Figure 1
(a) FE model specifics for a typical subassembly configuration with composite floor slab; (b) steel I-beam detail; (c) reinforcement bars, shear stud, and steel deck detail; and (d) slab detail.
Figure 2
Dimensions and detailing of FE analysed steel I-beam (Note: All dimensions are in mm): (a) Elevation of the typical steel I-beam; (b) Boundary and loading conditions of a typical steel I-beam with slab.
Figure 3
Details of material model calibration: (a) Details coupon test; (b) Experimental and FE mode of failure.
Figure 4
True stress vs plastic strain graph for coupon plate specimens (a) A570 materials; (b) A36 materials.
Figure 5
Comparison of load vs displacement response for coupon plate specimens (a) A570 materials; (b) A36 materials.
Figure 6
Effect of initial imperfections on E30-p specimen tested by Kabir et al. 2021Kabir, M. I., Lee, C. K., & Zhang, Y. X. (2021). Numerical and analytical investigations of flexural behaviours of ECC-LWC encased steel beams. Engineering Structures, 239, 112356..
Figure 7
Eigenmodes: a) First eigen buckling mode, b) Secand eigen buckling mode, c) Thired eigen buckling mode-local.
Figure 8
Details of steel beams specimens for validating the FE analysis (Dimensions are measured in mm): (a) Assembly E30-p tested by Kabir et al. 2021Kabir, M. I., Lee, C. K., & Zhang, Y. X. (2021). Numerical and analytical investigations of flexural behaviours of ECC-LWC encased steel beams. Engineering Structures, 239, 112356.; (b) Assembly TQ-HW-d0-B4 tested by Feng et al. 2018Feng, R., Zhan, H., Meng, S., & Zhu, J. (2018). Experiments on H-shaped high-strength steel beams with perforated web. Engineering Structures, 177, 374-394..
Figure 9
Comparison of load vs displacement envelopes for: (a) Assembly E30-p tested by Kabir et al. (2021Kabir, M. I., Lee, C. K., & Zhang, Y. X. (2021). Numerical and analytical investigations of flexural behaviours of ECC-LWC encased steel beams. Engineering Structures, 239, 112356.); (b) Assembly TQ-HW-d0-B4 tested by Feng et al. (2018Feng, R., Zhan, H., Meng, S., & Zhu, J. (2018). Experiments on H-shaped high-strength steel beams with perforated web. Engineering Structures, 177, 374-394.).
Figure 10
Numerically predicted failure mode for: (a) Assembly E30-p tested by Kabir et al. (2021Kabir, M. I., Lee, C. K., & Zhang, Y. X. (2021). Numerical and analytical investigations of flexural behaviours of ECC-LWC encased steel beams. Engineering Structures, 239, 112356.); (b) Assembly TQ-HW-d0-B4 tested by Feng et al. (2018Feng, R., Zhan, H., Meng, S., & Zhu, J. (2018). Experiments on H-shaped high-strength steel beams with perforated web. Engineering Structures, 177, 374-394.).
Figure 11
Details of beams group 0.
Figure 12
Details of strengthened beams group S1.
Figure 13
Details of strengthened beams group S2.
Figure 14
Details of strengthened beams group S3.
Figure 15
Details of strengthened beams group S4.
Figure 16
Details of strengthened beams group S5.
Figure 17
Details of strengthened beams group S6.
Figure 18
FE failure mode for numerically investigated Unstrengthened beam: (a) A36-B-194-NS-C; (b) A36-B-194-S-C; (c) A36-B-350-NS-C; (d) A36-B-350-S-C
Figure 19
FE failure mode for numerically investigated strengthened beam: (a) A36-B-194-NS-S1; (b) A36-B-194-NS-S2; (c) A36-B-194-NS-S3; (d) A36-B-194-NS-S4; (d) A36-B-194-NS-S5; (d) A36-B-194-NS-S6.
Figure 20
FE failure mode for numerically investigated strengthened beam: (a) A36-B-194-S-S1; (b) A36-B-194-S-S2; (c) A36-B-350-S-S3; (d) A36-B-350-S-S4; (e) A36-B-350-S-S5; (f) A36-B-350-S-S6.
Figure 21
FE load-displacement curves for strengthening beams (A36-194) without slab compared to control beam: (a) A36-B-194-NS-S1; (b) A36-B-194-NS-S2; (c) A36-B-194- NS-S3; (d) A36-B-194- NS-S4; (e) A36-B-194- NS-S5; (f) A36-B-194- NS-S6.
Figure 22
Comparison of all types of strengthening techniques in terms of: (a) Peak load capacity; (b) Energy dissipated.
Figure 23
Comparison of the effectiveness of steel I-beam strengthening techniques in terms of moment capacity compared to the plastic moment of the unstrengthened beam (Mp-uns).
Figure 24
FE load-displacement curves for strengthening beams for steel grade A36 and the depth of beam is 194 mm.
Figure 25
FE load-displacement curves for strengthening beams for Steel grade A36 and the depth of beam is 350 mm.
Figure 26
FE load-displacement curves for strengthening beams for Steel grade A572 and the depth of beam is 194 mm.
Figure 27
FE load-displacement curves for strengthening beams for steel grade A572 and the depth of beam is 350 mm.
Figure 28
Moment capacity (Mu) comparison of all types of strengthening techniques compared to the plastic moment of the unstrengthened beam (Mp-uns) for steel grade A36 and A572 in the case of: depth of beam is 194 mm with and without slab, depth of beam is 350 mm with and without slab.
Figure 29
Comparison of cost increase and load gain as a result of strengthening.
Figure 30
Comparison of the effectiveness of strengthening techniques based on load and cost.
Table 1
Input parameters for material models used in the FE modeling.
Table 2
Mechanical properties for concrete used in the FE modeling.
Table 3
Details of parametric study.
Table 4
Details of beams utilized for FE analysis validation. *
Table 5
FE parametric analysis for numerically studied steel I-beam.
Table 6
Cost of application of the strengthening schemes. *
Table A1
FE results for steel I-beams for all A36 specimens.1
Table A2
FE results for steel I-beams for A572 specimens.1