COMPOSITE BEAMS WITH LIMITED-SLIP-CAPACITY SHEAR CONNECTORS

By Deric John Oehlers 1 and George Sved 2

ABSTRACT: The flexural strength of steel and concrete composite beams in buildings is affected by both the
strength and the ductility of the mechanical shear connections between the steel and concrete components of
the composite beam. Design techniques can easily allow for the variation in the shear-connector strengths,
but one of the most intractable problems in composite-beam construction is to allow for the limited slip that
these mechanical shear connectors have been found to exhibit. Present design techniques try to prevent the
connector fracturing, which occurs through excessive slip, by placing limits on the maximum span and the
minimum strength of the shear connection. A procedure has been developed that directly relates the flexural
strength of a composite beam with both the strength and ductility of the shear connectors, and thus can be
used to design against premature failure through fracture of the connectors due to excessive slip.

INTRODUCTION
The flexural strength of steel and concrete composite beams
in buildings is normally derived from standard rigid-plastic
equilibrium analyses of the forces across a section. This anal-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. For personal use only.
the steel component as in Fig. l(d). There is still only one
neutral axis, and the slip strain occurs in the compressive
region.
When there are a relatively small number of connectors
such that P'll is less than both Pc and P,., then this condition

ysis assumes that the three material components of the com-
posite beam (i.e., the steel, the concrete, and the shear con-
nectors) have unlimited ductility, and hence that each can
reach and maintain their plastic or yield strengths. An ex-
ample of an ultimate-strength analysis for full and partial
shear connection is depicted in Fig. 1. As shown in Fig. l(a),
the concrete is assumed to have zero tensile strength and an
equivalent compressive yield strength of about 85% of the
cylinder strength fe' and the steel is assumed to be fully yielded
throughout at a stress f ..
When there are a large number of connectors, such that
any increase in their strength or number does not increase
the flexural strength of the composite beam, then this con-
dition is referred to as full shear connection and the flexural
capacity will be denoted by M I ". For this condition, the po-
sition of the neutral axis, N-A in Fig. l(a), depends on the
relative strengths of the concrete section Pc = A cO.85fc to
that of the steel section P, = A/,. When Pc > P" the neutral
axis lies in the concrete section as shown in Fig. l(a). Let F,"
be the sum of the forces on the shear connectors in the shear
span, that is, between the section being considered and the
end of the simply supported beam or the point of contra-
flexure if it is a continuous beam. Hence in this example, F'll
= P" and if P'll = strength of the shear connectors in this
is referred to as partial shear connection and the moment
capacity will be referred to as M,nc' The stress and strain
distributions for partial shear connection are shown in Figs.
l(e and f). In this case, the force in the concrete Fe = P""
there are always two neutral axes, and the slip strain is always
large because it is always associated with a change from ten-
sion to compression. Because the connector slip can be de-
termined from the integral of the slip strain along the length
of the beam, it can be seen that beams designed with partial
shear connection are more prone to slip than beams designed
with full shear connection. The degree of shear connection
is defined as TJ = P,"/PI'"
These rigid-plastic analysis procedures, which are purely
based on an equilibrium approach, can be used to determine
the flexural strength of a composite beam with varying de-
grees of shear connection, as shown by A-B-T-C in Fig. 2.
The partial shear connection strength M p " varies between
full shear connection partial shear connection
1\
,---"'-----,
e a e a e
~~_.
.- -

shear span, then P, s:: P,Il' The minimum shear-connector N ~ ~-'-A

I
strength required for full shear connection, which in this case
-t t
is equal to P" will be referred to as PI,c' The strain distribution
fy
is shown in Fig. 1(b), where it can be seen that there is one ~I
ds '
k--
,
Steel element, As
neutral axis and two parallel components in the strain distri- dx
bution. The step change in the strain profile across the steel- (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (0
section/concrete-slab interface is often referred to as the slip
FIG. 1. Rigid Plastic Analysis
strain (Newmark 1951) and is equal to the derivative of the
slip along the length of the beam. It can be seen that the slip
strain occurs in a tensile region. When P,. > Pc, the stress
distribution is shown in Fig. l(c). The force in the shear
connectors F'll = Pc = PI'" and the neutral axis now lies in

ISr. Lect., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., The Univ. of Adelaide,
G.p.a. Box 498, Adelaide, S.A. 5001, Australia.
'Honorary Visiting Res. Fellow, Former Reader, Dept. of Civ. and
Envir. Engrg.. The Univ. of Adelaide, G.p.a. Box 498, Adelaide, S.A.
5001, Australia.
Note. Associate Editor: P. Benson Shing. Discussion open until No-
vember I, 1995. To extend the closing date one month, a written request
must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for
this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on August o
30, 1993. This paper is part of the Journal ofStructural Engineering, Vol.
121, No.6, June, 1995. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/95/0006-0932-0938/
$2.00 + $.25 per page. Paper No. 6872. FIG. 2. "
Design Procedures

932/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995

J. Struct. Eng. 1995.121:932-938.


that of the composite section with full shear connection M lsc
and that of the steel section Ms. The strengths derived from
this rigid-plastic equilibrium approach have been referred to
as Mplc(Equi) as shown in Fig. 2. Also shown in Fig. 2 is a
common design procedure that assumes a linear interpolation
between Mflc and M which will be referred to as Mpsc(Int).
" are based on an idealized rigid plastic
The previous analyses
behavior of the connectors that assumes an unlimited slip
capacity, as represented by A-B in Fig. 3. Experimental re-
search (Oehlers and Coughlan 1986) has shown that the loadl
slip characteristic of stud shear connectors that are encased
in solid slabs has a ductile plateau up to a slip SI" i.e., c-o
in Fig. 3. After this, the strength reduces to about 0.95Psh ,
where fracture of the connector occurs at Sf. A statistical
analysis of experimental test results gave the· following slip-
prediction equations:
Sflds = 0.45 - 0.0021/c
where Sf can be considered the slip at fracture when Fsh =
0.95P,h ; d s = diameter of the shank of the connector; and
the units of Ie are in N/mm 2 • The parameter Sllds has a stan-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. For personal use only.
dard deviation of 0.048. The slip at the maximum capacity of
the shear connector SI" i.e., when Fsh = Psi" is given by the
following:
Sjds = 0.41 - 0.00301c
where the standard deviation of Sjds is 0.030. The slip ca-
pacity of stud shear connectors is therefore relatively small-
about 30% of the diameter of the connector. There is, there
fore, a distinct possibility that the connectors may fracture
before the composite beam achieves the strength predicted
by partial-shear-connection analyses.
It was demonstrated with the help of Fig. 1 that the slip
strain, and thus the slip, increases as the degree of shear
connection reduces. Therefore, the first attempts to try to
prevent fracture of the connectors through excessive slip placed
limits on both the span of the beam and the minimum value
of the degree of shear connection. This latter restriction is
shown as T]T in Fig. 2, and ranged from about 0.4 to 0.5 for
ductile connectors such as stud shear connectors ("Structural"
1990; Commission 1992). The point Ton M psc at T]r in Fig.
2 will be referred to as the transition point, because it denotes
a change in the mode of failure of the composite beam: from
a mode in which failure is induced by a lack of strength of
the shear connectors (region T-B in Fig. 2), to a mode in
which failure is induced by fracture of the shear connectors
brought about by a lack of ductility of the shear connectors.
The transition point T is often associated with a sudden step
change in the strength of the composite beam such as T-O in
Fig. 2, from M r to Ms.
More advanced techniques were derived from the analysis
of nonlinear finite-element models by Aribert (1990) at Rennes
in France and Johnson and Molenstra (1991) at Warwick
Idealized for rigid plastic analysis
P A
Sh
__________ C A __ ~~
0.95Psh I can be applied to all loading conditions and beam shapes.
I
idealized for ! the cross-sectional properties of the composite beam, and
fracture analysis ~
'V E
Sf
s form distribution of shear connectors along the beam and
FIG. 3. Load/Slip of Stud Shear Connectors
J. Struct. Eng. 1995.121:932-938.
- - - • Adelaide equilibrium S
____ Adelaide Interpolation I u
- Warwlck (6)
1.0 - - Rennes ~.;,..:...-----
0.5
o 5 10 15 20
L(m)
FIG. 4. Design Rules for Transition Point
University in the United Kingdom. These methods predict
(1)
the transition point T from the slip capacity of the connector
Su, the length of the beam L, and the degree of shear con-
nection T]. An example of these design recommendations is
shown in Fig. 4, where for a given span of beam L and with
connectors of known slip capacity SI" the degree of shear
connection T]Tat the transition point can be determined. Hence,
the transition point T can be determined from Fig. 2 when
the partial-shear-connection strength has been calculated.
(2) For more accurate analyses, the properties of the steel and
concrete elements of the composite beam have to be taken
into account in the design recommendation. Newmark et al.
(1951) provided a classical linear elastic partial-interaction
analysis of composite beams, but this is not suitable for ul-
timate-strength analyses. Johnson and Molenstra (1991) de-
rived prediction equations for the limiting-slip capacity from
a statistical parametric study of the results of nonlinear finite-
element modeling of composite beams. Their results depend
on the method with which the beam was originally designed,
such as whether the equilibrium or interpolation methods
were used (as shown in Fig. 2), and on the sequence of the
inclusion of the factors of safety. Their results are given in
the following equation for the case of simply supported beams
in which the original design was based on the equilibrium
approach:
S :2: M,Lh, (~)a (Mpsc - M.I)~ (3)
u 2(Ens D Ms
When T] = 0.5, then a = - 0.13 and 13 = 1.03; and when T]
= 0.75, a = - 0.24 and 13 = 1.70. Furthermore, h, = distance
from the centroid of the steel section to steel-section/concrete-
slab interface; (EI)s = flexural rigidity of steel section; and
D = depth of composite section. When Johnson and Molen-
stra's beams were designed using the linear-interpolation pro-
cedure; then the slip requirement was two-thirds that given
in (3).
A procedure is developed for predicting connector fracture
by extending Newmark's (1951) linear elastic work by allow-
ing for plasticity and the finite ductility of the shear connec-
tors. The procedure is compared with existing research and
then presented as design recommendations or guidelines that
This research extends present design practice by allowing for
determines the important parameters that affect connector
fracture.
THEORETICAL MODEL
Consider a simply supported composite beam with a uni-
loaded at midspan, as shown in Fig. 5(a). At the ultimate
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995/933
 (a) Stress distribution: connectors prevent separation at the steel-section/concrete-
concrete element mid-span near support
slab interface so that the curvatures in both elements are the
o 0 same. From these assumptions, the following is obtained:
Menne M'tee' 1 (4)
(E1),. (E/), R

steel element
/'
fi:
steel and concrete!
plastic, connectors I
!,
!steeland
!concrete linear
I elastic,
where Menne = moment in the concrete element; M,tcd =
moment in the steel element; (EI), = flexural rigidity of the
concrete element; and R = radius of curvature. Furthermore
(5)
linear elastic i i connectors where h, = distance from centroid of the concrete element
I jPlastlc
(b) Slip distribution: to the concrete-slab/steel-beam interface in Fig. 6; h, is mea-
----- " !
I

I
I
sured from the steel-element centroid; and M = applied mo-
ment at the section. From compatibility
~ .... _---~-
(t - (:~')J - c:~'), -~)
I I
I I
:: = (6)
(c) Longitudinal shear force: I I
I
~i I where (EA), = axial rigidity of the concrete element; and
(EA), = that of the steel elements.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. For personal use only.

FIG. 5. Idealization of Composite Beam Central Load

Consider the case of a simply supported beam of span L
Analysis with a point load W at midspan, and with a uniform distri-
Section
E&Oshape bution of shear connectors of strength q,II per unit length of
beam. At the section z being considered in Fig. 6, the applied
moment M = Wzl2 and P,II = q,hZ. Hence, from (4-6)

ds
dx =
(WK,
-2- - q",K 2
)Z (7)

where

I K, (8)
)' (El), + (E/),
FIG. 6. Analysis of Composite Beam and

flexural strength, the steel and concrete elements can be as- K2 =

(h, + h,)" + -1- + -1 - (9)
sumed to have fully yielded at midspan but still linear elastic (El), + (E/), (EA), (EA),
near the supports, as shown by the stress profiles <T. In con- Integrating from the support to midspan, where the slip is
trast, the maximum slip occurs at the supports, as shown in zero, gives the maximum slip at the support Smax as follows:
Fig. 5(b), and the connectors are uniformly loaded over much
of the support, as in Fig. 5(c). Therefore, the steel and con- s
ITlaX
= MmaxLK,
4 (10)
crete elements are plastic in the central region and elastic in
the region adjacent to the supports, and the converse is true
where M max = maximum applied moment; and P max = force
for the shear connectors.
exerted by connectors at the maximum moment section Mmax .
The maximum slip, which occurs at the ends of the beam,
can be derived by integrating the slip strain over the full length
Uniformly Distributed Load
of the beam. Therefore the maximum slip is a function of the
properties of the whole length of the beam. However, ele- The same procedure can be applied to a simply supported
mentary analyses, such as full interaction analyses, can show beam of span L with uniformly distributed load and with a
that yielding in the steel element extends over about 30% of uniform distribution of shear connectors, and this gives the
the length of the span, so that the volume of steel that has maximum slip as follows:
yielded will only be about 15% of the total volume of steel.
Therefore, as plasticity in the steel and concrete elements s
ITlaX
= MmaxLK,
3 (11 )
occurs in only a relatively small volume as a first approxi-
mation, it will be ignored in the following slip calculations. It can be seen from a comparison of (11) with (10) that a
Conversely, it will be assumed that the connectors are fully uniformly distributed load induces a larger slip than a point
plastic throughout the length of the beam, i.e., the elastic load.
region near midspan will be ignored, and hence all the con-
nectors have the load/slip characteristic A-D-E in Fig. 3. These General Analysis
assumptions are shown diagramatically in Fig. 6. The steel
and concrete elements are linear elastic throughout the length Consider the case of a simply supported beam with a single
of the beam and the shear connectors are fully loaded connector in each shear span at a distance L,II from the section
throughout, where P,,, = strength of the shear connectors being considered, as shown in Fig. 6. The analysis section is
along the shear span z being considered. As is normal practice chosen to coincide with the section of zero connector slip,
in composite-beam analysis, it will also be assumed that the which is at a distance z from a support, as shown in Fig. 6.

934 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995

J. Struct. Eng. 1995.121:932-938.

 (a) Load: Mmax (15)
longer shear span
Zero slip can only be achieved in theory, because it is assumed
that the connectors are fully loaded even at zero slip as shown
pip by the idealized model in Fig. 3. However, the connector
,( sh ) i ( sh )'
i i i strength required for full interaction is a useful gauge for

~
(b) Moment: !MmaXi Am ! estimating the probability of connector facture, in the same
I, I, way as the degree of shear connection TJ is a useful gauge for
I I estimating the strength of a composite beam. For example,
' ! ' for a uniformly distributed loaded beam with a uniform shear-
' I A
(e) Longitudinal PSh ' sh iI connector distribution, as represented by (11), zero slip oc-

fJIILj
shear:
I I
curs when the strength of the shear connection P z is given by
, ,
the following equation:
I I I,

i
"
i~zero slip !
,
(16)
FIG. 7. General Analysis Procedure for Fracture
ULTIMATE-STRENGTH ANALYSIS
Eq. (4) still applies. Eq. (5) is also correct, however, Psh is
now the force on a single connector, and hence the axial force Consider the composite section shown in Fig. 8, in which
on the slab is constant between the connector and the section the shear connectors are distributed uniformly over the span
being considered. Substituting in (6) gives the following: L and there is a uniform distribution of load. From the basic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. For personal use only.

analysis already described, the plastic moment capacity of the

(12) steel section M, = 425 kNm; that of the composite section
and integrating from the support to the position of zero slip with full shear connection M fse = 915 kNm; and the strength
gives the following: of the shear connection required for full shear connection Pr.,c
= 2,880 kN. The variation of the moment capacity M psc with

Smax = K1 f
span
Mdx - K 2 P,,,L'h (13)
the degree of shear connection TJ is shown in Fig. 9. This is
the moment capacity when the connectors do not fracture.
The moment to cause the connectors to fracture, M frac , for
The integral in (13) is the area of the moment diagram, Am' this loading condition and distribution of shear connectors is
between the position of zero slip and where the slip is being given by (11), which can be written in the following form:
calculated, which is usually at the support where it is a max-
imum. The first term in (13), K 1 fspan Mdx, is the slip when
2000
the beam does not have any shear connectors. In the second I( )1
term, K2P,hLsh, the product PshL sh is the area of the longi-
tudinal shear force diagram, A'h' between the position of zero l150
slip and where the slip is being calculated. The second term,
180x12
K 2 P,,,L'h' is the beneficial effect of the reduction in slip due Iy = 400 N/mm
2

to the shear connectors. 384 2

360x8 Ie = 35 N/mm
Eq. (13) can therefore be written in the following terms 2
E s =205 kN/mm
that apply to all loading configurations and shear-connector 2
Ee = 30 kN/mm
distributions: FIG. 8. Composite Beam Properties
(14)
Mlrae: L=10,000Su=6; L=15,000Su=9
An example of the application of the general equation, (14),

~O::l-·_··-)/-'-~_·'
for nonsymmetrical loading and for nonuniform shear-con-
nector distribution is shown in Fig. 7. In the design of a
composite beam, the position of maximum moment is usually
found first to ensure that the strength of the connectors either T / / .X'
/ / .""." MIse
side of this position is the same as shown in Fig. 7(a). Because MT _._._,-- "
all the connectors are assumed to be fully loaded in this anal- / I Mpse
ysis technique, the position of the maximum moment must Mf . " I
(kN.m) / " " . ,F ,
also be the position of zero slip so that the bounds for inte- ! . ""/ E I Mty I
gration are known. The maximum slip will generally occur at 600 ·1 Ie. , i
/ // .~! ' Su =6
the end of the longest shear span, so the areas Am and A'h /
/
/
IMtrac' L=15,00(jl,
' '

", ':R"--:---:=-~~
shown in Figs. 7(b and c) can be determined from both the / / ! !
applied moment distribution and the shear-connector distri-
bution; hence Smax in (14) can be calculated. This technique
can also be used to determine the distribution of slip along
the whole shear span.
/ S! ! - -- MIse
D I I ---- Ms
200 ! ! -- - - Mlrae
Degree of Interaction ! ! - -- Mty
I I
An interesting phenomenon occurs at a theoretical zero I

slip when the two parameters on the right hand side of (14)
are equal. This can be defined as the condition for full in- o 0.4 llT 0.8 1.2
teraction and can be considered to be analogous to full shear 11
connection. It is defined by the following: FIG. 9. Flexural Strength

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING I JUNE 1995/935

J. Struct. Eng. 1995.121:932-938.

 _ ~ 3TJPfS'
Me,"e - 6(E/),e DL + 4
[Q2 + D(EA)"
2(E/L] (17) MfC""", ,/ : I
~/
1000

____ ._.L._.
,
.~-~
../
/
__
whereD = depth of composite beam; (EI)" = (Ens + (EI),; M lsc
.,-"~c.../ _
and (EA );;1 = (EA )e- I + (EA ),:-1. It can be seen from (17)
".-.r'(EQU .:
/
that the moment capacity at which fracture occurs is definitely 800
,/
a function of the following parameters:

Me",e = [ S" 1]
I (El},'e, L' TJPj ,,, (EA)" (18)
Mt
(kN.m)
600
I
I
I
However, the effect of D is ambiguous. Therefore, increasing , I
the flexural rigidities, the slip capacity, and the strength of I '
the shear connection while reducing the axial rigidities and •
. •
f-i-'~----'-'-'-'-------
, I
span will prevent the connectors fracturing. .~
.:" I ' Mlrac : L~15,000, Su =6
Inserting the sectional properties of the beam in Fig. 8 into I
• ,
I,
I

(17) gives the following: Ii! • concrete cracking

200 'I zone
I I,
, I
L 10 + 921 TJ
6 . 06 S" 5 I
Me",e = (19) I,
, I
I '
I
where the units are in kN and m. Consider the results for S"
o
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. For personal use only.

= 6 mm and L = 15 m in Fig. 9. The transition point T can

now be determined from the intercept M rnl , and Mp-e. In
region A-B, the flexural capacity depends on the axial strength
of either the steel or concrete component. In region B-T, the
flexural capacity depends on the strength of the shear con-
nectors. In region T-C, the maximum capacity occurs when
the connectors fracture, and in region C-D, the connectors
fracture at a moment less than the capacity ofthe steel section.
Eqs. (4) and (5) can be used to estimate the applied mo-
ment at which the bottom flange at midspan starts to yield,
and the results are plotted as Mfy in Fig. 9; the effect of
concrete nonlinearity will be discussed in the following section
on the comparison with existing research. There would appear
to be an anomaly in the result of M r, at 'I'] = 0, because this
exceeds the plastic moment capacity of the steel section M,.
However, it should be remembered that M fy is based on the
linear elastic flexural rigidities of both the steel and concrete
components, because the slip capacity depends on the prop-
erties of the whole length of the beam. Yielding of the steel
section at midspan therefore occurs in the shaded region in
Fig. 9. For the degree of shear connection between C and E
in Fig. 9, the connectors fracture before yielding occurs, so
yielding has no effect on the ultimate strength in this region.
For TJ between E and T, yielding occurs just prior to the
connectors fracturing. It can therefore be seen that the yield
zone for a given degree of shear connection (such as T-F in
Fig. 9, i.e., M r,,,, - M I, or M",e - MrJ is either zero or
increases with '1'], being largest at high values of '1'].
It has already been suggested that yielding only occurs
within about 15% of the volume of the steel section in a
composite beam, and therefore may not be an important
factor in design. This qnalysis also suggests th~t the extent of
yielding at failure diminishes as 'I'] reduces. ThIS suggests that
yielding is even less important at low values of '1'], where the
greatest concern for failure due to connector fracture occurs.
For high values of TJ, yielding occurs over a larger range of
moment MIN' - M r,. However, the analysis does partially
compensate for not' incorporating yielding by allowing the
theoretical stresses to exceed I,.. When 'I'] = 1, Prs, = 2,880
kN. From (16), the strength of shear connection required for
full interaction P. = 2,863 kN. Therefore, the strength of
shear connection 'required for full shear connection is close
to the strength required for full interaction. This further em-
phasizes the point that connector fracture is. unlikely .at high
degrees of shear connection, so that any dIscrepancIes that
might occur in ignoring yielding in this region are less im-
portant. . .
Also plotted in Fig. 9 is M rnle for a IO-m beam WIth S" stIli
936/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995
FIG. 10. Flexural Strength
at 6 mm. The change in the beam parameters simply displaces
the graph upwards, because the slope depends in the cross-
sectional size and material properties as shown in (19). Using
larger connectors with a 9-mm slip capacity in a span of IS
m has exactly the same effect. It is also worth noting that the
transition point '1']1', which national standards often try to pre-
dict, is now no longer associated with a sudden step change,
and that it is now possible to specifically design in the con-
nector fracture zone, i.e., C-E-T in Fig. 9. Furthermore, the
additional slip due to creep and shrinkage can be easily al-
lowed for by using the long-term values for the Young's mod-
ulus for concrete in (8) and (9).
The onset of concrete cracking at the midspan of the beam
M rr is shown in Fig. 10. The same analysis tech~iq~e as used
to derive M r, in Fig. 9 ~as used, and thus t.hls IS only an
indication of when crackmg occurs. The tenSIle strength of
the concrete was assumed to be 0.6v7,., for which the units
are in N/mm 2 . It can be seen from the shaded concrete-crack-
ing zone, in Fig. 10, that cracking generally precedes con-
nector fracture and is most significant at low degree of shear
connection and not significant at high degrees of shear con-
nection. This would suggest that a light mesh of longitudinal
reinforcement at the base of the slab would be useful in re-
stricting crack sizes and therefore slip. A comparison of the
shaded yield zone in Fig. 9 with the concrete-cracking zone
in Fig. 10 shows very little overlap, and suggests that the two
effects could be treated separately if required. Also shown
in Fig. 10 is the onset of concrete crushing M I <, which was
assumed to occur at 0.85 foo It can be seen that this occurs at
a late stage and is therefore unlikely to have any significant
effect on connector fracture.
Results from the idealized model used in this connector-
fracture analysis are compared, in the following section, w.ith
results published by Johnson and Molenstra (1991).. whIch
were derived from nonlinear finite-element analyses, m order
to see if the effect of concrete cracking and steel yielding are
significant.
COMPARISON WITH EXISTING RESEARCH
The properties of the beam in Fig .. 8 have bee!' used to
compare this theoretical procedure WIth rules de~lved from
statistical analyses of computer models of composIte beams.
Johnson and Molenstra's (1991) minimum slip requirements

J. Struct. Eng. 1995.121:932-938.

 degree of shear connection, which partially compensates for
12 the fact that the interpolation approach requires more shear
connectors than the equilibrium approach.
In conclusion, there would appear to be reasonably good
correlation with computer models particularly at low degrees
8 of shear connection, where this type of analysis is most im-
Su> portant.

4
APPLICATION
An example of a design application is illustrated in Fig. 12.
This procedure could be used to develop safe load tables for
standard composite beams with standard loading configura-
600 800 1000 tions, or it could be used to analyze nonstandard composite
Mlrac (kN.m) beams with unusual loading configurations and unusual shear-
connector distributions.
FIG. 11. Minimum Limiting Slip Capacities The first stage of the design is to determine the variation
of the rigid-plastic strength with the degree of shear connec-
are given in (3) for a simply supported beam. They have been tion. This can be done using the equilibrium approach as
plotted as "Warwick" in Fig. 11 for L = 15 m, for 11T illustrated in Fig. I and shown as Mp,,(Equi) in Fig. 12. Con-
0.75, and for design based on both the linear interpolation sider, for example, the beam in Fig. 8. When the neutral axis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. For personal use only.

method (lnt) and the equilibrium method (Equi). Eq. (11)
can also be written in the following form of a minimum slip
requirement:
(20)
and this is also plotted at 11 = 0.75 in Fig. 11 and referred
to as "Adelaide." Comparing the Adelaide results at 11 =
0.75 with the Warwick results at 11 = 0.75, it can be seen that
there is poor correlation with the Warwick equilibrium ap-
proach and good correlation with the Warwick interpolation
approach. A similar comparison with Johnson and Molen-
stra's Eq. (3) at 117 = 0.50 shows a very good correlation with
the equilibrium approach. This is of particular importance,
because it is at low values of 117 that connector fracture is
most likely to occur, and so predictions in this region are
more important than, for instance, at 117 = 0.75. Because
the correlation is very good at 11r = 0.50, this would suggest
that nonlinearity in the concrete through cracking, which has
been shown to occur at low values of 11, is not important in
slip calculations. However, because the correlation at 117 =
0.75 was not very good, this would suggest that yield may be
of more importance.
The theoretical procedure can also be compared with the
design recommendations in Fig. 4, which were based on an
equilibrium analysis. To do this, 11T can be derived from the
intercept of Mfrac with M",e(Equi) in Fig. 10 for a given value
of S" and for varying lengths of beam. The results are plotted
in Fig. 4. There is very good correlation with the "Rennes"
results (Johnson and Molenstra 1991), in which S" ranges from
3 to 7 mm and 11 from 0.2 to 0.8. There is poor correlation
with the Warwick results, although Johnson and Molenstra
do state that the Warwick results are conservative for most
lies in the web of the steel element as shown in Fig. I(e), and
which occurs at low degrees of shear connection for which
the theory developed in this paper is applicable. then the
flexural capacity is given by the following, where the units
are in kN and m:
(M"w)weh = 425 + 98511 - 71811c (21)
The next stage is to determine the moment to cause the
connectors to fracture M frae in Fig. 12. For a uniformly dis-
tributed load with a uniform distribution of shear connectors.
(11) can be applied where M max = M frac and Smax = S.,. The
value of S" to be used in design depends on the load/slip
characteristics of the shear connector. For example, if stud
shear connectors are to be used in a solid slab, then the load/
slip characteristics are shown in Fig. 3 and (2) can be used
to determine the slip capacity. In this type of shear connec-
tion, the strength reduces rapidly at fracture. as shown in Fig.
3, so it would be appropriate to use the minimum 5% char-
acteristic slip capacity in design. Therefore the factor 0.41 in
(2), which gives the mean strength, should be reduced by 1.64
standard deviations (i.e .. 1.64 x 0.03) to 0.36 for design
purposes. Consider the beam in Fig. 8. IF 19-mm-diameter
stud shear connectors are to be used, then the maximum slip
capacity S"lt = 4.8 mm. This can be inserted into (19) to give
the following:
(22)
where the units are in kN and m. If the beam has nonuniform
loading or nonuniform connector distribution, then (14) can
be applied.
I
Mfuc • • ._I_._. __.__.~-~D--~E
~. ,~ ,

beams and can be very conservative for some beams.

The intercept of the Adelaide results with 11T = 0, in Fig.
Mf
Mrrac
...-c /".
.
• "-./' I
i
Md -->--7)'--
/ ~" " Mpsc I,(Equ)
4, can be determined by substituting M, for Mfrac in (19) with /' ,v' psc(lnl)i
___ "' II I,
11 = O. As an example, for S" = 3 mm the intercept with 11r
= 0 occurs at about 4.2 m, so that for beams of this length ///
, •
Y
I
i'
or shorter, the whole envelope of M"sc (from 11 = 0 to 11 = Ms A' /a- ----1"- .--- -- -- - -. -- :----
. I I
1 in Fig. 10), can be used in design. The method of design M1 - -( I - - failure •
also affects the transition point. As can be seen in Fig. 10, .' i : envelope !
I • 'I' I
the transition point for design based on the equilibrium ap- I I •
proach is labeled 11r(Equi), and that based on the interpo- ! l'
lation approach is 11r(Int). Results based on the interpolation
approach are also shown in Fig. 4 at S" = 6 mm. It can be
seen that the interpolation approach shown as (6)Int com- 11
pared with the equilibrium approach (6)Equi allows a smaller FIG. 12. Design Approach

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995/937

J. Struct. Eng. 1995.121:932-938.

 Knowing the variation of M pse and M frae , 1]d can be derived (EAL axial rigidity of concrete element EA,;
for the design moment M d in Fig. 12. For design purposes, (EA)s axial rigidity of steel element E,A,;
the failure envelope is given by A-B-C-D-E in Fig. 12, and (E1)e flexural rigidity of concrete element;
it should be a simple procedure to incorporate this into safe (Ens flexural rigidity of steel element;
load tables for design purposes. For examples, the lower bound (EA);:;' (EA);;1 + (EA)s-l;
to (21) and (22) can be used to develop safe load tables at (Ens, (E1),. + (E1),;
very low degrees of shear connection for the beam in Fig. 8. Equi based on equilibrium approach;
It may be worth noting that for degrees of shear connection Fe force on concrete element;
in region A-B in Fig. 12, M frae < M.., so the connectors will Fsh force on all shear connectors in shear span;
fracture at a moment less than the plastic moment capacity fe compressive cylinder strength of concrete;
fy yield strength of steel element;
of the steel section. For example, a beam with a degree of
he distance from centroid of concrete slab to concrete-
shear connection 1]1' the connectors will fracture at an applied slab/steel-beam interface;
moment M 1, after which the composite beam will now behave hs distance from centroid of steel section to concrete-
as a steel beam so that it will still achieve its moment capacity slab/steel-beam interface;
Ms. In region B-C, M. < M frae < M psn so that the moment
I based on interpolation approach;
at connector fracture M frae is the capacity of the section. In constant in equation deriving slip distribution;
region C-D, M frae < MpsC' so that the capacity of the section constant in equation deriving slip distribution;
is now determined by the strength and not the slip capacity length of simply supported beam;
of the connectors. Finally, in region D-E, the capacity of the distance from single connector to maximum moment
section is no longer affected by the properties of the con- section;
nectors. M applied moment;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. For personal use only.

moment in concrete element;

SUMMARY design moment;
maximum applied moment;
A procedure has been developed that can be used to design moment in steel element;
composite steel and concrete beams with very low degrees of failure moment;
shear connection. The procedure can be applied to all shapes moment to cause concrete to crush;
of composite-beam cross sections, to all lengths of beams, to moment to cause shear connectors to fracture due
all loading configurations, and for long- and short-term loads. to excessive slip;
The procedure has been found to have good correlation with flexural strength of composite beam with full shear
published data at low degrees of shear connection, below connection;
about 60% of that required for full shear connection. moment to cause concrete to crack;
flexural strength of composite beam with partial shear
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES connection;
flexural strength of steel section;
Aribert, J. M. (1990). "Dimensionnement de poutres mixtes en con-
moment to cause bottom flange of steel element to
nection partielle, in mixed structures including new materials." Rep.,
/ABSE Symp., Int. Assoc. for Bridge and Struct. Engrg., Brussels, yield;
Belgium, Vol. 60,215-220. neutral axis;
Commission of the European Communities. (1992). "Common unified axial strength of concrete element, O.85Acf,;
rules for composite steel and concrete structures: general rules for strength of shear connectors required for full shear
buildings." Euracade 4: CEN, ENV /994-/, Brussels, Belgium. connection;
Johnson, R. P., and Molenstra, N. (1991). "Partial shear connection in axial strength of steel element, Ash,;
composite beams for buildings." Prac., Instn. of Civ. Engrs., London, total strength of shear connectors in shear span,
England, Part 2, 91(Dec.), 679-704.
strength of individual connector;
Newmark, N. M., Siess, C. P., and Viest, 1. M. (1951). "Tests and
analysis of composite beams with incomplete interaction." Prac., Sac. force exerted by connectors at section at Mma , ;
far Experimental Stress Anal., 9(1), 75-92. strength of shear connectors required for full inter-
Oehlers, D. J., and Coughlan, C. G. (1986). "The shear stiffness of stud action;
shear connectors in composite beams." J. Canstr. Steel Res., 6(Oct.), strength of shear connectors per unit length of beam;
273-284. radius of curvature;
"Structural use of steelwork for buildings. Part 3: Design in composite maximum slip;
construction." (1990). B.S. 5950: Part 3: Sectian 3.1: /990. British maximum slip at maximum strength of shear con-
Standards Inst., London, England.
nector;
maximum slip prior to fracture of shear connector;
APPENDIX II. NOTATION transition point between Mccue and M ps,;
The following symbols are used in this paper: point load;
length of shear span;
A, cross-sectional area of concrete element; exponent in Johnson's limiting-slip-capacity equa-
Am area under moment diagram between support and tion;
point of maximum moment; exponent in Johnson's limiting-slip-capacity equa-
As cross-sectional area of steel element; tion;
Ash area under longitudinal shear-force diagram be- E = strain distribution;
tween support and point of maximum moment; T] degree of shear connection, P,h/P/s,;
D depth of composite beam; 1]r degree of shear connection at transition point; and
ds diameter of shank of stud shear connector; IT stress distribution.

938 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995

J. Struct. Eng. 1995.121:932-938.