Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Lehigh Preserve
Fritz Laboratory Reports
1-1-1963
This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil and Environmental Engineering at Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Fritz Laboratory Reports by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact
hms207@lehigh.edu.
by
R. G. Slutter
G, C. Driscoll, Jr.
.}y
of Civil
~ehigh
~~gineering
University
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
March 1963
Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report NOr 279.15
279.15
279.15
11
LIS T
I,
Table
1.
27
2.
28
3a.
29
3b.
29
3c.
30
4.
Mu
AND
Mu
31
Figure
1.
32
2.
33
34
4.
35
5.
SHEAR
36
6.
7,
38
8.
39
9.
40
10.
41
11.
42
12.
43
13.
STRESS
44
14.
45
~ONNECTOR
FORCES AT ULTIMATE
DISTRIBUT~ON
MOMEN~
37
iii
279.1?
L I
~'T
iv
279.15
S Y N 0 PSI S
These
The effect
of slip between concrete slab and steel beam is shown to have no measurable effect on the ultimate moment of a member,
the ultimate strength of members
~i~h
A method of determining
This method of
presented to show that not only ultimate strength theory but plastic
design theory can be applied in a limited way to composite members,
279.15
-1
1,
I N T ROD U C T lOoN
..
For building
ulti~te
There-
strength of
exist when the two materials are combined into a composite member,
One
..
279.15
-2
3
investigators in America and abroad.
has added greatly to the understanding of composite action and has been in-
,.
Unfortunately,
the evaluation of stresses considering incomplete interaction is very involved and requires information which is not available to the designer.
For these reasons, it has never resulted in an economical shear connector
design approach.
The semi-empirical formulas for loads on shear connectors which
first appeared in the 1957 AASHO "Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges"
were based upon limiting the slip between steel member and slab
ok
to a certain value which has been found to be safe for fatigue loading.
These same values with a more
libe~al
culation of the ultimate strength of composite members is not new, but the
use of this approach for the design of shear connectors was developed from
the research program described in this paper.
The experimental work for this program consisted of testing twelve
simple span composite members of 15 1 -0" span, one continuous two-span member
Ok
279.15
-3
12
m~mbers
The ultimate
Ok..
-4
279.15
.2.
PRO G RAM
designat~d ~sB~
through B12.
section. ,The. shear connectors provided in each beam are listed in Table 1
along with the concrete strength for each
investigation
~or wh~ch
~ember.
T~e lo~4ing
obt~in~d
failur~,
maximum
cpnnector force, and maximum end slip are also given in Table 2.
I~
will be
~otic~.
tha~ crus~ing
Then the
member was unloaded and loaded again with the load points further apart.
The ultimate moment data for only the last of such tests is used in the
an~lysis.
slightly reduced
~he
ext~~t
shear
conne~tors
by
m~asurements
o~
the
279.15
-5
ar~since
~.,
maximum load per connector may occur after yielding of the connector material,
Therefore
a~other
resist must be
u~ed,
Mo~t
inves~igation
-6
279.15
3.
U L TIM ATE
S T R ENG THO F
ME M B E R S
In Fig. 4,
f~
is the 28-day
in the concrete slab is designated by C and the total tensile force i.n the
~
beam by T.
designated by C'.
crete area is not sufficient and the top flange of the steel beam is
stressed to f y in compression.
of the cross section, the ultimate moment may be calculated by the following
equations:
-7
279.,15
~,,:
Case I:
= 0. 85f d b,~.
( 1)
= As f y
(2)
+ t
= ~
2
Mu =
Case II:
As f y
0,85f~
T~
= As f y
= 0.85 i~ bt
(4)
01<
(3)
Cd
"2 + t
-D
(5)
(6)
C1
(7)
Mu=Ce+C
In these equations
the steel section.
(8)
For Case II, the values of e and e' are dependent upon
sectio~.
The assumption that the concrete does npt act in tension has been
made for this calculation.
arecon~idered.
01<
If
slab steel is neglected, the ultimate moment of the section reduces to the
plastic moment of the steel member.
The ultimate
st~ength
number of shear connectors has been provided to completely develop the concrete slab.
sarily
It
ins~re
~hp~ld
OK
~ bL d5{.....~J
ht....
tlv's
..se.t:-!/()Y[
-8
279.15
m~mbers
reached the
ulti~t~ load predicted by ~he above theory while qthers did not) -the
differ~nce
shear connectors.
"
-9
279.15
4.
U L TIM ATE
"\
)J
S T R ENG T H
requir~ment
may be
defin~d
by con-
section at ultimate moment and the end of the member as shown in Fig. 5.
The force C is resisted by the forces,~Au or the sum of the u1ti~te
strengths of th~ shear connectors in the ~ength of slab Ls
a means of determining the force on a shear
con~ector
This provides
in a beam at ultimate
load only when the member has more than the minimum number required.
It
will be shown that the ultimate strength of a member with less than the
minimum requirement can be determined once the
mini~um numb~r
is
~nown
conne~tors,
their work
data
Pushout test data was more readily available t:Qan beam test
~ap
avai1ab~~cou1d
~em~ers
other~.
~sed
be
with
t~e
nector was not obtained if the concrete slab was not adequately
or
~ tJl-f"1afe- .fh~fA
~has
been
not adequate.
The data
that~d~
or & 4 J M t . - " h r l .
arrang~d
re~~r~e~
~ata
sp~ra1
and channel
279.15
-10
Theref~re,
abscis~a
in-Fig. 6.
The
The empirical
formulas derived in this investigation for the ultimate load per connector
are:
qu
220Rd s
(9)
OK.
for studs with Rids greater than 4.1, where R is the height of the stud
and ds~s the diameter of the connector.
For
. '-.
i 79.15
-11
plotted in Fig. 7 and an empirical formula for the ultimate strength of one
turn of spiral is given as:
qu
8000d s
,,4f71
'Jf c
(11)
This formula is of the same form as used for spiral connectors in elastic
design.
The formula
550(h
= 0.5t)
(12)
strength of shear connectors in the beam tests with the exception that the
concrete strength at the time of test rather than the 28 day strength was
used for
f~.
d k....
-12
279.15
5.
A N A L Y SIS
0 F
B E A M T EST S
.
\
no shear connectors.
failure and the only shear force acting was due to friction caused by
applied loads on the top flange.
elastic analysis the terms lIa dequate ll and lIinadequate ll were adopted to
refer to the shear connection.
sum of the ultimate strengths of the shear connectors in the shear span
is equal to or greater than the maximum compressive force in the slab at
the point of maximum moment, or stated by formula:
(13)
The term lIinadequate ll is used whenever the sum of the ultimate strengths
of the shear connectors is less than the maximum compressive force in the
slab, or stated by formula:
qu
=<
(14)
=13
279.15
Mu
as
2: qulc
::: 1.10 is
I.. qu = C for any composite beam~ and that thi.s requirement is dependent
t
1
---cp
This requirement
279.15
-14
6.
It is
possibl~
whi~h
WOUld
g~ve
. qu + 1.98C
M/Mu
( 15)
3C
ext~nded
u1tima~e
strength of a member.
~ll compa~ite
to
sections, and a
she~r
basic
un~er-
~ests
adeq~ate,
conn~ctors
In cases
whe~~
the connector
stre~gth
fai~ure.
iden~ical
~tudy
dicated that the stress block in the concrete at maximum load was similar
to the concrete
stres~ bloc~
279.15
-15
conn~ctors
are
~ wa~ develop~d
cal~ulation
of tqe
in~dequate,
referred
to as modified ultimate
I
maxim~m bendin~
strength,
the slaQ can not exceed the sum of the ultimate strengths of the shear
connectors.
Case II of Fig. 4
tension or
assu~ing
'"
III
C'
III
...
th~n
be cal-
for~ulas:
~ qu
(16)
2. qu
0.85 f db
( 17)
As f s
~u
compre~sion.
th~
that
L qu
(18)
Ce + C Ie'
~ust
be
(19)
~etermined
the seCtion.
The value
ofM~
has peen
calc~lated
max~mum
test momrnt
div~ded
by the
point of view of
fo~
M/M~ ~nstead
modifi~d
The
~embers
quan~ity M/M~
M/~
The
Me~bers
qaying
~ollowing
-16
279.15
In
m~mbers
an~
4.
th~
fact
tha~
some of
5.
pr~vious
tests.
6.
The
percent~ge
stre~gth.
cor~esponds
~nd
me~bers
of loading.
Elastic design of members supporting uniform loads resulted in
variable
..
she~r
span because
th~
(20)
VQ/I
~he
total applied
shear,Q is the statical moment of the transformed, area of the slab, and
I
279.15
;-17
t~e
composite section.
When considering
diagr~m
tested with five equally spaced concentrated loads and with shear connectors equally spaced.
mom~nt
the curve for B12 and the curves for B1D and Bll is so slight as to be
of no practi~al importance.
Also it should
be pointed out that the critical point in these members was not the
point of maximum moment but the section at the second concentrated load.
At this point the applied moment is 89% of midspan moment and the compressive force in
th~
than midspan
tensi~e
w~s
res~sted
Inthis
This section
O~
279.15
-18
7.
I NFL U ENe E
0 F
S LIP
The maximum slip measured at the end of the beam will be used
However, there is
considerable difference in Fig, 15 between the curve for B12 and the curves
for BlO and Bll.
At M/Mu of 0,80 the maximum end s lip for members BlO and
connector forces in the three members become redistributed, and the slip
of the three members becomes more nearly equal.
279.15
-19
mom~nt
is
p~otted
as ordinate.
diff~red
only in
~he n~mber
nqt~ced
strength.
number of
that all
thre~
ad~quate
shear connectors,
It
sl~p
It should aleo
b~
~his
,
This is
~ess
page,
an amount which cal). not be considered as
,
o~
non-composit~
th~
beam.
O~
The slip
~bscissa
.,
members BI,
and BIll
~II,
~he theoretic~l
~n
deflection curves
near~y
aff~ct ~he
thre~
moment versus
The
magnitude of the
~n
con~
O~
~20
279.15
8,
CON TIN U 0 U S
ME M B E R S
To
inve~tigate
fifte~n
foot spans,
stre~gth
theory.
w~s
d~termined
using both
~~
me~ber
ulti~te,
Fig, 18
sho~s
the
midspan deflection of both spans plotted as abscissa with the total applied load P divided by
th~
The load
0.888 for the ends and 0.978 for the interior portion of the two-span
member.
It was observed
durin~
formed in the negative moment region even at loads below working load.
279.15
-21
negative plastic hinge forms first, it appears that composite members could
be designed by plastic analysis.
which the positive plastic hinge formed first, the rotation capacity of
the positive hinge could be insufficient to allow a mechanism to form.
279.15
-22
9.
CON C L US I ON S
The ultimate strength of composite beams was carefully investigated, and this was used as a basis for the determination of
minimum shear connector requirements for composite members.
lowing
conclus~ons
1.
~he
The fol-
4. definite
-1-0 k~drJJOr"Jf.h--c.o..fe
requirement~based upon
~ot"NJ-N1-
is
3.
r~~.
The ultimate strength of a member may be determined if the number of shear connectors is inadequate.
Ok
5.
6.
+imite~
basis.
'-/4.
O_j'~"--
IAV
279,15
-23
10.
projec~
is sup-
The original
planni~g
were supplied and welded by KSM Products, Inc., Moorstown, New Jersey.
The tests were planned and conducted by Messrs. Charles G.
C~lver
and Paul J. Zarzeczny as a part of their programs for the Master of Science
Degree.
than~s
who did the typing and for Mr. Richard Sopko for his assistance with the
drawings.
-24
279.15
11.
A P PEN D I X
NOTATION
'I
Th~
.'/
adop~ed
As
=
=
ar~a
wid~h
c'
co~pressive
depth
ds
diameter of stud or
d~stance
depth of concrete
of
st~el
-
stres~ ~lo~k
~on~rete
of the
at ultimate moment
slab
I'
o~
force in
t
'
th~
t~e
force
at ultimate moment
,
'
tens~le
'I
-"
fy
yield strength of
f~
th~c~ness
height of a stud
moment of
Ls
of
~teel
fl~nge
pf a
~hear
inerti~
a~
~hannel
28 days
shear connector
connector
of the
compos~te
ma~imum ~ment
mome,nt
M
applied
mo~nt
plastic
~meflt
of a s teel
section
secti~n
to point of
ze~o
-25
279.15
A P PEN D I. X
M'u
Pp
qu
qu
span
= statical
279.15
-26
12.
-27
279.15.-
TABLE 1.
Specimen
Reference
Steel
Section
Type of
Connectors
Test
Span
Connector
Spacing
Concrete
Strength
(psi)
B1
12 Vf 27
4 x 48
15'-0 11
None
---
3600
B2
12 Vf 27
4 x 48
15'-0 11
None
---
3600
B3
12 Vf 27
4 x 48
15 '-a II
1/2
studs
2 @ 7.5
3600
B4
B5
*
*
12 Vf 27
12 Vf 27
4 x 48
4 x 48
15' -0 II
15' -0 II
1/2 11 ,studs
3 C 4.1
2 @ .7.5
4 @ 20'
3600
3600
B6
12 Vf 27
4 x 48
15'-0 11
1/2 II studs
1 @ 7.5
3600
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
*
*
12
12
12
12
12
12
4
4
4
4
4
4
15 ' -0 II
15' -0 II
15 '-0'1
15 '-a II
15'-0 11
15' -0 II
J/2 11
1/2 11
3/4 11
1/2 11
1/2 11
1/2 II
studs
studs
studs
studs
studs
studs
2 @ .7.5
2 @ 7.5
2 @ 15
2 @ 9
2 @ 9
Variable
3337
3337
3337
3595
3595
3595
'it
*
*
*
Vf 27
Vf 27
Vf 27
Vf 27
Vf 27
W 27
x 48
x 48
x 48
x 48
x 48
x 48
11
BI
8Vf 17
3 x 24
to '-a
II
1/2 II studs
3 @ 5.5
5563
BII
BIll
5
5
8 Vf 17
8 Vf 17
3 x 24
3 x 24
10 ' -0 II
10 I -0 II
1/2 II studs
1/2 II studs
2 @ 5.5
2 @ 7
5563
5563
B21S
21 'If 68
6.25 x 72
37'-6 11
6 @ 14.5
6480
B21W
B24S
B24W
6
6
6
21 "If 68
24 'If 76
24 Vf 76
6.17 x 72
6.25 x 72
6.11 x 72
37'-6 11
37'-6 11
37'-6 11
4 C 5.4
41: 5.4
4 [ 5.4
4 @ 36
6 @ 14.5
6 @ 18
5580
5620
5500
Bridge
18 Vf 50
6 x 65.5
30 '-0 II
1/2 11 studs
3 @ 14
3280
1
2
3
8
8
8
8 'If 17
21' -0 II
Variable
Var:iab1e
Variable
7380
7040
7380
Variable
7040
C 5.4 I
8 Vf 17
7.5 x 30
7.5 x 30
7.5 x 30
21'-0"
21'-0 II
Spirals
Spirals
Spirals
8 Vf 17
7.5 x 30
21
'-a"
Spirals
8 Vf 17
279.15
-28
TABLE 20
Member
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B~
B10
B11
B12 .
B1
B11
.BIll
Test
Type of
Failure
(*)
(f)
T2
I4
T7
T2
I4
T8
T2
T4
III
I2
T2
T4
T2
T4
T9
T2
I5
'flO
T13
I13
I13
A
A
I3
T3
1'4
T3
I4
I6
A
A
D
A
A
B
D
A
C
A
A
C
A
A
B
D
D
'D
A
C
A
A
D
Maximum
Test
Moment
(kip-in. )
1178
1164
12.14
1154
1146
1085
1141
1141
1141
1141
1141
1141
11920
11480
13600
13710
16455
2.150
2i50
2150
2150
A
A
12678
10057
14100
13690
Bridge
Tl
Il2
. T12
. T12
T12
C
C
A
A
A
16740
2572
2362
2272
2402
IFl
In
113
Ift4
(kip-ino)
2880
2880
2880
2750
2750
2750
2880
2880
2880
2880
27.30
2730
2730
2730
2730
2730
2730
2730
2760
2760
2760
Tl
I1
Il
T1
Theoretical Values
Mu
Mu
2708
2636
2514
2571
2546
2614
2695
2758
2418
2416
2506
2554
2618
2.6.34
2491
2586
2514
2514
2596
2556
2626
B21S
B21W
B24S
B24W
--2647
---
2490
---
2401
2440
--
2691
---
2557
---
2626
271.7
2717
2717
--
-----
1051
-9589
-------
*See Figo 2
fA Test stopped before failure
B Failure to carry additional load
C Crushing of concrete slab
D Tensile failure of connectors
E Failure by tensile cracking of slab
F Failure by connectors pulling out of concrete
--
1204
12.91507
n.7
1205
16.6
5401
7005
7204
1708
11.2
1300
1204
1400
1504
22.1
2604
31.4
1302
1208
1306
Maximum
End Slip
(ino)
0.040
0.077
0.092
00015
00020
00126
00029
00046
0.207
0.120
0.059
0.139
0.035
0.063
00129
0.040
0.039
0.198
0.268
0.199
0.170
0.0044
000089
0.0446
000218
000712
0.0925
50.8
91.7
54.3
51.4
(per
(per
(per
(per
4 11
4"
4"
4 11
0.0108
000775
0.0068
0.0092
1304
17.0
15.6
1500
15.9
(per
(per
(per
(per
(per
1/2"
1/2"
1/2"
1/2"
1/2 11
channel)
channel)
channel)
channel)
stud)
spiral)
spiral)
spiral)
spiral)
0.028
0.0068
000074
000040
0.0096
279.15
~29
TABLE. 3a.
Specimen
Reference
Stud
Diameter
(in. )
type of
Test
Type of
Failure
H/d
9
10
10
1/2
1/2
1/2
Pushout
Pushout
Pushout
4.5
8.0
8.0
B12-T13
Bridge
*
7
1/2
1/2
Beam
Beam
4.5
3.8
. BlO-I13 .,.
'*
1/2
Beam
*
'9
1/2
2
4A
4B
B7-T4
3
B11-l'13
P5
'*
'*
D
D
Concrete
Strength
(psi)
5000
3840
4390
Max.
!
Slip
Qu 1t.
Shear.
Stress
(kis)
14.5
14.4
13.9
73.9
73.5
7009
69.4
68.4
(in. )
-0.163
0.170
0.170
3595
3280
--
13.6
13.4
4.5
3595
0.198
13.2
67.3
Beam
4.5
3337
0.139
13.0
66.4
1/2
1/2
Pushout
Bea.m
4.5
4.5
--
5000
3595
0.199
12.9
12.8
65.8
65.4
1/2
Pushout
4.5
3600
0.265
12.1
61. 7
1/2
Pushout
4.5
3680
0.290
12.1
61. 7
1/2
Pushout
4.5
'D
3063
0.335
12.1
61.7
P6
. P8
'*
Pl
1/2
Pushout
,~,
3600
0.200
11.0
56.1
P4
SA
1/2
.5/8
Pushout
Pushout
4.5
6.3
D
D
3600
3790
0.190
0.319
10.4
23.8
53.0
76.8
5/8
3/4
Pushout
Pushout
6.3
4250
6.7
4g00
0.279
0.364
22.5
34.8
72 .7
79.1
3/4
3/4
Pushout
Pushout
Pushout
Pushout
5.2
5.2
9.3
10.0
4240
3870
4590
3440
0.246
0.382
0.276
0.278
32.5
32.0
31.5
45.0
73.9
72.8
71.5
81.3
Max.
Slip
Qu1t.
Shear
Stress
(ksi)
0.250
0.247
0.139
0.190
0.047
0.068
0.023
0.075
0.088
0.034
34.5
29.3
88.0
74.7
72.0
71.5
70.1
63.0
66.2
62.2
59.3
59.0
5B
6F
...
6B
6A
6G
7H
*Performed
10
10
10
10
10
3/4
10
10
~n
7/8
this
Reference
4A
4B
5B
5A
2-1
2-2
10
10
10
10
11
11
1-1
11
6B
6A..
1-2
10
10
U
~nvest~gation
TABLE 3b.
Specimen
Spiral
Diameter
(in. )
1/2
1/2
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
,3/4
3/4'
3/4
3/4
Type of
Iest
Type of
,Failure
Concrete
Strength
(psi)
Pushout
Pushout
Pushout
Pushout
Pushout
Pushout
Pushout
Pushout
Pushout
Pushout
D
D
E
E
D.
D
D
E
'E
E
2990
2990
3520
3520
4540
3080
5120
3250
.3250
2965
~.4.0
43.7
42.9
38.5
58.3
54.9
52.3
.51.1
279.15
-30
'fABLE 3c.
Specimen
B5
3C 3H3
3C 3H2
P2
3C 3H1
B21W
4C 3W2
4C 3ell.
4C 3C9
4C 3e10
4e 3e7
4C 3eB
4C 3F4
4C 3e6
4C 3C5
4C 3F3
4C 3S2
4C 3W1
4C 3c4
4e 3e1
4C 3F2
4C 3F5
4C 3C2
4C 3D2
4C 3e3
4e 3D1
4e 3Fl
4C 381
4C 51'8
.4C 5'I7
4C 4T
4C 5F
4e 5T6
4C 5'f3
4e 51'2
4C 5'I4
4C 5'1'5
4e 5S
4C 51'1
5C 3H2
5C 3H1
Reference
*'6
6
*'6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Type of
Test
Type of
Failure
Concrete
Strength
Load per
(in. )
t 4.1
t 4.1
C 4.1
C 4.1
C 4.1
C 5.4
[ 5.4
Beam
Pushout
Pushout
Pushout
Pushout
Beam
Pushout
3600
3920
3310
3600
2810
558Q
4430
6320
5340
5740
18.1
14.9
12.6
11.9
10.5
22.9
20.4
19. :7
19.4
18.7
17 .1
16.4
16.2
15.8
15.2
15.1
15.0
15.0
13.2
12.5
12.4
1203
12.1
11.6
11.2
9.9
9.6
8.0
21.8
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
D
E
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
I)
]}I
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
iJ
it
6.
6
4 [ 1.25
Pushout
TIl
D
D
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
,.I'1.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5 [ 6.7
5 L 6.1
Pushout
Pushout
4140
4770
4690
3500
3470
4600
T970
2810
3140
2010
2650
3080
2300
3310
2510
2990
2580
1340
5050
4360
4010
2110
3530
3130
2910
3190
3310
2720
2300
3260
3110
17.1
16.4
16.4
15.8
15.1
14.5
14.2
14.1
14.0
13.2
15.2
14.9
279.15
TABLE 4.
Beam Test
-31
Type of Failure
l:
Mu
AND Mu
qui C
M/ Mu
MI
Mu
B3-T7
0.772
0.873
0.950
B4-T8
0.722
0.951
1.049
B5-T11
0.437
0.838
1.006
B6-T2
0.473
0.838
0.991
B7":T4
0.897
0.936
0.950
B8-T9
0.717'
0.913
0.976
B9-TlO
0.807
,0.922
0.958
BlO-T13
0.888
0.941
0.956
B11-T13
0.888
0.926
0.944
B12-T13
, D
0.888
0.952
0.968
BI-T3
2.04
1.030
--
BII-T4
'1.21
1.061
--
BIII-T6
0.760
o ~ 9 51
Bridge
1.045
B21S
B21W
1.032
'.
1.020
--
1.95
1.062
--
0.50
0.877
1.050
B24s
1.59
1.036
--
B24W
1.41
0.998
--
No. 1
1.57
1.090
--
1. 75
1.110
--
No. 2
No. 3
1.72
1.052
--
No. 4
1.60
1.032
--
~~---r--~"T"-:-~-:;:-:--i
I
I2 'N=" 27
1-
-I
ELEVATION
L4"
__
SECTION A-A
81 TO 812
II
1/
ELEVATION
8 13
I
Fig. 1
W
N
-33
279.15
-2L
I-
-II
-2L
-L8
-I
1.
488
P
4
\-
pi
4"
.b
1.1.
P
,4
I
-L8
l~
-I
Test TI
-I
Test TI2
.b .b
.b L
666666
p
"5
1Test
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
TIO
Til
-I
x in inches
9
12
18
21
23
28
30
33
36
38
Test TI3
..I
Spherical Bearing
612-06
Mesh
'.
~
.
~
~"
~t:
-v
:: 1#
...
i:f=.
~'i=:
'
:
-'
(\J
~.
'::;;. 1~.
~2" Plywood
ELEVATION
Fig. 3
~: I~:
~r":
,;,;AlI~
..:
. .:
'J~
\..
~.
"1'
...
.... ~:
~
~
SECTION B-B
=en
-I
b
t
-I--
. . .. : ~ .' .10:1.'.
....-:
.p.l ) .. . .A,......
.
.
'
4 .
..'
A .
,II'",' .
L-0.85f~
N.A.-T-
' - - ;.;.....J
e
d
_L_
tC
N.A.--
..
O.85f~
-.--
_ c'
fy
T
,--
II
---.
fy
CASE I
Fig. 4
fy
CASE
W
\Jl
1p
2
l
M
-----JI-
--p'"""'P'"""'P'
Connector Forces =2 qu
Fig. 5
.....
VI
80
o
o
930 d~ ./3000
o
.~L----------~~==-~;---
220 Hd s ./3000
60
As
AS
en
o
D"
.-c
en 40
en
Q)
....
en
Beam Test
Pushout Test
Recent Lehigh U. Tests
10
12
I
......
Fig. 6
Pushout Tests
60
en
0.
0~
0.
(f)
40
.=
~
Q)
0.
20
'"
,-oO~--
SC o~q~:-
-----
~'-----
"'0
0
...J
------2
-------------ds
Fig. 7
-Ii[ for
Spiral
8
I
\"oJ
00
30
Pushout Tests
Beam Tests
'b Recent Lehigh U. Tests
en
.-
C-
c
.-
20
Q)
qu=550(h+O.5t)v1~ --,
c
c
0
.s:::;
U
'to
cPc9
COo
0 00
00
.s:::;
o
o
10
0
0
c
~
Q)
C-0
0
0
--J
10
30
20
40
Section
W
\0
-40
279.15
M/M u
1.0
Bl
T2-o-
(in)
B2
T2-o-
1.0
8(in)
.....
c
B3
T2-o-
Q)
0
~
';"-.
T4~
T7~
~
0
8 (in)
::::>
Loads Suspended
from Steel Beam
B4
T2 - 0 -
.....c
Q)
T4~
T8~
0
~
80n)
-0
Q)
B5
a.
a.
T2 - 0 T4~
TII~
8 (in)
1.0
B6
T2 - 0 -
80n)
-41
279.15
87
T2 --<>T4
M/M u 1.0
8(in)
88
T2--oT4
T9 - - 0 -
+-
c:
8(in)
Q)
0
~
89
Q)
T2 - - - 0 T5
TIO--O-
+-
+=
::J
-I-
+-
c:
810
T13--<>-
Q)
0
~
"0
Q)
a.
a.
<[
8 (in)
!ill
TI3---O-
8(in)
812
1.0
TI3 - - - 0
2
,-
80 n)
1.0
------------------~~------~~----~
+-
cQ)
0.8
....c
Q)
.-E
=
.........
....
c:
0.6
:::>
Q)
l:qu
0.4
)M=M u
0
~
E
:::J
0.2
E
.-
'0
)(
:e
o
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Ls
.1
1.2
1.4
l:qu/C
J:'N
M/M u =0.846
M/M u =0.908
M/M u =0.744
M/M u =0.858
83- TI
>oIqu IC
=0.944
;>
86-T2
I qu IC
=0.473
Strain
Distri bution
Fig. 12
at
Midspan
"
....
VI
i.~.
____ ~
;.:.:.~ :!
.F,-
._N.A.
-~c====o~.85f3~ ....
_
c
c'
e
d
----II~T--...&.--
......._ - - - - - - - - [----_....'
Fig. 13
to
M/Mu
.....
VI
1.0
.....
c
Q)
0.8
:E
.....
0
Q)
E 0.6
.....
:::>
".....c
Q)
E 0.4
:E
"'C
Q)
a.
a.
0.2
811
810
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
I
VI
.,
M/M u
1.0
r-----------------------------------t
Q)
0.8
Q)
'- 0.6
::>
"c
Q)
~ 0.4
"'C
.-
Q)
a.
a.
<{
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
..
.,
M/M u
.....
V1
1.0
+-
Q)
oE 0.8
~
Q)
+-
~ 0.6
=>
........
+-
Q)
OA
"0
.Q)
~0.2
<{
0.004
0.008
Maximum
Fig. 16
0.012
0.016
MOMEN~ END SLIP CURVES FOR TESTS OF BI, BII, AND BIll
0.020
M/M u
I-'
VI
1.0
Q)
E
0
~
Q)
~
E
+=
::::>
"c
Q)
"'0
Q)
Q.
Q.
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
I
~
co
..
.
P/Pp,...--
1:)
--,
0.8
P/Pp
1:)
r-------------.. .
0.8
....J
....J
Q)
Q)
+-
+-
E 0.6
E 0.6
+-
+-
:::>
:::>
"1:)
"-
1:)
0
....J 0.4
.3
1:)
Q)
1:)
Q)
a.
a.
<{
a.
a.
0.2
<{
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.4
p p
4 4
p p
44
rY ~
A
0.2
1.0
2.0
279.15
-50
13.
1.
2.
3..
4.
5.
6.
7.
Thurlirnann, B.
COMPOSITE BEAMS WITH STUD SHEAR CONNECTORS,
Highway Research Board, National Academy of Science
Bulletin No. 174, 1958
,,'
8.
9.
.'
REF E R EN C
10.
11.