Design of Compozite Haunch Beams and Connections

DESIGN OF COMPOSITE
HAUNCH BEAMS AND CONNECTIONS

FOR LONG SPAN APPLICATIONS
BY
NG YIAW HEONG (BEng.(Hons.), MEng)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
A THESIS SUBMITTED
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY of SINGAPORE

2004
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge various
individuals for their guidance and encouragement in the course of this research.
Firstly, the author would like to express his appreciation for the constant guidance and
encouragement provided by his research supervisors, Professor N.E. Shanmugam and
Associate Professor J.Y. Richard Liew. This research work would not have been
completed without their continuous support.
Secondly, the author is fortunate to have received moral support and
understanding from Sze Ching; his wife and his parents. He would like to express
gratitude to them. For the authors 3 years-old and 1-year-old sons, Yan Zhang and
Ding Jie; the author could only apologize for not being able to keep them company
most of the time especially during the final stage of the study.
Last but not least, the assistance given by the lab officers during the
experimental testing in the Concrete and Structural Laboratory, National University of
Singapore is gratefully appreciated.
This research project was funded by the National University of Singapore
under a research grant (RP 930648). The support from Yongnam Engineering &
Construction Pte Ltd, Singapore who supplied the test specimens is gratefully
acknowledged.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
SUMMARY
vi
LIST OF TABLES
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
xiii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
xiv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 BACKGROUND
2.2 INTERNAL FORCES AND MOMENTS IN CONTINUOUS COMPOSITE HAUNCH BEAM
2.3 GLOBAL ELASTIC ANALYSIS OF NON-SWAY FRAME
2.4 PLASTIC HINGE ANALYSIS OF NON-SWAY FRAME
2.4.1 Rigid-Plastic Analysis
2.4.2 Elastic-Plastic Analysis
2.5 ANALYSIS OF HAUNCH SECTION
1
1
4
5
6
9
9
11
12
14
15
16
16
CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

- HAUNCH CONNECTION
3.1 GENERAL
3.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
3.2.1 Beam and column sections
3.2.2 Reinforcement bar
3.2.3 Concrete
3.3 FABRICATION OF TEST SPECIMENS
3.4 TEST SET-UP
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
25
iii
3.5 INSTRUMENTATION
3.6 TESTING PROCEDURE
3.7 DATA ASSESSMENT
3.7.1 Beam rotation, b
3.7.2 Column rotation, c
3.7.3 Connection rotation,
3.7.4 Inelastic Rotation, ie
3.8 JOINT STIFFNESS, RKI
3.9 JOINT ULTIMATE MOMENT, MU
3.10 JOINT ROTATIONAL CAPACITY, CD
3.11 HAUNCH CONNECTION CAPACITY
3.12 HAUNCH TOE MOMENT CAPACITY
3.13 JOINT TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.13.1 Comparison of test results
3.13.2 Connections H1 and H2
3.14 EFFECT OF SLAB REINFORCEMENT RATIO
3.15 EFFECTS OF HAUNCH LENGTH
3.16 CONCLUSIONS
26
26
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
34
36
37
38
40
40
41
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

- HAUNCH BEAM
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
4.2.3 Concrete
4.3 FABRICATION OF TEST SPECIMENS
4.4 TEST SET-UP
4.5 INSTRUMENTATION
4.6 TESTING PROCEDURE
4.7 BEAM TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.7.1 Beam Specimen B1
4.8 CONCLUDING REMARKS
CHAPTER 5 ANALYTICAL MODEL

5.1 GENERAL
5.2 COMPARISON OF PLASTIC HINGE ANALYSIS AND TEST RESULTS
5.3 ROTATION CAPACITY
5.3.1 General
5.3.2 Calculation of available rotation capacity of composite section
5.4 BEAM ANALYSIS
5.4.1 Composite Haunch Beam Properties
5.4.2 Composite Haunch Beam analysis
5.5 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
5.5.1 Nonlinear Analysis Software: - USFOS
59
59
60
60
61
61
61
62
65
65
66
66
69
71
73
105
105
105
108
108
109
111
111
115
116
116
iv
5.5.2 Modeling of Composite Haunch Beam

5.5.3 Results
5.6 LATERAL TORSIONAL INSTABILITY
5.6.1 General
5.6.2 Lateral Distorsional Buckling Design Method
116
117
117
117
118
CHAPTER 6 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

AND DESIGN EXAMPLE
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
6.3 ELASTIC GLOBAL ANALYSIS
6.4 PLASTIC HINGE ANALYSIS
6.5 DESIGN PROCEDURE FLOW CHART
6.6 DESIGN EXAMPLE
131
131
131
133
135
138
140
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND

PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE WORK
7.1 GENERAL
7.2 BEHAVIOUR OF THE COMPOSITE HAUNCH CONNECTION
7.3 BEHAVIOUR OF THE COMPOSITE HAUNCH BEAM
7.4 SECTION PROPERTIES AND FRAME ANALYSIS
7.5 FUTURE WORK
141
141
141
142
142
144
APPENDIX A DESIGN EXAMPLE
146
REFERENCES
154
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
160
SUMMARY
This thesis is concerned with the behaviour of steel-concrete composite
haunch connections and beams. Experiments were carried out to investigate the
moment rotation characteristics and ultimate capacity of these connections and
beams. Details of the experiments giving information on test specimens,
instrumentation, test set-up and test procedures are described. There are a total
of 10 haunch connections and 3 continuous composite haunch beam specimens
tested to failure. Results obtained for connection moment capacity, rotation
capacity and failure modes are presented. It is found that through proper design
and detailing, these connections display the characteristics of a rigid connection.
Optimum design of composite haunch beam can be achieved when plastic hinge
occurred at haunch toes followed by at the mid-span to form a plastic collapse
mechanism. Haunch toe could be designed as the weakest section to form a
plastic hinge with suitable amount of reinforcement in the slab and range of
haunch length. Experimental results show that composite haunch connection
exhibits a ductile moment-rotation behaviour and is able to redistribute moment
to the mid-span by loss of stiffness due to cracking of concrete slab and yielding
of either steel reinforcement or cross section. Study also has been carried out to
investigate the parameters that influence the stiffness, strength and rotation
capacity of composite haunch connections. Design guidelines for composite
haunch joints and beams are provided.
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 2
Table 2.1
Limits to redistribution of hogging moment to reduce (EC4)
Table 2.2
Maximum redistribution of negative moment in composite haunch

beam at ultimate limit state [Lawson 1989]
Chapter 3
Table 3.1
Details of joint test specimens
Table 3.2
Summary of universal section properties and tensile test results
Table 3.3
Summary of reinforcement bar properties and tensile test results
Table 3.4
Summary of concrete cube test results
Table 3.5
Summary of test results
Chapter 4
Table 4.1
Summary of concrete cube test results for beam specimen
Table 4.2
Details of beam test specimens
Chapter 5
Table 5.1
Comparison of test results with Plastic Hinge Theory
Table 5.2
Comparison of rotational capacity at Haunch Toe
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1
Haunch as Taper Section in Universal Beam
Figure 1.2
Cutting of Taper Section in Universal Beam
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1
Cross Section of Continuous Composite Beam
Figure 2.2
Sub-frame of Beam and Column in Non-sway Frames Analysis
Figure 2.3
Relation between Haunch Beam Elastic Resistance and Parent Beam

Plastic Resistance
Figure 2.4
Distorsional Buckling of Composite Beam
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1
Building Plan Layout for Joint Specimens'Design
Figure 3.2
Cruciform Joint Specimen
Figure 3.3
Test Specimen Ready for Concrete Casting
Figure 3.4
Typical Joint Test Specimen
Figure 3.5
Joint Test Specimen Ready for Testing
Figure 3.6
Instrumentation of Test Specimen
Figure 3.7
Definition of Rotation in a Joint
Figure 3.8
Moment-rotation Curve of Connection
Figure 3.9
Stress-strain Block of Haunch Connection
Figure 3.10(a) View after Failure of Specimen H1 and H2

Figure 3.10(b) View after Failure of Tension Bolt of Specimen H1 and H2
viii
Figure 3.11
Moment-Rotation Curve of H1 and H2
Figure 3.12
View after Failure of H3 and H4
Figure 3.13
Moment-Rotation Curve of H3
Figure 3.13
Figure 3.15
View after Failure of H5
Figure 3.16
Figure 3.17
Figure 3.18
Figure 3.19
Figure 3.20
Figure 3.21
Figure 3.21
Figure 3.23
Figure 3.24
Figure 3.25
Premature Failure of H10
Figure 3.26
Comparison of Load-Displacement Curve of H2,H4 and H6
Figure 3.27
Comparison of Load-Displacement Curve of H3, H4, H7 and H8
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1
Haunch Beam Test Specimen
Figure 4.2
Wooden Formwork of Beam Test Specimen
Figure 4.3
Beam Specimen Ready for Concrete Casting
Figure 4.4
Beam Specimen Ready for Testing
Figure 4.5
Isometric View of Haunch Beam Test Specimen
ix
Figure 4.6
Schematic Loading of Haunch Beam Test Specimen
Figure 4.7
Loading Frame in Haunch Beam Test Specimen
Figure 4.8
Loading Frame Connected to Hydraulic Actuator
Figure 4.9
Larger Haunch Connection at Cantilever Beam Side
Figure 4.10
Instrumentation of Beam Specimen
Figure 4.11
View after Failure of Specimen B1
Figure 4.12
Load-Displacement Curve of Specimen B1
Figure 4.13
Inelastic Buckling in Compression Flange of the Beam B1
Figure 4.14
Crushing of Concrete Slab at Loading Point in Beam B1
Figure 4.15
Concrete Slab Cracking Pattern of the Beam B1 at Haunch Toe
Figure 4.16
Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B1 at Left Haunch Toe at

Different Load Stage
Figure 4.17
Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B1 at Right Haunch Toe at

Figure 4.18
Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B1 at Left Loading Point at

Figure 4.19
Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B1 at Right Loading Point at

Figure 4.20
Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B1 at Left

Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage
Figure 4.21
Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B1 at Right

Figure 4.22
Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B1 at Left Loading Point at

Figure 4.23
Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B1 at Right Loading Point

at Different Load Stage
Figure 4.24
Figure 4.25
Inelastic Buckling of Compression Flange of the Beam B2
Figure 4.26
Figure 4.27

Figure 4.28

Figure 4.29

Figure 4.30

Figure 4.31

Figure 4.32

Figure 4.33

Figure 4.34

Figure 4.35
Figure 4.36
View after Failure of Specimen B3
Figure 4.37
Inelastic Buckling of Left Haunch Flange of the Beam B3
Figure 4.38
Inelastic Buckling of Right Haunch Flange of the Beam B3
Figure 4.39
Figure 4.40

Figure 4.41

Figure 4.42
Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B3 at Right Haunch Heel at

Figure 4.43
Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B3 at Left Haunch Heel at

Figure 4.44

xi
Figure 4.45

Figure 4.46

Figure 4.47

Figure 4.48

Figure 4.49

Figure 4.50
Comparison of Load-Displacement Curve for Specimens B1, B2 and

B3
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1(a) Haunch Beam with 2 Point Loads
Figure 5.1(b) Collapse Mechanism in Haunch Beam
Figure 5.1(c) Moment Diagram of 2 Point Loads
Figure 5.1(d) Moment Diagram of Haunch Toe Loads
Figure 5.1(e) Moment Diagram of 2 Point Loads and Haunch Toe Loads
Figure 5.2
Moment-Rotation Curve according to Kemp, (1991)
Figure 5.3
Plastic Region near the Internal Support of Continuous Beam
Figure 5.4
Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curve for Connection H3
Figure 5.5
Figure 5.6
Figure 5.7
Figure 5.8
Figure 5.9
Figure 5.10
Cross Section of Haunch Beam with PNA at Beam Flange
xii
Figure 5.11
Cross Section of Haunch Beam with PNA at Beam Web
Figure 5.12
Modeling of Haunch Beam in Finite Element Software USFOS
Figure 5.13
Comparison of USFOS and Experimental Load-Displacement Curves

for Beam B1
Figure 5.14

for Beam B1
Figure 5.15

for Beam B1
xiii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A
Section area
Af
Flange area
Aw
Web area = A - 2Af
Beam Width
Be
Concrete effective width
Diameter
Beam Depth
Dh
Depth of Haunch
E1
Strain energy absorbed in lateral bending of the bottom flange
E2
Torsional energy absorbed in twisting the bottom flange
E3
Bending energy absorbed in displacing the web
E4
Torsional energy absorbed in twisting the web
E5
Work done by the compressive force in the bottom flange
E6
Work done by the forces in the web
Connection rotation
Inelastic available rotation
Parameter IcL/(Ibch)
Cd
Joint rotational capacity
fcu
Concrete Compressive Strength
Required Elastic rotation
FEM
Fixed-ended moment of the beam under the same loading condition
Required Inelastic rotation
fu
Steel Ultimate strength
Rotational capacity
Ultimate strength of flange
fuf
xiv
fur
Rebar Ultimate strength
fuw
Ultimate strength of web
fy
Steel Yield strength
fyf
Yield strength of flange
fyr
Rebar Yield strength
fyw
Yield strength of web
mr
Partial material factor
Length of column from floor to floor
LT
Perry Coefficient
Ibc
Second moment of area of the uncracked composite beam
Ic
Second moment of area of the column
Length of the beam (including the haunch)
Slenderness of the beam length between restraints
Length between hinges at both ends
Le
Span of the beam between the end of the haunches
Li
Length between maximum moment and adjacent point of inflection
LT
Equivalent Slenderness
Lp
Plastic region of the flange
Mhe
Elastic Moment Resistance of Haunch Section
Mhu
Moment capacity of composite haunch connection
Mn
Negative moment
Mnc
Negative moment resistance of the composite beam
Mp
Design moment resistance
Mpc
Positive moment resistance of the composite beam
Mph
Plastic moment capacity of hogging region
Mps
Plastic moment capacity of sagging region
Ms
Elastic Moment Resistance of Steel Beam Section
xv
Mu
Moment resistance
Slenderness correction factor (for shape of bending moment diagram)
Point Load
py
Design strength for steel
Beam rotation
Column rotation
ie
Inelastic rotation
ra
available rotational capacity a / e (Non-dimension)
Rb
Bolt in tension
Rhf
Haunch flange capacity
Rhw
Haunch web capacity
Rki
Joint stiffness
Rki
Rotational stiffness
Rr
Reinforcement in tension
rr
Required rotation capacity r / e (Non-dimension)
Thf
Thickness of haunch flange
thw
Thickness of haunch web
Buckling parameter (0.9 for universal sections)
vt
Slenderness factor (including torsional stiffness and other effects).
wu
Factored design load on the beam
yc
Distance from the top of haunch flange
xvi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Composite structures comprising of steel frames and concrete floors were
introduced in the last century and are now commonly used in modern buildings. These
kinds of construction method are widely used now because of structural economy
with fast speed of construction. Interaction between steel and concrete is achieved by
connecting them by means of shear connectors. Metal decking may be used as
permanent formwork to support any load during construction and later to act
compositely with the hardened concrete slab to form a composite slab.
There are a number of advantages in using composite beams. Firstly, the
total steel weight reduces significantly by 30 to 50 % compared with non-composite
beams (Narayanan, 1991, Lawson, 1995, Uy & Liew, 2003). Composite beams also
provide larger stiffness that will reduce the depth of the beam for the same span. This
results in lower storey heights and savings in cladding costs or, alternatively,
permitting more headroom for services. Another benefit of composite construction is
the metal decking which supports construction loads and acts as a working platform.
The decking also acts as transverse reinforcement to the composite beams and
distributes shrinkage strains and prevents serious cracking of concrete.
Besides the advantages mentioned above, a strong demand for large columnfree space in buildings in recent times has necessitated further research into the
behaviour of haunch beams since they are considered to be an efficient and
economical form for long span construction. This system is able to offer more variety
to the designer in planning the usage of the column-free space. There are several
types of structural options for achieving long span and incorporating of services
within normal floor zones. These include (Lawson and Rackham, 1989, Owen, 2000):
i)
Beams with web openings
ii)
Castellated beams
iii)
Fabricated beams with tapered web
iv)
Trusses
v)
Stub girders
vi)
Parallel beam grillage systems
vii)
Haunch beams
Haunch beams in this thesis are defined as beams being stiffened at two ends
with a tapered triangular T-Section as shown in Fig.1.1. The tapered section is usually
cut from a similar section. Fig.1.2 shows two typical tapered sections being cut from a
universal beam. These tapered sections will then be welded to the beam ends and
usually there are end plates at both ends of the beam as shown in the diagram.
Haunch beams are designed by assuming a rigid moment connection between
the beams and columns. Depth and length of a haunch are chosen so that they result in
an economical method of transferring moment into the column and in a reduction of
beam depth to a practical minimum. Haunch composite beams in which steel beams
are designed to act in conjunction with a concrete slab of definite width could result in
shallow beams, provide sufficient rotation capacity of the connection that will permit
a redistribution of the moment and thus mobilise a full sagging capacity of the beam
resulting in an economical design. Furthermore, haunch beam systems could also
provide a long unobstructed space for services and increase speed of construction.
One of the common scenarios in steel construction is opening for services. Usually
web of the steel beam need various sizes of penetration for mechanical and electrical
services. Those penetrations normally are required to be strengthened by extra
stiffeners which directly increase the fabrication cost. Therefore, it is not cost
effective to create openings unless really there are no other choices. However, with
the haunch beam system, the space at the haunch region could offer more freedom for
Mechanical & Electrical services and less co-ordination between the steel contractor
and the M&E engineers during the construction stage. This will definitely increase the
production of steelwork and indirectly increase the construction speed.
Haunch composite beams may offer continuity at the beam-column support
and hence increase the structural performance of the system as a continuous beam. A
continuous beam could offer about 33% of strength compared with a simply
supported beam system. The continuity in composite beams provides benefits at both
the ultimate and serviceability limit states for long span structures. For instance, the
deflection of the beam could be easily 50% less for a continuous beam compared with
the simply supported beam system. However, one of the shortcomings in continuous
composite beams is that the composite sagging section capacity is always larger than
the hogging moment. For a continuous composite beam such as a parallel beam
grillage system, the negative bending at internal supports is generally significantly
less than the resistance in positive bending in the midspan region. Therefore, the
introduction of a haunch may be an option to overcome the shortcoming because it
will increase the hogging section capacity. And if necessary, tension reinforcement
could be added thus increasing the hogging capacity. Test results show that the
hogging capacity is as high as the sagging section capacity when sufficient tension
reinforcement is placed at the concrete slab at the hogging region. The ultimate
strength of composite beams under sagging moment has been well established and
Eurocode 4 has offered detailed design guideline. However, under hogging moment,
many tests have been conducted (Hamada 1976) and the results have shown that the
majority of beams failed as a result of local buckling. Tests have shown that the
width-thickness ratio for the flange of the steel section and the amount of longitudinal
slab reinforcement are significant factors affect local flange buckling. Therefore, it is
important to find out the factors that affect the design of haunched composite beams
so that the structural system will be utilised more efficiently.
Eurocode 4 defines composite connection as the one, which the reinforcement
in the joint is intended to provide resistance in tension. The tensile action of the slab
reinforcement increases both the resistance and stiffness compared with the structural
steel connection. However, the connections will usually be partial-strength
connections relative to the composite section next to the connection. Therefore,
haunches could be introduced to provide full continuity, which strengthens the
connection between the steel sections. For economy in composite beam design, both
the hogging end resistance and the mid-span sagging resistance should be well utilised
as it will be shown in the proposed experimental program that the hogging and
sagging resistance of the composite haunch beam can be proportioned to achieve an
optimum design. It is also noticed that by introducing the haunch in the steel
connection, the rotational capacity at the joint is almost not required because both the
hogging and sagging section capacity are reached at the same time. The philosophy of
this design concept is that the ductility (i.e. rotation capacity) is no longer important if
the hogging and sagging section capacity is achieved simultaneously. This is unlike
the composite joint without haunch which requires that they have both sufficient
strength and ductility. In addition, the connection moment capacity should be greater
than the applied moment, and the connection capacity should be larger than that
required to develop the moments in the beam at the ultimate limit state.
1.2 Research Objectives

The main objective of this research is to study experimentally the behaviour of
composite haunch connections and composite haunch beams with tension
reinforcement subjected to negative moment condition in order to simulate the joint in

non-sway composite frames. Parameters such as reinforcement ratio and haunch
length are varied in the experimental program. The effects of these parameters with
respect to moment capacity, rotational stiffness, rotation capacity are studied. The
results will be used to develop analytical and design guidelines for composite haunch
beams. The key joint properties, i.e. moment resistance Mu, rotational capacity
u,
rotational stiffness Ki are evaluated for global frame analysis.
1.3 Scope of works

In this thesis, literature related to composite haunch connections and
composite haunch beams are reviewed. The scope of literature study is not only
limited to haunch connections. Non-haunch connections were also studied and
comparisons made between haunch and non-haunch composite connections.
A series of composite haunch connections and composite continuous haunch
beams were tested to failure in the laboratory. All the experimental results are
reported in detail. The experimental study also includes the behaviour of the
composite haunch connection and haunch beam illustrated by their moment-rotation
curves. The effects of parameters such as reinforcement ratio, haunch length and the
moment-rotation curve are investigated.
Analytical models for the prediction of moment resistance Mu, rotational
capacity
and rotational stiffness Ki of the composite haunch beam are established.
Results obtained from experiments are compared against the analytical model. And
finally, design guidelines for composite haunch beam are provided.
1.4 Structure of the Thesis

The thesis contains seven chapters. Chapter 1 gives the general description of
the advantages of composite construction and in particular composite haunch beam
construction. The need for further research on composite haunch beam construction in
long span application is presented and the objectives and scope of the research are
highlighted in the chapter.
Chapter 2 reviews the literature on haunch beam construction; both
experimental and analytical studies for braced and sway frame since 1972 are
covered. Various types of constructions other than haunch beam constructions are also
studied here and the pros and cons of these construction methods are presented. This
chapter also describes different types of analyses for composite haunch beams.
Considering the studies carried out by the previous researchers, the direction for the
present study is illustrated.
Chapter 3 describes the experimental program for haunch connections in nonsway composite frames. Details of the test set-up and parameters varied in the
investigation are given. Materials for the test specimens with their mechanical test
results is presented here. This chapter also explains the loading procedure for the
testing. Test results obtained from the experiments is also presented which includes
the beam behaviour from the initial stage to the ultimate stage. The actual behaviour
of composite haunch connections is discussed systematically by comparing among the
test specimens. Failure modes of those specimens are identified and the effects of the
parameters illustrated.
Chapter 4 describes the experimental program for haunch beam construction.
Three composite haunch beam specimens of 8m span were tested to failure. Details of
the test set-up and the parameters varied in the experimental program are given.
Besides, this chapter explains the loading procedure for the beam testing. Test results
obtained from the experiments are presented covering the response behaviour from
the initial load stage to the ultimate load stage. The actual behaviour of composite
haunch connections is discussed by comparing among the test specimens. Failure
modes of those specimens are identified and the effects of the key design parameters
are illustrated.
Chapter 5 presents analytical models to predict the moment capacities,
rotational capacity and initial stiffness of composite haunch connections. The results
obtained in the experimental program are compared with those obtained using the
analytical models proposed, thus verifying the models. In addition, non-linear finite
element analysis is used to confirm further the experimental results and analytical
model.
Chapter 6 presents design recommendations and an example for the composite
haunch construction. Conclusions and recommendations for future research are given
in Chapter 7.
Universal Column
Universal beam
Tapered Section
Tapered Section
Fig. 1.1 Haunch as Tapered Section in Universal Beam
Tapered Section
Universal Beam
Cutting Line
Fig.1.2 Cutting of Tapered Section in Universal Beam
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Background
Researchers (Aribert and Raoul, 1992, Cosenza et al., 1995a, Climenhaga and
Johnson, 1972a, Couchman, 1996, Dekker et al., 1995, Fabbrocino et al., 2001,
Hamada and Longworth, 1976, Hamada and Longworth, 1974, Hope-Gill and
Johnson, 1976, Johnson and Chen, 1991, Kemp and Dekker, 1991, Leon, 1990, Liew
et al., 2001, Lukey and Adams, 1969, Price and Anderson, 1992, Tehami, 1997) have
proposed design methods for simple or continuous composite beams, the cross section
of which is as shown in Fig. 2.1. Required and available rotation capacities for the
section have been considered and the accuracy of the prediction method has been
assessed by comparing the theoretical and experimental results. Research works
referred above comment on the composite beam behaviour but seldom consider the
sub-assemblies of composite frame. Early work by Kitipornchai and Trahair, 1972 has
shown that uniform beams are not always the most efficient choice and often great
material economy can be achieved by using non-uniform beams such as haunch beam.
The research work reported herein is to incorporate composite haunch connection as
the joint in a sub-assembly. Unlike the Reduced Beam Section (often referred to as
dogbone (Plumier, 1997)) which is accomplished through an engineered gradual
transition of the beam flanges to the intended reduced section at a given location, the
haunch connection strengthens the connection and allows the formation of plastic
hinges at a designated location (Iwankiw, 1997). Haunch composite beams are
designed in a similar manner to continuous beams of uniform section (Lawson and
Rackham, 1989). The critical section for design is at the haunch toe, and the depth of
the haunch is prefixed to develop the required moment in the beam to column
connection.
Intensive research is in progress on composite frame design and methods have
been proposed to achieve an optimum and economical design. One of the most
popular design directions is to incorporate the concepts of semi-rigid and partial
strength connections and semi-continuous framing of EC4 (Nethercot, 1995). In
semi-continuous construction, the support moments are limited to the capacities of the
beam to column connections and the plastic rotations are required to develop the
beams sagging moment capacity to achieve the design moment (Nethercot et al.,
1995). A comprehensive guideline (Li et al., 1995) has been proposed for the design
of semi-continuous composite beams in braced frames where special attention is given
to the effects of joint rotational stiffness.
Tests were carried out (Aribert and Raoul, 1992, Hope and Johnson, 1976) in
order to calibrate analytical models (Tehami, 1997) and to investigate rotation and
moment capacities in composite beams. Local Buckling and moment redistribution in
composite beams have also been studied (Climenhaga and Johnson, 1972b, Johnson
and Chen, 1991); it has been concluded that the redistribution of elastic bending
moments allowed by Eurocode 4 is safe, economical and reflects the real behaviour of
two span composite beams. For beams continuous over more than two spans the
method is believed to be slightly conservative.
Another alternative of composite frame design is to provide composite
connections up to the full hogging resistance of the beam. This is accompanied by
sufficient rotation capacity at the connection to permit the moment redistribution in
continuous composite construction to mobilize the full sagging capacity of the beam
at mid-span to reach an optimum design. A series of tests on composite beam-to-
10
column connections have been carried out by Anderson, (1994) and the results show
that increasing the amount of reinforcement will not only increase the moment
resistance but also increase the rotation capacity of the composite section. Besides,
investigations (Nethercot, 1995, Nethercot and Li, 1995) into the behaviour of
composite connections and continuous composite frames have shown that properly
designed and detailed composite connections are capable of providing moment
capacity up to the full hogging resistance of the beam. It is also concluded that elastic
analysis assuming full continuity is not acceptable for composite frames because it
fails to meet the moment capacity requirement at the support section and it is overconservative for sections within the span.
Despite the detailed studies on composite beams, information available on
composite haunch beams is limited. Works by Rackham, (1992) and Boswell, (1992)
have shown that haunches are sufficiently stiff as full strength rigid connections and
the toe is restrained from distorsional buckling when full depth stiffeners are provided
on both sides of the web. Failure modes of haunch toes often involves local buckling
of the compression flange. Investigation of this local buckling has been carried out by
many researchers (Climenhaga and Johnson, 1972a & b, Kitipornchai and Trahair
1975a & b, Lay, 1965, Lay and Galambos, 1965, Nethercot, 1975 & 1983, Nethercot
and Trahair, 1976, Trahair and Kitipornchai, 1972, Trahair, 1983). In order to study
further applications of haunch connections in long-span composite construction a
study has been undertaken by the author on the behaviour of haunch connections
2.2
Internal forces and moments in continuous composite haunch beam

The internal forces and moments in a continuous haunch composite beam may
generally be determined using either:

a)
Global elastic analysis or

11
b)
Plastic hinge analysis
2.3 Global elastic analysis of Non-Sway Frame

Elastic analysis may be used for determining the forces and moments in
continuous beams. The assumption used in global elastic analysis is that the stressstrain relationship for the material is linear elastic but the tensile strength of concrete
is neglected.
This assumption is valid for first-order and second-order elastic
analyses, even though section capacity is evaluated based on plastic resistance.

Referring to Fig. 2.2, a sub-frame can be assumed in an analysis of the beam
members of non-sway frames under vertical loads; the column bases are assumed to
be fixed or pinned at foundations. The sub-frame is then analysed elastically under
various load combinations.
The magnitude of the negative moment largely depends on the relative
stiffness of the adjacent column and beam. If the beam stiffness is underestimated, the
negative beam moments and the column moments are over estimated. The stiffness of
the haunch largely compensates for any loss of stiffness of the beam due to concrete
cracking. Ignoring both effects is generally conservative for braced frames as it is
usually the consideration of the negative moment region that determines the sizing of
the steel beam.
Taking the simple case of a single-bay haunch beam with column above and
below the beam being analysed, the negative moment at the beam end is given by:
Mn
4 c
FEM
4 c + 1
(Eq 2.1)
Mn
FEM =
Negative moment
the fixed-ended moment of the beam under the same loading condition
12
the parameter IcL/(Ibch)
Ic
the second moment of the area of the column
the length of column from floor to floor
Ibc
the second moment of area of the composite beam (assumed

uncracked)
the length of the beam (including the haunch)
In global elastic analysis, certain percentages of moment redistribution from

the hogging (negative) to sagging (positive) moment regions of the beam is allowed.
The redistribution of moment arises from cracking and loss of stiffness of the
composite section and local yielding of the steel beam. The degree of the local
yielding is influenced by classification of the composite section.
Parametric studies show that the length of the haunch does not significantly
affect the bending moment distribution in the beam from elastic global analysis
(Lawson, 1989). Therefore, the haunch length can be varied so that the moment
resistance of the beam is compatible with the designed moment. The haunch toe is the
potential zone subjected to loss of stiffness due to steel yielding and concrete
cracking, the maximum moment redistribution therefore applies at this region.
Equilibrium is maintained by increasing the positive moment by the magnitude of
redistributed moment from the haunch toe.
The elastic bending moment for a continuous composite beam of uniform
depth within each span may be modified by reducing maximum hogging moments by
amounts not exceeding the percentages given in Eurocode 4 as shown in Table 1. In
addition, Lawson, (1989) proposed a different redistribution of moments for
continuous composite haunch beams as shown in Table 2.2.
13
Table 2.1 Limits to redistribution of hogging moment to reduce. (Eurocode 4)

Class of cross section in hogging moment
region
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
For "Uncracked" elastic analysis (Haunch

ignored)
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
For "cracked"
ignored)
25 %
15 %
10 %
0%
elastic
analysis
(Haunch
Table 2.2 Maximum redistribution of negative moment in composite haunch beam at ultimate
limit state. (Lawson, 1989)
Class of cross section in hogging moment Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4
region
For "cracked"
included)
elastic
analysis
(Haunch
30 %
20 %
10 %
0%
By comparing the percentages of moment redistribution at the haunch joint

proposed in Eurocode 4, Lawson (1989) suggested additional 5% moment
redistribution for class 1 and class 2 sections.
2.4 Plastic hinge analysis of Non-Sway Frame
Plastic hinge analysis may be carried out using either

-
Rigid-Plastic Methods or
Elastic-Plastic Methods
When using the Plastic global analysis, it is essential to make sure that
restraint be provided within a distance along the member from the theoretical plastic
hinge location not exceeding half the depth of the member (Eurocode 3, 1992).
Experimental results (Rackham, 1992) show that the haunch toe position is restrained
when a full depth stiffener is provided both sides of the web at haunch toe, and when
minimum shear connection is maintained over the hogging region (for haunch length
less than twice the depth of beam)(Boswell, 1992).
14
2.4.1 Rigid-Plastic Analysis
It is assumed in the rigid-plastic analysis approach that elastic deformations of

the member are neglected and plastic deformations are assumed to be concentrated at
plastic hinge locations. Rigid-Plastic Analysis can only be used where the section is
'
Plastic'or '
Class 1'
. This is one of the requirements in Eurocode 4 and it is assumed
that a '
Plastic'section has sufficient rotation capacity to enable the required hinge to
develop. However, the code also recognises some loss of rotation capacity due to local
buckling will be offset by the beneficial effect such as strain hardening and the finite
length of plastic regions. Due to this effect, the cross sections away from the
theoretical location are also in Class 1, or at least Class 2. Class 2 cross sections are
defined as sections that can develop the plastic moment capacity although local
buckling limits the rotation capacity and prevents full redistribution of moment at
such sections, (Price, 1992).
The test results show that the composite haunch connection is very rigid and the
connection rotation is negligible. However, failure does not occur at the composite
haunch connection because the weaker component of the composite haunch joint is at
the haunch toe. Thus, instead of the haunch connection, the haunch toe is tested to
failure. There is sufficient rotation capacity at the haunch toe for a plastic mechanism
to form in a beam even though '
Compact'or '
Class 2'section classified by Eurocode 4
is used.
The collapse load of a uniformly loaded beam is defined by the plastic failure
mechanism of the beam between the tips of the haunches, such that:
M pc
M nc
wu
L2e
8
(Eq. 2.2)
15
Mpc =
the positive moment resistance of the composite beam (or Mc taking

into account partial shear connection)
Mnc =
the negative moment resistance of the composite beam at the tip of the
haunch
wu
the factored design load on the beam
Le
the span of the beam between the end of the haunches
The plastic failure load of other load arrangements of a beam may be

determined from first principles.
2.4.2 Elastic-Plastic Analysis
Elastic-Plastic Analysis consists of two different methods. The first method is

'
Elastic Perfectly-Plastic'which assumes that the cross-section remains fully elastic
until the plastic resistance moment is reached and then becomes fully plastic. The
second method is '
Elasto-Plastic'which shall take account of the load/slip behaviour
of the shear connection. So far, there are no application rules given for these methods
in the Eurocode 4.
2.5 Analysis of Haunch Section
In the continuous beam design, most of the approaches are based on either
elastic or plastic design. In the elastic analysis, a structure is analyzed based on elastic
global analysis and a moment envelope is obtained to design the structure. The design
has to satisfy both the ultimate and serviceability limit states. Moment redistribution is
allowed for the structure and the percentage of moment redistribution depends on
section classification. The second approach, plastic analysis is valid when critical
cross-sections are capable of developing and sustaining their plastic resistance until
the sections have fully yielded for a mechanism of plastic hinges to be present. This
16
analysis requires sufficient rotation capacity to develop a plastic hinge. Thus, class
1 or class 2 sections have to be used although local buckling limits the rotation
capacity and prevents full moment redistribution in class 2 sections, (Price, 1992).
Composite haunch beam design is based on the concept of rigid connection
thus avoid failure at beam-column connections. By strengthening the connection with
haunch, the failure mode of the joint will not occur at the connection. Instead, it shifts
the failure to the haunch toe. As long as the haunch toe is sufficient to redistribute the
moment to the sagging mid-span causing the formation of plastic hinge at mid-span,
an optimum design is achieved. In the proposed method, the beam-column connection
is the haunch connection.
Additional reinforcement in the concrete slab provides more tension resistance
at the haunch toe section. According to the classification system in Eurocode 4, large
amounts of reinforcement result in shifting of the plastic neutral axis. The steel beam
is subjected to more compression and the section may become a non-compact or
slender section, and the available rotation capacity is reduced. The percentage of
moment redistribution is, therefore, reduced further. Thus, there is always an optimum
amount of reinforcement to be used in a composite section. The increase in
reinforcement will result in an increase in moment capacity and drop in the available
rotation capacity. A balance must, therefore, be achieved between the available
rotational capacity and moment redistribution. An increase of reinforcement in a
section also increases the second moment of inertia. It carries larger moment when
moment redistribution occurs in a section with large reinforcement, the percentage of
moment redistribution may be less, but the moment that is transmitted to the mid-span
becomes more and hence the load carrying capacity is enhanced.
17
In practice, the bending resistance of the haunch section is evaluated

elastically to ensure the formation of a plastic hinge at the haunch toe with sufficient
rotational capacity. The problem of instability can be treated by conventional theory.
An approximate relationship between the elastic resistance of a haunch beam and the
plastic resistance of the parent beam is shown in Fig. 2.3. (Lawson, 1989)
In the composite condition the upper flanges of the steel beams are assumed to
be laterally and torsionally restrained by the concrete or composite slab to which they
are attached. In continuous beams, the lower compression flange is unrestrained
except the distorsional stiffness of the cross section. This is illustrated in Fig. 2.4. The
effective slenderness of the beam in lateral torsional buckling is designed as per BS
5950:Part 1 (2000) as:
LT = n u vt
(Eq 2.3)
slenderness of the beam length between restraints
slenderness correction factor (for shape of bending moment diagram)
buckling parameter (0.9 for universal sections)
vt
slenderness factor (including torsional stiffness and other effects).
18
Secondary
Beam
Detail 1
Concrete slab
Primary
Beam
Slab
Reinforcement
Shear
Stud
concrete slab
Universal Beam
Detail 1
Fig. 2.1 Cross Section of Continuous Composite Beam
Span Considered
a) Sub-Frame Used for

Analysis of Beam
Column
Considered
b) Sub-Frame Used for

Analysis of Column
Fig. 2.2 Sub-frame of Beam and Column in Non-sway Frames Analysis
19
4.0
M he
Ms
3.5
Dh
3.0
2.5
0.17
2.0
Dh
D
+ 0.7
Dh
D
1.5
M h e = elastic mom ent resista nce

of haunch se ction
1.0
M s = e lastic m ome nt re sistance

of stee l beam sec tion
0.5
0.0
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
Dep th of haunc h D h
D epth of se ction
3.0
Fig. 2.3 Relation between Haunch Beam Elastic Resistance and Parent Beam Plastic
Resistance (Lawson and Rackham, 1989)
=0
Fig. 2.4 Distorsional Buckling of Composite Beam
20
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
- HAUNCH CONNECTION
3.1 General
The primary aim of carrying out full-scale joint tests is to study the behaviour
of composite haunch connections. The behaviour of haunch connections and its
ultimate capacity predominantly depend upon haunch length, haunch depth, amount
of reinforcement in the slab and number of shear studs. Test samples were, therefore,
chosen to reflect the variation in these parameters.
Connection specimens were
designed with reference to a building plan layout shown in Fig. 3.1. Based on global
elastic analysis for typical design load of an office block (Refer to Beam 3/A-E), the
point of contraflexure was found to be at about 2 m from the column centreline
(Column C3). Joint specimens of cruciform section were used to simulate the internal
joint. 120 mm thick floor slab was made from normal weight concrete designed to 30
N/mm2. The cross-sectional area of slab reinforcement was determined based on the
span length, 8 m of the beams tested in the study.
The slab reinforcement was chosen as 1.34 and 2.62% relative to the effective
concrete area, which depends upon the effective slab width determined as per
Eurocode 4. Five test specimens of cruciform section were fabricated with each
specimen consisting of two different connections having different haunch length. The
depth of the haunch for all specimens was chosen equal to the depth of the universal
beam. The length was, however, varied from 250 to 968 mm in order to obtain
haunch lengths equivalent to 3.12, 5.41, 8.84 and 12.10 of the 8m beam span,
respectively. One specimen consisting of two connections was tested as a plain steel
specimen whilst the remaining four specimens were tested as composite connections.
21
Shear connection was provided by 19 diameter and 100 long studs, placed at 150
centres.
One or two shear studs per group were adopted depending upon the
percentage of reinforcement viz. 1.34 or 2.62, respectively. It is expected that the

variation of slab reinforcement and haunch length selected will provide sufficient
information regarding the effects of these parameters on the behaviour, ultimate
capacity and failure mode of the joints. The ten connections are identified in the text
as H1 to H10 and the details are summarised in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Details of test specimens

Specimen 1
Connection
Specimen 2
Specimen 3
Specimen 4
Specimen 5
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
H9
H10
None
None
1.34
1.34
2.62
2.62
1.34
1.34
2.62
2.62
Haunch Depth
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
Haunch Length
250
433
250
433
250
433
707
968
707
968
None
None
(13)
(13)
(26)
(26)
(13)
(13)
(26)
(26)
Reinforcement, %
Shear stud D19x95

mm at 150mm c/c per
group (Total Studs)
3.2 Material Properties

The steel members in the test specimens were all BS Grade 43 steel. Only one
size of universal beam and column was used in this project. They are summarised as
follow:
Universal beam
254 x 146 x UB 37
Universal column
203 x 203 x UC 60
To obtain the yield strength of the steel members, coupons were cut from the
flanges and webs of each beam and column. They were tested in accordance with the
ASTM specification (1979). The tensile test results of the specimens are listed in
22
Table 3. 2. The yield and ultimate strength of an I or H section was calculated by

using expressions as follow:
=
fy
fu
2 Af
Aw
f yw +
f yf
A
A
(Eq. 3.1)
2 Af
Aw
f uw +
f uf
A
A
(Eq. 3.2)
Where,
fy
Yield strength
fu
Ultimate strength
fyw
Yield strength of web
fuw
Ultimate strength of web
fyf
Yield strength of flange
fuf
Ultimate strength of flange
Aw
Web area = A - 2Af
Af
Flange area
Section area
Table 3.2 Summary of universal section properties and tensile test results
Section Attribute
Reference
Depth
Width
Yield
Ultimate
Strength
Strength
D(mm) B(mm)
(N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
254 x 146 UB 37
B2
256
146
309
414
203 x 203 UC 60
C2
210
205
328
498
The entire reinforcement bar in the test specimens was high strength deformed
bar. Table 3.3 shows the properties of the reinforcement bars:
Ref.
T20
Table 3.3 Summary of reinforcement bar properties and tensile test results
DiaArea
Yield strength
Average Ultimate strength Average
2
Meter
fyr(N/mm )
fyr
fur
fyr
(N/mm2)
D
(N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
(mm)
1
2
3
1
2
3
20
314
563 569 564
565
697 689 694
693
T16
16
201
475
498
480
484
585
588
580
584
T10
10
79
496
487
485
489
591
579
573
581
23
3.2.3 Concrete
Concrete in all the specimens was normal weight concrete with fcu designed to
be 45 N/mm2 at 28 days. The slump of the ready mixed concrete was designed to be
125 mm. Table 3.4 shows a summary of the cube test results of all the specimens on
the day of testing.
Table 3.4 Summary of concrete cube test results
Specimens
Date of
Concrete
casting
Date of
Testing
Day of
Testing
Concrete strength
on the day of testing
N/mm2
Cube 1
Cube 2
Cube 3
Not Applicable
Average
NA
H1 & H2
NA
03/01/97
NA
H3 & H4
10/01/97
20/01/97
10 days
44
42
44
43
H5 & H6
03/03/97
13/03/97
10 days
42
43
42
42
H7 & H8
14/04/97
28/04/97
14 days
44
42
45
43
H9 & H10
09/05/97
19/05/97
10 days
43
40
38
40
3.3 Fabrication of test specimens
Details of a typical test specimen are shown in Fig. 3.2. A universal beam
section 254 x 146 x UB37 and column section 203 x 203 x UC60 were used to
fabricate all test specimens. The column of 3480 mm long was first fixed to the top
and bottom girders of the testing rig.
A 20mm thick endplate was welded by means of 10mm fillet weld to the beam
end that is to be connected to the column. Beams 2020 mm long were then connected
on either side of the column through endplates, selected haunch section and high
strength bolts of BS 4390 Grade 8.8, 20 mm diameter. The bolts were tightened with
a torque wrench to 200 Nm. Care was taken to ensure that the column and the beam
sections lie in the same vertical plane. For composite specimens viz H3 to H10, shear
studs were welded to the top flange of the beam sections before being connected to
24
the column section. Once the fabrication of plain steel connections was complete,
formwork of required size i.e. slab depth and width, were built to the beam section;
reinforcement bars to achieve the selected proportion were laid and preparation for
casting concrete slabs were made. The depth and width of the concrete slab were
kept, respectively, as 120 mm and 1050 mm for all composite beams. Grade 30
concrete, made from locally available materials, was poured into the form work in
stages ensuring adequate compaction by means of vibrator. For concrete, 28-day
strength was achieved in 7 days by adding an admixture, trade named Rapidart.
Concrete cubes of sufficient number were cast along with the test specimens and they
were tested on the same day as that of the specimens. A typical test specimen, ready
for concreting, is shown in Fig. 3.3.
3.4 Test set-up
All specimens were tested to failure in a rig, 6 m long and of 1,000 kN capacity.
Two 50 tonne stroke-controlled hydraulic actuators (250mm stroke), attached to an
overhead reaction beam were used to apply the load at the free end of the specimen.
Each of the two actuators was positioned at a distance of 1.8 m from the face of the
column thus giving a moment arm of 1.8 m for the cantilever beam. These actuators
were operated by computer controlled pumps in order to ensure that the load
application was gradual and the increment properly controlled. The two ends of the
column in the sub-assembly being tested were connected to the longitudinal beams at
the top and bottom of the testing rig by means of pins. The testing frame is illustrated
in Fig. 3.4 and a typical assembly in which a specimen is mounted is shown in Fig.
3.5.
25
3.5 Instrumentation
The main objective of the joint tests was to obtain the full response of the joints in
terms of moment-rotation relationship. Moment was calculated using the equilibrium
of force and rotation and measured by using inclinometers and counter checked by the
results obtained from displacement transducers. Five inclinometers were placed along
the centreline of the beam section. One inclinometer, to measure the column rotation,
was located at the intersection of column and beam centrelines and in addition, two
inclinometers were placed one on each side of the column at a distance of 100 mm
from the haunch toe.
Three 50mm displacement strain gauge type transducers
(SGTD) were used to measure the displacement of the joint so that the joint rotation,
j could be calculated. They were attached to a rod parallel to the haunch at distances
of 100 mm, 200 mm and 300 mm measured from the column flange along the rod.
Details of the instrumentation are shown in Fig. 3.6. A 200 mm displacement
transducer was used to measure the vertical displacement at the loading point.
Electrical resistance strain gauges were used to measure the strain in the steel so as
to monitor yielding and to determine the failure modes. They were placed at points of
high stress intensity, at the top and bottom of the beam flanges near the column
flange, at the haunch toe and reinforcement bars as shown in Fig. 3.6. Besides, strain
gauges were also placed on some bolts connecting the beams to the column flange.
This was intended to enable the tensile forces in the bolts at each of the load steps to
be determined.
3.6 Testing procedure
After the specimen was positioned in place, loading and instrumentation

devices were connected to the data processing unit. All the readings, inclinometers,
26
transducers and strain gauges were initialized. Ten percent of the estimated failure
load was first applied to the specimen and all readings were checked for continuity
and proper recording by the data processing units. The load was then released and
reapplied in order to remove any slack that may exist at the support before the actual
testing of the joint. This process of repeated loading is expected to ensure proper
functioning of the load application and other measurement devices. The entire load
application was performed in three stages. In the first stage, load was applied until the
first crack was observed in the concrete and, in the second and third stages load was
increased up to 60% and 90% of the estimated load, respectively. In each stage, the
load was released after achieving the intended load and then reapplied. This process
of loading helps to obtain the rotational stiffness of the connection and to compare the
unloading stiffness at different loading stages.
In the final stage, loading was
continued until the failure of the specimen.

As mentioned earlier each of the specimens consisted of two connections,
one with a shorter haunch length and the other with a longer haunch length.
Therefore, the load application and other measurements were monitored separately.
Load was applied in equal increments to each of the connections at the initial stages of
loading. Once the weaker connection attained the load close to the failure load, care
was taken to balance the load on both connections. The weaker connection was
allowed to fail at its maximum capacity and the load on that connection was
maintained at that level whilst the load on the other connection was continued until it
reached its failure. The ultimate load and the failure mode for each of the connections
in a particular specimen were thus noted at the end of the test on that particular
specimen. The same procedure was repeated for all the five specimens.
27
3.7 Data assessment
Proper representation of moment-rotation curves obtained from joint tests is

essential for the analysis and design of continuous composite beams. It is, therefore,
essential to study in detail and select carefully to represent joint behaviour adequately.
Readings for rotation can be categorized into four types:
a. Beam rotation b,
b. Column rotation c,
c. Connection rotation ,
d. Inelastic rotation ie
3.7.1 Beam rotation, b
The rotation along the beam varies from the face of the column flange to the
end of the beam. It is assumed that connection rotation measured near the column
flange does not include the rotation due to beam flexure. This is because the beam
flexure is assumed to be very small and can be neglected at the section near the
column flange. Furthermore, with a haunch at the connection, the sections become
more rigid and thus, the beam flexural rotation is negligible.
3.7.2 Column rotation, c
Column rotation, c was measured by means of an inclinometer placed at the

intersection of column and beam centrelines. As a result of unbalanced moment or
unsymmetrical geometry about the centreline of the joint, the column will rotate and
the measured rotation is with reference to the vertical axis.
3.7.3 Connection rotation,
Connection rotation is defined as the relative rotation of the column and beam
at the joint as shown in Fig. 3.7. The connection rotations in these joint tests were
28
calculated based on the inclined transducers mounted on the column flanges. This
arrangement enabled the measurement of relative rotation between the columns and
the beams by subtracting the total joint rotation tot from c.
3.7.4 Inelastic Rotation, ie
Inelastic rotation, ie is defined as the rotation at a particular section after any

of the extreme fibres had yielded. This is especially applied at the haunch toe section.
During the elastic stage, no rotation occurred at the haunch toe because the tangent
line at this point will remain almost horizontal. Soon after the first yield, this point
will start to rotate. Although the entire section has not achieved the full plastic stage,
inelastic rotation starts to take place at this level of load. Inelastic rotation at the
haunch toe, ie can be seen in Fig. 3.7.
3.8 Joint stiffness, Rki
The joint stiffness of the joint can be divided as uncracked and cracked
stiffness. The uncracked stiffness is the gradient of the moment rotation curve before
cracking. The stiffness corresponding to cracking shall be obtained from the
unloading path as shown in Fig. 3.8. The stiffness of haunch joint can be divided into
two parts, first is the stiffness at connection and second is the stiffness at haunch toe
section.
3.9 Joint ultimate moment, Mu
The ultimate moment resistance of the joint Mu is equal to the peak value of
the moment-rotation characteristic as shown in Fig 3.8. For a full strength composite
haunch joint, the moment capacity of the haunch connection has to be greater or equal
29
to the hogging moment capacity of the composite section at the haunch toe. However,
certain criteria has to be followed to make sure failure occurred at the haunch toe.
3.10 Joint rotational capacity, Cd
The joint rotation capacity of a beam-to-column connection is taken as the

rotation achieved at the ultimate moment resistance of the joint (see Fig. 3.8).
3.11 Haunch Connection Capacity
The capacity of the haunch connection is calculated based on stress-strain theory:

i)
Haunch connection without slab reinforcement
The steel haunch connection tested in the project is shown in Fig 3.9. The
capacity of this joint can be determined as follows:
The bolt will fail in this haunch connection is accordance with the guideline by
the SCI/BCSA Connection Group (BCSA, 1995).
Only one row of bolt is used, thus the full tension capacity of the bolts is:
= Rb
< Rhf
Thus, taking moment about haunch flange

M hu = Rb x ( D Db + Dh T / 2)
(Eq. 3.3)
ii)
Haunch connection with slab reinforcement
Referring to Fig. 3.9, it is found that for specimens with 1.34 and 2.62% slab
reinforcement, the PNA lies in the haunch web when,
Rr + Rb < Rhf + Rhw
Thus, moment can be determined as follow :
yc
Rr + Rb Rhf
1.2 p y thw
Rhw = 1.2 yc p y t hw
M hu = Rr ( Dr + D + Dh Thf / 2) + Rb ( D Db + Dh Thf / 2) Rhw ( yc + Thf / 2)
(Eq. 3.4)
30
Mhu
Moment capacity of composite haunch connection
py
Design strength for steel
Rb
Bolt in tension
Rhf
Haunch flange capacity
Rhw
Haunch web capacity
Rr
Reinforcement in tension
thw
Thickness of haunch web
Thf
Thickness of haunch flange
yc
Distance from the top of haunch flange
Note : The factor 1.2 is used because strain hardening contributes 20% of dispersion
into the web and the root contributes 20% of bearing strength. If the contribution of
compression comes only from the haunch flange, a factor 1.4 can be used.
(SCI/BCSA 1995)
Although for end-plate composite connections, the first bolt row seldom
achieves its full tension capacity, for haunch composite connection the first bolt row
is always able to achieve it tensile yield capacity. This is because the PNA hardly over
the lever of first bolt row. And this is proved in one of the test in specimen H8.
3.12 Haunch toe moment capacity

Haunch toe moment capacity can be obtained based on Eurocode 4, clause 4.4.
The resistance of cross-sections of beams may be determined by plastic theory only if
the section is in Class 1 or Class2. And the following assumptions shall be made:
-
the tensile strength of the concrete is neglected
plane cross-section of the structural steel and reinforced concrete parts of a

composite member each remain plane.
31
3.13 Joint Test Results and Discussion

3.13.1 Comparison of test results
Ultimate moment obtained from the experiments along with those predicted by
the method given in Section 3.11 for all the test specimens are summarised in Table
3.5 (Shanmugam et. al., 2002). Also, the experimental values are compared with the
predicted results. Extensive measurements were made for strain and displacement at
various locations in the test specimens. However, only typical results at selected
locations are presented for dicussion. Detailed discussion is presented in the following
sections for each of the connections tested.
Table 3.5 Summary of Test Results
Prediction
Test
Specimen
Connection
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
H9
H10
(1) Ultimate load (kN)
138
117
162
181
222
241
258
312
306
(2) Haunch Toe Section

Capacity, kNm
251
248
344
330
282
334
(3) Haunch Heel

Connection Capacity,
kNm
247
211
562
(4) Ultimate load (kN)
130
130
165
187
206
233
233
296
292
(5) Haunch Toe Section

Capacity, kNm
255
255
319
319
255
319
319
(6) Haunch Heel

Connection Capacity,
kNm
234
234
533
Failure Mode
con
Con
toe
toe
toe
toe
toe
con
toe
Na
Ratio (1)/(4)
1.06
0.90
0.98
0.97
1.08
1.03
1.10
1.05
1.05
Na
*Failure of Joint H8 occurred at haunch heel. The value shows in the column are haunch heel failure moment. The
prediction is based on the plastic stress block theory as shown in Figure 3.9.

Views after failure of connections H1 and H2 (specimen 1) are shown in Fig.
3.10(a) and the corresponding moment rotation curves in Fig. 3.11. This specimen
was a plain steel haunch joint with haunch depth 250 mm and lengths 250 mm and
433 mm, respectively, for connections H1 and H2.
32
The moment at failure for the connection H1 was 247 kNm at the connection and
the corresponding value at the toe was 214 kNm. The connection lost the capacity to
carry further load due to the failure of bolts in tension (Refer 3.10(b)). The recorded
strain in the bolt was 2800 at failure. Yielding was also observed at several
locations in the steel beam prior to bolt failure. The first yielding was detected at the
compression flange near the haunch toe followed by tensile yielding of the web at the
haunch heel. High stress concentration was found to occur in the beam flange at the
intersection of the haunch toe with the beam. The steel beam section at the haunch
toe reached the calculated plastic capacity (150 kNm) prior to the bolt failure. All
strain gauges in the beam at the haunch toe section yielded at an applied moment
equal to 180 kNm. The connection continued to resist additional load until the failure
occurred due to tensile fracture of the bolts. The increase in moment capacity beyond
the beam plastic moment capacity may be attributed to strain hardening. Negligible
rotation was measured at the beam-to-column connection. The calculation of rotation
based on transducer readings showed that the rotation of the haunch connection was
less than 2 milliradians. Based on experimental values of strength and rotation, it is
concluded that this steel haunch joint is a rigid full-strength connection.
The maximum moment at failure in the case of connection H2 was 211 kNm at the
connection. Failure was triggered by tensile fracture at the bolt thread as in the case
of the connection H1. The recorded strain at the time of failure was 2900. The first
yield occurred in tension region at the haunch heel and was followed by compressive
yielding at the intersection of haunch toe with the beam flange. The distribution of
stress at the intersection of haunch toe with the beam flange was different from that of
H1. With longer haunch length, it was observed that web stiffener and inner beam
flange were subjected to large stress concentration compared to H1. Test results show
33
that when yielding occurred at compression beam flange, the stiffener and inner beam
flange at haunch toe intersection also yielded extensively. Corresponding applied
moment on the beam section at the haunch toe before the bolt failure was found as
160 kNm. This is in excess of plastic capacity (150 kNm) of the beam and it may be
due to strain hardening. Before the haunch toe section reached its ultimate capacity,
the haunch connection failed. As in the case of connection H1, there was negligible
rotation measured for this connection. The calculated connection rotation for this
steel haunch connection was less than 2 milliradians. This joint is also a rigid fullstrength connection as per Eurocode 3 connection classification.
Moment rotation curves in Fig. 3.11 show that H2 with longer haunch length is
less stiff compared to H1 with shorter haunch length. This may be due to the fact that
initial slackness on H2 side compared to H1 resulted in larger deflection on H2 side
and thus showed larger rotation. Also, no meaningful results could be obtained for
ultimate loads since failure occurred on both connections due to excessive tension in
the bolts. The ultimate moment for H1 and H2, therefore, do not compare favourably
with the corresponding predicted values.

Views after failure for connections H3 and H4 are shown in Fig. 3.12 and the
corresponding moment rotation relationships presented in Figs. 3.13 and 3.14,
respectively. Specimen 2 is a steel-concrete composite haunch joint. The concrete
slab was 120 mm thick, 1050 mm wide and, 1.34 % slab reinforcement consisting of 8
numbers of T16 deformed bars were used in the slab. The haunch depth and length are
250 mm.
The ultimate moment capacity for connection H3 was found as 251 kNm. Failure
occurred at the haunch toe where a plastic hinge was found to have formed. It can be
34
seen from Fig. 3.12 that the compression beam flange at the point of intersection with
the haunch toe has buckled. All the strain readings at the section, both in steel beam
and reinforcement bars, showed extensive yielding thus confirming the formation of
plastic hinge. Despite the formation of this hinge, the stress at haunch sections away
from the toe was generally found to be less than yield. No rotation was measured in
the haunch connection and it is, therefore, concluded that this steel-concrete haunch
connection is a rigid full-strength connection. Test results showed that the ultimate
moment capacity of the composite section (251 kNm) at haunch toe section was close
to the plastic capacity (255 kNm) determined as per Eurocode 4 thus establishing the
good correlation between the experimental and codal predictions. However, the code
does not seem to predict the stiffness of the composite section. One should appreciate
the fact that stiffness of the section is not a requirement in analysis since Plastic
Analysis requires only the ultimate moment and rotational capacities. As long as the
section is able to resist the limit load and provide sufficient rotation which allow
moment redistribution, connection stiffness is not a requirement in a rigid frame
analysis. It can be seen from Fig. 3.13 that the moment-rotation curve is steep in the
elastic range with rotation practically zero. The inelastic rotation at ultimate moment
is 27 milliradians.
The haunch depth and length for the connection H4 are 250 mm and 433 mm
respectively. The failure moment in this case was 248 kNm which is close to the
predicted capacity as per Eurocode 4. First yield was detected in the compression
region at the haunch toe near the beam flange and was followed by yielding in one of
the tension reinforcement bars. The compression beam flange at the junction with the
haunch toe was found to have buckled inelastically (Fig. 3.12). At ultimate stage,
yielding was detected only at the compression beam flange and tension reinforcement.
35
The haunch length in H4 was larger compared to H3. No yielding was noticed in
haunch flange and the compressive force could have been distributed to the stiffener
and inner beam flange.
connection.
No noticeable rotation was measured in the haunch
Fig. 3.14 shows the moment-rotation curve for a section at the haunch
toe. The inelastic rotation at ultimate moment was 55 milliradians, more than the
rotation for connection H3.

Views after failure of the connection H5 and the corresponding momentrotation curve are shown in Figs. 3.15 and 3.16, respectively. Similarly for the
connection H6, view of the tested specimen and the moment-rotation curves are
shown in Figs. 3.17 and 3.18. Specimen 3 consisting of connections H5 and H6 was
the same in all respects as the specimen2 except that the concrete slab was reinforced
with 2.62 %, 10 numbers of T20 deformed bars in this case.
The connection H5 failed at an ultimate moment of 344 kNm and the failure
occurred at the haunch toe where plastic hinge was formed. It can be seen from
Fig.3.16 that there is inelastic buckling in beam flange near the haunch toe. The
tension reinforcements were found to have yielded as shown by strain gauge readings.
Test results also indicated an extensive yielding in the compression beam flange and
the haunch near the toe was relatively unaffected until haunch toe moment reached a
value of 304 kNm. The rotation measured by the inclinometer C in the column was
very small and hence can be neglected. The ultimate moment capacity of composite
section (344 kNm) at haunch toe section is found to be close to the calculated plastic
capacity (319 kNm) in accordance with Eurocode 4. Fig. 3.16 shows the momentrotation curve at the haunch toe section from which it is found that the inelastic
rotation corresponding to the ultimate moment is 52 milliradians.
36
The haunch length in connection H6 was longer than that in H5. Fig. 3.18
shows the inelastic buckling in the beam flange and extensive yielding was observed
form the strain gauge readings located at the intersection of haunch toe with the beam
flange. The failure moment for this connection was 330 kNm, close to the moment
capacity predicted by using Eurocode 4. As in the other cases, the first yield was
detected at compression region at the haunch toe near the beam flange followed by
yielding in the beam web. The strain gauges in the tensile reinforcement also showed
yielding at a load corresponding to the ultimate condition. At the intersection of
haunch toe, yielding was observed in the compression beam flange and in the
stiffeners; the inner beam flange towards the haunch heel, however, did not show any
sign of yielding. Moment-rotation curve for a section at haunch toe shown in Fig.
3.18 shows an inelastic rotation of 45 milliradians corresponding to ultimate moment.

Figs.3.19 and 3.21 show the views after failure of connections H7 and H8.
Moment-rotation relationships for the connections are presented, respectively, in
Figs.3.20 and 3.22. These two connections have been tested as parts of the specimen
4 in which the haunch lengths were chosen approximately equal to three times as in
H7 and four times the depth as in H8. The reinforcement in the slab was kept the
same as in specimen 2.
The haunch length, 707 mm in connection H7 is equivalent to 8.84 % of the
design span. The failure moment for this connection was 282 kNm. The failure
occurred at the haunch toe (as shown in Fig. 3.19) where inelastic buckling was
observed. First yield was detected at the compression beam flange followed by
yielding in the beam web. Reinforcement in the slab were also found to have yielded
almost at the same time when yielding occurred in the compression zone of the beam
37
web. Thus the whole section at the haunch toe yielded leading to formation of plastic
hinge. Following the yielding at the compression beam flange at the toe, the beam
flange close to the haunch heel also yielded. Yielding was also noticed at the haunch
flange and web. The ultimate moment capacity for this connection was 282 kNm. It
is found that it is possible to control the failure mode by varying the haunch length
and that longer haunch length shifts the failure from haunch toe to haunch heel. Test
results revealed that the ultimate capacity of composite section (282 kNm) at haunch
toe section was close to the plastic capacity (255 kNm) calculated by Eurocode 4.
Fig. 3.20 shows the moment-rotation curve for a section at the haunch toe and that the
inelastic rotation at ultimate moment (282 kNm) is 21 milliradian.
Connection H8 is the same as H4 except that the haunch length in this case
was 968 mm or 12.10 % of an 8 m span beam. The view after failure of the specimen
is shown in Fig 3.21 in which it can be seen that failure occurred at the haunch heel.
The failure moment for this connection was found as 562 kNm close to the predicted
capacity of 533 kNm.
The first yield was detected at the compression beam flange
near the haunch toe and it was followed by yielding at the beam web. Compression
yielding of beam web continued towards the neutral axis. No further yielding was
detected at the haunch toe section. Yielding was found to occur next at the haunch
flange near the end-plate. Reinforcement bars in the slab were also found to have
yielded. Fig. 3.22 shows the moment-rotation curve at the haunch heel.

Fig.3.23 and Fig. 3.24 show the view after failure and the corresponding
moment-rotation curves of the connections H9. The specimen 5 was the same as
Specimen 4 except that the reinforcement in the earlier was 2.62 % consisting of T20
38
deformed bars. The difference between the connections H9 and H10 lies in the
haunch length which was 707 mm in H9 and 968 mm in H10.
Failure of the connection H9 occurred at the haunch toe and the maximum
moment at collapse was 334 kNm. Fig. 3.23 shows the inelastic buckling at the beam
flange near the haunch toe. The first yield was detected at the compression beam
flange followed by yielding in the beam web. Yielding of the reinforcements was also
noticed from strain gauge readings corresponding to ultimate load. The whole section
at the haunch toe was thus found to have fully yielded and plastic hinge formed.
Yielding was also observed at the inner beam flange at the haunch toe intersection.
The experimental value (334 kNm) of the ultimate capacity for the composite section
at the haunch toe is close to the calculated plastic capacity of 319 kNm as per
Eurocode 4. Fig. 3.24 shows the moment-rotation curve for the section at haunch toe.
The inelastic rotation corresponding to ultimate moment (334 kNm) is 43 milliradian.
toe. The inelastic rotation corresponding to ultimate moment (334 kNm) is 43
milliradian.
The connection H10 was the same as H9 except that the haunch was longer
i.e. 968 mm in H10. First yield was detected in the compression flange at the haunch
toe followed by yielding in the beam web.
Strain gauges placed on the slab
reinforcements showed no yielding. The concrete cover for tensile reinforcement on

the H9 side started to give way due to excessive load, Fig. 3.25, the resistance to load
dropped rapidly and the excess load shed on to the H10 side. The progressive failure
on H10 side soon after the collapse of H9 was so rapid that no meaningful readings
could be made.
39
3.14 Effect of slab reinforcement ratio

Results corresponding to the connection H2, H4 and H6 are compared in
Fig.3.26 in order to investigate the effect of reinforcement ratio on moment rotation
characteristics. These connections have same haunch depth (D) and haunch length
(2D), but of different slab reinforcement percentage viz. 0, 1.34 and 2.62%,
respectively. Higher percentage of reinforcement in the slab shifts the failure from the
steel connection to the haunch toe of the composite section. Failure of H2 connection
was triggered by tensile fracture at the bolt thread. Failure of H4 occurred at the
haunch toe in which the composite beam section has almost fully yielded, and the
compression beam flange at the point of intersection with the haunch toe buckled
inelastically. H6 was the same in all respects as the specimens 2 and 4 except that the
concrete slab was reinforced with 10 numbers of T20 deformed bars. Failure in this
case occurred at the haunch toe, as shown in Fig 3.17 where the composite beam
section in negative bending has almost fully yielded in compression. Further increase
in reinforcement will not result in any significant improvement of load carrying
capacity since the limit of resistance for the steel section in compression has been
reached with plastic neutral axis shifted to the concrete slab.
3.15 Effects of haunch length

The haunch length was varied from a value equal to the depth as in H3,
approximately equal to two times the depth as in H4, time times the depth as in H7
and four times the depth as in H8. The reinforcement in the slab was kept the same as
in Specimen 2. Fig.3.27 shows the comparison between the load-displacement curves
obtained for these specimens. Failure occurred at the haunch toe in the case of H4 and
H7. For H7, the ultimate capacity of composite section (282kNm) at haunch toe
section was close to the calculated plastic capacity (255kNm) by Eurocode 4.
40
Connection H8 is the same as H4 except that the haunch length in this case was 968
mm or 12.10% of an 8-m span beam. Failure occurred at the haunch heel near to the
connection as shown in Fig.3.21. Failure moment for this connection was found to be
562kNm, which is close to the predicted value of 533kNm. The test results show that
it is possible to control the failure mode by varying the haunch length and that longer
haunch length shifts the failure from haunch toe to haunch heel. Further increase in
haunch length will not result in an enhancement of load carrying capacity since the
failure is controlled by the haunch connections.
3.16 Conclusions
Experiments on composite haunch connections are described and results
corresponding to ultimate moment capacity, moment-rotational characteristic and
rotation capacity are presented. These connections are classified as a full strength
rigid connection in accordance with Eurocode 4. It is confirmed by the test results
which show that the measured moment capacity for all connections is larger than the
plastic capacity of the beams and beam-column or connection rotation in all tests was
very small less than 2 milliradians. The prediction method is found to estimate the
ultimate capacity of composite beams fall within 10% of the predicted value. Haunch
toe can be strengthened effectively by means of web stiffener to the full depth of the
beam. No lateral distorsional buckling was observed in all the rest specimens.
However, the length of the haunch is limited to 12.10% of the beam span.
Experimental observations show that the failure is localized at the haunch toe section.
Haunch length has no significant effect on rotation capacity and it is found that
rotation at the ultimate capacity always falls within 30 to 45 milliradians. Increase in
reinforcement from 1.34 to 2.62% does not reduce rotation capacity significantly but
it increases the ultimate moment capacity of the composite section. Longer haunch
41
length tends to shift the failure to the haunch heel of the connection. Hence rotation
capacity of the connection becomes critical if plastic analysis is required.
42
Loading Data:
a) Concrete slab
b) Construction Load
c) Building services load
d) Imposed Load
= 2.88 kN/m2
= 0.50 kN/m2
= 0.70 kN/m2
= 5.00 kN/m2
Fig. 3.1 Building Plan Layout for Joint Specimens'Design
43
Fig. 3.2 Cruciform Joint Specimen
44
Fig. 3.3 Test Specimen Ready for Concrete Casting
Fig. 3.4 Typical Joint Test Specimen
45
Fig. 3.5 Joint Test Specimen Ready for Testing
Concrete slab
Shear stud
1/2/3/4/5
11/12/13/14/15
6/7/8/9/10
Reinforcement bars
16/17/18/19/20
59
21
22
A 23
24
25
37
B
35
36
38
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
39
62/63
64/65
C
60
61
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
D
55
54
57
49
50
51 E
52
53
56
58
Note:
a)
A B ......
b)
1/2/....20
c)
21,22,23......61
d)
62/63/64/65
e)
Inclinometer for rotation measurement

Strain gauges on slab reinforcement bars
Strain gauges on structural steel
Strain gauges embedded in tension bolts
Displacement transducer
Fig. 3.6 Instrumentation of Test Specimen
46
P kN
Cracking of concrete slab
Shear stud
Reinforcement bars
ie
Universal beam
Haunch
Universal column
Fig. 3.7 Definition of Rotation in a Joint
kNm
Mu
M2
R ki =
R ki
M1
Cd
M 2 M1
2 1
radian
Fig. 3.8 Moment-rotation Curve of Connection
47
Fig. 3.9 Stress-strain Block of Haunch Connection
48
Fig. 3.10 (a) View after Failure of Specimen H1 and H2
Fig. 3.10(b) View after Failure of Tension Bolt of Specimen H1 and H2
49
Moment, kNm
300
247kNm
250
211kNm
200
150
100
H1
H2
50
0
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Rotation, miliradians
Fig.3.11 Moment-Rotation Curve of H1 and H2
50
Moment, kNm
Fig. 3.12 View after Failure of H3 and H4
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
First Yield at Compression Flange

at 138kNm
ie
First Crack at 89kNm
250 kNm
Rki
=30
Rki= 19
Rki=26
0
10
15
20
25
Haunch Toe
Haunch Heel
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Fig. 3.13 Moment-Rotation Curve of H3
51
500
450

at 117kNm
Moment, kNm
400
350
ie
300
248 kNm
250
200
Rki
150
=26
Rki= 17
100
Haunch Heel
Rki=21
50
Haunch Toe
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Fig. 3.15 View after Failure of H5
52
Moment, kNm

at 128kNm
ie
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
344 kNm
Rki
=43
Rki=27
10
15
Haunch Toe
Haunch Heel
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
53
First Yield at Compression

Flange at 130kNm
500
Moment, kNm
450
ie
400
350
330 kNm
300
250
200
150
100
Rki
Rki=20
=24
50
Haunch Toe
Haunch Heel
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
54

Flange at 164kNm
i
e
500
Moment, kNm
450
400
350
289 kNm
300
250
200
Rki
150
100
=29
Rki
=22
50
Rki= 20
Haunch Toe
Haunch Heel
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
55

Haunch Flange at 435kNm
700
562 kNm
Moment, kNm
600
500

Flange at 201kNm
400
300
200
Haunch Heel
Haunch Toe
100
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
56
Moment, kNm

at 159kNm
ie
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
341 kNm
Rki
=25
Rki=20
0
10
15
Rki= 16
20
25
Haunch Toe
Haunch Heel
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Fig. 3.25 Premature Failure of H10
57
300
200
150
H6- 1D2D 2.62%
100
H4- 1D2D 1.34%
50
H2- 1D2D 0%
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Displacement, mm
Fig. 3.26 Comparison of Load-Displacement Curve of H2,H4 and H6
350
300
250
Load, kN
Load, kN
250
200
150
H3- 1D1D
H4- 1D2D
H7- 1D3D
H8- 1D4D
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
1.34%
1.34%
1.34%
1.34%
120
140
Displacement, mm
Fig. 3.27 Comparison of Load-Displacement Curve of H3, H4, H7 and H8
58
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
- HAUNCH BEAM
4.1 Introduction
An experimental study on three continuous haunch beams is reported in this
chapter. The continuous composite haunch beams were designed based on a series of
haunch connection tests described in chapter 3. Haunch connection can be designed as
rigid full-strength connection with proper detailing. The haunch toe is planned as the
weakest section to enable the formation of plastic hinge. When the first failure
happened at haunch toe, the moment will be re-distributed to mid-span in order to
obtain a failure mechanism. The degree of moment redistribution depends on the
ductility of the section during failure. An optimum design of composite beam is
achieved if both the hogging and sagging capacity of the composite beam is fully
utilized.
In a composite continuous beam, plastic hinge failure mechanism will only
occur if the rotation capacity at the connection is adequate. Insufficient rotational
capacity in a connection will cause non-ductile failure. Experimental results show that
haunch connection is able to redistribute moment to the mid-span to form plastic
hinge failure mechanism. The results show that plastic hinge failure mechanism can
be achieved in designing continuous composite haunch beam. However, experimental
results also show that plastic hinge failure mechanism is achievable without looking
into the availability of rotational capacity of a beam section. This situation takes place
when all the required plastic hinges form at the same time under the same loading.
The objects of these beam tests is to study the behaviour of composite haunch
beam by modelling as a non-sway continuous steel-concrete composite beam. The
59
behaviour of haunch connection and its ultimate capacity predominantly depend upon
haunch length, haunch depth and the amount of reinforcement in the slab and number
of shear studs. Test specimens were, therefore, chosen to reflect the variation in these
parameters. Beam specimens as shown in Fig. 4.1 were used to simulate the
continuous beam. The slab reinforcement was chosen as 1.34 and 2.62% relative to
the effective concrete area, which depends upon the effective slab width determined
as per Eurocode 4. Three specimens were fabricated with each specimen consisting of
connections having different haunch length and reinforcement combination. Depth of
the haunch for all specimens was chosen equal to the depth of the universal beam.
The length was, however, chosen to be varied from 433 mm and 968 mm in order to
obtain haunch lengths equivalent to 5.41 and 12.10% of 8 m beam span, respectively.
These beam tests could provide a clear picture of the behaviour of continuous
beam. Moment redistribution within the span and the details of formation of plastic
hinges is also studied under ultimate loading. The results could then be compared with
plastic theory and finite element results to establish the design method. The specimens
are identified in the text as B1, B2 and B3 and the details are summarized in Table
4.2.
4.2 Material Properties

Steel members chosen for the beam test specimens are same as those used in the
joint tests. One size of universal beam and column was used, i.e. universal beams
254x146xUB37kg/m and universal columns 203x203xUC60 kg/m. Same batch of
steel with the relevant material heat number were used as per the joint test. Therefore,
60
the yield strength and other mechanical properties were the same as those reported in
Table 3.2 in Chapter 3.

The reinforcement bar in beam test specimens was high strength deform bar as
per joint test and, the tensile test results are shown in Table 3.3. Same batch of
reinforcement used in the joint test was chosen for the beam test. Material properties
of the rods and the configuration of the reinforcement were be of the same as those in
joint tests. Therefore, a direct comparison of the joint test results can also be made to
the connection in the beam test results.
4.2.3 Concrete
Concrete in all the specimens was normal weight concrete with fcu designed as
45 N/mm2 at 28 days. The slump of the ready mixed concrete was designed to 125
mm. Table 4.1 shows summary of the cube test results for all the three specimens on
the day of testing.
Table 4.1 Summary of concrete cube test results for beam specimen
Beam
Specimens
Date
of Concrete
casting
Date of
Testing
Concrete strength N/mm2
Day of
Testing
on the day of testing

Cube 1
Cube 2
Cube 3
Average
B1
03/12/97
11/12/97
8 days
32
32
33
33
B2
13/02/98
20/02/98
7 days
31
33
31
32
B3
11/05/98
22/05/98
11 days
39
40
39
39
4.3 Fabrication of test specimens

Fabrication of beam specimens complied with BS 5950: Part 2. Details of the
beams are summarised in Table 4.2. Similar to the joint test in Chapter 3, universal
61
beam section 254 x 146 x UB37 and column section 203 x 203 x UC60 were used to
fabricate all beam test specimens.
The steel material is the same as that used in joint tests. Specimens were not
painted or coated with any chemical.
Table 4.2 Details of test specimens
Beam Specimens
Specimen B1
Specimen B2
Specimen B3
a.
Reinforcement, %
1.34 (8T16)
2.62 (10T20)
1.34 (8T16)
b.
Haunch Depth, mm
250
250
250
c.
Haunch Length, mm
433
433
968
d.
Slab width, mm
1400
1400
1400
e.
Slab thickness, mm
120
120
120
f.
Shear studs (per trough)
After the erection of universal column and beam section, wooden formwork
was built to the beam section; reinforcement bars to achieve selected proportion were
laid and preparation for casting concrete slabs were made as shown in Fig.4.2. Fig.4.3
shows a typical beam test specimen ready with reinforcement bar ready for
concreting. Grade 30 concrete was poured into the formwork in stages ensuring
adequate compaction by means of vibrator. For concrete, 28 day strength was
achieved in 7 days by adding an admixture trade named Rapidart. Concrete cubes of
sufficient number were cast along with the test specimens and they were tested on the
same day as that of the specimens. A typical beam test specimen, ready for testing, is
shown in Fig.4.4.
4.4 Test Set-up

A typical test specimen consisting of a beam marked B2 spanning 8 meter
between two columns marked C1 and two cantilever beams of 2 metre marked B1
connected to the columns C1 are as shown in Fig. 4.5. This test set-up is to model a
62
continuous beam in a non-sway frame. Design of beam specimens was referred to a

building plan layout shown in Fig. 3.1. The primary and the secondary beams span 8
m and 12 m, respectively. Based on elastic global analysis and typical design load
(Refer to Beam 3/A-E), the point of contraflexture is 1.8 m or about 22.5 % of span
length away from the column C-3. The loading points at the cantilever beam were
assumed to be the points of contraflexure.
The column length is not modeled in this experimental set-up because it is
assumed that the moment at both sides of column could be balanced by the 50 ton
capacity counter reaction actuators at the tip of the cantilever beams as shown in Fig.
4.1. Columns were prevented from out-of-plane sway by using a diagonal bracing
marked S1 in Fig.4.5. Columns marked C1 and diagonal bracing marked S1 were
bolted to base plate marked P1, fixed to the laboratory strong floor rails. It is assumed
that the strong floor was able to provide a rigid support to those members.
The schematic arrangement of the loading systems is shown in Fig.4.6 and
four independent displacement controlled actuators were employed, two for the main
span and two for the cantilever beams. These actuators were operated by computer
controlled pumps in order to ensure that the load application is gradual and the
increment properly controlled. The loads were applied to the specimen through a
loading frame as shown in Fig.4.7. Actuators that fixed to the laboratory strong floor
were attached to the loading frame and the load was applied as a pulling force from
the bottom of the beam as shown in Fig.4.8.
Design calculations were carried out in accordance with the BS5950 Part 1 and
Part 3.1. A plastic collapse mechanism was expected in the main beam, while the
columns were designed to remain elastic. This experimental set up is to test the inner
span to its ultimate capacity. Thus, care had been taken to prevent failure at the beam-
63
to-column connection at the cantilever beam by providing a stronger connection.

Fig.4.9 shows a stronger and larger haunch connection for the reason as mentioned.
The beam was designed to act compositely in the hogging and sagging region.
Additional reinforcement was provided over the haunches to react compositely with
universal beam at hogging region. Concrete slab and universal beam were also
assumed to act compositely in the sagging region. The span to overall depth ratio was
22, which will usually satisfy the strength and serviceability design limits. (Lawson
1989).
Same concrete grade as per the joint specimen was chosen to construct the
120mm thick concrete slab. The floor width of 1.4 m was chosen as the effective
width, Be, for the mid-span in accordance to BS5950: Part 3.1: 1990:
Clause 4.6:
(a) Internal Span, sagging moment region
Be = Lz/4
Where Lz = 0.7Lspan = 0.7 x 8 = 5.6 m
= 1.4 m
(b) Internal Span, hogging moment region
Be = Lz/4
Where Lz = 0.25(Lspan 1 + Lspan 2) = 0.25(8+8)= 4 m
= 1.0 m
Although the effective width of the hogging moment region is 1.0 m, the
concrete slab in the specimen is provided with 1.4 m throughout. Shear connectors
used in these beam specimens are the same as those referred in the joint test in
Chapter 3, ie, 19 mm diameter and 100 mm nominal height, 95 mm after weld height.
Full shear connectors design approaches as per BS5950 Part.3.1 were provided in all
beam test specimens.
64
4.5 Instrumentation
Displacement strain gauge type transducers (SGTD) were used to measure the
displacement of the beam specimen. Two numbers of long travel displacement
transducers (Refer Fig.4.10, T2 & T4) were used to measure displacement at the
loading point and another transducer (T3) was placed at the middle of the beam to
capture the maximum deflection at the beam. Two more displacement transducers (T1
& T5) were positioned at the column to monitor the movement of the columns.
Ten strain gauges (PL-60-11) with gauge resistance at 120
0.3
were
positioned on the concrete slab at the loading point where the formation of plastic
hinge is expected. (Refer Fig.4.10, strain gauge no.: 1,2,3.to 10).
Seventy electrical resistance strain gauges (YFLA-5) from the same
manufacturer were positioned around the specimen to measure strain in steel (strain
gauge no.: 11,12,13to 80). The strain gauges have a gauge resistance at 120
0.3.
Strain gauges were used to monitor yielding and to determine the failure modes. They
were placed at high stress points such as the top and bottom beam flanges near the
column, haunch toe and reinforcement bar as shown in Fig.4.10.
4.6 Testing procedure

After the specimen was positioned in place, loading and instrumentation
devices were connected to the data processing unit. All the readings, transducers and
strain gauges were initialised. All readings were checked for continuity and proper
recording by the data processing units by applying ten percent of the estimated failure
load to the specimen. The load was then released and reapplied in order to remove any
slack that may exist at the support before the actual testing. This process of repeated
loading is expected to ensure proper functioning of the load application and other
measurement devices. The entire load application was performed in three stages. In
65
the first stage, load was applied until the first crack was observed in concrete and, in
the second and third stages load was increased up to 60% and 90% of the estimated
load, respectively. In each stage, the load was released after achieving the intended
load and then reapplied. This process of loading helps to obtain the stiffness of
composite beam and to compare the unloading stiffness at different loading stages. In
the final stage, loading was continued until the failure of the beam specimen.
Load was applied in equal increment to each of the beams until failure. The
ultimate load and the failure mode for each of the beam specimens were thus noted at
the end of the test on that particular specimen. The same procedure was repeated for
all the three beam specimens.
4.7 Beam Test Results and Discussion

This test was carried out 8 days after casting the floor slab and the concrete
strength on the day of testing was 33 N/mm2. The Specimen B1 was made with
haunch connection H4 referred in Chapter 3 (Table 3.1). The concrete slab was
reinforced with 1.34 %, 8 numbers of T16 deformed bars. The haunch length was
433mm and the depth was 250mm.
During the test, the columns monitored with displacement transducers T1 &
T5, (Fig.4.10) were adjusted back the to the original position by pulling the loading
frames at the cantilever beams. This process is to ensure the verticality of the column
and to minimize the moment transfer from the beam to the column. This operation is
necessary to prevent the failure at the column panel zone due to the unbalance
moment.
66
Views after failure and the corresponding Load-deflection curves for the beam
are show in Fig.4.11 and Fig.4.12 respectively. The registered maximum deflection of
the displacement transducer at the mid-span was 273 mm and the registered maximum
load was 540 kN (270 kN x 2). The deflection shown by displacement transducer T1
and T5 were negligible which means the verticality of the column was always
maintained to prevent unequal moment in the column panel zone.
The failure was observed at the haunch toes and at the loading points and
plastic hinges were formed in these areas. Fig.4.13 shows that there is inelastic
buckling in beam flange near the haunch. The tension reinforcements were found to
have yielded as shown by the strain gauge readings. Meanwhile, the strain gauges on
composite beam sections at the loading points also showed yield values. This is
further confirmed by the crushing of concrete slab as shown in Fig.4.14.
The position of contraflexure point can be measured from the cracking pattern
as shown in Fig.4.15 because concrete will crack under hogging moment, which will
cause tension in the concrete slab. The measured value is about 1.8 m from the
column, which is in good agreement with the value proposed earlier. The figure shows
that no cracking occurred between the contact point of column flange face and
concrete (connection area). Cracking of concrete occurred only at the haunch toe area.
Figs.4.16, 4.17, 4.18 and 4.19 show strain values at various cross sections at
different load stages. The 0 datum at the Depth of Section is referring to the
bottom of the concrete slab. Figs. 4.16 and 4.17 represent the beam cross section at
the left and right haunch toe respectively. As shown in the figure, the neutral axis of
the section is about 70 mm below the concrete slab. Neutral axis will shift up further
if more tension reinforcement is employed. This phenomenon is demonstrated in the
next beam specimen B2 where 2.62% of reinforcement was used in the specimen. The
67
neutral axis shifted up toward tension reinforcement compared to specimen B1 with

1.31% of reinforcement.
During 75% of the ultimate load, almost all strain gauge readings (including
tension reinforcement) show yield value except strain gauge no. 41 & 42 in the left
haunch toe and 62 & 63 in the right haunch toe. But when the load reached 100% of
the ultimate load, strain gauges 42 and 63 showed yield values. Strain gauges 41 and
62 did not reach yielding stage because both strain gauges were positioned near the
neutral axis and a full plastic stress-strain has not fully developed.
On the other hand, beam cross sections near the loading points were subjected
to sagging moment, the universal beam experiencing tension force and the concrete
slab resisting the compression force. Fig.4.18 and 4.19 show the registered strain in
the section at various depths of cross section. When reaching ultimate load, strain
gauge readings showed that the concrete component reached it compression yield
capacity. All other strain gauge readings at this cross section showed yield value as
shown in the figure. Once again, strain gauges near the neutral axis such as strain
gauges 50, 56 & 57 at the loading point did not show any yield.
Studies have also been carried out in this test to determined the effective width
of composite section in the hogging and sagging zone. At hogging haunch toe section,
effective width was checked by placing strain gauges 21-24 & 26-29 on the tension
reinforcement bar, which arranged on both sides of column and parallel to the main
beam. Experimental results suggested that the tension reinforcement bars on both
sides of the column are effective. Figs. 4.20 & 4.21 show the strain distribution of the
tension reinforcement bar at various load stages. At the sagging zone, effective width
of the concrete slab is investigated by strain gauges no.1-10, positioned across the
concrete slab. Test results show that at 75 % of the ultimate load, the whole section is
68
effective in resisting compression force. But during the ultimate loading condition,
shear lag seems to have occurred as shown in Figs. 4.22 & 4.23. It can be concluded
that the effective width of a composite beam at the mid-span will become smaller
under higher moment forces due to the shear lag effect.

This test was carried out 7 days after casting the floor slab and the concrete
strength on the day of testing was 31.7 N/mm2. The Beam Specimen B2 was designed
with connection H4, as shown in Table 3.1. The concrete slab was reinforced with
2.62 % of reinforcement bar, equivalent to 10 numbers of T20 deformed bars. The
haunch length was 433 mm or 5 % of the span and the haunch depth was 250mm.
The maximum deflection registered at the mid-span was 186 mm and the
maximum load was 604 kN (302 kN x 2) for both actuators at the center span. The
Load-deflection curve is shown in Fig.4.24. The deflection shown by the
displacement transducers T1 and T5 were negligible and the verticality of the column
was thus confirmed. In comparison to Specimen B1, Specimen B2 had a larger load
carrying capacity, but the maximum deflection was lower than B1. The ratio of the
load capacity of B2 to B1 is 604/540 = 1.12 but the deflection ratio is only 186/273 =
0.68. This is due to the fact that specimen B2 is stronger at the haunch toe with
additional tension reinforcement bar compared to Specimen B1. The beam stiffness
increased due to additional reinforcement bar, therefore the deflection was lower
compared to Specimen B1. Nevertheless, plastic failure mechanism still can be
observed and an optimum design still achievable with higher percentage of
reinforcement bar. The plastic moment resistance of this composite beam is 319 kNm
and 310 kNm for hogging and sagging section, respectively. While on the contrary,
specimen B1 has only 255 kNm and 310 kNm of plastic moment resistance for
69
hogging and sagging section, respectively. The difference in the hogging capacity at
the haunch toe is because there is additional tension reinforcement bar at the haunch
toe in specimen B2.
Failure of specimen B2 also occurred at the haunch toe and at the one-third
span loading point in which plastic hinge was formed. Fig.4.25 shows that there is
inelastic buckling in beam flange near the haunch toe. The tension reinforcements
were found to have yielded as shown by strain gauge readings and the concrete slab at
the loading points was also crushed as shown in Fig.4.26.
Figs.4.27, 4.28, 4.29 and 4.30 show strain gauge readings in a beam cross
section at different load stages. Figs. 4.27 and 4.28 show the strain values at the left
and right haunch toe sections, respectively. The neutral axis of the section was found
lie right below the concrete slab as shown in the figures. As discussed earlier, neutral
axis will be shifted up if more tension reinforcement was in used. The reinforcement
in B2 was 2.62%, thus, the neutral axis moved up, more towards the tension
reinforcement compared to B1.
At 75% of the ultimate load, almost all strain gauges shows yield value except
strain gauges 16-20, 41 & 42 in left haunch toe and 21-25 & 62 at the right haunch
toe. But when the load reached the ultimate load, all strain gauges showed yield value
except gauges 41 and 62, located near the neutral axis.
Figs.4.29 and 4.30 show the registered strain beam cross section near the
actuator loading points. At ultimate load, strain gauge values at concrete flooring near
the actuator load points already exceeded the concrete yield value. Plastic hinge was
believed to have formed at those sections because all other strain gauges at the same
sections already showed yield value. The strain gauges near the neutral axis showed
no yielding at the section.
70
The effective width in the hogging zone was evaluated by placing strain
gauges 21-25 & 26-30 on the tension reinforcement at the haunch toe area. Test
results showed that all the tension reinforcement bars on both side of the column are
effective. Figs. 4.31 & 4.32 showed strain values at the tension reinforcement bar at
various stages of loading. At the sagging zone, effective width of the concrete slab
was investigated by strain gauges 1-10, positioned across the concrete slab. Shear lag
occurred in Specimen B1 was also observed in B2 and the resulting stress distribution
is shown in Figs. 4.33 & 4.34. Thus, it can be concluded that the effective width of a
composite beam at the sagging section becomes less effective due to shear lag at
higher moment force.

This test was carried out 11 days after casting the floor slab. The concrete
strength on the day of testing was 38.7 N/mm2. The specimen was made with
connection H8 as shown in Table 3.1. The concrete slab was reinforced with 1.34 %,
8 numbers of T16 deformed bars. The haunch length was 968 mm and the depth
250mm.
Views after failure and the corresponding Load-deflection curves for the beam
are shown in Fig.4.35 and Fig.4.36 respectively. The registered maximum deflection
of the displacement transducer at the mid-span was 197 mm and the registered
maximum load at the center span actuators was 674 kN (337 kN x 2).
The failure could be observed at the haunch heel and also at the loading points.
Figs.4.37 & 4.38 show that there is inelastic buckling in the beam flange near the
haunch heel. The tension reinforcements were also found to have yielded as shown by
strain gauge readings. At the loading points at one-third span, concrete slab was also
crushed as shown in Fig.4.39 and the strain gauges at these sections also showed a
71
yield values. The failure mode of this specimen was different from B1 & B2, in which
plastic hinges occurred at haunch toe (hogging zone) prior to the failure at one-third
span loading point (sagging zone). Beam Specimen B3 failed at the sagging zone
before the failure at hogging zone. In the earlier case, moment was redistributed from
hogging zone to sagging zone. However, in the latter case, redistribution of moment
occurred from sagging to hogging region. The disadvantage of moment redistribution
from sagging to hogging moment is that the sagging region where concrete is in
compression could not distribute much moment. This is because the ductility of
concrete is weaker compared to reinforcement bar. Besides, plastic mechanism failure
could not occur in specimen B3 because plastic hinge could not develop at the haunch
connection.
In specimen B3, although failure occurred at the haunch heel and at the
loading points, yielding was also detected at the haunch toe. This can be seen from
Figs.4.40 & 4.41 where the strain gauge readings are plotted against the cross section
at the haunch toe. Nevertheless, no further failure occurred because at that stage of
loading condition, inelastic buckling took place at the beam flange at the haunch
heels.
Figs. 4.42 and 4.43 show strain values at the left and right haunch heel cross
sections for different load stages. It can be seen from the curves that all the strain
gauges had shown yield values. The neutral axis of the section is about 200 mm below
the concrete slab as shown in the figures.
Figs.4.44 and 4.45 show the registered strain in various depths of section near
the center actuator loading points. At ultimate load, strain gauges in concrete slab
showed a yield value. Formation of plastic hinge occurred.
72
. Figs. 4.46 & 4.47 show the strain value at the tension reinforcement bar for
various load stages. Similar to specimen B1 and B2, test results show that all the
tension reinforcement bar on both sides of the column are effective. Investigation
carried out at the sagging zone also showed that effective width of the concrete slab
for a composite section at the sagging section may become less effective when the
applied moment become larger. This could be observed in Figs. 4.48 & 4.49.
Fig. 4.50 shows a comparison of load-deflection curve of all the three
specimens B1, B2 & B3. The rigidity of the three beams is almost the same. Specimen
B3 has a higher load carrying capacity compared to the other beams. However, B1 is
the most ductile compared to B2 & B3. The maximum deflection recorded is 273mm,
compared to 186mm for B2 and 196 mm for B3.
4.8 Concluding remarks

In composite haunch beams, the haunch toe could be planned as the weakest
section to allow a plastic hinge to form. The plastic failure mechanism occurs when
plastic hinges form at the haunch toe and at the mid-span. An optimum design of
composite beam can be achieved when failure happens at the haunch toes and moment
will be redistributed to mid-span.
Experimental results for B1 and B2 show that the haunch connection is able to
redistribute moments to the mid-span to form a plastic hinge failure mechanism. The
results show that plastic hinge failure mechanism can be achieved in designing
continuous composite haunch beam.
Studies on the effective width in continuous composite beams show that the
effective width recommended by BS 5950:Part 3: Section 3.1 and Eurocode 4 is
satisfactory at the sagging region. However, care should be taken because the shear
lag effect will come in during the ultimate load as shown in the test results. On the
73
other hand, the effective width for the concrete floor recommended by the code in the
hogging region is not studied because the concrete strength in tension is neglected.
Nevertheless, test results show that the tension reinforcement bars in the hogging
region, which distribute evenly in 1.4-metre width are all effective. This opens up the
possibility of increasing the effective width beyond the codes recommended value;
however more experimental work is required to come up with a design
recommendation.
74
Fig.4.1 Haunch Beam Test Specimen
75
Fig.4.2 Wooden Formwork of Beam Test Specimen
Fig.4.3 Beam Specimen Ready for Concrete Casting
76
Fig.4.4 Beam Specimen Ready for Testing
77
Fig.4.5 Isometric View of Haunch Beam Test Specimen

78
Fig.4.6 Schematic Loading of Haunch Beam Test Specimen
79
Fig.4.7 Loading Frame in Haunch Beam Test Specimen
80
Fig.4.8 Loading Frame Connected to Hydraulic Actuator
Fig.4.9 Larger Haunch Connection at Cantilever Beam Side
81
Fig.4.10 Instrumentation of Beam Specimen
82
Concrete slab
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
T1
50
51
52
53
54
55
41
42
43
46 44
47
45
48
49
T2
1/2/3/4/5
T3
Reinforcement bars
16/17/18/19/20
Shear stud
11/12/13/14/15
56
57
58
59
60
61
T4
6/7/8/9/10
62
63
64
65 67
68
66
69
70
21/22/23/24/25
T5
80
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
26/27/28/29/30
Fig.4.11 View after Failure of Specimen B1
Load vs Deflection (B1)

800
Load (P2 + P3), kN
700
600
T5
T1
500
400
T4
T2
T3
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Deflection, mm
Fig.4.12 Load-Displacement Curve of Specimen B1
83
Fig.4.13 Inelastic Buckling in Compression Flange of the Beam B1
Fig.4.14 Crushing of Concrete Slab at Loading Point in Beam B1
84
Fig.4.15 Concrete Slab Cracking Pattern of the Beam B1 at Haunch Toe
85
150
Section depth, (Top of flange = 0 mm)
100
Rebar yielding
Zone(Tension)
50
0
-15000
-10000
-5000
UB yielding
Zone(Compression)
-50
5000
UB yielding
Zone(Tension)
-100
0% UL
-150
25% UL
-200
50% UL
75% UL
-250
100% UL
Strain,
-300
Fig. 4.16 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B1 at

Left Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage
150
100
Rebar yielding
Zone(Tension)
50
0
-15000
-10000
-5000
UB yielding
Zone(Compression)
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
Strain,
5000
UB yielding
Zone(Tension)
0% UL
25% UL
50% UL
75% UL
100% UL
-300

Right Haunch Toe at Different Load Stage
86
150
0% UL
100
25% UL
50% UL
75% UL
50
Concrete yielding
100% UL
Zone(Compression)
-5000
-50
-100
5000
10000
15000
UB yielding
Zone(Tension)
-150
-200
-250
-300
Strain,

Left Loading Point at Different Load Stage
150
Section Depth (Top Flange = 0 mm)
100
50
Concrete yielding
Zone(Compression)
-5000
-50
-100
-150
5000
10000
15000
20000
0% UL
UB yielding
Zone(Tension)
25% UL
50% UL
75% UL
-200
100% UL
-250
-300
Strain,

Right Loading Point at Different Load Stage
87
Fig. 4.20
800
Distance from beam center, mm
700
Rebar yielding
Zone(Tension)
600
500
400
0% UL
300
25% UL
50% UL
200
75% UL
100
100% UL
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Strain,
Fig. 4.20 Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B1 at Left

800
700
Rebar yielding
Zone(Tension)
600
500
400
0% UL
300
25% UL
200
50% UL
75% UL
100
100% UL
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Strain,
Fig. 4.21 Strain Reading of Tension Reinforcement for Beam B1 at Right

88
800
Concrete yielding
Zone(Compression)
600
400
200
0
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0% ULL
25% UL
-200
500
-400
50% UL
-600
75% UL
100% UL
-800
Strain,
Fig. 4.22 Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B1 at Left

Loading Point at Different Load Stage
800
Concrete yielding
Zone(Compression)
600
400
200
0
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
0% ULL
25% UL
50% UL
75% UL
100% UL
-500
-200
500
-400
-600
-800
Strain,
Fig. 4.23 Strain Reading of Concrete Slab for Beam B1 at Right

89
700
T1
Load(P2+P3), kN
600
T5
500
T4
400
T2
300
T3
200
100
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Deflection, mm
Fig.4.24 Load-Displacement Curve of Specimen B2
Fig.4.25 Inelastic Buckling in Compression Flange of the Beam B2
90
91
150
100
Section depth, (Top of flange=0 mm)
Rebar yielding
Fig
.
Zone(Tension)
-15000
-10000
-5000
-50
UB yielding
Zone(Compression)
5000
UB yielding
Zone(Tension)
-100
-150
0% UL
25% UL
-200
50% UL
75% UL
-250
100% UL
-300
Strain,
Fig. 4.27 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B2 at Left

150
100
Rebar yielding
50
Zone(Tension)
0
-15000
-10000
5000
UB yielding
Zone(Compression)
-50
5000
UB yielding
-100
Zone(Tension)
0% UL
-150
-200
-250
25% UL
50% UL
75% UL
100% UL
-300
Strain,
Fig. 4.28 Strain Reading of Cross Section for Beam B2 at Right

92
150
Left Loading Point (Specimen B2)
Section
depth,
of flange=0
Section
Section
depth,
depth,
(Top
(Top(Top
ofofflange=0
flange=0
mm)))))
mm)))
mm)
150
100
10050
Concrete yielding
Zone(Compression)
Concrete yielding 50 0
0
-4000Zone(Compression)
-2000
0
-50
-4000
-2000
0
-50
-100
-100
-150
2000
2000
4000
4000
6000
6000
UB yielding
8000
8000
10000
10000
0% UL
UB Zone(Tension)
yielding
Zone(Tension)
0% UL 25% UL
25% UL50% UL
-150
50% UL75% UL
-200
-200
75% UL
100% UL
100% UL
-250
-250
-300
-300
Strain
X 10E-6
Strain,

150
100
Concrete yielding
50
Zone(Compression)
0
-4000
-2000
-50
-100
2000
4000
UB yielding
Zone(Tension)
-150
6000
8000
10000
0% UL
25% UL
50% UL
75% UL
-200
100% UL
-250
-300
Strain,

93
800
700
Rebar yielding
Zone(Tension)
600
500
400
300
0% UL
25% UL
200
50% UL
75% UL
100
100% UL
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Strain,

800
700
600
Rebar yielding
Zone(Tension)
500
400
300
0% UL
25% UL
200
50% UL
100
75% UL
100% UL
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Strain,

94
800
Concrete yielding
0% ULL
Zone(Compression)
600
Distance from beam center , mm
25% UL
400
50% UL
75% UL
200
100% UL
0
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
-200
1000
-400
-600
-800
Strain,

Fig. 4.34
0% ULL
25% UL
800
Concrete yielding
Zone(Compression)
600
50% UL
400
75% UL
100% UL
200
0
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
-200
1000
-400
-600
-800
Strain,

95
Fig.4.35
800
T1
700
Fig.4.36
T5
Load (P2+P3), kN
600
500
T4
400
T3
300
200
T2
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Deflection, mm
Fig. 4.35 Load-Displacement Curve of Specimen B3
Fig.4.36 View after Failure of Specimen B3
96
Fig.4.37 Inelastic Buckling of Left Haunch Flange of the Beam B3
Fig.4.38 Inelastic Buckling of Right Haunch Flange of the Beam B3
97
98
150
100
Rebar yielding
50
Zone(Tension)
0
-15000
-10000
-5000
UB yielding
Zone(Compression)
-50
5000
Zone(Tension)
-100
0% UL
-150
25% UL
-200
50% UL
75% UL
-250
Strain,
100% UL
-300

150
100
Rebar yielding
50
Zone(Tension)
0
-15000
-10000
-5000
-50
UB yielding
Zone(Compression)
-100
5000
0
UB yielding
Zone(Tension)
-150
0% UL
-200
50% UL
-250
25% UL
75% UL
100% UL
-300
Strain,

99
150
Rebar yielding
50
-30000
-20000
-10000
-50 0
-150
UB yielding
Zone(Compression)
Zone(Tension)
10000
20000
UB yielding
Zone(Tension)
-250
0% UL
-350
25% UL
50% UL
-450
75% UL
100% UL
-550
Strain,

Haunch Heel at Different Load Stage
150
50
-30000
-20000
-10000
-50 0
-150
UB yielding
Zone(Compression)
Rebar yielding
Zone(Tension)
10000
20000
UB yielding
Zone(Tension)
-250
0% UL
-350
-450
25% UL
50% UL
75% UL
100% UL
-550
Strain,

Haunch Heel at Different Load Stage
100
150
Section depth (top Flange = 0 mm)
100
Concrete yielding
50
Zone(Compression)
0
-5000
-50
5000
10000
15000
0% UL
-100
-150
UB yielding
25% UL
Zone(Tension)
50% UL
75% UL
100% UL
-200
-250
-300
Strain,

150
100
Concrete yielding
50
Zone(Compression)
0
-5000
-50
-100
5000
10000
15000
UB yielding
0% UL
Zone(Tension)
25% UL
50% UL
-150
75% UL
-200
100% UL
-250
-300
Strain,

101
800
700
600
Rebar yielding
500
Zone(Tension)
400
0% UL
300
25% UL
50% UL
200
75% UL
100
100% UL
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Strain,

800
700
600
Rebar yielding
500
Zone(Tension)
400
0% UL
300
25% UL
200
50% UL
75% UL
100
100% UL
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Strain,

102
800
Concrete yielding
Zone(Compression)
600
400
200
0
-3500
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
-200
0% ULL
25% UL
-400
50% UL
75% UL
-600
100% UL
-800
Strain,

800
Concrete yielding
Fig.
Zone(Compression)
4.49
600
Fig. 4.49
400
200
0
-4000
-3000
-2000
0% ULL
25% UL
-1000
-200
1000
-400
50% UL
75% UL
-600
100% UL
Strain,
-800

103
800
Specimen B3
700
Specimen B2
Load (P2+P3), kN
600
Specimen B1
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150
Deflection, mm
200
250
Fig. 4.50 Comparison of Load-Displacement Curve for Specimens B1,B2 and B3
104
CHAPTER 5
ANALYTICAL MODEL
5.1 General
All the three beam specimens demonstrated ductile behaviour when they were
subjected to concentrated loads, and plastic failure mechanisms have been formed.
The occurrence of plastic failure mechanism is dependent on the formation of plastic
hinges at connection and at load points. The plastic analysis of composite haunch
beam will be illustrated in this chapter.
Besides, derivation of the section properties of composite haunch beam is
presented in this chapter so that further analysis can be carried out based on the
section properties. In addition, lateral distorsional buckling and the available
rotational capacity of reinforced composite beam will be investigated. This will bring
further understanding of the behaviour of the reinforced composite haunch beam.
The test results will be compared with those obtained by the finite element
software USFOS in order to establish the accuracy of the numerical model.
Subsequently, the numerical model would be used to carry out parametric studies.
5.2 Comparison of Plastic Hinge Analysis and Test Result

Fig.5.1(a) represents a haunch beam which is statically indeterminate. When
plastic hinges developed at the loading points, the beam becomes statically unstable
and a collapse mechanism will be developed in the beam. When plastic hinges are
formed in the haunch toe, the beam becomes statically determinate. The beam will
then become a simply supported beam with a constant moment Mph at haunch toe to
carry the load P as shown in Fig.5.1(b). This will be followed by the formation of
plastic hinge at haunch toe. Figs.5.1 (c) & (d) show the corresponding moment
105
diagram due to P and Mph, respectively. By applying the principle of superposition,

the final moment diagram is as shown in Fig.5.1(e).
Thus,
Mps = PL/3 - Mph
(Eq. 5.1)
P = 3 (Mps + Mph) / L
(Eq. 5.2)
Where,
P
Point Load
Mps
Plastic moment capacity of sagging region
Mph
Plastic moment capacity of hogging region
Length between hinges at both ends

Table 5.1 Comparison of Test Results with Plastic Hinge Theory
Beam
Specimen
Mps
(kNm)
Mph
(kNm)
L
(m)
B1
340
256
B2
339
B3
485
PT, Theory
Failure Load
(kN)
249
PE/PT
Ratio
7.174
PE, Experimental
Failure Load
(kN)
270
322
7.174
302
276
1.09
343
8.000
337
310
1.09
1.08
Table 5.1 shows the comparison of test results with plastic hinge theory.
Plastic hinge theory is able to predict the ultimate load within 10% of the test results.
The first plastic hinge in Specimen B1 & B2 occurred at the haunch toe (hogging)
followed by hinge at the loading point (sagging). Thus, moment is redistributed from
haunch toe to mid-span. Failure of B3 occurred at the connection and at the mid-span
almost at the same time. Referring to the strain gauge readings, four plastic hinges
formed together and no moment redistribution is required in beam test B3. This
phenomena shows that optimum design is already achieved. Hence, it could be
concluded that the failure mode of composite beam might be controlled either at
106
haunch toe or haunch heel. The design procedure for the failure at haunch toe as
shown in B1 and B2 is more straightforward compared to the failure at haunch heel as
shown in B3. However, beam specimen B3 shows that optimum design is possible by
adjusting the haunch length and the amount of reinforcement.
For beam specimen B1 and B2, the designer has to make sure the available
rotation capacity at the haunch toe is sufficient to enable moment redistribution in the
plastic hinge analysis. The failure mode will be controlled at haunch toe as long as the
connection (haunch heel) capacity is larger than the haunch toe capacity under the
moment gradient. This is one of the alternatives in designing composite haunch beam
structure. However the disadvantage of this failure mode is that the connection
(haunch heel) needs to be strengthened and most of the time the strengthening will be
required at the column, which might involve extra welding of stiffener plates. Thus,
the fabrication cost of the steelwork based on this failure mode may be more costly.
Failure at the connection (haunch heel) in Beam B3 demonstrates an ideal
situation where no moment redistribution is required if all the plastic hinges form at
the same time. The design of this failure mode required only the section capacity
under hogging and sagging moment where plastic hinges formed. Rotational capacity
is not required because no moment redistribution occurs. However, if the beam cross
section capacity at hogging and sagging region are very close to the required strength,
this plastic failure mechanism will still occur and it requires only a small amount of
rotation capacity to allow for moment redistribution. If the initial failure is detected at
the connection (haunch heel), the available rotation capacity of the connection need to
be studied carefully to ensure that moment could be redistributed from connection to
mid-span area. The available rotation capacity in composite haunch beam is
107
dependent on the component on the connection such as amount of reinforcement bar,

column and beam properties.
5.3 Rotation Capacity

5.3.1 General
According to Kemp, (1991), the following limit states condition need to be
satisfied in order to provide adequate ductility and sufficient moment redistribution to
a structure.
(a / mr) > r
(Eq. 5.3)
Referring to Fig. 5.2 (Kemp, 1991), a is the inelastic available rotation prior to
the moment below the design moment resistance Mp. It may be provided either by the
end connection or by the member over the length Li between the section of maximum
moment and adjacent point of inflection.
r is the inelastic rotation required to achieve an identified level of redistribution
of moments in a structures.
mr is a partial material factor to allow for many uncertainties.
It is common practice to express the equation to non-dimensional form by
dividing the rotation by a hypothetical elastic rotation r determined for the same
moment resistance Mp over the same length of member Li. Thus,
ra / mr > rr
where:
(Eq. 5.4)
ra = available rotational capacity = a / e

rr = required rotation capacity = r / e
and for a linear moment gradient used in most test as in Fig.1:
e = 0.5 Mp Li / EI
(Eq. 5.5)
108
in which EI is flexural rigidity of moment/unit curvature.

A large partial material factor mr should be introduced because it is very
difficult to predict inelastic rotations from a moment-rotation curve which is nearly
horizontal. Kemp, (1991) proposes a value of 2 for relatively ductile modes of failure
with local and lateral buckling and a value of 3 for sudden fractures.
5.3.2 Calculation of available rotation capacity of composite section

An empirical formula proposed by Kemp, (1991) is used to identify the
available inelastic rotation capacity. The theoretical model accounts for local and
lateral buckling of the steel section.
Fig. 5.3 represents the region near to an internal support of a continuous beam
(Kemp and Dekker, 1991). The local buckling is assumed to develop when the length
of plastic region of the flange (Lp in Fig.5.3) extends sufficiently far to accommodate
the full wavelength of the buckle. Following are the empirical formula that Kemp
proposed to estimate the plastic length and available rotational capacity for steel
beam.
Lp = 0.067Li(60/e)1.2
ra = 3(60/e)1.5/2
e =
Kf =
Kw2=
Kw1=
(Eq. 5.6)
(Eq. 5.7)
Kf/Kw(Li/izc)
(b/tf)/20 for class 1 & 2 flanges
dw/33tw for class 2 web, 33 < (dw/ tw) 40
[460-(Li/izc)]Kw2/400 for class 1 web, (dw/ tw) < 33
where:
Li
=
e
=
Kf & Kw =
=
izc
Length of load point to haunch toe as shown in Fig.5.3.

Effective slenderness ratio = Kf/Kw(Li/izc)
Empirical factors to allow for the actual flange and web slenderness
Proportion of the depth of section in compression between the
centers of the two flanges.
Radius of gyration of the flange and portion of web in compression
109
To apply the above empirical equation to a composite section, Kemp and

Dekker, 1991, has pointed out 5 factors which affect the available rotational capacity
namely:a) Ratio of moment resistance at support to midspan region
b) Elastic properties used in calculation of rotation capacity
c) Axial force balancing reinforcement force
d) Cracking of concrete adjacent to supports
e) Restraint to lateral buckling by slab
The following are the comparison of result between the joint tests and the model
proposed by Kemp and Dekker, (1991), after taking into account of the 5 factors
mentioned above: Table 5.2 Comparison of rotational capacity at Haunch Toe
Specimen 1
(a) Connection
Specimen 2
Specimen 3
Specimen 4
Specimen 5
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
H9
H10
(b) Li
1550
1367
1550
1367
1550
1367
1093
832
1093
832
(c) e
NA
NA
11.7
10.3
11.7
10.3
8.2
6.3
8.2
6.3
(d) ra(exp) (Test Results)
NA
NA
9.7
16.7
6.7
14.3
17.0
NA
13.3
NA
(e) ra(kemp) (Kemp Model)
NA
NA
9.1
12.0
9.3
12.0
14.0
NA
12.0
NA
Ratio of (d)/(e)
NA
NA
1.07
1.39
0.72
1.19
1.21
NA
1.11
NA
The test results presented in Table 5.2 are based on the combination of Kemps
proposal and a Bi-Linear Curve as shown in Figs. 5.4 to 5.9. The available rotational
capacity of the composite section at haunch toe is obtained by dividing the Platic
Rotation, p with the Elastic Rotation, e. Table 5.2 shows that the ratio of test
results and Kemps Model, ranging from 0.72 to 1.39.
110
Bi-Linear Curve is introduced because it is not possible to obtain the ideal curve
as per Kemps model where the Mp will be achieved after the linear behaviour. The
actual behaviour of such composite section is that after the concrete crack or first
yield, the section begins to lose its stiffness before the Mp. Loss of stiffness may
increase the rotational ability of the section. The experimental Moment-Rotation
curves show that there is an inelastic region where the rotation could not be defined.
When first yield occur at the extreme fiber, the section under consideration only
begins to behave inelastically but a full plastic section has not been fully developed.
Therefore, it shall not be considered as part of the plastic rotational capacity.
However, the introduction of the bi-linear curve is to simplify and standardize the
definition of Rotational Capacity.
5.4 Beam Analysis

5.4.1 Composite Haunch Beam Properties
Fig. 5.10 shows a typical cross section of a composite haunch beam. The
tapered section is formed by taking the required haunch length of universal beam
section, cut it diagonally and welded to a universal beam. The following sections
present the derivation of section properties of composite haunch beam.
5.4.1.1. Section Properties
5.4.1.1.1. Elastic Section Properties
Universal Section
A UB = 2 BT + ( D 2T )t
( D 2T ) 3 t
2 BT 3
D T
+ 2 BT ( ) 2 +
12
2 2
12
3
3
( D 2T )t
2TB
=
+
12
12
2
1
= BT 3 + ( D 2T )t 3
3
3
I UB
=
x
I UB
y
J UB
111
Where:
A T = BT + ( D t T ) t
c Tx =
I xT =
BT
2
+ ( D t T )t T +
(Dt T )
2
AT
BT 3
+ BT
12
c Tx
T
2
(Dt T )3 t
Dt T
+ ( D t T )t T +
c Tx
12
2
3
(D t T ) t 3
TB
+
12
12
1
1
J T = BT 3 + (D t T ) t 3
3
3
AUB = Area of Universal Beam
I Ty =
IxUB = Second Moment of Universal Beam at x-x axis

IyUB = Second Moment of Universal Beam at y-y axis
JUB = Torsional Constant of Universal Beam
Tee Section Haunch

Where:
AT =
Area of Tee Section Haunch
cxT
Distance from Bottom of flange to PNA of Tee Section Haunch
IxT =
Second Moment of Tee Section Haunch at x-x axis
IyT =
Second Moment of Tee Section Haunch at y-y axis
JT =
Torsional Constant of Tee Section Haunch
Reinforcement Bar
AR = N
I
R
x
=N
where,
2
4
4
64
AR =
Area of Reinforcement
IxR =
Second Moment of Reinforcement at x-x axis
112
Total Composite Haunch Section
ACH = AUB + AT + A R
c CH =
I
AUB Dt +
=I
CH
x
UB
x
+A
UB
D
+ AT cTx + A R (Dt + D + Dr )
2
ACH
D
Dt + c CH
2
Z xCH top flange =
CH
x
I
D + Dt + Dr c CH
Z xCH bottom flange =
I
c
+ I xT + AT c CH cTx
+N
4
64
+ A R (Dt + D + Dr )
CH
x
CH
T
R
I yCH = I UB
y + Iy + Iy
ry =
I yCH
ACH
J = J UB + J T + J R
where:
ACH = Area of Composite Haunch Section
cCH = Distance from Bottom of flange to PNA of Composite Haunch Section
IxCH = Second Moment of composite Haunch Section at x-x axis
IyCH = Second Moment of Composite Haunch Section at y-y axis
J
= Torsional Constant of Composite Haunch Section
ZxCH = Elastic Modulus of Top/Bottom Flange at x-x axis

ry
= radius of gyration at y-y axis
5.4.1.1.2. Plastic Section Properties

Unhaunch Universal Section
A UB = 2 BT + ( D 2T ) t
S
UB
x
D T
( D 2T ) 2 t
= 2 BT ( ) +
2
2
4
where: SxUB = Plastic Modulus of Universal Beam
113
Composite Haunch Universal Section, Neutral Axis in Middle Flange

A CH = 2 BT + ( D 2T ) t + BT + ( D t T ) t + N
2
4
A CH
Half Total Area =
2
( D 2T ) t BT
( Dt T )t
2
+
+
+N
2
2
2
8
2
3 BT
t
=
+ (D 2T + D t T ) + N
2
2
8
= BT +
Half Total Area = BT + ( Dt T )t + (Cx Dt ) B
2
3BT t
+ (D 2T + Dt T ) + N
= BT + ( Dt T )t + (Cx Dt ) B
2
2
8
BT t
2
+ (D + Dt 3T 2 Dt + 2T ) + N
= (Cx Dt ) B
2
2
8
t
2
(
D Dt T ) + N
T 2
8 = (C D )
+
x
t
B
2
t
2
(
D Dt T ) + N
T
8
Cx = Dt + + 2
B
2
Which is only valid if:
Dt
Cx
Dt + T
For this case, the plastic section modulus of the composite haunch section is given by:
Sx
CH
= BT ( C x
+
T
( Dt T )
) + ( D t T )t C x D t +
2
2
B
(C x D t )2
2
B
D 2T
( D t + T C x ) 2 + ( D 2T ) t D t + T C x +
2
2
+ N
+ BT
D + Dt C x
( D + Dt C x + Dr )
Haunch Universal Section, Neutral Axis in Web of Universal Section

Refer to Figure 5.11, half total area in terms of Cx is:
Half Total Area =

Solution for C x :
Cx =
(Eq. 5.8)
ACH
= 2 BT + ( D t T )t + (C x D t T )t
2
( ACH
4 BT )
+ 2T
2t
which is only valid if :

D t + T C x ( Dt + D T )
114
T
2
For this case, the plastic section modulus is given by : S CH

= BT C x
x
D T
T
T
+ (D t T )t C x T t
+ BT C x D t
2
2
2
t
2 t
+ (D + D t C x T )
2
2
2
N
T
(D r + D + D t C x )
+ BT D + D t C x
+
2
4
+ (C x D t T )
(Eq. 5.9)
5.4.2 Composite Haunch Beam analysis
There are a few alternatives to model composite haunch beam, which include
(Hogan & Syam, 1997):
a) Modeling the haunch as a single beam element type over the full length of
the haunch with the elements section properties based on that of the
average depth of the haunch.
b) Dividing the haunch length into a number of segments with each segment
having uniform section properties which are representative of that
segment, either maximum or average or minimum.
c) Using a single beam element of equivalent stiffness, calculated using
(PCA, 1958)
d) Obtaining a stiffness matrix and fixed end reaction formulation for a
tapered member and use a computer program which allows a stiffness
matrix for a member to be input.
Based on the alternative (b), a study has been conducted (Hogan & Syam,
1997) and it is found that there is no benefit in using more than two segments in
modeling of haunch section. SCI, (1995) also provides some reasonable guidance and
suggests that haunches may be satisfactorily modeled by using two haunch elements.
115
The two haunch elements are modeled with average section properties for lengths
corresponding to 1/3 and 2/3 of the haunch.
Based on the present information on haunch section modeling, alternative (b)
is selected for the analysis by using computer software USFOS.
5.5 Finite Element Modelling

5.5.1 Nonlinear Analysis Software: - USFOS
USFOS is a nonlinear analysis software in which load can be applied in steps.

After each load step, the new position of nodal coordinates due to displacement will
be updated and the structure stiffness is assembled at each load step. The element
stiffnesses are then calculated from the updated geometry. At every load step each
element is checked to see whether the forces exceed the plastic capacity of the cross
section. If such an event occurs, the load step is scaled to make the forces comply
exactly with the yield condition. A plastic hinge is inserted when the element forces
have reached the yield surface.
5.5.2 Modeling of Composite Haunch Beam
As described in Section 4.5.2 earlier, there is no advantage in using more than

two segments in modeling of haunch section in the analysis. Fig.5.12 shows a
structure model of the test specimen in USFOS. Beam is modeled as a non-prismatic
member with the section properties as shown in the figure. The haunch sections are
modelled using 2 beam elements with length Lh. Determination of contra-flexure
point is based on 22% of span length which is about 1.8m from the column.
116
5.5.3 Results
Fig.5.13 shows the test results for the beam B1. The predicted ultimate load is
568kN (284kN x 2) for 2 load points, which is about 4.2 % more compared to the test
value. The stiffness of Beam B1 predicted by the finite element method is higher than
the test value. Fig.5.14 shows that the predicted ultimate load of the Beam B2 is
600kN (300 kN x 2), which is about 4.5% more compared to the test value.
Comparison of stiffness reflected that the stiffness of Beam B2 is higher than the test
value. Finite element result in Fig.5.15 for Beam B3 shows that the predicted ultimate
load is 674kN (337kN x 2), about 10 % difference compared to the test value.
Comparison of stiffness shows that the stiffness of Beam B3 is also higher than the
test value. It is believed that the higher stiffness prediction by USFOS may be because
of the fact that model did not account for the concrete cracking thus resulting in a
higher stiffness. However, based on the comparison between finite element and
experimental results, the finite element model is sufficiently accurate.
5.6 Lateral Torsional Instability

5.6.1 General
It is essential to check the buckling capacity when designing a structural steel

member. Sometimes buckling failure in a structural member is allowed to happen but
generally it is not economical for this type of failure mode. For steel member such as
I-Beam, two types of buckling mode usually occurred. Firstly, local buckling due to
compression force (the criteria for the local buckling is already well established by the
recent codes, which utilized the "section classification" to limit the local buckling).
Secondly, lateral torsional buckling which involves the cross section rotation and
117
displacement. This type of buckling usually can be avoided by the provision of lateral
and torsional restraints.
However, in steel-concrete composite beam design, the shear connection
between the steel beam and the concrete slab provides the lateral and torsional
restraint to the top steel flange. Therefore, the top flange is prevented from buckling
and only the web and the bottom flange are subjected to torsional buckling. This kind
of buckling requires more energy to induce than the lateral torsional buckling in steel
beam because it involves distorsion of the cross section. It is usually referred as
"Lateral Distorsional Buckling".
Lawson & Rackham, (1989) has proposed a method that is readily usable with
the British Code BS5950 for composite beam. However, their method did not
consider the contribution of top reinforcement. Therefore, the author has proposed a
calculation method for lateral distorsional buckling in composite haunch connection,
accounting for the effects of top reinforcement.
5.6.2 Lateral Distorsional Buckling Design Method
Rackham (1992) concluded in his work that the destabilising effect due to the
addition of reinforcement is likely to be minimal and that the buckling strength will,
in fact, be enhanced by the increased bending strength that the reinforcement
provides. He has shown in his work the equation to predict lateral distorsional
buckling for steel haunch connection. By modifying the energy method used by
Rackham (1992), derivation to obtain the capacity of composite haunch connection
accounting for lateral distorsional buckling is given below:
118
E1 + E 2 + E 3 + E 4 = E 5 + E 6
(Eq. 5.10)
E1= Strain energy absorbed in lateral bending of the bottom flange
E2= Torsional energy absorbed in twisting the bottom flange
E3= Bending energy absorbed in displacing the web
E4= Torsional energy absorbed in twisting the web
E5= Work done by the compressive force in the bottom flange
E6= Work done by the forces in the web
Therefore
E1 + E 2 + E 3 + E 4 = E 5 + E 6
EI y 4V
4 L3
2
1 9 GJ f V
2 8
h s2 L
1 M
2
cr
1 3 EI wV 2 L
1 3GJ w 2V
+
2
2 h s3
2
5 h s2 L
BT f 2V
2Z eL
1 107 . 5 2V 2 M cr t w h s
2
1120 LZ er
Multiplying throughout by 4L/2V2 and collecting terms,

the elastic buckling equation is obtained thus:
M cr
BT f
43 t w h s
+
Ze
224 Z er
= EI
Based on the British Code 5950,

M cr =
2G
+ 2
hs
9J f
3
+ Jw
8
5
3 EI w
+
h s3
(Eq. 5.11)
M p 2 E
2LT p y
where
LT = Equivalent Slenderness
p y = Yield Stress
M p = Plastic Moment
(Eq. 5.12)
119
And
( M cr M b )( M p M b ) = LT M cr M b
where
LT = Perry Coefficient
M b = Buckling Re sis tan ce Moment
M p = Sx py
(Eq. 5.13)
LT =
=
M p 2 E
M cr p y
S x 2 E
M cr
and
EI y
M cr =
3EI
2G 9 J f 3J w
L
+ 3w
+
2
8
5
hs
hs
BT f
Ze
43 t w hs
224 Z er
Therefore
S x 2 E
LT =
EI y
BT f
Ze
43 t w hs
224 Z er
3EI L
2G 9 J f 3 J w
+
+ 3w
2
8
5
hs
hs
(Eq. 5.14)
The above derivation can directly be used in the code BS 5950:2000 and hence
the Mb or the lateral torsional buckling moment could be obtained.
120
Fig. 5.1(a)
Fig. 5.1(b)
Fig. 5.1(c)
Fig. 5.1(d)
Fig. 5.1(e)
Haunch Beam with 2 Point Loads

Collapse Mechanism in Haunch Beam
Moment Diagram of 2 Point Loads
Moment Diagram of Haunch Toe Loads
Moment Diagram of 2 Point Loads and Haunch Toe Loads
121
a
e
1.4
M
Mp
1.2
Design Moment resistance = Mp
1.0
Rotation Capacity = ra = a/e
0.8
Li
0.6
Slope = Elastic stiffness C
0.4
Rotation
0.2
0.0
0.0
Max Moment, M
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
End Rotation Ratio = /e
Fig. 5.2 Moment-Rotation Curve according to Kemp, (1991)
122
Lateral Restraint
Lb
Lb
Li
Li
Lp
Lp
Mp
(At Lateral Restraint)
Mp
Mm = mMp
= MpLp/(LI-Lp)
Li
Li
Lp
Lp
ye Lp/(LI-Lp)
s=sy
Curvature = Strain/'
df
Lp
Lip=CpLi
Le
Lie=CeLi
Actual lateral deflection

Lateral defl.of equiv.strut
Fig. 5.3 Plastic Region near the Internal Support of Continuous Beam
123
Rebar Yielded at 238kNm
300
4.5
13.
5
15
250 kNm
250
224 kNm
Moment, kNm
200
Section Yielded at 242kNm
150
First Yield detected at Compression

Flange at 138kNm
100
First Crack observed at 89kNm
50
Haunch Toe Moment rotation Curve

Bi-Linear Moment Rotation Curve
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Rotation, mrad
Fig. 5.4 Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curve for Connection H3
300
3.5
18.
20.
247 kNm
250
224
Moment, kNm
200
150

Flange at 117kNm
100
50
Haunch Toe Moment-Rotation

Curve
Bi-linear Moment Rotation
Curve
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Rotation, mrad
124
400
350
8.5
344 kNm
25.0
6.5
300
282 kNm
Moment, kNm
250
Section Yielded at
294kNm
200
150
First Yield detected at

Compression Flange at 128kNm
100
Haunch Toe Moment Rotation

Curve
First Crack observed at

98kNm
50
Bi-Linear Moment Rotation

Curve
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Plastic Rotation, mrad
400
330 kNm
350
282
kNm
Moment, kNm
300
250
200
150

Compression Flange at 130kNm
100
50
Haunch Toe Moment Rotation Curve

0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Rotation, mrad
125
350

289 kNm
300
Moment, kNm
250
224 kNm
200
150
Compression Flange at
164kNm
100
50

0
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Rotation, mrad
400
Rebar Yielded at
341 kNm
350
Moment, kNm
300
282 kNm
250
200
150

Flange at 159kNm
100
50
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Rotation, mrad
126
Dr
Dt
Fig. 5.10 Cross Section of Haunch Beam with PNA at Beam Flange
Dr
Dt
Figure 5.11 Cross Section of Haunch Beam with PNA at Beam Web
127
Node18
Node 20
2
A
10
C D
E
F
G
Lh Lh
H
Lh = 216 mm for B1
19
Lh = 216 mm for B2
11
12 13
14
D
15
C
16
B
17
21
Lh = 354 mm for B3
Fig. 5.12 Modeling of Haunch Beam using non-linear Finite Element Analysis
Section
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
B1
8.56E+07
4.56E+08
9.56E+08
6.80E+08
3.92E+08
8.56E+07
1.93E+09
6.13E+07
I, mm
B2
8.56E+07
4.56E+08
9.56E+08
6.80E+08
3.92E+08
8.56E+07
1.93E+09
6.13E+07
B3
8.56E+07
4.56E+08
9.56E+08
6.80E+08
3.92E+08
8.56E+07
1.93E+09
6.13E+07
B1
1219
1261
1308
1526
1178
1219
1619
656
S, cm
B2
1581
1261
1308
1526
1178
1581
1614
656
Remarks
B3
1219
1261
1308
1526
1178
1219
1619
656
Composite Beam (Hog)

Composite Haunch (Hog)
Composite Beam (Hog)
Composite Beam (Sag)
Composite Beam (Sag)
Fig. 5.12 Modeling of Haunch Beam using Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis
128
USFOS Vs Experiment BEAM B1

700
600
568 kN
544 kN
Load, kN
500
400
300
200
USFOS
100
Experiment
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Displacement, mm
Fig. 5.13 Comparison of USFOS and Experimental Load-Displacement

Curve for Beam B1
129

700
600 kN
600
Load, kN
500
573 kN
400
300
200
USFOS
100
Experiment
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Displacement, mm

Curve for Beam B2

800
674 kN
700
Load, kN
600
628 kN
500
400
300
200
USFOS
100
Experiment
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Displacement, mm

Curve for Beam B3
130
CHAPTER 6
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
AND DESIGN EXAMPLE
6.1 Introduction
Based on the information available in the literature and experimental and

analytical studies presented in the previous chapters, design recommendation for
composite haunch beams will be made herein. It is important to provide structural
designers with a design concept with some specific guidelines so that the designers
could take precaution or necessary steps to minimize design errors. However,
engineers shall always make necessary judgements while encountering the situations
not covered in these design recommendations.
6.2 Design recommendations
1)
The ratio of length of the beam to depth should be in the range of 25 to 30 for
most efficient design. The experimental program presented earlier shows that
with a 7.8m clear span and 250mm beam depth, L/D ratio equal to about 30,
an optimum design is achieved with appropriate amount of reinforcement.
However, with this large L/D ratio, serviceability in deflection may be a
control factor. Introduction of haunch may help to control the deflection
because it reduces the "clear span" by 5% to 10% when haunch length fixed
between 1.5 to 3 times the depth of the steel beam. Beams of these proportions
when designed on strength would usually satisfy serviceability. It is
recommended that the depth of the haunch is taken as the depth of the steel
section, which allow the haunch be cut from the parent beam. Larger haunch
depth require additional type of beam size and increases the fabrication cost.
131
2)
It is recommended that for efficient design of continuous haunch beams, the

length of the end span should be approximately equal to the length of the
adjacent span. This is to ensure the moment diagram for the internal span be
similar to the current study and allow for similar moment redistribution
pattern. Care shall be taken at the end-span when anchorage of reinforcement
at external column is not sufficient to act compositely with the haunch
connection.
3)
Since long span beam design is likely to be controlled by serviceability, grade

S275 steel may be more economical than grade S355 for a span to depth ratio
of 25 to 30. The second moment of inertia that controls the deflection will be
the same regardless of the steel grade used.
4)
The bending resistance of the composite bolted connection should be designed

to be more than the composite haunch toe section. Therefore, failure can be
assumed to occur at the haunch toe.
5)
End-plates are to be welded to the ends of the beam. These plates are
approximately 20% to 30% thicker than the beam flange. This will usually
avoid the failure at the end plate and provide a rigid connection. The bolt
diameter is approximately equal to the end plate thickness. (M24 or M30 bolts
are expected to be the preferred size) (Lawson and Rackham, 1989).
6)
The moment resistance of the composite connection should be determined by

the method described in Chapter 3.
132
7)
Determine the number of bolts and the amount of slab reinforcement as

follows :
-
Determine the number of bolts needed to resist the factored shear

force. Assume the bottom bolt groups (between bottom haunch flange
to bottom beam flange) to resist shear force and upper row bolts to take
tension forces arising from the applied moment.
Choose the number and diameter of reinforcing bars within the

effective width at the supports (beam span/8). The reinforcement could
be from 1% to 2.5%. Larger percentage of reinforcement will actually
bring up the plastic neutral axis, which is not effective and not
economical.
8)
Determine the column size in accordance with the following guideline to avoid
use of column web stiffeners which may be costly:
-
Column flanges should be Class 1 or 2 (plastic or compact).
There is a maximum percentage of reinforcement (limit to 2.5% of

effective width at hogging area) that may be used before requiring
column stiffeners. Consider use of a heavier column section if more
tension reinforcement is used, or alternatively, provide column
stiffeners.
6.3 Elastic global analysis
(1)
Determine the moment resistance of the composite section in accordance with

BS 5950: Part 3 or Eurocode 4, for the assumed beam size selected in Section
6.1.
133
(2)
Check the construction condition for the design of steel beams. This is
normally not critical but attention to be given to where lateral torsional
buckling of primary beams may occur during construction.
(3)
Determine the moment resistance of the composite haunch connection and

composite section (at haunch toe).
(4)
Calculate the second moment of area of the composite section, using

uncracked section properties.
(5)
Carry out an elastic global analysis, using the appropriate composite beam
section stiffness (at sagging and hogging moment regions) and column section
stiffness. Determine the connection moments for the pattern loads used in the
analysis.
(6)
Redistribution of negative (hogging) moments at the haunch toe section (not at

the connections) is normally not required or very minimum as per Table 1 in
Chapter 2. Increase the positive (sagging) moment in the spans to maintain
equilibrium. Check the capacity of the composite section (sagging) as in Step
(1), and the composite section (hogging) at haunch toe as in Step (3). Proceed
further if the applied moments are less than the moment resistance. Modify the
size of the steel section, or the amount of reinforcement, as necessary if the
applied moment is larger than the resistance moment.
134
(7)
Check the design of the columns subject to axial force in combination with the
moments and shear forces transferred at the face of the column. The moment
resisted by the columns above and below the connection is divided in
proportion to their stiffnesses (or lengths). Take the moment variation factor
in BS 5950: Part 1 as 0.5 and treat the effective length as equal to the column
length for a non-sway column.
(8)
Determine the number of shear connectors necessary to achieve the required

force transfer between the beam and the slab for hogging and sagging moment
region. Check the minimum spacing of the shear connectors. If inadequate,
increase the size of the steel beam or reduce the percentage of reinforcement.
(9)
Calculate the deflection of the composite beam using the second moment of
area, as in Step (4). Check the imposed load deflections against serviceability
limits.
(10)
Calculate the deflection of the steel beam after construction. For long span
beams, it may be necessary to precamber or prop the beams to reduce the total
deflection. If the serviceability performance is not adequate, increase the size
or depth of the steel beam.
6.4 Plastic hinge analysis
This procedure is only appropriate for Class I beams and Class I or 2 column
sections.
135
(1)
Repeat Steps 1, 2 and 3 of Section 6.3.
(2)
Combine the moment resistance of the haunch toe section and the composite
beam section in positive(sagging) bending, in an equivalent plastic hinge
analysis. For an internal span subject to equally spaced loads, add the two
moment resistance directly to determine the failure load, For an external span,
ignore the moment resistance of the composite connection, but include the
moment resistance of the steel connection, if appropriate. This is because at the
end span, the anchorage that required for reinforcement is not sufficient to
contribute tension resistance in the composite beam section.
(3)
Compare the free moment at the ultimate limit state to the combined moment
determined as in Step 2. If the combined moment resistance exceeds the applied
free moment, proceed. If not, increase the size of the steel beam.
(4)
Check the shear resistance of the bolt group for the applied shear, taking
account of the final bending moment variation, and the reduced effectiveness of
the bolts in tension.
(5)
Repeat Step (7) of Section 6.3 for the design of the columns. For internal
columns, ignore pattern loading and consider an applied moment equal to half
that of an equivalent column loaded from one side only by the same connection.
Divide this moment between the columns above and below. Include the axial
load due to full loading on all spans.
136
(6)
Repeat Step (8) of Section 6.3 for the numbers of shear connectors.
(7)
Repeat Steps (9) and (10) of Section 6.3 for serviceability performance.
137
6.5 Design Procedure Flow Chart
Design of Non-Sway
Composite Haunch
Structures
Plastic Hinge
Analysis
Elastic Global
Analysis
Identify Design
Load
Try Beam &

Column as per
Section 6.2
Analyse Frame with

homogeneous
section
Analyse Frame with

Plastic Hinge
Analysis
Allow negative
moment redistribution
as per Table 2.2
Determine Sagging (MidSpan) and Hogging (Haunch

Toe) Moment Resistance of
Composite Section as per BS
5950 Part3 Section 3.1 and
compared with design moment
Determine Sagging (MidSpan) and Hogging (Haunch

Toe) Moment Resistance of
Composite Section as per BS
5950 Part3 Section 3.1.
Total the sagging and hogging
moment to compare with
design moment that required
for plastic failure mechanism
Continue Next Page
Continue Next Page

138
Continue From Previous Page
No
Continue From Previous Page
Mcapacity > Mapplied

Vcapacity > Vapplied
No
Yes
No
Lateral Distorsional
Buckling Check
(Eq 5.11)
No
Yes
Haunch Connection
Design as per Eq. 3.3
or Eq. 3.4
Serviceability Check
End
139
6.6 Design Example
A design example is presented in Appendix A to illustrate the design method

developed herein. The design example is based on a commercial office building,
which is braced against lateral sway. The floor grid consists of a 8 m main beam span
with 12 m span secondary beams at 2.27m centre to centre.
The main beam test B2 was specifically designed to model this frame
arrangement and the section sizes used in the experimental set-up is exactly same as
in the design example. Therefore, a direct comparison could be made between the
results of this calculation and the test results. The maximum failure load in the test
was 604 kN (2 x 302 kN), compared to 500 kN (2 x 250 kN, refer Design Loading in
Appendix A) factored design load. The test frame sustained 20% more load than the
design calculations proposed, which represents a generous safety margin.
140
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND
PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE WORK
7.1 General
Behaviour of composite haunch beams has been investigated through

experimental program and analytical study. The research work carried out has
provided a perception into the behaviour of composite haunch beam (with tension
reinforcement), which has not been explored sufficiently in the past research.
Concluding remarks with regard to experimental and analytical study will be
presented in the following section.
7.2 Behaviour of the Composite Haunch Connection
It is concluded from the tests that composite haunch connections could be

designed as full strength connections. The rotations of the composite haunch
connections are very small and can be neglected. A conventional stress block in
accordance with Eurocode 4 is reasonable to predict accurately the capacity of the
connections. The additional reinforcement added in the slab contributes significantly
to the connection without compromising the ductility. This is evident from the
moment-rotation curves obtained from the connection tests. However, only sections
with "Plastic" classification are recommended for this behaviour.
Besides, the moment-rotation curves of the composite connections also show
that the stiffness of the connections drops after the cracking of the concrete. The
stiffness of the initial '
uncracked'hogging region concrete section is higher than the
values of the '
cracked'hogging region.
141
Experimental observations show that failure at the haunch toe is governed by

compression failure of the flange and web plates or tensile failure of reinforcement
bars depending on the neutral axis, which is affected by the amount of slab
reinforcement. The higher the slab reinforcement ratio, the compression flange and
web plates will fail before the yielding of the tension reinforcement.
7.3 Behaviour of the Composite Haunch Beam
For composite haunch beam, plastic hinge could be designed at haunch toe
which is the weakest section when subjected to hogging moment. Optimum design of
composite beam can be achieved when plastic hinge occurred at haunch toes followed
by a plastic mechanism at the mid-span. Experimental results show that haunch
connection is able to redistribute moment to the mid-span by losing stiffeness due to
cracking of concrete slab and yielding of either steel reinforcement or cross section.
Studies on the effective width in continuous composite beam show that the
effective width 0.25L recommended by BS 5950:Part 3: Section 3.1 and Eurocode 4 is
satisfactory at the sagging region. On the other hand, since concrete strength in
tension is negligible, its contribution is ignored and only the reinforcement within the
effective width is considered. Studies have been carried out for the effectiveness of
the tension reinforcements at the hogging region and test results show that the tension
reinforcements recommended by BS 5950:Part 3: Section 3.1 and Eurocode 4 are
conservative. It is proposed an additional factor of 1.4 to be used while calculating the
effective width using the codes.
7.4 Section Properties and Frame Analysis
The section properties of composite haunch section have been derived for the
frame analysis. It is not necessary to model more than 2 average sections for a haunch
142
connection in order to obtain reasonable results. The finite element software USFOS
produces reasonably accurate prediction for the composite haunch beam capacity. It is
recommended that this software be used to carry out parametric study.
The lateral distorsional buckling design method has been developed and the
method could be used in conjunction with the code. Design for the treatment of lateral
distorsional buckling has been shown by the tests to be conservative when applied to
haunch composite beams. From the analysis of the results of the Sub-Assembly Test
in Chapter 4, it is suggested that, for haunch composite beams, the value of the critical
buckling length Lcr, should be multiplied by 0.6. It is also suggested that the value of
the slenderness parameter, vt, calculated from equations 4 and 5, should be multiplied
by 0.75 to produce realistic design values. However, on the basis of the tests, it is
clear that when a full depth stiffener is provided both sides of the web at the haunch
toe, and when the minimum shear connection is maintained over the whole hogging
region, the haunch is sufficiently stiff to assume that the haunch toe position is
restrained. The possibility of lateral distorsional buckling need only then be checked
beyond the haunch toe, towards the span.
The moment-rotation characteristics of the haunch region were specifically
examined in the tests. The degree of rotation obtained from the Sub-Assembly Tests
was compared with theoretical requirements specified by Kemp, (1991). It was found
that only those beams with full depth stiffeners fitted both sides of the web at the
haunch toes passed the criterion. These specimens continued to sustain their design
plastic moments of resistance up to a value of 45 rads.
It is interesting to note that the maximum load was achieved in the main test
when the haunch toe rotations were of the order of 35 milli radians. It is therefore
143
concluded that it is possible to design and detail the composite haunch beam so that
sufficient rotational capacity will be achieved.
7.5 Future Work
The behaviour of composite haunch beams and connections has been explained
and demonstrated with experimental testing and an analytical model. Certainly,
composite construction with haunch beam structures could provide designers an
option to maximise the usage of steel and concrete so that optimum and economical
design could be achieved. Nevertheless, the design of composite structures involves
many considerations and processes that could still be further developed and verified.
Therefore, besides the work reported in this thesis, the following areas for future study
are recommended.
1. To study the behaviour of haunch composite connections with tension
reinforcement at the end span which is always subjected to unbalanced
moment. In a composite haunch connection where the tension
reinforcement is ignored, and when the column stiffness is a lot larger than
the steel beam, additional reinforcement may contribute extra tension
resistance to achieve a higher capacity at the connection as well as the
haunch toe area. However, at the end span, the anchorage of the
reinforcement could be an issue to be explored. A detailed study shall be
conducted in this area.
2. To study the behaviour of haunch composite connection in sway frame

where the connection is not only subjected to hogging but also sagging
moment. The bolts designed at connection to resist shear force is now
exposed to tension force when the connection is subjected to reverse
144
moment. It is necessary to understand the haunch connection behaviour and

its application in sway frame.
The finite element USFOS shows reasonable predictions of the behaviour of

composite haunch beam as a structural frame. It could be further developed to zoom
into the component design which is able predict the failure mode of the haunch beam
construction system. Further development will be worthwhile because when
reasonable accurate computer simulation is possible, full scale testing will be the least
option for researchers to study the behaviour of any structural system.
145
APPENDIX A
DESIGN EXAMPLE
A) Design Data
i) Structure Data
A 4 storey building size 24m x 72m as shown in Figure 3.1 braced against side-sway
is considered in this design example.
Main Beam Span
: 8 m (Composite Haunch Beam Rigid Connection)
Secondary Beam Span
: 12 m (Composite Beam Simply Supported)
Storey Height
: 4.2 m
Column Base
: Fixed
Slab Thickness
: 120 mm
ii) Material Data:

Shear Stud
: Dia 19mm x 95mm as welded
Concrete
: fcu = 30N/mm2 , 2400 kN/m3
Slab thickness
: 120mm
Steel Grade
: S275
iii) Design Loading

Concrete Slab
: 2.88 kN/m2
Construction Load
: 0.50 kN/m2
Building Services
: 0.70 kN/m2
Imposed Load
: 5.00 kN/m2
Design Loading
: 1.4 (2.88+0.7) + 1.6(5) = 13.01 kN/m2
Secondary beam self weight, say 0.50 kN/m. Design Load = 1.4 x 0.50 = 0.70 kN/m
146
Therefore, loading from secondary beam transferred to main beam, P

= ((2.67m x 13.01kN/m2) + 0.70 kN/m) x 12m /2
= (41.74 kNm) x 12m/2
= 250 kN
B) Plastic Design of Main Beam
To form a plastic mechanism at the haunch toes and loading points:
Lh
A h
L/3-L
L/3-Lh
L/3
Lh
E
F
L/3-Lh
Mph
B
Mps
Where,
Mph = Plastic Moment Capacity at Haunch Toe (Hogging)
Mps = Plastic Moment Capacity at Load point (Sagging)
Moment about haunch toe,
Mph + Mps
P (L/3-Lh)
Therefore, to design the haunch beam,

Mph + Mps
P (L/3-Lh)
>
147
Beam size - Span to Depth ratio 25 to 30

Using 30,
= 8000/30
= 266 mm
Try UB 254 x 146 x 37 kg/m, plastic section for both sagging and hogging condition
and hence is suitable for plastic design.
A Data:
1 Slab Thickness , Ds
2 Concrete strength, fcu
30 N/mm2
3 Concrete Cover, Dc
20 mm
4 Effective width,sagging,Bes
1400 mm
5 Effective width,hogging,Beh
120 mm
1000 mm
6 Number of rebars
10 nos
7 Diameter of rebar
20 mm
8 Area of rebar, Abar
9 Yielding strength of rebar
10 Lever arm of rebar to beam flange, Dr
90 mm
Depth, D
255.9 mm
Width, B
146.4 mm
Flange thickness, T
10.9 mm
Web thickness, t
6.4 mm
Web depth, d
218.9 mm
Area
4740 mm2
Yielding strength, fy
275 mm2
13 Constant, (Pfix/Py)^(1/2)
1 Resistance of concrete flange, Rc
5040 kN
2 Resistance of steel flange, Rf
439 kN
3 Resistance of steel beam, Rs
1304 kN
4 Resistance of clear web depth, Rv
385 kN
5 Resistance of overall web depth,Rw
426 kN
6 Resistance of slender web, Ro
428 kN
3142 mm2
460 N/mm2
12 Universal beam dimension
B Calculation
148
7 Resistance of reinforcement, Rr
1445 kN
8 Resistance of slender steel beam,Rn
1346 kN
9 d/t
34.2
10 76*e/(1+Rr/Rv)
16.0
11 76*e*/(1+Rc/Rv)
5.4
Case 2 : Plastic neutral axis in concrete slab (Sagging)
Rc > Rw and Rs < Rc

Mc = Rs*(D/2+Ds-Rs/Rc*Ds/2)
303 kNm
BS 5950: Part 3
Case 6 : Plastic neutral axis in concrete slab (Hogging)
Rr > Rw and Rr > Rs

Mc = Rs*(D/2 +Dr)
284 kNm
BS 5950: Part 3
Try Haunch Length 5% of span, hence haunch length Lh = 0.05 x 8000 = 400 mm
Check ultimate condition,
Mph + Mps
P (L/3-Lh)
>
303 + 284 >

250(8/3-0.4)
587
567
= 1.04 > 1
:- Ultimate condition satisfied

Checking of lateral distorsional buckling of beam at haunch toe
Refer to equation (Eq 5.14) in the thesis
LT
= 17.7 and refer to Table 16 of
BS5950:2000,
pb
= 275 N/mm2
Therefore, no reduction to Rs to obtain the Mb = Mc = 284kNm Okay !
149
C) Main Beam Elastic composite Properties

I) Calculation of Moment Inertia, Ig (Sagging) Uncracked
UB254 x 146 x 37kg/m

Universal Beam Properties
D
255.9
mm
146.4
mm
6.4
mm
10.9
mm
4740.0
mm2
218.9
mm
Sxx
484363.0
mm4
Ms
0.0
kNm
1 Steel Beam Inertia Moment
Ixx
55600000.0 mm4
2 Effective Width of Concrete (Sagging)
Be
1400.0
mm
3 Overall slab depth
Ds
120.0
mm
4 Depth of the deck profile
Dp
0.0
mm
5 Modular Ratio e
13.2
6 Cross section area of steel beam
4750.0
mm2
7 Depth of steel beam
256.0
mm
Ig
1.93E+08
mm4
D) Main Beam Serviceability Deflection Check

Design Load from Secondary Beam (Imposed Live Load Only)
= 5.0 kN/m2 x 8/3 x 12m/2
= 80kN
150
80kN
Lh
L/3-Lh
80kN
L/3-Lh
L/3
Lh
= 0.00772 PL3/EI
= 0.00772 *80,000*80003/(205,000*1.93E08)
= 8.0mm
Max Deflection
Hence, Span/Def = 8000/8

= 1000 > 360, Live Load Serviceability Deflection Okay!
E) Haunch Connection Design

Haunch Connection is designed to remain elastic. Therefore, the connection is to
resist 1.1 time the haunch toe moment Mph.
250 kN
Lh
L/3-Lh
250 kN
L/3
322kNm
L/3-Lh
Lh
322kNm
V
250 kN
1.1 Mps = 1.1 x 322kNm = 354 kNm

Le = 400 mm
Connection Moment
= 250 kN x 0.4 + 354 kNm

= 454 kNm
Try M20 Grade 8.8 Bolts with 10T20 Tension Reinforcement

151
Rr
=
=
0.87 x 10 x 3.14 x 202/4 x 460

1256 kN
Rb
=
=
2 x 91.9 kN
184 kN
Rhf
=
=
146 x 10.9 x 1.2 x 275

525 kN
Column Web Bearing (Try column UC 203 x 203 x 60 kg/m)

Pc = (b1 + n2) x tc x py
b1
=
=
=
Tbeam + 2Tplate
10.9 + 2x20
50.9 mm
n2
=
=
=
2(Tcolumn + rcolumn) x 2.5

2(14.2 + 10.2) x 2.5
122 mm
Therefore, Pc = (50.9 + 122) x 9.1 x 275

= 436 kN
Column Web Buckling (Try column UC 203 x 203 x 60 kg/m)
Pc = (b1 + n1) x tc x py
n1
=
=
2 x 209.5/2
209
=
=
=
2.5 d/tcolumn
2.5 x 189.1/9.1
51.7
152
from Table 27(c) BS 5950: Part 1

pc = 217 N/mm2
Therefore, Pc = (50.9+209.5) x 9.1 x 217
= 518 kN
Comparing Rhf and Pc (Bearing or Buckling), Column Bearing Controlled
So, Rhf is limited to 436 kN
Rhw =
=
234 x 6.4 x 1.2 x 275

494 kN
Rf
=
=
146 x 10.9 x 1.2 x 275

525 kN (Limit to 436 kN Column Bearing Controlled)
Rw
=
=
234 x 6.4 x 1.2 x 275

494 kN
Rhf + Rhw + Rf + Rw < Rr + Rb , PNA at beam web

((yc - Dh) x 1.2 x 275)+ Rhf + Rhw + Rf
= Rr + Rb
((yc - 256) x 1.2 x 275) + 436 + 494 + 436
= 1256 + 184
yc
= 256 mm
Take moment about reinforcement

Mu
= 525 (90+256+256-10.9/2) + 494 (90+256+234/2) + 525(90+256-10.9/2)

= 313163 + 228722 + 178762
= 720647 kNmm
= 721 kNm > 454 kNm
Haunch Connection Moment Satisfied !!
Checking of shear bolt, design shear force = 250 kN

Try 4 M20 Bolt Grade 8.8, shear capacity
= 368 kN > 250 kN
= 4 * 91.9 kN
Okay !!
153
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, D. and Najafi, A.A. (1994) "Performance of Composite Connections:
Major Axis End Plate", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 31, 31-57.
2. Anderson, D., Aribert, J.M., Bode, H. and Kronenburger (2000) "Design Rotation
Capacity of Composite Joints", The Structural Engineer, Vol. 78, No.6 March, 2529.
3. Aribert, J.M. and Raoul, J. (1992) "Two full-scale tests of class 3 composite
beams", Proceedings of the Engineering Foundation Conference on Composite
Construction ASCE, Potosi, MI, 14-19.
4. ASTM E8-1979 (1979) "Standard Methods of Tension Testing of Material",
American Association State Highway and Transportation Officials Standard,
AASHTO No.:T68.
5. Boswell, L.F. (1992) "The Structural Behaviour of Haunch Composite Beams in
Long Span Building Applications", Final report to SCI in respect of British Steel
Market Development Grant No. MDF P9/90, City University, London.
6. Climenhaga, J.J. and Johnson, R.P. (1972a) "Local Buckling in Continuous
Composite Beams", The Structural Engineer, 50(9), 367-374.
7. Climenhaga, J.J. and Johnson, R.P. (1972b) "Moment-Rotation Curves for Locally
Buckling Beams", Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE,
Vol. 98, No. ST6, June, 1239-1254.
8. Cosenza, E, Mazzolani, S. and Pecce, M. (1995a) "Non Linear Analysis of
Continuous Composite Beam", 287-296.
9. Cosenza E, Mazzolani, S and Pecce, M. (1995b) "The Influence of the rebar
ductility on the rotational capacity of composite beams", 879-886.
154
10. Couchman, G. (1996) "A New Design Method for Continuous Composite
Beams", Structural Engineering International, 2/96, 96-101.
11. Dekker, N., Kemp, A.R. and Trinchero, P. (1995) Factors Influencing the
Strength of Continuous Composite Beams in Negative Bending Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 34, 161-185.
12. Eurocode 3 ENV 199-1-1:1992 (1992) "Design of Steel Structures, Part 1.1
General Rules and Rules for Building", Comite European de Normalisation
(CEN), Brussels.
13. Eurocode 4 DD ENV 1994-1-1:1992 (1994) "Design of Composite Steel and
Concrete Structures, Part 1.1 General Rules and Rules for Building", British
Standard Institution, London.
14. Fabbrocino, G., Manfredi, G. and Cosenza, E. (2001) "Ductility of Composite
Beams under Negative Bending: An Equivalent Index for Reinforcing Steel
Classification", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 57, 185-202.
15. Hamada, S. and Longworth, J. (1976) "Ultimate Strength of Continuous
Composite Beams", Journal of The Structural Division, July, 1463-1479.
16. Hamada, S. and Longworth, J. (1974) "Buckling of Composite Beams in Negative
Bending", Journal of The Structural Division, Nov, 2205-2222.
17. Hogan, T.J. and Syam A.A. (1997) "Design of Tapered Haunch Universal Section
Members in Portal Frame Rafters", Steel Construction, Vol. 31, No 3, Sept, 2-27.
18. Hope-Gill, M.S. and Johnson, R.P. (1976) "Tests on Three Three-span continuous
composite beams", Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrgs, Part 2, 61, June, 367-381.
155
19. Iwankiw, N. (1997) "Ultimate Strength Considerations for Seismic Design of the
Reduced Beam Section (Internal Plastic Hinge)", Engineering Journal, First
Quarter, 3-16.
20. Johnson, R.P. and Chen, S. (1991) "Local Buckling and Moment Redistribution in
Class 2 Composite Beams", Structural Engineering International, April, 27-34.
21. Kemp, A.R. (1995) "Interaction of Plastic Local and Lateral Buckling", Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 111, No.10, Oct, 2181-2195.
22. Kemp, A.R. and Dekker, N. (1991) "Available Rotation Capacity in Steel and
Composite Beams", The Structural Engineer, Vol. 69, 88-97.
23. Kemp, A.R. and Nethercot, D.A. (2001) "Required and Available Rotations in
Continuous Composite Beams with Semi-rigid Connections", Journal of
24. Kitipornchai, S. and Trahair, N.S. (1975a) "Buckling of Inelastic I-Beams under
Moment Gradient", Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE,
Vol. 101, No. ST5, May, 991-1004.
25. Kitipornchai, S. and Trahair, N.S. (1975b) "Inelastic Buckling of Simply
Supported Steel I-Beams", Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the
ASCE, Vol. 101, No. ST7, Jul, 1333-1678.
26. Kitipornchai, S. and Trahair, N.S. (1972) "Elastic Stability of Tapered I-Beams,
Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 98, No. ST3,
Mar, 713-728.
27. Lawson, R.M. and Rackham, J.W. (1989) "Design of Haunch Composite Beam in
Buildings", Steel Construction Institute, United Kingdom.
28. Lawson, R.M. (1995) "Developments in steel framed commercial building in th
UK, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 73, No. 11, 186-192.
156
29. Lay, M.G. (1965) "Flange Local Buckling in Wide-Flange Shapes", Journal of the
Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 91, No. ST6, Dec, 95-116.
30. Lay M.G. and Galambos T.V. (1965) "Inelastic Steel Beams Under Uniform
Moment", Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 91,
No. ST6, Dec, 67-93.
31. Leon R.T. (1990) "Semi-rigid Composite Construction", Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, Vol. 32, 99-119.
32. Li T.Q, Choo B.S. and Nethercot D.A. (1995) "Determination of Rotation
Capacity Requirements for Steel and Composite
Beams", Journal of

33. Li T.Q, Nethercot D.A. and Lawson, R.M. (2000) "Required Rotation of
Composite Connections", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 56, 151173.
34. Liew J.Y.R., Looi K.L. and Uy B. (2001) "Practical Design Guideline for Semi
Continuous Composite Braced Frames", International Journal of Steel and
Composite Structures, 1(2), 213-230.
35. Liew J.Y.R. (2001) "A Resource Book for Structural Steel Design and
Construction", Singapore: SSSS/BCA Joint Publication.
36. Liew, J.Y.R., Teo, T.H. and Shanmugam, N.E. (2004) "Composite Joints Subject
to Reversal of Loading- Part 1: Experimental Study", Journal of Constructional
37. Liew, J.Y.R., Teo, T.H. and Shanmugam, N.E. (2004) "Composite Joints Subject
to Reversal of Loading- Part 2:Analytical Assessments", Journal of Constructional
157
38. Lukey, A.F and Adams, P.F. (1969) "Rotation Capacity of Beams under Moment
Gradient", Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 95,
No. ST6, Jun, 1173-1188.
39. Narayanan, R. (1991) "Design Development in Long Span Flooring System in the
UK", Proceedings, International Conference on Steel and Aluminium Structures,
ICSAA91, Singapore, 22-24 May, ed. by Lee, S.L. and Shanmugam, N.E.,
Elsevier Applied Science.
40. Nethercot, D.A. and Trahair, N.S. (1976) "Inelastic Lateral Buckling of
Determinate Beams", Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the
ASCE, Vol. 102, No. ST4, Apr, 701-717.
41. Nethercot, D.A. (1995) "Design of Composite Connections", The Structural
Engineer, vol. 73, no. 13/4 July, 218-219.
42. Nethercot, D.A. and Li, T.Q. (1995) "Design of Semi-Continuous Composite
Frames", Structural Stability and Design, ed. by Kitipornchai, Hancock &
Bradford, 217-282.
43. Nethercot, D.A. (1975) "Inelastic Buckling of Steel Beams under Non Uniform
Moment", The Structural Engineer Vol. 53, No.2, Feb, 73-78.
44. Nethercot, D.A. (1983) "Elastic Lateral Buckling of Beams, Beams and Beam
Columns-Stability and Strength", ed. by Narayanan, R., Applied Science
Publishers, London and New York, 1-33.
45. Owens, G. (2000) "State of the art report: Basic Problems, Design Concepts and
Codification of Steel and Composite Structures", Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, Vol. 55, 7-27.
46. Plumier, Andre. (1997) The Dogbone: Back to the Future, Engineering Journal,
Vol. 34, No. 2, 61-67.
158
47. Price, A.M. and Anderson, D. (1992) "Composite Beams", Constructional Steel
Design: An International Guide, ed. by Dowling, Harding, J.E. and Bjorhord, R.,
Elsevier Applied Science, London, 501-522.
48. Rackham, J.W. (1992) "The Design of Haunch Composite Beam Frames for
Buildings", Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, City University, London.
49. Shanmugam, N.E., Ng, Y.H. and Liew, J.Y.R. (2002) "Behaviour of Composite
Haunch Beam Connection", Engineering Structures, Vol. 24, 1451-1463
50. SCI/BSCA Connection Group (1995) "Joints in Steel Construction Moment
Connections", Steel Construction Institute, United Kingdom.
51. Tehami, M. (1997) "Local Buckling in Class 2 Continuous Composite Beams",
Journal of Construction in Steel Research, Vol. 43, Nos.1-3, 141-159.
52. Trahair, N.S. and Kitipornchai, S. (1972) "Buckling of Inelastic I-Beams under
Moment Gradient", Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE,
Vol. 99, No. ST11, Nov, 991-1004.
53. Trahair, N.S. (1983) "Inelastic Lateral Buckling of Beams, Beams and Beam
Columns-Stability and Strength", ed. by Narayanan, R., Applied Science
Publishers, London and New York 1983, 35-69.
54. Uy, B. and Liew, J.Y.R., (2003) Composite Steel-Concrete Structures, The Civil
Engineering Handbook, ed. by Chen, W.F. and Liew, J.Y.R., CRC Press, 51-1/62.
159
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
1. Shanmugam, N.E., Ng, Y.H, Richard Liew, J.Y., Behaviour of Composite
haunch beam connection, Engineering Structures 24(2002), pp 1451-1463.
2. Ng, Y.H., N.E. Shanmugam, Richard Liew, J.Y. and Yu, C.H., Haunch
Connections in Composite Construction, Proceeding of the Fifth Pacific
Structural Steel Conference, 13-16 October 1998, Seoul, South Korea, pp.
717-722.
3. Richard Liew, J.Y., Ng, Y.H. and N.E. Shanmugam, Design of Haunch
Composite Connections for Long-Span Beam Construction, Connections in
Steel Structures IV: Behaviour Strength and Design, edited by Roberto Leon
and W.S. Eastering, Chicago: AISC 2002, pp. 424-433.
4. Ng, Y.H., N.E. Shanmugam and Richard Liew, J.Y., Tests To Failure of
Continuous Composite Haunch Beams, Proceeding of the International
Conference on Structural and Foundation Failures August 2-4, 2004,
Singapore.
5. Ng, Y.H., N.E. Shanmugam and Richard Liew, J.Y., Behaviour of Composite
Haunch Beam, Journal of Constructional Steel Research (Accepted for
Publication)
160

Design of Compozite Haunch Beams and Connections

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Compozite Haunch Beams and Connections

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN OF COMPOSITE

HAUNCH BEAMS AND CONNECTIONS

NG YIAW HEONG (BEng.(Hons.), MEng)

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY of SINGAPORE

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

CHAPTER 5 ANALYTICAL MODEL

5.5.2 Modeling of Composite Haunch Beam

CHAPTER 6 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND

APPENDIX A DESIGN EXAMPLE

Limits to redistribution of hogging moment to reduce (EC4)

Maximum redistribution of negative moment in composite haunch

Details of joint test specimens

Summary of universal section properties and tensile test results

Summary of reinforcement bar properties and tensile test results

Summary of concrete cube test results

Summary of test results

Summary of concrete cube test results for beam specimen

Details of beam test specimens

Comparison of test results with Plastic Hinge Theory

Comparison of rotational capacity at Haunch Toe

Haunch as Taper Section in Universal Beam

Cutting of Taper Section in Universal Beam

Cross Section of Continuous Composite Beam

Sub-frame of Beam and Column in Non-sway Frames Analysis

Relation between Haunch Beam Elastic Resistance and Parent Beam

Distorsional Buckling of Composite Beam

Building Plan Layout for Joint Specimens'Design

Cruciform Joint Specimen

Test Specimen Ready for Concrete Casting

Typical Joint Test Specimen

Joint Test Specimen Ready for Testing

Instrumentation of Test Specimen

Definition of Rotation in a Joint

Moment-rotation Curve of Connection

Stress-strain Block of Haunch Connection

Figure 3.10(a) View after Failure of Specimen H1 and H2

Moment-Rotation Curve of H1 and H2

View after Failure of H3 and H4

View after Failure of H5

View after Failure of H6

View after Failure of H7

View after Failure of H8

View after Failure of H9

Premature Failure of H10

Comparison of Load-Displacement Curve of H2,H4 and H6

Comparison of Load-Displacement Curve of H3, H4, H7 and H8

Haunch Beam Test Specimen

Wooden Formwork of Beam Test Specimen

Beam Specimen Ready for Concrete Casting

Beam Specimen Ready for Testing

Isometric View of Haunch Beam Test Specimen

Schematic Loading of Haunch Beam Test Specimen

Loading Frame in Haunch Beam Test Specimen

Loading Frame Connected to Hydraulic Actuator

Larger Haunch Connection at Cantilever Beam Side

Instrumentation of Beam Specimen

View after Failure of Specimen B1

Load-Displacement Curve of Specimen B1

Inelastic Buckling in Compression Flange of the Beam B1

Crushing of Concrete Slab at Loading Point in Beam B1

Concrete Slab Cracking Pattern of the Beam B1 at Haunch Toe