materials

Article
Neutral Axis Depth versus Ductility and Plastic
Rotation Capacity on Bending in
Lightweight-Aggregate Concrete Beams
Luís Bernardo 1 , Miguel Nepomuceno 1, * and Hugo Pinto 2
1 C-MADE-Centre of Materials and Building Technologies, Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
University of Beira Interior, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal; lfb@ubi.pt
2 Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Beira Interior, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal;
pinto.ha@gmail.com
* Correspondence: mcsn@ubi.pt; Fax: +351-275-329969




Received: 1 October 2019; Accepted: 22 October 2019; Published: 24 October 2019


Abstract: This article presents an experimental study on the evolution of the neutral axis depth at
failure in the critical section with the flexural ductility and plastic rotation capacity of reinforced
concrete (RC) lightweight-aggregate concrete (LWAC) beams. For this, the results of a previous
experimental program involving RC LWAC beams tested in flexure until failure are used. The variable
studies were the concrete compressive strength (between 22.0 and 60.4 MPa and dry density between
1651 and 1953 kg/m3 ) and the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio (between 0.13% and 2.69%).
The flexural ductility and the plastic rotation capacity of the RC LWAC beams are characterized by
a ductility index and a plastic trend parameter, respectively. The influence of the variable studies,
as well as the relation of the flexural ductility and plastic rotation capacity with the values for the
neutral axis depth at failure are analyzed and discussed. Some conclusions are drawn which can
be useful for the design of RC LWAC beams for flexure. In particular, it is shown that the practical
rule of limiting the neutral axis depth at failure to ensure ductile behavior, as used in normal-weight
aggregate concrete beams, is also valid for RC LWAC beams.

Keywords: lightweight-aggregate concrete; reinforced concrete; beams; bending; neutral axis depth;
ductility; plastic rotation capacity

1. Introduction
During the last few decades, lightweight-aggregate concretes (LWAC) have deeply improved due
to the evolution of the chemical admixtures and minerals. Among the successive improvements of
LWAC, it is worth mentioning the workability, durability and compressive strength. Such properties,
in addition to the lighter weight of the material, are important for many structural applications, such as
offshore and marine structures, slabs and joists in high-rise buildings, bridge decks, rehabilitation and
strengthening of existing buildings, and prefabricated constructions.
Several studies on the properties of LWAC, as well as specific recommendations for the design of
LWAC members and reports of successful applications, have been published in past years. Despite this,
some aspects of the structural performance of LWAC still needs further research, namely the ductile
behavior of LWAC members. This is because some mechanical properties of the concrete are modified
by incorporating lightweight-aggregates (LWA) instead of normal-weight aggregates (NWA). Bogas
and Gomes in 2013 [1] showed that the failure mode of LWAC depends on the concrete strength level,
properties of mortar, as well as type and volume content of LWA. Domagala in 2011 [2] and Cui et al.
in 2012 [3] showed that the tensile to compressive strength ratio and the fracture toughness of LWAC

Materials 2019, 12, 3479; doi:10.3390/ma12213479 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 3479 2 of 13

are lower. In fact, when compared with normal-weight aggregate concrete (NWAC), LWAC is shown
to be more brittle both in tension and compression (Jung et al. in 2007 [4]).
However, the relative higher brittleness of LWAC does not necessarily results in a lower
deformation capacity at the ultimate stage of reinforced concrete (RC) LWAC members. This is
because such members usually combine concrete, which is a relative fragile material, with hot-rolled
reinforcing steel bars which show high plasticity behavior. Such combination provides ductility for RC
LWAC members. This was previously confirmed with experiments on beams under flexure which
were built with LWAC (Liu et al. in 2006 [5], Bernardo et al. in 2016 [6,7]). However, such studies
have also shown that some important differences exist between the performance of RC LWAC and RC
NWAC beams. For instance, the flexural ductility of RC LWAC beams is lower when compared with
similar RC NWAC beams.
The drawback related with the lower flexural ductility of RC LWAC beams is important because
current design codes require that structural members must insure sufficient ductility under overload
conditions, in addition to the required strength. In fact, ductility is an important key property to ensure
the required capacity for internal forces redistribution and structural safety, namely in seismic areas.
The flexural ductility of beams can be defined as the capacity of the member to undergo high plastic
deformations in the critical regions without an appreciable loss of its loading resistance. To ensure
enough ductility, the beam should be designed in order to respect the detailing rules for reinforcement
provided in design codes. Besides, the ductility depends directly on the plastic rotation capacity of the
critical sections, which can be achieved using some basic rules, namely:

• using steel with suitable ductility properties for the reinforcing bars;
• ensuring a proper design for the critical sections such that the neutral axis depth at failure is small
(usually characterized by parameter x/d, with x the neutral axis depth at failure and d the effective
depth of the longitudinal tensile reinforcement);
• using closed stirrups as transverse reinforcement, with small longitudinal spacing, to ensure a
suitable confinement of concrete in the compression area of the cross-section;
• using additional longitudinal reinforcement in the compression area of the cross-section.

In addition, for the ultimate load, the formation of plastic hinges in the critical regions must be
checked to ensure ductility. This is done by checking if the strains at failure of the materials (steel and
concrete) are big enough to ensure the plastic behavior of the critical sections.
Among the previously referred rules, one of the most practical is to limit the relative neutral
axis depth (x/d) at failure in the critical sections. This rule is stated by several design codes and
proved, over decades of experience, to be appropriate for RC NWAC beams. Controlling the depth
of the compressed concrete in failure strongly depends on the characteristics of steel and also on
the mechanical ratio of the longitudinal tensile reinforcement. For this reason, design codes usually
also state upper limits for the referred mechanical ratio in order to allow the yielding of the tensile
reinforcement before concrete crushing in the compression area of the cross-section.
The previously referred rules are expected to be also valid for RC LWAC beams since they rely on
fundamental mechanical principles for reinforced concrete. However, since differences were reported
between RC LWAC and RC NWAC beams as far as ductility is concerned, specific studies on the
ductility of RC LWAC beams are important to verify or correct such design rules mainly based on
experimental results with RC NWAC beams. In past years, many of these rules have simply been
extrapolated from RC NWAC to RC LWAC. For this reason, studies specially focused on the flexural
behavior of RC LWAC beams continue to be reported in the literature, such as the ones from Liu et al.
in 2006 [5], Jung et al. in 2007 [4] and Sin et al. in 2010 [8]. A more detailed literature review can be
found in [6]. As a consequence, proposals for the extension of design codes to RC LWAC beams have
been reported and the work is still ongoing.
However, studies specifically focused on the ductility of RC LWAC beams under flexure are still
very scarce. In two recent studies from the authors (Bernardo et al. in 2016 [6,7]), the flexural ductility
Materials 2019, 12, 3479 3 of 13

and the plastic behavior of RC LWAC beams were experimentally studied. Flexural ductility was
Materials 2019, 12,by
characterized x FOR PEER REVIEW
ductility indexes, while plastic rotation capacity was characterized by a plastic3trend of 14

parameter. Some important findings about how concrete compressive strength and longitudinal tensile
appropriate range
reinforcement for the longitudinal
ratio influence ductility andtensile
plasticreinforcement ratio
rotation capacity, to also
and ensure ductility
on the and plastic
appropriate range
behavior, were pointed out. In order to continue this important work, in this article the
for the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio to ensure ductility and plastic behavior, were pointed authors aim,
in particular,
out. In order to to continue
check specifically if the practical
this important work, in rule of limiting
this article the neutral
the authors aim,axis depth in failure
in particular, at
to check
the critical sections, which is accepted and used nowadays for RC NWAC beams, is also valid
specifically if the practical rule of limiting the neutral axis depth in failure at the critical sections, whichfor RC
LWAC
is beams.
accepted and used nowadays for RC NWAC beams, is also valid for RC LWAC beams.

2. Previous
2. Previous Experimental
Experimental Tests
Tests
A detailed
A detailed description
description of the experimental
of the experimental work work performed
performed by by the
the authors
authors can be found
can be found inin
previous articles (Bernardo et al. in 2016 [6,7]). However, a brief description of
previous articles (Bernardo et al. in 2016 [6,7]). However, a brief description of the used materials, the used materials,
tested RC
tested RC LWAC
LWAC beams
beamsandandtesting
testingprocedure
procedureisispresented
presentedhere. here.
Nineteen RC
Nineteen RC LWAC
LWACbeamsbeamswere weretested
testeduntil
untilfailure
failureunder
under four-point
four-point flexural
flexural loading
loading (Figure
(Figure 1).
1). The beams were 2.60 m long with a rectangular cross-section 0.15 m ×
The beams were 2.60 m long with a rectangular cross-section 0.15 m × 0.30 m. The concrete compressive0.30 m. The concrete
compressive
strength strength was
was measured withmeasured
150 mm cube with specimens
150 mm cube andspecimens
varied betweenand varied
22.0 andbetween 22.0(with
60.4 MPa and 60.4
dry
MPa (with dry density between 1651
3 and 1953 kg/m 3 ), and the longitudinal
density between 1651 and 1953 kg/m ), and the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio varied betweentensile reinforcement
ratio varied
0.13% between
and 2.69%. Hot 0.13
rolledand 2.69%.
ribbed Hot
steel rolled
rebars S400ribbed
were usedsteel (Figure
rebars S400 were
1). The used cover
concrete (Figure 1).2The
was cm.
concrete
In cover
order to was shear
prevent 2 cm. In orderintothe
failure prevent
regionshear failure
near the in the region
supports, sufficientnear the supports,
transverse sufficient
reinforcement
transversewas
(stirrups) reinforcement (stirrups)
provided outside the was provided
central zone. outside the central zone.

P/2 P/2

A
0.80 0.80 0.80
0.10 0.10
2.60
(m)
Section A - A
2φ 6

φ 8//0.10 m 2φ 16
h=0.30

2φ 20 + 2φ 16 4φ 16 2φ 20

Variable 2φ 12 2φ 6
2φ 10 2φ 8
b=0.15 (m)

Figure 1. Geometry and detailing of tested reinforced concrete lightweight-aggregate concrete (RC
Figure 1. Geometry and detailing of tested reinforced concrete lightweight-aggregate concrete (RC
LWAC) beams.
LWAC) beams.
Table 1 summarizes the main properties of the tested beams, namely: the average LWAC
Table 1 summarizes the main properties of the tested beams, namely: the average LWAC
compressive strength ( flc ), the dry density of LWAC (δl ), the area of longitudinal tensile reinforcement
compressive strength ( f lc ), the dry density of LWAC ( δ l ), the area of longitudinal tensile
(As ) and the adopted solutions for the steel bars (diameter φ is given in mm), the effective depth of
reinforcement ( A
the longitudinal tensiles
) and reinforcementsolutions
the adopted measured forfrom
the steel barsface
the top (diameter
(d) and theφ islongitudinal
given in mm), the
tensile
effective depthratio
reinforcement of the(ρ longitudinal tensile
= 100 × As /bd). Thereinforcement measured
name of the beams has from the top face
the following ( d ) and
meaning: the
series
longitudinal
number tensile
( flc -ρ). Threereinforcement
series were defined ρ = 100 × As / bd
ratio (as function of the ). The
range name
for the of the beams
concrete has the
compressive following
strength.
meaning: series number ( f lc - ρ ). Three series were defined as function of the range for the concrete
compressive strength.
LWAC was produced in laboratory. Portland cements type CEM I 42.5R and CEM II/B-L32.5N
(specific gravity 3.14 and 3.04 and fineness 385 and 462 m2/kg, respectively) and two mineral
additions, limestone powder and microsilica (specific gravity 2.72 and 2.17 and fineness 509 and 130
m2/kg, respectively), were used. Fine aggregates included natural normal-weight sand (Sand 0/5),
with specific gravity of 2.61 and fineness modulus of 2.705. The coarse aggregate includes only
lightweight expanded clay aggregates (Leca 4/12 with D max = 12.7 m m ) with specific gravity of 1.31,
fineness modulus of 5.958 and water absorption of 14.1% at 24 h, 3.98% at 30 min and 3.56% at 15
Materials 2019, 12, 3479 4 of 13

Table 1. Properties of tested RC LWAC beams.

Beam flc MPa δl kg/m3 As cm2 d cm ρ%

1(23.5–0.13) 23.5 1659 0.56 (2φ6) 27.7 0.13
1(22.8–0.24) 22.8 1685 1.01 (2φ8) 27.6 0.24
1(22.0–0.38) 22.0 1667 1.58 (2φ10) 27.5 0.38
1(22.4–0.55) 22.4 1651 2.26 (2φ12) 27.4 0.55
1(28.5–0.99) 28.5 1659 4.02 (2φ16) 27.2 0.99
2(45.1–0.13) 45.1 1802 0.56 (2φ6) 27.7 0.13
2(42.1–0.24) 42.1 1807 1.01 (2φ8) 27.6 0.24
2(47.1–0.38) 47.1 1809 1.58 (2φ10) 27.5 0.38
2(49.2–0.55) 49.2 1827 2.26 (2φ12) 27.4 0.55
2(43.9–0.99) 43.9 1788 4.02 (2φ16) 27.2 0.99
2(47.0–1.55) 47.0 1791 6.28 (2φ20) 27.0 1.55
2(43.0–2.03) 43.0 1790 8.04 (4φ16) 26.4 2.03
3(52.1–0.13) 52.1 1867 0.56 (2φ6) 27.7 0.13
3(51.2–0.38) 51.2 1879 1.58 (2φ10) 27.5 0.38
3(52.4–0.55) 52.4 1869 2.26 (2φ12) 27.4 0.55
3(55.3–0.99) 55.3 1910 4.02 (2φ16) 27.2 0.99
3(53.4–1.55) 53.4 1877 6.28 (2φ20) 27.0 1.55
3(60.4–2.03) 60.4 1953 8.04 (4φ16) 26.4 2.03
3(51.6–2.69) 51.6 1867 10.30 (2φ16 + 2φ20) 25.5 2.69

LWAC was produced in laboratory. Portland cements type CEM I 42.5R and CEM II/B-L32.5N
(specific gravity 3.14 and 3.04 and fineness 385 and 462 m2 /kg, respectively) and two mineral additions,
limestone powder and microsilica (specific gravity 2.72 and 2.17 and fineness 509 and 130 m2 /kg,
respectively), were used. Fine aggregates included natural normal-weight sand (Sand 0/5), with specific
gravity of 2.61 and fineness modulus of 2.705. The coarse aggregate includes only lightweight expanded
clay aggregates (Leca 4/12 with Dmax = 12.7 mm) with specific gravity of 1.31, fineness modulus of 5.958
and water absorption of 14.1% at 24 h, 3.98% at 30 min and 3.56% at 15 min. A liquid superplasticizer
was also used. Table 2 summarizes, for each series of beams, the mix proportions of the LWAC
produced in the laboratory. The slump test was between 8 and 12 cm.

Table 2. Mix proportions of LWAC (contents per cubic meter).

Constituent Materials Series 1 Series 2 Series 3

Portland cement 1 (kg): CEM II/B-L32.5N 335 - -
Portland cement 2 (kg): CEM I 42.5R - 445 494
Mineral addition 1 (kg): Limestone powder - - 35
Mineral addition 2 (kg): Microsilica - - 43
Superplasticizer (liters) 1.34 5.34 9.88
Water (liters) 174 146 153
Natural fine aggregate, Sand 0/5 (kg) 841 756 775
Lightweight coarse aggregate, Leca 4/12 (kg) 463 501 426
Water-binder ratio (in mass) 0.52 0.33 0.29

For the steel bars, the average yielding stress ( f y ) was measured through uniaxial tensile tests
and varied between 503 and 575 MPa. A constant Young’s Modulus (Es) of 200 GPa was assumed to
compute the corresponding yielding strains values (ε y ) from Hooke’s law.
Figure 2 illustrates the test set-up. To measure the horizontal strains along the height of the central
cross-sections, an external grid of Demec targets were glued in the lateral face, as illustrated in Figure 2.
A displacement transducer was placed at midspan to record the vertical displacement and a load cell
was used to record the effective applied load. In addition, resistance strain gauges were glued in the
longitudinal tensile bars (at midspan) to record the tensile strains. All tests were performed under
deformation control.
Materials 2019, 12,
Materials 2019, 12, 3479
x FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of
of 14
13
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14
P
P Load cell
Load cell

2.5
3.0
4.0
2.5
Demec targets 11 3.0
4.0
Demec targets 4.0
11 3.0
2.5
4.0
3.0
Displacement2.5transduceer
85 85
Displacement transduceer
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
85 85 (cm)
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
(cm)
Figure 2. Test set-up.
Figure
Figure 2. Test set-up.
2. Test set-up.
As
As anan example,
example, Figure
Figure 33 shows
shows aa tested
tested beam
beam after
after failure.
failure. Except
Except for
for the
the first beams of
first beams of each
each
Asthe
series, anbeams
example, Figure
failed in 3 shows
pure flexionaattested
the beamregion
central after failure.
by Except
crushing of for the first
concrete on beams
the of face.
upper each
series, the beams failed in pure flexion at the central region by crushing of concrete on the upper face.
series, the
The referredbeams
referred first failed
first beams,in pure
beams, with flexion
with the
the lowerat the central
lower reinforcement region by
reinforcement ratios, crushing
ratios, failed
failed byof concrete
by the
the tensile on the upper
tensile longitudinal face.
longitudinal bars
bars
The
The referred
without the first beams,
crushing of with
the the lower reinforcement ratios, failed by the tensile longitudinal bars
concrete.
without the crushing of the concrete.
without the crushing of the concrete.

Figure 3. Typical failure.

Figure 3. Typical failure.
3. Previous Experimental Results Figure 3. Typical failure.
3. Previous Experimental Results
This section
3. Previous summarizes
Experimental some of the results for the tested RC LWAC beams previously presented
Results
by the This section
authors summarizes
(Bernardo someand
et al. [6,7]) of which
the results for the
are needed for tested RC LWAC
the present study. beams previously
This section summarizes some of the results for
presented by the authors (Bernardo et al. [6,7]) and which are needed for the present the tested RC LWAC beamsstudy. previously
presented
3.1. by the
Load versus authors Curves
Deflection (Bernardoand et al. [6,7])Ductility
Deflection and which are needed for the present study.
Indexes
3.1. Load versus Deflection Curves and Deflection Ductility Indexes
Figure
3.1. Load 4 presents,
versus Deflection for each series
Curves of tested
and Deflection RC LWAC
Ductility Indexesbeams, the total applied load (P) versus
Figureat4 midspan
deflection presents,(δ) forcurves.
each series of tested RC
As previously LWAC beams,
explained by the the total [6],
authors applied
for theload ( Pbeams
first ) versus of
Figure
deflection at4 presents,
midspan
each series (with the lower ( for) each
curves.series
As of tested
previously RC
δ reinforcement ratio), the yielding of LWAC
explained beams,
by the the total
authors applied
[6], for load
the (
first
reinforcement suddenly occurred P ) versus
beams of
deflection
each
after series at midspan
(withFor
cracking. thethe (
lowerδ )
othercurves. As
reinforcement previously
beams, the graphs ratio), the explained
yielding
in Figure by the authors
of the typical
4 show [6],
reinforcement for the
shapes suddenly first beams
where theoccurreddomain of
each series
after
corresponding (with
cracking. For
to the the
each lower
other reinforcement
beams,
behavioral thecan
stage ratio),
graphs the yielding
in Figure
be identified. of the
4 show
Also, reinforcement
thetypical
observed shapes
trends suddenly
where
are the occurred
theexpected
domain
after cracking.
corresponding
ones. In particular, For
to eachthe other
for behavioralbeams,
the sake ofstage the graphs in Figure
can be itidentified.
this article, can be seen 4 show
Also, typical
theinobserved
that, shapes
each series trends where
(for aare the domain
the expected
given range of
corresponding
ones.
concreteIn particular, to each
strengths), for behavioral
the the stage
sake ductility
flexural can
of this article, be identified.
tends ittocan be seen
decrease Also,
as that,the observed
in each
the tensile trends are
series (for a given
reinforcement the expected
range of
ratio increases.
ones.
concrete
A In particular,
detailed strengths),
discussion for
theofthethesake
flexural of this article,
ductility
behavioral tends it
curves to can be seen
decrease
presented that,tensile
inasFigure
the in4 can
each beseries (for
reinforcement
found in a[6].
givenincreases.
ratio range of
concrete
A detailed strengths),
Based discussion
on the graphs the flexural
of the ductility
behavioral
presented tends to decrease
curves4,presented
in Figure Bernardo in as the
et Figure tensile reinforcement
4 can be found
al. [6] characterized ratio
theinflexural
[6]. increases.
ductility
A detailed
of theBased
beams discussion
onby the graphs
using of the behavioral
presented
a deflection curves
in Figure
ductility 4,presented
index. Bernardo
This index in Figure
et al. 4 can beasfound
[6] characterized
was defined theinflexural
follows: [6]. ductility
of theBased
beams onby the graphs
using presentedductility
a deflection in Figure 4, Bernardo
index. This index et al.was
[6] characterized
defined as follows:the flexural ductility
of the beams by using a deflection ductility index. δu index was defined as follows:
This
µδ = δ u (1)
μ δ =δy (1)
δ uy
δ
μδ = (1)
In Equation (1), δu is the ultimate deflection corresponding δy to the ultimate load and δ y is the
In Equation (1), δ u is the ultimate deflection corresponding to the ultimate load and δ y is the
yielding deflection(1), corresponding to the yielding of the longitudinal to tensile reinforcement. The ultimate
In Equation
yielding δ u is the ultimate deflection corresponding the ultimate load and δ is the
deflection was defined in a conventional way from the P–δ curves (this discussion can be foundy in The
deflection corresponding to the yielding of the longitudinal tensile reinforcement. [6]),
yielding
ultimate
it correspondsdeflection
deflection
to the corresponding
was defined of
deflection a to
in the the yielding
conventional
intersection way offrom
point the longitudinal
the
between Pthe tensile
– δdescending
curves (thisreinforcement.
discussion
branch of thecan The
be
curve
ultimate
founda in
with deflection was
[6]), it corresponds
horizontal defined in a
to the the
line that across conventional
deflection
yielding way
of point. from
the intersection the
For P–δ curves P – δ curves
point between
with nothe(this discussion
descending
descending can
branch
branches, be
found
of
the the in [6]),deflection
curve
ultimate itwith
corresponds is theto
a horizontal theline
deflection
corresponding ofthe
that across
to thelast
intersection
the yielding
point on point
point.
the between
curve.For Pthe – δdescending
curves with branch
no
of the curve with a horizontal line that across the yielding point.
descending branches, the ultimate deflection is the corresponding to the last point on the curve. no For P – δ curves with
descending branches, the ultimate deflection is the corresponding to the last point on the curve.
Materials 2019, 12, 3479 6 of 13
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14

140 240
1(23.5-0.13) 2(45.1-0.13)
120 1(22.8-0.24) 200 2(42.1-0.24)
1(22.0-0.38) 2(47.1-0.38)
100 1(22.4-0.55)
160 2(49.2-0.55)
1(28.5-0.99)
P (kN)

2(43.9-0.99)

P (kN)
80 Yielding
120 2(47.0-1.55)
60 2(43.0-2.03)
80 Yielding
40

20 40
0
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
δ (mm)
δ (mm)
(a) (b)
300
3(52.1-0.13)
250 3(51.2-0.38)
3(52.4-0.55)
200 3(55.3-0.99)
3(53.4-1.55)
P (kN)

150 3(60.4-2.03)
3(51.6-2.69)
100 Yielding

50

0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
δ (mm)
(c)
Figure
Figure 4. 4. Loadversus
Load versusdeflection
deflection curves:
curves:(a)
(a)series 1; (b)
series series
1; (b) 2; (c)
series 2;series 3. 3.
(c) series

Table 3 summarizes,
Table 3 summarizes,forforeach
eachtested
tested beam, theobtained
beam, the obtainedvalues
values
forfor
thethe deflection
deflection ductility
ductility index index
(µδ ). μThe
( δ
). The first beam of each series were not included because the last part of their experimental
first beam of each series were not included because the last part of their experimental P – P–δ
δ curves
curves were not
wereconsidered reliable
not considered to obtain
reliable δu . δ u .
to obtain

3.2. Plastic Rotation

3.2. Plastic versus
Rotation Deflection
versus DeflectionCurves
Curves and PlasticTrend
and Plastic TrendParameters
Parameters
Figure 5 represents,
Figure 5 represents,for foreach seriesofoftested
each series tested beams,
beams, the plastic
the plastic rotation
rotation of thesection
of the critical critical(θsection
p)

(θp ) versus deflectionatat

versus deflection midspan
midspan ( δ (δ) curves.
) curves. TheThe non-dimensional
non-dimensional axes areaxes are explained
explained latter.asAgain,
latter. Again,
explainedbefore,
as explained before, the
thefirst
firstbeam
beamofof each series
each were
series not included
were because
not included the lastthe
because part of part
last P their
their of – δ P–δ
curves were not considered reliable to obtain δ . In addition, the longitudinal tensile
curves were not considered reliable to obtain δu .u In addition, the longitudinal tensile reinforcement of reinforcement
Beam of 3(51.6–2.69)
Beam 3(51.6–2.69) yielded
yielded rightright before
before failure,so
failure, sothe
the failure
failurewaswaseffectively
effectivelybrittle. For this
brittle. Forreason,
this reason,
the behavior of this beam lies entirely in the elastic domain and was not included in Figure 5. A5.detailed
the behavior of this beam lies entirely in the elastic domain and was not included in Figure A
detailed explanation of how the graphs from Figure 5 were obtained can be found in [7]. However, a
explanation of how the graphs from Figure 5 were obtained can be found in [7]. However, a brief
brief summary of the procedure used is given below.
summary of the procedure used is given below.
As a first step, for each tested beam, the experimental and theoretical curves for the rotation of
As a first step, for each tested beam, the experimental and theoretical curves for the rotation of
the critical section ( θ ) versus deflection at midspan ( δ ) were obtained. The experimental rotation
the critical sectionby(θ)
was obtained versus deflection
multiplying at midspan
the experimental (δ) were
curvature obtained.
in the The experimental
critical section rotation
by a length equal to was
obtained
1 .2 h , being h the height of the cross-section (Figure 1). According to Eurocode 2 [9], 1 .2 hto 1.2h,
by multiplying the experimental curvature in the critical section by a length equal
being h the height
corresponds of the
to the lengthcross-section (Figure
of the local plastic 1). According
hinge of beams with to ductile
Eurocode 2 [9],
failure. The1.2h corresponds
curvature was to
the length
computed of the
fromlocal plastic hingestrains
the experimental of beams with along
measured ductilethefailure.
height of The
thecurvature
cross-sectionswasincomputed
the failure from
zone, which were
the experimental recorded
strains from thealong
measured external
thegrid of Demec
height of thetargets (Figure 2) by
cross-sections inusing a Demec
the failure strainwhich
zone,
gauge for several loading levels. From the experimental strains, and
were recorded from the external grid of Demec targets (Figure 2) by using a Demec strain gauge by assuming Bernoulli´s
Hypothesis, an experimental average strain diagram was obtained through linear regression analysis.
for several loading levels. From the experimental strains, and by assuming Bernoulli’s Hypothesis,
The angle of this diagram with the vertical is the curvature. The theoretical θ – δ curves were
an experimental average strain diagram was obtained through linear regression analysis. The angle
of this diagram with the vertical is the curvature. The theoretical θ–δ curves were obtained from a
theoretical elastic analysis (TEA), by using elasticity theory, and a theoretical plastic analysis (TPA)
assuming a simple mechanism with a local plastic hinge at midspan.
Materials 2019, 12, 3479 7 of 13

Table 3. Parameters to study the neutral axis depth.

Beam µδ PTP % (x/d)exp (x/d)th

1(22.8–0.24) 10.4 9.8 0.223 0.074
1(22.0–0.38) 5.9 5.8 0.165 0.123
1(22.4–0.55) 3.5 3.2 0.350 0.164
1(28.5–0.99) 2.0 1.8 0.385 0.249
2(42.1–0.24) 12.4 11.2 0.163 0.040
2(47.1–0.38) 7.2 6.9 0.299 0.057
2(49.2–0.55) 4.5 4.4 0.238 0.075
2(43.9–0.99) 3.0 2.7 0.258 0.161
2(47.0–1.55) 1.7 1.5 0.369 0.236
2(43.0–2.03) 1.4 0.9 0.370 0.339
3(51.2–0.38) 6.7 6.5 0.140 0.053
3(52.4–0.55) 3.9 3.8 0.220 0.070
3(55.3–0.99) 2.9 2.6 0.282 0.128
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
3(53.4–1.55) 2.0 1.9 0.346 0.207 7 of 14
3(60.4–2.03) 1.2 0.9 0.408 0.242
obtained from a theoretical elastic analysis
3(51.6–2.69) ≈1.0 (TEA), ≈0
by using elasticity
0.585 theory, and a theoretical plastic
0.374
analysis (TPA) assuming a simple mechanism with a local plastic hinge at midspan.
1.0 1.0
1(22.8-0.24) 2(42.1-0.24)
1(22.0-0.38) 2(47.1-0.38)
1(22.4-0.55) 2(49.2-0.55)
0.8 0.8
1(28.5-0.99) 2(43.9-0.99)
TPA 2(47.0-1.55)
2(43.0-2.03)
θp / θp,u,th

θp / θp,u,th

0.6 0.6 TPA

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
δ / δu δ / δu
(a) (b)
1.0
3(51.2-0.38)
3(52.4-0.55)
0.8 3(55.3-0.99)
3(53.4-1.55)
3(60.4-2.03)
θp / θp,u,th

0.6 TPA

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
δ / δu
(c)
Figure
Figure 5. 5.Plastic
Plasticrotation
rotationversus
versus deflection
deflection curves:
curves: (a)
(a)series
series1;1;(b)
(b)series
series2;2;(c)(c)
series 3. 3.
series

As a second step, the elastic rotations computed from the TEA were subtracted to the
experimental rotations θ to obtain the experimental plastic rotations θ p . In order to draw graphs
with dimensionless axes, θ p is divided by θ p , u , th which represents the ultimate value of the
theoretical plastic rotation computed from the TPA and corresponding to the ultimate experimental
Materials 2019, 12, 3479 8 of 13

As a second step, the elastic rotations computed from the TEA were subtracted to the experimental
rotations θ to obtain the experimental plastic rotations θp . In order to draw graphs with dimensionless
axes, θp is divided by θp,u,th which represents the ultimate value of the theoretical plastic rotation
computed from the TPA and corresponding to the ultimate experimental value of the deflection (δu ).
In addition, δ is divided by δu . From this procedure, the graphs represented in Figure 5 were drawn.
Such graphs include the experimental curves and also the theoretical curves obtained from TPA.
To characterize the plastic rotation capacity of the tested RC LWAC beams in the critical region,
Bernardo et al. [7] defined an experimental parameter, called the plastic trend parameter (PTP).
This parameter was obtained as follows.
From the graphs in Figure 5, two parameters called Cp,exp and Cp,th are computed. They represent,
respectively, the areas below the experimental curve and below the theoretical curve (TPA). Parameter
PTP is defined to be the ratio Cp,exp /Cp,th . This parameter estimates the experimental plastic rotation
capacity level when compared with the theoretical one (TPA). The higher the value of PTP, larger
the experimental plastic rotation capacity of the beam. Table 3 summarizes, for each tested beam,
the values obtained for PTP.

4. Neutral Axis Depth versus Bending Moment at the Critical Sections

As referred before in the introduction section, for RC NWAC beams it is accepted that flexural
ductility may be achieved through a correct design of the cross-section so that the relative neutral axis
depth in failure (x/d) is small. This criterion is only valid for cross-sections under simple bending,
such as the critical sections of the tested RC LWAC beams. In order to verify if this criterion is also valid
for RC LWAC beams, the study of the evolution of the neutral axis depth through all loading history is
important. In addition, the value of parameter x/d in failure and its variation with the ductility and
the plastic rotation capacity is also important. The main objective of this section is to check if this
evolution follows the same tendencies previously observed and accepted for RC NWAC beams.
Figure 6 represents, for each series of tested beams (same beams included in Figure 5), and for
the critical section, experimental graphs with the evolution of the relative neutral axis depth (x/d) as
function of the ratio M/Mu , being M the bending moment at the critical section of the tested beams
and Mu the ultimate bending moment (maximum moment). For a given beam and for each load
level, the values of x/d at the critical section were calculated from the experimental average strain
diagrams along the height of the section, which was obtained through a linear regression analysis of
the measured strains with the external grid of Demec targets, as explained in Section 3.2.
From the graphs in Figure 6, three distinct zones for the evolution of the neutral axis depth can be
observed as the bending moment increases.
In the first zone, x/d decreases as the bending moment increases. Since the critical region is under
a positive bending moment, this observation is equivalent to stating that the neutral axis rises as the
bending moment increases. In the uncracked stage, the neutral axis starts a little below to the mid
height of the cross-section because of the influence of the longitudinal tensile reinforcement. This stage
was hard to be recorded in the tested beams because the first crack in the critical section occurs for a low
loading level, about 10 to 15% of the failure load. For most of the tested beams, the first measurement
of the strains along the height of the cross-sections was performed after the appearance of the first
crack. For this reason, x/d starts to decrease in the graphs in Figure 6. The first zone observed in the
graphs corresponds to the development of a flexural crack which increases as the bending moment
increases, both in depth and in width.
In the second zone observed in the graphs from Figure 6, x/d tends to stabilize as the bending
moment increases. This behavior is due to the cracking stabilization in the central region of the beams.
At this stage, the main crack does not develop any further. Instead, new cracks are appearing as the
bending moment increases, outside the critical section.
Materials 2019, 12, 3479 9 of 13
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

1.0 1.0
1(22.8-0.24) 2(42.1-0.24)
1(22.0-0.38) 2(47.1-0.38)
0.8 0.8
1(22.4-0.55) 2(49.2-0.55)
2(43.9-0.99)
1(28.5-0.99)
0.6 0.6

x/d
x/d

2(47.0-1.55)
2(43.0-2.03)
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
M/Mu M/Mu
(a) (b)
1.0
3(51.2-0.38)

0.8 3(52.4-0.55)
3(55.3-0.99)
0.6 3(53.4-1.55)
x/d

3(60.4-2.03)
0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
M/Mu
(c)
Figure
Figure 6. 6.Neutral
Neutralaxis
axisdepth
depth versus
versus bending
bendingmoment
momentcurves:
curves:(a)(a)
series 1; (b)
series series
1; (b) 2, (c)2,series
series 3. 3.
(c) series

Finally, thethe
Finally, third zone
third zonecorresponds
correspondstotoaasudden decrease of x/d,
sudden decrease x / d or
, orsudden
suddenrise
riseofofthe
theneutral
neutral axis,
axis, up to the ultimate moment is reached in the critical section. This behavior starts
up to the ultimate moment is reached in the critical section. This behavior starts when the longitudinal when the
longitudinal
tensile tensile reinforcement
reinforcement yields, whichyields,
forceswhich forces
the main the main
crack crack toeven
to develop develop evendue
further further duesudden
to the to
risethe
ofsudden rise of
the strains in the
thestrains in the steel bars.
steel bars.
TheThe presentedevolution
presented evolutionofof the
the neutral
neutral axis
axisdepth
depthatatthe
thecritical sections
critical with
sections loading
with agree
loading withwith
agree
what was observed in previous studies with RC NWAC beams (for instance, Bernardo and Lopes in
what was observed in previous studies with RC NWAC beams (for instance, Bernardo and Lopes in
2004 [10]).
2004 [10]).
Table 3 summarizes the values obtained for the relative neutral axis depth x / d . Two types of
Table 3 summarizes the values obtained for the relative neutral axis depth x/d. Two types
values are present, an experimental ( ( x / d ) exp ) and a theoretical ( ( x / d ) th ) one. The experimental
of values are present, an experimental ((x/d)exp ) and a theoretical ((x/d)th ) one. The experimental
value ( x / d ) exp was computed from the experimental average strain diagrams along the height of
value (x/d )exp was computed from the experimental average strain diagrams along the height of the
the critical
critical section,section, assuming
assuming a conventional
a conventional failure
failure forcross-section.
for the the cross-section. It was
It was assumed
assumed thatthat
thethe
critical
critical section reaches the conventional failure in bending when the maximum
section reaches the conventional failure in bending when the maximum compressive strain in concretecompressive strain in
concrete reaches the ultimate conventional value stated from Eurocode 2 [9]
reaches the ultimate conventional value stated from Eurocode 2 [9] for LWAC. This value is givenfor LWAC. This value is by
given by ε lcu = 0.0035 η1 , where η1 = 0.4 + 0.6 δ l / 2200 is a correction factor accounting for the dry
εlcu = 0.0035η1 , where η1 = 0.4 + 0.6δl /2200 is a correction factor accounting for the dry density δl of
LWAC (seeδTable
density l
of LWAC
1). The(see Table 1). value
theoretical The theoretical
(x/d)th wasvalue ( x / d ) th from
computed was computed
equilibriumfromandequilibrium
compatibility
and compatibility
equations at ultimate equations at ultimate
limit state limit state
of the critical of theTo
section. critical
define section. To define theconcrete
the compressive compressive
stresses,
theconcrete stresses,
simplified method the simplified method
of rectangular of rectangular
stress block fromstress
Eurocodeblock 2from Eurocode
[9] was used. 2 [9] was used.
Table 3 shows that the theoretical values for the relative neutral axis depth, (x/d)th , are remarkably
smaller than the corresponding experimental ones, (x/d)exp . This difference may be due to a certain
inadequacy of the parameters which define the rectangular stress block in Eurocode 2 [9]. It may be
possible that such parameters still need to be adjusted for LWAC, at least for the concrete type used in
Table 3. Parameters to study the neutral axis depth.
this study. It should be noted that using the lower values of (x/d)th for design, when compared to
the experimental ones, will lead to lower values for the redistribution coefficient, as established in
 Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14

3(52.4–0.55) 3.9 3.8 0.220 0.070

3(55.3–0.99) 2.9 2.6 0.282 0.128
3(53.4–1.55) 2.0 1.9 0.346 0.207
Materials 2019, 12, 3479 10 of 13
3(60.4–2.03) 1.2 0.9 0.408 0.242
3(51.6–2.69) ≈1.0 ≈0 0.585 0.374
Eurocode 2 [9]. This will lead to an apparently higher redistribution capacity of the beams and shows
Table 3 shows that the theoretical values for the relative neutral axis depth, ( x / d ) th , are
the importance of the matter.
remarkably smaller than the corresponding experimental ones, ( x / d ) exp . This difference may be due
5. Analysis
to a certainofinadequacy
the Neutral Axis
of the Depth which define the rectangular stress block in Eurocode 2 [9].
parameters
It may be possible that such parameters still need to be adjusted for LWAC, at least for the concrete
5.1.type
Evolution
used inofthis
the study.
Neutral
It Axis Depth
should with Ductility
be noted that usingand
the Plastic Rotation
lower values of Capacity
( x / d ) th for design, when
compared
Figures 7toand
the8experimental
illustrate theones, will of
relations lead
thetorelative
lower values
neutralfor the
axis ((x/d)exp and
redistribution
depth (x/d)thas
coefficient, ) with
theestablished in Eurocode
flexural ductility 2 [9].with
(µδ ) and Thisthe
willplastic
lead torotation
an apparently
capacity higher redistribution
(PTP), respectively.capacity
In theirofprevious
the
beamsthe
studies, and showsobserved
authors the importance of influence
that the the matter.of the compressive concrete strength in these parameters
is small [6,7]. For this reason, all beams are included in the same graph, independently of their
5. Analysis of the Neutral Axis Depth
compressive concrete strength. Only beam 3(51.6–2.69) with no ductility was not included. The graphs
in Figures 7 andof8the
5.1. Evolution include
Neutraltendency
Axis Depthlines
withtoDuctility
emphasize the evolution
and Plastic of the studied parameters.
Rotation Capacity

12 12
y = -28.182x + 12.501 y = -28.8x + 8.8386
10 R² = 0.5454 10 R² = 0.5979

8 8

6 6
μδ
μδ

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
(x/d)exp (x/d)th
(a) (b)
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14
Figure
Figure 7.7.Neutral
Neutralaxis
axisdepth
depth versus
versus flexural
flexuralductility:
ductility:(a)(a)
experimental; (b) (b)
experimental; theoretical.
theoretical.

10 10
Figure 7 and 8 illustrate the relations of the relative neutral axis depth ( ( x / d ) exp y and
y = -27.447x + 11.974 ( x / d+ )8.4316
= -28.212x th
)
R² = 0.5781 R² =In
0.6412
8 the flexural ductility ( μ δ ) and with the plastic rotation
with 8 capacity (PTP), respectively. their
previous studies, the authors observed that the influence of the compressive concrete strength in
6
these parameters is small [6,7]. For this reason, all 6 beams are included in the same graph,
PTP

PTP

independently of their compressive concrete strength. Only beam 3(51.6–2.69) with no ductility was
4 4
not included. The graphs in Figure 7 and 8 include tendency lines to emphasize the evolution of the
studied parameters.
2 2

0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
(x/d)exp (x/d)th
(a) (b)

Figure 8. 8.Neutral
Figure Neutralaxis
axisdepth
depth versus plasticrotation
versus plastic rotationcapacity:
capacity:(a)(a) experimental;
experimental; (b) (b) theoretical.
theoretical.

Figures
Figure7 7and
and8 show
8 show that both
that (x/d
both ( x)exp
/ d )and
exp
(x/d()xth/ parameters
and followfollow
d ) th parameters the same general
the same tendency,
general
which is that as the neutral axis depth at failure rises, both the flexural ductility and
tendency, which is that as the neutral axis depth at failure rises, both the flexural ductility and plasticplastic rotation
capacity
rotation capacity decrease. This tendency was observed in previous studies and is accepted for NWAC
decrease. This tendency was observed in previous studies and is accepted for RC RC
beams
NWAC (forbeams
instance(for[10]). Therefore,
instance for the tested
[10]). Therefore, for theRC LWAC
tested RC LWACbeams,beams,
the experimental results
the experimental confirm
results
theconfirm
validitytheofvalidity
the designof therule used
design forused
rule RC for NWAC RC NWACbeamsbeamsto ensure flexural
to ensure ductility
flexural andand
ductility plastic
plastic behavior
behavior by limitingby the
limiting the axis
neutral neutral axisin
depth depth in the critical
the critical sections.
sections.

5.2. Influence of the Longitudinal Tensile Reinforcement Ratio

Figure 9 illustrates the relations of the relative neutral axis depth ( ( x / d ) exp and ( x / d ) th ) with
the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio ( ρ ). All beams are again included in the same graph,
excepted Beam 3(51.6–2.69). Again, tendency lines are drawn to emphasize the evolution of the
parameters studied.
Figure 9 shows that, for both the experimental and theoretical ( x / d ) parameters, the neutral
axis depth at failure increases as the longitudinal reinforcement ratio increases. This observation
 exp th

the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio ( ρ ). All beams are again included in the same graph,
excepted Beam 3(51.6–2.69). Again, tendency lines are drawn to emphasize the evolution of the
parameters studied.
Figure 9 shows that, for both the experimental and theoretical ( x / d ) parameters, the neutral
Materials 2019, 12, 3479 11 of 13
axis depth at failure increases as the longitudinal reinforcement ratio increases. This observation
explains why beams with higher longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio presents lower ductility and
5.2.plastic rotation
Influence of thecapacity, as observed
Longitudinal TensileinReinforcement
Figures 4 and Ratio
5. This confirms the previous observations from
the authors [6,7]. Again, the observed tendency was also observed in other previous studies and is
Figure for
accepted 9 illustrates
RC NWACthe relations
beams of the [10,11].
(for instance relativeTherefore,
neutral axis depth
for the ((x/d
tested RC)LWAC (x/d)ththe
exp andbeams, ) with
theexperimental
longitudinalresults
tensile reinforcement
confirm the validityratio (ρ).
of the All beams
additional arerule
design again
usedincluded in the beams
for RC NWAC same graph,
to
ensure flexural ductility and plastic behavior, which limits the quantity of
excepted Beam 3(51.6–2.69). Again, tendency lines are drawn to emphasize the evolution of the longitudinal tensile
reinforcement
parameters in the critical sections.
studied.

0.5 0.4

0.4 0.3
(x/d)exp

(x/d)th
0.3 0.2

0.2 y = 0.1103x + 0.1825 0.1 y = 0.1285x + 0.0331

R² = 0.6128 R² = 0.7921

0.1 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
ρ (%) ρ (%)
(a) (b)

Figure 9. Neutral axis depth versus longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio: (a) experimental;
(b) theoretical.

Figure 9 shows that, for both the experimental and theoretical (x/d) parameters, the neutral axis
depth at failure increases as the longitudinal reinforcement ratio increases. This observation explains
why beams with higher longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio presents lower ductility and plastic
rotation capacity, as observed in Figures 4 and 5. This confirms the previous observations from the
authors [6,7]. Again, the observed tendency was also observed in other previous studies and is accepted
for RC NWAC beams (for instance [10,11]. Therefore, for the tested RC LWAC beams, the experimental
results confirm the validity of the additional design rule used for RC NWAC beams to ensure flexural
ductility and plastic behavior, which limits the quantity of longitudinal tensile reinforcement in the
critical sections.

5.3. Influence of the Concrete Compressive Strength

To study the influence of the concrete compressive strength in the neutral axis depth, the tested
beams must be grouped with similar longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratios. From Table 1, two groups
with a relevant number of tested beams can be defined, namely:

• group A, with an average longitudinal reinforcement (ρm ) equal to 0.47%, including Beams
1(22.0–0.38), 1(22.4–0.55), 2(47.1–0.38), 2(49.2–0.55), 3(51.2–0.38) and 3(52.4–0.55);
• group B, with an average longitudinal reinforcement (ρm ) equal to 1.21%, including Beams
1(28.5–0.99), 2(43.9–0.99), 2(47.0–1.55), 3(55.3–0.99) and 3(53.4–1.55).

Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the relations of the relative neutral axis depth ((x/d)exp and (x/d)th )
with the concrete compressive strength for groups A and B, respectively. Again, tendency lines
are drawn.
From Figures 10 and 11, it can be seen that, for both the experimental and theoretical (x/d)
parameters, the neutral axis depth at failure slightly decreases as the concrete compressive strength
increases. This shows that the increase of the concrete compressive strength seems to be slightly
favorable for the flexural ductility and plastic rotation capacity of the tested RC LWAC beams. When
compared with the results of the previous section, it is clear that, among the two variable studies for
the tested beams, the longitudinal reinforcement ratio is the most important. This also confirms the
previous observations from the authors [6,7].
 parameters, the neutral axis depth at failure slightly decreases as the concrete compressive strength
parameters, the neutral axis depth at failure slightly decreases as the concrete compressive strength
increases. This shows that the increase of the concrete compressive strength seems to be slightly
increases. This shows that the increase of the concrete compressive strength seems to be slightly
favorable for the flexural ductility and plastic rotation capacity of the tested RC LWAC beams. When
favorable for the flexural ductility and plastic rotation capacity of the tested RC LWAC beams. When
compared with the results of the previous section, it is clear that, among the two variable studies for
compared with the results of the previous section, it is clear that, among the two variable studies for
the tested beams, the longitudinal reinforcement ratio is the most important. This also confirms the
the tested beams, the longitudinal reinforcement ratio is the most important. This also confirms the
Materials
previous 12, 3479
2019,observations from the authors [6,7]. 12 of 13
previous observations from the authors [6,7].

0.5 0.3
0.5 0.3
y = -0.0015x + 0.2955 y = -0.0028x + 0.2047
y = -0.0015x + 0.2955 y = -0.0028x + 0.2047
0.4 R² = 0.0723 R² = 0.8539
0.4 R² = 0.0723 R² = 0.8539
0.2
0.2
exp

th th
0.3

(x/d)
(x/d)exp

0.3

(x/d)
(x/d)

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2

0.1 0.0
0.1 0.0
20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60
20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60
fcl (MPa) fcl (MPa)
fcl (MPa) fcl (MPa)
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 10. Neutral axis depth versus concrete compressive strength (group A): (a) experimental; (b)
Figure
Figure 10.10.Neutral
Neutral axis
axis depth
depthversus
versusconcrete compressive
concrete strength
compressive (group
strength A): (a)A):
(group experimental; (b)
(a) experimental;
theoretical.
theoretical.
(b) theoretical.

0.5 0.3
0.5 0.3

0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
exp

th th

0.3
(x/d)
(x/d)exp

0.3
(x/d)
(x/d)

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2 y = -0.0024x + 0.4395 y = -0.003x + 0.3339
y = -0.0024x + 0.4395 y = -0.003x + 0.3339
R² = 0.22 R² = 0.3965
R² = 0.22 R² = 0.3965
0.1 0.0
0.1 0.0
20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60
20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60
fcl (MPa) fcl (MPa)
fcl (MPa) fcl (MPa)
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Neutral axis depth versus concrete compressive strength (group B): (a) experimental;
(b) theoretical.

6. Conclusions
In this article, an experimental study on the evolution of the neutral axis depth at failure in the
critical cross-section of RC LWAC beams was presented. From the results obtained, the following main
conclusions can be drawn:

• It was found that the evolution of the neutral axis depth for RC LWAC beams as the load increases
is identical to the same reported and accepted for RC NWAC beams. This seems to indicate that
the behavior of the formation and opening of the cracks for RC NWAC is also valid for RC LWAC;
• It was also found that both the flexural ductility and plastic rotation capacity of the RC LWAC
beams increase as the neutral axis depth in failure decreases, as was also observed for RC NWAC
beams. Therefore, the practical rule of limiting the neutral axis depth in the critical sections,
to assure adequate flexural ductility and plastic rotation capacity levels, is also valid for RC
LWAC beams;
• The results shown that the neutral axis depth in failure rises as the longitudinal tensile reinforcement
ratio increases, as was observed and is accepted for RC NWAC beams. Therefore, the additional practical
rule of limiting the quantity of longitudinal tensile reinforcement in the critical sections, to assure
adequate flexural ductility and plastic rotation capacity levels, is also valid for RC LWAC beams;
• The results also show that the increase of concrete compressive strength seems to be favorable
for both the flexural ductility and plastic rotation capacity for RC LWAC beams, since it was
observed that the neutral axis depth at failure slightly decreases as the concrete compressive
Materials 2019, 12, 3479 13 of 13

strength increases. However, the influence of the concrete compressive strength shown to be
much lower than the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio;
• Finally, it was also found that the theoretical formulation from Eurocode 2 [9] based on the
rectangular stress block diagram for concrete in compression, to compute the neutral axis depth
at failure, does not give values approximate to those obtained from the experimental data.
The theoretical values obtained were smaller when compared to those calculated experimentally.
Therefore, the parameters to define the rectangular stress block as stated by Eurocode 2 [9] seems to
still need to be adjusted for LWAC and some further research on this matter should be considered.

Author Contributions: H.P. performed the experimental tests, processed the recorded data and performed the
comparative analyzes. All the work was done under the supervision of L.B. and M.N. L.B. and M.N. wrote the
paper with review by H.P.
Funding: This work was financed by Portuguese national funds through FCT—Foundation for Science
and Technology, IP, within the research unit C-MADE, Centre of Materials and Building Technologies
(UID/ECI/04082/2019 project), University of Beira Interior, Portugal.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bogas, J.A.; Gomes, A. Compressive behaviour and failure modes of structural lightweight aggregate
concrete—Characterization and strength prediction. Mater. Des. 2013, 46, 832–841. [CrossRef]
2. Domagala, L. Modification of properties of structural lightweight concrete with steel fibres. J. Civ. Eng. Manag.
2011, 17, 36–44. [CrossRef]
3. Cui, H.Z.; Lo, T.Y.; Memon, S.A.; Xu, W. Effect of lightweight aggregate on the mechanical properties and
brittleness of lightweight aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 35, 149–158. [CrossRef]
4. Jung, I.H.; Yang, W.J.; Yi, W.H.; Jee, S.W.; Lee, S.Y. Flexural Behavior of High-Strength Lightweight Concrete
Beam with Eco Lightweight Aggregates. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Fracture and
Damage Mechanics, Madeira, Portugal, 17–19 July 2007; pp. 733–736.
5. Liu, M.Y.; Lin, C.; Li, O.; Ding, Q.J.; Hu, S.G. Flexural Performance of Reinforced High-Strength Lightweight
Concrete Beams. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Structural Engineering for Young
Experts, Fuzhou, China, 18–21 August 2006; pp. 264–270.
6. Bernardo, L.F.A.; Nepomuceno, M.C.S.; Pinto, H.A.S. Flexural ductility of lightweight-aggregate concrete
beams. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2016, 22, 622–633. [CrossRef]
7. Bernardo, L.F.A.; Nepomuceno, M.C.S.; Pinto, H.A.S. Plastic rotation capacity of lightweight-aggregate
concrete beams. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2016, 22, 1032–1041. [CrossRef]
8. Sin, L.H.; Huan, W.T.; Islam, M.R.; Mansur, M.A. Reinforced lightweight concrete beams in flexure.
ACI Struct. J. 2010, 108, 3–12.
9. NP EN 1992-1-1. 2010. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures-Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Building;
European Committee for Standardization—CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
10. Bernardo, L.F.A.; Lopes, S.M.R. Neutral axis depth versus flexural ductility in high strength concrete beams.
J. Struct. Eng. 2004, 130, 452–459. [CrossRef]
11. Bernardo, L.F.A.; Lopes, S.M.R. Flexural ductility of HSC beams. Struct. Concr. 2003, 4, 135–154. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).