using burlap for at least three
days before being taken out of the bed. The specimen was
For construction of the specimens, a precasting bed was taken out of the formwork by removing the modular walls in
prepared. Because the span of the specimens varied, the the formwork, and then the specimen was transported to the
walls of the precasting bed were made modular using 0.75 in. moist curing rack until it was ready for testing at 28 days.
(19 mm) thick plywood and 1.5 by 3.5 in. (38 by 89 mm) The specimen was lifted and transported on its side using a
Douglas fir lumber. Plastic liner was applied to extend the life spreader steel beam and construction-grade straps. After the
of the bed, avoid concrete leakage, and provide a smooth finish. specimen was fully cured, it was painted white to enhance
the visibility of cracks during testing and to clearly mark the
Once the precasting bed was ready for the concrete to be cracks that occurred.
placed, the materials used to make the SCC mixture were
batched in buckets and then mixed using a 3.5 ft3 (0.1 m3) Material characterization
concrete mixer. For typical construction of a specimen, the
concrete layer was applied on the SCIP core in two lifts. First, Tensile testing of samples was performed for the mesh and the
the bottom layer of concrete was placed and spread on the bed truss. The testing was in accordance with ASTM E8.19 There
until a 1 in. (25.4 mm) thick uniform layer was obtained. were three samples tested from each component (mesh and
truss). The average ultimate strength was 81.9 ksi (565 MPa)
Table 3. Self-consolidating concrete mixture for the 3∕16 in. (4.76 mm) truss and 70.3 ksi (485 MPa) for the
proportions 14-gauge (1.63 mm) wire mesh.

Item Amount The concrete compressive strength varied from 4290 psi
Cement 729.0 lb/yd 3 (30 MPa) at 3 days to 8491 psi (59 MPa) at 28 days. All
of the concrete specimens were tested in accordance with
Fly ash 183.2 lb/yd3 ASTM C3920 and ASTM C496.21
Coarse sand 1701.0 lb/yd3
Testing arrangement
Fine pea gravel 810.0 lb/yd3
Testing included four-point bending tests in accordance
Water 364.5 lb/yd3
with the guidelines provided in ASTM E72.22 The four-point
High-range water reducing admixture 10.4 oz/100 lb bending test corresponded to transverse out-of-plane loading
of the slab panels. Figure 10 illustrates the four-point bending
Note: 1 oz = 29.57 mL; 1 lb = 0.454 kg; 1 lb/yd = 0.59 kg/m3.
3

test setup.

Table 4. Self-consolidating concrete mixture The specimens were oriented horizontally and seated on a
properties stiff steel beam using a 1 in. (25.4 mm) roller. In addition,
Parameters Targeted values a ½ in. (12.75 mm) thick steel plate with rubber padding
was installed between the specimen and the roller support
Spread 23.5 in. across its entire width to avoid bearing failure. The roller did
Air content 4.5%
not wobble or bend during the testing. Figure 11 presents
details of the support for the specimens. The vertical load
Water-cement ratio 0.40 was applied to the slab panels by using two-point loads at
one-quarter of the span of the specimen. The two-point loads
Fine aggregate-to-coarse
0.25 were created by pushing down on a spreader beam with a
aggregate ratio
servo-valve actuator. The spreader beam was seated on a 2 in.
Unit weight 144.7 lb/ft3 (50.8 mm) roller and ¾ in. (19 mm) thick steel plate with
rubber padding (Fig. 11).
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 lb/yd3 = 0.59 kg/m3.

PCI Journal | March–April 2022 63

 A monotonic quasi-static loading protocol was used to test the a certain amount of time to mark the cracks and observe the
specimen. The loading protocol was slow testing with negligi- cracking pattern and propagation. The load was then released
ble inertial dynamic effects, as outlined in ASTM E72.22 The slowly, which allowed the specimen to stabilize and be
transverse out-of-plane loading was applied to the specimen prepared for another load increment. The midpoint deflections
by a deflection-controlled servo-hydraulic actuator. The of the specimen were measured using string potentiometers,
loading rate was set at 0.04 in./sec (1 mm/sec) applied at an which were installed on the adjacent edges of the centerline of
increment of 500 lb (2224 N) and continued until failure. At the specimen. The data acquisition system recorded the loads
each load increment, the maximum load was held constant for and deflections at the rate of one data point per second.

Experimental testing

Short-span specimens

Three short-span slabs—A-1, A-2, and A-3—were tested

(Table 1). The specimens were 123 in. (3124 mm) long by
49 in. (1245 mm) wide by 6 in. (152 mm) thick. The short-
span slabs had a simply supported span of 119 in. (3023 mm).
Figure 12 presents the schematic details and the test setup for
the short-span slab specimens.

During the load level of 6.5 and 7 kip (29 and 31 kN), hairline
cracks (less than 0.016 in. [0.4 mm] in width) appeared on
the bottom wythe in all specimens between the point loads
(critical moment region). This can be observed in the load-de-
flection plot of Fig. 13 as a slight bend in the curves. As the
load increased, the cracks became wider and longer. Simul-
taneously, more cracks appeared inside the critical moment
region until a dominant crack was formed. Fewer cracks
were observed outside the critical moment region as the load
was increased incrementally. The dominant crack extended
throughout the width of the panel, which marked the failure
plane. The number of flexural cracks that were appearing on
the bottom wythe signified that the specimens were able to
Figure 10. Experimental setup for the four-point bending test.
redistribute the stresses and achieve a good level of ductility.

End support Load application point

Figure 11. Testing setup details. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

64 PCI Journal | March–April 2022

Figure 12. Experimental test setup of the short-span specimens. Note: 1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m.

The mode of failure for all short-span specimens was ductile,

dominated by flexural action. The panels exhibited significant
inelastic deformation prior to failure.

Failure occurred inside the critical moment region, but it was not
exactly at the center of the panel. The failure planes for A-1 and
A-3 were located 12.5 and 13.5 in. (320 and 343 mm) above the
centerline, respectively. For A-2, the failure plane was 12.8 in.
(325 mm) below the centerline. Small and large popping sounds
were heard throughout the testing. These sounds correlated
with the snapping of the mesh and the chords for the trusses.
Figure 14 shows observed failure mechanisms from testing the
short-span specimens. Table 5 summarizes the capacities from
testing the short-span specimens.

Medium-span specimens
Figure 13. Load-deflection curves for the short-span
specimens A-1, A-2, and A-3. Note: A-1 = specimen A-1; The medium-span slab specimens—B-1, B-2, and B-3—were
A-2 = specimen A-2; A-3 = specimen A-3. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 171 in. (4343 mm) long by 49 in. (1245 mm) wide by 6 in.
1 kip = 4.448 kN. (152 mm) thick and had a simply supported span of 167 in.

Figure 14. Failure modes for short-span specimen A-1.

PCI Journal | March–April 2022 65

 Table 5. Summary of test results for short-span specimens

Specimen fc' , psi k, lb/in. Mcr, kip-ft Mmax, kip-ft δ, in. W, lb/ft2

A-1 8657 68,475 7893 15,914 2.30 317.0

A-2 8346 70,329 8495 16,659 3.32 331.9

A-3 8732 37,046 7715 16,320 2.65 325.0

Average 8578 58,617 8034 16,297 2.76 325

Note: fc' = compressive strength of concrete at 28 days; k = elastic stiffness; Mcr = cracking moment; Mmax = ultimate moment capacity; W = ultimate
uniform load that can produce a similar ultimate moment capacity Mmax; δ = deflection at ultimate load. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 lb/in. = 0.00018 kN/mm;
1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 lb/ft2 =4.88 kg/m2.

(4242 mm). Figure 15 presents the schematic details and the failure was caused by insufficient flexural capacity at the
test setup for the medium-span slab specimens. splice location. This caused the specimens to show a rela-
tively low range of inelastic behavior under flexural loading.
Unlike the short-span specimens that were fabricated using Observation from testing indicated some degree of stress
continuous sections of EPS, mesh, and diagonal trusses, the redistribution in the medium-span specimens; however, few
medium-span specimens had a splice that was located at the cracks appeared outside of the critical moment region as the
center of the panels. Because all of the components used to load increased. Figure 17 presents experimental results for
fabricate the panels came in 10 ft (3 m) sections, two pieces the medium-span specimens.
were formed in the middle of the panel. A typical splice
reinforcement technique of overlapping the mesh at the splice For B-1 and B-2, the failure at the splice was located 12 in.
region was used. The two splice planes, labeled A and B, can (304.8 mm) below the centerline. For B-3, the failure at the
be seen in the schematic presented in Fig. 15. splice was located 36.8 in. (934.7 mm) below the centerline.
The failure mechanisms for medium-span specimens were
Hairline cracks appeared on the bottom wythe in the critical similar to those shown in Fig. 16 (one large crack) but were
moment region during load levels of 2 and 2.5 kip (8.9 and located at the spliced region.
11.1 kN). After the formation of the first crack, the specimen
yielded shortly thereafter and did not return to its original Table 6 summarizes the capacities from testing the me-
position after the applied load was removed. As the load was dium-span specimens. Compared with the short-span
increased, a dominant crack appeared in the splice region specimens, the medium-span specimens had fairly low values
and continually became wider and longer during testing. for capacity and deflection.
Compared with the short-span specimens, the medium-span
slabs had fewer flexural cracks throughout testing. Long-span specimens

The mode of failure for all three medium-span specimens was The long-span slab specimens—C-1, C-2, and C-3—were
sudden premature failure at the splice location before the true 219 in. (5563 mm) long by 49 in. (1245 mm) wide by 6 in.
capacity of the panel was reached (Fig. 16). The premature (152 mm) thick and had a simply supported span of 215 in.

Figure 15. Experimental test setup of the medium-span specimens B-1, B-2, and B-3. Note: A and B denote locations of splice
planes. B-1 = specimen B-1; B-2 = specimen B-2; B-3 = specimen B-3. 1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m.

66 PCI Journal | March–April 2022

 Figure 17. Load-deflection curves for the medium-span spec-
Figure 16. Typical failure plane for the medium-span speci- imens. Note: B-1 = specimen B-1; B-2 = specimen B-2; B-3 =
mens. specimen B-3. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

Table 6. Summary of test results for medium-span specimens

Specimen fc' , psi k, lb/in. Mcr, kip-ft Mmax, kip-ft δ, in. W, lb/ft2

B-1 7453 17,158 4484 9419 1.97 95.3

B-2 7160 13,269 4455 9620 1.99 97.3

B-3 7647 14,057 4526 9755 1.93 98.7

Average 7420 14,828 4489 9598 1.96 97

Note: fc' = compressive strength of concrete at 28 days; k = elastic stiffness; Mcr = cracking moment; Mmax = ultimate moment capacity; W = ultimate
uniform load that can produce a similar ultimate moment capacity Mmax; δ = deflection at ultimate load. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 lb/in. = 0.00018 kN/mm; 1 kip-ft
= 1.356 kN-m; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 lb/ft2 = 4.88 kg/m2.

(5461 mm). Figure 18 presents the schematic details and the Hairline cracks appeared on the bottom wythe in the critical
test setup for the long-span slab specimens. moment region during load levels of 1 and 1.5 kip (4.44 and
6.66 kN). The behavior of the long-span specimens was similar
Similar to the medium-span slabs, the long-span specimens to that of the medium-span specimens. Shortly after flexural
had a splice that was located at the center of the panels cracks appeared, the specimens yielded. As the load increased, a
without any additional reinforcement. The two splice planes dominant crack in the splice region became more obvious. Very
(labeled A and B) can be seen in Fig. 18. few cracks were recorded outside of the critical moment region.

Figure 18. Experimental test setup of the long-span specimens C-1, C-2, and C-3. Note: A and B denote locations of splice
planes. C-1 = speciment C-1; C-2 = specimen C-2; C-3 = specimen C-3. 1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m.

PCI Journal | March–April 2022 67

 The modes of failure for C-1, C-2, and C-3 were identical. The modified long-span specimens—S-1 and S-2—were
The specimens failed prematurely at the splice location under 219 in. (5563 mm) long by 49 in. (1245 mm) wide by 6 in.
flexural loading. There was little to no stress redistribution (150 mm) thick and had a simply supported span of 215 in.
and inelastic deformation in testing of the specimens. For C-1 (5461 mm) (Table 2). The schematic details and the test setup
and C-3, failure occurred at the splice location approximately for the modified long-span slab specimen were exactly the
12 in. (304.8 mm) above the centerline. For C-2, the failure same as the long-span specimen shown in Fig. 18. Figure 20
plane was located at a similar distance from the centerline, but presents the reinforcement details of the splice region for S-1
failure occurred below the centerline. and S-2.

Figure 19 presents the experimental results from testing of S-1 and S-2 had ductile failures dominated by flexural action.
the long-span specimens. Table 7 summarizes the testing The additional reinforcement provided at the splice zones
results. The cracking moment and elastic stiffness of the increased the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the specimens
long-span specimens were considerably lower than for the by approximately 40%. The deflection at ultimate load was
medium- and short-span samples. more than 200% that of the long-span specimen without ad-
ditional reinforcement. There was no premature failure at the
Modified long-span specimens splice locations, and the failure planes were shifted away from
the splice locations. Figure 21 presents the load-deflection
Two modified long-span specimens with additional reinforce- plots for the modified long-span specimens.
ment at the splice location were prepared for experimental
testing. The goal was to avoid premature failure in the splice Hairline cracks appeared on the bottom wythe in the critical
zones for the medium- and long-span specimens. Additional moment region during load levels of 1.5 and 2 kip (6.66 and
splice reinforcement at the splice region was intended to shift 8.88 kN). Many cracks appeared before the specimens started
failure outside the splice zones. to yield. The number of cracks observed in the testing of S-1
and S-2 were significantly higher than what was observed
in the testing of medium- and long-span specimens without
additional reinforcement at the splice locations.

For S-1, once yielding occurred, no new cracks were observed

and only a few of the existing cracks started to widen. The
widening of cracks continued until the dominant cracks
appeared and caused failure of the specimen. For S-1, the
ultimate failure plane was located where the additional
reinforcement ended. The failure occurred 24 in. (609.6 mm)
above the centerline (Fig. 22).

In the testing of S-2, new cracks appeared after yielding and

few of the existing cracks started to widen. The widening
continued until two dominant cracks were formed. Because
the reinforcing bars in S-2 were staggered, the failure
plane was not over a straight line. The failure occurred
12 in. (304.8 mm) above the centerline (Fig. 22). Overall,
Figure 19. Load-deflection curves for the long-span specimens the configuration used at the splice location for S-1 was
C-1, C-2, and C-3. Note: C-1 = specimen C-1; C2 = specimen C-2; more effective than S-2. Table 8 summarizes the capacities
C-3 = specimen C-3. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN. observed during testing of the modified long-span specimens.

Table 7. Summary of test results for the long-span specimens

Specimen fc' , psi k, lb/in. Mcr, kip-ft Mmax, kip-ft δ, in. W, lb/ft2

C-1 8184 9436 2341 8037 2.87 49.1

C-2 7098 9851 3488 8916 3.36 54.4

C-3 7109 9073 3586 8565 3.44 52.3

Average 7464 9453 3138 8506 3.22 52

Note: fc' = compressive strength of concrete at 28 days; k = elastic stiffness; Mcr = cracking moment; Mmax = ultimate moment capacity; W = ultimate
uniform load that can produce a similar ultimate moment capacity Mmax; δ = deflection at ultimate load. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 lb/in. = 0.00018 kN/mm;
1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 lb/ft2 =4.88 kg/m2.

68 PCI Journal | March–April 2022

 Specimen S-1

Specimen S-2

Figure 20. Reinforcing bar details of the splice for the modified long-span specimens. Note: no. 3 = 10M; 1” = 1 in. = 25.4 mm;
1’ = 1 ft = 0.305 m.

Discussion

This section discusses ultimate flexural capacities, building

code requirements, and composite behavior for SCIPs. The
discussion for composite has been developed in accordance
with Fouad et al.10

Total ultimate moment capacity

To check whether additional reinforcement in the long-span

specimens increased the total moment capacity of the slabs,
the total moment capacities for each span were calculated.
The total moment for each span was calculated as the sum
of the moment caused by the self-weight of the slabs and the
average applied moments. An average self-weight of 135 lb/ft
(1.97 kN/m) was assumed for all spans. Table 9 and Fig. 23
present the results for the total moment capacities of the slabs.
Figure 21. Load-deflection curves for the modified long- The average ultimate moment capacity for the short-span
span specimens S-1 and S-2. Note: S1 = specimen S-1; S-2 = specimens was 16.2 kip-ft (22.1 kN-m). Compared with the
specimen S-2. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
capacity of the short-span specimens, the total moment capac-

PCI Journal | March–April 2022 69

 Specimen S-1

Specimen S-2

Figure 22. Failure modes for the modified long-span specimens.

Table 8. Summary of test results for the modified long-span specimens

Specimen fc' , psi k, lb/in. Mcr, kip-ft Mmax, kip-ft δ, in. W, lb/ft2

S-1 6432 11,344 3612 15,166 8.84 92.6

S-2 7109 10,243 3393 13,541 6.38 82.6

Average 6771 10,793 3502 14,354 7.61 88.0

Note: fc' = compressive strength of concrete at 28 days; k = elastic stiffness; Mcr = cracking moment; Mmax = ultimate moment capacity; W = ultimate
uniform load that can produce a similar ultimate moment capacity Mmax; δ = deflection at ultimate load. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 lb/in. = 0.00018 kN/mm;
1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 lb/ft2 =4.88 kg/m2.

ities for the unmodified medium- and long-span specimens

Table 9. Summary of average ultimate moment
were significantly reduced. These reductions in total moment
capacities
capacity were mainly due to premature failures at the splices.
Specimen Md, kip-ft Ma, kip-ft Mtot, kip-ft The total moment capacity for the modified long-span
specimens was slightly higher than that of the short-span
Short span 1.7 16.2 18.0
specimens. This result was due to the additional reinforcement
Medium span 3.3 9.6 12.9 that was provided in the modified long-span specimens.
Long span 5.4 8.5 13.9
Building code requirements
S-1 5.4 15.2 20.6
SCIPs are generally designed for construction of residential
S-2 5.4 13.5 18.9
structures. Floor or roof slabs made of SCIPs are designed
Note: Ma = applied moment during testing; Md = moment due to self- “one way.” In this section, some requirements pertinent to
weight; Mtot = total moment capacity. 1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m. U.S. building codes are discussed. According to ASCE 7-16,23
the minimum uniformly distributed floor live load for a

70 PCI Journal | March–April 2022

Figure 23. Average ultimate moment capacities for the specimens. Note: S-1 and S-2 are modified long-span specimens.
1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m.

residential structure is 40 lb/ft2 (1.9 kPa). For the roof, the to ACI 318-1918 can be taken to be L/360 for floors and L/180
minimum live load is 20 lb/ft2 (0.96 kPa). With a live load for roofs of the clear span length. The deflection of the slab δ
factor of 1.6, these loads are 64 and 32 lb/ft2 (3.1 and 1.5 kPa) at a corresponding equivalent load P can be obtained from the
for the floor and roof, respectively. Using simple calculations, experimental data and compared against the maximum per-
an equivalent load from the testing setup conducted in this missible value to check whether a specimen satisfies the code
research can be obtained for the aforementioned minimum requirement for a residential floor or roof slab. Table 10 sum-
live loads dictated by the building code. The maximum marizes this requirement. For the minimum allowable factored
permissible deflection for one-way concrete slabs according live load, the corresponding average deflection is obtained

Table 10. Summary of the code requirements for one-way slabs

δallowable, in. WL, lb/ft2 P, kip-ft δallowable > δ

Span length Specimens Wu, lb/ft2
Floor (L/360) Roof (L/180) Floor Roof Floor Roof Floor Roof

A-1 317.0

Short A-2 0.3 0.7 331.9 2592 1296 Yes Yes

A-3 325.0

B-1 95.3

Medium B-2 0.5 0.95 97.3 3637 1818 No Yes

64 32
B-3 98.7

C-1 49.1

C-2 54.4
Long 0.6 1.2 4682 2341 No Yes
C-3 52.3

S-2 82.6

Note: L = length of the span; WL = minimum factored live load from ASCE 7-16; Wu = ultimate load carrying capacity; δ = deflection at ultimate load;
δallowable = maximum permissible deflection from ACI 318-19. 1 lb/ft2 =4.88 kg/m2.

PCI Journal | March–April 2022 71

 for both the roof and floor. Short-span specimens had an for the panels. The average compressive strength of concrete
average deflection of 0.044 in. (1.12 mm), which was checked was assumed to be 8000 psi (55.16 MPa). This assumption
against the floor’s minimum factored live load WL (Table 10). was based on the average concrete strength of the panels
The deflection criteria were satisfied for both floor and roof on testing day. For the hard-drawn mesh and the trusses,
panels. Medium-span specimens had an average deflection the yield strength was conservatively assumed to be 60 ksi
of 0.12 in. (3.05 mm), which was checked against the roof (413.7 MPa). The flexural calculations accounted for the area
minimum factored live load WL. The deflection criteria for of steel from both the mesh and the trusses (bottom chord).
the roof were satisfied, but the specimen had already yielded
for floor minimum factored live load WL. Similarly, long-span Although sandwich beam theory was not followed in this
specimens had an average deflection of 0.75 in. (19.05 mm), research, it is important to consider this theory for further
which was checked against the roof minimum factored analysis of the composite action. In the sandwich beam
live load WL and satisfied the deflection limit; however, at theory, the axial strain is assumed to vary linearly over the
that point, the slabs were already exhibiting cracking. The cross section of the beam, as in the Euler-Bernoulli beam
long-span specimens had already yielded at floor minimum theory. This assumption can then be considered to obtain
factored live load WL and did not satisfy the requirement. the important parameters such as flexural rigidity and shear
stiffness of the sandwich panels. The possible modes of
In summary, the short-span specimens satisfied the require- failure investigated for the SCIP slabs were flexure, shear,
ments from the building code for applications such as floor and compression. Results and observations from experimen-
and roof slabs. For the medium- and long-span specimens, tal testing of SCIPs with three different spans (10, 14, and
the slabs satisfied the building code requirements only for 18 ft [3.0, 4.3, and 5.5 m]) showed that the primary mode of
application as roof slabs. failure was flexure for the short-span specimens as well as
the medium- and long-span specimens if appropriate splicing
Additional flexural reinforcing bars can be used to increase details were incorporated.
the moment capacity of the specimens, which is a common
practice in construction with SCIPs. Similarly, it is important Fully composite section For this part of the analysis,
to provide reinforcing bars at the splice locations to prevent the specimen was assumed to be a fully composite section.
premature failures. The thickness of the concrete skin can also According to section 7 of ACI 318-19,17 a fully composite slab
be increased to achieve higher cracking moments for the slabs of concrete elements can be designed for flexure as a solid,
and thus increase flexural strength. reinforced concrete slab but connected so that all elements
resist loads as a unit. Hence, for this analysis the cross section
Composite action of the panels was assumed to be a solid, reinforced concrete
slab with two layers of reinforcement. The mesh and the truss
Depending on the degree of composite action achieved, a chords at the bottom wythe were considered to be the tensile
sandwich panel can be divided into three categories: fully steel, and the reinforcement at the top face was assumed to be
composite, partially composite, and noncomposite. A panel the compression steel. The total area of steel in each wythe was
is considered to be a fully composite section when 100% calculated to be 0.522 in.2 (337 mm2). The nominal moment
of the longitudinal shear is transferred between the two capacity φMn was calculated using the effective moment,
load-bearing faces. On the other hand, if there is no transfer which is similar to the flexure design of a doubly reinforced
of shear between the two faces, the section is considered to concrete slab.
be noncomposite. Last, a panel is considered to be partially ⎛ a⎞
composite when the shear connectors transfer only a fraction φ M n = 0.85 f c′ab ⎜ d − ⎟ + As′ f s′( d − d ′ )
⎝ 2⎠
of the longitudinal shear.24
where
The flexural capacity of short-span SCIPs was analyzed
as fully composite and noncomposite sections. The actual f c′ = compressive strength of concrete
flexural capacity of the panels obtained from the experimental
program was then used to determine the degree of composite a = distance to the neutral axis
action achieved by the panels.
b = width of the concrete slab
Flexural calculations, per ACI 318-19,17 used actual dimen-
sions and details of a short-span slab for the analysis. The d = distance to tension steel
clear span of the slab was assumed to be 119 in. (3023 mm),
and the slab was assumed to be 49 in. (1.2 m) wide by 6 As′ = area of compression steel
in. (152 mm) thick. A self-weight of 131 lb/ft (1.91 kN/m)
was considered for the panel. Because the experimental f s′ = stress in compression bars
test results showed that no short-span specimen had a shear
failure at the supports, a minimum shear capacity equal to d′ = distance to compression steel
half of the ultimate load, or 6.6 kip (29.36 kN), was assumed

72 PCI Journal | March–April 2022

The analysis shows that the total moment capacity for a fully
composite section is expected to be 13.7 kip-ft (18.6 kN-m).
The moment caused by the self-weight of the panel can be
subtracted to calculate the effective moment capacity. The
net effective moment capacity in this instance would be
12.2 kip-ft (16.54 kN-m), which corresponds to an equivalent
test load of 9.86 kip (43.86 kN).

Noncomposite section For this part of the analysis, a

noncomposite section was assumed for the sandwich panel.
For a noncomposite section, there is no transfer of stresses
in between the two wythes; therefore, the wythes resist the
flexure loads as two individual sections. The cross-section
area used for this analysis was similar to that of one individ-
ual wythe. Unlike the analysis for a fully composite section,
where both the compression and tension steel were used, only
one layer of tensile reinforcement was used for this analysis.
The following equation was used to calculate the total moment Figure 24. Summary of the composite action of the short-
capacity for the noncomposite section. span panels. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
⎛ a⎞
φ M n = 0.85 f c′ab ⎜ d − ⎟ noncomposite capacities. The capacity of the SCIPs was closer
⎝ 2⎠ to that of the fully composite section than that of a noncom-
The analysis shows that the total moment capacity for posite section. Hence, the modular SCIPs can be classified as a
the noncomposite section can be expected to be 2.4 kip-ft partially composite section. The graph shows that the average
(3.25 kN-m) for two wythes. Similarly, the net effective effective moment capacity for the modular SCIPs was 66% of
moment capacity was calculated to be 0.75 kip-ft (1.0 kN-m), the effective capacity of a fully composite section.
which corresponds to an equivalent test load of 1.09 kip
(4.85 kN). It is important to consider that deviations in To determine the composite action achieved by the modular
reinforcement location may result in significant strength SCIPs, the effective moment capacity of the short-span slabs
reduction. Given potential variability in construction and obtained from the experimental program was compared with
quality of SCIPs, we recommend a more conservative the capacities of the fully composite and the noncomposite
reduction factor of 0.8 instead of 0.9 until further research panels that were calculated in the earlier sections.
becomes available. The specimens in the research showed
ductile behavior and signs of failure through cracks, buckling, Conclusion
and failure of the mesh (as heard through a series of popping
sounds), and more important, significant deflection. SCIP construction is an alternative technology for construct-
ing residential homes and low-rise structures. Although there
Partially composite section Results from the ACI flexure have been various versions of SCIPs developed over the years,
analysis, assuming a fully composite section, showed that the this research discusses modular SCIPs that use precasting
panels would have an effective moment capacity of 12.2 kip-ft technology. Eleven full-scale SCIPs with short to long spans
(16.54 kN-m), which corresponds to an equivalent test load of were tested under flexural loading. The key conclusions from
9.86 kip (43.86 kN). Similarly, the capacity for the noncom- the research are as follows:
posite section was 0.75 kip-ft (1.0 kN-m), which corresponds
to an equivalent experimental load of 1.09 kip (4.85 kN). Test • Results from the four-point bending tests showed good
results showed that the average effective moment capacity for performance of the short-span (10 ft [3 m]) panels. The
the short-span specimens was 8.03 kip-ft (10.86 kN-m), with mode of failure for all three short-span specimens was
an equivalent test load of 6.76 kip (30.07 kN). ductile-flexure-dominated failure when subjected to
out-of-plane loading. The panels exhibited substantial
The average load deflection curve obtained from testing the nonlinear deformation before failure and achieved 66%
short-span panels along with the calculated capacity of a fully effective moment capacity of a fully composite section.
composite and noncomposite section are illustrated in Fig. 24.
The green line indicates the average yield force obtained • The short-span specimens satisfied some of the building
experimentally. The two other solid lines indicate the yield code criteria for residential concrete floor and roof slabs
force limit derived using theoretical moment capacity of a fully without additional flexural reinforcement.
composite and noncomposite section. This indicates that a slab
using the SCIP system can achieve partially composite panels. • The medium- and long-span specimens, which were 14
From the load graph, it can be observed that the capacity of and 18 ft (4.3 and 5.5 m) long, respectively, exhibited
the modular SCIPs fell between the fully composite and the premature failure at the splice location.

PCI Journal | March–April 2022 73

 • The splice detail incorporated overlapping wire mesh at 3. ASTM International. 2018. Standard Specification for
the splice region on each skin without additional rein- Carbon-Steel Wire and Welded Wire Reinforcement,
forcement. This detail, which is common in SCIPs, was Plain and Deformed, for Concrete. ASTM A1064/
shown to be inadequate because it prevented the panels A1064M-18a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM Interna-
from achieving their full capacity. tional.

• Two modified long-span specimens were tested with 4. ASTM International. 2011. Standard Specification for
additional reinforcing bars at the splice region. One con- Steel Wire for Masonry Joint Reinforcement. ASTM
figuration used a straight bar pattern, whereas the other A951/A951M-11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM Inter-
used a staggered configuration of additional reinforcing national. https://doi.org/10.1520/A0951_A0951M-11.
bars at the splice location.
5. ASTM International. 2019. Standard Specification for
• Testing showed that the capacity and ductility of the Zinc–Coated (Galvanized) Carbon Steel Wire. ASTM
long-span panels could be doubled if additional reinforc- A641/A641M-19. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM Inter-
ing bars were incorporated at the splice locations. national. https://doi.org/10.1520/A0641_A0641M-19.

• Both splicing configurations were successful in transferring 6. Mashal, M. 2011. “Quantification of Building Seismic
the failure plane away from the splice region and significant- Performance Factors for Building Incorporating
ly increased the ultimate moment capacity of the panels. Three-Dimensional Construction System.” Master of
Science thesis, University at Buffalo–State University of
• The straight splicing configuration performed better than New York.
other modified long-span configurations. It is recom-
mended that additional flexural reinforcing bars be 7. Kabir, M. Z. 2005. “Structural Performance of 3-D
provided in construction with modular SCIPs. Sandwich Panels Under Shear and Flexural Loading.”
Scientia Iranica 12 (4): 402–408. http://scientiairanica
The thickness of the concrete layer can be increased to .sharif.edu/article_2509.html.
provide greater shear and cracking resistance. The overall
thickness of the panel can also be increased to achieve higher 8. Matz, K., J. Kügerl, and C. Peheim. 2005. Structural
load capacities. Engineering Handbook. Graz, Austria: EVG 3D Con-
struction System.
This study focused on the flexural behavior of modular SCIPs,
but further testing is recommended for identifying the axial 9. Kabir, M. Z., A. R. Rahai, and Y. Nassira. 2006.
and shear capacities of this technology. “Non-linear Response of Combined System, 3D Wall
Panels and Bending Steel Frame Subjected to Seismic
Acknowledgments Loading.” WIT Transactions on the Built Environment 85.
https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on
The authors recognize the donation of materials and -the-built-environment/85/15956.
equipment from Blastcrete Equipment Company. The authors
acknowledge the assistance provided by Jared Cantrell and 10. Fouad, F. H., J. Farrell, M. Heath, A. Shalaby, and A.
Irene van Woerden with the construction and testing of the Vichare. 2009. “The Behavior of the MR Sandwich Panel
specimens and statistical analysis of the data, respectively. in Flexure.” Special publication 260-06: 73–88. Farming-
Thanks to Rachel Brownell and Jose Duran for proofreading ton Hills, MI: ACI.
this manuscript.
11. Rezaifar, O., M. Z. Kabir, M. Taribakhsh, and A.
References Tehranian. 2008. “Dynamic Behaviour of 3D-Panel
Single-Storey System Using Shaking Table Testing.”
1. Mashal, M., and A. Filiatrault. 2012. “Quantification of Engineering Structures 30 (2): 318–337. https://doi
Seismic Performance Factors for Buildings Incorporating .org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2007.03.019.
Three-Dimensional Construction System.” Presented at
the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 12. Rezaifar, O., M. Z. Kabir, and A. Bakhshi. 2009. “Shaking
Lisbon, Portugal. https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee Table Test of a 1: 2.35 Scale 4-Story Building Construct-
/article/WCEE2012_1693.pdf. ed with a 3D Panel System.” Scientia Iranica 16 (3):
199–215. http://scientiairanica.sharif.edu/article_3108
2. ASTM International. 2016. Standard Test Method for .html.
Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with
Third-Point Loading). ASTM C78/C78M-16. West Con- 13. El Demerdash, I. M. 2013. “Structural Evaluation of Sus-
shohocken, PA: ASTM International. https://doi.org tainable Orthotropic Three-Dimensional Sandwich Panel
/10.1520/C0078_C0078M-16. System.” PhD diss., University of California, Irvine.

74 PCI Journal | March–April 2022

14. Joseph, J., J. Prabakar, and P. Alagusundaramoorthy. Notation
2019. “Insulated Precast Concrete Sandwich Panels under
Punching and Bending.” PCI Journal 64 (2): 68–79. a = distance to the neutral axis
https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij64.2-01.
b = width of the concrete slab
15. Gurung, K. 2019. “Experimental Investigations of Full-
Scale MetRock Structural Concrete Insulated Panels As = area of tensile steel
(SCIPs).” Master’s thesis, Idaho State University,
Pocatello. As′ = area of compression steel

16. Mashal, M., K. Gurung, and M. Acharya. 2020. “Full- d = distance to tension steel
Scale Experimental Testing of Structural Concrete
Insulated Panels (SCIPs).” In IABSE Congress: Resilient d′ = distance to compression steel
Technologies for Sustainable Infrastructure, Christ-
church, New Zealand, edited by A. Abu, 833–840. Zurich, f c′ = compressive strength of concrete
Switzerland: International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering. http://dx.doi.org/10.2749/ f s′ = stress in compression bars
christchurch.2021.0833.
fy = yield strength for steel
17. ACI. 2019. Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19). k = elastic stiffness
Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
L = length or span of the slab
18. ACI. 1991. Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions
for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete. ACI Ld = development length
211.1-91. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
Ma = applied moment during testing
19. ASTM International. 2014. Standard Test Methods for
Tension Testing of Metallic Materials. ASTM E8/E8M. Mcr = cracking moment
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Md = moment due to self-weight
20. ASTM International. 2020. Standard Test Method for
Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. Mmax = ultimate moment capacity
ASTM C39/C39-M. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM In-
ternational. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0039_C0039M-20. Mtot = total moment capacity

21. ASTM International. 2017. Standard Test Method P = equivalent load

for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens. ASTM C496/C496-M. West Conshohocken, W = ultimate uniform load that can produce a similar
PA: ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0496 ultimate moment capacity Mmax
_C0496M-17.
WL = minimum live load
22. ASTM International. 2015. Standard Test Methods of
Conducting Strength Tests of Panels for Building Con- δ = deflection of the slab at ultimate load
struction. ASTM E72-15. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/E0072-15. δallowable = maximum permissible deflection

23. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2016. φMn = design moment capacity
Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for
Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE7-16. Reston, VA:
ASCE.

24. Naji, B., and E. A. Toubia. 2015. “Flexural Analysis

and Composite Behavior of Precast Concrete Sandwich
Panel.” In Concrete—Innovation and Design: fib
Symposium Proceedings, edited by H. Stang and M.
Braestrup, 480–481. Lausanne, Switzerland: fib (Interna-
tional Federation for Structural Concrete).

PCI Journal | March–April 2022 75

 About the authors Abstract

Mahesh Acharya, EI, is a PhD Structural concrete insulated panels (SCIPs) are an
student in the Department of Civil alternative construction technology to traditional
and Environmental Engineering at wood framing and masonry units for use in residential
Idaho State University in Pocatello. homes and low-rise structures. SCIPs can be used to
He has a master of science degree erect structurally sound buildings that are economi-
in structural engineering from cal, energy efficient, and durable while incorporating
Idaho State University and is a sandwich technology. This study presents a novel
PCI student member. type of SCIP that can be fabricated using off-the-
shelf components. A precasting technology for such
Karma Gurung, EI, is a structural modular SCIPs is proposed. Full-scale experimental
engineer with Forterra Structural testing of one-way SCIP slabs with three different span
Precast in Salt Lake City, Utah. lengths (short, medium, and long) was carried out to
Gurung has a master of science investigate flexural behavior, strength, ductility, and
degree in structural engineering failure mechanisms. Testing showed good performance
from Idaho State University and is of modular SCIPs under gravity loads. Appropriate
a PCI member. splicing details for longer-span SCIPs are developed
and tested. Results show that the SCIPs tested in this
research can provide a moment capacity equal to 66%
Mustafa Mashal, PhD, PE, of the capacity of a fully composite section.
CPEng, IntPE(NZ), is an associate
professor in the Department of Keywords
Civil and Environmental Engi-
neering at Idaho State University. Flexure test, large-scale testing, new technology,
Mashal obtained his PhD from the self-consolidating concrete, structural concrete
University of Canterbury in New insulated panel.
Zealand. He is a member of
several committees for PCI, the American Society of Review policy
Civil Engineers, the American Concrete Institute, and
the Transportation Research Board. This paper was reviewed in accordance with the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute’s peer-review
process. The Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute
is not responsible for statements made by authors of
papers in PCI Journal. No payment is offered.

Publishing details

This paper appears in PCI Journal (ISSN 0887-9672)

V. 67, No. 2, March–April 2022, and can be found
at https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij67.2-03. PCI Journal
is published bimonthly by the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute, 8770 W. Bryn Mawr Ave., Suite
1150, Chicago, IL 60631. Copyright © 2022, Precast/
Prestressed Concrete Institute.

Reader comments

Please address any reader comments to PCI Journal

editor-in-chief Tom Klemens at [email protected] or
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI Journal,
8770 W. Bryn Mawr Ave., Suite 1150, Chicago, IL
60631. J

76 PCI Journal | March–April 2022