Description

Makai

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.

Related Documents

Share

Transcript

Journal - The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (V
ol. 68, No. 1, March 2007)
53
FLEXURALANALYSIS OFCOMPOSITE ONE- AND TWO-WAYSANDWICH SLABS WITH TRUSS-SHAPED CONNECTORS
A. Benayoune
1
,A. A. Abang Ali
2
,A. A. Abdul Samad
3
and D.N. Trikha
3
1
F & J Department, University of Kuala Lumpur MFI
2
Housing Research Centre, UPM
3
Dept. of Civil Engineering, KUiTTHO
1. INTRODUCTION
Precast Concrete Sandwich Panels (PCSP) are considered asa branch of precast wall panels because of their similarity infunctions but slight difference in their built up as shown inFigure 1. PCSPderive their name from their construction, sincethe two outer wythes of concrete have an insulating sandwichedcore. These two wythes are connected through different type of concrete webs or metal connectors to ensure composite action.The complex behaviour of PCSPdue to its material non-l i n e a r i t y, the uncertain role of the shear connectors and the
interaction between its various components has led researchersto rely on experimental investigations backed by simpleanalytical studies. The scarcity of information on the behaviourof this important type of construction is due to the high cost of full scale testing and the extreme difficulty of fabrication of small-scale models. Furthermore, many sandwich panels in usein the North America and Europe are proprietary and theproducers are thus reluctant to share information with theircompetitors [1] and [2].PCSPgenerally span vertically between foundations andfloors or roofs to provide an insulated outer shell to a buildingcarrying mostly axial loads [1-7]. Their use as slab elementshas rarely been attempted before [7] and [8]. Depending ontheir flexural behaviour PCSPcan be divided into fullycomposite, non-composite and partially composite panels. Atechnical definition of the percent of composite action is notwell established in the literature [1] and [2].The aim of this paper is to investigate the flexuralbehaviour of one- and two-way acting slabs fabricated of precast sandwich panels with continuous truss-shapedconnectors. Different aspect ratios of slabs were chosen for thisstudy.The shear connector orientation effect in one or twodirection was also investigated to study the efficacy and theinfluence of the placement of shear connectors to transfer shearfrom the upper wythe to the lower. Further, a parametric studywas carried out by studying the influence of shear connectorspacing on the ultimate strength and the compositeness of thePCSPacting as slab. The investigation included a study on thestress distribution, degree of composite action at the elastic andultimate stages of the PCSPand their ultimate strengths.
2. FINITE ELEMENTMODELLING
Two models are proposed to simulate the behaviour of thePCSPunder flexure. A2-dimensional (2D) non-linear model isproposed to simulate the behaviour of one-way acting panelsand a 3-dimensional (3D) non-linear model to simulate thebehaviour of two-way acting panels having shear connectorsspanning in both directions.
ABSTRACT
As a part of a project on the development of an indigenous building system, linear and non-linear finite element analyses (FEA)were carried out to study the behaviour of composite precast concrete sandwich panel (PCSP) under flexure in order to examine feasibility of their usage as slab elements in the construction industry. The FEAresults are presented and compared withexperimental published data. Good correlation was found between the results obtained from the proposed finite element modeland experimentally obtained results. Differ
ent aspect ratios of slabs wer
e analysed to study their impact on the behaviour of PCSPas slabs. The effect and orientation of the shear connectors in one or two directions were also investigated. Results in the form of load-deflection curves showed that all the panels behaved linearly before development of the first cracks. The panelswer
e found to behave in a composite manner till the first cracking load. Results also showed that PCSP
with truss steel shear connectors has a potential use as one-way slab element as its behaviour was found to be very similar to those of solid slabsespecially when the two concrete wythes act in a fully composite manner. However, for practical reasons, the truss shear connectors were not recommended for two-way slabs where composite behaviour is needed in both directions to increase thestructural efficiency of the PCSPas two-way acting slabs. The ultimate strength and the degree of composite action desired were found to depend to a large extent upon the stiffness of the shear connector used. An expression to assess the degree of compositeaction is provided.
Keywords:
Defection, Finite Element Analysis, Precast Reinforced Concrete; Sandwich Slabs, Insulated Panels
Figure 1: Precast concrete sandwich panel
Journal - The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (Vol. 68, No. 1, March 2007)
A. BENAYOUNE,
et al.
54
A. 2D FINITE ELEMENTMODEL
One-way panels having shearconnectors spanning in one directionwere modelled and analysed as a 2Dproblem. The concrete was idealisedusing 2-D isoparametric plane stresselements, whereas reinforced steel andshear connectors were idealised with2-D bar elements. The cracking modelwas chosen for the 2-D plane stresselements while a Von Mises plasticmaterial model was selected for thesteel shear connectors and thereinforcement bars. The panels were considered simplysupported at both ends. The FE idealisation, the appliedloading and the boundary conditions are shown in Figure 2.The boundary conditions and the applied loading simulate theactual testing arrangements described in Reference [7] and [8].Only a part 1m wide of the panel associated with one shearconnector was considered.The following assumptions were made in developing the model:1.No relative slip occurs between concrete andreinforcement/shear connector.2. Effect of bond slip and dowel action is ignored.3. Slip between steel reinforcement and shear connector is ignored.The concrete model adopted for the current investigation isthat developed by Jefferson [9]. It was incorporated into LUSASsoftware [10]. This model is a further development of a multi-crack plasticity approach referred to as the Multi-Crack Modeldeveloped by Carol & Bazant [11]. This model assumes that, atany point in the material, there are defined number permissiblecracking directions. It further assumes that material can softenand eventually lose strength in positive loading [10].
B. 3D FINITE ELEMENTMODEL
The two-way panels were modelled and analysed as a 3-Dproblem as the shear connectors were placed in the longitudinaland transverse spans. The concrete wythes were modelled withfour noded 3-D thin shell element having six degrees of freedom at each node. The shear connectors were idealisedusing 3-D bar elements. The FE idealisation, the supportconditions and loading shown in Figure 3 simulated the testconditions described in references [2, 8]. The presence of theinsulation layer has been ignored as it does not contribute tostructural strength. More details about this model can be foundin references [2, 11]
3. ONE AND TWO-WAYPCSPSLAB
In the case where the slab is supported on four sides and theratio of the long side to the short one is equal or greater than 2,
Figure 2: One-way PCSPslab idealisation, loading and boundary conditions
Figure 3: Finite Element idealisation of two-way PCSP
most of the loads (about 95%) are known to be carried in theshort direction, and one way action is considered for allpractical cases. If the ratio, however, is less than 2, the two-wayaction of the slab comes into play and the loads on the slab aretransferred to all four supports. It is proposed to investigatetypical PCSPacting as two-way with different aspect ratiosprovided with one-way and two-way shear connectors to assessthe efficacy and the influence of the placement of the shearconnectors to transfer the horizontal shear form the upperwythe to the lower under transverse loading. The 3-D FEmodel described earlier will be first validated and then adoptedfor the current study.
A. CHOICE OFPANELDIMENSIONS
The panels were subjected to uniformly distributed lateralloads of 5.42 kN/m2 and 8 kN/m2 (typical service load, anddesign loads respectively). The sizes of the slab panels alongwith their respective aspect ratios are presented in Table 1. Theaspect ratio of the slab varies in the range of 1 to 6. The serieswere chosen on the basis of the known behaviour of the solidslabs. PCSPhaving aspect ratio more than 2 were expected tobehave as one-way slabs, whereas the panels with an aspectratio of less than 2 were expected to behave as two-way slabs. The first indices indicate the panel number, whereas thesecond indicate whether the shear connectors are placed in one-or two-directions. Throughout the next sections P-1 is used forall panels with one-way shear connectors (shear connectors inone direction) and P-2 for panels provided with shearconnectors in both directions.The deflections of the two concrete wythes of each panel wereplotted separately to study whether the wythes deflect together orotherwise and the influence of shear connectors emplacement onthe behaviour of the slab panels. This gives an indication of thecomposite behaviour of the panels and the role of shear connectorsin distributing the service loads to the supports.In order to validate the proposed models a comparison of the theoretical results with the experimental data [4] was madeas detailed below.The theoretical results were obtained byadopting FEM models as described earlier.The sizes of thepanels used for the FEM validation are given in Table 3. Moredetails about test specimens and test setup can be found in [4]and [5].
4. DISCUSSION OFRESULTSA. VALIDATION OFFINITE ELEMENTMODELS
a. One-Way PCSPSlab - 2D Model
Figure 4 shows the experimental load–mid span deflectioncurves for panels P11 under different load stages. Also shownin the same figure are the FEAload deflection curves as wellas the theoretical extremes of fully composite and non-composite panels using conventional elastic theory. It is seenthat the panel exhibits highly composite behaviour at the linearstage while near the first cracking, the panel tends to behave aspartial composite till the failure load. However, after thecracking occurs, the FE model becomes significantly stifferthan the actual tested specimen. This is because the FE modelassumes a perfect bong between the concrete and the steelthroughout. The ultimate failure load by FEA(20.70kN) isfound to be in good agreement with the experimental ultimateload (21.4kN) where the difference is less than 4%. The fullpanel was modelled by taking the full width as a thickness of the panel and the areas of shear connectors being added so thatto simulate axial stiffness. Therefore the 2-D proposed modelpredicted with an acceptable accuracy the deflection especiallyin the elastic stage and the ultimate failure load under lateralloading of PCSPacting as one- way slabs. It can be alsoconcluded that the modelling of the number of the shearconnectors by adding their corresponding areas (stiffness)gives a very acceptable results.
b. Two-Way acting PCSPSlab
Figure 5 shows the load deflection curves for panel P22 atdifferent load increments. It is seen that the finite elementmodel predicted deflections correlated very well withexperimental deflections. The deflections at cracking loads asobtained using FEM were found 1.2% higher than thoseobtained experimentally.While the FEM predicted ultimateload (135.2kN) was found higher by around 16% than theexperimentally obtained value (117.3kN). It can be concludedthat the two results are in good agreement.
Journal - The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (V
ol. 68, No. 1, March 2007)
FLEXURALANALYSIS OFCOMPOSITE ONE- AND TWO-WAYSANDWICH SLABS WITH TRUSS-SHAPED CONNECTORS
55
Table 1: Sandwich slab sizes and aspect ratios
Panela (mm)b (mm)a/b ratioP1-1P1-2200020001.00P2-1P2-2200012501.60P3-1P3-2200010002.00P4-1P4-220007502.67P5-1P5-220005004.00P6-1P6-230005006.00P7-320032001.00
Table 3: Details of text panels used for FEM valiation
PanelsSize
Aspect Ratio
Number of truss connector(m x m)LongitudinalTransverseP11 One-way2 x 0.752.673-P22 Two-way1.5 x 1.5166
Figure 4: Load-deflection profiles at mid-span for panel P1
1
Journal - The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (Vol. 68, No. 1, March 2007)
A. BENAYOUNE,
et al.
56
B. EFFECTOFORIENTATION OFSHEARCONNECTOR
Figures 6 to 8 show the deflection curves along the midspan in x- and y- directions for panels with one-way andtwo-way oriented shear connectors. It is seen that thedeflection value for panel having aspect ratio a/b = 1 (two-way acting slab) was 37% higher than that of the samepanel provided with tow-way shear connectors. T h i sd i fference decreased to 14% when the aspect ratio a/bincreases to 1.6. Further decrease was noticed where thed i fference became insignificant when a/b increases to 2.This is further shown in Figure 9 where the deflectionprofiles at mid-span of P1-1 and P1-2 were plotted. A l s oshown in the same figure the deflection profiles of a solidslab having the same dimensions and a thickness equal tothe sum of the two concrete wythes. It is seen that thedeflection of the panel P1-2 provided with shearconnectors in both directions is 12% higher that that of thesolid slab, whereas the deflection for the same panel withshear connectors inone direction isfound 80% higherthan that of the solidslab. This shows thatP1-2 behave morelikely as solid slab asit achieved a highcomposite actionthrough theorientation of shearconnectors in bothdirections. T h eprovision of two-wayshear connectorsenhanced greatly thestructural perform-ance of PCSPa c t i n gas two-way slabs.
C. EFFECTOFASPECTRATIO
The deflectionsfor the upper and thelower wythes of eachpanel at service loadagainst the aspectratios of the slabs areshown in Figures 10and 11. It can benoticed that when theshear connectors areplaced in twodirections thed i fference indeflections of theupper wythes to thelower wythes wereless than 6%. T h esame observationcould be made forpanels P-1.
Figure 5: Load-deflection profiles at mid-span for panel P22
Figure 6: Panel P1-1 & P1-2 mid span deflections in x- and y-directions (a/b=1) Figure 7: Panel P2-1 & P2-2 mid span deflections in x- and y-directions (a/b=1.6) Figure 8: Panel P3-1 & P3-2 mid span deflections in x- and y-directions (a/b=2)

Search

Similar documents

Tags

Related Search

Dynamic Response of Composite and Sandwich PaDynamics of Composite and Nanostructured MateThe influence of The Thousand and One Nights Diseases Of The Eye And AdnexaMeasures Of National Income And OutputThe History Of The Decline And Fall Of The RoAmerican Federation Of State, County And MuniInternational Federation Of Red Cross And RedFederal Takeover Of Fannie Mae And Freddie MaUnited Kingdom Of Great Britain And Ireland

We Need Your Support

Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks