See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236159643

Accuracy of AISC Methods in Predicting Flexural

Strength of Concrete-Encased Members

ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING · MARCH 2013

Impact Factor: 1.49 · DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000640

DOWNLOADS VIEWS

273 169

1 AUTHOR:

Chien-Chung Chen
Purdue University Calumet
11 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Chien-Chung Chen

Retrieved on: 19 July 2015
 Accuracy of AISC Methods in Predicting Flexural Strength of
Concrete-Encased Members
Chien-Chung Chen1

Abstract: This paper investigated the accuracy of the AISC analysis methods in determining flexural strength of concrete-encased members.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 02/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Analytical results from analyses performed using the AISC methods and a proposed method were compared with test data for 32 specimens.
Results from this study showed that the method of superposition of elastic stresses and method of plastic stress distribution on the steel section
alone overly underestimated flexural strength of the concrete encased composite members studied herein. On the other hand, the method of
plastic stress distribution on the composite section, the method of strain compatibility, and the proposed method well predicted flexural strength
of the encased composite members including members without shear anchors, suggesting that composite action can be developed in encased
composite members without shear anchors when sufficient confinement is provided by transverse reinforcement. In addition, studies of effects
of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement on flexural behavior of encased composite members were conducted to identify crucial parameters.
The parameters examined herein included reinforcement ratio, steel flange area, steel shape depth, and transverse reinforcement spacing. Impli-
cations and recommendations drawn from the studies are discussed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000640. © 2013 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Flexural strength; Structural members; Stress distribution; Strain; Concrete.
Author keywords: Flexural strength; Encased composite members; SRC; Plastic stress distribution; Strain compatibility.

Introduction In the United States, design provisions for composite members

Composite members using steel and RC can be categorized into
three types: (1) the combination of RC slabs and steel shapes; (2)
concrete-encased composite members also called steel RC (SRC)
members; and (3) concrete-filled composite members. A composite
steel and concrete member permits effective use of the best char-
acteristics of structural steel and concrete and provides an eco-
nomical solution to structures requiring high strength and ductility.
A well-designed composite structure not only improves structural
performance but also reduces uses of resources, resulting in a more
sustainable construction. Although composite steel and concrete
members present an economical design for high performance and
sustainable structures, they are thus far not widely embraced by
structural engineers in the United States because of the unfamiliarity
and complexity in analysis and construction associated with com-
posite members. In the last decades, researchers have focused on
structural behavior and analysis of SRC and concrete filled tube
(CFT) columns, as well as composite beams combining structural
steel shapes and RC slabs. However, research focusing on analysis
of SRC beams is relatively limited. Therefore, this paper aimed at
providing an in-depth examination on analysis methods prescribed
in the AISC specifications (AISC 2010) for the determination of
flexural capacity of SRC beams.
1
Assistant Teaching Professor, Dept. of Civil, Architectural, and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology, Rolla,
MO 65409. E-mail: chenchi@mst.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 6, 2011; approved
on July 20, 2012; published online on August 10, 2012. Discussion period
open until August 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, Vol. 139, No. 3, March 1, 2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2013/
3-338–349/$25.00.
are included in Chapter I of AISC 360-10 (AISC 2010) and Chapter
17 of ACI 318-08 [American Concrete Institute (ACI) 2008]. In
the latest AISC Specification (AISC 360-10), the chapter covering
composite members design (Chapter I) has been largely updated and
expanded to incorporate the current research regarding the design
and behavior of composite members. For the nominal flexural
strength of composite members, analysis methods for filled composite
members are now updated and separated from the section for encased
composite members. Conversely, analysis methods for the flexural
strength of encased composite members remain unchanged from the
previous specification (AISC 2005). The AISC design code provides
four methods, ranging from simple to complicated, for the use and
convenience of engineers. Although efficient in analysis, simple
methods tend to produce a conservative design. In some cases, the
design may be overly conservative, resulting in an uneconomical
design. Conversely, complicated methods requiring more effort in
analysis are expected to be more accurate than simple methods,
leading to a more economical solution. Because of this, information
regarding accuracy of each method is crucial for engineers to decide
between conservatism and economy. Hence, it is of interest in this
study to examine applicability and accuracy of analytical methods in
predicting flexural strength of SRC beams. AISC 360-10 suggests the
following methods for determining nominal flexural strength of
concrete encased members: (1) the superposition of elastic stress; (2)
the plastic stress distribution on the steel section alone; (3) the plastic
stress distribution on the composite section (referred to as PSD
method in this paper); and (4) the strain compatibility method. Among
the four methods, the last two methods are permitted only when shear
anchors are provided, according to the AISC specification (AISC
2010). The ACI building code (ACI 2008) considers steel shapes as
reinforcing steel in RC members, and member strength is computed
based on strain compatibility; thus, it is essentially identical to the
strain compatibility method prescribed in the AISC specification
(AISC 2010). On the basis of a review of the code provisions, nominal

338 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:338-349.

 flexural strength of SRC members may differ depending on the
method and specification elected by structural engineers. For this
reason, part of this study was devoted to examine the validity of the
prescribed methods by comparing analytical results with experi-
mental data. In addition to the four methods prescribed by AISC
360-10, a modified PSD method was introduced, and comparisons
of prediction accuracy between the different methods were made.
Test results of 32 SRC beams selected from the literature (Chen
1992; Ju 1993; Tsai et al. 1995; Chen 1996; Weng et al. 2001; Chen
and Chen 2001) were compared with analytical predictions to
evaluate the adequacy of these methods. The objective of this study
is to provide guidelines and recommendations for the design and
analysis of SRC flexural members.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 02/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Analysis Methods
AISC specification Section I.3.3 (AISC 2010) prescribes methods to
determine nominal flexural strength of SRC members. For members
without shear anchors provided between the steel shape and con-
crete, the nominal flexural strength shall be determined using (1) the
superposition of elastic stresses on the composite section, consid-
ering the effects of shoring, or (2) the plastic stress distribution on the
steel section alone. When shear anchors are provided between the
steel shape and concrete, the nominal flexural strength shall be
determined based on (1) the PSD method or (2) the strain com-
patibility method. The following provides details for each method.
Also, in addition to these methods, a modified PSD method is in-
troduced at the end of this section.
Superposition of Elastic Stresses on the
Composite Section
The superposition of elastic stresses method computes nominal
flexural strength of encased composite sections based on the elastic
stresses on the composite sections, considering the effects of shoring.
Transformed section analysis is a common method used for ana-
lyzing composite sections. By using transformed section analysis, the
encased composite sections transform the concrete in compression
into an equivalent steel area. Concrete tensile strength is neglected and
thus is not considered in analysis for an encased composite member.
The stress distribution of the composite section is linear elastic, with
the extreme tension fiber of the steel section of the composite section
reaching its yield strength. The depth of the neutral axis is determined
by force equilibrium. Then nominal flexural strength is computed by
the summation of moments about the neutral axis caused by force
resultants from the concrete, longitudinal reinforcement, and steel
section. Fig. 1 shows the stress distribution of an encased composite
section based on the superposition of elastic stresses method.
Plastic Stress Distribution on the Steel Section Alone
The plastic stress distribution on the steel section alone determines
nominal flexural strength of encased composite members based on
Fig. 1. Stress distribution: the superposition of elastic stresses
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 339
J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:338-349.
the plastic flexural strength of the steel section only. The entire steel
section is assumed to reach its yield strength, and the contributions
of the RC section on flexural strength is completely omitted.
Therefore, the resulting nominal flexural strength of a SRC beam is
equivalent to the plastic moment strength, MP , of the steel section.
Fig. 2 shows the plastic stress distribution of the steel section alone.
Plastic Stress Distribution on the Composite
Section Method
The PSD method assumes that (1) full-composite action is developed
in a SRC member, i.e., no slip between the steel and concrete sections,
and (2) the entire steel section and longitudinal reinforcement have
reached their yield strength. The compressive stress of the concrete
compression area is 0:85fc0 . The tensile strength of concrete is trivial
compared with the compressive strength and has imperceptible im-
pact on flexure strength of an encased composite member; thus, it is
disregarded. Similar to the first method, force equilibrium is applied to
determine the neutral axis and then flexural capacity is computed. The
stress distribution of a SRC member using the PSD method is shown
in Fig. 3.
Strain Compatibility Method
Like the PSD method, the strain compatibility method assumes full-
composite action between the steel and concrete sections. The stress
at any point in a composite member must correspond to the strain at
the point. The maximum strain at the extreme compression fiber is
assumed to be 0.003, and the concrete compressive stress distribu-
tion is represented by the Whitney stress block, as delineated in the
previous section. Similar to the PSD method, the contribution of
concrete tensile strength is omitted. A linear elastic perfectly plastic
behavior is assumed for the steel section and longitudinal reinforce-
ment. The stress distribution of a SRC member by the strain com-
patibility method is shown in Fig. 4.
Modified Plastic Stress Distribution on the Composite
Section Method
The proposed modified PSD method implements the same assump-
tions as those of the PSD method. The difference between the two
methods is that the modified PSD method determines the concrete
Fig. 2. Plastic stress distribution on the steel section
Fig. 3. Plastic stress distribution on the composite section

Fig. 4. Stress distribution: the strain compatibility method
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 02/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Modified plastic stress distribution on the composite section
compressive resultant force using the Whitney stress block with the
compressive stress of 0:85fc0 . The rationales of this modification are
(1) the Whitney stress block gives a more reasonable approximation of
the ultimate concrete compression force and (2) using the Whitney
stress block maintains the simplicity of the PSD method. Therefore,
with this simple refinement, an improved result can be achieved
without compromising the ease associated with the PSD method. The
stress distribution of a SRC member using the modified PSD method
is shown in Fig. 5.
The factor b1 shall be taken as follows (ACI 2008):
fc0 # 28 MPa b1 ¼ 0:85


f 0 2 28 MPa
28 MPa , fc0 # 56 MPa b1 ¼ 0:85 2 0:05 c
7 MPa
fc0 . 56 MPa b1 ¼ 0:65
Analytical Study
The nominal flexural strength of 32 SRC members was analyzed
using the methods illustrated in the section, Analysis Methods. The
SRC members analyzed were collected from studies by Chen (1992,
1996), Ju (1993), Tsai et al. (1995), Weng et al. (2001), and Chen and
Chen (2001). Comparisons between analytical and experimental
results were made to determine adequacy of the analysis methods.
Specimen Description
A total of 32 specimens from six studies were selected for the ana-
lytical study. Detailed geometries and dimensions of the specimens
are tabulated in Table 1 and shown in Fig. 6. Among the selected
specimens, the specimens tested by Chen (1992, 1996), Ju (1993),
and Tsai et al. (1995) were beam-column subassemblages under
cyclic loading applied at the ends of the beams. The displacement-
controlled cyclic loads were applied by gradual increments of drift
angles. The flexural capacities obtained from the tests were the
maximum positive and negative moments recorded during the cyclic
load history. For the study by Weng et al. (2001), the specimens were
340 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013
J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:338-349.
tested under a monotonic load applied at the midspan of the beam
(three-point bending test). The specimens studied by Chen and Chen
(2001) were tested under four-point bending. Fig. 7 schematically
shows the three test setups. Mechanical properties of the steel
and concrete used for the specimens are listed in Table 2. For all
specimens, steel shapes were positioned at the center of the SRC
section. Tension reinforcing bars of Specimens 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9 and
compression reinforcing bars of Specimen 13 were disregarded
because of the lack of proper anchorage. Specimens 22 and 23,
representing two extreme conditions, were used to examine effects
of the composite action on flexural behavior of SRC members.
Specimen 22 had shear anchors on the top steel flange to ensure full
composite action; conversely, the steel section of Specimen 23 was
manually debonded from the concrete by applying grease and
covering the steel shape with plastic sheets.
Results and Discussions
Experimental and analytical results are tabulated in Table 3 for
comparison. For the specimens having both positive and negative
flexural strengths recorded, the first value listed in the table is the
negative flexural strength and the second value listed is the positive
flexural strength. Although the cyclic loads potentially induced bond
slip between the reinforcing steel (rebar and steel shape) and con-
crete, the results showed that the flexural capacities of those
specimens were not affected by the loading types (i.e., cyclic loads
versus monotonic load) and shear transfer mechanisms (i.e., shear
anchors versus no shear anchors). Observed from the comparisons,
the superposition of elastic stresses, as expected, underestimated
flexural strength of the specimens because of the conservatism
stemming from overlooking inelastic behavior. The actual stress
distributions of the composite sections at failure were neither linear
nor elastic. In this study, the flexural strength computed by the method
of the superposition of elastic stresses was based on the assumption
that the beams were shored during construction. Results from this
study showed that the superposition of elastic stresses underestimated
flexural strength of the SRC beams by an average of 25%. Because the
specification (AISC 2010) prescribes that the superposition of elastic
stresses or plastic stress distribution on the steel section alone shall be
used when shear anchors are not provided, comparisons between the
analytical and experimental results should only be made for those
specimens without shear anchors. Therefore, Table 3 also includes
statistical values for the specimens without shear anchors on the
compression flange (values in the parentheses). As shown in Table 3,
the superposition of elastic stresses still underpredicted the flexural
strength of the specimens without shear anchors by an average of 23%,
suggesting that this method was conservative whether shear anchors
were provided. Observed from the tests, failure mechanisms of SRC
members consisted of crushing of concrete and yielding of steel.
Moreover, considerable permanent deformation was observed after
failure. The crushing of concrete indicated that the concrete com-
pressive stress distribution was neither linear nor elastic, and the
permanent deformation was the evidence of plastic behavior. It was
noted in some cases that the stress at the extreme compression fiber
exceeded the maximum compressive strength, fc0 , suggesting that the
stress distribution in the concrete should not be simplified as linear.
Consequently, the assumption of linear elastic behavior for analyzing
flexural capacity of SRC members is impractical and problematic.
Establishing the linear stress distribution for the concrete and steel
sections requires great effort. The second method, the plastic moment
of the steel section alone, provided the most conservative results. This
method simply overlooks the contribution of the RC on flexural
strength of SRC members. As a result, it is overly conservative
(underestimated more than 100%).
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 02/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Specimen Details

Steel bar
0
Beam section d Bottom bar d1 Bottom bar d2
Number Authors Loading type (mm 3 mm) Top bar (mm) layer 1 (mm) layer 2 (mm) Steel shape (mm) Shear connector
a
1 Chen (1992) Cyclic load 450 3 800 2-#10 66 — — — — H525 3 165 3 8:9 3 11:4 Top flange
2 450 3 800 2-#10 66 — — 2-#8 738 H525 3 165 3 8:9 3 11:4 Top flange
3 450 3 800 2-#10 66 — — —a — H525 3 165 3 8:9 3 11:4 Top flange
4 450 3 800 2-#10 66 — — —a — H528:3 3 208:7 3 9:6 3 13:2 Top flange
5 450 3 800 2-#10 66 — — 2-#8 738 H528:3 3 208:7 3 9:6 3 13:2 Top flange
6 450 3 800 2-#10 66 — — 2-#8 738 H525 3 165 3 8:9 3 11:4 Top flange
7 Ju (1993) Cyclic load 400 3 660 2-#8 62 — — 2-#8 598 H425 3 165 3 9 3 17 Top flange
8 400 3 660 2-#8 62 — — —a — H425 3 165 3 9 3 17 1 2 3 ðPL10 3 145Þ Top flange
9 400 3 660 2-#8 62 — — —a — H425 3 165 3 9 3 17 1 2 3 ðPL10 3 145Þ Top flange
10 Tsai et al. (1995) Cyclic load 460 3 760 2-#10 70 — — 2-#5 700 H529 3 166 3 9:7 3 13:6 Top flange
11 460 3 760 2-#7 70 — — 2-#5 700 H529 3 166 3 9:7 3 13:6 Top flange
12 460 3 760 2-#10 70 — — 2-#5 700 H533 3 209 3 10:2 3 15:6 Top flange
13 460 3 760 —a — — — 2-#5 700 H533 3 209 3 10:2 3 15:6 Top flange
14 Chen (1996) Cyclic load 300 3 500 2-#8 70 — — 2-#8 430 H320 3 160 3 14 3 20 Top and bottom
15 300 3 500 2-#8 70 — — 2-#8 430 H320 3 160 3 14 3 20 None
16 300 3 500 2-#10 70 — — 2-#10 430 H320 3 160 3 14 3 20 None
17 Weng et al. (2001) Monotonic 300 3 500 2-#6 49 — — 2-#6 451 H300 3 150 3 6:5 3 9 Top flange
18 300 3 500 2-#6 49 — — 2-#6 451 H300 3 150 3 6:5 3 9 None
19 300 3 500 2-#6 49 — — 2-#6 451 H300 3 150 3 6:5 3 9 None
20 Chen and Chen (2001) Monotonic 350 3 550 2-#8 70 2-#8 380 2-#10 480 H300 3 150 3 6:5 3 9 None
21 350 3 550 2-#8 70 2-#8 380 2-#10 480 H300 3 150 3 6:5 3 9 None
22 350 3 550 2-#8 70 2-#8 380 2-#10 480 H300 3 150 3 6:5 3 9 Top flange
23b 350 3 550 2-#8 70 2-#8 380 2-#10 480 H300 3 150 3 6:5 3 9 None

J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:338-349.

24 350 3 550 2-#7 70 2-#8 380 2-#8 480 H300 3 110 3 6:5 3 9 None
25 350 3 550 2-#5 70 — — 3-#7 480 H300 3 60 3 6:5 3 9 None
26 350 3 550 2-#8 70 2-#7 380 2-#8 480 H300 3 150 3 6:5 3 9 1 2 3 ðPL15 3 105Þ None
27 350 3 550 2-#5 70 — — 2-#8 480 H300 3 150 3 6:5 3 9 1 2 3 ðPL20 3 120Þ None
28 350 3 550 2-#5 70 2-#10 380 2-#10 480 H300 3 150 3 6:5 3 9 1 2 3 ðPL20 3 120Þ None
29 350 3 550 2-#7 70 — — 2-#10 480 H194 3 150 3 6:5 3 9 None
30 320 3 400 2-#6 60 — — 2-#10 330 H300 3 110 3 6:5 3 9 None
31 320 3 400 2-#6 60 — — 2-#10 330 H300 3 110 3 6:5 3 9 None
32 320 3 440 2-#3 60 — — 2-#11 370 H300 3 110 3 6:5 3 9 1 2 3 ðPL20 3 90Þ None
a
Rebars were neglected because they are not anchored into the column.
b
The steel shape was debonded from concrete by applying grease and covering plastic sheets on the surface of the steel.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 341

 Table 2. Mechanical Properties of Materials
Concrete, Steel bars, Steel shape, Cover plate,
Numbers fc0 (MPa) ðFy Þr (MPa) Fy (MPa) ðFy Þp (MPa)
1 26.7 #10: 661 363 —
2 27.0 #8: 788 363 —
3 33.1 363 —
4 32.8 363 —
5 32.7 363 —
6 31.7 363 —
7 58.7 #8: 451 357 —
Fig. 6. SRC beam schematic 8 47.2 357 374
9 58.9 357 374
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 02/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10 35.5 #10: 478 353 —

(a) 11 40.6 #7: 313 353 —
12 36.1 #5: 410 370 —
13 35.5 370 —
14 38.2 #8: 314 401 —
15 34.6 #10: 500 401 —
16 26.3 401 —
17 37.1 #6: 598 367 —
18 36.0 367 —
19 37.8 367 —
(b) 20 40.8 #11: 468 332 —
21 36.0 #10: 435 267 —
22 40.1 #8: 426 332 —
23 40.1 #7: 424 332 —
24 38.4 #6: 462 332 —
25 38.4 #5: 411 332 —
(c)
26 38.4 #3: 417 332 364
27 36.0 332 368
28 36.8 332 368
29 37.3 272 —
30 37.3 332 —
31 37.3 332 —
32 37.3 332 368
Fig. 7. Schematics of the test setups: (a) cyclic load; (b) three-point
bending; (c) four-point bending

When shear anchors are provided, nominal flexural strength of
SRC members shall be determined using the PSD method or strain
compatibility method, according to the AISC specification (AISC
2010). The results of this study showed good agreement between the
predictions by the PSD and strain compatibility methods and test
data. For the PSD method, the mean test-to-predicted moment ratio,
considering all specimens with and without shear anchors, was 0.97,
with a coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.090. When comparing the
test results with the analytical predictions for the specimens without
shear anchors, good agreement between the analytical predictions
and experimental results was also observed, suggesting that com-
posite action can be present in SRC beams without using shear
anchors. The obtained mean test-to-predicted moment ratio was
0.97, identical to the mean value including the data of all specimens,
with a COV of 0.091. This is an interesting finding because the AISC
specification (AISC 2010) prohibits the PSD method from de-
termining flexural strength of SRC members when shear anchors are
not provided. It should be noted that, although the predictions of the
PSD method agreed well with the experimental data, the average
of the test moments was lower than the predicted moments by 3%,
suggesting that the PSD method might slightly overestimate flexural
strength of SRC members.
The strain compatibility method, considering stress-strain rela-
tions and inelastic behavior, well predicted flexural strength of the
SRC specimens studied herein. The mean test-to-predicted moment
ratio was 1.03, with a COV of 0.089. Similar to the PSD method, the
accuracy of the strain compatibility method in the flexural capacity
predictions of SRC beams without using shear anchors was examined.
The results of this study suggested that the strain compatibility method
was also adequate for evaluating flexural strength of the SRC speci-
mens without using shear anchors. Again, this finding confirmed that
composite action may be attained without the application of shear
anchors. In the cases where shear anchors were not applied, horizontal
shear force was transferred purely by the bond between the steel and
concrete. For SRC members with steel shapes well confined by
transverse reinforcement and concrete, such as the specimens studied
herein, the test results suggested that the bond between the steel and
concrete sections was capable of transferring most, if not all, hori-
zontal shear force at the interface, meaning that composite action could
be developed in SRC sections without shear anchors, which was
verified by Chen and Chen (2001). Fig. 8 shows the strain distributions
of Specimens 20, 22, and 23 measured from the tests. Specimen 20
was a typical SRC beam without shear anchors, and Specimens 22 and
23 represented two extreme conditions. Specimens 22 and 23 had the
same reinforcement as Specimen 20, but Specimen 22 had shear
anchors on the top flange and Specimen 23 fully debonded the steel
shape from the concrete. Therefore, comparisons can be made be-
tween the typical section and the two extreme conditions, i.e., no shear
anchors versus shear anchors and no shear anchors versus debonded.
The results showed that the plane assumption was valid to the peak

342 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:338-349.

 Table 3. Comparisons between Experimental and Analytical Results
Superposition of elastic Plastic stress on the steel Plastic stress Modified plastic stress
stresses section distribution Strain compatibility distribution
Test results, Melastic Mp Mpsd Mmod
Number Mt (kN-m) (kN-m) Mt =Melastic (kN-m) Mt =Mp (kN-m) Mt =Mpsd Msc (kN-m) Mt =Msc (kN-m) Mt =Mmod
1 1,623 1,106 1.47 554 2.93 1,453 1.12 1,373 1.18 1,414 1.15
1,024 695 1.47 554 1.85 964 1.06 903 1.13 946 1.08
2 1,490 1,118 1.33 554 2.69 1,544 0.97 1,441 1.03 1,520 0.98
1,290 964 1.34 554 2.33 1,442 0.89 1,364 0.95 1,424 0.91
3 1,334 1,116 1.20 554 2.41 1,510 0.88 1,428 0.93 1,464 0.91
847 702 1.21 554 1.53 995 0.85 927 0.91 968 0.88
4 1,349 1,298 1.04 735 1.84 1,700 0.79 1,602 0.84 1,651 0.82
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 02/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1,168 890 1.31 735 1.59 1,193 0.98 1,120 1.04 1,165 1.00
5 1,653 1,310 1.26 735 2.25 1,773 0.93 1,661 1.00 1,742 0.95
1,440 1,157 1.24 735 1.96 1,669 0.86 1,580 0.91 1,641 0.88
6 1339 1,124 1.19 554 2.42 1,570 0.85 1,473 0.91 1,543 0.87
1,255 970 1.29 554 2.27 1,467 0.86 1,389 0.90 1,440 0.87
7 1,186 866 1.37 531 2.23 1,125 1.05 1,040 1.14 1,052 1.13
1,149 866 1.33 531 2.16 1,125 1.02 1,040 1.10 1,052 1.09
8 1,138 1,042 1.09 763 1.49 1,282 0.89 1,207 0.94 1,236 0.92
956 838 1.14 763 1.25 1,091 0.88 1,025 0.93 1,045 0.91
9 1,232 1,046 1.18 763 1.61 1,333 0.92 1,242 0.99 1,260 0.98
971 840 1.16 763 1.27 1,136 0.85 1,049 0.93 1,067 0.91
10 1,686 1,107 1.52 626 2.69 1,433 1.18 1,364 1.24 1,394 1.21
1,166 839 1.39 626 1.86 1,115 1.05 1,063 1.10 1,089 1.07
11 1,274 881 1.45 626 2.04 1,151 1.11 1,098 1.16 1,116 1.14
1,245 818 1.52 626 1.99 1,110 1.12 1,062 1.17 1,075 1.16
12 1,891 1,363 1.39 862 2.19 1,691 1.12 1,601 1.18 1,647 1.15
1,382 1,082 1.28 862 1.60 1,376 1.00 1,313 1.05 1,348 1.03
13 1,205 979 1.23 862 1.40 1,249 0.96 1,191 1.01 1,222 0.99
1,357 1,069 1.27 862 1.57 1,335 1.02 1,264 1.07 1,302 1.04
14 770 673 1.14 495 1.56 788 0.98 715 1.08 764 1.01
803 673 1.19 495 1.62 788 1.02 715 1.12 764 1.05
15 775 670 1.16 495 1.57 777 1.00 705 1.10 755 1.03
762 670 1.14 495 1.54 777 0.98 705 1.08 755 1.01
16 820 808 1.01 495 1.66 927 0.88 833 0.98 912 0.90
834 808 1.03 495 1.68 927 0.90 833 1.00 912 0.91
17 468 340 1.38 192 2.44 442 1.06 414 1.13 428 1.09
18 476 339 1.40 192 2.48 439 1.08 412 1.16 426 1.12
19 470 340 1.38 192 2.45 443 1.06 415 1.13 429 1.10
20 691 593 1.17 173 3.99 729 0.95 687 1.01 700 0.99
21 653 475 1.37 139 4.70 668 0.98 636 1.03 647 1.01
22 655 593 1.10 173 3.79 726 0.90 685 0.96 699 0.94
23 681 593 1.15 173 3.94 726 0.94 685 0.99 699 0.97
24 526 452 1.16 139 3.78 581 0.91 546 0.96 555 0.95
25 384 342 1.12 95 4.04 434 0.88 407 0.94 414 0.93
26 720 634 1.14 367 1.96 788 0.91 745 0.97 763 0.94
27 748 649 1.15 456 1.64 772 0.97 731 1.02 750 1.00
28 986 875 1.13 456 2.16 1,051 0.94 981 1.01 1,015 0.97
29 518 451 1.15 82 6.32 534 0.97 498 1.04 513 1.01
30 351 284 1.24 139 2.53 393 0.89 373 0.94 382 0.92
31 370 284 1.30 139 2.66 393 0.94 373 0.99 382 0.97
32 682 533 1.28 351 1.94 697 0.98 667 1.02 676 1.01
Average 1.25 (1.23) Average 2.33 (2.56) Average 0.97 (0.97) Average 1.03 (1.03) Average 1.00 (1.00)
COV 0.104 (0.109) COV 0.427 (0.431) COV 0.090 (0.091) COV 0.089 (0.089) COV 0.092 (0.092)
Note: Values in parentheses only consider the specimens without shear anchors on the compression flange.

load for Specimens 20 and 22, suggesting that shear anchors is not
necessary for full composite action.
The modified PSD method adopts the simplicity of the PSD method
and uses the Whitney stress block for the concrete compressive
force. As seen in Table 3, by using the Whitney stress block, the
predicted flexural strengths were marginally decreased, and the mean
test-to-predicted moment ratio was 1.0, with a COV of 0.092. Fig. 9 is
used to further examine the relationships of flexural strength pre-
dictions between the strain compatibility method, PSD method, and
modified PSD method. Fig. 9(a) compares the test-to-predicted

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 343

J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:338-349.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 02/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Strain distribution along the depth: (a) Specimen 20; (b) Specimen 22 (with shear anchors); (c) Specimen 23 (debonded)
moment ratios by the PSD method, Mt =Mpsd , with the test-to-predicted
moment ratios by the strain compatibility method, Mt =Msc , and
Fig. 9(b) compares the test-to-predicted moment ratios by the mod-
ified PSD method, Mt =Mmod , with the test-to-predicted moment ratios
by the strain compatibility method, Mt =Msc . As shown in Figs. 9(a
and b), the modified PSD method, using the Whitney stress block,
shifted the data closer to the dashed line, suggesting its stronger
correlation with the strain compatibility method than the PSD method.
In summary, the AISC specification (AISC 2010) prescribes
analytical methods for determining nominal flexural strength of SRC
members. According to the specification, when shear anchors are not
provided, nominal flexural strength of SRC members shall be de-
termined based on the superposition of elastic stresses or plastic
stress distribution on the steel section alone; when shear anchors are
provided, nominal flexural strength of SRC members shall be com-
puted based on the PSD method or strain compatibility method. On the
basis of the results of this study, the PSD and strain compatibility
methods shall not be limited to SRC beams with shear anchors. In
addition to the PSD and strain compatibility methods, the proposed
344 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013
J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:338-349.
modified PSD method, showing a good correlation with the strain
compatibility method, also well predicted the flexural strength of the
encased composite beams. In conclusion, the PSD, modified PSD, and
strain compatibility methods were capable of accurately predicting
flexural strength of the SRC specimens with or without shear anchors.
Although the PSD and modified PSD methods use a straightforward
stress distribution, the strain compatibility method uses stress-strain
relations to establish the stress distributions. Furthermore, the modified
PSD method adopting the Whitney stress block showed a stronger
correlation with the strain compatibility method than the PSD method.
Because of this, the modified PSD method facilitates flexural analysis
of SRC members while maintaining great accuracy; for this reason, it
endears itself to design engineers when both simplicity and accuracy of
analysis are desired.
Conversely, the methods of the superposition of elastic stresses
and plastic stress distribution on the steel section alone underpredicted
the flexural strength of SRC beams (without shear anchors) by more
than 20 and 100%, respectively. The conservatism stems from the
concept that SRC beams may not be able to provide sufficient bond
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 02/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. (a) Test-to-predicted moment ratios by the PSD method versus

test-to-predicted moment ratios by the strain compatibility method;
(b) test-to-predicted moment ratios by the modified PSD method versus
test-to-predicted moment ratios by the strain compatibility method

strength between the steel section and concrete to develop composite

action without using shear anchors; as a result of this assumption, both
methods do not take into account the composite action. Nevertheless,
it states in the commentary of the AISC specification (AISC 2010) that
bond failure does not necessarily limit the moment strength of an
encased composite beam. The rationale applied in the provision does
not reflect, and is contradictory to, this statement. The test result of
Specimen 23 (the steel section manually debonded from the concrete)
provided evidence that the flexural strength of the SRC beam was not
affected by the bond failure; however, it should be noted that
Specimen 23 possessed seismic hoops with a shear reinforcement
spacing of 8db . On the basis of this result, it appears that the PSD,
modified PSD, and strain compatibility methods may be appropriate
for SRC beams without shear anchors when sufficient confinement is Fig. 10. Test-to-predicted moment (modified PSD method) ratio
provided by shear reinforcement using seismic hoops. To quantitatively versus (a) reinforcement ratio; (b) flange area ratio; (c) steel depth ratio;
define the shear reinforcement required to achieve the confinement, the and (d) Rf Rd =r
following section studied the effect of transverse reinforcement on the
flexural capacity of SRC beams and compared the transverse rein-
forcement of the specimens studied with the minimum transverse specimens. In this section, the results from the previous section were
reinforcement requirements specified in ACI 318-08. plotted in Figs. 10 and 11 to study whether the accuracy of the two
methods would be affected by the tension reinforcement ratio, flange
area ratio, steel depth ratio, and a combined parameter.
Effects of Longitudinal and Transverse Unlike RC beams, reinforcement in a SRC beam includes rein-
Reinforcement forcing bars and a steel shape. For this reason, reinforcement ratios
of a SRC beam will include contributions from both the reinforcing
bars and steel shape. In this study, areas of the steel flanges, cover
Longitudinal Reinforcement (Reinforcing Bars and
plates (if applicable), and reinforcing bars were included in the calcu-
Steel Shape)
lations of compression and tension reinforcements. Furthermore, the
The results of the analytical study indicated that the modified PSD areas of the cover plates and reinforcing bars were converted to
and strain compatibility methods were strongly correlated to each equivalent steel areas for the calculation of the areas of compression
other and accurately predicted the flexural strength of the SRC and tension reinforcements, which were defined as follows:

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 345

J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:338-349.

 plate; Fy 5 yield strength of the steel shape; ðFy Þr 5 yield strength of
the reinforcing bar; and ðFy Þp 5 yield strength of the cover plate.
The compression and tension reinforcement ratios are defined as
follows:

A0s
r0 ¼ ð3Þ
Bdbf

As
r ¼ ð4Þ
Bdbf

where r 0 5 compression reinforcement ratio; r 5 tension rein-

forcement ratio; B 5 width of the SRC beam; and dbf 5 distance
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 02/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

from the centroid of the tension flange to extreme compression fiber.

As mentioned earlier, a SRC beam consists of the steel and RC
sections. With the same reinforcement ratio, the areas of the steel
flanges between SRC beams could differ from one specimen to
another depending on the reinforcement selection during structural
design. Varying the ratio of the steel flange area and total reinforce-
ment area of a SRC beam, referred as the flange area ratio hereafter,
may impact the accuracy of the analyses. In addition, the ratio of the
depth of the steel shape and overall depth of the SRC beam, referred as
the steel depth ratio hereafter, was studied for its effect on the ana-
lytical results as it could effectively affect the flexural strength of
a SRC beam. The flange area ratio and steel depth ratio are defined as
follows:

Aflg
Rf ¼ ð5Þ
As

ds
Rd ¼ ð6Þ
D

where Rf 5 flange area ratio; Rd 5 steel depth ratio; ds 5 depth of the

steel shape; and D 5 depth of the SRC beam.
The test-to-predicted moment ratio from the modified PSD and
strain compatibility methods were plotted (Figs. 10 and 11) with
respect to its corresponding tension reinforcement ratio, flange area
ratio, steel depth ratio, and a combined parameter, Rf Rd =r. The plots
were used to observe the distribution of the predictions with respect
to each parameter.
As observed from the figures, the accuracy of the two methods
was not exacerbated by varying the tension reinforcement ratio,
flange area ratio, or steel depth ratio. As the flexural behavior of a
SRC beam could be influenced by the combination of these param-
Fig. 11. Test-to-predicted moment (strain compatibility method) ratio eters, the distribution of the predictions with respect to a combined
versus (a) reinforcement ratio; (b) flange area ratio; (c) steel depth ratio; parameter, Rf Rd =r, coupling the tension reinforcement ratio, flange
and (d) Rf Rd =r area ratio, and steel depth ratio together, is plotted in Figs. 10(d)
and 11(d). As shown in the plots, when the value of Rf Rd =r became
"  # greater than 40, the analytical methods tended to produce con-
   Fy p
Fy r servative results. Although this study was intended to provide some
A0s ¼ A0flg þ A0r 0
þ Ap ð1Þ insights on design parameters that may influence the results, no
Fy Fy
definitive conclusion should be made because of the limited and
"  # scattered data. Therefore, future studies of the effects of the parameters
   Fy p on reliability of analytical results are recommended.
Fy r
As ¼ Aflg þ Ar þ Ap ð2Þ
Fy Fy
Transverse Reinforcement
where A0s 5 total compression reinforcement area; A0flg
5 area of the Because most of the specimens used in this study had transverse
compression flange of the steel shape; A0r 5 area of the compression reinforcement meeting the seismic spacing and detail requirements
rebar; A0p 5 area of the compression cover plate; As 5 total tension (i.e., the spacing shall not exceed the smallest of d/4, 8db , 24dh , and
reinforcement area; Aflg 5 area of the tension flange of the steel 300 mm, and seismic hoops shall be used) along with shear an-
shape; Ar 5 area of the tension rebar; Ap 5 area of the tension cover chors, there was a concern that applying the minimum transverse

346 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:338-349.

 Table 4. Details of the Transverse Reinforcement and Shear Anchor
Transverse reinforcement Shear anchor
Size and spacing Yield strength Size Length Spacing Yield strength
Number (mm) (MPa) Location (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa)
20 #3@200 417 None — — — —
21 #3@100 417 None — — — —
22 #3@200 417 Top flange (except the constant moment 16 64 100 345
section between the two loading points)
23 #3@200 417 None and debonded — — — —
24 #3@176 417 None — — — —
25 #3@128 417 None — — — —
26 #3@200 417 None — — — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 02/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

27 #3@128 417 None — — — —

28 #3@128 417 None — — — —
29 #3@200 417 None — — — —
30 #3@152 417 None — — — —
31 #3@76 417 None — — — —
32 #3@80 417 None — — — —

reinforcement per Chapter 11 of ACI 318-08 could result in reduced

composite action without using shear anchors because of loss of
confinement. For this reason, it was of interest in this study to identify
whether the flexural capacity of SRC beams would be adversely
affected when only minimum transverse reinforcement per AISC
360-10 and ACI 318-08 was provided without using shear anchors.
Therefore, to efficiently and effectively evaluate the transverse re-
inforcement effect, the specimens from the study by Chen and Chen
(2001) were selected for the following reasons: (1) the specimens did
not strictly meet the seismic spacing requirements (the spacing for
most of the specimens were merely based on 8db despite that in some
cases d/4 was smaller than 8db ; only Specimens 21 and 31 were
designed based on 4db ), and (2) most of the specimens did not possess
shear anchors (except Specimen 22). Table 4 provides detailed in-
formation about the amount, size, and yield strength of the transverse
reinforcement and shear anchor, and Fig. 12 shows the configuration
of the transverse reinforcement.
The AISC specification (AISC 2010) does not explicitly pre-
scribe transverse reinforcement limitations for composite flexural
members; therefore, the limitations shall be as specified in ACI 318-
08. ACI 318-08 Section 11.4.5 specifies that spacing of shear re- Fig. 12. Configuration of the transverse reinforcement
inforcement shall not exceed d/2 and shall not exceed d/4 when Vs
exceeds 0:33√fc0 bw d (MPa).
As to the design shear strength, AISC 360-10 Section I4.1(AISC failure was observed from the tests, the actual shear strength was not
2010) prescribes three methods: obtained, and therefore no comparison between the actual and design
1. The design shear strength shall be determined based on the strengths was made. Nevertheless, the results suggest that shear
available shear strength of the steel section alone as specified in strength designed by the methods specified in the AISC specification
AISC 360-10 Chapter G; (AISC 360-10) should provide adequate shear strength and leans
2. The design shear strength shall be determined based on the toward a conservative design value. As the AISC specification
available shear strength of the RC portion alone (concrete plus (AISC 360-10) does not have explicit provisions for spacing limits of
steel reinforcement) as defined by ACI 318 with a resistance transverse reinforcement, the maximum spacing limit shall be de-
factor of 0.75; and termined per ACI 318-08, i.e., the spacing shall not exceed d/4 when
3. The design shear strength shall be determined based on the Vs 5 Vn 2Vc $ 0:33√fc0 bw d (MPa); otherwise, the spacing shall not
nominal shear strength of the steel section as defined in AISC exceed d/2. For the specimens studied, the required spacing based on
360-10 Chapter G plus the nominal strength of the reinforcing ACI 318-08 Section 11.4.7 may be less than the maximum spacing
steel as defined by ACI 318 with a combined resistance factor limit, which is true for most of the cases in this study. However, to
of 0.75. determine the minimum transverse reinforcement required to de-
Table 5 lists the design shear strengths of the selected specimens velop composite action without using shear anchors, the shear re-
based on the three methods and spacing limits of transverse re- inforcement spacings used in the tests were compared with the
inforcement based on ACI 318-08 Section 11.4.5. The design shear maximum spacing limits specified in ACI 318-08. From Table 5,
strengths according to the three methods were lower than the actual it was found that most of the selected specimens had shear re-
shear forces experienced by most of the specimens, implying that the inforcement spacing (without shear anchors) greater than the re-
shear provision of AISC 360-10 can be improved. As only flexural quired spacing per ACI Section 11.4.7 and maximum spacing per

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 347

J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:338-349.

 Table 5. Design Shear Strength and Spacing Limit
Steel section Steel section and reinforcing
alone RC alone steel
Shear force Maximum
at the maximum Vsteel fv Vsteel Vc Vs fv ðVc 1 Vs Þ Vs;required 0:33√fc0 bw d Vsteel Vs fv ðVsteel 1 Vs Þ spacing
Number moment, Vu (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) limit (mm)
20 461 332 332 165 131 222 450 329 332 131 389 d=4 5 111
21 435 267 267 155 262 312 426 309 267 262 431 d=4 5 111
22 437 332 332 163 131 221 419 327 332 131 389 d=4 5 111
23 454 332 332 163 131 221 442 327 332 131 389 d=4 5 111
24 351 332 332 155 145 225 312 311 332 145 400 d=4 5 111
25 256 332 332 174 222 297 168 347 332 222 458 d=2 5 240
26 480 332 332 158 129 216 482 316 332 129 388 d=4 5 109
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 02/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

27 499 332 332 168 222 293 497 336 332 222 458 d=4 5 120
28 657 332 332 152 199 263 724 304 332 199 441 d=4 5 108
29 345 272 272 171 142 235 289 342 272 142 261 d=2 5 240
30 234 332 332 107 129 177 205 215 332 129 388 d=2 5 165
31 247 332 332 107 257 273 221 215 332 257 484 d=4 5 83
32 455 332 332 121 274 296 486 241 332 274 497 d=4 5 93

ACI 318-08 Section 11.4.5. This finding suggests that using the
seismic hoops having the spacing following the shear reinforcement
requirements per ACI 318-08 Section 11.4.5 could provide con-
finement equal to or greater than that developed in the specimens
studied herein and is sufficient to develop composite action without
using shear anchors.
Conclusions
On the basis of the results of this study, the following conclusions and
recommendations can be drawn for the specimens studied herein:
1. The superposition of elastic stresses method provides conser-
vative design values, underpredicting the flexural strength of
SRC beams without shear anchors by more than 20%;
2. The method of the plastic moment of the steel section alone is
overly conservative for evaluating the flexural strength of SRC
beams owing to the conservatism stemming from overlooking
the composite action;
3. Composite action can be developed without using shear
anchors when seismic hoops are used for shear reinforcement
and the spacing of shear reinforcement satisfies the spacing
limits per ACI 318-08 Section 11.4.5;
4. Given that seismic hoops are used for shear reinforcement and
the spacing of shear reinforcement meets the requirement
specified in ACI 318-08 Section 11.4.5, the PSD, modified
PSD, and strain compatibility methods can accurately predict
the flexural strength of SRC beams whether shear anchors are
provided or not, with the mean test-to-predicted ratios being
0.97, 1.00, and 1.03, respectively;
5. The proposed modified PSD method shows a stronger corre-
lation with the strain compatibility method than the PSD
method, providing a simple and accurate alternative for de-
termining the flexural strength of encased composite beams;
6. The combined parameter, Rf Rd =r, may be used as an index to
achieve a more reliable design;
7. The shear strength of a SRC beam designed by the methods
specified in AISC 360-10 is adequate, albeit conservative, to
provide sufficient shear strength; and
8. Given that many specimens studied herein have observed
shear strength greater than the design shear strength per AISC
360-10 Section I4.1, the shear provision for composite mem-
bers in the AISC specification may be improved.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Aflg 5 area of the tension flange of the steel shape;
A0flg 5 area of the compression flange of the steel shape;
Ap 5 area of the tension cover plate;
A0p 5 area of the compression cover plate;
Ar 5 area of the tension rebar;
A0r 5 area of the compression rebar;
As 5 total tension reinforcement area;
A0s 5 total compression reinforcement area;
B 5 width of the SRC beam;
bw 5 web width;
c 5 distance from extreme compression fiber to
neutral axis;
D 5 depth of the SRC beam;
d 5 effective length 5 distance from extreme-
compression fiber to centroid of tension
reinforcement;
d 0 5 distance from the centroid of the compression
rebar to extreme compression fiber;
db 5 nominal diameter of the longitudinal reinforcing
bar;
dbf 5 distance from the centroid of the tension flange to
the top of the beam;
dh 5 nominal diameter of the transverse reinforcing bar;
ds 5 depth of the steel shape;
d1 5 distance from the centroid of the first
layer of tension rebar to extreme compression
fiber;
d2 5 distance from the centroid of the second layer of
tension rebar to extreme compression fiber;
Fy 5 yield strength of the steel shape;
ðFy Þp 5 yield strength of the cover plate;
ðFy Þr 5 yield strength of the reinforcing bar;
fc0 5 concrete compressive strength;
Melastic 5 flexural strength calculated by the superposition
of elastic stresses;
Mmod 5 flexural strength calculated by the modified
plastic stress distribution method;
Mp 5 plastic moment of the steel shape;

348 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:338-349.

 Mpsd 5 flexural strength calculated by the plastic stress
design method;
Msc 5 flexural strength calculated by the strain
compatibility method;
Mt 5 flexural strength from the test;
Rd 5 steel depth ratio d/D;
Rf 5 flange area ratio Aflg =As ;
Vc 5 nominal shear strength provided by concrete;
Vs 5 nominal shear strength provided by shear
reinforcement;
Vs;required 5 shear strength required from the shear
reinforcement 5 Vu =fv 2Vc ;
Vsteel 5 nominal shear strength provided by the steel
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 02/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
section alone;
Vu 5 maximum shear force experienced by the
specimen;
b1 5 factor used to obtain the depth of the equivalent
rectangular stress block;
ɛc 5 strain in extreme compression fiber;
ɛs 5 strain in the steel shape;
ɛ0s 5 strain in compression rebar;
ɛs1 5 strain in the first layer of tension rebar;
ɛs2 5 strain in the second layer of tension rebar;
r 5 tension reinforcement ratio;
r0 5 compression reinforcement ratio; and
fv 5 shear resistance factor.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 349
J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:338-349.
References
AISC. (2005). “Specification for structural steel buildings.” ANSI/AISC
360-05, Chicago.
AISC. (2010). “Specification for structural steel buildings.” ANSI/AISC
360-10, Chicago.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2008). “Building code requirements for
reinforced concrete.” ACI 318-08, Detroit.
Chen, C. C., and Chen, C. C. (2001). “Flexural behavior of steel encased
composite beams.” J. Chinese Inst. Civil and Hydraulic Eng., 13(2),
263–275.
Chen, C. J. (1996). “Seismic resistance characteristics of steel reinforced
concrete beam-to-column connection.” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Con-
struction Engineering, National Taiwan Univ. of Science and Tech-
nology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chen, J. R. (1992). “A study on the strength and deformability of pre-cast
steel reinforced concrete beam-to-column connection.” M.S. thesis,
Dept. of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan Univ. of Science
and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ju, J. S. (1993). “The new design and construction method of pre-cast steel
reinforced concrete beam-to-column connection.” M.S. thesis, Dept. of
Construction Engineering, National Taiwan Univ. of Science and
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tsai, K. C., Yu, R. T., Lian, Y., and Shianq, W. B. (1995). “Seismic re-
sistance characteristics of half pre-cast steel reinforced concrete beam-
to-column connection.” Struct. Eng., 102(2), 35–51.
Weng, C. C., Jiang, M. H., and Yen, S. I. (2001). “Experimental study on
ultimate flexural capacity of SRC beams.” J. Chinese Inst. Civil
Hydraulic Eng., 13(2), 249–261.