5/07/2019 Giuseppe Marzano

Hybrid test specimen

1) Drawings
2) Specimen properties
3) Preliminary analysis results
4) Conclusions

2) Specimen properties

After the meeting with Shiga san the details about the first specimen have been decided, Table 1
summarizes what was decided:

Table 1. Specimen details

2 jacks
2 out-of-plan constraints (C1 C3)
C2 double pins
Diaphragm and Beam Flange section axes
aligned (to mitigate welding shrinking)

The dimensions of all the elements is designed excepted for:

Table 2. Specimen missing sections

2 jack reaction wall rise
Bending plates

Table 3. elements properties

Beam 200x100x5.5x8 Concrete Slab 575x65
h [mm] 200 hc [mm] 65 Armor 650x50
b [mm] 100 bc [mm] 575 [mm] 6
tf [mm] 8 Ac [mm] 37,375 A [mm2] 28
tw [mm] 5.5 Ic [mm4] 13,159,115 n 10
A [mm2] 2,667 fc [MPa] 20 hs [mm] 30
I [mm4] 18,100,000 E [MPa] 30.000 As [mm2] 283
Zy [mm3] 181,000 n 7 fsd [MPa] 450
Zp [mm3] 205,000
fy [MPa] 300 Column 175x12
My [kNm] 54.3 h [mm] 175
Mp [kNm] 61.5 tw [mm] 12
Ac [mm] 7,453
Ic [mm4] 32,100,000
fyd [MPa] 300
My [kNm] 110
Mp [kNm] 134

1
5/07/2019 Giuseppe Marzano

The neutral axis is calculated from the equilibrium to the horizontal translation of the section, using the
design values for the material properties.

𝑏𝑐 ℎ𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑘 0.85
+ 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑠𝑘 + 𝑏ℎ𝑓 𝑓𝑦𝑘 = 𝑓𝑦𝑘 𝐴′𝑦
1.5
575 ∗ 65 ∗ 20 ∗ 0.85
+ 283 ∗ 450 + 100 ∗ 1.6 ∗ 235 = 235 ∗ (2667 − 160)
1.5
𝑥 = 66.6𝑚𝑚
The neutral axis passes through the top steel flange. The resisting moment of the section is now
calculated:

ℎ𝑦
𝑀𝑟𝑑 = 𝐴′𝑦 𝑓𝑦𝑘 (ℎ𝑐 + − ℎ𝐺 )
2
(2667 − 160) ∗ 235 ∗ (65 + 100 − 34) = 77.1𝑘𝑁𝑚

0.85 ℎ𝑐 ℎ𝑓
ℎ𝐺 = 𝐴𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑘 ∗ ∗ + 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑠𝑘 ℎ𝑠 + 𝑏𝑓 ℎ𝑓 𝑓𝑦𝑘 (ℎ𝑐 + )
1.5 2 2

0.85 65 1.6
37,375 ∗ 20 ∗ ∗ + 283 ∗ 450 ∗ 30 + 100 ∗ 1.6 ∗ 235 ∗ (65 + 2 )
1.5 2 = 34𝑚𝑚
0.85
37,375 ∗ 20 ∗ + 283 ∗ 450 + 100 ∗ 1.6 ∗ 235
1.5

Following the same procedure but using a steel yielding stress of 300 MPa and using a safe factor for
concrete equal to 1.0, the neutral axis and resisting moment are:

𝑥 = 65.9𝑚𝑚

𝑀𝑟𝑑 = 103𝑘𝑁𝑚

Comparing the moment of inertia of the composite section calculated by hand and the one given by
SAP2000 the results are:

ℎ𝑐 2
𝐼𝑐 𝐴𝑐 (𝑥 − 2) ℎ𝑦
2
𝐼𝑒𝑞 = 𝐼𝑦 + + 𝐴𝑠 (𝑥 − ℎ𝑠 ) + + 𝐴𝑦 (ℎ𝑐 + − 𝑥)2
𝑛 𝑛 2

65 2
13,159,115 (66.6 − 2 ) + 2,667
18,100,000 + + 283 ∗ (66.6 − 30)2 + 37,375 ∗
7 7
∗ (65 + 100 − 66.6)2 = 52,388,426𝑚𝑚4

𝐼𝑆𝐴𝑃 = 50,570,700𝑚𝑚4

The difference between the two values is 3.6%.

2
5/07/2019 Giuseppe Marzano

Fig. 1 Composite section geometry

The properties of the composite sections are now compared to the bare beam and column elements, in
Table 4 and 5. The values are calculated for the second case of studying.

Table 4. Bare and Composite section comparisons

Section Bare beam 200x100x5.5x8 Composite beam Slab 575x65 Ratio
I [mm4] 18,100,000 52,388,426 2.89
My [kNm] 54.3 78.8 1.45
Mp [kNm] 61.5 103 1.67

Table 5. Column and Composite section comparisons

Section Column 175x12 Composite beam Slab 575x65 Ratio
I [mm4] 32,100,000 52,388,426 1.63
My [kNm] 110 78.8 1.40
Mp [kNm] 134 103 1.30

Based on this calculation the maximum base shear is so distributed:

Fig 2. Maximum shear distribution

3
5/07/2019 Giuseppe Marzano

3) Preliminary analysis results

Fig 3. Abaqus model

A simple cantilever model has been made in Abaqus to verify the numbers shown above. The model
consists of three elements: steel beam, concrete slab and steel bars. The material properties and
geometry are the same of the second example. The bending stiffness from the hand calculation is:

𝐸𝐼 52,388,426
𝐾= = 205,000 ∗ = 7,740𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑟𝑎𝑑
𝐿 1387.5

This value is compared with the one from the linear trendline in Figure 4.

120
100 y = 31870x + 9.2592
80
Moment [kNm]

60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003
Rotation [%]

Fig 4. Elastic hysteresis curve

4
5/07/2019 Giuseppe Marzano

200
150
100

Moment [kNm]
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Rotation [%]

Fig 5. Hysteresis curve

The results present a significant difference in both stiffness and strength. The hands calculation have
been checked and are now trustable, instead of the calculation of the beam section rotation, and the
material properties for the section capacity in Abaqus.

4) Conclusions

In conclusion the composite beam properties have been evaluated though hand calculation, and appear
appropriated for the test goals, in term of force and stiffness increment due to the composite factor,
and the maximum shear applied to the bases. The next step is to create a reasonable model on Abaqus
to match the results obtained so far.