Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1355–1365

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

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

Experimental investigation of double composite twin-girder railway bridges

Hyun-Ho Kim, Chang-Su Shim ∗
Department of Civil Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Ansung, 456-756, Republic of Korea

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: A railway bridge with a double composite section has been proposed to enhance the structural
Received 23 June 2008 performance of existing twin-girder bridges, because the governing design parameter of railway bridges
Accepted 13 February 2009 is flexural stiffness. The concrete deck in negative moment regions is neglected in the design of continuous
composite bridges assuming the concrete slab has no resistance to tension. Therefore, the flexural stiffness
Keywords: of the composite section in the negative moment region is reduced, resulting in an increase of the
Double composite section
depth of the steel section. In this study, push-out tests on lying studs and mixed stud shear connection
Continuous twin-girder bridge
Lying stud
with lying and vertical studs were performed to investigate the behavior of the shear connection in
Mixed stud the double composite section. In addition, the static strength of the shear connection was evaluated.
Ultimate strength This study focuses on continuous two girder bridge models of 5m–5m span length with the proposed
double composite section. From the static tests on the bridge models, several design considerations
were investigated including the effective width, shear connection, and ultimate strength of the double
composite section. Based on the test results, design guidelines and innovative twin-girder bridges were
suggested.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction – enables acceptable deformation in railway bridges to be

Steel–concrete composite bridges for high-speed railways are
scarce in Korea. Previous studies have shown that the systematic
use of composite solutions can enhance the disadvantages of
twin plate-girder solutions for high-speed railway lines. The twin
plate-girder bridges have less resistance to eccentric moving loads
and to curvatures, and have restrictions for elastoplastic design
under ultimate limit states due to plate buckling of compressed
panels. In order to solve these problems, the double composite
action frequently used for bending at hogging areas is generalized
at the whole length of the bridge to achieve torsional stiffness
requirements and to increase the flexural stiffness of the composite
section at hogging areas [1].
The bottom chord of a typical haunched girder works under
compression over about a fifth of the main span. An increase of
the dead weight in this area only slightly affects the governing
moments at the piers. The concrete bottom chord then combines
low cost with high stiffness. The double composite action provides
the following advantages:
– increases span lengths to values which were previously the
domain of steel bridges with orthotropic plates, arch bridges or
cable-stayed bridges;
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 31 670 4707; fax: +82 31 675 1387.
E-mail addresses: hhkim@wm.cau.ac.kr (H.-H. Kim), csshim@cau.ac.kr
(C.-S. Shim).
0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.02.004
achieved economically with the concrete bottom slab;
– avoids thick on-site welds;
– instability problems in the ultimate limit state are avoided not
only in bottom flanges but webs are compact as well due to the
low position of neutral axis at the ultimate limit state.
Composite sections of the twin plate-girder railway bridge
with double composite action are shown in Fig. 1. Special shear
connection details are required to achieve the composite action,
as shown in Fig. 1(c).
In addition, the shear connection for the bottom concrete slab
has several different design requirements from the ordinary shear
connection for the top concrete slab. The double composite action
for twin girder bridges leads to an unusual positioning of the stud
shear connectors horizontally in the thin concrete slab. In contrast
to the common arrangement of studs perpendicular to the steel
flange, the transfer of the longitudinal shear by horizontal lying
studs causes a splitting action in the direction of the slab thickness,
producing cleavage cracks parallel with the slab surface as shown
in Fig. 2 [2]. Previous studies on lying stud shear connection [2–
4] shows that the thickness and strength of the concrete slab,
diameter, and arrangements of the transverse reinforcements were
considered and empirical equations were suggested. However,
there is no existing research on the shear connection with mixed
stud shear connectors of lying and vertical studs.
In this study, we conducted tests to evaluate the structural
performance of the lying stud shear connection and mixed stud
shear connection. The main parameters were the arrangement
1356 H.-H. Kim, C.-S. Shim / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1355–1365
Fig. 1. Cross section and detail of shear connection in double composite bridges:
(a) positive moment section; (b) negative moment section; (c) detail of shear
connection.
of studs, the thickness of concrete slab, and details of the
reinforcements. This study also focuses on experimental research
on the continuous double composite bridge models. Based on
push-out tests, the shear connection for the bottom concrete slab
was designed to achieve the full composite action, where lying and
vertical studs were used for the shear connection. For easy erection
of the lower concrete slab, precast panels were used and concrete
was cast over the precast panels to fabricate the final thickness of
the concrete slab in the negative moment area. We investigated the
composite action in the bottom compression slab, and evaluated
the ultimate strength of the double composite section.
2. Push-out tests on shear connection
2.1. Test specimen
We considered two different situations of the shear connection
with lying studs and vertical studs relative to the concrete slab
in the push-out tests. Push-out specimens with lying studs had
parameters of the thickness of the concrete slab, diameter of
reinforcements, and arrangement of the studs. Push-out specimens
with mixed arrangement of studs, lying, and vertical studs were
designed to estimate the validity of the superposition of the
strengths of vertical studs and lying studs. Fig. 3 shows the typical
details of the push-out specimens and Table 1 summarizes the
specimens.
Fig. 2. Flow of force and cracking formation due to shear [2].
2.2. Material properties and measurements
Failure modes of the shear connection are strongly affected
by the relative strength of the concrete slab. Design compressive
strength of concrete was 30 N/mm2 for STA series and 40 N/mm2
for STB series. Twenty-eight-day compressive strength was
24.0 N/mm2 for STA specimens and 50.2 N/mm2 for STB
specimens.
The static and fatigue tests of push-out specimens were
performed in a hydraulic testing machine of 10 000 kN capacity
and fatigue testing machine of 1000 kN capacity, respectively.
Subsequent load increments were imposed such that failure did
not occur in less than 15 min according to the standard testing
method of push-out tests in Eurocode-4 [5]. The longitudinal slips
between each concrete slab and the steel section were measured
continuously during loading or at each load increment using
1/1000 mm Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs). The
slip was measured until the load had dropped to 20% below the
maximum load.
2.3. Static strength of lying stud shear connection
Eurocode-4 [5] specifies design strength of the stud shear
connection that uses automatic welding by Eqs. (1) and (2), which
are for vertical stud connectors.
PRd = 0.8fu (π d2 /4)/γv (1)
p
PRd = 0.29α d 2
(fck Ecm )/γv (2)
where units are N, mm, d is the diameter of studs, fu is the ultimate
strength of steel, fck is the compressive strength of concrete, Ecm
is the elastic modulus of concrete, and γv is partial safety factor
(= 1.25).
Based on previous studies on lying stud shear connection [2–
4], empirical equation (3) was proposed and the design shear
resistance of a headed stud that causes splitting forces in the
direction of the slab thickness was included in Eurocode-4 Part
2 [6]. In the design provisions, 1.42 in Eq. (3) is changed to
1.4, and the confinement by reinforcements around studs is only
considered by the spacing of stirrups. Previous studies also include
fatigue tests on lying studs and conclude that the fatigue behavior
of lying studs resembles that of vertical studs and only the degree of
concrete damage is additionally forced by a splitting action which
leads to a slightly reduced fatigue life. Fig. 4 shows the geometric
parameters of the experiments.
1
PRd,sp = 1.42(fck · d · a0r )0.4 (a/s)0.3 A (3)
γv
where PRd is the design resistance (kN), fck is the compressive
strength of concrete (N/mm2 ), 19 mm ≤ d ≤ 25 mm is the
diameter of the stud, 50 mm ≤ a0r is the distance between studs
and stirrups vertical to the force, 110 mm ≤ a ≤ 440 mm is the
distance between studs parallel with the force, a/2 ≤ s ≤ a is the
distance between stirrups (mm), s/a0r ≤ 3 is the distance between
stirrups/distance between studs and stirrups, A is the modification
 H.-H. Kim, C.-S. Shim / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1355–1365 1357

Fig. 3. Push-out specimens: (a) specimen of lying studs (STA22T3); (b) specimen of mixed studs (CSTA22B1).

Three failure modes were observed in the tests: splitting of the

Fig. 4. Test parameters.
factor = 1, ds ≥ 8 mm is the stirrup diameter, and γv = 1.25 is the
partial safety factor according to Eurocode-4 [5].
concrete slab for weaker concrete slab (STA series), stud shank
failure for STB specimens, and splitting and tear-off of the studs.
Fig. 5 shows typical failure modes.
In Table 2, we summarize failure loads and failure modes
for the push-out tests on lying stud shear connections. STA
specimens showed the slab failure and stud shank failure for
several specimens among the STA series. For these specimens, we
found that the splitting strength of the concrete slab was lower
than the shear strength of the studs. Therefore, it is necessary to
prevent slab failure in the design of lying stud shear connections for
1358 H.-H. Kim, C.-S. Shim / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1355–1365

Table 1
Test specimens.
Specimen Compressive strength Test variables
of concrete N/mm2

STA22T1 Thickness of concrete slab dc = 200, 300, 400 mm

STA22T2 30
STA22T3

STA25D10 Diameter of stud: 25 mm Reinforcement diameter: D10, D13, D16 dc = 250 mm

STA25D13 30
STA25D16

STA22T2-2
30 Two row
STA22T3-2

STA22D10-2
STA22D13-2 30 Two row
STA22D16-2

CSTA22A1 H1, V1 Arrangement of stud dc = 200 mm (H1: one lying stud, V1: one vertical stud, V2: two vertical studs)
30
CSTA22A2 H1, V2
CSTA22B1 H1, V1 Arrangement of stud dc = 400 mm (H1: one lying stud, H2: two lying stud, V1: one vertical stud, V2: two
vertical studs)
30
CSTA22B2 H1, V2
CSTA22B3 H2, V1
CSTA22B4 H2, V2
STB22T2
40 dc = 300 mm, 400 mm
STB22T3
STB16T2 Diameter of stud 16mm, 19 mm, 25 mm
STB19T2 40
STB25T2

CSTB22B1∼B3 H1, V1 Arrangement of stud dc = 400 mm: 3EA (H1: one lying stud, V1: one vertical stud)
40
CSTB16B1∼B3 H1, V1

Fig. 5. Failure modes: (a) stud/slab failure; (b) stud shank failure; (c) slab failure.

the effective use of the shear connectors. The compressive strength strength of the STB series specimens was higher than design
of the concrete and details of the reinforcements are important strength of the vertical stud shear connection in Eurocode-4 [5].
factors for preventing slab failure. The splitting strength of the However, the nominal strength from the push-out tests was lower
concrete slab can be calculated by Eqs. (4) and (5) [7]. than the design values of Eurocode-4 [5]. This is due to a weaker
confinement of the stud resulting from the relatively thin concrete
– Single row of studs;
slab. The shear connection with vertical studs has higher shear
 2 strength than the lying stud shear connection, due to a higher
ba
Psplit(one) = 0.6bc ha fcb π 1− (4) constraint by the wider concrete slab and more reinforcements. In
bc
order to suggest the empirical equation for the design of the lying
– Two rows of studs: stud shear connection, we modified the current design equation of
  vertical stud shear connection.
ba
Psplit(two) = 0.6bc ha fcb π 1− (5) When slab failure is prevented by the design provisions of
bc details and by checking the splitting failure of the concrete
where, Psplit is the splitting strength (kN), bc is the thickness of slab, we could design the lying stud shear connection using an
the concrete slab (mm), ba is the diameter empirical equation (6). This equation can only be used for the shear
√ of the stud (mm), ha
is the height of the stud (mm), fcb = 0.5 fc , and fc is the design connection with the stud shank failure mode. Fig. 6 shows the
compressive strength of concrete (N/mm2 ). comparison of the test results with values from AASHTO LRFD [8]
and Eurocode-4 [5].
As seen in Table 2, the STB series with a higher compressive
strength of concrete showed stud shank failure. The ultimate PL = 0.725fu (π d2 /4)/γv (6)
 H.-H. Kim, C.-S. Shim / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1355–1365 1359

Table 2
Test results of lying stud.
Specimen Experiment EC-4 (1) EC-4 (2) Kuhlmann Failure mode
Ultimate strength (kN) Splitting strength (kN)

STA22T1 404.19 349.56 583.56 562.07 457.74 Slab

STA22T2 529.78 483.67 583.56 562.07 567.88 Shank failure
STA22T3 518.87 620.11 583.56 562.07 652.35 Shank failure
STA25D10 393.8 427.30 753.6 725.81 544.35 Slab
STA25D13 391.95 427.30 753.6 725.81 544.35 Slab
STA25D16 587.26 427.30 753.6 725.81 544.35 Slab
STA22T2-2 627.97 448.29 1167.12 1124.14 1135.76 Slab
STA22T3-2 838.84 586.13 1167.12 1124.14 1305.55 Slab
STA22D10-2 508.23 379.59 1167.12 1124.14 1034.43 Slab
STA22D13-2 661.89 379.59 1167.12 1124.14 1034.43 Slab
STA22D16-2 659.22 379.59 1167.12 1124.14 1034.43 Slab
STB22T2 606.68 698.12 583.56 891.26 761.65 Shank failure
STB22T3 700.47 896.19 583.56 891.26 875.52 Shank failure
STB16T2 370.52 669.78 308.7 471.41 670.56 Shank failure
STB19T2 514.21 684.16 435.3 664.76 718.27 Shank failure
STB25T2 786.29 714.34 753.6 1150.90 801.62 Shank failure

Fig. 6. Comparison of design code and test.

Fig. 7. Regression analysis results of mixed stud shear connection.

where d is the diameter of studs (mm) and fu is the tensile strength

and the strength of vertical shear strength (PRd ). Several STA
of the stud (MPa).
specimens showed lower values than the calculated values, which
In order to investigate the shear connection with the slab failure
assume that the failure mode is stud shank failure. STB specimens,
mode, we compared the ultimate strength from push-out tests
however, showed higher values than the calculated values. As seen
with the splitting strength and ultimate strength suggested by
in Fig. 7, the evaluation of shear strength of the mixed stud shear
Eq. (3). Test results showed a higher strength than the splitting
connection gives 20% conservative results in the region of the shear
strength of the concrete slab, but results were lower than the
connection details in this study.
values by Eq. (3). When evaluating the confinement effects by the
reinforcements, the spacing and diameter of the reinforcements Pm = α(PL + PRd ) α = 1.206 (7)
should be considered. Judging from these results, it is necessary
to prevent slab failure by considering the reinforcement details. In where PL is the shear strength of lying stud shear connection by
order to use the empirical equation considering the shank failure of Eq. (6) and PRd is the design shear strength of vertical stud shear
studs, which is the case of large stud shear connection [9,10], the connection.
splitting strength of the concrete slab should be higher than the
ultimate strength of the stud connectors. 3. Experiments on double composite bridge models

2.4. Static strength of mixed stud shear connection 3.1. Test specimen

In areas of high shear forces, lying studs and vertical studs
need to be placed to resist the horizontal shear forces and the
tensile forces in the transverse direction. This mixed stud shear
connection has not been previously investigated. For the design
of this shear connection, we calculated the shear strength by
adding the strength of lying studs and vertical studs. However, it is
necessary to ensure that this assumption is conserved throughout
the experiments, because the stress distribution according to the
arrangement of studs can vary.
Table 3 summarizes the test results of the push-out tests on
the mixed stud shear connection and calculated values obtained
by adding the shear strength of lying stud shear connection (PL )
Two double composite twin-girder (DCTG) bridge models were
fabricated to study the behavior of the shear connection in the
lower concrete slab and the inelastic behavior of the double
composite section. Fig. 8 illustrates the test specimen details. The
bridge model had 10 m length and 800 mm girder height. The
bottom of the section was closed using 80 mm deep precast slabs
and these slabs work as formwork for the bottom concrete at the
negative moment area near the internal support resulting in a
200 mm-thick bottom concrete slab. No bottom concrete was cast
at mid-span, and the bottom precast slabs were not connected
lengthwise. A 168 mm-wide and 200 mm-thick strip at both sides
of the slabs was needed to ensure the shear force transfer among
1360 H.-H. Kim, C.-S. Shim / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1355–1365

Table 3
Test results of mixed stud shear connection.
Specimen Experiment PL + PRd Failure mode
Ultimate strength (kN) Ultimate displacement (mm)

CSTA22A1 934.63 16.62 854.45 Shank failure

CSTA22A2 1122.23 11.68 1438.04 Slab/Splitting failure
CSTA22B1 875.42 8.69 854.45 Slab/Splitting failure
CSTA22B2 1051.7 19.36 1438.04 Slab/Splitting failure
CSTA22B3 1426.89 29.87 1125.31 Slab/Splitting failure
CSTA22B4 1726.24 20.77 1708.9 Slab/Splitting failure
CSTB22B1-1 987.18 14.43 854.45 Shank failure
CSTB22B1-2 1007.8 12.60 854.45 Shank failure
CSTB22B1-3 1005.14 12.89 854.45 Shank failure
CSTB16B1-1 914.01 12.73 820.77 Shank failure
CSTB16B1-2 1075.66 10.40 820.77 Shank failure
CSTB16B1-3 1076.98 9.25 820.77 Shank failure

Fig. 8. Double composite beam specimens (mm): (a) composite section; (b) longitudinal layout.

the precast slabs, resulting in the torsion circuit for the strict box
section.
Based on the results of previous push-out tests, the shear
connection for the bottom concrete slab was designed to achieve
full composite action (degree of shear connection = 1.01). We
used 16 mm lying studs and 22 mm vertical studs for the shear
connection; it is preferable to use smaller studs for lying stud
shear connectors because of the relatively weak constraint of the
concrete slab in the direction of the thickness.
The DCTG1 model was designed to have SM490 steel only for
the flanges and the web, and the DCTG2 model was designed to
have SM520 steel for flanges and SM490 steel for the web (hybrid
combination).
In these specimens, there was no diaphragm because the deliv-
ery or the erection of the bridge model was performed after hav-
ing the composite section. In actual practice on double composite
twin-girder bridges, it is necessary to provide diaphragms for the
Fig. 9. Test setup.
stability of the girders during construction.
Static tests were conducted using two hydraulic testing
machines of 1000 kN capacity. As shown in Fig. 9, one end of the of the specimen was loaded by two actuators. Loads were applied
specimen was supported in the upper direction and the other end to simulate eccentric loading, uniform loading, and failure load.
 H.-H. Kim, C.-S. Shim / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1355–1365 1361

Fig. 10. Measurement layout: (a) reinforcement strain; (b) concrete strain; (c) steel strain, slip and displacement measurement; (d) crack width measurement.

Fig. 10 summarizes the measurements of the static tests. Table 4

Displacements of the composite bridge models were measured Compressive strength of concrete (MPa).

at four points with LVDTs to evaluate the flexural stiffness of At the time of static test (air curing) Standard curing
the composite sections. LVDTs were also installed to measure the Upper slab 40.8 43
relative displacements (slip) between the steel girder and the Lower slab 27.7 –
concrete slab, as presented in Fig. 10. Several strain gauges were Precast panel 39.8 32.6
installed on the steel beams, concrete slabs, and reinforcements to
observe the mechanical behavior of the specimens. Table 5
Material properties of steel girder.
Elastic modulus Yield stress Tensile strength
3.2. Material properties (GPa) (MPa) (MPa)

Flange 210 320 490

DCTG1
Tables 4 and 5 list the material properties of concrete and steel Web 210 320 490
of the test specimens. The design compressive strength of concrete DCTG2
Flange 210 360 520
Web 210 240 400
was 30 MPa, and yield strength of the reinforcements was 400 MPa.
1362 H.-H. Kim, C.-S. Shim / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1355–1365

Fig. 11. Load–slip curve. Fig. 12. Moment–curvature curve.

3.3. Test results

3.3.1. Behavior of the shear connection

The degree of shear connection η is often defined as the strength
of the shear connection in a shear span, as a proportion of the
strength required for full shear connection, so that
Pshear
η= (8)
(Pshear )fsc
where the longitudinal shear strength of the shear connectors Pshear
is the dowel strength of the individual connectors Pd multiplied by
the number of connectors N in the shear span, and (Pshear )fsc is the
strength of the shear connection that is just sufficient to achieve
full shear connection [7]. Full shear connection can be defined such
that the strength of the shear connectors does not affect the stress
resultants in a composite beam.
The stud shear connection for the lower concrete slab was
designed to have a degree of shear connection η = 1.01, based
on the previous push-out test results on the mixed stud shear
connection detailed in this study. Eq. (9) is the suggested empirical
equation for the shear connection.
Pm = α(PL + PRd ) α = 1.206 (9)
where PL is the shear strength of the lying stud shear connection
and PRd is the design shear strength of vertical stud shear
connection.
In order to verify the suggested empirical equation of the
ultimate strength of the shear connection in lower concrete slab,
we measured relative displacements (slip) and observed failure
modes of the specimens. As seen in Fig. 11, we found the maximum
slip at the interface between the lower steel flange and the
lower concrete slab to be less than 0.1 mm at the ultimate state
of the bridge model. There was no signal of the failure of the Fig. 13. Strain distribution of composite sections according to loading steps:
shear connection. Therefore, the design of the shear connection (a) DCTG1; (b) DCTG2.
to achieve the double composite section in hogging areas can
be done by lying studs and vertical studs. It is necessary to
DCTG1 and DCTG2 models. From the measured strains at flanges
provide the detailed requirements of the reinforcements of the
and web of the steel beam, the curvature κ = (ε1 − ε2 )/h,
bottom concrete slab to ensure the confinement of the stud shear
connection. where κ is the curvature, ε1 is the tensile strain at the top
The design of the shear connection is normally governed by fiber, ε2 is the compressive strain at the bottom fiber, and h is
fatigue endurance [11,12]. The range of horizontal shear resulting the depth. From the moment–curvature relationship, the flexural
from live load and impact load controls fatigue capacity. Therefore, stiffness of the uncracked composite section was obtained and
further studies on the fatigue behavior need to be conducted. compared with the calculated value (Table 6). For the calculation,
the effective width of the lower concrete slab was evaluated using
3.3.2. Moment–curvature relations the current design codes for the effective width of the concrete slab
The flexural stiffness of the composite section in hogging in compression. The measured strain distribution of the composite
moment areas is decreased by the occurrence of cracking at the section according to loading steps is presented in Fig. 13. As the
upper concrete slab, resulting in an increase of the deflection applied load increased, the neutral axis was slightly moved to the
and steel stress. Fig. 12 shows the moment–curvature curves for neutral axis of cracked section.
 H.-H. Kim, C.-S. Shim / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1355–1365
Fig. 14. Crack pattern of upper concrete slab: (a) DCTG1; (b) DCTG2.
Fig. 15. Finite element model.
Table 6
Comparison of flexural stiffness.
Specimens Second moment of area (I)
Calculation
DCTG1
Experiment
Calculation
DCTG2
Experiment
3.3.3. Ultimate behavior
The evaluation of the ultimate flexural strength of the double
composite action was performed using the measured strain data
at the top and bottom flanges. The section in the hogging area was
compact and no local buckling was observed. The ultimate flexural
strength of the composite section can be estimated using the rigid-
plastic concept because the full shear connection was achieved and
no buckling was observed at the girder section. In Table 7, the cal-
culated values using rigid-plastic analysis are compared with the
test values. Material properties from the tests were used in the cal-
culation. From the comparison, we evaluated the flexural strength
of the double composite section using the rigid-plastic concept.
Fig. 14 shows the crack pattern of the upper concrete slab.
In order to investigate the local behavior of the bridge models,
we performed nonlinear finite element analyses using DIANA [13].
Eight-nodes solid elements were used to model the concrete slab
and the precast panels, and 4-nodes shell elements were used
for steel girders. Reinforcements were modeled using embedded
reinforcement elements. The composite action between concrete
1363
Table 7
Comparison of ultimate strength.
Specimens Design Experiment
0.0085 m4 DCTG1 3604.79 kN m 3773.18 kN m
0.0081 m4 DCTG2 3189.42 kN m 3234.26 kN m
0.0085 m4
0.0091 m4
slab and steel girders was simulated using multi-point constraints.
The material properties of concrete and steel obtained in the tests
were used in the analyses. In the nonlinear analysis, a smeared
cracking model was used for concrete and von-Mises failure
criterion was used for steel. Fig. 15 shows the 3-D model of a test
bridge.
In Fig. 16, we compare the load–strain curves of the steel girder
section in the maximum negative moment region for the test
results and analysis results. The measured strain of the upper
flange was in accordance with that of the analysis, but the strain of
the lower flange showed slight differences as the load increased.
Load–displacement curves from the tests were compared with
those of finite element analyses in Fig. 17. The DCTG1 model was
in accordance with the analysis, but the DCTG2 model showed a
6.5% difference in the ultimate strength. Fig. 18 shows the process
of damage in upper and lower concrete slabs and the initiation of
crushing at the section of the stress concentration due to the abrupt
section change in the lower concrete slab. Therefore, it is necessary
to consider the smooth section change of the lower concrete slab
in the design.
1364 H.-H. Kim, C.-S. Shim / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1355–1365

Fig. 16. Load–strain curve of steel girder (negative moment section): (a) DCTG1; Fig. 17. Load–displacement curve: (a) DCTG1; (b) DCTG2.
(b) DCTG2.

4. Conclusion

For twin-girder railway bridges, we proposed a double com-

posite section to increase the flexural stiffness of the composite
section in negative moment regions. From static tests on bridge
models, we investigated several design considerations, including
shear connection and ultimate strength of the double composite
section.
We performed push-out tests on lying studs and mixed stud
shear connections with lying and vertical studs to investigate the
behavior of the shear connection in double composite twin-girder
bridges. The static strength of the shear connection was evaluated
through the test results. In order to ensure the ductile failure
of the shear connection and to use the simple evaluation of the
shear strength of the shear connection, it is necessary to prevent
slab failure by checking the splitting strength of the concrete
slab. The shear connection with stud shank failure showed ductile
behavior, and slightly lower shear strength than that of the normal
vertical stud shear connection. Based on the test results, we
suggested empirical equations for the design of the lying stud shear
connection and mixed stud shear connection.
The vertical stud shear connection in the upper concrete slab Fig. 18. Propagation of concrete slab damage from finite element analysis: (a)
70 kN—upper slab crack occurrence; (b) 163 kN—lower slab crack occurrence; (c)
of twin-girder bridges generally has additional resistance from 235 kN.
friction due to vertical forces, even though it is not considered in
the design. However, the shear connection in the lower concrete
slab does not have such resistance, and has uplift force and tensile was observed. The proposed empirical equation for the shear
force by eccentric loading on the bridge. Therefore, the behavior of connection can be used for the evaluation of the ultimate strength
the shear connection in double composite bridges was investigated of the shear connection,
through additional experiments. (2) from the moment–curvature curves, the flexural stiffness of
Based on the bridge model test results, we derived the following the double composite section can be evaluated, and the effective
conclusions: width for the lower concrete slab can be calculated using the
(1) Failure modes of the double composite section were the current design codes on the effective width of the compressive
yielding of the girder and no failure of the shear connection flange, and
 H.-H. Kim, C.-S. Shim / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1355–1365
(3) the flexural strength of the double composite section can be
evaluated by rigid-plastic analysis when the full shear connection
and the compact section requirements are achieved.
From the design applications, we conclude that the double
composite action provides designers with an opportunity to design
more innovative and economic bridges. Because railway bridges
are high impact structures, dynamic behavior of the composite
girders and fatigue endurance of the connection need to be
conducted. The double composite action using a bottom concrete
slab can also be applied to highway bridges. Further research is
needed to investigate the effective design solutions for highway
bridges.
References
[1] Shim C-S. Research on the double composite twin-girder railway bridges.
In: Proceedings of the 8th Korea–China–Japan symposium on structural steel
construction. 2005. p. 49–57.
[2] Kuhlmann U, Kurschner K. Design of lying studs with longitudinal shear force.
In: Symposium on connections between steel and concrete. 2001.
1365
[3] Kuhlmann U, Kurschner K. Behaviour of lying shear studs in reinforced
concrete slabs. In: Symposium on connections between steel and concrete.
2001.
[4] Breuninger U. Behaviour of lying studs with longitudinal shear force. In:
Engineering foundation conference. Composite construction in steel and
concrete IV. 2000.
[5] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1. General
rules and rules for buildings. ENV 1994-2. CEN; 1994.
[6] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 2. General
rules and rules for bridges. EN 1994-2. CEN; 2005.
[7] Oehlers DJ, Bradford MA. Composite steel and concrete structural members.
Pergamon; 1995.
[8] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. 3rd ed. Washington (DC):
American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials; 2004.
[9] Shim C-S, Lee P-G, Yoon T-Y. Static behavior of large stud shear connectors.
Engineering Structures 2004;26(12):1853–60.
[10] Lee P-G, Shim C-S, Chang S-P. Static and fatigue behavior of large stud shear
connectors for steel–concrete composite bridges. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 2005;61(9):1270–85.
[11] Slutter RG, Fisher JW. Fatigue strength of shear connectors. Highway research
record no. 147. New York; 1966.
[12] AREMA manual for railway engineering. The American Railway Engineering
and Maintenance-of-way Association; 2008.
[13] DIANA user’s manual release 9.1. TNO building and construction research.
Netherlands; 2005.