Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 798–811

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Deconstructable timber-concrete composite beams with panelised slabs:

Finite element analysis
Nima Khorsandnia a, Hamid Valipour b,⇑, Mark Bradford b
a
BG&E Pty Limited, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia
b
Centre for Infrastructure Engineering and Safety (CIES), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UNSW Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s

Analytical formula for load-slip of deconstructable TCC connections is proposed.

Finite element models for deconstructable TCC beams are developed and validated.

Influence of panelised slabs on the behaviour of TCC beams is investigated.

Behaviour of deconstructable TCC beam under service and ultimate state is evaluated.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper deals with the development of efficient and accurate numerical models for the analysis of
Received 28 April 2017 deconstructable timber-concrete composite (TCC) beams with panelised reinforced concrete (RC) slabs.
Received in revised form 6 December 2017 Three different methods, viz. analytical, 1D frame finite element (FE) and 2D continuum-based FE models,
Accepted 25 December 2017
are proposed and validated against experimentally measured data from 4-point bending tests conducted
Available online 4 January 2018
on TCC beams with precast panels. It is shown that the analytical model is the most efficient, whereas the
2D continuum-based model is the most accurate among the three different methods considered. In addi-
Keywords:
tion, a parametric study is carried out using 2D FE models to assess various aspects of the TCC system and
Continuum-based model
Deconstructable
to evaluate the influence of precast panelised RC slabs on the structural response of TCC beams. Lastly,
Finite element the challenges of the practical FE modelling of deconstructable TCC beams are briefly discussed and
Timber-concrete composite accordingly, some guidance on the FE analysis of TCC beams with panelised RC slabs is provided.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction strength and stiffness of timber in the perpendicular to the grain

Apart from being aesthetically pleasing, sustainable and envi-
ronmentally friendly, timber as a natural material can be easily
handled, reused and recycled. During its growth, it also seques-
trates atmospheric CO2. In addition, timber has a very low density
to strength ratio, embodied energy and thermal conductivity.
These features make timber (particularly innovative engineered
wood products) an excellent candidate material for replacing steel
and concrete in building structures. Accordingly, the last two dec-
ades have witnessed a significant growth in the use of structural
timber and the number of mid-rise timber buildings has increased
steadily in recent years. Although timber has a good strength-to-
density ratio in the parallel to the grain direction, the very low
⇑ Corresponding author at: School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UNSW
Sydney, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia.
E-mail address: H.Valipour@unsw.edu.au (H. Valipour).
direction, its low fire rating and the low intrinsic damping of tim-
ber associated with respect to vibration are the main design chal-
lenges facing timber structures that have hindered its widespread
use in large-scale construction and in mid- to high-rise buildings.
The use of timber in conjunction with other construction materials
such as steel and concrete to produce timber-steel or timber-
concrete composite (TCC) structural systems can address the
design challenges for timber structures adequately and extend
the use of timber in large structures.
Over the last three decades, several studies have been con-
ducted to investigate the short- and long-term behaviour of TCC
beams and connections under service and ultimate loading condi-
tions [1–8]. In most conventional TCC floors, the composite action
between the timber beam and concrete slab is provided by shear
connectors (e.g. nails, screws or notches) permanently embedded
in the cast in-situ concrete slabs. However, the need for propping
and formwork for the wet concrete to be cast on top of the timber

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.169
0950-0618/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 N. Khorsandnia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 798–811
beams can dramatically reduce the speed of construction in con-
ventional ‘‘wet” TCC systems [9,10]. Furthermore, the permanent
connections between the timber beams and concrete slabs can
hamper future repair and/or upgrade of the structure and recycling
and/or reusing of the structural components. To increase the speed
of construction and to address some of the disadvantages of con-
ventional TCC systems, much attention has focused in the last dec-
ade on the development of prefabricated TCC systems, in which the
concrete slab can be cast and cured beforehand and then con-
nected later to the timber beams by adhesives, mechanical connec-
tors or a combination of both; either on- or off-site. Recent studies
have investigated different aspects of prefabricated TCC systems,
including the development of TCC connections and beams using
different engineered wood products [11–13], the short- and long-
term behaviour of prefabricated TCC systems under different
ultimate and service loading conditions [14–16], applications of
prefabricated TCC systems for multi-storey buildings [17], the
use of prefabricated TCC members for refurbishment and strength-
ening [18] and bridge decks [19]. However, only a few studies have
focused on the numerical modelling and finite element (FE) analy-
sis of TCC beams with precast RC slab panels [14,19].
In addition to prefabrication, attention has been drawn more
recently to deconstructable structures and development of com-
posite structural systems (e.g. steel-concrete, steel-timber,
timber-concrete etc.) which can be easily assembled and disman-
tled at the end of a building’s service life. These deconstructable
structural systems can significantly facilitate recycling and reuse,
reducing the waste of construction materials, thereby enhancing
the sustainability of the building industry [20–24]. The feasibility
of a deconstructable TCC system comprising of precast concrete
slabs connected to laminated veneer lumber (LVL) beams whose
composite efficiency and structural performance is comparable
to conventional TCC beams (with permanent connections
between the concrete slab and timber beams) has been demon-
strated by Khorsandnia et al. [23]. Furthermore, promising results
and favourable structural performance have been observed in
push-out and bending tests conducted on prefabricated TCC con-
nections and slabs by Crocetti et al. [25]. However, experimental
data needed to develop design provisions for prefabricated decon-
structable TCC beams and floors is very limited, and there is a
need for efficient yet sufficiently accurate numerical models to
further investigate particular aspects of deconstructable TCC sys-
tems, including the effect of construction tolerances and pan-
elised RC slabs on the local and global behaviour of this novel
composite system.
Recently, detailed FE modelling of conventional TCC beams
and deconstructable steel-concrete composite beams under ser-
vice and ultimate loading conditions has been carried out [26–
29]. In addition to deterministic FE analysis of TCC beams and
connections, nonlinear probabilistic FE analysis of TCC beams
has been carried out to demonstrate the variability of FE predic-
tions and local and global structural response with respect to
uncertainties in mechanical properties of timber, concrete and
timber-to-concrete connections [30]. However, no comprehensive
FE modelling of the prefabricated TCC beams has been reported in
the literature.
This paper therefore focuses on the development and appli-
cation of three methods, i.e. an analytical model, and 1D FE
and 2D FE models with different levels of efficiency and accu-
racy, for undertaking analyses of deconstructable TCC beams
with precast panelised RC slabs. Following validation of the
models against the experimental results reported by Khorsand-
nia et al. [23], a parametric study is carried out and the effects
of RC slab segmentation and deconstructable timber-to-slab
connections on the structural behaviour of the TCC beams are
investigated.
799
2. Shear-slip models of connections
The accuracy of non-linear 1D and 2D FE models of composite
members depends largely on the accuracy of the load-slip model
adopted for the composite joints. The load-slip results of identical
push-out TCC joints exhibit some variability. Accordingly, in the
first step a non-linear regression was carried out to minimise the
error associated with variability of experimental load-slip curves.
A 7-parameter representation was considered and fitted to the
experimental load-slip results of types A to F (see Fig. 1a and
Table 1) deconstructable TCC joints [23] in the form
ðK 0  K u Þ s ðK u þ K s Þ s
P¼n h in1 on1 þ n h in2 on1  K s s;
1 þ ðK 0  K u Þ Ps0
1
1 þ ðK u þ K s Þ P1 P
s 2
0
ð1Þ
where the input parameters are the serviceability (K0), ultimate (Ku)
and softening (Ks) stiffnesses, the initial (P0) and subsidiary (P1)
loading capacities and two parameters (n1 and n2) that control the
curvature of the function (Fig. 1b). Details of the deconstructable
TCC connections (thickness of LVL beams, type and size and connec-
tors) and values of the seven input parameters and the coefficient of
determination (R2) for the calibrated models are given in Table 1.
The maximum error of the calibrated models is 13% (R2 = 0.87)
and the good correlation between the experimental data and the
analytical model is evident from the load-slip curves shown in
Fig. 2 and the R2 values (see Table 1) which are ranging between
0.87 and 0.99. It is observable that the calibrated model can ade-
quately represent the pre- and post-peak behaviour of the timber-
to-precast RC slab panel joints that were tested.
3. Bending responses of beams
One of the main objectives of this paper is to develop theoretical
models that can adequately capture the global and local responses
of the deconstructable TCC beams. The results of Khorsandnia et al.
experiments [23] on deconstructable TCC systems are used as
benchmark data for evaluating the accuracy of the theoretical
models. The TCC beams comprised of precast RC slab panels and
LVL beams connected by different mechanical connectors
(Fig. 3a). Due to construction tolerances and RC slab panel
misalignments, small gaps between the slab panels were visible
and so a filler was used between the RC slab panels. Accordingly,
it was hypothesised that the segmentation of slabs including the
number of RC slab panels, the size of the gaps and the stiffness
of the filler material can affect the response of a TCC member
and it should be considered in the FE analysis and parametric study
of the TCC system with precast panelised slabs.
In this study, analytical, 1D frame FE and 2D continuum-based
FE models are employed and are validated against experimental
results in the literature [23]. The most accurate model amongst
those proposed is selected for a parametric study to elucidate var-
ious aspects of the structural response of TCC beams with pan-
elised RC slabs and deconstructable connections.
3.1. Analytical model
An analytical representation can be used for predicting the
structural behaviour of mechanically jointed composite beams,
the details of which are provided in Annex B of BS EN1995-1
[31]. This model was developed based on the fulfilment of compat-
ibility and equilibrium conditions for the composite sections, in
conjunction with a linear elastic assumption for all components.
In the analytical model, the effective flexural stiffness of the
composite section can be obtained from
800 N. Khorsandnia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 798–811

Connection Connection
axis axis 2 Bolts 8.8
75 mm 2×60
l = 110 mm
Concrete Concrete Concrete

40
Concrete

25
Timber 1 Bolt 8.8 Timber
25 2 Bolts 8.8
Coach Screw for A4 only Coach Screw 2UA 75×50×5
Timber l = 200 mm l = 100 mm Timber l = 90 mm
l = 200 mm
Type: A joist Type: D joist
th. th.
2 Bolts 8.8 2 Bolts 8.8
2×60 2×45
l = 150 mm l = 110 mm
Concrete Concrete
Concrete Concrete

Timber SH 50×50×5 Timber

l = 180 mm Coach Screw 16 PL150×100×10 2 Coach Screw 10
Timber Timber l = 100 mm
Type: B joist l = 130 mm Type: E joist
th. th.
2 Bolts 8.8 200 Timber
2×60
l = 110 mm 110 40 block
Concrete Concrete

60°

60°
Concrete Concrete

Timber PFC 100 Timber

2 Coach Screw 10 2SPAX Screw 10/
l = 180 mm Timber Timber
l = 100 mm 2 Coach Screw 12
Type: C joist Type: F l = 200 mm joist
th. th.
Elevation View Section View Elevation View Section View
(a)

P1

Ku
P0 1 Ks
n2 1

n1
K0
1
s
(b)
Fig. 1. Outline of (a) deconstructable timber-concrete composite (TCC) joints types A to F tested by Khorsandnia et al. [23] and (b) shear-slip curve with three asymptotes
adopted for TCC joints.

EIef ¼ Ec Ic þ c1 Ec Ac a21 þ Et It þ Et At a22 ; ð2Þ ing assuming that the connections are equally spaced along the TCC
member. The remainder of the input parameters have been defined
where in Khorsandnia et al. [32].
8 In addition, the ultimate loading capacity (Pu) and its corre-
>
> 1 Full composite response
< 1 sponding deflection (du) can be computed by the formulae pro-
c1 ¼ 2 Semi composite response ; ð3Þ
> 1þp Ec2Ac S vided in Khorsandnia et al. [32]. Using the Navier-Bernoulli
>
:
KL

0 Non composite response hypothesis in conjunction with Hooke’s law (i.e. linear elastic
material behaviour), the ultimate strain eu at the mid-span of a
TCC section can be obtained from
c1 Ec Ac ðhc þ ht Þ
a2 ¼ ; ð4Þ
2ðc1 Ec Ac þ Et At Þ ðl  aÞ
eu ¼ b Pu ; ð6Þ
4EIef
hc þ ht
a1 ¼  a2 ; ð5Þ where l is the beam span, a is the distance between the applied
2
loads in a four-point bending test set up, and b is a coefficient
the right subscripts c and t denote concrete and timber respectively, related to the location of the fibre where eu is computed and b is
K is the slip modulus of the connection and S is the connection spac- obtained from the following equation:
 N. Khorsandnia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 798–811 801

Table 1
Details of the deconstructable TCC connections and values of input parameters for the shear-slip curves of the deconstructable connectors.

Type LVL th. (mm) Connector type & size P0 (kN) P1 (kN) K0 kN/mm Ku kN/mm Ks kN/mm n1 n2 R2
A1 45 1 Coach screw 12 mm 50.8 127.1 31.6 0.0 8.0 1.24 2.24 0.91
A2 63 1 Coach screw 12 mm 44.0 707.0 31.4 0.0 53.5 1.23 5.99 0.87
A3 63 1 Coach screw 16 mm 35.1 55.3 60.1 4.2 2.4 2.41 1.85 0.87
A4 63 1 Coach screw 16 mm 43.5 99.1 330.0 14.2 2.6 0.35 2.35 0.92
B1 63 2 Bolts 12 mm 92.4 147.4 30.1 0.0 2.4 2.41 1.87 0.91
B2 63 2 Bolts 12 mm 109.8 147.0 26.0 0.0 2.6 2.14 5.85 0.97
B3 63 2 Bolts 16 mm 102.9 111.0 4714 4685 1.4 4.97 0.82 0.97
B4 63 2 Bolts 16 mm 130.3 140.0 1414 1386 2.8 3.50 1.46 0.99
B5 45 2 Bolts 12 mm 122.9 154.3 75.5 0.0 0.9 0.83 0.76 0.97
C1 45 2 Bolts 12 mm 11.9 112.4 124.3 13.8 1.4 2.48 4.32 0.96
C2 63 2 Bolts 12 mm 3.3 130.8 254.0 16.7 1.5 19.93 4.95 0.96
D1 45 4 Bolts 12 mm 15.9 80.0 81.0 9.9 0.8 4.10 4.25 0.89
D2 63 4 Bolts 12 mm 21.2 104.6 2964 8.2 1.0 0.70 4.85 0.98
E1 45 2 Bolts 12 mm 17.6 47.6 942.5 7.3 0.6 0.76 6.54 0.89
F1 63 2 Coach screws 12 mm 24.1 280.0 20.1 1.4 6.0 3.60 6.11 0.93
F2 45 2 SPAX screws 10 mm 61.6 113.8 250.3 11.5 2.1 0.21 1.39 0.95

70
40 60
Load (kN), P/2

Load (kN), P/2

50
30
40
20 30
A1
20
10 A2 A3
10
A4
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

120 120
100 100
Load (kN), P/2

Load (kN), P/2

80 80
60 60
B3
40 40
B1
20 B2 20 B4
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

120 100
100
80
Load (kN), P/2

Load (kN), P/2

80
60
60
40
40 C1 D1
20 C2 20 D2

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

100 50

80 40
Load (kN), P/2

Load (kN), P/2

60 B5 30

40 20
F1
20 10
E1 F2
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

Fig. 2. Fitted shear-slip curves for type A to F deconstructable connections tested by Khorsandnia et al. [23] (thin lines represent experimental results).
802 N. Khorsandnia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 798–811

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 3. Outline of (a) deconstructable TCC beam set-up, (b) 1-D frame FE model (q and Q are generalised nodal displacements and forces) and (c) 2-D continuum-based model
developed in ABAQUS.

8
> c1 a1  hc =2 Concrete top fibre fibres and 17 composite Simpson’s integration points were used
>
>
< c1 a1 þ hc =2 Concrete bottom fibre over the timber beam and concrete slab cross sections, respec-
b¼ : ð7Þ tively. The adequacy of adopted element formulation, integration
>
> a2  ht =2 Timber top fibre
>
: scheme and number of integration points for capturing the global
a2 þ ht =2 Timber bottom fibre
and local response of the TCC beams has been demonstrated in
The ultimate end slip su at the supports can be calculated by inte- previous studies [6,33]. In the 1D frame FE models, the gap
grating the slip strain (i.e. the difference between the strain at the between the RC slab panels is not considered and a further com-
bottom fibre of the concrete and the top fibre of the timber beam) parative study using 2D FE models is carried out to highlight the
at the interface over the entire beam length as effect of the gap on the structural performance of the TCC systems.
In the 1D frame FE model, Glos [34] and the CEB-FIP model code
2
ð1  c1 Þðhc þ ht  2a2 Þðl  a2 Þ [35] are adopted for the timber and concrete respectively (see
su ¼ Pu : ð8Þ Fig. 4). Uniaxial compression tests were conducted on concrete
32EIef
cylinders [23] and the relationships
8
3.2. 1D frame FE model <f0 2ðe=ec0 Þðe=ec0 Þ 2
Pre  peak response
c 1þðk2Þ ðe=ec0 Þ
r¼ ; ð9Þ
: f 0 eu e Post  peak response
The 1D frame FE model developed by Khorsandnia et al. [33] is c eu ec0

employed for modelling the TCC beams (see Fig. 3b). Each element
(Fig. 4b) were adopted for the pre- and post-peak behaviour of the
in this comprises of two layers representing the timber beam and
compressive concrete in the RC slabs of the TCC beams.
concrete slab in a TCC system, which are connected by horizontal
The non-linear empirical shear-slip models obtained from Eq.
discrete end springs to capture the shear-slip interaction between
(1) and given in Fig. 2 for different types of deconstructable TCC
the layers, whilst the layers are constrained in the vertical direc-
connections are assigned to the end springs (Fig. 3b) representing
tion assuming that no separation occurs between them [33]. The
the shear connectors in the 1D frame FE model.
Navier-Bernoulli hypothesis in conjunction with force interpola-
tion (flexibility-based approach) is adopted in the formulation of
the 1D frame elements. One half of the TCC beam was modelled 3.3. 2D continuum-based model
by 18 elements (maximum element length was limited to 167
mm) with 17 composite Simpson’s integration points along each A versatile 2D (plane stress) FE model was also developed with
element. The section flexibility (stiffness) is calculated by a numer- the focus being the effect of the discontinuity and segmentation of
ical integration scheme rather than discretising the section to the RC slab panels on the structural behaviour and performance of
 N. Khorsandnia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 798–811 803

effect on the tensile failure in parallel to grain directions and can

be taken as a = 0.
The effective stress r^ 31 ¼ ½ r
^ 11 r
^ 22 r
^ 12  T and Cauchy stress
r31 ¼ ½ r11 r22 r12  T vectors are related through diagonal dam-
age matrix x33 ¼ diag ½11xi  ; i ¼ 1; 2; 3 as,

r^ ¼ x r: ð11Þ
Glos’s [34] model The adequacy of damage-plasticity model and Hashin’s damage
model for capturing the failure modes and the non-linear beha-
viour of concrete and timber under multiaxial stress states have
been already verified by Khorsandnia et al. [32].
In the 2D continuum-based FE models, only one half of each TCC
beam is modelled by 4-node CPS4R plane stress quadrilateral ele-
ments with reduced integration and hourglass control. The maxi-
(a) mum element size for both timber beam and concrete slab is 20
Batch 3 (test) Batch 4 (test)
mm. In the absence of a pressure-over closure (soft contact) law
Batch 3 (model) Batch 4 (model) to be used for modelling the gaps and due to numerical instability
45 of soft contact models, the contact between the RC slab panels and
40 f'c= 43.5 MPa the filler material is modelled using hard contact with friction in
35 εc0= 0.003
tangential direction. The stiffness of contact in the direction nor-
Stress (MPa)

30
Post-peak mal to the interface between timber and concrete and the interface
25
20
f' c= 39 MPa response between concrete and filler was taken knn = 1000 N/mm3 and 500–
εc 0= 0.0025 5000 N/mm3, respectively. Moreover, the coefficient of friction in
15
10 Pre-peak
the tangential direction was taken l = 0.2.
5 response For the sake of simplicity, the filler between the RC slab panels
0 is treated as a linear elastic material. The advantage of 2D
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 continuum-based FE models over 1D frame models is their capabil-
Strain (mm/mm) ity to take the effect of the gaps and contacts between the concrete
(b) slab segments into account. In the 2D models, hard and frictionless
contacts are used in the normal and tangential directions respec-
Fig. 4. Stress-strain relationship of (a) timber in tension and compression and (b)
tively for connecting timber to concrete in vertical direction. In
concrete in compression adopted for 1D FE analysis.
the horizontal direction, non-linear springs at the interface of the
timber beam and concrete slab panels are utilised to model the
connectors and to capture the horizontal shear interaction and
TCC beams with panelised RC slabs. The 2D models are developed composite action between the timber beam and concrete slab.
in ABAQUS [36] environment (Fig. 3c) and Hashin’s damage criteria The force-displacement relationship for the horizontal springs is
and concrete isotropic damage plasticity models were employed defined with respect to the type of the shear connector and its cor-
for capturing the onset of failure in timber beam and concrete slab, responding empirical load-slip behaviour provided in Fig. 2. In 2D
respectively. Furthermore, the damage evolution laws for timber FE models, the RC slab panels are modelled with separate elements
are based on the energy dissipation during the damage process (see Fig. 3c) and the interface between two adjacent panels is trea-
and linear material softening. The concrete slab is modelled using ted either as an open gap or as a no gap zone filled with plaster or
concrete damage-plasticity constitutive law available in the ABA- filler material [23]. The contact between the RC slab panels and the
QUS library of materials and steel reinforcements are treated as filler material is modelled using hard contact with friction as
deformable elastic (Es = 200 GPa) bars embedded in the concrete described previously. The details of TCC beams and input parame-
slab. ters (including size of gaps) adopted in the 2D FE models are given
The 2D Hashin damage model comprises of four different dam- in Table 2. The size of gaps between prefabricated RC panels (see
age initiation criteria expressed in terms of effective stress compo- Table 2) was adopted in the FE models with respect to average
nents r ^ ij (i, j = 1, 2), gap size observed in each specimen during the laboratory experi-
8  2  2 ments [23]. Except for specimens B-A5, no significant change in
>
> r^ 11
þ a r^ 12
: Tension=shear ll to grain
>
> T
SL the structural response of the TCC beams tested by Khorsandnia
>
>
X
>
>   2 et al. [23] at the ultimate limit state (ULS) loading condition was
>
> r^
< X22C : Compression ll to grain
observed after dismantling and reassembling the specimens. The
 2  2 ;
>
> r^ 22 ^
þ rS12L
reduction in the structural performance of beam B-A5 was attribu-
>
> : Tension=shear L to grain
>
T
Y ted to looseness of the screw connectors following dismantling and
>
>  2   2    
>
> 2
>
: r^ 22T þ Y T  1 r^ 22C þ r^ 12L : Compression=shear L to grain
C reassembling of the specimen. To take account of this reduction,
2S 2S Y S
the stiffness and the shear-slip behaviour of the connectors was
ð10Þ lowered by introducing a reduction factor (Table 2) under service
T T
limit state (SLS) and ULS loading conditions.
where X and Y denote the tensile strength of timber in parallel The material properties including mean (from three identical
and perpendicular to the grain direction, respectively; X C and Y C specimens) compressive strength f c ; tensile strength f t ; bending
denote the compressive strength of timber in parallel and perpen- strength f b and elastic modulus E of concrete and LVL timber (in
dicular to the grain direction, respectively; SL and ST are the shear parallel to grain direction) adopted in the 2-D FE models are given
strength in parallel and perpendicular to the grain direction, respec- in Table 3. For LVL modulus of rigidity G = 660 MPa, shear strength
tively; and a is a coefficient that takes account of the shear stress fs = 4.6 MPa and compressive strength in the perpendicular to grain
804 N. Khorsandnia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 798–811

Table 2
Details of TCC beams tested and input parameters in 2-D FE model.

Beam Timber Concrete Connection Test Contact between Input Parameters in 2D FE Model
Section Section No  Type Method Segments
Gap (mm) Contact Stiffness Connector
(N/mm) Reduction
Factor
SLS ULS
B-A1 300 63 600 75 14 A3 ULS Small Gap 0.1 750 – 1.0
B-A2 300 63 600 75 20 A3 ULS Visible Gap 1.7 1000 – 1.0
B-A3 300 63 600 75 20 A3 ULS No Gap + Filler 0.0 Infinity – 1.0
B-A4 400 600 75 30 A3 ULS Small Gap + Filler 0.1 6000 – 1.0
B-A5 300 63 600 75 30 A3 SLS & ULS Small Gap + Filler 0.1 2500 1.0 0.6
B-B1 300 45 600 75 16 B5 SLS & ULS Small Gap + Filler 0.1 Infinity 1.0 1.0
B-D1 300 45 600 75 16 D1 SLS & ULS Small Gap + Filler 0.1 Infinity 1.0 1.0
B-F1 300 63 600 75 16 F1 SLS & ULS Small Gap + Filler 0.1 Infinity 1.0 1.0
B-F2 300 45 600 75 16 F2 ULS Small Gap + Filler 0.1 400 – 1.0

Table 3
Mean material properties for concrete slabs and LVL timber beams (in parallel to grain direction) adopted in the FE models.

Beam Concrete LVL Timber (Mean [CoV])

fc (MPa) ft (MPa) Ec (GPa) Bending Compression Tension
E (GPa) fb (MPa) fc (MPa) ft (MPa)
B-A1 41.6 3.9 32.3 15.3 [5%] 77.0 [13%] 58.4 [4%] 44.4 [2%]
B-A2 41.6 3.9 32.3 15.3 [5%] 77.0 [13%] 58.4 [4%] 44.4 [2%]
B-A3 41.6 3.9 32.3 13.3 [4%] 68.3 [5%] 52.4 [6%] 39.5 [8%]
B-A4 41.6 3.9 32.3 12.1 [1%] 56.5 [4%] 45.8 [4%] 32.0 [1%]
B-A5 41.6 3.9 32.3 13.3 [4%] 68.3 [5%] 52.4 [6%] 39.5 [8%]
B-B1 45.9 4.1 33.2 14.5 [6%] 72.1 [11%] 54.5 [4%] 40.2 [1%]
B-D1 45.9 4.1 33.2 14.5 [6%] 72.1 [11%] 54.5 [4%] 40.2 [1%]
B-F1 45.9 4.1 33.2 13.3 [4%] 68.3 [ 5%] 52.4 [6%] 39.5 [8%]
B-F2 45.9 4.1 33.2 13.6 [2%] 62.7 [ 9%] 51.9 [6%] 39.9 [1%]

direction fp = 12 MPa were adopted, respectively, according to the
manufacturer specifications.
It is noteworthy that the elastic modulus of LVL timber obtained
from bending tests (see Table 3) was used in the FE models to take
account of the shear deformation effect in the 1D FE simulations.
The CoV of compressive strength for different concrete batches var-
ied between 4.6% and 6.3%. Furthermore, the CoV of timber
mechanical properties are provided in Table 3 [23].
3.4. Verification of results
All nine TCC beams in the experiments [23] are analysed, and
the local and global responses captured by the simple analytical
model, 1D frame FE and 2D FE model are validated against these
results. The deflection, slip, concrete and timber strain results for
the beams B-A1, B-A2, B-A3 and B-A5 are shown in Figs. 5–8. These
four beams have similar composite cross section and connection
type over the beam length, but the number of connections and type
of contact between the juxtaposed RC slab panels (Table 2) are dif-
ferent. In Figs. 5–8, the structural responses assuming full and no
composite action are also displayed to demonstrate the composite
efficiency of the TCC beams with precast panelised slabs at differ-
ent stages of loading. It is observable that the simple analytical
model can adequately predict structural response of the TCC beams
within the service loading condition and/or when the TCC beams
have high levels of composite efficiency. However, at the ULS con-
dition the simple analytical method overestimates the stiffness and
strength of the TCC beams, being attributed to the linear elastic
behaviour adopted for all the TCC components (i.e. timber, con-
crete and shear connectors). The 1D FE models can predict the
non-linear behaviour of the TCC beams particularly near the col-
lapse loads, but the 1D FE models tend to overestimate the stiffness
and strength of the TCC beams (Fig. 5a and b) when the structural
response is significantly influenced by the segmentation of the RC
slabs (e.g. large gaps between the RC slab panels). It is also observ-
able that the 2D FE model can represent the global response
(deflection and slip) as well as the local behaviour (timber and con-
crete strains) of the TCC beams with an accuracy better than the
simple analytical and 1D frame FE models; but the 2D FE models
are computationally more expensive than the other two models.
Since the simple analytical and 1D frame FE formulations can pro-
duce erroneous results for TCC beams with segmented slabs (par-
ticularly when there are gaps between the slab panels), more
advanced models such as 2D continuum-based FE models are
required for non-linear analysis of the beams under SLS and ULS
loading conditions. However, when the effect of segmentation is
negligible (i.e. full contact or no gap between the slab panels),
the simple analytical and 1D frame FE techniques can adequately
capture the behaviour of TCC beams and employing sophisticated
2D FE models only increases the cost of the computations.
The ultimate loading capacity (Pu) and its corresponding mid
span deflection (du), the serviceability stiffness (Ks) at 40% of the
ultimate load, the ultimate end slip (su) and the strain at the top
and bottom fibres of the mid-span cross-section for the slab and
timber beam obtained from the laboratory tests and predicted by
different models are provided in Tables 4 and 5. The comparison
between the experimentally measured and numerically predicted
values of Pu, du, Ks, su and the values of the timber and concrete
strain demonstrate the accuracy of the 1D and 2D FE models com-
pared to the simple analytical technique for predicting the global
and local responses of the deconstructable TCC beams, particularly
when the segmentation of RC slabs does not dominate the struc-
tural behaviour. To visualise and compare the accuracy and perfor-
mance of the strategies adopted, the evaluation of errors with
respect to experimental data at global (Pu, du, Ks and su) and local
(ultimate strains at mid span) levels is carried out and the results
 N. Khorsandnia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 798–811 805

120 120

100 100

Total Load (kN)

Total Load (kN)

80 80

60 60

40 40
Test (ULS) Test (ULS)
Analytical Analytical
20 FE (1D) 20 FE (1D)
FE (2D) FE (2D)
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Mid span deflection (mm) Mid span deflection (mm)
(a) (b)
120
120
100
100
Total Load (kN)

Total Load (kN)

80
80
60
60
40 Test (SLS)
Test (ULS) 40 Test (ULS)
Analytical Analytical
20 FE (1D) 20 FE (1D)
FE (2D) FE (2D)
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Mid span deflection (mm) Mid span deflection (mm)
(c) (d)
Fig. 5. Load-deflection experimental and theoretical results of TCC beams tested for (a) B-A1, (b) B-A2, (c) B-A3 and (d) B-A5.

120 120
Full composite

Full composite

100 100
Total Load (kN)

Total Load (kN)

80 80

60 60

40 Test (ULS) 40 Test (ULS)

Analytical Analytical
20 FE (1D) 20 FE (1D)
FE (2D) FE (2D)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
End slip (mm) End slip (mm)
(a) (b)
120
Full composite

Full composite

120
100
100
Total Load (kN)

Total Load (kN)

Test (SLS)
80 Test (ULS)
80
Analytical
60 FE (1D)
60
FE (2D)
40 Test (ULS) 40
Analytical
20 FE (1D) 20
FE (2D)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
End slip (mm) End slip (mm)
(c) (d)
Fig. 6. Load-slip experimental and theoretical results of TCC beams tested for (a) B-A1, (b) B-A2, (c) B-A3 and (d) B-A5.b) B-A2, (c) B-A3 and (d) B-A5.
806 N. Khorsandnia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 798–811

120 120
Top fibre Bottom fibre Top fibre Bottom fibre

Full composite

Full composite
100 100

Total Load (kN)

Total Load (kN)

80 80

60 60

40 40
Test (ULS) Test (ULS)
Analytical Analytical
20 20
FE (1D) FE (1D)
FE (2D) FE (2D)
0 0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
Strain (µε) Strain (µε)
(a) (b)
120
Top fibre Bottom fibre Top fibre Bottom fibre
120
100
100 Test (ULS)
Total Load (kN)

Total Load (kN)

80 Analytical
80 FE (1D)
60 FE (2D)
60
40 40
Test (ULS)
Analytical
20 20
FE (1D)
FE (2D)
0 0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
Strain (µε) Strain (µε)
(c) (d)
Fig. 7. Load-concrete strain experimental and theoretical results of TCC beams tested for beams (a) B-A1, (b) B-A2, (c) B-A3 and (d) B-A5.

120 120
Top fibre Bottom fibre Top fibre Bottom fibre
Full composite

Full composite

100 100
Total Load (kN)

Total Load (kN)

80 80

60 60

40 40
Test (ULS) Test (ULS)
Analytical Analytical
20 20
FE (1D) FE (1D)
FE (2D) FE (2D)
0 0
-5000 -2500 0 2500 5000 -5000 -2500 0 2500 5000
Strain (µε) Strain (µε)
(a) (b)
120
Full composite

Full composite

Top fibre Bottom fibre Top fibre Bottom fibre

120
100
100
Total Load (kN)

Total Load (kN)

80
80
60
60
40 40
Test (ULS) Test (ULS)
Analytical Analytical
20 20
FE (1D) FE (1D)
FE (2D) FE (2D)
0 0
-5000 -2500 0 2500 5000 -5000 -2500 0 2500 5000
Strain (µε) Strain (µε)
(c) (d)
Fig. 8. Load-timber strain experimental and theoretical results of TCC beams tested for beams (a) B-A1, (b) B-A2, (c) B-A3 and (d) B-A5.
 N. Khorsandnia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 798–811 807

Table 4
Comparison of experimental and analytical results for global responses (Pu, du, Ks and su) of all TCC beams tested.

Beam Pu (kN) du (mm) Ks (kN/mm) su (mm)

Test Anal FE (1-D) FE (2-D) Test Anal FE (1-D) FE (2-D) Test Anal FE (1-D) FE (2-D) Test Anal FE (1-D) FE (2-D)
B-A1 107 130 109 106 96 59 91 79 1.7 2.2 2.3 1.7 6.8 1.8 7.7 3.2
B-A2 94 132 120 104 65 55 85 70 1.4 2.4 2.5 1.4 1.6 1.4 6.4 1.3
B-A3 113 119 111 115 83 55 79 84 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.1 5.7 1.3 5.4 6.0
B-A4 211 187 204 214 56 39 51 57 4.6 4.8 5.1 4.5 1.8 1.0 2.8 2.6
B-A5 121 121 136 122 86 51 63 95 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.0 5.6 0.9 1.6 5.7
B-B1 95 90 108 94 61 54 63 57 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.7 2.4 1.6 1.7 1.3
B-D1 99 88 103 98 70 60 75 72 1.8 1.5 1.9 1.7 2.5 2.5 3.4 3.1
B-F1 93 109 105 104 86 78 98 94 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.6 6.5 4.4 7.7 7.0
B-F2 73 80 80 74 81 67 75 81 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.0 5.0 3.3 4.7 2.4

Table 5
Comparison of experimental and analytical results for local responses (ultimate strain values at mid span) of all TCC beams tested.

Beam Concrete top fibre Concrete bottom fibre Timber top fibre Timber bottom fibre
Test Anal FE (1-D) FE (2-D) Test Anal FE (1-D) FE (2-D) Test Anal FE (1-D) FE (2-D) Test Anal FE (1-D) FE (2-D)
B-A1 300 956 963 711 89 280 724 378 2857 995 2439 1698 4505 3948 4309 3650
B-A2 860 937 984 658 47 220 422 179 762 746 1541 968 3236 3882 4084 3214
B-A3 760 899 938 776 103 244 362 251 664 639 1144 1099 3099 3934 4057 4021
B-A4 968 813 947 827 345 1 11 59 536 745 1009 1023 3871 3583 4099 4145
B-A5 691 881 1034 853 184 196 168 427 1047 430 369 1783 4669 3878 4439 4570
B-B1 611 784 929 667 99 338 314 137 120 724 476 280 3998 3766 4495 3703
B-D1 643 832 955 738 175 432 467 291 22 1164 1076 907 4685 3891 4614 4176
B-F1 566 1021 994 796 151 615 913 604 1760 2195 2788 2470 3323 4350 4837 4393
B-F2 493 856 836 642 137 537 624 511 1655 1624 1636 1803 3810 3947 4202 3864

are illustrated in Fig. 9. It is observable that 2D FE model has the
lowest error (the most accurate) with minimum coefficient of vari-
ation for most cases considered, whereas the simple analytical and
1D frame FE models have comparable accuracy for predicting the
behaviour of deconstructable TCC beams.
The mean of difference between the experimental and numeri-
cally predicted peak load Pu is 8.5% and 2.8% for 1D and 2D FE mod-
els, respectively. For the mid-span deflection du corresponding to
ultimate load, the mean of difference between experimental and
1D and 2D FE results are 15.0% and 9.5%, respectively and the mean
of difference between experimental and 1D and 2D FE results for
service stiffness Ks is 14.0% and 4.8%, respectively. This is demon-
strative of the better accuracy of 2D FE models compared to 1D
FE models. Furthermore, it is observed that the variability in the
TCC beam peak load capacities predicted by 2D FE models is smal-
ler than the variability observed in the bending strength fb of tim-
ber (average CoVs = 8.5%). However, the variability in the
displacement du and stiffness Ks is significantly bigger than the
variability of LVL timber elastic modulus (average CoVs = 4.1%).
The relatively large variability in the numerically predicted dis-
placement du and stiffness Ks can be attributed to large variability
(uncertainty) in the connectors’ behaviour (stiffness) as evident
from R2 values provided in Table 1. These observations are consis-
tent with the results of probabilistic FE analyses carried out by
Zona et al. [30].
Since the values of the input parameters with respect to the
segmentation of the slabs (i.e. number of slab panels and the gap
between the panels) along the TCC beams have not been reported
in the experimental program and these input parameters cannot be
measured easily during a test, a parametric study is carried out to
understand how four different characteristics of the prefabricated
deconstructable TCC beams, the number of slab panels, the gap
between the panels and the stiffness of materials used for filling
the gaps in conjunction with stiffness of shear connectors, can
affect the structural response of the TCC beams. All the analyses
in the parametric study are conducted on the B-A3 beam using
2D FE models, because there was no gap between the slab panels
of this specimen and its experimental results were quite similar
to a TCC beam with a single RC slab (i.e. no segmentation in the
slab).
3.5. Gap between RC slab panels
The effect of the gap size on the global response of the TCC
beams was evaluated by assuming three different values (1, 2
and 4 mm) for the gap between the RC slab panels. The load-
deflection and load-slip response of specimen B-A3 with these
adopted gap sizes are shown in Fig. 10a and b, respectively. In
these analyses, a hard contact between the RC slab panels (and fil-
ler) was considered. It is observable that the size of the gaps
between the panels has negligible influence on the ultimate load-
ing capacity of the beams, but the load-deflection response and
stiffness of the beams under service loading conditions is reduced
significantly by increasing the gap size between slab panels. The
hardening behaviour (i.e. increasing stiffness) at the initial stages
of the load-deflection evolution (see Fig. 10a) can be attributed
to the closing gaps with the increasing curvature that brings the
furthest top fibre of the adjacent slabs into direct contact. As is evi-
dent from Fig. 10b, the slip that occurs at end supports of the TCC
beams with large gaps between the RC slab panels is very small.
The non-linear analyses of the TCC beams show that the structural
response (load-deflection) of the TCC beams with precast panelised
slabs tends to a lower bound as the size of gaps between the RC
slab panels increases (Fig. 10a). This lower bound (load-
deflection) is representative of the response of a TCC beam with
no contact between the RC slab panels (Fig. 10a).
3.6. Modulus of elasticity (MOE) of filler
Due to significant effect of the gaps on the structural behaviour
of TCC beams under SLS loading conditions, Khorsandnia et al. [23]
recommended filling of the gaps with plaster or a filler materials
with strength and elastic modulus comparable to or higher than
concrete. However, different fillers (e.g. grout, mortar or plaster)
808 N. Khorsandnia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 798–811

Fig. 9. Error evaluation of different theoretical methods compared to experimental results for (a) global (Pu, du, Ks and su) and (b) local (ultimate strain values at mid-span)
characteristics.

120 120

100 100

Total Load (kN)

Total Load (kN)

80 80

60 60
Test Test
40 40
Full contact
Full contact
Gap = 0.1 mm Gap = 0.1 mm
20 20 Gap = 1 mm
Gap = 1 mm
Gap = 2 mm Gap = 2 mm
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mid span deflection (mm) End slip (mm)
(a) (b)
Fig. 10. Sensitivity of (a) load-deflection response and (b) load-slip response, with respect to different gaps between slab segments.

120 120

100 100
Total Load (kN)

Total Load (kN)

80 80

60 60
Test Test
40 Full contact 40 Full contact
E = 20 GPa E = 20 GPa
E = 2 GPa E = 2 GPa
20 20
E = 0.2 GPa E = 0.2 GPa
Lower Bound Lower Bound
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mid span deflection (mm) End slip (mm)
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Sensitivity of (a) load-deflection response and (b) load-slip response, with respect to different elastic modulus of filler used between slab segments.

with different mechanical properties can have significantly differ-
ent influences on the SLS and ULS response of TCC beams with pan-
elised RC slabs.
The effect of the filler’s elastic modulus on the overall structural
behaviour of the TCC beams is studied by assuming three different
values for its MOE, i.e. 0.2, 2.0 and 20 GPa. The upper bound of the
MOE values (i.e. 20 GPa) for filler material was adopted with
respect to MOE of concrete (contacting surfaces) to represent a sce-
nario in which the slab along the TCC beam is nearly continuous.
The lower bound of 0.2 GPa was used to represent a scenario in
which the gaps between precast slabs were filled by a very weak
filler compared to concrete. In the TCC beam adopted for this part
of the parametric study, a 2 mm gap between the RC panels is con-
sidered and the filler material is modelled by a linear elastic consti-
tutive law. The load-deflection and load-slip response of the TCC
beams with MOEs of 0.2, 2.0 and 20 GPa are shown in
Fig. 11a and b, respectively. Furthermore, the lower and upper
bounds of load-deflection and load-slip diagrams are provided in
Fig. 11a and b. These lower and/or upper bound responses repre-
sent scenarios in which there is a gap without filler and/or no
gap with full contact between adjacent RC slab panels, respec-
tively. Regarding Fig. 11, it can be concluded that the ultimate
loading capacity of the TCC beams with prefabricated slab panels
is not sensitive to stiffness of the filler material. However, the
load-deflection response as well as stiffness of TCC beams at SLS
conditions is significantly influenced by the MOE of the filler. For
 N. Khorsandnia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 798–811 809

example, reducing this from 20 GPa to 0.2 GPa leads to a 50%
reduction in the serviceability stiffness of the TCC beam considered
(Fig. 11a). Accordingly, the use of stiffer materials for the filler is
recommended to enhance the structural performance (particularly
the stiffness under SLS conditions) of the TCC system with prefab-
ricated RC slab panels.
3.7. Stiffness of shear connectors
Deconstructable TCC beams with precast panelised RC slabs can
be easily dismantled and reassembled. However, disassembling
and reassembling the TCC beams involves loosening, removing
and fastening the screw shear connectors, that can reduce the stiff-
ness of the TCC connections as reported in Khorsandnia et al. [23].
The stiffness reduction (due to unscrewing and screwing the shear
connectors) largely depends on screw type and size, timber type
and installation method. Accordingly, TCC beam B-A3 is analysed
assuming four different stiffness reduction factors (ranging from
40% to 100%) for shear connection A3 and the load-deflection and
load-slip results are shown in Fig. 12a and b, respectively. The sig-
nificant influence of the stiffness reduction factor on the structural
response (i.e. load-deflection, peak load carrying capacity and ser-
viceability stiffness) of the TCC beams is evident from Fig. 12a. It
can be also concluded that when the stiffness of the connectors
is noticeably reduced (e.g. 40–60% reduction factor) and/or the
number of shear connectors over the beam length is inadequate
(e.g. under-designed TCC beams), significant non-linearities can
be observed in both the load-deflection and load-slip responses
of the TCC beams, and such situations warrant development of
non-linear FE models for capturing the global and local response
of the TCC beams under SLS and ULS conditions.
3.8. Number of segments
Another factor that may affect the structural response of TCC
beams with segmented slabs is the number of panels over the
beam length. Assuming 2 mm gaps between the slab segments
and a MOE of 2 GPa for the filler material within the gaps, beam
B-A3 with 4, 6 and 8 slab segments was analysed using the 2D
FE formulation and the load-deflection and load-slip results are
shown in Fig. 13. It is seen that the number of slab panels has neg-
ligible influence on the peak load carrying capacity of the TCC
beam, but the stiffness of the TCC beams at SLS conditions can be
significantly influenced by the number of slab panels over the
beam length. In the B-A3 beam, increasing the number of segments
from 4 to 8 leads to a 30% reduction in the initial stiffness of the
TCC beam (Fig. 13a). In addition, it is observable that the ultimate
end slip in the TCC beams decreases as the number of slab panels
increases, because part of the slip is diminished within the gap
between the slab panels.
Finally, the adequacy and capabilities of the models adopted for
capturing different aspects of the behaviour of a deconstructable
TCC beam with prefabricated RC slab panels are summarised and
compared in Table 6. Amongst the analysis options considered,
the analytical formulation is the simplest and most efficient one,
whereas the continuum-based FE model is the most complex and
computationally expensive option. The continuum-based FE for-
mulations are also the most versatile models for capturing various

120 120

100 100
Total Load (kN)

Total Load (kN)

80 80

60 60
Test Test
40 40
100% A3 connector 100% A3 connector
80% A3 connector 80% A3 connector
20 20
60% A3 connector 60% A3 connector
40% A3 connector 40% A3 connector
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2 4 6 8
Mid span deflection (mm) End slip (mm)
(a) (b)
Fig. 12. Sensitivity of (a) load-deflection response and (b) load-slip response, with respect to different connector stiffness.

120 120

100 100
Total Load (kN)

Total Load (kN)

80 80

60 60
Test Test
40 Full contact 40 Full contact
4 segments 4 segments
20 6 segments 20 6 segments
8 segments 8 segments
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mid span deflection (mm) End slip (mm)
(a) (b)
Fig. 13. Sensitivity of (a) load-deflection response and (b) load-slip response, with respect to different number of slab segments.
810 N. Khorsandnia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 798–811
Table 6
Comparison of predictive models with respect to different characteristics of deconstructable TCC beams.
Characteristic
Full-designed TCC beams (adequate no. of connections)
Under-designed TCC beams (inadequate no. of connections)
Service loads
Ultimate loads
Minor segmentation effect
Significant number of segments
Negligible gap between segments
Significant gap between segments
Hard material as filler between segments
Soft material as filler between segments
Negligible change in connector stiffness after reassembling
Significant change in connector stiffness after reassembling
Simplicity
Efficiency
aspects of the structural behaviour of deconstructable TCC systems
with precast panelised slabs. The comparison of different models in
Table 6 can serve as a preliminary guide for choosing simplest yet
sufficiently accurate models for the analysis of TCC beams with
precast panels.
4. Conclusions
The simple analytical model of BS EN 1995-1 [31], a non-linear
1D frame FE and a 2D continuum-based FE model were proposed
and employed for the analysis of deconstructable TCC beams with
precast panelised RC slabs. The proposed formulations were veri-
fied against experimental data from 4-point bending tests con-
ducted previously by the authors, and the adequacy and accuracy
of the models for capturing various aspects of the structural beha-
viour of TCC beams with segmented slabs were discussed. The non-
linear 2D FE models are the most accurate (among the analysis
methods considered) and the 2D FE models can adequately capture
the local response (strain in timber and concrete) and the global
response (load-deflection, load-slip, stiffness and peak/ultimate
load carrying capacity) of TCC beams with panelised slabs. Accord-
ingly, a parametric study was carried out using the 2D FE models to
evaluate the structural behaviour of TCC beams with respect to the
number of slab panels, the size of the gaps between the panels, the
stiffness of the material used for filling the gaps between the pan-
els and the reduction in the stiffness of the shear connectors due to
dismantling and reassembling of the beams. The main conclusions
of the analytical and numerical modelling and parametric study
are as follows.

The analytical model of Eurocode 5 can only predict the
response if the beam behaviour is predominantly linear up to
failure. This is the case when an adequate number of shear con-
nectors is used over the beam length and when the effect of slab
segmentation is negligible.

The 1D frame FE formulation can efficiently capture the non-
linear behaviour of TCC beams in which the effect of RC slab
segmentation and/or size of gaps between slab panels is mini-
mal. If this is not the case, a more versatile 2D continuum-
based FE model is required to predict the structural behaviour
of TCC beams with panelised RC slabs. It should be noted that
1D and 2D FE models are suitable for capturing the global beha-
viour of TCC beams and some aspects of local behaviour (e.g.
strain distribution over the timber beam and concrete slab
depth), particularly when the load-slip behaviour of the TCC
connections are available from push-out tests. But, predicting
the local behaviour and failure mode of TCC connections require
versatile 3D FE models.
Analytical 1D frame FE 2D continuum-based FE
U U U
✗ U U
U U U
✗ U U
U U U
✗ ✗ U
U U U
✗ ✗ U
U U U
✗ ✗ U
U U U
✗ U U
Easiest Moderate Most complex
Highest Moderate Lowest

The results of the parametric study show that the gaps between
the RC slab panels, the use of soft filler materials (with low elas-
tic modulus) between the slab segments and/or increasing the
number of RC slab panels over the beam length has a minor
influence on the ultimate loading capacity of TCC beams with
precast segmented slabs. However, the structural performance
under service loading conditions can be significantly influenced
by the number of slab panels, size of gaps or elastic modulus of
filler between the RC slab panels.

Dismantling and reassembling TCC beams by unscrewing and
re-screwing the shear connectors can lead to a noticeable
reduction in the stiffness of shear connection, that in turn can
significantly reduce the structural performance of the decon-
structable TCC beams with panelised slabs under service and
ultimate limit state loading conditions.

Practical design of conventional TCC floors/beams (particularly
the long-span floors) is significantly influenced and mostly gov-
erned by the short- and long-term serviceability limit state
design requirements. Accordingly, further study is recom-
mended to shed light on long-term behaviour of decon-
structable TCC joints and beams under variable environmental
conditions.
References
[1] A. Frangi, M. Fontana, Elasto-plastic model for timber-concrete composite
beams with ductile connection, Struct. Eng. Int. 13 (2003) 47–57.
[2] M. Fragiacomo, A finite element model for long-term analysis of timber-
concrete composite beams, Struct. Eng. Mech. 20 (2) (2005) 173–190.
[3] B. Faggiano, A. Marzo, F.M. Mazzolani, L.M. Calado, Analysis of rectangular-
shaped collar connectors for composite timber-steel-concrete floors: push-out
tests, J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 15 (1) (2009) 47–58.
[4] A.M.P.G. Dias, A.R.D. Martins, L.M.C. Simões, P.M. Providência, A.A.M. Andrade,
Statistical analysis of timber–concrete connections–mechanical properties,
Comput. Struct. (2015).
[5] M. Stepinac, V. Rajcic, J. Barbalic, Influence of long term load on timber-
concrete composite systems, Gradevinar 67 (2015) 235–246.
[6] N. Khorsandnia, J. Schänzlin, H. Valipour, K. Crews, Time-dependent behaviour
of timber–concrete composite members: numerical verification, sensitivity
and influence of material properties, Constr. Build. Mater. 66 (2014) 192–208.
[7] M. Fragiacomo, Long-term behaviour of timber-concrete composite beams. II:
numerical analysis and simplified evaluation, J. Struct. Eng. (ASCE) 132 (1)
(2006) 23–33.
[8] M. Fragiacomo, A. Ceccotti, Long-term behavior of timber-concrete composite
beams. I: Finite element modelling and validation, J. Struct. Eng. (ASCE) 132 (1)
(2006) 13–22.
[9] E. Lukaszewska, M. Fragiacomo, H. Johnsson, Laboratory tests and numerical
nnalyses of prefabricated timber-concrete composite floors, ASCE J. Struct. Eng.
136 (1) (2010) 46–55.
[10] E. Lukaszewska, H. Johnsson, M. Fragiacomo, Performance of connections for
prefabricated timber–concrete composite floors, Mater. Struct. 41 (9) (2008)
1533–1550.
[11] D. Yeoh, M. Fragiacomo, A. Buchanan, C. Gerber, Preliminary research towards
a semi-prefabricated LVL-concrete composite floor system for the Australasian
market, Aust. J. Struct. Eng. 9 (3) (2009) 225–240.
 N. Khorsandnia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 798–811
[12] D. Yeoh, M. Fragiacomo, The design of a semi-prefabricated LVL-concrete
composite floor, Adv. Civ. Eng. 2012 (2012).
[13] N. Jacquier, U.A. Girhammar, (2012) Tests on shear connections in
prefabricated composite cross-laminated- timber and concrete elements, in:
World Conference on Timber Engineering 2012: Architecture and Engineering
Case Studies, WCTE, 2012, Auckland.
[14] M. Fragiacomo, E. Lukaszewska, Time-dependent behaviour of timber–
concrete composite floors with prefabricated concrete slabs, Eng. Struct. 52
(2013) 687–696.
[15] M. Fragiacomo, E. Lukaszewska, Development of prefabricated timber-
concrete composite floor systems, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Struct. Build. 164 (2)
(2011) 117–129.
[16] T. Sartori, R. Crocetti, Prefabricated timber-concrete composite floors, Eur. J.
Wood Wood Prod. (2016) 1–3.
[17] P. Kuklík, P. Nechanický, A. Kuklíková, Development of Prefabricated Timber-
Concrete Composite Floors, RILEM Bookseries, 2014.
[18] P. Nechanický, P. Kuklík, Development of prefabricated timber-concrete
composite floors, in: 2nd International Conference on Structures and
Architecture, ICSA 2013. Guimaraes, 2013.
[19] C.Y. Adam, H.R. Milner, Wood-based prefabricated composite-acting bridge
deck, J. Bridge Eng. 17 (2) (2012) 363–370.
[20] A. Ataei, M.A. Bradford, H.R. Valipour, Experimental study of flush end plate
beam-to-CFST column composite joints with deconstructable bolted shear
connectors, Eng. Struct. 99 (2015) 616–630.
[21] H. Valipour, A. Rajabi, S.J. Foster, M.A. Bradford, Arching behaviour of precast
concrete slabs in a deconstructable composite bridge deck, Constr. Build.
Mater. 87 (2015) 67–77.
[22] A. Ataei, M.A. Bradford, H.R. Valipour, X. Liu, Experimental study of sustainable
high strength steel flush end plate beam-to-column composite joints with
deconstructable bolted shear connectors, Eng. Struct. 123 (2016) 124–140.
[23] N. Khorsandnia, H. Valipour, J. Schänzlin, K. Crews, Experimental
investigations of deconstructable timber-concrete composite beams, J.
Struct. Eng. (2016) 04016130.
[24] X. Liu, M.A. Bradford, M.S.S. Lee, Behavior of high-strength friction-grip bolted
shear connectors in sustainable composite beams, J. Struct. Eng. (United
States) 141 (6) (2015).
811
[25] R. Crocetti, T. Sartori, R. Tomasi, Innovative timber-concrete composite
structures with prefabricated FRC slabs, ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 141 (9) (2015)
04014224.
[26] A. Ataei, M. Bradford, H. Valipour, Moment-rotation model for blind-bolted
flush end-plate connections in composite frame structures, J. Struct. Eng.
(2015) 04014211.
[27] A. Ataei, M.A. Bradford, H.R. Valipour, Finite element analysis of HSS semi-rigid
composite joints with precast concrete slabs and demountable bolted shear
connectors, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 122 (2016) 16–38.
[28] X. Liu, M.A. Bradford, Q.J. Chen, H. Ban, Finite element modelling of steel-
concrete composite beams with high-strength friction-grip bolt shear
connectors, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 108 (2016) 54–65.
[29] C. Bedon, M. Fragiacomo, Three-dimensional modelling of notched
connections for timber-concrete composite beams, Struct. Eng. Int.: J. of the
Int. Assoc. Bridge Struct. Eng. (IABSE) 27 (2) (2017) 184–196.
[30] A. Zona, M. Barbato, M. Fragiacomo, Finite-element model updating and
probabilistic analysis of timber-concrete composite beams, J. Struct. Eng.
(ASCE) 138 (7) (2012) 899–910.
[31] B.S. Institution, (2004) BS EN 1995-1-1, Eurocode 5, Design of Timber
Structures. Common Rules and Rules for Buildings, BSI, London, 2004.
[32] N. Khorsandnia, H. Valipour, K. Crews, Structural response of timber-concrete
composite beams predicted by finite element models and manual calculations,
Adv. Struct. Eng. 17 (11) (2014) 1601–1621.
[33] N. Khorsandnia, H. Valipour, S. Foster, K. Crews, A force-based frame finite
element formulation for analysis of two- and three-layered composite
beams with material non-linearity, Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 62 (2014)
12–22.
[34] Glos, P., Zur Modellierung des Festigkeitsverhaltens von Bauholz bei Druck-,
Zug- und Biegebeanspruchung. Laboratorium für den konstruktiven
Ingenieurbau (LKI), TU München, 1981 – Forschungsbericht.
[35] CEB-FIP, CEB-FIP model code 2010, Switzerland, International Federation for
Structural Concrete (fib), 2010.
[36] ABAQUS, Ver. 6.11. Documentation ed., Ó Dassault Systèmes, 2011.