Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Appendix A
Partial-interaction theory
This subject is introduced in Section 2.6, which gives the assumptions and
notation used in the theory that follows. On first reading, it may be found
helpful to rewrite the algebraic work in a form applicable to a beam with
the very simple cross-section shown in Fig. 2.2. This can be done by
making these substitutions.
The beam to be analysed is shown in Fig. 2.15, and Fig. A.1 shows in
elevation a short element of the beam, of length dx, distant x from the
mid-span cross-section. For clarity, the two components are shown separ-
ated, and displacements are much exaggerated. The slip is s at cross-
section x, and increases over the length of the element to s + (ds/dx) dx,
which is written as s+. This notation is used in Fig. A.1 for increments in
the other variables, Mc, Ma, F, Vc and Va, which are respectively the
bending moments, axial force and vertical shears acting on the two com-
ponents of the beam, the subscripts c and a indicating concrete and steel.
It follows from longitudinal equilibrium that the forces F in steel and
concrete are equal. The interface vertical force r per unit length is un-
known, so it cannot be assumed that Vc equals Va.
If the interface longitudinal shear is vL per unit length, the force on
each component is vLdx. It must be in the direction shown, to be consistent
with the sign of the slip, s. The loadslip relationship is
pvL = ks (A.1)
214
Equilibrium
Resolve longitudinally for one component:
dF
= vL (A.4)
dx
Take moments:
d Mc 1 d Ma 1
+ Vc = vL hc + Va = vL hs (A.5)
dx 2 dx 2
Vc + Va = wx (A.6)
Now 1
2 (hc + hs) = dc, so from Equations A.5 and A.6,
d Mc d Ma
+ + wx = vL dc (A.7)
dx dx
Elasticity
In beams with adequate shear connection, the effects of uplift are negligi-
ble in the elastic range. If there is no gap between the two components,
they must have the same curvature, , and simple beam theory gives the
momentcurvature relations. Using Equation 2.19 for Ec, then
Ma nMc
= = (A.8)
Es Ia kc Ea Ic
1 nF
AB = hc c (A.9)
2 kc Ea Ac
1 F
CD = hs + (A.10)
2 Ea Aa
Compatibility
The difference between AB and CD is the slip strain, so from Equations
A.9 and A.10, and putting 12 (hc + hs) = dc,
ds F n 1
= dc + c (A.11)
dx Ea kc A c Aa
kc Ic d
Ea + Ia + wx = vL dc (A.12)
n dx
d kdc s / p wx
= (A.13)
dx Ea I0
d2s
2 s = 2wx (2.25)
dx2
Solving for s,
K2 = 0 c = K1 cosh(L/2) w
w + c L
s = wx sech sinh x (2.27)
2
Other results can now be found as required. For example, the slip strain at
mid-span is
ds
= w (w + c ) sech( L / 2) (A.15)
d x x =0
c L
( s) x = L / 2 = tanh (A.16)
2
First and are calculated. From Equation 2.22 with Ic = nIa (from the
shape of the transformed section) and kc = 1, I0 = 2.7 104 m4.
150 0.12
2 = = 1.85 m 2
0.18 200 0.27
0.18 0.3
= = 3.0 10 6 m/kN
0.12 150 1000
wL3 35 103
= = 8.1 mm
4 Ebh2 4 20 0.6 0.32 1000
The stresses at mid-span can be deduced from the slip strain and the
curvature. Differentiating Equation 2.28 and putting x = 0,
ds
10 4 = 1.05 0.0017 1.36 = 1.05
d x x= 0
d
= 4.64s 6.5 10 4 x
dx
= 0.0023 m1
The corresponding change of strain between the top and bottom faces of
a member 0.3 m deep is 0.3 0.0023, or 690 10 6. The transformed
cross-section is symmetrical about the interface, so the strain in each
material at this level is half the slip strain, say 52 106, and the strain
distribution is as shown in Fig. 2.17. The stresses in the concrete, found
by multiplying the strains by Ec (20 kN/mm2), are 1.04 N/mm2 tension
and 12.8 N/mm2 compression. The tensile stress is below the cracking
stress, as assumed in the analysis.
The maximum compressive stress in the concrete is given by full-
interaction theory (Equation 2.7) as
3wL2 3 35 100
cf = = = 12.2 N/mm 2
16bh 2
16 0.6 0.09 103