BRE

Garston, Watford, WD25 9XX 2002

High alumina cement concrete

BRAC rules: revised 2002

Richard Moss and Andrew Dunster

BRE Centre for Concrete Construction

constructing the future

Prices for all available
BRE publications can be
obtained from:
BRE Bookshop
151 Rosebery Avenue
London, EC1R 4GB
Tel: 020 7505 6622
Fax: 020 7505 6606
email:
brebookshop@emap.com

BR 451
ISBN 1 86081 600 2

© Copyright Controller of HMSO 2002

First published 2002

Printed from supplied

camera-ready copy.

BRE is committed to
providing impartial and
authoritative information
on all aspects of the built
environment for clients,
designers, contractors,
engineers, manufacturers,
occupants, etc. We make
every effort to ensure the
accuracy and quality of
information and guidance
when it is first published.
However, we can take no
responsibility for the
subsequent use of this
information, nor for any
errors or omissions it may
contain.

Published by
BRE Bookshop
by permission of
Building Research
Establishment Ltd

Requests to copy any

part of this publication
should be made to:
BRE Bookshop
Building Research
Establishment
Bucknalls Lane
Watford, WD25 9XX

BRE material is also published quarterly on CD BRE Bookshop

Each CD contains BRE material published in the current BRE Bookshop supplies a wide range of building and
year, including reports, specialist reports, and the construction related information products from BRE and
Professional Development publications: Digests, other highly respected organisations.
Good Building Guides, Good Repair Guides and
Information Papers. Contact:
post: BRE Bookshop
The CD collection gives you the opportunity to build a 151 Rosebery Avenue
comprehensive library of BRE material at a fraction of London, EC1R 4GB
the cost of printed copies.
fax: 020 7505 6606
As a subscriber you also benefit from a 25% discount on phone: 020 7505 6622
other BRE titles. email: brebookshop@emap.com
website: www.constructionplus.co.uk
For more information contact:
BRE Bookshop on 020 7505 6622
Contents

An overview of the BRAC guidance in relation to current guidance

on high alumina cement concrete 1
Introduction 1
Background 2
Development and experience since 1975 3
Assessment of structural adequacy in accordance with the BRAC guidance 3
Conclusions and recommendations 5
Acknowledgements 5
References and further reading 6
Revised BRAC report incorporating relevant appendices 7
Original membership 8
Secretariat 9
Terms of reference 9
1 Introduction 10
2 Background 10
3 Scope of recommendations 11
4 Information 11
5 Method of work 12
6 The work of the sub-committee and its study groups 13
7 Concrete strength 15
8 Method of calculation 17
9 Superimposed loading 18
10 Enhancement factors 19
11 Partial safety factors for loading 20
12 Durability 21
13 Fire resistance 21
14 Assessment of domestic construction recommendations 22
15 Exemptions from appraisal 23
16 Criteria for appraisal of buildings 23
17 Further recommendations 26
18 Acknowledgements 27
19 List of relevant codes and standards 28
20 Appendices 29

iii
An overview of the BRAC guidance in relation to current guidance on high
alumina cement concrete

Introduction

High alumina cement (HAC) concrete was used extensively in the UK from the 1950s to the
early 1970s in the manufacture of pre-cast, pre-stressed concrete beams. Extensive
research into the structural performance of HAC concrete construction led to the publication
of detailed guidance and recommendations on design-check procedures by the Building
Regulations Division of the Department of the Environment (DoE) in 1975. This guidance
(commonly known as the BRAC* rules)(1) is the best advice available and is still used today
to assess the structural performance of the many tens of thousands of buildings in the UK
containing such pre-cast HAC concrete beams. However, these documents have been out
of print for a number of years.

This report incorporates the original documents with redundant information removed and
additional and revised information is included where relevant. Wherever possible, the
original wording has been retained with explanatory footnotes added where subsequent
developments in codes, standards or knowledge are relevant. A limited amount of new text
(in italics) has also been added. The original documents themselves (the BRAC guidance
and their two addenda)(1), are now also available in electronic form on a BRE CD-ROM (see
BR429). These brief overview pages are intended to set the BRAC documents in context
with current thinking and the guidance on HAC concrete published since 1975. They also
give some general guidance on their application.

The UK stock of HAC concrete buildings is now all over 25 years old and there is demand
within the engineering community for methods and guidance for assessing their
performance in service. There are many thousands of HAC concrete buildings in the UK
and there are significant benefits in maintaining this national asset. A recent BSRIA report(2)
has shown that refurbishing and renovating such concrete buildings has real benefits to
project costs and maintenance of the UK building stock.

* Building Regulations Advisory Committee Sub-committee P

1
Background

General

Many research papers have been written over the years about the characteristics of HAC
concrete but public attention in the UK was focused on the material in 1973 when the roof
of an assembly hall(3) collapsed. Further disquiet was caused by the collapse of a swimming
pool roof(4) in 1974. Following these collapses, and some other localised failures, BRE
carried out a major investigation into the structural performance of HAC concrete
construction.

The investigation showed that the condition of HAC concrete in buildings was consistent
with earlier research findings: that hydrated HAC undergoes a change in its mineralogical
composition with time through a process known as conversion. Associated with this change
is a loss of strength(5). The amount of strength loss depends on a number of complex
interactions, including conditions at the time of casting and subsequent service conditions.
The realisation that, under normal service conditions, the compressive strength of HAC
concrete could be halved over a long period of time led to wider re-evaluation of its use as a
structural material.

Background to development of the BRAC guidance

Following the collapses, a committee ('The Stone Committee' after Bernard Stone, the
committee chairman) was set up by the Institution of Structural Engineers to study the
implications of this strength loss. Detailed guidance on design check procedures was
issued by the Building Regulations Division of the Department of the Environment in 1975.

The original BRAC report and its two addenda (Òthe BRAC documentsÓ) for structural
assessment of HAC concrete were developed by the Stone Committee following these well-
publicised collapses in Camden and Stepney. They were prepared from a very large body
of test data, with reference to CP3 (the old loading code) and CP 110 (the structural
concrete code in force at the time). The BRAC documents are effectively a self-contained
code of practice for HAC that has been approved by Building Regulations. The BRAC
documents are the only specific guidance available and are still used alongside current
standards (such as BS 8110 that replaced CP 110) and other codes of practice.

The largest structural use of HACC (high alumina cement concrete) produced in the UK
went into the manufacture of pre-stressed 'X' or 'I' beams which were cast using a
continuous long line casting process and the BRAC guidance only applies to these
components.

2
Development and experience since 1975

A BRE report(6) published in 1984, describes work prior to 1975 and the background to the
BRAC guidance. Most subsequent information has been obtained from site investigations of
structures; a summary of those carried out by BRE was published in 1993(7) and an update
was included in BRE Information Paper 8/00. These findings have a bearing on how
appraisals of HAC concrete should be carried out in future. Further guidance on the
assessment of carbonation (IP11/98) and durability (IP8/00) have also been published.

The most important conclusion is that, in the absence of chemical attack, the BRAC
documents have been shown to be safe without being over conservative. The documents
remain the best available guidance for the assessment of pre-stressed, pre-cast ÒIÓ beams
cast using the continuous long-line process. However, the application of this guidance to
other forms of construction needs to be approached with care.

Assessment of structural adequacy in accordance with the BRAC guidance

The key information contained within the BRAC documents is retained within this report.

Before applying the BRAC guidance documents to assess structural adequacy, you should
bear in mind that:

• Since the BRAC guidance is based on data derived from the performance of
pre-stressed ÒIÓ or ÒXÓ beams cast using the long line process, the BRAC strength
assessment guidance relates strictly only to these components. The guidance can be
applied, with care, to other types of factory-produced ÒbespokeÓ pre-cast units where a
reasonable level of quality control can normally be expected. However, other
approaches based on compressive strength determination or other techniques may be
appropriate, particularly where the quality of the concrete is in doubt.

• Chemical attack of HAC concrete by alkalis and sulfates may occur in the presence of
water. The assessment guidance therefore applies only to HAC concretes that have
not been subject to chemical attack.

The first step is to confirm that the components are made from HAC concrete and to identify
the types of components. BRE Special Digest 3, SD3, 2002, describes how to identify
HACC. You need the section profile, the number and diameter and position of the wires
and the depth of the components to establish the type of component so that you can
compare it with the more common types detailed in Appendix P (see Appendices at the end
of this report). You do not need to identify the manufacturer since the properties of
geometrically similar beams produced by different manufacturers are virtually the same.

3
The easiest way to determine the number of wires is to gain access to the ends of the
components by, for example, removing a brick from the outer skin of a cavity wall at the
bearings. There is no concrete cover to the ends of reinforcing bars in beams made using a
long line casting process so the number of wires and their positions will be obvious
(FigureÊA1).

In most cases you will be able to compare the findings with the section profiles given in
Appendix P and extract directly the allowable flexural capacities of identical or very similar
sections from Appendix J. The shear capacity should also be checked following the
guidance given in Appendix K .

If the tests for identification of cement type (see BRE Special Digest 3, SD3, 2002) do not
give a clear, positive indication that HAC is present, seek further advice: other concretes
can give results which might be misinterpreted as arising from HAC. If the presence of
structural 'X' or 'I' section HAC components is confirmed, use the BRAC documents for all
areas which have been free from persistent water penetration or obvious deterioration. In
most cases the design checks will show that the floors or roofs are adequate for the loads
to be carried and you can assume there is an acceptable level of safety.

wires

Figure A1 A view of the end of a typical pre-cast HAC concrete ÒIÓ beam that
has been exposed by removing bricks from a cavity wall

4
You can also analyse pre-stressed, pre-cast components that are not similar to the ones
described in Appendix P provided that the quality of the concrete is similar (i.e. cast using a
free water/cement ratio of less than 0.45 with a high degree of compaction). Use an
assumed cube strength of 21 MPa and a residual pre-stress level of 0.35 fy (where fy is the
characteristic yield stress (0.2% offset) of the reinforcement). To assess the concrete
quality, a petrographer experienced in HAC concretes will need to examine lump samples
and compare with known ÒIÓ beam samples of good quality. For guidance on obtaining the
lump samples, see BRE Special Digest 3, SD3, 2002.

If the subsequent design check using the BRAC guidance indicates that the capacities are
adequate, no further justification for strength is needed.

If however the construction is deficient in bending or shear, consider the options given in
BRE Special Digest 3, SD3, 2002, before testing further.

In areas subject to persistent water penetration, assess the potentially disruptive effects of
chemical attack. You can do this only by taking lump or core samples of HAC concrete from
the wet areas and subjecting them to a range of complementary tests such as petrography
and chemical or X-ray analysis. This is highly specialised; it is not sufficient to simply identify
the presence of sulfates or alkalis. BRE Special Digest 3, SD3, 2002, gives further details
on how to identify chemical attack and assess the implications.

Conclusions and recommendations

The BRAC rules have been reviewed and pointers towards further information have been
included, where relevant. In general, it is concluded that the original guidance including that
on structural assessment is still valid.

Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM).
We thank Nigel Clayton of BRE for assistance with the editing of this report.

5
References and further reading
1. Department of the Environment. Building Regulations Advisory Committee. Report by
Sub-Committee P (High Alumina Cement concrete). BRAC (75) P40, 1975, and
Addendum No 1, BRAC (75) P59, 1975, and Addendum No 2, BRAC (76) P3, 1976.

2. Gold, C.A and Martin, A.J. Refurbishment of concrete buildings: Structural and services
options. BCA/BSRIA Guidance Note GN 8/99, Building Services Research and
Information Association, Bracknell, Berks. 1999, 114 pp.

3. Report on the collapse of the roof of the assembly hall of the Camden School for Girls.
Prepared for the Secretary of State for Education and Science by the Building
Research Establishment, London, HMSO, 1973.

4. Bate, S C C. Report on the failure of roof beams at Sir John Cass's Foundation and
Red Coat Church of England Secondary School, Stepney. BRE Current Paper
CP58/74, 1974.

5. High alumina cement concrete in buildings. BRE Current Paper CP34/75, 1975.

6. Bate, S C C. High alumina cement concrete in existing building superstructures. BRE

Report S040. Garston, BRE, 1984.

7. Crammond, N.J, and Currie, R.J, Survey of condition of pre-cast HAC concrete
components in 14 existing buildings. Mag.Concr. Res. Vol 45, No. 165, 275-279. 1993.

BRE Information Papers

15/74 Rapid chemical test for the detection of high alumina cement concrete.

22/80 Internal fracture testing of in-situ concrete: a method of assessing compressive

strength.

8/88 Update on assessment of high alumina cement concrete.

11/98 Assessing carbonation depth in ageing high alumina cement concrete.

8/00 The durability of pre-cast HAC concrete in buildings.

BRE Digests

SD3 Special Digest 3, 2002, ÒHAC concrete in the UK Ð Assessment, durability

management, maintenance and refurbishmentÓ

BRE CD-ROM

BR429 Building Regulations Advisory Committee. Report by Sub-Committee P (High

Alumina Cement Concrete) and Addenda. (See reference 1.)

6
Revised BRAC report incorporating relevant appendices
Building Regulations Advisory Committee: Report by
Sub-Committee P (High alumina cement concrete)
incorporating relevant Appendices

Original membership

Members
C B Stone, CBE, DSO, BSc, FICE, FIStructE (Chairman), Consulting Engineer, Andrews,
Kent and Stone.

N E Back, MBE, MIStructE (Vice Chairman), District Surveyor, City of London District.

F G Coffin, FIStructE, Consulting Engineer, Ove Arup and Partners.

J A Derrington, BSc, DIC, FICE, FIStructE, Chief Structural Engineer, Sir Robert McAlpine
and Sons.

Professor A M Neville, MC, TD, DSc(Eng),PhD, MSc, FICE, FIStructE, FACI, FAmSocCE,
FIArb. Head of Department of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds.

D N Rogers, BSc(Tech), FICE, FI Mun. E, FIHE, City Engineer, City of Birmingham.

R E Rowe, MA(Cantab), ScD, FICE, FIStructE, FIHE, FACI, Director of Research and
Development, Cement and Concrete Association.

Assessors
F Walley, MSc, PhD, FICE, FIStructE, Director of Civil Engineering Development, Property
Services Agency.

S C C Bate, BSc, PhD, FICE, FIStructE, Head of Engineering Department, Building

Research Establishment.

P R Bartle, FIStructE, Superintending Engineer, Department of the Environment.

P B Kenyon, MA, MICE, MRTPI, Chief Technical Officer, British Standards Institution.

Observers
W H Walker, MIStructE., Senior Civil Engineer, Department of Finance, Northern Ireland.

I M Watters, BSc, MICE, Civil Engineer, Scottish Development Department.

8
Secretariat

C A Cooper, Administrative Secretary

J Chatterjee, BE, MSc, MICE, MIStructB, AMASCE - Technical Secretary

S A Samaroo

S J Fitt

Terms of reference

To recommend:

a) the design criteria to be used in checking the adequacy of buildings containing HACC
structural members;

b) which categories, if any, of buildings containing HACC structural members need not be
appraised in detail;

and to prepare a report for discussion by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee on
23 July 1975. The sub-committee was empowered to co-opt members, appoint consultants
as necessary to assist it in its work and to commission through the Building Research
Establishment such further research as might be needed.

9
1 Introduction

Sub-committee P was appointed in April 1975 to prepare a report for consideration by the
Building Regulations Advisory Committee at its meeting on 23 July on design criteria to be
used in checking the adequacy of buildings containing high alumina cement concrete
structural members and which categories, if any, of buildings containing high alumina
cement concrete need not be appraised in detail.

Twelve formal meetings were held in addition to numerous informal meetings.

2 Background
The sudden collapse in February 1974 of two precast prestressed concrete roof beams
over a swimming pool at a Stepney School led to an investigation by the Building Research
Establishment which confirmed that the collapse was caused by a deterioration in the
strength of the high alumina cement concrete (HACC) of which the beams were made,
followed by localised chemical attack. The loss in strength was the result of a change in the
crystalline structure of the concrete, known as conversion. The problem of assessing the
safety of many thousands of buildings containing HACC led to the appointment of
Sub-committee P.

It has long been known that HACC is vulnerable to above normal temperatures and
humidity, and it was thought initially that the warm, damp conditions in the swimming pool
roof might have been the primary contributing factor in the loss of concrete strength in the
roof beams. The BRE investigation revealed, however, that the roof beams in the school
gymnasium were also highly converted and had suffered a loss of strength, though they
had been subjected to relatively normal temperatures and humidity, and that no chemical
attack had taken place. Further examinations of buildings confirmed that there was cause
for concern over the safety of beams made with HACC.

With the publication in July 1974 of the Building Research Establishment's report on the
collapse at the Stepney School the then Department of the Environment concluded that all
existing buildings incorporating HACC structural members were to be regarded as suspect
and that the material should not be used for structural work in buildings until further notice.
This ban remains in place to the present day1. The buildings considered to be at greatest
risk were those with precast prestressed non-composite roof and floor members made with
HACC whose roof or floor spans exceeded 5 metres. The Building Research Establishment
undertook a further programme of research into the structural uses of HACC with particular
regard to buildings with short roof and floor spans.

1
HACC is no longer included in current standards for structural concrete in the UK. Until recently, the Building Regulations
Approved document to support Regulation 7 which deals with the Ôsuitability of materialsÕ, contained strong advice against the
use of HAC; it stated that HAC should be used only for heat resisting applications and not for structural purposes in buildings
or foundations. Recently an alternative statement has been developed for the Building Regulations, which permits the use of
materials whose properties deteriorate with time provided these can be reliably predicted. The new Approved document came
into force on 1st April 1999.

10
Research results are not in themselves recommendations for action, although they are the
essential foundation for such recommendations. The then Department of the Environment,
on the advice of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, amended the building
regulations so that local authorities could reject plans for new work involving the structural
use of HACC and gave local authorities advice on the use of this power, and on the
appraisal of existing buildings which contained the material. Copies of the letters to local
authorities were originally included as Appendices A to E to the report. However these
have now been omitted as the information is considered redundant. The Building
Regulations have also been amended (see footnote1).

3 Scope of recommendations

These concentrate on precast prestressed X-type joists of standard manufacture. These

joists, data for which was readily available, account for some 90% of the structural usage of
HACC, other than for lintels. Control and workmanship in the manufacture of these units is
believed to be consistent. Recommendations are however included on other types of joists.

4 Information

Appendix F summarises the Building Research Establishment's original findings, which were
available to Sub-committee P. These were later published as CP34/75. The Building
Research Establishment also collated and passed on to Sub-committee P the results of
engineering appraisals which had been carried out on a wide range of buildings containing
HACC and submitted to them by local authorities and consulting engineers. The majority of
the durability studies referred to in Appendix F have now been completed.

Information was received on approximately one hundred bending tests to failure carried out
on standard X-joists with high conversion, in the 5.25 inch, 7 inch and 9 inch depth range,
and on several hundred proof loading tests on floors.

Information on the principal ways in which HACC had been used in buildings was obtained
by the then Department of the Environment from manufacturers, contractors, consulting
engineers and others. This is included as Appendix P but it should be recognised that
many of the companies referred to have long ceased trading.

Since Sub-committee P wished to have as wide a range of information as possible, they

invited certain consulting engineers, local authorities, professional institutions, universities,
manufacturers and testing houses to submit information resulting from their experience with
high alumina cement concrete. A list of those who submitted written statements is at
Appendix G.

11
Representatives of the sub-committee interviewed representatives of the Lafarge
Aluminous Cement Co. Ltd. and Pierhead Ltd. They also commissioned 3 sets of floor
loading tests, one in an old people's home in Birmingham, one at a swimming-pool near
Doncaster and one on floor assemblies constructed by the Property Services Agency at
Cardington, Bedfordshire. A summary of the results of these tests is included as
AppendixÊH. The original Annex to Appendix H has now been omitted as the information
contained within it is considered too detailed for the purposes of this report. It can be
referred to on the CD-ROM version of the original report which is available from BRE
Bookshop as BR429.

Sub-committee P also commissioned Messrs. Harris and Sutherland, Consulting Engineers,

to obtain, analyse and present data on the usage of HACC and, using design criteria
determined by the sub committee, to assess existing theoretical safety margins of
construction for a representative sample of buildings over a range of concrete strengths.
MrÊSutherland attended the meetings of the sub-committee to report on the progress of the
consultants' work and to assist with the interpretation of its results, which are summarised at
Appendix J.

5 Method of work

Two study groups were formed.

The task of Study Group 1 was to examine all available data and make recommendations
on the concrete strength, beam strength and basic floor strength of the major standard
forms of construction based upon proprietary beams of HACC construction. Study was
made of many of the floor designs suggested in the original manufacturers' tables, based
upon calculations prepared by consulting engineers.

Study Group II assessed the enhancement to the strength of floors and roofs provided by
several factors of which no account would have been taken in their design, such as the
effect of hollow blocks and floating or bonded sand/cement screeds, end fixity and two-way
span. This work has since been supplemented by a programme of research on load testing
conducted by Dr Richard Moss2.

The work of the two study groups formed the basis of the original recommendations both
on the criteria to be used by structural engineers in checking the designs of buildings to
determine whether safety margins were acceptable, and on the categories of buildings in
which a reasonable safety margin could be assumed and which therefore need not be
appraised in detail, (i.e. it was only necessary to establish that the building falls into one of
these categories).

2
Moss R M., Load Testing of Beam and Block Concrete Floors, Proceedings of Institution
of Civil Engineers Structures and Buildings, 1993, 89, May, 211-223.

12
Before Sub-committee P considered in detail the work of the two study groups and the
conclusions to be drawn from that work, they had to take account of some wider issues.
These are considered further below.

• No matter what material may have been used in the construction of a building it is not
reasonable to guarantee that it will be unreservedly safe for all time, and this is
particularly so where the structural material is known to have lost considerable strength
from the time of its manufacture.

• It is always possible, for example, that structural failures may be caused by misuse,
overloading, or may result from careless workmanship or an unsuspected defect in the
materials used. Such failures occur from time to time with all forms of construction.

• High alumina cement concrete is however more sensitive than many other materials to
small variations in its manufacture and use and to its environment.

• It is not possible to "guarantee" HACC construction any more than it is possible to

guarantee any other form of construction.

The recommendations made by Sub-committee P imply a level of risk which they judged
was acceptable in the particular circumstances. In this context the BRE report 3 stated "that
of about 17 million square metres of flooring that is reported to have been built with
prestressed concrete units of high alumina cement, no collapses have resulted from loss of
strength due to conversion. The results of tests on roofs, particularly those with isolated
beams, show that the position is less satisfactory and that the risk of collapse although
small may not be acceptable."

6 The work of the sub-committee and its study groups

The sub-committee adopted a basic philosophy which can be summarised as follows:

• Initially consideration was given to defining a basic strength for fully converted concrete
as measured by the cube strength that would be achieved in the long term taking
account of the quality of workmanship employed in the production process; for this
reason a partial safety factor on the concrete ( γm ) of 1.0 is adopted.

• Utilising this strength in the section analysis procedure laid down in CP 110 4 with a
reduced ultimate strain of 0.002 and a γm = 1.0 on the prestressing steel, a lower
bound computed ultimate flexural moment for various sections was derived. A
comparison between this and the actual moments from tests led to the derivation of a
beam performance factor; a range of such beam performance factors was obtained

3
Building Research Establishment Current Paper CP34/75, Section 9(iv) and (v).
4
Code of Practice for The Structural Use of Concrete, 1972.

13
 from which it was possible to form a judgement of an acceptable lower bound value for
use in appraisal of X-joists. This range may result from one or more of the following:

a) a possible under-estimate of the stress block coefficient for the particular geometry
of the X-joists;

b) an increased strain capacity at failure compared with the lower bound value of
0.002.

c) variations in the strength of the concrete.

CP 110 was replaced by BS 8110 in 1985, which itself was updated in 1997 and in
time will be replaced by the new Eurocode EC2 (see section 19 for full reference).
However the basic approach to the analysis of sections in flexure at the ultimate limit
state has not changed and the approach reported here is still considered valid.

• Further enhancement factors on the ultimate moment arising from distribution of load,
end fixity, partial or fully composite behaviour were then assessed. Subsequently it was
possible to assess the likely values of the partial safety factor on both dead and live
load and make a judgement on their acceptability. In this process, while the probability
aspects were considered, the general nature of the problem and the lack of adequate
data for a true statistical approach implied that these studies merely served as an aid in
making the judgement.

In arriving at their recommendations Sub-committee P considered the following:

a) the strength of converted HACC;

b) methods of calculation for the flexural and shear strength of X-joists;

c) the superimposed loads to be assumed in calculations;

d) the factors which might enhance the strength of floor and roof construction;

e) partial safety factors;

f) the durability of the prestressing steel and HAC concrete of which the X-joists were
made;

g) their fire resistance.

14
7 Concrete strength5

In the design of prestressed HACC units it was assumed for the purposes of their
manufacture and their initial stressing that the one-day strength had a minimum value of
52ÊMPa. The working stress in service also related to the one-day strength, on the
assumption that after 24 hours there was an increase in strength and any subsequent drop
would not be such as to bring it much below the one-day figure.

There is now no doubt, however, that in any building with normal warmth there is an
inevitable process of conversion which leads to a considerable drop in strength; although
the rate of the conversion depends on the temperatures. It is the water/cement ratio which
is the principal factor governing the converted strength. The BRE report6 suggests that
concrete, which satisfied a certain minimum requirement for strength at one-day, would
conform after full conversion to a minimum strength which was about 30 MPa below this
requirement. If there is no damaging environment (see section 12 on Durability) there is no
further drop once the concrete has reached a high level of conversion.

For the purpose of arriving at the basic converted strength of HACC the sub-committee
therefore sought evidence on the one hand of the total water/cement ratio likely to have
been used in the manufacture of the smaller standard X-joists, and on the other hand
evidence from test results of the strength of concrete as a material, and as it performed in a
beam under bending stresses.

They concentrated their attention on X-type joists up to 10 inches (250 mm) depth of
standard manufacture where the control and workmanship were believed to be consistent.

Prior to 1965 the code of practice gave no guidance on the use of HAC in prestressed
concrete. CP 116:1965 suggested appropriate converted strengths for high alumina
cement concrete related to the total water/cement ratio. For a ratio of 0.40 the appropriate
fully converted strength is 39.0 MPa but this value reduces at higher water/cement ratios,
as the following extract from CP 116:1965 shows:

Water /cement ratio 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60

Converted lbf/in2 7200 5700 4500 3500 2800 2200

strength
MPa 49.6 39.3 31.0 24.1 19.3 15.2

This Code was based on good practice up to that time.

5
All values are expressed as equivalent or actual cube strengths.

6
Building Research Establishment Current Paper CP34/75.

15
CP 110:1972 utilised this information, except that the water/cement ratio is taken to mean
specifically the free water/cement ratio and a maximum value of 0.40 was specified for both
prestressed and reinforced concrete.

In practice, it would seem that the water/cement ratio has sometimes exceeded the
specified maximum (see for example the Stepney report), and it was thought realistic to
assume a fully converted strength related to a total water/cement ratio of between 0.50
and 0.55, i.e. between 24.1 and 19.3 MPa, for the concrete where there is evidence of
control such as in the standard production of X-joists.

The BRE report 7 (Table 3 and Figures 11 and 14) indicate that for a free water/cement
ratio of 0.40 a converted strength of about 22 MPa is obtained. The values of strengths
for different water/cement ratios are as follows:

Free
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
water/cement
ratio

Compressive
27.5 22.0 18.0 15.5 13.0 11.5
strength
(converted)
MPa

It is considered likely that in the factory production of standard X-joists the free
water/cement ratio was in the range of 0.40 to 0.45, in order to attain the requisite one-day
strength of 52 MPa, so that early transfer of prestress was possible.

Whilst some of the core strengths reported were significantly lower than 21 MPa, it was
considered that the data from tests on small cores from units of 10 in depth or less did not
provide a reliable basis for establishing converted strengths. Even so, Table 8 of the BRE
report lends support to a figure of 21 MPa.

A figure of 21 MPa was recommended as the basic strength of fully converted concrete for
the purposes of appraisal of standard factory-produced joists manufactured using long-line
production with consistent dimensional and quality control. There is no reason to suggest
that this value should be changed.

7
Building Research Establishment Current Paper CP34/75.

16
8 Method of calculation

It was recommended that the ultimate strength of factory-produced X-joists with a maximum
depth of 10 inches (250 mm) should be estimated on the basis of the assumptions given in
clause 4.3.4.1 of CP 110, as follows:

• Flexure The stress/strain relationship for the concrete should be as in CP 110 Figure 1
with a characteristic strength (fcu), taken as the basic converted strength, of 21 MPa, a
partial safety factor for material (γm) of 1.0, and with a maximum strain of 0.002. The
limiting value of 0.002 was deemed necessary in the light of the BRE report8 and since
it gives a slightly reduced moment at ultimate load, it errs on the conservative side.
Associated with this treatment for the concrete, a stress/strain relationship as given in
CP 110 Figure 3, may be assumed for the prestressing steel, with γm = 1.0.

Where X-joists are used singly with no infill pots, largely in roof construction, it was
reported that the top surface has, in some cases, been trowelled smooth by hand,
sometimes with the addition of a sand/cement mortar. Unless carried out under very
close and detailed supervision, this process may well produce beams where the top
surface is formed of a mix deficient in coarse aggregate with a high initial water/cement
ratio. For this reason it was recommended that isolated X-joists should be checked on
the basis of a partial safety factor for material (γm ) of 1.5 on the 21 MPa concrete
strength, unless it can be established that this process has not been used. There is no
basis on which to change this recommendation.

• Tensile strength From the limited data available in the BRE report it was recommended
that the tensile strength of fully converted HAC concrete be taken as that for Portland
cement concrete having the same strength i.e. 2 MPa. There is no basis on to which to
change this recommendation.

• Shear Using the defined strength for concrete of 21 MPa, the treatment of shear
should follow that given in CP 110 clause 4.3.5, with the partial safety factor for
materials (λm) implicit in the expression for ft in Section 4.3.5.1 removed (see also
Appendix K). The approach to dealing with shear has not changed significantly
between CP 110 and BS 8110. Since BS 8110 is due to be replaced and EC2 (see
section 19 for full reference) has a different approach, it is considered that the best
course of action is to carry out the assessment on the basis of CP 110 as
recommended originally.

• Transmission length Since transmission length is in general not solely related to

concrete strength and, further, since there was no evidence of anchorage failures for
5-7 mm diameter wire, it was recommended that the transmission lengths for wire given
in CP 110 be adopted. There is no reason to change this recommendation.

8
Building Research Establishment Current Paper CP34/75.

17
Beam performance factor

A great deal of data (more than 100 tests) related to the tests to failure of individual X-joists
was studied. On this basis a factor of 1.3 x ultimate resistance moment, calculated in
accordance with the paragraph on flexure in section 8 above, was recommended in
calculating the strength of X-joists in the range of 5 inchesÐ10 inches (125 mmÐ250 mm).
A summary of the beam test results is included as Appendix M.

9 Superimposed loading

It was recommended that the superimposed loadings to be considered in appraisal

calculations should be those given in CP 3 Chapter V Loading. For the design of new
structures dead and imposed load are now assessed in accordance with BS 6399 Parts 1
and 3, and in due course this will be replaced by the provisions of Eurocode EC1 (see
section 19 for full reference). It is considered prudent to review whether the loading
assumptions made in the original design calculations, where available, are still reasonable,
but in many cases the values to be assumed have not changed.

In relation to domestic loading for example, the code value then as now was 1.5 kN/m 2. A
detailed BRE research study into domestic loading had disclosed that under certain
specified conditions the maximum superimposed loading case on a domestic slab would
very rarely exceed 1.2 kN/m2, and that this might have been justified as a reasonable value
to consider in any appraisal. However the code value of 1.5 kN/m2 was recommended for
appraisals, in the knowledge that this may carry with it an additional margin of safety in
domestic construction.

18
10 Enhancement factors

Numerous test results were examined by Sub-committee P and they carried out their own
tests to probe the reliability of various enhancement factors. They concluded that there is
little doubt that in many cases such factors are present, and when they can be proved they
may be taken into account. However their formal recommendations were as follows.

1 End restraint factor

Floors:

With both ends housed in 100 mm thick walls of brick or block having an average
compressive strength of not less than 20 MPa or 10 MPa respectively, and with not less
than one storey height of wall above the joists, end restraint may be assumed to give:

a) for effective spans not exceeding 6 metres, 10% enhancement, i.e. 1.1 x assessed
ultimate resistance moment.

b) for effective spans exceeding 6 metres, 5% enhancement, i.e. 1.05 x assessed

ultimate resistance moment.

Roofs:

No enhancement.

2 Screed factor

Where a non-structural screed to a floor of joist and hollow block construction has been
provided without a separating (quilt) layer, i.e. the screed is bonded, the construction may
be considered as composite, provided that the screed is not less than 30 mm in thickness,
and it is examined to ensure adequate bond and strength. Account should, of course, be
taken of the existence of service ducts etc. A stress of 10 MPa in the screed may then be
assumed using 30 mm as the screed thickness for the purposes of the calculation but this
enhancement factor may not be taken as more than 1.25 x assessed ultimate resistance
moment of the precast section.

The subject of the contribution of non-structural screeds, end fixity and load sharing to the
performance of beam and block type floors which are of a similar form of construction to
that used with HACC components, has been studied by Dr Richard Moss and may allow
less conservative assumptions to be made in appropriate circumstances9.

9
Moss R M., Load Testing of Beam and Block Concrete Floors, Proceedings of Institution
of Civil Engineers Structures and Buildings, 1993, 89, May, 211-223.

19
11 Partial safety factors for loading

Sub-committee P considered the partial safety factors for loading, in the knowledge that an
appraisal of many HACC structures based upon their recommended strength criteria would
not give the full partial safety factors on loading recommended in clause 2.3.3.1 of CP 110
for new construction. The criteria on which these load factors are based are given in
CPÊ110 clause 2.3.1.

Sub-committee P recommended that the following partial safety factors for loading should
be used for joist and hollow block construction in buildings which consist solely of houses,
flats and maisonettes:

Dead load Imposed load

Floors 1.2 (including partitions) 1.3

Roofs 1.3 1.3

There are greater consequences resulting from failure as the number of storeys increases.
Hence it seemed prudent to limit the application of these factors to domestic buildings of
4Êstoreys or less. They recommended that in the following circumstances:

• in all buildings of 5 storeys and more

• in buildings of less than 5 storeys other than domestic buildings

• for all isolated beams

then the loading factors prescribed in CP 110 should be used.

However, if the actual dead load is assessed, then:

• the dead load factor for floors may be reduced to 1.2

• the dead load factor for roofs may be reduced to 1.3

The factors included within BS 8110 are essentially the same as in CP 110. The new
Eurocode has different factors and there are more combinations of loads which need to be
considered based on EN 1990 Basis of Design. There is no evidence to suggest however
that the values assumed and the approach suggested above is unreasonable for HAC
components.

20
12 Durability

Corrosion In non-aggressive environments Sub-committee P concluded that:

• there is no evidence that corrosion in prestressing wires differs from that normally
encountered in Portland cement concrete, nor that in view of the composition of the
HAC used in this country, HACC is likely to cause corrosion in the stressing wires.

• stress corrosion is unlikely.

This is still the current view. For the latest information on durability, reference should be
made to the BRE Special Digest 3, SD3, 2002.

Chemical attack If exposed to water and alkalis from an outside source, HACC may be
vulnerable to alkaline hydrolysis, particularly if the concrete is porous due to high
water/cement ratio and/or conversion. Since the alkalis are not exhausted in the reaction,
the attack can continue if the source of the alkalis is removed but the water is allowed to
remain. The commonest source of alkalis is Portland cement. HACC could also be
vulnerable to internal chemical attack by alkalis that can be leached out from fine
aggregate such as feldspar, mica and some schists, and granite dust, but this will only take
place where there is a flow of water or heavy condensation over a number of years. HACC,
when permeable after conversion, is vulnerable to chemical attack by sulfates which may
be present in adjacent plaster or any products containing Portland cement, but, once
again, the presence of water over a period of years is essential for the attack to take place.
The attack ceases when the source of either the water or the aggressive agent disappears.
Such damaging situations do not occur where routine maintenance prevents continuing
leakage or where heavy condensation is not allowed to persist: it will not therefore occur as
a result of the normal use of the domestic bathroom and kitchen. It should he borne in
mind, however, that all chemical attack is cumulative. When buildings are being assessed
Sub-committee P recommended that areas where prolonged leakage may have continued
undetected or where there is sustained heavy condensation should be carefully examined,
and the concrete should be inspected and subjected to appropriate chemical tests. It is
essential to prevent further wetting.

13 Fire resistance
Tests carried out at the Fire Research Station (Appendix N) showed that an unprotected
converted joist and hollow block floor (with unbonded screed) carried a typical practical
domestic loading for about 30 minutes. Accordingly, its fire resistance is not significantly
different from that given in CP 110 Part I 1972 Table 57 for comparable Portland cement
concrete floors. In those cases where joist and hollow block floors are required to provide
fire resistance in excess of 30 minutes, this would normally already be achieved by the
provision of a suitable ceiling treatment. In BS 8110 the required fire resistance for floors is
usually achieved by specifying minimum levels of cover. In any assessment of existing
construction it would be prudent to compare the levels of cover actually achieved with
current requirements.

21
14 Assessment of domestic construction recommendations

Using the suggested criteria Sub-committee P assessed the full range of X-joists up to
10Êinches in depth in joist and hollow block construction in dwellings. Taking no account of
screeds, or any other enhancement which may be present (see section 10), they found
that the floor spans, using a partial safety factor of 1.2 for the design dead load, in every
case examined gave a partial safety factor for the live load of 1.5 kN/m2 in excess of 1.3.
For flat roofs, without access and constructed from joists and hollow blocks, they found that
for X5.2510 beams and for effective spans up to 6.5 metres for X7 beams and up to
8.5Êmetres for X9Êbeams, using a partial safety factor of 1.3 for the dead load, gave in
every case examined a partial safety factor for the live load of 0.75 kN/m2 in excess of 1.3.

Their detailed studies of flooring systems concentrated mainly on the Pierhead floor as
produced by Pierhead Ltd. Information was sought on other flooring systems based on the
use of HACC beams.

Sub-committee P checked the X-beam floor systems produced by Trent, Fram and
Lyncrete, and found that conclusions based upon Pierhead details were also valid for
these. They also received details of a number of flooring systems which rely partly on HACC
beams, and an in situ Portland cement concrete infill or topping, including in particular the
Francis Parker floor. They carried out spot checks on these composite systems, and found
that they provide a satisfactory margin of safety on standard domestic loading without
reliance being placed on the HACC, the compressive stresses being within the capacity of
the Portland cement concrete infill or topping alone.

Evidence was made available of the possible existence of a very small sample, in
proportion to the total number of buildings involved, of proprietary floors which are not
similar to the X-joist beam and which may rely solely on the compressive stresses within the
HACC. The majority of the factors considered in the examination of the X-joist floors will be
applicable also to this sample, but Sub-committee P were unable to check each individual
case made known to them separately. However they were satisfied that the risk of failure in
this small sample was low and did not give them reason to change their basic
recommendations.

10
X5.25 means an X-type beam with an overall depth of 5.25 inches. X7 means the
overall depth is 7 inches, etc.

22
15 Exemptions from appraisal

Sub-committee P recommended that in buildings consisting solely of houses, maisonettes

and flats, floors and roofs of standard factory-produced joists up to 10 inches (250 mm) in
depth, which is the maximum size used in such construction, may be considered safe and
exempt from appraisal provided:

a) the buildings do not consist of more than 4 storeys.

b) in the case of roofs of HACC construction:

i) they are of joist and block or composite construction;

ii) they are not used for access except for maintenance;

iii) the spans do not exceed 6.5 metres clear in the case of an X7 or less joist roof, and
8.5 metres clear in the case of an X9 or X10 joist roof.

c) there is no persistent leakage or sustained heavy condensation.

16 Criteria for appraisal of buildings

Criteria for appraisal of floors or roofs with HACC beams in non-composite

construction

Sub-committee P recommended that all buildings not exempt under section 15 should be
appraised by a suitably qualified engineer. In the absence of actual data on concrete
strength the criteria tabulated on the next page may be used. Any such appraisal should
include a visual inspection of the structure.

23
24

Criteria for appraisal of floors or roofs with HACC beams in non-composite construction
Type of beam Concrete Maximum Beam Partial safety factors
strength fcu strain performance
(MPa) factor
Materials (γm) Loading (γf)
Concrete Steel Dead load Live load
Floor Roof
1 Standard factory-produced X-joists up to
10Êinches (250 mm) in depth manufactured on a 21 0.002 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.411 1.411 1.6
long-term production line with consistent
dimensional and quality control and used in joist
and hollow block construction
2 Standard factory-produced X-joists up to
10Êinches (250 mm) in depth manufactured on a 21 0.002 1.3 1.512 1.0 1.411 1.411 1.6
long-term production line with consistent
dimensional and quality control and used as
isolated beams or purlins
3 Other standard factory produced joists
manufactured on a long-term production line 21 0.002 Not applicable 1.512 1.0 1.411 1.411 1.6
with consistent dimensional and quality control
used as isolated
beams and purlins
4 All other factory-produced beams used in joist Provided the quality control and production is the same as in
and hollow block construction or as isolated Item 3 the same figures can be used. If not, they should be 1.0 1.411 1.411 1.6
beams or purlins assessed.

11
The dead load factor for floors may be reduced to 1.2 and that for roofs to 1.3 if the actual dead load is assessed.

12
Except where it has been verified that the top surface has not been trowelled smooth in which case the partial safety factor for concrete
may be taken as 1.0.
In addition, for beam and hollow block construction the following enhancement factors may
be used:

1 End restraint factor

Floors:

With both ends housed in 100 mm thick walls of brick or block having an average
compressive strength of not less than 20 MPa or 10 MPa respectively, and with not less
than one storey height of wall above the joists, end restraint may be assumed to give:

a) for effective spans not exceeding 6 metres, 10% enhancement, i.e. 1.1 x assessed
ultimate resistance moment.

b) for effective spans exceeding 6 metres, 5% enhancement, i.e. 1.05 x assessed

ultimate resistance moment.

Roofs:

No enhancement.

2 Screed factor

Where a non-structural screed to a floor of joist and hollow block construction has been
provided without a separating (quilt) layer, i.e. the screed is bonded, the construction may
be considered as composite, provided that the screed is not less than 30 mm in thickness,
and it is examined to ensure adequate bond and strength. Account should, of course, be
taken of the existence of service ducts etc. A stress of 10 MPa in the screed may then be
assumed using 30 mm as the screed thickness for the purposes of the calculation, but this
enhancement factor may not be taken as more than 1.25 x assessed ultimate resistance
moment of the precast section.

Criteria for appraisal of floors or roofs with HACC beams in composite construction

Floors and roofs designed and constructed as composite should be appraised using the
recommendations in CP 110, a strength for the high alumina cement concrete as specified
in the table above in this section, and such of the other criteria given above as may be
relevant.

25
17 Further recommendations

In deciding on the criteria recommended to engineers to use in the appraisal of all buildings
not exempt under section 15, Sub-committee P took into account all information available to
them at the time. They recommended that all such buildings should, as part of the
appraisal, be visually inspected for any indication of features such as:

• damaging environment

• poor workmanship

• poor bearings

• overloading or gross misuse

• dynamic loading

• serious deflection (lack of deflection does not necessarily indicate no serious loss of
strength)

If the results of the appraisal do not indicate a satisfactory margin of safety, they
recommended that the engineers should consider one of the following courses of action:

a) determine the actual concrete strength or carry out a proof loading test, followed by
either determination of actual concrete strength or a proof loading test, so that the
present safety margin can be reassessed.

b) remedial measures.

c) removal of unsatisfactory members.

Dr Richard Moss (BRE) has prepared guidance on how to conduct such proof load tests
and the factors which need to be considered13.

More general guidance on appraisal is given in an ISE report14. This is supplemented by

BRE Digests and other more specific information to facilitate the assessment of HACC
construction.

13
Moss R M., Load Testing of Beam and Block Concrete Floors, Proceedings of Institution
of Civil Engineers Structures and Buildings, 1993, 89, May, 211-223.
14
Institution of Structural Engineers Report "Appraisal of existing structures".

26
18 Acknowledgements

The BRAC Committee received invaluable assistance in our work from a considerable
number of individuals and organisations. In addition to those who submitted written
statements of their experience with HACC (see Appendix G), those universities, technical
colleges, testing houses, consulting engineers and others who submitted beam test data,
and those local authorities who supplied plans of buildings in which high alumina cement
concrete had been used, and expressed gratitude to:

The Building Research Establishment

The Property Services Agency

Birmingham City Council

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

Lafarge Aluminous Cement Co. Ltd.

Leonard Fairclough Ltd.

Members of Institution of Structural Engineers' informal Committee on High Alumina Cement

Concrete

Pierhead Ltd.

Trent Concrete Ltd.

L R Creasy, CB, OBE, BSc, FICE, FlStructE Chairman of Institution of Structural Engineers'
Working Party on High Alumina Cement Concrete

A R Fulwood, BScEng, FICE, FlStructE, FIOB Head of Civil Engineering, Sheffield

Polytechnic

P J E Sullivan, BE, MA, DIC, PhD, MICE and J B Newman, BSc, DIC, PhD, MIStructE
Imperial College of Science and Technology

27
19 List of relevant codes and standards

CP 114:1969 The structural use of reinforced concrete in buildings

CP 115:1969 The structural use of prestressed concrete in buildings

CP 116:1969 The structural use of precast concrete

CP 110:1972 The structural use of concrete

BS 8110:1985 The structural use of concrete

EC1: ENV 1991-2-1:1995 Eurocode 1

EC2: ENV 1992-1-1:1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures, Part 1 General rules
for buildings, BSI 1992

28
20 Appendices

Appendices A-E

Circular letters not included, as they are believed to be of historical interest only.

Appendix F

Summary of BREÕs findings (included, with new preface note)

Appendix G

List of consulting engineers, local authorities etc. who submitted written statements
(Included)

Appendix H

Laboratory and site testing of floors with prestressed high alumina cement concrete beams
(included but without Annex as this information is considered too detailed for the purposes
of this report)

Appendix J

Properties of typical HACC joist sections as assessed by the consultants (included)

Appendix K

Method of calculation for ultimate shear resistance of HACC X-joists (included)

Appendix M

Summary of beam test results (included)

Appendix N

Fire resistance tests on floors (included)

Appendix P

Principal uses of HACC precast prestressed structural systems in buildings (included)

29
 APPENDIX F

SUMMARY OF BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT’S FINDINGS

New preface note to Appendix F

The remarks and data presented in Appendix F were made in 1975. The reader should bear in mind that today, some
of them are no longer relevant. An important example is the reference to degree of conversion that is no longer
required for the majority of ageing HACC. Appendix F should be read in conjunction with BRE Special Digest 3,
SD3, 2002, on HACC which describes more recent BRE findings on the condition and performance of HACC.

1 CONVERSION
Measurements of the degree of conversion of the concrete in existing buildings indicate that
most concrete has reached a high level of conversion in a few years. The results of crushing tests
on highly converted concrete specimens cut from beams also indicate that strength is very variable
and that some concrete suffers substantial losses of strength with respect to the strength at one day
on which the design was usually based. In the appraisal of buildings therefore it is advisable to
assume that all concrete has reached or will reach, during its expected life, a high level of
conversion. Nevertheless, in the majority of construction the loss of strength is not sufficient to
endanger the structure.

2 TEMPERATURE EFFECTS ON CONVERSION AND LOSS OF STRENGTH

The long-term laboratory studies at BRE have shown that if concrete with a free water/cement
ratio of less than 0.4 is stored in water (storage in air would not lead to appreciably different
results) at 18°C throughout its initial curing period and its subsequent life, a minimum strength
will be reached after about five years and this minimum will not be appreciably less than the
strength at one day; tests on a recent batch of cement shows, however, that the loss of strength at
18°C may take place more rapidly than this suggests;
If concrete is stored in water at 38°C after one day at 18°C it converts rapidly to a high level and
reaches a minimum strength in about three months which is very substantially less than the
strength at one day;
1
If concrete is stored in water at 18°C for a long period (up to 8 /2 years) and is then immersed in
water at 38°C it will rapidly convert and lose strength to the minimum level reached for con-
tinuous storage at 38°C;
If concrete is subjected to temperatures in excess of 25°C at any time during curing or sub-
sequently, which in its early life need only be for a few hours, conversion becomes more rapid and
a serious loss of strength occurs which may take some months to develop. Storage at 30°C appears
to cause a loss of strength which is only slightly less than at 38°C.
Since the temperature of 38°C represents the upper limit of what is likely to be reached during
curing of these sections or in normally heated buildings and the precise level is not critical, it is
recommended that design appraisals should be based on the minimum strength at this temperature.

3 STRENGTH TESTS
Appraisal of the results of crushing tests on specimens from beams of standardised sections
which were likely to have been subjected to good control in manufacture and to have been
required to conform with the one-day strength requirements of CP 116 has suggested that a
characteristic strength for the concrete of 20 N/mm2 might be adopted in conjunction with an
appropriate partial safety factor. Tests on X5, X7 and X9 beams suggest that this strength might be
increased by a factor of 1.3 (not the beam performance factor) since there was evidence that the
method of calculation given in CP 110 tended to underestimate beam strength. The suggestion that
the specified one-day strength of the concrete might drop from 52 N/mm2 to about 20 N/mm2 when
a high level of conversion was reached is consistent with the findings of the long-term laboratory
study carried out by BRE. Here the characteristic strengths of concrete at one day for practical
water/cement ratios might be expected to drop in value by about 30 N/mm2.
Where sampling of concrete for strength tests is necessary, and the concrete has been shown to be
highly converted, i.e. 80% converted, the specimens should be tested as sampled, otherwise they
should be tested after heating in water at 50°C for a month to obtain the fully converted strength or
alternatively, if there is time, at 38°C in water for three months since the latter is a more realistic
and apparently a slightly less onerous condition.

11
4 FLOORS
The results of tests to failure on floors indicate that where they consist of beams with hollow
blocks there is a slight enhancement in strength over that of the beams alone and that blocks are
capable of distributing loads to adjacent beams; where the floors have beams and blocks with a
floating screed separated by a quilt, the effect is greater. The greatest enhancement of strength and
capability for distributing load to adjacent beams is obtained where the screed is bonded to the
beams and blocks, and composite action develops. The results of these tests taken together with
those for proof loading tests made in existing buildings indicate that the risk of collapse is very
small and may be no greater than is experienced with other forms of construction. This conclusion
finds some confirmation from the fact that of about 17 x 106m2 of flooring that is reported to have
been built with prestressed concrete units of high alumina cement, no collapses have resulted from
loss of strength in the concrete due to conversion.

5 ROOFS
The results of tests on roofs particularly those with isolated beams show that the position is less
satisfactory and that the risk of collapse although small may not be acceptable. Remedial measures
have been necessary for a small number of roof structures following the development of excessive
deflection. The few collapses of roofs that have occurred have not all however been due solely to
loss of strength due to conversion, but have in several cases, been the result of a combination of
conversion with defects such as chemical attack or inadequate detailing of reinforcement at joints
or poor control of quality.

6 OTHER USES OF HAC

No specific experimental studies have been made of the performance of high alumina cement
concrete in precast prestressed composite members; precast concrete structural members; and in-
situ construction. The data obtained in the investigation however suggest that once a basic strength
has been established for appraisal, whether it is the result of accepting the validity of the control
procedure and allowing for the effects of a high level of conversion, or whether it is as the result of
tests on samples of concrete, this strength should be used in association with corresponding
information for design in the Code of Practice, CP 110. Evidence on values for the modulus of
elasticity, bond and tensile strength, suggest that changes in the properties of the concrete after
becoming highly converted are not inconsistent with those of Portland cement concretes of the
same strength.

7 CHEMICAL ATTACK
Highly converted high alumina cement concrete is vulnerable to chemical attack in the pre-
sence of long-term wetness and a chemically aggressive agent, which may be a more serious risk
for concretes with greater water/cement ratios.
Long-term studies are currently in hand to determine the performance of high alumina cement in
sulphate bearing soils in relation to the construction of foundations.

8 CORROSION OF STEEL TENDONS

No adverse effects of corrosion have been detected on steel tendons removed from prestressed
concrete beams in normal buildings. Neither the cement nor the prestressing steel used in this
country have the characteristics which led to failure of prestressed concrete beams with high
alumina cement in Germany in 1961.

12
 APPENDIX G

Hst of’Consulting
Engineem,LocalAuthorities
etc.who submitted
written
statements

P W Abeles, DSc(Vienna), FIStmctE, MConsE, FAmSocCE, Consulthg

Engineer.
%of A L L B&er, Department of ~ti En@neering, hperid College of Science md TechnoloW.
Jm kbrowti, BScEng, FICE, FIStmctE, MConsE, Consulting Engtieer.
R Moth, Dlpkch(Dtct), RIBA, FRSA, County Acbitect, Lancashire County CounciL
E W Bunn, FIStmctE, FFB, The StructursJ Engineer, Greater bndon Councif.
CB, OBE, BSC,FICE, FIStnsctE, Consultkg Engineer, Asn Mar*ti
L R Creasy, md Paflners.
R H Elve~, BScEng, FICE, University CoUege, hndon.
A R Fulwood, BScEng, FICE, FIStmctE, F1OB, Head of Citi Engineetig, Sheffield Polytechnic
S A B HeppeU, BA, RfBA, ~pTP, C]ty &chitect, Manchester.
B O ~son, BSC,PhD, FIStmctE, MICE, AIWSC, Brighton Polytectic.
D T Hurlstone, FICE,’FIMunE, ARICS, MIInstHE, Borou~ En@neer snd Surveyor, bndon
Bomu@ of Bedey.
R S Johnson, BSC,Dtiector of Education, beds ~ty CounciL
B Mayfield, BSC,PhD, MICE, Department of Civfl Engineedng, University of Nottinghm.
R A D Noble, MA, M[CE, Pierhead Ltd.
A S Safier, DipCE, BScEng, FICE, FIStmctE, FI&b, MConsE, Consulting Engineer.
A C E Ssndberg, BSC,ACGI, MConsE, MIMechE, MI HE,’Consulting En@eer.
G Shaw, MIStructE, Consulting Engineer, W G Curtin snd Partners.
D Shimsn, BSC,FICE, bonard Fsirclougb Ltd.
L S Ward, BA, MRTPI, Borou@ Plsnning Officer, Wrou@ of Eflesmere Port CounciL
G Miteley, MIStmctE, ~nsdting Engineer, Horridge md Power.
N W Wfliamson, B%, PhD, MIStructE, Depatiment of Citil Engineefig, Mmchester Univemity.
me Concrete Society.

_.— —
 UPENDK H

LABORATORY AND S~E ~S~NG OF FLOORS WITH PmSTRESSED

CONCR~E BEMS

1. Gneral.

1.1 The Buflding Research Establishment’s Report on High Aumina Cement Concrete in
. Bufidhes. (CP
. 34175) included in fornration on the results of Iaboratow tests camied out on 12
sbrrply supported fl~om of X-joist”and block construction to assess th~ contribution of floating
and bonded %reeds to their load-carrying capacity. To provide further information” on the effect
of screeds and other factors such as end fitity and two-way spanning we commissioned:

(a) a series of four tests of X-joist and block floors under laboratoV conditions at Cardhgton;

(b) site load tests on an X-joist and block floor of an old people’s home at Bimtigbam and
on three X.joist and block floon of a buflding housing a swtiming pool at Doncaster.

1.2 Of the total of 20 floors tested, five (including three of the Frmcis %rker type) had no
screed, 10 had floating screeds and the remdning five bonded screeds. Detafls of the tests we
commissioned and the results (two tests were carried out on one of the Doncaster floors) are
given in the Annex and theresdtsofW21 tests me sumariwd in Table 1.

1.3 In each case the dttiate moment of resistance of the floor was established by load
testing to fafiure. After the test one or more undamaged beams were taken from the floor,
tested to fatiure, and the resdts used to calculate the ultimate moment of resistance of the
floor. (If there were no undamaged beams, a beam from a neighboring part of the structure or
from the wme batch was tested.) The difference ‘between the actual and calculated ultimate
moments of resistance of the floor provided an indication of the enhancement in strength of
the floor due to the various facton.

2. Floom without wreds

2.1 A test by the Buflding Research Rtablihment on a simply supported floor under a
uniforndy distributed load indicated that there was no enhancement. Other tests by BRE were
on Francis %rker-type floors, in which the compression flanges were made of ordinary
%rtland cement concrete; the premature fafiure of one of these floors was attributed to the
fact that a drier mix was used for the in falling concrete, resulthg in a lack of adhesion between
the bedms and blocks, and to the early lateral wparation of the edge hems.

2.2 The screed was removed from one of the floors at Doncaster before it was tested. Two
beams at one edge, which were shply supported at one end, fafied at a moment of resistance
slightly less than the calcdated ultinrate moment. These were then separated from the rest of
the floor md the undamaged part tested. It fafled at a moment of resistance which was at least
.
39% over the calculated ultirrrate moment, the enhancement apparently being due to partial
flxity at both ends of the span. The beam strengths used in the calculation of the ulthate
nlornent of resistance of the floor were obtained from tests on sirntiar beams tken from an
adjacent part of the bufiding subject to sbrrtiar entionmental conditions. The low strength of
that part of the floor which fafied in the early part of the test su%ests that the tested beams
were magina fly stronger than the hems in the floor.

2.3 Deflections measured during pobrt loading tests on floors at BRE and at Doncaster
indicated that the infti blocks did transfer some of the load from the loaded bem to other
beams in the floor.

3. Floors with floating wreeds

3.1 When four stiply supported floors with floating screeds were tested at the Buifding
Research Establishment they fafled at moments of resistance between 4% and 15% in excess

1
O( the calculated ultil]late ]lloments. Tbc eJ1hancc)nent in strength was attributed to the screeds,
but the results of two of (be tests 01 Cardington showed no enhancement even though there
was a degree of end rest rdint. tlowcver, the reliability of the estimates of enhancement
depended on bow far the strength of the irldivid ual bv~ms tested coincided with the uveragc
strcngtb of tbc beu!lls in tbc floors. There wxs in f~ct a wide vartidtion in tbc strengths of the
be~ms tested at Cardington, and the cxlcul;ttcd moments of resistance of the floors may there.
fore have been overestimated. [t therefore appeared that while there could be some enhance
ment from floating screeds, this could not be relied upon.

3.2 Point loading tests showed that floati!]g screeds helped to distribute the load across the
beams.

3,3 ~Ie results of the Birmingham test indicated that the high de~ee of end restraint had
resulted in an increase in the floor strength we~ above that to be expected from the screed
done. (This floor was not tested to faflure, but the maflmum applied load was taken as the
fatiure load.)

3.4 me Don caster tests indicated that, in addition to the effect of the considerable end
restraint (Figure VII), tbe screed above the asphalt membrane behaved like a bonded screed, ~
acting compositely under the uniformly distributed load.

4. Floom with bonded wreeds

4.1 The results of four tests carried out by BRE on shply supported floors with bonded
screeds indicated an enhancement ill strength of ~t least 28%. Tbe resdts of the test of a
sinlilar floor at bncastcr showed u grcfitcr cnbanccment, probably due to the end restraint.

5. End ~iity

5,1 It is apparent from the Doncaster and Birmingham tests that there is often some degree of
fixity depending on the end conditions. For relatively short spans the end restratit could be as
high as 50% of the fixed end moment, which is about the matimum the hems can withstand
in reverse bending

6. Conclusions

6.1 There is no evidence thtit inf~l blocks alone directly increase the strength of a floor
although there is evidence that they lead to some distribution of loading.

6.2 A floating screed distributes the load across tbe beams and there may in addition be some
small enhancement of strength.

6.3 A bonded zreed changes tbe character of bem and pot construction to that of a com-
posite floor producing significant etiancement of strength.

6.4 Etiancement in strength from end fixity depends on the ftiure strength of the beam h
reverse bending and on tbe strength and the restraintig effect of the walls into which the floor
is bufit.

2
 . ,,

APPENDIX J

PROPERTIES OF TYPICAL HIGH ALUMINA CEMENT CONCRETE JOIST

SE~ONS AS ASSESSED BY THE CONSULTANTS

1. Utimatemshtancemoments ofindividu~
X joists

1.1 X joists
uxd injoist
md hollow
blo&mnstmction
(~tego~1intheTable
in
Wction-16.2 of the repoti)

Columns 3 in Tables A, B, C and D show ultimate resistance moments calculated in accordmce

tith the strsin compatibility method defined in CP 110 for the mtin types of X joists manu-
factured by the foflowing fhms:

(a) Pierhead*
(b) Trent
(c) Fram snd Crmaget
(d) Lyncrete

Mere two values are given for joists desi~ed to be used also as cantilevers the first value is the
dtimate resistmce moment for the simply suppotied condition whale the second sm~er value
is the ultimate cantilever moment.

These values have been calculated by computer ad checked in each case ushg m independently
developed computer progmm. They do NOT include the bem performances factor or any
ehsncement due to screeds and fmity. The basic data used in these cdcdations were:

(1) Strength of HACC ti joists (f,”) 21 N/mm2

(2) Mafimum strain for HACC 0.002

(3) Partial factor of safety for matedds (Yin) for concrete ad steel 1.0

(4) bsses of prestress as cdcdated in 1.3 below

(5) Geometric pmpetiies md wire patterns of Herhead X5% snd X7 joists as used for these
cdcdations are given ti Figures 2 md 3 of the BuUding Resewch EstabliAment Report
“High Aumina Cement’Concrete in Bufldings” (CP 34/75). SMflar detds of joists
manufactured by Fram md Crmage, Trent md Lyncrete, tken from their catdogues, are
given in Appendix P. The accuracy of these has been checked with the mmufacturers.

1.2 K joists med ss isolatd beams snd pwhns (titego~ 2 in the Table in Section 16.2 of
the tipofi)’

Columns 4 in Tabl?s A, B, C md D mow the titbnate resistance moments for joists tith a con-
crete strength “fc” of 21 N/mm2 but Mth 7m = 1.5 for concrete and 1.0 for steel.

1.3 @cdations ~or loss of prestrew in HACC beams

In determining the ultimate moment of resistmce a precise estimation of losses is not requtied.
Hence no Wowmce is made in Tables A, B, C md D for the losses that t~e place before the
release of tires, or for the subsequent reduction in stress due to elastic shortening which wfll
reduce dighdy the ultimate creep values.

* Pierhead used 0.27&’ wires h some early units. ~ese are not covered in this Appendix.

t Fram ~ea~edpmductio” in 1971. Cmnage set up h the same year Ushg FMM’Smoulds to give
the -e concrete pmfdes with essentidy the same wire patterns (see Note on Table C) snd a
slightly h]gber wire stress at release.

I
—. —
Generally the calculations are bawd on the parameters spectied h CP 110. me concrete cube
strength at release is tken as 41.4 N/mm2 (6000 psi) in accordmw with the manufacture’
data sheets and design data ~ven by Pierhead.

The foflowing assumptions were made to calculate the losses of prestress:

(1) Shrink@.

300 x 10-’ strdn (nomd exposure) (see CP 110 4.8.2.4)

(2) Elastic Shorteniw

Young’s Moddus

(a) Steel 200 x 103N/mm’ (see CP 110 2.4.2.4)

(b) Concrete 31.4 x 103 N/mm’ for f,”= 41.4 N/mm’ (see CP 110 Table
1)

Modular
~tiom = 200x 103/31.4x
103
= 6.4

(3) *eep

48x 10-6strtin per N/mm’ stress (see CP 110 4.8.2.5)

(4) Steel Relmatwn

51.7 N/mma (Test repofi MWC/67/l by R Johnson and Nephew to Refiead)

2
1.

,, .

TABLE A RESISTANCE MOMENTS FOR P~~EAD X JOISTS

(Beam peflomanm factor NOT included)

Section ~pe Utimate ~titan- moment Utfiate Rsktanw moment

.No. & Dm. for f .U =21 N/mm’ and fc” =21 N/mma and ?m =
of *s in 7m =.1.0 for mnmte and steel 1.5 for concrete and 1.0 for
inches steel
(1) (2) (3) (4)

x5% T3/o.2 5.0 kN.m 3.9 kN,m

T4/O.2 6.0 4.4
T5/O.2 6.4 4.6
T6/O.2 6.7 4.7
T6C/O.2* 5.3 4.1 kN.m 3.3 2.5 kN.m

x7 T3/O.2 8,9 kNm 7.7 kN.m

T4/O.2 11.2 9.4
T5/O.2 12.5 9.6
T6/O.2 13.0 9.6
T7/o.2 14.0 10.2
T8/O.2 14.0 10.1
T9/o.2 14.1 10.0
T9B/O.2*’ 12.4 6.1 kN.m 8.2 3.3 kN.m
T9P/o.2* 10.7 8.9 6.6 5.2

x9 T8/O.2 24.9 kNm 18.7 kN.m

T9/o.2 26.1 19.3
TIO/O.2 26.6 19.5
T1 1/0.2 26.5 19.2
T12/O.2 27.7 19.8
T13/O.2 27.9 19.8
T14/O.2 27.4 ~~ 19.2
‘T15C/O.2* 23.9 14.7 kN.m 15.3 8.3 kN.m
T16C/O.2* 23.5 14.5 14.5 7.6

* We Section 1.1

3
 1 !., .

TABLE B: RESISTANCE MOMENTS FOR TRENT X JOISTS

(Beam performance factor NOT hcl.ded)

kction ~pe Utimate ti~aoe moment Utimate msi~mu moment

No. &M. for f,. =21 N/mm2 and fcu = 21 N/mmz and 7m =
of wires in Ym = 1.0 for wncrete and steel 1.5 for mnc~te and 1.0 for
tichea *eel
:1) (2) (3) (4)

xl T3/O.2 9.10 kN.m 7.7 kN.m

T4/O.2 10.7 8.4
T5/O.2 11.8 8.6
T6/O.2 13.0 9.3
T7/o,2 13.2 9.3
T8/O.2 13.0 9.0

H9 w8/o,2 24.1 kN.m 17.6 kN,m

W9/O.2 24.7 17.8
wlo/o.2 25,3 18.0
W11/0.2 25.6 18.0
w12/o.2 25.7 17.7
w13/
11/0,2 25.9 17.6
md
l/b.276

110 w20/o.2 45.5 kN.m 31.3 kN.m

w21/o.2 45.8 31.3
w22/o.2 46.2 31.3
W23/O.2 46.5 31.3
W24/O.2 46.7 31.2
W25/O.2 46.9 31.1
,.

TABLE C RESISTANCE MOMENTS FOR FR~ AND CRANAGE ~JOISTS.

(Beam performance factor NOT included)

%ction ~pe Utimate resistanm moment Utimate retitimw moment

No. &~. for fc” =21 N/mma and for fcu =21 N/mm~ and
of tis in Tm = 1.0 for mnmte and steel 7m = 1.5 for wnmte and
inches 1.0 for steel.
(1) (2) (3) (4)

x5% T3/O.2 4.9 kN.m 3.6 kN.m

T4/O.2 5.7 4.0
T5/O.2 6.] 4.2
T6/O.2 6.4 4.3

x7 T3/O.2 9.6 kN.m 8.1 kN.m.

T4/O.2 11.2 8.7’
T3/O.276 12.7 9.3
T4/O.276 13.2 9.3

x9 T3/O.276 19.7kN.m 16.0 kN.m

T4/O.276 23.0 16.8
T5/0,276 26.2 18.8
T6/0!276 26.7 18.7
T710.276 27.0 18.6
T8/O.276. 26.2 17.4

TABLE D: RESISTANCE MOMENTS FOR L~CRETE X JOISTS

(Beam petiorrnanm factor NOT included)

mw Utinrate re~mm moment Uttite retitme moment

No. & Bia. for fc” = 21 N/nun’ and for fc” =21 N/mm2 md
oftis in 7m = 1.0 for wnmte and wee] 7m = 1.S for arrmte and.
incha 1.0 for stel
(1) (2) (3) (4)

L6 T4/O.2 8.2 kN.m 6.1 kNm

T5/O.2 8.3 5.7
T6/0:2 9.4 6.6
T7/02 9.3 6.4
T7s/o.2* 8.7 2.8 kNm 5.6 I;1 kN.m

* See %ction 1.1

5
 .

2. Wtfiateshearcapatity
ofX jokts (untracked)

2.1 x joists h joist md hOllOwhlO~ ~nstructiOn (CategO~ 1 i.nthe Table fi se~~n 16.2
of the repmt)

Tables E md F sbow the cdcdated ultimate shear capacities of the mti tYPeSof X joist mmu-
factured by the fOUOtig fires:
I
Pierhead
Trent
Fram and Crmage
Lyncrete

~ese values have been cdctiated by the method of analysis described in ‘Appendh K and
checked independently.

~ me sbe~ capacity of a section depends upon betig length, loss of prestre~ sad the vadation
of force in the prestresshg tires within the trmstission zone at the end of the joist. The effects
of these losses are more s~ficmt irr the cdcdations for shear capacity thm those for benting
moment. me values of shesr capacity given Me based on the fo~otig asumptfmrs md are
considered to give a reasonable estiarate of the strength of standmd X joists:

(1) Strength of HACCkjoists (f=.) 21 N/mm*

(2) Seafig length at the seating is taken as 10tim. If the length of besring is reduced to
Stim the she~ capacity is not si@ficmUy affected.

(3) ~estress at releme is t~efl as ! 080 N/~2 (exc!pt where m~ufactu~ers state O~efise).
I
(4) Loss of prcstress is cdcdated as in 1.3 above.

(5) The section is untracked.

(6) Gometric properties md wire patterns for the X joists areas @venh %ction 1.1 of ti
Appendti.
TABLE E CAWULATED ULT~ATE SHEAR CAPACITIES OF UNCMCKED
X JOISTS USED AS SWPLY SUPPOR~D BEMfS

Concrete strength (fcu) thenas21 N/mm’ md Tm = 1.0

(No bem perfommce factor is applicable)

tierhead jotis Fmm md OmWe jokts Tmnt mnmte joiWs

we md ty~ Shm Stie md type Shem size and type Shea ~

mpacity mpacity mpacity
@N) @N) @N)

X5% T3/o.2 .s.5 X5% T3/O.2 9.4 “ ‘

T4/O.2 8.9 T3/O.2 9.7
T5/O.2 9.2 T5/O.2 9.9
T6/O.2 9.3 Tb/O.2 10.1

x7 T3/o.2 13.8 x7 T3/O.2 14.7 x7 T3/O.2 14.3

T4/O.2 14.9 T4/O.2 15.8 T4/O.2 15.5
T5/O.2 15.9 T3/O.276 16.1 ‘T5/O.2 16.4,
T6/0,2 16.8 T410.276 17.4 T6/O.2 17.6
T7/o.2 17.6 m/o.2 18.3
.T8/o.2 18.3 T8/O.2 18.8
T9/o.2 19.0

x9 T8/O.2 26.5 x9 T3/O.276 26.0 H9 W8/O.2 28.3

T9/o.2 27.3 T4/O.27b 27.4 W9/O.2 29.1
TIO/O.2 28.1 T5/O.276 27.8 WI0/0.2 29.6
T1l/O.2 29.1 T6/O.276 28.8 W11/0.2 30.3
T12/O.2 29.5 W/O.276 29.8 y12/o.2 30.9
T13/0,2 30.1 T8/O.27k 31.8 w13/
T14/O.2 30.7 11/0.2 31,5
md
1/0.276

7
 ,.

TABLE F: CALCULATED ULTIMATE SHEAR CAPAC~ES OF UNCmCmD

X JOISTS USED AS SWPLY SUPPORTED BEMS

Concrete strengti (f,”) t~en m 21 N/mm’ and 7m = 1.0

(No beam performance factor is applicable)

Lynmeti joiti*

E
Sue and type Shew mpacity (kN)

L6 T4/O.2 i2.3
T5/O.2 13.1
T6/O.2 12.7
v/o.2 13.4

* TOPtie fully stressed in T5, but ody partidy stressed in T4, T6 md T7.

3. Effect
of wmti factor

3.1 Remmmendations

Recommendations on tie strength etimcement provided by non-structural screeds are given

h %ction 10.1.2 of the report.

3.2 Utimte resktanw moments with bonded smtis

me tittiate resistmce moment of my floor of X joist md ho~ow block constmction cm be

calculated directly from the data ~ven h the report ushg the strti cOmpatibOity method Out-
ked in CP 110. However a ~iit of 1.25 hti been put on the “screed factor”, wtich is defined
below.

&reed factor = CMcdated ulttiate resistmm moment of f100r tith bonded wreeds
(1.25 mm) @cdated titimate. km End restrtit factm
resistmce moment x perfommce x where applicable
of joists done factor of 1.3

me bmic data uxd ~ the cdcdations for the dtiate resistmce moments of f100ratith
bonded screeds in Table G were:-

(1) Strengti of HACC.h joists (fc”) 21 N/mm*

(2) Strength of screed (fc”’”) 10 N/mma

(3) Mtimum strtin for composite ‘section= 0.00358

(4) *reed thichex is assumed to be 3~m. .

(5) me ultfiate resistmce moment of the wembly of joists done k based on fcu * 21 N/mm’
md mtimum strti of 0.~2. Uttiate resistmm moments for indltiduti joists a= given
h Tables A, B, C md D, the bem perfommce factor h tis case is 1.3

—
* Wfle a strsin fitit of 0.002 hm been fowd appropriate for HACCjokts acthg on thek OW,
the fgure of 0.~35 m in CP 110 is applicable with composite constmction relying on OPCC
screeds or dabs.

8
t,, ,-,

Table G show the dthate moments of reshtmce md the correspond~g scmed facton for
floors constmcted tith the ma we of Herhead X joists at typical spac~gs ~d with bonded
wreeds.

mew tables shodd @vesufficient hfomation for the assessment of most fores of X joist
md block comtmction (icludhg eqtivdent Wachgs md types of joists used by Trent, Fr~
or ti~e).

9
 c“ ,1

APPENDM K

~THODS OF CALCULA~ON FOR ULT~ATE

SHEAR RESISTNCE OF X JOISTS

1. The methods of calculation of the dtfiate sheu resistmces of X joists, tith the partial
factor of mfety for matedds (7m) = 1.O”are@venin pa~aph 1.1 ‘of this Appendix for
untracked sections and in pa~aph 1.2 for cracked sections. For the methods of calculation
tien Tm = 1.5 see subclauses 4.3.5.1 md 4.3.5.2 of CP 110.

me dtimate shem resistmce of X-joist section untracked in flexure, VC~,cOrrespOnd~tO the

occurrenm of a mtim pdncipd tensfie stress at the junction of the upper flmge snd tie
web, ofi

ft = 0.36fi (see Note(l))

In the calculation of V,O (see Note (2)) the value of the prestres at the junction of the upper
I flmge md the web ~odd be ttien as 0.8fjp (we Note (3)). me value OfV.. IS@venby

v,. = *J~

here f, is 0.36 ~ t~en as positive,

fjp is the compressive stress at the junction of the flmge ad web, tsken as positive. In
the cdctiation of f ~ tiowmces Shodd be made for the losses in prestress, ~d fOr
I the development o 1 stress m the tires Mthii tie trmandasion length,
b is the tidth of the web.
I is the second moment of xea of the section about the centroid.
A? is the fmt moment of sfea of the flmge about the centroid.

me criticfl section for hear occurs at a distsnce d, from the edge of tie beafig. The v~ue Of
dc is @venby dc = hf ,
tm@

tiere hf is the height of the top flsnge-web junction above the bottom face of the bem or,
if the webs have cuwed sides, the mid.height of the joist (we Note (4)),
@ is the mde of inchation to the bem As of the plsne on which the principal
tension acts.
!Jorm al Critic aJ sectfon ~or shear (see note (4))
Junctioh o~ flange
Cr;tica I section ~or X] joists.
—jy, I ~ and .,,,

—.
I
,,1

~~” I
,, 1
,
b~

,’ 14 \ ‘
7/ ,,/// //// : 7\
/$ ‘-
M \y
/
5
4
bearing d~
length Y

SECTION BEAM El EVA7/OM

u

Notes:

(1) CP 110 MOW a pemisible mmfnmm principal ten~e stress of 0.24~u which includes
a partial factor of safety Ym = 1.5. The mmhum principal tension at cracking is therefore

1.5 X 0.24~u = o,36~u’

Afthougb in general in CP 110 the putid factor of wfeW for matedds, 7m, has been
applied direct] to the concrete strength fc”, in drtiting Sub+la”se 4.3.s. ] 7m was
apphed to / f=.. ,

(2) NOaccount hm been t~en of external bending moments in anitig at the hear
<
resistance.

(3) me factor of 0.8 is t+en to affow for the effects of variations in prestress, which are
independent of concrete strength.

(4) ExceptfortieX7 joists, my filets atthejunction ofthe flmge md the web have been
disregarded (a consewative assumption), md the *ear mdstance hm been calculated on
the basis of the ~dth of the strti~t pofiion of the web at the section YY: fn the case of
the X7 joists hatig webs tith cumed sides the shem resistance depends on the web
thickne~ at the mid height of the joist for the section Y1Y1.

(5) Values for V,O for the standard rmge of X5%, X7 md X9 joist sections are given in the
Tables in Appendix J, in which fc” has been t~en m 21 N/mm2.

(6) ~e trmsmision cuwe assumed for prestrexing tires b as given below.

2
 MPEND3X M

SWARYOF BEm ~ST ~SULTS

Not=:

me bem tested we~ produced by tbe pfidpd mmufacturem.

● W- tested by B~.

kams obttined from tie sme bufldhg are bracketed.

X5% Joisk

— —
Na .- G -
of
Spm Utimae
mment
~tideni
ab m 1
Wra Saw
— — — ECtin
Yrs % m kN.m N/mm= Nlmml
,.
T4 1 19 2.6 10.97 68.5
2 T4 1 2.6 11.81
3 T6 70/80 4.0 12.00 48.0
4 T6 70/80 4.0 12.50 46.0
5 T6 4,0 13.10 47.0
6 T6 4.0 10.80 40.0
7 T3 2,4 7.30 25.0
8* T6 1 bw 3.4 15,50 47.0
9* T6 1 bw 3.2 16.20
10* T6 1 83 3.45 10.40
11* T6 1 hw 4.78 14.80 43.0
12* T6 1 bw 4.78 12.10 45,0
13* T6 1 67 3.90 12.50 36,0
14* T6 1 64 4.77 15.70
15* T6 1 64 4.77 12.10
16* T6 10 73 3.51 10.50 32.0
17* T6 10 80 3.53 10.10 38.0
18* T6 1 69 4.77 11.60
19* T6 1 14 4.77 13.20
20* T6 1 72 4.77 11.30
21* T6 1 12.50
22 T4 2.6
—
9.6 - -
— — L

1
 X7 Joists

—
d w
f
pm

Dnvdn
$awn

— — —
&n

rs I V.m /mm2 N/mm=

‘9 4 .0 1.2
9 9 .0 1.6
9 3 5/80 .0 ).48 1.0
3 :4 .7 6.s 2.0
:9 ,0 .0 4.81 5.0
r8 0 0 .9 B.3 2/41
m 0 .0 7.s1
m 0 ‘7 .0 8.21
m 0 ‘o .0 6.07
o m 0 .0 8.11 3.06
1 m 2 tih .0 1.38 2.0
2 m ah ?.0 3.48 s .0
3 m ~h 1.0 7.78 3.0
4 r9 10/80 1.0 5.88 1.0
5 29 I 10/80 1.0 ,s.88 6.0
6 m !.4 6.5 4.0
.7 r3 !.4 7.89 8.0
.8 T8 1.0 :2.2 ,4.0
19 T8 t.o !1.s ,0.0
!0 79 Mgh !.0 !6.78 11.0
L1 T4 L8 70/80 1.9 .s.3 .2.0
t2 n 17 75 3.6 .33.99 11.s
13 T7 17 75 3.65 !2.47 :5.0
14 77 17 75 3.6S 18.63 10.s
25 T8 L 10 3.0 !9.81
26 T8 1% 15 3.0 18.98
27 T8 % 10 3.0 30.4s
18 T8 % 50 3.0 30.4s
29 78 % 10 2.74 [9.8S
30 T8 % 10 3.0 10.17
31 T8 % 25 3.0 17.91
32 T8 1 10 3.0 20.40
33 T7 21 4.s1 25.0
34 T9 1 82 3.2t 30.8
35 T9 1 83 3.5[ 54.0
36 T8 1 75 So: 23.0 30
37 T8 1 80 5.s! 2s.s
38 T8 8 42 S.9! 21.2
39 m % 65 3.0 19.8S
40 T8 % 90 3.0 20.17
41 T8 % 80 3.0 17.91
42 % 85 3.0 20.40
43 1 85 3,0 23.31
I 44
15
1: 84
4.0
7.0
25.9
1S.67
31.0
22.0
!6 m —
6.6
18.34
1s.ss
t7 T8 15 93
$8 m 15 94 6.6 1s.s7
$9 m 15 88 6.6 16.70
so T8 15 91 6.6 20.09
51 T8 15 90 6.6 21.75
— — — —

2
x7 JOkts (a”w)

w. Vpe w m ipm 3ti*

If noment m“kSh
nntin
mm Sam
muom
.— — ]
!1s 6 n cN.m N/m2 N/mm2
52 T8 4 )2 ,.71 16.65
53 n 4 )2 ,.
,1 16.95
54 Im 4 )4 i.71 [6.70
55 T8 14 i.72 18.55
56 m 19 i.72 26.82
57 Ts 13 i,72 16.26
58 ~T8 10 i.12 27.08
59 Ts 19 ;,72 21.68
60 T8 14 ;.72 23,6
61 T8 33 ;.72 26.6
;m
62 18 i,72 23.5
63 T8 78 i,72 22.33
64 T8 13 $.72 29.4
65. ~T8 *2 ).2 30.61
66 :? $0 3,2 32.71
61 ITi 39 1.2 27,00

: i: B4
83
1.2
3.2
20.32
20.65
70 ; T3 L 85 2,0 12.17 32.67
71 ~T3 k 85 2.0 12.32 35.67
72 ~T3 ) 0 2.0 13.19 80,0
73* ~n t 75 4.83 21.0 33.0
74 1T7 7 95 5.03 19.26
75 ,n ? 9s S.03 19.53
76 T8 1 79 5.03 18.10
77 ! T8 1 80 5.03 15.94
78 i27 7 91 5.03 18.76
19 T7 7 93 5.03 18.76
80 ‘m 7 93 5.03 20.58
81 ; T8 7 93 5.03 20.09
82 n 7 94 5.03 18.71
83 Ts 7 93 4.72 19.04
84 ; T8 7 94 4.72 19.62
85 T8 7 93 5.11 19.70
86 ~T5 7 61 5,11 19.72
87 IT8 90 6.31 20.25 53.0
88 ITS 90 6.31 20.80 54.0
89 n 80 3,05 14.55 61.0
90 !T3 90 2.74 10.50 60.0
91 T7 85 7.63 16.76
92 T3 14 3.0 14.36 25.6
93 T6 14 85 3.0 22,49 28.5
94 T6 14 .3.0 20.99 27.4
95 T6 7 85 4,15 33,3 21/40
96 T8 4,0 22.6 35
97 m 4,0 26.9 43
98 m 1 80 4.0 25.0 31
99 T9 21 4.56 38.25
10OT9 94 4.56 25.0
10 lm 21 4,56 33.1
102 ,T9 92 4.56 2S.25
— —
)

3
X7 Joists (~nw)

Nm we &e ~ %. Utiati Quhtimt hub

of mment cub 8ti~
mndn
a= %W
-tins
-

Yrs % m kN.m N/mmz N/mmz

103 T7 1s 25115 - 21.55 31.0 -
104 n – – 3.65 23.71 - 18.2 T*m fmm
105 m - - 3.65 24.0 - 21.8 mauo,
[ 106 n - – 2.75 23.72 - 19.6 mme da-e

[ :: i: ; ? :5 ;23 i30,6 -
37.0
lK 21. 3
109 T8 8 8S 5.18 18.10 1,,
17.31
10.s7
lW 22,
9
[ 110 m 8 85 5.18 18.20 -
111 T3 % 20 1.25 14.10 -
[ 112 IT3 % 20 1.25 14.10 -
113 n - 62 6.1 24.60 - 25.6
[ 114 T4 - 67 6.1 23.2 12.7 25.4

4
X9 Joiws

&
T
No. Spm utia~
mment 1

&m
*&m
— —
Vrs % m kN,m N/mm’ Nlmm2
1 T14 t4,0 57.0 29.0
2 T14 3.9 29,0
3 T14 3.9 32.0
4 T14 $.0 42.o 33.0
5* T14 5 18 9.75 67.6
6* T14 6 4s 5.91 66.4
7* T14 5 78 5.99 46.5 43.0 33.0
8* T14 1 92 5.99 61.7 350
9* T14 7 5.92 65.2
10* T14 1 85 5.91 6s.6 70.0 52.0
11* T14 7 89 5.99 575 34.0
12“ T14 7 8.20 50.5
13* T14 1 92 5.99 62.6 42.0
14 T14 90 7.94 28.7 24.0
15 T14 85 7.91 29.6 41.0
16 T14 80 7.79 29.1 54.0
17 T13 80 9.m 35.6 ..

18 T14 89 2.87 43.73 29.3

19 T14 90 2.87 51.02 36.7
20 T14 81 2.69 50.12
21 T14 75 3.15 55.09 30.9
22 T14 66 2.15 39.00 22.4
23 T14 84 2.1s 41.92 41.92
24 r14 92 2.1s 36.63 27.2
25 T14 92 2.87 51.78 31.3
26 T14 93 2.87 41.74 29.1
21 T14 72 8,7 43.43
28 T14 68 8,7 42.31
29 T14 74 7.6 42.86
30 T14 13 8.5 46.83
31 T14 74 8.1 37.39
32 T1l b 55 6.0 61.3 513/5t
33 T13 10 6,32 56.7
34 T8 74 85 9.08 26.9
35 T8 14 80 9,14 23.5
36 T8 74 85 9.14 32.8
! 31 T7 s 95 5.84 40.5 21.0 2s.0
38 T] 3 14 81 7.01 39.21
39 T13 14 87 7.01 47.37
- — — I

5
 APPENDIX N

FIRE RESISTANCE ~STS ON FLOORS

Fire resistmw tests were carried out at the Fire Research Station on two floors of joist md
block constmction with X5%/T6 joists which had been artificially converted in a heat~g kin.
Wtms of the tests md the resdts are given below.

~ST 1

me floor was made up of four .X5%hems 4. Im (13’ 6“) long with concrete block infti giting
a floor 1.75m (5’ 9“) wide with a shply supported clear spmof3.95m(13’ O“). Each
joist had a tfiber ftiet h the soffit to which was fixed a 13mm (Y) plasterboard cefltig. NO
other finiti wm appfied. The upper surface was finished with a 38mm (1 Y) cement/smd
screed (cube strength 24.13 N/mm* (3500 psi) at 28 days Or 27.1 N/mm2 (3930 pti) at time of
test).

The floor was tested 2 months titer constmction, a short period by nomd test stadards, with
the screed not well dried out. A tifotiy distributed load of 3.73 N/mm’ (78 lb/ft2)
(equivalent to 74% of the mtimum design moment) wm appfied to the f100r wfdch was then
subjected to the heathg conditions specified in BS 476, Pafi 8: 1972.

h the test the plasterbomd started to bre~ up after 19 tiutes md had ftien by 21 mhutes.
me f100r begin to deflect noticeably at 45 mhutes md the deflection hcreasd rapidfy untif
at 50 mhutes the f100r coffapsed with cmstig of the concrete h the top flmge of the bema.
There was nos~ of elongation of the prestresshg tires Or of bond ftiure at tie ends.

TRST 2

fie f100r wu made up of seven X5%/T6 hems 3.gm (12’ 6“) long @fig a floor 3.34m (1 1’W~
tide titb a sfiply suppotied clear span of 3.65m (12’ W?. NO fini~ ww applied to the soffit
of the floor. TOobttin the effect of a screed tithout incuting the delay wbife it dfied out, the
upper surface W* covered by a Aeet of polythene ad a 5tim (2,,) laYer of s~d.

A load of 2.49 KN/mmn(170 lb/ft) was applied to the two edge hems md 2.05 KN/m mn
(140 lb/ft) to the 5 tier hems to give the effect of a utifotiy dstdbuted load equident to
the des~ dead load of 2.15 N/mm2 (4S lb/ft2 ) md a five load of 0.71 N/ma (14 lb/ft2) on
tie recommended mtium spa form X5%IT6 hem. me f100r W= then subjected to the
heating conditions specfied h BS 476, Pati8:1972.

fie appUed load produced m tiitid centrfl deflection of 25m (1”) h the floor md tfds
kcremed progrexively during the coume of the test to ave a total deflection of 140m (SW)
fimediately prior to ftiure when the deflection was increashg mpidly. Ftiure occumed after
30 tiutes by the.timost stiultmeous collapse of two adjacent hems at one edge of the floor.
The hems ftied by cmtig of the concrete h the top ffmge at the centre of the spin. mere
.WS no elongation of the tendons md no etidence of bond ftiure at the ends of the hems.

Buifd~g Research Rtabli*ment

August 1975

1
 APPSNDIX P

P~NCIPAL USES OF HACC PRECAST PRESTWSSED STRU~RAL

SYS~S IN BUILD~GS

1. SCOPE

1.1 ~iaap~ndk summadss tiehfomaUon obtdned fortie SubKommittieontie

principal ways ~ wMch precmt prestreswd HACC h= been med h bufldhgs. It dso protides
hfomation on the geomettic properties md tire patterns, md tie values of titid prest=~
md dtimate strew h the wires, for the mflous pmast concrete hems for wMA smctwsi
properties are given in Appendti J. It d~s not cover prtiucts marketed m htels.

1.2 ~fomation is ~ven on the produck of 25 manufacture, hcludhg d the major ones,
who hw used HAN h stmcturd utits for btidin~. we the m~or pati of the field hss
ken covered. there we a nmber of other suh mmufactumm.

1.3 ~mi of the data hciuded were received too late to be f~y contidemd by the Sub-
&mittee, but the additiond hfomation wodd not have affected their conditions h my
way.

1.4 me hfomation hw been vedfled with the mmufacture~, but neither the SubCotitti
nor the mmufactuem accept responsibtity for my tiaccurades or otisions.

1
 2. NAMES AND ADDR~SES OF MANUFACTUEW

Arlll<]cretc Dcveh>ptncnts L!llited

Kensington W[~rks
Siddal.
Halif~x HX3 9BY

Briscon Structures ti}nited

Broad Oak Colliery
Pensford
Bristol
(d] enquiries should be addressed to the holding company:
D J Superstructures
The Streets
Farnlborc)t]gll
Nr Bath)

* Brookfym Westb rick Umited

(Brooklyns Westbrick timited Concrete Products
1 Market Close
Poole
Dorset BH15 lNQ)

t Bryco Concrete Umited

~ornfalcon Works
Henlade
Taunlon
SOn]erset TA3 5DN

Charlton Concrete Co. ti]nited

7a klteney Street
Bath

Cranage Precast Concrete timited

Brooks hne
Middlewich
Cheshire

Crudens Umited
Olive Bank
Musselbur@
Midlothian EH2 I 6QD

F & D M Hewitt Umited

V]ne Works
Craldeigh
Surrey

* ~esc fums are.0 Ionge, in b.srness. hd.rmation o“ theu prod.tis may be amibble from the addres
~ivcn in brackets.
t lt h .“derstood tkt these fums may have prod”~d smaUquntities of precast prestresd HACC
sedio”s which are not Iistcd in ttis Appendix.

2
 *t Fram Recast Concrete Limited
(konard Fairclou@ fimited
Pendlebury Road
SwtitOn
Manchester M27 lAX)

* Francis Concrete Lmited

$-
(Francis Concrete (Precast) Limited
Ford Airfield
hundel
Sussex BN18 OBN)
.,.

Harrison Concrete tiited

Harcon Works
Brookside Avenue
Rustington
Sussex BNI63LF

* Hovetigham Concrete Company

(Trent Concrete timited
Colwick Industrid Estate
Colwick
Nottingham NG42BG)

* John Cooke and hn (Huddemfield) kited

(Armocrete Developments kited
Kensington Works
Siddd
Halifax HX3 9BY)

* John Heaver (Concrete) tilted

(Francis Concrete (Precast) Limited
Ford Aifleld
kundel
Sussex BN 18 OBN)

Lyncrete timited
Lynchford hne
Farnhorough
Hamptire GUI46JF

* Michelmersh Concrete Co. Limited

Hiflview Road
Michelmersh
Near Ramsey
Hmlpshire
(G JVarrett Rq
@ Brownhti Road
Chandlers Ford
tiuthampton
Hmpshire)

Wbank moors tiited

Howe Street
Ct. Wdtham
Chelmsford
fisex CM3 IBD

3
 t~~~h~~~ ~,”i~~~
Speke Boulevard
Uverpool L249LU

* Shockcrete Products Lbnitcd

(Costain Concrete Company Umited
Duncan House
klph~ ~uarc
U]ndon SW1V3PR)

* Spancrete (tiuthern) Limited

(Wooton Concrete Products Umited
hndon Road
Wick
Bristol BS155SJ)

Splitbloc Lilnited
StOney Stanton
bicester LE96U

t The Brj~t~l sto”e & C“”crete CO. Limited

Holcombe
Near Bat h
%merset BA35DA

Trent Concrete Limited

Colwick [ndusttial Estate
Coiwick
Nottin~am NC42BG

Trent & Hovetin~m Company

(Trent Concrete Lbnited
see address above)

*t T~”sco” ~~it~d
(Francis Concrete (hecast) Li]nited
Ford Airfield
Arundel
Sussex BN180BN)

d
 3. PRECMTPRMTwSSED PROPwET~Y HACCUN1m mDTHEIRMPL1CATIONS

3.1 ~]eprincipal ways inwhich precast prestressed HACCunits have been used inproprietaV
structural systen]s for buildings areshown in Table 1.

3.2 It should, however, be borne in mind that:

.-,

a the HACCunits may have been used inways quite different from those enti$ aged by the

i .- m~nufacturers;

b themanuPacturers mayhave supplied ``special' 'aswell asthestandard units listed;

c so]lle of the manufacturers used Portland cement instead of HAC from the to time,
indeed Shockcrete Roducts Ltd nomdly used Pofiland cement and ody occasionally HAC.

3.3 In Table]:

a the term ‘joist” meansa secondaV beam inaparAel system of bemsand does not
indicate any particular profde;

b theterm ``X-joist' 'means abeam which hasanamow webandtop md bottom flanges

whose widths aredmbitas~ eat asitsoverdl depth.
 4. PRODUCT DATA TABLES

4.1 T~hlcs2-14 givctl]e following informa(ic)n on HACC precast prestressed units:

2. typicol Pr<lricl)fC~Ch
lypc(>~,lr]it;
h. r~ngc(~f stzcsofcacb product as produced hy each nlanufacturer;
c. application of the products;
d. detafis of horkontd hear connection to tisitu conc~te where considered h the design;
e. dettis of typical floor or roof dabs shoting the ways in which the utits have been used.

4.2 Thediagrams tilustrathg typicdfloor orroofdabs arereprod"ced from themmufac-

turers’ product literature with their permision.

4,3 Trade names fortheproducts, where applicable, aretiown in brackets after tie
manufacturers’ names.

4.4 Were according tothemanufacturers theprecast units aredesigned toactcompositely

with insitu concrete topping or in ffll, the method of shear connection adopted is given in the
table. Theshear connections aredescribed inaccordancetitb therelevant cIauses tithe
British Standard Codes of Practice for Precast Concrete, CR 110,115 and 116, Thetablesdso
indicate where “SUrface roughening” has been used for providing shear connection.

7
 .Aaq ,.aqs
e,e,, m ~>eda,d
nnunnnnnn
L.kn
nnnnnnn
nnnnnunu
nunuunnnu
nun
Uun
Uuunn
n
— —
.
n
.
0
u
m
<
8
I
 Table 2 (continued)

NON-COM~SITE FLOOR OR ROOF SLABS (Rerhead Limited)

~ ‘ Typical Floor Construction “-” “’

Omit infiller or leave gap for passage
Omit sbp tile to pass pipe
of service pipes, etc.
I
I
through floor
I
Slip tiles as permanent shut! errng on

rvfiar:d.b:.:!r!. . ~.
Inner Skin Dutlt OT1sap Iaes 70r DrICK
I Screed to
Architect’s
Sp(!cifi cation
FIOOCfinish to Architect’s
specification

1[ or block strengths up 10 1,000 lblin~

(7 N/mm2)
II
Btickwork built off ioisls

I* Q
Partido” walls b“ilr off
Joists concre!ed together in filler blocks

I“fil!er block cut on site to fill

Single trimmer shoe D.”ble trimmer shoe

‘1
I
1“.situ concrete inlill behind
trimmer joists

In
 nUD
ela,,”w 6U!,,I,U!
snon.!l”om!p qqM sqels )001 1010014 nnnt
—
.
.
0
v
.
<
— —
‘NW
I
&-. a–. –+
11
 m
12
,..
[nnnnnnnnnn nnnun
ti!ddol 01013.03$0 ?-P
snon”!>uw q~!m qels Wqq!, JOOI IO Joo13 aunnnnnnnnu nn nun
PI1 0301aJ9uQ u8qW!JOA0H P., lua,l u DUD n
n nun n
nn nn n nun
n nun n
,-,
H
a
13
Table 4 (cc]ntinlttq!)

FLOOR OR ROOF RIBBED SLAB WIM CONTINIJOUS

DECK OF CONCRETE TOPPING (Pierheti Limited)

\
Reinforced slruct.,al !oppi”g reinforced
with su, table B.S. mesh all p,ovided snd
laid by general contractor a’
 sb? ,eaqs
.,e@m W,ada,d
Sx”!l~d.JJ!$s
b!ddol a1e,9uw
JO ?=p s.o..!auoa qI!M SWIS 400,,..0014 Znnnnn nnnunnnnnnn n
z adAl n nn
ala,mo, h!ll!$u! .,
s“on.!L. oX!p ql!M $qRls4.OJ JOJ~13
1 , edhl ~
Sq.,s 400, ,0 A0014el!sOduW.UON Un
P17 .o=n,l nnnnnunu
P1l a1a13u03 luaJl n
P1l w .WJJU03 w. ..03s Iou!18 aul nn
(.1.1 %.dS) PI1 l.,aql.wl .l.,D..ds n
(.! U.WO~OJd) P1l S1OOIj Y. Oql!W ,n
—
—
15
 Table 5 (continued)

NON-COMPOSITE FLOOR OR ROOF SLABS

(Harrison Concrete Limited)

.. ..
=~~;~@
,>: . ..”
, ,. ’.: !...........-: . . .... . . ..
‘~. I

TYPE I (Millba& Floors Limited)

* ---------- 2/’’_..
_ topping!
I

I plaster —-d I

TYPE 2 (Armocrete fivelopments Limited)

FLOOR OR ROOF SLAB WITH CONTINUOUS DECK OF CONCRETE TOPPING

(Bristol Stone and &ncrete @ Ltd)

;,
END a[ARING LATERAL a64RiN6
FLUSH CEILINGS

END 8E6RIN G L8TER4L KWNG

16 .,, ,.SUSPENDED
--.,.- ~.-. CEILINGS. . .
.:,
,.
sq”!lpdnu!as
‘P1l oolw!lds
n
s
u
❑
u
17
L
 —
a,ep”s W>cda><
ti!ddo, .,,,, ”O, ,0 ~m~
snonu!luw qI!M qets 1001 JO ImIj
nu Unnn
unum
nnnn
Unnn
P1l 03 08aJ2U03
WO 0.01s 102S!JE 3ql In
P81 sa>n13n,1s UOX!IO Unn
*
s
39NVU NO1123S
m
[, —
19
NON.CO\lPOSITE FLOOR OR ROOF SLU
(Fra!n Precast Concrere Li)nited)
,’

----

,..

FLOOR OR ROOF SLAB WITH CONTINUOUS DECK OF

CONCRETE TOPPING (Briscon Sirtlcr{lres Lirrtited)

%.-:--.7---.-.-.--:. :,,..................................................... .. .................................. ..:..

..:::-:-; ’”’’’’=-:
,f~.,,. . :“.‘“”
‘--’ ““”
‘‘‘--.,,:..;;,.;$y%~*>+j<i,;;;:::’~i*g;”
* ..”:;~’~,

Typical section thfough slabs

——
.—.
““ —
—._,= --- .-
.-
‘“””””::”;:
..—.-,-. ,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,.,,,,,,
=“’
—_-k — ., .. ... . ..
~

Typical clt!vation of units

20
 1
r snonu!a.w
,qE,S

ql!M Tls 400, ,0 JOOld

$00120100I4Ol!SOtiM.UON
n
—
**U***.*:
----- --- w
m
<
—
1
s
.- a’
~ .-
. .-
0
.
,.,
n
21
 -
Tab1e8 (cc>tztinucd)

\
NON-COMPOSITE FLOOR OR ROOF SLABS
(flrtiuk@ns Westbrick Lijnited)

. 16,, ‘,., .:

-
16,, pot 141nmm1 ca5e3A

FLOOR OR ROOF SLAB W1~ CONTINUOUS DECK OF CONCRETE

TOPPING (Br<,ok@ns Westbrick Limited)

, ---- .—---— ——..

c
---74,, ‘,., ,610mm, . :-?0,, /c5 (510 mTn)-:

I :-, ,,..Qc.. I
 annnnn
nuunnnn n nnnnnn
sq.ls ,m, ,0,001, a3!soduo>”oN nnnnnnnunn nnnnnunnnn nn
pl!un c adAl) P1l U-NJ nnnnnn
P1l 02 a1a13u09 PUE e.oas IOw!Ja aql n
nnnnnnn
n
P1l alolauo> UOIIJ=U: nnnnnnn
—
n
23
Table 9 (continual)

NON-COMPOSITE FLOOR OR ROOF SLAB

(Chwlton Concrete CO Ltd)

co vity reinforcement 3.1 sand cement

\ /

ROOF OR FLOOR SLAB WITH CONTINUOUS DECK OF

CONCRETE TOPPING (Mi\lba& Floors Limited)

,-- structural towing I l/~ thick.

 su!,, ”d ,0 $weaq ,00, @,eIm unnnnnnnunn nn
., nnunnn
Unuun
nnuun
nn
m
<
25
 Table 10 (continual)

ISOLATED BEAMS AND PURLINS -

PURLINS (De!lt Concrete Limited)

Felt or Asphalt over Woodwool slabs

Woodwool slabs

4“ Pitch Prestressed concrete beam

Woodwool slabs light 9auge n7etal I“gs

\ /cast in o“rlin*a”d bent
, 0“., woodwool slabs
,
I
1,
) \&w

Felt or A$Phalt covering

to woodwool

P,estressed concrete
~
I
4- Pitch Prestressed concrete bear,,
r

GUTTERS Note The diaflams belo w show ~ent Concrete Limited

ordinmy reinforced concrete P tters, which are simib to
the prestiessed type producd by F&D M Hewitt Limited.

Asbestos cement sheetlno —

mvaa closure pieces sin~le skin or sandwich

Reinforced
concrete gutter
~ “’””d ~~~-
Relnforcod concmta column valley gutter

Reinforced concrete COIUmn

26
 nnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnn
.
nnnnnnnnnnn nnunnn
I
I
P1l B1OJ3UO3 1U91L nunnnnnnnn nnpnnnn
I
nnnnunnnunn nnnnnn
nnnn
I .C
\
 nuunnununnn uunnnnnn nun nunnn
nnnn nun nun nnunnnnnnn nnnnnnn
nnunnnnnunn nnunnnnnnnu nnnnn
nnnunnnnnn nnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnn
unnnnnnnnnn nnunnnnnnnu nnnnn
uununnnnnnn nnunnnnnnnn nnnnu
I —
I
m
N
<
—
.
Q
m
m
a a
28
 ‘I:ll)lc I 2 (<,,,,li,,,,’,i)

I NAM 1.S ( Ir,,,,f ( i,,,,r<,t, /.;,,,;!,.,/

11,),,,,r;,,gl,,,,,, ( ;,,,, r,,l,. (;, /.1,1
Yb,,lli ,( lit, b.(,r;)fxhc,t)( ( ;,))cra,i,, (i) 1.111)

INSITU CONCR~E TVPIMI fixing arrangement

FILLING STRUCTURAL dtiall for invmd t- b-m.
SCREED
1

i I
FLOORING
Graphs opposite
on the contirutiion
indicatw.
are M

COMPONENT

1
INVERTEO TEE BEAM
COLUMN COMPONENT Invetied t’m beam
componanm may ~ usd
I
Indemdently, for example
long span purlins tic.

:.

,.
TVPIUI -Ion through rtinngulsr km com~nont
ud mm~cltclv with lnoitu conctia flange.

29
 nnnnn
K
a
J nnnnn
03
u
❑
a
2
.-0
%
g
:
< s.!l,nd,0 sweaq peIeIm I
m
.
Im— .,
L—- u
4
?n
5. GEOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF SECTIONS AND STRESSES IN WIRES

5.1 The geometric properties of the various sections which were used for assessing their
structural properties in Appendix J are shown in Drawings Nos. 1 to 10. The initial prestress
and ultimate stress in the wires are given in Table 15. These data were obtained from the
manufacturers.

TABLE 15. INITIAL PRESTRESS AND ULTIMATE STRESS

IN WIRES

MANUFACTURER WIRE SIZE INITIAL PRESTRESS ULTIMATE

TENSILE
FORCE (kN) STRESS N/mm2 STRESS N/mm2
PIERHEAD 5 mm (0.2ý) 21.9 1081 1544

TRENT 5 mm (0.2ý) 22.3 1102 1610

7 mm (0.276ý) 41.9 1085 1610

LYNCRETE 5 mm (0.2ý) 24.1 1188 1699

CRANAGE 5 mm (0.2ý) 21.9 1081 1544

FRAM 5 mm (0.2ý) 21.9 1081 1544

31
 L
I
32
 . ..
K
. .. .. ..
..
,.
H H 1
~1 till
Q ..
til I
.
1’
“-
i
+’
4w-
‘---+’”
-“$:”””
H
H.. .
33
 m
,.
m“”:
L
/
,-
34
 L.-
I
,.
-
E
E
m
35
 .. . .
M .. .. ..
. .M
N. ... H . .....
. ..
-,
M . M ..
. .*. .
.
H. .
.
.
. . . .
.
.
. ...
,..,,.
@
M .
36
 a
,, - Go/L .-
; ?;
w“-
;“
—.. - . . ,.t:. .?;.
+
-.; *I
I (.
+----
37
 ....—.
[Pf8j
.
-+. 6Z,
H
__;._..
. “;’
-:1
---J ~
..* .E1.
+ ~Fj—
I d
1!
~‘m
M
ii
1,
.*
“-Rf”
---------
; .*.. ._l
I 38
.....*
X . . . . . . . I
. ..... .. ..
M . ..- .
H .
..... .......
M . H .
I
I . ...0 I
I
.....
A
*
-t-
-t-
H . ●
.
. .
. . . . . =
. . +
.
~
39
. ....
M ..
....
H . .....
-
i
E
.
N
......
H .
.. ...
H .
V.. ...
 .....
H . .....
:i,
..... M .
.
!
H
i.’
n.
. . . .
. .
. . . .
.
. . . . .
. . .
. .
. .
.
.
fi
n ....
. . . .
. . . .
. .
I
1-
41