20320140503036

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 308-316 © IAEME
308
STEEL-CONCRETE COMPOSITE GIRDERS UNDER SHOCK LOADS-A
REVIEW
R. Akilan1*
, Amar Prakash2
, N. Arunachalam1
, N. Anandavalli2
1
Bannari Amman Institute of Technology, Erode, Sathyamangalam-638401, India
2
CSIR- Structural Engineering Research Centre, Taramani, Chennai-600113, India
ABSTRACT
Steel-concrete composite (SCC) construction is one of the fast track construction methods.
Concrete is known to have better compression resistance whereas steel is strong in tension. But, in
this method synergetic bonding between reinforced concrete slab and steel beam achieved by means
of mechanical connectors (i.e. Stud type), results in additional advantages. With this type of
construction, not only optimum utilization of materials is achieved but it is proved to be economical
also, from the consideration of life cycle cost of structures. The stud connectors are subjected to
longitudinal shear forces developed at the interface between RCC slab and top flange of steel beam.
Due to the complex force transfer mechanism, the analysis of SCC girders becomes relatively
difficult as compared to either RCC or steel construction. In structural applications like construction
of deck in bridges (both in railways and highways), floors in high rise buildings etc, analysis is
simpler than the situations where SCC members are subjected to shock loadings. For the
determination of shock resistance of SCC girders, one needs to determine dynamic characteristics as
well as influence of impulse durations. Shock loading comprises of high magnitude pulse acting on a
structural member for very short time. This paper presents review on analysis and design for shock
loading on SCC girders. Various issues related to the analysis, effect of shear connections,
application of shock loadings on SCC girders etc., are appropriately described.
Keywords: Steel-Concrete Composite Girder, Stud Connectors, Shock Loading, Interface
Behaviour.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Due to recent global terrorism activities and threat imposed danger to the public
infrastructure, and thus the demands for blast and impact resistant design of structures have increased
ever before (Mohammed and Parvin, 2011). There are very few studies have been reported on this
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
AND TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)
ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)
Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 308-316
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2014): 7.9290 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJCIET
©IAEME

309
issue. Fujikake et al. (2009) have investigated the behaviour of RCC beams subjectetd to impact
loading. They observed local damage near impact location only and reduced local failure due to
increase in strength of compression reinforcement. He reported that besides cross-sectional details,
mass, geometry, span are critical parameters to accurately predict the impact response. The
composite construction is now a mature technology in developed countries, frequently chosen under
competitive design techniques. Earlier composite beams were tested in 20's. Steel concrete
composite (SCC) construction is one of the fast track construction methods. A number of
infrastructural facilities like medium span bridges, residential and official complexes etc have been
built in recent past using SCC construction. The SCC construction is a result of synergetic bonding
between steel beam and reinforced concrete slab, where the bonding is achieved by means of the
mechanical devices called as shear connectors. SCC girder sections are shown in Fig.1.
Fig. 1: Section of SCC girder (a) Longitudinal (b) Cross-sectional
The studies were carried out on beams with part of web or top flanges embedded in concrete
slab with and without shear connector. Recently four new flyovers using steel concrete composite
method have been constructed in Calcutta by year 2006. Advantageous of SCC construction are time
saving, economical and reduction in total weight.
Steel decking, box girders are the other types also used in the construction of composite
girders. Connection plays a major role in the steel-concrete composite action. The connection at
interface between two components depends upon strength and stiffness of shear connectors.
Structures must design to resist from the different types of loads. SCC girders subjected to repeated
and cyclic loadings are investigated by Seerja (2012), and Hanswille (2009). The failure in the
composite girder due to crushing of concrete and the buckling of bottom flange steel and the failure
is prevented by appropriate provisions (Liang et al. 2004). The vibration produced in the composite
structure in the composite footbridge structure and the behaviour has been analysed (Gilvan et al.
2012) by using the finite element method. The vertical loads induce some deformation in the girders.
The primary bending and shear formed due to the vertical loads (Bradford, 1991). The stiffness and
capacity of composite structures depends on the material properties, connections etc.
The research on the shock response of SCC girders is still need momentum. There are is
scanty information available on SCC girders subjected to shock due to impact or explosion loadings.
There are no guidelines or code of practice on the design and analysis for shock resistance of SCC
structures. There is also scarcity of knowledge on the impact responses of SCC structures or
structures elements. The field applications where, these SCC members can be exposed to such
extreme impact loading can be considered when the debris due landslides falls on the deck of SCC
bridge decks or residential structures or by the sudden attack of aircraft in the infrastructures etc.
Though less likely but the explosion may take place even in residential buildings due to blast or
accidental explosion in inflammable gas containers etc. Therefore, to understand the behaviour of
steel concrete composite girders under shock loads need serious consideration. A focused review is
carried out related to issues of SCC construction and also their shock response.
Flange width
Steel beam
W W
Shear Span
Stud shear
connectors
Clear Span
Steel beam
Shear Span

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp.
2.0 MECHANISM OF FORCE TRANSFER IN SCC GIRDERS
When a transverse load is applied on the deck of SCC
transformed composite section. And to maintain the strain compatibility between two elements
play an important role. In order to resist the interface slip
in studs. The concrete near the stud ro
design of interface shear connection decides overall
Under flexure loads concrete is trying to expand and steel is trying to contract at the interface.
Maximum interface slip occurs near
interface shear force, stud connectors near the ends
span, as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig.1:
In case of shock load on the SCC girders there can be local failure rather than global. Due to
which girder may subject to local damage in the form of crushing of concrete or buc
section. However during entire impact process the transition between local to global deformation is
possible. The complex force transfer mechanism in case of shock loading need to be understood
exactly.
2.1 Types of Shear Connectors and
Depending upon the ease and convenience various researchers have used steel
shown in Fig. 2(a to h).
Fig.
The mechanical shear connectors varied in shape, size and methods of attachment. The
connectors are classified into flexible rigid and anchorage. The flexible connectors which are more
popular compared to the anchorage or rigid.
, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 308-316 © IAEME
310
2.0 MECHANISM OF FORCE TRANSFER IN SCC GIRDERS
When a transverse load is applied on the deck of SCC girders it is resisted by the
transformed composite section. And to maintain the strain compatibility between two elements
important role. In order to resist the interface slip, the dowel action and tension both develop
stud root bears very high stresses and gets crush eventually.
design of interface shear connection decides overall load carrying capacity of composite
near the ends of girder and zero at midspan. Due to
stud connectors near the ends undergo layer deformation than
Flexural behaviour of SCC girders
which girder may subject to local damage in the form of crushing of concrete or buc
Types of Shear Connectors and Shear Connections
Depending upon the ease and convenience various researchers have used steel
Fig. 2: Types of shear connectors
popular compared to the anchorage or rigid. The head of stud connection resist shear through dowel
it is resisted by the strength of
transformed composite section. And to maintain the strain compatibility between two elements, studs
the dowel action and tension both develop
ot bears very high stresses and gets crush eventually. The
of composite girder.
the ends of girder and zero at midspan. Due to resistance to the
than near the mid
which girder may subject to local damage in the form of crushing of concrete or buckling of steel
Depending upon the ease and convenience various researchers have used steel connectors are
shear through dowel

311
action and tension strength. Liu and Ni 2011 have developed 3D solid FE model to show the
behaviour of stud connectors in composite girder.
2.2 Interface Behaviour in SCC Girders
The behaviour between concrete slab and steel girder interface is calculated by assuming load
slip. The thickness of the connectors was affected by the interface behaviour and the calculation of
interface stress in steel–concrete composite structures by elastic theory. To resist the shear in
interface, the shear connectors were designed and the shear connectors welded along the span of steel
flange in large numbers (Slutter and Fisher 1966). In the economical and efficient composite
construction many researches were conducted and the design was changed in reduction of shear
connectors. This was accomplished by using plastic analysis to determine the interface shear at
ultimate strength of the composite girder. The analysis showed reduction in number of shear
connectors needed for static ultimate loads on the bridge deck. To identify and control of collapse in
the static load is simple but in the dynamic or repeated loading it is more complex. The deformation
will increase under repeated and cyclic loadings, if the deformation is controlled under suitable
situation and there is no deformation, this part is termed as shakedown. If the shakedown occurs, the
permanent deformation takes place. And the incremental slip forms in the interface behaviour results
in the collapse. Experimental tests were carried out to know about the behaviour of shakedown load
(Thirugnanasundralingham, 1991).
2.3 Degree of Shear Connection
The degree of shear connection deals with the equilibrium of forces within a composite beam,
whereas the degree of interaction deals with the compatibility of displacements (Ohlers et al. 1997).
In the fully composite section, flexural strength depends upon the steel and concrete girders and the
strength of the girders which does not governed by connectors. By calculating ultimate load transfer
at the interface and develop the number of shear connectors which would achieve full composite
strength. The plastic capacity of the fully composite cross-section occurs when the slab reaches its
full compression capacity or when the steel girder is fully yielded. But in the partially composite
girder flexural strength depends upon the shear connector’s strength. It is less effective compared to
full connection while achieving the ultimate strength. The degree of shear connection related to the
decrease in the flexural strength (Johnson and Molenstra, 1991). The degree of shear connection is
governed by strength and spacing of shear connectors provided in shear span of composite beam.
3.0 EFFECT OF FULL AND PARTIAL SHEAR INTERACTION
By assuming the slip is prevented and the two elements are connected this case is called full
interaction. The bond between no and full interaction, it is referred as partial interaction. The flexural
capacities determined by strain profile, stress distribution, compressive and tensile forces are shown
in the Fig 3. From a comparison of the stress profiles in Fig. 3, it can be deduced that the partial-
interaction full-shear-connection flexural capacity is less than the full-interaction full-shear-
connection flexural capacity.
It can also be seen by comparing the full-interaction strain profile with the partial-interaction
strain profile, that partial-interaction reduces the maximum strain in the steel, and hence reduces the
ability of the steel to strain harden (Oehlers et al. 1997). The beams to be design with partial shear
connection at the interface, provision are not made for the evaluation of deflections of such beams.
To develop methods of calculation, with little mathematics and at low cost (Nabeel. 1999).

ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp.
Fig 3:
The full interaction procedure is safe and simple.
existing structures, more accurate assessment techniques are required in order to extend the life of
the structure as much as possible. A simple assessment approach has been developed based on
partial-interaction theory that can be used to predict the remaining strength or endurance of the shear
connection (Seracino et al. 2000).
4.0 BEHAVIOUR OF SCC GIRDERS UNDER SHOCK LOADING
4.1 Shock Loading
Dynamic forces are those that are very much time dependent and these
interval of time or quickly change in magnitude or direction. Earthquake forces, machinery
vibrations, impact loading, Shock loading and blast loadings are examples of dynamic forces. It is
very convenient to know the values of dynamic
structures for impulsive loads. Dynamic load factors are defined as the ratio between maximum
dynamical stresses under impulsive loads and stresses under static loads.
4.2 Single degree of freedom system
Considering a system at rest and subjected to a force F, which has an initial, suddenly applied
value of F1 and decreases linearly to zero at time t
equation in two stages. For the first stage,
Stage1: τ ≤ td
Initial displacement, y0 = 0
Initial velocity, 0y& = 0
( )
dt
f
τ
τ −=1
+=
y
tyy 0
0 sincos
ω
ω
&
The above equation is a general expression for the response of an undamped,
one degree system subjected to any load function and/or initial conditions.
, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 308-316 © IAEME
312
: Full and Partial shear interaction.
The full interaction procedure is safe and simple. However, in the fatigue assessment of
y that can be used to predict the remaining strength or endurance of the shear
4.0 BEHAVIOUR OF SCC GIRDERS UNDER SHOCK LOADING
Dynamic forces are those that are very much time dependent and these either act for small
very convenient to know the values of dynamic load factor (DLF) for the cases of designing
dynamical stresses under impulsive loads and stresses under static loads.
Single degree of freedom system
dering a system at rest and subjected to a force F, which has an initial, suddenly applied
and decreases linearly to zero at time td (Fig. 4), the response may be computed by
equation in two stages. For the first stage,
( )∫ −+
t
st dtfyt
0
sin)(sin ττωτωω
The above equation is a general expression for the response of an undamped,
one degree system subjected to any load function and/or initial conditions.
However, in the fatigue assessment of
y that can be used to predict the remaining strength or endurance of the shear
either act for small
load factor (DLF) for the cases of designing
dering a system at rest and subjected to a force F, which has an initial, suddenly applied
(Fig. 4), the response may be computed by
(1)
The above equation is a general expression for the response of an undamped, linearly elastic

313
Fig. 4: Linear-system theory-impulse element
The static displacement eq.(1), for one-degree freedom system having stiffness as k, can be given as:
k
F
yst
1
= (2)
Substituting initial conditions in general solution eq (3) and integrating it we get,






−+−= t
t
kt
F
t
k
F
y
d ω
ω
ω
sin
)cos1( 11
(3)
or, Dynamic load factor is given is in eq.(4),
dd t
t
t
t
tDLF −+−=
ω
ω
ω
sin
cos1 (4)
The equation (3), defines the response before td.
Stage2: dt≥τ






−= d
d
d
t
t
t
k
F
y ω
ω
ω
cos
sin1
0 (5)
dd
d
d
tt
t
t
k
F
y
1cos
sin(1
0 −+=
ω
ωω& (6)
( ) 0=τf
Substituting these values in equation (1), replacing t by t-td, and simplifying,
( )[ ] t
k
F
ttt
tk
F
y dd
d
ωωω
ω
cossinsin 11
−−−= (7)
or,
( )[ ] tttt
t
DLF dd
d
ωωω
ω
cossinsin
1
−−−= (8)
F1[f(t)]
τ τd
M
F1[f(t)]
k
t

314
Equation (7) gives the response after td. The maximum value of dynamic load factor can be
obtained nearly equal to 1.8 for td/Tn value as 2. For the higher ratio it approaches to DLF value 2.
On the other hand the maximum value of rectangular pulse is 2 for td/Tn ratio as 2 and above. This
simplified method is used for idealized systems.
5.0 ISSUES RELATED TO DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF SCC GIRDER
Since the steel-concrete composite construction consists of the three main components
namely, RCC slab, steel beam, and shear connectors. There are various issues involve in the analysis
and design of SCC girders. The following principle issues are mainly exists with the steel-concrete
construction and shock response of SCC members:
• Interface between steel and concrete needs due regard to the design of shear connectors.
• A stage of construction needs due consideration for analysis as whether pre-composite or
composite.
• The location of plastic neutral axis plays a key role in deciding the design strategy. It is
desirable that neutral axis may exist just below the concrete slab so that full concrete area can
be effectively utilized.
• The determination of the effective width is another important issue, because whole analysis is
dependent on the sectional properties of the composite girder.
• Mechanism of shear transfer between steel and concrete element, which is the main focus of
the steel composite construction.
• Method of construction (propped or unpropped) is the matter of choice, which depends upon
the owner's, will and site conditions.
• Shear connection (full or partial) is one of the most important design steps in steel-concrete
construction.
• Design basis working stress method (Allowable stress design) or limit state method (loads and
resistance factor design)
• Surface protection of steel is always being the point of prime consideration among the
designers and engineers.
• Excessive vibrations in the steel composite bridges are reported due to its low damping
characteristics as compared to more massive bridges.
5.1 Design guidelines and codes on SCC construction
It is also one of the main issues that there is no code of practice dealing with shock resistant
design of SCC members. Although in India we have two codes related to design of composite
structures viz. IS:11384-1985 and IRC:22-1986. The IRC:22-1986 is applicable to composite
construction of road bridges. It is clearly mentioned in the scope of IS:11384-1985 that the
provisions of this code is applicable to buildings only and, not for bridges. But there are number of
deficiencies in both of the codes. In fact none of these codes satisfies the current design methods and
practices which are used by various developed countries. Eurocode (EN 1994-1-1) is latest and most
of the European countries are using them. However, shock response of SCC girders is not dealt
adequately in any of the codes of practice.

315
6.0 SUMMARY
A comprehensive literature survey has been conducted and it is observed that there is need
for further research in this specialized area. In spite of many advantages of SCC construction there is
lack of guidelines and code of practice including shock loading and need research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are thankful to Dr. J. Rajasankar (Head, Shock and Vibration Group, CSIR-
SERC) for providing fruitful guidance regarding reviewing papers. This paper is being published
with the kind permission of Director, CSIR-SERC.
REFERENCES
1. AASHTO, ‘AASHTO LRFD Bridge design specifications’, American Association of state
highway and transportation officials Washington, D.C., 1996
2. BS 5400:Part 5: 1979, ‘Steel, concrete and composite bridges: Part 5: Code of practice for
design of composite bridges’, London, British Standards Institution
3. EN 1994-1-1(2004) Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings.
4. Fujikake, K., Li. B. and Soeun, S, ‘Impact response of reinforced concrete beam and its
analytical evaluation’, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 8, 2009,
pp. 938-950
5. Hanswille, G., Porsch, M. and Ustang C., ‘The behaviour of steel-concrete composite beams
under repeated loading’, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 78, 2009, pp. 304-311
6. IRC: 22-1986, Standard Specification and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section VI,
(Composite Construction), The Indian Road Congress
7. IS : 11384- 1985, Indian Standard code of practice for composite construction in structural
steel and concrete.
8. Johnson, R.P. and Molenstra, N., ‘Partial shear connection in composite beams in buildings’,
Proc. ICE, Pt. 2, 91, 1991, pp. 679-704
9. Liang, Q.Q., Brian, U., Bradford, M. and Ronagh R.H., ‘Ultimate strength of continuous
composite beams in combined bending and shear’, Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
Vol. 60, 2004, pp. 1109–1128
10. Liu, A. and NI Yongjun, ‘Slab and girder connecting analysis of steel-concrete composite
girder’, IEEE Journals, Vol. 978-1-4577-0290-7/11, 2011, pp. 686-689
11. Mohammed, T.A. and Parvin, A., ‘Impact load response of concrete beams strengthened with
composites’, First Middle East Conference on Smart Monitoring, Assessment and
Rehabilitation of Civil Structures, Dubai UAE, Feb. 2011, pp 2-8.
12. Nabeel, A.J, ‘Deflections of partially composite beams with linear connector density’, Journal
of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 49, 1999, pp. 241–254
13. Oehlers, D.J, Nguyen, N. T.; Ahmed, Marfique; Bradford, M. A. “Partial interaction in
composite steel and concrete beams with full shear connection”, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, Vol 41(231), 1997, pp. 235-248.
14. Seracino R., D.J. Oehlers, M.F. Yeo, ‘Partial-interaction flexural stresses in composite steel
and concrete bridge beams’, Engineering Structures, Vol. 23, 2001, pp. 1186-1193
15. Slutter, R.G. and Fisher, J.W., ‘Fatigue strength of shear connectors’, Highway Research
Record, No. 147, 1966, pp. 65-88

316
16. Sreeja. M.D., ‘Behaviour of steel concrete beam under cyclic loading’, IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Vol. 6, 2012, pp. 01-04
17. The Indian Road Congress 2000, IRC:21-2000, standard specification and code of practice for
road bridges, Section III, cement concrete (plain & Reinforced), 3rd
revision New Delhi
18. Thirugnanasundralingham, K., ‘Continuous composite beams under moving loads’, Ph.D.
Thesis, Monash University,1991.
19. Gilvan L.D, Zuninga J.E.V., da Silva J.G.S., “Finite Element Modelling of the behaviour of
composite (Steel-Concrete) Tubular Footbridges”, International Journal of modelling and
simulation for petroleum industry, 2012 , Vol.6, No.1, pp 11-17.
20. N. Krishna Murthy, A.V. Narasimha Rao, I .V . Ramana Reddy, M. Vijaya Sekhar Reddy and
P. Ramesh, “Properties of Materials used in Self Compacting Concrete (SCC)”, International
Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 353 - 368,
ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
21. Vidula S. Sohoni and Dr. M.R.Shiyekar, “Concrete–Steel Composite Beams of a Framed
Structure for Enhancement in Earthquake Resistance”, International Journal of Civil
Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 99 - 110, ISSN Print:
0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
22. Abbas S. Al-Ameeri and Rawaa H. Issa, “Effect of Sulfate on the Properties of Self
Compacting Concrete Reinforced by Steel Fiber”, International Journal of Civil Engineering
& Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 270 - 287, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308,
ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
23. Patil Yashavant S. and Prof.Shinde Sangita B., “Comparative Analysis of Box Girder Bridge
with Two Different Codes”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology
(IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 3, 2013, pp. 111 - 120, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online:
0976 – 6316.

20320140503036

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (19)

Destaque

Destaque (6)

Semelhante a 20320140503036

Semelhante a 20320140503036 (20)

Mais de IAEME Publication

Mais de IAEME Publication (20)

Último

Último (20)

20320140503036