ii
Foreword
This thesis was the results of a long hard working period of the author, is would
not have been possible without the contribution of a great number of people:
First of all, I would like to thank to my supervisor Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Nguyen
Viet Tue for giving me the opportunity to join his research group and giving me
this challenging research project. I had learn a lot of thing from many hours
discussion with him. He was not only always able to push up my spirits while I
was in despair with my results but also sharing with me in sad moment which I
had spent, and I am very grateful for that.
The experiments of this study could not have been performed without the help
and technical expertise of the laboratory personnel, as of Dipl.-Ing. Holger Busch,
Dipl.-Ing. Immanuel Wojan and many staffs at MFPA-Leipzig for conducting the
experiments. I would like to express my thanks for their support.
My gratitude also goes to Dr.-Ing. Nguyen Duc Tung, Dr.-Ing. Jiaxin Ma,
Dr.-Ing. Michael K
uchler, Dipl.-Ing. Jiabin Li, Dipl.-Ing. Stephan Mucha, Dipl.Ing. Gunter Schenck etc. my colleagues in IMB (Institut f
ur Massivbau und
Baustofftechnologie, Uni-Leipzig) for many valuable suggestions and discussion
hours. Grateful appreciation is also due to Mrs. Sigrid Fritzsche and Mrs. Sylvia
Proksch for their warm friendship and constant help during my stay in Leipzig.
I wish to thank the German Research Foundation (DFG- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) for finance support the research project SPP 1182, which allows
me take up doctoral studies at University of Leipzig, Germany.
Last but not least, I want to sincerely thank my parents and especially my wife
Van Anh and son Nhan for their great support and patience during my study. I
hope in the future I can return all their love.
iv
Foreword
Biography
Bui Duc Vinh was born in Vinh Phuc, Vietnam, on the 7th April 1972. In October
1991 he started his studies in Civil Engineering at Ho Chi Minh University of
Technology (HCMUT), where he received his Bachelor degree in 1996, specialize
in Coastal Engineering. He started joint Faculty of Civil Engineering (FCE),
HCMUT and worked as research assistant. Two year after, 1998, he obtained
Master Degree in Mechanic of Construction from University of Liege, Belgium.
He continued his studies on structural engineering and focused on high strength
concrete material, modelling of concrete structures.
In Dec. 2006, he jointed research team of Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Nguyen Viet Tue,
at Institute for Structural Concrete and Building Materials, University of Leipzig
(IMB, Uni-Leipzig). At here, his work concentrates on investigation structural
behaviour of steel-concrete composite beams made of ultra high performance
concrete. March 2010 he finished his dissertation under the supervision of Prof.
Nguyen Viet Tue.
vi
Biography
Dedicated to my parents, my wife Van Anh and my son Bui Hoang Nhan
viii
Biography
Abstract
Ultra-High Performance Concretes (hereafter, UHPC) have high mechanical
strengths (fc > 150 MPa, ft > 7 MPa) and exhibit quasi-strain hardening in
tension. Their very density improve durability and extend long service life. The
steel-concrete composite beams with concrete slab made of UHPC possess advanced properties give significant improvement in ultimate strength of the composite beams. The research reported in this thesis aimed to determine the performance and structural behaviour of composite steel-UHPC elements in bending.
In addition, the continuous Perfobond based shear connectors that belong to the
beams was investigated as well.
The Experimental assessment of the shear connector was conducted through 11
series Push-Out test with 27 specimens. In order to predict shear capacity, characteristic load-slip curves as well as contribution of constituents. The connectors without any reinforcement show very poor ductility, the characteristic slip
reached lower 1.5mm only. They could be classified as non-ductile connector.
The headed stud show better characteristic load-slip response, but this connector often failed by shanked at the base of connector. The shear connector with
added reinforcement in front cover and dowel exhibits better performance than
headed stud connection in both terms of load capacity and ductility. The test
pointed out that embedded rebars in dowel play an important role in improvement performance of the connector. The contribution of steel fiber less important
than and It is not obviously when steel fiber vary in range of 0.5% to 1.0%.
The structural response of the composite members under bending with the UHPC
slab in compression was investigated with four points bending test of six full scale
composite beams. The concrete mix contained either 1% fibres or 0.5% (by volume) of straight steel fibres with concrete strength of approximately 150 MPa.
The experimental study demonstrates that the use of UHPC slab with continuous shear connector is possible, and it enhances the performance of composite
elements in terms of resistance and stiffness.
The finite element analysis of the Push-Out specimens and composite beams
which tested in this investigation was carried out using software ATENA. Full
three dimension models for both Push-Out specimens and composite beams were
developed in order to taken into account complexity of geometry. The concrete
was modelled using a Microplane M4 with parameters were calibrated accompanying to uni-axial compression and RILEM bending test. Modelling result
showed a reasonable agreement with the experimental data. The FE simulation
is not only provide ultimate strength, global behaviour but also explained local
damage area as well process of collapse occurred in structures. However, the FE
analysis need more improvement in concrete material model, in order to used for
parameter studies.
Finally, based on result of experimental and numerical investigation a numerous
recommendations are issued for practical design. The results form this work
provide to better knowledge on using new UHPC in composite structures. It also
contribute to provision of design code.
Contents
Foreword
iii
Biography
Abstract
ix
Abbreviations
xv
List of Symbols
xvii
List of Figures
xix
List of Tables
1. Introduction
1.1. State of the art . . . . .
1.2. Context and motivation
1.3. Objectives of study . . .
1.4. Scope of work . . . . . .
1.5. Structure of the thesis .
xxvii
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
3
4
5
6
7
7
9
9
12
14
14
18
20
21
22
22
24
25
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
xii
Contents
25
26
26
28
28
29
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
31
33
33
34
36
37
38
38
39
40
42
42
43
46
48
49
51
53
53
54
54
59
60
62
62
62
63
65
67
68
71
72
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Contents
xiii
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
element model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
127
127
128
128
132
xiv
Contents
203
Bibliography
207
Abbreviations
FE
FEA
FEM
NFEA
FES
FEMD
SG
LVDT
CMOD
NSC
CSC
HPC
UHPC
UHPFRC
RPC
CB
SCCB
UHPCSCCB
SHC
SPOT
HSSC
PFSC
ODW
CDW
M4
EC4
RILEM
Finite Element
Finite Element Analysis
Finite Element Methods
Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis
Finite Element Simulation
Finite Element Modelling
Strain gauge
Linear Variable Displacement Transducer
Crack Mount Opening Displacement
Normal Strength Concrete
Conventional Strength Concrete
High performance Concrete
Ultra High Performance Concrete
Ultra High Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Reactive Powder Concrete
Composite beam
Steel Concrete Composite Beam
Steel Concrete Composite Beam Made of UHPC
Shear Connector
Standard Push-Out Test
Headed Stud Shear Connector
Perfobon Shear Connector
Open dowel
Closed dowel
Bazants Miroplane material model for concrete
EuroCode 4
International Union of Laboratoies and Experts
in Construction Materials, System and Structures
xvi
Abbreviations
List of Symbols
Greek characters
c
uk
stress of concrete
characteristic value of slip capacity
degree of shear connection
curvature
diameter of concrete dowel
Acd
Act
Afc
Ar
Arf
Le
M
D
Pu
Pu,test
Pu,pred
PRk ,1
PRk
Mechanical Properties
fc
fc,cube
fck
fct
fc,28d
fy
fy,r
Ec
Ea
Ea,r
Gf
lch
List of Figures
1.1. Karl-Heine footbridge in Leipzig-Germany: concrete filled
tube structures, after Koenig (56) (left), and the composite
of a residential building in London(26) (right) . . . . . . . .
1.2. Basic mechanism of composite action . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3. Perfobond shear connection in composite beam . . . . . . .
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
steel
floor
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
1
2
4
7
8
10
10
14
16
17
18
19
23
23
25
26
27
27
xx
List of Figures
. 36
. 37
. 39
. 39
. 41
.
.
.
.
41
42
44
44
. 44
. 45
. 47
. 47
. 48
. 49
. 50
. 53
. 55
. 56
. 56
. 58
. 58
List of Figures
4.7. CDW (above line) and ODW (below line) shear connectors, (a &
e)-without rebar, (b & f)-rebar in dowel, (c & g)-rebar in front
cover, (d & h)-rebar in dowel and front cover . . . . . . . . . . .
4.8. Push-Out specimen in 4000 kN load frame and controller system
4.9. Instrumentation setup in SPOT Setup 1(left) and Setup 2 (right)
4.10. Load history for SPOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.11. Load-slip diagram of headed studs shear connectors in UHPC .
4.12. Crack opening in concrete surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.13. Failure process and shanked of HSSH at footing . . . . . . . . . .
4.14. Basic mechanics of perfobond shear connector (left), stress state
in concrete dowel, after Kraus and Wurzer (57)(right) . . . .
4.15. Deformation of the steel ribs after test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.16. Overview behaviour of perfobond shear contectors . . . . . . . .
4.17. Load-Slip behaviour of CDW and ODW (1 % steel fiber) . . . . .
4.18. Influence of fiber content on load-slip behaviour series 8: 0.5% and
series 9: 1% vol. steel fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.19. Crack opening curves of series 8 and 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.20. Crack pattern of SPOT with UHPC 0.5% (left) and 1% (right)
steel fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.21. Crack on the concrete surface, without reinforcement in cover (left)
and with reinforcement(right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.22. Effect of transverse reinforcement arrangement on load-slip behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.23. Influence of reinforcement thought dowel . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xxi
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
61
61
62
64
64
65
.
.
.
.
66
66
66
68
. 69
. 69
. 70
. 70
. 71
. 72
77
77
78
80
80
81
82
83
83
85
86
86
87
88
89
xxii
List of Figures
.
.
.
.
90
92
92
93
94
95
95
96
97
98
99
100
100
101
102
102
103
103
108
111
111
113
. 116
. 116
.
.
.
.
.
.
119
119
120
120
121
121
List of Figures
xxiii
. 122
. 122
. 128
. 129
. 123
. 124
. 131
. 134
.
.
.
.
.
134
136
136
137
138
.
.
.
.
.
.
140
140
146
147
147
150
. 151
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
151
152
152
153
153
154
155
156
. 156
xxiv
List of Figures
. 170
. 171
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 172
. 173
. 174
. 175
. 176
. 177
. 178
. 179
. 180
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
. 193
List of Figures
xxv
C.13.Beam B1, Load-strain in concrete slab (a), strain in steel rib (b)
and slip (c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.14.Beam B2, Load-deflection and Load-rotation (a), strain in girder
section 1-1 (b) and strain in girder section 2-2 (c) . . . . . . . . .
C.15.Beam B2, Load-strain in concrete slab (a), strain in steel rib (b)
and slip (c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.16.Beam B3, Load-deflection and Load-rotation (a), strain in girder
section 1-1 (b) and strain in girder section 2-2 (c) . . . . . . . . .
C.17.Beam B3, Load-strain in concrete slab (a), strain in steel rib (b)
and slip (c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.18.Beam B4, Load-deflection and Load-rotation (a), strain in girder
section 1-1 (b) and strain in girder section 2-2 (c) . . . . . . . . .
C.19.Beam B4, Load-strain in concrete slab (a), strain in steel rib (b)
and slip (c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.20.Beam B5, Load-deflection (left), strain in girder and concrete slab
at section 1-1 (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.21.Beam B6, Load-deflection and Load-rotation (a), strain in girder
and concrete slab section 1-1 (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.22.Beam B6, strain in girder and concrete slab section 2-2 (a), Loadlongitudinal slip along left and right side of the beam (b) . . . .
D.1.
D.2.
D.3.
D.4.
D.5.
D.6.
. . . . . .
parameter
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
of microplane
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .
M4
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 194
. 195
. 196
. 197
. 198
. 199
. 200
. 201
. 201
. 202
.
.
.
.
.
.
203
204
205
205
206
206
xxvi
List of Figures
List of Tables
3.1. Diameter range of granular class for UHPC, after Richard and
Cheyrezy (90) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2. Mixture proportion of UHPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3. title of table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4. Fracture parameters of UHPC for different mix designs, after
Ma (74) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5. Tensile fracture properties of UHPC with steel fiber, modified
Fehling et al. (32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1. Mechanical properties of steel grade S355 and
500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2. Material properties of UHPC . . . . . . . . .
4.3. Parameter for Push-Out test program . . . .
4.4. Summary Standard Push-Out Test results . .
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
. 34
. 38
. 41
. 50
. 52
.
.
.
.
57
57
59
63
. 76
. 76
. 82
. 90
. 103
xxviii
List of Tables
1. Introduction
1.1. State of the art
The term Composite Construction is normally understood within the context
of buildings and other civil engineering structures, to imply the use of Steel and
Concrete combine together as a unified component. The aim is to archive a higher
level of performance than would be have been the case had the two materials
functioned separately. Steel and concrete can be used in mixed structural systems, for example concrete cores encircled by steel tubes, concrete slab glued
with steel girder via shear connection in order to form composite beam which
most widely used in practical construction. Moreover, composite columns offer
many advantages over bare steel or reinforced columns, particularly in reducing
column cross-sectional area. Another important consideration is fire resistance.
Figure 1.1 shows Karl-Heine pedestrian bridge in Leipzig (Koenig (56)), and the
composite floor of a residential building in London (26) . They are the typical
illustration of using hybrid structures in construction.
Figure 1.1.: Karl-Heine footbridge in Leipzig-Germany: concrete filled steel tube structures,
after Koenig (56) (left), and the composite floor of a residential building in
London(26) (right)
The basic mechanics of composite action is best illustrated by analysis a composite beam under bending load which demonstrated in Fig. 1.2. In the case
of non-composite (a), the concrete slab is not connected to the steel section and
1. Introduction
slip
concrete slab
steel girder
a)
Non-Composite beam
Shear connectors
b)
Composite beam
Non-composite section
strain
Nc
Na
Composite section
stress
+
strain
stress
the neutral axis dose not often fall at the interface. Good design will attempt
locate this axis close to this position. Thus whole concrete slab is subjected to
compressive force, whereas steel girder to be concerned tension force. In practical constructions, the composite beam is often made of either normal strength
concrete (in short NSC) or high strength concrete (in short HSC) for slab and
high strength steel for girder.
In the structural member behaviour outlook, with NSC the resistance of concrete
slab is often less than steel girder, the neutral line lie in the web.
By substituting UHPC to NSC/HSC, the resistance of concrete materials could
be reached resistance capacity of steel easily. Consequently obtaining optimal
load caring of each contribute material. The replacement is not only increase
the stiffness and overall ultimate strength but also reduce cross section of the
composite beams.
Fig. 1.3 illustrates the idea using perforated steel rib as continuous shear connection in the composite beam. This type of shear connector was first introduced by
Leonhardt (62). Perforation strip are welded on top flange of steel girder or cut
1. Introduction
directly from web. At construction phase, UHPC will be flowed through perforated hole the dowels formed. Under loading, interaction is developed by concrete
engaging with perforations strip, the working mechanism of shear connector can
be illustrated similar to the action of a dowel. In principle, this method brings
to many advantages in practical construction, while load transfer performance is
still guaranteed.
It is well known that, at interaction area between perforated strip and UHPC
dowel, the behaviour is combination of tension-shear and compression. The
UHPC with very high compressive strength but less ductility must be treated
to satisfy characteristic ductility requirement of shear connector in composite
beam. The application of this device for shear connection incorporating steel
girder still requires further verification.
Due to the high cost of UHPC material and testing, the experimental study
is unable to cover all range of interested problems. Consequently, numerical
simulation play an important role in this works. However, the behaviour of
UHPC is different with conventional concrete, therefore suitable material model
is required to illustrate mechanism of beam as well concerned problems.
On the basis of the results, a design model and guidelines are developed for
practical application of UHPC composite members.
1. Introduction
I-beam with
steel girder
Haunched-slab
with steel sheet
Figure 2.2.: Typical shear connectors, after Oehlers and Bradford (68)
The shear connectors in composite beams are used to develop the composite
action between steel girder and concrete. They are provided mainly to resist
longitudinal shear force, therefore must meet a various requirements, such as
(26):
transfer direct shear at their base.
create a tensile link into the concrete.
economic to manufacture and welding.
The most common type of mechanical shear connector is the headed stud shown
in Fig. 2.2a. It can be welded to the upper flange either directly in the factory
or through thin galvanised steel sheeting on site. The Behaviour and ultimate
strength of connectors can be examined by Push-Out test according to available
standards such as EuroCode4 (27). For the design of headed stud, the following aspects are considered; shear strength of stud shank, bearing strength of
concrete, additional contribution of chemical bonding and friction. In spite of its
wide application, the headed stud has many deficiencies such as a slip Behaviour
between stud and concrete, and fatigue failure at welding zone. (26; 80; 47; 55)
Recently, a very high strength cement based composite called Ultra High Performance Concrete (UHPC) has been developed. It provides many enhancements
in properties compared to conventional and high strength concrete (HSC). In
the composite beams, the replacement of normal strength concrete (NSC) with
UHPC lead to an improvement in the load carrying in the compression zone. Generally, a significant increase in load bearing capacity and stiffness of the beam
is achieved, resulting in saving dead load, reducing construction depth as well
as construction time. However, as reported in Johnson (47), Hegger et al.,
Tue et al. (105) the headed stud shear connector is not appropriate in the
HSC/UHPC slab due to restrict deformation surrounding stud area. The combination of perfobond shear connector in UHPC will be optimized in both term of
material and structural system.
This chapter aims to review researches relevant to the Behaviour of composite
beams under bending load, which focuses to composite beam/slab with perfobond
shear connector. Different aspects of the problem are discussed such as the basic
Behaviour of composite beams, innovation of concrete technology, mechanical
shear connection. The numerical modelling of the structural composite beams
and the currently available design procedures will be also mentioned.
10
strain stress
-
Shear force
Bending moment
a) stage 1
strain stress
Shear force
b) stage 2
Bending moment
Shear force
strain stress
Bending moment
c) Stage 3
c
a)
b
a
slip
Longitudinal shear
b
a
a
b)
slip
Load on shear connector
c d
a b
Longitudinal shear
a
d
c)
slip
Stage 2
In this stage applied load was increased, thus caused rise to deformation in the
shear connection. This deformation is known as slip and contributes to the overall
11
deformation of the beam. Fig. 2.3b shows the influence of slip on the strain
and stress distribution. This stage corresponds to the service load stage that
composite beams class has been designed as partially shear connection. However,
for many composite beams slip is very small and may be neglected.
Stage 3
The steel girder achieves yield limit strain first, plasticity develops and then almost part of steel section becomes plastic. It occurs as similar fashion in concrete
slab. Stress block of whole section changes from triangular to shape shown in
Fig. 2.3c that is very difficult to express in mathematical form. In ultimate limit
state (ULS) it is assumed to be a rectangular block.
If longitudinal shear resistance is big enough the slip can be neglected. The
strain in concrete slab could lead to over stress, then it is potentially possible
that explosive brittle failure of the slab would occur. However, in most practical
case this situation could ever arise due to the deformation of shear connectors.
The response of shear connector in load stage is illustrated as follows:
As the load increases the shear strain, the longitudinal shear force between the
concrete slab and steel girder increases in proportion. For single span composite
beam under uniformly load, it is assumed to deform in an elastic manner and
the longitudinal shear force between slab and steel section can be expressed as
T = VS /I (96). Hence longitudinal shear force is directly proportional to the
vertical shear force, thus the force on the end connectors is the greatest. For
low loads the force acting on a connector produces elastic deformation. The slip
between the slab and the steel section will be greatest at the end of the beam.
The longitudinal shear and deformation of a typical composite beam, at this stage
of loading, are shown in Fig. 2.4a.
If the load is further increased the longitudinal shear force increases too, and the
load on the end stud may cause plastic deformation. The ductility of the connectors means that the connectors are able to deform plastically whilst maintaining
resistance to longitudinal shear force. Fig. 2.4b shows the situation when the end
connectors are deforming plastically. By increasing applied load, the connectors
near to the midspan section also begin sequentially to deform plastically. Failure
occurs when once all of the connectors have reached their ultimate resistance as
shown in Fig. 2.4c. The failure pattern is dependent upon the plastic deformation of shear connector. As exhibited, the end connector must be considered
before other one close to the midspan area reaches its ultimate capacity. The
requirement for ductility of shear connector is necessary.
12
It can be seen that the failure of the composite beam is dictated by the resistance of its three main components: steel girder, concrete slab as well as shear
connector. the interaction of these components is very complex, in design the
stress-strain relation of these materials are usually assumed as elastic- perfect
plasticity (27).
2.2.2. Structural composite beam with continuous shear connection
Steel-concrete composite beam with perforbond shear connectors have been rarely
investigated. Jurkiewiez and Hottier (50; 51) studied Behaviour of simple
support composite beams whose steel beam is an Tee girde without upper flange.
Horizontal shear connection was designed as dovetail-shape (a variant of perfobond) and cut directly on the web of I steel section. By taking symmetric
characteristic of shear connector, two steel beams obtained with only a cutting
line. To improve the shear capacity and ductility, concrete dowel and horizontal
was combined acting together to resist longitudinal shear force. Normal strength
concrete with compressive strength of 48 MPa at 28 days was used for slab. Numerous large scale specimens were constructed, three points bending tests were
conducted under static and fatigue load.
Experimental results shows global Behaviour of the beam with novel shear connector is similar to that with usual connectors. The response includes elasticity,
yielding and plasticity domains as well. A flexural failure occurred with a plastic
hinge in the mid-span cross section accompanied by yielding of the steel girder
and crushing of the concrete. The shear connectors did not fail during the test
and allowed to efficiently transmit shear forces from the slab to the girder. The
new proposed shear connector is satisfactory in the bending Behaviour in accordance with requirements of design codes.
In different context, Kim and Jeong (53; 46; 54) carried out experimental
investigations on the ultimate strength of steel-concrete composite bridge deck
with profiled steel sheeting and perfobond rib shear connectors. In fact, composite
action of one way bridge deck behaves similar to composite beam in flexural
mode. The perforate steel rib with holes of 50mm diameter was welded directly
into steel sheet and form continuous shear connectors. The parameters such as
steel deck profile, perfobond rid, reinforcement as well as concrete strength were
considered. The Push-Out with the same shear connection of the deck was carried
out to determine the capacity of shear connector.
The proposed deck system outperforms a typical cast in place (CIP) reinforce
concrete deck in several ways: its ultimate load-carrying capacity is approximately 2.5 times greater; its initial concrete cracking load is 7.1 times greater;
13
and it weighs about 25% less. Cconsequently, reduction in the permanent load
may lead to lighter superstructures and extend longer span deck. The test results
also confirm that the perfobond rib shear connection designed in this study can
be effectively used for the proposed deck system.
However, in the Push-out test specimens was taken into account the resistance
of concrete at bottom of the perforated strip 1 , this is not accompanying to continuous shear connection which used in the deck specimens. Therefore, ultimate
strength result from Push-Out test gives higher than its real capacity. The conclusion on the estimated horizontal shear resistance greater than two times of the
required horizontal shear strength is not exact.
Composite truss girders having longer spans that requires higher resistance capacity. Machacek and Cudejko (76) have proposed to use CTU perforate shear
connector for shear connection system. The ultimate capacity of composite truss
system as well as longitudinal shear distribution was investigate by experiment
and three dimensional finite element analysis. The test and numerical results
were compared to approximate solution according to EuroCode4 (27). According to test results the perforate shear connector show excellent performance in
both case of full and part shear connection. Within elastic region the distribution of longitudinal shear is generally highly non-uniform, exhibiting peaks
above nodes of the composite truss. And within the yielding region, longitudinal
shear is redistributed and depending on characteristic load-slip diagram of the
connector.
Recent development of composite beam in Germany with continuous shear connection was introduced and have been applied in practical construction. The
commercial product lines namely VFT-WIB (also known as VFT-construction
method) which developed by Schmitt et al., Seidl et. al. (93; 94; 39).
In fact, The cross-section of composite beam is composed of two prefabricated
elements with halved rolled girders, working as bottom flange. The composite
dowels are manufactured by cutting directly from web of rolled steel profiles.
The height of section was designed relatively low to reduce slender of the section. Steel girder works as external reinforcement as shown in Fig. 2.5. In the
VFT-WIB composite beam, the failure mode of shear connector was identified
in three modes: the shear resistance, yielding due to bending of the dowel and in
the fatigue limit state by fatigue cracks due to dynamic loading. The experimental study on Standard Push-Out test (SPOT) according EuroCode4(27) was
carried out with static and fatigue load. In the tests failure of concrete as well
as steel was observed, It indicated that, the ultimate strength of the steel part is
almost independent on the shape of the dowel. Fatigue cracks caused by a very
1 reaction
14
high level of stress amplitude. And the fatigue cracks has limited propagation
due to steel part is compressed in the SPOT. The optimize shape of dowel has
been performed by finite element simulation. The several beam test was also
taken to verify load bearing capacity of structural VFT-WIB beams (39).
Concrete casted in place
Reinforcement
Concrete beam
Steel girder
shear connector
Figure 2.5.: Typified VFT-WIB composite section (above) and application in Vigaun bridge
project, after Schmitt et al. (94)
The VFT-WIB construction method was successfully applied in the road bridge
over the railway line to Poecking (Bavaria, Germany) in 2004 (93). And other
road bridge project in Vigaun (Austria) which used the same structural system
was done and service began 2008 (94).
15
(2.1)
Hosaka et al. (44) have proposed another expression for the calculation of a
Perfobond connector resistance, corresponding to each holes contribution:
r
tsc
qu = 3.38D 2
fck 39
(2.2)
D
Oguejiofor and Hosain (83; 83) performed an extensive experimental study
with different Perfobond connector geometries on normal strength concrete. In
fact that specimens and Push-Out test setup are shown in Fig. 2.6. The thickness of concrete slab, diameter of rib holes as well as spacing between holes was
taken into account, the thickness and transverse reinforcement are not changed
in all of the specimens. The full size of composite beam with discrete shear connectors was tested to verify performance of the shear connectors. Additionally,
a numerical study of the Behaviour of PSC was established. The three dimension model was generated and nonlinearity was taken into account, in order to
consider complexity of material and geometry of specimens. Numerical models
were validated and showed good agreement with test data. Through parameter
study and linear regression analysis the prediction model was obtained and given
in equation 2.3.
q
0
(2.3)
qu = 4.47htfc + (3.30Acd + 0.01Acc ) fc0 + 0.90Atr fyr
or
qu = 4.50hsc tsc fck + 0.91Atr fy + 3.31nD 2
p
fck
(2.4)
where qu is the shear capacity per Perfobond; h and t are height and thickness of
steel rib respectively; Acd is concrete area of the dowel; Acc is the concrete shear
16
per connector that equals to the slab longitudinal area minis the connector area;
Atr is reinforcement areas presents in the concrete dowel.
P
a)
337
100
Concrete slabs
375
Rdw
Rbr
712
W 200 X 59
thickness-t
100
b)
Figure 2.6.: Push-Out specimens and test setup, a) general specimen (Oguejiofor and Hosain (83)), b) specimen with profile steel sheet (Kim et al. (55)).
p
D2 p
fck + 0.413bf Lc + 0.9Atr fy + 1.66n
fck
4
(2.5)
where b is slab thickness; h is slab height downward the connector; bf steel section
17
flange width; Lc is contact length between the concrete and the flange of the steel
section.
Kim et al. (55) conducted test of with Perfobond connectors on normal weight
concrete for building structures. The influence of dimension of steel rib and reinforcing bars placement on load carrying capacity were investigated. Jeong et
al. (46; 53) conducted several tests of perfobond connector with profile sheeting, fig. 2.6 shows specimen for POT. Subsequently, the test results was used to
designed shear connection for concrete composite bridge decks.
Neves et al. (110; 14) investigated Behaviour and strength of PSG as well as TPerfobond which derived from original PSG. The specimens and test setup as well
as evaluation results were performed according to EuroCode4. A comparison
experimental result with other authors was established.
Through research work mentioned above, it can be seen that the contributions
for the shear resistance of perfobond rib shear connector can be evaluated as
summation of three terms; dowel action of the concrete holes, shear resistance of
hole crossing reinforcement, and the concrete end-bearing resistance.
Vc +dV c Mc +dMc
Mc Vc
Nc
Ps
Ma
Ps
Ps
VL
VL
Nc +dNc
Nc
Rsh
Rst
Rsh
Nc
Ma +dMa
Na
Na +dNa
Va
Va +dV a
dx
a)
b)
c)
Figure 2.7.: Shear transfer mechanism from concrete slab to steel rib
18
If the diameter of dowel is increased, then thickness of concrete slab is also greater
than requirement, particularly in the case of high strength concrete is used. There
are several different types shear connectors which are modified from original PSC
have been studied, proposed and used as shown in Fig. 2.8.
a) Perfobond
d) Puzzle saw/VFT-WIB
b) CTU Perfobond
e) Puzzle strip/crestbond
c) Open dowel
f) CR connector/crestbond
19
results the connector CR50 with reinforcement 12mm and concrete compressive
strength of 28.5 MPa gives ultimate capacity over of 350kN per connector and
excellent characteristic slip also derived. This result is 45% higher than the
corresponding open dowel shear connector made of UHPC which tested by Tue
et al. (108). Once again, it can be noted that, the data obtained from above test
setup is not able to used in the composite beam with continuous shear connector.
Schmitt et al. (93) introduced a connector called Puzzle saw (Fig. 2.8d) that
possibility used for bridges. The ultimate capacity is achieved from Push-Out
test as described in sketch 2.9. Based on test data, the cutting line for Puzzle
connector was modified, in order to achieve better fatigue resistance performance
under dynamic load. The Puzzle connector was used in composite beam of the
Vigaun bridge project (94).
It can be seen from figure two foam blocks are placed at bottom of steel rib.
Thus the end-plate bearing component is ignored in summation of resistance of
the connector. This test setup is different from other POT as above mentioned.
Hottier and Jurkiewiez (51)) have proposed the Dovetail-shape connection
type which similar Puzzle saw connector. The connector exhibits efficient in load
carrying, reducing wasted material by utilize symmetric of geometry. The beam
test was taken to verify possibility of proposed connector.
20
Beside many advantages, in the production point of view the modified Perfobond
connector more difficult to make a cutting line, especially if profile contains many
round angles. Generally, it requires high precision cutting machine with automatic controller (CNC cutting machine). The cutting work may be performed in
factory only.
21
22
23
Figure 2.10.: Discrete and continuous model for shear connector in composite beams
Compression
s,2
s
fy
Esh
Es
I Tension
Compression
d
c
1 0
Tension
s,1
Compression
fct
c,2
Tension
fct
c,1
Ec
Esh
Uni-axial loading
fck
Eo
fy
Bi-axial loading
fck
Uni-axial loading
Bi-axial loading
Figure 2.11.: Elasto-Fracture-Plastic based material models for steel and concrete in Finite
element modelling of Push-Out test and composite beam
Queiroz et al. (86) used commercial finite element software ANSYS to analyze
composite beam with full and partial shear connection. Quadrilateral shell element (SHELL43) and 8 nodes brick concrete element (SOILD65) was employed to
simulate the steel section and concrete slab, respectively. Discrete stud shear connector was represented by nonlinear spring element, the load slip curves for stud
are obtained from push-out tests (Fig. 2.10a). The effect of full or partial shear
connection were taken into account. In the analysis model, both longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement are modeled as smeared reinforcement throughout the
solid elements. Bilinear Elasticity-Plastic material model is used for structural
steel and reinforcement (Fig. 2.11a) and fracture plastic based model describes
for nonlinear Behaviour of concrete (Fig. 2.11b). The proposed Finite Element
(FE) model was validated with test data, some parameter study for various case
of composite have been performed.
Liang et al. (64) investigated ultimate flexural and shear strength of simple
support composite beams in combined bending and shear actions. By using
the general purpose ABAQUS software, a three dimension (3D) FE model has
been developed to account for geometric and nonlinear material of composite
beams. The concrete slab and steel girder were modeled by four-node doubly
curved thick/thin shell elements with reduced integration. 3D beam was used
to represent for discrete stud shear connectors. The material models for both
24
steel and concrete are the same with Queirozs work. The developed model was
made valid with experiment and then performed case studies of composite beam.
Based on analysis results, a design model has been proposed for the composite
beam subjected combined bending and shear load.
2.6.2. Modelling of Push-Out test
A numerical study of the Perfobond rib shear connector was early conducted by
Oguejiofor and Hosain (82). In fact the general purpose FE software ANSYS
was used to generate the model and analysis. Taking advantage of symmetry to
reduce the size of the problem, only one-quarter of the specimen was selected and
modeled. The push-out test specimen was modeled using two types of elements
from the ANSYS element library: SOLID65 for concrete slab; SHELL41 for both
steel section and perfobond rib connectors. The reinforcing bars were smeared
into the three-dimensional reinforced concrete solid elements. Coincident nodes
on the contact surface were either constrained in particular directions or merged
completely. In order to make appropriated relative movement between steel and
concrete under applied load. Afterwards the Push-Out model was calibrated with
the test data before used to study shear capacity of PSC. Finally, linear regression
analysis was conducted to achieve formula for prediction ultimate strength of PSC
as expressed in equation 2.4.
It can be seen that Oguejiofors model was simplified up to possible, the
concrete dowel and thickness of steel rib were ignored in the model. Therefore it can not capture the local damage at concrete dowel which caused by
tension-shear stress state. And contribution of bearing reaction at bottom plate
is not accounted correctly in general case. From FE modelling point of view, the
Oguejiofors model can not be used to assess local Behaviour well as evaluation
load-slip relation of the PO specimens.
In the independent work, Kraus and Wurzer (57) developed 3D layered PushOut model for open dowel specimen within Finite Element code ADINA (Fig.
fig:Kraus-POT-model). In fact that concrete slab, steel flange and ribs are modelled by 3D solid element. The FE mesh used very small element size had to
be used in concrete dowel as well as the area that near contact surface. The
nonliear stress-strain relationship based material model which includes postfailure Behaviour and three dimensional failure envelope are used for concrete.
The plastic-Multilinear was used for reinforcement and structural steel. Only
three components was taken into account in contribution to resistance capacity: concrete dowel; embedded reinforcing bars in dowel as well as transverse
reinforcement in front cover.
25
The Kraus and Wurzer model successfully reproduced the characteristic damage state of the concrete dowel with increasing shear force as well as splitting and
failure load level. The load-slip achieved from simulation showed more stiffness
than test results. The full 3D model of Push-Out specimen can be used to predict
Behaviour of perforated shear connectors.
26
or
Sd Rd
(2.6)
Figure 2.13.: Ideallized tress-strain diagrams used in the plastic method, (26; 27)
In the global analysis for the determination of internal forces, the steel is assumed to be behave in a linear elastic manner, however rigid-plastic analysis can
sometimes be used. Resistance of cross section are determined using plastic analysis wherever possible. This assumes that steel and concrete behave in elastic
perfect plasticity, as illustrated in Fig.2.13. Subsequently, the entire depth of
concrete is subject to its maximum design stress and the whole depth of steel is
subject to yield stress. Plastic stress are rectangular, unlike elastic block which
are triangular. The reduction factor of 0.85 is used for concrete in calculation its
resistance.
2.7.3. Resistant capacity of composite beam under sagging moment
According EuroCode4 (27), the ultimate capacity of a simply supported beam is
determined by the moment of resistance of the critical cross-section. It is based
on the following assumptions:
27
the shear connectors are able to transfer the forces occurring between the
steel and the concrete at failure (full shear connection).
no slip occurs between the steel and the concrete (complete interaction).
tension in concrete is neglected.
the strains caused by bending are directly proportional to the distance from
the neutral axis
stress-strain relation of concrete and steel are idealized as perfectly elasticplasticity ( Fig. 2.13)
Rc
Rc
hc
Rc
Rc
x
ha-yc
ha
yc
Rs
Rft
Rw
Rs
Rs
Rft
ha-yc
1b)
es z
yc
Rfb
1a)
Rw
Rs
ec
2a
2b
Figure 2.14.: Plastic analysis of composite section under sagging moment, 1a-neutral axis in
concrete slab; 1b-neutral axis at the bottom of composite slab; 2a-neutral axis
lies within top flange of steel section; 2b- neutral axis in the web
a)
1.0
Plastic
Method
MRd
Mpl.Rd
b)
0.8
ductile
Simplified
Method
Mpl.a.Rd A
Mpl.Rd
= Nc/Ncf
1.0
0.6
Full shear
connection
non-ductile
0.4
Lower limit on
Nc/Ncf (EC4)
0.4
= Nc/Ncf
span, m
1.0
10
Figure 2.15.: Design method for partial shear connection (47; 48)
15
20
25
28
Fig. 2.14 shows the stress block and equivalent force in the composite section,
moment resistance is determined by taking moment equilibrium at the cross
section. It depends upon to situation of the yield line (neutral axis).
2.7.4. Partial shear connection
Most beams are designed with the assumtion that the deformation of shear connector is infinite. However, in some certainly and uncertainly situations the
partial shear connection must be taken. EuroCode4 offer two methods to plastic
moment (Mpl.Rd ) of the section: Plastic method (stress block method) and simplified (linear interaction method) as shown in Fig. 2.15a. Specified formulas to
determine plastic moment is given in Johnson (47), Lawson and Chung (61).
It can be seen from figure that, the plastic moment is mostly dependent on the
degree of shear connection as well as plastic moment of steel girder. Limitation
on the use of partial shear connection in beams for buildings is given in Clause
6.6.1.2 of EuroCode4 (27)as follows:
Le 5m
5m Le 25m
Le 5m
0.4
0.25 + 0.03Le
1.0
(2.7)
2.8. Summary
29
2.8. Summary
This chapter focus on the Behaviour as well as performance of composite beams
under bending load. Many research work has been attempt on improve load
carrying capacity of the beam through structural solution rather than using new
advanced materials. Most of the experimental and finite element studies conducted on shear connectors and composite beams have focused on combination
of steel and normal strength concrete. The literature pointed out that the design
code which most widely used also limited on a traditional headed stud connector,
all of other type which recently developed are not considered yet. Moreover, the
strength of concrete slab which used in composite beam is not exceed 50 MPa.
The contribution of steel fiber on improvement ductility of shear connectors was
also not reported in the standard and other research works.
The literature review shows that UHPC is recently development in concrete technology which has many advanced properties, especially in compressive and tensile
strength. The replacement of conventional concrete to UHPC and combine with
perfobond based continuous shear may provide an improvement performance in
both terms of strength and service life. However, the experiences and knowledge
as well as design guide is not sufficient for applying in construction engineering.
It can be seen that, the number of research and published work on using UHPC
in composite structures is very little.
In this study, experimental and nonlinear FE analysis is carried, for both shear
connector solution and structural Behaviour of composite beam under static load.
The original Perfobond shear and a variant type were focused, the composite
beam with I and Tee girder will be conducted. Various shear connection degree
will be taken in order to evaluate performance of the shear connectors.
30
32
The development of material technology in the early 2000s not only enhance
quality but also reduce significantly their cost. In fact, HPC was used widely
in many applications. Up to now, in the normal curing condition a compressive
strength can be reach over 200 MPa. However, in this case, the concrete is
very brittle. Consequently, the addition of fiber is necessary to improve the
ductility. Since, the the new concept Ultra High Performance Concrete-UHPC
began widely used (56; 111; 4), Fig. 3.1 summarize the historical development of
concrete.
Time
1916
1943
1972
2000
2005
250
UHPC
200
150
HSC
C55~C100
100
NSC
C10~C50
50
0
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
Water-cement ratio
Figure 3.1.: Historical development of UHPC
33
the focus was set on improving the tensile load bearing capacity, and especially
the tensile deformation capacity. These ductile concretes are often called High
Performance Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Composites-HPFRCC or commonly
UHPC (60; 63).
In Germany, the research program on UHPC was carried out early ten years
ago(56). Especially, the priority research project SPP 1182 - Sustainable Building
with Ultra High Performance Concrete has been performed with the collaboration
of many research institutions. This work is also a part of this project.
The application of the fist five principles lead to very high compressive strength,
however without any improvement in ductility. UHPC could be cured with high
temperature and pressure condition after setting. High pressure treatment increases density by reducing entrapped air, removing excess water and accelerating chemical shrinkage. Heat treatment accelerates the cement hydration and
puzzolanic reaction as well as modifies micro structures of the hydrates (36; 88).
The addition of the steel fibers that noted in the last principle helps to improve
both the tensile strength and ductility, whereas polymer and carbon fiber enhance
fire resistance. The UHPC in this work contains steel fiber but without using
any special treatment.
34
superplasticizer
quartz sand
(basalt split)
UHPC
water
cement
steel
fibres
quartz powder
Table 3.1.: Diameter range of granular class for UHPC, after Richard and Cheyrezy (90)
Components
Steel fiber
Aggregate
Sand
Cement
Crushes Quartz
Silica fume
Mean diameter
0.15mm
5mm
500m
15m
10m
0.15m
0.1 - 0.2mm
1 - 5mm
250 - 1000m
< 50m
5 - 20m
0.10 - 1.0m
Figure 3.2 shows typical components for make an UHPC and their sizes are
presented in table 3.1. The role of the each constituent is briefly summarized as
follows:
Cement: Usually ordinary Portland cement type I (CEM I 42.5R/52.5R) or
Portland cement with high sulphate resistance (CEM I 42.5R HS/52.5R HS) can
be used to produce UHPC. The cement used should be low to medium fineness
and not rich in C3 A content. Thus, reducing water need ettringite formation and
heat of hydration (37). Low shrinkage cements may also be preferred since the
high cement content of UHPC can make it more susceptible to high shrinkage
(99).
35
Sand: It plays the role of reducing the matrix volume fraction under condition
of enough flowability. Its strength is higher than the matrix and provides good
paste-aggregate interfacing bonding. A variety of sand is usually used, however,
it is not chemically active in the cement hydration reaction at room temperature.
The mean particle size is often smaller than 1mm. It is noted that, the grain size
of the silica fume, cement and sand must have to be optimized in oder to get
high compact, dense matrix and low permeability.
Crushed Quartz: In fact, not all of cement in the concrete mix is hydrated,
some of which can be replaced by crushed quartz powder. Ma and Schneider (72) pointed out that, up to 30 percent of cement can be replaced by quartz
power without reduction in compressive strength. Besides that, it also improves
flowability of fresh UHPC. The improvement of flowability may due to the filling
effect, since the crushed quartz particles are smaller than cement particles.
Silica fume: Silica fume is composed of very small of glassy silica particle which
are perfectly spherical, whose mean particles is in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 m.
Silica fume has three main roles in UHPC (99):
filling the voids between coarser particles;
reducing the friction between angular particles due to imperfect sphericity
of them
production secondary hydrates by puzzolanic reaction with the Ca(OH )2
from cement hydration (81).
36
modulus of elasticity of UHPC. The flexural strength decreases when the fibers
are preferentially aligned perpendicular to the principal flexural tensile forces.
In UHPC, the workability is reciprocal with fiber content, in the case without
coarse aggregates, the limit is about 10% vol. for 0.15 6mm of fibers in CRC
type. With the longer fibers of 0.15 13mm, an upper limit of 2% to 4% exists.
fiber volume of 2% represents the most commonly and was regards as the most
economic content identified by Richard and Cheyrezy (90).
Superplasticizer: Superplasticizer based on polycarboxylates and polycarboxylathers are popular used in producing UHPC. Superplasticizers disperse fine particles, thus improving the flowability of UHPC. The dosage of superplasticizers
ranges from 2% to 4% of the volume fraction.
0.880
Relative Desnsity
0.875
0.870
0.865
0.860
0.855
0.850
0.845
0.06
Minimum
0.08
0.10
Optimum
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
Water: As known, water play key a role in the hydration reaction of cement.
The water/cement ratio (w/c) does affects the porosity and have a signification
effect on the compressive strength. The goal in UHPC mix is not to minimize the
water content, but to maximize relative density. Richard and Cheyrezy (90)
identified 0.14 as the optimal w/b ratio for UHPC as shown in Fig. 3.3. Investigation on set of mix proportional by several authors indicate that 0.15 to 0.25
are common range value for w/b ratio.
3.2.3. Cost of UHPC
Currently, UHPC is much more expensive than NSC or HPC. The cost of a
typical UHPC without steel fiber is around 513euro/m 3 , and it to be increased
depend on addition volume of steel fiber. With 1.2 % vol. fiber the cost increases
37
Silica fume
7.4%
Quart powder
5.7%
5.4%
Coarse aggregate
24.9%
Steel fiber
9.9%
Quart powder
Plasticity admixtures
54.5%
Silica fume
Plasticizers
4.3%
Coarse aggregate
4.1%
5.1%
Cement
3.9%
Cement
1.1%
Quart sand
Water
a)
0.2%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Quart sand
0.8%
Water
0.1%
0
b)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Figure 3.4.: Estimation cost of constituent materials for UHPC, (a):UHPC without steel fiber,
(b) with 1% steel fiber (58)
Very high cost is main disadvantage for the application of UHPC in practical
construction. As a result, currently, the practical use of UHPC is very limited
absolutely compare to NSC/HPC, only for small structures or few structural
members . In the near future, with the development of material production
technology and the extension of application range, the cost of UHPC may be
reasonable and widely accepted.
3.2.4. Material used in this work
As mentioned in the previous part, many kinds of UHPC products have been
developed by several laboratories during the last few years. As a part of collaboration research project SPP1182, two UHPC mixtures derived from University
of Kassel (B4Q) and University of Leipzig (G7) are used in this work. Table 3.2
presents the mix proportion of the G7 and B4Q.
In all experiments, the fiber volume range from 0.5% to maximum 1.25%, the
target compressive strength reaches values of 140 MPa after 7 days and 150 MPa
after 28 days in dry curing condition, the details of mechnical properties will
given in chapter 5.
38
Volume fraction
(%)
G7(Leipzig)
Tue (101)
B4Q(Kassel)
Schmidt (30)
G7
B4Q
567.00
102.00
305.61
831.03
487.35
39.0
39.0
26.81
142.82
0.242
68-71
150
660.0
180.00
463.00
607.40
360.00
70.0
32.00
161.46
0.221
65
150
18.59
4.4
11.62
28.00
18.40
0.5
0.5
4.73
14.28
-
20.75
7.82
12.45
22.4
13.58
1.0
4.8
16.14
-
CEM I 42,5R HS
CEM I 52,5R HS
Silica fume
Quart powder
Aggregate 2-5 mm(G7)
Aggregate 5-8mm (B4Q)
Quart sand (0.3-0.8mm
Steel fiber (0.16 13mm)
Steel fiber (0.16 6mm)
Steel fiber (0.15 17.5mm)
Superplasticizer
Water
Water/binder W/(C+SF)
Slum flow (cm)
Target comp. strength (MPa)
39
addition. The mixing procedure with 6 steps also introduced to obtained more
optimal results (45).
3.3.2. Time dependent properties of UHPC
0
UHPC with coarse aggregates
UHPC without coarse aggregates
-100
-200
251.3
-300
404.4
-400
-500
0
48
96
144
192
240
288
336
384
432
480
528
Figure 3.5.: Autogeneous shrinkage of UHPC with and without coarse aggregates, after Ma et
al. (69; 70)
2500
1500
0,70fc
0,85fc
1200
Creep strain (mm)
2000
1500
0,70fc
1000
0,60fc
0,55fc
0,47fc
500
0,60fc
900
0,53fc
0,47fc
600
0,28fc
300
0,28fc
0
20
40
60
80
100
20
40
60
80
100
Figure 3.6.: Creep of UHPC with and without coarse aggregates, after Ma and Orgrass (71;
73)
40
41
Table 3.3.: Total porosity, capillary porosity and NSC, HPC and UHPC, after Teichmann and
Schmidt (100)
UHPC
Parameter
HPC
NSC
(heat treated)
Value
Ratio to UHPC
Value
Ratio to UHPC
6.0%
1.5%
8.3%
5.2%
1.4
3.5
15.0%
8.3%
2.5
5.5
Total porosity
Capillary porosity
reduces the total porosity of the UHPC sample to only 1.5%. Table 3.3 presents
some results on total porosity of UHPC, HPC and NSC(99).
Por e Diameter , mm
2.54E-05
0.000254
0.00254
0.0254
0.254
9%
8%
Non-Heat Treated
7%
Heat Treated
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
Por e Diameter, in
NSC
Abrasion Resistance
Relative Vol. Loss
Index
HPC
NSC
Reinforcement
Corrosion Rate
NSC
UHPC
HPC
UHPC
HPC
UHPC
Carbonation Depth
(3 years)
Water Absorption
UHPC
HPC
UHPC
Nitrogen Permeability
UHPC
HPC
Oxygen Permeabilty
Chloride Ion
Permeability, Total
Charge Passed
UHPC
HPC
HPC
Chloride Ion
Penetration Depth
UHPC
UHPC
Chloride Ion
Diffusion Coefficient
UHPC
HPC
0.4
0.2
NSC
HPC
HPC
0.6
NSC
NSC
NSC
NSC
NSC
0.8
NSC
Figure 3.7.: Porosity of UHPC with and without heat treated, after Cwirzen (23)
Figure 3.8.: Comparison durability properties of NSC, UHP and UHPC. After Suleiman et
al. (99)
42
by Suleiman et al. (99). Fig. 3.8 shows the relative durability parameters of
UHPC and HPC respect to NSC (low values identify favorable material).
200
MC90
Experiment
1.2
175
150
fc(t) / fc,28d
225
125
1.0
fc(t)=exp[s*(1(28/t)n)]*fc,28d
0.8
n=0.549
100
s=0.217
0.6
75
50
27
81
243
729
2187
0.4
27
81
243
729
2187
43
The development of compressive strength can be estimated by using MC-90 equation 3.1, as also presented in Fig. 3.9 (Ma (74; 102)).
"
0.5 !#
28
fc (t) = exp s 1
fc,28d
(3.1)
t
where: fc (t) is the mean concrete compressive strength at an age of t days,
fc,28d is the mean concrete compressive strength at 28 days, s is coefficient which
depends on type of cement, s = 0.2 for rapid hardening high strength cement.
In another work, in the analysis of a set of untreated cylinders tested between
1 and 57 days, Graybeal (35) introduced estimate an equation by using linear
regression method as follows:
"
0.6 !#
t 0.9
fc,28d
(3.2)
fc (t) = 1 exp
3
The author noticed that, the development of compressive strength is dependent
on the age of the mixture and the environmental conditions, the above equation
may not applicable to all cases.
3.4.2. Stress-strain behaviour in uni-axial compression
Stress-strain behaviour under uni-axial compression is obtained from
150mm300mm cylinder specimens. The test setup includes a couple strain
gages (60mm gages length) attached in vertical direction to capture the axial deformation, other pair of the same strain gages was also attached in the horizontal
direction to measure radial strain (Fig. 3.10).
The axial and lateral strain of the cylinder can be measured accurately from
initiation of loading up to failure. Compression force was generated by servo
hydraulic system with maximum capacity of 4000kN. The loading procedure and
rate were programmed and controlled according force and displacement as shown
in Fig. 3.11. Measured data of all channels were recorded automatically by
external digital data acquisition system. A typical stress-strain behaviour of
UHPC under compression are shown in Figure 3.12 and to be discussed detailed
as follows.
60mm
300mm
120mm
44
120mm
o
180
Figure 3.10.: Test setup for stress-strain response under uni-axial compression
160
Vertical strain
Horizontal strain
Disp. Control
0.03mm/min
Force Control
(0.5MPa/sec)
0.8
120
0.6
Stress (MPa)
1.0
80
0.4
40
0.2
Ec = 48 GPa
0.0
310
620
930
1240
0.5
1550
-0.5
Time in second
-1. 5
Strain (.)
-2.5
-3.5
0.50
0.45
140
0.40
NSC
HPC
UHPC
120
Poisson's ratio
160
100
80
60
40
20
0
3.0
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
lateral strain
2.0
1.0
0.05
axial strain
0.0
1.0
Strain %o
2.0
3.0
4.0
NSC
HPC
UHPC
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Relative compressive strength
Figure 3.12.: A comparison of stress-stress curves of NSC, HPC and UHPC(left), and Poinssons
ratio (right). After (Tue et al.) (101)
45
55000
70000
in CEB-FIP 1990 Model code:
Concrete with quartz fine/coarse aggregates
1/3
Ec=21500 (fc/10)
65000
45000
experiment results:
UHPC without coarse aggregate
1/3
2
Ec = 19000 (fc/10) , R = 0,8878
35000
25000
1/3
(f1,7
c/10)
fc,zyl100*200
49
1,9
2,1
2,3
2,5
2,7
2,9
69
93
122
156
197
244
60000
50000
40000
30000
1/3
(f2,0
2,1
c/10)
fc,80
100*300 93
experiment results:
UHPC with basalt coarse aggregates
1/3
2
Ec = 21902 (fc/10) , R = 0,849
2,2
2,3
2,4
2,5
2,6
2,7
106
122
138
156
176
197
Figure 3.13.: Relation elastic modulus vesus compressive strength.(Tue et al. (101; 70))
The relationship between the elastic modulus and compressive strength for UHPC
is similar as that proposed in MC-90 (16) for NSC and HSC, regardless of the
grain size. However, due to the high paste volume, the modulus of elasticity
46
of UHPC is about 12% lower than that predicted with the equation in MC-90
for UHPC (70). Figure 3.13 shows the relation of the elastic modulus with the
compressive strength. The proposed equation for pedicting the elastic modulus
of UHPC are given as follows (70; 101) :
r !
3 fc
21902
10
!
r
(3.3)
Ec =
3 fc
19000
for
UHPC
without
coarse
aggregate
10
An alternative equation has been developed by Graybeal is given in equation
3.4. Further detail could be found in (35).
Ec = 3480 fc
for UHPC without coarse aggregate
(3.4)
Poissons ratio:
The Poissons ratio is defined as the ratio of the lateral strain to the longitudinal
strain. In the linear range, the Poisson ratio of UHPC is 0.21. This value is
similar to that of normal and high strength concrete. However, the increase of
the lateral strain of UHPC after the limit of linearity is much smaller than NSC
and HPCs as shown in Fig. 3.12.
3.4.3. Bi-axial behaviour of UHPC
Multi-axial stress state exists in many reinforced concrete structures, for instance
in composite beam using concrete dowel as shear connector (107; 40) or in the
connecting element of UHPC truss (103), especially in the nodal joint element
made of steel tubes filled UHPC (58; 105). Generally, the ultimate strength in
compression-compression zone is higher than uni-axial compressive strength.
For UHPC and NSC, the increase of strength in biaxial stress may up to 8% to
15% respectively compare to the uni-axial compressive strength. The increament
is proportional with ductiliy of the concrete (38). UHPC is less ductile than
conventional concrete, and its behaviour depends on used aggregate size, content
and orientation of fiber.
The test results of Curbach and Hampel (22) is summarized and presented
in Fig. 3.14. It can be seen that, at all stress ratios, the bi-axial compressive
strength of concrete with coarse aggregate is higher than that of UHPC without
47
2 fc
M2Q-2.5
1.10
1.07
2.5% vol
2 fc
a)
1.07
0.9% vol
B4Q-2.5
1.25% vol
0.99
0.0% vol
0,5
0,5
0
0
0,5
1 fc
0,5
BaQ-1,1
B4Q-1.25 Vol.-% fibres 0,38/30 mm
1 fc
Figure 3.14.: Comparison influence of grain size and fiber content to bi-axial strength increment,
modified from Curbach and Hampel (22)
1,0
A
A-reduction by effect of reinforcement
B-complete loass of aggregate interlock
90
2 /f c [%]
80
0,9
0,8
0,7
60
0,6
0,5
reduction factor c
100
B
40
0,4
30
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
0,3
10,0
1 []
Figure 3.15.: Proposal reduction strength under compression-tension load, modified from
(Fehling et al. (29))
48
20
15
25
increase in fiber length and/or content
20
15
10
15
First crack
10
Strain softening
10
0.5
1.0
1.5
ft =17 MPa
a)
Peak load
Strain hardening
30
Flexural stress-MPa
35
4
6
Deflection [mm]
10
b)
Deflection (mm)
10
Figure 3.16.: Flexural tensile stress-deflection diagram of G7-UHPC, by Tue et al. (108)
The flexural strength of UHPC is often obtained from 3 points test of notched
beam according to RILEM TC 162-TDF, or 3 point bending test according to
ASTM. The average value of flexural strength for UHPC is in the range of 10MPa
to 30MPa, which depends on the composition and steel fiber content as well
as fiber aspect ratio. The fiber cocktails of short and long fibers are a good
alternative to ensure the flow ability on the one hand and to increase the flexural
strengths on the other hand. In this context long fibers increase both the flexural
49
strength and the ductility after cracking, while short fibers increase primary the
flexural strength (Fig. 3.16a).
Typical UHPC behaviour under bending is characterized by linear elastic response up to the first cracking of the material, a strain-hardening phase up to
the peak load, and softening phase after the peak load exhibits. Fig. 3.16b shows
a typical load-deflection diagram of G7-UHPC with 1.0 % fiber content in three
point bending test with notched beam.
The uniaxial tensile strength of UHPC is approximately in range of 5 to 20
MPa with fiber content about 1.0 % to 2.0 % of volume fraction. However the
behaviour of UHPC under direct tension is brittle at the ultimate limit state,
characterized by crack localization and a sudden failure with poor ductility. To
achieve a higher ductility, reinforcement should be added to structural members
(49; 89).
3.4.5. Fracture properties of UHPC
Fracture energy represents the total amount of work that must be done on
a concrete specimen to achieve complete failure. It is usually determined by
notched beam in three points bending or wedge splitting test (95) as show in
Fig. 3.17. The applied force and the crack opening displacement (in short COD)
are measured. Based on tensile stress versus COD derived from test result the
fracture parameters can be determined.
15o
Fv
Fsp
3.5
t = 100
156
260
Notched
= 25x5mm
300
Fsp
300
Figure 3.17.: Notched beam three points bending test(left) and Wedge splitting test (right) to
determine fracture energy of concrete
Two main influencing factors to the fracture energy of UHPC are size of aggregate and steel fiber content. Xiao et al. (112) pointed out that, the fracture
energy of UHPC without steel fiber vary in the range 50-120 N /m corresponding
to a compressive and splitting tensile strength of 148 MPa and 8.3 MPa respectively. For UHPC containing crushed basalt coarse aggregates (2-5 mm), the the
50
fracture energy is over 1.8 to 2.2 times higher than that of UHPC without coarse
aggregates. All the fracture parameters tend to increase with the mixture of
coarse aggregates (112). Table 3.4 shows the test results for the fracture energy
of UHPC without fibre has been obtained at Uni-Leipzig (74).
Table 3.4.: Fracture parameters of UHPC for different mix designs, after Ma (74)
selfcompacting
fine-grained
concrete
compacted
finegrained
concrete
UHPC with
basalt grain
149.1
9.4
62.8
32.6
13.2
196.3
11.9
54.7
20.1
9.8
145.0
8.3
95.0
80.6
127.2
In contrast, when steel fiber is added into UHPC, the fiber in UHPC plays an
important role in producing prominent bridging stress between opened crack
faces. The bridging stress between the largely opened crack surfaces is the main
source of the very high fracture toughness and ductility of UHPFRC. Fracture
energy of UHPC with steel fiber varies in range 5,000-25,000 N/m (12; 32; 97).
The fracture parameter is not only dependent on the volume of fiber but also
significantly influenced by the casting direction. Table 3.5 shows test results on
the tensile behaviour and fracture energy conducted at Delft University. Fig. 3.18
illustrates the decrease of the characteristic length with the compressive strength
for NSC, HSC and UHPC, respectively (32).
450
UHFB with
mit Basaltsplitt
UHPC
basaltic split
300
250
200
150
100
50
fine-aggregated concrete
Feinkornbeton
350
Feinkornbeton concrete
fine-aggregated
Characteristic
Length l (mm)
charakteristische Lngech(mm)
400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Druckfestigkeit
(N/mm)
Compressive
strength
(MPa)
It can be seen that, generally, the fracture behaviour of UHPC without steel
51
fiber is not ideal. It depicts much brittleness even if its compressive strength is
very high. The addition of steel fiber leads to great enhancement of the fracture
properties impressively, which may from 100 - 1000 times higher than that for
normal strength concrete.
In practical application, high strength of UHPC allows the designer to use smaller
sections, resulting in the use of less material, to yield the same capacity. The
properties of UHPC can be optimized when used in conjunction with steel or
pre-stressing, which maximizes the use of the inherent compressive as well as
tensile capabilities.
M1Q
Axial tension
M1Q
B3Q
Bending tension
Table 3.5.: Tensile fracture properties of UHPC with steel fiber, modified Fehling et al. (32)
Specimens
M3Q
Mixtures
Ver.
Hor.
900
Hor.
WL
Ver.
18.0
17.9
18.1
Hor.
14543
-
18.3
20.4
24.2
Hor.
20355
-
17.6
-
Ver.
22.1
22.2
22.1
Hor.
15097
15097
11.1
13.3
16.2
Casting dir.
20100
19820
22.5
13.3
-
900
-
34.0
35.7
36.3
WL
9993
-
7.0
-
900
16757
17014
7.9
-
900
7days
28days
14.2
13.3
17.7
900
Fracture energy
GF (N/m)
7days
28days
56days
Curring dir.
Tensile strength
ft (N /mm 2 )
Shear force P
Brittle
Ductile
H
P
P
0.5
Slip H (mm)
10.0
Figure 4.1.: Behaviour of headed stud shear connector in NSC, after Johnson (47)
The perfobond shear connector (PFSH) was first introduced by Leonhardt (62)
in Germany. With this kind of shear connector, the interaction is developed by
concrete dowel engaging with the perforated steel strip. In fabrication the steel
54
strip is cut and attached by welding to steel girder. The main advantages of the
perfobond shear connection are listed as follows:
the carry load can be transferred continuously between concrete slab and
steel girder.
the same material can be used for shear connector and steel beam, it does
not require a higher steel grade for shear connector and special equipment
for welding.
with symmetric dowel profile two shear connector strips could be receive
with only one cutting line and there is no material wasted. If the cut is
carried out in the web of a steel I-girder, two composite beams without an
upper flange can be produced. (41; 51; 105)
the reduction of total cost by less labor work and faster in fabrication
Since the first time appear to now, perfobond shear connectors have been good
alternative solutions for conventional headed stud shear connectors. Practical
experiences and laboratory studies pointed out that, the strength of steel and
concrete, the thickness of steel rib, the profile of dowel, the embedding rebar
inside dowel as well as reinforcement in front layer etc. are important criteria for
the load bearing capacity of the perfobond shear connectors.
The Push-Out tests, presented and discussed in the following, aim to investigate
the behaviour of the perfobond as well as headed stud shear connectors in UHPC,
which are applied in composite beams. Its objective was to identify the applicability whether brittle shear connection behaviour could occur and to provide
possible reinforcing solutions which ensure sufficiently ductile behaviour. During
the testing, two types of dowel profile, reinforcing arrangement and steel fiber
content that control the concrete-related failure modes were investigated. Due to
limited condition, the experimental study could not cover all interesting aspects,
therefore additional modelling work need be done.
Based on these findings, the test data are used to validate the numerical model
and the preliminary suggestions for design shear connection are established.
55
fact, they were planned to use in the composite beams. The testing procedure
and the evaluation results of the test were performed according to the guideline
of EC4-Appendix B (27). Various test series were prepared for both type of shear
connectors: headed stud and perfobond.
Flange
50
LVDT4
50
Rib (web)
LVDT2.2
LVDT3
LVDT3
LVDT1.2
350
LVDT1.1
420
LVDT1.2
200
300
Dowel
LVDT1.1
LVDT2.1
50
UHPC (slab)
Gap
40
80
20
LVDT3
Flange
50
80
a)
LVDT4
50
Rib (web)
LVDT2.2
LVDT2.1
UHPC (slab)
50
Gap
80
LVDT3
40
80
20
b)
LVDT3
LVDT1.2
LVDT3
350
LVDT1.1
420
LVDT1.2
200
300
Dowel
LVDT1.1
Figure 4.2.: Standard Push-Off Test, Setup 1 (a) and Setup 1 (b)
Fig.4.2 depicts the detailed components of a specimen. There are three main
parts include a thick steel plate, a perforated steel strip and a concrete block.
The steel plate of 200mm width, 350mm height and 20/30mm thickness is presented for the flange (I section) or web (in T section) in steel girder. Its stiffness
must be strong enough to ensure the transfer of shear force from flange/web to
perforated steel strip and concrete dowels. The perforated strip with dimensions
65/75mm 310mm and 10mm thickness were considered as steel rib of the perfobond connector. As depicted in the figure, each steel rib has two holes of 45mm
diameter through which UHPC will flow to form the concrete dowels. The profile
of dowel was designed with two variants namely closed dowel(CDW) and open
dowel (ODW), as illustrated are described in Fig. 4.7. The concrete block was
300mm wide, 350mm high and 80mm thick that acts the concrete slab in composite beams. And it includes two dowels which are used to against shear force
56
Stress [N/mm ]
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Strain [%]
Figure 4.3.: Typical stress-strain curve of structural steel at room temperature, modified Outinen et al. (85)
.
800
Stress (MPa)
600
400
200
Dia. 12mm
Dia. 10mm
Dia. 8mm
Dia. 6mm
0
0
10
15
Strain ()
20
25
30
In this study, structural steel grade S355 was used for both Push-Out (PO)
specimens and composite beams. The mechanical properties of this steel were
determined from tensile test. However, there were no test for steel plates, all test
57
data were archived from research work carried out by Outinen et al (85) and
Byfield et al (13). The values of yield strength, elastic modulus and ultimate
strength were evaluated at 380 MPa, 506 MPa and 202.6 GPa, respectively. The
typical stress strain curve are shown in Fig. 4.3. The details of the mechanical
properties are given in table 4.1.
Table 4.1.: Mechanical properties of steel grade S355 and reinforcing bar Bst 500
S355
Bst 500
386
506
520.00
600.00
202,590
2,235
24
210,000
-
0.20
1.50
4.00
0.22
-
Bst500 grade reinforcement was used for all specimens. In order to obtain the
essential characteristics, tension test were carried out for rebar with diameter of
6mm, 8mm, 10mm and 12 as well. Average values of yield, ultimate strength
and limit yield strain of reinforcing bar from 8mm to 12mm are 520 Mp, 600
Mpa and 0.22% respectively. The typical stress-strain curves are plotted in Fig.
4.4 and the main mechanical properties are also listed in Tab. 4.1.
In the experimental framework of composite beams and Push-Out test, the UPHC
G7 mix proportion was used for various test series. The details of material composition was given in previous chapter. The steel fiber content was specified with
0.5% (G7-150-0.5%) and 1% (G7-150-1.0%) in order to investigate the influence
of tensile toughness of concrete on the specimen behaviour. The typical material
response curve of G7-UHPC in uni-axial compression and three points bending
stress states are shown in Fig. 4.5. The basic properties of G7-UHPC are given
in table 4.2.
Table 4.2.: Material properties of UHPC
Concrete
B4Q UHPC 1% fiber
G7 UHPC 0.5% fiber
G7 UHPC 1.0% fiber
Compressive
strength
(MPa)
Elastic
modulus
(GPa)
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
Elastic
strain
(h)
Limit
strain
(h)
146.0
171.8
171.8
50.6
56.7
57.8
14.7
9.4
17.1
2.0
1.8
2.1
3.4
3.1
3.5
58
160
20
Stress (MPa)
G7-RILEM-BeamTest
120
15
80
10
40
5
G7-Lateral strain
G7-Vertical strain
0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
Strain ()
1.0
2.0
0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Displacement (mm)
8.0
10.0
Figure 4.5.: Material responses of G7-UHPC 1% steel fiber, stress-strain diagram in compression
test (left) and stress-deflection in RILEM beam test(right)
a) Formwork
The specimens of each individual test series were prepared and cast in the vertical
direction from the same batch of concrete. Numerous of concrete cylinders of
100mm200mm were also cast and stored alongside the specimen and tested at
59
regular intervals.
At the stage of producing PO specimens, the gaps at bottom of steel ribs with
dimension of 2020mm70mm were early created by two foam blocks. The aim
is to ensure that the steel flange/web and concrete block are properly relative slip
in the push out test. Further, resistant force will occur only at interface areas
between concrete dowel and steel rib. Before test these holes were checked again.
Fig. 4.6 depicts the form work, the rebar arrangement and the specimen ready
for test.
4.2.2. Arrangement for Push-Out series
Parameters investigated in the experiment program include the profile of dowel,
the embedded rebar in UHPC dowel, the transverse reinforcement in cover layer,
as well as the content of steel fiber in concrete. Besides, the headed stud shear
connector was also examined in order to compare the conventional and the novel
shear connection in UHPC.
Table 4.3.: Parameter for Push-Out test program
Series
Concrete
Setup
NOS
Rebar
G7-150-1.0%
S1
2
3
4
S2
S2
S2
3
3
3
RO
RA
RAB
5
6
7
G7-150-1.0%
-
S1
S1
S1
3
3
3
RO
RA
RAB
8
9
G7-150-0.5%
G7-150-1.0%
S2
S2
2
2
RB
RB
10
11
G7-150-0.5%
G7-150-0.5%
S2
S2
1
1
RAB
RAB
Description
Headed stud (16mm, Bst500)
Number of specimen
Rebar Bst500 and 8mm dia. were used in all series except for series 11
RO: without rebar, RA: rebar in dowel, RB: rebar in cover, RAB: rebar in dowel and cover
The experimental program of Push-Out test was planed in many stages, the
specimen groups were divided into eleven difference series, and a total of 27
specimens were undertaken. Table 4.3 shows the details of the UHPC mixer,
specimen quantity, rebar configuration, as well as the dowel profile in each test
60
50
50x4=200
350
S355
T=10mm
33
45
25
50
150
75 35 40
series. Fig. 4.7 illustrates the details of dowel profiles with their dimensions and
the location of reinforcement in each specimen.
40
65
a)
b)
c)
e)
f)
g)
50x4=200
T=10mm
33
25
50
45
20
65
40
65
d)
50
S355
150
350
75 35 40
65
h)
Figure 4.7.: CDW (above line) and ODW (below line) shear connectors, (a & e)-without rebar,
(b & f)-rebar in dowel, (c & g)-rebar in front cover, (d & h)-rebar in dowel and
front cover
The group of series 2 to 7 aimed to evaluate the influence of the test setup on
the specimen behaviour. Moreover the effect of reinforcing bar inside each group
was also observed. In these series all specimens were produced with the same
concrete containing 1.0% steel fiber content. In constrast, series 8 and 9 were
cast with different UHCPs so as to investigate the effect of concrete ductility on
the load-slip behaviour. The last group of series 10 and 11 intend to dertermine
the effect of the rebar area on capacity of the shear connectors.
4.2.3. Standard Push-Out test setup
As previously mentioned, the test setup was divided into two primary groups
named S1 and S2. The setup S1 was designed to simulate steel girder with top
flange (I section), while S2 deals with the steel beams without top flange (T
section). The test process was carried out on Walter+Bai servo hydraulic control
system with a maximum capacity of 4000 kN. The applied load was transfered
to steel flange through a very thick steel plate of 100 mm to steel rib and UHPC
dowel. Moreover, the loading rate was controlled according to the prescribed load
path. Fig. 4.8 demonstrates the specimen in testing system.
61
Figure 4.8.: Push-Out specimen in 4000 kN load frame and controller system
Figure 4.9.: Instrumentation setup in SPOT Setup 1(left) and Setup 2 (right)
During the test progress, the applied force on the top specimen was monitored
automatically via load cell of the testing system, and the relative slip between
steel plate and concrete block was captured by LVDT 3 and LVDT 4. The opening crack in the concrete surface were measured by two pairs of LVDT 1.1,2 and
2.1,2. All measured data were recorded automatically by the high precision 48channels HBM data-logger system. Fig. 4.2 sketches the location of device on
the specimens and Fig. 4.9 shows Push-Out test setups as well as the instrumentation.
62
ec
0,0075 m
m/s
20sec
mm/s
by disp.
20s
20s
0,0 02
20s
70 kN (0.1 Pu)
0,0 02
mm/s
ec
350 kN (0.4Pu)
ec
20sec
25 cycles
with 20sec to hold the upper and lower load
0,0075 m
m/s ec
(0,01 mm
/sec)
by force
by disp.
Time [min]
A typical load history for SPOT is shown in Fig. 4.10. The load path is divide
into three domains. Firstly, the load continuously increased up to 40% of Pu
(response still lies in elastic domain) then repeated in two cycles. In the second
period, the load is repeated 25 cycles with magnitude between 10% and 40% of
Pu . In the last stage, the load increased continuously until the specimen fails.
The purpose of repeated load is to eliminate the friction and cohesion forces
between concrete and steel surfaces in order to obtain actual results of load-slip
behaviour. After that, in the analysis result phase, the residual strain in test is
removed.
63
mean value of maximum applied load, the characteristic resistance PRk , the slip
capacity uk , and the ultimate capacity of individual shear connector (PRk ,1 ) is
presented in table 4.4.
Table 4.4.: Summary Standard Push-Out Test results
Series
Profile
Test
Setup
NOSHC
H. Stud
S1
2
3
4
ODW
-
S2
S2
S2
4
4
4
5
6
7
CDW
-
S1
S1
S1
8
9
CDW
-
10
11
CDW
-
Rebar
Pavg
kN
PRk
kN
PRk ,1
kN
uk
mm
1216.74
963.88
120.49
2.24
RO
RA
RAB
811.29
862.61
1065.53
730.61
776.36
958.98
182.65
194.09
239.74
0.62
1.22
4.64
4
4
4
RO
RA
RAB
903.11
935.47
1116.30
812.80
841.92
1004.43
203.20
210.48
251.11
1.01
1.33
4.61
S2
S2
4
4
RB
RB
771.98
878.35
694.78
790.51
164.1
193.99
0.88
0.98
S2
S2
4
4
RAB
RAB
967.99
1005.13
871.19
904.62
217.80
226.15
2.16
3.66
As exhibited from the table, the series 4 and 7 give the best results in both term
of load bearing capacity and ductility. The ultimate load and characteristic slip
of each type of shear connectors are approximate 250kN and 4.6mm, respectively,
nearly equivalent in both series. And then, series 1 with headed stud also provides
reasonable values, but the slip capacity is still slightly less than the requirements
for the ductile shear connector. For other series of 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8, 9 without
extra reinforcement in dowel, their bearing capacity is lower than 20% to 30%
compare to series 4 or 7. Moreover, it can be easily identified that, the slip
capacity of these series are too low, which means that the specimens may fail in
brittle mode. The details of the test observations, the illustration of results and
a further discussions will be given in follow parts.
4.3.2. Behaviour of headed stud shear connectors in UHPC
The load-slip behaviour and the crack opening of the headed stud shear connectors (here after HSSC) are presented in Fig. 4.11 and 4.12, respectively. The
mean value of the characteristic stud strength (PRk ) and slip (uk ) are 120.48 kN
and 2.24 mm respectively. As can be seen from the crack opening diagram, the
64
measured maximum values are 0.05mm and 0.015mm corresponding to the compression and tension areas. The strain of concrete at maximum position equals
to 0.5 h, it is also very small compared to the ultimate strain of concrete. When
the stud is almost completely shanked then the strain path turns back to its
initial state. By checking on the surface of concrete block after test, no crack
can be observed. It can be conducted that, in the case of HSSC in UHPC the
deformation on concrete surface is insignificant.
200
Specimen 1
Specimen 2
Specimen 3
1200
150
800
100
400
50
4
6
Relative slip (mm)
10
0.6
1600
0.5
0.3
1200
Applied load (kN)
0.2
800
400
LVDT1.1
LVDT2.1
0
0.06
0.045
0.03
0.015
0
Crack Openning (mm)
0.015
0.03
1600
a) begin loading
c) sliding
65
Fig. 4.13 demonstrates a cut away of the specimen after test. It can be seen
that, the main failure caused by shearing of the stud at the base. This could be
explained as follow: under horizontal load the stud deformed at the base area (a),
however, the distortion in the whole body of stud seems very small, which can
be neglected. This is because the concrete surrounding stud is too strong, which
restricts the deformation of the stud. On other hand, the concrete bock and steel
part have relative movement at contact surface, which generates shear force at
the foot of stud. When the load increases, the stud continue sliding in horizontal
direction (c). Then a plastic zone is formed (d). Ultimately, the stud is shanked
at the base and the concrete slab entirely separated from steel girder. This failure
mode is same for all specimens when the maximum slip reaches approximate 7.0
mm.
If the numerous studs are added, in general, the plastic deformation is not enough
to activate bearing capacity of all studs. Consequently, the increasing diameter
of studs may more efficient than increase quantity. The addition transverse reinforcement in the concrete block is also not very efficient due to its contribution
to improvement ductility of studs are very limited.
4.3.3. General behaviour of perfobond shear connector in UHPC
In the case of perfobond shear connection (series 2 to 11), the UHPC dowel plays
the main role for carring the shear force which is transferred from steel rib. At
the contact surfaces between UHCP and steel strip, the major stress state is in
tension and shear as shown in Fig. 4.14. Beside that, the deformation of steel
66
strip also generate a punching force into cover layer, which cause tensile strain in
the front surface. The magnitude of punching force depends on the dowel profile.
Figure 4.14.: Basic mechanics of perfobond shear connector (left), stress state in concrete dowel,
after Kraus and Wurzer (57)(right)
O'
Slip
Skew
O'
1000
800
300
Series 5
Series 6
Series 7
Series 9
Series 10
Series 11
250
200
600
150
400
100
200
50
4
6
Relative slip (mm)
10
1200
67
As can be observed from the test and results, the main reason resulting in the
collapse of the specimen is failure of the concrete at the dowel and cracks formed
in the concrete slab along the steel rib. At the surrounding hole area of steel
rib, the distortion is relative small for CDW specimens (series 5 to 7), but it is
considerable large for ODW (series 2 to 4). As shown in Fig. 4.15 the deformation
of specimens with ODW alway larger than CDW. This may be due to the fact
that, the acting force from steel rib into concrete cover is also greater. The
density of crack on concrete appears of ODW specimens is more dense than
CDW specimens.
Fig. 4.16 shows the load-slip behaviour of test series 5 to 11, which have the
same dowel profile. In general, it can be seen that, the ultimate strength and the
response after peak value depend on the amount and the arrangement of reinforcements. In the series 4 and 7, the combination of reinforcement and high steel
fiber content affects the re-distribution of the internal force inside the concrete
block. Especially, when cracks grow enough large the steel fiber are activated
and formed the bridges to transfer internal force between areas. This allows the
specimen to maintain resistance capacity and the collapse progress occurs more
slowly. The primary factors that influence the performance of perfobond shear
connector are summarized as follows:
strength of concrete, steel and reinforcement
total amount of additional reinforcing bar and its configuration
steel fibers content in concrete mixture
profile of dowel and thickness of steel plate
experiment setup
68
1200
Series 2
Series 5
Series 3
Series 6
Series 4
Series 7
1000
800
600
400
200
0
4
6
Relative slip (mm)
10
When no reinforcement was add into the dowel or front cover, the CDW specimens
give a little higher results in both term of bearing capacity and ductility. However
the behaviour of these series are still classified into poor ductility group. When
rebars are added, the performance is improved significantly, the pair of curves
are nearly the same. As can be observed, the specimens with ODW has more
cracks than CDW. It is very difficult to distinguish the effect of dowel profile.
4.3.5. Influence of fiber content to load slip-behaviour
The influence of fiber content was considered by comparing the results between
series 8 (0.5% fiber content) and 9 (1.0% fiber content). In fact, both series have
the same rebar arrangement, test setup and shape of dowel. The load-slip and
crack opening curves are plotted in Fig. 4.18 and 4.19, respectively.
The ultimate strength of the specimens are identified at 771.98 kN and 878.35
kN corresponding to 0.5% and 1.0% steel fiber content in UHPC. The resistance
capacity increases about 15.0%, while the chacteristic slip increased approximate
5.0%. The crack patten exhibited in Fig. 4.20 indicated that, the specimens with
less fiber content (series 8) show larger amount of crack and their distribition has
also higher density. The measured crack width varies from 0.1mm to 0.5mm and
large cracks appear more frequently than in the specimens of series 8.
69
1200
Series 8
Series 9
1000
800
600
1.0% steel fiber
400
0.5% steel fiber
200
0
4
6
Relative slip (mm)
10
Figure 4.18.: Influence of fiber content on load-slip behaviour series 8: 0.5% and series 9: 1%
vol. steel fiber
1200
Strain (%o )
0
1000
Applied load (kN)
800
600
400
200
0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
Crack openning (mm)
0.4
0.6
The increase of additional fiber content in concrete mixture leads to higher tensile
strength of concrete and fracture energy. When the specimen is subjected to load,
the primary stress state in dowel areas is in tension-shear, thus the steel fiber
is activated. The long steel fiber makes the bridges between crack areas, while
short steel fiber enhances the toughness of concrete. Therefore the internal force
in damage regions is re-distributed. The material in neighbor critical areas is
also attended to carry load. Consequently, the ultimate capacity of specimen is
improved and the cracks reduces.
70
Figure 4.20.: Crack pattern of SPOT with UHPC 0.5% (left) and 1% (right) steel fiber
Figure 4.21.: Crack on the concrete surface, without reinforcement in cover (left) and with
reinforcement(right)
However, as shown on the load-slip curves, the specimen with 1.0% steel fiber
and without reinforcing bar in concrete dowel still exhibit very poor ductility.
If more steel fiber are added, the behaviour might be better. However, if the
fiber content exceeds 2.0% then workabiliy becomes a problem. The concrete is
more difficult flow through holes to form dowels that affect the quality of the
shear connecters. Further more, in the economic aspect, with more steel fibers
the total material cost grow up very fast, but the performance improvement is
not as expected.
It can be noticed that, steel fiber is not the key factor to determine the load-slip
behaviour of Push-Out specimen. To achieve better performance, the reinforcing
must be used.
71
Series 5
Series 6
Series 9
1000
800
B
600
II
400
200
0
4
6
Relative slip (mm)
10
Comparison between case A and B, the ultimate load of case B is slightly higher
than case A, with 862.16 kN and 827.09 kN, respectively. And the relative slip
is the seem straight offset from 0.82mm to 1.35mm. The characteristic shapes
of both load-slip curves are very similar. This indicate that, the reinforcement
arranged in front surface play a minor role in improving the load bearing capacity
and ductility of specimen. The transverse reinforcement in front surface helps to
reduce crack opening only.
On other hand, a comparison between case A and C, in which the reinforcement
located thought holes (8 mm) indicate that, the performance of specimen is
improved significantly. The increment of the ultimate load and ductility are 18%
and 120% respectively. After the peak, the specimen maintain high load bearing capacity continuously. The dowel are not completely shanked until loading
progress stop.
The specimens without transverse reinforcement in front surface (series 5 and 6)
shows very large cracks in the surface. Especially, in series 5 (curve A) the crack
split the concrete into two parts separately. For remaining series, the cracks on
72
surface are relative small due to the present of transverse reinforcements (Fig.
4.21).
4.3.7. Influence of embedding reinforcement through concrete dowel
1200
UHPC: 0.5% vol. fiber content
Series 10
Series 11
1000
Applied load (kN)
800
600
400
200
0
4
6
Relative slip (mm)
10
73
74
less than 0.5% volume fraction. The appropriated fiber content about 1.0%
is optimized in term of technical requirement and economic aspect.
Due to lack of condition to performing test for large amount investigation,
the FE modeling is necessary for further study. It should focus on influence
of steel plate thickness, geometry of dowel, and effect of material strength
to final behaviour.
The test data from experimental program is not enough to investigate influence
of other factors such as distant between the dowels as well as their profile areas.
Combining experimental study and simulation is necessary in order to better understand the local behaviour and obtain explicit formula to predict performance
of shear connector.
76
Beam ID
Shear Connector
and spacing
Series 1
-
B1
B2
B3
B4
Series 2
-
B5
B6
Beam ID
Reinforcement
in font layer
Reinforcement
embedding in dowel
Series 1
-
B1
B2
B3
B4
8
8
8
8
Series 2
-
B5
B6
8 mm @ 80 mm
8 mm @ 100 mm
8
8
8
8
mm
mm
mm
mm
@
@
@
@
100
100
100
100
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
@
@
@
@
200
200
150
150
mm
mm
mm
mm
(twice dowel)
(twice dowel)
(each dowel)
(each dowel)
no reinforcement
8 mm @ 100 mm (each dowel)
77
mm rebar placed in both sides of the shear connectors. Table 5.2 summarizes the
arrangement of the transverse reinforcement in each beam.
Beam 3, length 6m
150
aw=8mm
3000
UHPC slab
500
500
100
60 30
30mm
320
150
Thick. 12mm
45
45
30mm
30mm
410
12mm
385
8@100mm
12mm
60
60
60
410mm
150
200
S355 structural steel and Bst500 grade reinforcement were utilized to produce all
composite beams, whose material properties are identical with steel of Push-Out
test. Additionly, the B4Q-UHPC mixture was used to made 04 beams of series 1.
78
And all beams of Series 2 was cast with G7-UHPC mixture. All UHPC mixtures
contain coarse aggregate (2-5 mm and 5-8 mm) and steel fiber of 0.5% (G7) and
1.0% (B4Q). The primary mechanical properties of both concrete are listed in
table 4.2. Further details of material compositions were given in 3.2.4, table 3.2.
The number of shear connector was determined based on the Push-Out tests
data. Unfortunately, it is not always available due to some out of controlled
reasons. Thus, in the cases of beams of series 2, the result of Push-Out test came
too late. Therefore, its is not insufficient information for making right decision
during design progress. The beam B5 was designed without reinforcement in
dowel, which lead to less longitudinal shear resistance. However, hence several
wrongs good lessons were obtained.
Fig. 5.1 depicts the design layout of the composite beams B1 and B2. Both
beams were 6.0m in length and 410 mm in height. Moreover the pairs of the
beam are the same of cross section with I steel girder of 3003101014 mm
and concrete slab of 500100 mm. The difference between two beams is only in
profile of shear connector, beam B1 and B2 were designed with ODW and CDW,
respectively. These beams aimed to reach full plastic moment in steel girder.
More full shear connection degrees are also considered to verify load transfer
capacity of dowel.
A. S
Beam 5
150
aw=8mmaw=8mm
4000
400
400
UHPC slab
100
100
100
60 30
14mm
8@100mm
14mm
400
14mm
400
45mm
390
8@100mm
410
60
410mm
45
45
400
Girder section
The sketch of beam B3 and B4 are described in Fig. 5.2, they have the same
length and concrete slab section with previous beams B1 and B2. The spacing
between shear connector was 150 mm which is greater than that of beam B1 and
B2 (less shear connection degree). Both beams B3 and B4 were designed with T
girder and are only different on bottom flange. The flange of beam B3 was 320
mm in width that expected to fail in concrete slab or shear connection. While
79
the flange width of beam B4 was 200 mm which is expected to be fail by yielding
of steel girder and crushing of concrete in compression zone.
The second series include beam B5 and B6 depicted in Fig. 5.3. They were
designed and built in the second stage of experimental program. The test of
series 2 had two purposes: to evaluate potential of reducing fiber contents in
UHPC and stress in concrete slab only in compression. The strain distribution
over height of slab would be nearly constant. Due to the lack Push-Out test
data, beam B5 was made to contain no reinforcement in concrete dowel. The
reinforcement was arranged only in top cover layer of concrete slab with spacing
of 80 mm. The influence of transverse reinforcement in cover layer on lateral
shear resistance is also analyzed for beam B5.
To build composite beams, the steel girders were fabricated in factory and transported to laboratory while the rebar and concrete work were performed in laboratory. Numerous cylinders and cubic were cast to test the mechanical properties
of concrete, which were cured beside composite beams.
5.2.3. Test set-up and instrumentation
Large scale experiments were arranged according to four points bending test
scheme. The hinge support was installed at the North end and the South end
was placed on roller support. Fig. 5.4 and 5.5 sketch the general layout of
test setup of Series 1 and 2, respectively. The test was generally displacement
controlled while the speed varied during testing. Each specimen was cycled in
a similar fashion as the Push-Out test specimens described earlier (Fig. 4.10),
i.e. at least twenty seven (27) times between 10% and a proof load of about 40%
of the expected ultimate bending strength. After the last cycle completed, the
load was applied continuously until the beam failure occurred or until the load
dropped to a significant amount below its maximum value.
There are four basic types of instrumentations utilized in the tests. Strain gages
was used to capture the strain on the steel girders, the shear connectors and the
concrete slab. Whereas, linear string potentiometers were used to measure deflection along span. The relative slip, strain of concrete, rotation angle at support
and opening crack on the concrete surface were measured by linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT). Load cell was used to measure live loads applied
to the beams. When test in progress, all measured data were recorded automatically by the 48-channels HBM measuring system. Details of instrumentation
are described in Fig. 5.4 and 5.5. The loading equipment system and typical
installed transducers are shown in Fig. 5.6.
80
SG-strain gages
PT-Potentiometer
Load cell
NORTH
LVDT-1
SOUTH
LVDT-11
LVDT-2
LVDT-3
LVDT-4
475
LVDT-5
LVDT-6
LVDT-9
LVDT-8 LVDT-10
LVDT-7
LVDT-15
1100
LVDT-12
150
PT-1
1425
PT-3
PT-2
1050
750
500
150
1975
6000
85 65
35
85 65
85 65
LVDT-11
440
100
SG-8
SG-11
120
Weg-15
SG-9
20
Weg-14
Weg-13
520
1605
LVDT-10
SG-7
SG-10
SG-12
875
LVDT-9
SG-13
100
1050
120
1050
20
460
SG-14
SG-17
SG-15
SG-16
SG-18
Strain gages location on the cross section 1-1 (left) and 2-2 (right)
LVDT
LVDT
Load cell
LVDT-11
LVDT-1
LVDT-4
50
LVDT-13
150
625
LVDT-12
1275
PT-3
1900
LVDT-9
LVDT-7 LVDT-8
LVDT-6
1200
Load cell
100
750
PT-2
1200
2600
750
LVDT-10
PT-1
LVDT-5
LVDT-3
1275
750
750
3100
1250
3850
8000
100
100
LVDT-9
LVDT-11
SG-6
SG-12
SG-5
SG-11
SG-3
SG-4
30
30
SG-7
SG-8
100
SG-2
LVDT-12
100
SG-1
100
100
LVDT-10
SG-9
SG-10
Strain gage location on section 1-1 (left) and section 2-2 (right)
LVDT-2
625
150
81
measuring flexural by
3 potentionalmeters
Figure 5.6.: Equipment for flexural test of composite beams Series 1-2
82
At the initial state, friction and cohesion forces on the contact surfaces between
steel and concrete were generated. Through cycle loading these forces were eliminated, but this may generate residual strain in the final data. In the analysis
results step, the residual strain was removed by offset strain technique. Then the
real behaviour will be obtained, as shown in Fig. 5.7.
Table 5.3.: Summary of test result of the composite beams
Beam
Test
Ult. load
Calculation
Mode of failure
Plas. Moment
Plas. Moment
PU ,test
(kN)
MRd,pl,test
(kNm)
M
Rd,pl,cal
B1
724.11
911.68
976.81
B2
B3
B4
764.94
959.70
996.28
939.73
1178.99
1224.52
976.81
1658.68
1122.69
B5
B6
616.40
1285.28
955.42
1992.18
2159.37
2159.37
-
(kNm)
Yielding of steel girder and
crushing of concrete
same as above
Collapsed of shear connector
Yielding of steel girder
crushing of concrete
Collapsed of shear connector
Yielding of steel girder and
crushing of concrete
1000
1000
load-disp. in cycling load stage
750
750
500
500
Approximated line
250
250
residual strain
offset strain
50
100
Deflection (mm)
150
200
50
100
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.7.: Force-deflection curve before and after remove residual strain
150
200
83
Beam B1
Beam B2
800
Ultimate load
Yield domain
600
400
Elastic domain
200
50
P/2
100
Deflection (mm)
P/2
150
200
84
The load versus deflection (at midspan section) curves are shown in Fig. 5.8 for
both beams B1 and B2. As exhibited, the general behaviour of the composite
beam could be divided into three domains: elasticity, yielding and plasticity.
Within the elastic region, the load-deflection relation shows linear under loading
and discharge. At the elastic limit point (A), the applied load on beam B1 and
B2 reached the same of 560 kN that is approximate 73 % of ultimate load, while
deflections reach 35mm that equals 1/200 clear span. It can be seen that, the
beam B1 and B2 show good performance in serviceability limit state. After elastic
limit, the behaviour show yielding and response curve is flattened at point B and
reached ultimate strength at 724.11 kN and 764.94 kN corresponding to beam
B1 and B2.
When applied force increased continuously, the neutral axis moved to upper part
of the cross section, a below part of concrete section began to subject to tension
and the height of the compressive zone reduced (Fig. 5.9). The test of beam
B1 was stopped at a deflection of 132 mm and beam B2 was extended up to 200
mm. The beams collapsed completely when the concrete slab crushed and splited
completely. The main failure of the beams is caused by the plastic deformation of
steel girder and crushing of concrete slab. The kind of failure mode is recognized
as ductility.
As show in Fig. 5.8, the initial stiffness and ascending branch of Beam B1 and B2
almost overlap up to the ultimate load. It was noticed that, in this case the effect
of concrete age on ultimate strength of beam is unremarkable. A comparison of
the post peak branch of beam B1 and B2, indicate that, the concrete age plays
an important role in controlling the increase of the strain rate in order to extend
ductility of the structure.
It can be observed after test that, there are no lateral cracks on the concrete
slab which can be identified outside the area between loading points. The failure
occurred at the middle span region only. In a similar manner, transverse cracks
on the front surface of concrete did not appear in both beams. The end slip
of beam B1 is very small which can be neglected. While the end slip of beam
B2 is slightly higher. But it is still insufficient to cause damage on the shear
connectors, the failure of shear connection was not taken place. Furthermore,
the local buckling did not happen on the top flange or the web, thus failure
buckling mode was excluded.
85
The moment-curvature relationship was determined by the rotation angle of critical section at middle span, which curvature = (top + bot ) /H , where top , bot
are strain of top and bottom fiber of section, respectively; H is total height of
the composite cross section. The moment - curvature curves of beam B1 and B2
are plotted in Fig. 5.10.
The diagrams show that, at low load level the force-deflection relationships are
linearity until the first yield moment is reached, (M/Mu ratio approximate of 0.7).
After achieving the maximum moment, the branch curve stretches continuously,
and seems to be flattened. This indicate that the cross section rotates and forms
plastic hinge.
Development of strain in steel and concrete
Fig. 5.11 presents the strain development of both beams B1 and B2, while the
distribution of strain over the height of cross section is plotted in Fig. 5.12. It
should be noticed that, the measured strain of concrete slab at midspan section
encounters unexpected problem. Once of displacement transducer(LVDT-9) was
broken and dropped during the test. Therefore the strain curve that measured
at bottom concrete slab is not shown in Fig. 5.11 (left). Similarly, in Fig. 5.12,
only test data at low load level was captured.
86
1000
1000
B1-LVDT9-bot. conc. slab
B1-LVDT10-top conc. slab
B2-LVDT10-top conc. slab
800
Yielding domain
600
Strain in concrete slab
400
B2-LVDT10
B1-LVDT10
-6
-4
600
400
Elastic domain
B1-LVDT9
200
0
800
-2
0
Strain ()
200
B2-SG11
B1-SG11
-2
4
6
Strain ()
B2-SG10
B1-SG10
10
Figure 5.11.: Strain development in concrete slab (left) and steel girder(right) of composite
beam B1 and B2
Beam B1
ultimate strain
Beam B2
400
350
300
250
200
150
0.45Pu
0.71Pu
0.90Pu
0.99Pu
100
50
0
-5
yield strain
5
10
Strain ()
15
0.44Pu
0.70Pu
0.90Pu
0.99Pu
20
-5
yield strain
5
10
Strain ()
15
20
With the increase of the applied load, the neutral axis went to upward direction
and reached new position at bottom concrete slab, corresponding to the applied
load at 622.68 kN (ca. 0.84PU ). The strain in the bottom flange and a part of
web were fully plastic. However, the compressive train in top fiber concrete of
87
slab was still of 2.0hwhilst the strain in bottom changed to neutral state before
subjected to tension. With the neutral axis continuing go up, parts of the bottom
slab were in tension. The height of compression zone reduce onto about 2/3 of
slab thickness. As a result, the compressive tress and strain in the remain part
of concrete slab increased very fast. The composite beam achieved its ultimate
strength when the compression and tension fiber of concrete slab reached strain
of 3.2hand 1.8h, respectively. The plastic hinge fully formed. The beams
collapsed when concrete crushed due to strain exceed its critical values.
Relative slip between concrete and steel
The relative slip between the steel girder and concrete slab include longitudinal
and up slip as well.Through analyzing measured data, it can seen that, the magnitude of the slip in vertical direction has very small value (ca. < 0.14 mm).
The effect of up-slip is not necessary to be considered and can be ignored in the
evaluation of the global behaviour. The longitudinal slip at various load level is
shown in Fig. 5.13, whereas the slip for the beam B1 and B2 were displayed.
According to test setup as mentioned, a pair of concentrate loaded were located
at relative coordinate (0.1) in Fig. 5.13.
1.00
0.75
0.50
B10.45Pu
B10.71Pu
B10.90Pu
B10.99Pu
B20.45Pu
B20.71Pu
B20.90Pu
B20.99Pu
+ - LVDT
Beam B1
Beam B2
0.25
0.00
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Relative distance from midspan of the beam
0.4
0.5
As displayed in the Fig. 5.13, the longitudinal slip increases along with imposed
load, but their relation is not linearity. When loading within the elastic regime( <
0.7PU ) the slip reached about 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm in both beams. The distribution
of the longitudinal slip from the midspan section outward to the ends are nearly
identical. This means that, the lateral shear force which transfers load from
concrete slab to steel girder is uniform distributed.
Based on the load-slip response in yielding and plastic domains, the slip grew
up very fast and the values achieve in range of 0.15 mm to 0.3 mm. Which are
88
nearly two times of that slip developed before. Especially, the slip of beam B2
is significantly greater compared to that of beam B1. This can be explained by
the older concrete age, it allows the slip continuous develop until the crushing of
concrete. Along with the change in magnitude, the slip distribution also changed
clearly with high magnitude around the concentrate load area and reduced to
both end sides. As a result, it can be seen that, in the full shear connection, the
distribution of horizontal shear force is not uniform. The shear flow depend on
the increasing of the bending moment along beam.
Deformation of perforated steel strip
The deformation of the perforated strip in shear connectors was measured by
embedding rosettes strain gages which were attached on steel rib near hole of
dowel. The horizontal strain components are shown in Fig. 5.14. As exhibited,
all strains in investigated locations reach maximum values of 0.7h, which is
relative small compared to the yield strain of structural steel S355. Furthermore,
distortions of the holes on steel rib before and after test are little difference.
Consequently, the influence of the deformations of steel strip on the load carrying
of shear connectors are not remarkable. The failure of shear connector should
focus into concrete dowel together with related constituent components.
1000
B1SG1
B1SG3
B2SG1
800 B2SG4
600
400
200
B1-SG1 B1-SG3
B2-SG1
0
1.00
0.80
B2-SG4
0.60
0.40
Strain ()
0.20
0.00
In the case of other beams in which T cross section girder was used, the perforated
strip was stretched from the web of steel girder. Therefore, its thickness is always
greater than steel rib in the beam B1 and B2, the strain and distortion are smaller
89
too. Hence, when considering these beams, the influence of deformation of steel
rib on the performance of shear connectors can also be ignored.
5.3.3. Structural behaviour and Observation of beam B3 and B4
Load - deflection behaviour
Another two beams in Series 1 include B3 and B4, as early described. The bottom
flange of beam B3 is 320 mm width and 30 mm thickness. While bottom flange of
beam B4 was cut into 200 mm and thickness is the same beam B3. Both beams
were tested at concrete ages over 28 days and the of the averaged compressive
strength fck was evaluated at 155.0 MPa. Fig. 5.15 shows the diagrams of loaddeflection in middle span of the beams.
1000
Beam B3
Beam B4
Concrete crushed
Yield domain
800
600
400
Elastic domain
P/2
200
50
100
Deflection (mm)
P/2
150
200
As observed during the test, beam B3 failed when load increased. The broken
progress occurred suddenly and without any prior warning phenomena. The main
cause of failure was due to the collapse of the shear connectors which happened on
the side of the roller support (Fig. 5.16). In middle span area (space between two
concentrate points), there are no cracks before beam was collapsed. The cracks
appear due to applied load after steel girder and concrete separated completely.
The ultimate strength of beam is 996.28 kN and corresponding deflection is 35
mm. It can be seen that, the beam B3 behaves generally in elastic regime though
out in the whole response. The measured strains in concrete slab and girder show
all values are under yield limit. The failure can be classified as a brittle mode.
90
Although the shear connection degree of this beam was designed to be lower than
100%, but the failure progess of shear connectors is not expected. The discussion
on the collapse of the shear connector will be mentioned late (section 5.3.3).
Figure 5.16.: Failure of beam B3 due to collapse of shear connector in right side
For beam B4, by reducing the width of bottom flange into 200 mm (30 mm
thickness), the shear connection degree increased greater than 130%. The loaddeflection shown in Fig. 5.15 indicate the general behaviour of the beam was not
only limited in the elastic region but also also extended to yielding and plastic
domain. The ultimate strength and corresponding deflection reach 996.28 kN
and 95 mm, respectively. The fall down of the shear connectors did not occurr.
When the beam is nearly collapsed, many vertical cracks appear in the middle
span area. They are symbols of concrete to be crushed. In general, the beam
failed in a ductile mode, which is caused by yielding apart of steel girder and
crushing of concrete slab.
Table 5.4.: Comparison of ultimate strength, deflection and stiffness of beams B2 with B3 and
B4
B2
B3
Diff.
B4
Diff.
764.94
112.18
580.00
33.50
959.70
32.77
32.77
+25.46%
-70.79%
-
996.28
92.10
797.10
36.78
+30.31%
-17.90%
-
91
ultimate strength, the deflection as well as the interesting values at the first yield
point.
The beams B1 and B2 have the same cross section area (CSA) of steel girder,
their cross section areas are less than 10% compared to beam B3 and greater
than 32% compared to beam B4. The reults show Tee cross section girder has
significant possitive effect. In fact, beam B3 has CSA greater than 10% whereas
it has 25% higher than in ultimate strength and 70% smaller in deflection. The
performance might be further improved if shear connection capacity was better
designed. Moreover, beam B4 with CSA less than of 30% compare to beam
B1/B2, however it give impressive results with 30.31% higher in bearing capacity
and 17.90% in reduced deflection.
Another interesting aspect also is the initial stiffness of the beam, which may
be helpful for the design in servicebility limit state (SLS). In this term, the Tee
girder shows dominant strategy.
Load-Strain development in concrete slab and steel beam
Fig. 5.17 and Fig. 5.18 present load-strain curves and strain development respectively, which were measured at midspan sections of beam B3 and B4. In the case
of beam B3, both the compressive and tensile strain in top and bottom fiber of
beam are less than 2.0h. The strain in the bottom flange of steel girder achieved
yield strain first, whereas concrete slab and upper part of the web are still in the
elastic regime. The strain at the bottom of the concrete slab and top of the web
was approximate at entire load level, therefore the relative slip between concrete
slab and steel rib are unremarkable (Fig. 5.18). It can be noticed that, the shear
connectors worked well until suddenly collapsed.
For beam B4, the strain in bottom flange of steel girder reach limit of elastic at
applied load of 600 kN, whereas strain in concrete are still in elastic. The strain
in concrete began yielding then two of three steel areas were over limit values
as shown in Fig. 5.18. At load lever of 0.8PU the top of web and bottom of
concrete slab change from compression to tension state. The strain in both steel
and concrete part increased very fast, while the load carrying capacity increased
slower. The beam failed when the concrete slab crushed whose compressive strain
was over 3.6hand steel girder was in plastic state. The failure mode of the beam
B4 could be considered as ductile.
92
1000
1000
800
800
concrete
600
steel
600
B3-LVDT11
B3-LVDT10
400
400
B3-LVD10 conc.
B3-LVDT11 conc.
B4-LVDT10 conc.
B4-LVDT11 conc.
200
0
B4-LVDT11
-6
-4
B4-LVDT10
-2
Strain ()
B3-SG7
B4-SG11
B3-SG12
200
B4-SG7
-2
10
Strain ()
Figure 5.17.: Load-strain behaviour of composite beam B3 and B4, concrete slab (left) and steel
girder (right)
Figure 5.18.: Load-strain development in cross section beam B3(left) and B4 (right)
93
B2. The slip distribution at low load level are nearly uniform, and their magnitude changed when loading grew up. The peak of the relative slip located at
relative coordinate of 0.4 and decreased to the midspan section. The maximum
slip obtained is less than 0.5 mm in both beam B3 and B4. The load-slip development of beam B3 was not expresed as the same manner with Push-Out test.
Comparison with characteristic slip obtained from SPOT (Series 7, tab. 4.4), the
real slip of the beam are equal to 1/8 k only. It can be seen that, the characteristic slip from Push-Out test is much more higher than the actual slip in the
beam. The ductility requirement for UHPC perfobond shear connector must be
examined carefully when considering the redistribution of forces between shear
connectors.
1.00
0.75
0.50
B30.45Pu
B30.71Pu
B30.90Pu
B30.99Pu
B40.45Pu
B40.71Pu
B40.90Pu
B40.99Pu
Beam B3
Beam B4
0.25
0.00
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Relative distance from midspan of the beam
0.5
Contrast with beam B3, the different of slip between the shear connector of
beam B4 are relative small. At high load level the slip is nearly uniform in region
between the concentrate load and the support. This indicate that the acting force
on shear connectors were re-distributed. The maximum slip of beam B4 was 0.4
mm which is very small compare to slip capacity which obtained from Push-Out
test. However, It is not easy to predict when the failure will occur if the load
continues increasing. The slip behaviour of UHPC perforbond shear connector
should be further investigated.
5.3.4. Test results and observing of beam B5
Beam B5 was designed to utilized maximum compression capacity of UHPC slab.
As mentioned earlier, due to the lack of Push Out test data, which are essential
to evaluate the influence of reinforcement on the capacity of UHPC dowels. The
beam was decided to construct without embedding reinforcement in concrete
94
800
P/2
8m
600
400
Shear connector
failure at 13th cycle of loading
200
20
40
60
80
100
Deflection (mm)
The Load deflection behaviour of beam B5 is presented in Fig. 5.20 and the
relation between load versus strain in middle span section was presented in
Fig. 5.21. The beam exhibits very poor loading capacity. In fact, the ultimate strength is only 616.40 kN (40% of predicted ultimate capacity). The measured strain at concrete slab and steel girder vary also in range between 1.0hand
1.5hrespectively. The curves show the responses of the materials was limited in
elastic region only.
As can be Observed from the test, the beam had failure at 13th load cycle in
pre-loading period with the collapse of shear connector as the primary reason.
The beam failed as the same manner with beam beam B3. That is the progress
of collapse happened suddenly without any warning phenomena. There are no
transverse cracks was found on front surface of the concrete slab. The crack only
appeared after specimens was broken. The failure mode of the beam is identified
as brittle.
95
1000
B5SG3 web (below N.A) steel
B5SG4 bot. fl. steel
B5SG5 bot. conc. slab
B5SG6 top conc. slab
B5-SG6
B5-SG5
800
Applied load (kN)
B5-SG3
B5-SG4
600
400
200
Strain (%o )
0.40
0.30
B50.26Pu
B50.44Pu
B50.82Pu
B50.98Pu
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Relative distance from midspan of the beam
0.5
96
Fig. 5.23 presents slip development at several locations and its scaled image
was plotted together. As shown in the figure, when the load is small enough.
The load-slip relation exhibit linear elastic relationship. Residual strain after
loading-discharge cycle is not meaningfully due to the abstention of reinforcement
and low fiber contents. However, the micro crack in concrete had developed
evenly after loading cycle. If a shear connector is subjected to a big enough
shear force, the pre-cracked in concrete dowel could be the main factor for the
collapse of the weakest shear connector. Therefore, acting force on remain shear
connectors is interesting and it may exceed their resistance capacity. The falling
of the next weaker shear connector will occur very fast after first the one. The
composite beam will fail completely in shortly. Consequently, the capacity of the
shear connection not only depend on sum of individual strength but also on the
distribution shear force along beam.
1500
600
B5-LVDT 2
B5-LVDT 3
B5-LVDT 4
B5-LVDT 5
B5-LVDT 6
B5-LVDT 8
shear connector collapsed
at 13th cylce of repeat loading stage
1250
1000
750
500
shear connectors collapsed
400
500
300
B5-LVDT 2
B5-LVDT 3
B5-LVDT 5
250
0
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
The results obtained from this test implies that the transverse reinforcing bar in
cover layer play very limited role in increasing the strength of perfobond shear
connector, even if large amount of reinforcing bar is used. Compare with corresponding Push-Out test data, the achieved characteristic slip is greater than
3 to 5 times slip in beams. Once more again, the standard Push-Out test does
not reflect exactly the real behaviour of perfobond shear connection in composite
beams.
97
1250
1000
Concrete slab crushed
750
Rebar 8mm in dowel
and 8@100mm in front conc. surface
500
P/2
P/2
250
8m
20
40
60
80
100
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.24.: Load - deflection diagrams of beam B6, UHPC G7 0.5 % fiber content
98
low steel fiber content and stress rate increasing very fast. Investigating UHPC
slab after test, many transverse cracks appear along beam. However, these crack
were caused by subjected force after ultimate load was achieved. These transverse
cracks did not contribute to failure of the beam.
Based on the load-deflection curve, the failure mode of the beam can be considered as brittle general behaviour in elastic response.
Load - Slip behaviour
In the tests of beam B5 and B6, longitudinal slip were measured in both sides in
order to capture all sip data and avoid loss data if the failure of shear connector
occurred in one side only. In this test, the shear connection was sufficient to
transfer load from concrete to steel girder, as expected.
Fig. 5.25 presents the distribution of slip at several load levels. In fact, the maximum slip reach 0.35 mm only. This means that, the real slip in composite beam
is very small compared to its characteristic slip obtained from SPOT. Similar
to other tested beams, the slip distribution show not uniform along beam. The
biggest value locate at relative coordinate 0.3 from midspan section.
0.40
B60.15Pu
B60.47Pu
B60.80Pu
B61.00Pu
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
99
100
The strain in bottom flange (SG4) achieved 1.8h corresponding to peak that
load, which nearly equals to the nominal yield strain limit of S355 steel. Consider
web, the strain in bottom was steel in elastic whereas it reached 2.2h in the
top (SG1) and began yielding. On other hand, the maximum strain in bottom
and top surfaces of concrete slab were 2.2h and 3.7h respective, which lie in
fracture plastic zone of concrete. It can be noticed that, the strain in concrete
slab exceed that corresponding to the ultimate strength and lead to concrete
crushed before the steel girder enter into plastic regime.
1500
concrete slab crushed
1250
Applied load (kN)
B6-SG4
B6-SG1
1000
B6-SG6
B6-SG2
B6-SG3
B6-SG5
750
500
B6-SG1
B6-SG6
B6-SG1
250
B6-SG2
B6-SG5
B6-SG3
B6-SG2
B6-SG4
B6-SG3
B6-SG5
B6-SG4
-4
-3
B6-SG6
-2
-1
Strain ( )
ultimate compressive
strain
400
350
300
250
200
0.47Pu
0.73Pu
0.90Pu
1.00Pu
150
100
50
0
-5.0
-2.5
0.47Pu
0.78Pu
0.90Pu
1.00Pu
0.0
Strain ()
2.5
5.0
-5.0
-2.5
0.0
Strain ()
2.5
5.0
Figure 5.28.: Strain development in middle span section (left) and one third section (right) of
beam B6
The strain distribution over cross section at midspan and one third span section
are illustrated in Fig. 5.28. According to the figures shown above, the neutral
101
axis always lie below horizontal central axis of cross section (150 mm from bottom
up), and its position changes insignificantly during of loading. A comparison of
the different strain at top of the web and bottom of the slab at ultimate limit
state, it can be seen that, one third span is greater than midspan due to the fact
that the longitudinal slip at this section is higher.
100
75
Ac,ap
50
Ac,fp
25
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Strain (%o )
4.0
30
60
90
Stress (MPa)
102
PU 1
PRK
shear connetor in
composite beam collapsed
Ultimate load
Beam B3LVDT 4
SPOT series 7
0.8
0.6
~4mm
0.4
0.2
0
3
4
Relative slip (mm)
Figure 5.30.: Comparison load slip behaviour of shear connector in composite beam and push
out test
1.2
1
Loading ratio P/Pmax
Beam B5LVDT 5
SPOT serires 8
PU
PRk
0.8
0.6
~4 times
0.4
ultimate slip
from beam test
Characteristic slip
from SPOT
0.2
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Relative slip (mm)
1.5
2.0
Figure 5.31.: Comparison load slip behaviour of shear connector in composite beam and push
out test
The above comparison reveal that, the standard Push-Out test according to
EC4 (27) gives results better predictions of the behaviour of connectors in beams.
The same problem occurred on headed stud shear connector also early indicated
by some authors such as Johnson and Anderson (48) and Ernst (25).
103
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
0.08
119.88
0.08
125.54
0.38
87.62
0.38
121.33
0.4
90.26
0.32
100.00
1.00
B2
0.75
0.50
B3
B1
0.25
B6
B10.99Pu
B20.99Pu
B30.99Pu
B40.99Pu
B50.98Pu
B61.00Pu
B4
B5
0.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
uniform load
104
min(Rsh ,Rc )
.100%
Nfc
(5.1)
105
The shear perfobond shear connectors with variant shape can transfer the
shear forces from concrete slab to steel the girder effectively. Actual slip
in the composite beam is much smaller than its characteristic slip obtained
from standard push out test. Consequently, the partial shear connection is
not recommended.
Distribution of longitudinal shear force is not uniform in both cases of
concentrate and uniform load. Therefore the design of shear connection
must take into account this effect.
Embedded reinforcing bar in UHPC dowel play most important role in improving the ductility as well as the strength of shear connection system. In
contrast, the transverse reinforcement in front surface only play minor role
in enhancing the ductility of shear connectors. However they are necessary
to prevent tensile force which causes crack on the concrete surface.
The composite beam with Tee steel girder can provide 30% to 50% higher
bearing capacity than I section with the same cross section area. The
influence of long-tem cycling load (fatige load), types of shear connectors
and stability of UHPC composite beam are subjects left for further study.
106
108
should be taken into account, in order to describe nonlinear response of structures under external load. Some numerical investigation will be conducted with
variant of model parameters.
The first part of this chapter will short introduce the material models for structural steel and reinforcement. Then next will focus microplane model M4 for
concrete. The uni-axial compression and bending of three points notched beam
will be modeled and analyzed in order to evaluate influence of each parameter on
numerical results. A procedure for adjusting key parameters of microplane M4
for UHPC was proposed.
For the modelling of reinforcing bar, the elastic-plastic material model for structural steel is used with small modification in yield plateau portion. Hwak and
109
Filippou (59), Chen et al. (20) pointed out that, since steel reinforcement
have been used in concrete construction as form of rebar or wire, it is not necessary to introduce the complexities of three-dimensional constitutive model for
steel.
In this study, the simulation work would be concentrated to Push-Out and composite beams tests. In fact Push-Out tests requires considering the local behaviour caused by larger deformation at dowel region. Whereas composite beams
modelling demands to take into account the global response and local longitudinal slips. To utilize the computational efficiencies and achieve reasonable results,
all most structural models will be discretized by 3D solid element (brick element).
The reinforcement in Push-Out test will be idealized by 3D solid element, whilst
in the composite beam the one dimensional stress-strain for reinforcing bar is
used.
The deformed reinforcement Bst 500 grade was used for all specimens of composite beams and Push-Out tests. Its mechanical properties are given in table 4.1.
According to the design of the beams, most of reinforcing bars were arranged in
front surfaces, which lie in compression fiber of UHCP slab. Therefore the bond
interaction effect between reinforcing steel and surrounding concrete is omitted
and perfect bonding is assumed in the analysis.
110
into many commercial finite element (FE) code such as ATENA (18) and open
source FE code as OOFEM. Further more, many worldwide researchers implemented microplane M4 model in special FE softwares such as DYNA3D, ADINA,
ABAQUS, LIMFES etc. to solve their specific problems. Many successfully applications were reported in literature such as Bhattachary (10), Baky (6), Liu
and Foster (65; 66; 67), Heger et al. (105).
In numerical study of this work, the microplane M4 constitutive material model
was used for concrete material. Moreover, to avoid mesh sensitivity, the crack
band approach was also employed (8; 17). The microplane model M4 integrated
in the ATENA software is according to Bazants formulation (7), whose basic formula will be summarized in the next part. Full details concerning the
underlying hypothesis, basis relation of microplane M4 and advantage as well as
disadvantage in practical applications can be found in Bazant et al. (7; 15; 11),
Babua et al. (5).
Through out numerical simulation framework, the finite element code-ATENA
(18) was employed to carried out finite element analysis. The program offers a
wide range of options regarding element types, material behaviour and numerical solution controls etc. The preparation of the input data (pre-processing)
and evaluation of the numerical results (post-processing) are performed using
the commercial program GID (24). These utilized advanced graphic user interfaces features, auto-meshing as well as sophisticated post-processor and graphics
presentation to speed up the analyses.
6.3.2. Microplane M4 material model in ATENA
With the constitutive law of the microplane model M4, the macro stress on the
microplane is explicity determined from the stress-strain relationships, that have
been developed for a generic microplane. The micro stress are then combined
using principle work to get macro stress at a point. The micro stresses are split
into normal and tangential on each microplane. With the normal components
further split into deviatoric and volumetric components. Figure 6.2 shows the
steps involved for extracting the macro-stresses at a point from the macro-strains.
The presented volume of material is viewed at the microstructural level, and is
considered as three dimensional element defined by set of microplane of different
arranged in regular patten. Figure 6.2 depicts a typical representation, which
includes a set of microplane 28 equally and distributed on surface of hemisphere.
These planes represent the damage or weak planes at the microstructural lever
or plane of microcrack.
Kinematic
constraint
Equilibrium
Material
law
Micro strain
V , N , D , L , M
111
Micro stress
V , N , D , L , M
adjustment
z
n
N
M
The orientation of a microplane is characterized by the unit normal n of components ni (indices i and j refer to the components in Cartesian co-ordinates
xi ). In the formulation with kinematic constraint, which makes it possible to
describe softening in a stable manner, the strain vector N on the microplane is
the projection of the macroscopic strain tensor ij . So the components of this
vector are Ni = ij nj . The normal strain on the microplane can be expressed as
follow:
N = Nij ij ; Nij = ni nj
(6.1)
112
(6.2)
where V = volumetric strain (mean strain), same for all the microplanes. Defining S = spreading strain (or lateral strain) = mean normal strain in the lateral directions lying in the microplane, the volume change may be written as
3(N D ) = N + 2S , which clarifies the physical meaning.
D =
2
(N S )
3
(6.3)
(6.4)
in which Mij = (mi nj + mj ni )/2 and Lij = (li nj + lj ni )/2. The magnitude of T
is given by:
p
(6.5)
T = L 2 + M 2
In the macroscopic level, the behaviour of concrete is considered to arise from
micro crack initiated at the microscopic level. The concept of boundary was introduced to taken account the microscopic behaviour after cracking, and simulate the
softening behaviour of concrete. Figure 6.4 illustrate micro stress boundary for
the normal (a), deviatoric (b), volumetric(c) and shear(d) stress respectively (7).
Within the boundaries, the response is incrementally elastic, although the elastic
moduli may undergo progressive degradation as a result of damage. Exceeding
the boundary stress is never allowed. Travel along the boundary is permitted
only if the strain increment is of the same sign as the stress; otherwise, elastic
unloading occurs. In the increment constitutive equation could be written as rate
form follows:
V = EV V ; D = ED D ; M = ET M ; L = ET L
(6.6)
where EV , ED , ET are microplane elastic moduli whose relationship to the macroscopic Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio as follows:
EV = E /(1 2); ED = 5E /[(2 + 3)(1 + )]; and ET = ED
(6.7)
Here, is parameter that characterizes the effect of damage, which is best chosen
with = 1.
113
b
D
/E
b
N
/E
a) Normal boundary
vb /E
b) Deviatoric boundary
Tb /ET
N/ET
c) Volumetric boundary
d) Shear boundary
b
V
=
b
D
=
fV+ (+V ) =
EV k1 c13
if V 0
[1 + (c14 /k1
) < V k1 c13 >]
V
fV (V ) = Ek1 k3 exp
k1 k4
fD+ (+D ) =
fD (D ) =
Ek1 c5
2
b
N
= fN (N ) = Ek1 c1 exp
b
T
= fT (N ) =
(6.8)
if V < 0
< N c1 c2 k1 >
k1 c3 + < c4 V /EV >
o
ET k1 k2 c10 < N + N
>
o
ET k1 k2 + c10 < N + N >
if D 0
(6.9)
if D < 0
(6.10)
(6.11)
114
The macro volumetric stress is calculated as the minimum of the previous value
and average of the microscopic normal stress over unit hemisphere expressed as:
Z
V =
N d
(6.12)
The static equivalent of stress between macroscopic and microscopic lever can be
enforced by using principle work written for whole surface of a unit hemisphere.
The macroscopic stress tensor is expressed as (7):
3
ij = V ij +
2
Z
D
ij
Nij
3
+ L Lij + M Mij d
(6.13)
The integration in Equation (6.13), is performed numerically by an optimal Gaussian integration formula for spherical surface using a finite number of integration
points on the surface of the hemisphere, which may be expressed in the form:
Z
f (x )d = w f (x )
(6.14)
NX
=m
N =1
ij
+ L Lij + M Mij
wN D Nij
3
N
(6.15)
115
116
150
Cylinder
150x300mm
notched = 25x5mm
25
150
550
25
Stress (MPa)
Figure 6.5.: FE simulation RILEM (left) bending test and uni-axial compression (right)
160
20
120
15
80
10
40
0
-4.0
B4Q-axial strain
B4Q-Lateral strain
G7-Lateral strain
G7-Vertical strain
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
Strain ()
G7-RILEM-BeamTest
B4Q-RILEM-BeamTest
0.0
1.0
2.0
0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
Displacement (mm)
Figure 6.6.: Typical stress-strain of uni-axial compression test (left) and bending stressdisplacement diagram of RILEM three points bending test (right)
The full cylinder model consists of 1936 nodes and 1620 isoparametric solid elements; each element has eight nodes with 2 2 2 Gaussian points. Fully
restrained ends are considered for the cylinder to represent the boundary conditions with dominant friction. Similarly, model for RILEM beam was created
with 640 nodes and 412 brick elements. The element size of both models are
around 15 to 35mm that aimed to reduce overall computing time of numerical
investigation1 . In addition, the element size in this specimens modelling is corresponding to size of element in Push-Out specimens and composite beams. The
crack band parameter obtained from material level examination to be used in
structural modelling.
1A
analysis with 100 load steps will take approximate 16 minutes and 70 minute for cylinder
and Rilem beam model respectively.
117
Range of value
Min
Max
Increment
E (MPa)
k1
57,000
0.2
1.14e-4
70,000
1500
4.5e-4
0.35E-4
c1
c3
c4
c5
c7
c8
c10
c11
c12
0.1
10
30.0
1.0
20.0
4.0
0.2
0.1
5000.00
0.9
80.0
250.0
4.0
200.0
20.0
1.4
0.7
11000
0.1
10.0
30.0
0.5
20.0
2.0
0.2
0.1
1000.0
In the current analysis, the default value of set of parameter in ATENA was
considered as basic origin. For each parameter its value to be arranged in limited
range. The bounds of these parameters were set to values shown in Table 6.1. An
auxiliary tool was developed and it calls ATENACONSOLE program for finite element analysis, extracting results after processing and then modifying/generating
input data file for new analysis as well. All processes with auxiliary tool were
carried out fully automatically. For an investigation of the influence of individual parameter such as elastic modulus, only its value was changed. All other
parameter are keep constant with their default values.
6.4.3. UHPC experimental data
Experimental data were collected from specimen tests within research program
on UHPC which carried out by Uni-Leipzig and Uni-Kassel.(105; 107; 30). Fig.
6.6 shows stress-strain curves (left) according to compression test of G7 and B4Q.
118
As exhibit on the figure, the general behaviour uni-axial of both kinds of UHPC
are very similar, the steel fiber is not significant effect on compressive behaviour.
Compressive strength and strain at peak were approximate 150MPa and 3.3h
respectively. In addition, from these diagrams it can be recognized easily that,
the stress-strain curve does not exhibit softening branch (branch after ultimate
strength).
Typical flexural stress versus deflection of G7 and B4Q UHPC are shown in Fig.
6.6 (right), the flexural strength of 17 MPa of G7 compare to 14MPa of B4Q
UHPC. Two mixer of UHPC G7 and B4Q with the same fiber contents of 1%
does not show too much difference in flexural strength. The significant difference
of UHCP compare to NSC/HSC exhibit in softening branch. In fact that, the
B4Q using only one type of steel fiber, which is longer than G7. That affects
directly the post peak behaviour of flexural specimen. While G7 using cocktail
steel fiber with length of 6 and 13mm, it gave higher tensile strenght but less
ductile in post peak stage. The flexural test data for G7 mixer with 0.5% fiber
content are not available.
The material matrix, and especially steel fiber play the major role in improving
the ductile properties of concrete. Hence, the fracture energy is improved as
well. With the application of higher toughness concrete into composite beam to
enhance ductility of UHPC dowel when carrying and transfer shear force from
concrete slab to steel girder can be obtained.
6.4.4. Results of M4 model parameters investigation and discussion
Parameter: elastic modulus
Fig. 6.7 shows the influence of elastic modulus on compression and bending
behaviour. As exhibited from the compression test, any change of elastic modulus
cause a vertical scaling transformation of all response of stress and strain curve.
However, the lateral strain is not affected in this case due to the fact that the
specimens dose not confined. The elastic modulus derived from numerical model
Eout are alway less than input value Ein , however the ratio Ein /Eout nearly
constant. Observing on bending test, the elastic modulus seem to influence on
ultimate flexural strength (fct ). But any change of Ein does not affect the overall
flexural behaviour.
Thus, to reach target value Eout that equals to test value Etest , the input value
119
160
G7Expr.Lateral strain
G7Expr.Vertical strain
G7Sim.E0Lateral strain
G7Sim.E0Vertical strain
G7Sim.E2Lateral strain
G7Sim.E2Vertical strain
G7Sim.E4Lateral strain
G7Sim.E4Vertical strain
G7Sim.E5Lateral strain
G7Sim.E5Vertical strain
120
12
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
16
80
40
4
0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0
4.0
10.0
3.0
2.0
Displacement (mm)
1.0
0.0
Strain (%o)
1.0
2.0
Figure 6.7.: Effect of changing elastic modulus to flexural and compression specimens
Parameter: k1
The influence of parameter k1 is presented in Fig. 6.8. For the cylinder test, a
change of k1 causes radial scaling of stress-strain curve with respect to the origin.
0
If this parameter change from k1 to some other value k1 , all stress-strain are
0
multiply by the ratio k1 /k1 . With default value of k1 = 1.5 and adjusted elastic
, the peak stress value and accompanied strain are still less than
modulus Eout
actual values, given by test.
20
12
8
80
40
4
0
0.0
G7Expr.Lateral strain
G7Expr.Vertical strain
G7Sim.K10Lat.
G7Sim.K10Ver.
G7Sim.K12Lat.
G7Sim.K12Ver.
G7Sim.K14Lat.
G7Sim.K14Ver.
G7Sim.K16Lat.
G7Sim.K16Ver.
G7Sim.K18Lat.
G7Sim.K18Ver.
120
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
16
160
G7RILEMExper.
G7Sim.K10
G7Sim.K11
G7Sim.K13
G7Sim.K15
G7Sim.K16
2.0
4.0
6.0
Displacement (mm)
8.0
10.0
0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Strain (%o)
1.0
2.0
In the bending test, parameter k1 not only influences the flexural strength, but
also the deflection behaviour after peak. An increasing of k1 leads to increase
ductility and fracture energy of material in tension as well. This is very important
characteristic, in fact, which contributes to the spread tensile force to neighbor
120
12
8
80
40
4
0
0.0
G7Expr.Lateral strain
G7Expr.Vertical strain
G7Sim.C10Lat.
G7Sim.C10Ver.
G7Sim.C12Lat.
G7Sim.C12Ver.
G7Sim.C14Lat.
G7Sim.C14Ver.
G7Sim.C17Lat.
G7Sim.C17Ver.
120
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
16
160
G7RILEMExper.
G7Sim.C10
G7Sim.C11
G7Sim.C13
G7Sim.C15
G7Sim.C17
2.0
4.0
6.0
Displacement (mm)
8.0
0
4.0
10.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Strain (%o)
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
20
12
8
80
40
4
0
0.0
G7Expr.Lateral strain
G7Expr.Vertical strain
G7Sim.C30Lat.
G7Sim.C30Ver.
G7Sim.C32Lat.
G7Sim.C32Ver.
G7Sim.C34Lat.
G7Sim.C34Ver.
G7Sim.C37Lat.
G7Sim.C37Ver.
120
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
16
G7RILEMExper.
G7Sim.C30
G7Sim.C31
G7Sim.C32
G7Sim.C35
G7Sim.C36
2.0
4.0
6.0
Displacement (mm)
8.0
10.0
0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Strain (%o)
0.0
121
20
12
8
80
40
4
0
0.0
G7Expr.Lateral strain
G7Expr.Vertical strain
G7Sim.C50Lat.
G7Sim.C50Ver.
G7Sim.C52Lat.
G7Sim.C52Ver.
G7Sim.C54Lat.
G7Sim.C54Ver.
G7Sim.C55Lat.
G7Sim.C55Ver.
G7Sim.C56Lat.
G7Sim.C56Ver.
120
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
16
G7RILEMExper.
G7Sim.C50
G7Sim.C51
G7Sim.C52
G7Sim.C55
G7Sim.C56
2.0
4.0
6.0
Displacement (mm)
8.0
0
4.0
10.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
Strain (%o)
20
12
8
80
40
4
0
0.0
G7Expr.Lateral strain
G7Expr.Vertical strain
G7Sim.C70Lat.
G7Sim.C70Ver.
G7Sim.C72Lat.
G7Sim.C72Ver.
G7Sim.C74Lat.
G7Sim.C74Ver.
G7Sim.C76Lat.
G7Sim.C76Ver.
120
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
16
G7RILEMExper.
G7Sim.C70
G7Sim.C71
G7Sim.C72
G7Sim.C74
G7Sim.C76
2.0
4.0
6.0
Displacement (mm)
8.0
10.0
0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Strain (%o)
122
omitted, the parameter c7 is helpful to control this branch by using less than or
equal default value. Parameter c8 should not be changed in practical application.
160
20
12
8
80
40
4
0
0.0
G7Expr.Lateral strain
G7Expr.Vertical strain
G7Sim.C80Lateral strain
G7Sim.C80Vertical strain
G7Sim.C82Lateral strain
G7Sim.C82Vertical strain
G7Sim.C84Lateral strain
G7Sim.C84Vertical strain
G7Sim.C86Lateral strain
G7Sim.C86Vertical strain
G7Sim.C88Lateral strain
G7Sim.C88Vertical strain
120
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
16
G7RILEMExper.
G7Sim.C80
G7Sim.C81
G7Sim.C82
G7Sim.C85
G7Sim.C86
2.0
4.0
6.0
Displacement (mm)
8.0
0
4.0
10.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Strain (%o)
0.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Strain (%o)
1.0
2.0
12
8
80
40
4
0
0.0
G7Expr.Lateral strain
G7Expr.Vertical strain
G7Sim.C120Lat.
G7Sim.C120Ver.
G7Sim.C122Lat.
G7Sim.C122Ver.
G7Sim.C124Lat.
G7Sim.C124Ver.
G7Sim.C126Lat.
G7Sim.C126Ver.
120
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
16
160
G7RILEMExper.
G7Sim.C120
G7Sim.C121
G7Sim.C123
G7Sim.C124
G7Sim.C126
2.0
4.0
6.0
Displacement (mm)
8.0
10.0
0
4.0
3.0
2.0
Parameter c4 gives results which does not affects to compression and bending.
It should be used as default value of program. Further examinations were also
performed with parameters c10 , c11 and c12 as well. The group of these parameters only effect the stress state in trial axial compression test or tension-shear
stress state. As can be seen in Fig. 6.14, no significant difference appears on the
uni-axial and bending test.
The numerical study of Push Out test in this work had pointed out that, the
parameter c10 is very sensitive in bi-axial tension-shear stress state, while the
influence of two parameters c11 and c12 is not remarkable. It will be mentioned
again in the part modelling of Push-Out test chapter 7.
123
20
G7-Expr.-Lateral strain
G7-Expr.-Vertical strain
G7-Sim.-Trial-1-Lat.
G7-Sim.-Trial-1-Ver.
G7-Experiment.
G7-Simumation
120
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
15
10
40
0
0.0
80
2.0
4.0
6.0
Displacement (mm)
8.0
10.0
0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
Strain ()
0.0
1.0
2.0
Figure 6.15.: Stress-displacement and Stress-strain response of G7-UHPC (1% vol. steel fiber)
with Microplane M4 material model adjusted parameters
124
160
20
B4Q-Expr.-Lateral strain
B4Q-Expr.-Vertical strain
B4Q-Sim.-Trial-1-Lat.
B4Q-Sim.-Trial-1-Ver.
B4QExperiment.
B4QSimulation1
120
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
15
10
40
0
0.0
80
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
Displacement (mm)
-1.0
Strain ()
0.0
1.0
2.0
Figure 6.16.: Stress-displacement and Stress-strain response of B4Q-UHPC (1% vol. steel fiber)
with Microplane M4
Parameter
E (MPa)
k1
c1
c3
66131.9
59300.0
2.75E-04
2.80E-04
0.70
0.70
14.0
10.0
With the guideline mentioned above, numerous attempts were performed. The
simulation results of the cylinder and RILEM beam are presented in Fig. 6.15
and Fig. 6.16. The details of the adjusted parameters are listed in table 6.2. The
stress-axial strain curve and peak value of uni-axial compression show excellent
agreement with experiments, while stress- lateral strain is reasonable. Thus, it
causes Poissons ratio little smaller actual value and varies in range 0.19 to 0.21.
Observing stress-deflection curves of bending behaviour, the flexural strengths
reach actual value of experiment. However, the slope of softening branch in
modelling show steeper than experiment, the area limited curve and abscissa are
equivalent. Generally, it is really difficult to control simulation results that best
fit with multi targets simultaneously. There are many reasons to explain for the
answers. In this work, the numerical results at material level are found to be
reasonable and can be applied for structural analysis level.
125
126
128
the development a 3D model for composite beams, with accounts for complexity geometry and nonlinear behaviour of materials. The finite element analysis
attempts to following aims:
evaluate global structural behaviour of composite beams with slab made of
UHPC, various profiles of steel girder and types of shear connector were
considered with the same properties of UHPC slab.
predict the ultimate load, performance of each steel profile and failure mode
as well.
determine the distribution of longitudinal shear force and the influence of
the degree of shear connection on the bearing capacity.
Steel rib
UHPC dowel
Slip force
Steel rib
UHPC slab
20mm gap
for reaction free
Steel flange
Open dowel
Closed dowel
129
The symmetry of the specimen was taken into account to reduce computational
effort, therefore only a half of the specimens was modeled. Figure 7.1 shows a half
of the typical Push-Out test specimen, which was used in numerical investigation.
In the finite element model, the trapezoidal steel rip was replaced by rectangular
plate with the same thickness.
The data input preparation and presentation analysis results were performed
with ATENA/GID program. A special tool, named Tool4Atena was developed
to assist the preparation of the data file, to call ATENA solver module and to
extract results.
Finite element mesh and kinematic conditions
Applied force
steel flange
UHPC dowel
UHPC slab
front layer
a half of model
y
Support in
bottom surface
1200
Series 2
Series 5
Series 3
Series 6
Series 4
Series 7
1000
Applied load (kN)
hole 20x20mm
800
reinf. bar
in front layer
600
400
200
0
4
6
Relative slip (mm)
10
The Push-Out model was constructed with three solid blocks corresponding to
steel, concrete slab and reinforcement parts. The last two blocks were glued and
130
meshed together, the nodes on the contact surfaces were merged completely. The
main aim is to ensuring that, the bond between UHPC and the reinforcement are
perfectly without any relative slip. Remaining steel part was meshed separately
with concrete and reinforcing bars. The interface between steel and concrete
is processed in later. The most important aspect for the Push-Out model is
kinematic condition must be satisfied . Which can be shortly described as follow:
the perfobond rib can move in downward direction relatively with concrete
slab under push-down load.
the reaction force against moving down only appear at above half of concrete
dowel.
the interaction in normal direction of steel rib surface must be taken into
account due to the deformation of the concrete block.
As shown in Fig. 7.2, the FE model of Push-Out specimen was created with full
three dimensional, which uses two types of elements from the ATENA element
library. The concrete slab, steel flange, perforated rib and reinforcing bar were
modeled using CCIsoBrick8 3D three-dimensional solid elements.
There are two different idealizations which satisfy kinematic condition as stated
above. The consideration was based on economy of computation time, ease of
data definition as well as the agreement with test data. The first approach is to
use constrain degree of freedom technique, which mergers the same displacement
value in a degrees of freedom. In fact, the coincident nodes at contact surfaces
between steel and concrete are constrained with appropriated translation DOFs
depending on their positions. The second approach is to use gap element to
represent the interface surfaces. This method allows the transfer of force from
concrete to steel and the friction force is also considered.
A comparison was carried out for several analytical cases. For local damage
investigation purposes, the coupling DOFs approach has more advantage. It was
adopted for Push-Out simulation, while interface approach was used for analysis
of the composite beams.
Figure 7.3 shows the position of the DOFs to be constrained, where coincident
nodes on a half above of dowel were merged completely with three DOFs Ux, Uy
and Uz. While at coincident concrete and steel rib surfaces nodes were coupled
either in X or Z direction. In addition those nodes at corner were couple in both
X and Z DOFs. The merging of nodes replaces all the nodes that lie at the same
coordinate location with only one node, and the lowest number of all the nodes
merged is retained.
131
Uy = 10mm
Coupling dof: Uz
Ux
Uz
Ux,z
Res. Ux
Res. Ux
Uz Ux,z
a)
y
Res. Ux
Restraint Uy
x
b)
a)
b)
Figure 7.3.: Loading, boundary conditions and constrain DOFs at contact surfaces between
steel and concrete
As in actual tests, the prescribed displacement was applied at the top of the
steel flange, all nodes have a uniform displacement in down ward direction. The
loading rate was increased very slowly by dividing into more than 250 sub steps.
In the elastic domain, the load steps was divided thinly scattered, otherwise in
the inelastic domain (yielding or plastic/crushed) load step was specified very
fine. Numerical experience indicates that, the control with difference load steps
132
save more computational time and achieved better convergence during solving
equilibrium equation system. To improve convergence in each load step, linear
search algorithm was turned on and a maximum of 50 iterations was allowed.
To obtain the load-slip response, the applied load can be calculated through by
sum of vertical reaction forces at bottom of the concrete slab. And the slip was
measured as relative displacement between the nodes on the steel flange and that
on the concrete slab, which are the same position in real test.
Material behaviour specifications
The nonlinear material corresponding to each part of specimens were taken into
account. In fact the steel flange and rib as well as reinforcing bars were modelled
as an isotropic bilinear elastic-plastic perfectly material. The microplane model
M4 was used for describing the behaviour of all concrete parts. The parameters
of M4 model were determined based on calibration of cylinder and RILEM beam
test as discussed in chapter 6.
7.2.2. Experimental validation finite element model
The proposed numerical model for Push-Out test was validated through a comparison with experiments. The first group includes series 3 and 4 with open
dowel, and the second group consists series 6 and 7 with closed dowel. The reinforcing bar arrangement are the same for both groups, however these groups
are different in test setup. The details of specimen design and test setup of each
series was given in table 4.3.
As observed from the test results, the load-slip behaviour of POT exhibits highly
nonlinear behaviour in pre. and post peak branch. The nonlinearity came from
many sources such as material, interaction on contact surface and the geometry
which are not accurate due to production. Among of them, the nonlinear behaviour of concrete material plays an important role, and it is a critical factor
influencing to the predicted strength and behaviour of Push-Out specimen.
With material parameters of concrete obtained from material level calibration
the load slip behaviour from FE analysis show similar with that observed in
experiment. However the predicted ultimate load is often approximate 20% to
35% higher than the test reults and the slip coressponding to peak load is also
significantly disparate with test. Thus, it is worth mentioning that the calibrated
parameter of model M4 give insufficient accuracy. The reason is quite easy to
understand: there are many differences between real specimen and numerical
133
model. Not all physical process occured in the real specimen could be taken into
account in simulation. Furthermore, the accuracy of constitutive material models
for concrete is not alway sufficient.
The trial analyses indicate that, the principle stress state of local damage area is
in tension-shear. In general, the response of Push-Out models are very sensitive
to parameter c10 in M4 model. A changing of c10 leads to radial scaling of applied
force and slip. Furthermore, parameter c1 slightly affects the peak load and slope
in softening branch. In order, to achieve sufficient agreement with experimental
data, parameter c1 and c10 must be adjusted. The trial analysis was performed
until the simulation results converge to experimental data. The convergence was
achieved only after a few analysis trials. Hence, adjusted input parameter of
model M4 will be used thought all Push-Out simulations.
The comparison between FE simulation and experiment on ultimate load and
characteristic slip are shown in Table 7.1. It can be seen that, the ultimate load
predicted from FE simulation is approximately 2.75% to 8.3% higher than experimental results. However, estimated chracteristc slips have large diverge with
test data, the difference vary around 30% to 40.0% depending on the embedded
rebar arrangement.
Table 7.1.: Comparison of ultimate capacity predicted by ATENA with experimental values
Ultimate capacity
Specimens
Exper.
Predicted
Pu (kN)
Characteristic slip
Diff.
Exper.
Predicted
(mm)
Diff.
%
ODW-3 (series 3)
ODW-4 (series 4)
862.61
1065.53
833.31
1154.17
3.40
8.32
1.22
4.64
2.46
4.32
6.70
CDW-6 (series 6)
CDW-7 (series 7)
935.47
1116.30
874.31
1146.78
6.54
2.73
1.33
4.61
0.73
2.82
44.83
39.2
Fig. 7.4 (series 2 and 4) and Fig. 7.5 (series 5 and 7) depict the comparisons
between the FE model results and the experimental data for load-slip curves
respectively. As shown in the figures, the numerical solutions exhibit very good
convergence in softening branch, allowing to describe full behaviour of Push-Out
model until collapse occurred. This show critical advantage of microplane model
to other fracture-plastic based models in simulating highly nonlinearity problem
of structural concrete.
134
1400
Series 3experiment
Series 4experiment
Series 3modelling
Series 4modelling
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Relative slip (mm)
8.0
10.0
Figure 7.4.: Comparison load-slip response of experimental and FE analysis for Push-Out series
3 and 4 (open dowel)
1400
Series 6experiment
Series 7experiment
Series 6Modelling
Series 7Modelling
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Relative slip (mm)
8.0
10.0
Figure 7.5.: Comparison load-slip response of experimental and FE analysis for Push-Out series
6 and 7 (closed dowel)
It can be seen from above figures that, with full embedded rebars in dowel and
front layer, the deformation show poorer ductility compared to the experiment.
While in the case of without rebars in cover the deformation/slip obtained from
numerical modelling is alway higher than the experiment results. This means
that, the effect of reinforcement is sufficiently taken into account, on the other
hand, material model of concrete produced larger strain than actual response.
From concrete material model point of view, the problem may caused by the
135
136
applications, if the spacing between shear connector is greater than four times of
the dowel diameter then the transverse reinforcement within that span may be
neglected.
Tension-shear
area
Tensile force
on concrete
surface
dowel
rebars
Vhi
Punching in
front surface
Thi
P
hi
Punching
force
Thi
Vhi
Tlo
lo
Shear force
lo
Tlo
Vlo
Vlo
a) Deformation
b) Displacement field
Figure 7.6.: Local deformation of the series 4 - Open dowel with test setup 2
Tension-shear
area
Tensile force
on concrete
surface
dowel
rebars
Vhi
Punching in
front surface
P
hi
Thi
Punching
force
Thi
Vhi
Tlo
Shear force
lo
Vlo
a) Deformation
Vlo
Tlo
b) Displacement field
Figure 7.7.: Local deformation of the series 7 - Closed dowel with test setup 1
137
critical tensile stress concentrates on the perimeter of the holes (point E), this
area may be broken if the push down force increase continually. The magnitude
and scope of the tensile stress in two holes are significantly different. Point E is
higher approximate 40% than that of point E1.
400
tensile stress
ODWPoint A
ODWPoint B
Stress (MPa)
compressive
stress
300
ODWPoint C
200
100
0
100
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
8.0
10.0
400
tensile stress
ODWPoint D
ODWPoint F
ODWPoint G
G
E
Stress (MPa)
compressive
stress
ODWPoint E
300
200
100
0
F
G1
E1
100
0.0
2.0
D1
4.0
6.0
Observing the stress development diagrams in Fig. 7.8. One can see that the
peak tensile stress of critical area in open hole reaches 270 MPa while in closed
holes achieves 200 MPa only. Comparing representative domains (B vs D, A
vs F), the stress of open dowel are approximate 15% to 25% higher than that
for close dowels. The stress result obtained from FE simulation of series 3 to
4 and series 6 to 7 shows that the stress/strain in steel rib are alway less than
the yield strength limit.The steel exhibits elastic behaviour, which agrees with
obsevation from tests. A comparison of Figs. 7.4 and 7.5 to 7.8 indicates that
stress increament in steel rib is slower than the resistance load. This can be
explained by strength of steel rib is higher.
138
tensile areas
compressive
areas
I1
J1
Strain yy (%o )
I1
7.5
punching
5.0
2.5
ODWPoint I
ODWPoint J
0.0
ODWPoint I1
ODWPoint J1
2.5
ODWPoint K
5.0
J1
7.5
10.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
a) Open dowel
10.0
N
7.5
tensile areas
5.0
L1
M1
compressive
areas
Strain yy (%o )
punching
L1
2.5
CDWPoint L
CDWPoint M
0.0
CDWPoint L1
CDWPoint M1
2.5
7.5
10.0
0.0
b) Closed dowel
CDWPoint N
5.0
M1
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
The local damage investigation of concrete is carried out via examination of the
local strain distribution on critical regions. Fig. 7.9 shows strain yy in a half of
concrete slab at peak load, and the strain development diagrams of the typical
points are also plotted in the same figures.
It can be seen that, generally, the strain distribution of CDW and OWL exhibits
very similar. The tensile strain region locates on the upper part of the dowel
(Point I, I1 and L, L1), while the compressive domain take places almost part of
dowels and its below areas (Point J, J1 and M, M1). In initial stage the damage
regions is relative small and it is expanded proportional with resistant load of the
dowel. After the resistance reaches peak load, the tension area are full plastic
and while compression zone expands continuously. This area plays a main role
in carrying external force until full crushed, exhibited in softening branch of the
characteristic load slip curve. Observing point K and N where the punching force
139
concentrates to the front cover. For ODW the tensile stress at position along with
both dowels are nearly the same in term of magnitude and influencing area. This
is contrast to CWD with point N give exceptional magnitude compare to the
remaining corresponding location.
The development of strain versus slip at the critical points are shown in Fig. 7.9.
It can be seen the strain increase very fast after specimen is begin loaded. The
tensile strain curves reach ultimate limit value of concrete earlier than compressive strain curves. A comparison of the strain-slip diagram (Fig.7.9) to stress-slip
diagram (Fig. 7.8) shows the failure of concrete dowel occurs early before the
yield of the steel rib. The current design of dowel profile where the steel rib
is greater than the cross section of concrete dowel, the failure mode of shear
connector are controlled by plastic/crushing of concrete rather than the yield of
steel.
Shearing cone of concrete dowel
Fig. 7.10 shows the local strain distribution on the cross section of concrete
dowel. As can seen from horizontal section (Fig. 7.10b), the vertical strain is in
compression state at center while far away in tension. The change of strain state
results in the shear force at both sides of the steel rib that forms the punching
cone as showing in Fig. 7.10c. The dimension of this cone depends on the strain
state when external force is imposed. With embedded rebar of 8mm diameter
in the concrete dowel, the simulation result at peak load indicates the width of
shear area is about 3 times thickness of steel rib at the top perforated hole and
expands to 5 to 7 times of rib thickness at the bottom.
For reinforcement, the stress distribution is demonstrated in Fig. 7.10a, the stress
suddenly change from compression to tension at shear surface of the shearing
cone. The compressive stress in mid strip area reach 265 MPa and 200 MPa
for open and closed dowel respectively while the tensile stress reach nearly 10
MPa only. After peak load the stress in reinforcing bar increases continuously if
external load still imposed, and rebars may be full yielded at center area. This
point out that, the amount of rebar at center should be more than out side
regions.
To evaluated the effectiveness of the dowel action in shear connector, the effective width is defined by the size of highly concentrated zone in both sides of the
steel rib. Observing on numerical solution when concrete dowel are full plastic,
the effective width of stress strain was approximate 7 times of thickness for reinforcing bars of 8mm and 9 to 12 times for 14mm and 16mm respectively.
Consequently, to improve the shear resistance of shear connector, the effective
140
Figure 7.10.: Stress concentration distribution in rebars of Series 4 (ODW) and 7 (CDW)
For practical calculation resistance of plain concrete dowel, the shearing cone is
simplified as a wedge as shown in Fig. 7.11, the width of top and bottom cone
are t and 5t respectively.
141
The simulation results for the shear resistance of each group are listed in Tab.
7.3, and they are combined with full sets of experimental results given in Tab.
7.2 for linear regression analysis. Due to the lack of test results to validate the
numerical model, the variation of concrete properties and geometry parameters
should be performed in the further work.
Prediction model of shear capacity
As mentioned in chapter 4, the experimental study pointed out that the bearing capacity of PSC depends on concrete dowel and rebar in dowel as well as
transverse reinforcement in front cover. The numerical simulation indicates that
the deformation and yielding of the steel rib also contribute too. The simple
prediction equation of bearing capacity of the PSC can be assumed that:
Pu = 1 Pdw + 2 Pr + 3 Pfr + 4 Pa
(7.1)
Where: Pdw , Pr , Pfr and Pa are resistant capacity of concrete dowel, rebar
in dowel, reinforcing bars in cover as well as steel rib respectively. And i is
weighting factor of the each contribution, which are to be determined by linear
regression analysis.
142
p
p
Pdw = 2ndw 4t 2 + 2
fc
(7.2)
Pa = ndw tfy,a
(7.3)
2 = 1.1259
3 = 0.4054
4 = 0.2296
(7.5)
It worth be to mention that, the scope of equation 7.6 is very limited due to the
limitation of available data. The variation of concrete properties and geometry
parameter should be further studied. To verify the accuracy of the equation 7.6,
all experimental data are compared and listed in Tab. 7.4. The predictions show
good agreement with tests and simulation for a steel fiber volume of 1.0%. For
specimens contains 0.5% steel fiber, the prediction results give lower values with
error varying from 20% to 30% compared to test results.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10
11
Series
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
t(mm)
Thick.
Description
1
2
3
Spec.
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
Yield
strength
fy(N /mm 2 )
Steel rib
Table 7.2.: Push-Out test and modelling data for linear regression analysis
201.1
113.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
201.1
201.1
201.1
201.1
201.1
201.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
201.1
201.1
201.1
201.1
201.1
201.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ar ,dw (mm 2 )
Dowel
502.7
502.7
502.7
502.7
502.7
502.7
502.7
502.7
502.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
502.7
502.7
502.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Front
cover
Ar ,cov (mm 2 )
Reinforcement in
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
fb (%)
cont.
Fiber
967.99
1005.13
894.53
862.16
814.62
729.34
1113.50
1081.77
1066.10
935.47
979.87
927.87
903.01
827.09
865.25
1075.38
1068.52
1113.50
935.47
979.87
927.87
903.01
827.09
865.25
Pu,1 (kN )
strength
Ultimate
14
13
12
Series
fb (%)
1186.70
1238.24
1277.96
1340.12
Pu,1 (kN )
strength
Front
cover
Ar ,cov (mm 2 )
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1125.57
1203.35
1219.80
Ultimate
Ar ,dw (mm 2 )
502.7
502.7
502.7
502.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1089.63
1126.17
1146.78
1208.97
cont.
Yield
strength
fy(N /mm 2 )
314.2
452.4
615.8
804.2
502.7
502.7
502.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Fiber
t(mm)
380
380
380
380
201.1
201.1
201.1
502.7
502.7
502.7
502.7
Reinforcement in
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
380
380
380
201.1
201.1
201.1
201.1
Dowel
8.0
12.0
14.0
235
275
380
460
Thick.
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Steel rib
Table 7.3.: Push-Out test and modelling data for linear regression analysis (cont)
25
26
27
28
Open dowel setup 2
with full rebars.
Rib thickness change
Description
29
30
31
Open dowel setup 2
with full rebars.
Different in yield
strength of steel
Spec.
32
33
34
35
145
Table 7.4.: Verification prediction model with experimental and simulation data
Steel rib
Spec.
Reinforcement in
Thick.
Yield
Dowel
Front
t(mm)
strength
(N /mm 2 )
(mm 2 )
cover
(mm 2 )
1
2
3
10.0
10.0
10.0
380
380
380
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
5
6
10.0
10.0
10.0
380
380
380
7
8
9
10.0
10.0
10.0
10
11
12
Ult. strength
Diff.
Pu,test
Pu,pred
Expt.
Pred.
Pu,test (kN )
Pu,pred. (kN )
0.0
0.0
0.0
903.01
827.09
865.25
849.86
849.86
849.86
1.06
0.97
1.02
201.1
201.1
201.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
935.47
979.87
927.87
963.05
963.05
963.05
0.97
1.02
0.96
380
380
380
201.1
201.1
201.1
502.7
502.7
502.7
1075.38
1068.52
1113.50
1064.94
1064.94
1064.94
1.01
1.00
1.05
10.0
10.0
10.0
380
380
380
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
903.01
827.09
865.25
849.86
849.86
849.86
1.06
0.97
1.02
13
14
15
10.0
10.0
10.0
380
380
380
201.1
201.1
201.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
935.47
979.87
927.87
963.05
963.05
963.05
0.97
1.02
0.96
16
17
18
10.0
10.0
10.0
380
380
380
201.1
201.1
201.1
502.7
502.7
502.7
1113.50
1081.77
1066.10
1064.94
1064.94
1064.94
1.05
1.02
1.00
19
20
10.0
10.0
380
380
0.0
0.0
502.7
502.7
814.62
729.34
951.76
951.76
0.86
0.77
21
22
10.0
10.0
380
380
0.0
0.0
502.7
502.7
894.53
862.16
951.76
951.76
0.94
0.91
23
24
10.0
10.0
380
380
201.1
113.1
502.7
502.7
967.99
1005.13
1064.94
1206.43
0.91
0.83
25
26
27
28
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
380
380
380
380
314.2
452.4
615.8
804.2
502.7
502.7
502.7
502.7
1186.70
1238.24
1277.96
1340.12
1126.61
1206.43
1298.39
1404.50
1.05
1.03
0.98
0.95
29
30
31
8.0
12.0
14.0
380
380
380
201.1
201.1
201.1
502.7
502.7
502.7
1125.57
1203.35
1219.80
1302.19
1097.69
1130.44
1.09
1.10
1.08
32
33
34
35
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
235
275
380
460
201.1
201.1
201.1
201.1
502.7
502.7
502.7
502.7
1089.63
1126.17
1146.78
1208.97
1005.02
1021.55
1064.94
1098.00
1.08
1.10
1.08
1.10
146
A. S
3000/4000
500
500
400
100
60 30
150
12mm
10mm
300
8@100mm
14mm
45mm
30mm
200
45
410
14mm
385
60
60
150
60
400
45
147
Common node
3D steel element
The finite element types used in the model are as follows: eight node Hexahedra (CCIsoBrick8 3D) for the steel girder, perfobond shear connectors as well as
concrete slab; multi linear 3D truss element (CCIsoTruss2 3D for the reinforcing bars; interface element (CCIsoGap8 3D) for interactions at surfaces between
steel and concrete. In the model, the bond between concrete and reinforcement
was considered as perfectly. Additional friction and cohesion force at interface
surfaces were also neglected. A minimum value of tension stiffness in tangent
148
and normal direction were assigned to avoid occurring singularity during solving
equilibrium equation system (18).
In the ATENA element library, the interface element has a family of hexahedra
element with six or eight nodes. The two primary opposite surfaces were coupled
with the surfaces of steel and concrete respectively. The thickness of contact layer
was neglected. Fig. 7.14 illustrates the interface elements and its connection. In
order to generate all data for analysis and post processing phases, the model
was created in the GID environment and export to ATENA data file. Then the
Tool4Atena was used to generate interface data before solving.
Material modelling of the composite beam models
The material model for composite beam analysis are derived from Push-Out test
modelling. Compare to the Push-Out model, only difference in material model
for reinforcing bars i.e., one dimensional (1D) multi linear hardening was used.
Controlling numerical solution
For simple supported composite beams analysis, the pair of concentrate load was
subjected to the beams via loading plates with enough stiffness to transfer load
into concrete slab (Fig. 7.13). In this model, the load was only placed on center
line in transverse direction of the plate, not on overall surface. The plate will
rotate together with cross section of the beam. The aim of this technique to avoid
locking of loading plate, which will caused too early local damage and results in
incorrect of global response.
To control convergence of solution, external load was replaced by an equivalent
prescribed displacement, which increases very slow and is controlled to ensure
convergence of solution on each load step. The applied force is calculated by
summing up all vertical reaction components.
For solving nonlinear equation, full Newton-Raphson was used and linear search
algorithm also turn on to accelerated convergence. In the convergence criteria,
L2 norm was considered for displacement, residual and energy error. The finite
element mesh was controlled enough small to ensure convergence of solution. If
the density of mesh increases will result in huge of unknowns in system equations
which very difficult convergence in solve nonlinear equation and take too much
computation time. In this work, with a half of model, the total amount of the
calculation time for 250 load steps and preparing data for post processing takes
approximate 27 hours on the 2 2.6 GHz duo core computer.
149
Failure criterion
To evaluation the failure of composite beam, the criterion as follow will be applied
in the analysis:
failure of steel beam when strain reach yield limit of materials. In this case
at the critical section, the mean value of strain of a part is equal or greater
than 0.18%.
the collapse of composite beams caused by crushing of concrete in compression zone when compressive strain lies in the limit area of lower and upper
boundaries corresponding to 0.3% and 0.35%.
the failure of shear connectors occur when stiffness of beam is too high while
amount of shear connector is less than required. The shear capacity of the
total dowels is lesser than longitudinal shear force. For NSC composite
beams, the second condition often occur, however for UHPC composite
beam, potentials of both reasons may occur.
In the numerical analysis of composite beam the first two criteria were used as
major checking conditions, while the shear failure of connector only plays a minor
role.
7.3.2. Validation of the FE model
Load - deflection
To validate the FE model, a comparison of FE analysis result versus experimental
data are best illustration. Fig. 7.15 shows the typical deformed shape of the beam
B1 and the corresponding FE simulations. Table 7.5 describes the details of the
beams are being compared with FE analysis. The degree of shear connection
for each beam is defined as the ratio of resistance of shear connection and less
than the element capacity of steel beam or UHPC slab. More detailed values also
presented in this table.
Table 7.6 shows all analyzed results and experimental data of the composite
beams with ultimate strength and deflection at mid span. A comparison of load
- defection diagram at one of quarter and mid span is presented in Fig. 7.16 and
7.17. It can be seen that the initial stiffness of the composite beams predicted by
the FE model are the same as that of the experimental. In the yielding plastic
zones, the response demonstrates very good agreement with test, the peak loads
in simulation come earlier compared with the experiment.
150
B1
B2
B3
B4
Specimen ID
B6M-I-ODW-100
B6M-I-CDW-100
B6M-T-CDW-150
B6M-T-ODW-150
Steel
Dowel(Dia. 45mm)
Deg. of shear
girder
Quan.
Shape
Spacing
connection
I
I
invT
invT
59
59
39
39
ODW
CDW
CDW
ODW
100
100
150
150
126.54
153.88
95.86
111.80
The pair of ultimate load obtained by present simulation and experiment data
were 748.73 kN and 756.8 kN for beam B1, 763.77 kN and 764.39 kN for beam
B2, 952.86 kN and 929.96kN for beam B3 as well as 972.75kN and 877.08kN for
beam B4. The difference on ultimate strength of beam B1 to B3 in range of 1.0%
to 2.4% and the beam B4 is higher up to 9.8%. The simulation indicates that,
the simulation for the ultimate loads are better than for deformation. The loaddeflection curves also pointed out that, the composite beam B1 and B2 were failed
by yielding of steel profile while failure mode of beam B3 governed by collapse of
shear connections, the behaviour show elastic only. In the numerical model, all
beams exhibited the same failure mode as experiment.
151
Table 7.6.: Ultimate load and deflection results for the experimental and numerical analyses
Beam
B1
B2
B3
B4
Deflection (mm)
Simulation
Exper.
Simulation
748.81
761.18
952.86
996.54
756.19
763.56
929.96
877.08
100.41
110.01
32.77
92.29
78.49
84.52
30.25
45.54
yielding of steel
yielding of steel
shear connection
yielding + crushing
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
B1-Def. at 1/4 span (test)
B1-Def. at 1/2 span (test)
B1-Def. at 1/4 span (sim.)
B1-Def. at 1/2 span (sim.)
200
0
Failure mode
25
50
75
100
125
200
150
25
Deflection (mm)
50
75
100
125
150
Deflection (mm)
Figure 7.16.: Comparison test and modelling results of beam B1 and B2, force - deflection
1200
1200
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
B3-Def. at 1/4 span (test)
B3-Def. at 1/2 span (test)
B3-Def. at 1/4 span (sim.)
B3-Def. at 1/2 span (sim.)
200
0
20
40
60
Deflection (mm)
80
200
100
20
40
60
80
100
Deflection (mm)
Figure 7.17.: Comparison test and modelling results of beam B3 and B4, force - deflection
From comparison simulation results and test data in both term force and deformation. It can be seen that, the proposed finite element model has sufficient
accuracy and reliability for numerical investigation of composite beams. It is able
to predict ultimate load accurately as well as the failure mode.
152
In order, to illustrate the capacity of numerical model for the local behaviour,
the load - strain in the steel girder and UHPC slab of middle span are shown.
Fig. 7.18 to Fig. 7.21 present load-strain response in concrete slab and steel
girder of beam B1 to B4 respecitvely. It can be seen that, the strain development
show very good agreement with test data, which is similar to the load-deflection
curves.
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
B1-bot. flange (test)
B1-top falnge (test)
B1-bot. flange (sim)
B1-top falnge (sim)
200
0
-1.5
0.0
7.5
200
9.0
0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
Strain of concrete slab()
2.0
Figure 7.18.: Comparison test and modelling results of beam B1, force-strain
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
B2-bot. flange (test)
B2-top falnge (test)
B2-bot. flange (sim)
B2-top falnge (sim)
200
0
-1.5
0.0
7.5
200
9.0
0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
Strain of concrete slab()
2.0
Figure 7.19.: Comparison test and modelling results of beam B2, force-strain
Observing in Fig. 7.18 and Fig. 7.19, in the initial stiffness region the load
increase almost linearly with the strain. The bottom flange reach yield limit
(a = 1.8h) at load 550 kN, at this load level the strain of concrete slab still
lie in elastic domain. Under increasing of applied the load, the strain in steel
flange develops continuously and becomes plastic. When the ultimate strength
is archived at around 750 kN, the strain in UHPC slab approach closer limit of
compressive strain. Comparison on strain of concrete slab and steel girder, when
153
compressive strain achieve 3.2h the tensile train of steel is over 9.0h. The steel
girder enters into plastic range prior to the crushing of concrete. The failure
mode was identified as the yielding of the steel girder, as observed in the test.
1200
1200
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
B3-bot. flange (test)
B3-top falnge (test)
B3-bot. flange (sim)
B3-top falnge (sim)
200
0
-1.0
-0.5
200
2.5
0
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
Strain of concrete slab ()
0.0
Figure 7.20.: Comparison test and modelling results of beam B3, force-strain
1200
1200
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
B4-bot. flange (test)
B4-top falnge (test)
B4-bot. flange (sim)
B4-top falnge (sim)
200
0
-1.5
0.0
200
9.0
0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
Strain of concrete slab ()
2.0
Figure 7.21.: Comparison test and modelling results of beam B4, force-strain
As can be seen from strain behaviour of the beam B3, in general the load-strain
relation is almost linear in the whole domain. The strain obtained from steel
approach closer to the test data while the strain shows opposite image in the
top surface, which is greater than measured value. The beam failed when both
material are under critical values. The falling of beam B3 was recognized due to
collapse of shear connection.
The beam B4 with bottom flange was cut to be smaller than beam B3, The aim
is to fail in plastic mode. As can seen from Fig. 7.21, strain increment show
very good agreement with test data in both tension and compression fiber of the
cross section. The strain at bottom flange reaches firstly yield limit at 780 kN
and increases continuously. After peak load (PU = 877.08), a bottom fiber of
154
concrete slab became in tension and compression height was reduced. The failure
mode of the beam was identified due to plastic and crushing of concrete.
Local slip along beam
In addition, to further demonstrate capacity of numerical model in local analysis,
the slip between steel and concrete surfaces are plotted in Fig. 7.22 for beam B1
and B2 respectively. It can be noticed that, the distribution of slip is not uniform
along the span of the beam. With low level load (488kN), the slip is increases
slowly from the left end forward inside span, the peak value of load-slip behaviour
locates at section X/L =0.35 and decreases forward to mid span section.
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Relative position (from the left end to midspan section) Relative position (from the left end to midspan section)
At the ultimate load level, load - slip increases very fast from left end into span
and reach a maximum value at position X/L = 0.4. and decreasing from 0.4
to mid span section. This behaviour is very similar with result presented by
Queiroz et al. (86) for case of composite beam under concentrate load. The
large slip behaviour which occurs near mid span section is due to the influence
of plastics deformation in around area leads to increasing slip at interface of
steel and concrete. The figure also indicates that, the tendency of the simulation
results is maintained along the experiment data. The proposed numerical model
can predict slip distribution with high accuracy.
155
B2
B3
B4
The stress distribution in steel rib depends on the shape of perforated holes on
steel plate and also influenced by curvature in bending. It can be seen from Fig.
7.25 that, for the closed dowel, the compression zone is formed in both lowest
and highest point on perimeter of the holes. Whereas the tension area is located
on both sides of the horizontal center line. For ODW shear connector, the critical
tension zone located in the left and right edges of the holes while the compression
area concentrate at lowest points of the holes.
156
Comparison with stress distribution which was obtained from Push-Out test (Fig.
7.8), the location of tension and compression zones are significantly different
nearly opposite. The main reason is the steel rib in Push-Out test is not affected
by the bending curvature which can reduce stress in steel rib. In practical design
of perfobond shear connector, if the yielding of steel must be considered, the
location of stress field in perforated strip should be based on the global analysis.
Stress xx (MPa)
300
200
Tension zone
200
300
100
100
400
compression zone
B1Compression zone xx at Load lever =0.40 Pu
B1Compression zone xx at Load lever=0.76 Pu
B1Compression zone xx at Load lever=0.99 Pu
300
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Relative position (from the left end to midspan section)
Stress xx (MPa)
400
200
100
100
200
300
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Relative position (from the left end to midspan section)
Figure 7.25.: Longgitudinal stress in steel rib of shear connector, beam B1 and B2
Fig. 7.25 shows the magnitude of stress in longitudinal direction along steel
ribs represented for CDW and ODW. The maximum tensile stress in ODW is
about 300 MPa and compressive stress reach 220 MPa which is lower than the
tensile strength. The stresses concentrate highly in the middle span area and
then reduce to the supports directions, the distribution stress show correlation
with measured slip distribution along the beam. Contrast with ODW, in CDW
the compressive stress is dominant compared with tensile stress. It achieved a
maximum value at section X/L=0.1 with 200 MPa, which equals to the stress in
ODW. The distribution also exhibits the same manner with ODW.
Through comparing stress distribution of typical dowel profile, it can be seen
that the stress in OWD is higher than CDW around 30 %. It mean thats the
157
design of CDW give higher stress than ODW. With long span composite beam
that requires high logitudinal shear resistance, if the cross section of concrete
dowel is increased, then CDW profile should be chosen and changed from circle
to elliptical shape.
7.3.4. Shear flow on concrete dowel
It is worth noting that, the reliability of the stress value in concrete obtained from
the numerical computation is insufficient for analysis the shear flow distribution
longitudinal beam. This problem need further improvement in the analytical
model as well as constitutive model of UHPC.
158
Analysis structural concrete using mircoplane model with software ANTENA occur some convergence problem, which increases running times. In
this work, the limitation of computer system on computation capacity does
not allow more investigations.
The improvement on constitutive model of concrete model is necessary in
order to get better result as well as performance for the numerical modelling.
8.1. Conclusion
8.1.1. Ultra high performance concrete
1. UHPC exhibits very high compressive strengths, which may reach 150MPa
in normal curing condition and greater than 200 MPa if curing treatment
is applied. This material also shows high brittle behaviour, in stressed
compression it could be explosive when crushed.
2. The tensile strength of UHPC is significantly higher than that of normal
concrete. The addition of steel fiber into concrete mixture improves remarkable the tensile strength. Long fiber controls peak tensile stress while
short fiber controls the post peak behaviour. The cocktail fiber is more
effective. Flexural strength can be reach 7.0 MPa to 25.0 MPa depend on
volume of fiber content.
160
3. UHPC shows outstanding workability. The slum flow varies from 65cm
to 90cm. The rheological properties of fresh UHPC are influenced by the
concrete mixer design, mixing method as well as superplasticity. The set
time of UHPC is significantly delayed compared with normal concrete; final
set does not occur until 12 to 24 hours after casting. When setting is
initiated, UHPC gains its compressive strength very fast.
4. Due to large amount of cement used, the shrinkage of UHPC must be taken
into account for use.
5. The durability of UHPC are significantly better than that of normal
concrete.
6. The fracture of UHPC is influenced by the fiber content and the casting
direction as well as coarse aggregate. The fracture energy varies in range
of 5,000 to 20,000 N/m.
7. UHPC is a promising substitute for normal concrete and HPC in composite
structures.
8. The high material cost is a restriction for the application of UHPC in
practical engineering. The finding of appropriated structural solutions for
UHPC is still challenging for researchers and engineers as well.
8.1.2. Composite beam members made of UHPC under static load
1. UHPC enhances the performance of composite beam
The use of UHPC in composite beam lead to increased stiffness due to
high elastic modulus. The deflection of beam under service condition is
much smaller comparison to conventional composite beams with NSC.
The ultimate strength is also higher allowing carry to more heavy load
under critical conditions.
The high compressive strength of UHPC placed in compression zone
optimize the load distribution in the section. Thus increase significantly the load bearing capacity of composite member. The size of
member can be reduced.
Faster in strength development, higher in workability and not requirement special curing condition lead to save more time, labor work,
energy as well as the time to market.
2. The Steel-UHPC composite beams exhibit the same manner with conventional composite member with NSC
8.1. Conclusion
161
162
163
3. The fatigue strength of the composite beam as well as the shear connectors
should be further studied. This is very important for structures under
dynamic loads such as bridge.
4. Material model of concrete need to be improved to better describe the
influence of fiber content on the post peak behaviour in the bending test.
Additional, the improvement is also necessary to enhance the precision of
results in local damage response of shear connectors, especially in tensileshear region.
5. The general rule of identification model parameters should be further investigate, in order to obtain best results for the numerical modeling.
164
166
Zielfestigkeit
Verdichtung
Verdichtungsdauer
Gesamtmenge
Herstelldatum:
Lufttemperatur
Zielsetzfliema
Baustelle:
150 N/mm
UHFB B4Q
1000.0 Liter
16/03/2007
Glenium 51
0:00 Uhr
Gehalt Stoffraum
[kg/m] [dm/m]
Einsatzstoff
Luftporengehalt in V%=Luftg.
CEM I 52,5 R HS-NA
Silicastaub (MS 983)
Quarzmehl W12
Quarzmehl W3
Wasser
w/z-Wert
Zusatzmittel
0.0 %
27.27 %
50.00 %
20.15 %
0.281
-660
180
330
133
185
0.0
207.5
78.3
124.5
50.2
161.5
fm
4.85 %
32.0
30.77
z
sf
304
304
360
652.8
8.92
0.0
338.3
101.2
101.2
135.8
Beton
2535
1000.0
w/z-Wert
w/b-Wert (w/(z+sf))
0.281
0.221
Leim (Vol.%)
70
0.0
Gesteinkrnung
1. Basaltsplitt 2-5 mm
2. Basaltsplitt 5-8 mm
3. Quarzsand H33 0,125-0,5mm
Rohdichten
1 Basaltsplitt 2-5 mm
2 Quarzsand H33 0,125-0,5mm
3 Quarzmehl W12
4 Stahlfaser (0,1517,5 mm)
MFPA-Leipzig GmbH
Hans-Weigel-Strae 2 b
04319 Leipzig
29.9 %
29.9 %
40.2 %
d
3.000
2.650
2.650
7.850
Wassergehalt=
Wassergehalt=
0.00%
0.00%
Anmerkung:
1. in Zyklos Mischer gemischt
2. Probekrper
1 Trger
6 zyl.150/300 fr E-Modul und Spannungs-Dehnungslinie
Ansatz:
mit trockenen
Ausgangsstoffen
Bercksichtigung des
Wassers in Zuschlgen
660.00 kg
180.00 kg
330.00 kg
133.00 kg
161.46 kg
660.000 kg
180.000 kg
330.000 kg
133.000 kg
161.460 kg
32.000 kg
32.000 kg
70.00 kg
70.000 kg
303.72 kg
303.72 kg
360.00 kg
303.719 kg
303.719 kg
360.000 kg
Setzfliema (mm)
Nassmischen+Faserzugabe
Nachmischen
670-710
d
3.180
2.300
2.650
1.040
1000.0 Ltr.
Mischzeit (sec.)
>60
60
180-240
120
Frischbetoneigenschaften
Zeit nach Mischende (Min.)
sm (ohne blockierring)
Faserverteilung
smb (mit blockierring)
Faserverteilung
-----
30
---------
60
---------
Alter
[d]
0
7
14
28
Datum
3/16/2007
3/23/2007
3/30/2007
4/13/2007
fc,W100
[N/mm]
-------
fc,Zyl.15/30
[N/mm]
-------
167
Zielfestigkeit
Verdichtung
Verdichtungsdauer
Gesamtmenge
Herstelldatum:
Lufttemperatur
Zielsetzfliema
Baustelle:
150 N/mm
SVB
1000.0 Liter
9/06/2009
0:00 Uhr
680 - 710 mm (Mewert= mm)
1.5 %
18.00 %
53.90 %
0.285
-567
102
306
161.6
15.4
185.9
44.4
116.2
142.8
4.73 %
0.00 %
26.8
0.0
831
487
24.38
0.00
529.1
5.00
5.00
460.9
277.0
183.9
2541
1000.0
w
fm
Leim (Vol.%)
39.0
39.0
%
60.1 %
39.9 %
100 %
w/z-Wert
w/b-Wert (w/(z+sftm )
Rohdichten
1 Basaltsplitt 2-5 mm
2 Quarzsand 2; 0,3-0,8mm
3 Quarzmehl
4
Anmerkung:
1. Zyklos-Mischer
2. Probekrper
3. ohne Blockierring
Setzfliema =
Faser gleichmig verteilt?
runder Betobkuchen?
4. mit Blockierring
Setzfliema =
Hhedifferenz =
Faser gleichmig verteilt?
runder Betobkuchen?
Gehalt Stoffraum
[kg/m] [dm/m]
Einsatzstoff
Luftporengehalt in V%=Luftg.
Schwenk Bernburg CEM I 42,5 HS
Silicastaub (SF98)
Quarzmehl 110
Wasser
w/z-Wert
Zusatzmittel
MFPA-Leipzig GmbH
Hans-Weigel-Strae 2 b
04319 Leipzig
Ansatz:
mit trockenen
Ausgangsstoffen
Bercksichtigung des
Wassers in Zuschlgen
567.00 kg
102.06 kg
305.61 kg
142.822 kg
567.000 kg
102.060 kg
305.613 kg
142.822 kg
26.819 kg
0.000 kg
26.819 kg
0.000 kg
39.000 kg
39.000 kg
39.000 kg
39.000 kg
831.04 kg
487.35 kg
831.037 kg
487.353 kg
1000.0 Ltr.
Setzfliema (mm)
0.285
0.242
d
3.000
2.650
2.630
7.800
Wassergehalt=
Wassergehalt=
0.00%
0.00%
d
3.050
2.300
1.100
1.060
168
Zielfestigkeit
Verdichtung
Verdichtungsdauer
Gesamtmenge
Herstelldatum:
Lufttemperatur
Zielsetzfliema
Baustelle:
150 N/mm
SVB
1000.0 Liter
9/06/2009
0:00 Uhr
680 - 710 mm (Mewert= mm)
1.5 %
18.00 %
53.90 %
0.285
-567
102
306
161.6
15.4
185.9
44.4
116.2
142.8
4.73 %
0.00 %
26.8
0.0
840
493
24.38
0.00
529.1
2.50
2.50
465.9
280.0
185.9
2516
1000.0
w
fm
Leim (Vol.%)
19.5
19.5
%
60.1 %
39.9 %
100 %
w/z-Wert
w/b-Wert (w/(z+sftm )
Rohdichten
1 Basaltsplitt 2-5 mm
2 Quarzsand 2; 0,3-0,8mm
3 Quarzmehl
4
Anmerkung:
1. Zyklos-Mischer
2. Probekrper
3. ohne Blockierring
Setzfliema =
Faser gleichmig verteilt?
runder Betobkuchen?
4. mit Blockierring
Setzfliema =
Hhedifferenz =
Faser gleichmig verteilt?
runder Betobkuchen?
Gehalt Stoffraum
[kg/m] [dm/m]
Einsatzstoff
Luftporengehalt in V%=Luftg.
Schwenk Bernburg CEM I 42,5 HS
Silicastaub (SF98)
Quarzmehl 110
Wasser
w/z-Wert
Zusatzmittel
MFPA-Leipzig GmbH
Hans-Weigel-Strae 2 b
04319 Leipzig
Ansatz:
mit trockenen
Ausgangsstoffen
Bercksichtigung des
Wassers in Zuschlgen
567.00 kg
102.06 kg
305.61 kg
142.822 kg
567.000 kg
102.060 kg
305.613 kg
142.822 kg
26.819 kg
0.000 kg
26.819 kg
0.000 kg
19.500 kg
19.500 kg
19.500 kg
19.500 kg
840.05 kg
492.64 kg
840.052 kg
492.640 kg
1000.0 Ltr.
Setzfliema (mm)
0.285
0.242
d
3.000
2.650
2.630
7.800
Wassergehalt=
Wassergehalt=
0.00%
0.00%
d
3.050
2.300
1.100
1.060
170
171
172
1600
S11 LVDT3
S11 LVDT4
1200
1600
800
400
0
1200
S11LVDT 1.1
S11LVDT 1.2
S11LVDT 2.1
S11LVDT 2.2
800
400
0
0.06 0.045 0.03 0.015
10
Slip (mm)
0.015
0.03
(a)
1600
S12 LVDT3
S12 LVDT4
1200
1600
800
400
0
1200
S12LVDT 1.1
S12LVDT 1.2
S12LVDT 2.1
S12LVDT 2.2
800
400
0
0.06 0.045 0.03 0.015
10
Slip (mm)
0.015
0.03
(b)
1600
S13 LVDT3
S13 LVDT4
1200
1600
800
400
0
10
Slip (mm)
1200
S13LVDT 1.1
S13LVDT 1.2
S13LVDT 2.1
S13LVDT 2.2
800
400
0
0.06 0.045 0.03 0.015
0.015
0.03
(c)
Figure B.3.: Push-Out test reults: Load-Slip and Crack opening, Series 1-Headed stud shear
connector, specimen-1(a), specimen-2(b), specimen-3(c)
1600
S2LVDT3+4
1200
1600
173
800
400
0
Slip (mm)
10
S3LVDT3+4
1200
800
400
0
10
Slip (mm)
Figure B.4.: Push-Out test reults: Load-Slip, Series 2-ODW without rebar (left), Series 3-ODW
with rebar in core(right)
174
1600
S41 LVDT3
S41 LVDT4
1200
1600
800
400
0
1200
S41LVDT 1.1
S41LVDT 1.2
S41LVDT 2.1
S41LVDT 2.2
800
400
0
0.06 0.045 0.03 0.015
10
Slip (mm)
0.015
0.03
(a)
1600
S42 LVDT3
S42 LVDT4
1200
1600
800
400
0
1200
S42LVDT 1.1
S42LVDT 1.2
S42LVDT 2.1
S42LVDT 2.2
800
400
0
0.06 0.045 0.03 0.015
10
Slip (mm)
0.015
0.03
(b)
1600
S43 LVDT3
S43 LVDT4
1200
1600
800
400
0
10
Slip (mm)
1200
S43LVDT 1.1
S43LVDT 1.2
S43LVDT 2.1
S43LVDT 2.2
800
400
0
0.06 0.045 0.03 0.015
0.015
0.03
(c)
Figure B.5.: Push-Out test reults: Load-Slip and Crack opening, Series 4-Open dowel with
rebar in core and front cover, specimen-1(a), specimen-2(b), specimen-3(c)
1600
S51 LVDT3
S51 LVDT4
1200
1600
175
800
400
0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
1200
800
400
0
0.6
10.0
S51LVDT 1.1
S51LVDT 1.2
S51LVDT 2.1
S51LVDT 2.2
Slip (mm)
0.45
0.3
0.15
0.15
(a)
1600
S52 LVDT3
S52 LVDT4
1200
1600
800
400
0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
1200
800
400
0
0.6
10.0
S52LVDT 1.1
S52LVDT 1.2
S52LVDT 2.1
S52LVDT 2.2
Slip (mm)
0.45
0.3
0.15
0.15
(b)
1600
S53 LVDT3
S53 LVDT4
1200
1600
800
400
0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
Slip (mm)
S53LVDT 1.1
S53LVDT 1.2
S53LVDT 2.1
S53LVDT 2.2
1200
800
400
0
0.6
0.45
0.3
0.15
0.15
(c)
Figure B.6.: Push-Out test reults: Load-Slip and Crack opening, Series 5-CDW without Reinforcement, specimen-1(a), specimen-2(b), specimen-3(c)
176
1600
S61LVDT 1.1
S61LVDT 1.2
S61LVDT 2.1
S61LVDT 2.2
S61 LVDT3
S61 LVDT4
1200
1600
800
400
0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
1200
800
400
0
1.0
10.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
Slip (mm)
(a)
1600
S62LVDT 1.1
S62LVDT 1.2
S62LVDT 2.1
S62LVDT 2.2
S62 LVDT3
S62 LVDT4
1200
1600
800
400
0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
1200
800
400
0
1.0
10.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
Slip (mm)
(b)
1600
S63 LVDT3
S63 LVDT4
1200
1600
800
400
0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Slip (mm)
8.0
10.0
S63LVDT 1.1
S63LVDT 1.2
S63LVDT 2.1
S63LVDT 2.2
1200
800
400
0
1.0
0.8
0.2
(c)
Figure B.7.: Push-Out test reults: Load-Slip and Crack opening, Series 6-CDW with rebar in
core, specimen-1(a), specimen-2(b), specimen-3(c)
1600
1600
1200
800
400
0
0.0
S71LVDT 1.1
S71LVDT 1.2
S71LVDT 2.1
S71LVDT 2.2
S71 LVDT3
S71 LVDT4
177
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
1200
800
400
0
0.4
10.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
Slip (mm)
(a)
1600
1200
800
400
0
0.0
S72LVDT 1.1
S72LVDT 1.2
S72LVDT 2.1
S72LVDT 2.2
S72 LVDT3
S72 LVDT4
1600
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
1200
800
400
0
0.4
10.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
Slip (mm)
(b)
1600
1200
800
400
0
0.0
S73LVDT 1.1
S73LVDT 1.2
S73LVDT 2.1
S73LVDT 2.2
S73 LVDT3
S73 LVDT4
1600
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
1200
800
400
0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
Slip (mm)
(c)
Figure B.8.: Push-Out test reults: Load-Slip and Crack opening, Series 7-Open dowel with
rebar in core and front cover, specimen-1(a), specimen-2(b), specimen-3(c)
178
1600
1200
800
400
0
0.0
S81LVDT 1.1
S81LVDT 1.2
S81LVDT 2.1
S81LVDT 2.2
S81 LVDT3
S81 LVDT4
1600
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
1200
800
400
0
0.4
10.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
Slip (mm)
(a)
1600
1200
800
400
0
0.0
S82LVDT 1.1
S82LVDT 1.2
S82LVDT 2.1
S82LVDT 2.2
S82 LVDT3
S82 LVDT4
1600
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
1200
800
400
0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
Slip (mm)
(b)
Figure B.9.: Push-Out test reults: Load-Slip and Crack opening, Series 8-CDW with rebar in
cover-UHPC 0.5% steel fiber, specimen-1(a), specimen-2(b)
1600
1600
1200
800
400
0
0.0
S91LVDT 1.1
S91LVDT 1.2
S91LVDT 2.1
S91LVDT 2.2
S91 LVDT3
S91 LVDT4
179
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
1200
800
400
0
0.4
10.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
Slip (mm)
(a)
1600
1200
800
400
0
0.0
S92LVDT 1.1
S92LVDT 1.2
S92LVDT 2.1
S92LVDT 2.2
S92 LVDT3
S92 LVDT4
1600
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
1200
800
400
0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
Slip (mm)
(b)
Figure B.10.: Push-Out test reults: Load-Slip and Crack opening, Series 9- CDW with rebar
in cover-UHPC 1.0% steel fiber, specimen-1(a), specimen-2(b)
180
1600
1200
800
400
0
0.0
S101LVDT 1.1
S101LVDT 1.2
S101LVDT 2.1
S101LVDT 2.2
S101 LVDT3
S101 LVDT4
1600
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
1200
800
400
0
0.4
10.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
Slip (mm)
(a)
1600
1200
800
400
0
0.0
S112LVDT 1.1
S112LVDT 1.2
S112LVDT 2.1
S112LVDT 2.2
S112 LVDT3
S112 LVDT4
1600
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
1200
800
400
0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
Slip (mm)
(b)
Figure B.11.: Push-Out test reults: Load-Slip and Crack opening, Series 10-11- CDW with
rebar in core and front cover-UHPC 1.0% steel fiber, 8mm-(a), 12mm-(b)
182
183
184
185
100
Steel plate: PL 345x14....x8000mm/S355
4,000
aw=10mm
3,100
14
400
UHPC-Slab
750
Loading plate
S. A.
Versuchstrger SPP1182
Serie - 2, Beam B5
7.01.2009 / Vinh
11
Universitt Leipzig
Institut fr Massivbau
und Baustofftechnologie
S. A.
Composite Beam B5, Tee girder 390 x 400 x 45 x 14 length 8000mm, steel grade S355
120
400
100
75
100
14
390
10
200
200
Detail A
100
FL 120x200x10
aw=10mm
49
410
150
10
75
Detail A
400
345
100
265
45
145
200
45
45
390
410
42
326
22
100
310
42
5
4
186
30
120
4,000
aw=10mm
400
3,100
14
400
100
UHPC-Slab
750
Loading plate
Versuchstrger SPP1182
Serie - 2, Beam B6
7.01.2009 / Vinh
11
Universitt Leipzig
Institut fr Massivbau
und Baustofftechnologie
S. A.
S. A.
75
14
49
410
10
150
100
200
Detail A
45
75
FL 120x200x10
aw=10mm
390
38
330
22
Detail A
400
345
100
265
45
145
200
45
45
390
100
310
42
187
C.2. List of drawings and charts
410
Weg-1
NORTH
Weg-2
Weg-4
DMS-2
Weg-3
DMS-1
Weg-6
Weg-7
DMS-4
DBG-1
Weg-5
DMS-3
Weg-8
DMS-5
Pmax_Test = 800 kN
Pmax_Cyl = 1100 kN
HEB(IPB)360
Weg-9
Weg-10,11
DBG-3
DMS-14
DMS-13
DMS-12
DMS-16
DMS-6
DMS-10
DMS-7
SECTION 2-2
DMS-17
DMS-15
DMS-8
DMS-9
DMS-11
SECTION 1-1
SOUTH
189
C.2. List of drawings and charts
Weg-1
NORTH
Weg-2
DMS-1
Weg-4
Weg-5
DMS-3
Weg-3
DMS-2
Weg-6
DBG-1
DMS-5
SL_L4
Weg-7
Pmax_Cyl = 1100 kN
DMS-4
HEB(IPB)360
Weg-9
Weg-10
Weg-11
DBG-3
Weg-12
Weg-13
Weg-8
DMS-14
DMS-13
DMS-12
DMS-16
DMS-6
DMS-10
DMS-7
SECTION 2-2
DMS-17
DMS-15
DMS-8
DMS-9
DMS-11
SECTION 1-1
Weg-14
SOUTH
Weg-15
Weg-1
Weg-3
DMS-2
Weg-4
DMS-3
Weg-6
DMS-6
Weg-7
Weg-8
Pmax_Test = 800 kN
DMS-5
Pmax_Test = 800 kN
Pmax_Cyl = 1100 kN
Weg-15
Weg-11
Weg-10
DBG-3
Weg-12
Weg-9
DMS-7
DMS-17
DMS-14
DMS-13
SECTION 2-2
DMS-18
DMS-16
DMS-15
DMS-8
Centroid Y
DMS-11
DMS-9
DMS-10
DMS-12
SECTION 1-1
Ce ntroid Y
Weg-16
Weg-5
DBG-1
DMS-4
Weg-14
NORTH
Weg-2
DMS-1
Weg-13
191
C.2. List of drawings and charts
Weg-2
Weg-14
Weg-3
DMS-2
Weg-4
DMS-3
Weg-6
DBG-1
Weg-5
DMS-4
Weg-7
DMS-5
Weg-8
Weg-11
Weg-10
DBG-3
Initila load
(cylinder+Tranvese
beam+Longitudinal beam+ =
285+2*(130)+245 kgf =
793kg=7.93 kN
Weg-9
DMS-6
DMS-12
SECTION 2-2
DMS-17
DMS-15
DMS-14
DMS-16
DMS-13
Centroid Y
DMS-7
DMS-10
DMS-8
DMS-9
DMS-11
SECTION 1-1
Ce ntroid Y
Weg-13
Weg-1
DMS-1
Weg-15
Weg-12
Weg-13
Weg-1
150
50
625
Weg-4
1,900
1,200
2,600
DBG-3
Weg-6
300
Weg-11
Weg-12
Weg-7
D MS-8
100
D MS-7
DBG-2
100
Pmax = 800kN
1,275
1,200
Loading plate
Mortar
D MS-9
D MS-10
D MS-11
D MS-12
Weg-8
1,250
100
W eg-11
W eg-12
SECTION 2-2
750
750
600
100
100
S. A.
Weg-9
Weg-10
D MS-6
D MS-5
750
W eg-10
W eg-9
100
DBG-1
7,700
8,000
D MS-1
D MS-2
D MS-3
D MS-4
SECTION 1-1
30
100
100
30
100
310
410
Pmax = 800kN
Universitt Leipzig
Institut fr Massivbau
und Baustofftechnologie
Weg-5
3,850
3,100
Versuchstrger SPP1182
Serie - 2, Instruments setup for Beam B5 and B6
7.01.2009 / Vinh
Weg-3
150
Weg-2
1000
1000
Beam B1Quarterspan
Beam B1Midspan
800
193
600
400
200
0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
600
400
200
0
0.00
200.0
Beam B1Rot.
800
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Rotation (rad)
Deflection (mm)
1000
1000
800
800
(a)
600
400
200
Beam B1SG6
Beam B1SG8
Beam B1SG10
Beam B1SG11
600
400
200
0
6.0
0
2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Long. strain in girder, Sect. 11, xx (%o )
Beam B1SG7
Beam B1SG9
4.5
3.0
1.5
0.0
Ver. strain in girder, Sect. 11, yy (%o )
1000
1000
800
800
(b)
600
400
200
Beam B1SG12
Beam B1SG14
Beam B1SG16
Beam B1SG17
0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Long. strain in girder, Sect. 22, xx (%o )
600
400
200
Beam B1SG13
Beam B1SG15
0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
Ver. strain in girder, Sect. 22, yy (%o )
(c)
Figure C.12.: Beam B1, Load-deflection and Load-rotation (a), strain in girder section 1-1 (b)
and strain in girder section 2-2 (c)
194
1000
Beam B1LVDT7
Beam B1LVDT9
Beam B1LVDT10
Beam B1LVDT11
800
600
400
200
0
4.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
Long. strain in concrete slab, Sect. 11 and 22, xx (%
(a)
1000
Beam B1SG1
Beam B1SG3
800
1000
600
400
200
0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Long. strain in steel rib, xx (%o )
800
600
400
0
0.1
0.1
Beam B1SG2
Beam B1SG4
Beam B1SG5
200
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Ver. strain in steel rib, yy (%o )
0.4
1000
1000
800
800
(b)
600
400
Beam B1LVDT1
Beam B1LVDT4
Beam B1LVDT6
Beam B1LVDT8
200
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Beam B1LVDT2
Beam B1LVDT3
Beam B1LVDT5
600
400
200
0
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
(c)
Figure C.13.: Beam B1, Load-strain in concrete slab (a), strain in steel rib (b) and slip (c)
1000
1000
Beam B2Quarterspan
Beam B2Midspan
800
195
600
400
200
0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
Beam B2Rot.
800
600
400
200
0
0.00
250.0
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.09
Rotation (rad)
Deflection (mm)
1000
1000
800
800
(a)
600
400
200
Beam B2SG6
Beam B2SG8
Beam B2SG10
Beam B2SG11
600
400
200
0
6.0
0
2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Long. strain in girder, Sect. 11, xx (%o )
Beam B2SG7
Beam B2SG9
4.5
3.0
1.5
0.0
Ver. strain in girder, Sect. 11, yy (%o )
1000
1000
800
800
(b)
600
400
200
Beam B2SG12
Beam B2SG14
Beam B2SG16
Beam B2SG17
0
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Long. strain in girder, Sect. 22, xx (%o )
600
400
200
Beam B2SG13
Beam B2SG15
0
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
Ver. strain in girder, Sect. 22, yy (%o )
(c)
Figure C.14.: Beam B2, Load-deflection and Load-rotation (a), strain in girder section 1-1 (b)
and strain in girder section 2-2 (c)
196
1000
800
600
400
200
Beam B2LVDT8
Beam B2LVDT9
Beam B2LVDT10
0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Long. strain in concrete slab, Sect. 11 and 22, xx (%
(a)
1000
Beam B2SG1
Beam B2SG4
800
1000
600
400
200
0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Long. strain in steel rib, xx (%o )
800
600
400
0
0.1
0.1
Beam B2SG2
Beam B2SG3
Beam B2SG5
200
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Ver. strain in steel rib, yy (%o )
0.4
1000
1000
800
800
(b)
600
400
Beam B2LVDT1
Beam B2LVDT4
Beam B2LVDT6
Beam B2LVDT7
200
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Beam B2LVDT2
Beam B2LVDT3
Beam B2LVDT5
600
400
200
0
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
(c)
Figure C.15.: Beam B2, Load-strain in concrete slab (a), strain in steel rib (b) and slip (c)
197
1000
1000
800
800
600
400
200
0
0.0
Beam B3Quarterspan
Beam B3Midspan
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
Beam B3Rot.
600
400
200
0
0.00
100.0
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.06
Rotation (rad)
Deflection (mm)
1000
1000
800
800
(a)
600
400
200
Beam B3SG7
Beam B3SG9
Beam B3SG11
Beam B3SG12
600
400
200
Beam B3SG8
Beam B3SG10
0
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
Ver. strain in girder, Sect. 11, yy (%o )
0
1.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Long. strain in girder, Sect. 11, xx (%o )
1000
1000
800
800
(b)
600
400
200
Beam B3SG13
Beam B3SG15
Beam B3SG17
Beam B3SG18
0
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Long. strain in girder, Sect. 22, xx (%o )
600
400
200
Beam B3SG14
Beam B3SG16
0
0.6
0.4 0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Ver. strain in girder, Sect. 22, yy (%o )
(c)
Figure C.16.: Beam B3, Load-deflection and Load-rotation (a), strain in girder section 1-1 (b)
and strain in girder section 2-2 (c)
198
1000
800
600
400
200
Beam B3LVDT9
Beam B3LVDT10
Beam B3LVDT11
0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Long. strain in concrete slab, Sect. 11 and 22, xx (%
(a)
1000
Beam B3SG1
Beam B3SG3
Beam B3SG5
800
1000
600
400
200
0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Long. strain in steel rib, xx (%o )
800
600
400
0
0.0
0.0
Beam B3SG2
Beam B3SG4
Beam B3SG6
200
0.2
0.4
0.6
Ver. strain in steel rib, yy (%o )
0.8
1000
1000
800
800
(b)
600
400
Beam B3LVDT1
Beam B3LVDT4
Beam B3LVDT6
Beam B3LVDT7
200
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Beam B3LVDT2
Beam B3LVDT3
Beam B3LVDT5
Beam B3LVDT7
600
400
200
0
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
(c)
Figure C.17.: Beam B3, Load-strain in concrete slab (a), strain in steel rib (b) and slip (c)
199
1000
1000
800
800
600
400
200
0
0.0
Beam B4Quarterspan
Beam B4Midspan
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
Beam B4Rot.
600
400
200
0
0.03
125.0
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.03
Rotation (rad)
Deflection (mm)
1000
1000
800
800
(a)
600
400
200
Beam B4SG7
Beam B4SG9
Beam B4SG10
Beam B4SG11
600
400
200
Beam B4SG6
Beam B4SG8
0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
Ver. strain in girder, Sect. 11, yy (%o )
0
4.0
0.0
4.0
8.0
12.0 16.0 20.0
Long. strain in girder, Sect. 11, xx (%o )
1000
1000
800
800
(b)
600
400
200
Beam B4SG13
Beam B4SG15
Beam B4SG16
Beam B4SG17
0
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Long. strain in girder, Sect. 22, xx (%o )
600
400
200
Beam B4SG12
Beam B4SG14
0
1.0
(c)
Figure C.18.: Beam B4, Load-deflection and Load-rotation (a), strain in girder section 1-1 (b)
and strain in girder section 2-2 (c)
200
1000
800
600
400
200
Beam B4LVDT9
Beam B4LVDT10
Beam B4LVDT11
0
6.0 4.5 3.0 1.5
0.0
1.5
3.0
Long. strain in concrete slab, Sect. 11 and 22, xx (%
1000
1000
800
800
(a)
600
400
200
Beam B4SG1
Beam B4SG3
Beam B4SG4
0
1.0
600
400
200
0
0.0
0.2
Beam B4SG2
Beam B4SG5
0.2
0.4
0.6
Ver. strain in steel rib, yy (%o )
0.8
1000
1000
800
800
(b)
600
400
Beam B4LVDT1
Beam B4LVDT4
Beam B4LVDT6
Beam B4LVDT8
200
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
Beam B4LVDT2
Beam B4LVDT3
Beam B4LVDT5
Beam B4LVDT7
600
400
200
0
0.10 0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
(c)
Figure C.19.: Beam B4, Load-strain in concrete slab (a), strain in steel rib (b) and slip (c)
1500
1500
Beam B5Quarterspan
Beam B5Midspan
1250
Applied load (kN)
1250
Applied load (kN)
201
1000
750
500
1000
750
500
250
250
0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
0
4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
Long. strain in girder, Sect. 11, xx (%o )
100.0
Deflection (mm)
1500
1500
1250
1250
Applied load (kN)
Figure C.20.: Beam B5, Load-deflection (left), strain in girder and concrete slab at section 1-1
(right)
1000
750
500
250
0
0.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
1000
750
500
250
Beam B6Quarterspan
Beam B6Midspan
20.0
Beam B6Rot.
0
0.01
100.0
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
Rotation (rad)
Deflection (mm)
1500
1500
1250
1250
Applied load (kN)
(a)
1000
750
500
250
Beam B6SG1
Beam B6SG2
Beam B6SG3
Beam B6SG4
1000
750
500
250
0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
Long. strain in girder, Sect. 11, xx (%o )
Beam B6SG5
Beam B6SG6
0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Long. strain in concrete slab, Sect. 11, xx (%o )
(b)
Figure C.21.: Beam B6, Load-deflection and Load-rotation (a), strain in girder and concrete
slab section 1-1 (b)
1500
1500
1250
1250
Applied load (kN)
202
1000
750
500
250
Beam B6SG7
Beam B6SG8
Beam B6SG9
Beam B6SG10
1000
750
500
250
Beam B6SG11
Beam B6SG12
0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Long. strain in concrete slab, Sect. 22, xx (%o )
0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
Long. strain in girder, Sect. 22, xx (%o )
1500
1500
1250
1250
Applied load (kN)
(a)
1000
750
500
Beam B6LVDT1
Beam B6LVDT4
Beam B6LVDT6
Beam B6LVDT8
250
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
1000
750
500
Beam B6LVDT2
Beam B6LVDT3
Beam B6LVDT5
250
0.40
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
(b)
Figure C.22.: Beam B6, strain in girder and concrete slab section 2-2 (a), Load-longitudinal
slip along left and right side of the beam (b)
STRUCTURE s
PHYSICAL MODEL
GID PRE_PROCESSING ,
export data to ATENA
ATENA - PROCESSING
1
GID POST_
PROCESSING
PLOT CHART
TOOLs FOR
ATENA
REPORT
DATABASE
BINARY DATA
3
CALIBRATION
MATERIAL MODEL M4
Based on Test data or Code
Figure D.1.: Structure of the program
PLOT CHART by
GNUPLOT
204
START
SAMPLE MODEL
(cubic or cylinder specimen test)
PHYSICAL MODEL
FOR COMPUTER
With MicroPlane M4
TESTING SPECIMENT
TEST DATA
(DI SP., STRAI N)
GID PRE_PROCESSING
ATENA
DATA FILE
With model parameter
Flow control
ATENA _PROCESSING
Console mode
ANALYSIS RESULT
Disp., stress, Strain, Crack
2nd loop
CAL I BRATI ON
M ODUL E
Flow control
OPTI M AL Subrountine
(using SIMPLEX method)
Generate new set of model parameter.
with Constrain condition (unicompressiv )
Resource { ci } { kj } , { test} , { test}
Target function min(ana-test ),
or min(ana- test )
END
205
206
Bibliography
[1] (ACI), A. C. I.: ACI 363R-92: State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength
Concrete / American Concrete Institute. 1997. Forschungsbericht
[2] Acker, P. : Micromechanical analysis of creep and shrinkage mechanisms. In: Creep, Shrinkage and Durability Mechanics of Concrete and
other Quasi-Brittle Materials. Ed. by Ulm, F.J., Bazant, Z.P., and F.H.
Wittmann. 15-25. Elsevier:, 2001
[3] Acker, P. ; Behloul, M. : Ductal Technology: a Large Spectrum of
Properties, a Wide Range of Applications. In: Proc. of the International
Symposium on Ultra High Performance Concrete, Kassel, Germany, 2004
[4] Aitcin, P. : High Performance Concrete. E & FN SPON, 1998
[5] Babua, R. R. ; Benipala, G. S. ; Singhb, A. K.: Constitutive modelling of
Concrete: An Overview. In: Asian Journal Of Civil Engineering (Building
And Housing) 6, No. 4 (2005), S. 211246
[6] Baky, H. A. E.: Nonlinear Micromechanics-based finite element analysis
of the interfacial behavior of FRP-strengthened reinforced concrete beams,
University of Sherbrooke, Diss., 2008
[7] Bazant, Z. P. ; Caner, F. C. ; Carol, I. ; Adley, M. D. ; Akers, S. A.:
Microplane Model M4 for Concrete. I: Formulation with Work-Conjugate
Deviatoric stress. In: Journal of Engineering Mechanics Vol. 126, No. 9
(2000), Nr. 9, S. 944953
[8] Bazant, Z. P. ; Gambarova, P. G.: Crack shear in concrete: Crack band
microplane model. In: Journal of Structural Engineering 110 (Sept. 1984),
S. 20152035
[9] Bazant, Z. P. ; Oh, B. H.: Microplane model for progressive fracture of
concrete and rock. In: Journal of Engineering Mechanics 111 (1985), S.
559
a582.
[10] Bhattachary, A. ; Velensky, S. A.: Finite Element Implementation of
the Microplane Theory for Simulation a Rigid Concrete Pavement-Vehicle
Interaction. In: Mechanics of Structures and Machines 26(4) (1998), S.
377400
208
Bibliography
[11] Brocca, M. ; Bazant, Z. P.: Microplane finite element analysis of tubesquash test of concrete with shear angles up to 70 degree. In: Int. J. Numer.
Meth. Engng 52 (2001), S. 11651188
[12] Buitelaar, P. : Heavy Reinforced Ultra High Performance Concrete. In:
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ultra High Performance
Concrete. Kassel, Germany, 2004
[13] Byfield, M. ; Davies, J. ; Dhanalakshmi, M. : Calculation of the strainhardening behavior of steel structures based on mill test. In: Journal of
Construction Steel Research 61 (2005), S. 133150
[14] C. Vianna, J. da ; Neves, L. C. ; Vellasco, P. da ; Andrade, S.
de: Structural behavior of T-Perfobond shear connectors in Composite
girders: An Experimental Approach. In: Engineering Structures 30 (2008),
S. 23812391
[15] Caner, F. C. ; Bazant, Z. P.: Microplane Model M4 for Concrete. II:
Algorithm and Calibration. In: Journal of Engineering Mechanics Vol.
126, No. 9 (2000), Nr. 9, S. 954961
[16] CEB-FIB: Model Code 90, 1990
[17] Cervenka, J. ; Bazant, Z. ; Wierer, M. : Equivalent Localization
Element for Crack Band Approarch to Mesh-Sentivity in Microplane Model.
In: Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 62 (2005), S. 700726
[18] Cervenka, V. ; Jendele, L. ; ; Cervenka, J. : ATENA Program
Documentation-part 1 Theory. Version 3.3. Cervenka Consulting-2006,
www.cervenka.cz, 2006
[19] Chapman, J. ; Balakrishnan, S. : Experiments on composite beams.
In: The Structural Engineer 42(11) (1964), S. 369383
[20] Chen, W. F. ; Saleeb, A. F.: Constitutive Equations for Engineering
Materials Volume 1: Elasticity and Modelling Revised Edition. 2. Edition.
Elsevier Science B.V. Amsterdam, 1994
[21] Chromiak, P. ; Studnicka, J. : Load Capacity of Perforated Shear
Connector. In: An International Journal for Engineering and Information
Sciences (www.akademiai.com) 1, No. 3 (2006), S. 2330
[22] Curbach, M. ; Speck, K. : Ultra High Performance Concrete under
Biaxial Compression. In: Proc. of of the Second International Symposium
on Ultra High Performance Concrete, Kassel, Germany, 2008
Bibliography
209
210
Bibliography
Bibliography
211
212
Bibliography
Bibliography
213
[66] Liu, J. ; Foster, S. J.: Finite Element Model for confined concrete
columns. In: Journal of Structural Engineering 124, no. 9 (1998), S. 1011
1017
[67] Liu, J. ; Foster, S. J.: A three-dimensional finite element model for
confined concrete structures. In: Computers and Structures 77 (2000), S.
441451
[68] M. A. Bradford, D. J. O.: Elementary Behaiour of Composite Steel and
Concrete Structural Members. Butter worth-Heinemann, 1999
[69] Ma, J. ; Dietz, J. ; Dehn, F. : Ultra High Performance Self Compacting Concrete. In: Proceeding . 3rd International Symposium on SelfCompacting Concrete, Reykjavik, Iceland, 17-20 August: 136-142., 2003
[70] Ma, J. ; Orgass, M. ; Dehn, F. ; Schmidt, D. ; Tue, N. V.: Comparative Investigations on Ultra-High Performance Concrete with and without
Coarse Aggregates. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Ultra High Performance Concrete, 2004
[71] Ma, J. ; Orgrass, M. : Creap of Ultra High Performance Concrete. In:
Leipzig Annual Civil Engineering Report, No. 10, 2005
[72] Ma, J. ; Schneider, H. : Properties of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete.
In: Leipzig Annual Civil Engineering Report (LACER), No. 7: 25-32., 2002
[73] Ma, J. ; Schneider, H. : Creep of ultra-high performance concrete under
compressive stresses. In: Leipzig Annual Civil Engineering Report, No. 8,
2003
[74] Ma, J. : Faserfreier Ultrahochfester Beton - Entwicklung und Materialeigenschaften, University of Leipzig, Diss., 2009
[75] Machacek, J. ; Studnicka, J. : Perforated shear connectors. In: Steel
and Concrete Structures Vol. 2, No. 1 (2002), S. 5166
[76] Machacek, J. ; Cudejko, M. : Longitudinal shear in composite steel and
concrete trusses. In: Engineering Structures 31 (2009), S. 13131320
[77] Maeder, U. ; Gamboa, I. L. ; Chaignon, J. ; Lombard, J. P.: Ceracem,
a new high performance concrete: characterisations and applications. In:
Proc. of the International Symposium on Ultra High Performance Concrete,
Kassel, Germany, 2004
[78] Malier, Y. : High Performance Concrete - From Material to Structures.
E&FN Spon, 1992
214
Bibliography
Bibliography
215
216
Bibliography
Bibliography
217