You are on page 1of 52

Design of Composite Steel-Concrete

Structures to Eurocode 4
- Some Basic Concepts
Chiew Sing-Ping
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Nanyang Technological University, SINGAPORE
10 April 2015

Scope of Presentation
Design codes
Materials
Composite columns
Composite beams
Composite slabs

Design Codes for Composite Structures


Effective 1 April 2015

Eurocode 1
- for loadings
Eurocode 2
- for concrete properties and some
of the concrete related checks
(such as longitudinal shear)
Eurocode 3 (many Parts)
- for construction stage, design of
pure steel beam and profiled steel
sheeting
Eurocode 4 Part 1-1
- general rules of buildings
Eurocode 4 Part 1-2
- for the structural fire design

Superceded (valid till 31 March 2015)

BS 6399
- for loadings
BS 5950-1
- for construction stage, design of pure
beam
BS 5950-6
- for design of profiled steel sheeting
BS5950-3.1
- for design of composite beam
BS5950-4
- for design of composite slab
BS 5400-5
- for design of composite column
BS 5950-8
- for structural fire design
3

Design Safety Factors


Eurocodes
Load safety factors

Structural steel
Material
safety Concrete
factors

Reinforcement

1.35 Gk + 1.5 Qk

British Standards
1.4 Gk + 1.6 Qk (BS5950)
1.2 Gk + 1.5 Qk (BS5400-5)

1.0

1.0 (BS5950)
1.05 (BS5400-5)

1.5

1.5

1.15

1.15

Material Strength
Concrete and steel strengths in EC4 and BS5950
BS5950

EC4

Normal

C30 C50

C20/25 C60/75

Light weight

C25 C40

LC20/22 LC60/66

355 N/mm2

460 N/mm2

Concrete

Structural steel
Cube strength

Cylinder strength / Cube strength

The ranges are narrower compared to EC2 (C12/15 C90/105) and EC3
( 690 N/mm2) because of more limited knowledge and experience in
composite members with very high concrete and steel strengths.

Concrete Strength
One of the most noticeable differences in Eurocodes is the way
concrete strength is specified throughout.

In British Standards,
the cube strength fcu is used.

In Eurocodes,
the cylinder strength fck is used.

BS
Cube strength
25 N/mm2

Will different
strength gives
different
resistance ?

EC
Cylinder strength
20 N/mm2

Converting from
the concrete
strength to
equivalent plastic
stress block

BS: 0.45 fcu = 0.4525 = 11.25 N/mm2


EC: 0.85 fck/c= 0.8520/1.5 = 11.33 N/mm2
No difference!
7

Steel Strength
EC3 has additional ductility requirements compared to
BS5950 in terms of stress ratio, % elongation and strain
ratio.
Normal strength steel

high strength steel

fu/fy 1.10

fu/fy 1.05 (EC3-1-12)

Elongation at failure not


less than 15%

fu/fy 1.10 ( UK NA to EC3-1-12)

u 15y
stain

y is the yield

Elongation at failure not less


than 10%
u 15 y

Problem
Some product standards only have requirements on the nominal yield
and tensile strengths, or their minimum values. The stress ratio calculated
according to these nominal values cannot comply with the EC3 ductility
requirement. Also, % elongation cannot comply. Refer to BC1 for
guidance on minimal requirements and compliance under SS NA.
Grade

Nominal yield
strength (MPa)

Nominal tensile
strength (MPa)

Stress ratio

G500

500

520

1.04

G550

550

550

1.00

AS 1595

CA 500

500

510

1.02

EN 10326

S550GD

550

560

1.02

ISO 4997

CH550

550

550

1.00

Standard
AS 1397

AS 1397: Steel sheet and strip hot-dip zinc-coated or aluminium/zinc-coated


AS 1595: Cold-rolled, unalloyed, steel sheet and strip
EN 10326: Continuously hot-dip coated strip and sheet of structural steels
ISO 4997: Cold-reduced carbon steel sheet of structural quality

Profiled Steel Sheeting


Most types of profiled steel sheeting are manufactured from
G500/G550 steel in accordance with AS1397.

10

Headed Stud Shear Connector


In BS 5950, the resistances of headed studs in solid slab
are given for various combinations of height, diameter and
concrete strength but the physics behind these numbers are
not explained.

In EC4, the resistance is expressed in two equations


governed by the strength of concrete and steel.

11

Characteristic Resistance Qk of Headed Studs in


Normal Concrete (BS 5950-3.1 Table 5)
Dimensions of headed stud shear
connectors

Characteristic strength of
concrete (fcu)

Nominal shank
diameter
(mm)

Nominal
height
(mm)

As-welded
25
height
N/mm2
(mm)

25

100

95

146

154

161

168

22

100

95

119

126

132

139

19

100

95

95

100

104

109

19

75

70

82

87

91

96

16

75

70

70

74

78

82

13

65

60

44

47

49

52

30
35
N/mm2 N/mm2

40
N/mm2

12

Design Resistance of Headed Studs in Solid


Concrete Slab (EC4)
EC4 calculates the resistance as the minimum of two equations,
shown here as (1) and (2).
PRd

PRd

0.8 f u d 2 4

0.29 d 2

f ck Ecm

(1)

0.2 sc 1
d

(2)

The two equations represent the 2 possible failure modes:


(i) failure in the shank of headed stud and (ii) failure in concrete.

13

steel failure

Failure in the headed stud

Push-out Test Specimen

concrete
crushes

Failure in concrete

14

Comparison of Characteristic Resistances in


various Design Codes
Characteristic resistance of shear stud, PRk (kN)
Headed shear studs embedded
in solid concrete slab of
normal weight concrete

Characteristic strength of concrete (N/mm2)


25

30

35

40

BS5400: Part 5: 2005

90

100

104

109

BS5950: Part 3.1: 2010

95

100

104

109

81.0

92.1

100.6

102.1

EC4: Part 1.1: 2004


Notes:

Nominal shank diameter = 19mm


Nominal height = 100mm while as-welded height = 95mm

EC4 leads to a 17% reduction of the characteristic resistance.

15

Characteristic Resistance of Stud (EC4 and BS5950)


160
140
BS (d=22mm, h=100mm)

120

EC (d=22mm, h=100mm)

PR k (kN)

BS (d=19mm,h=100mm)

100

EC (d=19mm, h=100mm)
BS ( d=16mm, h=75mm)

80

EC (d=16mm, h=75mm)

60
40

20
0
25

30

35

40

45

50

Concrete strength (N/mm2)


Note: the differences are larger for smaller stud diameters
16

In general, the resistance of headed stud shear connectors


determined by EC4 is lower than BS5950.

more headed studs are needed in EC4 design !

17

Design Resistance of Headed Studs in


Composite Slab
The design resistance of headed stud connector in composite
slab with profiled steel sheeting is more complex than in a solid
slab. It is influenced by the following factors:
The direction of the ribs relative to direction of span of the
composite beam;
The mean breadth b0 and depth hp of profiled steel sheeting;
The diameter d and height hsc of the headed shear stud;
The number nr of the headed studs in one trough;
Whether or not a headed stud is central within a trough.

18

Reduction Factor kt
Design shear resistance is taken as the resistance in a solid slab
multiplied by the reduction factor kt

hsc

hP

hp/2

hsc

b0

hp

b0

EC4:
BS5950-3.1:

0.7 b0 hsc
kt
1 kt,max

nr hp hp

The coefficient is 0.85 and 0.6 for re-entrant trough profiles


and 0.63 and 0.34 for open trough profiles

For the EC4 these values are about 17% lower than the BS for re-entrant
profiles, but about 40% higher than the BS for open trough profiles.
19

Upper Limit kt,max for the Reduction Factor kt


Generally, most profiled sheet sheeting is designed such that their limiting
value dominates, so the reduction factor is independent of the geometry

profiled
steel
sheeting

Re-entrant
trough

Open
trough

Number of stud
connectors per
trough

nr=1
nr=2
nr=1
nr=2

Thickness t
of sheet
(mm)
1.0
>1.0
1.0
>1.0
1.0
>1.0
1.0
>1.0

EC4

BS 5950-3.1

Stud not exceeding


20mm in diameter and
welded through
profiled steel sheeting
0.85
1.0
0.70
0.8
0.85
1.0
0.70
0.8

Stud not
exceeding
19mm in
diameter
1.0
0.8
0.82
0.45

For open trough profiles, the reduction factor in EC4 BS5950


For re-entrant trough profiles, the reduction factor in EC4 BS5950
20

Characteristic resistance of shear stud, PRk (kN)


Headed shear studs in
composite slab with profiled
steel sheeting
BS5950: Part 3:
2010

25

30

35

40

Re-entrant

95

100

104

109

Open trough

77.9

82

85.3

89.4

68.9

75.5

85.5

86.8

EC4: Part 1.1: 2004


Notes:

Characteristic strength of concrete fcu


(N/mm2)

Nominal shank diameter = 19mm


Nominal height = 100mm while as-welded height = 95mm

nr=1

The resistance of shear stud in composite slab determined in EC4 is up


to 27% lower than that given in BS 5950.

21

Application of Composite Column

22

Top-Down Construction

Kingposts (supporting the roof) which are part of the barrette


piles installed during the foundation stage

23

Installation of a kingpost into the barrette pile

24

KingPost in column

Excavation for starter


bars
Install starter bars

Casting column head


25

Column Design Approach

Cross section resistance (yielding)

Resistance to compression
Resistance to moment
Reduced moment resistance under compressive force, i.e.
interaction between compression and bending

Member buckling resistance

Axial buckling resistance


Reduced moment resistance under compressive force, i.e.
interaction between compression and bending
F

LBA

Fcr

GNIA
Types of elastic analysis
and design
e

26

Simplified Method (EC4 Clause 6.7.3.4)


Design Concepts

Axial
compression

Design based on the


EC3 buckling curves
(similar to pure steel column)

Design based on second-order


analysis with equivalent member
Imperfection (simplified method)
Resistance of
member in
combined
compression
and bending

Design based on second order


analysis with equivalent member
Imperfection (simplified method)

e0

e0

27

Axial Compression Resistance


Compression resistance of composite column

N pl,Rd Aa f yd Ac f cd As fsd

steel

concrete

reinforcement

f yk / a

f ck / c

fsk / s
28

Axial Buckling Resistance


N Ed
1.0
N pl,Rd
The buckling reduction factor
(EC3 approach)

Plastic resistance

1.0

1.0

0.5 1 - 0.2

N pl,Rk
N cr

x
2

Euler buckling

0.0

1.0

2.0

29

Buckling Curve - EC3

30

Buckling Curve EC4


Cross-section

Axis of
buckling

Buckling curve

y-y

z-z

y-y

z-z

s 3%

any

3% < s 6%

any

Limits

Concrete encased section


Partially concrete encased
section
Concrete filled circular and
rectangular hollow sections

S235 - S460

For steel column, the buckling curve is related to steel section and steel
strength.
For composite column, the buckling curve is related to the cross-section.
The strength of steel has little influence on the buckling curve.

31

Example - Comparison of Design Approach


Design based on
EC3 buckling
curve

Buckling curve

Design based on EC4


simplified approach second order analysis &
member imperfection

Member
imperfection
Resistance of
axial
compression
Comparison
NRd(X) / NRd(e0)

NEd

L/200
N Rd () = 4320 kN

e0

N Rd (e0) = 4108 kN
1.05

NEd

Note: design based on the use of member imperfection e0 leads to


a maximum difference of 5% in comparison with design based on
the EC3 buckling curve approach.
Design data:
fy=355N/mm2, fck=25N/mm2, fsk=500N/mm2,
Cross-section: 350mm350mm, steel section: 254254 UC73.
Column length: 5.0m, 4 bars of 20mm diameter

32

Example - Comparison of Design Approach


Design based on EC3
buckling curve approach
N Rd( )

NRd( ) = Npl,Rd

2 -

M Ed,max = k NRd(e0 ) e0

N pl,Rk

M Ed,max M M pl,Rd

1.0

0.5 1 - 0.2

Design based on EC4


simplified approach
N Rd (e0 )

The maximum resistance can be


obtained by:

kNRd(e0 ) e0 = M M pl,Rd
=

N cr

Npl,Rd

Tedious approach !

NRd(e0)
Npm,Rd

N pl,Rd -N Rd (e0 )
N pl,Rd -N pm,Rd

M
Mpl,Rd

Second order effect factor k:

Easier approach !

k=

1
1- N Rd (e0 ) /Ncr,eff

N cr,eff =

Mpl,Rd

2 (EI )ef,II
L2cr
33

Resistance of Members in combined


Compression and Bending
The EC3 buckling curve approach can be adopted for
composite column under axial compression, however, this
approach is not suitable for composite column subjected to
axial compression and bending moment.
In design of slender RC column, an accidental eccentricity of
the axial load in the column is introduced to calculate the
maximum moment at mid-height of the column.
Similar to slender RC column, equivalent initial bow
imperfections (member imperfections) are used in the design of
composite column for simplification.

34

Bending Moment due to Member Imperfection

NEd

e0

For the member imperfection e0 caused by the


design axial load NEd on a composite column,
there will be a bending moment of NEde0.

The design bending moment for the composite


column length considered both second-order
effects of end moment and imperfection is given
by:

M Ed.max k1M Ed k2 N Ed e0
NEd

k1, k2 are the factors of second order effects


related to end moment ratio

k=
1- N Ed /N cr,eff
35

Member Imperfections for Composite Column


Cross-section
Concrete encased section
y
z

Partially concrete encased


Section
y
z
Circular and rectangular
hollow section
y

z
Circular hollow section with
additional I-section
y

Partially encased H section


with crossed H section
y

Axis of
buckling

Buckling
curve

Member
imperfection (e0)

y-y

L/200

z-z

L/150

y-y

L/200

z-z

L/150

y-y

L/300

z-z

L/200

y-y

L/200

z-z

L/200

any

L/200

z
36

Improvement in the Design of Column in


Combined Compression and Bending
Compared to EC4 (1994), the simplified method for
composite columns in EC4 (2004) was improved using
second order analysis and equivalent member (initial bow)
imperfection which takes into account the effects of residual
stresses and geometrical imperfections.
Introducing initial bow imperfections into the simplified
method for composite columns, the scope of the simplified
method can be extended to sway frames.

37

k1M Ed

(a) EC4: 1994

M Ed
M
M pl,Rd

The influence of imperfection is taken


into account indirectly in the interaction
curve. The factor d is reduced by a
relevant amount to account for the
moment due to the member
imperfection.

k1M Ed k2 NEd e0

M Ed, max

d M pl,Rd

(b) EC4: 2004

The member imperfection can be taken


into account in the global analysis and
hence it is not necessary to allow for
the imperfection in the analysis of the
interaction curve.
38

Design of Composite Beam


Nc,f
Np

Npl,a

The concrete slab works best in compression while the steel section
works best in tension; hence, a large moment resistance is generated
as a force couple.
Resistance mobilization in both the concrete slab and the steel section
is limited by the shear connection along the concrete interface.

39

Failure Modes of Composite Beam


IV

IV

I-I
II-II
III-III
IV-IV
V-V

resistance to sagging moment and vertical shear


resistance to hogging moment and shear and M-V interaction
shear connection @ the steel concrete interface
lateral torsional buckling
Longitudinal shear of the concrete flange

40

Lateral Torsional Buckling Resistance


In BS5950-3.1, no equation is provided to calculate the
lateral torsional buckling resistance of continuous composite
beam under hogging moment over the internal support.
When checking LTB, the methods given in BS5950-1
(design of steel beam) is supposed to be used.
In EC4, the restraint of slab is taken into account compared
with steel beam in EC3.

41

BS5950-3.1

EC4

M b pb Sx

M b, Rd LT M Rd

Where pb is determined by TB

With:

LT

TB =nt uvt

4a /hs
vt =

2
2
1+ 2a /hs +0.05 /x

0.5

LT LT
2
LT

M Rk
M cr

LT

M cr kcC4 / L Ga I at ks L2 / 2 Ea I afz

1/2

M cr C1

Lateral-torsional
buckling

2 EI z I w
L2cr

L2cr GIT
+ 2

EI
z
z

(EC4)

0.5

(EC3)

EC4

EC3

BS5950-3.1

EC4/BS
Ratio

EC4/EC3
Ratio

546 kNm

531 kNm

479 kNm

1.14

1.03
42

Elastic Critical Moment

Inverted- U frame ABCD resisting lateral-torsional buckling

In this approach, the elastic critical moment Mcr is determined using the
so-called continuous inverted U-frame model.
The model given in EC4 takes into account the lateral displacement of the
bottom flange causing bending of the steel web and the rotation of the top
flange that is resisted by bending of the concrete slab.

M cr kcC4 / L Ga I at ks L /
2

E I

a afz

1/2

43

Composite Slab

Trapezoidal
Open
Trough (Trapezoidal)

Re-entrant

Possible modes of failure:

Shear failure at end support


Moment failure near mid-span region
Debonding within longitudinal shear span along the interface between
concrete slab and decking, i.e. shear bond failure critical
44

Longitudinal Shear
How can concrete stick to profiled sheeting after bending?
How reliable is the shear bond along the interface between
concrete and profiled sheeting ?
Surface bonding due to chemical reaction
- non ductile failure, hence not so reliable.
Mechanical interlocking due to indentations or
embossments in the profiled sheeting or end anchorage
- ductile failure with rational provision, hence more
reliable.

45

Longitudinal Shear

End slip

Cracking

Test setup

46

m-k Method
BS5950-4:

EC4:

Vl,Rd

bd p mAp

vs bLs

m= 172.45
k= 0.2491

Bs ds mr Ap
Vs
kr

1.25 Bs Lv

f cu

Concrete
strength

m= 163.26
k= 0.0312

47

Comparison of Longitudinal Shear


EC4

BS5950-4

Short span Long span Short span Long span


m

172.5

163.3

0.2491

0.0312

Shear-bond
resistance
Vl,Rd (kN)
Test

79.3

Short span

60.1

81.2 kN

74.3

Long span

56.2

61.6 kN

BS5950 provides a more conservative value for longitudinal shear resistance

48

Vertical Shear
BS 5950-4

EC4

Vv,Rd CRd,c k 1001 fck k1 pc bw dp

Vv bb dsvc
1/3

0.79 100 As 400 f cu


vc =

m bv d d 25
1/ 4

1/3

1/3

Vv,Rd,min vmin k1 cp bw dp
vmin 0.035k 3/2 fck1/2

BS 5950-4

EC4

118.7kN

107.8 kN

Experiment
153.6 kN

EC4 provides a more conservative value for vertical shear resistance

49

Punching Shear
BS 5950-4

EC4

Vp Critical perimeter Ds -Dp vc

Vp,Rd Cp d p vRd
vRd CRd,c k 100 1 f ck

1/3

1/3

0.79 100 As 400 f cu


vc =

m bv d d 25
1/ 4

1/3

vmin

vmin 0.035k 3/2 fck1/2

Critical perimeter = 4 Ds -Dp +4ds +4 length of load area Cp 2 hc 2 bp 2hf 2 ap 2hf 2dp 2hc

BS 5950-4
108kN

EC4
139 kN

Experiment
186 kN

BS5950-4 provides a more conservative value for vertical shear resistance

50

Conclusions
1. Composite members with high strength steel ( S460) and
concrete ( C60/75) outside the scope of EC4. Can refer to
BCA/SSSS design guide for S550 steel and C90/105
concrete for CFT members.
2. Common grades of profiled steel sheeting cannot meet
EC3 ductility requirements in terms of stress ratio (fu/fy)
and %elongation after fracture. Design strength will have
to be downgraded. Refer to BC1 design recommendations.
3. The resistance of headed stud shear connectors is
generally lower in EC4 compared to BS5950; BC1 adopts
EC4 design resistance values.
4. For composite columns, the EC4 buckling curves are
different compared to EC3 due to contribution of concrete.
Unlike EC3, no special consideration for composite column
with S460 steel.
51

Conclusions
5. The simplified design approach using second order
analysis and equivalent member imperfection without any
need for member buckling resistance check is much
easier for composite column in combined compression
and bending moment. Approach is more similar to EC2
concrete column design.
6. EC4 provides guidance for lateral-torsional buckling check
for continuous composite beams taking into account the
beneficial effect provided by the concrete slab, i.e. the socalled inverted U-frame method.
7. EC4 provides clear guidance for testing & development of
composite slab system using profiled steel sheeting.
Existing m and k values from BS5950 cannot be used
directly in EC4 composite slab design.
52