Experimental Investigation on the Static Performance of Stud Connectors in Steel-HSFRC Composite Beams
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Program
2.1. Design of Specimens
2.2. Material Properties
2.3. Test Setup and Instruments
3. Test Results and Discussion
3.1. Failure Mode
3.2. Load-Slip Relationship
- Elastic deformation stage (O-A): The load was proportional to the relative slip and the relative slip was quite small. Generally, the slope of the curve at this stage was taken as the initial shear stiffness of the stud. There was no visible change and crack in all the specimens. Since the studs and concrete slabs of specimens were in elastic stage, and the specimens did not reach normal use state.
- Yield stage (A-B): The slop of load-slip curve started to decrease, and it changed from a slanting straight line to a convex curve. The part of concrete in contact with the shank root entered the plastic deformation stage, which caused the lateral support of concrete to the stud to decrease gradually. With the continuous increase of load, the studs gradually yielded, and some cracks occurred in NSC slabs. It was these reasons that resulted in the increasement relative slip accelerating. The secant slope at the end point of this stage could be considered to be the average stiffness of the entire deformation process of the stud.
- Plastic strengthening stage (B-C): The rising rate of load-slip curve further decreased, and the curve gradually rose to the peak point and then tended to be stable. The concrete in a certain area under the stud root had completely crushed. The studs entered the plastic strengthening stage from the yield stage, during which their deformation increased continuously. In this stage, some diagonal and splitting cracks would occurr and developed on NSC slab, while there was no visible crack on HSFRC slabs. It could be seen that there was a significant displacement between the H-shape steel and the concrete slabs.
- Failure stage (C-D): The load on the stud decreased gently with increase in the relative slip after the stud reached the maximum. In the end, the load decreased sharply and suddenly, indicating the failure of the specimen. The load-slip curves here did not show the final steep decline section, because the specimens had failed at this time, which was not of research significance. All the specimens made a loud noise when they were broken, and the studs were cut off.
3.3. Effects of Test Parameter on Static Performance
3.3.1. Effect of Concrete Type
3.3.2. Effect of Stud Diameter
3.3.3. Effect of Stud Height
4. Evaluation of Test Results
4.1. Load-Slip Curve
4.2. Shear Capacity
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- In the push-out tests, the steel-NSC and steel-HSFRC composite beams shown different failure modes. The failure modes of steel-NSC specimens were combine failure of concrete and studs, and those of steel-HSFRC specimens were stud failure. Some diagonal and splitting cracks occurred on the surfaces of the NSC slabs, and the number of cracks increased with stud diameter. However, there were no visible cracks on the HSFRC slabs. This indicated that the cracking resistance of steel-HSFRC composite beams was better than that of steel-NSC.
- (2)
- The static performance of stud connectors would be influenced by the concrete type and the diameter and height of stud. In comparison with the studs embedded in NSC, the shear capacity and stiffness of studs embedded in HSFRC increased significantly but the ductility would decrease. With the diameter and height of stud increasing, the shear capacity and stiffness of studs increased while the ductility decreased. Among them, the influence of stud height was slight, which could be ignore when the stud diameter was reasonable.
- (3)
- Based on the test results, the empirical formulas for the load-slip curve and shear capacity of stud connectors in steel-HSFRC composite beams were proposed. Thereinto, the formula for load-slip curve took the stud diameter into account, and the formula for shear capacity divided the shear capacity of studs into the shear capacity of stud without constraint and the increasement of strength caused by concrete. In addition, the influence of concrete tensile strength was considered in shear capacity formula. These two formulas were more consistent with the actual situation and could more accurately predict the static behavior of steel-HSFRC composite beams.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chen, J.; Zhang, H.P.; Yu, Q.Q. Static and fatigue Behaviour of steel-concrete composite beams with corroded studs. J. Steel Res. 2019, 156, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowe, D.; Roy, K.; Das, R.; Clifron, C.G.; Lim, J.B. Full scale experiments on splitting behaviour of concrete slabs in steel concrete composite beams with shear stud connection. Structures 2020, 23, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.Y.; Guo, J.Y.; Jia, L.J.; Chen, S.M.; Dong, Y. Push-out tests of demountable headed stud shear connectors in steel-UHPC composite structures. Compos. Struct. 2017, 170, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosseini, S.M.; Mashiri, F.; Mirza, O. Research and developments on strength and durability prediction of composite beams utilising bolted shear connectors (Review). Eng. Fail. Anal. 2020, 117, 104790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, M.H.; Chung, K.F. Structural behaviour of stud shear connections with solid and composite slabs under co-existing shear and tension forces. Structures 2017, 9, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oehlers, D.J.; Coughlan, C.G. The shear stiffness of stud shear connections in composite beams. J. Steel Res. 1986, 6, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, Q.H.; Wang, Y.H.; Xu, J.; Xing, Y. Static behaviour of stud shear connectors in elastic concrete–steel composite beams. J. Steel Res. 2015, 113, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molkens, T.; Dobrić, J.; Rossi, B. Shear resistance of headed shear studs welded on welded plates in composite floors. Eng. Struct. 2019, 197, 109412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buttry, K.E. Behaviour of Stud Shear Connectors in Lightweight and Normal-Weight Concrete. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia, Missouri, America, 1965. [Google Scholar]
- Ding, F.X.; Yin, G.A.; Wang, H.B.; Wang, L.; Guo, Q. Static behaviour of stud connectors in bi-direction push-off tests. Thin Wall. Struct. 2017, 120, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.F.; Zhang, A.P.; Wang, W.H. Effects of stud height on shear behaviour of stud connectors. J. Zhejiang Univ. 2020, 54, 2076–2084. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Xue, W.C.; Ding, M.; Wang, H.; Luo, Z.W. Static behaviour and theoretical model of stud connectors. J. Bridge Eng. 2008, 13, 623–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, C.; Liu, Y.; Yu, Z. Static behaviour of multi-stud shear connectors for steel-concrete composite bridge. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2012, 74, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EN 1994-1-1. Eurocode4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures; CEN-European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
- AASHTO LRFDUS-2017. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th ed.; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
- GB 50017-2017, Standard for Design of Steel Structures; Minstry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s of China: Beijing, China, 2017. (In Chinese)
- Wang, J.Q.; Xu, Q.Z.; Yao, Y.M.; Qi, J.N.; Xiu, H.L. Static behaviour of grouped large headed stud-UHPC shear connectors in composite structures. Compos. Struct. 2018, 206, 202–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, L.; Wang, J.J.; Li, X.; Tang, L.; Yu, B.Y. Experimental and numerical study of curved SFRC and ECC composite beams with various connectors. Thin Wall. Struct. 2020, 155, 106938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.J.; Liu, A.R.; Chen, B.C.; Zhang, J.P.; Pi, Y.L.; Bradford, M.A. Experimental and numerical study of shear connection in composite beams of steel and steel-fiber reinforced concrete. Eng. Struct. 2020, 215, 110707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Y.L.; Guo, S.J.; Wang, L.C.; Yang, Y.; Xiang, Y.Q. Experimental and numerical analysis of grouped stud shear connectors embedded in HFRC. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 242, 118197. [Google Scholar]
- Shao, X.D.; Li, M.; Cao, J.H.; He, G.; Chen, Y.B.; Zhao, X.D. Experimental research and theoretical analysis on shear performance of short headed studs embedded in UHPC. China J. Highw. Transp. 2021. in press (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Tong, L.W.; Chen, L.H.; Wen, M.; Xu, C. Static behaviour of stud shear connectors in high-strength-steel–UHPC composite beams. Eng. Struct. 2020, 218, 110827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.Q.; Qi, J.N.; Tong, T.; Xu, Q.Z.; Xiu, H.L. Static behaviour of large stud shear connectors in steel-UHPC composite structures. Eng. Struct. 2019, 178, 534–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Nie, X.; Fan, J.S.; Lu, X.Y.; Ding, R. Experimental and numerical investigation of the interfacial properties of non-steam-cured UHPC-steel composite beams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 195, 323–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banjara, N.K.; Ramanjaneyulu, K. Experimental and numerical study on behaviour of HSFRC overlay strip strengthened flexural deficient RC beams. Eng. Struct. 2019, 198, 109561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayub, T.; Shafiq, N.; Khan, S.U. Compressive Stress-Strain Behaviour of HSFRC Reinforced with Basalt Fibers. J. Mater. Civil Eng. 2016, 28, 06015014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golewski, G.L. Changes in the fracture toughness under mode II loading of low calcium fly ash (LCFA) concrete depending on ages. Materials 2020, 13, 5241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luccioni, B.; Isla, F.; Codina, R.; Ambrosini, D.; Zerbino, R.; Giaccio, G.; Torrijos, M.C. Experimental and numerical analysis of blast response of High Strength Fiber Reinforced Concrete slabs. Eng. Struct. 2018, 175, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Algassem, O.; Li, Y.; Aoude, H. Ability of steel fibers to enhance the shear and flexural behaviour of high-strength concrete beams subjected to blast loads. Eng. Struct. 2019, 199, 109611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GB/T 11263-2010, Hot-Rolled H and Cut T Section Steel; General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2010. (In Chinese)
- CECS 13: 2009. Standard Test Methods for Fiber Reinforced Concrete; China Association for Engineering Construction Standardization: Beijing, China, 2009. (In Chinese)
- Qi, J.N.; Wang, J.Q.; Li, M.; Chen, L. Shear capacity of stud shear connectors with initial damage: Experiment, FEM model and theoretical formulation. Steel Compos. Struct. 2017, 25, 79–92. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, W.H. Experimental and Analytical Study on Shear Properties of Headed Stud Connector. Master’s Thesis, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, 2018. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Ollgaard, J.G.; Sluttter, R.G.; Fisher, J.W. Shear strength of stud connectors in lightweight and normal-weight concrete. AISC Eng. J. 1971, 8, 55–64. [Google Scholar]
- An, L.; Cederwall, K. Push-out tests on studs in high strength and normal strength concrete. J. Constr. Steel Res. 1996, 36, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hegger, J.; Sedlacek, G.; Doinghaus, P.; Trumpf, H. Investigations on the ductility of shear connectors when using high-strength steel and high-strength concrete. In International Symposium on Connections between Steel and Concrete; RILEM Publications SARL: Paris, France, 2001; pp. 1025–1045. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Bao, Y.; Bu, Y. Static and fatigue push-out tests of short headed shear studs embedded in Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC). Eng. Struct. 2018, 182, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Specimen ID | Concrete Type | Stud Dimension | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Diameter (mm) | Height (mm) | Aspect Ratio | ||
N80-13 | NSC | 80 | 13 | 6.15 |
N80-16 | NSC | 80 | 16 | 5.00 |
N80-19 | NSC | 80 | 19 | 4.21 |
N80-22 | NSC | 80 | 22 | 3.64 |
H80-13 | HSFRC | 80 | 13 | 6.15 |
H80-16 | HSFRC | 80 | 16 | 5.00 |
H80-19 | HSFRC | 80 | 19 | 4.21 |
H80-22 | HSFRC | 80 | 22 | 3.64 |
H120-13 | HSFRC | 120 | 13 | 9.23 |
H120-16 | HSFRC | 120 | 16 | 7.50 |
H120-19 | HSFRC | 120 | 19 | 6.32 |
H120-22 | HSFRC | 120 | 22 | 5.45 |
Component | Mix Quantity (kg/m3) | |
---|---|---|
NSC | HSFRC | |
Cement P.O 52.5 | 444 | 687 |
Water | 160 | 160 |
Broken stone 5~20 mm | 1163 | 960 |
Sand 0~5 mm | 626 | 517 |
Superplasticizer | 4.4 | 7.61 |
Silica fume | - | 75 |
Steel fiber (%) | - | 156 (2%) |
Concrete Type | Compressive Strength fcu (MPa) | Tensile Strength ftu (MPa) | Elastic Modulus Ec (GPa) |
---|---|---|---|
NSC | 53.4 | 1.9 | 37.5 |
HSFRC | 105.5 | 18.9 | 46.0 |
Diameter (mm) | Yield Strength fy (MPa) | Tensile Strength ft (MPa) | Elastic Modulus Es (GPa) |
---|---|---|---|
13 | 375 | 530 | 195 |
16 | 380 | 540 | 195 |
19 | 385 | 550 | 195 |
22 | 390 | 560 | 195 |
Specimen | Pmax (kN) | Pu (kN) | Su (mm) | Slip at 0.2 mm | Slip at 2 mm | Failure Mode | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Load (kN) | k1 (kN/mm) | Load (kN) | k2 (kN/mm) | |||||
N80-13 | 613.76 | 76.72 | 4.89 | 35.33 | 176.65 | 67.97 | 33.98 | Combine failure |
N80-16 | 812.16 | 101.52 | 6.09 | 26.51 | 132.57 | 83.55 | 41.78 | Combine failure |
N80-19 | 1145.84 | 143.23 | 7.61 | 51.05 | 255.24 | 120.67 | 60.33 | Combine failure |
N80-22 | 1266.72 | 158.34 | 9.76 | 46.35 | 231.74 | 128.69 | 64.34 | Combine failure |
H80-13 | 759.12 | 93.01 | 3.21 | 53.00 | 265.01 | 92.46 | 44.85 | Stud failure |
H80-16 | 1014.08 | 126.76 | 5.03 | 32.74 | 163.68 | 111.76 | 55.88 | Stud failure |
H80-19 | 1228.64 | 153.58 | 5.98 | 75.68 | 378.41 | 142.56 | 71.28 | Stud failure |
H80-22 | 1421.28 | 177.66 | 7.98 | 65.40 | 327.00 | 170.23 | 85.11 | Stud failure |
H120-13 | 744.08 | 94.89 | 2.58 | 34.47 | 172.33 | 89.70 | 46.23 | Stud failure |
H120-16 | 1018.8 | 127.35 | 4.53 | 63.55 | 317.77 | 116.95 | 58.48 | Stud failure |
H120-19 | 1352.08 | 169.01 | 5.78 | 77.58 | 387.91 | 164.54 | 82.27 | Stud failure |
H120-22 | 1485.92 | 185.74 | 7.51 | 87.44 | 437.18 | 174.08 | 87.04 | Stud failure |
Specimen | P/Pu, Exp. | S (mm) | P/Pu, Equation | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Equation (1) | Equation (2) | Equation (3) | Equation (4) | Equation (5) | Equation (6) | Equation (7) | |||
H80-13 | 0.4 | 0.207 | 0.550 | 0.258 | 0.405 | 0.295 | 0.716 | 0.663 | 0.493 |
0.6 | 0.367 | 0.643 | 0.429 | 0.594 | 0.429 | 0.811 | 0.796 | 0.644 | |
0.8 | 0.827 | 0.784 | 0.683 | 0.801 | 0.635 | 0.897 | 0.931 | 0.828 | |
1.0 | 2.570 | 0.948 | 0.942 | 0.957 | 0.859 | 0.952 | 1.024 | 0.979 | |
H120-13 | 0.4 | 0.095 | 0.441 | 0.037 | 0.070 | 0.131 | 0.485 | 0.396 | 0.302 |
0.6 | 0.248 | 0.578 | 0.309 | 0.467 | 0.335 | 0.749 | 0.708 | 0.542 | |
0.8 | 0.596 | 0.726 | 0.584 | 0.728 | 0.553 | 0.869 | 0.884 | 0.761 | |
1.0 | 2.575 | 0.949 | 0.942 | 0.957 | 0.859 | 0.952 | 1.024 | 0.978 | |
H80-16 | 0.4 | 0.333 | 0.626 | 0.399 | 0.564 | 0.405 | 0.764 | 0.729 | 0.603 |
0.6 | 0.608 | 0.730 | 0.590 | 0.733 | 0.558 | 0.849 | 0.853 | 0.752 | |
0.8 | 1.234 | 0.850 | 0.791 | 0.872 | 0.727 | 0.911 | 0.953 | 0.886 | |
1.0 | 4.090 | 0.983 | 1.005 | 0.989 | 0.916 | 0.958 | 1.035 | 1.008 | |
H120-16 | 0.4 | 0.121 | 0.472 | 0.125 | 0.221 | 0.196 | 0.551 | 0.466 | 0.341 |
0.6 | 0.322 | 0.621 | 0.388 | 0.553 | 0.396 | 0.759 | 0.721 | 0.594 | |
0.8 | 0.823 | 0.783 | 0.681 | 0.800 | 0.634 | 0.863 | 0.875 | 0.815 | |
1.0 | 4.195 | 0.984 | 1.008 | 0.991 | 0.918 | 0.955 | 1.029 | 1.009 | |
H80-19 | 0.4 | 0.125 | 0.477 | 0.132 | 0.232 | 0.201 | 0.518 | 0.429 | 0.331 |
0.6 | 0.330 | 0.625 | 0.396 | 0.561 | 0.402 | 0.732 | 0.685 | 0.582 | |
0.8 | 0.900 | 0.798 | 0.707 | 0.818 | 0.655 | 0.872 | 0.889 | 0.820 | |
1.0 | 3.610 | 0.976 | 0.990 | 0.982 | 0.902 | 0.955 | 1.030 | 0.997 | |
H120-19 | 0.4 | 0.163 | 0.514 | 0.195 | 0.322 | 0.248 | 0.582 | 0.499 | 0.395 |
0.6 | 0.335 | 0.627 | 0.400 | 0.566 | 0.406 | 0.735 | 0.689 | 0.586 | |
0.8 | 0.723 | 0.760 | 0.643 | 0.773 | 0.602 | 0.849 | 0.853 | 0.775 | |
1.0 | 2.720 | 0.954 | 0.951 | 0.962 | 0.867 | 0.942 | 1.006 | 0.974 | |
H80-22 | 0.4 | 0.217 | 0.557 | 0.271 | 0.422 | 0.305 | 0.614 | 0.537 | 0.450 |
0.6 | 0.442 | 0.674 | 0.488 | 0.649 | 0.476 | 0.758 | 0.721 | 0.639 | |
0.8 | 1.062 | 0.826 | 0.753 | 0.848 | 0.694 | 0.874 | 0.892 | 0.838 | |
1.0 | 4.560 | 0.988 | 1.017 | 0.995 | 0.964 | 0.9533 | 1.026 | 1.009 | |
H120-22 | 0.4 | 0.156 | 0.508 | 0.184 | 0.307 | 0.240 | 0.536 | 0.449 | 0.367 |
0.6 | 0.329 | 0.624 | 0.395 | 0.560 | 0.402 | 0.704 | 0.647 | 0.561 | |
0.8 | 0.881 | 0.794 | 0.701 | 0.814 | 0.650 | 0.855 | 0.862 | 0.801 | |
1.0 | 3.895 | 0.980 | 1.000 | 0.986 | 0.910 | 0.949 | 1.018 | 0.999 | |
Correlation coefficient | - | - | 0.940 | 0.890 | 0.906 | 0.907 | 0.895 | 0.933 | 0.982 |
Specimen | Test (kN) | Equation (8)/Test | Equation (10)/Test | Equation (11)/Test | Equation (12)/Test | Equation (14)/Test | Equation (15)/Test |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N80-13 | 76.72 | 0.73 | 0.78 | 0.64 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 1.04 |
N80-16 | 101.52 | 0.86 | 0.91 | 0.75 | 1.21 | 1.01 | 1.02 |
N80-19 | 143.23 | 0.87 | 0.93 | 0.76 | 1.20 | 1.03 | 0.92 |
N80-22 | 158.34 | 1.08 | 1.14 | 0.94 | 1.46 | 1.27 | 1.03 |
H80-13 | 93.01 | 0.61 | 0.64 | 0.53 | 0.92 | 0.79 | 1.06 |
H80-16 | 126.76 | 0.69 | 0.73 | 0.60 | 1.29 | 0.90 | 0.98 |
H80-19 | 153.58 | 0.81 | 0.86 | 0.71 | 1.75 | 1.06 | 1.00 |
H80-22 | 177.66 | 0.96 | 1.02 | 0.84 | 2.03 | 1.24 | 1.06 |
H120-13 | 94.89 | 0.59 | 0.63 | 0.52 | 1.33 | 0.78 | 1.04 |
H120-16 | 127.35 | 0.68 | 0.72 | 0.60 | 1.50 | 0.89 | 0.98 |
H120-19 | 169.01 | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.65 | 1.12 | 0.96 | 0.91 |
H120-22 | 185.74 | 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.80 | 1.38 | 1.19 | 1.01 |
Average | - | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.70 | 1.34 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Standard deviation | - | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.13 | 0.32 | 0.17 | 0.05 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wu, F.; Tang, W.; Xue, C.; Sun, G.; Feng, Y.; Zhang, H. Experimental Investigation on the Static Performance of Stud Connectors in Steel-HSFRC Composite Beams. Materials 2021, 14, 2744. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14112744
Wu F, Tang W, Xue C, Sun G, Feng Y, Zhang H. Experimental Investigation on the Static Performance of Stud Connectors in Steel-HSFRC Composite Beams. Materials. 2021; 14(11):2744. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14112744
Chicago/Turabian StyleWu, Fangwen, Wenlong Tang, Chengfeng Xue, Guorui Sun, Yanpeng Feng, and Hao Zhang. 2021. "Experimental Investigation on the Static Performance of Stud Connectors in Steel-HSFRC Composite Beams" Materials 14, no. 11: 2744. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14112744