Pallares and Hajjar

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• The most likely concrete failure mode in composite construction is pryout failure, rather than breakout failure (with these failure modes being as described in ACI 318-08) since there are not appropriate failure planes for front-edge or side-edge breakout in the majority of composite structures. In this work, the concrete breakout strength is deemed not to be a governing limit state; such conditions are thus beyond the scope of this work. • The AISC [30] formula for predicting the steel failure mode in headed stud anchors (AsFu) is accurate for steel failures in anchors only if a resistance factor is included to ensure an acceptable level of reliability, comparable to what is used in PCI 6th Edition and ACI 318-08. A resistance factor of 0.65 provides a reliability index β of approximately 4. Alternatively, a resistance factor of 1.0 may be used if a reduction factor such as 0.65 is applied to AsFu. • EC-4 (2004) provides conservative results in most cases for steel and concrete failures when resistance factors are applied. • PCI 6th Edition and ACI 318-08 provide more conservative prediction for concrete failures than AISC 2005, with PCI 6th Edition being the most accurate. AISC 2005 is generally unconservative when anchors fail in the concrete. • A selection of formulas to estimate pryout concrete failures are proposed as an alternative to the current prediction of concrete failure in AISC 2005. The choice of formula is dependent on which types of parameters are deemed appropriate to govern the concrete failure strength. • After assessing the literature regarding headed studs subjected to shear, it was deemed that the steel strength formula AsFu with a resistance factor equal to 0.65 is the only formula that needs to be checked for headed stud anchors that are not subject to breakout failures in the concrete, if normal-weight concrete is used and if the effective height-to-depth ratio hef /d is larger than 4.5 (where hef is measured to the underside of the stud head; a comparable minimum value of h/d is 5, where h is the total height of the stud). For the few experiments in this category that fail in the concrete, the steel strength formula proved to be conservative. For composite components with lightweight concrete, a larger minimum value of the anchor height is recommended because there is less data available for these longer lengths, and what data is available shows that the failure tends to occur more in the concrete than for normal-weight concrete if hef /d is just above 4.5. Based on the limited data available to date, a value of hef /d > 6.5 (or a comparable value of h/d > 7) more clearly assures that failure will occur in the steel, and thus this value is recommended for lightweight concrete if only a steel strength formula is to be checked. Additional test results could validate using a lower value of this minimum ratio in future research. • A reduction factor of 0.75 is adequate to design headed stud anchors in shear subjected to seismic loads, so long as the monotonic steel strength of headed studs has a resistance factor on AsFu that is in the range of the values proposed in this work. Acknowledgements Funding for this research was provided by the Fundación Caja Madrid and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The authors thank Mr. N. Anderson, Dr. D. Meinheit, and Dr. K. Rasmussen for sharing their collected data and Mr. M. Denavit of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for his contributions to this work. The authors thank the members of the American Institute of Steel Construction Committee on Specifications Task Committee 5 on Composite Construction for their comments on this research. L. Pallarés, J.F. Hajjar / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 198–212 211 References [1] Comité Euro-International Du Béton (CEB). Design of fastenings in concrete: Design guide, Lausanne, Switzerland; Thomas Telford, Ltd., 1997. [2] American Concrete Institute Committee 318 (ACI). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary (ACI 318R-08). Farmington Hills, Michigan: American Concrete Institute; 2008. [3] Anderson NS, Meinheit DF. Design criteria for headed stud groups in shear: Part 1 — Steel capacity and back edge effects. PCI Journal 2000;45(45):46–75. [4] Anderson NS, Meinheit DF. Pryout capacity of cast-in headed stud anchors. PCI Journal 2005;50(2):90–112. [5] Anderson NS, Meinheit DF. A review of headed-stud design criteria in the sixth edition of the PCI design handbook. PCI Journal 2007;1(4):1–20. [6] Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI). PCI design handbook: Precast and prestressed concrete. sixth edition Chicago (IL): Precast/Prestressed Concrete Insitute; 2004. [7] Viest IM. Investigation of stud shear connectors for composite concrete and steel T-beams. Journal of the American Concrete Institute 1956;27(8):875–91. [8] Driscoll GG, Slutter RG. Research on Composite Design at Lehigh University. In: Proceedings of the national engineering conference. Chicago (IL): American Institute of Steel Construction; 1961. p. 18–24. [9] Chinn J. Pushout Tests on Lightweight Composite Slabs. Engineering Journal, AISC 1965;2(4):129–34. [10] Steele DH. The use of nelson studs with lightweight aggregate concrete in composite construction, M.S. thesis, Boulder (CO): University of Colorado; 1967. [11] Davies C. Small-scale push-out tests on welded stud shear connectors. Concrete 1967;1(9):311–6. [12] Mainstone RJ, Menzies JB. Shear connectors in steel–concrete composite beams for bridges. Concrete 1967;1(9):291–302. [13] Goble GG. Shear strength of thin flange composite specimen. Engineering Journal, AISC 1968;5(2):62–5. 2nd Quarter. [14] Topkaya C, Yura JA, Williamson EB. Composite shear stud strength at early concrete ages. Journal of Structural Division, ASCE 2004;130(6):952–60. [15] Ollgaard JG, Slutter RG, Fisher JW. Shear strength of stud connectors in lightweight and normal-weight concrete. Engineering Journal, AISC 1971; 8(2):55–64. [16] Oehlers DJ, Bradford MA. Composite steel and concrete structural members: Fundamental behavior. Oxford U.K: Pergamon; 1995. [17] BS5400 Part 5. Steel, concrete and composite bridges. Part 5. Code of practice for design of composite bridges. London, UK: British Standard Institution; 1979. [18] Jonhson RP, Oehlers DJ. Analysis and Design for Longitudinal Shear in Composite T-beams. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1981;71(2): 989–1021. [19] American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC). Specification for the design, fabrication and erection of structural steel buildings. New York (NY): American Institute for Steel Construction; 1961. [20] American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC). Specification for the design, fabrication and erection of structural steel buildings. Chicago (IL): American Institute for Steel Construction; 1978. [21] American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC). Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago (IL): American Institute for Steel Construction; 1993. [22] Buttry KE. Behavior of stud shear connectors in lightweight and normalweight concrete, Report 68-6, Missouri Cooperative Highway Research Program, Columbia (MO): Missouri State Highway Department and University of Missouri-Columbia; 1965. [23] Baldwin JW Jr, Henry JR, Sweeney GM. Study of composite bridge stringers – Phase II, Technical report, Columbia (MO): Department of Civil Engineering, University of Missouri-Columbia; 1965. [24] Dallam LN. Push-out tests of stud and channel shear connectors in normalweight and lightweight concrete slabs, Bulletin series no. 66, Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin, Columbia (MO): University of Missouri-Columbia; 1968. [25] Baldwin JW Jr. Composite bridge stringers – final report, Report no. 69-4, Missouri Cooperative Highway Research Program, Missouri State Highway Columbia (Mo): Department and University of Missouri-Columbia; 1970. [26] Jayas BS, Hosain MU. Behavior of headed studs in composite beams: Full-size tests. Canadian Journal Civil Engineering 1989;16(5):712–24. [27] Easterling WS, Gibbins DR, Murray TM. Strength of shear studs in steel deck on composite beams and joists. Engineering Journal, AISC 1993;30(2):44–55. 2nd Quarter. [28] Johnson RP. Composite structures of steel and concrete — beams, slabs, columns, and frames for buildings. 3rd ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Scientific Publics; 2004. [29] Easterling WS. New shear stud provisions for composite beam design. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ASCE structures congress. Reston (VA): American Society of Civil Engineers; 2005. [30] American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC). Specification for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-05. Chicago (IL): American Institute for Steel Construction; 2005. [31] American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-05. Chicago (IL): American Institute for Steel Construction; 2005. [32] Eurocode 4 (EC-4). Eurocode 4 — Design of composite steel and concrete structures — Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, European Standard, ENV 1994-1-1_ver-2004; 1994.
212 L. Pallarés, J.F. Hajjar / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 198–212 [33] Pallarés L, Hajjar JF. Headed steel stud anchors in composite structures, Part II: Tension and Interaction. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2010; 66(2):213–28. [34] Hawkins NM, Mitchell D. Seismic response of composite shear connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1984;110(9):1–10. [35] Gattesco N, Giuriani E. Experimental study on stud shear connectors subjected to cyclic loading. Journal Constructional Steel Research 1996;38(1):1–21. [36] Bursi OS, Gramola G. Behavior of headed stud shear connectors under low-cycle high amplitude displacements. Material Structures 1999;32:290–7. [37] Zandonini R, Bursi OS. Cyclic behavior of headed shear stud connectors, Reston (VA): Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. ASCE; 2002. pp. 470–482. [38] Civjan SA, Singh P. Behavior of shear studs subjected to fully reversed cyclic loading. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2003;129(11):1466–74. [39] Saari WK, Hajjar JF, Schultz AE, Shield CK. Behavior of shear studs in steel frames with reinforced concrete infill walls. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60:1453–80. [40] Shoup TE, Singleton RC. Headed concrete anchors. Journal of the American Concrete Institute 1963;60(9):1229–35. [41] Chapman JC, Balakrishnan S. Experiments on composite beams. The Structural Engineer 1964;42(11):369–83. [42] Menzies JB. CP 117 and shear connectors in steel–concrete composite beams made with normal-density or lightweight concrete. The Structural Engineer 1971;49(3):137–54. [43] Shim CS, Lee PG, Yoon TY. Static behavior of large stud shear connectors. Engineering Structures 2004;26:1853–60. [44] Hawkins NM. The strength of stud shear connectors, Research report no. R141, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 34 pp.; 1971. [45] Klingner KE, Mendonca JA. Effect of reinforcing details on the shear resistance of anchor bolts under reversed cyclic loading. ACI Journal 1982;79(1):3–12. [46] Zhao G. Tragverhalten von randfernen Kopfbolzenverankerungen bei betonbruch, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany; 1993. [47] An L, Cederwall K. Push-out tests on studs in high strength and normal strength concrete. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1996;36(1):15–29. [48] Wollmershauser RE. Anchor performance and the 5% fractile. Tulsa (OK): Hilti Technical Services Bulletin, Hilti, Inc.; 1997. [49] Fuchs W, Eligehausen R, Breen JE. Concrete capacity design approach for fastening to concrete. ACI Structural Journal 1995;92(1):73–94. [50] Eurocode 2 (EC-2). Eurocode 2 — Design of concrete structures — Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, European Standard, ENV 1992-1-1_ver- 2004; 1992. [51] Ravindra MK, Galambos TV. Load and resistance factor design for steel. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 1978;104(ST9):1337–53. [52] Nelson Stud Welding Company. Tensile tests: Nelson shear connector studs welded through hot-dip galvanized steel sheet, test report 1971-5, Cleveland (OH): Herron Testing Laboratories, Inc.; 1971. [53] Nelson Stud Welding Company. Tensile Tests: Nelson shear connector studs welded through wiped coat galvanized sheet steel, test report 1971-6, Cleveland (OH): Herron Testing Laboratories, Inc.; 1971. [54] Nelson Stud Welding Company. AWS qualification tests for 3/4’’ diameter stud base and #100-101-175 arc shield, test report 1972-14, Cleveland (OH): Herron Testing Laboratories, Inc.; 1972. [55] American Welding Society (AWS). Structural Welding Code, ANSI/D1.1/D1.1: 2006. 19th edition Miami (FL): American Welding Society; 2006. [56] American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard specification for steel bars, carbon, cold-finished, standard quality (ASTM A108-99), volume 04.07. West Conshohocken (PA): American Society of Testing and Materials; 1999. [57] American Concrete Institute Committee 301 (ACI 301-08). Specifications for structural concrete. Farmington Hills (MI): American Concrete Institute; 2008. [58] Makino M. In: Roeder CW, editor. Design of frame steel structures with infill reinforced concrete walls. New York (NY): Composite and Mixed Construction, ASCE; 1984. p. 279–87. [59] National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP). Recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings. Part 1 - Provisions. Part 2 - Commentary. Report no. 302 and 303. Washington (DC): Building Seismic Safety Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2004.
Page 1 and 2: Journal of Constructional Steel Res
Page 3 and 4: 200 L. Pallarés, J.F. Hajjar / Jou
Page 13: 210 L. Pallarés, J.F. Hajjar / Jou

Pallares and Hajjar

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?