Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1268–1278

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Experimental study of bonded steel concrete composite structures

L. Bouazaoui, G. Perrenot, Y. Delmas, A. Li ∗
Groupe Mécanique, Matériaux et Structures, UFR Sciences, Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne, Moulin de la Housse, BP 1039, 51687 Reims Cedex, France

Received 20 April 2006; accepted 1 November 2006

Abstract

This paper deals with the experimental analysis of the mechanical behaviour of bonded steel–concrete composite structures. The steel girder
and the concrete slab are assembled by adhesives. The effect of the main parameters, such as the adhesive nature and the irregular thickness of the
adhesive joint, on mechanical performance and ultimate load is studied. Two adhesives are used in this work. The results show that the connection
between the steel girder and the concrete slab ensured by epoxy adhesive is perfect and without any slip in the steel–concrete interface. In the
case of the composite beam interface ensured by polyurethane, the connection is flexible. The influence of the variation in adhesive thickness,
2 mm in the transverse direction and 4 mm in the longitudinal direction, on the mechanical behaviour and ultimate force is not important. The first
cracks in the concrete slab appear in the transverse direction. The experimental results show that it is possible to realise a steel concrete composite
structure bonded by adhesive.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Composite beam; Concrete slab; Steel girder; Adhesive; Strain; Mechanical behaviour

1. Introduction metallic connection by a bonded connection makes it possible

A steel–concrete mixed structure consists of a concrete
slab and a steel girder connected generally by means of
metallic connectors to the steel girder. The objective of this
assembly is to combine high tensile strength of the steel and
high compressive strength of the concrete. In this way, the
steel–concrete composite beam is stiffer and stronger than a
steel girder or concrete slab alone.
One of the most significant problems for the steel–concrete
mixed structures is the shear strength in the steel–concrete
interface. This problem is currently solved by the presence of
shear stud connectors that ensure a sound connection between
the steel girder and the concrete slab. These connectors are
generally welded on the surface of the steel girder, which can
degrade the performance of steel.
The connection mode between the concrete slab and the steel
girder is important for the durability and mechanical behaviour
of the steel–concrete mixed bridges. The use of a prefabricated
concrete slab, instead of fresh concrete on the steel girder
surface, is particularly interesting. The replacement of the
∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +33 326918711.
E-mail address: alex.li@univ-reims.fr (A. Li).
to decrease the appearance of shear stress concentration and to
obtain a continuous transfer of the efforts between the concrete
and the steel. This is due to the fact that for the bonded
steel–concrete composite beam, the bonded surface of materials
is much larger than that connected by welded shear studs. Other
advantages of the bonded composite structure are:
– Bonded steel–concrete composite structure is lighter.
– It is possible to eliminate the welding of the shear studs thus
avoiding deterioration of the steel girder.
– The adhesives used as connections are generally imperme-
able. They ensure effective protection against corrosion for
the steel girder.
– The possibility of used precast concrete slabs instead of fresh
concrete. It is very interesting for the mixed construction
industry: facilitating employment, gain of time, insured
quality and mechanical strength of the composite structure.
However, the collage technique needs the preparation of a
substrate surface and this operation is in general expensive. It
should also be stated that tensile and peeling strengths of the
adhesive are rather low.
The steel–concrete mixed beams assembled by metallic
connectors are the subject of much research [1–4], whereas the
bonded composite steel–concrete beams are little studied. The

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0143-974X/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.11.002
 L. Bouazaoui et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1268–1278
Fig. 1. Section of the composite beams P1 , P2 , P4 (left figure) and P3 (right figure).
first experiments on the bonded composite beams were carried
out at the beginning of the Sixties [5]. Miklofsky compared
a bonded composite beam with the mixed composite beam
connected by the shear steel studs. These beams were prepared
by directly depositing the fresh concrete on the epoxy adhesive,
not hardened, on the steel beam surface. These tests showed
that the ruin of the mixed beams occurred by the crushing
of the concrete, whereas the ruin of the bonded composite
beams occurred due to the failure of the connection with brutal
separation between the concrete slab and the steel beam.
In 1963, Kriegh et al. [6,7] studied the process of bonding
aggregates with the steel beam. The connection width was
reduced so that the failure occurred before the yield of steel
beam. The results indicated that all the beams were broken by
the failure of the connection. They proposed then to ensure the
connection between the steel beam and the concrete by means
of a layer of aggregates bonded on the steel beam surface.
At the beginning of the 1970s, Hick and Baar [8] explored
bonded composite beams. Mechanical treatment on the steel
and concrete surfaces had been applied. For their system, the
structural failure occurred by shearing in the concrete slab
near the adhesive joint. Hertig [9] studied also three different
assembly processes. In the first system, the concrete slab was
flowed on the steel girder surface, where aggregates were
deposited on the epoxy mortar. The second system consisted
in bonding a prefabricated concrete slab with a steel girder
by the help of fresh mortar. For the third system, the concrete
was flowed directly onto the fresh mortar which covered the
steel surface. The results showed that the first system was
deformable; it enabled them to foresee the rupture of the
composite beam by great deformations. The second system was
the least resistant. The third system was most resistant but also
most fragile.
Burkhardt [10] simulated the behaviour of the composite
beams using a mathematical model. The author determined the
distribution of the tangential stress in adhesive joints along
the beams length subjected to concentrated and uniformly
distributed loading. The study proposed a calculation value of
shear stresses in the case of the limit states for the three types
of connection.
The present work concerns the bonded steel–concrete
composite beam. The composite beam is composed of a
1269
precast concrete slab and a steel girder connected by means
of an adhesive joint. The objective of this study is to analyse
the mechanical behaviour of the composite structure. The
experimental program was carried out in order to determine the
influence of some parameters, such as the adhesive’s nature and
the irregularity of thickness of adhesive joints in transverse and
longitudinal directions. The failure mode and the distribution
of stress in the transverse, longitudinal and vertical directions
are also discussed in this paper. The bonded steel–concrete
composite structure was designed to have the maximum shear
stress in the adhesive joint. The composite structure is in an
unfavourable condition in order to determine the performance
of the adhesive. It is useful to note that the failure of bonded
composite structure begins from the yielding of the steel girder,
and not from the failure of the adhesive joint.
2. Experimental programme
2.1. Test structures
A total of four steel concrete composite beams, consisting of
one precast concrete slab and one steel girder, have been tested.
The geometry of the composite beams is shown in Figs. 1
and 2. The concrete slab and the steel girder were directly
connected by means of an adhesive joint. Each of the beams
was 3480 mm long, simply supported on a span of 3300 mm.
The concrete slabs of all composite beams consisted of three
elements of 1160 mm long, and each element had an overall
thickness of 70 mm and width of 350 mm. The reinforced
concrete slab consists of four steel bars of diameter 6 mm along
the longitudinal direction and eighteen steel bars of diameter
6 mm along the transverse direction. The steel girder is an IPE
220 with a height of 220 mm and width of 110 mm (Fig. 1).
For the composite beam denoted P1 , the connection between
steel girder and the concrete slab was ensured by an adhesive
having a rigid behaviour, and the composite beam denoted P2
was connected by an adhesive having a flexible behaviour. The
adhesive thickness of the two beams P1 and P2 were identical,
3 mm.
For a steel concrete composite bridge, it is difficult to have a
regular thickness of the concrete slab and the steel girder. This
is why the influence of the variation of adhesive joint thickness
1270 L. Bouazaoui et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1268–1278
(a) Beams P1 , P2 and P3 .
Fig. 2. Geometry of bonded composite beam.
Table 1
Adhesive properties
Young’s Tensile or compressive
modulus strength
Concrete 36 600 68
Steel girder 205 000 470
Adhesive A 12 300 MPa 19.5 MPa
Adhesive B 80 MPa 9.2 MPa
on mechanical behaviour and the ultimate force of the bonded
composite structure were studied in this work. An irregularity
of the adhesive thickness from 3 to 5 mm in the transverse
direction (P3 ) (Figs. 1 and 2(a)) and from 3 to 7 mm in the
longitudinal direction (P4 ) (Fig. 2(b)) were voluntarily created,
contrary to the beams P1 and P2 , where the adhesive joints had
a regular thickness of 3 mm.
2.2. Materials
Concrete mix was designed to achieve a compressive
strength at 28 days of 60 MPa. The cement type used was
Portland Cement CEM I 52.5. The proportion of cement
was 400 kg/m3 . The rolled aggregates, silica smoke and one
high water reducer were also used in the concrete mix. The
modulus of elasticity of the concrete was determined by a
test on a cylindrical specimen, φ16 × 32 cm. The value
obtained was 36 600 MPa (Table 1). The average compressive
strength determined by tests on the cylindrical specimen was
68 MPa. The tensile strength obtained by bending tests on a
parallelepiped concrete specimen of dimensions 10×10×40 cm
was 5 MPa.
Tensile test coupons cut from the flanges and webs of the
steel beam were tested in order to obtain the steel’s material
properties. The tests were carried out in an MST 250 kN tensile
testing machine. The average values obtained from the test for
the modulus of elasticity and yield stress were 205 000 MPa
and 470 MPa, respectively. The ultimate tensile stress was
570 MPa. The yield stress of steel bar with reinforced concrete
slab obtained was 500 MPa.
Two adhesives were used in this work. One, denoted
adhesive A, was an epoxy resin which has a rigid behaviour
at the ambient temperature. This epoxy resin can offer a
good strength of adhesion but less flexibility. Its viscosity
allows direct application on the steel surface. Another, denoted
adhesive B, was a polyurethane adhesive with a flexible
behaviour at the ambient temperature, which was very flexible
but less resistant. Its almost liquid state made it possible to
(b) Beam P4 .
Ratio of
Poisson
0.28
0.30 Fig. 3. Position of LVDT.
0.34
0.38
allow injection on the surface of top flange of steel girder. The
properties of two adhesives are represented in Table 1.
The beams, denoted P1 , P3 and P4 , were connected by epoxy
adhesive A having the rigid behaviour. On the other hand, the
beam denoted P2 , was connected by polyurethane adhesive B
having the flexible behaviour.
2.3. Fabrication of test composite beams
The surface treatment was applied in order to eliminate any
agent and any particle such as dust, greases, solvent traces,
micro droplets, etc. This treatment can modify the chemical
nature of the surface and increase its surface energy or improve
the quality of the adhesion of substrates.
The concrete surface in contact with the adhesive was
sandblasted and then cleaned by a solvent. The surface of the
top flange of the steel girder was also sandblasted following
a covering by the primary adhesive. The role of the primary
adhesive is to protect steel against corrosion and increase the
surface energy.
One day after surface treatment, the adhesive was spread out
on the top surface of the steel flange along the length of the steel
girder. The thickness of the adhesive joint was 2 mm more than
the final thickness. After checking for the required thickness,
the precast concrete slabs were put upon the adhesive joint.
The remaining adhesive was immediately removed by a spatula.
Two days after the bonding operation, the instrumentation can
be carried out.
2.4. Instrumentation
Instrumentation was provided by means of Linear Variable
Differential Transformers (LVDT) and strain gauges for
measurements of vertical deflection, steel and concrete strains
at mid-span, along the length and height of the composite
beams and the slip between the steel girder and concrete slab.
For each beam, three interface slips, at mid-span, at quarter
lengths and the end of the composite beam were recorded
(Fig. 3).
 L. Bouazaoui et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1268–1278
(a) Longitudinal direction.
Fig. 4. Position of strain gauges.
Fig. 4 shows the location of strain gauges for the composite
beams. A total of 22 strain gauges were mounted on each
composite beam specimen. 17 strain gauges were placed in the
longitudinal direction (Fig. 4(a)) and 5 others in the transverse
direction (Fig. 4(b)). Fig. 4(a) shows that the strain gauges 11,
15, 19, 20 and 21 were installed on the bottom surface of top
flange, the strain gauges 14 and 18 on the bottom surface of
bottom flange, the strain gauges 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 on the surface
of reinforcement steel bar, and the others on the surface of the
web of the steel girder. The strain gauges 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were
installed on the surface of the reinforcement steel bar in the
transverse direction.
The readings from three LVDT and strain gauges were
recorded using a data acquisition system connected to a
personal computer. There, strain gauges were enabled to
analyse the evolution of the strains and stresses along the
length, height and width of the bonded composite beam and
the transmission of efforts between the concrete and the steel
girder through the adhesive joint.
A concentrated load was applied at the mid-span of the
beam. Before the actual test, a small preload of 20 kN was
applied on the bonded composite beam and removed gradually.
This operation was repeated in order to check the functioning of
the strain gauges and transducers and to ensure the composite
beam was properly seated on the supports. After ensuring
that all the instruments were working satisfactorily, the strain
gauges and transducers were initialised. The load was then
applied incrementally in stages of 5 kN to the composite beam
until the failure of beam.
3. Theoretical ultimate load
To obtain the maximum compressive strength of concrete
slabs and the maximum tensile strength of steel girders, the
plastic neutral axis should be situated near the steel–concrete
interface. In this condition, the shear stress is maximum in the
adhesive joint. It is considered that the steel beam has yielded
and the concrete is also in a critical situation. The theoretical
ultimate load of composite structure can be estimated by a
plastic model based on the following hypothesis:
1271
(b) Transverse direction.
• The connection between the concrete slab and the steel
girder is continuous and perfect.
• The steel and concrete reach their maximum strengths.
• The plane section remains plane for the entire cross-section
under bending.
• All fibres of steel beam yield and the stresses in these fibres
are equal to f y (where f y is the yield stress of steel).
• The distribution of normal stresses in compressive concrete
is uniform and the compressive strength equals to 0.85 f ck .
f ck is the compressive strength of concrete, measured at 28
days.
• The compressive strength of steel equals 2 f y .
• The tensile strength of the concrete, and the contribution of
the reinforced bar in the concrete slab are neglected.
Therefore, the plastic neutral axis position can be obtained
by comparing the tensile plastic force of steel Fs and the
compressive force of concrete Fc (Fig. 5) [11]. From the above
hypothesis, following formulas can be obtained:
Tensile force of steel girder:
Fs = f y As with steel beam area As . (1)
Maximum compressive force of concret1e:
Fc = 0.85h c bc f ck with concrete slab height h c
and width bc . (2)
In this work, the bonded steel–concrete composite beam was
designed such that the contribution of the adhesive joint to the
shear strength is maximum. Therefore, the relation Fc < Fs
and the position of plastic neutral axis situated in the flange of
steel beam should be satisfied. The distance y from the plastic
neutral axis to the top face of the concrete slab is obtained by
writing equilibrium equation as follows:
Fs = Fc + 2bs (y − h c − ea ) f y + Fa (3)
with ea = adhesive thickness and adhesive force Fa = f a bs ea .
And the plastic neutral axis is obtained by:
Fs − Fa − Fc
y= + h c + ea . (4)
2bs f y
1272 L. Bouazaoui et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1268–1278

Fig. 5. Plastic neutral axis.

(a) Beam P1 . (b) Beam P2 .

Photo 1. Failure modes of composite beam.

The plastic moment can be deduced as follows: 4. Results and discussions

 
hs + hc 4.1. Modes of failure
Mpl = Fs + ea
2
Photo 1 shows the failure modes of two bonded
   
hc ea + h c
− Fs y − − Fa . (5) steel–concrete composite beams P1 and P2 . It can be observed
2 2
that the two failure modes are different. In the case of the
Compared to the centre of the composite section, this moment composite beam P1 , the failure was incurred by the steel yield
of inertia of the homogenized composite section Im can be and the concrete’s crushing at mid-span (Photo 1(a)). The
estimated by failure of the composite beam was brutal and fragile, and
mainly due to bending. For the beam P1 , the adhesion between
Ic y 2 As Ac the steel girder and the concrete slab was good. The only
Im = Is + + m (6)
n n Am observed failure in the steel/concrete interface was near the
beam end (Photo 2(a)), which was probably due to the shock at
where Am = As + Ac /n; ym = ya + yb . Am : homogenized
the moment of failure. It was noted that although the adhesive
composite area, ym : height of composite beam; Is : moment
was in an unfavourable condition, subjected to a maximum
of inertia of steel section; Ic : moment of inertia of concrete
shear force, no cracks were observed in the adhesive joint.
section; h c = thickness of concrete slab; h = height of
On the other hand in the case of beam P2 , the
composite beam; As = steel beam section; Ac = concrete slab
failure appeared gradually by steel yielding, a great vertical
section; n = E s /E c .
displacement of the steel girder, followed by the shearing of
The ultimate load of the bonded steel–concrete composite the adhesive joint and the cracking of the concrete (Photo 1(b)).
structures is calculated by writing the plastic moment equal to There were not any cracks of adherence observed in the beam
the bending moment as follows: P2 (Photo 2(b)). However, a number of lateral cracks in the
concrete slab were observed. The steel beam was twisted near
Fu = 4Mpl /L . (7)
the mid-span after failure of the beam (Photo 3).
And the normal stress is The failure of beams P3 and P4 occurred in the same way
as that of the beam P1 (Photo 2(c) and Photo 2(d)). They were
σ = (Mpl /Im )y. (8) caused by steel yielding and concrete cracking. At the moment
 L. Bouazaoui et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1268–1278 1273

(a) Beam P1 . (b) Beam P2 .

(c) Beam P3 . (d) Beam P4 .

Photo 2. Steel–concrete interface after failure.

of failure, a great noise was heard. After the failure, it was

observed that there were big transverse cracks in the concrete
slab of the composite beam P3 , and big longitudinal cracks in
the concrete slab of the beam P4 . It should be noted that the
composite beam P3 was bonded by an adhesive having irregular
thickness in the transverse direction, and the composite beam
P4 by an adhesive having irregular thickness in the longitudinal
direction.

4.2. Ultimate load

Table 2 presents the experimental and theoretical ultimate

loads of the four bonded composite beams. It can be seen that
the values of the experimental ultimate loads of the beams P1 , Photo 3. Twist of steel top flange (P2 ).
P3 and P4 are, respectively, 13%, 16% and 6% higher than that
of the theoretical ultimate load. On the other hand, the value
Table 2
of the experimental ultimate load of the beam P2 is smallest,
Comparison between experimental ultimate loads Fue and theoretical ultimate
and 11% lower than that of the theoretical ultimate load. The loads Fut
ultimate load was only 185 kN because of the lower strength of
Composite beam Fue (kN) Fut (kN) (Fue − Fut )/Fue × 100
adhesive. This result confirms that the strength of the adhesive
plays a very significant role in the case of bonded composite P1 238 206 13.4
structures. The ultimate load of the bonded composite beam P2 185 206 −11.4
P3 246 206 16.3
depends directly on the adhesive’s properties and nature. P4 219 206 5.9
The beam P3 , bonded with an irregular thickness of adhesive
in the transverse direction (3 mm < thickness ea < 5 mm),
is most resistant. This result shows that the influence of the For the beam P4 , having an irregular thickness between
variation of adhesive thickness between 3 and 5 mm on the 3 and 7 mm in the longitudinal direction, the value of the
ultimate load of a banded composite beam is insignificant. experimental ultimate load is slightly higher than the theoretical
1274 L. Bouazaoui et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1268–1278
Fig. 6. Load–deflection curves.
value, and lower than the value of the beam P1 having a regular
thickness of adhesive. It means that the ultimate load of the
composite beam is little influenced by the variation of adhesive
thickness.
4.3. Deflection and maximum strain
The curves presented in Fig. 6 show the evolution of
the maximum deflection, measured on the bottom of bonded
composite beams and the steel girder at mid-span according to
the load. It can be seen that the rigidity of composite beams
is more than that of the steel girder. For the composite beams
P1 , P3 and P4 , the slope of the curves is about two times more
than that of steel beam. In the case of beam P2 , this slope is
about 50% more than that of the steel beam. The load–vertical
deflection curves show that the mechanical behaviour of
composite beams is significantly influenced by the adhesive’s
nature and slightly by the variation of adhesive’s thickness.
These composite beams have elasto-plastic behaviour. On the
other hand, using an adhesive having flexible behaviour, the
composite beam P2 has a significant plastic region before
failure, compared to the three other beams. The deflection of
beam P2 is important, and a local torsion of the steel girder is
observed at mid-span after failure (Photo 3). The behaviour of
the composite beam P2 can be compared with that of a mixed
beam connected by ductile stud shear connectors, contrary to
the other beams P1 P3 and P4 , which have a very small plastic
region.
It can also be observed from Fig. 6 that the maximum
deflecion is approximately 23 mm for the beams P1 , P3 and
P4 and 31 mm for the beam P2 . During the test on the beam P2 ,
the first cracks and their development following loading until
the failure of composite beam were clearly observed.
The load–strain curves measured by using strain gauge 14,
at the mid-span of beams, are plotted against the applied load
in Fig. 7. In this figure, it can be seen that the curves of the
beams P1 and P4 are almost identical. It indicates that the
steel–concrete composite beam connected by regular thickness
or irregular thickness of adhesive in longitudinal direction
(3–7 mm) have the same global behaviour. The influence of
the adhesive thickness variant in the longitudinal direction on
the behaviour of the beam beams is very weak. However, the
Fig. 7. Strain at mid-span of beam.
influence of the adhesive thickness variant in the transverse
direction from 3–5 mm is significant. It is also confirmed by
the load–strain curve that the composite beam connected by
adhesive having plastic behaviour has a great plastic region.
The difference between the slopes of four load–strain curves
is not important in the elastic regions. Fig. 7 shows that there is
a good agreement between the experimental load–strain curves
and the estimated curve in the elastic regions.
The slope change of the four load–strain curves is near a
strain value of 2300 µm/m. It is interesting to note that this
value corresponds well to the yield stress of the steel girder,
470 MPa.
4.4. Relative slip
Fig. 8 shows the evolution of the relative slip between the
concrete slab and the steel beam according to the applied load
for the beams P1 and P2 at three points of measurement: D1 ,
100 mm, D2 , 825 mm and D3 , 1550 mm from the mid-span
(Fig. 3). Due to the installation of the strain gauges at the
mid-span, the transducer D1 was installed at the location of
100 mm from the mid-span. The load–slip curves show that the
maximum slip is found at the beam end, recorded by transducer
D3 . The transducer D3 recorded the entity slip of the composite
beam.
On the other hand, the slope break of two curves, P1 and
P2 , is at the mid-span of the beams, points A and B (Fig. 8).
This slope break corresponds to the beginning of the yielding
of steel beam or the cracking of concrete at a load value of
approximately 160 kN in the case of beam P1 and 120 kN of
beam P2 .
It is obvious that the slip values are different between the two
bonded composite beams P1 and P2 . The slip value measured
does not exceed 0.035 mm for the beam P1 , whereas it reaches
2 mm for the beam P2 . It suffices to say that the slip of beam
P2 is significant. In the case of beams P3 and P4 , the load–slip
curves are similarl, with those obtained in the composite beam
P1 . The result indicates that the composite beams P1 , P3 and P4
are well connected by an epoxy resin having a perfect and rigid
connection. However, the beam P2 connected by an adhesive
polyurethane has partial connection.
 L. Bouazaoui et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1268–1278
(a) Beam P1 .
Fig. 8. Load–slip curves of beam P1 .
(a) Beam P1 .
Fig. 9. Load vs strain at the bottom of the top flange of steel beam.
4.5. Strain
Because of their similarity, Fig. 9 presents only the strain
evolution of the beams P1 and P2 according to the applied
load obtained by strain gauges 11, 15, 19, 20, 21 installed
on the bottom of the top flange of the steel beam (Fig. 4(a)).
The strain state along the composite beam length near the
steel–concrete interface was shown by these curves. It can be
seen that the strain evaluation obtained on the two beams is
very different. The maximum strain measured is at the mid-
span of the beam. However, the strain in beam P1 is tensile,
and in beam P2 it is compressive. On the beam P1 , beyond
approximate 500 mm from mid-span, the strain at the top flange
of the steel beam becomes compressive and the strain values are
small. The maximum compressive strain is less than 200 µm/m.
If Hooke’s law is applied, the compressive stress is just 41 MPa.
The strain at the beam end or near the support is negligible.
The maximum value of the strain measured in beam P1 was
1150 µm/m (J11). If Hooke’s law is applied, we can easily find
the maximum strain of steel beam by using this yield stress,
that is to say 2290 µm/m. The steel beam in this region does
not yield. Therefore, it is possible to indicate that the slope
1275
(b) Beam P2 .
(b) Beam P2 .
change of the curve obtained by strain gauge J11 is due to the
appearance of the first cracks in the concrete slab.
In the case of beam P2 , the total top flange of the steel beam
is in compression. The maximum strain is at the mid-span and
this value is 1700 µm/m, corresponding to a stress value of
350 MPa. Along the beam length towards the beam end, the
absolute strain value decreases incrementally and it is zero at
the beam end. The curve obtained by strain gauge J20 was not
completely determined. This curve stops at a load of 125 kN. It
can be seen again that the mechanical behaviour of the beam P2
is different from that of the beam P1 .
Fig. 10 shows the load–strain curves obtained by the five
strain gauges J6–J10 installed on the surface of reinforced
steel bars in the concrete slab, according to the applied load
(Fig. 4(a)). These curves give the evaluation of the strain
states in the concrete slab along the composite beam length.
It is obvious that all the strains obtained are negative. The
measured maximum strain is logically situated at the mid-
span of the composite beam, and the absolute strain value
decreases gradually towards the beam end. As in Fig. 9, the
strain value near the beam end can be negligible. It means that
there is no stress concentration in this region. For the beam
P2 , unfortunately the two strain gauges J6 and J10 did not
1276 L. Bouazaoui et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1268–1278
(a) Beam P1 .
Fig. 10. Load vs strain of reinforced steel bar in concrete slab.
function during the test. However, it can be observed that the
strains obtained in the beam P2 are once again very small. The
maximum strain value recorded by strain gauge J7 is less than
200 µm/m. The compressive strain recorded by strain gauge
J7 in beam P1 is 610 µm/m, which is three times more than
that in beam P2 . The maximum strain in beam P1 , recorded by
strain gauge J6, is 1500 µm/m. If it is known that the strain in
the concrete material is the same, the stress in concrete is then
55 MPa. This value is less than the concrete’s strength, 68 MPa.
The concrete in this region is not cracked along the length axis.
Fig. 11 shows the distribution of the strain measured on
the bottom surface of the top flange of steel beams P1 and
P2 , along the length axis of the composite beams. It is noted
that the strain gauge installed on the surface of the reinforced
steel bar (of the concrete slab) at mid-span was not in service
during the experimental test. The load Fs was used to denote the
load–strain curve obtained in the steel beams. The load Fc was
used to denote the load–strain curve obtained in the concrete
slabs. For the beam P1 , the distribution of strain in the concrete
slab along the length axis is continuous. The maximum strain
is at the mid-span and decreases towards the beam end. On the
other hand, the distribution of strain at the bottom surface of the
top flange of the steel beam is different. Along the composite
beam length, the strain is tensile at the mid-span of the beam,
and it decreases from the mid-span to the beam end. At 580 mm
from the mid-span, the strain is null. After this position, the
top flange of the steel beam is in compression. However, the
strain value is relatively small. The maximum value is less
than 200 µm/m. From these results, it can be said that there
is no danger at the beam end. The damage of the bonded steel
concrete composite beam is near the mid-span region.
Fig. 11(b) shows that the distributions of strain along the
length axis in beam P2 is not the same as compared that in
the beam P1 . The strain along the beam length in the top of
the steel flange is in compression. The maximum strain value
is relatively higher at the mid-span, −900 µm/m at a load
of 150 kN (Fig. 11(b)). More important, the steel beam was
subjected to the load unlike in beam P1 , under conditions of
the same loading. However, the strain in the reinforced steel bar
of the concrete slab is relatively small. It is obvious that the
distribution of strain is strongly influenced by the adhesive’s
(b) Beam P2 .
nature. The mechanical behaviour of the bonded steel–concrete
composite structure depends also on the adhesive’s nature.
Fig. 12 shows the variation of strain obtained by strain
gauges J1–J5 installed on the surface of reinforced steel bar
in the concrete slab along the width (Fig. 4(b)). It can be
seen that there are four regions of the load–strain curves. In
the first region, the strain increases linearly according to the
load. Then the strain increases quickly when the applied load
is stable. This region corresponds to the appearance of the
first cracks in the concrete slab. The corresponding loads are
140 kN for the beam P1 (Fig. 12(a)) and 25 kN for the beam P2
(Fig. 12(b)), respectively. In third region, the strain in transverse
direction increases once again linearly, according to the applied
load. However, the slopes of the curves are more important.
The increase of strain is stopped by the new cracks and the
development of cracks. In the last region, the strain increases
again quickly when the load is stable. This region corresponds
to the failure of composite beam.
These curves indicate clearly the position of the first cracks
in the concrete slab and the corresponding load. The first
cracks appeared in the concrete slab near the concrete–steel
interface. It can be seen from Fig. 12 that the cracks appeared
from the mid-span near the position of strain gauge J3, and
then propagated towards the two sides of the beam. The
corresponding load at the moment of the first cracks in the
concrete slab of beam P1 , is about six times more than that of
the beam P2 . The appearance of the first cracks in the beam P2
is at a weak load, just 25 kN. However the maximum values
recorded by the strain gauges are almost identical, 1500 µm/m
and 1600 µm/m in the beam P1 and P2 , respectively.
4.6. Position of neutral axis
Fig. 13 shows the distribution of strain along the beam
height measured by using the six strain gauges J25, J7,
J15–J18 (Fig. 4(a)), installed on the surface of steel girder
and concrete slab at 480 mm distances from the mid-span.
These distributions of strain make it possible to determine the
experimental neutral axis. It is noted that for the beams P1 , P3
and P4 , connected by epoxy adhesive, the distribution of strain
is linear according to the beam height. Transfer of the strain
 L. Bouazaoui et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1268–1278 1277

(a) Beam P1 . (b) Beam P2 .

Fig. 11. Distribution of strain along beam length from the mid-span.

(a) Beam P1 . (b) Beam P2 .

Fig. 12. Load–strain curves recorded by strain gauges installed on the steel bars in the concrete slabs.

between the concrete slab and the steel beam is continuous,
which confirms the assumption of a perfect connection between
the two materials. The concrete slab and the steel beam react
together as one element. This is not the case for the beam
P2 , bonded by polyurethane adhesive, where the distributions
of strain have a discontinuity at the steel–concrete interface
or the adhesive joint. This means that the two materials work
separately. The connection between the concrete slab and the
steel beam is partial.
Fig. 13 indicates that the experimental neutral axes of the
composite beams P1 , P3 and P4 are 188 mm, 192 mm and
185 mm, respectively. On the other hand, the position of the
experimental neutral axis of beam P2 is lower, just 140 mm
from the steel beam’s bottom. The origin of this difference
is due to the flexible behaviour of this bonded steel–concrete
composite beam, connected by polyurethane adhesive having a
low modulus of elasticity (80 MPa) and flexible behaviour.
5. Conclusion
The experimental results obtained in the work show that the
failure of bonded composite beams is caused by the steel girder
yield and the concrete slab cracks. In this type of composite
beam, there is no problem of adhesive. The adhesion strength
between the steel beam and the concrete slab is ensured. In
the case of the composite beam connected by polyurethane
adhesive, the beam’s failure is due to the vertical displacement
of the steel girder and the cracks in the concrete slab. The
ultimate strength and mechanical behaviour depends strongly
on the adhesive’s nature. In the case of the composite beams
bonded by polyurethane adhesive, the composite structure has
a great plastic region and the ultimate load is lower than that
obtained by theory. The slip between the concrete slab and
the steel beam, and the strains in the concrete and the steel
girder, are more significant than that obtained in the beam
bonded using epoxy adhesive. The composite beams bonded by
irregular thickness of adhesive in the transverse direction, from
3 to 5 mm, and longitudinal direction, from 3 to 7 mm, have
almost the same mechanical behaviour as the composite beams
having a regular thickness of adhesive in both directions. For
the composite beams P1 , P3 and P4 , the connection between the
steel beam and the concrete slab is perfect, and the failure of all
these beams occurred in the same way, i.e. by the yield of the
steel beam and the cracking of concrete at the mid-span of the
structure. The examination of the beams after failure shows a
good adhesion between the steel and concrete surfaces.
The experimental tests carried out in this study indicate
also that the bonded connection makes it possible to decrease
1278 L. Bouazaoui et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1268–1278
(a) Beam P1 .
(c) Beam P3 .
Fig. 13. Position of experimental neutral axis at 480 mm from the mid-span.
the appearance of stress concentrations in the steel–concrete
interface and to obtain a continuous transfer of effort between
the concrete and the steel materials. The appearance of the first
cracks in the concrete slab was found at the mid-span of the
beam in the transverse direction. The maximum stress is at the
mid-span, and the stress decreases towards the beam end. In the
steel–adhesive–concrete composite system, there is no problem
in the adhesive material. It is possible to realize a bridge or
footbridge by using such a bonded steel–concrete composite
structure.
Acknowledgement
The study was financially supported by Reseau Génie Civil
et Urbain of France.
References
[1] Chapman JC. Composite construction in steel and concrete. The
behaviour of composite beams. The Structural Eng 1964;42.
[2] Barnard PR, Johnson RP. Ultimate strength of composite beams. Proc Inst
Civil Eng 1965.
(b) Beam P2 .
(d) Beam P4 .
[3] Trouillet P. Comportement local de connecteurs acier/béton sollicités
au cisaillement étude bibliographique. Rapports des laboratoires. Série:
Ouvrages d’art OA-3; 1987.
[4] EUOROCODE 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures.
Europeen Committee for Standardisation; 1994.
[5] Miklofsky HA, Brpown MR, Gonsior MJ. Epoxy bending compounds as
shear connectors in composite beams. State of New York: Dept. of Public
Works, Eng. Res Series. RR.62-2; 1962.
[6] Krieg JD, Enderbrock EG. The use of epoxy resins in reinforced concrete-
static load tests. Part II. Eng. Res Laboratories, The University of Arizona;
1963.
[7] Krieg JD, Richard RM. Epoxy bonded composite T-beams for highway
bridges. Eng. Experiment Station, College of Engineering, The University
of Arizona; 1966.
[8] Hick F, Baar S. Structures métalliques collées. Station d’Essais et de
Recherches de la Construction Métallique. SERCOM. Belgique; 1972.
[9] Hertig PH, Perret A. Rapport d’Essais de trois types de liaisons acier-
béton à l’aide de mortiers époxys. Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de
Lausanne, Institut de la Construction Métallique; 1973.
[10] Burkhardt P, Hertig P, Aeschlimann HU. Expériences sur les poutres
mixtes en acier-béton liées à l’aide d’adhésifs époxydes. Matériaux et
constructions, No. 46; 1975, p. 261–77.
[11] Construction métallique et mixte acier-béton. APK. Eyrolles. Paris; 1996.