Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 135–145

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Flexural and shear capacity of composite steel truss and concrete beams
with inferior precast concrete base
Leopoldo Tesser ⇑, Roberto Scotta
Department of Civil Environmental Architectural Engineering, University of Padua, Via Marzolo 9, Padua, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The paper presents a set of 24 lab tests on 12 composite steel truss and concrete beams with inferior pre-
Received 14 February 2012 cast concrete base completed by second phase concrete cast. The experiments investigate the shear and
Revised 18 August 2012 flexural strengths of the beams with different depth, width and transverse reinforcement inclination. The
Accepted 7 November 2012
beams failure modes are studied focusing on the crack patterns and on the interaction between concrete
Available online 25 December 2012
cast at different times. The obtained results are compared with theoretical evaluations of typical resisting
mechanisms of steel-concrete composite and reinforced concrete structures using updated European and
Keywords:
American design Standards. The main features of the composite steel truss and concrete beams are quan-
Composite steel truss and concrete beams
Hybrid truss beams
titatively and qualitatively discussed.
Flexural strength Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Shear strength

1. Introduction generally assigned to the web bars immersed in concrete acting

Nowadays in Italy ‘‘Composite Steel Truss and Concrete beams’’
(hereinafter CSTC beams), also called hybrid truss beams, have
been increasingly used since they allow high construction speed
and minimum site labour and they provide economic convenience.
These beams are composed by prefabricated steel trusses embed-
ded in cast-in-place concrete. They bear their own weight and
the weight of the slabs without any provisional support during
floor construction and then they collaborate with the hardened
concrete topping. The completion concrete does not have any addi-
tional longitudinal or transverse reinforcement except optional
longitudinal bar pieces to recover the continuity of multi-span
beams. The inventor of these beams was Salvatore Leone, who pat-
ented them in 1967 and submitted his own production rules and
assessment methods to the Italian Superior Council of Public
Works [1].
The CSTC typology stands in between the reinforced concrete
and the composite steel concrete ones since it has some features
of both of them. Since the truss is designed to carry all the loads
applied before the concrete hardening, two phases can be distin-
guished in the life of CSTC beams. In the first phase the structure
made only by the truss is considered while the latter phase con-
cerns the structure composed also by the completion concrete cast.
The connection between the truss and the concrete topping is
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: University of Padua, Department of Civil
Environmental and Architectural Engineering, Via Marzolo 9, 35121 Padua, Italy.
Tel.: +39 049 8275619; fax: +39 049 8275612.
E-mail address: leopoldo.tesser@dicea.unipd.it (L. Tesser).
as studs, without using other specific connectors between the
two materials (e.g. headed stud shear connectors or similar that
are required in standard composite beams).
The original embedded steel truss is made by welding steel ele-
ments that are plate, straight and curved bars. The typical assem-
bly is the plate as the bottom chord, two or more straight bars as
top chord and one or more sequences of bent bars to form the diag-
onal truss members (Fig. 1a). The web bars usually converge to the
top chord giving the truss a typical triangle section and providing
adequate stiffness against torsion and out of plane buckling. The
bottom chord is conceived to support the slab. Successively a dif-
ferent kind of bottom chord was developed by replacing the steel
plate with a precast reinforced concrete base (Fig. 1b). The diagonal
bars are welded to some lower straight bars embedded in the pre-
cast concrete base. Dealing with these beams, the early academic
theoretical and experimental investigations focused on the buck-
ling of bare trusses in the first phase [2], on the strength of the con-
nection between steel base and concrete topping [3] and on the
flexural strength [4,5].
A similar construction technique called ‘‘Slim Floor’’ appeared in
Scandinavia in the eighties with later employments and develop-
ments in Europe and in the rest of the world [6,7]. The beams
can be assessed using the Standards for composite structures and
praise several applications. Likewise the CSTC beams, the Slim
Floor girder is characterized by a steel beam embedded in cast-
in-place concrete and by a lower wide flange plate supporting
the slab in the first phase. A Slim Floor girder differs from a CSTC
beam because of the solid web of the steel sections (wide flange
or rectangular hollow) and of the shear connectors. In fact the first

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.11.004
136 L. Tesser, R. Scotta / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 135–145
Fig. 1. Classical hybrid truss beams: steel truss with steel base (a) and precast
concrete base (b).
typology has shear studs welded to the top flange or raised pattern
rolled into the top surface of the beam that can provide composite
action.
Another similar composite girder, called FRC-encased steel joist
composite beam, was proposed in United States in the late nineties
for application in seismic resistant frames [8]. The key features are
the plane steel joist made of angle and plate profiles embedded in
concrete and fibre reinforcement for maintaining the integrity of
the section without stirrups. This plane joist is not required to bear
the slab before the concrete cast on-site. Analytical studies on the
flexural strength and on the shear strength without web reinforce-
ments were carried out [9]. The contribution of the chords angles
to the shear strength by their own strength and by their interaction
with the concrete section was not experimentally verified.
More recent years saw an increasing number of theoretical,
numerical and experimental investigations on CSTC beams in Italy
due to: the need of improving the understanding of their resistant
mechanisms, the assessment of safety and serviceability require-
ments of new construction Codes, the intention of widening the
application field, the development of customized trusses. In partic-
ular a technical solution for recovering the beams continuity across
columns was tested [10]. The behaviour of bare steel trusses was
the focus of experimental tests [11–13] as well as of theoretical
and numerical investigations [14,15]. The trusses with concrete
base were also tested in the first phase by means of flexural tests
[13,16]. The flexural and shear capacities of hybrid truss beams
after the second phase concrete cast were verified experimentally
and numerically [11–13,16,17] and some assessment methods
were proposed [13,15,16]. Even some novel assemblies for beam-
column joints were introduced aiming to obtain seismic resistant
frames [13,16,18]. Nevertheless the number of available experi-
mental data, especially those of beam shear failure, are still lim-
ited; the influence of the interface between distinct concrete
casts has not been verified yet; no capacity models in flexure and
shear was developed specifically for triangle section truss with
chord bars and precast concrete base.
The paper presents a set of 24 lab tests on twelve CSTC beams
made by precast concrete base and by the second phase concrete
topping. The geometry and the static schemes are designed to
investigate both the flexural and shear failure modes by two dis-
tinct tests on each beam. The obtained results are evaluated and
compared with resisting mechanism evaluations driven from cur-
rent design codes on steel-concrete composite and reinforced con-
crete structures such as Eurocode 2 [19], Eurocode 4 [20], Model
Code 2010 [21], ACI 318-08 [22].
2. Beams subjected to test
Twelve CSTC beams have been subjected to experimental tests.
They are characterized by an inferior precast concrete base sur-
rounding the bottom chord of the steel truss. The second phase
cast is completed 30 days after the cast of the base. The beams
are tested in their second phase, that is when the completion con-
crete cast is fully hardened.
On the basis of the theoretical evaluations that are discussed in
the following Section 5, each beam was designed to be submitted
to two distinct tests aiming to investigate firstly their flexural fail-
ure and secondly their shear failure. Hence some geometrical prop-
erties, such as beam depth, beam width, web bars inclination and
longitudinal and transversal reinforcement ratios, were varied to
investigate their influence on the collapse mechanisms.
The geometrical properties of the beams are listed in Table 1
with the following meanings of the symbols: L is the beam length,
b is the beam section width, h is the beam section depth, s is the
distance between two subsequent web bent bars, a is the angle be-
tween bent-up web bar and longitudinal axis of member, b is the
angle between the direction of shear force and a web bar in the
plane of the beam cross section. The bar nominal diameters are
all expressed in millimetres. In addition each concrete base is
0.10 m deep and is completed with six longitudinal bars £8 and
with rectangular stirrups £8 spaced 0.15 m. A typical tested beam
section and profile are depicted in Fig. 2 where the introduced
symbols are illustrated.
The intervals of geometrical parameters variation were selected
among their most typical values in practical applications and more
specifically: the shear span to depth ratio (from 5.6 to 11.3 for the
flexural tests and from 2.2 to 4.6 for the shear ones); the width to
depth ratio (from 0.5 to 1.7); the longitudinal lower flexural rein-
forcement ratio (from 1.3% to 4.1%); the web shear reinforcement
ratio (from 0.10% to 0.32%).
The prescribed material properties are normal strength con-
crete of class C50/60 according to EN 206-1 [23] (characteristic
cylindrical compressive strength fck,cyl = 50 MPa) with a maximum
aggregate size of 15 mm and hot rolled structural steel S355JR
according to EN 10025-1 [24] (characteristic yield strength
fyk = 355 MPa).
3. Test methodology
3.1. Test technique
The experiments were accompanied by the characterization of
the concrete and steel materials by means of standard tests. In par-
ticular it has been verified that the welding points do not affect the
mechanical properties of the truss steel as it will be detailed in
Section 4.1.
Each beam was submitted to two different tests varying the sta-
tic scheme configuration.
 L. Tesser, R. Scotta / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 135–145 137

Table 1
Geometrical properties of the composite beams.

ID Beam geometry Steel truss

L (m) b (m) h (m) Top chord Bottom chord Web s (m) a (°) b (°)
B1 6.00 0.25 0.24 3£28 4£28 2£14 0.40 40 18
B2 6.00 0.30 0.24 3£30 4£30 2£14 0.40 40 25
B3 6.00 0.40 0.24 3£28 4£28 2£14 0.40 40 39
B4 6.00 0.25 0.34 3£30 4£30 2£14 0.40 53 11
B5 6.00 0.30 0.34 3£30 4£30 2£14 0.40 53 16
B6 6.00 0.40 0.34 3£28 4£28 2£14 0.40 53 26
B7 6.00 0.25 0.44 3£26 4£28 2£14 0.40 62 8
B8 6.00 0.30 0.44 3£30 4£30 2£14 0.40 62 12
B9 6.00 0.40 0.44 3£30 4£30 2£14 0.40 62 19
B10 6.44 0.25 0.54 3£30 4£30 2£16 0.46 65 6
B11 6.44 0.30 0.54 3£30 4£30 2£14 0.46 65 9
B12 6.44 0.40 0.54 3£30 4£30 2£14 0.46 65 15

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2. Typical tested CSTC beam section (a) and profile. (b) Measures are expressed in centimetres.

All the tests were carried out under displacement control with
three increasing amplitude loading and unloading cycles up to fail-
ure. The measure instruments captured local and global displace-
ments allowing the characterization of the beams behaviour.

3.2. Test setup

The experimental tests were performed in the Construction

Material Experimentation Laboratory at the Department ICEA of
the University of Padua. The test setup is presented in Fig. 3. The
load was applied by an hydraulic jack setup on a steel contrast frame
firmly anchored to the lab floor. The jack was controlled by an
hydraulic control unit that imposed the prescribed displacements.
A load cell was placed between the jack and a distributor beam to
measure the applied force more precisely. The distributor beam is
simply supported and loaded in its mid-span. Thus the specimen
is loaded by two equal forces whose positions are reported in Ta-
ble 2. The steel beam transferred the load to the specimen by two
low rails. The size of the low rails in the longitudinal direction of Fig. 3. Drawing of the test set-up.
the specimen was 0.12 m. Three neoprene thick layers were inserted
between the rail base and the specimen in order to avoid horizontal
constraint effects. The specimen was then supported by other two for shear tests. For each experiment Table 2 specifies the values of
steel low rails on strengthened steel pedestals. The total weight of the following dimensions: clear span S; minimum distance be-
the superstructure applying the load was about 4.1 kN. tween support axis and load axis A; distance between load axes B.
The specimen static scheme is simply supported beam with two During the tests, local and global displacements were measured.
point loads as illustrated in Fig. 4a for flexural tests and in Fig. 4b For the local measures, strain transducers with a measurement
138 L. Tesser, R. Scotta / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 135–145

Table 2 standard compression test on six concrete cylinder specimens

Effective static schemes. and standard tensile test on six steel coupons (3£14 mm and
ID Flexural tests Shear tests 3£30 mm). The steel coupons were cut from undamaged portions
S (m) A (m) B (m) S (m) A (m) B (m) of the tested beams during their demolition. Three of them were
taken from top chords and the other three from truss webs. The
B1 5.78 2.58 0.62 4.00 0.90 0.40
B2 5.78 2.58 0.62 4.00 0.90 0.40
pieces from top chords were extracted in such a way they included
B3 5.78 2.58 0.62 4.00 0.90 0.40 a welding spot that was connecting them with the web bars.
B4 5.78 2.53 0.72 4.00 0.90 0.40 The samples test results are summarized in Tables 3 and 4
B5 5.78 2.58 0.62 4.00 0.90 0.40 where fc0 is the concrete cylindrical compressive strength, fy is the
B6 5.78 2.65 0.48 4.00 0.90 0.40
steel yield strength, fu is the steel tensile strength, At is the ultimate
B7 5.98 2.75 0.48 4.00 0.90 0.40
B8 5.42 2.47 0.48 4.00 0.90 0.40 elongation over five equivalent diameters. The prescribed class for
B9 5.84 2.38 1.02 4.00 0.90 0.40 concrete was the same for the first phase and for the second phase.
B10 6.44 2.98 0.48 5.50 1.00 0.40 The concrete casts were carried out at the prefabrication plant
B11 6.44 2.98 0.48 5.50 1.10 0.40
using the same mix design and the same control procedures. Thus
B12 6.44 2.98 0.48 5.50 1.10 0.40
it can be assumed that the concrete properties of the bases are the
same of those of the toppings. The flexural and the shear tests were
base of 100 mm were used. For the elongations of the steel truss carried out several months after the concrete casts. Hence the dif-
embedded in the concrete cast, some pieces of steel bar were ference in terms of ageing and resistance of the concrete base and
welded perpendicularly to the truss and surrounded by rubber be- the concrete topping were negligible.
fore concrete casting in such a way they could emerge laterally. The results for the steel material are quite homogeneous, the
After concrete hardening, the rubber was removed and the trans- coefficient of variation for the yield strength being lower than
ducer’s knifes were connected with the bars stumps (Fig. 5). The 2.5%. The yielding and necking region were never located in the
accuracy of the transducers is 1/10,000 mm, that is a precision of welding spots. Thus it can be concluded that the welding did not
1 l-strain over the measurement base with a nominal range of affect the mechanical properties of the steel bars.
±2.5 mm that is ±0.025 strain over the given base. For the beam
mid-span deflection and the support adjustment, inductive stan- 4.2. Flexural test results
dard displacement transducers were used. Their accuracy is 0.5%
and 2.5% and their nominal maximum range is 100 mm or The crack patterns after failure can be seen in the drawings of
10 mm respectively. Fig. 4 includes the position of the instruments the beam profiles in Fig. 6 aiming to provide immediate qualitative
for a typical CSTC beam. The electric signals from all the measure- information on the specimens failures. The crack patterns have
ment instruments converged in a data acquisition system con- been realized by photogrammetric technique from the pictures of
trolled by a computer for instantaneous processing. the collapsed specimens and they report the cracks wider than
0.5 mm. The cracks generally appear in the central portions of
4. Test results the beams developing about vertically from the bottom of the con-
crete base to the concrete topping.
4.1. Test on material samples The specimens performances with respect to the strength and
the deflection capacity can be investigated by means of their applied
The material properties were verified by tests on concrete and load-mid span displacement curves. Fig. 7 presents the load-
steel samples. In particular the following tests were carried out: displacement curves of the beams grouped for similar depth. In

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4. Specimens static schemes for flexural (a) and shear (b) capacity tests.
 L. Tesser, R. Scotta / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 135–145 139

strength. On the contrary in Fig. 7d, the curves of the three deepest
specimens display that the beam width has negligible effects on
stiffness and strength. The beams ductility was not always exploited
since the tests were stopped before the complete collapse.
The flexural strengths of the composite beams are reported in
Table 5 where Pm is the maximum load applied by the jack and
measured by the load cell; Mu,exp is the maximum bending moment
calculated accounting for the specimen self-weight and the weight
of the superstructure. Furthermore elc,max and euc,min are respec-
tively the maximum average strain recorded by the strain trans-
ducer placed on the lower chord and the minimum average
strain recorded by the strain transducers set on the upper chord.
These values can be compared to the value of the yield strain of
0.18% that is the ratio between the average yield strength of the
steel samples 367 MPa and the steel Young modulus assumed
equal to 200 GPa.
In addition, Table 5 collects the flexural failure modes deduced
from visual inspection and strain transducers measurements with
the following meaning of the symbols: Cc indicates compressive
concrete crushing, Sc stands for compressive steel yielding and St
for tensile steel yielding.
All the specimens in the first tests, characterized by shear span
to depth ratio higher than 5.6, failed in flexure as expected. Within
the range of variation of section sizes and longitudinal reinforce-
ment ratios, all the beams showed lower chord yielding. Moreover
the beams number 3 and 6 suffered concrete crushing in the upper
part of the section between the two points of load application.

4.3. Shear test results

The crack patterns developed during the shear tests are pre-
sented in the drawing of the beam profiles in Fig. 6. In all beams
Fig. 5. Pictures of the beam 2 during flexural test (a) and of the beam 9 during shear at least one diagonal crack appeared in the upper concrete section
test (b).
in the portion between the support and the closest loading axis.
This crack progressively widened and developed at one tip toward
Table 3 the upper section edge and at the other tip toward the interface be-
Concrete cylindrical standard tests. tween concrete casts. Afterwards in this last direction the cracks
advanced horizontally at the interface toward the closest support,
Coupon ID Origin fc0 (MPa)
expect for beam B8. At the peak strength two phenomena have
C1 Beam 4 53.2
been observed jointly or separately. The first one: the crack at
C2 Beam 5 59.9
C3 Beam 5 63.9 the interface enlarged and headed towards the support causing,
C4 Beam 7 54.8 in most cases, a detachment of the concrete base next to the end
C5 Beam 10 60.2 of the lower chord. The second phenomenon: the cracks at the
C6 Beam 11 62.5 interface continued diagonally in the concrete base, in most cases
Average 59.1
they were shifted with respect to the concrete topping. In any case
Standard deviation 4.2
Coefficient of variation (%) 7.2 the cracks of the shear tests did not intersect those of the flexural
tests.
Fig. 8 shows the applied load-deflection curves depth in which
the vertical displacement is measured in the axis of the two point
Table 4
Steel bar standard tests. loads. In Fig. 8a the responses of the specimens B1, B2 and B3, hav-
ing the same amount of web reinforcement, display the influence
Coupon ID Origin Diam. (mm) fy (MPa) fu (MPa) At (%)
of the section width on the shear strength. In fact for the shallow-
S1 Beam 7 14 393 544 13.8 est beams the strength increases as the beam width increases,
S2 Beam 10 14 405 546 14.1
other parameters being constant. On the contrary the curves of
S3 Beam 11 14 394 541 10.8
Average 397 544 12.9
the beams B7, B8 and B9 in Fig. 8c and those of the beams B11
Standard deviation 6.7 2.5 1.8 and B12 of Fig. 8d suggest that section width has moderate influ-
Coefficient of variation (%) 1.7 0.5 14.1 ence in the shear strength of deeper beams. The essential role
S4 Beam 7 30 377 523 17.5 played by the amount of web reinforcement can be noted when
S5 Beam 10 30 366 510 22.1
comparing the curves of the beam B10 with those of the beams
S6 Beam 11 30 359 507 22.3
Average 367 513 20.6 B11 and B12 in Fig. 8d.
Standard deviation 9.1 8.5 2.7 The shear strengths of the specimens are listed in Table 6 where
Coefficient of variation (%) 2.5 1.7 13.2 Pm is the maximum load applied by the jack and measured by the
load cell; Vu,exp is the maximum shear force calculated subtracting
the specimen self-weight and the weight of the superstructure.
Fig. 7a, the responses of the shallow specimens B1 and B3 show the Table 6 also reports the shear failure mode deduced from
significant influence of the beam width on the flexural stiffness and visual inspection and strain transducers measurements with the
140 L. Tesser, R. Scotta / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 135–145

Fig. 6. Crack patterns for the flexural (left column) and shear (right column) tests: specimen from B1 to B8 (a) and specimen from B9 to B12 (b).

following meaning of the symbols: Sw yielding of the tensile web
steel bars, D detachment between concrete base and upper portion
from the diagonal cracks to the closest support.
All the specimens in the second tests, characterized by shear
span to depth ratio lower than 4.6, failed in shear as expected.
None of the tested beams showed compression struts failure. The
beams with lower web reinforcement ratio, that accounts for
web bars inclination and section sizes, suffered relative slip be-
tween base and topping concrete after the web bars yielding.
5. Theoretical evaluations
The purpose of the present section is to verify the applicability
and the precision of well-established mechanics to estimate the
CSTC beams strength.
Using the hypotheses and the design formulas provided from
the Standards for reinforced concrete and composite structures
[19–22], the flexural and shear capacities are theoretically evalu-
ated and compared with the experimental results.
 L. Tesser, R. Scotta / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 135–145
Fig. 6. (continued)
5.1. Flexural capacity
Referring to the final composite section made by the composite
truss and the completing concrete cast, the positive bending ulti-
mate strength is here considered.
The design bending strength is determined by the flexural the-
ory according to world standards on reinforced concrete and com-
posite structures (e.g. Eurocode 2 [19], Eurocode 4 [20], Model
Code 2010 [21], ACI 318-08 [22]). The efficacy of the connection
between concrete base and topping is assessed in the following
Section 5.2.
The plastic resistance moment of the composite cross section is
calculated assuming the following hypotheses: full interaction be-
tween steel truss and concrete; the tensile strength of concrete is
neglected; the effective area of concrete in compression resists a
stress up to its cylinder compressive strength fc0 with a parabola–
rectangle stress distribution shape over the whole depth between
the neutral axis and the most compressed fibre of concrete (alter-
natively a stress block assumption can be adopted as suggested by
Eurocode 2 [19] without significantly loosing in precision when the
tensile steel yields).
Thus the ultimate positive bending moment can be determined
by the following formula:
M u;d ¼ fy As dð1  ka nÞ
and by imposing the equilibrium of the section normal solicitation
leading to
141
0
n ¼ fy ðkAs  k A0s Þ=ðbr fc0 beff dÞ ð2Þ
where fc0 is the concrete cylindrical compressive strength that can be
adequately reduced to account for long lasting loads, beff is the
effective compressive concrete width, d is the effective depth,
n = x/d is the normalized neutral axis depth, As and A0s are the tensile
0
and compressive steel areas respectively, k = rs/fy and k ¼ r0s =fy are
the tensile and compressive normalized steel stresses respectively,
ka = a/d is the normalized depth of the concrete compression centre
and br is a coefficient for the integration of the stress distribution
over the section. If the stress block simplification is assumed then
ka = 0.4 and br = 0.8. If the tensile steel and the compressive steel
are both yielded then k = k0 = 1, otherwise the steel effective stresses
depend on the effective depth and the solution of Eq. (2) is
nonlinear.
The theoretical strengths of the CSTC beams are presented in
the fifth column of Table 5. Fig. 9 plots the ultimate bending mo-
ments obtained from the experiments vs. the theoretical ones.
The relative error of the theoretical evaluation with respect to
the experimental results is shown in the sixth column of Table 5
and it is negative if conservative. The relative error mean is
11.6% and its standard deviation is about 5.8% demonstrating
that the experimental results are estimated very well by the theo-
ð1Þ retical evaluations. The negative error mean is likely due to the
steel hardening not taken into account by the conservative theoret-
ical evaluations. The standard deviation is comparable with those
of the materials strength properties.
142 L. Tesser, R. Scotta / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 135–145

250
(a) 180 (b)
160

140 200

Applied load [kN]

Applied load [kN]

120
150
100

80
100
60
B1 B4
40 50
B2 B5
20
B3 B6
0 0
0 100 200 300 0 50 100
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]

350
(c) 350 (d)
300 300

Applied load [kN]

Applied load [kN]

250 250

200 200

150 150

100 B7 100 B10

B8 B11
50 50
B9 B12
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]

Fig. 7. Applied load vs. mid-span displacement curves for flexure tests for 240 mm (a), 340 mm (b), 440 mm (c) and 540 mm (d) beam depth.

Table 5 transverse reinforcement are not fulfilled. The nominal strength

Flexural tests’ results. against vertical shearing is generally estimated as the sum of a con-
ID Pm Mu,exp elc,max euc,min Flexural Mu,d Error crete and a steel contributions as follows:
(kN) (kN m) (%) (%) failure mode (kN m) (%)
V u;d ¼ V c;d þ V s;d ð3Þ
B1 111 155 0.85 0.34 St–Sc 140 9.7
B2 150 206 0.82 0.55 St–Sc 162 21.4 where Vc,d and Vs,d are the nominal shear strengths provided by con-
B3 143 201 1.94 0.41 St–Sc–Cc 158 21.4 crete and by shear reinforcement respectively and that can be ex-
B4 211 281 2.46 0.29 St–Sc 263 6.4
pressed (in Newton) as follows if applied to the CSTC beams:
B5 208 284 1.06 0.29 St–Sc 262 7.7
B6 193 276 3.01 0.42 St–Sc–Cc 234 15.2 V c;d;EC2 ¼ 0 ð4Þ
B7 276 399 2.88 0.61 St–Sc 329 17.5
B8 313 404 1.78 0.31 St–Sc 364 9.9 qffiffiffiffi
B9 303 385 0.42 0.11 St 369 4.2 V c;d;MC ¼ kv bz fc0 ð5Þ
B10 332 519 0.39 0.22 St–Sc 465 10.4
B11 326 514 0.42 0.23 St–Sc 479 6.8 qffiffiffiffi
B12 328 524 1.16 0.23 St–Sc 476 9.2
V c;d;ACI ¼ 0:165bd fc0 ð6Þ
Average 11.6
Standard deviation 5.8
V s;d;EC2 ¼ V s;d;MC ¼ Av fyv ðcot h þ cot aÞ sin a cos bz=s ð7Þ

5.2. Shear capacity

For the hybrid beams, the shear force is carried by the interaction
between steel truss and concrete. The main effect of the two differ-
ent phases of concrete casting is the presence of the interface be-
tween base and topping. Such interface lies horizontally along the
beam and is intentionally not roughened. Thus the shear strength
should be assessed as the minimum of the two potential shear fail-
ure mechanisms: the first one is the Mörsch mechanism, typical of
concrete beams with web reinforcement, and the second one is
the shear transfer at the interface between the two concrete casts.
The first mechanism is assessed with the formulas by Eurocode
2 (EC2) [19], Model Code 2010 (MC) [21] and ACI 318-08 (ACI) [22]
even if their prescriptions on the minimum spacing between
V s;d;ACI ¼ Av fyv ð1 þ cot aÞ sin a cos bd=s ð8Þ
fc0
in which is the specified compressive concrete strength in MPa (in
the tests the compressive strength of the base is the same of the
upper portion), kv is a coefficient depending on the compressive
concrete strength ranging from 0.145 to 0.178 for the tested beams,
z is the effective shear depth that is the inner lever arm of the com-
posed section in mm, Av is the area in mm2 of the a couple of rein-
forcing bars subjected to tension spacing s in mm, fyv is the specified
yield strength of transverse reinforcement in MPa and h denotes the
inclination of the compression struts respect to the beam axis, while
the other symbols are already defined. The cited Codes [19,21,22]
contain also some limitations on the maximum shear force (such
as the conditions on compressive concrete struts) that are not
 L. Tesser, R. Scotta / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 135–145 143

300 450
(a) (b)
400
250
350

Applied load [kN]

Applied load [kN]
200 300

250
150
200

100 150
B1 B4
100
B2 B5
50
50
B3 B6
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]

600 500
(c) (d)
450
500
400

350

Applied load [kN]

Applied load [kN]

400
300

300 250

200
200
B7 150 B10

B8 100 B11
100
50 B12
B9
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]

Fig. 8. Applied load vs. mid-span displacement curves for shear tests for 240 mm (a), 340 mm (b), 440 mm (c) and 540 mm (d) beam depth.

Table 6 it provides the best correlation between the experimental results of

Shear tests’ results. the shear strength respect to the theoretical evaluations. Probably
ID Pm Vu,exp Shear failure Vu,d,ACI Error Vu,d,MC Error Vu,d,EC2 Error
the angle of 26.5° offers the best estimation because of the follow-
(kN) (kN) mode (kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%) ing peculiarities of the CSTC beams: interface between different
B1 149 113 Sw–D 138 22 140 24 109 3
concrete casts, smooth web reinforcement, large diameter of web
B2 192 145 Sw–D 146 1 150 4 107 26 reinforcement, large web bar spacing. Taking into account the
B3 263 197 Sw 160 19 153 22 99 50 experimental evidence and the National Annex to EN 1992-1-1 of
B4 293 219 Sw–D 214 2 223 2 189 14 1993 [26] as well as other important investigations [27–29], it
B5 382 284 Sw–D 230 19 233 18 189 33
might be suggested to assume a minimum value of about 26.5°
B6 280 211 Sw–D 259 23 242 15 179 15
B7 492 364 Sw–D 283 22 284 22 267 27 for the inclination of concrete struts in the shear design of CSTC
B8 496 368 Sw 306 17 309 16 260 29 beams.
B9 501 373 Sw 350 6 336 10 254 32 The shear transfer mechanism at the interface between con-
B10 457 370 Sw–D 380 3 388 5 370 0 crete casts is assured by the friction and the crossing inclined
B11 376 301 Sw–D 357 19 353 17 286 5
B12 381 309 Sw 416 35 380 23 284 8
web bars, as it will be discussed in the following. The shear–fric-
Average 1 0 20 tion strength can be evaluated according to EC2 [19], MC [21]
Standard deviation 19 17 15 and ACI [22] with the following formulas:

V i;d;EC2 ¼ V i;d;MC ¼ Av f fyv f ðl sin a þ cos aÞ cos b þ cfct Acf ð9Þ

reported here in sake of brevity since they are all respected by the
tested beams. The Model Code 2010 [21] evaluates the angle h of
the compression struts according to the Modified Compression Field
Theory of Vecchio and Collins [25]. In the case of Eurocode 2 [19],
this angle is prescribed to be within the range 21.8° 6 h 6 45.0°
(2.5° P cot h P 1.0°) or a stricter range decided by the National An-
nexes. The minimum value of the angle h provides the highest the-
oretical strength of the tensile–shear failure mechanism. The angle
h = 26.5° of compression struts has been selected in this work since
V i;d;ACI ¼ Av f fyv f ðl sin a þ cos aÞ cos b ð10Þ
where Avf is the area of shear friction reinforcement subjected to
tension in mm2, fyvf is their yield strength in MPa, l is the friction
coefficient assumed equal to 0.6 for the upper portion placed
against the hardened base not roughened and for normal-weight
concrete, c is the cohesion coefficient equal to 0.35 for concrete sur-
face without curing, fct is the tensile concrete strength and Acf is the
area of concrete section resisting shear transfer in mm2.
144 L. Tesser, R. Scotta / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 135–145
600
B12
B10
500
B11
B8
400
B7
Mu,exp [kNm]
B9
B5
300
B4
B6
B2
200
B3
B1
100
0 0
0 200 400
Mu,d [kNm]
Fig. 9. Ultimate bending moments obtained from the tests vs. theoretical ones.
The formula (10) of ACI 318-08 [22] is based on the shear–fric-
tion model that provides a conservative prediction of shear transfer
strength. Some modified relationships give closer estimates of
shear-transfer strength (Mattock [30]). For instance, when the
shear–friction reinforcement is inclined to the shear plane, such
that the shear force produces tension in that reinforcement, the
nominal shear strength Vi,d,ACI can be modified as follows:
2
V i;d;ACI ¼ Av f fyv f ðlsina þ cos aÞ cos b þ K 1 Acf sin a
where K1 = 2.758 MPa is a shear transfer coefficient for normal-
weight concrete.
If the interface can be considered smooth, the Model Code 2010
[21] evaluates the shear contribution rising from the dowel action
exerted by the diagonal bars subjected to compression as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V dowel;d;MC ¼ aF Av fc fyv f fc0
aF being a coefficient depending on the surface roughness suggested
equal to 1.4 and Avfc being the area of diagonal bars subjected to
compression in mm2.
The theoretical beams shear strengths according to the Codes
are presented in Table 6. In all cases the Mörsch mechanism pro-
vides lower strength than that of the shear transfer at the inter-
face and it determines the overall shear capacity. This is in
agreement with the appearance of sliding between concrete base
and topping after a significant widening of the diagonal cracks,
which occurs after the tensile diagonal bars yielding in the
experiments. Table 6 also reports the relative errors of the theo-
retical evaluation respect to the experimental results. Fig. 10
plots the ultimate shear strengths calculated from the tests vs.
the theoretical ones. It shall be mentioned that the experimental
shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams generally shows
higher scatter than the flexural one since it involves some mech-
anisms, such as the shear friction and dowel action, that are lar-
gely dependent on several physical parameters difficult to
master. Comparing the theoretical evaluations with the experi-
mental results, the following considerations can be pointed out.
For what deals with Model Code 2010 [21] and ACI 318-08
[22], despite a satisfactory estimation on the average (mean rel-
ative error included from 0% to 1%), the relative error standard
deviation of 17–19% is significantly higher than the one from
the flexural test. Furthermore some experimental results fell
noticeably below the theoretical evaluations. The estimations of
the Eurocode 2 [19] are notably conservative (mean relative
400
B9
B8 B10
B7
350
B12
300
B11
B5
250
Vu,exp [kN]
B4
B6
200
B3
150
B2
B1
100 ACI
MC
50
EC2
600 0 200 400 600
Vu,d [kN]
Fig. 10. Ultimate shear forces obtained from the tests vs. theoretical ones.
error about 20%) but provide lower relative error standard
deviation (15%) and, most of all, consistently safe estimations
of the shear strength. In the opinion of the authors the following
considerations can be adduced. Firstly the spacing of the bent
web bars in the composite beams is higher than the validity lim-
its of the standards’ formulas. Secondly the web bars are smooth
and have reduced adherence to concrete. Thirdly the web bar
diameters are generally higher respect to those used in ordinary
ð11Þ reinforced concrete beams. All these aspects produce wider
cracks and consequently decrease the efficacy of the tensile–
shear concrete contribution. The estimations of the Eurocode 2
[19], that neglects the concrete contribution, fit very well the
experimental results right where the other Codes seem to fail.
In fact the Eurocode 2 [19] offers an excellent approximation
of five tests out of twelve with relative errors between 15%
ð12Þ and 0% and therefore the selection of the compressive concrete
strut inclination finds confirmation in a significant range of most
typical beam depths. Moreover those five tests actually showed
wider shear cracks justifying the basic hypothesis inherent in
the derivation of the formula.
6. Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn.
1. The flexural tests evidenced the following results: all the
beams suffered yielding of the steel bottom chord; the
yielding of the steel top chord happened in most of the
beams; only two beams underwent crushing of the com-
pressed concrete; the cracks mainly appeared in the central
portions of the beams developing about vertically from the
bottom of the concrete base to the concrete topping; no sig-
nificant sliding between the concrete base and the concrete
topping was detected.
2. In the shear tests all the CSTC beams were affected by
inclined cracks in the portion between the load application
point closer to the support and the support itself. While all
the cracks occurred in the upper part of the section, only
few of them continued in the concrete base. After the wid-
ening of those cracks, visible detachments or sliding
between the concrete base and topping appeared.
3. The theoretical flexural capacity was estimated by the the-
ory commonly adopted by most world Standards on rein-
 L. Tesser, R. Scotta / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 135–145
forced concrete and steel concrete composite structures.
The relative errors between theoretical evaluations and
experimental results showed a modest and conservative
mean value and a low standard deviation comparable with
those of the materials strength properties.
4. The excellent agreement between the flexural tests results
and the theoretical evaluations proves that the theory of
plastic resistance moment for composite cross sections
[19,20] can correctly esteem the flexural strength of hybrid
truss beams. Hence the basic hypotheses of the assessment
method, particularly the preservation of plane sections and
the absence of sliding between concrete and steel, are valid.
5. The crack patterns evidenced in the shear experimental
tests and the measurement of the web truss elongation,
confirm that the Mörsch’s theory [27] can be effectively
applied to evaluate the shear strength of the CSTC beams.
6. The theoretical shear capacity of CSTC beams was evalu-
ated by ACI 318-08, Model Code 2010 and Eurocode 2 even
if their conditions of the transverse reinforcement maxi-
mum spacing are not fulfilled by the CSTC beams. The esti-
mations of the first two Codes, which account for the shear
concrete contribution, showed a good agreement in the
average but a high standard deviation and some overesti-
mations respect to the experimental results. On the con-
trary, the Eurocode 2 approach, which neglects the shear
concrete contribution in the tensile–shear failure mecha-
nism, demonstrated a mean relative error of the theoretical
evaluation respect to the tests results of about 20% on the
conservative side when an angle of compression concrete
struts of 26.5° was adopted. It also provided a slightly lower
relative error standard deviation and consistently safe
estimations.
7. On the basis of the experimental tests and of the theoretical
evaluations, it is the authors opinion that the evidence of
wider shear cracks respect to those typical on reinforced
concrete beams is caused by: high spacing of bent web bars
in the composite beams; smoothness and low adherence of
the web bars themselves; high web bars diameters respect
to those used in ordinary reinforced concrete beams. The
formation of wider cracks can reduce the efficacy of the
tensile–shear concrete contribution.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to warmly thank Tecnostrutture S.r.l. for
providing the specimens and for assuring commendable technical
support during all the experimental campaign.
References
[1] Leone S. Procedimenti di calcolo per travi REP (‘‘Method of calculus of REP
beams’’). Associazione Produttori travi REP (‘‘REP Beams Producers
Association’’), Milan, March 1972.
[2] Papia M. Indagine teorica e sperimentale sui fenomeni di instabilità flesso-
torsionale nelle travi REP (theoretical and experimental investigation on the
flexural-torsional buckling phenomena of the REP beams). Science of
Constructions Institute Acts, University of Palermo; 1977.
[3] Puhali R, Smotlack I. Relazione sulle prove di push-out atte a determinare le
leggi di carico-scorrimento delle travi in sistema composto REP (Report on the
145
push-out tests fit for the determination of load-slip laws of REP composite
truss beams). Science of Constructions Institute Acts, University of Trieste;
1980.
[4] Giordano G, Spadea G. Stato Ultimo in flessione di travi in cemento armato con
doppia armatura tipo REP: ricerca sperimentale (Flexural ultimate state of
reinforced concrete beams with double reinforcement REP type: experimental
research). Report no. 65, Structural Department of University of Calabria; 1983.
[5] Giordano G, Ombres L, Spadea G. Modellazione teorica e controllo
sperimentale del comportamento a rottura di travi inflesse di tipo REP
(Theoretical modelling and experimental verification of the collapse behaviour
of REP type bended beams). L’Industria Italiana del Cemento; 1987. p. 617.
[6] Mullett DL. Composite floor systems. UK: The Steel Construction Institute,
Blackwell Science; 1998.
[7] Naccarato PA. ‘‘Low floor-to-floor heights’’, Modern steel
construction. American Institute of Steel Construction; 2000.
[8] Khuntia M, Goel SC. Experimental study of FRC-encased steel joist composite
beams. J Struct Eng ASCE 1999;125(5):495–501.
[9] Khuntia M, Goel SC. Analytical study of FRC-encased steel joist composite
beams. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1999;125(5):503–9.
[10] Di Marco R. Sperimentazione su travi continue REP con traliccio tipo TR
(Experimental tests on hyperstatic REP beams with TR truss type). Internal
Report University IUAV of Venice; 2004.
[11] Scotta R, Tesser L. Preliminary experiences and basic concepts on the
structural performance of hybrid trussed beams. In: 4th Spec. conference on
the conceptual approach to structural design, Venice; 2007.
[12] Scotta R, Tesser L. Sperimentazione su travi tralicciate miste REPÒ – NOR
(Experimental tests on composite truss beams REPÒ – NOR). VII Italian
Workshop on Composite Structures, Aesse Stampa, Benevento; 2009. p. 69–76.
[13] Tesser L. Composite steel truss and concrete beams and beam-column joints
for seismic resistant frames: modelling, numerical analysis and experimental
verifications. Ph.D. thesis, University of Padua, Italy; 2009.
[14] Vincenzi L, Mazzotti C, Savoia M. Stabilità in fase I del traliccio metallico delle
travi reticolari miste (stability in the first phase of the steel truss of composite
steel truss and concrete beams). XVII CTE Congress, Rome 2008;2:741–50.
[15] Quaranta G, Petrone F, Marano GC, Trentadue F, Monti G. Structural design of
composite concrete–steel beams with spatial truss reinforcement elements.
Asian J Civ Eng 2011;12(2):155–78.
[16] Amadio C, Macorini L, Sorgon S, Suraci G. A novel hybrid system with RC-
encased steel joists. EJECE 2011;15(10):1433–63.
[17] Borri A, Grazini A. Analisi del comportamento di travi tralicciate in c.a. per il
miglioramento della risposta sismica degli edifici (analysis of the reinforced
concrete truss beam behaviour for the improvement of the building seismic
capacity). XII ANIDIS convention, Pisa; 2007.
[18] Scotta R, Tesser L. Comportamento di nodi trave-pilastro sismoresistenti in
struttura mista di tipo tralicciato soggetti ad azioni cicliche (‘‘Experimental
behavior of beam-column joints of steel truss and concrete composite
structure subjected to cyclic loads’’). Progettazione sismica (Seismic design),
vol. 3; 2011. p. 47–62, ISSN: 1973–7432, ISBN: 978-88-6198-066-2.
[19] Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures Part 1–1: General rules and rules for
buildings. Comité Européen de normalisation, Brussels, Belgium; 2003.
[20] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part 1–1:
General rules and rules for buildings. Comité Européen de normalisation,
Brussels, Belgium; 2004.
[21] fib. Fib Bullettin 56: Model Code 2010. First complete draft, vol. 2. Fédération
Internationale du Béton (fib), Lausanne, Switzerland; 2010.
[22] ACI 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and
commentary. American Concrete Institute; 2008.
[23] EN 206-1. Concrete – Part 1: Specification, performance, production and
conformity. Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium; 2000.
[24] EN 10025-1. Hot rolled products of structural steels. General technical delivery
conditions. Comité Européen de normalisation, Brussels, Belgium; 2004.
[25] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modified compression-field theory for reinforced-
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI J 1986;83(2):219–31.
[26] National Annex to EN 1992-1-1 – Eurocode 2, Superior Council of Public
Works, Rome, Italy; 1993.
[27] Kupfer H. Erweiterung der mörsch’schen fachwerkanalogie mit hilfe des
princips vom minimum der formänderungsarbeit. CEB. Bull Inf 1964;40:
44–57.
[28] Toniolo G, Di Prisco M. Tecnica delle Costruzioni vol. 2A – Cemento Armato –
Calcolo agli stati limite (Construction Technique vol. 2A – Reinforced Concrete
– Limit state design). 3rd ed., Zanichelli, Bologna, Italy; 2010.
[29] Nielsen MP, Hoang LC. Limit analysis and concrete plasticity. 3rd ed. Boca
Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 2010.
[30] Mattock AH. Shear transfer in concrete having reinforcement at an angle to the
shear plane. In: Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-42. Farmington Hills
(MI): American Concrete Institute; 1974. p. 17–42.