Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Accuracy of AISC Methods in Predicting Flexural Strength of Concrete-Encased Members PDF
Accuracy of AISC Methods in Predicting Flexural Strength of Concrete-Encased Members PDF
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236159643
DOWNLOADS VIEWS
273 169
1 AUTHOR:
Chien-Chung Chen
Purdue University Calumet
11 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Abstract: This paper investigated the accuracy of the AISC analysis methods in determining flexural strength of concrete-encased members.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 02/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Analytical results from analyses performed using the AISC methods and a proposed method were compared with test data for 32 specimens.
Results from this study showed that the method of superposition of elastic stresses and method of plastic stress distribution on the steel section
alone overly underestimated flexural strength of the concrete encased composite members studied herein. On the other hand, the method of
plastic stress distribution on the composite section, the method of strain compatibility, and the proposed method well predicted flexural strength
of the encased composite members including members without shear anchors, suggesting that composite action can be developed in encased
composite members without shear anchors when sufficient confinement is provided by transverse reinforcement. In addition, studies of effects
of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement on flexural behavior of encased composite members were conducted to identify crucial parameters.
The parameters examined herein included reinforcement ratio, steel flange area, steel shape depth, and transverse reinforcement spacing. Impli-
cations and recommendations drawn from the studies are discussed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000640. © 2013 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Flexural strength; Structural members; Stress distribution; Strain; Concrete.
Author keywords: Flexural strength; Encased composite members; SRC; Plastic stress distribution; Strain compatibility.
Fig. 1. Stress distribution: the superposition of elastic stresses Fig. 3. Plastic stress distribution on the composite section
When shear anchors are provided, nominal flexural strength of ratio was 1.03, with a COV of 0.089. Similar to the PSD method, the
SRC members shall be determined using the PSD method or strain accuracy of the strain compatibility method in the flexural capacity
compatibility method, according to the AISC specification (AISC predictions of SRC beams without using shear anchors was examined.
2010). The results of this study showed good agreement between the The results of this study suggested that the strain compatibility method
predictions by the PSD and strain compatibility methods and test was also adequate for evaluating flexural strength of the SRC speci-
data. For the PSD method, the mean test-to-predicted moment ratio, mens without using shear anchors. Again, this finding confirmed that
considering all specimens with and without shear anchors, was 0.97, composite action may be attained without the application of shear
with a coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.090. When comparing the anchors. In the cases where shear anchors were not applied, horizontal
test results with the analytical predictions for the specimens without shear force was transferred purely by the bond between the steel and
shear anchors, good agreement between the analytical predictions concrete. For SRC members with steel shapes well confined by
and experimental results was also observed, suggesting that com- transverse reinforcement and concrete, such as the specimens studied
posite action can be present in SRC beams without using shear herein, the test results suggested that the bond between the steel and
anchors. The obtained mean test-to-predicted moment ratio was concrete sections was capable of transferring most, if not all, hori-
0.97, identical to the mean value including the data of all specimens, zontal shear force at the interface, meaning that composite action could
with a COV of 0.091. This is an interesting finding because the AISC be developed in SRC sections without shear anchors, which was
specification (AISC 2010) prohibits the PSD method from de- verified by Chen and Chen (2001). Fig. 8 shows the strain distributions
termining flexural strength of SRC members when shear anchors are of Specimens 20, 22, and 23 measured from the tests. Specimen 20
not provided. It should be noted that, although the predictions of the was a typical SRC beam without shear anchors, and Specimens 22 and
PSD method agreed well with the experimental data, the average 23 represented two extreme conditions. Specimens 22 and 23 had the
of the test moments was lower than the predicted moments by 3%, same reinforcement as Specimen 20, but Specimen 22 had shear
suggesting that the PSD method might slightly overestimate flexural anchors on the top flange and Specimen 23 fully debonded the steel
strength of SRC members. shape from the concrete. Therefore, comparisons can be made be-
The strain compatibility method, considering stress-strain rela- tween the typical section and the two extreme conditions, i.e., no shear
tions and inelastic behavior, well predicted flexural strength of the anchors versus shear anchors and no shear anchors versus debonded.
SRC specimens studied herein. The mean test-to-predicted moment The results showed that the plane assumption was valid to the peak
1,168 890 1.31 735 1.59 1,193 0.98 1,120 1.04 1,165 1.00
5 1,653 1,310 1.26 735 2.25 1,773 0.93 1,661 1.00 1,742 0.95
1,440 1,157 1.24 735 1.96 1,669 0.86 1,580 0.91 1,641 0.88
6 1339 1,124 1.19 554 2.42 1,570 0.85 1,473 0.91 1,543 0.87
1,255 970 1.29 554 2.27 1,467 0.86 1,389 0.90 1,440 0.87
7 1,186 866 1.37 531 2.23 1,125 1.05 1,040 1.14 1,052 1.13
1,149 866 1.33 531 2.16 1,125 1.02 1,040 1.10 1,052 1.09
8 1,138 1,042 1.09 763 1.49 1,282 0.89 1,207 0.94 1,236 0.92
956 838 1.14 763 1.25 1,091 0.88 1,025 0.93 1,045 0.91
9 1,232 1,046 1.18 763 1.61 1,333 0.92 1,242 0.99 1,260 0.98
971 840 1.16 763 1.27 1,136 0.85 1,049 0.93 1,067 0.91
10 1,686 1,107 1.52 626 2.69 1,433 1.18 1,364 1.24 1,394 1.21
1,166 839 1.39 626 1.86 1,115 1.05 1,063 1.10 1,089 1.07
11 1,274 881 1.45 626 2.04 1,151 1.11 1,098 1.16 1,116 1.14
1,245 818 1.52 626 1.99 1,110 1.12 1,062 1.17 1,075 1.16
12 1,891 1,363 1.39 862 2.19 1,691 1.12 1,601 1.18 1,647 1.15
1,382 1,082 1.28 862 1.60 1,376 1.00 1,313 1.05 1,348 1.03
13 1,205 979 1.23 862 1.40 1,249 0.96 1,191 1.01 1,222 0.99
1,357 1,069 1.27 862 1.57 1,335 1.02 1,264 1.07 1,302 1.04
14 770 673 1.14 495 1.56 788 0.98 715 1.08 764 1.01
803 673 1.19 495 1.62 788 1.02 715 1.12 764 1.05
15 775 670 1.16 495 1.57 777 1.00 705 1.10 755 1.03
762 670 1.14 495 1.54 777 0.98 705 1.08 755 1.01
16 820 808 1.01 495 1.66 927 0.88 833 0.98 912 0.90
834 808 1.03 495 1.68 927 0.90 833 1.00 912 0.91
17 468 340 1.38 192 2.44 442 1.06 414 1.13 428 1.09
18 476 339 1.40 192 2.48 439 1.08 412 1.16 426 1.12
19 470 340 1.38 192 2.45 443 1.06 415 1.13 429 1.10
20 691 593 1.17 173 3.99 729 0.95 687 1.01 700 0.99
21 653 475 1.37 139 4.70 668 0.98 636 1.03 647 1.01
22 655 593 1.10 173 3.79 726 0.90 685 0.96 699 0.94
23 681 593 1.15 173 3.94 726 0.94 685 0.99 699 0.97
24 526 452 1.16 139 3.78 581 0.91 546 0.96 555 0.95
25 384 342 1.12 95 4.04 434 0.88 407 0.94 414 0.93
26 720 634 1.14 367 1.96 788 0.91 745 0.97 763 0.94
27 748 649 1.15 456 1.64 772 0.97 731 1.02 750 1.00
28 986 875 1.13 456 2.16 1,051 0.94 981 1.01 1,015 0.97
29 518 451 1.15 82 6.32 534 0.97 498 1.04 513 1.01
30 351 284 1.24 139 2.53 393 0.89 373 0.94 382 0.92
31 370 284 1.30 139 2.66 393 0.94 373 0.99 382 0.97
32 682 533 1.28 351 1.94 697 0.98 667 1.02 676 1.01
Average 1.25 (1.23) Average 2.33 (2.56) Average 0.97 (0.97) Average 1.03 (1.03) Average 1.00 (1.00)
COV 0.104 (0.109) COV 0.427 (0.431) COV 0.090 (0.091) COV 0.089 (0.089) COV 0.092 (0.092)
Note: Values in parentheses only consider the specimens without shear anchors on the compression flange.
load for Specimens 20 and 22, suggesting that shear anchors is not predicted flexural strengths were marginally decreased, and the mean
necessary for full composite action. test-to-predicted moment ratio was 1.0, with a COV of 0.092. Fig. 9 is
The modified PSD method adopts the simplicity of the PSD method used to further examine the relationships of flexural strength pre-
and uses the Whitney stress block for the concrete compressive dictions between the strain compatibility method, PSD method, and
force. As seen in Table 3, by using the Whitney stress block, the modified PSD method. Fig. 9(a) compares the test-to-predicted
Fig. 8. Strain distribution along the depth: (a) Specimen 20; (b) Specimen 22 (with shear anchors); (c) Specimen 23 (debonded)
moment ratios by the PSD method, Mt =Mpsd , with the test-to-predicted modified PSD method, showing a good correlation with the strain
moment ratios by the strain compatibility method, Mt =Msc , and compatibility method, also well predicted the flexural strength of the
Fig. 9(b) compares the test-to-predicted moment ratios by the mod- encased composite beams. In conclusion, the PSD, modified PSD, and
ified PSD method, Mt =Mmod , with the test-to-predicted moment ratios strain compatibility methods were capable of accurately predicting
by the strain compatibility method, Mt =Msc . As shown in Figs. 9(a flexural strength of the SRC specimens with or without shear anchors.
and b), the modified PSD method, using the Whitney stress block, Although the PSD and modified PSD methods use a straightforward
shifted the data closer to the dashed line, suggesting its stronger stress distribution, the strain compatibility method uses stress-strain
correlation with the strain compatibility method than the PSD method. relations to establish the stress distributions. Furthermore, the modified
In summary, the AISC specification (AISC 2010) prescribes PSD method adopting the Whitney stress block showed a stronger
analytical methods for determining nominal flexural strength of SRC correlation with the strain compatibility method than the PSD method.
members. According to the specification, when shear anchors are not Because of this, the modified PSD method facilitates flexural analysis
provided, nominal flexural strength of SRC members shall be de- of SRC members while maintaining great accuracy; for this reason, it
termined based on the superposition of elastic stresses or plastic endears itself to design engineers when both simplicity and accuracy of
stress distribution on the steel section alone; when shear anchors are analysis are desired.
provided, nominal flexural strength of SRC members shall be com- Conversely, the methods of the superposition of elastic stresses
puted based on the PSD method or strain compatibility method. On the and plastic stress distribution on the steel section alone underpredicted
basis of the results of this study, the PSD and strain compatibility the flexural strength of SRC beams (without shear anchors) by more
methods shall not be limited to SRC beams with shear anchors. In than 20 and 100%, respectively. The conservatism stems from the
addition to the PSD and strain compatibility methods, the proposed concept that SRC beams may not be able to provide sufficient bond
A0s
r0 ¼ ð3Þ
Bdbf
As
r ¼ ð4Þ
Bdbf
Aflg
Rf ¼ ð5Þ
As
ds
Rd ¼ ð6Þ
D
27 499 332 332 168 222 293 497 336 332 222 458 d=4 5 120
28 657 332 332 152 199 263 724 304 332 199 441 d=4 5 108
29 345 272 272 171 142 235 289 342 272 142 261 d=2 5 240
30 234 332 332 107 129 177 205 215 332 129 388 d=2 5 165
31 247 332 332 107 257 273 221 215 332 257 484 d=4 5 83
32 455 332 332 121 274 296 486 241 332 274 497 d=4 5 93
ACI 318-08 Section 11.4.5. This finding suggests that using the Notation
seismic hoops having the spacing following the shear reinforcement
requirements per ACI 318-08 Section 11.4.5 could provide con- The following symbols are used in this paper:
finement equal to or greater than that developed in the specimens Aflg 5 area of the tension flange of the steel shape;
studied herein and is sufficient to develop composite action without A0flg 5 area of the compression flange of the steel shape;
using shear anchors. Ap 5 area of the tension cover plate;
A0p 5 area of the compression cover plate;
Ar 5 area of the tension rebar;
Conclusions
A0r 5 area of the compression rebar;
On the basis of the results of this study, the following conclusions and As 5 total tension reinforcement area;
recommendations can be drawn for the specimens studied herein: A0s 5 total compression reinforcement area;
1. The superposition of elastic stresses method provides conser- B 5 width of the SRC beam;
vative design values, underpredicting the flexural strength of bw 5 web width;
SRC beams without shear anchors by more than 20%; c 5 distance from extreme compression fiber to
2. The method of the plastic moment of the steel section alone is neutral axis;
overly conservative for evaluating the flexural strength of SRC D 5 depth of the SRC beam;
beams owing to the conservatism stemming from overlooking d 5 effective length 5 distance from extreme-
the composite action; compression fiber to centroid of tension
3. Composite action can be developed without using shear reinforcement;
anchors when seismic hoops are used for shear reinforcement d 0 5 distance from the centroid of the compression
and the spacing of shear reinforcement satisfies the spacing rebar to extreme compression fiber;
limits per ACI 318-08 Section 11.4.5; db 5 nominal diameter of the longitudinal reinforcing
4. Given that seismic hoops are used for shear reinforcement and bar;
the spacing of shear reinforcement meets the requirement dbf 5 distance from the centroid of the tension flange to
specified in ACI 318-08 Section 11.4.5, the PSD, modified the top of the beam;
PSD, and strain compatibility methods can accurately predict dh 5 nominal diameter of the transverse reinforcing bar;
the flexural strength of SRC beams whether shear anchors are ds 5 depth of the steel shape;
provided or not, with the mean test-to-predicted ratios being d1 5 distance from the centroid of the first
0.97, 1.00, and 1.03, respectively;
layer of tension rebar to extreme compression
5. The proposed modified PSD method shows a stronger corre-
fiber;
lation with the strain compatibility method than the PSD
d2 5 distance from the centroid of the second layer of
method, providing a simple and accurate alternative for de-
termining the flexural strength of encased composite beams; tension rebar to extreme compression fiber;
6. The combined parameter, Rf Rd =r, may be used as an index to Fy 5 yield strength of the steel shape;
achieve a more reliable design; ðFy Þp 5 yield strength of the cover plate;
7. The shear strength of a SRC beam designed by the methods ðFy Þr 5 yield strength of the reinforcing bar;
specified in AISC 360-10 is adequate, albeit conservative, to fc0 5 concrete compressive strength;
provide sufficient shear strength; and Melastic 5 flexural strength calculated by the superposition
8. Given that many specimens studied herein have observed of elastic stresses;
shear strength greater than the design shear strength per AISC Mmod 5 flexural strength calculated by the modified
360-10 Section I4.1, the shear provision for composite mem- plastic stress distribution method;
bers in the AISC specification may be improved. Mp 5 plastic moment of the steel shape;