sustainability

Article
A More Sustainable Way for Producing RC Sandwich
Panels On-Site and in Developing Countries
Lorenzo Graziani, Enrico Quagliarini *, Marco D’Orazio, Stefano Lenci and Agnese Scalbi
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, and Architecture (DICEA), Polytechnic University of Marche,
via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy; lorenzo_graziani@virgilio.it (L.G.); m.dorazio@univpm.it (M.D.);
s.lenci@univpm.it (S.L.); a.scalbi@staff.univpm.it (A.S.)
* Correspondence: e.quagliarini@univpm.it; Tel.: +39-071-220-4248

Academic Editor: Chi-Ming Lai

Received: 1 February 2017; Accepted: 16 March 2017; Published: 22 March 2017

Abstract: The purpose of this work is to assess if traditionally used welded connectors for joining
the two skins of reinforced concrete (RC) sandwich panels, used as structural walls and horizontal
structural elements, can be substituted with bent ones. In this way, the scope of the effort is to reduce
drastically the energy required during manufacturing, thus having a much more sustainable building
product. Wire mesh on site production, in fact, requires a large amount of energy for the welding
process, as stated by several Environmental Product Declaration (EPD). In addition, the production
of sandwich panels with bent connectors requires a low level of automation and no qualified labor
allowing the diffusion in developing countries. The procedures used to execute the work were both
experimental and numerical. Structural performances were examined by testing full-scale sandwich
panels under (axial and eccentric) compression and flexural loads. Additionally, a Finite Element
(FE) study was developed to investigate and to optimize the dimension of welded mesh and the
number of connectors. The major findings show that it is possible to substitute welded connectors
with bent ones without compromising the structural performance of the tested RC sandwich panels,
thus having a more sustainable way for producing these last ones.

Keywords: concrete sandwich panel; connectors; building sustainability; energy saving; FEM

1. Introduction
Globally, buildings are responsible for at least 40% of energy, electricity, water and materials
consumption [1]. At the same time, the building sector has the greatest potential to deliver significant
cuts in emissions at little or no cost [1] if the development of environmentally compatible and more
sustainable construction products occurs in accordance with energy saving international protocols.
A recent innovative building component is the reinforced concrete (RC) sandwich panel that is a
composite material having structural-thermal properties composed by two RC layers separated by rigid
insulation material and usually joined by steel connectors that ensure a fully- or semi-collaborating
structural behavior. The interest in these panels is diffuse worldwide because of their performance
(transferring load and insulating the building), aesthetic (any architectural form can be created),
adaptation (panels may be attached to any type of structural frame), durability (the sandwich panel
provides resistance to impacts, thefts, and vandalisms), fast mounting procedures, and costs [2].
Applications of RC sandwich panels are widespread and this technology was used to build
residential buildings, schools, office buildings, warehouses, industrial buildings, justice facilities,
and hospitals. Aside from their typical use for exterior walls, they have been used as internal partition
walls, particularly around temperature-controlled rooms (e.g., in subzero freezer applications) [2].
There are two main methods to produce RC sandwich panels depending on the cast of concrete,
cast-in-situ concrete and precast concrete. Actually, connectors are welded to steel wire, and it is

Sustainability 2017, 9, 472; doi:10.3390/su9030472 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 2 of 14

not possible to produce sandwich panels in situ totally, butonly the concrete layers can be produced
in situ. This limits their diffusion i.e., in developing countries because the welding of connectors
requires a high level of automation. In addition, a high amount of energy is required as stated by
the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) [3,4]. In detail, 530 MJ are needed to produce 1 ton of
RC sandwich panels, and 511 MJ are composed of non-renewable (fossil) energy. Eighteen percent
(about 95 MJ) of this energy is required for the assembly stage [3,4]. Another limiting factor is the
need of specialized labor for welded connectors, while i.e., developing countries can count on much
not-specialized labor.
In the case of industrialized countries, the welding of connectors is not a problem, but this process
can be carried out and certified only inside factories. Then, panels must be transported to construction
sites causing difficult handling operations, additional energy consumption (175 MJ), potential smog
creation (2.9 kg O3 eq.), and high costs consequently [3,4].
As the manufacturing stage is a substantial consumer of energy and responsible for a significant
rate of the impacts, any process or energy conservation improvements could lead to significantly
lowering the environmental profile of RC sandwich panels. Thus, the modification of the production
methods (especially the connection type of connectors) could lead to a simplification of the system
allowing its diffusion in developing countries, and allowing the assembly of RC sandwich panels
in situ.
This manufacturing modification could lead to the production of more sustainable RC sandwich
panels only if the mechanical performance is the same or remains under acceptable limits.
Several papers on RC sandwich panels can be found in literature, and some reviews have
been written through the years [2,5–7]. These studies focus on the compression load (axial and
eccentric) [5,6,8–11], flexural load [12–19], and dynamic load [20,21] of these components, and they
provide evidence of the key role of connectors in both structural and thermal performances [22].
Previous research on sandwich panels suggest that the nonlinear behavior of connectors is
the main complexity of this system, being caused by the interaction between concrete layers and
connectors [6,23,24]. Experimental campaigns show that the formation of cracks in the concrete layers
is the most critical aspect in terms of structural resistance because it causes instability of the panels
and increases stress in connectors [8]. The arrangement of connectors plays a key role in the structural
behavior of panels; for example, connectors perpendicular to external layers do not contribute to shear
load, while truss-shaped steel connectors are the most effective connection in transferring the shear
force [6]. Anyhow, stress in connectors (when concrete faces were broken) is very low if compared to
yield stress of steel [9].
The uncertain role of the shear connectors and the interaction between its various
components have led researchers to rely on experimental investigations backed by simple analytical
studies, and different Finite Element (FE) models can be found in the literature [7,10,14,25–27].
Other mathematical models can be found in the literature about the relationships between
displacements and interface stresses of elements composed of two identical isotropic outer layers and
a more compliant inner interlayer [28,29].
The aim of this research is to assess if traditionally used welded connectors for joining the two RC
skins can be substituted with bent ones (Figure 1) so as to allow their hand-made assembly, to save
costs and energy consumption during manufacturing and thus have a much more sustainable building
product even on-site. In addition, the production of RC sandwich panels with bent connectors requiring
a low level of automation and no qualified labor could allow their diffusion in developing countries.
 Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 3 of 14
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 3 of 14

Figure
Figure 1. Illustration
1. Illustration of traditional
of traditional welded
welded connectors
connectors (a) and
(a) and bentbent
onesones
(b). (b).

ThisThis
modification cancan
modification be implemented
be implementedif structural performances
if structural performancesof RC
of sandwich panels
RC sandwich remain
panels remain
unvaried (or vary within an acceptable limit) if compared to traditional ones. Thus, this paper
unvaried (or vary within an acceptable limit) if compared to traditional ones. Thus, this paper focusesfocuses
on structural behavior
on structural of RC
behavior sandwich
of RC sandwichpanels
panelswithwith
bothboth
welded
weldedandand
bentbent
connectors tested
connectors under
tested under
(axial andand
(axial eccentric) compression
eccentric) compression andand
flexural loads.
flexural TheThe
loads. differences in load-displacement
differences in load-displacementdiagrams
diagrams
andand
failure mode
failure modebetween
betweenthethetwo
twosolutions
solutions have been beenanalyzed.
analyzed.InInaddition,
addition,
anan
FE FE model
model waswas
carried
carried outstudy
out to to study different
different configurations
configurations of welded
of the the welded
mesh mesh
and and the number
the number of connectors
of connectors to
to further
further simplify
simplify production
production process
process and and reduce
reduce costs.costs.

2. Materials
2. Materials andand Methods
Methods

2.1. 2.1. Materials

Materials
ThisThis study
study examines
examines full-scale
full-scale sandwich
sandwich panels
panels made made by two
by two RC RC layers
layers separated
separated by abyrigid
a rigid
insulation material and assembled by means of steel connectors
insulation material and assembled by means of steel connectors (Figure 2). (Figure 2).
TheThe thickness
thickness of concrete
of each each concrete
layer was layer
40 mmwas and 40 insulation
mm andmaterial insulation material
(Expanded
polystyrene—EPS) between the concrete had an average thickness equal to 80 mm and a density ofand
(Expanded polystyrene—EPS) between the concrete had an average thickness equal to 80 mm
a density 3 . Two types of connectors were tested: welded connectors and bent
about 15 kg/mof abouttypes
3. Two 15 kg/m
of connectors were tested: welded connectors and bent connectors. Two
RC beams were built at the base and at the at
connectors. Two RC beams were built topthe
of base and atinthe
each panel top to
order of avoid
each panel in orderof
concentration tothe
avoid
concentration of the load and to facilitate handling
load and to facilitate handling operations (Figure 2). operations (Figure 2).
Sustainability 2017,
Sustainability 9, 472
2017, 9, 472 4 of 1414
4 of

Figure 2. Axonometric
Figure view
2. Axonometric and and
view technical drawings
technical of the of
drawings tested
the reinforced concrete concrete
tested reinforced sandwichsandwich
panels.
panels.
2.2. Compression Test
2.2. Compression Test
Eight full-scale panels were tested varying the load application (axial and eccentric) and the type
Eight full-scale
of connectors (weldedpanels wereSample
and bent). tested varying the load
identification andapplication
specification(axial
areand eccentric)
present and1.the type
in Table
of connectors (weldedofand
The configuration the bent). Sample identification
test apparatus designed for the andcompression
specificationtest are is
present
reported in Table 1. 3:
in Figure
panels The
wereconfiguration of the test
positioned vertically on aapparatus designed
semi-cylindrical for the
support compression
(made testaislength
of steel with reported in Figure
of 1200 mm)
3: panels
and confinedwere at positioned
the top by vertically on a belt.
an industrial semi-cylindrical
Load was appliedsupportby (made
meansof steel with
of four a length of
hydraulic 1200
jacks
mm) and confined
(maximum load 500 kN at the topfixed
each) by antoindustrial belt.frame,
a rigid steel Load wasand applied
its valuebywasmeans of fourbyhydraulic
measured transducersjacks
(maximum
connected to aload 500 kNcontrol
hydraulic each) fixed
unit to a rigid
(Figure 4).steel frame, and its value was measured by transducers
connected to a hydraulic
Lateral deflection (∆h)control unit (Figure
was measured 4). of two transducers (S1 and S2 in Figure 3) placed
by means
at half Lateral deflection
of the height of the(Δh) wasTwo
panel. measured by means of(Stwo
other transducers transducers
5 and S6 in Figure(S13)and S2 in
were Figure
placed 3) placed
vertically
onateach
half side
of theto height
measure of vertical
the panel. Two other transducers
displacement (S5 andtwo
(∆v). In addition, S6 in ◦
45Figure
inclined3) were placed vertically
transducers (S3 and
S4on
ineach
Figureside3)towere
measure
placedvertical
acrossdisplacement
the thickness(Δv). In addition,
of each panel attwo half45°
of inclined
its height transducers
to measure (S3the
and
S4 in Figure
longitudinal (slip ∆s) and
3) were placed across(separation
transversal the thickness ∆c)of each panelofatthe
components half of itsdisplacement
relative height to measure between the
longitudinal
the two concrete (slip Δs) All
layers. andtransducers
transversalfrom(separation
S1 to S6 Δc)
had components
a sensibility of of ±the 10−3 mm,
1 ×relative displacement
and they
between
worked in athe twoof
range ±50 mm.
concrete layers.
Values ∆s were calculated
Alloftransducers from S1 to by Saveraging
6 had a sensibility of ±1 × 10
the longitudinal −3 mm, and
component
ofthey worked in
displacement a range by
measured of transducers
±50 mm. Values S3 −S4ofand Δsthewere calculated
difference by averaging
between the longitudinal
data collected by S5 and
S6component
(Equation (1)):of displacement measured by transducers S3−S4 and the difference between data collected
◦ ◦
by S5 and S6 (Equation (1)): ∆s = S3 Sin45 + S4 Sin45 + ( |S5 − S6 |) (1)
3
S3Sin45the
Values of ∆c were calculated by averaging  Stransversal
4 Sin45  component
( S5  S6 ) of displacement measured
Δs  (1)
by transducers S3 − S4 and the difference between data3collected by S1 and S2 .
.
Transducers registered positive values in the case of shortening and negative values in the case of
Values
elongation, of their
and Δc were calculated
reference by averaging
system is reportedthe transversal
in Figure 5. component of displacement measured
by The
transducers S − S and the difference between data collected
axial load was applied to the middle axis of the panel, while
3 4 bythe
S1 and S2. load was applied to
eccentric
Transducers registered positive values in the case of shortening and negative
the middle axis of only one RC layer (Figure 3). Two specimens for each group were tested. values in the case
of elongation, and their reference system is reported in Figure 5.
The axial load was applied to the middle axis of the panel, while the eccentric load was applied
to the middle axis of only one RC layer (Figure 3). Two specimens for each group were tested.
Sustainability 2017,
Sustainability 9, 472
2017, 9, 472 5 of5 14
of 14
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 5 of 14
Table 1. Identification of samples used in compression tests.
Table
Table 1.1.Identification
Identificationof
ofsamples
samples used
used in compression
compressiontests.
tests.
Sample Connection Type of Load
Sample
A-1 Connection
bent Type of Load
Sample Connection Type of Load
Axial
A-1
A-2 bent
welded
A-1 bent Axial
A-2
E-1 welded
bent Axial
A-2 welded Eccentric
E-1
E-2 bent
welded
E-1 bent Eccentric
E-2 welded Eccentric
E-2 welded

Figure
Figure 3. Test
3. Test apparatus
apparatus for axial
for axial compression
compression test (a)test
and(a) and eccentric
eccentric compression
compression test (b).test (b).
Figure 3. Test apparatus for axial compression test (a) and eccentric compression test (b).

Figure
Figure 4.4.Overview
Overviewand
anddetails
details of
of the
the test apparatus
apparatusused
usedininthe
thecompression
compressiontest.
test.
Figure 4. Overview and details of the test apparatus used in the compression test.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 6 of 14
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 6 of 14

Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 6 of 14

Figure 5. Reference
Figure 5. Reference system
system of
of the transducers.
the transducers.
Figure 5. Reference system of the transducers.
2.3. Flexural
2.3. Flexural Test
Test
Four
2.3. full-scale
Flexural
Four panels(two
Test panels
full-scale (twofor foreach
each group)
group) werewere tested
tested in four-points
in four-points bending
bending by varying
by varying the
the type
type of connectors
of connectors (welded
(weldedpanels and
and bent). bent). Sample identification and specification are present in Table
2. the2.
Four full-scale (two Sample
for eachidentification
group) were tested and specification
in four-points arebending
present by in Table
varying
The
type panels
Theofpanels
connectors were
were(weldedplaced horizontally
and bent). Sample
placed horizontally on two
on two steel cylindrical
identification
steel cylindrical supports
and specification (span
supports (span equal
are present
equal toto 2820
Tablemm)
in 2820 2.
mm)
placed
placed on on
The the
the middle
panels
middle were axis
axis of
placed the RC beams
of thehorizontally
RC beams atonthe at the
two ends
steel
ends of the panels
ofcylindrical
the panelssupports (Figure
(Figure 6). 6).
(span Load
Load equal was
wasto transferred
2820 mm) to
transferred
to samples
placedby
samples onby the
meansmeans of of
middle a spreader
axis
a spreader of thebeambeam
RC beams
fixedfixed atoreaction
at the
to aends
reaction theframe
offrame panels
withwith a spacing
(Figure
a spacing6). Load of was
of 10001000
mm mm (Figure
transferred
(Figure 6).
6). Samples
to samples were
by instrumented
means of a spreader with six
beam transducers:
fixed to a S
reaction 1f and
frame
Samples were instrumented with six transducers: S1f and S2f placed in the middle of the RC sandwich S with
2f placed
a in
spacingtheof middle
1000 mm of the
(Figure RC
sandwich panels
6). Samples
panels on the were
front on theSfront
instrumented
face, face,with
S3f and S4f placed inS1fthe
six transducers: and same position
S2f placed in on
the the backofface
middle theofRC the
3f and S4f placed in the same position on the back face of the panels, and S5f
panels, and
sandwich S 5f and Son
panels 6f positioned
the front in correspondence
face, S 3f and S4f placed
and S6f positioned in correspondence of the load application points. of the
in load
the application
same position points.
on the back face of the
Test apparatuses
panels, and S5f and Sdesigned designed
6f positioned for flexural tests are shown in Figures 6 and 7.
Test apparatuses for in correspondence
flexural tests are shownof the load application
in Figures 6 andpoints.
7.
Thanks to the simultaneous
Test apparatuses designed recording
for flexuraloftests data,areitshown
was possible
in Figures
Thanks to the simultaneous recording of data, it was possible to identify relative displacements
to identify
6 and 7. relative displacements
betweenThanks
the RCtolayers.
the simultaneous
At the endrecording
of the test, of data,
data itcollected
was possible fromtotransducers
between the RC layers. At the end of the test, data collected from transducers in the middle of the panel
identify relative
in the displacements
middle of the
between the RC layers. At the end of the test, data collected from
panel (S1f and S2f, S3f and S4f) were averaged because their differences were negligible, and the average transducers in the middle of the
(S1f and S2f , S3f and S4f ) were averaged because their differences were negligible, and the average value
panel (S and S , S and S ) were averaged because their differences
value represented the mid-span deflection (δm). The data collected from transducers S5f and S6f were
1f 2f 3f 4f were negligible, and the average
represented the mid-span deflection (δm). The data collected from transducers S5f and S6f were also
alsovalue represented
averaged, and the the mid-span
average value deflection (δm). The
indicated thedata collected from
displacement transducers S5f and
in correspondence ofSthe
6f were
load
averaged,
also and the and
averaged, average the value
average indicated
value the displacement
indicated the in correspondence
displacement in of the load
correspondence of application
the load
application points (δl).
points (δl).
application points (δl).
Table 2. Identification of samples used in flexural tests. Two samples for each group were tested.
Table 2. Identification
Table ofofsamples
2. Identification samplesused
usedininflexural
flexuraltests.
tests. Two
Two samples for each
samples for eachgroup
groupwere
weretested.
tested.
Sample Connection Type of Load
Sample
Sample Connection
Connection Type ofLoad
Type of Load
F-1 bent
F-1 bent Four points bending
F-2 F-1 bent
welded FourFour points
points bending
F-2F-2 welded
welded bending

Figure 6. Test apparatus for four-points bending test.

Figure 6. Test apparatus for four-points bending test.
Figure 6. Test apparatus for four-points bending test.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 7 of 14
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 7 of 14

Figure7.7.Overview
Figure Overview of four-points
four-points bending
bendingtest.
test.

2.4.2.4.
FEFE Design
Design
AnAnFEFE model able to reproduce experimental data of compression tests (axial and eccentric force)
model able to reproduce experimental data of compression tests (axial and eccentric force)
was implemented. This was done to study different configurations of the welded mesh and
was implemented. This was done to study different configurations of the welded mesh and connectors
connectors so as to minimize the number of these last ones and the dimension of the first.
so as to minimize the number of these last ones and the dimension of the first.
Samples were designed into a nonlinear framework with the dimensions of the tested panels,
Samples were designed into a nonlinear framework with the dimensions of the tested panels,
following indication from the literature [9,10,14]. RC layers were modelled with a nonlinear 3D solid
following indication from the literature [9,10,14]. RC layers were modelled with a nonlinear 3D
able to simulate reinforcing bars [29]. In this way, welded mesh was simulated by considering the
solid able to
volume simulate
ratio reinforcing
(the rebar bars [29].
volume divided by In
thethis way,
total welded
element meshand
volume) wastheir
simulated by considering
orientation. Internal
theinsulation
volume material
ratio (the rebar
was volume
simulated by adivided by thesolid
3D non-linear total element
element, andvolume) and contact
the interface their orientation.
between
Internal
it and insulation
the concrete material was simulated
panels was simulatedwithby aa3D non-linear
nonlinear solid element,contact
surface-to-surface and theelement.
interface contact
between During the definition of contact between insulation and concrete, no penetration contact
it and the concrete panels was simulated with a nonlinear surface-to-surface element.
was admitted
Duringthe
between thetwodefinition
elements. of This
contact betweenrequires
hypothesis insulation andtime
a long concrete, no penetration
for computation was admitted
by computer, but
between
results the two elements.
in effective solutions.This
The hypothesis
normal contact requires a long
stiffness factortime
wasforset computation
to 1 because this by computer,
value is
butappropriate
results in effective
for bulk solutions.
deformation, Theit normal
guarantees contact stiffness factor
no penetration betweenwastheset contact
to 1 because this and
elements, value
permits the convergence
is appropriate of nonlinear problem
for bulk deformation, [30]. no penetration between the contact elements,
it guarantees
The connectors
and permits were simulated
the convergence by using
of nonlinear a nonlinear
problem [30]. beam element with six degrees of freedom
at The
eachconnectors
node and werehaving a circular cross section
simulated by using a nonlinear withbeam
a diameter
elementequalwith tosix3degrees
mm (like the real at
of freedom
connectors).
each node and having a circular cross section with a diameter equal to 3 mm (like the real connectors).
Mechanical
Mechanical properties
properties ofofthe
thematerials
materialswere
wereresumed
resumedin inTable
Table3. 3. The
The model
model waswas restrained
restrainedwith
with a
a cylindrical pin at the base and a horizontal support at the top. Two rigid
cylindrical pin at the base and a horizontal support at the top. Two rigid elements were inserted elements were inserted at at
the top and at the base of the panel and connected (with “no separation”
the top and at the base of the panel and connected (with “no separation” parameter) to the faces ofparameter) to the faces of
the sandwich panel (Figure 8). This allows for better simulating the effect of the reaction frame on the
the sandwich panel (Figure 8). This allows for better simulating the effect of the reaction frame on
concrete layers, especially on the nodes close to the contact point. The load was applied to the rigid
the concrete layers, especially on the nodes close to the contact point. The load was applied to the
element at the top of the panel in the axis of the panel (axial load) and in the axis of an RC face
rigid element at the top of the panel in the axis of the panel (axial load) and in the axis of an RC face
(eccentric load).
(eccentric load).
Two configurations of welded mesh were studied: the first with 70 × 70 mm welded mesh (rebar
Two configurations of welded mesh were studied: the first with 70 × 70 mm welded mesh
volume ratio equal to 0.36) and the second with 70 × 120 mm welded mesh (rebar volume ratio equal
(rebar volume ratio equal to 0.36) and the second with 70 × 120 mm welded mesh (rebar volume ratio
to 0.29).
equal to 0.29).
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 8 of 14
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 8 of 14

In the first case, connectors were located every four meshes at a distance of 280 mm, while, in
the second one,case,
In the first connectors werewere
connectors placed everyevery
located two meshes at a distance
four meshes of 240
at a distance ofmm.
280 mm, while, in the
The structural FE model is represented in Figure 8, and it is composed
second one, connectors were placed every two meshes at a distance of 240 mm. of 8447 elements (cubes
withThe
an edge of 40 FE
structural mm) and is
model 60,237 nodes. in Figure 8, and it is composed of 8447 elements (cubes with
represented
At the
an edge of 40end
mm)of and
the numerical simulation, the security factor was calculated as the ratio between
60,237 nodes.
maximum yield stress and the calculated
At the end of the numerical simulation, maximum stressfactor
the security insidewasconnectors from
calculated as the
the FE model.
ratio between
maximum yield stress and the calculated maximum stress inside connectors from the FE model.
Table 3. Mechanical parameters used for material definition in a Finite Element model.
Table 3. Mechanical parameters used for material
Densitydefinition in a Finite
Young’s ModulusElement Poisson’s
model.
Material
(kg/m3) (MPa) Ratio
Material Density (kg/m3 )
Concrete 2500 Young’s Modulus
30,000 (MPa) Poisson’s Ratio
0.2
Concrete Steel 2500 7850 30,000
210,000 0.30.2
Steel 7850 210,000
Insulation—expanded polystyrene 15 6.5 0.120.3
Insulation—expanded polystyrene 15 6.5 0.12

Figure 8. Mesh of the structural Finite Elements model. Reaction frames are in blue.
Figure 8. Mesh of the structural Finite Elements model. Reaction frames are in blue.
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Structural Performance
3.1. Structural Performance
In this section, results of the axial and eccentric compression tests and then the results of flexural
tests are reported
In this and
section, discussed.
results of the Table 4 shows
axial and the ultimate
eccentric load and
compression testsvertical displacement
and then registered
the results of flexural
during
tests arethe compression
reported tests.
and discussed. Table 4 shows the ultimate load and vertical displacement registered
duringValues obtained from
the compression compression tests agree with results from literature [10].
tests.
As expected,
Values samples
obtained subject to axial
from compression compression
tests agree with reached higher
results from ultimate
literature load than samples
[10].
subject
Astoexpected,
eccentricsamples
load. subject to axial compression reached higher ultimate load than samples
Thetofailure
subject mode
eccentric load.of the panels varied depending on the type of load application; indeed,
axial compression caused the failure of the RC layers, while eccentric load caused buckling, and samples
failed because of lateral deflection.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 9 of 14

It must take into account that axial loading was influenced by intrinsic eccentricity caused by
inevitable irregularities during the production phase (i.e., planarity, geometry, defects in materials,
and so on. . . ). These imperfections produced a certain deflection also in the axial compression test,
and panels reached different levels of ultimate load depending on the entity of this intrinsic eccentricity.
For this reason, Table 4 shows higher standard deviations on axial load than on eccentric load.
Figure 9 shows lateral deflection of sandwich panels measured by transducers S1 and S2 , and they
show that ∆h of panels subject to axial compression (Figure 9a) was close to zero up to the ultimate load.
In the case of eccentric loading (Figure 9b), a linearity between applied load and ∆h is visible up
to about 200 kN in the case of bent connectors (solid lines) and about 350 kN in the case of welded
connectors (dashed lines). After these limits, micro-cracks appeared in the concrete layers, and the
panel assumed a nonlinear behavior. Final lateral deflections are similar to that obtained in previous
research performed on similar panels [10], confirming that both welded and bent connectors had the
same behavior.
Since this study aims to optimize sustainability of sandwich panels through the two types of
connectors, it was important to consider relative displacements between concrete layers because they
cause stress (tensions and shear) inside the steel connectors themselves.
Horizontal separation ∆c between concrete layers is reported in Figure 10, while vertical slip ∆s is
plotted in Figure 11 for both axial and eccentric compression.
∆c was higher on samples subject to axial loading than on samples loaded eccentrically because,
during the loading increment, the insulation core tended to swell, and it pushed out the concrete layers,
generating tensile stress in connectors. Conversely, the eccentric load caused a bowing of concrete
layers toward the opposite side of the load axis.
This evidence was confirmed by sample A-2 that showed the lower lateral deflection, reaching the
higher ultimate load and the higher separation between concrete layers.
In all cases of eccentric loading (Figure 10b), ∆c was close to zero up to the plastic phase.
Figure 11a shows that samples axially loaded had a negligible slip during the first steps of load
increment, and then concrete layers were subject to relative slip near the ultimate load.
In the case of eccentric loading (Figure 11b), slip developed from the beginning of the test because
the imposed eccentricity caused an elevated lateral deflection and one concrete layer was subject
to tensile tension and the other to compression. In this latter case, differences between curves are
negligible during the elastic phase, while samples had different behavior during the plastic phase.
By comparing welded connectors (dashed lines in Figures 9–11) with bent ones (solid lines in
Figures 9–11), it is possible to note a significant difference from about 150 kN, and this difference
is not attributable to manufacturing defects. Weld connectors were capable of ensuring a more
fully-composite behavior of sandwich panels than bent connectors, but the gap between the two
cases is acceptable in terms of structural performances of the structure. The final resistance of bent
connectors ensures that the steel did not reach yield stress, so that their connection of the concrete
layers remained unvaried.
Results about flexural tests are summarized in Table 5, where the averaged values of ultimate
flexural load, mid-span displacement (δm) and deflexion in correspondence of load application points
(δl) are reported. Globally, results are in accordance with previous findings from the literature [31].
The load–deflection curves (Figure 12) overlap during the elastic phase. Furthermore,
no significant difference is observed for the ultimate load, although different values of ultimate
displacement were registered, showing that panels had different dissipation performances.
In summary, the mechanical behavior of the panels with bent connectors is similar to that of
welded connectors only in the elastic phase, and the former have a lower axial ultimate load than the
latter. These reductions (about 37% for central load and about 25% for eccentric load) are certainly
important, but not so large, so that we can conclude that the load bearing capacity of sandwich panels
with bent connectors is adequate for structural purposes, and the reduction is certainly justified by
considering the strong advantages obtained with the major sustainability.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 10 of 14
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 10 of 14

latter. These reductions (about 37% for central load and about 25% for eccentric load) are certainly
latter. These
Sustainability reductions (about 37% for central load and about 25% for eccentric load) are certainly
but9,not
important,2017, 472so large, so that we can conclude that the load bearing capacity of sandwich 10 of 14
panels
important, but not so large, so that we can conclude that the load bearing capacity of sandwich panels
with bent connectors is adequate for structural purposes, and the reduction is certainly justified by
with bent connectors is adequate for structural purposes, and the reduction is certainly justified by
considering
It is worththe strong advantages obtained with the major sustainability.
considering theunderlining, on the other
strong advantages hand,
obtained thatthe
with formajor
the flexural ultimate load, the bent connectors
sustainability.
look It It
12%is worth
betterunderlining,
than the on
weldedthe other hand,
connectors, that for
although the
weflexural
cannotultimate load,
expectload, the
that the bent
thisbent connectors
improvement
is worth underlining, on the other hand, that for the flexural ultimate connectors
look
islook 12% better than the welded connectors, although we cannot expect that this improvement is
systematic.
12% better than the welded connectors, although we cannot expect that this improvement is
systematic.
This way, the production of RC sandwich panels with bent connectors instead of weld connectors
systematic.
This
couldThisreduceway, the
thethe production
energy of RC sandwich
consumption panels with bent connectors instead of weld
way, production of RCof sandwich
about 18%panels
(equal with
to about
bent95connectors
MJ for 1 ton), reduce
instead ofsmog,
weld
connectors
and limit costscould reduce the energy consumption of about 18% (equal to about 95 MJ for 1 ton),
consequently
connectors could reduce the[3,4].
energy consumption of about 18% (equal to about 95 MJ for 1 ton),
reduce smog, and limit costs consequently [3,4].
reduce smog, and limit costs consequently [3,4].
Table 4. Compression tests with axial and eccentric loading: ultimate loads.
Table 4. Compression tests with axial and eccentric loading: ultimate loads.
Table 4. Compression tests with axial and eccentric loading: ultimate loads.
Ultimate Load (kN) Vertical
Sample Connection Type
Type of
of Load Ultimate Load (kN) Vertical
Sample Connection Type of Ultimate Load Dev.
Mean ± Stand. (kN) DisplacementVertical(mm)
Sample Connection Load Mean ± Stand. Dev. Displacement (mm)
A-1 bent Load Mean ± Stand.
661.44 ± 37.33Dev. Displacement
1.92 (mm)
A-1 bent axial 661.44 ± 37.33 1.92
A-2
A-1 welded
bent axial 911.93 ±
661.44 ± 45.68
37.33 1.64
1.92
A-2 welded axial 911.93 ± 45.68 1.64
A-2
E-1 welded
bent 911.93 ± 45.68
356.65 ± 28.24 1.64
1.46
E-1
E-2 bent
welded
eccentric 356.65±± 30.76
447.48 28.24 1.46
1.75
E-1 bent eccentric 356.65 ± 28.24 1.46
E-2 welded eccentric 447.48 ± 30.76 1.75
E-2 welded 447.48 ± 30.76 1.75

Figure Lateral
Figure 9. Lateral deflection Δh of∆h
deflection of panels
panels testedaxial
tested under under axial compression
compression (a) and
(a) and eccentric eccentric
compression
Figure 9. Lateral deflection Δh of panels tested under axial compression (a) and eccentric compression
compression
(b). (b).
(b).

Figure 10. Relative transversal displacement between concrete layers Δc under axial compression (a)
Figure 10. Relative
Figure10. Relative transversal
transversal displacement
displacement between
between concrete layers ∆c
concrete layers Δc under
under axial
axial compression
compression (a)
(a)
and eccentric compression (b).
and
andeccentric
eccentriccompression
compression(b).
(b).
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 11 of 14
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 11 of 14

Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 11 of 14

∆s under axial compression (a) and eccentric compression (b).

Figure 11. Shear deformation Δs

Figure
Table11. Shear deformation
5. Average values andΔs under axial
standard compression
errors (a) andfour-points
measured during eccentric compression (b).
bending test.
Table 5. Average values and standard errors measured during four-points bending test.
Type ofvaluesUltimate
Table 5. Average Flexural
and standard errorsLoad (kN)during four-points bending test.
measured
Sample δm (mm) δl (mm)
Connection
Type of Mean ± Stand.
Ultimate FlexuralDev.
Load (kN)
Sample Type of Ultimate Flexural Load (kN) δm (mm) δl (mm)
F-1
Sample bent
Connection 16.82±± Stand.
Mean 0.83 Dev. 56.62 ± 1.21
δm (mm) 49.88 ± 0.83
δl (mm)
Connection Mean ± Stand. Dev.
F-2F-1 welded
bent 17.03 ± 1.27
16.82 ± 0.83 50.70
56.62±±1.78
1.21 49.88 ±±0.83
43.38 0.03
F-1F-2 bent
welded 16.82 ± 0.83
17.03 ± 1.27 56.62
50.70±±1.21
1.78 49.88±±0.03
43.38 0.83
F-2 welded 17.03 ± 1.27 50.70 ± 1.78 43.38 ± 0.03

Figure 12. Load-deflection plot on mid-span (a) and in correspondence of load application points (b).

Figure
Figure
3.2. FE 12.Load-deflection
12.
Results Load-deflectionplot
plotononmid-span
mid-span(a)
(a)and
andinincorrespondence
correspondence of
of load
load application
applicationpoints
points(b).
(b).

In Results
3.2. FE
FE order to further optimize sandwich panels, the FE model was used to study different
3.2. Results
configurations of connectors as described in Section 0.
In order to
In to further
further optimize
optimize sandwich
sandwich panels,
panels, the FE FE model
model was was used
used to to study
study different
different
Vonorder
Mises stress inside the most stressed connectorthe was resumed in Table 6. In all cases, stresses
configurations
configurations of connectors
of connectors as described
as described in Section 0.
were much lower than the maximum yieldinstress
Sectionof 0.
steel wires equal to 737.73 MPa.
Von Mises
Von Mises stress
stress inside
inside the most
the moststressed
stressedconnector
connector waswasresumed
resumedin TableTable6. In all
6. cases,
In allstresses
Table 6 shows that the higher the mesh spacing, the higher the stressin inside connectors; cases,
more
were much
stresses were lower
much than the
lowerof maximum
than the 15% yield
maximum stress of steel wires equal to 737.73 MPa.
precisely, stress increase about in the yield
case of stress
axial ofloading
steel wiresandequal
18% to in 737.73
the case MPa.
of eccentric
Table 66 shows
Table that
thatthe higher
higherthethe mesh spacing, the the
higher the stress insideinside
connectors; more
loading. This shows
phenomenon the
is understandable mesh spacing,
because the 70 higher
× 120 mmthe mesh stress
is less rigid connectors;
than the 70
precisely,
more stress increase
precisely, of about 15% aboutin15%the case of case
axial of
loading and 18%and in the case of eccentric
× 70 mm mesh, stress
and the increase
relativeofdisplacement in the
between axiallayers
concrete loadingis greater 18%than in in
thethecase of
other
loading.
eccentric This phenomenon
loading. This phenomenonis understandable because
is understandable the 70 × 120 mm mesh
× ensureis less rigid than the 70
case. Under these conditions, connectors were subject tobecause the 70to
higher stress 120 mmthe mesh is lessofrigid
integrity the
× 70 the
than mm70 mesh,
× 70 and
mm the
mesh, relative
and displacement
the relative between concrete
displacement between layers is greater
concrete layers than
is in the
greater other
than in
system.
case. Under
the other case.these
Under conditions, connectors were subject to higher stress to ensure the integrity of the
Results from the these
FE modelconditions,
confirm connectors were subject of
that the substitution to welded
higher stress to ensure
connectors withthebent
integrity
ones
system.
of thenot
system.
does compromise the mechanical resistance of the sandwich panel. Stress inside connectors
Results from
Results fromthe theFE FE model confirm that thethe substitution of welded connectors withwith bent does
ones
remains lower than yieldmodelstressconfirm
and alsothat in the substitution
case of a 70 ×of120 welded connectors
mm welded mesh. bent ones
doescompromise
not not compromise the mechanical resistance of the sandwich panel.inside
Stressconnectors
inside connectors
However, it the mechanical
is important resistance
to underline of the
that sandwich
welding panel. induced
generates Stress stresses and local remains
effects
remains
lower lower
than yield thanstressyield
and stress
also and
in also
the casein the
of a case
70 × of
120a 70
mm × 120 mm
welded welded
mesh. mesh.
(reduction of section, imperfections, stress concentration, and so on), which cannot be properly taken
However, itit is
However, is important
important to to underline
underline that that welding
welding generates
generates induced
induced stresses
stresses and and local
local effects
effects
into account through an FE analysis at the panel scale [22,24,28,29]. A complete understanding of
(reduction
(reduction of section,
of section, imperfections, stress concentration, and so on), which cannot be properly taken
local behavior aroundimperfections,
the contact area stress concentration,
between connectorsand andsowelded
on), whichmeshcannot be properly
is possible taken
only through
into account through an FE analysis at the panel scale [22,24,28,29]. A complete understanding of
future experimental campaigns or local FE models.
local behavior around the contact area between connectors and welded mesh is possible only through
future experimental campaigns or local FE models.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 12 of 14

into account through an FE analysis at the panel scale [22,24,28,29]. A complete understanding of local
behavior around the contact area between connectors and welded mesh is possible only through future
experimental campaigns or local FE models.

Table 6. Stress in connectors at the ultimate load.

Configuration Type of Load Mesh Spacing (mm) Stress (MPa) Security Factor
A axial 70 × 70 336.01 2.19
B 70 × 120 389.72 1.89
C eccentric 70 × 70 357.95 2.06
D 70 × 120 420.95 1.75

4. Conclusions
Welded connectors usually connect the RC skins of structural sandwich panels. A different,
simpler and cheaper type of connector was experimentally tested and compared to those in this paper.
Numerical simulations were also carried out to optimize the dimension of the welded mesh and the
number of connectors.
Results from (axial and eccentric) compression tests have shown that the new proposed connectors
seem to be able to guarantee a good structural response of the full panel, even if its final strength is
higher when using the traditionally used welded connectors.
Flexural tests showed the same trends of compression tests, and results are fully in line with other
findings from the literature. These tests confirm the possibility to substitute welded connectors with
bent connectors without compromising the global mechanical resistance of the RC sandwich panel.
FE results suggests that is possible to vary the number of connectors and the dimension of the
welded mesh to obtain different RC skins with different levels of automation and manufacturing costs
by, however, maintaining a good structural performance.
This way, the use of bent connectors instead of weld ones seems to be a more sustainable way
for producing RC sandwich panels. In fact, it could reduce the energy consumption (about 18%),
reduce smog, and limit costs consequently. In addition, the production of RC sandwich panels with
bent connectors, by requiring a low level of automation and no qualified labor, could allow their
production on site and their diffusion in developing countries.
The RC sandwich panels with bent connectors studied in this paper were prototypes, so further
research in this field, coupled with the optimization of manufacturing processes, could further
reduce the gap between RC panels with welded connectors and have a more and more sustainable
building product.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank M2 S.p.A. for the supply of concrete sandwich panels
and preliminary information and data provided. The authors would also like to thank Franco Rinaldi and
Andrea Conti, laboratory technicians of the Polytechnic University of Marche, for the preparation and conduction
of tests.
Author Contributions: All authors have contributed to the intellectual content of this paper in the same way.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Huovila, P. Buildings and Climate Change: Status, Challenges and Opportunities. Available online:
http://www.unep.fr/scp/publications/details.asp?id=DTI/0916/PA (accessed on 13 March 2017).
2. PCI Committee on Precast Concrete Sandwich Wall Panels. State of the Art of Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Sandwich Wall Panels. PCI J. 2011, 56, 131–176.
3. Dzelzbetons-MB. Environmetal Product Declaration: Precast Concrete Insulated Wall Elements.
The Norvegian EPD Foundation. NEPD-400-280-EN. 2016. Available online: http://mbbetons.lv/uploads/
certs/nepd-400-280-en-precast-concrete-insulated-wall-elements-gk.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2017).
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 13 of 14

4. Canadian Precast/Prestresses Concrete Institute (CPCI); National Precast Cocrete Association-(NPCA);

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI). Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Precast
Concrete: Architectural & Insulated Wall Panel Industry Wide EPD. Available online: http://www.pci.org/
uploadedFiles/Siteroot/Design_Resources/Related_Content/EPD%20Architectural%20and%20Insulated.pdf
(accessed on 13 March 2017).
5. Ahmad, I.; Mohamad, N.; Tun, U.; Onn, H.; Raja, P.; Pahat, B. Structural Behaviour of Precast Lightweight
Concrete Sandwich Panel Under Eccentric Load: An Overview. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Sustainability (IConCEES 2011), Johor Bahru, Malaysia,
3–5 April 2012.
6. Suryani, S.; Mohamad, N. Structural Behaviour of Precast Lightweight Foamed Concrete Sandwich Panel
under Axial Load: An Overview. Int. J. Integr. Eng. 2012, 4, 47–52.
7. Mackerle, J. Finite element analyses of sandwich structures: A bibliography (1980–2001). Eng. Comput. 2002,
19, 206–245. [CrossRef]
8. Benayoune, A.; Samad, A.A.A.; Ali, A.A.A.; Trikha, D.N. Response of pre-cast reinforced composite sandwich
panels to axial loading. Constr. Build. Mater. 2007, 21, 677–685. [CrossRef]
9. Benayoune, A.; Samad, A.A.A.; Trikha, D.N.; Ali, A.A.A.; Ashrabov, A.A. Structural behaviour of
eccentrically loaded precast sandwich panels. Constr. Build. Mater. 2006, 20, 713–724. [CrossRef]
10. Gara, F.; Ragni, L.; Roia, D.; Dezi, L. Experimental tests and numerical modelling of wall sandwich panels.
Eng. Struct. 2012, 37, 193–204. [CrossRef]
11. Mugahed Amran, Y.H.; Abang Ali, A.A.; Rashid, R.S.M.; Hejazi, F.; Safiee, N.A. Structural behavior of axially
loaded precast foamed concrete sandwich panels. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 107, 307–320. [CrossRef]
12. Carbonari, G.; Cavalaro, S.H.P.; Cansario, M.M.; Aguado, A. Flexural behaviour of light-weight sandwich
panels composed by concrete and EPS. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 35, 792–799. [CrossRef]
13. Carbonari, G.; Cavalaro, S.H.P.; Cansario, M.M.; Aguado, A. Experimental and analytical study about the
compressive behavior of eps sandwich panels. Mater. Constr. 2013, 63, 393–402.
14. Benayoune, A.; Samad, A.A.A.; Trikha, D.N.; Ali, A.A.A.; Ellinna, S.H.M. Flexural behaviour of pre-cast
concrete sandwich composite panel—Experimental and theoretical investigations. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008,
22, 580–592. [CrossRef]
15. Fouad, F.H.; Farrell, J.; Heath, M.; Shalaby, A.; Vichare, A. Behavior of the MR Sandwich Panel in Flexure.
Available online: https://www.concrete.org/publications/internationalconcreteabstractsportal.aspx?m=
details&ID=56626 (accessed on 13 March 2017).
16. Basunbul, I.A.; Saleem, M.; Al-Sulaimani, G.J. Flexural behavior of ferrocement sandwich panels.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 1991, 13, 21–28. [CrossRef]
17. Pessiki, S.; Mlynarczyk, A. Experimental Evaluation of the Composite Behavior of Precast Concrete Sandwich
Wall Panels. PCI J. 2003, 48, 54–71. [CrossRef]
18. Salmon, D.C.; Einea, A.; Tadros, M.K.; Culp, T.D. Full scale testing of precast concrete sandwich panels.
ACI Struct. J. 1997, 94, 354–362.
19. Teixeira, N.; Tomlinson, D.G.; Fam, A. Precast concrete sandwich wall panels with bolted angle connections
tested in flexure under simulated wind pressure and suction. PCI J. 2016, 61, 65–83.
20. Hamid, N.H.A.; Fudzee, M.F. Seismic Performance of Insulated Sandwich Wall Panel (ISWP) Under In-plane
Lateral Cyclic Loading. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng. 2013, 3, 1–7.
21. Ricci, I.; Palermo, M.; Gasparini, G.; Silvestri, S.; Trombetti, T. Results of pseudo-static tests with cyclic
horizontal load on cast in situ sandwich squat concrete walls. Eng. Struct. 2013, 54, 131–149. [CrossRef]
22. Foraboschi, P. Versatility of steel in correcting construction deficiencies and in seismic retrofitting of RC
buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2016, 8, 107–122. [CrossRef]
23. Tomlinson, N.; Teixeira, D.G.; Fam, A. New Shear Connector Design for Insulated Concrete Sandwich Panels
Using Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars. J. Compos. Constr. 2016, 20, 04016003. [CrossRef]
24. Focacci, F.; Foraboschi, P.; de Stefano, M. Composite beam generally connected: Analytical model.
Compos. Struct. 2015, 133, 1237–1248. [CrossRef]
25. Kabir, M.Z.; Nasab, M.H. Mechanical properties of 3D wall panels under shear and flexural loading.
In Proceedings of the 4th Structural Speciality Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering,
Montréal, QC, Canada, 5–8 June 2002; pp. 1–9.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 472 14 of 14

26. Al Kashif, M.; Mooty, M.A.; Fahmy, E.; Zeid, M.A.; Haroun, M. Nonlinear Modeling and Analysis of AAC
in-filled Sandwich Panels for out of Plane Loads. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2012, 64, 542–546.
27. Lameiras, R.; Barros, J.; Valente, I.B.; Azenha, M. Development of sandwich panels combining fibre
reinforced concrete layers and fibre reinforced polymer connectors. Part II: Evaluation of mechanical
behavior. Compos. Struct. 2013, 105, 460–470. [CrossRef]
28. Foraboschi, P. Three-layered plate: Elasticity solution. Compos. Part B Eng. 2014, 60, 764–776. [CrossRef]
29. Foraboschi, P. Layered plate with discontinuous connection: Exact mathematical model. Compos. Part B Eng.
2013, 47, 365–378. [CrossRef]
30. De Salvo, G.J.; Swanson, J.A. ANSYS Engineering Analysis System User’s Manual; Swanson Analysis Systems:
Houston, TX, USA, 1985.
31. Gara, F.; Ragni, L.; Roia, D.; Dezi, L. Experimental behaviour and numerical analysis of floor sandwich
panels. Eng. Struct. 2012, 36, 258–269. [CrossRef]

© 2017 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/).