Corrugated Wood Composite Panels For Structural Decking

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the center of the lower decks as well as along the edges of the lower decks (Figure 9).The corrugated panel and the supports do not have ‘contact’ at the uplift regions, hencethe reaction forces are zero at those regions. However, high reaction forces can be seen atthe corners of the lower decks, near the sidewalls. Similar conditions can be seen at theinterface of the loading bar.Non-Rigid Bond ModelFigure 10 shows a typical mesh for composite deck consisting of OSB attached tocorrugated panel using non-rigid construction adhesive. In a floor system, similar nonrigidbonds are formed between corrugated panels and the supporting joists. The ability tomodel the non-rigid bond using the FE method is essential to study composite action.Figure 11 shows a typical FE model of the partial composite joint between the corrugatedpanel and the OSB underlayment. Both the corrugated panel and the OSB are meshed4-node thin shell mesh ofOSB underlayment4-node thin shell mesh ofcorrugated panelgap elementsNon-rigid bond elements tomodel nailed-glued jointsFigure 10: Typical mesh for composite deck FE model.24
with 4-node thin shell elements. In a composite deck system, interlayer slip occurs due toa non-rigid bond that provides only partial shear transfer from one surface to the other.To account for partial composite action, a series of non-rigid bond FE models are used.A non-rigid bond FE model consists of an assembly of rigid bar elements and anOSB Underlayment(4-node thin shell)RRRRRRRRRR RR R RRRRRRR RNon-rigid Bond Model(8-node 3D Brick andRigid Bar Elements)<strong>Corrugated</strong> Panel(4-node thin shell)Figure 11: Finite element model of corrugated panel-OSB partial composite joint.8-node, three dimensional (3D) brick element (see Figure 12). The 3D brick elementrepresents the partial rigid nailed-glued bond (3d ringshank nails and AFG-01 adhesives).The height of the 3D brick element is assumed to be the thickness of the glue bond. AFG-01 adhesive is assumed to behave as an incompressible isotropic material. I-DEAS ®requires three input parameters for isotropic material; modulus of elasticity, E , shearmodulus, G , and Poisson’s ratio, ν . However, the shear modulus for an isotropicmaterial can be calculated if both the modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio are known.EG =(8)2(1 + ν )Therefore, there are only two independent variables for an isotropic material. E and νare the two independent input parameters for the 3D brick elements while the dependentparameter, G , is calculated using equation (8). The theoretical value of Poisson’s ratio25
Page 1 and 2: Corrugated Wood Composite Panels Fo
Page 3 and 4: AcknowledgementsI would like to exp
Page 5 and 6: Molding trials on 16”x16” panel
Page 7 and 8: Table of ContentsAbstract..........
Page 9 and 10: Corrugated Panel Single Span Test..
Page 11 and 12: List of FiguresFigure 1: Corrugated
Page 13 and 14: Figure 48: Load-displacement curves
Page 15 and 16: Figure 93: Mock-up floor constructi
Page 17 and 18: Table 20: MOE and strong axis bendi
Page 19 and 20: IntroductionWood flake composite pa
Page 21 and 22: process needed to be refined in ord
Page 23 and 24: 4. Construct and test the performan
Page 25 and 26: system (OSB top layer nailed-glued
Page 27 and 28: In geometry design studies, four ge
Page 29 and 30: Similarly, the relative strength ca
Page 31 and 32: 14120Relative Stiffness and Relativ
Page 33 and 34: 21.51.8Moldability Factor1.451.4Mol
Page 35 and 36: with as little modification to the
Page 37 and 38: uniform line loads, or concentrated
Page 39 and 40: subject to loads. Thus, thin shell
Page 41: FE models are used to analyze both
Page 45 and 46: Orthotropic Plate ModelTypical ligh
Page 47 and 48: 2 2∂∆( x, y) ∂∆( x, y)Myy(
Page 49 and 50: 1.41.2Fourier series approximation
Page 51 and 52: 2qLnπqn( x) = sin( yo) for n= 1,2,
Page 53 and 54: Free-Free and Simply Supported (FFS
Page 55 and 56: ∫02 2⎛ ∂∆n ∂δ∆n 2 ∂
Page 57 and 58: Convergence studies of FFSS PlatesT
Page 59 and 60: 0.440.4380” 0.4292” 0.4434”0.
Page 61 and 62: Beam ModelIn simple beam theory, th
Page 63 and 64: Qz ( )⎧⎪⎪⎪h− th+t2 2⎛ 2
Page 65 and 66: ⎡h+t2⎢ 12 ⎥first= 2 ⎢ ( τf
Page 67 and 68: of elasticity (psi) and shear modul
Page 69 and 70: 3∆ ≈ PL PLFEcb 1cs148EI+ 4GA(63
Page 71 and 72: Two-span ModelFor the two-span cond
Page 73 and 74: was encountered. The error was larg
Page 75 and 76: Composite Deck Beam ModelBending st
Page 77 and 78: of the corrugated panel. Substituti
Page 79 and 80: Cefffor a specific bond, such as a
Page 81 and 82: if the closing gap was at a distanc
Page 83 and 84: weight of panel at the time of test
Page 85 and 86: Green aspen logs were used to produ
Page 87 and 88: Gauge Pressure750 psi020 180 210Tim
Page 89 and 90: Testing of 16”x16” PanelsThe st
Page 91 and 92: 0.10 or lower. This indicates that
Page 93 and 94:
zxy0.25”x0.25” 4-nodethin shell
Page 95 and 96:
700Load/Deflection (lbs/in), y60050
Page 97 and 98:
Load/Deflection (lbs/in), y60050040
Page 99 and 100:
Beam ModelPPLL eqFigure 45: Equival
Page 101 and 102:
Table 13: MOE, bending stiffness an
Page 103 and 104:
The moisture contents of the specim
Page 105 and 106:
Finite Element ModelFE models were
Page 107 and 108:
The panel skin thickness also exhib
Page 109 and 110:
The load-to-deflection ratio can di
Page 111 and 112:
used for each thickness level. The
Page 113 and 114:
The smallest span used in the calib
Page 115 and 116:
Test ResultsThe average moisture co
Page 117 and 118:
Table 23: Maximum shear and moment
Page 119 and 120:
Maximum Moment (lbf-in/ft)500040003
Page 121 and 122:
Test ResultsFigure 61: Load-deflect
Page 123 and 124:
Test ProceduresTwo edge test assemb
Page 125 and 126:
Lateral Density ProfileThe 16”x16
Page 127 and 128:
Manufacture of 4ft x 8ft Corrugated
Page 129 and 130:
as the carrier with an idea of desi
Page 131 and 132:
Full-Scale Panel TestingBending pro
Page 133 and 134:
approximate the solution for deflec
Page 135 and 136:
Table 30: Flexure test results of 4
Page 137 and 138:
Load22 ½” o.c. or30 ½” o.c.24
Page 139 and 140:
ending stiffness were both over 400
Page 141 and 142:
Corrugated Panel Two-Span Continuou
Page 143 and 144:
the FE model estimation. The averag
Page 145 and 146:
Strength Axis Static Bending of 2
Page 147 and 148:
Test ProceduresNon-destructive flex
Page 149 and 150:
used as the element thicknesses for
Page 151 and 152:
of the partial composite test. Figu
Page 153 and 154:
1 .10 4 FE Model (average)Load/Defl
Page 155 and 156:
Composite Deck Two-Span Continuous
Page 157 and 158:
ick elements for adhesive, etc.) us
Page 159 and 160:
1.6 .10 4 FE Model (average)1.4 . 1
Page 161 and 162:
Composite T-BeamComposite nailed-gl
Page 163 and 164:
ottom flange of the I-joist. A tota
Page 165 and 166:
EIwandEIfare the bending stiffnesse
Page 167 and 168:
whereL adis the length of the adhe
Page 169 and 170:
EIuis the bending stiffness of the
Page 171 and 172:
Table 38: Material properties of th
Page 173 and 174:
System BehaviorThe bending stiffnes
Page 175 and 176:
Table 40: System effect of nailed-g
Page 177 and 178:
A’Joints of OSBunderlayment(solid
Page 179 and 180:
¼” dia. AFG-01 adhesiveFigure 92
Page 181 and 182:
lockings were also installed at the
Page 183 and 184:
Comparison to Traditional Floor Sys
Page 185 and 186:
The baseline flexural capacities of
Page 187 and 188:
Conclusions and RecommendationsConc
Page 189 and 190:
The potential of using the shallow
Page 191 and 192:
dj= depth of I-joist (in)E = modulu
Page 193 and 194:
h = channel depth of the corrugated
Page 195 and 196:
Sc= section modulus of the corrugat
Page 197 and 198:
τfirst= first order shear stressϖ
Page 199 and 200:
Howard, J.L. (2001). “U.S. Forest
Page 201 and 202:
Appendix A. Moment of Inertia of Co
Page 203 and 204:
Appendix B. Moldability FactorConce
Page 205 and 206:
Appendix D. FFSS Plate Under Line L
Page 207 and 208:
Ff = @(x)2.*qo./b.*sin(beta(k).*yo)
Page 209 and 210:
Appendix F. Test Data for 16”x16
Page 211 and 212:
Edge Point LoadPanel Type-ALower de
Page 213 and 214:
Appendix H. Lateral Density Profile
Page 215 and 216:
Panel:Date:5-4November 11, 2002Widt
Page 217 and 218:
08LT24”x32”08RT24”x64”11LT2
Page 219 and 220:
30T48”x48”35LT24”x64”35RT24
Page 221 and 222:
Nominal 32” Two-Span TestPanelNo.
Page 223 and 224:
Nominal 24” Two-Span Composite Te
Page 225 and 226:
Appendix K. Shear Modulus of I-Jois
Page 227:
Appendix L. Allowable Moment Estima
show all

Corrugated Wood Composite Panels For Structural Decking

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?