Figure 1
Bending test model and graph format to obtain m and k coefficients [33 Comitê Europeu de Normalização, Projeto de Estruturas Mista de Aço-Betão - Parte 1-1: Regras Gerais e Regras para Edifícios, EN 1994-1-1, 2011.].
Figure 2
Geometric characteristics of the Polydeck 59s (units in millimetres) [1616 ArcelorMittal Perfilor, Catálogo Técnico Polydeck 59S, 12th ed. São Paulo: ArcelorMittal Perfilor, 2016.].
Figure 3
Geometric characteristics of the test samples as per ASTM E8/E8M – 13a [
1717 ASTM International, Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials 1, ASTM E8/E8M, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/E0008.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/E0008...
].
Figure 5
Test model and tested samples.
Figure 6
Typical stress-strain curve result of the tensile strength test of the ZAR280.
Figure 7
Quadratic shell finite element SHELL281 [1818 ANSYS Element Reference, ANSYS Mechanical APDL Element Reference. Canonsburg, PA. EUA: Ansys, 2021.].
Figure 8
Quadratic solid finite element SOLID187 [1818 ANSYS Element Reference, ANSYS Mechanical APDL Element Reference. Canonsburg, PA. EUA: Ansys, 2021.].
Figure 9
Finite element computational model description with planes of symmetry.
Figure 10
(a) Polydeck 59s metal formwork with on-site measurements and numerical model with representation of the (b) simplified geometry of the embossment.
Figure 11
Geometry of the finite element model developed in the present work.
Figure 3
Geometric characteristics of the test samples as per ASTM E8/E8M – 13a [
1717 ASTM International, Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials 1, ASTM E8/E8M, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/E0008.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/E0008...
].
Figure 5
Test model and tested samples.
Figure 6
Typical stress-strain curve result of the tensile strength test of the ZAR280.
Figure 7
Quadratic shell finite element SHELL281 [1818 ANSYS Element Reference, ANSYS Mechanical APDL Element Reference. Canonsburg, PA. EUA: Ansys, 2021.].
Figure 8
Quadratic solid finite element SOLID187 [1818 ANSYS Element Reference, ANSYS Mechanical APDL Element Reference. Canonsburg, PA. EUA: Ansys, 2021.].
Figure 9
Finite element computational model description with planes of symmetry.
Figure 10
(a) Polydeck 59s metal formwork with on-site measurements and numerical model with representation of the (b) simplified geometry of the embossment.
Figure 11
Geometry of the finite element model developed in the present work.
Figure 12
Results for the investigated structural models: (a), (c) and (e) total vector displacements; (b), (d) and (f) stresses longitudinal direction (Z-component).
Figure 13
Results for the investigated structural models: (a), (c) and (e) total vector displacements; (b), (d) and (f) stresses longitudinal direction (Z-component).
Figure 14
Vertical detachment between the steel formwork and the concrete found in the finite element simulation.
Figure 15
Indicators for locating the deflection and slip parameters [
2525 J. D. Ríos, H. Cifuentes, A. Martínez-De La Concha, and F. Medina-Reguera, “Numerical modelling of the shear-bond behaviour of composite slabs in four and six-point bending tests,” Eng. Struct., vol. 133, pp. 91–104, Feb. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.12.025.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.20...
].
Figure 16
Numerical simulations of the structural models: force versus slip (S2) curves
Figure 17
Numerical simulations of the structural models: force P (refer to
Figure 15) versus midspan deflection curves.
Figure 18
Linear regression of the results obtained in the numerical simulations.
Figure 19
Linear regression of coefficients m-k in literature and results obtained in the developed numerical simulations.
Figure 20
Load versus midspan deflection of a simulation assuming: total slab height of 110 mm; nominal steel sheet thickness of 1.25 mm; concrete fcm of 41 MPa; simply-supported span of 1.4 m; friction coefficient of 0.2.
Figure 21
Various contact stress load levels (longitudinal direction) in the concrete elements in the bottom face (half rib) showing stress concentration in the cavities created by steel sheet embossments: load levels (1) to (4) (refer to
Figure 20).
Figure 22
A view of the model without explicitly considering embossments geometry: (a) volumes used in discretization, with only three separations marking the midspan symmetry plane, the position to apply loads and the support; (b) finite element mesh of the model without embossments.
Figure 23
Four simulations of a preliminary study of the influence of embossments versus friction coefficient.
Figure 20
Load versus midspan deflection of a simulation assuming: total slab height of 110 mm; nominal steel sheet thickness of 1.25 mm; concrete fcm of 41 MPa; simply-supported span of 1.4 m; friction coefficient of 0.2.
Figure 21
Various contact stress load levels (longitudinal direction) in the concrete elements in the bottom face (half rib) showing stress concentration in the cavities created by steel sheet embossments: load levels (1) to (4) (refer to
Figure 20).
Figure 22
A view of the model without explicitly considering embossments geometry: (a) volumes used in discretization, with only three separations marking the midspan symmetry plane, the position to apply loads and the support; (b) finite element mesh of the model without embossments.
Figure 23
Four simulations of a preliminary study of the influence of embossments versus friction coefficient.