122 views

Uploaded by starsplesh

Compozite

save

You are on page 1of 176

**HAUNCH BEAMS AND CONNECTIONS
**

FOR LONG SPAN APPLICATIONS

BY

**NG YIAW HEONG (BEng.(Hons.), MEng)
**

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

A THESIS SUBMITTED

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

**NATIONAL UNIVERSITY of SINGAPORE
**

2004

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge various

individuals for their guidance and encouragement in the course of this research.

Firstly, the author would like to express his appreciation for the constant guidance and

encouragement provided by his research supervisors, Professor N.E. Shanmugam and

Associate Professor J.Y. Richard Liew. This research work would not have been

completed without their continuous support.

Secondly, the author is fortunate to have received moral support and

understanding from Sze Ching; his wife and his parents. He would like to express

gratitude to them. For the author’s 3 years-old and 1-year-old sons, Yan Zhang and

Ding Jie; the author could only apologize for not being able to keep them company

most of the time especially during the final stage of the study.

Last but not least, the assistance given by the lab officers during the

experimental testing in the Concrete and Structural Laboratory, National University of

Singapore is gratefully appreciated.

This research project was funded by the National University of Singapore

under a research grant (RP 930648). The support from Yongnam Engineering &

Construction Pte Ltd, Singapore who supplied the test specimens is gratefully

acknowledged.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

SUMMARY

vi

LIST OF TABLES

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

xiii

LIST OF SYMBOLS

xiv

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

**CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
**

2.1 BACKGROUND

2.2 INTERNAL FORCES AND MOMENTS IN CONTINUOUS COMPOSITE HAUNCH BEAM

2.3 GLOBAL ELASTIC ANALYSIS OF NON-SWAY FRAME

2.4 PLASTIC HINGE ANALYSIS OF NON-SWAY FRAME

2.4.1 Rigid-Plastic Analysis

2.4.2 Elastic-Plastic Analysis

2.5 ANALYSIS OF HAUNCH SECTION

1

1

4

5

6

9

9

11

12

14

15

16

16

**CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
**

- HAUNCH CONNECTION

3.1 GENERAL

3.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

3.2.1 Beam and column sections

3.2.2 Reinforcement bar

3.2.3 Concrete

3.3 FABRICATION OF TEST SPECIMENS

3.4 TEST SET-UP

21

21

22

22

23

23

24

25

iii

12 HAUNCH TOE MOMENT CAPACITY 3.2 Calculation of available rotation capacity of composite section 5.15 EFFECTS OF HAUNCH LENGTH 3.4.6 TESTING PROCEDURE 4.7 BEAM TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.8 JOINT STIFFNESS.4.2 Beam Specimen B2 4.13 JOINT TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.3.1 Beam Specimen B1 4.7.14 EFFECT OF SLAB REINFORCEMENT RATIO 3. φCD 3.13. θie 3.3.13.8 CONCLUDING REMARKS CHAPTER 5 ANALYTICAL MODEL 5.5 Connections H7 and H8 3.13.3 Connection rotation.3 Connections H3 and H4 3.2.6 Connections H9 and H10 3.3 ROTATION CAPACITY 5.13.1 Beam rotation.1 Beam and column sections 4. φ 3.4 TEST SET-UP 4.5 INSTRUMENTATION 3.7.USFOS 59 59 60 60 61 61 61 62 65 65 66 66 69 71 73 105 105 105 108 108 109 111 111 115 116 116 iv .2. θb 3.7.2 Composite Haunch Beam analysis 5.1 Comparison of test results 3.2 Connections H1 and H2 3.2 Column rotation.2 COMPARISON OF PLASTIC HINGE ANALYSIS AND TEST RESULTS 5. MU 3.4 BEAM ANALYSIS 5.7.1 Nonlinear Analysis Software: .5.1 General 5.9 JOINT ULTIMATE MOMENT.7.HAUNCH BEAM 4.10 JOINT ROTATIONAL CAPACITY.3 Concrete 4.3 Beam Specimen B3 4. RKI 3.1 INTRODUCTION 4.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES 4.13.4 Inelastic Rotation.4 Connections H5 and H6 3.16 CONCLUSIONS 26 26 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 34 36 37 38 40 40 41 CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION .3 FABRICATION OF TEST SPECIMENS 4.1 Composite Haunch Beam Properties 5.7.3.1 GENERAL 5.2.13.5 INSTRUMENTATION 4.2 Reinforcement bar 4.11 HAUNCH CONNECTION CAPACITY 3.7.5 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING 5.7 DATA ASSESSMENT 3. θc 3.6 TESTING PROCEDURE 3.

1 General 5.6.4 PLASTIC HINGE ANALYSIS 6.1 GENERAL 7.5.5.2 Lateral Distorsional Buckling Design Method 116 117 117 117 118 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS AND DESIGN EXAMPLE 6.4 SECTION PROPERTIES AND FRAME ANALYSIS 7.2 Modeling of Composite Haunch Beam 5.6 LATERAL TORSIONAL INSTABILITY 5.3 ELASTIC GLOBAL ANALYSIS 6.2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 6.3 Results 5.3 BEHAVIOUR OF THE COMPOSITE HAUNCH BEAM 7.6.5 DESIGN PROCEDURE FLOW CHART 6.5.5 FUTURE WORK 141 141 141 142 142 144 APPENDIX A DESIGN EXAMPLE 146 REFERENCES 154 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 160 v .1 INTRODUCTION 6.6 DESIGN EXAMPLE 131 131 131 133 135 138 140 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE WORK 7.2 BEHAVIOUR OF THE COMPOSITE HAUNCH CONNECTION 7.

instrumentation. vi . these connections display the characteristics of a rigid connection. Experiments were carried out to investigate the moment rotation characteristics and ultimate capacity of these connections and beams. Study also has been carried out to investigate the parameters that influence the stiffness. Experimental results show that composite haunch connection exhibits a ductile moment-rotation behaviour and is able to redistribute moment to the mid-span by loss of stiffness due to cracking of concrete slab and yielding of either steel reinforcement or cross section. Optimum design of composite haunch beam can be achieved when plastic hinge occurred at haunch toes followed by at the mid-span to form a plastic collapse mechanism. There are a total of 10 haunch connections and 3 continuous composite haunch beam specimens tested to failure. Design guidelines for composite haunch joints and beams are provided. test set-up and test procedures are described. Details of the experiments giving information on test specimens.SUMMARY This thesis is concerned with the behaviour of steel-concrete composite haunch connections and beams. It is found that through proper design and detailing. strength and rotation capacity of composite haunch connections. rotation capacity and failure modes are presented. Results obtained for connection moment capacity. Haunch toe could be designed as the weakest section to form a plastic hinge with suitable amount of reinforcement in the slab and range of haunch length.

1 Details of joint test specimens Table 3.5 Summary of test results Chapter 4 Table 4.2 Details of beam test specimens Chapter 5 Table 5.1 Summary of concrete cube test results for beam specimen Table 4.1 Limits to redistribution of hogging moment to reduce (EC4) Table 2.1 Comparison of test results with Plastic Hinge Theory Table 5.4 Summary of concrete cube test results Table 3.2 Comparison of rotational capacity at Haunch Toe vii .LIST OF TABLES Chapter 2 Table 2.3 Summary of reinforcement bar properties and tensile test results Table 3.2 Maximum redistribution of negative moment in composite haunch beam at ultimate limit state [Lawson 1989] Chapter 3 Table 3.2 Summary of universal section properties and tensile test results Table 3.

4 Distorsional Buckling of Composite Beam Chapter 3 Figure 3.2 Cutting of Taper Section in Universal Beam Chapter 2 Figure 2.3 Test Specimen Ready for Concrete Casting Figure 3.5 Joint Test Specimen Ready for Testing Figure 3.6 Instrumentation of Test Specimen Figure 3.2 Sub-frame of Beam and Column in Non-sway Frames Analysis Figure 2.9 Stress-strain Block of Haunch Connection Figure 3.4 Typical Joint Test Specimen Figure 3.LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 1 Figure 1.1 Building Plan Layout for Joint Specimens'Design Figure 3.3 Relation between Haunch Beam Elastic Resistance and Parent Beam Plastic Resistance Figure 2.7 Definition of Rotation in a Joint Figure 3.2 Cruciform Joint Specimen Figure 3.10(b) View after Failure of Tension Bolt of Specimen H1 and H2 viii .1 Haunch as Taper Section in Universal Beam Figure 1.8 Moment-rotation Curve of Connection Figure 3.1 Cross Section of Continuous Composite Beam Figure 2.10(a) View after Failure of Specimen H1 and H2 Figure 3.

23 View after Failure of H9 Figure 3.2 Wooden Formwork of Beam Test Specimen Figure 4.1 Haunch Beam Test Specimen Figure 4.24 Moment-Rotation Curve of H9 Figure 3.27 Comparison of Load-Displacement Curve of H3.11 Moment-Rotation Curve of H1 and H2 Figure 3.19 View after Failure of H7 Figure 3.13 Moment-Rotation Curve of H4 Figure 3.16 Moment-Rotation Curve of H5 Figure 3.15 View after Failure of H5 Figure 3.H4 and H6 Figure 3.17 View after Failure of H6 Figure 3.26 Comparison of Load-Displacement Curve of H2. H4.21 View after Failure of H8 Figure 3.12 View after Failure of H3 and H4 Figure 3.3 Beam Specimen Ready for Concrete Casting Figure 4.25 Premature Failure of H10 Figure 3.Figure 3. H7 and H8 Chapter 4 Figure 4.5 Isometric View of Haunch Beam Test Specimen ix .20 Moment-Rotation Curve of H7 Figure 3.18 Moment-Rotation Curve of H6 Figure 3.13 Moment-Rotation Curve of H3 Figure 3.21 Moment-Rotation Curve of H8 Figure 3.4 Beam Specimen Ready for Testing Figure 4.

6 Schematic Loading of Haunch Beam Test Specimen Figure 4.14 Crushing of Concrete Slab at Loading Point in Beam B1 Figure 4.26 Crushing of Concrete Slab at Loading Point in Beam B2 x .23 Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B1 at Right Loading Point at Different Load Stage Figure 4.8 Loading Frame Connected to Hydraulic Actuator Figure 4.22 Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B1 at Left Loading Point at Different Load Stage Figure 4.Figure 4.7 Loading Frame in Haunch Beam Test Specimen Figure 4.11 View after Failure of Specimen B1 Figure 4.9 Larger Haunch Connection at Cantilever Beam Side Figure 4.21 Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B1 at Right Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage Figure 4.19 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B1 at Right Loading Point at Different Load Stage Figure 4.13 Inelastic Buckling in Compression Flange of the Beam B1 Figure 4.12 Load-Displacement Curve of Specimen B1 Figure 4.15 Concrete Slab Cracking Pattern of the Beam B1 at Haunch Toe Figure 4.25 Inelastic Buckling of Compression Flange of the Beam B2 Figure 4.10 Instrumentation of Beam Specimen Figure 4.17 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B1 at Right Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage Figure 4.20 Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B1 at Left Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage Figure 4.16 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B1 at Left Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage Figure 4.24 Load-Displacement Curve of Specimen B2 Figure 4.18 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B1 at Left Loading Point at Different Load Stage Figure 4.

Figure 4.39 Crushing of Concrete Slab at Loading Point in Beam B3 Figure 4.37 Inelastic Buckling of Left Haunch Flange of the Beam B3 Figure 4.28 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B2 at Right Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage Figure 4.33 Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B2 at Left Loading Point at Different Load Stage Figure 4.27 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B2 at Left Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage Figure 4.29 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B2 at Left Loading Point at Different Load Stage Figure 4.41 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B3 at Right Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage Figure 4.31 Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B2 at Left Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage Figure 4.43 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B3 at Left Haunch Heel at Different Load Stage Figure 4.44 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B3 at Left Loading Point at Different Load Stage xi .34 Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B2 at Right Loading Point at Different Load Stage Figure 4.30 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B2 at Right Loading Point at Different Load Stage Figure 4.38 Inelastic Buckling of Right Haunch Flange of the Beam B3 Figure 4.36 View after Failure of Specimen B3 Figure 4.42 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B3 at Right Haunch Heel at Different Load Stage Figure 4.35 Load-Displacement Curve of Specimen B3 Figure 4.40 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B3 at Left Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage Figure 4.32 Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B2 at Right Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage Figure 4.

7 Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curve for Connection H6 Figure 5.1(d) Moment Diagram of Haunch Toe Loads Figure 5. (1991) Figure 5.47 Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B3 at Right Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage Figure 4.1(e) Moment Diagram of 2 Point Loads and Haunch Toe Loads Figure 5.46 Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B3 at Left Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage Figure 4.10 Cross Section of Haunch Beam with PNA at Beam Flange xii .9 Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curve for Connection H9 Figure 5.Figure 4.1(c) Moment Diagram of 2 Point Loads Figure 5.45 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B3 at Right Loading Point at Different Load Stage Figure 4.6 Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curve for Connection H5 Figure 5.1(a) Haunch Beam with 2 Point Loads Figure 5. B2 and B3 Chapter 5 Figure 5.2 Moment-Rotation Curve according to Kemp.48 Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B3 at Left Loading Point at Different Load Stage Figure 4.5 Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curve for Connection H4 Figure 5.8 Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curve for Connection H7 Figure 5.50 Comparison of Load-Displacement Curve for Specimens B1.4 Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curve for Connection H3 Figure 5.49 Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B3 at Right Loading Point at Different Load Stage Figure 4.3 Plastic Region near the Internal Support of Continuous Beam Figure 5.1(b) Collapse Mechanism in Haunch Beam Figure 5.

Figure 5.14 Comparison of USFOS and Experimental Load-Displacement Curves for Beam B1 Figure 5.11 Cross Section of Haunch Beam with PNA at Beam Web Figure 5.15 Comparison of USFOS and Experimental Load-Displacement Curves for Beam B1 xiii .12 Modeling of Haunch Beam in Finite Element Software USFOS Figure 5.13 Comparison of USFOS and Experimental Load-Displacement Curves for Beam B1 Figure 5.

LIST OF SYMBOLS A = Section area Af = Flange area Aw = Web area = A .2Af B = Beam Width Be = Concrete effective width D = Diameter D = Beam Depth Dh = Depth of Haunch E1 = Strain energy absorbed in lateral bending of the bottom flange E2 = Torsional energy absorbed in twisting the bottom flange E3 = Bending energy absorbed in displacing the web E4 = Torsional energy absorbed in twisting the web E5 = Work done by the compressive force in the bottom flange E6 = Work done by the forces in the web φ = Connection rotation φa = Inelastic available rotation φC = Parameter IcL/(Ibch) φCd = Joint rotational capacity fcu = Concrete Compressive Strength φe = Required Elastic rotation FEM = Fixed-ended moment of the beam under the same loading condition φr = Required Inelastic rotation fu = Steel Ultimate strength = Rotational capacity = Ultimate strength of flange u fuf xiv .

fur = Rebar Ultimate strength fuw = Ultimate strength of web fy = Steel Yield strength fyf = Yield strength of flange fyr = Rebar Yield strength fyw = Yield strength of web γmr = Partial material factor h = Length of column from floor to floor η LT = Perry Coefficient Ibc = Second moment of area of the uncracked composite beam Ic = Second moment of area of the column L = Length of the beam (including the haunch) λ = Slenderness of the beam length between restraints L = Length between hinges at both ends Le = Span of the beam between the end of the haunches Li = Length between maximum moment and adjacent point of inflection λLT = Equivalent Slenderness Lp = Plastic region of the flange Mhe = Elastic Moment Resistance of Haunch Section Mhu = Moment capacity of composite haunch connection Mn = Negative moment Mnc = Negative moment resistance of the composite beam Mp = Design moment resistance Mpc = Positive moment resistance of the composite beam Mph = Plastic moment capacity of hogging region Mps = Plastic moment capacity of sagging region Ms = Elastic Moment Resistance of Steel Beam Section xv .

wu = Factored design load on the beam yc = Distance from the top of haunch flange xvi .Mu = Moment resistance n = Slenderness correction factor (for shape of bending moment diagram) P = Point Load py = Design strength for steel θb = Beam rotation θc = Column rotation θie = Inelastic rotation ra = available rotational capacity φa / φe (Non-dimension) Rb = Bolt in tension Rhf = Haunch flange capacity Rhw = Haunch web capacity Rki = Joint stiffness Rki = Rotational stiffness Rr = Reinforcement in tension rr = Required rotation capacity φr / φe (Non-dimension) Thf = Thickness of haunch flange thw = Thickness of haunch web u = Buckling parameter (0.9 for universal sections) vt = Slenderness factor (including torsional stiffness and other effects).

permitting more headroom for services. This system is able to offer more variety to the designer in planning the usage of the column-free space. These include (Lawson and Rackham. Interaction between steel and concrete is achieved by connecting them by means of shear connectors. 1989. the total steel weight reduces significantly by 30 to 50 % compared with non-composite beams (Narayanan.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Lawson. This results in lower storey heights and savings in cladding costs or. a strong demand for large columnfree space in buildings in recent times has necessitated further research into the behaviour of haunch beams since they are considered to be an efficient and economical form for long span construction. 1995. 1991. The decking also acts as transverse reinforcement to the composite beams and distributes shrinkage strains and prevents serious cracking of concrete. 2000): i) Beams with web openings ii) Castellated beams 1 . Firstly. There are a number of advantages in using composite beams. 2003). alternatively. Owen.1 Background Composite structures comprising of steel frames and concrete floors were introduced in the last century and are now commonly used in modern buildings. Composite beams also provide larger stiffness that will reduce the depth of the beam for the same span. Besides the advantages mentioned above. Metal decking may be used as permanent formwork to support any load during construction and later to act compositely with the hardened concrete slab to form a composite slab. Uy & Liew. These kinds of construction method are widely used now because of structural economy with fast speed of construction. There are several types of structural options for achieving long span and incorporating of services within normal floor zones. Another benefit of composite construction is the metal decking which supports construction loads and acts as a working platform.

Those penetrations normally are required to be strengthened by extra stiffeners which directly increase the fabrication cost. Haunch beams are designed by assuming a rigid moment connection between the beams and columns. it is not cost effective to create openings unless really there are no other choices. the space at the haunch region could offer more freedom for 2 . The tapered section is usually cut from a similar section. Haunch composite beams in which steel beams are designed to act in conjunction with a concrete slab of definite width could result in shallow beams.iii) Fabricated beams with tapered web iv) Trusses v) Stub girders vi) Parallel beam grillage systems vii) Haunch beams Haunch beams in this thesis are defined as beams being stiffened at two ends with a tapered triangular T-Section as shown in Fig. Fig. with the haunch beam system. haunch beam systems could also provide a long unobstructed space for services and increase speed of construction. However. Therefore.1. One of the common scenarios in steel construction is opening for services. Furthermore.1. Depth and length of a haunch are chosen so that they result in an economical method of transferring moment into the column and in a reduction of beam depth to a practical minimum. These tapered sections will then be welded to the beam ends and usually there are end plates at both ends of the beam as shown in the diagram. Usually web of the steel beam need various sizes of penetration for mechanical and electrical services.1.2 shows two typical tapered sections being cut from a universal beam. provide sufficient rotation capacity of the connection that will permit a redistribution of the moment and thus mobilise a full sagging capacity of the beam resulting in an economical design.

And if necessary. Test results show that the hogging capacity is as high as the sagging section capacity when sufficient tension reinforcement is placed at the concrete slab at the hogging region. Haunch composite beams may offer continuity at the beam-column support and hence increase the structural performance of the system as a continuous beam. the deflection of the beam could be easily 50% less for a continuous beam compared with the simply supported beam system. Therefore. the introduction of a haunch may be an option to overcome the shortcoming because it will increase the hogging section capacity. A continuous beam could offer about 33% of strength compared with a simply supported beam system. Therefore. For instance. This will definitely increase the production of steelwork and indirectly increase the construction speed. many tests have been conducted (Hamada 1976) and the results have shown that the majority of beams failed as a result of local buckling. tension reinforcement could be added thus increasing the hogging capacity. For a continuous composite beam such as a parallel beam grillage system. However. one of the shortcomings in continuous composite beams is that the composite sagging section capacity is always larger than the hogging moment. Tests have shown that the width-thickness ratio for the flange of the steel section and the amount of longitudinal slab reinforcement are significant factors affect local flange buckling.Mechanical & Electrical services and less co-ordination between the steel contractor and the M&E engineers during the construction stage. it is 3 . under hogging moment. The ultimate strength of composite beams under sagging moment has been well established and Eurocode 4 has offered detailed design guideline. The continuity in composite beams provides benefits at both the ultimate and serviceability limit states for long span structures. However. the negative bending at internal supports is generally significantly less than the resistance in positive bending in the midspan region.

important to find out the factors that affect the design of haunched composite beams so that the structural system will be utilised more efficiently. the connections will usually be partial-strength connections relative to the composite section next to the connection. However. It is also noticed that by introducing the haunch in the steel connection. which the reinforcement in the joint is intended to provide resistance in tension. Therefore. which strengthens the connection between the steel sections. haunches could be introduced to provide full continuity. Eurocode 4 defines composite connection as the one. the rotational capacity at the joint is almost not required because both the hogging and sagging section capacity are reached at the same time. The philosophy of this design concept is that the ductility (i. This is unlike the composite joint without haunch which requires that they have both sufficient strength and ductility. the connection moment capacity should be greater than the applied moment. The tensile action of the slab reinforcement increases both the resistance and stiffness compared with the structural steel connection. and the connection capacity should be larger than that required to develop the moments in the beam at the ultimate limit state. both the hogging end resistance and the mid-span sagging resistance should be well utilised as it will be shown in the proposed experimental program that the hogging and sagging resistance of the composite haunch beam can be proportioned to achieve an optimum design.e. 1.2 Research Objectives The main objective of this research is to study experimentally the behaviour of composite haunch connections and composite haunch beams with tension 4 . For economy in composite beam design. In addition. rotation capacity) is no longer important if the hogging and sagging section capacity is achieved simultaneously.

All the experimental results are reported in detail. The key joint properties.reinforcement subjected to negative moment condition in order to simulate the joint in non-sway composite frames. Results obtained from experiments are compared against the analytical model. i. The results will be used to develop analytical and design guidelines for composite haunch beams. rotational capacity u and rotational stiffness Ki of the composite haunch beam are established. design guidelines for composite haunch beam are provided. rotational capacity u. The experimental study also includes the behaviour of the composite haunch connection and haunch beam illustrated by their moment-rotation curves. Non-haunch connections were also studied and comparisons made between haunch and non-haunch composite connections. moment resistance Mu. The effects of parameters such as reinforcement ratio. rotational stiffness.e. rotational stiffness Ki are evaluated for global frame analysis. haunch length and the moment-rotation curve are investigated. Analytical models for the prediction of moment resistance Mu. rotation capacity are studied. literature related to composite haunch connections and composite haunch beams are reviewed. The scope of literature study is not only limited to haunch connections. 1. The effects of these parameters with respect to moment capacity. And finally. Parameters such as reinforcement ratio and haunch length are varied in the experimental program.3 Scope of works In this thesis. A series of composite haunch connections and composite continuous haunch beams were tested to failure in the laboratory. 5 .

both experimental and analytical studies for braced and sway frame since 1972 are covered. Chapter 3 describes the experimental program for haunch connections in nonsway composite frames. Three composite haunch beam specimens of 8m span were tested to failure. the direction for the present study is illustrated.4 Structure of the Thesis The thesis contains seven chapters. Chapter 1 gives the general description of the advantages of composite construction and in particular composite haunch beam construction. Failure modes of those specimens are identified and the effects of the parameters illustrated. Materials for the test specimens with their mechanical test results is presented here. Considering the studies carried out by the previous researchers. Details of the test set-up and parameters varied in the investigation are given. Chapter 4 describes the experimental program for haunch beam construction. This chapter also explains the loading procedure for the testing. Test results obtained from the experiments is also presented which includes the beam behaviour from the initial stage to the ultimate stage. The actual behaviour of composite haunch connections is discussed systematically by comparing among the test specimens. The need for further research on composite haunch beam construction in long span application is presented and the objectives and scope of the research are highlighted in the chapter. 6 . This chapter also describes different types of analyses for composite haunch beams. Chapter 2 reviews the literature on haunch beam construction. Various types of constructions other than haunch beam constructions are also studied here and the pros and cons of these construction methods are presented. Details of the test set-up and the parameters varied in the experimental program are given.1.

Test results obtained from the experiments are presented covering the response behaviour from the initial load stage to the ultimate load stage. Conclusions and recommendations for future research are given in Chapter 7. In addition. Chapter 6 presents design recommendations and an example for the composite haunch construction. The results obtained in the experimental program are compared with those obtained using the analytical models proposed. thus verifying the models. non-linear finite element analysis is used to confirm further the experimental results and analytical model. Chapter 5 presents analytical models to predict the moment capacities. rotational capacity and initial stiffness of composite haunch connections. this chapter explains the loading procedure for the beam testing.Besides. 7 . Failure modes of those specimens are identified and the effects of the key design parameters are illustrated. The actual behaviour of composite haunch connections is discussed by comparing among the test specimens.

Universal Column Universal beam Tapered Section Tapered Section Fig.2 Cutting of Tapered Section in Universal Beam 8 .1 Haunch as Tapered Section in Universal Beam Tapered Section Universal Beam Cutting Line Fig.1. 1.

. and the depth of 9 . Price and Anderson. 1974. Hamada and Longworth. Haunch composite beams are designed in a similar manner to continuous beams of uniform section (Lawson and Rackham. 1976. the cross section of which is as shown in Fig. Required and available rotation capacities for the section have been considered and the accuracy of the prediction method has been assessed by comparing the theoretical and experimental results. 1969.. 1997)) which is accomplished through an engineered gradual transition of the beam flanges to the intended reduced section at a given location. 2. Couchman. 1992.1 Background Researchers (Aribert and Raoul. Kemp and Dekker. Early work by Kitipornchai and Trahair. Hamada and Longworth. the haunch connection strengthens the connection and allows the formation of plastic hinges at a designated location (Iwankiw. 1997). Research works referred above comment on the composite beam behaviour but seldom consider the sub-assemblies of composite frame. The critical section for design is at the haunch toe. 1976. Cosenza et al. Fabbrocino et al.1. 1991. 2001. Dekker et al. 1989). 1995a. 1991.CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2. Leon. 1972a. Tehami. Johnson and Chen. Lukey and Adams.. 1996. 1995. 1990.. 1997) have proposed design methods for simple or continuous composite beams. Unlike the ‘Reduced Beam Section’ (often referred to as ‘dogbone’ (Plumier. 1992. Climenhaga and Johnson. Liew et al. 2001. 1972 has shown that uniform beams are not always the most efficient choice and often great material economy can be achieved by using non-uniform beams such as haunch beam. The research work reported herein is to incorporate composite haunch connection as the joint in a sub-assembly. Hope-Gill and Johnson.

the haunch is prefixed to develop the required moment in the beam to column connection. 1995) has been proposed for the design of semi-continuous composite beams in braced frames where special attention is given to the effects of joint rotational stiffness. One of the most popular design directions is to incorporate the concepts of semi-rigid and partial strength connections and semi-continuous framing of EC4 (Nethercot. Johnson and Chen. 1972b. 1995). Local Buckling and moment redistribution in composite beams have also been studied (Climenhaga and Johnson. 1991). 1997) and to investigate rotation and moment capacities in composite beams. For beams continuous over more than two spans the method is believed to be slightly conservative. economical and reflects the real behaviour of two span composite beams. 1976) in order to calibrate analytical models (Tehami. In semi-continuous construction.. Hope and Johnson. Intensive research is in progress on composite frame design and methods have been proposed to achieve an optimum and economical design. 1992.. Tests were carried out (Aribert and Raoul. Another alternative of composite frame design is to provide composite connections up to the full hogging resistance of the beam. A series of tests on composite beam-to- 10 . the support moments are limited to the capacities of the beam to column connections and the plastic rotations are required to develop the beam’s sagging moment capacity to achieve the design moment (Nethercot et al. This is accompanied by sufficient rotation capacity at the connection to permit the moment redistribution in continuous composite construction to mobilize the full sagging capacity of the beam at mid-span to reach an optimum design. it has been concluded that the redistribution of elastic bending moments allowed by Eurocode 4 is safe. 1995). A comprehensive guideline (Li et al.

In order to study further applications of haunch connections in long-span composite construction a study has been undertaken by the author on the behaviour of haunch connections 2. Trahair. Trahair and Kitipornchai. Nethercot and Trahair. It is also concluded that elastic analysis assuming full continuity is not acceptable for composite frames because it fails to meet the moment capacity requirement at the support section and it is overconservative for sections within the span. 1972. Failure modes of haunch toes often involves local buckling of the compression flange. Besides. information available on composite haunch beams is limited. 1975 & 1983. Investigation of this local buckling has been carried out by many researchers (Climenhaga and Johnson. Lay and Galambos. 1983). Works by Rackham. Despite the detailed studies on composite beams. 1972a & b. Lay. Nethercot. investigations (Nethercot. Nethercot and Li. (1994) and the results show that increasing the amount of reinforcement will not only increase the moment resistance but also increase the rotation capacity of the composite section. (1992) have shown that haunches are sufficiently stiff as full strength rigid connections and the toe is restrained from distorsional buckling when full depth stiffeners are provided on both sides of the web. 1995. Kitipornchai and Trahair 1975a & b.column connections have been carried out by Anderson. 1965. 1965. 1976.2 Internal forces and moments in continuous composite haunch beam The internal forces and moments in a continuous haunch composite beam may generally be determined using either: a) Global elastic analysis or 11 . (1992) and Boswell. 1995) into the behaviour of composite connections and continuous composite frames have shown that properly designed and detailed composite connections are capable of providing moment capacity up to the full hogging resistance of the beam.

Referring to Fig. the negative beam moments and the column moments are over estimated. If the beam stiffness is underestimated.1) Mn = FEM = Negative moment the fixed-ended moment of the beam under the same loading condition 12 .2. Ignoring both effects is generally conservative for braced frames as it is usually the consideration of the negative moment region that determines the sizing of the steel beam. the column bases are assumed to be fixed or pinned at foundations. the negative moment at the beam end is given by: Mn = 4φ c FEM 4φ c + 1 (Eq 2. The sub-frame is then analysed elastically under various load combinations.3 Global elastic analysis of Non-Sway Frame Elastic analysis may be used for determining the forces and moments in continuous beams.b) Plastic hinge analysis 2. 2. The stiffness of the haunch largely compensates for any loss of stiffness of the beam due to concrete cracking. a sub-frame can be assumed in an analysis of the beam members of non-sway frames under vertical loads. even though section capacity is evaluated based on plastic resistance. The magnitude of the negative moment largely depends on the relative stiffness of the adjacent column and beam. Taking the simple case of a single-bay haunch beam with column above and below the beam being analysed. This assumption is valid for first-order and second-order elastic analyses. The assumption used in global elastic analysis is that the stressstrain relationship for the material is linear elastic but the tensile strength of concrete is neglected.

the haunch length can be varied so that the moment resistance of the beam is compatible with the designed moment. (1989) proposed a different redistribution of moments for continuous composite haunch beams as shown in Table 2. The elastic bending moment for a continuous composite beam of uniform depth within each span may be modified by reducing maximum hogging moments by amounts not exceeding the percentages given in Eurocode 4 as shown in Table 1. 13 . The haunch toe is the potential zone subjected to loss of stiffness due to steel yielding and concrete cracking. Parametric studies show that the length of the haunch does not significantly affect the bending moment distribution in the beam from elastic global analysis (Lawson. the maximum moment redistribution therefore applies at this region. certain percentages of moment redistribution from the hogging (negative) to sagging (positive) moment regions of the beam is allowed. 1989). Therefore.2. The redistribution of moment arises from cracking and loss of stiffness of the composite section and local yielding of the steel beam. In addition. Equilibrium is maintained by increasing the positive moment by the magnitude of redistributed moment from the haunch toe. Lawson.φc = the parameter IcL/(Ibch) Ic = the second moment of the area of the column h = the length of column from floor to floor Ibc = the second moment of area of the composite beam (assumed uncracked) L = the length of the beam (including the haunch) In global elastic analysis. The degree of the local yielding is influenced by classification of the composite section.

Table 2. 1992). Experimental results (Rackham. and when minimum shear connection is maintained over the hogging region (for haunch length less than twice the depth of beam)(Boswell. 14 .4 Plastic hinge analysis of Non-Sway Frame Plastic hinge analysis may be carried out using either - Rigid-Plastic Methods or - Elastic-Plastic Methods When using the Plastic global analysis. 1989) Class of cross section in hogging moment Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 region For "cracked" included) elastic analysis (Haunch 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% By comparing the percentages of moment redistribution at the haunch joint proposed in Eurocode 4. 1992). (Lawson. 1992) show that the haunch toe position is restrained when a full depth stiffener is provided both sides of the web at haunch toe. 2.2 Maximum redistribution of negative moment in composite haunch beam at ultimate limit state. Lawson (1989) suggested additional 5% moment redistribution for class 1 and class 2 sections.1 Limits to redistribution of hogging moment to reduce. (Eurocode 4) Class of cross section in hogging moment region Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 For "Uncracked" elastic analysis (Haunch ignored) 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % For "cracked" ignored) 25 % 15 % 10 % 0% elastic analysis (Haunch Table 2. it is essential to make sure that restraint be provided within a distance along the member from the theoretical plastic hinge location not exceeding half the depth of the member (Eurocode 3.

The collapse load of a uniformly loaded beam is defined by the plastic failure mechanism of the beam between the tips of the haunches. Rigid-Plastic Analysis can only be used where the section is ' Plastic'or ' Class 1' . However. (Price. 1992).4. or at least Class 2. the code also recognises some loss of rotation capacity due to local buckling will be offset by the beneficial effect such as strain hardening and the finite length of plastic regions. There is sufficient rotation capacity at the haunch toe for a plastic mechanism to form in a beam even though ' Compact'or ' Class 2’'section classified by Eurocode 4 is used. 2. failure does not occur at the composite haunch connection because the weaker component of the composite haunch joint is at the haunch toe. Thus.2. Class 2 cross sections are defined as sections that can develop the plastic moment capacity although local buckling limits the rotation capacity and prevents full redistribution of moment at such sections. However. Due to this effect. The test results show that the composite haunch connection is very rigid and the connection rotation is negligible. the cross sections away from the theoretical location are also in Class 1.1 Rigid-Plastic Analysis It is assumed in the rigid-plastic analysis approach that elastic deformations of the member are neglected and plastic deformations are assumed to be concentrated at plastic hinge locations. such that: M pc + M nc ≥ wu L2e 8 (Eq. instead of the haunch connection.2) 15 . This is one of the requirements in Eurocode 4 and it is assumed that a ' Plastic'section has sufficient rotation capacity to enable the required hinge to develop. the haunch toe is tested to failure.

This 16 . 2. most of the approaches are based on either elastic or plastic design. The second approach.2 Elastic-Plastic Analysis Elastic-Plastic Analysis consists of two different methods. plastic analysis is valid when critical cross-sections are capable of developing and sustaining their plastic resistance until the sections have fully yielded for a mechanism of plastic hinges to be present. a structure is analyzed based on elastic global analysis and a moment envelope is obtained to design the structure. Moment redistribution is allowed for the structure and the percentage of moment redistribution depends on section classification. In the elastic analysis. The second method is ' Elasto-Plastic'which shall take account of the load/slip behaviour of the shear connection. So far. 2.5 Analysis of Haunch Section In the continuous beam design.4. The design has to satisfy both the ultimate and serviceability limit states.Mpc = the positive moment resistance of the composite beam (or Mc taking into account partial shear connection) Mnc = the negative moment resistance of the composite beam at the tip of the haunch wu = the factored design load on the beam Le = the span of the beam between the end of the haunches The plastic failure load of other load arrangements of a beam may be determined from first principles. The first method is ' Elastic Perfectly-Plastic'which assumes that the cross-section remains fully elastic until the plastic resistance moment is reached and then becomes fully plastic. there are no application rules given for these methods in the Eurocode 4.

Additional reinforcement in the concrete slab provides more tension resistance at the haunch toe section. (Price. be achieved between the available rotational capacity and moment redistribution. The steel beam is subjected to more compression and the section may become a non-compact or slender section. but the moment that is transmitted to the mid-span becomes more and hence the load carrying capacity is enhanced. Instead. An increase of reinforcement in a section also increases the second moment of inertia. 1992). and the available rotation capacity is reduced.analysis requires sufficient rotation capacity to develop a plastic hinge. therefore. there is always an optimum amount of reinforcement to be used in a composite section. therefore. the failure mode of the joint will not occur at the connection. the beam-column connection is the haunch connection. The percentage of moment redistribution is. 17 . In the proposed method. it shifts the failure to the haunch toe. Thus. reduced further. the percentage of moment redistribution may be less. According to the classification system in Eurocode 4. large amounts of reinforcement result in shifting of the plastic neutral axis. Composite haunch beam design is based on the concept of rigid connection thus avoid failure at beam-column connections. The increase in reinforcement will result in an increase in moment capacity and drop in the available rotation capacity. It carries larger moment when moment redistribution occurs in a section with large reinforcement. “class 1” or “class 2” sections have to be used although local buckling limits the rotation capacity and prevents full moment redistribution in “class 2” sections. By strengthening the connection with haunch. an optimum design is achieved. As long as the haunch toe is sufficient to redistribute the moment to the sagging mid-span causing the formation of plastic hinge at mid-span. A balance must. Thus.

The effective slenderness of the beam in lateral torsional buckling is designed as per BS 5950:Part 1 (2000) as: λLT = n u vt λ (Eq 2. The problem of instability can be treated by conventional theory. the lower compression flange is unrestrained except the distorsional stiffness of the cross section.4. An approximate relationship between the elastic resistance of a haunch beam and the plastic resistance of the parent beam is shown in Fig. the bending resistance of the haunch section is evaluated elastically to ensure the formation of a plastic hinge at the haunch toe with sufficient rotational capacity.3.9 for universal sections) vt = slenderness factor (including torsional stiffness and other effects). (Lawson. 1989) In the composite condition the upper flanges of the steel beams are assumed to be laterally and torsionally restrained by the concrete or composite slab to which they are attached. In continuous beams. 2. 18 .3) λ = slenderness of the beam length between restraints n = slenderness correction factor (for shape of bending moment diagram) u = buckling parameter (0. 2.In practice. This is illustrated in Fig.

1 Cross Section of Continuous Composite Beam Span Considered a) Sub-Frame Used for Analysis of Beam Column Considered b) Sub-Frame Used for Analysis of Column Fig. 2. 2.2 Sub-frame of Beam and Column in Non-sway Frames Analysis 19 .Secondary Beam Detail 1 Concrete slab Primary Beam Slab Reinforcement Shear Stud concrete slab Universal Beam Detail 1 Fig.

0 1.4 1. 2.4.0 M he Ms 3.5 0.8 Dep th of haunc h D h D epth of se ction 3. 2.2 1.6 1.5 0.3 Relation between Haunch Beam Elastic Resistance and Parent Beam Plastic Resistance (Lawson and Rackham.5 D Dh 3.0 1.17 2.6 2.5 M h e = elastic mom ent resista nce of haunch se ction 1.4 2. 1989) θ=0 Fig.0 Dh D 2 + 0.2 2.7 Dh D 1.0 M s = e lastic m ome nt re sistance of stee l beam sec tion 0.0 2.0 2.0 D Fig.4 Distorsional Buckling of Composite Beam 20 .8 2.

The length was.12. 8 m of the beams tested in the study. respectively.1. therefore.41. Five test specimens of cruciform section were fabricated with each specimen consisting of two different connections having different haunch length. varied from 250 to 968 mm in order to obtain haunch lengths equivalent to 3. Joint specimens of cruciform section were used to simulate the internal joint. however. amount of reinforcement in the slab and number of shear studs. 120 mm thick floor slab was made from normal weight concrete designed to 30 N/mm2. 3.10 of the 8m beam span.34 and 2. The cross-sectional area of slab reinforcement was determined based on the span length.1 General The primary aim of carrying out full-scale joint tests is to study the behaviour of composite haunch connections. Based on global elastic analysis for typical design load of an office block (Refer to Beam 3/A-E). The depth of the haunch for all specimens was chosen equal to the depth of the universal beam. 5.84 and 12. chosen to reflect the variation in these parameters. 21 . which depends upon the effective slab width determined as per Eurocode 4. haunch depth.HAUNCH CONNECTION 3. The behaviour of haunch connections and its ultimate capacity predominantly depend upon haunch length. The slab reinforcement was chosen as 1.CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION . the point of contraflexure was found to be at about 2 m from the column centreline (Column C3). Connection specimens were designed with reference to a building plan layout shown in Fig. Test samples were.62% relative to the effective concrete area. 8. One specimen consisting of two connections was tested as a plain steel specimen whilst the remaining four specimens were tested as composite connections.

34 2. They are summarised as follow: Universal beam : 254 x 146 x UB 37 Universal column : 203 x 203 x UC 60 To obtain the yield strength of the steel members.2.34 or 2.2 Material Properties 3.1 Details of test specimens Specimen 1 Connection Specimen 2 Specimen 3 Specimen 4 Specimen 5 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 None None 1.1 Beam and column sections The steel members in the test specimens were all BS Grade 43 steel.62 2.62 2. % Shear stud D19x95 mm at 150mm c/c per group (Total Studs) 3. ultimate capacity and failure mode of the joints. Table 3. 1.34 1.1.Shear connection was provided by 19 diameter and 100 long studs.62 1. Only one size of universal beam and column was used in this project.62. respectively. The ten connections are identified in the text as H1 to H10 and the details are summarised in Table 3. placed at 150 centres. It is expected that the variation of slab reinforcement and haunch length selected will provide sufficient information regarding the effects of these parameters on the behaviour. They were tested in accordance with the ASTM specification (1979). coupons were cut from the flanges and webs of each beam and column.34 1. The tensile test results of the specimens are listed in 22 . One or two shear studs per group were adopted depending upon the percentage of reinforcement viz.62 Haunch Depth 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 Haunch Length 250 433 250 433 250 433 707 968 707 968 None None 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 (13) (13) (26) (26) (13) (13) (26) (26) Reinforcement.34 2.

Table 3.3 shows the properties of the reinforcement bars: Ref. 2.2 Summary of universal section properties and tensile test results Section Attribute Reference Depth Width Yield Ultimate Strength Strength D(mm) B(mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) 254 x 146 UB 37 B2 256 146 309 414 203 x 203 UC 60 C2 210 205 328 498 3.Table 3.2) Where.3 Summary of reinforcement bar properties and tensile test results DiaArea Yield strength Average Ultimate strength Average 2 Meter fyr(N/mm ) fyr fur fyr (N/mm2) D (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) 1 2 3 1 2 3 20 314 563 569 564 565 697 689 694 693 T16 16 201 475 498 480 484 585 588 580 584 T10 10 79 496 487 485 489 591 579 573 581 23 .2 Reinforcement bar The entire reinforcement bar in the test specimens was high strength deformed bar. 3. 3.2Af Af Flange area A Section area Table 3.1) 2 Af Aw f uw + f uf A A (Eq. T20 Table 3. fy Yield strength fu Ultimate strength fyw Yield strength of web fuw Ultimate strength of web fyf Yield strength of flange fuf Ultimate strength of flange Aw Web area = A . The yield and ultimate strength of an I or H section was calculated by using expressions as follow: = fy fu = 2 Af Aw f yw + f yf A A (Eq.2.

The bolts were tightened with a torque wrench to 200 Nm.3. For composite specimens viz H3 to H10.8. Table 3. selected haunch section and high strength bolts of BS 4390 Grade 8. The slump of the ready mixed concrete was designed to be 125 mm. The column of 3480 mm long was first fixed to the top and bottom girders of the testing rig. shear studs were welded to the top flange of the beam sections before being connected to 24 . Beams 2020 mm long were then connected on either side of the column through endplates. Care was taken to ensure that the column and the beam sections lie in the same vertical plane. 20 mm diameter. A universal beam section 254 x 146 x UB37 and column section 203 x 203 x UC60 were used to fabricate all test specimens.4 Summary of concrete cube test results Specimens Date of Concrete casting Date of Testing Day of Testing Concrete strength on the day of testing N/mm2 Cube 1 Cube 2 Cube 3 Not Applicable Average NA H1 & H2 NA 03/01/97 NA H3 & H4 10/01/97 20/01/97 10 days 44 42 44 43 H5 & H6 03/03/97 13/03/97 10 days 42 43 42 42 H7 & H8 14/04/97 28/04/97 14 days 44 42 45 43 H9 & H10 09/05/97 19/05/97 10 days 43 40 38 40 3. A 20mm thick endplate was welded by means of 10mm fillet weld to the beam end that is to be connected to the column.4 shows a summary of the cube test results of all the specimens on the day of testing.3 Fabrication of test specimens Details of a typical test specimen are shown in Fig. 3.2.2. Table 3.3 Concrete Concrete in all the specimens was normal weight concrete with fcu designed to be 45 N/mm2 at 28 days.

were built to the beam section.000 kN capacity.3. reinforcement bars to achieve the selected proportion were laid and preparation for casting concrete slabs were made. attached to an overhead reaction beam were used to apply the load at the free end of the specimen. is shown in Fig. Concrete cubes of sufficient number were cast along with the test specimens and they were tested on the same day as that of the specimens.4 and a typical assembly in which a specimen is mounted is shown in Fig. respectively. A typical test specimen. 25 . 3. The two ends of the column in the sub-assembly being tested were connected to the longitudinal beams at the top and bottom of the testing rig by means of pins.8 m for the cantilever beam. formwork of required size i.8 m from the face of the column thus giving a moment arm of 1. Each of the two actuators was positioned at a distance of 1. 3. 3. ready for concreting. 28-day strength was achieved in 7 days by adding an admixture. was poured into the form work in stages ensuring adequate compaction by means of vibrator. Once the fabrication of plain steel connections was complete. These actuators were operated by computer controlled pumps in order to ensure that the load application was gradual and the increment properly controlled. Two 50 tonne stroke-controlled hydraulic actuators (250mm stroke). 6 m long and of 1. Grade 30 concrete. For concrete. The testing frame is illustrated in Fig. made from locally available materials. slab depth and width.4 Test set-up All specimens were tested to failure in a rig. 3.e. as 120 mm and 1050 mm for all composite beams. trade named Rapidart.the column section. The depth and width of the concrete slab were kept.5.

200 mm and 300 mm measured from the column flange along the rod. Besides. 3.5 Instrumentation The main objective of the joint tests was to obtain the full response of the joints in terms of moment-rotation relationship.3. strain gauges were also placed on some bolts connecting the beams to the column flange. 3.6 Testing procedure After the specimen was positioned in place. A 200 mm displacement transducer was used to measure the vertical displacement at the loading point. at the top and bottom of the beam flanges near the column flange. One inclinometer. loading and instrumentation devices were connected to the data processing unit. Three 50mm displacement strain gauge type transducers (SGTD) were used to measure the displacement of the joint so that the joint rotation. 3. They were placed at points of high stress intensity. inclinometers. was located at the intersection of column and beam centrelines and in addition. at the haunch toe and reinforcement bars as shown in Fig. They were attached to a rod parallel to the haunch at distances of 100 mm.6. Five inclinometers were placed along the centreline of the beam section. Electrical resistance strain gauges were used to measure the strain in the steel so as to monitor yielding and to determine the failure modes. Details of the instrumentation are shown in Fig. two inclinometers were placed one on each side of the column at a distance of 100 mm from the haunch toe. θj could be calculated. to measure the column rotation.6. 26 . Moment was calculated using the equilibrium of force and rotation and measured by using inclinometers and counter checked by the results obtained from displacement transducers. This was intended to enable the tensile forces in the bolts at each of the load steps to be determined. All the readings.

This process of repeated loading is expected to ensure proper functioning of the load application and other measurement devices. 27 . the load application and other measurements were monitored separately. In each stage. in the second and third stages load was increased up to 60% and 90% of the estimated load. The ultimate load and the failure mode for each of the connections in a particular specimen were thus noted at the end of the test on that particular specimen. loading was continued until the failure of the specimen. the load was released after achieving the intended load and then reapplied. This process of loading helps to obtain the rotational stiffness of the connection and to compare the unloading stiffness at different loading stages. The load was then released and reapplied in order to remove any slack that may exist at the support before the actual testing of the joint. Load was applied in equal increments to each of the connections at the initial stages of loading. load was applied until the first crack was observed in the concrete and. In the first stage. As mentioned earlier each of the specimens consisted of two connections.transducers and strain gauges were initialized. care was taken to balance the load on both connections. Once the weaker connection attained the load close to the failure load. In the final stage. Therefore. The entire load application was performed in three stages. one with a shorter haunch length and the other with a longer haunch length. respectively. The same procedure was repeated for all the five specimens. Ten percent of the estimated failure load was first applied to the specimen and all readings were checked for continuity and proper recording by the data processing units. The weaker connection was allowed to fail at its maximum capacity and the load on that connection was maintained at that level whilst the load on the other connection was continued until it reached its failure.

The connection rotations in these joint tests were 28 . Column rotation θc. θb The rotation along the beam varies from the face of the column flange to the end of the beam. It is. This is because the beam flexure is assumed to be very small and can be neglected at the section near the column flange.7 Data assessment Proper representation of moment-rotation curves obtained from joint tests is essential for the analysis and design of continuous composite beams.7. θc Column rotation. b.3. φ Connection rotation is defined as the relative rotation of the column and beam at the joint as shown in Fig. c. Furthermore. the column will rotate and the measured rotation is with reference to the vertical axis. Connection rotation φ. the sections become more rigid and thus.7. 3. 3. θc was measured by means of an inclinometer placed at the intersection of column and beam centrelines. with a haunch at the connection. d.7. Readings for rotation can be categorized into four types: a. therefore. 3. Beam rotation θb. Inelastic rotation θie 3.7. essential to study in detail and select carefully to represent joint behaviour adequately. the beam flexural rotation is negligible. It is assumed that connection rotation measured near the column flange does not include the rotation due to beam flexure.3 Connection rotation.2 Column rotation. As a result of unbalanced moment or unsymmetrical geometry about the centreline of the joint.1 Beam rotation.

no rotation occurred at the haunch toe because the tangent line at this point will remain almost horizontal. 3. θie can be seen in Fig.4 Inelastic Rotation. Rki The joint stiffness of the joint can be divided as uncracked and cracked stiffness.9 Joint ultimate moment.7.8.calculated based on the inclined transducers mounted on the column flanges. For a full strength composite haunch joint. This is especially applied at the haunch toe section. 3. Inelastic rotation at the haunch toe. Although the entire section has not achieved the full plastic stage. This arrangement enabled the measurement of relative rotation between the columns and the beams by subtracting the total joint rotation θtot from θc. Mu The ultimate moment resistance of the joint Mu is equal to the peak value of the moment-rotation characteristic as shown in Fig 3. 3. inelastic rotation starts to take place at this level of load. During the elastic stage.8. The uncracked stiffness is the gradient of the moment rotation curve before cracking. The stiffness corresponding to cracking shall be obtained from the unloading path as shown in Fig.7. θie is defined as the rotation at a particular section after any of the extreme fibres had yielded. first is the stiffness at connection and second is the stiffness at haunch toe section. The stiffness of haunch joint can be divided into two parts. Soon after the first yield. 3. θie Inelastic rotation.8 Joint stiffness. 3. the moment capacity of the haunch connection has to be greater or equal 29 . this point will start to rotate.

it is found that for specimens with 1. certain criteria has to be followed to make sure failure occurred at the haunch toe. φCd The joint rotation capacity of a beam-to-column connection is taken as the rotation achieved at the ultimate moment resistance of the joint (see Fig. 3. 3.3) ii) Haunch connection with slab reinforcement Referring to Fig.9. thus the full tension capacity of the bolts is: = Rb T < Rhf Thus. 3.4) 30 . Only one row of bolt is used.8). Rr + Rb < Rhf + Rhw Thus.34 and 2.2 yc p y t hw M hu = Rr ( Dr + D + Dh − Thf / 2) + Rb ( D − Db + Dh − Thf / 2) − Rhw ( yc + Thf / 2) (Eq. 3.9.11 Haunch Connection Capacity The capacity of the haunch connection is calculated based on stress-strain theory: i) Haunch connection without slab reinforcement The steel haunch connection tested in the project is shown in Fig 3. 1995).to the hogging moment capacity of the composite section at the haunch toe.10 Joint rotational capacity. moment can be determined as follow : yc = Rr + Rb − Rhf 1. taking moment about haunch flange M hu = Rb x ( D − Db + Dh − T / 2) (Eq. 3. 3.2 p y thw Rhw = 1. the PNA lies in the haunch web when.62% slab reinforcement. However. The capacity of this joint can be determined as follows: The bolt will fail in this haunch connection is accordance with the guideline by the SCI/BCSA Connection Group (BCSA.

the first bolt row seldom achieves its full tension capacity. The resistance of cross-sections of beams may be determined by plastic theory only if the section is in Class 1 or Class2. clause 4. And this is proved in one of the test in specimen H8. This is because the PNA hardly over the lever of first bolt row. 3. for haunch composite connection the first bolt row is always able to achieve it tensile yield capacity.Mhu = Moment capacity of composite haunch connection py = Design strength for steel Rb = Bolt in tension Rhf = Haunch flange capacity Rhw = Haunch web capacity Rr = Reinforcement in tension thw = Thickness of haunch web Thf = Thickness of haunch flange yc = Distance from the top of haunch flange Note : The factor 1.12 Haunch toe moment capacity Haunch toe moment capacity can be obtained based on Eurocode 4. And the following assumptions shall be made: - the tensile strength of the concrete is neglected - plane cross-section of the structural steel and reinforced concrete parts of a composite member each remain plane. 31 . a factor 1.2 is used because strain hardening contributes 20% of dispersion into the web and the root contributes 20% of bearing strength. If the contribution of compression comes only from the haunch flange.4 can be used. (SCI/BCSA 1995) Although for end-plate composite connections.4.

2 Connections H1 and H2 Views after failure of connections H1 and H2 (specimen 1) are shown in Fig.5 Summary of Test Results Prediction Test Specimen 1 2 3 4 5 Connection H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 (1) Ultimate load (kN) 138 117 162 181 222 241 258 312 306 - (2) Haunch Toe Section Capacity. Detailed discussion is presented in the following sections for each of the connections tested.11. kNm 234 234 - - - - - 533 - - Failure Mode con Con toe toe toe toe toe con toe Na Ratio (1)/(4) 1.03 1.05 1.13 Joint Test Results and Discussion 3.97 1. respectively.13.9. The prediction is based on the plastic stress block theory as shown in Figure 3.13. This specimen was a plain steel haunch joint with haunch depth 250 mm and lengths 250 mm and 433 mm. However.05 Na *Failure of Joint H8 occurred at haunch heel.10 1. 3. al. kNm - - 255 255 319 319 255 - 319 319 (6) Haunch Heel Connection Capacity. only typical results at selected locations are presented for dicussion.90 0.98 0.08 1. kNm - - 251 248 344 330 282 - 334 - (3) Haunch Heel Connection Capacity. 32 .10(a) and the corresponding moment rotation curves in Fig.3.06 0. for connections H1 and H2. 3. Also. The value shows in the column are haunch heel failure moment.. 3. Extensive measurements were made for strain and displacement at various locations in the test specimens. the experimental values are compared with the predicted results.5 (Shanmugam et.1 Comparison of test results Ultimate moment obtained from the experiments along with those predicted by the method given in Section 3. kNm 247 211 - - - - - 562 - - (4) Ultimate load (kN) 130 130 165 187 206 233 233 296 292 - (5) Haunch Toe Section Capacity. 2002). Table 3.11 for all the test specimens are summarised in Table 3.

High stress concentration was found to occur in the beam flange at the intersection of the haunch toe with the beam. Negligible rotation was measured at the beam-to-column connection. Test results show 33 . Yielding was also observed at several locations in the steel beam prior to bolt failure. The distribution of stress at the intersection of haunch toe with the beam flange was different from that of H1. The first yielding was detected at the compression flange near the haunch toe followed by tensile yielding of the web at the haunch heel. The connection lost the capacity to carry further load due to the failure of bolts in tension (Refer 3. The first yield occurred in tension region at the haunch heel and was followed by compressive yielding at the intersection of haunch toe with the beam flange. The increase in moment capacity beyond the beam plastic moment capacity may be attributed to strain hardening. it was observed that web stiffener and inner beam flange were subjected to large stress concentration compared to H1.The moment at failure for the connection H1 was 247 kNm at the connection and the corresponding value at the toe was 214 kNm.10(b)). The recorded strain in the bolt was 2800µε at failure. The steel beam section at the haunch toe reached the calculated plastic capacity (150 kNm) prior to the bolt failure. The maximum moment at failure in the case of connection H2 was 211 kNm at the connection. The calculation of rotation based on transducer readings showed that the rotation of the haunch connection was less than 2 milliradians. it is concluded that this steel haunch joint is a rigid full-strength connection. Based on experimental values of strength and rotation. The recorded strain at the time of failure was 2900µε. Failure was triggered by tensile fracture at the bolt thread as in the case of the connection H1. All strain gauges in the beam at the haunch toe section yielded at an applied moment equal to 180 kNm. With longer haunch length. The connection continued to resist additional load until the failure occurred due to tensile fracture of the bolts.

the haunch connection failed. therefore. 3. The concrete slab was 120 mm thick.that when yielding occurred at compression beam flange. there was negligible rotation measured for this connection. Moment rotation curves in Fig. This may be due to the fact that initial slackness on H2 side compared to H1 resulted in larger deflection on H2 side and thus showed larger rotation. The calculated connection rotation for this steel haunch connection was less than 2 milliradians. Specimen 2 is a steel-concrete composite haunch joint. 3. the stiffener and inner beam flange at haunch toe intersection also yielded extensively. Also. As in the case of connection H1.13.11 show that H2 with longer haunch length is less stiff compared to H1 with shorter haunch length. The ultimate moment capacity for connection H3 was found as 251 kNm. The haunch depth and length are 250 mm.12 and the corresponding moment rotation relationships presented in Figs. This joint is also a rigid fullstrength connection as per Eurocode 3 connection classification. no meaningful results could be obtained for ultimate loads since failure occurred on both connections due to excessive tension in the bolts. It can be 34 .13 and 3. do not compare favourably with the corresponding predicted values. Corresponding applied moment on the beam section at the haunch toe before the bolt failure was found as 160 kNm. The ultimate moment for H1 and H2. Before the haunch toe section reached its ultimate capacity.14. 1050 mm wide and. Failure occurred at the haunch toe where a plastic hinge was found to have formed. This is in excess of plastic capacity (150 kNm) of the beam and it may be due to strain hardening. 3. respectively. 1. 3.34 % slab reinforcement consisting of 8 numbers of T16 deformed bars were used in the slab.3 Connections H3 and H4 Views after failure for connections H3 and H4 are shown in Fig.

It can be seen from Fig. concluded that this steel-concrete haunch connection is a rigid full-strength connection.12 that the compression beam flange at the point of intersection with the haunch toe has buckled.12). However.13 that the moment-rotation curve is steep in the elastic range with rotation practically zero. showed extensive yielding thus confirming the formation of plastic hinge. 3. both in steel beam and reinforcement bars. connection stiffness is not a requirement in a rigid frame analysis. the stress at haunch sections away from the toe was generally found to be less than yield. All the strain readings at the section. The compression beam flange at the junction with the haunch toe was found to have buckled inelastically (Fig. 35 . First yield was detected in the compression region at the haunch toe near the beam flange and was followed by yielding in one of the tension reinforcement bars. 3. No rotation was measured in the haunch connection and it is. Test results showed that the ultimate moment capacity of the composite section (251 kNm) at haunch toe section was close to the plastic capacity (255 kNm) determined as per Eurocode 4 thus establishing the good correlation between the experimental and codal predictions. One should appreciate the fact that stiffness of the section is not a requirement in analysis since ‘Plastic Analysis’ requires only the ultimate moment and rotational capacities. The failure moment in this case was 248 kNm which is close to the predicted capacity as per Eurocode 4. The inelastic rotation at ultimate moment is 27 milliradians. therefore. Despite the formation of this hinge. 3. As long as the section is able to resist the limit load and provide sufficient rotation which allow moment redistribution. yielding was detected only at the compression beam flange and tension reinforcement. the code does not seem to predict the stiffness of the composite section.seen from Fig. The haunch depth and length for the connection H4 are 250 mm and 433 mm respectively. At ultimate stage.

13.15 and 3. No yielding was noticed in haunch flange and the compressive force could have been distributed to the stiffener and inner beam flange.62 %.16. No noticeable rotation was measured in the haunch Fig. respectively. 3. more than the rotation for connection H3. The tension reinforcements were found to have yielded as shown by strain gauge readings. 36 . Specimen 3 consisting of connections H5 and H6 was the same in all respects as the specimen2 except that the concrete slab was reinforced with 2.18. The inelastic rotation at ultimate moment was 55 milliradians. Similarly for the connection H6. connection. view of the tested specimen and the moment-rotation curves are shown in Figs. 3.16 that there is inelastic buckling in beam flange near the haunch toe. The connection H5 failed at an ultimate moment of 344 kNm and the failure occurred at the haunch toe where plastic hinge was formed.16 shows the momentrotation curve at the haunch toe section from which it is found that the inelastic rotation corresponding to the ultimate moment is 52 milliradians. It can be seen from Fig.17 and 3.14 shows the moment-rotation curve for a section at the haunch toe. The rotation measured by the inclinometer “C” in the column was very small and hence can be neglected. 3.3.The haunch length in H4 was larger compared to H3. Test results also indicated an extensive yielding in the compression beam flange and the haunch near the toe was relatively unaffected until haunch toe moment reached a value of 304 kNm. 3. The ultimate moment capacity of composite section (344 kNm) at haunch toe section is found to be close to the calculated plastic capacity (319 kNm) in accordance with Eurocode 4. 10 numbers of T20 deformed bars in this case. Fig.4 Connections H5 and H6 Views after failure of the connection H5 and the corresponding momentrotation curve are shown in Figs. 3.

did not show any sign of yielding. respectively.18 shows the inelastic buckling in the beam flange and extensive yielding was observed form the strain gauge readings located at the intersection of haunch toe with the beam flange. yielding was observed in the compression beam flange and in the stiffeners.13. 707 mm in connection H7 is equivalent to 8.18 shows an inelastic rotation of 45 milliradians corresponding to ultimate moment. Fig.84 % of the design span. Reinforcement in the slab were also found to have yielded almost at the same time when yielding occurred in the compression zone of the beam 37 . 3. Moment-rotation curve for a section at haunch toe shown in Fig. The failure moment for this connection was 330 kNm. in Figs.5 Connections H7 and H8 Figs.19 and 3. close to the moment capacity predicted by using Eurocode 4. Moment-rotation relationships for the connections are presented.3. 3. First yield was detected at the compression beam flange followed by yielding in the beam web.21 show the views after failure of connections H7 and H8. however.3. The failure occurred at the haunch toe (as shown in Fig. 3.The haunch length in connection H6 was longer than that in H5. The haunch length. 3. The strain gauges in the tensile reinforcement also showed yielding at a load corresponding to the ultimate condition.20 and 3. These two connections have been tested as parts of the specimen 4 in which the haunch lengths were chosen approximately equal to three times as in H7 and four times the depth as in H8.22. The failure moment for this connection was 282 kNm.19) where inelastic buckling was observed. the first yield was detected at compression region at the haunch toe near the beam flange followed by yielding in the beam web. the inner beam flange towards the haunch heel. At the intersection of haunch toe. As in the other cases. The reinforcement in the slab was kept the same as in specimen 2.

Yielding was found to occur next at the haunch flange near the end-plate.6 Connections H9 and H10 Fig.24 show the view after failure and the corresponding moment-rotation curves of the connections H9. Fig. Thus the whole section at the haunch toe yielded leading to formation of plastic hinge. Compression yielding of beam web continued towards the neutral axis.22 shows the moment-rotation curve at the haunch heel. The view after failure of the specimen is shown in Fig 3.13.10 % of an 8 m span beam. 3. It is found that it is possible to control the failure mode by varying the haunch length and that longer haunch length shifts the failure from haunch toe to haunch heel.21 in which it can be seen that failure occurred at the haunch heel.3. Yielding was also noticed at the haunch flange and web. The first yield was detected at the compression beam flange near the haunch toe and it was followed by yielding at the beam web. Connection H8 is the same as H4 except that the haunch length in this case was 968 mm or 12.62 % consisting of T20 38 . The failure moment for this connection was found as 562 kNm close to the predicted capacity of 533 kNm.20 shows the moment-rotation curve for a section at the haunch toe and that the inelastic rotation at ultimate moment (282 kNm) is 21 milliradian.web. No further yielding was detected at the haunch toe section. Following the yielding at the compression beam flange at the toe. The specimen 5 was the same as Specimen 4 except that the reinforcement in the earlier was 2. The ultimate moment capacity for this connection was 282 kNm. Test results revealed that the ultimate capacity of composite section (282 kNm) at haunch toe section was close to the plastic capacity (255 kNm) calculated by Eurocode 4. Fig. 3. 3. Reinforcement bars in the slab were also found to have yielded. 3. the beam flange close to the haunch heel also yielded.23 and Fig.

968 mm in H10. The inelastic rotation corresponding to ultimate moment (334 kNm) is 43 milliradian. Yielding was also observed at the inner beam flange at the haunch toe intersection.25. First yield was detected in the compression flange at the haunch toe followed by yielding in the beam web. Yielding of the reinforcements was also noticed from strain gauge readings corresponding to ultimate load. Failure of the connection H9 occurred at the haunch toe and the maximum moment at collapse was 334 kNm. 3.23 shows the inelastic buckling at the beam flange near the haunch toe.deformed bars. Strain gauges placed on the slab reinforcements showed no yielding. The progressive failure on H10 side soon after the collapse of H9 was so rapid that no meaningful readings could be made. The concrete cover for tensile reinforcement on the H9 side started to give way due to excessive load. Fig. Fig. 39 . The connection H10 was the same as H9 except that the haunch was longer i. The inelastic rotation corresponding to ultimate moment (334 kNm) is 43 milliradian. Fig.e.24 shows the moment-rotation curve for the section at haunch toe. The whole section at the haunch toe was thus found to have fully yielded and plastic hinge formed. 3. the resistance to load dropped rapidly and the excess load shed on to the H10 side. toe. The first yield was detected at the compression beam flange followed by yielding in the beam web. The experimental value (334 kNm) of the ultimate capacity for the composite section at the haunch toe is close to the calculated plastic capacity of 319 kNm as per Eurocode 4. 3. The difference between the connections H9 and H10 lies in the haunch length which was 707 mm in H9 and 968 mm in H10.

H6 was the same in all respects as the specimens 2 and 4 except that the concrete slab was reinforced with 10 numbers of T20 deformed bars. but of different slab reinforcement percentage viz. Higher percentage of reinforcement in the slab shifts the failure from the steel connection to the haunch toe of the composite section. 3. 0. Failure of H4 occurred at the haunch toe in which the composite beam section has almost fully yielded. 1. time times the depth as in H7 and four times the depth as in H8.26 in order to investigate the effect of reinforcement ratio on moment rotation characteristics.3. Further increase in reinforcement will not result in any significant improvement of load carrying capacity since the limit of resistance for the steel section in compression has been reached with plastic neutral axis shifted to the concrete slab. Fig. as shown in Fig 3.62%.15 Effects of haunch length The haunch length was varied from a value equal to the depth as in H3. respectively. Failure occurred at the haunch toe in the case of H4 and H7. and the compression beam flange at the point of intersection with the haunch toe buckled inelastically. The reinforcement in the slab was kept the same as in Specimen 2. These connections have same haunch depth (D) and haunch length (2D). H4 and H6 are compared in Fig. 40 .14 Effect of slab reinforcement ratio Results corresponding to the connection H2.3.17 where the composite beam section in negative bending has almost fully yielded in compression. Failure in this case occurred at the haunch toe. Failure of H2 connection was triggered by tensile fracture at the bolt thread. the ultimate capacity of composite section (282kNm) at haunch toe section was close to the calculated plastic capacity (255kNm) by Eurocode 4.34 and 2. For H7.27 shows the comparison between the load-displacement curves obtained for these specimens. approximately equal to two times the depth as in H4.3.

No lateral distorsional buckling was observed in all the rest specimens. moment-rotational characteristic and rotation capacity are presented.62% does not reduce rotation capacity significantly but it increases the ultimate moment capacity of the composite section. These connections are classified as a full strength rigid connection in accordance with Eurocode 4. Longer haunch 41 . 3. However.10% of the beam span. the length of the haunch is limited to 12.Connection H8 is the same as H4 except that the haunch length in this case was 968 mm or 12. Failure occurred at the haunch heel near to the connection as shown in Fig. which is close to the predicted value of 533kNm. The prediction method is found to estimate the ultimate capacity of composite beams fall within 10% of the predicted value.3. Experimental observations show that the failure is localized at the haunch toe section.21.10% of an 8-m span beam. It is confirmed by the test results which show that the measured moment capacity for all connections is larger than the plastic capacity of the beams and beam-column or connection rotation in all tests was very small less than 2 milliradians. The test results show that it is possible to control the failure mode by varying the haunch length and that longer haunch length shifts the failure from haunch toe to haunch heel.16 Conclusions Experiments on composite haunch connections are described and results corresponding to ultimate moment capacity. Further increase in haunch length will not result in an enhancement of load carrying capacity since the failure is controlled by the haunch connections. Failure moment for this connection was found to be 562kNm.34 to 2. Increase in reinforcement from 1. Haunch toe can be strengthened effectively by means of web stiffener to the full depth of the beam. Haunch length has no significant effect on rotation capacity and it is found that rotation at the ultimate capacity always falls within 30 to 45 milliradians.

42 . Hence rotation capacity of the connection becomes critical if plastic analysis is required.length tends to shift the failure to the haunch heel of the connection.

3.70 kN/m2 = 5.Loading Data: a) Concrete slab b) Construction Load c) Building services load d) Imposed Load = 2.00 kN/m2 Fig.1 Building Plan Layout for Joint Specimens'Design 43 .88 kN/m2 = 0.50 kN/m2 = 0.

Fig.2 Cruciform Joint Specimen 44 . 3.

3. 3.4 Typical Joint Test Specimen 45 .3 Test Specimen Ready for Concrete Casting Fig.Fig.

6 Instrumentation of Test Specimen 46 .Fig.... 3... 3..22.. b) 1/2/....20 c) 21..5 Joint Test Specimen Ready for Testing Concrete slab Shear stud 1/2/3/4/5 11/12/13/14/15 6/7/8/9/10 Reinforcement bars 16/17/18/19/20 59 21 22 A 23 24 25 37 B 35 36 38 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 39 62/63 64/65 C 60 61 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 D 55 54 57 49 50 51 E 52 53 56 58 Note: a) A B ..61 d) 62/63/64/65 e) Inclinometer for rotation measurement Strain gauges on slab reinforcement bars Strain gauges on structural steel Strain gauges embedded in tension bolts Displacement transducer Fig..23.

P kN θc Cracking of concrete slab φ Shear stud Reinforcement bars θ ie Universal beam Haunch Universal column Fig. 3.8 Moment-rotation Curve of Connection 47 .7 Definition of Rotation in a Joint kNm Mu M2 R ki = R ki M1 φ1 φ2 φ Cd M 2 − M1 φ 2 − φ1 radian Fig. 3.

9 Stress-strain Block of Haunch Connection 48 . 3.Fig.

3. 3.10(b) View after Failure of Tension Bolt of Specimen H1 and H2 49 .10 (a) View after Failure of Specimen H1 and H2 Fig.Fig.

3. miliradians Fig.Moment.11 Moment-Rotation Curve of H1 and H2 50 . kNm 300 247kNm 250 211kNm 200 150 100 H1 H2 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Rotation.

3. kNm Fig.13 Moment-Rotation Curve of H3 51 .12 View after Failure of H3 and H4 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 First Yield at Compression Flange at 138kNm ie First Crack at 89kNm 250 kNm Rki =30 Rki= 19 Rki=26 0 5 10 15 20 25 Haunch Toe Haunch Heel 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Rotation. miliradians Fig. 3.Moment.

500

450

**First Yield at Compression Flange
**

at 117kNm

Moment, kNm

400

350

ie

300

248 kNm

First Crack at 69kNm

250

200

Rki

150

=26

Rki= 17

100

Haunch Heel

Rki=21

50

Haunch Toe

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Rotation, miliradians

Fig. 3.14 Moment-Rotation Curve of H4

Fig. 3.15 View after Failure of H5

52

Moment, kNm

**First Yield at Compression Flange
**

at 128kNm

ie

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

344 kNm

First Crack at 98kNm

Rki

=43

0

5

Rki=27

10

15

Haunch Toe

Haunch Heel

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Rotation, miliradians

Fig. 3.16 Moment-Rotation Curve of H5

Fig. 3.17 View after Failure of H6

53

**First Yield at Compression
**

Flange at 130kNm

500

Moment, kNm

450

ie

400

350

330 kNm

First Crack at 72kNm

300

250

200

150

100

Rki

Rki=20

=24

50

Haunch Toe

Haunch Heel

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Rotation, miliradians

Fig. 3.18 Moment-Rotation Curve of H6

Fig. 3.19 View after Failure of H7

54

kNm 450 400 350 289 kNm 300 250 200 Rki 150 100 =29 Rki =22 50 Rki= 20 Haunch Toe Haunch Heel 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Rotation.First Yield at Compression Flange at 164kNm i e First Crack at 79kNm 500 Moment. 3.21 View after Failure of H8 55 . miliradians Fig. 3.20 Moment-Rotation Curve of H7 Fig.

**First Yield at Compression
**

Haunch Flange at 435kNm

700

562 kNm

Moment, kNm

600

500

**First Yield at Compression
**

Flange at 201kNm

400

300

200

Haunch Heel

Haunch Toe

100

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Rotation, miliradians

Fig. 3.22 Moment-Rotation Curve of H8

Fig. 3.23 View after Failure of H9

56

Moment, kNm

**First Yield at Compression Flange
**

at 159kNm

ie

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

First Crack at 87kNm

341 kNm

Rki

=25

Rki=20

0

5

10

15

Rki= 16

20

25

Haunch Toe

Haunch Heel

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Rotation, miliradians

Fig. 3.24 Moment-Rotation Curve of H9

Fig. 3.25 Premature Failure of H10

57

300

200

150

H6- 1D2D 2.62%

100

H4- 1D2D 1.34%

50

H2- 1D2D 0%

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Displacement, mm

Fig. 3.26 Comparison of Load-Displacement Curve of H2,H4 and H6

350

300

250

Load, kN

Load, kN

250

200

150

H3- 1D1D

H4- 1D2D

H7- 1D3D

H8- 1D4D

100

50

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

1.34%

1.34%

1.34%

1.34%

120

140

Displacement, mm

Fig. 3.27 Comparison of Load-Displacement Curve of H3, H4, H7 and H8

58

When the first failure happened at haunch toe. The degree of moment redistribution depends on the ductility of the section during failure. Experimental results show that haunch connection is able to redistribute moment to the mid-span to form plastic hinge failure mechanism. An optimum design of composite beam is achieved if both the hogging and sagging capacity of the composite beam is fully utilized.CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION .1 Introduction An experimental study on three continuous haunch beams is reported in this chapter. The 59 . Insufficient rotational capacity in a connection will cause non-ductile failure. The haunch toe is planned as the weakest section to enable the formation of plastic hinge. experimental results also show that plastic hinge failure mechanism is achievable without looking into the availability of rotational capacity of a beam section. The continuous composite haunch beams were designed based on a series of haunch connection tests described in chapter 3. The objects of these beam tests is to study the behaviour of composite haunch beam by modelling as a non-sway continuous steel-concrete composite beam. Haunch connection can be designed as rigid full-strength connection with proper detailing. plastic hinge failure mechanism will only occur if the rotation capacity at the connection is adequate.HAUNCH BEAM 4. This situation takes place when all the required plastic hinges form at the same time under the same loading. The results show that plastic hinge failure mechanism can be achieved in designing continuous composite haunch beam. However. the moment will be re-distributed to mid-span in order to obtain a failure mechanism. In a composite continuous beam.

respectively.41 and 12. Moment redistribution within the span and the details of formation of plastic hinges is also studied under ultimate loading.62% relative to the effective concrete area. Beam specimens as shown in Fig. The length was. Same batch of steel with the relevant material heat number were used as per the joint test. The specimens are identified in the text as B1. The results could then be compared with plastic theory and finite element results to establish the design method.2. Three specimens were fabricated with each specimen consisting of connections having different haunch length and reinforcement combination. The slab reinforcement was chosen as 1.e. One size of universal beam and column was used. which depends upon the effective slab width determined as per Eurocode 4.1 were used to simulate the continuous beam. haunch depth and the amount of reinforcement in the slab and number of shear studs.2. 4. universal beams 254x146xUB37kg/m and universal columns 203x203xUC60 kg/m.34 and 2. i. Depth of the haunch for all specimens was chosen equal to the depth of the universal beam.behaviour of haunch connection and its ultimate capacity predominantly depend upon haunch length.2 Material Properties 4. therefore. however.10% of 8 m beam span. chosen to be varied from 433 mm and 968 mm in order to obtain haunch lengths equivalent to 5. 60 .1 Beam and column sections Steel members chosen for the beam test specimens are same as those used in the joint tests. Test specimens were. 4. B2 and B3 and the details are summarized in Table 4. These beam tests could provide a clear picture of the behaviour of continuous beam. chosen to reflect the variation in these parameters. Therefore.

2. a direct comparison of the joint test results can also be made to the connection in the beam test results.1 Summary of concrete cube test results for beam specimen Beam Specimens Date of Concrete casting Date of Testing Concrete strength N/mm2 Day of Testing on the day of testing Cube 1 Cube 2 Cube 3 Average B1 03/12/97 11/12/97 8 days 32 32 33 33 B2 13/02/98 20/02/98 7 days 31 33 31 32 B3 11/05/98 22/05/98 11 days 39 40 39 39 4.3 Concrete Concrete in all the specimens was normal weight concrete with fcu designed as 45 N/mm2 at 28 days. Therefore.1 shows summary of the cube test results for all the three specimens on the day of testing. the tensile test results are shown in Table 3.2 in Chapter 3. Details of the beams are summarised in Table 4. Similar to the joint test in Chapter 3.2. 4. Same batch of reinforcement used in the joint test was chosen for the beam test. 4.2. universal 61 . Table 4. Table 4. Material properties of the rods and the configuration of the reinforcement were be of the same as those in joint tests.2 Reinforcement bar The reinforcement bar in beam test specimens was high strength deform bar as per joint test and.3. The slump of the ready mixed concrete was designed to 125 mm.3 Fabrication of test specimens Fabrication of beam specimens complied with BS 5950: Part 2.the yield strength and other mechanical properties were the same as those reported in Table 3.

% 1. mm 433 433 968 d. For concrete. A typical beam test specimen. mm 1400 1400 1400 e.4.2 Details of test specimens Beam Specimens Specimen B1 Specimen B2 Specimen B3 a. ready for testing.5.34 (8T16) b. wooden formwork was built to the beam section. mm 120 120 120 f. 4. reinforcement bars to achieve selected proportion were laid and preparation for casting concrete slabs were made as shown in Fig.4. Specimens were not painted or coated with any chemical.62 (10T20) 1. The steel material is the same as that used in joint tests.34 (8T16) 2.beam section 254 x 146 x UB37 and column section 203 x 203 x UC60 were used to fabricate all beam test specimens. Reinforcement. Shear studs (per trough) 1 2 1 After the erection of universal column and beam section.2. 28 day strength was achieved in 7 days by adding an admixture trade named Rapidart.4 Test Set-up A typical test specimen consisting of a beam marked B2 spanning 8 meter between two columns marked C1 and two cantilever beams of 2 metre marked B1 connected to the columns C1 are as shown in Fig.4. is shown in Fig. Table 4. Haunch Depth. Concrete cubes of sufficient number were cast along with the test specimens and they were tested on the same day as that of the specimens. 4. Grade 30 concrete was poured into the formwork in stages ensuring adequate compaction by means of vibrator. mm 250 250 250 c. This test set-up is to model a 62 . Haunch Length. Slab width. Fig. Slab thickness.3 shows a typical beam test specimen ready with reinforcement bar ready for concreting.4.

The primary and the secondary beams span 8 m and 12 m. two for the main span and two for the cantilever beams. Columns marked C1 and diagonal bracing marked S1 were bolted to base plate marked P1. the point of contraflexture is 1.6 and four independent displacement controlled actuators were employed.8.5 % of span length away from the column C-3.7. Actuators that fixed to the laboratory strong floor were attached to the loading frame and the load was applied as a pulling force from the bottom of the beam as shown in Fig. Design calculations were carried out in accordance with the BS5950 Part 1 and Part 3. care had been taken to prevent failure at the beam- 63 .4.1. This experimental set up is to test the inner span to its ultimate capacity.4.5.continuous beam in a non-sway frame.1. The column length is not modeled in this experimental set-up because it is assumed that the moment at both sides of column could be balanced by the 50 ton capacity counter reaction actuators at the tip of the cantilever beams as shown in Fig. A plastic collapse mechanism was expected in the main beam. while the columns were designed to remain elastic.4. The loading points at the cantilever beam were assumed to be the points of contraflexure. Based on elastic global analysis and typical design load (Refer to Beam 3/A-E).4. The loads were applied to the specimen through a loading frame as shown in Fig. The schematic arrangement of the loading systems is shown in Fig. Thus. 4.8 m or about 22. respectively. Design of beam specimens was referred to a building plan layout shown in Fig.1. 3. fixed to the laboratory strong floor rails. Columns were prevented from out-of-plane sway by using a diagonal bracing marked S1 in Fig. It is assumed that the strong floor was able to provide a rigid support to those members. These actuators were operated by computer controlled pumps in order to ensure that the load application is gradual and the increment properly controlled.

9 shows a stronger and larger haunch connection for the reason as mentioned. 95 mm after weld height. Be.7Lspan = 0. sagging moment region Be = Lz/4 Where Lz = 0.6 m = 1.1: 1990: Clause 4. The floor width of 1. 64 . The beam was designed to act compositely in the hogging and sagging region.4 m was chosen as the effective width. ie. Additional reinforcement was provided over the haunches to react compositely with universal beam at hogging region.7 x 8 = 5. Fig.3.25(Lspan 1 + Lspan 2) = 0. for the mid-span in accordance to BS5950: Part 3.0 m.4 m (b) Internal Span. hogging moment region Be = Lz/4 Where Lz = 0.4. the concrete slab in the specimen is provided with 1. which will usually satisfy the strength and serviceability design limits. Shear connectors used in these beam specimens are the same as those referred in the joint test in Chapter 3.to-column connection at the cantilever beam by providing a stronger connection. Full shear connectors design approaches as per BS5950 Part. Same concrete grade as per the joint specimen was chosen to construct the 120mm thick concrete slab.6: (a) Internal Span.4 m throughout. Concrete slab and universal beam were also assumed to act compositely in the sagging region. The span to overall depth ratio was 22. 19 mm diameter and 100 mm nominal height.25(8+8)= 4 m = 1.1 were provided in all beam test specimens. (Lawson 1989).0 m Although the effective width of the hogging moment region is 1.

The strain gauges have a gauge resistance at 120 0. In 65 .10. All readings were checked for continuity and proper recording by the data processing units by applying ten percent of the estimated failure load to the specimen. (Refer Fig. They were placed at high stress points such as the top and bottom beam flanges near the column.3….6 Testing procedure After the specimen was positioned in place.2.3Ω. 4.4.: 1. Two more displacement transducers (T1 & T5) were positioned at the column to monitor the movement of the columns. Strain gauges were used to monitor yielding and to determine the failure modes. strain gauge no. Seventy electrical resistance strain gauges (YFLA-5) from the same manufacturer were positioned around the specimen to measure strain in steel (strain gauge no.to 10).4. This process of repeated loading is expected to ensure proper functioning of the load application and other measurement devices.: 11. Two numbers of long travel displacement transducers (Refer Fig. All the readings. transducers and strain gauges were initialised. Ten strain gauges (PL-60-11) with gauge resistance at 120 0.10.12. loading and instrumentation devices were connected to the data processing unit.4.3 were positioned on the concrete slab at the loading point where the formation of plastic hinge is expected. haunch toe and reinforcement bar as shown in Fig. T2 & T4) were used to measure displacement at the loading point and another transducer (T3) was placed at the middle of the beam to capture the maximum deflection at the beam. The load was then released and reapplied in order to remove any slack that may exist at the support before the actual testing. The entire load application was performed in three stages.10.4.5 Instrumentation Displacement strain gauge type transducers (SGTD) were used to measure the displacement of the beam specimen.13…to 80).

Load was applied in equal increment to each of the beams until failure. the load was released after achieving the intended load and then reapplied.the first stage. This process is to ensure the verticality of the column and to minimize the moment transfer from the beam to the column.7. During the test.34 %.1 Beam Specimen B1 This test was carried out 8 days after casting the floor slab and the concrete strength on the day of testing was 33 N/mm2.1). In each stage. The ultimate load and the failure mode for each of the beam specimens were thus noted at the end of the test on that particular specimen.7 Beam Test Results and Discussion 4. 4.4. 66 . the columns monitored with displacement transducers T1 & T5. The same procedure was repeated for all the three beam specimens. 8 numbers of T16 deformed bars. respectively. This operation is necessary to prevent the failure at the column panel zone due to the unbalance moment. (Fig. in the second and third stages load was increased up to 60% and 90% of the estimated load. loading was continued until the failure of the beam specimen. The Specimen B1 was made with haunch connection H4 referred in Chapter 3 (Table 3.10) were adjusted back the to the original position by pulling the loading frames at the cantilever beams. The haunch length was 433mm and the depth was 250mm. load was applied until the first crack was observed in concrete and. In the final stage. The concrete slab was reinforced with 1. This process of loading helps to obtain the stiffness of composite beam and to compare the unloading stiffness at different loading stages.

4. Neutral axis will shift up further if more tension reinforcement is employed. This is further confirmed by the crushing of concrete slab as shown in Fig. 4. The ‘0’ datum at the ‘Depth of Section’ is referring to the bottom of the concrete slab. The registered maximum deflection of the displacement transducer at the mid-span was 273 mm and the registered maximum load was 540 kN (270 kN x 2). The tension reinforcements were found to have yielded as shown by the strain gauge readings. Figs. which will cause tension in the concrete slab. the strain gauges on composite beam sections at the loading points also showed yield values.16 and 4. Cracking of concrete occurred only at the haunch toe area.4.8 m from the column.12 respectively.4.14. The position of contraflexure point can be measured from the cracking pattern as shown in Fig. which is in good agreement with the value proposed earlier.11 and Fig. Figs. Meanwhile.17 represent the beam cross section at the left and right haunch toe respectively. 4. The measured value is about 1. This phenomenon is demonstrated in the next beam specimen B2 where 2.15 because concrete will crack under hogging moment.4.13 shows that there is inelastic buckling in beam flange near the haunch. The deflection shown by displacement transducer T1 and T5 were negligible which means the verticality of the column was always maintained to prevent unequal moment in the column panel zone.19 show strain values at various cross sections at different load stages. The failure was observed at the haunch toes and at the loading points and plastic hinges were formed in these areas. The figure shows that no cracking occurred between the contact point of column flange face and concrete (connection area).4.4.62% of reinforcement was used in the specimen. 4. Fig.17.16. the neutral axis of the section is about 70 mm below the concrete slab.Views after failure and the corresponding Load-deflection curves for the beam are show in Fig. The 67 . As shown in the figure.18 and 4.

20 & 4. strain gauges near the neutral axis such as strain gauges 50. 4.neutral axis shifted up toward tension reinforcement compared to specimen B1 with 1. the universal beam experiencing tension force and the concrete slab resisting the compression force. Strain gauges 41 and 62 did not reach yielding stage because both strain gauges were positioned near the neutral axis and a full plastic stress-strain has not fully developed. At hogging haunch toe section.4. At the sagging zone.1-10. Test results show that at 75 % of the ultimate load. effective width of the concrete slab is investigated by strain gauges no. Experimental results suggested that the tension reinforcement bars on both sides of the column are effective. strain gauges 42 and 63 showed yield values. Figs. effective width was checked by placing strain gauges 21-24 & 26-29 on the tension reinforcement bar.31% of reinforcement. beam cross sections near the loading points were subjected to sagging moment. All other strain gauge readings at this cross section showed yield value as shown in the figure. But when the load reached 100% of the ultimate load. During 75% of the ultimate load.19 show the registered strain in the section at various depths of cross section. 41 & 42 in the left haunch toe and 62 & 63 in the right haunch toe. almost all strain gauge readings (including tension reinforcement) show yield value except strain gauge no.21 show the strain distribution of the tension reinforcement bar at various load stages. Once again.18 and 4. Studies have also been carried out in this test to determined the effective width of composite section in the hogging and sagging zone. When reaching ultimate load. positioned across the concrete slab. the whole section is 68 . Fig. On the other hand. strain gauge readings showed that the concrete component reached it compression yield capacity. which arranged on both sides of column and parallel to the main beam. 56 & 57 at the loading point did not show any yield.

While on the contrary. The maximum deflection registered at the mid-span was 186 mm and the maximum load was 604 kN (302 kN x 2) for both actuators at the center span.7 N/mm2. The Beam Specimen B2 was designed with connection H4.1. The Load-deflection curve is shown in Fig. It can be concluded that the effective width of a composite beam at the mid-span will become smaller under higher moment forces due to the shear lag effect.effective in resisting compression force. The deflection shown by the displacement transducers T1 and T5 were negligible and the verticality of the column was thus confirmed.68. The haunch length was 433 mm or 5 % of the span and the haunch depth was 250mm. 4.2 Beam Specimen B2 This test was carried out 7 days after casting the floor slab and the concrete strength on the day of testing was 31. but the maximum deflection was lower than B1. The plastic moment resistance of this composite beam is 319 kNm and 310 kNm for hogging and sagging section.23.62 % of reinforcement bar.22 & 4. plastic failure mechanism still can be observed and an optimum design still achievable with higher percentage of reinforcement bar.12 but the deflection ratio is only 186/273 = 0. This is due to the fact that specimen B2 is stronger at the haunch toe with additional tension reinforcement bar compared to Specimen B1. Specimen B2 had a larger load carrying capacity.24. The beam stiffness increased due to additional reinforcement bar. shear lag seems to have occurred as shown in Figs. respectively. Nevertheless. equivalent to 10 numbers of T20 deformed bars. In comparison to Specimen B1. therefore the deflection was lower compared to Specimen B1. But during the ultimate loading condition.4. The ratio of the load capacity of B2 to B1 is 604/540 = 1. as shown in Table 3. 4.7. The concrete slab was reinforced with 2. specimen B1 has only 255 kNm and 310 kNm of plastic moment resistance for 69 .

As discussed earlier. Figs. strain gauge values at concrete flooring near the actuator load points already exceeded the concrete yield value. respectively.4. the neutral axis moved up.62%. Failure of specimen B2 also occurred at the haunch toe and at the one-third span loading point in which plastic hinge was formed. 4. Figs.26.30 show the registered strain beam cross section near the actuator loading points.28. Plastic hinge was believed to have formed at those sections because all other strain gauges at the same sections already showed yield value.30 show strain gauge readings in a beam cross section at different load stages. At ultimate load. The neutral axis of the section was found lie right below the concrete slab as shown in the figures.27.hogging and sagging section. all strain gauges showed yield value except gauges 41 and 62. 70 . located near the neutral axis. The tension reinforcements were found to have yielded as shown by strain gauge readings and the concrete slab at the loading points was also crushed as shown in Fig. The strain gauges near the neutral axis showed no yielding at the section.25 shows that there is inelastic buckling in beam flange near the haunch toe.28 show the strain values at the left and right haunch toe sections. Figs. The difference in the hogging capacity at the haunch toe is because there is additional tension reinforcement bar at the haunch toe in specimen B2. 41 & 42 in left haunch toe and 21-25 & 62 at the right haunch toe. 4.4. 4.4. almost all strain gauges shows yield value except strain gauges 16-20.29 and 4. But when the load reached the ultimate load. At 75% of the ultimate load. more towards the tension reinforcement compared to B1. respectively. The reinforcement in B2 was 2. thus. Fig. neutral axis will be shifted up if more tension reinforcement was in used.4.29 and 4.27 and 4.

3 Beam Specimen B3 This test was carried out 11 days after casting the floor slab. positioned across the concrete slab. The concrete strength on the day of testing was 38.4.1.34 %. Figs.7.35 and Fig. 4.38 show that there is inelastic buckling in the beam flange near the haunch heel.31 & 4.39 and the strain gauges at these sections also showed a 71 . Views after failure and the corresponding Load-deflection curves for the beam are shown in Fig. The tension reinforcements were also found to have yielded as shown by strain gauge readings. The registered maximum deflection of the displacement transducer at the mid-span was 197 mm and the registered maximum load at the center span actuators was 674 kN (337 kN x 2). The specimen was made with connection H8 as shown in Table 3. Figs.33 & 4. Shear lag occurred in Specimen B1 was also observed in B2 and the resulting stress distribution is shown in Figs.The effective width in the hogging zone was evaluated by placing strain gauges 21-25 & 26-30 on the tension reinforcement at the haunch toe area. The concrete slab was reinforced with 1. The haunch length was 968 mm and the depth 250mm. it can be concluded that the effective width of a composite beam at the sagging section becomes less effective due to shear lag at higher moment force. effective width of the concrete slab was investigated by strain gauges 1-10. 4.34. At the loading points at one-third span. At the sagging zone. Thus.4. 4. Test results showed that all the tension reinforcement bars on both side of the column are effective.7 N/mm2. 8 numbers of T16 deformed bars.4. The failure could be observed at the haunch heel and also at the loading points. concrete slab was also crushed as shown in Fig.36 respectively.32 showed strain values at the tension reinforcement bar at various stages of loading.37 & 4.4.

42 and 4. yielding was also detected at the haunch toe. In the earlier case. However. Besides. Figs. In specimen B3.40 & 4.4. The disadvantage of moment redistribution from sagging to hogging moment is that the sagging region where concrete is in compression could not distribute much moment. The neutral axis of the section is about 200 mm below the concrete slab as shown in the figures. in which plastic hinges occurred at haunch toe (hogging zone) prior to the failure at one-third span loading point (sagging zone). Formation of plastic hinge occurred. 4.4. plastic mechanism failure could not occur in specimen B3 because plastic hinge could not develop at the haunch connection. strain gauges in concrete slab showed a yield value. redistribution of moment occurred from sagging to hogging region. It can be seen from the curves that all the strain gauges had shown yield values. Figs.45 show the registered strain in various depths of section near the center actuator loading points. inelastic buckling took place at the beam flange at the haunch heels. The failure mode of this specimen was different from B1 & B2. Beam Specimen B3 failed at the sagging zone before the failure at hogging zone. At ultimate load. Nevertheless. This is because the ductility of concrete is weaker compared to reinforcement bar.43 show strain values at the left and right haunch heel cross sections for different load stages.44 and 4. no further failure occurred because at that stage of loading condition. 72 . in the latter case. although failure occurred at the haunch heel and at the loading points. moment was redistributed from hogging zone to sagging zone.yield values.41 where the strain gauge readings are plotted against the cross section at the haunch toe. This can be seen from Figs.

Fig. An optimum design of composite beam can be achieved when failure happens at the haunch toes and moment will be redistributed to mid-span. 4.8 Concluding remarks In composite haunch beams.49. 4. test results show that all the tension reinforcement bar on both sides of the column are effective. The rigidity of the three beams is almost the same.. care should be taken because the shear lag effect will come in during the ultimate load as shown in the test results.50 shows a comparison of load-deflection curve of all the three specimens B1. The maximum deflection recorded is 273mm. B2 & B3.1 and Eurocode 4 is satisfactory at the sagging region. Specimen B3 has a higher load carrying capacity compared to the other beams. 4. The plastic failure mechanism occurs when plastic hinges form at the haunch toe and at the mid-span. Investigation carried out at the sagging zone also showed that effective width of the concrete slab for a composite section at the sagging section may become less effective when the applied moment become larger. Figs. Studies on the effective width in continuous composite beams show that the effective width recommended by BS 5950:Part 3: Section 3.48 & 4. On the 73 . However. This could be observed in Figs. B1 is the most ductile compared to B2 & B3. Experimental results for B1 and B2 show that the haunch connection is able to redistribute moments to the mid-span to form a plastic hinge failure mechanism. 4. compared to 186mm for B2 and 196 mm for B3. The results show that plastic hinge failure mechanism can be achieved in designing continuous composite haunch beam. Similar to specimen B1 and B2. the haunch toe could be planned as the weakest section to allow a plastic hinge to form. However.47 show the strain value at the tension reinforcement bar for various load stages.46 & 4.

This opens up the possibility of increasing the effective width beyond the code’s recommended value. however more experimental work is required to come up with a design recommendation. the effective width for the concrete floor recommended by the code in the hogging region is not studied because the concrete strength in tension is neglected.other hand. 74 . Nevertheless. which distribute evenly in 1.4-metre width are all effective. test results show that the tension reinforcement bars in the hogging region.

4.1 Haunch Beam Test Specimen 75 .Fig.

4.Fig.2 Wooden Formwork of Beam Test Specimen Fig.4.3 Beam Specimen Ready for Concrete Casting 76 .

Fig.4 Beam Specimen Ready for Testing 77 .4.

5 Isometric View of Haunch Beam Test Specimen 78 .4.Fig.

Fig.4.6 Schematic Loading of Haunch Beam Test Specimen 79 .

7 Loading Frame in Haunch Beam Test Specimen 80 .Fig.4.

9 Larger Haunch Connection at Cantilever Beam Side 81 .4.8 Loading Frame Connected to Hydraulic Actuator Fig.Fig.4.

10 Instrumentation of Beam Specimen 82 Concrete slab 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 T1 50 51 52 53 54 55 41 42 43 46 44 47 45 48 49 T2 1/2/3/4/5 T3 Reinforcement bars 16/17/18/19/20 Shear stud 11/12/13/14/15 56 57 58 59 60 61 T4 6/7/8/9/10 62 63 64 65 67 68 66 69 70 21/22/23/24/25 T5 80 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 26/27/28/29/30 .4.Fig.

4.12 Load-Displacement Curve of Specimen B1 83 .11 View after Failure of Specimen B1 Load vs Deflection (B1) 800 Load (P2 + P3). kN 700 600 T5 T1 500 400 T4 T2 T3 300 200 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Deflection.Fig. mm Fig.4.

13 Inelastic Buckling in Compression Flange of the Beam B1 Fig.4.Fig.4.14 Crushing of Concrete Slab at Loading Point in Beam B1 84 .

Fig.15 Concrete Slab Cracking Pattern of the Beam B1 at Haunch Toe 85 .4.

16 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B1 at Left Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage 150 Section depth. µε -300 Fig. 4. (Top of flange = 0 mm) 100 Rebar yielding Zone(Tension) 50 0 -15000 -10000 -5000 UB yielding Zone(Compression) -50 0 5000 UB yielding Zone(Tension) -100 0% UL -150 25% UL -200 50% UL 75% UL -250 100% UL Strain. 4. µε 0 5000 UB yielding Zone(Tension) 0% UL 25% UL 50% UL 75% UL 100% UL -300 Fig. (Top of flange = 0 mm) 100 Rebar yielding Zone(Tension) 50 0 -15000 -10000 -5000 UB yielding Zone(Compression) -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 Strain.150 Section depth.17 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B1 at Right Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage 86 .

4. µε Fig. (Top of flange = 0 mm) 100 25% UL 50% UL 75% UL 50 Concrete yielding 100% UL Zone(Compression) 0 -5000 -50 -100 0 5000 10000 15000 UB yielding Zone(Tension) -150 -200 -250 -300 Strain.150 0% UL Section depth. 4. µε Fig.18 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B1 at Left Loading Point at Different Load Stage 150 Section Depth (Top Flange = 0 mm) 100 50 Concrete yielding Zone(Compression) 0 -5000 -50 -100 -150 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0% UL UB yielding Zone(Tension) 25% UL 50% UL 75% UL -200 100% UL -250 -300 Strain.19 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B1 at Right Loading Point at Different Load Stage 87 .

4.20 800 Distance from beam center. mm 700 Rebar yielding Zone(Tension) 600 500 400 0% UL 300 25% UL 200 50% UL 75% UL 100 100% UL 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Strain. µε Fig. 4.20 Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B1 at Left Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage 800 Distance from beam center.21 Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B1 at Right Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage 88 .Fig. µε Fig. mm 700 Rebar yielding Zone(Tension) 600 500 400 0% UL 300 25% UL 50% UL 200 75% UL 100 100% UL 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Strain. 4.

µε Fig.23 Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B1 at Right Loading Point at Different Load Stage 89 . mm Concrete yielding Zone(Compression) 600 400 200 0 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0% ULL 25% UL -200 0 500 -400 50% UL -600 75% UL 100% UL -800 Strain. µε Fig. mm Concrete yielding Zone(Compression) 600 400 200 0 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 0% ULL 25% UL 50% UL 75% UL 100% UL -500 -200 0 500 -400 -600 -800 Strain.22 Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B1 at Left Loading Point at Different Load Stage 800 Distance from beam center. 4. 4.800 Distance from beam center.

25 Inelastic Buckling in Compression Flange of the Beam B2 90 .4. kN 600 T5 500 T4 400 T2 300 T3 200 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Deflection.4. mm Fig.24 Load-Displacement Curve of Specimen B2 Fig.700 T1 Load(P2+P3).

26 Crushing of Concrete Slab at Loading Point in Beam B2 91 .4.Fig.

4. Zone(Tension) 0 -15000 -10000 -5000 -50 0 UB yielding Zone(Compression) 5000 UB yielding Zone(Tension) -100 -150 0% UL 25% UL -200 50% UL 75% UL -250 100% UL -300 Strain. µε Fig.150 100 Section depth.27 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B2 at Left Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage 150 Section depth. (Top of flange=0 mm) 100 Rebar yielding 50 Zone(Tension) 0 -15000 -10000 5000 UB yielding Zone(Compression) -50 0 5000 UB yielding -100 Zone(Tension) 0% UL -150 -200 -250 25% UL 50% UL 75% UL 100% UL -300 Strain. µε Fig.28 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B2 at Right Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage 92 . (Top of flange=0 mm) Rebar yielding Fig . 4.

(Top of flange=0 mm) 100 Concrete yielding 50 Zone(Compression) 0 -4000 -2000 -50 -100 0 2000 4000 UB yielding Zone(Tension) -150 6000 8000 10000 0% UL 25% UL 50% UL 75% UL -200 100% UL -250 -300 Strain. 4.29 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B2 at Left Loading Point at Different Load Stage 150 Section depth.150 Left Loading Point (Specimen B2) Section depth. µε Fig. (Top (Top(Top ofofflange=0 flange=0 mm))))) mm))) mm) 150 100 10050 Concrete yielding Zone(Compression) Concrete yielding 50 0 0 -4000Zone(Compression) -2000 0 -50 -4000 -2000 0 -50 -100 -100 -150 2000 2000 4000 4000 6000 6000 UB yielding 8000 8000 10000 10000 0% UL UB Zone(Tension) yielding Zone(Tension) 0% UL 25% UL 25% UL50% UL -150 50% UL75% UL -200 -200 75% UL 100% UL 100% UL -250 -250 -300 -300 Strain X 10E-6 Strain. µε Fig. of flange=0 Section Section depth.30 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B2 at Right Loading Point at Different Load Stage 93 . 4. depth.

800 Distance from beam center. mm 700 Rebar yielding Zone(Tension) 600 500 400 300 0% UL 25% UL 200 50% UL 75% UL 100 100% UL 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Strain. µε Fig. µε Fig.32 Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B2 at Right Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage 94 .31 Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B2 at Left Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage 800 Distance from beam center. mm 700 600 Rebar yielding Zone(Tension) 500 400 300 0% UL 25% UL 200 50% UL 100 75% UL 100% UL 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Strain. 4. 4.

mm 50% UL 400 75% UL 100% UL 200 0 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 -200 0 1000 -400 -600 -800 Strain. µε Fig.800 Concrete yielding 0% ULL Zone(Compression) 600 Distance from beam center . 4. mm 25% UL 400 50% UL 75% UL 200 100% UL 0 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 -200 0 1000 -400 -600 -800 Strain. 4.33 Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B2 at Left Loading Point at Different Load Stage Fig. µε Fig.34 Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B2 at Right Loading Point at Different Load Stage 95 .34 0% ULL 25% UL 800 Concrete yielding Zone(Compression) 600 Distance from beam center. 4.

4.4.4. mm Fig. 4.36 View after Failure of Specimen B3 96 .35 Load-Displacement Curve of Specimen B3 Fig. kN 600 500 T4 400 T3 300 200 T2 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Deflection.36 T5 Load (P2+P3).35 800 T1 700 Fig.Fig.

37 Inelastic Buckling of Left Haunch Flange of the Beam B3 Fig.4.Fig.4.38 Inelastic Buckling of Right Haunch Flange of the Beam B3 97 .

Fig.4.39 Crushing of Concrete Slab at Loading Point in Beam B3 98 .

(Top of flange = 0 mm) 100 Rebar yielding 50 Zone(Tension) 0 -15000 -10000 -5000 -50 UB yielding Zone(Compression) -100 5000 0 UB yielding Zone(Tension) -150 0% UL -200 50% UL -250 25% UL 75% UL 100% UL -300 Strain. µε 100% UL -300 Fig. 4.40 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B3 at Left Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage 150 Section depth.150 Section depth. 4. µε Fig.41 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B3 at Right Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage 99 . (Top of flange = 0 mm) 100 Rebar yielding 50 Zone(Tension) 0 -15000 -10000 -5000 UB yielding Zone(Compression) -50 0 5000 Zone(Tension) -100 0% UL -150 25% UL -200 50% UL 75% UL -250 Strain.

µε Fig.42 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B3 at Right Haunch Heel at Different Load Stage 150 Section depth. (Top of flange = 0 mm) 150 Rebar yielding 50 -30000 -20000 -10000 -50 0 -150 UB yielding Zone(Compression) Zone(Tension) 10000 20000 UB yielding Zone(Tension) -250 0% UL -350 25% UL 50% UL -450 75% UL 100% UL -550 Strain. (Top of flange = 0 mm) 50 -30000 -20000 -10000 -50 0 -150 UB yielding Zone(Compression) Rebar yielding Zone(Tension) 10000 20000 UB yielding Zone(Tension) -250 0% UL -350 -450 25% UL 50% UL 75% UL 100% UL -550 Strain. µε Fig. 4. 4.43 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B3 at Left Haunch Heel at Different Load Stage 100 .Section depth.

4.44 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B3 at Left Loading Point at Different Load Stage 150 100 Section Depth (Top Flange = 0 mm) Concrete yielding 50 Zone(Compression) 0 -5000 -50 -100 0 5000 10000 15000 UB yielding 0% UL Zone(Tension) 25% UL 50% UL -150 75% UL -200 100% UL -250 -300 Strain. 4.45 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B3 at Right Loading Point at Different Load Stage 101 . µε Fig. µε Fig.150 Section depth (top Flange = 0 mm) 100 Concrete yielding 50 Zone(Compression) 0 -5000 -50 5000 0 10000 15000 0% UL -100 -150 UB yielding 25% UL Zone(Tension) 50% UL 75% UL 100% UL -200 -250 -300 Strain.

4. mm 700 600 Rebar yielding 500 Zone(Tension) 400 0% UL 300 25% UL 200 50% UL 75% UL 100 100% UL 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Strain. µε Fig.46 Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B3 at Left Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage 800 Distance from beam center. 4. µε Fig.800 Section Depth (Top Flange = 0 mm) 700 600 Rebar yielding 500 Zone(Tension) 400 0% UL 300 25% UL 50% UL 200 75% UL 100 100% UL 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Strain.47 Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B3 at Right Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage 102 .

µε Fig.49 400 200 0 -4000 -3000 -2000 0% ULL 25% UL -1000 -200 0 1000 -400 50% UL 75% UL -600 100% UL Strain. mm Zone(Compression) 600 400 200 0 -3500 -3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 -200 0% ULL 25% UL -400 50% UL 75% UL -600 100% UL -800 Strain. mm Zone(Compression) 4. 4. 4.49 Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B3 at Right Loading Point at Different Load Stage 103 . Distance from beam center.48 Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B3 at Left Loading Point at Different Load Stage 800 Concrete yielding Fig.800 Concrete yielding Distance from beam center. µε -800 Fig. 4.49 600 Fig.

kN 600 Specimen B1 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 50 100 150 Deflection.50 Comparison of Load-Displacement Curve for Specimens B1. 4.800 Specimen B3 700 Specimen B2 Load (P2+P3).B2 and B3 104 . mm 200 250 Fig.

The plastic analysis of composite haunch beam will be illustrated in this chapter. The beam will then become a simply supported beam with a constant moment Mph at haunch toe to carry the load P as shown in Fig. In addition. The test results will be compared with those obtained by the finite element software USFOS in order to establish the accuracy of the numerical model.5. and plastic failure mechanisms have been formed. This will be followed by the formation of plastic hinge at haunch toe. When plastic hinges are formed in the haunch toe.5. Subsequently. This will bring further understanding of the behaviour of the reinforced composite haunch beam. the beam becomes statically unstable and a collapse mechanism will be developed in the beam.1(b).1 General All the three beam specimens demonstrated ductile behaviour when they were subjected to concentrated loads. derivation of the section properties of composite haunch beam is presented in this chapter so that further analysis can be carried out based on the section properties. 5. the beam becomes statically determinate. the numerical model would be used to carry out parametric studies. Besides. When plastic hinges developed at the loading points. Figs. The occurrence of plastic failure mechanism is dependent on the formation of plastic hinges at connection and at load points.1 (c) & (d) show the corresponding moment 105 .CHAPTER 5 ANALYTICAL MODEL 5.5.1(a) represents a haunch beam which is statically indeterminate. lateral distorsional buckling and the available rotational capacity of reinforced composite beam will be investigated.2 Comparison of Plastic Hinge Analysis and Test Result Fig.

174 302 276 1. four plastic hinges formed together and no moment redistribution is required in beam test B3. it could be concluded that the failure mode of composite beam might be controlled either at 106 .1 shows the comparison of test results with plastic hinge theory. Plastic hinge theory is able to predict the ultimate load within 10% of the test results.09 343 8.diagram due to P and Mph.08 Table 5.2) Where.1(e). Referring to the strain gauge readings. Thus. P = Point Load Mps = Plastic moment capacity of sagging region Mph = Plastic moment capacity of hogging region L = Length between hinges at both ends Table 5.000 337 310 1. respectively. This phenomena shows that optimum design is already achieved.Mph (Eq. By applying the principle of superposition.1 Comparison of Test Results with Plastic Hinge Theory Beam Specimen Mps (kNm) Mph (kNm) L (m) B1 340 256 B2 339 B3 485 PT. Theory Failure Load (kN) 249 PE/PT Ratio 7. Failure of B3 occurred at the connection and at the mid-span almost at the same time.174 PE. Experimental Failure Load (kN) 270 322 7.09 1. moment is redistributed from haunch toe to mid-span. the final moment diagram is as shown in Fig. 5. The first plastic hinge in Specimen B1 & B2 occurred at the haunch toe (hogging) followed by hinge at the loading point (sagging). Mps = PL/3 . Hence.1) P = 3 (Mps + Mph) / L (Eq. 5. Thus.5.

the designer has to make sure the available rotation capacity at the haunch toe is sufficient to enable moment redistribution in the plastic hinge analysis. The design procedure for the failure at haunch toe as shown in B1 and B2 is more straightforward compared to the failure at haunch heel as shown in B3. the available rotation capacity of the connection need to be studied carefully to ensure that moment could be redistributed from connection to mid-span area. However. the fabrication cost of the steelwork based on this failure mode may be more costly. this plastic failure mechanism will still occur and it requires only a small amount of rotation capacity to allow for moment redistribution. Thus. This is one of the alternatives in designing composite haunch beam structure. The design of this failure mode required only the section capacity under hogging and sagging moment where plastic hinges formed. beam specimen B3 shows that optimum design is possible by adjusting the haunch length and the amount of reinforcement. Rotational capacity is not required because no moment redistribution occurs.haunch toe or haunch heel. Failure at the connection (haunch heel) in Beam B3 demonstrates an ideal situation where no moment redistribution is required if all the plastic hinges form at the same time. However. which might involve extra welding of stiffener plates. The failure mode will be controlled at haunch toe as long as the connection (haunch heel) capacity is larger than the haunch toe capacity under the moment gradient. If the initial failure is detected at the connection (haunch heel). However the disadvantage of this failure mode is that the connection (haunch heel) needs to be strengthened and most of the time the strengthening will be required at the column. if the beam cross section capacity at hogging and sagging region are very close to the required strength. For beam specimen B1 and B2. The available rotation capacity in composite haunch beam is 107 .

1 General According to Kemp. column and beam properties. 5. 5.5 Mp Li / EI (Eq. φa is the inelastic available rotation prior to the moment below the design moment resistance Mp. Thus.4) ra = available rotational capacity = φa / φe rr = required rotation capacity = φr / φe and for a linear moment gradient used in most test as in Fig. 5.1: φe = 0. 5.3.3) Referring to Fig.dependent on the component on the connection such as amount of reinforcement bar. the following limit states condition need to be satisfied in order to provide adequate ductility and sufficient moment redistribution to a structure. It may be provided either by the end connection or by the member over the length Li between the section of maximum moment and adjacent point of inflection. 1991).5) 108 .3 Rotation Capacity 5. ra / γmr > rr where: (Eq. (1991). φr is the inelastic rotation required to achieve an identified level of redistribution of moments in a structures. γmr is a partial material factor to allow for many uncertainties. It is common practice to express the equation to non-dimensional form by dividing the rotation by a hypothetical elastic rotation φr determined for the same moment resistance Mp over the same length of member Li. 5. (φa / γmr) > φr (Eq.2 (Kemp.

6) (Eq.5. 5. The local buckling is assumed to develop when the length of plastic region of the flange (Lp in Fig. (αdw/ twε) < 33 where: Li = λe = Kf & Kw = α’ = izc = Length of load point to haunch toe as shown in Fig. (1991) proposes a value of 2 for relatively ductile modes of failure with local and lateral buckling and a value of 3 for sudden fractures. 5.3. Following are the empirical formula that Kemp proposed to estimate the plastic length and available rotational capacity for steel beam. Radius of gyration of the flange and portion of web in compression 109 .5/2α’ λe = Kf = Kw2= Kw1= (Eq. Lp = 0.3 represents the region near to an internal support of a continuous beam (Kemp and Dekker.2 ra = 3(60/λe)1. (1991) is used to identify the available inelastic rotation capacity. Fig.2 Calculation of available rotation capacity of composite section An empirical formula proposed by Kemp. 33 < (αdw/ twε) ≤ 40 [460-(Li/izcε)]√Kw2/400 for class 1 web. 5.3) extends sufficiently far to accommodate the full wavelength of the buckle. Kemp. 1991). The theoretical model accounts for local and lateral buckling of the steel section.7) Kf/Kw(Li/izcε) (b/tfε)/20 for class 1 & 2 flanges αdw/33twε for class 2 web.in which EI is flexural rigidity of moment/unit curvature. 5.5.067Li(60/λe)1.3. A large partial material factor γmr should be introduced because it is very difficult to predict inelastic rotations from a moment-rotation curve which is nearly horizontal. Effective slenderness ratio = Kf/Kw(Li/izcε) Empirical factors to allow for the actual flange and web slenderness Proportion of the depth of section in compression between the centers of the two flanges.

1991.2 are based on the combination of Kemp’s proposal and a Bi-Linear Curve as shown in Figs.07 1.3 12.4 to 5.72 1.1 12.2 Comparison of rotational capacity at Haunch Toe Specimen 1 (a) Connection Specimen 2 Specimen 3 Specimen 4 Specimen 5 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 (b) Li 1550 1367 1550 1367 1550 1367 1093 832 1093 832 (c) λe NA NA 11.0 NA 12.3 8.21 NA 1.3 17. θp” with the “Elastic Rotation.To apply the above empirical equation to a composite section.7 10.39 0.7 16. θe”. 5.0 14. (1991).0 NA 13.11 NA The test results presented in Table 5.3 8. after taking into account of the 5 factors mentioned above: Table 5. has pointed out 5 factors which affect the available rotational capacity namely:a) Ratio of moment resistance at support to midspan region b) Elastic properties used in calculation of rotation capacity c) Axial force balancing reinforcement force d) Cracking of concrete adjacent to supports e) Restraint to lateral buckling by slab The following are the comparison of result between the joint tests and the model proposed by Kemp and Dekker. The available rotational capacity of the composite section at haunch toe is obtained by dividing the “Platic Rotation. 110 .7 6.7 14.0 NA Ratio of (d)/(e) NA NA 1.3 (d) ra(exp) (Test Results) NA NA 9.0 9.39. ranging from 0.3 NA (e) ra(kemp) (Kemp Model) NA NA 9.19 1.2 6.72 to 1. Kemp and Dekker.2 6. Table 5.9.2 shows that the ratio of test results and Kemp’s Model.3 11.7 10.

1.1.4 Beam Analysis 5. 5. the introduction of the bi-linear curve is to simplify and standardize the definition of “Rotational Capacity”.10 shows a typical cross section of a composite haunch beam.4. 5. the section under consideration only begins to behave inelastically but a full plastic section has not been fully developed. Therefore.1.4. Loss of stiffness may increase the rotational ability of the section. it shall not be considered as part of the plastic rotational capacity.4.1. 5. Elastic Section Properties Universal Section A UB = 2 BT + ( D − 2T )t ( D − 2T ) 3 t 2 BT 3 D T + 2 BT ( − ) 2 + 12 2 2 12 3 3 ( D − 2T )t 2TB = + 12 12 2 1 = BT 3 + ( D − 2T )t 3 3 3 I UB = x I UB y J UB 111 .1.1 Composite Haunch Beam Properties Fig. The following sections present the derivation of section properties of composite haunch beam. cut it diagonally and welded to a universal beam. the section begins to lose its stiffness before the Mp. The tapered section is formed by taking the required haunch length of universal beam section.Bi-Linear Curve is introduced because it is not possible to obtain the ideal curve as per Kemp’s model where the Mp will be achieved after the linear behaviour. The experimental Moment-Rotation curves show that there is an inelastic region where the rotation could not be defined. However. The actual behaviour of such composite section is that after the concrete crack or first yield. Section Properties 5. When first yield occur at the extreme fiber.

Where:

A T = BT + ( D t − T ) t

c Tx =

I xT =

BT

2

2

+ ( D t − T )t T +

(Dt − T )

2

AT

BT 3

+ BT

12

c Tx −

T

2

2

+

(Dt − T )3 t

Dt − T

+ ( D t − T )t T +

− c Tx

12

2

3

(D t − T ) t 3

TB

+

12

12

1

1

J T = BT 3 + (D t − T ) t 3

3

3

AUB = Area of Universal Beam

I Ty =

**IxUB = Second Moment of Universal Beam at x-x axis
**

IyUB = Second Moment of Universal Beam at y-y axis

JUB = Torsional Constant of Universal Beam

**Tee Section Haunch
**

Where:

AT =

Area of Tee Section Haunch

cxT

Distance from Bottom of flange to PNA of Tee Section Haunch

=

IxT =

Second Moment of Tee Section Haunch at x-x axis

IyT =

Second Moment of Tee Section Haunch at y-y axis

JT =

Torsional Constant of Tee Section Haunch

Reinforcement Bar

AR = N

I

R

x

=N

where,

πφ 2

4

πφ 4

64

AR =

Area of Reinforcement

IxR =

Second Moment of Reinforcement at x-x axis

112

2

Total Composite Haunch Section

ACH = AUB + AT + A R

c CH =

I

AUB Dt +

=I

CH

x

UB

x

+A

UB

D

+ AT cTx + A R (Dt + D + Dr )

2

ACH

D

Dt + − c CH

2

Z xCH top flange =

2

CH

x

I

D + Dt + Dr − c CH

(

Z xCH bottom flange =

I

c

(

+ I xT + AT c CH − cTx

)

2

+N

πφ 4

64

+ A R (Dt + D + Dr )

2

)

CH

x

CH

T

R

I yCH = I UB

y + Iy + Iy

ry =

I yCH

ACH

J = J UB + J T + J R

where:

ACH = Area of Composite Haunch Section

cCH = Distance from Bottom of flange to PNA of Composite Haunch Section

IxCH = Second Moment of composite Haunch Section at x-x axis

IyCH = Second Moment of Composite Haunch Section at y-y axis

J

= Torsional Constant of Composite Haunch Section

**ZxCH = Elastic Modulus of Top/Bottom Flange at x-x axis
**

ry

= radius of gyration at y-y axis

**5.4.1.1.2. Plastic Section Properties
**

Unhaunch Universal Section

A UB = 2 BT + ( D − 2T ) t

S

UB

x

D T

( D − 2T ) 2 t

= 2 BT ( − ) +

2

2

4

where: SxUB = Plastic Modulus of Universal Beam

113

**Composite Haunch Universal Section, Neutral Axis in Middle Flange
**

A CH = 2 BT + ( D − 2T ) t + BT + ( D t − T ) t + N

πφ 2

4

A CH

Half Total Area =

2

( D − 2T ) t BT

( Dt − T )t

πφ 2

+

+

+N

2

2

2

8

2

3 BT

t

πφ

=

+ (D − 2T + D t − T ) + N

2

2

8

= BT +

Half Total Area = BT + ( Dt − T )t + (Cx − Dt ) B

πφ 2

3BT t

+ (D − 2T + Dt − T ) + N

= BT + ( Dt − T )t + (Cx − Dt ) B

2

2

8

BT t

πφ 2

+ (D + Dt − 3T − 2 Dt + 2T ) + N

= (Cx − Dt ) B

2

2

8

t

πφ 2

(

D − Dt − T ) + N

T 2

8 = (C − D )

+

x

t

B

2

t

πφ 2

(

D − Dt − T ) + N

T

8

Cx = Dt + + 2

B

2

Which is only valid if:

Dt

≤

Cx

≤ Dt + T

**For this case, the plastic section modulus of the composite haunch section is given by:
**

Sx

CH

= BT ( C x −

+

T

( Dt − T )

) + ( D t − T )t C x − D t +

2

2

+

B

(C x − D t )2

2

B

D − 2T

( D t + T − C x ) 2 + ( D − 2T ) t D t + T − C x +

2

2

+ N

πφ

4

2

+ BT

D + Dt − C x −

( D + Dt − C x + Dr )

**Haunch Universal Section, Neutral Axis in Web of Universal Section
**

Refer to Figure 5.11, half total area in terms of Cx is:

**Half Total Area =
**

Solution for C x :

Cx =

(Eq. 5.8)

ACH

= 2 BT + ( D t − T )t + (C x − D t − T )t

2

( ACH

− 4 BT )

+ 2T

2t

**which is only valid if :
**

D t + T ≤ C x ≤ ( Dt + D − T )

114

T

2

a study has been conducted (Hogan & Syam. Based on the alternative (b). 5.For this case. calculated using (PCA. b) Dividing the haunch length into a number of segments with each segment having uniform section properties which are representative of that segment.9) 5. 1997): a) Modeling the haunch as a single beam element type over the full length of the haunch with the element’s section properties based on that of the average depth of the haunch. either maximum or average or minimum. 1997) and it is found that there is no benefit in using more than two segments in modeling of haunch section. c) Using a single beam element of equivalent stiffness.2 Composite Haunch Beam analysis There are a few alternatives to model composite haunch beam. the plastic section modulus is given by : S CH = BT C x − x D −T T T + (D t − T )t C x − T − t + BT C x − D t − 2 2 2 t 2 t + (D + D t − C x − T ) 2 2 2 N πφ T (D r + D + D t − C x ) + BT D + D t − C x − + 2 4 + (C x − D t − T ) 2 (Eq. (1995) also provides some reasonable guidance and suggests that haunches may be satisfactorily modeled by using two haunch elements. 115 .4. 1958) d) Obtaining a stiffness matrix and fixed end reaction formulation for a tapered member and use a computer program which allows a stiffness matrix for a member to be input. SCI. which include (Hogan & Syam.

12 shows a structure model of the test specimen in USFOS.8m from the column. the load step is scaled to make the forces comply “exactly” with the yield condition. The element stiffnesses are then calculated from the updated geometry.5.1 Nonlinear Analysis Software: . 5.The two haunch elements are modeled with average section properties for lengths corresponding to 1/3 and 2/3 of the haunch. A plastic hinge is inserted when the element forces have reached the yield surface.5. If such an event occurs.2 earlier. Fig. Beam is modeled as a non-prismatic member with the section properties as shown in the figure. At every load step each element is checked to see whether the forces exceed the plastic capacity of the cross section.USFOS USFOS is a nonlinear analysis software in which load can be applied in steps.2 Modeling of Composite Haunch Beam As described in Section 4. Determination of contra-flexure point is based on 22% of span length which is about 1. Based on the present information on haunch section modeling. After each load step. there is no advantage in using more than two segments in modeling of haunch section in the analysis. alternative (b) is selected for the analysis by using computer software USFOS. 5.5 Finite Element Modelling 5. The haunch sections are modelled using 2 beam elements with length Lh.5.5. 116 . the new position of nodal coordinates due to displacement will be updated and the structure stiffness is assembled at each load step.

1 General It is essential to check the buckling capacity when designing a structural steel member.5. which is about 4.6.6 Lateral Torsional Instability 5.13 shows the test results for the beam B1.5% more compared to the test value. Comparison of stiffness shows that the stiffness of Beam B3 is also higher than the test value. It is believed that the higher stiffness prediction by USFOS may be because of the fact that model did not account for the concrete cracking thus resulting in a higher stiffness. Comparison of stiffness reflected that the stiffness of Beam B2 is higher than the test value.5. 5. Firstly. lateral torsional buckling which involves the cross section rotation and 117 .5. two types of buckling mode usually occurred. However. Finite element result in Fig.14 shows that the predicted ultimate load of the Beam B2 is 600kN (300 kN x 2).5. which is about 4. Sometimes buckling failure in a structural member is allowed to happen but generally it is not economical for this type of failure mode. the finite element model is sufficiently accurate. For steel member such as I-Beam. local buckling due to compression force (the criteria for the local buckling is already well established by the recent codes. Fig.15 for Beam B3 shows that the predicted ultimate load is 674kN (337kN x 2).3 Results Fig. which utilized the "section classification" to limit the local buckling).2 % more compared to the test value. based on the comparison between finite element and experimental results. The stiffness of Beam B1 predicted by the finite element method is higher than the test value. The predicted ultimate load is 568kN (284kN x 2) for 2 load points.5. Secondly. about 10 % difference compared to the test value.

be enhanced by the increased bending strength that the reinforcement provides. Lawson & Rackham. Therefore. 5. in steel-concrete composite beam design. By modifying the energy method used by Rackham (1992). It is usually referred as "Lateral Distorsional Buckling". However.6. (1989) has proposed a method that is readily usable with the British Code BS5950 for composite beam. derivation to obtain the capacity of composite haunch connection accounting for lateral distorsional buckling is given below: 118 . the top flange is prevented from buckling and only the web and the bottom flange are subjected to torsional buckling. the shear connection between the steel beam and the concrete slab provides the lateral and torsional restraint to the top steel flange. This kind of buckling requires more energy to induce than the lateral torsional buckling in steel beam because it involves distorsion of the cross section. the author has proposed a calculation method for lateral distorsional buckling in composite haunch connection. This type of buckling usually can be avoided by the provision of lateral and torsional restraints. However. accounting for the effects of top reinforcement. Therefore.displacement.2 Lateral Distorsional Buckling Design Method Rackham (1992) concluded in his work that the destabilising effect due to the addition of reinforcement is likely to be minimal and that the buckling strength will. in fact. He has shown in his work the equation to predict lateral distorsional buckling for steel haunch connection. their method did not consider the contribution of top reinforcement.

11) M pπ 2 E λ 2LT p y where λ LT = Equivalent Slenderness p y = Yield Stress M p = Plastic Moment (Eq. 5π 2V 2 M cr t w h s 2 1120 LZ er Multiplying throughout by 4L/π2V2 and collecting terms. 5. 5. M cr = 2G + 2 hs 9J f 3 + Jw 8 5 3 EI w + h s3 L 2 π (Eq.10) E1= Strain energy absorbed in lateral bending of the bottom flange E2= Torsional energy absorbed in twisting the bottom flange E3= Bending energy absorbed in displacing the web E4= Torsional energy absorbed in twisting the web E5= Work done by the compressive force in the bottom flange E6= Work done by the forces in the web Therefore E1 + E 2 + E 3 + E 4 = E 5 + E 6 EI y π 4V 2 4 L3 + 2 1 9 GJ f V π 2 8 h s2 L 2 + 1 M 2 = cr 1 3 EI wV 2 L 1 3GJ w π 2V + 2 2 h s3 2 5 h s2 L BT f π 2V 2 2Z eL + 2 1 107 .E1 + E 2 + E 3 + E 4 = E 5 + E 6 (Eq. the elastic buckling equation is obtained thus: M cr BT f 43 t w h s + Ze 224 Z er 2 = EI y L Based on the British Code 5950. 5.12) 119 .

5. 120 .And ( M cr − M b )( M p − M b ) = η LT M cr M b where ηLT = Perry Coefficient M b = Buckling Re sis tan ce Moment M p = Sx py (Eq.14) The above derivation can directly be used in the code BS 5950:2000 and hence the Mb or the lateral torsional buckling moment could be obtained. 5.13) λ LT = = M pπ 2 E M cr p y S xπ 2 E M cr and EI y 2 π M cr = + L 3EI 2G 9 J f 3J w L + 3w + 2 8 5 π hs hs BT f Ze + 2 43 t w hs 224 Z er Therefore S xπ 2 E λ LT = EI y π L 2 + BT f Ze + 43 t w hs 224 Z er 3EI L 2G 9 J f 3 J w + + 3w 2 8 5 π hs hs 2 (Eq.

5. 5.Fig.1(e) Haunch Beam with 2 Point Loads Collapse Mechanism in Haunch Beam Moment Diagram of 2 Point Loads Moment Diagram of Haunch Toe Loads Moment Diagram of 2 Point Loads and Haunch Toe Loads 121 .1(c) Fig. 5. 5.1(a) Fig. 5.1(d) Fig.1(b) Fig.

φa φe φm 1.0 4.4 M Mp 1.0 2.0 1.5 1. 5.5 3.2 Moment-Rotation Curve according to Kemp.0 Rotation Capacity = ra = φa/φe 0.0 End Rotation Ratio = φ/φe Fig.5 5.6 Slope = Elastic stiffness C 0.5 2.2 0.8 Li 0.0 0.5 4. M 0. (1991) 122 .2 Design Moment resistance = Mp 1.4 Rotation φ 0.0 Max Moment.0 3.

of equiv.Lateral Restraint Lb Lb Li Li Lp Lp βMp (At Lateral Restraint) Mp Mm = mMp = MpLp/(LI-Lp) Li Li Lp Lp εye Lp/(LI-Lp) εs=sεy Curvature = Strain/α' df εy Lp Lip=CpLi Le Lie=CeLi Actual lateral deflection Lateral defl. 5.strut Fig.3 Plastic Region near the Internal Support of Continuous Beam 123 .

5 13. 247 kNm 250 224 Moment.5 18. mrad Fig. kNm 200 Section Yielded at 242kNm 150 First Yield detected at Compression Flange at 138kNm 100 First Crack observed at 89kNm 50 Haunch Toe Moment rotation Curve Bi-Linear Moment Rotation Curve 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Rotation. 5.4 Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curve for Connection H3 Rebar Yielded at 246kNm 300 3.5 Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curve for Connection H4 124 .Rebar Yielded at 238kNm 300 4. 5 15 250 kNm 250 224 kNm Moment. 5. kNm 200 150 First Yield detected at Compression Flange at 117kNm 100 50 Haunch Toe Moment-Rotation Curve Bi-linear Moment Rotation Curve First Crack observed at 69kNm 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Rotation. 20. mrad Fig.

mrad Fig.5 300 282 kNm Moment. 5.5 344 kNm 25.7 Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curve for Connection H6 125 . kNm 300 250 Section Yielded at 298kNm 200 150 First Yield detected at Compression Flange at 130kNm 100 50 Haunch Toe Moment Rotation Curve Bi-Linear Moment Rotation Curve First Crack observed at 72kNm 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Rotation. 5.6 Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curve for Connection H5 Rebar Yielded at 324kNm 400 330 kNm 350 282 kNm Moment. mrad Fig.400 Rebar Yielded at 302kNm 350 8. kNm 250 Section Yielded at 294kNm 200 150 First Yield detected at Compression Flange at 128kNm 100 Haunch Toe Moment Rotation Curve First Crack observed at 98kNm 50 Bi-Linear Moment Rotation Curve 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Plastic Rotation.0 6.

350 Rebar Yielded at 274kNm 289 kNm 300 Moment. 5. 5. kNm 300 282 kNm 250 Section Yielded at 311kNm 200 150 First Yield detected at Compression Flange at 159kNm 100 Haunch Toe Moment Rotation Curve 50 First Crack observed at 87kNm Bi-Linear Moment Rotation Curve 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Rotation. mrad Fig. mrad Fig.8 Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curve for Connection H7 400 Rebar Yielded at 341 kNm 350 Moment. kNm 250 224 kNm 200 Section Yielded at 279kNm 150 First Yield detected at Compression Flange at 164kNm First Crack observed at 79kNm 100 50 Haunch Toe Moment Rotation Curve Bi-Linear Moment Rotation Curve 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Rotation.9 Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curve for Connection H9 126 .

5.10 Cross Section of Haunch Beam with PNA at Beam Flange Dr t D t Dt C B Figure 5.11 Cross Section of Haunch Beam with PNA at Beam Web 127 .Dr C t D t Dt B Fig.

Node18 Node 20 H 1 2 A 3 B 4 H 5 6 7 8 9 10 C D E F G Lh Lh H Lh = 216 mm for B1 19 Lh = 216 mm for B2 11 12 13 F E 14 D 15 C 16 B 17 A H 21 Lh = 354 mm for B3 Fig.80E+08 3.56E+07 4.56E+08 6.13E+07 I.56E+07 4.13E+07 B1 1219 1261 1308 1526 1178 1219 1619 656 S.12 Modeling of Haunch Beam using non-linear Finite Element Analysis 4 Section A B C D E F G H B1 8. 5. 5.56E+08 9.56E+07 1. cm B2 1581 1261 1308 1526 1178 1581 1614 656 Remarks B3 1219 1261 1308 1526 1178 1219 1619 656 Composite Beam (Hog) Composite Haunch (Hog) Composite Haunch (Hog) Composite Haunch (Hog) Composite Haunch (Hog) Composite Beam (Hog) Composite Beam (Sag) Composite Beam (Sag) Fig.56E+07 4.56E+08 9.56E+07 1.93E+09 6.56E+07 1.12 Modeling of Haunch Beam using Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis 128 .80E+08 3.92E+08 8.93E+09 6. mm B2 8.13E+07 3 B3 8.56E+08 9.56E+08 6.56E+08 6.93E+09 6.92E+08 8.80E+08 3.92E+08 8.

5. kN 500 400 300 200 USFOS 100 Experiment 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Displacement.USFOS Vs Experiment BEAM B1 700 600 568 kN 544 kN Load. mm Fig.13 Comparison of USFOS and Experimental Load-Displacement Curve for Beam B1 129 .

15 Comparison of USFOS and Experimental Load-Displacement Curve for Beam B3 130 . kN 500 573 kN 400 300 200 USFOS 100 Experiment 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Displacement.USFOS Vs Experiment BEAM B2 700 600 kN 600 Load. mm Fig. 5. kN 600 628 kN 500 400 300 200 USFOS 100 Experiment 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Displacement. 5. mm Fig.14 Comparison of USFOS and Experimental Load-Displacement Curve for Beam B2 USFOS Vs Experiment BEAM B3 800 674 kN 700 Load.

1 Introduction Based on the information available in the literature and experimental and analytical studies presented in the previous chapters.CHAPTER 6 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS AND DESIGN EXAMPLE 6. serviceability in deflection may be a control factor. Beams of these proportions when designed on ‘strength’ would usually satisfy serviceability’. an optimum design is achieved with appropriate amount of reinforcement. The experimental program presented earlier shows that with a 7. engineers shall always make necessary judgements while encountering the situations not covered in these design recommendations. It is recommended that the depth of the haunch is taken as the depth of the steel section. 6. which allow the haunch be cut from the parent beam. However. 131 . However. L/D ratio equal to about 30.2 Design recommendations 1) The ratio of length of the beam to depth should be in the range of 25 to 30 for most efficient design. Larger haunch depth require additional type of beam size and increases the fabrication cost.8m clear span and 250mm beam depth. design recommendation for composite haunch beams will be made herein.5 to 3 times the depth of the steel beam. Introduction of haunch may help to control the deflection because it reduces the "clear span" by 5% to 10% when haunch length fixed between 1. with this large L/D ratio. It is important to provide structural designers with a design concept with some specific guidelines so that the designers could take precaution or necessary steps to minimize design errors.

1989). The bolt diameter is approximately equal to the end plate thickness. 6) The moment resistance of the composite connection should be determined by the method described in Chapter 3. This will usually avoid the failure at the end plate and provide a rigid connection. (M24 or M30 bolts are expected to be the preferred size) (Lawson and Rackham. 4) The bending resistance of the composite bolted connection should be designed to be more than the composite haunch toe section. Therefore. Care shall be taken at the end-span when anchorage of reinforcement at external column is not sufficient to act compositely with the haunch connection. grade S275 steel may be more economical than grade S355 for a span to depth ratio of 25 to 30.2) It is recommended that for efficient design of continuous haunch beams. This is to ensure the moment diagram for the internal span be similar to the current study and allow for similar moment redistribution pattern. These plates are approximately 20% to 30% thicker than the beam flange. 132 . failure can be assumed to occur at the haunch toe. 5) End-plates are to be welded to the ends of the beam. The second moment of inertia that controls the deflection will be the same regardless of the steel grade used. 3) Since long span beam design is likely to be controlled by serviceability. the length of the end span should be approximately equal to the length of the adjacent span.

7) Determine the number of bolts and the amount of slab reinforcement as follows : - Determine the number of bolts needed to resist the factored shear force. which is not effective and not economical. Assume the bottom bolt groups (between bottom haunch flange to bottom beam flange) to resist shear force and upper row bolts to take tension forces arising from the applied moment. 6.3 Elastic global analysis (1) Determine the moment resistance of the composite section in accordance with BS 5950: Part 3 or Eurocode 4. 8) Determine the column size in accordance with the following guideline to avoid use of column web stiffeners which may be costly: - Column flanges should be Class 1 or 2 (plastic or compact).5%. - Choose the number and diameter of reinforcing bars within the effective width at the supports (beam span/8). The reinforcement could be from 1% to 2. Consider use of a heavier column section if more tension reinforcement is used. Larger percentage of reinforcement will actually bring up the plastic neutral axis. or alternatively. - There is a maximum percentage of reinforcement (limit to 2.1.5% of effective width at hogging area) that may be used before requiring column stiffeners. 133 . provide column stiffeners. for the assumed beam size selected in Section 6.

Determine the connection moments for the pattern loads used in the analysis. (6) Redistribution of negative (hogging) moments at the haunch toe section (not at the connections) is normally not required or very minimum as per Table 1 in Chapter 2. 134 . using the appropriate composite beam section stiffness (at sagging and hogging moment regions) and column section stiffness.(2) Check the construction condition for the design of steel beams. Modify the size of the steel section. Proceed further if the applied moments are less than the moment resistance. (4) Calculate the second moment of area of the composite section. This is normally not critical but attention to be given to where lateral torsional buckling of primary beams may occur during construction. or the amount of reinforcement. as necessary if the applied moment is larger than the resistance moment. using uncracked section properties. and the composite section (hogging) at haunch toe as in Step (3). Check the capacity of the composite section (sagging) as in Step (1). Increase the positive (sagging) moment in the spans to maintain equilibrium. (5) Carry out an elastic global analysis. (3) Determine the moment resistance of the composite haunch connection and composite section (at haunch toe).

it may be necessary to precamber or prop the beams to reduce the total deflection. increase the size or depth of the steel beam.5 and treat the effective length as equal to the column length for a non-sway column. Check the imposed load deflections against serviceability limits.(7) Check the design of the columns subject to axial force in combination with the moments and shear forces transferred at the face of the column. For long span beams. (10) Calculate the deflection of the steel beam after construction. (9) Calculate the deflection of the composite beam using the second moment of area. Check the minimum spacing of the shear connectors. Take the moment variation factor in BS 5950: Part 1 as 0. increase the size of the steel beam or reduce the percentage of reinforcement. The moment resisted by the columns above and below the connection is divided in proportion to their stiffnesses (or lengths). as in Step (4). If inadequate. 6.4 Plastic hinge analysis This procedure is only appropriate for Class I beams and Class I or 2 column sections. (8) Determine the number of shear connectors necessary to achieve the required force transfer between the beam and the slab for hogging and sagging moment region. 135 . If the serviceability performance is not adequate.

add the two moment resistance directly to determine the failure load. For an external span. taking account of the final bending moment variation. the anchorage that required for reinforcement is not sufficient to contribute tension resistance in the composite beam section.3 for the design of the columns. ignore the moment resistance of the composite connection. (2) Combine the moment resistance of the haunch toe section and the composite beam section in positive(sagging) bending.(1) Repeat Steps 1. but include the moment resistance of the steel connection. Include the axial load due to full loading on all spans. For an internal span subject to equally spaced loads. For internal columns.3. If the combined moment resistance exceeds the applied free moment. increase the size of the steel beam. (3) Compare the free moment at the ultimate limit state to the combined moment determined as in Step 2. ignore pattern loading and consider an applied moment equal to half that of an equivalent column loaded from one side only by the same connection. If not. and the reduced effectiveness of the bolts in tension. if appropriate. Divide this moment between the columns above and below. proceed. (4) Check the shear resistance of the bolt group for the applied shear. (5) Repeat Step (7) of Section 6. This is because at the end span. 2 and 3 of Section 6. 136 . in an equivalent plastic hinge analysis.

(6) Repeat Step (8) of Section 6. 137 .3 for the numbers of shear connectors.3 for serviceability performance. (7) Repeat Steps (9) and (10) of Section 6.

1.6.2 Analyse Frame with homogeneous section Analyse Frame with Plastic Hinge Analysis Allow negative moment redistribution as per Table 2.5 Design Procedure Flow Chart Design of Non-Sway Composite Haunch Structures Plastic Hinge Analysis Elastic Global Analysis Identify Design Load Try Beam & Column as per Section 6. Total the sagging and hogging moment to compare with design moment that required for plastic failure mechanism Continue Next Page Continue Next Page 138 .2 Determine Sagging (MidSpan) and Hogging (Haunch Toe) Moment Resistance of Composite Section as per BS 5950 Part3 Section 3.1 and compared with design moment Determine Sagging (MidSpan) and Hogging (Haunch Toe) Moment Resistance of Composite Section as per BS 5950 Part3 Section 3.

Continue From Previous Page No Continue From Previous Page Mcapacity > Mapplied Vcapacity > Vapplied No Yes No Lateral Distorsional Buckling Check (Eq 5. 3.3 or Eq. 3.4 Serviceability Check End 139 .11) No Yes Haunch Connection Design as per Eq.

6.6 Design Example

**A design example is presented in Appendix A to illustrate the design method
**

developed herein. The design example is based on a commercial office building,

which is braced against lateral sway. The floor grid consists of a 8 m main beam span

with 12 m span secondary beams at 2.27m centre to centre.

The main beam test B2 was specifically designed to model this frame

arrangement and the section sizes used in the experimental set-up is exactly same as

in the design example. Therefore, a direct comparison could be made between the

results of this calculation and the test results. The maximum failure load in the test

was 604 kN (2 x 302 kN), compared to 500 kN (2 x 250 kN, refer Design Loading in

Appendix A) factored design load. The test frame sustained 20% more load than the

design calculations proposed, which represents a generous safety margin.

140

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS AND

PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE WORK

7.1 General

**Behaviour of composite haunch beams has been investigated through
**

experimental program and analytical study. The research work carried out has

provided a perception into the behaviour of composite haunch beam (with tension

reinforcement), which has not been explored sufficiently in the past research.

Concluding remarks with regard to experimental and analytical study will be

presented in the following section.

7.2 Behaviour of the Composite Haunch Connection

**It is concluded from the tests that composite haunch connections could be
**

designed as full strength connections. The rotations of the composite haunch

connections are very small and can be neglected. A conventional stress block in

accordance with Eurocode 4 is reasonable to predict accurately the capacity of the

connections. The additional reinforcement added in the slab contributes significantly

to the connection without compromising the ductility. This is evident from the

moment-rotation curves obtained from the connection tests. However, only sections

with "Plastic" classification are recommended for this behaviour.

Besides, the moment-rotation curves of the composite connections also show

that the stiffness of the connections drops after the cracking of the concrete. The

stiffness of the initial '

uncracked'hogging region concrete section is higher than the

values of the '

cracked'hogging region.

141

**Experimental observations show that failure at the haunch toe is governed by
**

compression failure of the flange and web plates or tensile failure of reinforcement

bars depending on the neutral axis, which is affected by the amount of slab

reinforcement. The higher the slab reinforcement ratio, the compression flange and

web plates will fail before the yielding of the tension reinforcement.

7.3 Behaviour of the Composite Haunch Beam

**For composite haunch beam, plastic hinge could be designed at haunch toe
**

which is the weakest section when subjected to hogging moment. Optimum design of

composite beam can be achieved when plastic hinge occurred at haunch toes followed

by a plastic mechanism at the mid-span. Experimental results show that haunch

connection is able to redistribute moment to the mid-span by losing stiffeness due to

cracking of concrete slab and yielding of either steel reinforcement or cross section.

Studies on the effective width in continuous composite beam show that the

effective width 0.25L recommended by BS 5950:Part 3: Section 3.1 and Eurocode 4 is

satisfactory at the sagging region. On the other hand, since concrete strength in

tension is negligible, its contribution is ignored and only the reinforcement within the

effective width is considered. Studies have been carried out for the effectiveness of

the tension reinforcements at the hogging region and test results show that the tension

reinforcements recommended by BS 5950:Part 3: Section 3.1 and Eurocode 4 are

conservative. It is proposed an additional factor of 1.4 to be used while calculating the

effective width using the codes.

7.4 Section Properties and Frame Analysis

**The section properties of composite haunch section have been derived for the
**

frame analysis. It is not necessary to model more than 2 average sections for a haunch

142

These specimens continued to sustain their design plastic moments of resistance up to a value of 45 rads. The lateral distorsional buckling design method has been developed and the method could be used in conjunction with the code. It is also suggested that the value of the slenderness parameter. calculated from equations 4 and 5. for haunch composite beams. the value of the critical buckling length Lcr. It was found that only those beams with full depth stiffeners fitted both sides of the web at the haunch toes passed the criterion. the haunch is sufficiently stiff to assume that the haunch toe position is restrained. It is recommended that this software be used to carry out parametric study. The possibility of lateral distorsional buckling need only then be checked beyond the haunch toe. on the basis of the tests.75 to produce realistic design values. The finite element software USFOS produces reasonably accurate prediction for the composite haunch beam capacity. and when the minimum shear connection is maintained over the whole hogging region. The degree of rotation obtained from the Sub-Assembly Tests was compared with theoretical requirements specified by Kemp. should be multiplied by 0. towards the span. However.6. it is clear that when a full depth stiffener is provided both sides of the web at the haunch toe. It is therefore 143 . The moment-rotation characteristics of the haunch region were specifically examined in the tests. Design for the treatment of lateral distorsional buckling has been shown by the tests to be conservative when applied to haunch composite beams. From the analysis of the results of the Sub-Assembly Test in Chapter 4. it is suggested that. vt. (1991). It is interesting to note that the maximum load was achieved in the main test when the haunch toe rotations were of the order of 35 milli radians. should be multiplied by 0.connection in order to obtain reasonable results.

The bolts designed at connection to resist shear force is now exposed to tension force when the connection is subjected to reverse 144 . Therefore. In a composite haunch connection where the tension reinforcement is ignored. and when the column stiffness is a lot larger than the steel beam. To study the behaviour of haunch composite connection in sway frame where the connection is not only subjected to hogging but also sagging moment. Nevertheless. the design of composite structures involves many considerations and processes that could still be further developed and verified. 2. 1. the anchorage of the reinforcement could be an issue to be explored. However. A detailed study shall be conducted in this area. Certainly. besides the work reported in this thesis. at the end span. To study the behaviour of haunch composite connections with tension reinforcement at the end span which is always subjected to unbalanced moment. the following areas for future study are recommended. 7. composite construction with haunch beam structures could provide designers an option to maximise the usage of steel and concrete so that optimum and economical design could be achieved.concluded that it is possible to design and detail the composite haunch beam so that sufficient rotational capacity will be achieved. additional reinforcement may contribute extra tension resistance to achieve a higher capacity at the connection as well as the haunch toe area.5 Future Work The behaviour of composite haunch beams and connections has been explained and demonstrated with experimental testing and an analytical model.

moment. The finite element USFOS shows reasonable predictions of the behaviour of composite haunch beam as a structural frame. It is necessary to understand the haunch connection behaviour and its application in sway frame. It could be further developed to zoom into the component design which is able predict the failure mode of the haunch beam construction system. full scale testing will be the least option for researchers to study the behaviour of any structural system. 145 . Further development will be worthwhile because when reasonable accurate computer simulation is possible.

1 braced against side-sway is considered in this design example. Main Beam Span : 8 m (Composite Haunch Beam Rigid Connection) Secondary Beam Span : 12 m (Composite Beam Simply Supported) Storey Height : 4.50 = 0.01 kN/m2 Secondary beam self weight.70 kN/m2 Imposed Load : 5.4 x 0.4 (2.50 kN/m2 Building Services : 0.7) + 1. Design Load = 1.50 kN/m.6(5) = 13. 2400 kN/m3 Slab thickness : 120mm Steel Grade : S275 iii) Design Loading Concrete Slab : 2.88+0.2 m Column Base : Fixed Slab Thickness : 120 mm ii) Material Data: Shear Stud : Dia 19mm x 95mm as welded Concrete : fcu = 30N/mm2 .00 kN/m2 Design Loading : 1.70 kN/m 146 .APPENDIX A DESIGN EXAMPLE A) Design Data i) Structure Data A 4 storey building size 24m x 72m as shown in Figure 3.88 kN/m2 Construction Load : 0. say 0.

loading from secondary beam transferred to main beam. Mph + Mps = P (L/3-Lh) Therefore.Therefore. to design the haunch beam. P = ((2.74 kNm) x 12m/2 = 250 kN B) Plastic Design of Main Beam To form a plastic mechanism at the haunch toes and loading points: Lh A h L/3-L B L/3-Lh L/3 C D A Lh E F L/3-Lh Mph B C Mps Where.01kN/m2) + 0.70 kN/m) x 12m /2 = (41.67m x 13. Mph = Plastic Moment Capacity at Haunch Toe (Hogging) Mps = Plastic Moment Capacity at Load point (Sagging) Moment about haunch toe. Mph + Mps P (L/3-Lh) > 1 147 .

D = 255.4 mm Web depth. Ds = 2 Concrete strength.Beh 120 mm 1000 mm 6 Number of rebars = 10 nos 7 Diameter of rebar = 20 mm 8 Area of rebar. Ro = 428 kN 3142 mm2 460 N/mm2 12 Universal beam dimension B Calculation 148 .Rw = 426 kN 6 Resistance of slender web.Bes = 1400 mm 5 Effective width. fcu = 30 N/mm2 3 Concrete Cover. A Data: 1 Slab Thickness . (Pfix/Py)^(1/2) = 1 1 Resistance of concrete flange.4 mm Flange thickness. Rc = 5040 kN 2 Resistance of steel flange. t = 6.hogging. fy = 275 mm2 13 Constant. Abar = 9 Yielding strength of rebar = 10 Lever arm of rebar to beam flange.9 mm Width. plastic section for both sagging and hogging condition and hence is suitable for plastic design.sagging. d = 218. Rv = 385 kN 5 Resistance of overall web depth. Dc = 20 mm 4 Effective width. B = 146.9 mm Web thickness.Span to Depth ratio 25 to 30 Using 30. Rf = 439 kN 3 Resistance of steel beam. T = 10.Beam size . D = 8000/30 = 266 mm Try UB 254 x 146 x 37 kg/m.9 mm Area = 4740 mm2 Yielding strength. Dr = 90 mm Depth. Rs = 1304 kN 4 Resistance of clear web depth.

0 11 76*e*/(1+Rc/Rv) = 5.Ultimate condition satisfied Checking of lateral distorsional buckling of beam at haunch toe Refer to equation (Eq 5.2 10 76*e/(1+Rr/Rv) = 16. pb = 275 N/mm2 Therefore.04 > 1 :.4 Case 2 : Plastic neutral axis in concrete slab (Sagging) Rc > Rw and Rs < Rc Mc = Rs*(D/2+Ds-Rs/Rc*Ds/2) = 303 kNm BS 5950: Part 3 Case 6 : Plastic neutral axis in concrete slab (Hogging) Rr > Rw and Rr > Rs Mc = Rs*(D/2 +Dr) = 284 kNm BS 5950: Part 3 Try Haunch Length 5% of span. hence haunch length Lh = 0. Rr = 1445 kN 8 Resistance of slender steel beam.4) 1 587 567 = 1.7 and refer to Table 16 of BS5950:2000.Rn = 1346 kN 9 d/t = 34.05 x 8000 = 400 mm Check ultimate condition.14) in the thesis LT = 17. Mph + Mps P (L/3-Lh) > 1 303 + 284 > 250(8/3-0. no reduction to Rs to obtain the Mb = Mc = 284kNm Okay ! 149 .7 Resistance of reinforcement.

93E+08 mm4 D) Main Beam Serviceability Deflection Check Design Load from Secondary Beam (Imposed Live Load Only) = 5.0 mm2 7 Depth of steel beam D = 256.0 kNm 1 Steel Beam Inertia Moment Ixx = 55600000.9 mm B = 146.4 mm t = 6.0 mm4 Ms = 0.0 mm 5 Modular Ratio αe αe = 13.0 kN/m2 x 8/3 x 12m/2 = 80kN 150 .9 mm A = 4740.4 mm T = 10.2 6 Cross section area of steel beam A = 4750.0 mm 4 Depth of the deck profile Dp = 0. Ig (Sagging) Uncracked UB254 x 146 x 37kg/m Universal Beam Properties D = 255.0 mm 3 Overall slab depth Ds = 120.0 mm2 d = 218.9 mm Sxx = 484363.C) Main Beam Elastic composite Properties I) Calculation of Moment Inertia.0 mm Ig = 1.0 mm4 2 Effective Width of Concrete (Sagging) Be = 1400.

Therefore.80kN Lh L/3-Lh 80kN L/3-Lh L/3 Lh = 0.1 time the haunch toe moment Mph.93E08) = 8.0mm Max Deflection Hence.1 x 322kNm = 354 kNm Le = 400 mm Connection Moment = 250 kN x 0. Span/Def = 8000/8 = 1000 > 360.00772 PL3/EI = 0. Live Load Serviceability Deflection Okay! E) Haunch Connection Design Haunch Connection is designed to remain elastic. the connection is to resist 1.00772 *80.4 + 354 kNm = 454 kNm Try M20 Grade 8. 250 kN V Lh L/3-Lh 250 kN L/3 322kNm V L/3-Lh Lh 322kNm V V 250 kN 1.000*1.1 Mps = 1.000*80003/(205.8 Bolts with 10T20 Tension Reinforcement 151 .

5/2 209 = = = 2.1/9.9 kN 184 kN Rhf = = 146 x 10.Rr = = 0.9 + 2x20 50.5 122 mm Therefore.5 x 189.9 mm n2 = = = 2(Tcolumn + rcolumn) x 2.9 x 1.2) x 2.2 x 275 525 kN Column Web Bearing (Try column UC 203 x 203 x 60 kg/m) Pc = (b1 + n2) x tc x py b1 = = = Tbeam + 2Tplate 10.2 + 10. Pc = (50.5 2(14.9 + 122) x 9.1 51.7 152 .5 d/tcolumn 2.1 x 275 = 436 kN Column Web Buckling (Try column UC 203 x 203 x 60 kg/m) Pc = (b1 + n1) x tc x py n1 = = 2 x 209.87 x 10 x 3.14 x 202/4 x 460 1256 kN Rb = = 2 x 91.

Dh) x 1.2 x 275 525 kN (Limit to 436 kN Column Bearing Controlled) Rw = = 234 x 6. Column Bearing Controlled So.from Table 27(c) BS 5950: Part 1 pc = 217 N/mm2 Therefore.2 x 275)+ Rhf + Rhw + Rf = Rr + Rb ((yc . design shear force = 250 kN Try 4 M20 Bolt Grade 8. Rhf is limited to 436 kN Rhw = = 234 x 6.8.9+209.4 x 1. shear capacity = 368 kN > 250 kN = 4 * 91.4 x 1.9/2) = 313163 + 228722 + 178762 = 720647 kNmm = 721 kNm > 454 kNm Haunch Connection Moment Satisfied !! Checking of shear bolt. PNA at beam web ((yc .9/2) + 494 (90+256+234/2) + 525(90+256-10. Pc = (50.2 x 275 494 kN Rf = = 146 x 10.9 kN Okay !! 153 .2 x 275 494 kN Rhf + Rhw + Rf + Rw < Rr + Rb .1 x 217 = 518 kN Comparing Rhf and Pc (Bearing or Buckling).256) x 1.5) x 9.9 x 1.2 x 275) + 436 + 494 + 436 = 1256 + 184 yc = 256 mm Take moment about reinforcement Mu = 525 (90+256+256-10.

J. 98. Journal of the Structural Division.P. MI. 50(9). Anderson. (1972a) "Local Buckling in Continuous Composite Beams". London. Aribert. 1239-1254. L.A. M. City University.J. Anderson.M. and Johnson. The Structural Engineer. Vol. Boswell. No.6 March. (1994) "Performance of Composite Connections: Major Axis End Plate". 6. Vol. R. 78. 31. Cosenza. Mazzolani. J. and Kronenburger (2000) "Design Rotation Capacity of Composite Joints".P. June. D. J. Aribert. 14-19. 7. (1995a) "Non Linear Analysis of Continuous Composite Beam". MDF P9/90. and Johnson. J. (1995b) "The Influence of the rebar ductility on the rotational capacity of composite beams". 2. 2529. 31-57. Vol.F. A. and Raoul. R. The Structural Engineer. 879-886. Climenhaga. M.. ASTM E8-1979 (1979) "Standard Methods of Tension Testing of Material". 8. American Association State Highway and Transportation Officials Standard. 9. Mazzolani. 5.:T68. 4. Proceedings of the Engineering Foundation Conference on Composite Construction ASCE..M. 154 . and Najafi. H. Climenhaga. J. Bode. S and Pecce. Cosenza E. E. D. Proceedings of the ASCE. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 367-374. AASHTO No.REFERENCES 1. 3. and Pecce.J. (1992) "Two full-scale tests of class 3 composite beams". Final report to SCI in respect of British Steel Market Development Grant No. No. (1992) "The Structural Behaviour of Haunch Composite Beams in Long Span Building Applications". S. 287-296. Potosi. ST6. (1972b) "Moment-Rotation Curves for Locally Buckling Beams".

96-101. A. 15. Part 1. 2/96. 161-185. G. 18. July. Journal of The Structural Division. 12.J. June. Fabbrocino. No 3. Kemp. 2-27.1 General Rules and Rules for Building".A. Structural Engineering International. G. Nov. 185-202. 31. and Syam A. 11. Part 2. Hamada. S.1 General Rules and Rules for Building". 367-381. T. Journal of The Structural Division.R. N. Eurocode 4 DD ENV 1994-1-1:1992 (1994) "Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. (1976) "Ultimate Strength of Continuous Composite Beams". J. Comite European de Normalisation (CEN). and Johnson. and Longworth. Hogan. (1996) "A New Design Method for Continuous Composite Beams". Part 1. 2205-2222. British Standard Institution. (1997) "Design of Tapered Haunch Universal Section Members in Portal Frame Rafters". (2001) "Ductility of Composite Beams under Negative Bending: An Equivalent Index for Reinforcing Steel Classification".. Dekker. 17.10. Hope-Gill. R. 13.S. 61. Engrgs. 155 .P. Vol. 34. Manfredi. and Cosenza. J. G.. Instn. 57. 14. and Longworth. Eurocode 3 ENV 199-1-1:1992 (1992) "Design of Steel Structures. 16. P. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. Brussels. Civ. 1463-1479. Proc. Couchman. Hamada. Vol. (1976) "Tests on Three Three-span continuous composite beams". (1974) "Buckling of Composite Beams in Negative Bending". Steel Construction. (1995) “Factors Influencing the Strength of Continuous Composite Beams in Negative Bending” Journal of Constructional Steel Research. London. M. E. Vol. Sept. and Trinchero. S.

19. R. No. Proceedings of the ASCE. Kitipornchai.R. 26. 27-34. Vol. Journal of Structural Engineering. Jul. 20. Proceedings of the ASCE. (1997) "Ultimate Strength Considerations for Seismic Design of the Reduced Beam Section (Internal Plastic Hinge)". Vol. ST3.S. 22.R. The Structural Engineer. and Nethercot. Journal of the Structural Division. 23. (1995) "Interaction of Plastic Local and Lateral Buckling". and Trahair. S. 57. Kitipornchai. (1991) "Available Rotation Capacity in Steel and Composite Beams". 27. Vol. Proceedings of the ASCE. 69. and Dekker.A. Mar. 88-97. Vol. Engineering Journal. No. Iwankiw. Kitipornchai.M. (1991) "Local Buckling and Moment Redistribution in Class 2 Composite Beams". 186-192. 713-728. United Kingdom. and Trahair. Lawson. Kemp. A. N. A. 375-400. 991-1004. 21. D.M. Journal of the Structural Division. Steel Construction Institute. No. (1972) "Elastic Stability of Tapered I-Beams. and Chen. 1333-1678. A. 73. ST5. (1975a) "Buckling of Inelastic I-Beams under Moment Gradient".R. Kemp. 24. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. and Trahair. (2001) "Required and Available Rotations in Continuous Composite Beams with Semi-rigid Connections". May. 156 . 111. R. Johnson. Journal of the Structural Division. (1975b) "Inelastic Buckling of Simply Supported Steel I-Beams". and Rackham. 98. J. Lawson. (1989) "Design of Haunch Composite Beam in Buildings". N. 101. Vol. Vol. S. S.W. 2181-2195. N. 101. 3-16. 11. N. April. Structural Engineering International. Oct. (1995) "Developments in steel framed commercial building in th UK”.S. N. R. No. The Structural Engineer.10. 25. Kemp. 28. No. First Quarter. Vol.P.S. ST7. S.

(1990) "Semi-rigid Composite Construction".29. 37.Q. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. Singapore: SSSS/BCA Joint Publication.H. 247-268. Vol. 303-332.T. Liew. 32.Part 2:Analytical Assessments". Li T. 32. and Nethercot D.M. (2001) "A Resource Book for Structural Steel Design and Construction". 99-119. 34. 36. N. Vol. T. Lay. 67-93. Vol. 31. 33.Q. 151173.E.R. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. Journal of the Structural Division. 60. Dec. 60. (1965) "Flange Local Buckling in Wide-Flange Shapes". Vol.G. Li T. Lay M. and Lawson.L. (2004) "Composite Joints Subject to Reversal of Loading.A. T. Vol. (2000) "Required Rotation of Composite Connections".. Journal of the Structural Division. Leon R. Journal of Constructional Steel Research.H. and Shanmugam. 56. Looi K. 95-116.. ST6. (2004) "Composite Joints Subject to Reversal of Loading. M. Dec.S. 221-246. J. Proceedings of the ASCE.Part 1: Experimental Study".V. J.Y. International Journal of Steel and Composite Structures. and Galambos T. N. (2001) "Practical Design Guideline for Semi Continuous Composite Braced Frames".E. Vol. 32. Journal of Constructional Steel Research.. No. (1965) "Inelastic Steel Beams Under Uniform Moment".R. 157 . 91. 35. and Uy B.G. 213-230.A.R. Proceedings of the ASCE. 91. Choo B. 30.Y. No. Vol. Teo.R.Y. ST6. and Shanmugam. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. R. 1(2). Nethercot D. Liew J. (1995) "Determination of Rotation Capacity Requirements for Steel and Composite Beams". Teo. Liew J. Liew.Y.

No. Nethercot. ST4. D. 73-78. 13/4 July. and Shanmugam. S. Vol. P. Vol.Q. 102. (1983) "Elastic Lateral Buckling of Beams. Proceedings. (1969) "Rotation Capacity of Beams under Moment Gradient". Vol.38. Feb. The Structural Engineer Vol. No.A. 44. No. Structural Stability and Design. 53. D. Lukey.A. 95. A. Nethercot.F and Adams. Hancock & Bradford. (1995) "Design of Composite Connections". 61-67. (1991) "Design Development in Long Span Flooring System in the UK". Jun. 22-24 May. Proceedings of the ASCE. 43.. Applied Science Publishers. T. 158 . Singapore. 45.S. Elsevier Applied Science. ed. (1995) "Design of Semi-Continuous Composite Frames". Nethercot. Nethercot. Owens. by Narayanan. no. 73.A. N. 7-27.2. and Trahair. The Structural Engineer. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 39. R. London and New York. (1976) "Inelastic Lateral Buckling of Determinate Beams".E. Apr. N.. G. Engineering Journal. Plumier. 40. (2000) "State of the art report: Basic Problems. Design Concepts and Codification of Steel and Composite Structures". 701-717.A. by Kitipornchai. Journal of the Structural Division. Beams and Beam Columns-Stability and Strength". ICSAA91. 41. (1997) “The Dogbone: Back to the Future”. 217-282. No. 1173-1188. 55. ST6. Vol.A. Nethercot. 218-219. by Lee. D. International Conference on Steel and Aluminium Structures.F. D. R. 2. D. 42. Narayanan. Proceedings of the ASCE. 34. Journal of the Structural Division. and Li. ed. vol.L. 1-33. (1975) "Inelastic Buckling of Steel Beams under Non Uniform Moment". 46. ed. Andre.

London and New York 1983.R.S.1-3. Elsevier Applied Science. J. Vol. (2002) "Behaviour of Composite Haunch Beam Connection". 52. Vol.47. 991-1004. by Dowling. ed. B. Thesis. ed. (1992) "The Design of Haunch Composite Beam Frames for Buildings". J. Constructional Steel Design: An International Guide. J.. Trahair.. and Liew. SCI/BSCA Connection Group (1995) "Joints in Steel Construction – Moment Connections". Vol. 53. A.. Steel Construction Institute. 48. M. by Chen. by Narayanan. ST11. 1451-1463 50.S. The Civil Engineering Handbook. Beams and Beam Columns-Stability and Strength". and Liew.R. and Bjorhord. Trahair..Y. Journal of Construction in Steel Research. Ng. Engineering Structures. 54. and Liew.Y. Applied Science Publishers. Uy.E. and Anderson.H. 501-522. Shanmugam. City University. Y. (1992) "Composite Beams". Nos. Nov. of Civil Engineering. London. Dept.Y. United Kingdom. 49. (1983) "Inelastic Lateral Buckling of Beams. (1997) "Local Buckling in Class 2 Continuous Composite Beams". (1972) "Buckling of Inelastic I-Beams under Moment Gradient". W. Price. N. London.M. 24. N. and Kitipornchai. Harding. 99.R. 43. S. (2003) “Composite Steel-Concrete Structures”. 141-159. Rackham. D.. R. J. 35-69.F. 159 . R. 51. J.E. Proceedings of the ASCE.W. ed. Tehami. CRC Press. 51-1/62. N. No. Journal of the Structural Division.

Y... pp. Richard Liew. Y. 3.H. Connections in Steel Structures IV: Behaviour Strength and Design. 424-433.Y.E.. Richard Liew. 5. Richard Liew.. Tests To Failure of Continuous Composite Haunch Beams. Shanmugam.E. J. J.. N. Singapore. Eastering. J.H.LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 1.. Ng. J.Y. Ng. 13-16 October 1998. Haunch Connections in Composite Construction.. and N. Chicago: AISC 2002.Y. Design of Haunch Composite Connections for Long-Span Beam Construction. N.Y. Journal of Constructional Steel Research (Accepted for Publication) 160 . Behaviour of Composite haunch beam connection. Y. pp 1451-1463.H.S. Ng. Shanmugam and Richard Liew. J.H. Seoul. Shanmugam. Y.E. Shanmugam and Richard Liew. Ng. edited by Roberto Leon and W. Proceeding of the International Conference on Structural and Foundation Failures August 2-4. and Yu. 4. C. 2004. Ng. 717-722. pp. N. Y. Shanmugam.H. Engineering Structures 24(2002).. 2. N. Behaviour of Composite Haunch Beam.H. Proceeding of the Fifth Pacific Structural Steel Conference. South Korea. Y.E..E.

- 02 Chapter 1Uploaded bykukadiya127_48673372
- 850KL.revised.13.12.2010.annularUploaded bygyan_th9229
- Discussion Design Example for Beams With Web OpeningsUploaded byrmartinson8
- 3 BucklingUploaded byganesh_withucad
- 1569_ch32Uploaded byKarthik Krish
- GantryUploaded byNikhil Poriya
- Shells - Flexural Properties of Thin Reinforced Concrete Members. - Hayman - 1978Uploaded byheidyhelmy
- Chapter Two.pdfUploaded byjust me
- Structural DesignUploaded bygutmont
- LVL Hip Rafter DesignUploaded byDavid Shanks 1
- ijsrp-p0880Uploaded bySeifeldin Ali Marzouk
- CASE Transmission Line TowersUploaded bychrisvarilla
- 8 Multi-Storey Frames_2017Uploaded bynaresh
- Report 1Uploaded byAyas Ashraf
- 5-UnrestrainedBeamUploaded bybsitler
- Naughty CatsUploaded bykhayat
- 34B.docxUploaded byJamie Schultz
- att_1319.pdfUploaded byblog22finder
- 3 2 4 a beamanalysisshortcutstkUploaded byapi-272705534
- Examples PictureUploaded byRohitMadke
- intzetankdesign-170211222454Uploaded byVishwanath Kr
- Bat Temper PDFUploaded byMoussa Rili
- Ajc_Q_2015Uploaded bydebabrata_nag
- Seismic Design of Steel Special Moment FramesUploaded byahumanbeing108
- Seismic Design of SMFsUploaded bysbayegan8
- Wk1_2_BeamsUploaded byLisa Yeoh
- AISC_coldformed Tubulars & Connections 2000Uploaded byvenezuelan
- TAbles - Bending Moments Shear Forces and Deflection TAblesUploaded byikirby77
- Beam Design127Uploaded bydhruvgoku
- Parametric Instability of an Elastically Restrained Cantilever BeamUploaded byBreno Campos Baroni

- cerere cuUploaded bystarsplesh
- Sarpante standardizate.pdfUploaded bystarsplesh
- PsbUploaded bystarsplesh
- DTOE.pdfUploaded bystarsplesh
- _7 Drawing in ExcelUploaded bystarsplesh
- Det Pcr Stas 3300Uploaded bystarsplesh
- Effe 2 15828 Effe2 Cosuri de Fum CeramiceUploaded bystarsplesh
- IpeUploaded bystarsplesh
- DTOE 1Uploaded bystarsplesh
- Linterp 101 Rev1 Interpolare Liniara.1Uploaded bystarsplesh
- EC1-CalcsUploaded bystarsplesh
- Energiebau_CorporateFolder_Web.pdfUploaded bystarsplesh
- Pasii de Accesare a Fondului de Garantare a Creditului RuralUploaded bystarsplesh
- 1 - ANSAMBLU MONTAJUploaded bystarsplesh
- MX-2310U_20140530_155123.pdfUploaded bystarsplesh
- Fire ResistanceUploaded bystarsplesh
- TAFE Stair Text BookUploaded bystarsplesh
- DiagramsUploaded bystarsplesh
- 1. Anchor Bolt Design - Good BookUploaded bystarsplesh
- testo 340 Instruction Manual.pdfUploaded bystarsplesh
- Naca Tn 3781 Buckling of Flat PlatesUploaded bystarsplesh
- Green Building Guidelines Meeting the Demand for Low-EnergyUploaded bystarsplesh
- Plates and ShellsUploaded bystarsplesh
- Shear Buckling AnalysisUploaded bystarsplesh
- NS8-2beamdiagramsUploaded bystarsplesh
- Rigidizari inimaUploaded bystarsplesh
- NS8-2beamdiagramsUploaded bystarsplesh
- Concrete Basics-Guide to Steel FibresUploaded bystarsplesh
- Topic11-SeismicDesignofReinforcedConcreteStructuresUploaded bystarsplesh