Analysis of Shear Connector of Steel–Concrete Composite Box-Girder Bridge Considering Interfacial Bonding and Friction
- 42 Downloads
Steel–concrete composite bridges consist of steel and concrete parts which are connected by shear connector such as the widely-used headed stud. Through the chemistry bonding, interface friction and mechanical action the two different materials parts are combined as a composite structure system. Because of the structural mechanism, longitudinal and lateral relative slip and normal separation between the concrete deck and steel girder flange will inevitably exist during the loading process. Further, the complex interface mechanical behavior causes difficulties with nonlinear numerical analysis. Multiple broken lines mode cohesive zone model considering bonding and friction is used in this paper to describe the tangent slip and normal crack of the interface. A zero thickness cohesive element was implemented via the user-defined element subroutine UEL in ABAQUS. Using this method, numerical simulation analysis of a two span composite continuous box-girder was carried out. Results showed load–displacement curves of the structure, relative displacement between the steel girder and the concrete slab interface, interface stress distribution, and internal force of shear studs. Discontinuous deformation numerical simulation has been realized, and effectiveness of the proposed method and accuracy of the program were verified. Although shear stress was assumed to be transmitted by shear connector in the design stage, interface bonding and friction resistance can affect the force state of the shear connector. Results of this study can be used for detailed analysis and evaluation of the composite box-girder bridge without the need to rely on the constitutive laws of shear connectors obtained from push-out tests.
KeywordsSteel–concrete composite bridge Mechanical behavior of interface Cohesive zone model Discontinuous deformation Numerical analysis Shear connector
The author gratefully acknowledge the support by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51608211), the National Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (No. 2017J05083), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. ZQN-711), and the Scientific Research Funds of Huaqiao University (No. 16BS403).
- Chapman, J. C., & Balakrishnan, S. (1964). Experiments on composite beams. Structural Engineer, 42(11), 369–383.Google Scholar
- Chen, D. (2012). Variational principles of partial-interaction composite beams and modified reduced stiffness method for calculating its deflection, Master Thesis, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou.Google Scholar
- Dörr, K. (1980). Ein Beitrag zur Berechnung von Stahlbeton-scheiben unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Verbund-verhaltens. Darmstadt: University of Darmstadt.Google Scholar
- Feih, S. (2005). Development of a user element in ABAQUS for modelling of cohesive laws. Denmark: Pitney Bowes Management Services Denmark A/S.Google Scholar
- Ling, D. S., Han, C., Chen, Y. M., & Lin, C. X. (2011). Interfacial cohesive zone model and progressive failure of soil–structure interface. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 33(9), 1405–1411.Google Scholar
- Liu, Y. Q. (2005). Steel-concrete hybrid bridge. Beijing: China Communications Press.Google Scholar
- Williamson, E. B., Kim, J., & Frank, K. H. (2010). Redundancy evaluation of twin steel box-girder bridges using finite element analyses. In Structures Congress 2010, Orlando, Florida, United States, pp. 2793–2802Google Scholar
- Wu, Y. F., & Chen, W. Q. (2010). Cohesive zone model based analysis of bond strength between FRP and concrete. Engineering Mechanics, 27(7), 113–119.Google Scholar
- Yamada, M., Pengphon, S., Miki, C., Ichikawa, A., & Irube, T. (2001). Shear strength of slab-anchor and adhesion fixing a non-composite girder bridge’s slab. Journal of Structural Engineering, 47(3), 1161–1168.Google Scholar
- Zhou, C. Y., Yang, W., & Fang, D. N. (1999). Cohesive interface element and interfacial damage analysis of composites. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 31(3), 372–377.Google Scholar