Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tabela de Bitolas Perfil Wcs
Tabela de Bitolas Perfil Wcs
in Composite Beam
Dennis Lam, M.ASCE,1 and Ehab El-Lobody2
Abstract: In composite beam design, headed stud shear connectors are commonly used to transfer longitudinal shear forces across the
steel–concrete interface. Present knowledge of the load–slip behavior and the shear capacity of the shear stud in composite beam are
limited to data obtained from the experimental push-off tests. For this purpose, an effective numerical model using the finite element
method to simulate the push-off test was proposed. The model has been validated against test results and compared with data given in the
current Code of Practices, i.e., BS5950, EC4, and AISC. Parametric studies using this model were preformed to investigate variations in
concrete strength and shear stud diameter. The finite element model provided a better understanding to the different modes of failure
observed during experimental testing and hence shear capacity of headed shear studs in solid concrete slabs.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:1(96)
CE Database subject headings: Composite beams; Connectors, mechanical; Pull-out resistance; Shear deformation; Finite element
method; Steel structures.
d2
PR = 0.8f u 共3兲
4
Eq. (2) represents the concrete failure around the connector and
Eq. (3) represents the shear failure of the shear connector.
Application of Load
A static concentrated load is applied at the center of the steel web
as shown in Fig. 4. Load is applied using the modified RIKS
algorithm available in the ABAQUS software. The basic of this
algorithm is the Newton method, in which the solution is obtained
Fig. 3. Finite element mesh of the model as a series of increments with iterations to obtain equilibrium
within each increment. The RIKS method is generally used to
predict unstable and nonlinear collapse of a structure. It uses the
load magnitude as an additional unknown and solves simulta-
direction. The web of the steel beam is divided into six elements
neously for loads and displacements. Therefore another quantity
along the X direction, one element in the Y direction, and one
must be used to measure the progress of the solution. ABAQUS
element in the Z direction.
uses the arc length along the static equilibrium path in load-
A basic observation by Jayas and Hosain (1987) suggested that
displacement space. An initial increment of displacement is given
the separation of the concrete behind the shear connector occurred
on the data line and the initial load proportionality factor is equal
even at a low load level. According to this observation, only the
to this initial increment using the automatic incremental scheme.
nodes in front of the stud, in the direction of loading, are con-
This initial increment will be adjusted if the increment fails to
nected with the surrounding concrete nodes with the other nodes
converge. From then on, the value of load after each increment is
of the stud detached from that of the surrounding concrete.
computed automatically. The solution ends either by specifying
the maximum value of the load or a maximum displacement value
Boundary Conditions at a specified degree of freedom. Because of the observation made
from the tests that there is little or no effect from the initial cycles,
For the application of the support conditions, all nodes of the
the initial cycles of loading were not carried out in the FE mod-
concrete slab in the opposite direction of loading (surface 1 in
eling.
Fig. 4) are restricted from moving in the X direction to resist the
compression load. All nodes along the middle of the steel beam
web (surface 2) are restricted from moving in the Z direction due Material Model of Concrete
to symmetry. All concrete nodes, stud nodes, steel beam flange
To model the behavior of the reinforced concrete slab in the push-
nodes, and steel beam web nodes that lie on the other symmetry
off test, concrete is treated as an elastic-plastic material as shown
surface (surface 3) are restricted from moving in the Y direction
in Fig. 5. The writers realized that no FE model could handle
because of symmetry as shown in Fig. 4.
unloading cycles with concrete due to cracking, and that the ob-
jective of this paper is to show that a simple FE model could
predict modes of failure of shear studs in composite slabs and
could replace expensive experimental testing procedures. This
model takes into account the inelastic behavior of the concrete
material. The option (* PLASTIC) in ABAQUS is used to specify
the plastic region of the material model for the elastic-plastic
materials that use the Mises yield surface. Maximum amount of
transverse reinforcement is assumed to ensure that tensile split-
ting of the concrete slab is prevented. The concrete behaves as a
linear-elastic material up to the yield stress and plasticity is ob-
tained when the yield stress is reached. Following the BS 8110
(BSI 1997), average values of yield strain, Young’s modulus of
concrete, and the yield stress can be calculated from the following
relations:
f yc = 0.8f cu 共5兲
Material Model of Headed Shear Stud The second mode of failure is that the stud connector was fully
yielded and no concrete failure is observed. This mode of failure
The shear stud material is of great importance in modeling the
is identified as the stud failure mode where the yield stress is
shear interaction between steel and concrete since the region
reached by the stud element while maximum concrete stress of
around the stud is a region of severe and complex stresses. The
the concrete element is not reached.
shear forces are transferred across the steel–concrete interface by
Finally, the third mode of failure is the combined failure of the
the mechanical action of shear connectors. To determine the me-
stud and concrete slab when maximum stresses are reached in the
chanical properties of the stud material, three coupons were ma-
stud and concrete elements. All three modes of failure were ob-
chined from the headed studs. The average of the three coupon
served in the experimental push-off tests.
tests were 470.8 N / mm2. This average is taken as the maximum
By using the ABAQUS postprocessing package, it can follow
allowed yield stress, f ys, in simulating the stud material. The
the stress distribution across the stud and the concrete slab of the
stress–strain curve of the headed stud is shown in Fig. 6 together
finite element model at each load increment. In addition, from
with the simulated bilinear stress–strain model. The stud material
data files, the load at each increment can be obtained. Therefore
model behaved as linear elastic material with Young’s modulus Es
the modes of failure can be easily observed and failure capacity
up to the yield stress of stud, f ys. After this stage, it becomes fully
can be determined.
plastic. In the present study, the following values are used for the
stud material: Es : 200,000 N / mm2 and f ys 470.8 N / mm2.
Results and Discussion
Material Modeling of Steel Beam
The steel beam is modeled with yield stress of 275 N / mm2 in this As part of the present study, push-off tests were carried out to
study using the same bilinear curve shown in Fig. 6. It is believed determine the load-slip behavior of the headed stud connector in
that the effect of the steel beam is insignificant in a push-off test. solid RC slabs. Four specimens of different concrete grades were
Its function is to allow for the transmission of applied load to the tested to validate the present finite element model. The mechani-
connectors and hence the characteristic load-slip characteristic in cal behavior of the materials used was determined from material
the steel–concrete interface can be studied. tests. The concrete slab was cast horizontally according to the
requirements of the EC4. Twelve 100 mm cubes were made in
batches per specimen to evaluate the concrete cube strength. The
Modes of Failure slab was reinforced longitudinally and transversely in two layers
In the experimental test, the ultimate capacity of the shear con-
nector is determined when the maximum load from the push-off
test is observed. Although the push-off measured displacement
with increasing load provide valuable insight into the problem, it
is very difficult to determine the exact failure mode of the speci-
men. Generally, three modes of failure were observed from the
push-off test. The first mode of failure is the concrete cone failure
where no stud failure is observed. For this mode of failure, the
concrete around the stud started to fail in compression before the
stud was yielded, the compression failure progresses through the
thickness of the concrete forming a conical shape around the stud
as explained experimentally by MacMackin et al. (1973). The
conical failure planes are shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 7. Conical failure planes
Fig. 8. Shear failure of headed stud in SP1 A further study is conducted to compare the FE solution with
available push-off test results. Fig. 20 shows the comparison of a
Fig. 11. Comparison between push-off test and finite element (FE)
model for SP2 Fig. 12. Conical concrete failure
Fig. 14. Stress contours and deformed shapes of FE-SP2 at various load levels
Fig. 17. Stress contours and deformed shapes of FE-SP3 at various load levels
Fig. 20. Load per stud in percentage versus slip for Fig. 21. Load per stud in percentage versus slip for
19 mm diameter⫻ 100 mm headed stud in 40 N / mm2 concrete 19 mm diameter⫻ 75 mm headed stud in 40 N / mm2 concrete
Parametric Study
A parametric study was conducted using the FE model for 13, 16,
19, and 22 mm diameter headed studs with various concrete
Fig. 23. Load-slip curves for various headed studs in 30 N / mm2 strength of 25, 30, 35, and 40 N / mm2. The results were used to
concrete compare with the tabulated values specified in BS 5950 and the
calculated value obtained from the equations given by EC4. Figs.
22–25 show the obtained load-slip curves of headed studs with
various diameters in different concrete strength using the FE
model with the results of the parametric study shown in Table 2.
Parametric study has been carried out to investigate the effect
to the shear capacity of the headed stud with the variation in
concrete strength and stud diameter. The results are also com-
pared with the tabulated values specified in BS 5950 and the
calculated value obtained from the equations given by EC4. Figs.
26–29 show the comparison between the results of the parametric
studies and the characteristic resistance of the headed stud speci-
fied in BS5950 EC4 and AISC (1999).
Conclusions
References
Acknowledgments
ABAQUS. (2001). User’s Manual, Ver. 6.2, Hibbitt, Karlson and So-
The writers would like to acknowledge the support provided by rensen, Inc.
the Egyptian Government, Bison Concrete Products Ltd., American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). (1999). Load and resis-
tance factor design specification for structural steel buildings, Chi-
Severfield-Reeve Plc., and the skilled assistance provided by the
cago.
technical staff of the School of Civil Engineering at the Univer- British Standards Institution (BSI). (1965). “Composite construction in
sity of Leeds. structural steel and concrete: Simply supported beams in building.”
CP 117 Part 5, London.
British Standards Institution (BSI). (1990). “Code of practice for design
Notation of simple and continuous composite beams.” BS 5950, Part 3: Section
3.1 Structural use of steelwork in building, London.
The following symbols are used in this paper: British Standards Institution (BSI). (1994). “Design of composite steel
and concrete structures. Part 1.1, General rules and rules for buildings
Asc ⫽ cross-section area of the shear stud;
(with U.K. National Application Document).” DD ENV 1994-1-1,
d ⫽ diameter of stud; London, EC4.
dsh ⫽ stud shaft diameter; British Standards Institution (BSI). (1997). “Code of practice for design
Ec ⫽ static Young’s modulus of elasticity of concrete; and construction.” BS 8110, Parts 1,2, Structural use of concrete, Lon-
Es ⫽ static Young’s modulus of elasticity of steel; don.
Fu ⫽ minimum specified tensile strength of the stud shear Jayas, B. S., and Hosain, M. U. (1987). “Behaviour of headed studs in
connector; composite beams: Push-out tests.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 15, 240–253.
f cu ⫽ cube strength of concrete; Lam, D., Elliott, K. S., and Nethercot, D. A. (1998). “Push-off tests on
f c⬘ ⫽ compressive strength of concrete; shear studs with hollow-cored floor slabs.” Struct. Eng., 76(9),167–
f ck ⫽ concrete cylinder compressive strength; 174.
Li, A., and Krister, C. (1996). “Push-out tests on studs in high strength
f u ⫽ ultimate tensile strength of the headed stud material;
and normal strength concrete.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 36(1), 15–29.
f yc ⫽ yield stress of concrete; MacMackin, P. J., Slutter, R. G., and Fisher, J. W. (1973). “Headed steel
f ys ⫽ yield stress of steel; anchor under combined loading.” Eng. J., 2Q, 43–53.
h ⫽ overall length of stud; Menzies, J. B. (1971). “CP 117 and shear connectors in steel-concrete
hsh ⫽ stud shaft height; composite beams made with normal-density or lightweight concrete.”
PR ⫽ resistance of a stud; Struct. Eng., 49(3),137–153.