Experimental Investigation of Composite Profiled Beams

OBJECTIVE
To determine the strength parameters for the rectangular and trapezoidal composite profiled beam. To compare the result of conventional and composite profiled beams both experimentally and theoretically.

Composite Structures
Introduction
Composite structure refers to two load carrying structural members that are integrally connected and deflect as a single unit. . In Reinforced concrete beams that use steel decking consisting of profiled as permanent form to both the soffit and sides of the beam. This form of beams are called profiled beams.
It is now common practice to use cold formed steel decks consisting of profiled sheets both as permanent formwork for the support of soffits of reinforced concrete slab and also as part of the tension steel in the composite profiled slab that is formed after the concrete has hardened.

ADVANTAGES OF COMPOSITE PROFILED BEAM

Reduction in site manpower, Faster construction. Materials are easily available. Formwork is not required. Depth of section may be reduced, reduction in weight and reduction in story height. Provided only few numbers of props. Reduced noise levels, absence of centering. Safer working environment. Profiled sheets act as a tension member, so it is satisfactory to provide a nominal reinforcement.

PRELIMINARY TESTS OF CONCRETE

CONCRETE MIX DESIGN
The mix design was arrived M20 grade of concrete as per IS: 10262-2009. The proportion found from mix design was 1:2.04:3.36:0.55(Cement: Fine Aggregate: Coarse Aggregate: Water) with a cement content of 348.320 kg/m3.

t
MIX PROPORTION FOR ONE METER CUBE OF CONCRETE
Weight in kg/m3 348.320 711.274 1172.000 191.580 0.55

Sl no 1 2 3 4 5

Materials Cement Fine Aggregate Coarse Aggregate Water Water Cement Ratio

CONCRETE TEST RESULTS

The compressive strength of concrete is 28.58 N/mm2

The compressive strength of concrete is greater than the targeted mean strength of concrete. The split tensile strength of concrete is 2.64 N/mm2.The tensile strength of concrete is about 1/10 of the compressive strength of concrete. The modulus of rupture is 3.923 N/mm2 .This value closely agrees with modulus of rupture calculated based on IS 456:2000

Cross section details

Cont.

Conti.

FABRICATION OF PROFILED SHEET

Pressing Machine

COLD FORMED PROFILED SHEET

THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS
STRESS BLOCK PARAMETERS

Conti.
All the cross section is planned to have equal concrete area. Considering the bottom of profiled sheet act as a tensile reinforcement but not consider sides of profiled sheet. From the stress block diagram, the depth of Neutral Axis and Moment carrying capacity are calculated by the following equations,

THEORETICAL MOMENT CARRYING CAPACITY OF BEAMS

Beam designation
CB1 CB2 PRB1 PRB2 PTB1

Depth of NA
34.420 21.950 63.360 48.760 41.890

Moment carrying capacity

9.987 6.688 14.540 12.110 16.225

Load carrying capacity

21.775 14.361 32.040 26.579 35.826

PTB2

31.356

12.970

28.514

Conti.
From the theoretical computations, it is observed that the moment carrying capacity of the composite profiled beam is estimated as 45% - 62% higher than the moment to be carried by conventional concrete beam. Among the composite profiled beams, the trapezoidal profiled beam seems to have 10% - 20% higher load carrying capacity compared to rectangular profiled beam.

Experimental setup for Composite Specimen

ULTIMATE LOAD AND ITS CORRESPONDING DEFLECTION(Experimental)

Beam designation CB1 CB2 PRB1 Ultimate load(kN) 35.190 30.213 78.036 MID SPAN DEFLECTION 9.403 8.309 15.127 13.511 16.41 14.623 L/3 DELECTION 7.512 6.603 11.771 10.667 12.805 11.406

PRB2
PTB1 PTB2

67.300
87.568 78.030

Load - Mid Span Deflection curves of all Specimens

Load vs Mid Span Deflection
100 90 80 70 Load in kN 60 50 40 30 20 10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Deflection in mm CB1 CB2 PRB1 PRB2 PTB1 PTB2

Load- L/3 Deflection curves of all Specimens

Load vs L/3 Deflection
100 90 80 70 Load in kN 60 50 40 30 20 10

0
0 2 4 6 Deflection in mm CB1 CB2 PRB1 PRB2 PTB1 PTB2 8 10 12 14

Conti
Table shows the Ultimate Load of all the specimens. The ultimate load carrying capacity of composite profiled beams is 2.2 2.5 times of the Conventional Reinforced Concrete Beams. The specimen PTB2 has maximum load and its maximum deflection.

EFFECTS OF PROFILED CONFIGURATION

Profiled Ultimate Profiled rectangular load (kN) trapezoidal Beam beam designation designation PRB1 78.036 PTB1 Ultimate load (kN) % increase of ultimate load (kN) 12.22

87.568

PRB2

67.300

PTB2

78.030

15.94

Conti
Table shows the Percentage increase of ultimate load of Composite Profiled Beam with different profiled configuration. It is found PTB is 12 16 % more than PRB.

STIFFNESS
Stiffness may be defined as load required causing a unit deflection. The stiffness values of conventional specimens and composite profiled specimens at elastic load. The slope values of load deflection curve are the stiffness value within elastic limit.

STIFFNESS VALUES AT ELASTIC LOAD

Beam Designation CB1 CB2 Stiffness(kN/mm) 4.451 4.350

PRB1
PRB2 PTB1 PTB2

7.997
6.401 9.220 8.508

Conti
Table shows the elastic stiffness values of composite profiled beams and conventional specimens. It is observed that the composite profiled beams have high stiffness values than conventional specimens at elastic load. The profiled trapezoidal beams have 15-32 percentages more stiffness than the rectangular profiled beams.

ENERGY ABSORPTION
Energy absorption is the energy absorbed or stored by a member when work is done on it to deform it and is called strain energy or resilience. Energy absorption is calculated as the area under the load versus mid span deflection curve up to elastic load beyond the elastic load. The energy absorption values of control beams and composite profiled beams are shown in table

ENERGY ABSORPTION CAPACITY

Beam Designation Energy Absorption Energy Absorption

upto Elastic Load in beyond Elastic Load kN-mm CB1 CB2 PRB1 119.974 80.787 284.486 in kN-mm 77.553 65.009 458.163

PRB2
PTB1 PRB2

237.326
389.143 350.538

319.399
518.013 363.536

Conti
It shows that Composite profiled beams have more energy absorption capacity than that of RC beams up to elastic loading and beyond the elastic loading. This shows that profiled beams with 10 mm diameter rod offered more resistance to the applied load. While comparing the profiled beams, beam with trapezoidal cross section shows more energy absorption capacity than that of beams with rectangular cross section. However it is concluded that there is a significant increase in energy absorption due to cross sectional configuration or depth of the section and thickness of reinforced steel bar.

ENERGY DUCTILITY
The energy ductility may be defined as the ratio of the energy absorbed up to ultimate load to energy absorbed up to elastic load. It may be obtained by dividing the area under the load-deflection curve up to ultimate load, by the area under load-deflection curve up to elastic load

ENERGY DUCTILITY
Beam designation Energy Absorption upto Elastic Load in kNmm(A) 119.974 80.787 284.486 237.326 389.143 350.538 Energy Absorption upto Ultimate Load in kNmm(B) 197.527 145.796 742.649 556.725 907.156 714.074 Energy ductility I=B/A

CB1 CB2 PRB1 PRB2 PTB1 PRB2

1.646 1.800 2.610 2.346 2.331 2.037

LOCAL BUCKLING
Plate element of cross section may buckle locally due to

compressive stress
The following figures display the development of local buckling of the composite profiled beams. From the figure we can clearly understand that there is no De-bonding developed in the composite profiled beams.

Buckling and Crushing failure of Profiled Rectangular Beam

Buckling and Crushing failure of profiled Trapezoidal Beams

Buckling and Crushing failure of all Profiled Beams

MODE OF FAILURE
Reinforced concrete beams failed in flexure zone. After the first crack load, the reinforcement started yielding and more number of cracks have formed in flexure zone and extended towards the point loads with the increment in loads. At ultimate loads, the failure of RC beams is due to spalling of concrete cover due to excessive rotation occurred at loading point indicating that plastic hinges have formed at the loading point. In RC beams more number of cracks formed in flexure-shear zone. No shear cracks have formed in support.

Conti
At ultimate load, the failures of composite profiled beams occurred with local buckling of profiled sheet and crushing of concrete. The local buckling occurred at neighborhood point of loading. The crushing of concrete occurred at surface loading point. In composite profiled beams, the crack patterns were not visible

BENDING STRESS STRAIN CURVE

Bending strain measured at top and bottom surface of the specimen by using electrical strain gauges. The resistance of strain gauge is 350 ohms. The 3mm size of strain gauge is placed at bottom of profiled sheet in mid span. The 10mm size strain gauge is placed at top surface of all specimens in mid span. The compression strain is taken as negative and tensile strain is taken as positive.
Bending Stress-strain plot (CB2)
Bending stress N/mm2

Bending Stress N/mm2

Bending Stress-strain plot(CB1)

20 15 10 5 0 -0.002 -0.001 strain -5 0 0.001

16 14 12 10 8 6

4
2 0

-0.002

-0.001 strain At Top

0.001

At Top

Bending stress N/mm2

Bending stress -strain plot(PRB1)

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -0.001 1E-17 strain At Bottom At Top Bending stress N/mm2

Bending stress- strain plot(PRB2)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1E-17 strain At Bottom At Top

-0.003

-0.002

0.001

0.002

0.003

-0.002

-0.001

0.001

0.002

0.003

Bending stress N/mm2

-0.004

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -0.002 -5 0 strain At Bottom

Bending stress N/mm2

Bending Stress-strain plot(PTB1)

Bending Stress-strain plot(PTB2)

40 30 20 10 0 3E-18 -10

0.002 At top

0.004

-0.002

-0.001

0.001 strain At top

0.002

0.003

At Bottom

MOMENT-CURVATURE
Moment-curvature diagram of a section in bending can be theoretically computed from the assumptions of the bending theory by calculating the corresponding values of M and . The theoretical stress-strain curves for steel and concrete, together with the equation of equilibrium and compatibility, are used for this purpose.

MOMENT-CURVATURE OF RECTANGULAR PROFILED BEAMS

40
35 30

Moment curature plot(PRB)

Moment in KN-m

25 20 PRB1 15 10 5 0 0 0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025 0.00003 y = -3E+10x2 + 2E+06x + 1.927(PRB1) y = -5E+10x2 + 2E+06x + 1.389(PRB2) PRB2 Poly. (PRB1) Poly. (PRB2)

Rotation in radians

MOMENT-CURVATURE OF TRAPEZOIDAL PROFILED BEAMS

Moment curvature plot(PTB)
45.00

40.00
35.00

y = -4E+10x2 + 2E+06x + 1.129(PTB1)

Moment in KN-m

30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 0 0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025 y = -5E+10x2 + 3E+06x + 2.414(PTB2) PTB1 PTB2 Poly. (PTB1) Poly. (PTB2)

Rotation in radians

Conti.
The equation of moment curvature for profiled rectangular beams is M = -3*1010 2 + 2*106 + 1.927 (PTB1) M = -5*1010 2 + 2*106 + 1.389 (PRB2) The equation of moment curvature for profiled trapezoidal rectangular beams is M = -4*1010 2 + 2*106 + 1.129 (PTB1) M = -5*1010 2 + 3*106 +2.414 (PTB2)

COMPARISION BETWEEN THERORETICAL VALUE AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Beam designation Ultimate load(kN) from experimental results 35.190
30.213 78.036 67.300 87.568

CB1 CB2 PRB1 PRB2 PTB1

Ultimate load(kN) from theoretical value 21.775

14.361 32.040 26.579 35.826

PTB2

78.030

28.514

Conti
The ultimate load obtained from experiment is 2.5 times higher than the theoretical load. This may be due the incorrectness in the theoretical calculation and have to be revised.

CONCLUSION
The following are the conclusion drawn from the experimental work for flexural specimens. The ultimate strength ,load deflection curve and crack pattern were studied for conventional beams. Since the beams were under reinforced, yielding of the tensile reinforcement occurred in pure bending. The ultimate load of composite profiled is ranges from 2.232.6 times of conventional beams. While comparing the profiled beams, the ultimate load of PTBs carried 12.3-16 percentage more than PRBs. For normal trapezoidal beam the form work is costly and difficult to place. Since the trapezoidal profiled sheets are prefabricated so it can be used easily in construction industry.

Conti

Stiffness, Energy absorption capacity, Energy ductility are depends on the profiled cross section and diameter of steel bar. Composite profiled beams shows large amount of energy absorption capacity that of RCC beams and also PTBs more energy absorption capacity.

Provision of lips gives good bonding between concrete and profiled sheet.
Local buckling and crushing failure occurred ,when the composite profiled beams almost reaches maximum load. The addition of profiled sheet to the sides of reinforced concrete beams increase flexural strength. While increasing area of reinforcement in profiled beam more stiffness and reduces ductility.

REFERENCE
Deric John Oehlers (1993)- Composite Profiled Beams journal of structural engineering, Vole 119, No.4 April 1993. ASCE page 3320. Deric John Oehlers, Howard D,Wrightand Matthew j. Burnet Flexural strength of profiled beams journal of structural engineering, Vol 120, No 2. February, 1994. ASCE, Page NO. 4960 Brian Uyand Mark Andrew Bradford, Member ASCE - Ductility of profiled composite beams. Part 1: Experimental study 1995 Vol 121, No.5 May 1995. ASCE page 7851. Brian Uy and Mark Andrew Bradford, Member ASCE Ductility of profiled composite beams. Part 2: Analytical study 1995. Vol 121, No.5 May 1995. ASCE page 7852.

Conti
Kottiswaran N and Sundararajan R (2005) An Experimental investigation on flexural behaviour of steel concrete composite beam made up of thin walled cold formed steel.
Hyung-JoonAhn and Soo-Hyun Ryu (2006) Modular composite profile beams. ArivalaganSundararajan, KandasamyShanmugasundaram *2008+ An Experimental study of normal mix, flyash, quarry waste, and low strength concrete (Brick-bat lime concrete) contribution to the ultimate moment capacity of square steel hollow sections. Siva A and Kumar V(2012) Shear bond characteristics of composite slab made of cold-formed profiled steel sheeting. S.Ramamrutham (2006) Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures. IS 1022:2009 concrete mix proportioning guidelines. IS 456: 2000 plane and reinforced concrete code of practice