Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
of Engineering
Sciences
ISSN 1999-8716
Printed in Iraq
ABSTRACT:- This paper presents a nonlinear finite element computer program. ANSYS
version 12.0 developed for the analysis of composite steel-concrete beam. A threedimensional finite element (FE) model has been developed in this work. The analytical
results of load-deflection response have been compared with available experimental tests. In
general good agreement between the finite element solutions and experimental results have
been obtained. Parametric studies have been carried out to investigate the effect of some
important material and geometrical parameters. These parameters included the effect of shear
connectors number, concrete grade, thickness to width ratio of concrete slab, the ultimate
load for shear connector and effect of yield strength of Steel beam. It was found that, as the
compressive strength of concrete increases from 20 MPa to 70 MPa the ultimate load
increases by about 20% and also an increase in the thickness to width ratio (t/B) of concrete
slab from 0.1 to 0.3 lead to increase in the ultimate load by about 43%.
Keywords: - Composite beams; Steel-concrete; Finite Element modeling; Nonlinear analysis.
1. INTRODUCTION
Concrete and structural steel are the two most widely used materials in the
construction industry. Whenever such materials are used individually, there are inherent
weaknesses where concrete is inefficient in resisting tensile load and slender structural steel
sections are susceptible to load buckling. However, when they are combined together to form
so called composite construction, the merits of these two materials are optimally used. The
efficiency of composite construction is increased significantly where concrete is utilized for
compression and steel in tension. Furthermore, concrete provides corrosion resistance and
107
fire protection to steel sections and reduces the susceptibility of slender steel sections to
buckling modes (1).
The use of steelconcrete composite beams has gained popularity in the last century
thanks to its ability to well combine the advantages of both steel and concrete. Composite
members exhibit enhanced strength and stiffness when compared to the contribution of their
components acting separately, and represent a competitive structural solution in many civil
engineering applications, such bridges and buildings. In the 40s and 50s of the last century
the first studies on composite beam behavior underlined that the relative displacement
between the steel beam and the reinforced concrete slab requires to be included in the beam
model for an adequate representation of the composite action
(2)
depends on the interaction between three main components: the reinforced concrete slab, the
steel profile, and the shear connection.
The major advantage of steelconcrete composite members over the, conventional
reinforced-concrete members is that the cross-section can be significantly reduced, if
composite action can be obtained between steel and concrete. Since natural bond may not be
effective for composite action, several different types of shear connection systems are
provided for the steelconcrete composite members to obtain the composite action. However,
the full-composite action cannot be obtained since the steelconcrete composite members
show partial-interaction behavior due to the deformation and slip at the interface under the
applied loads (3).
108
(4)
stud, Steel reinforcement modeling for the composite beam is shown in figures (1) and (2).
3- MATERIAL MODELING
3-1 Concrete in Compression
The concrete is assumed to be homogeneous and initially isotropic. The compressive
uniaxial stress-strain relationship for concrete model is obtained by using the following
equations to compute the multi-linear isotropic stress-strain curve for the concrete as shown
in Fig. (3). The multi-linear curves were used to help with convergence of the nonlinear
solution algorithm. The crack modeling depends on smeared cracking modeling (5).
= 0 1
=
=
1+( )
2
(1)
1 (2)
(3)
Where
109
(5)
= + ( ) ( (
)(6)
110
In the present work, the strain hardening modulus (ET) is assumed to be (0.02 Es).
This value was selected to avoid convergence problems during iteration.
a = ultimate
(8)
7). The length of this simple composite steel-concrete beam was (5490 mm). This beam
consisted of a concrete slab at the top, steel I-section beam at the bottom and stud top, steel I
section beam at the bottom and stud connectors to connect the concrete slab with the steel
beam. The concrete slab had a depth of connectors to connect the concrete slab with the (152
mm) and a width of (1220 mm) whereas the steel I-section beam had a depth of (305 mm), a
flange depth of (18 mm), flange width of (152 mm) and web thickness of (10 mm). The
external concentrated load was applied to the specimen at its midspan. Asummary of the
materials properties of the selected specimens are listed in Table (1).
111
112
While forvalues of fc ranging between 50 and 70 MPa, the numerical analyses reveal that the
steel beam yields at failure before crushing of concrete slab takesplace.
113
to obtain the best fit shear connectors response. Numerical analyses with different values for
the constants (a) conducted, while the other constant (b) held fixed in order to isolate the
effects of constant considered. Four different values for the constant (a) were used. While, the
constant (b) was kept equal to (5 mm-1). Results of the analysis are shown in Fig. (15) and
table (6),The selected values for the constant (a) ranged between 10 kN and 50 kN. The
numerical results indicate that the higher value of constant (a) results in a higher limited
slipping stress. Therefore, higher values of the constant (a) mean that the reduction in
composite action will be delayed. Through this study, it can be noted stiffer of load-deflection
responses are obtained with higher values of the constant (a). Also, the ultimate load
increases by about 39% as the constant (a) is increased from 10 kN to 40 kN, as shown in
Table (6).
CONCLUSIONS:The main concluding remarks that have been achieved from theresults of the finite element
analysis may be summarized as:
1- The finite element model used in the present work is able to simulate the behavior of
composite steel-concrete beams in flexure. The analytical studied indicated that the
load-deflection behavior and the ultimate loads are in good agreement with the
published experimental results. The ratio of the predicted experimental ultimate load
to the numerical ultimate load has an average value of (0.97) for composite steelconcrete beams in flexure. These results reveal the accuracy and efficiency of the
114
developed computer program (ANSYS version 12.0) in predicting the behavior and
ultimate load of composite steel-concrete beams.
2- According to the results obtained from the numerical analyses of composite steelconcrete beams, it was found that the Increasing concrete compressive strength for the
concrete slab beyond 50 MPa has insignificant effect on the ultimate capacity of
selected beam, while, a decrease of concrete compressive strength from 50 MPa to 20
MPa decreases the ultimate load a bout (18 %).
3- This study shows that by increase number of shear connector from (38 to 125) studs
the ultimate load capacity increased about (24.6%).
4- The stiffness of composite beams was increased by increasing the ratio of the depth to
width of concrete slab (t/B), with keeping the total area of concrete slab constant and
it was found that as the (t/B) ratio is increased from 0.1 to 0.3 the ultimate load
increases by about 43%.
5- It was found that the load-deflection response of composite beams is stiffer for higher
value of constant (a), which represents the ultimate shear capacity of studs. It was also
noticed that when the constant (a) is increased from 10 kN to 50 kN, the ultimate load
increases by about (32%).
6- An increase in yield strength of steel beam from 239 MPa to 320 MPa causes an
increase in ultimate load capacity (8%) and a decrease in ductility index in (40%)
while decreasing yield strength of steel beam from 239 MPa to 220 Mpa cause a
decrease in ultimate load capacity (6.5%) and increase in ductility index (22.7%).
REFERENCES:
1- Heong. T. T., 2003, "Design Appraisal of Steel-Concrete Composite Joints" A Thesis
National University of Singapore.
2- Ranzi G., and Zona A., 2007, "A steelconcrete composite beam model with partial
interaction including the shear deformability of the steel component" Engineering
Structures, Vol.29, pp. 30263041.
3- Jeong,Y., KimaH., and Kimb S., 2005,"Partial-interaction analysis with push-out
tests" Journal of Constructional Steel Research Vol. 61, 13181331.
115
in
Advancing
Structural
Engineering
Under-standing",
Journal
of
Structural steel
Property
Value
239
418
203000
0.3
230
2
Reinforcing
bar
Concrete
Shear connector
Youngs modulus, Ec
(N/mm2)
Poissons ratio,
414
202000
0.3
27.1
2.71
29670
0.2
Number of studs
76
Number of rows
Youngs modulus, Es
205000
116
(N/mm2)
Poissons ratio,
0.3
Diameter (mm)
19
102
a(kN)
32
b (mm-1)
Table (2): Ultimate loads from experimental test and Finite element analysis.
Analytic
and test
beam
Composite
Beam
(Pu )FEM.
460
(Pu )EXP.
(Pu )FEM.
Error
ratio
0.974
2.67 %
Table (3): Analytical ultimate loads obtained for different grade of concrete.
Concrete
grade (MPa)
Ultimate load
(kN)
Ratio
(Pu /P20)
20
408
27.1
460
1.12
30
463
1.13
40
474
1.16
50
482
1.18
60
484
1.186
70
492
1.2
Ultimate load
(kN)
Ratio
(Pu /P38)
38
397
76
460
1.15
100
476
1.19
125
495
1.24
117
Table (5): Analytical ultimate loads obtained for different values of concrete slab
depth to width ratios.
Depth to
width ratio
Ultimate load
(kN)
Ratio
(Pu /P0.1)
0.1
417
0.12
460
1.103
0.15
503
1.206
0.2
522
1.252
0.25
560
1.343
0.3
596
1.429
Table (6): Analytical ultimate loads obtained for different values of constant (a).
Constant (a)
(kN)
Ultimate load
(kN)
Ratio
(Pu /P10)
10
357
20
446
1.249
32
460
1.288
40
496
1.389
50
473
1.324
Table (7): Analytical ultimate loads obtained for different values of yield strength
of steel beam.
Yield
strength
(Mpa)
Ultimate load
(kN)
Ratio
(Pu /P220)
220
430
239
460
1.07
260
470
1.09
280
482
1.12
300
490
1.14
320
497
1.15
118
119
Stress
0.3
Strain
120
280
280
5490
A
Figure (6): Geometrical characteristics of simply supported beams.
1220
12.7 @ 152
152
8 @ 305
12.7 @ 305
10
305
18
152
Figure (7): Details of cross section A- A (dimensions in mm).
121
600
At 30 % of ultimate load
At 50 % of ultimate load
500
At 75 % of ultimate load
At 100 % of ultimate load
400
300
200
100
0
-100
100
200
300
400
Stress (MPa)
Figure (10): Stress distribution for composite beam along the depth.
122
Figure (11): Numerical relative slip between concrete and steel for composite beam.
123
Figure (14): Effect of thickness ratio to width slab concrete on the load-deflection
behavior for composite beam.
124
Figure (15): Effect of the strength of shear connector on the load-deflection behavior for
composite beam.
Figure (16): Effect of the yield strength of steel beam on the load-deflection for composite
beam.
125
ANSYS 12
- . . -
.
. .
, , ,
. 20
MPa 70 MPa % 20
( )t/B 0.1 0.3 .%43
126