Performance of Slabs with varying Reinforcement Configurations
The subject of ductility of suspended slabs constructed with Class L mesh as primary reinforcement led to widespread industry discussion over recent years which led to the current provisions in Australian Standard 3600 - Concrete Structures (2009) [1] which outlines the analysis, design and detailin...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Conference Paper |
| Published: |
The Concrete Institute of Australia
2011
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/5114 |
| _version_ | 1848744706063728640 |
|---|---|
| author | Newton, Royce Beecroft, Aaron Maher, Cameron Lloyd, Natalie |
| author2 | Not listed |
| author_facet | Not listed Newton, Royce Beecroft, Aaron Maher, Cameron Lloyd, Natalie |
| author_sort | Newton, Royce |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | The subject of ductility of suspended slabs constructed with Class L mesh as primary reinforcement led to widespread industry discussion over recent years which led to the current provisions in Australian Standard 3600 - Concrete Structures (2009) [1] which outlines the analysis, design and detailing of such slabs. The aim of this research program was to examine the behaviour – in terms of ultimate strength and ductility parameters - of simply supported one way reinforced concrete slabs with differing reinforcement types with relatively consistent tensile steel reinforcing ratios of the order of 0.4%. Eight slabs were constructed with a range of reinforcing including (i) class L mesh only, (ii) class N reinforcing bar only, (iii) combination of L class mesh and N class bar or (iv) reinforcing consisting of two layers of class L mesh. The classification of the reinforcing is in accordance to Australian and New Zealand Standard 4671 – Steel Reinforcing Materials (2001) [2]. The behaviour of slabs reinforced with L class mesh and steel fibre reinforced concrete was also investigated. This paper presents the test data for 8 test slabs. Four of the slabs were duplicate tests; Control 1 and Control 2 had the same reinforcing arrangement consisting of mesh SL 102; and CS2 and N10 slabs both had 4 N10-220 in both directions ofslab. The testing of duplicate tests enabled an assessment of the variability of test data and sensitivity of the ductility parameter W1/W0. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T06:05:43Z |
| format | Conference Paper |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-5114 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T06:05:43Z |
| publishDate | 2011 |
| publisher | The Concrete Institute of Australia |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-51142018-09-06T00:33:36Z Performance of Slabs with varying Reinforcement Configurations Newton, Royce Beecroft, Aaron Maher, Cameron Lloyd, Natalie Not listed class L mesh steel fibre reinforced concrete ductility class N bar one-way slab The subject of ductility of suspended slabs constructed with Class L mesh as primary reinforcement led to widespread industry discussion over recent years which led to the current provisions in Australian Standard 3600 - Concrete Structures (2009) [1] which outlines the analysis, design and detailing of such slabs. The aim of this research program was to examine the behaviour – in terms of ultimate strength and ductility parameters - of simply supported one way reinforced concrete slabs with differing reinforcement types with relatively consistent tensile steel reinforcing ratios of the order of 0.4%. Eight slabs were constructed with a range of reinforcing including (i) class L mesh only, (ii) class N reinforcing bar only, (iii) combination of L class mesh and N class bar or (iv) reinforcing consisting of two layers of class L mesh. The classification of the reinforcing is in accordance to Australian and New Zealand Standard 4671 – Steel Reinforcing Materials (2001) [2]. The behaviour of slabs reinforced with L class mesh and steel fibre reinforced concrete was also investigated. This paper presents the test data for 8 test slabs. Four of the slabs were duplicate tests; Control 1 and Control 2 had the same reinforcing arrangement consisting of mesh SL 102; and CS2 and N10 slabs both had 4 N10-220 in both directions ofslab. The testing of duplicate tests enabled an assessment of the variability of test data and sensitivity of the ductility parameter W1/W0. 2011 Conference Paper http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/5114 The Concrete Institute of Australia fulltext |
| spellingShingle | class L mesh steel fibre reinforced concrete ductility class N bar one-way slab Newton, Royce Beecroft, Aaron Maher, Cameron Lloyd, Natalie Performance of Slabs with varying Reinforcement Configurations |
| title | Performance of Slabs with varying Reinforcement Configurations |
| title_full | Performance of Slabs with varying Reinforcement Configurations |
| title_fullStr | Performance of Slabs with varying Reinforcement Configurations |
| title_full_unstemmed | Performance of Slabs with varying Reinforcement Configurations |
| title_short | Performance of Slabs with varying Reinforcement Configurations |
| title_sort | performance of slabs with varying reinforcement configurations |
| topic | class L mesh steel fibre reinforced concrete ductility class N bar one-way slab |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/5114 |