Sie sind auf Seite 1von 51

Impact of Eurocode 4 on Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Chiew Sing-Ping School of Ci Civil il and En Environmental ironmental Engineering Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
12 July 2013

Scope of Presentation Design codes

Materials Composite p columns Composite beams Composite slabs

Design Codes for Composite Structures

Effective 1st April 2015: Eurocode 1 - for loadings Eurocode 2 - for concrete properties and some of the concrete related checks (such as longitudinal shear) Eurocode 3 (many Parts) - for construction stage stage, design of pure steel beam and profiled steel sheeting Eurocode 4 Part 1-1 - general rules of buildings Eurocode 4 Part 1 1-2 2 - for the structural fire design Till 31st March 2015: BS 6399 - for loadings BS 5950-1 5950 1 - for construction stage, design of pure beam BS 5950-6 - for design of profiled steel sheeting BS5950 3 1 BS5950-3.1 - for design of composite beam BS5950-4 - for design of composite slab BS 5400-5 - for design of composite column BS 5950-8 g - for structural fire design

Design Safety Factors

Load oad safety sa e y factors ac o s 1.35 35 Gk + 1.5 5 Qk

British Standards
1.4 Gk + 1.6 6 Qk ( (BS5950) S5950) 1.2 Gk + 1.5 Qk (BS5400-5) 1.0 (BS5950) 1.05 (BS5400-5) 1.5 1.15

Structural steel Material safety f Concrete factors Reinforcement

1.0 1.5 1.15

Material Strength
Concrete and steel strengths in EC4 and BS5950
BS5950 Normal Concrete Light weight Structural steel
Cube strength

EC4 C20/25 C60/75 LC20/22 LC60/66 460 N/mm2

C30 C50 C25 C40 355 N/mm2

Cylinder strength / Cube strength

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

Concrete Strength
One of the most noticeable differences in Eurocodes is the way concrete t strength t th is i specified ifi d th throughout. h t In British Standards, the cube strength fcu is used. In Eurocodes, Eurocodes the cylinder strength fck is used.

BS Cube strength 25 N/mm2

Will different strength gives different resistance ?

EC Cylinder strength 20 N/mm2

Converting from the concrete strength to equivalent plastic stress block

BS: 0.45 0 45 fcu = 0.45 0 4525 = 11.25 11 25 N/mm2 EC: 0.85 fck/c= 0.8520/1.5 = 11.33 N/mm2 No difference!

Steel Strength
EC3 has additional ductility requirements compared to BS5950 in terms of stress ratio, elongation and strain ratio. Normal strength steel
fu/fy 1.10 Elongation at failure not less than 15% u 15y stain y is the yield

high strength steel

fu/fy 1.05 (EC3-1-12) fu/fy 1.10 ( UK NA to EC3-1-12) ) Elongation at failure not less than 10% u 15 y

Some product standards only have requirements on the nominal yield and tensile strengths, or their minimum values. The stress ratio calculated according di to these h nominal i l values l cannot comply l with i h the h EC3 ductility d ili requirement.
Standard AS 1397 AS 1595 EN 10326 ISO 4997 Grade G500 G550 CA 500 S550GD CH550 Nominal N i l yield i ld strength (MPa) 500 550 500 550 550 Nominal N i l tensile t il strength (MPa) 520 550 510 560 550 Stress ratio 1.04 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.00

AS 1397: Steel sheet and strip hot-dip zinc-coated or aluminium/zinc-coated AS 1595: Cold-rolled, unalloyed, steel sheet and strip EN 10326: Continuously hot hot-dip dip coated strip and sheet of structural steels ISO 4997: Cold-reduced carbon steel sheet of structural quality

Profiled Steel Sheeting

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


Headed Stud Shear Connector

In BS 5950, the resistances of headed studs in solid slab are given for various combinations of height, diameter and concrete strength but the physics behind these numbers are not explained. In I EC4 EC4, the th resistance i t is i expressed d in i two t equations ti governed by the strength of concrete and steel.


Characteristic Resistance Qk of Headed Studs in Normal Concrete (BS 5950-3.1 Table 5)

Dimensions Di i of fh headed d d stud t d shear h connectors Nominal shank diameter (mm) 25 22 19 19 16 13 Nominal height (mm) 100 100 100 75 75 65 Characteristic Ch t i ti strength t th of f concrete (fcu) 30 35 N/mm2 N/mm2 154 126 100 87 74 47 161 132 104 91 78 49 40 N/mm2 168 139 109 96 82 52

As welded As-welded 25 height N/mm2 (mm) 95 95 95 70 70 60 146 119 95 82 70 44


Design Resistance of Headed Studs in Solid C Concrete t Slab Sl b (EC4)

EC4 calculates the resistance as the minimum of two equations, shown here as (1) and (2).
PRd = 0.8 f u d 2 4


PRd =

0.29 d 2

f ck Ecm

hsc = 0.2 + 1 d


The two equations represent the 2 possible failure modes: (i) failure in the shank of headed stud and (ii) failure in concrete.


steel failure

Failure in the headed stud

Push out Test Specimen Push-out

concrete crushes

Failure in concrete


Comparison of Characteristic Resistances in various i D i Design Codes C d

Ch Characteristic t i ti resistance i t of f shear h stud, t d PRk (kN)
Headed shear studs embedded i solid in lid concrete t slab l b of f normal weight concrete BS5400 P BS5400: Part t5 5: 2005 BS5950: Part 3.1: 2010 EC4: Part 1.1: 2004
N t Notes:

Characteristic strength of concrete (N/mm2) 25 90 95 81.0 30 100 100 92.1 35 104 104 100.6 40 109 109 102.1

Nominal N i l shank h k di diameter t = 19 19mm Nominal height = 100mm while as-welded height = 95mm

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


Characteristic Resistance of Stud (EC4 and BS5950)

160 140


EC(d=22mm,h=100mm) BS(d=19mm,h=100mm) EC(d=19mm,h=100mm) BS(d=16mm,h=75mm) EC(d=16mm,h=75mm)

PR k (kN)

100 80 60 40 20 0 25 30 35 40 45 50

Concrete strength (N/mm2) Note: the differences are larger for smaller stud diameters

In general, the resistance of headed stud shear connectors determined by EC4 is lower than BS5950. more headed studs are needed in EC4 design g !


Design Resistance of Headed Studs in C Composite it Sl Slab b

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


Reduction Factor kt
Design shear resistance is taken as the resistance in a solid slab multiplied by the reduction factor kt
b0 b0



EC4: BS5950 3 1: BS5950-3.1:

0.7 b0 hsc kt = 1 k t, max nr hp hp

The coefficient is 0 0.85 85 and 0 0.6 6 for re re-entrant entrant trough profiles and 0.63 and 0.34 for open trough profiles

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



hs sc

Upper Limit kt,max for the Reduction Factor kt

Generally, most profiled sheet sheeting is designed such that their limiting geometry y value dominates, so the reduction factor is independent of the g
EC4 profiled steel sheeting Number of stud connectors per trough Thickness t of sheet (mm) 1.0 >1 0 >1.0 1.0 >1.0 1.0 10 >1.0 1.0 >1.0 10 Stud not exceeding 20mm in diameter and welded through g profiled steel sheeting 0.85 1.0 0.70 0.8 0 85 0.85 1.0 0.70 08 0.8 BS 5950-3.1 Stud not exceeding 19mm in diameter 1.0 0.8 0.82 0.45

Re entrant Re-entrant trough

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

Open trough

For open trough profiles, the reduction factor in EC4 BS5950 F re-entrant For t t trough t h profiles, fil th reduction the d ti factor f t i in EC4 BS5950

Characteristic resistance of shear stud, , PRk ( (kN) )

Headed shear studs in composite slab with profiled steel sheeting BS5950: Part 3: 2010 Re entrant Re-entrant Open trough Characteristic strength of concrete fcu (N/mm2) 25 95 77.9 68.9 30 100 82 75.5 35 104 85.3 85.5 40 109 89.4 86.8

EC4: Part 1.1: 2004


Nominal shank diameter = 19mm Nominal height = 100mm while as-welded height = 95mm


The resistance of shear stud in composite slab determined in EC4 is up to 27% lower than that given in BS 5950.


Top-Down Construction

Kingposts (supporting the roof) which are part of the barrette piles installed during the foundation stage


Installation of a kingpost into the barrette pile


KingPost g in column

Excavation for starter bars Install starter bars

Casting column head


Column Design Approach

Cross section resistance (yielding)

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

Member buckling resistance

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


Types of elastic analysis and design e


Simplified Method (EC4 Clause

Design g Concepts p Design based on the EC3 buckling curves (similar to pure steel column) Design based on second-order analysis with equivalent member I Imperfection f ti (simplified ( i lifi d method) th d) Resistance of member in combined compression and bending

Axial compression


Design based on second order analysis y with equivalent q member Imperfection (simplified method)



Axial Compression Resistance

Compression resistance of composite column

N pl, pl Rd = Aa f yd d + Ac f cd + As f sd




f yk / a

f ck / c

f sk / s

Axial Buckling Resistance

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

Plastic resistance a b Euler buckling

+ 2 -



= 0 .5 1 + - 0 .2 +
N pl,Rk N cr





Buckling g Curve - EC3


Buckling Curve EC4

Cross-section Concrete encased section Partially concrete encased section Concrete filled circular and rectangular hollow sections s 3% 3% < s 6% Limits Axis of b kli buckling y-y z-z y-y z-z any any Buckling curve S235 - S460 b c b c a b

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


Example - Comparison of Design Approach

Design based on EC3 b buckling kli curve Buckling curve Member imperfection Resistance of axial compression Comparison NRd(X) / NRd(e0) N Rd () = 4320 kN b L/200 N Rd (e0) = 4108 kN 1.05 e0 Design based on second order analysis with equivalent member imperfection NEd


Note: design based on the use of member imperfection e0 leads to a maximum difference of 5% in comparison with design based on the EC3 buckling curve approach.
Design data: fy=355N/mm2, fck=25N/mm2, fsk=500N/mm2, Cross-section: 350mm350mm, steel section: 254254 UC73. Column length: 5.0m, 4 bars of 20mm diameter


Example - Comparison of Design Approach

Design based on the EC3 buckling curve approach Design based on second order analysis with equivalent member imperfection approach N Rd ((e0 )

N Rd ( )

N Rd( ) = N pl,Rd

M Ed,max = k N Rd(e0 ) e0
M Ed,max M M pl,Rd

Tedious approach !

+ 2 -


= 0.5 1 + - 0.2 +
N pl,Rk N cr

The maximum resistance can be obtained by: NRd(e0)

kN Rd(e0 ) e0 = M M pl,Rd
N pl,Rd -N Rd (e0 ) N pl,Rd -N pm,Rd


M Mpl,Rd Mpl,Rd

Second order effect factor k:

Easier approach !


1 1 NRd (e0 ) /Ncr,eff 1-

N cr,eff ff =

2 (EI )ef,II
L2 cr

Resistance of Members in combined C Compression i and dB Bending di

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


Bending Moment due to Member Imperfection

For the member imperfection e0 caused by the design axial load NEd on a composite column, there will be a bending moment of NEde0. The design bending moment for the composite column l l length h considered id d both b h second-order d d effects of end moment and imperfection is given by:



M Ed.max = k1M Ed + k 2 N Ed e0
NEd k1, k2 are the factors of second order effects


1- NEd /Ncr,eff

related l t d to t end d moment t ratio ti


Member Imperfections for Composite Column

Cross-section Concrete encased section y z Partially concrete encased Section y z Circular and rectangular h ll hollow section ti y z Circular hollow section with additional I-section y Partially encased H section with crossed H section y z 35 Axis of buckling y-y z-z y-y z-z y-y z-z yy y-y z z-z Buckling curve b c b c a b b b

Member imperfection p (e0) ( L/200 L/150 L/200 L/150 L/300 L/200 L/200 L/200 L/200


Improvement in the Design of Column in C Combined bi d Compression C i and d Bending B di

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


k1 M Ed

M Ed M M pl,Rd

(a) EC4: 1994

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

k1 M Ed + k 2 N Ed e0

M Ed, max

d M pl,Rd

(b) EC4: 2004

The member imperfection p can be taken into account in the global analysis and hence it is not necessary to allow for th imperfection the i f ti i in th the analysis l i of f th the interaction curve. 37

Design of Composite Beam

Nc,f Np

Npl,a pl a

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


Failure Modes of Composite Beam




resistance to sagging moment and vertical shear resistance to hogging moment and shear and M-V interaction shear connection @ the steel concrete interface lateral torsional buckling L Longitudinal it di l shear h of f the th concrete t flange fl


Lateral Torsional Buckling Resistance

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




M b = pb S x
Where pb is determined by TB

M b, Rd = LT M Rd

TB =nt uvt
4a /hs vt = 2 2 1+ ( 2a /hs ) +0.05 ( /x )

LT =

2 LT

LT =

M Rk M cr
1/ 2

2 2 M cr = ( kcC4 / L ) G I k L / + ( ) Ea I afz s a at


M cr = C1

2 EI z I w
2 cr

L2 cr GI T + 2 I EI z z



EC4 Lateral-torsional L t lt i l buckling 546 kNm

EC3 531 kNm

BS5950-3.1 479 kNm

EC4/BS Ratio 1.14

EC4/EC3 Ratio 1.03


Elastic Critical Moment

Inverted- U frame ABCD resisting lateral-torsional buckling

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

M cr = ( kcC4 / L ) ( Ga I at + ks L /

)E I

a afz

1/ 2


Composite Slab

Trapezoidal Open Trough (Trapezoidal)


Possible modes of failure:

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

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


Longitudinal Shear

End slip


T t setup Test t


m-k Method
EC4: BS5950-4: S5950

Vl,Rd l Rd

bd p mAp = +k vs bLs

Bs ds mr Ap + kr Vs = 1 25 Bs Lv 1.25

f cu

Concrete strength

m= 172.45 k= 0.2491 k

m 163.26 m= k= 0.0312


Comparison of Longitudinal Shear

EC4 BS5950-4

Short span Long span Short span Long span m k Shear-bond Shear bond resistance (kN) ) Vl,Rd l Rd ( Test 79.3 172 5 172.5 0.2491 60.1 74.3 163 3 163.3 0.0312 56.2

Short span

81.2 kN

Long span

61.6 kN

BS5950 provides a more conservative value for longitudinal shear resistance


Vertical Shear
BS 5950-4 EC4

Vv = bbdsvc
0.79 100As 400 fcu vc = m bvd d 25
1/4 1/3 1/3

Vv,Rd = CRd,ck (1001 fck ) + k1 pc bw dp


Vv,Rd,min = ( vmin + k1 cp , , p ) bw d p
1/2 vmin = 0.035k 3/ 2 f ck

BS 5950-4 118.7kN

EC4 107.8 kN

Experiment 153.6 kN

EC4 provides a more conservative value for vertical shear resistance


Punching Shear
BS 5950-4 EC4

Vp = Critical perimeter ( Ds -Dp ) vc

0.79 100 As 400 fcu vc = m bvd d 25
1/4 1/3 1/3

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

3/ 2 1/2 vmin = 0.035 k f ck i k



Critical perimeter = 4( Ds -Dp ) +4ds +4( length of load area ) Cp = 2 hc + 2 ( bp + 2hf ) + 2 ( ap + 2hf + 2d p 2hc )

BS 5950-4 108kN

EC4 139 kN

Experiment 186 kN

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


1. Composite members with high strength steel and concrete outside t id th the scope of f EC4 EC4. 2. Common grades of profiled steel sheeting cannot meet EC3 ductility requirement, requirement design strength will have to be downgraded. 3 The resistance of headed stud shear connectors is 3. generally lower in EC4 compared to BS5950; Important to note that BC1 adopts EC4 design resistance values values. 4. For composite columns, the EC4 buckling curves are different compared to EC3 due to contribution of concrete. concrete However, unlike EC3, no special consideration for composite column with S460 steel.


5. The simplified design approach using second order analysis and equivalent member imperfection without any need for member buckling resistance check is much easier i for f composite it column l i combined in bi d compression i and bending moment. 6 EC4 provides 6. id guidance id f lateral-torsional for l t lt i l buckling b kli check h k for continuous composite beams taking into account the beneficial effect provided by the concrete slab. slab 7. EC4 also provides clear guidance for prototype testing and development of composite slab system using new profiled steel sheeting.