Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 251259

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

Experimental investigation of ultimate capacity of wired mesh-reinforced cementitious slabs

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Experimental tests conducted on 27 square cementitious slabs of 490 490 mm simply supported on four edges and subjected to patch load are presented. The slabs had a clear span of 400 400 mm and provided with a 445 445 mm closed frame of 8 mm diameter steel bar to hold the reinforcement in place and to act as a line support. The test variables were the wire mesh volume fraction: four expanded and two square types; slab thickness: 40, 45, 50 and 60 mm; and the patch load pattern: square and rectangular. The test results showed that as the volume fraction increased the punching strength of the slabs was also increased. Adding a wire mesh to ordinary reinforcement increases signicantly the punching resistance at column stub. Moreover, as the loaded area size increases both ductility and stiffness increases and the bridging effect due to the difference in the reinforcement ratio in orthogonal directions was clearly noticed. More research was needed to identify the volume fraction ratio at which the mode of failure alter from exure to punching. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 10 March 2010 Received in revised form 19 June 2010 Accepted 19 June 2010

Keywords: Ferrocement Slabs Square Punching Patch Wire mesh

1. Introduction Ferrocement is suitable for low-cost roong, pre-cast units, man-hole covers, etc. It can be used for the construction of domes, vaults, shells, grid surfaces and folded plates. It is a good substitute for timber. It can be used for making furniture, doors and window frames, shutters and partitions. It can also be used for making water tanks, boats and silos. Ferrocement is the best alternative to concrete and steel. The most signicant contribution of ferrocement is that most of the structures made of traditional materials can also be constructed in ferrocement [1,2]. Ferrocement has been used effectively for affordable roong applications around the world hence at rst glance it seems a viable solution for rural areas in Egypt. However, it is still not replacing steel and concrete to a large extent in spite of its major advantage over reinforced concrete because many engineers are not convinced about this material yet. Moreover, there are also some professionals who, without a proper study, have said that ferrocement is not a good material. The main reason is that they compare ferrocement to reinforced concrete. To adopt this material in actual Egyptian practice and to enrichment the information and understanding of its behavior, an experimental investigation was performed on cementitious slabs of thickness greater than the common thickness of ferrocement (range 1025 mm) and rein-

* Tel.: +20 105110316; fax: +20 119187871. E-mail address: [email protected] 0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.032

forced with low cost local steel wire mesh to cover some of its behavioral aspects under patch loading. Since punching shear failure in reinforced concrete slabs subjected to concentrated load is brittle, evaluation of punching shear resistance of cementitious slabs reinforced with wire mesh should also be highlighted. Punching shear has been the object of an intense experimental effort since the 1950s. Punching failure of slabs based on experimental results was addressed by various authors, among others: Menetrey [3], Mansur et al. [4], Naaman et al. [5], and Aurelio Muttoni [6] whereas experimental study of exural behavior of ferrocement and cementitious composite two way slabs were reported by many investigator among them: El Debs and Naaman [7] and Shannag et al. [8]. Since the punching capacity of cementitious slabs reinforced with wire mesh is the main objective of this study, an experimental investigation on 27 simply supported slabs is reported too. The slabs were tested to failure to investigate the deformation and strength characteristics under patch loading. The slab reinforcement is either expanded steel mesh or a square mesh. Four types of expanded steel mesh (diamond) and two types of square mesh were used. The slabs were square of side length of 490 mm and clear span of 400 mm. The specimens were provided with 8 mm diameter skeletal steel bar as a square closed frame with inner side dimension of 445 mm that should provide line support. Primary variables investigated include also the volume fraction of reinforcement, the slab thickness: 40, 45, 50 and 60 mm; and the centric load pattern: square area of 80 80 mm or rectangular area of 55 360 mm.

252 Table 1 Sieve analysis results for the sand. Sieve size (mm) % Passing by weight Sand grading [2] 2.36 100 800100 1.18 86.54 5085

H.M. Ibrahim / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 251259 2. Experimental program 0.600 61.63 2560 0.300 24.77 1030 0.150 3.69 210 0.075 0.88 N/A The experimental program consists of 27 cementitious slabs. Two of these slabs were the control specimens and made of plain mortar. For the sake of comparison with traditional steel, two cementitious slab specimens reinforced with 6 mm steel bars arranged in two orthogonal directions and spaced 100 mm apart were cast. To evaluate the effect of combining traditional steel with wire mesh reinforcement on the punching shear capacity, a diamond wire mesh of diameter 1.5 mm was added to one of those slabs. All slab specimens were tested using a universal testing machine under monotonic loading up to failure. The slabs were square with a side length of 490 mm and thickness of 4060 mm and were reinforced with a single layer of wire mesh placed at 10 mm from the tension side. They are identied using three abbreviated terms: the rst term represents the wire mesh reinforcement type (D for diamond and S for square mesh); the second term represents the type of loading pattern (P for square patch loaded area of 80 80 mm with disk height of 20 mm and L for rectangular loaded area of 55 360 mm with maximum semi cylinder disk height of 70 mm at center area and, the last term represents the thickness of wire mesh (3.0, or 0.63 mm for square mesh, and 2.0, or 1.50, or 0.7, or 0.30 mm for diamond mesh).

Table 2 Types of mesh reinforcement. Mesh type Diamond 0.3 mm Diamond 0.7 mm Diamond 1.5 mm Diamond 2.0 mm Galvanized square 0.63 mm Square 3.0 mm Square 6.0 mm Long-way (mm) 17.5 22.5 37.5 22.5 10 50 100 Transverse (mm) 7.5 12.5 17.5 57.5 10 50 100 % Volume fraction (h = 40 mm) 0.12 0.18 0.60 0.60 0.18 0.70 1.41

2.1. Materials and mixing proportions The mortar matrix consisted of ordinary Portland cement complying with ESS 373 [9] and ECCS 203 [10] and sand passing through a No. 7 sieve (2.36 mm), free from any deleterious substances. Grading of the sand was controlled in such a way

Loading disk 360x55 mm

Loading disk 80x80 mm

400 mm

Loading area 360 x 55 mm

Loading plate 80 x 80 x 20 mm

400 mm 490 mm
360 mm 8 mm diameter steel bar 480 mm Types of wire mesh

490 mm

Fig. 1. Set-up for panel test under patch and line loads.

Steel bars 6 mm mesh

40 mm lab splice

Wire Mesh

445 mm 490 mm

Fig. 2. Alternatives reinforcement details of the cementitious slabs.

400 mm

480 mm

H.M. Ibrahim / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 251259 that it would conrm with the ACI 549-1R 93 [2], ESS 1108 [11] and ECCS 203 [10]. Table 1 shows the sieve analysis results of the sand. The sand and water to cement ratios by weight were chosen to be 2 and 0.5 respectively to achieve a normal strength with good workability. At the time of casting, six companion cube specimens of size 70.6 70.6 70.6 mm were also cast to determine the ultimate compressive strength of ferrocement mortar. Three prisms of 40 40 160 mm were cast to determine the exural tensile and compressive strengths [10]. All specimens were cured under wet

253

condition for 28 days and tested for compressive and exural tensile strengths. The average compressive cube strength was 32 MPa where prism exural tensile strength was 5.6 MPa. Steel wire mesh fabrics locally produced in the form of rolls of 1 m wide and of yield strength around 300 MPa were used. The wire mesh was tied to a framework made from mild steel bar with a diameter of 8 mm. The reinforcement framework was rst fabricated and the wire mesh was tied to it, making a relatively strong cage. The skeletal steel frame is not considered a structural reinforcement but to serve as a spacer to the mesh reinforcements. The different types of wire mesh reinforcement used in the present work are listed in Table 2. As can be seen from Fig. 1, the tested specimens were simply supported on four edges on a rigid steel frame. Either centric square or rectangular patch load was applied to a contact area of 80 80 mm or 55 360 mm respectively. Fig. 2 shows the details of reinforcement of the slab specimens and the different congurations of reinforcing wire mesh.

2.2. Test procedure and instrumentation Tested slabs were placed on a rigid steel frame as shown in Fig. 3 and a dial gauge was centrally placed at the bottom face to record deections at different stages of loading. An opening along one of the steel frame sides was made to provide accessibility to the placement of dial gauge and to investigate cracking progress at the bottom face during testing. Either steel square plate of 20 mm thick or cylindrical sector of projected rectangular area and maximum height of 75 mm and was used to transfer the load from the machine to the top face of the slab. After testing, the slab specimens were removed from the test setup and both top and bottom sides were examined to investigate the sustained damage, such as yielding of reinforcement, punching shear failure surface and cracking pattern at the bottom face.

Fig. 3. Testing of specimens under central square patch loading.

Table 3 Test results for ultimate load, ultimate deection and failure mode. I.D. h (mm) Pu (kN)

Du (mm)

Failure description

Specimens without reinforcement Slab-I 40 8.0 Slab-II 40 8.4

0.30 0.25

Two-way exure failure (diagonal cracks)

Specimens reinforced with diamond mesh 0.30 mm volume fraction 0.12 DP-0.3 40 9.1 1.14 Flexural failure in two way action four triangles rupture of mesh DL-0.3 40 12.4 1.62 Two-way exure failure (2 triangles and 2 trapezoidal) rupture of mesh Specimens reinforced with square mesh 0.63 mm SL-0.63 50 21.4/22.4 1.7/4.93 SL-0.63 40 19.2 1.25 SP-0.63 45 14.6 0.79 SP-0.63 40 11.2 1.5 volume fraction 0.18 Flexural failure in two way action (bridging effect) Sudden failure trapezoidal and triangular cracks at top neoprene bad Sudden failure rupture of reinforcement two way 4 triangle Flexural failure (diagonal cracks)

Specimens reinforced with diamond mesh 0.70 mm volume fraction 0.18 DP-0.7 40 13.4 1.73 Flexural failure in two way action four triangles rupture of mesh DP-0.7 40 13.8 2.47 DL-0.7 40 19.8 4.66 Two-way exure failure (2 triangles and 2 trapezoidal) rupture of mesh Specimens reinforced with diamond mesh 1.50 mm volume fraction 0.60 DP-1.5 50 23.8 2.79 Flexural failure rupture of mesh along both diagonals DP-1.5 50 22.4 2.07 Flexural failure fracture of mesh reinforcement DP-1.5 40 22.3 3.77 Flexural failure Rupture of mesh DL-1.5 40 38.5 2.49 Flexural failure nearly one way action Specimens reinforced with diamond mesh 2.0 mm volume fraction 0.60 DP-2.0 40 19.6 6.29 Flexural bond failure two way action DP-2.0 40 20.5 3.97 DP-2.0 60 29.5 3.78 Flexural failure in two way action DP-2.0 50 25.0 4.49 Punching failure no mesh rupture mesh yield DP-2.0 50 23.8 8.2 Flexural punching failure diagonal cracks at bottom face at top face cracks around loaded area and extend diagonally from the corner of the loaded area to the corners of the slab DL-2.0 50 35.6 20.91 Punching failure neoprene bad used at bottom triangle and trapezoidal cracks crack lines along line load boundary half circle cracks around load edges at top face Specimens reinforced with square mesh 3.0 mm volume fraction 0.70 SL-3.0 40 68.4 4.35 Punching failure different shape of crack SP-3.0 40 31.0 7.46 Punching failure rupture of mesh SP-3.0 40 25.6 6.70 Punching failure rupture of mesh SP-3.0 50 36.0 5.32 Punching failure yield of mesh Specimens reinforced with 6 @ 100 mm both ways volume fraction 1.41 6 mm 50 34.5 6.19 Punching failure steel yielded 6 mm+DP- 50 45.8 4.77 Flexural punching failure cracks at slab corners 1.5

254

H.M. Ibrahim / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 251259

3. Test results and discussion In the present work the load versus central deection curves for the tested slabs were used to classify the failure type. Flexural failure is considered to take place in slabs in which most of the reinforcement yields before punching occurs and consequently the slabs exhibits large deection prior to failure. The exural failure is characterized by a smooth decrease of the carrying load with increasing displacement. Shear failure was dened when a sudden decrease of the load carrying capacity after the peak load has been reached (nearly vertical branch of the load deection curve). On the other hand, the cracking and failure pattern were also used to classify the failure type. Slabs were considered to fail in exure in the case of observing diagonal cracks extending from the center of the patch area. Flexural punching failure occurred

as tangential crack at the outlines of patch area, followed by diagonal cracks extending from that area and a nearly at plateau of resistance was reached. The failure progressed with the rupture of bottom reinforcement. Punching failure was monitored in some of the tests as the load fell suddenly and was released completely. Table 3 summarizes the peak load, displacement at peak load, and failure mode for all test specimens. The reference slabs I and II were tested to dene the ultimate load carrying capacity of plain mortar specimens, include a skeletal frame, in exure under monotonic patch load. Comparing the ultimate load and deection at ultimate load (Figs. 4 and 5), it was found that adding diamond mesh of volume fraction of 0.12, slab DP-0.30 and DL-0.30, increases the ultimate load under patch and line loads by 11% and 48% respectively, whereas the deection

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
Rreference Slab - I - h = 40 mm

Load (kN)

Fig. 6. Failure pattern of slab DL-0.30 mm under linear loads.

1 0 0.0 0.1

Reference Slab - II - h = 40 mm

0.2

0.3

0.4

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 4. Load versus deection at center of plain mortar slabs under patch load. Fig. 7. Specimen, DP-0.70 mm typical failure pattern under patch loads.

14

25

12 20 10 15

Load (kN)

Load (kN)

10

4 5 2
DP-0.3 mm - h = 40 mm DL-0.3 mm - h = 40 mm DP-0.7 mm - h = 40 mm DL-0.7 mm - h = 40 mm DP-0.7 mm - h = 40 mm

0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 5. Comparison of load versus deection response at center of slabs reinforced with 0.3 mm diamond mesh under patch and line loads.

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 8. Comparison of load versus deection response at center of slabs reinforced with 0.7 mm diamond mesh under patch and line loads.

H.M. Ibrahim / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 251259

255

at ultimate load was increased by 418% and 589% respectively. It is obvious that the effect of using wire mesh signicantly increases ductility. In both cases, exural failure was observed as shown in Fig. 6. Similarly, for slab DP-0.7 subjected to patch load, exural failure mode was also obtained as presented in Fig. 7. Comparing the results of ultimate load and deection for 40 mm slab thickness under square patch load for the slabs DP-0.30 (Vf = 0.12) and DP0.7 (Vf = 0.18) shown in Figs. 5 and 8, it was found that the ultimate load was increased by nearly 50% whereas the ultimate deection was increased by 84%. For 40 mm slab thickness under line load, the results of ultimate load and deection of slabs DL0.30 and DL-0.7 shown in Figs. 5 and 8, it was found that the ultimate load and deection were increased by nearly 60% and 288% respectively. It is worth mention that the slabs of diamond mesh 0.7 fail in exural pattern. For slabs reinforced with single layer of square mesh and of the same thickness SP-0.63 (Vf = 0.18) illustrated in Fig. 9 and Table 3 which tested under square patch load, the ultimate load and deection were decreased than those of DP-0.7 (Vf = 0.18) by 21% and 40% respectively. Under rectangular line load the percentage decrease was 3% and 372% respectively. The ductile nature of diamond mesh over square mesh was obvious from these results. The results of slabs reinforced with square mesh show increase in the stiffness and reduction in ductility by increasing the slab thickness in both loading patterns adopted in this work. Since exural failure mode is dominant in slabs with small percentage of reinforcement, increasing thickness did not alter the failure mode as illustrated in slabs SP-0.63 of 40 and 45 mm thickness. In such cases, higher slab thickness led to stiffness increase and consequently decrease in ductility. For slabs of moderate volume fraction as slabs DP-2.0, failure mode may change from exure failure (40 mm) to exural punching or even pure punching failure (50 mm). The failure mode may change again to exure failure as the thickness increase (60 mm). Therefore, changing slab thickness is an attempt aimed to dene the slab thickness that controls the failure mode. Increasing volume fraction (main Steel percentage, i.e., dowel action) is not effective as the depth increase to change the failure mode.

Comparing the results of ultimate load and deection for 50 mm slab thickness under square patch load for DP-1.5 (Vf = 0.60) and DP-2.0 (Vf = 0.60) of Figs. 10 and 11, it was found that the average ultimate load was almost the same whereas the ultimate deection of slab DP-2.0 was greater by almost two and half times. For slabs of 40 mm, the difference of results between the two meshes did not vary signicantly. For line loads, the conclusion is similar to that of square patch load case. It was observed that slabs DP-1.5 failed in exural mode under square patch load whereas a punching failure mode was noticed under rectangular line loading as shown in Figs. 12 and 13. The failure pattern of slabs DP-2.0 was exural punching for slab thickness 50 mm under both cases of loading as shown in Figs. 14 and 15. For slabs of 40 mm and 60 mm it was found that, the failure mode was

40
DP-1.5 mm - h = 50 mm DP-1.5 mm - h = 50 mm DL-1.5 mm - h = 40 mm

35

30

DP-1.5 mm - h = 40 mm

25

Load (kN)

20

15

10

0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 10. Comparison of load versus deection response at center of slabs reinforced with 1.5 mm diamond mesh under patch and line loads.

25

36 20 32 28

Load (kN)

15

24

Load (kN)
SP-0.63 mm - h = 40 mm SL-0.63 mm - h = 40 mm SP-0.63 mm - h = 45 mm SL-0.63 mm - h = 50 mm

20 16 12

10

8 4 0

DP-2.0 mm - h = 40 DP-2.0 mm - h = 60 DP-2.0 mm - h = 40

DP-2.0 mm - h = 50 DP-2.0 mm - h = 50 DL-2.0 mm - h = 50

0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

0.0

3.0

6.0

9.0

12.0

15.0

18.0

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 9. Comparison of load versus deection response at center of slabs reinforced with 0.63 mm square mesh under patch and line loads.

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 11. Comparison of load versus deection response at center of slabs reinforced with 2.0 mm diamond mesh under patch and line loads.

256

H.M. Ibrahim / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 251259

exure as shown in Fig. 16. The failure pattern of slab SP-3.0 (Vf = 0.70) was punching for all slab thickness tested in this work and under both cases of loading as shown in Figs. 17 and 18. Since exural failure mode is dominant in slabs with small percentage of reinforcement, increasing thickness did not alter the failure mode as illustrated in slabs SP-0.63 of 40 and 45 mm thickness. In such cases, higher slab thickness led to stiffness increase

and consequently decrease in ductility. For slabs of moderate volume fraction as slabs DP-2.0, failure mode may change from exure failure (40 mm) to exural punching or even pure punching failure (50 mm). The failure mode may change again to exure failure as the thickness increase (60 mm). Therefore, changing slab thickness is an attempt aimed to dene the slab thickness that controls the failure mode. Increasing volume fraction (main Steel per-

(a) top face

(b) bottom face

(a) top face

(b) bottom face

(a) top face

(b) under loading disk

(c) bottom face

Fig. 14. Specimen, DP-2.0 mm h = 50 mm, after punching failure.

(a) top face

(b) bottom face

Fig. 15. Specimen, DL-2.0 mm, after punching failure.

H.M. Ibrahim / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 251259

257

Fig. 16. Specimen, DP-2.0 mm h = 60 mm, after exural failure.

(a) top face

(b) bottom face

(c) enlarged part shows mesh rupture

Fig. 17. Specimen, SP-3.0 mm h = 40 mm, after punching failure.

centage, i.e., dowel action) is not effective as the depth increase to change the failure mode. An attempt was made to evaluate the effect of combining wire mesh of diamond shape to ordinary reinforcing steel as a reinforcement of cementitious slabs. Two slabs were reinforced with steel bars of diameter 6 mm and spaced 100 mm in the two orthogonal directions of the slabs. One of them was additionally reinforced with a diamond wire mesh of volume fraction of 0.18. The results of load versus deection and the failure patterns of these slabs are shown in Figs. 1921. Punching failure patterns were observed for

both slabs. The contribution of diamond mesh was noticed through an increase of the ultimate load by 32% and a decrease in deection at ultimate load by 30% as shown in Table 4. The recognized increase in the ultimate punching capacity was referred to the dowel action contribution of the wire mesh. Since the two orthogonal directions of the mesh have different geometries and structure, their bridging effects were also different as clearly shown in load deection curves of slabs loaded with rectangular area, where both the mesh directions and the loaded area were different.

50 70
SP- 3.0 - h = 40 SP-3.0 - h = 40 SL-3.0 - h = 40 SP-3.0 - h = 50

45 40 35 30 25 20

60

50

Load (kN)

40

30 15 20 10
D 6mm@100 mm-h=50

Load (kN)

10

5
DP-1.5mm+D 6mm@100mm -h=50

0 0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 19. Effect of adding 1.5 mm diamond mesh to slabs reinforced with ordinary reinforcing steel bars of 6 mm @ 100 mm both ways on the load-deection response at center of the slab.

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 18. Comparison of load versus deection response at center of slabs reinforced with 3.0 mm square mesh under patch and line loads.

258

H.M. Ibrahim / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 251259

(a) top face

(b) bottom face

Fig. 20. Punching failure of slab reinforced with bars 6 mm @ 100 mm.

(a) top face

(b) bottom face

Fig. 21. Failure of slab with bars 6 mm @ 100 mm and 1.5 mm diamond mesh.

Table 4 Wired mesh versus 6 mm ordinary steel specimens (50 mm). Specimen designation DP-1.5 DP-1.5 DP-2.0 DP-2.0 SP-3.0 6 mm + DP-1.5 Volume fraction 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 2.01 Pu/Pu(6) 0.69 0.65 0.72 0.69 1.04 1.33

Du/Du(6)
0.45 0.33 0.73 1.32 0.86 0.77

On the other hand, a comparison between the slab reinforced with steel bars of diameter 6 mm and other specimens of the same thickness 50 mm was made and presented in Table 4. For diamond meshes of the same volume fraction of 0.6%, an average ultimate capacity of 70% was obtained. However, the ductility of wider spacing mesh is nearly twice times greater than that of the narrow one. For square mesh of volume fraction of 0.6%, the ultimate capacity obtained by 6 mm diameter ordinary steel mesh was attained with a loss of ductility of 14%. 4. Conclusion The following observations and conclusions were drawn for similar slabs to those tested in the present work: 1. Using single layer of diamond wire mesh of low volume fraction of 0.12% leads to numerous increase of plain cementitious slabs ductility by more than four times. On the other hand, the ultimate capacity was slightly increased by more than 10% for the cases of loading considered in the present study. Hence, the key inuence of low volume fraction diamond mesh is dedicated to ductility improvement. Moreover, increasing the volume fraction of diamond mesh by 50% consequently increases the ultimate load and accompanied deection by 50% and 84% respectively.

2. Under line rectangular loading, the ultimate load and accompanied deection for slabs reinforced with diamond mesh were increased signicantly than those tested under square patch load by nearly 60% and 288% respectively. In some cases the failure mode may alter from punching to a exural pattern. 3. For specimens of similar thickness and volume fraction, slabs reinforced with square meshes exhibit a reduction of ultimate load and deection than those of slabs reinforced with diamond mesh by 21% and 40% respectively. The ductile nature of diamond mesh over square mesh was obvious from these results. 4. For slabs reinforced with diamond mesh of similar volume fraction, the mesh of wider openings conguration, DP-2.0, revealed a ductility increase to nearly two and half times than that of closer openings, DP-1.5, while the ultimate load is nearly kept equal. However, the failure mode may alter between exure and punching according to the opening size of the mesh and the loading pattern. Contrary, slabs reinforced with square mesh, SP-3.0, examined a punching failure for all slab thickness and under both cases of loading. 5. Adding a diamond mesh to traditionally reinforced cementitious slabs did not amend its punching failure mode. Nevertheless, it increases the ultimate load capacity due to the dowel action contribution of the wire mesh accompanied with a reduction of the deection at ultimate load. A volume fraction of 0.18% increases the ultimate load capacity by nearly 30% associated with a reduction of the deection at ultimate load by almost the same percentage. 6. Since, the two orthogonal directions of the diamond mesh have different geometries and structures; the bridging effect is expected to arise. This is clearly recognized from the load deection diagram of slabs loaded with rectangular line load, where both mesh and loaded area were different in the two orthogonal directions. 7. More research study is needed to identify the volume fraction ratio at which the mode of failure alter between exure and

H.M. Ibrahim / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 251259

259

punching with particular attention to the opening size of the mesh and loading conguration. References
[1] ACI Committee 549. State-of-the-art report on ferrocement. ACI 549-R97 manual of concrete practice, Detroit; 1997. [2] ACI Committee 549-1R-88. Guide for design construction and repair of ferrocement. ACI 549-1R-88 and 1R-93 manual of concrete practice, Detroit; 1993. [3] Menetrey Ph. Synthesis of punching failure in reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Compos 2002;24:497507. [4] Mansur MA, Ahmad I, Paramasivam P. Punching shear strength of simply supported ferrocement slabs. J Mater Civil Eng 2001;6(13):41826.

[5] Naaman AE, Likhitruangsilp V, Gustavo PM. Punching shear response of high performance ber reinforced cementitious composite slabs. ACI Struct J 2007;104(2):1709. [6] Muttoni A. Punching shear strength of reinforced concrete slabs without transverse reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2008;105(4):44050. [7] El Debs MK, Naaman AE. Bending behavior of mortar reinforced with steel meshes and polymeric bers. Cem Concr Compos 1995;17(4):32738. [8] Shannag MJ, Tareq BZ. Flexural response of ferrocement with brous cementitious matrices. Construct Build Mater 2007;21:1198205. [9] ESS No. 373. Portland cement, ordinary, and rapid hardening. Egyptian Standard Specications Ministry of Industry Cairo; 1991. [10] ECCS 203-2009. Egyptian code of practice for design and construction of reinforced concrete structures. 2nd ed.; 2004. [11] ESS No. 1108. Sand for masonry mortars. Egyptian Standard Specication Ministry of Industry Cairo; 1971.