Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
STEEL SHEET/CONCRETE
COMPOSITE SLABS
Imad E. H. Shobaki
Imad E. H SHOBAKI
Ph.D. Thesis
2000
Contents
Contents
i
.........................................................................................................................
List of illustrations
vii
.....................................................................................................
List of tables
Xi
................................................................................................................
Acknowledgements
xii
....................................................................................................
Abstract
xiii
.....................................................................................................................
Notation
xiv
.....................................................................................................................
Abbreviations
xviii
..........................................................................................................
1
...........................................................................................................
3
1.2 Composite slabs with profiled steel sheets
...........................................................
4
1.3 Profiled steel sheeting
............................................................................................
4
1.4 Shapes and position of embossments
...................................................................
1.5 Definition of shear-bond strength
5
........................................................................
6
1.6 Composite structures using profiled steel sheeting
............................................
7
1.7 Advantages of composite structures
....................................................................
7
1.8 The use of composite structures
...........................................................................
1.9 Composite behaviour
8
.............................................................................................
8
1.10 Scope of the problem investigated in this thesis
................................................
10
1.11 Outline of the thesis
...........................................................................................
17
.........................................................................................................
17
2.2 Bond in conventional reinforced concrete
.........................................................
18
2.2.1 Bond for coated reinforcing bars and sheeting
...............................................
19
2.2.2 Bond stress-slip relationship
...........................................................................
20
2.2.3 Anchorage length
............................................................................................ i
45
....................................................................................................................
3.1 Introduction
46
.........................................................................................................
54
.............................................................................................................
3.7 Conclusions
54
...........................................................................................................
ii
77
.........................................................................................................
79
.................................................................................................................
80
4.5 Test set-up
............................................................................................................
80
4.6 Arrangement
........................................................................................................
80
4.6.1 Slip gauges
......................................................................................................
81
4.6.2 Deflection gauges
...........................................................................................
81
4.7 Test loading procedure
........................................................................................
82
4.8 History of load-deflection behaviour
.................................................................
82
4.9 Load-end slip behaviour
.....................................................................................
82
4.10 Failure characteristics
.......................................................................................
83
4.11 Slab behaviour during load application
..........................................................
83
4.11.1 Results summary
...........................................................................................
4.12 Regression line
85
...................................................................................................
85
4.13 Evaluation of design loads
................................................................................
86
4.14 Discussion of results
...........................................................................................
86
4.14.1 Slabs behaviour and failure mode
................................................................
86
4.15 Design loads using the m-k method
.................................................................
4.16 Evaluation of test results according to partial shear connection
88
method in EC4 ....................................................................................................
89
4.16.1 Determination of design load
........................................................................
4.17 Conclusions
94
.........................................................................................................
111
122
.......................................................................................................
134
5.5.3Changingstatus(including contact)
.............................................................
135
5.5.4Incrementalloadingandequilibrium iterations
............................................
135
5.6 Modelling composite slabs
................................................................................
141
.......................................................................................................
142
6.2 Finite element model
.........................................................................................
144
6.2.1 Concrete
........................................................................................................
144
6.2.2 Steel sheeting
................................................................................................
145
6.2.3 Non-linear stressstrain materials
..................................................................
147
6.3 Mechanical interlock
.........................................................................................
147
6.3.1 Contact non-linearities
.............................................................................
147
6.3.2 Contact stiffness
............................................................................................
iv
183
.......................................................................................................
213
.......................................................................................................
222
..............................................................................................................
Appendix
Appendix
229
method .......................................................................................................................
Appendix
Appendix
V1
List of Illustrations
Figure 1.1 Early composite slab supported by steel beam
12
..........................................
Figure 1.2 Composite slabs supported by composite beams
12
......................................
Figure 1.3 Dovetailed (re-entrant) deck profiles
13
........................................................
Figure 1.4 Trapezoidal deck profiles
14
..........................................................................
Figure 1.5 Shapesof embossmentin the web
15
.............................................................
Figure 1.6 Position of embossments
15
...........................................................................
Figurel. 7 Typical hybrid deck with re-entrant portions
15
.............................................
Figure 1.8 Forms of shear connection in composite slabs
16
..........................................
Figure 2.8 Shear span in composite slabs
41
...................................................................
Figure 2.8.a Effective shear span in partial shear connection method
42
.......................
Figure 2.9 Stressdistribution for sagging bending if the neutral
axis is above the steel sheet......................................................................42
Figure 2.10 Stressdistribution for sagging bending if the neutral
42
..............................
42
axis is in the steel sheet................................................................................................
Figure 2.11 Determination of the degree of shear connection from Mtest
43
.................
Figure 2.12 Design partial interaction diagram
43
..........................................................
Figure 2.13 Design partial interaction diagram for a slab with end anchorage
43
..........
44
Figure 2.14 Contribution of additional longitudinal reinforcement
...........................
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
166
tests using symmetry
..........................................................................
Figure 6.11.c The finite element model with the loads for the full-scale tests......... 166
Figure 6.12 The composite slab dimensions, and the cross-section
(56])
(Daniels
167
geometry of profiled steel sheet
.......................................
Figure 6.13 Comparison between experimental and FE results load-slip
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
199
of embossments
.....................................................................................
Figure 7.15-20F.E. modelling for embossments
200-204
...............................................
Figure 7.21 Comparisonof the appliedload versusdeflectionfor
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
ix
List of Tables
57
Table 3.1.a Profiled steel sheetdetails
........................................................................
Table 3.1.b Details of push-off and pull-out tests
57
.......................................................
Table 3.2 Details of typical shearstressvalues ti (N/mm2)
58
........................................
96
4.1 Tensile Strength of Profiled Steel Sheeting
................................................
96
4.2 Profile Steel sheeting details
......................................................................
97
4.3 Slab Details:
................................................................................................
4.4 Test Results:
98
................................................................................................
99
4.5 Regression line values:
...............................................................................
4.6 Shear strength and design load values
100
&
partial
connection
methods
using m-k method
.....................................
Table 4.6.a Calculation of shear stressaccording to partial interaction theory,
compared with the shear stressfrom the -small-scaletests................... 101
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table 6.1 The input data of the geometrical properties for the two
small-scale tests (using data from chapter 3) ............................................155
Table 6.2 Input data for the three full scale composite slabs (data from chapter 4). 156
Table 6.3 Input data for the properties of concrete and profiled steel sheet
156
for the composite slabs for reported by Daniels 1987[561
..
157
Table 6.4 The complete input data for the FEM
.......................................................
xi
Acknowledgements
I must first express my deep gratitude to my supervisor, Mr. D. C. O'Leary, for his
inspiration, encouragement,and the constant advice during this research.
Many thanks are due to the technical staff in the departmental laboratories and
workshops.
My thanks to my parents, my wife, my brothers, and sisters for their continuous
encouragement and support during the study. I also thank my daughter, and my son
for bringing me so much happiness.
My thanks to all friends for their effort in giving the best advice from their experience
in postgraduate studies.
X11
Abstract
The work presented in this thesis is concerned with the effect of shear-bond on the
behaviour of profiled steel sheet/concretecomposite slabs. A review of the previous
influence
in
investigate
bond
the
to
composite construction
work carried out
of shear
and the factors which may affect shear bond resistance is presented and discussed.
Also, the different empirical shear-bond equations proposed and design methods for
composite slabs are reviewed. A description of push-off and pull-out tests follows and
several examples of concrete/profiled steel sheeting units were tested and the results
discussed. These small scale tests provided information on the load/slip relationship
which was used in the subsequentmodelling of the full-scale composite slabs. Fulldiscussion
then
tests
together
of results.
scale composite slab
are
considered
with a
These are analysed using the regression approach of British Standards and the
Eurocode 4. Comparison is made with the design values using the partial interaction
method. The comparison indicates that both design methods are valid with the
regression approach being slightly more conservative.
Finite element methods and their advantagesare reviewed and the ANSYS software is
introduced together with it's proprietary elements, material models and contact
elements. This is followed by a description of three-dimensional finite element
modelling of composite slabs (small and full scale). The load versus deflection, and
load versus slip provide a comparison between the numerical analysis and test results.
The finite element analysis of the composite slabs was successful. The failure load of
each slab was modelled satisfactorily using the contact stiffness from the small-scale
tests modified by a small percentage(less than 10%). A close correlation between the
load/slip
for
finite
the
and
experimental and
element analysis predictions
load/deflection behaviour was also obtained.
Three-dimensional finite element modelling of embossments with different
drawn.
for
the
conclusions
and
steel sheet and concrete was carried out
parameters
The general conclusions of the work follows together with recommendations for
future research.
Xlii
Notation
Ap
As
b,.
Slabwidth
Dp
dp
The vertical distance from top of slab to the centroid of the steel profile.
d$
Ec
ep
esa
F1
F2
fb
Bond stress
f b.
fck
fcu
fdp
FN
Normal force
Fs
FS
Fs
fsk
fyp
ht
Contact stiffness
Reduction factor
[K]
k, kr
Kl
K2
KN
Contact stiffness
Anchorage length
Lo
Length of overhang
L3
Lsf
Lt
Slab length
L,v
Slabwidth
L,,
m,mr
Mpr
Mcomp The maximum bending moment for the composite slab only
MRd
MP-design
Design bending moment of profiled steel sheet
MR.
u1t
Mtest
MU
Friction
Nas
Forcein steelreinforcement
Qk
Characteristicresistanceof shear-connector
Qp
Ps
pmax
seqv
Total stresses
sz
Stressat z direction
displacement
ul
Displacement at node I
U2
Displacement at node J
Ugap
uy
uz
VI
Vld
Designresistanceof endanchorage
Vik
VI. Rd
VI. Rd
Vt
Z, Zl, Z2
lever
arms
xvi
Effective bar size which, for a single bar is equal to the size and for a group
of bars in contact is equal to the diameter of a bar of equal total area
yep
yC
Ys
factor
for
steel reinforcement
partial safety
ys
ym
rl
Degreeof shearconnection
TlcompDegree of shear connection for the composite slabs with reinforcement when
the flexural capacity of the "reinforced concrete portion" has been deducted.
11test Degree of shear connection from test
Coefficient of friction
pFN
Tu
turn
Tu.Rd
Tu.Rk
xvii
Abbreviations
Centroidal axis
DOF
Degree of freedom
FE
Finite Element
FEA
FEM
N-R
Newton-Raphson
xviii
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Composite construction is the term used for structures composed of two or more
different materials. Generally in Structural Engineering, the materials may be
concrete/steel, concrete/timber, timber/plastic, timber/steel, plastic/steel ... etc.
Composite construction integrates the structural properties of the two materials to
between
lighter
from
the
connection
produce stiffer, stronger and
members
efficient
the two materials. The shear-bond connection between the two materials is a very
important factor in ensuring they act as one unit.
In construction, the most common combination of these materials is concrete and
steel, producing a composite material where the bending moment caused by a static
load is mainly resisted by the compressive force in the concrete and the tensile force
in the steel. Probably the more common form is reinforced concrete while the subject
of this work, concrete/profiled steel sheet slabs, are an efficient and popular
alternative for floor slab construction.
The choice between reinforced concrete, and this other form of composite
different
for
factors.
When
depends
these
construction
a particular structure
on many
is
that of total cost,
the
construction
are
compared,
modes of
main comparison
including cost of materials, construction time, and whilst strength is often the
factor
fire
influence.
has
In terms of
resistance also
predominating
a significant
high
is
because
the
the
the
two,
of
concrete
relatively
materials reinforced
cheaper of
price of the profiled steel sheets.
From the constructional standpoint, composite construction may often be cost
it
be
because
can
quickly erected especially when precast concrete units or
effective,
profiled steel sheeting are used in conjunction with the steel frame to facilitate the
floors.
Regarding fire resistance, reinforced concrete has some
the
construction of
1
advantages,but since both types are used in the construction of multi-storey structures
it would seem that the total costs are not significantly different.
The concrete/steel type of composite construction considered in this work, uses steel
in the form of profiled steel sheeting. The steel sheeting is considered as an external
main reinforcement for the composite member. For many reasons, the composite
action may not be complete because the concrete does not completely confine the
interface
in
incompatibility
This
to
the
the
concrete/steel
steel.
may give rise
strain at
direction.
interface
in
Also,
has
longitudinal
horizontal
the
the
when
slip
occurred at
interface
in
due
lack
interlock
(uplift)
the
the
to
at
may occur
of
vertical movement
vertical direction. So, a strong stiff connection at the interface is required for effective
composite members.
When rolled steel sections are used, as in composite beams, shear-connecting devices
horizontal
interface
in
increase
both
the
the
to
and vertical
stiffness
are required
directions. Welded shear-stud connectors are a common form of shear-connection
device. The interface can only be assumedto be fully rigid and infinitely strong if the
horizontal slip that may occur at the steel/concrete interface is very small. When
it
is
in
is
the
composite
element,
steel
a
component
profiled steel sheeting used as
impractical to weld shear connectors unless they are used on the supporting beams as
is
be
less
1
The
thick,
than
so shear connection
mm
end anchors.
steel material may
into
by
(indentations)
the
that
project
or
rolled
embossments
pressed
provided either
be
by
This
enhanced
giving the profiled steel sheeting a re-entrant
may
concrete.
from
the concrete, and can
the
the
steel
shape, which prevents
vertical separation of
in
from
the embossments.
connection
more
effective
mechanical
result
For rolled steel sections, it is possible to produce strong ductile members that are
design
by
to
controlling the number of shear-stud connectors used.
easy
relatively
However, for composite members formed with profiled steel sheeting, it is more
difficult
approach.
Mechanicalinterlock is generallyachievedby:
1. Embossmentsprojecting from the sides of the profiled steel ribs into the concrete,
indentations
in the web or flange of the steel profile.
or
2. The re-entrant shape of the steel profile, which can lock the concrete into the steel
profile.
The use of end anchors is another way of transferring shear forces between the steel
profile and concrete, and limiting the longitudinal slip and preventing the uplift at the
interface of the steel sheet and concrete. The headed stud and the shot-fired shear
connectors are the most common types of end anchor.
have been carried out together with a study of embossment behaviour with and
without a concrete slab.
Industrial buildings.
Office buildings.
Commercial buildings.
Hospitals.
Housing.
7
Renovationof existingbuildings.
have
direct
development
The
not
a
physical meaning.
of partial shear connection
theory does addressthe actual behaviour in producing a "design" approach to a shear
bond capacity based on a shear strength ti,,. The method is described in Appendix B of
Eurocode 4.
Some time ago a research project was started at University of Salford to investigate
the use of profiled steel sheeting as horizontal formwork and reinforcement to a
bond
between
This
the steel sheeting and
test
that
the
showed
composite slabs.
pilot
the concrete was a critical aspect in ensuring that the composite slab acted as a fully
12'13.
O'Leary
Duffy
compositeelement
and
It is clear from the above discussion that the shear-bond failure is often the critical
for
be
failure
for
true
this
any composite
and
mode of
composite slabs
may also
structure. So, the higher shear-bond resistance, the greater the capacity of the
composite structure considered.
To date, a few studies have been carried out in analysing the behaviour and the
function of the embossmentsand the re-entrant portions in the shear-bond resistance
investigate
devices.
The
the effect of
to
this
as shear-connecting
aim of
research work
these shear-connecting devices through experimental and finite element modelling.
To study the effect of embossments and the re-entrant portions in shear-bond
resistance, the author has presented small-scale tests. Also, full-scale composite slabs
fullThe
investigate
behaviour
tested
to
the
slabs.
composite
of
were prepared and
scale tests results were analysed according to the m&k method and the partial
Finite
between
the
two
approaches.
connection method and comparisons made
behaviour
to
the
analysis
was
applied
study
of composite slabs and the results
element
following
factors,
Amongst
the
the
were
experimental results.
other
compared with
considered:
"
"
"
11
Structural
concrete
,ti
steel
i -i,
' , l
sheet
welds
12
600mm
l_I.`, 1
_U
Cover
3 rqm
',Ma
P` f'1
Xlrlurl
_
J
Cover
width
width
lern U th:
f O I'iE'
me LreS
610mm
38mm
10r,r,
tAmm
I
12 ri rn
51 rmri
150mm
51mm
150mm
13
1000
mm Cover
Width
20 nn
09,1.0,1.1
&
1.2nn
Maximum
I
900
rr
nn
12
metres
,, .i 1, ,iJ,
Cover
width
F53
length:
300 nn
Nominal
80.5ri'
T2251, m 131rin
198-
102nn
t=1.2mn
Maximum
120
length:
12
metres
50
300
Cover
width
900NM
600
Circular
Indent
60mm
Chevron
Indents
46nn
22SrvM
indents
Vertical
lOnn
50nn
I
300nn
Cheveron
Indents
60nn
i.IMFI , r_;
200ron
14
0000
a-
-tangle
verticoI
(trop-idol)
Q QQQ
squore
c-
InCllned
chevron
0000
0000
F-
CII'ClP
(trop-idol)
rectongle
QqQQ
cl-
000
P-
b-
&2&2
Sfnggerd
owCIP
OOOO
OOOO
g-
split
v erticol
h-
split
inclined
z
a-
Re-entront
embossment
on
the
portion
of
profile
web
lm
b-
embosment
on
the
flange
r-
.,,
c-
enbossnent
on
the
trough
15
a-
b-
Welded
Embossments
c-
wires
tl-
Rp
pntront
Holes
form
16
Chapter Two
Shear-Bond in Composite Construction
2.1 Introduction
Shear-bond behaviour is a critical factor in the design of composite sections. For
composite construction comprising thin gauge steel sheeting and concrete, the shear
bond strength is much lower than for conventional reinforced concrete or composite
hot rolled section/concrete slab construction. This is because the reinforcement in
reinforced concrete members is more constrained from slip displacement by the solid
cross section and full encasementof the concrete. In composite hot rolled steel section
and concrete slab construction, the shear-studconnectors are also encasedand provide
strong mechanical interlock.
This chapter contains a general review of shear-bond strength in conventional
reinforced concrete and composite construction. Also, it contains a detailed review of
shear bond equations for profiled composite slabs for which there are similarities and
differences with shear bond behaviour in the more well known form of composite.
The two most often used design methods for composite slabs; namely the m-k method
and the partial connection method, are reviewed and compared.
17
Cairns, 1994(16])reported that many parameters may affect in the bond strength of
reinforcing bars.
The rib geometry of reinforcing bars may affect the bond strength (Figure 2.1). The
transfer of the force between ribbed bar and surrounding concrete is achieved
principally by bearing of the ribs on the concrete. The resultant compressive force
exerted by the ribs on the concrete is inclined to the bar axis. The radial component of
this force creates a ring tension in the concrete cover around the bar. If the tension
force generated by bond action exceeds the capacity of the ring, bond failure occurs
by splitting of concrete cover. Cairns and Jones, 1995(171,
reported that two failure
modes may be developed as follows:
1- Splitting failure: when concrete cover is less than approximately three times bar
diameter, and
2- Pull-out failure: if the concrete cover is larger or if sufficient confining
reinforcement or transversepressureopposed the splitting force.
Also, Hamad, 1995[181,
tested eccentric pull-out specimens with specially machined
anchored bars and full-scale beam specimens. The tested rib geometry parameters
were rib face angle, rib spacing and rib height. The experimental results showed that
the bond strength and bond-slip resistance varied with the rib geometry and concrete
strength.
The function of embossmentspressed onto the profiled steel sheeting is the same as
the lugs or ribs for the reinforcing bars. But the behaviour of embossmentis thought
Reinforcing bars are fully encased in the concrete whereas the
to be differentE191.
profiled steel sheeting is in contact with the concrete on one face only. There is little
opportunity for ring tension to develop and, as the sheeting is relatively flexible, the
embossment may move relative to the concrete. However, the embossmentsmay act
to a limited extent as the ribs in the reinforcing bars if they are located on a relatively
stiff section of the profile.
layer in
18
bond strength has been studied by many researchers(Treece and Ersa, 19891201,
Cleary
Most of the previous researchers reported that the friction
and Ramirez, 19931213).
between the concrete and the epoxy-coated bars is less than that between the concrete
and un-coated bars. They reported that the reduction in the friction characteristics
reduces bond between reinforcement and concrete. However, the difference in
behaviour reduces with provision of heavy confining reinforcement or thick concrete
cover. Yan and Mindess, 1994(22],from their experimental tests, concluded that under
high rate loading, the deficiency of epoxy-coated bars; e.g. the reduction in bond
strength, wider crack developed and brittleness, were reduced.
The steel deck sheeting surface is usually galvanised by zinc layer. It is, however,
assumed that this will have little effect on mechanical bond. However, the zinc
coating layer for galvanised profiled steel sheeting surface may increase the chemical
bond1191.
(d) Stage4: Oncethe longitudinal cracks(splitting cracks)break out the whole cover
andbar spacing,the bond fails abruptly if no transversereinforcementis provided.
19
The characteristics of the reinforcing bar at stage 1 are the same as that for steel
sheeting in profiled composite structures, where no slip occurs until chemical bond
failure. Other stagesfor profiled composite structures may differ as no concrete cover
or transverse reinforcement is provided. However, if the embossmentsare pressed in
parts of the profile of high stiffness, the behaviour of shear-bond may be similar to
that of the ribs in reinforcing bars. Typical curves of shear force-slip relationship for
profiled composite section are presentedin chapter three.
fbu
q, f
cu
(2.1 a)
(2.1b)
Where:
fb is the bond stress;
f b,,is the design ultimate anchoragebond stress;
feLLis characteristic cube strength of concrete;
FSis the force in the bar or group of bars;
L is the anchoragelength;
eis the effective bar size which, for a single bar is equal to the size and for a group of
bars in contact is equal to the diameter of a bar of equal total area; and
is a coefficient dependenton bar type.
20
(2.2a)
(2.2b)
Where:
Qk is characteristic resistanceof shear-connector;
Qn is capacity of shear-connectorin negative moment regions;
Qp is capacity of shear-connectorin positive moment regions.
21
(2.3a)
0.8
<-1}
(2.3b)
k=0.85(b, /Dp){(h/Dp
2- for two studs per rib:
k=0.6(b, /Dp){(h/Dp
0.6
-1}-<
(2.3c)
(2.4a)
(2.4b)
where:
br is the breadth of the concrete rib;
22
The height of the embossmentsand local bending stiffness of the steel sheeting are
small compared to those of the shear-stud connectors and the steel beams in
composite beams. The efficiency of the embossmentsas shear-connecting devices for
profiled composite structures is not readily identifiable and therefore forms an
important part of this work.
23
The length of the slab over which shear forces develop is dependent upon the load
type and slab span.
(5) The quality of concrete:
The mechanical bond between concrete and steel depends upon the type, compaction
and strength of the concrete.
Expanding this list to describe further the factors that may affect shear-bond leads to
the following:
(1) The geometry and mechanical properties of the steel sheeting:
Moment of inertia
Depth of web
Re-entrant portions and stiffeners, and,
Yield strength of the steel
(2) Embossment geometry:
Shapesof embossments
Height of embossments
Surface area of embossments,Eccentricities of the centre of the embossmentfrom the
surface and the neutral axis of the steel sheeting (Figure 2.4), and angle of attack
(defined in Figure 2.5).
(3) Geometry and mechanical properties of concrete:
Maximum and minimum depth of concrete; and
Compressive and tensile strength of concrete.
(4) The surface coating of steel deck sheeting.
This is not normally a factor where galvanized steel sheeting is used.
Flexural failure occurs when the plastic capacity of the slab is reached. This is
if
longitudinal
in
is
large
for
the
the
the
transfer
possible
resistance
shear
shear span
enough to allow yielding of the entire cross section of the sheeting; i. e. full interaction
is assumedat the critical cross section. Further, a certain amount of rotation capacity
is required in order to reach the maximum flexural capacities.
A suspicion that a reduction of mechanical interlocking due to large strains in the
sheeting exists is based on experimental evidence that the final failure of a composite
has
is
by
horizontal
if
been
flexural
the
slip, even
slab
always caused
resistance
reached. This means that although the bending moment does not increase, the failure
is finally causedby strains reducing the shear resistance.
This section can be critical if there is complete shear connection at the interface
between the sheet and the concrete. In other words, it means the bond provides full
interaction. The failure in this case is flexural.
25
This section will be critical only in special cases, for example in deep slabs or short
spanswith loads of relatively large magnitude when a vertical shear failure occurs.
Figure 2.6.b shows the three different modes of failure, for composite slabs.
plotted against
dP
is
b.L s
where:
VV= Experimental shear force
b= slab width, in mm
dp= distance from the top of the slab to the centroid of the effective area of
the steel sheeting, in mm
Ap = effective cross - section area of the decking, in mm2
L, = shear span length, in mm
2.4.3 Ductility
Ductility is the ability of a member to continue to deform while maintaining its loadit
is
defined
for
According
Eurocode
4
to
as
composite slabs
carrying capacity.
follows:
From the load-deflection curve recorded from tests, the behaviour is classified as
ductile if the failure load exceedsthe load causing first recorded end slip by more than
10%. The maximum load is taken as that at a mid-span deflection of L/50. Otherwise
the behaviour is classified as brittle.
Figure 2.6.c shows two main failure modes: brittle and ductile behaviour. The load
beginning
is
deflection.
At
the
the
of the test, the
plotted against
applied
midspan
behaviour of both types of slab (brittle and ductile) is similar. The chemical, friction
interlocks
are not destroyed and the composite slab acts as a
and mechanical
homogeneous material. No significant slip occurs between the concrete and the steel
in
increases,
because
load
decreases
As
the
the
the
slab
of
cracks
sheeting.
stiffness of
the concrete tensile area, and the horizontal shear force increasesbetween the bearing
load.
the
and
point
26
When the chemical bond breaks, the first slip occurs between the steel decking and
the concrete, which may induce a decrease in the load. Then only the friction and
mechanical interlock supports the longitudinal shear. Any decrease in the load is
directly dependent on the quality of the mechanical bond provided by the shape of
steel decking.
In summary, the two modes are apparent:
"
"
For ductile behaviour the load increases to a greater value than the first slip
load. Thus, the mechanical interlock can provide greater bond effect than the
(full
bond.
by
flexure
The
then
chemical
slab can
collapse either
connection)
or by longitudinal shear (partial interaction).
provided to the profiled steel sheeting until the concrete has reached an adequate
strength to avoid exceeding the capacity of the profiled steel sheetsunder the loading
of wet concrete and construction loads. Propped construction should also be used to
reduce the deflection of the profiled steel sheeting, where the deflection limits would
otherwise be exceeded.
Where temporary supports are used, the effects of their use and subsequentremoval
on the distribution of shear forces in the composite slab should be allowed for in the
design of both the supporting and the supported slabs. The method of providing
temporary supports should be chosen to suit the conditions on site. Normally, one of
the following should be used:
a) Temporary props from beneath;
b) Temporary beams at the soffit of the sheets.
Alternative methods may be used where suitable but, in all cases, the temporary
support should be capable of carrying all the loads and forces imposed on it without
undue deflection.
28
At the ultimate limit state the shear bond resistance for the propped case has to resist
the entire self weight of the slab together with the applied loads. This is considered
the worst case by the codes of practice and it is therefore specified for the tests that
the profiled steel sheeting is propped during casting. For a slab with full interaction
loading
by
is
flexural
ductile
behaviour,
the
the
previous
capacity
unaffected
and
history.
(2.5)
29
(2.5)
Where:
m&k:
Ap
Ls
b:
dp
in
slabwidth, mm
: distancefrom the top of the slabto the centroidof the effective areaof
the steelsheeting,in mm.
yvs
For the effective area Ap of the steel sheeting the area of embossments and
indentations in the sheet should be neglected, unless it is shown by tests that a larger
area is effective (clause 7.6.1.2(2) Eurocode 4 part 1.1)(7'.
The m-k method does not have a definite physical representation and cannot be
related directly to the shear bond. The two factors do not have a direct physical
significance; they are simply empirical constants used in the determination of shear
bond capacity. The method of evaluation of test data is the same; whether the failure
is brittle or ductile.
For composite slabs with reinforcement the m-k procedure requires extra analysis to
allow for the presence of the reinforcing bars. The capacity of the reinforced concrete
slab alone is determined which is then used to determined the contribution of the
composite slab to the ultimate shear obtained in the test (see section 4.16 and
Appendix B).
The shear span length Ls to be taken for design, is defined as follows:
A uniformly distributed load leads to the shear force diagram for case 1:
Area 1=0.5 V (L/2)
= VL/4
Whereas in the shear force diagram for two line loads, case 2:
Area 2= VLg
Equating Area 1 to Area 2:
VL/4 = VLg
andthus:
Lg= L/4
where
L
Ls
composite beams with flexible connectors. It has the further advantage, that the same
is
longitudinal
determine
to
tests,
the
to
shear
mechanical model used evaluate slab
strength and to carry out design calculations. In the Eurocode 4 theory, the
longitudinal shear resistance i,,, which is assumed to act uniformly over the entire
is
interface,
determined from a series of full-scale tests. This value
concrete/steel sheet
is then used to determine design values for composite slabs using the procedures
described later.
The partial connectionmethod may be used to account for contributions from end
anchorageand additionalreinforcement.
During the design of composite beams, the distribution of shear forces in the interface
can be manipulated by the number and spacing of shear devices. For composite slabs
the shear characteristics of the connection depend on the geometry of the sheeting and
the geometry and location of the indentations. They are therefore product properties.
Apart from the optional shear devices at the supports, the shear force in the interface
is influenced mainly by the length of the shear span, usually the distance between the
loads and the supports. A typical condition is shown in Figure 2.8.a. It can be seen
that the longitudinal shear tiu acts over the shear span Lx leading to the development
inertial
flexural
(the
force
longitudinal
N,
Msa
the
capacity
of a
resulting moment
based on shear) is then compared to the external moment. The distribution of i in the
length
development
in
figure
is
the
the
the
after
ultimate case where
shear span shown
behaviour.
ductile
in
is
distribution
the
the
the
of
case
considered uniform
at
support
In caseswhere the shear span is large enough to develop the maximum normal force
in the sheeting, the shear connection is full, so the bending resistance is critical
(flexural failure). If, as shown in Figure 2.8.a, the shear span is smaller, the shear
is
(longitudinal
is
longitudinal
the
shear
critical
shear resistance
connection partial, so
failure).
(2.6)
32
(2.7)
b(0.85fCklr, )
(2.8)
Z+Mpr
where:
Nl
zAd...
_
Z, _ /L1 - v.. )iec -ept
i..
. ke
p-
e).1,
Apfyp
/ Yap
(2.9)
Mpr is the reduced plastic moment capacity of the sheeting, given by:
Mpr =1.25M (1pa
AP,
N)
'Yap
(2.10)
YP
in
by
longitudinal
is
limited
the steelthe
shear
resistance
steelsheetandconcreteslab
concreteinterface.
Generally, the tensile force does not stress the sheeting to yield and thus the decking
is able to carry an additional bending moment Mpr.
Slab tests are used to determine tiu,testfor the partial connection method. For each type
of steel sheet, no less than six tests should are to be carried out on the specimens
be
The
test
should
specimens
end
anchorage.
without additional reinforcement or
for
be
information
the whole
the
test
that
may
considered as representative
chosen so
(rltest
1.0).
The
degree
the
thickness
the
slab
span
and
shear
connection
of
range of
s
1.0.
between
0.7
have
least
be
three
tests
that
and
of
il
a
at
value
should
varied so
When sufficient knowledge from former tests are available to prove that the behaviour
is ductile; the test series may be reduced to three tests each having, a value of r)
between 0.7 and 1.0 (see Eurocode 4).
2.5.2.3 Determination of the horizontal shear strength Tu.Rd
To determine the design shear strength, the degree of shearsconnection,Ttest,
should be
drawing
by
is
interaction
diagram
find
first.
To
produced
Ttest,a partial
calculated
figure
in
between
line
Mpa
Mp.
and
either a straight
Rdor more accurately as shown
2.11, by calculating the true relationship between Mpaand MpRd.
From the maximum applied loads, the bending moment Mtest at the critical crossdead
load,
load
due
beneath
I
to
the
the
weight of the slab and
applied
point
section
by
the
following
be
determined.
By
beams
the
represented
path
should
spreader
is known for each test. This
dotted line (A -- >B -- >C in figure 2.11), a value of 71teSL
in
following
is
the
then
equation to calculate the ultimate shear strength
used
value
(from the test values), Tu.test:
77test
"N'f
r_".`es`b(L5 + Lo)
(2.11)
where;
L. is the length of the overhang (limited to 100mm in EC4 to avoid increasing
the longitudinal shear resistance from a non-contributing part of the composite
slab).
LSis the shear span.
34
Lsf
Nt
b.Za. Rd
(2.12)
For L,, 5 Lsf full shear connection exists, so the bending resistance (flexural failure) is
critical.
For LX < Lsf the shear connection is partial, so the longitudinal shear resistance is
critical.
(2.13)
illustrated
/
b.
in
Figure
2.13.
as
iu.
Rd
-VId
35
In the case of composite slabs with additional bottom reinforcement, the design partial
connection diagram should be modified in accordance with Annex E.5 of Eurocode
4[7]by calculating MRdas follows (Figure 2.14):
(2.14)
Ag . fsk / Ys
z2=ds-0.5x
Np
/1
---L
----
-'f-
zt = nt -v. JX -ep
x=
-'%
t kep -eJ
Ap-Yp
/Yap
NP + Nas
b(0.85xfck lyc
N
`4p'
/Yap
(2.15)
Yp
i.
Lule1381.
These
two
parameters, e.
coefficients were measured at
for
interlocking
friction,
the prediction
and
mechanical
were considered as sufficient
low[391
in
failure
levels
longitudinal
the
or
sheeting are relatively
shear
of
when strain
[321.The performance of the
longitudinal
is
slip resistance considered
when strong
mechanical interlocking of the sheeting, in a variant of the partial connection strength
The
full
in
is
EC4,
determined
by
test.
scale parametric
means of a
method proposed
in
k
for
the
the
the
tests
required
of
m
and
values
are used
statistical evaluation
same
design criterion for the longitudinal shear failure. In addition to the mentioned shearbond action, an increase of the load bearing capacity of the slabs can be attained by
36
38
9n'JA
\f t `t ,. ?r v bv >, r
.:
deforn,
h-
Iotrro
(with
I,
7-1
internal
Longitudinal
crock
section
of
axially
load
Cross
specimen
section
Lfl
Lr
ci
0
01
Bar
slip
i
9
i '
.
Steel
(a)
beam
Solid
(b)
slab
Re-entrant
profiled
sheeting
A
D h
S teal
(c)
Trapezoidal
deck
sheeting
(d)
Section
bears
A-A
39
o',
\\
1,
-,
N A.
I,
a,
III
,I
I
.
Shear
span
L.
40
Load
,,Ilf, nL
(ire, t end
Slip ut
second end
b. d
DefIection
b. L
failure
possible
modes
v
bdp
(NiIW
)
design
ralationship
shear
resistance
A
C1
0
14
Ap
b7-s
Slip
ll
///////
num
/-
_W=2V
1111
L
f __s
IH
II
s
v
vi
HH
'I
V
v1
L/2
11-
41
F
TN
IT
N=TL
Al
eL
IQ
ix
7
11
f
ro
ov
C.85 f-,
-h,
Y:
Ncf
p. n. a_
e
fYP
-h-o
p, n. a
Plastic
C. O.
centroidal
neutral
xis
axis
42
MpR
I i2
P~-
N.
M.
.II
of_
{.
r=,
to
0rNr
p ---
N,
-t-.b. ad
r/ L
MpRd
F lexure
A
Longitudinal
l-uRtl
shear
-1-A
Zl
eO-
L,
L
b L.
Ra
N,
=L.
b LuRJ
MORd
Lohgitudinol
r.
shear
v,
I-
MPo
-via
b L-
RE
IA
DO
L.
Lad
Figure 2.13 Design partial interaction diagram for a slab with end anchorage
43
0.85,,
I--`
-N+
Mad
Mp,
N
Cross-section
44
Chapter Three
Small Scale Tests
Tests on Composite Slabs to investigate Longitudinal
Shear/Slip Behaviour
Summary
The details of control tests are reported whereby a small element of a composite slab
is used to simulate the conditions during longitudinal slip failure. Called the `pushoff'
be
`pull-out'
test,
the
shear
connection
or
performance of a profile may
determined. In these tests after initiating the breakdown of the adhesive bond, a
in
is
force,
force
horizontal
to
the
applied
addition
or
while
push
pull
vertical
continuously measuring the longitudinal slip resistance to determine the values of the
horizontal shear capacity of the profile and the coefficient of friction. This
information can be used directly in a partial shear connection model to predict the
shear bond capacity of composite slabs. The shear transfer between sheeting and
concrete dependson various parameters,the influences of these will be considered in
this chapter.
The composite action between the profiled steel sheeting and the concrete in a
is
interlock
by
bond
in the shear span
stress and mechanical
composite slab ensured
investigate
is
by
friction,
by
loading
To
this
caused
support
reactions.
which
and
and
action, two types of small-scale tests, Push-off and Pull-out tests, were performed.
Longitudinal shear-slip, and load-slip behaviour have been studied, and is discussed
along with the coefficient of friction.
Based on the experimental results, and the study reported, a FEM simulation was
made and described in chapter six.
45
3.1 Introduction
The concept of testing the shear resistancebetween concrete and sheeting using small
specimens dates back to the seventies. Different testing equipment was used in order
to obtain the shear resistance at the contact surface between concrete and sheeting.
Small specimens were commonly tested for pure shear by either pulling the sheeting
with the specimensplaced vertically or pushing the concrete block with the specimens
horizontally.
has
been
The
test
small-scale
placed
shown to be a very economical way
developing
of
new sheeting profiles, because it provides, of relatively low cost, very
useful information about the longitudinal shear properties of the profiled sheeting.
The development cost of a new sheeting profile, with optimum characteristics
demanded from the producer, could be further reduced by combining the results of a
small-scale test with a numerical simulation of the full scale test. Different authors
have used the longitudinal shear stress (or horizontal force) - slip relationship
obtained from small-scale tests. Two types of small-scale tests, push-off tests and
pull-out test with friction tests, were performed in this study.
A major requirement for an efficient composite slab is the significant bond strength
interface
its
be
interface
The
the
components.
able to resist
of
must
acting at
horizontal shear and prevent vertical separation. To achieve this, profiled steel
sheeting in the current market today generally utilises a fixed pattern of embossments
and re-entrant portions.
The efficiency of the composite action for steel sheeting is currently thought to be
from
information.
The
test
only
methods of measuring shear-bond
obtained
reliably
in
full-scale
be
by
full-scale
tests
tests
concrete
slabs
or
of
resistance may
combination with small-scale model tests.
The most widely used small scale tests are:
1. Pull-out test: similar to that used for reinforcing bars in conventional reinforced
bar.
load
is
Pull-out
the
tensile
to
of
a
one
end
reinforcing
applied
concrete, where
tests used for composite structures will be described in this chapter.
In the following section, Pull-out test, and Push-off tests used for profiled composite
slabs are reviewed and a pull-out, and push-off test, as modified by the author, is
described and the results are presentedand compared.
47
Push-off tests, sometimes called Push-out, are often used to determine concrete
slab/beamconnection strength. These tests consist of two concrete blocks cast on each
side of the hot-rolled steel section as shown in Figure 3.3.b (BS5400: Part 5,1979)1521.
The specimen is provided with shear connection devices as in the full-scale member.
Also, Push-off tests have been performed for composite beams consisting of profiled
composite slabs and hot rolled steel beam sections. Connection between the sheeting
beam
is
and
establishedusing either conventional welded studs or other connectors. In
some casesthe sheeting may increase the difficulties of welding shear-connectorsto
the underlying beam.
Lloyd and Wright, 19901261,
carried out 42 through-deck Push-off tests. Their tests
were conducted on specimens that incorporated trapezoidal profiled steel sheets and
headed shear-connectors. From their experimental study, they confirmed that the
resistance of through-deck welded shear-stud connectors cast in slabs with profiled
steel sheeting as permanent form-work will depend on the geometry of the sheeting
and stud height. Also, they concluded that the ultimate shear resistance of the
connection between the composite slabs and the steel beam could be considerably less
than the connection in solid slabs.
49
Static loads were to be used in these tests. The requirement in the various codes that
the test slabs be subjected to a dynamic load regime cycles prior to the static test to
failure appearsto be directed towards the breaking of any chemical bond between the
concrete and steel. It is intended that this will ensure that the static test measuresthe
resistance of the embossmentsand profile shape only and is not affected by chemical
bond which may not exist after the slab has been in service for some time. Wright1571
loads
hardly
failure
found
Abdel-SyedE583'
that
the
slabs
are
affected
of composite
and
by cycling. Several slabs have been tested without cycling and the failure load does
from
load
differ
have
been
to
to
that
similar
cycles.
slabs
subject
markedly
not appear
According to the two referencesabove, dynamic load does not affect the performance
it
decided
loading
dynamic
these
therefore
to
and
was
employ
of composite slabs
not
small-scale tests.
50
For the pull-out test a steel bar is pulled through the horizontal fixed tube in the
concrete block. One end of the steel bar is screwed to a nut welded to a steel bar, and
the other end is screwed into a nut with a piece of steel plate acting as a washer at the
back end of the concrete block. The concrete block is restrained against vertical
uplifting by a roller support attached to a load cell, which is fixed to a rigid steel
frame which housesa hydraulic jack. The function of the load cell was to measurethe
initial vertical force (5 kN, 10 kN, or 20 kN) applied to the specimen. This is achieved
by bolting the jack and the load cell to a steel frame. The output reading of the load
cell was then used to control the value of the vertical load. Values of 5,10, or 20 kN
were used as vertical loads and varied depending on the test.
The horizontal force was applied by a hydraulic jack at one end of the steel bars. This
force was transmitted to the far end of the concrete block through the embeddedtube
as shown in the diagrammatic sketches,figures 3.6.a-b. The horizontal load is applied
in constant increments until failure occurs. The horizontal slip at the back end, just
above the applied load point, was recorded at each load increment using transducers
as shown in Figure 3.5.a and Figure 3.5.d.
For the push-off test the same set-up but for the horizontal load as shown in Figures
3.6.c & d. A hydraulic jack was used to uniformly push the specimen. The horizontal
slip at the back end, just above the applied load point, was recorded at each load
increment using transducersas shown in Figure 3.5.a & d.
of the test results (between 0.08 to 0.21 N/mm2) and similar small test has been done
by DanielsE591(between 0.073 to 0.224 N/mm2) shows close agreement. The
is
in
Figure
3.7
the
to
that
embossments
similar
observed the
overriding of concrete at
full-scale composite slab tests. The load/horizontal slip relationships for the tested
profiled steel sheeting, and the shear stress with horizontal slip relationships are
shown in Figures 3.8-17.
Figures 3.18-20 indicates the increase in the maximum load and shear strength which
interaction
in
from
full
the
the
tests 1,3, and 9,
of
re-entrant portion of
results
profile
in
"dovetail"
to
the
the
partial
contribution
of
shape tests 8,6, and 10.
when compared
Figures 3.21-25 shows the increase of the vertical load increases the friction and the
maximum shear stress.
In Figure 3.8 for example two critical load levels can be used to define the behaviour:
1. Average load at which slip is first recorded (pg), after the chemical bond
broken down.
before
failure.
2. Maximum load recorded (pma,,
the
slabs
)
The general observations were:
(chemical
bond
low
load,
At
the
slip
was
negligible
effective).
"
front
block
began
the
As
to
the
the
at
embossments
concrete
slip started,
override
"
in
Figure
3.7.
the
as
shown
specimen
of
end
free
block
failure,
lifted
from
After
the
the
the
end,
sheeting at
concrete
was
away
"
its
due
it
to
that
the
concrete was restrained against vertical uplifting
and was noticed
bearing on the bottom sides of the embossmentsand at the re-entrant portions.
" The concrete was completely sound except at the side of the embossmentsand at the
re-entrant portions.
block
line
in
horizontal
the
at the side of the embossments
was
marked
concrete
"A
due to bearing and friction.
load)
in
load
(the
No
the
were recorded until the
cell
vertical
readings
changes
"
left
block
the roller support.
almost
concrete
" No plastic deformation was observed in the profiled steel sheeting.
52
The static load was increaseduntil the concreteblock just startedto move.
The horizontal static load and vertical load were removed and the concrete block was
again replaced to its first position.
The vertical load was increasedon the top surface of the concrete block.
The required static horizontal load to cause the concrete block to start moving was
determined.
Steps 6-8 was repeated many times with increases in the vertical load applied to the
top surface of the concrete block.
The relationship between the static load (horizontal force, H) caused the concrete
block to move and the static vertical load on the surface of the concrete block (vertical
load, V) is given in Figure 3.26 for the Push-off test, and Figure 3.27 for the Pull-out
test. The slope of the regression line for the results gives the coefficient of friction as
0.412 for the push-off arrangement,and 0.388 for the pull-out. It was assumedthat the
in
its
did
the
tests
the
not
original
position
and
replacement
concrete
of
repetition of
from
be
the
to
the
the
the
this
tests
case
veracity
appeared
of
and
adversely affect
reproducibility of the values.
53
3.6 Discussion
In the tests, failure occurred by the concrete over-riding the embossments.Scoring of
the steel and slight crushing of the concrete was observed at the base of the
damage
in
full
This
to
that
the
scale slab tests.
similar
embossments.
was
observed
Little damage occurred to the re-entrant portions in the test, and in all other tests the
found
be
broken
load
failure.
following
The
to
recorded
re-entrant nib of concrete was
in the cell remained constant until the final stagesof the test when the block had lifted
and moved from 5 to 25 mm.
These tests show the importance of simple friction. It is also shown that the re-entrant
3.20.
in
has
3.18
Figures
to
to
the
according
significant
effect,
results
a
portion
It may also be surmised from the damage incurred by the concrete and embossment
steel that most shear resistance would appear to be derived at the base of the
late
fact
load
did
Given
the
that
the
the
stages
normal
very
not
vary
until
embossment.
be
it
test
also
concluded that the over-riding of the concrete was made
may
of each
possible by the local deformation of the web plate.
3.7 Conclusions
Push-off, and pull-out tests are relatively quick, simple and economical, and can yield
essential information about the shear connection performance of profiles with very
different characteristics. Adhesion bond, mechanical interlock and friction can
collectively contribute toward the total longitudinal slip resistanceof a profile and can
be separately identified using the test. In particular, parametric values determined
from the test can be used directly in a physical model using partial shear connection
theory, which accurately predicts the strengths of slabs. The test can therefore
involving
full-scale
test
slab testing.
programme
complement a
The results from the tests provide a very clear indication of the effectiveness of the reforms
The
in
bond
the
the
of the
of
profile.
strength
shear
enhancing
entrant profile
tests enabled a comparison to be made of the contribution of the embosseddovetail
dovetail
in
half
fully
the
at the edge of the slab.
encased concrete with
when
54
Figure 3.26 and 3.27 gave the frictional coefficient values 0.412 for the push-off test,
and 0.388 for the pull-out test, but the push-off test gave a closer linear relationship
between longitudinal and vertical load than the pull-out test.
Full encasement of the re-entrant profile with concrete instead of part-encasement
increased the slip resistance of the specimen from 13 kN to 23 kN (increase in shear
in
in
in
Also
N/mm2)
Figure
3.20.
from
0.1
0.2
the
to
test
push-off
shown
resistance
pull-out test, there was an increase in the shear resistance from 0.08 to 0.17 N/mm2,
in
3.19.
Figure
shown
Furthermore the double encasement of the re-entrant profile in the test No. 9,
in
No.
10,
full
halves
test
two
to
of profile
one
re-entrant profile and
compared
in
figure
3.20.
increase
from
in
load
0.123
0.18
N/mm2,
to
as
shown
a
shear
resulted
The results in tables 3.1.b and 3.2 showed no significant difference between pull-out
improvement
highlights
(the
Table
3.2
the
tests
results
were
close).
also
and push-off
in shear capacity resulting from the complete encasementof the dovetail rib. Tests 1
to 4 show an average if = 0.102 N/mm2 for the fully encased rib while tests 5 to 8
have average -if value of 0.05 N/mm2 for the partially encased rib. Tests 9 and 10
larger
for
behaviour
tests.
show similar
Comparison of the two graphs, (Figures 3.26 and 3.27) indicate that linear
loads
horizontal
between
the
vertical and
was closer with the push-off
relationship
test, which supports the conclusion that the push-off test was a more satisfactory test.
The difference between the two may be explained by the control of the line of action
jack
force.
to
the
longitudinal
In
the
the
test
the
the
of
proximity
push-off
close
of
length
be
the
In
test
the
the
to
of
pull-out
control
maintained.
close
enabled
sample
tensioned bars meant that any lack of straightnessas slipping pushed the concrete out
line
the
was exaggerated.
of
The push-off test was easier to carry out and is recommended with full encasementof
the rib either for the full sheet or for one trapezoidal rib.
In principle, a small-scale test should create a load environment similar to that in the
A
in
to
the
transfer
mechanism.
good model should
order
study
shear
real structure
include the possibilities of bending, cracking, vertical separation and horizontal slip.
However, these conditions cannot be achieved in a small-scale test. The small-scale
55
tests aforementioned modelled the load in two aspects (shear load representedby the
`horizontal load' and friction being induced by the `vertical load'). This is considered
the best method to obtain the actual shear stress-slip relation.
According to the shear stressesrecorded in table 3.2 and plotted in graphs results the
increase
in
tests
capacity after first slip. This was also
show an
small-scale
demonstrated in the full-scale tests, thus suggesting that small-scale tests can be used
to investigate the behaviour of different trial profiles prior to embarking on an
expensive full-scale tests programme. It means the small-scale test can give a good
representation of the full- scale tests.
Numerical results from these tests will be used in the analysis and numerical
in
slabs
as
presented
chapter six.
modelling of composite
56
Specimen
Total
Depth
Width
Young's
Area of
Neutral
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Steel
Axis
(mm)
(mm)
N/mm2
Ap
ep
(mm2/m)
(mm)
1166
30.34
(mm)
1- 10
70
0.9
300/600
202777
Maximum
Test
Test
Length
Width
Depth
Density of
cube
applied
Vertical
No.
type
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
Concrete
strength
horizontal
applied
kN/m3
N/mm2
load
load
kN
kN
Push-off
300
300
165
23.79
44
23.15
Push-off
300
300
165
23.79
44
25.25
10
Pull-out
300
300
165
23.79
44
22.87
Pull-out
300
300
165
23.79
44
24.91
10
Pull-out
300
300
165
23.79
44
11.6
10
Pull-out
300
300
165
23.79
44
10.1
Push-off
300
300
165
23.79
44
14.76
10
Push-off
300
300
165
23.79
44
13.45
Push-off
600
600
165
23.23
34
88.95
20
10
Push-off
600
600
165
23.23
34
59.8
20
57
Test
Test
Pf
No.
type
(kN)
(kN)
(N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
(%)
Push-off
13
23.15
0.11
0.19
72
Push-off
13.5
25.25
0.108
0.21
94
Pull-out
12.7
22.87
0.10
0.18
80
Pull-out
11
24.91
0.09
0.21
133
Pull-out
11.6
0.04
0.09
125
Pull-out
10.1
0.045
0.08
77
Push-off
8.5
14.76
0.07
0.12
71
Push-off
6.5
13.45
0.055
0.11
100
Push-off
59
88.95
0.12
0.18
50
10
Push-off
34.5
59.8
0.07
0.12
71
tf
Tmax
where
Pf
first
load
the
slip
value at
=
first
the
slip
at
shear
stress
=
Tmax
load
the
at
maximum
shear
stress
=
A,,
in
first
failure
increase
from
to
slip
T
=%
58
Shear
stress,
N/Mn
(, 0
''I
-i
60
40
2.0
-J
00
02
01
Slip,
mm
M1111107111711111,111-11
/
jl
77/
59
Figure 3.2. b Typical push-off test for shear connection in composite beams
lli
or `, hN
_ `LN
un
,D
H/H
H/
300 mr,
60
'A
PH
II
61
V=
2OkN
62
63
Back
side
.
1
Steel
plate
Roller
Concrete
Profiled
steel
64
65
,...
. ..
,....
66
Figure 3.8 Load-Slip behaviour for Composite Slab (Push-off test No. I with
vertical load 5 kN)
Shear Stress-Slip
0.204
Curve for Composite Slab (Push-off test No. 1 with vertical load 5 kN)
Pmax
25
0.163 20
5 kN
0.122
0.0819
15
10
0.0409
214
Cross
00
section
(dimension
in
mm)
10
02468
Slip (mm)
Figure 3.9 Load-Slip behaviour for Composite Slab (Push-off test No. 2 with vertical
load 10 kN)
Shear Stress-Slip
0.245
30
0.204
25
0.163
Slab (Push-off
20
VW
0.122
15
0.0619
10
IN
0.0409
Cross
(dinenslon
section
0.0
05
10
15
20
in nn)
i1
25
30
Slip (mm)
67
Figure 3.10 Load-Slip behaviour for Composite Slab (Pull-out test No. 3 with
vertical load 5 kN)
Shear Stress-Slip
curve for Composite Slab (Pull-out test No. 3 with vertical load 5kN)
0.204 25
0.163 20
V
FN
0 122 15
0081
; 4
10
r/////
0,040
-.
0,
/ 7//
300
00
45
Slip (mm)
Figure 3.11 Load-Slip behaviour for Composite Slab (Pull-out test No. 4, with
vertical load 10 kN)
Shear Stress-Slip
curve for Composite Slab (Pull-out test No. 4 with vertical load 10 kN)
0.245
25
0.204
20
0,163
v=1oMN
0.122
15
0.081
10
"o"
//
-1L
11 1
1r
00409
,u
IN
20
5
Cross
II
0.0
itw
01
section
(dimension
in
mm)
345678
Slip (mm)
68
Figure 3.12 Load-Slip behaviour for Composite Slab (Pull-out test No. 5, with
vertical load 10 kN)
Shear Stress-Slip
Curve for Composite Slab (Pull-out test No. 5, wth vertical load 10 kN)
0.11614
0.09912
0.083 10
8
0.066
6
0.049
0.033 4
900
0.0166 2
Cross
in
(dinension
section
nn)
0.0
3
Slip (mm)
0.09912
0.08310
0.066 8
0.0496
9
0.033 4
0.016 2
Cross
0.0
0+I
0
-4
2
II
3
(dimension
section
in mm)
4
4
Slip (mm)
69
Figure 3.14 Load-Slip behaviour for Composite Slab (Push-off test No. 7, with
vertical load 10 kN)
Shear Stress Curve for Composite Slab (Push-off test No. 7, with vertical load 10kN)
0.13316 1
0.11614
0.09912
0.08310
P
10 kN
0.066 8
0.049
6
3
0.033
4
z
0.01662
0.0
1--
0
012345678
//////////////zL///////1////1l
-
III
Slip (mm)
Figure 3.15 Load-Slip behaviour for Composite Slab (Push-off test No. 8, with
vertical load 5kN)
Shear Stress-Slip
0.13316
0.11614
0.09912
0.083
10
LN
0.066 8
0,049
0.033
6
4
0.01662
0.0
Cross
secton
dnencon
n mm
12
10
Slip (mm)
70
Figure 3.16 Load-Slip behaviour for Composite Slab (push-off test No. 9 with
vertical load 20kN)
Shear Stress-Slip Curve for Composite Slab (Push-off test No. 9 with vertical load 20 kN)
0.205
100
0.184
90
0.163
80
0.143
70
20kN
0.123
60
0.102
50
0.082
40
0.0614 30
i
ii.
0.045
20
0.0204
0.0
4 44
.
900
10
0
Cross
l
0
4Q1_
section
(dimension
in nn)
Slip (mm)
Figure 3.17 Load-Slip behaviour for Composite Slab (Push-out test No. 10 with
vertical load 20kN)
Shear Stress-Slip Curve for profiled Composite Slab (Push-out test No. 10 with 20 kN)
0.14570
0.124 eo
0.1045o
V Lood-20kN
0.0834o
0.06230
0.041, jo
7////r77-/-/
eVl
_ov
-_
0.0207o
Cross
0.0
77TilTT7lr
0
234567
section
(dimension
in mm)
iiii
Sip (mm)
71
Figure
3.18 Comparison
of Push-off
Shear Stress-Slip
0.204
25
0.163
20
P sh-off No. 1
V rtical Load 5k
0.122 15
ff
u
Vertica
0.0819
00409
0.0
Load 5kN
5
5
02468
10
12
Slip mm
1
I
Figure
3.19 Comparison
of Pull-out
Shear Stress-Slip
25
0.204
0.163
Pul-out No.
V
ical Loa
5kN
20
0. >22 15
0.0819 10
0.0409
0.0
PUII-o t No. 6
Vertic I Load 5k
Slip mm
72
Figure
3.20 Comparison
of Push-off
Shear Stress-Slip
Push-off lu-. 9
Tail
Vertical I
2n kN
Vertic
I Load 20 N
Slip mm
0.245
30
0.204
25
0.163
20
a
ertica
sh-off No 1
Vertical load 5 N.
Push-off No 2
0.122
--
---
15
A1
ns..,,..
0.081910
0.0409
00
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Slip (mm)
73
Shear Stress-Slip
0.245
30
Pull-off
0.204
Co
25
Co 0.163
20
Co
0.122
,Z-:
15
Vertical
oad 5k
A
V6rtical Load 1
c 0081
J
10.3
10
0.
..
040
CL
0.0
45
789
Slip (mm)
Shear Stress-Slip
0116
1a,
Pull- wt No. 5
Vert cal Load 10 kN
0.099
0083
12
10
0.066
0049
0
0 033
CL
<
0016
00
02345
Slip (mm)
74
Figure
3.24 Comparison
of Push-off
Shear Stress-Slip
0.133
16
0.116
14
0.099
12
0.083
10
0.066
0.049
0.033
Puslv--off No. 7
Ve ical Load 10 k
4
-.
0.0166
0.0
10
12
Slip (mm)
0.204
0.163
25
ertical Load 5k
0.122
15
0.0819
10
0.0409
0.0
Pull-out No. 3
ertical Load 5 kN
20
0
0
468
10
Slip (mm)
75
of frictional
coefficient
16
14
10
15
20
30
25
Vertical load, V kN
14 12
11- V.
i O.1R8
10
-6
5
f0
n
N
.C
O
_
0
0
10
15
20
30
25
Vertical load, V kN
76
Chapter Four
Full-Scale Tests
4.1 Introduction
The chapter describes full scale tests carried out with generally in accordance with
EC4 and BS5950 on a series of composite slabs. The results are used to make a
comparison between British and European design values and are also used later in
finite element modelling of composite slabs. Composite slabs using ComFlor 701521
were tested in the Structures Laboratories at Salford University and the experimental
evidence obtained is analysed and described in the following sections.
The data obtained in this chapter and the previous chapter (small scale tests) will be
used to model the composite slab behaviour using Finite Element Analysis software
(ANSYS). The results obtained from the experimental work (in this chapter) will be
compared with the Finite Element results in chapter six.
77
the mode of failure of composite slabs in series 1 and 3 was longitudinal shearas were
those in series 2 after the adjustment for the added capacity due to the additional
reinforcement.
4.3 Materials
4.3.1 Profiled steel sheeting
The profiled steel sheets used in the tests were ComFlor70 (CF70) manufactured by
Precision Metal Forming Limited (PMF). It is a trapezoidal steel flooring profile,
1533.
introduced
in
1991
In the tests 0.9 mm thick steel sheets with a
which was
galvanised finish for corrosion protection were used. Other dimensions are shown in
Figure 4.5.
The characteristic design strength for the sheeting was taken as 330 N/mm2. The
actual yield and ultimate stresseswere found by testing five coupons, cut from the flat
in
4.1
4.2
Table
The
the
and
parts of
profiled steel sheet.
results obtained are shown
showing the profiled steel sheeting details.
4.3.2 Concrete
Normal-weight ready mixed concrete was used in all composite slabs. It has good
is
in
4.3
during
table
Its
the
shown
casting.
workability
strength was monitored, and
for each test.
78
4.4 Casting
Two slabs were cast at a time in a timber mould. The slabs were cast propped, as
required by the codes (section 2.4.4), using steel beams at 100mm centres placed
below the slabs to prevent any deflection occurring before the concrete hardened. A
thin layer of oil was applied to the surface of the vertical timber formwork. The
surface of the profiled steel sheet was used in the as-rolled condition, no attempt
being made to improve the bond by degreasingthe surface.
At each casting, twelve 100 x 100 x 100mm standard cubes and two 150mm
diameter,300mm deep cylinders were cast in moulds. All the sampleswere compacted
be
day
left
The
the
to
they
after,
near
slabs
using a poker vibrator.
were stripped and
cured under the same conditions. Cubes were tested to determine the average
compressive strength of concrete and its density. Half the cubes and cylinders were
beginning
the
at
used
of each test, and the other half were used at the end of each test.
For slab Nos.2,5, and 7, the additional reinforcement was added after placing the
profiled steel sheet in the wooden mould. Mesh reinforcement was placed on concrete
lifting
bars
diameter
deformed
8-mm
Four
the
correct
as
chairs with
cover.
used
steel
hooks were positioned in the slab to easetransportation from the mould to the testing
rig. The concrete was poured and compacted by a poker vibrator. The surface was
then tamped and trowelled. Three days later, the slabs were removed from the mould
and left nearby for curing before testing.
79
4.6 Arrangement
The test configuration and loading procedure were according to recommendation of
the Eurocode 4. All slabs were simply supported and tested with two symmetrically
hydraulic
load,
line
loads.
A
jack
to
apply
which was
single
placed
was used
distributed to the slab through a spreader beam system, which resulted in two line
loads being applied to the specimen. It took approximately four to eight days from the
dial
failure
Transducers
testing
to
the
gauges were used to
start of
of
slab.
and
for
deflection
Deflection
two
the
and end-slip.
mid-span was registered
measure
at
points. The end-slip between the steel sheet and the concrete slab was measured at
both ends of the slab. The deflections and end-slip were recorded at each loading
increment.
80
in
to
on
steel rods
a horizontal position and glued to the lower surface of the steel
in
Slip
sheet.
gauge positions are shown Figure 4.7.
81
deflection was recorded and shown in Figures 4.9-4.17. Horizontal slip at the two
failure,
is
in
ends was recorded at
and shown Figures 4.18-4.26.
82
83
in and table 4.4 representing the load of deflections of span/50 (i. e. failure), span/250,
(i. e. serviceability) load at first end slip, the amount of end slip at failure load, and the
maximum applied load.
Before the end-slip had commenced,there was full interaction between the steel sheet
the
Flexural
the
the
area
of
slab and
span
cracks
occurred
at
mid
slab.
concrete
and
the width of the cracks increased with the applied load. It seemedalso that the mean
behaviour
depth
The
increased
the
the
of the
slabs.
with
of
spacing of cracks
composite slabs was similar to that of an equivalent reinforced concrete slab until slip
deflection
initiation
After
the
the
the
the
and the
span.
of end-slip,
end of
occurred at
decreased.
increase
loading,
the
the
to
slab
stiffness of
with
and
end-slip continued
The maximum load was achieved when a approximately diagonal crack, had formed
4.27.
The
in
load,
Figure
the
primary
concentrated
as shown
either under or near
for
bond.
failure
The slabs without additional
the
slabs
was
shear
mode of
reinforcement clearly failed in this mode while
additional
indicated
that
failure
developed
calculation
end slip at
and subsequent
reinforcement
the "composite portion" of the slab capacity did not achieve the capacity for full
interaction.
The buckling of the steel sheeting was concentrated in the webs. Also, at the final
failure the concrete separatedalmost completely from the steel sheeting.
Figures 4.28 to 4.33 shows the comparison values of deflection, end-slip, to the load
between the slabs (compared according to span, depth, and additional reinforcement).
For the majority of the slabs there was no significant evidence of bond breakdown
during the dynamic tests. For slabs 7 and 8 there was some slip at a load below the
load/deflection
Figure
inspection
but
load
(see
4.4)
the
table
graphs,
of
serviceability
4.29 and 4.30, indicates there was no significant change in the stiffness of these slabs
kN
have
loads
150
5
For
higher
load
had
been
to
of up
slab static
applied.
until much
been achieved prior to end slip developing during subsequentdynamic cycle. Again
the load/deflection graph, Figure 4.29, indicates no change in stiffness.
Comparison of the applied load with mid-span deflection for the final failure of the
be
for
4.30.
is
It
in
figure
4.28
the shortest span
to
can
seen
shown
slabs
composite
the same concrete depth 165mm carried loads of about 43 and 75 kN (16.5 and 43.8
84
kN/m2) greater than the other slabs (in figure 4.28). Similarly in figure 4.29 and 4.30
with additional reinforcement, the shortest span carried a greater load than the longer
span.
Two factors are presentedin the Table. The model factor is the ratio of the failure
load from the test divided by the design value calculated from the test results
85
is
factor
failure
design
The
to
the
two
techniques.
the
the
according
overall
ratio of
load for the tests derived by the two design techniques code values in which all the
factor
indicates
have
been
factors
This
to
the
set
of safety
unity.
second
partial
closenessof the failure load and its value predicted in the design methods.
86
In fact, only three groups of two tests for each variable were carried out in the first
test programme, and one test for each variable were carried out in the second test
programme, (the first tests without reinforcement, and the second with reinforcement)
loads
for
design
to
the
this
the
various
analysis of
study was compare
as
purpose of
slabs and to provide data for finite element modelling of the slabs.
The maximum design vertical shearresistanceVI. Rdfor a width of slab b, according to
EC4, is calculated as follows:
V 1. = VIA / Yvs
Rd
dp[(m.
Ap/b.
Ls)+k]/y
=b.
where:
m&k:
factors.
determined
experimentally
Ap
in
decking,
the
: effective cross - sectional area of
mm2
Ls
length,
in
mm
: shear span
b:
dp
slab width, in mm
: distance from the top of the slab to the centroid of the effective area of
the steel sheeting, in mm.
y,,s
partial safety coefficient, normally taken as 1.25
For the effective area Ap of the steel sheeting the area of embossments and
indentations in the sheethas been neglected.
As shown in Figures C. 1 - C.2 (in Appendix C), a regression line was drawn and the
k
found
for
k
determined.
When
the
each
were
values of m and
values of m and were
load
design
in
(reduced
by
10%)
the
the
calculating
were used
series,
reduced values
for each slab (Appendix C). Table 4.6 shows the values of design loads predicted by
the m-k method.
As can be seen from Table 4.6, the design loads predicted by the m-k method were
factor
1.0.
The
found
by
than
testing,
than
those
greater
model
gives
a
which
smaller
factor
The
is
design
from
1.53
with
overall
stand point.
a
satisfactory
average value of
indicates
1.15
has
factors
a
of
which
value
set at unity
an average
all partial
failure
load
between
the
and predicted
actual
satisfactory reserve of capacity
theoretical value.
87
For the composite slabs with reinforcement, see figure C.2 the design values may be
obtained for all span between 1.9 m and 3.9 m using the mr and kr values for slabs in
is
least
in
Alternatively
tests
the
the
the
area
of
used
utilised.
which at
reinforcement
design
load
for
be
kr
to
the
the
obtain
used
mr and values
un-reinforced slabs may
together with the additional load which any added reinforcement provides. The
flexural capacity of the "reinforced slab" is calculated as in Table 4.6.a and the
additional shear capacity that this representsis added to the "composite capacity". For
these tests using this process the range of values for the model factor lay between 1.64
to 1.44 as shown in Table 4.5. These factors are slightly more conservative than the
values in Table 4.6 indicating that the contribution of the reinforcement appears to
enhance the composite action a conclusion similar to that indicated later in the
discussion on the shear connection method values.
88
MR.
ult
0.87 x fdp
fYP
where:
fdp= the design strength of profiled steel sheeting
fyp = the measuredyield strength of of profiled steel sheeting
AX
o-
EA
x=
N,
f
fc,
. "Yb
d- The lever arm Z is given as follow:
Z=h, -2-eP+(eP-e)
f1
P' YP
where
Z+Mpr
where
Bending moment, MpR= NSt
MRtt
.Z+
From the maximum applied loads, the bending moment Mtest at the critical crosssection beneath the point load due to the applied jack load, the dead weight of the slab
beams
is
determined. By following the path representedby the dotted
the
spreader
and
90
I-- test u.
17resr
"Nt
b(Ls + L,,)
where
11test=degree of interaction from test results
Net = full interaction force
b= width of cross-sectionconsidered
LS= shear span (L/4)
L. = overhang
7-
tiu. Rk /
y,,
LSf=L
b"T
u.Rd
{'
cu 'i'b
91
Z=ht -2-eP+(eP
-e)Af P. YP
Mp. Rd = Ncf
Mpa
.Z+
9- Designresistancefor L. (assumedfor L,, < Lsf,the shearis partial, so the
longitudinal shearresistanceis critical).
force
in
in
is
The
N.
from
concrete
compression,
calculated
Nc =b.
L,
Tu.
. Rd
depth
block
from:
The
concrete
obtained
of
x
-
N
x=
r'
cu .b
following
Then
the
are calculated
force
in
Maximum
steel, N, t
a-
= Ap x fdpx 0.87
is
Mp.
The
the
the
momentabout centroidof
eprofile steelsheet Rd obtained.
10- Design loads using partial interaction method:
For two point loads at L/4 from each support, the maximum bending moment MRd is
found from figure B. 2 in appendix B.
Then the design load using the following equation
92
MRd
WL
_
where
W is the total design load
rjcomp,
and Mcomp.
93
4.17 Conclusions
Nine full-scale composite slabs were tested to failure under two concentrated line
loads. Early end-slip occurred before the ultimate load had been attained in all the
slabs, but ductile behaviour was observed in the slabs. The test showed differences
between the slabs with and without additional reinforcement, as well, the different
depth and span of the slabs. The loss of interaction between the steel sheet and the
concrete occurred gradually in the slabs without any detrimental effect on the
performance of the slabs.
The test results were evaluated by the m&k method, and by the partial shear
connection method according to the Eurocode 4. The evaluation in accordance with
the partial shear connection method in EC4 gives the design longitudinal shear
strength.
The design values for the m-k method are based on the regression values reduced by
10% and the use of yv. of 1.25. Hence, the factors in table 4.6 reflect the difference
between the design load, the predicted failure load and the actual failure load.
For the partial shear connection method, the analysis is based on the actual measured
strengths and hence the factor of safety in table 4.6 would increase when the design
strength fdp = 330 N/mm2 is used. In general, both methods are satisfactory for the
prediction of design loads, with an indication, previously discussed, that the m-k
method is generally more conservative.
The capacity of the composite slabs was calculated by both methods. The comparison
of the calculated capacity with actual failure load was expressedby two ratios for both
methods. These ratios represent the safety factors for the design model. The safety
factors for both procedures were satisfactory with the m&k values slightly more
conservative than the partial connection values.
The main conclusions from testing composite slabs with profiled steel sheeting under
loading
dynamic
static and
are:
1. Both methods of design (m&k method and Partial Shear Connection method) are
satisfactory in predicting the design capacities and the primary mode of failure was
bond.
shear
94
The shear stress calculated in small-scale tests in chapter three was between 0.08 to
0.21N/mm2. The difference between the full-scale and the small-scale values is
in
full-scale
further
The
test
the
study.
requires
curvature
experienced
significant and
load
longitudinal
to
the
together
the
this
of
manner
shear resistance and
may enhance
differences.
differences
between
format
to
these
test
rise
and
could
give
application
Overall the experimental study indicates that both design techniques are valid and that
for the slabs with additional reinforcement there is sufficient compatibility to permit
the combined action of both the composite and reinforced components of the slabs to
be taken into account. The study also furnished all the necessary data for the finite
element modelling which follows.
95
aq
N
M
le
M
(V
M
N
M
W co
D :a
C,
--
vi
..
,o rIC IC
o
1o o
14o
14o
C'4
C'4
00
00
M
C)
o
in
It
10
en
IT
C;
qqIt
06
m
'T
a
0
It
.I:
00
""I
'
...
E bccs , -.
0
...
, -.
y
y
N
"0 b
(L) =
M
M
ti'l
00
M
00
00
.
r.
v
0
00
ri
CD
kn
O
te)
I-
as
r
tn
N
00
O
C;
o
1.0
00
6
o
O 00
00 6
0
F-
o
M
M
O
o,
M
ON
Gn
O
O
M
O
v
0
b
Gn
I)
a
.
a
rA
o.
...
0
M
N_
O
0
N
O
0
N
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
all
o,
6
rn
W'l
N
0
00
IZ
00
rn
v
0
C)
;j
r-
M
N
O
O
M
00
-\
A3
b
3
ti
O
Cl)
00
,-,
9k
...
0
U
7. v
M
M
co
p,
KI
011 W)
a
"
W') v
,NIt N
.--
%o rv
ItT
N
N
a)
te) a
>
Q
. -
ON
'
2'
4)
CD
py
_
O
_
O
00
'IT
06
. -.
,
-
rn
b
G
Cwp
U
tn
,6
m
N
ar
[-
00
0C0
00
a
00
0p
0
oo
co
M
N
M
N
00
00
00
000
a,
00
q,
00
00
00
00
ON
ON
00
00
cN Z
a,
O
O
,6
N
N
a rn
25, (7, a ,
O
O
O
O
cl, Noll
M
N
M
N
N
N
00
00
00
00
ON
00
00
00
00
a,
a,
a,
(2N a,
00
(N
00
tN
'o
ON
00
00
a,
00
--
a,
00
N
O
O
O
O
rn
ay
.NvQN
on
c20
,6
N
N
O
O
6
N
N
Ey
P.
-.
A
a
IU,
-T
4?
10
rM
O
W'l
in rM
kn "Dtn O
kn kn
W) D
tI4
a
`/
r,
Y
h
r.
--
o
o
o
o,
a ^'o o
(7,
N
N
N
M
M
.-.
.+
rn
b
9
v
O
-9
Nz
W)
U)
'T
W)
\O
tn
co
a\
(A
N
c
cXC
LL
ii
O
.a
'
N
oM0
\O
00
1-1
r-
M
v'
M
N
00
7
w
t
.bO
at
,
.
ON
\O
O
M
e
00
0',
CD
CD
CD
CD
ln
V)
Cn
h^
00
O
O\
cu
r-
N1
M
M
e
M
00
O
't
""
v1
00
N
(D
CD
CD
CD
V'l
IC
00
Cn
cn
V)
Cn
(In
N
M
O
'O
Z
LL
-i
oN0
w
O
CD
-0
N
Q
tn
3
1
^1N
"
"U
_
i
ol
'z
0
00 O
1, n
Z; 4
Q
;b-
35
3N
D\
Z
'Cr
:2
\O
"0
00
"0
t-
v'
01
00
O
00
00
00
fV
N
t
00
00
\.0
le
let
le
qe
.. i
le:
-f
-ci
r=
O
O
00
"0
E
E
all
all
O
O
O
O
all
O
O
Qi
O
011
-o 'G',
(11
wc
.v
-a
a
U
00
O
i
1
00
.
w
Cl. Cl)
0
c,
a)
W
SU.
a) 0,
i
..
r'
U3
O
M
M
M
1! i
r.
(D
O
CD
O
rq
N
ON
O
N
.r
.--
vl
ca
U
( '; NN
O
e
00
jQ" , 3
V1
Z=
i..
00
>'
.y"xx*
r'
G)
r!
.
30
ai.
L
F-
uW
t7
2
g
"U
0
U
IO
IZ
n
""
vi
O
O
[
O
D
O
V1
O
D
N
(V
r
N
00
N
O
O
vi
a+
Q
C
>.
UO
E
O
O
5)
r.
(L)
N
.
5
4
b
03
GU
.2
00
0
O
O
00
0
M
0
N
V)
[
o0
O
00
O
O
00
V1
0
N
l
M
O
[
V)
N
00
V)
o
M
c.
M
Vl
lO
"--
r..
. -.
00
N
t
N
Q
la
O
U+
N
le
O
M
M
M
O
t
O
M
cU33
U
p
tV)
0,
V7
'"
^
N
..:
'b
O
.
V)
vl
vi
--
v,
xt
fl)
N
t-
N
V
u
3
1-1
3
'
'.,
U
.
(11
m
Co
id 'O1,
C3 .
c 'O
3N
N
c0
0
U
c
F
t-
N
3
c
N
li
N
O
M
^-
M
Vl
--
Ci,
00
,0
O
V)
"Ci
z
Qi
"0
^Y
CV
amie; M
qIplM
2ucls21
uzoji
aad
a.ilauz
r-:
N
rl
(ww006) uawiaads
3o qip! M .iad 2wlsa;
woi3 peol aan[ie3painq[.oslQ
(M1)
o;
[
(M'S
N
N
ao
M
e
tT
if
O
ao
c
c
0
U
`
`D
M
2
o
o
e
'
;
n.
--
--
v
w-,
M's
`O
00
(NA)
N
oO
00
(Zw/Ni)
ON1
3
( ww/m) 'I
Z
(zww/1W
` 'w
~
_
N
in
--
v)
~
_
N
h
~
_
~
_
N
vl
N
N
N
N
N
N
$oU
b
Ts
-0
N
aU
12.
cu
cu
14.
-u
;
*
? .^
CQ y^U
Cr
N_
(Zww/N) n
(zww/j
oM qels
N_
N_
N_
N_
00
N
in
CA
00
tn
tn
00
N
00
N
fl.
m
N
II
6)
U7"
'il
4r
a
M
t7
-5 0
`e"03
V)
cn v2
"p
I
N.. Z)
V]
=
Cd
vvi
j
GN
O
O
00
O,
O
00
00
.-
tn
"D
r-
00
0\
..
rn
.. i
r-
Nu
Cl)
O
fn
a"
OC)
N
T
O
(O
0)
00
O
.. i
iC
i
(D
O
CD
O
It
to
C)
(D
O
...
t`
.3
...
c
'U
E
N
(D
W
CN
"t
W
to
0
0)
N
to
t)
t
co
to
,
r.
o '
r.
u
0
i-i
-_t
r. Ti
.
,- -0
r
W=
s".
O
n'1
0
LO
ZD "U
3^4O.
c)
cn
CZ
-r
(h
r-
04
LO
C/]
"
O
CNY
)
0
N
(M
Cl)
M
tt
c )
0)
c)
N
N
N
OD
U)
1-
CD
co
M
N
oll
+. 3., 000
3 `
on on
.
-0
o
=
"
c
U
., "
04 ;
o
a)
Gn
on x
11)
ua
(1)
(1)
. 0 r.-.
Cl.
Q6
iF
*j
rnesh
reinforcement
a-
900
f-
102
I 65
A6(jitional
reinforcement
900
\
Qa
Hroiea
UOna
i
01
steeL
eet
reinforcement
cover30
mm
103
ProFlled
mesh
Profiled
steel
steel
reinf
sheet
cr-
sheet
104
. . ri; r01
Shrnr
cIflcr
/=
105
-nrr
Cross-section
106
CT)
Ql
a
U)
75
C
IJ1
Q)
E
U)
U)
L
U-
0)
u
0
d
Q)
4
I,
1,
II
I
0
"I
111
0
-t
75
d
0
IIli
Ui
W
Q)
5
L6
y
U
d
a
.4
ol
d
o Q)
y
u
6
L
75
-l
-n
-
108
120
100
80
IV
cycles:
Runsfroma tog.
6
5
Co
Static Loads:
Runs from 1 to 8.
Dynamic Loads for 5000
60
40
2
20
CentralDeflection(rim)
150
100
50
109
StaticLoads:
RunsNo.1 to 9
DynamicLoadsfor 5000
cycles:
RunsNo.a to h.
F/2
IL-
P/2
Cancrete
I-I
135-
/a
160
Static Load:
Runs No. 1 to 6
140
Runs No. a to e.
120
16 5mn
O
70nn
Y 100
f
rnf0,
rl
SteeI
80
60
40
1
20
Span/25o 5
15
10
Span/50
20
25
30
40
45
50
110
DeflectionCurvefor SlabNo.5
Figure4.13Load-Central
300
250
200
StaticLoads:
RunsNo.1 to 8.
Dynamic
Loadsfor
5000cycles:
RunsA to J
F'/2
V
Co
J 150
T
7a
a
100
50
4IJ250
10
15
U50
20
25
30
40
45
CentralDeflection
(mm
70
60
50
Z
40
StaticLoads:
RunsNo.1to 8.
Loadsfor
Dynamic
5000cycles:
RunsNo.A to G.
30
L=3.900nn
a
G.
20
10
90
100
111
140
120
100
StaticLoads:
RunsNo.1 to 10.
DynamicLoadsfor
5000Cycles:
RunsNo.A to I.
10
80
60
40
20
20
40
L150
80
60
100
120
50
60
CentralDeflection
(mm
120 1
Static Loads:
100
Runs No. 1 to 9.
Dynamicloads for
5000 Cycles:
Runs No. A to G.
80
F/2
60
40
20
50
10
20
U50
30
40
Central Deflection(mm
112
StaticLoads:
RunsNo.1 to 5.
DynamicLoadsfor
5000cycles:
RunsNo.A to d.
P/c
L=3,nnn-
90
100
120 r
StaticLoads:
Runs1 to 8.
Dynamic
Loadsfor 5000
100
cycles:
Runsa to g.
Z
r/2
IF5nn
80
i.
Y_
60
.
-
70nn
'
CL
t
1,
j\
I
C
20
a
3/
40
4/
$
..
5%
Fit
_
__.
_.
-_.
,A^
;
-
i
-\
..
--
---
0
01234567
End-Shp
(Tn)
L-
113
250
StaticLoads:
RunsNo.1 to 8.
DynamicLoadsfor 5000cycles:
RunsNo.a tog.
200
150
V
0
J
V
N
100
EndSlip(mm
StaticLoads:
RunsNo.! To 9.
DynamicLoadsfor
5000cycles:
Runs No. a to h.
P2
II
cacrete
Profiled
Short
SteeV
F/2
va
L_E, 9(jnnn
fly
EndSlip(mm,
114
160
StaticLoads:
RunsNo.: To 6.
DynamicLoadsfor
140
cycles:
RunsNo.a to e
120
100
v
80
60
40
20
0
0
Figure4.22Load-End
SlipCurveSlabNo.5
300
StaticLoads:
RunsNo.1to 10
for9
Loads
250 Dynamic
5000cycles: g
RunsNo.Ato;
200
150
a
< 100
50
10
12
14
16
EndSlip(mm;
115
70
60
50
StaticLoads:
RunsNo.1 to 8.
Dynamic
Loadsfor
5000cycles.
RunsNo.A to G.
40
0
30
a
a
20
2
1 B
10
A,4
0
0.5
1.5
3.5
2.5
2
EndSlip(mm;
140
120a
StaticLoads:
RunsNo.1 to 9.
Dynamic
Loads
for 5000cycles:
RunsNo.A to G.
1E5-
End-Slip(mm
116
100
80
I
H
60
40
B2C
20
A1
0
End-Slip(mm;
70
StaticLoads:
RunsNo.1 to 5.
60
DynamicLoads
fo 5000cycles:
4
50 RunsNo.A to D.
z
40
0
1i
30
20 1 1
10
!
s-1
in
IA
0
0123
End-Slip(mm;
117
118
of load-deflection
(165 depth)
160
I Slab No. 4.1Span 1.9 rt
140
"--A
120
Slab No 1$ pan29m
100
Z
N
80
O
J
60
40
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Deflection (mm)
250
-si
zY
V
1-in
-- i
J0
Slab No. 7,
100
ert
3.9m
il
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Deflection (mm)
119
for slabs
curves
of load-deflection
mm depth)
120
100
-11r,
80
Z
Y
.
ea
O
60
20
10
20
30
50
40
60
70
Deflection (mm)
for slabs
160 ,
140
120
100 1
$lab No_1.
Z
lC
O
J
An 2.9 m_
80
60
Slab No. 9, Span 3
40
20
0123456
End-Slip (mm)
120
Flgure4.32 Comparisonof Load-Endslip curves for slab no. 2,5, and 7 (with reinforcement)
300
250
SlabNo.5, Spa 1.9m
SlabNo.2S an
200
i
9 150
a
J0
100
50
0
0
10
68
12
14
End-slip(mm)
Figure 4.33Comparlson of Load-EndSlip curves for slab No.3,6, and 8(135 depth)
120
SlabNo.8, Spun1.9m
100
iv----a
80
z
t---j-
O
J
SlabNo.6, Span3.9 m
40
20
0123456
Endslip (mm)
121
Chapter Five
Finite Element Analysis
5.1 Introduction
The finite element method (FEM) of analysis is a very powerful, modern
has
been used to solve very complex structural
The
tool.
method
computational
engineering problems, particularly in the aircraft industry, transient dynamic analysis,
buckling
fracture
mechanics,
analysis, nonlinear structural analysis, contact
fluid
thermal
analysis,
as
such
mechanics and electromagnetics. The method requires the use of a digital computer
because of the large number of computations involved.
Recent development
implementation
of computational
fast
and
research,
mechanics and material
of the results in the finite element code has largely increased the
possibilities for composite slab analysis using FEM. The numerical implementation of
the recent research was tested on various problems including:
behaviour,
reinforced
concrete material
However, very few programs have been written to solve problems similar to
for
This
the
to
an appropriate
composite slabs.
was one of
reasons combine a search
laboratory.
intention
in
The
the
the
experimental
was to
model with
studies performed
alter the finite element code as little as possible in order to use well-established
material models elements and proceduresdescribed in chapter 6 and chapter 7.
The proposed finite element model of the composite slab, presented in this chapter,
was developed using one of the most advanced commercially available finite element
analysis (FEA) packages(ANSYS v. 5.4 1970,1998)(541
122
Chapter Five
Finite Element Analysis
5.1 Introduction
The finite element method (FEM) of analysis is a very powerful, modern
has
been
The
tool.
computational
method
used to solve very complex structural
engineering problems, particularly in the aircraft industry, transient dynamic analysis,
buckling
fracture
analysis, nonlinear structural analysis, contact mechanics,
122
123
fluid
flow
124
5.4 ANSYS
The ANSYS program was introduced by Dr. John Swanson and Swanson Analysis
Systems, Incorporated (SASI)[54], in 1970. Since that time, the program, SASI, and
ANSYS Support Distributors (ASDs) have grown as part of a commitment to provide
the latest finite element analysis and design technology to engineers worldwide.
Today, ANSYS capabilities are available on computers that range from PCs to
supermainframes.
The ANSYS program is a computer program for finite element analysis and design.
The program can be used to determine to find out how a given design (e.g., a machine
component) works under operating conditions. The ANSYS program can also be used
to calculate the proper design for given operating conditions.
The ANSYS program is a general-purpose program, it may be used for almost any
type of finite element analysis in virtually any industry. The system includes facilities
for linear and nonlinear stress analysis, step by step dynamic analysis, and other
problems.
It has a finite element library that contains over 120 different element types. Each
element type is identified by a unique number and a prefix that identifies the element
includes
BEAM4,
It
PLANE77,
CONTAC40,
SHEL181
SOLID45,
category:
etc.
...
different material properties including linear, nonlinear, anisotropic,.... etc. Different
element types and load cases can be combined to represent different parts of
structures. It contains an interactive post- and pre-processing graphics package, which
isometric
plotting
or perspective views or models from different positions.
enables
Results may be displayed as contours, vectors, displaced shapes, or force/moment
diagrams.
125
126
To specify load step options these may be changed from load step to load step, such
Depending
load
time
the
controls.
and
output
step,
at
end of a
as number of sub-steps,
be
being
load
the
type
step options may or may not
of analysis
carried out,
on
is
for
SOLVE.
initiate
Solution,
To
the
the
calculations
action
command
required.
When this command is issued, the ANSYS program takes model and loading
information from the database and calculates the results. Results are written to the
files.
results
5.4.1.3 Results review:
Once the solution has been calculated, the ANSYS postprocessors can be used to
POST26.
Two
POSTI
the
and
results.
postprocessors
are
available:
review
POST1, the general post-processoris used to review results at one sub-step (time step)
over the entire model.
POST26, the time history post-processor,is used to review results at specific points in
the model over all time steps.
127
128
129
F=Ku
130
5.5.2.1 Plasticity
Plasticity is a material behaviour in which the material deforms permanently under the
action of some applied loads.
Most engineering materials behave linearly below some stress level, called the
proportional limit. Below the proportional limit, the stress is linearly related to the
strain. Additionally, most materials behave elastically below a stress level called the
loading
Below
the
yield point.
yield point, any straining, which occurs with
completely, disappearsupon removal of the load shown in Figure 5.8.
There is usually little difference betweenthe yield point and the proportional limit,
and the programwill always assumethem to be the same.The portion of the stressbelow
is
is
the
that
the
strain curve
above the
yield point called
elastic portion, and
plastic portion shown in Figure 5.8. The part of the curve beyondthe yield point is
hardening
the
called
strain
portion of the curve. Plasticity analysesaccount for
in
behaviour
the plastic range.
material
132
deformation
Contact
the
non-linearitiesalso occur when two components
of
process.
slide relativeto oneanother.
Contact is a non-linearity becauseone or both of the following are unknown:
" The contacting area(s).
5.5.2.3 Friction
134
The ANSYS program has been designed such that the tedious aspects of these
operations are all handled automatically, once the proper features and controls have
been incorporated.
The iterative process that the ANSYS program uses to solve, correct, and re-solve a
non-linear analysis is called the Newton-Raphson (N-R) method. Each iteration
generated in this process is known as a Newton-Raphson iteration, or an equilibrium
iteration.
by using Newton-Raphson
136
"I
VII
I-
""
"SSS
z
9-9
A
Figure 5.4 Representinghigher order elements.
137
(a)
I -1`U
(6-
F; -'Ku
(c)
138
TIP
-'ti
Ca)
(b)
Cc)
1,
f
Figure 5.8 Stress -strain curve with the elastic and plastic parts.
139
f all
ree
Ia
.,
I 1
i%r
,ii
a'. ,i
solution
(2
load
increments)
140
Chapter Six
Finite Element Modelling
Tests
of
6.1 Introduction
Composite steel-concreteconstruction allows designersto take advantageof the most
favourable mechanical material properties of both steel and concrete, to produce
economical structures. Currently, composite floor slabs are designed using the results
of full scale tests, which is costly and time consuming.
Investigation by means of experimental tests is important and useful. The shear
resistance of composite slabs can generally be determined by tests. However, the
number of experiments is limited for economical reason. Meanwhile, experiments
only reflect the overall behaviour of slabs. The influences of some individual
from
in
distinguish
difficult
to
to
tests
each
and are also
variables are not easy assess
other in the test results. These disadvantagescan be compensatedby use of the finite
element method. A flexible numerical model can be extended to carry out parametric
studies and yield more information.
141
in
little
order to use well-establishedmaterial models,
code
as
as
possible
element
for
elementsandproceduresapproved variousstructuralproblems.
The proposed finite element model of the composite slab, presentedwithin this
finite
developed
element
using an advancedcommercially available
chapter, was
analysis(FEA) package(ANSYS V. 5.3 58,1997)[541.
A non-linear 3D analysis of a small and full-scale composite slab with partial
interaction between steel sheeting and concrete has been performed and compared to
from
the smallobtained
experimental results with a slightly altered contact stiffness
failure
for
longitudinal
test
tests,
the
shear
actual
results
scale
good agreement with
indicates proper modelling and use of correct input data.
Material and interaction properties have been determined from standardand new tests.
Plasticity of the concrete, non-linear shear resistance,and friction at interface between
included
in
the numerical model.
are
concrete and sheeting
142
For the full scale composite slabs connection was made with 3-D Point-to-Point
Contact Element and Combination Element as illustrated in Figure 6.1.a. For the
small-scale composite slab, 3-D Point-to-Surface Contact Element and Combination
Element, as illustrated in Figure 6.1.b., were used.
To model a composite slab, it is necessaryto allow adjacent steel and concrete to slip
has
bond
been
bond
to
the
capacity
relative
each other when
strength or shear
facing
(when
The
the
concrete
each
exceeded.
relative movement of
steel sheet and
other) must be controlled so that they are not able to move through each other, but are
free to separate.
It is also essential to allow relative shear movements, both before and after the bond
has broken, to occur in the direction that corresponds to the principal stress at
interface. It was difficult to model three-dimensional behaviour of the composite slab,
which can perform the above action. Thus, it was necessaryto use several elements in
combination to create the same effect. This combination of gap elements was matched
to representthe true behaviour of the structure.
The suitability of this approach must be judged by the capability of the model to
represent the measured load-deflection, measured load-slip response and the ultimate
load, whilst being based on measuredmaterial properties.
The CONTAC element, which is a 3-D Point-to-Point element, is capable of
supporting only compression in the direction normal to the contact surface and shear
in the tangential direction.
Figure 6.2 shows the force-deflection relationship for this element in which it can be
seenthat the contact surfaces are free to separatein the normal direction. The stiffness
(KN), of the element inhibits the movement of the two contact surfaces through each
other but not prevent it. A slight overlap will occur and this is used to calculate the
normal force between the contact surfaces. Coulomb friction is used to associatethis
force
force.
If only the CONTAC element
to
the
shear
normal
maximum sustainable
low
fail
load. The CONTAC
the
analysis
an
unrealistically
was used,
would
at
element is used for its abilities to prevent overlapping. However, a COMBIN element
was used to increasethe shearbond strength, as shown in Figure 6.2.
143
6.2.1 Concrete
The concreteis modelledwith 3-D StructuralSolid Elementwhich is usedfor threedimensionalmodellingof solidswith or without reinforcingbars.
Eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node define the solid element:
translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions.
The geometry, node locations, and the co-ordinate system for this element are shown
in Figure 6.3.
144
the area of the element. As the element has a constant thickness, only one thickness
be
input.
input.
is
four
be
If
thicknesses
to
the
thickness
needs
not constant, all
must
Node and element load:
Meaning
Strain value
Corresponding stressvalue
145
tb,miso, 1,2,5
tbtemp, 20.0
! Temperature = 20.0
tbtemp, 20.0
! Temperature = 20.0
tbdata, 1, cl, c2
/xtange, 0,0.01
tbplot, biso, 1
146
This method of enforcing contact compatibility is called the penalty method. The
contact stiffness is the penalty parameter.
just
back
force
"push"
Applying
touch.
that
they
to
the
two
so
areas
apart
a
force
(the
freedom
(DOF)
to
Degree
Adding
to
the
needed
set
solution
of
another
push the two apart).
The last method is called the Lagrange multiplier method, and a variant of this option
is
by
be
by
The
the
the
used
second method
general contact elements.
may
used
reduced and mode superposition transient methods with the gap capability.
The contact stiffness is an element real constant. The amount of penetration, or
incompatibility, between the two surfacesis therefore dependenton the stiffness k.
Ideally there should be no penetration, but this implies k= oo. High values of k will
also lead to ill-conditioning of the global stiffness matrix [K] as well as convergence
difficulties. Practically, a high enough stiffness is required that the contact penetration
is acceptably small, but not so high that convergence or ill-conditioning problems do
not occur.
148
for
to
the small scale). This
combination element and point
surface element
intended
to reproduce the actual
the
combination with
solid and shell element was
behaviour of a composite slab. The achievement of this must be judged on the ability
of the model to reproduce the measured load-deflection responseand the longitudinal
slip-stress relation.
In other words, if only one type of element was used as contact between steel and
concrete, the analysis would fail at an unrealistically low load. The stiffnesses taken
from the small-scale tests were generally estimated from the initial stiffness up to the
onset of slip. Variation of this stiffness indicated in the Table was required to achieve
agreement in the behaviour between the initial linear portion of the graphs and the
failure plateau. In the case where variation between +7% and -5% was required
several cycles of finite element analysis were carried out.
6.3.4 Combination
element
149
F1=+- Fs
150
151
dynamic problems where sliding dominates. The solution output associated with the
element (Force-Deflection curves are illustrated in Figure 6.8.b).
In this study, a value for the stiffness KN was required which was obtained from
chapter 3 and chapter 4, with the gap initially closed and not sliding, and the average
values taken for the friction from section 3.5.
153
The comparisons are made for end slip and deflection. The input data for the
modelling shows in table 6.4 includes the variation in contact stiffness required to
is
deflection.
The
for
the
change between
agreement obtained
end slip and
produce
+7%.
and
-5%
154
Table 6.1 The input data of the geometrical properties for the two small-scale tests
(using data from chapter 3).
Test
Reference
Cross-section
No.
L,
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
165
300
300
0.9
165
300
300
0.9
LN,
Chapter 3
I
data
Chapter 3
2
data
where:
h is the thickness of the composite tests.
Lt is the length of the slabs.
L,,, is the width of the slabs.
t is the thickness of the profiled steel.
155
Table 6.2 Input data for the three full scale composite slabs (datafromchapter4).
h
Lt
L,
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
165.00
3100
2900
725
0.9
165.00
2100
3900
975
0.9
135.00
4100
1900
475
0.9
Test
Cross-section
No.
Reference
S3
data from
chapter
no 4
S4
S5
Table 6.3 Input data for the properties of concrete and profiled steel sheet for the
by
19871561
for
Daniels
slabs
reported
composite
h
L,
L,
No.
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
S6
140
4150
4000
2000
1.00
S7
165
4800
4500
2250
0.75
S8
140
4150
4000
1000
1.00
S9
140
4150
4000
1000
1.00
S10
115
2120
1800
900
0.75
511
165
2120
1800
900
0.75
Test
Cross-section
Reference
data from
Daniels
report
1987.
156
y
"Z:
VN
0
0
73 0
F.
O '
Y
.
9)
NN
z
OZ
u
>Q
ti
4..
GL O
1
n
v;
vVi
L,
O
.
, M)
O
N
E
E
r.
L.
NN
b11
g k2
F"
SSI
SS2
S3
S4
42000
42000
42000
24596
202777
202777
202777
202777
44
44
44
20
354
354
354
354
25.72
13.00
18.67
18.49
S5
29618
202777
29
354
17.45
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
D11
35000
35000
35000
35000
35000
35000
200000
200000
200000
200000
200000
200000
40
40
40
40
40
40
330
330
330
330
330
330
21.18
14.66
21.18
21.18
16.05
15.90
OO
ON
--------+7
+6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
-----
0.2
0.3
0.4
-----5
--------+4
+3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
SS = Small-scale tests at Salford University (SS 1 is push-off test No. 1 (figure 3.8))
(SS2 is push-off test No. 8 (figure 3.15))
S=
157
"'
",
-".
ii
I'uir I. t. r, -f'rir t
Element
tact
hombination
Element
r; l'i
__ _
r, '.
Ii
Strain
Figure 6.1
Shell
Point-to-Point
Element
,ntoct
Element
Structural
Solid
Element
D Pointto-Surface
Element
Contact
+
Combination
Element
lo-SurFoce
SrioU
units
3D
Point
- to-Surface
Contact
Element
+
Combination
Element
158
00
0
0
i-f"
G-
r,on)
L
--Ur
EOOrulnatE
sysT,
Ei
CTetraher,
Uption-not
rer-nI'"f"1F=nCiP!
J
al
`
159
Option-not
recommended)
Figure 6.4 Finite Strain Shell Element
If
U
(I
(i 1
+
r/
Mui t, iii _.
(For
the
.i , , . i,
concrete
_ nir "
cases)
Mi
_'i
Lillnear
(for
Isotropic
the
Hut
profiled
steel
rig
(BISQ),
cases)
160
Figure 6.6.b Spring behaviour between the contact areaswhen contact occurs.
LiiJL
N/2
Ni rr
L
GAP
K2
M/2
rn
t- Y
161
FSLIDE
FSLIDE
positive
10
0.0
iDE negative
;riI
IK1
U' J,
+ GAP
U'I)
-FSLIDE
C=
for
loading
K2
+ 0.0,
and
initial
II,!
if
U gap=0.0
J gapA0.0
/
I,
Relationship
162
11IFNI
(Un)J
(LLn)I
+ GAP
(Us)J
KS
- cunt
KN
1
-U
IFNI
F or FN < 0, and
loading
no
reversed
(b)
".
Target
-'' ..
Surfaces
'' 11
IIi
and
Nodes
163
Figure 6.10. a The Finite Element mesh for profiled steel sheeting in
small-scale test model
164
Figure 6.10. c The Finite Element model with the loads and supports indicated.
Figure 6.11 The Finite Element mesh for profiled steel sheeting.
.a
165
Figure 6.11
The Finite Element mesh for concrete for the full scale
.b
tests using symmetry.
Figure 6.11 The Finite Element model with the loads for the full scale tests.
.c
166
-t: _--Steel
beam spreader
concrete
167
Salt<xd
25
'FEresult
0.163 20
15
0.122
IY
0.081910
a
0
J
lj//////////
44
0.0409 5
Cross
section
""""'
(fllnfnSiOn
in
nn)
0.
Q
0
I
10
23456789
Slip (mm)
Salford
16
0.133
0.116 14
0.099 12
FEresult
1U
0.083
0.066 8
_
:i
0.049 6
9
0
0.033
"
4
1/9.
0.0166 2
rrc
0.0
02
10
12
Slip (mm)
168
Figure 6.15Comparison between experimental and FEresults of Load-EndSlip curve for composite Slab
No.3
Sal turd
between experimental
Figure 6.16 Comparison
and FE results
Slip curve for composite slab No. 4
of Load-End
80
Salfi)rd
exper mental
70
Concrete
' FE resut
16`r: r
/1
50
40
Profited
30
Ste
Sheet
20
8
10
02
68
10
12
14
End-Slip (mm)
169
100
80
60
20
12
56
End-Slip(mm;
s).
Daniels 5
experimentalresult
400mm
0.5
1.5
2.5
H
3
3.5
End-Slipmm
170
Figure 6.19Comparison between experimental and FEresults of Load-EndSlip curve for Composite Slab
(no. 7.
I )8f11Cltil I'd
10
1
FEresul
z
Y
V
l0
O
J
0-
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.6
1.2
End-Shp
rrm
18
16
14
FEresuft
I'M
4000mm
--1
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
End-Slip
mm
171
Figure 6.21Comparisonbetween experimental and FEresults of Load-Slipcurve for Composite Slab No9.
Oa1llclS""
End-Slipmm
Daniclsl""
14
4.5
172
35 T30 1
FEresult
expermmtal
resultfor
EndSip 2
Z
Y
I
W
O
J
I
E-
-0
0.5
1.5
165 mm
MI
2.5
1800rM
3
3.5
4.5
Endslipmn
Salford
120
10
20
30
40
50
60
CentralDeflection
(nm)
173
70
x 50
P/2
135nn
L/4
40
70
30
20
10
20
40
80
60
120
100
Central
Deflection
(mm
Saltixd
FEresuk
100 t-
ex
7---v4-:
io
reut
P/2
135nri
L/4
601
4>
40 +
II
7OMM
ai
Pr
Sh
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
CentralDeflection
(mm)
174
between
experimental
and FE results
of Central
i
Ihuiirls i<<.
10
z
. Z,
N
O
J
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Central Deflection nm
iY
Z
J
Q4
Q
Deflection
mn
175
18
FEresult
16
14 ;
z
12
O 10
J
9t
4'
?40
4000mm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
80
70
90
CentraDeflection
nm
10
20
30
40
50
60
CentraDeflection
rnm
176
ICl ti
16
14
FEresult
12
experimental
result
Y 10
J f1f1-
v m
08
J
iV
g6
;f10rr,
4
2
10
30
20
60
50
40
70
80
CentraMeflectiom
mn
35
30
FEresults
25
Z
.19
20
1
J
eerimental
76.
result
15
$i
_ __
-----
10
16`.
) rlr
i
i8'
rr
---7
10
15
20
25
30
35
CentralDeflectionnm
177
'.
AN3'i3
11
APP
22
47
1999
14
30LUTION
NODAL
3TEP -7
SUS =5E
T IlEm21.672
UZ
(AVG)
RSYS=0
PowezGzapAics
E TAC ET -1
AVRE3 -Sat
DMX -6.72
MN
921
. -S.
-5.921
-5.263
-4.605
-7.947
-7.29
-2.632
-1.974
-1.716
-. 657902
0
Q
-
AB3V3
APP
5.4
11
1999
zz 48 50
MODAL 3OLUTION
STEP-3
3UD
-sa
TIME-21.832
U2
(AVG)
P3YS-0
PomerGraphics
ETAGET-1
AVPE S
at
D!fl( -6.32
3MD7 --5.921
-
-5.921
-5.263
-4.605
-3.947
-3.29
-2.632
-1.974
-1.316
-. 657902
0
178
AN3Y3
5.4
APR
22
11
49
1999
28
30LUTION
NODAL
STEP=3
SITE -58
TIME-21.632
UZ
(AVG)
R3Y3.0
PovezGzaphics
i TACLT
-1
AVPL 3 =Mat
D! V{
=6.
?2
'"tIN
=-5.963
-5.463
-4.856
-4.249
-2.642
-2.035
-2.428
-1.621
lw
-I i
I I
-1.214
-. 606997
Ax3Y3
APR
22:
11
S1
1999
58
D I3PLACEPIClIT
3TEP=3
3va
=58
TIME-21.832
PoeeecGcaphict
EfACET=1
AVRE3 2"at
DM7C =6.32
*D 3C A=1
XV
=1
YV
=1
ZV
=1
DI3T=235.474
xr
=150
Yr
=az.
zr
=147.
4a6
z63
z-avrrcn
179
13: 18: 31
NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=6
SUB =34
TIME=64.863
(AVG)
UY
RSYS=O
PowerGraphics
EFACET=1
AVRES=Mat
DMX =95.076
SMN =-95.076
sMx =. 015869
-95.076
-I
-84.51
-73.944
-63.379
-52.813
-42.247
-31.681
-21.116
-10.55
015869
.
Figure 6.34 a Deflection (95mm) of the composite slab at load of 64.86 kN.
5.4
ANSYS
APR
11
1999
13: 26:
48
NODAL
SOLUTION
STEP=6
SUB
=34
TIME=64.863
(AVG)
UY
RSYS=o
PowerGraph.
tcs
EFACET=1
AVRES=Mat
DMX =95.021
sMN
sMx
=-95.021
=. 015869
-95.021
-84.462
-73.902
-63.342
-52.782
-42.223
-31.663
21.103
-
-10.544
015869
.
Figure 6.34 b Deflection (95mm) of the profiled steel sheet at load of 64.86 kN.
180
5.4
ANSYS
11
APP
1999
13: 24: 55
NODAL
SOLUTION
STEP=6
SUB =34
TIME=64.863
(AVG)
UZ
PSYS=O
PouerGraphlce
ECACET=1
AVPES=Met
DMX =95.076
SMN =-7.724
SMX =5.456
-7.724
6.26
-4.795
-3.331
-1: 867'
9VLV7
-.
1.062
2.527
3.991
5.456
13: 20:
56
NODAL
SOLUTION
STEP=6
SUB
=34
TIME=64.863
(AVG)
UZ
RSYS=O
PowerGraphics
EFACET=1
AVRES=Mat
DMX =95.076
SMN =-7.724
SMX =5.456
-I
-7.724
-6.26
I I
I I
m
-4.795
-3.331
-1.867
-. 40205
1.062
2.527
3.991
5.456
181
182
Chapter Seven
Finite Element Modelling of
Embossment Performance
7.1 Introduction
The behaviour of the profiled steel sheeting/concrete interface is investigated
numerically in this chapter. To date, little analytical work has been carried out on
shear-bond performance due the complex behaviour at the steel/concrete interface
from
irregular
in
is
There
resulting
profile geometry.
a very wide variation
profiles
and embossmenttypes produced by the various manufacturers.
To attempt to increasethe capacity and improve the performance of composite slabs,
generally the shear-bond resistance needs to be enhanced. Embossments and
stiffeners are pressed into most types of profiled steel sheeting for that purpose.
Using the "ANSYS" finite element software programme, a 3-dimensional modelling
of embossmentsis presented in this chapter. The finite element modelling considers
the following:
Steel sheet only: studying the effect of varying the aspect ratio, that is the length to
width ratio of the plate element, in which the embossment is placed. Studying an
incremental number of embossments subjected to horizontal forces applied in the
plane of the embossments.
Modelling steel plate element typically a web, or flange with various numbers of
embossments.
Concrete and steel sheet: Studying the same aspectratios and the incremental
numberof embossments
underhorizontalforcesappliedto the concreteface.
183
[571
.
The element has the capabilities to model plasticity, creep, swelling, stress
stiffening,largedeflection,andlargestrains.
[sa]
The element used to model the concrete material_
7.3 Material
properties
The material properties are required in the modelling of the shear-bond resistance,
for profiled steel sheeting, concrete and contact elements. Each material is defined
independently, basedupon its stress-strainbehaviour.
184
= 354 N/mm2.
(b) Concrete:
Figure 7.2 shows the shapeand dimensions of the concrete.
The Young's modulus of concrete is calculated as given in BS81 10: Part 1,1985124,
according to the following equation:
E, = 5.5
%m
Where:
E,,
f,;.
T.
= 36482 N/mm2.
= 44 N/mm2.
185
Concretethickness
= 15 mm
A Multilinear Isotropic Hardening (MISO) the model was used to model the stress/
strain curve of the concrete material (see section 6.2.3).
186
Uniform load was applied only on one face of the embossment,and the boundary
condition of fixity on the two longitudinaledgeswasused.
One of the more common cross-sectional shapes of embossments see Figure 7.1,
for
finite
The
suitable
analysing
element mesh consists of shell element
was used.
thin to moderately thick structures has been used to representthe profiled steel sheet
(the embossment)shown in Figure 7.4.a to d.
Figure 7.5.a to d shows the final results of the displacement in z direction (the
direction normally associated with slip), and Figure 7.6.a to d represents the final
be
in
deflection).
displacement
direction
These
(vertical
the
should
results of
y
between
load
Figures
7.7
7.8,
the
comparison
which shows
studied along with
and
against the deflection, and the horizontal displacement for the four different aspect
ratios.
Regarding the horizontal displacement generally, the displacement is a maximum at
the loaded edge, which at failure spreadsto the free front edge of the plate. As the
increases,
back
from
front
displacement
to
the
the
the
aspect ratio
maximum
spreads
increased
hence
lower
longitudinal
the
stiffness and
edge, which confirms
flexibility. The shear capacity of the plate also reduced with increased aspect ratios
as shown in Figure 7.8.
The pattern for the vertical displacement shows that for the front plates there is an
increases
displacement,
free
front
is
the
upward
which
edge, which
maximum at
with aspect ratio. The upward displacement probably results from the application of
the load at the top of the embossment, which may not represent behaviour in
load
is more evenly applied through the concrete over the entire
the
practice, where
interface. The load deflection graphs, in Figure 7.7 confirm the behaviour for "
horizontal displacement, which shows a significant reduction in capacity as the
increases.
This confirms the intuitive conclusion that embossmentsare
aspect ratio
most effective in the stiffer regions of the profile where the plate widths are smallest.
187
188
All models have the same boundary conditions, same geometry and material
properties.
In all cases concrete was modelled using 3-D structural solid elements, for steel
finite
the
strain shell element used, with point-to-surface element acting
embossment
between the steel plate and the concrete.
189
damage
to concrete at these portions where composite slab test
consistent with
samples are examined after failure. The steel plate stresses are generally at a
maximum on the front and rear edge of embossment and also at the points of the
support for the plate with the highest aspect ratio. Figure 7.17.a to d shows the final
results of the displacement in y direction (deflection).
Figure 7.18.a to d shows the final results of the displacements in z direction
(longitudinal displacement). Figure 7.19.a to d representsthe stressesin the concrete
when the model approaching the yield, and Figure 7.20.a to h representsthe stresses
of the concrete facing the embossment.
Figure 7.21 and Figure 7.22 show the comparison between the applied load with the
deflection and the longitudinal displacement. The longitudinal displacement/load
indicates
that the load capacities decreasesas the aspectratio increases.
graph
7.5.3 Behaviour
load
A 3-D finite element model was created, for three different cases,with one, two, or
three embossmentscombined with concrete on the top. Figure 7.23.a to c shows the
finite element meshes for the model with the boundary condition. The uniform
horizontal load applied to the concrete at the same level as the embossments is
in
shown Figure 7.23.a to c. Figure 7.24.a to c shows the finite element mesh for the
three models, first with one embossment, second with two, and the third with three
embossments for the profiled steel sheeting. Similar material properties and
elementshave been used.
Figure 7.25.a to c shows the deflection in the y direction, and Figure 7.26:'to c
displacements
in
the
the z direction.
shows
In Figure 7.27.a to c shows the principal stresseson the steel plate only when the
load approachesthe yield point, and figure 7.28.a to c shows the principal stressesin
the concrete when the load approachedyield.
Figure 7.29.a to c, and Figure 7.30.a to c shows the final principal stressesfor the
steel plate, and the concrete.
Figure 7.31, and Figure 7.32 shows the comparison between the applied load with
the deflection, and displacement. Figure 7.31 indicates that the number of
190
Figure
7.32
does
the
stiffness.
shows a
affect
vertical
not
significantly
embossments
lowest
in
behaviour
the
the
exhibited
one
which
with
embossment,
variation
capacity.
191
192
1
I
i
t
I
1II
Ii
0
0
Figure 7.3 Definition of aspect ratio (b/d) for embossment modelling.
193
UP
L1
Figure 7.4.b
Figure 7.4.a
AN
M-1
LO
L3!
Figure 7.4.d
Figure 7.4.c
`,
1.
2E
APP
23:
31:
1933
23: 1026
NODAL SOP.UTIOw
STlP"2
SUB "6
T3.5P
3
UZ
IAVO)
PSTS=O
eo. ercr.
Pluc,
BPACBT 1
AVPBS=1bt
DDO! =32.913
Sl1T =. 988887
15
NODAL
SOLUTIOE
2
STEP
S83
T114 5.333
IAVGI
DZ
33190
PouetGtaphits
!!
AC[F
AVPlHt
14.612
D! IX
31a
0
=
-.
121821
-0
-
019091
.
037363
0sn71
.
016365
.
095156
.
111516
.
133639
.
15273
.
171821
uz
LI
Figure 7.5. a
Figure 7.5.b
194
05321
.
30862
.
162962
.
217243
.
271604
.
325925
.
380215
.
131566
.
14BBB7
.
5.5.1
AdBS
27
All
00:
1999
33
13:
'....
-1"
1999
APP
2I
00:
22.62
DA1.5049T1M
NODAL
eTeS-2
lT9P"2
eve -1
T1-2.333
9Z
5585-0
ene "5
T23Q"1.611
(A991
V:
PlTe"0
IAVG1
ea6. UT109
5ou[Gt5A1C"
Povt9[pl.
eTACeT-1
9eAr9t
AV50S-14t
AVP95=16t
DMS
-1.
_Itl
Dlu
=58.171
1102
DM1:
".
:; M%
nn
066102
.
112603
.
199907
.
26521
331512
.
197915
.
606117
111162
.
596722
.
11'1507
tt1261
295011
.
369760
.
112521
516275
.
590029
.
663702
396722
-0
3T51
1Ce
uz
LO
Figure 7.5.d
Figure 7.5. c
5.5.1
APSTS
26
APP
23:
30:
MDAL
5.5.1
ABM
APP 26 1999
23: 10: 11
1999
32
SOLOTI
tO9AL DOLVTIOt
mw2
aue "6
sB3
rIPll"3.
OS
(A99)
P9iY0
5T8P"2
508
.7
TIlR"5.333
OT
AV 9I
PST3.0
P-6-phtce
eTAC8T"1
AVPBS=M. f
DIQ "16.617
5! V "-. 46572
622856
110t
-. 46572
=
005586
.
057765
.
109906
.
162063
216221
.
26638
.
318539
.
370698
.
422856
.
P-9[Pp)LLCP
rrAC[1+1
AVPrSIYc
DMR
=32.913
3MS
'1.189
0
165 96
110991
196197
.
661992
.
927179
.
992973
.
1.158
1.324
1 199
.
=
-
uy
Figure 7.6.b
Figure 7.6. a
AN3Y5 5.5.1
APP 27 1999
00: 13: 21
5.5.1
AN'"
APP 27 1999
00: 22: 31
NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=2
NODAL SOLMON
9TlPi
90E =1
TI14=2.333
! 08 5
TIM-1.413
0T
(AVG)
UT
M5=0
Pouercrephlcs
I
EIAfET-
P]Tp0
PoarcrepAAre
lTAClT=1
AYRE9=MSt
DM% =21.298
3M% =1.663
AYP! 3=Met
DMA =58.373
sMT =3.704
=
=
-
-0
-
189812
.
369629
.
559937
739299
.
924061
.
1.109
1.299
1.978
1.663
uy
LAP
Figure 7.6. c
IAVG)
Figure 7.6. d
195
13236
.
82732
.
1.273
1.212
2.038
2.169
2.293
3.292
7.701
0.5
1.5
Deflection
Figure
7.8 Comparison
2.5
3.5
mm.
displacement
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Longitudinal displacement
0.5
0.6
mm
196
0.7
MISSING
AN ', ',;
lYp
O! ol4QR
mmsKm
Figure 7.9.b
Figure 7.9. a
A6JY 5.5,1
1 1MAT
22:
69::
IODAL
4
SOLUTl:
STlP=2
SO!
-9
Tt6.36Y
UT
IAV:
PSTS"0
PoKr,
reph:
lYAr['f--:
AVPls
: 1:;
559221
.
69903
.
m :.
uy
nmee plN9am
PL EMBGSSMlPT
Figure 7.10.a
Figure 7.9. d
AN
MAY
22:
58:
MAT
1999
23:
42
3
16:
1999
I3
NODAL
SOLPr3ON
. ODAL
AYY3
5.5.1
Y5
SW. UT1ST1PP2
3T[P=2
30! "31
T13R=25.176
OT
IAv
PSTYO
PoverG-pAi_.
SPACf1=1
AVpPS=Mt
3ML =10.583
SMY =-. 47199.
30n =20
711m=16.518
JAVG)
DT
RSYS=0
P-c-pAAC.
1
erACe
AVPPS=M. t
DM%
SM31 =-. 33498
9M% =1. _74
4-0
177149
689279
.
1.201
1.714
2.226
2.738
3.25
3.762
4.274
.
uy
rex[[
Figure 7.10.b
qqg
1.0`-1. A1 4:
;.
S]y
3.737
4.099
uy
11i0 Og0]91Lm
4'q
0.19drtm
Figure 7.10.d
197
4.661
5.623
8.1B5
,..
API
MAY
1: 19:
.
NOD"
ax.. Y,. .
MAY
1""+
..
,
)E
ODAL
SMWIOV
IOLOSIOI
9TeP"2
421P2
G
an
TIP6.367
(AUG)
G2
PlYYG
PweYG-p61cP
PYAflTy1
AVPCSl1st
DMX -2.214
'JMx =. 1111115
evl =20
SIl=16.518
-o
(AVG)
PsYAO
PwecG[pCAC"
llACl4t1
AVPCS-Met
Mx "5.862
MI! . 858383
048681
.
07361
.
1*0.2
.
19.722
2303
.
292083
310761
.
389441
.
138125
.
190741
.
19173
.
2961u
.
391196
.
176907
.
57289
.
6676
.
762972
.
959313
.
uz
TWO l10089H7'1's
Figure 7.11.b
Figure 7.11.a
5.5.1
ANSYS
ANSYS
5.5.1
3 1999
MAY
23: 19: 28
3 1999
MAY
22: 49: 54
NODAL SOLUTION
NODAL SOLBTIC
5T! P=2
STET-2
SOB -31
TIME=25.176
(AVG)
02
p3Y3'0
5V! =9
TI}1=6.367
9lOY
IAVC
Poue[Gteppy_
! lACTT=1
PoverGraphace
EFACET=1
AVPE3=M. e
DM2 =10.583
5M% =. 899996
AYP!
DM
sm
5MR
-0
.
-
189766
87.944
121.201
154.458
377912
=54.667
=354
54.687
20833199
=2.264
2169
S=MNt
566297
187
220
755063
849996
715
972
.
254.229
287.486
320.743
354
566697
66069
uz
17IREH DBC699S1T8
Figure 7.11. d
Figure 7.12.a
AMSYS 5.5.1
3 1999
MAY
22: 59: 10
AYSYS 5.5.1
3 1999
MAY
23: 18: 40
MODAL SOLUTION
STEP-2
SOGp3
DAL
STEP--Z
SUB =20
TI10. -16.518
(AVG)
5000
SUB =31
iYMl=25.171
SlQV
h...
P.
!! AC! T=1
AVRIS=Net
DM0 =5.862
Po-Owpp:
1
IrAC[r
AYel3=MSt
DMX =10.58:
SMM =27.541
SMX =359
6'. 541
10.809
136.367
_
132.36
172.634
208.907
245.18
Sl01 _19.12
SMX =354
19.12
56.33
3.53,
130.7
167.9
205.1
242.3
211.453
-
(3
279.5
317.727
354
316.7
354
Principal stress
Principal stress
THREE
Figure 7.12.b
EME0994ETE
Figure 7.12.c
198
Figure
7.13 Comparison
of applied
numbers
for
displacement
30
25
20
15
10
0.2
0.4
0.6
Longitudinal
1.4
1.2
0.8
displacement
1.6
mm.
30
C
25
20
b
15
10
0
0
02
0.4
0.6
0.8
Deflection
12
1.4
1.6
mm.
199
1.8
Nl
Figure 7.15. a
Figure 7.15.b
AN
AN
Figure 7.15. c
Figure 7.15.d
AN
COK1
ACCKNl2
Figure 7.16. a
Figure 7.16.b
200
AGWNAP4
. 1+Lb3
Figure 7.16.d
Figure 7.16. c
5.5.1
ABM
JUN 23 1999
11: 19: 51
5.5.1
AnT5
JUN 23 1999
13: 17: 00
BODAL SCLUTIOB
STB"1
SUB "7
TI10-5.5
UT
(AVG)
PSSSa0
Pwe[G-phice
BFACBT=1
AVBBS=11st
D! R =. 131751
SM "-. 178065
UMS . 123592
-. 178065
-. 111211
-. 044363
022188
.
089338
.
156189
.
22301
.
Q
289891
.
356711
.
123592
WDAL 30LOT10.
3T9P=1
3U8 =7
TD9r6.625
UT
(AV9)
R9T3=0
Pwer9r.
erACCF
AVPC3=ftC
DM
=. 996279
3119
=-.
631165
917652
3PIX
631165
-.
771
290317
-.
.
-
40 93
070531
215955
12139
5690A
.
772229
.
917652
.
Figure 7.17.b
Figure 7.17. a
A1STS 5.5.1
JUX 23 1999
17: 28: 18
BJDAI. SMUT",
STBP"1
SOB "8
TDKI-4.212
OT
_.
F3I3"0
ANSTS 5.5.1
JON 23 1999
13: 23: 16
NODAL SW. UTION
ST2P=1
SU! =6
T7/4=5.125
(AVG)
UT
._.
PST9=0
PouerGrphuN
ETAC! 'F-1
AV8l
DM =. 692601
S1B =-. 279215
167771
SIO(
-. 279215
-. 196213
-. 11321
-. 030239
-
Figure 7.17. c
phLCs
PuueGtspbies
!! AClR1
AVPl9=1Yt
DFII "1.293
S! 0 =-. 530161
SNx '. C7261
-
052762
.
135764
.
218766
.
301768
.
381769
.
A67771
.
Figure 7.17.d
201
-.
-.
-.
-.
530161
425158
319855
217552
-. 10925
003947
.
101356
.
206659
.
311562
.
417264
.
i1"8 :i1?
i,
11: L0: 52
ODAL lOLOTIO
9TCP1
sue =7
2IMl=5.5
AVa)
'
N? YV=0
11:
NN .
17: 15
lODAL ! W. lSIO!
TlP" 1
9U!
"7
T1M=6.625
(AY9)
U
P3TY0
PovecGphue
P--phics
[TACl11
lTACl7"1
AVPC3
! bt
AVPeS=Wt
PMX =. 131751
005691
4M
.
380195
3M1!
005691
uz
..
'; MS
=. 76965
=
.
n37185
,
nq0061
.
. 122938
165811
.
20869
.
251566
.
291112
.
337319
.
380195
.
9e6279
nMi
0e5517
171011
25655
.
112066
.
1275e1
.
5111
.
598616
.
68111
.
76965
.
uz
A.
LM
Figure 7.18.b
Figure 7.18.a
AN3YS 5.5.1
JUN 23 1999
13: 23: 32
5.5.1
AY3Y3
23
TUt
11:
NODAL SOLUTION
1999
29:
10
CIDAL
lOLO'DS-
STlP"I
sue
"6
3U!
riw[=5.125
=8
rIM["1.212
lAY9)
US
(AV9)
UZ
PS YS=O
P32l=0
Prn. rGr
epluca
! YAC!
Pouercrephlee
lIACCT-1
AVP 63I1eC
AV
E$=%t
692604
DIR
.
SIR -. 692604
-o
=1.:?
076956
.
153912
.
230868
.
307821
.
38178
.
461736
.
538692
.
6V569A
19111
671139
.
576852
.
718565
.
862277
.
1.006
1.15
1.293
=
O
. e_Z609
uz
Figure 7.18.d
Figure 7.18. c
1.5.1
AN': YS
TVN 23
1999
.
11: 29: 43
NGPAL
SOLUTION
STBP=1
SUB
9U5
=S
T315! =-3.625
i114=3.625
5
z5
9z
(AVG)
(PSTFO
AUG)
BSTS=O
P-G[ephiee
lSACl1a1
P-Grephlee
BTACCFI
AVRN3=Met
WIX =. 22756
53.636
slNl
AVPC3=MN
DM% ". 289905
slu =-43.202
311R 13.213
43.202
36.934
=
-30.666
-24.397
-18.129
-I1.86
-5.592
676399
.
6.945
3.213
BBO: =8.112
-
-53.636
-16.738
-32.913
-26.016
-19.118
-12.25
-5.353
1.54 5
0 112
.
202
5.5.1
ANJue 23 1999
1): 26: 59
eODAL sC4uilOe
SEP 1
sue -5
i21F2.5
1AV91
e2
49e1P0
Dov9..
pheACe91
AVD[YIIC
DIR . 26761
!! 0 -26.796
911Z "10.605
1999
)1:
11
XOpAI.
lOL9T10
1
snv
e9p -s
TI
-3.25
A99)
p]TY9
ruuee9op1:
erAler"t
Avv
IM%
1cA
)ti
.
551
9M'=1.
O1R
-
eB1
-11.329
-10.173
-6.018
-1.861
2.291
5.1
31
)Vt
.
11:
-26.796
-22.61
18.185
ApT
Ix,
N11
1.
11)
-B.
1IB
-J.
661
R. 115
CD
11.5
I,.
S51
1n.
SZ
1-1
-l-
5.5.1
APiUB
11:
25:
BODAL
OC
:1-,
SN.
13:
USION
a
58
18:
BCU. UTIOB
BODAL
S28P'1
9TBPz1
808 =7
TII! "5.5
SZ
(AV. )
P3iY0
Po.. vcv. Pnie.
BBACBT--1
AYPBS=! Yt
D34 ". 380195
4M =-56.618
SMZ =15.351
56.618
-18.618
=
-10.618
-32.618
-21.618
-16.618
-8.618
-. 61771
7.352
15.352
SUB "1
TIM1-6.625
(AUG)
9Z
PBYB. O
Po. crG-phacn
BYACBV1
AVP63=1Mt
DM( : . 169652
51V
-48.314
9MY =60.529
-48.314
36.221
24.121
_
=
-12.033
06056
12.054
24.141
36.342
48.435
60.529
AI
Figure 7.20. b
Figure 7.20. a
A!?
AMSYS 5.5.1
J11 23 1999
13: 26: 06
tODAD SOLUTION
STlP+1
SO!
SD!
.9Y-0
ft---phI
AVPIS=IYt
SNA
SMI
-
=
_
692604
-43.903
=28.885
-43.903
35.816
-27.728
-19.641
-11.553
-3.466
4.622
12.709
20.797
2 8. B85
SZ
Figure 7.20. c
07
SOL0TION
=B
4.212
TI
S2
(AVG)
PSlS"0
PoaerGraphlcs
!! AClT--1
AVPlS=IISt
D! R "1.293
SI81 "-29.088
31.172
SIR
(AVG)
1999
STlP"1
TRQ=5.125
DIQ
31:
tODAL
=6
23
JUB
13:
5.5,1
13
Figure 7.20.d
203
-29.08
: 2.359
-85.63
-8.901
-2.112
4.556
11.285
13.011
21.713
31 172
.
5.5.1
AMJux 23 1999
11: 25: 07
eo9w
SOLUTION
SILV"1
7
su!
ttM! =5.5
t? pAt.
su6 =7
T111'+6.625
IlAV6)
p5TSe0
Arl71
ue[6rphlc
AVPCSMft
66Ar6'RI
531751
Mut
=.
s1u
"-286.56
swt
217.057
-286.56
AV66TIYt
230.602
-175.655
-118.688
-62.73
6.773
59.165
105.152
161.099
I17.057
SW. UT10t
sRp=1
ynu
1999
15
I6:
F-U
!!
23
IUN
(AVG)
1 overcr.
5.5.1
Ap9T5
U19I
=. 966279
511
=-296.591
5111
=296.111
-296.591
-270.509
166.127
-96.116
-12.261
33.617
99.699
165.96
232.062
296.113
SZ
Al
AN4VV
AN3YS 5.5.1
JUN 23 1999
13: 25: 01
NOBAL SOLUTION
STBP=I
SUB
SUN
13:
NODAL
SU! =8
TIM
4.212
SZ
(AVG)
RSTS=0
PouecGCephlee
lRAClT=1
AVPlS=IINt
DMx =1.204
SM =-136.626
SM% =134.774
TIM=5.125
(AUG)
PBS1=0
PowrGrsphACN
!!
AC[T=1
AYPlS=MSt
=. 597561
=-210.102
'MX =201.636
''nN
O
-
-210.102
-161.353
8.605
-72.056
-27.107
16.611
61.39
110.139
155.007
201.636
=
-
SZ
Al
SOLUTION
STlP=1
+6
BZ
_S1
23
1999
.
30: 21
204
-136.626
-106.47
-76.315
-46.159
-16.004
14.152
44.307
74.463
104.619
134.774
Ills
t_ ii
rr
i-i--
i_ iii
L_
-+-
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
!
,
0
0.05
0.1
Deflection
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.3
mm
longitudinal
d
3
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.8
Longitudinal
0.8
displacement
1.2
mm
205
1.4
ACONC2
ACONC1
Figure 7.23.b
Figure 7.23.a
AN
ACONCI
ACONC3
Figure 7.24. a
Figure 7.23. c
ACONC3
ACONC2
Figure 7.24. b
Figure 7.24. c
206
21
1I18
1999
.
09: 69: 59
S. -_j
AK9 1999
MI
27: 25: 20
BOBAL
JDAL
5.5.1
AYS1Y
BCII. uT108
SN. 9IiSTEP
1
8T1r-1
TUT
588 -20
TIMB-20.28
IAV91
UT
P5TY0
ro. ct9r.
re. o.
[IAf!
'[=-1
AVpBYM. t
DMII =2.1
7.474
TIIT2
UT
IAY.
P9TY0
-uerc-PhAr.
llAfllF
1
AVPlS=1Y!
'MA =1.773
M --1.925
vMi -. If15+5y
:. 125
1.255
-1.095
-. 91574
-. 7A51L
-. 57551
-. 70557
-. 23563
-. 06569.
104249
.
aM8 --1.781
SMx =. 019161
1.181
-1.227
-1.072
915719
=
-. 759892
-. 606065
-. 668198
O
-. 292)51
O116506
.
019161
uy
"20
uy
!!!
AP BOND FULL-CUTTEST
FOP COLD-FPAMlD-!
T!! L C! WPf9tT!
ACONC2
'LAD
Figure 7.25.a
Figure 7.25.b
'i.
1
A83Y3
9 1999
MAY
23: 17: 17
APSTS 5,5,1
JUP 21 1999
09: 50: 17
NODAL SOLUTT
STPP"1
SUP "20
NODAL SOLUTIOW
3TCP=1
3U! =18
TSMl=23.05
a
,
TIM-20.29
(AUG)
UY
PSYS=0
PouerG"PAiee
lYAC! 'F 1
AVAl3-MSt
urD: =t. 073
3! v
3Mt
\'
`
'
,
=-1.039
=. 066838
_1.039
916217
.
-. 793335
-. 670153
-. 517571
-.
-.
-.
-.
O
-
0
0
12169
301808
170926
056011
066838
uy
va
(AV
PSTS=O
Pwe10-PAyc
PPACPT=1
AVPPS"1t
DM =2,1
3MX =1,59
SBBAP BMD
rVLL
404
1.58
^'4SEJi
rP
: OLD rPAMru
^TrrL
`MP:
SISB
SLAB
Figure 7.26. a
Figure 7.25. c
5 `. I
ANY
MAY ? 1,09
2): 25: )3
NODAL SOLUTION
MAL
9 1999
1: 18: 00
IIODAL 5OLU2:
sTew1
svn =1e
T1M1=23,05
STCPal
SUN -20
TT3Q=23.171
(AVG)
uz
PNTS-0
uz
NTACNT-1
AVPN9=Met
D10[
=1.173
SM%
=.
AVP73=lIS
DM -1.073
5! R :, 26767
3723
0
. 041367
-0
-
082733
.
1241
.
165467
.
206833
.
2482
.
289566
.
(A'
P973.0
P-G-Ph,
lPAflqal
ParGrephuee
.
.
330933
3723
ACONC3
Figure 7.26.b
175576
75107;
.
52 661!
70Z15,
.
677692
.
1.053
1.229
uy
ACONC3
ACONC2
Figure 7.26. c
207
02974
05918
08822
11896
148 7p
.
17866
.
20819
.
23783
.
26767
.
,.. -'
Y10:
09a9
BtDALPO,DTt!
t
mr
Pue "II
rnm"n.
OOAL
lOLUT1q
ST[PI
aPP "11
16.115
xr
fZ
PPlYO
PPSgO
PoxsPOPePAice
PaatyhteP
!!
Ar[Y
CPACPI1
AYP[411At
,
xlinni
'M
_cl
snS =11.651
-15
-121.3]1
-9E. 135
-60.196
--
3.383
35.32E
6]. 261
SZ
1.1r1?
I'll".
r -V ca. o-rrwr"e-env.
ccsaatn
eWe
21
J88
33:
17:
ANaia
5.5.1
A8373
BG9AL
39!
36
09:
3CfAS1G8
NODAL
a'/5
IAVD1
Po. rcrpAAC
61ACNF1
phKp
AVP[a
AVPA911t
11o2.
D6R
3ps
=-1Q.
3pIX
=].
56
MIX
=. 1If.
aP
=23.
e9I
-6B. B9Z
55.606
O17
-29.
-15.801
-Z. 511
10.126
ZJ. 99Z
AV^YS
:1
AR3Y
t_ s_1
1999
1999
17: 08:
33
17:
eO0A4
SCE. UTIOe
LORAL
32:
16
La1. OSlc
9Tlal
91R3
soe =u
Tn5F16.395
WO
5z
s-0
LOL
Pgaer9reP0ACE
PovrcrPpyr
[PAiET-I
LP1CC11
D! IX ".
52
IAV9
R4S3=0
"WLIy1
061191
VIIV
=-81.035
! 1R
=16,093
D! 4
=. 062359
=-BI.
92
=11.919
-E1.035
-
1e.
9
-3]. 8665]
-19.095
16.383
-59.913
-19.113
-5.191
5.301
16.093
502
11"932
-11.162
-6.192
4.119
11.819
'LAI
axeac
roa CRD-IFAM[D-9RCL
c<rtpcalS[
IBI
-91.193
70"13
-90.153
151
"13
3'1I9A6.315
AVP[5=Ilet
38)
95.105
-126.727
-110.578
-9661
..
-78 282
-62.133
-15.985
-29.817
-13.689
2.16
lyt
875
112.875
"r. no51TF
11
Pa17+0
CPACC'Rl
COL-FFAMFG-5ffL
aaOrlD
aZ
(AVG)
PouerGr.
FoG
10
SI11.
16.375
uS>"0
FULL-oorresr
1999
56:
a0N
"13
3S
loN
21
a17, -1
LIK"
JUY
5.5,1
1Vf
1999
3S[T1
99P
-21.651
-23.553
-3.619
13.652
SLA!
I
I
-130.369
-113.1ff
-111,061
93.961
. 839
Cp@-
=. 126666
"11.102
rwa[1-92l6
ol
i. 102
=-
111Yp)
nAe
208
09YSI::
mp
1G1':
tiIaCD/J.
lp. tR10P
tNAL
t
suc
ave no
rzw"zo. n
tAYOI
PouPro[APA1rP
Vouteavaysm.
cr. 5cen1
ce>tirc
DM1t "1.1
M
a1a
Sn =-sos. zu
Shx -11s. s
ms. z+t
=
o. m
zs:. su
Itt, io
-192.595
192.595
105.991
219.222
12.515
-15. IN
40. /11
121.525
211.212
]00.191
111.515
l. oH
te. ul
=1.
-1Z). o11
z sa. ros
su
-ut.
lava,
. [TSo
AVPPAMPt
eorn rvcc
414
PSPS"0
tPACt'R
"3a
Ti1e11
!i
SZ
sc41RIN
cwos: n ^. ""
_: -_
laec
17-5:
42
/DAL
80LOfI0\
4r6A1
su/
"le
rn!
"23.05
(AV61
'
/1140
Poutt9s/yGic/
tPACC11
AYRCAIYt
DIQ
"1.071
e/
+-391.171
33.111
s3R
396.171
313.151
-229.831
-111.511
-Il. l9
20.11
1U1.15
186.771
27U. 091
353.11f
Q
O
-
5.5.1
A9T4
:3
1999
11: 05:
A0
w9A1
Sq. 9T1.
ST[PI
SV!
=20
A1A
TIMR=21.
1991
rtliYo
=.
PLPACCT=I
.
-Ih-
eweucq
6tACtPI
AVttTIYt
A99QY/Yt
DMY ".
SIO
AB319
D1R
. 18515
9[[
=25.01
-i35.125
nv. 50q
-99.695
-B1. B19
-65.065
-56.159
-28.434
-10.619
5.195
5.01
AY9
--IA3.
1.699
-L'4.228
109.60
5.70
-i6.166
67.185
-27.92i
EM
10. S9B
M2-..
0f9
SZ
1 1-1
e .c
11nL _tm'e er F: C I C:
rPA!! D-STC[L
: tl@SITC
9L6
209
25 -
deflection
for various
numbers
m
0
20
Z
J'a
15
10
a
4
a=one embossment
b=two embossments
c=three embossments
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.14
Deflection mm
Figure 7.32 Comparison of applied load versus longitudinal slip for various
numbers of embossments.
25
b
20
Z
15
0
01
10
-l
CL
Q
a=one embossment
b--two embossments
c=three embossments
0
0
0.01
0.02
Longitudinal
0.03
displacement
0.04
0.05
0.06
mm
210
0.16
SS! AP
BOND
rOLL-OBTTESS
! OR
COLD-!
RA16D-ST!!
COF@09IT!
YLAB
-ROPF
APPtP
tOAG TJ Mtt
rAC!
Or T!!
cOtcPlT!
Figure 7.33.b
Figure 7.33.a
5.5.1
AM 3Y3
1ti:
05:
p09AL
05
MODAL
SOLUTION
SOLVTIOp
5TDP1
SOD
UY
RSYS"0
PeuevGCaPhGe!
Pouet9esphlcp
SYACDFI
!!
AVP-MSt
AClN1
-. 111214
-. 044363
022488
.
089338
.
156189
.
22304
289891
.
356741
.
423592
.
DMx
-.
3MA
-185365
3Mx
-.
442814
433697
185365
. 11658
-. 047795
020989
.
089774
.
. 158559
227343
.
296128
.
364913
.
4)3697
,. --.
=
.
SLAB
Figure 7.34.b
Figure 7.34. a
I
ANSYS
11
MAY
16:
05:
3Tl
17:
988
=7
27
90ABT10
=8
r1t4=5.62
82
(AVG)
(AVG;
R9Y9=0
PUY3=0
PouerGrwphice
! lA"1
AVR[s'--MSt
OMY =. 442814
9! 0 =-. 002498
sM% =. 398452
-. 002498
042052
.
OBti02
.
1'
131152
.
175702
.
220252
.
264802
.
309352
.
353902
.
398452
.
er Graphics
EEACET=1
Mnt
AVPES
431751
0542
=.
3MN
=-.
5542
=.
1999
s12P=1
UZ
04:
VIOLA
SOLUTION
TIME=5.5
Po.
14
MAY
1999
P-1
3VE
5.5.1
AR3Y5
`5.1
22
NODAL
Figure 7.35.a
AVG)
PSTYO
1AV91
VRl9"MSt
5.62
Ui
T[Ml=5.5
Aohhb,
=8
TI86
soe =7
1999
12
1099
sTlP=1
14
17: 04:
11
MAY
MAY
5.5,1
ApcyS
005691
380195
-. 005691
037185
.
060061
.
122938
.
165014
.
20869
.
251566
.
294442
.
337319
.
380195
.
Figure 7.35.b
211
AN. t'".
'. 1
NAY 11 1990
16 07: 51
MAY 11 1999
17: 05: 28
NODAL SOLETIf
MiDw
S029T10V
Tep"1
9TEr"1
90E "8
TIME"5.62
-, m =7
T1MLti5.5
OepV
(AVG)
rouercrepnaes
3 NCV
Po-Graph,,,
rrfE'RI
erACC1-1
Avpe3Mnr
Mx ". 380195
AVE9.1bt
DM% =. 79911
:jMY '. 197767
vMX -52.992
9Nl767
sM =2.361
17.961
sMZ
1.362
7.129
11.195
17,562
11.628
27.695
J2.763
37.818
-.
-
ST FOR COLD-FRAMED-STEEL
CCIPOSIT!
235.40
9
11.726
47.159
17.961
principal
stress
SHEAR BOLD FULL-OUTT!
52.992
principal
stress
SLAB
Figure 7.36. a
Figure 7.36.b
AN TS 5.5.1
MAY 11 1999
16: 06: 21
ANST] S
MAT 19 1995
17: 06: 16
NODAL SO1.9TION
STEP-1
NODAL SCB,U.
t.
STlP=1
SU! =8
TIMl=5.62
SlGV
IA
PcGtephl
lPACl, tl
AVPl9=lyt
DM =. 9928,
Sq
=9.299
SM%
i9
9. tgy
97'S9S
85, g
129.2
162,5
20p, 8
239 1
3"
=7
TIME-5.5
SIpV
AVG(
PorGrsphice
N[ACCi'--1
AVP[S=Me[
DM =. 131751
SMN ".
155
SM =351
. I55
45.071
83.687
122.303
160.919
199.535
238.152
276.768
-
principal
stress
BMW
BORD FULL-ODTTBST
FOR COLD-FRAMED-STBBL
Figure 7.37. a
19
12.152
17.996
27.821
12.891
(Ave
CQPOSITB
SLAB
315.384
354
pricipalst
ress
VNIVIPH
APPLIED
or
THE COtCRlT!
Figure 7.37.b
212
77,, q
315.7
359
Chapter Eight
Review, Conclusions and Future Work
8.1 Introduction
Through experimentalstudies and finite clement simulations, the performanceof
behaviour
factor
has
been
The
the
affecting
major
examined.
profiled compositeslabs
involve the shear-bondcharacteristicsat the steelconcretcinterface.
The experiments included small-scale (push-off, and pull-out
arrangementsof profiled steel sheeting Two tests, for each arrangement were carried
full-scale
Nine
the
test.
composite slabs were
and
pull-out
out, one push-off,
other
tested, with various spansand concrete thicknesses.
Push-off and pull-out specimens were simulated using the 'ANSYS' finite clement
different
Subsequently,
to
the
cover
numerical modelling was extended
program.
different
(three
for
the
profiled steel sheet
aspect ratios, and embossment numbers
Different
for
the
slab).
a
concrete
profiled steel sheeting with and without
geometries
interface elements available in the 'ANSYS' programme were used. The composite
slabs were also modelled in three dimensions.
The mechanicalintcrlock componcnt(through the effect of cmbossnuntsand tic rcentrantportions)was definedasbeing critical to the shcar"bondbehaviour.
also indicates the value of re-entrantshapein providing interlock and the relative
propertiesof the re-entrantshouldbe investigatedfurther.
The results in chapter three (small-scale tests) showed no significant difference
between pull-out and push-off tests. A more reproducible value of frictional
coefficient (with a closer linear relationship between longitudinal and vertical load)
in
the push-off test as opposed to the pull-out test. The push-off test
was obtained
is
Therefore,
test
to
the
recommended
easier
conduct, control and set up.
push-off
with full-encasement of the portion of the profiled steel sheet, which is identified as
being the primary factor in shear transfer. For this sheet it was evidently the re-entrant
dovetail. For other profiles in which contribution is not clear it is recommended that
the full sheet width be included in the test.
Push-off, and pull-out tests are relatively quick, simple and economical to apply, and
information
essential
about the shear connection performance of profiles
can yield
interlock
friction
different
bond,
Adhesion
and
characteristics.
mechanical
very
with
can collectively contribute toward the total longitudinal slip resistance of a profile and
can be separately identified using the test. In particular, parametric values determined
from the test can be used directly in a physical model using partial shear connection
theory, which accurately predicts the strengths of slabs. The test can therefore
complement a test program involving full-scale slab tasting. The results of the smallin
finite
in
In
tests
six.
addition
chapter
were used predicting
element modelling
scale
bond
be
indication
tests
shear
poor
of
can
used as an early
potentially
small-scale
improve
in
the profile or
to
either
capacity a new profile which could give opportunity
cut the cost of expensive full-scale testing.
Further work to be done in this field of study includes further modelling of
local
influence
the
thickness,
the
profile
and
effect of
of steel
embossment shapes,
geometry on the stiffness/flexibility
mechanical key.
215
The full-scale composite slabs were tested to failure under two concentrated line
loads. Early end-slip before reaching the ultimate load occurred in all the slabs but
ductile
in
behaviour
the slabs. The tests showed
nevertheless,
was observed
differences between the slabs with and without additional reinforcement, together
depth
loss
interaction
between
The
the
the
the
the
of
effect
and
of
slabs.
of
with
span
steel sheet and the concrete occurred gradually in the tested slabs.
216
The test results were evaluatedby the m-k method and with the partial connection
theory in EC4.
Recalculation of the shear strength of the composite slabs was then carried out by
both methods. The comparison of the calculated strength with measured maximum
load was expressed by a model factor for both methods. This factor indicated the
factor
in
by the
It
the
the
that
the
safety
calculations of
strength. appears
safety margin
level
for
but
this
the results were more
the
same
m-k method was at
group of slabs,
scattered for the partial connection theory. A further overall factor was calculated
load
failure
both
to the predicted maximum
the
the
methods
which
gave
ratio
of
using
load from the design procedures making all partial factors unity. In both cases the
margins were satisfactory.
The main conclusions from testing nine composite slabs with profiled steel sheeting
dynamic
loading
were:
under static and
1. Both methods of design (m-k method and Partial Shear Connection method) are
satisfactory in predicting the design capacities of the slabs.
2. Testing under static and dynamic loading gave information on the behaviour of
composite slabs after breakdown of chemical bond between steel and concrete. This
between
behaviour
be
the
to
under test and the predicted
made
enabled comparison
behaviour given by the finite element modelling.
3. The use of additional reinforcing bars increases the load carrying capacity and
ductility of the slabs. Moreover, it decreasesthe cracks in the tension zone of the
composite slab. The "reinforced"
behaviour
"composite"
was compatible
and
217
The form of failure for all the composite slabs (without additional reinforcement) was
longitudinal shear. This is confirmed in Table 4.6.a indicating for those slabs that,
Mtestwas lower than the ultimate flexural capacity, Mp,R,,,,leading to a range of 'ftest
between 0.58 and 0.75.
equivalent stress, stress, average plastic strains, average equivalent plastic strain can
be obtained.
Testing under static and dynamic loading gave information on the behaviour of
composite slabs after breakdown of chemical bond between steel and concrete. This
be
between
behaviour
to
the
comparison
made
under test and the predicted
enabled
behaviour given by the finite element modelling.
The use of the contact stiffness from the small-scale tests modified by between -5%
and 7% provides a reasonable agreement between the experimental and theoretical
failure
fully
be
by
This
tests
the
to
the
of
small
may
partly
explained
variation
values.
be
lack
factors
full-scale
behaviour.
Contributory
to
the
this
the
of
may
represent
curvature in the small-scale test together with effects such as load distribution and the
in
full
benefit,
from
the
scale-test.
which
may
arise
mesh
reinforcement
secondary
"
"
219
"
For composite slabs with reinforcement the m-k procedure required extra analysis to
bars.
for
The capacity of the reinforced concrete
the
the
allow
presence of
reinforcing
slab was used to determine the contribution of the composite slab to the ultimate shear
it
in
From
the
these
test.
tests
obtained
would appear that additional reinforcement
increase
be
the capacity of composite slabs without the need to carry out
to
could
used
additional tests.
In order to further study the analytical and experimental behaviour it would be
interesting to carry out further full-scale tests to determine the strain distribution in
interface.
These tests could
to
steel
concrete and profiled
sheeting close steel/concrete
include the size and portion of the re-entrant or other feature in the profile.
The difference between the full-scale and the small-scale values of the shear stress is
significant and requires further study. The curvature experienced in the full-scale test
may enhancethe longitudinal shear resistance and this together to the manner of load
application and differences between test format could give rise to these differences.
220
Further study for the small-scaletests to be carried out including the possibility of
applying curvaturesimilar to that of the full-scale tests.
Finite element modelling needs more study and new interface elements should be
developed to represent the complex behaviour of the steel/concrete interface in
(full-scale,
behaviour).
construction
small-scale,
and
embossment
composite slab
Other software as "ANSYS the new version" or "ABAQUS" is being developed, will
result in an improved ability to deal with complex problems. This study has
demonstrated the power of finite element analysis to represent the composite
behaviour of concrete and the complex form of the profile steel sheeting, which is
being continually developed into more efficient forms. The ultimate objective with
improved finite element packagesand faster computers with large memories will be to
full-scale
the
composite slab, which will enable all the primary parameters to
model
be studied together.
221
References
1. Lawson, R. M.: 'Design of Composite Slabs and Beams with Steel
Decking' The Steel Construction Institute, 1989.
2. Crisinel,
M.:
Programme, Working
1991,
Switzerland.
3. Davies, C.: 'Steel-Concrete Composite Beams for Buildings' George
Godwin Limited, Ref No. ISBN 0711449066,1975.
4. Zubair, A. K. M.: `Improvement of shear-bond in composite steel and
concrete floor slabs'. Ph.D. Thesis, Civil Engineering Dept., University of
Southampton, 1987, UK.
5. Evans, H. R. and Wright, H. D. `Steel-concrete composite flooring deck
structures'. In Steel-concrete composite structures: Stability and Strength.
Edited by R. Narayanan, Elsevier Applied Science, London and New York,
Ch. 2. pp. 21-52,1988.
6. BS5950: Part 4. `Code of practical for design of composite slabs with
profiled steel sheeting'. British Standard Institution, London, 1994.
7. DD ENV Eurocode 4 (1994). `Design of Composite steel and Concrete
structures'. Part 1.1. General rules and rules for buildings (with UK.
National Application Document). British StandardsInstitution. London.
8. Mathys, J.H. `The current scene: multi story steel buildings a new
generation'. The Structural Engineer, 1987, Vol. 65A, No. 2, pp. 47-5 1.
9. Wright, H. D. and Evans, H. R. `Observations on the design and testing of
composite floor slabs'. Steel Construction Today, 1987, No. 1, pp. 91-99.
10. BS 5950; Part 4. Code of Practice for design of composite slabs with
profiled steel sheeting. British StandardsInstitution London, 1982.
11. Eurocode 4 Part 1.1. `Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures'
Ref. No. prENV 1994-1-1: 1992, April 1992.
12. Duffy C., O'Leary D. `Full-Scale load tests on Composite floor slabs using
indented steel sheeting'. University of Salford, January 1977.
222
223
26. Loyd, R.M. and Wright, H. D. `Shear connection between composite slabs
1990,
Vol.
15,
255-285.
beams'.
Construct.
Steel
Research,
J.
pp.
and steel
27. Johnson, R.P. and Anderson D. Designers `handbook to Eurocode 4: part
1.1. Design of steel and composite structures'. Published by Thomas
Telford, London. 1993, Ch. 6, pp. 94-123.
28. Wright H D, Evans RA'A
224
37. Stark, J.W. B. `Design of composite floors with profiled steel sheet'.
Proceeding of the 40' International Specialty Conference on Cold Formed
Steel Structures, University of Missouri, Rolla, MO, USA, 1978.
38. Veljkovi6 M. `Development of new sheeting profile for composite floors'.
Experimental study and interpretation, Tulea 1993:47, p.92, Lulea
University of Technology, Lulea 1993, Sweden
39. Veljkovic M. `3D Nonlinear Analysis of Composite slabs'. p. 395-404 in
G.M. A. Kusters and M. A. N Hendriks (eds.) DIANA
Computational
M.
`Composite slabs, p.
107-128 in
Eurocode 4-
225
226
61. Li An; `Load bearing capacity and behaviour of composite slabs with
profiled steel sheet' Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg
1993.
227
Appendix A
Self weight of concrete slab and spreader beams
Slabs No.
Concrete density
kN/m3
1
2
3
23.79
23.79
23.18
Self-weight
+spreader beams
kN
10.01
10.01
7.8
4
5
23.18
23.23
6.84
6.9
23.23
8.53
23.36
12.7
8
9
23.36
22.79
5.68
12.42
228
Appendix B
Determination of design load using the
partial shear connection method
To calculatethe ultimateresistanceof the compositesection,the equalareaaxis is required.
For steelsheetingof 0.9 mm thick, the cross-sectionareais:
Area of profile steelAp=1166 mm2per 1000mm width
300
=1166 x
1000
= 349.8mm2Fer 300 mm width
(profiled
900
1049.4
steel sheet)
mm
per
mm
width
=
Distance from plastic neutral axis of steel sheet to its underside ep=30.34 mm
The measuredultimate strength of sheeting, fop= 438.5 N/mm2
The measuredyield strength of sheeting, fyp = 349 N/ mm2
fdp= 330 N/ mm2
The design strength of sheeting,
(Company design strength is recommended320 N/mm2).
The distance from plastic neutral axis of steel sheet to its under side (N. A ), ep.
ep= 30.34 mm (given from the company)
2837394.2
1000x 1000
kN.
2.83
m per 300 mm width
=
= 9.433 kN. m per 1000 mm width
kN.
8.49
900
m
mm width
per
=
design =
MR.
=
ult
0.87Xfdp
fyd
0.87x 330
= 2.83x
349
= 2.32 kN. m per 300 mm width
= 7.76 kN. m per 1000 mm width
= 8.98 kN. m per 900 mm width
To fined the centroidal axis of the steel, e, the sum of (the area of each element multiplied by
flange
distance
from
datum
lower
line
through
the
the
the
to the
centreline
of
vertical
passing
centre of the element) is divided by the sum of the area.
229
AY=2x60.83x0.9x
+2x50x0.9x55+2x16.55x[55+
2]x0.9+26x0.9x70
= 11460mm3
Z A=2x60.83x0.9+2x50x0.9+2x16.55x0.9+26x0.9+68x2x0.9
= 375 mm2
11460
e=
375
e=30.56 mm
The distance from plastic neutral axis of steel sheet to its under side (N. A ), ep.
ep= 30.34 mm
Slab No. 1 (2.9 m span, 165 mm total depth)
The ultimate resistanceof the composite section Mp.Rmusing measured strengths.
The ultimate force in sheeting, N5 = Ap fy1
.
Na =1166 x 349 = 406934 N
The ultimate force in concrete, N, 1= 406934 N
x=
N,
l
fcu"rb
406934
44x0.67x1000
=13.8 mm
From annex E E2(2),
M=Nc. Z+Mpr
or
MpR. =Nf. Z+Mp,,
where
Z=hr-2-eP+(eP-e)A
Nf
`f
P-
Z =165-128
YP
9x349
-30.34+(30.34-30.56)x
11640634
6
Z =127.54mm
230
il,es,
"N,,
rudest
b(L, + Lo)
0.62 x 406934
rudest
= 0.22N/mm2
N,
Lsf
b"Zu.
Rd
x=
M., Rd:
N,
f
Y"f. b
231
Nt
P'YP
= 124 mm
1166x330
=165-192 -30.34+(30.34-30.56)x 1166x330
Mp.
Ncf
=
Rd
.Z+
Mpr
124+7.76x
=1166x330x0.87x
= 49270066.4 x 10"6
= 49.27 kN. m per 1000mmwidth.
106
59400
0.4x44x300
=11.25 mm
Maximum force in steel, Net
fdp
0.87
Ap
x
x
=
= 348.8 x 330 x 0.87
= 100427N
Force in steel in compression = (Net- N, )/2
= (100427 - 59400) /2
= 20513.5 N
Force in steel in tension
= Ne+ (N, t - NJ/2
= 59400 + 20513.5
= 79913.5 N
Force in the upper part of flange = (26 + 16.55 x 2) x 0.9 x 330 x 0.87
N
15270.85
=
232
08)
es
26x0.9+2x16.55x0.9+2x50x0.18
=6.84mm
Z=hf2-ep+(ep-e)x
Z =165 -11
5-
fdp
AN`
P'
349840330
Z= 128.92 mm.
Taking moment about the centre of the profile,
Mp.Rd= 59400 x 128.92+ 20513.5 x (55+15-46.17 - 6.84) x2+2.32
= 10.67 kN. m per 300 mm width
kN.
1000
35.582
mm width
m
per
=
x 106
reinforcement):
The composite slab has one reinforcement bar 12 mm diameter in each trough.
As= it (12/2)2
= 113.1 mm2
fsk= Yield strength of steel reinforcement.
fsk=460 N/mm2
ys= Partial safety factor for steel reinforcement.
ys= 1.15
233
Np +N
A=
b(0.4xf,. )
x=
100386+ 45240
300x0.4x44
x= 27.59 mm
Z2 ds-0.5x
x 27.59
=(165-50-(12/2))-0.5
= 95.205 mm.
AC..
NP
/..
7-
1_
L. I=
fit - v. Jz - Up -r ke p-
...
.....
e) A
Ap frp /YQp
100386
Z, = 165- 0.5 x 27.59 - 30.34 + (30.34 - 30.56) x
349.8 x 3301.1
=120.64 mm.
NP
iap
100386
)
MP,. =1.25 x 2.54 x (13301.1
349.8 x
kN.
0.125
m per 300 mm width,
=
MP.
NP
=
Rd
.ZI+
(<MpaO.K)
Z2
234
NP + No,
0.4x f, xb
u
59400+ 45240
0.4x44x300
= 19.81 mm
Z2=dg-0.5 x
=[165-50-(12/2)]-0.5
=99mm
Z, =h, -0.5x-eP
x 19.81
NP
+(eP -e) x
fYP IYQP
ApP
59400n
Z, =165 - 0.5x 19.81- 30.34+(30.34 - 30.65)x
/
Yi.
33
349.8x
Z, = 124.45 mm.
NP
,,
Jrp
Ap.
Y ap
59400
Mpr =1.25 x 2.32 x (1)
349.8 x 3301.1
(<Mpa O.K)
= 1.25 kN. m per 300 mm width
Mp.Rd= Np Z, + Mpr x 106+N.
-Z2
.
= (59400 x 124.45 + 1.25 x 106+ 45240 x 99) 10"6
kN.
300
13.12
mm width.
m
per
=
kN.
1000
43.73
mm width.
m
per
=
Design load using partial connection method:
For two point loads at L/4 = 2900/4 = 725mm.
= 38 kN/m2.
Calculation of flexural capacity of reinforced concrete slab used for back
calculation of rlcompfor composite slabs with reinforcement:
This calculation is made assuming that the flexural capacity of the reinforced concrete slab is
attainable in the tests in addition to the longitudinal shear capacity of the composite slab.
According to figure B. 4
The ultimate force in concrete F, = 0.67 f,,,.b.x (with y, taken as unity)
The ultimate force for the reinforcement F, = A, fy,
F,
= F,,
f,,,,A. = 0.67 f,,. b. x
823 x2x 113.1 = 0.67 x 44 x 900 xx
235
Mcomp
= 73.48 -23.4
Mcomp
= 50.1 kN. m
The adjusted partial interaction rlcomp= Mcomp/Mp,
Rm
?lcomp= 50.1/55.2
Mcomp
= 0.91
-- -
60
E
z
e 50
E
40
N 30
a
cm
r- 20
c
[0
10
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Degree of interaction
236
F
Figur B. 2 Design partial interaction
diagram
60
E
WtR,,= 49.77 kN m
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
L, = 1521.63 mrt1
Lx= 900 mm
L/4 = 725 mm
800
Figure
6.3 Design
partial
interaction
diagram
60 ,
'A,
55.1 kN. m
=
Re
Ak
50 -
40
30
20
10
L_ = 900 mm
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
237
'A
I
profiled
sheet
steel
238
APPENDIX C
Determination of design loads using the m-k method
Using the m-k method, the maximum design shear is:
V
I. Rd =Vl.
/Yvs
/
/b.
dp
[(m.
k]
Ap
Le)
+
Yvs
=b.
where:
VI. Rd=Maximum design shearresistance
Vl. k = Characteristic resistanceof end anchorage
y,,8 = Partial safety coefficient, normally taken as 1.25
b=
Width of cross-sectionconsidered
dp = Distance from top of slab to centred of steel sheet
Note:
The values obtained form &k are reduced by 10%.
The first series of composite slabs:
kN
37.96
=
239
= 29.51kN
Therefore, the total applied load w= 29.51 x2
=59kN
The design load = 59 / (2.9 x 1)
= 20.35 kN/m2
Slab No. 6 (span = 3.9 m) (135 depth):
V1.Rd=1000 x 104.66 [(152 x 1166) / (1000 x 975) + 0.11 / 1.25
= 24262.39 N
= 24.26 kN
Therefore, the total applied load w= 24.26 x2
= 48.52 kN
The design load = 48.52 / (3.9 x 1)
kN/m2
12.44
=
Slab No. 8 (span = 1.9 m) (135 depth):
V1.Rd=1000 X 104.66 [(152 x 1166) / (1000 x 475) + 0.11] / 1.25
= 40283.2 N
= 40.28 kN
Therefore, the total applied load w= 40.28 x2
= 80.56 kN
The design load = 80.56 / (1.9 x 1)
= 42 kN/m2
The second series of composite slabs (with additional reinforcement):
From Figure C.2, we calculate the value of m&k.
m= 257.1N/mm2
k=0.25 N/mm2
240
kN
85.42
=
Therefore, the total applied load w= 85.42 x2
= 170.85kN
The design load = 170.85 / (1.9 x 1)
= 89.92kN/m2
Slab No. 7 (span = 3.9 m):
= 54049.15 N
=54kN
Therefore, the total applied load w= 54 x2
= 108 kN
The design load = 108 / (3.9 x 1)
= 27.7 kN/m2
Vt"Reinf'
Vt"Comp" = Vt
-
Vt"Comp"
= 101- 32.27
68.7
kN
=
Similarly for slab No. 5 and 7
Vt..Re" = 48.42
and 23.48 kN
Vt"Comp"
and 38.97 kN
= 60.97
For design vales for the "reinforced slab" is obtained by using the appropriate partial safety
factor. In this casethe factor are 0.87 for the reinforcement and 0.4 for the rectangular
concrete stressblock.
So for slab No. 2
b. x
0.87 fy,,Ag= 0.4 fC11.
0.87x823x2x
113.1 = 0.4 x 44 x 900 xx
x= (0.87 x 1646 x 113.1)/(0.4 x 44 x 900)
x= 10.22 mm
:. The depth of the rectangular stressblock x =10.22 mm
z=165-30-6-x/2
The lever arm z= 123.9 mm
..
The flexural capacity of the reinforced slab
MRe= 0.87 fyg.A, z
MRe= (0.87 x 113.1 x 823 x2x 123.9)/1000000
= 20.06 kN. m
241
kN/m2
2)/(2.9
0.9)
21.19
(27.66
x
x
=
wr =
wr = 21.19 kN/m2
Wo
wfailure
wr
+ wcomP= 47.39
= 77.66
wfailure/wo
kN/m2
= 1.64
slabs
242
series
of composite
slabs
m= slope
= (0.92 - 0.38)/(0.0026 - 0.0005)
= 257.1 PYrmf
243
Appendix D
Example of input data
/TITLE,
165mm
3900 mm HNo 4 (S4) Lslab
/STITLE,
3900 mm
4H165 Lslab
PROPERTIES
i MATERIAL
CONVERTED
1 YOUNG'S MODULUS FOR STEEL,
El = 202777
I CONVERTING TO N/MM2
1 YOUNG'S MODULUS FOR CONCRETE,
E2 = 26832
I CONVERTING TO N/MM2
1 POISSON'S
RATIO
NUIND = 0.3
ETANI = 0.0
1 THE LOAD DISTANCE
IN MM
PLS = 975
TO N/MM
SQ.
LOAD
IN
N
1
APPLYING
P=
-(65x1000)/4
1 COMPOSITE SLAB DEPTH IN MM
165
H=
1 HALF OF THE SPAN LENGTH IN MM
1950
L=
L1 = 20
L2 =1
L3 =2
L4 =4
L5 =2
L6 =1
L7 =2
LS =L
/PREP?
/VIEW, 1,1,1,1
/ANG, 1
/STITLE,,
3-D COMPOSITE SLAB WITH CONTACT ELEMENTS
I 3-D SOLID ELEMENT (FOR CONCRETE)
ET, 1,45
(FOR THE STEEL SHEET)
1 3-D SOLID ELEMENTS
ET, 2, SHELL181
1 THICKNESS OF STEEL SHEET
R, 2,. 9,. 9,. 9,. 9
ELEMENT
1 COMBINATION
ET, 3, COMBIN40,11,2
(18.49x1000)/2
(18.49x1000)/2
N/MM
1 FSLIDE
R, 3,10E5,,,,
1 KEYOPT(4)
GAP SIZE BY NODE LOCATION
1
ET, 4, CONTAC52,,,,
=1
R, 4, (18.49x1000)/2,
MP, MU, 4,0.4
I CONCRETE MATERIAL
MP, EX, 1, E2
MP, NUXY, 1,0.2
TB, MISO, 2,1
TBTEMP, 20
TBPT, DEFI,
TBPT, DEFI,
TBPT, DEFI,
0.000302,10
0.00047,15
0.000654,20
! STEEL
MATERIAL
MP, EX, 2, El
MP, NUXY, 2,0.3
TB, BISO,
2,1
TBDATA, 1,354,0.0
TBLIST, BIS0,2
/XRANGE, 0,0.01
TBPLOT, BISO, 2
-0.0001
1 COEFFICIENT
OF FRICTION
*********************
I
!
I
I
I
YOUNG'S MODULUS
RATIO
POISSON'S
A DATA TABLE FOR MULTIINEAR
ACTIVATE
1 SET OF TEMP.
HARDENING OPTION-ONLY
TEMPERATURE = 20
STRESS AT TEMP. 200
I STRAIN,
ISOTROPIC
*********************
! YOUNG'S MODULUS
I POISSON'S
RATIO
ISOTROPIC
I ACTIVATE
A DATA TABLE FOR BILINEAR
1 SET OF TEMP.
I HARDENING OPTION-ONLY
I YIELD STRESS N/MM. SQ.;
! TANGENT MODULUS = 1.2E6
I LIST THE DATA TABLE
I X-AXIS
I DISPLAY
THE DATA TABLE
244
K, 1,0,70,
L
L,
K, 2,13,70,
L
K, 3,6,55,
L
K, 4,56,55,
L
K, 5,82,0,
L
K, 6,224,0,
L
K, 7,250,55,
L
K, 8,300,55,
L
K, 9,293,70,
L
K, 10,319,70,
L
K, 11,312,55,
L
K, 12,362,55,
L
K, 13,388,0,
L
K, 14,450,0,
L
K, 15,450,55,
L
K, 16,450,70,
H, L
K, 17,450,
H, L
K, 18,362,
H, L
K, 19,319,
H, L
K, 20,293,
H, L
K, 21,250,
K, 22,56, H, L
K, 23,13, H, L
K, 24,0, H, L
L
K, 25,56,70,
L
K, 26,250,70,
L
K, 27,362,70,
K, 28,0,70,0
K, 29,13,70,0
K, 30,6,55,0
K, 31,56,55,0
K, 32,82,0,0
K, 33,224,0,0
K, 34,250,55,0
K, 35,300,55,0
K, 36,293,70,0
K, 37,319,70,0
K, 38,312,55,0
K, 39,362,55,0
K, 40,388,0,0
K, 41,450,0,0
K, 42,450,55,0
K, 43,450,70,0
H, 0
K, 44,450,
H, 0
K, 45,362,
H, 0
K, 46,319,
H, 0
K, 47,293,
H, 0
K, 48,250,
H, 0
K, 49,56,
K, 50,13, H, 0
K, 51,0, H, 0
K, 52,56,70,0
K, 53,250,70,0
K, 54,362,70,0
K,
K,
K,
K,
K,
K,
K,
K,
55,0,70.00001,
56,13,70.00001,
57,6,55.00001,
58,56,55.00001,
59,82,0.00001,
60,224,0.00001,
61,250,55.00001,
62,300,55.00001,
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
245
K,
K,
K,
K,
K,
K,
63,293,70.00001,
64,319,70.00001,
65,312,55.00001,
66,362,55.00001,
67,388,0.00001,
68,450,0.00001,
L
L
L
L
L
L
K, 69,0,70.00001,0
K, 70,13,70.00001,0
K, 71,6,55.00001,0
K, 72,56,55.00001,0
K, 73,82,0.00001,0
K, 74,224,0.00001,0
K, 75,250,55.00001,0
K, 76,300,55.00001,0
K, 77,293,70.00001,0
K, 78,319,70.00001,0
K, 79,312,55.00001,0
K, 80,362,55.00001,0
K, 81,388,0.00001,0
K, 82,450,0.00001,0
KPLOT
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
L,
1,28
2,29
3,30
4,31
5,32
6,33
7,34
8,35
9,36
10,37
11,38
12,39
13,40
14,41
15,42
16,43
17,44
18,45
19,46
20,47
21,48
22,49
23,50
24,51
25,52
26,53
27,54
1,2
2,3
3,4
4,5
5,6
6,7
7,8
8,9
9,10
10,11
11,12
12,13
13,14
14,15
246
L, 15,16
L, 16,17
L, 17,18
L, 18,19
L, 19,20
L, 20,21
L, 21,22
L, 22,23
L, 23,24
L, 24,1
L, 23,2
L, 22,25
L, 2,25
L, 4,25
L, 4,7
L, 25,26
L, 7,26
L, 26,21
L, 9,20
L, 10,19
L, 27,18
L, 10,27
L, 12,27
L, 27,16
L, 12,15
L, 28,29
L, 29,30
L, 30,31
L, 31,32
L, 32,33
L, 33,34
L, 34,35
L, 35,36
L, 36,37
L, 37,38
L, 38,39
L, 39,40
L, 40,41
L, 41,42
L, 42,43
L, 43,44
L, 44,45
L, 45,46
L, 46,47
L, 47,48
L, 48,49
L, 49,50
L, 50,51
L, 51,28
L, 29,50
L, 52,49
L, 29,52
L, 31,52
L, 31,34
L, 52,53
L, 34,53
L, 53,48
L, 53,36
L, 36,47
L, 37,46
L, 54,45
L, 37,54
L, 39,54
L, 39,42
166
190
247
L, 54,43
L, 26,91
L, 55,69
L, 56,70
L, 57,71
L, 58,72
L, 59,73
L, 60,74
L, 61,75
L, 62,76
L, 63,77
L, 64,78
L, 65,79
L, 66,80
L, 67,81
L, 68,82
L, 55,56
L, 56,57
L, 57,58
L, 58,59
L, 59,60
L, 60,61
L, 61,62
L, 62,63
L, 63,64
L, 64,65
L, 65,66
L, 66,67
L, 67,68
L, 69,70
L, 70,71
L, 71,72
L, 72,73
L, 73,74
L, 74,75
L, 75,76
L, 76,77
L, 77,78
L, 78,79
L, 79,80
L, 80,81
L, 81,82
LPLOTI
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
AL,
1107
1110
1120
1130
1,2,28,67
2,3,29,68
3,4,30,69
4,5,31,70
5,6,32,71
6,7,33,72
7,8,34,73
8,9,35,74
9,10,36,75
10,11,37,76
11,12,38,77
12,13,39,78
13,14,40,79
14,15,41,80
15,16,42,81
16,17,43,82
17,18,44,83
18,19,45,84
19,20,46,85
15
110
115
248
120
AL, 20,21,47,86
AL, 21,22,48,87
AL, 22,23,49,88
AL, 23,24,50,89
AL, 24,1,51,90
125
AL, 23,2,52,91
AL, 22,25,53,92
AL, 2,25,54,93
AL, 25,4,55,94
AL, 4,7,56,95
130
AL, 25,26,57,96
AL, 26,7,58,97
AL, 26,9,107,99
AL, 21,26,59,98
AL, 20,9,60,100
135
AL, 19,10,61,101
AL, 18,27,62,102
AL, 10,27,63,103
AL, 27,12,64,104
AL, 27,16,65,106
140
AL, 12,15,66,105
AL, 50,51,28,52
AL, 49,52,53,54
AL, 29,30,55,54
AL, 48,53,57,59
145
AL, 55,56,57,58
AL, 31,32,33,56
AL, 47,59,107,60
AL, 58,34,35,107
AL, 46,60,36,61
150
AL, 45,61,62,63
AL, 37,38,63,64
AL, 44,62,65,43
AL, 64,65,66,42
AL, 39,40,41,66
155
AL, 89,90,91,67
AL, 88,91,92,93
AL, 68,69,93,94
AL, 87,92,96,98
AL, 94,95,96,97
160
AL, 95,70,71,72
161
AL, 86,98,99,100
AL, 99,97,73,74
AL, 85,100,101,75
AL, 101,102,84,103
AL, 103,76,77,104
AL, 83,82,102,106
AL, 106,104,105,81
AL, 105,80,79,78
AL, 108,109,122,135
AL, 109,110,123,136
AL, 110,111,124,137
AL, 111,112,125,138
AL, 112,113,126,139
AL, 113,114,127,140
AL, 114,115,128,141
AL, 115,116,129,142
AL, 116,117,130,143
AL, 117,118,131,144
AL, 118,119,132,145
AL, 119,120,133,146
AL, 120,121,134,147
APLOT
168
170
175
180
181
249
VA, 1,23,24,25,41,55
VA, 22,25,26,27,42,56
VA, 2,3,27,28,43,57
VA, 21,26,30,33,44,58
VA, 30,28,29,31,45,59
VA, 29,4,5,6,46,60
VA, 20,33,32,34,47,61
VA, 7,8,32,31,48,62
VA, 19,34,9,35,49,63
VA, 18,35,37,36,50,64
VA, 37,10,11,38,51,65
VA, 17,36,39,16,52,66
VA, 39,38,40,15,53,67
VA, 40,12,13,14,54,68
VPLOT
LSEL, S, LINE
LSEL, A, LINE
LESIZE, ALL,,,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
S,
A,
A,
A,
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
114
1,27
108,121
L1
28
50
67
89
LSEL, A, LINE
LSEL, A, LINE
LESIZE, ALL,,,
122
135
L2
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
S,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
30
54
49
69
93
88
124
137
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
34
107
47
73
99
86
128
141
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
36
46
75
85
130
143
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
38
63
45
77
103
84
132
145
250
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LESIZE,
LINE, 40
LINE
40
66
LINE
65
LINE
44
LINE
79
LINE
105
LINE
106
LINE
83
LINE
L3
ALL,,,
LSEL, S,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LESIZE,
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
ALL,,,
32
56
57
48
71
95
96
87
126
139
L4
LSEL, S,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LESIZE,
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
ALL,,,
31
33
39
41
70
72
78
80
125
127
133
138
140
146
L5
LSEL, S,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LSEL, A,
LESIZE,
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
ALL,,,
29
55
58
35
37
42
68
94
97
74
76
104
81
123
129
131
136
142
144
L6
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LSEL,
LINE
LINE
LINE
LINE
51,53
60,62
90,92
98
S,
A,
A,
A,
251
LSEL, A, LINE
LESIZE, ALL,,,
LSEL, ALL
100,102
L7
TYPE, 1
MAT, 1
REAL, 1
ESHAPE, 2
VMESH, ALL
TYPE, 2
MAT, 2
REAL, 2
ESHAPE, 2
AMESH, 69,81
TYPE, 3
REAL, 3
MAT, 3
EINTF, 0.0001
TYPE, 4
REAL, 4
MAT, 4
EINTF, 0.0001
NSEL, S, LOC, Z, LS
NSEL, R, LOC, Y, O
D, ALL, UY
NSEL, ALL
! SYMMETRY
I SYMMETRY
NSEL, S, LOC, Y, H
NSEL, R, LOC, Z, PLS
CP, 1, UY, ALL
NSEL, ALL
SAVE
FINISH
! SELECT
/SOLU
ANTYPE, STATIC
NLGEOM, ON
ON
NROPT, FULL
PRED, ON
CNVTOL, F
0.05,2,10
TIME, 0.0000001
AUTOTS, ON
NSEL, S, LOC, Y, H
NSEL, R, LOC, Z, PLS
F, ALL, FY, -0.0000001
NSEL, ALL
SOLVE
TIME, 0.000001
AUTOTS, ON
NSEL, S, LOC, Y, H
ON
ON
I ULT.
LOAD
(KN)
252
I ULT.
LOAD
(KN)
I ULT.
LOAD
I AUTOMATIC
I LOAD IN
I LIST ALL
I LIST ALL
I SUBSTEP
(KN)
TIME
STEPING
LSWRITE
SAVE
SOLVE
SAVE
FINISH
exit
253