Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Push-out test of steel–concrete–steel composite sections with various core materials: behavioural study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Steel–concrete–steel (SCS) structural systems have economic and structural advantages over traditional reinforced concrete; thus, they have been widely used. The performance of concrete made from recycled rubber aggregate from scrap tires has been evaluated since the early 1990s. The use of rubberized concrete in structural construction remains necessary because of its high impact resistance, increases ductility, and produces a lightweight concrete; therefore, it adds such important properties to SCS members. In this research, the use of different concrete core materials in SCS was examined. Twelve SCS specimens were subjected to push-out monotonic loading for inspecting their mechanical performance. One specimen was constructed from conventional normal weight concrete core, while the other specimens were constructed with modified core materials by either partial replacement of the coarse aggregate with crumb rubber (CR), the addition of oil palm fibre (OPF) to the concrete as a volume fraction of concrete, or both in the concrete cores. The investigated push-out specimens have a height of 450 mm and constructed from two hollow steel tubes with a square cross section of 100 mm and 5 mm in thickness which fixed to concrete prism using bolt end shear connectors. The detection of the mode of failure, load–slip as well as ductility behaviour, and the energy absorption capacity was investigated. The results revealed an improvement in the energy absorption (EA) capacity averagely by 55% for the specimen with 15% CR and 1.1% addition of OPF as a volume fraction of concrete in comparison with the reference specimens due to the high shear resistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Leekitwattana M, Boyd SW, Shenoi RA. An alternative design of steel-concrete-steel sandwich beam. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on sandwich structures (ICSS-9), Pasadena, 14–16 June 2010.

  2. Chu M, Song X, Ge H. Structural performance of steel-concrete-steel sandwich composite beams with channel steel connectors. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology (SMiRT 22), San Francisco, 18–23 August 2013.

  3. Ţibea C, Bompa DV. Ultimate shear response of ultra-high-performance steel fibre-reinforced concrete elements. Arch Civ Mech Eng. 2020;20:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Huang Z, Liew JYR. Steel-concrete-steel sandwich composite structures subjected to extreme loads. Int J Steel Struct. 2016;16(4):1009–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-016-0026-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Liew JYR, Sohel KMA. Structural performance of steel-concrete-steel sandwich composite structures. Adv Struct Eng. 2010;13(3):453–70. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.13.3.453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Huang Z-Y, Wang J-Y, Richard Liew JY, William Marshall P. Lightweight steel–concrete–steel sandwich composite shell subject to punching shear. Ocean Eng. 2015;102:146–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.04.054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Varma AH, Malushte SR, Lai Z. Modularity and innovation using steel-plate composite (sc) walls for nuclear and commercial construction. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on advances in steel and concrete composite structures, Beijing, 3–5 December 2015.

  8. El-sayed K, Khalil N, Backlesh T. Flexural behaviour of steel–concrete–steel sandwich slabs. Adv Res. 2016;8(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.9734/air/2016/29007.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Liew JYR, Sohel KMA. Lightweight steel–concrete–steel sandwich system with J-hook connectors. Eng Struct. 2009;31(5):1166–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.01.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sohel KMA, Richard Liew JY, Yan JB, Zhang MH, Chia KS. Behaviour of steel–concrete–steel sandwich structures with lightweight cement composite and novel shear connectors. Compos Struct. 2012;94(12):3500–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.05.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Abdul-Razaq A. Experimental and analytical study of the steel-concrete-steel beam under flexural behaviour. In: Proceedings of the 5th Jordanian international civil engineering conference, Amman, pp. 13–15 (2011).

  12. Al-Gasham TSS. Experimental behaviour of steel-concrete-steel sandwich beams with truss configuration of shear connectors. J Eng. 2016;22(4):18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Liew JYR, Sohel KMA, Koh CG. Impact tests on steel–concrete–steel sandwich beams with lightweight concrete core. Eng Struct. 2009;31(9):2045–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.03.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Xu B, Bompa DV, Elghazouli AY. Cyclic stress–strain rate-dependent response of rubberised concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2020;254:119253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bompa DV, Elghazouli AY, Xu B, Stafford PJ, Ruiz-Teran AM. Experimental assessment and constitutive modelling of rubberised concrete materials. Constr Build Mater. 2017;137:246–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Miller SA, Cunningham PR, Harvey JT. Rice-based ash in concrete: A review of past work and potential environmental sustainability. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2019;146:416–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Abutaha F, Razak HA, Kanadasan J. Effect of palm oil clinker (POC) aggregates on fresh and hardened properties of concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2016;112:416–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Aslam M, Shafigh P, Jumaat MZ. Drying shrinkage of structural lightweight aggregate concrete containing blended oil palm bio-products. J Clean Prod. 2016;127:183–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ibrahim HA, Razak HA. Effect of palm oil clinker incorporation on properties of pervious concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2016;115:70–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mohammed BS, Al-Ganad MA, Abdullahi M. Analytical and experimental studies on composite slabs utilising palm oil clinker concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2011;25:3550–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Momoh EO, Osofero AI. Behaviour of oil palm broom (OPBF) reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2019;221:745–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Li N, Long G, Ma C, Fu Q, Zeng X, Ma K, Xie Y, Luo B. Properties of self-compacting concrete (SCC) with recycled tire rubber aggregate: a comprehensive study. J Clean Prod. 2019;236:117707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shariati M, Heyrati A, Zandi Y, Laka H, Toghroli A, Kianmehr P, Safa M, Salih MN, Poi-Ngian S. Application of waste tire rubber aggregate in porous concrete. Smart Struct Syst. 2019;24(4):553–66.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Li G, Garrick G, Eggers J, Abadie C, Stubblefield MA, Pang S-S. Waste tire fibre modified concrete. Compos B Eng. 2004;35(4):305–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2004.01.002.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association | The national trade association for tire manufacturers that make tires in the U.S. (n.d.).

  26. ETRMA’s statistics on scrap tire collection and recycling in Europe. https://www.gdtc6.com/statistics-old-tyres-in-australia/ (Accessed 8 Apr 2019) (n.d.).

  27. https://weibold.com/etrmas-statistics-on-scrap-tire-collection-and-recycling-in-europe/ (Accessed 8 Apr 2019).

  28. ASTM C150/C150M-19a, Standard Specification for Portland Cement, ASTM International, West Conshohocken; 2019. http://www.astm.org

  29. Antony J. Design of experiments for engineers and scientists. Oxford: Elsevier Science and Technology Books; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Braimah MN, Anozie AN, Odejobi OJ. Utilization of response surface methodology (RSM) in the optimization of crude oil refinery process, new Port-Harcourt Refinery, Nigeria. J Eng Sci Technol. 2016;3:4361–9.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.3403/03221508u.

  32. Kwon G, Engelhardt MD, Klingner RE. Parametric studies and preliminary design recommendations on the use of postinstalled shear connectors for strengthening noncomposite steel bridges. J Bridge Eng. 2012;17(2):310–7. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nielsen MP, Hoang LC. Limit analysis and concrete plasticity. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1201/b10432.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Godat A, Qu Z, Lu XZ, Labossière P, Ye LP, Neale KW. Size effects for reinforced concrete beams strengthened in shear with CFRP strips. J Compos Constr. 2010;14(3):260–71. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cc.1943-5614.0000072.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Buttry KE. Behaviour of stud shear connectors in lightweight and normal-weight concrete (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia) (1965).

  36. Ollgaard JG, Slutter RG, Fisher JW. Shear strength of stud connectors in lightweight and normal weight concrete. AISC Eng J. 71–10 (1971).

  37. An L, Cederwall K. Push-out tests on studs in high strength and normal strength concrete. J Constr Steel Res. 1996;36(1):15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974x(94)00036-h.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Aribert JM. Dimensionnement de poutres mixtes en connection partielle. In: Mixed structures including new materials, IABSE symposium, Brussels, pp. 215–220 (1990).

  39. Johnson RP, Molenstra N. Partial shear connection in composite beams for buildings. Proc Inst Civ Eng. 1991;91(4):679–704. https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1991.17485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lorenc W, Kubica E. Behaviour of composite beams prestressed with external tendons: experimental study. J Constr Steel Res. 2006;62(12):1353–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.01.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Xue W, Ding M, Wang H, Luo Z. Static behaviour and theoretical model of stud shear connectors. J Bridge Eng. 2008;13(6):623–34. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1084-0702(2008)13:6(623).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pimentel-Gomes F. Course of experimental statistics. Piracaicaba: FEALQ; 2000. p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gandomi AH, Alavi AH, Mousavi M, Tabatabaei SM. A hybrid computational approach to derive new ground-motion prediction equations. Eng Appl Artif Intell. 2011;24(4):717–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the entire technical staff of the structural laboratory, civil engineering department, University of Technology. Moreover, the first two authors thanks the support from the University of Baghdad.

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this research work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Reconstruction and Projects Department, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq

    Ali A. Abdulhameed & Ammar N. Hanoon

  2. Civil Engineering Department, University of Technology, Baghdad, 10071, Iraq

    Haider A. Abdulhameed & Aseel S. Mansi

  3. Transportation Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Al-Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, 10071, Iraq

    Qais S. Banyhussan

Authors
  1. Ali A. Abdulhameed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ammar N. Hanoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haider A. Abdulhameed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qais S. Banyhussan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aseel S. Mansi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali A. Abdulhameed.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdulhameed, A.A., Hanoon, A.N., Abdulhameed, H.A. et al. Push-out test of steel–concrete–steel composite sections with various core materials: behavioural study. Archiv.Civ.Mech.Eng 21, 17 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-021-00173-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-021-00173-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation