20 views

Uploaded by JaniS.Wangsadiria

save

You are on page 1of 12

11

Ih

lCSGE

17-1º Mcy 2005

Ccirc - EgypI

/in Shcm: Univer:iIy

Fccu|Iy cf Engineering

DepcrImenI cf SIrucIurc| Engineering

E|evenIh lnIerncIicnc| Cc||c¢uium cn SIrucIurc| cnc GecIechnicc| Engineering

BEHAVIOR OF SHEAR CONNECTORS

USING NORMAL AND HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE:

PART (II): THEORETICAL STUDY

MOHAMED DABAON

1

AND MOSTAFA FAHMI

2

ABSTRACT

Theoretical work is carried out by using finite element package to study the strength and the

behavior of stud shear connectors embedded in high strength concrete. The non-linear

properties of materials were taken into consideration in the finite element modeling. The

theoretical study is verified by using the results of the experimental program in the previous

part of this paper. Parametric study was also carried out to study the effect of yield stresses of

welds, values of concrete compressive strengths and stud diameters on the strength and the

behavior of stud shear connectors. From theoretical investigation, design provisions are

proposed for the prediction of number of studs to be used in composite beams for different

concrete strengths and different diameters; taking into consideration the effect of welds types.

Keywords: composite construction, finite element modelling, high strength concrete, push-

out tests, normal strength concrete, shear connectors.

1 INTRODUCTION

Several researches were conducted to study the behavior of the interface between the concrete

slab and the steel beam for composite beams. As a summary for the theoretical investigations,

Abd-Rabou and Dabaon [1] investigated the behavior of composite beams with spiral and

bent bar shear connectors. In this model, the concrete inside the spiral space and the spiral

itself act together as one unit to resist both of the bearing pressure and the shear at the

connector base. Later on, a nonlinear finite element model for the determination of both the

endurance and the residual strength of stud shear connectors was carried out. The

investigation was carried out by Ghorab, et. al [2] under cyclic loadings. It was concluded that

the range of the applied load is inversely proportioned to the endurance. By the same year,

2003, Hegger, et. al [3] investigated, experimentally and theoretically, the effect of using

high strength steel and concrete materials on the behavior of the stud shear connector. This

study improved a test set-up for testing single studs in order to optimal the results of the

standard push-out test. In this paper, theoretical investigations are conducted to study the

strength and the behavior of stud shear connectors embedded in high strength concrete slabs

using standard push-out specimens [4].

___________________________________________________________________________

1

Prof. of structures and steel bridges, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Egypt,profdabaon@Yahoo.com.

2

Ass. Lecturer, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Egypt.

E05ST28 - 2

2 THEORETICAL PROGRAM

The theoretical work was structured, herein, in order to substitute the lack of investigations

involved in the finite element analysis of push-out tests using high strength concrete. The

shear connection, under this title, is formed by using the "stud shear connectors" type of

different common diameters (16, 20 and 25 mm). The ANSYS 5.4 program [5], as a finite

element package, is used in this theoretical work. In the following, a brief summary for the

present finite element model is introduced.

2.1 Solid Modeling

The geometric boundaries of the push-out specimen such as the reinforcement concrete slab

(in two parts), steel I-beam and the shear connectors should be defined as the first step in solid

modeling. The reinforcement concrete slabs were simulated by the Solid 45 3-D structural

solid. The connectors as well as the steel I-beam were also simulated, as same as the concrete

slab, by using the Solid 45 3-D structural solid. The interface between the concrete slabs and

the steel I-beam was maintained away from each other, and only to slide relative to each

other, by using the Contact 52.

2.2 Discretization Process

Using the dimensions of the push-out specimen as been tested experimentally, a finite element

mesh was performed. As known, refining the finite element mesh leads to more accurate

results, but it may lead to an expensive process. To minimize this problem, a finer mesh was

used in the region of the model where the failure was expected to take place. The finite

element mesh for the typical push-out test specimen is shown in (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Finite element mesh for Push-out test specimen

2.3 Material Properties

The behavior of a composite structural element may be explored in relation to the various

approximations that may be made to the real stress-strain behavior of the material of which

the structure is composed. The behavior of the material of the steel profile, the shear

connectors and the concrete slabs in the push-out test specimen would be treated as follows:

1. Steel beam material: concerning the elastic range, all structural steels exhibit nearly

identified mechanical properties, where the stress-strain ratio (modulus of elasticity)

for various kinds of steel is as E

s

= 2100 t/cm

2

. (Fig. 2) shows an idealized stress-

strain curve of the common kinds of steel materials having the same behavior in

tension and compression. This stress-strain curve is so called BISO.

2. Shear connector material: three specimens of the shear connectors are tested and the

real stress-strain curve has been used as shown in (Fig. 3). This stress-strain curve, in

ANSYS manual [5], is so called MISO.

E05ST28 - 3

f

f

y

E

s

1

`

E

t

= 1/1000 E

s

c

Stress-strain curve

Axial strain

A

x

i

a

l

s

t

r

e

s

s

[

M

P

a

]

0

A

x

i

a

l

s

t

r

e

s

s

[

k

s

i

]

0.002

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0.004 0.006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

3. Concrete slab: the stress-strain distributions of the concrete materials, (Fig. 4), are

obtained from literature [6] according to the strength of the different kinds of

concrete. The curve, in ANSYS manual [5], which simulates the behavior of the

concrete material, is the MISO one, at which the stress-strain curve is entered as a

series of several points.

Fig. 2: BISO-curve for steel profile material [5]

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20

Fig. 3: MISO-curve for connector material [5]

Fig. 4: MISO-curve for concrete material [6]

2.4 Boundary Conditions

The test specimens were prevented from the transition, only, in the three nodal x, y and z

directions, at the bottom of the concrete slabs. This level was of y = 0.0 m, as shown in Fig. 1.

Strain %

S

t

r

e

s

s

[

t

/

c

m

2

]

E05ST28 - 4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 1 2 3 4 5

s [mm]

P

[

t

o

n

]

Experimental [4]

Present F.E. model

2.5 Application of load

The load was applied to the top of the I-beam, distributed on 39 nodes in order to simulate the

use of the spreader plate in the experimental program. The loaded level was at y = 0.70 m.

2.6 Model analysis

In the current study, a nonlinear analysis was used, taking into account the material

nonlinearity to determine the ultimate load of the modeled push-out test specimen. A

proposed load value, bigger than the expected ultimate load, was automatically divided into

equal sub-steps searching to the ultimate load. The program adjusts the stiffness matrix to

reflect the nonlinear changes in the specimen stiffness using the Newton-Raphson equilibrium

iteration, which drove the solution to equilibrium convergence. In this research, the number of

iterations of each sub-step was taken equals to 40 iterations while the tolerance was equal to

(0.1). The ANSYS program was able to stop solving the model in two cases. These two cases

are if there is no convergence and the second if the nodal solution gets more than the 50 mm.

2.7 Verification of finite element predictions

In order to asses the validity of the finite element model to simulate the actual behavior of

push-out specimens, results of three experimental test specimens have been compared with

the results of the present finite element model. Figs. From 5 to 7 show the load-slip

relationships for the three test specimens.

Fig. 5: Load-slip relationship for P12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5

s [mm]

P

[

t

o

n

]

Present F.E.

Experimental [4]

Fig. 6: Load-slip relationship for P15

The matter of fact, during the casting of the concrete slabs of the push-out test specimens,

some times a part of the steel I-beam flange is embedded inside the concrete slab which

causes a friction resistance especially in the elastic region of loading. This may be one of the

E05ST28 - 5

reasons for the differences between the results of the finite element model, where the friction

is prevented, and the results of the experimental tests.

0

5

10

15

20

0 1 2 3 4 5

s [mm]

P

[

t

o

n

]

Present F.E.

Experimentat [4]

Fig. 7: Load-slip relationship for P16

3 EVALUATION OF CURRENT CODES

According to most relevant international codes, the design of shear connection may be

achieved by one of the following two methods:

1. Experimental evidence (Test evaluation) of push-out test considering the properties of

materials and the dimensions of test specimens.

2. Empirical formulae or tables.

3.1 Design Forces From The Test Evaluation

According to EC4 three tests are conducted on normally identical specimens to determine the

characteristic resistance PRk for the concrete and connector material of specified strengths fck

and fu, respectively.

The characteristic resistance should then be taken as the minimum failure load, divided by the

number of connectors and reduced by 10 %, thus,

P

Rk

= (0.9).P

u,exp

(1)

The design resistance of P

Rd

, using any type of shear connectors, may be determined by using

the following formula:

P

Rd

= (f

u

/f

ut

).(P

Rk

/¸

v

) _ (P

Rk

/¸

v

) (2)

where, f

u

= 3.6 t/cm

2

, f

ut

= 4.0 t/cm

2

and ¸

v

= 1.25 then,

P

Rd

= (f

u

/f

ut

).(0.9).( P

u,exp

/¸

v

)

= 0.9 (0.9/1.25). P

u,exp

= 0.648 P

u,exp

_ 0.72 P

u,exp

P

Rd

= 0.648 P

u,exp

This value is according to the EC4 test evaluation whereas BS5450, considers the same

results. Accordingly, the design values of the present tests are summarized in (Table 1). From

(Table 1), it can be noticed that the proportional limit of the push-out test for all loads are in

good agreement with the design values of P

Rd

for all tests. From (Fig. 8), it can be recognized

that the design values, generally lie, in the elastic zone and this is the safe side for the design

of shear connectors. From our point of view, the method of calculating P

Rd

obtained from the

test results by means of the test evaluation, as in the EC4 [7] and BS5450 [8], is accurate and

quite suitable for design purposes for both normal and high strength concrete.

E05ST28 - 6

P

Rd

P

p,exp

Table 1: Design values of P

Rd

of the test evaluation

*

P

p,exp

: proportional load of shear connector,

**

P

u,exp

: ultimate load of shear connector, 1:

Without sheeting,

2:

Parallel sheeting, 3: Transverse sheeting.

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15 20

Fig. 8: Evaluation of test results against the proportional load

3.2 Design Forces From Empirical Equations

It is well known that there is another technique for the evaluation of the design resistance for

a composite shear connector by using the formulae given by the international codes of

practices such as the EC4, AISC 1985, ECP 2001 and the BS5450. Some of them give the

value of resistance through formulae as in the EC4, AISC 1985 [9] and ECP 2001[10]. The

others use design tables as in the BS5450. The connector resistance is identified as a design

Exp. loads

[

P

p

,

e

x

p

/

P

R

d

]

T

e

s

t

e

v

a

l

u

a

t

i

o

n

P

R

d

[

t

o

n

]

P

u,exp

**

[ton]

P

p,exp

*

[ton]

C

o

n

c

r

e

t

e

s

t

r

e

n

g

t

h

[

k

g

/

c

m

2

]

A

n

g

l

e

o

f

i

n

c

l

i

n

a

t

i

o

n

[

d

e

g

r

e

e

]

W

e

l

d

s

i

z

e

[

m

m

]

T

y

p

e

o

f

s

l

a

b

T

y

p

e

o

f

c

o

n

n

e

c

t

o

r

S

p

e

c

i

m

e

n

N

o

.

1.05 10.5 16.20 11 365 P1

1.12 12.51 19.30 14 555 P2

1.12 12.96 20.00 14.5 630

0 5 1 Angle

P3

0.98 11.21 17.30 11 290 P4

1.04 11.99 18.50 12.5 560 P5

1.12 12.05 18.60 13.5 850

0

P6

1.04 10.58 16.32 11 260 15 P7

1.02 9.83 15.17 10 260 30 P8

1.18 7.67 11.83 9 255 45

5 1 Channel

P9

0.95 5.25 8.10 5 380 P10

0.96 5.42 8.36 5.2 410

5

P11

1.05 7.63 11.77 8 600

N.A.

*

12

1 Stud 16

P12

0.82 7.3 11.27 6 430 P13

0.96 7.32 11.30 7 540

5

P14

0.95 10.53 16.25 10 650

N.A.

12

1 Stud 20

P15

1.06 11.34 17.50 12 700 1 P16

1.03 4.86 7.50 5 400 P17

1.08 7.44 11.48 8 650

2

P18

1.12 3.56 5.50 4 360 P19

1.0 3.79 5.85 3.8 630

N.A. 12

3

Stud 22

P20

0.94 7.97 12.30 7.5 430 P21

1.13 9.72 15 11 520

N.A. 5 1 Stud 25

P22

E05ST28 - 7

resistance (P

Rd

) as introduced in the EC4 and the BS5450 while it is calculated as an

allowable design force (P

Ad

) in the AISC 1985 and the ECP 2001. In the following, a brief

summary of these equations and tables is provided. The main goal of this section is to

examine the results obtained from the different codes and specifications in case of using high

strength concrete in the composite connection. New formulae or tables are also suggested for

design application. (Table 2), represents the calculated design forces for test specimens made

of high strength concrete (HSC). In these specimens, the used concrete is of the high strength

concrete type and the test specimens were welded using typical welds technique. (Figure 9)

demonstrates the relationship between the experimental ultimate and proportional limits

compared with the design resistance (P

Rd

) calculated by the equations of EC4 for the tested

specimens. By careful inspection of Table 2 and Fig. 9, it can be seen that the design forces,

more or less, in good agreement with the proportional load in case of angle connectors. On the

other hand, applying the equations or tables given by the codes of practices for designing stud

shear connectors with high strength concrete give conservative values compared with the

proportional load. Thus, the use of these design equations and tables, provided by the codes of

practices or specifications, may need further modification to satisfy the economy

requirements. To provide more clarification to this point, the following parametric study is

carried out.

Table 2: Design forces for the (HSC) test specimens

Design forces Exp. limits

BS 5950

P

Rd

[ton]

ECP 2001

& AISC

P

Ad

[ton]

EC4

Equations

P

Rd

[ton]

P

u

,

e

x

p

[

t

o

n

]

P

p

,

e

x

p

[

t

o

n

]

C

o

n

c

r

e

t

e

s

t

r

e

n

g

t

h

[

k

g

/

c

m

2

]

T

y

p

e

o

f

s

l

a

b

T

y

p

e

o

f

c

o

n

n

e

c

t

o

r

S

p

e

c

i

m

e

n

N

o

.

N.A. 5.57 13.42 19.30 14 555 P2

N.A. 5.57 14.6 20 14.5 630

1 Angle

P3

N.A.

4.18 N.A.

18.50 12.5 560 P5

N.A. 4.18 N.A. 18.60 13.5 850

1 Channel

P6

8.2 3.03 5.15 11.77 8 600 1 Stud 16 P12

N.A. 4.74 8.05 16.25 10 650 1 Stud 20 P15

13.9 5.73 9.74 17.50 12 700 1 P16

N.A. N.A. 8.77 11.48 8 650 2 P18

N.A. N.A. 9.74 5.85 3.8 630 2

Stud 22

P20

*

Not Applicable,

1

Without sheeting,

2

Parallel sheeting,

3

Transverse sheeting.

P2

P3

P12

P15

P16

P18

P20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Experimental ultimate load

Experimental Proportional load

Design resistance of EC4

Fig. 9: Evaluation of the values P

u,exp

, P

p,exp

and P

Rd

of EC4

E05ST28 - 8

4 PARAMETRIC STUDY

The parametric study was conducted, in this research, using the "stud shear connectors" type

by taking into consideration the effect of the following variables:

1. The value of the yield stress of the weld collar used to fix the stud shear connector to

upper flange of the steel I-beam; (F

y

= 6.75 and 3.6 t/cm

2

).

2. The value of the concrete compressive strength using either normal or high strength

concrete; (250, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800 and 1000 kg/cm

2

).

3. The stud shear connector diameter; (16, 20 and 25 mm).

4.1 Effect Of Concrete Compressive Strength

In (Fig. 10), the ultimate load, carried by the studs in each group of model diameter 16, 20

and 25 mm, is demonstrated. This figure shows that the ultimate load carried by the stud, of

such diameters, is increased with the increase in the value of the concrete compressive

strength. The relationship between the ultimate load of stud shear connectors and the value of

the concrete cube strength used in the push-out test is shown in (Fig. 11). In this curve, the

relationship is acting as a power function in the region of normal concrete strengths, similar to

the function used by the EC4 (P

Rd

= 0.29 u d

2

(f

ck

E

c

)½ /¸

v

), while it acts as a linear function

in the region of the medium and high strength concrete. This may encourage to consider a

linear relationship in the region of medium and high strength concrete.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Stud diameter 16

mm

Stud diameter 20

mm

Fig.10: Ultimate load for different stud diameters

The values of the proportional and ultimate loads and corresponding slips are tabulated in

(Table 3) for the 16 mm stud diameter, for the other diameters see [4]. From (Tables 3) and

the others obtained in [4], the ratio of the proportional and the ultimate load, (P

p,max

/ P

u

), can

be calculated. These average ratios are found to be (0.69, 0.69 and 0.73) for the stud shear

connectors of diameter 16, 20 and 25 mm, respectively. In order to propose a design table, a

safety factor (¸) is taken equals to 1.5. The design resistance (P

Rd

), according to this proposed

table will be (P

u

/ ¸). Figure 12 shows the position of the suggested design values for the 16-

mm stud diameters against the finite element results for proportional and ultimate load. It can

be clearly noticed that the suggested results are located in the safe side of the curves. Other

diameters can be revised in [4].

4.2 Effect of Stud Shear Connector Diameter

The effect of the diameter of stud shear connector upon the strength and behavior of shear

connection was studied by the same groups of models discussed in the previous section, also,

with the respect of weld yield stress of (6.75 t/cm

2

). Fig. 13 represents the ultimate load

versus the cross-sectional area of the stud shear connector for the normal and high strength

Concrete compressive strength [kg/cm

2

]

U

l

t

i

m

a

t

e

l

o

a

d

[

t

o

n

]

E05ST28 - 9

l

o

a

d

[

t

o

n

]

concrete. From this curve, it can be recognized that the increase in the cross-sectional area

increases the ultimate load carried by the connector.

0

10

20

30

40

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Fig.11: Proposed curve of relationship between P

u

and cube strength

0

5

10

15

20

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Proposed design load

Proportional load

Ultimate load

Fig.12: Proposed design resistance for 16 mm-stud

4.3 Comparison Between Both Values of Weld Yield Stress

In the first part of the parametric study, the weld used was of (F

y

= 6.75 t/cm

2

) while it was of

(F

y

= 3.60 t/cm

2

) in the second one. This range of the yield stress of welds is taken as the

upper and the lower limits of the yield stresses at which the international codes of practices

are interested. In the following, comparison will take place by studying the effect of the yield

stress of welds on the strength of the stud with addition to the study of the change of the stud

diameter under the two cases of the yield stress of welds. (Table 4) is constructed using the

load versus slip curves observed from the finite element study for the case of 16 mm stud

diameter. In this table, the proportional and ultimate loads, from both cases of parametric

studies, are tabulated in addition to the proportional and ultimate ratios between them. The

load ratios tabulated in this table is the values observed from first part of the study over the

corresponding values from the second parametric study. The average proportional and

ultimate load ratios are calculated for the finite element models. The average proportional

load ratios are about 1.26, 1.27 and 1.28 for the 16, 20 and 25 mm-stud shear connectors

models, respectively. The ultimate load ratios calculated are equal to 1.16, 1.17 and 1.2 for

f (f

cu

) f (f

cu

)

n

Normal concrete Medium and high concrete

EC4 and BS5450

Concrete compressive strength [kg/cm

2

]

U

l

t

i

m

a

t

e

l

o

a

d

[

t

o

n

]

Concrete compressive strength [kg/cm2]

E05ST28 - 10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Cross-sectional area of stud shear connector [cm

2

]

P

u

[

t

o

n

]

1000 kg/cm

2

800 kg/cm

2

700 kg/cm

2

600 kg/cm

2

500 kg/cm

2

400 kg/cm

2

300 kg/cm

2

250 kg/cm

2

the same groups of models, respectively. From these ratios, the designer may understand the

importance of using a yield stress of welds as much bigger as possible to benefit from the

increase in the proportional load, which may be considered as the upper limit for the design

resistance of connector, by using this high stress of weld. In (Fig. 14), the load-slip

relationship for 16 mm-stud shear connector with concrete of (1000 kg/cm

2

) cube strength in

the two cases of weld yield stresses values, is given as an example. From this figure it can be

recognized that the effect of the high yield stress of welds appears as increase in both the

proportional and ultimate loads. The stiffness of the connector is same as it is in the lower

yield stress of welds. This increase in the elastic zone between the two welding grades is

considerable importance, from our point of view, it is recommended to use the higher yield

stress of welds as possible. It can be seen also that the maximum slip of stud increases by

using lower values of the yield stress of used welds.

Table 3: Theoretical limitations for stud 16 mm diameter

Fig. 13: Ultimate load for different stud cross-sections

As a general conclusion from the results of this parametric study, is the proposed method of

evaluating the design resistance of stud shear connectors. It is to use a table technique as used

in the BS5450. The proposed values of the design resistance may be suggested as shown in

Table 5, in case of yield stress equals (6.75 t/cm

2

) for the welds. It was found that the ratio of

the ultimate to proportional limit (P

u

/ P

p,max

) is ranging from (1.31 to 1.45). Thus, it can be

proposed that the design resistance (P

Rd

) for stud shear connectors to be as follows:

P

Rd

= (P

u

/ 1.5) < P

p,max

(3)

S

t

u

d

d

i

a

m

e

t

e

r

[

m

m

]

C

u

b

i

c

s

t

r

e

n

g

t

h

[

k

g

/

c

m

2

]

P

p

,

m

a

x

[

t

o

n

]

P

u

[

t

o

n

]

P

p

,

m

a

x

/

P

u

s

p

,

m

a

x

[

m

m

]

s

u

[

m

m

]

250 5.5 8 0.69 0.238 2.8089

300 6 8.75 0.69 0.2248 4.4567

400 7 9.75 0.72 0.2047 3.994

500 7.5 11 0.68 0.2332 4.2555

600 8 12 0.67 0.177 4.217

700 9 13 0.69 0.1991 4.6285

800 9.5 13.5 0.7 0.1935 3.9991

16

1000 10.5 15 0.7 0.1793 3.9894

E05ST28 - 11

L

o

a

d

[

t

o

n

]

Table 4: Theoretical limitations for stud 16 mm diameter

F

y

= 6. 75 [ t / cm

2

] F

y

=3. 60 [t/cm

2

]

S

t

u

d

d

i

a

m

e

t

e

r

[

m

m

]

C

u

b

i

c

s

t

r

e

n

g

t

h

[

k

g

/

c

m

2

]

P

p

,

m

a

x

[

t

o

n

]

(

1

)

P

u

[

t

o

n

]

(

2

)

P

p

,

m

a

x

[

t

o

n

]

(

3

)

P

u

[

t

o

n

]

(

4

)

P

p

,

m

a

x

r

a

t

i

o

(

1

)

/

(

3

)

250 5.5 8 4 6.75 1.375

300 6 8.75 5 7.5 1.2

400 7 9.75 5.5 8.5 1.273

500 7.5 11 6 9.25 1.25

600 8 12 6.5 10.5 1.23

700 9 13 7 11 1.286

800 9.5 13.5 7.5 11.5 1.267

16

1000 10.5 15 8.5 13.5 1.271

0

4

8

12

16

0 2 4 6 8 10

Fig.14: Load-slip relationship for 16 mm-stud with 1000 kg/cm

2

concrete cube strength

Table 5: Suggested design resistance of stud connectors in [ton]

5 CONCLUSIONS

The main goal of this thesis is to investigate the strength and the behavior of the shear

connectors of composite beams using the high strength concrete. From this investigation, and

Stud diameter [mm] Concrete cube

strength

[kg/cm

2

] 16 20 25

250 5.3 8.3 11.3

300 5.8 8.8 12.7

400 6.5 9.7 14

500 7.3 10.7 14.7

600 8 11.7 16

700 8.7 12.5 17

800 9 13.2 18

1000 10 14.7 20

Slip [mm]

6.75 t/cm

2

yeild stress of welds

3.60 t/cm

2

yeild stress of welds

E05ST28 - 12

based on the theoretical and experimental results of push-out models, the following

conclusions can be drawn:

1. The non-uniform height of the weld collar or the irregularity of weld size at the base of

the connector has an effect in the strength of the shear connector in practice by reducing

the expected theoretical design load, and experimentally describes the scatter in test

results and curves.

2. Increasing the yield stress of the weld collar increases the maximum load capacity of the

stud shear connector due to the concentration of the high stresses in small height relative

to the height of the stud shear connector.

3. The test evaluation method, as expressed in the EC4 and BS5450, is considered the most

suitable yet accurate method for the design of shear connectors.

4. The relationship between the ultimate loads of stud connectors and the value of the

concrete cubic strength was found to be in a linear form in case of medium and high

strength concrete, f

cu

_ 400 kg/cm

2

.

5. Design table proposed in this paper is formed to be a good estimation for the design of

stud shear connectors.

6 REFERENCES

1. Abd-Rabou, S.M. and Dabaon, M.A., "Comparison Between Theoretical and

Experimental Investigation of Composite Beams with Spiral Shear Connectors",

Mansoura Engineering Journal, Vol. 20,No. 1, PP. 22-37, March, 1995.

2. Ghorab, M. N., Gaawan, S. M., Abo Hashesh, A. and Amin, A. M., "Fatigue Behavior of

Stud Shear Connectors", AICSGE 5, PP. MS-73-87, December, 2003.

3. Hegger, J., Goralski, C., Sherif, A. and Kerkeni, N., "Shear Stud Connectors for

Composite Structures of High-Strength Steel and Concrete", ICPCM- A New Era of

Building, Cairo, Egypt, PP. 1011-1020, Feb.,2003.

4. Abbas, M. F., "Behavior of Shear Connectors in Composite Beams using Normal and

High Strength Concrete", MSC thesis, Tanta University, 2004.

5. ANSYS Element Reference Manual, version 5.4, 000853. Ninth Edition, SAS IP, Ink.

6. Ting, E. S., Johnson, H. A. and Pendyala, R. S., "Compressive Strength Testing of Very-

High Strength Concrete", Proceeding of the 17th Conference on Our World in Concrete

and Structures, Singapore, PP. 217-226, Aug., 1992.

7. DD ENV 1994-1-1, Eurocode 4, "Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures",

Part 1.1, General Rules and Rules for Buildings, English version, British Standard

Institution, London, 1994.

8. BS 5950: Part 3: Section 3.1 "Code of Practice for Design of Simple and Continuous

Composite Beams", British Standard Institution, London, 1990.

9. AISC:, 'Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Design, Specification for Structural Steel

Building¨, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, 1989.

10. ECP 2001: 'Egyptian Code of Practice for Steel Construction and Bridges (Allowable

Stress Design)¨, Code No. 205, Cairo, Egypt, 2001.

In the following. (Fig.1 Solid Modeling The geometric boundaries of the push-out specimen such as the reinforcement concrete slab (in two parts). and only to slide relative to each other. is formed by using the "stud shear connectors" type of different common diameters (16. Shear connector material: three specimens of the shear connectors are tested and the real stress-strain curve has been used as shown in (Fig. The connectors as well as the steel I-beam were also simulated. 1: Finite element mesh for Push-out test specimen 2. by using the Solid 45 3-D structural solid. all structural steels exhibit nearly identified mechanical properties. by using the Contact 52. a brief summary for the present finite element model is introduced.2 THEORETICAL PROGRAM The theoretical work was structured. The reinforcement concrete slabs were simulated by the Solid 45 3-D structural solid. 3). 2. 20 and 25 mm).4 program [5]. E05ST28 .2 Discretization Process Using the dimensions of the push-out specimen as been tested experimentally. under this title. in ANSYS manual [5]. This stress-strain curve. As known. a finer mesh was used in the region of the model where the failure was expected to take place. herein. in order to substitute the lack of investigations involved in the finite element analysis of push-out tests using high strength concrete. This stress-strain curve is so called BISO. Steel beam material: concerning the elastic range.2 . a finite element mesh was performed. To minimize this problem. The interface between the concrete slabs and the steel I-beam was maintained away from each other. 2) shows an idealized stressstrain curve of the common kinds of steel materials having the same behavior in tension and compression. The finite element mesh for the typical push-out test specimen is shown in (Fig. but it may lead to an expensive process. Fig. as same as the concrete slab.3 Material Properties The behavior of a composite structural element may be explored in relation to the various approximations that may be made to the real stress-strain behavior of the material of which the structure is composed. as a finite element package. 2. is used in this theoretical work. where the stress-strain ratio (modulus of elasticity) for various kinds of steel is as Es = 2100 t/cm2. The behavior of the material of the steel profile. is so called MISO. refining the finite element mesh leads to more accurate results. The shear connection. the shear connectors and the concrete slabs in the push-out test specimen would be treated as follows: 1. 1). 2. steel I-beam and the shear connectors should be defined as the first step in solid modeling. The ANSYS 5.

4 Boundary Conditions The test specimens were prevented from the transition. This level was of y = 0. (Fig. are obtained from literature [6] according to the strength of the different kinds of concrete. f Et = 1/1000 Es Es 1 Stress-strain curve Fig. which simulates the behavior of the concrete material. Concrete slab: the stress-strain distributions of the concrete materials.0 m. 1. 3: MISO-curve for connector material [5] 10 9 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.004 0. 4). E05ST28 . at the bottom of the concrete slabs. only. y and z directions.006 0 6 5 4 3 2 1 Axial strain Fig. is the MISO one. 4: MISO-curve for concrete material [6] 2. in the three nodal x.3 Axial stress [MPa] Axial stress [ksi] 8 7 . at which the stress-strain curve is entered as a series of several points. 2: BISO-curve for steel profile material [5] 5 fy Stress [t/cm2] 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 Strain % Fig. The curve. in ANSYS manual [5].002 0. as shown in Fig.3.

was automatically divided into equal sub-steps searching to the ultimate load. taking into account the material nonlinearity to determine the ultimate load of the modeled push-out test specimen. In this research.1).2.5 Application of load The load was applied to the top of the I-beam. the number of iterations of each sub-step was taken equals to 40 iterations while the tolerance was equal to (0. 2. results of three experimental test specimens have been compared with the results of the present finite element model. A proposed load value. From 5 to 7 show the load-slip relationships for the three test specimens. during the casting of the concrete slabs of the push-out test specimens. The loaded level was at y = 0.E. Experimental [4] 4 5 s [mm] Fig. Figs. distributed on 39 nodes in order to simulate the use of the spreader plate in the experimental program. model 4 5 s [mm] Fig.6 Model analysis In the current study. which drove the solution to equilibrium convergence.4 . 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 P [ton] Experimental [4] Present F.70 m. The program adjusts the stiffness matrix to reflect the nonlinear changes in the specimen stiffness using the Newton-Raphson equilibrium iteration. 6: Load-slip relationship for P15 The matter of fact.7 Verification of finite element predictions In order to asses the validity of the finite element model to simulate the actual behavior of push-out specimens. The ANSYS program was able to stop solving the model in two cases. a nonlinear analysis was used.E. 2. 5: Load-slip relationship for P12 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 P [ton] Present F. This may be one of the E05ST28 . some times a part of the steel I-beam flange is embedded inside the concrete slab which causes a friction resistance especially in the elastic region of loading. bigger than the expected ultimate load. These two cases are if there is no convergence and the second if the nodal solution gets more than the 50 mm.

From (Table 1). fu = 3. 3.Pu.0 t/cm2 and v = 1.6 t/cm2.exp 0.5 .(0. Empirical formulae or tables. Experimentat [4] 3 4 5 Fig. From (Fig. considers the same results.9 (0. E05ST28 .exp = 0. Pu. PRk = (0. and the results of the experimental tests. From our point of view.(PRk / v) (PRk / v) where. PRd = (fu/fut). it can be recognized that the design values. thus. it can be noticed that the proportional limit of the push-out test for all loads are in good agreement with the design values of PRd for all tests.reasons for the differences between the results of the finite element model.72 Pu. generally lie. Experimental evidence (Test evaluation) of push-out test considering the properties of materials and the dimensions of test specimens.exp / v) = 0. respectively.25 then. the design of shear connection may be achieved by one of the following two methods: 1. 7: Load-slip relationship for P16 3 EVALUATION OF CURRENT CODES According to most relevant international codes. divided by the number of connectors and reduced by 10 %. may be determined by using the following formula: PRd = (fu/fut). where the friction is prevented.9).1 Design Forces From The Test Evaluation According to EC4 three tests are conducted on normally identical specimens to determine the characteristic resistance PRk for the concrete and connector material of specified strengths fck and fu. 20 P [ton] 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 s [mm] Present F. The characteristic resistance should then be taken as the minimum failure load.9/1. fut = 4. 2.648 Pu. 8).25). Accordingly. in the elastic zone and this is the safe side for the design of shear connectors.exp (1) The design resistance of PRd. the design values of the present tests are summarized in (Table 1). as in the EC4 [7] and BS5450 [8]. is accurate and quite suitable for design purposes for both normal and high strength concrete.exp (2) This value is according to the EC4 test evaluation whereas BS5450. using any type of shear connectors. the method of calculating PRd obtained from the test results by means of the test evaluation.648 Pu.E.( Pu.9).exp PRd = 0.

exp* [ton] 11 14 14. 365 555 630 290 560 850 260 260 255 380 410 600 430 540 650 700 400 650 360 630 430 520 * Pp. AISC 1985 [9] and ECP 2001[10].67 5. loads Concrete strength [kg/cm2] Pp.77 11.08 1.exp** [ton] 16.25 17.5 13. Stud 16 Stud 20 1 1 1 5 12 5 12 12 Stud 22 2 3 N.12 1.04 1.83 7.30 15 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 Angle 1 5 0 0 Channel 1 5 15 30 45 N.34 4.A. 1: Without sheeting.8 7.36 11. Stud 25 1 5 N.6 .50 7.50 11.32 10.51 12. The others use design tables as in the BS5450.86 7. 2: Parallel sheeting.5 12. The connector resistance is identified as a design E05ST28 . ** Pu. Type of slab [Pp. Some of them give the value of resistance through formulae as in the EC4.48 5.18 0. Pp.72 Specimen No.12 1. ECP 2001 and the BS5450.50 5.63 7.83 8.56 3.32 15.04 1.A.79 7.10 8.02 1.exp : proportional load of shear connector.99 12.A.17 11.3 7.* N.2 Design Forces From Empirical Equations It is well known that there is another technique for the evaluation of the design resistance for a composite shear connector by using the formulae given by the international codes of practices such as the EC4.27 11.96 11.2 8 6 7 10 12 5 8 4 3.05 0.5 11 Pu. 8: Evaluation of test results against the proportional load 3.82 0.5 11 12.95 1.exp 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 PRd Fig.94 1.96 0.05 10.96 1.85 12.30 20.30 18.05 1.42 7.0 0.58 9.Table 1: Design values of PRd of the test evaluation Test evaluation PRd [ton] 10.00 17.06 1.21 11.20 19.97 9.12 1. 3: Transverse sheeting.12 0.98 1.13 Angle of inclination [degree] Weld size [mm] Type of connector Exp.5 11 10 9 5 5.50 18.53 11.03 1.A.exp / PRd] 1.95 0.60 16.25 5.30 16.exp : ultimate load of shear connector.44 3. AISC 1985.

the following parametric study is carried out. 3 Transverse sheeting.exp.A.6 N.exp [ton] Design forces EC4 ECP 2001 BS 5950 Equations & AISC PRd [ton] PRd [ton] PAd [ton] 13.74 8.A.5 12.74 5. N.A.50 11. New formulae or tables are also suggested for design application. provided by the codes of practices or specifications.18 3.42 14.57 5.A.A. The main goal of this section is to examine the results obtained from the different codes and specifications in case of using high strength concrete in the composite connection. represents the calculated design forces for test specimens made of high strength concrete (HSC).03 4.30 20 18. 1 Without sheeting.9 N. more or less. 8.A.A.A. N.exp and PRd of EC4 E05ST28 . N. the use of these design equations and tables. (Figure 9) demonstrates the relationship between the experimental ultimate and proportional limits compared with the design resistance (PRd) calculated by the equations of EC4 for the tested specimens. the used concrete is of the high strength concrete type and the test specimens were welded using typical welds technique. Pp.15 8. 13. it can be seen that the design forces. in good agreement with the proportional load in case of angle connectors.18 4. N. In these specimens. a brief summary of these equations and tables is provided.74 5.A.48 5.85 Not Applicable.resistance (PRd) as introduced in the EC4 and the BS5450 while it is calculated as an allowable design force (PAd) in the AISC 1985 and the ECP 2001. N. 5.2 N.5 13. N.25 17. may need further modification to satisfy the economy requirements. 9. applying the equations or tables given by the codes of practices for designing stud shear connectors with high strength concrete give conservative values compared with the proportional load. N. Thus.50 18.7 . Table 2: Design forces for the (HSC) test specimens Specimen No. (Table 2).60 11.exp [ton] Pu. By careful inspection of Table 2 and Fig. In the following.57 4.77 16. Type of slab Type of connector Exp. Parallel sheeting. 9: Evaluation of the values Pu. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 P2 P3 Experimental ultimate load Experimental Proportional load Design resistance of EC4 P15 P12 P16 P18 P20 Fig.77 9.A. limits Concrete strength [kg/cm2] Pp.5 8 10 12 8 3.8 19.73 N. On the other hand.A. P2 P3 P5 P6 P12 P15 P16 P18 P20 * Angle Channel Stud 16 Stud 20 Stud 22 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 555 630 560 850 600 650 700 650 630 14 14.05 9. To provide more clarification to this point.

the relationship is acting as a power function in the region of normal concrete strengths. according to this proposed table will be (Pu / ). respectively. The value of the yield stress of the weld collar used to fix the stud shear connector to upper flange of the steel I-beam.4 PARAMETRIC STUDY The parametric study was conducted. of such diameters. 13 represents the ultimate load versus the cross-sectional area of the stud shear connector for the normal and high strength E05ST28 . Fig. (16. (250.69 and 0.2 Effect of Stud Shear Connector Diameter The effect of the diameter of stud shear connector upon the strength and behavior of shear connection was studied by the same groups of models discussed in the previous section.69. 700. 300. 20 and 25 mm). a safety factor ( ) is taken equals to 1. 20 and 25 mm. 3. The value of the concrete compressive strength using either normal or high strength concrete. Other diameters can be revised in [4]. 10). This may encourage to consider a linear relationship in the region of medium and high strength concrete. 4. In order to propose a design table.6 t/cm2). in this research. the ratio of the proportional and the ultimate load. 11). while it acts as a linear function in the region of the medium and high strength concrete.8 . for the other diameters see [4]. It can be clearly noticed that the suggested results are located in the safe side of the curves. also. 600.5. The relationship between the ultimate load of stud shear connectors and the value of the concrete cube strength used in the push-out test is shown in (Fig. (Pp. The stud shear connector diameter. 500. In this curve. This figure shows that the ultimate load carried by the stud. carried by the studs in each group of model diameter 16. From (Tables 3) and the others obtained in [4]. 0.10: Ultimate load for different stud diameters The values of the proportional and ultimate loads and corresponding slips are tabulated in (Table 3) for the 16 mm stud diameter. is increased with the increase in the value of the concrete compressive strength.max / Pu). These average ratios are found to be (0.1 Effect Of Concrete Compressive Strength In (Fig. Figure 12 shows the position of the suggested design values for the 16mm stud diameters against the finite element results for proportional and ultimate load.75 and 3. 800 and 1000 kg/cm2). 400. using the "stud shear connectors" type by taking into consideration the effect of the following variables: 1. is demonstrated. can be calculated. the ultimate load. with the respect of weld yield stress of (6.73) for the stud shear connectors of diameter 16. (Fy = 6.29 d2 (fck Ec)½ / v). 4. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Ultimate load [ton] Stud diameter 16 mm Stud diameter 20 mm Concrete compressive strength [kg/cm2] Fig. The design resistance (PRd). 20 and 25 mm.75 t/cm2). 2. similar to the function used by the EC4 (PRd = 0.

In this table.26. are tabulated in addition to the proportional and ultimate ratios between them. From this curve.75 t/cm2) while it was of (Fy = 3. The average proportional and ultimate load ratios are calculated for the finite element models. it can be recognized that the increase in the cross-sectional area increases the ultimate load carried by the connector.11: Proposed curve of relationship between Pu and cube strength 20 15 10 5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Proposed design load Proportional load Ultimate load load [ton] Concrete compressive strength [kg/cm2] Fig. comparison will take place by studying the effect of the yield stress of welds on the strength of the stud with addition to the study of the change of the stud diameter under the two cases of the yield stress of welds.12: Proposed design resistance for 16 mm-stud 4.27 and 1. This range of the yield stress of welds is taken as the upper and the lower limits of the yield stresses at which the international codes of practices are interested.3 Comparison Between Both Values of Weld Yield Stress In the first part of the parametric study. The ultimate load ratios calculated are equal to 1.28 for the 16.9 . The average proportional load ratios are about 1. 20 and 25 mm-stud shear connectors models. The load ratios tabulated in this table is the values observed from first part of the study over the corresponding values from the second parametric study. (Table 4) is constructed using the load versus slip curves observed from the finite element study for the case of 16 mm stud diameter.2 for E05ST28 . the weld used was of (Fy = 6. 1.17 and 1.16. 40 Ultimate load [ton] f (fcu)n Normal concrete f (fcu) Medium and high concrete 30 20 10 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 2 EC4 and BS5450 1200 Concrete compressive strength [kg/cm ] Fig. respectively. the proportional and ultimate loads. In the following.concrete.60 t/cm2) in the second one. from both cases of parametric studies. 1.

by using this high stress of weld.75 11 12 13 13.1793 3. respectively. it can be proposed that the design resistance (PRd) for stud shear connectors to be as follows: PRd = (Pu / 1.max) is ranging from (1.994 4. It can be seen also that the maximum slip of stud increases by using lower values of the yield stress of used welds.8089 3.177 Pp. Thus.max[ton] Pp. From these ratios.9894 35 30 25 Pu [ton] 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 Cross-sectional area of stud shear connector [cm2] 3 4 5 6 Fig.69 0. in case of yield stress equals (6.45). it is recommended to use the higher yield stress of welds as possible.5 6 7 7.10 (3) .2332 4. This increase in the elastic zone between the two welding grades is considerable importance.5) < Pp. which may be considered as the upper limit for the design resistance of connector. is the proposed method of evaluating the design resistance of stud shear connectors.1935 3.5 8 9 9.69 0. From this figure it can be recognized that the effect of the high yield stress of welds appears as increase in both the proportional and ultimate loads.5 10.4567 0.2555 0. is given as an example.1991 4.238 0. It is to use a table technique as used in the BS5450.75 t/cm2) for the welds.69 0. Table 3: Theoretical limitations for stud 16 mm diameter sp.2047 0. It was found that the ratio of the ultimate to proportional limit (Pu / Pp.the same groups of models.75 9.72 0.max [mm] 0. the designer may understand the importance of using a yield stress of welds as much bigger as possible to benefit from the increase in the proportional load.5 0. the load-slip relationship for 16 mm-stud shear connector with concrete of (1000 kg/cm2) cube strength in the two cases of weld yield stresses values.7 0. 13: Ultimate load for different stud cross-sections As a general conclusion from the results of this parametric study.217 1000 kg/cm2 800 kg/cm2 700 kg/cm2 600 kg/cm2 400 kg/cm2 300 kg/cm2 250 kg/cm2 500 kg/cm2 Pu [ton] 8 8.7 0. The stiffness of the connector is same as it is in the lower yield stress of welds.9991 0.68 0. The proposed values of the design resistance may be suggested as shown in Table 5.67 0.6285 0.31 to 1.2248 4.max / Pu Stud diameter [mm] Cubic strength [kg/cm2] su [mm] 2. In (Fig.max E05ST28 . 14).5 15 250 300 400 16 500 600 700 800 1000 5. from our point of view.

5 7 7. From this investigation.max ratio (1)/(3) 1.5 10.8 9.5 13.5 13.273 1.5 8 8.75 11 12 13 13.7 10.3 8.7 12.Table 4: Theoretical limitations for stud 16 mm diameter Stud diameter [mm] Pp.14: Load-slip relationship for 16 mm-stud with 1000 kg/cm2 concrete cube strength Table 5: Suggested design resistance of stud connectors in [ton] Concrete cube strength [kg/cm2] 250 300 400 500 600 700 800 1000 Stud diameter [mm] 16 5.5 15 16 12 8 4 0 0 2 4 6.11 Pp.25 10.271 Cubic strength [kg/cm2] F y = 6.60 t/cm2 yeild stress of welds Load [ton] 6 Slip [mm] Fig.286 1.5 8 9 9.375 1.267 1.max[ton] (1) 16 250 300 400 500 600 700 800 1000 5.3 8 8.5 6 6.5 10 Pp.7 11.75 t/cm2 yeild stress of welds 3.5 9.5 8.5 8 .2 1.7 14 14.7 16 17 18 20 5 CONCLUSIONS The main goal of this thesis is to investigate the strength and the behavior of the shear connectors of composite beams using the high strength concrete.25 1.5 6 7 7.3 12.5 7.5 8.5 11 11.75 9.8 6.2 14.3 5.75 7. 75 [ t/cm 2 ] F y =3. and E05ST28 .7 25 11.7 9 10 20 8.max[ton] (3) 4 5 5.60 [t/cm 2 ] Pu [ton] (2) Pu [ton] (4) 6.23 1.

PP. Part 1.4. S. General Rules and Rules for Buildings. The test evaluation method. Abd-Rabou.. Egypt. and Dabaon. and Pendyala. Specification for Structural Steel Building . 1994. AICSGE 5.No. AISC:. Chicago. 4.based on the theoretical and experimental results of push-out models. and Amin. Ninth Edition.. Gaawan. is considered the most suitable yet accurate method for the design of shear connectors. Cairo. March. Feb. 8. 22-37. 3. Ghorab. A. "Behavior of Shear Connectors in Composite Beams using Normal and High Strength Concrete".. M. 9. 1990.. Abo Hashesh.M. MSC thesis.. S. 2001. 6 REFERENCES 1.1 "Code of Practice for Design of Simple and Continuous Composite Beams". Singapore..A New Era of Building.. 2003. Ink. "Comparison Between Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Composite Beams with Spiral Shear Connectors". Aug. A. 1011-1020. Sherif. "Shear Stud Connectors for Composite Structures of High-Strength Steel and Concrete". and Kerkeni. Johnson. Mansoura Engineering Journal. 5. "Fatigue Behavior of Stud Shear Connectors". American Institute of Steel Construction. M. Eurocode 4. 4. PP. F. London. British Standard Institution. British Standard Institution. "Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures". M. ANSYS Element Reference Manual. London. 2004. A. E. the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Proceeding of the 17th Conference on Our World in Concrete and Structures.2003. Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Design. as expressed in the EC4 and BS5450. MS-73-87. 20. A. 000853. 3. DD ENV 1994-1-1.A. J. Code No. PP. C. 1992. 1989. R. Cairo. 5. fcu 400 kg/cm2. "Compressive Strength Testing of VeryHigh Strength Concrete". Design table proposed in this paper is formed to be a good estimation for the design of stud shear connectors. 6. N. December.. 1.. 10. M. 217-226. H. N. 205. 1995.. Hegger. Vol. M.. E05ST28 .1. ECP 2001: Egyptian Code of Practice for Steel Construction and Bridges (Allowable Stress Design) . version 5. and experimentally describes the scatter in test results and curves. English version. SAS IP. 2. BS 5950: Part 3: Section 3. The non-uniform height of the weld collar or the irregularity of weld size at the base of the connector has an effect in the strength of the shear connector in practice by reducing the expected theoretical design load. S. Tanta University.12 .. Goralski. The relationship between the ultimate loads of stud connectors and the value of the concrete cubic strength was found to be in a linear form in case of medium and high strength concrete. Egypt. Abbas. ICPCM. Ting. 7. Increasing the yield stress of the weld collar increases the maximum load capacity of the stud shear connector due to the concentration of the high stresses in small height relative to the height of the stud shear connector. PP. S. 2.

- trc brochure copyUploaded byapi-240868335
- نوتة حسابية كاملة لمبنى فيلاUploaded byWalif Dababat
- D790 Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating MaterialsUploaded byHernan Gustavo Ruiz
- 10.1.1.659.2665Uploaded bysagar1503
- Solid Mechanics-8.pdfUploaded bychetan
- AISC Engg Journal 93.pdfUploaded byBackdrop PhotoStudio Lang
- Tensile PropertiesUploaded bynatisinge
- LS-DYNA dodatakUploaded byDragan
- All ReportsUploaded byleonardomayer4350
- CAESAR II_Ver 7.0 Class NoteUploaded byAnonymous 9fNuCpaO8
- 13 Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete BuildingsUploaded byAngel Rejas Ponce
- Curved Compound Adv 2002Uploaded byElsadig Mahdi Ahmed
- Al RingPlug SpecimenUploaded bySwedish99
- FEM non-linear modelling of cob using ANSYSUploaded byAlejandro Jiménez
- A 496 _ 97 ;QTQ5NI05N0FFMQ__Uploaded byMung Duong Xuan
- Asme Case 1956-6Uploaded byDinh Nguyen Gia
- lab 321 #1 vvvUploaded bySam
- Chapter 1 StressUploaded bySudarson Karthikeyan
- Modeling of Yield Strength for the 6063 Al-Mg-SiUploaded bySupriyaNandy
- Lug DesignUploaded byNaman Dugar
- RAM Connection Standalone CE Cap Plate ResultsUploaded byKian Bautista
- capacity.pdfUploaded bySushil Dhungana
- RISAConnection Print JobUploaded byWin Than
- Strength of MaterialsUploaded byMohak Shah
- china stdUploaded bySantosh Kumar
- Pushover Analysis of Structures Considering Strain Rate EffectsUploaded byovunctezer
- DIV 2 Report - DraftUploaded byazeezsadiq
- INELASTIC SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSES OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BRIDGE PIERS WITH THREE-DIMENSIONAL FE ANALYSIS METHODUploaded bywii2001

- MSDSUploaded byJaniS.Wangsadiria
- MSDS THINNER.pdfUploaded byJaniS.Wangsadiria
- ThinnerUploaded byJaniS.Wangsadiria
- SNI-0225-2013 (PUIL) Amd. 1.pdfUploaded byJaniS.Wangsadiria
- Dasar k3 & JhaUploaded byJaniS.Wangsadiria
- MSDS OLI MESRAN SUPER.pdfUploaded byJaniS.Wangsadiria
- Struktur Baja II.docxUploaded byJaniS.Wangsadiria
- DOKUMEN BUTONIC SLURRY MODIFIED A.pptxUploaded byJaniS.Wangsadiria
- Laporan PKL Kelompok 1Uploaded byJaniS.Wangsadiria
- An Assessment of Microwave Denture Processing by Temperature MeasurementUploaded byJaniS.Wangsadiria
- Buckling_Load_SAP_2000 (1).pdfUploaded byJaniS.Wangsadiria
- sni-03-1729-2002_BAJA.pdfUploaded byJaniS.Wangsadiria