Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Compression in slab e
Edge of Fl
Force from stud Ften
beam b0
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Fig. 2: Dimensions of profiled steel sheeting and studs in the (a) central; (b) favourable; (c) unfavourable position; and (d) concrete
pull-out failure
Height Top flange Bottom flange Web thickness tw Top flange Bottom flange Root radii Cross-sectional
h (mm) width bt (mm) width bb (mm) (mm) thickness tf,t (mm) thickness tf,b (mm) r (mm) area A (mm)
532 208,6 208,4 10,0 12,8 12,9 12,7* 10545,7
*Nominal dimension.
Table 2: Average measured cross-sectional properties for 533 210 82 kg/m UKB
Test ref. nr Pe,1 (kN) Pe,2 (kN) Pe,3 (kN) PRk (kN) cuk (mm) As can be seen from Fig. 3, the studs
MBP02 2 51,24* 51,39* 56,30 46,1 1,7 were through-deck welded in the 2F
and 3F position on the left- and right-
MBP03 3 36,79* 38,33 38,48 33,1 2,0
hand side of the beam, respectively.
*Concrete age 13 days.
Table 5: Characteristic resistance of studs welded in the favourable position (F) evaluated General Behaviour of the Beam
from the standard push test From the concrete modulus of elas-
ticity Ecm given in Table 4, the total
shrinkage strain was estimated from
change in normal force Nc at each of note that the characteristic resistance BS EN 1992-1-119 to be equivalent to
the instrumented cross sections with for nr = 2F is remarkably consistent a tensile normal force in the concrete
the corresponding measured slips from with the earlier push tests, where an of 222 kN. From linear-elastic partial
the horizontally mounted transducers, identical value was evaluated.15 shear connection theory, the shrink-
the in situ load-slip behaviour of the age force transferred by the end group
shear connectors was evaluated. Composite Beam Specimen 3 of studs was calculated to be 24 kN.
In the interests of providing the low- The composite beam was simply sup- In addition, it is estimated that con-
est degree of shear connection that is ported over a span of 11,4 m (Fig. 3) crete shrinkage resulted in a mid-span
permitted by the current standards in and, in a similar way as the earlier deflection of 4,6 mm.
order to obtain evidence of slip capac- beam tests,15 the beam was propped at
The props were left in place until the
ity, a low concrete strength class of third-points at the wet concrete stage
concrete was 6 days old (correspond-
C20/25 was specified. The gain in the so that the full self-weight load was
ing to fcm,cube,100 = 28,7 N/mm). Once
compressive concrete strength was applied to the shear connection once
the props were struck, the self-weight
monitored using 100 100 100 mm the props were removed. As well as
load on the composite cross section,
cubes that were stored under cover pre-loading the studs, this construction
which amounted to 96 kN, resulted
with the composite beam specimen. also ensured that the effects of ponding
in a measured mid-span deflection
A summary of the measured proper- were minimised to enable a constant
of 7,65 mm (excluding the estimated
ties are presented in Table 4. slab thickness to be assumed in the back
deflection caused by shrinkage). The
analysis of the test. A total slab width of
end-slips indicated that there was sym-
2850 mm was provided, which corre-
Companion Push Tests metry in the shear connector behav-
sponds exactly with the effective width
iour, with measured values of 0,070
Six nominally identical push speci- requirements given in current standards
mm and 0,073 mm at points A and D
mens were constructed using exactly of beam span/4. To remove the benefi-
in Fig. 3, respectively.
the same lorry load of concrete that cial effect of compression forces devel-
was used in the beam specimen so oping at the base of the studs from the The use of plastic theory to predict
that direct comparisons of the perfor- hogging bending moments that would the bending resistance is limited in
mance could be made. The push tests occur over a beam in a real building, most standards to shear spans where
consisted of three specimens with nr = the loads were conservatively applied the degree of shear connection h is
2F and nr = 3F, respectively. directly over the centre-line of the beam at least 40% (h = n/nf, where n is the
to simulate the bending moment from a number of studs provided and nf is the
Concrete pull-out failure occurred in uniformly distributed load. number of studs required for full shear
all the tests (Fig. 2d). The shear resis-
tances from each set of tests Pe,n are
given in Table 5 along with charac- 1430 2850 2840 2350 1430
teristic resistance and slip values cal- 354 354 400 300
culated in accordance with Annex B W W W W
of Eurocode 4 (taken as 0,9 times the
minimum test value, as the deviation
from the mean did not exceed 10%).
A B C D
As can be seen from Table 5, the char-
acteristic slip capacity is lower than the 2F studs welded in each of the 16 ribs 3F studs welded in each of the 16 ribs
at 354 mm and 323 mm cross-centres at 354 mm and 323 mm cross-centres
6 mm value given by Eurocode 4 for
ductile connectors. It is interesting to Fig. 3: General arrangement of composite beam test specimen (Units: mm)
connection). From the measured geom- istic resistances presented in Table 6 studs, the characteristic resistance has
etry and material strengths presented have been taken to be 0,9 times the been down-rated in Table 6 in order to
in Tables 3 and 4, the tensile force in minimum failure load per stud Pe,min satisfy the Eurocode characteristic slip
the steel beam is Aa fym = 4576 kN. For according to Eurocode 4 Annex B. requirements when connectors may be
nr = 2F and taking the characteristic For completeness, the earlier results taken to be ductile.
resistance of 46,1 kN from Table 5, nf = for nr = 1 are also presented15 (the
4576/46,1 = 99 (following a similar cal- results for nr = 2F from the previous Development of an Improved
culation, nf = 138 for nr = 3F). However, beam test are not included, as it was Push Test
in the tests, 12 ribs were available up deemed that their performance was
to the points of maximum moment adversely affected by uplift from the Beam and companion push test load-
defined by B and C in Fig. 3, so for nr longitudinal spacing of 4,8 overall slip curves for studs with the lowest
= 2F, the number of studs provided n = slab depth). Owing to the shape of the recorded resistance are presented
2 12 = 24 and h = 24/99 = 0,24 (for nr load-slip curves for nr = 3F and nr = 1U in Fig. 4. As can be seen from these
= 3F, h = 3 12/138 = 0,26). This simple
calculation shows that the degree of (a) 70
shear connection provided in the tests Beam test
60
was below 40% and implies that failure Push test
of the shear connection would occur 50
while the steel beam remained partially
Load per stud (kN)
Conclusions
40
Full-scale composite beam and com-
20 panion push tests have been under-
taken with trapezoidal profiled steel
sheeting. Propped construction,
0 together with other unfavourable com-
0 5 10 15 20 25
Slip (mm) binations of variables, was adopted to
demonstrate the slip capacity that can
Fig. 6: Comparison of load-slip behaviour for the new improved test with that measured in be achieved in a beam, together with
beam tests for (a) nr = 1F and (b) nr = 2F the level of safety that exists in current
design standards. All specimens exhib-
ited excellent ductility with slip capaci-
that the improved push test may be are based on the characteristic mate- ties exceeding the levels assumed in
used with confidence for the common rial properties evaluated from mea- the development of the rules for par-
case when the loading is applied to the surements given in Table 4. tial shear connection in Eurocode 4.
concrete slab of a composite beam. For
special cases when the load is applied As can be seen from Table 6, the char- The performance of the beams gen-
directly to the steel beam (such as acteristic resistance for studs in the erally supports the UK practice of
may be encountered in crane beams), 1F, 1C and 1U position compare well using the net height of the rib hp,n
the tensile forces applied to the shear with the BS5950-3.1 predictions; how- in the reduction factor formulae.
connectors will be significant; in these ever, they become unconservative for However, for two and three studs per
cases, it may be more appropriate to studs in the 2F and 3F position (by rib, the performance in the beam test
reduce the lateral load from 12% to 25% and 32%, respectively). Similarly, was lower than anticipated by ANSI/
zero, which has been verified by other the ANSI/AISC predictions compare AISC 360-10, BS5950-3.1 and NZS
investigators from tests on composite favourably for 1F and 1C studs, but 3404.1. The results also demonstrate
beams and companion push tests.25 become unconservative by 34% for 2F that there is no further improvement
studs and by 45% for 3F studs; how- in resistance when providing three
ever, for this standard, all the predic- studs per rib, and this arrangement
Discussion tions are based on stud shank failure, should be used with caution when
which was not borne out in the tests. using plastic design. These findings, in
To examine the performance of the For Eurocode 4, the predictions are on part, led to the amendment given in
current standards with the beam tests, the safe side for nr =2 but appear to be BS 5950-3.1+A1.
predictions of the characteristic stud overly conservative for studs in the 1F,
resistance according to Eurocode 4, 1C and 1U position. Finally, the NZS From comparisons of the load-slip
ANSI/AISC 360-10, BS 5950-3.1 and 3404 predictions compare well with nr curves between the beam tests and
NZS3404-1 are presented in Table 6. =2 but are conservative for nr = 1 and the companion push tests, it is clear
By adopting the current UK practice unconservative for nr =3. that any brittleness exhibited in
of using hp,n in Eq. (3) (Fig. 2), the pre- the push test is as a result of a defi-
dicted characteristic stud resistances Equation (3) assumes that the reduc- ciency in the standard push specimen
for the net height of the sheet PRk,n tion of resistance of studs in profiled rather than the shear connection. To
Companies,
increase their access to visibility within the worldwide structural engineering
community, and to new information, new perspectives and new contacts.
www.iabse.org