ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 108-S65
Bond and Shear Behavior of Concrete Beams Containing
Lightweight Synthetic Particles
by Matthew J. Heiser, Amr Hosny, Sami H. Rizkalla, and Paul Zia
This paper summarizes a comprehensive experimental program
that investigated the bond and shear behavior of concrete beams
containing lightweight synthetic particles (LSP). LSP is a new
concrete additive that, when used, leads to reduced unit weight of
concrete, enhances flowability of the fresh concrete for pumping
purposes, and produces durable concrete for freezing and thawing
and deicing exposed conditions. It also reduces the thermal
conductivity (increases R-value), thus reducing the energy required
for heating and cooling. The use of these specially formulated
particles, in combination with normalweight aggregates, could
reduce the unit weight of concrete by 10 to 20%, ranging from
120 to 130 lb/ft3 (1920 to 2080 kg/m3), depending on the amount
of LSP used in the concrete mixture. The experimental program
included 27 large-scale specimens. Research findings indicate that
the bond and shear behavior of beams with LSP additive is similar
to the behavior of beams made with normalweight concrete. Test
results confirm that ACI 318-08 can be used for the design of LSP
concrete members for shear and the development length of steel
reinforcement without the use of the reduction factor l required
for lightweight concrete.
Keywords: additive; beams; lightweight synthetic particles; reduced unit
weight concrete; shear.
INTRODUCTION
ACI 318-081 defines normalweight concrete as concrete
containing aggregates that conform to ASTM C33/C33M-
082 with a unit weight between 135 and 160 lb/ft3 (2160 and
2560 kg/m3). ACI 318-081 also defines lightweight concrete as
concrete containing only lightweight aggregates conforming
to ASTM C330-053 with a unit weight between 90 and
115 lb/ft3 (1440 and 1840 kg/m3). Lightweight synthetic
particles4 (LSP) are polymer spheres with a closed cell
inner structure containing air. They are inert and hydro-
phobic. They have a maximum sphere diameter of 0.25 in.
(6.4 mm) and a specific gravity of 0.042. They are specially
formulated for use with concrete with the ability to disperse
uniformly in the concrete, resulting in a reduced concrete
density. In general, they are added to concrete as a partial
replacement for conventional fine or coarse aggregate. These
specially formulated particles are considered as an additive
because they do not conform to either ASTM C33/C33M-08
or ASTM C330-05. Therefore, concrete made with normal-
weight aggregates and LSP as an additive to reduce the
unit weight is regarded as a normalweight concrete with
“reduced” density.
This study summarizes the findings of an extensive
research program conducted to examine compliance with
ACI 318-08 for the bond and shear behavior of concrete
members containing LSP. A parallel study by the authors
to evaluate the material characteristics of LSP concrete
indicates that, for a given mixture design, as the amount
of LSP is increased in the concrete mixture to reduce the
concrete density, the compressive strength of concrete is
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011
TECHNICAL PAPER
reduced. For example, when the concrete density was reduced
from 145 lb/ft3 (2333 kg/m3) without LSP to 130 lb/ft3
(2080 kg/m3) with LSP, the compressive strength of concrete
was reduced by 30% from the original compressive strength
of 5740 psi (39.6 MPa). When the concrete density was
further reduced to 120 lb/ft3 (1920 kg/m3), the compressive
strength was reduced by 50%. In all cases, the tensile strength
and the modulus of elasticity of the LSP concrete correlated
well with the predictions by the ACI 318-08 equations using
the corresponding compressive strength and density. It should
be noted that by adjusting the basic mixture design, one could
achieve the desired structural strength after LSP is added. The
product is being used commercially for structural concrete
ranging from 130 lb/ft3 to 105 lb/ft3 unit weight with 28-day
compressive strengths ranging from 3000 psi to 6000 psi.
The experimental program presented in this study
consisted of 27 large-scale specimens, tested under static
loading up to failure. Research findings indicate that the
design of concrete members containing LSP for bond and
shear can use the provisions of ACI 318-08 for normalweight
concrete; and the modification factor l in the code, normally
associated with lightweight concrete, is not applicable in this
case for concrete with LSP additive.
The first phase of this study investigated the bond behavior
of 18 large-scale specimens consisting of both slabs and
beams. The second phase investigated the shear behavior of
nine large-scale beams—each end of a beam being tested
to replicate the results—thus providing a total of 18 tested
specimens. The test results showed that the structural
behavior of concrete containing LSP additive with a unit
weight between 120 and 130 lb/ft3 (1920 and 2080 kg/m3) was
similar to that of normalweight concrete.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Reduced unit weight concrete using LSP additive has
several structural and economical advantages in comparison
to normal- and lightweight concrete. The addition of
LSP to a concrete mixture has been shown to reduce the
pumping pressures of fresh concrete, improve the thermal
resistance, and reduce the unit weight for the hardened
concrete. The research presented in this paper provides the
data and demonstrates that the ACI 318-08 code provisions
can be used for the design of structural concrete members
containing LSP additive and normalweight aggregates
without the modification factor l associated with lightweight
ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 6, November-December 2011.
MS No. S-2010-163.R1 received September 23, 2010, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2011, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be
published in the September-October 2012 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is
received by May 1, 2012.
1
ACI member Matthew J. Heiser is a Graduate Research Assistant in the Civil,
Construction, and Environmental Engineering Department at North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC. He received his BSc in 2008 and his MSc in 2010 from North
Carolina State University.
ACI member Amr Hosny is a PhD Candidate in the Civil, Construction, and
Environmental Engineering Department at North Carolina State University. He
received his BSc from Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, and his MSc from North
Carolina State University in 2004 and 2007, respectively.
Sami H. Rizkalla, FACI, is a Distinguished Professor of Civil and Construction
Engineering in the Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering
at North Carolina State University, where he also serves as the Director of the
Constructed Facilities Laboratory and NSF I/UCRC in Repair of Structures and
Bridges with Composite (RB2C).
ACI Honorary Member Paul Zia is a Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at
North Carolina State University. He served as ACI President in 1989 and is a member
of several ACI committees, including ACI Committee 363, High-Strength Concrete;
Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 423, Prestressed Concrete, and 445, Shear and Torsion;
the Concrete Research Council; and the TAC Technology Transfer Committee as
Chair of ITG-6.
concrete when the concrete unit weight is 120 lb/ft3 (1920 kg/m3)
or greater.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
The overall experimental program consisted of 27 large-
scale reinforced concrete specimens tested under static
loading up to failure. The first phase of the program
included 12 beams and six slabs tested to evaluate the
bond characteristics of the LSP concrete. The second phase
included nine beams to evaluate the shear behavior of the
concrete, with each beam being tested once at each end to
replicate the test results. The steel reinforcement used had
a specified minimum yield strength of 60 ksi (415 MPa),
according to ASTM A615/A615M-09b5 specifications.
Phase 1: Bond behavior of LSP concrete members
The bond behavior of concrete members with LSP
additive was evaluated using 12 beams and six slabs. The
beam specimens were divided into three main groups
using two targeted unit weights: 120 lb/ft3 (1920 kg/m3)
for Group 1 and 130 lb/ft3 (2080 kg/m3) for Group 2. The
slab specimens had a targeted unit weight of 130 lb/ft3
Fig. 1—Test setup used for bond beams and slabs.
2
(2080 kg/m3) and were classified as Group 3. The targeted
concrete compressive strength for the specimens within
Group 1 was 2500 psi (20 MPa) and 4000 psi (30 MPa)
for the specimens in Groups 2 and 3. All tested beams had
cross-sectional dimensions of 12 x 18 in. (305 x 457 mm)
and a total length of 16 ft (4877 mm), as shown in Fig. 1.
All tested slabs had cross-sectional dimensions of 18 x 8 in.
(457 x 203 mm) with a total length of 16 ft (4877 mm). Within
each group, the tension splice length of the reinforcement
was designed according to ACI 318-08 based on the targeted
concrete strengths of 2500 or 4000 psi (20 or 30 MPa).
The specimens were constructed using splice lengths equal
to 0.75Ld, 1.0Ld, and 1.25Ld, where Ld is the splice length
determined by ACI 318-08 requirements. For the beams,
all the transverse reinforcement consisted of No. 3 closed
stirrups designed according to ACI 318-08 requirements,
with an extension of six times the bar diameter past the
90-degree bend. Two specimens were fabricated and tested
for each of the selected splice lengths for the repeatability of
the test results.
The bond specimens given in Table 1 are identified
using three parameters: the first letter “B” stands for bond
specimens; the following number identifies the targeted unit
weight of concrete in pounds per cubic feet (120 or 130).
The second number identifies the specimen within each
group and ranges from 1 to 3. The letter “R” indicates the
replicate specimens. The letter “S” was used to designate the
slab specimens.
The test setup and cross-sectional dimensions for the
beams and slabs are shown in Fig. 1. All beams and slabs
were tested using a four-point bending setup to develop
a constant moment region at the location of the spliced
bars. The length of the beams and slabs was kept constant
at 16 ft (4877 mm). The test setup allowed a constant
moment region of 6 ft (1829 mm) with two outer shear spans
of 4.5 ft (1372 mm) each. The beams were supported at both
ends using composite steel sections restrained to the floor.
A 150 kips (670 kN) load cell was placed at one end of the
beams to measure the reaction at the support, whereas the
loads were applied using four hydraulic jacks—two at each
location—with a capacity of 120 kips (535 kN) each. Vertical
deflections were measured using string potentiometers
located at the midspan of the test specimen.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011
Table 1—Test results of bond experimental program
Ratio of Predicted Maximum Yield
fc, psi fy, ld,required, ld,provided, ld,provided to failure load, measured Measured-to- Mode of strain, Maximum measured
Beam ID (MPa) ksi (MPa) in. (mm) in. (mm) ld,required kip (kN) load, kip (kN) predicted load failure in./in. strain, in./in.
B-120-1 37.8 (168) 0.94 Splitting 0.0030
31.0 (787) 0.96
B-120-1-R 31.5 (140) 0.79 Splitting 0.0024
B-120-2 40.3 (179) 1.00 Flexural 0.0060
6000 (41.4) 74 (510) 32.3 (818) 41.0 (1041) 1.27 40.1 (178) 0.0026
B-120-2-R 40.6 (181) 1.01 Flexural 0.0060
B-120-3 39.2 (174) 0.98 Flexural 0.0060
51.0 (1295) 1.58
B-120-3-R 39.5 (176) 0.99 Flexural 0.0060
B-130-1 31.8 (141) 0.80 Splitting 0.0022
26.0 (660) 0.77
B-130-1-R 34.8 (155) 0.87 Splitting 0.0023
B-130-2 38.2 (170) 0.96 Splitting 0.0027
5500 (37.9) 74 (510) 33.8 (859) 33.0 (838) 0.98 39.9 (177) 0.0026
B-130-2-R 38.4 (171) 0.96 Splitting 0.0026
B-130-3 39.8 (177) 1.00 Flexural 0.0060
41.0 (1041) 1.21
B-130-3-R 40.2 (179) 1.01 Flexural 0.0060
B-130-1-S 5.8 (26) 0.95 Splitting 0.0021
11.0 (279) 0.93
B-130-1-R-S 6.4 (28) 1.05 Splitting 0.0060
B-130-2-S 7.1 (32) 1.16 Splitting 0.0026
6000 (41.4) 61 (421) 11.8 (300) 15.0 (381) 1.27 6.1 (27) 0.0021
B-130-2-R-S 6.7 (30) 1.10 Splitting 0.0060
B-130-3-S 7.3 (32) 1.20 Flexural —
18.0 (457) 1.52
B-130-3-R-S 7.8 (35) 1.28 Flexural 0.0060

Table 2—Typical concrete mixture design

Target unit weight, Cement, Class F fly ash, Natural sand, No. 78 granite, Concrete additive, Water reducer, HRWR,
lb/ft3 (kg/m3) w/cm lb/yd3 (kg/m3) lb/yd3 (kg/m3) lb/yd3 (kg/m3) lb/yd3 (kg/m3) lb/yd3 (kg/m3) oz/cwt (mL/100 kg) oz/cwt (mL/100 kg)
By weight 120 (1922) 0.4 752 (446) 188 (112) 1380 (819) 722 (428) 9 (5.34) 4 (261) 3 (196)
By weight 130 (2082) 0.4 677 (402) 200 (119) 1675 (994) 914 (542) 4 (2.37) 4 (261) 5 (326)

Table 3—Concrete strength for test specimens

Compressive strength, psi (MPa)
Specimens cast Measured unit weight, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) Target fc′ fc Day of Testing
Bond beams
126.6 (2030) 2500 (20.0) 5660 (39.0) 6000 (41.4)
Target U.W. = 120 lb/ft3

Bond beams
132.6 (2125) 4000 (30.0) 5000 (34.5) 5500 (37.9)
Target U.W. = 130 lb/ft3

Bond slabs
131.2 (2105) 4000 (30.0) 5470 (37.7) 6000 (41.4)
Target U.W. = 130 lb/ft3

Shear beams
120.2 (1925) 2500 (20.0) 3620 (25.0) 4120 (28.4)
Target U.W. = 120 lb/ft3

Shear beams
131.1 (2100) 4000 (30.0) 5930 (40.9) 6890 (47.5)
Target U.W. = 130 lb/ft3

The ready mixed concrete supplied by a local concrete Test results

producer consisted of Type I cement, Class F fly ash,
ASTM C33/C33M-08 natural sand, No. 78 granite, LSP
concrete additive,4 and standard high-range water reducer
(HRWR). The compressive strength of the concrete was
determined by using 4 x 8 in. (102 x 204 mm) cylinders
cured in the same environment as the test specimens. Table 2
provides the mixture design of the two concrete mixtures.
Material properties—Table 3 summarizes the measured
compressive strength of the concrete at 28 days and on
the day of testing for both the bond and shear studies. It
should be noted that the concrete produced for the first cast
according to the given mixture design resulted in both a
higher unit weight and higher compressive strength than the
targeted values. It is believed that the moisture content of the

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011 3


Fig. 2—Load-deflection relationship for Group 2 bond beams.
Fig. 3—Splitting crack width for Group 1 beams.
Fig. 4—Splitting failure of Beam B-130-2-R.
sand measured at the ready mixed concrete plant was higher
than the actual moisture content, making the total water less
than designed, which led to a lower water-cement ratio (w/c)
and, consequently, a higher concrete compressive strength.
Tension coupons from the Grade 60 steel reinforcement
were tested according to ASTM A370-096 to determine the
material characteristics. The typical coupon length was 2 ft
4
(610 mm), taken from the same batches of the longitudinal
reinforcement used in the beams. The No. 9 (No. 29) bars used
as the longitudinal reinforcement and the No. 3 (No. 16) bars
used as the transverse reinforcement of the bond specimens
had yield strengths of 74 and 69 ksi (510 and 476 MPa),
respectively. The yield strength of the No. 5 bars used as
the longitudinal reinforcement in the slabs for the bond tests
was 61 ksi (421 MPa).
Load-deflection behavior—The load-deflection relationship
of the tested beams in the second group is shown in Fig. 2.
The test results indicate that the beams with a splice length
shorter than the required splice length failed before achieving
their full design capacity. When the full splice length was
provided, the beams were able to achieve their design
capacity but failed due to splitting without providing much
ductility. When the provided splice length exceeded the
required splice length up to 1.58Ld, the beams achieved the
flexural strength and a sufficient level of ductility. Similar
behavior was observed for the beams tested in Group 1 and
the slabs in Group 3.
Crack width—Crack width was measured by using PI
gauges located at the ends of the splice and at the midspan of
the specimens. A crack comparator was also used to measure
the crack width at different load levels. It was observed that
in all cases, the first flexural cracks developed at the two
ends of the splice zone—at the maximum moment and shear
locations. As the load was increased, the flexural cracks
propagated toward the compression zone and increased in
number and width. A further increase in the applied load led
to the formation of splitting cracks parallel to the longitudinal
bars (initially on the tension surface of the beam), followed
by splitting cracks on the side of the beam. Measurement
using the crack comparator was discontinued after the
yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement; however, PI gauge
measurements showed that with adequate development
length according to ACI 318-08, the yield strength of the
longitudinal bar was fully developed and the beam achieved
considerable ductility. Figure 3 shows the width of the
splitting crack and the applied loads for the first group of
beams reinforced with No. 9 (No. 29) bars. The test results
indicate that the splitting cracks occurred at the same range
of load level for all tested beams of the same group. The
initiation of the splitting cracks occurs when the stresses in
the spliced bars induce forces in the concrete cover equal to
the tensile strength of the concrete. The figure also shows
that as the load was increased, the widths of the splitting
cracks were larger for the shorter splice lengths. This was
due to the higher stresses induced in the longitudinal bars
with shorter splices in comparison to the bars with longer
splice length at the same load levels and consequently higher
induced strains in the steel and the surrounding concrete,
causing wider cracks.
Splice strength—Two different modes of failure were
observed for the bond specimens. The first mode was
splitting failure, characterized by the formation and
propagation of splitting cracks parallel to the longitudinal
bars along the splice length, as shown in Fig. 4. Such failure
is generally sudden and brittle. The second mode of failure
was typical flexural failure initiated by the yielding of the
reinforcement, followed by the final crushing of the concrete
in the compression zone. A summary of the test results for
Phase I of the experimental program is presented in Table 1.
The test results presented in Table 1 indicate that when
the provided development length was equal to or more than
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011
Table 4—Test results of shear experimental program
VC VS Vn
fc, Measured Measured Measured
Maximum measured psi Measured, Predicted, versus Measured, Predicted, versus Predicted, versus
Beam shear, kip (kN) (MPa) kip (kN) kip (kN) predicted kip (kN) kip (kN) predicted kip (kN) predicted
S-120-0% 35 (156) 36 0.97
— — —
S-120-0%-R 43 (191) (160) 1.18

Group S-120-0.25% 93 (414) 4150 39 36 54 (240) 31 1.73 67 1.38

1.08
1 S-120-0.25%-R 83 (369) (28.6) (173) (160) 44 (196) (138) 1.42 (298) 1.24
S-120-5% 126 (560) 87 (387) 62 1.39 99 1.28
S-120-0.5%-R 124 (552) 85 (378) (276) 1.36 (440) 1.26
a/d
= 3.0 S-130-0% 41 (182) 0.97
42
— — —
S-130-0%-R 38 (169) (187) 0.92

Group S-130-0.25% 97 (431) 6750 40 42 57 (254) 31 1.82 73 1.32

0.95
2 S-130-0.25%-R 104 (463) (46.5) (178) (187) 64 (285) (138) 2.05 (325) 1.42
S-130-0.5% 130 (578) 90 (400) 62 1.43 104 1.24
S-130-0.5%-R 132 (587) 92 (409) (276) 1.47 (463) 1.26
S-130-0%-1.5 153 (681) 42 3.61
— — —
S-130-0%-1.5-R 206 (916) (187) 4.87

a/d Group S-130-0.25%-1.5 194 (863) 6970 56 42 138 (614) 31 4.40 74 2.63
1.32
= 1.5 3 S-130-0.25%-1.5-R 159 (707) (48.1) (249) (187) 103 (458) (138) 3.29 (329) 2.16
S-130-0.5%-1.5 214 (952) 158 (703) 62 2.53 105 2.04
S-130-0.5%-1.5-R 215 (956) 159 (707) (276) 2.54 (467) 2.05

that required by ACI 318-08 using the measured material
properties, the specimens were able to achieve their
respective nominal flexural capacity after the yielding of
the longitudinal reinforcement, as indicated by the strain
measurements. When the provided development length
was less than the required value, the specimens showed
bond failures with slightly less capacity in comparison to
the predicted nominal flexural strengths. The test results
clearly confirm compliance of the LSP concrete to the
ACI 318-08 provisions for the development length of the
flexural reinforcement. It should be noted that an increase
in the splice length does not necessarily increase the load-
carrying capacity of the beam due to the nonlinear stress
distribution along the splice length7 and increase only the
ductility, as shown in Fig. 2. For example, in Table 3, although
the development length increased from 33 in. (838 mm) for
Beam B-130-2-R to 41 in. (1041 mm) for Beam B-130-3-R,
the load-carrying capacity increased by only 4%.
Phase II: Shear behavior of LSP concrete members
The shear behavior of reinforced concrete beams
containing LSP was evaluated using nine beams—each
tested twice—for a total of 18 tests. The specimens were
divided into three main groups with two targeted unit
weights of 120 and 130 lb/ft3 (1920 and 2080 kg/m3). Similar
to the bond investigation, target compressive strengths
of 2500 and 4000 psi (20 and 30 MPa) were selected for
the 120 and 130 lb/ft3 (1920 and 2080 kg/m3) groups,
respectively. Two additional parameters considered in the
experimental program were the shear span-depth ratio (a/d)
and the transverse reinforcement ratio rt. The beams were
designed according to ACI 318-08 provisions for shear and
flexure, and the design ensured a shear-controlled failure
mode. Some of the beams were designed without transverse
reinforcement to evaluate the concrete contribution to
shear strength, Vc, whereas others were designed with
minimum and maximum allowable transverse reinforcement
ratios as specified by ACI 318-08 to cover the two levels
of shear capacities. Table 4 provides details of the beams
tested in shear. Each beam specimen was identified by four
parameters: the first letter “S” stands for shear specimens;
the following number identifies the targeted unit weight in
pounds per cubic foot (120 or 130); and the third parameter
defines the transverse reinforcement ratio (0%, 0.25%, and
0.5%) for the beams without transverse reinforcement, with
minimum and maximum stirrups, respectively. The number
“1.5” following the transverse reinforcement ratio refers to
the a/d of 1.5, which is different from the beams tested with
an a/d of 3.0 in the first two groups.
The test setup and cross-sectional dimensions for all shear
tests are shown in Fig. 5. Two test setups were used—one
for each of the selected a/d. The test setup was designed to
allow each end of a beam to be tested so that the test could be
replicated. The first setup was used to test the first and second
groups of beams with an a/d of 3.0 by locating the applied
point load at a distance “a” of 43 in. (1092 mm) from the
left support, as shown in Fig. 5. The second setup was used
to test the third group of beams with an a/d of 1.5 and the
single applied load at a distance “a” of 22 in. (559 mm) from
the left support, as shown in Fig. 5. The untested portion of
each beam was cantilevered over the right support. Load was
applied by using a 440 kips (1960 kN) capacity hydraulic
actuator supported by a steel frame that was securely
anchored to the laboratory strong floor. The load provided
by the actuator was transferred by a single steel loading plate
that measured 1 in. (25 mm) thick by 8 in. (203 mm) wide.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011 5

 Fig. 5—Typical shear beam cross section and test setup.
Fig. 6—Location of PI gauge rosettes and PI gauges on back of shear beams.
Fig. 7—Shear load-deflection behavior for Group 2
shear beams.
The beams were simply supported by a steel pin and a 1 in.
(25 mm) thick bearing plate at the left end support and a
steel roller and a 1 in. (25 mm) thick bearing plate at the
right support. For each test setup, two 200 kips (890 kN)
capacity load cells were placed under the left support to
measure the reaction, which represented the maximum shear
forces within the short shear span under consideration. One
linear variable differential transducer (LVDT) was used at
the top surface of the beam at both supports to measure any
possible deflection at the support. Vertical beam deflections
were measured by two string potentiometers placed directly
under the beam at the location of the actuator and 1.5 in.
(38 mm) from the edge. The crack widths and strains in
selected stirrups were measured by using PI gauges and
6
weldable strain gauges, respectively. PI gauges were
arranged in a rosette configuration to capture most of the
cracks within the shear span region. For the test specimens
in Groups 1 and 2, three PI gauge rosettes were arranged
diagonally between the applied load and the left support
reaction, as shown in Fig. 6(a), whereas only two PI rosettes
were used for the shorter beams of Group 3. On the opposite
face of the test specimen, PI gauges were arranged vertically
at the location of the selected stirrup located within the shear
span region, as shown in Fig. 6(b). The stirrup strains were
measured using weldable strain gauges placed on some
selected stirrups within each beam.
The same concrete mixture designs given in Table 2 were
used for the shear specimens. Table 3 also summarizes the
measured concrete compressive strength at 28 days and at
the day of testing for the shear specimens. Tension coupons
for the Grade 60 reinforcing steel were tested according to
ASTM A370-09 using 2 ft (610 mm) coupons that were taken
from the same batches of the transverse reinforcement used
in the beams and had a yield strength of 69 ksi (476 MPa).
Test results
Load-deflection behavior—The load-deflection behavior
of beams with LSP concrete was similar to that of beams
of normal concrete reported in the literature.8 The beams
without transverse reinforcement failed shortly after the
initiation of the first diagonal cracks. Test beams with
transverse reinforcement were able to sustain higher load
levels, as shown in Fig. 7, for the beams of Group 2. The
load at the formation of the first critical diagonal crack for
members without shear reinforcement was taken as the
concrete contribution to shear resistance Vc for all beams
within the same group. It can be observed from Fig. 7 that
by increasing the transverse reinforcement ratio from 0.25 to
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011
0.5%, the shear resistance of the beams was increased. The
shear at failure for the specimens with shear reinforcement
was taken as the nominal shear strength Vn. The steel
contribution to the shear strength Vs was simply determined
as the difference of (Vn – Vc). The load-deflection behavior
of the beams in Group 3 is shown in Fig. 8. From this curve,
it can be observed that the behavior of the specimens within
Group 3 is quite different from those within Groups 1 and 2,
as shown in Fig. 7. This is due primarily to the small a/d of
this category of beams and the formation of a compression
strut mechanism in resisting the applied shear. This arching
action mechanism is the cause of the significant increase in
the shear capacity of the beams within Group 3, especially
for those without transverse reinforcement.
Cracking behavior—Cracking on the side of the beam
was measured using PI gauge rosettes within the shear span
a, whereas cracking on the opposite side of the beam was Fig. 8—Shear load-deflection behavior for Group 3
measured using the vertical PI gauges, as shown in Fig. 6. shear beams.
Crack width comparators were also used to measure the
crack width at different load levels. It was observed that the
initiation of the first flexural cracks occurred at the location
of the maximum bending moment directly under the applied
load. Flexural cracks propagated upwards and increased in
number and width as the load was increased.
The formation of shear cracks was dependent on the
presence of shear reinforcement and a/d. For beams with
shear reinforcement and an a/d of 3.0, the first shear cracks
appeared as an extension of the flexural shear cracks in the
diagonal direction. When the applied load was increased,
new diagonal shear cracks formed and were observed
on both sides of the tested beam. In this study, failure of
the beams was determined when the beam was no longer
able to sustain any increase in the applied load. For the
beams without transverse reinforcement, once the first
shear crack appeared, it propagated diagonally through
the shear span and suddenly increased in width by a
slight increase in applied load before failure. For beams Fig. 9—Typical shear cracking behavior.
with shear reinforcement, once the first diagonal tension
crack occurred, measurements of the strain in the stirrups,
using the weldable strain gauges, clearly indicated the
participation of the stirrups in resisting the applied load. The
presence of the stirrups controlled the increase in the width
of the diagonal tension crack, which led to the formation
of multiple diagonal cracks within the shear span. The
cracking behavior for specimens with no stirrups, minimum
stirrups, and maximum stirrups is shown in Fig. 9. The
figure clearly indicates a single diagonal crack, spanning
from the location of the applied load to the support for the
beams without stirrups and multiple diagonal cracks for the
beams with stirrups. Figure 10 shows the measured width of
the diagonal shear crack using the crack comparators for the
second group of beams with an a/d of 3.0. It should be noted
that the graph does not include the beams without transverse
reinforcement, as these beams failed suddenly after the
initiation of the diagonal crack. The graph also shows the
effect of the transverse reinforcement ratio in controlling Fig. 10—Shear crack width for Group 2 beams.
the crack width. It can be seen that for the same load level,
the beams with the minimum transverse reinforcement ratio
higher stress levels correspond to higher strains in the stirrups
had a wider crack width compared to the beams with the
maximum transverse reinforcement ratio. An increase of and thus wider cracks in the concrete.
the crack width is expected due to the high stresses induced Failure mode—The failure mode of each group of test beams
in the stirrups of the beams with the minimum transverse was highly dependent on the a/d. For Groups 1 and 2 (specimens
reinforcement ratio in comparison to the beams with the with an a/d of 3.0), the failure mode was also affected by the
higher transverse reinforcement ratio at any given load. The amount of transverse reinforcement used. For beams without

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011 7

transverse reinforcement, the failure mechanism occurred as
a single shear crack that extended from the support to the
location of the applied load. The typical failure observed for
beams with shear reinforcement was due to crushing of the
concrete at the nodal region of the diagonal compression strut
well after the formation of many diagonal cracks within the
shear span.
The behavior of Group 3 specimens with an a/d of
1.5 was controlled, as expected, by stirrup spacing within the
member. For the beams without transverse reinforcement,
failure occurred at much higher-than-anticipated loads
due to arching action within the short span. For the beams
with the minimum amount of transverse reinforcement,
although arching action controlled the short shear span,
flexural shear failure was observed in the longer shear
span in the uninstrumented side of the beam when the
load-carrying capacity of that side was reached. When the
transverse reinforcement ratio was increased, the load-
carrying capacity of the longer shear span was increased
and failure was due to arching action within the short
shear span of the beam. The measured ultimate loads are
significantly higher than the predicted values according to
the ACI 318-08 design equations. When the strut-and-tie
method is used as recommended by ACI 318-08 for low a/d,
however, the behavior is accurately predicted.
The results from the 18 shear tests are summarized
in Table 4, which shows the maximum measured shear
force in comparison to the ACI 318-08 predicted values.
Because the beams were designed to have a shear failure,
the longitudinal reinforcement was increased to avoid
premature flexural failure. To account for the increase of
the flexural reinforcement, the concrete contribution to the
shear strength, Vc, was predicted by using the following
ACI 318-08 Eq. (11-5), which accounts for the effect of the
longitudinal reinforcement ratio rw.
 V d
Vc =  1.9l fc ′ + 2500rw u  bw d
 Mu 
where l is a reduction factor used with the lightweight
concrete and was assumed unity for the LSP concrete; Vu and
Mu are the ultimate shear force and moment, respectively, at
the section considered; bw is the width of the member; and d is
the depth from the centroid of the longitudinal reinforcement
to the extreme compression fiber. For the beams with an a/d
of 3.0, Table 4 shows a very close correlation between the
measured and predicted shear force for the case without
transverse reinforcement. With transverse reinforcement,
the average measured-to-predicted ratio becomes 1.20 with
a coefficient of variation of 0.14, which shows that the
ACI 318-08 provisions for shear can be safely used for the
design of structural members with LSP additive. For the
beams with an a/d of 1.5, the measured-to-predicted shear
strength according to ACI 318-08 was significantly higher
due to the arching action mechanism developed for this
category of beams.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the test results of the experimental program and
the comparisons to the ACI 318-08 provisions for shear and
development of reinforcement, the following conclusions
may be drawn:
8
1. The concrete containing LSP additive used in this
study, with unit weights ranging between 120 and 130 lb/ft3
(1920 and 2080 kg/m3), achieved comparable compressive
strength to what is commonly used for structural applications.
2. Concrete containing LSP additive was flowable and had
good workability.
3. The load-deflection characteristics and the crack pattern
of the beams and slabs tested in this experimental program
were similar to the expected behavior of beams and slabs
using normalweight concrete.
4. The cracked section analysis used to predict the behavior
of regular concrete could be used to predict the behavior of
concrete members produced with LSP additive.
5. ACI 318-08 equations could be applied to the design of
the tension splice required to develop the design strength of
the reinforcement at a critical section.
6. The analysis of the bond specimens accurately predicted
the behavior of all tested beams. With sufficient splice length,
the beams were capable of achieving their load-carrying
capacity. The results confirmed that the bond strength of beams
containing LSP concrete additive met the bond requirements
specified by ACI 318-08.
7. The beams with LSP concrete additive satisfy the shear
design requirements of ACI 318-08.
8. The test results also confirmed that, for the structural
design of LSP concrete containing normalweight aggregates,
the reduction factor l normally used for lightweight concrete
do not need to be applied for LSP concrete with a unit weight
equal to or higher than 120 lb/ft3 (1920 kg/m3).
Due to the limited number of bond and shear specimens
used in this study, it is recommended that additional tests
should be conducted to include a wider range of concrete
densities. In addition, whether the use of LSP in a concrete
mixture will affect the long-term bond and shear behavior of
concrete members should also be investigated.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank NOVA Chemicals Inc. for their financial
assistance and for providing the concrete additive for the construction of
the test specimens. The authors would also like to thank the Argos USA
for supplying the ready mixed concrete used in the research program.
Special thanks go to the staff at the Constructed Facilities Laboratory,
including J. Atkinson, J. McEntire, G. Lucier, and M. Dawood for their
invaluable help.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
2. ASTM C33/C33M-08, “Standard Specification for Concrete
Aggregates,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008, 11 pp.
3. ASTM C330-05, “Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates
for Structural Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2005, 4 pp.
4. NOVA Chemicals Inc., “Elemix Concrete Additive,” 2008, http://
www.elemix.com/. (last accessed Feb. 19, 2010)
5. ASTM A615/A615M-09b, “Standard Specification for Deformed and
Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2009, 6 pp.
6. ASTM A370-09, “Standard Test Methods and Definitions for
Mechanical Testing of Steel Products,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2009, 47 pp.
7. Canbay, E., and Frosch, R. J., “Bond Strength of Lap-Spliced Bars,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 4, July-Aug. 2005, pp. 605-614.
8. Wight, J. K., and MacGregor, J. G., Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics
and Design, fifth edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey,
2009, 1126 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011