Flexural behavior of composite reinforced  concrete t beams cast in steel channels
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Flexural behavior of composite reinforced concrete t beams cast in steel channels

  • 940 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
940
On Slideshare
940
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
33
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME215FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR OF COMPOSITE REINFORCED CONCRETET-BEAMS CAST IN STEEL CHANNELS WITH HORIZONTALTRANSVERSE BARS AS SHEAR CONNECTORSDr. Laith Khalid Al- Hadithy 1, Dr. Khalil Ibrahim Aziz 2(Ph.D.) ,Mohammed Kh. M. Al-Fahdawi 3(M .Sc)1Department of Civil Engineering, Al-Nahrain University , Iraq2Department of Civil Engineering, Anbar University , Iraq3Department of Civil Engineering, Anbar University , IraqABSTRACTWith the purpose of evaluating the influence of both the size and configurations ofhorizontal shear connectors in simply supported reinforced concrete T-beams of webspartially cast in steel channels, an experimental program was carried out using three large-scale composite reinforced concrete beam models of the configuration, constituents,geometry, and interconnection defined above have been manufactured, loaded up-to-failure.Laboratory observed and measured responses were interpreted to predict the fracture patternsin addition to the ultimate bending moment capacity, flexural stiffness, and flexural integrityfrom variations of the midspan deflection and relative longitudinal end slip with load.The privilege of the present horizontal-bar shear connector over the traditionalheaded-stud style in reinforced concrete T-beams cast in steel channel has been verified andevaluated by a comparative investigation with the findings of a recent previous experimentalstudy on such composite reinforced concrete T-beams with the competitive headed-stud shearconnectors , from which beams with new horizontal-bar shear connector have revealedsubstantially higher ultimate bending moment capacity ,flexural stiffness and flexuralintegrity (represented by the measured relative longitudinal end-slip). Enhancement realizedin the mechanical parameters specified above are 43%, 33% and 33% respectively.Keywords: Reinforced Concrete, Composite Structure, T-beam, Steel Channel,Shear Connecter, Ultimate Load, Horizontal Transverse Bars.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING ANDTECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), pp. 215-230© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.aspJournal Impact Factor (2013): 5.3277 (Calculated by GISI)www.jifactor.comIJCIET© IAEME
  • 2. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME2161. INTRODUCTIONThe present study deals with the flexural behavior of simply supported compositereinforced concrete beams shown in Fig 1consisting of T-section reinforced concrete prismscast in steel channels with transverse horizontal bars across beam web extending betweenopposite holes in the two flanges of the steel channel acting as shear connectors.The flexural behavior to be studied includes: ultimate flexural resistance, loaddeflection relation, moment curvature relation, load- longitudinal slip (at beam ends) relation,and mode of failure (type and shape).The suggested study comprises the following aspects:i.Superiority of the present shear connectors in producing high flexural performance (givenby the five flexural criteria mentioned above) over the corresponding performance of thetraditional headed studs.ii.Effect of varying the configuration of the longitudinal distribution.In each of the two above aspects, five specified large scale models of the present type ofcomposite beam were fabricated, loaded and tested, three of which are discussed in thispaper.2. REVIEWFew research dealing with reinforced concrete beams cast in steel channels weredone. Taylor in 1979[1] made an experimental study on a variety of simply supported beamsusing two types of testing. Taylor and Burdon, in 1972[2] reported tests on six simplysupported composite beams having the cross section shown in Fig.2 with mild steel channelas tensile reinforcement.Yousif, in 1982 [3],made an experimental study by using four simply supportedreinforced concrete T-beam cast in to steel channels ,simulating them as parts of a continuousbeam at support section ,tested to investigate their behavior in shear and in hogging bending.Test data was critically analyzed to suggest the methods of prediction of shear and flexuralloads, and to explore the possibilities of the application of simple plastic theory for theanalysis of continuous composite reinforced concrete beam.Fig.1 Cross- section of a typical composite reinforced concrete T-beam withhorizontal shear connectors
  • 3. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME217Abdu Al-Razag in 1985 [4], made another experimental study by using six simplysupported reinforced concrete T-beam casts in steel channels, to investigate the behavior ofsagging moment regions. He suggested a computerized method of analysis based on thetheoretical moment-curvature relationship for sagging moment section. By that program, thecomputerized methods for the short term deflection at service load can be calculated based ongross concrete section, neglecting reinforcement.Abdul-Hussein[5] in 2007 ,presented a three-dimensional finite element analysis topredict the behavior of composite T-concrete beam with web partly cast in steel channel. Thegeneral purpose finite element software ANSYS (version 9.0) has been used during thisanalysis. The nonlinearity of materials due to cracking and crushing of the concrete, yieldingof steel channel and reinforcing bars, and interface at the steel channel-concrete wereconsidered. The study was performed to study the influence of several parameters such asstrength of concrete, the degree of connection and span/depth ratio on the behavior of load-deflection curve and the ultimate load.Al-Hadithy and Al-Kerbooli [6] in 2008, made four reinforced concrete beams ofrectangular cross-section and four corresponding composite ones consisting of reinforcedconcrete prisms cast in steel channel with shear connectors were manufactured , loaded ,andtested in the laboratory to measure mid-span deflections, and to observe fracture criteria. Thereinforced concrete prism of each of the four composite beams is of rectangular cross-sectionand identical to its corresponding reinforced concrete beam .A parametric study on the effectof flange width of the steel channel shows that a 40% increase in the ultimate load capacitycan be realized by a one-third increase in that parameter with a slight decrease in ductilityratio.Al-Taai, A.A [7] in 2009, presented study three-dimensional finite element analysisto predict the behavior of a special form, cost-effective type of composite construction, acomposite reinforced concrete T-beam enclosed by a large steel channel in the entire concreteweb and connected in soffit of the beam by shear connectors with and without constructionjoint at flange-web junction. Parametric study includes the influence of parameters on largesteel channel instead of small steel channel for composite reinforced concrete T-beamwithout construction joint; including removal of internal reinforcement, thickness of steelchannel, yield strength of steel channel, concrete compressive strength, degree of partialconnection, coefficient of friction, ratio of compressive reinforcement and Poissons ratio.This study compared the analytical results from the ANSYS of finite element models withtested beams for two types of composite reinforced concrete with small steel channel (T-beam and inverse T-beam), as two beams for each type. The analytical results show goodagreement with the experimental results.Only two previous published investigations have met (in the present study) regardingthe use of horizontal transverse shear connectors in the initially low-cost concrete beams castinto steel channel. The target of those two researches was to reduce the cost even further.Clark and Nelson[8 ] conducted in 1974, the first of those two investigations inwhich a push-off test was carried out on transverse-bolt shear connectors (passing throughholes in the flanges of the channel )as defined by Fig 1 to ascertain their strength. The resultsof their test are summarized in Table1 in which the values of the maximum load are theaverages from two push-off tests. The tabulated results show that in all cases the failure loadswere appreciable higher than the characteristic strength of the corresponding stud, butcertainly not twice these values.
  • 4. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME218Table 1 Results of push –off tests by Clark and Nelson[8]Thereafter, Cunningham [9] in 1977, carried out a push-off test on another possibletype of transverse shear connectors; the transverse plain bar placed through holes in thechannel which –in comparison with the bolt-is significantly cheaper. The results of theirpush-off test are given in Table 2.Table 2-2 Results of Push – off by Cunningham [9]3. EXPERIMENTAL WORK3.1 Description of test specimensThree beams were fabricated, loaded and tested .All the beams were simply supportedhaving 2000mm whole length and span. A typical model perspective, profile and cross-section are shown in Fig2 from which it is seen that the flange width and thickness are350mm and 80mm, respectively. Depth and breadth of the web are 90mm and80mm, respectively. Depth of the T-beam web part cast in a steel channel of a depth is equalto the breadth of the reinforced concrete web. Sectional dimension of the used steel channelsare shown in Fig 2 with details of their shear connectors.3.2 MaterialsNormal weight concrete used in the fabricated beams was produced by using OrdinaryPortland Cement (Type1) according to ASTM C150-86[10] produced by Kubasia cementplant. In addition, the natural normal-weight sand from Al-Anbar west region was used asfine aggregate, and crushed gravel of 10mm maximum size as coarse aggregate. Both the fineand coarse aggregates used in the present work are subjected to sieve analysis according toIraqi specification. Mix ratio for concrete constituents was 1:2:3 by weight for cement, sandand gravel, respectively. Water/cement ratio was 0.45 by weight.Diameter ofbolt(mm)Over size ofholes(mm)Maximum load pershear connectors(kN)121212160.41.62.41.6697268110Diameter ofbolt(mm)Over size ofholes(mm)Maximum load pershear connectors(kN)121212160.41.62.41.6697268110
  • 5. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME2193.3 Constitutional propertiesAccording to B.S.1881 [11], 100mm concrete cubes representative to the three beamswere tested for compression at age of 28 days. Corresponding values for the modulus of elasticityEc were computed according to Eq.17 , page 45 in ref. [11]. The mechanical properties of theconcrete , steel channels. horizontal shear connector and reinforcing steel bars for the threebeams are given in Table 3.Fig.2 Typical BeamBeam M1(uniform closeshear connectorBeam M2(non-uniformshear connector)Beam M3(uniformshear connector
  • 6. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME220Details of the steel channel and horizontal shear connectorTable 3: Mechanical properties of used materialConcrete(28days age)Reinforcing SteelBarsSteel Channeland shearconnectorfcu Ec fy fu Es fy fu EsBeamMarkM1 38.05 27610414486210000317400193200M2 33.227 26645M3 25.154 25030(all number are in MPa)Transverse BarFig.2: Details of the tested beams (All dimensions are in mm)350A-A : Typical beam cross-section
  • 7. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME2213.4 Fabrication and castingPlate 1 show the steel channels with the horizontal shear connectors ,while plate2shows a typical test specimen before casting of concrete, from which it is realized that thecages of reinforcement were first placed at their appropriate positions in the framework(each consisting of the permanent steel channel and two attached temporary vertical platesaligned with flanges of the steel channel ) after lubricating the inside vertical temporary facesand before placement of concrete for easy removal of the side forms after hardening of theconcrete mix. Positioning of the transverse bolts by passing through precisely located holes inthe flanges of the steel channel was subsequent to the positioning of the reinforcement cage.Plate 1 :The steel channel with horizontal transverse bars as shear connectorsPlate2: Typical specimen before casting of showing the three constituents prior to casting;i.e. the steel channel, the horizontal shear connectors, and reinforcement4. INSTRUMENTATION AND TESTING PROCEDUREA convenient test frame was available in the heavy structures laboratory in theUniversity of Technology. The tests were done using the 2500 kN capacity Universal TestingMechine shown in plate 3. The test prototypes were subjected to a central 1- m lengthuniformly distributed load applied at the top (compression) surface of the prototype. Twoseries of steel I-Joists with rollers, steel plates and rubber pads were employed as a loadtransfer device for the four prototypes .Details of the test setup are shown in Fig3 . Three dialgauges having the smallest division of 0.01 mm were employed for each test prototype tomeasure the mid span deflection and the two relative longitudinal end slips at concrete - steelchannel web interfaces at each load increment.
  • 8. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, MarchFig 3The testing machine has three scale loads :2500kN) with a capacity of 2500dimensions of the testing machine make it more adequate to test actual models in addilarge scale models. These features of testing machine satisfy the test requirements of suchstiff and highly interactive composite structural systems.Plate 3: The universal testing machine5. PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTSThe mechanically measured (by deflectometers) displacements in the laboratoryare the consecutively increasing midspan deflections and the horizontal relative endsteel-concrete interfaces with the monotonic increasingpreviously shown in Fig3. Those measured displacements are shown inrespectively .International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME222Fig 3 Test set-up for loading of beamThe testing machine has three scale loads : 0 to 500kN, 0 to 1500kN and (2500kN as shown in Plate 3. The high capacity, stiffness anddimensions of the testing machine make it more adequate to test actual models in addilarge scale models. These features of testing machine satisfy the test requirements of suchstiff and highly interactive composite structural systems.: The universal testing machine ( 8551M.F.L.system)INTERPRETATION OF RESULTSThe mechanically measured (by deflectometers) displacements in the laboratoryare the consecutively increasing midspan deflections and the horizontal relative endconcrete interfaces with the monotonic increasing loads applied up to failure as. Those measured displacements are shown in Figs. 4 and 5International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308April (2013), © IAEMEkN and (0 toThe high capacity, stiffness anddimensions of the testing machine make it more adequate to test actual models in addition tolarge scale models. These features of testing machine satisfy the test requirements of suchThe mechanically measured (by deflectometers) displacements in the laboratoryare the consecutively increasing midspan deflections and the horizontal relative end-slips atloads applied up to failure asFigs. 4 and 5 ,
  • 9. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME2230204060801001200 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000LoadKNDeflections (x 0.01 mm)beam M1beam M2beam M3asdefinedin Fig.2It may be noticed here that values of the ultimate crushing stress (i. e .characteristic strength;Fcu) of the concrete are not same for the three investigated beams - as given in Table 3. Tofind out the exclusive effects of the horizontal shear connectors amounts and distributions onflexural behavior and integrity the observed load values are modified ( then presented in Figs.4 and 5 ) to eliminate the effect of variation in Fcu values. The modifications are done bymultiplying the observed load value of the concerned beam by the ratio (β) obtained by thefollowing relation:…..(1)where:fcu,o= Characteristic strength of concrete of beam M3fcu,i = Characteristic strength of concrete of beam M-i concerned , i =1 , 2 or 3 .β= Beta.Laboratory test results presented in Figs. 4and5 have then been interpreted toquantitatively bring out the enhancements achieved in the principal properties within the twomain studied mechanical properties of composite reinforced concrete beams , namely ;"Flexural Behavior" and "Integrity" due to introducing horizontal shear connectors of variousamounts and distributions .Fig 4: Load~Mid-span deflection curves for the three composite reinforced concrete T-beamswith 8mm-diameter horizontal transverse shear connectors.
  • 10. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March0204060801001200 20 40 60LoadKNLongitudinal slip at ends xFig.5: Load relative end-slip curves for the three composite reinforced concrete Twith 8mm-diameter horizontal transverse shear connectors.Subsequent observed behavior of loading process (after failure)for which a view for a typical tested beam is given in45Oinclined symmetric failure surface including portions of crushed concrete in the compressedflange of the T-beam.Plate 4: Fracture Pattern for a TypicalInternational Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME22480 100 120 140 160 180 200 220Longitudinal slip at ends x0.01mmbeam M1beam M2beam M3slip curves for the three composite reinforced concrete Tdiameter horizontal transverse shear connectors.Subsequent observed behavior of loading process (after failure) is the resulting fracture patternfor which a view for a typical tested beam is given in Plate 4 . The dominant fracture pattern is ainclined symmetric failure surface including portions of crushed concrete in the compressed: Fracture Pattern for a Typical Tested BeamInternational Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308April (2013), © IAEME220 240slip curves for the three composite reinforced concrete T-beamsis the resulting fracture pattern-. The dominant fracture pattern is ainclined symmetric failure surface including portions of crushed concrete in the compressed
  • 11. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME2256. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS6.1 Measured ResponseThey are represented by the load- midspan deflection and the load~longitudinal endslip relationships exhibited in Fig 4 and 5, respectively.a) Drawn from Fig4 is the fact that model M1 gives the higher resistance (ultimate bendingmoment) and flexural stiffness, where mid-span deflections at the ultimate stages ofmodels M2 and M3 are lower by 15% and 30% , respectively than that of model M1.b) Concerning the longitudinal end relative slip at interfaces (which refers to the flexuralintegrity of the composite beam), its value for M1 (at load level of M2 and M3) is theleast, where it is about 84% and 44% of those given byM2and M3, respectively. Theseare inspected from Fig 5.6.2 Observed responsesc) Observation of Fig5: Since differences between deflection and relative end-slip responsesbetween model M1 and M2 are relatively small, and M2 consumes about 60% thenumber of the costly shear connector of model M1, model M2 is regarded as theoptimum model (among the three compared ones).d) Mode of failure. With reference to plate 4 all of the tested prototypes failed due tocompression failure. Here concrete crushing occurred at some points in the flange withinthe flange central compression zone directly beneath the 1-m length uniformly distributedload (resembling the fracture pattern obtained in a previous experimental investigation onbeams of the same type but with headed stud shear connectors [12] ) . A symmetric two –sided inclined fracture surface begun at each of the two ends of the partial uniform load .6.3 Comparison between present study and a recent oneTo evaluate the superiority of the horizontal transverse –bar shear connector(presently used in reinforced concrete T-beams cast in steel channels) over the traditionalvertical headed stud , a comparison has been made with one of the models of theexperimental work of Al-Hadithy and Al-Alusi [12]. That model is similar to model M2 ofthe present work (even in the distribution of shear connectors). The individual difference isthe use of the traditional vertical headed stud in the previous comparable study [12] .Diameter of shanks of the previous headed studs and the present horizontal transverse barsare the same.a) Flexural stiffnessThis comparison is represented by the load~mid-span deflection relationships up tofailure for the two comparative beams which are given by Table (4) and Fig.(6). It is shownthat the maximum ultimate loads for the previous and the present beams are 58 kN and 83kN,respectively (which means that replacing the formal type of shear connectors by the presentone increases the ultimate flexural capacity of the composite reinforcement concrete beamby 43%). Moreover, the stiffness of the present model is larger (by 1/0.75=1.33) than thestiffness of the former one.
  • 12. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME226Table 4 Experimental deflection values for various load increments up to failure for beammodel M2 and the corresponding beam model of Ref. [12]b) Flexural integrityThe longitudinal horizontal slip along planes of interface between the reinforced concreteweb bottom end and the surrounding bottom steel channel is the most direct measurement of the"Flexural Integrity" of the composite reinforced concrete beam which is necessary to realize thehoped "composite action” . The natural bond between concrete and the steel channel preventsthat slip just in the initial load stage (whenever the bond strength increases, the occurance of slipwill be late). Hence, it can be considered that initial slip is the loss in bond and crushing ofconcrete surrounding the interlocking devices.To evaluate the efficiency of the horizontal transverse-bar shear connectors (inrealizing the flexural integrity of the present reinforced concrete T-beams cast in steel channels)over the traditional vertical headed stud, a comparison has been made with the same comparativemodel of the experimental work of Al- Hadithy and Al-Alusi [12]. This comparison isrepresented by the load~end longitudinal slip for the two comparative beams which is given inTable (5) and Fig.(7).It is shown that the longitudinal end slip of the former model [12]decreased by 25% when the traditional headed stud is replaced by horizontal transverse bar shearconnector of the same longitudinal distribution and spacing (model M2 of the present work). Thismeans that the new horizontal shear connector increases the flexural integrity by the sameaverage percentage.The reason behind this phenomenon is the attributed to the high flexural stiffness ofhorizontal transverse shear connector in the comparison with the vertical headed stud of the sameshank diameter.In addition, there is a stress concentration near the base of the headed stud. High stresses,reaching four times the concrete cube strength, are possible here because the concrete isrestrained by the steel flange, the connector and the reinforcement. The two major modes offailure are crushing of the concrete surrounding the connector (for studs with large diameter) andconnector shearing off at the base (for slender studs). The strength of concrete can influence themode of failure, as well as the failure load. It appears that the stud strength is roughlyproportional to the square of its diameter and to the square root of concrete strength[13,14].Mid span deflection x 0.01mmPercent PPartial uniformload (KN)1 (modelM2)(present study)2(with Headed stud[12] 1/ 210% 6 47 48 0.97920% 12 98 100 0.98030% 18 143 156 0.91040% 24 188 238 0.78950% 30 236 321 0.73560% 36 305 412 0.74070% 42 365 511 0.71480% 48 417 620 0.67290% 54 518 760 0.681100% 60 712 1180 0.603average 0.708‫݁ݐܽ݉݅ݐ݈ݑ‬ ݈‫݀ܽ݋‬ ݄݁ܽ݀ ‫݀ݑݐݏ‬‫݁ݐܽ݉݅ݐ݈ݑ‬ ݈‫݀ܽ݋‬ ‫2ܯ‬ൌ 0.75
  • 13. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March01020304050607080900 200 400LoadkNTable Experimental end- slip values for various load increment up to failure for beam modelM2 and the corresponding beam model ofFig. 6: Experimental load ~ midcorresponding beam ofPercent PPartial uniformload (KN)10% 620% 1230% 1840% 2450% 3060% 3670% 4280% 4890% 54100% 60(ultimate load head stud)(ultimate load M2)International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME227400 600 800 1000 1200Deflection x 0.01mmheaded stud (Al- Hadithy and Al-Alusi)horiz. s. c (present study)slip values for various load increment up to failure for beam model2 and the corresponding beam model of Ref. [12]mid –span deflection up to failure for beam model M2 and thecorresponding beam of Ref. [12]End longitudinal slip at interface x0.01mmPartial uniformload (KN)δ1M2δ2Headed stud[12]7 315 5.422 8.528 12.534 17.540 2846 5651 8454 11961 149International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308April (2013), © IAEME1400Alusi)slip values for various load increment up to failure for beam modelspan deflection up to failure for beam model M2 and theδ1/δ22.32.72.582.241.941.4280.820.6070.4530.409
  • 14. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, MarchFig. 7: Experimental Load ~ endcorresponding comparative7. CONCLUSIONS1. Effects of the amount and theconnector is obvious. The use of theconnectors(close near supports and far near midbending moment capacity with maintaining thespan wise length moderate (not high).2. The privilege of the horizontal transversesstuds( used by Al-Hadithy and Alin steel channels) in increasing thebeen evaluated experimentally whereproperties have been gained ,respectively.3. The second main improvement in the flexural behavior achieved by this shear connectorchange is the flexural integritychannel, which is measured by the growth of the longitudinal horizontal end reslip(between the steel channel and the abutting concrete) with increasing the lateral load. It hasbeen proved experimentally that the flexural integrity rises bytype replacement (based on investigating the relative enconcrete T-beam cast in steel channels with headed4. Cracking and ultimate lateral loads :Transition from the case of distant stud distribution (lowerbound)to the case of moderate nonin the cracking and the ultimate lateral load values, respectively. Othe situation of the stud distribution upper bounddecreases in the defined stage loads not exceedingby 33%.International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME228end –slip relationships for the present beam M2 and Thecorresponding comparative experimental beam of Ref. [12]Effects of the amount and the span- wise distribution of the horizontal transverseconnector is obvious. The use of the non-uniform spanwise distribution of such shearclose near supports and far near mid-span) raises the flexural stiffness and ultimatety with maintaining the average number of shear connectors in unitmoderate (not high).The privilege of the horizontal transverses-bar shear connectors over the traditional headedHadithy and Al-Alusi[12] in composite reinforced concrete Tin steel channels) in increasing the ultimate moment capacity and the flexural stiffnessbeen evaluated experimentally where 43% and 33% percentages in those two flexural,respectively.cond main improvement in the flexural behavior achieved by this shear connectorflexural integrity of the composite reinforced concrete T-beam cast in steelchannel, which is measured by the growth of the longitudinal horizontal end reslip(between the steel channel and the abutting concrete) with increasing the lateral load. It hasbeen proved experimentally that the flexural integrity rises by 33% with this shear connectortype replacement (based on investigating the relative end-slip in the composite reinforcedbeam cast in steel channels with headed-stud shear connectors of Ref. [12]).Cracking and ultimate lateral loads :Transition from the case of distant stud distribution (lowerbound)to the case of moderate non-uniform stud distribution causes 49% and 45%in the cracking and the ultimate lateral load values, respectively. Oppositely, transition fromstud distribution upper bound to the moderate distributionin the defined stage loads not exceeding 11%, whilst reducing stud quantity and costInternational Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308April (2013), © IAEMErelationships for the present beam M2 and Thedistribution of the horizontal transverse-bar sheardistribution of such shear) raises the flexural stiffness and ultimatenumber of shear connectors in unitbar shear connectors over the traditional headedinforced concrete T-beams castthe flexural stiffness haspercentages in those two flexuralcond main improvement in the flexural behavior achieved by this shear connector -typebeam cast in steelchannel, which is measured by the growth of the longitudinal horizontal end relativeslip(between the steel channel and the abutting concrete) with increasing the lateral load. It haswith this shear connector-slip in the composite reinforcedRef. [12]).Cracking and ultimate lateral loads :Transition from the case of distant stud distribution (lower45% increasesppositely, transition frommoderate distribution causes slight, whilst reducing stud quantity and cost
  • 15. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME229REFERENCES[1] Taylor, R. and Burdon, P. "Test on a New Form of Composite Construction ",Proceedings,Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Vol. 53, December 1973, pp.471-485.[2] Taylor, R. and Al-Najmi, A.Q.S ."Composite Reinforced Concrete Beams in HoggingBending", Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Part2, Vol.69, September 1980,pp.801-812.[3] Yousif ,M., "Flexural Behavior of Composite Reinforced Concrete Beams ",M.Sc. ThesisBasrah University ,Basrah, Iraq ,1982.[4] Abd Al-Razag ,N.," Flexural Behavior of Composite Reinforced Concrete Beams", M.Sc.thesis Basrah university ,Basrah, Iraq ,1985.[5] Abdul Hussein, A.A., "Finite element analysis of composite T-concrete beam with webpartly in steel channel " M.Sc. Thesis ,Department of Building and construction, Universityof Technology, April 2007, p.101.[6] Al-Hadithy and Al-Kerbooli , O.K.F., "Experimental and Finite element investigation ofcomposite Beams Consisting of reinforced Concrete Prisms Cast into Steel Channels",Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Nahrain university ,2008,pp.1-8.[7] Al-Taai, A.A., "Behavior of Composite Reinforced Concrete T-Beams With Webs Castin Steel Channel " M.Sc. Thesis ,Department of Building and construction, University ofAl–Mustansiriya, April 2009,p.173.[8] Taylor R., Clark D.S.E. and Nelson J.H."Tests on a New Type of Shear Connector forComposite Reinforced Concrete." Proc. Instn civil. Engrs, Part 2,1974 , Vol.57 mar., pp.177.[9] Taylor R. and Cunningham P."Tests on Transverse Bar Shear Connector for CompositeReinforced Concrete ".proc. instnciv. Engrs, part 2,1977,Vol.63 Dec.,pp.913-920.[10] ASTM C150-86 , " Standard Specification for Portland Cement " Annual Book of ASTMStandards , Vol. 04.02 , 1988,pp.89-93 .[11] BS 8110,Part 2:"structural use of concrete " British Standard Institution ,1997, pp 3- 45.[12] Al-Hadithy, L. k. and Al-Alusi, M. R "Experimental Comparative Study on Composite RCT-Beams Behavior With Diverse Distributions of Headed Studs in Sagging –MomentTensioned Concrete Media". Submitted to publishing.[13] Ollgaard, J. G., Slutter, R.G. & Fisher, J. W., “Shear Strength of Stud Connectors in LightWeight and Normal-Weight Concrete”, J. Amer. Inst. Steel Construction, Vol. 8, April1971, pp. 55-64.[14] Johnson, R.P. , Design of Composite Beam with Deep Haunches, Proc. Instn. Civ.Engrs., Part 2, vol.51, January 1972, pp. 83-90.[15] Ansari Fatima-uz-Zehra and S.B. Shinde, “ Flexural Analysis of Thick Beams using SingleVariable Shear Deformation Theory”, International Journal of Civil Engineering &Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 292 - 304, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308,ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.[16] Mohammed S. Al-Ansari, “Flexural Safety Cost of Optimized Reinforced ConcreteBeams”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4,Issue 2, 2013, pp. 15 - 35, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.[17] Vidula S. Sohoni and Dr.M.R.Shiyekar, “Concrete–Steel Composite Beams of a FramedStructure for Enhancement in Earthquake Resistance”, International Journal of CivilEngineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 99 - 110, ISSN Print:0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
  • 16. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME230ACKNOWLEDGMENTThe writers of the present work wish to Acknowledge the information provided by theauthors of ref.[12] which forms a part of the research program concerning “Behavior andProperties of T-Section Composite Reinforced Concrete Beams” that work (given in ref.[12] )was submitted to publishing but it has not seen the publishing light yet. (29/5/2011)‫ء‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ك‬‫آ‬ ‫ا‬ T ‫ا‬‫ا‬‫وا‬ ‫آ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ن‬‫د‬.‫ا‬1‫د‬ ،.‫اه‬ ‫إ‬2‫م‬ ،.‫اوي‬ ‫ا‬31-‫ا‬ ‫ا‬/‫ا‬ ‫آ‬/‫ا‬2-‫ا‬ ‫ا‬/‫ا‬ ‫آ‬/‫ر‬ ‫ا‬3-‫ا‬ ‫ا‬/‫ا‬ ‫آ‬/‫ر‬ ‫ا‬‫ا‬‫ء‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ة‬ ‫ي‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫را‬ ‫ا‬‫آ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ت‬T ‫أ‬ ‫ة‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ت‬ ‫أ‬ ‫روا‬ ‫ام‬ ‫وا‬.‫ك‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ذ‬‫ا‬-‫ا‬ ‫و‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ا‬–‫ت‬ ‫ا‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ا‬.‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫و‬ ‫وا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫آ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ذج‬,‫ء‬ ‫ا‬ ‫م‬ ‫س‬ ‫إ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ط‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫و‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬,‫ء‬ ‫ا‬,‫ا‬ ‫رو‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫وا‬‫د‬ ‫ا‬.‫ا‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ا‬ ‫آ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ا‬‫ر‬ ‫و‬ ‫وا‬ ‫و‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ا‬ ‫و‬ ‫ا‬ ‫روا‬ ‫ز‬ ‫و‬ ‫آ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ا‬‫ى‬ ‫ا‬ ‫درا‬.‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫روا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫روا‬ ‫زات‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ن‬ ‫و‬ ‫درا‬)‫رأ‬(‫ا‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ا‬T ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ا‬ ‫درا‬ ‫ر‬ ‫وا‬T ‫رأ‬ ‫روا‬ ‫ام‬ ‫و‬,‫إن‬ ‫آ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫روا‬ ‫و‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ا‬ ‫و‬‫ى‬ ‫ء‬ ‫ا‬ ‫و‬ ‫ة‬ ‫ا‬,‫ا‬ ‫و‬ ‫ء‬ ‫ا‬)‫ت‬ ‫ا‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ا‬ ‫س‬(‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫روا‬ ‫و‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ا‬ ‫أ‬)33%‫و‬43%‫ا‬ ‫ا‬. (