Login
Register
Reset Password
Publish & Distribute
Publishing Solutions
Distribution Solutions
Subjects
Architecture and Design
Arts
Business and Economics
Chemistry
Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Computer Sciences
Cultural Studies
Engineering
General Interest
Geosciences
History
Industrial Chemistry
Jewish Studies
Law
Library and Information Science, Book Studies
Life Sciences
Linguistics and Semiotics
Literary Studies
Materials Sciences
Mathematics
Medicine
Music
Pharmacy
Philosophy
Physics
Social Sciences
Sports and Recreation
Theology and Religion
Publications
Journals
Books
Proceedings
Publishers
Blog
Contact
Search
EUR
USD
GBP
English
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Cart
Home
Journals
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 44 (2022): Issue 4 (December 2022)
Open Access
The evolution of the shape of composite dowels
Wojciech Lorenc
Wojciech Lorenc
,
Günter Seidl
Günter Seidl
and
Jacques Berthellemy
Jacques Berthellemy
| Nov 06, 2022
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 44 (2022): Issue 4 (December 2022)
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Abstract
Article
Figures & Tables
References
Authors
Articles in this Issue
Preview
PDF
Cite
Share
Article Category:
Original Study
Published Online:
Nov 06, 2022
Page range:
296 - 316
Received:
Dec 28, 2021
Accepted:
Aug 11, 2022
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2022-0021
Keywords
Composite dowels
,
shear connection
,
composite bridges
,
fatigue
,
FEM
,
hybrid beams
© 2022 Wojciech Lorenc et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Figure 1
Steel–concrete hybrid beams of innovative composite bridge constructed using composite dowels in Poland, 2016.
Figure 2
Continuous shear connectors [13]: a) Perfobond, b) kombi, and c) composite dowels using puzzle shapes that have been tested in the context of [7] project and d) additional shapes of shear connectors studied by different researchers [44].
Figure 3
Model of the “PreCo-Beam” girder (picture and model by SSF).
Figure 4
Shapes of composite dowels a) fin SA, b) puzzle PZ, c) clothoidal CL, and d) modified clothoidal MCL.
Figure 5
Shear connection for the viaduct in Pöcking [50] with puzzle-shaped dowels.
Figure 6
Composite girders of the viaduct in Pöcking [50] with puzzle-shaped dowels.
Figure 7
Steel part (“external reinforcement”) of the girders for the pedestrian bridge in Przemyśl, Poland (picture from the proposal of the PreCo-Beam project [7]).
Figure 8
Steel dowels (SA shape according to [7]) used in the girders for the pedestrian bridge in Przemyśl, Poland (picture from the proposal of the PreCo-Beam project [7]).
Figure 9
Fin-shaped dowel [30].
Figure 10
Modification of the SA shape (elimination of sharp notch) [7].
Figure 11
Modified SA shape (without the sharp notch) used in the Vigaun Bridge [7].
Figure 12
Illustration of the FE study of the push-out test [13].
Figure 13
Assumptions for the 1D1 model used for the purposes of [7].
Figure 14
Modifications of the concrete material law (uniaxial strain–stress curves, concrete-damaged plasticity model) for purposes of different numerical simulations.
Figure 15
The 1D1 model is one of the first models prepared for the purposes of the PreCo-Beam project [7]. The displacement layout of the model with a maximum value (red) of 3 mm results in force displacement for particular material curves according to Fig. 14.
Figure 16
Shear failure mechanism of concrete dowel by Seidl [30] (last two stages of drawing from the final report [7]: III – the concrete wedge penetrates the concrete dowel and IV – the fully developed shear interfaces and mobilized the reinforcement bar).
Figure 17
Comparison of the numerical results for the model according to Fig. 12 with the experimental results of the push-out tests according to [51,30].
Figure 18
Steel shapes studied by SETRA at early stages of project [7] presenting yielding of plane models (reduced stress layouts): a) fin shape, b) early version of puzzle shape, c) one of the shapes that has been studied but was never used for testing.
Figure 19
Plastic deformations of steel dowels in the region of the sharp notch in the SA shape (push-out specimen [30]).
Figure 20
Numerical model of the so-called “crestbond” connector [10] studied for purposes of [7]: a) the geometry of solid model using ¼ symmetry, b) the net of finite elements used in the model for nonlinear analysis.
Figure 21
Topology of the shapes of steel dowels considered for the purposes of [7].
Figure 22
1D1 models (geometry of the concrete part, steel part, and reduced stress layout, providing a general view of the yielded steel part) studied for the purposes of [7]: a) PZ shape (also called SP), b) SA shape, and c) SV shape.
Figure 23
Results of 1D1 models (PZ, SA, and SN shapes) for particular specifications of the FE model: force–displacement curve, material curve for concrete TcCd according to Fig. 14 and isotropic hardening for steel [1]; time of 1 s for the explicit procedure [1] and approximately 0.01 m size of the finite elements (solid elements, reduced integration) [1].
Figure 24
Study of the SN shape: a) the basic idea of cutting, b) modification of cutting to achieve a stronger steel part compared to the concrete part, c) reduced stress layout for the chosen geometry of the SN shape (short steel dowel) with steel web thickness equal to 10 mm (steel failure), and d) reduced stress layout for the chosen geometry of the SN shape (long steel dowel) with steel web thickness equal to 30 mm (concrete failure).
Figure 25
Comparative study of shapes for particular ratios (force–displacement curve, 1D1 model, linear concrete material and nonlinear steel material): typical curve presenting steel failure.
Figure 26
Results of shape optimization presenting the force per unit length versus shape ratio (1D1 model, linear concrete material and linear steel material; RI represents reduced integration in finite elements [1]).
Figure 27
Results of tests for different sizes of dowel [5] (later [13,31]).
Figure 28
Effect of the size of steel dowels: illustration of ductility δ defined by the angle and height of the dowel [5] (later [13,31]).
Figure 29
Clothoidal shape (CL) by Berthellemy: a) idea for geometry and cutting line, b) structural solution for an orthotropic deck as the basis for the geometry and dimensions.
Figure 30
Results of the optimization of the CL shape versus the SN shape, presenting the force per unit length versus shape ratio (1D1 model, linear concrete material and linear steel material; RI represents reduced integration in finite elements [1] and C1 and C2 represent different contact interactions).
Figure 31
General view of the CL shape tested in the PreCo-Beam project [7] with a height of 100 mm and spacing between dowels equal to 300 mm (specific nomenclature used for composite dowels is given).
Figure 32
“Perfobond” by Fritz Leonhardt (a) and system by Pierre Trouillet (b).
Figure 33
Girders of bridges with continuous shear connection based on friction: a) main girders with shear connection plates, b) transversal tendons, and c) beam specimen for tests (tests achieved in 1965).
Figure 34
Bridges described in OTUA bulletin n°6 by Henri Grelu: a) l’Oise A15 (1966), b) Cergy l’Hautil RD203 (1969), and c) Conflans RN 184 (1973).
Figure 35
Pictures of the A15 motorway bridge over River Oise in 2008: good structural condition (slab condition of the second bridge on the left – built more recently without tendons – is not so good).
Figure 36
Bottom view of “Wierna Rzeka” bridge.
Figure 37
First railway bridge with composite dowel shear connection: a) cross section; b) fabrication of a clothoidal-shaped dowel cutting line substituting the cutting line presented in Fig. 29a; c) basic reinforcement forming composite dowels; and d) a prefabricated composite beam girder lifted by a crane [6].
Preview