Compostie Beams

8/20/2019 Compostie Beams

1/57

Lehigh University

Lehigh Preserve

Fritz Laboratory Reports Civil and Environmental Engineering

1-1-1963

Flexural strength of steel and concrete composite beams,

R. G. Sluer

G. C. Driscoll Jr.

Follow this and additional works at: hp://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports

is Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil and Environmental Engineering at Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted

for inclusion in Fritz Laboratory Reports by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact

[email protected].

Recommended CitationSluer, R. G. and Driscoll, G. C. Jr., "Flexural strength of steel and concrete composite beams, " (1963). Fritz Laboratory Reports. Paper1806.hp://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports/1806

http://preserve.lehigh.edu/?utm_source=preserve.lehigh.edu%2Fengr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports%2F1806&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports?utm_source=preserve.lehigh.edu%2Fengr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports%2F1806&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental?utm_source=preserve.lehigh.edu%2Fengr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports%2F1806&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports?utm_source=preserve.lehigh.edu%2Fengr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports%2F1806&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports?utm_source=preserve.lehigh.edu%2Fengr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports%2F1806&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPagesmailto:[email protected]://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports/1806?utm_source=preserve.lehigh.edu%2Fengr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports%2F1806&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPagesmailto:[email protected]://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports/1806?utm_source=preserve.lehigh.edu%2Fengr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports%2F1806&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports?utm_source=preserve.lehigh.edu%2Fengr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports%2F1806&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports?utm_source=preserve.lehigh.edu%2Fengr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports%2F1806&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental?utm_source=preserve.lehigh.edu%2Fengr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports%2F1806&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports?utm_source=preserve.lehigh.edu%2Fengr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports%2F1806&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://preserve.lehigh.edu/?utm_source=preserve.lehigh.edu%2Fengr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports%2F1806&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


2/57


3/57


4/57

279 5


5/57

279 15

L IS

T o F

T: A B L E

S

AND

IG

U

R S

Table

Page

1

SUMM RY

OF

BEAM

TESTS

27

2

SUMM RY

OF

E M

TEST

RESULTS

28

3a

ULTIMATE STRENGTH

OF STUD CONNECTORS

29

3b

ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF SPIRAL CONNECTORS 29

3c

UL+IMATE

STRENGTH OF

CHANNEL

CONNECTORS

30

4

COMPARISON

OF

TEST RESULTS WITH

ND

31

Figure

11

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

DErAILS OF TEST

E MS

B1 THROUGH B13

SUMM RY OF

LOADING

CONDITIONS

DELAILS OF PUSHOUT SPECIMENS

STRESS

DISTRIBUTION

AT

ULTIMATE

MOMENT

SHEAR ~ O N N E T O R FORCES

AT

ULTIMATE M O M E N ~

ULTIMATE

STRENGTH OF STUD. SHEAR CONNECTORS

ULTIMATE STRENGTH

OF SPIRAL

SHEAR

CONNECTORS

ULTIMATE

STRENGTH

OF CHANNEL

SHEAR CONNECTORS

MOMENT-DEFLECTION CURVES. FOR

E MS

B1

TO

B6

MOMENT-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR

E MS

B7

TO

B12

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

SHEAR CONNECTOR

STRENGTH

ND

MOMENT

CAPACI

TY

MEASURED STRAINS

ON

MEM ERS AT

MIDSPAN

STRESS D I S T R I U T ~ O N AT

MODIFIED

ULTIMATE

MOMENT

MOMENT DEFLECTION CURVES

FOR

TESTS

OF B10

Bll

ND

B12

32

33

34

35

36

• 37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45


6/57

279.1?

L I

T

L E

S N

F IG

U

RES continued

i i i


7/57

279.15

S Y N

P S

S

The resul ts of a

research

program to invest igate

the

ultimate

strength

of composite s teel and concrete members are reported. These

resul ts

along

with informa tion on the 4ltimate

strength of

various

types

of

mechanical

shear

connectors are used

to

develop cr i te r ia for minimum

shear

connector requi rements for composite building members The effect

of s l ip between concrete slab and

s tee l

beam

is

shown to have no measur

able

effect

on

the ultimate

moment of a member A method

of determining

the

ultimate strength of members ~ i ~

very

weak shear connectors is

developed and applied to the a naly sis o f

tes t

resu l t s

This

method of

iv

analysis is used

to establ ish a

defini te

minimum

number of

shear connectors

to be

useq in

pesign.

t is

shown

that the

redis t r ibut ion

of load on

shear

o n n ~ t o r s a t high load makes

unnecessary to space shear connectors in

accordance

with the shear diagram. One t e s t

of

a continuous member

is

presented

to show that

not

only

ultimate strength

th eo ry but

plas t ic

design

theory

can

be applied

in a l imited way t o composite members


8/57


9/57


10/57


11/57

279.15

.2 . E X P R

M E N TAL PRO G RAM

The

twelve

15

feet simple span

members

te ste d a re

described

in

Fig.

1, and are

d e s i g n a t ~ d ~ s ~

through

B12 The

continuous

member

-4

d e s i g n a t ~ d B consi st ed o f two spans of

15 -0

with the same cross

section. The shear connectors provided

in each

beam are l isted in Table 1

along

with

the

concrete

strength

for

each ~ e m b e r

Tests performed in

this

investigation

w h ~ h

th e

resul ts

qave

not

been

previously published

are

ident if ied

by an aster isk in the

Reference

Number columns of Tables 1, 3a,

and 3c T ~ e l o ~ 4 i n g conditions for the tests of these members and

the

tests performed.by o th er in ve stig ato rs a re

given

in Fig.

2 and Tab le

2.

The data

o b t ~ i n ~ d

for maximum applied moment

type

of

f a i l u r ~

maximum

cpnnector force, and maximum end s l ip are also

given

in Table 2.

will be ~ o t i c ~

that

some

of

the

twelve

members

in this

prQgram

were tes ted several

times.

The procedm;e

in these· tes,ts

was

to

load the

member up

to

a point a t which strains on the tqP of th e concret e

slab

a t

midspan indicated t h a ~ r u s ~ i n g of the concrete was imminent. Then th e

member was unloaded and loaded again with the load points further

apart .

The

ultimate

moment

data

for only the las t of such tests is used in the

a n ~ l y s i s

t

is

not

known

to

what e x t ~ ~ t

previous loadings

may

have

s l ight ly

reduced final. ultimate moment.attained. However the results

for ultimate moment from these tests are

conservative.

N e a ~ u l ~ i m a t e l ~ a d

i t

is imposs ib le to determine the loads the

shear

c o n n e ~ t o r s by

m ~ a s u r e m e n t s such as s l ip

between beam

and

s lab.


12/57

279.15

easurements of strain on the s urf ac e o f the connector

r ~ s i n c e

5

m x mum

load per connector m y occur

ft r y ie ld in g o f the connector

material

Therefore

~ o t h e r

means

of

determining

the

m x mum

force

which

a

connector

can

r s is t

must

be u ~ e d

o ~ t investigators have used a pushout specimen such as

th e

one used in

this

i n v e s ~ i g t i o n and shown in Fig

3.

Nine of these

were

tested in this investigation. he resul ts

of

these tests will

be

discussed

in a l t r s ec tio n o f

th e

report .


13/57

279.15

3. U L

T I M

A T E S T R E N G T H O F

ME

M B E R S

Assuming

t h a t

a suff icient number

o f s he a r

connectors

have been

provided the

sta t ic ul t i m at e s tr en gt h o f th e

member may be

determined

from a fam i l i ar s i m p l i f i e d

s t ress

d i s t r i b u t i o n . s shown

in

Fig .. 4 t h i s

s tress d i s t r i b u t i o n is s i m i l a r

to

t h a t assumed in determining th e u l t i m a t e

s t r e n g t h o f r ei nf or ce d c onc r e te

members. In

Fig. 4

is

th e 28-day

c onc r e te

s t r e n g t h f

y

is

the

y i e l d

s t r e n g t h o f the

s tee l

an d

a is

the

depth

o f the compressive s t ress block in

t he c on cr et e

when tha t depth i s

-6

less than th e s l a b t hi ckness. The

dimensions o f sla b w idth

s l a b

t hi ckness

an d beam

depth a re

b t an d d r e s p e c t i v e l y . The to ta l compressive

f or c e

in

t he c on cr et e

s l a b is designated by C and the to ta l tensile

f or c e

i.n

th e

beam by

T

Any

compressi.ve f or c e

which may

exis t

i n

th e

s t ee l beam is

designated

by

C .

The moment arms

from

T

to

C

and C a r e

e

an d

e

.

Composite members may be c o nv e ni en tl y d i vi d ed

into

two cases as

i ndi cat ed in

Fig.

4.

Case

I includes a l l members in which

th e

a r e a

o f th e

concrete

s l a b i s suff icient

to re s i s t the entire

compressive

force

C

requi red f or e qu il ib ri um .

Case I I

includes

a l l members in which

th e

con-

c r e t e

area

is

n o t suf f ic ien t an d the

top

flange o f th e s t ee l

beam

is

s t r e s s e d to

f

y

in compression. The

s tee l

member may

c o n s i s t

of

a r o l l e d

s e c t i o n

b u i l t - u p

s e c t i o n

o r

a

s t ee l

j o i s t

Regardless

o f th e dimensions

o f the cr os s

s e c t i o n

the ul t i m at e

moment may

be c a l c u l a t e d

by

th e

following

equations:


14/57

279. 15

-7

Case I :

C

=

0.

85f

d

1

T

=

s

f

y

2

C =

T

f

y

s

3

a

=

0 8 5 f ~

c

~

t

a

4

=

-

2

2

Cd

D

5

u

=

= s

f

y

t

Case

I I : C = 0.85 bt

T = C C 1

2

M u = C e C

e

6

7

8

In these equations i s the ultimate moment and s i s the

t o t a l

area of

the

s t e e l

sect ion.

For

Case I I , th e valu es of e and e are

dependent

upon

th e

shape

of the cross s e c t i o ~

The assumption

that th e concr ete does

npt

act in

tension

has been

made

for t hi s ca lcu la ti on .

Hence

a t sections

where negative moment

occurs,

only the

s t e e l

member

plus

the

slab

reinforcing s t e e l r e c o n ~ i d e r e d

I f

slab s teel

i s

neglected, the ultimate

moment of

th e sect ion reduces to the

plast ic

moment

of

the s t e e l member.

The

ultimate

s t ~ e n g t h

has

been

determined

assuming

that

a

sufficient

number

of shear connectors

has

been provided to completely

develop

the

con-

crete

slab. I t ~ h p ~ l d be noted that e l a s t i c

design

methods do not neces-

s a r i l y i n s ~ r e

that th is

condition i s s at is fi ed .

ht b d {

t v s se.t:- / )Y[


15/57


16/57

279.15

U L TIM T S T R

NG

T H

o F

SH R NN

C TOR S

The minimum shear connector r e q u i r ~ m e n t may be d e f i n ~ d by con

s i d e r ~ n g a free body

of

a

portio n o f

t he concret e slab between the cross

section

t

ultimate moment and th e end of the member as shown in Fig.

5.

The force C is

resisted

by

the

f o r c e s ~ A u or the sum of the u 1 t i ~ t e

s tre ng th s o f

shear

connectors

in

the

~ e n g t h

of

slab

L

s

·

This

provides

9

a means

of

determining the

force

on a

shear c o n ~ e c t o r

in a beam t

ultimate

load only when th e member has more than the minimum number

required.

t

will be shown that

th e

ultimate

strength

of a member with less than the

minimum

requirement

can be

determined

once the m i n i ~ u m n u m b ~ r is ~ n o w n

for that member.

· Ev en

though

previous investigators had

ignored

the

ultimate

strength

of c o n n e ~ t o r s

their work

produced

some rel iable data on this

property.

Pushout

tes t data was more

r ead il y avai lab le

t an beam tes t

data because beam

tests

of ~ e m ~ e r s with minimum numper of connectors

h ~ d not

been

made by o t h e r ~ Unfortunately not l l of the pushout t es t

data

v i b ~ ~ c o u d be

~ s e d because the true

ultimate

strength qf a con-

nector

was

not

obtained

i f the

concrete

slab

was

not

adequately

~ ~ ~ ~

or

t he ooncr et e s t r n s ~ h

was

not

adequate.

The

data

t h t ~ d ~

tJl f 1afe

f h ~ f A

or

4JMt.- hrl.

~ s been a r r a n g ~ d

in

Table 3

in the order

of

decreasing

magnitude

of

the

ultimate loa4

per

cQnnector for welded

studs s p ~ r a 1 and channel

connectors.

The scat ter in

the ~ a t a is

in part

due to the

lack of a


17/57


18/57


19/57


20/57


21/57

279.15 -14

6.

U L

T IM

TE

S

T R

ENG

THO

F . M E M

B

E R

S

WIT

H I N A D E QUA T E CON: N E C

TOR

S

I t is p o s s i b l ~ to write an empirical equation 9£ the sloping

l ine

in th e l e f t portion of Fig 11 w h i ~ h

WOUld

g ~ v e a good approximation for

th e ultimate strength of members with iqadequateshear connectors as

follows:

u=

qu

98C

15

This

equation helps to evaluate th e degree of seriousness of a weak s h e ~ r

connection

upon the u 1 t i m a ~ e strength

of

a member. However

this

equation

can

not be e x t ~ n d e d to c o m p a ~ i t e sections and a m o ~ e basic

u n ~ e r

standing of this problem is

necessary

In

~ e s t s

of

members

with inadequate sqear

fonnectors

i t

was

ob-

serveq

that generally

c o n n ~ c t o r s failed

9n1y

after

the maximum moment had

been attained In cases w h e ~ ~ the connector s t r e ~ g t h was greater than 8

of

a d e q ~ a t e

a flexural fai lure resulted without connector f a i ~ u r e .

T y p i c ~ l s t r ~ i n m ~ s u r m n t s m ~ on two members are shown in Fig.

12.

Compared

in

Fig 12 are i d e n ~ i c a l members

except that

member

B3

had

sl ight ly

less than

adequate cqnnectors whi le

B6 had

approximately half

that number. ~ t u d y of

these

straiq diagrams and types of

failures

in-

dicated that the stress

block

in th e concrete a t maximum

load

was similar

to the concrete s t r e s ~

b l o c ~

in

members

with

an adequate number of connectors.


22/57


23/57


24/57


25/57

279.15

7. I

N L

U N e E 0 F S P

18

Previously

investigators

have been

great ly

concerned

about

the

effect

of s l ip on the completeness of interaction between slab

an d

beam

, 1- - f rtl f

v ~ S h ·

+· O

This factor has

~ e n

i g n o r e ~ i n considering

the

ultimate strength of

members The maximum sl ip measured

a t

th e end

of

the beam wil l

be used

in the

i l lus t ra t ions

which

follow to show that s l ip is not a

s ignif icant

parameter

when consi de ri ng t he ultimate strength of members

A careful reco rd o f s l ip was made

on the three

members B10 Bll

and B12

Maximum

end s l ip for these members is plot ted as abscissa in

Fig 15 with applied moment divided by theoret ical ultimate moment

plot ted

as ordinate.

The curves for these members with midspan deflect ion

instead of s l ip plot ted as abscissa

nearly

coincided. However there is

considerable

d if fe re nc e i n

Fig

15

between

th e

curve

for

B 2

and

the

curves

for

BlO

an d Bll. At M M

u

of

0 80 th e maximum end s

l ip for

members

BlO

an d

Bll is n ea rl y t hr ee times

the

value of B12 However a t a

higher

load

the

connector forces in

the

three members become

redis t r ibuted

an d

the

sl ip

of the three members becomes more nearly

equal.

This

is

somewhat

analgous

to the redistribution of load which takes place in a

r iveted

jo int af te r

y ie ld in g o f the

r ivets

occurs

This further

i l lust ra tes that the spacing

of connectors need not be in accordance with

the shear

diagram.

To further i l lust ra te

that

s l ip is not an important factor a t

ultimate

l oad consider t he load versus maximum end sl ip

curves

of members

BI

BII an d BIll given in Fig. 16. In Fig. 16 the maximum en d sl ip is


26/57

279.15

plot ted as abscissa and th e applied moment divided by the theoretical

ultimate

m o m ~ n t is p ~ o t t e d

as

ordinate. All

three of these members

are

ident ical in

cross

section

concrete

strength

and

loading

condition.

The members d i f f ~ r e d only

in

n ~ m b e r of shear connectors in the

shear

span

although

l l

members had more than a d ~ q u a t e shear

connectors

t

will be

n q t ~ c e d

that l l

t h r e ~

members reached

the

theoretical ultimate

strength.

However the maximum end s l ~ p

of

the member with the leas t

number of c o n n e c t o r ~ was approximately four

times

the maximum sl ip of

the

member with the most c o n n ~ y t o r s t should aleo

noted

that

the

tot l

amount of

sl ip

shown up

to about

60 of

ultimate

moment in both

Figs 15

and 16 is less than 0 02 inch This

is

~ e s s th an tw ice

the

thickness

the le t te r

1

on

~ h i s page

an amount which cal . not be

considered

as

19

disastrous

structural

d ~ m g e fp e

engineer

need not

pay

any at tent ion ~

to this because i t would nqt affect the strength of beam. The sl ip

t working load in a n o n c o m p o s i t ~ beam could be ten

times

this amount.

The midspan

deflection is

plot ted

as ~ b s c i s s a

for the same

members BI ~ I I and BIll Fig 17 with the applied moment divided by

t h e o r e t i c ~ l ultimate moment as ordinate The

t h r e ~

moment versus

deflection

curves

n e a r ~ y

coincide throughout

the

loading range

and

fact do coincide t

loads

near ultimate.

This further

i l lust r tes that

sl ip does not a f f ~ c t magnitude of the

u l ~ i m a t e

moment provided that

the

number of shear c


27/57

279.15

8 CON

T

U 0 U S M E M B E R S

The design of

comppsite

construction might be made even more

economical

by applying the

concepts of

plast ic analysis along with ul

timate strength

design.

To i n v e ~ t i g a t e whether this application

of

plast ic design

is

feasible one

two span

continuous member designated as

B 3 was

tested. This

member was ident ical to members Bl

through

B in

cross

section and c on sis te d o f two

f i f t e ~ n foot spans

The

ultimate strength

of this member

d ~ t e r m i n e d

using

both

plast ic analysis and ultimate s t r ~ t h theory. The ultimate moment of

the

posi t ive

moment

region

was taken as M

u

of

the composite section

w h r ~ s the ultimate moment

of the

negative moment region was taken as

the

s tee l member

plus t he loqgi tud inal

slab reinforcement.

The

m e ~ b e r

was tested

f i r s t

by l oa ding only

one span

a t a

time

and

stopping

the loading

below

u l t i ~ t e Final ly the member was tested

to fai lure with two concentrated loads on each sp an Fig 18

s h o ~ s

the

midspan

deflection of

both

spans

plotted

as abscissa with

th e

total

ap

plied load P divided by

theoret ical load a t

collapse P

p

The load

P

p

was exceeded

in the

t es t

even

though

the

value of ~ q u was

only

0.888

for

the

ends and

0.978

for the in te r ior portion

of

the two span

member

t was observed d u r i n ~ the tests of this member that wide

cracks

formed

in t he n eg at iv e moment region even a t loads below working

load.


28/57

279.15

21

A means of

controlling

this cracking should be employed

in

the design

ei ther

in the

form

of an expansion jo int

or

suff ic ien t slab

reinforcement

to

distr ibute

cracks along the

member However

in

members

where

th e

negative

plast ic hinge

forms

f i r s t appears

that composite members could

be

designed

by

plast ic analysis . f buil t up

members were employed

in

which

the positive plast ic hinge

formed

f i r s t the rotat ion

capacity of

the

posi t ive h in ge c ou ld

be insuff ic ient

to allow

a mechanism

to

form.


29/57

279.15

22

9. CON LUS I ON S

The

ultimate

strength of composite beams was carefully in

vestigated

and

this

was used

as

a basis for the determination of

minimum shear

connector requirements

for composite members The fol

lowing c o n c l u s ~ o n s may

be

reached

as a r sul t of th e testing program:

1.

III

t imate

s t r ngth

analysis p1P Viaea defini te

1

k ~ d r J J O r J f . h c . o . . f e

~ o t N J - N 1 -

minimum shear

connector

r e q u i r e m e n t ~ b s e d upon

the

ultimate

strength

of

shear connectors.

2. The ultimate moment of a member

wil l

be attained

provided

the

ultimate

strength

of

the shear

con

nectors in th e shea r span equals or

exceeds

th e

3.

compressive

force

in

t he concret e

slab.

The

shear

connectors may be

spaced

uniformly

~

O _ j ~

/4.

gardless

of

th e shape

of the

shear

diagram.

4.

The ultimate

strength

of a member may be deter

mined

i f

the number of shear connectors

is

in

adequate.

5.

f number of

shear connectors

is

adequate

sl ip

does

not

affect

the

load

versus

deflection

curve

within

pract ical

l imits .

6.

Composite

members may be designed by plastic

analysis on a i m i t e ~

basis.


30/57

279,15 -23

10.

C K

NOW

LED

G

MEN

T S

.This study is part of a

research

project ent i t led Investigation

of

Composite

Design for

Buildings

being carried out

a t

the

Fri tz

En-

gineeringLaboratory

of Lehigh

University

under

th e g enera l d ir ec tio n o f

Dr. L S Beedle. The investigation is sponsored by the American

Inst i tute

of

Steel

Construction,

and

guidance

for the

p r o j e c ~

is

sup

plied by the

ISC

Committee on Composite Design

Dr.

T R Higgins,

C h a i r ~ n The original p l a n n i ~ g of the program was conducted under the

supervision of Dr Bruno Thurlirnann.

W e ~ d e d

stud shear connectors

for the

experimental

investigation

were supplied and welded by

KSM Products,

Inc

Moorstown,

New Jersey.

The

tests were

planned and conducted by Messrs . Charles

G

C ~ l v e r

and Paul

J.

Zarzeczny

as a part

of

their

programs

for the Master

of

Science

Degree. The

authors

wish to express their t n ~ s to

Mrs. Dorothy Fielding

who did the typing and for Mr Richard Sopko for his

assistance

with the

drawings.


31/57


32/57

279.15

P

P N

D

I .

X NOT T ON continued

-25

theoret ical

ult imate

moment

for

member

with inadequate

u

shear

connectors

P to ta l applied

load

P

p

theoret ical plast ic collapse load

qu

ult imate

strength

of

a

shear

connector

qu sum

o f u ltim ate

strengths

of a l l shear

connectors in

shear

span

Q s ta t i ca l moment of transformed slab area

t

thickness of concrete

slab

T

tens i le force

in

the .gteel

member

v horizontal shear per uni t

len gth o f

member

to ta l

applied shear

w

length

of channel shear connector


33/57

279 15 26

2 TAB L S F

GU

RES


34/57

279.15.-

TABLE 1.

SUMM RY

OF

E M TESTS

-27

Specimen

Reference Steel

Size

Test

Type of

Connector

Concre

Section

Concrete Span Connectors Spacing

Streng

Slab

(in.

(psi

B1

*

12

27

4 x 48

15 -0

11

None

---

360

B2

*

12 27

4 x 48

15 -0

11

None

360

B3

*

12 27 4 x 48

15

-a

1/2

11

studs 2

@ 7.5 360

B4

*

12 27 4 x 48

15 -0

1/2

11

studs

2

@

.7.5

360

B5

*

12

27 4 x 48

15 -0

3

C 4.1

4

@

20

360

B6

*

12 27 4 x 48

15 -0

11

1/2

studs

1

@

7.5 360

B7

* 12

27 4 x 48

15 -0

J/2

11

studs

2

@

.7.5

333

\

B8

*

12 27 4 x 48

15 -0

1/2

11

studs

2

@

7.5

333

B9

i t

12

27 4 x 48

15 -0 1

3/4

11

studs 2

@

15

333

B10

*

12 27

4 x 48

15

-a

1/2

11

studs

2

@

9

359

B11

*

12 27 4 x 48

15 -0

11

1/2

11

studs

2

@

9

359

B12

*

12 W 27

4 x

48

15

-0

1/2

studs

Variable

359

BI

5

Vf

17 3 x 24 to -a

1/2

studs

3

@

5.5 556

BII

5

17

3 x

24

10

-0

1/2

studs

2

@

5.5

556

BIll ·

5

17 3 x 24

10 I

-0

1/2

studs

2

@

7 556

B21S

6

21 If 68 6.25

x

7

37 -6

11

4

C

5.4

I

6

@ 14.5

648

B21W

6

21

If 68

6.17

x

37 -6

11

4

C

5.4

4

@

36

558

B24S

6

24 If

76

6.25 x 7

37 -6

11

41:

5.4

6

@

14.5

562

B24W

6

24 76

6.11

x

7

37 -6

11

4 [

5.4

6

@

18

550

Bridge

7 18 5

6 x

65.5

30

-0

1/2

11

studs

3

@

14

328

1 8

If

17

7.5

x 30

21

-0

Spirals

Variable

738

2

8

17

7.5

x 30

21 -0 Spirals

Var:iab1e 704

3

8

17 7.5 x 30

21 -0

Spirals

Variable

738

4

8

17

7.5

x

30

21

-a

Spirals

Variable 704

*Tests performed

in th is in ve stig atio n


35/57

279.15

TABLE

20

SU RY

OF

BEAM

IEST RESULTS

-28

Member

Test

Type of

Maximum

Theoretical

Values

Apparent

Maximum

Maximu

Failure

Test

Mu

Mu

Connector Force

End Sl

Moment

(*)

f

(kip-in.

(kip-ino)

(kip-ino) (kips per Connector)

(ino)

B3 T2

A 2708 2880

--

1204 (per

1/2

stud) 0.040

I4

A 2636 2880

--

12.9-

0.077

T7

D 2514 2880

2647 1507 0.092

B4

T2

A

2571 2750

--

n .7 (per

1/2

11

stud) 00015

I4

A

2546 2750

1205 00020

T8 D

2614 2750

2490 16.6 00126

B5 T2 A 2695

2880

-- 5401

(per

4

11

channel) 00029

T4

A

2758 2880

-- 7005

00046

I I I

B

2418 2880

2401

7204 0.207

B6

I2 D 2416 2880 2440

1708 (per

1/2

stud)

0.120

B7

T2 A

2506 27.30

--

11.2 (per

1/2

11

stud)

0.059

T4

C

2554

2730

2691

1300

0.139

B8

T2

A 2618 2730

1204

(per

1/2

stud)

0.035

T4

A

2.6.34

2730

--

1400

0.063

T9 C 2491 2730 2557

1504 00129

T2

A

2586

2730

--

22.1 (per

3/4

11

stud)

0.040

I5

A

2514

2730

--

2604

0.039

flO

B

2514 2730 2626

31.4 0.198

B10

T13 D

2596

2760 271.7 1302 (per 1/2

11

stud)

0.268

B11

I13

D 2556 2760 2717 1208 (per

1/2

stud)

0.199

B12 .

I13

2626 2760 2717

1306

(per

1/2

11

stud) 0.170

B1

I3

1178 1141

700

(per

1/2

11

stud)

0.004

B11

T3 A 1164

1141

--

1006

(per

1/2

stud)

00008

1 4

12.14

1141

--

1201

0.044

.

BIll T3

A 1154 1141

--

1304

(p er

1/2

stud)

00021

I4

A

1146 1141

--

15.4

00071

I6

D

1085 1141 1051

1606

0.092

B21S

Tl

C

12678 11920

--

50.8 (per 4

11

channel) 0.010

B21W I1

10057 11480

9589

91.7 (per 4

channel)

00077

B24S

I l

A

14100

13600

-- 54.3

(per 4

channel)

0.006

B24W

T1

A

13690

13710

--

51.4

(per 4

11

channel)

0.009

Bridge

Tl C 16740 16455

-- 1304

(per 1/2

stud)

0.028

IFl

Il2

C

2572 2.150

--

17.0

(per 1/2

spiral)

0.006

. T12 A

2362

2i50

--

15.6 (per

1/2 spiral)

00007

. T12

A

2272 2150

--

1500 (per 1/2

spiral)

00004

Ift

T12 A

2402 2150

\

15.9

(per 1/2

11

spiral)

0.009

*See Figo 2

f

Test

stopped before fai lure

B Failure to

carry

addit ional load

C

Crushing of concrete slab

D Tensile fai lure

of

connectors

E

Failure

by tensi le

cracking of slab

F Failure by connectors

pulling

out

of concrete


36/57

279.15

TABLE 3a.

ULTIMAtE

SIRENGTH

OF STUD CONNECWRS

Specimen

Reference

Stud type of

H/d

Type of

Concrete

Max.

Q

u

1t.

S

Diameter Test

Failure

Strength

Slip

S

in . ) psi)

in . )

2

9

1/2

Pushout

4.5 D 5000

--

14.5

4A

10

1/2

Pushout

8.0

D

3840

0.163

14.4

4B

10 1/2

Pushout 8.0 D 4390 0.170 13.9

B12-T13

*

1/2 Beam 4.5

D

3595 0.170

13.6 6

Bridge

7

1/2

Beam

3.8

C 3280

--

13.4

.BlO-I13

1/2

Beam

4.5

D

3595

0.198

13.2

B7-T4

*

1/2

Beam

4.5

C

3337

0.139 13.0

3

9

1/2

Pushout

4.5 D

5000

--

12.9

B11-l 13

1/2 Bea m 4.5 D 3595

0.199 12.8

P5

1/2

Pushout

4.5 D

3600

0.265

12.1

P6

*

1/2

Pushout

4.5

D

3680 0.290

12.1

.

P8

1/2

Pushout 4.5 D 3063

0.335

12.1

Pl

*

1/2 Pushout

5

·D

3600 0.200

11.0

P4

*

1/2

Pushout

4.5 D

3600

0.190 10.4

SA

10

.5/8

Pushout 6.3

D

3790

0.319

23.8

5B

10

5/8

Pushout

6.3

·D

4250 0.279

22.5

6F

10

3/4

Pushout 6.7 D

g

0.364

34.8

6B

10 3/4

Pushout 5.2

D 4240

0.246

32.5

6A

10

3/4

Pushout

5.2

D

3870

0.382 32.0

6G

10

3/4

Pushout 9.3

D 4590

0.276

31.5

7H

10 7/8

Pushout

10.0

D 3440

0.278 45.0

*Performed this

~ n v s t ~ g t i o n

TABLE

3b .

ULTIMA IE

STRENGTH

OF SPIRAL CONNECTORS

Specimen

Reference

Spiral Type of Type

of Concrete

Max.

Qu1t.

S

Diameter

Iest

,Failure

Strength Slip

S

in . )

ps i)

4A

10 1/2

Pushout

D

2990

0.250 34.5

4B

10

1/2

Pushout

D

2990

0.247

29.3

5B

10

5/8

Pushout

E

3520

0.139

5A

10

5/8

Pushout

E

3520

0.190 43.7

2-1

11

5/8

Pushout

4540

0.047

42.9

2-2

11

5/8

Pushout

D

3080

0.068

38.5

1 1

,3/4

Pushout D

5120

0.023 58.3

6B

10

3/4

Pushout

E

3250

0.075

54.9

6A

10 3/4

Pushout

E

.3250

0.088

52.3

1-2

U

3/4

Pushout

E 2965

0.034

.51.1


37/57

279.15 -30

fABLE

3c. ULTIMATE

STRENGTH

OF

CHANNEL

CONNEC ORS

Specimen

Reference

Size of

Type

of

Type

of

Concrete

Load per

Channel Test

Failure Strength

in.

B5

3

t

4.1

Beam

C

3600

18.1

3C 3H3

6

3 t

4.1

Pushout

D

3920 14.9

3C 3H2

6

3 C 4.1

Pushout

D

3310

12.6

P2

3 C 4.1

Pushout

E

3600

11.9

3C 3H

6

3 C

4.1

Pushout

D

2810 10.5

B2 W

6

4 C 5.4

Beam

C

558Q

22.9

4C 3W2

6

4 [

5.4

Pushout

D

4430

20.4

4C 3ell.

6

D

6320

19.

4C 3C9

6

D

5340 19.4

4C 3e10

6

D

5740

18.7

4e 3e7

6

D

4140

17 .1

4C 3eB

6

D

4770

16.4

4C

3F4

I

]}I

4690

16.2

4C 3e 6

6

l

3500

15.8

4C 3C5

6

D

3470

15.2

4C

3F3

6

D

4600

15.1

4C 3S2

6

E

T970

15.0

4C 3W

6

D

2810

15.0

4C

c

6

D

3140

13.2

4e 3e1

6

D

2010

12.5

4C 3F2

6

·

2650 12.4

4C 3F5

6 D

3080

1203

4C 3C2

6

D

2300

12.1

4C 3D2

6

D

3310

11.6

4C 3e3

6

D

2510

11.2

4e

3D

6

D

2990

9.9

4e

3Fl

6

it

D

2580

9.6

4C 381

6. E

1340

8.0

4C

5 8

6

4 [ 1.25

Pushout

.I 1.

5050 21.8

.4C 5 I7

6

D

4360

17.1

4C 4T

6 D

4010

16.4

4C 5F

6 D

2110

16.4

4e

5T6 6

D

3530

15.8

4C 5 f3

6 D

3130

15.1

4e

5 2

6 D

2910 14.5

4C 5 I4

6 D

3190 14.2

4C 5 5

6

D

3310 14.1

4e 5S

6 D

2720

14.0

4C

5

6

D

2300

13.2

5C 3H2

6

5 [

6.7

Pushout

D

3260 15.2

5C

3H 6

5 L 6.1

Pushout

D

3110

14.9

Performed

in this

investigation


38/57


39/57

~ ~ r ~ T : ~ : ; : : i

L4

N=

I

SECTION

ELEVATION 8 TO 8 2

ELEVATION 8

3

ig DETAILS OF

TEST

BEAMS l THROUGH

B


40/57

279 15

33

I

L

8

b

4

L

1 1

88

L

8

t

P

4 4

l

t

L

L

2

2

I

I

t

L

\

I

Test TI Test TI

L

b b

b L L

p

5

L

I

·

L

Test

x in inches

Test

TI

T2

9

T3

2

T4

8

T5

2

T6

23

T7

28

T8 30

T9

33

TIO

36

Til

38

Fig 2 SUMMARY OF LOADING CONDITIONS


41/57

v

\J

ELEVATION

Spherical Bearing

612 6

Mesh

Plywood

r

1

~ i =

A l I ~

=

:

I

i f

-

1

. .

:

:

1

;; .

...

SECTION B B

Fig DET ILS OF PUSHOUT SPE IMENS


42/57

e

c

- . - -

r

_

y

I

e

T

O 8 f ~

tC

N A

e

c

T

L 0 8 5 f ~

N.A.-T-

b

: .

p l

10 :1

4 ·· ··

• A·.·

, I I , •

J

y

SE

y

SE

Fig

STRESS DISTRIBUTION AT

ULTIMATE K>MENT

I

W

\Jl


43/57

x x

p

l

M

I J

-p P P

_

onnector orces

qu

ig SHE R ONNE TOR FOR ES T ULTIM TE MJMENT


44/57

80

o

o

o

12

o

o

o

o

• Beam Test

o

Pushout Test

D

Recent Lehigh U Tests

AISC Design t res _

930

/3000

~ L ~ ~ = = ~ ; -

As

8

eight iameter

of

Stud

HId

20

220

Hd

s

3000

60 AS

c

40

ig ULTIMATE STRENGTH STUD SHEAR CONNECTORS


45/57

8

o

6

o

o

9

o

4

o Pushout Tests

-----

o O ~

S

o ~ q ~ -

~

------

------

60

40

f

c

.=

Q)

20

0

J

d

s

i[ for Spiral

Fig

7 ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF

SPIRAL

SHEAR

ONNE TORS


46/57

3

o Pushout Tests

• Beam Tests

• b Recent Lehigh

U

Tests

en

C

c

.

2

Q

c

c

s ;

U

0

s ;

1

c

Q

C

0

0

J

q u = 5 5 0 h + O . 5 t v 1 ~

•

o

•

o

o

o

o cPc9

to

o

o

2

3

o

4

h+O.5t for

hannel

Section

Fig 8 ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF CHANNEL SHEAR CONNECTORS


47/57

279 15

40

M/M

u

1

Loads Suspended from

Steel Beam

Bl

T2 - o -

Slab

and Beam

Separated

2 3

4 5

in

1 0

B

T2 - o -

80n

0

2 3

4 5 8 in

c

B3

E

T2 - o -

T ~

T ~

; -.

0

0

4

5

8 in

~

>

Loads

Suspended

+

from Steel Beam

B4

T

c

T ~

E

T 8 ~

0

0 2 3

4 5

80n

-0

Q

a

B5

a

«

T

T ~

~

0

4 5

8

in

1 0

B6

T

Midspan Deflection in Inches

Fig

9

MOMENT DEFLECTION CURVES

FOR BEAMS

l

TO B6


48/57

4

279 15

M M

u

1

87

T2

T4

2 3

4 5

8 in

88

T 2 o

T4

T9

2 3 4 5

8 in

:

Q

E

89

Q

T2

T5

TIO O

::J

-I-

2

3

4

5

c:

81

E

T13

0

Q

a.

2 5

8 in

.


49/57


50/57

M/M

=0 846

M M

u

=0 908

8

o qu

=0 944

86 T2

qu

=0 473

M/M

u

=0 744

M M

=0 858

Strain Distri bution at Midspan

ig MEASURED

STRAINS

ON M M RS AT MIDSPAN


51/57

•

' , >

i : ' ' :

::

.,.'.'-: :

....

,::

.;.:-: ::

;'.

.F

:

~ c o

~ § 8 § 5 § f ~

_N _

I

d

_

ig

STRESS

DISTRIBUTION T MO IFIE ULTIM TE MOMENT

I I ~ T . . . .


52/57


53/57

•

M M

u

t

1

Q

§ 0 8

Q

E

0.6

::>

Q

E

0.4

C

Q

.

a

a

0 2

Lqu C

888

for

all

Members

o B 12 Variable Connector Spacing

o B II Uniform Connector

Spacing

•

B

1

Uniform Connector Spacing

o

0 05 0.10

15

0 20

Maximum End

Slip

in Inches

Fig 15 MOMENT END SLIP CURVES FOR TESTS OF ID Bll

and

B 2


54/57


55/57

•

•

M M

1

.

I

VI

o Test S I T3 Iqu C = 2 4

• Test SIT T3

Iqu C

= 1 36

Test

Sm T3 I

C= 1 06

c

Q)

E

0

Q)

c

E

c

Q)

E

0

0

Q)

Q

0 2

«

o·

0.2

4

0.6

0.8

1

1 2 1 4

1 6

Deflection

at

Midspan in

Inches

Fig.

17 MOMENT

DEFLECTION CURVES

FOR

TESTS OF

BlO,

ll an d B12

I

co


56/57

•

2 0 0

P/Pp

3 0 0

0

P/Pp ... - - ,

1 :

0 8 1 : 8

c

c

0

0

J

J

Q

Q

c

c

E

6

E

6

-

1 :

1 :

p p p p

c

c

4 4

4 4

0 4

3

4

J

rY

:

1 :

Q

Q

A

a.

a.

a.

a.


57/57

279 15 50

13

REF

E R EN C S

1

American

Inst i tute of Steel

Construction

SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN FABRICATION AND ERECTION

OF STRUCTURAL STEEL FOR BUILDINGS

.

New

York New York 1961

2 American

Association

of State Highway

Officials

STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR

HIGHWAY

BRIDGES 7th

e d i t i o n ~

Div I Sect 9 1957

3.. TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

OF

COMPOSITE

BEAMs

AND

GIRDERS

FOR.BUILDINGS

Proceedings

ASCE

Vol 8S

No. ST12 December 1960

4

Siess C.

P Viest I M

Newmark N.

M.

STUDIES

OF SLAB AND BEAM BRIDGES PART I I I SMALL

SCALE TESTS

OF SHEAR CONNECTORS

AND COMPOSITE

T BEAMS

University of

I l l inois Bulletin No.

396

1952

5

Culver

G.

and

Coston R.

TESTS OF

COMPOSITE BEAMS

WITH STUD

SHEAR.

CONNECTORS

Proceedings ASCE Vol

87 No. ST2 February 1961

6 Viest 1 M Siess C. P Appleton J H Newmark N. M.

FULL

SCALE

TESTS

OF CHANNEL

SHEAR

CONNECTORS AND

COMPOSITE

T BEAMS

University of

Il l inois

Bulletin No.

405

1952

7. Thurlirnann B.

COMPOSITE

BEAMS WITH STUD SHEAR CONNECTORS

Highway Research Board National Academy

of

Science

Bulletin

No.

174

1958

8

REPORT OF

TESTS OF COMPOSITES TEEL AND CONCRETE BEAMS

Fritz Engineering Laboratory May 1943

9

10

Thur lirnann B.

FATIGUE AND STATIC STRENGTH OF STUD

SHEAR CONNECTORS

ACI Journal

Vol

30 June 1959

Viest 1 M.

Documents

Compostie Beams