2.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 General
The various literatures have been referred from journals, proceedings, books, websites
etc. to understand the present status of project undertaken. From this literature, present work is
formulated. These are explained in following section.
2.2 Literature Review
R.P. JOHNSON describes in his book COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
OF STEEL AND CONCRETE [1] that the design of structures for buildings and bridges is
mainly concerned with the provision and support of load-bearing horizontal surfaces. Except in
long-span bridges, these floors or decks are usually made of reinforced concrete, for no other
material has a better combination of low cost, high strength, and resistance to corrosion,
abrasion, and fire.
The economical span for a reinforced concrete slab is little more than that at which its
thickness becomes just sufficient to resist the point loads to which it may be subjected or, in
buildings, to provide the sound insulation required. For spans of more than a few meters it is
cheaper to support the slab on beams or walls than to thicken it. When the beams are also of
concrete, the monolithic nature of the construction makes it possible for a substantial breadth of
slab to act as the top flange of the beam that supports it. At spans of more than about 10 m, and
particularly where the susceptibility of steel to damage by fire is not a problem, as for example in
bridges and multi-storey car parks, steel beams become cheaper than concrete beams. It used to
be customary to design the steelwork to carry the whole weight of the concrete slab and its
loading; but by about 1950 the development of shear connectors had made it practicable to
connect the slab to the beam, and so to obtain the T-beam action that had long been used in
concrete construction.
J W Rackham covers the design and construction of composite floors, paying particular attention
to the good practice aspects. Following a description of the benefits of composite construction
and its common applications, the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the design
and construction process are identified. The requirements for the transfer of information
throughout the design and construction process are described.
The design of composite slabs and beams is discussed in detail in relation to the Eurocodes[4]
and BS 5950. In addition to general ultimate and serviceability limit state design issues, practical
11

design considerations such as the formation of holes in the slab, support details, fire protection,
and attachments to the slab are discussed. Guidance is also given on the acoustic performance of
typical composite slabs. The obligations of designers according to the CDM Regulations are
identified and discussed. The practical application of Slim deck construction, which normally
utilizes deep decking and special support beams, is also covered. Typical construction details are
illustrated, and guidance is given on the formation of openings in the beams and the slab.
Yong-Hak Lee describes in paper Finite element formulation of a composite double Tbeam subjected to torsion [3] When a composite double T-beam is subjected to torsion, a pair of
prestressing tendons resist torsional twisting due to the coupled restoring forces provided by the
restoring action of the upward and downward displaced prestressing tendons. In addition, the
composite action of the composite double T-beams provides an additional pure and warping
torsional resistance. A three dimensional finite beam element for the composite double T-beam is
formulated to account for the torsional stiffness due to the restoring action of a pair of
prestressing tendons and the composite action. The finite element formulation is based on
Vlasovs hypothesis that considers the warping displacement in open sections. Strain energies
stored in concrete, encasing steel, reinforcing bars, and a pair of prestressing tendons is included
in the total potential energy of the composite double T-beam. Two-noded beam elements with
seven-degrees of freedom per node approximate the axial, flexural, and torsional displacements.
The torsional resistance due to the restoring action of the pair of prestressing tendons is
discussed by comparing the two warping stiffness terms calculated with and without the
consideration of their action. As numerical examples, two-span and three-span steel composite
double T-beams are analyzed, and their bimoments and angles of twist are compared with those
calculated from the conventional three dimensional finite element analysis and the analytical
method of solving the governing differential equations.
Qing Quan Liang, states in the paper Strength Analysis of Steel-Concrete Composite Beams in
Combined Bending and Shear [5] about composite and non composite behavior. Steel-concrete
composite beams have been extensively used in building and bridge construction.
Composite action in a composite beam is achieved by means of mechanical shear
connectors. Headed stud shear connectors are usually welded to the top flange of a steel beam to
resist longitudinal slip and vertical separation between the concrete slab and the steel beam.
Concrete slabs can be either solid slabs or composite slabs incorporating profiled steel sheeting.
12

Composite beams under applied loads are often subjected to combined actions of bending
and vertical shear . Despite experimental evidences, the contributions from the concrete
slab and composite action to the vertical shear strength of a simply supported composite
beam is not considered in current design codes, such as AS 2327.1 (1996), Eurocode 4
(1994) and LRFD (1999), which result in conservative designs ( Johnson and Anderson
1993). In order to design composite beams consistently and economically, it is necessary
to develop new design models for shear strength including contributions from the concrete
slab and composite action and for moment-shear interactions Experimental studies

on the

ultimate strength of steel-concrete composite beams in combined bending and shear have
been of interest to researchers.Johnson and Willmington (1972).In India IS 11384 [7]has given
some assumptions and simplifications as follows:1. The concrete slab is continuously connected throughout the entire length of the beam.
2. The slab and beam do not separated vertically at any point along the beam
3. The slip of shear connector is directly proportional to the load on connection.
4. The strain distribution is linear over the depth of the member.

2.2 Behaviour of Composite Beams

13

In the following, C.Caparani [8] consider only the case of structural steel sections and reinforced
concrete slabs.

Fig.2.1 comparison of non-composite and composite beam

2.1.1 Non-composite behavior

Fig.2.2 non-composite beam behavior

14

The concrete slab is not connected to the steel section and therefore behaves independently. As it
is weak in longitudinal bending, it deforms to the curvature ofthe steel section and has its own
neutral axis. The bottom surface of the concrete slab is free to slide over the top flange of the
steel section and slip occurs. The bending resistance of the slab is often so small that it is
ignored.
2.1.2 Composite Behaviour

Fig.2.3 non-composite beam behavior

In this case, the concrete slab is connected to the steel section and both act together in carrying
the load. Slip between the slab and steel section is now prevented and the connection resists a
longitudinal shear force similar in distribution to the vertical shear force shown

2.2 Effect of Shear Connection on Vertical Shear Strength

The effect of the degree of shear connection on the ultimate moment capacities of simply
supported composite beams is reflected in design codes, such as AS 2327.1 (1996), Eurocode 4
(1994) and LRFD (1999). The codes assume that the web of the steel beam resist the entire
15

vertical shear, and do not consider the effect of shear connection on the vertical shear strength of
composite beams. This assumption allows for a simple model to be given but results in
conservative designs. In real composite construction, the vertical shear strength of a composite
beam is in fact a function of the degree of shear connection (Donahey and Darwin 1988). To
quantify this effect, a simply supported composite beam with a span of 0.8m and with various
degree of shear connection has been analyzed. This deep composite beam is a non-flexural
member where the shear load is transferred to the supports by the strut and tie model, as reported
by Liang (2000,2002). The composite beam was a shortened version of the one tested by
Chapman and Balkrishnan (1964). The cross section of a composite beam (A3) is shown in fig.
05. Only the cross sectional area of stud shears connectors was modified to give different degrees
of shear connection while other conditions of the composite beam were unchanged.

Fig no.2.4 Cross section of composite beam-A3 (Chapman and Balkrishnan)

Liang-Uy-Bradford describes that the vertical shear strength of the composite beam increases
with an increase in the degree of shear connections (). This confirms experimental findings
presented by Donahey and Darwin (1988). When > 1, the vertical shear strength is not affected
16

by the degree of shear connection. This indicated that the composite beam exhibits full shear
connection. It is also observed that the vertical shear strength of a composite beam with full
shear connection is 29.5% higher than that of the one without composite action.
2.3 Proposed Design Models
Qing Quan Liang investigates the experimental data of chapman and balkrishann in ABAQUS
which is based on finite element analysis.the designed model is as shown in fig.no.2.5.After
analyzing the model he proposed relation between shear stud and vertical shear force.

Fig no.2.5 finite element of composite beam by ABAQUS

2.3.1 Design Models for Vertical shear Strength

Experimental and nonlinear finite element analysis indicated that the concrete slab and
composite action make significant contributions to the vertical shear strength of a composite
beam. To take advantage of composite actions, a design model for the vertical shear strength of
simply supported composite beams with any degree of shear connection is proposed as

17

VU0 = V0 (1+0.295)

(0 1)

Where VU0 = the ultimate shear strength of a composite beam in pure shear; V0 = the ultimate
shear strength of a nonlinear composite beam in pure shear( with zero degree of shear
connection); and = the degree of shear connection. It should be noted that the pullout failure of
stud shear connectors results in the damaged composite action. If this occurs, the ultimate shear
strength of the damaged composite beam (V U0) should be taken as V0 for safety. The proposed
design model for vertical shear strength is compared with the results obtained from the nonlinear
finite element analysis in fig. 10. It is shown that the design model agrees very well with
numerical predictions. If no shear connection is provided between the concrete slab and the steel
beam, the two components will work independently to resist vertical shear. The superposition
rule can be applied to the vertical shear strength of the non-composite section. The vertical shear
strength of a non- composite beam can be expressed by
V0 = VC + VS
Where VC = the contribution of concrete slab; and VS = the shear capacity of the web of the steel
beam. Tests indicated that the pullout failure of stud shear connectors in composite beams might
occur (Narayanan 1989). This failure mode may reduce the shear resistance of the concrete slab.
Therefore, the contribution of the concrete slab (V C) Should be taken as the lesser of the shear
strength of the concrete slab Vslab and the pullout capacity of the stud shear connectors T P. The
shear strength of the concrete slab is proposed as
Vslab = 1.16(c)Aec
Where c = compressive strength of concrete (Mpa); and Aec = the effective shear area of
concrete. The effective shear area of concrete in a solid slab can be evaluated as Aec = (bf + Dc)
Dc , in which bf = the width of top flange of the steel beam and D c = the total depth of concrete
slab. For a composite slab with profiled steel sheeting orientated perpendicular to the steel beam,
Aec can be taken as (bf + hr + Dc) (Dc - hr), in which hr = the rib height of the profile steel sheeting.
The effect of longitudinal steel reinforcement in the concrete slab is not considered in Eq. (7).
The model gives a good estimate to the shear strength of the concrete slab in which there is little
longitudinal steel reinforcement passing through the effective shear area in a composite section

18

in the positive moment region. The pullout capacity of stud shear connectors in composite beams
with solid slabs can be expressed as
Tp = [(ds + hc)+ 2s] hc ct
Tp = [(ds + hc)] hc ct

(pair studs)
(Single stud)

Where ds = the head diameter of the stud; hc= the total height of the stud; s = the transverse
spacing of studs; and ct = the tensile strength of concrete (Mpa). The pullout capacity of stud
shear connectors in composite slabs incorporating profiled steel sheeting should be calculated
using the effective pullout failure surface in above equations.
The shear capacity of the web of the steel beam can be determined by (Trahair and Bradford
1991)
Vs = 0.6wywdwtw
Where yw = the yield strength of the steel web (Mpa); d w = the depth of steel web; t w = the
thickness of steel web; w = the reduction factor for slender webs in shear buckling. The
reduction factor w is equal to 1.0 for stocky steel webs without shear buckling.
2.4. Finite Element Idealization of composite beam
The composite beam has two coordinate system, X, Z for the concrete part and X and Z for the
steel part. Each part of the element has its pertaining end nodes 1 and 2 with three degrees of
freedom per node, as shown in Fig.2.3, consequently, there are six degrees of freedom (four
transitional and two rotational displacements) for each node of the element.

Fig.2.2 Finite Element Idealization of composite beam

19

Assuming that the plane section within each material remains plane, the axial displacement and
strain can be expressed in the terms of displacements u and w relative to the local x and z axes.
According to Fig.(2) the horizontal displacement and strain in each component of the horizontal
beam are:

I.

Steel Beam:

II.

Concrete beam :

III.

Slab reinforcement:

Where: uoc and uost are axial displacements in the concrete slab and steel beam, respectively, And
dwc /dx and dwst/dx are the slopes of concrete slab and steel beam with respect to z direction,
respectively. The slip, S, between the concrete slab and steel beam is given as the difference in
the displacement between bottom surface of the concrete slab and the top surface of the steel
beam at the centerline of the interface, i.e.
20

Fig.2.2 Finite Element Idealization of deformation of beam segment

2.5. Chapman and Balakrishnan tests:The tests performed by Chapman and Balakrishnan [8] successfully illustrate the
behaviour of the composite system which is being investigated. The beams spanned 5490
mmwith an I-shaped steel member 305 mm deep (1200 600 44 lb/ft BSB) and a
concrete slab 152 mm thick 1220 mm wide. The number and type of studs, as well as
the steel and concrete strengths, varied according to the tested composite beam. The slab
was longitudinally reinforced with four top and four bottom 8 mm bars. The transverse
reinforcement incorporated top and bottom bars of 12.7 mm @ 152 mm centres and 12.7
21

mm @ 305 mm centres, respectively. The tensile strength, the Youngs modulus and the
Poissons ratio of the reinforcing steel bars were 320 N/mm 2, 205 000 N/mm2 and 0.3,
respectively. A list of material properties for all beams is given and a full description of
these beams is presented in Table 1.Based on the composite section strength of the
concrete slab, steel components and shear connectors, the level of shear connection could
be determined. This value is defined as the ratio between the shear connection capacity
and the weakest element capacity (concrete slab or steel beam). Table 2 summarises the
level of shear connection for all the composite beams, considering two different
approaches. The first one uses the nominal values presented by [13] for the stud strength
and steel yield stress. In the second one, the material properties are taken as the actual
measured values [13]. Considerable differences among the levels of shear connection
according to these two approaches are noticed, leading to the conclusion that, in order to
calculate the level of shear connection of composite systems, the actual material
properties of the components (measured values), related to each experimental
programme, should be used.
For all composite beams shown in Table 1, loadmidspan deflection curves are compared
to the test results. Figs. 48 (beams A2 to E1) and Figs. 911 (beams U1 to U4) depict
comparisons between the FE model results and the experimental data for the midspan
concentrated and uniformly distributed loaded composite beams, respectively. The limit
points for the concrete are represented by a full triangle (lower bound) and by a full
square (upper bound), and the stud failure point is represented by a full circle (item 2.4).
Good agreement was obtained between test and numerical results In order to illustrate
finite element data for local results, the numerical and test values regarding the slip at the

22

Table no.2.1

23

2.6 Remark
The present investigation focuses on the modelling of composite beams with full and partial
shear connection using the software ANSYS [11]. A three-dimensional model is proposed, in
which all the main structural parameters and associated nonlinearities are included (concrete
slab, steel beam and shear connectors). Test and numerical data available in the literature are
used to validate the model, which is able to deal with simply supported systems with I-beams
and solid flat slabs. Other features such as steel profiled sheeting Based on the validated model,
an extensive parametric analysis of composite beams is performed, specifically aimed at:
1. Studying the effect of the continuation of shear connection beyond the supports of simply
supported composite beams.
2. Investigating the overall structural system behaviour when different concrete compressive
strengths are used in the slaband in the associated push-out tests. This situation has often
been observed in reported laboratory studies but has not previously received any
systematic study, being important, for instance, for the definition of the loadslip curves
used for the shear connectors

24