Does anyone know why (in the green book) that in order to get the number of studs for 100% composite action you find the smaller of 0.85f'cAc/2 and FyAs/2?? Why are they both divided by 2? This makes a pretty big difference in the % of composite action you get for a given number of studs (you get a much higher % composite for a given number of studs compared to the 13th ed spec) or the the number of studs needed for a given % of composite action (you can use fewer studs to gain a specific % of composite action compared to the 13th ed spec). This obviously makes a difference in deflection calcs as well.
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Another composite question
- Thread starter Lion06
- Start date
LobstaEata
Structural
Taking the lesser of the steel capacity and 0.85% of the concrete capacity ensures ductile failure.
- Thread starter
- #5
haynewp-
I thought that might be it, but that approach makes it so you need FEWER studs to get 100% composite action (which is UNconservative). If the stud values were factored down by 2 as well, then it would make more sense, but the stud values are only factored down by 1.5.
LobstaEata-
Ductile/nonductile failure doesn't have anything to do with what I'm asking. I'm asking why the values are divided by 2. BTW, the 0.85 isn't to ensure a ductile failure it's the value always applied to concrete in compression (no different than a concrete beam).
I thought that might be it, but that approach makes it so you need FEWER studs to get 100% composite action (which is UNconservative). If the stud values were factored down by 2 as well, then it would make more sense, but the stud values are only factored down by 1.5.
LobstaEata-
Ductile/nonductile failure doesn't have anything to do with what I'm asking. I'm asking why the values are divided by 2. BTW, the 0.85 isn't to ensure a ductile failure it's the value always applied to concrete in compression (no different than a concrete beam).
LobstaEata
Structural
EIT
I thought the following was your first question
Does anyone know why (in the green book) that in order to get the number of studs for 100% composite action you find the smaller of 0.85f'cAc/2 and FyAs/2??
It seemed to me that the fact that this addresses ductile failure is what your question was asking. Sorry if I understood your question incorrectly.
Oh and BTW in any concrete (or composite design), it is critically important to check for ductile failure of the member. This is why we compare the concrete crushing limit with the steel yield limit.
I thought the following was your first question
Does anyone know why (in the green book) that in order to get the number of studs for 100% composite action you find the smaller of 0.85f'cAc/2 and FyAs/2??
It seemed to me that the fact that this addresses ductile failure is what your question was asking. Sorry if I understood your question incorrectly.
Oh and BTW in any concrete (or composite design), it is critically important to check for ductile failure of the member. This is why we compare the concrete crushing limit with the steel yield limit.
- Thread starter
- #8
lobsta-
I was specifically asking why they are divided by 2, not why those two specific criteria are considered. I understand why those two criteria are considered, I just don't understand why they are both being divided by 2. haynewp has stated an opinion, but I address that below. Also, these two criteria have nothing to do with ductility as there are no ductility requirements (that I'm aware of) for a composite steel beam. Additionally, while it is good practice to check for ductility in a concrete beam design it isn't required. That's all taken into account with the sliding phi factor.
haynewp-
I originally thought that it was to get everything down to working loads, but then why are the nominal stud strengths reduced by 1.5 and not 2? It seems to me that this would underestimate the strength at an actual failure condition, no?
I was specifically asking why they are divided by 2, not why those two specific criteria are considered. I understand why those two criteria are considered, I just don't understand why they are both being divided by 2. haynewp has stated an opinion, but I address that below. Also, these two criteria have nothing to do with ductility as there are no ductility requirements (that I'm aware of) for a composite steel beam. Additionally, while it is good practice to check for ductility in a concrete beam design it isn't required. That's all taken into account with the sliding phi factor.
haynewp-
I originally thought that it was to get everything down to working loads, but then why are the nominal stud strengths reduced by 1.5 and not 2? It seems to me that this would underestimate the strength at an actual failure condition, no?
- Thread starter
- #10
- Thread starter
- #12
SlenderBeam
Structural
StructuralEIT,
Not familiar with the Green Book (I'm in Australia), but it would be odd if there is already a 'phi' factor (material/strength reduction factor) as well as the halving which you describe.
The only thing that would make sense is that the conc/steel force component is being 'prepared' to be applied in the strength/lever arm calc's where the force is applied at 'half' the depth of the compression or tension zone.
?
Not familiar with the Green Book (I'm in Australia), but it would be odd if there is already a 'phi' factor (material/strength reduction factor) as well as the halving which you describe.
The only thing that would make sense is that the conc/steel force component is being 'prepared' to be applied in the strength/lever arm calc's where the force is applied at 'half' the depth of the compression or tension zone.
?
StructuralEIT
I'm comparing AISC to the formulation shown in AASHTO'w Standard Specification. AASHTO doesn't divide the concrete and steel strength by 2, and uses the ultimate shear strength of the shear connectors. AASHTO's formula for the ultimate strength of the shear connectors results in roughly twice the allowable shear load listed in AISC's Table 1.11.4.
I'm comparing AISC to the formulation shown in AASHTO'w Standard Specification. AASHTO doesn't divide the concrete and steel strength by 2, and uses the ultimate shear strength of the shear connectors. AASHTO's formula for the ultimate strength of the shear connectors results in roughly twice the allowable shear load listed in AISC's Table 1.11.4.
StructurlEIT -
If I am not wrong the values you mentioned (ie. 0.85f'cAc/2 and FyAs/2) for number of studs, correspond to 25% composite action. The smaller of the values mentioned here is divided by capacity of stud to determine the number of studs.
- strucguy
If I am not wrong the values you mentioned (ie. 0.85f'cAc/2 and FyAs/2) for number of studs, correspond to 25% composite action. The smaller of the values mentioned here is divided by capacity of stud to determine the number of studs.
- strucguy
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Question